.. |<01h?M J G# .o * ~i,t I '/ g A. | ' M [! 'jb [; BROOKHAVEN NAllONAL LABORATORY (MEf|rL| { LOO |T P.O. Box LOW /f- M - Of[ U Lii "l. k Il9 L; C ASSOCIATED UNIVERSITIES. INC.Upton, New York 11973 6000 TEL (516) 282 5406 FAX (516) 282 3503 Budget Offico E-MAIL
- July 31, 1995 __ Dr. David L.Morrison Room T10 712 RES/ Director's Office U.S. Iluclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Dear Dr. Morrison: In accordance with the 11RC MC Appendix 1501, Part VIII, J.1, regarding Foreign Travel, enclosed is/are the following foreign travel trip report (s). As instructed, you will also find the distribution copics required.
llame Department _ Periods of Travel Giuliano DeGrassi Advanced Technology Jun 23 - Jul 7, 1995
n / vXSincerely,p], -. /a,w. hm Patricia Durcan Assistant Staff Specialist Foreign Travel
Enclosures (2)
cc: Division of Security - ARM /DS (1) Office of International Programs - GPA/IP (1) Executive Director for Operations - EDO (1) }[V3
, I
:. 2 9
, y, .b ]II||\\f]\|\\]))),
.. ,2eim ,50,21 nme mp OW"" TOPRF' EX1B _., m w - n *[$ } f i ..- .. ._ , p -; I
! ;
:
; July 21,1995
t
,
RFPORT OF FORFIGN TRAVFt.
. by
Giuliano DeGrassi Engineering Research and Applications 7ivision Department of Advanced Technology Brookhaven National Laboratory
Nuclear Power Engineering Corporation Obayashi Nuclear Facilities Division Kansai Electric Power Company Kyoto University MHI Kobe Shipyard and Machinery Works Kobe City and Port Island Tadotsu Engineering Laboratory
.
,n.--, - -. --r-- -y +,- na s a. --- .._.- --~...---. , , . . .
SUMMARY
' Giuliano DeGrassi (516) 282 2949 I Engineering Research and Applications Division Department of Advanced Technology ': Brookhaven National bboratory
.
1
, Dates of Trip: June 23 to July 7,1995
Destination: - Nuclear Power Engineering Corporation (NUPEC) Tokyo; Japan
, - Obayashi Nuclear Facilities Division Tokyo, Japan ] - Kansal 'dlectric Power Company (KEPCO) . Osaka, Japan
' { - Kyoto University i Kyoto, Japan - MHI Shipyard and Machinery Works
; Kobe, Japan - Areas Damaged by the January 1995 Earthquake in
. Kobe City and Port Island - Tadotsu Engin,:ering bboratory Tadotsu, Japan
4
Purpose: The traveler and two representatives from the USNRC (N. Chokshi and D. . Terao)
; visited several organizations regarding US Japan collaboration in the seismic area. t Meetings were held with NUPEC at their Tokyo headquarters and at the Tadotsu i Engineering bboratory to discuss current and future collaboration programs and ' to witness the ongoing seismic tests on the Main Steam and Feedwater Piping
3 Systems, in addition, seveal meetings were held with representatives of Japanese : industrial organizations and universities to share technical information related to the January 17, 1995 Kobe er.$1uake. Finally, an inspection of the earthquake e damaged areas was conductec (o obtain first hand information on the status of ' restoration efforts.
, ' Abstract: De traveler, Giuliano DeGrassi, Engineering Research and Applications Division, i Department of Advanced Technology, Brookhaven National Laboratory and two I representatives from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission visited Japan during the period of June 23 to July 7,1995. De objectives of the travel were carried out and the results of the discussions, observations, and information obtained during ; this trip are described in this report.
2 i f
|
-. _
1
-. _ .-_m-_. ,. -- - - , , . ,- - _ - - . _ . , - . . - - , , - - _ . ._._-.---_,,---..---o .-- . t t. .
TRIP RFPORT FOR TRAVFL TO JAPAN
Travel Dates: June 23,1995 - July 7,1995
Traveler: Giuliano DeGrassi Engineering Research and Applications Division Department of Advanced Technology Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, N.Y. I1973
Itinerary: June 23 Departure from New York June 24 Arrivalin Tokyo, Japan June 25 Weekend June 26 Meeting at NUPEC (am) Meeting at Obayashi Nuclear Facilities Division (pm) Meeting with Professor Shibata at Toranomon Pastoral Hotel (evening) June 27 Meeting with Professor Akiyama at NUPEC June 28 Travel to Osaka Meeting at Kansai Electric Power Co. June 29 Meeting with Professor lemura at Kyoto University (am) Meeting with Professor Kameda at KyotoTower Hotel (evening) June 30 Visit to MHI Kobe Shipyard (am) Visit to Kobe Earthquake Damaged Areas under Reconstruction (pm) July 1 Weekend July 2 Travel to Takamatsu July 3-4 Visit to Tadotsu Engineering Laboratory July 5 Return to Tokyo July 6 Vacation July 7 Departure from Tokyo, Japan and arrival in New York, NY.
Purpose of Travel:
The purpose of this trip was as follows:
1. To participate in a meeting on the MS Seismic Proving Test Program and observe the MS tests with energy absorbing supports at the Tadotsu Engineering l2boratory.
2. To participate in a meeting with MITI/NUPEC to discuss seismic collaboration programs.
3. To meet with Professor Shibata to discuss piping criteria and reevaluation of seismic criteria.
4. To meet with Professors Akiyama, lemura and Kameda to discuss seismic studies and evaluations related to the Kobe earthquake.
1 * \ .
5. To attend meetings with Obayashi, Kansai Electric Power and Mitsubishi Heavy -Industries to discuss issues related to Kobe earthquake.
- 6. To visit Kobe city to view seismic damage and restoration.
Report: A summary of the various movdng discussions and information obtained at the meetings is presented in the following sections,
1
|
t
2 : '.
1. Meeting at NUPEC on Selsmic Collaboration Programs
DATE: June 26,1995 (am)
LOCATION: NUPEC Headquarters, Tokyo 1 1 PARTICIPANTS: NRC: N. Chokshi, D. Terao BNL: G. DeGrassi hilTI: hir. hiatsuhashi, hir Kawahara NUPEC/SEC: N. Tanaka, Y. Ibe, S. Nakamura, Y. Sasaki NUPEC/ INS: T. Haga, S. Shiga M Hl: K. Sato
SUBJECT: Seismic Collaboration Programs ;
DISCUSSION:
Mr. Tanaka of NUPEC welcomed the U.S. team and introduced the representatives of the Japanese organizations. Dr. Chokshi of NRC introduced the U.S. representatives from NRC and BNL. Mr. Tanaka provided the final schedule for the various meetings that had been arranged for the remainder of the trip. Dr. Chokshi indicated that the schedule was acceptable to the NRC/BNL team.
