achieving cost savings through collaborative seismic testing

Nuclear Engineering and Design 181 (1998) 235–246

Achieving cost savings through collaborative seismic testing

Garry Chapman a,*, John Richards b, Leonard Loflin c

a Union Electric Company, P.O. Box 620 Jun. Hwy.cc and Hwy.o, Fulton, MO 65251, USAb Duke Power Company, Charlotte, NC, USA

c EPRI, Plant Support Engineering (PSE), Charlotte, NC, USA

Abstract

Seismic qualification of nuclear power plant equipment through testing has been perceived by utility personnel asa costly and complicated process. Certainly, some equipment types may only be qualified by test due to thecomplexity of the item and/or the inability to represent the item in a quantitative analysis. Other factors also influencethe reluctance by some to resort to seismic testing. These include cost, dealing with test failures, lack of understandingof the testing process, and greater reliance on new analytical techniques. A group of utilities have allied themselvesto address these issues and have formed the Seismic Qualification Reporting and Testing Standardization (SQURTS)group. SQURTS has implemented a program whereby testing is performed at a low cost, often lower than acomparable analytical solution. Testing is conducted at generic seismic levels using generic test procedures, whichbroadens the applicability of results. Test reports are published in a standard format which shortens the process ofreview and approval. Testing is no longer just a requirement, but a cost-effective option. © 1998 Elsevier Science S.A.All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Put a dozen seismic engineers together andwhat do you get? In this case, you get a programwhich fundamentally changes the way we thinkabout seismic qualification testing. No longer isseismic testing something done only when re-quired. Now, seismic testing is something we wantto do—to save money!

From a utility perspective, subjecting an item toseismic testing has been a costly and complicatedevolution. Costs are often high, especially whentime is short, and there is inevitably a time crunchin developing a test specification, setting up a

contract or purchase order, and waiting for thephone call to say everything is fine (with ananomaly or two). Through SQURTS, memberutilities have a new outlook. We have learnedvolumes about the ‘nuts and bolts’ of testing andmonitoring, the cost savings possible throughworking with other utilities, and the dynamicbehavior of a wide variety of equipment types.

It was not easy developing the SQURTS pro-gram, but it was not impossible either. The part-nerships developed between member utilities, thetest facility, and the Electric Power Research In-stitute (EPRI) has produced a standardized pro-cess to get items tested and reports issued withminimal pain and cost. Roughly every 6 weeks,there is a table load or more of miscellaneousitems from multiple utilities being tested. The

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 573 6768522; fax: +1573 6764484; e-mail: [email protected]

0029-5493/98/$19.00 © 1998 Elsevier Science S.A. All rights reserved.

PII S0029-5493(97)00349-X

G. Chapman et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 181 (1998) 235–246236

items are big and small, simple and complex, butall riding out a shake as big as we can make it.Most items survive just fine, others require a fewmore lesser shakes to determine a fragility level.The pace is fast but focused on getting throughthe test week with as much success as possible.When the test week is over, member utilities havethat beautiful data which enable them to proceedwith using those items in their plant. One testseries is completed as work on the next begins andthe cycle continues. It is truly a beautiful thing tobehold. The program works and keeps on work-ing. How could this happen?

2. History—birth of a program

Acting on input from various nuclear utilities,EPRI invited several utilities to a conceptualmeeting in the spring of 1992 to explore interest ina collaborative program to address concerns re-lated to equipment seismic qualification. The spe-cific goals of the program at that time were to:� Develop a seismic qualification data sharing

process� Develop fragility test methods and procedures� Develop empirically based guidelines on the use

of testing versus similarity analyses� Provide personnel training in specifying and

conducting seismic qualification tests� Support planned, as well as quick turn-around,

test programsFourteen utility representatives from 11 different

utilities attended this first meeting on June 18, 1992.The focus of this meeting was slanted towards theconstruction and operation of a seismic test facilityowned by a utility group.

Throughout the summer of 1992, the focus ofconstructing a new facility shifted to utilizing anexisting test facility. The group felt that prior toengaging in a large capital project, it would beprudent to utilize the experience of existing testfacilities to determine if, indeed, a group of utilitiescould (1) agree on a program and (2) successfullyadminister it. This change in focus was ultimatelyadopted in a September 1992 meeting where vari-ous commercial arrangements were explored. Itwas also at this meeting that the utility group firstbecame SQURTS (Seismic Qualification Reporting

and Testing Standardization). A utility leadershipstructure was also developed consisting of a utilitychairman and three working groups; Technical,Protocol, and Methods/Research. EPRI wouldprovide a Program Manager to facilitate communi-cation between the utilities and coordinate contractadministration with a third party test facility.

