ML14324A040

HI-2104715, Seismic Analysis of the Loaded HI-TRAC in the SFP and SFP Slab Qualification.

ML14324A040
Person / Time
Site:	Pilgrim
Issue date:	04/17/2014
From:	-Neednewvalue Holtec
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
1916, 2.14.077, TAC MF3237 HI-2104715, Rev 7
Download: ML14324A040 (101)

Text

U. E0l Holtec Center, 555 Lincoln Drive West, Marlton, NJ 08053 Telephone (856) 797- 0900 HO LT EC INTER N AT I ON AL Fax (856) 797 - 0909 SEISMIC ANAL YSIS OF THE LOADED HI-TRAC IN THE SFP AND SFP SLAB QUALIFICATION FOR ENTERG Y Holtec Report No: HI-2104715 Holtec Project No: 1916 Sponsoring Holtec Division: HTS Report Class: SAFETY RELATED

HOLTEC INTERNATIONAL DOCUMENT ISSUANCE AND REVISION STATUS' DOCUMENT NAME: SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF THE LOADED HI-TRAC IN THE SFP AND SFP SLAB QUALIFICATION DOCUMENT NO.: HI-2104715 CATEGORY: = GENERIC PROJECT NO.: 1-6 0 PROJECT SPECIFIC Rev. Date Author's No. 2 Approved Initials VIR #

7 4/17/2014 Z.Yue 815009 DOCUMENT CATEGORIZATION In accordance with the Holtec Quality Assurance Manual and associated Holtec Quality Procedures (HQPs), this document is categorized as a:

1'1 Calculation Package 3 (Per HQP 3.2) L- Technical Report (Per HQP 3.2)

(Such as a Licensing Report)

El Design Criterion Document (Per HQP 3.4) L] Design Specification (Per HQP 3.4)

L--] Other (Specify):

DOCUMENT FORMATTING The formatting of the contents of this document is in accordance with the instructions of HQP 3.2 or 3.4 except as noted below:

DECLARATION OF PROPRIETARY STATUS 17 Nonproprietary [] Holtec Proprietary E] Privileged Intellectual Property (PIP)

This document contains extremely valuable intellectual property of Holtec International. Holtec's rights to the ideas, methods, models, and precepts described in this document are protected against unauthorized use, in whole or in part, by any other party under the U.S. and international intellectual property laws. Unauthorized dissemination of any part of this document by the recipient will be deemed to constitute a willful breach of contract governing this project. The recipient of this document bears sole responsibility to honor Holtec's unabridged ownership rights of this document, to observe its confidentiality, and to limit use to the purpose for which it was delivered to the recipient. Portions of this document may be subject to copyright protection against unauthorized reproduction by a third party.

1. This document has beer subjected to review, verifIcation and approval process set forth in the HoltecQuality Assurance Procedures Manual. Password controlled signatures of 1oltec personnel who participated in the preparation review and QA validation of this document are saved on the company.s network. The Validation Identifier Record (VIR) number Is a random number t at :s generated bythe computer'after the specific revision of this document has undergone the required.

review and 2approval process, and the appropriate Holtec personnel have recorded their password-controlled electronic con'cumrrence to Iredouet

2. Arevision t this document ,ill be ordered by the Project Manager and carried out if any of its contents incI ding revisions to referencesn is materially affecte, during evolution of this project The determination as to the need for revsion.

will be made by the Project Managerwith input from~ others, as, deemred necessary by him.

3. Revisions to this document may be *made by adding supplements to the document and replacing the *Table of Contents", this page and the "Revision Log".

Project 1916 Report 1-2104715 HOLTEC SAFETY SIGNIFICANT DOCUMENTS In order to gain acceptance as a safety significant document in the company's quality assurance system, this document is required to undergo a prescribed review and concurrence process that

,requires the preparer and reviewer(s) of the document to answer a long list of questions crafted to ensure that the document has been purged of all errors of any material significance. A record of the review and verification activities is maintained in electronic form within the company's network to enable future retrieval and recapitulation of the programmatic acceptance process leading to the acceptance and release of this document under the company's QA system. Among the numerous requirements that this document must fulfill, as applicable, to muster approval within the company's QA program are:

• The preparer(s) and reviewer(s) are technically qualified to perform their activities per the applicable Holtec Quality Procedure (HQP).

• The input information utilized in the work effort is drawn from referencable sources. Any assumed input data is so identified.

• All significant assumptions are stated.

• The analysis methodology is consistent with the physics of the problem.

• Any computer code and its specific versions used in the work have been formally admitted for use within the company's QA system.

• The format and content of the document is in accordance with the applicable Holtec quality procedure.

The material content of the report is understandable to a reader with the requisite academic training and experience in the underlying technical disciplines.

Once a safety significant document, such as this report, completes its review and certification cycle, it should be free of any materially significant error and should not require a revision unless its scope of treatment needs to be altered. Except for regulatory interface documents (i.e., those that are submitted to the NRC in support of a license amendment and request), editorial revisions to Holtec safety significant documents are not made unless such editorial changes are deemed necessary by the Holtec Project Manager to prevent erroneous conclusions from being inferred by the reader. In other words, the focus in the preparation of this document is to ensure correctness of the technical content rather than the cosmetics of presentation.

Page 1 of 28 G:\Projects\1916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7 I

Project 1916 Report 1-2104715 REVISION LOG Revision 0 - Original issue.

Revision 1 - Report is revised to address client comments. Racks considered in the evaluations are Racks E l through E 10 and N I through N5 (Campaign II and Campaign III). Appendix F and main report are revised. The slab is still structurally adequate. All changes are marked with revision bars.

Revision 2 - Report is revised to address the effect of the non-conservatism identified in report HI-92952 (reference [5.4]). Appendix H is added to demonstrate the structural adequacy of the floor slab in the Campaign II and III configuration. All changes are marked with revision bars.

Appendix H is a newly added appendix and no revision bars are used.

Revision 3 - Report is revised to address the effect of the non-conservatism identified in report HI-92952 (reference [5.4]). Appendix I is therefore added to demonstrate the structural adequacy of the floor slab in the Campaign II and III configuration. It is recognized that a leveling platform

[5.13] is used in the spent fuel pool to support the HI-TRAC 100)D cask. Therefore, Appendices J, K and L are added to demonstrate that the leveling platform is structurally adequate to support the HI-TRAC 1OOD cask under the normal, SSE and OBE conditions. Appendix C is updated to include a latest version of ACPL and add ANSYS as computer code used. All changes are marked with revision bars. Appendices C, I, J, K and L are newly added/updated appendices and no revision bars are used. Appendix H is deleted.

Revision 4 - Report is revised to address client comments. Main body of the report and appendices E, F, I and J are revised with revision bars on the right margin. The slab is structurally adequate.

Revision 5 - Report is revised to address client comments. The main body of the report and the appendix E are revised for editorial changes. The revision bars are shown on the right margin.

Appendix H is newly added to evaluate lifting of the leveling platform and no revision bars are Page 2 of 28 G:Projects\1 916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7

Project 1916 Report HI-2104715 used in Appendix H. The revision bars in other appendices are carried over from previous revisions and are not applicable to this revision.

Revision 6 - Report is revised to address client comments. The main body of the report and the appendix E are revised to reflect the new location of HI-TRAC due to the introduction of leveling platform. The clearances to adjacent structures are updated and safety factors are recalculated. The revision bars are shown on the right margin. Appendix H is revised to be consistent with drawing change. The platform drawing reference in Appendix J is updated and yield strength of stainless steel is corrected at pool temperature. The abovementioned changes are marked with revision bars and the revision bars in other appendices are carried over from previous revisions and are not applicable to this revision. All conclusions remain valid for this revision.

Revision 7 - Report is revised to address client comments. The main body of the report and the appendix E are revised to reflect the new location of HI-TRAC per latest revision of drawing 8777. The clearances to adjacent structures are updated and safety factors are recalculated. The abovementioned changes are marked with revision bars and the revision bars in other appendices are carried over from previous revisions and are not applicable to this revision. All conclusions remain valid for this revision.

Page 3 of 28 G:\Projects\1916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7

Project 1916 Report I--2104715 TABLE OF CONTENTS HOLTEC SAFETY SIGNIFICANT DOCUMENTS ............................................................................................... 1 R EVISIO N LO G .......................................................................................................................................................... 2 T A BLE OF C ON T EN T S ............................................................................................................................................ 4 1.0 IN TR O D U C T IO N A N D SC O PE ...................................................................................................................... 6 2.0 METHODOLOGY AND ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA ............................................................................. 7 2.1 M ETHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................................... 7 2.2 A CCEPTANCE C RITERIA ................................................................................................................................... 9 3.0 A SSU M PT ION S ............................................................................................................................................... 10 4.0 IN PU T DA TA ................................................................................................................................................... 11 4.1 INPUT W EIGHTS FOR D YNAM IC A NALYSIS ................................................................................................. 11 4.2 SEISM IC INPUTS .............................................................................................................................................. 11 4.3 FRICTIONAL INPUT ......................................................................................................................................... 11 5.0 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS AND COMPUTER FILES ...................................................................... 12

5.1 REFERENCES

.................................................................................................................................................. 12 5.2 COM PUTER CODES AND FILES ........................................................................................................................ 13 6.0 AN AL Y SES ...................................................................................................................................................... 14 7.0 RESU LT S ......................................................................................................................................................... 15 7.1 HI-TRA C STABILITY ..................................................................................................................................... 15 7.2 POOL SLAB A SSESSM ENT ............................................................................................................................... 16 7.2.1 Slab Capacity C heck ............................................................................................ . . 18 7.2.2 Leveling Platform Punching Shear Check ............................................................. 18 8.0 C O N C LU SIO N S .............................................................................................................................................. 21 9.0 FIG URES .......................................................................................................................................................... 22 FIGURE 1. M ODEL OF LOADED H I-TRA C C ASK ON SLAB ................................................................................... 22 FIGURE 2. MASS PROPERTIES (INCLUDING HYDRODYNAMIC MASS) OF HI-TRAC .............................................. 23 Page 4 of 28 G:\Projects\1916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7

Project 1916 Report HI-2104715 FIGURE 3. CONSTANT BUOYANCY FORCE APPLIED TO CASK ................................................................................... 24 FIGURE 4. BOUNDING INERTIA FORCE APPLIED TO THE CASK (ALL DIRECTIONS) ............................................... 25 FIGURE 5. POOL LID/SLAB INTERFACE STIFFNESS AND DAMPING FOR HI-TRAC MODEL .................................. 26 FIGURE 6. POOL LID/SLAB INTERFACE FRICTION FOR HI-TRAC MODEL ............................................................. 26 FIGURE 7. MAXIMUM POOL LID/SFP FLOOR INTERFACE LOAD - (SSE EVENT) .................................................. 27 FIGURE 8. POSITION OF THE TOP OF HI-TRAC (SSE EVENT) ................................................................................... 27 10.0 APPENDICES (NUMBER OF PAGES) ............................................................................................... 28 APPENDIX A - VISUALNASTRAN NUMBER OF FACETS CALCULATION (2) .......................................................... 28 APPENDIX B - STIFFNESS AND DAMPING EVALUATION (1) ................................................................................ 28 APPENDIX C - APPROVED COMPUTER PROGRAM LIST (6) ................................................................................. 28 APPENDIX D - COEFFICIENT OF RESTITUTION (2) ............................................................................................... 28 APPENDIX E - HYDROSTATIC AND HYDRODYNAMIC EFFECTS (5) ........................................................................ 28 APPENDIX F - CALCULATIONS OF FACTORS (2) ................................................................................................. 28 APPENDIX G - BASELINE CORRECTION OF SSE TIME HISTORY (5) ..................................................................... 28 APPENDIX H - LIFTING ANALYSIS OF LEVELING PLATFORM (11) ........................................................ 28 APPENDIX I-ANALYSIS OF SPENT FUEL POOL SLAB IN CAMPAIGN H AND III CONFIGURATION (8) ..................... 28 APPENDIX J - ANALYSIS OF LEVELING PLATFORM ASSEMBLY UNDER NORMAL, SSE AND OBE CONDITIONS (27)28 APPEND IX K - AN SY S INPUT FILES (12) ................................................................................................................. 28 APPENDIX L - AN SY S OUTPUT FILES (3) ........................................................................................................... 28 Page 5 of 28 GAProjects\1 916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7

Project 1916 Report 1-H-2104715

1.0 INTRODUCTION

AND SCOPE The HI-TRAC 100)D transfer cask (hereinafter referred to as HI-TRAC) is loaded with fuel while submerged in the Pilgrim Station Spent Fuel Pool (SFP) and positioned in the SFP cask loading area at El. 74.25' near the SFP north wall (Fig. 2.1 of [5.3]).

This technical report and supporting calculations demonstrate the kinematic stability of the loaded HI-TRAC submerged in water in the cask loading area when subjected to postulated SSE seismic event. The analysis also reports the peak load on the SFP floor slab from the HI-TRAC (bounding case) under the SSE loading. Subsequently, the structural integrity of the pool slab is assessed.

The simulation model used to evaluate the stability of a loaded HI-TRAC in the cask loading area (El. 74.25') is developed using the non-linear dynamic simulation computer code VisualNastran (VN) [5.1]. VN is a Holtec validated rigid body dynamic analysis code used on numerous occasions to simulate the response of the systems (casks) under earthquake events at various nuclear plants. Figure 1 shows the simulation model of the HI-TRAC loaded with MPC placed on the SFP slab. The inputs used to couple the hydrostatic and hydrodynamic effects in the VN simulations are developed in Appendix E. The inputs used as the driving inertial loads in the VisualNastran (VN) model are the baseline corrected acceleration time-histories from Appendix G.

To overcome potential interferences on the SFP floor and provide for a level resting surface for the HI-TRAC, an adjustable leveling platform [5.13] will be installed on top of the SFP liner in the cask loading area. The structural adequacy of the adjustable leveling platform to support the loaded HI-TRAC under normal operating and seismic load conditions is evaluated in Appendices J, K, and L. The leveling platform is not included in the VN model since it has minimal effect on the dynamic response of the HI-TRAC (see Section 2.1 for further discussion).

Page 6 of 28 G:\Projects\1916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7

Project 1916 Report M1-2104715 2.0 METHODOLOGY AND ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 2.1 Methodology To perform the required dynamic analysis, the HI-TRAC system is modeled as a freestanding assemblage of three rigid bodies (the HI-TRAC with the contained MPC, top lid, and the pool lid). Initially modeling the system as separate bodies ensures that the correct centroidal heights are preserved. For dynamic analysis, the separate bodies are constrained to move as one six degree-of-freedom body. Figure 1 shows the assembled cask, as constructed in VisualNastran (VN) [5.1 ], ready for simulation.

As discussed in Section 1.0, the HI-TRAC actually rests slightly above the surface of the SFP slab on an adjustable leveling platform. Since the leveling platform is a low-profile structure, which stands only 7 inches tall (approx.), and all of the steel members used to construct the platform are at least 2 inches thick, it is effectively rigid in both the vertical and horizontal directions. Also, the leveling platform has a wider support base than the freestanding HI-TRAC.

For these reasons, the leveling platform will not amplify the driving motion at the base of the HI-TRAC as the earthquake travels upward from the SFP slab through the leveling platform, nor will it have a significant influence on the dynamic response of the freestanding HI-TRAC.

Therefore, the leveling platform is not included in the VN model shown in Figure 1. However, the peak interface loads at the base of the HI-TRAC from the VN model are conservatively used in Appendix J to inform the structural evaluation of the leveling platform.

The computer code VisualNastran is a rigid body dynamics code that includes large orientation change capability, simulation of impacts, and representation of contact and friction behavior.

VisualNastran performs time history dynamic analysis of freestanding structures using the acceleration time-histories in the three orthogonal directions as the input. For the seismic evaluations herein, acceleration time histories appropriate to SFP floor elevation [5.3] are used as input. A change of variables allows the problem to be formulated as a fixed ground with the cask moving in response to applied driving forces, equal to the component mass times the calculated Page 7 of 28 G:\Projects\1916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7 I

Project 1916 Report HI-2104715 ground acceleration in each of three directions, applied at the component's mass center. Refer to Appendix E for detailed evaluation of the hydrostatic and hydrodynamic effects.

In MSC VisualNastran Desktop the following rules apply to the surfaces in contact:

" In simple surface contact model (impulse-momentum) when 2 bodies collide the coefficients offriction between two bodies are determined by taking the lower of the two coefficients given to the bodies in contact.

