ML14079A146
| ML14079A146 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 09/03/1982 |
| From: | Agarwal R FRANKLIN INSTITUTE |
| To: | Persinko D NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML14079A147 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-NRC-03-79-118, CON-NRC-3-79-118, TASK-03-02, TASK-3-2, TASK-RR TER-C5257-404, NUDOCS 8209080535 | |
| Download: ML14079A146 (70) | |
Text
EVALUATION REPORT WIND AND TORNA O LOADINGS (SEP 111 2 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 1
SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION UNIT 1 NRCDOCKET NO 50 206 FRC PROJECT C5257 NRCTAC NO.
41604 FRCASSIGNMENT 14 NRC CONTRACT NO. NRC0379-118 FRC TASK 40 Pre*a..
d<by Author:
R.Agarwa1 Franklin Research Center th and Race Street FRC Group Leader: D J arret Philadelphia, PA 19103 Prepared for NUclear Regulatory Commission as ington-D C.
555 ea. NRC nies:rs Setmber 3 1982 This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Gernment. Neitherthe United States Government nor any agency thereof, or any of their-,,d employees; makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or,,.
--- Govrnment aNhe theied norty any ag nyreformatn of teir responsibility for any third party s use, or the results of such use' of any Information, appa ratus, productor process disclosed in this report, or represents that its use b such third party would not infringe privately owned rghts' Fra nc Cgae enter Be rnsin ranklne' ar k i
ndue:r Th 5
~
77-
~
7-a i
FraL*J7 Pahway 4P--".7 Pa 11,13(25
+48: 1 7
C.
~ ~
7-~9*A.A'A7
~
9y~
~
I ~--",$
'AA
' f
'-"~..-
7
-~~
LjL.7-7
~ -
-4~-
TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT WIND AND TORNADO LOADINGS (SEP, 111-2)
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION UNIT 1 NRCDOCKETNO.
50-206 FRC PROJECT C5257 NRCTACNO.
41604 FRCASSIGNMENT 14 NRC CONTRACT NO. NRC-03-79-118 FRC TASK.
404 Prepared by Author: R. Agarwal Franklin Research Center 20th and Race Street FRC Group Leader: D. J. Barrett Philadelphia, PA 19103 Prepared for Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Lead NRC Engineer:
D. Persinko September 3, 1982 This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, or any of their employees, makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for any third party's use, or the results of such use, of any information, appa ratus, product or process disclosed in this report, or represents that its use by such third party would not infringe privately owned rights.
Prepared by:
Reviewed by:
Approved by:
Principal _Auth4 :
Gro/pLae Departei eo
,Date:
Date:
Date:
1-3 Franklin Research Center A Division of The Franklin Institute The Benjamin Franklin Parkway, Phila., Pa. 19103 (215) 448-1000
TER-C5257-404 CONTENTS Section Title Page 1
INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Purpose of Review 1
1.2 Generic Issue Background 1
1.3 Plant-Specific Background.
1 2
REVIEW CRITERIA.
4 3
TECHNICAL EVALUATION 6
3.1 General Information 6
3.2 Storage Building 8
3.3 Turbine Building Enclosure Wall 9
3.4 Fuel Storage Building.
10 3.5 Control Room 11 4
CONCLUSIONS.
12 5
REFERENCES 14 APPENDIX A -
STORAGE BUILDING DESIGN REVIEW CALCULATIONS APPENDIX B -
TURBINE BUILDING ENCLOSURE WALL DESIGN REVIEW CALCULATIONS
.APPENDIX C -
FUEL STORAGE BUILDING DESIGN REVIEW CALCULATIONS APPENDIX D -
CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW CALCULATIONS 111 BFranklin Research Center A Division of The Franklin Institute
TER-C5257-404 TABLES Number Title Page 1
Summary of Conclusions from San Onofre Unit 1 Topic 111-2 SAR 3
2 Strength Summary of the Structural Components Analyzed 12 FIGURES Number Title Page 1
General Plot Plan 7
iv nklin Research Center A Division of The Franklin Institute
TER-C5257-404 FOREWORD This Technical Evaluation Report was prepared by Franklin Research Center under a contract with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Division of Operating Reactors) for technical assistance in support of NRC operating reactor licensing actions. The technical evaluation was conducted in accordance with criteria established by the NRC.
UU Franklin Research Center A Division of The Frankin Institute
TER-C5257-404
- 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE OF REVIEW In the Systematic Evaluation Program (SEP), licensees are required to establish the ability of Class I structures to safely withstand a high wind or tornado strike.
After conducting an appropriate investigation, licensees report the conclusions in a safety analysis report (SAR).
The purpose of this review is to provide a technical evaluation of the SAR prepared by the Southern California Edison Company (SCE) for the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Unit 1 [1].
1.2 GENERIC ISSUE BACKGROUND Some operating nuclear plants were designed on the basis of local building codes which did not consider the effects of the high wind speeds of tornadoes.
Since the construction of these plants, research has led to an understanding of the various phenomena that occur during a tornado strike, and this knowledge has been incorporated into the definition of a design basis tornado (DBT) in Nuclear Regulatory Guide 1.76 [2].
Due to the concern regarding the extent to which older nuclear plants can satisfy DBT licensing criteria, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), as part of the SEP, initiated Topic 111-2, "Wind and Tornado Loadings," to investigate and assess the structural safety of existing designs against current requirements.
Licensees are required to prepare an SAR addressing the concerns of SEP Topic 111-2. The SAR should identify the limiting elements of the structural design and specify the loading conditions and threshold wind speeds at which buildings and components fail. As part of Assignment 14, the Franklin Research Center (FRC) is assessing the adequacy and accuracy of the SARs.
Typical items that are reviewed are the tornado load calculations and combinations, the structural acceptance criteria, and the method of analysis.
1.3 PLANT-SPECIFIC BACKGROUND The review of the San Onofre SAR was begun in June 1982.
Prior to that time, SCE responded to NRC requests for information by providing architectural
'1 u
Vnklin Research Center A Division of The Franklin Institute
TER-C5257-404 engineering structural drawings. Additional sources of information were a SCE letter on the SEP structural topics (3] and the plant final safety analysis report [4).
The control building, the reactor auxiliary building, the fuel storage building, the turbine building, the ventilation equipment building, the sphere enclosure building and the diesel generator building are the safety related structures that have been evaluated by SCE and reviewed in the San Onofre Unit 1 SAR. The conclusions of this report are summarized in Table 1.
