Seismic Qualification of

Equipment by Analysis
Steve J. Eder
Facility Risk Consultants, Inc.
Seismic Qualification of
Equipment by Analysis
General Approach
Electrical Equipment
Mechanical Equipment
Alternative Earthquake Experience Data
Seismic Qualification Utility Group (SQUG)
Technical Requirements
2
General Approach
Review the equipment to assess the dynamic
characteristics
Determine the response by analytical methods
Determine the stresses and displacements that result
from the response
Compare the calculated responses with those that
ensure compliance with the design requirements
Function after design earthquake
3
Review Equipment to Assess
Dynamic Characteristics
The review stage must take into account the complexity of the
equipment and the adequacy of analytical techniques to
properly predict the equipments safety functions after a
design earthquake.
The review should determine which analytical method will
most accurately represent the equipments performance under
seismic conditions.
Dynamic analysis methods
Equivalent static analysis methods
Choosing between the dynamic analysis method and
the static coefficient method:
In general, the choice is based on the perceived margin of
strength of the equipment since the static coefficient
method, while easier and more economical to perform, is
generally more conservative.
Dynamic analysis or tests may indicate that the equipment
is either rigid or flexible. Rigid equipment may be
analyzed using static analysis and the seismic acceleration
associated with the mounting location. Flexible
equipment, on the other hand, is analyzed using its
dynamic response computed from a response spectrum
time history, or other analysis methods.
The mathematical models used for analysis can be based
on calculated structural parameters, or on those established
by test, or by a combination of these.
Where complex mathematical models are based solely on
calculated structural parameters, the use of verification
testing is highly recommended for validation of structural
dynamic parameters.
The equipment and any secondary structural supports must
be modeled to adequately represent their mass distribution
and stiffness characteristics.
Stresses and Displacements
In seismic qualification by analysis, stress levels in general
must be well within the elastic range.
Displacement checks are required for verification of critical
clearances. This can be a simple validation of rigidity for
certain sub-assemblies, or a detailed review of geometry of
bearings, shafts, or conductors.
Sub-assembly force checks may be necessary for clips,
brackets, bushings, etc.
Electrical Equipment
Seismic qualification by analysis is generally limited to
verification of structural integrity (modeling of enclosures
and framework).
Functional qualification is generally not possible solely by analysis.
Electrical issues such as those resulting from electro-mechanical
device trips, short circuits, etc. during the shaking cannot in general be
captured by analysis.
Dynamic analysis can be used to ascertain in-equipment response
levels for subcomponent shake table testing (response amplification
due to panel flexibility).
Mechanical Equipment
More complex finite element models are used for pressure
boundary components with moving parts such as pumps
and valves.
Simplified models can be used for air handling equipment with
rigid sub-assemblies such as motors.
Close interface with manufacturers is necessary for verification of
shaft clearances, strength of bearings, nozzles, and mechanical
joints.
The analysis must address the interface with piping and has to
include thermal effects.
Alternative Method Earthquake
Experience Data
In lieu of qualification by analysis, testing, or combined
analysis and testing, earthquake experience data can be used
for seismic qualification of certain types of equipment within a
set of strictly defined limitations for the method.
The Seismic Qualification Utility Group (SQUG) provides the
technical requirements.
What is SQUG?
In 1980, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued
Unresolved Safety Issue (USI) A-46 to address concerns with
seismic equipment qualification in older plants
Utilities banded and formed the Seismic Qualification Utility
Group to address USI A-46.
The use of earthquake experience data was developed and detailed,
including procedures for application in nuclear power plants and
DOE facilities.
SQUG Accomplishments
The USI A-46 program was implemented and resolved by
most nuclear utilities from 1993 to 2000.
The SQUG Generic Implementation Procedure (GIP) methods
remained proprietary to SQUG.
Experience data is currently used on a regular basis for seismic
qualification of new and replacement equipment in nuclear
power plants.
Collaboration with MCEER is now underway.
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) maintains the
electronic earthquake experience data base (eSQUG).
Earthquake Experience Data Base
Industrial facilities and power plants subjected to strong
motion earthquakes were reviewed to determine
performance of equipment during and after earthquakes
Detailed documentation was collected and studied for 20
classes of equipment plus other features.
In general, lessons learned follow a clear trend: Well
anchored equipment, free of certain caveats and seismic
interaction concerns, performs well in major
earthquakes.
The 20 Classes of Equipment
SQUG Equipment Classes (functionality) Include:
I&C Panels and
Cabinets
Temperature
sensors
Instruments on
racks
Engine
generators
Battery chargers &
inverters
Batteries on
Racks
Distribution
panels
Air compressors
Air Handlers Chillers Fans
Solenoid-
operated valves
Motor-operated
valves
Fluid-operated
valves
Vertical pumps
Horizontal
pumps
Transformers
Medium voltage
switchgear
Low voltage
switchgear
Motor control
centers
I&C Panels and
Cabinets
Temperature
sensors
Instruments on
racks
Engine
generators
Battery chargers &
inverters
Batteries on
Racks
Distribution
panels
Air compressors
Air Handlers Chillers Fans
Solenoid-
operated valves
Motor-operated
valves
Fluid-operated
valves
Vertical pumps
Horizontal
pumps
Transformers
Medium voltage
switchgear
Low voltage
switchgear
Motor control
centers
eSQUG Provides Archive of Raw Data
Generic Implementation Procedure
Four criteria are used to verify seismic capacity:
Seismic Capacity vs. Demand (Comparison with SQUG
Bounding Spectrum)
Earthquake Experience Database Caveats and Inclusion
Rules
Anchorage Evaluation
Seismic Interaction Evaluation
Bounding Spectra are used to define the seismic capacity,
based on the experienced level of ground shaking, for each
equipment class whose seismic adequacy is verified by the
earthquake experience success data.
Seismic Capacity vs. Seismic Demand
S
ED
1.2
S
ED
= [ 1 + 2 (z/h) ] S
DS
1.5 x S
DS

Using Earthquake Experience Data
Inclusion rules are used to define the bounds of each
equipment class whose seismic adequacy is verified by the
earthquake experience success data. These address:
Configuration, size limitations, weight limitations, operating
capacity limits, etc.
Materials, subcomponents, manufacturer classifications,
design & construction standards, etc.
Other issues derived from investigation of shake table fragility tests,
analyses, expert panels, etc.
Caveats and Inclusion Rules
Other Features Also Covered by SQUG
Tanks
Heat Exchangers
Conduit and supports
Cable trays and supports
Piping and pipe supports; tubing
HVAC ducting and supports
Dampers
Cranes
Summary Qualification by Analysis
Analysis methods can be used for seismic
qualification for only certain kinds of equipment,
with physical parameters and functional/performance
requirements that can be addressed by stress and
deflection limitations.
Analysis methods can be used in conjunction with
testing methods and can significantly reduce the
required scope for the testing.
Earthquake experience methods provide an attractive
alternative for certain types of equipment within
certain seismic motion bounds.