3rd International Structural Specialty Conference

ième
3 conférence internationale spécialisée sur le génie des structures

Edmonton, Alberta
June 6-9, 2012 / 6 au 9 juin 2012

Beyond Design Basis Seismic Evaluation of Nuclear Power

Plants at Bruce Site

Amitabh Dar 1, James D. Hanna2

1
Technical Advisor, Bruce Power, 123 Front Street, Toronto, ON, Canada, M5J 2M2
Email: dara@mcmaster.ca
2
Senior Technical Specialist, Bruce Power, Tiverton, ON, Canada, N0G 2T0
E-mail: james.hanna@brucepower.com

Abstract: Occurrences of earthquakes higher than the design basis at Nuclear Power Plants
(NPPs) in the recent past have created a requirement for beyond design basis evaluations of the
NPPs in Canada. The Bruce Site in Canada having two NPPs known as Bruce A and Bruce B,
falls under the East North American zone (closer to the Atlantic Ocean in comparison to the
Pacific) and hence is considered as an east coast site in the rest of the paper. The foundations of
both the NPPs are supported by rock. Bruce A was constructed before Bruce B with limited
seismic analysis whereas the Bruce B station was designed for the Design Basis Earthquake
(DBE) based on the west coast earthquake records for soil sites. Bruce A was considered as a
plant with no DBE and its seismic capacity was assessed in accordance with the Seismic Margin
Assessment (SMA) methodology outlined in the Electric Power Research Institute report EPRI-
NP-6041 (1991) for a seismic event known as the Review Level Earthquake (RLE), considered
more severe than the DBE and very similar to the credible event represented by the East North
American (ENA) spectrum for rock sites. The DBE contains inherent conservatism over the ENA
spectrum over the frequency range of interest. This paper compares the SMA of Bruce A with the
original design basis of Bruce B and explores the seismic margin of Bruce B over and above the
credible event represented by the ENA spectrum on the basis of Bruce A evaluation. It also
demonstrates the expected extra capacity of Bruce A beyond RLE based on the ductility factors
outlined in EPRI-NP-6041 but practically not utilized in the SMA of Bruce A.

1. Introduction

Some of the Nuclear Power Plants (NPPs) in eastern Canada were constructed with the DBE
spectra based on the west coast spectrum given by Newmark, Blume and Kapur (1973) known as
NBK spectrum whereas some others were constructed more than 30 years ago with very limited
seismic design requirements without any DBE. In the recent past, some NPPs outside Canada
have been struck by earthquakes having magnitudes much higher than the design basis creating
a requirement to assess the seismic margin of all plants over and above the DBE. This calls for
the seismic margin evaluation of the existing plants at Bruce site over and above the design
basis.

The generic response spectrum given in CSA N289.3 (1981 and 2010) is similar to the NBK
spectrum, derived from the west coast earthquake records for soil sites and scaled down for the
east coast. According to Atkinson and Elgohary (2007) the CSA N289.3 spectrum is rich in
frequency content over low frequencies but lacks conservatism over the high frequency range.
According to Boore and Atkinson (1992), many moderate earthquakes including the Saguenay
Earthquake (1988) as a classic example in eastern Canada were found to be richer than the

STR-1051-1
predicted levels in high frequency content. The applicability of the CSA N289.3 spectrum to the
NPPs on the east coast has been debated and a new design basis known as East North
American (ENA) spectrum with high frequency content has been recommend by Atkinson and
Elgohary (2007). Clause 4.3.2.1 of CSA 289.3 (2010) cautions against the use of CSA spectrum
for the east coast hard rock site conditions in low seismicity areas and recommends evaluation of
the NPP for a high frequency event. This calls for the correction in the original DBE of Bruce B or
its evaluation over the credible event represented by the ENA spectrum. Seismic Margin
Assessment (SMA) methodology as given in EPRI NP-6041 has been incorporated for the
assessment of Bruce A with no DBE, for a prescribed seismic event known as RLE which is very
similar to the ENA spectrum recommended by Atkinson and Elgohary (2007) with high frequency
content. As a result, at the Bruce site in eastern Canada, two plants Bruce A and Bruce B exist
very close to each other with two types of seismic requirements which are similar over the low
frequencies but are drastically different over the high frequency range. The RLE of Bruce A is an
84th percentile spectrum with the recurrence interval of 1 in 10,000 years (Alexander, Baughman
and Brown, 2007) whereas the design of Bruce B is based on the DBE similar to the CSA
spectrum (USNRC, 1973). A direct comparison between the DBE and the RLE would be
unreasonable because the former leads to the capacity determined by the design codes which
are not capable of predicting margin capacity for the latter (Ghobarah, Heiderbrecht and Tso,
1992). However, since the dynamic characteristics of both the stations are similar, it would not be
unreasonable to anticipate Bruce B’s margin over and above the credible event represented by
the ENA spectrum on the basis of Bruce A assessment for the RLE.