The wind load used in the design of the sphere enclosure building and the diesel generator building was based on a wind velocity of 100 mph. The provisionsof ANSI A58.1-1972 [12] were used to convert this wind velocity to applied forces. All other plant structures were designed subjected to wind loads of 15 to 20 psf, corresponding to wind velocities of 80 to 90 mph. The 90 mph wind has applied to those regions of structures that are 30 ft above the grade elevation. In accordance with standard practice, seismic loads were not considered in a loading combination with wind loads.
Tornado loads were not considered in the original design of the structures at San Onofre Unit 1. However, the sphere enclosure building and the diesel generator building were constructed at a later date, and their design took into consideration a windspeed of 260 mph and an atmospheric pressure drop of 1.5 psi.
The structures evaluated in this review were identified at a site visit of the San Onofre plant [5].
These structures include the storage building of the reactor auxiliary building, the control room, the turbine building enclosure wall, and the fuel storage building.
FRC was originally charged with auditing the design calculations supporting the conclusions of the San Onofre Unit 1 SAR. However, these calculations have not been provided by SCE. Under a change in work scope for Assignment 14 but within the original budget and schedule constraints, FRC is to perform an independent tornado analysis for a limited sample of the San Onofre Class I structures and components. The FRC analysis seeks to estimate the level of structural strength through approximate but conservative structural models (design review assumptions are stated in Sections 2 and 3 of this report and in the appendicies).
The results of this additional analysis are to be used to assess the conclusions reported in the SAR.
-2 Ii 1ranklin Research Center A Division of The Franklin institute
TER-C5257-404 Table 1. Summary of Conclusions from San Onofre Unit 1 Topic 111-2 SAR Class I Structures Postulated Effects of Hypothetical Tornado
- 1.
Control Building Reinforced masonry walls can resist uni formly distributed pressure of 0.28 psi, corresponding to tornado winds of 140 mph.
The 9-in-thick concrete wall can withstand a pressure drop of 0.89 psi, corresponding to tornado winds of 150 mph.
The 7-in-thick concrete roof can resist a tornado winds of up to 160 mph.
- 2.
Reactor Auxiliary Building The first story concrete roof is capable of resisting the tornado loadings.
The storage room masonry wall cannot withstand any significant tornado loadings.
- 3.
Fuel Storage Building The portions of the building composed of masonry walls and metal roof decking cannot withstand any significant tornado loadings.
- 4.
Turbine Building The masonry block walls cannot withstand any significant tornado loadings.
- 5.
Ventilation Equipment The masonry block walls cannot Building withstand any significant tornado loadings.
- 6.
Sphere Enclosure Building*
This building is protected against the DBT.
- 7.
Diesel Generator Building*
This building is protected against the DBT.
- 8.
Other Safety Components The components identified are not enclosed (among these are the within structures and thus are not refueling water storage tank, protected against tornado loadings.
condensate storage tank, portions of the water cooling system, component cooling water system, and the auxiliary feedwater system)
- An evaluation of the DBT characteristics was provided in the Safety Evaluation Report, Supporting Amendment No. 20.
Note:
Bechtel Topical Report BC-TOP-3 was used to convert pressure to wind speed.
-3 flUf Franklin Research Center A Division of The Franklin Institute
TER-C5257-404
- 2. REVIEW CRITERIA The.intent of code regulations is to ensure the safety of systems vital to the safe shutdown of a reactor. The General Design Criteria (GDC) of 10CFR50, Appendix A [6] regulate the designs of these safety systems; in particular, GDC 2 requires that structures housing safety-related equipment be able to withstand the effects of natural phenomena such as tornadoes. The design basis must consider the most severe postulated tornado as well as.the combined effects of tornado, normal, and accident conditions.
Regulatory Guide 1.76 defines a DBT in terms of the parameters of maximum wind speed, maximum differential pressure, rate of pressure drop, and core radius, given with respect to geographic location. The specified magnitudes of these regional parameters are the acceptable regulation levels, but additional analysis may be performed where appropriate to justify the selection of a less conservative DBT.
In Reference 7, the NRC established the tornado parameters to be used in the SEP study of the San Onofre Unit 1 plant.
Regulatory Guide 1.117 [8] assists in the identification of structures and systems that should be protected from the effects of a DBT. This regulatory position is elaborated in the Standard Review Plan (SRP), Section 3.3.2 (NUREG 0800) [9].
The analysis presented in this report is of a representative sample of safety-related structural systems at the San Onofre Unit 1 plant.
With the dynamic pressure and air flow assumptions from the SRP, Section 3.3.2, and with the aid of Reference 10, a velocity-pressure distribution model can be constructed from the DBT characteristics. The actual forces acting on a structure can be calculated from this model augmented by the experimental data reported in References 11 and 12. These forces arise from wind-induced positive and negative pressures as well as from differential pressures.
An additional tornado load is the impact of wind-borne missiles against structures. The potential missiles are identified in the missile spectrum of the SRP, Section 3.5.1.4 [13], while the particular missiles to be included in this study were identified by the NRC as part of the SEP assignment [7].
References 14 and 15 assist in the determination of the structural effects of
-4 nkin Research Center A Division of The Franklin Institute
TER-C5257-404 missile impact, while the guidelines of the SRP, Section 3.3.2 indicate acceptable combinations of impact effects with the loads resulting from wind and differential pressures.
Since the DBT is considered an extreme environmental event, tornado-induced loads are part of the loading combinations to be used in extreme environmental design (see Article CC-3000 in the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code [16] and the SRP,eSection 3.8.4 [17]).
The structural effects of these loading combina tions are determined by analysis; stresses are calculated either by a working stress or ultimate strength method, whichever is appropriate for the structure under consideration. The ASME Code specifications for an extreme environmental event permit the application of reserve strength factors to allowable working stress design limits, and also permit local strength capacities to be exceeded by missile loadings (concentrated loads) provided that this causes no loss of function in any safety-related systems.