Mr. Nakamura gave a presentation on the PCCV Seismic Proving Test Program. This is the next major seismic proving test program that will be conducted at the Tadotsu Engineering Laboratory. The objectives of this test are to demonstrate the seismic stiwtural and functional integrity of a prestressed concrete containment vessel (PCCV), to verify the seismic analysis and design methods, and to determine the seismic margin of the PCCV by testing the model to failure. The proving test will be performed on a 1/10 scale model of a PCCV. The PCCV dome will be
replaced by a thick slab with lead blocks. The model will be pressurized during the Si and S2 level seismic tests. Based on their analysis the anticipated failure location is at the bottom of the PCCV under the equipment hatch. Auxiliary tests on the liner system are being performed at Takasago Engineering Laboratory. The objective of the auxiliary tests is to obtain the pullout and shear force capacities of the liner anchors and to investigate the structural interaction between the liner system and the concrete wall. Fabrication of the PCCV test model is in progress. Seismic testing is expected to begin in early 1997.
Dr. Chokshi gave a presentation on NRC plans for collaboration on the PCCV program. In his opening remarks, he indicated that the exchange of technical information between the US and Japan over the years has provided benefits to both sides. He emphasized the long term mutual benefits of continued collaboration. He briefly discussed new developments in the US including new siting criteria, new piping criteria, and proposed revisions to RG 1.60. He then discussed specific NRC plans for collaboration with NUPEC on the PCCV program. NRC participation would focus on analytical predictions of test results. The evaluation would be conducted by Sandia National Iaboratory. He described the proposed " Multi Grid Technique for Nonlinear
3 _ _. _ _ . ______,
Dynamic Analysis" that would be applied in the analysis. This is a new methodology that could be validated against the PCCV tests. Reports describing the methodology and results would be made available to NUPEC.
Representatives of NUPEC Institute of Nuclear Safety (INS) gave a presentation on Seismic PSA Collaboration. Dr. Haga indicated that NUPEC has initiated PSA studies and plans to complete them in about four years. They have studied US reports on this subject and have recognized the importance of developing component fragility cuives. However, they would like moie detailed information on methods for calculating component fragilities by analysis or test, the use of engineering j idgement, evaluation of uncertainties, and categorization of components into generic groups. NUPEC/ INS is interested in obtaining a manual with detailed procedures for performing PSA studies. 'Ihey prepared a summary of the procedures or type of information they need in this area. Both the ori 31nal Japanese document and the English translation were provided to the US team. NUPEC/ INS proposed that this information be made available as part of the CCV collaboration program. Dr. Chokshi indicated that we will study their questions very carefully. He pointed out Wat the NRC does not have a manual for performing PSA studies. Procedures are developed by industry and reviewed by NRC. Fragility data including the data collected by BNL is considered proprietary. Dr. Haga stated that they are asking for the BNL methodology, not the industry data. Dr. Chokshi stated that he needs to study their request and discuss it with i.is management. He pointed out that it may be ve;y difficult to include this as part of the CCV collaboration since two different national laboratories are involved. He agreed to send his reply to Mr. Yagyu of MITI.
Documents Obt4..e
1. Presentation Material "PCCV Seismic Proving Test," S. Nakamura.
2. Presentation Material on proposed analytical evaluations for PCCV collaboration, N. Chokshi.
3. " Questions on the Seismic Fragility of Components" prepared by NUPEC/ INS, 6/26/95 (Original document in Japanese and English translation).
: l
i
i
( 4
| | | - .-- _.. -- . . -
2. Meeting at Obayashi Nuclear Facilities Division
DATE: June 26,1995 (pm) i | LOCATION: Shinjuku Park Tower ! 3 7-1, Nishi Shinjuku, Shinjuku ku Tokyo 16310
PARTICIPANTS: NRC: N. Chokshi, D. Terao DNL: G. DeGrassi NUPEC: S. Nakamura OBAYASHl: H. Tomura, T. Suzuki, H. Ohuchi, K. Shirahama, Y. Imazuka, E. Thometz
SUBJECT: The Great Hanshin Earthquake
DISCUSSION:
Mn Tomura welcomed the US team and introduced the meeting participants. Mr. Thometz prewated an overview of the Obayashi Corporation and its operations. Obayashi is one of the major engineering construction companies in Japan and has been involved in the construction of nuclear power plan:s and facilities since 1970. A number of brochures describing the operations of the company were provided.
Obayashi participants prr-W to make presentations on the Great Hanshin Earthquake. Mr. Imazuka discussed ground motion characteristics. He presented various comparisons between the Hanshin and the Northridge earthquakes, pointing out both the similarities and the differences. Based on a comparison of their magnitudes (6.9 vs 6.7), he noted that the energy of the Hanshin earthquake was approximately twice that of the Northridge earthquake. Peak horizontal accelerations were in the 600 - 800 gal range and vertical accelerations were about half these values. In the period range of .7 to 2 seconds, the response spectrum was higher than that of the Northridge earthquake and was more damaging to buildings. He showed the results of a study in which 1.e compared measured ground motion attenuations to those determined from a theoretical model. The comparison showed good agreement.
Dr. Ohuchi made a presentation on earthquake damage to bridges and infrastructure. He showed slides on liquefaction at Rokko and Port Islands which produced significant damage to harbor facilities. He discussed failure of reinforced concrete columns in subway tunnels and concluded that it was a shear failure due to inadequate shear reinforcement. He discussed the Hanshin Expressway failure and also related it to inadequate reinforcement of the concrete columns. He noted that reinforcement was generally reduced at mid height. He indicated that highway damage was generally limited to highways designed to the old code (1960). Highways designed to the new code (1980) sustained no significant damage,
Mr. Suzuki made a presentation on earthquake damage to buildings. He noted that the earthquake had damaged or destroyed 160,000 buildings. He showed comparisons of damage to
5
_. _ _ _ " . !
buildings designed to the old code (before 1980) versus the new code (1981). He indicated that there was significantly less damage to buildings designed to the new code. He discussed possible reasons for midstory building collapses. He noted that based on their dynamic characteristics, 6 to 12 story buHdings had to accommodate a significant amount of seismic energy. Buildings designed to the old code required much lower story shear coefficients at the upper levels. Subsequently, column dimensions were smaller toward the top of the building. The resulting discontinuity in stiffness between upper and lower levels coupled with the high ductility demand is believed to be the predominant factor in midstory collapses.
Dr. Chokshi made a presentation oa the proposed changes to SSE ground motion for U.S. nuclear plants (Draft Regulatory Guide DG 1032). 'Ihe proposed approach is intended 'o decouple siting requirements from engineering or design requirements. It is based on a probabilistic approach, Key elements will include conducting probabilistic geoscience investigations, confirming that site-specific characteristics do not invalidate the probabilistic analysis, and calculating site-specific ground motion for the site.
DOCUMENTS OBTAINED:
1. Brochure on "Obayashi Corporation and Nuclear Energy."
2. Brochure on "Obayashi Corporation Technical Research Institute."
3. Brochure on "The World of Obayashi." .
4. Presentation material on the background and proposed regulatory guide approach for determination of SSE ground motion, N. Chokshi.