" If two bodies collide, one with a custom contact model and the other with the simple surface model, the equations defined in the custom contact model will be used for collision response.

• If two bodies collide, each with custom contact models having different equations, the minimum normal and friction force values as computed by the MSC VisualNastran Desktop simulation engine will be used.

The results from the analyses provide the time history of the net horizontal displacement of the HI-TRAC cask and the interface loads between the cask pool lid and the supporting structure.

These results are further processed and compared with appropriate allowables to meet the acceptance criteria.

Subsequently, the structural integrity of the leveling platform and the pool slab are assessed using the peak impact load from the VN dynamic simulation for SSE and OBE events.

Page 8 of 28 G:\Projects\1916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7

Project 1916 Report HI-2104715 2.2 Acceptance Criteria 2.2.1 Per Assumption 3.6, the cask is positioned at the center of the cask leveling platform. Per Appendix E, the minimum gap between the cask and surrounding structures is 4.8125",

existing between the HI-TRAC cask and the N2 rack. The maximum displacement of racks (at the top and bottom comers) in the two horizontal directions from Tables 6.7.2 and 6.7.3 of [5.5] is 0.3881". Based on these inputs, the maximum allowable HI-TRAC cask displacement is 4.4244" (= 4.8125" - 0.3881") in E-W or N-S direction. Per [5.15],

the minimum gap between the leveling platform and the surrounding structures is 3",

existing between the platform and the North Wall. Therefore, the maximum allowable leveling platform displacement is 2.6119" (= 3" - 0.3881").

2.2.2 The net effective load on the pool slab from the spent fuel racks in Campaign II and III configuration (racks N1 through N5 and E1 through El0 with regular fuel), plus a loaded HI-TRAC cask, must be within the calculated floor slab capacity based on Pilgrim FSAR design criteria for concrete structures.

Page 9 of 28 G:\Projects\1 916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7

Project 1916 Report FHI-2104715 3.0 ASSUMPTIONS 3.1 In the dynamic analysis that qualifies the application, the loaded cask is simulated as a single freestanding rigid body with appropriate geometry, mass, and inertia properties obtained by adding the contribution of the component parts. The component parts of the system are constrained to move as a single body. This is conservative as it neglects rattling of the internals, which would serve to dissipate energy.

3.2 During the dynamic analyses, any hydrodynamic coupling in the annulus between the MPC and the HI-TRAC is neglected. This is conservative since this coupling serves to dampen the response and absorb lateral energy.

3.3 The heaviest weight system is used in the seismic analysis; the results from this analysis will bound the results from any other configuration. This is a conservative assumption which maximizes the vertical load on the slab. For pure sliding, the weight does not enter into the equations of motion.

3.4 The upper bound coefficient of friction (COF) between HI-TRAC pool lid and slab is taken as 0.8. The lower bound COF is conservatively taken as 0.2.

3.5 The effects of the surrounding fluid are incorporated into the model in accordance with established principles [5.6, 5.7]. Any increase in hydrodynamic mass occurring from changes in cask location relative to the wall or adjacent racks, is conservatively neglected.

3.6 The cask is assumed to be positioned at the center of the cask leveling platform.

Page 10 of 28 G:\Projects\1916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7

Project 1916 Report HI-2104715 4.0 INPUT DATA 4.1 Input Weights for Dynamic Analysis Loaded HI-TRAC IOOD bounding weight: 191,000 lb. (bounding weight [5.8])

HI-TRAC IOOD Pool lid - 8,000 lb. (bounding weight [5.8])

Note that Case 7 in Table 7.0.2 of [5.18] for the loaded HI-TRAC weight when lifted for removal from the SFP specifies a weight of 196,716 lb, which is greater than the 191,000 lb input above.

However, there is an approximate 5% overestimation in the computed weight of 196,716 lb in Table 7.0.2 [5.18] (see footnote of Table 7.0.2). The actual weight of the HI-TRAC can be reasonably estimated to be 196,716 lb x (100% - 5%) = 186,880 lb, which is less than 191,000 lb. Therefore, the use of 191,000 lb as HI-TRAC weight in this analysis is conservative and acceptable.

The effect of the surrounding fluid (hydrodynamic) mass is included in the analysis. The appropriate added mass value is computed in Appendix E.

4.2 Seismic Inputs The baseline-corrected (performed in Appendix G) 20-second duration acceleration time histories appropriate to SFP floor elevation for SSE condition [5.3] are used as input in the VN simulation model.

4.3 FrictionalInput To establish bounding results, the coefficient of friction (COF) at the contact interface between the HI-TRAC pool lid and its supporting surface are evaluated at 0.2 and 0.8. An additional case Page 11 of 28 G:\Projects\l 916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7 I

Project 1916 Report HI-2104715 with COF value of 0.5 at the above mentioned interface is included in the analyses as a sensitivity study.

5.0 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS AND COMPUTER FILES 5.1 References

[5.1] VisualNastran 2004, MSC Software, 2004.

[5.2] Holtec Position Paper DS-340, Rev. 1, QUANTIFYING THE DAMPING FACTOR FOR LOW VELOCITY IMPACTS IN THE HI-STORM SYSTEM.

[5.3] Holtec Report HI-92926, Synthetic Seismic Acceleration Time-histories of the Spent Fuel Pool Slab for Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, Rev. 0, Project 20930.

[5.4] Holtec Report HI-92952, Calculation Package For Pilgrim Spent Fuel Pool Slab Structural Requalification, Rev. 1.

[5.5] Holtec Report HI-92925, Licensing Report For Spent Fuel Storage Capacity Expansion at Pilgrim Station, Rev. 1.

[5.6] Holtec Position Paper DS-246, Seismic Analysis of Submerged Bodies, Rev. 2, Jan.

2006.

[5.7] ASCE Publication 4-98, Seismic Analysis of Safety-Related Nuclear Structures, Subsection C3.1.6.2.

[5.8] Holtec Report HI-2002444, HI-STORM 100 FSAR, Rev. 9.

[5.9] Holtec Drawing 1074, Pool Layout - Campaign I for Spent Fuel Storage Racks, Rev. 1.

[5.10] Theory of Elasticity, Timoshenko, S. P., Goodier, J. N., 3rd Edition, 1970, Mc Graw-Hill.

[5.11] ACI 349-85, "Code Requirements for Nuclear Safety Related Concrete Structures".

[5.12] Holtec Drawing 4130, Rev. 13, HI-TRAC 100D.

[5.13] Holtec Drawing 8262, Rev. 7, Leveling Platform Adjustable Assembly, Page 12 of 28 G:\Projects\1916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7

Project 1916 Report HI-2104715

[5.14] Holtec Purchase Specification, PS-5256, Rev. 0, Purchase Specification for Pilgrim Leveling Platform.

[5.15] Holtec Drawing 8777, Rev. 5, Spent Fuel Pool Dry Cask Configuration.

[5.161 ANSI/AISC N690-1994, "American National Standard Specification for the Design, Fabrication, and Erection of Steel Safety-Related Structures for Nuclear Facilities".

[5.17] ASME CODE,Section II, Part D, 1995 edition.

[5.181 Holtec Report HI-2104716, Cask Handling Weights and Cask Handling Dimensions at Pilgrim, Rev. 2.

5.2 Computer Codes and Files Appendix C contains the listing of approved computer codes used for this calculation. All relevant computer files associated with this calculation package are archived on the Holtec Server and saved on the network under:

G."IProjectsi19161REPORTSIStructuralReports ISFP EvahlationTRev 7 The old revisions are saved at G: \Projects\1916\REPORTSýStructuralReports\SFPEvaluationlRev 6 G: Projects\1916ýREPORTSIStructuralReportsISFPEvaluation*Rev 5 G: IProjects 19166REPORTSIStructuralReportsýSFP EvahlationýRev 4 G: Wrojects 1916REPORTSYStructuralReportsISFP EvaluationIRev 3 G: ýProjectsl1916IREPORTSIStructuralReportsISFP EvaluationIev 2 G: Projects 1916ýREPORTSIStructuralReports MSFP EvaluationIRev 1 G: ProjectsI 9196REPORTSIStructuralReportsISFP EvaluationIRev 0 Page 13 of 28 G:\Projects\1916\REPORTS\Structurai Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7 I

Project 1916 Report 1-H-2104715 6.0 ANALYSES Dynamic simulations are performed for SSE condition with 0.2, 0.5 and 0.8 coefficients of friction (COF) for the contact interface between the HI-TRAC pool lid and its supporting surface. The effect of the water in the cask loading area is included in the dynamic model in the form of a hydrodynamic mass that is added to the structural mass, and a displaced mass term that serves to reduce the magnitude of the driving force input. Appendix E computes the hydrodynamic mass for the HI-TRAC, accounting for the confinement due to the adjacent wall and spent fuel racks. Figure 2 shows the total mass (structural plus hydrodynamic) and inertia properties associated with the cask. Figure 3 shows the additional constant upward force added to the loaded HI-TRAC cask, to ensure that the net vertical force is corrected for the automatic inclusion (by the VN algorithm) of the horizontal hydrodynamic mass in the vertical direction.

Figure 4 shows the three directional inertia forces applied at the centroid of the HI-TRAC cask.

The facet calculation for cylindrical surface is presented in Appendix A. The contact interface between the pool lid and the support surface in VN is simulated using a "custom contact" model with appropriate local stiffness and damping as evaluated in Appendix B. The frictional force at each contact interface is evaluated as the product of the COF and the instantaneous normal force evaluated by the VN dynamic code. Figures 5 and 6 show the stiffness, damping and friction coefficient inputs to the VN model at the HI-TRAC pool lid/support structure interface.

Appendix D presents the derivation of the relationship between coefficient of restitution and damping. Appendix G performs baseline correction on the original SSE acceleration time histories to obtain baseline-corrected time histories.

Appendix H evaluates the lifting of the leveling platform to meet the requirements of [5.14].

Appendix I demonstrates the structural adequacy of the floor slab in the Campaign II and III configuration in consideration of non-conservatism identified in report HI-92952 (reference

[5.4]).

Page 14 of 28 G:\Projects\1916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7

Project 1916 Report I-1-2104715 Appendix J addresses the structural qualification of the leveling platform [5.13] that supports the HI-TRAC cask and bears on the SFP floor slab. It demonstrates that the leveling platform is structurally adequate to support the HI-TRAC 100D cask under the normal, SSE and OBE conditions. Appendices K and L are supplements to Appendix J providing ANSYS input files and output files for weld evaluation.

7.0 RESULTS 7.1 HI-TRAC Stability In this section, the results from the dynamic simulations of HI-TRAC seismic response in the cask area at El. 74.25' are documented. Figure 7 shows time history plot of typical impact force on the slab and Figure 8 shows maximum displacement at the top of the HI-TRAC cask in the cask area under the SSE seismic excitation with 0.8 COF at the pool lid/SFP floor interface. The COF between the HI-TRAC base (pool lid) and SFP slab is taken as 0.8 (upper bound) and 0.2 (lower bound) per assumption 3.4. An additional case with COF value of 0.5 is also performed.

Hence, a total of three SSE runs were made and results are tabulated in Table 1. Table 1 summarizes the results for maximum displacements at the top of the cask, peak vertical loads, and peak frictional forces between pool lid and slab interface for the three cases considered.

The maximum lateral displacement (in H1 or H2 direction) of the top of the HI-TRAC is observed to be 2.458" for the postulated SSE seismic event. The resulting safety factor against impact with the surrounding structures and the loaded HI-TRAC is 1 (4.4244" / 2.458") (see Section 2.2.1 for the derivation of the value of 4.4244"). The maximum lateral displacement of the bottom of the HI-TRAC is observed to be 2.450" for the postulated SSE seismic event. The worst scenario is observed when the HI-TRAC and the leveling platform move as one. The resulting safety factor against impact with the surrounding structures and the loaded leveling platform is 1.07 (2.6119" / 2.450") (see Section 2.2.1 for the derivation of the value of 2.6119").

Page 15 of 28 G:\Projects\1916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7

Project 1916 Report 2104715 The peak vertical force on the cask loading area slab at any time instant is obtained as 511,750 lbf under SSE condition, as seen from Table 1.

Table 1: Peak Results from Dynamic Analyses of HI-TRAC Cask under SSE Event COF Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum between Y-Directional X-Directional Y-Directional X-Directional Peak Peak HI- (112)

Case TRAC (HI)

(H)(2 (112) (1)

H) Displacement[ Vertical Frictiona Displacement Displacement Displacement of Load I Force Pool Lid of Bottom of and SFP of top of HI- of top of HI- Bottom of HI- HI-TRAC (lb.)

(l. (lb.)

(b)

Floor TRAC (in.) TRAC (in.) TRAC (in.) (in.)

Case 1 0.2 2.458 1.096 2.450 1.063 212,520 42,420 Case 2 0.5 0.922 0.846 0.161 0.184 391,500 194,420 Case 3 0.8 1.369 1.343 0.083 0.163 511,750 387,900 Since SSE seismic event is stronger than OBE event, the analysis is not repeated for the OBE event. As shown in Section 7.2, an evaluation of current configuration under OBE event is unwarranted.

7.2 Pool Slab Assessment For reference only, the net resultant load on the SFP slab from the Final Reracked Configuration

[5.4] (with regular fuel) and that from Campaign II racks (racks El through ElO, plus NI through N4) and Campaign III rack (rack N5) (with regular fuel, i.e., 680 lbf fuel) including a loaded cask in the cask area, are presented below. Please note that Campaign III rack N6 is not included in the load summation for Campaigns II and III since the Rack N6 cannot co-exist with the HI-TRAC cask. The dead load of the racks from both Campaign II, III and Final Reracked Configuration are directly obtained by summing the individual rack weight and the fuel within

[5.5]. The maximum dead load on the SFP floor is 191,000 lbs (Table 3.2.2 of [5.8]) and it occurs when the loaded HI-TRAC cask is placed on the floor. Table 2 compares the dynamic loads on the slab under the SSE event, from the Final Reracked Configuration and the Campaign II and III Configuration including a loaded HI-TRAC.

Page 16 of 28 G:\Projects\1916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7

Project 1916 Report M-2104715 Table 2: Comparison of Total Dynamic Loads on Slab Campaigns II and Final Reracked III (Racks El thru Load Classification / Pool Configuration El0 and N1 thru Layout (regular fuel) N5) (regular fuel)

(SSE) Including Loaded Cask (SSE)

Dead Load on Slab from Fully 3,112,220 2,949,480 Loaded Racks (Dr), lbf § Dead Load on Slab from Fully 191,000 Loaded Cask (DJ), lbf Dynamic Adder from Rack 0.372 0.372 Dynamic Analysis (Ar) +

Dynamic Adder from Cask 0 1.680 Dynamic Analysis (AJ)

• Buoyancy Factor (B) y 0.873 0.873 Total Dynamic Load

[Drx B x (1 + Ar)] + [D, x (1 + 3,727,680 4,044,638 A.)]

§ The dead loads on slab (Dr) are calculated in Appendix F. All of the racks present in a configuration are fully loaded with regular fuel weighing 680 lbf.

• The dynamic adder from the cask dynamic analysis is incremental factor applied to the dead load to obtain the seismic load (Ac = 511,750/191,000 - I = 1.680).

4The dynamic adders from the rack seismic analysis Ar are the incremental factor applied to the submerged weight of the loaded racks to obtain the seismic load. They are calculated in Appendix F. Although the calculated dynamic adder is for the Final Reracked Configuration racks, it is used for the Campaign II and III racks as well. Since the total mass of fuel and the number of fuel cells in the Final Reracked Configuration racks is considerably higher than the corresponding numbers for the Campaign II and Ill racks, it is justifiable to use the dynamic adder from the Final Reracked Configuration to calculate the total dynamic load for the Campaign II and III racks.

y The multipliers applied to the dry weight of the racks plus fuel to account for buoyancy effects in water are calculated in Appendix F.

Page 17 of 28 G:\Projects\1916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7

Project 1916 Report 1-2104715 7.2.1 Slab Capacity Check It is recognized that the finite element model described in Ref. [5.4] is non-conservative because it credits temporary columns to support the spent fuel pool slab. further evaluation is needed for the slab under the effective load from the Campaign II and III racks plus the loaded HI-TRAC.

Therefore, Appendix I is added herein to demonstrate the structural adequacy of the spent fuel slab in Campaign II and III configuration without crediting any of the steel beams/girders beneath the slab. The minimum factor of safety for slab flexural capacity presented is Appendix I is 1.228.

