Comparison of The Methods of Seismic Analysis Applicable To Fast Reactors in The EEC Countries

Commission of the European Communities
nuclear science and technology
COMPARISON OF THE METHODS

OF SEISMIC ANALYSIS
APPLICABLE TO FAST REACTORS
IN THE EEC COUNTRIES
Report
EUR 10586 EN
Blow-up from microfiche original
nuclear science and technology
COMPARISON OF THE METHODS

OF SEISMIC ANALYSIS
APPLICABLE TO FAST REACTORS
IN THE EEC COUNTRIES
M. DEFALQUE, P. KUNSCH, A. PREUMONT

BELGONUCLEAIRE
Place du Champs de Mars, 25
- 1050 Bruxelles
Contract No. RAP-020.B.

FINAL REPORT
This work was performed under the aegis of the

for the: WORKING GROUP CODES AND STANDARDS
Activity Group 2 "Structural Analysis"
within the FAST REACTOR COORDINATING COMMITTEE
Directorate-General Science, Research and Development
1986
EUR 10586 EN
Published by the
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
Directorate-General
Telecommunication, Information Industries and Innovation
Btiment Jean Monnet
LUXEMBOURG
LEGAL NOTICE
Neither the Commission of the European Communities nor any person acting on behalf
of the Commission is responsible for the use which might be made of the following
information
ECSC EEC EAEC, Brussels-Luxembourg, 1986
III
Resum
COMPARAISON DES METHODES D'ANALYSE SISMIQUE APPLICABLES AUX REACTEURS RAPIDES DANS LES PAYS DE LA CCE.
Les pays de la Communaut concerns sont ceux qui participent actuellement l'exploitation ou la mise au point
des racteurs rapides savoir:
- FRANCE (F) : Phnix - Superphnix
- RFA - BELGIQUE - PAYS BAS associs
DeBeNe : SNR - 300
- Le ROYAUME UNI (UK) : PFR-CDFR
- ITALIE (I) : PEC
au
sein
du
Le premier objectif de cette tude est de mettre en vidence les points communs et les divergences existant entre
les rgles nationales pour l'analyse sismique de Racteurs
Neutrons Rapides (RNA).
Ces diffrences peuvent survenir diffrentes tapes de la
conception savoir: dans la dfinitions des donnes sismiques d'entre, dans le choix des limites admissibles et dans
le conservatisme associ aux mthodes de calculs.
Pour chacunes de ces trois tapes, il convient d'identifier
les points pouvant influencer les rsultats de l'analyse et
par consquent la marge de scurit globale vis--vis de
l'vnement concern.
Summary
COMPARISON OF THE METHODS OF SEISMIC ANALYSIS APPLICABLE TO FAST REACTORS IN THE EEC COUNTRIES.
The countries in the Community which are concerned by this
study are those currently involved in the operation or development of fast reactors, namely:
- FRANCE (F) : Phnix - Superphnix
- FRG - BELGIUM - THE NETHERLANDS associated within
DeBeNe : SNR - 300
- UNITED KINGDOM (UK) : PFR-CDFR
- ITALY (I): PEC
The first aim of the study is to enumerate the common points
and differences in the national rules and regulations for
the seismic analysis of fast breeder reactors (FBR).
Such divergences may be encountered at different design
stages, namely: in the definition of the seismic input data,
in the choice of design limits and in the degree of conservatism applied to the calculation methods employed.
For every one of these three stages, it is necessary to
identify the points likely to influence the results of the
analysis and consequently the over-all safety margin with
regard to the event concerned.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Subject of study.
Framework of the study.
Methodology.
Execution of the study.
II. Seismic analysis in EEC.

0. Preliminary remark.
1. Reference ground motion.
2. Seismic classification of components - Safety prescriptions - Design
criteria.
3. Methods for analysis of seismic systems and subsystems.
III. Synthesis of national answers.
0. Introduction.
1. Ground motion.
2. Seismic classification of components - Safety prescriptions - Dimensional
criteria.
3. Seismic analysis methods.
IV. Prospects and further developments.
1. Part common to all types of reactors.
2. Fast reactors characteristics.
Bibliography.
j
j
]
2
5
7
g
\
25
25
26
29
49
55
55
56
eg
- 1 -
I. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Subject of study
The Commission of the European Communities has awarded BELGONUCLEAIRE a
study contract (No RAP-020-B) entitled: "Comparison of the methods of seismic
analysis applicable to the fast reactor components in the EEC countries."
This study is being monitored by activity group "AG2" of the working
group "Codes and standards" (WGCS) which itself is under the aegis of the Fast
Reactor Coordinating Committee.
The countries of the Community which are concerned by this study are
those currently involved in the operation or development of fast reactors, namely:
-
FRANCE (F): Phnix - Superphnix

FRG - BELGIUM - THE NETHERLANDS associated within DeBeNe: SNR - 300
UNITED KINGDOM (UK): PFR-CDFR
ITALY (I): PEC
The first aim of the study is to enumerate the common points and differences in the national rules and regulations for the seismic analysis of fast
breeder reactors (FBR).
Such divergences may be encountered at different design stages, namely:
in the definition of the seismic input data, in the choice of design limits and
in the degree of conservatism applied to the calculation methods employed.
For every one of these three stages, it is necessary to identify the
points likely to influence the results of the analysis and consequently the overall safety margin with regard to the event concerned.
1.2. Framework of the study
Since fast breeder reactors are still in the development stage and,
except for France, far from the stage of commercial operation, practices and
regulations are still changing and are mainly based on practices for light water
reactors and, in particular, on American rules and regulations such as "Regulatory Guides (RG)", "Standard Review Plan (SRP)", ASME Code Section III and its
"Code Cases".
- 2-
A fruitful comparison of aspects not yet dealt with in that type of

document is not possible at the present time.
aspects:
Hence we feel it would be desirable to limit the study to the following
(1) ground motion;

(2) classification of components;
(3) methods of analysis.
With regard to point (2), the present study will be limited to mechanical components; experimental methods will be excluded from point (3).
This approach deliberately does not take into account certain fundamental aspects which are specific to fast breeder reactors and result from their
operating conditions:
-
large masses of liquid sodium, especially in the pool concept;

low pressures entailing thin walls;
high temperatures and irradiations entailing problems of material behaviour;
severe thermal gradients and temperature fluctuations.
lowing:
Problems arising as a result of these conditions will include the fol-
(1) fluid/structure interactions;

(2) instabilities (elastic or plastic buckling);
(3) creep and plasticity problems.
At the moment, these would seem to belong more to the field of research
than to that of established practices.
1.3. Methodology
In order to specify the different factors which influence the result of
an overall seismic analysis and the associated safety margin, each of the three
aspects that we have identified in 1.2. has been included in a questionnaire (see
para. II).
- 3 -
(1) Ground_mot ion

This questionnaire aims at comparing the definitions of the two reference earthquakes, the associated probabilities, the corresponding ground accelerations and response spectra.
(2) Safe_ty_provisions_ -_Classj^fica_tion of_cmonent s_ - Dein_c,iteri
The principle of the classification procedure has been described in a
working document prepared by activity group No 4 (WGCS-AG4) under the title "Sodium cooled fast reactors - Classification of the mechanical systems and components" .
The questionnaire proposed here aims at applying that procedure to the
specific framework of earthquakes, considering the following steps :
A. definition of functional requirements for the reference earthquakes;
B. classification of reference earthquakes in relation to the various categories
of operating conditions (normal, upset, . . . ) ;
combination with other types of loads, and
definition of the resulting categories of operating conditions;
C. criteria allowing the classification of components into safety classes (e.f.
RG 1.16) and seismic classes (e.g. RG 1.29). Starting from these classes, the
component function, the consequences of its failure and the normal loading
conditions, definition of its quality level and the corresponding ASME code
subsection;
D. specification of the design rules for mechanical components based on:
1. quality level;
2. functional requirements.
These steps are described in the table given below.
A double entry table is appended to the questionnaire; this enables a
definition to be made for each mechanical component, of its safety class and the
operating condition category corresponding to the reference earthquakes. This
table must be adapted to meet national technologies, in particular for pool and
loop concepts.
SELECTION OF DESIGN RULES (SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM)
DFINITION AND
! C LASSIFIC ATION
; OF EARTHQUAKE
: INDUCED SITUATIONS
FUNCTIONAL
REQUIREMENTS
SAFETY CLASSIFICATION OF EQUIPMENTS
SELECTION OF A DESIGN AND FABRICATION CODE

@
CATEGORY OF
OPERATING
CONDITIONS
k,
k.
r
W^
Trn
CLASS 3
w LEVEL A
SELECTION OF A
SET OF CRITERIA
CONTAIN
MENTS
SUPPORTS
I
J
UPSET
EMERGENCY
CLASS 2
CRITERIA
19
NORMAL
^\C0DE
CLASS 1
LEVEL
A^.
LEVEL C
\
LEVEL D
\
\
1. The rules of correspondence between "category of operating conditions"

and "service level" take into account :
the type of functional requirement (action, leaktightness, structural
integrity)
the possibilities for inspection and repair (accessible components).
2. Example of rule : quality level (class) safety class.
For each block, there is a corresponding

set of design and construction rules.
- 5
(3) Methods^ for analys is_of_ seismic systems_ and subsystems

The questionnaire aims at comparing the analytical verification methods
and the associated degrees of conversatism.
It deals with:
1. rules for modal superposition;
2. decoupling criteria for subsystems;
3. determination of floor spectra;
use of artificially generated accelerograms;
4. acceptability of approximate methods;
5. damping (reference values, composite structures, etc.).
It follows approximately sections 3.7.2. and 3.7.3. of the SRP.
- 6 -
1.4. Execution of the study

The questionnaire was sent to members of the working group "Codes and
Standards" , who contacted the relevant bodies in each country. Various meetings
of experts took place.
The reports of these meetings were drafted by BELGONUCLEAIRE representatives, then revised and amended by the national experts.
The French position was sent to BELGONUCLEAIRE after an internal meeting held in France.
Contacts were established with the following organizations:
France:
Italy:
United Kingdom:
FRG:
CEA - EdF - Novatome;

ANSALDO - ENEA - NIRA;
CEGB - UKAEA - NNC;
IA.
Belgium and the Netherlands are associated with the SNR project in the
FRG.
Their representatives (Belgium: BELGONUCLEAIRE; the Netherlands: TNO-Neratoom) have approved the document issued by the FRG.
- 7 -
II. SEISMIC ANALYSIS IN EEC

11.0. Preliminary remark
As the present comparison must reflect the evolution of regulation with
time, answers to the questionnaire may consider separately several aspects: rules
and regulations applicable to reactors operating or under construction, rules and
regulation applicable in the future.
Differences with LWR practices will be
indicated, if any.
11.1. Reference ground motion
1. Safety levels
1.1. Could you explain the philosophy that led to setting up two safety levels
(OBE and SSE in the US Regulatory Guides terminology)?
1.2. What are the corresponding probabilities of occurrence?
2. Maximum ground acceleration
2.1. USNRC recommends that maximum ground acceleration be at least equal to
0.1 g for SSE and at least half the SSE value for OBE.
Is such a rule also applied in your country?
2.2. Is maximum acceleration defined on a site dependent basis or is it
considered constant throughout the country? On what basis has its value
been chosen?
3. Response spectra
USNRC has defined standard shapes for horizontal and vertical spectra.
must be normalized according to the maximum horizontal acceleration.
They
3.1. Is a similar rule applied in your country?

