ML16279A049

Enclosure 2: Simpson Gumpertz & Heger, Inc., Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed Ceb, 150252-CA-02, Revision 0, July 2016 (Seabrook FP#100985)

ML16279A049
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	07/31/2016
From:	NextEra Energy Seabrook, Simpson Gumpertz & Heger
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML16279A047	List: ML16279A048 ML16279A049 ML16279A050 ML16279A051 ML16279A052 ML16279A053 SBK-L-16153, Calculation 0326-0062-CLC-04, Rev. 0, Calculation of Through-Wall Expansion from Alkali-Silica Reaction To-Date at Seabrook Station.
References
SBK-L-16153
Download: ML16279A049 (527)

Text

Enclosure 2 to SBK-L-16153 Simpson Gumpertz & Heger, Inc., "Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB, 150252-CA-02," Revision 0, July 2016 (Seabrook FP#100985)

CALCULATION REPORT COVER SHEET

[gJ Safety Related SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER pill""" D Important to Safety D Other I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures Client: NextEra Energy Seabrook Project No.: 150252 Project: Investigate Apparent Movement of Containment Enclosure Calculation No.: Building at NextEra Energy Seabrook Facility, Seabrook, NH 150252-CA-02 Title: Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB Rev. No.: 0 OBJECTIVE OVERVIEW Perform a structural evaluation and design confirmation of the as-deformed Unit 1 Containment Enclosure Building (CEB) at NextEra Energy Seabrook Station in Seabrook, New Hampshire.

The as-deformed condition of the CEB is based on field measurements recorded by Simpson Gumpertz & Heger in 2015 and 2016. OVERVIEW OF METHOD AND ASSUMPTIONS Simulate the as-deformed condition of the CEB by applying sustained loads and .self-straining forces such as alkali-silica reaction (ASR) expansion, shrinkage, swelling, and creep where applicable.

Apply loads included in the original design criteria (self-weight, earth pressure, seismic load, wind load, etc.) to the CEB structure in its as-deformed state. Seismic loads are applied using a equivalent method utilizing the design-basis maximum acceleration profiles, which were computed during original design from response spectra analysis.

Amplify ASR loads by a threshold factor to account for potential future ASR expansion.

Evaluate capacity based on ACI 318-71 criteria with combined demands from all design loads, including the self-straining loads associated with the deformed condition.

There are eleven justified assumptions in this calculation (see Section 5.1 ). There is one unverified assumption in this calculation.

The unverified assumption is that the CEB is statically and seismically isolated from other buildings at all locations where isolation joints are specified in design drawings.

This calculation shows that the gap between the CEB and CB at missile shield block locations must be at least 1 in. to maintain seismic isolation.

This unverified assumption must be tracked until resolved.

KEY REFERENCES ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete and Commentary, ACI 318-71. Seabrook, System Description For Structural Design Criteria For Public Service Company of New Hampshire Seabrook Station Unit Nos. 1 & 2, Document No. 9763-SD-66, Revision 2, 2 March 1984. Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc., Additional ASR-Related Inspections and Cl Measurements at Forty-Two Locations to Support the Root Cause Evaluation of Apparent Movement of CEB, NextEra Energy Seabrook Facility, Seabrook NH, 150252-SVR-05-RO, July 2016. OVERVIEW OF RES UL TS AND CONCLUSIONS The deformed shape of the CEB model, when subjected to sustained loads and self-straining loads, simulates field measurements of deformations.

The CEB meets evaluation criteria of ACI 318-71 for all factored load combinations and analysis cases analyzed when ASR loads are amplified by a threshold factor of 1.2 to account for future ASR expansion.

Evaluation of deformations indicates that existing seismic gaps are sufficient at all assessed locations (excluding missile shields) and that a seismic gap of at least 1 in. must be provided at missile shields. Chapter 8 identifies recommended methods to quantitatively monitor the structure to identify if the selected threshold limit is exceeded.

SoftwareNersion QA Verified ANSYS v15 [gJ Yes D No spColumn v4.81 (gJ Yes D No No. Total No. of Last Sheet CD-No. Reason for Revision Sheets No. ROM 0 Initial document 526 Z11 1 150252-CA-02 -i -FP 100985 Page 1 of 526 SoftwareNersion Prepared By I Date R. Mones 7/31/2016 QA Verified D Yes D No D Yes D No Independently Verified By I Date Approved By I Date A. Sarawit S. Bolourchi 7/31/2016 7/31/2016 Form EP3.1 EX3.1 R2 Date: 1 September 2012 Revision O SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB INDIVIDUAL CALCULATION SIGNOFF SHEET* 07 / 31.;'

150252-CA-02

-ii -FP 100985 Page 2 of 526 PROJECTN0:

__

____ _ DATE: ____

BY: ____

VERIFIER:

___ _ SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures Form EP 3.1 EX 3.3 R2 Date: 1 September 2012 Revision O

SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures PROJECT NO: ---"'15=0=2=52=------

DATE: ___

___ _ CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook BY: ____

__ _

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB VERIFIER:

TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF APPENDICES

...............................................................................................................................

5 LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

..................................................................................................................

........ 5 LIST OF TABLES .........................................................................................................................................

6 LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................................................

7 SYMBOLS AND NOTATIONS

..................................................................................................................

11 SIGN AND LABELING CONVENTIONS USED IN THIS REPORT .......................................................

12 1. REVISION HISTORY ..................................................................................................................

13 1.1 REVISION 0 .......................................................................................................................

13 2. OBJECTIVE OF CALCULATION

................................................................................................

14 3. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

...........................................................................

15 4. DESIGN DATA I CRITERIA ........................................................................................................

18 4.1 MATERIAL PROPERTIES

.....................................................................................................

18 4.2 COMBINATIONS OF LOADS .................................................................................................

19 4.3 EVALUATION ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA .................................................................................

19 '4.4 FIELD MEASUREMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS

......................................................................

19 5. ASSUMPTIONS

..........................................................................................................................

22 5.1 JUSTIFIED ASSUMPTIONS

..................................................................................................

22 5.2 UNVERIFIED ASSUMPTIONS

...............................................................................................

25 6. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS ..........................................................................................................

26

6.1 DESCRIPTION

OF STRUCTURE

...........................................................................................

26 6.1.1 Structure Geometry ...........................................................................................

26 6.1.2 Structure Reinforcement

...................................................................................

26 6.1.3 Backfill Concrete and Surrounding Structures

..................................................

29 6.2 ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY

.................................................................................................

29 6.2.1 Analysis Models .................................................................................................

30 6.2.2 Analysis Cases ..................................................................................................

33 6.2.3 Standard-Plus Analysis Case to Simulate Inward Radial Deformations at Azimuth 230° .....................................................................................................

34 6.2.4 Methodology for Study of Impact of As-Deformed Condition on Maximum Acceleration Profiles ..........................................................................................

35

6.3 DESCRIPTION

OF APPLIED LOADS ......................................................................................

35 6.3. 1 Self-Straining Loads ..........................................................................................

35 6.3.2 Original SD-66 Loads ........................................................................................

42 6.4 ANALYSIS RES UL TS ..........................................................................................................

46 6.4.1 Comparison of ASR Strains and Crack Index Measurements

..........................

46 6.4.2 Comparison of Simulated Deformations and Field Measurements

...................

47 6.4.3 Results of Study on Impact of As-Deformed Condition on Maximum Acceleration Profiles ..........................................................................................

48 150252-CA-02 Revision O FP 100985 Page 3 of 526

SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures PROJECT NO: __ _,_1=50=2=52==--------

DATE: ___ ___,3'--'-1_,,J.,,,,ul.Ly

,.,20"--'1-""6

___ _ CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook BY: ____

__ _

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB VERIFIER:

---

'-'A'--'.T_,_.

S,,,a"'-ra""wi""-*t'-------

6.4.4 Summary

of Computed Demands .....................................................................

49 7. STRUCTURAL EVALUATION

....................................................................................................

52 7.1 ELEMENT-BY-ELEMENT EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

.........................................................

52 7. 1. 1 Axial Compression

............................................................................................

52 7.1.2 Axial-Flexure Interaction

....................................................................................

53 7. 1.3 Axial Tension .....................................................................................................

55 7.1.4 In-Plane Shear. ..................................................................................................

55 7.1.5 Out-of-Plane Shear ...........................................................................................

56 7 .2 SECTION CUT METHODOLOGY

.............

....................................................................

58 7.2. 1 In-Plane Shear. ..................................................................................................

59 7.2.2 Shear Friction ....................................................................................................

61 7.2.3 Axial-Flexure Interaction

....................................................................................

61 7.2.4 Torsion ...............................................................................................................

61 7.3 DEFINITION AND SELECTION OF ASR THRESHOLD FACTOR .................................................

62 7.4 RESULTS OF EVALUATION WITHOUT SELF-STRAINING LOADS ..............................................

62 7.5 EVALUATION RESULTS ......................................................................................................

62 7.5.1 Axial Compression in the Hoop Direction

..........................................................

64 7.5.2 Axial Compression in the Meridional Direction

..................................................

64 7.5.3 In-Plane Shear. ..................................................................................................

65 7.5.4 Out-of-Plane Shear Acting on the Hoop-Radial Plane ......................................

66 7.5.5 Out-of-Plane Shear Acting on the Meridional-Radial Plane ..............................

67 7.5.6 Axial-Flexure Interaction in the Hoop Direction

.................................................

67 7.5. 7 Axial-Flexure Interaction in the Meridional Direction

.........................................

69 7.6 RESULTS OF ALTERNATIVE EVALUATIONS

..........................................................................

71 7. 6. 1 Evaluation of Base of Wall Adjacent to Penetrations

........................................

71 7.6.2 Moment Redistribution Analysis and Evaluation

...............................................

74 7.7 EVALUATION OF CEB DISPLACEMENTS

..............................................................................

76 7.8 EVALUATION OF GLOBAL STABILITY

............................................................... ...................

78 8. ESTABLISH THRESHOLD MEASUREMENTS FOR CONDITION MONITORING

...................

79 8.1 CRACK INDEX THRESHOLD MEASUREMENTS AND THRESHOLD LIMITS ..................................

80 8.2 DEFORMATION THRESHOLD MEASUREMENTS AND THRESHOLD LIMITS ................................

81 9. TABLES .......................................................................................................................................

83 10. FIGURES ...................................................................................................................................

105 11. REFERENCES

..........................................................................................................................

157 BODY OF CALCULATION:

150252-CA-02 FP 100985 Page 4 of 526 157 PAGES TOTAL Form EP 3.1 EX 3.2 R2 Date: 1 September 2012 Revision 0 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures PROJECT NO: __

DATE: 31 July 2016 CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook BY:

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB VERIFIER:

LIST OF APPENDICES Independent Verifier and Checker Comments Computer Run Log Description of 150252-CA-02-CD-O 1 Contents Computation of Creep Coefficient and Shrinkage Strain Computation of PM Interaction using spColumn Input Seismic Accelerations for 3D Analysis Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E Appendix F Appendix G Evaluation Results for Load Combinations for Original Design Analysis Case without As-Deformed Condition Demands Appendix H Documentation of Moment Redistribution Appendix I Global Stability of CEB Structure Appendix J Parametric Studies Appendix K Evaluation Computation Examples Appendix L Moment Redistribution Validation Examples Appendix M Analysis and Evaluation of Meridional Demands At El. +45.5 ft Appendix N Section Cut Definitions Appendix 0 Evaluation of Reinforced Concrete Section Ductility Demand Appendix Y Source Code of Project-Specific Computer Routines Appendix Z FEA Model Definition Note: Appendices P through X do not exist. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS 150252-CA-02-CD-O 1 CD containing all computer run files 150252-CA-02 FP 100985 Page 5 of 526 Form EP 3.1 EX 3.2 R2 Date: 1 September 2012 Revision O

SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER f"""' I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB LIST OF TABLES PROJECT NO: __

___ _ DATE: 31 July 2016 BY:

___ _ VERIFIER:

__ _,_A_,_,_.T,__,_.

-=S=ar=awi=*t,___

__ _ CONCLUSION TABLE 1.

SUMMARY

OF THRESHOLD LIMITS 17 TABLE 1. LIST OF LOAD SYMBOLS AND NOTATION*

83 TABLE 2. LIST OF LOADS NOT CONSIDERED IN EVALUATION 83 TABLE 3. DEFINITION OF TORNADO WIND LOAD, Wr 84 TABLE 4. COMBINATIONS FOR COMPUTATION OF DEFORMATIONS 84 TABLE 5. LIST OF LOAD COMBINATIONS 85 TABLE 6. SEISMIC EXCITATION COMBINATIONS USING 100-40-40 RULE 86 TABLE 7. DESCRIPTION AND PURPOSE OF ANALYSIS CASES 87 TABLE 8.

SUMMARY

OF ANALYSIS CASES 88 TABLE 9.

SUMMARY

OF ANALYSIS RESULTS NAMING CONVENTION 89 TABLE 10. WIND VELOCITY PRESSURES (SECTION 4.4.1.1 OF SD-66 [8]) 90 TABLE 11. SSE AND OBE SPECTRA [8] 91 TABLE 12. CRACK INDEX MEASUREMENT DATA 92 TABLE 13. ASR REGION

SUMMARY

93 TABLE 14.

SUMMARY

OF EVALUATION RESULTS FOR STANDARD ANALYSIS CASE AT THRESHOLD FACTOR OF 1.2 94 TABLE 15.

SUMMARY

OF CONTROLLING EVALUATION RESULTS FOR STANDARD-PLUS ANALYSIS CASE AT THRESHOLD FACTOR OF 1.2 95 TABLE 16.

SUMMARY

OF DISPLACEMENT EVALUATION FOR STANDARD ANALYSIS CASE 1*4 96 TABLE 17.

SUMMARY

OF DISPLACEMENT EVALUATION FOR STANDARD-PLUS ANALYSIS CASE 1*4 97 TABLE 18. LIST OF REFERENCE DRAWINGS 98 TABLE 19. THRESHOLD MEASUREMENT SET A 102 TABLE 20. THRESHOLD MEASUREMENT SET B 103 TABLE 21. THRESHOLD MEASUREMENT SET C 104 150252-CA-02 Revision O FP 100985 Page 6 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures PROJECT NO:

DATE: 31 July2016 CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook BY:

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB VERIFIER:

__ _ LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1. IMAGE OF CONTAINMENT ENCLOSURE BUILDING WITH OPENINGS LABELED 105 FIGURE 2. MEASUREMENTS OF TANGENTIAL MOVEMENT AT BASE OF CEB WALL [2] 106 FIGURE 3. CONCRETE FILL AND SOIL ON EXTERIOR OF CEB WALL (NOT TO SCALE) 107 FIGURE 4. ASR REGIONS AND CRACK INDEX MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS 108 FIGURE 5. WIND PRESSURE COEFFICIENTS FOR CYLINDER AND SPHERE 109 FIGURE 6. EXTERNAL WIND PRESSURES ACTING ON CEB AT VARIOUS ELEVATIONS 110 FIGURE 7. MAXIMUM ACCELERATION PROFILES FOR OBE 111 FIGURE 8. MAXIMUM ACCELERATION PROFILES FOR SSE 112 FIGURE 9. HORIZONTAL SSE SPECTRA [8] 113 FIGURE 10. VERTICAL SSE SPECTRA [8] 114 FIGURE 11. COMPARISON OF BELOW-GRADE HORIZONTAL ASR STRAINS WITH CRACK INDEX MEASUREMENTS 115 FIGURE 12. COMPARISON OF BELOW-GRADE MERIDIONAL ASR STRAINS WITH CRACK INDEX MEASUREMENTS 116 FIGURE 13. COMPARISON OF ABOVE-GRADE HOOP ASR STRAINS WITH CRACK INDEX MEASUREMENTS 117 FIGURE 14. COMPARISON OF ABOVE-GRADE MERIDIONAL ASR STRAINS WITH CRACK INDEX MEASUREMENTS 118 FIGURE 15. COMPARISON BETWEEN AS-DEFORMED CONDITION SIMULATIONS AND FJELD MEASUREMENTS AT EL. 6 FT 119 FIGURE 16. COMPARISON BETWEEN AS-DEFORMED CONDITION SIMULATIONS AND FJELD MEASUREMENTS AT EL. 22 FT 120 FIGURE 17. COMPARISON BETWEEN AS-DEFORMED CONDITION SIMULATIONS AND FIELD MEASUREMENTS AT EL. 50 FT 121 FIGURE 18. COMPARISON BETWEEN AS-DEFORMED CONDITION SIMULATIONS AND FJELD MEASUREMENTS AT EL. 119 FT 122 FIGURE 19. AxlAL FORCE ACTING IN HOOP DIRECTION FOR COMBINATION N0_ 1 FOR THE STANDARD ANALYSIS CASE 123 FIGURE 20. AXIAL FORCE ACTING IN HOOP DIRECTION FOR COMBINATION OBE_ 1 FOR THE STANDARD ANALYSIS CASE 123 FIGURE 21. AXIAL FORCE ACTING IN HOOP DIRECTION FOR COMBINATION N0_ 1 FOR THE STANDARD-PLUS ANALYSIS CASE 124 FIGURE 22. AXIAL FORCE ACTING IN MERIDIONAL DIRECTION FOR COMBINATION N0_ 1 FOR THE STANDARD ANALYSIS CASE 124 FIGURE 23. AxlAL FORCE ACTING IN MERIDIONAL DIRECTION FOR COMBINATION OBE 1 FOR THE STANDARD ANALYSIS CASE 125 FIGURE 24. AXIAL FORCE ACTING IN MERIDIONAL DIRECTION FOR COMBINATION N0_ 1 FOR THE STANDARD-PLUS ANALYSIS CASE 125 FIGURE 25. IN-PLANE SHEAR FORCE FOR COMBINATION N0_ 1 FOR THE STANDARD ANALYSIS CASE 126 FIGURE 26. CASE FIGURE 27. CASE IN-PLANE SHEAR FORCE FOR COMBINATION OBE_ 1 FOR THE STANDARD ANALYSIS 126 IN-PLANE SHEAR FORCE FOR COMBINATION N0_ 1 FOR THE STANDARD-PLUS ANALYSIS 127 150252-CA-02 Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 7 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB PROJECT NO: __

DATE: 31 July2016 BY:

__ _ VERIFIER:

FIGURE 28. OUT-OF-PLANE SHEAR FORCE (ALONG MERIDIONAL-RADIAL PLANE) FOR COMBINATION N0_ 1 FOR THE STANDARD ANALYSIS CASE 127 FIGURE 29. OUT-OF-PLANE SHEAR FORCE (ALONG MERIDIONAL-RADIAL PLANE) FOR COMBINATION OBE_ 1 FOR THE STANDARD ANALYSIS CASE 128 FIGURE 30. OUT-OF-PLANE SHEAR FORCE (ALONG MERIDIONAL-RADIAL PLANE) FOR COMBINATION N0_ 1 FOR THE STANDARD-PLUS ANALYSIS CASE 128 FIGURE 31. OUT-OF-PLANE SHEAR FORCE (ALONG HOOP-RADIAL PLANE) FOR COMBINATION N0_ 1 FOR THE STANDARD ANALYSIS CASE 129 FIGURE 32. OUT-OF-PLANE SHEAR FORCE (ALONG HOOP-RADIAL PLANE) FOR COMBINATION OBE_ 1 FOR THE STANDARD ANALYSIS CASE 129 FIGURE 33. OUT-OF-PLANE SHEAR FORCE (ALONG HOOP-RADIAL PLANE) FOR COMBINATION N0_ 1 FOR THE STANDARD-PLUS ANALYSIS CASE 130 FIGURE 34. OUT-OF-PLANE BENDING MOMENT (ABOUT MERIDIONAL AxlS) FOR COMBINATION N0_ 1 FOR THE STANDARD ANALYSIS CASE 130 FIGURE 35. OUT-OF-PLANE BENDING MOMENT (ABOUT MERIDIONAL Axis) FOR COMBINATION OBE_1 FOR THESTANDARDANALYSISCASE 131 FIGURE 36. OUT-OF-PLANE BENDING MOMENT (ABOUT MERIDIONAL Axis) FOR COMBINATION N0_ 1 FOR THE STANDARD-PLUS ANALYSIS CASE 131 FIGURE 37. OUT-OF-PLANE BENDING MOMENT (ABOUT HOOP Axis) FOR COMBINATION N0_ 1 FOR THE STANDARD ANALYSIS CASE 132 FIGURE 38. OUT-OF-PLANE BENDING MOMENT (ABOUT HOOP AxlS) FOR COMBINATION OBE_ 1 FOR THE STANDARD ANALYSIS CASE 132 FIGURE 39. OUT-OF-PLANE BENDING MOMENT (ABOUT HOOP Axis) FOR COMBINATION N0_ 1 FOR THE STANDARD-PLUS ANALYSIS CASE 133 FIGURE 40. DCRS FOR AXIAL COMPRESSION IN HOOP DIRECTION FOR COMBINATION N0_ 1 FOR THE STANDARD ANALYSIS CASE 133 FIGURE 41. DCRS FOR AXIAL COMPRESSION IN HOOP DIRECTION FOR COMBINATION OBE_ 1 FOR THE STANDARD ANALYSIS CASE 134 FIGURE 42. DCRS FOR AXIAL COMPRESSION IN HOOP DIRECTION FOR COMBINATION N0_ 1 FOR THE STANDARD-PLUS ANALYSIS CASE 134 FIGURE 43. DCRS FOR AXIAL COMPRESSION IN MERIDIONAL DIRECTION FOR COMBINATION N0_ 1 FOR THE STANDARD ANALYSIS CASE 135 FIGURE 44. DCRS FOR AXIAL COMPRESSION IN MERIDIONAL DIRECTION FOR COMBINATION OBE_ 1 FOR THE STANDARD ANALYSIS CASE 135 FIGURE 45. DCRS FOR AXIAL COMPRESSION IN MERIDIONAL DIRECTION FOR COMBINATION N0_ 1 FOR THE STANDARD-PLUS ANALYSIS CASE 136 FIGURE 46. DCRS FOR IN-PLANE SHEAR FOR COMBINATION N0_ 1 FOR THE STANDARD ANALYSIS CASE 136 FIGURE 47. DCRS FOR IN-PLANE SHEAR FOR COMBINATION OBE_ 1 FOR THE STANDARD ANALYSIS CASE 137 FIGURE 48. DCRS FOR IN-PLANE SHEAR FOR COMBINATION NO 1 FOR THE STANDARD-PLUS ANALYSIS CASE 137 FIGURE 49. DCRS FOR OUT-OF-PLANE SHEAR (ACTING ON HOOP-RADIAL PLANE) FOR COMBINATION N0_1 FOR THE STANDARD ANALYSIS CASE 138 FIGURE 50. DCRS FOR OUT-OF-PLANE SHEAR (ACTING ON HOOP-RADIAL PLANE) FOR COMBINATION OBE_ 1 FOR THE STANDARD ANALYSIS CASE 138 FIGURE 51. DCRS FOR OUT-OF-PLANE SHEAR (ACTING ON HOOP-RADIAL PLANE) FOR COMBINATION N0 _ 1 FOR THE STANDARD-PLUS ANALYSIS CASE 139 150252-CA-02 Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 8 of 526 I SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB PROJECT NO:

DATE: 31July2016 BY: ____ _,R-"-.=M'-".

VERIFIER:

__ _,A_,,_.T.._,_.-"'S""ar_,,,,awi=*t..___

__ _ FIGURE 52. DCRs FOR OUT-OF-PLANE SHEAR (ACTING ON MERIDIONAL-RADIAL PLANE) FOR COMBINATION N0_ 1 FOR THE STANDARD ANALYSIS CASE 139 FIGURE 53. DCRS FOR OUT-OF-PLANE SHEAR (ACTING ON MERIDIONAL-RADIAL PLANE) FOR COMBINATION OBE_ 1 FOR THE STANDARD ANALYSIS CASE 140 FIGURE 54. DCRS FOR OUT-OF-PLANE SHEAR (ACTING ON MERIDIONAL-RADIAL PLANE) FOR COMBINATION N0_ 1 FOR THE STANDARD-PLUS ANALYSIS CASE 140 FIGURE 55. DCRS FOR AXIAL-FLEXURE INTERACTION IN THE HOOP DIRECTION FOR COMBINATION N0_1 FOR THE STANDARD ANALYSIS CASE 141 FIGURE 56. DCRS FOR AXIAL-FLEXURE INTERACTION IN THE HOOP DIRECTION FOR COMBINATION OBE_1 FOR THE STANDARD ANALYSIS CASE 141 FIGURE 57. DCRS FOR AXIAL-FLEXURE INTERACTION IN THE HOOP DIRECTION FOR COMBINATION N0_ 1 FOR THE STANDARD-PLUS ANALYSIS CASE 142 FIGURE 58. DCRS FOR AxlAL-FLEXURE INTERACTION IN THE MERIDIONAL DIRECTION FOR COMBINATION N0_ 1 FOR THE STANDARD ANALYSIS CASE 142 FIGURE 59. DCRS FOR AXIAL-FLEXURE INTERACTION IN THE MERIDIONAL DIRECTION FOR COMBINATION OBE_ 1 FOR THE STANDARD ANALYSIS CASE 143 FIGURE 60. DCRS FOR AXIAL-FLEXURE INTERACTION IN THE MERIDIONAL DIRECTION FOR COMBINATION N0_ 1 FOR THE STANDARD-PLUS ANALYSIS CASE 143 FIGURE 61. SECTION CUT RESULTANT FORCES AND MOMENTS AT CUT CENTROID 144 FIGURE 62. PM INTERACTION DIAGRAM AT SECTION CUT 28 SHOWING ELEVATED TENSILE DEMANDS (PRIOR TO ADJUSTMENT OF MERIDIONAL STIFFNESS AT EL. +45.5 FT AND AZ 240) 145 FIGURE 63. PM INTERACTION DIAGRAM AT SECTION CUT 28 AFTER ADJUSTMENT OF MERIDIONAL STIFFNESS AT EL. +45.5 FT AND AZ 240) 145 FIGURE 64. PM INTERACTION CHECK FOR STANDARD ANALYSIS CASE PRIOR TO MOMENT REDISTRIBUTION (SECTION CUT 19) 146 FIGURE 65. PM INTERACTION CHECK FOR STANDARD ANALYSIS CASE PRIOR TO MOMENT REDISTRIBUTION (SECTION CUT 22) 146 FIGURE 66. PM INTERACTION CHECK FOR STANDARD ANALYSIS CASE AFTER MOMENT REDISTRIBUTION (SECTION CUT 19) 147 FIGURE 67. PM INTERACTION CHECK FOR STANDARD ANALYSIS CASE AFTER MOMENT REDISTRIBUTION (SECTION CUT 22) 147 FIGURE 68. PM INTERACTION CHECK FOR STANDARD-PLUS ANALYSIS CASE PRIOR TO MOMENT REDISTRIBUTION (SECTION CUT 19) 148 FIGURE 69. PM INTERACTION CHECK FOR STANDARD-PLUS ANALYSIS CASE PRIOR TO MOMENT REDISTRIBUTION (SECTION CUT 22) 148 FIGURE 70. PM INTERACTION CHECK FOR STANDARD-PLUS ANALYSIS CASE AFTER MOMENT REDISTRIBUTION (SECTION CUT 19) 149 FIGURE 71. PM INTERACTION CHECK FOR STANDARD-PLUS ANALYSIS CASE AFTER MOMENT REDISTRIBUTION (SECTION CUT 22) 149 FIGURE 72. PM INTERACTION CHECK FOR STANDARD-PLUS ANALYSIS CASE (SECTION CUT 14) (No MOMENT REDISTRIBUTION NEEDED) 150 FIGURE 73. PM INTERACTION CHECK FOR STANDARD-PLUS ANALYSIS CASE (SECTION CUT 15) (NO MOMENT REDISTRIBUTION NEEDED) 150 FIGURE 74. PM INTERACTION CHECKS AT BASE OF WALL BETWEEN AZ 270° AND 360° FOR STANDARD-PLUS ANALYSIS CASE PRIOR TO MOMENT REDISTRIBUTION 151 FIGURE 75. PM INTERACTION CHECKS AT BASE OF WALL BETWEEN AZ 270° AND 360° FOR STANDARD-PLUS ANALYSIS CASE AFTER MOMENT REDISTRIBUTION 151 150252-CA-02 Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 9 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB PROJECT NO: __

___ _ DATE: ----'3"""'1__,,J=ul_,__y 2=0,_,_16"-----

BY:

VERIFIER:

FIGURE 76. ILLUSTRATION OF AXIAL FORCE COUPLE RESISTING OUT-OF-PLANE PRESSURES AT THE BASE OF WALL 152 FIGURE 77. DCRS FOR IN-PLANE SHEAR FOR COMBINATION OBE_ 1 (100% E., 40% N., 40% VERT. DOWN) FOR THE STANDARD ANALYSIS CASE 153 FIGURE 78. DCRs FOR IN-PLANE SHEAR FOR COMBINATION OBE_3 (100% E., 40% N., 40% VERT. DOWN) FOR THE STANDARD ANALYSIS CASE 153 FIGURE 79. DCRS FOR IN-PLANE SHEAR FOR COMBINATION OBE_ 1 (40% E., 100% N., 40% VERT. DOWN) FOR THE STANDARD ANALYSIS CASE 154 FIGURE 80. DCRS FOR OUT-OF-PLANE SHEAR FOR COMBINATION OBE_1 (100% E., 40% N., 40% VERT. DOWN) FOR THE STANDARD ANALYSIS CASE 154 FIGURE 81. DCRS FOR IN-PLANE SHEAR FOR COMBINATION OBE_3 (100% W., 40% N., 40% VERT. UP) FOR THE STANDARD-PLUS ANALYSIS CASE 155 FIGURE 82. DCRS FOR IN-PLANE SHEAR FOR COMBINATION OBE_ 1 (100% W., 40% N., 40% VERT. UP) FOR THE STANDARD-PLUS ANALYSIS CASE 155 FIGURE 83. DCRS FOR IN-PLANE SHEAR FOR COMBINATION OBE_ 1 (100% W., 40% N., 40% VERT. UP) FOR THE STANDARD-PLUS ANALYSIS CASE 156 FIGURE 84. DCRS FOR OUT-OF-PLANE SHEAR FOR COMBINATION OBE_3 (100% E., 40% N., 40% VERT. DOWN) FOR THE STANDARD-PLUS ANALYSIS CASE 156 150252-CA-02 Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 1 O of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER P""" I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures PROJECT NO: __ 1_,_,,5=02=5=2

___ _ DATE: 31 July2016 CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook BY:

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB VERIFIER:

__

__ _ SYMBOLS AND NOTATIONS ASR AZ CB CCI Cl CID CEB CEVA OCR El. E-W f c fy FEA FEM FSB FSEL ILC JA kth NEE N-S OBE PM psf psi psig QANF RCE SD-66 SGH SRSS SSE UA UE UFSAR alkali-silica reaction azimuth Containment Building Combined Crack Index Crack Index cover-to-bar diameter Containment Enclosure Building Containment Enclosure Ventilation Area demand to capacity ratio elevation east-west compressive strength of concrete yield strength of steel finite element analysis finite element model Fuel Storage Building Ferguson Structural Engineering Laboratory independent load case Justified Assumption ASR threshold factor (Sections 7.3 and 8) NextEra Energy north-south operating basis earthquake axial-flexure (interaction) pounds per square foot pounds per square inch pounds per square inch gage (relative to atmospheric pressure)

Quality Assurance Manual for Nuclear Facility Work Root Cause Evaluation System Description 66, Original structural design criteria [8] Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc. square root of sum of squares safe-shutdown earthquake Unverified Assumption United Engineers and Constructors Updated Final Safety Analysis Report Original SD-66 Loads All design loads included in the original structural design criteria document (SD-66). As-Deformed Condition Mech. Pen. Electrical Pen. 150252-CA-02 FP 100985 Page 11 of 526 Deformed state of the CEB as measured and documented by SGH Mechanical Penetration (Figure 1) Electrical Penetration (Figure 1) Revision O SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB PROJECTN0:

__

DATE: ___

___ _ BY: ____

VERIFIER:

SIGN AND LABELING CONVENTIONS USED IN THIS REPORT

• Tensile forces, stresses, and strains are positive values unless otherwise noted.

• Bending moments are positive if tension occurs on the outside surface of the wall.

• For evaluation of axial and flexure interaction, axial-flexure demands that cause stress in the reinforcement aligned in the circumferential (hoop) direction are referred to as "hoop direction" interaction demands. Similarly, axial-flexure interaction capacity in the "hoop direction" is related to the bars aligned with in the hoop direction.

This convention is extended to axial-flexure interaction in the meridional (or vertical) direction.

• For evaluation of out-of-plane shear, out-of-plane shear acting on a vertical plane is referred to as "out-of-plane shear in the hoop direction" because axial stresses acting in the hoop direction cause compression or tension on this plane and because reinforcement aligned in the hoop direction resist shear on this plane through shear friction.

This convention is extended to out-of-plane shear in the meridional direction, which acts on a horizontal plane. 150252-CA-02 Revision O FP 100985 Page 12 of 526

SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB 1. REVISION HISTORY 1.1 Revision 0 Initial document.

150252-CA-02 FP 100985 Page 13 of 526 DATE: ___

BY: ____

VERIFIER:

__ __,_A"-'.T'"'-.

""'S""ar_,.awi"'"*,,_t

___ _ Revision 0 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB 2. OBJECTIVE OF CALCULATION PROJECT NO: __ 1_,_,,5=02=5"'-2

___ _ DATE: 31 July 2016 BY: ------'-"R.=M"-'.

M=o"'-'n<><>es"-----

VERIFIER:

__ _,A'"""._,_,T.c...:S=ar=awi=*..._t

__ _ The objective of this calculation is to perform a structural evaluation and design confirmation for the as-deformed Containment Enclosure Building (CEB) structure at NextEra Energy Seabrook Station in Seabrook, New Hampshire.

The evaluation and design confirmation is performed in accordance with the project Criteria Document, 150252-CD-03 Rev. O [1]. The as-deformed condition used in the evaluation is based on measurements recorded by Simpson Gumpertz & Heger (SGH) during field inspections in March 2015, September 2015, and April 2016 [2, 3, 5]. Structural demands are computed using load combinations and load factors defined in SGH Report 160268-R-01

[6], which modifies load combinations defined in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) [7] and the Seabrook structural design criteria document, SD-66 [8], to include demands caused by ASR expansion.

Alkali-silica reaction (ASR) demands are selected based on extensive field measurements of strain on the CEB [9] and are increased by a load factor to account for uncertainty in the demands and a threshold factor to account for limited future ASR expansion.

Aside from the deformed condition, all other conditions of the structure, including material properties and reinforcement configurations, are considered to be in accordance with the structural design basis. The structural evaluation and design confirmation are based on design drawings and project specifications.

This calculation does not consider potential deviations from the as-designed conditions due to construction tolerances; approved change orders during construction unless incorporated into the referenced design drawings; aging effects (such as potential carbonation, leaching, or reinforcement corrosion);

or local defects, repairs, etc. The evaluation of work platforms, ladders, tie-off points, and equipment braces and the associated anchorage is not in the scope of this calculation.

Additionally, evaluation and design confirmation of the reinforced concrete missile shields at El. 22 ft, El. 31 ft-6 in., and El. 49 ft-6 in. against missile loading are not in the scope of this calculation.

The work is performed in accordance with the SGH Quality Assurance Manual for Nuclear Facility Work (QANF) [10] and related Engineering Procedures.

150252-CA-02 Revision O FP 100985 Page 14 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB 3. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS PROJECT NO: --"'""15=02=5=2

___ _ DATE:

___ _ BY: --------'-"R.=M"-.

M=o=n=es"-----

VERIFIER:

The CEB is analyzed for the Original Design, Standard, and Standard-Plus Analysis Cases. Each of these analysis cases is briefly defined below, and is described in more detail in Section 6.2.2.

• The Original Design Analysis Case considers all original design loads with the CEB in its undeformed configuration without self-straining loads such as ASR (Sa) and swelling (Sw). .

• The Standard Analysis Case considers all original design loads as well as self-straining loads, and simulates deformation measurements while conforming to all construction details specified in the original design drawings.

• The Standard-Plus Analysis Case is identical to the Standard Analysis Case, but provides an improved simulation of deformation measurements near AZ 230° by assuming that the concrete fill is in contact with the CEB at AZ 200° between El. +19 and +54 ft. Note that this assumed condition differs from that shown on the design drawings.

The conclusions of the analysis and evaluation are provided below:

• Comparison to Field Measurements

• The strains due to ASR expansion simulated by the finite element model (FEM) reasonably approximate crack index measurements (see Section 6.4.1 for more information).

• The as-deformed condition of the CEB is simulated by combining unfactored sustained loads and unfactored self-straining loads including ASR of the CEB and ASR of the concrete fill. Deformation comparisons are presented in Section 6.4.2 and are summarized below:

• Deformations for the Standard Analysis Case simulate field measurements of deformation in all locations except near AZ 230°.

• Deformations for the Standard-Plus Analysis Case simulate field measurements at AZ 230° more favorably than the Standard Analysis Case while continuing to match deformations elsewhere.

• Design Evaluation

• A study of the dynamic properties of the as-deformed CEB (from the Standard and Standard-Plus Analysis Cases) concludes that the as-deformed condition does not significantly impact the dynamic properties of the structure, and therefore the maximum seismic acceleration profiles for OBE and SSE excitation used in the original design remain valid. 150252-CA-02 Revision O FP 100985 Page 15 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures PROJECT NO:

___ _ DATE:

CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook BY:

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB VERIFIER:

• The Original Design, Standard, and Standard-Plus Analysis Cases are evaluated for the load combinations listed in Table 5 using the strength criteria of ACI 318-71. All ASR loads are amplified by a threshold factor of 1.2 in addition to the load factors for ASR. The threshold factor accounts for additional ASR loads that may occur in the future.

• For the Original Design Analysis Case, which does not include straining loads such as ASR (Sa) and swelling (Sw), the CEB is shown to meet evaluation criteria.

This conclusion is consistent with the original design of the CEB.

• For the Standard and Standard-Plus Analysis Cases, the CEB is shown to meet evaluation criteria with the use of moment redistribution and with the consideration of localized concrete cracking.

• Clearance evaluations are performed to assess if existing seismic gaps between the CEB and other adjacent structures (with consideration given to UA01 in Section 5.1) are sufficient to reasonably ensure that the CEB will not contact other structures during a seismic event. The clearance evaluations account for existing (reduced) seismic gap widths, additional ASR-related deformations associated with the selected threshold factor, simulated CEB seismic deformations, and predicted seismic deformations of the adjacent structures (computed by others).

• With the exception of the missile shield locations, existing gap widths at all assessed locations are sufficient to ensure that contact between buildings will not occur.

• For missile shield locations, a minimum seismic gap of 1 in. is needed to prevent contact with the adjacent structure (CB).

• Global stability of the CEB is evaluated in Section 7.8. Stability evaluation with consideration of ASR demands demonstrates that a factor of safety against sliding, overturning, and flotation meeting the requirements of SD-66 [8] is provided.

150252-CA-02 Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 16 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures PROJECT NO:

DATE: ------"'-31......,J...,.u!.!.J'.lv-=.2,,_01,_,.6'------

CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook BY: ____

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB VERIFIER:

__ _,_,A,,....T_,_.

S""a"'-ra,,,_,wi"-"*1.__

__ _ Threshold Monitoring

• Systematic monitoring of strains and structure deformations is appropriate to detect when measured ASR strains have reached the selected threshold limits and when the distance between the CEB and adjacent structures is approaching the minimum required seismic separation.

Chapter 8 presents an approach and a prospective threshold monitoring plan to meet the monitoring objectives.

The monitoring consists of field measurements of Cl, CCI, or expansion measurements, and seismic isolation joint widths. The measurements are divided into two sets, and monitoring is performed by comparing the average measurement for strain in regions or seismic gap widths. 150252-CA-02

• For strain; the average threshold strain limits for below grade areas are 20% above the strain values provided in Table 13 for regions R1, R2, and R3. Alternatively the average strain threshold limits based on CCI measurements for two regions using the existing 15 CCI measurement locations are provided in Conclusion Table 1 as Sets A and B.

• The average seismic gap threshold value is provided in Conclusion Table 1 as Set C.

• As averaged field measurements approach the threshold limits, or if any seismic gap measurement approaches the required minimum gap widths provided in Tables 16 and 17 corrective actions should be taken to ensure validity of the calculation conclusions.

Conclusion Table 1. Summary of Threshold Limits Prospective Mean of Baseline Threshold Measurement Measurement Set** Values Threshold Limit A (Crack Index) 0.13 mm/m 0.16 mm/m B (Crack Index) 0.37 mm/m 0.44 mmlm C (Seismic Gap)* 1.50 in. 1.70 in. *Note: Data shown in this table are based on proiected measurement values. **See Tables 19, 20, and 21 for identification for measurements within Prospective Threshold Measurement Sets A, B, and C, respectively. Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 17 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures PROJECT NO: ------'1'"""50=2=52"-----

DATE: 31 July2016 CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook BY: ____ _,R_,_,_.=M'-'.

M=o=ne=s'-----

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB VERIFIER:

__

4. DESIGN DA TA I CRITERIA Design data and criteria are provided in the SGH Criteria Document 150252-CD-03 Rev. 0 [1 ]. Key information from this criteria document is summarized in Sections 4.1 through 4.3 for clarity. Field measurements and observations that are used to calibrate the as-deformed condition of the CEB are presented in Section 4.4. 4.1 . Material Properties The following material properties are used in this calculation:

• CEB Concrete

• Compressive Strength:

f c = 4,000 psi ([12] 9763-F-101448)

• Elastic Modulus:, E = 57,000 (f c)112 = 3,605,000 psi [8]

• Poisson's Ratio: v = 0.15 [8]

• Shear Modulus: G = E/(2(1+ v)) = 1,567,000 psi [11]

• Unit Weight: w = 150 pcf [8]

• CEB Foundation Concrete

• Compressive Strength:

f c = 3,000 psi ([12] 9763-F-101448)

• Elastic Modulus:, E = 57,000 (fc)112 = 3,120,000 psi [8]

• Poisson's Ratio: v = 0.15 [8]

• Shear Modulus: G = E/(2(1 + v)) = 1,357,000 psi [11]

• Unit Weight: w = 150 pcf [8]

• Backfill Concrete

• Compressive Strength:

fc = 2,000 psi ([12] 9763-F-101842)

• Elastic Modulus:, E = 57,000 (f c)112 = 2,550,000 psi [8]

• Poisson's Ratio: v = 0.15 [8]

• Shear Modulus: G = E/(2(1 + v)) = 1, 109,000 psi [11]

• Unit Weight: w = 150 pcf[8]

• Steel Reinforcement

• Yield Strength:

ASTM A615 Grade 60 (fy = 60,000 psi) [8]

• Elastic Modulus: Es= 29,000,000 psi The elastic modulus of concrete is not reduced due to ASR damage. This is further discussed in justified assumption JA03 (Section 5.1). 150252-CA-02 Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 18 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB 4.2 Combinations of Loads PROJECT NO:

DATE: 31 July 2016 BY:

VERIFIER:

Load combinations evaluated in this calculation are defined in SGH Report No. 150252-R-01

[6]. In Ref. 6, demands caused bYi ASR expansion are incorporated into the load combinations defined in the Seabrook UFSAR. Load factors for ASR demands are computed using a probabilistic approach that maintains the level of reliability inherent in ACI 318-71 [11, 13]. Load combinations are listed in Table 5. Load symbols are defined in Table 1. Loads not considered in this evaluation are listed in Table 2. Tornado wind loads are defined in Table 3. Additional information on each load type is provided in Section 6.3. ACI 318-71 Section 9.3.7 [11] specifies that demands from differential settlement, creep, shrinkage, and temperature change shall be included with dead load. In this calculation, concrete swelling demands are also included with dead load due to the similarities between swelling and shrinkage.

Demands due to creep and shrinkage generally cause compression in the reinforcement of the CEB and are therefore conservatively neglected when computing demands in this calculation.

However, deformations caused by creep and shrinkage are considered when comparing deformations of the finite element model to field measurements.

Each load combination in Table 5 is also evaluated without the effects of self-straining forces (i.e., without ASR and swelling demands) to verify that the original design of the CEB meets design requirements.

This evaluation is summarized in Section 7.4 and is presented in detail in Appendix G. 4.3 Evaluation Acceptance Criteria Acceptance criteria for evaluation and design of reinforced concrete components are defi_ned by ACI 318-71 [11]. No reductions in capacity are made to account for material degradation due to ASR (Justified Assumption JA11, Section 5.1). Physical testing performed by others [16] has indicated that ASR expansion does not reduce structural capacities if the total out-of-plane expansion is less than the limits defined in Ref. 16. 4.4 Field Measurements and Observations ASR strains simulated by the finite element model are based on crack index (Cl) field measurements presented in SGH Site Visit Report 150252-SVR-05-RO

[9]. The Cl data come 150252-CA-02 Revision O FP 100985 Page 19 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER ,..,.... I Engineering of Struclures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB PROJECT NO: _ _____,1=50=2=52"-----

DATE:

BY: ____ _,_,R=.M,_,_.

=Mo=n=es"-----

VERIFIER:

from a total of forty-two ASR monitoring grids located throughout the CEB structure.

The Cl data are summarized in Tables 12 and 13, as well as in Figure 4. Measurements of CEB displacements are presented in the SGH Site Visit Reports listed below. These site visit reports contain relative measurements between the CEB and other adjacent structures including the Containment Building (CB), the Mechanical Penetration (Mech. Pen.), the West Pipe Chase, the Containment Enclosure Ventilation Area structure (CEVA), the East Pipe Chase, and the Electrical Penetration Structure (Electrical Pen.). A brief description of each report is provided below.

• SGH Site Visit Report 150252-SVR-01-R1

[2]: This site visit report documents measurements of relative building movement/deformation recorded during CEB walkdowns that were initiated by the CEB Root Cause Evaluation (RCE).

• SGH Site Visit Report 150252-SVR-02-RO

[3]: This site visit report contains follow-up measurements of relative building movement I deformation at twenty-five seismic isolation joint locations that were previously measured and documented in Ref. 2. These twenty-five locations generally had seismic isolation joint widths of 2 in. or less.

• SGH Site Visit Report 150252-SVR-03-RO

[4]: This site visit report contains measurements of the annulus width between the CB and CEB at the springline elevation.

Also, this report documents surveyor markings on the exterior surface of the CB at the springline elevation, which can be used to obtain the as-built radius of the CB at each azimuth. Additionally, this site visit report contains qualitative observations of ASR on the exterior surface of the CEB.

• SGH Site Visit Report 160144-SVR-03-RO

[5]: This site visit report contains follow-up measurements of relative building movement I deformation at twenty-five seismic isolation joint locations that were previously measured and documented in Ref. 2 and 3. This calculation generally interprets all relative measurements between buildings using the following two assumptions (JA08 in Section 5.1):

• The CEB and all adjacent structures were originally constructed in accordance with design drawings

• No structures other than the CEB are deforming or displacing (except during seismic events) Using these two assumptions, relative measurements between the CEB and other adjacent structures can be compared to corresponding design dimensions on drawings; any difference 150252-CA-02 Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 20 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB PROJECT NO:

___ _ DATE: -----=3_,_1 J=u,,..ly-=2=01"'""6'-----

BY:

VERIFIER:

---"A_,,_.T-'--'.-=S=ar=awi=*t,___

__ _ between the design dimension and the measurement is generally attributed to CEB deformation.

These assumptions have exceptions, as listed below:

• Preliminary field observations indicate that the isolation gap between the CEB and the CB at the missile shield above the CEVA structure has zero or near-zero width. This indicates that there is a larger inward radial deformation at this location than measured elsewhere on the CEB, and the deformation may be higher than indicated by the Standard Analysis Case, which assumes that the concrete fill was placed as indicated on the design drawings.

To reach this level of inward deformation, an alternative analysis case (referred to as the Standard-Plus Analysis Case) is performed with the assumption that the concrete fill placed between the CEVA structure, FSB, and CEB (between El. +19 and +54 ft ) was constructed without the 3 in. seismic isolation joint specified on the design drawings.

CEB demands from the Standard and the Plus Analysis Case are both evaluated against the ACI 318-71 acceptance criteria in this calculation (see Section 6.2.2 for more information).

• Site visit report 150252-SVR-03-RO

[4] documents surveyor markings that were painted on the exterior surface of the CB at the springline elevation.

These markings are used to compute the as-built radius of the CB at the springline elevation.

Measurements of radial deformation of the CEB at the springline elevation are adjusted for the as-built radius of the CB. 150252-CA-02 Revision O FP 100985 Page 21 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB 5. ASSUMPTIONS

5.1 Justified

Assumptions Justified assumptions (JAs) are listed below. PROJECT NO: __ 1=5=02=5=2

___ _ DATE: 31July2016 BY: ____ _,_R=.M=.'"-"M=o=ne=s

___ _ VERIFIER:

__ _,_A_,,_.T.....,._,.S,..ar=awi.,_,_*t,__

__ _

• JA01: The as-deformed condition of the CEB can be represented by a finite element model subjected to sustained loads and self-straining forces including ASR expansion, creep, shrinkage, and swelling.

Justification:

It is demonstrated in Section 6.4.2 that sustained loads and straining forces (including ASR expansion, creep, shrinkage, and swelling) can be applied to the finite element model to generally simulate the deformed shape of the CEB measured by SGH [2, 3, 4, 5]. ** JA02: ASR causes expansion of concrete, which creates a tension in the reinforcement and corresponding compression in the concrete (in the direction of expansion).

Justification:

Many researchers

[14] show that ASR in reinforced concrete forms cracks that become filled with an expansive gel. A tensile force in the reinforcement bars develops as the concrete attempts to expand. The tensile force in the reinforcement is balanced by a corresponding compression force in the concrete.

The magnitude of ASR expansion (and the associated tensile and compressive forces) used in this evaluation and design confirmation is based on field measurements.

• JA03: Unreduced design material stiffness properties can adequately represent impacted reinforced concrete sections of the CEB structure.

Justification:

A physical test program by MPR Associates and the Ferguson Structural Engineering Laboratory (FSEL) concludes that structural evaluations of ASR-affected structures at Seabrook Station with through-thickness expansion within certain limits should use the material properties specified in the original design specifications

[17]. These limits bound the current conditions.

Additionally, a parametric study (described in Appendix J) demonstrates that larger demands are computed from the as-deformed condition if an unreduced elastic modulus is used. Therefore, an unreduced elastic modulus based on the design concrete compression strength (f c) is used in the Standard and Standard-Plus Analysis Cases in this calculation.

• JA04: Concrete fill undergoes ASR expansion.

Justification:

Testing has not been performed to assess whether the concrete fill is undergoing ASR expansion.

However, the same aggregate source was used for the concrete fill as for the CEB concrete.

In the absence of such test data, this calculation assumes that ASR is present in the fill concrete and concrete fill expansion will produce a radial pressure on the CEB proportional to the overburden pressure at the 150252-CA-02 Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 22 of 526

. SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER ""' I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB PROJECT NO: __

DATE: 31 July2016 BY: ____ _,_,_R.,,_,_M,.,._.

__ _ VERIFIER:

__ _,A-"-.T-'-"'.-'=S""'ar_,,,_awi=*t,___

__ _ depth of concrete fill. The actual pressure due to concrete fill expansion plus all other sustained loads should result in deformations that simulate the field measurements of deformation.

• JA05: Live loading of work platforms and ladder landings is neglected.

Justification:

Live loading of work platforms and ladder landings is considered to be negligible relative to the self-weight of the CEB concrete structure.

These live loads are excluded from original design calculations

[24] and are neglected in this calculation.

• JAOG: The mass, stiffness, and wind loading of the Plant Vent Stack attached to the outside surface of the CEB at AZ 230° do not affect the behavior of the CEB model. Justification:

The Plant Vent Stack is constructed of stainless steel sheet metal and steel channel sections.

An approximate self-weight take-off indicates that the Plant Vent Stack and adjacent ladders and platforms weigh approximately 900 lbf per linear foot and are about 170 ft long. The mass of the Plant Vent Stack is equivalent to about 20% of its supporting concrete (assuming that the mass of the vent stack is resisted by a strip of CEB concrete that is twice the width of the vent stack). Additionally, the total mass of the vent stack is about 10% of the design snow load (7 4 psf) and about 6% of the unusual snow load (126 psf). Based on this information, the mass of the Plant Vent Stack is considered to be negligible.

Additionally, the sheet metal and light weight steel channels are judged to have negligible stiffness relative to the reinforced concrete CEB. Due to the small size of the Plant Vent Stack relative to the CEB structure, wind loads acting on the Plant Vent Stack are judged to be insignificant relative to the loading on the concrete cylinder and dome.

• JA07: Observed cracking at the springline elevation (El. +119 ft) is at least partially related to non-ASR structural demands. Justification:

Ref. 9 notes that the orientation and pattern of cracks at the springline elevation are not necessarily indicative of ASR expansion.

ASR cracking typically has a map pattern, which is generally less apparent at the springline elevation than other ASR monitoring locations.

Additionally, the cracking on the interior of the CEB at the springline does not show signs of moisture intrusion, efflorescence, or ASR gel. Furthermore, a parametric study documented in Appendix J evaluates the impact of modeling ASR demands at the springline.

• JAOS: In the Standard Analysis Case, the calculations assume that the CEB structure was constructed as specified in design drawings.

In the Standard-Plus Analysis Case, the calculations assume additional inward pressure, corresponding to the location of the concrete fill wedge between the CEVA, CEB, and FSB at El. +19 to +54 ft, to improve the CEB deformation in a localized area at about AZ 230°. For the Plus Analysis Case, the assumed additional pressure could be due to ASR expansion of the concrete fill wedge if it has come in contact with the CEB (even though a gap is 150252-CA-02 Revision O FP 100985 Page 23 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER ,.........

I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB PROJECT NO: __

___ _ DATE: 31 July 2016 BY:

VERIFIER:

indicated in design drawings).

In all analysis cases, it is assumed that no structures other than the CEB are deforming or displacing, except for seismic joint measurement that accounts for seismic displacements of adjacent structures.

Justification:

Analysis cases are described fully in Section 6.2.2. In the Standard Analysis Case, it is assumed that the CEB conforms to original design drawings.

For this case all analyses are based on original design assumptions except accounting for additional deformations and stresses in the CEB due to self-straining loads. Therefore this assumption for the Standard Analysis Case is justified since it is fully consistent with the original design. The additional pressure assumed for the Standard-Plus Analysis Case was done to improve the CEB radial deformation at AZ 230° compared to observed deformation.

This additional pressure is assumed to be due to ASR expansion of the wedge of concrete fill between the CEVA, FSB, and CEB. Assuming the additional pressure is *due to concrete fill expansion is justified since ASR has the largest load factor for the controlling static load combination.

However this assumption inherently implies that the designed seismic gap between the concrete fill wedge and CEB is closed. The Standard-Plus Analysis Case does not account for the effects from or potential interaction with the wedge of concrete fill. It is expected that the wedge of concrete fill is self-supporting and sufficiently stiff to prevent imparting lateral demands to the CEB. Motion of the CEB toward the fill may result in contact along the height of the wedge, which is expected to reduce seismic demands lower in the structure.

The assumption that no structures are deforming or displacing other than the CEB causes all observed seismic gap movements to be conservatively attributed to CEB deformation.

While there is potential for other buildings to be deforming or displacing, this assumption is justified because it results in the most conservative deformation profile for the CEB. When evaluating clearance between the CEB and adjacent structures, the seismic deformations of other structures [31] are considered.

• JA09: Maximum acceleration profiles for seismic analysis are not impacted by the as-deformed condition and are unchanged from the original design. Additionally, the maximum acceleration profiles are not impacted by concrete cracking.

Justification:

A study has been performed to demonstrate that the dynamic properties of the CEB structure are not impacted by the as-deformed condition.

The methodology and results of this study are summarized in Sections 6.2.4 and 6.4.3. Additional documentation for this study is provided in Appendix F. The OBE and SSE maximum acceleration profiles used in the original design of the CEB are used in this analysis.

These acceleration profiles were computed by UE and are presented on Sheets 22 through 26 of UE Calculation SBSAG 4CE [24] (replicated in this calculation as Figure 7).

• JA10: The CEB material properties are not reduced due to irradiation.

150252-CA-02 Revision O FP 100985 Page 24 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB PROJECT NO: __ 1-'""5=02=5=-2

___ _ DATE: 31 July 2016 BY: ____ _,R_,,_.M""".'-"M"-'o"-"ne=s'-----

VERIFIER:

__

Justification:

Section 3.8.3.4 (b).4 of the Seabrook UFSAR [7] states that the primary shield wall is the only concrete subjected to relatively high irradiation.

• JA 11: ASR expansion impacts the total demand on reinforced concrete elements, but does not reduce the resistance (capacity) of reinforced concrete elements so long as the strain does not exceed the limits defined in Ref. 16. Justification:

A physical testing program performed by MPR Associates and the University of Texas at Austin Ferguson Structural Engineering Laboratory (FSEL) [16] has shown that ASR does not reduce the design properties and capacities for the levels of ASR currently identified in the CEB. 5.2 Unverified Assumptions Unverified Assumptions (UAs) are listed below.

• UA01: The CEB is statically and seismically isolated from other buildings at all locations where isolation joints are specified in design drawings.

==

Description:==

Preliminary field observations indicate that the isolation gap between the CEB and the CB at the missile shield above the CEVA structure has zero or near-zero width. In order for this calculation to be valid, a seismic gap of at least 1 in. must be provided at the missile shield above the CEVA structure.

Required Action: This unverified assumption must be tracked until confirmation or resolution.

150252-CA-02 Revision O FP 100985 Page 25 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB 6. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS PROJECT NO: __ _,_,15,,,0=>25=2

___ _ DATE: 31 July 2016 BY: ____ _,R_,_,_.'-"'"M,_,_.

M"'-"o"-'ne,,,.s,____

__ _ VERIFIER:

__ _,A_,,_.T_,_,_._,.S=ar_,._awi=*t,__

__ _ Structural analysis is performed using finite element analysis.

The CEB structure is described in Section 6.1. The analysis methodology, including the analysis models, is described in Section 6.2. Applied loads are described in Section 6.3. Analysis results (i.e., deformations, strains, and structural forces and moments computed using the finite element model) are summarized in Section 6.4. Methodology and results of the evaluation (i.e., comparison of structural demands and structural capacities) are presented in Chapter 7 of this calculation.

6.1 Description

of Structure

6.1.1 Structure

Geometry Based on the UE design drawings [12], the CEB is a cylindrical reinforced concrete structure, 228 ft tall, with an inside radius of 79 ft-0 in. that is enclosed at the top by a 1 ft-3 in. thick hemispherical reinforced concrete dome. The wall thickness varies from 3 ft-0 in. at the base to 2 ft-3 in. from El. 11 ft to El. 40 ft, and 1 ft-3 in. above El. 40 ft. Several large openings penetrate the CEB wall. The Mech. Pen. and adjoining West Pipe Chase are located on the west side of the CEB and are approximately 60 ft wide and 50 ft tall. The Electrical Pen. is located on the north side of the CEB and is approximately 40 ft wide and 57 ft tall. Both the Mech. Pen. and the Electrical Pen. extend to the base of the structure.

Other openings of significant size include the East Pipe Chase, the Equipment Hatch, the Personnel Hatch, and openings adjacent to the CEVA and the FSB. Openings in the CEB wall are illustrated in Figure 1. The CEB wall is supported on a 10 ft thick concrete ring base footing. The top of the footing is at El. (-)30 ft, approximately 50 ft below finished grade. The foundation is interrupted at the Mechanical and Electrical Penetrations on the west and north sides of the CEB. 6.1.2 Structure Reinforcement The reinforcement in the hoop direction is described below:

• Between El. (-)30 ft and El. (-)11 ft: #11@12 in. on each face, with the following exceptions:

150252-CA-02 Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 26 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB PROJECT NO: ---'""15""02""5""'"2

___ _ DATE: ___ ___,,_3-'--1 J=u,,_,ly_,,2=01-'""6'------

BY: ____ _,R'-"*=M,__...

M'""'o"""'ne><>s'-----

VERIFIER:

__ _,A-"".T.!...'-.-"'S=ar=awi=*t,__

__ _

• The region between the Mechanical Penetration and the Electrical Penetration, which has #11@6 in. on each face

• The pilasters adjacent to the Mechanical Penetration and the Electrical Penetration are reinforced with additional

1. 6@6 in. on each face.

• A 30 ft long region on the east side of the Electrical Penetration has #11@6 in. on each face and #8@6 in. on the outside face.

• Between El. (-)11 ft and El. 22 ft: #10@12 in. on each face, with the following exceptions:

• The region around the Equipment Hatch, which has #10@6 in.

• A 30 ft long region to the east of the Electrical Penetration, which has #10@12 in. on each face and additional

1. 8@12 in. on the inside face up to El. 0 ft.

• The region between the Electrical Penetration and the Mechanical Penetration has #10@6 in. on each face between El. (-)11 ft and El. 3 ft-3 in.

• Between El. 22 ft and 45 ft-6 in.: #10@12 in. on each face, with the following exceptions:

• #10@6 in. on the inside face and two layers #10@6 in. on the outside face directly above the Electrical Penetration.

• #10@6 in. on each face in the region around the Equipment Hatch. * #10@6 in. on the outside face and #10@12 in. on the inside face directly above the Mechanical Penetration.

• Between El. 45 ft-6 in. and 75 ft-6 in.: #9@6 in. on each face above the electrical penetration, #10@6 in. on each face above the Equipment Hatch up to El. 61 ft, and #9@12 in. on each face elsewhere.

• Between El. 75 ft-6 in. and the Springline at El. 119 ft: #8@6 in. on each face above the electrical penetration and #8@12 in. on each face elsewhere.

• Between El. 119 ft and El. 170 ft (40 deg above the Springline on the dome): #8@12 in. on each face.

• Between El. 170 ft-2 in. and El. 197 ft (80 deg above the Springline on the dome): #6@12 in. on each face.

• Within the top 10 deg of the dome: No hoop bars provided, however meridional bars form a grid in this region. The reinforcement in the meridional direction is described below:

• Between El. (-)30 ft and El. (-)11 ft: One layer of #11@6 in. on inside face and two layers of #11@6 in. on outside face, with the following exceptions:

150252-CA-02 Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 27 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB PROJECT NO: __

DATE: 31 July 2016 BY:

VERIFIER:

__ _,A_,,_.T_,_,.-=S=ar-=awi=*_,_1

__ _

• To the east of the Electrical Penetration, one layer of #11@12 in. and #14@12 in. (alternating, such that there is one bar per 6 in.) on the inside face and two layers of #14@6 in. on the outside face.

• To the north of the Mechanical Penetration, one layer of #11@6 in. on the inside face and two layers of #14@6 in. on the outside face.

• Additional

1. 11@6 in. bars provided on the edge of the wall within the pilasters on either side of the Mechanical Penetration and Electrical Penetration.

• Between El. (-)11 ft and El. 11 ft: One layer of #11@6 in. on inside face and two layers of #11@6 in. on outside face. Additional

1. 11@6 in. bars provided on the edge of the wall within the pilasters on either side of the Mechanical Penetration and Electrical Penetration.

• Between El. 11 ft and El. 22 ft: #11 @6 in. on each face. Additional

1. 11 @6 in. bars provided on the edge of the wall within the pilasters on either side of the Mechanical Penetration and Electrical Penetration.

• Between El. 22ft and El. 45 ft-6 in.: #11@6 in. on each face.

• Between El. 45 ft-6 in. and 75 ft-6 in.: #9@6 in. on each face above the Electrical Penetration, #11 @6 in. on each face adjacent to and above the Equipment Hatch up to El. 69 ft, #9@12 in. on each face elsewhere.

• Between El. 75 ft-6 in. and the Springline at El. 119 ft: #8@6 in. on each face above the Electrical Penetration, #8@12 in. on each face elsewhere.

• Between El. 119 ft and El. 170 ft (40 deg above the Springline on the dome): #8@12 in. on each face.

• Between El. 170 ft-2 in. and El. 197 ft (80 deg above the Springline on the dome): #6@12 in. on each face.

• Within the top 10 deg of the dome: #6@6 in. on each face forming a grid pattern. Transverse reinforcement (stirrups) are described below:

• Between El. (-)30 ft and El. (-)11 ft: #8 stirrups spaced at 12 in. in both hoop and meridional direction.

• Between El. (-)11 ft and El. 22 ft: #4 stirrups spaced at 12 in. in both hoop and meridional direction.

• Surrounding the Equipment Hatch: #4 stirrups spaced at 12 in. in both hoop and meridional direction.

In addition to the reinforcement described above, additional "C-shaped" reinforcement is provided around several of the penetrations, and diagonal reinforcement bars are provided at 150252-CA-02 Revision O FP 100985 Page 28 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB PROJECT NO: __ _,_,15""-02=5<=-2

___ _ DATE: 31 July 2016 BY: -----'R'"".""M'-".

M,....,o<Wne,..s'-----

VERIFIER:

__ _,A_,,_.T,_,_._,.S=ar=awi=*t,__

__ _ reentrant corners of penetrations.

This calculation does not explicitly consider additional capacity from this reinforcement.

6.1.3 Backfill

Concrete and Surrounding Structures As illustrated in Figure 3, concrete backfill occupies the space between the outside surface of the wall and the bedrock up to El. 0 ft. A waterproofing membrane separates the outside surface of the wall from the concrete backfill.

Soil structural backfill is used between El. O ft and finished grade at El. 20 ft. The triangular space between the CEVA structure, FSB, and CEB is filled with concrete fill material up to El. +54 ft. According to design drawings, the CEB and FSB are isolated from this wedge of concrete fill along its full height by a 3 in. wide seismic joint. In the Standard-Plus Analysis Case, the calculations assume (JAOB, Section 5.1) that this wedge of concrete fill may be in contact with the CEB structure.

The CEB is structurally separated from all adjacent structures by nominally 3 in. wide seismic gaps except for the inside edge of the CEB footing, which is directly adjacent to the CB footing. Field measurements of the seismic gaps [2, 3, 5] have indicated that the actual width of seismic gaps deviates from the 3 in. nominal design width at several locations.

If the measured width of the gap is less than 3 in., then the reduced seismic gap width is considered when evaluating building clearances in this calculation.

6.2 Analysis

Methodology Structural analyses are performed to obtain structural demands due to self-straining loads and all loads included in the original design criteria (referred to as "original SD-66 loads"). The as-deformed condition of the CEB is simulated by applying unfactored sustained loads and straining loads. All loads except for self-straining loads are applied to the structure when it is in its as-deformed condition.

The analysis procedure to compute demands is broken into two analysis steps:

• Analysis Step One 150252-CA-02 Revision O FP 100985 Page 29 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I E_ngineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB PROJECT NO: __ 1=5=02=5=2

___ _ DATE: 31 July 2016 BY: ____

VERIFIER:

__

• Simulate the as-deformed condition by applying unfactored sustained loads and unfactored self-straining loads to the Undeformed 3D Model defined in Section 6.2.1.1.

• Extract nodal deformations caused by these unfactored loads, which are used to generate the As-Deformed 3D Model.

• Extract structural demands (forces and moments) caused by self-straining loads (ASR and swelling) for combination with original SD-66 loads.

• Analysis Step Two

• Apply non-seismic loads to the As-Deformed 3D Model generated in Analysis Step One. Extract non-seismic demands (forces and moments).

• Perform a static equivalent seismic analysis by applying the maximum seismic acceleration profiles to the As-Deformed 3D Model. Extract seismic demands (forces and moments).

This analysis methodology follows the procedure defined in Section 9.1 of the criteria document [1]. The methods that are used to apply loads are listed in Section 6.3. Following completion of Analysis Steps One and Two, structural demands are combined using the combinations and load factors presented in Table 5. ASR-related demands are multiplied by the load factors in Table 5 as well as by a threshold factor to account for possible future ASR expansion.

The threshold factor is defined in Section 7.3. Chapter 8 identifies recommendations for monitoring the CEB structure to detect when ASR loads have met the selected threshold factor. When measurements of field conditions show that the threshold limits are met or exceeded, then the validity of the evaluations made in this calculation must be assessed.

6.2.1 Analysis

Models_ Analyses are performed using the models described in this section. All models are created with ANSYS Mechanical APDL Version 15.0 finite element modeling software [18]. ANSYS Version 15 was procured as a nuclear QA software package and has been validated and verified in accordance with the SGH QANF Program [19, 20]. 6.2.1.1 Undeformed 30 Model The undeformed 3D model is generated based on design drawings [12] and is used in Analysis Step One to simulate the as-deformed shape of the CEB. 150252-CA-02 Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 30 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB Undeformed 30 Model Geometry PROJECT NO: __

DATE: 31 July 2016 BY: ____ _,_R=.M=*=M=on=e,,_s

__ _ VERIFIER:

The undeformed 30 model consists of the entire CEB cylinder walls, dome, and foundation.

The CEB walls and dome concrete consist of four-node shell elements (SHELL 181 [18]) modeled using centerline geometry.

The CEB foundation consists of eight-node solid elements (SOLID185).

The CEB wall connects to the foundation using rigid beam elements (MPC184).

The concrete fill that is not separated from the CEB wall with a seismic isolation gap is modeled using spring elements (COMBIN14) that are assigned stiffness in the radial direction only. Membrane elements (SHELL 181 with membrane stiffness only) model the steel reinforcement in the CEB wall. These membrane elements are included in the model only to facilitate computation of ASR expansion and concrete swelling related stresses, and are not included in the model during application of other loads. The model contains a total of 13,613 shell elements, 3,660 solid elements, 27,226 membrane elements, 3,334 spring I connector elements, and 21,967 nodes. The model is in units of pounds-force (lbf) and inches (in.). In the model's rectangular global coordinate system, the positive x-direction is east, the positive direction is north, and the positive z-direction is vertically upward. In the model's cylindrical global coordinate system, the x-direction is radial, the y-direction is tangential, and the positive z-direction is vertically upward. Shell elements representing the CEB wall are approximately 3 ft by 3 ft in size. Penetrations in the CEB wall exceeding this typical element size are included in the model. The penetrations included in the model are listed below.

• Electrical Pen., centered at AZ 0°

• East Main Steam and Feed Water Pipe Chase opening, centered at AZ 90°

• FSB Penetration, centered at AZ 185°

• Equipment Hatch opening, centered at AZ 150°

• CEVA opening, centered at AZ 230°

• Mech. Pen. and West Main Steam and Feed Water Pipe Chase opening, centered at AZ 270°

• Personnel Hatch opening, centered at AZ 315° 150252-CA-02 Revision O FP 100985 Page 31 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB PROJECT NO: __ 1-=5=02=5=-2

___ _ DATE: 31 July 2016 BY:

___ _ VERIFIER:

Walls I slabs extending perpendicularly from the CEB wall, including the walls I slabs extending towards the Main Steam and Feed Water Pipe Chases and missile shields, are modeled using shell elements (SHELL 181 ). Undeformed 30 Model Boundary Conditions The boundary conditions for the ASR expansion of the CEB wall and concrete swelling load cases are described below:

• The base of the CEB foundation is restrained vertically.

• The base of the CEB foundation is permitted to slide in the tangential direction.

Spring elements with low stiffness are provided to provide numerical stability to the CEB model. Sliding is permitted in these cases because the capacity for the CEB foundation to resist sliding through friction is limited. Field measurements of movement at the base of the CEB wall indicate between 0.5 and 1.0 in. of tangential displacement (Figure 2), which is matched in the as-deformed condition simulations.

• The CEB wall below El. 0 ft and the outside surface of the foundation are supported radially with spring elements that are given stiffness equivalent to 10 ft of fill concrete.

The springs have no stiffness in the tangential and vertical directions.

The boundary conditions for the shrinkage, hydrostatic pressure, and ASR expansion of backfill cases are described below. Note that the shrinkage load case is used to compute deformations of the as-deformed condition, but is not used to compute structural demands.

• The base of the CEB foundation is restrained vertically.

• The base of the CEB foundation is restrained in the tangential direction.

• The outside surface of the foundation is supported radially with spring elements that are given stiffness equivalent to 10 ft of fill concrete.

The springs have no stiffness in the tangential and vertical directions.

The boundary conditions for other loads are described below:

• The base of the CEB foundation is restrained vertically.

• The base of the CEB foundation is restrained in the tangential direction.

• The CEB wall below El. 0 ft and the outside surface of the foundation are supported radially with spring elements that are given stiffness equivalent to 10 ft of fill concrete.

The springs have no stiffness in the tangential and vertical directions.

150252-CA-02 Revision O FP 100985 Page 32 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures PROJECT NO: __ 1-'""5=02=5=2

___ _ DATE: ____ 3,,__,1'"-"J""'ulCL.y

""'20'-'-1"-6

__ _ CLIENT:

____________

____

SUBJECT:

_E_va_lu_a_ti_on_an_d_D_e_s_..ig_n

_C_on_fi_rm_a_ti_on_of_A_s-_D_e_fo_rm_e_d_C_E_B

____ VERIFIER:

__

__ _ 6.2.1.2 As-Deformed 3D Models The original SD-66 seismic and non-seismic loads are applied to the As-Deformed 3D Models. Demands obtained from the As-Deformed 3D Models are combined with demands from straining loads (ASR and swelling) as shown in Table 5. As-Deformed 3D Model Geometry The "As-deformed 3D Model" is generated using the deformed shape of the "Undeformed 3D Model" with unfactored sustained loads and unfactored self-straining loads. The as-deformed

• model approximates the measured deformations presented in Section 4.4. As-Deformed 3D Model Boundary Conditions The boundary conditions for all original SD-66 loads are described below:

• The base of the CEB foundation is restrained vertically.

• The base of the CEB foundation is restrained in the tangential direction.

• The CEB wall below El. O ft and the outside surface of the foundation are supported radially with unidirectional spring elements that are given stiffness equivalent to 10 ft of fill concrete.

The springs have stiffness in the radial direction only. 6.2.2 Analysis Cases The CEB is analyzed and evaluated under four analysis cases (excluding analyses documented in parametric studies).

These cases are defined below, and the computer run identifier for each analysis case is written in parenthesis beside each analysis case name.

• Original Design Analysis Case (10D_r0):

This case uses the CEB model without any self-straining loads (e.g., without ASR expansion of the wall, ASR expansion of the fill, creep, shrinkage, and swelling).

In this analysis case, loads are limited to those considered during the original design of the CEB.

• Standard Analysis Case (10A_r0):

This case uses the CEB model and simulates self-straining loads in addition to all other design loads included in the original design criteria.

Applied expansion representing ASR expansion of the wall is tuned to generally match field measurements (listed in Section 4.4), and applied pressures representing ASR expansion of the fill is tuned such that deformations (due to unfactored sustained loads and self-straining loads) match field measurements of deformation at all locations except for AZ 230°. 150252-CA-02 Revision O FP 100985 Page 33 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB PROJECT NO:

___ _ DATE: 31 July 2016 BY: ____

VERIFIER:

__ _

• Standard-Plus Analysis Case (1087 _rO): This case is identical to the Standard Analysis Case, except additional radial-inward pressures are applied to the wall near AZ 200° to better simulate field measurements of deformation in that particular region. The additional pressures are applied in an area where concrete fill is adjacent to the CEB, but is designed to be separated from the CEB with a 3 in. gap (based on design drawings [12]). The additional pressures are applied in this area because (a) it is possible that the concrete fill is currently in contact with the CEB at this location and (b) the demands caused by this deformation are conservatively large if it is assumed they are caused by an externally applied ASR load due (since ASR has a large load factor). Additional information on the Standard-Plus Analysis Case is provided in Section 6.2.3. The purpose and use of each analysis case is shown in Table 7. A summary of the features of each analysis case is shown in Table 8. The design confirmation evaluation is performed on the Standard Analysis Case (09A_r0) and the Standard-Plus Analysis Case (1087 _rO). Moment redistribution is performed for elements that have axial-flexure interaction demands exceeding capacity in the Standard and Standard-Plus Analysis Cases; the moment redistribution analyses are labeled "Standard Analysis Case with Moment Redistribution (1 OAR_rO)" and Plus Analysis Case with Moment Redistribution (10BR7 _r0)." 6.2.3 Standard-Plus Analysis Case to Simulate Inward Radial Deformations at Azimuth 230° The "Standard" analysis case described in Section 6.2.2 is performed using the assumption that the CEB and all adjacent structures are constructed as shown on design drawings (JA08, Section 5.1). In the "Standard" analysis case, the CEB deformations generally simulate field measurements of relative building movement with the exception of inward radial movement near AZ 230°. Preliminary field observations indicate that the isolation gap between the CEB and the CB at the missile shield above the CEVA structure has zero or near-zero width, indicating possible radial deformations of up to 3 in. at this location.

A "Standard-Plus" analysis case is performed in addition to the "Standard" analysis case. The "Standard-Plus" analysis differs from the "Standard" analysis in the following way:

• Inward pressures representing concrete fill are extended to include the portion of CEB wall that is adjacent to the triangular "wedge" of concrete between the CEVA, FSB, and CEB (from AZ 180° to 212°, El. +19 to +54 ft). See Assumption JA08 in Section 5.1. Concrete fill pressure simulating ASR within the region adjacent to the concrete fill "wedge" is taken as 50% of the overburden pressure acting on the fill at the top of the "wedge" and 100% of the overburden pressure at the bottom of the "wedge." 150252-CA-02 Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 34 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Slructures ond Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB PROJECT NO: __

___ _ DATE: 31 July 2016 BY: ____

VERIFIER:

__ _,_A_,,_.T'-'-.-=S=ar=awi=*t,__

__ _ The pressure profile described above was selected based on the parametric study provided in Appendix J, such that the deformed shape at this location better simulates the observed deformation.

Unfactored sustained loads and self-straining loads in the "Standard-Plus" analysis case result in increased deformation at AZ 230°, as discussed in Section 6.4.2. Demands from the "Standard Plus" analysis case are evaluated using the same acceptance criteria as the "Standard" analysis case. 6.2.4 Methodology for Study of Impact of As-Deformed Condition on Maximum Acceleration Profiles To analyze the impact of the as-deformed condition of the CEB on the OBE and safe-shutdown earthquake (SSE) maximum acceleration profiles, a study is performed by comparing the dynamic properties of the CEB with and without the deformations computed in Analysis Step One. The parameters evaluated in this study include center of mass, shear center, and stick model moment of inertia. Cracked section properties are not considered by this study since they do not affect the global seismic response of the CEB. Results of this study are summarized in Section 6.4.3. Detailed documentation of this study is provided in Appendix F. 6.3 Description of Applied Loads Loads applied to the CEB in both Analysis Step One and Analysis Step Two are described in this section. A full description of these loads can be found in the SGH Criteria Document 150252-CD-03

[1 ]. 6.3.1 Self-Straining Loads Self-straining loads are applied to the model during Analysis Step One, as described in Section 6.2. Deflections caused by unfactored self-straining loads listed in this section are combined with unfactored sustained loads to simulate the field measurements of the CEB as-deformed condition recorded by SGH in March 2015, September 2015, and April 2016 [2, 3, 5]. 150252-CA-02 Revision O FP 100985 Page 35 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB Creep PROJECT NO: __ _,_,,15..,.02.,,5=2

___ _ DATE: 31 July 2016 BY:

VERIFIER:

__ _,A_,,_.T_,__,_.-"'S=ar=awi=*t"-----

Creep causes deformations of hardened concrete subjected to sustained loads to increase over time. The rate of creep deformations varies with time, among other factors, and is dependent on the magnitude of stress caused by the sustained loads. Creep generally causes a portion of a sustained load initially carried by concrete to transfer to the steel reinforcement over time. Creep generally causes sustained load stresses (which are primarily compressive in the CEB) to shift from the concrete to the reinforcement.

Therefore, it is reasoned that excluding the demands from creep will conservatively result in higher tensile stress in steel and higher compressive stress in concrete.

Although the demands associated with creep are neglected from this analysis, the deflections caused by creep are included when simulating the deformed condition of the CEB. Lower-bound and upper-bound creep coefficients are computed in Appendix D using ACI 209R-92 [21]. The lower-bound creep coefficient of 1.3 is used to model creep deformations for the following two reasons:

• Using a smaller creep coefficient causes more of the as-deformed condition to be attributed to other self-straining loads (such as ASR and swelling), which contribute to the overall demands acting on the structure.

Therefore, using the lower-bound creep coefficient leads to more conservative demands.

• The ACI 209R-92 [21] computations do not explicitly account for the effects of reinforcement on the creep coefficient.

Reinforcement generally reduces creep deformations; therefore, it is judged that the lower-bound creep coefficient is more reasonable.

Creep deflections are computed by multiplying the sustained load deflections by the computed creep coefficients.

For example, if the sustained load deflection is 0.20 in., and the creep coefficient is 1.3, then the creep deflection is 0.26 in. and the total deflection is 0.46 in. Shrinkage Shrinkage is the volume change that occurs during the hardening of concrete that is caused by the loss of water as the concrete cures. Shrinkage strains are independent of the sustained loads acting on a concrete section. The magnitude of shrinkage strains are computed in Appendix D as (-)0.025%

for 15 in. walls, (-)0.020%

for 27 in. thick walls, and (-)0.010%

for 36 in. thick walls. 150252-CA-02 Revision O FP 100985 Page 36 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB PROJECT NO: __ 1-'""5=02=5=2

___ _ DATE: 31July2016 BY: ____

VERIFIER:

__ _,_A_,,_.T'-'-.-=S=ar=awi=*t,__

__ _ Shrinkage can cause a small compression stress in reinforcement.

If included in the finite element analysis, it would negate a portion of the ASR demands. For this reason, shrinkage demands are excluded from this analysis.

However, similar to creep, the deformations associated with shrinkage are included when simulating the as-deformed condition of the CEB. Shrinkage is applied to the model using thermal contraction (i.e., subjecting the elements to a decrease in temperature).

Varying levels of thermal loads are applied to the model based on element thickness to achieve the desired shrinkage effects. ASR Expansion of the CEB Wall ASR is a chemical reaction between the alkali contained in cement and reactive silica minerals contained in some concrete aggregates.

The reaction produces an alkali-silica gel that swells if moisture is present and causes the concrete to expand and crack. Varying magnitudes of ASR expansion are applied to the CEB finite element model based on field measurements of Cl. Physical tests have shown that Cl measurements provide a reasonable and conservative approximation of the true engineering strain at a point in time for a reinforced concrete member undergoing ASR expansion

[16, 22]. Cl measurements have been recorded at forty-two locations on the CEB wall [9]. Of these forty-two Cl measurements, two are located at interior locations, ten are located at exterior locations, twenty-one are located below-grade, and twenty-one are located above-grade.

All Cl measurements are shown in Table 12. Using the Cl data, the CEB is divided into regions. Regions are selected to contain Cl values that are generally within the limits of an ASR Severity Zone. ASR Severity Zones are defined in SGH Report 160268-R-01

[6] as shown below:

• Zone I: Cl from 0 to 0.5 mm/m

• Zone II: Cl from 0.5 to 1.0 mm/m

• Zone Ill: Cl from 1.0 to 2.0 mm/m

• Zone IV: Cl from 2.0 to 3.5 mm/m 150252-CA-02 Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 37 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Struclures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB PROJECT NO:

___ _ DATE: 31 July 2016 BY:

VERIFIER:

__ _.A_,,_.T-'--'-._,,,,S=ar=awi=*t,__

__ _ Consideration is given to significant aspects of the CEB structure when selecting the extents of each region; for example, the upper elevation of Regions R1, R2, and R3 is the approximate elevation of grade (El. +20 ft). The extents of the five regions (Region R1, R2, R3, R4, and R5) are shown in Figure 4. The amount of nominal ASR expansion applied to the CEB wall in each direction (i.e., hoop and meridional) for each region is approximately equivalent to the mean of all Cl measurements within the region for the corresponding direction.