Throughout the remainder of 1992 and early1993, requests for proposals were submitted tothose test facilities which would meet SQURTSbasic requirements. In short, SQURTS desired abiaxial test apparatus conforming to the later IEEE344 standards and which could accommodate sev-eral items on the table at once.

Proposals from the test facilities were evaluatedin depth with follow-up interviews and clarifica-tions. These were reviewed by SQURTS in thespring of 1993 and a final recommendation madeby vote. Ultimately, a contract was executed onApril 30, 1993 between Farwell and Hendricks(F&H) and EPRI to provide testing services forSQURTS. On May 18, 1993, less than 1 year afterthe first meeting, the first SQURTS seismic qualifi-cation test was conducted at F&H.

This brief introduction illustrates that it is possi-ble for multiple utilities to come together to achievea common goal, develop a program, commit tofunding, obtain a contract with an outside agency,and execute. Amazingly, this was done in less than1 year from inception. This was only possiblethrough the human resources committed to build-ing a successful program in addition to the financialresources provided by the members. Personal com-mitment was required from utility members, EPRI,and F&H. Lacking any of these, the programwould have ‘died on the vine’.

3. Overview of the program

SQURTS is a partnership of 22 utilities (seeAppendix A), F&H, and EPRI. Utilities providethe funding, leadership for the program, anditems to be tested. F&H provides technical adviceand the physical means to conduct testing, andEPRI provides contract administration, documentdistribution, and library services. All provide ded-icated service and a ‘can do’ attitude to makesuccess happen.

G. Chapman et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 181 (1998) 235–246 237

The leadership structure is arranged to covermajor elements of the program. The TechnicalChairman is responsible for developing standard-ized test procedures, generic test levels, and re-solving technical issues which may arise duringtesting. The Protocol Chairman is responsible forscheduling and coordinating tests as well as actingas the primary interface with the test lab. TheMethods and Research Chairman is responsiblefor interfacing with other EPRI research, develop-ment of special test methods, and coordinatingresolution of emergent issues.

A number of utility participants have been des-ignated to assist each of the chairmen, as neces-sary. History has shown that when a task needs tobe completed, member utilities step up to theplate and contribute significant personal resourcesto get the job done.

The foregoing describes the partnership be-tween member utilities, but there are additionalpartnerships key to SQURTS success.

As shown in the figure, communication lines tiethe partners together. Each major entity mustinteract with the others at some part in the pro-cess. Naturally, this is an oversimplification of theinterfaces which must be choreographed in a suc-cessful program.

4. The building blocks

Several elementary building blocks have beendeveloped for the standardized process. They in-

clude the SQURTS generic required responsespectra (RRS), the generic seismic qualificationtest procedure, item-specific seismic/functionalprocedures (SFPs) for each equipment type, andvarious policies, guidelines, and position papers.

The most important element is the generic re-quired response spectra (RRS) to be used fortesting. Remembering that our intent is to maketest results as broadly applicable as possible, a testcurve which enveloped most, if not all, potentiallocations is required.

The generic RRS was developed through reviewand consolidation of floor response spectra fromthe member utilities (no small feat). This estab-lished the characteristics of seismic input into thestructures of interest including floor magnitudesand dominant frequencies. The other side of theequation involves the capabilities of the seismicsimulator (shake table). That is, a RRS would beuseless unless it was achievable. Given the capac-ity of the table, SQURTS could have developed anarrow high peak RRS, a broader, less severe(albeit still very high level) RRS, or something inbetween. The curve ultimately adopted was anegotiated curve based on the table limits, IEEEC37.98 response spectra shape, and certain utilityspecific requirements. It is a 5% damped 14 gbroadband RRS with a ZPA greater than 6 g’s.During testing, a slightly larger 15 g ‘target’ curveis utilized to minimize instances of undertest.


The Generic SQURTS RRS adequately en-velopes almost all in-cabinet applications. Thereare rare occasions where the curve is not highenough. In these instances, the curve may bereshaped to cover a specific frequency range oradditional sine beat testing may be performed tomake up the difference. The occasions are few,however, and one can tell by viewing the genericRRS that most applications are adequately cov-ered, with margin.