3.2. Are the design spectra site dependent or not?
3.3. If the design spectra differ from those of RG 1.60, could you make them
available to us?
4. Duration
4.1. Is there any specification concerning the duration of the two reference
earthquake?
- 8 -
II.2. Seismic classification of components - Safety prescriptions - Design criteria

0. DEFINITIONS AND REMARKS
51
level 1 earthquake: OBE, SB, SNA, AEB, TBE;
52
level 2 earthquake: SSE, SM, SMS, SEB, TSS;
Rl
last reactor built or already in construction (Superphnix, SNR-300,

... ) ;
R2
reactor* to follow to Rl (reactor in design phase, reactor in construction).
Where applicable, a distinction should be made between criteria defined

for reactors Rl and R2.
Questions are purposedly redundant. They can be answered by referring
to an official document or an appended document and also by referring to an answer given to another question.
*Fast neutron reactor, excluding research reactors.
- 9 -
A. FUNCTIONAL CRITERIA.
AO - Are there any official documents defining functional requirements in case of
earthquakes? If so, what are these documents?
Al - What are the safety related functional requirements after an SI earthquake?
A2 - What are the safety related functional requirements after an S2 earthquake?
A3 - Which are (therefore) the circuits and systems that shall remain functional
in the case of an S2 earthquake?
A4 - If the concept of containment [or barriers] appears in the safety regulations, which containments should remain tight after S2?
A5 - Is earthquake detection considered in the safety regulations? If so, what
are the prescribed actions and what are the thresholds triggering them?
A6 - What are the functional consequences of earthquakes that must be taken into
account (emergency shut-down, external electricity supply loss, water flow
failure, leaks, ...)?
- 10 -
. CLASSIFICATION OF EARTHQUAKES WITH REGARD TO OPERATING CONDITIONS.

BO - Are there any official documents specifying earthquake classification?
so, which are these documents?
If
Bl - How are operating conditions classified in the safety regulations?

B2 - With which operating conditions should an SI earthquake be combined?
In
which category of operating conditions should the so defined combination be
classified?
B3 - With which operating conditions should an S2 earthquake be combined?
In
which category of operating conditions should the so defined combination be
classified?
B4 - In particular, should the simultaneous occurrence of earthquake and the
following events be considered? If so, how should the combined situation be
classified?
CLASSIFICATION OF THE
COMBINED SITUATION
SI
- Normal shut-down
- Emergency shut-down
- Failure in the steam generator
water supply
- Secondary loop failure
- Loss of external power supply
- Normal handling operations
- Exceptional handling operations
S2
11
C. CLASSIFICATION OF MEC HANIC AL C OMPONENTS

CO Are there any official documents specifying the classification criteria of
components according to their safety related functions?
If 0, what are
these documents?
CI Which are the safety classes of components and which ar the classification
criteria?
C2 Is there an additional component classification with regard to earthquake
("seismic classification")? If so:
what are the classification criteria?
what are the relationships with the general safety classification (ques
tion C I)?
which relationships with the design criteria must be applied to thia cbw
ponent with regard to earthquakes?
'M.>:<I '>' .
is there a difference between components whose function should be maintai
ned and those whose that should simply be prevented from, collapsing?
is there a difference between accessible and inaccessible components?
- 12 -
D. MECHANICAL DESIGN CRITERIA

DO - Are there any official documents specifying the choise of design rules?
Dl - Which design codes* are used?
How are the design and fabrication rules
applying to a specific component to be chosen? (example, in relation to the
safety class, the type of component, the temperature, etc.).
D2 - Are those design criteria classified in a way comparable with the A, B, C
and D levels found in ASME III?
D3 - What is the relationship between the category of operating conditions and
the level of criteria to be associated with it** (with regard to equipment
type and functional requirements)?
D4 - On which basis is fatigue damage assessed (number of cycles per earthquake,
number of earthquakes to be considered)?
Are the aftershocks taken into
account?
E. MISCELLANEOUS
El - How are the seismic load specifications officially transmitted to the component manufacturers? (equivalent of ASME Design Specification).
*A code is defined as a complete set of design and fabrication rules such as the
subsections of ASME III and some code cases.
**In the USA, NRC has defined this relationship for light water reactors in Regulatory Guide 1.48.
- 13
DESIGN CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO THE VARIOUS COMPONENTS

REACTOR :
Component
TYPE : POOL*
Safety
class of
component
Design criteria level

Earthquake
SI
Earthquake
S2
1. Reactor block
1 - Main tank
2 - Safety tank.
3 - Roof slab
. 4 - Large rotating plug
5 - Small rotating plug
6 - Core cover plug
7 - Control rod mechanism
8 - Core diagrid
9 - Core support plate
10 - Internal structures of
primary circuit
11 - Internal structures for
thermal shielding
12 - Dome
*A "loop" version is presented in the appropriate national answers
14 -

REACTOR :
Component
2. Heavy components
- Primary pumps
+ rotating parts
+ static parts
'>- IHX (intermediate heat
exchangers, normal and
emergency circuits)
+ exchange tubes
+ secondary sodium pipework
+ protective shell (supports and cover gas plenum seals)
- Secondary pumps
+ rotating parts
+ static parts
- Steam generators
+ exchange tubes
+ protective shells
- Integrate purification
circuits
TYPE : POOL
Safety
class of
component

Earthquake
SI
Earthquake
S2
15 -

TYPE : POOL
REACTOR :
Component
3. Handling
- Fuel transfer machine
- Transfer lock
+ cover-gas plenum seals
+ handling mechanism
+ rotating transfer lock
+ charge/discharge ramps
- Storage drum for new and
irradiated fuel
+ vessel(s)
+ drum
+ cover plug
- Handling flasks
- Secondary handling lines
Safety
class of
component

Earthquake
SI
Earthquake
S2
16 -

REACTOR :
Component
4. Circuits
- Secondary circuits
+ main pipework
+ sodium storage tanks
+ auxiliary circuits
+ double jacket in dome
+ expansion tank
- Decay heat removal circuits
(in reactor and in storage
drum)
+ main pipework
+ pumps
+ sodium/air exchangers
+ auxiliary circuits
- Primary argon gas circuits
+ piping and vapor traps
+ primary storage tanks
+ argon purification
- Storage drum auxiliary
circuits
- Water/steam circuits
+ up to safety valves
+ beyond safety valves
TYPE : POOL
Safety
class of
component

Earthquake
SI
Earthquake
S2
- 17 -
II.3. METHODS FOR ANALYSIS OF SEISMIC SYSTEMS AND SUBSYSTEMS
1. RULES APPLIED IN CONNECTION WITH THE MODAL SUPERPOSITION METHOD

1.1. Combination of modal responses - Closely spaced modes
The most popular rule for the combination of the modal responses is the
so-called square root of the sum of the squares (SRSS). This can be justified
theoretically if it is accepted that the modal components are statistically independent.
For closely spaced modes, the combination rule must be modified in
order to allow for the correlation between the modal components of the response.
A conservative rule generally accepted for these closely spaced 'modes is the rule
of the absolute sum.
The following combination rule is proposed by the USNRC
(SRP, Section 3.7.2.):
-
1/2
N
R,R
1 m
R =
k=l
(3.1)
where N is the total number of modes and the second sum includes all modes whose
frequencies are within 10% of each other (of the lowest frequency of the pair).
A similar rule is given in R.G. 1.92.
Q_.l_.l_. Is this combination rule applicable in your country?
If not, what is the rule used?
1.2. Combination of three spatial components
In order to estimate the maximum response R of the structure subjected
to a three dimensional excitation (2 horizontals + 1 vertical) from the maxima
R, (i = 1, 2, 3) obtained separately for each of the components of the excitation, the USNRC (R.G.1.92) recommends the use of the SRSS rule:
2
2
2
" + R^ + R3
(3.2)
(see Chu, Amin & Singh, NED 21 (1972), 126-136). This approach has been criticized as too conservative whenever R^ are obtained by a modal superposition method, because of the statistical independence of the various components of the
seismic accelerogram (C.W. Lin, NED 24 (1973), 239- 241).
- 18 -
Q_.K2. Is rule (3.2) applicable in your country?