2. Seismic Design Process and Margin Review

Bruce A has been reviewed (or assessed) for its seismic margin addressing its ultimate capacity
to withstand the Margin Earthquake (ME=RLE for Bruce A), whereas Bruce B has been designed
to withstand the DBE. Margin review is focused on the existing overcapacity beyond design
requirements. While attempts can be made to understand the correlation between the review
basis and the design basis events, according to Ghobarah et al. (1992) such relationship would
be “more apparent than real” because “the design process is neither capable of nor expected to
determine how much overcapacity exists”. Excerpts from the Atomic Energy Control Board
(AECB) (former name for Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission) report by Ghobarah,
Heiderbrecht and Tso (1992) are given below in this regard:

“… philosophy of design is completely different from the concept of margin or withstand capacity.
…. the design process is neither capable of nor expected to determine how much overcapacity
exists”.

“It can be seen that these margin or capacity assessments have little or nothing to do with the
original design force (or DBE, in the case of a NPP) which is used to design, and build the facility.
Consequently, it is not necessary that there be a relationship defined between ME and DBE. In
fact, since the remainder of the margin assessment process uses different methodologies than
may have been used in the original design process, the relationship between the ME and DBE
may well be more apparent than real.”

3. History of Seismic Design Criteria at Bruce Site

3.1 Reactor Building Bruce A

The reactor building at Bruce A was analyzed as a single degree of freedom structure for the
static horizontal acceleration at various elevations shown by curve L in Figure 1 (reproduced from
Figure 8 in Ontario Hydro Report (1974) marked by the dotted ellipse for an earthquake with
0.08g Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) based on Housner’s response spectrum. Vertical
acceleration at each floor was assumed to be coincidental with and one half of the horizontal

STR-1051-2
acceleration. Internal components including the reactor “Calandria” were specified to be designed
for a constant horizontal acceleration 0.20g (dotted box in Figure 1). Again, the vertical
acceleration was assumed to be coincidental with and one half of the horizontal acceleration.
Later on, dynamic analysis of the reactor building at Bruce A was performed for the DBE for
Bruce B (based on NBK spectrum) anchored at 0.05g PGA by using two approaches, finite
element model and lumped mass method (Tang, 1976) It was also concluded not to repeat the
seismic analysis for Bruce B reactor building except for the analysis required to develop floor
response spectra at various elevations. Excerpts from the abstract and conclusions of the report
on the reactor building seismic analysis (Tang, 1976) are given below:

Abstract (Tang, 1976): “In general, the static analysis using the acceleration factors of the Bruce
A design gives conservative results relative to those obtained by the dynamic analysis using the
values of SDE and DBE specified for the Bruce GS B design. From this it can be concluded that
the seismic design of Bruce GS A reactor building is adequate for the Bruce B seismic design
requirements.” (Site Design Earthquake (SDE) = DBE/2)

Conclusions (Tang, 1976): “The original seismic design of Bruce A reactor building satisfies the
earthquake design requirements as outlined in the Bruce B preliminary safety report; therefore,
the seismic structural analysis need not be repeated for the Bruce B reactor building.”

“However, the analysis of the equipment and systems necessitates the development of the
seismic floor response spectra corresponding to the specified SDE and DBE ground motion
levels.”