5. " Revision of Siting Regulation - Earthouake Engineering and Seismic and Geologic Considerations - An Update," N. Chokshi, et al., USNRC.
6. " Determination of Controlling Earthquakes from Probabilistic Seismic HanM Analysis for Nuclear Reactor Sites," A. Boissonnade, et al., USNRC and Lawrc. W Livermore National Laboratory.
.
6 .__7._._ ] ,: * .
I l : 3. Meeting with Professor Shibata of Yokohama National University j DATE: June 26,1995 (evening)
| LOCATION: Toranomon Pastoral Hotel Tokyo
| PARTICIPANTS: NRC: N. Chokshi, D. Terno ' BNL: G. DeGrassi NUPEC: N. Tanaka, Y. Sasaki YNU: H. Shibata
DISCUSSIONS:
Prior to this meeting, Dr. Chokshi had sent Professor Shibata _a copy of a document summarizing NRC staff concerns regarding the new piping design rules published in the 1994 Addenda of Section III of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. The staff was very interested in Professor Shibata's views on this subject. Dr. Chokshi informed him that ASME will be establishing a special working group to examine the issues and assess new inforr -Son and data. 'Ihis group will provide recommendations to the ASME piping design committee. Professor Shibata stated that he quickly looked through the material NRC had sent him. He promised to review the material very carefully and to pass it on to other key people in Japan including Professor Asada who is the chairman of a Japanese committee that is reviewing piping design criteria. Professor Shibata will provide a response to NRC on these issues in about two months.
Mr. Terao had a number of specific questions related to the piping criteria concerns. He stated that when you go to high stress limits, deflections may be as high as i 30 inches. 'Ihe staff is concerned that denections based on a linear analysis would be underpredicted. There is also significant concern among staff members regarding the adequacy of the high stress limit. Professor Shibata thinks that deflection is a relatively minor issue compared to the issue of pressure boundary integrity but he also stated that since the Northridge and Hanshin earthquakes had very large displacements, he would be concerned that a modal analysis may not be able to predict an accurate response. He agrees that the high stress limit is a significant concern.
Mr. Terao stated that two years ago, Professor Shibata talked about revisions to JEAG 4601 and possible changes _ to stress allowables. _ He inquired about the status of these changes. Professor Shibata indicated that there have been no major changes except for Class 3 piping which - will be evaluated using a Section Ill type approach instead of a Section VIII approach.
Mr. Tera asked if the Japanese are using the leak-before-break (LBB) concept to eliminate _ pipe whip restraints. Prof. Shibata was not aware of this but stated that a committee chaired by Professor Yagawa has been investigating this subject. No conclusions have yet been drawn and he does not believe that any whip restraints have been removed as a result of LBB.
7 - . , . _ . , ______. _ _ _ _ _ . - - - . _ . _ _ _ _ _
. . ,
; :
.) %e traveler asked about the objectives of L s gap test which is being performed as part of the I MS Seismic Proving Test Program noting that NUPEC had previously told us that the tests were ' = being performed to satisfy one of his concerns. He stated that he was interested in investigating the nonlinear behavior of piping systems. He was particularly concerned about the transfer of ; -energy through piping systems with energy absorbing supports and conventional supports that ; ir.clude gaps. L , i Professcr Shibata provided additional information on the status of activities in Japan related ; to the Grea. Hanshin earthquake. He is the chairman of the research committee which is j developing research plans for the next five years. He is trying to propose new research areas to j investigate issues resulting from the earthquake. One area is the observed brittle fracture of steel ' columns. De cause for this mode of failure has not yet been determined. Another committee has been established to re-evaluate the current guide for seismic design (1981). He expects the : ; committee to issue an interim report shortly. He believes that the report will conclude that the j- current guide is adequate but that more discussion and research is needed. 3
4
e ' .
:
1
+ i 4
! i- k i- i
| ;. f ! ; i .
-
! ! i
5 8 i
R
- l *
. . . _ . . _ . . _ . _ _ . . _ _ . . _ . . . . . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ - _ _ . . _ _ . . . _ ._ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . | |
4. Meeting with Professor Akiyama of the University of Tokyo
' DATE: June 27,1995
LOCATION: Shuwa Kamiyacho Building . ; 3 13, 4-Chome, Toranomon ' Minato-Ku, Tokyo 105
PARTICIPANTS: NRC: N. Chokshi, D. Termo BNL: G. DeGrassi NUPEC: S. Nakamura UT: H. Akiyama + severalindustry representatives
SUBJECT: Damage of Steel Buildings in Hyogoken - Nanbu Earthquake
DISCUSSION:
Professor Akiyama gave a presentation on the evaluation of damage to steel buildings in the Hyogoken Nanbu (Great Hanshin) Earthquake. In addition to the US team and NUPEC, approx!mately 30 industry representatives attended the meeting. Two papers describing the design methodology were provided. He explained that the Japanese building code involves a two step . method for carthquake resistant design. First the building must be proportioned on the basis of allo.vable stress design using a seismic coefficient of 0.2. This method was used in the earlier . design code 'Ihe 1981 code added additional requirements to ensure adequate strength and energy absorption capacity for seismic input defined by a simplified design spectrum with 1 g peak ground acceleration. Professor Akiyama discussed the development of equations for evaluation based on the energy input concept. He showed how an elastic perfectly plastic multi-degree of freedom system can be described and evaluated. Details of the methodology are given in the- technical papers.
Professor Akiyama presented several slides showing details of earthquake failures in steel . structures. Several photographs of brittle fractures in box columns were shown. Many failures occurred at the beam to column connections. He explained that in Japan, diaphragm plates are generally welded to the box columns to form rigid beam to column connections. -In some cases, ' failures occurred at the welds exposing imperfections of weld preparation and incomplete fusion of welds. -In some cases, welds were acceptable but, the scalloped ends of the beam webs provided stress concentrations where beam end cracks initiated and propagated to failure. 'In other cases, brittle failures were observed not only at connections but, also in the middle of columns . away from any joints. The causes of brittle fracture of box columns are still under intense investigation in Japan. This is a critical issue which must be well understood and resolved in 1 order to avoid future failures of this type.
9
-
...... i - _ . _ _ _ -- _- - _ _ _ _ . . _ _ - . _ _ _- _ . . . _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . .
. . ,
4
4
h | DOCUMENTS OBTAINED:
1
J 1. " Damage of Steel Buildings in the Hyogoken Nanbu Earthquake," H. Akiyama, S. Yamada. ; ; 2. ' Seismic Design of Imge Structures,' H. Akiyama (in Japanese).
1 i l i ;- i i k j
4
. 1 i 1 ! t ,
.
.L
3 i
.
,
e
*
1 4 i-
4 s ,
,
L
3
4
4
4 10 l.