Nominal ASR expansion magnitudes for each region are shown in Table 13. The mean Cl for each region indicates that all regions belong to Severity Zone I, except for meridional expansion in Region R3, which falls into Severity Zone II. A small number of individual Cl grids assigned to Severity Zone I regions exceed the upper limit of Severity Zone I (0.5 mm/m). However, these are judged to be acceptable because the probability distribution that is used to characterize Severity Zone I in Ref. 6 accounts for a small probability of exceeding the upper limit of the selected zone. Furthermore, reliability computations in Ref. 6 show that Severity Zone I results in the highest load factors for ASR. The load factors for ASR recommended by Ref. 6 are used in this calculation, and no reduction to the ASR load factors is taken for ASR loads exceeding the upper limit of Severity Zone I. Since ASR expansion of the wall is largest below-grade, applying a small amount of ASR expansion in the above-grade portion of the wall lessens the transition in expansion that occurs around El. +22 ft and reduces the tension demands acting on the wall in that area. Therefore, for the above-grade portion of the wall, using a lower ASR leads to a more severe transition in expansion and is conservative for evaluation.

For this reason, an ASR expansion magnitude of 0.01 % (which is slightly smaller than the mean Cl expansion of 0.016%) is used in the grade region (Region R4). Although Cl measurements recorded at the spring line indicate strains of about 0.1 % in the hoop direction and about 0.05% in the vertical direction, the Site Visit Report [9] notes that the orientation and pattern of cracks at the springline elevation are not necessarily indicative of ASR expansion.

ASR cracking typically has a map pattern, which is generally less apparent at the springline elevation than other ASR monitoring locations.

Additionally, the cracking at the 150252-CA-02 Revision O FP 100985 Page 38 of 526

SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER ,,,,,, I Engineering of Str:uctures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB PROJECT NO: __ 1..,,5=02=5=2

___ _ DATE: 31 July 2016 BY: ____

VERIFIER:

__

interior of the CEB at the springline does not show signs of moisture intrusion, efflorescence, or ASR gel. ASR expansion is not applied to the CEB wall from El. +114 ft and above in the Standard and Standard-Plus Analysis Cases. However, a study documented in Appendix J shows that applying ASR expansion at the springline elevation causes elevated (but still acceptable) demands local to the springline, but does not impact the demands elsewhere in the CEB. Abrupt transitions in ASR expansion can cause concentrated stresses near the locations of the transition.

These concentrated stresses are considered to be fictitious because their effects are not observed in the field. For this reason, a taper is used between each region to gradually transition between differing ASR magnitudes.

The tapers are generally about 60 ft long, except for the below-grade to above-grade ASR taper, which is given a shorter length due to the short distance between groundwater and grade. The below-grade ASR magnitudes are applied up to EL. +2 ft (the upper estimate of normal groundwater depth [29]), and then are linearly tapered to the above-grade magnitudes which begin at El. +20 ft. The above-grade expansion magnitude tapers downward to zero from El. +50 ft to El. +114 ft (just below the springline elevation).

Horizontal transitions between different ASR magnitudes are applied gradually over a distance of 40 deg (equivalent to about 55 ft). The applied ASR expansion magnitudes and distribution are verified through comparison with field measurement data in two different ways, as described below.

• Strain in the finite element model caused by unfactored ASR expansion of the CEB wall is compared with field measurements of Cl in Section 6.4.1. The comparisons show that the finite element simulation of ASR expansion generally matches the Cl values measured in the field.

• Deformations of the finite element model caused by unfactored sustained loads plus unfactored self-straining loads are compared to field measurements of seismic gap widths in Section 6.4.2. This comparison shows that the finite element model simulation of the as-deformed condition generally provides a good match to field measurements.

A method of applying ASR expansion to the model is developed to capture the behavior observed by researchers in which the ASR in unrestrained or partially restrained reinforced concrete causes the reinforcement to be stressed in tension and concrete to be subjected to compression.

This method of applying ASR expansion is summarized below. 150252-CA-02 Revision O FP 100985 Page 39 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB PROJECT NO: __

___ _ DATE: 31 July2016 BY:

___ _ VERIFIER:

---'-A_,,_.T"'"-'-.-"'S=ar=awi=*t,__

__ _

• ASR expansion is simulated by applying a thermal expansion to the elements representing the CEB concrete.

Steel reinforcement membrane elements are included in the model and are given thickness based on the total area of reinforcement provided.

The expansion of the concrete creates tension in the steel membrane elements, which also causes a corresponding compression force in the concrete elements.

• In the absence of external restraint, the steel tensile force due to ASR and the concrete compressive force due to ASR will sum to zero. However, external boundary conditions, applied loading, and restraint from other portions of the structure can restrict the concrete from expansion and cause a net force or moment to be developed.

• The steel membrane elements are only included in the model when applying ASR expansion of the CEB wall and concrete swelling.

An alternative analysis (referred to as the Standard-Plus Analysis Case) is performed with additional external pressure close to AZ 230 that could be due to ASR expansion of the concrete fill wedge to better simulate deformation measurements on the CEB missile shield at AZ 230° El. +31.5 ft. Input parameters for the alternative analysis are documented in Section 6.2.3. ASR Expansion of Concrete Fill ASR expansion of the concrete fill causes a radial inward pressure on the CEB wall. Design drawings [12] indicate that the concrete fill is directly in contact with the exterior surface of the CEB wall at El. O ft and below. Field data showing ASR expansion of the concrete fill is not available; therefore, this calculation conservatively assumes that the concrete fill is expanding due to ASR (JA04 in Section 5.1). The magnitude of the concrete fill expansion is unknown. Therefore, ASR expansion of the fill is modeled as an inward pressure acting on the wall with magnitude tuned such that the deformed shape of the CEB due to unfactored sustained and unfactored self-straining loads (including ASR expansion of the fill) generally matches field measurements

[2, 3, 5]. Through comparison with field measurements, it is found that modeling ASR expansion of the fill with an inward pressure equivalent to 50% of the overburden pressure acting on the fill leads to a deformed shape that reasonably approximates field measurements.

Since ASR expansion tends to occur in the direction of least resistance

[30], it can be reasoned that the concrete fill will initially expand in the radial inward direction (because expansion in the 150252-CA-02 Revision O FP 100985 Page 40 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB PROJECT NO:

DATE: -------"'3_,_1 BY:

__ _ VERIFIER:

__ _,A_,,_.T_,_,.-"S=ar=awi=*t,___

__ _ vertical direction is resisted by the overburden pressure of the concrete fill). ASR expansion in the tangential direction will also occur, and is dependent on the stiffness and configuration of the structures surrounding the CEB (such as the Electrical Pen., Mech. Pen., FSB, etc.). Expansion occurring in the tangential direction does not directly impact the CEB and is therefore considered to be negligible.

Once the compression in the concrete fill in the radial direction is equivalent to the overburden pressure acting on the fill, further expansion will generally occur in the vertical direction.

Demands caused by the pressure representing ASR expansion of concrete fill are factored by the load factor for ASR (which is as high as 2.0 in the static N0_ 1 combination defined in Table 5) and an additional threshold factor (as defined in Section 7.3). Therefore, the maximum concrete fill pressure considered in this evaluation is larger than the total overburden pressure at each depth. Since the contractor was given the option to use either structural fill or backfill concrete to backfill between El. 0 and El. +20 ft, the overburden pressure is conservatively computed using the density of concrete (150 pct). Therefore, the nominal pressure is equal to 1,500 psf at El. 0 ft and it increases linearly to 3,750 psf at El. -30 ft. An alternative analysis, referred to as the "Standard-Plus Analysis Case," is performed with modified pressures representing ASR of concrete fill to better match deformation measurements recorded on the CEB missile shield at AZ 230° El. +31.5 ft. Input parameters for the alternative analysis are documented in Section 6.2.3. Concrete Swelling While concrete that cures in typical environments is caused to shrink due to loss of moisture, concrete that is subjected to long-term water exposure exhibits a net increase in volume and mass over time due to swelling.

Based on an assessment of the groundwater exposure conditions, the Seabrook CEB can be reasonably expected to have undergone swelling [23]. Research referenced by this assessment indicates that unreinforced concrete (if in conditions similar to.the CEB) can be expected to swell approximately 0.02% and reinforced concrete can be expected to swell by approximately 0.01 %. 150252-CA-02 Revision O FP 100985 Page 41 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB PROJECT NO: __

___ _ DATE: 31July2016 BY:

___ _ VERIFIER:

__ _,A_,,_.T"'-'-.-"'S=ar=awi=*t,___

__ _ An assessment of groundwater conditions

[29] indicates that normal groundwater is between El. -10 ft and +2 ft. Therefore, swelling of 0.01 % is applied to the wall below El. -10 ft where the concrete is permanently exposed to groundwater.

The swelling strains are tapered from 0.01 % to 0% along the width of two elements (approximately 6 ft) from El. -7 ft to -13 ft to reduce large fictitious strains caused by an abrupt transition in applied expansion.

Much like ASR expansion, concrete swelling generally causes tension in the reinforcement and compression in the concrete.

As with ASR expansion, membrane elements representing reinforcement are coincident with the concrete elements during application of concrete swelling, and the swelling is simulated by applying a thermal load to the concrete elements.

6.3.2 Original

SD-66 Loads Original SD-66 loads are applied to the structure during Analysis Step Two, as defined in Section 6.2. These loads are listed in the UFSAR [7] and are defined with additional detail in SD-66 [8]. These loads are described in this section as follows: Dead Load Dead load includes the weight of all CEB and foundation concrete as well as the permanently installed formwork in the CEB dome. The total weight of the permanently installed formwork is 260 kips [24]. Hydrostatic pressure is considered as a dead load and is computed using a unit weight of 64.4 pcf [24]. The water table is taken at El. 20 ft. As explained in Justified Assumptions JA05 and JA06, the self-weight of ladders, walkways, and the Plant Vent Stack are excluded from this analysis.

Self-weight is modeled by applying a uniform acceleration equal to 1 g to the model in the vertical downward direction.

The density of the concrete dome elements is increased to include the permanently installed formwork.

Hydrostatic pressure loads are modeled by applying surface pressures to the shell elements representing the CEB wall. The surface pressures are computed as Yw x h, where Yw is the unit weight of water and h is the depth of the shell element centroid below the water table. 150252-CA-02 Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 42 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB Live Load PROJECT NO:

___ _ DATE: 31 July 2016 BY:

VERIFIER:

__ _,A'"""._,_,T.'-"S=ar=awi=*_,__1

__ _ Live load includes a normal snow load of 74 psf on the dome of the CEB [8]. No reduction is used for the sloping roof of the CEB [8]. Snow loads are modeled by adjusting the density of CEB dome elements based on their projected area on a horizontal plane. Wind Load Wind pressures acting on the CEB are computed using the ANSI A58.1-71 approach [8]. A basic wind velocity of 11 O mph at 30 ft above ground is used to calculate the wind velocity pressures listed in Table 10. For the calculation of internal wind pressures, the structure is considered enclosed without any openings.

External pressure coefficients for a cylinder and sphere are plotted in Figure 5. External wind pressures applied to the CEB (for the case where wind hits the CEB at AZ 90°) are illustrated at various elevations in Figure 6. Wind loads are modeled by applying surface pressures to the shell elements representing the above-grade portions of the CEB wall and dome. Tornado Wind Load Tornado wind pressure acting on the CEB is computed using the ANSI A58.1-71 approach (Section 4.4.2.2.1

[8]). The average velocity pressure due to tornado winds is computed as 235 psf (based on a maximum velocity pressure of 332 psf and a size factor of 0. 70). For the calculation of internal tornado wind pressures, the structure is considered enclosed without any openings.

A pressure drop of 432 psf caused by the design tornado is considered (Section 4.4.2.3 [8])._ -Tornado missile loads acting on the CEB are not considered (Table 3.3-1 [8]). Tornado wind loads are modeled by applying surface pressures to the shell elements representing the above-grade portions of the CEB wall and dome. Static Soil Pressure To be consistent with the original design-basis, buoyant soil unit weight, y 1 , is taken as 62.5 psf and a coefficient of static (at rest) soil pressure, K 0 , of 0.5 is used when computing lateral soil 150252-CA-02 Revision O FP 100985 Page 43 of 526

.SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB PROJECT NO:

DATE: 31 July 2016 BY:

VERIFIER:

__ __.A ...... T"'-'".-=S=ar=awi=*t,__

__ _ pressure [8]. The CEB wall is considered a rigid wall [8]. In addition to the above load, a 300 psf compaction load and a 500 psf surcharge load are applied as design loads [8]. The surcharge load and compaction loads are not applied to the structure during Analysis Step One when computing the deformations of the as-deformed condition.

During Analysis Step Two, the full static soil pressure (including surcharge and compaction loads) is used. Static soil pressures are modeled by applying surface pressures to the shell elements representing the CEB wall at locations of soil backfill.

Unusual Snow Load A credible but highly improbable unusual snow load of 126 psf is used (Section 4.2.2.1 [8]). No reductions in snow load are used for the sloping roof of the CEB. Snow loads are modeled by adjusting the density of CEB dome elements based on their projected area on a horizontal plane. Accidental Pressure Accidental differential pressure load of (+)3 psig due to a postulated pipe break is considered (Section 4.8 [8]). Accidental pressure is modeled by applying surface pressures to the shell elements representing the CEB wall and dome. Seismic Loads The original design-basis maximum acceleration profiles for SSE and OBE computed by UE are used in this calculation

[24]. The maximum acceleration profiles are presented in Figures 7 and 8 for OBE and SSE, respectively.

These maximum acceleration profiles were originally computed by UE using the spectra shown in Figures 9 and 10 and tabulated in Table 11. As specified in SD-66 [8], 7% and 4% of critical damping was used for SSE and OBE analyses, respectively.

Response spectra analysis was performed using a simplified "stick" model. For lateral analyses, the model was fully fixed below EI. 0 ft. For vertical analyses, the model was fixed at the base at El. (-)30 ft. 150252-CA-02 Revision O FP 100985 Page 44 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structur!'ls and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB PROJECT NO: __

DATE: 31 July2016 BY: ____ ____,_,,_R'-"'.M"-.

,,,M""on..,.e..._s

__ _ VERIFIER:

__ __,A'""._,_,T._,,S=ar_,,,_awi=*t,,__

__ _ The as-deformed condition of the CEB is analyzed to verify that the observed deformations do not significantly impact the seismic response of the structure.

See Sections 6.2.4 and 6.4.3 for more information.

The final acceleration profile in each direction (east-west, north-south, and vertical) is computed by combining the in-line acceleration profile with cross-term accelerations using the square root of the sum of squares (SRSS) approach.

For example, the north-south (N-S) maximum acceleration profile is computed by combining the N-S accelerations due to N-S excitation with the N-S accelerations due to east-west (E-W) excitation using SRSS. N-S and E-W accelerations due to vertical motion are not provided by UE and therefore are not included in this calculation.

Seismic loads are applied independently for each direction (E-W, N-S, and vertical) using a static equivalent approach.

A force is applied to all nodes of the CEB equivalent . to the acceleration at the given elevation multiplied by the node's tributary mass. The seismic mass of the CEB dome is increased by an amount equivalent to 25% of the design snow load (74 psf) acting on the total area of the dome projected onto a horizontal plane. Linear interpolation is used to obtain the maximum acceleration at elevations not provided in the UE acceleration

• profiles.

Demands from the east-west, north-south, and vertical cases are combined using the 100-40-40 rule as shown in Table 6. Dynamic Soil Loads Dynamic soil loads are computed in accordance with Section 8.2.2.2 of SD-66 [8]. The CEB wall is considered a rigid wall. To be consistent with the original design calculations, the water table is considered to be at El. 20 ft. The saturated soil unit weight, y 5 , is taken as 125 pcf. The coefficient of dynamic earth pressure, Kv, is taken as 0.28 for SSE and 0.15 for operating basis earthquake (OBE) [8]. Dynamic soil loads are modeled by applying surface pressures to the shell elements representing the CEB wall at locations of soil backfill.

150252-CA-02 Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 45 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineerin!;J of Structures ona Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB 6.4 Analysis Results PROJECT NO: __ 1-=5=02=5=-2

___ _ DATE:

___ _ BY: ____ _,R=.M=.'"-"M=o=ne=s'-----

VERIFIER:

__

Strains and deformations computed for the as-deformed condition are compared with field measurements in Sections 6.4.1 and 6.4.2. Results of the study on the impact of the deformed condition on seismic acceleration profiles are presented in Section 6.4.3. Computed demands (i.e., forces and moments) are summarized in Section 6.4.4, and are presented more thoroughly in the attached 150252-CA-02-CD-01 (which is summarized in Appendix C). 6.4.1 Comparison of ASR Strains and Crack Index Measurements In this section, strains computed from the ASR load case (for the standard analysis without a load factor) are compared with Cl measurements recorded in April 2016 [9]. Computed strains due to concrete swelling and shrinkage are not included in this comparison for the following reasons:

• Concrete Swelling:

Swelling causes concrete to expand directly, whereas ASR causes an expansive gel to crack the concrete.

Therefore, swelling strains would not be captured by a crack index measurement and are not used while comparing the simulation of the as-deformed condition to measured Cl values.

• Shrinkage:

Shrinkage and ASR both cause concrete cracking, but through different mechanisms.

Shrinkage cracks are early age cracks that are caused by the outer layer of concrete shrinking more quickly than the inner-core concrete.

Since ASR strain and shrinkage strain have opposite signs, including both strains would seemingly reduce the total strain; however, cracks from shrinkage and ASR would both increase a measured Cl value. To address this, this calculation generally assumes that cracks measured by Cl are not shrinkage related. This is a conservative assumption because it ultimately increases the ASR expansion magnitude.

Results of comparisons between ASR Strains and Crack Index Measurements are provided below:

• Below Grade: Comparisons of Cl recorded at below-grade ASR monitoring locations to ASR strains computed by FEA are shown in Figures 11 and 12 for horizontal (hoop) and meridional directions, respectively.

These figures show that the FEA strains provide a reasonable representation of Cl data, and the FEA simulations provide a good match of the mean of Cl data.

• Between Grade and Springline:

Cl measurements indicate that above-grade ASR strains are smaller than those below grade. The transition from high to low ASR expansion causes an axial tension in the hoop direction at the location of transition.

The axial tension is made worse if the transition between below-grade and grade ASR magnitudes is made larger. Therefore, it is reasoned that targeting an 150252-CA-02 Revision O FP 100985 Page 46 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB PROJECT NO: __

___ _ DATE: 31 July 2016 BY:

VERIFIER:

---"A_,,_.T,_,_.

-=S=ar=awi=*t'------

above-grade ASR expansion magnitude slightly smaller than measured Cl values is conservative in the areas of highest concern. Comparisons of Cl strains to ASR strains computed by FEA are shown in Figures 13 and 14 for hoop and meridional directions between El. +25 ft and +50 ft. The FEA strains are, on average, slightly smaller than recorded Cl values at these elevations.

• Springline:

Ref. 9 notes that the orientation and pattern of cracks at the springline elevation are not necessarily indicative of ASR expansion.

ASR cracking typically has a map pattern, which is generally less apparent at the springline elevation than other ASR monitoring locations.

Additionally, the cracking on the interior of the CEB at the springline does not show signs of moisture intrusion, efflorescence, or ASR gel. ASR expansion is not applied to the CEB wall from El. +114 ft and above in the FEA analyses; therefore, no comparison is made at these elevations in this section. A study documented in Appendix J evaluates the impact of modeling ASR demands at the spring line.

• Above Springline:

Cl measurements are not available above the springline elevation, since the original formwork is left in place and the concrete surface is not exposed from the inside. 6.4.2 Comparison of Simulated Deformations and Field Measurements Field deformation measurements, recorded and interpreted as described in Section 4.4, are compared to deformations simulated by the finite element model in this section. Finite element deformations are computed as listed in the first row of Table 4. The ASR threshold factor k1h (defined in Section 7.3) is not used when comparing the finite element simulation to recent field measurements.

Section cuts comparing the simulated deformations with field measurements are provided at several different elevations, as listed below. Deformations in these section cuts are magnified to improve visibility.

The deformations associated with different analysis cases (e.g., Standard and Standard-Plus) are shown in different colors in the following figures.

• Figure 15: Elevation approx. +6 ft

• Figure 16: Elevation approx. +22 ft

• Figure 17: Elevation approx. +50 ft

• Figure 18: Elevation approx. + 119 ft . These figures show that the deformed shape for all analysis cases generally simulates the deformed shape indicated by field measurements.

Field measurements tend to have a large 150252-CA-02 Revision O FP 100985 Page 47 of 526 .

SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Slructures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB PROJECT NO: __

DATE: 31 July 2016 BY: _____ R'"".,,,,M_,__,.

M"-"o,,_,n,,.,es,___

__ _ VERIFIER:

__ _,A'""".T_,_,._,,,S=ar_.,_awi=*t,__

__ _ variability due to irregularities in concrete surfaces, such as formwork imperfections and construction tolerances; additionally, seismic isolation joints are covered in seal material, limiting measurement accuracy.

For these reasons, measurements are estimated to have an accuracy of +/-1/2 in. [2] and the extent that finite element analysis can simulate field measurements is limited. These figures show that the Standard analysis case generally approximates the magnitude of radial deformations throughout the CEB with the exception of the area around AZ 230°. The Standard-Plus analysis case simulates additional deformation around AZ 230° by applying additional radial pressures in that area, which could be due to ASR of the concrete fill adjacent to the CEVA structure (see Section 6.2.3 for a description of the Standard-Plus analysis case). This additional pressure also impacts the deformations between AZ 270°. and 360°. Sustained loads and self-straining loads are unfactored when comparing FEA simulations to field measurements of deflections.

It should be noted that the CEB structure is evaluated under the factored conditions presented in Table 5, and the deformations associated with these factored load combinations greatly exceed those presented in this section. 6.4.3 Results of Study on Impact of As-Deformed Condition on Maximum Acceleration Profiles A study is performed by analyzing the change of the CEB center of mass, shear center, and stick model equivalent moment of inertia at a selection of elevations due to the as-deformed condition of each analysis case. The study shows that the center of gravity and shear center of the CEB moved less than 1 in. due to the as-deformed condition at all elevations analyzed, which is considered very small for a structure with an inside radius of 79 ft. The moment of inertia of the CEB changed by less than 0.5% at all elevations analyzed.

The information above demonstrates that the effects of the as-deformed condition on the CEB structural dynamic properties are negligible.

Therefore, the OBE and SSE maximum acceleration profiles are not impacted by the as-deformed condition obtained in Analysis Step One (defined in Section 6.2). Additional documentation for this study is provided in Appendix F. 150252-CA-02 Revision O FP 100985 Page 48 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB 6.4.4 Summary of Computed Demands PROJECT NO: __ 1=5=02=5..,_2

___ _ DATE: 31 July 2016 BY: ____ __,_R-=.M=.'"-"M=o"-"ne=s

___ _ VERIFIER:

Forces and moments computed for the static and representative seismic OBE cases are presented in this section. The primary purpose of this section is to describe the mechanisms leading to demands in the CEB structure.

In this section, demands are shown for static load combination N0_ 1 (as defined in Table 5) and seismic combination OBE_ 1 with 100% acceleration in the east direction, 40% acceleration in the north direction, and 40% acceleration in the vertical-up direction.

Similar figures for other load combinations are provided in the attached 150252-CA-02-CD-01 (see Appendix C for description of CD contents).

All element demands presented in this calculation are computed by combining demands of the concrete element, with the coincident hoop and meridional reinforcement membrane elements.

The coincident reinforcement membrane elements are active in the model only when analyzing the ASR of wall and swelling load cases. The ASR portion of the demands in each combination is multiplied by the threshold factor of 1.2 in addition to the corresponding load factor for ASR, as described in Section 7.3. Demands are shown in this section using contour plots, which highlight regions of the structure with different colors based on the magnitude of demands. Colors used for each contour do not have any inherent meaning (i.e., red and orange colors for these plots do not necessarily indicate regions of overstress).

Axial and shear demands are presented with units of lbf per inch of element width. The sign convention for axial demands is that tension is positive and compression is negative.

Bending moments are presented with units of lbf-in. per inch of element width. The sign convention for bending moments is that positive moment causes tension on the outside face of the wall. Axial forces acting in the hoop direction are plotted for the N0_ 1 and the representative OBE_ 1 load combinations for the Standard analysis case in Figures 19 and 20. The region of axial compression between El. -30 ft and 0 ft are caused primarily by the applied ASR and swelling expansion being constrained by internal stiffnesses of the CEB structure.

The regions of hoop tension between El. 0 ft and +30 ft are caused by the transition from below-grade to grade magnitudes of applied ASR expansion.

The regions of axial tension at the base of the wall are caused by the mechanism resisting out-of-plane loads acting on the base of the wall, which is described with more detail in Section 7.6.1. Axial forces acting in the hoop direction for 150252-CA-02 Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 49 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures ond Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB PROJECT NO: __ 1....,,5=02=5=2

___ _ DATE: 31 July2016 BY: ____ _,R-"-.M=.'-"M=o=ne=s'-----

VERIFIER:

__

the N0_ 1 load combination for the Standard-Plus Analysis Case are plotted in Figure 21. The additional concrete fill pressures modeled in the Standard-Plus Analysis Case primarily cause additional hoop tension demands at the base of the wall between AZ 180° and 270° and additional hoop compression demands about 1 O to 20 ft above the base of the wall within the same range of azimuths.

Axial forces acting in the meridional direction are plotted for the N0_1 and the representative OBE_ 1 load combinations for the Standard analysis case in Figures 22 and 23. The pilasters on either side of the Electrical and Mechanical Penetrations attract meridional demands because of their high stiffness relative to the CEB wall. The pilaster on the east side of the Electrical Penetration has more tensile demand than that on the west side due to the dissimilar vertical ASR expansion magnitudes acting on the wall on either side of the penetration (0.06% on the west side, 0.015% on the east side). Seismic overturning also contributes to the axial demands acting on the wall and pilasters; in the OBE_ 1 combination plotted in Figure 23, the resultant of lateral accelerations is in the northeast direction, causing additional tension in the pilaster on the south side of the Mech. Pen. Dead loads cause meridional compression in the wall; however, these compressive demands are small relative to those from ASR and seismic overturning.

Axial forces acting in the meridional direction for the N0_ 1 load combination for the Standard-Plus Analysis Case are plotted in Figure 24. The additional concrete fill pressures modeled in the Standard-Plus Analysis Case cause additional meridional tension at the base of the wall near AZ 225° and additional meridional compression at the base of the wall near AZ 180° and AZ 240°. In-plane shear forces are plotted for the N0_ 1 and the representative OBE_ 1 load combinations for the Standard analysis case in Figures 25 and 26. Regions of elevated in-plane shear demand are located adjacent to each of the penetrations at the base of the CEB. In-plane shear demands in these regions are caused by ASR expansion of the concrete fill. Elevated in-plane shear demands are also computed near the reentrant corners of openings where additional diagonal reinforcement is provided.

The seismic accelerations lead to additional plane shear demands at the base of the CEB. In-plane shear forces for the N0_ 1 load combination for the Standard-Plus Analysis Case are plotted in Figure 27. The additional concrete fill pressures modeled in the Standard-Plus Analysis Case further increase the elevated in-plane shear demands near the opening on the south side of the Mech. Pen. 150252-CA-02 Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 50 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB PROJECT NO: __

DATE: -------"3"-1

=Ju=lyL..:2"-"0_,_,16"-----

BY: ____ _,R'"".'-"-'M'-'.

M,,_,_,o'-'-'n,,,,es,__

__ _ VERIFIER:

__ _ Out-of-plane shear forces are plotted for the N0_ 1 and the representative OBE_ 1 load combinations for the Standard analysis case in Figures 28, 29, 31, and 32. Out-of-plane shear forces can act along the hoop-radial or the meridional-radial planes, and corresponding demands are plotted separately.

The most significant of the out-of-plane shear demands are those acting on the hoop-radial plane near the base of the CEB. Other out-of-plane shear demands are generally localized near openings and changes in geometry.

Out-of-plane shear forces for the N0_ 1 load combination for the Standard-Plus Analysis Case are plotted in Figures 30 and 33. The additional concrete fill pressures modeled in the Standard-Plus Analysis Case further increase the elevated out-of-plane shear demands at the base of the wall between AZ 180° and 270°. Bending moments about the meridional axis are plotted for the N0_ 1 and the representative OBE_ 1 load combinations for the Standard analysis case in Figures 34 and 35. Positive bending moments occur above the Electrical and Mechanical Penetrations, where sustained loads and self-straining forces cause outward deformation.

Negative bending moments occur on either side of the West Pipe Chase (e.g., near the Personnel Hatch and the CEVA opening), where inward deformation occurs. Bending moments about the meridional axis for the N0_ 1 load combination for the Standard-Plus Analysis Case are plotted in Figure 36. The additional concrete fill pressures modeled in the Standard-Plus Analysis Case increase the elevated bending moments further, particularly positive bending moments above the West Pipe Chase. Bending moments about the hoop axis are plotted for the N0_ 1 and the representative OBE_ 1 load combinations for the Standard analysis case in Figures 37 and 38. Elevated bending moments are computed at the base of the CEB where the wall connects to the foundation; these demands are caused primarily by the pressures representing ASR expansion of the concrete fill. The pilasters adjacent to the Electrical Penetration and Mechanical Penetration generally attract more bending moments than the wall due to their higher stiffness.

The pilasters have positive bending moment demand at the base, and negative bending moment demand at approximately El. 0 ft where the concrete fill pressures subside. Bending moments about the hoop axis for the N0_ 1 load combination for the Standard-Plus Analysis Case are plotted in Figure 39. The additional concrete fill pressures modeled in the Standard-Plus Analysis Case lead to additional bending moments at the base of the CEB wall between AZ 180° and AZ 270°. 150252-CA-02 Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 51 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building*

Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB 7. STRUCTURAL EVALUATION PROJECT NO: __ 1"'-"5=02=5=2

___ _ DATE: 31 July 2016 BY:

M=o=n=es,,__

__ _ VERIFIER:

__ _,_A_,._.T..__,_.=s

....

Structural capacities are evaluated for all analysis cases listed in Section 6.2.2 and for load combinations in Table 5 using the element-by-element approach described in Section 7.1 as well as the section cut approach described in Section 7 .2. Evaluation criteria for strength of reinforced concrete components are taken from ACI 318-71 [11]. The threshold factor, which amplifies ASR demands to account for future ASR expansion, is described and quantified in Section 7.3. Results of the evaluation are given in Section 7.5. Special cases are evaluated using "Alternative Evaluation" procedures, which are documented in Section 7.6. Maximum displacements of the CEB are evaluated against clearances with adjacent structures in Section 7.7. Global stability of the CEB is evaluated in Section 7.8. 7.1 Element-by-Element Evaluation Methodology The computation of capacities for the element-by-element evaluation is outlined in this section. Evaluating a structure on an element-by-element basis is considered a conservative approach because it does not allow for concentrations of high demands to be distributed locally within the structure.

Factored demand exceeding capacity in the element-by-element evaluation does not necessarily indicate a structural deficiency.

Since a relatively small finite element size is used in the analyses, stress concentrations can cause localized capacity exceedances in the by-element evaluation which may not have any real structural impact. If an element's capacity is exceeded in the element-by-element evaluation, the area is evaluated again using a section cut approach.

If the element-by-element capacity exceedance is identified as insignificant (i.e., a stress concentration that will not impact structural performance), then further analysis/evaluation is not performed.

7.1.1 Axial

Compression Axial compression is evaluated using the criteria in Chapter 10 of ACI 318-71 [11 ]. The equation used to compute axial compressive strength is shown in Equation 1. While computing axial compression capacity, the strain in the reinforcement at the point of concrete crushing is computed by taking into account the strains caused by self-straining loads. This computation is consistent with ACI 318-71Section10.2.4

[11]. 150252-CA-02 Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 52 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures PROJECT NO: __

___ _ DATE: 31July2016 CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook BY: ____ _,R=.M=.'--"M=o=ne=s'-----

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB VERIFIER:

__

__ _ ACI 318-71 Section 10.3.6 specifies that the reinforced concrete member must be designed for a minimum eccentricity of 0.1 h. Modern versions of ACI 318 have replaced this requirement with a constant reduction factor of 0.8 applied to computed axial compression capacities.

The ACI code commentary explains that the 0.8 factor is intended to be approximately equal to the ACI 318-71 approach.

For simplicity of implementation, the constant reduction factor approach is used in this calculation.

The use of this factor has been verified for four section configurations of varying thicknesses and reinforcement, which show that the constant 0.8 factor is either equivalent to or more conservative than the 0.1 h minimum eccentricity.

Where: ¢ = Pn = = Ac = Esc = Es = fy = As = EsQ = Ecc = EcQ = Esc = EsQ + Ecc -EcQ Strength reduction factor for compression, 0.70 Nominal axial compressive strength Design concrete compressive strength Area of concrete Equation 1 Compressive strain in the steel when concrete reaches compressive strain of Ecc* Following typical unit convention for this analysis, Esc is negative to represent compression.

Elastic modulus of steel Yield strength of steel Total area of steel oriented in direction of evaluation Strain in steel due to as-deformed condition.

Typically this strain is positive (tensile) because ASR and swelling cause the steel to lengthen.

Strain at which concrete crushes, -0.003 Strain in concrete due to as-deformed condition.

Typically this strain is negative (compressive) because ASR and swelling cause the compression in restrained concrete.

7.1.2 Axial-Flexure Interaction Axial-flexure interaction is evaluated using the criteria in Chapter 10 of ACI 318-71 [11 ]. flexure interaction capacities are calculated using the computer program spColumn [25]. spColumn has been verified and validated in accordance with the SQH QANF program [10, 26]. 150252-CA-02 Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 53 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB PROJECT NO:

DATE: ___

___ _ BY: ____

__ VERIFIER:

Additional information on the computation of axial-flexure interaction capacities can be found in Appendix E. Flexural demands for the axial-flexure interaction evaluation are computed using Equation 2. Mhoop,1 = Mll + JM12J Equation 2 Mhoop,2 = M11-IM12l Mmeridional,1

= M22 + JM12J Mmeridional,2

= M22 -IM12I Where: Mhoop, 1 and Mhoop, 2 are bending moments that are combined with hoop-direction axial demands during axial-flexure interaction checks Mmeridionaz, 1 and Mmeridionaz, 2 are bending moments that are combined with direction axial demands during axial-flexure interaction checks M11 and M22 are the element bending moments acting about the meridional and hoop axes, respectively M12 is the element torsional bending moment Axial-flexure interaction checks do not include a reduction of the compressive strength due to accidental eccentricity because compressive strength is evaluated independently (Section 7.1.1). Note that in the present calculation, the torsional moments are explicitly considered in evaluation of flexural reinforcement following the methodology outlined by Wood and Armer [27]. This approach differs from that used in the UE calculations, where UE determined that the level of torsion was small enough to not warrant explicit consideration as allowed by ACI 318-71. The M12 contribution to total flexural demands is often most pronounced at discontinuities such as reentrant corners, which could lead to larger flexural demands at corners and openings in this calculation compared to those computed by UE. 150252-CA-02 Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 54 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER ..........

I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB 7.1.3 Axial Tension PROJECT NO:

DATE:

___ _ BY: ____

VERIFIER:

__ __,_,A'-'-.T_,__.

S=a"'-'ra=wi=*t,__

__ _ Axial tension is evaluated as part of the axial-flexure interaction checks. The axial tensile strength is proportional to the amount of reinforcement developed in the section. Although ASR expansion causes the reinforcement to develop tensile stress, no reduction to axial tensile strength due to ASR is considered because the corresponding ASR-induced compressive stress in the concrete must be unloaded by an applied tension before the entire cross section loses its tensile stiffness

[15]. 7.1.4 In-Plane Shear In-plane shear is evaluated using the criteria in Sections 11.4 and 11.16 of ACI 318-71 [11]. The formulation used to compute in-plane shear capacity for the element-by-element evaluation is presented as Equation 3. Where: Ve,a = Ve,b = Ve,e = Vs = ¢ = Vn = 150252-CA-02 Ve,a = 2 ( 1 + 0.0005 :;) Ji! ici Nu Ve,b = 3.5-y f d 1 + 0.002 A g Ve,e = max [ 2 ( 1 + 0.002 :; ) Ji!, 0.0] Ve = Ve,e if Nu is tensile, otherwise Ve = min(ve,a*

Ve,b) Nominal concrete shear strength for section in compression Equation 3 Nominal concrete shear strength upper limit for section in compression Nominal concrete shear strength for section in tension Nominal shear strength of steel reinforcement Strength reduction factor for shear, 0.85 Nominal shear strength of reinforced concrete section Revision O FP 100985 Page 55 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures PROJECT NO:

DATE: ___

___ _ CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook BY: ____

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB VERIFIER:

---'-'A'-'-.T"'""'.

Nu Ag Av bw s = = = = = Axial force (lbf) normal to the cross section occurring simultaneously with the design shear force, taken as positive for compression and negative for tension* Gross area of the section Area of shear reinforcement Width of wall strip under consideration Spacing of shear reinforcement

• Note: This sign convention differs from the convention used throughout this analysis.

Reinforcement oriented in the hoop direction is used when evaluating the in-plane shear reinforcement, as stipulated by AC/ 318-71 Section 11.16.4.1.

Since axial compression increases in-plane shear capacity, axial loads caused by self-straining loads (such as ASR and swelling) are excluded if they are compressive.

In the element-by-element evaluation, in-plane shear demand is computed as shown below. Where: = Vue.swell=

Vuc,ASR = Vu = Equation 4 Vun = Wued + Vue.swell

+ Vue,ASR I Factored in-plane shear demand due to design loads (excluding self-straining loads) Factored in-plane shear demand due to concrete swelling Factored in-plane shear demand due to ASR loads (includes threshold factor) Factored shear demand 7.1.5 Out-of-Plane Shear Out-of-plane shear is evaluated using two separate approaches.

In the first approach, the criteria of ACI 318-71 Section 11.4 are used, in which the design shear capacity ¢vn is calculated as shown in Equation 3 and vs is computed using the amount of transverse reinforcement provided (vs is taken as zero in areas without stirrups).

Alternatively, the shear 150252-CA-02 Revision O FP 100985 Page 56 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures PROJECT NO: --"'""15=0=25=2

___ _ DATE: 31July2016 CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook BY: ____ _,_,_R.=M'"--.

=M=on=e,,_s

__ _

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB VERIFIER:

capacity is also calculated using a shear friction approach, which is based on ACI 318-71 Section 11.15. The exceedance of criteria of the first approach does not imply a conformance as the section may still have sufficient shear friction capacity.

In the shear friction approach, the amount of reinforcement available to resist out-of-plane shear is computed by subtracting the reinforcement area utilized by tensile demands and in-plane shear demands (Equation 5 and Equation 6) from the total amount of reinforcement provided.

The amount of reinforcement required to resist out-of-plane demands (Equation

7) is compared to the remaining reinforcer:tient available to obtain a demand-to-capacity ratio for the shear-friction approach.

A friction coefficient of 1.0 is used (as opposed to 1.4 for monolithic concrete) in shear-friction calculations to account for the construction joints within the CEB wall. The smaller demand-to-capacity ratio of the ACI 318 71 Section 11.4 and 11.15 approaches is taken as the DCR for out-of-plane shear. Where: RA st = Pu = <Pt = fy = RAsvip = Vuip = l1c = RAsvoop = Vuoop = </Jv = 150252-CA-02 (Vuip -Vc) x C 1/z) RAsvip = fy l'uoop RAsvoop 'f'vµJy RAsvoop DCRvoop= A -RA -RA. S St SVlp Area of steel reinforcement required to resist tensile demand Axial tensile demand Strength reduction factor for tension, 0.9 Yield strength of reinforcement Equation 5 Equation 6 Equation 7 Equation 8 Area of steel reinforcement required to resist in-plane shear demand In-plane shear demand In-plane shear capacity of concrete Area of steel reinforcement required to resist out-of-plane shear demand Out-of-plane shear demand Strength reduction factor for shear, 0.85 Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 57 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB PROJECT NO: __ _,_,15=0=25=2'-----

DATE: 31 July 2016 BY: ____ _,R_,_,_.=M,__,_.

M=o""-'ne,.,.s'-----

VERIFIER:

__ _,_A_,,_.T,_,_.-'=s,,,,_ar.!:-'aWJC!!.!*1'-----

= = Friction coefficient for concrete placed against hardened concrete, 1.0 Yield strength of reinforcement

= Area of steel provided 7.2 Section Cut Methodology Structural evaluation on an element-by-element basis is a conservative approach because the behavior of reinforced concrete is generally represented by the section response due to its capability for local inelastic redistribution of demands. Generally most physical tests supporting the strength criteria of ACI are based on section behavior, not localized behavior represented by element-by-element evaluation.

Therefore, in regions where a conservative element evaluation shows exceedance, section cuts are used to evaluate compliance with the requirements of ACI 318-71 [11]. A section cut approach is applied to investigate whether, after load redistributions within the CEB wall, the capacity is sufficient for a given failure mode. Particular section cuts are only evaluated for limit states deemed significant based on exceedances identified in the element-by-element evaluation.

Section cuts are defined in the model along a series of nodes comprising a cross-section of the CEB wall in a region of interest.

A post-processing script identifies all wall elements acting along one side of this set of nodes, forms a local coordinate system with orientation specific to that cut, and calculates the sum of forces and moments acting at the centroid of the cut cross section. For ASR-affected regions where reinforcing bars are modeled with equivalent shell elements, reinforcement elements are also considered in the calculation of total section forces acting on the cut. For a given cut, this approach calculates a resultant axial force, in-plane shear force, out-of-plane shear force, in-plane (overturning) moment, out-of-plane moment, and torsion. The resultant moments are comprised of both the sum of element nodal moments acting at each node along the section cut and the moment effects arising from element nodal forces acting at each node along the section cut with associated internal moment arms back to the cut centroid.

An illustration of a section cut, selected elements which contribute demand to the cut, formation of the cut coordinate system, and orientation of section cut resultant forces and moments is shown in Figure 61. The average section geometry over the length of the cut is used for the evaluation.

The thickness is taken as the average thickness of all concrete wall elements along the cut. The 150252-CA-02 Revision O FP 100985 Page 58 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB PROJECT NO: --"'"""15=0=25=2

___ _ DATE: 31 July 2016 BY: --------'--"R.=M,_,__.

M=o=n=e"'"-s

__ _ VERIFIER:

length of the cut is taken as the chord length for limit states involving overturning and in-plane shear. It is slightly conservative to use the chord length for in-plane shear evaluations, rather than the arc length. The average hoop and meridional steel reinforcement area is calculated along the section cut using the same reinforcing bar definitions used in the element-by-element evaluation.

In-plane shear effects are evaluated using the total reinforcement parallel to the cut that is effective for the section. Axial-flexure interaction checks are performed based on the average reinforcement per foot length of the section. Evaluation of horizontal shear is performed on cuts up to a length of a quarter of the building perimeter.

For other limit states the length is limited to eight times the wall thickness.

This limit is based on engineering judgment and is analogous to approaches used for calculating effective influence areas for shear in other design contexts.

Since the element size is approximately 36 in. square, for 36 in. thick regions the section cut may be eight elements wide, for 27 in. thick regions six elements wide, and for 15 in. thick regions three to four elements wide. Section cut capacities are calculated as discussed in the following subsections.

7.2.1 In-Plane Shear In-plane shear is evaluated using the criteria in Section 11.16 of ACI 318-71 [11]. The formulation used to compute in-plane shear capacity for the section cut evaluation includes ACI 318-71 Equations 11-31 through 11-33 and is presented in this calculation as Equation 9. Reinforcement oriented in the hoop direction is used when evaluating the in-plane shear reinforcement, as stipulated by ACI 318-71 Section 11.16.4.1.

150252-CA-02 Revision O FP 100985 Page 59 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures ond Building Enclosures PROJECT NO:

DATE: ___

___ _ CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook BY:

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB VERIFIER:

Where: Vc,a = Vc,b = Vc,c = Ve = Vs = ¢ = Vn = Nu = Vu = Mu = lw = h = Av = bw = s = 150252-CA-02 f7i Nu Vc,a = 3.3-y Jc + 4l h w lw ( 1.25f!Z + 0.2 tJi) Vc,b = 0.6.Jf! + M l w u w Vu --z Vc,c = 2J1! Ve= min(vc,a,Vc,b)

In compression, Ve may be taken as 2J1! Concrete shear strength upper limit 1 Concrete shear strength upper limit 2 Concrete shear strength for section in compression Nominal concrete shear strength Nominal shear strength of steel reinforcement Strength reduction factor for shear, 0.85 Nominal shear strength of reinforced concrete section Equation 9 Design axial force (lbf) normal to the cross section occurring simultaneously with the design shear force, taken as positive for compression and negative for tension Design shear force (lbf) parallel to the cross section axis Design in-plane (overturning) moment (lbf-in) occurring simultaneously with the design shear force Length of wall Thickness of wall Area of shear reinforcement Width of wall strip under consideration Spacing of shear reinforcement Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 60 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures ond Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB 7 .2.2 Shear Friction PROJECT NO:

___ _ DATE: 31 July 2016 BY: ____ _,R'"'-'.=M'-'-.

M=o=ne=s'-----

VERIFIER:

__

Section cuts at the base of the structure are evaluated for shear demands following friction provisions in Section 11.15 of ACI 318-71 [11]. The shear capacity ¢vn is calculated using the equations in ACI 318-71 Section 11.15.3 and 11.15.3 and is presented in this calculation as Equation 7, which is also used for the element-by-element evaluation.

This evaluation at the base of the wall considers a reduction in the available length for shear friction to account for in-plane overturning moment. At each end of the wall, 15% of the wall* length is allocated for tension and compression zones to resist overturning.

Therefore, only 70% of the wall length is assumed available to resist shear by shear-friction; this assumption is confirmed by hand calculation for the most critical case for shear-friction.

The vertical area of steel reinforcement required to resist net tension on the section is calculated, and the vertical reinforcing steel in the remaining length of the section is reduced by this amount to calculate the total area of vertical steel available to resist shear. For all cases, the coefficient of friction is . taken as 1.0, which corresponds to the case of concrete placed against hardened concrete.

The section is evaluated for the SRSS of the in-plane and out-of-plane resultant shear forces. 7.2.3 Axial-Flexure Interaction Axial-flexure (PM) interaction for section cuts is evaluated using the criteria in ACI 318-71 [11]. Axial-flexure interaction capacities are calculated using the computer program spColumn [25], which has been validated and verified in accordance with the SGH QANF program [10, 26]. PM capacities for section cuts are computed using concrete cover over reinforcement bars that is between 1 to 2 inches larger than actual design values. This is done to conservatively account for possible variations in reinforcement configuration within the section. The total axial force and out-of-plane moment are calculated and used to compute the average axial force and moment demand acting on a per-foot basis along the wall section using the average vertical reinforcement available over the length of the section cut. 7.2.4 Torsion The effect of torsion is discussed in ACI 318-71 Section 11.7 (Combined Torsion and Shear for Nonprestressed Members) [11]. These provisions suggest that resultant torsional effects acting on a cross-section may be decomposed as acting on a series of component rectangles, each 150252-CA-02 Revision O FP 100985 Page 61 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB PROJECT NO: __

___ _ DATE: 31 July2016 BY: ____ _,R_,_,_.=M'--'.

M=o=ne=s'-----

VERIFIER:

__ _,A'-".T_,_,._,,S=ar_,,,_awi!!!*t,_,_

__ _ subjected to a shear stress with magnitude calculated from the total torsion. This section of the code focuses on rectangular and I or flanged cross sections and is not appropriate for cross sections that are restrained due to participation in a monolithic shell structure such as the CEB. Therefore, no further evaluation is provided using section cuts for torsion on the basis of engineering judgment.

Torsional demands are considered when evaluating flexural demands in the element-by-element evaluation as discussed in Section 7.1.2. 7.3 Definition and Selection of ASR Threshold Factor In the analysis and evaluation of the CEB, ASR loads are amplified by a threshold factor (referred to as kth) in addition to a load factor. While the load factor accounts for uncertainty in the ASR load, the threshold factor accounts for additional ASR load that may occur in the future. The threshold factor is selected to be the largest factor in which the structure meets evaluation criteria using the approaches described in this calculation.

Selection of the threshold factor for the CEB is primarily governed by axial-flexure interaction and tensile demands acting on the CEB wall. A threshold factor of 1.2 is selected for evaluation of the CEB, which indicates that ASR-related demands are amplified by 20% beyond the factored values. 7.4 Results of Evaluation without Self-Straining Loads Each load combination in Table 5 is evaluated without the effects of self-straining forces (i.e., without ASR and swelling demands) to verify, with the modeling and analysis procedures used in this calculation, that the original design of the CEB meets design requirements.

This , evaluation is defined as the Original Design Analysis Case in Section 6.2.2 and Table 7. The evaluation indicates that the CEB meets ACI 318-71 evaluation criteria for the Original Design Analysis Case. Additional information on this analysis case is provided in Appendix G. 7.5 Evaluation Results In this section, evaluation results are presented for each resistance mechanism (i.e., axial compression, in-plane shear, out-of-plane shear, etc.). Evaluations are first performed using the element-by-element approach described in Section 7.1. The element-by-element evaluations are conservative and are used to identify regions of the structure that require further evaluation.

Based on the element-by-element evaluation results, section cut evaluations are performed.

The section cut evaluations are more representative of structural behavior than the element-by-150252-CA-02 Revision O FP 100985 Page 62 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building:

Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB PROJECT NO: __

___ _ DATE: 31 July2016 BY:

VERIFIER:

element evaluations because they can account for local redistribution of loads that is known to occur within reinforced concrete structures.

Evaluations are performed for all Section Cuts defined in Appendix N for all load combinations and analysis cases. Additional section cut checks (beyond those shown in Appendix N) are used in this section to supplement the element-by-element evaluation as needed. Additional evaluations are performed if a section cut evaluation is unable to qualify a localized region of the structure.

The evaluation of the CEB in the as-deformed condition is governed by static and OBE load combinations.

Static load combinations often govern the evaluation due to the relatively large load factor for ASR demands (Sa) in the static combinations.

The large ASR load factors are related to the high reliability against structural deficiency that is targeted by the static combinations

[6]. OBE load combinations govern a portion of the evaluation because these combinations include the largest non-self-straining lateral forces affecting the CEB. This finding is consistent with the original design calculation for the CEB, which states that OBE combinations control design [24]. Wind, tornado, and SSE load combinations generally have lower lateral loads and/or use lower ASR load factors than the static and OBE load combinations, and therefore generally do not govern the evaluation.

For each evaluation check, contour plots of element-by-element evaluation results are shown for static load combination N0_ 1 (as defined in Table 5) and a representative seismic combination OBE_ 1 with 100% acceleration in the east direction, 40% acceleration in the north direction, and 40% acceleration in the vertical-up direction.

Demands for these two load combinations were provided in Section 6.4.4. Although the static load combination N0 _ 1 often controls the design, evaluation results for these two particular load combinations are shown in this section to provide an understanding of behavior as well as the regions of high demands. Similar figures with DCRs for other load combinations are provided in the attached 150252-CA-02-CD-01.

The naming convention of load combination results is described in Table 9, and additional description of CD contents are provided in Appendix C. The evaluation is performed for all load combinations, and the most critical combinations are discussed in the following sections.

150252-CA-02 Revision O FP 100985 Page 63 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engir;ieering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB PROJECT NO: __

___ _ DATE: 31July2016 BY:

VERIFIER:

Element-by-element evaluation DCRs are illustrated using contour plots with fixed contour limits. Note that DC Rs exceeding the upper limit of the contour intervals (1.5) are colored light gray. 7.5.1 Axial Compression in the Hoop Direction Contour plots of DCRs for axial compression in the hoop direction from the element-by-element evaluation for load combination N0_ 1 and the representative OBE_ 1 load combination for the Standard Analysis Case are plotted in Figures 40 and 41. In the standard analysis case, the portion of the wall between El. -20 ft and El. Oft is in compression, but the DCRs in this area are generally below 0.7. Contour plots of DCRs for axial compression in the hoop direction for load combination N0_ 1 for the Standard-Plus Analysis Cases are plotted in Figure 42. This analysis case shows an increase to the size of the region of compression demand below the CEVA opening (near AZ 230°); however, the DCRs remain below 0.7. This evaluation shows that axial compression in the hoop direction meets evaluation criteria for all analysis cases and all load combinations.

7.5.2 Axial

Compression in the Meridional Direction Contour plots of DCRs for axial compression in the meridional direction from the element evaluation for load combinations N0_ 1 and the representative OBE_ 1 load combination for the Standard analysis case are plotted in Figures 43 and 44. Compression in the meridional direction is generally low and DCRs for the Standard Analysis are generally below 0.5. The pilasters have higher meridional compression demands than the wall, and have single-element localized capacity exceedances at the base in the controlling OBE load combinations.

These single-element exceedances are less severe than those identified in the Standard-Plus Analysis Case; therefore, further evaluation of this exceedance is deferred to that case (see below). A contour plot of DCRs for axial compression in the meridional direction for load combination N0_ 1 for the Standard-Plus Analysis Case is plotted in Figure 45. The additional concrete fill pressure modeled in the Standard-Plus analysis case causes increased compression demands, particularly in the pilaster on the south side of the Mechanical Penetration.

The controlling load combination for compression in this pilaster is static combination N0_ 1, due to its large load 150252-CA-02 Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 64 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures PROJECT NO: __

___ _ DATE: 31 July2016 CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook BY:

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB VERIFIER:

__ _,_A_,,_.T,_,_.-=S=ar=awi=*t,__

__ _ factor for ASR loads. As a bounding case, meridional compression in this pilaster (and the adjacent wall) is evaluated for load combination N0_ 1 using Equation 1 below. The evaluation is performed using a section cut length equal to four wall thicknesses, which is computed using the width of the CEB wall (36 in.) rather than the width of the pilaster (48 in.). The average axial compression demand along this cut is -72, 100 lbf/in or 72.1 kip/in. Esc = EsQ + Ecc -EcQ Esc = (1.12 X 10-3) + (-3.00 X 10-3) -(-1.08 X 10-5) = -0.00187 ¢Pn = ¢ X 0.8 [0.8Sfd (Ac -A 5) + min(-EscEsJy)As]

3

• 1.56in 2 . 2 A = 3#11@6" = . = 0.780 m j. s 6 m m _ 48in x Sft + 36in x 13ft _ inz/ Ac -18f t -39 in min(-EscEsJy)

= min[(0.00187) x (29 x 10 6 psi), (60,000 psi)] = 54,230psi

¢Pn = (0.7) X (0.8)[(0.85)(4,000psi)(39in

-0.78in) + (54,230psi)(0.78in)]

lbf kip ¢Pn = 96,400-.-= 96.4-.-m m kip kip ¢Pn = 96.4-.->Pu= 72.1-.-in in (OK-Compressive strength is adequate, DCR=0.75)

This evaluation shows that axial compression in the meridional direction meets evaluation criteria for all analysis cases and all load combinations.

7.5.3 In-Plane Shear Contour plots of DCRs for in-plane shear from the element-by-element evaluation for load combination N0_ 1 and the representative OBE_ 1 load combination for the Standard analysis case are plotted in Figures 46 and 47. A contour plot of DCRs for in-plane shear for load combination N0_ 1 for the Standard-Plus Analysis Case is plotted in Figure 48. Several regions of the CEB are critical for in-plane shear; each region is assessed below.

• Based on the element-by-element evaluation, in-plane shear demand exceeds capacity beside each of the large openings at the base of the wall. The mechanism resisting 150252-CA-02 Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 65 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I EngineerinQ of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB PROJECT NO: __ 1=5=02=5=-2

___ _ DATE: 31July2016 BY: ____ _,_R=.M=.'-"M=o=ne=s'------

VERIFIER:

__

out-of-plane loads at the base of the wall causes in-plane shear stress to occur, as described in Section 7.6.1. However, in-plane shear demands engage a large portion of a wall structure as a membrane, and are therefore more reasonably evaluated using section cuts. The in-plane shear forces acting at the base of the wall are assessed in Section 7.6.1 along with other strength checks associated with the aforementioned resistance mechanism.

• The element-by-element evaluation shows in-plane shear exceedances at the reentrant corners above the Mechanical and Electrical Penetrations.

This exceedance is most severe at the west side of the Electrical Penetration (approximately AZ 330°, El. +27 ft) in the Standard-Plus Analysis Case. Shear on this side of the Electrical Penetration is particularly critical due to the short distance between the Electrical and Mechanical Penetration.

In-plane shear in this area is evaluated using a section cut (Section Cut 7 in Appendix N). The maximum OCR for in-plane shear for Section Cut 7 is 0.37, which occurs in load combination OBE_ 1. The Section Cut in-plane shear check is performed using horizontal reinforcement bars; however, additional diagonal steel is provided at the corners of the Electrical Penetration, which are not considered in this evaluation.

Based on these assessments, in-plane shear strength at the reentrant corners is judged to be adequate.

This evaluation shows that in-plane shear meets evaluation criteria for all analysis cases and all load combinations.

7.5.4 Out-of-Plane Shear Acting on the Hoop-Radial Plane Contour plots of DCRs for out-of-plane shear acting on the hoop-radial plane from the by-element evaluation for load combination N0_ 1 and the representative OBE_ 1 load combination for the Standard analysis case are plotted in Figures 49 and 50. The base of the wall has high out-of-plane shear demands due to the pressures caused by ASR of the concrete fill and hydrostatic loads. The element-by-element evaluation shows that these out-of-plane shear demands are less than capacity for the Standard analysis case. A contour plot of DCRs for out-of-plane shear acting on the hoop-radial plane for load combination N0_ 1 for the Standard-Plus Analysis Case is plotted in Figure 51. The element-by-element evaluation of the Standard-Plus Analysis Case shows a minor single-element capacity exceedance near the reentrant corner above the electrical penetration; this exceedance is judged to be insignificant when consideration is given to local averaging of stresses.

Section cut evaluations of plane shear at the base of the structure (utilizing shear-friction) show maximum DCRs of 0.58 for the Standard and Standard-Plus Analysis Cases, occurring between AZ 0 and AZ 90. 150252-CA-02 Revision O FP 100985 Page 66 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB PROJECT NO: __ 1=5=02=5=2

___ _ DATE: 31 July2016 BY:

___ _ VERIFIER:

__ _.A_,,_.T.._,_._.,.S=ar=awi=*t,__

__ _ This evaluation shows that out-of-plane shear meets evaluation criteria for all analysis cases and all load combinations.

7.5.5 Out-of-Plane Shear Acting on the Meridional-Radial Plane Contour plots of DCRs for out-of-plane shear acting on the meridional-radial plane from the element-by-element evaluation for load combination N0_ 1 and the representative OBE_ 1 load combination for the Standard Analysis Case are plotted in Figures 52 and 53. A contour plot of DCRs for out-of-plane shear acting on the meridional-radial plane for load combination N0_ 1 for the Standard-Plus Analysis Case is plotted in Figure 54. Only minor and localized capacity exceedances are identified for out-of-plane shear acting on the meridional-radial plane, occurring at the corners of openings.

These exceedances are judged to be insignificant by giving consideration to local averaging of demands. 7.5.6 Axial-Flexure Interaction in the Hoop Direction Contour plots of DCRs for axial-flexure (PM) interaction in the hoop direction from the by-element evaluation for load combination N0_ 1 and the representative OBE_ 1 load combination for the Standard analysis case are plotted in Figures 55 and 56. The deformed shape of the CEB, consisting of outward radial movement at AZ 270 and inward radial movement at AZ 225 and AZ 300 between El. 0 and El. +50 ft, indicates that high flexural demands will occur within these regions. The element-by-element evaluation reflects this by showing capacity exceedances near the Personnel Hatch (AZ 315) and the CEVA opening (AZ 230°). The flexural demands are primarily caused by ASR loads, and therefore are most severe in the static case where the ASR load factor is highest. The transition from high ASR load in the below-grade region of the CEB to lower ASR load above grade causes a tension in the hoop direction in the region where this flexure is occurring, which reduces the section's capacity for PM interaction.

Axial-flexure evaluation results for the Standard Analysis Case are discussed below.

• Axial-flexure demands in the hoop direction at the base of the CEB wall meet evaluation criteria for the Standard Analysis Case.

• Based on the element-by-element evaluation of the Standard Analysis Case, PM demands in the hoop direction exceed capacity in the areas adjacent to the Personnel Hatch and the CEVA opening between El. O ft and El. 50 ft. These capacity 150252-CA-02 Revision O FP 100985 Page 67 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Slructures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook PROJECT NO: ---'-"15=0=25=2

___ _ DATE: 31 July 2016 BY: --------'-"R.=M..,__.

M=o=n=e,,_s

__ _

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB VERIFIER:

exceedances are addressed by redistributing the bending moment in excess of the PM interaction capacity.

The redistribution causes changes in bending moments and, to a lesser-extent, membrane forces. in adjacent areas of the structure.

For the Standard Analysis Case, the moment redistribution study is performed for the controlling static load combination (N0_ 1). Documentation of the moment redistribution is provided in Appendix H. A summary of the moment redistribution is provided in Section 7.6.2. A contour plot of DCRs for PM interaction in the hoop direction for load combination N0_ 1 for the Standard-Plus Analysis Case is plotted in Figure 57. Evaluation of PM interaction for the Standard-Plus Case shows similar regions of capacity exceedance as the Standard Case, and some additional regions of exceedance caused by the added pressures between AZ 180 and 270. Evaluation results for PM interaction in the hoop direction for the Standard-Plus Analysis Case are discussed below.

• Based on element-by-element evaluation, the base of the wall between AZ 180 and 270 shows capacity exceedance for PM interaction in the hoop direction.

Due to the nearby foundation and out-of-plane restraint of the concrete fill, the capability of the wall to bend about the vertical axis at the base is limited; therefore, the bending demand at this section is small (less than 100 kip-ft/ft).

This exceedance is primarily driven by tensile demands caused by the out-of-plane force resistance mechanism acting at the base of the wall (this mechanism is described in Section 7.6.1). These tensile demands are evaluated below using a section of length equal to three wall thicknesses, which is equivalent to the entire width of the tensile region. The average tensile demand in this cut is 5,500 lbf/in (5.5 kip/in). 2(1.56in 2) . 2 A = 2#11@12" = = 0.26 m /. s 12 in m ( in 2) lbf kip ¢Pn = ¢Asfy = (0.9) 0.26-.-(60,000 psi)= 14,000-.-= 14-.-in in in kip kip ¢Pn = 14-.->Pu= 5.5-.-(OK-Tensile strength is adequate, DCR=0.39) m m

• Based on the element-by-element evaluation of the Standard-Plus Analysis Case, PM demands in the hoop direction exceed capacity in the areas adjacent to the Personnel Hatch and the CEVA opening between El. 0 ft and El. 50 ft as well as a localized region at El. +60 to +90 ft at AZ 200 (above the location where additional concrete fill pressures are applied).

These capacity exceedances are addressed by redistributing the bending moment in excess of the PM interaction capacity.

The redistribution causes changes in bending moments and, to a lesser extent, membrane forces in adjacent areas of the structure.

For the Standard-Plus Analysis Case, the moment redistribution study is performed for the controlling static load combination (N0_ 1) as well as an OBE load combination (OBE_ 4). Documentation of the moment 150252-CA-02 Revision O FP 100985 Page 68 of 526

.SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER ,....,...

I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB PROJECT NO: __ 1.,_,,5=02=5=-2

___ _ DATE: 31 July 2016 BY: ____ _.R_,,..M=.'-"M=o"-"ne=s'-----

VERIFIER:

redistribution is provided in Appendix H. A summary of the moment redistribution is provided in Section 7.6.2.

• Based on the element-by-element evaluation of the Standard-Plus Analysis Case, PM demands in the hoop direction exceed capacity in an area to the east of the Electrical Penetration.

This exceedance is evaluated using two section cuts (Section Cuts 14 and 15, as defined in Appendix N). The section cut evaluations show that the wall meets acceptance criteria for PM interaction in this region for all load combinations (Figures 72 and 73). The information presented above shows axial-flexure interaction meets evaluation criteria for all analysis cases and all load combinations.

7.5.7 Axial-Flexure Interaction in the Meridional Direction Contour plots of DCRs for PM interaction in the meridional direction from the element evaluation for load combination N0_ 1 and the representative OBE_ 1 load combination for the Standard Analysis Case are plotted in Figures 58 and 59. Meridional flexure demands (i.e., bending about the hoop axis) are most critical at the base of the CEB wall and at the pilasters on either side of the Electrical and Mechanical Penetrations.

Axial-flexure evaluation results for the Standard Analysis Case are discussed below.

• The element-by-element evaluation of the Standard Analysis Case indicates meridional axial-flexure interaction capacity exceedances at the base of the wall between AZ 270 and 360. This portion of the wall is between the two large penetrations (Electrical and Mechanical Penetrations).

Out-of-plane ASR of fill loads contributes most to the out-of-plane flexure demands at the base of the wall. The evaluation of these demands is controlled by the static N0_ 1 load combination because of the large ASR load factors. This wall segment is subdivided into three section cuts, each between 15 and 27 ft wide (approximately eight wall thicknesses wide), for evaluation of flexure interaction.

The section cuts on either end of this wall segment have increased PM capacity due to the pilasters adjacent to the penetrations.

The section cut evaluations also indicate exceedance of axial-flexure interaction capacity.

Therefore a moment redistribution analysis is performed at the base of the wall to redistribute bending moment in excess of the PM interaction capacity.

The redistribution causes changes in bending moments and, to a lesser extent, membrane forces in adjacent areas of the structure.

For the Standard Analysis Case, the moment redistribution study is performed for the controlling static load combination (N0_ 1 ). Documentation of the moment redistribution is provided in Appendix H. A summary of the moment redistribution is provided in Section 7.6.2.

• The element-by-element evaluation of the Standard Analysis Case indicates meridional axial-flexure interaction capacity exceedances at the pilasters on either side of the Electrical and Mechanical Penetrations.

Section cut evaluations of these locations (Section Cuts 8, 9, 10, and 11, as defined in Appendix N) indicate that the pilasters on 150252-CA-02 Revision O FP 100985 Page 69 of 526 b"-SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER ,,..,....

I of Structures and Building' Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB PROJECT NO: __

___ _ DATE: 31 July2016 BY: _____

VERIFIER:

either side of the Electrical Penetration (Section Cuts 8 and 11) exceed capacity, while the pilasters on either side of the Mechanical Penetration (Section Cuts 9 and 10) meet evaluation criteria.

Moment redistribution analysis is performed at these pilasters to redistribute bending moment in excess of the PM interaction capacity.

The redistribution causes changes in bending moments and, to a lesser-extent, membrane forces in adjacent areas of the structure.

For the Standard Analysis Case, the moment redistribution study is performed for the controlling static load combination (N0_ 1 ). Documentation of the moment redistribution is provided in Appendix H. A summary of the moment redistribution is provided in Section 7.6.2.

• The element-by-element evaluation of the Standard Analysis Case indicates small regions of minor and localized capacity exceedances at El. +45.5 ft near AZ 30 and 240. These capacity exceedances are primarily caused by tensile demands acting on the wall due to different ASR expansion magnitudes acting at different portions of the wall. As shown in Table 13, between AZ 0 and 180 the applied ASR strain is 0.015% in the vertical direction and between AZ 180 & 270 and 270 & 360 the applied ASR strain is 0.04% and 0.06% in the vertical direction, respectively.

These changes in vertical expansion cause tensile demands in the wall. These tensile demands are studied for the most severe case, which occurs in the Standard-Plus Analysis Case (see additional info below). Contour plots of DCRs for PM interaction in the meridional direction for load combination N0_ 1 for the Standard-Plus Analysis Case are plotted i!1 Figure 60. Axial-flexure evaluation results for the Standard-Plus Analysis Case are discussed below.

• Similar to the Standard Analysis Case, element-by-element evaluation of the Plus Analysis Case shows regions of capacity exceedance at the base of the wall between AZ 270 and 360 as well as at the pilasters on either side of the Electrical and Mechanical Penetrations.

The Standard-Plus Analysis Case also shows a region of meridional PM interaction exceedance along the base of the wall between AZ 180 and 270; this exceedance is caused by the added pressures considered in this analysis case. These exceedances are confirmed by section-cut analyses, and moment redistribution analysis is performed for these exceedances for the controlling static (N0_ 1) combination as well as an OBE combination.

Documentation of the moment redistribution is provided in Appendix H. A summary of the moment redistribution is provided in Section 7 .6.2.

• The element-by-element evaluation of the Standard-Plus Analysis Case indicates a localized region of capacity exceedance at El. +45.5 ft near AZ 240. This demands in this region are similar to those previously identified at El +45.5 ft in the Standard Analysis Case. This exceedance is most critical in the static combination (N0_1) of the Standard-Plus Analysis Case at AZ 240 because meridional tension demands caused by additional pressure possibly due to ASR of the concrete fill wedge are additive to those caused by the differential ASR expansion of the CEB wall. The transition in wall thickness from 27 in. to 15 in between El +40 and +45.5 ft causes the 150252-CA-02 Revision O FP 100985 Page 70 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB PROJECT NO: __

___ _ DATE: 31 July 2016 BY:

VERIFIER:

wall's centerline to shift by 6 in., which causes the tensile demands to impart a bending moment on the wall about the hoop axis. The tension demands at El +45.5 ft AZ 240 for this localized area are larger than the modulus of concrete rupture (as defined in ACI 318-71 Section 9.5.2.2 [11]). In the linear elastic model of the CEB, demands are computed conservatively by not considering stiffness reductions associated with concrete cracking.

Concrete cracking occurring in this area would reduce the meridional stiffness of the area, and promote further tensile demands to take alternate load paths with higher stiffness.

Furthermore, the differential ASR expansion loads causing these tensile demands are displacement controlled, which indicates that demands would be partially reduced by the reduction in stiffness due to concrete cracking.

An analysis is performed by reducing the stiffness of a strip of elements at El. +45.5 AZ 240 to be equivalent to the stiffness of the steel reinforcement in that area to simulate concrete cracking.

This reduction in stiffness is only used in ASR load cases (ASR of CEB wall and ASR of concrete fill). This analysis shows that concrete cracking reduces the tensile and flexural demands acting on the section, and a section cut evaluation shows that evaluation criteria are met. The PM interaction diagram before and after the adjustment to stiffness is shown in Figures 62 and 63. Additional information on this analysis is provided in Appendix M. The information presented above shows axial-flexure interaction meets evaluation criteria for all analysis cases and all load combinations.

7.6 Results

of Additional Evaluations Additional evaluations are performed if the element-by-element and section cut evaluations are unable to qualify a region of the structure.

In the additional evaluations, areas with elevated demands are identified, and the mechanisms resisting the demands are identified.

A detailed analysis of the resistance mechanisms is performed, and all critical aspects of the mechanism are checked against evaluation criteria.

7.6.1 Evaluation

of Base of Wall Adjacent to Penetrations The base of the CEB wall resists out-of-plane demands using a resistance mechanism that consists of out-of-plane shear, flexure about the hoop axis, and the formation of a tension couple as illustrated in Figure 76. The ASR expansion of the concrete fill contributes the most to the out-of-plane loads, and the factored demands caused by these loads must be resisted along with those from all other factored design loads. To maintain this resistance mechanism, the following items are evaluated:

150252-CA-02 Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 71 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB

• Out-of-plane shear strength at the base of the wall

• Meridional axial tension at the base of the wall PROJECT NO:

DATE: 31 July 2016 BY: ____ ___,_,_R.=M'"'"-.

__ _ VERIFIER:

__ _,A_,,_.T_,__,._,.S""'ar_,._awi=*t,__

__ _

• Meridional axial compression at the base of the wall near openings

• Axial tension at the base of the wall in the hoop direction

• In-plane shear strength at the base of the wall

• Out-of-plane bending about the hoop axis at the base of the wall Many of these items have already been qualified in Section 7.5 using element-by-element and section cut evaluations.

However, the evaluation of each of these items is discussed below within the context of the base of the CEB wall. Out-of-Plane Shear Strength at the Base of the Wall Out-of-plane shear at the base of the wall is evaluated using section cuts taken at the base of the wall. For each section cut, shear demand is computed as the SRSS of the in-plane shear and out-of-plane shear demands. Shear demand is compared to the shear friction capacity, which is computed using a friction coefficient of 1.0 to account for a construction joint between the foundation and CEB wall concretes.

As stated in Section 7.5.4, the maximum OCR for of-plane shear at the base of the wall is 0.58. Therefore, it is concluded that out-of-plane shear at the base of the wall meets evaluation criteria.

Meridional Axial Tension at the Base of the Wall The tension-compression couple illustrated in Figure 76 occurs due to the curved shape of the CEB wall. This couple creates a region of meridional tension demand at locations away from large penetrations (i.e. Electrical and Mechanical Penetrations).

The tension demand is most severe in the Standard-Plus Analysis Case at approximately AZ 225° due to the additional concrete fill pressure in this case, and the controlling load combination is the static N0_ 1 combination (as defined in Table 5). The maximum net axial demand on the wall at this location is 9,800 lbf/in or 9.8 kip/in, which is significantly lower than the axial tension capacity of 42 kip/in., as computed below. 150252-CA-02 Revision O FP 100985 Page 72 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERT? & HEGER I Engineering of Slructures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB PROJECT NO:

___ _ DATE: 31 July 2016 BY: ____

VERIFIER:

(1.56in 2 x 3) </JPn = </JAsfy = (0.9) X 6 in X 60ksi = 42kip/in Therefore, it is concluded that axial tension at the base of the wall meets evaluation criteria.

Meridional Axial Compression at the Base of the Wall on the Edge(s) The tension-compression couple illustrated in Figure 76 occurs due to the curved shape of the wall. The couple creates meridional compression in the pilasters adjacent to the Electrical and Mechanical Penetrations.

Section 7.5.2 shows that compression demands meet evaluation criteria at these locations.

Axial Tension at the Base of the Wall in the Hoop Direction The tension-compression couple illustrated in Figure 76 also causes a narrow region of hoop tension demand at the base of the wall. The element-by-element evaluation indicates that this tensile demand exceeds capacity in the Standard-Plus Analysis Case. However, the section cut evaluation performed in Section 7.5.6 demonstrates that the wall meets evaluation criteria.

In-Plane Shear Strength at the Base of the Wall In-plane shear is evaluated at the base of the CEB wall using section cuts. Since in-plane shear demands engage a large portion of the wall as a membrane, in-plane shear is typically evaluated using longer section cuts than out-of-plane demands. For evaluation of in-plane shear for the CEB, section cuts up to 90° in length are used. In some cases, such as between the Electrical and Mechanical Penetrations, ASR loads can cause in-plane shear demands to act in two different directions within a single section cut. In these cases, in-plane shear is evaluated for the net demand in the entire section cut and the potential for the wall to split apart is evaluated by checking membrane demands in the hoop and meridional directions.

Section cut evaluations of in-plane shear at the base of the wall indicate a maximum OCR of 0.56, which occurs in Section Cut 3 (between AZ 180° and 270°) in the OBE_3 combination in the Plus Analysis Case. Out-of-Plane Bending about the Hoop Axis at the Base of the Wall 150252-CA-02 Revision O FP 100985 Page 73 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Struclu_res and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB PROJECT NO: __

___ _ DATE: 31 July 2016 BY:

VERIFIER:

__ _,A_,,_.T_,_,.-=S=ar=awi=*t"-----

Out-of-plane bending about the hoop axis occurs at the base of the wall and is caused by of-plane pressures applied to the wall (primarily caused by ASR of concrete fill). The base of the wall is subdivided into sections with length approximately equal to eight wall thicknesses, and each section is evaluated for PM interaction.

It is found that sections between AZ 270 and 360 exceed PM capacity in the Standard Analysis Case. For the Standard-Plus Analysis Case, it is found that PM interaction capacity is exceeded for sections between AZ 180 and 270 as well as section between AZ 270 and 360. Both of these exceedances are controlled by the static load combination (N0_ 1), as defined in Table 5. Moment redistribution analyses are performed for these areas of exceedance.

The analysis is summarized in Section 7 .6.2 and documented with additional detail in Appendix H. 7.6.2 Moment Redistribution Analysis and Evaluation In areas where axial-flexure interaction capacity is exceeded by factored demands, a moment redistribution analysis is performed to simulate possible localized cracking and formation of localized plastic hinges to account for the impact of this redistribution on other parts of the CEB structure.

In moment redistribution analyses, all moment that is in excess of the computed capacity is redistributed in the structure; this is to account for localized cracking and plastic hinge behavior This procedure causes changes in bending moments and, to a lesser-extent, membrane forces in adjacent areas of the structure.

The moment redistribution analyses simulate local plasticity within the structure, and simulate the redistribution of loads associated with the plasticity.

Since a linear elastic model is used in this calculation, the moment redistribution is performed with an approach that utilizes several conservative approximations.

These conservative approximations are listed below:

• In the moment redistribution analyses, the plastic moment capacity of each evaluated wall section is taken as the code flexural capacity.

Since the code flexural capacity is computed using strength reduction (phi) factors, the wall may have remaining flexural stiffness when the code flexural capacity (c/JMn) is exceeded.

This means that the amount of moment that must be redistributed is over-predicted in these analyses.

This over-prediction is conservative because it requires adjacent wall sections to carry the excess moment demand. 150252-CA-02 Revision O FP 100985 Page 74 of 526

SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER p!ll"""' I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB PROJECT NO: __ 1-=5=02=5=2

___ _ DATE:

___ _ BY: ____ _,R_,,_.M=.'-"M=o=ne=s'-----

VERIFIER:

• Cracked section properties are not considered in the analyses leading to moment redistribution.

Flexural cracking reduces the stiffness of the section, and therefore reduces the demand in the element due to certain types of load.

• All moment redistributions are assumed to occur concurrently.

This is a conservative assumption because loads in all areas of the structure may not necessarily reach their fully factored value at the same time. The moment redistribution approach is documented and validated in Appendix L. Three moment redistribution analyses are performed in this calculation.

For the Standard Analysis Case, moment redistribution is performed for the static load combination (N0_ 1) only, which is the controlling case. For the Standard-Plus Analysis Case, moment redistribution is performed for the static load combination (N0_ 1) as well an OBE combination (OBE_ 4) that is found to control over other OBE combinations at several section cuts. In all monient redistribution analyses, the moment in excess of capacity is redistributed such that, after redistribution is complete, the PM interaction demand point is generally within the capacity of the section. Impact on membrane forces due to moment redistribution is generally small, as identified in Appendix H. Section cuts (as shown in Appendix N) are defined in critical areas of the structure for PM interaction.

After moment redistribution is performed, demands at all relevant defined section cuts are analyzed to determine if redistributed demands sufficiently increase in PM interaction to cause capacity exceedance.

If needed, additional iterations of moment redistribution are performed to resolve such exceedances.

Diagrams illustrating PM interaction prior to moment redistribution for the Standard Analysis Case are shown for Section Cuts 19 and 22 in Figures 64 and 65. It can be seen in these figures that the static load combination N0_ 1 controls evaluation in these cuts. The PM interaction diagrams after moment redistribution are shown in Figures 66 and 67. It can be seen that the demand for static combination N0_ 1 at these cut locations has sufficiently been redistributed.

Similar diagrams are shown for the Standard-Plus Analysis Case for Section Cuts 19 and 22 in Figures 68 through 71. PM interaction diagrams for Section Cuts 14 and 15, which do not require moment redistribution in the Standard-Plus Analysis Case, are shown in Figures 72 and 73. Diagrams illustrating PM interaction before and after moment redistribution for 150252-CA-02 Revision O FP 100985 Page 75 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of S1ructures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB PROJECT NO: __

___ _ DATE: 31 July 2016 BY:

___ _ VERIFIER:

---

'A_,,_.T-'--'-.-"'S=ar=awi=*t'-----

section cuts at the base of the structure between AZ 270 and 360 for the N0_ 1 combination in the Standard-Plus Analysis Case are shown in Figures 74 and 75. Additional documentation on the moment redistribution analyses, including assessment of membrane forces, is provided in Appendix H of this calculation.

This appendix shows that, in some cases, moment redistribution can result in small increases in OCR for effects other than PM interaction.

However, this increases are small and they impact evaluations (in-plane shear, out-of-plane shear, compression) that have sufficient remaining.

The ductility of the sections where moment redistribution is performed is evaluated in Appendix 0. Ductility is defined as the total strain in the tension reinforcement divided by the strain at which the reinforcement yields. Appendix 0 shows that the maximum ductility computed in this evaluation is 3.5, occurring in Section Cut 22 (as defined in Appendix N). All other section cuts have a maximum ductility of 2.5 or less. 7.7 Evaluation of CEB Displacements Potential interaction between the CEB and other adjacent structures is evaluated in this section. When available, measurements made of the widths of the seismic gaps between the CEB and the adjacent structures (West Pipe Chase, Electrical Pen., FSB, and CB) are used when performing these computations.

The finite element analysis results are used to obtain (a) seismic and transient load displacements of the CEB and (b) the reduction in seismic gap widths due to possible progression of ASR associated with the threshold factor of 1.2. Although the results of this computation are not greatly affected by the use of the Standard-Plus Analysis Case rather than the Standard Analysis Case, the CEB displacements are checked for both the Standard and the Standard-Plus Analysis Cases. The remaining clearance between the CEB and an adjacent structure is computed using Equation 10. The relative seismic movements of the CEB and adjacent structures are combined as

+ which is based on Section 7.3 of ASCE 43-05 [28]. This equation provides a factor of safety against building contact due to seismic and transient motions. 150252-CA-02 Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 76 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures PROJECT NO:

DATE: 31July2016 CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook BY:

__ _

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB VERIFIER:

__ _,A__,,_.T"'--'".-=S=ar=awi=*t"-----

Where: c = Ldes = k;h = = = = = Equation 10 Minimum remaining joint clearance between CEB and adjacent structure.

Design seismic gap width, 3 in. [12]. Factor representing the increase in radial CEB deformation when ASR loads are amplified by the threshold factor kth (See Section 7.3). This factor is computed as the FEA-simulated radial deformation amplified by the ASR threshold factor divided by the FEA-simulated radial deformation without the ASR threshold factor. Measured radial displacement of CEB, taken as positive if in direction toward adjacent structure.

If seismic gap measurement is not available, Lobs is taken as the displacement from FEA simulations of the as-deformed condition.

Computed factored non-seismic displacement of the CEB, not including sustained loads (such as self-weight, hydrostatic pressure, and static soil pressure) which are already included in Lobs* Lns is taken as positive if in direction toward the adjacent structure.

Lns is taken as zero if it is in the direction away from the adjacent structure.

Computed factored seismic displacement of CEB, taken as absolute value. Maximum lateral displacement of adjacent structure.