In addition to the SQURTS generic RRS tocover in-cabinet applications, SQURTS also usesa generic ‘floor’ RRS which is basically the en-velop of utility provided FRS with the low-fre-quency end clipped to accommodate the tablecapacity.

Member utilities may also elect to test theiritems to lesser, more site specific levels. This issometimes necessary when testing very sensitiveand/or costly items which may be overaged by thehigher level tests. Once site-specific needs are met,these items are often tested to the generic levels todetermine additional capacity. Specific members’needs come first, but we always strive to get themost benefit out of our test specimens.

Another key building block is SQURTS’generic seismic qualification technical procedure.This is the motherhood document which imposesthe test laboratory’s quality assurance program,adherence to EIEE 344-1975, and other upper tierrequirements. The SQURTS generic RRS is ap-pended to this procedure. Generation of this doc-ument allows member utilities to endorse theprogram with minimal effort and assure that theirsite-specific commitments are met. It also servesas the mechanism to place the test lab on theutility approved supplier list and to establishtraceability of SQURTS documentation to theutilities’ purchase order documents.

The element which is perhaps the cornerstonebuilding block is the development and mainte-nance of the seismic and functional procedures(SFPs). An SFP lists the component functionaltesting requirements for baseline, seismic, andpost-seismic testing of classes or types of equip-ment. Early in the program’s life, SQURTS devel-oped SFPs for common equipment types. Theseincluded a range of items from circuit breakers to

solenoid operated valves. The SFPs are broad innature, attempting to cover known functional re-quirements associated with the equipment anddata sheets included to provide objective evidenceof testing. These modules are used during eachtest phase as they are applied to test specimenssubmitted by the members. In the rare instanceswhen no SFP exists for a specimen, a new SFP isgenerated. Thus, the pool of SFPs grows to ac-commodate the expected population of presentand future needs. With the SFPs in place, seismictest procedures can be assembled from these ‘off-the-shelf’ modules. Thus, procedures are devel-oped for test series quickly, efficiently, andcheaply. Further, members are familiar with theSFPs and review time becomes a minimal burden.

SQURTS also maintains a set of policies andpositions developed through experience. Positionshave been developed to justify methods of testingrelays, verifying time delays, contact monitoring,and other areas where SQURTS as a group ofseismic experts have, through consensus, estab-lished our preferred method of testing. Continuedsuccess is ensured through learning from the suc-cesses and the failures. SQURTS members aremindful of the adage that those who forget his-tory are doomed to repeat it.

Another useful document generated by the pro-gram is a Test Rep’s survival guide. Utility TestRepresentatives witness each SQURTS group test.And, since the Test Reps could come from any ofa dozen or more utilities and have differing tech-nical backgrounds, the group felt it importantthat we establish guidelines on what a Test Rep’sresponsibility and authority was, what to lookfor, how to resolve problems, and to compilehelpful hints on surviving a week in the testlaboratory. A Test Rep’s effectiveness is directlyproportional to his or her comfort andconfidence.

In summary, the building blocks consisting ofprocedures, specifications, policies, and guidelinesprovide a written trail of how the program issupposed to work. While the program is concisein its written form, the need for flexibility is notforgotten. Embedded in the program documentsare intentional options where unique needs can be


accommodated while maintaining the quality ofthe product. Flexibility is another essential ele-ment to ensure the program is responsive as wellas efficient.

5. The process

With the building blocks in place, the SQURTSprocess becomes inertial. There is a constant cycleof items being prepared for testing and test re-ports being issued for others. This seismic merry-go-round is simple, as depicted in the followingfigure, but each stage requires the commitmentand stamina of the partners.

The standard process always begins with a needfor testing being identified by a member utility.The utility declares this need to the SQURTSProtocol Chairman, identifying basic informationsuch as the item description, its safety function(s),the seismic levels it is to be tested to (as well asthe minimum required), and mounting details.Catalogue information is provided to furtherdefine the item. In a parallel path, this informa-tion is provided to the test laboratory.

The Protocol Chairman, in close coordinationwith the test laboratory, adds the item to the testschedule. Items are grouped into ‘table loads’according to the seismic demand, monitoring ca-pabilities, and space limitations to ensure themaximum number of items may be tested with the

minimum number of table loads. Each table loadis assigned a test series number which defines aseparate seismic test procedure and ultimately aseparate seismic test report.