The sources of criteria described above and other source documents used in the evaluation are listed below:
NRC Regulatory Guide 1.76, "Design Basis Tornado for Nuclear Power Plants" [2]
NRC Regulatory Guide, 1.117, "Tornado Design Classification" [8]
NUREG-0800, Standard Review Plan Section 3.3.2, "Tornado Loadings" [9]
Section 3.5.1.4, "Missiles Generated by Natural Phenomena" [13]
Section 3.5.3, "Barrier Design Procedures" [18]
Section 3.8.1, "Concrete Containment" [19]
Section 3.8.4, "Other Seismic Category I Structures" [17]
Section 3.8.5, "Foundations" [20]
AISC Specification for Design, Fabrication and Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings [21]
ACI-318-77, "Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete" [22]
ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section III, Division 2 (ACI-359),
"Standard Code for Concrete Reactor Vessels and Containments" [16]
NRC/SEB, "Criteria for Safety-Related Masonry Wall Evaluation,"
Structural Engineering Branch (1981) [23]
-5 Franklin Research Center A Division of The Franklin Institute
TER-C5257-404
- 3. TECHNICAL EVALUATION 3.1 GENERAL INFORMATION The structures included in this review are the storage building, the turbine building enclosure wall, the fuel storage building, and the control room. These structures are classified seismically as Category I Nuclear Safety Related. The plan of the building arrangement at the San Onofre Unit 1 site is shown in Figure 1.
The DBT characteristics taken as a basis for analysis are (unit abbreviations are from the SRP, Section 3.3.2):
Maximum wind speed 250 mph Maximum pressure drop 1.5 psi Rate of pressure drop 0.6 psi/sec.
Core radius 150 ft.
These characteristics yield a dynamic pressure of 160 psf. For application of this pressure to external flat surfaces of structures, the shape coefficients are 0.80 for windward walls (positive pressure), 0.50 for leeward walls (suction),
and 0.70 for roofs (suction).
The shape coefficient for the cylindrical ventila tion stack is 0.70. Gust factors for tornado loadings are taken as unity.
The design basis missiles are C and F from the Standard Review Plan, Section 3.5.1.4 missile spectrum.
Missile C:
Steel rod:
1-in diameter, 3-ft length, 8-lb weight, 220-ft/sec velocity; strikes at all elevations.
Missile F:
Utility pole:
13.5-in diameter, 35-ft length, 1490-lb weight, 147-ft/sec velocity; strikes in a zone limited to 30 ft above grade.
The full effects of a tornado are experienced by the main structural members only if the skin of the building (walls, panels, roof decks, etc.) can properly transmit the associated loadings. For the purpose of analysis, the most conser vative circumstances of integrity or failure of these elements are assumed. For instance, a steel roof deck may fail when subjected to the DBT differential
-6 UdFranklin Research Center A DMsion of The Franklin Institute
TER-C5257-404 bH O
LMi C000 0
0 F.
G e P
o Pl
-7 UUU ranklin Research Center A Division of The Franklin Institute
TER-C5257-404 pressure. However, even though the roof deck failure provides venting, the tornado loads are still assumed to exist so that the strength of other, stronger structural elements can be analyzed.
For most structures, a wind flow field acting at an angle to the surfaces of a building is not as demanding as a frontal attack because the elements resisting lateral forces are oriented and framed so that the effects of adjacent wall loadings are uncoupled. Likewise, the action of windward face pressure and leeward face suction are uncoupled when their actions are resisted by separate structural elements. The most conservative loading cases are chosen accordingly.
The goal of analysis is to identify a structure's weakest members and to establish the threshold wind speed at which these members fail the structural acceptance criteria [17].
This wind speed limit rating depends on the postu lated loading conditions. Once a limiting member is identified, the loading conditions used to determine subsequent limiting members are in some cases modified to account for failure of the weaker member. Therefore, conclusions about the strength of structural components are based on a supposition of sequential failure.
The following are typical assumptions for the structural modeling in this report:
- 1. No snow load exists during a tornado strike.
- 2. Thickened floor slabs can be used to transmit lateral loads.
- 3. Connections are designed in accordance with good engineering practice.
- 4. Unless noted otherwise, steel roof decking is assumed to remain intact.
- 5. Bending models of the reinforced concrete block walls assume that tension is resisted by'the reinforcement bars alone.
Additional assumptions are identified on the calculation sheets (see appendices).
3.2 STORAGE BUILDING 3.2.1 Evaluation The storage building is built on top of the reactor auxiliary building.
The roof of the storage building is a built-up steel deck supported by steel
-8
'Hranklin Research Center A Division of The Franklin Institute
TER-C5257-404 beams. The walls of this structure are 8-in-thick reinforced concrete blocks.
The roof steel frames into and is supported by the block walls. At roof level, the upper courses of the block walls are reinforced horizontally to form bond beams. The base of the block walls are connected to concrete slabs with steel dowels. The storage building houses slab and steel frame structures which frame into the exterior walls. The high.roof of this structure is at elevation 42 ft, the low roof is at elevation 36 ft 8 in. The top of the reactor auxiliary building is at elevation 20 ft 3 in, and adjacent grade varies from 14 ft to 20 ft.
The bond beams are 'assumed to resist forces only in the vertical direction. Therefore, the block walls are modeled as cantilever beams. An analysis of the block walls can be found on pages A-1 to A-10 of Appendix A.
The roof deck is assumed to transmit uplift loads to the roof beams. The analysis of the roof beams can be found on pages A-11 to A-13 of Appendix A.
3.2.2 Conclusion The limiting members of the storage building are the reinforced-concrete block walls.
The west side reinforced concrete block wall has a limit rating of 0.10 psi (51 mph) for differential pressure, 16.4 psf (80 mph) for tornado dynamic pressure, and 9.1 psf (46 mph) for high wind pressure. The north side block wall has a limit rating of 0.04 psi (34 mph) for differential pressure, 7.6 psf (54 mph) for tornado dynamic pressure, and 4.2 psf (35 mph) for high wind dynamic pressure. The limiting element of the roof steel is the 12W27 beam which has a limit rating of 0.83 psi (152 mph) for differential pressure in uplift.
3.3 TURBINE AREA ENCLOSURE WALL 3.3.1 Evaluation The roof of the one-story turbine area structure is a reinforced concrete slab supported by structural steel framing. The area beneath the slab is enclosed by reinforced concrete block walls. The walls are anchored to the steel framing and are connected to grade slabs and foundations by steel dowels.
Each block wall is reinforced vertically and horizontally. The steel frame
-9 UUFranklin Research Center A Division of The Franklin Insttute
TER-C5257-404 contains bracing and external support struts. -The top elevation of the block wall varies from 35 ft 6 in to 41 ft 3 in, while the adjacent grade varies from 14 ft to 20 ft.
The block walls are assumed to resist wind loads by bending in the vertical direction and are modeled as simply supported beams between floor levels." The analysis of the concrete block walls can be found on pages B-1 to B-5 of Appendix B. For the beam model to be valid for differential pressure loadings, the anchors must provide the required reactions. The capacity of this connection has been checked, and this analysis can be found on pages B-6 and B-7 of Appendix B.
