DRAFT

USE OF EXPERIENCE-BASED SEISMIC QUALIFICATION

METHODS FOR ADVAN'CED LIGHT WATER REAcrOR
EQUIPMENT AND DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS
Dr, R. P. Kassawara, Advanced Reactor Corp.
Mr. P. W. Haves, MPR Associates
Mr. r<: Merz, EQE
Dr. P. Ibanez, ANCO Engrs.

PURPOSE
The electric utility industry through the Advanced Reactor Corporation (ARq and the
Department of Energy have initiated a joint program to perfonn first-of-a-kind
engineering (FOAKE) for the advanced light water reactor (ALWR) plants. The
FOAKE Program has the goals of (1) completing engineering on certified ALWR designs
in sufficient detail to define firm cost and schedule estimates: (2) ensuring the existence
of an infrastructure to provide resources for and manage completion of detailed designs;
and (3) defining a process to achieve design standardization beyond that required for
certification. One of the FOAKE Phase 1 projects involves Equipment Seismic
Qualification. The objective of this project is to develop criteria and procedures for
experience-based seismic qualification of electrical and mechanical equipment and
distribution systems_
Experience-based seismic qualification of equipment involves the collection of data
describing the perfonnanco: of equipment classes based on (1) actual earthquake
experience, (2) shake table test results or, (3) analyses demonstrating the capability to
withstand seismic loads. The data is evaluated to establish a demonstrated seismic
capacity of an t:ntire class of equipment. The data is also used to define equipment
parameters such as rating, manufacturer. or vintage that are encompassed by the
experience base for a particular equipment class. The evaluation process results in the
establishment of a set of inclusion rules and specifications that must be satisfied to apply
the experience base for equipment seismic qualification.
The purpose of this paper is to provide a description of the seismic qualification project
and a summary of results.
BACKGROUND
Current criteria and guidelines for seismic qualific:l!ion of equipment are included in
Appendix A of 10CFR Part 100, [1]1 in the NRC's Standard Review Plan [2] and
related regulatory guides. and in industry standards such as IEEE Std. 344-1987 Pl.
These guidelines and criteria recognize. to varying degrees. a number of different

l!'lumbers in brackets [ J refer to reterences.

- [-

technical approaches to demonstrate that important electrical and mechanical equipment

will remain functional during and after a design.basis earthquake. These methods
include:

Testing, typically performed using a seismic shake table which simulates

eanhquake motions;

Analysis. including dynamic analysis and equivalent static analysis methods;

Earthquake and test experience, that is, demonstration of equipment

capability based on performance of similar equipment in past eanhquakes
or dynamic test environments; and

Combinations of the above.

Of these methods. testing and analysis have been the more common approaches used for
post1975 nuclear plants. A considerable amount of equipment qualification also has
been based on extension of test or analysis results for similar equipment, which is
tantamount to utilization of experience data.
The use of experience data on the seismic performance of equipment to demonstrate
seismic capability of similar equipment has also been used extensively in seismic
verification of equipment for operating nuclear plants. This use of past performance
data has been formalized in the past several years for the purpose of resolving
Unresolved Safety Issue (US!) A46, "Seismic Qualification of Equipment in Operating
Nuclear Power Plants." [4] This approved approach for resolution of US! A-46 utilizes
data on the performance of typical power plant equipment and cable tray and conduit
systems in real earthquakes as well as in past shake table tests to assign generic seismic
capacities to classes of equipment which fall within the bounds of the experience
database. These bounds are defined by specific equipment attributes and inclusion rules.
The earthquake and test data on which the capacities are based are referred to
collectively as the experience d:ltabase.
The experience database collected for resolution of US! A46 is based on performance of
equipment in over 30 eanhquakes and in numerous seismic qualification tests. Seismic
capacities assigned to a large number of equipment classes based on the observed ground
motions have been established and are referred to as the "Reference Spectrum." Generic
seismic capacity curves based on test data are referred to as "Generic Equipment
Ruggedness Spectra" (or GERS) for specific classes of equipment and are generally
higher than the earthquake experiencebased capacity (i.e . the Reference Spectrum).
The experience database collected for resolution of USI A41i. which concentrated on
equipment generally of 1970's vintage, is constantly being expanded through EPRI's
ongoing postearthquake investigation program to include more recent earthquakes
(through 1992) and modern vintage equipment. The use of this seismic experience data
for demonstration of seismic adequacy of newly deSigned equipment requires design
controls and engineering evaluations. These will ensure that new equipment to which