7.2.2 Leveling Platform Punching Shear Check The HI-TRAC cask is supported by the leveling platform in the spent fuel pool per [5.14] and the adjustable support pedestals of the leveling platform assembly are contacting with the slab.

Appendices J, K and L are added to demonstrate the structural adequacy of the leveling platform in supporting the HI-TRAC cask under normal, SSE and OBE conditions.

Since the load from the loaded cask is concentrated on the spent fuel pool slab through the leveling platform pedestals, local punching shear and bearing evaluation are performed below.

To evaluate the punching shear on the slab at a location of impact, the maximum allowable punching shear force is calculated per ACI Code [5.11 ].

The distance from the most compressed fiber to the tensile reinforcement is:

d = 57 in. Page 6-90 of [5.4]

Leveling Platform adjustable support diameter (chamfer considered): D = 4.75 in. [5.13]

Page 18 of 28 G:\Projects\1 916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7

Project 1916 Report 1I-2104715 Bearing Pad thickness: t = 2 in. [5.15]

Assume the pedestal load spreading of 45 deg. through the bearing pad.

The effective perimeter around the impact location is:

bo = 2 x n x (D + 2xt + d) bo = 413 in.

(Note that the load is conservatively assumed to be applied to only two pedestals due to rocking in the SSE and the OBE conditions. The same assumption is also used in Appendix J in evaluating the leveling platform)

Concrete compressive strength: fc = 4,000 psi Page 6-90 of [5.4]

Therefore, the punching shear capacity is calculated per ACI Code [5.11 ] as:

Vcap = 0.85 X 4 X(f)1 2 Xb0 x d Vcap = 5,063,600 lbf The maximum impact load from the loaded cask is:

Vimp = 511,750 lbf (Table 1)

Therefore the safety factor against a punching shear failure of the slab is:

SF = Vcap/ Vimpp9.89 SF The bearing capacity of the concrete slab is calculated per ACI Code [5.11] as:

S 1 ar = 2 x 0.85 x 0.7 x fc Sjear = 4,760 psi The bearing stress on concrete slab based on the peak impact force on HI-TRAC baseplate is calculated as:

S. = Vimp / (2x0.25xrt(D+2xt) 2) S. = 4,255 psi Therefore, the safety factor against the bearing stress on the concrete slab is:

SF = Sbear/ Sas SF- 1.2 Page 19 of 28 G:\Projects\1916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7

Project 1916 Report 1-2104715 The bearing capacity of the bearing pad is calculated per AISC [5.16] as:

Sbarbp = 0.9X27,500 psi Sbearbp = 24,750 psi Where 27,500 psi is the yield strength of SA-240-304 at 150 deg. F per [5.17].

The bearing stress on bearing pads based on the peak impact force on HI-TRAC baseplate is calculated as:

Sas_bp = Vimp / (2x0.25xrt(D) 2) Sasbp = 14,440 psi Therefore, the safety factor against the bearing stress on the bearing pads is:

SF = Sbe.b p/ Sasbp ;SF 1.71l The above calculated safety factors are for the SSE event. As for the OBE event, ACI code (Section 9.2.1 of [5.11]) defines 1.7 and 1.4 as the load factors for impact load and dead load, respectively. Note that the above calculated safety factors for concrete are both greater than 1.7, therefore, the corresponding safety factors for OBE events will be greater than 1.0, even if the SSE results are conservatively used as OBE results. Hence it is confirmed that an evaluation of OBE events are unwarranted.

Page 20 of 28 G:\Projects\1916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7

Project 1916 Report HI-2104715

8.0 CONCLUSION

S It is demonstrated in the foregoing sections that the maximum lateral excursion of the HI-TRAC is 2.458" at the top of the cask, which is less than the allowable excursion of 4.4244" between the HI-TRAC and the surrounding structures. It is further shown that the HI-TRAC cask remains stable at the conclusion of the 20 seconds duration SSE seismic event (bounding).

It is shown that the spent fuel slab floor is structurally adequate in the current configuration (Campaign II and III racks with regular fuel plus the loaded cask) under the postulated SSE and OBE events without the temporary columns. The leveling platform is also structurally adequate to support the loaded HI-TRAC cask under normal, SSE and OBE conditions. The safety factor for slab flexural loading is 1.228. The safety factor against the local punching of the slab is shown to be 9.89, based on the peak load on the slab from the HI-TRAC cask seismic analysis.

The safety factor of the slab against the bearing is shown to be 1.12.

It is therefore concluded that the HI-TRAC cask, when submerged in water in the spent fuel pool at El. 74.25' at Pilgrim, has adequate margins in terms of the kinematic stability and the slab structural integrity.

Page 21 of 28 G:\Projects\1 916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7

Project 1916 Report 1-H-2104715 9.0 FIGURES The VN graphical outputs (result plots) and input screen captures in this section correspond to the HI-TRAC cask simulation under SSE event with 0.8 COF at the HI-TRAC base (Pool Lid)/SFP floor interface. Similar plots can be obtained for other simulations (including 0.2 and 0.5 COF at HI-TRAC base (Pool Lid)/SFP floor interface) which are archived on the Holtec network.

Figure 1. Model of Loaded HI-TRAC Cask on Slab Page 22 of 28 G:\Projects\1 916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7

Project 1916 Report HI-2104715 Proeries of bod[2 "HJ~ C  ?

Vel Material Cylinder. Central Inertia Contact j FEA FDensity Mass 1311795.520 Ibm r~ *ensitY ...............

Mass I...... . .:.. . b C Uniform

( Custom ibm in'2

.. 09 0000 ..-7.

........ oo oo....o..

0.. 1 t0.0 0

f~ - 1990..011600000.000 j~

° ... . ........

(Inertia about center of .masialigned with body axes)

....* ,.,,- : ,.," " ppys ..... ...Help......

o.

Vel" Material Cylinder [Central .nertialI Contact1 FEiA 4 L Material Properties C[ustom material for body[2] . , * .,:'!.

Mass F311795.520 *..J Ibm Volume 11 89792.805* in.3 Coeff. Restitution 10.254 ...

Coeff. Friction 0.800 C lPpy Help Figure 2. Mass Properties (including hydrodynamic mass) of HI-TRAC Page 23 of 28 G:\Projects\1 916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7 I

Project 1916 Report MI-2104715

~ ~

= ;.,~~ " , .x-ýM 7_ "

Appearance ~Structural Load jActive Frame ...- . ..... .

'r World 0-:8'dy rCoordinates C Coord Y o.10o00 lbf Z J164265.192 ljbf ( Cartesian !

C Cylindrical C Face normal Figure 3.Constant Buoyancy Force Applid EtCaP Figure 3. Constant Buoyancy Force Applied to Cask Page 24 of 28 G:\Projects\1 916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7

Project 1916 Report HI-2104715

,EditI. For'm ula 1w 4, Graph Property. Math Logic Function.

M e'v 7C ?I, IN

-191 000(input[16]) Ibf 9000o0.0ao.0.ooG.aogea5.oo6oo0(.oD8.oo9.aooJ.a(

Time (sec)

---

- A.6 I.EdtFomlaM Graph Property: Math Logic Function

'we X "v W Tj 0 ffl N

-191 000([input[391) Ibf Graph Eit orulProperty Math Logic Function

'r Ni 7E q El ffl 1bf

-191 000'input[4011 Ibi IA~

==

Tlme(see)

OK Cancel' Help 4

Figure 4. Bounding Inertia Force Applied to the Cask (All Directions)

Page 25 of 28 G:\Projects\1 916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7

Project 191ý Report HI-2104715 I*1 S bd~]'OLl)'

Prpriso M "V9

• el .. C....ra. e...a FEA

.Mteral Co .tact C*..we.

Contactdetectibow - Conitact response--

r Facetted wdaface r Ilmpulse/,,omitum

r. AllRow Penetration. r- Custommodel Facett..Properties Smooth =uoface Sis*opo*rtl Mod" . . ....... ... OK" Irmpuloe/m omentum CustomO" :_.:.

Coe. Rettiution 1-7---

• ,Frictio Ctf. .... , " .I ,.

• Normal foremfiodek ti, Vrpenatrot1mmr-J Frctnirforcemo .1e .t l 0,...

Ga o. MathL gic  : JE:.

IF-ý -/r

(- 3923t N\ 7C ?I (DG fin)pm ehatio.11-(5129 hIt Tnme(sec)

I[

Figure 5. Pool Lid/Slab Interface Stiffness and Damping for HI-TRAC Model 2 Eit.FomlaTE 2 Graph Property. Math Logic Function 2

-#, %./" 'v 7E. T! 91 ff 1W 0081normalcomP0"tangentvels/tangentvel 0"J

.0001 inls) ... ,

C, OK---]Can~el iel

• .00~.00o.008.0@.0 aosoos.oari.ao8.0o.OOM.OC Ttme (sec) i -

Figure 6. Pool Lid/Slab Interface Friction for HI-TRAC Model Page 26 of 28 G:\Projects\1 91 6\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7

Project 1916 Report HI-2104715 Figure 7. Maximum Pool Lid/SFP Floor Interface Load - (SSE Event)

Value Min Max x 0.004 in -1.255 1.369 y 0.094 in -1.311 1.343 2 194-243 in 194.233 194,529 Figure 8. Position of the Top of HI-TRAC (SSE Event)

(the original position of the top of HI-TRAC is (0 in.,0 in., 194.25 in.))

Page 27 of 28 G:\Projects\1 916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7

Project 1916 Report H1-2104715 10.0 APPENDICES (Number of Pages)

Appendix A - VisualNastranNumber of Facets Calculation(2)

Appendix B - Stiffness and Damping Evaluation (1)

Appendix C - Approved Computer ProgramList (6)

Appendix D - Coefficient of Restitution (2)

Appendix E - Hydrostaticand Hydrodynamic Effects (5)

Appendix F - Calculationsof Factors(2)

Appendix G - Baseline Correctionof SSE Time History (5)

Appendix H - LIFTING ANALYSIS OF LEVELING PLATFORM (11)

Appendix I -Analysis of Spent Fuel Pool Slab in Campaign II and III Configuration (8)

Appendix J - Analysis of Leveling Platform Assembly Under Normal, SSE and OBE Conditions(27)

Appendix K - ANSYS Input Files (12)

Appendix L - ANSYS Output Files (3)

Page 28 of 28 G:\Projects\1 916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7

Report 1-11-21 04715 Project 1916 Report HI-2104715 IProject 1916 I Appendix A: VisualNastran Number of Facets Calculation The purpose of this appendix is to determine the number of facet points (i.e. contact locations) the model has for defining custom contact in VisualNastran [5.1].

The pool lid is placed on the spent fuel pool floor (cylindrical surface on flat ground) and allowed to reach steady state. The compression is then measured using an arbitrary stiffness input.

Guess stiffness 4 Ibf 1000. lbf sec in Guess damping in 7

z After steady state has been reached, knowing the weight and the final deflection with the arbitrary stiffness, the number of facets can be computed.

Appendix A - 1of 2 G:\Projects\1 91 6\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 0\

Report HI-21U4715 Project 1Y16 Report HI-21U4115 IProject 1916 I Contact force F,:= -8091.417. Ibf in Final velocity V,:= -0.02637.-

sec Final displacement z:= -0.0024.in Number of facet points k-z+ c.V, N= 16 Appendix A - 2 of 2 G:\Projects\1 916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 0\

Project 1916 Report HI-2104715 Appendix B: Stiffness and Dampingi Evaluation SCOPE: Dynamic analyses of rigid bodies under seismic loading require simulation of contact between bodies. While classical impact-momentum analysis models may be used, contacts between two large flat surfaces undergoing low velocity impacts are better represented by a series of peripheral springs that simulate the contact behavior. Here, we determine the spring rate and damping coefficient appropriate to simulate a damped system having mass, W/g. There are N facet points at the contact; here, we determine the spring and damper per facet to be input into the "custom contact" model in VN to represent the interface between HI-TRAC pool lid and the SFP slab.

NF := 16 Number of facets (Appendix A)

Wtrac := 191000. lbf Bounding weight of loaded HI-TRAC [5.8]

The premise for establishing this spring rate at the HI-TRAC base and SFP slab interface is that the responses of interest when considering system behavior to seismic ground motions should focus on the predominate modes below 33 Hz and avoid modeling assumptions that introduce spurious mathematical artifacts that serve only to interject high frequency effects into the simulation. The predominant energy content from seismic events is in the frequency range below 16Hz (Page 2-6 of Ref. [5.3]). Therefore, any contact spring representation for the dynamic model should not introduce artifacts leading to spurious and artificial higher frequency effects. Therefore, the custom contact spring representation used herein is based on the mass of the supported model, and is developed so that the 33Hz frequency is based on a vertical oscillation of the mass on a rigid foundation. This renders the custom contact model independent of the local matedal and geometric shape of the contact surfaces.

A local contact stiffness is chosen on the basis of the total supported mass and a requirement to eliminate all frequencies above 33Hz from this spring constant. The damper associated with this local contact stiffness is chosen to produce a coefficient of restitution value of 0.254 (Appendix 0) at the interface to suppress high frequency numerical oscillations.

f := 33. Hz Rigid body frequency Contact Stiffness Wtr~ac (2-Tr. f) 2 1.

K :2 K = 1329272.567.-I g NF in Corresponding Damping 2.0.4f Wrac-NF b e K. IC = 5128.735

1. =-

C NF in Appendix B - 1 of 1 G:\Projects\1916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 0\

R*nnrt WT-91n4715

-~-1916 AhPWPENDI C R r I-141 HOLTEC APPROVED COMPUTER PROGRAM LIST' REV. 226 July 312012 APPROVED IN CERTIFIED REMARKS: See OPERATING APPROED Indicate PROGRAM USNRC PART VERSION USER FOR "A" CODE report indicated SYSTEM & COMPUTERS: Computer (Category) 50 & 71/72 SER: (Executable) ESEXPERT or special VERSION 4 limitations (Service pack ) Listed by ID ID(s) used (Docket #) 2 MA, SPA, AB, 11.0 CWB, RI, PK. AL, CWB HI-2012627 Windows XP (2) 1017, 1018,1019, HP, VRP, ER, IR, 1039, 1060 AIS, ZY,JZ MA, SPA, AB, 12.0 CWB, RJ, PK, AL, CWB HI-2012627 Windows XP (2) 1016, 1017 HP, VRP, ER, IR, AIS. ZY, JZ MA, SPA, AB, Windows XP (2) 1019, 1060 12.1 CWB, RJ, PK, AL. CWB H 1-2012627 1021, 1023, 1025, DOC 50-298 HP, VRP, ER, IR. Windows 7 (0,1) 1031, 1032, 1044, ANSYS (A) DOC 72-1014 AIS, ZY, JZ 1093 MA, SPA. AB, Windows XP (2) 1017.1018, 1019 CWB, RJ, PK, AL, 1023,1025,1031, 13.0 HP, VRP, ER, IR, CWB H 1-2012627 1038 1044 1127.