3 i. '
-.m,.. .. .- . ~ . . - . . . . . , ...... _ - - . . - - , . - - _ - . . . - . . . , - . - - - , - . . , . . . . - - - ...... - ~ , , . . .. . - , - . . , - - , - . T----
,
5. Meeting at Kansal Electric Power Company (KEPCO)
DATE: June 28,1995
- LOCATION: 3 3 22, Nakanoshima, Kita Ku l Osaka, 530-70
PARTICIPANTS: NRC: - N. Chokshi, D. Terao BNL: O. DeGrassi NUPEC: S. Nakamura KEPCO: S. Kimoto, several staff members, translator
SUBJECT: Earthquake Damage to KEPCO Facilities and Recovery Efforts
DISCUSSION:
Dr. Chokshi made the first presentation in which he summarized the results of the NRC/BNL ground motion analysis of the earthquake and comparisons of ground motion records with standardized _ spectra (Document No.1). When the ground motion response spectrum was compared to the R.G.1.60 spectrum (normalized to the same peak acceleration level), exceedance was observed in the 1 to 2 Hz range. - Comparisons of the damage potential characteristics of the Northridge and Hyogoken-Nanbu earthquakes to the El Centro earthquake were also presented. The strength and ductility demands of both earthquakes exceeded the El Centro earthquake - demands by at least a factor of 2.
* A copy of the NRC/ DOE draft report on the Hyogoken-Nanbu earthquake had been provided to KEPCO before the meeting. KEPCO had reviewed it carefully and provided their comments to Dr. Chokshi, Most comments involved minor corrections or information updates. Several KEPCO staff members then made presentations on earthquake damage and recovery efforts. The presentations covered the following topics:
- 1. Damage to Osaka Power Station. A main steam pipe hanger rod failure occurred at this fossil power plant. A boiler cooling spacer tube also failed. KEPCO identified the failure mechanisms as related to excessive vibration and contact with adjacent structural members. Repairs were made and measures to prevent similar failures in the future are being implemented (Document No. 4).
2. Task Force for Seismic Safety. The Japanese Nuch:ar Safety Commission has established a . .special task force to review the validity of current seismic design guidelines for nuclear ) facilities in light of the recent earthquake. This task force is chaired by Professor Kojima of ' - Tokyo University. Their report will be made available to the public (Document No. 5).
3. KEPCO Post Earthquake Restoration Activities. 'A series of presentations were given
11
. - . . . . _ ......
......
. _ _ __ ' . .'
describing various aspects of the activities needed to restore power after the earthquake, it ! was noted that immediately after the earthquake 2.6 million households lost power. Within | two hours, power was restored to all but one million anu by the eri of the day about 0.4 million households remained without power (Document No. 6,7,8).
4. Seismological Observations and Studies. Based on earthquake records monitored at some of | KEPCO's power plants, it was observed that vertical ground accelerations exceeded horizontal accelerations. KEPCO performd malytical studies to simulate the ground responte and found that nonlinear ground respanse ruduced the amplification of the horizontal ground motion at the surface. On the other hand, they determined that the ve.tical seismic response remained clastic, resulting in significant amplification of vertical motion at the surface (Document No. 9,10).
5. Assessment of JSCE Seismic Standards. Noting that some structures that failed during the earthquake were designed to the latest standards, the need for revising the current seismic standards was discussed. The Japan Society of Civil Engineering is proposing a number of recommendations for further research and possible code revisions. Consideration of increased level of seismic intensity, consideration of ground amplification, and accounting for liquefactic+1nduci d horizontal ground displacement may be needed. The importance of constructing nuclear plants on bedrock was noted (Document No.11).
6. Damage to Substatio* Equipment. A summary of equipment damage to substations was presented. It was noted that all damaged equipment was installed before 1980 when the current seismic design criteria was established. KEPCO concluded that the current seismic criteria is adequate (Document No.12).
KEPCO also provided two reports (Document No. 2, 3) which gave very good overall summaries of the earthquake damage and restoration efforts.
DOCUhiENTS OBTAINED:
1. Presentation hiaterial, " Damage Potential Characteristics of Near-Field hiotions," N. Chokshi.
2. " Impact of the Earthquake of Southern Hyogo Prefecture on Electric Facilities," hiarch 7,1995, Kansai Electric Power Co.
3. " Electric Power Systems and Natural Disasters," CIGRE Tokyo Symposium, K. Aforii, KEPCO, hiay 1995.
4. Presentation hiaterial, " Influence of Earthquake on Operation of Fossil Power Stations."
12 .._,_m.______._._..._--.------_ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . _
* . ;
i
, 5. Presentation Material, " Establishment of the Task Force for Seismic Safety," i Nuclear Safety Commission, Jan. 19, 1995. !- | 6. Presentation Material, "Why We Could Recover Quickly." ! 7. Presentation Material, "The Initial Response to the Earthquake and Details of | ; Restoration Work Carried Out by the Network Technology Department." ! | - . 1 t i ' i 8. Presentation Material, " Activities Implemented During Period from Occurrence of ; Earthquake to Restoration Work." ! j 9. Presentation Material, " Simulation of Strong Seismic Motions' Based on Observations at Kansal Electric's Nankc Power Plant." : | 10. Presentation Material, " Seismological Observations at Kansal Electric's Amagasaki Power Plant No. 3."
|. | 11. Presentation Material, "An Assessment of the Seismic Standards of the Japan |- Society of Civil Engineering." i ' 12. Presentation Material, " Damages to Substation Equipment."
13
- . ."
6. Meeting with Professor lernura of Kyoto University
DATE: June 29,1995 (am)
LOCATION: Kyoto University Kyoto, 606-01
PARTICIPANTS: NRC: N. Chokshi, D. Terao BNL: G. DeGrassi NUPEC: S. Nakamura KU: H. Iemura
SUBJECT: Evaluation of Damage from Kobe Earthquake
DISCUSSION:
Professor lemura has been performing studies to evaluate and explain the reasons for the damage of structures from the Kobe earthquake. He showed slides of damage to buildings, highways and train stations and discussed their failure modes. He gave several possible reasons for the building mid story collapses. In most cms, he believes that they result from construction differences between the lower and upper floors. For examp!e, many buildings were constructed with less reinforcement in the upper Door columns. Many earthquake induced failures occurred at the discontinuity between the stmnger lower floors ar.d the weaker upper Doors of the building. Other reasons that have been proposed for mid story building collapses involve higher mode effects and wave propagation effects. Regarding reinforced concrete column failures such as from the elevated Hanshin Expressway collapse, he poirted out that many failures occurred at elevations where reinforcement was reduced. With regard to concrete column failures in underground subway stations, he believes that the columns were designed to support vertical axial force only. Due to the severe surface deformation, the columns tilted and the overburden pressure k)aded the columns in compression plus bending resulting in failure. The observed brittle fracture of steel box columns in buildings is difficult to explain and is an area that needs to be studied further.
Professor lemura has been performing several analyses to investigate the effects of the Kobe earthquake on structures. He showed comparisons of time histories, response spectra and evolutionary power spectra of the Kobe, Hachinohe and El Centro earthquakes. The comparisons clearly demonstrated the severe intensity of the Kobe earthquake. He made similar comparisons to the Northridge earthquake and noted the similarities. He presented the results of studies in which he generated inelastic ::sponse spectra and demonstrated the high ductility demands on structures. His results demonstrated that for structures with period less than 0.5 seconds and designed to behave linearly up to .2 g, the ductility demand due to the Kobe earthqual:e exceeds 10. He plans to publish the results of these studies as soon as possible.