experiencebased methods are applied can be represented by equipment whose seismic

performance has been demonstrated within the experience data.
The earthquake and seismic test experience data is supplemented by analytical .
experience data. The term analytical experience data as used in this report applies not
only to explicit seismic analyses but also to other technical information such as analyses
of equipment response to operational loads or ASME Code analyses which can be shown
to demonstrate a level of seismic ruggedness in an equipment item.
Recognizing the lessons learned from this seismic experience, the EPRI Utility
Requirements Document (URD) [5] states that the ALWR seismic Category 1
equipment will be qualified using seismic experience data where it is cost effective and is
technically justifiable.
The project has evaluated the application of experiencebased methodology to the
seismic qualification of ALWR equipment and, for those applications where it is justified,
provides recommended lower bound seismic capacities, together with guidelines for
application of the methodology to the procurement and installation of ALWR equipment.

PROJEcr ORGANIZATION
The project was performed under the management and direction of ARC. ARC was
assisted by a contractor team consisting of MPR Associates. the primary contractor. EQE
Engineering Consultants and ANCO Engineers. The project team interfaced with the
ALWR project within the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). with the nuclear
steam supply system (NSSS) vendors of ALWR plants. Westinghouse, Combustion
Engineering and Ge:neral Electric. and with NUMARC. The project team was provided
independent review and guidance from a Utility Advisory Panel consisting of utility
representatives from Commonwealth Edison. Duke Powe:r, Wisconsin Electric, Southern
Company Services. Southern Nude:ar Operating Company and GPUN. The project also
interfaced technically with NRC $taff members from the Offices of Nuclear Regulatory
Research and Nuclear Reactor Regulation and a team of outside consultants.
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
ALWR Equipment Charncterization

Seismic Category 1 equipment descriptions in ALWR S,andard Safety Analysis Reports

(SSARs) [6]. [7], [8] were reviewed. The results of the review indicate that some new
equipment designs. not represented in the existing experience database. are planned fer
the ALWRs. However. the majority of the seismic Category 1 equipment for the
ALWR's reviewed will be conventional equipment types which are represented in the
experience database:. These include most of the .J..L WR pumps, valves. electric power
equipment. diesel generators. inverters. and chillers. Equipment which is expected to be
of new and/or advanced design includes solid state digital control equipment. and a few
special valves. For a number of the conventional electrical and mechanical equipment
ciJsses defined here:n. '.intJge issues Jre not expe~ted to be significant.that is.
-.3-

equipment in plants and facilities of 1980's and 1990's vintage and also in the experience
database is not expected to change in ways which will materially affect seismic ruggedness
for ALWR applications.
Candidate Equipment Seismic Qualification Methodologies for ALWR Equipment
Classes
The next step was to assess the relative potential for applying experiencebased seismic
qualification methods to each equipment class. Factors considered in assessing this
potential include available experience data. the inherent ruggedness of the equipment
item, whether the equipment function is active or passive, potential failure modes and
whether seismic capacity will be affected by aging. Another important consideration is
whether the equipment technology is mature with little design variability expected (e.g.
pumps and valves). In addition to the foregoing technical considerations, the number of
ALWR equipment items in a particular equipment class was also weighed to provide a
qualitative basis for judging that the development of experiencebased seismic
qualification would be costeffective.
Based on this assessment. a number of equipment classes have been identified as having
a high potential for use of experiencebased seismic qualification. These include pumps,
valves, thermal eler::ent assemblies, and diesel generators. A number of equipment
classes, generally consisting of power distribution and instrumentation and control
equipment in panel configurations has been identified as having a low potential for
experiencebased seismic qualification. Remaining equipment classes were identified as
having an intermediate potential. This characterization of equipment classes is presented
in Table 1. This assessment effort also resulted in the inclusion of ALWR distribution
systems as well as equipment.
The equipment classes selected for development of experiencebased seismic qualification
guidelines under the current project scope are as follows:

Transformers
Horizontal Pumps
Vertical Pumps
Batteries on Racks
Manual/Check Valves
MotorOperated Valves
Thermal Element Assemblies
Diesel Generator Units

In addition to the eight equipment classes listed above. the project also selected the
following three classes of distribution systems for development of experiencebased
seismic design methods:

Electrical cable trays

Electrical conduit
HVAC ductwork
.~-

Seismic Capacity
Review of experience data from earthquakes which occurred sUbsequent to USI A-46
investigations (i.e., in 1985 through 1992) indic::ne that modern vintage power plant
equipment is represented and that the equipment performance is consistent with that
observed prior to the 1980's. Further, the records of earthquake motion from the more
recent earthquakes support the reference seismic capacity spectrum (i.e., the Reference
Spectrum) developed for earlier vintage equipment in the USI A-46 resolution. (9) This
reference capacity spectrum is shown in Figure 1 and is considered a reasonable lower
bound seismic capacity for the newer equipment as well as the older vintage equipment
classes.

It should also be noted that a significant amount of seismic test data exist for certain
ALWR equipment classes, and the resulting capacity. spectra are typically higher than the
earthquake experience capacity spectrum. For example, data for certain types of station
batteries show spectral capacity levels of about 4 g. transformers have spectral capacity
levels of about 3 g and valve motor oper::nors show spectral capacities over 20 g.
Analyses and fragility test data used for Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) and Seismic
Margin studies as well as experience reinforced by the judgment of experienced seismic
engineers demonstrate that the seismic capacities of mechanical equipment such as gate
and globe valves, horizontal and certain vertical pumps, and electrical motors have
capacities well above the earthquake experience-based capacity levels, and may be
considered inherently rugged for essentially any likely ALWR site. These data sources
have been augmented for the selected equipment classes by a detailed review of
equipnient functional characteristics and of the codes and standards invoked in
procurement documents. These requirements, while not necessarily addressing seismic
loading explicitly, ensure an inherent high level of seismic ruggedness and eliminate the
need for explicit seismic qualification testing for such classes as pumps, motors, valves
and motor operators.
ALWR Seismic Demand

The ALWR standard plants are being designed to a freefield ground motion
characterized by a Reg. Guide 1.60 (10] response spectrum anchored at a peak ground
acceleration of 0.3 g. This input ground motion spectrum is also shown in Figure 1.
A review of ALWR designs shows that buildings which contain most seismic Category 1
~quipment are massive, stiff. reinforced concrete buildings with significant embedment
(i.e., in the range of 40 to 80 feet for both rock and soil sites). These design
characteristics indicate that in-structure seismic demand requirements for ALWR
equipment should fall below the seismic capacity spectrum obtained from ~arthquake
experience (Figure I) for all building elevations up to grade level. and possibly higher.
Review of equipment layouts for these plants shows that the majority of conventional,
electrIcal and mechanical equipment will be at grade level or below.

In summarY. , while manv. of the ALWR seismic demand spectra for equipment are not
yet finalized. and some demand spectra for higher plant elevations will likely exceed
earthquake e:,:perience-based capacity levels, the seismic demand for ALWR equipment
is expected to be bounded by earthquake experience data for a significant fraction of
applications at and below grade levels.
Equipment Seismic Qualification Guidelines for ALWR Equipment

The approach taken for experience-based qualification of ALWR equipment involves:

review of earthquake, seismic shake table, and analytical experience data for
each equipment class;

determination of the seismic capacity implied by the experience data. Two

levels of seismic capacity have been identified; one based only on
earthquake experience (referred to hereafter as Level A) and one based on
all available test, analysis and earthquake experience data (Level B);

determination of any equipment technical requirements which should be

invoked to ensure ruggedness or to avoid a potential seismic vulnerability,
and;

documentation of the results of the experience data review in the fonn of

supplementary equipment procurement and installation specification
requirements which assure seismic capacity levels defined for each class.

