Calculation No. 2014-06515, 'Analysis of RAI-57 Question ...

ISSUE SUMMARY Form SOP-0402-07. Revision 10

DESIGN CONTROL SUMMARY

CLIENT: PSEG Power LLC UNIT NO.: N/A PAGE NO. : 1

PROJECT NAME: PSEG Site ESPA

PROJECT NO.: 12380-019 I S&L NUCLEAR QA PROGRAM

I CALC. NO .. : 2014-06515 APPLICABLE ~ YES 0 NO

TITLE: Analysis of RAI-57 Question on Wave Run-up

EQUIPMENT NO.: N/A

IDENTIFICATION OF PAGES ADDED/REVISED/SUPERSEDEDIVOIDED & REVIEW METHOD

INPUTS/ ASSUMPTIONS

~ VERIFIED o UNVERIFIED

REVIEW METHOD: Detailed REV.: 0 STATUS: ~APPROVED o SUPERSEDED BY CALCULATION NO. OVOID DATE FOR REV.: 8/8/2014

PREPARER: Todd DeMunda/Atkins /1/ ~ DATE: 8/8/2014

REVIEWER: ((,~ '.X)/ DATE: 8/8/2014 William R. Dally/Atkins

APPROVER: Paul Jensen/Atkins ~ DATE: 8/8/2014

S&L f-~ru ~~~ DATE: 8/8/2014 ACCEPTANCE:: Nikhil Patel/S&L

IDENTIFICATION OF PAGES ADDED/REVISED/SUPERSEDEDIVOIDED & REVIEW METHOD

INPUTSI ASSUMPTIONS

o VERIFIED o UNVERIFIED

REVIEW METHOD: Detailed REV.: STATUS: o APPROVED o SUPERSEDED BY CALCULATION NO. OVOID DATE FOR REV. :

PREPARER: DATE:

REVIEWER: DATE:

APPROVER: DATE:

S&L DATE: ACCEPTANCE:

NOTE: PRINT AND SIGN IN THE SIGNATURE AREAS

SOP040207.DOC Page 1 of 1 Rev. Date: 05-19-2014

PSEG Power LLC PSEG Site ESPA Analysis of RAI-67 Question on Wave Run-up

Table of Contents

Calc. No. 2014-06515, Revision 0 Project No. 12380-019

Page 2 of 10

Page

LIST OF ACRONYMS ....................................................................................................................... 3

] . PURPOSE AND SCOPE ............................................................................................................. 4

2. DESIGN INPUTS ........................................................................................................................ 4

3. ASSUMPTIONS .......................................................................................................................... 5

4. METHODOLOGY AND ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA ............................................................... 6

5. CALCULATIONS ....................................................................................................................... 6

6. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................. 8

7. REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... ] 0

A TT ACHMENTS

A

B

Microsoft Excel Spreadsheet with Implementation of Equations

Final Wave Run-up Excel Spreadsheet

No. of Pages

2

2


LIST OF ACRONYMS

CEM

PMH

SWL

TWL

USACE

Coastal Engineering Manual

Probable Maximum Hurricane

Still Water Level

Total Water Level

u.s. Army Corps of Engineers


Page 3 of 10


1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE


Page 4 of 10

This document details the response to RAI 67, Question 02.04.05-15, regarding the calculation of

wave run-up at the new plant's elevated power block for the design storm described in Reference 1.

The calculations herein utilize the wave parameters from Reference 1 to calculate wave run-up using

accepted methodology from the USACE CEM.

2. DESIGN INPUTS

There are two major design inputs to this calculation. The first is the physical layout of the new

plant's elevated power block; 1 V:3H side slopes armored with riprap. This is conveyed in SSAR

Figure 2.5.4.5-2 (Reference 2). The second is the set of wave parameters at the site bracketing the

peak of the design storm simulation that is documented in Attachment 4 of Reference 1 and is

provided in Table 1 below. Figure 1 below is a copy of Figure 15 from Reference 1 that shows the

fetch directions relative to the plant site. Note that a fetch analysis was performed in Reference 1 to

determine the input wave information defined in Table 1 below; however, RAJ 67 Question

02.04.05-15 is specifically in regards to the run-up equation that was used in Reference 1, not the

supporting fetch analysis. As such, the resulting wave data produced from the fetch analysis in

Reference 1 is used herein for the updated run-up calculations without modification.

Table 1. Input wave parameters obtained from Attachment 4 of Reference 1.