La values are taken from [31] whenever possible; otherwise it is assumed that La is equal in value to Ls. Clearance evaluations are shown in Tables 16 and 17 for the Standard and Standard-Plus Analysis Cases. For Locations 7 and 8 in this table, existing seismic gaps are unknown; therefore, it is assumed that the minimum remaining seismic gap during a seismic event is 0.0 in., and a minimum as-deformed condition seismic gap (i.e., due to sustained loads and straining loads only) is computed.

This computation takes into account a decrease in isolation gap width due to possible progression of ASR related to the threshold factor of 1.2. Results of the clearance evaluations are summarized below:

• With the exception of the locations at missile shields, the existing gap widths are sufficient at all assessed locations to ensure that contact between buildings will not occur.

• For missile shield locations, the minimum current seismic gap to prevent contact with the adjacent structure (CB) is 1 in. at the missile shield above the Personnel Hatch and 518 in. at the missile shield above the CEVA. 150252-CA-02 Revision O FP 100985 Page 77 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB 7.8 Evaluation of Global Stability PROJECT NO: ---'-"15=02=5=2

___ _ DATE: 31July2016 BY: ____ ____,_,_R.=M"--.

M=o=n=e,,_s

__ _ VERIFIER:

__ _ The concrete fill that surrounds the CEB from El. 0 ft and below provides a substantial resistance to global sliding and overturning.

However, since ASR expansion of the CEB and the surrounding fill introduces a new load the CEB, a conservative evaluation against sliding and overturning is performed.

The original design calculations checking for global flotation were confirmed in Ref. 29 and are not affected by the addition of ASR loads; therefore flotation is not reevaluated in this calculation.

The conservative stability evaluation with consideration of ASR demands is performed in Appendix I and demonstrates that a factor of safety against sliding and overturning meeting the requirements of SD-66 [8] is provided.

This evaluation is considered to be conservative because it accounts for demands caused by ASR expansion of the fill, but it does not consider the resistance to sliding and overturning provided by the concrete fill. 150252-CA-02 Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 78 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB PROJECT NO: __

DATE: 31 July 2016 BY: ____ _,R'"'-'*=M,_..

M=o=n=es'-----

VERIFIER:

__

8. ESTABLISH THRESHOLD MEASUREMENTS FOR CONDITION MONITORING In the analysis and evaluation of the CEB, ASR loads are amplified by a threshold factor in addition to a load factor. While the load factor accounts for uncertainty in the ASR load, the threshold factor accounts for additional ASR load that may occur in the future. As noted in Section 7.3, a threshold factor of 1.2 is selected for the CEB, which means that ASR-related demands are amplified by 20% beyond their factored values. Simulated ASR expansion of the CEB is based on Crack Index (Cl) strain measurements performed in the regions of the structure defined in Table 13. The analysis shows that ASR expansions occurring in the grade portions of the structure (regions R 1, R2, and R3) have a larger impact on demands and deformations than those occurring above-grade.

Systematic monitoring of the CEB is required to verify that ASR loads have not exceeded the selected threshold and to inform when threshold values are being approached to allow for appropriate corrective action measures.

Monitoring of strains and structure deformations is appropriate to inform of potential internal ASR expansion to evaluate against the strain limits established by the large-scale testing at FSEL, to understand the impact of potential ASR expansion of concrete backfill, and to capture potential movement or deformation of adjacent structures.

Strains can be monitored by different means such as through Cl, CCI, and expansion measurements., Because the analysis uses a mean strain value for each region, monitoring must be able to track strains sufficiently to justify the use of a mean value in each of the below-grade regions defined in Table 13 for below grade regions not to exceed 20% above strain values provided in Table 13 for regions R 1, R2, and R3. This may be achieved by using existing monitoring locations within each region if sufficient data can be collected or by establishing new locations to supplement or replace existing locations.

For purposes of explaining the methodology, this chapter discusses the use of CCI measurements to monitor strains. While the use of the selected monitoring locations is expected to produce the desired results, the intent is not to restrict development of threshold monitoring program to the specific methods and monitoring locations identified in the text. Similarly, this chapter discusses the use of the existing seismic gap measurement locations to monitor structure deformations; alternative means and locations may be appropriate.

150252-CA-02 Revision O FP 100985 Page 79 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB PROJECT NO:

___ _ DATE: 31 July2016 BY: _____

VERIFIER:

__ _ A proposed approach is to monitor regions R1, R2, and R3 to confirm the average strains in these regions don't exceed 20% above the strain values provided in Table 13. Another alternative prospective approach for monitoring of ASR strain using CCI is described below where threshold measurements are divided into sets based on regions of the CE8 structure.

A threshold limit is established for each set of threshold measurements.

The average change in the set of threshold measurements is compared to the threshold limit to determine if the predefined threshold of ASR load is met. Averaging of threshold measurements is done because the threshold amplification is applied to all ASR loads on the entire structure and a localized increase in a monitored quantity is not indicative of threshold conditions being met. Prospective threshold measurement sets and their corresponding limits are summarized in Section 3. Further information on these measurements and limits is provided in the preceding sections of this report. As field measurements approach the threshold limits, corrective actions should be taken to ensure validity of the calculation conclusions.

If needed, further evaluation may be required to qualify the structure under a larger set of ASR loads. 8.1 Alternate Prospective Crack Index Threshold Measurements and Threshold Limits The fifteen ASR monitoring grids established in 2011 [32] and re-measured in 2016 [9] comprise a representative sample of the most severe regions of the CE8 for ASR expansion.

These monitoring grids are located below-grade where ASR expansion tends to be the most severe. Additionally, these monitoring grids are approximately evenly distributed at different azimuths on the CE8. These fifteen ASR monitoring grids are divided into two sets: one set consists of monitoring grids on the east side of the CE8 (between AZ 0° and 180°) where ASR strains are generally lower, and the other set consists of grids on the west side of the CE8 (AZ 180° to 360°) where ASR strains tend to be higher. Monitoring is performed using combined crack index (CCI), which takes into account both vertical and horizontal strains [33]. Threshold limits are established by multiplying the average of the most recent CCI values by the threshold factor of 1.20. The two measurement sets are referred to as Threshold Measurement Set A and 8, and their corresponding threshold limits are referred to as Threshold Limit A and 8. These measurements and limits are shown in Tables 19 and 20. 150252-CA-02 Revision O FP 100985 Page 80 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures ond Building Enclosures PROJECT NO: ----'1=50=2=52==-------

DATE: -----"'-3_,_1

,,__,Ju.,..ly'"-"2""-0-'-"'16,__

__ _ CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook BY: ____ __,_R=.M='-'.

M,_,_,o"'-'n=es..__

__ _

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB VERIFIER:

__ __,_A,,__,.T'"'-.

,,,.sa""-r-"'aWJ"'-'.t'-----

8.2 Prospective

Deformation Threshold Measurements and Threshold Limits A set of deformation threshold measurements throughout the CEB structure is defined in this section. This set of threshold measurements is referred to as Threshold Measurement Set C. The measurements within this group consist of seismic gap measurements and annulus width measurements.

The threshold limit for this set, referred to as Threshold Limit C, is defined and evaluated using the equations below. Where: n TMc = Ildn.field

-dn,designl X i=O n TLc = 2.)ldn,baseline

-dn,designl X kn,thf] X i=O d k _ n,FEA,1.2 n,thf -d n,FEA,baseline T Mc = Average deformation for locations in Threshold Measurement Set C TLc = Threshold Limit C n = Number of measurement locations in Threshold Measurement Set C dn.field = Field measurement of threshold measurement n at time of monitoring dn,design

= Design dimension of threshold measurement n dn,baseline

= Field measurement of threshold measurement n at time when TLc is established and CEB evaluation is performed dFEA,i.2 = Radial deformation of the CEB at location of threshold measurement n due to unfactored sustained loads plus unfactored self-straining loads with a 1.2 threshold factor dn,FEA,baseline

= Radial deformation of the CEB at location of threshold measurement n due to unfactored sustained loads plus unfactored self-straining loads without threshold factor amplification The locations in Threshold Measurement Set C are listed in Table 21. For each threshold measurement, a method must be established to perform the measurement in a repeatable way. It is particularly important to perform the measurement in a well-defined location, otherwise seemingly small deviations in the concrete surfaces can have a significant impact on the repeatability of the threshold measurements.

For some of the locations in Threshold Measurement Set C, a repeatable measurement method has already been established and a 150252-CA-02 Revision O FP 100985 Page 81 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I EngineerinQ of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB PROJECT NO:

DATE:

___ _ BY:

VERIFIER:

S=a=ra=wi=*t

___ _ baseline measurement has been obtained [3, 5]. Other locations in this set have previously been measured, but they have not been measured in a suitably repeatable way for continued monitoring.

Once a baseline measurement is established for all locations in Threshold Measurement Set C, then Threshold Limit C can be computed.

A projected value of Threshold Limit C is provided in Table 21 based on currently available measurement data. 150252-CA-02 Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 82 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures

____ _

CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB VERIFIER:

---

'-A""'.T'-'-.

=S=ar_,.awi.:..:.*,_,__1

___ _ 9. TABLES Table 1. List of Load Symbols and Notation*

Load Symbol Description D Dead load (includes hydrostatic pressure)

L Live load H Lateral static soil pressure w Wind load Ea Operating basis earthquake (OBE) Ess Safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) He Dynamic earth pressure due to OBE Hs Dynamic earth pressure due to SSE Wt Tornado wind load Pa Accidental Pressure load Ls Unusual snow load F Design basis flood load Sa ASR expansion of wall and backfill concrete (self-straining force) Sc Creep (self-straininq force) Sh Shrinkage (self-straining force) Sw Concrete swelling (self-straining force) *Note: This table includes loads that are considered in this evaluation Table 2. List of Loads Not Considered in Evaluation Load Symbol See Note Description Wm 1 Tornado missile loadinq Ra 2 Pipe reaction loads durinq normal conditions Ra 2 Accident piping load Rrj 2 Jet impinqement load Rrr 2 Jet force reaction Rrm 2 Pipe whip load Ta 2 Accidental temperature load Ta 2 Operational temperature load Pa 2 Operational pressure load 1: Evaluation of Tornado M1ss1le Loads 1s not required according to SD-66 [8] 2: Evaluation of piping loads, temperature loads, and operational pressure loads are not part of the original design performed by UE [24]. 150252-CA-02 Revision O FP 100985 Page 83 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER pill""'" I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures PROJECTN0:

__

DATE: ___

CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook BY: ____

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB VERIFIER:

__ _.._A ..... T,....._,,S=ar=a=wi,_,_*t

___ _ 150252-CA-02 FP 100985 Page 84 of 526 Table 3. Definition of Tornado Wind Load, Wt Combination 1 W1=Ww1 +Wwz W1=Wp Wt = Ww1 + 0.5Wp Ww1: Tornado wind external pressure load Ww2: Tornado wind internal pressure load Wp: Tornado differential pressure load Table 4. Combinations for Computation of Deformations coinblnation

"> For Comparison with Field Measurements:

1.00 + 1.0H + 1.0Sa + 1.0Sw + 1.0Sc + 1.0Sh To Establish Threshold Measurement Limits 1: 1.00 + 1.0H + 1.0*kih*Sa

+ 1.0Sw + 1.0Sc + 1.0Sh For Computation of Demands Associated with the As-Deformed Condition:

1.00 + 1.0H + 1.0*kth*Sa

+ 1.0Sw Notes: 1 The threshold factor kth is selected to be 1.2, see Section 7.3. Revision O SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures PROJECT NO: ---'-'15=0=2=52=------

DATE: ___

___ _ CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook BY: ____

__ _

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB VERIFIER:

__ _ Table 5. List of Load Combinations Label 1*2 Combination N0_1 (2.0xkth)Sa

+ 1.4Sw + 1.40 + 1. 7L + 1. 7H N0_2 (1.5xkth)Sa

+ 1.4Sw + 1.050 + 1.28L + 1.28H N0_3 (1.0xkth)Sa

+ 1.4Sw + 1.00 + 1.0L + 1.0H + 1.5Pa OBE_1 (1.3xkth)Sa

+ 1.4Sw + 1.40 + 1.7L + 1.9Eo + 1.7H + 1.9He OBE_2 (1.0xkth)Sa

+ 1.4Sw + 1.050 + 1.28L + 1.43Eo + 1.28H + 1.43He OBE_3 (1.3xkth)Sa

+ 1.4Sw + 1.20 + 1.9Eo + 1. 7H + 1.9He OBE_4 (1.0xkth)Sa

+ 1.4Sw + 1.00 + 1.0L + 1.25Eo + 1.0H + 1.25He + 1.25Pa SSE_1 (1.0xkth)Sa

+ 1.4Sw + 1.00 + 1.0L + 1.0Ess + 1.0H + 1.0Hs SSE_2 (1.0xkth)Sa

+ 1.4Sw + 1.00 + 1.0L + 1.0Ess + 1.0H + 1.0Hs + 1.0Pa W_1 (1.?xkth)Sa

+ 1.4Sw + 1.40 + 1.7L + 1.7W + 1.7H W_2 (1.28xkth)Sa

+ 1.4Sw + 1.050 + 1.28L + 1.3W + 1.28H W_3 (1.?xkth)Sa

+ 1.4Sw+ 1.20+1.7W+

1.7H W_4 (1.0xkth)Sa

+ 1.4Sw + 1.00 + 1.0L + 1.0Wt + 1.0H W_5 (1.0xkth)Sa

+ 1.4Sw + 1.00 + 1.0L + 1.0W + 1.0ls W_6 (1.0xkth)Sa

+ 1.4Sw + 1.00 + 1.0L + 1.0W + 1.0ls + 1.0F 1 NO: Normal load comb1nat1ons (non-se1sm1c and non-wind)

QBE = Load combinations including operating basis earthquake Ea SSE = Load combinations including safe shutdown earthquake Ess W = Load combinations including wind, W, and tornado wind, Wt 2 OBE and SSE combinations are performed for each of the directional combinations shown in Table 6 150252-CA-02 Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 85 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook PROJECT NO:

___ _ DATE: 31 July2016 BY:

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB VERIFIER:

__

Table 6. Seismic Excitation Combinations using 100-40-40 Rule Seismic Excitation Directions 1 100% East 40% North 40% Vertical Up 2 100% East 40% South 40% Vertical Up 3 100% East 40% North 40% Vertical Down 4 100% East 40% South 40% Vertical Down 5 100% West 40% North 40% Vertical Up 6 100% West 40% South 40% Vertical Up 7 100% West 40% North 40% Vertical Down 8 100% West 40% South 40% Vertical Down 9 40% East 100% North 40% Vertical Up 10 40% West 100% North 40% Vertical Up 11 40% East 100% North 40% Vertical Down 12 40% West 100% North 40% Vertical Down 13 40% East 100% South 40% Vertical Up 14 40% West 100% South 40% Vertical Up 15 40% East 100% South 40% Vertical Down 16 40% West 100% South 40% Vertical Down 17 40% East 40% North 100% Vertical Up 18 40% West 40% North 100% Vertical Up 19 40% East 40% South 100% Vertical Up 20 40% West 40% South 100% Vertical Up 21 40% East 40% North 100% Vertical Down 22 40% West 40% North 100% Vertical Down 23 40% East 40% South 100% Vertical Down 24 40% West 40% South 100% Vertical Down 150252-CA-02 Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 86 of 526 I l 't SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures PROJECTN0:

___

CLIENT:

_________________

BY: _____

SUBJECT:

_E_v_a_lu_a_ti_o_n_a_n_d_D_e_s_i_g_n_C_o_n_fi_rm_a_tio_n_o_f A_s-_D_e_f_o_rm_e_d_C_E_B

______ VERIFIER:

___ _ Table 7. Description and Purpose of Analysis Cases Analysis Case Computer Name Run Conditions Purpose/Use Original Design 10D_ro CEB model without self-straining loads. Evaluate CEB structure to assess if Analysis Case original design was sufficient and to verify performance of FEA model. ,

• ASR loads matching field measurements of Cl. Evaluate CEB structure.

Standard Analysis

• CEB deformations generally matching field measurements of building *case 10A_r0 movement at all locations except for AZ 230°.

• Concrete fill constructed in accordance with design drawings . See Section 6.2.2 for full description of analysis case. Same as the Standard Analysis Case, except moment redistribution is used at

• Evaluate axial-flexure interaction at Standard Analysis localized areas where axial-flexure interaction demands are in exceedance of localized areas with exceedance in Case with 10AR_r0 capacity in the Standard Analysis Case. the Standard Analysis Case.

See Appendix H for documentation of moment redistribution.

• Identify areas where moment Redistribution redistribution may impact membrane demands.

• ASR loads matching field measurements of Cl. Evaluate CEB structure.

• CEB deformations are more representative of those measured in the field at AZ 230°, and continue to reasonably match field measurements elsewhere.

Standard-Plus 1087 _rO

• Inward pressures representing concrete fill are extended to include the Analysis Case portion of CEB wall that is adjacent to the triangular "wedge" of concrete ,. between the CEVA, FSB, and CEB (from AZ 180° to 212°, El. +19 to +54 ft). This assumes that the concrete fill is in contact with the CEB and exerting lateral pressure from ASR expansion.

See Section 6.2.3 for full description of analysis case. '-Same as the Standard-Plus Analysis Case, except moment redistribution is

• Evaluate axial-flexure interaction at Standard-Plus used at localized areas where axial-flexure interaction demands are in localized areas with exceedance in Analysis Case exceedance of capacity in the Standard-Plus Analysis Case. the Standard-Plus Analysis Case. with Moment 10BR7_r0 See Appendix H for documentation of moment redistribution.

• Identify areas where moment Redistribution redistribution may impact membrane demands. 150252-CA-02 Revision O FP 100985 Page 87 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures PROJECTN0:

__

DATE: ____

CLIENT:

BY: _____

___ _

SUBJECT:

_____ VERIFIER:

__

__ _ Table 8. Summary of Analysis Cases Generally Generally Simulates Analysis Case Consistent with Simulates Cl Deformation Moment Name Loads Considered Design Drawings?

Measurements?

Measurements?

Redistribution Original Design All Table 5 Yes No No No Analvsis Case combinations 1 Standard Analysis All Table 5 Yes Yes Yes 3 No Case combinations Standard Analysis Load combination Yes Yes Yes 3 Yes Case with Moment N0_1 in Table 5 Redistribution (controlling load combination)

Standard-Plus All Table 5 Design-PI us 2 Yes Yes No Analysis Case combinations Standard Plus Load combination Design-Plus 2 Yes Yes Yes Analysis Case with N0_ 1 and OBE_ 4 Moment in Table 5 Redistribution (controlling load combination and an OBE load combination) 1 In the Original Design Analysis Case, all self-straining loads (including Sa and Sw) are excluded 2 "Design-Plus" indicates that additional ASR loads are applied due to the assumption that the concrete fill is not isolated from the CEB at certain Azimuths (see JAOB in Section 5.1) 3 The Standard Analysis Case generally simulates deformation measurements at all locations except AZ 230° (see Section 6.2.2) 150252-CA-02 FP 100985 Page 88 of 526 Revision 0 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures PROJECT NO: __ _,_,15=0=25=2,__

___ _ DATE:

___ _ CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook BY: ____ __,_R=.M=.'"-"M=o=n=es,__

__ _

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB VERIFIER:

Table 9. Summary of Analysis Results Naming Convention SR evA LCB D12 tl2 rO Example load combination output name: (See notes on naming convention below)

Note Description Analysis and evaluation descriptor Analysis Case Descriptor Specifies if output is for an independent load case or load combination Letter to specify load combination group Independent load case or load combination number Descriptor for threshold factor kth (j) Version number 150252-CA-02 FP 100985 Page 89 of 526 Options Specified as "SR" for all CEB analyses/evaluations evA: Standard Analysis Case evAR: Standard Analysis Case ev87: Standard-Plus Analysis Case evD: Original Design Analysis Case evBR7: Standard-Plus Analysis Case with Moment Redistribution See Section 6.2.2 for more information on analysis cases ILC: Independent load case (i.e. one single type of unfactored load applied to the structure, such as hydrostatic pressure)

LCB: Load combination (i.e., several factored loads applied to the structure)

See Table 5 for a list of load combinations considered in this evaluation.

A: Combinations for computation of building deformations (See Table 4 for additional information)

B: Combinations consisting of ASR loads or other self-straining loads only (Not used for evaluation)

C: Load combinations N0_ 1, N0_2, and N0_3 (as defined in Table 4) D, E, F, G: Load combinations OBE_ 1, OBE_2, OBE_3, and QBE_ 4 (as defined in Table 4) H, I: Load combinations SSE_ 1, and SSE_2 (as defined in Table 4) J: Load combinations W_ 1, W_2, and W_3 (as defined in Table 4) K: Load combinations W_ 4, and W_5 (as defined in Table 4) (No letter is used for independent load cases) Can range from 1 to 41, See Appendix B for more information too: Threshold factor of zero (i.e., no self-straining loads) t10: Threshold factor of one (i.e., ASR loads equivalent to currently observed conditions) t12: Threshold factor of 1.2 See Section 7.3 for a description of threshold factors. Generally specified as "rO" for items discussed in this document Revision 0 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I of Structures and Bu1ld1ng Enclosures

• CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB

• PROJECT NO:

DATE:

BY: ____

VERIFIER:

Table 10. Wind Velocity Pressures (Section 4.4.1.1 of SD-66 [8]) Height qt, psf qp, psf qm, psf 30 ft or less 40 46 31 Over 30 ft and up to 50 ft 46 51 36 Over 50 ft and up to 100 ft 53 59 44 Over 100 ft and up to 150 ft 58 65 49 Over 150 ft and up to 200 ft 62 69 53 Over 200 ft and up to 250 ft 65 72 57 150252-CA-02 Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 90 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB Table 11. SSE and QBE Spectra [8] 150252-CA-02 SSE Horizontal Spectra at 7% Damping Control Pt A B f, Hz 60 33 9.0 T,s 0.017 0.030 0.11 a,g 0.25 0.25 0.57 SSE Vertical Spectra at 7% Damping Control Pt A B f, Hz 60 33 9.0 T,s 0.017 0.030 0.11 a,g 0.25 0.25 0.57 QBE Horizontal Spectra at 4% Damping Control Pt A B f, Hz 60 33 9.0 T,s 0.017 0.030 0.11 a,g 0.13 0.13 0.38 QBE Vertical Spectra at 4% Damping Control Pt A B f, Hz 60 33 9.0 T,s 0.017 0.030 0.11 a,g 0.13 0.13 0.38 Notes: f = Frequency, T = Period, a = Acceleration See Reference 4 for Control Point definitions FP 100985 Page 91 of 526 c 2.5 0.40 0.68 c 3.5 0.29 0.65 c 2.5 0.40 0.46 c 3.5 0.29 0.43 PROJECTN0:

__

___ _

___ _

___

__ VERIFIER:

D 0.25 4.0 0.11 D 0.25 4.0 0.072 D 0.25 4.0 0.066 D 0.25 4.0 0.044 Revision 0 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER CLIENT:

SUBJECT:

I Eng i neer i ng of Structures and Build i ng Enclosures P ROJ E CT NO:

DATE: ____ 3"-1 ,_, J=u""-'ly-=2=0-'-'16"-----_______________ BY: _____

_____ V ERIFIER: __ __,_A""".T'"'".

_,,,S=ar=a=

wi ,_,_*t ___ _ Table 12. Crack Index Measurement Data ASR Monito ri ng Cl , Hoop Cl , Mer id ion a l Locat i on 1 Az i muth Elevat i on D ir ect i o n , D i rect i on , Reg i o n 2 mm/m mm/m Cl-1 32 -27.S ft 0.22 0.11 R1 Cl-2 40 -20.S ft 0.07 0.06 R1 Cl-3 S3 -23.S ft 0.00 0.11 R1 Cl-4 7 3 -2 4.S ft 0.1 2 0.1 7 R1 Cl-S 9S -24 ft 0.1 4 0.14 R1 CE101-0S 104 +9.S ft 0.08 0.06 R1 CE101-03 104 -23.S ft 0.26 0.08 R1 CE101-04 1 06 -8.S ft 0.04 0.41 R1 Cl-6 1 13 -2 7.S ft 0.1 2 0.13 R1 Cl-7 124 -27.S ft 0.11 0.14 R1 Cl-8 144 -24 ft 0.12 0.14 R1 Cl-9 163 -27.S ft 0.20 0.23 R1 Cl-10 17S -20 ft 0.09 0.28 R1 Cl-11 197 -19 ft 0.24 0.33 R2 Cl-13 214 +6 ft 0.96 0.22 R 2 Cl-12 230 -19 ft 0.12 0.46 R2 CE101-10 302 +9.S ft O.S8 0.41 R3 Cl-14 309 -24 ft 0.14 0.1S R3 Cl-1S 318 -24 ft 0.22 0.87 R3 CE101-11 322 -22.S ft 0.12 0.89 R3 CE10 1-1 2 332 -22.0 ft 0.3S O.S2 R3 CE BE-OS 0 +S 1.S ft 0.1 S 0.22 R4 CEBE-07 3S +29.S ft 0.13 0.06 R4 CEBE-02 4S +2 S.S ft 0.1 4 0.03 R4 CEBE-09 6S +2S.S ft 0.19 0.03 R4 CE101-06 106 +26 ft 0.14 0.09 R4 CE101-07 108 +46.S ft 0.2S 0.16 R4 CE101-08 108 +81.Sft 0.16 0.23 R4 CEBE-03 12S +23 ft 0.10 0.11 R4 CEBE-08 12S +29 ft 0.09 0.08 R4 CEBE-01 S 1SO +SS ft 0.6 7 0.82 R4 CEBE-10 200 +S8.S ft O.OS 0.03 R4 CEBE-06 2 7S +68.S ft 0.02 0.11 R4 EM401-01 30S +2S ft O.OS 0.18 R4 CEBE-04 31S +SS ft 0.08 0.03 R 4 CE101-18 47 +116.S ft 0.84 0.31 RS CE101-09 103 +116.Sft 0.39 0.49 RS CE101-13 163 +116.Sft 1.27 0.7 4 RS CE101-14 20S +116.Sft 1.76 0.76 RS CE101-1S 24S +116.Sft O.S3 0.28 RS CE101-16 284 +116.Sft 1.64 O.S8 RS CE101-17 34 7 +11 6.Sft 0.4S O.S8 RS No t es: 1 All measurements r ecor d ed i n Ap ril a n d May of 2 0 1 6 e x c e pt for locat i on CEBE-01 S wh i ch w a s mo s t r ecently i nspected i n Apr i l 2 014. 2 ASR mon i tor i ng locations a r e divided into r egions based on ASR severity. See Table 1 3 , Section 6.3.1 , and Figure 4 for m ore in for m at ion. 150252-CA-02 Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 9 2 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures ond Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB PROJECT NO: __ _,_15=0=2=52=-------

DATE: ___

___ _ BY: ____

VERIFIER:

---

'-'A"-'.T_,_.

S=a=r,._,awi=*t,__

__ _ Table 13. ASR Region Summary Rea ion R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 Below grade, Below grade, Below grade, From grade to Above Description springline, Springline, AZ 0 to 180 AZ 180 to 270 AZ 270 to 360 AZ 0 to 360 AZ 0 to 360 Number of Cl Measurements Contained Within 13 3 5 14 7 0.12 mm/m 0.44 mm/m 0.28 mm/m 0.16 mm/m 0.98 mm/m Average Hoop Cl, mm/m (%) (0.012%) (0.044%) (0.028%) (0.016%)

(0.098%) 0.16 mm/m 0.34 mm/m 0.57 mm/m 0.16 mm/m 0.57 mm/m Average Meridional Cl, mm/m (%) (0.016%) (0.034%) (0.057%) (0.016%)

(0.057%) 0.15 mm/m 0.40 mm/m 0.30 mm/m 0.10 mm/m 0.00 mm/m Hoop expansion applied to model, mm/m (%) (0.015%) (0.040%) (0.030%) (0.010%) (0.00%) 0.15 mm/m 0.40 mm/m 0.60 mm/m 0.10 mm/m 0.00 mm/m Meridional expansion applied to model, mm/m (%) (0.015%) (0.040%) (0.060%) (0.010%) (0.00%) Notes: See Table 12 for individual Cl measurements.

See Section 6.3.1 and Figure 4 for additional information on regions. 150252-CA-02 Revision O FP 100985 Page 93 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I En.gineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook PROJECT NO: __

DATE: ___

___ _ BY: ____

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB VERIFIER:

---

'-'A"--'.T_,_.,,,, Sa,,,_r,.,,awi""-*t"-----

• Table 14. Summary of Evaluation Results for Standard Analysis Case at Threshold Factor of 1.2 Demand-Figure, to-Table, or .Load Combination Capacity Section Evaluation (See Table 5 for Notation)

Location Ratio Notes Reference In-Plane Shear at OBE_ 1 (100% E., 40% N., Base of CEB between AZ 270 and 0.47 2 Figure 77 Base 40% Vert. Down) 360 (Section Cut 4) In-Plane Shear at OBE_3 (100% E., 40% N., Base of CEB between AZ 270 and 0.47 2 Figure 78 Base 40% Vert. Down) 360 (Section Cut 4) In-Plane Shear OBE_1 (40% E, 100% N, Wall between Mech. Pen. and 0.36 Figure 79 above Base 40% Vert. Down) Electrical Pen. Out-of-Plane Shear N0_ 1 (Static) Base of CEB between AZ 0 and 90 0.58 2 Figure 49 at Base (Section Cut 1) Out-of-Plane Shear OBE_1 (100% E., 40% N., Base of CEB between AZ 270 and 0.54 2 Figure 80 at Base 40% Vert. Down) 360 (Section Cut 4) Axial Compression N0_ 1 (Static) Between El. -20 and 0 ft <0.7 1 Figure 40 in Hoop Direction Axial Compression in Meridional N0_ 1 (Static) Pilaster on south side of Mech. Pen. 0.75 2 Figure 43 Direction PM Interaction ih Areas adjacent to CEVA opening the Hoop Direction N0_ 1 (Static) (AZ 230) and Personnel Hatch <1 3 Appendix H Ooeninq (AZ 300) PM Interaction in Base of wall between AZ 270 and the Meridional N0_ 1 (Static) 360, pilasters on either side of <1 3 Appendix H Direction Electrical Pen. 1 Based on element-by-element evaluation, OCR value would further reduce 1f section cut evaluation performed for this load combination and location.

2 Based on section cut evaluation.

3 Based on moment redistribution analysis (Appendix H). 150252-CA-02 Revision O FP 100985 Page 94 of 526

SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I En.gineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook PROJECT NO:

DATE: ___

___ _ BY: ____

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB VERIFIER:

Table 15. Summary of Controlling Evaluation Results for Standard-Plus Analysis Case at Threshold Factor of 1.2 .. Demand-Figure, *' '" .to-. Table, or Ca pacify Seetion Evaluation Load Combination Location(s) .Ratio Notes,* Reference In-Plane Shear OBE_3 (100% W., 40% N., Base of CEB between AZ 180 and 0.56 2 Figure 81 40% Vert. Up) 270 (Section Cut 3) In-Plane Shear OBE_1 (100% W., 40% N., Base of CEB between AZ 180 and 0.55 2 Figure 82 40% Vert. Up) 270 (Section Cut 3) In-Plane Shear OBE_ 1 (40% E, 100% N, Wall between Mech. Pen. and 0.37 2 Figure 83 above Base 40% Vert. Down) Electrical Pen. Out-of-Plane Shear N0_ 1 (Static) Base of CEB between AZ 0 and 90 0.58 2 Figure 51 (Section Cut 1) Out-of-Plane Shear OBE_1 (100% E., 40% N., Base of CEB between AZ 270 and 0.55 2 Figure 84 40% Vert. Down) 360 (Section Cut 4) Axial Compression N0_ 1 (Static) Between El. -20 and 0 ft, most <0.7 1 Figure 42 in Hoop Direction critical at AZ 230 Axial Compression Pilaster on south side of Mechanical in Meridional N0_ 1 (Static) Pen. (AZ 240) 0.75 2 Figure 45 Direction PM Interaction in Areas adjacent to CEVA opening the Hoop Direction N0_ 1 (Static) (AZ 230) and Personnel Hatch <1 3 Appendix H Opening (AZ 300) PM Interaction in Base of wall between AZ 180 and the Meridional N0_1 (Static) 360, pilasters on either side of <1 3 Appendix H Direction Electrical Pen. and Mech. Pen. *. 1 Based on element-by-element evaluation, OCR value would further reduce if section cut evaluation performed for this load combination and location.

2 Based on section cut evaluation.

3 Based on moment redistribution analysis (Appendix H). 150252-CA-02 Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 95 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER P"""" I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB PROJECTN0:

__

___ _ DATE: -----'3"'-'1'-'J"'u""ly_,,2""0-'-'16,__

__ _ BY: _____

VERIFIER:

__

___ _ Table 16. Summary of Displacement Evaluation for Standard Analysis Case 1*4 Label Point 1 Point 2 Point 3 Point4 Points Points Point 7 Elevation, ft 6.0 21.0 0.0 5.5 1.0 -22.0 50.0 Azimuth, degrees 260 305 335 182 20 175 315 Node Number 2200142 2201562 2101350 2205657 2101473 2100493 2202850 Direction of CEB Displacement to Cause Contact Radial+ Radial+ Radial+ Radial-Radial+ Radial-Radial-L""" Design Seismic Gap Width 3.000 3.000 3.000 3.000 3.000 3.000 3.000 Adjacent Structure 3 WPC WPC EP CB EFW CB CB Seismic Gap Measurement ID (if available) 2a.01 2d.02 2f.02 3a.01 6a.02 3b.01 Note 2 -L-L-Minimum Seismic Gap Width 2 2.000 1.938 2.000 1.500 1.625 1.188 0.925 Increase factor in CEB deformation to account for ASR 1.079 1.015 1.073 1.012 1.069 1.039 1.027 threshold Minimum Measured Seismic Gap Width (adjusted for 1.921 1.922 1.927 1.482 1.530 1.116 0.950 ASR threshold)

Ls+ Lns Max. Factored Radial Seismic and Non-Seismic Disp. of 0.616 0.361 0.002 0.063 0.008 0.000 0.430 CEB in direction of Adjacent Structure 5 La Maximum Displacement of Adjacent Structure in 0.009 0.121 0.145 0.085 0.145 0.085 0.202 Direction of CEB LR Required Minimum Gap Width, 1.232 0.762 0.290 0.212 0.290 0.170 0.950 2 X ,/(L 5 + Ln 5)2 + Remaining Joint Clearance 0.688 1.160 1.637 1.271 1.240 0.946 0.000 2 (Equation 101 For footnotes, see Table 17. 150252-CA-02 FP 100985 Page 96 of 526 Point 8 31.5 225 2203006 Radial-3.000 CB Note 2 0.614 1.070 0.657 0.259 0.202 0.657 0.000 2 Revision 0 Label Lrlnr SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures PROJECTN0:

__

____ _ DATE: ____

___ _ CLIENT: _

________________

BY: _____

___ _

SUBJECT:

_____ VERIFIER:

Table 17. Summary of Displacement Evaluation for Standard-Plus Analysis Case 1*4 Point 1 Point 2 Point 3 Point 4 Point 5 Point 6 Point 7 Elevation, ft 6.0 21.0 0.0 5.5 1.0 -22.0 50.0 Azimuth, degrees 260 305 335 182 20 175 315 Node Number 2200142 2201562 2101350 2205657 2101473 2100493 2202850 Direction of CEB Displacement to Cause Contact Radial+ Radial+ Radial+

Radial-Radial+ Radial-Radial-Design Seismic Gap Width 3.000 3.000 3.000 3.000 3.000 3.000 3.000 Adjacent Structure 3 WPC WPC EP CB EFW CB CB Seismic Gap Measurement ID (if available) 2a.01 2d.02 2f.02 3a.01 6a.02 3b.01 Note 2 Point 8 31.5 225 2203006 Radial-3.000 CB Note 2 Lrinr -Lnh< Minimum Seismic Gap Width 2 2.000 1.938 2.000 1.500 1.625 1.188 0.923 0.612 2 3 4 5 6 Increase factor in CEB deformation to account for ASR threshold 1.081 1.012 1.073 1.043 1.069 1.042 1.026 1.072 Minimum Measured Seismic Gap Width (adjusted for ASR threshold) 1.919 1.925 1.927 1.435 1.531 1.113 0.948 0.656 Ls+ Lns Max. Factored Radial Seismic and Non-Seismic Disp. of CEB in direction of Adjacent Structure 5 0.614 0.360 0.002 0.063 0.008 0.000 0.429 0.258 La Maximum Displacement of Adjacent Structure in Direction of CEB 0.009 0.121 0.145 0.085 0.145 0.085 0.202 0.202 LR Required Minimum Gap Width, 2 X J(L 5 + Ln 5)2 + 1.229 0.760 0.290 0.212 0.290 0.170 0.948 0.656 Remaining Joint Clearance (Equation

10) 0.690 1.165 1.637 1.223 1.240 0.943 0.000 2 0.000 2 All displacements are in inches Points 7 and 8 are located on the missile shields above the CEVA and Personnel Hatch openings; all other points are located on the CEB wall. The remaining joint clearance for Points 7 and 8 is set to zero, and the minimum seismic gap width is computed.

WPC =West Pipe Chase, EP = Electrical Penetration, CB = Containment Building.

If displacements are noted as "towards adjacent structure" or "towards CEB", then positive displacements are in the direction that would cause contact between the two considered structures.

Otherwise, positive displacements are in the radial outward direction and negative displacements are in the radial inward direction.

As discussed in the text with Equation 10, non-seismic displacements are taken as zero if they are in the direction away from the adjacent structure.

Adjacent structure displacements are obtained from Reference 31 whenever possible.

The displacement of the CB is not provided at El. +50, so this displacement is linearly extrapolated from the provided displacements of 0.077" at El. +3 ft and 0.085" at El. +6 ft. 150252-CA-02 Revision O FP 100985 Page 97 of 526 Table 18. List of Reference Drawings Drawing Label Reference Information D-1 United Engineers

& Constructors Inc., 9763-F-101013

-Excavation Civil Plan -Sheet 5, Rev. 5, 19 March 1981. D-2 United Engineers

& Constructors Inc., 9763-F-101024

-Site Boring Plan Civil Topo & Rock Contours, Rev. 1, 4 June 1976. D-3 United Engineers

& Constructors Inc., 9763-F-101434

-Containment Concrete Sections and Elevations-CEVA dimensions, Rev. 3, 14 April 2015. D-4 United Engineers

& Constructors Inc., 9763-F-101440-Containment Concrete Equipment Hatch Reinf-Sheet 1, Rev. 10, 30November1990.

D-5 United Engineers

& Constructors Inc., 9763-F-101446

-Containment Enclosure Building Concrete Shield Wall for Equipment Hatch, Rev. 3, 21 October 1983. D-6 United Engineers

& Constructors Inc., 9763-F-101448

-Containment Enclosure Building Concrete Section & Typical Dome Details, Rev. 11, 5 August 1983. D-7 United Engineers

& Constructors Inc., 9763-F-101451

-Containment Enclosure Building Concrete Plan at EL. (-)30 ft -0 in., South, Rev. 8, 22 October 1979. D-8 United Engineers

& Constructors Inc., 9763-F-101452

-Containment Enclosure Building.

Concrete Plan at EL (-)30 ft-0 in., North, Rev. 9, 16 December 1983. D-9 United Engineers

& Constructors Inc., 9763-F-101453

-Containment Enclosure Building Concrete Plan at EL. 10 ft -0 in., South, Rev. 11, 27 January 1984. D-10 United Engineers

& Constructors Inc., 9763-F-101454

-Containment Enclosure Building Concrete Plan at EL 10 ft-0 in., North, Rev. 3, 19 March 1982. D-11 United Engineers

& Constructors Inc., 9763-F-101455

-Containment Enclosure Building Concrete Plan at EL 37 ft-0 Y2 in., South, Rev. 11, 11 November 1983. D-12 United Engineers

& Constructors Inc., 9763-F-101456

-Containment Enclosure Building Concrete at EL 37 ft-0 112 in. North, Rev. 3, 20 August 1982. D-13 United Engineers

& Constructors Inc., 9763-F-101457

-Containment Enclosure Building Concrete Sections -Sheet 1, Rev. 12, 17 September 1982. D-14 United Engineers

& Constructors Inc., 9763-F-101458

-Containment Enclosure Building Concrete Sections-Sheet 2, Rev. 14, 27 January 1984. D-15 United Engineers

& Constructors Inc., 9763-F-101459

-Containment Enclosure Building Concrete Inside Elev. Stretch-out, East Half, Rev. 9, 22 October 1982. D-16 United Engineers

& Constructors Inc., 9763-F-101460

-Containment Enclosure Building Concrete Inside Elev. Stretch-out, West Half, Rev. 7, 20 August 1982. D-17 United Engineers

& Constructors Inc., 9763-F-101545

-Pri. Aux. Bldg., RHR & CS Eqpt. Vault Concrete Sections -SH. 20, Rev. 9, 22 December 1983. D-18 United Engineers

& Constructors Inc., 9763-F-101560

-Fuel Storage Building Concrete Plan at EL. (-) 16 ft -4 314 & (-) 11 ft 9 112, Rev. 3, 8 September 1978. D-19 United Engineers

& Constructors Inc., 9763-F-101565-Concrete Typical Details, Rev. 17, 18 March 1983. D-20 United Engineers

& Constructors Inc., 9763-F-101610

-Electrical Tunnel Concrete Plans at EL. (-) 26 ft -0 in. & (-) 20 ft -0 in., Rev. 11, 21 June 1985. D-21 United Engineers

& Constructors Inc., 9763-F-101611

-Electrical Tunnel Concrete Plans at EL. 0 ft-0 in. & 8 ft-2 in., Rev. 13, 21 June 1985. 150252-CA-02 Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 98 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures PROJECT NO:

DATE:

___ _ CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook BY: ____

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB VERIFIER:

Table 18. List of Reference Drawings Drawing Label Reference Information D-22 United Engineers

& Constructors Inc., 9763-F-101612

-Electrical Tunnel Concrete Sections Sheet 1, Rev. 10, 2 December 1983. D-23 United Engineers

& Constructors Inc., 9763-F-101613

-Electrical Tunnel Concrete Sections Sheet 2, Rev. 4, 29 December 1983. D-24 United Engineers

& Constructors Inc., 9763-F-101619

-Containment Enclosure Ventilation Area Concrete Plans at EL 21 ft-6 in. & 53 ft-0 in., Rev. 11, 6 March 1985. D-25 United Engineers

& Constructors Inc., 9763-F-101620-Containment Enclosure Ventilation Area Concrete Section -Sheet 1, Rev. 5, 13 January 1984. D-26 United Engineers

& Constructors Inc., 9763-F-101621

-Containment Enclosure Ventilation Area Concrete Section -Sheet 2, Rev. 5, 6 March 1985. D-27 United Engineers

& Constructors Inc., 9763-F-101622

-Containment Enclosure Ventilation Area Steel Framing Plan at EL. 53 ft -0 in., Rev. 5, 13 December 1984. D-28 United Engineers

& Constructors Inc., 9763-F-101625

-Mechanical Penetration Area Concrete Plans at EL. (-) 34 ft -6 in. & (-) 8 ft-6in., Rev. 10, 6 May 1983. D-29 United Engineers

& Constructors Inc., 9763-F-101626

-Main Steam & Feedwater Pipe Chase (West) Concrete Plans at EL 3 ft-0 in. & (-) 11 ft-2 112 in., Rev. 14, 10 February 1984. D-30 United Engineers

& Constructors Inc., 9763-F-101627

-Main Steam & Feedwater Pipe Chase (West) Concrete Section -Sheet 1, Rev. 13, 18 November 1983. D-31 United Engineers

& Constructors Inc., 9763-F-101628-Main Steam & Feedwater Pipe Chase (West) Concrete Section -Sheet 2, Rev. 9, 29 December 1983. D-32 United Engineers

& Constructors Inc., 9763-F-101629

-Main Steam & Feedwater Pipe Chase (West) Concrete Section -Sheet 3, Rev. 7, 5 August 1983. D-33 United Engineers

& Constructors Inc., 9763-F-101630

-Main Steam & Feedwater Pipe Chase (West) Concrete Plans at EL 51 ft-6 in. & 64 ft-6 in., Rev. 9, 2 December 1983. D-34 United Engineers

& Constructors Inc., 9763-F-101631

-Main Steam & Feedwater Pipe Chase (West) Concrete Section -Sheet4, Rev. 7, 16 June 1982. D-35 United Engineers

& Constructors Inc., 9763-F-101632

-Main Steam & Feedwater Pipe Chase (West) Concrete Section -Sheet 5, Rev. 8, 29 December 1983. D-36 United Engineers

& Constructors Inc., 9763-F-101633

-Main Steam & Feedwater Pipe Chase (West) Concrete Section -Sheet 6, Rev. 5, 29 July 1983. D-37 United Engineers

& Constructors Inc., 9763-F-101641

-Pipe Tunnel Concrete Plans at EL. 4 ft-11 in. & 21 ft-6 in., Rev. 2, 18June1981.

D-38 United Engineers

& Constructors Inc., 9763-F-101649

-Main Stm. & Feedwater Pipe Chase (West)Steel Roof Framing Plan at EL. 50 ft-3 in., Rev. 7, 4 November 1983. 150252-CA-02 Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 99 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures ond Building Enclosures PROJECTN0:

__

DATE:

___ _ CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook BY: ____

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB VERIFIER:

Table 18. List of Reference Drawings Drawing Label Reference Information D-39 United Engineers

& Constructors Inc., 9763-F-101650

-Main Steam & Feedwater Pipe Chase (East) Concrete Plans at EL. 3 ft-0 in. & 22 ft-0 in., Rev. 12, 14 November 1985. D-40 United Engineers

& Constructors Inc., 9763-F-101651

-Main Steam & Feedwater Pipe Chase (East) Concrete Plans at EL. 5 ft-6 in. & 64 ft-6 in., Rev. 8, 14 November 1985. D-41 United Engineers

& Constructors Inc., 9763-F-101652

-Main Steam & Feedwater Pipe Chase (East) Concrete Sections -Sheet 1, Rev. 7, 14 November 1985. D-42 United Engineers

& Constructors Inc., 9763-F-101653

-Main Steam & Feedwater Pipe Chase (East) Concrete Sections -Sheet 2, Rev. 8, 27 January 1984. D-43 United Engineers

& Constructors Inc., 9763-F-101659

-Main Steam & Feedwater Pipe Chase (West) Steel Plan and Sections -South Stair, Rev. 1, 8 April 1983. D-44 United Engineers

& Constructors Inc., 9763-F-101660

-Emergency Feedwater Pump Building Concrete Plan at EL. 27 ft-0 in. & 47 ft-0 in., Rev. 9, 2 December 1983. D-45 United Engineers

& Constructors Inc., 9763-F-101661

-Emergency Feedwater Pump Building Concrete Sections -Sheet No. 2, Rev. 4, 16 June 1982. D-46 United Engineers

& Constructors Inc., 9763-F-101662

-Emergency Feedwater Pump Building Concrete Sections -Sheet No. 3, Rev. 5, 1 July 1982. D-47 United Engineers

& Constructors Inc., 9763-F-101842

-Concrete General Notes & Reinforcing Splice Lengths, Rev. 14, 21 October 1983. D-48 United Engineers

& Constructors Inc., 9763-F-101847

-Oewatering Systems for Plant Bldgs & Structures Civil, Rev. 1, 27 June 1978. D-49 United Engineers

& Constructors Inc., 9763-F-101918

-Containment Enclosure Building Steel -Pressure Seal Plate Assembly-Sheet 1, Rev. 1, 10 February 1984. D-50 United Engineers

& Constructors Inc., 9763-F-102153

-Containment Building Enclosure Building Platform, Rev. 5, 10 February 1984. D-51 United Engineers

& Constructors Inc., 9763-F-103232

-Fill & Backfill Concrete Sections, Rev. 2, 30 December 1983. D-52 United Engineers

& Constructors Inc., 9763-F-111574

-Fuel Storage Building Concrete Sections -Sheet 4, Rev. 6, 31 July 1981. D-53 United Engineers

& Constructors Inc., 9763-F-113225-Fill & Backfill Concrete Profiles -Sheet 1, Rev. 3, 30December1983.

D-54 United Engineers

& Constructors Inc., 9763-F-113226

-Fill & Backfill Concrete Profiles -Sheet 2, Rev. 3, 30 December 1983. D-55 United Engineers

& Constructors Inc., 9763-F-113229

-Fill & Backfill Concrete Plan & Sections, Rev. 5, 30 December 1983. 150252-CA-02

-100 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 100 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures PROJECT NO: __

DATE:

___ _ CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook BY: ____

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB VERIFIER:

__ __,__,A,_,_.T_,_.

S=a=ra=w=it,___

__ _ Table 18. List of Reference Drawings Drawing Label Reference Information D-56 United Engineers

& Constructors Inc., 9763-F-113230-Backfill Concrete Schedule, Rev. 5, 3 September 1982. D-57 Bishopric Products Company, FP10980 -Plant Vent Stack Elevation, Rev. 1, 2 February 1984. D-58 United Engineers

& Constructors Inc., 9763-F-101912-Containment Enclosure Building Concrete Dome Reinforcing, Rev. 3, 5 August 1983. D-59 United Engineers

& Constructors Inc., 9763-F-101494

-Plant Vent Stack Plans, Elevations, Sections & Details -Sheet 1, Rev. 2, 30 May 1986. D-60 United Engineers

& Constructors Inc., 9763-F-101917

-Plant Vent Stack Plans, Elevations, Sections & Details -Sheet 3, Rev. 3, 30 May 1986. D-61 United Engineers

& Constructors Inc., 9763-F-101493-Plant Vent Stack Breeching Plans, Sections & Details, Rev. 2, 30 May 1986. 150252-CA-02

-101 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 101 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of S1ruclures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB PROJECT NO:

DATE: ___

BY: ____

VERIFIER:

___ _ Table 19. Prospective Threshold Measurement Set A Baseline Baseline Threshold Measurement Elevation

& Measurement1, Measurement 1 Measurement Type Azimuth CCI, mm/m Date Cl-1 CCI El. -27.5 ft, AZ. 32 0.16+/-0.04 April 2016 Cl-2 CCI El. -20.0 ft, AZ 40 0.06+/-0.02 April 2016 Cl-3 CCI El. -23.0 ft, AZ 53 0.05+/-0.01 April 2016 Cl-4 CCI El. -24.0 ft, AZ 73 0.14+/-0.04 April 2016 Cl-5 CCI El. -24.0 ft, AZ 95 0.14+/-0.04 April 2016 Cl-6 CCI El. -27.5 ft, AZ 113 0.12+/-0.04 April 2016 Cl-7 CCI El. -27.5 ft, AZ 124 0.12+/-0.04 April 2016 Cl-8 CCI El. -24.0 ft, AZ 144 0.13+/-0.04 April 2016 Cl-9 CCI El. -27.5 ft, AZ 163 0.21+/-0.06 April 2016 Cl-10 CCI El. -20.0 ft, AZ 175 0.18+/-0.05 April 2016 Average of Baseline CCI Measurements 0.13 mm/m Threshold Limit 0.16mm/m 1 "Baseline measurement" refers to the measurements that are used to establish the Threshold Limit, but do not represent the first time the ASR monitoring grid was measured.

150252-CA-02

-102 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 102 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER pill""'" I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB Table 20. Prospective Threshold Measurement Set B Threshold Measurement Elevation

& Baseline Measurement Type Azimuth Measurement 1 , CCl,mm/m Cl-11 CCI El. -19.0 ft, AZ 197 0.28+/-0.05 Cl-12 CCI El. -19.0 ft, AZ 230 0.28+/-0.05 Cl-13 CCI El. 7.5 ft, AZ 214 0.61+/-0.08 Cl-14 CCI El. -24.0 ft, AZ 309 0.15+/-0.04 Cl-15 CCI El. -24.0 ft, AZ 318 0.53+/-0.11 Mean of Baseline CCI Measurements 0.37mm/m Threshold Limit 0.44mm/m Baseline Measurement 1 Date April 2016 April 2016 April 2016 April 2016 April 2016 1 "Baseline measurement" refers to the measurements that are used to establish the Threshold Limit, but do not represent the first time the ASR monitoring grid was measured.

150252-CA-02

-103 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 103 of 526 h SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER ,.,.... I Engineering of:Structures and Building Enclosures DATE: ____

___ _ CLIENT: _

_______________ BY: _____

___ _

SUBJECT:

_____ VERIFIER:

Table 21. Prospective Threshold Measurement Set C Measurement ID 3a.01-01 2d.02-01 2d.02-02 2f.02-02 Sa.02-01 1h.01-07 1h.01-06 1h.01-05 3a.01-08 Measurement Type Seismic Seismic Seismic Seismic Seismic Seismic Gap Seismic Seismic Annulus Gao Gap Gap Gap Gap Gap Gap Width Measurement Azimuth 180 305 310 335 20 260 270 280 220 Measurement Elevation

+5.5 ft +21 ft +21 ft 0 ft +1 ft +22 ft +22 ft +22 ft +9 ft Relative-to Structure CB Personnel Personnel W. Pipe EFW CB CB CB CB Hatch Hatch Chase Pump Bldg Direction of deformation Inward Inward Inward Inward Inward Outward Outward Outward Inward Measurement taken from Inside or Outside of Inside Outside Outside Outside Outside Inside Inside Inside Inside Annulus Baseline Measurement Date and Report April 2016 [5] April 2016 [5] April 2016 [5] April 2016 [5] April 2016 [5] Mar. 2015 [2] TBD TBD TBD Reference dn baseline , in. 1.5 1.97 2.41 1.99 1.63 4.25 4.5QA 4.75A 51.QOA dn,desian

' in. 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.00 3.00 3.00 54.00 Baseline Measurement, in. 1.50 1.03 0.59 1.01 1.37 1.25 1.50 1.75 3.00 ldn,baseline

-dn,desianl dn FEA baseline , in. 8 -0.34 -0.65 -0.94 -0.66 -0.47 0.94 1.13 0.96 -1.01 dn FEA 1.2 ' in. B -0.34 -0.69 -1.01 -0.75 -0.53 1.09 1.32 1.12 -1.18 kn,thf 1.01 1.05 1.07 1.13 1.14 1.16 1.16 1.17 1.17 Local Threshold Limit, in. I dn,baseline

-dn,design I 1.52 1.08 0.63 1.14 1.56 1.45 1.74 2.05 3.51 X knthf Average of Baseline Measurements 1.50 in. Threshold Limit (based on projected baseline 1.70 in. values) 3a.01-09 Annulus Width 240 +9 ft CB Inward Inside TBD 52.QQA 54.00 2.00 -0.41 -0.48 1.17 2.34 A Baseline measurement not yet taken, value for dn,baseline shown in this table is a projected baseline value using measurements recorded during walkdowns in March 2015. 8 FEA simulated deformations are taken from Standard Analysis Case (as defined in Section ) except for the locations at Azimuths 220 and 240 which use the Standard-Plus Analysis Case, which was performed to increase inward deformation at these azimuths.

-104 -Revision 0 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER CLIENT:

SUBJECT:

I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures PROJECT NO: ____ _ DATE: ____

________________ BY: _____

_____ VERIFIER: ___ _ 10. FIGURES N I Electr i cal Penetration Personnel Hatch t Mechan i cal Penetra on Fuel Storage Build i ng Penetration Figure 1. Image of Containment Enclosure Building with Openings Labeled -105 -Revision O SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Des ign Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB Mechan i ca l Penet r at i on Electr i cal Penetrat i on PROJECT NO: ---'"'15=0=25=2'------

DATE:

___ _ BY: ____

VERIFIER:

N i Figure 2. Measurements of Tangential Movement at Base of CEB Wall [2] Note: Seismic isolation joint between CEB and west wall of the Electr ical Penetration could not be accessed for measurement.

-106 -Revision O SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Eng i neer i ng of Structures ond Build i ng Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Desig n Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB CEB Wall __ G_r_ad_e_, Soil El. 0' -------1 Concrete F i ll ..--....------.

-EL. -30' PROJECT NO: DATE: ___

___ _ BY: ____

VERIFI ER: ----'-'A"-'.T-"-. S=a=ra,,,_,wi=

• t,__ __ _ Figure 3. Concrete Fill and Soil on Exterior of CEB Wall (Not to Scale) -107 -Revision 0 Elevation, ft 200 190 180 170 160 150 140 130 uo 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 *10 *20 *30 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Eng ineering of Structures and Build in g Enclosures C LIENT: Ne x tEra Energy Seabrook S UBJ EC T: Eva l uation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB R1 87:8 -. lt:il -Region R4 D =RegionR5 PROJECTN0: __

____ _ DATE: ___

BY: ____

VERIFIER: __ ___ _ Figure 4. ASR Regions and Crack Index Measurement Locations 108 of 526 -108 ----Revision O SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Eng i neer i ng of Struc t ures and B u ild i ng Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook PROJECT NO: ---'""15=0=25=2

___ _ DATE:

___ _ BY:

__ _

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB VERIFIER:

__

1.5 1 0.. u 0.5 ... ; c (lJ *u O (lJ 0 u (lJ -0.5 .... ::J Vl Vl ll: -1 0... -1.5 -2 Wind Pressure Coefficients for Cylinder \ \ \ -\ ( J ' I ( --0 30 60 90 120 150 180 Angle from Stagnation Point, degrees c. Wind Pressure Coefficients for Sphere u 0.5 ---+---+--+---+--

--t ... ; c (lJ *u o iE (lJ 0 u (lJ -0.5 -+---+----;+---+----<--+----t .... ::J Vl Vl ll: +---+---+-...-+--.,, ,_+---+----t 0... 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 Angle from Stagnation Point , degrees Figure 5 .. Wind Pressure Coefficients for Cylinder and Sphere -109 -Revision O SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER CLIENT:

SUBJECT:

I Engineering of Structures ond Building Enclosures NextEra Energy Seabrook DATE: _____

Evaluation and Des ign Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB VERIFIER:

Average Wind Pressures , Wind hitting CEB at AZ 90 degrees , El. 45 ft N i ' ' ' ,' ,' -External Wind Pressure Wind hitting CEB at AZ 90 degrees Plot of average wind pressures at El. 45 ft Grey dashed lines represent bands of 50 psf Average Wind Pressures , Wind hitting CEB at AZ 90 degrees , El. 110 ft N i ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ,' ----External Wind Pressure Wind hitting CEB at AZ 90 degrees ' Plot of average wind pressures at El. 11 O ft Grey dashed lines represent bands of 50 psf ' " ' ' Average Wind Pressures , Wind hitting CEB at AZ 90 degrees , El. 75 ft N i ' ' ,' -External Wind Pressure Wind h i tting CEB at AZ 90 degrees : Plot of average wind pressures at El. 75 ft Grey dashed lines represent bands of 50 psf Average Wind Pressures , Wind hitting CEB at AZ 90 degrees , El. 175 ft N i ' ' ' ' I ' ' ' ' ' ' --....... I I ' ' ' --...... -External Wind Pressure W i nd h i tting CEB at AZ 90 degrees Plot of average wind pressures at El. 175 ft Grey dashed lines represent bands of 50 psf Figure 6. External Wind Pressures Acting on CEB at Various Elevations

-110 -Revision O SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosu r es C LIENT: Ne x tEra E nergy Seabroo k

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB QBE, East-West QBE, North-South 2 00 20 0 .. I I lSO l SO ,. ,. 1* j .t: .t: 5' 100 5' 100 :;::; f *.;::; .f ro ro > > Ql i:i:i w so so . . 0 0 0 . 0 0 -SO -SO 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Acceleration, g Acceleration, g Elevation , ft Accel., g Elevat i on , ft Accel., g East-West North-South

-30.0 0.13 -30.0 0.1 3 -12.7 0.1 3 -12.7 0.13 0.0 0.13 0.0 0.13 20.0 0.13 20.0 0.13 37.0 0.13 37.0 0.13 51.0 0.16 51.0 0.15 68.0 0.22 68.0 0.20 85.0 0.27 85.0 0.26 102.0 0.31 102.0 0.30 119.0 0.35 119.0 0.35 135.0 0.40 135.0 0.39 151.1 0.44 151.1 0.44 167.2 0.49 167.2 0.48 183.2 0.53 183.2 0.53 199.3 0.57 199.3 0.57 PROJECT NO: __

___ _ D AT E: 31 Ju ly 2016 BY: ___ _ VER IFIER:

QBE, Vertical 200

• lSO ** .t: § 100 * *.;::; f ro > w so * . 0 . . -SO 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Acceleration, g Elevation , ft Accel., g Vertical -30.0 0.13 -12.7 0.13 0.0 0.13 20.0 0.13 37.0 0.14 51.0 0.17 68.0 0.21 85.0 0.24 102.0 0.27 119.0 0.30 135.0 0.33 151.1 0.35 167.2 0.36 183.2 0.37 199.3 0.38 Figure 7. Maximum Acceleration Profiles for QBE -111 -Revision 0 -----------

---

SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Eng i neering of Structures ond B u i lding Enclosures CLIENT: Ne xt E ra En ergy S ea brook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB SSE, East-West SSE, North-South 2 00 "'" 2 00 "'" r r 1 j 150 .( 150 ( .:i:: j .:i:: j g' 100 § 100 *z ( *z ( l1l l1l > ! > ' QI QI Li:i Li:i 50 50 *

• 0 0 *

• 50 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Acceleration, g Acceleration , g Elevation , ft Accel., g Elevation , ft Accel., g East-West North-South

-30.0 0.25 -30.0 0.25 -12.7 0.25 -12.7 0.25 0.0 0.25 0.0 0.25 20.0 0.25 20.0 0.25 37.0 0.25 37.0 0.25 51.0 0.27 51.0 0.25 68.0 0.35 68.0 0.33 85.0 0.42 85.0 0.41 102.0 0.49 102.0 0.48 119.0 0.56 119.0 0.55 135.0 0.62 135.0 0.61 151.1 0.69 151.1 0.68 167.2 0.76 167.2 0.75 183.2 0.83 183.2 0.82 199.3 0.89 199.3 0.89 PRO JE CT NO: ___ _ DAT E: BY:

VERIFIER: SSE, Vertical 20 0 150 j .:i:: § 100 "Z .( l1l > j QI Li:i 50 ,.

• 0 * * -50 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Acceleration, g Elevation , ft Accel., g Vertical -30.0 0.25 -12.7 0.25 0.0 0.25 20.0 0.25 37.0 0.25 51.0 0.29 68.0 0.35 85.0 0.41 102.0 0.46 119.0 0.50 135.0 0.54 151.1 0.58 167.2 0.61 183.2 0.62 199.3 0.63 Figure 8. Maximum Acceleration Profiles for SSE -112 -Revision 0 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER CLIENT: I Eng i neering of Structures and Build i ng Enclosures S UBJECT: "-o *q, zo.O,,"' V-.r "'*-v .._,,';j SAFE S lllTr JJOl4N i;/\l!T llQ U/\J;E Ol(S T CN l l ESPO NS F. Sl't:C tl\A llORl ZON TAL H O T IO N Figure 9. Horizontal SSE Spectra [8) (Horizontal QBE Spectra are obtained by reducing SSE values by 50%) -113 -Revis i on 0 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER PROJECT NO: ___ 1'-"5"'0"'-2""52.__

___ _ C LIENT: I Engineering or Structures and Building Enclosures DAT E: ____

___ _ B Y: _____ ___ _

SUBJECT:

______ V E RIFIER: ___ .:....A""".T ,_,._,S.,a"'ra'°'wi"'*.._t ___ _

• g ;;: * > z .. .. Figure 10. Vertical SSE Spectra [8] (Vertica l OBE Spec t ra are ob t ained by r educing SSE values by 50%) -114 -Rev i sion 0 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Eng i neer i ng of Structures and B u ilding Enclosures DATE: ____

CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB VERIFIER: ___ _ 0.0010 0.0008 c re .__ .... Vl Q_ 0.0006 0 0 I 0.0004 0.0002 0.0000 0 <> <> ----<> '-_:......

90 <> <> 180 Azimuth 270

• Hoop Strain, FEA, Unfactored ASR Load Case, El. -30 ft

• Hoop Strain, FEA, Unfactored ASR Load Case, El. +10 ft <>Hoop Strain, based on 2016 Cl measurements

<> <> 360 Plot lb Figure 11. Comparison of Below-Grade Hoop ASR Strains with Crack Index Measurements Note: FEA Stra i ns for ASR are plotted at El. -30 ft and El. +10 ft , wh i ch correspond to the m i n i mum and max i mum elevations of below-grade Cl grids. -115 -Revision 0 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Eng i neering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB 0.0010 0.0008 c C1l ..... ..... Vl C1l 0.0006 c 0 ""O *;:: (]) 0.0004 0.0002 0.0000 0 90 180 Azimuth ____ _

VERIFIER: ___ _ <> <> <> ,.........___.

.........

<> 270 360

• Meridional Strain, FEA, Unfactored ASR Load Case, El. -30 ft

• Meridional Strain, FEA, Unfactored ASR Load Case, El. +10 ft <>Meridional Strain, based on 2016 Cl measurements Plot 2b Figure 12. Compari s on of Below-Grade Meridional ASR Strains with Crack Index Measurements Note: FEA Strains for ASR are plotted at El. -30 ft and El. +10 ft , which correspond t o the minimum and maximum elevations of below-grade Cl grids. * -116 -R e vision 0 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Eng i neering of Structures and Building Enclosu r es CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB 0.0010 0.0008 -c co ..... ...... Vl a. 0.0006 0 0 I 0.0004 <> 0.0002 <> ) <> <> 8 ---<> 0.0000 0 90 180 Azimuth V ERIFIER: ___ _ -"II --<> <> 270 360

• Hoop Strain , FEA , Unfactored ASR Load Case , El. 25 ft

• Hoop Strain , FEA , Unfactored ASR Load Case, El. SO ft <>Hoop Strain , based on 2016 Cl measurements Plot lb Figure 13. Comparison of Above-Grade Hoop ASR Strains with Crack Index Measurements Note: Compar i son is for stra in s and Cl measurements between grade (El. +2 0 ft) and the springline (El. +119 ft). -117 -Revision O SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER CLIENT:

SUBJECT:

I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures PROJECTN0:

__ DATE: ____

__ _ _

________________ BY: ____ _____ V ER IF IER: __ __,_A,,_.T,__,_.-"'S=ar=a=wi ,_,_*1 ___ _ 0.0010 0.0008 c ro ..... ...... V) ro 0.0006 c 0 -a " i: OJ 0.0004 0.0002 0.0000 0 <> 90 <> <> 180 Az im uth 270 <>

• Meridional Strain, FEA, Unfactored ASR Load Case, El. 25 ft

• Meridional Strain, FEA , Unfactored ASR Load Case , El. 50 ft <>Meridional Strain , based on 2016 Cl measurements 360 Plot 2b Figure 14. Comparison of Above-Grade Meridional ASR Strains with Crack Index Measurements Note: Comparison i s for strains and Cl measurements between grade (El. +20 ft) and the springl in e (El. +119 ft). -118 -Revision 0 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER C LIENT: I Eng i neer i ng of Structures and Building Enclosures PROJECTN0: ___ DATE: ____

___ _

SUBJECT:

_E_v_a_lu_a_ti

_o_n

_____ VERIFIER:

__

__ _ N i ' ' ' ' ' ' ' . *' *.... .* ... . . . . . / .... " *.. . . . / "'. . .. --. . . / .-. . . ,, ** ** . **** #.. * / .... .. e:.** *. ** . . ,.,,. . .. *.. .. /. tr ... .. . * * .* **... * ..*** *'"/'* .. ** .,, .. .. * .* * .. / * .** . . *" .*' /* * .. . .. ,,. ... ,' /* .. *.* .. : : .... * : ' / *. * ..... / / / .. , ..... ' / *.*.*** . . ' / *.. *. *.* *. . . . .. . : ' .. . . .. . . "' / ..... . ".... "' .... , : : ', // : : : : . . ' .... .. . .. : . ' / ... ,, ' / ... ** * : * // I ', *** : / I ' ! *:* .* /I' : \ / ' * / I ' * / I ' . ... / ' : .... : *** * ** ,.,,/ I '>(*** .: .... * : : *. *. /' I I ;-: .*1-.. . ** ./ *. **... I .. *** .":'-* .: : * :'"l z * ** ** * * . . lt;*. **... I *** ** *** ** ** ./ ..... *******!* ...... .* " . * / * ...... * * * *

• A.: *

• J * * *:*;*... * ***. * * . . **it.t, * * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' / **.. .. .. JJ,..r t# ..

... * . . . ' / . . ....... .... . . . ' / ***... . .. ** .** ' / **** *1* * * * * ' / . . . . I . * . . * * ' / . . . . . . . '

• GL-2

• GL+2

• Undeformed Shape

• Standard Analys i s Case *Standard-Plus Analys i s Case *F i eld Data at EL 5.96 ft+/-5.0 ft Deformations scaled by 100X. Small gray dots represent 1 in. grades of deformation. Figure 15. Comparison between As-Deformed Condition Simulations and Field Measurements at EL 6 ft -119 -Revision 0 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER CLIENT: I Engineer i ng of Structures ond Building Enclosures PROJECTN0: __ DATE: ____

________________

BY: _____

SUBJECT:

_E_v_a_lu_a_t i_o_n

_____ VERIFIER: ----'A""'"."'"'T

.'""'S""a,,_,ra=wi""-

• 1,__ __ _ ' , ' / ' / ' / N ' .* .* .. . . / ' * . . . * . / ' . . .*. ..... ...., *. *. / . . .. . ... . . ,/ ' . . .. ** . ... . .* -...* ... *.... */* . . , ,,.. ... .. **.** / .. * * ** ..6 .*** *** ** ** . .');* .. ** . **.. *.-,,. i * .. / *.* . *

• J /* *.* * * ,,..-.** ' / *.. *. * .... . . .... . ' -.

• 1* . . .. ' / .. .. *.*. . : : : .* ' / . * ... . . .... . : ' / . . *.* * ** * : * ' / .. :I.I ,,. ...... ::. ' / .. tt * * ' / * * ' / . ' / : : .

/ ' . . *. . . / I ' : * / I ' : / I ' : : / ' .. / I ' .: " / I ' : :.._*,J, ; : *. / ' ........... . *. / I ' :* : .. I . . * *.,-* I ,. : * *.. . -:; .. : . .............

1:* ...... . .. ** .. : * / *** '"""

ti ' * /. * * ** """ ..... ., ..... 1. * * * * * * ., / LL. "\,. / . . ******* "' / **. ' / .....* **1* . . * . ' / . . ' / ...*.... I. . . . . . .

'

• GL-2

• GL+2

• Undeformed Shape " Standard Analysis Case

• Standard-Plus Analysis Case *Field Data at EL 22.25 ft+/-5.0 ft Deformations scaled by 100X. Small gray dots represent 1 in. grades of deformation.

Figure 16. Comparison between As-Deformed Condition Simulations and Field Measurements at El. 22 ft -120 -Revision 0 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER CLIENT:

SUBJECT:

I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures PROJECTN0:

___ _________________

_E_v_a_lu_a_ti_o_n_a_n_d_D_e_s_ig_n_C_o_n_fi_rm_a_t_io_n_o_f_A_s_-_D_e_fo_r_m_e_d_C_E_B

_____ VERIFI ER: ___ _ ****** 1 ***** fl /, . . . . . .

• • • • i* .. -.. . . . . . .

// ' ' ' . . . . .. fl*;... .... . . . . . . .

/ . . . ....... , ....... :.,... . / ' ' N i ' ' ' *r-I ' / . . .........

I.........

• . . . ./ ... * **. . .. / . *.. ****** 1****** *. ** /. * . .-. ***** ***** * .. * * *** I *** **** J.** ... ... .,. . '.** * .. / *.* . . ,. . /. *.*. . . .. . / *. . . : : : ... ' / * .. *.*. . . ,.. . .* ' . . .. . . .. : . ' / . . ..* . ; .*I : :' ' I / ". ** *l . . . . . ' / . . :::*::.: 'I/ . . :*:* 'I/ :* **=== '/ :: *l::: /' :: /I, :: /I' =.: ... "" * : / I ' * .. *\!\ *. " // I ', * :'/: * ... ** / I ' * * .. * .... / ' ..... . *.>( : ' ......... ... * *... I §'. i. ... -.... *** I * * . ...... ... .... .*

• ti' /ii,,'. ** . .... *1* . . . . . .

tll .. / . . . * .a i.:: .. =** /. ** ... ...........** 1 ******* / . ... .. .... . / *.. . ..... / ** .. // *.... **1* ..**.. / ******** 1 ******* ,. ., ' '

• GL-2

• GL+2

• Undeformed Shape .. Standard Analysis Case ' ' ' ' *Standard-Plus Analysis Case *F i eld Data at EL 51.08 ft+/-5.0 ft Deformations scaled by 100X. Small gray dots represent 1 in. grades of deformation.

Figure 17. Comparison between As-Deformed Condition Simulations and Field Measurements at El. 50 ft Note: F i eld measurements not recorded at El. 50 ft. -121 -Revision 0 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER CLIENT: I Eng i neer i ng of Structures and Building Enclosures ________________

S UB J E CT: _____ V E R IF IER: ', ...... I ..... . ' **** I ** ** / / / , / ', ....... "....... . ' . . I ***,iiiiiu

.. '

• Ill * * / / / '.... * ***** 1 ...... . N " * **** I ***

• t .* . ' ... **** .......... , ..........

• • • .. . . ./ .. /. / ... / : ** *** ** ** I ** *** *'9. . . . . . . *. . . . .. ' .* *. *. * ** fl. / *** * * . ' / .... ... . ' / ..... -:-.. . ' / .*. 7.1 . . ' / ... 0 .. *: ' / *.".*!* : ' / ... : . * ' I / : e: ii! . : ' / : .. . . ,1 / . :. . . :. / / / .:.. ....: ----------1' ---------.:.. .. 5----: : / ' : : ... -. : : /I , : : ill * / I ' : *:: / I ' : / ' : : * / I ' : : :: * " / I ' * * ** . *. / ' .* ..... * * ** / I ' . * * . . . . ,/ ... "/ "* I .** .* 1-*. o 9** I ,.* *.

• lt*... ***.. I ***** *.** "'" It" * .... **" _. ** It" * *****1* .... ..g ** . / *. / ..

• ltj... . ...... ... .* / . ** ltti1' ..... . . . . .

• ,.. ** .. . . ***** *tt*; ... * * * * ****** * ****** *** . ' . ' . . . ........ *1* ...*... ********* 1 ********* ' ' ' ' '

• GL-2

• GL+2

• Undefo r med Shape .. Standard Analysis Case

• Standa r d-Plus Analysis Case *F i eld Data at EL 119.00 ft+/-5.0 ft Deformat i ons scaled by 1 OOX. Small gray dots rep r esent 1 i n. grades of defo rm atio n. Figure 18. Comparison between As-Deformed Condition Simulations and Field Measurements atEl.119ft

-122 -Revision O SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER C LIENT:

SUBJECT:

I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures PROJECTN0: ___

DA TE: _____ _____________

_____ B Y: _____

___ _ ______ VERIF I ER: ___ _ 2 0 0 fl-1 5 011 100f t =--S O i t O*3 0 ft-=-y_ AZ0toAZ90 AZ 90 to AZ 1 80 Ste.rrla.rd Ana.lys!s Gase, Static Carbira.tio n .., 1 F act.or: 1. 2 4 112 1 80 to AZ 270 Total axial force in hx>p direction, lbf i:er in;h of elerrent width FITE: SR_evA_LC:B_COl_t12_rO_Nll .ETABlE ANSYS llNSYS 15.o RI S.O Plill ID. 45 AZ 270 to AZ 0 -58339.2 -48159.5 -37979. 7 -27800 -1 7620.3 -7440.53 2739.2 1 12918.9 23098.7 F i gure 19. Axial Force Acting in Hoop D i rection for Combination N0_1 for the Standard Analysis Case 200ft-150ft 10 0 fl =--50 f t-O*3 0 ft-* y_ AZ0toAZ90 AZ 90 to AZ 180 Starxhrd Analysis Case, CBE Oxrbination CllE 1 , +100 +40 +40 Tureshold Factor: 1. 2 3 7 J y 4 112 1 80 to AZ 270 'Ibta.l axial force in hoop direction, lbf per 1n::h of elenent Midth FITE: SR_evA_LC:B_DOl_t12_rO_Nll

.E T ABlE ANSYS llNSYS 15.o RI S.0 Plill ID. 129 AZ 270 to AZ 0 -51472.8 -42751 -34029.3 -25307.6 -16585.8 -7864.09 857 .642 9579.38 18301.1 Figure 20. Axial Force Acting in Hoop Direction for Combination OBE_ 1 for the Standard Analysis Case 150252-CA-02

-123 -Rev i s i on 0 F P 100985 Page 1 2 3 of 5 2 6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER C LIENT: SUBJE CT: I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures NextEra Energy Seabrook PR O JEC T N O: __ __,_,1 5"" 0'"" 2"'5 2'=------D A TE: ____

B Y: _____

___ _ _

______ V ERIFIER: ---'-"'A"-

.T'""'"._,S'""a,,_,ra"'

wi""'*.._1 ___ _ 200rt-1 5 0 ft-1001t=-50ft-*30ft A2.0toA2.90 Static Carbination 00_1 1hresh::ild Factor: 1.2 4 A2. 90 to A2. 1 80 A2. 180 to A2. 270 Total axial force in h:>op direc:Uon, lbf p:-..r 1n::h of elenent width FILE: SR_evl37_LCB_COl_tl2_rO_Nll .ETl\ELE ANSYS llNSYS 15.o A2.270toA2.

0 RIS.O PI.ill NJ. 3 -62292.1 -51846.7 -41401.2 -30955.8 -20510.3 -10064.8 380.62 10826.l 21271.5 Figure 21. Axial Force Acting in Hoop Direction for Combination N0_1 for the Standard-Plus Analysis Case 200ft-150ft 10on=-50ft Oft*3 0 ft-A2.0toA2.90 A2.90toA2.