3.2 Reactor Building – Bruce B

The reactor building at Bruce B was seismically analyzed by Raj (1982) incorporating lumped
mass method and floor response spectra were developed at various elevations for the DBE
based on NBK spectrum anchored at 0.05g. Vertical acceleration in the DBE response spectrum
was the same as horizontal acceleration beyond 2.5 Hz.

3.3 Vacuum Building-Bruce A

The Bruce A vacuum building was analyzed as a two degrees of freedom structure due to the
impulsive and sloshing modes of water inside the dousing tank. The basement and the perimeter
walls were considered to experience the same motion as of the ground subject to the maximum
0.08g acceleration (Ontario Hydro Report 1974), whereas the internal structure (the columns and
the vacuum chamber core above the tank floor) was considered to attract the horizontal
acceleration of 0.05 g. The vertical acceleration was considered as one half of the horizontal
acceleration.

3.4 Vacuum Building-Bruce B

A lumped mass model was created and analyzed for the Bruce B vacuum building subject to the
DBE anchored at 0.05g based on the NBK spectrum (Alexander and Ho, 1977).

3.5 Other Buildings and Structures - Bruce A and B

The other buildings and structures including, Secondary Irradiated Fuel Bay (SIFB), Central
Fueling Area including Primary Irradiated Fuel Bay (PIFB), Powerhouse etc have been
seismically qualified at Bruce B (Ontario Hydro Report 80301, Pratt, 1983 and Ma, 1983) and
assessed for the RLE for at Bruce A (Cromie, 2000).

STR-1051-3
3.6 Natural Frequencies of Various Buildings

Natural frequencies for various buildings are given in Table 1 in accordance with various
references marked therein.

Figure 1: Reactor Building Bruce A: Static acceleration in terms of g at various elevations for an
earthquake with 0.08 g PGA (Ontario Hydro, 1974).

Table 1: Natural frequencies of various buildings

BRUCE A BRUCE B

BUILDINGS Natural Frequency (Hz) Natural Frequency (Hz)

Horizontal Vertical Horizontal Vertical

Reactor Building (Vault) (RB) 6.5 1 17 2 6.5 1 17 2

Vacuum Building Internal
1.6 3, 2 7.3 3, 2 1.6 3, 2 7.3 3, 2
Structure (VBI)
Vacuum Building (Perimeter
>33 3 >33 3
walls and foundation)
Primary Irradiated Fuel Bay 6.9 (N-S) 6.9 (N-S)
>20 4 >20 4
(PIFB) 9.8 (E-W) 4 9.8 (E-W) 4
Secondary Irradiated Fuel
7 Hz (NS) 5,2 7 Hz (NS) 5,2
Bay (SIFB)
Powerhouse 3 2,6 7.6 2,6 3 2,6 7.6 2,6
References – 1- Tang (1976), 2 - Cromie (2000), 3 - Alexander & Ho (1977), 4 – Pratt (1983)
5 - OH Report (1980), 6- Ma (1983)

STR-1051-4
4. Seismic Demand and Capacity at High Frequency

The design response spectrum in accordance with CSA N289.3 (2010) for a NPP is anchored at
0.1g which is similar to the NBK spectrum based on the North American west coast earthquakes.
Response spectra similar to the NBK spectra have been adopted as design basis for most of the
NPPs in North America (USNRC (1973), Stevenson (2003). Similar response spectrum was
recommended by Newmark and Hall (1978) in NUREG CR-0098 for the evaluation of NPPs.
According to Atkinson and Elgohary (2007), such spectra are deficient in frequency content
above 10 Hz and over conservative in frequency content below 10 Hz for the rock sites in Eastern
North America (ENA). Stevenson (2003) and EPRI -1015108 (2007) report that the damage
caused by the accelerations at high frequency is less than the same caused by the accelerations
at low frequency. According to EPRI -1015108 (2007), “It was argued that the masonry damage
threshold would be a conservative surrogate for nuclear plant concrete structures”. Table 2
contains no–cracking response spectrum of unreinforced masonry (URM) (Stevenson, 2003)
normalized to 5% damping illustrating much higher URM capacity than the demand at high
frequencies. Comparison of the three response spectra is given in Figure 2; CSA-N289.3, ENA
and No-crack URM. There is no difference between the CSA N289.3 (1981) response spectrum
utilized by Orbovic, Saudi, Dikic and Elgohary (2007), and the response spectrum in CSA N289.3
(2010). The details of the applications of URM in an NPP can be found elsewhere (Dar and El-
Dakhakhni, 2011).