14 _ __ .- - . _ _ _ _ _ . - _ _ - ______. . , .
:
1 .
. ' i " Dr. Chokshi presented some of the results of similar studies performed by BNL. Professor ; 1 lemura expressed great interest in the BNL analysis, i | DOCUMENTS OBTAINED: * 3 | - || j 1. ' t Presentation Material on Earthquake Time History, Response Spectra, Evolutionary Power Spectra, and Inelastic Response Spectra, H. Iemura.
.
#
4
' i i
,!
; - i <
|
2 i ! I t 1 4
) I ! ! 4
+
Y
4
l
|
i
1
<
' 15 j.
1
e _.
. . _ _ _ . . - . _ - . _ . _ . _ - - . _ - - _ - . . _ _ _ . . _ . . _ ~ _..__ . _ . . . - , - - . _ - . , - - _ - , . . _ , - - , . - . , _ . . _ . . - - - _ " " . .
7. Meeting with Professor Kameda of Kyotn University
DATE: June 29,1995 (evening)
LOCATION: Kyoto Tower Hotel Kyoto |
PARTICIPANTS: NRC: N. Chokshi, D. Terao l BNL: G. DeGrassi- NUPEC: S. Nakamura KU: H. Kameda
SUBJECT: Kobe Earthquake Damage
DISCUSSION:
Professor Kameda gave the U.S. team a number of technical papers on probabilistic seismic hazard (Documents No.1, 2, 3) and reports on the Kobe earthquake (Documents No. 4,5, 6). Dr. Chokshi gave Professor Kameda his presentation material on the proposed changes to SSE ground motion for U.S. nuclear plants (Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1032). He discussed the probabilistic approach and asked for the Professor's comments. Professor Kameda indicated that he generally agrees with the procedure. Dr. Chokshi promised to send him more papers on probabilistic methods. Dr. Chokshi also gave him a copy of his presentation material on damage characteristics of near field motions including the BNL studies which he briefly described. Professor Kameda summarized the information in the Kobe earthquake reports which provide a significant amount ofinformation on the distribution of collapsed structures, damaged buildings, and deaths within the Kobe area caused by the earthquake (Document No. 4). He noted that more than 90% of the deaths occurred as a result of collapses. A relatively small number of deaths resulted from fire Engineering aspects of the earthquakc damage are summarized in Documents 5 and 6.
DOCUMENTS OBTAINED:
1. " Scenario Earthquakes vs. Probabilistic Seismic Hazard," Y. Ishikawa, H. Kameda.
2. " Probability - Based Determination of Scenario Earthquakes," H. Kameda, Y. Ishikawa, W. Li. ,
3. "Probabilistic Seismic Hazard rd Stochastic Ground Motions," H. Kameda.
4. " dim 5fS: A Geographic Information System for Disaster Information Management of the Hyogoken Nanbu Earthquake," H. Kameda, S. Kakumoto, S. Iwai, H. Hayoshi, T. Usul.
16 .o .c
5. 'The Hyogoken Nanhu Earthquake of January 17,1995 Its Engineering Aspects and implication to Urban Disaster," H. Kameda,
6. DPRI Newsletter Special Issue, ' Preliminary Report on the Great Hanshin i Earthquake of January 17, 1995.'
l 1
!
'
.
17 .... g .. . .
9. Visit to Mill Nuclear Component Fabrication Facilities and Shipyard at Kobe
DATE: June 30,1995 (am)
LOCATION: Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. Kobe Shipyard and Machinery Works 1-1, Wadasaki Cho 1-Chome Hyogo Ku Kobe 652
PARTICIPANTS: NRC: D. Terao BNL: G. DeGrassi NUPEC: H. Abe | M HI: A. Yoshimura, S. Tomoda, N. Kojima, K. Tsuda | | SUBJECT: Survey of Earthquake Damage at MH1
DISCUSSION:
Mr. Yoshimura welcomed the U.S. team and gave a brief overview of MH1 operations. He gave us a map of the Kobe area which highlighted the location of MH1 shipyard and the locations of the areas in Kobe which sustained significant earthquake damage. Fortunately, the earthquake damage to the MHI shops was relatively small. The floors of several shops were damaged due to ground settlement, but damage to buildings was fairly insignificant. We were then taken on a tour of the shops.
We were first shown the reactor internals shop. We saw a core reflector for a Japanese advanced pressurized w..ter reactor being fabricated. They were also working on space rocket components. Dey showed us the area where the concrete shop floor had settled. They explained that after the earthquake, the floor became wavy. They repaired the floor by pouring a new concreta floor directly over the old floor. We were then taken to the Replacement Steam Generator Shop, that had sustained the same type of floor damage, in addition, there was some minor damage to the east wall We observed that the windows on these walls were out of alignment. His part of the building was not being used and will be repaired at a later date. Hey told us that they had also experienced damage to some machine foundations. They repaired the foundations and were able to continue operations since the machines were not damaged. They showed us the Containment Fabrication Shop. They were not fabricating containment vessels at the time, but were working on bridge components. No damage was observed in this shop.- The last stop of the tour was the pier area. In this area, there was significant evidence of ground movement. The land around the pier had settled and moved laterally toward the bay.
18
_ _ . _
__ . - , , - . , , p
DOCUMENTS OBTAINED:
1. Brochure on Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd., Kobe Shipyard and Machinery Works.
2. Brochure on Mitsubishi Nuclear Fabrication Capabilities (in Japanese).
3. Map of Kobe area highlighted to show MHI Shipyard and areas of significant earthquake damage (in hpanese).
,
.
19
-_ _ _ - _ _. . ___ - -. ______- - _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ . _ . _ _
- _
' i ,
- 9. Visit to Kobe City- ; i DATE: June 30,1995 (pm) . . [ ' LOQ UON: Kobe City ad Port Island
' PARTICIPANTS: - NRC: D. Terao - i - BNL: G. DeGrassi i NUPEC: . H. Abe -
SUBJECT: Survey of Earthquske Damage and Restoration
, DISCUSSION:
De team visited Kobe to observe the status of the ca.rthquake damage and restoration.- Mr.- Abe of NUPEC guided us to the areas that had sustained major damage. As we drove through the city,~we noticed significant construction activity everywhere. Many large buildings were under repair or reconstrxtion. ; Nearly all of the debris from tiie eartiquake had been removed. We obs:rved several elevsted highway columns which showed signs of damage and had been , ; ' temporarily reinforced. .
;
, .-We first stopped at t!'e Nagata area where fire had destroyed many homes. Although most _
, of the debris from houses had been removed, there were still several 4-5 story burnt out buildings j standing. In this area, we saw many tempo ary two-story houses built to accommodate families- whose hames were destroyed. We were told that originally, many tents were set _up in parks to j accommodate these families. - SicJficant progress had been made to construct the temporary ho'mes ud the number of ten; areas have been reduced to only one.