1 80 Stan:lard linalys is Case 1 Static Carbi.natio n 00 1 nireshold Factor: 1. 2 A2. 1 80 to A2. 270 4 ANSYS llNSYS 15.o RIS.O PI.ill NJ. 48 A2.270toA2.0

-102700 -83489.7 -64279.2 -45068.6 -25858 -6647.4 8 12563.1 31773.6 50984.2 Total axial force in meridional direction, lbf t-e:r inch of elenen t width FILE: SR_evA_LCB_COl

_tl2_rO_N22 .ETl\ELE Figure 22. Axial Force Acting in Meridional Direction for Combination N0_1 for the Standard Analysis Case 150252-CA-02

-124 -Rev i sion 0 F P 100985 Page 1 2 4 of 5 2 6 S I MPSON G U MPERTZ & HEGER CLIENT:

SUBJECT:

I Engineering of Structures and B uil ding Enclosures NextEra Energy Seabrook 20 0f t-15011-100 1 1=-so n-Oft--3011-l\ZOtol\290 l\Z 90 to l\Z 1 80 S tandard Ana lysis Ca se , CSE Corrbina t io n ooe: 1, +1 0 0 +4 0 +40 n.z:esrold F 0<0to r: 1.2 l\Z 1 80 to l\Z 270 ANSYS ANSYS 1 5.0 RIS.O PI.ill ID. 13 2 l\Z 270 to l\Z 0 -97129.2 -78864.9 -60600.5 -42336.2 -24 071.9 -5 807.5 2 1 2 4 56.8 3072 1.2 48985.5 Total axW f orce in rreri d ional direction, lbf per inch o f elenent wi d th FllE: SR_ev A_LCB_DO l_tl2_rO_N22 .ET P..BIE Figure 23. Axial Force Acting in Meridional Direction for Combination OBE_ 1 for the Standard Analysis Case 20 0 f t-1 5011-1 00 f t-50 f t=-o tt-3 o tt=-l\ZOtol\290 S tatic Coobination 00 1 ni<esrold Factor: 1. 2 l\Z 90to l\ZJ 80 l\Z 1 80 to l\Z 270 4 l x ANSYS ANSYS 1 5.0 l\Z 270to l\Z O RJ S.O PI.ill ID. 3 -10 77 96 -88135.6 -68475.3 -48814.9 -29 1 54.6 -949 4.23 1 0 1 66.1 2982 6.5 4 9 48 6.8 Total axi a l force in rreddi o nal direc'tion , lbf per in:::h o f e l erent width F llE: S R_evB 7_LCB_C O l_tl 2_rO_N22.ET ABLE Figure 24. Axial Force Acting in Meridional Direction for Combination N0_1 for the Standard-Plus Analysis Case 150252-CA-02

-125 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 125 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER C LIENT: S UBJE CT: I Engineering of Slrvctures and Building Enclosures PR O JECTN0: ___

D A TE: _____ __________________

B Y: _____

______ VE RIFIER: ___ _ 200f t-150 ft 1oort=-50ft ott*30ft 1 v AZ0toAZ90 AZ 90 tc AZ 1 80 Stan::lard Analysis Case, Static Carbinatio n 00 1 n-.resh::>ld Factor: 1. 2 AZ 180 to AZ 270 4 ANSYS ANSYS 15.o RI S.O PI.ill ID. 5 1 AZ 270 to AZ 0 -25876. 7 -194 4 4.6 -130 1 2.4 -6580.28 -148.136 6284 .01 12716.2 19148.3 25580.4 In-plane shear forc-e in }l:X)p direction, lbf per 1rch of elenent width FILE: SR_evA_LCB_COl

_t12_rO_N12 .ETABLE Figure 25. In-Plane Shear Force for Combination N0_1 for the Standard Analysis Case 200ft-15011 10011=-sort *30ft=-AZ0toAZ90 AZ 90 to AZ 1 80 Stan::lard An.tlysis Case , CEE Carbination ca: 1 , +100 +40 +40 nire.ro1d ractor : l. 2 AZ 180 to AZ 270 4 ANSYS ANSYS 15.o AZ 270 to AZ 0 RI S.O PI.ill ID. 135 -223 1 6.4 -1 7339.4 -1 2362.5 -7385.6 -2408.69 2568.23 7545.15 12522.1 17499 Irrplan& shear force in hoop direction , lbf per 1rch of elerl'eflt width F ILE: SR_evA_LCB_DOl_t12_rO_Nl2

.ETABLE Figure 26. In-Plane Shear Force for Combination OBE_ 1 for the Standard Analysis Case 150252-CA-02

-126 -Revision 0 FP 1009 8 5 Page 126 of 5 2 6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER CLIENT: I Engineering of S tructures and B ui ld in g Enclosures

SUBJECT:

200ft-150ft 100 11=--50 ft-011*30ft 200 f t-15011-100 ft =--50ft Oft*3011:::-_ 3 J_y AZ0toAZ90 AZ90toAZl 80 AZ 180 to AZ 210 Stardard-f'lw Analysis Case , Static O::nbination 00 1 ntt°e sh:::lld F actor: 1. 2 4 ANSYS ANSYS 1s.o AZ210toAZO RIS.O PLOl' JIO. 9 -31698.9 -24110.4 -16522 -8933.5 6 -134 5.13 6243.3 13831. 7 2 14 2 0.2 29008.6 In-plane shear f orce In hoop direction , lbf i:er Inc h o f elenent width FILE: SR_evB7_LCB

_COl_t1 2_rll_N12.ETABLE Figure 27. In-Plane Shear Force for Combination N0_ 1 for the Standard-Plus Analysis Case AZ0toAZ90 AZ90toAZ 1 80 Stan:tard Analysis Case, Static Cacbi.natio n 00_1 Threshold Factor: 1. 2 AZ 1 80 to AZ 2 10 4 ANSYS ANSYS 15.0 RIS.O PLOl' ID. 60 AZ270toAZO

-1 2201.8 -9302.99 -6404.19 -3505.39 -606.595 2292 .2 5 191 8089.8 10988.6 0Jt-of1'lane shear force along hori::cnW/hoop plane, lbf per inch of elerren t FILE: SR_evA_LCB_COl_t12

_rO_Q13 .E T ABLE Figure 28. Out-of-Plane Shear Force (Along Meridional-Radial Plane) for Combination N0_1 for the Standard Analysis Case 150252-CA-02

-127 -Revis i on 0 FP 100985 Page 127 of 5 26 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER CLIENT:

SUBJECT:

I Eng i neering of Structures ond Building Enclosures 200ft-150ft-10011=-SOit on*JOtt 1'20to1'290 1'290to1'2180 Stan:iard Analysis C.ase, OOE Coobiratio n C1lE 1 , +100 +4 0 +40 Pact.or: 1.2 4 1'2 1 80 to 1'2 210 ANSYS ANSYS 15.o RIS.O PIDl' 1'0. 1 44 1'2270to1'20

-6046.4 -3942.6 3 -1838.8 6 264. 917 2368.69 4472.4 6 6576.24 8680.01 10783.8 cut-of-p lane shear fo t: oe along hori::onW/hoop lbf pe.i:: inch of elemen t FILE: SR_evA_LCB

_DOl_tl2_rO_Ql3 .ET/IBLE Figure 29. Out-of-Plane Shear Force (Along Meridional-Radial Plane) for Combination OBE_ 1 for the Standard Analysis Case J :i y 4 AN SYS ANSYS 15.0 Rl S.O PIDl' NJ. 18 y_ -12139.5 -9208.85 2oor1--6278.21 -3347.56 -4 1 6.92 25 1 3.72 150ft 5444.37 8375.01 11305.7 1001t=-sort-on=-*30ft 1'20to1'290 1'2 90 to 1'2 1 80 1'2 180 to 1'2 210 1'2210to1'20 Stan::iard-Plus Analysis Case, Static Catbination 00 1 ni'eshold Factor: 1.2 Q.it-of;:>lane shear force al o ng hxizontal/h:q:>

plane, lbf per i n=h o f element FILE: SR_evB7_LCB_COl

_tl 2_rO_Q13.ETABIE Figure 30. Out-of-Plane Shear Force (Along Meridional-Radial Plane) for Combination N0_1 for the Standard-Plus Analysis Case 150252-CA-02

-128 -Revision O FP 100985 Page 128 of 526

---

SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER CLI E NT: S U BJE C T: I Engineering of Structures ond Building Enclosures PROJECTN0: ___ DATE: _____ __________________

B Y: _____ ______ VERIF I ER: ___

___ _ 20 0 f t-1 5 011-1 o o r 1=-50ft-o tt*30ft-1 y 11Z0to1\Z90 11Z90to1\Z l 80 Standard Analysis Case, Static c.arbinatio n 00 1 nires11o1d F'act:or: 1.2 :i v AZ 180 to AZ 270 4 ANSYS ANSYS 15.o RI S.O PIDI' I.ID. 63 1\Z270toAZO

-1 4715.4 -8205.14 -1 694.89 4815.35 11 32 5.6 17835.9 24346.1 30856.4 37366.6 0..t-of-plarn shear foroe al on;i vertical/neridional plane, lbf per inch of elem FilE: SR_evA_LCB_COl_tl2_r0_023

.ETABLE Figure 31. Out-of-Plane Shear Force (Along Hoop-Radial Plane) for Combination N0_1 for the Standard Analysis Case 20 0ft-15011-10on=-50 f t=-O ft*30ft=-AZ0toAZ90 11Z90to1\Zl80 Staroard Analysis Case, CEE Carb.in!ltio n CflE l, +100 +40 +40 'Ihr9stK:>ld Pact.or: 1.2 112 180 to AZ 270 4 ANSYS ANSYS 15.0 AZ 270 to AZ 0 RI S.O PIDI' NJ. 147 -10960.6 -5958.09 -955.537 4047.01 9049.56 1 4052.1 19054.7 24057 .2 29059.8 OJ'N:>f-pl.ane Bhear foroe along vertic.al/neridiona.l plane, lbf per inch of elem F ITE: SR_evA_LCB_DOl

_t12_r0_023.E T ABLE Figure 32. Out-of-Plane Shear Force (Along Hoop-Radial Plane) for Comb i nation OBE_1 for the Standard Analysis Case 150252-CA-02 -129 -Rev i s i on 0 F P 100985 Page 129 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER CLIENT: S U BJECT: I Engineering of Structures and Build ing Enclosures Ne xt E ra E nergy S e a brook 1 5 011 50ft Oft*3011 A2 0toAZ90 AZ 90 to AZ 1 80 AZ 180 to AZ 270 Stardard-Plus Analysis CaSle, Static Ccrrbination 00 1 nir ewld r oe tor: 1. 2 4 ANSYS ANSYS 15.0 RIS.O PI.Dr 1'0. 21 AZ 270 to AZ 0 -14707 .4 -8121.25 -153 5.15 5050.96 11637 .1 18223.2 2 4809.3 3 1 395.4 3 7981.5 OJt-of-plane shear force alorq vert1cal/rrer1diontl plane, lbf per irx:h o f elem FILE: SR_ev!37_LCB

_C0l_tl 2_r0_023.ETAELE Figure 33. Out-of-Plane Shear Force (Along Hoop-Radial Plane) for Combination N0_1 for the Standard-Plus Analysis Case 200(\-150 ft 50ft Oft*3011 AZ0toAZ90 AZ 90 to AZ 1 80 Storrlud An&lysis Case, Static Ca!bination 00 1 nnwld r.., tor: 1. 2 AZ 1 80 to AZ 270 4 ANSYS ANSYS 15.0 R I S.O PI.Dr 1'0. 54 AZ 270 to AZ 0 -536621 -429124 -321628 -21 4131 -106634 862.062 108359 2 15855 323352 Ben:ilng rrarent a.b:Jut rreridional axis, lbf-in per in::h of elerrent width FILE: SR_evA_LCB_COl

_t l2_rO_Mll .E'rAELE Figure 34. Out-of-Plane Bending Moment (About Meridional Axis) for Combination N0_1 for the Standard Analysis Case 150252-CA-02 -130 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Pa ge 130 of 52 6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER CLIENT: I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures

SUBJECT:

200 1 1-15011-1 00 1 1=-SO ft Oll*30ft 1 .L 1\ZOt.oAZ90 1\Z 90 t.o 1\Z 1 80 Standard Analysis C.a.se, CEE O:rrbination e&: 1, +100 +4 0 +40 nire.oold Foct.or: 1. 2 4 1\Z 180 t.o AZ 210 ANSYS /INSYS 15.o RI S.O PIDI' J.IO. 138 AZ210t.o1\ZO

--408294 -328032 -247769 -167506 -87243.8 -698 1.1 6 7328 1.4 153544 233807 Bending m:ment about rreridional axis; lbf-in pei:: i.n=h of elerren t trfidth FITE: SR_evA_LCB_DOl

_tl2_rO_Ml l .ETABIE Figure 35. Out-of-Plane Bending Moment (About Meridional Axis) for Combination OBE_ 1 for the Standard Analysis Case 200ft-15011 sort Oft*30ft 1 AZ0t.oAZ90 1\Z 90 to 1\Z 1 80 1\Z 180 t.o AZ 210 Stardard-Plus:

klalysis Case, Static Catbinatioo fl() 1 n;eshold Factor: 1.2 4 ANSYS /INSYS 15.o RIS.O PIDI' J.IO. 12 1\Z210t.oAZO

-552193 --442055 -331917 -22 1779 -111641 -1503.06 108635 218773 328911 Bending rrment about rreridional axis, lbf-in per inch of elemen t width FITE: SR_evB7_LCB_COl_tl2_rO_Mll .ETABIE Figure 36. Out-of-Plane Bending Moment (About Meridional Axis) for Combination N0_1 for the Standard-Plus Analysis Case 150252-CA-02

-131 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 131 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER CLI E NT:

SUBJECT:

I Engineering of Structures and B uil d ing Enclosu r es __________________

B Y: _____ ______ VER I F I ER:

___ _ 2 0 0 f t-1 5011-i o o rt=-50 rt-o tt*3 0 tt-l\ZOtol\Z90 l-2.90 to"2.1 80 Standard Aralysis Case, Static Carbina.tio n 00 1 n-iresh::lld F actor: 1. 2 l\Z 1 80 to l\Z 270 rrorren t aOOu t OOop axis, lbf-in pe r in:h o f elerrent w i dth FILE: SR_evA_LCB_COl_t 12_rO_M22 .E T ABLE ANSYS ANSYS 1 5.o R!S.O P1D!' lil:J. 5 7 l\Z210tol\ZO

-7 71962 -484 4 91 -1 97020 90450.3 3 77 921 665392 9 5 2862 .1 24E+07 .15 3 E+07 Figure 37. Out-of-Plane Bending Moment (About Hoop Axis) for Comb i nat i on N0_1 for t he Standard Analysis Case 2oor t-15011-1 00f t=-50 1 1-O*3 0 ft=-AZ 0 tol\Z90 l\Z90tol\Z l 80 Standard Ana lysi s Case, OOE Carb inati o n OOE 1 , +1 0 0 +4 0 +4 0 Thr:;sh:>ld F acto r: 1. 2 l\Z 1 80 to l\Z 210 E!eo:ling m:nent aOOu t h,:,op axis , l b f-i n per inch o f elerren t w i d th FILE: SR_ev A_LCB_DOl_t 12_rO_M22.E TABLE A N SYS ANSYS 1 s.o R I S.O P1D!' NJ. 1 41 l\Z210tol\ZO

-7 90304 -55102 8 -311752 -7 2 475.8 166800 406076 645352 884628 .112E+07 Figure 38. Out-of-Plane Bending Moment (About Hoop Axis) for Combination OBE_ 1 for the Standard Analysis Case 150252-CA-02 -132 -Revis i on 0 FP 100985 P a ge 1 3 2 of 5 26 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER CLIENT:

SUBJECT:

I Eng i neering of Structures and Building Enclosures 150ft ott*3 0 tt J_y AZ0toAZ90 AZ 90 to AZ 1 80 AZ 1 8 0 to AZ 2?0 Stan:hrd--Plus Analysis Case, Static Carbination 00 1 Tu<esnold Factor : l. 2 Bending m::rre n t about hoop oxis, lbf-in per inch o f elenent width FILE: SR_evB7_LCB_COl_t1 2_rO_M22.ETABLE 4 ANSYS PNSYS 15.0 RI S.O PLOT ID. 15 AZ 210 to AZ 0 -776188 -4 90014 -203840 82334.1 368508 654682 940856 .123E+07 .151E+07 Figure 39. Out-of-Plane Bending Moment (About Hoop Axis) for Combination N0_1 for the Standard-Plus Analysis Case 200 f t-1 5 0ft-1001t=-50 f t *30ft=-AZ0toAZ90 AZ 90 to AZ 1 80 Stan.i:lrd J.nalysis Case, Stati c Carbinatio n 00 1 niresh:ild ractor: 1. 2 AZ 1 80 to AZ 270 Demand-to-cap!SCity rati o foi: axial ccnpression 1n h:>op directi o n F ILE: SR_ evA _ LCB _ C01 _ t12 _ro _axcDCRll .ETABLE 4 ANSYS PNSYS 15.0 R I S.O PLOT ID. 66 AZ 270 to AZ 0 -.3 0 .3 .5 .7 .9 1 1.1 1.5 Figure 40. DCRs for Axial Compression in Hoop Direction for Combination N0_1 for the Standard Analysis Case 150252-CA-02

-133 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 1 33 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER CLIENT:

SUBJECT:

I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures PROJECT NO: ___ 1,_,5"""0""2""'52"-----

-DATE: _____ ___ _

BY: _____

______ VERIFIER: ___ ,,_A,,,_.T,_,._,S""a"'ra""'wi""*"-1 ___ _ 200 f t-15011-1oo r 1=-soft--Oft*3 0ft AZ0toAZ90 AZ 90 to AZ 1 80 Stan:lard Analysis Case, OOE Carbi..ration CllE l, +100 +40 +40 r actor: 1. 2 AZ 180 to AZ 210 Derre.rrl-to-cspaci ty rati o for axial carpression in lnop direction F ilE: SR_evA_LCl3_DOl_tl2_rO_axc!X:Rl l .ET ABIE 4 ANSYS ANSYS 15.o AZ 210 to AZ 0 RIS.O PlDI' NJ. 150 -.3 0 .3 .5 .7 .9 1 1.1 1.5 Figure 41. DCRs for Axial Compression in Hoop Direction for Combination OBE_ 1 for the Standard Analysis Case 1 5 0ft *30ft=-AZ0toAZ90 AZ 90 to AZ 1 80 AZ 160 to AZ 210 Stan:!ard-f'lus with Cracked Sections fU1, Static Carbinatlon 00 l 'Ilttestx>ld ract.or: 1.2 Derrand-to-capeiei ty ratio fo r axial 1n hx>p direction F ilE: SR_evB7 _LCl3_COl_tl2_rO_axCOCR.ll

.ETABIE 4 ANSYS ANSYS 1 5.0 R!S.O PlDI' NJ. 30 AZ 210 to AZ 0 -.3 0 .3 .5 .7 .9 1 1.1 1.5 Figu re 42. DCRs for Axial Compression in Hoop Direction for Combination N0_1 for the Standard-Plus Analysis Case 150252-CA-02

-134 -Rev i s i on 0 FP 100985 Page 134 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER CLIENT:

SUBJECT:

I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures 200fl-150ft 100ft=-50fl O*30 ft 1 Stardard Analysis Case, Static Urtbirr:t.tion 00 1 nir..s1-ow Factor: 1. 2 4 AZ 180 to AZ 210 ANSYS J>NSYS 15.o R IS.O Plill 1'0. 69 AZ 210 to AZ 0 -.3 0 .3 .5 .7 .9 1 1.1 1.5 Oerranj-t.o-.;::e.pscity rati o for axial carpression in rrericilonal direction FILE: SR_evA_LCl3_C0l_t12_rO_axc!XX22

.ETABLE Figure 43. DCRs for Axial Compression in Meridional Direction for Combination N0_1 for the Standard Analysis Case 200 f t-150ft 100 f t=-50fl Oft*30ft 1 2 AZ 90 to AZ 1 80 Standard Analysis Case , OOE C.arbination alE 1, +100 +40 +40 nirestiold factor: 1. 2 AZ 1 80 to AZ 210 4 ANSYS J>NSYS 15.o RIS.0 Plill 1'0. 153 AZ 210 to AZ 0 -.3 0 .3 .5 .7 .9 1 1.1 1.5 ratio foi: axial CX1f1Xession in neridionsl direction FILE: SR_evA_LCl3_DOl_t12_rO_axc!XX22

.ETABLE Figure 44. DCRs for Axial Compression in Meridional Direction for Combination OBE_ 1 for the Standard Analysis Case 150252-CA-02

-135 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 135 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER CLIENT:

SUBJECT:

I Eng i neering ot Structures and Building Enclosures PROJECTN0:

___

DATE: _____ __________________

BY: _____

______ VERIFIER: ___ _ 200ft-1501! 100ft=-50ft-Oft*30 ft AZ0toAZ 90 AZ 90 to AZ 1 80 AZ 1 80 to AZ 270 Stardard-Plus with Cracked Sections Rn, Static Carbination 00 1 nire stiold Fac t.or: 1.2 4 ANSYS !\NSYS 15.o AZ 210 to AZ 0 RIS.O Plill J:IO. 33 -.3 0 .3 .5 .7 .9 1 1.1 1.5 rati o for axial carpression in rreridional direction FIIE: SR_ev87_LCB_COl_tl 2_r O_axdJCR22.ETABLE Figure 45. DCRs for Axial Compression in Meridional Direction for Combination N0_1 for the Standard-Plus Analysis Case 200ft-1501!--1001t=-50ft-Oft*3 0 ft-AZ0toAZ90 AZ 90 to AZ 1 80 Standard .Analysis Case, Static Carbil'li!!tion 00 1 nire1111o1d Pac tor: 1. 2 Denard-to-capeci ty rati o for in-plane AZ 180 to AZ 270 FIIE: SR_evA_LCB_COl_t12_rO_VIP_DCR.ETABLE 4 ANSYS ANSYS 15.o AZ 210 to AZ 0 R I S.O Plill J:IO. 72 -.3 0 .3 .5 .7 .9 1 1.1 1.5 Figure 46. DCRs for In-Plane Shear for Combination N0_1 for the Standard Analysis Case 150252-CA-02 -136 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 136 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER CLIEN T: SUB J ECT: I Eng i neering of Structures and Building Enclosures DAT E: _____ __________________

BY: _____ ______ VE RI F I E R:

200fl-1 50fl 1oon=-soft Ofl*30ft 200ft-1 50fl 1001 1=-soft Oft*30ft 1 y 2 -A2.0toA2.90 A2. 90 to AZ 1 80 Standard Analysis Case, CSE Carbi.ration (EE 1 , +100 +40 +40 '!hr9shold Factor: 1. 2 roti o for she<lr A2. 180 to A2. 2 70 FILE: SR_evA_LCB_DOl

_tl2_rO_VIP_DCR

.ETAELE 4 ANSYS ANSYS 15.0 R IS.O Pl.Dr J.IO. 156 A2.270t:oA2.0

-.3 0 .3 .5 .7 .9 1 1.1 1.5 Figure 47. DCRs for In-Plane Shear for Combination OBE_ 1 for the Standard Analysis Case A2.0toA2.90 A2.90toA2.180 A2. 180 to A2. 270 Stan::W:d-Plus with Cracked Sections FUi.. Sta.tic Ccrrbinatioo 00 1 Factor: 1. 2 Denancl-t:o-copocity rotio for she4r FILE: SR_evB7_LCB_COl_tl2_rO_VIP_DCR

.ETAELE 4 ANSYS ANSYS 15.0 A2.270toA2.0 R IS.O Pl.Dr J.IO. 36 -.3 0 .3 .5 .7 .9 1 1.1 1.5 Figure 48. DCRs for In-Plane Shear for Combination N0_1 for the Standard-Plus Analysis Case 150252-CA-02

-137 -Revision 0 FP 1 0 0985 Pag e 1 37 of 52 6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures

____ _ DATE: _____

CLIENT:

__________________

BY: _____

SUBJECT:

______ VER I FIER: ___ _ 200ft-150ft 1oort=-SO ft Oft*30ft 1 y AZ0toAZ90 2 AZ 90 to AZ 180 Stan:lard Analysis Ca.oe, St.a tic Catbinat1on 00 1 'ih[eshold Factor: l. 2 AZ 180 to AZ 270 Derren:H.o-otpoci ty ratio fur out-of-plane sl10<U: (Q23) FITE: SR_evA_LCB_COl_t12_rO_VOP22IX:R

.ETAELE 4 AN SYS l'NS'fS 15. o AZ 270 to AZ 0 R IS.O PlDI' J.IO. 84 -.3 0 .3 .5 .7 .9 1 1.1 1.5 Figure 49. DCRs for Out-of-Plane Shear (acting on hoop-radial plane) for Combination N0_1 for the Standard Analysis Case 200fl-150ft-10011=-SO i t ott*3Dft-2 y AZ0toAZ90 AZ 90 to AZ 180 Stan:tard Analysis Cas>!, CllE Catbination CllE l, +100 +40 +40 Factor: l. 2 3 7 J:_y AZ 180 to AZ 270 °""'1>:1-to-=pocity ratio fur out-of-plane st-.: (Q23) FITE: SR_evA_ LCB_ D01_ t12 _r0 _ VOP22IX:R. ETAELE 4 ANSYS l'NS'fS 15.o RI S.O PlDI' J.IO. 168 AZ 270 to AZ 0 -.3 0 .3 .5 .7 .9 1 1.1 1.5 Figure 50. DCRs for Out-of-Plane Shear (acting on hoop-radial plane) for Combination OBE_1 for the Standard Analysis Case 150252-CA-02

-138 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 138 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER CLIEN T: I Engineering of Structures ond Building Enclosures N e xt Era E nerg y Sea bro o k PROJE C T NO: -----'-'15=0=2=5==-2

____ _ DATE: ____ ___ _ BY: _____

SUBJECT:

______ VER I FIER: ___ ___ _ 20011--15011-10011=-SOit 011-*30 ft=-A20toA290 112 90 to A2 1 80 A2 180 to 112 210 Starxlard-P l us with Q: od<ed Sections !Ul , Static Calt>ination Ill 1 itlttshold F act.or: 1.2 °"'8rd-to-capoci ty ratio for ou t-of-plane shear (0231 F ITE: SR_ev87_LCll_COl_tl2_

r O_VOP220CR

.E TABLE 4 ANSYS ANSYS 1 5.o Rl S.O PlDI' JIO. 48 A2 210 to A2 0 c:::::J ----c:::::J ---.3 0 .3 .5 .7 .9 1 1.1 1.5 Figure 51. DCRs for Out-of-Plane Shear (acting on hoop-radial plane) for Combination N0_1 for the Standard-Plus Ana l ysis Case 2001!-15011-so 1 1=-Oft--30ft-A20toA290 112 90 to A2 1 80 St.a.Mard Analysis Sta ti c Carbiratio n Ill 1 F actor: 1. 2 112 180 to A2 270 Demord-to-caj>!Ci ty rati o for oot-<>f-pl.ano shear (Ql3) F ITE: SR_evAJ.CB_COl_tl2_rO_VOP11.IX::R.ET ABLE 4 ANSYS ANSYS 15.0 Rl S.O PlDI' JIO. 81 A2 270 to A2 0 -.3 o .3 .5 .7 .9 1 1.1 1.5 Figure 52. DCRs for Ou t-of-P l ane Shear (acting on meridio n al-radial plane) for Combina ti on N0_1 for the Standard Analysis Case 150252-C A-0 2 -139 -Revis i on 0 F P 100985 P age 139 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER CLIENT:

SUBJECT:

I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosu r es PROJECT NO: ___ DA T E: _____

__________________ BY: _____ _E_v_a_l_ua_t_io_n_a

_n_d_D_e_s_ig_n_C_o_n_fi_rm_a_ti

_o_n_o_f_A_s_-D_e_fo_r_m_e_d_C_E_B ______ VER I FIER: ___ 200 f t-150ft-100 1 1=-50ft-ott-3ott=-AZ0toAZ90 AZ 90 to AZ 1 80 Standard Aralysis Case , OOE Carblration OOE l, +100 +40 +40 nu:;shold F actor: 1. 2 AZ 180 to AZ 270 "'"8n:l-t.o-capoc1 ty ratio fur out-o f-plane shear (Q l 3) F ILE: SR_evA_LCB_DOl_

t 12_rO_'\IOPllOCR

.ET.!\ELE 4 ANSYS PNSYS 15.o R l S.O Piill NJ. 1 65 AZ270toAZO

-.3 0 .3 .5 .7 .9 1 1.1 1.5 Figure 53. DCRs for Out-of-Plane Shear (acting on meridional-radial plane) for Comb i nat i on OBE_ 1 for the Standard Analysis Case 200 f t-1501!-10011=-50 f t=-Oft*3011-AZ0toAZ90 AZ 90 to A2 180 AZ 180 to A2 270 Starxiard-P l ue with O:acked Sections Rn , Static Oxrbinatioo 00 1 hestiold Factor: 1.2 "'"8n:l-t.o-c4?"'1ty ratio for ou t-of-plane shear (Ql3) F ILE: SR_ ev87 _LCB_ C01 _ t12_r0 _ 'i.DP110CR. ETAELE ANSYS NllSYS 15.o RlS.O Piill NJ. 45 AZ 270 to A2 0 -.3 0 .3 .5 .7 .9 1 1.1 1.5 Figure 54. DCRs for Out-of-Plane Shear (acting on meridional-radial plane) for Combination N0_1 for the Standard-Plus Analysis Case 150252-CA-02 -140 -Rev i sion 0 FP 100985 Pag e 1 4 0 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER CLIENT: I Engineering of Structures ond Building Enclosures PROJECTN0: ___

DATE: _____

SUBJECT:

______ VER I FIER: ___ _,_A"".T'"""'.__, S""a"'r a""'wi"'*"""t ___ _ 200ft-15011 1oort=-50ft 011-*30ft 1 y A:!.OtoA:l.90 A:l.90toA:l.l80 Stan:lerd Analysis Case, Static Carbination 00 l ni<eorold F actor: l. 2 Kl. 1 80 to Kl. 210 4 ANSYS PNSYS 15.0 R l S.O PIDI' NJ. 75 A:l.210toA:l.0

-.3 0 .3 .5 .7 .9 1 1.1 1.5 ratio for axial-flexure interaction in OOop d.1.rection FII.E: SR_evA_LCB_COl_t l2_rO_PMll_CCR.ETABLE Figure 55. DCRs for Axial-Flexure Interaction in the Hoop Direction for Combination N0_1 for the Standard Analysis Case 20on-15011 1oon=-son Oll*30ft 2 A:l.OtoA:l.90 Kl. 90 to Kl. 1 80 Standard Analysts ea..., CBE O:rl>ination (BE l, +100 +-40 +-4 0 nDorold Factor: l. 2 Kl. 1 80 to Kl. 270 4 ANSYS PNSYS 15.0 R l S.O PIDI' NJ. 159 A:l.270toA:l.0

-.3 0 .3 .5 .7 .9 1 1.1 1.5 Denw'd-to-c:spacity ratio for axiA.l-flexure interaction in h:q> dJJ::ection F II.E: SR_evA_LCB_DOl

_t 12_rO_PMll_CCR

.ETABLE Figure 56. DCRs for Axial-Flexure Interaction in the Hoop Direction for Combination OBE_ 1 for the Standard Analysis Case 150252-CA-02

-141 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 141 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER C LI ENT: I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures PROJ E CTN0: ___ D AT E: _____ _________________ B Y: _____

SUBJECT:

______ V E R IFI ER: 2o o r 1-1 5 0 11-100 1t=--SO f l=-O ft-*3 0 ft 1 ':L AZ0toAZ90 AZ90to AZ 180 AZ 180 to AZ 270 Stardlrd-Plus with Cracked Sections EU'l, Static O:rrbina.tion 00 1 nire.rold Factor: 1. 2 4 ANSYS ANSYS 15.o RI S.O Pr.ill ID. 39 AZ 270 to AZ 0 -.3 0 .3 .5 .7 .9 1 1.1 1.5 Oenend-to-capacity rati o f.or axial-fle>.ure interaction in h:>op direction F IIE: SR_evB 7_I.CB_COl_tl2_r O_FMll_OCR.E TAELE Figure 57. DCRs for Axial-Flexure Interaction in the Hoop Direction for Combination N0_1 for the Standard-Plus Analysis Case 2 0 0 1 1-1 5011 1 001 1 =--50ft Oft*3 0ft -AZ0toAZ90 AZ 90 to AZ 1 80 Stan:iard Anslysis Case , Static O:lrbination 00 1 nire.001d F actor: 1. 2 AZ 180 to AZ 270 4 ANSYS ANSYS 15.0 Rl S.O Pr.ill ID. 78 AZ 270 to AZ 0 -.3 0 .3 .5 .7 .9 1 1.1 1.5 ratio for axial-flexure interaction in rrcridional dil:ection F ILE: SR_evA_l.CB_COl

_tl2_rO_PM22_0CR

.ETAELE Figure 58. DCRs for Axial-Flexure Interaction in the Meridional Direction for Combination N0_1 for the Standard Analysis Case 150252-CA-02

-142 -Revision 0 FP 10 0 985 P age 1 42 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER CLIENT: I Engineering o f Structures and B uilding Enclosures NextEra Energy Seab r ook PR O JE C T NO: ___ 1""5""0"" 2 ,,,52=------

DATE: ____ ___ _ B Y: _____

___ _

SUBJECT:

_ E_v_a'-'l"-u"-at'-

i o'-n_a_n_d_D_e_s_;ig.._n_C_o_n_fi_rm

_a_ti_o __ n-'o'-'f-'-A-'s'--"'-D...:.e-'fo'-'r

__ m-'e-'d_C_E_B

______ VERIFIER: ---'""A"".T""._,,S"'a""ra,_,wi...,.

• 1 ,__ ___ _ 200ft-1 50ft 1 0011=-50ft *30ft AZ0toAZ90 AZ 90 to AZ 1 80 Stardlrd Analysis Case, CBE Coobination OOE l , +100 +40 +40 n-ir;sh:lld F actor: 1. 2 :l_y AZ 1 80 to AZ 210 4 AN SYS R!S.O AZ 210 to AZ 0 ratio for axial-flexure interoc:tion in neridiona.l direction FILE: SR_evA_LCB_DOl_tl2_rO_PM22_DCR

.ETAELE ANSYS 15.0 PI.DI' NO. 1 62 -.3 0 .3 .5 .7 .9 1 1.1 1.5 Figure 59. DCRs for Axial-Flexure Interaction in the Meridional Direction for Combination OBE_1 for the Standard Analysis Case 200f t-150ft 1 oori=-so1 1=-Oft*30ft 2 3 '7 J:_y AZ0toAZ90 AZ 90 to AZ 1 80 AZ 180 to AZ 210 Starrlard--Plus with CracY.ed Sections Run, Static Ccrrbination 00 l 'Jk'esh:>ld Factor: l. 2 4 ANSYS ANSYS 15.o AZ 210 to AZ 0 R I S.O PI.DI' !IO. 42 -.3 0 .3 .5 .7 .9 1 1.1 1.5 ratio for axial-flexure inteJ::oc:tion in rretidional direction FILE: SR_ev87_LCB_COl_tl2_rO_PM22_DCR.ETAELE Figure 60. DCRs for Axial-Flexure Interaction in the Meridional Direction for Combination N0_1 for the Standard-Plus Analysis Case 150252-CA-02

-143 -Revision 0 FP 1 00985 Page 143 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIE NT: NextEra Energ y Seabrook

SUBJECT:

E valuation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB PROJECT NO: __ __,_15"""'0""2""52.__

___ _ DATE: ___

___ _ BY: ____

VERIFIER: ----'-'A"-'.

T_,_. ""Sa.,,,_r'°"awi""'*t,__

__ _ CONTRIBUTING ELEMENTS FOR SECTION CUT Figure 61. Section Cut Resultant Forces and Moments at Cut Centroid 150252-CA-02

-144 -FP 100985 Page 144 of 526 Revision O SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Eng i neering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook PROJECTN0:

__

____ _ DATE: ___

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB VERIFIER: __ __,_A"-.T'"'"._,,,S=ar=a_,_,_wi'"'"*t

___ _ 600 -' 500 -400 --300 -.:t= -0.. 200 -cu x 100 -<( 0 --100 --200 -, -100 PM Evaluation

-Section Cut 28 -ASR Threshold

= 1.2 I I I L -50 0 Moment (kip-ft/ft)

Capacity

• STATIC 50 ,-10 ( Figure 62. PM Interaction Diagram at Section Cut 28 Showing Elevated Tensile Demands (Prior to Adjustment of Meridional Stiffness at El. +45.5 ft and AZ 240) *Capacity *Static -3 00 600 -200 Moment (ki p-ft/f t) 2 00 Figure 63. PM Interaction Diagram at Section Cut 28 after Adjustment of Meridional Stiffness at El. +45.5 ft and AZ 240) 150252-CA-02

-145 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 145 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Eng i neer i ng of Structures and B uilding Enclosures CLI E NT: Ne x t E ra Energy Seab ro o k SU B JECT: Eva lu ati o n a n d D esig n Con firma t ion of A s-Deformed C EB PROJECT NO: __ DATE: 31 Ju l y 2016 BY: ____ _, R-'-'-.=M'-". M=o"-"ne""'s

'-----VER I FIER: __ _, A'"".T_,_,.-" S=ar.=awi=

• _,_1 __ _ P M Eva l uat i on -Sect i on Cu t 19 -ASR T h r esho l d = 1.2 1000 _, 800 --600 -.t: ..__ a. ::£ 400 -ro *x <t: 200 -200 -, -300 I I I I I I_ Combinat i on NO 1 (Controlling)

-200 -100 0 100 Moment (kip-ft/ft)

Capacity STATIC QBE o SSE WIND 0 200 ,-300 Figure 64. PM Interaction Check for St a ndard Analysis Case prior to Moment Redistribution (Section Cut 19) 1000 -' PM Eva l ua t i on -Se c t i on Cu t 22 -ASR T h res h old = 1.2 I I I I I L Capacity 800 -STATIC QBE 600 -0 SSE .t: WIND ..__ a. 0 32 400 -ro Combinat i on NO 1 x <t: 200 -(Con t rolling) 0 --200 I ,--300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 Moment (kip-ft/ft)

Figure 65. PM Interaction Check for Standard Analysis Case prior to Moment Redistribution (Section Cut 22) 150252-CA-02

-146 -Rev i s i on 0 F P 100985 Page 146 o f 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Eng i neer i ng of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: Ne xt E r a Ene rg y Seabroo k

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and D esign Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB PROJECT NO:

DATE: ____ BY: ____

VERIFIER: ___ _ PM Evaluation

-Sect i on Cut 19 -ASR Threshold

= 1.2 1000 -' I I I I I '-Capacity 800 -STATIC -600 --... Q. :52 400 -ro x <( 200 -200.., r -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 Moment (kip-ft/ft)

Figure 66. PM Interaction Check for Standard Analysis Case after Moment Redistribution (Section Cut 19) PM Evaluation

-Sect i on Cut 22 -ASR Threshold

= 1.2 1000-' I I I I I '-Capacity 800 -STATIC -600 --... Q. ;:,t. 400 -ro x <( 200 -200.., ,--300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 Moment (kip-ft/ft)

Figure 67. PM Interaction Check for Standard Analysis Case after Moment Redistribution (Section Cut 22) 150252-CA-02

-147 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 147 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Eng i neer i ng of Structures ond Build i ng Enc l osures CLIE NT: Ne xt Era En e rgy Seab r oo k SUBJ E C T: E va lua ti o n an d De sig n Confi r ma t i o n of As-D eforme d CEB PRO J ECT NO: __ D AT E: ___ _, 3"-'-1_,,J_,,,,u l_,__y ,,, 20"--'1-"-6 ___ _ BY: ____ __,_R_,_,_.

M='-'. M=o"-'-'n=es ,,__ __ _ VER I FIER: __ ___,_,A"--'.T_,_. S""a"'-ra"'-'wi"'-"*t'-----PM E valua ti on -Sect i o n C u t 19 -ASR T hreshold = 1.2 1000 _J I I I I I '-Capacity 800 -* STATIC QBE 600 -0 SSE -¢: -Q. 0 32 400 -<O *x <( 200 -200 -, r -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 Moment (kip-ft/ft) Figure 68. PM I nteraction Check for Standard-Plus Analysis Case prior to Moment Redistribution (Section Cut 19) 1000 -' PM Evalua ti on -Sect i on C u t 22 -ASR T h res h o l d = 1.2 I I I I I '-Capacity 800 -STATIC QBE 600 -0 SSE -¢: WIND -0. 0 32 4 00 -<O Combination N0_1 *x (Controlling)

<( 200 -200-; ,--300 -200 -100 0 100 200 3 00 Moment (k i p-ft/f t) Figure 69. PM Interaction Check for Standard-Plus Analysis Case prior to Moment Redistribution (Section Cut 22) 150252-CA-02 -148 -Revis i on 0 F P 10098 5 P age 1 48 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and B uilding Enclosu r es CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabroo k

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Des i gn Confirmat i on of As-De formed CEB PROJECTN0: __

___ _ D ATE: ___ ___, 3'-'-1_,,J,., ul.Ly .=.o20"-'1-"'6

___ _ B Y: ____

__ _ VERIFIER:

---

'--'A"-'-.T-'--'. S""a""ra"'-'wi"-"*1'-----

1000 -1 PM Evaluation

-Sect i on Cut 19 -ASR Threshold

= 1.2 I I I I I L Capacity 800 -STATIC 600 --0.. 400 -co *x <! 200 -200 I r -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 Moment (kip-ft/ft)

Figure 70. PM Interaction Check for Standard-Plus Analysis Case after Moment Redistribution (Section Cut 19) 1000 _, PM Evaluation

-Sect i on Cut 22 -ASR Threshold

= 1.2 I I I I I ,_ Capacity 800 -STATIC -600 --0.. 400 -co x <! 200 -200 I ,--300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 Moment (kip-ft/ft)

Figure 71. PM Interaction Check for Standard-Plus Analysis Case after Moment Redistribution (Section Cut 22) 150252-CA-02

-149 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 149 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLI E NT: Ne xt E r a Ene r gy Sea bro o k S U BJECT: Eva l u a t i on a nd D e s ign Co nfirm a t i on o f As-D eformed C E B PROJECT NO: DA T E: ___ ___ _ BY: ____

__ VE RI F I ER: 1000 J PM Evalua t ion -Sect i on C u t 1 4 -ASR T h reshold = 1.2 I I I I I L Capacity 800 -STATIC OBE 600 -0 SSE -;!= WIND -0.. 0 400 -cu x <{ 200 -200 -, r -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 Moment (kip-ft/ft)

Figure 72. PM Interaction Check for Standard-Plus Analysis Case (Section Cut 14) (No Moment Redistribution Needed) 1000 _, PM Evalua t io n -Sect i on C u t 15 -ASR T h reshold = 1.2 I I I I I '-Capacity 800 -STATIC OBE 600 -0 SSE -;!= WIND -0.. 0 32 400 -cu x <{ 200 -200 -, r -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 Moment (kip-ft/ft)

Figure 73. PM Interaction Check for Standard-Plus Analysis Case (Section Cut 15) (No Moment Redistribution Needed) 150252-CA-02

-150 -Revision 0 FP 1 0 0 985 P age 150 of 526 I I _I SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER CLIENT: I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures PROJECT NO: ___

DATE: ____

___ _ _

________________ BY: _____ ___ _

SUBJECT:

_____ VERIFIER:

__

c 0 *.;:; u (lJ .._ 6 ro c .Q -0 *;:: (lJ c (lJ u 0 u... ro -1500 *x <I: 2000 ... *:.** **,:: .. i .... ** ** 500 I End Segments \

• Middle Segment -1000 -1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 Moment a b out H oop Axis (kip*ft/ft)

• CAPACITY, E nd Segments

• CAPAC I TY , Middle Segmen t *Demand , Standard-P l us Analysis Case Prior T o Moment Redist. Figure 74. PM Interaction Checks at Base of Wall between AZ 270° and 360° for Standard-Plus Analysis Case prior to Moment Redistribution ro c .Q -0 *;:: (lJ c (lJ u .._ 0 u... (0-1500 *x <I: 2000 ... ... . .. ** ::::.;_ ..

• t. 500 End Segments I Middle Segment -1000 -500 0 50 0 1 0 0 0 1500 Moment about H oop A xis (kip*ft/ft)

• CA P ACITY , E nd Seg m en t s

• CA P A C ITY, MiddleSeg m ent *Demand, Standard-Plus Analy s is Ca s e Afte r Moment Redi s t. Figure 75. PM Interaction Checks at Base of Wall between AZ 270° and 360° for Standard-Plus Analysis Case after Moment Redistribution 150252-CA-02

-151 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 151 of 526 S I MPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and B ui ld ing Enclosures PROJECT NO: __ _,1-"'5=02=5=2

____ _ D A TE: ____ _,,,3_,_1

_,,_J,,_,ul,__y

.=:20,,_1'-"6

'-----C LIENT:

________________ BY: _____

___ _ SUB J ECT: _____ V E RIFIER: -----'-A"'".T-".'--"s""a,,_,ra"-"wi""*t'-----Axial tension i n mer i dional (vertical) d irection at b ase of wall away from e d ge Ax ial c o mpression i n me r id i onal (vertical) direction at base of wall near edge(s) Figure 76. Illustration of Axial Force Couple Resisting Out-of-Plane Pressures at the Base of Wall (sketch only , not to scale) 150252-CA-02

-152 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 152 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER C LI ENT:

SUBJECT:

I Engineering of Structures ond Building Enclosures Next Er a Energy Sea bro o k PROJECT N O: __ _!1-><50,,..2""5

.2 ____ _ DAT E: ____ __, 3'-'1__, J"" u"'""l y_.2"'0'"'-1"""6 ___ _ B Y: _____

_E_v-=a"-'lu=-=a=-=t-=i o-'n-'a'-n_d_D_e s_i ,,.,g_n_C;_o:....n_fi_1rm__;;_a..:...ti o..:...n"--=-o"--f

'-'A-=-s--=D'-'e"'"fo=-=rm-'-"-'e:..:

d:....C-=-=E-=B _____ VER I F I ER: __ ____, A""."-T""". S""a"'r ,,,, awi=*t ___ _ AZ0toAZ90 AZ 90 to AZ 1 80 Ste.rmrd J\nalysis Case, OOE Carbination OOE I , +100 +40 -40 Threshold F oct=: 1. 2 Oernond-to-<::apaei ty ratio for ilrylone shear AZ 1 80 to AZ 270 F ilE: SR _evA _ LCB_ D03 _ t12 _rO _VIP _DCR. ETABLE 4 ANSYS llNSYS 15.o RI S.O PI.DI' NJ. 996 AZ 270 to AZ 0 -.3 0 .3 .5 .7 .9 1 1.1 1.5 Figure 77. DCRs for In-Plane Shear for Combination OBE_1 (100% E., 40% N., 40% Vert. Down) for the Standard Analys i s Case AZ0toAZ90 AZ 90 to AZ 1 80 Standard Aralysis <PE Coobinati o n OOE 3 , +100 +40 -40 'Ihresh::>l.d Fact.or: 1.2 Derm.rd-to-capaci ty ratio for in-plane shear AZ 1 80 to AZ 270 FilE: SR_evA_LCB_F03

_tl2_rO_VIP_DCR

.ETABLE 4 ANSYS llNSYS 1 5.o RI S.O PI.DI' NJ. 3012 AZ 270 to AZ 0 -.3 0 .3 .5 .7 .9 1 1.1 1.5 Figure 78. DCRs for In-Plane Shear for Combination OBE_3 (100% E., 40% N., 40% Vert. Down) for the Standard Analysis Case 150252-CA-02 -153 -Rev i s i on 0 FP 100985 P age 153 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER C LIE NT: S U BJECT: I Eng i neering of Structures and Bu ilding Enclosures PROJECT NO: ___ DAT E: _____ ________________

__ BY: _____ ______ VERIFIER: ___ A20toAZ90 11290to112180 Stardaro Analysis Case, Cllll Carbination Cllll 1 , +40 +100 -40 nires11o1d r actor: 1. 2 r:emnci-to-cai:ecity ratio for in-plane shear 112 1 80 to 112 210 FILE: SR_evA_LCB_Dll_t12_rO

_VIP_!Xl'l.ETABI.E 4 x ANSYS ANSYS 15.o RIS.O Piill NJ.1332 -.3 0 .3 .5 .7 .9 1 1.1 1.5 11221 0to 1120 Figure 79. DCRs for In-Plane Shear for Combination OBE_1 (40% E., 100% N., 40% Vert. Down) for the Standard Analysis Case 1120to11290 11290to112 1 80 Standard Analysis Case , CSE O:trbination Cllll 1, +100 +40 -40 nirestiold F actor: 1. 2 112 1 80 to 112 210 Demm:l-to-caµici ty ratio for out-<>f-vlarie shear 1023) FILE: SR_evA_LCB_D03_t12_r0_1.U'22D::R

.ETABI.E 4 ANSYS ANSYS 15.0 RIS.O Piill NJ.1008 112210to1120

-.3 0 .3 .5 .7 .9 1 1.1 1.5 Figure 80. DCRs for Out-of-Plane Shear for Combination OBE_ 1 (100% E., 40% N., 40% Vert. Down) for the Standard Analysis Case 1 50252-CA-02 -154 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Pa g e 1 54 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER PRO J EC T NO: 150252 I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures DA T E: 31 Jul y 2016 CLIENT:

SUBJECT:

Ne xt Era E n e rgy S eabrook Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB AZ0toAZ90 AZ 90 to AZ 1 80 St.arm.rd-Plus Analysis Owe , CSE O:nbination CllE 3, -100 +40 +40 Threat-old F actor: i.2 temsrd-t.o-ca?Ci ty ratio for in-plane shear AZ 1 80 to AZ 210 F ITE: SR_eV!37_LCl3_F05_t12_rO_VIP_cx:R.ETABLE AN SYS R I S.O AZ 210 to AZ 0 BY: R.M. Mone s V E R I FIER: A.T. Sarawit l\NSYS 15. 0 Piill NJ.3096 -.3 0 .3 .5 .7 .9 1 1.1 1.5 Figure 81. DCRs for In-Plane Shear for Combination OBE_3 (100% W., 40% N., 40% Vert. Up) for the Standard-Plus Analys i s Case AZ0toAZ90 AZ 90 to AZ 1 80 Standard-P l us Analysis Case, CEE Coobinati.on CllE l, -100 +40 +40 -esrold Fact.or: l.2 Oemm:H.o-copeci ty ratio for in-plane shear AZ 1 80 to AZ 210 F ITE: SR_eV!37 _LCl3_005

_t12_r0_ VIP_IX:R.ETABLE 4 A N S Y S ANSYS 15.o RIS.O Piill NJ.1080 AZ 210 to AZ 0 -.3 0 .3 .5 .7 .9 1 1.1 1.5 Figure 82. DCRs for In-Plane Shear for Combination OBE_ 1 (100% W., 40% N., 40% Vert. Up) for the Standard-Plus Analysis Case 150252-CA-02 -1 55 -Rev i s i on 0 FP 100985 Page 155 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER CLIENT: S U BJECT: I Engineer i ng of Structures and Building Enclosures Ne xt Era E n ergy S e ab rook E v al u a t i on a n d Des ig n Con fi r m at ion of As-Deforme d CEB 3 7 4 J_y AZ0toAZ90 AZ 90 to AZ 1 80 Starrlard-P l us Analysis Gase, e&: Carb.ination OOE 1 , +40 +100 -40 'lhrearold ractor: i. 2 Oenwd-to-capoci ty ratio for in-plane sheer AZ 1 80 to AZ 270 FilE: SR_eVl37_LCB_Dll_tl2_rO_VIP_OCR.ETABLE PROJECT NO: D A TE: B Y: VERI FI ER: AN SYS ANSYS 15.0 R!S.O PIDI' J.I0.1332 -.3 o .3 .5 .7 .9 1 1.1 1.5 AZ 270 to AZ 0 Figure 83. DCRs for In-Plane Shear for Combination OBE_ 1 1 50252 31 J uly 2016 R.M. Mones A.T. Sarawit (40% E., 100% N., 40% Vert. Down) for the Standard-Plus Analysis Case AZ0toAZ90 AZ 90 to AZ 1 80 St:an:iu:d-Plus Analysis Case, CeE Coobination OOE 1, +100 +40 -40 n-irest-old.

F'actor: 1. 2 AZ 1 80 to AZ 270 Oenwd-to-capocity ratio for OYt.,,f-plane sheer (023) F ilE: SR_evB 7_LCB_D03_t12_r0_\IOP220CR

.ETABLE 4 ANSYS ANSYS 15.0 R!S.O PIDI' J.I0.1008 AZ 270 to AZ 0 -.3 o .3 .5 .7 .9 1 1.1 1.5 Figure 84. DC Rs for Out-of-Plane Shear for Combination OBE_3 (100% E., 40% N., 40% Vert. Down) for the Standard-Plus Analysis Case 150252-CA-02 -156 -F P 10098 5 P a ge 15 6 o f 526 Revision 0 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB 11. REFERENCES PROJECT NO: ---'"""15=02=5<<=-2

___ _ DATE: 31 July 2016 BY: ____ _,R_,_,.=M"'-'.

M=o"'-'n,,,,es,__

__ _ VERIFIER:

__ _,A'"""._,_,T.'"-"S=ar...,.awi=*"--t

__ _ [1] Simpson Gumpertz & Heger, Inc., Criteria Document for Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed Containment Enclosure Building at Seabrook Station in Seabrook, NH, Document No. 150252-CD-03, Revision 0, Waltham, MA, 27 July 2016. [2] Simpson Gumpertz & Heger, Inc., Phase 1A Investigation of Apparent Movement of the Containment Enclosure Building at the NextEra Energy Seabrook Station, NH, Report No. 150252-SVR-01-R1, Revision 1, Waltham, MA, 25 June 2015. [3] Simpson Gumpertz & Heger, Inc., Joint Width Measurements at Twenty-Five Seismic Isolation Joint Locations to Support Root Cause Evaluation of Apparent Movement of CEB, NextEra Energy Seabrook Facility, Seabrook, NH, Report No. 150252-SVR-02-R 1, Revision 1, Waltham, MA, 28 September 2015. [4] Simpson Gumpertz & Heger, Inc., Annulus Width Measurements between CEB and CB at Springline, Investigation of Movement between CEB and CEVA Building, and ASR Inspection on the Exterior of the CEB at NextEra Energy Seabrook Station, Seabrook, NH, Report No. 150252-SVR-03-RO, Revision 0, Waltham, MA, 25 March 2016. [5] Simpson Gumpertz & Heger, Inc., March 2016, Joint Width Measurements at Twenty-Five Seismic Isolation Joint Locations to Support Root Cause Evaluation of Apparent Movement of CEB, NextEra Energy Seabrook Facility, Seabrook, NH, Report No. 160144-SVR-03-RO, Revision 0, Waltham, MA, 27 May 2016. [6] Simpson Gumpertz & Heger, Inc., Development of ASR Load Factors for Seismic Category I Structures at Seabrook Station, Seabrook, NH, Report No. 160268-R-01, Revision 0, Waltham, MA, 27 July 2016. [7] Seabrook, Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. [8] Seabrook, System Description for Structural Design Criteria for Public Service Company of New Hampshire Seabrook Station Unit Nos. 1 & 2, Document No. SD-66, Revision 2, 2 March 1984. [9] Simpson Gumpertz & Heger, Inc., Additional ASR-Related Inspections and CJ Measurements at Forty-Two Locations to Support the Root Cause Evaluation of Apparent Movement of CEB, NextEra Energy Seabrook Facility, Seabrook, NH, Report No. 150252-SVR-05-RA, Revision A, Waltham, MA, 11 July 2016. [10] Simpson Gumpertz & Heger, Inc., Quality Assurance Manual for Nuclear Facility Work, Revision 7, Waltham, MA, 18 November 2013. [11] American Concrete Institute, Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete and Commentary, ACI 318-71, ACI Committee 318, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, Ml, 1971. 150252-CA-02

-157 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 157 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures PROJECT NO: __ 1,_,,5""'02""52=-------

DATE: 31July2016 CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook BY: ____ _._R""'.M'""".-'""M""on-""e"--s

__ _

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB VERIFIER:

__ _,_A"""'.T'-'-.

=Sa.,_,ra=wi=*t

__ _ [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]

[17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] 150252-CA-02 FP 100985 Page 158 of 526 United Engineers

& Constructors Inc., Seabrook Station Structural Drawings.

1 Ellingwood, B. et al., Development of a Probability Based Load Criterion for American National Standard A58, NBS Special Publication 577, June 1980. The Institution of Structural Engineers, Structural effects of alkali-silica reaction, 1992. Clark, L.A., "Critical Review of the Structural Implications of the Alkali Silica Reaction in Concrete", Transport and Road Research Laboratory Contractor Report 169, 1989. MPR, "Seabrook Station -Implications of Large-Scale Test Program Results on Reinforced Concrete Affected by Alkali-Silica Reaction," MPR-4273 (Seabrook FP# 101050), Revision 0, July 2016. MPR, "Seabrook Station: Impact of Alkali-Silica Reaction on the Structural Design Evaluations," MPR-4288 (Seabrook FP# 101020), Revision 0, July 2016. ANSYS Inc., ANSYS Mechanical APDL, Release 15, 2013. Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc., Verification and Validation of ANSYS 15.0 Structural, Revision 0, Waltham, MA, 28 May 2015. Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc., ANSYS 15.0 Structural Software Requirements Specification (SRS), Revision 0, Waltham, MA, 28 May 2015. American Concrete Institute, Prediction of Creep, Shrinkage, and Temperature Effects in Concrete Structures, ACI 209R-92, 1992. Mohammed, T. U. et al., "Alkali-Silica Reaction-Induced Strains over Concrete Surface and Steel Bars in Concrete", ACI Materials Journal, V. 100, No. 2, March-April 2003. Simpson Gumpertz & Heger, Inc., Letter Report, Report No. 150252-L-04, Revision 0, Waltham, MA, 26 June 2015. United Engineers

& Constructors Inc., Containment-Enclosure Building (019), Calculations CE-3 (Rev. 3), CE-4 (Rev. 6), CE-5 (Rev. 3), CE-7 (Rev. 4), SBSAG-3CE (Rev. 1), and SBSAG-4CE (Rev. 0), Mar 1977 to Aug. 1983. Structure Point, spColumn, Release v4.81, 2013. Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc, spColumn v4.81 Commercial Grade Software Dedication Plan/Report, Revision 0, Waltham, MA, July 2014. Wood, R. H., "The reinforcement of slabs in accordance with a determined field of moments", Concrete, Vol. 2 (2), February, pp. 69-76, May 1968. -158 -Revision 0

---

--i SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures PROJECT NO: __ 1_,_,,5=02=5=2

___ _ DATE: 31 July2016 CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook BY: ____ _,R-"-.M=.'-"M=o=ne=s'-----

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB VERIFIER:

__

__ _ [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] 150252-CA-02 FP 100985 Page 159 of 526 American Society of Civil Engineers, Seismic Design Criteria for Structures, Systems, and Components in Nuclear Facilities, ASCE/SEI 43-05, 2005. Simpson Gumpertz & Heger, Inc., Geotechnical Assessment of the CEB, Report No. 150252-R-01, Revision 0, Waltham, MA, 22 June 2015. Saouma, V. and Perotti, L., "Constitutive Model for Alkali-Aggregate Reactions", ACI Materials Journal, V. 103, No. 3, May-June 2006. Seabrook, Seismic Isolation Gaps Between Structures Less Than Specified Value, AR02044627, AR Assignment 2, Revision 2, 1 July 2015. Simpson Gumpertz & Heger, Inc., Field Investigation, Calculation No. 110594-CA-01, Revision 0, Waltham, MA, 20 March 2012. Simpson Gumpertz & Heger, Inc., Cracking Index (Cl) Determination, SGH 2014-13, Revision 2, Waltham, MA, 27 May 2015. ' -159 -Revision 0 I SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER ,,...... I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures PROJECT NO: -----"15""0"""2""5""2

___ _ DATE: ______

CLIENT:

BY: ______

__ _

SUBJECT:

_____ VERIFIER:

_____

___ _ I INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION CHECKLIST Project Number: I Document No. and Revision No.: I Document Type: 150252 150252-CA-02 Rev. 0 Calculation Scope of Review: Calculation Body and Appendices Method of Verification:

1:8'.1 Design Review D Alternate Calculation D Qualification Test y N N/A 1:8'.1 D D Are assumptions, opinions, judgments, and technical approaches correct? 1:8'.1 D D 1) Are assumptions, used to perform the design or analysis activity identified?

1:8'.1 D D 2) Are the assumptions adequately described and reasonable?

1:8'.1 D D 1) Are applicable codes, standards, and regulatory requirements properly identified?

D D 1:8'.1 2) Are their requirements for design or analysis met? 1:8'.1 D D Is an appropriate design or analysis method used? 1:8'.1 D D Are the calculations, drawings, graphs, and tables technically complete? D D 1:8'.1 Are the design inputs correctly selected and incorporated into design? 1:8'.1 D D 1) Is the name and version of the computer program(s) or routine(s) used stated? 1:8'.1 D D 2) Have they been verified and approved for use in accordance with SGH approved procedures?

1:8'.1 D D 3) Is their use appropriate for the problem? 1:8'.1 D D Are results interpreted correctly?

1:8'.1 D D Are results, conclusions, and recommendations reasonable?

1:8'.1 D D Are the organization and clarity of calculations or other design documents adequate?

D D 1:8'.1 Are the necessary design inputs for interfacing organization specified in the design documents or in supporting procedures or instructions? D D 1:8'.1 Are Checker Assignment and Review Sheets Exhibit 3.7 used (see sheet attached) and properly completed?

D Other items for checklist, D if necessary, -added by the D PIG or PM. Independent Verifier: Andrew T. Sarawit 31 July 2016 Printed Name Signature Date *Any calculations, comments, or notes generated as part of this review should be signed, dated, and attached to this checklist.

Such material should be labeled and recorded in such a manner as to be intelliaible to a technicallv aualified third oartv. 150252-CA-02 Appendix A -A-1 -FP 100985 Page 160 of 526 EP 3.1EX3.5 R4 Date: 12 October 2015 Revision 0 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook PROJECT NO: ____

___ _ DATE: _____ _,J=u,,...Jy-'=2"'-01=6

__ _ BY:

__ _

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB VERIFIER:

_____ .._.N/'"'-A,___

__ _ INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION COMMENT SHEET Calculation Number: 150252-CA-02 Rev. C Independent Verifier:

Andrew T. Sarawit SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER ,........-

I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures Comments Resolution Technical comments:

Technical comments:

1) Page i, Objective Overview -What about measurements prior to 2015, are they used at in this calculation?

2) Page 18, 3rd bullet -Is it true that the assessment of CEB deformations is based on measurements relative to the CB which is assumed to not have deformed or moved? If so, this should be stated as an assumption.

1) For each measurement (including crack indices), the most recent measurement is used in this calculation. Measurements prior to 2011 are available, but those measurements have been superseded by more recent measurements.

2) This has been added to JA08. 3) Page 19, JA03, last sentence -please 3) The model has been revised to not use describe how the crack section is modeled in cracked section properties.

terms of flexural and axial stiffnesses.

4) Page 21, 1st paragraph, please clarify what is meant by "performed and qualified" 5) Page 26, Section 6.2, description of Analysis Steps 1 and 2 -In Step 1, sustained load includes gravity. In step 2, gravity load is applied again so the deflections from step 2 double counts gravity. Unlikely not an issue for strength check, but deflections from step 2 would be off. This should be stated in this section. 4) This paragraph is describing that both the Standard and the Standard-Plus Analysis Cases are evaluated against ACI 318-71 criteria.

The text has been clarified.

5) This has addressed in the Revision 0 criteria docu.ment for this calculation.

A reference to Section 9.1 of the Criteria Document has been added to the calculation report after listing analysis steps. 150252-CA-02 Appendix A -A-2-Revision O FP 100985 Page 161 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook PROJECT NO: ____ 1'-"5=02.,,5=2

___ _ DATE:

BY:

__ _

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB VERIFIER:

---

'-"N/"""'A,___

__ _ Comments 6) Page 44, last sentence of Section 6.4.1 -Why would the ASR strains computed by the FEA be a conservative representation of the Cl measurement?

Resolution

6) It is assumed that all cracking associated with the Cl measurement is from ASR of the wall. This is conservative because some of the cracks are realistically from effects such as shrinkage and external loads. 7) Page 46, 3rd paragraph

-why are the 7) This statement has been removed and the tensile forces at the base of wall considered to tensile forces at the base of the wall are be fictitious?

described and evaluated.

8) Page 50, Section 7.1.2 -Why is it okay to not take into account the effect the induced prestress when performing flexure interaction evaluations?

9) Page 66, Section 7.4.6 -Add evaluation results discussion for the springline location.

8) This sentence was misleading and has been removed. ASR demands are included when performing PM interaction evaluations.

The section is evaluated as a reinforced concrete section. Prestressed concrete provisions are not used. 9) The elevated demands at the springline identified in this section were related to misplaced boundary conditions in a development model and have been resolved.

10) Page 69, Section 7.5.1 -Add discussion

10) See Section 7.6.1. on axial tension, in-plane shear, and out-of-plane bending at the base of the wall. 11) Page 70, Section 7.6 -Add a discussion to mention that preliminary field inspections found gap between CEB and CB at the missile shield is zero or near-zero.

12) Appendix H -Figures H27, H59, H88, show high in-plane shear forces. The in-plane shear demand forces goes down as the wall section cut length increases, because the shear demand at some point starts to reverse direction.

Please discuss and justify the section cut wall length selected for evaluation.

11) This has been added as Unverified Assumption UA01. 12) Section cut evaluations for in-plane shear use cut lengths up to 90 degrees or about 125 ft. The use of this wall length is justified because design in-plane shear demands would cause the CEB wall to crack and redistribute load to mobilize the entire wall segment. Since these section cuts are used for evaluation of in-plane shear in the main body of the calculation, this is clarified in Section 7.6.1 (within the in-plane shear subheading)

13) Appendix I, Revise stability calculations to 13) Appendix I has been revised. consider buoyancy.

150252-CA-02 Appendix A -A-3-Revision O FP 100985 Page 162 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook PROJECT NO:

DATE: _____ _,J=u,...ly_,,2"'-01,_,,6'----

BY:

__ _

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB VERIFIER:

_____ .._,,N/"-'A'-----

Comments 14) Appendix 0, Revise cover quantities for critical section cut (Section Cut 22) to use actual design values rather than conservative values. 15) Cover page, overview of method of approach -reads like it is unclear to us if CEB and CB are already in contact at some locations.

Why can't we just give this as a fact based on our field inspection findings.

16) Page 18, "... monitoring is performed by comparing the average measurement" -okay for CCI but for gap clearance I think should be minimum instead. 17) page 18, "... action should be taken to ensure validity if the calculation conclusions" -recommend to change to say that corrective action should be taken. 18) page 59, we should say some where before The small demand-to-capacity ratio ... " that exceedance of the first criteria does not imply a non-conformance as the section may stiH have sufficient shear friction capacity 19) It isn't clear from reading on how we came up with the 1 inch of needed clearance at the missile shield. 20) Figures 68, 69, are not referenced.

Editorial comments/suggestions:

1) Page i, Overview of Method and Assumptions

-Revise "... by performing response spectrum analysis" to "... from response spectrum analysis" Resolution

14) Revised in Appendix 0. 15) The site visit report containing specific measurement data has not been issued at this time, therefore specific conditions at the missile shield cannot be stated. 16) Threshold monitoring revised to recommend performing that corrective action when a threshold limit for a given displacement measurement is approached.

17) See response to item 16 above. 18) Revised. 19) The 1 inch of clearance needed at the missile shield is computed by assuming a 0.0 in. remaining joint clearance and then calculating the required seismic gap width. Additional clarity has been added to the equations in Section 7.7 and Tables 16 and 17. 20) Figure references have been added to the text. Editorial comments/suggestions:

1) Revised 150252-CA-02 Appendix A -A-4-Revision O FP 100985 Page 163 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB Comments 2) Page 19, JA02, revise "... as the section attempts to expand." to " ... as the concrete attempts to expand." Resolution

2) Revised 3) Page 22 and 99 -Figure 1 is not referred to 3) Revised in the text body of the calculation.

4) Page 27, Section 6.2.11 -Revise 4) Revised "Membrane elements (Shell181)" to "Membrane elements (Shell181 with membrane stiffness only)" PROJECT NO: ___

DATE:

__ _ BY: --------'-'A,,__,.T-'-'.

S=a.....,ra=wi=*t

__ _ VERIFIER:

5) Page 32, 3rd bullet -adding a figure would 5) The inward pressure distributions are help describe the inward pressure illustrated in Appendix J. Reference to distributions.

Appendix J added to this section. 6) Page 39, Section 6.3.2 -add a sentence 6) Revised before subheading loads, These loads are described in this section as follows".

7) Page 42, Section 6.4 -revise " ... profiles in 7) Revised presented in ... " to " ... profiles is presented in ... " 8) Page 49, Section 7 .1, last sentence -revise 8) This sentence has been changed to be "exceedance is identified and justified" to clearer. "structure satisfies the requirements" 9) Page 54, Section 7.2, 1st sentence -9) Revised revised "although" to "because" 10) Page 61, last equation, revise "> Pu" to "< 1 0) Revised Pu"* 11) Page 67, Section 7.5.1, 3rd bullet, revise 11) Revised "wall on the edge(s)" to "wall near the openings" 12) Page 75, Table 4, in the 2nd equation, 12) Revised revise" ... 1.0Sh + 1.0 Sw" to" ... 1.0Sh" 13) Page 79, Table 8 -Revise "Table 4" to 13) Revised "Table 5", at multiple places.\ 150252-CA-02 Appendix A -A-5 -FP 100985 Page 164 of 526 Revision O SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB Comments Resolution

14) Appendix E -EF, IF, and OF should be 14) Revised defined somewhere in the calculation as "Each Face", "Inside Face", and "Outside Face". 15) Appendix F, Section F7, 1st sentence -15) Revised revise "Figure 1" to "Figure F.1" 16) Appendix G, Page J-1 -Revise appendix 16) Revised title " ... Load Combinations without As-Deformed

... " to " ... Load Combinations for Original Design Analysis Case without As-Deformed

... " 17) Appendix G, Section G3 -Revise" ... are 17) Revised neglected in this analysis ... " to "... are excluded in this analysis ... " 18) Appendix H, Page H-1 -Revise wording of 18) Revised sentence beginning with "The goal of the moment redistribution

... " to more clearly explain that moment redistribution simulates plasticity behavior.

PROJECT NO: ----'1'-"'50><>2=52"-----

DATE: -----=Ju.,_,ly_.,2"'""01=6

__ _ BY: --------'-'A"--'.T-'--'.

S""'a....,ra....,wi"-'-*t

__ _ VERIFIER:

---

'N=/A'-'-----

19) Appendix J, no comments 19) No revisions required 20) Appendix K, Update PM Interaction

20) Revised diagram example figures to match updated example computation results 21) Appendix K, Clarify why OCR for out-of-21) Section 7.1.5 in the main body of the plane shear taken as minimum of two calculation discusses the out-of-plane shear computed values. evaluation methodology.

22) Appendix L, Page L-2 -revise "a stress 22) Revised profile that satisfies" to "a stress profile that satisfies static equilibrium" 23) Appendix L, Page L-2 -revise "initial 23) Revised stress of +/- 100 psi" to "initial stress gradient of +/-100 psi" 24) Appendix L, Figures L6, L7, and LB 24) Revised legend labels, revise "Redistribution, Case M" to "Redistribution, 12.2*Case M" 150252-CA-02 Appendix A -A-6-FP 100985 Page 165 of 526 Revision O

_, --SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB Comments 25) Appendix M, Page M-2 -Revise "The static load combination N0 _ 1 for the Standard Analysis Case is reevaluated", to Plus. Resolution

25) Revised PROJECT NO:

DATE: ------'J"""u"-'ly_.,2=01....,6'----

BY: ---------'A'-".'"'-'T.,...,S""'a""ra"'wi"-*t

__ _ VERIFIER:

_____ _,_,N"'""/A,__

__ _ 26) Appendix M, Page M-2, Explain why 26) Sentence added to the appendix to clarify. Figures M1 and M5 use different PM interaction capacities.

27) Appendix N -Revise "Figure M-1" to 27) Revised "Figure N-1", "Figure M-2" to "Figure N-2", and "[M-1 ]" to "[N-1 ]". 28) Appendix N, Table N-1 -Revise "T" to 28) Revised "Thickness", and "in"2" to "in.2" 29) Figures are not in sequence 29) Some figures/tables have been resorted to be in order, but not all. 30) Revised 30) On page 25, revise "Figure 7 and 8" to "Figure§.

7 and 8" Resolution by: _'Rr--___ __ -___ 1_13_1_12_0_16_

Accepted by: 4'.'5::4-7/31/2016 150252-CA-02 Appendix A -A-7-FP 100985 Page 166 of 526 Form EP3.1 EX3.6 R2 Date: 28 April 2010 Revision O SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB APPENDIX B PROJECT NO:

DATE: -----=Ju,_,_,ly__,,2=-01=6

__ _ BY: _____

__ _ VERIFIER:

=Sa=ra=wi=*t

__ _ COMPUTER RUN IDENTIFICATION LOG SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures Client: NextEra Energy Seabrook Page 1 of 13 ------Project: Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB Project No.: 150252 Subcontract No.: N/A Calculation No.: 150252-CA-02

---

Run No. Title ProgramNer.A 10A_r0 Standard Analysis Case ANSYS15 1087 _rO Standard-Plus Analysis Case ANSYS15 10D_r0 Evaluation w/o ASR and SS loads Note D 10E_ro Parametric Study on ASR at Springline ANSYS15 10G_r0 Analysis and Evaluation of Standard-Plus ANSYS15 Analysis Case for Combination N0_ 1 with Simulated Concrete Cracking at El. +45.5 and AZ240 10AR_ro Standard Analysis Case with Moment ANSYS15 Redistribution (limited to combination NO 1) 10BR7_r0 Standard-Plus Analysis Case with Moment ANSYS15 Redistribution (limited to combination NO 1) 10BR7E_r0 Standard-Plus Analysis Case with Moment ANSYS15 Redistribution (limited to combination OBE 4) 150252-CA-02 Appendix B -B-1 -FP 100985 Page 167 of 526 Hardware Date Cluster3gtl 7/19/2016 Cluster3gts 7/25/2016 Cluster3g" 7/19/2016 Cluster3gts 7/19/2016 Cluster3gtl 7/28/2016 Cluster3g" 7/26/2016 Cluster3gts 7/30/2016 Cluster3g" 7/27/2016 Revision 0 Files Note C Note C Note D Note C Note C Note C Note C Note C EP 3.1EX3.4 R2 Date: 1 Sept 2012 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB Run No. Title ProgramNer.A 10B_r0 Standard-Plus Analysis Case (for comparison ANSYS15 with Analysis Case 1 OE rO in Appendix J) 1 OB4_r0 Parametric Study Comparison Case 1 ANSYS15 (Referenced in Appendix J) 1085_r0 Parametric Study Comparison Case 2 ANSYS15 (Referenced in Aooendix J) Parametric_

Baseline for comparison of with Parametric ANSYS15 Study Set A Study Set H (Referenced in Aooendix J) Parametric_

Parametric Study with Reduced Concrete ANSYS15 Study Set H Elastic Modulus (Referenced in Appendix J) H_15_601_705 Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 H 15 601 705 H_ 15_602_703 Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 H 15 602 703 H_ 15_603_705 Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 H 15 603 705 H_15_603_706 Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 H 15 603 706 H_ 15_604_702 Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 H 15 604 702 H_15_604_704 Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 H 15 604 704 H_ 15_604_705 Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 H 15 604 705 H_ 15_604_706 Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 H 15 604 706 H_ 15_605_702 Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 H 15_605_702 H_ 15_605_705 Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 H 15 605 705 150252-CA-02 Appendix B 2 -FP 100985 Page 168 of 526 PROJECT NO:

DATE:

BY: _____ __,_R=.M=.-"-M=on=e=s

__ _ VERIFIER:

S=a=ra=wi=*t

__ _ Hardware Date Files Cluster3gl:l 7/18/2016 Note C Cluster3g" 7/21/2016 Note C Cluster3g" 7/22/2016 Note C Cluster3g" 9/11/2015 Note C Cluster3g 0 9/14/2015 Note C Cluster3a" 6/6/2016 Note D Cluster3a" 6/6/2016 Note E Cluster3al:l 6/6/2016 Note E Cluster3al:l 6/6/2016 Note E Cluster3al:l 6/6/2016 Note E Cluster3a" 6/6/2016 Note E Cluster3a" 6/6/2016 Note E Cluster3al:l 6/6/2016 Note E Cluster3a" 6/6/2016 Note E Cluster3a 0 6/6/2016 Note E Revision O SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB Run No. Title ProgramNer.A H_ 15_606_704 Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 H 15_606 704 H_ 15_606_708 Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 H 15 606 708 H_ 15_607 _713 Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 H 15 607 713 H_15_609_703 Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 H 15 609 703 H_ 15_615_703 Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 H 15 615 703 H_24_603_704 Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 H 24 603_704 H_24_604_706 Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 H 24 604 706 H_27 _602_703 Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 H 27 602 703 H_27 _609_703 Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 H 27 609 703 H_27 _612_701 Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 H 27 612 701 H_27 _615_701 Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 H 27 615 701 H_27_615_703 Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 H 27 615 703 H_27_615_709 Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 H 27 615 709 H_27_617_709 Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 H 27 617 709 H_36_610_712 Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 H 36 610 712 150252-CA-02 Appendix B -B-3 -FP 100985 Page 169 of 526 PROJECT NO:

DATE:

BY:

__ _ VERIFIER:

S=a=ra=wi=*t

__ _ Hardware Date Files Cluster3at:l 6/6/2016 Note E Cluster3at:l 6/6/2016 Note E Cluster3at:i 6/6/2016 Note E Cluster3a 0 6/6/2016 Note E Cluster3at:l 6/6/2016 Note E Cluster3at:l 6/6/2016 Note E Cluster3a 0 6/6/2016 Note E Cluster3at:l 6/6/2016 Note E Cluster3at:i 6/6/2016 Note E Cluster3a 0 6/6/2016 Note E Cluster3at:l 6/6/2016 Note E Cluster3at:l 6/6/2016 Note E Cluster3at:l 6/6/2016 Note E Cluster3a 0 6/6/2016 Note E Cluster3at:l 6/6/2016 Note E Revision 0 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB Run No. Title ProgramNer.A H_36_614_709 Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 H 36_614_709 H_36_616_707 Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 H 36 616 707 H_36_616_709 Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 H_36_616_709 H_36_617 _703 Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 H 36 617 703 H_39_608_711 Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 H 39 608_711 H_39_613_71 O Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 H 39 613 710 H_39_615_703 Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 H 39 615 703 H_39_619_710 Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 H 39 619 710 H_39_620_710 Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 H 39 620 710 H_39_620_711 Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 H_39 620 711 H_39_622_711 Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 H 39 622 711 H_ 48_611_710 Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 H 48 611 710 H_48_618_710 Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 H 48 618 710 H_48_621_710 Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 H 48 621 710 M_ 15_601_705 Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 M 15 601 705 150252-CA-02 Appendix B -B-4-FP 100985 Page 170 of 526 PROJECT NO:

DATE: -----=Ju=ly-=2=-01=6

__ _ BY: _____

__ _ VERIFIER:

=Sa=ra=wi=*t

__ _ Hardware Date Files Cluster3a1:1 6/6/2016 Note E Cluster3a1:1 6/6/2016 Note E Cluster3a1:1 6/6/2016 Note E Cluster3a1:1 6/6/2016 Note E Cluster3a 0 6/6/2016 Note E Cluster3a1:1 6/6/2016 Note E Cluster3a1:1 6/6/2016 Note E Cluster3a1:1 6/6/2016 Note E Cluster3a 0 6/6/2016 Note E Cluster3a1:1 6/6/2016 Note E Cluster3a1:1 6/6/2016 Note E Cluster3a1:1 6/6/2016 Note E Cluster3a1:1 6/6/2016 Note E Cluster3a1:1 6/6/2016 Note E Cluster3a1:1 6/6/2016 Note E Revision 0 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB Run No. Title ProgramNer.A M_ 15_602_703 Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 M 15_602 703 M_ 15_603_705 Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 M 15 603 705 M_ 15_603_706 Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 M 15 603 706 M_ 15_604_702 Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 M 15_604 702 M_ 15_604_704 Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 M 15 604 704 M_ 15_604_705 Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 M_15 604 705 M_ 15_604_706 Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 M 15 604 706 M_ 15_605_702 Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 M 15 605 702 M_ 15_605_705 Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 M 15 605 705 M_ 15_606_704 Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 M 15 606 704 M_ 15_606_708 Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 M_ 15_606 708 M_ 15_607 _713 Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 M 15 607 713 M_ 15_609_703 Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 M 15 609 703 M_15_615_703 Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 M 15 615_703 M_24_603_704 Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 M 24 603 704 150252-CA-02 Appendix B -B-5 -FP 100985 Page 171 of 526 PROJECT NO: ___ _,1=50=2=52=-------

DATE:

__ _ BY: _____ __,_R=.M=.-'"'-M,_,,_on""e"'"s

__ _ VERIFIER:

___ __,_A,,_,.T'"'"""."" Sa""ra"""'"wi,,,_*t

__ _ Hardware Date Files Cluster3ai; 6/6/2016 Note E Cluster3ai; 6/6/2016 Note E Cluster3a 8 6/6/2016 Note E Cluster3ai; 6/6/2016 Note E Cluster3acs 6/6/2016 Note E Cluster3a-s 6/6/2016 Note E Cluster3ai; 6/6/2016 Note E Cluster3ai; 6/6/2016 Note E Cluster3a-s 6/6/2016 Note E Cluster3aJ:J 6/6/2016 Note E Cluster3ai; 6/6/2016 Note E Cluster3acs 6/6/2016 Note E Cluster3a 8 6/6/2016 Note E Cluster3ai; 6/6/2016 Note E Cluster3a 8 6/6/2016 Note E Revision 0 l" SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB Run No. Title ProgramNer.A M_24_604_706 Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 M 24_604_706 M_27 _602_703 Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 M 27 602 703 M_27 _609_703 Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 M 27 609 703 M_27 _612_701 Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 M 27 612 701 M_27 _615_701 Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 M 27 615 701 M_27 _615_703 Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 M 27 615 703 M_27 _615_709 Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 M 27 615 709 M_27 _617 _709 Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 M 27 617 709 M_36_610_712 Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 M 36 610_712 M_36_614_709 Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 M 36 614 709 M_36_616_707 Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 M 36 616 707 M_36_616_709 Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 M 36 616 709 M_36_617_703 Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 M 36 617 703 M_39_608_711 Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 M 39 608 711 M_39_613_710 Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 M 39 613_710 150252-CA-02 Appendix B -B-6 -FP 100985 Page 172 of 526 PROJECT NO:

DATE:

__ _ BY: _____ ___,_R=.M=.-'"'"M=on=e=s

__ _ VERIFIER:

___

=Sa=ra=wi=*t

__ _ Hardware Date Files Cluster3ats 6/6/2016 Note E Cluster3ats 6/6/2016 Note E Cluster3at:S 6/6/2016 Note E Cluster3ats 6/6/2016 Note E Cluster3ats 6/6/2016 Note E Cluster3a 0 6/6/2016 Note E Cluster3at:S 6/6/2016 Note E Cluster3a 0 6/6/2016 Note E Cluster3ats 6/6/2016 Note E Cluster3ats 6/6/2016 Note E Cluster3a 0 6/6/2016 Note E Cluster3a 0 6/6/2016 Note E Cluster3ats 6/6/2016 Note E Cluster3ats 6/6/2016 Note E Cluster3ats 6/6/2016 Note E Revision O SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB Run No. Title ProgramNer.A M_39_615_703 Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 M 39 615 703 M_39_619_710 Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 M_39_619_

710 M_39_620_710 Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 M 39 620 710 M_39_620_711 Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 M 39 620 711 M_39_622_711 Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 M 39 622 711 M_ 48_611_710 Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 M 48_611 710 M_ 48_618_710 Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 M 48 618 710 M_ 48_621_710 Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 M 48 621 710 Cut01_PM_mer Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 Cut 01 Cut02_PM_mer Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 Cut 02 Cut03_PM_mer Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 Cut 03 Cut04_PM_mer Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 Cut 04 Cut07 _PM_mer Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 Cut 07 Cut08_PM_mer Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 Cut 08 Cut09_PM_mer Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 Cut 09 150252-CA-02 Appendix B -B-7 -FP 100985 Page 173 of 526 PROJECT NO:

DATE:

__ _ BY:

__ _ VERIFIER:

__ _ Hardware Date Files Cluster3ai:s 6/6/2016 Note E Cluster3ai:s 6/6/2016 Note E Cluster3ai:s 6/6/2016 Note E Cluster3ai:s 6/6/2016 Note E Cluster3ai:s 6/6/2016 Note E Cluster3a 0 6/6/2016 Note E Cluster3a 0 6/6/2016 Note E Cluster3ai:s 6/6/2016 Note E Cluster3a 0 6/28/2016 Note E Cluster3ai:s 6/28/2016 Note E Cluster3at>

6/28/2016 Note E Cluster3at>

6/28/2016 Note E Cluster3at>

6/28/2016 Note E Cluster3a 0 6/28/2016 Note E Cluster3ai:s 6/28/2016 Note E Revision O SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB Run No. Title -ProgramNer.A Cut1 O_PM_mer Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 Cut 10 Cut11_PM_mer Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 Cut 11 Cut14_PM_hoop Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 Cut 14 Cut15_PM_hoop Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 Cut 15 Cut16_PM_hoop Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 Cut 16 Cut17 _PM_hoop Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 Cut 17 Cut18_PM_hoop Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 Cut 18 Cut19_PM_hoop Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 Cut 19 Cut20_PM_hoop Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 Cut20 Cut21_PM_hoop Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 Cut 21 Cut22_PM_hoop Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 Cut22 Cut23_PM_hoop Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 Cut23 Cut24_PM_hoop Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 Cut24 Cut25_PM_hoop Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 Cut25 Cut26_PM_hoop Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 Cut26 150252-CA-02 Appendix B 8-FP 100985 Page 17 4 of 526 PROJECT NO:

DATE: -----=Ju=ly--=2"'--01=6

__ _ BY:

__ _ VERIFIER:

S=a=ra=wi=*t

__ _ Hardware Date Files Cluster3a" 6/28/2016 Note E Cluster3a" 6/28/2016 Note E Cluster3acs 6/28/2016 Note E Cluster3acs 6/28/2016 Note E Cluster3a 0 6/28/2016 Note E Cluster3acs 6/28/2016 Note E Cluster3a" 6/28/2016 Note E Cluster3acs 6/28/2016 Note E --Cluster3a" 6/28/2016 Note E Cluster3acs 6/28/2016 Note E Cluster3a" 6/28/2016 Note E Cluster3acs 6/28/2016 Note E Cluster3acs 6/28/2016 Note E Cluster3a" 6/28/2016 Note E Cluster3a 0 6/28/2016 Note E Revision O SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB Run No. Title ProgramNer.A Cut27 _PM_ hoop Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 Cut 27 Cut28_PM_mer Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 Cut 28 Cut29_PM_hoop Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 Cut 29 Cut30_PM_hoop Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section spColumn 4.81 Cut 30 m_ 15_el45az240 Compute PM Interaction Capacity of Section at spColumn 4.81 El. +45.5 ft and AZ 240 (Referenced in Appendix M) See notes on next page 150252-CA-02 Appendix B -B-9 -FP 100985 Page 175 of 526 PROJECT NO:

DATE:

__ _ BY: _____

VERIFIER:

__ _ Hardware Date Files Cluster3at:l 6/28/2016 Note E Cluster3atl 7/26/2016 Note E Cluster3atl 7/26/2016 Note E Cluster3a 0 7/26/2016 Note E Cluster3atl 6/28/2016 Note E Revision 0 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB Notes: A B ANSYS 15 is QA verified spColumn 4.81 is QA verified Cluster3g information is provided below: Model: Compute Blade E55A2 Serial Number: 4600E70 T201000293 Manufacturer:

American Megatrends Inc. PROJECT NO:

DATE: ______

BY: _____

VERIFIER:

__ _ Operating System: Microsoft Windows NT Server 6.2 (x64) Cluster3a information is provided below: Model: Compute Blade E55A2 Serial Number: 4600E70 T148000168 Manufacturer:

American Megatrends Inc. Operating System: Microsoft Windows NT Server 6.2 (x64) C Input and output files for ANSYS computer runs are listed in Table B1 and B2 D Item "100 _rO" is treated as a computer run, but consists of a subset of the output from 1 OA_ro. E Input and output files for spColumn computer runs are listed in Table B3 150252-CA-02 Appendix B -B-10-Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 176 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook PROJECT NO: ___ _,_,,15=02=5=-2

__ _ DATE:

__ _ BY: ______ R'-'-'.=M'-'-.

M=o=ne=s'----

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB VERIFIER:

__ _ Table 81. Input files for ANSYS Computer Runs SR_ILC_01_1_r0.apdl SR_ILC_26_1_r0.apdl SR_MISC_ACCPROF

_rO.apdl SR_ILC_02_1_r0.apdl SR_ILC_27

_l_rO.apdl SR_MISC_NODEMASS_rO.apdl SR_ILC_03_1_r0.apdl SR_ILC_28_l_r0.apdl SR_MODEL 1_BOUNDARY

_A_r0.apdl SR_ILC_04_1_r0.apdl SR_ILC_29_1_r0.apdl SR_MODEL 1_CONN_BASE_HINGE_r0.apdl SR_ILC_05_1_r0.apdl SR_ILC_30_1_r0.apdl SR_MODEL 1_CONN_BASE_r0.apdl SR_ILC_06_1_r0.apdl SR_ILC_31_1_r0.apdl SR_MODEL 1_CONN_RADIAL_r0.apdl SR_ILC_07

_l_rO.apdl SR_ILC_32_1_r0.apdl SR_MODEL 1_CONN_ TANGENT _r0.apdl SR_ILC_08_1_r0.apdl SR_ILC_33_1_r0.apdl SR_ MODEL 1_ELEMENTS_CONCRETE_r0.apdl SR_ILC_09_1_r0.apdl SR_ILC_34_1_r0.apdl SR_MODEL 1_ELEMENTS_STEEL_r0.apdl SR_ILC_ 1 O_l_rO.apdl SR_ILC_35_1_r0.apdl SR_MODEL 1_NODES_DEFORMED_r0.apdl SR_ILC_ 11_1_r0.apdl SR_ILC_36_l_r0.apdl SR_MODEL 1_NODES_r0.apdl SR_ILC_ 12_1_r0.apdl SR_ILC_38_1_r0.apdl SR_MODEL 1_PROPERTIES_A_r0.apdl SR_ILC_ 13_1_r0.apdl SR_ILC_39_1_r0.apdl SR_MODEL 1_PROPERTIES_B_r0.apdl SR_ILC_ 14_1_r0.apdl SR_ILC_ 40_1_r0.apdl SR_MODEL 1_PROPERTIES_C_r0.apdl SR_ILC_ 15_1_r0.apdl SR_ILC_ 41_1_r0.apdl SR_MODEL 1_PROPERTIES_D_r0.apdl SR_ILC_ 16_l_r0.apdl SR_ILC_ 42_1_r0.apdl SR_RUN_DEFINE_CASENAMES_rO.apdl SR_ILC_ 17 _l_rO.apdl SR_ILC_ 43_1_r0.apdl SR_RUN_DEFINE_ILC_rO.apdl SR_ILC_ 18_1_r0.apdl SR_ILC_ 44_1_r0.apdl SR_RUN_DEFINE_LCB_rO.apdl SR_ILC_ 19_1_r0.apdl SR_ILC_ 45_1_r0.apdl SR_RUN_EXECUTE_rO.apdl SR_ILC_20_1_r0.apdl SR_ILC_ 46_1_r0.apdl SR_RUN_SWITCHCOMBOSET

_rO.apdl SR_ILC_21_1_r0.apdl SR_ILC_ 47 _l_rO.apdl SR_MODEL 1_MKADJ5_r0.apdl SR_ILC_22_1_r0.apdl SR_ILC_ 48_1_r0.apdl SR_MODEL 1_MKADJ6_r0.apdl SR_ILC_23_1_r0.apdl SR_ILC_ 49_1_r0.apdl SR_ILC_24_1_r0.apdl SR_ILC_50_l_r0.apdl SR ILC 25 I rO.apdl SR ILC 51 I rO.apdl Notes:

• Computer runs that use ANSYS 15 program utilize the input files listed in the above table

• Files SR_ILC_ 43_1_r0.apdl through SR_ILC_51_1_r0.apdl, SR_MODEL 1_PROPERTIES_D_r0.apdl, and SR_MODEL 1_CONN_BASE_HINGE_r0.apdl are used in computer runs 1 OAR_rO, 1 OBR7 _rO, and 1 OG_rO only.