Table 2: URM No-cracking response spectrum normalized to 5% damping (Stevenson, 2003)

Frequency (Hz) No-cracking acceleration (g)

0.8 0.008
3 0.077
5 0.620
20-300 2.324

10

1
Acceleration (g)

0.1
CSA N289.3

0.01 ENA

No Crack URM 5% damped

0.001
0.1 1 10 100
Frequency

Figure 2: Response spectra comparison for rock sites; CSA, ENA and No-Crack URM. CSA and
ENA spectra anchored at 0.3g PGA. Damping = 5% for all.

STR-1051-5
5. Seismic Demand and Capacity At Bruce Generating Stations

5.1 Seismic Demand at Bruce B and its Hidden Capacity over the True Demand

Bruce B generating station is seismically qualified for the DBE with 0.05g PGA. For the horizontal
excitation, the natural frequencies of all the buildings are below 10 Hz (Table 1). Figure 3 shows
the comparison of the DBE with the ENA spectrum (both anchored at 0.05g PGA) and no-crack
URM spectrum normalized at 5% damping. As stated earlier, the DBE is over conservative at low
frequencies and hence Bruce B has redundant capacity over and above the true seismic demand
represented by the ENA spectrum. It is evident from Figure 3 that for frequencies below 7 Hz (all
buildings other than PIFB), Bruce B DBE spectral accelerations are 1.5 times that of the ENA
spectrum. At 10 Hz the DBE/ENA ratio is more than 1.2. High amplitudes of the ENA spectrum at
high frequencies are lower than the corresponding URM capacity accelerations. From Figure 3, it
can be concluded that the containment structures other than the PIFB at Bruce B generating
station already have in-built margin of 50% over the ENA spectrum. However this margin reduces
to 20% for the PIFB.

10.000

1.000
Acceleration (g)

0.100

0.010 No Crack URM 5% Damped

DBE (BB) at 0.05g
ENA at 0.05g
0.001
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Frequency

Figure 3: Comparison of three response spectra for rock site; DBE (BB) (Tang, 1976), ENA
(Atkinson and Elgohary, 2007) and No-Crack URM (Stevenson, 2003). DBE and ENA spectra are
anchored at 0.05g PGA with 5% damping and URM spectrum is normalized to 5% damping.

10

1
Acceleration (g)

0.1

ENA at 0.15g
0.01
No Crack URM 5% Damped

RLE (BA) at 0.15g

0.001
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Frequency

Figure 4: Comparison of three response spectra for rock site; RLE (BA) (Cromie, 2000), ENA
(Atkinson and Elgohary, 2007) and No-Crack URM (Stevenson, 2003). RLE and ENA spectra are
anchored at 0.15g PGA with 5% damping and URM spectrum is normalized to 5% damping.

STR-1051-6
5.2 Seismic Demand at Bruce A

Figure 4 demonstrates that the RLE spectrum is similar to the ENA spectrum (Atkinson and
Elgohary, 2007), both anchored at 0.15g. According to screening report (Cromie, 2000), the
ductility factor of 0.8 used for the reduction in the seismic force has not been utilized in most of
the cases. In the reactor building this factor is utilized but the demand over capacity ratio is less
than 0.8 (=1/1.25). This concludes the buildings screened out in the screening report by Cromie
(2000) can be expected to have an additional capacity of (1/0.8 =) 1.25 times the RLE. The Floor
Response Spectra (FRS) created at various elevations in buildings for Bruce A have been scaled
up from the elastic spectra of Bruce B buildings (Alexander, 2004) without utilizing 0.8 factor
which would reduce the seismic demand at each floor. This indicates that the systems and
components qualified for Bruce A can be expected to contain 25% redundancy over and above
the RLE. However, a detailed study of all the buildings is required in this regard.