While the test laboratory is preparing the seis-mic test procedures, the utilities arrange for pro-curement of test specimens and delivery to the testlaboratory. Having a test laboratory which is alsoa third party dedication firm affords the option toprocure the items directly through the laboratory.

Seismic test procedures are constructed fromthe generic test specification and pre-existing item-specific seismic and functional test procedures(SFPs). Once a test series’ seismic test procedureis complete, it is transmitted to involved utilitiesand the designated SQURTS Test Rep for reviewand approval.

Once the seismic test procedure is approved, thetest laboratory conducts pre-seismic functionaltesting on the specimens. This provides the base-line data necessary to determine whether the testspecimen degrades adversely during the seismictesting. As important is the need to determine thatthe specimen works as intended before it is sub-jected to the seismic test.

Seismic testing begins after the pre-seismicfunctionals and arrival of the SQURTS Test Rep.Resonance searches are performed to validate thatall fixturing is rigid and the set-up is acceptable tothe Test Rep. Next, a series of at least five opera-tional basis earthquake (OBE) level tests set at70% of safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) levels areconducted to provide seismic aging. With thedefault SSE level set at the SQURTS generic SSE,the OBE at 70% is formidable in and of itself.Indeed, these ‘OBE’ levels exceed many plants’design basis requirements for SSE. Contacts aremonitored throughout the OBEs to identify, earlyin the process, if there are any particularly sensi-tive items on the table. Following successful com-pletion of the OBEs, the SSEs commence.

Depending upon the functional requirements ofthe item, multiple SSE runs may be required toqualify all of that item’s operating modes. As anitem completes its required number of SSEs, it isremoved from the table for post-seismic func-tional tests. Remaining items which fail to meettest requirements (e.g., excessive chatter) are left


on the table for further, decreased level, testing.In these cases, seismic input is gradually reduceduntil satisfactory performance is demonstrated.

This method of testing is counter to othermeans of fragility testing whereby seismic levelsare gradually increased to a fragility level, andthen backed off to meet the required OBE agingrequirements. SQURTS believes that our methodof determining fragility minimizes excessive agingand once a fragility is determined, all testingrequired for an EIEE 344 proof test is complete.Thus, research interests associated with compo-nent fragilities and qualification needs are metconcurrently with the minimum number of‘shakes’.

Throughout the seismic tests, monitoring equip-ment is in place to ensure the items do what theyare supposed to do and do not spuriously actuateor otherwise behave improperly. Functional testsare performed between runs to monitor item per-formance throughout the test sequence. This alsosupports the SQURTS method of fragility testingby capturing data during OBE runs which may benecessary later for SSE qualification.

After seismic testing, the specimens are sub-jected to post-seismic functional tests and thentransferred to the SQURTS controlled storagearea at the test laboratory. The specimens remainin storage to support future dedication activitiesor any other needs which might require inspectionof the actual test specimens.

In the days which follow, the test laboratorygenerates a report for each test series followingthe standard SQURTS format. As members havebecome familiar with this format, review time isreduced. All functional data is provided as well astest response spectra (TRS) data in both graphicaland tabular format. Also, TRS data is provided atmultiple damping values, enabling many utilitiesto use the data without converting to alternatedamping values. The individual reports are largeand typically cover 10–20 items. SQURTS bankson the premise that more data is better than notenough data.

The report is reviewed and approved by theaffected members and the report is issued to theSQURTS data library for distribution. Through-out a test series’ life cycle, the SQURTS Test Rep

is the single point of accountability for ensuringthat comments are obtained from the utilities andresolved by the test laboratory. Though under-stated in this narrative, the Test Rep’s role isabsolutely essential to ensure success.

The SQURTS data library, maintained at theEPRI-PSE offices in Charlotte, NC, is the reposi-tory for all test reports generated throughSQURTS. The library automatically issues finalreports to those members submitting specimens.An index of all SQURTS tests is issued quarterlyto all members. Any member can request a testreport from the data library.

The following flowchart illustrates this ‘stan-dard process’.