What other rule is applied, if any?
1.3. Significant Modes
Usually, the combination rule for the modal contributions applies to
those modes whose frequencies are below the excitation cut-off frequency (frequency at which the acceleration spectrum reaches its asymptote - 33 Hz in the
case of NRC spectra).
This can sometimes cause certain modes of important effective mass to be ignored
and can lead to substantial errors, especially concerning the support reactions
and the stresses. This approach can, however, be improved by introducing a residual mode which takes into account the rigid part of the response (see for example, G.H. Powell, SMIRT-5, paper K 10/3, 1979). This mode is then combined with
the others by the SRSS rule.
(}.1_.3_.1_. What rules are applied in your country, concerning the modes to be considered? (Criteria on frequencies? Criteria on effective masses?).
>1_.3_.2^ What procedures allow the high frequency modes to be taken approximately
into account?
2. DECOUPLING CRITERIA FOR SUB-SYSTEMS
According to Section 3.7.2. of the USNRC's SRP, the decoupling criteria
are based on the mass R^ and frequency Rf ratios:
Total mass of supported subsystem
Mass which supports the subsystem
Fundamental frequency of subsystem

Dominant frequency of support motion
The decoupling can be carried out under the conditions:

(1)
R m < 0.01
(2)
0.01 < R m < 0.
and
Rf > 1.25
(__.2_. Are these criteria applied in your country?

used?
(3.3)
or
R f < 0.8
If not, what other criteria are
19
3. DETERMI NATI ON OF FLOOR SPECTRA CONSI DERATI ONS ON THE USE OF ARTI FI CI ALLY
GENERATED ACCELEROGRAMS
3.1. Calculation methods
Several procedures have been proposed for determining the floor spec
tra:
approximate method of the Biggs'.type (J. Biggs, SMIRT1, paper K 4/7, 1971).
timehistory analysis.
probabilistic methods (Singh & Ang, SMI RT2, paper K 6/1, 1973 or Scanian &
Sachs, Keswick 1978, for example).
C__._3_.l_. Which of these are regarded as acceptable in your country?
3.2. Combination rule for nonsymmetric structures
For a nonsymmetric structure, the motion in each direction will con
tain a contribution from each of the three components of the seismic excitation
(2 horizontal + 1 vertical). R.G.1.122 stipulates that, if the effect of each of
these components is analysed separately, the corresponding ordinates of the floor
spectra should be combined according to the SRSS rule. A threedimensional ana
lysis of the structure subjected to a simultaneous excitation in the three direc
tions will use statistically independent timehistories (C. Chen, proc. ASCE,
ST2, pp. 449551, 1975).
__.3^__. Is a similar rule applied in your country?
3.3. Number of timehistories Duration
_._3.3_.__. Is there a recommendation concerning the minimum number of. statisti
cally independent timehistories (of a spectrum enveloping the design
spectrum) to be used for generating floor spectra?
0_3_3___ Is there a recommendation concerning the minimum duration of the acce
lerograms to be taken into account in a timehistory analysis (C.W.
Lin, SMIR4, paper 1/11, 1977)?
3.4. Spectrum broadening
In order to take into account the uncertainties in the properties of
the material and in the models (see for example, B.J. Benda et al., NED 67, pp.
109123 (1981)), the computed spectra are smoothed and broadened.
- 20 -
The USNRC imposes the following broadening (R.G.1.122)

/2
r
Af. =
J
(0.05 f . ) 2 +
(. )'
(3.4)
n=l
with a minimum of 0.1 f..

In this formula, Lt.
is the amount of broadening
to be applied (on both sides of f.) ; A f j n represents the variation of the
j-th natural frequency resulting from the uncertainty on the n-th parameter; the
sum extends over all possible parameters affecting the structural response. The
foregoing procedure can be avoided providing a peak broadening of + 0 . 1 5 f . is
applied.
0;.3_.4_. Is a similar rule applied in your country?
rule?
If not, what is the current
3.5. Account of uncertainties in a time-history analysis

In the case of a system analysis by the time-history method, the SRP,
Section 3.7.2. (II.9), recommends that account be taken of the uncertainty in the
properties of the material and in the structure model by using the same values of
acceleration but for several values of the time step (N.C. TSAI, Transformation
of Time Axes of Accelerograms, Proc. ASCE, Vol. 95, EM3, pp. 807-812, (1969)).
At least, the following three values of the time step shall be considered: At and
At(l + ./f . ) , where f. is the dominant frequency of structural response
r represents, as in the foregoing section, a
Hoc
for the floor
concerned and
measure of the uncertainty on f..
If, in addition, one of the frequencies of
the equipment, f lies within the range f. + f., the time step
At[l - (f - AltA
will also be considered.
An alternative to this method consists in generating artificially an
accelerogram which would be consistent with the broadened spectrum mentioned in
the preceding section.
Q.3.5. What procedures are permitted in your country?
4. APPROXIMATE METHODS
4.1. Analysis method for multiply-supported equipments
As an alternative to the time time-history analysis [see, for example,
Leimbach, NED 51, pp. 245-252, (1979) ; NED 57, pp. 295-307 (1980) ; C.W. Lin &
F. Loceff, NED 60, pp. 347-352 (1980)], Section 3.7.3.(11.9) of the SRP recommends the following conservative approach for the response spectrum analysis of
multiply supported equipments with distinct inputs.
- 21 -
(a) Use a response spectrum which is the envelope of the individual spectra at
the various supports and analyse the structure assuming that the motion is
identical at all supports. This gives an estimate of the dynamic response.
(b) Analyse the structure statically, under the effect of the support maximum
relative displacements. These will either result from the response of the
supporting structure or will be conservatively computed from the floor res
ponse spectra.
In the latter case, the maximum support displacement is
evaluated by means of the relationship:
S. - S / w 2
(3.5)
d
a
where S is the high frequency asymptote of the acceleration spectrum (i.e.
the maximum absolute acceleration for the floor under consideration) and is
the fundamental frequency of the supporting structure. The relative displa
cements are combined in the most unfavourable manner.
The dynamic and static responses are then combined using the absolute
sum method. Stresses associated with the differential support displacements are
to be considered as secondary in the ASME sense.
.4_.__. Is a similar rule applicable in your country?
4.2. Equivalent static load method
The dynamic response of systems can be estimated in an approximate and
generally conservative way (see, for example, J.D. Stevenson & W.S. Lapay, ASME
paper 74-NE--9) by a static analysis performed with an acceleration of 1.5 times,
the maximum ordinate of the acceleration spectrum for frequencies larger than the
system's first natural frequency.
The combination of the dynamic response with the contribution from the
support differential motions has to be done as indicated in the previous section.
Q_.4_.2_. Is a similar procedure accepted in your country?
Which one?
4.3. Use of a static factor for the vertical direction.

According to Section 3.7.2.(11.10) of the SRP, an equivalent static
analysis is acceptable [in the vertical direction] if it can be proved that the
structure is rigid in this direction; that is if the first natural frequency of
the structure in the vertical direction is larger than the cut-off frequency of
the excitation (33 Hz in the USA).
C_.__.3_.__. Is a similar rule applicable in your country?

Q_.4_.3_.__. What is the corresponding cutoff frequency?
5. DAMPING
5.1. Reference values for the modal damping
Maximum damping values to be considered in the dynamic analysis of
structures are recommended by the USNRC .
These values depend on the type of
structure, the material and the types of joint. Two sets of values have been
defined, one for the SSE, one for the OBE, thus reflecting the fact that damping
increases with deformation amplitudes. These values are given in R.G. 1.61 (see
also Newmark Blume, Kappur, Proc. ASME Vol. 99.P02, November 1973).
Damping
values larger than those given in the R.G. 1.61 may be used in the design, pro
viding they are justified by experimental data.
C_.__.l_.l_. Are such standard values used in your country?
Q_.5_.l_.2^. If they are different from those given in the R.G. 1.61, what are they?
5.2. Damping values to use in a diiect integration method
The USNRC recommends the us. of the R.G. 1.61 standard damping values
for all modes considered in the dynamic analysis. These values cannot be direct
ly used in case of a direct integration method where a full damping matrix is to
be used.
It is common pratice to assume a Rayleigh damping (see, for example,
Bathe & Wilson, Prentice Hall, 197b, paragraph 8.3.3.) : in this case, the dam
ping matrix is a linear combination of the mass and stiffness matrices :
C = + K
(3.6)
The resulting matrix C can be diagonalized simultaneously with M and K.

Coefficients and can be determined in order to fit two modal danping values.
The major drawback connected with this procedure is that it leads to high fre
quency modes considerably more damped than the low frequency modes for which the
constants were chosen. Therefore, this leads to non conservative results.
Q.._5.__. Is there a regulation in your country, concerning the use of Rayleigh
damping?
23
5.3. Composite structures Combination of various modal damping.

The systems involved in the seismic analysis of nuclear power plants
are often composed of substructures having different modal damping. This is
particularly true for models considering soilstructure interaction. The follow
ing formula are recommended by the USNRC (SRP, section 3.7.2. (11.15)) for the
determination of the modal damping values of a composite structure. They result
from the use of the mass or stiffness matrices of the various substructures, as
weighing functions for the damping :
*_, ij 5 ii
.
where

d_ K d
%
~
(3 7
>
(3.8)
is the ith modal damping of the composite structure;
dj
is the ith Mnormalized eigenmode (eigenmode normalized with

regard to mass matrix);
and M are the modified mass and stiffness matrices constructed from
the substructure matrices by multiplying them by the corresponding
modal damping;
is the assembled stiffness matrix.
In the case of a direct integration method with Rayleigh damping, the

damping matrices of the various parts of the structure can be calculated from
(3.6), computing the and coefficients in order to fit two of the modal dam
ping values for the corresponding substructure. The assembled damping matrix is
no longer simultaneously diagonal with the mass matrix. As already mentioned,
this method has the drawback of overdamping the high frequency modes.
Of all the approximate methods, equation (3.8) leads to results that
are the closest to those of a more sophisticated method based on the use of sub
system modal properties to evaluate the damping matrix of the complete structure
(see K. Koss, Element Associated Damping by Modal Synthesis, Water Reactor Safe
ty Conference, Salt Lake City, 1973). The damping matrix obtained by th' latter
method is also not simultaneously diagonal with the mass matrix.
- 24
Q.5.3.
What are the procedures accepted in your country for treating structures
composed of substructures having different modal damping?
C_._3.___.J_. In case of a modal superposition method?