< ~ Our next stop was the Kobe city dock area where we observed significant ground settlement !and lateral displacement. From there v> went to Port Island where we saw many signs of ground settlement. The road surface surrounding the columns of elevated road str.ictures appeared to be raised by about r. foot in some areas, nis was actually evidence of ground settlement around the pile supparted columns. At the dock area, we saw severe ground settlement and latual displacement of approximately 1 to 2 meters in each direction.
' Our final stop was in the downtown Kobe area.- We saw significant construction activity. Here were several empty lots where da*aaged buildings had been demolished and cleared away. Many buildings were being rebuilt or repaired. The most dramatic remaining evidence of the earthquake building damage was the old Kobe City Hall which susuuned a mid-story collapse and had not yet been removed.
20
.-
% v,-3-c -, vm a m-s- - . , m-y- n = .w - -%-e e- ei- * .' . , ! i l i i
. | DOCUMENTS OBTAINED: 1
1. Photographs taken by the traveler.
.
O
i
$
21
. , , _ _ .. _ _ _ . - _ - . - . _ .. _ _ _ .. . _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ . . . . _ _ . _ _ _ . _
^ 10. Visit to Tadotsu Engineering Laboratory i DATE: July 3-4,1995
1 - - i LOCATION: _ Tadotsu Engineering Laboratory ' l-1, Nishi Minato-Machi Tadotsu-Cho Kagawa Pref,764
PARTICIPANTS: - NRC: D. Ter o' - BNL: G. De( rassi NUPEC: M.- Yoshioka, M. Fujino, N. Tanaka, H. Abe, K. Kuroda, S. Hasegawa, S. Fujitani, T. Kishima MHI: K. Tai, T. Ito, N. Kojima Hitachi: S. Ono, Mr. Namita
SUBJECT: 1. Meeting on MS Seismic Proving Tests- 2. Witnessing Tests with Energy Absorbing Supports
- DISCUSSION:
1. Meeting on MS Seismic Proving Tests
A copy of the meeting agenda is attached. Presentation materials are available in the traveler's files and are listed at the end of this report. Highlights of the meeting dis;ussion* are summarized below.
,. a. Test Model Changes
Representatives of MHI and Hitachi first discussed the changes to the M-line and F-line test models. In the M-line test models, the weight of the steam generator
nozzle block was reduced from 2000 kg to 1200 kg (material No.1). - This physical ' change was made in order to increase the frequency of the actuator system to over 50 Hz. The original frequency was als.it 40 Hz which coincided with a table frequency and an SG model frequency. This resulted in the transmission of excessive high frequency motion through the independent actuator. In subsequent discussions, MHI - also revealed that in their analytical model, they had revised the stiffness of the vertical
_ , snubber support on the riser section of the line based on a finite element analysis of the- support frame structure. The stiffness was reduced by a factor of 2 (from 3700 kg/mm ' to 1870 kg/mm) which reduced the vertical direction freqency from 29 Hz to 25 Hz (material No. 3a). The F-line model changes were summarized by Hitachi and are documented in material No. 2. The snubber stiffnesses were Jeduced by a factor of 2.3 to accour.t for scaling (10,000 kg/mm to 4348 kg/mm). This change had been
22 ,
- ______-- ______. _ .- ,7 .- _ _. . _ _ ._ _ . _ . - _ . _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ ~ _
L ; ; '
previously reported to BNL, In addition, based on their reanalysis, the capacity of two : me:hanical snubbers (elements 202 and 205) were increased from 1 tf to 3 tf and from ; = 3 tf to 6 tf, respectively. The change in snubber capacity, however, should not affect : the dynamic analysis,
b. Conventional Support Test Results.
; ; MHI and Hitachi made presentations on the M line and.F-line conventional [ support test results. The results are tabulated in presentation materials No. 3 and 4. ! Information provided included maximum accelerations, displacements, support loads
: and pipe stresses for the iS and S2 level design verification tests, marginal tests (up to -
1.5 S2 ) and multi input vibration tests (M-line). Load versus displacement plots for i the snubber supports illustrating their hysteretic behavior were also included. ' Preliminary tests results from the sinusoidal wave and random wave tests were also 4 discussed. As previously reported, the measured vibration frequencies were lower than i predicted by analysis at low excitation levels. However, as the excitation level 4 increased, the meesured frequencies approached the calculated values. This was ; believed to be a result of snubber-nonlinearities (gaps). The traveler asked if and how i damping values were determined from preliminary tests. Both MHI and Hitachi ' calculated damping values based on the half power method. Additional information on prelit..inary test results ircluding damping and mode shapes were copied from their i' reports and provided (materials 3a and 4a).
The traveler asked MHI and-Hitachi to summarize-how the test results compared to their pretest analysis predictions. In general, they found the test results ! to be higher than the analysis results by a factor of 2 or more. Mr. Tai of MHI ~ summarized what he believed to be the major reasons for these discrepancies. He stated that the input motion was higher than expected. This was due to shaker table pitching, yawing and rolling motions which increased x and z direction motion at certain table locations and also resulted in off-aus (y-direction) excitation. In addition, his calculations indicated that the shaker table and support structure had a 40 Hz resonant frequency. This imparted additional high frequency excitation to the test models. He showed us a calculated table motion response spectrum with a significant pcak at 40 Hz. Finally, he believed that the stiubber gaps ireroduced an additional nonlinearity which further amplified the piping response,
' c. Preliminary EA Support Test Results
Preliminary results from th* M-line and F-line energy absorber support tests were summarued in materials 3 and v. A significant amount of information froin the preliminary tests was provided. Compared with the conventional support tests, the piping system frcquencies were lower and damping was higher as expected. As input acceleration level increased, there was little significant change in fundamental
23
_- - __. . . . _ _ . _ __ . . yy - . --.------.-. - - - - . . ------
. : : p L frequency, but the damping ratio increased. For the S 2(A) wave tests, several time - history response plots and energy absorber load vs displacement plots were given. To # illustrate the variation of response with input acceleration, plots of maximum ! acceleration, pipe stress and energy absorber force and displacement versus input j acceleration (% S2 (A) to 1.3 4 (A)) were given. This data needs to be reviewed carefully.
; d. Schedule !
Mr. Kuroda of NUPEC presented the revised MS seismic proving test schedule j (material No. 7), ne tests will be completed by July 14. He suggested that the next ; US4apan collaboration meeting be postponed to October 26 and 27, so that their travel ' can be coordinated with the WRSM meeting. He also wanted to know if it should be held at BNL or NRC. Mr. Terao and the traveler indicated that the date appears acceptable, but that the date and place will be confirmed with NRC and BNL. .