AIS, ZY, JZ. YC, Windows 7 (0,1) 1139:1187:1888, 1038 VM 1189,1190,1179 MA, SPA, AB, CWB, RJ, PK, AL, 14.0 HP, VRP, ER, IR, CWB HI-2012627 Windows 7 (0,1) 1162,1044,1187 AIS, ZY, JZ, YC, VM AutoCad 2011 3.0 N/A JAG HI-2125187 Windows 7 (11 1158 N/A COMPRESS Build 7140 N/A VM HI-2125173 Windows XP(2) 1058 SPA, BDB, KB, 4-2.05.14 HF, SVF, TH, BK, SPA HI-2104750 Windows XP (3) 1006 DOC 50-271 DMM, VIM, ES, PS CASMO (A) DOC 71-9336 SPA, BDB, KB, 5M - 1.06.00 SVF, TH, BKI SPA DMMHF. HI-2104750 Windows XP (2) 1008, 1013 DMM, VIM. ES, PS of 108,01 Page C1 of C6

Project 1916 APPENDIX C Report HI-2104715 HOLTEC APPROVED COMPUTER PROGRAM LIST' REV. 226 July 31 2012 APPROVED IN CERTIFIED REMARKS: See OPERATING APPROVED Indicate PROGRAM USNRC PART VERSION CODE report indicated SYSTEM & COMPUTERS: Computer (Category) 50 & 71/72 SER: (Executable) USERS FOR"A" EXPERT for special VERSION 4T Compused 4

(Docket #) ' limitations (Service pack ) Listed by ID ID(s) used SPA, BDB, KB, 5-2.00.00 HF. SVF, TH, BK, SPA HI-2104750 Windows 7 (0.1) 1051 DMM, VIM, ES, PS SPA, BDB, KB, Windows 7 (0,1) 1051 5-2.02,00 HF, SVF, TH, BK. SPA H 1-2104750 DMM, VIM, ES, PS Windows XP (2) 1008 1.3 N/A CWB N/A Windows XP (3) 1020 CORRE Windows 7 (0,1) 1049 1.6 N/A ER N/A Windows XP (2) 1016 DECAY Windows XP (31 1016 Windows XP (2) 1016 DECOR DOC 50-423 1.3 N/A ER N/A Windows XP (3) 1016 Windows 7 (0,1) 1027 Dr. Beam Pro 1.0.5 N/A CWB N/A Windows 7 (0,1) 1031, 1044,1162 DYNAMO I.0AIS,CWB, VRP, SYNMe0 A)H, Suite (A) HP, KKG KKG CWB HI-2114848 Windows 7.(0,I1) 1044,1021 Windows XP (2) 1016 Fluent (A) DOC 50-368 ER. IR, DMM, DOC 72-1014 4.56 AHM, YL, INP, ER H 1-981921 MH, JGR Windows XP (3) 1022 Windows 7 (0,1) 1027 1002, 1003, 1016, Windows XP (2) 2003 Windows XP (3) 1001 Windows 7 0.1) 1026, 1135' 1193, 1027, ER, IR, DMM, Fluent (A) DOC 50-368 DOC 72-1014 6.3.26 AHM, YL, INP, DMM H 1-2084036 Red Hat Ent.

MH, JGR (3,.43-9.EL4) 1004 Linux (2.6.9-5)

Red Hat Ent.

(4.4.2-48) Linux 1070,1071,1072 (2.6.18-194.e15)

Server Release 5.5 Page C2 of C6

Prn*n* 1Qlg IPPRNnTY R R*r* NT-718471*

PoLTEC 1916O VE ' APPEN CP Re HEV.0276 HOLTEC APPROVED COMPUTER PROGRAM LIST' REV. 226 July 31 2012 APPROVED IN CERTIFIED REMARKS: See OPERATING APPROVED Indicate PROGRAM USNRC PART VERSION USERS FOR "A" CODE report indicated SYSTEM & COMPUTERS: Computer (Category) 50 & 71/72 SER: (Executable) COES EXPERT for special VERSION 4 (Docket #) 2 CODES limitations (Service pack ) Listed by ID ID(s) used GENEQ 1.3 N/A AIS, CWB N/A Windows XP (3) 1028 HTRI XIST 6.00 N/A KK N/A Windows XP (3) 1057 LONGOR DO( 50-305 1.1 N/A ER N/A Windows XP (2) 1016 Windows XP (3) 1016 971 AB, SPA, RJ, AL,

'ls971sR4.2) HP, VRP, KPS, JZ N/A Windows XP (2) 1018 AIS, JZ, ZY 971 AB, SPA, RJ, AL, 10s71 sR5.0) HP, VRP, KPS, JZ N/A Windows 7 (0,1) 1031, 1032 LS-DYNA DOG 50-298 AIS, JZ, ZY (A) DOC 72-1014 971 AB. SPA, RJ, AL, HP, VRP, KPS, JZ N/A Windows 7 (0,1) 1025, 1093 (ls971dR5.0)

AIS, JZ, ZY 971 AB, SPA, RI, HP, VRP, KPS,AL, JZ N/A Windows HPC 2008Server 1033, 1036, 1034, 1037 1035, (mpp971dR5.0) AIS, JZ, ZY LS-DYNA DOC 50-298 971 AB, SPA, RJ, AL, Windows Server 1033, 1034, 1035, (A) DOC 72-1014 (mpp971sR5.0) HP VRP, KPS, JZ N/A HPC 2008 1036, 1037 AIS, JZ, ZY MACCS2 1.13.1 N/A SPA HI-2104750 Windows XP (3) 1041 Windows XP (2) 1008, 1002 1006, 1009, 1010, SPA, BDB, KB, Windows XP (3) 2001. 2002, 2004.

DOC 50-368 4A HF, SVF, DMM, TH,ES.

VIM, BK,PS KB H 1-2104750 20.20,20 2005,2006, 2007 MCNP (A) DOC 71-9336 1011, 1013, 1014, Windows 7 (0, 1) 1015, 1030, 1051, 1113, 1114, 1115 4B SPA, BDB, KB, KB HI-2104750 Windows XP (3) 2001,2002 SVF, TH, BK, aHF, f Page C3 of C6

Proiect 1916 APPENDIX C Report HI-2104715 HOLTEC APPROVED COMPUTER PROGRAM LIST' REV. 226 July 31 2012 APPROVED IN APPROVEDEINAPPROVED CRIEDREMARKS: See OPERATING APRVD Idct PROGRAM USNRC PART VERSION CODE report indicated SYSTEM & COMPUTERS: Compute (Category) 50 (Docket

& 71/72 #)

SER: (Executable) abe) US CODES ES EXPERT for special limitations VERSION (Service pack 4) Listed by ID Listed Compused ID(s) used DMM, VIM, ES, PS Windows 7 (0,1) 1051 Windows XP (2) 1002, 1003, 1008 1006. 1009, 1010, SPA, BDB, KB, 5.1.40 HF, SVF, TH, BK, KB H 1-2104750 Windows XP (3) 1012, 001,2002, DMM, VIM. ES, PS 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 1011. 1014, 1015, Windows 7 (0,1) 1051, 1113, 1114, 1115 Windows XP (2) 1002 1003, 1008, 2003 DO 038SPA, BDB, KB, Windows XP (3) 1006, 2002.

2001. 1009, 2005, 1010.

DOC 50-368 5.1.51 HF, SVF, TH. BK, KB H 1-2104750 2006.2007 MCNP (A) DOC 71-9336 DM ,VM S S2006,2007 DMM, VIM. ES, PS 1011,1013,1014, Windows 7(0,1) 1015, 1051, 1076.

1113, 1114,1115 MR216 (A) 2.40 AIS, CWB. VRP. CWB HI-2125267 Windows 7 (0,1) 1049 HP, KKG Windows XP (2) 1016 MULPOOLD 2.3 N/A ER N/A Windows XP (3) 1016 Windows 7 (0,1) 1026 Nanotec Wet Pravin Windows Server 1146 Chemistry 0 N/A Kumar N/A 003 revision 2 114 1.7 N/A ER N/A Windows XP (2) 1016 ONEPOOL Windows XP (3) 1016 ORIGEN2 486 N/A ER HI-92784 Windows XP (2) 1016 Windows XP (.3) 1016 Page C4 of C6

Prolect 1916 APPENDIX C Report HI-2104715 HOLTEC APPROVED COMPUTER PROGRAM LIST

• REV. 226 July 31 2012 APPROVEDCV CERTIFIED REMARKS: See OPERATING Indicate PROGRAM USNRC PART VERSION USERS FOR"A" CODE report indicated SYSTEM & COMPUTERS: Computer (Category) 50 2 OE EXPERT for special VERSION 4 (Docket # a) CODES limitations (Service pack Listed by ID ID(s) used ORIGEN-S, SAS2H, KENO-Va, DOC 50-346 Windows 2000 NITAWL & DOC 71-9336 4.3 KB, SPA, BK KB, SPA N/A (2) 1050 BONAMI (Modules of SCALE 4.3)

ORIG EN-S & SAS2 DO 503461006, 1009, 1010, S(s2 o DOC 50-346 4.4 N/A KB, SPA N/A Windows XP (3) 2004,2005,12007 (Modules of DOC 71-9336 20,0520 SCALE 4.4)

ORIGEN-S, 1011 1013, 1113, SAS2H & Windows 7 (0,1) 5.1 KB, SPA, BK KB, SPA N/A 1015,1076,1088 KENO-VI (Modules of Windows XP (3) 2002 2004, 2005, SCALE 5. 1) 2007 7.6.0 N/A AIS N/A Windows 7 (0,1) 1044,1093,1025 SHAKE 2000 7.7.0 N/A AIS N/A Windows 7 (0,1) 1021 0 NWindows XP (3) 1020 Windows 7 (0,1) 1038, 1049 ShapeBuilder 6.0 N/A VRP HI-2053361 Windows 7 (0,1) 1044 Windows XP(2) 1077 1081, 1082, N/A SolidWorks 0i/doI2012761 X 1083%1085, 1086 20 04 1078 1079, 1080, N/A Windows 7 (0,1) 1084 STER 5.04 N/A ER N/A Windows XP(3) 1016 1011, 1013, 1015, 1051, 1076, 1088.

1.0 N/A KB N/A Windows 7 (0, 1) 1108,1113,1114, SX

.1115 Page C5 of C6

Proiect 1916 APPENDIX C Report HI-2104715 HOLTEC APPROVED COMPUTER PROGRAM LIST" REV. 226 July 31 2012 APPROVED IN CERTIFIED REMARKS: See OPERATING APPROVED Indicate PROGRAM USNRC PART VERSION CODE report indicated SYSTEM & COMPUTERS: Computer (Category) 50 & 71/72 SER: (Executable) USERSEXPERT for special VERSION 4 (Docket #) 2 CODES limitations (Service pack ) Listed by ID ID(s) used Windows XP (2) 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 1008 Windows XP (3) 1006, 1009, 1010 Windows XP (2) 1016 TBOIL 1,11 N/A ER N/A WindowsXPl() 1016 Windows XP (3) 1016 VERSUP 1.0 N/A AIS N/A Windows XP (2) 1016 Visual DOC 50-133 24/A Windows XP (2) 1017, 1018 E101__8

]EE_

Nastran DOC 72-27 2004 N AIS, CWB N/A Windows XP (3) 1020,1028 1 C 72 I ,Windows 7 (0,1) 1044,1045 Page C6 of C6

Project 1916 Report HI-2104715 Appendix D: Coefficient of Restitution Coefficient of Restitution / Percent Critical Damping Relationship (i-i1) ______ gi

z. 40 1-t cor. :=e i:= 1.. 40 S 40 2.

[1-(z)2]

1= co.=Z 1 1 1 0 2 0.924 0.025 0.854 0.05 0.79 0.075 5 0.729 0.1 6 0.673 0.125 0.621 0.15 8 0.572 0.175 0.527 0.2 100.484 0.225 11 0.444 0.25 12 0.407 0.275 13 0.372 0.3 14 0.34 0.325 15 0.309 0.35 16 0.281 0.375 17 0.254 0.4 18 0.229 0.425 19 0.205 0.45 20 0.183 0.475 Appendix D - 1 of 2 G\Projects\1 916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev O\

Project 1916 Report HI-2104715 0

0 cori I 0

U 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 Percent Critical Damping In order to account for the non-linear impact occurring at interfaces of floor/cask during an earthquake, the damping percentage at this interface is artificially set at 40%

(corresponding to cor = 0.254) based on the results of the low velocity cask impact simulations in DS-340 [5.2]. This value is not to be interpreted as a measure of intemal damping, rather as a "pseudo damping" value that enables a reasonably accurate solution of a non-linear dynamics problem using a simplified model. This approach has been used previously by Holtec for Colombia Generating Station and Private Fuel Storage, LLC and Hope Creek Generating Station.

Appendix D - 2 of 2 G:\Projects\1 916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 0\

Report HI-21 04715 Project 1916 Report HI-2104715 I Project 1916 I Appendix E: Hydrostatic and Hydrodynamic Effects

1. CALCULATION OF CAVITY FREE SPACE BASED ON AS-BUILTS The dimensions are taken from Fig. 2.1 of [5.5] and [5.9]. Also, Fig. 2.1 is attached as Fig. El in this Appendix.

Cask cavity size:

N-S direction: NSPit:= 116.125in +1.875in = 118. M' E-W direction:

From Fig. El, based on the number of cells in Rack E3 9

88.50in -- = 56.893. in 14 h := 30.5ft - L - 199.587in - 3in = 106.52

• in htotai :=h + 3.91lin = 110.43 -in where a gap of 3.91 inch is assumed as in Fig. El.

EWPit := htotai = 110.43- in Maximum Cask Width (use the trunnion tip to tip distance) [5.12]

ML := 91.5in The leveling platform [5.13] is placed in the pool at an exact location specified by [5.15]. The HI-TRAC is placed at the center of the platform. Per [5.15], the closet adjacent structure to the platform center is identified as the N2 Rack as shown in calculation below, where 92" and 98. 75" are the width of platform [5.15, 5.13] in E-W and N-S direction, respectively.

gapEw := (4in+- 9 + 92in> 14 4.8125. in 16 2 2 98.75in~ ML gapNs:= 3in + 2 2=6.625i Therefore, the minimum gap around the HI-TRAC is calculated below and is used to assess if the HI-TRAC hits the surrounding structures under seismic event:

gapmin := min(gapEw, gapNs) = 4.8125- in Reference [5.15] shows the minimum gap between the leveling platform and the surrounding structures is 3", existing between the platform and the North Wall. This minimum gap is used to assess if the leveling platform hits the surrounding structures under seismic event.

Appendix E - 1 of 3 G:\Projects\1916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7\

Report HI-2104715I I Project 1916 0z E2 Fig. El Pool Layout - Campaign I Appendix E - 2 of 3 G:\Projects\1 916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7\ I

Report HI-2104715 IProject 1916

2. CALCULATION OF DISPLACED MASS OF CASK CONSIDERED AS A SINGLE BODY PROPRIETARY Appendix E - 3 of 3 G:\Projects\1916\REPORTS\StructuraI Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7\'

Project 1916 Report HI-2104715 Annendix

° "r'r F: CalculItion of Factors I

This appendix calculates the buoyancy factors and dynamic adder used in Table 3 in the main report. The rack information is from Table 2.3 of Ref. [5.5] and rack configurations are from Fig. 2.1 and Fig. 2.2 of [5.5]. The submerged weights and dynamic adder forces (SSE) are from Page 5-28 of Ref. [5.4].

Table 171: Final RerackedConfiguration (with 680 lbs Regular Fuel) -- Ii Rack ID Rack Empty Weight (Ibs) No. of Cells Fuel Weight (Ibs) Total Weight (Rack+Fuel) (Ibs)

Ni 29400 288 195840 225240 N2 28600 270 183600 212200 N3-- 27100 266 180880 207980

---

0 247 167960ý 193160 N.. 5 ... ...............

N5 .. .........

520N27 ............

.... ............2... 4..........

1v6760 .........

.....1.....

19 193160 6......

I .... ...........

N6_ 21300 0 208 141440 162740 E- 23600 214 145520 169120 E2 25200 230 156400 181600 E3 31700 293 199240 230940 E4 29000 266 180880 209880 E5 29000 266 180880 .209880 E6 29000 266 180880 209880 E7 29000 266 180880 209880

-E8 29000 266 180880 209880 E9 29000 266 180880 2098800 El0 76800 0 0 76800 Total Dead Weight of Fully Loaded Racks (Ibs) 3112220

... ..... .SUBMERGED B U O.......F....

. WEIGHT.....(lbs) .......... ... . . . . . . . .---- .. ---

. . -. . .. . . .... ........ 26 . . .... . ..

.BUOYANCY FACTOR 0.873 -

....... .SSE DYNAMIC ADDER FORCE 1010816.32 SSE DYNAMIC ADDER - - - 0.372 Note that the dead weight of equipment rack E10 is estimated by multiplying the maximum static load of the slab load point #25 by four. That is, 19,200 lbs

• 4 = 76,800 Ibs, where 19,200 lbs is from Page 5-28 of Ref. [5.41.

Appendix F - 1 of 2 G:\Projects\1916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 4\

Report HI-2104715 IProject 1916 Table F2: Rack Conflauration Cam'aiqn IIand III(with 680 lbs Regular Fuel)

Rack ID Rack Empty Weight (Ibs) No. of Cells Fuel Weight (Ibs) Total Weight (Rack+Fuel) (Ibs)

N1 29400 288 195840 225240 N2 28600 270 183600 212200 N3 27100 266 180880 207980 N4 25200 247 167960 _ 193160 ___

N5 25200 247 167960 193160 El 23600 214 145520 ____ 169120 ___

E2 25200 230 156400 181600

... ... .3 ............

.... 3 1 0 .......

E33100293 .........