Q.5.3._2_. In case of a direct integration method?
25
III. SYNTHESIS OF NATIONAL ANSWERS

1II.O. Introduction
Based on the national answers to the questionnaire, gathered in the
appendix, a tentative synthesis has been made.
The subdivisions of the questionnaire and the various national.repprts
have been adopted.
Proposals are also made to continue and complete the present study.
The following abbreviations are used:
F
GB
D
I
France
Great Britain
Federal Republic of Germany
Italy
- 26 -
III.1. Ground motion

1. Sa_fej_y_l_2vels
1.1.
Philosophy leading to the establishment of two safety levels :

51 = OBE
52 = SSE
in American terminology
in American terminology
Generally speaking, the reference earthquake S2 is the only one to be

defined by safety considerations. In all the countries considered, it is defined
in agreement with the American SSE philosophy ; it is the maximum hypothetical
earthquake, taking into account the geological site conditions. For this earth
quake, it must be possible to shut down the reactor and cool it in order to keep
it in a safe shutdown condition. This earthquake may not entail any significant
release of fission gas outside the plant.
Earthquake SI represents the normally acceptable earthquake (D,F,I),
that is to say the one that can be borne by the plant without any significant
damage. It can be defined as the "historical earthquake of the highest intensity"
(D).
It is frequently defined as being 1/2 S2 (F,I).
In Great Britain, an
earthquake of very low intensity is defined (0.05 g) ; it is not used at all in
the design. Shutdown and a new analysis before restart would required if it were
to be exceeded.
1.2.
The reference earthquakes are generally defined on a deterministic
basis. Probabilitic methods are generally only accepted as back-up to a determi
nistic analysis (exception : D ) . The probabilities per annum of it being exceed
ed have been quoted as follows :
S2
D
GB
IO"4
(SNR : 3 I O - 4 ) *
1*
SI
10-3
(SNR = 8 I O - 4 ) *
-
*A posteriori calculations.
2. Maximum __ro_und__acjce_lej:a_t__o__.
2.1.
In some countries, a lower bound is specified for the maximum ground
acceleration at the time of an earthquake S2 (see Table).
2.2.
The maximum acceleration of earthquake S2 is, in principle, defined on
a site-dependent basis. In some countries, however, for the sake of simplicity
and standardization, a single acceleration is defined (GB).
27
3. Re__p__n__e_spe__trum
I
The R.G. 1.60 spectra are applicable for grounds whose natural frequen
cy verifies 3
f
9 Hz. A proposal is being studied to modify the low fre
quencies spectra for soft ground.
In principle, the spectra are site dependent. In practice, an envelope

spectrum is used for several sites.
This spectrum is different from that
defined in R.G. 1.60. The vertical spectrum = 2/3 horizontal spectrum.
GB
Standard spectra have been defined for three types of ground.

vertical spectrum is equal to 2/3 of the horizontal spectrum.
For SNR, Housner's average spectrum has been used ; the question re
mains open for the future : sitedependent shapes or standard shapes which
may or may not be those of the R.G. 1.60.
The
4. Du__a__ion
GB
The following durations are used for articially generated accelero

grams :
soft ground
medium
hard
13 s
12 s
11 s
The minimum duration for qualification tests is 6 s for AGR and 10 s

for PWR.
I
Not specified by the safety authorities.
For the mechanical calcula
tions, it is comprised between 15 s and 30 s.

For PEC, the following numbers of cycles are used:
10 cycles corresponding to the S2 peak values;
< 50 cycles corresponding to the SI = 1/2 S2 peak values.
F
D
No formal rule.
For SPX1, the duration has been fixed at 20 s.
For SNR, the strong motion period is set at 8 s.

duration will be shorter and sitedependent.
In the future, the
DEFINITION OF GROUND MOTION FOR SI AND S2 EARTHQUAKES

GB
a
Definition of SI
max.= 0 5 g
1/2 S2
1/2 S2
SNR = 0.5 m/s 2
o.i g
0.18 g
not used in design

Minimum value of
a
max f o r s 2
0.5 m/s 2
Site-dependent
Way of defining
the maximum
acceleration for S2
Standard value*: 0.25 g
Response spectrum
Standard shapes defined

as a function of the
soil conditions
Site-dependent
So far, envelope
spectra have been defined
for several sites
PEC : Housner. Future :

RG 1.60 for the grounds
whose natural frequency
verifies
3 < f < 9 Hz
Relation between the

vertical spectrum and
the horizontal spectrum
2/3
2/3
PEC : 2/3
Future : RG 1.60
1/2
SPX1 : 20 s
15 - 30 s
SNR : 8 s
Duration
11 - 13 s
Ground dependent
So far, envelope
standard values are used:
0.15 g - 0.2 g **
Site-dependent
PEC = 0.3 g
Site dependent
SNR = 1 . 2 m/s 2
SNR: Housner
In the future, sitedependent or standard
shapes
*Could become site dependent (0.20 + 0.05) g.

**Two standard shapes are used: one for Superphnix and the 900 MWe PWR's, with a corresponding maximum acceleration of 0.2 g
one for the 1300 MWe PWR's, with a maximum acceleration of 0.15 g.
00
- 29 -
III.2. Seismic classification of components - Safety provisions - Dimensional

criteria
A. FUNCTIONAL CRITERIA
A.O. Official documents
General_ __emark
No official regulations applicable to fast reactors in general exist
at the present time. Safety prescriptions relating to earthquakes are defined
for every reactor, generally on the basis of the operator's proposal. They are
usually included in the safety reports issued for the reactor.
In some countries (F,D), there exist official regulations applicable to
pressurized water reactors.
A.l. Functional requirements after a SI earthquake
_lj_ssi cal _~riteria
Subsequent operation of the plant must be possible without any inspection of the safety related components.
Emissions of radioactive products must remain below the limits imposed
during normal operation.
__xcet__o__s_v__r__an^s_:
GB
There is no SI earthquake in the standard sense. There exists a low

intensity earthquake (OSE) beyond which the reactor must be shut down. It
must be inspected before any new start-up.
The possibility of a restart without inspection is not required. The

criterion "failure, which must be foreseen" is specified (SNR-300).
Other
minor differences.
An inspection is required before restart. The radiological risks incurred by the operating staff cannot exceed the normally acceptable limits.
No damage is tolerated to parts which cannot be inspected or repaired.

For other parts', damage must remain extremely low.
30
.2. Functional requirements after an earthquake S2

Classical reguiremen_ts:
Devices with a safety function must be designed to withstand earthquake
S2 and must continue to function.
The following systems have a safety function :
1. devices necessary for reactor shutdown and maintenance of safe shutdown condi
tion (including equipment ensuring core cooling and residual heat evacuation);
2. devices designed to prevent or limit releases of radioactive material, which
could result in an accident or would be dangerous for the population.
Ad ditio_n__l_r__q__i__ement__ :
GB: Add to the list of systems having a safety function :
3. devices ensuring containment of radioactive material.
D:
Additional requirements:
.
to prevent radioactive releases which would prohibit access to reactor

building;
. to fulfil the above mentioned conditions without manual intervention for 10
hours;
. to foresee failure of an active component and the unavailability of compo
nents which undergo maintenance during reactor operation.
I:
Add to the list of systems with a safety function :

3. devices ensuring containment of highly radioactive material;
4. the sodium envelope.
F:
Safe shutdown conditions imply :

. no leaks in active circuits (including inside the reactor building);
. no water sodium reaction;
. no out of control sodium fire.
- 31 -
.3. Equipment which must remain functional after an S2 earthquake

The comparison of answers is made difficult because of the fundamental
design differences between the fast breeders developed in the various countries.
We will limit ourselves to indicating the equipment which cannot be
immediately associated with a fundamental functional requirement and which, ne
vertheless, is designed to continue to function or to remain leaktight after S2.
F(R1): The primary pumps are designed to operate after an S2 earthquake, the
secondary pumps are not.
The handling system is designed to withstand an S2 earthquake.
The secondary circuits are designed to withstand an S2 earthquake.
The steam generators are designed to withstand an S2 earthquake.
D(R1): Primary pumps are designed to operate after an S2 earthquake.
The secondary circuit parts external to the reactor building are not di
mensioned- for earthquake S2 _they are designed to withstand an SI earth
quake) .
The part of the handling system inside the reactor building is designed to
withstand earthquake S2 (the part of the handling system outside the reac
tor building is designed to withstand an SI earthquake).
GB:
Primary pumps are designed to operate after an S2 earthquake.

The handling system is designed to operate after an S2 earthquake.
The secondary sodium envelope is designed to withstand an S2 earthquake
(the aim is to avoid sodium fires and sodium-water reactions).
I:
Primary pumps are designed to operate at reduced rate after an S2 earth

quake.
The fuel element transfer machine is not dimensioned for earthquake S2.
However, its collapse must not damage the core and its replacement must be
possible.
These results are summarized in Table Al.
- 32 -
Remark:
It seems that, in general, three types of earthquake-related requirements may be distinguished:
- a system or component may be required to remain functional (during and) after
the earthquake;
- a system or component may be required to retain its leaktightness (during and)
after the earthquake;
- finally, a system or component may be required to resist collapse (because of
the consequences of this collapse on equipment having a safety function).
However, the consequences of this distinction on the mechanical design
are not always clear.
This subject is covered in paragraph 3.8. of the KTA
2201.4 standard, as well as in the various countries'answers to question C.2.4.
A.4. Containments that must remain tight after S2
The only containment barriers considered here are those of radioactive
core material. Comparison between the various reactors is difficult (see table
A2).
Nevertheless, the following conclusions can be drawn:
1) The first barrier (except fuel rod cladding) is always the envelope of the
primary circuits.
It is always designed to remain leaktight after an S2
earthquake.
2) There is always a second barrier remaining leaktight after an S2 earthquake.
This barrier is not always metallic.
A.5. Earthquake detection - Planned actions
Earthquake detection is planned in all countries.
There is a German standard which defines the detection system in detail (KTA 2201.5).
Exceeding a threshold always entails reactor shutdown. According to
the country, the shutdown type is either an automatically triggered emergency
shutdown or a normal shutdown controlled by the operator as a response to an
alarm triggered by the earthquake detection system.
A more complete comparison is given in Table A3.
- 33 -
.6. Functional consequences of an earthquake to be considered

The principles seem clear : it is necessary to consider:
- emergency reactor shut down (triggered by the earthquake detection system or by
a condition resulting from the earthquake detected by the reactor safety
system);
- loss of external electricity supplies;
- collapse of component which has not been shown to withstand earthquakes;
- unavailability of systems whose functioning (during and) after the earthquake
has not been demonstrated.
Table A4.
Application of these principles in the various countries is compared in
- 34
TABLE Al - EQUIPMENT WHICH MUST WITHSTAND EARTHQUAKE S2*

GB
D (1)
F (1)
Primary pumps designed to

operate after S2
(5)
Secondary pumps designed to

operate after S2
(5)
Secondary circuits and steam

generators designed to
remain leaktight after S2
(2)
(3)
(3)
Fuel element handling system

designed to operate after
S2
(2) (4)
0 (6)
Only components for which a doubt may exist are mentioned in

this table.
(1)
Answers relating to reactor under construction Rl (SUPERPHENIX,

SNR-300).
(2)
Only the part inside the reactor building is dimensioned for S2;
the part outside the reactor building is designed to withstand SI,
(3)
Only the sodium envelope (not the argon circuits).
(4)
Operation not required.
(5)
Operation at reduced rate.
(6)
Replacement of the fuel handling system must be possible.
X = yes.
0 = no.
- 35 -
TABLE A2 - RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL CONTAINMENT BARRIERS
Primary circuit envelope

(sodium + gas)
D(l)
F(l)
GB
S2
S2
S2
S2
Double walled primary

circuit (+ dome)
S2
Wall of primary cells

(metal clad)
S2 (2)
Reactor building
S2
Safety metallic shell
SI
S2
(1)
Answers relating to reactor Rl (SNR-300, SUPERPHENIX).
(2)
Reduced leaktighness is accepted after S2:
51 = dimensioned to remain leaktight after SI.