; The traveler presented a number of proposed revisions to the schedule for
, completing MS test collaboration. He indicated that BNL is interested in receiving the i remaining test data as soon as possible in order to perform the post test analysis on | schedule. NUPEC agreed that all of the remaining test data could be provided to BNL ! on tapes by the end of August. In addition, they will send us an updated data tape for
, conventional test runs VC-7 (94120505) and VC-13 (94120609) by the end of July, i This data will supersede earlier test data sent to BNL in June. The other proposed ' revision involved changes in' future collaboration meeting dates and completion of i , analysis and reports. The ds i for the final meet ng was left open. NUPEC ' representatives discussed the revisions among themselves and told us that the new schedule is acceptable. They agreed to have the final' meeting in January 1997- (material No.10),
c. Post Test Analysis Plan
De traveler presented the NRC/BNL post test analyses plan (material No. 8). The plan was divided inte four phases. In the first phase, BNL will perform time history analyses using recorded test input motions and updated models to predict responses of piping with conventional supports. The independent support motion method will be used where necessary. The second phase will involve parametric studies based on current response spectrum analysis methods (including ISM method) to identify margins associhJ with wrious design methods and parameters. The third phase will investigate responses of piping with energy absxbing supports using nonlinear and equivalent linear methods. The fourth phase will involve special studies to address issues identified as a result of the tests. Based on information available at this time, this will include studies to evaluate the effects of gaps on piping response. The traveler asked NUPEC, MHI and Hitachi for comments on the plan. Following
24
___ _- ______. __ __ - _ _ _- . - --. . ______. __- .______. . _ . _ _ . _ . _ _
4
I
4
' : some discussion, Mr. Tanaka of NUPEC stated that the Japanese side feels that the ' analysis plan is a good plan and is acceptable.
f. ; Interpretation of Magnetic Tape Data'
he last major item of discussion on the agenda involved interpretation of data on magnetic tapes. The traveler requested an explanation of data recorded on channels 301 through 336. These channels provide table acceleration data. However, the ; accelerometer locations were not identified in the instrumeatation plan. Mr. Fujino ' . of NUPEC provided a table defining each cht.anel measurement and several sketches which provided the exact locations of the table sensors (material No. 9). He explained ' that there are seven horizontal and twelve vertical direction accelerometers on the table ' and two horizontal and four vertical direction accelerometers on the elevated pipe support structure. In addition to recording the individual acceleration time histories,
. ' some channels are used to record average accelerations of the table and support structure as well as pitching, rolling, r.nd yawing accelerations of the table. Additional information on the definition and calculation of pitching, rolling and yawing i acceleration was given and is included in material No. 9. i ne traveler also requested additional clarification on the strain gage data. He : noted that although we have sufficient information to locate the strain gages along the ' pipe axis, most locations have four gages around the pipe circumference (0',90*,
; 180', 270'). We need additional information to identify the circumferential location ; of each gage. NUPEC agreed to provide this information to BNL by the end of July. The traveler also asked if NUPEC could provide a sample computer output listing of , ; > channel information and maximum / minimum measurements for each channel for the energy absorber tests. This type of information was provided last January for the t conventional support tests and 'vas very helpful in verifying our interpretation of data
~ on magnetic tapes. NUPEC agtd to provide a sample computer output listing (test
: run del-3, S (A),2 3/3 S ) 2by the end of August together with the magnetic tapes on } the energy absorber tests. De traveler also asked if NUPEC could provide data from p the preliminary random wave tests on tape so that we could do our own data reduction
, and interpretation of frequencies, damping, and mode shapes.- NUPEC agreed to : provide the tapes on the random wave test runs PC-60, 61, 64, 65 and PE-16,19 together with the other tapes by the end of August. : g. - Additional Discussions
The traveler inquired about obtaining additional information on snubber gaps. Noting that since snubber gaps have been identified as a test issue which BNL plans to further investigate, he asked if there is data available on gap sizes. NUPEC agreed to provide additional information on this subject by the end of July.
25
l _ - - - . . -- ,
1 ' '
4 :
.
. ;_ The traveler had some final questions related to the NUPEC June 20 fax ' transmittal of additional test information to BNL. LOn Table 2, for conventional i support test 94120601 (MT9000(4)), there was a note which indicated that the actuator was not operated. Was it fixed or free? - NUPEC confirmed that the actuator was . fixed. On the same table, there were notes referring to a steam generator nonlinear | model It was our understanding that the ste.un generator model was linar. Can this t ; be clarified? NUPEC showed us a Japanese report which indicated that the steam * $ generator model has a gap in one of the lateral supports. They agreed to send us -
: '' detailed information on this model by the end of July, in Table 1, they listed a piping test that would be performed with Kobe earthquake input. We did not think that the
, shaker table had the maximum velocity capability to match the Kobe earthquake. Can . this be clarified? NUPEC indicated that the Kobe peak velocities are 94 cm/sec
, horizontal and 39 cm/sec vertical. h Tadotsu table haa a rated capacity of 75 cm/sec i horizontal and 37.5 cm/sec vertical. However, the acturi maximum capability of the + table is 100 cm/sec horizontal and 50_cm/sec vertical. Therefore, they believe that the - table can reproduce the actual Kobe earthquake wave. However, they do not plan to ; record any_ data on this test so tapes will not be available. They still plan to perform - ' marginal tests with a modified S2 wave in which they hope to stress the pipe to close j- to yield strength. ; 2. Witnessing Tests | 1 : On the first day, a series of fatigue tests on the F-line piping with energy absorbers
were being performed. This involved a total of seven test runs at the S2 earthquake level. + Peak acceleration levels for these tests were 1579 gal horizontal and 361 gal vertical with ! a 41 see time duration for each test.- The U.S. ter members observed the second and j- third tests performed on that day. There was no evidence of fatigue failure. q 4 On the second day, we witnessed a series 'of marginal vibration tests in which the
: _ input level was incrementally increased. The first test was performed at a level of 1.3 S2
-(2053 gal horizontal and 469 gal vertical). This was followed by a 1.5 2S . 'I.7 2S .19 S2 -
and finally a 2.1 S 2(3316' gal horizontal and 757 gal vertical) input level test. The duration of each test was 41 sec. Although, we clearly observed larger displacements in both M-line and F-line at the higher levels, there was no sign of damage to the piping or supports.
Between test runs, the traveler inspected and took several photographs of the test ' model and test setup (see photographs 1-3). The test piping and supports appeared to match our drawing information.- The M-line included three lead extrusion damper (LED) supports and_ the F-line included three energy absorber (EAB) supports. Two observations that may affect the piping modeling and analysis were noted:
1. The concentrated masses that were added to the piping for scaling purposes
26
.- -- -_ . . _ . .- - . - . - . - . . . . , - __ _ _. p. ,. __ . _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ . _ . _ __ - . . . . _ . _ . -
<
may affect the stiffness of the pipe. This was particularly evident in the F-line header pipe in which the concentrated masses were fairly large, closely spaced, and attached to the pipe by fillet welds at both ends (see photograph 4). The > traveler asked Mr. Ono of Hitachi if the added stiffness was considered in their i analysis. His response was tnat it has not yet been considered This is an item that may need to be further investigated.