6. Comparison of DBE with RLE and CSA Spectra

6.1 DBE and CSA Spectra

As shown in Figure 5, the DBE spectrum is practically the same as the CSA spectrum (both with
0.05g PGA at 5% damping). CSA standard N289.3 (2010) recommends evaluation of an NPP
against high frequency content in low seismicity regions for a Uniform Hazard Spectrum (UHS)
for low seismicity area. The ENA spectrum recommended by Atkinson and Elgohary (2007) is a
UHS and the Bruce site has low seismicity. Following are the excerpts from the clause 4.3.2.1
CSA 289.3 (2010) regarding high frequency content event for the east coast rock sites:

“(2) In low seismicity areas, the uniform hazard spectra tend to predict higher ground motions at
higher frequencies and lower ground motions at lower frequencies in comparison to the standard-
shape ground response spectra, particularly for hard rock site conditions.

(3) For plants built in eastern North America or a similar seismic region, if the standard-shape
ground response spectra do not reflect the expected high frequency content of the seismic
ground motions, additional evaluation should be performed to ensure that high frequency-
sensitive SSCs can perform their prescribed safety functions”.

.
0.1
Acceleration (g)

0.01
CSA N289.3 2010 at 0.05g

0.001 DBE (BB) at 0.05g

RLE (BA) at 0.15g

0.0001
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Frequency

Figure 5: Comparison of three response spectra for rock site; CSA 289.3 (2010), RLE (BA)
(Cromie, 2000) anchored at 0.15g and DBE (BB) (Tang, 1976) anchored at 0.05g. All at 5%
damping.

STR-1051-7
6.2 DBE and RLE Spectra - Design and Assessment

DBE is a design spectrum whereas RLE is an assessment spectrum. The purpose of the
assessment spectrum being more conservative than the design spectrum is to establish margin
over and above the design basis and to identify weak links in the success path for the safe shut
down of the reactor. The allowable stresses for the structures, systems and components under
seismic loading are lower for the design spectrum than what they are for the assessment
spectrum. The DBE (with 0.05g PGA) and the RLE (with 0.15 PGA) have practically the same
shape up to 2.5Hz frequency, after which, the gap between the RLE and the DBE increases
(Figure 5). The RLE spectral acceleration peaks to approximately 7 times the DBE spectral
acceleration at 25Hz. No direct comparison can be made between the assessment spectrum and
the design spectrum since the former is anchored at 0.15g whereas the latter is anchored at
0.05g. Bruce A (not designed for the DBE) has been assessed and seismically qualified in the
SSCs in accordance with EPRI-NP-6041 (1991) for the RLE with minor modifications to the
SSCs. Since Bruce B was original designed for the DBE, the amount of expected modifications to
the SSCs are expected to be much lesser (than Bruce A) in order to seismically qualify it for the
RLE. Looking at the similarity of the containment and the other main structures such as
Powerhouse, SIFB etc for both the stations, it can be concluded that no significant adverse
impact is expected on the seismic qualification of Bruce B if assessed for the RLE.

7. Probabilistic Risk Assessment - S-294

Seismic hazard curves are being developed for both the generating stations at the Bruce site as a
part of the Seismic Probabilistic Risk Assessment (SPRA) required by the Canadian Nuclear
Safety Commission (CNSC) under the Regulation S-294. Considering the ENA spectrum (which
is based on fairly recent research) and some other studies carried out in the eastern US, no
significant impact is expected on the seismic qualification of both the stations as a result of
SPRA.

8. Impact of High Frequency Content Event on Existing Plants

EPRI -1015108 (2007) concludes that the NPPs designed on the basis of the DBE based on NBK
spectrum are not at risk due to high frequency content of the hazard for the Central Eastern US
(CEUS). However, such plants must be reviewed for the equipment and instruments like relays
susceptible to high frequency content. Bruce A has been seismically qualified to the RLE (with
PGA 0.15g) which is very similar to the ENA (PGA 0.15g) spectrum and hence the possibility of
Bruce A being affected by the acceleration amplitudes at high frequencies is ruled out. However,
this task would be undertaken in the Seismic Probabilistic Risk Assessment (SPRA) as a
requirement of S-294 for both the stations and in view of the available literature, no significant
adverse impact is foreseen on the seismic qualification due to the high frequency content of the
credible event response spectrum.