• Files SR_MODEL 1_MKADJ5_r0.apdl and SR_MODEL 1_MKADJ6_r0.apdl are used in computer run 10G_r0 only.

• File SR_MISC_NODEMASS_rO.apdl can be generated by SR_ILC_02_1_r0.apdl 150252-CA-02 Appendix B -B-11 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 177 of 526 ---

......

SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB PROJECT NO:

__ _ DATE:

BY:

M=o=ne=s __ _ VERIFIER:

__ _ Table 82. Output files for ANSYS Computer Runs SR_COMBOS_A_rO.db SR_ILC_ 13_1_r0.db SR_ILC_36_1_r0.db SR_COMBOS_B_rO.db SR_ILC_ 14_1_r0.db SR_ILC_37

_l_rO.db SR_COMBOS_C_rO.db SR_ILC_ 15_1_r0.db SR_ILC_38_1_r0.db SR_COMBOS_D_rO.db SR_ILC_ 16_1_r0.db SR_ILC_39_1_r0.db SR_COMBOS_E_rO.db SR_ILC_ 17 _l_rO.db SR_ILC_ 40_1_r0.db SR_COMBOS_F

_rO.db SR_ILC_ 18_1_r0.db SR_ILC_ 41_1_r0.db SR_COMBOS_G_rO.db SR_ILC_ 19_1_r0.db SR_COMBOS_A_rO.I**

SR_COMBOS_H_rO.db SR_ILC_20_1_r0.db SR_COMBOS_B_rO.I**

SR_COMBOS_l_rO.db SR_ILC_21_1_r0.db SR_COMBOS_C_rO.I**

SR_COMBOS_J_rO.db SR_ILC_22_1_r0.db SR_COMBOS_D_rO.I**

SR_COMBOS_K_rO.db SR_ILC_23_1_r0.db SR_COMBOS_E_rO.I**

SR_ILC_01_1_r0.db SR_ILC_24_1_r0.db SR_COMBOS_F

_rO.I** SR_ILC_02_1_r0.db SR_I LC _25_1_r0.db SR_COMBOS_G_rO.I**

SR_ILC_03_1_r0.db SR_I LC _26_1_r0.db SR_COMBOS_H_rO.I**

SR_ILC_04_1_r0.db SR_ILC_27

_l_r0.db SR_COMBOS_l_rO.I**

SR_ILC_05_1_r0.db SR_ILC_28_1_r0.db SR_COMBOS_J_rO.I**

SR_ILC_06_1_r0.db SR_ILC_29_1_r0.db SR_COMBOS_K_rO.I**

SR_ILC_07

_l_r0.db SR_I LC _30_1_r0.db SR_ILC_08_1_r0.db SR_ILC_31_1_r0.db SR_ILC_09_1_r0.db SR_ILC_32_1_r0.db SR_ILC_ 1 O_l_rO.db SR_ILC_33_1_r0.db SR_ILC_ 11_1_r0.db SR_ILC_34_1_r0.db SR_ILC_ 12_1_r0.db SR_ILC_35_1_r0.db Notes:

• File extension

.I**" in above table represent

.101", .102", ".103", etc. up to ".175".

• ANSYS computer runs generate one or more of these output files depending on the purpose of the computer run. 150252-CA-02 Appendix B -B-12 -Revision O FP 100985 Page 178 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER ,........

I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB PROJECT NO:

DATE: _____

BY: ______

__ _ VERIFIER:

Table 83. Input and Output files for spColumn Computer Runs Input Files {RunNumber}.cti Output Files {RunNumber}.out

{RunNumber}.emf

{RunNumber}.csv

{RunNumber}.iad Notes:

• The label {RunNumber}

represents any spColumn run listed in the Computer Run Identification Log 150252-CA-02 Appendix B -B-13 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 179 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB Appendix C PROJECT N0: ___ __,_,15=0=25=2,__

__ _ DATE:. _____

BY: ______ .._,R'-"'.M'-'-.=M=on-"'e"'-s

__ _ VERIFIER:.

____ ,__,A'--'-.T_,__,.

S=a"-'ra=wi=*t

__ _ Description of 150252-CA-02-CD-01 Contents C1. REVISION HISTORY Revision O: Initial document.

C2. DESCRIPTION OF CD CONTENTS The CD attached to this calculation (150252-CA-02-CD-01) contains key analysis input and output files. These files are summarized below.

• The provided analysis cases are listed in Table C1.

• For each analysis case, the files listed and described in Table C2 are provided.

• Input and output files related to computation of axial-flexure (PM) interaction capacity are provided, as described in Table C3. 150252-CA-02 Appendix C -C-1 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 180 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook PROJECT N0: ___

DATE:. _____

BY: ______

=M=on=e=s

__ _

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB VERIFIER:.

____

__ _ C3. TABLES Table C 1. List of Analysis Cases Provided on 150252-CA-02-CD-01 Run No. Title/Description of Analysis Case Notes 10A_ro Standard Analysis Case This analysis case contains all load combinations listed in Table 5 of the calculation main bodv. 10B7_ro Standard-Plus Analysis Case This analysis case contains all load combinations-listed in Table 5 of the calculation main bodv. 10D_r0 Evaluation w/o ASR and SS loads This analysis case is treated as a computer run, but consists of a subset of the output from 1 OA_ro. For this reason, database files (*.db) and load case files (*.101, *.102, etc.) are not provided 10E_r0 Parametric Study on ASR at Springline This analysis case is limited to deformation combinations (Combination Set A) 10G_r0 Analysis and Evaluation of Standard-Plus This analysis case is limited to combination sets A, B, and C. Analysis Case for Combination N0_ 1 with Simulated Concrete Cracking at El. +45.5 and AZ 240 10AR_r0 Standard Analysis Case with Moment This analysis case is limited to combination sets A, B, and C. Redistribution (limited to combination N0_ 1) Combination C01 represents load combination N0_ 1 without moment redistribution.

Combination C02 represents load combination N0_ 1 with the moment redistributions discussed in Appendix H. 10BR7_r0 Standard-Plus Analysis Case with Moment This analysis case is limited to combination sets A, B, and C. Redistribution (limited to combination N0_ 1) Combination C01 represents load combination N0_ 1 without moment redistribution.

Combination C02 represents load combination N0_1 with the moment redistributions discussed in Appendix H. 10BR7E_ro Standard-Plus Analysis Case with Moment This analysis case is limited to combination sets A, B, .and G. Redistribution (limited to combination Combination G07 contains the load redistribution analysis for the OBE 4) selected OBE load combination (as documented in Aooendix H). 150252-CA-02 Appendix C -C-2-Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 181 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures PROJECT N0: ___

DATE: _____

__ _ CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB VERIFIER:.

___ ___,_A"""'.T,__,_.

=Sa,,,_,ra=wi=*t

__ _ Table C2. Description of Files Provided for Analysis Cases File Type Description

• .apdl ANSYS input files. These files are used to define the CEB model, modify the CEB model, define loads applied to the model, or define parameters that are used by the CEB model (such as load factors).

• .db ANSYS database files. All database files contain the CEB model (nodes, elements, properties, boundary conditions, etc.). Database files for independent load cases (ILCs) contain loads, forces, moments, reactions, and displacements/deformations related to the specific ILC. Database files for combination sets (such as SR_COMBOS_A_rO.db) contain the CEB model, but are otherwise a shell for importing load case files (see next row). *.101, *.102, etc. Load case files. These files contain forces, moments, reactions, and displacements/deformations related to a specific load combination.

Load combinations are defined in the files named SR_RUN_DEFINE_LCB_rO.apdl and SR_RUN_DEFINE_CASENAMES_rO.apdl.

These files may be imported by ANSYS usinq the LCFILE and LCASE commands.

• .png PM Interaction results. These image files contain PM interaction diaqrams with results for the qiven analysis case. *.tif Element contour plots. These image files show contour plots for specific ILCs or load combinations.

File names named according to the convention described in Table 9 of the calculation main body. Table C3. Description of Files Provided for PM Interaction Capacity Computations File Type *.cti *.emf *.out *.csv *.pmd Description spColumn in ut files spColumn image output files Same as *.csv file, but with capacities adjusted to meet ACI 318-71 stren th reduction hi factors. 150252-CA-02 Appendix C -C-3 -Revision O FP 100985 Page 182 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures ond Building Enclosures PROJECT NO.

__ _ DATE ____

__ CLIENT NextEra Energy Seabrook BY R.M. Mones SUBJECT Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB CHECKED BY A.T. Sarawit Appendix D Calculation of Creep Coefficient and Shrinkage Strain D1 .0 Revision History

• Revision O: Initial document D2.0 Objective In this calculation, the creep coefficient and shrinkage strain of the containment enclosure building (CEB) concrete are calculated.

The calculated values are to be used in the evaluation and design confirmation of the as-deformed CEB. All creep and shrinkage calculations are performed using ACI 209R-92 [01]. D3.0 Results and Conclusions . Creep is calculated using two different approaches from ACI 209R-92; one approach is for standard structures (Section 2.4 of ACI 209R-92) while the other approach is specifically for massive structures that are more than 12 in. thick (Section 2.8 of ACI 209R-92).

Using the creep model for standard structures, the creep coefficient is calculated as 1.3. The creep coefficient is 2.3 if the massive structures model is used. According to the ACI 209R-92 creep model, the creep coefficient is not dependent on wall thickness.

Shrinkage strain is calculated using as 1.0x1Q-4 for 36 in. thick walls, 2.0x10-4 for 27 in. thick walls, and 2.5x10 4 for 15 in. thick walls. D4.0 Design Data I Criteria The CEB mix design information below has been provided.by Ted Vassallo [02, 03, 04].

• Design compressive strength = 4000 psi

• Air entraining admixture (Master Builders MB-AE-10).

Design air content of 4 to 8%. Actual measured air content from 5.1 to 7.1%.

• Water to cement ratio (w/c) of 0.5. Water reducing admixture (Master Builders Pozzolith 300N).

• Design slump of 2 to 4 inches. Actual measured slump of 2. 75 to 3. 75 inches.

• Cement content of 560 lbf, fine aggregate content of 1300 lbf, #67 coarse aggregate content of 1780 lbf, water content of 280 lbf. This mix was used for CEB concrete placement from elevation

(-)26'-0" to (-)11'-0" from Azimuth 18 to 33 degrees. However, it has been indicated that this is a typical concrete mixture for the CEB, therefore the properties of this mix are used to approximate the creep coefficient and shrinkage strain throughout the entire CEB. Typical relative humidity in Seabrook, NH is approximated using weather data [OS] from Portsmouth, NH, which is approximately 15 miles to the north of Seabrook Station. Relative humidity varies throughout the year, a constant relative humidity of 65% is used in this calculation.

A plot of relative average relative humidity throughout the year can be seen in Section 7.1 of this calculation.

Calculation No. 150252-CA-02 Appendix D -D-1 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 183 of 526 05.0 Assumptions It is assumed that the CEB concrete is allowed to moist cure for 7 days, and that additional (non-self weight) loads are not applied to the CEB concrete during this 7 days. It is assumed that the relative humidity of the environment surrounding the CEB concrete is constantly 65%. The actual relative humidity in Southern New Hampshire varies between from about 40% to 90%. Relative humidity within the annulus of the operational facility are typically lower (about 25% ); however, these relative humidities have a smaller impact because creep and shrinkage primarily occur during the first year after placement.

06.0 Methodology Calculation of creep coefficient and shrinkage strain use the models presented ACI 209R"92 [D1]. Shrinkage strain and creep coefficient are calculated using Section 2.4 of ACI 209R-92 (Recommended Creep and Shrinkage Equations for Standard Conditions).

An alternative creep coefficient is also calculated using Section 2.8.1 of ACI 209R-92, which is for massive structures that retain their moisture during their lifetime.

The final creep coefficient and shrinkage strains for use in FEA is selected in Section D8.0 All equation and section references are to ACI 209R-92 [D1 J unless otherwise noted 07.0 Computations Computation contents are listed below. 7.1. Specify Input Parameters

7.2. Define

Creep and Shrinkage Calculation Functions

7.3. Define

Functions for Calculation of Creep Correction Factors 7.4. Define Functions for Calculation of Shrinkage Correction Factors 7.5. Calculate Creep Coefficient for use in FE Model Calculate Shrinkage Strain for use in FE Model Calculation No. 150252-CA-02 Appendix D -D-2 -FP 100985 Page 184 of 526 Revision O All equation and section references are to ACI 209R-92 [011 unless otherwise noted 07.1 Specify Input Parameters (Section 2.4 , take 4-1=0.60) (Section 2.4 , take d=10 days) (Section 2.4, take a= 1) (Section 2.4 , take vub = 2.35 (Section 2.4 , take £shub = 780.0 * (Section 2.4, take f=35 days) Duration of initial moist curing Age of concrete at initial loading Average Relative Humidity 100% 90% 80% 79% 70% F eb 8 60% 50% := 0.60 d := l Oday := l Yub := 2.3 5 -6 shub := 780* 10 f := 35day tcp := 7day t 1 a := 7day := 0.6 5 (See climate information below) R e la t ive Hum i dity 93% t T 6 40% 42% b Ap r 1 6 r 30%

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep O ct Nov Dec The average daily high (blue) and low (brown) relative humidity with percentile bands (inner bands from 25th to 75th percentile, outer bands from 10th to 90th percentile).

Plot and caption above are taken from www.weatherspark.com

[05] for Portsmouth , NH. Calculation No. 150 2 52-CA-02 Appendi x D -D-3 -FP 10098 5 Page 185 of 5 2 6 Rev i s i on 0 07.1 Specify Input Parameters (Continued)

Volume to surface ratio (varies w/ thickness of CEB wall) Slump Fine Aggregate Content (decimal)

Air Content (decimal)

Cement content (lb/ydA3)

Calculation No. 150252-CA-02 Appendix D FP 100985 Page 186 of 526 . 36in vsr 36m := ---2 slump:= 3.25in fa:= 0.422 c := 0.06 !bf c:= 560-MA 3 yd . 18in vsr 27m := --. 15in vsr 15m := ---2 -2 Slump of 3.25" is based on information provided in 17 April 2015 email from Ted Vassallo [03]. Fine aggregate content of 0.422 is based on information provided in 20 April 2014 email from Ted Vassallo [04]. Air content of 0.06 is based on information provided in 17 April 2015 email from Ted Vassallo [03]. Cement content of 560 lbf/yd3 is based on information provided in 20 April 2014 email from Ted Vassallo [04]. -D-4 -Revision 0 07.2 Define Creep and Shrinkage Calculation Functions (Eqn 2-6) Function for creep coefficient (Eqn 2-7) Function for shrinkage strain Calculation No. 150252-CA-02 Appendix D FP 100985 Page 187 of 526 v 1 (_t,_d,_ ,_vu):= [ ]*_Vu d:y +

sht(_t,_ ,_f ,_ shu) := _

)'-----._

shu . f ( t )-day+ Normal ranges of the constants in Eqs. (2-6) and (2-7) were found to be: 6*7 r/I d = 0.40 to 0.80, = 6 to 30 days, = 1.30 to 4.15, = 0.90 to 1.10, = 20 to 130 days, = 415 x 10" to 1070 x 10-6 in.Jin. (m/m) Reccommended creep and shrinkage constants under "standard conditions" (Section 2.4) LtJ=0.60, d= 10 days, a= 1, f = 35 days, vu= 2.35, Eshu = 780*10A-6

-D-5 -Revision 0

..----------------------

---

07 .3 Define Functions for Calculation of Creep Correction Factors Section 2.5.1: Loading Age (Eqn 2-11) Function for adjustment factor for loading age. Input parameter t 18 is the age of loading in days. Notes: [ (_tJa)-O.l1 8 J 1.25* -day 1.0 otherwise if _t1a > 7day The value of yla is less than 1.0 if a tla greater than 7 days is used. This correction factor causes the ultimate creep coefficient to decrease because the concrete has cured prior to application of the load. "' 0.8 "O bil i::: :.a 0.6 "' .Q "'@ *.;::: 0.4 :s 1;j Q) 0.2 bJl <: 0 0 10 20 30 .la Section 2.5.4: Ambient Relative Humidity (Eqn 2-14) Function for adjustment factor for ambient relative humidity.

Input parameter>-.

is relative humidity as decimal. Calculation No. 150252-CA-02 Appendix D FP 100985 Page 188 of 526 cL ) := i.o if :;; 0.4 (1.27 -0.67*_ ) if > 0.40 "ERROR" otherwise 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Relative Humidity, decimal -D-6 -Revision 0 07.3 Define Functions for Calculation of Creep Correction Factors (Continued)

Section 2.5.5b: Member Size (Volume-surface ratio method) Note: Section 2.5.5a (Member thickness method) is not implemented because it is not supported for members thicker than 15 in. (Eqn 2-21) Function for adjustment factor for volume to surface ratio. Input parameter vsr is the volume to surface ratio in inches. Section 2.5.6: Temperature

-0.54*=--[ (

vscCvsr) := (f} 1 + l.13*e in 0.8 Q 0.6 ti) :>; 0.4 0.2 00 10 20 30 Volume to surface ratio, in. ACI 209R-92 recognizes temperature as a significant factor effecting creep, but does not provide correction factors to account for temperatures other than 70 degrees F. The text of ACI 209R-92 states that creep strains can be approximately two to three times greater at 122 degrees F than at 70 degrees F. Calculation No. 150252-CA-02 Appendix D -D-7 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 189 of 526 07 .3 Define Functions for Calculation of Creep Correction Factors (Continued)

Section 2.6.1: Slump (Eqn 2-23) Function for slump correction factor. Slump is input in inches. slump sc(_slump)

= 0.82 +

m 0.5 2 4 6 slump, in. 8 Section 2.6.2:* Fine Aggregate Percentage (Eqn 2-25) Function for fine aggregate percentage.

lJ.I is the ratio of fine aggregate to total aggregate by weight expressed as a decimal. Calculation No. 150252-CA-02 Appendix D FP 100985 Page 190 of 526 cC ) := o.88 + o.24*_ 1.5 0.5 0 o 02 oA Fine Aggregate Ratio, decimal -D-8 -10 Revision 0 07.3 Define Functions for Calculation of Creep Correction Factors (Continued)

Section 2.6.3: Cement Content According to ACI 209R-92 Section 2.6.3, cement content has a negligable effect on creep coefficient.

Section 2.6.4: Air Content (Eqn 2-29) Function for air content correction factor. ac is the air content as a decimal. Calculation No. 150252-CA-02 Appendix D FP 100985 Page 191 of 526 cc:= 1 c(_ c):=min(l.0,0.46+9_

c) 1.5 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 Air Content, decimal -D-9 -Revision O 07.4 Define Functions for Calculation of Shrinkage Correction Factors Section 2.5.3: Duration of Initial Moist Curing (Table 2.5.3) Allow linear interpolation between table values. Do not permit extrapolation.

table253x

= 3 7 14 28 90 1.2 1.1 1.0 day table253y

= 0.93 0.86 0.75 Function for adjustment factor for duration of moist curing, based on Table 2.5.3. cp(_tcp) := I linterp(table253x, table253y

,_tcp) if lday:::; _icp :::; 90day "ERROR" otherwise 0.5 20 40 60 80 100 Duration ofMoist Curing, days Section 2.5.4: Ambient Relative Humidity (Eqn 2-14) sC ) := i.o if < o.4 Function for adjustment factor for ambient relative humidity.

Input parameter J.. is relative humidity as decimal. Calculation No. 150252-CA-02 Appendix D FP 100985 Page 192 of 526 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 (1.4-1.0_)

if0.4::;_

o.8 (3.0-3.0_ ) if 0.8 <_

::; 1 "ERROR" otherwise 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Relative Humidity, decimal -D-10 -Revision 0 07.4 Define Functions for Calculation of Shrinkage Correction Factors (Continued}

Section 2.5.5b: Member Size (Volume-surface ratio method) Note: Section 2.5.5a (Member thickness method) is not implemented because it is not supported for members thicker than 15 in. (Eqn 2-22) Function for adjustment factor for volume to surface ratio. Input parameter vsr is the volume to surface ratio in inches. Section 2.5.6: Temperature l ( vsrJ J -0.12* -in vss(_vsr)

=ma l.20*e ,0.2 10 20 30 Volume to surface ratio, in. ACI 209R-92 recognizes temperature as a significant factor effecting shrinkage, but does not provide correction factors to account for temperatures other than 70 degrees F. Calculation No. 150252-CA-02 Appendix D -D-11 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 193 of 526 07.4 Define Functions for Calculation of Shrinkage Correction Factors (Continued)

Section 2.6.1: Slump (Eqn 2-24) Function for slump correction factor. Slump is input in inches. slump ssCslump)

= 0.89 +

m I,5.-----r---..,----r----r---, 0.5 2 4 6 8 IO slump, in. Section 2.6.2: Fine Aggregate Percentage (Eqn 2-26 and 2-27) Function for fine aggregate percentage.

ljJ is the ratio of fine aggregate to total aggregate by weight expressed as a decimal. Calculation No. 150252-CA-02 Appendix D FP 100985 Page 194 of 526 sC ) := I (0.30 + 1.4*_ (0.90 + 0.2*_ if :::; 0.5 otherwise I,5..----.----r----.,.---r----, 0 o 6 0.2 0.4 0. 0.8 Fine Aggregate Ratio, decimal -D-12 -Revision 0

---

*----

---

07.4 Define Functions for Calculation of Shrinkage Correction Factors (Continued)

Section 2.6.3: Cement Content (Eqn 2--28) Function for cement content correction factor. Cement content, c, in lb/yd3 Section 2.6.4: Air Content (Eqn 2--29) Function for air content correction factor. ac is the air content as a decimal. Calculation No. 150252--CA-02 Appendix D FP 100985 Page 195 of 526 c csC c) := 0.75 + 0.00036* (-) -!bf yd3 1.5 "' q 0.5 0 400 800 Cement Content, lb/yd"3 s(_ c) := 0.95 + 0.8_ c 1.5.------.-, ---.,---...--,----, 1 :=... "' os---I I I 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 Air Content, decimal --D--13 --Revision O 07.5 Calculate Creep Coefficients for use in FE Model Correction factor: Loading Age Correction factor: Relative Humidity Correction factor: Volume to surface ratio Correction factor: Slump Correction factor: Fine Aggregate Percentage Correction factor: Cement Content Correction factor: Air Content Cumulative correction factor Ultimate creep coefficient Calculation No. 150252-CA-02 Appendix D FP 100985 Page 196 of 526 cC ) = o.835 vscCvsr_36in)

= 0.667 vscCvsr_27in)

= 0.673 vscCvsr_15in)

= 0.68 sc(slump)

= 1.038 c( ra) = 0.981 cc= 1 c( c) = 1 Note: Volume-to-surface ratio correction factor is around 0.67 for all wall thicknesses in consideration.

Moving forward, use Yvs = 0.673. creep:= ra(tra)* cC )* vsc(vsr_27in)*

sc(slump)*

c( ra)* cc" c( c) creep= 0.571 Vu := Vub" creep Vu= 1.343 -D-14 -Revision 0 07.5 Calculate Creep Coefficients for use in FE Model (Continued)

Creep strain per unit of elastic stra i n (first 100 days) Creep strain per unit of elastic strain (first 30 years) Calculation No. 150252-CA-02 Appendi x D FP 100985 Page 197 of 526 20 40 60 80 JOO Age , days

-o.s-I I I 10 20 30 40 Age , years vt@ 1 yr: v 1 ( 1 yr , d , , v u) = 1.041 vt@ 5 yrs: v 1 (5yr , d, , vu)= 1.209 vt@ 10 yrs: v 1 (10yr , d , , vu)= 1.252 vt @25 yrs: v 1 (25 y r , d, , v u)= 1.289 vt@ 35 yrs: v 1 ( 35 y r , d, , vu)= 1.298 Vt Ecreep = -(JD E o -D-15 -(Eqn 1-1) Revision 0 07.5 Calculate Creep Coefficients for use in FE Model (Continued) (Eqn 2-33) Refined creep coefficient for massive structures Calculation No. 150252-CA-02 Appendix D FP 100985 Page 198 of 526 <: " " '(j b3 " 0 u 0. " " .... u 0.5 -0 " c: t;:::; " i:i::: 20 40 60 80 100 Age, days 3 <:" " '(j l:E " 0 u 0. " " .... u -0 " c: t;:::; " i:i::: 0 0 JO 20 30 40 Age , years vt2@ 1 yr: v12(vu, t1a , lyr) = 1.424 vt2@ S yrs: v12(vu,t1a,5yr)

= 1.741 vt2@ 10 yrs: v12( Yu, t1a, lOyr) = 1.899 vt2@ 25 yrs: v12(vu, t1a,25yr)

= 2.129 vt2@ 35 yrs: v12 (v u,t1a,3 5yr) = 2.221 Vt Ecreep = -<Tv Eo (Eqn 1-1) -D-16 -Revision O 07.6 Calculate Shrinkage Strain for use in FE Model Correction factor: Initial Moist Cure Duration Correction factor: Relative Humidity Correction factor: Volume to surface ratio Correction factor: Slump Correction factor: Fine Aggregate Percentage Correction factor: Cement Content Correction factor: Air Content Cumulative correction factor for shrinkage strain of 36 in. thick walls Cumulative correction factor for shrinkage strain of 27 in. thick walls Cumulative correction factor for shrinkage strain of 15 in. thick walls Calculation No. 150252-CA-02 Appendix D FP 100985 Page 199 of 526 sC ) = o.75 vss(vsr_36in)

= 0.2 vss(vsr_27in)

= 0.408 vss(vsr_l5in)

= 0.488 88 (slump) = 1.023 s( fa) = 0.891 cs(c) = 0.952 s( c) = 0.998 shrinkage

_36 := cp(tcp)* sC )* shrinkage_36

= 0.13 shrinkage_27

= cp(tcp)* sC )-shrinkage_27

= 0.265 shrinkage_15

= cp( tcp)-sC )* shrinkage_l5

= 0.317 -D-17 -vssCvsr_36in)-

88 (slump)-s( fa)* cs( C )* s( c) vssCvsr_27in)*

88 (slump)* s( fa)* csCc)* s( c) vssCvsr _ 15in)* 88 (slump)-s( fa)* cs(c)* s( c) Revision 0 07.6 Calculate Shrinkage Strain for use in FE Model (Continued)

Ult i mate shrinkage stra i n fo r 36 i n. th i ck walls Ultimate shrinkage strain for 27 in. thick walls Ultimate shrinkage st r ain for 15 in. thick walls Calculation No. 150252-CA-02 Appendix D FP 100985 Page 200 of 526 -4 shu_36 := shub" shrinkage_36 sh u_36 = 1.013 X 10 -4 s hu_27 := shub" shrinkage_27 shu_27 = 2.064 x 10 -4 s hu_l5 := shub" s hri nkage_ 1 5 s hu_l 5 = 2.471 x 10 --36 in. thick -----27 in. thick 3 x 10-4 --15 in. thick .s* e c/5 <Ll bJl J:l .5 ..2 U'J -----------,.,.,...----

---

/,-:;,--------/' ----------j 100 200 300 Age , days ------------

2x 10-4 I I l x 10-4 1-: j------------t--36 in. thick -----27 in. thick --15 in. thick I I 10 20 30 Age , years 18 -Revision 0 07.6 Calculate Shrinkage Strain for use in FE Model (Continued)

For 36 in. thick walls: E sht@ 1 yr: s ht ( l yr, , f, ) -5 shu_36 = 9.243 X 10 Esh t@ 5 yrs: s ht( 5 y r , ,f, ) -5 shu_36 = 9.938 x 10 E s h t@ 10 yrs: sh t( lO y r , ,f, ) -4 s hu_36 = 1.003 X I 0 E sht@ 25 y rs: s ht( 25yr, ,f, ) -4 shu_36 = 1.009 x 10 E sht@ 35 yrs: sh t( 35yr , ,f, ) -4 s hu_36 =I.O J x 10 For 27 in. thick walls: Es ht@ 1 y r. sht ( l y r , ,f, ) -4 shu_27 = 1.88 3 x IO E sht@ 5 yrs: sht ( 5 y r , ,f, ) -4 s hu_27 = 2.025 x 10 Esht @ 10 yrs: s ht( lOyr , ,f, ) -4 s hu_27 = 2.044 x 10 Es ht@ 25 yrs: sht ( 25 yr, ,f, ) -4 sh u_27 = 2.056 x I 0 E sht @ 35 yrs: s ht ( 35yr, , f, ) -4 shu_2? = 2.058 x I 0 For 15 in. thick walls: Esht@ 1 y r. sht ( l y r , ,f, ) -4 s bu_l5 = 2.255 x 10 Esht@ 5 yrs: s ht( 5 yr, ,f, ) -4 s hu_l5 = 2.424 x 10 Es ht @ 10 y rs: s ht( lOyr , , f, ) -4 sbu_15 = 2.447 x 10 E sht@ 25 yrs: s ht( 25yr, ,f, ) -4 sh u_1 5 = 2.461 x 10 E sht@ 35 yrs: s ht( 35 y r, ,f, ) -4 shu_1 5 = 2.464 x 1 0 Calculation No. 150252-CA-02 Appendix D -D-19 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 201 of 526 08.0 Conclusions Creep coefficients of approx. 1.3 and 2.3 are computed in this appendix. The use of a lower creep coefficiert is most conservative for this calculation because it causes less of the CEB deformation to be attributed to creep (and t herefore more CEB deformation is attributed to other self-straining loads such as ASR expansion).

In design confirmation FEA , use creep coeff i cient of v 1 = 1.3. Creep strains will be calculated using the equation below. a 0 is the sustained dead load. E 0 is the initial concrete modulus of elasticity. Vt Ecreep = -CJv Eo In design confirmation FEA, use the following shrinkage strains: * £sht = 1.0*10-4 for 36 in. thick wall s * £s ht = 2.0*10-4 for 27 in. thick wall s * £sht = 2.5*10-4 for 15 in. thick walls. 0 9.0 References

[D1] ACI Comm i ttee 209 , Pred i ct i on of Creep , Shr i nkage , and Temperature Effects in Concrete Structures , ACI 209R-92 , Reapproved 1997. [D2] Vassallo , T. "CEB Concrete Mix." 8 April 2015. E-mail. [D3] Vassallo , T. "CEB Concrete Slump." 17 April 2015. E-mail. [D4] Vassallo , T. " CEB Concrete Mix." 20 April 2015. E-ma i l. [D5] WeatherSpark , "Average Weather For Portsmouth , New Hampshire , USA" Accessed 20 April 2015. https://weatherspark. com/averages/3131 O f Portsmouth-New-Hampshire-Un i ted-States. Calculation No. 150252-CA-02 Appendix D -D-20 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 202 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB Appendix E PROJECT NO: ___

DATE: -----""-'Ju,,...ly--=2"'--01'-"'6

__ _ BY: _____ __,_,R=.M=.

=M=on=e,._s

__ _ VERIFIER:

S=a=ra=wi=*t

__ _ Computation of PM Interaction using spColumn E1. REVISION HISTORY Revision 0 Initial document.

E2. OBJECTIVE The objective of this calculation is to compute axial-moment (PM) interaction curves for the CEB wall. E3. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS PM interaction capacity curves are used in the element-by-element evaluation of the CEB. Plots and spColumn output data for all PM interaction capacity curves are available on 150252-CA-02-CD-01.

A selection of PM interaction capacity curves and spColumn output data are shown in this appendix for information.

E4. DESIGN DATA I CRITERIA Wall geometry, reinforcement layout, and material properties are based on the structural drawings listed in the project Criteria Document 150252-CD-03

[E-1]. E5. ASSUMPTIONS Justified Assumptions There are no justified assumptions.

Unverified Assumptions There are no unverified assumptions.

E6. METHODOLOGY The wall is divided into 12 in. wide strips along the hoop and meridional directions to facilitate computation of PM interaction curves. Interaction capacity curves are generated using 150252-CA-02 Appendix E -E-1 -Revision O FP 100985 Page 203 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB PROJECT NO:

DATE: _____ _,J=u,_,_ly-=-20=1=6

__ _ BY:

VERIFIER:

---

'-A"""".T"'""'".-"'S=ar-=-awi=*_,__1

__ _ spColumn Version 4.81 [E-2], which has been verified and validated in accordance with the SGH QANF program [E-3, E-4]. Based on ACI 318-71, strength reduction (phi) factors of 0.9 for tension-controlled failure and 0. 7 for compression-controlled failure are specified in the spColumn software.

However, spColumn transitions between these phi factors linearly between the points where the tensile reinforcement strain is 0.005 and 0.002 (this conforms to the modern ACI 318 building code). The ACI 318-71 building code specifies that the phi factor should transition between the point of zero axial load and the lesser of the balanced point (point with 0.002 tensile reinforcement strain) or the point at which axial load is O.lfdAn (where Ag is the gross area of the section).

Due to this difference in transition points, the PM interaction curves computed by spColumn are modified by the project-specific routine "SR_correctPM_PhiFactor_rO." This routine modifies the PM interaction capacity curves output by spColumn to meet the phi factor transition specified by ACI 318-71. The functionality of this routine is demonstrated in the interaction diagrams presented in Section E7. E7. COMPUTATIONS Plots and spColumn output data for all PM interaction capacity curves are available on 150252-CA-02-CD-01.

PM interaction capacity curves and spColumn output data for the wall sections listed below are shown in this appendix for information purposes.

Only the second page of the three-page spColumn output files is shown because p. 1 contains header information and p. 3 is blank. The full spColumn output files are provided on 150252-CA CD-01.

• 15 in. thick wall segment with #8@12 in. on each face (EF) hoop reinforcement:

• PM Interaction Capacity Curve: Figure E 1

• spColumn Output: Table E 1

• 36 in. thick wall segment with one layer #11@6 in. inside face (IF) and two layers of #11@6 in. outside face (OF) meridional reinforcement:

• PM Interaction Capacity Curve: Figure E2

• spColumn Output: Table E2 150252-CA-02 Appendix E -E-2 -Revision O FP 100985 Page 204 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB ES. REFERENCES PROJECT NO: ____

___ _ DATE:

__ _ BY:

VERIFIER:

__ _ [E-1] Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc., Criteria Document for Evaluation of As-Deformed Containment Enclosure Building at Seabrook Station in Seabrook, NH, 150252-CD-03, Revision 0, Waltham, MA, 27 July 2016. [E-2] Structure Point, spColumn v4.81 Software, 2013. [E-3] Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc, spColumn v4.81 Commercial Grade Software Dedication Plan/Report, Revision 0, Waltham, MA, July 2014. [E-4] Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc., Quality Assurance Manual for Nuclear Facility Work, Revision 7, Waltham, MA, 1 Dec. 2013. 150252-CA-02 Appendix E -E-3 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 205 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures PROJECTN0:

____

CLIENT:

__________________

BY: _______

___ _

SUBJECT:

_E_v_a_l_ua_t_io_n_a_n_d_D_e_s_i_g_n_C_o_n_f_irm_a_ti_o_n_o_f_A_s_-D_e_fo_r_m_e_d_C_E_B

______

___ _ ES. TABLES Table E1 -spColumn Output for 15 in. Thick Wall Segment with #8@12EF Hoop Reinforcement Line spColumn Text Output 5 3 STRUCTUREPOINT

-spColumn v4. 81 ('.IM) 54 Licensed to: Sirrpson Gurrpertz

& Heger Inc. License ID: 63848-1047578-4-1ED95-1A93A 55 h 15 604 704.cti 56 57 ---58 General Info:r:rration:

59 60 File Narre: h 15 604 704.cti 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 Project: Column: Code: 150252.12 Seabrook 15 604 704 ACI 318-08 Run Option: Investigation Run Axis: X-axis 6 8 Material Properties:

69 70 71 72 73 74 f'c = 4 ksi Ee = 3605 ksi Ultimate strain= 0.003 in/in Betal = 0.85 75 Section: 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 Bectangular:

Width= 12 in Gross section area, Ag = 180 in"2 Ix = 3375 in"4 rx = 4.33013 in Xo=Oin 8 4 Beinforcernent:

85 Bar Set: User-def:ined Engineer:

RMXbnes Units: English Slenderness:

Not considered Column Type: Structural fy = 60 ksi Es = 29000 ksi Depth= 15 in Iy = 2160 in"4 r:y = 3.4641 in Yo= 0 in Size Diam (in) Area (in"2) Size Diam (in) Area (in"2) Size Diam (in) Ar6ft (in"2) 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 -------------------------------------# 0 0.00 0.00 # 1 0.00 0.00 # 2 0.00 0.00 # 3 0.00 0.00 # 4 0.50 0.20 # 5 0.63 0.31 # 6 0.75 0.44 # 7 0.88 0.60 # 8 1.00 0.79 # 9 1.13 1.00 # 10 1.27 1.27 # 11 1.41 1.56 # 12 0.00 0.00 # 13 0.00 0.00 # 14 1.69 2.25 # 15 0.00 0.00 # 16 0.00 0.00 # 17 0.00 0.00 # 18 2.26 4.00 # 19 0.00 0.00 97 Confinarent:

Other; #1 ties with #7 bars, #1 with larger bars. 98 phi(a) = 0.7, phi(b) = 0.9, phi(c) = 0.7 99 100 Pattern: Irregular 101 Total steel area: As= 1.58 in"2 at rho= 0.88% (Note: rho< 1.0%) (Output continued on next page) 150252-CA-02 Appendix E -E-4-FP 100985 Page 206 of 526 Page 2 06/06/16 09:14 AM Revision O SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER CLIENT:

SUBJECT:

I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures PROJECT NO: ____

DATE: ______

___ _

BY: _______

__ _

______ VERIFIER:

____ _,_A_,,._,_T,_.:.

S""a"'r-"'a""wi"'*t

___ _ Table E1 -spColumn Output for 15 in. Thick Wall Segment with #8@12EF Hoop Reinforcement Line spCDlum. Text Output 102 MllllimJm clear sp3.Cing = 0. 00 in 103 104 Area inA2 x (in) y (in) Area inA2 x (in) y (in) Area inA2 x (in) y (in) 105 ------------------------------------106 0.79 0.0 -5.0 0.79 0.0 4.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 107 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 108 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 109 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 110 111 Control Points: 112 113 Axial Load P X-Marrent Y--Marent NA depth Dt depth eps_t Phi 114 Bending about kip k-ft k-ft in in 115 -----------

---

---

116 X @ Max carpression 491.0 2.61 -0.00 37.06 11.50 -0.00207 0.700 117 @ Allowable

=np. 343.7 65.67 0.00 12.68 11. 50 -0 . 00028 0.700 118 @ fs = 0.0 310.5 73.82 0.00 11.50 11.50 0.00000 0.700 119 @ fs = 0.5*fy 222.3 85.45 -0.00 8.55 11.50 0.00103 0.700 120 @ Balanced point 160.6 86.40 0.00 6.81 11.50 0.00207 0.700 121 @ Tension control 115.5 87.61 -0.00 4.31 11.50 0.00500 0.900 122 @ Pure bending -0.0 40.44 -0.00 1.94 11.50 0.01479 0.900 123 @ Max tension -85.3 -3.55 0.00 0.00 11.50 9.99999 0.900 124 125 -X @ Max carpression 491.0 2.61 -0.00 40.28 12.50 -0.00207 0. 700 126 @ Allowable

=np. 343.7 -63.14 0.00 12.82 12.50 -0.00007 0. 700 127 @ fs = 0.0 334.7 -65. 75 0.00 12.50 12.50 0.00000 0. 700 128 @ fs = 0.5*fy 237.2 -83.03 0.00 9.29 12.50 0.00103 0. 700 129 @ Balanced point 169.9 -86.84 0.00 7.40 12.50 0.00207 0. 700 130 @ Tension control 116.9 -89.34 0.00 4.69 12.50 0.00500 0.900 131 @ Pure bending -0.0 -47 .24 0.00 2.34 12.50 0.01300 0.900 132 @ Max tension -85.3 -3.55 0.00 0.00 12.50 9.99999 0.900 133 134 135 *** End of output *** 136 150252-CA-02 Appendix E -E-5 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 207 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures PROJECTN0:

___

CLIENT:

__________________

___ _

SUBJECT:

______ VERIFIER:

____

__ _ Table E2 -spColumn Output for 36 in. Thick Wall Segment with 1#11@6" IF and 2#11@6" OF Meridional Reinforcement Line spColumn Text Output 5 3 STRIJCTUREKJINT

-spColumn v4. 81 ('IM) 54 Licensed to: S:inpson Gurrpertz

& Heger Inc. License ID: 63848-1047578-4-1ED95-1A93A 55 m 36 616 709.cti 56 57 5 8 General Infonration:

59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 File Name: m 36 616 709.cti ---Project: 150252.12 Seabrook Column: 36 616 709 Code: ACI 318-08 Rl1n cption: Investigation Rl1n Axis: X-axis 6 8 Material Properties:

69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 f'c = 4 ksi Ee = 3605 ksi Ultimate stra.in = 0.003 .in/.in Betal = 0.85 Section: Rectangular:

Width= 12 .in Gross section area, Ag = 432 .inA2 Ix = 46656 .inA4 IX= 10.3923 .in Xo = 0 .in Reinforcarent:

Bar Set: User-defined Engineer:

FM-Dnes Units: English Slenderness:

Not considered Column Type: Structural fy = 60 ksi Es = 29000 ksi Depth = 3 6 .in Iy = 5184 .inA4 ry = 3.4641 .in Yo = 0 .in Size Diam (.in) Area (.inA2) Size Diam (.in) Area (.inA2) Size Diam (.in) Area (.inA2) 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 ------------------------------------# 0 0.00 0.00 # 1 0.00 0.00 # 2 0.00 0.00 # 3 0.00 0.00 # 4 0.50 0.20 # 5 0.63 0.31 # 6 0.75 0.44 # 7 0.88 0.60 # 8 1.00 0.79 # 9 1.13 1.00 # 10 1.27 1.27

1. 11 1.41 1.56 # 12 0.00 0.00 # 13 0.00 0.00 # 14 1.69 2.25 # 15 0.00 0.00 # 16 0.00 0.00 # 17 0.00 0.00 # 18 2.26 4.00 # 19 0.00 0.00 97 Confina!lent:

other; #1 ties with #7 bars, #1 with larger bars. 98 phi(a) = 0.7, phi(b) = 0.9, phi(c) = 0.7 99 10 0 Pattern: Irregular 101 Total steel area: As= 9.36 .inA2 at rho= 2.17% (Output continued on next page) 150252-CA-02 Appendix E -E-6 -FP 100985 Page 208 of 526 Page 2 06/06/16 09:15 AM Revision 0 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER CLIENT:

SUBJECT:

I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures PROJECTN0:

____

___ _

__________________

__ _

______

__ _ Table E2 -spColumn Output for 36 in. Thick Wall Segment with 1#11@6" IF and 2#11@6" OF Meridional Reinforcement Line spColumn Text Output 102 Mirrimun clear sp'ICing = 0.00 in 103 104 Area inA2 x (in) y (in) Area inA2 x (in) y (in) Area inA2 x (in) y (in) 105 ---------------------------------------------------106 1.56 -3.0 -14.3 1.56 3.0 -14.3 1.56 -3.0 -11.5 107 1.56 3.0 -11.5 1.56 -3.0 15.3 1.56 3.0 15.3 108 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 109 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 110 111 Control Points: 112 113 Axial Load P X-Mcxrent Y-Marent NA depth Dt depth ef?S_t Phi 114 Bending about kip k-ft k-ft in in 115 -----------------------------116 X @ M3x caipression 1399.0 107.91 -0.00 107.28 33.29 -0.00207 0.700 117 @ Allowable cx:np. 979.3 591.20 -0.00 30.79 33.29 0.00024 0.700 118 @ fs = 0.0 1055.5 524.76 -0.00 33.29 33.29 0.00000 0.700 119 @ fs = 0.5*fy 782.7 723.51 -0.00 24.76 33.29 0.00103 0.700 120 @ Balanced point 590.6 812.41 -0.00 19.71 33.29 0.00207 0.700 121 @ Tension control 487.2 918.69 -0.00 12.49 33.29 0.00500 0.900 122 @ Pure bending -0.0 449.31 -0.00 5.26 33.29 0.01598 0.900 123 @ M3x tension -505.4 -147 .07 -0.00 0.00 33.29 9.99999 0.900 124 125 -X @ M3x canpression 1399.0 107.91 -0.00 104.06 32.30 -0.00207 0.700 126 @ Allowable cx:np. 979.3 -370.51 0.00 33.87 32.30 -0.00014 0.700 127 @fs=O.O 924.2 -420.96 0.00 32.30 32.30 0.00000 0.700 128 @ fs = 0.5*fy 597.9 -655.56 0.00 24.01 32.30 0.00103 0.700 129 @ Balanced point 353.6 -794.06 0.00 19.11 32.30 0.00207 0.700 130 @ Tension control 200.0 -969.25 0.00 12.11 32.30 0.00500 0.900 131 @ Pure bending 0.0 -790.17 0.00 6.52 32.30 0.01186 0.900 132 @ M3x tension -505.4 -147.07 -0.00 0.00 32.30 9.99999 0.900 133 134 135 *** End of output *** 136 150252-CA-02 Appendix E -E-7 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 209 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineer i ng of S t ruc t ures and B u i l d i ng Enclo s ures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB E10. FIGURES 800 700 a. 600 :52 Q) (..) ..... 500 0 LL co 400 300 200 100 0 -100 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 -PM, Nominal (No Phi Factors) -PM, Phi Factors Adjusted for ACI 318-71 -PM , From spColumn (Modem ACI Phi Factors) PROJECTN0: ___

DATE: _____ __,J=uc.i.lv-=2=0_,__,16,___

__ _ BY: ______

__ _ VERIFIER: -----'-A""".T"'".

=S=ar_,,,aw'""i""'t

__ _ 50 100 150 Bending Moment , k i p-ft Figure E1 -PM Interaction Capacity Curve for 15 in. Thick Wall Section with #8@12EF in Hoop Direction Notes: Compression is positive in this diagram (this does not follow the sign convention generally used in this calculation). Compression capacity is not reduced for accidental eccentricity in this diagram; this i s done during the element evaluation in a separate axial compression check as described in Section 7.1.1 i n the main body of this calculation. 150252-CA-02 Appendix E -E-8 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 210 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structure s and Bui l d i ng Enclosur es CLI ENT: Ne xt Era Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB 2500 c.. 32 Q)-2000 (..) '--0 LL ro 1500 1000 500 0 -500 -1000 -1500 -1000 -500 0 -PM , Nominal (No Phi Factors) -PM , Phi Factors Adjusted for ACI 318-71 -PM , From spColumn (Modern ACI Phi Factors) PROJECT NO: ___ _,1-"'5=02=5=2

___ _ DATE: _____ __,J.,,,u!!Jly'--'2'-"0'-"16"----

-B Y: ______ __,_,_R=.M"'-. .!!.M'-"o'-"ne,,,s'----

VERIFIER:

---

"'A"-

.T'-'-.-"S"'-ar'-"'a.!.!wi,,_

• t __ _ 500 1000 1500 Bend i ng Moment, k i p-ft Figure E2 -PM Interaction Capacity Curve for 36 in. Thick Wall Section with One layer #11@61F and Two Layer #11@60F in Meridional Direction Notes: Compression is positive in this diagram (th i s does not follow the sign convention generally used in this calculation). Compression capac i ty is not reduced for accidental eccentricity in this diagram; this is done during the element-element evaluation in a separate axial compression check as described i n Section 7.1.1 in the main body of this calculation. 150252-CA-02 Appendix E -E-9 -Revision 0 FP 1009B5 Page 211 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB Appendix F PROJECT NO: ----'1'""'50""2""'52=-------

DATE: _____ _,,J=ul_,_y 2..,0,__._16><----

BY: --------'-'R=.M=*=M=on=e=s

__ _ VERIFIER:

___ __,_A"-"'.T'-'--.

S,,,,a,,_,ra,,,.wi,,_.*t

__ _ Input Seismic Accelerations for 3D Analysis F1. REVISION HISTORY Revision O Initial document.

F2. OBJECTIVE OF CALCULATION The objective of this calculation is to evaluate the impact of alkali-silica reaction (ASR) expansion, swelling, shrinkage, and creep on the Containment Enclosure Building (CEB) structural dynamic properties, and determine whether the same input seismic accelerations for the 30 analyses for an assumed structure without ASR expansion, swelling, shrinkage, and creep effects can be used for the actual structure with the effects. F3. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS This study shows that ASR expansion, swelling, shrinkage, and creep have a negligible impact on the CEB structural dynamic properties; therefore, the same input seismic accelerations for the 30 analyses can be used for the CEB structure, either with or without the effects. It is beyond the scope of this work to recompute seismic accelerations for the as-deformed CEB structure.

However, since this study shows that the as-deformed condition of the CEB does not impact the dynamic properties, it is concluded that the original design seismic accelerations computed by United Engineers

& Constructors Inc. (UE) in their calculation SBSAG-4CE

[F-1] may reasonably be used in the seismic analyses in this calculation (see Section F5 for more information).

F4. DESIGN DATA I CRITERIA The finite element mesh and wall section properties of the CEB finite element model described in the main body of the calculation for the (1) undeformed condition, (2) as-deformed condition of the Standard Analysis Case, and (3) as-deformed condition of the Standard-Plus Analysis Case are used as input to this calculation to compute the following CEB structure cross-section properties:

150252-CA-02 Appendix F -F-1 -Revision O FP 100985 Page 212 of 526 I __ SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB

• AREA -Area value

• IYY, IYZ, IZZ-Moments of inertia

• WARP -Warping constant

• TORS -Torsion constant

• CGY, CGZ-Y or Z coordinate center of gravity

• SHCY, SHCZ -Y or Z coordinate shear center

• SCYY, SCYZ, SCZZ -Shear correction factors PROJECT NO: ___ _,1""50""2,,,,52=-----

DATE: _____ __,J._.u,...ly....:2,,__01'-"6'----

BY: ______ R'""."'"M"-"'.

M"'"o"'-n""es"------

VERIFIER:

___ __,_A_,,_.T_,_,_._,.S,.,ar_,._awi=*.._t

__ _ where Y and Z are local cross-section axes pointing toward east and north directions.

Note that this local coordinate system is unique to the computations documented in this appendix.

The following criteria are used to determine if the cross-section properties of the undeformed (structure without the effects) and deformed (due to the effects) are significantly different.

• If fractional difference is less than or equal to 5% then the property value is considered to not significantly have changed. If the fractional difference is more than 5% then check the absolute difference where: . . IA-Bl Fractional Difference=

max(IAI, IBI) Absolute Difference=

IA-Bl

• If the absolute difference is determined to be small by engineering judgment then the property value is considered to not significantly have changed. If the fractional difference is more than 5% and the absolute difference is large then the property value is considered to have significantly changed. F5. ASSUMPTIONS Justified Assumptions

• The input seismic accelerations for the 30 analysis if computed using the dynamic properties calculated in this study, and using boundary condition assumptions accounting for SSI effects, could be somewhat different from the original design accelerations provided by UE; further seismic analysis study could be performed to evaluate this; however, it is beyond the current scope of this work.

• The modulus of elasticity of reinforced concrete is not significantly changed due to ASR expansion, shrinkage, or creep [F-3]. 150252-CA-02 Appendix F -F-2 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 213 of 526 L __ SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB PROJECT NO: ___ _,1""-50,,..2'""'52=------

DATE: _____ __,,_,Ju...,ly'--"2'-"'0-'""16'----

BY: ______ R'"".""'M"-"'.

M"'-"o"'-n""es,,___

__ VERIFIER:

___ __,A'-".-'-'T.'"""S""a,__,,,ra=wi..._*1

__ _

• Cracked section properties do not affect the global seismic response of the CEB. This assumption is justified because the global response of the CEB to seismic motion primarily causes in-plane shear and overturning stresses; both are resisted by the membrane stiffnesses of the CEB wall that are not impacted by cracking.

Unverified Assumptions There are no unverified assumptions.

FG. METHODOLOGY The input seismic accelerations for 30 analysis are a function of structural dynamic properties, structure boundary conditions, and seismic ground motion. The structural dynamic properties are mass, stiffness, and damping. For the purpose of this calculation the structural dynamic properties are considered to not change if the cross-section properties of the CEB have not changed due ASR expansion, swelling, shrinkage, and creep effects. Note that as part of an assumption to this calculation, the modulus of elasticity of reinforced concrete is deemed to have not changed significantly due to ASR expansion, swelling, shrinkage, or creep effects. The cross-section properties of the CEB are computed at multiple elevations for the (1) undeformed condition, (2) as-deformed condition of the Standard Analysis Case, and (3) as-deformed condition of the Standard-Plus Analysis Case. Assumptions associated with these various configurations are described in the main body of the calculation.

The section properties of these three cases are compared, and determination is made whether they are significantly different per the criteria described in Section F4. F7. COMPUTATIONS Eight elevations along the height of the CEB structure as shown in Figure F1 were selected for computing the cross-section properties.

Elevations were selected at sections with major differences in openings and wall thicknesses, and at various heights along the cylinder section of the CEB. Elevations in the dome region were not selected for this study because the finite element mesh in this region is irregular, and it would have required significant additional calculations to interpolate the mesh geometry to a common elevation.

The deformation in the dome section is not more than the cylinder section, and therefore, for the purpose of this study, additional evaluation in this region is not needed. 150252-CA-02 Appendix F -F-3 -Revision O FP 100985 Page 214 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB PROJECT NO: ____

___ _ DATE: _____ _,J=u'-J.-ly-=2"-01=6

__ _ BY: _____

VERIFIER:

___ ____,_A_,,_.T'""'".

=S=ar=awi=*t..__

__ The cross-section properties are computed using ANSYS finite element software [F-2] for the (1) undeformed condition, (2) as-deformed condition of the Standard Analysis Case, and (3) as-deformed condition of the Standard-Plus Analysis Case; the results are summarized in Tables F.1 through F.3, respectively.

The elevations at which cross-section properties are computed are shown in Figure F.1. Plots of the cross-sections including its properties of the undeformed structure are shown in Figures F.2 through F.1 O for select elevations.

ANSYS cannot compute properties of a section with multiple disconnected wall sections; thus, thin wall sections are used at the openings, which are deemed acceptable for comparing properties for the purpose of this study. The fractional difference between the undeformed condition and the as-deformed conditions for each analysis case are computed; the results are summarized in Tables F.4 and F.6. Values highlighted in gray are those having differences higher than 5%. Where the fractional differences are higher than 5%, the absolute differences are computed; the results are summarized in Tables F.5 and F.7. As can be seen from Tables F.4 through F.7, most of the properties have fractional differences of less than 5%, and where the fractional differences are more than 5%, the absolute differences are small and deemed not significant (i.e., the center of gravity and shear center moved less than 0.5 in., which is considered very small for a structure with an inside radius of 79 ft). 150252-CA-02 Appendix F -F-4 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 215 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB F8. REFERENCES PROJECT NO: ___ _,1"""50=2=52=-------

DATE: ------'J"-"u"-'ly....=2"'-01,_,,6,_

__ BY: ______ R'"-".=M"-'.

M=o=n=es"----

VERIFIER:

---

'A-"".T-'-'.-"S""'ar.=!.aw"'-'i-'--t

__ _ [F-1] United Engineers

& Constructors Inc., Enclosure Building 3-0 Structural Analysis/Floor Response Spectra/A.R.S, Cale. Set No. SBSAG-4CE, Dec. 1977. [F-2] ANSYS Release 15.0, ANSYS Inc. [F-3] MPR Associates, Seabrook Station -Implications of Large-Scale Test Program Results on Reinforced Concrete Affected by Alkali-Silica Reaction, MPR-4273 Revision Draft, Apr. 2016. 150252-CA-02 Appendix F -F-5 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 216 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB F9. TABLES PROJECT NO:

DATE: _____

__ _ BY:

__ _ VERIFIER:

__ _ Table F .1 -Cross-Section Properties of the Undeformed CEB EL. Area IVY IYZ IZZ (ft) (x10 3 in.2) (x10 9 in.4) (x10 9 in.4) (x10 9 in.4) 108.8 90.1 86.3 90.1 61.3 90.1 35.4 156.7 12.8 138.9 -1.5 123.9 -15.1 164.1 -30 167.5 EL. CGY (ft) (in.) 108.8 0.0 86.3 0.0 61.3 0.5 35.4 -19.2 12.8 -9.2 -1.5 172.2 -15.1 180.0 -30 174.8 Notes: EL. -Elevation AREA -Area value 41.1 41.1 41.2 70.8 62.1 58.2 77.6 80.1 CGZ (in.) 0.0 0.0 -0.8 34.0 -94.4 -87.3 -93.6 -111.4 IYY, IYZ, IZZ -Moments of inertia WARP -Warping constant TORS -Torsion constant CGY, CGZ -Y or Z coordinate center of gravity SHCY, SHCZ -Y or Z coordinate shear center SCYY, SCYZ, SCZZ -Shear correction factors 150252-CA-02 Appendix F FP 100985 Page 217 of 526 0.0 41.1 0.0 41.1 0.0 41.1 2.6 73.9 -0.2 65.1 1.7 51.7 2.6 68.8 3.3 69.0 SHCY SHCZ (in.) (in.) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 -0.5 -349.6 618.0 -6.8 -659.5 788.0 -424.3 819.8 -447.9 851.1 -598.1 -F-6 -WARP TORS (x10 15 in.6) (x10 9 in.9) 0.0 82.2 0.0 82.2 0.0 82.3 17.7 94.9 8.2 48.1 4.5 37.9 6.2 46.0 7.8 48.8 SCYY SCYZ sczz 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.35 -0.09 0.47 0.24 0.00 0.18 0.20 0.06 0.25 0.19 0.06 0.24 0.26 0.10 0.26 Revision 0 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB PROJECT NO:

DATE:

__ _ BY: _____

VERIFIER:

__ _ Table F .2 -Cross-Section Properties of Deformed CEB for the Standard Analysis Case EL. Area IYY IYZ IZZ (ft) (x10 3 in.2) (x10 9 in.4) (x10 9 in.4) (x10 9 in.4) 108.8 90.0 86.3 90.0 61.3 90.1 35.4 156.7 12.8 138.8 -1.5 123.8 -15.1 164.1 -30 167.5 EL. CGY (ft) (in.) 108.8 -0.1 86.3 -0.1 61.3 0.3 35.4 -19.4 12.8 -9.4 -1.5 172.2 -15.1 179.9 -30 174.7 Notes: EL. -Elevation AREA -Area value 41.1 41.1 41.2 70.8 62.1 58.1 77.5 80.1 CGZ (in.) 0.4 0.4 -0.5 34.4 -94.2 -87.2 -93.4 -111.3 IYY, IYZ, IZZ -Moments of inertia WARP -Warping constant TORS -Torsion constant CGY, CGZ -Y or Z coordinate center of gravity SHCY, SHCZ -Y or Z coordinate shear center SCYY, SCYZ, SCZZ -Shear correction factors 150252-CA-02 Appendix F FP 100985 Page 218 of 526 0.0 41.1 0.0 41.1 -0.1 41.1 2.6 73.9 -0.2 65.0 1.7 51.7 2.6 68.8 3.3 69.0 SHCY SHCZ (in.) (in.) -0.1 0.4 -0.1 0.4 0.1 -0.1 -349.8 618.2 -7.1 -658.8 788.0 -424.0 819.7 -447.7 851.2 -598.0 -F-7 -WARP TORS (x10 15 in.6) (x10 9 in.9) 0.0 82.2 0.0 82.2 0.0 82.3 17.7 94.9 8.2 48.0 4.4 37.9 6.2 46.0 7.8 48.8 SCYY SCYZ sczz 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.35 -0.09 0.47 0.24 0.00 0.18 0.20 0.06 0.25 0.19 0.06 0.24 0.26 0.10 0.26 Revision 0 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB PROJECT NO: ____

___ _ DATE: _____ __,J"""u"""IV...::2=01...,,6'----

BY: _____

VERIFIER:

---

'A-"".T_,_,_._,,S=ar=aw=i..,__t

__ _ Table F.3 -Cross-Section Properties of Deformed CEB for the Standard-Plus Analysis Case EL. Area IVY IYZ IZZ (ft) (x10 3 in.2) (x10 9 in.4) (x10 9 in.4) (x10 9 in.4) 108.8 90.0 86.3 90.0 61.3 90.1 35.4 156.7 12.8 138.8 -1.5 123.9 -15.1 164.1 -30 167.5 EL. CGY (ft) (in.) 108.8 -0.1 86.3 -0.2 61.3 0.3 35.4 -19.4 12.8 -9.4 -1.5 172.1 -15.1 179.9 -30 174.7 Notes: EL. -Elevation AREA -Area value 41.1 41.1 41.2 70.8 62.1 58.1 77.5 80.1 CGZ (in.) 0.3 0.3 -0.5 34.3 -94.3 -87.2

-93.5 -111.3 IYY, IYZ, IZZ -Moments of inertia WARP -Warping constant TORS -Torsion constant CGY, CGZ -Y or Z coordinate center of gravity SHCY, SHCZ -Y or Z coordinate shear center SCYY, SCYZ, SCZZ -Shear correction factors 150252-CA-02 Appendix F FP 100985 Page 219 of 526 0.0 41.1 0.0 41.1 -0.1 41.1 2.6 73.9 -0.2 65.0 1.7 51.7 2.6 68.8 3.3 69.0 SHCY SHCZ (in.) (in.) -0.1 0.3 -0.2 0.3 0.1 -0.2 -349.8 618.2 -7.2 -658.9 787.9 -424.0 819.7 -447.6 851.2 -598.0 -F-8 -WARP TORS (x10 15 in.6) (x10 9 in.9) 0.0 82.2 0.0 82.2 0.0 82.3 17.7 94.9 8.2 48.0 4.4 37.9 6.2 46.0 7.8 48.8 ' SCYY SCYZ sczz 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.35 -0.09 0.47 0.24 0.00 0.18 0.20 0.06 0.25 0.19 0.06 0.24 0.26 0.10 0.26 Revision O SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and B u i l ding Enclosure s CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook S UBJE C T: Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB PROJECT NO: DATE: ---------"'Ju=

l y'--'2=0'-'1""-6

__ _ B Y: ______

__ _ V ERIFIER: ___ ___,_A-"-. T"'"-'.-"'S=ar=awi=*_,_1 __ _ Table F.4-Fractional Differences between Cross-Section Properties of Undeformed and Deformed Standard Model EL. Area (ft) 108.8 0.0% 86.3 0.0% 61.3 0.0% 35.4 0.0% 12.8 0.0% -1.5 0.0% -15.1 0.0% -30 0.0% EL. CGY (ft) 108.8 100.3% 86.3 100.3% 61.3 58.4% 35.4 1.0% 12.8 2.0% -1.5 0.0% -15.1 0.1% -30 0.1% Notes: EL. -Elevation AREA -Area value IYY 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% CGZ 100.2% 100.2% 75.7% 1.1% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% IYY , IYZ , IZZ -Moments of inert i a WARP -Warp i ng constant TORS -Tors i on constant IYZ 99.8% 100.1% 14.0% 0.7% 7.9% 0.4% 0.1% 0.1% SHCY 100.3% 100.3% 147.7% 0.1% 3.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% CGY , CGZ -Y or Z coord i nate center of gravity SHCY , SHCZ -Y or Z coord i nate shear center SCYY , SCYZ , SCZZ -Shear correction factors IZZ 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% SHCZ 100.2% 100.2% 236.3% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 150252-CA-02 Appendix F -F-9 -FP 100985 Page 220 o f 526 WARP TORS 100.0% 0.1% 100.0% 0.1% 40.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% SCYY SCYZ sczz 0.0% 99.8% 0.0% 0.0% 100.1% 0.0% 0.0% 13.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 20.9% 0.1% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% Revision 0 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of S t ructures and Bu i lding En closures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Des ign Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB PROJECT NO:

DATE: _____

BY: ______

__ _ VERIFIER:

___ ___,_A-"-. T-'--'._,,S=ar=awi=

• _,_t __ _ Table F.5 -Absolute Differences between Cross-Section Properties of Undeformed and Deformed Standard Model EL. Area IVY IYZ IZZ (ft) (x10 3 in.2) (x10 9 in.4) (x10 9 in.4) (x10 9 in.4) 108.8 -86.3 -61.3 -35.4 -12.8 --1.5 --15.1 --30 -EL. CGY (ft) (in.) 108.8 -0.1 86.3 -0.1 61.3 -0.2 35.4 -12.8 --1.5 --15.1 --30 -Notes: EL. -Elevation AREA -Area value --------CGZ (in.) 0.4 0.4 0.3 -----IYY , IYZ , I ZZ -Moments of i nertia WARP -Warping constant TORS -Tors ion constant CGY , CGZ -Y or Z coordinate center of gravity SHCY , SHCZ -Y or Z coordinate shear center SCYY , SCYZ , SCZZ -Shear correction factors 150252-CA-02 Appendix F FP 100985 Page 221 of 526 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 ---0.0 -------SHCY SHCZ (in.) (in.) -0.1 0.4 -0.1 0.4 -0.2 0.4 ---0.3 --------F-10 -WARP TORS (x10 15 in.6) (x10 9 in.9) 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -----------SCYY SCYZ sczz -0.0 --0.0 --0.0 -----0.0 ----------Revision 0 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building En c lo su r es CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook SUBJE C T: Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB PROJE C T NO:

DATE: _____ _,,_,Ju""ly'-'2"-"0'--"16,,__

__ _ B Y ______

__ _ VER I F I ER: ___ ___!.A-"-.T"-'-.-"'S=ar_,,_awi,_,,*_,__t __ _ Table F.6 -Fractional Differences between Cross-Section Properties of Undeformed and Deform ed St a n da rd-Plus Model EL. Area (ft) 108.8 0.0% 86.3 0.0% 61.3 0.0% 35.4 0.0% 12.8 0.0% -1.5 0.0% -15.1 0.0% -30 0.0% EL. C G Y (ft) 108.8 100.3% 86.3 100.3% 61.3 62.8% 35.4 1.1% 12.8 2.3% -1.5 0.1% -15.1 0.1% -30 0.1% Notes: EL. -Elevat i on AR E A -Area value IYY 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% CGZ 100.2% 100.2% 55.5% 0.9% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% IYY , IYZ , IZZ -Moments of i nert i a WARP -Warping constant TORS -Torsion constant IYZ 99.4% 100.2% 5.6% 0.2% 1.2% 0.2%

0.2% 0.1% SHCY 100.3% 100.3% 167.4% 0.1% 4.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% CGY , CGZ -Y or Z coordinate center of grav i ty SHCY , SHCZ -Y or Z coordinate shear center SCYY , SCYZ , SCZZ -Shear correction factors IZZ 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% SHCZ 100.2% 100.2% 141.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 150252-CA-02 Appendix F -F-11 -FP 100985 Page 222 of 526 WARP TORS 100.0% 0.1% 100.0% 0.1% 37.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% SCYY SCYZ sczz 0.0% 99.4% 0.0% 0.0% 100.2% 0.0% 0.0% 5.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 10.3% 0.1% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% Revision 0 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Ene r gy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confi rmation of As-Deformed CEB PROJECT NO: ____ 1=5=02=5=2

___ _ DATE: _____ B Y: ______

VERIFIER: ----'--'A,_,_.T"-'. Table F.7 -Absolute Differences between Cross-Section Properties of Undeformed and Deformed Standard-Plus Model EL. Area IYY IYZ IZZ (ft) (x10 3 in.2) (x10 9 in.4) (x10 9 in.4) (x10 9 in.4) 108.8 -86.3 -61.3 -35.4 -12.8 --1.5 --15.1 --30 -EL. CGY (ft) (in.) 108.8 -0.1 86.3 -0.2 61.3 -0.2 35.4 -12.8 --1.5 --15.1 --30 -Notes: EL. -Eleva tion AREA-A r ea value --------CGZ (in.) 0.3 0.3 0.3 -----IYY , IYZ , IZZ -Moments of in ert i a WARP -Warp in g constant TORS -Torsion constant CGY , CGZ -Y or Z coordinate center of gravity SHCY , SHCZ -Y or Z coordinate shear center SCYY , SCYZ , SCZZ -Shear correction factors 150252-CA-02 Appendix F FP 10098 5 Page 223 of 5 26 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -----------SHCY SHCZ (in.) (in.) -0.1 0.3 -0.2 0.3 -0.2 0.3 -----------F-12 -WARP TORS (x10 15 in.6) (x10 9 in.9) 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -----------SCYY SCYZ sczz -0.0 --0.0 --0.0 -----0.0 ----------Revision 0 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: Next E ra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB F10. FIGURES 1 2 3 AZ. 0 to AZ. 90 AZ. 90 to AZ. 1 80 PROJECT NO: ------'-1=50=2=5=-2

___ _ DATE: _____

BY: ______

__ _ VERIFIER: __ _ z AN SYS Rl S.0 4 y AZ. 180 to AZ. 270 AZ. 2 7 0 to AZ. 0 Figure F.1 -Elevations where Cross-Section Properties Are Computed 150252-CA-02 Appendix F -F-13 -Rev i sion 0 FP 100985 Page 224 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB 1 x = Centroid c = ShearCenter

-8 763 1 I x

• I l I --l-----

i I I ! I --92.3 .. J:L ________ i _____ ----

____ j ______ _ 3.2'37 E::..749 PROJECT NO: ___ __,1-"'50=2=5=2

___ _ DATE: _____ __,J"-"u!!Jly'"-"2"'0-"16"-------

BY: ----------'-"R"-'.M-"-. .!!.M'-"'o,_,,ne,,,,s'-----

VERIFIER:

____ ....c.A..,,_.T,_,._,,s,,,,a'-"ra!!.!WIC!.>.*1

__ _ 923. 9(i SECTICTiJ ID 2 DATA

SUMMARY

Section Name = n015dl Area = 164050 Iyy .776E+ll Iyz .256E+10 Izz .688E+ll Warping Constant = .624E+l6 Torsion Constant = .460E+ll Centroid Y = 180.037 Centroid Z = -93.5753 Shear Center Y = 819.787 Shear Center z = -447.898 Shear Corr. YY = .18588 Shear Corr. yz = .05896 Shear Corr. ZZ = .235502 Figure F.2 -Cross-Section Properties (in. based units) of Undeformed CEB at EL= (-)15.1 ft 150252-CA-02 Appendix F -F-14 -Revision O FP 100985 Page 225 of 526 l', SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER ,,..... I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB 1 -iJb7. x = Centroid I I c c = ShearCenter x --------l-----**-1*--*-----

---

*---I ! I *--___ _l __ ---_;;:;: _____ ==::+/-::::::::;:;;::::::::::

-974. 96.:: -487.4.Sl

.000324 4e.7 .482 PROJECT NO: ___ ___,_1=50=2=5=2

___ _ DATE:

BY: ______

__ _ VERIFIER:

__ _ 974. 96: SECTICliJ ID 5 DATA

SUMMARY

Section Name = p035d4 Area = 156713 Iyy .708E+ll Iyz .261E+10 Izz .739E+ll Waiping Constant = .177E+17 Torsion Constant = .949E+ll Centroid Y = -19.2296 Centroid z = 33.9943 Shear Center Y = -349.578 Shear Center Z = 617 .961 Shear Corr. YY = .352965 Shear Corr. yz = -.093887 Shear Corr. ZZ = .465828 Figure F.3 -Cross-Section Properties (in. based units) of Undeformed CEB at EL= 35.4 ft 150252-CA-02 Appendix F -F-15 -Revision O FP 100985 Page 226 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB 1 x = Centroid c = ShearCenter 96.r-----I ----------*-----;---,-',\--!

I I I I I : --------11---------t------ll -. 01111

__ _ I I I I -------1----------1----

i i I -'J6}. 9fi..5 ------___ _! __ ----____ ::::::: __ :::: ____

-962. 961 -481.479 .

PROJECTN0:

___

DATE:

BY: ______

__ _ VERIFIER:

__ _ SECTICN" ID 8 DATA

SUMMARY

Section Name = p108d8 Area = 90053.8 Iyy = .411E+ll Iyz = -7017 .86 Izz = .411E+ll Warping Constant = 9497.03 Torsion Constant = .822E+ll Centroid Y = .406E-03 Centroid Z = -.622E-03 Shear Center Y = .406E-03 Shear Center z = -.620E-03 Shear Corr. YY = .500051 Shear Corr. yz = -.856E-07 Shear Corr. zz = .500051 Figure F.4 -Cross-Section Properties (in. based units) of Undeformed CEB at EL= 108.8 ft 150252-CA-02 Appendix F -F-16 -Revision O FP 100985 Page 227 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB 1 x = Centroid c = ShearCenter

-966. Gr:' SR_ILC_Ol_I_ro, SEABRCDK CEB, 150252 PROJECT NO:

___ _ DATE: _____ __,,J'-"'u!.LIV..=2"'-01,_,6'-----

BY: ______ _,R_,,.=M"-.

M=on_,,,e=s

__ _ VERIFIER:

____ _,_A"-'.T'"'-.

_,,,S,,,ar""awi-'-"-'-*t

__ _ 9.sJ.22 SECTICN ID 2 DATA

SUMMARY

Section Name = n015dl Area = 164056 Iyy .775E+ll Iyz .256E+l0 Izz .688E+ll Warping Constant = .624E+16 Torsion Constant = .460E+ll Centroid Y = 179.908 Centroid Z = -93.4436 Shear Center Y = 819. 743 Shear Center z = -447.691 Shear Corr. YY = .185936 Shear Corr. yz = .058851 Shear Corr. zz = .235512 Figure F.5 -Cross-Section Properties (in. based units) of Deformed CEB from Standard Analysis Case at EL= (-)15.1 ft 150252-CA-02 Appendix F -F-17 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 228 of 526

....,...-------------*---

-SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB 1 x = Centroid c = ShearCenter xi _ __,_, ___ ---f---------*---

4. '4"-'

-976 SR_ILC_Ol_I rO, SEABRCXlK CEB, 150252 PROJECT NO: ___ ____,_1"""50""2""5-'=-2

___ _ DATE: _____ ___,J=uoily_,,2=0_,_,16"------

BY: ______

VERIFIER:

____ _,_A"-'.T"-.

=S=ar=awi=*"--1

__ _ 97 1.J .e7: SECTICN ID 5 DATA SOJvlMARY Section Name = p035d4 Area = 156697 Iyy .708E+ll Iyz .260E+10 Izz . 739E+ll Warping Constant = .177E+l7 Torsion Constant = .949E+ll Centroid Y = -19.4305 Centroid z = 34.3604 Shear Center Y = -349.834 Shear Center z = 618.215 Shear Corr. YY = .35306 Shear Corr. yz = -.093971 Shear Corr. ZZ = .465744 Figure F.6 -Cross-Section Properties (in. based units) of Deformed CEB from Standard Analysis Case at EL = 35.4 ft 150252-CA-02 Appendix F -F-18 -Revision O FP 100985 Page 229 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB 1 x = Centroid a = ShearCenter , ':lQ/Ln\l-------+-----111------+------l

!

32 -4.Sl. :317 SR_ILC_Ol_I_ro, SEABRCOK CEB, 150252 PROJECTN0:

___

DATE: _____

BY:

__ _ VERIFIER:

__ _ SECTICliJ ID 8 DATA SlJM.vlARY Section Name = p108d8 Area = 90033 Iyy = .411E+ll Iyz = -.394E+07 Izz = .411E+ll Warping Constant = .563E+09 Torsion Constant = .822E+ll Centroid Y = -.123875 Centroid z = .355523 Shear Center Y = -.123025 Shear Center z = .355103 Shear Corr. YY = .500097 Shear Corr. yz = -.478E-04 Shear Corr. zz = .500005 Figure F.7 -Cross-Section Properties (in. based units) of Deformed CEB from Standard Analysis Case at EL = 108.8 ft 150252-CA-02 Appendix F -F-19 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 230 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB 1 x = Centroid a = ShearCenter 966

---

1 I --1 . __ I ___ 1------:---1, --------i-*

---L--,,*---

1 x I I I -98.j

• ____ _jlL____---=::=!::::::.:::CI=-=::::::::

__ __J _____ ____j! -96('1.H? -l}7(3. 629 SR_ILC_Ol_I_ro, SEABRCOK CEB, 150252 PROJECT NO:

DATE: _____

BY: ______

__ _ VERIFIER:

=Sa=r=awi=*,,__t

__ _ SECTICliJ ID 2 DATA

SUMMARY

Section Name = n015dl Area = 164057 Iyy .775E+ll Iyz .257E+l0 Izz .688E+ll Warping Constant = .624E+l6 Torsion Constant = .460E+ll Centroid Y = 179 .884 Centroid Z = -93.4701 Shear Center Y = 819.729 Shear Center z = -447.643 Shear Corr. YY = .185938 Shear Corr. yz = .058859 Shear Corr. zz = .235499 Figure F.8 -Cross-Section Properties (in .. based units) of Deformed CEB from Standard-Plus Analysis Case at EL= (-)15.1 ft 150252-CA-02 Appendix F

-F-20 -Revision O FP 100985 Page 231 of 526 l !

SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB 1 x = Centroid a = ShearCenter

[]

i x.

I --!----/--/

_ _j -97 4. 6"' ,c,

__ J PROJECT NO:

___ _ DATE: --------'J=u,,_,ly'--'2=0-'-'16"-----

BY: ______

__ _ VERIFIER:

____ _,_A""-.T'-'-.-"S=ar,_,,,a_,_,_wi,_,_*1

__ _ SECTICN ID 5 DATA

SUMMARY

Section Name = p035d4 Area = 156696 Iyy .708E+ll Iyz .261E+10 Izz .739E+ll Warping Constant = .177E+17 Torsion Constant = .949E+ll Centroid Y = -19.4352 Centroid Z = 34.3038 Shear Center Y = -349.779 Shear Center z = 618.154 Shear Corr. YY = .353034 Shear Corr. yz = -.09391 Shear Corr. ZZ = .465745 366 -lil 9597 4'37 .126 97 4. 2..7: SR_ILC_Ol_I_ro, SEABROOK CEE, 150252 Figure F.9 -Cross-Section Properties (in. based units) of Deformed CEB from Standard-Plus Analysis Case at EL = 35.4 ft 150252-CA-02 Appendix F -F-21 -FP 100985 Page 232 of 526 Revision O SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB 1 x =Centroid c = ShearCenter

______ ,__ _____ __,, -.

4*31.19B SR_ILC_Ol_I_ro, SEABROJK CEB, 150252 PROJECT NO: ___ --1-1=50=2=5=2

___ _ DATE: _____ ___,J,_,,u""'ly_,,2=0_,_,16,__

__ _ BY: ______

__ _ VERIFIER:

__ _ SECTICN ID 8 DATA

SUMMARY

Section Name = pl08d8 Area = 90033 Iyy = .411E+ll Iyz = -.113E+07 Izz = .411E+ll Warping Constant = .532E+09 Torsion Constant = .822E+ll Centroid Y = -.135442 Centroid z = .293127 Shear Center Y = -.13469 Shear Center Z = .292801 Shear Corr. YY = .500092 Shear Corr. yz = -.136E-04 Shear Corr. ZZ = .500009 Figure F.10 -Cross-Section Properties (in. based units) of Deformed CEB from Standard-Plus Analysis Case at EL = 108.8 ft 150252-CA-02 Appendix F -F-22 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 233 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB Appendix G PROJECT N0:, ___

DATE.: ______

BY:. ______

__ _ VERIFIER:.

____ ,,__,A'--'.T,,_,.

S""a,,_,ra"-"w""it

__ _ Evaluation Results for Load Combinations for Original Design Analysis Case without Deformed Condition Demands G1. REVISION HISTORY Revision 0: Initial document.