Time (hr)l Fetch

Hmo (m)3 Tp (sec)4 Hmax (m)5 Slope (deg)6 Direction2

19.0 NE 2.18 3.99 1.40 18.4 19.5 ENE 2.90 4.65 2.40 18.4 20.0 ENE 3.58 5.05 3.60 18.4 20.5 E 3.99 5.26 3.90 18.4 21.0 ESE 4.47 5.57 4.40 18.4 21.5 ESE 4.27 5.48 4.30 18.4 22.0 ESE 4.05 5.39 4.00 18.4 22.5 ESE 3.50 5.13 3.70 18.4 23.0 ESE 3.01 4.88 3.40 18.4 23.5 ESE 2.62 4.66 3.00 18.4 24.0 S 2.73 4.53 3.90 18.4

iTul1e column corresponds to the tune step of the PMH event simulated In Reference I. 2Fetch direction refers to the dominant wind direction at that time in the simulation and corresponds to the fetch

directions shown in Figure 2 below.

3Hmo corresponds to the energy-based significant wave from Reference I. 4Tp corresponds to the calculated spectral peak period applied in the calculations provided in Reference I.

5Final Hmax used in the analysis was the lower of 1.67*Hmo or breaking wave height.

6SIope corresponds to angle created by the I V:3H side slopes.


Legend

* Proj ect Site

-- IMl\e Runup Fetches


Page 5 of 10

'! ... \ , . ,J ~ ...

L

Figure 1. Copy of Figure 15 from Reference I showing the fetch directions used in the wave run-up

analysis.

3. ASSUMPTIONS

The calculation is based on a bounding Early Site Permit plant design that at this point has broad

outlines but does not have detailed topographic or materials information. It is assumed that the wave

run-up calculation using the PMH wave parameters from Reference 1 will provide suitable

information for detailed design. Conservative assumptions are made including that there will be no

shallow water wave reduction beyond depth-limiting and that the lower range recommended for run

up attenuation due to riprap is appropriate. Also, it is assumed that there will be storm conditions



Page 6 of 10

where the waves impinging on the new plant's slope will be non-breaking and normally-incident to

the slope.

4. METHODOLOGY AND ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA

The process begins with the identification of incident wave parameters at the site to be used for run

up calculations, found in Attachment 4 of Reference 1. Run-up computations for the new plant are

based upon the latest design guidance found in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Coastal

Engineering Manual (CEM), Chapter VJ-5 (Reference 3). The foundation for the new plant's

elevated power block is to be an earthen trapezoidal mound with side slopes of 1 V:3H, as described

in Reference 2. The side slopes are to be armored with concrete and rock riprap.

There is one significant alteration in the methodology in that ANS 2.8 (Reference 5) specifies the use

of the lesser of (a) the maximum wave height, or (b) the "breaker height" (0.78 times depth of water)

for computation of wave run-up. Reference 5 also specifies that the maximum wave height, H mux, is

defined as the 1 % wave, H/%, and that for deep water waves, Hmux = 1.67 times the significant wave

height, H.I. Also, Reference 3, Equation 11-1-132 defines H/% as 1.67 times H., .Consequently, H." is replaced by Hmax (=1.67H., or the breaker height, whichever is less) in the computation of both the

surf similarity parameter (Equations 2 and 4) and the run-up (Equation 1). This essentially yields the

highest run-up of any single wave running up the embankment. Note that the 'Hmax' values

provided in Table 1 already account for this alteration.

Additionally, there are no acceptance criteria for these calculations as all equations are explicitly

computed and there is no measured data available for comparison at the new plant site. All

computations are thoroughly reviewed for completeness and appropriateness.

5. CALCULATIONS

Equation VJ-5-3 in Reference 3 provides a general form for the run-up equation for structures as

(1)

Where:

RUi% = run-up level exceeded by i percent of the incident waves

H., = significant wave height of incident waves at the toe of the structure, in this case the maximum

wave height (Hnwx = 1.67H., or the breaker height, which is less) is used as explained in Section 4

(= surf similarity parameter, (om or (op (defined below)



Page 7 of 10

A, C = coefficients dependent on .; and i but related to the reference case of a smooth, straight

impermeable slope, long-crested head-on waves and Rayleigh-distributed wave heights

Yr = reduction factor for influence of surface roughness

Yh = reduction factor for influence of a berm (Yh = 1 for non-bermed profiles)

y" = reduction factor for influence of shallow-water conditions where the wave height distribution

deviates from the Ray leigh distribution (Yr = 1 for Ray leigh distributed waves)

Y/i = factor for influence of angle of incidence B of the waves (Yfl = 1 for head-on long-crested waves,

i.e. f3 = 0°). The influence of directional spreading in short-crested waves is included in yp as well.

The surf similarity parameter for random waves is defined as

tan a tan a ~Olll "" r;- or s'JI' = r:-

",)0111 "so!, (2)

Where

Som :::: 21i H, ,

g 7;;, (3)

, g ~:

(4)

in which tan a. is the structure slope, TII1 is the mean wave period, and Tp is the spectral peak wave

period.

For the new plant, an i value of 2% is adopted as specified in the equations presented in Reference 3.