9. Conclusions

It is concluded that due to the similarities of the dynamic characteristics of the buildings at Bruce
A and B, it would not be unreasonable to expect both the stations to have the same seismic
margin. The Bruce B DBE spectrum is not a true representative of the seismic demand since it is
based on the west coast earthquake records and is over conservative at low frequencies whereas
the ENA spectrum, based on fairly recent research, represents a credible seismic demand for the
east coast rock sites. This viewpoint is supported by CSA 289.3 (2010) for low seismicity areas
such as Bruce site. The RLE spectrum at Bruce A is very similar to the ENA spectrum. The high
frequency content of the seismic hazard represented by the ENA spectrum is not expected to
have an adverse impact on the containment (and other) structures, systems and components

STR-1051-8
except for the relays susceptible to high frequency vibrations. However, various systems and
components have been assessed and seismically qualified by the SMA methodology in
accordance with EPRI-NP-6041 (1991) in Bruce A subject to the RLE spectrum (very similar to
ENA spectrum) with high frequency content for horizontal and vertical excitations. The same can
be expected at Bruce B if evaluated for the RLE. On the basis of the above, the expected factors
of seismic safety margin are calculated and tabulated in Table 3. It is concluded that the factors
of seismic safety for the Bruce B power generating station are expected to be in the range of 1.85
to 2.625 over the credible seismic demand represented by the ENA spectrum for various
buildings and for Bruce A this factor is expected to be 1.25 over the RLE for majority of
structures.

Table 3: Expected Seismic Margin over and above 0.05g PGA ENA spectrum for various
buildings at Bruce A and B.

Bruce Design Seismic Assessed Seismic Practically Approximate

Generating Margin over equal Margin for high PGA Un-utilized beyond ENA
Stations PGA Hazard in terms assessment hazard ductility (PGA 0.05g)
of the spectral over low PGA margin over overall
acceleration ratio. design hazard. RLE in Bruce expected
(Figure 2) (Figure 5) A Seismic Margin
DBE RLE (PGA 0.15g)
(PGA 0.05g)
ENA DBE (PGA 0.05g)
Bruce B below 1.5 1* 1.25** 1.85***
7Hz (all
except PIFB)
BB- 7 Hz to10 1.2 1.75* 1.25** 2.625
Hz (PIFB)
Bruce A below 1.5 1* 1.25** 1.85
7Hz (all
except PIFB)
BA- 7 Hz to10 1.2 1.75* 1.25** 2.625
Hz (PIFB)
*This would be true up to 2.5 Hz and is conservative for 7Hz. Also this number is only for the
margin on the hazard, not on the stress levels. The assessment hazard is associated with the
allowable stresses higher than the DBE allowables.
**This factor remains the same for all the buildings at Bruce A. Since it is inherent in the SMA, it
has been included in Bruce B factors as well.
*** Typical calculation 1.5*1*1.25 = 1.85

Acknowledgments

The authors express their sincere thanks to Bruce Power for providing the reference material and
resources in writing this paper and to Mr. Gary Newman, Vice President, Engineering (Bruce
Power) for reviewing this paper and providing his valuable suggestions. Thanks are due to Dr.
Gail Atkinson for her comments and suggestions with regard to the Canadian seismic events
referred to in this paper.

References

Alexander, C.M. 2004. Response Spectra Scaling, Bruce Nuclear Generating Station A, NK21-
CALC-20091-0004. Bruce Power (Tiverton, Canada) Controlled Document.