3.3.2 Conclusion The weakest sections of the block wall have a limit rating of 0.15 psi (64 mph) for differential pressure, and 26.5 psf (102 mph) for tornado dynamic pressure, and 14.7 psf (60 mph) for high wind dynamic pressure. The wall anchors can withstand loads in excess to the capacity of the block wall.
3.4 FUEL STORAGE BUILDING 3.4.1 Evaluation The roof of the two-story fuel storage building is a steel deck supported by structural steel framing.
The columns of the frame rest on either reinforced concrete walls or a concrete foundation. The walls of this structure are constructed of reinforced.concrete block. The block walls are connected to the steel frame by steel angle connectors and to the concrete floor slabs by steel dowels.
The high point of the steel is at elevation 42 ft, while the adjacent grade elevation varies from 14 ft to 20 ft.
The block walls are assumed to resist wind loads by bending in the vertical direction and are modeled as.simply supported beams between the floor slabs and the steel beams. The analysis of the concrete block walls can be found on pages C-1 to C-6 of Appendix C. The roof deck is assumed to transmit uplift loads to the roof beams. The roof edge beams, parallel to the block walls, resist lateral loads by bending about the weak axis. An analysis of the roof steel can be found on pages C-7 to C-11 of Appendix C.
-10 rlLFanklin Research Center A Division of The Franklin Institute
TER-C5257-404 3.4.2 Conclusion The block walls have limit ratings of 0.23 psi (80 mph) for differential pressure, 41.2 psf (127 mph) for tornado dynamic pressure, and 19.3 psf (66 mph) for high wind dynamic pressure. The limiting element of roof steel in uplift pressure is the 12W19 beam which has limit rating of 0.19 psi (73 mph) for differential pressure, 39.3 psf (124 mph) for tornado dynamic pressure, and 28.3,psf (80 mph) for high wind dynamic pressure. For bending about minor axis under block wall load the 12B19 beam has a limit rating of 0.06 psi (40 mph) for differential pressure, 10.2 psf (63 mph) for tornado dynamic pressure and 6.4 psf (46 mph) for high wind dynamic pressure.
3.5 CONTROL ROOM 3.5.1 Evaluation The control room is located in the administration control building. This structure consists of reinforced concrete walls and slabs. The section of the roof slab over the control room is 1 ft 9 in thick. The exterior walls of the control room have vertical and horizontal reinforcement and vary in thickness from 9 in to 2 ft 10 in. The top of the roof slab is at elevation 56 ft 7 in, while the operating floor is at elevation 42 ft.
The adjacent grade is at elevation 20 ft.
The walls panels are assumed to resist wind loads by bending in the vertical direction and are modeled as simply supported beams between the floor and roof slabs. The roof slab is subjected to uplift pressure but is not analyzed since the slab dead weight is comparable to the pressure loading.
The concrete block walls lining the interior of the wall panels are considered to have negligible structural significance. An analysis of the south wall panels can be found on pages D-2 to D-14 of Appendix D.
3.5.2 Conclusion The east side and south side reinforced concrete walls of the control room can safely withstand the tornado loadings.
-11 Iu Franklin Research Center A Division of The Franklin Institute
TER-C5257-404
- 4. CONCLUSIONS The results of the tornado structural analysis for the storage building, the turbine building enclosure wall, the fuel storage building, and the control room are summarized below in Table 2.
Table 2. Strength Summary of the Structural Components Analyzed(a)
Cause of Wind Structure Element(b)
Failure(c)
Speed (mph)
Storage Building West Side Concrete 3
46 Block Wall 2
51 1
80 North Side Concrete 2
34 Block Wall 3
35 1
54 12W27 Roof Beam 2
152 Turbine Building Concrete Block 3
60 Enclosure Wall Wall 2
64 1
102 Fuel Storage Building Concrete Block 3
66 Wall 2
80 1
127 12W19 Roof Beam 2
73 3
80 1
124 12W19 Edge Beam 2
40 3
46 1
63 Control Room East and South Side Reinforced Concrete Walls
- a.
The ratings of some structural components are not definitive but rather are estimates based on approximate modeling.
- b. Note that this table does not imply that all inadequate elements have been identified or that the most limiting element of the design has been found.
Structural details not included in this review are windows, doors, and roof decks.
- c. Key:
1 = tornado dynamic pressure; 2 = differential pressure; 3 = high wind dynamic pressure. Tangential wind speeds are listed for differential pressure failures.
-12 fIlifankin Research Center A Division of The Fr3nklin institute
TER-C5257-404 While not specifically reviewed, additional areas of concern are components not protected by any structure, which include the refueling water storage tank, the condensate storage tank, portions of the saltwater cooling system, the component cooling water system, and the auxiliary feedwater system. In addition, if the steel ventilation stack were to fail and fall, it would have the potential to affect safety related structures.
-13 1 Franklin Research Center A Division of The Franklin institute
TER-C5257-404
- 5. REFERENCES
- 1. R. W. Krieger (SCE)
Letter with Attachments to D. M. Crutchfield (NRC)
Subject:
Draft Assessments for SEP Topics 111-2, Wind and Tornado Loadings, and III-4.A, Tornado Missiles, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Unit 1 May 4, 1982
- 2. "Design Basis Tornado for Nuclear Power Plants" NRC, April 1974 Regulatory Guide 1.76
- 3.
K. P. Baskin (SCE)
Letter with Enclosure to D. M. Crutchfield (NRC)
Subject:
Additional Information, Structural Topics, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Unit 1 September 8, 1980
- 4. San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Unit 1 Final Safety Analysis Report and Amendments
- 5. Franklin Research Center Trip Report June 28-30, 1982
- 6. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 50 Appendix A, "General Design Criteria"
- 7. E. J. Butcher (NRC)
Letter to S. P. Carfagno
Subject:
Tentative Work Assignment P April 23, 1981
- 8. "Tornado Design Classification"
- NRC, Rev. 1, April 1978 Regulatory Guide 1.117
- 9. Standard Review Plan Section 3.3.2, "Tornado Loadings" NRC, July 1981
- 10.
McDonald, J. R., Mehta, K. C., and Minor, J. E.
"Tornado-Resistant Design of Nuclear Power Plant Structures" Nuclear Safety, Vol. 15, No.
4, July-August 1974
-14 IHTFrankfin Research Center A Division of The Franklin institute
TER-C5257-404
- 11.