52 = dimensioned to remain leaktight after S2.
?
= answer not supplied.
S2
36
TABLE A3 DETECTION OF EARTHQUAKES AND ASSOCIATED ACTIONS
Earthquake detection requi

red
GB
Shutdown
(A: automatic,
M: manual)
A (1)
A (1)
Shutdown
(E: emergency,
N: normal)
E (1)
(1)
s 0.25 S2
X (D
Threshold
Required inspection
s 0.25 S2 S 0.5 S2
X (2)
(1) Interpretation of answers supplied.

(2) An instrumentation is planned in order to assess the state of the
plant before restart.
X yes.
? = answer not supplied.
37 -
TABLE A4 - CONSEQUENCES OF EARTHQUAKE S2 TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT
GB
Loss of external electricity

supplies
Emergency shut down of

reactors
Loss of water flow to steam

generators
Leakages of slightly radio

active products
0 (2)
X (D
X (D
0 (3)
(1)(4)
(1)
Sodium circuit leaks

Water/steam leaks
(1) External to reactor building.
(2)
The design of the nuclear boiler system is such that no radioactive

leak must result from the earthquake.
(3)
Rl : the design of the boiler system is such that no sodium leak

must result from the earthquake;
R2 : not yet decided (small leaks in auxiliaries ? ) .
(4)
Inside the reactor and steam generator building, steam and water
pipes are designed to withstand earthquake.
X =
0 =
- =
to be taken into account,

not taken into account.
not relevant.
- 38
. EARTHQUAKE CLASSIFICATION IN OPERATING CONDITIONS

B.l. Categories of operating conditions
In all countries, four categories of operating conditions are defined;
they are designated:
- category 1: normal conditions;
- category 2: upset conditions;
- category 3: emergency conditions;
- category 4: faulted conditions.
These categories are not defined in a precise way:
- category 2 conditions often correspond to transient states;
- category 3 conditions correspond to exceptional circumstances which have to be
taken into consideration;
- category 4 conditions correspond to hypothetical failures of equipment.
.2. Combination of SI and classification of combined conditions
Co__d__t__ons_to c_ombine with__S1_
The principles seem clear : it is necessary to combine:
- the initial conditions;
- the earthquake;
- the possible consequences of that earthquake (cf. A6).
Usually, all conditions in categories 1 and 2 are considered as possi
ble initial conditions. The conditions whose total duration is low are an excep
tion: such situations are not considered as possible initial conditions, or else
the corresponding combined conditions are classified in a different way (i.e.
analysed with less severe criteria).
Remark : The same remark as in point B3 is applicable here.
l_is__ifica__ioji_ojf omb__ne_d_cc_nd_i__i__ns_
The c o n d i t i o n s r e s u l t i n g from the combinations are c l a s s i f i e d

second or in the t h i r d category depending on the country.
in the
- 39 -
.3. Combination of S2 and classification of combined conditions

C_ondi_t__or_s_to_ __omb__ne_ w_iJ^h_S2^
Here as well, it is necessary to combine:
- the initial conditions;
- the earthquake;
- the possible consequences of that earthquake (cf. A . 6 . ) .
Usually, all conditions in categories 1 and 2 are considered as
ble initial conditions.
The conditions for which total duration is low
exception: these conditions are either not considered as possible initial
tions, or the corresponding combined conditions are analysed "off design
category).
possi
are an
condi
(fifth
Remark :
An elegant solution consists in using integrated duration as a crite
rion distinguishing upset conditions from normal operating conditions and to
impose only, as initial conditions, normal operating conditions.
<_l__s__i__ic_a__ion__o__ c_omb__n__d_c__nd_i__ic_n_j_
Conditions resulting
category in all countries.
from combinations
are
classified
in the
fourth
B.4. Detailed comparison

Table Bl compares in detail, combinations and classifications relating
to SI.
Table B2 compares in detail, combinations and classifications relating
to S2.
The case of handling is dealt with in somewhat more detail in these
tables because it is deemed specially important.
- 40 -
TABLE Bl - CLASSIFICATION OF EARTHQUAKE SI
Category of operating condi

tions resulting from
earthquake SI
Category of operating condi
tions which must be com
bined with earthquake SI:
- categories
- exception for operating
conditions with a small
cumulated duration
- special cases:
.normal handling
.exceptional handling
1 + 2
1 + 2
1 + 2
X
X
(2)
(3)
GB
(1)
(1)
Earthquake SI has no influence on plant design.
(2)
Rl: the classification of combined conditions depends on the total

duration of the handling operations considered.
R2 : these combined conditions are analysed "off design".
(3)
The classification of combined conditions depends on the total dura

tion of the handling operations considered.
X = yes.
- = not relevant.
41 -
TABLE B2 - CLASSIFICATION OF EARTHQUAKE S2
Classification of operating
conditions resulting from
earthquake S2
4 (1)
1 + 2
1 + 2 (1)
1 + 2
? (2)
GB
(1)
Categories of operating con

ditions which must be
combined with earthquake
S2:
- categories
- exceptions for opera
ting conditions having
low total duration
- threshold (total dura
tion limit)
- special cases:
.normal handling
.exceptional handling
0 (3)
0 (2)
(1)
Interpretation of answers received.
(2)
On RI, the threshold is determined by probabilistic calculations

On R2, exceptional conditions are not analysed "off design".
X
0
?
-
= yes.
= no.
= not relevant..
- 42 -
C. CLASSIFICATION OF MECHANICAL COMPONENTS

C.l. Safety classes
There is no general rule :
F:
Three safety classes exist in addition to unclassified equipment.
I and D(R1):
the safety class concept is not used. On the other hand, a quality level
(equivalent to ASME code class) is attributed to components.
D (KTA) and perhaps GB:
The safety class concept is not used. Standards are established per component type rather than per quality level.
C.2.1. Seismic classes
There is no general rule.
F(R1) and D(R1):
There exist three classes :
- equipment to be designed to withstand SI;
- equipment to be designed to withstand S2;
- equipment not designed to withstand earthquake.
I:
There exist three classes :

- equipment with a safety function;
- necessary equipment with in the long run a safety function (equipment necessary for a long duration operation in safe conditions)(see Italian answer for more details in appendix of the french version of this report).
- equipment not designed to withstand earthquake.
- 43 -
GB: There exist four classes :

- systems which must function after earthquake S2;
- components not required to function after S2 but for which structural integrity and leaktightness must be ensured;
- components not designed for earthquakes;
- buildings and systems for handling and storing radioactive material.
D (KTA):
There exist two classes :
- components with a safety function. These components must be capable of
operating after several SI occurrences. They must ensure their function
after one S2 earthquake;
- other components; it must be demonstrated that no component with a safety
function will be damaged by collapse or malfunction of the other components.
C.2.2. Relationship between component classification design criteria
The design criteria used during seismic stress analysis depend on the
requirements applicable to the component and on its accessibility.
Rules differ from one country to another: they are compared in Tables
CI and C2 and discussed hereunder.
"Special" f_u__c__ions
In some countries, systems ensuring some specific safety functions are
subjected to more severe criteria during seismic analysis.
For example, in Great Britain, components ensuring reactor shut-down,
core cooling, residual power evacuation, and so on, are dimensioned for S2 with
special criteria. On the other hand, components ensuring a containment function,
are dimensioned with "normal" criteria (level D ) .
In other countries, there is no distinction between safety functions.
44 -
__c__i__e_c__mp_onent_^
Active components are sometimes subjected to special criteria:
- Are called "active", components which are not static in performing their safety
function (pumps for which an operation is required, valves which must change
state, etc.).
- A demonstration of the correct operation of such equipment after the earthquake
is often required . This demonstration can be experimental (tests or trials).
In some countries, this experimental demonstration can be avoided by
using more severe design criteria.
(_ompo^ne^n__s_f_^r_wl_i_;h_c_^ll_ap_se_ must be_ avoided
In some cases, less detailed analyses are permitted when it is only
the collapse of the components which must be avoided.
- 45 -
TABLE Cl - COMPONENT CLASSIFICATION AND DESIGN CRITERIA FOR SI

D
RI KTA
Level of criteria relating
to SI (principle)
Distinction accessible/not
accessible:
- applicable
- overclassification "not
accessible"
Distinction active/passive:
- applicable
- overclassification
"active"
(2)
GB
(1)
C (4)
(5)
C (4)
(5)
C (4)
(1) Earthquake SI does not influence the plant design.