The resulting procurement and installation specification requirements for those ALWR
equipment classes selected by the FOAKE Project for development of experiencebased
seismic qualification are summarized below. Seismic capacity levels assigned to these
equipment classes nre provided in Table 2.
Horizontal Motor-Drjven Pumps - Umitations are imposed on pump size and type to
ensure applicability of experience data. Requirements for maintaining pump and driver
alignment and for accommodating axial thrust loads are specified. Standard pump design
practice and the resultant level of inherent ruggedness of various pump components are
identified. Anchorage, mounting and service connection installation details are specified.
Specification requirements are defined for two levels of seismic capacity.
Vertical Motor-Driven Pumps - Limitations are imposed on pump size and type to
ensure applicability of experience data. Requirements for maintaining pump and driver
alignment and for sizing radial bearings are defined. Standard pump design practice and
the resultant level of inherent ruggedness of various pump components are identified_
Anchorage, mounting and service connection insmllation details are specified.
Specification requirements are defined for two levels of seismic capacity.

-6-

Motor ODe rated Valves - Limitations are imposed on minimum valve size and on motor
operator types to ensure applicability of experience data. Valve body and yoke design
and material requirements. including specific checks on operator mass/moment arm
relative to the valve. are specified. Seismic inputs for required ASME Code and Generic
Letter 89-10 "weak-link" analyses are defined. Installation details covering location of
motor controls. electrical and control lines. and valve support are specified. Specification
requirements for motor operated valves are defined for two levels of seismic capacity.
Manual/Check Valves - Valve body and yoke design and material requirements are
specified. Specification requirements are defined for one level of seismic capacity.
Thermal Element Assemblies - Applicability of experience based seismic qualification
methods is limited to resistance temperature detectors or thermocouples. Mounting and
wiring details and restrictions to ensure adequate stiffness are specified. Specification
requirements are defined for two levels of seismic capacity.
Diesel Generator Units - Coniiguration and stiffness of mounting skid is specified.
Enginemounted auxiliary components to which specified capacity levels apply and
external auxiliary components to which specified capacity levels do not apply are clearly
identified. Use of vibration isolation mounts is prohibited. Anchorage and load path
design requirements for skid mounted auxiliary equipment are specified. Provisions to
limit sloshing at engine fluid free surfaces are specified. Specification requirements are
defined for two levels of seismic capacity.
Transformers - Limitations are imposed on transformer type and rating to ensure
applicability of experience data. Transformer coil support requirements and clearances
between electrical conductors and structure are defined. Anchorage details are specified.
Specification requirements are defined for two levels of seismic capacity.
Batteries on Racks Limitations are imposed on battery size. cell type and manufacturer
to ensure applicability of experience data. Requirements for positive internal plate
suspension details are defined. Installation of cells in racks and rack structural and
anchorage requirements are specified. Specification requirements are defined for two
levels of seismic capacity.
ALWR Distribution Svstem DeSign Guidelines

The approach taken for development of experiencebased design guidelines for ALWR
distribution systems involves:

review of earthquake and shake table test experience data for distribution
systems and their supports.

definition of functional requirements for distribution systems subject to

seismic loading,

-7-

development of simplified design by rule methods for ALWR cable trays,

conduit and HV AC dueting, and

Use of experience data to demonstrate that design rules will ensure

achievement of distribution system functional requirements.

The proposed approach provides a preferred alternative to currently approved dynamic

analysis methods developed for elastic structures. The approach includes:
qualitative criteria based on observations from earthquakes and tests
quantitative, static design checks, and
_
additional provisions to ensure leak tightness of HVAC ducts
Such an approach has significant benefits in addition. to cost effectiveness; it is expected
to improve safety by providing better access for inspection/maintenance and avoiding
over-restrained systems and over-sized supports.
CONCLUSIONS
The results of this FOAKE project demonstrate that for certain relatively standard and
inherently rugged equipment classes, experience-based seismic qualification methods,
supplemented by equipment-specific procurement and installation requirements, provide
a technically justifiable and cost-effective alternative to seismic shake table tests and
dynamic analysis. The project results also provide a practical, design-by-rule approach
for distnbution systems which is consistent with earthquake and test experience and
which will avoid over' design of these systems and their supports.
REFERENCES
l.