As alluded to previously, SQURTS also recog-nizes the need to adapt to emerging situations.SQURTS has mandated stringent timeliness re-quirements to make the process work smoothly.There are occasions when timeliness is impossible.When the program can flex to accommodate anurgent need, it has flexed. In those instances whenthe program cannot flex, the member can elect totest their item separately at the test laboratoryusing SQURTS standardized procedures. Al-though there is an incremental additional cost inthis option, time and money is saved using thestandardized documents.

6. The SQURTS data library

The data generated through SQURTS would beof little value without a mechanism to get it to themembers. The SQURTS data library fulfills thatfunction. While record copies are maintained atthe test laboratory, the SQURTS data librarymaintains distribution copies for the membership.The data library is physically located at the EPRI-PSE facility in Charlotte, NC. Test reports areautomatically distributed to members havingitems included in those reports. The library alsomaintains a historical index of SQURTS reportswhich is distributed to the membership on a quar-terly basis. Members having an interest in anyreport contained in the index may obtain a copythrough the data library on request. These reportshave been used to support commercial grade de-


dication activities or to provide technical back-ground information for engineering evaluationsbeing conducted at their plant.

As of the early summer of 1996, the librarycontained over 60 SQURTS test reports cover-ing over 500 items. In addition to the

SQURTS test reports, additional reports havebeen provided by the members for distributionto other members. Members enjoy a greatsense of security that full copies of EIEE 344seismic qualification test reports are only aphone call away.


7. What is tested?

The development of the SQURTS program waschallenging and required a significant amount oftime and effort by the partners. The ultimate testwas whether utilities had enough confidence in theprogram to actually use it. While some utilities satback cautiously to watch, other utilities jumped inwith both feet. As time passed and comfort levelsgrew, all the members joined in the fun.

Since the spring of 1993, a wide variety ofequipment types has gone through the SQURTSprogram. They range from the simple to the verycomplex. They include very small items and verylarge items. They are mechanical, electrical, con-trol, and even structural components. If a memberwants to test something, it gets tested. The onlylimit is the physical capacity of the table (which islarge) and the imagination of the member.SQURTS has pushed both limits from time totime.

The following figure shows the operating his-tory from the early days to the present. The figureis interesting from several perspectives. First, therate of specimens tested time is relatively con-stant. Likewise, the number of test programs (in-dividual table loads of specimens) is fairlyconstant. However, the chart also illustrates an-other attribute. That is, nearly 40% of items testedthrough SQURTS are relays. This is not surpris-ing considering that relays are widely used inpower plants and testing is about the only way tocredibly qualify them. Just imagine a finite-ele-ment analysis on the contact arm of a relay

considering the electromagnetic forces coupledwith the dynamic effects of an earthquake!

However, relays are not the only items tested.The SQURTS inventory of items tested includes:� Actuators: damper and motor actuators� Breakers: MCCBs, trip mechanisms, large and

small� Contactors and starters� Mechanical couplings� Electrical connectors� Electronics: isolators, PC boards, transducers,

etc.� Electronic equipment: controllers, recorders

converters, inverters, etc.� Fuses and fuse blocks: yes, fuses� Meters and indicators� Motors� Power inverters and supplies� Pressure regulators� Relays: control, time delay, protective, solid

state, auxiliary, rotary, etc.� Switches: temperature, pressure, limit, hand� Temperature detectors� Terminal blocks� Transformers: small and large� Transmitters: pressure, temperature, flow� Valves: solenoid, relief, manual� AND . . . purge units, positioners, timers, pip-

ing and tubing assemblies, heaters, cable as-semblies, steam traps, coils, soups, nuts.There is a wide variety of items that have been

strapped to the table and shaken as hard as canbe. It is almost certain, however, that before thenext month passes, someone, somewhere, willhave a desire to test something new and different.That keeps the program interesting.

8. Relays, relays, relays . . .

Despite of the diversity of items tested, the factremains that the lion’s share of items tested arerelays. Seldom is there a test series without one ormore relays on the table. These devices are, bydesign, easily transitioned from one state to an-other. This attribute makes the relay desirable inan electrical circuit. The same attribute makesthem particularly vulnerable to the inertial forcesassociated with an earthquake. Relays are also


sensitive to the voltage applied to the coil. Post-accident operation and station black-out condi-tions can result in less than nominal voltage beingsupplied to these devices. To qualify a relay, onemust consider both inertial forces and the elec-tromechanical forces acting in combination.