..... . 2ý9 ....... .. ......................1199240

........... 9.... ..........

92 4..0...... . ...... ............. . -2 -0. ...............:...............

..230940 E4 29000 266 180880 209880 E5 29000 266 - 180880 209880 E6 29000 266 180880 209880 El 29000 266 180880 209880 E8 29000 _______ 266 180880 209880 E9 26629000 266 180880 209880 El0 76800 0 0 76800

...........Total Dead Weight of Fully Loaded Racks (lbs- ..... 2949480 Note that Rack N6 is removed since it cannot co-exist with a HI-TRAC placed into the SFP for dry cask operations.

Appendix F - 2 of 2 G:\Projects\1916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 4\ I

Project 1916 Report HI-2104715 APPENDIX G BASELINE CORRECTION OF SSE TIME HISTORY Page G-1 of 5 G:\Projects\1 916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 0

Project 1916 Report HI-2104715 The seismic acceleration time-histories of spent fuel slab at El. 74.25' are taken from the acceleration time-histories (set no. 3, i.e, a-tsse.h31, a-tsse.h32 and a-tsse.vt3) generated in the report [5.3]. The acceleration-time histories are are integrated twice to form a velocity and displacement time history. This is easily performed using a simple sphere model in VisualNastran with arbitrary mass and applying the acceleration time history induced inertia force to the spherical mass. Figure 1 shows the spherical model in VN and the result of the raw integration for El. 74.25'. There is a nonzero velocity existing at the end of the event as well as a large final movement. This appendix documents the VisualNastran (VN) analyses focused on adding small corrective acceleration to the original acceleration time-histories from [5.3] to ensure the velocity and displacement are truly zero at the end of seismic event. The output acceleration time-histories from this appendix are used as inputs to represent the driving inertial loads in the VisualNastran (VN) model.

I Figure 1: Time Histories of Displacement, Velocity and Acceleration BEFORE Baseline Correction at El. 74.25' Page G-2 of 5 G:\Projects\1 916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 0

Project 1916 Report HI-2104715 To baseline correct this input, an incremental velocity is assumed in each direction having the form:

A 2 t2 dv= Alt+At 2

The two constants of integration are chosen so that the total velocity (integrated by VN from the acceleration data + incremental velocity) is zero at the end of the specified 20-second duration, and the average total velocity over the event duration is zero. The following results are obtained for the two constants:

A1 = (2ve- 6va )/ gte A 2 = 6(2va - ve)/g(te)2 The quantities in the above relations have the units of acceleration and acceleration/sec. and have been divided by gravity for convenience:

Time duration = te Velocity at end of duration from initial integrated numerical time history = Ve Average velocity over entire duration from integrated numerical time history = va Each of the above pieces of data is available from the Excel spreadsheet (for each direction of excitation) that accompanies the initial VN solution. Returning to the VN simulation model and correcting the input inertia forces by including the new incremental acceleration in each lateral direction.

Page G-3 of 5 G:\Projects\1 916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 0

Project 1916 Report HI-2104715 Baseline Correction at El. 74.25 ft.

Require that end velocity be zero and average velocity over duration be zero in each direction.

x direction:

v., = 12.4 in in -4.885-1in va = 97.7 see 20. sec sec A, =(2v, -6v,)/gt, A, = -5.841x 10-4 2 A2 = _1.022 x 10-4 1 A2 = 6(2Va -_v)/g(t )

see vx2o=-12.4 Check: VX20 = Alte + A 2 2_)9 2) sec y direction:

v =-5.44 in in in va = -23.3- =-1.165-i see 20. see sec A, =(2ve- 6v.)/gt, A, = -5.038x 10-4 A 2 = 6(2va - ve)/g(te)2 A2 =1.208x10-4 1--

sec Check: VY20 = 5.44 -

VY20 Alt,+ A 2 2J see z direction:

0.375in in in v va, = -3.38 = -0.169-see 20. sec sec A, =(2v, -- 6Va)/ gte A, = 2.284x 10-4 A2 = 6(2v. _vJ)/g(t,)2 A2 =-2.77x110--

see Page G-4 of 5 GAProjects\ 1916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 0

Project 1916 Report HI-2104715 in Check: VZ 2 o=( Ate + A 2 Leg VZ20 = -0.375-i sec Figure 2 shows the time histories of velocity and displacement after baseline correction at El.

74.25'. It is shown the end velocities and displacements are effectively eliminated by the baseline correction.

Figure 2: Time Histories of Displacement, Velocity and Acceleration AFTER Baseline Correction at El. 74.25' Page G-5 of 5 G:\Projects\1 916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 0

APPENDIX H APPENDIX H: LIFTING ANALYSIS OF LEVELING PLATFORM 1.0 Introduction This appendix contains the analysis of the lifting points of the Pilgrim leveling platform.

2.0 Methodology The analysis is based on strength of materials formulations. All analyses and the preparation of this report are carried out using the Mathcad electronic scratchpad program [3.13] on a computer using Windows 7.

3.0 References

[3.1] Holtec Drawing 8262, Rev 6.

[3.2] Not Used.

[3.3] USNRC NUREG 0612, Handling of Large Loads in Nuclear Plants.

[3.4] ANSI N14.6 Special Lifting Devices for Shipping Containers Weighing 10000 lbs. (4500 kg.) or More for Nuclear Materials, 1993.

[3.5] ASME Code,Section II,Part D, 1995.

[3.8] Manual of Steel Construction, AISC, 9th Edition.

[3.9] CMAA Specification #70, Crane Manufacturers of America, 1988.

[3.10] ASME Code,Section III, Subsection NF, 2011.

[3.11] Machinery's Handbook, 27th Edition, 2004.

[3.12] Crosby catalog, 2011.

[3.13] MATHCAD, Mathsoft, Version 15.0.

[3.14] ASME BTH-1 -2011, Design of Below-the-Hook Lifting Devices, ASME.

PROJECT 1916 H-1 ofll1 HI-2104715

APPENDIX H 4.0 Acceptance Criteria, Allowable Strengths, and Assumptions 4.1 Acceptance Criteria Lifting of heavy objects is governed by [3.3] which references [3.4] for actual numerical values for allowable strengths. The primary normal stress at a given section must be less than the minimum of Sy/3 or Su/5 (Sy=material yield strength; Su= material ultimate strength) when the applied load is equal to the lifted load including any dynamic amplification. Further, in accordance with

[3.4], a further reduction in allowable strengths, by a factor of 2.0, is mandated if the lifting device does not have redundant load paths.

There is no specific requirement for welds. Conservatively, it is assumed that the same requirement imposed on the base metal section is also imposed on the weld section.

There is no requirement to check any local or secondary stress states.

4.2 Allowable Strengths The following materials and allowable strengths are used in this analysis.

Values for yield strength and ultimate strength are obtained at 150 OF from [3.5].

SA -240-304 SY240 =26700.psi SU240 =73000.psi SA-479-304 Sy 4 79 26700-psi SU479 73000.psi Based on the above material strengths, the following allowable strengths are computed:

(a2024 0 : SU, 40 fSY SY2 40 SU240 Sa 2 4 o= 4.45 x 103.psi Sa47 = 4.45 x 103 psi (SY47 9 SU479 SY479 SU479 )

Sa7 i(6 :5 10 6'10) 4.3 Assumptions PROJECT 1916 H-2 of 11 HI-2104715

APPENDIX H The dynamic load factor is conservatively assumed to be 15% of dead weight to account for inertia effects, which is appropriate for low speed lifts.

Shear strength is taken as 57.7% of the controlling normal stress allowable.

The factor of 57.7% is the ratio of allowable stress in pure shear to the allowable stress in uniaxial tension based on the maximum distortion energy failure theory.

There is no limit set on local bearing stress in [3.3] and [3.4]; a limit on bearing stress is set at 90% of material yield at 3 times the lifted load to ensure no yielding under the test load.

The total lifting load is uniformly distributed among the liffing slings. It can be achieved by adjusting the sling angles.

4.4 Safety Factor The safety factor at a particular location is defined as:

SF. = allowable load (strength)/ calculated load (stress).

The requirement for an acceptable design is that all safety factors be greater than 1.0.

5.0 Input Data 5.1 Load Data Load:= 5000.Ibf Bounding Lift Load [3.1]

Anglel := 60.deg Min. Sling Angle from Horizontal (note 10 of [3.1])

Angle2:= 30.deg Projected angle in plane of platform [3.1]

DLF := .15 Dynamic Load Factor to account for inertia effects [3.9]

5.2 Geometry Inputs The geometry inputs are provided along with the corresponding analysis in Section 6.0.

PROJECT 1916 H-3 of 11 HI-2104715

APPENDIX H 6.0 Analyses All geometry inputs are from [3.1] unless otherwise noted.

All item numbers and geometry data are from Ref. [3.1] unless otherwise noted.

nsling 4 number of slings Load-(1 + DLF) 3 Tension:= nsling. sin(,Anglel1)

L) - 1.66 x 103.

-Loa.(l+ force in each sling Ph := Tension-cos(Angle1) = 829.941-1bf horizontal force component P,:= Tension-sin(Anglei) = 1.437 x 1031Ibf vertical force component 6.1 Lifting Shackle (item 7)

Fwt 5tonne-g = 1.102 x 10 4-bf working load limit of shackle [3.12] 1 Fu: F,1r4.5 = 4.96 x 104.1bf ultimate load limit is 4.5 times working load limit [3.12]

Ful Safety Factortb . 10 [SafetyFactort 2 f 2,988 Tension Note that the commerically procured shackle only needs to meet the 1/10th of the ultimate per [3.3] and [3.4].

6.2 Lifting Block (item 5) d := 4.5.in width of block PROJECT 1916 H-4 of 11 HI-2104715

APPENDIX H b := 0.75.in thickness of lifting block near the top c:= 2in thickness of lifting block near the bottom dhole := 1-in pin hole diameter at the top pin hole elevation (from the small hhol :=4-23in- lin = 3.719 in pinhole center near top to the root of the 32 thin portion of block) dpi, :=0.75.in lift pin diameter [3.12]

Anglel = 60.deg angle of load application d

x := - = 2.25 in extreme fiber distance to centroid 2

Bearing Stress on block from Shackle Pin at Block Top Ab:= dpin'b = 0.562 in2 bearing area Tension3 Or := - 2.951 x 103psi bearing stress on block Ab SY2 4 0 Opbearing *=

.9'- = 8.01 x 10 psi bearing stress allowable 3

SFb.- Upbearing [SFb = 2714 safety factor on bearing J Tb PROJECT 1916 H-5 of I1I HI-2104715

APPENDIX H Tear Out of Pin at Liftina Block Tor The shear tear-out area is calculated using Eq (3-51) from [3.14].

A,= 2[a + ýý"(I- cos 1)t Assuming the tearout is in the vertical direction instead of along the sling direction to obtain conservative shear area and to simplify calculations. The minimum edge distance from pinhole to edge of plate is:

dhole a:= lin-- =0 .5.in 2

5,.:=

55. = 41.25 dhole shear plane and vertical angle 2

A, := 2 + --- i-.(1 - cos((0.deg)) b = 0.89.in total area of shear planes Tension 3 Tt :=-

A,

= 1.866 x 10 .psi shear stress Sa 240-0.577 SFt : SF7= 1.376] safety factor on tear out Tt PROJECT 1916 H-6 of 11 HI-2104715

APPENDIX H Direction of appliedload Shear planes Curved edge A fN r R P CL hole where:

-, = total area of the two shear planes beyond the pinhole a minimum edge distance from pinhole to edge of plate

= plate thickness Dv = pin diameter DI, = hole diameter

= 55LP (in degrees)

Figure 1 [3.14]

Tensile Stress at Pin Hole Cross-Section at Lifting Block Top Ah := (d - dhole)-b = 2.625 in 2 area at pin hole cross-section Tension h .- Te -=632.336.psi tensile stress at pin hole cross-section Ah SFh= _ SFh =7.03 7 safety factor at hole cross-section (rh Stress at Root of Lifting Block's Thin Portion PROJECT 1916 H-7 of 11 HI-2104715

APPENDIX H The thickness of lifting block transitions from thickness "b" to "c" near the mid-height. The thickness "c" is 2.67 times the thickness "b". The loading pattem on the lifting block and the geometry determines the critical cross-section is at the room of the lifting block's thin portion.

The critical cross-section is subjected to tensile stress from vertical component of sling load, shear stress from horizontal component of sling load, and bending stress from the horizontal component of sling load.

3 M := Ph'hhole = 3.086 x 10. Ibf-in bending moment d 3 .b 4

= = 5.695 in bending moment of inertia 12 Md 13.s orb : d.= 1.219 x 10 psi bending stress 1 2 o- = 425.926-psi tensile stress from tension b.d 3

(r1 combine: (Tb + (t= 1.645 x 10 *psi combined tensile stress Sa24o SFTI - FsF72-70 5 safety factor for tensile stress O't combine TL.- -- 245.908-psi shear stress bd Sa 240 -0.577 SFs.

TL ISS 0.441 safety factor for shear 6.3 Lifting Bar (item 6)

PROJECT 1916 H-8 of 11 HI-2104715

APPENDIX H All item numbers and geometry data are from Ref. [3.1] unless otherwise noted.

The lifting bar (or pin) goes through the thicker portion of lifting block at the bottom.

The pin is supported at two ends by the platform plate (item 1).

dl := 1.5in lifting pin diameter load on pin is conservatively taken as the sling load.

Ppin := Tension = 1.66 x 103.Ibf The pin is subjected to a shear load. The maximum shear stress in the pin is calculated as:

.pini Pi 469~.651-psi shear stress 0.577-Sa 479 SFshear : SFshe, = 5.467E The bending of the pin is evaluated by assuming simple support conditions for the pin. The beam span is conservatively assumed to be the distance between the mid-points of the supported ends of the pin. The beam span assumption is an extremely conservative assumption. The lift load is applied as a uniformly distributed load over the width of the lifting foot. It is noted there is 1/8" gap between the lifting block and the inside edges of the platform plate (2.125"-2"). The 1/8" gap may cause slight of-center loading on the pin. However, the effect is negligible and therefore is not considered herein.

c = 2 in lifting plate thickness at bottom (6 - 2.125)in L := + 2.125in = 4.063 in assumed beam span 2

a:= c = 2 in load span PROJECT 1916 H-9 of 11 HI-2104715

APPENDIX H crl := 0.04in diametral clearance on pin and pin hole Moment:= . = 1.271 x 103 .Ibf-in maximum bending stress in pin 2 2 2 ITr 4 4

= - =0.249

.dl in moment of inertia of pin 64 dl 3

('bendingI := Moment.- = 3.835 x 10 .psi bending stress in pin 2.1 SFbendl . SFbend = 1.16 (Tbending i beafina at pinhole at liftinq block bottom Lifting pin and lifting block are made of two different materials.

min(SY479 , SY24 0) 3 rpbearing .9= 8.01 x 10 .psi 3 bearing stress allowable P.i O'bear= = 553.294"psi bearing stress dl'c pbearing SFbem1 := SFbearl = 14.477f T

O bearl tearout at pinhole at liftinc block bottom The shear tear-out area is calculated using Eq (3-51)from [3.14]. The sketch is shown in Figure 1 above.

PROJECT 1916 H-10 of 11 HI-210471 5

APPENDIX H 1.54in a:= 2in - l.23in minimum edge distance from 2

pinhole to edge of plate 4:= dl 0:= 55. - = 53.571 1.54in shear plane and vertical angle A, := 2 a + -( - cos(dp-deg) c= 6.139.in total area of shear planes pin Ttearl .=..L.

A,, = 270.403.psi shear stress

.577Sa240 SFteaI :=i Ttearl ISFteaz = 9.496 7.0 Conclusion Since safety factors of parts that are in the load path are all greater than 1.0, using the specified allowable strengths in section 4.2, the lifting point meets the requirements of NUREG 0612 and ANSI N14.6. Therefore, the lifting point is acceptable.

PROJECT 1916 H-11 ofll1 HI-2104715

Project 1916 Appendix I Report HI-2104715 APPENDIX I: ANALYSIS OF SPENT FUEL POOL SLAB IN CAMPAIGN IIAND III CONFIGURATION INTRODUCTION The finite element model described in Ref. [1.1] is non-conservative because it credits temporary columns to support the spent fuel pool slab. This appendix analyzes the spent fuel pool slab under the limiting load combination (1.4D +1.7E) per [1.1], without crediting any of the steel beams/girders beneath the slab. The applied flexural loads are from the slab dead weight, water in the pool, Campaign II and III racks (with regular fuel) and HI-TRAC IO0D cask.

METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS The spent fuel pool slab is analyzed as a rectangular plate under a uniform pressure load corresponding to the limiting load combination 1.4D + 1.7 E. The flexure of the slab is analyzed. Two different sets of boundary conditions are analyzed for the slab for completeness:

1) all edges fixed;

2) three edges fixed (north, south, and east) and one edge simply supported (west).

The load on the slab is assumed to be uniform pressure.

The SSE dynamic loads from the racks and HI-TRAC cask are conservatively assumed to be the OBE loads.

ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA The calculated maximum bending moment in the slab under flexural loading shall be less than the reinforcement ultimate moment obtained from [1.1].

REFERENCES

[1.1] Holtec Report HI-92952, "Calculation Package for Pilgrim Spent Fuel Pool Slab Structural Requalification", Rev. 1.

[1.2] Young, W.C., Roark's Formulas for Stress & Strain, McGraw Hill International, 6th Edition.

[1.3] Bechtel Drawing C-108 Rev. 3.

Page I-1 of 1-8

Project 1916 Appendix I Report HI-2104715 INPUT DATA L := 484.in Inside dimension of SFP in NS direction [1.3]

W:= 366-in Inside dimension of SFP in EW direction [1.3]

t:= 60.in Thickness of SFP concrete slab (Page 4-1 of [1.1])

H:= 39.ft Height of SFP water above slab (Page 5.1C of [1.1])

Ic := 165-pcf Weight density of reinforced concrete (Page 2-5 of [1.1])

-1w:= 62.42.pcf Weight density of water D1 2949480.lbf Dead weight of racks in Campaign II and III (with regular fuel weighing 680 lb per assembly) (from Table 2 of main report)

OBE dynamic adder associated with loaded racks E :=0.372.D, (conservatively uses SSE result from Table 2 of main report)

D4 := 1910001bf HI-TRAC dead weight [5.8]

E 4 := 1.680.D 4 OBE dynamic adder associated with HI-TRAC (conservatively uses SSE results from Table 2 of main report) az := 0.3108 OBE vertical acceleration of SFP slab at 10.596 Hz (from p. 6-1C and 5B-6 of [1.1])

Page 1-2 of I-8

Project 1916 Appendix I Report HI-2104715 CALCULATIONS Weight of water in SFP D:=L.W.t.-Yc Self weight of reinforced concrete slab (excluding girders)

D1 + D2 + D3 + D4 Equivalent pressure on wetted slab area D L.W = 40.363psi due to dead loads from racks and cask Hydrodynamic force on slab due to OBE loading Seismic inertia force acting on slab due to OBE loading El + E2 + E3 + E4 Equivalent pressure on wetted slab area E := L-= 15.04-psi L.W due to OBE loads from racks and cask q :=1.4-D + 1.7.E = 82.076-psi Factored pressure load on slab for load combination 1.4D + 1.7E Use Table 26 from [1.2] to evaluate the flexural loads on the SFP slab. Two different sets of boundary conditions are evaluated.

Boundary Condition 1: All edaes fixed (Case No. 8 from Table 26 of [1.21) a:= L b:= W a

- = 1.322 b

1010 Olx:= (1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 0.3834 0.4356 0.4680 0.4872 P(0.3078 0.4974 0.5000)

Page 1-3 of 1-8

Project 1916 Appendix I Report HI-2104715 linterp(01X T, OyT, a 0 = 0.415 P2x:= [Ix 022y:= (0.1386 0.1794 0.2094 0.2286 0.2406 0.2472 0.2500) linterp(s 2 XT, 0 2 yT,fb) [2=0.198 At center of long edge (east edge of slab at center):

(71 .- -21= -1.268 x 10 3psi t2 2

M, 1= -761.098 kip.

"I Crv 6 in kip-in Me:= 1027.1 in Reinforcement Ultimate Moment (from p. 4B-4 and 4B-34 of [1.1])

SF:.- MI ISF = 1.349 At center (slab center region):

0 2.q-b2 22T2 O"2 = 603.973.psi t

2 cr 2 .t kip.in M2 .- M2 = 362.384-k 6 in MC:= 919.1-kp Reinforcement Ultimate Moment (from p. 4B-4 and 4B-34 of [1.1])

in Page 1-4 of I-8

Project 1916 Appendix I Report HI-2104715 SF .- ISF = 2.536 IM21 Boundary Condition 2: Three edges fixed, one edge simply supported (Case No. 9 from Table 26 of [I.21) a:= L b:= W a = 1.322 b

[3x (0.25 0.50 0.75 1.0 1.5 2.0 3.0) y 031y:= (0.020 0.081 0.173 0.307 0.539 0.657 0.718) 01 := linterp 01 xT,3y T,'a1 = 0.457 02x,:= 1x 02y:= (0.004 0.018 0.062 0.134 0.284 0.370 0.422)

T,0) T,a 3:np 02

=litep(2 / -Y -b) P, = 0.231 03x:= O3 1x 03y:=(0.01 6 0.061 0.118 0.158 0.164 0.135 0.097) 33 := linterp0 3 xT,033 T,ba 133 = 0.162 034x:= 13 1x Page 1-5 of 1-8

Project 1916 Appendix I Report HI-2104715 13 4y:= (0.031 0.121 0.242 0.343 0.417 0.398 0.318) 034 :=linterp(134 x, , YTb 34 = 0.391 At x = 0, z = 0 (east edge of slab at center):

o"1 = -1.394 x 103psi or t 2

MI.- M= - 8 36 .6 8 3 kip.in 6 in Mc : 1027.1-ýý Reinforcement Ultimate Moment (from p. 4B-4 and 4B-34 of [1.1])

in SF .- meISF = 1.228]

IMII At x = 0, z = 0.6b (slab center region):

0,2.q-b 2 cr2= 704.637-psi 2

t cr2 . 2 0=-2't-M2 M2= 422.782- kip.in 6 in M 9 19 . 1 kip-in in Reinforcement Ultimate Moment (from p. 4B-4 and 4B-34 of [1.1])

M c SF.- = 2.174 J PSF 1M21 Page 1-6 of 1-8

Project 1916 Appendix I Report HI-2104715 03-q- 2 U3* 0-3 = 494.357.psi 2

2 o-3. 2 M 3 := - -'-- M3 = 296.614. kip7i 6 in Mc:= 729.

in Reinforcement Ultimate Moment (from p. 4B-4 and 4B-34 of [1.1])

SF-Mc SF:= ISF = 2.458 1 At x = +/- a/2, z = 0.6b (north and south edges of slab near center):

-P34. q2 0T4 2 ("4 = -1.193 x 103psi t

2 M 4 =-715.962 .kip in .-

(04' M4" 6 in Mc:= 10 2 7 .1 .A Reinforcement Ultimate Moment (from p. 4B-4 and 4B-34 of [1.1])

in Mc SF:= ISF = 1.435 ]

1M41 Slab Shear Check The "beam shear" is not a credible failure mode for the slab and therefore the beam shear stresses need not be evaluated. However, a peripheral shear check is required for the gross floor slab load and is performed as follows.

fc:= 4000psi concrete compressive strength (Page 6-90 of [5.4])

Page 1-7 of 1-8

Project 1916 Appendix I Report HI-2104715 distance from the most compressed fiber to the d := 57in tensile reinforcement (Page 6-90 of [5.4])

b0 := (L + W - 2.d).2 = 1.472 x 103 .in slab perimeter Next is to calculate the minimum shear capacity of slab, Vcap. Per Section 11.12.2.1 of

[5.11], Vcap is the smallest of the following two capacities:

L 3:= = 1.322 ratio of long side to short side of the slab W

( 4~' 7 2.266 x 10 .*fbf capacity 1 VCap, :=O.85. (2 + ýpi b' =

ot:= 30 parameter of edge column

( ~ d'-

p" b 7

d = 1.426 x 10- lbf Vcap2 := 0.85- 2 + 0 )VCO calculated minimum shear capacity Vcap:= min(VcapI, Vcap2) = 1.426 x 107 .1bf per ACI Code [5.11]

7 total vertical load on slab Dtotal: q.(L - d).(W - d) = 1.083 x 10 *Ibf

.- Vcap SF Dt [SF = 1.317 safety factor Dtotal CONCLUSION This appendix analyzes the spent fuel pool slab under the limiting load combination (1.4D

+1.7E), without crediting any of the steel beams/girders beneath the slab. It is shown that the calculated maximum bending moments in the slab under flexural loading are less than the reinforcement ultimate moment. Therefore, the existing loads on the SFP slab from Campaign II and III racks (with regular fuel) and the loaded HI-TRAC cask are well within its design capacity. Also, the slab shear stress around the periphery is within its capacity.

Page 1-8 of I-8

Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-2104715 APPENDIX J: ANALYSIS OF LEVELING PLATFORM ASSEMBLY UNDER NORMAL, SSE AND OBE CONDITIONS 1.0 Introduction In this appendix, the leveling platform (adjustable supports or pedestals) that are used to support the loaded HI-TRAC 100D under normal and seismic conditions are analyzed for strength and thread engagement length.

2.0 Methodology & Assumptions The structural adequacy of the Leveling Platform is established using the formulations of strength of materials and static equilibrium. The maximum tension, compression,shear, bending, and combined stresses are calculated for the structural members of the Leveling Platform, and then safety factors are evaluated based on the allowable stress limits set in section 3.

The required data for analysis is: 1) number of pedestals; 2) internal and external thread dimensions;

3) load under normal and seismic conditions; and 4) material properties.

E70XX series (or better) electrodes are used to fabricate the adjustable platform plate assembly, which has an ultimate strength of 70 ksi. The tensile strength of 70 ksi is used to compute the weld safety factor.

3.0 Acceptance Criteria The acceptance criteria for normal and SSE conditions are based on ANSI/AISC N690 [J.8] as guided by NRC and Purchase Specification For Pilgrim Leveling Platform [J.4].

3.1 Level A Stress limits for Normal Conditions (Level A) are derived from Sections Q1.5 and Q1.6 of AISC N690-1994 [J.8]. Terminology is in accordance with the AISC Specification.

Allowable stress in tension is taken as 0.6 times yield strength on the gross area, but not more than 0.5 times the tensile strength on the effective net area. (Q1.5.1.1)

Ft = 0.60. Fy < 0.50Fu ii. Allowable stress in shear on a effective cross-sectional area is taken as 0.4 times yield strength. (Q1.5.1.2.1)

Fv = 0.40. Fy iii. For stainless steel, allowable stress in compression on the gross section of axially loaded compression members whose cross-sections meet the provision of Kilr, the largest effective slendemess ratio of any unbraced segment, equal to or less than 120, is taken as (Q1.5.1.3.5, Q1.5.9.1, Eq. Q1.5-11)

Page J-1 of J27

[Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-2104715I Fa F- 2.15 FJ . '20 ° if C= K < 120 r

K = Effective length factor, where I = Unbraced length, r = Radius of gyration, iv. Allowable stress in bending is taken as 0.75 times yield strength for solid round and square bars.(Q1.5.1.4.3)

Fb = 0.75.Fy

v. Members subjected to both axial compression and bending stresses shall be proportioned to satisfy the following requirements (Q1.6.1) fa + rCmx'fbx Cmy'fby <1.0 F+ fe bx + -- I F<y Fex)

- Fey) fa fbx fby y 1.0 0.6Fy Fbx Eby For structural grade steels For stainless steels I I 127r-E T"2. E2 Fe. Fe 2-F=2:3 K.- L

(\ rb) k,. rb j Cm is a coefficient whose value is conservatively taken as 1.0 in this study.

E is the modulus of elasticity, 29,000 ksi (steel)

E2 is the initial modulus of elasticity of stainless steel 28,000 ksi vi. Allowable shear stress on an effective area of a fillet weld is taken as 0.3 times nominal tensile strength of weld metal.

Allowable tension or compression parallel to axis of fillet welds is the same as the allowables in the base metal.(Table Q1.5.3)

Page J-2 of J27

Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-2104715 3.2 Level D Section 7.1 of PS-5256, Rev. 0, "Purchase Specification For Pilgrim Leveling Platform" [J.4] specifies that the allowable stresses should not exceed the ones from N690-1994 [J.8].

As Per Table Q1.5.7.1 in AISC N690-1994 [J.8], the allowable stresses in tension, bending, and compression are taken as 1.6 times the values in Level A conditions; while the allowable stresses in shear are taken as 1.4 times the values in Level A conditions. Therefore, the stress limits for the Level D condition are established as follows:

i. Allowable stress in tension is taken as 1.6 times the value in Level A conditions.

ii. Allowable stress in shear on a effective section is taken as 1.4 times the value in Level A conditions.

iii Allowable stress in compression is taken as 1.6 times the value in Level A conditions.

iv. Allowable stress in bending should be taken as 1.6 times the value in Level A conditions. Instead the allowable is conservatively taken as 0.95 Sy.

v. Allowable stress in welds is taken as 1.4 times the value in Level A conditions.

4.0 Composition This document is created using the Mathcad (version 15.0) software package. Mathcad uses the symbol I:='as an assignment operator, and the equals symbol '=' retrieves values for constants or variables.

5.0 References

[J.1] E. Oberg and F.D. Jones, "Machinery's Handbook", 27th Edition, Industrial Press, 2004.

[J.2] ASME CODE,Section II, Part D, 1995 edition.

[J.3] Holtec Drawing 8262, Revision 6.

[J.4] PS-5256, Revision 0, "Purchase Specification For Pilgrim Leveling Platform".

[J.5] Not Used.

[J.6] ASME Code Section III, Appendix F, 2004.

[J.7] ANSI/ASME BI. 1, "Unified Inch Screw Threads, UN and UNR Thread Form", 2003.

[J.8] ANSI/AISC N690-1994, "American National Standard Specification for the Design, Fabrication, and Erection of Steel Safety-Related Structures for Nuclear Facilities".

[J.9] PILGRIM Final Safety Analysis Report, Revision 27.

(J.10] Holtec Report HI-2002444, HI-STORM 100 FSAR, Rev. 9., Table 3.2.2.

[J.11]ANSYS 13.0, SAS IP, Inc. 2010.

Page J-3 of J27

Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-2104715

[J.12] Pilgrim specification No. C-114-ER-Q-EO, "Seismic Response Spectra".

6.0 Analyses 6.1 Input Data db := 5 in Adjustable support diameter [J.3]

Las:= 5.25in Total length of adjustable support [J.3]

2 db Ad:= 4.- Area of the unthreaded portion of the adjustable support N:= 4-- Number of threads per inch (UN) [J.3]

in p:= - = 0.25.in Thread pitch [J.7]

N Leng:= 2.5.in Minimum thread engagement [J.3]

Note: Minimum thread engagement is assumed to be the same as the block support pedestal thickness.

From Section 5.8 of [J.7], Class 1A (external threads) pitch diameter tolerance is calculated as:

tOlpD [2A:=

0.0015- + 0.0015. -

+- in tOlPD 2 = .O89i alllA:= 0.3-tOIpD_2A alllA = 0.003267.in Class 1A (external threads) allowance [J.7]

Class IA (external threads) major diameter tolerance is calculated as:

(1) tOlMD-IA:= 0-09'[(-.E)l -in J27=

PageJ-41A in Page J-4 of J27

Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-2104715 Class IA (external threads) pitch diameter tolerance is calculated as:

tOIpD_lA:= 1.5.tOIpD_2A tOlpD_1A = 0.016334.in Class 1B (internal threads) minor diameter tolerance is calculated as:

tOIMDIB := [. 25 .,7 - 0.4 ).] -in tOIMDIB = 0.0375-in Class 1 B (internal threads) pitch diameter tolerance is calculated as:

tOIpD1B := 1.95"tOIpD_2A tOIpD_1B = 0.021234.in D2 := 4.8376.in basic pitch diameter [J.7, table 9]

DI 4.7294-in basic minor diameter of internal threads [J.7, table9]

d3 = 4.7023 in minor diameter of external threads [J.7, table 9]

Thread dimensions below are calculated as per [J.7, table 17]:

Dsmin:= db - alllA - tOIMD 1A Dsmin = 4.961 -in minimum major diameter of external thread Esmin := D2 - alliA - tOIpD_1A Esmin = 4.818 -in minimum pitch diameter of external thread Knmax:= D1 + tOIMD_lB Knmax = 4.7669.in maximum minor diameter of internal thread Enmax:= D2 + tOIpD_lB Enmax = 4.8588-in maximum pitch diameter of internal thread Tensile stress area [J.1, page 1510]

Esmin 0.16238 2 2 At, := 3.1416. 2 - N At1 = 17.622-in tensile stress area for S 564 At2 := 0.7854.(db - At 2 = 17.769-in 2 tensile stress area for S240 Page J-5 of J27

[Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-2104715 2

At:= min(Atl,At2) At = 17.622.in minimum tensile stress area IT 2 2 Agross:= -'db Agross = 19.635.in Gross area of support sqw:= 1.375in width of square inside the adjustable support [J.3]

T.(d,)4 sq 11 23.702. in 4 moment of inertia of the adjustable support 64 12 (conservative) 2 "T"(d 3)2 sq 2

A, :=- 4 sqw A, 15.476*in cross sectional area of the adjustable support (conservative) r1 := - r, 1.238-in radius of gyration L, := 4.25-in Unsupported length of the adjustable support [J.3]

(conservative)

Since both ends of the pedestal are fixed in rotation, the recommended effective K value as a guided cantilever beam is:

K1 := 1.2 Slendemess Ratio [J.8, table CQ-1.8.1]

6.2 Material Properties:

SA-240-304 Stainless Steel (at 150 dee F temoerature)

Sy:= 26700-psi Yield Stress [J.2]

Su :=73000 psi Ultimate Stress [J.2]

7 E, 2.78077-10 .*psi Young's Modulus [J.2]

Note: Internal and external thread materials have different strengths.