"Wind Forces on Structures" New York: Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers Vol. 126, Part II, 1962 ASCE Paper.No. 3269
- 12.
"Building Code Requirements for Minimum Design Loads in Buildings and Other Structures" New York:
American National Standards Institute, 1972 ANSI A58.1-1972
- 13.
Standard Review Plan Section 3.5.1.4, "Missiles Generated by Natural Phenomena" NRC, July 1981 NUREG-0800
- 14.
Williamson, R. A. and Alvy, R. R.
"Impact Effect of Fragments Striking Structural Elements" Holmes and Naruer, Inc.
Revised November 1973
- 15.
"Full-Scale Tornado-Missile Impact Tests" Palo Alto, CA:
Electric Power Research Institute, July 1977 Final Report NP-440, Project 399
- 16.
ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section III, Division 2 "Standard Code for Concrete Reactor Vessels and Containments" New York:
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1973 ACI-359
- 17.
Standard Review Plan Section 3.8.4, "Other Seismic Category I Structures" NRC, July 1981 NUREG-0800
- 18.
Standard Review Plan Section 3.5.3, "Barrier Design Procedures" NRC, July 1981 NUREG-0800
- 19.
Standard Review Plan Section 3.8.1, "Concrete Containment" NRC, July 1981 NUREG-0800
- 20.
Standard Review Plan Section 3.8.5, "Foundations" NRC, July 1981 NUREG-0800
-15 UU Franklin Research Center A Division of The Franklin institute
.5v............
TER-C5257-404
- 21.
"Specification for Design, Fabrication, afnd Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings" New York: American Institute of Steel Construction, 1978
- 22.
"Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete" Detroit: American Concrete Institute, 1977 ACI 318-71
- 23. Criteria for Safety-Related Masonry Wall Evaluation NRC, Structural Engineering Branch, 1981
- 24. R. W. Krieger (SCE)
Letter with Attachments to D. M. Crutchfield (NRC)
Subject:
SEP Topics 111-2 and III-7.B, San Onofre-Nuclear Generating Station Unit 1 September 1981 (Received at FRC on September 19, 1981)
-16 JIFranklin Research Center A Division of The Franklin Institute
APPENDIX A STORAGE BUILDING DESIGN REVIEW CALCOLATIONS Frankin Research Center A Division of The Franklin Institute The Benjamin Franklin Parkway, Phila., Pa. 19103 (215) 448-1000
Project
&I S7 Page BFranklinResearch Center ByDate Ch'k'd Date Rev.
Date A Division of The Franklin Institute The Benjamin Frankln Park.ay. Phila., Pa. 19103 zLj f-ff -
t Title 3 fo 7
- 6 Jz1FEAc-rDp<,,x. 9L0
,6/4$ f x as A/>
8/oc-k hA"" / r s
r th e
-<oerAe 2~,rec -ro re
'4e Co~'-</crere
/7o%-
a/ 6cr ell, ~
~
-e t
,ar~ e/e,.
JoI-/
-/cty a-4 ict//
1-,o,-
/
Z yA-A 8'4" FORM CS-FRC41
Project Page7--1 A FDranklin Research Center By Date Ch'k'd Date Rev.
Date A DvsoofTeFankln Indue The Benjamin Franklin Parkway. Ph~ila..
Pa. 19103 ITt\\. L.
v52....
Title 57J C~o ETE 8LDC4-UJtL ArAISIS z
Wee ee
-7,
~, t-
-,7 -7
~a 3 FORM CS-FRC-81 c: :-
7ma(.3-J.Y/&"
PER
Iranklin Research Center B
Ck DtRe.3 Date Chkd Date Rev.
Date A Division of The -Franklin fnstitute The Benjamin Franklin Parkway. Phile.. Pa. 19103 By/
Title X-a-c rea a ELC --88 GETS Lo PALL A*ALIs4 6176 37 Z-a A
/2aJ4 7-032 O.~~?.4 5
a Oc-4ro,A a~
Yle a --- '/
,4x
/s
,~--
-0 y
/ z 17 7~
2ec fro, 4 crsAsearn fa
- <c-r 0-'
-O 7
26034 cO 7<',
0, 77
,7 C
=
- 7. 0 -,
FORM CS-FRC-81
Project Page ADsoT r
n tBy Date Ch'k'd Date Rev.
Date The Benjanin Franklin Parkway.
Phila..
Pa. 19103 A
Title
~S -~
/A k i-L A-tIALS15
-f-77 7-e-
- 0306Zo, 000 No
-e 41494:,
',(
FORM CS-FRC-81
Project Page 024- -52TS7
- D 1 U
iiiFranklin Research Center Date Ch'k'd Date Rev.
Date A Division of The-Franklin Institute The Benirmin Franklin Parkway, Phila., Pa. 19103 (a
Title
-,_ fk2 CA 6f /d-NCA FTr-8 Lt< W #tL A-t AcIVSt S TE E/
/Vloisl EUJ-r i 4s 7A
,a
-vr--
~~I~57-~6'-~V~J4I7 f/J O're,/"/
0-a
-r c,/
r A/
e
~
ee -
0,
- ///,e-d
/85 6 '5 7 112Jg V.4 1i 6he -/
,'o 7-;k7 r
L5X;Ze
/a 01 //
!eD-e /7o-
/e ec leu 7/s r e
/A o-~stA/Se J.4 ov JV 0A1 J=
-/
7
- 7) aJ Ve r
/o-Z 7
e S-easa-e.
8 J 29, /7, Z 7 /a f FORM CS-FRO-81
Project Page IHrFranklin Research Center By Date Ch'k'd Date Rev.
D A Division of TheFranlin Institute t
The Benjamin Franklin Parkway, Ph~ila.,
Pa. 19103 1U Z'(
P A Title a
A5
/7 u J<:f C-C rN T8LM-k.
L e-2/rcf5re s
o 0
'b3 A11 W
~
AP~~
Ir A~
7V V4 oo Ve
/OZT
/ell--
led E
Ar ee 76 Pe 3
FORM CS-FRC-81
Project Page U Franklin Research Center 4
IIRrakln Rserc "Cntr. By Date Ch'k'd Date Rev.
Date A Division of The Franklin Institute a
The Benjamin Franklin Parkway. Phila., Pa. 19103 k
VL7(g4.
Title 5 foV e'/4 c2o c erS Lt&
WA1tL AfJA L-Y/ 4S Pt Th / " J/r-A 4,11-J 77,
/
"'ex 7~
5A-.swa oa
-4
- Ad 47 45
.r -7 73o 7
4 r~
57r1'.,s YA
-~
O,
/S o
O76 7)
FORM CS-FRC-81
Project Page A
Franklin Research Center By Date Ch'k'd Date Rev.