SQURTS, with a charter of getting the mostbenefit out of each and every test, was particularlyinterested in devising a standardized test method-ology for relays. We wanted to test relays withminimum voltage and maximum seismic inputwhile, at the same time, not imposing test require-ments so stringent that success would be impossi-ble. Further, if a relay did not meet the testrequirements at the generic level, a decision wouldhave to follow as to which input to adjust, voltageor seismic input. This challenge illustrated thebenefit of a multi-utility effort. The SQURTSmembers consulted their respective electrical andseismic engineers to gain input on test methods.This input was then consolidated with input fromthe test laboratory and, contrary to what onemight expect, consensus was obtained on whatwould be SQURTS relay test methodology. Givena standard method and procedure, testing relays isas routine as testing any other item. The groupcame together, defined the problem, and solved it.Amazing, but true.

A related issue concerns contact monitoring.Those who witness seismic qualification testsshould be familiar with the yards and yards ofrecorder paper showing contact states during aseismic test. Test durations are on the order of 30s and acceptance criteria is stated in terms of acouple of milliseconds. Given the resolution of thehuman eye, a few key punches on the calculatorwill tell you that a trace for a single test is a wholelot of chart paper. This is another area whereSQURTS and Farwell and Hendricks are pursu-ing a better way of doing business. Farwell andHendricks, in cooperation with SQURTS, is de-veloping the next generation of chatter monitor-ing. The end result will be a more quantifiablemeasurement system, using less paper, and moni-toring contacts at a lower cost. Again, SQURTSand its partners are constantly seeking smarterways to do things more cheaply.

9. Dollars and sense

Thus far, the SQURTS history, program, pro-cess, and capabilities have been described. How-ever, the primary topic of this paper is costsavings. While it would appear altruistic to pro-claim that we are all gathered together in the pureresearch of how items behave in a severe dynamicenvironment, there should be no mistake that ourprimary mission is to reduce costs. Indeed, theproof in the pudding (just where did that phrasecome from?) that SQURTS is cost effective is thefact that utilities authorize membership. In thisdog eat dog world (I know where that phrasecomes from), if utilities engage in a programwhich does not have a clear quantifiable pay-back, they will not be engaged for long.

The COST associated with SQURTS member-ship is comprised of membership dues, man-hoursassociated with participation, and the cost of pro-curing test specimens. Membership, as describedpreviously, is available in two forms. LibraryOnly Membership is currently (as of 8/96) $4000per year. Full Testing Membership is currently$23300 per year. Interestingly, the membershipcosts have been stable since 1993. Further, of the10 initial members, all 10 remain members.

Man-hours must also be included in the cost ofSQURTS membership. Key to the program’s suc-cess is the fact that utility representatives havedevoted their time to developing the proceduresand policies under which SQURTS operates.More important now, utility members supplyman-hours and expenses to serve as Test Reps.This means that once or twice a year, a memberutility will send a knowledgeable individual to thetest laboratory for up to a week (sometimes more)to coordinate a successful test interval. Finally,those in leadership roles devote additional time toensure the program runs smoothly. This not onlyincludes the chairmen, but other utility folks whoare fanatically committed to making and keepingSQURTS a success.

The cost of test specimens must not be over-looked. Before an item can be tested, it must bepurchased and shipped to the test laboratory.This specimen, except in very rare circumstances,never returns to the utility that purchased it.


However, the specimen is stored at the test labo-ratory to support future needs of SQURTS mem-bers (dedication, inspection, retest, etc.). In a costcomparison, this item is usually transparent toother available options. Utilities rarely have, orwant to have, old test specimens.

The contribution in the members’ time andresources is offset by the money saved throughcollaborative testing. Assuming (purely hypotheti-cally but reasonably) that the utility cost of mem-bership is $30000 per year, the payback isdetermined through comparison of how manyitems could be qualified elsewhere for this amountAND whether the member needs that amount oftesting services. On average, SQURTS tests ap-proximately nine items per year per member.Thus, for a $30000 dollar commitment, the aver-age test cost per item is roughly $3300. This figureincludes the overhead costs associated with ad-ministration of the SQURTS program. More de-tailed cost analyses have been performed to showthat the cost to test an item is actually less than$2000! Compare this figure to setting up a con-tract or service agreement with a test laboratory,developing a test specification including the RRS,shipping the item to the laboratory, obtaining afull IEEE 344 test and test report, and reviewingthe report.