(2) An additional analysis of the possible causes of malfunctioning
is required.
(3) Level criteria are imposed, except if it is demonstrated that the
function remains assured.
(4) Rl : C;
R2 : probably C.
(5) Distinctions accessible/not accessible or active/passive have no
consequences on the level of criteria, but affect the class (quality
level) of the component. As an example, inaccessible components are
always class 1.
X = yes.
0 = no.
- = not relevant.
- 46 -
TABLE C2 - COMPONENT CLASSIFICATION AND DESIGN CRITERIA FOR S2
D
Rl
Criteria level relating to
S2 ("withstand")
Distinction "special func
tion":
- applicable
KTA
GB
(1)
(7)
(2)
B/C
(1)
Distinction active/passive:
- applicable
X
(3)
0
-
(7)
0
-
B/C (4)
Distinction ("withstand"/
collapse avoided):
- applicable
- underclassification
X
(5)
X
(6)
(1)
This overclassification is not required when a strain analysis

demonstrates correct functioning.
(2)
A strain analysis is required.
(3)
An additional analysis of the possible causes of operational failure

is required.
(4)
Level criteria are imposed, except if it is demonstrated that the

function remains ensured.
(5)
More simple criteria are used.
(6)
Reduction of design effort as a function of risk to be taken. The

design of the supports and the buckling analysis are unchanged.
(7)
An additional analysis is required, in order to demonstrate that

components subject to additional functional requirements after S2
are able to meet them. This analysis is specified on a case to case
basis. Design rules do not ensure any functional guarantee.
X
0
?
= yes.
= no.
= not relevant.
47 -
D. MECHANICAL DESIGN CRITERIA

D.I. Design codes used
The ASME III code (subsections + "code cases") still is the joint refe
rence code.
In some countries, national codes have been drawn up for the design and
construction of pressurized water reactors.
D.2. Classification of design criteria
Criteria levels A,B,C,D of ASME code section III are generally used for
the design of mechanical components with a safety function.
In France, levels A and are grouped together.
D.3. Relationship between categories of operating conditions and levels of crite
ria
With regard to earthquakes, this topic has been analysed in paragraphs
C.l. and C.2.
D.4. Fatigue analysis
Analysis of earthquake induced fatigue is required by some countries.
Table Dl compares the data gathered.
E. TRANSMISSION OF SEISMIC LOADINGS
Depending on the country, seismic loadings are part of the general
design specification or are dealt with in special specifications.
- 48
TABLE Dl - ANALYSIS OF EARTHQUAKE INDUCED FATIGUE
D
RI
KTA
Fatigue analysis required
SI
Number of SI earthquakes
Number of cycles/Si earth

quake
10-15' -
10
R2
Number of S2 earthquakes
Number of cycles/S2 earth

quake
(D
10
Are the aftershocks taken

into account ?
(1)
X
0
?
-
GB
RI
Fatigue analysis not required for S2,
= yes.
= no.
= not relevant.
- 49 -
III.3. Seismic analysis methods

With the exception of Germany (KTA 2201.4), no written rules exist re
garding seismic analysis methods. Consequently, answers refer to current practi
ces rather than to rules in the real meaning of the word. The analysis procedu
res are in principle the result of an agreement between equipment supplier and
safety authorities; the trend Is towards using more refined analysis methods for
more sensitive equipment, for which the excessive degree of conservatism of the
seismic analysis methods may constitute a functional hindrance (excessive rigidi
ty, too many snubbers, . . . ) .
1. Rules used in connection with the modal superposition method
1.1. orab__ntion of _modal __r eeoo ns es
F:
SRSS (square root of sum of squares), without considering interaction of

closely spaced modes.
D:
SRSS below cut-off frequency, without special modification to tak int ac

count interaction closely spaced modes.
GB: SRP 3.7.2 practices are acceptable (formula (3.1) of questionnaire).

I:
RG 1.92 is used.
used.
The CQC* method (Complete Quadratic Combination) la also
To the authors' knowledge, the CQC method represents the first attempt
to rationally take into account the correlation between closely spaced modes. It
is based on the hypothesis that the correlation coefficients of the various medal
responses to a wide band excitation may be approximated by those of the stationa
ry response to white noise**.
*E.L. Wilson, A. Der Klureghian & E. Bayo, "A Replacement of the SRRS Method in
Seismic Analysis", Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 9, 187-192
(1981).
**See also: A. Der Klureghian, "Structural Responses to Stationary Excitation",
Proc. ASCE, Vol. 6, 6, pp. 1195-1213, December 1980.
. Der Klureghian, "A Response Spectrum Method for Random Vibration Analysis of
MDF Systems", Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 9, 419-435
(1981).
- 50 -
1.2. __omb__natio_i of_the_tliree_Sa_ti<il_cmponer_ts_

The SRSS rule (3.2) for spatial response combination is used everywhere
(F,GB,I), except in Germany where a single horizontal direction is used (see
details of German answer).
Moreover, for SNR-300, due to the building special
structure, the concept of "Kippspektrum" has been introduced, according to which
a vertical response is induced by the horizontal component of ground excitation.
These two responses are in phase and are combined by the absolute sum rule.
1.3.
S i g n i f ic__n_t mode
The trend in this field is towards the use of the modal combination
rule described in paragraph 1.1., in order to combine the dynamic responses corresponding to modes of frequencies lower than the cut-off frequency f . If the
dynamic analysis performed in this way does not include a sufficient part of the
effective mass (+ 90 % in Italian answer), a residual mode must be considered and
combined quadratically (SRSS). All modes of frequencies higher than the cut-off
frequency should be considered as being in phase.
2. Subsystem decoupling criteria
Decoupling criteria are generally based on mass and frequency ratios*.
They vary from one country to another (see answers to questionnaire). Defining
the support structure mass is often a problem.
*An interesting parametric comparison of coupled and uncoupled responses of a 2

degrees of freedom system to a white noise excitation is given in:
S.H. Crandall & W.D. Mark, "Random Vibration in Mechanical Systems", Academic
Press, pp. 80-101, 1963.
- 51 -
3. Determination of floor spectra, considerations on the use of artificially ge

nerated accelerograms
3.1.
The time history method is the most popular of the methods in use. It
is the only method accepted in Great Britain. In other countries (D.F.I),
direct or probabilistic methods are accepted subject to appropriate valida
tion*.
3.2.
The spatial components combination rule was discussed In paragraph 1.2.

In the case of a time history analysis, accelerograms used in the ,,
directions must be statistically independent.
3.3.
With regard to the use of artificially generated accelerograms, rules

exist in Germany on the agreement between the accelerogram spectrum and the
des ig" spectrum. Most often, a single set (I) or two sets (GB) of accelero
grams are used for the calculation**. The duration of artificially generat
ed accelerograms was discussed in the chapter on "Ground motion".
3.4.
A spectrum-broadening procedure similar to that described in RG 1.122

is most often used (+_ 15Z)(F,I,GB). It may or may not take Into account the
uncertainty of soil properties. The latter is particularly significant for
soft soils (D) and was the only one to be taken Into account for SNR-300
3.5.
When taken into account in a time history analysis, uncertainties on

structural properties are either treated by a procedure similar to the SRP
procedure described in the questionnaire (F), or included in the accelero
gram by generating the latter on the basis of a broadened spectrum (GB).
*It may be interesting to mention a recent study devoted to the direct determina
tion of floor spectra including interaction between equipment and supporting
structure: J.L. Sackman, A. Der Klureghian & B. Nour-Omid, "Dynamic Analysis of
Light Equipment in Structures : Modal properties of the Combined System", Proc
ASCE, Vol. 109, EMI, February 1983, 73-89.
A. Der Klureghian, J.L. Sackman, B. Nour-Omid, "Dynamic Analysis of Light Equip
ment in Structures : Response to Stochastic Input", Proc. ASCE, Vol. 109, EMI,
February 1983, 90-110.
** A. Kurosakl and M. Kozekl : Statistical Uncertainty of Response Characteristic
of Building Appendage System for Spectrum Compatible Artificial Earthquake Motion.
SMIRT-6, Paris (1981), Paper K7/7.
52 -
4 . Approximate methods
4.1. E_quij_ment wi__h_mulj_ip_le supports
The SRP practice described in the questionnaire is generally applicable
in the countries considered (GB,F,I,D) but with differences regarding treatment
of the stresses resulting from the relative displacements of the supports (D).
Multiple support modal methods are also used in several countries (I,D,F)*.
4.2. Equivalent_s_tat_ic me__hod
The approximate procedure described in the questionnaire is generally
applicable (F,I,D) to small diameter circuits or to circuits of little importance
(cold piping). The coefficient changes from 1 to 1.5 as a function of the modellization (1 or several degrees of freedom)(I) or of the structure type (D); it is
reduced to 1 if the first frequency is above the cut-off frequency.
4.3. _5_ta_ti_c_fc_to foj_ vert_Lcal_d___recti on
A static analysis is generally allowed for the directions in which the
structure can be considered as rigid (first natural frequency
cut-off frequency)(F,GB,I,D). The acceleration used is the spectrum asymptotic value, without
any increase factor.
*It may be of interest to mention recent studies: A. Der Kiureghian, A. Asfura,

J.L. Sackman & J.M. Kelly, "Seismic Response of Multiple Supported Piping Systems", SMIRT-7, paper K7/7, Chicago 1983.
M.C. Lee & J. Penzien: "Stochastic Analysis of Structures and Piping Systems
Subjected to Stationary Multiple Support Excitation", Earthquake Engineering
Structural Dynamics, Vol. 11, 91-110 (1983).
- 53 -
5. Damping
5.1. Reference _va_lues__fo_r_m__d__l__d__mp_ing
Standard values of modal damping are generally applicable (F,GB,I,D).
They are mostly identical to those of RG 1.61 (F,GB,I). Higher values can be
used, subject to adequate experimental justification.
5.2. D_i__ect_integraj_i on
Direct integration is rarely used in seismic analysis. An analysis in
the modal basis is often preferred, because of the low frequency content of the
excitation. However, when Rayleigh damping is used, the
and
coefficients
must be chosen in such a way that all significant modes have a modal damping
lower than the limits fixed in RG 1.61 (GB,I).
5.3. Composi_te j^truc.tu.rs
The SRP procedure outlined in the questionnaire is generally applied
(F,GB,I,D). Formula (3.8) is often preferred to formula (3.7)(F,I).
- 55
IV. PROSPECTS AND FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS

IV.1. Part common to all types of reactors
It was found necessary to limit this study to the traditional aspects
of the seismic calculation methods for nuclear reactors not only because of the
broad scope of the subject, but also because these traditional aspects are the
only ones to be standardized in codes or official documents and, hence, the only
ones which may be systematically compared.
This report indicates a great similarity between the various European
countries: with regard to the methods, especially in the areas which are not
contested, and with regard to "preoccupations" as far as more controversai issues
are concerned.
Some of the topics that still remain open are, in our opinion:
- The SI earthquake definition (does earthquake SI have a safety function?).
Three functions can be attributed to it :
(i) to remedy the insufficiencies of level D criteria;
(ii) to define the earthquake beyond which it is necessary to shut down the
reactor;
(iii) to define the earthquake beyond which inspection Is required.
- The integration of seismic rules in design rules:
Is it necessary to add a seismic classification to the safety classification?
Does a basic difference exist between the earthquake and the other
reference accidents (possibility of common failure modes?).
- The effect of functional requirements on the design criteria
nents, leaktightness assured, collapse avoided).
Is this distinction justified?
(active compo-
What are the consequences for design?
- Conditions which must be combined with earthquakes:

What are the operating conditions (handling, for example) during which
the occurrence of an earthquake must be considered? The answer could result from
an overall risk analysis.
A substantial improvement of the calculation methods should result from
the application of random vibration theory. As examples, we shall quote:
- The combination rules for closely spaced modes, a particularly important pro
blem in thin shells*. The CQC method (Complete Quadratic Combination)**, based
on the theory of random vibration in conjunction with reasonable hypotheses, offers hope of improvement in this field.
*I. Elishakoff, A.Th. Van Zantem, S.H. Crandall: Wide-Band Random Axisymmetric
Vibration of Cylindrical Shells, J. of Applied Mechanics, Vol. 46, p. 417, June
1979.
**E.L. Wilson et al, op.cit. p. 49.
- 56 -
- The application of the theory of random vibrations to the direct calculation of

floor spectra"1" and to piping calculation. In addition to taking into account
the correlation between the modal responses of closely-spaced frequencies, in
the latter case the method offers a unique possibility of taking into account
the correlation between excitations at the various supports*.
Finally, the following suggestions from the British experts seem of
particular interest :
1. Methods of analysis of soil-structure interaction should have been included in
the survey. Although the methods are not unique to the fast reactor plants,
such a survey has not been previously conducted with European countries and is
fundamental to seismic assessment of all types of reactors.
2. Damping. Although the questionnaire was quite exhaustive, the answers were
insufficiently detailed (including my own). This is regrettable since the
damping values are crucial to the outcome of the seismic analyses. It would
be worthwhile to follow it up with further enquiries to find out what damping
values are used for individual components such as cranes, steam generators,
heat exchangers, sodium pumps, fuel transfer routes, rotating shields, etc.
3. Design criteria - stress limits. Once again the answers were often superficial, e.g. "level D", where many different ways exist to satisfy this criteria. This item is of a particular interest to WGCS-2 and should be followed
up if a co-operation of WGCS-2 members can be obtained.
IV.2. Fast reactor characteristics
The following specific characteristics of fast reactors:
-
thin walls resulting from low pressures;

high temperatures and neutron flux entailing problems of material behaviour;
severe thermal gradients and temperature fluctuations;
structures of very large dimensions (especially in the pool concept) containing
large masses of sodium;
- presence of water and sodium,
B.J. Sullivan : "A Method for Generating Floor Response Spectra through Power
Spectra/Response Spectra Relationship". SMIRT-7, Chicago (1983), Paper Ml/9.
*M.C. Lee, J. Penzien, op.cit., p.52.
- 57 -
are responsible for particular problems:

-
creep and plasticity;

instabilities (elastic or plastic buckling);
fluid/structure interactions;
possibility of sodium fires and of sodium-water reactions.
The fluid/structure interaction is a particularly important point in

LMFBR seismic analysis; the following aspects are particularly worthy of further
studies:
- evaluation of practical design rules: this subject has already been partially
dealt with at the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory* at NRC's request;
- improvement in the understanding of basic mechanisms, in particular in the
coupling between several immersed bodies.
The calculation codes for the study of coupled modes of a structure
containing a fluid have been the subject of benchmark calculations financed by
the EEC**.
On the other hand, functional requirements should be adapted in order
to take into account the possibility of sodium fires and sodium-water reactions,
which entail risks of a completely different nature than the risks encountered in
the other types of reactor. Finally, dynamic instability problems are related to
seismic and fluid/structure interaction problems.
*R.C. Dong: Effective Mass and Damping of Submerged Structures, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, April 1978, UCRL-52342.
**M. Dostal et al: "Benchmark Calculations on Fluid Coupled Co-Axial Cylinders
Typical to LMFBR Structures", SMIRT-7, Chicago 1983, paper B8/6.
-59-
BIBLIOGRAPHY
General references
- N.M. NEWMARK, E. ROSENBLUETH: Fundamentals of Earthquake Engineering, Prentice
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J. USA (1971).
- USNRC STANDARD REVIEW PLAN
Section 3.7.1.: Seismic Input - June 1975
Section 3.7.2.: Seismic System Analysis - June 1975
- Section 3.7.3.: Seismic Subsystem Analysis - June 1975
- IAEA - SAFETY GUIDE N 50 - SG - SI
Earthquakes and Associated Topics in Relation to Nuclear Power Plant Siting,
Vienna IAEA 1979.
- IAEA - SAFETY GUIDE N 50 - SG - S2
Seismic Analysis and Testing of Nuclear Power Plants, Vienna IAEA 1979.
- ISO, Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plant - ISO/DP 6258 (draft).
- ASME BOILER AND PRESSURE VESSEL CODE
Section III Division 1 Nuclear Power Plant Components - Subsection NA (Appendices), NB (Class 1 components), NC (Class 2 ) , ND (Class 3 ) , NE (Metal Containment Components), NF (Component Supports), NG (Core Support Structures), ASME,
New York (updated).
- PROPOSED AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD, ANS 54.6,
LMFBR Safety Classification and Related Requirements, American Nuclear Society,
La Grange Park, October 1979 (Trial use and Comment).
- PROPOSED AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD, ANS-54.1,
General Safety Design Criteria for a Loop Type LMFBR, Draft, July 1981.
-60-
National documents EEC

ITALY
- G. NASCHI, Italian Safety Philosophy and Licensing Procedures, Confrence de
Lyon sur la Sret des Racteurs Rapides, Juillet 1982.
- Technical Guides - 1 21 - CNEN, December 1980.
- Site Maps - CNEN, Doc DISP (79)7, September 1979.
FRANCE
Rgles de conception et de construction des matriels mcaniques des ilts
nuclaires (RCC-M) - AFCEN, Janvier 1983.
("Design and Construction Rules of Nuclear Island mechanical Equipment, (RCC-M) AFCEN, January 1983").
UNITED KINGDOM
- PRECONSTRUCTION SAFETY REPORT, Sizewell CEGB 1982.
- CEGB/GDCD REPORT, An Analysis of Seismic Risk in Great Britain", J. Irving,
Ref. GD/PE-N/279 (Civil Engineering Branch Report R017), issue B, April 1982.
- PRINCIPIA MECHANICA Ltd. REPORT, Seismic Ground Motions for UK Design, Report
for CEGB and BNFL, April 1981.
FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY
- AUSLEGUNG VON KERNKRAFTWERKEN GEGEN SEISMISCHE EINWIRKUNGEN
("Design of Nuclear Power Plants against Seismic Influences")
KTA
KTA
KTA
KTA
KTA
KTA
2201.1:
2201.2:
2201.3:
2201.4:
2201.5:
2201.6:
Grundstze
Baugrund (in Vorbereitung)
Auslegung der baulichen Anlagen)(in Vorbereitung)
Auslegung der maschinen- und elektrotechnischen Anlagenteile
Seismische Instrumentierung
Massnahmen nach Erdbeben (in Vorbereitung)
- KKW KALKAR (Kalkar Nuclear Power Plant)

Bemessungsvorschriften fr Belastungen Infolge EVA, EVA-Spezifikation, INBNOTIZ 401.1170.2, updated.
("Dimensioning Prescriptions for Loads Resulting from External Influences").
-61-
References quoted in the questionnaire and national answers.

CONCERNING THE BELGONUCLEAIRE QUESTIONNAIRE (II)
- Comparison of the Seismic Analysis Methods Applied to the Components of Fast
reactors in the EEC Countries, Contract CCE N RAP-020-B, Interim Report BN
098.60/ 020/n/016 (1982).
CONCERNING GROUND MOTION (II.III.l)
- G. WOO: Modelling Seismic Ground Motion in the UK, BNES, Conference on Vibration in Nuclear Power Plants, Keswick, May 1982.
- L. AHORNER: EEC State of the Art Report on Reference Ground Motion, CEC Safety
of Water Cooled Reactors - WG1 - Draft November 1980.
- W. ROSENHAUER, L. AHORNER: Seismic Risk Map for the Western Part of Central
Europe, Nuclear Compacts - Atomwirtschaft 6/1978, 285-288.
- C. DEVILLERS, B. MOHAMMADIOUN : French Methodology for determining Site Adapted
SMS (SMS = Sisme Major de Scurit) Spectra, SMIRT-6, paper Kl/9, Paris
1981.
- HOUSNER: Nuclear Reactor and Earthquakes, USAEC Publication TID-7014, August
1964.
- M.D. TRIFUNAC, A.G. BRADY: On the Correlation of Seismic Intensity Scale with
the Peaks of Recorded Strong Ground Motion, Bull, of Seism. Soc. Am., Vol. 65,
139-162, 1975.
- U . S . NRC REGULATORY GUIDE 1.60, Design Response Spectra for Seismic Design of
Nuclear Power Plants - 1973.
-62-
CONCERNING THE SEISMIC CLASSIFICATION OF COMPONENTS - SAFETY REGULATIONS - DESIGN