G2. OVERVIEW This appendix contains evaluation results for the Original Design Analysis Case. The Original Design Analysis Case is performed with all loads defined in the original SD-66 structural criteria document, but does not include any self-straining loads (i.e., Sa and Sw in the load combinations in Table 5 in the main body of this calculation are zero). The contour plots presented in this appendix contain enveloped demand-to-capacity ratios (DCRs) for static and OBE combinations, as those are the combinations that generally control the design of the CEB. The Original Design Analysis Case represents the original design requirements for the structure and are evaluated to demonstrate that the FEA model developed in this calculation gives reasonable evaluation results for the condition without self-straining loads. G3. METHODOLOGY The methodology for structural analysis is documented in Section 6 of the main body of this calculation.

Evaluation methodology is documented in Section 7 of the main body of this calculation.

Self-straining loads (i.e., ASR and concrete swelling) are excluded in this analysis case, and design loads are applied to the as-designed CEB instead of the as-deformed condition of the CEB. 150252-CA-02

-G-1 -Revision O FP 100985 Page 234 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB G4. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS PROJECT N0:. ___

DATE: _____

BY: ______

__ _ VERIFIER:

____

__ _ The evaluation indicates that the CEB meets ACI 318-71 evaluation criteria for the Original Design Analysis Case. Contour plots showing the results of the element-by-element evaluation for OBE and Static combinations are shown in Figures G1 through G14. In these enveloped contour plots, each element is colored based on its maximum OCR for all combinations of the given type (OBE or static). Therefore, the enveloped contour plots may show multiple areas of high OCR, but these areas with elevated demand may actually occur in different load combinations.

The evaluation of the Original Design Analysis Case is summarized in the list below.

• Axial compression in the hoop direction.

Enveloped contour plots of DCRs from the element-by-element evaluation results are shown in Figures G1 and G2 for the OBE and static combinations, respectively.

No capacity exceedances are identified.

• Axial compression in the meridional direction.

Enveloped contour plots of DCRs from the element-by-element evaluation results are shown in Figures G3 and G4 for the OBE and static combinations, respectively.

No capacity exceedances are identified.

• In-plane shear. Enveloped contour plots of DCRs from the element-by-element evaluation results are shown in Figures G5 and G6 for the OBE and static combinations, respectively.

No capacity exceedances are identified in the static combinations.

In the OBE combinations, some minor in-plane shear capacity exceedances are identified at the reentrant corners of the Electrical and Mechanical Penetrations.

These capacity exceedances are minor and localized, and are judged to be acceptable if consideration is given to local distribution of demands within the wall. Additionally, #8@6" diagonal reinforcement is provided at the reentrant corners of the large penetrations, which are not considered in the evaluation but would be effective at resisting these in-plane shear demands. 150252-CA-02

-G-2 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 235 of 526

SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB

• Out-of-plane shear. PROJECT N0: ___

DATE: _____

BY: ______

__ _ VERIFIER:, ____ _,_,A'"'".T'--'.

S=a""-"ra=wi=*t

__ _ Enveloped contour plots of DCRs from the element-by-element evaluation results are shown in Figures G7 through G10 for the OBE and static combinations.

No capacity exceedances are identified in the static combinations.

In the OBE combinations, some minor out-of-plane shear capacity exceedances are identified at the reentrant corners of the Electrical and Mechanical Penetrations.

These capacity exceedances are minor and localized, and are judged to be acceptable if consideration is given to local distribution of demands within the wall. Additionally, #6@6" transverse reinforcement are provided at the edges of the pilasters, which are not considered in the evaluation but would be effective at resisting these out-of-plane shear demands.

• Axial-flexure interaction in the hoop direction.

Enveloped contour plots of DCRs from the element-by-element evaluation results are shown in Figures G11 and G12 for the OBE and static combinations, respectively.

The element-by-element evaluation identifies localized capacity exceedances for flexure (PM) interaction on either side of the West Pipe Chase and near the reentrant corners of the West Pipe Chase. The exceedances are more severe in OBE combinations than static combinations.

Section cut evaluation (Section Cut 19) is performed in the area to the south of the West Pipe Chase where the element evaluation identifies the most-severe capacity exceedances.

The section cut evaluation shows that PM interaction does not exceed capacity (Figure G 15). The location and properties of Section Cut 19 can be seen in Appendix N.

• Axial-flexure interaction in the meridional direction.

Enveloped contour plots of DCRs from the element-by-element evaluation results are shown in Figures G 13 and G 14 for the OBE and static combinations, respectively.

No capacity exceedances are identified in the static combinations.

The element-by-element evaluation of OBE combinations identifies localized capacity exceedances for flexure (PM) interaction in the meridional direction on the pilasters on either side of the Electrical Penetration.

Section cut evaluations (Section Cuts 8 and 11) are performed for the two pilasters.

The section cut evaluations show that PM interaction does not exceed capacity (Figures G16 and G17). The location and properties of Section Cuts 8 and 11 can be seen in Appendix N. 150252-CA-02

-G-3 -Revision O FP 1 00985 Page 236 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER CLIENT:

SUBJECT:

I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures PROJECT N0: ____

DATE: _______

_________________

_ BY: _______

_E_v_a_lu_a_t_io_n_a_n_d_

D--'e-'s_,ig"-'n-'--"C-'o-'-n'-fi--'rm-'-'-"-'a-'-tio.:...

n;_;_;:o-'-f-'--A;..:;s--'

-D::...e.:...fi

-'o-'-rmc_;..:;e_.:;d_C::..=Ec::.B

______ VERIFI ER: _____

GS. FIGURES 200ft-150ft-100ft-50ft-Oft*30ft-AZ0toAZ90 AZ 90 to AZ 180 Oc1g.1nlll Oesigi Analysis Gase Envelope of all CSE O:::nti!ra.tiona 1':> A."'R ot SelHtrainin;I Loads AZ 180 to AZ 270 ratio f or axiAl cmpcession 1Il hxlp direction FILE: SR_ evo _ ENV _ CEE: _ tOO _ rO -axdX:Rl.l . ETAl3LE ANSYS ANSYS 15.o RIS.O PlD!' NJ. 24 AZ 270 to AZ 0 -.3 a .3 .5 .7 .9 l 1.1 1.5 Figure G 1 -OCR for Axial Compression in the Hoop Direction , Original Design Analysis Case, Envelope of All QBE Combinations 50ft-Oft*30ft-AZ0t.oAZ90 AZ 90 to A2. 1 80 Ociginal Oesigl Anslysis C'a!!le Envelope of 411 static o:nbJ.NUons No ASR or Sel.f-Stta..inirg I.oeds A2. 180 to AZ 270 Denerd-to-oapae1ty ratio for axW in t'K>op direction FILE: SR_evD_ENV_S'J'C_too_rO_axdX:Rl.l.ETA13LE ANSYS ANSYS 15.o RIS.O PI.Or NJ. 3 AZ Z10 to AZ 0 Figure G2 -OCR for Axial Compression in the Hoop Direction , Original Design Analysis Case , Envelope of All Static Combinations 150252-CA-02

-G-4 -FP 100985 Page 237 of 526 Revision 0 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER CLIENT:

SUBJECT:

I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures PROJECT N0: ____

DATE: ______

_____________

_____ BY: _______ _E_v_a_l_u_a t_io_n-'-a-'-n-"d....:D::...e c:..s::..;i..,_g'""'n....:C::...o'-'n""fi.;;_1rm;_;_;;ac..:.ti..:.o'""'n....:o'"'"f-'-A-'-'s'--=-D-=e-'-'fo'-'r.:..:mc..:e:..:d::.....:.C-=E=-=B=-------

VERIFIER: _____

ANSYS ANSYS 1 5.o Rl S.O PIDI' NJ. 27 -.3 0 200ft-.3 .5 .7 .9 1 50ft-1 100ft-50ft-Oft--30ft-AZOtoAZ90 AZ 90 to AZ 1 80 Origtne.l Design Analysis Case Envelo pe of all CllE Catbinations No A5R or Self-Stra.ining Loads AZ 180 to AZ 210 AZ 210 to AZ 0 r.emm:t-t.o-capeci ty ratio for axial o::rtpt'ession in rreridional direction FILE: SR_evD_EN\/_Cl3E_too_ro_axc!XR22.ETABLE 1.1 1.5 Figure G3 -OCR for Axial Compression in the Meridional Direction, Original Design Analysis Case, Envelope of All OBE Combinations 200ft-1 5 0ft-100ft-50ft-Oft-30ft-AZOtoAZ90 AZ 90 to AZ 1 80 Original Design Analysis Case Envelope of all sta.tic O:Clhi.natlons

?b ASR oc Self-Straining L::>ads AZ 180 to AZ 210 l 7 ANSYS ANSYS 15.0 AZ 210 to AZ 0 Rl S.O PIDI' NJ. 6 -.3 0 .3 .5 .7 .9 1 1.1 1.5 Denand--to-capacity ratio for axial c:arp:-ession 1n rreridional direction FILE: SR_evD_EN\/_STC_tOO_rO_axcIX:R22

.E T ABLE Figure G4 -OCR for Axial Compression in the Meridional Direction , Original Design Analysis Case , Envelope of All Static Combinations 150252-CA-02

-G-5-Revision 0 FP 10098 5 Page 238 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER CLIENT:

SUBJECT:

I Engineering of S t ructure s and B u i l d i ng Enclosures PROJECT N0: ____ DA T E: ______

__ _ _

________________

__ BY: ________ ___ _ ______ VERIFIER: ____

__ _ 200ft-1 50ft-100ft-50ft-Oft--30ft-AZ0toAZ90 AZ 90 to AZ 1 80 Original Design Analysis Case Envelope of all CllE Carbira.tioos No ASR or Self-Stro.1ning l.Dods Dern'Uld-to-capoci ty rati o for in-plane shear AZ 180 to AZ 2?0 FILE: SR_evD_ENV_CEE_tOO

_rO_VIP_OCR.ETABLE ANSYS ANSYS 15.0 RIS.O PLDI' JIO. 30 AZ 2?0 to AZ 0 -.3 0 .3 .5 .7 .9 1 1.1 1.5 Figure GS -OCR for In-Plane Shear , Origina l Design Analysis Case , Envelope of All OBE Combinat i ons 200ft-150ft-1oott=-50ft-Oft-3 0ft-AZ0toAZ90 AZ 90 to AZ 1 80 Original I:esign Analysis Case Enveloi;e of all static Ccnbinations lb ASR or Self-Strainin; loads Denwd-to-oapsci ty ratio for in-plane shear AZ 180 to AZ 2?0 FILE: SR_evD_ENV_S'I'C_tOO_rO_VIP_OCR

.ETABLE 4 ANSYS ANSYS 15.0 RIS.O PLDI' JIO. 9 AZ 2?0 to AZ 0 -.3 0 .3 .5 .7 .9 1 1.1 1.5 Figure GS -OCR for In-Plane Shear, Original Design Analysis Case , Envelope of All Stat i c Combinations 150252-CA-02 -G-6 -Rev i s i on 0 FP 100985 Page 239 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER CLIENT: S U B J ECT: I Engineering of S t ructures and Build ing Enclosures N extEra E ner g y S e abroo k PROJECTN0:. _____

B Y: _______ __,_, R"-'.M!.!..'-'M=on"'e""s'-----______ VERIFI ER: _____ "" A"--'. T'-'-. -"S"'a-'-'ra""w

-'-'-i t,__ __ _ ANSYS ANSYS 1 5.0 Rl S.O PlDI' NJ. 39 -.3 0 200ft-.3 .5 .7 .9 1 50ft-1 1 00ft-5 0ft--30ft-1'2.0to1'Z90 1'Z90to1'Z l 80 Origina1 Design Analysis Case Em/elope of all CllE Catbinatiaul No ASR o r Self-Stra.lning Loads 1'Zl80tx>1'Z2?0 Demln:!-to-capoci ty ratio f or out-o f-plane sheor (0131 F ILE: SR_ evD _ ENV _ CEE_ tOO _rO _ VOPllDCR. E T ABLE 1'Z 2?0 "'1'Z 0 1.1 1.5 Figure G7 -OCR for Out-of-Plane Shear Acting on the Meridional-Radial Plane , Original Design Analysis Case , Envelope of All OBE Combinations 200ft-1 50ft-100ft-50ft-Oft-30ft-1'2.0to1'2.90 A2 90 to A2. 1 80 Original Design Analys i s Case Em/elope of all static Catbinatioos No ASR o r Self-Straining l.oods 1'Z 1 80 to 1'Z 2?0 D!lran:H:o-eapocity ratio for out-of-plano shear (0131 FILE: SR_evD_ENV

_S'I'C_ tOO _rO_ VOPllDCR .ETABLE 4 ANSYS ANSYS 15.0 R l S.0 PlDI' NJ. 18 1'Z210to1'ZO

-.3 0 .3 .5 .7 .9 1 1.1 1.5 Figure GS -OCR for Out-of-Plane Shear Acting on the Meridional-Radial Plane , Original Design Analysis Case, Envelope of All Static Combinations 150252-CA-02 -G-7 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 240 of 526 S I MPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER CLIENT:

SUBJECT:

I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclo su res PROJECT N0: ____

DA TE: ______

__________________

BY: _______

___ _

VERIFIER:

____

20011-1 5011-10011-5011-011--3011-1'20tol\290 1\2 90 to 1\2 180 Original Design Analysis Case Envelop! of all OOE Ca!binations No ASR or Self-Straini.ng Wads A!.l 80 tx>l\2 2?0 Ceran:l-to-capoci ty ratio for out-of-p1""'

shear (Q23) F ILE: SR_evD_ENV_CEE_tOO_r0_\IOP22DCR.ETABI.E ANSYS ANSYS 1 5.0 R lS.O PI.Or JIXJ. 42 1\2 210 "'1\2 0 -.3 0 .3 .5 .7 .9 1 1.1 1.5 Figure G 9 -OCR for Out-of-Plane Shear Acting on the Hoop-Radial Plane, Original Design Analysis Case , Envelope of All OBE Combinations 20011-15011-1 0011=-5011-011--3011-l\ZOtol\290 1\2 90 "'1\2 1 80 Original Design Analys i s Case Envelq:e of all static CCfrbi.nations No ASR or Self-Stra.inin; I.Dads :l_y Al. 1 80 to 1\2 210 llenerd--to-capoci ty ratio for out-of-plane shear (023) F ILE: SR_ev0_ENV

_STC_ t00 _r0_ VOP22DCR .ETABLE 4 ANSYS ANSYS 15.0 R!S.O PI.Or JIXJ. 2 1 l\22?0to1'20

-.3 0 .3 .5 .7 .9 1 1.1 1.5 Figure G 10 -DCR for Out-of-Plane Shear Acting on the Hoop-Radial Plane , Original Design Analysis Case, Envelope of All Static Combinations 150252-CA-02

-G-8 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 241 of 526 l I I I I SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER C LI E NT: S U BJ E CT: I Engineering of Structures and B uilding Enclosures PROJECT N0: ____ DATE: ______ __________________ BY:. _______ ______ VERIFIER: ____

AZ0toAZ90 AZ 90 to AZ 1 80 Original Design Analysis Case Emoelope of all OOE Carhlna.tions No A5R or Self-Straining loads AZ 1 80 to AZ 270 4 ANSYS l'NSYS 1 5.o Rl S.O PIDI' 1'0. 33 AZ 270 to AZ 0 -.3 0 .3 .5 .7 .9 1 1.1 1.5 Denan::l-to-capacity

rati o for .nW-flexure interaction in h::>op di.r&Ction FILE: SR_ evD _ENV _ CEE_ tOO _rO _ FMll _[X:R. ETABIE Figure G 11 -OCR for Axial-Flexure Interaction in the Hoop D i rection , Original Design Analysis Case, Envelope of All QBE Combinations 200ft-150ft-100ft-50ft-O ft-30ft-J. 7 -7 AZOtoAZ90 AZ 90 to AZ 1 80 Original Design llna.lysis Case Envelope of all static Cooblnations No ASR oc Self-Strainirg loads AZ 180 to A2 270 *I '7. ANSYS i>NSYS 15.o Rl S.O PIDI' 1'0. 12 -.3 0 .3 .5 .7 .9 1 1.1 1.5 A2210toA2.0 D:inerd-to-capaci ty rati o for axial-flexure interaction in lxx>p direction FILE: SR_evD_ENV

_ STC _ tOO_rO _FMll_OCR .ETABlE Figure G12 -OCR for Axial-Flexure Interaction i n the Hoop Direction , Original Design Analysis Case , Envelope of All Static Combinations 150252-CA-02

-G-9 -Rev i s i on 0 FP 100985 Page 242 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER CLIENT:

SUBJECT:

I Engineering of S t ructures and Building En closures N ext E ra En er g y Sea b roo k PROJECT N0: ____ DATE: ______ B Y: _______

VERIFIER: ____ 200ft-15 0 ft-1oott=-5 0 ft-Ott--30ft-AZOtoAZ90 AZ 90 to AZ 1 80 Original Design Analysis Case Envelope of all OOE Coni>inations No A$R or Self-Stra.ini.rg Wads AZ 1 80 to AZ 2?0 ANSYS ANSYS 1 5.o Rl S.O PIDr N'.l. 36 AZ 270 to AZ 0 -.3 0 .3 .5 .7 .9 1 1.1 1.5 Cena.rd-to-capacity rati o for axial-flexure interaction in rreridional direction FILE: SR_evD_ENV_CEE_too_rO_PM22_IX:R.ETABLE Figure G 13 -OCR for Axial-Flexure Interaction in the Meridional Direction , Original Design Analysis Case , Envelope of All OBE Combinations 20011-15 0 11-10011-5011-*30ft-AZ0toAZ90 AZ 90 to AZ 1 80 Original Design Analysis Case Envelop? of all static O:cYbinations lb liSR or Se lf-Strainin;J leads AZ 1 80 to AZ 2?0 ANSYS ANSYS 15.o R l S.O PIDr N'.l. 15 AZ 2?0 to AZ 0 -.3 0 .3 .5 .7 .9 1 1.1 1.5 Oemard-t.o-cap9c1ty

ratio for axial-flexure int.eraction in rreridiona.l direction FILE: SR_eVO_ENV_S'I'C_tOO_rO

_PM22_IX:R.ETABIE Figure G14 -OCR for Axial-Flexure Interaction in the Meridional Direction, Original Design Analysis Case , Envelope of All Static Combinat i ons 150252-CA-02 -G-10 -Re vi s i on O FP 100985 Page 243 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Bu i lding Enclosures PR O JE C T N0: ___ ___,1=5 0=2=5=-2 ___ _ DATE: _____ C LIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook B Y: ______ _,_R=.M=.'-'-M=o=n=es"----

S UBJEC T: Evaluation and Design Confirmat i on of As-Deformed CEB VERIFIER: ____ -.........

a. 32 ro x <t ro x <t 1000 -' PM Evaluation

-Section Cut 19 -ASR Threshold

= 0.0 I I I I I Capacity* 800 -STATIC QBE 600 -0 SSE WIND 0 400 -200 -200 -, -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 Moment (k i p-ft/ft) Figure G15-Axial-Flexure Interaction for Section Cut 19, Original Design Analysis Case 1500 -' 1000 -500 -500 --1000 -, -600 PM Eva l uation -Section Cut 08 -ASR Threshold

= 0.0 I l I I I 0 -400 -200 0 200 Moment (kip-ft/ft)

Capacity STATIC OBE SSE WIND 400 Figure G16 -Axial-Flexure Interaction for Section Cut 8, Original Design Analysis Case 150252-CA-02 -G-11 -FP 1 00985 Page 244 of 5 2 6 '-r 300 '-,-600 Revision 0 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of S t ructures and Building Enclosure s CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB PROJECT N0: ___ ___,_1=50=2=52::__

__ _ DATE: ______

__ _ B Y: ______

V E RIFIER: ____

PM Evaluation

-Section Cut 11 -ASR Threshold

= 0.0 1500 -' 1000 --500 -a. 32 cu x <( 0 --500 --1000 -, -600 I I I I I -400 -200 0 200 400 Moment (kip-ft/ft)

Figure G 17 -Axial-Flexure Interaction for Section Cut 11, Original Design Analysis Case 150252-CA-02

-G-12 -FP 100985 Page 245 of 526 L ,-600 Revision 0 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB PROJECT NO:

DATE: _____ _,J=u"-'-ly-=2-=-01=6 BY:

M=o=n=es VERIFIER:

___ ___,_A_,,_.T"'"-'-.-=S=ar=awi=*_,_1

__ _ Appendix H Documentation of Moment Redistribution H1. REVISION HISTORY H1.1 Revisions O Initial Document H2. OVERVIEW In this appendix, the moment redistribution analyses performed on the CEB are documented.

Moment redistribution is used to redistribute the moment in excess of axial-flexure (PM) interaction capacity to adjacent portions of the CEB. Moment redistribution is performed for the analysis cases and load combinations listed below.

• Static load combination N0_1 for the Standard Analysis Case

• Static load combination N0_1 for the Standard-Plus Analysis Case

• OBE load combination OBE_ 4 with excitation in the 100% West, 40% North, and 40% Vertical Down direction for the Standard-Plus Analysis Case For both the Standard and Standard-Plus Analysis Cases, the static load combination N0_ 1 (as defined in Table 5 of the main body) generally controls PM interaction demands due to the large load factor on ASR demands. The OBE_ 4 combination with 100% excitation in the west direction, 40% excitation in the north direction, and 40% excitation in the vertical down direction generally controls for PM interaction among OBE combinations; however, there are many other OBE load combinations with similar demands due to the large number of OBE load combinations (consisting of different 100-40-40 directional orientations) evaluated.

The moment redistribution uses the approach defined and validated in Appendix L of this calculation.

The moment redistribution procedure utilizes the linear elastic model to simulate the redistribution of moments that would occur when localized flexural plasticity occurs. The goal of the moment redistribution analyses is to reduce flexural demand at each region of exceedance such that it is approximately equivalent to the flexural capacity of the section at the given level of axial demand. An iterative procedure is used to redistribute the moments in the linear elastic model, as 150252-CA-02 Appendix H -H-1 -Revision O FP 100985 Page 246 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB PROJECT NO: ___ _,_,15=0=25=2 DATE: _____ _,J=u,_...ly-=2""-01=6 BY: _____ __,R'-".=M_,_,.

M=o=n=es VERIFIER:

___ ___,_A"""".T"'"-'".-=S=ar=awi=*t,__

__ moments redistributed from one region can potentially impact other regions. In some isolated locations, the demand point is slightly outside of the PM capacity curve after moment redistribution is completed; these occasions are deemed acceptable if the residual exceedance is small. During moment redistributions, the connection between the wall and foundation (which typically is a fully-fixed connection capable of transferring moment, shear, and vertical forces) is modified when redistributing excess moment to a pinned connection capable of transferring shear and vertical forces only. This modification is made to prevent moment redistributions performed at the pilasters to transmit additional bending moments directly to the base of the wall, which is generally also near or beyond its own PM interaction capacity in such cases. Moment redistributions performed at the base of the wall are applied to the nodes at the base of the wall, rather than the elements, due to the nearby edge of the wall. The ductility demand for areas where moment redistribution is performed is evaluated in Appendix 0. This appendix shows that the maximum ductility (ratio of reinforcement strain to yield strain) is 3.5, occurring in Section Cut 22 for the Standard-Plus Analysis Case for static combination N0_ 1. All other section cuts have a maximum ductility of 2.5 or less. H3. SECTION CUTS FOR EVALUATION OF PM INTERACTION Section cut evaluations are performed at the locations identified in Appendix N. Section cuts 1, 2, 3, and 4 are long cuts that are located on the base of the CEB wall. These cuts are primarily intended for evaluation of in-plane and out-of-plane shear demands and are subdivided into smaller segments of length equal to about 8 wall thicknesses for evaluation of PM interaction.

Section cut 7 is an 80 ft long cut between the Electrical and Mechanical Penetrations near El. +15 ft; this section cut is also used to evaluate shear demands and is not used to evaluate PM interaction.

Section Cuts 28, 29 and 30 are not evaluated in the Standard Analysis Case, but were added for evaluation of the Standard-Plus Analysis Case because potentially high demands in these areas are indicated by the element-by-element evaluations of the Standard-Plus case. 150252-CA-02 Appendix H -H-2 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 247 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB PROJECT NO:

DATE: _____ _,J=u"-'-ly-=2-"-01=6 BY:

M=o=n=es VERIFIER:

___ ____,_A_,,_.T'"'".

=S=ar=awi=*t"-----

H4. MOMENT REDISTRIBUTION FOR STATIC COMBINATION OF THE STANDARD ANALYSIS CASE Contour plots of OCRs for PM interaction for the hoop and meridional directions for the Static N0_ 1 load combination of the Standard Analysis Case are shown in Figures H1 and H2. Moment redistribution analyses are performed in the regions of exceedance identified in these figures. Other regions of exceedance, as indicated in these figures, are evaluated and shown to meet evaluation criteria using section cuts and do not require moment redistribution.

PM interaction diagrams before and after moment redistribution are provided in Figures H3 through H24 for the section cuts identified in Section H3. These figures show that all PM capacity exceedances are resolved through moment redistribution with the exception of Section Cuts 16 and 17. These cuts have OCR ratios near 1.0, and would be within capacity after a small adjustment to the quantity of moment redistribution applied to the region around the CEVA opening. The impact of such an adjustment is judged to be small, and therefore these PM interaction exceedances are judged to be acceptable.

The impact of the moment redistributions on membrane demands are shown in Figures H25 through H29. Redistribution of bending moments at the base of the wall cause additional hoop and meridional axial compression demands, as well as additional in-plane shear demands. OCRs for hoop compression generally remain below 0.7. The maximum meridional compression demand (evaluated at a section cut equal to 4 wall thicknesses at the north side of the Mechanical Penetration) is 65.4 kip/in, which is significantly smaller than the compressive capacity of ¢Pn = 96.4 kip/in computed in Section 7.5.2 of the calculation main body (OCR = 0.68). The element-by-element analysis indicates an increase to in-plane shear demands for the wall segment between the Electrical and Mechanical Penetrations; however the impact to the total in-plane shear demand for this wall segment (computed using a Section Cut 4) is very small (see Section 7.6.1 for a description of how in-plane shear demands are evaluated at the base of the wall). Out-of-plane shear demands acting on the meridional-radial plane are increased above the Personnel Hatch opening; however the out-of-plane shear capacity in this region is computed with significant conservatism because the transverse ties around the missile shield block are not considered in the element-by-element evaluation.

Out-of-plane shear demands acting on the hoop-radial plane are increased at the base of the wall between AZ 270 and 360 as well as on the pilasters on either side 150252-CA-02 Appendix H -H-3 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 248 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB PROJECT NO: ___ _,_15=0=25=2 DATE:

BY: --------'R...,.,.=M"-"'.

M=o=n=es VERIFIER:

__ _ of the Electrical Penetration; however the out-of-plane shear DCRs remain below 0.9 in these regions based on the conservative element-by-element evaluation.

HS. MOMENT REDISTRIBUTION FOR STATIC COMBINATION OF THE STANDARD-PLUS ANALYSIS CASE Contour plots of DCRs for PM interaction for the hoop and meridional directions for the static load combination N0_ 1 of the Standard-Plus Analysis Case are shown in Figures H30 and H31. Moment redistribution analyses are performed in the regions of exceedance identified in these figures. Other regions of exceedance, as indicated in these figures, are evaluated and shown to meet evaluation criteria using section cuts and do not require moment redistribution.

PM interaction diagrams before and after moment redistribution are provided in Figures H32 through H56 for the section cuts identified in Section H3. These figures show that all PM capacity exceedances are resolved through moment redistribution with the exception of Section Cuts 28, which is evaluated separately in Appendix M. The impact of the moment redistributions on membrane demands are shown in Figures H57 through H61. Redistribution of bending moments at the base of the wall cause additional hoop and meridional axial compression demands, as well as additional in-plane shear demands. DCRs for hoop compression generally remain below 0.7. The maximum meridional compression demand (evaluated at a section cut equal to 4 wall thicknesses at the south side of the Mechanical Penetration) is 70.9 kip/in, which is significantly smaller than the compressive capacity of ¢Pn = 96.4 kip/in computed in Section 7.5.2 of the calculation main body (OCR = 0.74). The element-by-element analysis indicates an increase to in-plane shear demands for the wall segment between the Electrical and Mechanical Penetrations; however the impact to the total in-plane shear demand for this wall segment (computed using Section Cut 4) is very small (see Section 7.6.1 for a description of how in-plane shear demands are evaluated at the base of the wall). Out-of-plane shear demands acting on the meridional-radial plane are increased above the Personnel Hatch opening; however the out-of-plane shear capacity in this region is computed with significant conservatism because the transverse ties around the missile shield block are not considered in the element-by-element evaluation.

Out-of-plane shear demands acting on the hoop-radial plane are increased at the base of the wall between AZ 270 and 360 as well as on the pilasters on either side 150252-CA-02 Appendix H -H-4-Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 249 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB PROJECT NO: -----"15=0=25=2 DATE: ------'J=u

.... ly-=2=01_,_,,6 BY: _____ __,R""' . ....,M_,__,.

M=o=n=es VERIFIER:

___ ___,A_,,_.T_,_,._,,S=ar=awi=*"--t

__ _ of the Electrical and Mechanical Penetrations; however the out-of-plane shear OCRs remain below 1.0 in these regions based on the conservative element-by-element evaluation.

HG. MOMENT REDISTRIBUTION FOR OBE COMBINATION OF THE STANDARD ANALYSIS CASE The static load combination N0_ 1 (as defined in Table 5 of the calculation main body) generally controls the evaluation for PM interaction due to the large load factor assigned to ASR demands in that combination.

Additionally, Sections H4 and H5 show that moment redistribution typically has a small impact on membrane demands. A moment redistribution analysis is performed for a controlling OBE load combination in this section to confirm that the redistribution does not result in a condition that controls over the static combination discussed in Section H5. Contour plots of OCRs for PM interaction for the hoop and meridional directions for the seismic load combination OBE_ 4 of the Standard-Plus Analysis Case are shown in Figures H62 and H63. Moment redistribution analyses are performed in the regions of exceedance identified in these figures. Other regions of exceedance, as indicated in these figures, are evaluated and shown to meet evaluation criteria using section cuts and do not require moment redistribution.

PM interaction diagrams before and after moment redistribution are provided in Figures H64 through H85 for the section cuts identified in Section H3. These figures show that all PM capacity exceedances are resolved through moment redistribution.

The impact of the moment redistributions on membrane demands are shown in Figures H86 through H90. These figures show that the moment redistribution has a minor impact to membrane demands. By observation of OCR contour plots, the evaluation of in-plane shear between AZ 180 and 270 is most impacted by the moment redistribution; however, based on section cut evaluation, the OCR for in-plane shear in this region remains low (0.49) after moment redistribution.

H7. CONCLUSIONS The results presented in this appendix show that the moment redistributions used in this calculation are effective at simulating localized plasticity.

The moment redistributions generally have a small impact on other demands (axial and shear demands).

150252-CA-02 Appendix H -H-5-Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 250 of 526 H8. SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engi n eering of S tr uc t u r es a nd Buildi ng E nc l os ur es CLIE NT: Ne xtE ra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation o f As-Defor med CE B FIGURES Section Cut Evaluation shows this area meets criteria without Moment Redistribution (Cuts 14 & 15) AZ 0 to AZ 90 AZ 90 to AZ 1 80 Standard Analysis case, Static O:xrbination NO 1 Threshold Factor: 1. 2 AZ 180 to AZ 270 PROJECTN0: ___

DATE: ______ BY: ______ VERIFIER: __ _ ANSYS AN SYS 15.0 Rl5.0 PI0l' N:l. 75 AZ 270 to AZ 0 -.3 0 .3 .5 .7 .9 1 1.1 1.5 terrarrl-to-capa c i ty ratio for axial-flexure i nteracti o n in hoop directi o n Moment redistribution performed here (Area near Cuts 16 , 17 , 18 , 19, 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , and 24) FITE: SR_evA_LCB_COl_t12_rO_PMll_DCR

.ETABLE Figure H 1. Contours of DC Rs for PM Interaction in the Hoop Direction Prior to Moment Redistribution , Standard Analysis Case, Static Load Combination N0_1 150252-CA-02 Appendix H -H-6 -FP 100985 Pa ge 251 of 526 Revision 0 ---_j SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I E nginee ri ng o f Str uc t u r es a n d B u il d in g E nc l osures C LIENT: Ne xt Era Energy Seabrook PROJECT NO: ___ ___,_,15=0=25=2 DATE: ______ J"""u""'ly-=2=01=6 BY: ______

S UBJE CT: Evaluation and De s ign Confirmation of As-De formed CEB VER IFIER: ___ __,A_,,_._,_,T._,,S"'"ar'-"'a.!.-"wi

• "-1 __ _ Area is evaluated in App. M Moment redistribution performed here( near Cut 8) AZ0toAZ90 AZ 90 to AZ 1 80 Standard Ana l ysis Gase , Static carbination NO 1 Fa ctor: 1.2 AZ 180 to AZ 210 z ANSYS /lNSYS 15.o Rl S.O PL0r NO. 78 -.3 0 .3 .5 .7 .9 1 1.1 1.5 Section Cut Evaluation shows these areas meet criteria without Moment Redistribution (Cuts 9 & 10) AZ 21 0 to AZ 0 Moment redistribution performed here (near Cut 11) I::ermncH:.o-capacity ratio for axial-flexure i ntera ctio n i n neridional direction redistribution performed here (Base from AZ 270 to 360) F ITE: SR_evA_LCB_COl_t12_rO_PM22_CCR

.ETABLE Figure H2. Contours of DCRs for PM Interaction in the Meridional Direction Prior to Moment Redistribution, Standard Analysis Case , Static Load Combination N0_1 150252-CA-02 Appendix H -H-7 -FP 100985 Page 252 of 526 Revision 0 c: ._g u ()) '-0 rn c: 0 i5 *;:: ()) 2 .!: ()) u 0 u... iii-1 5 00 *;:;: <l'. SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engi n eeri ng o f S tr uctu r es and B u il d i ng E nclosures PROJECT NO: ____ 1.,.5"'-0 2""5""'2 DATE: ______

C LIENT: ______

S UBJE CT:

_____ V ERIFIER: ____ s,,,a,,,_ra,,_,wi"'

• ,_1 __ _ 2000 1 OQ.. Middl e S egme nt s .... ** ** ! ** ** d , *** _.... **.::*.. En S eg m e nt fi ..,. 1000 .... * ** ( 5 00 -1000 1000 -500 0 00 1000 Moment a bout Hoop Axis (kip" h/ft)

• CAPAC IT Y, End Segmen t

• CAPAC! , M i dd l e Segme n t s

• De mJ nd, StJ nd.:i rd A n.:i l ys 1s Case n o r T o Momen t Redis t. 1 5 00 c .Q u 0 ro c .Q -0 ::::! c ()) 0 LL n;-1 00 *x <!'. 2000 Moment abo ut Hoop Axis (kip*ft/f l)

• CAPAC! , End Seemen t

• CAPA IT V, M i dd l e Seeme n t s e De ma n d, St.:mcla rcl A n a l y sis CJse Atte r Momen t ed i s t. Figure H3. Comparison of PM Interaction Diagrams for Wall Segments along Base between AZ 0 and 90 Before (left) and After (right) Moment Redistribution, Standard Analysis Case, Static Load Combination N0_1 150252-CA-02 Appendix H -H-8 -FP 1009B5 Page 253 of 526 Revision 0

.!::'. ....... . 9-c: . Q u ()) 0 ro c: 0 '6 .... ()) 2: . s: 0 u... -ro 1000 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER C LI ENT: S U BJECT: I Enginee r ing o f Structures a n d Build i ng E nc l osures PRO J EC T N 0: ___ DATE: _______ _________________

BY: _______

_E_v_a_lu_a_t_i o_n_a_n_d_D_e_si..,,g_n_C_o'-n_fi_

1rm--'-a""" ti""" on--'o_f _A...c.s_-D_e'--f--'-

o_rm_e""" d'----'C_E_B ______ VER IFI ER: -----'-'A""".

T'-'-. 1 500 1 500 . .. *** * * * * * **** * **** M i ddl e S eg m e nt s **** 1 000 *** ..... *** * * * * *** * **** M i ddl e S eg m e nt s .. .. * .... 1 000 *** .. . .. ..... .. ... . ... .. ... *' . . .. t. . ...... 500 *, ' < 500 . .. .... , ) ':\ .... ) ... , ':\ ****** 0 *** .. ***** . . . . . ... ****** ***** -5 00 **** -1000 . 00 0 500 Mo1 e nt a bout Ho op Axis (kip*" ft/ft)

• CA AC IT Y, M i dd le Seeme n ts *Dem a n d S t anda r d Ana lysis C:ise Pri o r t o Momen t edist. 1000 0 ro c: .Q "'O *;;:: ()) 2 c: QJ 0 u... c;;-1 000 *;;: <l'. ...... ..... , -500 ****** .. 0 ****** -500 ***** -1 000 0 . . .. . .. .. .. ****** 500 Moment a bout H oop Axis (kip" ft/ft)

• CA AC I , M i dd le Seemen t s *Dem a nd S t;mda r d Ana l ys i s Case A lt e r Momen t Redis t. Figure H4. Comparison of PM Interaction Diagrams for Wall Segments along Base between AZ 90 and 180 Before (left) and After (right) Moment Redistribution , Standard Analysis Case, Static Load Combin a tion N0_1 .. 1000 150252-CA-02 Appendix H -H-9 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Pa g e 254 of 526

' 0. :i2 c . g u Ci rn c . Q " *c <Ii . :: <Ii u ... 0 LL rn*l oo *;:;; <! SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Eng i neering o f S tr uctures and Bu il ding E nc l osures PROJECT N0: ____

DATE: ______ CLIENT:

________________

BY: _______

S UBJECT: _E_v--" a-" luc..:a c..: t...:io-"n-'a""n_d

_D_-'-es"-i_..g-'n-'C'-o:..;.

n"'"fi_rm---'-a-'-tio-'-n---'-o-'--

f '-Ac::.s...:-0:...e_f--o_rm_e-'-d:......:C

__ Ec....B'-------

VER IFIER: 2000 Middle Segments .. .

• • • .. -****.:.*** ***=::* ... fi ,. 1000 .... ** ( 500 .. , .. 0 *,\**** '

.............

__ _ ...... -500 ......._,..

• -10 00 *1 000 . 00 0 00 1 000 1 5 00 Moment abou t Hoop A xis (kip*f l/ft)

• CAPAC IT Y, End See m en t

• CAP A ITY, Middle eemen t s

• Dem<ind, S t.:mdJrd An<i lysis C<ise Pri o r T o Momen t ed is t. c QJ 0 u.. 2000 M idd l e Segments ..* :=******=:: .* .. .. . ... fi ,.-;;.. .. ** 1000 **.::.:; ... * ** ( 500 .. ........ 0 * ,,,,,; ... -..-.... .... "' .. '-..... -* *'""' -500 --vr' -1000 -1000 -500 0 500 Moment a bout Hoop Axis (kip*fl/ft)

• CA P AC I TY , End Seg m e nt

• CAPAC I TY , Mi d d l e Se g ment s 1000 e Demand , Standard A na l ys is C a se Prior To Mo m e n t Redi s t Figure H5. Comparison of PM Interaction Diagrams for Wall Segments along Base between AZ 180 and 270 Before (left) and After (right) Moment Redistribution, Standard Analysis Case, Static Load Combination N0_1 150252-CA-02 Appendix H -H-10 -FP 100985 Page 255 of 526 1500 Revision 0

.:= ....... SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER C LI E N T: S UBJE CT: I Engineering of S t ructure s a n d Bui l d i ng E nc l o s ures PROJEC T NO: ____ 1._,,5""0 2::.: 5=2 DATE: ______

______________ BY: ______

_E_v..:..a_;_: lu...:: a;..:;ti-'-o""" n _____ VE RIFIER: ____ _, A-"._,_T""". S=a"'-r a=wi=*,,_1 __ _ 200 0 2000 :2 -..... End a. .9-:::::. :.;;;: \ Segments ****:.::**** **.::.-...... / c: 0 'B Ill .: 0 iii c: 0 '5 *c: Ill c: Ill 0 LL.. ro 1 5 00 -1 00 0 -1000 5 0 0 0 5 00 M omen t abou t H oop A x i s (ki p*ft/ft)

• CAPAC IT Y, E n d Seeme n t s

• C A PAC I TY, M i dd l e Seeme n t Segment 1 000

• De m J n d , S t J n dJ r d A n<1 l ys i s C J se Pri o r To Mome n t Red i s t. c: .Q u Q) 0 -;;; c: .Q -0 *;: Q) .!: Q) u 0 LL.. 1 5 00 "' -1 5 00 *;:;: <( .. ... . ... /'/,..,,. 1 000 ***-==-*** ** ( 5 00 . << ""-., o * ,,,, ... Midd l e -1 000 Segment 1 000 -!>00 0 00 1 000 Mo m ent abo ut H oop A xis (k ip* ft/ft)

• CA P AC IT Y , En d Seeme n t s

• CA P AC IT Y , Midd l e Seeme n t

• Dem J nd, S t JndJ r d A n J l ys 1 s Att e r Mo m e n t Red i s t. Figure HG. Comparison of PM Interaction Diagrams for Wall Segments along Base between AZ 270 and 360 Before (left) and After (right) Moment Redistribution, Standard Analysis Case , Static Load Combination N0_1 150252-CA-02 Appendix H -H-11 -FP 100985 Pa ge 256 of 526 1 0 0 Revision 0 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enc l osures CLIENT: N extEra E nerg y S ea b roo k S U B J ECT: E v a lu a tion an d D es ign Co n fir m a t i on o f A s-D e for me d CEB PROJECT NO: ___ ___,_,15=0=25=2 DATE: _____ ___, J=u"-.l l y--=2=0-=16 BY: ______

VER I F I ER: __ _ 1500 _, PM Evaluation

-Section Cut 08 -ASR Threshold

= 1.2 I I I I I c. 1500 _, PM

-, Section Cu , t 08 -ASR Thres h old '7 1.2 L Cap a c i ty

• S T A T IC 1000 -1000 -2 500 -2 500 -----a. a. tU rtl *x 0 <( -500 --500 -1000.., -1000.., I -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 -600 -400 -200 0 200 M oment (kip-ft/ft) Moment (kip-ft/ft) 15 0 25 2-CA-0 2 Appendix H FP 100985 Page 257 of 526 Figure H7. Comparison of PM Interaction Diagrams for Section 8 Before (left) and After (right) Moment Redistribution , Standard Analysis Case , Static Load Combination N0_1 -H-12 -C a p acit y

• S TA TI C ' 400 600 Re vision O SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures C LI ENT: Ne xt E r a En er gy Seab ro o k S U B J ECT: Evaluat io n and De s ign Co nfi rmation of A s-Deformed CEB PRO J ECT N O: ___ ___,_,15=0=25=2 DAT E: -------'J..,, u,,_,ly'--'2=0-'-"'16 BY: ______

VER IFI E R: ____ _,_A'"'-.T'"'"._,.S=a,_,,ra""'Wl'"'"*t __ _ 1500 _, PM E va lu at i on

• S ec t ion Cut 09 -ASR Thresho l d = 1.2 I I I I I ... 15 00 _, PM

• , Section Cu , t 09

• ASR T hres hol d =;: 1.2 L Cap a c i ty

• STA T IC 1000 -1 000 -E 500 -E 500 -........ ........ a. a. ::it. ::it. ro ro x 0 <( -500 --50 0 --1000 -, r -10 00-. I I I -6 00 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 -600 -400 -200 0 200 Moment (kip-ft/ft) Moment (k i p-ft/ft) 1502 5 2-CA-02 Appendix H F P 1 00985 Pa g e 25 8 of 526 Figure HS. Comparison of PM Interaction Diagrams for Section 9 Before (left) and After (right) Moment Redistribution, Standard Analysis Case, Static Load Combination N0_1 -H-1 3 -Capa cit y

• STATIC 400 600 Revision O 1500 _, 1000 -E 500 ---a. j2 ........ ro *x 0 -<( -500 --1000 -, -600 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineer i ng of Structu r es and Bu i ld i ng Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabroo k

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB PROJECT NO: -----"15"""0""-25><=2 DATE: _____ __,J,_,,u"-'ly_,,2"'-0=16 BY: ______ VERIFIER:

____

__ _ PM Eva luation -Section Cut 10 -ASR T hreshold = 1.2 1500 -* PM Evaluation

-Section Cut 10 -ASR Threshold=

1.2 I I I I I I.. I I I i I -400 Capacity

• STATIC 1000 -E 500 ---a. ..:.:: ro 0--500 -' r -1000 , I I I -200 0 200 400 600 -600 -400 -200 0 200 Moment (kip-ft/ft) Mome n t (kip-ft/ft)

Figure H9. Comparison of PM Interaction Diagrams for Section 10 Before (left) and After (right) Moment Redistribution, Standard Analysis Case, Static Load Combination N0_1 Capacity

• STATIC 400 '-600 150252-CA-02 Appendix H -H-14 -Revision 0 FP 100985 P age 259 of 526 1500 _, 1000 -E 500 --. a. ro x 0 -<I: -500 --1000 -, -6 0 0 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Eng in ee r ing o f Structu r es and B u i ld i ng E nclosures C LI ENT: N ext Era En e rgy Seab rook

SUBJECT:

E val uatio n and De si gn C onfirmati on o f As-D e form ed CE B PROJECT NO:

DATE:

BY: ______

V ER I F I ER: __ _ PM E valuat i on

• Section Cut 11

• ASR Thresho l d = 1.2 1500 _, PM Eva l uation *Section Cut 11

• ASR T hreshold = 1.2 I -400 I I I I '-I I I I C a pac i ty

• STATIC 1000 -500 -a. ;g ro x 0 -<I: -500 ,. -1000 1 I I I -200 0 200 400 600 -600 -400 -200 0 200 M omen t (kip-ft/ft) Mo me n t (kip-ft/ft) Figure H 10. Comparison of PM Interaction Diagrams for Section 11 Before (left) and After (right) Moment Redistribution, Standard Analysis Case, Static Load Combination N0_1 Capacity

• STATIC 400 '-600 150252-CA-02 Appendix H -H-15 -Rev i sion 0 FP 100985 Page 260 of 526 1000 _, 800 -600 -.;!:: --. c. ,:;/, 400 -ro x <( 2 00 -200 -, -30 0 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Eng i n ee r ing o f St r uc tu r es and B u i ld i n g E nc l osu r es C LI ENT: Ne xt E r a E nergy Seab rook

SUBJECT:

Evalua tio n and Design Co n firmat i on of As-D e formed C EB P R O J EC T NO: ___ __,_,1 5=0=2 5=2 D AT E: _____ __, J=u,_.l y_,, 2=0=1 6 BY: ______

V ERIFIE R: ____ ...!..A"'-.T'-"'

.-"'S""a r'-"a.!!wi"-*1 __ _ PM Evaluat ion -Sect i on Cut 14 -ASR T hresh o l d = 1.2

• t J i I 1000 _, PM E v aluat io n -Sect i o n C u t 14 -ASR T hr esho ld = 1.2 -200 ,_ I I I I I Capacity STA TI C BOO -600 -.;!:: --. c. 32 400 -ro ')( <( 200 ,--200 -, I -100 0 100 200 300 -3 00 -2 00 -1 00 0 100 Moment (kip-ft/ft)

Mo m ent (k i p-ft/ft) Figure H 11. Comparison of PM Interaction Diagrams for Section 14 Before (left) and After (right) Moment Redistribution, Standard Analysis Case, Static Load Combination N0_1 C apacity S TAT I C 200 ,_ ("' 300 150252-CA-02 Appendix H -H-16 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Pa g e 26 1 o f 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabroo k

SUBJECT:

Evaluat io n and Des i gn Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB PROJECT NO:

DATE:

BY: ______

VERIFIER:

__ _ 1000 _, PM Evaluation

-Section Cut 15 -ASR Threshold

= 1.2 1000 _, PM Evaluation

-Section Cut 15 -ASR Th reshold = 1.2 j t I I I ,_ ' ' ' I Capacity 800 -STATIC 800 -600 -600 --.. -.. c. c. .::,(. 400 -32 400 -ru rt! *x *x <! 200 -<! 200 0 --200 -, ,--200 -, I -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 -300 -200 -100 0 100 Moment (kip-ft/ft)

Moment (kip-ft/ft) 150252-CA-02 Appendix H FP 100985 Page 262 of 526 Figure H 12. Comparison of PM Interaction Diagrams for Section 15 Before (left) and After (right) Moment Redistribution, Standard Analysis Case, Static Load Combination N0_1 -H-17 -I ,_ Capacity

• STATIC ,.. 200 300 Revision 0 x <( 1000 -' 800 -600 -400 -200 -200 -, -300 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures C LI ENT: N extEra En e r gy Sea b rook PROJECT NO: ___ __,_,15"""0""25=2 DATE: ______

BY: ______ S U BJECT: E valu at i on and D es ign Co n fir mation of A s-D e form e d CE B V ERI F I ER: __ _ PM Evaluation

-Section Cut 16 -ASR Threshold= 1.2 I I I I 1 000 _, PM Evaluat i on -Section Cut 16 -ASR Thresho l d = 1.2 -200 ,_ I I I Ca pa c ity

• ST A TI C 800 -600 -4= .._ a. :.Q 400 -cu 200 ,--200' I I -100 0 100 200 300 -300 -200 -100 0 100 Moment (kip-ft/ft) Moment (k i p-ft/ft) Figure H 13. Comparison of PM Interaction Diagrams for Section 16 Before (left) and After (right) Moment Redistribution , Standard Analysis Case , Static Load Combination N0_1 Ca p acity e ST AT IC 200 ,_ r 300 1 5 0 2 5 2-CA-02 Ap p endix H -H-1 8 -Re vis i o n O FP 100 9 85 Page 263 of 526 1000 _, 800 -600 -.t:! -0. 400 -ro x <( 200 -200 -, -300 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Bu i ld i ng Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook PROJECT NO: ___ __,_,15"-"0"='25""-2 DATE: _____ ___,J"-"u'-'Jly'--'2'-"0-'-"16 BY: ______

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB VERIFIER:

____ _,_A_,,_.T,__,_.-"'S"'-ar'-"a.!!wi,,_

• t __ _ PM Evaluation

-Section Cut 17 -ASR Threshold

= 1.2 I I I I I 1000 -' PM Evaluation

-Section Cut 17 -ASR Threshold

= 1.2 -200 ,_ I I I Capacity

• STATIC 800 -600 -.t:! -0. 32 400 -ro *x <( 200 r -200-. I -100 0 100 200 300 -300 -200 -100 0 100 Moment (kip-ft/ft)

Moment (kip-ft/ft)

Figure H 14. Comparison of PM Interaction Diagrams for Section 17 Before (left) and After (right) Moment Redistribution, Standard Analysis Case, Static Load Combination N0_1 Capacity

• STATIC 200 L r 300 150252-CA-02 Appendix H -H-19 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 264 of 526 ____ ___J 1000 _, 800 --600 --c.. .),/. 400 -x <l: 2 00 -200 -, -300 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structure s and Building En closures CLIENT: Ne xtEra Energy Seabrook S U BJECT: Evaluation and Design Co nfirmation of As-Deformed CEB PM Evaluation

-Section Cut 18 -ASR Threshold

= 1.2 l I I I I ,_ 1000 _, Capacity

• STATIC 800 -600 --.. c.. :.Q 400 -re *x 200 r -2 00; -200 -10 0 0 100 200 300 -300 Moment (kip-ft/ft) PROJECT NO: ------"15=0=25=2 DATE: _____ __,J=u""'ly-=2=0=16 BY: _______

VERIF I ER: __ _ PM Evaluation

-Section Cut 18 -ASR Th re shold = 1.2 I I I t t Capacity

• STATIC I -200 -100 0 100 200 Moment (k i p-ft/ft) Figure H 15. Comparison of PM Interaction Diagrams for Section 18 Before (left) and After (right) Moment Redistribution, Standard Analysis Case , Static Load Combination N0_1 ,_ ; 300 150252-CA-02 Appendix H -H-20 -Revision O FP 100985 Page 265 of 526 1000 _, 800 -600 -.t -c. .::.!. 400 -co *x <( 200 -200 -, -300 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures C LI ENT: Ne xtEr a E nergy Seabr o o k S U BJECT: E valuation and Des i gn C onfirmation of A s-D e formed C E B PM Evalua t i o n -Section Cut 1 9 -ASR Threshol d = 1.2 I I I I I -200 -100 0 100 Moment (kip-ft/ft)

Capacity STA TI C 200 ,_ r 300 1000 _, 800 -E 600 --c. :.Q 400 -co *;: <( 200 -200-. -300 DATE: _____ __,J"""u"-'l y_.2""0-""16 BY: _______ R'"""."'M"-. =M=on,_,,e=s VER IFI ER: ---PM Eval u ati o n -Section Cut 19 -AS R Th re sh ol d = 1.2 I I I f I C apacity

• STAT I C I -200 -100 0 100 200 Moment (kip-ft/ft}

Figure H 16. Comparison of PM Interaction Diagrams for Section 19 Before (left) and After (right) Moment Redistribution , Standard Analysis Case, Static Load Combination N0_1 ,_ r 300 150252-CA-02 Appendix H -H-21 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 266 of 526 it= .._ 0.. :£2 x <( 1000 _, 800 -600 -400 -200 -200 -, SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Enginee ri ng of Structu r es a n d B u i ldin g E nc l osures C LI ENT: Ne xt Era E n er gy S ea b ro o k S U BJECT: E valu at ion and D esi gn C onfir m ation of As-D ef orm e d CE B P M E v alua t i on -S e c ti o n Cut 2 0 -ASR Thresh old = 1 2 l I l I f I Capacity STA TI C '-,-2 .._ 0.. :£2 ro x <( 1000 _, 800 -600 -400 -200 -200.., PRO J EC T N O:

D AT E: -------'J""" u""'ly'"""'2=0-'-"'16 BY: ______

VER I F IER: __ _ PM E v a lu ati o n -Sectio n C u t 20 -AS R T hr esh old = 1.2 I t I f l I I Capacity

• STAT I C I I -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 Mome nt (kip-ft/ft) 200 300 Moment (k ip-ft/f t) Figure H 17. Comparison of PM Interaction Diagrams for Section 20 Befo r e (left) and After (right) Moment Redistribution , Standard Analysis Case, Stati c Load Combination N0_1 ,_ r 400 150252-CA-02 Appendix H -H-22 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 267 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structure s and Bui l ding Enclo s ures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB PROJECTN0: ___

DATE:

BY: ______

VERIFIER: __ _ PM Evaluation

-Section Cut 21 -ASR Threshold=

1.2 PM Evaluation

• Section Cut 21

• ASR Threshold

= l 2 1000 _, ' I 800 -600 -.:t;! -. a. .::,/. 400 -IO ')( <( 2 00 -200 -, -400 -300 -200 150252-CA-02 Appendix H FP 100965 Page 26B of 526 I ' I ' I L 1 000 _, I I ' I Capacity STATIC BOO -600 -.:t;! -. a. :52 400 -IO 200 r -200., I I -100 0 100 200 300 4 00 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 Moment (kip-ft/ft) Moment (kip-ft/ft) Figure H 18. Comparison of PM Interaction Diagrams for Section 21 Before (left) and After (right) Moment Redistribution, Standard Analysis Case, Static Load Combination N0_1 -H-23 -I ,_ Capacity STATIC I r 200 300 400 Revision 0 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I E ngi n ee r ing of Structures and B u i l di ng E nclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB PROJECT NO:

DATE:

BY: ______

VERIFIER: __ _ 1000 _, PM Evaluation

-Section Cut 22 -ASR Threshold

= 1.2 1 000-' PM Evaluat i on -Sect i on Cut 22 -ASR Threshold

= 1.2 J I I I ,_ I I I I Capacity 800 -STATIC 800 -600 -600 -.t: -..... -..... c. c. ::.t. 400 -:Q 400 -co ro x <( 2 00 -200 0 --200 -, ,--200.., I -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 -300 -200 -100 0 100 Moment (kip-ft/ft)

Moment (k i p-ft/ft) 150252-CA-02 Appendix H FP 100985 Page 269 of 526 Figure H 19. Comparison of PM Interaction Diagrams for Section 22 Before (left) and After (right) Moment Redistribution, Standard Analysis Case, Static Load Combination N0_1 -H-24 -I I -Capacity

• STATIC ,.. 200 300 Revision O SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Stru c t u re s and Bu ildi ng E nclo s u r e s CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB PROJECT N0: ___ _,_,15=0=25=

2 DATE: --------'J""u""'ly-=2=0-'-"1 6 BY: ______

VERIFIER:

____ _,_A_,,_.T'-'.-"'S=ar..,,a-'-'wi,,_

• 1 __ _ 1000 _, PM Eva l uation -Section Cut 23 -ASR Threshold

= 1.2 1000 _, PM Evaluation

-Sect i on Cut 23 -ASR T hreshold = 1.2 I I I I I ,_ I I ; I Capacity 800 -STATIC 800 -600 -600 ---a. a. 400 -:.Q 400 -.._ .!E rtl x *x <( 2 00 -<( 200 0 --200 -, ,--200 ... I -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 -300 -200 -100 0 100 Moment (k i p-ft/ft) Momen t (kip-ft/ft) 150252-CA-02 Appendix H FP 100 9 85 Page 270 of 526 Figure H 20. Comparison of PM Interaction Diagrams for Section 23 Before (left) and After (right) Moment Redistribution, Standard Analysis Case, Static Load Combination N0_1 -H-25 -I ,_ Capacity STATIC ,.. 200 300 Revision O 700 -' 600 -500 -400 -.+/-;! .._ Cl. 300 -..:.: re 200 -x <( 100 -100 --200 -, -150 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I E ngi n ee ring o f S tr uctu r es and Buil d in g E nclos u res CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB PROJECT NO:

DATE:

BY: ______

VER IFI ER: ____ _,_A"'".T ,__,,.-=S=ar=a_,,,wi"'-

• 1 __ _ PM Evaluation

-Section Cut 24 -ASR Threshold

= 1.2 PM Evaluation

-Section Cut 24 -ASR Threshold

= 1.2 700 _, ' ' I I I '-I I I I I I_ -100 Capacity STATIC 600 -500 -400 -;;I:! .._ Cl. 300 -ro 200 *x <( 100 -100 -r -200; -so 0 50 100 150 -150 -100 -so 0 50 Moment (kip-ft/ft)

Momen t (kip-ft/ft)

Figure H 21. Co mparison of PM Interaction Diagrams for Section 24 Before (left) and After (right) Moment Redistribution, Standard Analysis Case, Static Load Combination N0_1 Capacity

• STATIC r 100 150 150252-CA-02 Appendix H -H-26 -Revision 0 FP 1009B5 Page 271of526 1000 _, 800 -2 600 --c. 4 00 -co *x <( 2 00 -2 00 -, -300 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I E n gineering of Stru c ture s and Build i ng Enclo s ur es CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB PROJECT NO: ------'-'15=0=2=52 DA TE: _____ __,J'""u""'ly-=2=0-=16 BY:

VERIFIER: __ _ PM Evaluation

-Section Cut 25 -ASR Threshold

= l.2 PM Evaluation

-Section Cut 25

• ASR Th re sho ld = 1.2 I I I I t L 1 000 -' I I I I I -200 Capacity STATIC 800 -600 -.t: --c. 32 400 -""iii 200 r -200..., I -100 0 100 200 300 -300 -200 -10 0 0 100 Moment (kip-f t/ft) Moment (k i p-ft/ft) Figure H22. Comparison of PM Interaction Diagrams for Section 25 Before (left) and After (right) Moment Redistribution, Standard Analysis Case, Static Load Combination N0_1 Capacity e STATIC 200 ,_ r 300 150252-CA-02 Appendix H -H-27 -Revision O FP 100985 Page 272 of 526

£ ....... a. .J,L x <( 1400 _, 1200 -1000 -800 -600 -400 -200 -200 -400 -, SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structure s and B u i ld i ng Enclosures CLIENT: N extEra Ene rgy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

E v a lu atio n a nd D esign Co nfirm a ti on of As-D efor m ed CEB Pt"l Evalu q t i on -SE1ction Cu , t 26 -Thresrold

= 1 1 2 ,_ 1 400 _, Capac ity 19 ST A TIC 1 200 -1 000 -800 -.;t= ....... a. 600 -cu 400 x <( 200 -200 -r -4 00.., PROJECT NO:

DATE:

BY: ______

VER I F I ER: __ _ PM Eva l uation -Sect i on Cut 26 -ASR Th r eshold = 1.2 t I I I I I Capac i ty

• STATIC I -800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800 -800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 Moment (kip-ft/ft) Moment (k i p-ft/ft) Figure H23. Compari s on of PM Interaction Diagrams for Section 26 Befo r e (left) and After (right) Moment Red i stribution , Standard Analy s is Case , Static L oad Comb i nation N0_1 *-r 800 1 5 0 252-CA-02 Ap pendix H -H-28 -Re vision 0 FP 100985 Page 273 of 526 600 -500 -400 -E 300 -.._ c. 200 -It) *x 100 -<( 0--100 --200 -, -80 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Bu il ding E nclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB PROJECT NO: ___ __,_,15=0=25=2 DATE: _____ ___,J'""u"-'

ly_.2'-"0-'-"'16 BY: _______

VER I FIER: ____ _,_A"-.T,_,_."""S=a r=a=wi"-1

__ _ PM Evaluation

-Section Cut 27 -ASR Threshold=

1.2 I I I I I I I 600 J PM Evaluation

-Section Cut 27 -ASR Threshold

= 1.2 -60 L I I I I I I 20 0 20 M o ment (k ip-ft/ft) 40 Capacity STATIC 60 E .._ c. x <( ,-80 500 -400 300 200 -100 100 --200 -, 60 20 0 20 Mome n t (kip-ft/ft) Figure H24. Comparison of PM Interaction Diagrams for Section 27 Before (left) and After (right) Moment Redistribution, Standard Analysis Case, Static Load Combination N0_1 Capacity

• STATIC 40 60 L r 80 150252-CA-02 Appendix H -H-29 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 274 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I E ng in ee ring o f Str uc t u r es and Bu ild ing E n cl os ur e s PRO J EC T NO: ____ DATE: ______ C LI ENT: __________

_______ B Y: _______

S U B J ECT: A_s-_D_e_f_o_rm_e_d_C_E_B ______ VER I F I ER: ANSYS /lNSYS 15.o R l 5.0 PIDT l'D. 66 -.3 0 .3 .5 .7 .9 1 1.1 1.5 7 L ANSYS /lNSYS 15.o RI S.O PI.Dr NJ. 45 0 0 .3 .5 .7 .9 1 1.1 1.5 AZ 90 to AZ 180 AZ 180 to AZ 270 AZ 270 to AZ 0 AZ0toAZ90 AZ 90 to AZ 180 AZ 180 to AZ 210 AZ 210 to AZ 0 St.ardud Anal ysis Case , Static a:..bin>ticn NO 1 ni..mold Factor: 1.2 St:atdard Anal.yaia Case w/ l'obre nt Redistr ibuUon , Static Ccnbination NO 1 lb) niesl'old ractor: 1.2 °"1Drd-to-capocity ratio for axial c:mpceoaion in hoop direct.Ion Ocimn:Ho-<:apoci ty ratio for .. ,1111 oarpresaion in hoop direction F ILE: SR_evA_LCB

_COl_tlZ_rO_axcOCRll

.ETABLE FILE: SR_e11AA_LCB_COZ

_tlZ_rO_axcCCRll

.ETABLE 150 252-CA-02 Appendix H FP 100 9 85 Pa g e 275 o f 52 6 Figure H25. Comparison of DCRs for Axial Compression in the Hoop Direction Befo r e (left) and After (right) Moment Redi s tribution , Standard Analysis Case, Static Load Combination N0_1 -H-30 -R evision O SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering o f S t ructu r es a nd B u i l d i n g E nclosu r es PRO JE CT N O: ____ 1'-"5=0=25=2 DA T E: ______

C LI EN T: _________________

S U BJECT: _E_v_a_l u_a_t_io_n_a_n_d_D_es_i_g_n_C_o_n_fi_1rm_a_tio_n_o_f _A_s_-D_e_f_o_rm_e_d_C_E_B ______ VER IFI ER: __ _ J j A ANSYS 1INSYS 15.o Rl S.O PIDI' I'D. 69 -.3 0 .3 .5 .7 .9 1 1.1 1.5 ANSYS ANSYS 15.0 RlS.O PI.01' 1'0. 48 0 0 .3 .5 .7 .9 1 1.1 1.5 AZ0toAZ90 AZ 90 to AZ 180 AZ 180 to AZ 210 AZ 90 to AZ 180 AZ 180 to AZ 210 AZ 210 to AZ 0 Stardard hl&lyaia Case, Stat.i.c Carb1nation NO 1 Thteahol.d roc:tor: 1.2 D!croncH:o-eap>elty ratio for .oxial. carpttsS!on in =ldlonol direction FILE: SR_evA_LCB_COl_tl2_rO_axcOCR22.ETABLE Stan:la.rd J\nalysls Case w/ M: mmt Fediatribution, Sta tic C'.arbination NO 1 (b)

Fact.or: 1.2 Demurl-to-e"fl"Clty ro.tlo f.or .oxlo.l C<tlJlr&salon 1n rldlondl direction FILE: SR_evAR_LCB_C02_tl2_rO_axcOCR22 .ETABLE Figure H26. Comparison of DCRs for Axial Compression in the Meridional Direction Before (left) and After (right) Moment Redistribution, Standard Analysis Case, Static Load Combination N0_1 150252-CA-02 Appendix H -H-31 -F P 100985 P age 276 of 526 Revision 0 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I E n gineering of Str uc t u r es and Building Enclo s ure s PROJECT NO: -------'1=5=02=5=2 D A TE: ______

C LIEN T: _________________ B Y: _______ SU BJEC T: _A_s_-D_e_f_o_rm_e_d_C_E_B ______ VERIFI E R: -------'-'A"-'.T"-. -"'S""a'""ra'-"wi"-'

• 1 __ _ AZ0toAZ90 AZ 90 to AZ 180 Standard Analysis Case, Static O::nbi.na.tion H O l nttea!-old Facto r: 1.2 Dormn:!-t:o-capoctt y rauo for in-pl4m *he<u: AZ 180 to AZ 210 F IIE: SR_evA_LCB_CO l_t12_rO_VIP

_D:R.ETABLE 150252-CA-02 Appendix H FP 1 00985 P ag e 277 o f 526 ANSYS PNSYS 15.o Rl 5.0 PIDl' JIO. 72 CJ ----CJ ---.3 0 .3 .5 .7 .9 1 1.1 1.5 ANSYS ANSYS 15.o R l 5.0 PIOl' 1'0. 51 CJ ----CJ --0 0 .3 .5 .7 .9 1 1.1 1.5 AZ0toAZ90 AZ 90 to AZ 180 AZ 180 to AZ 210 AZ 210 to AZ 0 Sta.nda.rd An.s l y.ta Cnse w/ M:m:!n t fecila tr i.bu t ion , Static C.arb.ination t i) l lb) factor: 1.2 D<tt<IJ"d-to-cafeeity ratio for !n1'1Ano ohoar F ILE: SR_evAR_LCl3_C02

_tl2_rO_VIP_D:R

.ETABIE Figure H27. Comparison of DCRs for In-Plane Shear Before (left) and After (right) Moment Redistribution , Standard Analysis Case , Static Load Combination N0_1 -H-32 -Revision O SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building E nclosures P R O J ECT NO: -------'1=5=02=5=2 DATE: ______ C LI E N T: .... _________________ B Y: _______

S UBJ ECT: _E_v_a_lu_a'-'t-" io_n--'a_n_d __ De_si...,g_n--'C'-o'-n_fi __ 1rm'-'-" a-'-ti-"--o __ n """" o-'--f-'--A'"" s-"-D:;_e'-f-'-o_rm-'---"--ed:;__c C"""" E::..: B:...._ _____ VER I FIER: -----'-'A"-'. T'"'". _,, S""a'""ra,_,_wi,,,*1 __ _ 7 .., J A ANSYS ANSYS 15.o R1 5.0 PIDr I'D. 81 -.3 0 .3 .5 .7 .9 1 1.1 1.5 7 A ANSYS Pl'JSYS 1s.o Rl S.O PIDr 00. 60 CJ ----CJ --0 0 .3 .5 .7 .9 1 1.1 1.5 AZ0toAZ90 AZ 90 to AZ 180 AZ 180 to AZ 210 AZ 210 to AZ 0 AZ0toAZ90 AZ 90 to AZ 180 AZ 180 to AZ 210 AZ 210 to AZ 0 Standard Malyaia Case, Stat.le Catbin&tion NO I ntt'eah:::lld Factor: 1.2 ty ratio for ou t-of-pl.,,.

oh!>ar (Ql3) F ILE:

Stardord -.!yob Ca8e w/ M:mmt Rod.lstr1buUon, Slot.le Catbin&tion 00 1 (b) n;., * ...,ld factor: 1.2 Dcmm:l-to-<:OfJOClty ratio for o u t-of-plane ohear (Q!3) FILE:

Figure H28. Comparison of DCRs for Out-Of-Plane Shear Acting on Meridional-Radial Plane Before (left) and After (right) Moment Redistribution , Standard Analysis Case, Static Load Combination N0_1 150252-CA-02 Appendix H -H-3 3 -FP 1 0 0985 Pag e 2 78 of 526 Revision O SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I E ng in ee ri n g o f Str uctu r es and Bu i lding E nc l os ur es PRO J EC T NO: ____ 1'-"5'-'<0'='25=2 DA T E: ______

C LI ENT: _________________ BY: _______

S U B J ECT: _E_v_a_l u_a_t_io_n_a_n_d_D __ es_i_g_n_C_o_n_fi_r m_a_t i o_n_o_f_ A s-_D_e_f_o_rm_e_d_C_E_B ______ VER I F I E R: ____ _,,,S""a""ra"'WJ,,..

• t __ _ J I\ ANSYS ANSYS 15.o R l S.O PlDI' N:J. 84 -.3 0 .3 .5 .7 .9 1 1.1 1.5 ANSYS ANSYS 15.o R!S.O PI.DI' NO. 63 CJ ----CJ --0 0 .3 .5 .7 .9 1 1.1 1.5 AZ0toAZ90 AZ 90 to AZ 180 AZ 180 to AZ 210 AZ 210 to AZ 0 AZ0toAZ90 AZ 90 to AZ 180 AZ 180 to AZ 210 AZ 210 to AZ 0 Standard Analysis Case, Static Carbina.tlon NO l Thr esho ld factor: l.2 °"1nni-to-=feC1ty rauo fo r out-of-pbne shear (Q23) F ILE: SR_evA_l.CB_COl_tl2_rO_\IOP22JX:R

.ETABLE Figure H29. 150 252-CA-02 Appendix H FP 100985 Page 279 of 526 Sts.rdard Ana l ysis Case w/ M:mmt Rndia tr i.buti o n, Static Carbination NO l (b) 1hr'eshold Factor: 1. 2 llcrtturl-t.o-<:4f<!City ratio fr>r o ut-<>f"j>1Ano shoar (Q23) FILE: SR_evAR_l.CB_C02_t12_rO

_'vDP2.2JX:R

.ETABLE Compar i son of DCRs for Out-Of-Plane Shear Acting on Hoop-Radial Plane Before (left) and After (right) Moment Redistribution, Standard Analy s i s Case , Static Load Combination N0_1 -H-3 4 -Revision O SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I E ng in ee ri ng o f St r uc t u r es a nd Buildin g E nc l os ur es CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook S U BJEC T: Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB 1 z L PROJECTN 0: ___

DA TE: -------'J"""u"'"ly-=2=01=6 BY: ______

VERIFIER: __ _ ANSYS ANSYS 15.0 Rl S.O PI.Or 00. 747 -.3 0 .3 .5 .7 .9 1 1.1 1.5 Moment "-"----redistribution Section Cut Evaluation shows this area meets criteria without Moment Redistribution (Cuts 14 & 15) This area is evaluated in Section 7.5.6 (Cuts 14 & 15) performed here (Area near Cut 29) l\Z 0 to l\Z 90 l\Z 90 to l\Z 1 8 0 l\Z 1 80 to l\Z 2 70 Standard-Plus Analysis Case, Static Carbination NO 1 n,;esho l d F actor: 1. 2 l\Z 270 to l\Z 0 l'.:an!lnd

-to-capacity ratio for axial-flexure i nteractio n in hoop direction FII.E: SR_evB7_LCB_COl_t12_rO_PMll

_OC'R.ETABLE Moment redistribution performed here (Area near Cuts 16 , 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 , 22, 23, and 24) Figure H 30. Contours of DCRs for PM Interaction in the Hoop Direction Prior to Moment Redistribution, Standard-Plus Analysis Case, Static Load Combination N0_1 150252-CA-02 Appendix H -H-35 -FP 100965 Page 2BO of 526 Revision 0 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engi n eering o f Structures a n d Bu ildin g E nc l osu r es C LI E N T: N extE r a Ener gy S ea b rook S U BJECT: Ev al ua t ion and D e sign Confir m a t i on of A s-D e form ed CEB Area is evaluated in App. M Moment redistribution performed here (near Cut 8) 1 z J AZ0toAZ90 AZ 90 to AZ 1 80 AZ 1 80 to AZ 210 Standard-Plus Analysis case, Static caroination 00 1 nt;;'eshold Factor: 1.2 P R O J EC T NO: ___ __,_,15,_.,0=25=2 DA T E: ______ J""" u"-'ly-=2=01=6 BY: -------"R"""'.M"" . ...!!M,,,,,o""ne=s V E R IFI ER: ___ ___,A_,,,,._,_, T._,,S=ar=a=wi"-t

__ _ ANSYS ANSYS 15.o Rl 5.0 PLOT NO. 750 -.3 0 .3 .5 .7 .9 1 1.1 1.5 Moment redistr i bution performed at pilasters (near Cuts 9 , 10 , and 11) I:emand-to-capicity ratio for axial-fle><ure inter action 1n neridional direction redistr i but i on performed here (Base from AZ 180 to 270 and 270 to 360) FITE: SR_eV87_LCB_COl_t 1 2_rO_PM22_DCR

.ETABLE Figure H 31. Contours of DC Rs fo r PM Interaction in the Meridional Direction Prior to Moment Redistribution , Standard-Plus Analysis Case, Static Load Combination N0_1 150 252-CA-02 Appendix H -H-36 -FP 100 9 85 Page 281of526 Revision 0 c .g u 6 ro c 0 '6 *c QJ 2 .s QJ 0 u... <ii 1 500 *;;: <( SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Eng i neering of Structure s and Building Enclo s ures PRO J ECT NO: ____ 1""5=0=25=2 DATE:

C LI E N T: _______________ BY: ______ S U B J ECT: _____ V ERI F I ER: ____ _, A'-".c!.T'-".

S""a.,_ra"" wi""*,_1 __ _ 2000 l OQ. Middle Segments ... :: : *****::::.-.. .... .... ***=*** !'?'""". 1000 ***.: ..... ** ** 00 -1 000 1 000 500 0 00 1 000 1 00 M orne nl abo ut H oop /\x i s (k i p*fl/f t)

• CAPA I , nd Seemen t

• CAPAC ITY, M i dd l e Seemen t s c .Q u 0 ro c .Q :2 QJ 2 .s QJ 0 u... ro 1::ioo *;;: <( 2000 Middle Segments . ... =******=*** . .... ***** r-***.:*** !'?'..,,,... 1 000 ** * .:,: ..** ** ** 00 1 000 1 000 500 0 500 1000 M omen t abo ut H oo p /\xis (k i p*fl/f t)

• CAPAC IT Y, End Seemen t

• CAPAC ITY , M i dd l e Segmen t s 1 500

• Dem<ind. S t<ind<ird-Plus An<ilys is Case Pr i o r t o Momen t Red i s t. *De mand, S t<ind;ird-Plus Ana l ys i s CJse A ft er 1 omen t ed is t. Figure H32. Comparison of PM Interaction Diagrams for Wall Segments along Base between AZ 0 and 90 Before (left) and After (right) Moment Redistribution , Standard-Plus Analysis Case, Static Load Combination N0_ 1 150252-CA-02 Appendix H -H-37 -FP 1009B5 P ag e 282 of 526 Revision O c .g u <IJ i:5 ro c 0 i5 *;:: <IJ 2 .s: <IJ u 0 '--;;; 1000 *;:;: <! SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering o f Structures and Building Enclo s ures PROJEC T NO: ____ 1..,,5""02:::5=2 DATE: ______

C LI E N T:

BY: ______

S U BJEC T: _E_v_a_lu_a_ti_o_n

_____ V ERIFIER: ____ _, A"""._,_T ,_,. S=a'"" r a=wi=*t ,__ __ l 00 Middle Segments -1 000 S OD 0 5 00 M ome nl a bo ul H oo p Ax i s (ki p*f t/h)

• CA AC IT V, M i dd l e Seeme n t s

• em a n d, S t<i nd ilrd*Plus A n alys t s C.:ise Pri o r t o Mome n t Rcdis t. 1 000 c . Q u Ci ro c .Q -0 c <IJ 0 '-ro 1000 *;:;: <! ***"" ... ( .. .. .. 1 00 ... . . . . . . . ..... . Middle Segments 1 000 !>00 ....... .... l.. 0 ****** ... ..... ... . . . . ... -500 *************

1000 00 0 500 M omen l aboul H oop Axis (kip* f t/fl)

• CAPAC IT Y, M i dd le Seemen t s *Demond, S t.:i n dord-Plu s An.:i l ys is Cose A tt e r Mome n t Redis t. Figure H33. Comparison of PM Interaction Diagrams for Wall Segments along Base between AZ 90 and 180 Before (left) and After (right) Moment Redistribution , Standard-Plus Analysis Case, Static Load Combination N0_1 1 000 150252-CA-02 Appendix H -H-38 -Revision 0 FP 100985 P a ge 283 of 526

....... .9-:. c: .Q 1J QJ .... i:S Iii c: 0 '6 *;:: QJ .s: QJ u .... 0 u.. "' 1 500 *;;: <( SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Eng i ne e ri n g o f Str uctu r es and Bu i ld i ng E nc lo s ur es PROJ E CT NO: -------'1""5""02.,,5<:2 DATE: ______

C LI ENT:

B Y: ______ S U B J ECT: --=E::..: v-=a c.:: lu::..=a:..:: t i-=.o:..:.

n-=a c...: n.=.d-=D:....:e:..::

s.:..;;ig"-n:._C=-o::..: n.:..: fi.:..:.1r m:..:.=a.::.t i o::..: n..:....::.

of:...: A c.: s=---=D-=ec..: fo:..:.r:..:.

m:..::e-=d....: C::..:E::..:B

=-------VER I F I ER: ____ __, A_,,.__,_T,_,. S,,,,a"-'-ra,,,_,wi'-"*1,___ __ 2000 2000 .:::: ....... 1 500. ... *:.***:: ... ** **::: ** *** ***.::::... End Segment .... ; .... ** 1000 **..::.:-.... I ( ( 00 ... * .. ' . **\\.. o ........ ,....::**** .... *"" *5 00 Middle Segments .9-=-c: u QJ cs i'6 c: .Q QJ ::;? .s: QJ u .. /'/::;:.:::;.:: ;:, * .. ... : nJe gm en t ** ** 00 "#... * ... ) ****** * **< "'\\., 0 ........ , ,... .. .... '" *:* -00 Middle Segments -1000 0 -1 000 '-1 000 500 0 500 1000 1 500 "' 1 00 1000 00 0 00 1000 *;:c < Momen t about Hoop Ax is (kip [L/[l) M oment about H oop Axis (kip*[t/ft)

• CAPA IT V, nd Seement

• CAPA T Y, End Seemen t

• CA AC ITY, i dd le Seemen t s

• CAPA , Midd l e Seemen t s *Demand, S t andard-Plus A n a l ys is Case Prior T o Momen t edist.

• Dem;md, S t and.:ird Plus Ana l ys is Case A ft er Momen t Redis t. Figure H34. Comparison of PM Interaction Diagrams for Wall Segments along Bas e between AZ 180 and 270 Before (left) and After (right) Moment Redistribution , Stand a rd-Plus Analysis Case , Stat i c Load Combination N0_1 1 500 15025 2-CA-02 A ppendix H -H-39 -R evi s ion 0 FP 1 00 9 85 Page 284 of 5 2 6 c: .Q t 0 ro c: .Q :2 <lJ 2 c: <lJ .2 ro -1500 *;;: <l: SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I E n gineering of Stru c t u re s and Building Enclo s ure s PROJECT NO: ____ 1,_,,5""0.,,25=2 DATE: ______ _,,J=ul.._y-=2-"-01=6 C LIENT:

BY: ______

SUBJECT:

_E_v_a_lu_a_ti_o_n VER I FIER: ____ __,A_,,._,_

T ,_,. S,,_,a.,_ra,.,wi"-'*,__1

__ _ 2000 . . . ....... . *** *; ** *** End Segments .. .. .. .. \ //"' ,.. 1000 *** .; ..... ** .( 500

........... .....)5. ......... ...........