2. . De design of the M line vertical support at MR8 was rather unusual. Instead ) ' of a typical rod hanger, the support consists of a pipe clamp which is directly , attached to the structure through the use of a pin (see photograph 5). The ' distance between the pin and the pipe centerline is approximately equal to the pipe diameter. Thus, for large lateral pipe motion, the support reaction may have a significant horizontal component. This detail should probably be incorporated into the piping analytical model.
DOCUMENTS OBTAINED: (Presentation Materials)
1.- " Change of Test Model (M-line Piping)," MHI 2. "F-line Model Change," Hitachi 3. " Test Results on Piping with Cor.ventional Support (M-line)," MHI - 3a. " Evaluation of Test Results - M-line Piping Vibrational Characteristics," MHI 4. " Test Results on Piping with Conventional Supports," Hitachi 4a. " Additional Information on F-line Tests," Hitachi 5. " Quick Repo.t of Test Results on Piping with E.A. Supports (M-line)," MHI 6. ' " Quick Int Rep.)n of Piping Test with Energy Absorbing Supports (Design Method Confirmation Test F-line),". Hitachi ~ 7. "MS Seismic Proving Test Program - Proposed Schedule for US-Japan Collaboration," NUPEC, July 3,1995 - 8.- "MS Seisrr c Proving Test Program - NRC/BNL Post-Test Analysis Plan," BNL, July 3,1995- 9. " List of Signals (from Table Control Sys. To Data Acquisition Sub Sys.)," NUPEC 10. "MS Seismic Proving Test Program - Proposed Revisions to Schedule for US-Japan Collaboration," BNL .
l
%
27 ~ j . .- | |
-. } - ,, , ;...; q 3r : ryy pxy ; ' i .- .1..;;_ . : . i 1., - ... ~ * ' * ~ %d (N & 4 , . ,, y , ; . , - - . - # n j , '
'
. ! h k
' j -
': . . .' ' : \ * r., e * | , , ; w .. ,, \ 4*: ' ' | j W . 7 '.p + i , M4 pL % | !
' I ~ | \ - ,f .. . . . f ;' z \ ' t it 4 g o, l. - . , | .c ' . ' Q 3 \ ' ' i . . 1 *gst '. 3 , * | r .\ , gg _ | a7 ; .sAs Photograph 1: | Overview of M-line and F-line Test Setup ,
Y, ~ g'~ , 1 ..
h, \ W i
' p < ,7 y -a, , | " '
> .c
ty m , ; i . ; ; y,:i~.y j 4 , n . it ; t 9 ' i :g v. a. 7p ga
, c. @j
'
. .,
t i;;y V - | M y ,' ) 1 5a ~ . - | ; : .
_- . ______. ______U'' ~ -- ~ ' - ' - - ~ - - - ' - - - ~ ~ - - - .' Q ' .' O
, p ,y .w x g , ', gns
- ,
%,.
. - ,,. - .. :
. . . . . ;. ,. . s .. , . . - .-
,: .-% t ' * . ' ' '
- , . , , p. t t '^ '
. .. .,.1. . . , .
' e '- aph ;#,g
' ' . .|
M
,
. . > '".,.':';''<.*:,,.--. e.< . s'. .
- . .n. . , .- j;g ., - 3 , , < ....
. w
_ . _2 . jc , r ; . _. . - -
e . W: . Lt: ,;; . .. , - - .ph.. :un 14sM14'' Photograph 3: Typical F-line EAB Support
, 4 masse |
'y . r- . g- '' ! g)A , 1 <, _ ,, . vt .:. ;+
- 8.7< A f _ ., ,. g. . .- -- . , , . , . . . . _ l ~ i :. :| * ..' ._f; ; .. , .
- , . 3:A y - (W:@tg- e i . . g. 4. ' ? r. ;f; f_ f y, >g . . . . , . . ;+ g
_ a r ' * * . }[. pl,f_y:.%, y 0.,jn . , , . . - . . . , . . . _ .
. - ...... _,, y - T- . re. - A| .. ..j g t - i .. '' apj fik fkgj .. , . , . .-
. V . m ;;w; , m , . . %4 . . .; s. -., %- .+>y- xi o.%.cj. . T. +. .- ' k
. . s ,. .. .yhUI . _ _ _ _. ' ... r w' ' ' . . , .,4 gywr . . ,
_ , J'', , s .4 -
. - . &p, . ' Photograph 4: F-line Header Pipe with Concentrated Masses
e _ .. v 4v-s - ,
' " i '' -'~yg4 S- g- 4,..gy.,. , . .. ,. .:.< .*; . , r. .;; ' ' ' _, .< . Siji ' . g;' '' . . . : . . -. , n. , . ,, y, - : - -
* . . s . .nf. . - . :. ;:.ypav;; wa $q.y, - ..; _, . . . ., ,, . ., :: ,_s . .. : :
= | . ., * | ., . . . , ye . ' - . e- 6 y: % ., . . . | # ' '
| [ c g .y ?g _. :: . .g. , , o .~ - j . or ; , . ~..% '.tq '. , . . f. Mt :. - I n t ^ ' :. . L ':. , . . l .. ,$ . . . .v] %%. .. + ; e- -s , ' ., | t i ;,4t r. v "t' * . ;f.. \ c ; e ; .- , , . , , , | $. .* * [ ---)"pj:} : p 4 [i - , , * r > ' - . . r i r- ' L..w '. .c . :;.,: ...... , : . . . :> . .;;,. - - . ; . - . p , .n..._....g. . j. . ' ' ' s, r ,,e - I s...-, . ' f; t . .r. . . :.
' ~
. h - ; .
I
I.
- | s ' ' i > ! I
.
~ ,. n;sy's.x... T- : s 9 * i f|g'. 'f i(3i$h || . . # . ' '.h' dihlsdik
Photograph 5: M-line Vertical Supnort MR-8
( s i
L f
, i h ;_, u 2;v 7
Agenda for US-Japan Collaboration on MS Seismic Proving Test
Time &Date: 13 : 3 0~17 : 0 0, Ju l, 3 Non),19 9 5 P1 ace :TADOTU Engineering Laboratory NUPEC . Attendee :- US: J a pan ; (NUPEC)
Ni t ub i s h i) , Oi! t a ch i)
' - (- Discussion:
.
@(10 min ) In t roduc t ion (NUPEC) @(2 0 min ) Change s of the test models
, (IM-L INE elitsubishD
, @F-LINE O!!tachD
. @(4 0 min ) Tes t resul ts on pipings wi th conventional supports
,- Of-L INE Glitsubish0
@F-LINE OlitadiD
. @(4 0 min ) Quick repor t s o f test results on
pipings with E.A supports
St-LINE 4titsubishD
-@F-LINE GlitachD @(10 min ) Schedule (NUPEC) @ (3 0mi n ) Wr ap-up (NUPEC) - @ (2 0mi n ) How t o read 11T data GNAMI)
- , @ (4 0 min ) Wi tne s s tests @ W8c /s ut. - e., s ra n A . i,v, Pr. ,
. -