Note that Equation (1) is used commonly for wave run-up on a variety of coastal engineering

structures to provide the highest 2% of run-up values based upon the significant wave height, H". By

amplifying the significant wave height to that of the maximum wave height (Hmox = 1.67 H", per the

methodology specified in Reference 5), an extremely conservative value for run-up is obtained. In



Page 8 of 10

fact, this results in a run-up elevation that has a significantly lower chance of occurrence than the 2%

value.

This establishes values for A and C in Eq. I depending on the surf similarity parameter as provided

by CEM Equation VI-S-6:

A=I.S; C=O for O.S< ;;()P~ 2 (S)

A=O.O; C=3.0 for 2< ;;()P~ 3-4 (6)

In establishing the y parameters to be used in the calculation of run-up at the new plant using Eq. (1),

the berm factor Yb is set equal to 1.0 because there is no berm in the design cross-section. The shallow

water reduction factor is conservatively chosen to be 1.0 as well because it is expected that there will

be storm conditions where the waves impinging on the new plant's slope will be non-breaking (i.e.,

Rayleigh distributed). The roughness factor y,. as provided by Table VI-S-3 of the CEM is between

O.S and 0.6, dependent upon the number of layers of rock to be placed on the slope. As discussed

above, this design detail has yet to be determined, so the least restrictive value of 0.6 is chosen in

order to be conservative (i.e., since this is a coefficient multiplier and the 0.6 value is the upper limit

of the acceptable range of this factor, then this results in a conservative use of this parameter).

Finally, it is assumed that the waves are head-on; i.e., normally-incident to the slope, so that Yf! = 1.0.

Wave conditions needed for the run-up computations are provided in Table 1 (reproduced from

Attachment 4 of Reference 1). Representative local peak wave conditions along the dominant fetch

direction, including maximum depth-limited wave height and peak wave period, are provided at 30-

minute intervals bracketing the time of peak storm surge at the site. An Excel spreadsheet was

developed to make the run-up computations at the new plant for each of these time steps.

Attachment A is a copy of the Excel spreadsheet printed in formula mode so that the implementation

of the equations presented above can be checked. Attachment B is the final version of the spreadsheet

with the final calculations and results provided.

6. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

This section presents the run-up calculation results for the PMH event in Reference 1 using the

calculation method described above. Table 2, below, shows the results of the run-up calculations

using the input data provided in Table I following this methodology (the calculated run-up values are

also convel1ed to feet in this table by mUltiplying by 3.281 feet/meter). For this case, the peak run-up

value (4.37 m) occurs at time = 21.0 hours into the event, when Hmax = 4.40 m and Tp = S.S7 s. Table

3 provides the results when converting to TWL following the procedure defined in Table 23 of

Reference I, i.e. TWL = Surge (ft, NAVD88) + Wind Setup (ft) + Wave Run-up (ft). The maximum

TWL value computed in Table 3 is 41.04 ft, NAVD88 occuring at time = 21.0 hours.

PSEG Power LLC PSEG Site ESPA


Page 9 of 10 Analysis of RAI-67 Question on Wave Run-up

Table 2. Run-up results from current calculation.

Time Fetch Surf Run-up (m) Run-up (ft)

(hr) Direction l Hmax (m)2 Similarity Run-up (m) adjusted for adjusted for Parameter rip-rap rip-rap

19.0 NE 2.18 1.40 2.94 1.77 5.81

19.5 ENE 2.90 1.25 4.49 2.69 8.83

20.0 ENE 3.58 1.11 5.97 3.58 11.75

20.5 E 3.99 1.11 6.48 3.89 12.76

21.0 ESE 4.47 1.10 7.28 4.37 14.34

21.5 ESE 4.27 1.10 7.09 4.25 13.94

22.0 ESE 4.05 1.12 6.72 4.03 13.22

22.5 ESE 3.50 1.11 6.15 3.69 12.11

23.0 ESE 3.01 1.10 5.61 3.37 11.06

23.5 ESE 2.62 1.12 5.03 3.02 9.91

24.0 S 2.73 0.95 5.58 3.35 10.99

IFetch direction refers to the dominant wind direction at that time in the simulation and corresponds

to the fetch directions shown in Figure 2. This information is repeated from Table 1 for convenience.

2Final Hmax used in the analysis was the lower of 1.67*Hmo or breaking wave height. This

information is repeated from Table 1 for convenience.

Table 3. Calculation ofTWL Using Revised Run-up Values.

Time Surge (ft, Wind Setup Wave Run- TWl (ft, (hr) NAVD88)1 (ft)2 up (ft) NAVD88)

19.0 8.4 0.9 5.81 15.11

19.5 9.8 5.6 8.83 24.23

20.0 11.2 12.1 11.75 35.05

20.5 12.8 14.0 12.76 39.56

21.0 14.1 12.6 14.34 41.04

21.5 15.2 10.5 13.94 39.64

22.0 15.9 8.5 13.22 37.62

22.5 16.2 6.8 12.11 35.11

23.0 15.8 5.7 11.06 32.56

23.5 14.7 4.8 9.91 29.41

24.0 13.4 3.7 10.99 28.09 ICorresponds to the HEC-RAS Surge values provIded In Table 23 m Reference 1.