CRITERIA (II.III.2)
- USNRC REGULATORY GUIDE 1.26: Quality Group Classifications and Standards for
Water-, Steam- and Radioactive-waste containing Components of Nuclear Power
Plants, 1976.
- USNRC REGULATORY GUIDE 1.29: Seismic Design Classification, Revision 2, 1976.
- USNRC REGULATORY GUIDE 1.48: Design Limits and Loading Combinations for Seismic
Category I Fluid System Components, 1973.
- CLASS 1 COMPONENTS IN ELEVATED TEMPERATURE SERVICE, Section III, Division 1,
ASME N-47, updated.
ASME N-253, updated.
- SODIUM COOLED FAST REACTORS, Classification of Mechanical Systems and Components for Safety and Reliability, CEC, FRCC, WGCS, AG4, XIII/932/80.
- CLASSIFICATION OF MECHANICAL SYSTEMS AND COMPONENTS, FRCC, WGCS, AG4, XII/IIII,
Rev. 2, 1981.
- SODIUM COOLED FAST REACTORS, Safety Classification of Mechanical Systems and
Components, CEC, FRCC, WGCS, AG4, Document R403-AG4HB, J.W.H. Price, NCC, Risley, November 1982.
-63-
ABOUT THE RULES USED IN CONNECTION WITH THE MODAL SUPERPOSITION METHOD
(II.III.3.1.)
- USNRC REGULATORY GUIDE 1.92: Combining Modal Responses and Spatial Components
in Seismic Response Analysis, 1976.
- E.L. WILSON, A. DER KIUREGHIAN, E. BAYO: A Replacement of the SRSS Method in
Seismic Analysis, Earthquake Engineering Structural Dynamics, 9, 187-192
(1981).
- A. DER KIUREGHIAN: Structural Response to Stationary Excitation, Proc. ASCE,
Vol. 106, EM6, pp. 1195-1213, December 1980.
- A. DER KIUREGHIAN: A Response Spectrum Method for Random Vibration Analysis of
MDF Systems, Earthquake Engineering Structural Dynamics, Vol. 9, 418-435
(1981).
- S.L. CHU, M. AMIN, S. SINGH: Spectral Treatment of Actions of Three Earthquake
Components on Structures, Nucl. Eng. Design, 21, (1972), 126-136.
- C.W. LIN: On Spectral Treatment of Actions of Three Earthquake Componente on
Structures, Nucl. Eng. Design, 24, (1973), 239-241.
- G.H. POWELL: "Missing Mass" Correction in Modal Analysis of Systems, SMIRT-5,
paper K10/3, Berlin 1979.
CONCERNING DECOUPLING CRITERIA (II.III.3.2.)
- D.W. PHILIPS: The Direct Calculation of Floor Response Spectra, UKAEA Publication, SRD R182 (September 1980).
- T.S. AZIZ, G.G. DUFF: Decoupling Criteria for Seismic Analysis of Nuclear Power
Plant Systems, ASME/CSME Conference, Montreal, June 25/30, 1978.
- S.H. CRANDALL, W.D. MARK: Random Vibration in Mechanical Systems, Academic
Press, 1963, pp. 80-101.
-64-
CONCERNING THE DETERMINATION OF FLOOR SPECTRA AND THE USE OF ARTIFICIALLY GENERATED ACCELEROGRAMS (II.III .3.3. )
-
J. BIGGS: Seismic Response Spectra for Equipment Design in Nuclear Power

Plants, SMIRT 1, paper K4/7, Berlin 1971.
- K.A. PETERS, D. SCHMITZ, U. WAGNER: Determination of Floor Spectra on the Basis

of the Response Spectrum Method, Nucl. Eng. and Design, 44, 255-262 (1977).
- A.K. SINGH, A.H.-S, ANG : Stochastic Prediction of Maximum Seismic Response of
Light Secondary Systems, SMIRT-2, paper K6/1, Berlin 1973.
- R.H. SCANLAN, K. SACHS : On Response Spectra in Seismic Design of Nuclear Power
Plants, BNES Conference on Vibration in Nuclear Power Plants, Keswick, 1978.
- J.L. SACKMAN, A. DER KIUREGHIAN, B. NOUR-OMID: Dynamic Analysis of Light Equipment in Structures: Modal Properties of the Combined System, Proc. ASCE, Vol.
109, EMI, February 1983, 73-89.
- A. DER KIUREGHIAN, J.L. SACKMAN, B. NOUR-OMID: Dynamic Analysis of Light Equipment in Structures: Response to Stochastic Input, Proc. ASCE, Vol. 109, EMI,
February 1983, 90-110.
- USNRC REGULATORY GUIDE 1.122: Development of Floor Design Response Spectra for
Seismic Design of Floor-Supported Equipments or Components, 1978.
- C. CHEN: Definition of Statistically Independent Time Histories, Proc. ASCE,
Vol. 101, ST2, 449-551, 1975.
- C.W. LIN: Criteria for Generation of Spectra Consistant Time Histories, SMIRT4, paper Kl/11, San Francisco, 1977.
- B.J. BENDA et al.: Variability in Dynamic Characteristics and Seismic Response
due to the Mathematical Modelling of Nuclear Power Plant Structures, Nucl. Eng.
Design, 67, 109-123 (1981).
- N.C. TSAI: Transformation of Time Axes of Accelerograms, Proc. ASCE, Vol. 95,
EM3, 807-812 (1969).
- A. KUROSAKI & M. K0ZEKI : Statistical Uncertainty of Response Characteristics
of Building-Appendage System for Spectrum Compatible Artificial Earthquake
Motion. SMIRT-6, Paris (1981), Paper K7/7.
-65-
CONCERNING APPROXIMATE METHODS (II.III.3.4.)

- K.R. LEIMBACH, H. SCHMID: Automated Analysis of Multiple-Support Excitation
Piping Problems, Nucl. Eng. Design, 51, 245-252 (1979).
- K.R. LEIMBACH, P. STERKEL: Comparison of Multiple-Support Excitation Solution
Techniques for Piping Systems, Nucl. Eng. Design, 57, 295-307 (1980).
- C.W. LIN, F. LOCEFF: A New Approach to Compute System Response with MultiplaSupport Response Spectra Input, Nucl. Eng. Design, 60, 347-352 (1980).
- P. DESCLEVE, C. BERTAUT: Seismic Analysis of Large Components inside the Pooal
of a LMFBR, SMIRT-6, paper B5/5, Paris 1981.
ASME N-47, updated.
- A. DER KIUREGHIAN, A. ASFURA, J.L. SACKMAN, J.M. KELLY: Seismic Responsa ef
Multiple-Supported Piping Systems, .SMIRT-7, paper K7/7,. Chicago JL983.
- M.C. LEE, J. PENZIEN: Stochastic Analysis of Structures and Piping Systems
subjected to Stationary Multiple-Support Excitations, Earthquake Engineering
- J.D. STEVENSON, W.S. LAPAY, ASME paper 74-NE-9.
CONCERNING DAMPING (II.III.3.5.)
- USNRC REGULATORY GUIDE 1.61: Damping Values for Seismic Design of Nuclear Pswar
Plants 1973.
- NEWMARK, BLUME, KAPPUR: Seismic Design Spectra for Nuclear Power Plants, Proc.
ASCE, 99, P02, November 1973.
- K.J. BATHE, E. WILSON: Numerical Methods in Finite Element Analysis, Prentice
Hall 1976.
- R. KOSS: Element Associated Damping by Modal Synthesis, Water Reactor Safety
Conference, Salt Lake City, 1973.
-66-
CONCERNING FUTURE PROSPECTS AND SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENTS (III.4)

- R.C. DONG: Effective Mass and Damping of Submerged Structures, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, April 1978, UCRL-52342.
- M. DOSTAL et al.: Benchmark Calculations on Fluid Coupled Co-Axial cylinders
Typical to LMFBR Structures, SMIRT-7, Chicago 1983, paper B8/6.
- I. ELISHAKOFF, A.Th. VAN ZAMTEN, S.H. CRANDALL: Wide-Band Random Axisymmetric
Vibration of Cylindrical Shells, J. of Applied Mechanics, Vol. 46, June 1979.
- E.L. WILSON, A. DER KIUREGHIAN, E. BAYO: A Replacement of the SRSS Method in
Seismic Analysis, Earthquake Engineering Structural Dynamics, 9, 187-192
(1981).
- M.C. LEE, J. PENZIEN: Stochastic Analysis of Structures and Piping Systems
Subjected to Stationary Multiple-Support Excitations, Earthquake Engineering
- B.J. SULLIVAN : A Method for Generating Floor Response Spectra through Power
Spectra/Response Spectra Relationship. SMIRT-7, Chicago (1983), Paper Ml/9.
CDNA10586ENC

Comparison of The Methods of Seismic Analysis Applicable To Fast Reactors in The EEC Countries

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Comparison of The Methods of Seismic Analysis Applicable To Fast Reactors in The EEC Countries

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Commission of the European Communities

nuclear science and technology

COMPARISON OF THE METHODS

Commission of the European Communities

nuclear science and technology

COMPARISON OF THE METHODS

M. DEFALQUE, P. KUNSCH, A. PREUMONT

Contract No. RAP-020.B.

This work was performed under the aegis of the

Directorate-General Science, Research and Development

ECSC EEC EAEC, Brussels-Luxembourg, 1986

II. Seismic analysis in EEC.

FRANCE (F): Phnix - Superphnix

A fruitful comparison of aspects not yet dealt with in that type of

Hence we feel it would be desirable to limit the study to the following

(1) ground motion;

large masses of liquid sodium, especially in the pool concept;

Problems arising as a result of these conditions will include the fol-

(1) fluid/structure interactions;

(1) Ground_mot ion

SELECTION OF DESIGN RULES (SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM)

SAFETY CLASSIFICATION OF EQUIPMENTS

SELECTION OF A DESIGN AND FABRICATION CODE

1. The rules of correspondence between "category of operating conditions"

For each block, there is a corresponding

(3) Methods^ for analys is_of_ seismic systems_ and subsystems

1.4. Execution of the study

CEA - EdF - Novatome;

II. SEISMIC ANALYSIS IN EEC

3.1. Is a similar rule applied in your country?

II.2. Seismic classification of components - Safety prescriptions - Design criteria

level 1 earthquake: OBE, SB, SNA, AEB, TBE;

level 2 earthquake: SSE, SM, SMS, SEB, TSS;

last reactor built or already in construction (Superphnix, SNR-300,

reactor* to follow to Rl (reactor in design phase, reactor in construction).

Where applicable, a distinction should be made between criteria defined

*Fast neutron reactor, excluding research reactors.

. CLASSIFICATION OF EARTHQUAKES WITH REGARD TO OPERATING CONDITIONS.

Bl - How are operating conditions classified in the safety regulations?

C. CLASSIFICATION OF MEC HANIC AL C OMPONENTS

D. MECHANICAL DESIGN CRITERIA

DESIGN CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO THE VARIOUS COMPONENTS

Design criteria level

DESIGN CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO THE VARIOUS COMPONENTS

Design criteria level

DESIGN CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO THE VARIOUS COMPONENTS

Design criteria level

DESIGN CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO THE VARIOUS COMPONENTS

Design criteria level

II.3. METHODS FOR ANALYSIS OF SEISMIC SYSTEMS AND SUBSYSTEMS

1. RULES APPLIED IN CONNECTION WITH THE MODAL SUPERPOSITION METHOD

Q_.K2. Is rule (3.2) applicable in your country?

Fundamental frequency of subsystem

The decoupling can be carried out under the conditions:

0.01 < R m < 0.

(__.2_. Are these criteria applied in your country?

If not, what other criteria are

The USNRC imposes the following broadening (R.G.1.122)

with a minimum of 0.1 f..

If not, what is the current

3.5. Account of uncertainties in a time-history analysis

4.3. Use of a static factor for the vertical direction.

C_.__.3_.__. Is a similar rule applicable in your country?