Date A Division of The Franklin Institute t
a The Benjamin Franklin Parkway.
Pla., Pa. 19103 TV-J1L"I qIt Jq1S,-,7,,Z Title 5-r2 /CA 6 &
3 -5 Coc E
8 LDk A-A*A-qlS
'4&
3 x a/ A ex-X ZI-4/
JA4/
u-'-s/
s A'3
~~+-
)
o 7 -7 77
,1.4 4/
ffei 4
b K~d
(.
Yf. OJ Z' 3 FORM CS-FRC-81
Project Page UUEFrankin Research Center By Date C 'kd Date Rev.
Date A Division of The Franklin Institute C
D The Benjamin Franklin Parkway. Phila., Pa. 19103 R
vL)'Y' 2
/
Title 2T~
-746 56 8 4
--c. N 9kLA A-L k At-i
//
FORM CS-FRC-81
Project g7 O
Franklin Research Center y
oate h'kd Date Rev.
Date A Division of The Franklin Institute The Benjamjn Frankfin Park nay. Phila.. Pa. 19103 Title
.5-,
- 6 IL
/
c
-Pca~ £tk kAt.
AwA.%ci FORM//om 3/e CS-FC 781 Pre 7
FORM CS-FRC-81
Project Page UU[Franklin Research Center By Date Ch'k'd Date Rev.
Date A Division of The-Franklin Institute B/
e The Benjamin Franklin Parkway, Phila.. Pa. 19103 1*
Title 70A7,6 5
2
(
Alex BL DGKEE r-_____ /
- e.
/z W~ 2-7
-4,
7-el~
-7__
C/S7
/
/
o PF'
/7c xi/o2 '
/70___/ox cbf. 9/4
/~cs*
La0
/
C C
=
/Zx o
/
=
/e9.
7 try FORM CS-FRC-81
Proect OZ Pae4/
IDFranklin Research Center By Daoe C kd Dat Rev.
Date ADivsion of The Tranklin Institute BDaeLikd DaeRv.
Dt The Beneamn Franklin Parkway. Phila.. Pa. 19103 L/
Title
-2 L,
(e-,S
-6
/EL 71
<1416 3b..
&/e x
Jo, q
X (o
,/',O 3/
/
7-fs a
s 4'FC, oAp
/7 33-2 FOR CS) /Cz FORM CS-PRC-81
-,,--.trC
Project Page4 a UU ranklin Research Center Pryc Re Da A Division of The Franklin Institute Bp Date Ch'd Date e
The Benjamin Frankin Parkway. Phila., Pa. 19103
- C'/
Title 1-r R/-E*
B D G2 4v Rx L,,
Pe re~t..
7/,
X/
~) v 4//o pr-M e.
e --
,/
r s
are C.
PL ~
v e-,5'
/
FORM CS-FRO-81
APPENDIX B TURBINE BUILDING ENCLOSURE WALL DESIGN REVIEW CALCULATIONS Franklin Research Center A Division of The Franklin Institute The Benjamin Franklin Parkway, Phila., Pa. 19103 (215) 448-1000
IThnkfin Research Center PrecO C~ 7 ;ae UUU FankinResarh C ntr y Dae Ch'k'd Date Rev.
Date A Division of The Franklin institute Date The Benjamin Franklin Parkway. Phila., Pa. 19103 Title r
-rfl 55r/Al 1I%/A
,e
~
cX, <Sourh Jio,/th~e
&.JJ 2
r rea o e -0 r
7 2 c'-.
/'
-,-loj w
-i?"
6/oc le II,
V,-ric /
E'
-Ave',.e,"ear 2"
-% CAPACor/ ;4e Viarrc41e 1)ie
/"-v 2a4 V---r rye'.
to-32z e
F FORM CS-FRC-81
Proj P
I-2 L
1Franklin Research Center By Date Ch'k'd Date Rev.
Date A Division of The Franklin Institute The Benjamin Franklin Parkway.
Phila.. Pa. 19103 J
/ A L..
Title
'7~, A,-'
//,-
WAo//
LOt WALL ANALYL11.
/J~oo, 0 --r,
/22.2-ro
/dis 11
-27 Coro aV lo' W45x 7-c e
.ss eq 31 2A1
/
,/,,
s
-t./
0
)
(c___r
_)___as_(_,
K:
C..
az FORM CS-FRO-81
UUUU nkin Research CenterPage e
Franklin Resarch Cete ~ 3By Date Ch'k'd Date Rev.
Date A Division of The -Franklin Irstitute
/C TitleThe Benjain Franklin Parkay Phila., Pa. 19103 Title
/
r
'l/er--r-e 4 xi..
£,ocA-r-v0o
/: 0-~
JtA-'/<-
d = 3, d-7 7 3, P, s
/ceL A/,
/
74eA4s
/<
4c/
4s I 2(~o~~ ),-
P
/ -
3 FORM CS-FRC-81
Proect ~z~527O Page emict02. -C52157 -o01' 84 I
Y~nklin Research Center Frnli esachC ntr By Date Ch'k'd Date Rev.
Date A Division of The -Franklin Institute B
Date,Da The Benjamin Franklin Parkway, Phila.. Pa. 19103 J
(...
7Z 3/
Title
<.77 41 b/ Z 14/ -WLck LA-- rNArLSY&
0 - 3/
040 z 0 A7
/,/.1 rre/
/7--
A7 zoo o,:
e
)
07 4e
?7./8-*
/7 -7 A~';p -
-z FORe V
'e
-Cc-8 el, r
1 4
7 e
e: /e1 vry J
77&7-A>;
c lo.
4 e L-7 -/o,
//h 4//
FtORM CS-FRC-81
Project Page UU Franklin Research Center A Division of The-Franklin Institute BY Date Ch'kd Date Rev.
Date The Beniarmin Franklin Parkway, Phila., Pa. 19103 Title 7
<-lY, A
dr A~ac/oro+
/
//
BL tJ t/rktJAYS1$
7 1
.:7,
/
77,P 1,1
<n, ve',-,
7c 7
p' 1
r 4;
.01 re 71 A.14
.914
.64 W'iA 1-0
'k du//ot(
/)
71
- 14. 76_3 FonM c
'1 FORM CS-FRC-81
Project Page 85 57 0 0V 50D rnkdin Research Center Poet Csag6 rCDate Ch'k'd Date Rev.