2Corresponds to the Wind Setup values provided in Table 23 in Reference I.


7. REFERENCES


Page 10 of 10

1. Probable Maximum Storm Surge Calculation. MACTEC Calculation Number 2251-ESPHY-245, Revision 3.

2. PSEG Site ESPA SSAR Subsection 2.4.3, Revision 3.

3. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2011. Coastal Engineering Manual (CEM), Chapter VI-5, dated September 28,2011.

4. Not Used 5. ANSIIANS-2.8. 1992. American Nuclear Society. Determining Design Basis at Power

Reactor Sites. La Grange Park, Illinois, July 1992.


ATTACHMENT A:


Attachment A: Page 1 of 2

MICROSOFT EXCEL SPREADSHEET WITH IMPLEMENTATION OF EOUATIONS

PSEG Power LLC

PSEG Site ESPA

Analysis of RAI-67 Question on Wave Run-up

A

1

2 Time (hr)

Fetch

3 Direction 4 19 NE

5 19.5 ENE

6 20 ENE

7 20.5 E

8 21 ESE

9 21.5 ESE

10 22 ESE

11 22.5 ESE

12 23 ESE

13 23.5 ESE

14 24 5

Hmo(m)

2.18

2.9

3.58

3.99

4.47

4.27

4.05

3.5

3.01

2.62

2.73

Tp (sec) Hmax(m) Slope (deg)

3.99 1.4 18.4

4.65 2.4 18.4

5.05 3.6 18.4

5.26 3.9 18.4

5.57 4.4 18.4

5.48 4.3 18.4

5.39 4 18.4

5.13 3.7 18.4

4.88 3.4 18.4

4.66 3 18.4

4.53 3.9 18.4

H

Surf Similarity Parameter Run-up (m)

= TAN(G4* PIO/180)/SQRT((2* PIO* F4)/(9.81 *(E4' 2))) =IF(AND(0.5<H4,H4<=2),(1.5*F4*H4),(3*F4))

=TAN( GS * PIO/180)/SQRT((2* PIO* FS)/(9.81* (ES' 2))) = I F (AN D( O. S<H 5, HS<=2) ,( 1.5 * FS * HS), (3 * FS))

= TAN(G6* PIO/180)/SQRT((2* PIO* F6)/(9.81 * (E6' 2))) = IF (AN D( O. 5< H 6, H6<=2 ),( 1.5 * F6 * H 6), (3 * F6))

= TAN(G7* PIO/180)/SQRT((2* PIO* F7)/(9.81 * (E7' 2))) -IF(AND(0.S<H7,H7<-2),(1.5*F7*H7),(3*F7))

=TAN(G8* PIO/180)/SQRT((2* PIO* F8)/(9.81*(E8' 2))) = I F(AN D( 0.5< H8 ,H8<=2),( 1.5 * F8 * H8) ,(3 * F8))

= TAN( G9* PIO/180)/SQRT((2* PIO* F9)/(9.81 *(E9' 2))) =IF(AND(0.S<H9,H9<=2),(1.S*F9*H9),(3*F9))

=TAN(G10*PI()/180)/SQRT((2*PI()*F10)/(9.81'(EI0'2))) = IF (AN D(O. S<H 10, H 10<=2), (1.5 * FlO' H 10), (3 * F 10))

=TAN(G11*PIO/180)/SQRT((2*PIO*F11)/(9.81*(E11 '2))) -IF(AN D(O.5<H 1l,Hll <-2),(1.5* Fll* Hll),(3 * Fll))

= TAN(G12 *PIO/180)/SQRT( (2 * PIO*F12)/(9.81*(E12' 2))) =IF(AND(0.5<H12,H12<=2),(1.S*F12*H12),(3'F12))

= TAN(G13' PIO/180)/SQRT((2*PIO*F13)f(9.81*(E13' 2))) =IF(AND(0.S<H13,H13<=2),(1.S*F13*H13),(3*F13))

= TAN(G14 * PIO/180)/SQRT((2* PIO'F14 )/(9.81 :(E14' 2))) =IF(AN D(0.S<H14,H14<=2),(1.S* F14 *H14),(3 * F14))

Calc. No. 2014-06515, Revision 0

Project No. 12380-019

Attachment A: 2 of 2

Run-up (m) adjusted for rip-rap

=14*0.6

-15*0.6

=16*0.6

=17*0.6

=18*0.6

=19'0.6

=110*0.6

-111*0.6

=112*0.6

=113*0.6

-114*0.6


ATTACHMENT B:


Attachment B: Page 1 of 2

FINAL WAVE RUN-UP EXCEL SPREADSHEET

PSEG Power LLC

PSEG Site ESPA


Time (hr) Fetch

Hmo (m) Direction

19.0 NE 2.18

19.5 ENE 2.90 20.0 ENE 3.58

20.5 E 3.99

21.0 ESE 4.47

21.5 ESE 4.27 22.0 ESE 4.05

22.5 ESE 3.50

23.0 ESE 3.01 23.5 ESE 2.62

24.0 S 2.73

Tp (sec)

3.99

4.65

5.05

5.26

5.57

5.48

5.39

5.13

4.88

4.66

4.53

Hmax (m) Slope (deg) Surf Similarity

Parameter

1.40 18.4 1.40

2.40 18.4 1.25 3.60 18.4 1.11

3.90 18.4 1.11

4.40 18.4 1.10

4.30 18.4 1.10 4.00 18.4 1.12

3.70 18.4 1.11

3.40 18.4 1.10

3.00 18.4 1.12

3.90 18.4 0.95

Run-up (m)

2.94

4.49

5.97

6.48

7.28

7.09

6.72

6.15

5.61

5.03

5.58



Attachment B: 2 of 2


1.77

2.69 3.58

3.89 •

4.37 .

4.25

4.03

3.69

3.37

3.02

3.35


Table of Contents

Calc, No, 2014-06515, Revision 0 Project No, 12380-019

Page 2 of 10

Page

LIST OF ACRONYMS ....................................................................................................................... 3

1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE ............................................................................................................. 4

2. DESIGN INPUTS ........................................................................................................................ 4

3. ASSUMPTIONS .......................................................................................................................... 5

4. METHODOLOGY AND ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA ............................................................... 6

5. CALCULATIONS ....................................................................................................................... 6

6. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................. 8

7 . REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 10

A TT ACHMENTS

A

B

Microsoft Excel Spreadsheet with Implementation of Equations

Final Wave Run-up Excel Spreadsheet

No. of Pages

2

2


LIST OF ACRONYMS

CEM

PMH

SWL

TWL

USACE

Coastal Engineering Manual

Probable Maximum Hurricane

Still Water Level

Total Water Level

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers


Page 3 of 10


1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE


Page 4 of 10

This document details the response to RAJ 67, Question 02.04.05-15, regarding the calculation of wave run-up at the new plant's elevated power block for the design storm described in Reference 1. The calculations herein utilize the wave parameters from Reference 1 to calculate wave run-up using accepted methodology from the USACE CEM.

2. DESIGN INPUTS

There are two major design inputs to this calculation. The first is the physical layout of the new

plant's elevated power block; 1 V:3I-I side slopes armored with riprap. This is conveyed in SSAR Figure 2.5.4.5-2 (Reference 2). The second is the set of wave parameters at the site bracketing the peak of the design storm simulation that is documented in Attachment 4 of Reference 1 and is

provided in Table 1 below. Figure 1 below is a copy of Figure 15 from Reference 1 that shows the fetch directions relative to the plant site. Note that a fetch analysis was performed in Reference 1 to determine the input wave information defined in Table 1 below; however, RAJ 67 Question

02.04.05-15 is specifically in regards to the run-up equation that was used in Reference 1, not the

supporting fetch analysis. As such, the resulting wave data produced from the fetch analysis in Reference 1 is used herein for the updated run-up calculations without modification.

Table 1. Input wave parameters obtained from Attachment 4 of Reference 1.

Time (hr)l Fetch Hmo (m)3 Tp (sec)4 Hmax (m)5 Slope (deg)6 Direction2

19.0 NE 2.18 3.99 1.40 18.4 19.5 ENE 2.90 4.65 2.40 18.4 20.0 ENE 3.58 5.05 3.60 18.4 20.5 E 3.99 5.26 3.90 18.4 21.0 ESE 4.47 5.57 4.40 18.4 21.5 ESE 4.27 5.48 4.30 18.4 22.0 ESE 4.05 5.39 4.00 18.4 22.5 ESE 3.50 5.13 3.70 18.4 23.0 ESE 3.01 4.88 3.40 18.4 23.5 ESE 2.62 4.66 3.00 18.4 24.0 S 2.73 4.53 3.90 18.4

iTlme column corresponds to the tllne step of the PMH event sImulated In Reference I. 2Fetch direction refers to the dominant wind direction at that time in the simulation and corresponds to the fetch

directions shown in Figure 2 below.

3Hmo corresponds to the energy-based significant wave from Reference I. 4Tp corresponds to the calculated spectral peak period applied in the calculations provided in Reference 1.

5Final Hmax used in the analysis was the lower of 1.67*Hmo or breaking wave height.

6SIope corresponds to angle created by the 1 V:3H side slopes.


Legend

* Proj eot Site

-- \'ol3\e Runup Fetches


Page 5 of 10

II

'W+E S

Figure 1. Copy of Figure 15 from Reference 1 showing the fetch directions used in the wave run-up

analysis.