10 CFR Part LOO. Appendix A - Seismic and Geologic Siting Criteria for Nuclear
Power Plants.

2.

NUREG-0800 - "Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports
for Nuclear Power Plants."

3.

IEEE Std 344-1987, "IEEE Recommended Practice for Seismic Qualification of

Class IE Equipment for Nuclear Power Generating Stations."

4.

NUREG-I030 - "Seismic Qualification of Equipment in Operating Nuclear Plants

Unresolved Safety Issue A-46."

5.

EPRI "Advanced Light Water Reactor Utility Requirements Document" issued

3/90.

6.

ABWR Standard Safety Analysis Report - GE Nuclear Energy.

7.

AP600 Standard Safety Analysis Report - Westinghouse Ekctric Corporation.

-8-

8.

Combustion Engineering Standard Safety Analysis Report Design Certification.

9.

Sandia Report SAI'l"D920140 . "Part I . Use of Seismic Experience and Test Data
to Show Ruggedness of Equipment in Nuclear Power Plants. Part II Review
Procedure to Assess Seismic Ruggedness of Cantilever Bracket Cable Tray
Support."

10.

USNRC Regulatory Guide 1.60 . "Design Response Spectra for Seismic Design of
Nuclear Power Plams."

Table 1
Potential for Applying Experience Data for ALWR
Equipment Seismic Qualification
Group 1
High
1)
2)

Motor Control Centers

Low- Voltage Switchgear

3)
4)

Metal Clad Switchgear

Transformers

5)

Chillers
Fans

6)
7)

8)

9)
10)

Group 2
Intermediate

Group 3
LOw

X
X

--

X
X
X
X

Instrument Racks
Control Panels

X
X

Horizontal Pumps
Vertical Pumps
Normal
Deep-Well/Can

X
X
X

11)
12)
13)

Batteries
Manual/Check Valves
Motor Operated Valves

X
X
X<----- f----->

14)

Air Operated Valves

15)

Pilot Operated Relief Valves

16)
17)

Air Handlers
Battery Chargers!1nveners

18)
19)

Panel BoardslSwitchboards
Thermal Element Assemblies

20)
21)

Air Compressors
Diesel Generator Units

X
X

22)

Relays
- Solid State
. Electro Mechanical

X
X<-------1--> X
X
X

TOTAL

-to

11

Table 2
E.xperience Based Seismic Capacity Levels
for Selected Equipment Classes
Equipment Cass

Level A

Horizontal Motor Driven Pumps

Reference Spectrum

2-4 g (ZPA)

Vertical Motor Driven Pumps

Reference Spectrum

2-4 g (ZPA)

Motor Operated Valves

Reference Spectrum

20 g (3-33 Hz)
6"g (ZPA)

Level B

Manual/Check Valves

6 g (ZPA)

Thermal Element Assemblies

Reference Spectrum

10 g (ZPA)

Diesel Generators

Reference Spectrum

2 g (> 20 Hz)

Transformers

Reference Spectrum

3 g (4-16 Hz)
1.5 g (ZPA)

Batteries on Racks

Reference Spectrum

3 g (4-16 Hz)
2 g (ZPA)

inherently rugged to Level B

operator ruggedness
1.2 g 2.5-7.5 Hz; 0.5 g ZP A

-11-

Spectral Acceleration (gj

1.4

I I I II

5% Damping

II

1.2

II
I I
~,~

O.S

0.6

..

j,

I I IIII

vV

VI

0.2

Capacity

J
1\\
I
I
I
IIII
~
-AI'.
~
III
V
I 11111
ALWR Design
Ground Motion

0.4

I I

~Experience-Based

0.1

10

Frequency (Hz)

. . RG 1.60 at 0.3g ... Reference Spectrum

Figure 1. Comparison of Reg. Guide l.60

and Reference Spectrum

-12-

I IIIII1
I I III1

100