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PRELIMINARY/NOT YET PEER REVIEWED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