\ -500 Midd l e Segment -1000 -1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 M omen t abo ut H oop Ax i s (k i p*r t1ft)

• CAP AC ITY , End S e g m e nt s

• C AP A CITY , Middle Se g ment Demand , S tandard-Plu s A nal ys i s C a s e Prior To Mom e nt R e d i s t c: .g u Ci ro c: .Q -0 *;:: <lJ 2 .s <lJ ::::! 0 '-ro 1 5 00 *;:;: <l: 2000 l oo. * * *** ; ** ****:::.. End Segments ****..... **.:*** \ //-**.,,.*** 1000 ****".::-*** ** ( 500 . . ........_. \\"**s ......... . ........ "" 500 Middle Segment -1000 1000 5 00 0 500 1000 Moment about H oop Ax i s (k i p*f t/ft)

• CA AC ITY, End Seeme n ts

• CA AC ITY , M i dd leSe eme n t e Demand, St.:i nd u rd-lu s A n il l ys i s C<:ise A ft er Momen t Redis t. Figure H35. Comparison of PM Interaction Diagrams for Wall Segments along Base between AZ 270 and 360 Before (left) and After (right) Moment Redistribution, Standard-Plus Analysis Case, Static Load Combination N0_1 1500 150252-CA-02 Appendix H -H-40 -Revision O FP 100985 Page 285 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures C LI ENT: NextEra E nergy S e ab ro o k S U BJECT: Evalua ti on and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed C E B PROJECT NO: ------'-'15=0=25=2 D A TE: ---------'J"""u"'

l y'"-'2'-"0--'-><16 BY: ______

VERIFI ER: __ _ P M E va l uation -S ection C u t 0 8 -ASR Thre s h ol d = 1.2 150 0 _, PM Ev a lu ation -Secti o n Cut 08 -A S R T hres h old = 1.2 1500 _, I I I I I I.. I I I I Capacity

• S T A TI C 1000 -1000 -E 500 -5 0 0 -... a. c.. :S2 ,:;,t. ro Ill x 0 -x 0 -<( <( -500 --500 -1000 -, r -1000 ., I -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 -600 -400 -200 0 200 M oment (kip-ft/ft) Mo me nt (kip-ft/ft) 150252-CA-02 Appendix H F P 100985 Page 286 of 526 Figure H36. Comparison of PM Interaction Diagrams for Section 8 Before (left) and After (right) Moment Redistribution , Standard-Plus Analysis Case , Static Load Combination N0_1 -H-41 -L Capacity STATIC 400 600 Revis i on O 1500 1000 -500 -32 0 --500 --1000 l -600 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Bui l ding E nc lo s ure s CLIENT: N extEra E n e rg y S eabrook PROJECT N0: ___

DATE: _____ ___,J'"""u""ly_.2"'-0=16 BY: ______

SUBJECT:

Ev al uatio n a nd D esign C onfirm a t ion of A s-Defo r m ed CEB VER I F I ER: -----'"-A"""'.T'-'-. =S=ar_,,_a wi_,_,_*,,_t __ _ PM E va l uation -Sec t ion Cut 09 -ASR Threshold

= 1.2 I I I I I 1500 -* PM Evaluation

-Section Cut 09 -ASR Threshold

= 1.2 -400 I.. C a paci ty

• STATIC -200 0 200 400 600 Moment (kip-ft/ft) 1000 -g 500-c. 0 -500 -10 00 -600 I I I I -400 -200 0 200 Moment (kip-ft/ft)

Figure H 37. Comparison of PM Intera c tion Diagrams for Section 9 Before (left) and After (right) Moment Redistribution , Standard-Plus Analysis Case , Static Load Combination N0_1 Ca p acity

• ST A T I C 400 '-600 1 50 252-C A-02 App e ndix H -H-42 -R evi s ion 0 FP 100985 Page 287 of 526 1500 .J 1000 -E' 500 ---a. .:.l .._. ro 0 --500 --1000 ., -600 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Encl osures CLIENT: N extEra E n e rgy S eabrook S U BJECT: E valuat io n a nd D esi g n Co nfirmat i o n of As-D efor m e d CEB PRO J ECT NO:

DA TE: _____ ___, J""u,,,..l y_.2"'0-'-"'16 BY: ______ _,__,,R.""M""". ""'M=o=ne=s VE RI F I ER: __ _ PM E valuation

• Section Cut 10

• ASR Thresho l d = 1.2 I I I I I 1500 *' PM Eval u ation *Section Cut 10

• AS R T hres h o l d = 1.2 -400 I. I I I I I Cap aci ty

• S TA TIC 1000 -E' 500 ---a. .:.l l'O 0 * -500 I -10 00 .. I I -200 0 200 400 600 -600 -400 -200 0 200 Moment (kip-ft/ft) Moment (kip-ft/ft)

Figure H 38. Comparison of PM Interaction Diagrams for Section 10 Before (left) and After (right) Moment Redistribution , Standard-Plus Analysis Case , Sta t ic Load Comb i nation N0_1 Ca paci ty

• ST ATI C 400 *-,. 600 150 25 2-CA-02 App e ndix H -H-43 -Rev i s i o n 0 FP 100985 Page 288 of 526 1500-' 1000 -:E 500 ---Cl.. :.i2 -ro *x 0 -<( -500 --1000 -, -600 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures C LI ENT: Ne xt E ra Ene rgy S ea b rook S U B JE C T: Evaluatio n and Design C on fir mation of A s-Deformed C E B P R O J ECT N 0: ___ ___,_,1 5=0=25=2 D ATE:

BY: _______ R:...!.'""M"-. =M=o,_,_, n e=s VERI F I E R: ____ _,__A"'".T'-'-.-=S=ar=a""'Wl,,,_*

t __ _ PM Eva lu ati o n -Section Cut 11 -ASR Thresho ld = 1.2 1500 -' PM E v al u a t i o n -Secti on Cut 11 -A SR T h r es hol d = 1.2 I t I I I L -400 I I t I ! Capac i ty

• S T ATIC 1000 -:E 500 ---Cl.. -ro x 0 -<( -500 ,. -100 0 , -200 0 200 400 600 -600 -400 -200 0 200 Moment (kip-ft/ft)

Moment (kip-ft/ft)

Figure H39. Comparison of PM Interaction Diagrams for Section 11 Before (left) and After (right) Moment Redistribution, Standard-Plus Analysis Case, Static Load Combination N0_1 Capacity

• STATIC 400 '-,-600 150252-CA-02 Appendix H -H-44 -Revision 0 FP 100985 P a ge 289 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextE ra Energy Seabroo k S U BJECT: Eva luation and Des ign Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB PROJECT NO: ___ ___,_,15=0=25=2 DATE: _____ __, J=u'-"'ly-=2=0=1 6 BY: ______

VERIFIER:

____ _,_A"""'.T"".-"S""ar'""ac.!.!wi,,_

• 1 __ _ 1000 _, PM Evaluation

-Section Cut 14 -ASR Threshold

= 1.2 l I I I 1000 _, PM Evaluation

-Section Cut 14 -ASR Threshold

= 1.2 ,_ ' ' ' Capacity 800 -STATIC 800 -600 -42 600 --. -. c. c. .::,,:. 400 -g 400 -co rtl x ')( <( 200 -<( 200 0 --200 -, r -200-. -30 0 -200 -1 0 0 0 100 200 300 -300 -200 -100 0 100 Moment (kip-ft/ft) Momen t (kip-ft/ft) 150252-CA-02 Appendix H FP 100985 Page 290 of 526 Figure H40. Comparison of PM Interaction Diagrams for Section 14 Before (left) and After (right) Moment Redistribution, Standard-Plus Analysis Case, Static Load Combination N0_1 -H-45 -,_ Capacity

• STATIC ' r 200 300 Revision 0 1000 _, 800 -E' 600 -..._ c. .:,/, 400 -rtl ')( q: 200 -200 -, -300 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Bu il ding Enclosures C LI ENT: N extE r a Ene rgy S e ab ro ok S U B J ECT: E valua t i on and Design C on fi rmation of A s-D e formed C E B PROJECT NO:

D ATE: _____ ___, J=u"-'l y_.2=0=16 B Y: ______

V E R I F I ER: ____ _,_A-"-.T_,_,_._,,S"" a'-" r aC!.!wi,,,,,*t __ _ PM Evalua t i o n -Sect i on Cut 15 -ASR Thresho ld = 1.2 I I ' 1000 _, PM E v aluati o n -Section C u t 15 -AS R Th r esho l d = 1.2 -200 I ' ,_ I I

• I I Capacity STA TI C 800 -E' 600 -..._ c. :.Q 400 -rtl ')( q: 200 ,--200 -, I -100 0 100 200 300 -300 -200 -100 0 100 Moment (kip-ft/ft)

Moment (kip-ft/ft)

Figure H41. Comparison of PM Interaction Diagrams for Section 15 Before (left) and After (right) Moment Redistribution , Standa r d-Plus Analysis Case , Static Load Combination N0_1 Ca p a city S T ATIC 200 I -,.. 300 150252-CA-02 Appendix H -H-46 -Revision 0 FP 100985 P a ge 291 o f 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures C LI E NT: N extE r a Ene r g y Se ab r o o k S U B J ECT: Evaluation and De s ign Con firma tion of A s-D e formed C EB PROJECT NO:

DATE:

BY: _______ R,__,_."" M"-. ,,,,M""o"'ne"""s VER I F I E R: ____ .:...A""'.T""'"._,.S=a r""a""'wi,_,_

• 1 __ _ 1000 _, PM -, Secti o n C L\t 16 -ASR Threshold

o 1.2 '-1000 _, PM Evaluat i on -Sect i on Cut 16 -ASR Thresho l d "' 1.2 I ' . Capa c i t y 800 -STA TI C 800 -600 -600 --...... 0. c. 400 -

.Q 400 -co co ')( <( 200 -200 -* 0 -200 -, r -200; I -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 -300 -200 -100 0 100 Moment (kip-ft/ft) Moment (kip-ft/ft) 1502 5 2-CA-02 Append ix H FP 100985 Page 292 of 526 Figure H42. Comparison of PM Interaction Diagrams for Section 16 Before (left) and After (right) Moment Redistribution , Standard-Plus Analysis Case , Static Load Combination N0_1 -H-4 7 -. '-Ca p acity

• S T A T I C . r 200 300 Revision 0 co x <( 1 000 _, 800 -600 -400 -2 00 -2 00 -, -300 SIMPSON GUMPERT! & HEGER I Eng i neering of Structure s and Building Enclo s ure s CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Defo rmed CEB PM Evaluation

-Section Cut 17 -ASR Threshold

= 1.2 I I I I I ,_ 1 00 0 _, Capacity

• STATIC 800 600 -400 -200 ,--2 00 , -200 -1 00 0 1 00 200 300 -300 Moment (k i p-ft/ft) PROJECT NO:

DATE:

BY: _______

VERIFIER:

__ _ PM Evaluation

-Section Cut 17 -ASR Thresho ld = 1.2 I I I I I Capacity

• STATIC -200 -100 0 100 200 Moment (k i p-ft/ft) Figure H43. Comparison of PM Interaction Diagrams for Section 17 Before (left) and After (right) Moment Redistribution, Standard-Plus Analysis Case, Static Load Combination N0_1 ,_ ; 300 150252-CA-02 Appendix H -H-48 -Revision O FP 100985 Page 293 of 526 1000 _, 800 -600 ---0. :s;: 40 0 -...... x <( 2 00 -200 -, -30 0 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Eng i neering o f Str u ct u re s and Build i ng Enclo s u res C LI ENT: Ne xt E r a En er gy S e ab rook S U BJECT: E valuat io n and Design Con firmati o n of A s-Deforme d CE B P M Evaluat io n -Secti o n Cu t 18 -ASR Threshold

= 1.2 l I I I I ,_ 1 000 _, Capacity

• STA T IC 800 -600 ---0. :s;: 400 -(ii ')( <( 200 ,--200 ... -200 -100 0 100 200 300 -300 Mo me n t (kip-ft/ft) PROJECT N O: ___ ___,1,,,_50,,..2,,,5::2 D A TE: _____ ___, J,,..u"-.l ly_.2'-"'0=16 BY: _______

V ERI F I ER: ____ ..!...,A,,,,_

.T""-. -"'S,,,,ar'-"a.!.!.wi

,,_t __ _ PM E v al u ati o n -Section Cut 18 -AS R T hre sh ol d = 1.2 I I t I I Ca pa c i ty

• S TAT IC -200 -100 0 1 00 200 M oment (k i p-f t/ft) Figure H44. Comparison of PM Interaction Diagrams for Section 18 Before (left) and After (right) Moment Redistribution , Standard-Plus Analysis Case , Static Load Combination N0_1 ,_ ; 300 150252-CA-02 Appendix H -H-49 -Revis i on 0 FP 100 9 85 Page 294 of 526 1000 _, 800 -600 --a. ..:.:: 400 -co x <( 2 00 -200 -, -300 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Enginee ri ng of Structures and B u i ld i ng Enclo s ures C LI ENT: N extEr a E nergy S e abroo k S U B J EC T: E valu at i o n and D e sign Co nfi r mation of A s-D e formed C E B PM Evaluat i on -Section Cut 19 -ASR Threshold

= 1.2 I I I I I '-1000 .J Capacity

• STATIC 800 -600 --a. 32 400 -co *x <( 200 ,--200.., -200 -100 0 100 200 300 -300 Moment (kip-ft/ft)

PROJECT NO: -----'-'15"""0'""'2""'52 D A TE: _____ __,J .... u,,_, l y_.2=0-'-"'16 BY: _______ R'-".=M"-. =M=on:..:.:e=s VER I F I E R: ____ _,_A"".T"""._,.S=a r=a=wi,,,_*t __ _ PM Evaluation

-Section Cut 19 -ASR T hr esho l d = 1.2 I I I I I C ap a city

• S TATIC I * -200 -100 0 100 200 Momen t (k i p-ft/ft) Figure H45. Comparison of PM Interaction Diagrams for Section 19 Before (left) and After (right) Moment Redistribution, Standard-Plus Analysis Case, Static Load Combination N0_1 ,_ r-300 150252-CA-02 Appendix H -H-50 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 295 of 526

E -c. .:.t. co *x 1000 _, 800 -600 -400 -200 -200 -, SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB PM Evaluation

-Section Cut 20 -ASR Threshold

= 1.2 I I I I I I I ,_ 1000 _, Capacity

• STATIC 800 -2 600 --c. 32 400 -co *x 200 r -200; PROJECT NO: DATE: _____ ___,J'""u""ly-=2=0=16 BY: ______

VER I F I ER: __ _ PM Evaluation

-Section Cut 20 -ASR Threshold

= 1.2 I I I I I I Capacity

• STATIC -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 Moment (kip-ft/ft)

Moment (kip-ft/ft)

Figure H46. Comparison of PM Interaction Diagrams for Section 20 Before (left) and After (right) Moment Redistribution, Standard-Plus Analysis Case, Static Load Combination N0_1 ,_ r 400 150252-CA-02 Appendix H -H-51 -Revision O FP 1009B5 Page 296 of 526 1000 _, 800 -E' 600 ---c. j;£ 400 -....... ro *x <( 200 -200 -, -400 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engi n eer i ng of Structures and Buil d i ng Enclosures CLIEN T: N extEra E nergy S eabrook S U BJE C T: E val uation and D esi g n Con firmat ion of A s-D e form ed CE B PROJ EC T NO:

DATE: BY: ______

VER I F I ER: __ _ PM Evaluation

-Section Cut 21 -ASR Threshold

= 1.2 1000 _, PM Evaluation

-Section Cut 21 -ASR Threshold

= 1.2 t I l I I I I I . -300 -200 I I . I . '-Capa c ity ST A TI C 800 -E' 600 ---c. j;£ 400 -ro ')( <( 200 -0 ,--200 "'\ I -100 0 100 200 300 400 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 Moment (kip-ft/ft)

M o men t (k i p-ft/ft) Figure H47. Comparison of PM Interaction Diagrams for Section 21 Before (left) and After (right) Moment Redistribution , Standard-Plus Analys i s Case , Sta t ic Load Combination N0_1 Ca p acity

• S TATI C I 200 300 ,_ r 400 1 5 0 2 52-CA-02 Appendix H -H-52 -Revision 0 FP 1 00 9 85 Page 2 97 of 526 ro *x <( 1000 -' 800 -600 -400 -2 00 -2 00 -, -300 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engi n ee r ing o f S t ructures and Bu il d i n g Enclosu r es CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seab rook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation a n d Des i gn Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB PM Evaluat ion -Section Cut 22 -ASR Threshold

= 1.2 I I I I t -200 -100 0 100 Moment (kip-ft/ft) Capacity e STATIC 200 '-,-300 1000 _, 800 -600 -400 -ro 200 -200 "\ -3 00 PRO JE CT NO: -------'-'15=0=25=2 DATE:

BY: ______

VERIFIER:

____ _,__A""'.T'-'-. =S=ar_,,,awi=*"-1

__ _ PM E v aluation -Sect i on Cut 22 -ASR Thresho ld = 1.2 I I I I I Capacity

• STATIC -200 -100 0 100 200 Mo ment (k i p-ft/ft) Figure H48. Comparison of PM Interaction Diagrams for Section 22 Before (left) and After (right) Moment Redistribution, Standard-Plus Analysis Case, Static Load Combination N0_1 '-,. 300 150252-CA-02 Appendix H -H-53 -Revision O FP 1009B5 Page 298 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures C LI E N T: Ne xt Er a En ergy S e abr ook S UBJ ECT: Evalua t ion and D e sign C onfir m ation of A s-D e for m ed C E B PRO J EC T N O: -----'-'1 5=0=25=2 DATE:

BY: ______ V E R I F I E R: __ _ 1000 _, P M Evalua tion -S ec tio n Cut 2 3 -A SR T hresh o l d = 1.2 1000-' PM E v a lu a t i on -Sec t i on C u t 23 -A SR T hre sh o l d = 1.2 I t I I t '-I ' I Capacity 800 -* STAT I C 800 -600 -600 -400 -400 -200 -200 0 --200 -, ,--200.., I I -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 -300 -200 -100 0 100 150252-CA-02 Appendix H FP 100985 Pa ge 299 of 526 Moment (kip-ft/ft)

Moment (kip-ft/ft)

Figure H49. Comparison of PM Interaction Diagrams for Section 23 Before (left) and After (right) Moment Redistribution , Standard-Plus Analysis Case, Static Load Combination N0_1 -H-54 -Capacity STATIC 200 ,_ ' 300 Revision O 700 _, 600 -500 -400-a. :Si! 300 -200 -1 00 -100 --2 00 -, -150 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Eng in ee r ing o f S tr uctu r es and B u i l d i ng E nclosures C LI ENT: Ne xtEra En ergy Se ab rook PROJECT NO:

DATE:

BY: _______

S U BJECT: E valu at i on and D es ign Co n fir m ati on of A s-D e for me d CE B VER I F I ER: __ _ PM Evalua t ion -Section Cut 24 -ASR Threshold

= 1.2 PM Evaluation

-Section Cut 24 -ASR Th r esho l d= 1.2 I I I I I ,_ 700 _, I I I I -100 -50 0 50 M o ment (k ip-ft/ft)

C ap a c i t y S TA TIC 100 .-150 g a. :Si! 600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 -100 --200 ... -150 -100 -so 0 50 Mo m en t (kip-ft/ft) Figure H50. Comparison of PM Interaction Diagrams for Section 24 Before (left) and After (right) Moment Redistribution, Standard-Plus Analys i s Case , Static Load Combination N0_1 Ca p acity

• STATIC 100 ,_ .-150 1 5 0252-CA-02 A ppendix H -H-55 -R e v is ion 0 FP 100985 Page 300 of 526 1000 _, 800 -600 -400 -200 -200 -, -300 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures C LI E N T: NextE r a E nergy Seabroo k S U B J ECT: E valuat i on and Design Confirm a tion of A s-Deform e d CEB PM Evaluation

-Section Cut 25 -ASR Threshold

= 1.2 1 I I I I -200 -100 0 100 Moment (kip-ft/ft)

Capacity STAT I C 200 ,_ ,-300 1000 _, 800 -600 -.t --Cl. 400 -rtl *x <( 200 -200.., -300 PROJECT NO: ___ __,_,15""0

""'25=2 DATE:

BY: ______

V ERIFI ER: __ _ PM Evaluation

-Section Cut 25 -ASR Th r esho l d = 1.2 I I I I I Ca pac i ty

• STATIC I I -200 -100 0 100 200 Moment (k ip-ft/ft)

Figure H51. Comparison of PM Interaction Diagrams for Section 25 Before (left) and After (right) Moment Redistribution , Standard-Plus Analysis Case , Static Load Combination N0_1 ,_ r 300 1502 5 2-CA-02 Appendix H -H-5 6 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 3 0 1 of 526 E' ..._ c. co *x <( 1 400 _, 1200 -1000 -800 -600 -4 00 -2 00 -200 -400 -, SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I E n gine e ring of Structure s and Building Enclo s ure s C LI ENT: Ne xtEra E n er gy Se a b rook S U BJECT: Evalua tion a nd D e s i gn Co nfirm a t ion o f A s-D e form ed CE B PM Evaluat i on -Section Cut 26 -ASR Thresho l d = 1.2 I I I I I I t C a pacity S T A TI C ,_ ,-.+/-:! ..._ c. ........ co 1 400 ..! 1 200 -1 000 -800 -600 -400 -200 -200 --4 00.., PRO J ECT NO: ___ __,_,15=0=25=2 DATE: _____ __,J"""u"" l y-=2=0=16 BY: _______ R'""."'M ,,,_ * .!.!.M'-"o,_,, n e"'s V ERI F I ER: ____ _,_A""'.T,_,_.-""S=ar=a_,_,,wi,,,,_

• 1 __ _ PM Evaluation

-Sectio n Cut 26 -ASR Th r eshold = 1.2 t I I I I f 1 Capacity

• STATI C ' -800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800 -800 -600 -4 00 -200 0 200 Moment (k i p-ft/ft) 400 600 Moment (kip-ft/ft) Figure H52. Comparison of PM Interaction Diagrams for Section 26 Before (left) and After (right) Moment Redistribution , Standard-Plus Analysis Case , Static Load Combination N0_1 ,_ ,.. 800 150 252-CA-02 App e nd ix H -H-57 -R evis i on O F P 100985 Page 3 0 2 of 526 600 _! 500 -400 -E 300 ---a. 32 200 -ru x 100 -<( 0--1 00 --200 -. -80 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Stru ctu res and B uilding E nclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook PROJECT NO:

DATE:

BY: _______

SUBJECT:

Eva l uation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB VERIFIER: __ _ PM Evaluation

-Section Cut 27 -ASR Threshold

= 1.2 I I I I I I I L 600 .J

-S11ctlon Cu , t 27 -Thresrold

= 1.2 40 -20 0 20 Moment (kip-ft/ft) 40 Capacity S T ATIC 60 ,-80 E --a. .:>t. ro x <( 500 -400 300 200 -100 1 00 --20 0 -, 60 -4 0 -2 0 0 20 Moment (k i p-ft/ft) Figure H53. Comparison of PM Interaction Diagrams for Section 27 Before (left) and After (right) Moment Redistribution, Standard-Plus Analysis Case , Static Load Combination N0_1 Capacity

• STATIC 40 60 L ,-80 150252-CA-02 Appendix H -H-58 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 303 of 526 600 -' 500 -400 -300 --.... Cl. 2 00 -co *x 1 00 -<( 0 --100 --2 00 -, -100 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engi n ee rin g of S tr uc t u r e s and Buil d i n g Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB PM Eva l uation -Section Cut 28 -ASR Threshold

= 1.2 I I I I_ * -50 0 50 Moment (kip-f t/ft) Capacity STATIC ,-100 PROJECT NO:

DATE: _____

BY: ______

VERIF I ER: ------'A-"-

.T_,_,._,,S=ar=awi=*"--t

__ _ See Append ix M for evaluation of this section cut Figure H54. Comparison of PM Interaction Diagrams for Section 28 Before (left) and After (right) Moment Redistribution, Standard-Plus Analysis Case, Static Load Combination N0_1 150252-CA-02 Appendix H -H-59 -FP 100 9 85 Page 304 of 526 Revision 0 500 _, 400 -300 -.._ c. .Y. 200 -ro x <{ 100 -100 -, -100 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Str uctu re s and Bui l ding Enclo sures C LI ENT: Ne xtE r a E ne rgy S e abr o o k S U B J ECT: Evalu a tion and D es ign Co nfi rm ation of A s-Deformed C EB PRO J ECT NO:

DA T E: _____ __, J'-"" u"-"ly_.2"'-0=16 BY: ______

V E R I FI E R: ____ _,_A"--.T'-'-._,.S=ar=awi=

• ,_,__1 __ _ PM Evaluat io n -S ection Cut 2 9 -ASR T hresho l d = 1.2 500 _, PM E v a lu ati o n* Sectio n Cut 29

• AS R T hr esh ol d= 1.2 ' ' ' ,_ I I I -50 0 50 Moment (kip-ft/ft)

C a pac i ty STA TI C ,-100 E' .._ c. :.5:2 r:o 400 -300 -200 -100 -100.., -1 00 -so 0 Moment (kip-ft/ft) Figure H55. Comparison of PM Interaction Diagrams for Section 29 Before (l eft) and After (right) Moment Redistribut i on , Standard-Plus Analysis Case, Static Load Combination N0_1 C a pacity

• ST A TIC I 50 '-(" 100 150 2 52-CA-02 Appendix H -H-60 -Revis i on 0 FP 100985 Page 305 of 526 ot:! -c. .::.t. ro x <l: 1000 _, 800 -600 -400 200 -200 --400 -, SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Encl osures C LI E N T: Ne xt Era Ene r gy S e ab r oo k S U BJECT: Evaluation and Design C onfi r mation of A s-Deform e d CE B P M Evaluat i o n -Section Cut 30 -ASR Threshold

= 1.2 I f I I I ,_ 1000 _, C a pacity

• STA TI C 800 -600 -¢? -400 -c. :SL ro 200 -*x <l: 0 --200 -r -400 , PROJECT NO:

D A TE: _____ __,J=u::.ily__.2=0=16 B Y: ______

V ER I F I ER: ____ _,_A_,_,_.T'-'._,,S=a,_,,ra=wi"'-

• 1 __ _ P M Eva l uat io n -Section Cut 30 -ASR Th r eshold= 1.2 I I I I I I C apacity ST AT I C -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 Moment (kip-ft/ft)

Moment (k ip-ft/ft) Figure H56. Comparison of PM Interaction Diagrams for Section 30 Before (left) and After (right) Moment Redistribution, Standard-Plus Analysis Case, Static Load Combination N0_1 '-r 400 1502 5 2-CA-02 Appendix H -H-61 -R ev i sion O FP 100985 Page 306 of 5 2 6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclo s ures PROJECT NO: ____ 1,_,,5=0=25=2 DATE: ______

C LI ENT:

______________

___ BY: _______

S U BJECT: _E_v_a_l u_a_t i_o_n-'a_n--'d_D_e"-s"-i..,_g_n-'C

'-'o'-n_fi_rm--"-a"'" tio""" n___;;.o_f A--"'-s-_D'""'e'-f"-

o'-rm'"'"e"""d'--"C..::E:.c:B;__

_____ V ERI F I ER: ____ _,_A"--. A2.0 1'2.9 0 A:!."JO AZl&l AZ 180 to AZ 270 Ston.ilr<l-P l\111 l!rn l)"" 0...0 , S ti c O:lli>>rouon

!<<;l_l 'ltnohi>ld l"oetor: 1.2 r atio i llXlal eraio n 10 t.oop diacuan FIIB: SR_ev:B7_LCB_C01_

1 2_.r O_ i<clXRll.E::l'ASLE A ANSYS Wl5YS 15.o 1115.0 PI.OJ' ID. 738 -.3 0 .5 .7 .9 l l.l 1.5 A2210tnA:'.

O A: 160 to A! 2'70 S-lUIO .....,,l;*oio Cuo w/ fAQ!r ,n Aodut., Stntic C<Acl>lmucn l(}_l (bl 'lllr<utold 1*.., : I. 2 O!o r.ind-t<r<>lf""'I y r 1 0 C o t lal. """1on Ill toop du 100 F ILE: SR_evBR7 _LCB_C02_

tl2_rO_a:xdX:Rll . ET ABLE Figure H57. Comparison of DCRs for Axial Compression in the Hoop Direction Before (left) and After (right) Moment Redistribution , Standard-Plus Analysis Case, Static Load Combination N0_1 150252-CA-02 Appendix H -H-62 -FP 100985 Page 307 of 526 ANSYS ms'JS is.o R15.0 PI.OJ' N:). 45 AZ 270 to AZ 0 -.3 0 .3 .5 .7 .9 1 l. l 1.5 Revision 0 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engi n e e ri n g of St r u c t u r e s and Bu ild i ng E nc l os ure s PROJECT NO: ____ 1=5=02=5=2 D ATE: ______

CLIENT:

BY: _______

S U BJECT:

• 1 g""'n-'C=-o=-n-'-'fi""" 1r'-'-m=a:.:: t i..::.o:...:.n--=o'-'-f-'-

A=s-=-D=-e=-f..::.o_;

rm_;..::.ed=---=C:..: E=-B=-------VER I F I ER: -----'-A"--. AZOtoA.190

.,90t.oK?

ao A2. 180 tD A2. 210 St<>n:hrd-Plua l>Mly*I* °""* St;ritlc lratk<l 00_1 'l11r .. hold !'..: r: 1. 2 A N S Y S 15.o AlS.O E'tDI' l\IJ, i41 A: 210 A2 0 -.3 0 .3 .5 .7 .9 1 l. l 1.5 A:O A290 A:! 90 to A:!. 180 t..rd=l-Pluo

>roly*u °""' w/ Mio-on llodllft .* StltUe m>Uon rt)_ tbt 1tu:ft ld "=r: l. " ANSY S mm 15.o Rl S.0 PI.Dr tiO. 48 -.3 0 .3 .5 .7 .9 l l.l 1.5 A2 210 to A: 0 Oemwl-'to-""!*'1

}'

tct AKl&l en1'1n In m:n:1<llir 1r<<: 1<:n Oo!Jl>nij-to-Qlf""'ltY ra l o !or AKlal t:PlOn ln rl<llcml die"" ton FIIE: SR_evB7_LCB_COl_

12_ro_axc!XR22 .E.T/l.BU.

FII.E: SR_evBR7_LCB_C02_

12_rO_axcccR22..ETABLE Figure H58. Comparison of DCRs for Axial Compression in the Meridional Direction Before (left) and After (right) Moment Redistribution , Standard-Plus Analysis Case , Static L oad Comb i nation N0_1 150 252-CA-02 A ppendix H -H-63 -FP 100 98 5 Page 308 of 526 R evi s ion O SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Str u ctures and Building Enclo s ure s PROJECT NO: ____

DATE: ______ C LI ENT: ________________

S U BJECT: _E_v-" a-'-'lu'--'a'-'t-"io-'-'n-'a'-n....: d_D::....::..e s.::.c i,,..g_;n....:C:..c o:..;, n __ fi"-1 rm-'=a ,;:_ti o,;:_n;_;_;;;o""'"f

'-A-=-s....:-

D:....e::..:

f-=-o""'r m""'e ,;:_d=-=Cc.=E:..:

B=-------VE RI F I ER: __ _ ANSY S msYS 15.o R IS.O PI.DJ' ID. 744 -.3 0 .3 .5 .7 .9 1 l.l 1.5 A'.! 90 A2 1lO A:! iao tu A:!. :no A.20 A290 J"2 90 to K!. 180 A2. 180 to A2 210

/lnoll"'i:o O,.oe, St.* ic Cocti>inotk<I r<<:>_l 1.2 r tlo for tn-pl""" oheru: FI1£: SR_evB7_LCl3_COl_

12_rO_VIP_OCR

.E:TASIB 150252-CA-02 Appendix H FP 100985 Page 309 of 526 Sw-01.t<l-Plu*

kvlly*I* 0.... w/ -n lb:ll* . , SU.tic O:sbl.m Ion r _1 i bl 'lhreoh>ld hctm: 1.2 'lty r 10 foe ln-p)MO -FI1£: SR_evfro ETABLE Figure H59. Comparison of DCRs for In-Plane Shear Before (left) and After (right) Moment Redistribution , Standard-Plus Analysis Case , Static Load Comb i nation N0_1 -H-64 -ANSY S l>NS'iS 15.o RI S.O PlDl' [ii). 51 A2 :no to A2 0 -.3 0 .3 .5 .7 .9 1 l.l 1.5 Revision O SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Eng i neering of Str uc t u r es and Build i ng En c lo s ure s PRO J EC T N O: ____ 1"'5""02=5=2 DATE: ______

CLIENT: _________________ BY: _______

S U BJECT: --=E=-v c..:: a:..:.;lu::..: a::..: t;,,::io"-n'-'a:.:.:.n_: d c...=--=.De-=-si"" g c.,;n....:C=-o=-=n-"'fi"-1rm"-'-=a"'t i-=-o:..:.....::

n o"-f .:....A:=s-=-D=-e=-f-=-o'-'-rm'-'--=-e d.=..c..::Cc..::E=-=

B=--------VE RIFI ER: ------'-'A"'. T"'".

1>Z 180 I>> 1>Z 270 St.card:u"d-P l u.t 0..., S " t-c Cbrrti n)Uon 00_1 nu: .. mw ;-.., : 1.2 ty l 10 f<>r OU -of-plane 8l-...r lQl 3 1 FU£: _evS7_L03_COl_

12_r0_'\AJPllOCR

.ETAEIE I\ ANSYS i<NS'lS 15.o A l 5.0 PlDJ' f\O. 153 -.3 0 .3 .s .7 .9 1 l.1 1.5 AZOtoA.:!90 A?. leo to AZ 210 S"'°"""<l-Plu

/><11\ly***

0..0 w/ l'bren Rodas . , St<otlc: ID> ion t _I (b) Thr"lhold f.ctor: I. 2 ta l.O iot OU -of-pl'lllO .i-r (Ql31 Fll.E: S'R_evBR7

_LCB_C02_

12_rO_\'OPllOCR. ETABLE Figure H60. Comparison of DCRs for Out-Of-Plane Shear Acting on Meridional-Radial Plane Before (left) and After (right) Moment Redistribution, Standard-Plus Analysis Case, Static Load Combination N0_1 150252-CA-02 Appendix H -H-65 -FP 100985 Page 310 of 526 I\ ANSYS 15.o R 1 5.0 Pl.Dl' l'i(). oO -.3 0 .3 .s .7 .9 1 l.l 1.5 Revision 0 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engine e ring of Structure s and B u il d in g E nc lo s ure s PROJECT N O: -------'1=5=02=5=2 DATE: ______

CLIENT:

_________________

BY: _______ S U BJECT: _E_v_a_lu_a_t_io_n_a_n_d_D_e_s i_g_n_C_o_n_fi_1rm_a_t i_on_o_f _A_s_-D_e_f_o_r m_e_d_C_E_B ______ VER IFIER: ------'-'A"-'.

T'-'-. _,,S""a,,,,, ra,,,,_wi=*1

__ _ AZ ISO AZ 210 C.., St<>tlo Oorlt>1.n>tlcn tll_I 111rNl>>ld t1Cto<: l. z C>'f!'e.nd-"'"-1 y f

• OU f-pl""" or...z La;!)) FU£: SR_evB7_LCB_COl_

12_i::O_\UP22IXR

.ETABLE ANSYS PNSYS 15.0 E'tDI' (\[). 156 to >:z o -.3 0 .3 .5 .7 .9 1 1.1 1.5

""'lyo1a 0..0 w/ """"° i.diat., Static: inouoo itir.ohold t ... -tor: l. 2 t:ooutd-b>-<:olf*'1 ty ta lo !<>r GUt-of-pl<l/VI a'-1' (Qall Fll.E: SR_evBR7_Lal_C02_

Figure H 61. Comparison of DC Rs for Out-Of-Plane Shear Acting on Hoop-Radial Plane Before (left) and After (right) Moment Redistribution , Standard-Plus Analysis Case, Static Load Combination N0_1 150252-CA-02 Appendix H -H-66 -FP 100985 Page 311 of 526 " ANSYS Pn>YS 15.o RI 5.0 Pl.DJ' (\[), 63 -.3 0 .3 .5 .7 .9 1 l.l 1.5 Revision 0 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineer i ng of Structures and Bu i ld i ng Enclosures C LIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook S U B J ECT: Evaluati on and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB Section Cut Evaluation shows this area meets criteria without Moment Redistribution (Cuts 14 & 15) L AZ 0 to AZ 90 AZ 90 to AZ 1 80 Standru:d-Plus Analysis Case, CllE Q:ffl:ilnation CllE 4, -100 +40 -40 Threshold Factor: 1. 2 J\Z 1 60 to J\Z 21 0 PROJECT NO:

DATE: _____ __,J=u'-'-

ly-=2=-01=6 B Y: ______

VERIFIER:

___ __,A--'-'.T_,_,._,,S=ar=a=wi"--t

__ _ ii. ANSYS ANSYS 15.o Rl S.O PI.Or N::l.4191 -.3 0 .3 .5 .7 .9 1 1.1 1.5 Area studied & ....i.----

discussed in Section H5. AZ 210 to AZ 0 Denard-to-capacity ratio for axial-flexure interaction in hoop direction Moment redistribution performed here (Area near Cuts 16, 17, 18 , 19, 20 , 21 , 22 , 23, and 24) FIIE: SR_ evB7 _ I..CB _ G07 _ t1 2 _r0 _ PMll _OCR .ETABLE Figure H62. Contours of DCRs for PM Interaction in the Hoop Direction Prior to Moment Redistribution, Standard-Plus Analysis Case, QBE Load Combination QBE_ 4 150252-CA-02 Appendix H -H-67 -FP 100 9 85 Page 312 of 526 Revision O SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures C LI ENT: NextEra E nergy Seabroo k S U BJECT: Evalu a tion and D e sign C onfirmation of A s-Defor me d CE B Area i s evaluated in App. M 1 z L AZ 0 to J\Z 90 AZ 90 to J\Z 180 Standard-Plus Analysis case, CSE O:rrbina.tion CSE 4, -100 +4 0 -<10 'lhreshold Pact.or: i.2 AZ 180 to J\Z 210 z A PROJECT NO: ___

DATE: ------'J""u"" l y_,,2,,__01=6 BY: ______

V ERIFI E R: ___ ___, A_,,_. T_,_,._,, S""'ar'-"-awi!!.!

• "-1 __ _ ANSYS ANSYS 15.o Rl S.O Plill ID.4194 -.3 0 .3 .5 .7 .9 1 1.1 1.5 Moment redistribution performed at pilaster (nea r Cut 11) AZ 210 to J\Z 0 Section Cut Evaluations show these areas meet criteria without Moment Redistribution (Cuts 8 , 9 & 10) llenand-to-<:apacity ratio for axial-flexure in teraction in rre r idiona.1 direction Section Cut Evaluations show the base of wall meets criteria without Moment Redistribution FII.E: SR_evB7 _LCB_G07 _t 1 2_rO_PM22_0CR

.ETABLE Figure H63. Contours of DCRs for PM Interaction in the Meridional Direction Prior to Moment Redistribution, Standard-Plus Analysis Case , QBE Load Combination QBE_ 4 1502 5 2-CA-02 Appendix H -H-68 -R evi si on 0 FP 100985 P ag e 3 1 3 of 526 c 0 ;::; u QJ u 0 ..... 7li 1 n x <: SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I E ngi n ee r in g of Structures and B u i l d i ng E nc l os ur es PROJECT NO: ____ 1'""5""0""25<=2 DATE: ______

C LIEN T: BY: _______

S U B JE CT: _E_v_a_lu--'a--'r-" 1o_n--'a'-n_d_D_e s_i .... g_n_C_o_n_fi_

1rm---"-a-'-tio_n---"o-f _A-'-s-_D_e_f_o_rm_e_d_C_E_B

______ VERIFIER:

____ l' D l

• .. . .. ***** .... ... **=***** ***:* ... << l *** -1 u J l w OM I : abo u: loo p AX I S k r p" f:/":)

• CA P , cm* E n d Sc , l l"C n t

• CA P" C l Y, r v l1 dd l c Scr.1 c: n t5 l *1 0 i3 c l D i tkl c rn e nL ****.:=**** **..::: .. . __.... ... . ... . "/ l t u .... .. t7 . .. 1 Q QL) 10' vl oni rr. abo

• llocop /\x i s k1p**n/f:)

• C;\P AC I TY, E 1 d ,.,c, c n t

• CA P CI TY, M i dd l e lg cn ts 0

• D C I T'a n d. Sta n du r d P l s A n a l ys i s Case P n o r to M o 1 T'e n t P.cd 1:.t. e D e a n d, Sta n da r d P l us A n a l 1*:.1 s use: A e r f\1 l orncnt R cd r st. Figure H64. Comparison of PM Interaction Diagrams for Wall Segments along Base between AZ 0 and 90 Before (left) and After (right) Moment Redistribution, Standard-Plus Analysis Case, Seismic Load Combination OBE_ 4 150252-CA-02 Appendix H -H-69 -FP 100985 Page 314 of 526 Revision 0 c: 0 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER C LI ENT:

SUBJECT:

..... .. I Engineering of Structures and Building E nclosu r es PROJECT N0: ____ DATE: ______ ________________ BY: ______ _____ V ERIFI ER: l . .. . . . . . ... . . . . . .. fV1 i tltl c Sc m e ....... Q. .OL l 1 ..... . . . . . . . .... .. / ... 0 ;-; u 1 0 ('"*"° . . .... l (.) . . **"* ******* f ..... . .. .. . . .. ... ***** .... -. . -1 i or : abo loop Ax r s (I 1p ./ :) !::: -ro Ci i5 ;;: Q) :? u .... 0 .... "' . .... l Oc ****** . ..... . . . . " ******** .. . .. or>1 n: abo u: Hoop Ax r s

.\ .. ... ..

• CA P C I TY, M r dd l c Sep.r nc n t5

• Ct1 P AC I TV, Mr dd l c Sc e m s *D e a n d, St:.J n du r d P l s A n<i l ys r s C<isc Prr o r to T v l o r r cn t l'lcd r st. e crna n d. Stu n da r d*P I s A n a l ys i s Ci s Afte r M ornrnt R cd r st. Figure H65. Comparison of PM Interaction Diagrams for Wall Segments along Base between AZ 90 and 180 Before (left) and After (right) Moment Redistribution , Standard-Plus Analys i s Case, Seismic Load Combination OBE_ 4 150252-CA-02 Appendix H -H-70 -FP 100 9 85 Page 315 of 526 Revision O

• = QJ .., ..... 0 u. "' S I MPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Enginee r ing of Structures and Buil di ng E nclosures PROJE C T N O: -------'1'-"5,,,02,,_,5<:2 DATE: ______ C LI E NT: _________________

BY: _______

S U BJECT:

_A_s_-D_e_f_o_rm_e_d_C_E_B ______ VERIFI ER: ------'-'A"""'.T'"'". _,, S=a,__,,ra'""wi"'

• t __ _ ** ** /,,...;:;:.::: ..... D *.'.:::::::

• • ** End

/ ** .. * .. '***, ....... 1 ::l '*) **. .. .. .

\ Midd l e S egments *l u 5 l u Mo m ent about H oop A rn (ki p'ft/ft)

• CA P I\ I TY, En d Se 0 1 r>c nt

• CA P t1. I TY M 1 dd l c Sl.P, I cn t s

• O c 1 rw n d Cl P l u s Case P ri o r To M orr*c n t d i st. 1 0 -.. ' 0 8 (lJ '-' ..... 0 1 < 1 ::lD -l c l u OD 1 0 l orri n: abo u: I l oop Ax i s

• CA P AC! Y. Cn d c n t * [l.\P AC I TY. r v l1 dd l c Sc> c nt s

• D c 1 l'a n d, Sta n dJ 1 d P l us t1 n w l ys 1 s C ase ;\rtc r f v l 0 1 rc nt R c:d 1 st. Figure H66. Comparison of PM Interaction Diagrams for Wall Segments along Base between AZ 180 and 270 Before (left) and After (right) Moment Redistribution , Standard-Plus Analysis Case, Seismic Load Combination OBE_ 4 1 50252-CA-02 Appendix H -H-7 1 -FP 100985 Pag e 3 1 6 of 526 l Revision O 0 ,, u ,_, ... "' c 0 i:"j ,_, .... 0 .... Iii x < *l SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclo s ures PROJECT NO: ____

DATE: ______

CLIENT: _________________

BY: _______ S UBJE CT: --'E'--v-"-a"-'lu:....: a:....: ti-=.o....:

n....: a"'"n'"" d'-D::....::..es'--i,..

g.;..;.n....: C:....: o"'" n""" fi"-'rm..:.=a.:::.t io=-: n-'-=o-'-f A'-=s---=D:....: e:..: f.=.o:..:.rm:..:.e=-d=--=.Cc.::E:..::

B=-------VERIFIER: __ _ 2Gtl -l 0 *l L J i on rr abo : Hoo p I\ 1 s (k ip" ./ :)

• CA P ACITV, En d Sc , I cn t5

• CA P ACll V, M1 dd l c, c n t 1"00 ---Q. _;;: 0 i3 t.J :: -ro 0 i:i c *:;. i:: u .... 0 l 0 -ro l 0 ****.:: ... ****::.* .. .. .. . ... 1'7 rno* * :.: .. . *. ,( -1 0 l' () 0 5 1 0 tv* O il ;: abo : I loop l\x l S (k ip </f:)

• CA P f..C I TY. En d Sc. en 5 *CA P AC I TY, 1\11 1 dd l c Seg r l'c n t l ' e D e a n d, St m da r d-P I s l'>.1 J l','SIS Case F'1 1 o r To M ome n t R ed 1 st. O D e a n d, "ta n da r d-P I s A 1 a l;*.sls Case Afk 1 M o r r>cn t n cd 1 st. Figure H67. Comparison of PM Interaction Diagrams for Wall Segments along Base between AZ 270 and 360 Before (left) and After (right) Moment Redistribution , Standard-Plus Analysis Case, Seismic Load Combination OBE_ 4 150252-CA-02 Appendix H -H-72 -FP 1009B5 Page 317 of 526 Revision 0 1500..) 1000 -500 -500 --1000 -, -600 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Bui l ding E nclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluat ion and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB PROJECT NO:

DA TE: _____ ___,J ... u,,_,ly_,2"'0

_,_,,, 16 BY: -------'-'-R

.=M"-. =M=o"'ne=s VERIFIER: ____ _,_A"-.T,_,_

._,,S=a r=a_,_,_wi,_,_

• 1 __ _ P M E valuation

-Section Cut 08 -ASR Threshold

= 1.2 J I I I I 1500 _, PM Evaluation

-Section Cut 08 -ASR Threshold

= 1.2 I I I I I -400 I. Capacity

• OBE 1000 -500 50 0 ,.. -1000.., I I 0 -200 0 200 400 600 -600 -400 -200 0 200 Moment (kip-ft/ft)

Moment (kip-ft/ft)

Figure H 68. Comparison of PM Interaction Diagrams for Section 8 Before (left) and After (right) Moment Redistribution, Standard-Plus Analysis Case, Seismic Load Combination OBE_ 4 Capacity STATIC 400 600 150252-CA-02 Appendix H -H-73 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 318 of 526 1500 _, 1000 -500 -500 --1000 -, -600 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Bu il ding E nclosures C LI ENT: Ne xt Er a E n ergy Seabroo k S U BJECT: Evaluat ion and Design C on fir mation of A s-D e formed CE B P M Evaluati o n -Sect i on Cut 0 9 -ASR Thresho l d = 1.2 I I I I I -400 -200 0 200 Moment {kip-ft/ft)

Cap aci ty e OBE 400 600 ro x <( 1500 -' 10 00 -500 -500 --1 000 -600 P RO J ECT NO: ___ __,_,15=0=25=2 DA T E:

BY: ______

V ERI F I ER: __ _ PM E v a l uation -Secti o n Cut 09 -ASR T hres h old = 1.2 I I I I ' Capacity e S TATIC -400 -200 0 200 400 Moment (kip-ft/ft)

Figure H69. Comparison of PM Interaction Diagrams for Section 9 Before (left) and After (right) Moment Redistribution , Standard-Plus Analysis Case , Seismic Load Combination OBE_ 4 '-600 150252-CA-02 Appendix H -H-7 4 -Revision O FP 100985 Pag e 3 1 9 of 526 1500 .J 1000 -E' 500 --.. c. :ii ........ ro x 0 -q: -500 --1000 ' -600 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures C LI ENT: Ne xt E ra E nergy Seab ro o k

SUBJECT:

Evalua ti on and Des i gn Co n firmat ion of As-D e form e d CE B PRO J ECT NO: -----'-'1 5=0=25=2 DA T E: _____ __,J=u"'-ly

-=2=0=16 BY: ______

V E RI F I ER: __ _ PM Evaluat i on

• Section Cut 10 -ASR Threshold

= 1.2 1500 .J PM Evaluation

• Se c ti o n Cut 10

• ASR Thres h old = 1.2 I I I I I L I I I I -400 Capac i ty

• OBE 1000 -500 -0. :ii ........ x 0 -q: -500 -1000 .. ' I I I -200 0 200 400 600 -600 -400 -200 0 200 Moment (kip-ft/ft)

Moment (kip-ft/ft)

Figure H70. Comparison of PM Interaction Diagrams for Section 10 Before (left) and After (right) Moment Redistribution , Standard-Plus Analysis Case, Seismic Load Combination OBE_ 4 Capa ci ty

• STATI C 400 L 600 150252-CA-02 Appendix H -H-75 -Revis i on 0 FP 1009B5 Pag e 320 of 526 ro x <( 1500 .J 1000 -500 -500 --1000 -, -600 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclo sures C LI ENT: NextEra E nergy Seab r oo k S U BJECT: Eva l uation and Design Confirmation of As-Deform e d CEB P M E valuati o n -Sec t ion C u t 11 -A SR Threshold

= 1.2 I I I I I -400 -200 0 200 Moment (kip-ft/ft)

Capac i ty QBE 400 1500 -' 1000 -500 -500 r -1000 l 600 -600 P R OJECT NO:

DA T E: _____ __,J'-"u!!l ly_,,2'-"0-'-""'16 B Y: _______ R'-".""M"-. ""'M""'o'-"n e ,,,,s VERIF I E R: ____ _,_A""'.T"""._,,,S=a r=a=wi ,_,_*t __ _ PM Evaluation

-Secti o n Cut 11 -A S R Thr e s ho ld = 1.2 I I I I Capacity

• STATIC I I I -400 -200 0 200 400 Moment (kip-ft/ft)

Figure H 71. Comparison of PM Interaction Diagrams for Section 11 Before (left) and After (right) Moment Redistribution , Standard-Plus Analysis Case, Seismic Load Combination OBE_ 4 '-600 150252-CA-02 Appendix H -H-7 6 -Revision O FP 100985 Pag e 3 2 1 of 526 1000 _, 800 -600 -...... a. 400 -ro *x <t 200 -200 -, -300 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: Ne xtE r a Ene rgy S eabrook PROJECT N O: ------"15=0=

2=52 D A TE: _____ ___, J=u"-"ly-=2=0=16 BY: _______ R'"".'"'M"-. =M=on=e=s

SUBJECT:

E valua ti on a nd D esi gn C onfir ma ti o n of A s-Defo r m ed CEB V ER I FI ER: -----'-A"-.T'--'-._,,S=ar""a-'-'-wi,_,_t

__ _ P M Evaluation

-Section Cut 14 -ASR Thresho l d = 1.2 I I I 1000 _, PM Evaluation

-Sect i on Cut 14 -ASR Th r esho l d = 1.2 -200 '-I I I C ap a c ity QBE ...... a. :32 ro BOO -600 -400 -200 -200 , I -100 0 100 200 300 -300 -200 -100 0 100 Moment (kip-ft/ft)

Mo m ent (kip-ft/ft)

Figure H72. Comparison of PM Interaction Diagrams for Section 14 Before (left) and After (right) Moment Redistribution , Standard-Plus Analysis Case , Seismic Load Combination OBE_ 4 C a p acity

• S TATI C 200 ,_ ,.. 300 1 5 0252-CA-02 A p pe ndix H -H-77 -Re v i s i o n O FP 100985 Page 322 of 526 2 -c. ro x <( 1000 _, 800 -600 -400 -2 00 -200 -, -300 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engi n eer i ng of Structu r es and B u ildi ng E nclosures C LI ENT: Ne xtEr a Energy Seabroo k S U BJEC T: Evaluation and De s ign Confirmation o f A s-Deformed C E B PM Evaluation

-Sect i on Cut 15 -ASR T hreshold = 1.2 J I I I I -200 -100 0 100 Moment (kip-ft/ft)

Ca p acity OBE 200 '-' 300 2 -c. iti x <( 1 000 _, 800 600 -400 -200 -200-. -300 P ROJECT NO: -----'-'15=0=25=2 DA TE: --------'J=u

"-"'ly-=2=0-'-"'16 BY: ______

VERIFI E R: __ _ PM E v a lu a t i o n

• Sectio n C u t 15

• AS R T hr esho ld = 1.2 I I I I I -200 -100 0 100 Moment (kip-ft/ft)

Capacity e STATIC 200 Figure H73. Comparison of PM Interaction Diagrams for Section 15 Before (left) and After (right) Moment Redistribution, Standard-Plus Analysis Case , Seismic Load Combination OBE_ 4 ,_ ' 300 150252-CA-02 Appendix H -H-7 8 -Revision 0 FP 1009B5 Pa ge 323 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I E ngi n ee r i n g o f S tr uctures a n d Bu i l d i n g E nclos u res C LIENT: N extE r a Energy Seabroo k S U BJE C T: Evaluation and Design C on fi rmation o f As-Deformed CEB PROJECT NO: DATE: B Y: ______ VER I FIER: -----'-A_,,_.T,__,_.-"'S=a r=a_,__,wi"-*1 __ _ PM E v alua tion -Secti o n Cut 16 -A SR T hresh old = 1.2 PM E v a lu a tio n -Section C ut 16 -A SR Thre sho ld = 1.2 1000 -' . ' ' I ' ,_ 1 000 _, ' ' . . C a pacity 800 -11) O B E 800 -600 -£ 600 -.:t= ....... ....... c. c. 400 -32 400 -ro ro *x *x <( 2 00 -<( 200 0 --200 -, ,--200 -, I -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 -300 -200 -100 0 100 Moment (kip-ft/ft) Moment (kip-ft/ft) 150252-CA-02 Appendix H FP 1 0 09B5 Page 32 4 o f 5 2 6 Figure H74. Comparison of PM I nteraction Diagrams for Section 16 Before (left) and After (right) Moment Redistribution, Standard-Plus Analysis Case, Seism i c Load Combination OBE_ 4 -H-79 -l ,_ Capacity f) STAT I C ' 200 300 Revis i on O 1000 _, 800 -600 -ot! -c. 400 -co *x c:( 200 -200 -, -30 0 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclo sures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook PROJECT NO: ___

DATE: _____ __,J'"""u"-'

l y_.2'""0-'-"'16 BY: _______ R:..!c*"-!M,,_. -"'M"""on,_,,e=s S U BJECT: Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB VERIFIER:

---

'--A"-.T"-'-._,.S""ar""a""'wi"-

1 __ _ PM Evaluation

-Section Cut 17 -ASR Threshold= 1.2 1000 _, PM Evaluation

-Section Cut 17 -ASR Threshold

= 1.2 I I I I ,_ ' ' . -200 Capacity

• QBE 800 -600 -ot! -c. :.52 400 -....... Ctl 200 ,--2 00., ' -100 0 100 200 300 -300 -200 -100 0 100 Moment (kip-ft/ft)

Moment (kip-ft/ft)

Figure H75. Comparison of PM Interaction Diagrams for Section 17 Before (left) and After (right) Moment Redistribution, Standard-Plus Analysis Case, Seismic Load Combination QBE_ 4 Capacity e STATIC 200 '-('" 300 150252-CA-02 Appendix H -H-80 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 325 of 526 1000 _, 800 -600 ---Cl.. .:;/. 400 -....... . x 200 -200 -, -300 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Bu i ld i ng Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB PROJECTN0: ___ ___,_,15=0=25=2 DATE:

BY: ______

VERIFIER: __ _ PM Evaluation

• Section Cut 18

• ASR Threshold

= 1.2 1000 _, PM Evaluati on

• Sect i on Cut 18

• ASR Threshold

= 1.2 I I I I I ,_ I I I I I -200 Capacity OBE 800 -600 ---Cl.. :.Q 400 -re ')(; 200 ,--200 "'\ -100 0 100 200 300 -300 -200 -100 0 100 Moment (kip-ft/ft)

Moment (kip-ft/ft)

Figure H76. Comparison of PM Interaction Diagrams for Section 18 Before (left) and After (right) Moment Redistribution, Standard-Plus Analysis Case, Seismic Load Combination OBE_ 4 Capacity STATIC 200 ,_ ,.. 300 150252-CA-02 Appendix H -H-81 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 326 of 526 1000 -* 800 -£ 600 -.._ c. 400 -x <{ 200 -200 -, -300 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Bui ld ing E nclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook PROJECT NO:

DATE:

BY: ______

SUBJECT:

Evaluat io n and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB VERIFIER:

____ _,_A""'.T""'.-"S=ar=a=wi,,,_

• 1 __ _ PM Evaluation

-Section Cut 19 -ASR Threshold

= 1.2 1000 .J PM Evaluation

-Section Cut 19 -ASR Thresho ld = 1.2 l I I I *-' ' ' -200 Capacity

• OBE 800 -£ 600 -.._ c. '..Q 400 -ru *x <{ 200 r -200 .... I ' -100 0 100 200 300 -300 -200 -100 0 100 Moment (kip-ft/ft) Moment (kip-ft/ft)

Figure H77. Comparison of PM Interaction Diagrams for Section 19 Before (left) and After (right) Moment Redistribution, Standard-Plus Analysis Case, Seismic Load Combination OBE_ 4 Capacity

• STATIC ' 200 *-; 300 150252-CA-02 Appendix H -H-82 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 327 of 526 i2 -Cl. .::.:. ro *:;;: <( 1000 _, 800 -600 -400 -200 -200 -, SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineer i ng of Structures and Bui l ding Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB PM Evaluat ion -Section Cut 20 -ASR Threshold

= 1.2 I t I I I I I Capacity OBE '-,-1000 _, 800 -600 -ot! -Cl. 32 400 -ro *x <( 200 -200; PROJECT NO: ___ __,_,15=0=25=2 DATE:

BY: ______

VER IFIE R:

__ _ PM E v aluation -Section Cut 20 -ASR Threshold

= 1.2 t I I I I I I Capacity

• STATIC I I ' -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 Moment (kip-ft/ft) 200 300 400 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 Moment (k i p-ft/ft) Figure H78. Comparison of PM Interaction Diagrams for Section 20 Before (left) and After (right) Moment Redistribution, Standard-Plus Analysis Case, Seismic Load Combination OBE_ 4 ,_ ; 400 150252-CA-02 Appendix H -H-83 -Revision 0 FP 1009B5 Page 32B of 526

--c. ....... re ')( 1000 _, 800 -600 -400 -2 00 -200-, SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I E n gineering of Structures and Build i ng Enclo s ure s C LI ENT: N ext E r a Ene r gy Seab ro o k S UB JECT: Evalua ti on and D e s i gn C onfirmation of A s-Deformed C E B PM Evaluati o n -Section C ut 21 -ASR Thresho ld= 1.2 I I I t I I I I Capacity OB E ,_ r 1 000 _, 800 -a2 600 ---c. :.so: 400 -....... ro *x <( 200 -2 00; PROJECT NO:

D A TE:

BY: ______ V ER I F I E R: __ _ P M E v a lu ation -Sect i on Cut 21 -AS R T hr esho l d = 1.2 I I I I I I I C apac i ty

• STATIC I I I ' -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 Moment (k i p-ft/ft) 200 300 400 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 Moment (k i p-ft/ft) F i gure H79. Comparison o f PM I nteraction Diagrams for Section 21 Before (l eft) and After (right) Moment Red i stribution, Standard-Plus Analysis Case, Seismic Load Combination OBE_ 4 r 400 1502 5 2-CA-02 Appendix H -H-84 -R e vision 0 FP 1009B5 Page 329 of 526 1000 _, 800 -2 600 -..._ 0. :£2 400 -x <( 200 -200 -, -300 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Bui l ding Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB PM Evaluation

-Section Cut 22 -ASR Threshold = 1.2 I f I I I -200 -100 0 100 Moment {kip-ft/ft)

Capacity OBE 200 ,_ ,-300 1000 _, 800 -2 600 -..._ 0. :£2 400 -rtl *x <( 200 -200 ... -3 00 PROJECT NO: ___

DATE: _____ __,J..,,u"-'ly_,2'-"'0-'-"'16 BY: _______

VERIFIER:

____

=S=ar=a.:..:.wi!!...t

__ _ PM Evaluation

-Section Cut 22 -ASR Threshold= 1.2 I I f I I Capacity

• STATIC I I -200 -1 00 0 100 200 Moment {k i p-ft/ft) Figure HBO. Comparison of PM Interaction Diagrams for Section 22 Before (left) and After (right) Moment Redistribution, Standard-Plus Analysis Case, Seismic Load Combination OBE_ 4 ,_ ; 300 150252-CA-02 Appendix H -H-85 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 330 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Eng i neering of Structures and Build i ng E nclosures C LI ENT: Ne xtEr a Energy Seab r oo k S U BJEC T: Eval u at i on and Design C onfirmation o f As-Defor me d CE B PROJECT NO: ___ __,_,15=0=25=2 DATE:

B Y: _______ R'""".""'M"-. "'""M""o n,_,, e=s VERIFI ER: __ _ 1000 _, PM

-, Section Cu , t 23 -ASR Threshold

";' 1.2 1000 _, PM Evaluation

-Sectio n Cut 23 -AS R T h resho l d "' 1.2 ' ' -' . I Capacity 800 -* OBE 800 -600 -600 -.+/-;! .+/-;! .._ .._ 0. a. 4 00 -:.;;;;: 4 0 0 -.Cl> re x <i: 200 -200 0 --200 -, r -200-. I ' I -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 -300 -200 -100 0 10 0 M o ment (k ip-ft/ft)

M om e nt (kip-ft/ft) 1502 5 2-CA-02 A ppendix H FP 100985 Page 331 of 526 Figure H 81. Comparison of PM Interaction Diagrams for Section 23 Before (left) and After (right) Moment Redistribution , Standard-Plus Analysis Case , Seismic Load Combination OBE_ 4 -H-86 -,_ Ca p a city

• STATIC r 200 300 Revision O co x <! 700 _, 600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -1 00 -100 -200 -, -150 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Stru c ture s and Building E nc lo su re s C LI E N T: N e xtEra Energy Seabr o ok P R OJECT NO:

DA T E:

B Y: ______

S U B J EC T: Evaluati on and Design Confirmat i on o f As-Defor m ed C E B VERIFI ER: __ _ P M Evaluati o n -S ecti o n C u t 2 4 -ASR T hresh o l d = 1.2 700 _, PM Eval u ati o n -Sectio n Cut 2 4 -AS R Thre sh ol d = 1.2 l t I I I ,_ I I 0 -100 Capacity

• QBE 600 -500 -400 -300 -200 100 -100 -,--200 -, I ' -so 0 50 100 150 -150 -100 -so 0 50 Moment (kip-ft/ft) Moment (k i p-ft/ft) Figure H82. Comparison of PM Interaction Diagrams for Section 24 Before (left) and After (right) Moment Redistribution , Standard-Plus Analysis Case, Seismic Load Combination OBE_ 4 Capacity

• STAT I C 100 ,_ r 150 1 5 0252-CA-02 Appendix H -H-87 -Revision O FP 100985 Pa g e 332 of 526 1000 _, 800 -2 600 -.._ a. 400 -ro x <( 200 -200 -, -300 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engi n eering of Structure s and Building Enclo s ures CLIE N T: Ne xtE ra Ene r gy Seab ro ok S U BJEC T: Ev aluati o n and Design Co n fi rmation of A s-Defor med C EB P M E v a l uati o n -Sect io n Cut 25 -ASR Thresho l d = 1.2 j I I I I -200 -100 0 100 Moment (kip-ft/ft) Capacity OBE 200 ,_ ,-300 1000 _, 800 -2 600 -.._ a. :£2 400 -200 -200 ... -300 P R OJECT NO: ___ __,_,15"""0..,,25"""'2 DA TE: _____ ____,J"""u,,..ly_.2""0-'-"'16 B Y: _______ R'"""."'M"-. =M=o n'-" e=s V ERIFI ER: ____ _,_A"-.T'""'"._,,S=ar=a=wi"-

1 __ _ PM Evaluati o n -Sectio n Cut 25 -A SR Th r esho l d = 1.2 I I i ! I Capacity

• STATIC I ' -200 -100 0 100 200 Moment (kip-ft/ft)

Figure H83. Comparison of PM Interaction Diagrams for Section 25 Before (left) and After (right) Moment Redistribution , Standard-Plus Analysis Case, Seismic Load Combination QBE_ 4 ,_ .-300 150252-CA-02 Appendix H -H-88 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 333 of 526 1400 _, 1200 -1000 -2 800 -....... c. 600 -ro 400 -x <( 200 -200 --400 -, -800 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook . -----------------PROJECT NO: ___ _...,15=0=25=2 DATE: _____ __,J'-""uC!.lly_,,2""'0.!.><16 BY: ______

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Des i gn Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB VERIFIER: -----'-A_,,_.T,_,_._,,S""a""rae!.!wi.!!..

• 1 __ _ PM Evaluation

-Section Cut 26 -ASR Threshold=

1.2 1400 _, PM Evaluation

-Section Cut 26 -ASR Threshold

= 1.2 I I l I I I I ,_ I I I 1 I I I -600 -400 -200 0 200 Moment (kip-ft/ft)

Capacity

• QBE 400 600 ,-800 2 ....... c. ro *x <( 1200 -1000 -800 -600 -400 200 200 --400 , -800 ' -600 -400 -200 0 200 Moment (kip-ft/ft)

Figure H84. Comparison of PM Interaction Diagrams for Section 26 Before (left) and After (right) Moment Redistribution, Standard-Plus Analysis Case, Seismic Load Combination OBE_ 4 Capacity

• STATIC 400 600 L ... 800 150252-CA-02 Appendix H -H-89 -Revision O FP 100985 Page 334 of 526 600-' 500 -400 -:+/-2' 300 -........ a. :i:2 200 -ro *x 100 -<x: 0--100 --200 -, -80 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engine e ring of Structu r e s ond B ui l d i ng E n c l o s ur es CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB PM Evaluation

• Section Cut 27

• ASR Threshold

= 1.2 I I I I I I I 40 -20 0 2 0 Moment (kip-ft/ft) 4 0 Capacity OBE 60 L r 80 600-' 5 00 -4 00 :+/-2' 300 ........ a. :i:2 2 00 -x 100 -<x: 0 -100 --200 -80 DATE: _____ __,J""u"'ly-"2'-"0-=16 BY: -------'-'-R.""'M""-. -'"'-M=o=ne=s VERIFIER:

__ _ PM Evaluation

-Section Cut 27

• ASR Threshold=

1.2 I I I I I I I 40 -20 0 2 0 Moment (k i p-ft/ft) Capacity

• STATIC 40 60 Figure H85. Comparison of PM Interaction Diagrams for Section 27 Before (left) and After (right) Moment Redistribution, Standard-Plus Analysis Case, Seismic Load Combination QBE_ 4 L r 80 150252-CA-02 Appendix H -H-90 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 335 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I E n g i n ee ring o f S tr uctu r es a nd Build ing E nclo s ur es PROJECT NO: ____ 1'-"5=0=25=2 DATE: ______

CLIENT:

_________________

S UBJE C T: _A_s-_D_e_f_o_rm_e_d_C_E_B

______ VERIFIER: __ _ SW"d>r<l-l' l us Am l}.,.l* °"'9, cet CcnOi n.*Uan ooe_4. -100 -+4 0 -40 r..,_: 1.2 r tJ.o f"or MJal oariic*"'lon U\ hoop dln*:: lof1 FIIB: SR_evfl7 _LCB_G07 _ l 2_rO_axc!XRl.l.ETA!'fLE A ANSYS 15.o 11 1 5: 0 PLO!' l'O. 418.2 -.3 0 .3 .5 .7 .9 l 1.1 1.5 A:OtoAZ90 l'<nlyH* 0... w/ lbmn -** , , Ol;t; 0;tr 1 M tJ<<l Ctl:_4, -100 -+40 'lta:""hold r..-: l.Z u l<> to.i: 4'<1&1 eaal<>n In !-..op dlr8"tlon FILE: SR_evl3R7_103_GO"I_

12_CO_axd:X:R.ll

.ETABLE Figure H86. Comparison of DCRs for Axial Compression in the Hoop Direction Before (left) and After (right) Moment Redistribution, Standard-Plus Analysis Case, Seismic Load Combination QBE_ 4 150252-CA-02 Appendix H -H-91 -FP 100985 Page 336 of 526 ANSYS M5'iS 15.o RIS.O PlOl' I'D. 3 AZ::r!OloAZO

-.3 0 .3 .5 .7 .9 1 l.l 1.5 Revision O SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I E n g in ee ring o f Stru c t u r e s a nd Building E nc l o s ur e s PROJECT NO: ____

DATE: ______ CLIENT:

_________________

SUBJECT:

_E_v_a_lu_a_t_io_n_a_n_d_D_es_i_g_n_C_

o_n_fi_rm_a_t io_n_o_f _A_s-_D_e_f_o_r m_e_d_C_E_B

______ VER I F I ER: ------'-'A,,_,.T_,_. -=S=ar""a""wi""t

__ _ A:?90toAZ 80 S-.:1-!'lwi lvaj>.,.l*

C..-, 00& blMt.lon cu:_4. -100 +40 --40 'l\\r...t>ol<I

!¥to<: 1.2 A2. lllO tD A2. 210 ANSYS l'N5YS 15.o Al 5 , 0 PWl' l\O. 185 -.3 0 .3 .5 .7 .9 1 l. J 1.5 A2.0toA2.90 AZ 90 to A:!. 1 80 A?. 160 "" A2 2'10 11<\*lyoUJ 0..0 w/ l'b<rnt lloOUt., CU: O;rrblnot.1"1 ctt:_4, -100 +40 -.40 'l!u...t>>ld !'act:*>"'

I. 2 ANSYS l'NSYS 15.o R l5.0 E'l,DJ' I'D. 6 A22WtnA20

-.3 0 .3 .s . 7 .9 l l.l 1.5

[ Jo Cot 8llial r..i:e8'110n Jn roorldlOI\, du::ecuon

"""1n:l-w-cap..c1ty r&tt.0 fo.i:: ax11ll o;rp::eH1on 1n ""ldlaiol dlre<:tlon Fil£: SR_ev13'7

_LCB_G07 _ 12_rO_axdXll22

.E:Tl'.BLE Fll.E: SR_eVEITT

_LCB_G07 _ tl2_rO_a;.:co::m2. E17l8LE Figure H87. Comparison of DCRs for Axial Compression in the Meridional Direction Before (left) and After (right) Moment Redistribution, Standard-Plus Analysis Case, Seismic Load Combination QBE_ 4 150252-CA-02 Appendix H -H-92 -FP 100985 Page 337 of 526 Revision 0 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Eng in e e ring o f Str uc t u re s and Building E ncl o s ure s PROJECT N0: ____ 1=5=02=5=2 DATE: _______

CLIENT: _________________

BY: _______

S U BJECT: _E_v_a_lu_a_t_io_n_a_n_d_D_e_s i_g_n_C_o_n_f_irm_a_ti_o_n_o_f _A_s_-D_e_f_o_rm_ed_C_E_B

______ VERIFIER: __ _ 0 Kl. 90 K!. ?O A:!. 180 StAndo.rd..Pl14 kvllyo1* CU., ai& u.ri>lll(lt.lon c:a:_4. -100 -140

1.2 and-t<H'"IJ l 'Of r tlo fur 1n-p)Mo .r...r AZ. iao w A:t. 210 A ANSYS ms'1S 15.o R l 5.0 PID1' N0.4l8B -.3 0 .3 .5 .7 .9 1 1.1 1.5 JI: 210 "' 0 A'.. 90 tQ A2 180 A:! 180 to Kr .270 Aml;-.1* o. .. w/ Mtn<>n llo<ll*t., c:a: C;tr '"" on cu:_4. -100 +-40 -40 '1l'u:<>ll>>l<ll

'1Ctor: 1.2 r Jo toe 1fr1>lara FD£: SR_evB7_LCB_G07_

12_rO_VIP_IXR

.E.TABLE FII.E: 5'R_evm7_LCB_G07_tl2_rO_VIP_J)CR

.ET1\BIE 150252-CA-02 Appendix H FP 100985 Pa ge 338 of 526 Figure H88. Comparison of DCRs for In-Plane Shear Before (left) and After (right) Moment Redistribution , Standard-Plus Analysis Case , Seismic Load Combination OBE_ 4 -H-93 -ANSYS M'SY.S 15.o R I S.O Pl.01' llO. 9 A '12.270toK!.O

-.3 0 .3 .5 .7 .9 1 l. l 1.5 Revision 0 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I E n gineering of Struct u re s and Building Enclosures PROJECT NO: ____

DATE: _______

CLIENT: _________________ BY: _______

SUBJECT:

_E_v_a_lu_a_t_io_n_a_n_d_D_e_si_g_n_C_o_n_f_irm_a

_ti_on_o_f _A_s_-D_e_f_o_rm_e_d_C_E_B ______ VERIFIER:

__ _ ANSYS m5'lS 15.o R1 S.O PL01' ID.4197 -.3 0 .3 .5 .7 .9 1 l.l 1.5 I\ ANSYS msYS 15.o AI S.O Pl.DI' (IO. 18 -.3 0 .3 .5 .7 .9 1 1.1 1.5 A:!.210t.o/C O A!.90t.oAZ180 A2 210 to/12. 0 ..... Am lyolo Ql.w , C4:t oari>J M t100 _4, -100 +40 -40 im .. 1>>1<1 .....,_: i. 2

<a lo -OU f lano 81-r lQ13)

Amlytu C:...C w/ lt>d Wl l 1>1 tJon _4, -100 +40 -40 'lta:uh:>!d r"" : 1. 2 0.. '.l-t.o-ur.

l y

• U o foe out-of-pVuio l"9N: (Qlli FIIB; SR_ev137_LCB_G07_

FILE; SR_evflR7_LCB_G07_

Figure H89. Comparison of DCRs for Out-Of-Plane Shear Acting on Meridional-Radial Plane Before (left) and After (right) Moment Redistribution , Standard-Plus Analysis Case, Seismic Load Combination OBE_ 4 150252-CA-02 Appendix H -H-94 -FP 100985 Page 339 of 526 Revision 0 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I E ng in ee ring o f S tr uctu r e s and Build i n g E n cl os ur es PROJECT NO: ____

DA T E: ______ CLIE NT: ________________

SUB JECT: _E_v_a_lu_a_t_io_n_a_n_d_D_es_i_g_n_C_o_n_fi_1rm_a_tio_n_o_f

_A_s-_D_e_f_o_r m_e_d_C_E_B ______ VERIFIER: ------"--'A'""'

.T_,_. =S=a=ra"'W1=*1 __ _ ANSYS m5YS 15.o 11 1 5.0 PI.DJ' <1200 -.3 0 .3 .5 .7 .9 1 l.l 1.5 *.* ANSYS llNS'JS 15.o R I S.O PrD1' NO. 21 -.3 0 .3 .5 .7 .9 l 1.1 1.5 A!!. 90 la 180 AZ 180 ta 1'2 2'10 A20 A:90 A2. 210 A..'? 0 St<>n<lw;l-P l uo "")"'" ei....t, ca: O;rri>l m tlon iu_4. -1 00 0 -40 ho:to<; l.2 r lo for "" -of-pl..,.

at.... !Q23l SW"Ou<H'l"q

""11;*._.* 0...0 wt llodt* . , ctll i:mh1no I"" <a_ 4. -100 +40 -40

!'oet<:o::

l.2

<&tlo tor "" f-plMO II-.: CQZll Fii£: Sl _evs7_LCB_GO?_

12_i:O_\iOP'22JXR

.ETll.BIE FllE: SR_evl3R7

_LCB_G01 _ 12_t0_ \.0P'22!X:R

.E1'1\BIB Figure H90. Comparison of DCRs for Out-Of-Plane Shear Acting on Hoop-Radial Plane Before (left) and After (right) Moment Redistribution , Standard-Plus Analysis Case, Seismic Load Combination OBE_ 4 150252-CA-02 Appendix H -H-95 -FP 100985 Page 340 of 526 Revision 0 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures ond Building Enclosures CLIENT NextEra Energy Seabrook SUBJECT Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB APPENDIX I PROJECT NO. 150252 BY R.W. Keene CHECKED BY A.T. Sarawit GLOBAL STABILITY OF CEB STRUCTURE

11. OBJECTIVE OF CALCULATION The objective of this calculation is to determine the global stability of the CEB structure for sliding, overturning and buoyancy.

12. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS Failure of the CEB ring wall foundation by sliding is not possible.

The foundation is enclosed by concrete backfill and or bedrock, and the lateral load acting at the base of the foundation would get transferred from the CEB ring wall to the concrete backfill and or bedrock in bearing (Ref. 14). The CEB will not overturn or float based on calculations below. 13. DESIGN DATA/ CRITERIA The sliding and overturning criteria is per Section 5.4.1 of System Description for Structural Design Criteria for Public Service Company of New Hampshire, Seabrook Station, Unit Nos. 1 & 2, 19 October, 1976. The load combinations include: 1) D+Eo+H+He, minimum factor of safety of 1.5 for overturning and 1.5 for sliding 2) D+Ess+H+Hs, minimum factor of safety of 1.1 for overturning and 1.1 for sliding 3) D+F with hydrostatic load excluded, minimum factor of safety for flotation of 1.1 For overturning and sliding, we also add in the effects of ASR and self-straining forces. 14. ASSUMPTIONS There are no assumptions in this calculation.

150252-CA-02 Appendix I 1 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 341 of 526

15. METHODOLOGY We perform overturning calculations with overturning demand based on the sum of the moments of the reaction forces around the CEB. The total base shear in the North direction considers 100% of the reaction due to applied load in the North direction plus 40% of the reaction due to load applied in the East or West direction, whichever leads to a higher total demand. ASR loads include a threshold factor of 1.2. Resistance to overturning consists of dead load minus 40% of seismic vertical demand. Resistance is calculated using the distance from the toe of the CEB to the CG of the CEB calculated in the ANSYS analysis (Ref. 12). Resistance includes the effect of the rock support, consistent with the original design calculations.