Date A Division of The Frankin Institute
"'d The Benjamin Franklin Parkway. Phila., Pa. 19103 Title or-
/Yj 47re Aware'P 4A /i
-,tNC) tH P/A7E Co ec rors ~e a'
@o#
S-a
!.~
s Vti FT.6-AW
,4/g 2-re.a-
~
2
?.F-ad2.
eORM CS -FRC-8 FORM CS-FRC-81
Project O2L C&2L 7-0) 2-Pae IS Franklin Research Center By 1Date Ch'k'd Date Rev.
Date A Division of The -Franklin Institute D
The Benjamin Franklin Parkway. Phila., Pa. 19103
/ &/
Title 10,ez
"--7 A'
2 1.
0 -22 O C-FRA81 FORM CS-FRC-81
APPENDIX C FUEL STORAGE BUILDING DESIGN REVIEW CALCULATIONS nklin Research Center A Division of The Franklin Institute The Benjamin Franklin Parkway. Phila.. Pa. 19103 (215) 448.1000
Project Page 02r-c52S7-of C.
uuiFrankain Research Center*
.in e. eai By Date Ch'k'd Date Rev.
Date A DCvision of The-Franklin lastitute The BeAna Fra Parina.Phda. 19103 OuLY'izl Title
- ~----H-----
FO(Rti CSFIRL)
FORM CS-FIRL-81
Project
- 22. -7 Page LFrank~in Research Center By Date Ch'k'd Date Rev.
Date A Dvisicn of The Fronklin Institute e3 FU L/
Title
-c.
.4rCA, o~C zz 0,000-Z7
- 7.
FORM S-FIAL-81 FORM CS-FIRL-81
Project Page O7C(- -- C$52
-of
- c.
k. E in Reearc h Center By Date Ch'k'd Date Rev.
Date A Division of The -Franklin insttute g
7 The 8e,. mue Fram~lm Pamz. Phi. Pa-19103 Title 3/0 Z t4/
/-
2/
K~~~~/ ~...
Z 3 ~ /~
r-,
C.8 v4 7
c
-Il C7-7--
~
-/
9----c 2
o
.? 7
.5 3Z7&
~P L
-,K o
/-aw 7
5-4 Z/.
2-5~o 7//1,1 7g FMS/7I3R FORM CS-FIAL-81
Project 0 2C Page JUu Franklin Research Center By Date Ch'k'd Date Rev.
Date A Division of The Franklin Insdtute The Sereryn Frank n Par-k
- y. PMa.. Pa 19103 Title o c, Al 4e' 33
.?z7?6
--o-9 7 -
~~z
/-~'
~7 1Kf m~n-------7~~A
/~-
P4,.Z. el /7 A.-,4 FORM OS-FIRL-81
.n-
Project 0 2.age-O luJ Franklin Research Center A Division of The Frankiin Institute By Date Ch'k'd Date Rev.
Date Title 2
9
/} / ftL.
o
/
3z
- ~ t~
217 FORx Sx L
J
-2. 4 FORM CS-FIRL-81
Project rage 02C--
CS575*-
01 i_5t~ranklin Research, Center Oc-S5-IPg FavsnlThin Resea eter By Date Ch'k'd Date Rev.
Date Title
=S2 q141 3
- 4.
qI41
-o
-'2 7 (TWA~4 c ;s)
FORM CS-FRC-81
Project Page lResearchCenter02.
- cS C
Ul
-Franklin Research Center By Date Ch'k'd Date Rev.
Date A Division of The -Franklin Institute The Bnamrn Frnlen Prkwey. P~w4a. P& 19103 Title e"
4AL'
/01-
/ee'
/95Z/4
/2 e3/,
Tit e
~ w~4
~
~ ~-----
S~L3
-i-----
'~
~~7 x /70' 7 6......
Y'/7r/o/-
o /
orr F
CS-FIRL-81 O'
_A'_d FORM cS-FIRL-81
Project Page n ift.adi0esac2Cner.~
e25F) - Of Byanklin Research Center Date Ch'k'd Date Rev.
Date A Dwsion of The-Franklin Institute 5"
~ f FrnkbA Pwvaui. Phida. P& 191203 Title L2I I57 k
1/1
,/,
66 S/2
-4 To -/3, v7z a-F R
S-FIRL-81----
F. ORM C-IL8
Project Page on.
.S 4
05 0
-o UU Fanklin Research Center 2
Cente_
By Date Chk'd Date Rev.
Date A Division of The-Franklin Inst tute Tite 4Z/
0273 o'2. 1 77 7
7-3 4
237.355 123
- 23.
4 FORM CS-FIRL-81
Project Pg rnlnResearch Center 2r-2
-- 'Pae/
I~e~v~wtnFr~b~
ae-e.
& 903ByDate Ch'k'd Date Rev.
Date A Division of The -
-rn~i Institute Tibe 7~-/
,~'2
--~~~-
~__
S
- 64)
~
Z-FORM CS-FIRL-81
Project Page OR 01
- ? D UU Frlanklin Research Center Date Ch'kd Date Rev.
Date A Division of The -Franklin Institute i The Farem Parw.ay Phda. Pa 19103 RA L-/'
Titde
-7 e*,
n~/ 29 445
,,-...r-----*----------------
FORM CS-FIRL-81.
APPENDIX D CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW CALCULATIONS nlin Research Center A Division of The Franklin Institute The Benjamin Franklin Parkway. Phila.. Pa. 19103 (215) 448-1000
Project Page U Franklin Research Center By Date Ch'kd Date Rev.
Date A Divsion of The-Franklin Institute
-I The Benjarrin Franklin Parkway. Phila., Pa. 19103 o.f The E n 2. -Institute' Title C
-JRDL.
PDOM ta or t-rRE UNIT.L TRert RearM L~ty TED A3VE r LE v, 42.
WE I
R & i.S ife0 7-b ATN SPHERE.
WnITH
-9T 1 t P% IA-US tJDT WAL.L 4D LoUrM 1.JtALL H/IVE tE C:kN I)
THIS RVGW - TH+C-E A1E M40-S )
ALLS N&.1 N&i E 778 /3UILb/thJ-BUILT' 7ff T T
P AE/RFMcjE3 C47d e-S TE 4W1L,.
77tEE Rh-SC7JAy AIZ hA-v&MFb.TD NUN-CT vAL.