STR-1051-9
Alexander, C.M. Baughman, P.D. and Brown, G.N. 2007. Seismic Margin Assessment
Applications in Ontario Nuclear Power Plants, Transactions of the 19th International Conference
on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology ( SMiRT 19), Toronto, Canada.
Alexander, C.M and Ho, M.S. 1977. Bruce Generating Station B Vacuum Building Seismic
Analysis, Ontario Hydro Report 77015, File 973-25140, Atomic Energy Commission Regulatory
Guide 1.60, Bruce Power (Tiverton, Canada) Controlled Document.
Atkinson, G.M., and Elgohary, M. 2007. Typical Uniform Hazard Spectra for Eastern North
American Sites at Low Probability Levels. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 34: 12-18.
Boore, D. M. and Atkinson G.M. 1992. Source Spectra for the 1988 Saguenay, Quebec
Earthquakes. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 82, No. 2, pp. 683-719.
Cromie, T. D. 2000, Screening of Structures NK21-CALC-20091-00003, Bruce Power (Tiverton,
Canada) Controlled Document
Canadian Standards Association. 1981, 2010. CSA N289.3 Design Procedures for Seismic
Qualification of CANDU Nuclear Power Plants, CSA, Rexdale, Ontario, Canada.
Dar, A., El-Dakhakhni, W. 2011. Ductility of Masonry Construction in Nuclear Power Plants Under
Seismic Loading, Transactions of the 21st International Conference on Structural Mechanics in
Reactor Technology (SMiRT 21), New Delhi, India
Ghobarah, A., Heiderbrecht, A.C. and Tso, W.K. 1992. Pickering Seismic Safety Margin –
Methodology, AECB Project No. 2.209.1. Atomic Energy Control Board, Canada,
EPRI 1991. NP-6041-SL- Revision 1, A Methodology for Assessment of Nuclear Power Plant
Seismic Margin, Electric Power Research Institute, USA.
EPRI-1015108. 2007. Program on Technology Innovation: The Effects of High Frequency Ground
Motion on Structures, Components, and Equipment in Nuclear Power Plants, Electric Power
Research Institute, USA.
Ma, H. 1983. Bruce G.S. B Powerhouse Seismic Analysis. Ontario Hydro Report NK29-22050-
R00. Bruce Power (Tiverton, Canada) Controlled Document.
Newmark, N. M., Blume, J. H., and Kapur, K. K. 1973. Seismic Design Spectra for Nuclear Power
Plants. Journal of the Power Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers,
Vol. 99, No PO2.
Newmark, N.M. and Hall, W.J. 1978. Development of Criteria for Seismic Review of Selected
Nuclear Power Plants, NUREG/CR-0098 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Ontario Hydro Bruce Engineering Department, 1974. Bruce GS Units 1-4 Seismic Load
Parameters for Reactor Building and Vacuum Building, NK21-21001, NK21-25001. Bruce
Power Controlled Document.
Ontario Hydro Report 80301, 1980. Bruce GS B Secondary Irradiated Fuel Bay Seismic Analysis,
Bruce Power Controlled Document.
Orbovic N., Saudy A., Dikic D., Elgohary M. 2007. Differences in Safety Margins between Nuclear
and Conventional Standards with Regard to Seismic Hazard Definition and Design Criteria,
2007. Transactions of the 19th International Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor
Technology ( SMiRT 19), Toronto, Canada.
Pratt. W. P. 1983. Bruce GS B, Central Fuelling Area Seismic Analysis, Ontario Hydro Report
NK29-24140, Bruce Power Controlled Document.
Raj, K. 1982. Bruce GS B Reactor Building Seismic Analysis by Lumped Mass Model, Ontario
Hydro File No. 973 NK29-21001, Report No. 82115 R0. Bruce Power Controlled Document.
Tang, J. H. K. 1976. Report on Bruce Generating Station A & B Reactor Building Seismic
Analysis, NK21-PH-21001-01, Bruce Power Controlled Document.
Stevenson, J.D. 2003, Historical Development of the Seismic Requirements for Construction of
Nuclear Power Plants in the U.S. and Worldwide and their Current Impact on Cost and Safety”,
Transactions of the 17th International Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor
Technology (SMiRT 17), Prague, Czech Republic,
USNRC. 1973. - Design Response Spectra for Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants, Rev. 1,
Atomic Energy Commission Regulatory Guide 1.60.

STR-1051-10