Page J-6 of J27

Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-2104715 SA-564-630, H1100 Stainless Steel (at 150 deg F temperature)

S564y:= 109200-psi Yield Stress [J.2]

S564u:= 140000.psi Ultimate Stress [J.2]

7 E:=2.85.10 .psi Young's Modulus (J.2]

6.3 Level A Allowable Stresses (Section 3.1 of this appendix)

SA-240-304 Stainless Steel Allowable Tension Stress Sten_nor:= min(0.6Sy,0.5.Su) Sten_nor= 16020.psi Allowable Shear Stress Sshnor :0.4.Sy Sshnor = 10680 -psi 0.3 Weld Allowable Stress Sw-nor := 70ksi Sw-nor= 14849.2. psi Note: 1. The ý factor is to account for the minimum throat area of a fillet weld.

2. The use of 70 ksi tensile strength is based on Section 2- Assumption in this Appendix.

SA-564-630, H1100 Stainless Steel Allowable Tension Stress Stennor2 := min(O.6. S564y, 0.5 S564u) Sten_nor2 = 65520-psi Allowable Shear Stress Ssh_nor2:= 0.4.S564y Ssh_nor2 = 43680 .psi K1 .L1 Allowable Compression Stress C:=- = 4.121 < 120 6

r1 S564y Scmp-nr2 "-2.15.ksi compknor s564y 2.15.ksi 120 1 - 1 ksi Scomp-nor2 = 49252.5 .psi Allowable Bending Stress Sben~nor2 :=

0 75 *5 64y Sbennor2 = 819 0 0.psi Page J-7 of J27

Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-2104715 6.4 Level D Allowable Stresses (Section 3.2 of this appendix)

SA-240-304 Stainless Steel Allowable Tension Stress Sten_acc:= 1..6Stennor Sten acc= 25632-psi Allowable Shear Stress Sshacc := 1.4 Sshnor Sshacc 14952-psi Weld Allowable Stress Sw_acc:= 1.4.Swnor Sw-acc = 20788.9 psi SA-564-630, H1100 Stainless Steel Allowable Tension Stress Stenacc2 1.6.Stennor2 Sten-acc2 =104832-pSi Allowable Shear Stress Sshacc2 : 1.4-Sshnor2 5

Sh-acc2 =61152.psi Allowable Compression Stress Scompacc2 := [. 6 -Scompnor2 Sompacc2 = 78804.014.psi Note: The critical buckling stress is 1.7 times the Level A compressive allowable per Section Q2.4 of [J.8].

Allowable Bending Stress Sben acc2 := 0.95.S564y Sben_acc2 = 103740 psi 6.5 Level A Stresses and Safety Factors Calculations:

Maximum load on adjustable supports (or pedestals), for conservatism buoyancy affects is not included Loaded HI-TRAC 100D (Bounding) WHTRC:= 191000.lbf [J.i10 Weight of leveling platform (Bounding) WLp:= 5000.lbf [J.3]

Peak Vertical Load (Bounding) WPVL := WHTRc + W1 P 196000. lbf Number of Pedestals to be Considered NB:= 6 [J. 3]

WPVL Maximum Load per Pedestal Wped= - = 32666.667.1bf NB Page J-8 of J27

Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-2104715I 6.5.1 Length of Engagement/Strength Calculations In this section, it is shown that the length of thread engagement is adequate. The method and terminology of [J. 1] are followed.

As:=~~~sea+

7t.NLeng.Knmax.*2 + 0 .5 77 3 5 -(Esmin - Knmax)] = of th area omfx shear atrN'Lag exter the e2.1"n rnal threads An := 7r. N. Leng" Dsmin' - + 0.57735 .(Dsmin - Enma = 28.677.in 2 shear area o f the intemal threads The tensile stress area is conservatively used for compression.

LCped:= (Scompnor2).At LCped = 867942.6.lbf Pedestal Compression Load Capacity LCpedthrd := (Ssh-nor2).As LCpedthrd = 1010654.5.1bf Pedestal Extemal ThrEead Load Capacity LCsp := (Sshnor).An LCsp = 306265.2.lbf Support Plate intemal thread Load Capacity Therefore, the total minimum load capacities are calculated as:

Loadped:= NB. LCped Loadped = 5207655.6-1bf Loadpedthrd := NB LCpedthrd Loadpedthrd = 6063927.1 -1bf Loadsp := NB.LCsp Loadsp = 1837591.3 .Ibf Loadped S~ped .

ISFped = 26.57 1 WPVL Loadpedthrd SFpedthrd . ISFpedthrd = 30.938 WPVL Loadsp SFp.- WpVL IFs- = 9-375 Page J-9 of J27

IProject 1916 Appendix J Report HI-2104715 1 6.5.2 Bending stress on adjustable support Maximum coefficient of friction cof:= 0.8

[Section 4.3]

Maximum shear load on each pedestal SLW:= cof.Wped SL, = 26133.3 .lbf For a beam with rotational restraints on both ends and fixed at one end, if a force F is applied at one end of the beam, then the maximum moment occurs at the same end which is equal to FL/2.

Per note #6 in DWG 8262 [J.3], the minimum thread engagement of support is 2.5",

therefore, the maximum unsupported length of the adjustable support is Luas:= Las - 2.5in = 2.75. in Maximum bending moment in the support, conservatively using Luas:= L, 4.25. in Luas 4

Moment := SLw.- 2 Mome nt = 5.553 x 10 .*lbf-in Maximum stress due to bending in the support Moment.db O'bend := 211 O'bend = 5.857 x 10 3psi Sbennor2 Sbend.- [SFbend= 13.982]

O'bend 6.5.3 Combined comoression and bendinq on adiustable support Initial modulus of elasticity of stainless steel E2e := 28000ksi 2

E2e

• T For stainless steels Fe =2 Fe = 7.569 x 106. psi To obtain the most conservative results, the largest coefficient values for Cmx and Cmy as indicated in Section Q1.6 of [J.8] are used here:

Cmx:= 1.0 Cmy:= 1.0 For the combined axial compressive and bending stresses, two bounding cases are evaluated Page J-10 of J27

Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-2104715 here. The first case is the bending stress in one direction only. The second case is the bending stress in the direction of 45 degrees from the x coordinate, which indicates bending stresses in both x and y directions.

Case 1.Bending stress in x direction only fa=Wped Fa := Scompnor2 fbx:= cJ'bend Fbx:= Sbennor2 fab+ = 0.109

< 1.0- OK Y-Fe ~Fbx fa fbx

+ - = 0.1 < 1.0- OK 0.6 S564y Fbx Case 2. Bending stress in 45 degree to x direction

-2

°'bend N" Fbx:= Sbennor2 fbx:=

%F2 fby:= O'bend" Fby:= Sben_nor2 Cmx'fbx Cmy Cmy"fby 0.139 fa -t +

Fa <1.0-OK 1 - *Fbx Fe) l-

~Fby a f* ++ bx+ by

= 0.129 <1.0-OK 0.6. S564y Fbx Fby 6.5.4 Shear stress in Pedestal Block and Adiustable Support Page J-11 of J27

Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-2104715 Conservatively using the cross-sectional area of adjustable support.

2 Apb:= A1 Apb = 15.476.in SIL, Shear stress O'pb = 1688.7. psi Apb Ssh nor Safety factor SFpb:.- ISFpb = 6.325 ]

O'pb 6.5.5 Support Pedestal Block to Shim Plate Weld There are two forces applied on the block support pedestal: compression force and friction force. These loads tend to twist the pedestal causing a tension load on one side and compression on the other side.

Therefore, one comer of the block support pedestal may be placed in tension. The maximum weld stress is then derived from combination of the maximum shear force and the maximum tensile force. The maximum shear stress from friction can be obtained through simple calculation as shown below. An ANSYS [J.11] model is used to develop the load along the welds surrounding the pedestal and to obtain the maximum tensile stress.

Maximum coefficient of friction cof:= 0.8

[Section 4.3]

Maximum shear load on weld of each pedestal SLw := cof.Wped SLw = 26133.3 -lbf Thickness of fillet weld #1 [J.3] tw:= 0.5.in Size of square Support Pedestal Block [J.3] Lbl:= 6.75-in Weld length of stiffener plates [J.3] Lgp:= 3.375 in Thickness of fillet weld #2 at stiffener plates [J.3] twg := 0.375in Minimum thickness of Shim Plate [J.3] tsp := 1.75-in Weld area for each Block (6.75 X 6.75) and attached four stiffener plates [J.3]

2 Aw:= tw.(4.Lbl) + twg.2.Lgp-4 Aw = 23.625-in SLW Shear stress in the weld aw = 1106.2. psi Weld stress is derived from combination of the maximum shear stress from normal condition Page J-12 of J27

[Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-2104715 obtained above and the maximum tensile stress obtained from ANSYS model. Only the welds between the support pedestal block and the shim plate is modeled in ANSYS. The welds between the four stiffener plates and the shim plate is not included for simplicity. Since the pedestal is fixed in rotation at both ends, the length of the pedestal as a cantilever beam element in the ANSYS model is 0.5 times its actual unsupported length.

ANSYS Inout Data: (See Appendix K for input file)

Length of square pedestal side LbI = 6.75 in 5.25 Overall effective height of the pedestal Hbl := -in 2

Maximum shear load on weld of any pedestal SLw = 26133.333 .lbf (Frictional load)

Maximum axial load on any pedestal Wped = 32666.667.lbf LbI Weld area per node (total 8 nodes on one pedestal side) ANT := -- tw 8

Weld Area ANT = 0.422.-in2 Maximum tensile force on node mtfs := 64.1011bf (see ANSYS output list, FORCESNOR.LST in Appendix L)

(_mtfs 2+

Weld stress: e, ANT) + (Tweld = 1116.559.psi Swnor Safety factor: SFweld.- IS.d =3.2991 O'weld 6.5.6 Shear stress in the base metal (Shim Plate) 2 Shear area of the base metal (Shim Plate) Asp:=Aw Ap= 23.625. in SLw Shear stress in the base metal (Shim Plate) Us5 = 1106.2.psi Ssh nor Safety factor for base metal (Shim Plate) SFsp: SFsp = 9.655 1 oTsp Page J-13 of J27

Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-2104715 6.5.7 Bending stress in the base metal (Shim Plate)

There is no significant bending stresses in the plate since the HI-TRAC sits directly above the support pedestals. In other words, the load travels from the bottom of the HI-TRAC pool lid to the top plate of the leveling platform, from the top plate to the pedestal support block through direct compression, and from the pedestal support block to the threaded pedestals through the threads.

Since the support pedestals are within the footprint of the HI-TRAC, the top plate of the platform does not carry any load in bending. Also, the platform is not anchored to the floor, so platform will tend to follow the HI-TRAC as it rotates from vertical.

6.6 Level D Stresses and Safety Factors Calculations:

In the event of an earthquake causing rocking of the cask the load will be carried by only two pedestals.

Therefore, for seismic load cases SSE (level D) and OBE the load is distributed over two pedestals.

Peak Vertical Load (Bounding) WSSE:= 520000.lbf [Table 1]

Weight of leveling platform (Bounding) WLP:= 5000.1bf [J.3]

(" WssE "

Total Vertical Load Wtotal:= WSSE + WLP'- W-'TRc= 5336131lbf Note: for the SSE and the OBE conditions the load is conservatively applied to two pedestals only to account for rocking.

Number of Pedestals to be Considered NB:= 2 [J.3]

Wtotal Maximum load per pedestal (Bounding) Wped := = 266806.lbf NB 6.6.1 Length of Engagement/Strength Calculations In this section, it is shown that the length of thread engagement is adequate. The method and terminology of [J. 1] are followed.

2 2 recall A, = 23.138-in An = 28.677- in Therefore, the minimum load capacities are calculated as (conservatively use tensile stress area in compression evaluation)

LCped := (Scomp acc2)'At LC ped = 13 88708.2 -lbf Pedestal Compression Load Capacity LCpedthrd := (Sshacc2)'As LCpedthrd = 1414916.3 -lbf Pedestal Extemal Thread Load Capacity LCsp := (Sh_acc).An LCsp = 428771.3. lbf Support Plate internal thread Load Capacity Page J-14 of J27

Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-2104715 SFp=LC.P SF~Wped SFsp= 1.6077 LCpedthrd SFpedthrd - Wped SFpedthrd = 5.303 LCped ISFped = 5.20571 Wped 6.6.2 Bendina stress on the adjustable support Peak Frictional Force (Bounding) WPFL= 400000.lbf [Table 1]

Maximum shear load on weld of any support (Bounding) SL: WF = 200000.lbf For a beam with rotational restraints on both ends and fixed at one end, if the friction force applied at one end of the beam is F, the maximum moment occurs at the same end which equals to FL/2.

Per note #6 in DWG 8262 [J.3], the minimum thread engagement of support is 2.5",

therefore, the maximum unsupported length of the adjustable support is Luas := Las - 2.5in = 2.75 in maximum bending moment in the support, conservatively using Luas:= L1 = 4.25.in Luas Moment:= SLw.- Mome nt = 4.25 x 105 .1bf in 2

maximum stress due to bending in the support Moment.db O'bend 21, O'bend = 4.483 x 10 .psi Sben acc2

=

SFbend [SFbend= 2.314]

O'bend 6.6.3 Combined compression and bending on adPustable suJport Page J-1 5 of J27

Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-2104715 Initial modulus of elasticity of stainless steel E2e := 28000ksi 2

For stainless steels 7T . E2e Fe 2.15 K, Luasr Fe= 7 .5 6 9 x 10 .psi To obtain the most conservative results, the largest coefficient values for Cmx and Cmy as indicated in Section Q1.6 of [J.8] are used here:

Cmx:= 1.0 Cmy:= 1.0 Again, two bounding cases are considered.

Case 1. Bending stress in x direction only Wped fa := Wpd Fa := Scomp_acc2 At fbx := O'bend Fbx := Sben acc2

=-0.625 fa Cmx fbx

+ .Fbx < 1.0- OK fbx 0 65

+ - = 0.663 < 1.0- OK

. S564y Fbx Case 2. Bending stress in 45 degrees to x direction fbx:= °'bend 2 Fbx:= Sben_acc2

°'bend 2 fby:= Fby:= Sben_acc2 Cmy fby-(

fa *+

Cmx fbx +

0.804 Fa fa < 1.0-- OK

- I Fbx 1

Fe) Fe

+j.Fby Page J-16 of J27

rProject 1916 Appendix J Report HI-2104715 fa fbx fby 0.6. S564y 56= 0.842

<1.0- OK

+ Fbx- + Fby 6.6.4 Shear stress in the Pedestal Block and Adjustable Support Conservatively using the cross-sectional area of adjustable support.

SLw O'pb:= " O'pb = 12923.4.psi A,

Ssh acc SFpb. ISFpb= 1.157 O'pb 6.6.5 Axial Compression Evaluation (Buckling of compressive member)

Per Section Q2.4 of ANSI/AISC N690-1994, in the plane of bending of columns which would develop a plastic hinge at ultimate loading, the slenderness ratio KI/r shall not exceed Cc.