3. ASSUMPTIONS

The calculation is based on a bounding Early Site Permit plant design that at this point has broad

outlines but does not have detailed topographic or materials information. It is assumed that the wave

run-up calculation using the PMH wave parameters from Reference 1 will provide suitable

information for detailed design. Conservative assumptions are made including that there will be no

shallow water wave reduction beyond depth-limiting and that the lower range recommended for run

up attenuation due to riprap is appropriate. Also, it is assumed that there will be storm conditions



Page 6 of 10

where the waves impinging on the new plant's slope will be non-breaking and normally-incident to

the slope.

4. METHODOLOGY AND ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA

The process begins with the identification of incident wave parameters at the site to be used for run

up calculations, found in Attachment 4 of Reference 1. Run-up computations for the new plant are

based upon the latest design guidance found in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Coastal

Engineering Manual (CEM), Chapter VJ-5 (Reference 3). The foundation for the new plant's

elevated power block is to be an earthen trapezoidal mound with side slopes of 1 V:3H, as described

in Reference 2. The side slopes are to be armored with concrete and rock riprap.

There is one significant alteration in the methodology in that ANS 2.8 (Reference 5) specifies the use

of the lesser of (a) the maximum wave height, or (b) the "breaker height" (0.78 times depth of water)

for computation of wave run-up. Reference 5 also specifies that the maximum wave height, H max, is

defined as the I % wave, HJ%, and that for deep water waves, Hmax = 1.67 times the significant wave

height, n. Also, Reference 3, Equation JI-I-132 defines HJ% as 1.67 times H" .Consequently, H" is replaced by Hmax (=1.67H" or the breaker height, whichever is less) in the computation of both the

surf similarity parameter (Equations 2 and 4) and the run-up (Equation I). This essentially yields the

highest run-up of any single wave running up the embankment. Note that the 'Hmax' values

provided in Table I already account for this alteration.

Additionally, there are no acceptance criteria for these calculations as all equations are explicitly

computed and there is no measured data available for comparison at the new plant site. All

computations are thoroughly reviewed for completeness and appropriateness.

5. CALCULATIONS

Equation VJ-5-3 in Reference 3 provides a general form for the run-up equation for structures as

(1)

Where:

RUi% = run-up level exceeded by i percent of the incident waves

H, = significant wave height of incident waves at the toe of the structure, in this case the maximum

wave height (Hmax = 1.67 H, or the breaker height, which is less) is used as explained in Section 4

~ = surf similarity parameter, ~()m or ~()P ( defined below)



Page 7 of 10

A, C = coefficients dependent on c; and i but related to the reference case of a smooth, straight

impermeable slope, long-crested head-on waves and Rayleigh-distributed wave heights

Yr = reduction factor for influence of surface roughness

Yh = reduction factor for influence of a berm (Yb = 1 for non-bermed profiles)

y" = reduction factor for influence of shallow-water conditions where the wave height distribution

deviates from the Ray leigh distribution (Yr = 1 for Ray leigh distributed waves)

Yfl = factor for influence of angle of incidence ~ of the waves (Yfl = 1 for head-on long-crested waves,

i.e. fJ = 00). The influence of directional spreading in short-crested waves is included in Yf! as well.

The surf similarity parameter for random waves is defined as

tan a tan a ~O/ll = C- or ~Ol' = r::-

"SOI1l "sol' (2)

Where

SOIll

2JT H, = ,

g T;)~ (3)

2J1' H. =

g r) (4)

in which tan (J. is the structure slope, Tm is the mean wave period, and Tp is the spectral peak wave

period.

For the new plant, an i value of2% is adopted as specified in the equations presented in Reference 3.

Note that Equation (1) is used commonly for wave run-up on a variety of coastal engineering

structures to provide the highest 2% of run-up values based upon the significant wave height, H". By

amplifYing the significant wave height to that of the maximum wave height (Hmox = 1.67 H." per the

methodology specified in Reference 5), an extremely conservative value for run-up is obtained. In



Page 8 of 10

fact, this results in a run-up elevation that has a significantly lower chance of occurrence than the 2%

value.

This establishes values for A and C in Eq. 1 depending on the surf similarity parameter as provided

by CEM Equation VI-S-6:

A=I.S; c=o for O.S< ~()P~ 2 (S)

A=O.O; C=3.0 for 2< ~()P~ 3-4 (6)

In establishing the y parameters to be used in the calculation of run-up at the new plant using Eq. (1),

the berm factor Yh is set equal to 1.0 because there is no berm in the design cross-section. The shallow

water reduction factor is conservatively chosen to be 1.0 as well because it is expected that there will

be storm conditions where the waves impinging on the new plant's slope will be non-breaking (i.e.,

Rayleigh distributed). The roughness factor )II' as provided by Table VI-S-3 of the CEM is between

O.S and 0.6, dependent upon the number of layers of rock to be placed on the slope. As discussed

above, this design detail has yet to be determined, so the least restrictive value of 0.6 is chosen in

order to be conservative (i.e., since this is a coefficient multiplier and the 0.6 value is the upper limit

of the acceptable range of this factor, then this results in a conservative use of this parameter).