2.fS AstJ-K ftAV NOT At-IIFJ&
IMS M ED JA /-L A-o vtH WktLWI sLA-6
- Ig/
ki.LLS,A4ssv He 0 SE FTP -c PAJc7 Lty tJ THE.
vrtTi c-.-i FORM CS-FRC-81
Project 02 r
D Pagev D
Frankln Research Center By Date Ch'k'd Date Rev.
Date A Division of The Franklin Institute a
'-I 4
F M Parksuey, P &ha. Pa 19t3 Title I.
CONTRDL c1OM kWALL ktJALYSISS
-dog; 77, 7
P E
/
-~
- ~~
~ ---- -- ---
oa 9 L)
~
FORM-C-I---
FORM CS-FIRL481
Project Page 11 u~ FranklinReerhCnr Div Te rankesearc Cnt ter By Date Ch'k'd Date Rev.
Date A Division of The -Franklin institute.
me fle~wIm Prarnkke Pw~oy, Ph~a. P&. 19103
,A'T NE
?L Title
(,
/
/F o
LNA LL.. ?rJL' /S C ) c r/
q z' Q, a,2 2...
Cox
?4r
/
raa
~~.7
%o
/
-r e----
-a-r-0..ffZ 7x -a a
e) e'-
33 77L I1LQe~. / P-huc. ?z jcr-~,.- 4.
,4xA/
/a-
=
2 2.
7 5~ K 7 Ed for 4AProximATE!
/f~7KP5 do Af ab
~iJa
///- e.V~
7-6. 7q FORM CS-FIRL-81
~~~~~~.
Project Page O2A -
- e. 6 5
Dr I 1uuFranldin Research Center Dt Ck Date e
A Division of The Franklin Institute B
Date d
Date Rev.
Date t
Put..w Ph.. P&
19 103
&eDTH SIE PJPORCt JCzNCETE UALL
-~
~
or-C. eA-'
-e ZZ6i'/C -I C 7.. -7 S
-5
~/3 ~
4
/>
f04 hv7 e0
' 4'.
F 2-
/
37 A.
FOR CS-IR-8
Project Page
- n 02.(r-sy-o/f U Franklin Research Center
~i.ti1~rnk~n RserchCenerDate Ch'k'd Date Rev.
Date A Division of The -Franklin Institute B
/
Th. aem Fr, n Pema
- y.
PW.. P a 9103
-3.
r 7-791 Title
- uTH S ERrudPOcD CDeNCRe:TE WALL Xb ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~- ---------
77
-,a ce Pro5~
,~e
=
c 7--.-
r--
r 77 FORM CS-FIRL-81
~ -
-. ~.~-.---- -
-7
Project OPage l
"ranklin Research Center By Dae Ch 'd Dae Rev.Dat A Division of The-Franklin Institute By Date Ch'k'd Date Rev.
Date M."-*
w Pda-Po 19103 PA
-/q Tite O
-ree C
O-CS -- m
__P 8cALTE L
rco FORM--
CS--
x--.--
A x
...,~ -
o ?'. )
FORM CS-FIRL-81
.Project Page 11 Frankin Research Center A Division of The Frank in institute 8Date Chk'd Date Rev.
Date The~ ~ ~
~
B14m Frrk Pamy.
6f&
P& 19 W
Title
.so UTH ShE
-RElNF C
CD UKI1ETE AirLL FORM-C-
FIRL-
/81 FORM CS-FIRL-81
- Project,
- 7.
Page Ll ranklin Research Center By Date Ch'k'd Date Rev.
Date A Division of The -Frankdirt Institute A/
ma Geryflww n
Pw. PL&* Pa. 19103-sm r
Title SOUTH R
F tE) R.C-P COWAETS M.L.
( eA
_77s 7,(
1 9-
-M
-t --
y
-~ --- --
7 4<
-4
- 17.
Cc
'5-7
/04/
7 FORM CS-FIRL-81
Project Page 024-- C52 S-) -
o0 1 buFrnin Research Center Poet 2
~
1Pg ul C tBy Date Ch'k'd Date Rev.
Date A Division of The Franklin Institute The Sovi, Fr&**n P Ph".. P 1 9103 VJIN I
673 7-/
-rb UN
&e'TE WAL C-1 e
,/
3/
A a-w i
e -
-~ ----------
FR
-S-FIR-L-8 FORM CS-FIRL-81
Project Page d1lpa[Franklin Research Center By oDa A Division of The Franklin Institute 7.1-o 8ae ~ FrentA Par wy.
Pa. Pa 19103 TitPe COA -led 0 ~~
Zo o
EASTg E E)tPORCED CNC 1Q-EffJ=
Q.AI2L C h 'k '
D aeV R e v.
D a t e 4~~C r 1 TE, L-LA
/-..
Se rs-,-.-_Ve r// /---
/,-s------.-J---y mx-S..----. ----
FORM CS-FIRL1.
Project.
02.r-CS 7of Page I RFranklin Research Center BtDea A Division of The -Franklin Institute By Date Ch'k'd Date Rev.
Date
. B a Frmnhn Par'.s.
a P&
1910/
Tide t-T Si ElN a o g E
-EE 4.L-L
.7.......
o.~
0 1z.
-- ~
~
~---
~
z x /2.*
/o F OR
-CS-IR-8 FOR~M CS-FIRL-81
A' Project Page JFranklin Research Center S1 1
A Disof of The Frankin Institute By Date Ch k'd ate Rev.
Date Titl TheBono~a Frwkhm Parhw". Ph"-.P& 19103 PA 51 Title Fo, EAST 61DE E1 FDPcE D CCEXE WJALL
~~~~
R,5-;'
x,, I~ z 4
/-/d
..T e-c FORM CS--
-FIRL FORM CS-FIRL-81
Project Page
-- i Fra ::nklin Research Center A Divi eFranklin Date Ch'k'd, Date Rev.
Date A Division of The Franidin institute Tho &m~m Frankn Parwy.
PM.., Pa 19103 AT E
Title/
,e A
- EAST GO g JF cE C.PJc9ETE JAl-L 22
,1 5 7 M-C S-FIRL-8 FOR CS-FIRL-81/2 2~ 35~,~
Project Page a1
- 2.Cr-C027
-M
-(0 UfBranklin Research Centery Date Ch'k'd Date Rev.
Date A Division of The Franklin Institute I
The emF rikn fPtw.
P.
Pa 19103 Title r lEAST s E IE cIN WALL
/qCo, me".~
oq:4
/e c
V e
L., fi,4.
a~
...........,e FORM CS-FIRL-81