From: Jerry Levine [jlevine@pppl.gov]
Sent: Friday, May
17, 2002 3:47 PM
To: Schwartz, Ray
Cc: hneilson@pppl.gov;
reiersen@pppl.gov; mkalish@pppl.gov
Subject: RE: NCSX PHA
Ray,
I think the response below from Mike Kalish, our seismic analysis engineer,
addresses your questions. PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS RESPONSE IS PRELIMINARY IN
NATURE AND HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE NCSX PROJECT.
Jerry
PRELIMINARY/NOT YET PEER
REVIEWED
X-Sender: mkalish@pobox.pppl.gov
Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 13:02:28 -0400
To: jlevine@pppl.gov
From: Mike
Kalish <mkalish@pppl.gov>
Subject: Seismic Requirements for NCSX
Cc:
reiersen@pppl.gov, jchrzanowski@pppl.gov
Jerry,
I have undergone
an evaluation of DOE-STD-1020-2002 and IBC 2000 to determine the applicability
to NCSX.
Per DOE-STD-1020 Table 2-1 we are required to follow IBC
2000. Further, the DOE standard allows for "USE GROUP 1" and 2/3 MCE
Ground Motion. The invocation of IBC 2000 does lead to different ground
accelerations than were used for NSTX. NSTX invoked the Unified Building
Code (UBC) and used a simplified static analysis approach. The base
acceleration used for NSTX was .09 Gs multiplied by a "coupling factor" of 1.5
for a total horizontal force of .135 Gs.
IBC 2000 also allows for a
simplified static approach for the "Seismic Use Group 1" in which we fall.
Using the IBC maps and data specific to PPPL's location we obtain the
following:
MCE Value for .2 sec. period = .36 Gs
MCE Value
for 1 sec. period = .085 Gs
These #s are only the
starting point for determining the horizontal force used as the input for a
static seismic analysis. The following are the other parameters chosen as
applicable to PPPL from the code.
PC 1
(determined by
Jerry Levine)
Seismic Catergory B (based on
seismic use group and seismic levels)
Site Class B
(based on soil
conditions at PPPL, TFTR data used)
S.ds = .24
(Sd levels =
2/3 MCE)
S.di = .057
These parameters lead to the use of the
simplified static equation 16-49 in the IBC to determine the horizontal load for
a static analysis.
Unlike the UBC this load varies with a factor "R" which
accounts for the dampening of the structure to which the force is applied.
For NCSX the maximum value for the horizontal load applied in a static analysis
is likely to be .15 Gs for stiff Concrete walls. This is slightly higher
than the comparable .13Gs used on NSTX. Other structures on NCSX will have
lower values than .13Gs.
I have also developed the dynamic response
spectra per the IBC Code. It is likely that we will use a dynamic analysis
to evaluate the overall machine structure and it's supports as part of the NCSX
structural analysis (not required by code).
Michael
Kalish
Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
PO Box 451
Princeton, NJ 08543
Phone: (609) 243-2277
Fax: (609) 243-3248
Jerry -
I have a little seismic knowledge
so it is probably a dangerous thing.
Since earthquake is included in the
PHA, questions I might have is what
requirements do you intend to
build to - latest DOE standards still expect
the designer to use the latest
requirements (e.g. USGS, NEHRP, etc. which
might not be in the latest DOE
standard.
A second question is have there been any
changes in ground acceleration
values. A third is are you going for
life safe or greater (PC-1 or PC-2).
I don't need the answer now but I
wanted to be sure you could answer it
conveniently next
week.
Thanks,
Ray
-----Original
Message-----
From: Jerry Levine [mailto:jlevine@pppl.gov]
Sent:
Wednesday, May 15, 2002 3:40 PM
To: Schwartz, Ray
Cc: Hickey, Clarence;
Marton, Warren; hneilson@pppl.gov
Subject: RE: NCSX
PHA
Ray,
Thanks for your comments. The NSTX hazard analysis,
which is Appendix
2 to the NSTX Safety Assessment Document (SAD), is very
similar to
the NCSX PHA. I have attached it to this email. The
NSTX SAD is
composed of about 50 pages of text and figures and about 100
pages of
failure modes and effects analyses (FMEAs). We will prepare
a
similar document for NCSX prior to initiating 1st plasma
operations.
I'll cover this in my talk.
I'm not sure what the plans
are for tours when you are here. One
complicating factor will be that NSTX will be
running next week, so
the NSTX Test Cell will be off-limits during the run
period. I'll
forward your note to Project Management. We can
certainly cover the
comparisons during our session.
See you next
week.
Jerry
>Jerry -
>
>I took a look at the
PHA. It certainly looks reasonable. During
>discussions on
the OFES-PPPL phone call today, it was mentioned the NCSX
>site tour
should take about 5 minutes (as it is a room).
>
>It occurs to me
that for the NCSX review though, there may be considerable
>similarity
with the NSTX. So in making your presentation, I would
find
>useful, comparisons with similar aspects of NSTX. I suspect
PPPL is quite
>unusual in this project review situation because there is
intended to be so
>much similarity, which should make it much easier to
make a convincing
>argument that it is safe and will be managed safely
because we have an
>operating facility which has an established good
safety record.
>
>So:
>
>1. Is
the PHA for NCSX similar to that for NSTX (and if it is only 3
>pages
also, I'd like to see it). If not, what are the differences and
why.
>
>2. For
the described barriers in the PHA, if the passive and active
>barriers
intended will be similar to NSTX, then a tour to demonstrate
those
>barriers would be quite useful to understanding the commitments
(especially
>those active barriers, especially with respect to
redundancies).
Naturally,
>if there are any new or redesigned
barriers, it would be useful to describe
>the differences from NSTX
barriers that might be
demonstrated.
>
>3.
For the operational discipline approach, certainly
any
>administrative controls of NSTX would probably be
informative.
>
>4.
For the construction safety and management to ensure safety
is
>integrated into procedures, comparison with the TFTR D&D
management
>approaches would be
useful.
>
>Ray
>
>
>
>-----Original
Message-----
>From: Hickey, Clarence
>Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002
3:18 PM
>To: Schwartz, Ray
>Cc: Marton, Warren
>Subject: FW:
NCSX PHA
>
>
>FYI from Jerry
Levine.
>
>Clarence
>
>-----Original
Message-----
>From: Jerry Levine [mailto:jlevine@pppl.gov]
>Sent:
Tuesday, May 14, 2002 1:23 PM
>To: Hickey, Clarence
>Subject: NCSX
PHA
>
>
>Clarence,
>
>FYI: a Preliminary
Hazards Analysis (PHA) has been prepared for NCSX
>and posted
at
>http://www.pppl.gov/ncsx/Meetings/CDR/NCSXDocumentation.html
under
>"E.S. & H. Aspects of
NCSX".
>
>Jerry
>--
>
>
>Jerry D.
Levine
>Head, Environment, Safety & Health (ES&H)
>DOE
Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
>P.O. Box 451
>Princeton, New
Jersey 08543
>C-Site, Module 6, Room 104, MS01
>Phone:
609-243-3439 Lab Pager #340 Skypager Pin #
1335520
>Fax: 609-243-2525
>
>You can visit the home page of
the DOE Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
>at
http://www.pppl.gov
--
Jerry D. Levine
Head, Environment, Safety & Health
(ES&H)
DOE Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
P.O. Box
451
Princeton, New Jersey 08543
C-Site, Module 6, Room 104, MS01
Phone:
609-243-3439 Lab Pager #340 Skypager Pin #
1335520
Fax: 609-243-2525
You can visit the home page of the DOE
Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
at
http://www.pppl.gov