Finally, it is assumed that the waves are head-on; i.e., normally-incident to the slope, so that Yfl = 1.0.

Wave conditions needed for the run-up computations are provided in Table 1 (reproduced from

Attachment 4 of Reference 1). Representative local peak wave conditions along the dominant fetch

direction, including maximum depth-limited wave height and peak wave period, are provided at 30-

minute intervals bracketing the time of peak storm surge at the site. An Excel spreadsheet was

developed to make the run-up computations at the new plant for each of these time steps.

Attachment A is a copy of the Excel spreadsheet printed in formula mode so that the implementation

of the equations presented above can be checked. Attachment B is the final version of the spreadsheet

with the final calculations and results provided.

6. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

This section presents the run-up calculation results for the PMH event in Reference 1 using the

calculation method described above. Table 2, below, shows the results of the run-up calculations

using the input data provided in Table 1 following this methodology (the calculated run-up values are

also converted to feet in this table by multiplying by 3.281 feet/meter). For this case, the peak run-up

value (4.37 m) occurs at time = 21.0 hours into the event, when Hnax= 4.40 m and Tp = S.S7 s. Table

3 provides the results when converting to TWL following the procedure defined in Table 23 of

Reference 1, i.e. TWL = Surge (ft, NAVD88) + Wind Setup (ft) + Wave Run-up (ft). The maximum

TWL value computed in Table 3 is 41.04 ft, NAVD88 occuring at time = 21.0 hours.



Page 9 of 10 Analysis of RAI-67 Question on Wave Run-up

Table 2. Run-up results from current calculation.

Time Fetch Surf Run-up (m) Run-up (ft)

(hr) Direction! Hmax (m)2 Similarity Run-up (m) adjusted for adjusted for

Parameter rip-rap rip-rap

19.0 NE 2.18 1.40 2.94 1.77 5.81

19.5 ENE 2.90 1.25 4.49 2.69 8.83

20.0 ENE 3.58 1.11 5.97 3.58 11.75

20.5 E 3.99 1.11 6.48 3.89 12.76

21.0 ESE 4.47 1.10 7.28 4.37 14.34

21.5 ESE 4.27 1.10 7.09 4.25 13.94

22.0 ESE 4.05 1.12 6.72 4.03 13.22

22.5 ESE 3.50 1.11 6.15 3.69 12.11

23.0 ESE 3.01 1.10 5.61 3.37 11.06

23.5 ESE 2.62 1.12 5.03 3.02 9.91

24.0 S 2.73 0.95 5.58 3.35 10.99

lFetch direction refers to the dominant wind direction at that time in the simulation and corresponds

to the fetch directions shown in Figure 2. This information is repeated from Table 1 for convenience.

2Final Hmax used in the analysis was the lower of 1.67*Hmo or breaking wave height. This

information is repeated from Table 1 for convenience.

Table 3. Calculation ofTWL Using Revised Run-up Values.

Time Surge (ft, Wind Setup Wave Run- TWL (ft, (hr) NAVD88)1 (ft)2 up (ft) NAVD88)

19.0 8.4 0.9 5.81 15.11

19.5 9.8 5.6 8.83 24.23

20.0 11.2 12.1 11.75 35.05

20.5 12.8 14.0 12.76 39.56

21.0 14.1 12.6 14.34 41.04

21.5 15.2 10.5 13.94 39.64

22.0 15.9 8.5 13.22 37.62

22.5 16.2 6.8 12.11 35.11

23.0 15.8 5.7 11.06 32.56

23.5 14.7 4.8 9.91 29.41

24.0 13.4 3.7 10.99 28.09 !Corresponds to the HEC-RAS Surge values provided 111 Table 23 111 Reference 1.

2Corresponds to the Wind Setup values provided in Table 23 in Reference 1.


7. REFERENCES


Page 10 of 10

1. Probable Maximum Storm Surge Calculation. MACTEC Calculation Number 22SI-ESPHY-24S, Revision 3.

2. PSEG Site ESPA SSAR Subsection 2.4.3, Revision 3. 3. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2011. Coastal Engineering Manual (CEM),

Chapter VI-S, dated September 28, 2011. 4. Not Used S. ANSIIANS-2.8. 1992. American Nuclear Society. Determining Design Basis at Power

Reactor Sites. La Grange Park, Illinois, July 1992.