While the cost of SQURTS testing is largelyfixed through membership fees, the cost savingsare highly variable. In general, the more you test,the more you save. Some utilities save thousandsof dollars, some tens of thousands, and othersmuch more. SQURTS is run on the ‘country club’concept. If you pay your dues, you can play asmuch golf as you want (as long as there is roomon the course). Contrary to golf, however, themore we test, the better we get at it, and the moreanswers we have!

The previous exercise used averages of aver-ages. However, it illustrates that showing costsavings is not rocket science. The cost savings ismade possible by streamlining the specificationand report sides of the process and testing in bulkto high levels. SQURTS is a production lineprocess where the incremental steps are familiarand well understood. An inertia has been devel-oped so that the program is always panning and

all the member needs to do is step on board whenthe need arises. A lot of work has been performedup-front to ensure that using the program is aseasy as possible for both the utility member andthe test laboratory.

While a specific member’s needs are most im-portant for their specimen, the program ensuresthat the maximum benefit for all members isobtained. This is why ‘table limits’ testing is per-formed and why specimens are retained for futurereference. The ultimate benefit of testing an itemperpetually grows as the data is used again andagain to baseline future procurements. Indeed,our testing offers the option of using an existingtest report and test specimens to avoid additionaltesting.

Aside from hard dollar savings, SQURTS hasproduced a number of side benefits. A network ofutility seismic engineers has been formed throughwhich members can and frequently do bounceideas off one another. While the competitive envi-ronment of today’s market pits utility againstutility, seismic engineers still cooperate with oneanother to make their jobs easier. After all, theengineer is always seeking to make his or her jobeasier. We just like to think of it as becomingsmarter.

Through development of test procedures andreview of reports, seismic engineers have broad-ened their knowledge and understanding of theseismic qualification process. No longer is thisresponsibility seconded to consultants or A/Es.

The industry as a whole also benefits from theprogram through the techniques developed fortable limits testing and the consensus positionsdeveloped by the membership on testing commonequipment types. Also, empirical data is regularlyadded to the generic equipment response spectra(GERS) database used in SQUG (Seismic Qualifi-cation Utility Group) methodology.

More utility personnel have witnessed and ex-perienced the actual tests. First hand knowledgehas been obtained on how items react when theyare abused to a very high level. In addition,exposure to the inner workings of complex devices(e.g., protective relays) is certain during a testweek. Perhaps more useful is the knowledgegained on how items fail (yes, some items fail) and


how others succeed when you would not expectthem to.

10. Speaking of failures . . .

Not all items pass through the seismic testsequence without incident. We have broken a fewthings, some in dramatic fashion. When a programis trying to determine the ultimate capacity of anitem, it sometimes operates very near to the pointof failure. Fortunately, most ‘failures’ in a testprogram are not destructive. There may be excessivecontact chatter on a relay at 15 g’s (who would havethought!). A coil may not pick-up as desired at 68%rated voltage (yes, we do consider degradedvoltage). Or a timer may not time well enough.These failures are generally accommodated throughreduction in test levels to find the ‘fragility’ level.

There are some failures, however, that are morerecognizable as such and for which there is nofurther remedial actions possible to gain success.Extended structures with cast iron elements cometo mind. Keyboards sometimes do not fare well (likesomebody is going to use a keyboard in a 15 genvironment). Also, there are some items thatbecome so aged at the high SQURTS level that theyare permanently affected such that a fragility levelcannot be found. We do strive to identify particu-larly ‘vulnerable’ items before we abuse them;however, a few have slipped through.

All experience is good, even failures. Peoplefailures are somewhat self-correcting (I have madea few mistakes I will not make again). Hardwarefailures are what they are. Reality has the qualityof being pure. It is when we try to interpret realityto fit our needs that problems arise. The key toturning failure into success is to accept the results,learn from them, and not forget them, lest theyremind us why we should have remembered. So,while there have been specimens that have failed,the search for knowledge has been a success.

11. Experience

Experience is the hidden blessing of SQURTS. Aswe get older and wiser, we learn that sometimes the

way we used to have to do something is no longerthe way we should do something. Techniques aredeveloped to eliminate repetitive challenges. Cer-tain materials and configurations are avoided be-cause they fail to perform to expectations. The listgoes on. Industry standards also recognize the valueof experience. In particular, the EKE standard forequipment seismic qualification identifies qualifica-tion by experience as a valid method to provequalification.