The following formula is from Section Q2.4 of [J.8] unless otherwise noted.

Since both ends of the pedestal are fixed in rotation, the recommended effective K value as a guided cantilever beam is Ks:= 1.2 Table CQ-1.8.1 of [J.8]

Ks .L1

- = 4.121 < Cc:= 120 for stainless steel 2

The gross area of the adjustable support: Agross = 19.635.in The maximum strength of an axially loaded compression member shall be taken as 6

PC,: 1.7-Agross *Scomp-acc2 Pcr =2.63 x 10 .lbf Applied axial load P: Wped Pcr safety factor SFbuck:= -

6.6.6 Combined axial load and bending moment From the above analysis of "bending stress on the adjustable support", the maximum applied moment is Page J-17 of J27

Report HI-2104715 Appendix J Project 1916 M:= SL'*- M = 3.542 x 104.1bf.ft To obtain the most conservative result, the largest coefficient value for Cm (Section 1.6 of [J.8]) is used here:

Cm:= 1.0 23 8 Euler buckling load Pe:A*- gross e = 2.848 x 10 .lbf 12grse-For columns braced in the weak direction, the maximum moment that can be resisted by the member in the absence of axial load is 3

db .3 Z = 20.833.in plastic section modulus Z:=

6 plastic moment Mm:= MP = 1.896 x 105 .lbf.ft Per Section Q2.4 of [J.8], members subject to combined axial load and bending moment shall be proportioned to satisfy the following interaction formulas:

Pc+

0.288 <1.0 - OK P')

P M

+ = 0.283 S564y.Agross 1.18.Mp

<1.0 - OK Therefore, the adjustable support meets the AISC requirement and buckling is not credible for this compressive member under SSE seismic loading. This evaluation bounds the situation in normal and OBE seismic loading conditions.

6.6.7 Support Pedestal Block to Shim Plate Weld Maximum shear load on any weld [Table 1] SLw:= 400000. lbf (Bounding)

SLW Shear stress in the weld of any pedestal a-, = 8465.6 -psi Nl A Similar to the normal condition (Level A), the maximum tensile force on the weld is obtained Page J-18 of J27

Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-2104715 1 from ANSYS model with updated friction and axial loads on the pedestal. (See Appendix K for input file)

SLw Maximum shear load on weld of any pedestal - = 200000.lbf NB (Frictional load)

Maximum axial load on any pedestal Wped = 266806.lbf Maximum tensile force on node mtfs := 235.151bf (see ANSYS output list, FORCESSSE.LST in Appendix L)

Weld stress: O'weld NTT)Y++

ý/kAN wweld w = 8.484 X 103psi SWacc Safety factor: SFweld : - SFweld = 2.45 (Tweld 6.6.8 Shear stress in the base metal (Shim Plate)

SLw Shear stress rsp = 8465.6.psi P NB Asp Ssh acc Safety factor SFsp -- SFsp = 1.766 1 O'sp 6.7 Stresses and Safety Factors Calculations OBE Condition:

Conservatively the OBE stress limits will be checked against (level A) stress conditions in section 3.1 of this appendix.

The results in table 1 are presented for the Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE) ground motion. The OBE results are obtained by dividing the SSE results by a factor of 1.875, which is the ratio of the SSE (0.15g) to OBE (0.08g) maximum ground acceleration, as per section 5.1 of [J.12].

Loaded HI-TRAC 100D (Bounding) WHTRC := 191000*lbf [J. 10]

Page J-19 of J27

Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-2104715I Peak Vertical Load (Bounding) Wtotai:= 520000.lbf (Table 1]

Added load for SSE condition WSSE := WtotaI - WHTRC = 329000.lbf Added load for OBE condition WOBE1 := -WSSE = 175466.667.1bf 1.875 Weight of leveling platform (Bounding) WLp := 5000.1bf [J.3]

WOB2 WBE1+

WTR + ~p(WoBEl "'-

Peak vertical load for OBE condition WOBE2- WOBE + WHTRc + WLP= + I 376060.lbf

( WHTRC Peak vertical load for OBE (Bounding) WOBE:= 380000.1bf Note Peak frictional force (Ib) is conservatively calculated as:

Coefficient of friction (0.8) x Peak vertical load for OBE (bounding)

Peak frictional force (bounding) WPFF := 0.8.WonE = 304000. lbf 6.7.1 Length of Engagement/Strength Calculations In this section, it is shown that the length of thread engagement is adequate. The method and terminology of [J. 1] are followed.

recall As= 23.138 in2 A, = 28.677. in2 The tensile stress area is conservatively used for compression.

LCped := (Scompnor2).At LCped = 867942.6-lbf Pedestal Compression Load Ca pacity LCpedthrd :=(Ssh-nor2).AS LCpdthPd = 10e10654.5 lbf

- Pedestal External Thread Load Capacity LCsp := (Ssh-nor) -An LC5 p = 306265.2.lbf Support Plate internal thread Load Capacity Therefore, the total minimum load capacities are calculated as:

Loadped:= NB.LCped Loadped = 1735885.2-lbf Loadpedthrd := NB. LCpedthrd Loadpedthrd = 2021309. bf Page J-20 of J27

Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-2104715 Loadsp:= NB.LCsp Loadsp = 612530.4.1bf Loadped S ped.- WOBE SFped = 4.568]

Loadpedthrd SFpedthrd .

]SFpedthrd = 5.319 WOBE Loadsp SFsp .- ISFs~p = 1.612 WOBE 6.7.2 Bending stress on adjustable support Maximum coefficient of friction cof:= 0.8

[Section 4.3]

WOBE Maximum shear load on each pedestal SLw:= cof. NB SLw= 152000*Ibf For a beam with rotational restraints on both ends and fixed at one end, if a force F is applied at one end of the beam, then the maximum moment occurs at the same end which is equal to FL/2.

Per note #6 in DWG 8262 [J.3], the minimum thread engagement of support is 2.5",

therefore, the maximum unsupported length of the adjustable support is Luas := Las - 2.5in = 2.75 in Maximum bending moment in the support, conservatively using Luas.ý L, = 4.25-in Luas Moment:= SLw*-2 Mome *nt =3.23 x 10 .lbf-in Maximum stress due to bending in the support Moment.db O-bend 211 O'bend = 3.407 x 10 4.psi Sben_nor2 S F bend [SFbend = 2.404 1 O'bend 6.7.3 Combined compression and bending on adiustable support Page J-21 of J27

Report HI-2104715 Appendix J

[Project 1916 Initial modulus of elasticity of stainless steel E2e := 28000ksi 2

7 .E2e For stainless steels Fe2:=.15K Luasj Fe = 7.569 x 10 b psi To obtain the most conservative results, the largest coefficient values for Cmx and Cmy as indicated in Section Q1.6 of [J.8] are used here:

Cmx:= 1.0 Cmy:= 1.0 For the combined axial compressive and bending stresses, two bounding cases are evaluated here. The first case is the bending stress in one direction only. The second case is the bending stress in the direction of 45 degrees from the x coordinate, which indicates bending stresses in both x and y directions.

Case 1.Bending stress in x direction only WOBE fa -- Fa := Scomp-nor2 NB-At fbx := °'bend Fbx := Sben-nor2 f-+ f Crux"fbx

=_0.635 < 1.0 - OK Fa (faF fa fbx

+ - = 0.581 < 1.0- OK 0.6. $564y Fbx Case 2. Bending stress in 45 degree to x direction

' -2 fbx := 7bend Fbx:= Sbennor2 e'bnd " 2*

fb y := ( Fby := Sbennor2 Page J-22 of J27

Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-2104715 fa f+ C rux"fbx +

y "fby O nm

= 0.808 F, fa

<1.0-OK FeFe fa fbx fby 0.6. S 564 y + -

Fbx + -

Fby = 0.753 <1.0-OK 6.7.4 Shear stress in Pedestal Block and Adjustable Support Conservatively using the cross-sectional area of adjustable support.

Apb:= A1 Apb = 15.476,in-2 SLW Shear stress O'pb = 9821.8. psi Apb Sshnor Safety factor SFpb . SFPb = 1.08 O'pb 6.7.5 Axial Compression Evaluation (Buckling of compressive member)

Per Section Q2.4 of ANSI/AISC N690-1994, in the plane of bending of columns which would develop a plastic hinge at ultimate loading, the slenderness ratio KI/r shall not exceed C..

The following formula is from Section Q2.4 of [J.8] unless otherwise noted.

Since both ends of the pedestal are fixed in rotation, the recommended effective K value as a guided cantilever beam is K,:= 1.2 Table CQ-1.8.1 of [J.8]

Ks-L1

=4.121 < Cc:= 120 for stainless steel The gross area of the adjustable support: Agross = 19.635.in 2 The maximum strength of an axially loaded compression member shall be taken as Pcr := 1.7.Agross.Scompacc2 Pcr= 2. 6 3 x 106.lbf Page J-23 of J27

Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-2104715 WOBE Applied axial load P:= -

NB Pcr safety factor SFbuck P IS~k =3.844f1 6.7.6 Combined axial load and bending moment From the above analysis of "bending stress on the adjustable support", the maximum applied moment is M:= SLw.-- M = 2.692 x 104 .lbf.ft To obtain the most conservative result, the largest coefficient value for Cm (Section 1.6 of [J.8]) is used here:

Cm:= 1.0 23 8 Euler buckling load Pe -* Agross'Fe = 2.848 x 10 .lbf For columns braced in the weak direction, the maximum moment that can be resisted by the member in the absence of axial load is 3

db 3 plastic section modulus Z: --

6 Z = 20.833 in 5

plastic moment Mp:= Z.S 5 6 4y Mm:= MP = 1.896 x 10 .lbf.ft Per Section Q2.4 of [J.8], members subject to combined axial load and bending moment shall be proportioned to satisfy the following interaction formulas:

- + = 0.214 <1.0 -OK Pcr I}P MM P M

$564y *Agross

+ I- 18"M p -10.209 <1.0 -OK Therefore, the adjustable support meets the AlISC requirement and buckling is not credible for this compressive member under OBE seismic loading.

Page J-24 of J27

[Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-2104715I 6.7.7 Support Pedestal Block to Shim Plate Weld There are two forces applied on the block support pedestal: compression force and friction force.

These loads tend to twist the pedestal causing a tension load on one side and compression on the other side. Therefore, one corner of the block support pedestal may be placed in tension. The maximum weld stress is then derived from combination of the maximum shear force and the maximum tensile force. The maximum shear stress from friction can be obtained through simple calculation as shown below. An ANSYS [J.11] model is used to develop the load along the welds surrounding the pedestal and to obtain the maximum tensile stress.

Maximum coefficient of friction cof:= 0.8

[Section 4.3]

WOBE Maximum shear load on weld of each pedestal SLw:= cof. NB SLw= 152000.lbf Thickness of fillet weld #1 [J.3] tw:= 0.5.in Size of square Support Pedestal Block [J.3] Lbl:= 6.75.in Weld length of gusset plates [J.3] Lgp:= 3.375in Thickness of fillet weld #2 at stiffener plates [J.3] twg := 0.375in Minimum thickness of Shim Plate [J.3] tsp:= 1.75.in Weld area for each Block (6.75 X 6.75) and attached four stiffener plates [J.3]

2 Aw:= tw.(4.Lbl) + twg-2.Lgp.4 AW = 23.625-in SLW Shear stress in the weld aw=643 3.9 -psi Weld stress is derived from combination of the maximum shear stress from normal condition obtained above and the maximum tensile stress obtained from ANSYS model. Only the welds between the support pedestal block and the shim plate is modeled in ANSYS. The welds between the four stiffener plates and the shim plate is not included for simplicity. Since the pedestal is fixed in rotation at both ends, the length of the pedestal as a cantilever beam element in the ANSYS model is 0.5 times its actual unsupported length.

ANSYS Input Data: (See Appendix K for input file)

Length of square pedestal side LbI = 6.75 -in Page J-25 of J27

Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-2104715]

5.25 Overall effective height of the pedestal Hbl:= -in 2

Maximum shear load on any weld SLw= 152000.lbf WOBE Maximum axial load on any pedestal WaxiaI := = 19000.lbf NB LbI Weld area per node (total 8 nodes on one pedestal side) ANT := --8 tw 2

in Weld Area ANT = 0.422 Maximum tensile force on node mffs:= 372.861bf (see ANSYS output list, FORCES_OBE.LST in Appendix L)

Weld stress: Oweld:= + Oweld = 6494.283 psi

(.ANT)

Sw nor Safety factor: SFweld ISFweld = 2.287?

'weld 6.7.8 Shear stress in the base metal (Shim Plate)

Shear area of the base metal (Shim Plate) As, = 23.625 .i 2 SLw Shear stress in the base metal (Shim Plate) aIsp = 6433.9-psi Safety factor for base metal (Shim Plate) SFsp= shn r ISFsp = 1.66 1 asp Page J-26 of J27

[Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-2104715 7.0 Conclusion The preceding analyses demonstrate that the adjustable supports (or pedestals) have been designed to sustain normal and seismic loading. The size and length of thread engagement of pedestals is conservatively set. The welds between blocks and shim plate have also been analyzed.

8.0 Computer Code and Files The ANSYS calculation is performed on Computer 1038, as listed on the Approved Computer Program List (ACPL) in Appendix C. All the files used in this calculation are located in the following directory:

G:\IProjects\l 916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 6 Page J-27 of J27

Appendix K - ANSYS Input Files Input File for Normal Condition:

PROPRIETARY Report HI-2104715 K1 of K1 Project 1916

Appendix L - ANSYS Output Files Output File for Normal Condition: (FORCESNOR.LST)

PRINT ELEMENT TABLE ITEMS PER ELEMENT

• • • • • POST1 ELEMENT TABLE LISTING

• STAT CURRENT ELEM FORCE 114 64.101 115 -42.905 116 -149.80 117 -256.07 118 -360.85 119 -463.57 120 -564.52 121 -664.60 122 57.413 123 -48.151 124 -153.25 125 -257.34 126 -359.98 127 -461.05 128 -560.89 129 -660.14 132 63.140 133 -666.42 136 62.130 137 -667.85 140 60.920 141 -668.29 144 59.580 145 -667.46 148 58.420 149 -665.49 152 57.735 153 -662.89 MINIMUM VALUES ELEM 141 VALUE -668.29 MAXIMUM VALUES ELEM 114 VALUE 64.101 Report HI-2104715 L1 of L3 Project 1916

Appendix L - ANSYS Output Files Output File for SSE Condition: (FORCES_SSE.LST)

PRINT ELEMENT TABLE ITEMS PER ELEMENT

• • • • • POST1 ELEMENT TABLE LISTING

• STAT CURRENT ELEM FORCE 114 235.15 115 -567.06 116 -1368.3 117 -2164.6 118 -2948.9 119 -3717.1 120 -4471.4 121 -5218.7 122 183.34 123 -607.71 124 -1395.0 125 -2174.4 126 -2942.3 127 -3697.6 128 -4443.2 129 -5184.2 132 226.65 133 -5233.6 136 217.94 137 -5245.2 140 208.05 141 -5249.1 144 197.66 145 -5242.6 148 189.21 149 -5227.0 152 184.78 153 -5206.2 MINIMUM VALUES ELEM 141 VALUE -5249.1 MAXIMUM VALUES ELEM 114 VALUE 235.15 Report HI-2104715 L2 of L3 Project 1916

Appendix L - ANSYS Output Files Output File for OBE Condition: (FORCESOBE.LST)

PRINT ELEMENT TABLE ITEMS PER ELEMENT

• • • • • POST1 ELEMENTTABLE LISTING STAT CURRENT ELEM FORCE 114 372.86 115 -249.53 116 -871.25 117 -1489.4 118 -2098.8 119 -2696.3 120 -3283.5 121 -3865.5 122 333.98 123 -280.03 124 -891.30 125 -1496.8 126 -2093.8 127 -2681.6 128 -3262.3 129 -3839.6 132 367.27 133 -3876.2 136 361.40 137 -3884.4 140 354.37 141 -3887.0 144 346.57 145 -3882.2 148 339.83 149 -3870.7 152 335.84 153 -3855.6 MINIMUM VALUES ELEM 141 VALUE -3887.0 MAXIMUM VALUES ELEM 114 VALUE 372.86 Report HI-2104715 L3 of L3 Project 1916