ATTACHMENT A:


Attachment A: Page 1 of 2

MICROSOFT EXCEL SPREADSHEET WITH IMPLEMENTATION OF EQUATIONS



A 1

2 Time (hr)

Fetch

3 Direction 4 19 NE 5 19.5 ENE 6 20 ENE 7 20.5 E S 21 ESE 9 21.5 ESE 10 22 ESE 11 22.5 ESE 12 23 ESE 13 23.5 ESE 14 24 S

Hmo(m)

2.1S 2.9

3.58

3.99 4.47

4.27

4.05

3.5

3.01

2.62

2.73

Tp (sec) Hmax(m) Slope (deg)

3.99 1.4 lS.4

4.65 2.4 lS.4 5.05 3.6 18.4

5.26 3.9 18.4

5.57 4.4 lS.4

5.4S 4.3 lS.4

5.39 4 lS.4

5.13 3.7 lS.4

4.88 3.4 lS.4

4.66 3 lS.4

4.53 3.9 lS.4

H

Surf Similarity Parameter Run-up(m)

= TAN(G4 *PIO/180)/SQRT((2*PIO *F4)/(9.S1*(E4A 2))) =IF(AND(0.5<H4,H4<=2),(1.5' F4' H4 ),(3* F4))

= TAN(G5*PIO/180)/SQRT((2 * PIO' F5)/(9.81 * (E5A 2))) =1 F(AN D (0 .5<H5, H 5<=2), (1.5 * F 5 * H5), (3 * F5))

= TAN(G6*PIO/180)/SQRT((2* PIO*F6)/(9.81 * (E6A 2))) =1 F(AN D (0 .5<H6, H 6<=2), (1.5 * F6 * H6), (3 * F6))

= TAN(G7*PIO/180)/SQRT((2 * PIO*F7)/(9.81 * (E7A 2))) -I F(AN D (0 .5<H7, H 7<-2), (1.5 * F7 * H7), (3 * F7))

= TAN(GS*PIO/1S0)/SQRT((2 * PIO*FS)/(9.S1* (ESA 2))) =1 F(AN D (0 .5<HS ,HS<=2) ,( 1.5 * FS * H8) ,( 3' FS))

= TAN(G9*PIO/1S0)/SQRT((2* PIO'F9)/(9.S1* (E9A 2))) =1 F(AN D [0 .5<H9, H9<=2), (1.5 * F9* H9), (3 * F9))

= TAN( Gl0* PIO/1S0)/SQRT((2* PIO* Fl0)/(9.S1 '(ElOA 2))) =IF(AND(0.S<Hl0,Hl0<=2),( 1.5* Fl0* H 10),(3* FlO))

= TAN(G 11* PIO/1S0)/SQRT((2* PIO* Fll)/(9.S1* (Ell A2))) -IF(AND(0.5<Hll,Hll<-2),(1.5 * Fll* H 11),(3* Fll))

= TAN(G 12* PIO/1S0)/SQRT((2* PIO* F12)/(9.S1 '(E12A 2))) = I F(AN D(O. S<H 12, H 12<=2), (1.5' F12 * H 12), (3 * F12))

= TAN(G13* PIO/1S0)/SQRT((2* PIO* F13 )/(9.S1* [E13A 2))) =IF(AND(0.S<H13,H13<-2),(1.S*F13*H13),(3*F13))

= TAN(G 14* PIO/1S0)/SQRT((2* PIO* F14)/(9.S1* (E14A 2))) =IF(AND(0.5<H14,H14<=2),(1.S*F14*H14),(3*F14))


Project No. 123S0-019

Attachment A: 2 of 2


=14*0.6

=15*0.6

=16*0.6 -17*0.6

=IS*0.6

=19*0.6

=110*0.6

-111*0.6 =112*0.6

=113*0.6

=114*0.6


ATTACHMENT B:


Attachment B: Page 1 of 2

FINAL WAVE RUN-UP EXCEL SPREADSHEET

PSEG Power LLC

PSEG Site ESPA


Time (hr) Fetch

Hmo (m) Direction

19.0 NE 2.18

19.5 ENE 2.90

20.0 ENE 3.58

20.5 E 3.99

21.0 ESE 4.47

21.5 ESE 4.27 22.0 ESE 4.05

22.5 ESE 3.50

23.0 ESE 3.01

23.5 ESE 2.62

24.0 S 2.73

Tp (sec)

3.99

4.65

5.05

5.26

5.57

5.48

5.39

5.13

4.88

4.66

4.53

Hmax (m) Slope (deg) Surf Similarity

Parameter

1.40 18.4 1.40

2.40 18.4 1.25

3.60 18.4 1.11

3.90 18.4 1.11

4.40 18.4 1.10

4.30 18.4 1.10

4.00 18.4 1.12

3.70 18.4 1.11

3.40 18.4 1.10

3.00 18.4 1.12

3.90 18.4 0.95

Run-up (m)

2.94

4.49

5.97

6.48

7.28

7.09

6.72

6.15

5.61 5.03

5.58



Attachment B: 2 of 2


1.77

2.69

3.58

3.89

4.37

4.25

4.03

3.69

3.37 3.02

3.35

Date post:	22-Mar-2022
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

Calculation No. 2014-06515, 'Analysis of RAI-57 Question ...

Documents