Although the regulators have been cautious inembracing this concept (especially for newerplants), SQURTS is generating a growing resourceof test data which could be used in future evalua-tions. Seismic experience data is not limited topost-earthquake review of industrial facilities. Italso includes, and should include, qualificationproof and fragility testing. As more and more itemsare tested, we learn how classes of items behave.Nature and her physical laws show us that smallfasteners can possess great strength. Cast iron doesnot bend very far before giving up. Some things arerugged (or ‘robust’). Others cannot quite sustain agentle thump (we do not use those).

SQURTS has cooperated with other industrygroups to assist them in their efforts to utilizeseismic experience. While the test reports are thesole property of the membership, data has beenexchanged with groups such as SQUG and the PSEtask group for generic seismic technical evaluationof replacement items (GSTERI). SQURTS is quiteproud of its accomplishments, but not so proud asto not realize that the seismic-related industrygroups must maintain open communications toensure that efforts are not duplicated and work isnot being performed across purposes. Again, wehave caught ourselves doing logical things, and itfeels good!

12. Conclusion

On June 18, 1992, a laundry list of needs wasidentified. Today, we can look back and see ifSQURTS actually met any of those initial needs.

(1) Develop a seismic qualification data sharingprocess: The SQURTS data library providesmembers with access to all of the qualification


reports generated through the SQURTS pro-gram as well as others supplied by the mem-bership from other sources.

(2) Develop fragility test methods and pro-cedures: SQURTS testing starts at the highestlevels and, when necessary, reduces levels tofind specimen capacities. This minimizes thenumber of test runs required and ensures thegreatest benefit to all members. Procedureshave been developed for specific item typesand are incorporated with minimal effort intoprogram seismic test procedures. SQURTS hasdeveloped ‘off-the-shelf’ test specifications.

(3) Develop empirically based guidelines onthe use of testing versus similarity analyses:SQURTS has not done a significant amountof work in this area, yet. Frankly, we havebeen focusing on getting cheap, productionline testing serves (rivaling the cost of a goodsimilarity analysis). However, SQURTS hasbeen working in cooperation with other indus-try groups (e.g., SQUG, G-STERI) to sharedata which is useful in evaluating items in aseismic environment.

(4) Provide personnel training in specifyingand conducting seismic qualification tests: Thegoal has absolutely been met without inten-tion. By actually doing these activities,SQURTS has provided the best possible on-the-job training available. Learning is constantAND required.

(5) Support planned, as well as quick turn-around, test programs: Again, the programhas succeeded. The planning and coordinationassociated with each test week has produced acontinuing cycle of utility-driven qualificationtesting. Aside from planned activities, the pro-gram has ‘flexed’ on numerous occasions tomeet the dire needs of a member. Indeed, onedire need met goes a long way to justifyingcontinued membership. When SQURTS cannotflex enough, the SQURTS test laboratory(Farwell and Hendricks) has consistentlyproven to be as committed to the membershipas any other partner.

13. Summary

In short, SQURTS has become that solutionsought early in 1992. What we really did wasbring working level seismic qualification engineersfrom across the country, developed a commongoal of conducting generically applicable seismictests, brainstormed a program to accomplish thegoal, took several deep breaths, and chargedahead. One should never underestimate the powerof a ‘can do’ attitude. Instead of focusing on thehundreds of reasons why such a program couldnot work, the members ignored the obvious im-possibility of the task, and went about accom-plishing it. All it took was a reasonable amount ofmoney, open minds, a willing test laboratory, andan incredible amount of personal dedication bythe SQURTS partners: the utilities, F&H, andEPRI.

Appendix A. SQURTS members

Baltimore Gas and Electrica

Boston Edison CompanyCarolina Power and LightCenterior Energya

ComEdDuke Power CompanyDuquesne Light CompanyEntergy Operations, Inc.GPU Nuclear CorporationIES Utilitiesa

New York Power Authoritya

Omaha Public Power DistrictPECO Energy Companya

Pennsylvania Power and LightPublic Service Electric and Gas CompanySouthern Company ServicesSouthern California Edisona

Tennessee Valley AuthorityTU ElectricUnion Electric CompanyWestinghouse Savannah River CompanyWolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation

a Library only members.

achieving cost savings through collaborative seismic testing

Documents