150252-CA-02 Appendix I FP 100985 Page 342 of 526 2 -Revision 0

17. REFERENCES

11. System Description for Structural Design Criteria for Public Service Company of New Hampshire , Seabrook Station , Unit No. 1 & 2 , 19 October 1976. 12. ANSYS model output , SR_ILC_03_1_r0

.out. 13. United Engineers , Stability Check for Enclosure Building , Revision 2 , 1 September 1983. 14. Simpson Gumpertz & Hege r, Document ID No. 150252-R-01 , Geotechnical Assessment of the CEB , NextEra Energy Seabrook Facility , Seabrook , NH , Revision 0 , 22 June 2015. 15. ANSYS model output , SR_ILC_##_l_rO_reactionsSorted.output where##= 03 to 23. 18. COMPUTATIONS Demands CENTER OF MASS (X , Y , Z)= 65.310 -59.058 644.63 (Ref. 15) (Ref. 12) 0 "NA" 0 0 0 "NA" 0 0 0 2 "NA" 0 0 0 3 "Self' -200 110 32212245 4 "Hydro" 805890 5345 53932 5 "ASR Wall" 8 29 3 6 "ASR Fill" 1201658 28 334525 7 "S hmk" 0 2 5 8 "Swell" 5 2 9 "Earth" 1145877 561383 -2439 lO "OBE EW" -7220929 2 11 "OBE NS" 225 -7106265 0 LC:= LCro := FX:= !bf FY:= !bf FZ:= !b f 12 "OBE V" 49 6 126732 13 "OBE HO" 72 550723 14 "OBE H 90" 658971 -129 0 15 "OBE H 180" 360485 0 16 "OBE H 270" -237887 -12 0 17 "SSE EW" -1 1871648 -110 -26 18 "SSE NS" 352 -1 1689648 -20 19 "SSE V" 85 10591091 20 "SSE H O" 135 1028018 21 "SSE H 90" 1230083 -245 22 "SSE H 180" 672905 0 23 "SSE H 270" -444057 -18 150252-CA-02 Appendix I 3 -Revision 0 FP 1 00 9 85 Page 3 43 of 5 26 0 "NA" 0 0 "NA" 0 0 2 "NA" 0 0 3 "Self' -1 75297 -15 8600 4 "Hydro" 33 11 2 -8 556 5 "ASR Wall" 28 6 "AS R Fill" 8 1 901 2235 1 8 7 "Shmk" -1 5 -1 9 8 "Swell" 11 9 "Earth" 55152 -269 18 10 "OBE EW" -1 09230 1 -10 11 "OBE NS" 1 5 1076529 LC= LCID= MX:= ft* kip MY:= ft* k ip 12 "OBE V" 9214 1 2 1 63 13 "OBE HO" 3 -2 8154 14 "OBE H 90" 33723 4 15 "OBE H 180" 0 1 8467 16 "OBE H 270" -12164 17 "SSE EW" -1737678 -15 18 "SSE NS" 23 1 7 1 0643 19 "SSE V" 1 79 1 6 2312 1 20 "SSE H O" 5 -52554 21 "SSE H 90" 62949 7 22 "SSE H 180" 0 34473 23 "SSE H 270" -22706 150252-CA-02 Append ix I 4 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 344 of 526 Z-coordinate at center of gravity (SR_ILC_03_1_r0.out)

Zccg := 644.63in Z-coordinate at base of foundation Zeb:= -480in (SR_ILC_03_1_r0

.out) X-coordiante at center of gravity (SR_ILC_03_1_r0

.out) Y-coordinate at center of gravity ((SR_ILC_03_1_r0.out) Xccg:= 6 5.3 1 0 in Ycc g := -59.058in Radius of outside of CEB foundation R cEB := 86ft + 9in (Drawing 9763-F-101451) Radius of outside of CEB wall (Drawing 9763-F-101451)

R cEB.o := 82ft Radius of in s i de of CEB wall (Drawing 9763-F-101451)

R cEB.i := R cEB.o -3fti Friction coefficient , concrete on concrete Total height of fluid (Ref. 13 , page 21 or 30) Total unit weight of water := 0. H r:= 60ft! lbf w:= 62.4-ft3 kip Rock resistance (Ref. 13 , Sheet 2 7) wr := 90-ft Length of wall between radioactive tunnel and electrical tunnel (Ref. 13 , Lr:= 6 1.73 Sheet 25) Moment arm for rock resistance (Ref. 13 , Sheet 25) 150252-CA-02 Appendix I FP 100985 Page 345 of 526 dr := 168.4 ft! 5 -Xccg = 5.442ft Y e.cg= -4.921 ft Revision 0 Total base shear calculations Sliding to East, OBE vE.OBE := l.2*FX5 + l.2*FX6 + + + + FXlO -0.4FX11 + FX16 + 0.4(min(FX13,FX15))

vE.OBE = -4871-kip Sliding to West, OBE Vw.OBE := l.2*FX 5 + l.2*FX 6 + + FX 8 + -FX 10 + 0.4FX 11 + FX 14 + 0.4(max(FX 13 ,FX 15)) Vw.OBE = 10468-kip Sliding to North, OBE vN.OBE := l.2*FY5 + l.2*FY6 + FY7 + FY8 + FY9 + FYll + 0.4FY10 + FY15 + 0.4(min(FY14'FY16))

vN.OBE = -6905-kip Sliding to South, OBE Vs.OBE := l.2*FY5 + l.2*FY6 + FY7 + FY8 + FY9 -FYll -0.4FY10 + FY13 + 0.4(max(FY14'FY16))

Vs.OBE = 8218-kip Sliding to East, SSE VE.SSE:= l.2*FX5 + l.2*FX6 + + + + FX17 -0.4FX18 + +

VE.SSE= -9728-kip Sliding to West, SSE Vw.ssE:= l.2*FX5 + l.2*FX6 + FX8 + FX9-FX17+

0.4FX18 + +

Vw.ssE= 15690-kip Sliding to North, SSE VN.sSE:= l.2*FY 5 + l.2*FY 6 + FY 7 + FY 8 + FY 9 + FY 18 + 0.4FY 17 + FY 22 + 0.4(min(FY 21 ,FY 23)) VN.SsE=-11801*kip Sliding to South, SSE Vs.SSE:= l.2*FY5 + l.2*FY6 + FY7 + FY8 + FY9 -FY18 -0.4FY17 + FY20 +

Vs.ssE= 13279-kip 150252-CA-02 Appendix I FP 100985 Page 346 of 526 6 -Revision 0 Buoyancy Total uplift pressure Area of base, deduct openings due to radioactive tunnels and elec. tunnels (Ref. 13, p. 21 of 30) Total buoyant force Total resistance to sliding Sliding resistance, OBE Sliding resistance, SSE Evaluation of sliding Factor of Safety Sliding to East, OBE Sliding to West, OBE Sliding to North, OBE Sliding to South, OBE Sliding to East, SSE Sliding to West, SSE Sliding to North, SSE Sliding to South, SSE Pup:= H1 w( 2 2) 262 A *=

• R -R * *-base* CEB.o CEB.1 360 Pup= 3.744-ksf 2 Abase = 1104* ft Fb = 4135-kip YR.OBE := *(FZ 3 + FZ 4 -0.4*FZ 12 -Fb) YR.OBE = 18349*kip YR.SSE:= *(Fz 3 + FZ 4 -0.4*FZ 19 -Fb) YR.SSE= 19421-kip OBEs.iim := 1.5 SSEs.lim := 1.1 FSE.OBE := YR.QBE IYE.OBEI FSE.OBE = 3.767 FSw.oBE:=

YR.OBE jYw.oBEI FSw.oBE = 1.753 FSN.OBE := YR.QBE FSN.OBE = 2.657 jYN.OBEI FSs.oBE := YR.QBE FSs.OBE = 2.233 jYs.OBEj FSE.SSE := YR.SSE FSE.SSE = 1.996 jYE.ssEI FSw.ssE := YR.SSE FSw.SSE = 1.238 jYw.ssEI FSN.SSE := YR.SSE jYN.ssEI FSN.SSE = 1.646 FSs.ssE := YR.SSE jYs.ssEI FSs.SSE = 1.463 The factor of safety for sliding from OBE is greater than 1.5 in all cases; therefore sliding stability is OK for OBE. The factor of safety for sliding from SSE is greater than 1.1 in all cases; therefore sliding stability is OK for SSE. 150252-CA-02 Appendix I 7 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 347 of 526 Overturning calculation Distance from center of gravity to / 2 2 toe of foundation Leg:= RcEB -v Xe.cg + Ye.cg Leg= 79.412ft Overturning to East, OBE ME.OBE := l.2*MX 5 + l.2*MX 6 + MX 7 + MX 8 + MX 9 + MX 10 -0.4MX 11 + MX 16 + 0.4(min(MX 13 ,MX 15)) ME.OBE = -951127ft*kip Overturning to West, OBE Mw.OBE := l.2*MX5 + l.2*MX6 + MX7 + MX8 + MX9 -MXlO + 0.4MXll + MX14 + 0.4(maiMX13'MX15))

Mw.oBE = 1279375 ft* kip Overturning to North, OBE MN.OBE := l.2*MY 5 + l.2*MY 6 + MY 7 + MY 8 + MY 9 + MY 11 + 0.4MY 10 + MY 15 + 0.4(min(MY 14 ,MY 16)) MN.OBE = 1336232ft*kip Overturning to South, OBE Ms.OBE:= l.2*MY 5 + l.2*MY 6 + MY 7 + MY 8 + MY 9-MY 11 -0.4MY 10 + MY 13 + 0.4(max(MY 14 ,MY 16)) Ms.OBE = -863437ft*kip Overturning to East, SSE ME.SSE:= l.2*MX5 + l.2*MX6 + MX7 + MX8 + MX9 + MX17-0.4MX18 + MX23 + 0.4(min(MX2o*MX22))

ME.SSE= -1607049ft*kip Overturning to West, SSE Mw.SSE := l.2*MX5 + l.2*MX6 + MX7 + MX8 + MX9 -MX17 + 0.4MX18 + MX21 +

Mw.ssE = 1953982 ft* kip Overturning to North, SSE MN.SSE:= l.2*MY 5 + l.2*MY 6 + MY 7 + MY 8 + MY 9 + MY 18 + 0.4MY 17 + MY 22 + 0.4(min(MY 21 ,MY 23)) MN.SSE = 1986350 ft. kip Overturning to South, SSE Ms.SSE:= l.2*MY 5 + l.2*MY 6 + MY 7 +MY 8 + MY 9 -MY 18 -0.4MY 17 +MY 20 + 0.4(maiMY 21 ,MY 23)) Ms.SSE= -1521948 ft* kip 150252-CA-02 Appendix I 8 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 348 of 526

---

*------*

Total resistance to overturning Overturning resistance, OBE MR.OBE = 2974959ft:*kip Overturning resistance, SSE MR.SSE = 2833149 ft* kip Evaluation of overturning OBEo.lim := 1.5 Factor of Safety SSEo.lim := 1.1 Overturning to East, OBE I MR.oBEI FSE.O.OBE

= ME.OBE FSE.O.OBE

= 3 .128 Overturning to West, OBE I MR.OBE I FSw.o.OBE

= Mw.oBE FSw.o.oBE

= 2.325 Overturning to North, OBE I MR.oBEI FSN.O.OBE

= MN.OBE FSN.o.OBE

= 2.226 Overturning to South, QBE I MR.oBEI FSs.o.OBE

= Ms.OBE FSs.o.oBE

= 3.445 Factor of safety for OBE overturning is greater than 1.5 for all cases, therefore the CEB will not overturn for OBE loads. Overturning to East, SSE I MR.SSE I FSE.O.SSE

= ---ME.SSE FSE.O.SSE

= 1.763 Overturning to West, SSE I MR.SSE I FSw.o.ssE

= Mw.ssE FSw.o.ssE

= 1.45 Overturning to North, SSE I MR.SSE I FSN.o.ssE

= ---MN.SSE FSN.o.ssE

= 1.426 Overturning to South, SSE I MR.SSE I FSs.o.ssE

= ---Ms.ssE FSs.o.ssE

= 1.862 Factor of safety for SSE overturning is greater than 1.1 for all cases, therefore the CEB will not overturn for SSE loads. Evaluation of buoyancy F1im := 1.1 Factor of safety for flotation FSp = 7.791 Factor of safety for flotation is greater than 1.1, therefore the CEB will not float. 150252-CA-02 Appendix I 9 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 349 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB J1. REVISION HISTORY J1 .1. Revision 0 Initial document.

J2. OVERVIEW AppendixJ Parametric Studies PROJECT NO: ___ _,1=50=2=52=------

DATE: -------"'J""uly'--'2'="0'-"16,,__

__ BY: _____ __,_R=.M=.-"'M=on...,,e=s

__ _ VERIFIER:

___ __,_A"--'.T-'--'.

S""a,,_,ra""-"wi"-'*t

__ _ Parametric studies supporting the analyses and evaluations performed in this calculation are documented in this appendix.

The purpose and conclusions of each parametric study is provided individually in the subsequent sections.

A list of parametric studies is below.

• Parametric Study One: Study impact of reduced concrete elastic modulus (Section J3)

• Parametric Study Two: Study impact of ASR expansion applied at springline (Section J4)

• Parametric Study Three: Study impact of concrete fill ASR expansion on CEB deformation (Section J5) J2.1. PARAMETRIC STUDY ONE: STUDY IMPACT OF REDUCED CONCRETE ELASTIC MODULUS J2.2. Purpose and Description This parametric study is performed to assess the impact of modeling the concrete of the CEB with a reduced elastic modulus. Physical testing, as noted in main body of this calculation, of concrete cores affected by ASR removed from in-situ conditions have indicated a reduction in elastic modulus. This parametric study is performed by reducing the elastic modulus of the concrete by 50% (referred to as Analysis Set H in this appendix) and compares resulting computed demands due to ASR expansion of the CEB wall to a case performed without a reduction in elastic modulus (referred to as Analysis Set A in this appendix).

This parametric study was performed on a development version of the CEB model, which has small differences in geometry and ASR expansion profile than the CEB model documented in this calculation.

However, since the conclusions of this study are based on comparison with a corresponding development model, the use of a development model in this study is judged to be inconsequential.

150252-CA-02 Appendix J -J-1 -Revision O FP 100985 Page 350 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB J2.3. Results and Conclusions PROJECT NO: ___ __,_,,15=02=5=2

___ _ DATE: ------'J"-'u!!.!IV....=2"'-01,_,6'----

BY: --------'R'-'-'.=M_,_,.

M=o=n=es,,___

__ VERIFIER:

___ ____,_A_,,_.T_,_,.-'=S""'ar'""'awi-'-"*"-t

__ _ The elastic modulus has negligible impact on the radial deformations due to ASR of the CEB wall (Table J-1). This is because ASR strains are a prescribed value. The reinforcement and concrete stresses are consistently larger in Set A, indicating that it is conservative to use the concrete elastic modulus without reduction.

For this reason, no reduction will be applied to the concrete elastic modulus in the CEB model. J3. PARAMETRIC STUDY TWO: STUDY IMPACT OF ASR EXPANSION APPLIED AT SPRING LINE J3.1. Purpose and Description Cl measurements recorded at the springline indicate strains of about 0.1 % in the hoop direction and about 0.05% in the vertical direction.

As noted in Section 6.3.1 of the main body of the calculation, the orientation and pattern of cracks at the springline elevation indicate that cracking is at least partially related to structural demands rather than ASR expansion alone. ASR cracking typically has a map pattern, which is generally less apparent at the springline elevation than at other ASR monitoring locations.

Structural cracking at the springline may be related to thrust forces from the transition between the CEB dome and shell. The cracks may have initiated during construction of the CEB, when the dome concrete was curing; at that time the eccentric weight of the dome was present, but the stiffness and strength of the dome were not yet developed.

Nevertheless, this parametric study is carried out with a conservative assumption that the cracks at the springline are due to ASR to assess its impact on the CEB structure.

This parametric study was performed on a development version of the CEB model, which has some differences in ASR expansion profile in comparison to the CEB model documented in the main body of this calculation.

However, since the conclusions of this study are based on comparison with a corresponding development model, the use of a development model in this study is judged to be inconsequential.

J3.2. Results and Conclusions In this study, the Standard-Plus analysis case subject to load combination N0_ 1 is used as a baseline for comparison with the case study with additional ASR at the springline.

The concrete surface strains in the Hoop and Meridional directions due to application of ASR in CEB wall alone for Standard-Plus analysis case are shown in Figures J1 and J3, respectively.

Additional ASR at 150252-CA-02 Appendix J -J-2 -Revision O FP 100985 Page 351 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB PROJECT NO: ___ _,1""50,,,,2""'52=-------

DATE: _____ __,,_,Ju'-!Jlyc...2,,,_0_,_,,16'----

BY:

M=o=n=es"----

VERIFIER:

___ __,A-".-'-'T.--"S""a'""'ra"'-"wi"-t

__ _ the springline are applied to this analysis case to simulate recent field measurements of cracks found at the springline.

The concrete surface strains in the Hoop and Meridional directions due to application of ASR in CEB wall alone for Standard-Plus analysis case plus additional ASR at the springline are shown in Figure J2 and J4, respectively.

As can be seen from these figures, there is a narrow band of additional ASR strain of 0.8% at the springline in both the Hoop and Meridional directions.

Comparison of the demand-to-capacity ratios (DCRs) of the Standard-Plus analysis case with and without additional ASR at the springline are shown in Figures J5 through J16, for axial compression, in-plane shear, out-of-plane shear, and axial-flexure interaction.

As can be seen from these figures, all DCRs except the in-plane shear have increased at the springline.

The additional ASR at the springline does not cause the DCRs for in-plane shear or for axial compression in the hoop direction, or meridional direction to exceed 1.0. There is little to no change to the DCRs away from the springline, which suggest the high strain measurements at the springline regardless of whether they are caused by ASR or are from construction do not significantly affect the CEB structural performance in other regions away from the spring line. J4. PARAMETRIC STUDY THREE: STUDY IMPACT OF CONCRETE FILL ASR EXPANSION ON CEB DEFORMATION J4.1. Purpose and Description The purpose of this parametric study is to evaluate the impact of concrete fill ASR expansion on the CEB deformation, and to select a case for further structural evaluation.

The selected case is to provide an improved simulation of deformation measurements near AZ 230° over the "Standard" case by assuming that the concrete fill in the wedge region near AZ 230° is in contact with the CEB, which does not conform to design drawings.

The following three cases were considered in this parametric study: Case 1: Concrete fill ASR expansion corresponding to 100% of the overburden pressure in the wedge only (above EL. 19 ft) and 50% below EL. 19 ft; see Figure J 19. Case 2: Concrete fill ASR expansion corresponding to 100% of the overburden pressure in the wedge only (above EL. 19 ft), 50% below EL. 0 ft, and 0% between EL. 0 ft and 19 ft; see Figure J20. 150252-CA-02 Appendix J -J-3 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 352 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB PROJECT NO:

DATE: _____ _,J=u,..._ly-=20=1=6

__ _ BY:

VERIFIER:

___ __,_A"""".T'-'-.

=S=ar=aw=it,__

__ Case 3: Concrete fill ASR expansion corresponding to 50 to 100% of the overburden pressure at EL. 19 ft applied as gradient over wedge height, 50% below EL. 0 ft, and 0% between EL. 0 ft and 19 ft; see Figure J21. J4.2. Results and Conclusions Comparison of CEB deformation between Cases 1 and 2 at EL. 5.96 ft, 22.25 ft, 51.08 ft, and 119 ft are shown in Figures J22, J23, J24, and J25, respectively.

Available field measurements at EL. 5.96 ft, 22.25 ft, and 119 ft are also included in the figures for comparison.

There are no field measurements at elevation 51.08 ft. Results show Case 2 having less deformation than Case 1 in the wedge region near AZ 230°, and that both cases have less deformation than field measurements.

The concrete fill ASR expansion pressure on CEB wall of Cases 1 and 2 are the same except that Case 2 has no pressure between elevation 0 to 19 ft near AZ 230°, and therefore resulted in less deformation in that region. Comparison of CEB deformation between Cases 1 and 3 at EL. 5.96 ft, 22.25 ft, 51.08 ft, and 119 ft are shown in Figures J26, J27, J28, and J29, respectively.

As can be seen from these figures, the increase in concrete fill ASR expansion pressure in the wedge region from Case 2 to 3 resulted in deformation more similar to Case 1. Deformations for all three cases are similar at EL. 119 ft. Case 3 provides an improved simulation of deformation measurements near AZ 230° over the "Standard" and therefore is selected for further structural evaluation.

Case 3 is referred elsewhere in the calculation as the "Standard-Plus" case. 150252-CA-02 Appendix J -J-4 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 353 of 526 J5. SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER ,.,..... I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB TABLES PROJECT NO:

___ _ DATE:

BY: ______

VERIFIER:

__ _ Table J-1 -Comparison of Radial Deformations (in.) from ASR of Wall Independent Load Case (ILC) With and Without 50% Reduction in Concrete Elastic Modulus FEANodeNumber:

2203765 2200000 2203828 2200049 2200149 2212091 2101474 2200074 2212193 2206286 2202603 Approximate Azimuth: AZ 210 AZ 270 AZ 330 AZ 270 AZ 280 AZ 100 AZ 340 AZ 270 AZ 90 AZO AZ315 Approximate Elevation:

EL +22ft EL +22ft EL +22ft EL +50ft EL +3ft EL +13ft EL Oft

Description:

ASR of Wall I LC -Parametric Analysis Set A -0.41 1.36 ASR ofWall ILC -Parametric Analysis Set H -0.40 1.33 150252-CA-02 Appendix J FP 100985 Page 354 of 526 .c 0 1il I Qi c c 0 en co ID 0... <( 0.01 0.02 "O Qi (!) :r: .9-(/) 0... (!) (!) *-> en "O 0 Cll Cll .c .c 0:: <( () 1.01 0.99 -J-5 -(!) 0 l(J 5 EB t5 .8 (!) a .e-e Cll 0... 0... 1.65 1.61 (!) en Cll .c () (!) 0. 0::: 1il Cll w -0.25 -0.25 r3 *;:: t5 c W:;::; ..... Cll 0 .l:; (!) (!) "O c *-(!) Cl) 0... 0.01 0.00 EL EL +119ft +119ft EL +28ft EL +50 ai c ::J Cl en .._ (!) 0.54 0.53 ai c ::J Cl c .... *c en 0. Cll Cf) w -0.45

-0.44 Cii (.) *;:: t5 c (!) 0 [jJ ..... .._ O(j) 0. c 0 (!) I-0... 1.17 1.14 "O Cll 0:: Qi c c 0 (!) c -"O >

0 '-....... .q (!) Cll .c <(0...IU:

-0.03

-0.02 Revision 0 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Bui l ding E nclosures PROJECTN0: ____

CLIENT:

__________________

BY: _______

SUBJECT:

______ VERIFIER:

__ _ J6. FIGURES SOWTION S1'EP=l SUS =l TDIE=l Ell {NOAVG) TOP OMX =.8723 12 SMN =-.182.E-04 SMX =. 393!!-03

• l OOe-03

• JOOE-03 SR_ILC_OS_I_ro , SEAB ROOK CE B , 150252

• 600!!-03

• SOOE-03 AN SYS R1 5.0 JUL 11 2016 13: 57:34 .800!!-03 . 700£-03 Figure J 1. Concrete Surface Strains in the Hoop Direction due to Application of ASR in CEB Wall for Standard-Plus Analysis Case. S'l'EP-1 SUB =l TI.Ke*! Ell (NOAVG) TOP DNX =l .10797 SMN =-. 289 E.-04 SMK =. 762?.-0 3 .100!!-0 3 . 300!!-03 SR_rLC_OS_I_ro, SEABROOK CE B, 150252

• 600?:-03 . 500?.-0 3 AN SYS RlS.O JUL 11 20H i 14:01:06

• 700£-03 Figure J2. Concrete Surface Strains in the Hoop Direction due to Application of ASR in CEB Wall for Standard-Plus Analysis Case Plus Additional ASR at the Springline.

150252-CA-02 Appendix J -J-6 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 355 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Bui l ding Enclosure s CLIENT: N ext E ra E ner g y S eabrook

SUBJECT:

ELEMEN'1" !OLOTION STEP=l StTS =1 !:22 (NOAVG) TOP CMX =. 872312 SHN =-. 211!:-04 !NX =. 53Ei!!-03 AN SYS Rl S.O JOL 11 2016 13:56:28 .100!!-0l

.300!!-03 . 500!:-0l . 700E-03 SR_ILC_OS_I_

r o, S E ABROOK CE B, 150252 Figure J3. Concrete Surface Strains in the Meridional Direction due to Application of ASR i n CEB Wall for Standard-Plus Analysis Case. ST!!P=l StJB =1 TIME=! e.22 (NO:..VG) TOP [l(}C =1.10797 SMN =-.272 E-0 4 !5MX =. 7'0?:-03 .200 E-03 .400E-03 .EiOO E-03 AN SYS R lS.O JOL 11 2016 11:02:09 .100?:-03 . 300!:-03 . 500!!-0 3 . 700?:-03 SR_ILC_OS_I_rO, SEABROOK CEB, 150252 Figure J4. Concrete Surface Strains in the Meridional Direction due to Applicat i on of ASR in CEB Wall for Standard-Plus Analysis Case Plus Additional ASR at the Spring l ine 150252-CA-02 Appendix J -J-7 -Revis i on 0 FP 1 0 0985 Page 356 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER CLIENT:

SUBJECT:

I Engineering of Structures and Bu il ding Enclosures NextEra Energy Seabrook x ANSYS ANSYS 15.0 R!S.O PW!' NJ. 66 -.3 0 .3 .5 .7 .9 1 1.1 1.5 AZOt:o>.290 AZ 91) t<:> AZ 180 A2 180 to A2. 210 A2 210 to AZ 0 St.andard-F l us Hu..1ysis Ca.oo$ Static Carbina.Uo n llO 1 nieshold Fact.or: 1. 2 ratio for axial ccnpreBsion in OOop direction FILE: SR_evB_LCB_COl_tl2_rO_axc!XlUl.ETl'.81.E Figure J 5. DCRs for Axial Compression in the Hoop Direction for Combination N0_ 1 for the Standard-Plus Analysis Case AZOt.oA:?.90 AZ 90 to N!. 1 80 AZ 180 t<:> AZ 270 Standard-Plus w/ ASR a.t Sp:in;line; St.atic CClrbina.t ion 00_1 'Ihre&:h:>ld Facb:>r: 1.2 ty ratio for: axial ccrrpresoio n in t-oop direction FILE: SR_ evE _ LCB _ COl _ t12 _ r0 _ axc!XlUl . ETABI.E 4 7 [_;,; ANSYS ANSYS 15.o 112 210 t.o >.z 0 RI S.O PW!' NO. 66 -.3 0 .3 .5

• 7 .9 1 1.1 1.5 Figure J6. DCRs for Axial Compression in the Hoop Direction for Combination N0_ 1 for the Standard-Plus Analysis Case Plus Additional ASR at the Springline 150252-CA-02 Appendix J -J-8 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 357 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER C LIENT: I Engineering of St ructures and Bu il ding Enclo s ures PROJECT NO: ____ _,_15,,_,0=2=5=2

___ _ DATE: ______ ___ _ _

__________________ BY: _______

___ _ SUB J E C T:

______ VERIFIER: __ _ 1 7 -, L AZ0tDllZ90 l\Z 90 to AZ 180 AZ 180 to A2 270 Stan::i:mi-Plus Analys i s Static O:rrbim.Uo n 00_1 "nlresh:ild F'actor: 1.2 4 ANSYS ANSYS 15.0 RlS.O PlOl' l\O. 69 AZ 270 to AZ 0 -.3 0 .3 .5 .7 .9 1 1.1 1.5 Demand-to-capk:ity ratio for axial carpression in rreridiore.l direction FILE: SR_ evB _ LCB _ COl _ t12 _ro -axc!X:R22 . ETABIE Figure J7. DCRs for Axial Compression in the Meridional Direction for Combination N0_1 for the Standard-Plus Analysis Case AZ 0toAZ90 AZ 90 to AZ 180 AZ 180 to M,. 270 St.anittd-Plu&

Rui w/ ASR at. Sp:irgllne, S ta.tic D:lrbination llO 1 Threst-o l d Factor: 1.2 ANSYS ANSYS 15.o 1"7. 270 t.o J>.Z. 0 R IS.O PlOl' l\J). 69 -.3 0 .3 .5 .7 .9 1 1.1 1.5 Demlrd-t:o-capaci ty ratio for axial ooopression in neridioral direction FILE: SR_evE_LCB_COl_tl2_rO_axc!X:R22

.ETABIE Figure J8. DCRs for Axial Compression in the Meridional Direction for Combination N0_1 for the Standard-Plus Analysis Case Plus Additional ASR at the Springline 150252-CA-02 Appendix J -J-9 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 358 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER C L I EN T: I E ngineering of Structures and Building E nclosures Ne xt Era Energy Seabroo k SU B JECT: Evaluat i o n and Desig n Co n fi rma t i on of As-D ef or me d CEB J AZ0toAZ90 A2.90toAZ180 AZ 100 to AZ 270 St.ardard-Plua Analysis OWe , Static Cbrbination NO 1 f'actor: 1.2 Oerrarrl-to-cspscity ratio for in-plane ahe6.r FllE: SR_evl3_LCB_COl_t12_rO_VIP_OCR

.ETAELE AN SYS Rl S.O AZ 210 to AZ 0 PRO JE CT NO: 150252 D A TE: Ju l y 2016 B Y: R.M. Mones VER IF IER: A.T. S ara wit l'NSYS 15.0 PUJI' NJ. 72 -.3 0 .3 .5 .7 .9 1 1.1 1.5 Figure J9. DCRs for In-Plane Shear for Combination N0_1 for the Standard-Plus Analysis Case J J AZ 90 to AZ 18-0 AZ 100 to AZ 270 Starrlard-Plus FlJn w/ ASR at Sfxirgl.ine, Static C.crrbination

!l:J_l Threshold Factor: 1. 2 ratio for 1n-plare shea%" FILE: SR_evE_LCB_COl_t12_rO_VI P_OCR.ETAELE ANSYS FNSYS 15.o R lS.O PUJI' NJ. 72 AZ 210 to AZ 0 -.3 0 .3 .5 .7 .9 1 1.1 1.5 Figure J10. DCRs for In-Plane Shear for Combination N0_1 for the Standard-Plus Analysis Case Plus Additional ASR at the Spring line 150252-CA-02 Appendix J -J-10 -Revision 0 FP 10 0 98 5 Page 359 of 5 2 6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER CLIENT:

SUBJECT:

I Engineering of S t ructures and Building Enclo s ure s

_________________ __ _ _____ VERIFIER: ____ _,_, A'"" , _,.S,,.a ,_.ra"'wi'""t __ _ 2 :J' AN SYS /\NSYS 15. o R!S, O PlDl' !IO. 84 -.3 0 .3 .5 .7 .9 1 1.1 1.5 AZ0to>Z90 AZ 90 to AZ 180 AZlSOtoKl.270 AZ.210toAZ.0 St.arrlard-Plus Anlllys1s Owe. Static CCrrbination OOl ni'eshold ractor: 1.2 Centrrl-to-capecity ratio fur shear (Q23) FIIE:

Figure J11. DCRs for Out-of-Plane S hear (acting on hoop-radial plane) for Combination N0_1 for the Standard-Plus Analysis Case 2 4 7 AN SYS /\NSYS 15. o Rl S, O PlDl' 1'0. 84 -.3 0 .3 .5 . 7 .9 1 1.1 1.5 AZOtoA.?90 A2. 90 to N. 180 A2.180toAl.270 AZ270to>2.0 St.ndard-Plus Run w/ >SR a t Sp:ingline., St.atic O:xrbination

.., l ni"esh:>ld Factor: 1. 2 Dc-mmd-to-capaci ty ratio for out-of-plane chear (023) FIIE: SR_evE_LCB_ COl_tl2_rO _ IAJP220CR. ETABIE Figure J12. DCRs for Out-of-Plane Shear (acting on hoop-radial plane) for Combination N0_1 for the Standard-Plus Analysis Case Plus Addit i onal ASR at the Springline 150252-CA-02 Appendix J -J-11 -Rev i sion 0 F P 10098 5 Pa ge 360 o f 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Bui l ding Enclosures CLIE NT:

SUBJECT:

ANSYS J>NSYS 15.o R IS.O PLCJl: 1'0. 81 -.3 0 .3 .5 .7 .9 l l.l 1.5 AZ0t:oAZ90 AZ90t.o/:i2.180 AZ.lOOtoAZ.2'70 1'2.270toK!..O Starrlard-Pluo Amlysis Caoo, Static O:nbina.Uon 001 n;eshold factor: 1.2 ratio for out-of-plane shear (Ql3J FII.E: SR_evB_I.CB_COl_tl2_rO_liO PllDCR.ETASLE Figure J 13. DCRs for Out-of-Plane Shear (acting on meridional-radial plane) for Combination N0_ 1 for the Standard-Plus Analysis Case AZ0toAZ90 AZ 90 to Kl 1 80 AZ 180 to "2 2?0 Stan::fard-f>lus Eil.n w/ .\SR at. S}xingl.ina , Sta.tic Carbi.nation 00_1 F actor: 1. 2 ratio for out-of-plane c:hear (013) FII.E: SR_evE_I.CB_COl_t12_rO_liOPllDCR.ETASLE 4 7 ANSYS J>NSYS 15.o R IS.O PLCJl: ID. 81 -.3 0 .3 .5 .7 .9 1 l.l 1.5 Figure J14. DCRs for Out-of-Plane Shear (acting on meridional-radial plane) for Combination N0_1 for the Standard-Plus Analysis Case Plus Additional ASR at Spring line 150252-CA-02 Appendix J -J-12 -Revision 0 FP 100 98 5 Page 3 6 1 of 5 2 6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER CLI E NT: I Engineering of S t ructures and Building Enclosures N ext E r a En e rgy Seabroo k P ROJ E CT NO: ____ _,_1,,_,50=2=

5=2 ___ _ D ATE: ______

BY: _______ S U B JE CT:

V E RIFIER: ____ __ v AZ0toAZ90 AZ 90 to AZ 180 AZ 180 t.o AZ 2?0 Standard-Plus Am.lysis case, Static Qrrbina:Uon llO I ntteshold Factor: 1.2 ANSYS ANSYS 15.0 RI S.O PLO!' ID. 75 AZ210to>2.0

-.3 0 .3 .5 . 7 .9 1 1.1 1.5 Derrand-t.o-aq:ac:ity ratio for axial-flexure interaction in h::>op direction FILE: SR_evB_LCB_COl_tl2_rO_fMll

_OOl..ET!'.El.E Figure J 15. DCRs for Axial-Flexure Interaction in the Hoop Direction for Combination N0_1 for the Standard-Plus Analysis Case AZ0toAZ90 AZ.90t:oAZ 1 80 AZ 180 to AZ 210 Stan:iard-Plus FU'\ w/ ASR. at Sp:inglinB, St.atJc O:nbi.na.tic.n NO_! Threshold Factor: 1.2 4 7 ANSYS ANSYS 15.o AZ 210 to AZ 0 RI S.O PI.Or ID. 75 -.3 0 .3 .5 .7 .9 1 1.1 1.5 Darmnd-t:o-capacity ra.t10 for axt.al-flexu:z:e in hoop dil:ection FILE: SR_ evE _ LCB _ C01_tl2_rO_00 l _ OOl.. ETAB!E Figure J16. DCRs for Axial-Flexure Interaction in the Hoop Direction for Combination N0_1 for the Standard-Plus Analysis Case Plus Additional ASR at the Springline 150252-CA-02 Appendix J -J-13 -Revis i on 0 FP 1 0 0985 Page 362 o f 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER CLIENT: S UBJE CT: I Engineering of Structures and Bui l ding Enclosures ANSYS l>NSYS 15. o y AZ0toAZ90 AZ 90 to AZ 1 80 AZ 180 to AZ 270 AZ 210 to AZ 0 St.and.a.rd-P l us Amlysis Cane. Static Cl:n'binatio n 1':ll ni°esho l d Factor: l. 2 Oererrl-t:o-e&plCity ratio for axial-flexure interaction 1n neridional direction FITE: SR_evB_LCB_COl_tl2_rO_FM22_IXR

.ET.l\BLE RIS.O PIDf J.IO. 78 -.3 0 .3 .5 .7 .9 1 1.1 1.5 Figure J17. DCRs for Axial-Flexure Interaction in the Meridional Direction for Combination N0_1 for the Standard-Plus Analysis Case AZ0toAZ90 AZ 90 to AZ 1 60 AZ 180 to 1>:l. 210 Standard-P l us RlXI w/ ASR &t Sp: irgl 1ne 1 Static carbina.Uon 00 l ntt'esil:i l d Factor: 1.2 4 7 ANSYS l>NSYS 15.o AZ210t.o>Z O RI S.O PIDf ).\(). 78 -.3 0 .3 .5 .7 .9 1 1.1 1.5 Demmd-to-cap.'tCity ratio for axial-fl exure i n teraction in rrerid.ior.al direction F ITE: SR_evE_LCB_COl_tl2_rO_FM22_IXR.ETA!llE Figure J18. DCRs for Axial-Flexure Interaction in the Meridional Direction for Combination N0_1 for the Standard-Plus Analysis Case Plus Additional ASR at the Spring line 150252-CA-02 Appendix J -J-14 -Revision 0 F P 10 098 5 P a g e 3 63 o f 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and B ui l ding Enclosure s CLIENT: Next E ra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB PROJECT NO: ____ ___ _ DATE: _____

B Y: ______

__ _ VER I FIER: ___ ___:.A_,,_. T"-'-. =S=ar=awi=

• t,__ __ Figure J 19. Concrete fill pressure on CEB wall for Case 1: Concrete fill ASR expansion correspond in g to 100% of the overburden pressure in the wedge only (above EL. 19 ft) and 50% below EL. 19 ft (looking from inside CEB). F igur e J20. Concrete fill pressure on CEB wall for Case 2: Concrete fill ASR expansion corresponding to 100% of the overburden pressure in the wedge only (above EL. 19 ft), 50% below EL. 0 ft , and 0% between EL. 0 ft and 19 ft (looking from inside CEB). 150252-CA-02 Appendix J -J-15 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 364 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER CLIENT: S UBJE CT: I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures PROJECTN0: ____

___ _ _________________

_ B Y: _______ __ _ _E_v_a_lu_a_t_io_n_a_nd_D_e_s_ig_n_C_o_n_fi_rm_a_ti_o_n_o_f_A_s_-_D_e_fo_r_m_e_d_C_E_B

______ VERIFIER: ____ __,_A""."'"" T'""'S""a"'r_,, a"'"'wi_,,_*t __ _ Figure J 21. Concrete fill pressure on CEB wall for Case 3: Concrete fill ASR expansion correspond i ng to 50 to 100% of the overburden pressure at E. 19 ft applied as gradient over wedge height, 50% below EL. 0 ft , and 0% between EL. 0 ft and 19 ft (looking from inside CEB). ,, // ',

/ ', .* ...... **. *.. // ' . . **' ** .. *.. // " .. * .. ** ...... . .. ' . . * .... *.** . ... ; r. . . ' / .. *** .... /.. . .. ... . .x* .. ******** *** ... .. : .* .t-"' .**', /*. * .* *. ** ** * * * ,. ""-// *.., *, a* * * : .. , .. : ... ', *. . ., . . . . .... : ' // ... * .. *..* *. *. ...,;,. ... ..... / / / \ .... \ *... *. : 11. .. .; .f. ', // . \. :,.-,. :. : ' / *. "' . // 1', . '"['J : : : / I ', : : . :* : *. .... \ // I ' _:" : .: : . .';.I. . . / I ' * * . . *n ot. * *. / I ' : ; rJ : . * .. *.. W * .. **... // I .* :* :: ** * ; : * . "*. **./ I '.* .-.. * / *. , **' .. , : : I/;. **... I * .-" .:-* * '. *. '}i' *.... I **.. * *" ** ,;': '111 ........ J........ ...** /* . ... ......... " / . . . ,,......... . .// **:-.-.-.-.-.*

]: :*.-_ ...........

• GL-2

• GL+2 *Undeformed Shape *Case 1 at EL 5.96 ft

• Case 2 at EL 5.96 ft *F ield Data at EL 5.96 ft+/-5.0 ft Deformations scaled by 100X. Small gray dots represent 1 in. grades of deformation. Figure J22. Deformation comparison between Cases 1 and 2 , and Field Data at EL. 5.96 ft 150252-CA-02 Appendix J -J-16 -Rev i s i on 0 FP 100985 Page 365 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER CLIENT: I Engineering of Structures and Bu il ding E nclosures

SUBJECT:

I I I I : ... I .*. *. I **.. '1 I ** .. ; : : 4* .** ' I //* *.* ** : : I .*. ... ', I / ** ... * .. ***** * ** . : :-,; .: : ' I / * ** ** * * ;.,/'/ / : . ',, : //// .\ \"./!} .... ": * . : ' I : * . * '1/ : : : : \_ * . ** / I ', f : : : * .. -r. \ .... \ /// : ', / / :' ... * \.. "* **. / I ' ; : r: ; *. *. *4'1 **. *.. / I ', / .: l'i : * *. '-*. *. / I ' ** . ** * . . '-. ** * ..*. /

• I ,,.* ,.-// .: : * *. '\J';I'. F*..

• I .. **; : .... :* ..

....... J. ...... . . ,/ .... . .-.;"';, I * ,. /,._ **.. * ** "****** ' // . *. * ...******* ', // ...............

!: :..........

',,,

• G L-2

• G L+2 *Und efo rm e d S ha pe *C a s e 1 a t EL 22.2 5 ft *C a se 2 at E L 22.2 5 ft *Fiel d Oa t a at EL 22.25 ft+/-5.0 ft O eformati o n s s c al ed b y 1 00X. Sm a ll g r ay d ot s represe nt 1 in. grad es of d eforma t io n. F i g ur e J23. Defo rm at i on c o m par i so n betwee n C ases 1 and 2 , and F iel d Da ta a t EL. 22.25 ft ', ........ I........

// ' ... // ' * . * .*.. I *'*.*.... . . / ', ..... * ...* " " " " " " "* .. *. . . . . // '. ** . ..... 1....... . . y

... ****!********* " ** * *.* *** I **** **. ..... **"., .. ** l ..,*':" .* " I * * : : :: :: '" I / *.* "* *. * ** *. . . * * . " I / *. * *.* .

• U 1f 1 _____ :

___ _().

\i : \ / 1', : : : : : ': : / I ', ! : : : ** ':i :_ :_ // I " :' :' ... : * *. **:. .. .... \ / / : "' .... ... !! ... . .. *. ..... \. \ ..* .,// I ',, ...... * ** : *. *.. 'i;,:**.... : . ',**v . ...-... . *. t.qf;***.... I . "" .** . . < .,_,,, ****** " ' . /. I ,. /', . . ******* ****** ' / *. ***** .. " // *. *. **. ******111 ,......... " // ................

*.

........

',,,

• GL-2

• G L+2 *Undeformed Shape *Case 1 at EL 51.08 ft *Case 2 a t EL 51.08 ft *F i el d Oata at EL 51.08 ft+/-5.0 ft Oef o rmations scaled by 100X. Small gray dots represent 1 in. grades of deforma t ion. F i gure J24. Deformation compar i son between Cases 1 and 2 , and F i eld Data at EL. 51.08 ft 150252-CA-02 Appendix J -J-17 -Revis i on 0 FP 100985 Page 366 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Bui l ding Enclosure s CLIEN T: NextEra Energy S e ab rook

SUBJECT:

' ' ' ' ' ' ,. *" ... *' .* ..... *.*:.:::::::." .. // .. *. * .t.f*A.. . .. . // . . . * ****** ,. *** . . . / ...........

.. "*** .... .. /"'./ . . ..........

• • • r ..............

• .... / .. .. r "" .: .. ' / * .. *. : .. ' // .... ; .* *). *.* * .. : .: ' / * :iii! * :' :' ' / "* '! *. *. : : ', I / "* *': : : / . : ' I / : *: :;, * . iJ _________ : : / 1', : ; .. :: : : :. / I ', f :* :: .: : // I ' : : tt: * : / I ' : ** .*: : . // I ', _.:* :: ,,.*.: .: . *.* * .. / I ' .* . *" "* *.: I ***** I .. *** *.*** ** . . , / ******* **a*... I *... *** . . /.. * ....... ....... ..........

• • =*** ?. * ***.***.. ). ****** , *** / . ***** ......... , ,.., .. .. *' . . * ,. .. ' ' / *.. ******¥*****

.. // ...........

1 ..........

• ' ' .. // ** .........

! ......... . ' ' '

• GL-2

• GL+2

• Undefomied Shape *Case 1 at EL 119.00 ft *Case 2 at EL 119.00 ft *Field Oata at EL 119.00 ft+/-5.0 ft Defomiations scaled by 100X. Small gray dots represent 1 in. grades of defomiation.

Figure J 25. Deformation comparison between Cases 1 and 2 , and Field Data at EL. 11 9.00 ft ' ' ' ; .... ', .*** ' .* ... ** ..... ..... " .,, . . . ' . . .. .. *.**** * ...* ,.. . . . . . : ... . ..... . ..... .-* ... , ... .. , , ', / .. "*X . . . . ...... ' /// ** ... * ...... A ** ... "*. : ... ... ' . . .. -.. . . ' / . '\ .; .f. ', // . !. ;.. . :. : ' / . "*:. // : ', . !'[1"' ... :. ,. ' \ .... / l ', / ... :' . ****.Jr. *. " // I ' : : : .... .,,.._" / I ' : *rJ. *. *.* * ** **.*. // I ,:: :: ** * : ';.;.-. / I I --:,* .// "j *-.. I .-" ;-.* * '. ._ / :;;.;., *-...... I ..... *" . .. /. ,,, ....... J ..... .. J', * ... ......... . / ** ** I .. / ......

// ...........

1. ........ ** // ........ ! ........ . .*

• GL-2

• GL+2

• Undefomied Shape *Case 1 at EL 5.96 ft *Case 3 at EL 5.96 ft *Field Data at EL 5.96 ft+/-5.0 ft Defomiations scaled by 100X. Small gray dots represent 1 in. grades of deformation. Figure J26. Deformation comparison between Cases 1 and 3 , and F i eld Data at EL. 5.96 ft 150252-CA-02 Appendix J -J-18 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 367 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER CLIENT: I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures

__________________

B Y: _______

SUBJECT:

______ VERIFIE R:

__ _ ' I ', I ', .* .** : ',... . .** o*l ll" I I /* *. ...-I '** .**

• I **' **

• I * * / .. **.. *.. // "": "* .. ,,/ / / / . .II:'* .-', I . * : *. / ' I / " "* ** * *.

• ____ lr. * . : / I ', ! : : : . * . . / I ' * * .* : 'I. :. *.. // I ' .: .: : . . -** \. "* "* / I ' : : ;: .' . *. * . e., *.. / I ', :: _: ::* .* *. *. "\" *.* // I ' ,.*:r.* ** * : : ** * * *.. */

• I '.z' : . .... "*. '&'"':;.;;.*-.. : . '".. . ........ . . **#-.*** ....... J. . ..... ' .* /"-. ... . '****..'. ...... ' . *** .. .... J ' // . . ...........

..... ' // ............

!: ............

',,,

• GL-2

• GL+2

• U n d efonned S h ape *Case 1 at E L 22.25 ft *Cas e 3 a t EL 22.25 ft *Fiel d Data at EL 22.25 ft+/-5.0 ft Defo nn a ti ons scaled b y 100X. S mall gray dots repr e sen t 1 in. gra d es of d eformation. Figure J27. Deformation comparison between Cases 1 and 3 , and Field Data at EL. 22.25 ft ', ....... I....... // ' *** 41*.......

/ ' . . . .... ;t* I '**.... . . // ', ..... * ................. , ....... :. **... . . . . // '. . *. r .... 1.... . . ,,/ .. _*.::::: ..... f ..... ::::::.-<::*.. . :,.(. , ** * ... ** I ** ... **!"Ji;. ..

• I . . ,.*'!"" ... **', I //* ... . . : : : :* ' I / **. * .* *. * *. *. / i? /: /: ,,, i //// *.\ ***\**).}\. \ . * * * : ' I . . . . : i : : ' I// : : : : : \ \ \ \ // : ',, j f : j ** ... \ .... .... // l ' / /.: 1 :' .* *. -.* ... :=. ... ... // : ', ... : :: : : * ** * ** # * ** **-.. // I ', .:: .: : *. -.. *-.. "-; I '..:,' ..* // : * ** * .* ., I * ,. (/' _:' .: . ._

I . ""' _. ** . **. trr ....... ...... ., ' *,,: . * ....

.. .I. ... ** . / **** **' * ' / .

' _// *:-.-.-..........

!: ........ ',,,

• GL-2

• GL+2 *Und eforme d S h ape *Case 1 at E L 5 1.08 ft *Case 3 at EL 51.08 ft *Field Data at EL 51.08 fl +/-5.0 ft Deformations sca l ed by 1 OOX. Small gray dots represent 1 in. grades of d eforma t ion. Figure J28. Deformation comparison between Cases 1 and 3 , and Field Data at EL. 51.08 ft 150252-CA-02 Appendix J -J-19 -Revision 0 FP 1009 8 5 Page 36 B of 5 2 6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER CLIENT:

SUBJECT:

I Engineering of Structures ond Bui l ding Enclosures Ne xt E ra En e r gy S e a b roo k

,, I / ', .* **.*:.*.*.:

l ::::::* *. // ' . . . . . *'*'*"-* . . . . // ', .** ****** , ...

• • • . // > '°.. . ..

! *..... ;>.-: .. e.*"-.. ** I ** *. /.. * * . * *' I /* * ** . . ...

• _.*** I // ** **. :**. *. *. : : ', I / * ..... 0.7! * . :.: ' I /

! ' I // "* *". : * ; ; ', I / : *: '. : iJ _________ : \ / 1', f : .. : : : : / l ', .: :' !: .= : *. // I ' : : <t i * : / I ' .: : :: : . / I ', : : .*: : : *. * *. // I ' .. : .:.:* * . * *. " ,( I ':< . . * . / 9* I .* ._. * ... ............ L .. ***** ? . . *******a* .... .I ..... *** / *. ***** ....... ,, .. .. / *.

.. * // ...........

! .*.*.*. *** ,,// ...... ! ....... . .* .*' ' ' '

• GL-2

• GL+2 *Undeformed Shape *Case 1 at EL 119.00 ft ' ' ' *Case 3 at EL 119.00 ft *F iel d Data at EL 119.00 ft+/-5.0 ft Deformations scaled by 100 X. Small gray d o ts represent 1 in. grades of deformation.

F i gu r e J 29. Deformation compar i son between Cases 1 and 3 , and F i eld Data at EL. 119.00 ft 150252-CA-02 Append i x J -J-20 -Revision 0 FP 10098 5 P age 369 o f 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structure s and Bui l d i ng Enclosures C LIENT: N ext Era Energy Seab r oo k S U BJ E C T: Eva l ua ti on a n d Des i gn Con firmatio n of As-D e formed CEB K1. REVISION HISTORY K1 .1. Revision 0 Init i al document K2. OVERVIEW Appendix K Evaluation Examples PRO J ECT NO: ___ ___,_, 15=0=25=2 D A TE: _____ B Y: ______ VER IF IER: ___ __ _ Prov i de example computation demonstrating the element-by-element evaluation methodology. Element-by-element evaluation example is provided in Table K1. 150252-CA-02 Appendix K -K-1 -Revision 0 F P 10098 5 P ag e 370 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclo sures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook PROJECTN0: ___ ___,_,15=0=25=

2 DA TE: _____ __, J ... u"'ly_.2'""0

-'-"'16 BY: _______ R'-".=M"-. =M=o"'n e=s

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB VERIFIER: ____ _,_A""".T'""'"._,.S=ar""a-'-'wi,,_

• t __ _ Table K1. Demonstration of Element-By-Element Evaluation for One Element Define Notation For Element Forces and Moments Axis 1 is i n hoop direction; Axis 2 is in meridional direction; Axis 3 is in radial direction N11 =Axial force in hoop direction , kip/ft N22 =Axial force in meridional direction , kip/ft N12 =In-plane shear force , kip/ft jN22 Nl2 ____ _ M11 = Bending moment about axis 2 (stresses rebars aligned with axis 1 ), kip-fUft M22 = Bending moment about axis 1 (stresses rebars aligned with axis 2), kip-ft/ft M12 =Torsional Bending Moment, kip-ft/ft Q13 =Out-of-plane shear along hoop axis , kip/ft 023 = Out-of-plane shear along meridional axis , kip/ft All forces and moments are given two subscripts:

First Subscript:

• Subscript C is given to all forces and moments extracted from the concrete element and

• Subscript S is given to all forces and moments extracted from the steel reinforcement membrane element. Second Subscript:

• Subscript A is given to all forces and moments from self-straining loads ,

• Subscript D is given to all forces and moments associated with original SD-66 loads. For exam le , N11 cA is the total hoo axial force in the concrete due to self-strainin loads l --Nll Element and Loading Information Elem ,....e_n_t_L_o_c_a_t_io_n_:.------.------.------

Concrete Element Number: 2100117 Hoop/Meridional Reinforcement Element Number: 6100117/7100117 Element Description

El. -17 ft , AZ 218° South of Mechanical Penetration near base of CEB Thickness: 36 in. Reinforcement in Hoop Direction:

1. 11@12" Each Face Reinforcement in Meridional Direction: One #11@6" Inside Face and Two Layers #11@6 Outside Face Analysis Case: Standard Analysis Case Loads: Combination OBE_ 1 with seismic excitation 100% East , 40% North , and 40% Vertical Up. Threshold factor of 1.2 on ASR loads. (1.3x1.2)Sa+1.4Sw

+ 1.40 + 1.7L + 1.9E o + 1.7H + 1.9H e Evaluation results saved with the file name: SR evA LCB 001 t12 rO 150252-CA-02 Appendix K -K-2 -FP 1 oo gB5 Page 371 of 526 AZ o* to go* AZ go* to 1 ao* AZ 1 ao* to 270* AZ 270° to o* Revision 0 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook PROJECTN0:

___ __,_,15=0=25=2 DATE: ______

BY: ______

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB VERIFIER:

__ _ Table K1. Demonstration of Element-By-Element Evaluation for One Element Analysis Step One Compute as-deformed shape due to Independent Load Cases (ILCs) 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 without load factors. Account for creep by multiplying deformations due to ILC 3, 4, and 9 by a factor of (1.3 + 1.0), where 1.3 is the creep coefficient and the added 1.0 accounts for instantaneous deformations.

Also in Analysis Step One, compute the demands due to self-straining loads (ILC 5, 6, and 8 only, conservatively neglect all other self-straining loads): Demands for Concrete Element Element 2100117) ILC N11 N22 N12 M11 M22 M12 Q13 Q23 5 -35.03 -99.25 19.26 5.67 0.37 0.54 0.00 -1.52 6 -81.36 16.61 -37.87 -5.74 -29.72 -14.68 0.58 -9.26 8 -42.42 -29.12 25.23 1.21 0.70 0.40 0.00 -0.20 Demands for Hoop Reinforcement Element (Element 6100117) ILC N11 N22 N12 M11 M22 M12 Q13 Q23 5 35.02 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8 6.84 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Demands for Meridional Reinforcement Element Element 7100117) ILC N11 N22 N12 M11 M22 M12 Q13 Q23 5 0.0 92.19 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8 0.0 23.18 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Combined and Factored Demands (Concrete) N11cA N22cA N12cA M11cA M22cA M12cA Q13cA Q23cA Cone. -240.96 -169.68 6.29 1.58 -44.81 -21.51 0.91 -17.10 Combined and Factored Demands (Steel) N11sA N22sA N12sA M11sA M22sA M12sA Q13sA Q23sA Steel 64.21 176.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Commentary Loads from each independent load case are listed in this section. Each ILC used in this example problem is briefly described below: ILC 3 = Self Weight ILC 4 = Hydrostatic Pressure ILC 5 = ASR of Wall ILC 6 = ASR of Fill ILC 7 = Shrinkage ILC 8 = Swelling ILC 9 = Static Earth Pressure ILC 10 = OBE Accelerations in East/West ILC 11 = OBE Accelerations in North/South ILC 12 = OBE Accelerations in Vertical ILC 15 = OBE Dynamic Soil Pressures Pushing North ILC 16 = OBE Dynamic Soil Pressures Pushing East ILC 24 = Live (Snow) Loads Sign conventions and units are listed below:

• Positive axial loads are tensile.

• Positive bending moments cause tensile stress on the outside face of the CEB wall. " Forces shown are in units of kip/ft

• Moments shown are in units of kip-ft/ft Note: Reinforcement elements are active only in ILC 5 and 8, and therefore do not have output in all other ILCs. Note: ASR demands (ILC 5 and 6) are factored by 1.3 x 1.2 (load factor and threshold factor). Swelling demands (ILC 8) are factored by 1.4 (same as dead load). 150252-CA-02 Appendix K -K-3 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 372 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook PROJECT NO:

DATE:

BY: ______

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB VERIFIER:

__ _ Table K1. Demonstration of Element-By-Element Evaluation for One Element Analysis Step Two Demands for Concrete Element (Element 2100117) ILC N11 N22 N12 M11 M22 M12 013 023 3 -11.92 -79.43 3.08 -0.08 -0.53 -0.07 0.00 -0.10 4 -1.89 -0.75 -0.84 -1.20 -1.70 0.92 0.13 0.17 9 -1.37 -2.22 -2.76 -0.01 -0.02 -0.04 0.00 0.00 10 7.98 57.90 23.94 0.05 0.41 0.54 0.00 0.07 11 17.97 39.21 -29.38 0.16 0.35 -0.54 -0.01 0.06 12 2.89 18.74 -0.74 0.02 0.13 0.02 0.00 0.02 15 -0.27 -0.65 -1.21 0.00 -0.01 -0.02 0.00 0.00 16 0.01 0.35 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 24 -0.85 -5.58 0.23 -0.01 -0.04 -0.01 0.00 -0.01 Combined and Factored Demands (excludes self-straininQ demands):

I N 11 CD N22cD I N 12cD I M 11 CD I M22cD I M 12cD I Q 13cD Q23cD Cone. I 7.72 28.70 I 20.69 I -1.60 I -2.10 I 1.72 I 0.18 0.28 Commentary In Analysis Step Two, demands from non-self-straining ILCs are computed.

Reinforcement elements are not active in any of these ILCs, therefore only demands on the concrete element are presented in the tables in this section. Non-self-straining loads are factored and combined as shown below for this combination:

1.4D + 1.7L + 1.9E 0+1.7H + 1.9He Note: Demands from self-straining loads are computed during Analysis Step One and are combined with Analysis Step Two demands during evaluation.

150252-CA-02 Appendix K -K-4 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 373 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook PROJECT NO: ___ __,_,15=0=25=2 DATE: ______

BY:

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB VERIFIER:

__ _ Table K1. Demonstration of Element-By-Element Evaluation for One Element Element-by-Element Evaluation (Element 2100117) Commentary Define other parameters for Evaluation:

Ee = Concrete elastic modulus = 3605 ksi Es = Steel elastic modulus = 29000 ksi t = Thickness of wall = 36 in. = 3 ft As11 =Area of steel per foot in hoop direction

= 3.12 in 2/ft As22 = Area of steel per foot in meridional direction

= 9.36 in 2/ft c:cc = Compressive strain capacity of concrete = -0.003 f = Design compressive strength of concrete = 4 ksi fy = Yield strength of reinforcement

= 60 ksi Evaluate Axial Compression:

Total axial demand: Pull = NllcA + N11sA + Nllcv Pull= (-241.0 + 64.2 + 7.7)kip/ft

= -169.1 kip/ft Pu22 = N22cA + N22sA + N22cv Pu22 = (-169.7 + 176.3 + 28.7)kip/ft

= 35.3 kip/ft Compute axial strain in concrete due to as-deformed condition:

N11cA -241.0kip/ft t:11cA = --= = -0.000155 t X Ee 3ft x 3605ksi X 144in 2/ft 2 N22cA -169.7kip/ft c:22cA = --= = -0.000109 t X Ee 3ft X 3605ksi X 144in 2/ft 2 Compute axial strain in reinforcement due to as-deformed condition:

NllsA 64.2kip/ft ell = = = 0.000710 SA Asll x Es 3.12in 2 /ft X 29000 ksi N22sA c:22 SA As22 X Es 150252-CA-02 Appendix K FP 100985 Page 37 4 of 526 __ 1_7_6_.3_k_ip_/_f_t

--= 0.000649 9.36in 2 /ft x 29000 ksi Axial demands in the concrete and steel elements from the deformed condition (computed in Analysis Step One) are combined with axial demands from the factored original SD-66 loads (computed in Analysis Step Two) -K-5 -Revision O SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB PROJECT NO: ----'-'15"-"0=25=2 DATE: -------'J"""u""'IV....::2=01=6 BY: ______ R'-""'"-"'M"-"'.

VERIFIER:

___ ____,_A_,,,.T,,_,._,,S=ar,_,,,a=wi*"--1

__ _ Table K1. Demonstration of Element-By-Element Evaluation for One Element Evaluate Axial Compression (Continued):

Commentary Compute strain in steel when concrete crushing occurs: See Section 7.1.1 for discussion on this equation.

sscll = sllsA + scc -s11cA = 0.000710 -0.003 + 0.000155 = -0.00214 ssc22 = s22sA +sec -c:22cA = 0.000649 -0.003 + 0.000109 = -0.00224 Since the strain Esc is more compressive than the yield strain for steel (-0.002) in both directions, the yield strength of the steel can be used to compute compressive capacity.

Compute the axial compressive capacity per ft of wall: -As11) + f yAs11] [ 3. 12in 2 /ft 1Zin ] = 0. 70 x -0. 80 0. 85

• 4ksi(36in . If ) * -f + 60ksi

• 3.12in 2 /ft 12m t t Based on ACI 318-71 Chapter 10 with modification as discussed in Section 7.1.1. = 0. 7 x -0.80(1645 kip/ft)= -921kip/ft cf>PnZZ =cf> x -0. 80[0. -AsZZ) + f yAsZZ] [ 9. 36in 2 /ft 12in ] = 0. 70 x -0. 80 0. 85

• 4ksi(36in

!Zin/ft ) *ft+ 60ksi

• 9. 36in 2 /ft = 0. 7 x -0. 80(1999kip/ft)

= -1119kip/ft Compute Axial Compression DCR: -169. lkiplft DCR11 = k" If = 0.18 -921 lp t 35. 3kiplft DCR22 = k If = -0.03 -7 0.0 -1119 ip t Note that DCR22 for axial compression is expressed as zero because the net demand is tensile. 150252-CA-02 Appendix K -K-6 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 375 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook PROJECT NO: ___ __,_,15=0=25=2 DATE: ______ J=u,,,ly_.2=0=16 BY: ______

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB VERIFIER:

__ _ Table K1. Demonstration of Element-By-Element Evaluation for One Element Evaluate Axial-Flexure Interaction:

Total axial demand: Pull = -169.lkip/ft Pu22 = 35.3kip/ft Total flexural demand: Mull = (MllcA + Mllco) +/- (M12cA + M12co) Mull= (1.58 -1.60)kipft/ft

+/- (-21.51+1.72)kipft/ft Mull= -19.81kipft/ft, 19.77kipft/ft Mu22 = (M22cA + M22cv) +/- (M12cA + M12cv) Mu22 = (-44.8 -2.l)kipft/ft

+/- (-21.51+1.72)kipft/ft Mu22 = -66.69kipft/ft, -27.llkipft/ft Axial-flexure (PM) interaction computed using spColumn as described in App. E. OCR calculated as the ratio of the demand radius to the capacity radius. Bending About Meridional Axis rull = -./-169.1 2 +-19.81 2 = 170.25 rnll = -./-1067.0 2 +-125.0 2 = 1074.4 170.25 DCRll = 1074.4 = 0.16 1200 r::

ii". 400 ** I ** '1

-200 -600 -300 0 300 600 Moment (kip-ft/ft)

Bending About Hoop Axis ru22 = -./35.3 2 + -66.7 2 = 75.5 rn22 = -./290.0 2 + -153.52 = 328.2 75.5 DCR22 = 328.2 = 0.23 1500 ' "" 1000 a. g QJ 0 IL ro -500 -1000 -1000 -500 0 500 Moment (kip-ft/ft) 1000 Commentary Pull and Pu22 values were calculated previously.

Torsional moments, M12, are conservatively added and subtracted from bending moments Mll and M22. See Section 7.1.2 for more information.

The unusual shape of PM capacity curves makes it difficult to establish a single function to compute OCR. The approach described here approximates OCR for a given case. The demand radius is calculated as the straight line distance from the factored axial-flexure demand point to the origin (0,0). The line from the origin through the demand point is extended until it intersects with the factored PM capacity curve. The capacity radius is calculated as the straight line distance from the origin to the PM point closest to the intersection.

PM interaction curves include Phi factors. Axial tension is negative in PM plots (opposite sign from rest of calculation).

150252-CA-02 Appendix K -K-7 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 376 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook PROJECT NO: ____

DATE:

BY:

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB VERIFIER:

__ _ Table K1. Demonstration of Element-By-Element Evaluation for One Element Evaluate In-Plane Shear: Total in-plane shear demand: Vu= Vu 8 = 56. O kip/ft (see commentary)

Axial load on section: Pull = N11ed + max(N11ea

+ N11sa1 0. 0) Pull= 7. 7 kip/ft + max(-240.

9 + 64. 2, 0. 0) kip/ft Pull= 7. 7 kip/ft= 643. 2 lbf /in Concrete shear strength:

Vea= 2 ( 1+0. 0005 ffc ( 643. 2 lb/in) Vea= 2 1+0.0005 36 in .J40i)i)psi

= 127psi l7i" Pull Veb = 3. 5v 1 e 1 + 0. 002 --' t 643. 2lb/in veb = 3. 5v4000psi 1+o.002 . = 225psi , 36m Ve = min(Veai Veb) = 127psi Steel shear strength:

Avf y 3. 12in 2 /ft X 60000psi . v = --= = 433psz s hws 36in x 12in/ft 150252-CA-02 Appendix K FP 100985 Page 377 of 526 Commentary Since the element-by-element evaluation is a conservative screening, in-plane shear demand is computed as the maximum of the following four sums:

• VuA = JN12cd I

• Vu 8 = JN12cd + N12c,sweld

• Vue = JN12cd + N12c,ASR J

• Vuv = JN12cd + N12c,swell

+ N12c,ASR J Where N12c,swel!

is the N12 (in-plane shear) demand from the swelling load case (ILC 8) multiplied by the load factor for swelling, and N12c,AsR is the N12 (in-plane shear) demand from the ASR load cases (ILC 5 and 6) multiplied by the load factor and threshold factor for ASR. Design in-plane shear demands are combined with self-straining plane shear demands using algebraic sum because seismic loads are input in all directions (using the 100-40-40 approach).

Net axial compression on the section increases shear capacity.

To evaluate conservatively, axial demand due to self-straining loads are excluded if they are compressive.

Concrete shear strength is based on: ACI 318-71Equation11-6 and Equation 11-7 (for sections in axial compression)

Note: Pu11 must be positive for compression in above equations.

Steel shear strength equation is based on ACI 318-71Equation11-13.

Terms have been rearranged so v 5 can be computed based on a given quantity of steel. -K-8 -Revision 0 l'" SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook PROJECT NO: ___ _c15,,_,,0,,,,25,,,,,_2 DATE: ------'J"""u,,_,ly_,,2=01=6 BY: _____

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB VERIFIER:

___ ___,A_,,_.T_,__,.__,,S"""a,_,,,ra=wi,,_t

__ _ Table K1. Demonstration of Element-By-Element Evaluation for One Element Evaluate In-Plane Shear (Continued):

Combine concrete and steel shear strength and apply Phi: <f>V n =</>(Ve+ V 5) X t = 0. B5(127psi

+ 433psi) X 36in <f>Vn = 17136 lbf /in= 205.4kip/ft Check maximum in-plane shear strength:

<f>V n,max = </>10 X tffc = 0. 85 X 10 X 36in X -v'4000psi

= 232. 2kip/ft Compute in-plane shear OCR: I Vu I 156.0 kip/ft I DCR = --= = 0 27 </>V n 205. 4 kip/ft

• Evaluate Out-Of-Plane Shear: Total out-of-plane shear demand: Vn = Q23cA + Q23cv = (-17.1+0.3)kip/ft

= -16. Skip/ft Axial load on section (calculated previously)

Pu22 = 35. 3kip/ft = 2942lbf/in Concrete shear strength: ( Pu22) Ve = 2 1+0.002 * -t -ft ( -2942lb/in)

Ve = 2 1 + 0. 002 * . -v'4000psi

= 106psi 36m Commentary ACI 318-71Section11.16.5 Commentary Out-of-plane shear is evaluated for a horizontal section in this example. In the element-by-element evaluation, out-of-plane shear is evaluated for both horizontal and vertical sections.

ACI 318-71 Equation 11-8 Note: Pu22 is negative in tension in the equation 150252-CA-02 Appendix K -K-9 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 378 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook PROJECT NO:

DATE: ______

BY: _____

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB VERIFIER:

___

__ _ Table K1. Demonstration of Element-By-Element Evaluation for One Element Evaluate Out-Of-Plane Shear: Steel shear strength:

Avf y bwS A f (0.8

• d) V 5 = V 5 bw(O. 8

• d) = _v_y __ _ . s Commentary Based on ACI 318-71Equation11-13.

Terms have been rearranged so v 5 can be computed based on a given quantity of steel. Convert to units of force per length by multiplying by bw(D.8

• d), where bw is the theoretical strip width of the section under evaluation and d is the depth of the section. 0. 79in 2 /ft x 0. 72 x 60ksi x (0. 8

• 36in) . Vs= 12 in = 81. 9kip/ft Note: #8 steel stirrups are provided at this location spaced at 12 in. With the configuration provided, a #8 bar is unable to fully develop within a 36 in. thick wall section, therefore the strength of the bar is reduced by a factor of 0.72 to represent the fraction of development (Sheet 85 of the reference below). Combine concrete and steel shear strength and apply Phi: <l>Vn = <!>(vet+ Vs) ( lkip 12in ) <l>Vn = 0. 85 106psi

• 36in

• lOOOlbf

• lft + 81. 9kip/ft = 127. 7kip/ft Compute out-of-plane shear OCR: JVnJ 16. 8 kip/ft DCRa =--= = 0 13 </JVn 127. 7 kip/ft . As an alternative approach, compute OCR using shear-friction.

If section is in axial tension, compute area of steel required to carry factored tensile demand. _ Pu22 _ 35. 3kip/ft _ . 2 RAst -<Pf Y -O. 9 x GOksi -0. 654m /ft 150252-CA-02 Appendix K FP 100985 Page 379 of 526 United Engineers

& Constructors Inc., Containment-Enclosure Building (019), CE-4 (Rev. 6), Mar 1977 to Aug. 1983. If section in axial compression, then RAst is taken as zero. See Section 7.1.5. -K-10 -Revision 0 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook PROJECT NO: 150252 DATE: -------'J"""u""'ly-=2=01=6 BY: _____

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB VERIFIER:

---

'A_,,_.Ti._,.__,,S""ar..,,,a=wi*"--t

__ _ Table K1. Demonstration of Element-By-Element Evaluation for One Element Evaluate Out-Of-Plane Shear (continued):

Commentary Compute area of steel required to carry factored out-of-plane See Section 7.1.5. shear demand: _ Wnl _ 16. Bkip/ft _ . z RAsv -<fJµf v -0. 85 X 1. 0 X 60ksi -O. 329 m /ft Evaluate Out-Of-Plane Shear (Continued):

Commentary Compute OCR by dividin*g total required steel area by steel area provided:

DCRb = RAst + RAsv (0. 654 + 0. 329)in 2 /ft = 0.11 = 9. 36in 2 /ft As22 Use lesser of DCRa and DCRb as final OCR for out-of-plane shear for this element: DCR = min(DCRn, DC Rh) = 0. 11 Com12are OCR Values Com12uted in this Table to Those Extracted from Evaluation:

OCR Computed in OCR Computed by Element-by-Element This Table Evaluation Hoop Compression 0.18 0.18 Meridional Compression 0.0 0.0 PM Interaction (Hoop Direction) 0.16 0.16 PM Interaction (Meridional Direction) 0.23 0.23 In-Plane Shear 0.27 0.27 Out-of-Plane Shear (for horizontal section) 0.11 0.12 Out-of-Plane Shear (for vertical section) Not computed here 0.01 150252-CA-02 Appendix K -K-11 -FP 100985 Page 380 of 526 Revision O SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB Appendix L PROJECT NO:

DATE:

__ _ BY:

VERIFIER:

__ _ Moment Redistribution Validation Examples L 1. REVISION HISTORY L 1.1. Revision O Initial document.

L2. OBJECTIVE Validate the simplified moment redistribution approach used in 150252-CA-02 with a more detailed approach consisting of nonlinear spring elements using the following two example problems:

• A cylindrical structure with diameter and wall thickness similar to Seabrook CEB

• The Seabrook CEB model L3. CONCLUSIONS The simplified moment redistribution approach provides demands that are reasonable when compared to those computed using a detailed approach with nonlinear spring elements.

L4. DESCRIPTION OF VALIDATION EXAMPLE PROBLEMS The moment redistribution approach is validated using two example problems.

The first example problem consists of a cylindrical structure with diameter and wall thickness that are similar to the Seabrook CEB. This is a simplified model that allows the effects of moment redistribution to be studied without complexities caused by large penetrations and changes in wall thickness.

The second example problem uses the full Seabrook CEB model. L4.1. Description of Cylindrical Model Example Problem The cylindrical model has a diameter of 80 ft and a height of 150 ft. The entire cylindrical model consists of SHELL 181 elements with thickness of 27 in. Both ends of the cylinder wall (i.e., bottom and top) have fully fixed boundary conditions.

All elements in this cylindrical model are approximately 3 ft by 3 ft in size. The entire cylindrical model uses concrete material with an elastic modulus of 3,605,000 psi and Poisson's ratio of 0.15. 150252-CA-02 Appendix L -L-1 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 381 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB PROJECT NO: ____ 1'-""5=02=5=2

___ _ DATE: _____

BY: _____ ___,R_,,.=M_,_,.

M=o"'-n=es.__

__ VERIFIER:

___

__ _ A single load case (referred to as "Case L") consisting of a unit out-of-plane surface pressure (1 psi) on a patch of eight elements is used to generate out-of-plane flexural demands on the cylinder wall. This unit pressure load case generates a peak out-of-plane moment of 1.51 kip-ft/ft in the hoop direction (i.e., about the meridional axis). This load case is multiplied by a factor of 100 to produce a total moment demand of 151 kip-ft/ft in the hoop direction.

In this example problem, the wall is assigned a nominal flexural capacity of 100 kip-ft/ft (therefore requiring 51 kip-ft/ft to be redistributed).

The simplified moment redistribution is performed in a separate load case (referred to as "Case R") that uses the INISTATE command in ANSYS APDL to prescribe a hoop bending moment in the elements that have their flexural capacity exceeded.

The ANSYS FEA software redistributes the initial stresses to reach a stress profile that satisfies static equilibrium.

Since the INISTATE command is only capable of prescribing initial stresses (and cannot prescribe moments directly), it is used to prescribe an initial stress gradient of +/-100 psi on the extreme fibers of the section. After redistribution, this initial state results in a hoop bending moment of 5.3 kip-ft/ft at the location of moment exceedance.

To redistribute 51 kip-ft/ft, this moment redistribution load case is scaled by a factor of 9.6. The comparison nonlinear case (referred to as "Case N") is performed by disconnecting the elements in the region of moment exceedance, and then reconnecting them using coincident spring elements to transfer forces in all degrees of freedom. All reconnecting spring elements are linear (COMBIN14) with high stiffness except for the springs transferring hoop bending moments, which have nonlinear moment-curvature behavior (COMBIN39).

The nonlinear springs are configured to be very stiff prior to yield, and then have near-zero bending stiffness after yielding.

An out-of-plane pressure large enough to cause 151 kip-ft/ft (if the model were linear elastic) is applied to the same patch of elements as previously used for loading. To assess the performance of the simplified moment redistribution approach, the superposition of "Case L" scaled by 100 and "Case R" scaled by 9.6 is compared to the nonlinear "Case N". The results of this comparison are presented in Section L5.1. 150252-CA-02 Appendix L -L-2 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 382 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB L4.2. Description of Full Model Example Problem PROJECT NO:

DATE: _____ _,J=u.,...ly_,,,2""-01=6

__ _ BY:

VERIFIER:

---

'A_,,_.T"'-'-._,,,S=ar_,,_awi=*.._1

__ _ The full Seabrook CEB model is used to perform a second validation example. The full Seabrook CEB model has more complex geometry than the cylinder model presented in Section L4.1. The geometry of the CEB is defined in detail in the main body of this calculation.

A development version of the CEB model is used in this example. The development model is identical to the production model used in the main body of this calculation, except the personnel hatch and equipment hatch are modeled using square openings (whereas the production model has approximately circular openings).

Since the purpose of this validation example is to compare moment redistribution demands between the simplified and detailed approaches, the use of the development model for this exercise is not consequential.

Flexural demands are generated by applying ASR expansion, self-weight, hydrostatic pressure, earth pressure, OBE acceleration, and OBE dynamic soil pressures loads to the CEB model. The sum of these demands is referred to as "Case D." It must be noted that "Case D" consists of development loads, which are not equivalent to the loads used and documented in the main body of this calculation.

However, this is judged to be inconsequential to this validation example since both the simplified and detailed approaches use the same loads. The region at AZ 315° and El. 30 ft (directly above and below the Personnel Hatch) is selected to serve as the region of theoretical hoop bending moment exceedance for this example problem. Hoop bending demands of "Case D" are approximately 110 kip-fUft at this location.

In the simplified method, hoop bending moments are redistributed by using the INISTATE command similarly to the cylindrical model in Section L4.1. The INISTATE stresses are applied to a patch of eight elements in a two by four grid at the location of moment exceedance.

A theoretical hoop bending capacity of 50 kip-fUft is selected at this location, which accounts for hoop tensile stresses acting around the Personnel Hatch opening. After redistribution of INISTATE stresses, the initial state case (referred to as "Case M") results in a hoop bending moment of 4.9 kip-fUft at the location of moment exceedance.

To redistribute 60 kip-fUft, this moment redistribution load case is scaled by a factor of 12.2. The comparison nonlinear case (referred to as "Case K") is performed by disconnecting the elements in the region of moment exceedance, and then reconnecting them using spring elements to transfer forces in all degrees of freedom. All reconnecting spring elements are 150252-CA-02 Appendix L -L-3 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 383 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB linear (COMBIN14) with high stiffness except for moments, which have nonlinear moment-curvature PROJECT NO: DATE: BY: VERIFIER:

the springs transferring behavior (COMBIN39).

150252 July 2016 R.M. Mones A.T. Sarawit hoop bending The nonlinear springs are configured to be very stiff prior to yield and then have near-zero bending stiffness after yielding.

The same loads as Case Dare applied to the model with nonlinear springs. To assess the performance of the simplified moment redistribution approach, the superposition of "Case D" and "Case M" scaled by a factor of 12.2 is compared to the nonlinear "Case K." The results of this comparison are presented in Section L5.2. LS. VALIDATION EXAMPLE PROBLEM RESULTS Demands computed using the simplified moment redistribution approach are compared to those computed using the detailed approach in this section. Flexural demands in the hoop direction (about the meridional axis) and in the meridional direction (about the hoop axis) are compared for the two approaches for section cuts taken at several different locations.

L5.1. Results of Cylindrical Model Example Problem Hoop bending moments are compared at the elevation of moment exceedance in Figure L 1. This comparison shows that the simplified approach is able to accurately limit the moment demand carried at the location of exceedance.

At this cut location, the moment redistribution affects only a limited region of the cylinder (about 30° on either side of the exceedance).

Figure L2 shows a zoomed view of the moment diagram in Figure L 1; it can be seen that both redistribution approaches result in slightly increased negative moment on either side of the exceedance.

Hoop bending moments are compared at an elevation 15 ft below the location of the exceedance in Figure L3. The simplified and detailed approaches show very little variation at this elevation; both locations indicate a small increase to hoop bending moments. Meridional bending moments are compared at the azimuth of moment exceedance in Figure L4. Both the simplified and detailed approaches compute increased meridional bending moments at this cut due to the distribution of hoop moments.

The simplified approach provides conservative demands, although the impact is limited to only the immediate area of the moment exceedance.

Meridional bending moments are compared at a cut about 25° away from the location of moment exceedance in Figure L5. Meridional bending moments are small at this cut, and the impact of the moment redistribution is minor. 150252-CA-02 Appendix L -L-4 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 384 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB L5.2. Results of Full Model Example Problem PROJECT NO: ____

___ _ DATE: _____

BY: ______

VERIFIER:

---

'-A_,,_.

T"'""'"._,.S=ar=awi=*.._t

__ _ Hoop bending moments are compared at the elevation of moment exceedance in Figure L6. The simplified redistribution approach is effective at limiting bending moments at the location of exceedance to 50 kip-ft/ft.

The simplified and detailed approaches result in very similar hoop bending demands along this elevation.

This is also seen in the comparison of hoop bending moments along a cut about 15 ft above the elevation of moment exceedance (Figure L 7). The distribution of meridional bending moments is compared for the two approaches in Figure LS. 150252-CA-02 Appendix L -L-5 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 385 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures PROJECTN0: ____ DATE: ______ ___ _ CL IENT: _

______________

___ BY: _______

SUBJECT:

A_s-_D_e_fo_r_m_e_d_C_E_B _____ VERIFIER: _____ =S=ar_,,,a=w=it

__ _ LG. FIGURES 150 100 Cut Location:

so 0 0 45 90 135 180 225 270 315 360 160 140 120 100 80 'IC c. :;; 60 c cu E 0 ::;; 40 20 0 0 45.0 90.0 270.0 40 Azimuth --Hoop Bending , No Redi s tribution , lOO*(Case L) --Hoop Bending , Simplified Redistribution, lOO*(Case L)+9.6*(Case R) ----*H oop Bending , Detailed Case , Case N Figure L 1 -Comparison of Hoop Bending Moments at El. 75 ft for Cylinder Model Notes: 315.0 360.0 Cut i s taken through region of moment exceedance at E l. 75 ft (cut i s shown as a red line in upper image). 150252-CA-02 Appendix L -L-6 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 3B6 of 5 26 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of S t ructures and Building Enclo s ure s CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB 160 140 120 4:'. 80 ---4:'. 6.. ...,-60 c (]) E 0 40 20 -4 0 Azimuth PROJECT NO: ___ ___,_1""50""2""5

"'-2 ___ _ DATE: _____ B Y: ______ VERIFIER:

____ _,_A,.,_.T'-'-._,,S=a r,.,,a=wi"'-*t __ _ --Hoop Bending, Simplified Redistribution, lOO*(Case L)+9.6*(Case R) ---Hoop Bending , Detailed Case , Case N Bending, No Redistribution , lOO*(Case L) Figure L2 -Comparison of Hoop Bending Moments at El. 75 ft for C y linder Model , Zoomed View from AZ. 135° to AZ. 22 5° 15025 2-CA-02 Appendix L -L-7 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 387 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Eng inee ring of S truct ures and Bui lding Enclo su re s PROJECTN0: ____

CLIENT:

________________ BY: _______

__ _

SUBJECT:

_E_v_a_l u_a_t_io_n_a'-n_d_D_e_s_ig'-n_C'-o'-n_fi_1rm----'-a-'--tio-'-n----'-o_f A'--'-s-_D--'e_fo-'-r

-'-m_e'"""'d'--"C

_E'-B _____ V ERIFIER: 1 5 0 100 Cut Location:

so 0 0 4 5 90 13 5 18 0 22 5 2 7 0 31 5 3 60 160 1 40 120 100 80 --i :;; 60 c: ., E 0 40 20 0 0 4 5.0 90.0 270.0 40 Azimuth --H oop B ending , No R edis t ribution, lOO*(Case L) --H oop B e nding , S im plifie d Redis tr ibu t io n , lOO*(Case L)+9.6*(Case R) ----*H oop B en din g , De tai le d Case, Case N Figure L3 -Comparison of Hoop Bending Moments at El. 60 ft for Cylinder Model Notes: 315.0 360.0 Cut is taken 15 ft below the location of moment exceedance (cut i s shown as a red line in upper image). 150252-CA-02 Appendix L -L-8 -Revision 0 FP 1 00985 Page 388 o f 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Eng i neering of S t ructures and Build i ng Enclosures PROJECT NO: ------'1=50=2=5=2

___ _ DATE: CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabroo k BY: ______

S UBJ ECT: Eva lua tion and Des ign Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB VER IFIE R:

__ _ 150 100 Cut Location:

so 0 0 45 90 135 180 225 270 315 360 .;;= c' 0 *.;:::; ro > w -50 :.* 0 so 100 Mom ent, kip-ft/ft Bend in g , No Red is tr i but i on , lOO*(Case L) --Meridional Bend in g , Simpl ifie d Red istrib ution , lOO*(Case L)+9.6*(Case R) ----*Meridional Bend i ng , Detailed Case , Case N Figure L4 -Comparison of Meridional Bending Moments at AZ 180° for Cylinder Model Notes: 150 Cut i s taken through region of moment exceedance at AZ 180° (cut i s shown as a red line in upper im age). 150252-CA-02 Appendix L -L-9 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 389 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Eng ineering o f Structures a nd Build i ng Enclo sures PROJECT NO: ___ __,_1=50=2=5.::.2

___ _ DATE: _____ C LIENT: Ne xt Era Energy Seabrook BY: ______ __ _

SUBJECT:

Evaluat ion and Des ign Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB VERIFIER: __ _ Cut Location:

0 45 90 135 180 22 5 270 315 360 c 0 *;::::; rn > (]J UJ -1 5 5 0 Moment , kip-ft/ft Bending , No Red is tribut i on , lOO*(Case L) 5 --Meridional Bending , Simplified Redistribution , lOO*(Case L)+9.6*(Case R) ----*Meridional Bending , Detailed Case , Case N Figure L5 -Comparison of Meridional Bending Moments at AZ 155° for Cylinder Model Notes: Cut is taken at AZ 155° (cut is shown as a red line i n upper image). 150252-CA-02 Appendix L -L-10-FP 10098 5 Page 390 of 526 10 Revision 0 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of S t ru ct ure s and Building Enclosures PROJECTN0:

____

CLIENT:

_________________

B Y: _______

__ _ SU BJE CT:

A_s_-_D_e_fo_r_m_e_d_C_E_B _____ VERI FIER: 200 150 100 .t: ? c. :.;;: so c: (lJ E a ::? 0 c. a a I 100 -150 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 Azimuth ---+<-Hoop Bending , No Redistribution , Case D --Hoop Bending , Redistribution , Case M 210 240 270 --H oop Bending , Simplif ie d Redistribution , 1 *(Case D)+12.2*(Case M) ----*Hoop Bending , Detailed Case , Case K Figure LS -Comparison of Hoop Bending Moments at El. 30 ft for Full Model 300 330 360 Note: Each data point shown in the above plot represents average demands for an approximately 12 ft long vertical section cut (equal to about eight wall thicknesses or about six element w i dths). 150252-CA-02 Appendix L -L-11 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 391 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Eng i neering of S tructures an d B u i l di n g Encl os ur es PROJECTN0:

____

___ _ CLIENT:

_________________ BY: _______

__ _ SUBJE C T: _E_v_a_lu_a_t_

i o_n_a_n_d_D_es_i_g_n_C_o_n_

fi_rm_at_io_n_of_A_s_-_D_e_fo_r_m_e_d

_C_E_B _____ VE RIFIER: 8 0 60 40 4::'. ? 6_ :;;: 20 'l <lJ E 0 :ii 0 c. 0 0 I -2 0 60 0 30 60 90 1 20 1 5 0 180 Azimuth -H oop Bending , No Redistributio n , Case D --H oo p B endin g, R e d is tr i b u t i on , C a se M 210 240 270 --Hoop Be nd ing , Si mp li f i ed R edist r ibution , 1 *(Case D)+12.2*(Cas e M) ----*H oo p Ben d ing, D etai l e d Case , Case K Figure L 7 -Comparison of Hoop Bending Moments at El. 45 ft for Full Model 300 330 360 Note: Each data point shown in the above plot represents average demands for an approx i mately 12 ft long vertical section cut (equal to about eight wall thicknesses or about six element widths). 150252-CA-02 Appendix L -L-12-Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 392 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Bui l d i ng Enclosures CLI ENT:

_________________

B Y: _______

SUBJECT:

--=E::..:v--=a"'lu::..:ac..::t.:..:io

-" n-=a::.:.n.:..:

d'--'D=-e=-s::.:

i.._g:..:.n--=C--=o"'-n""fi""rm.:.=.at"" i o"'n-'---'-o'""f A--'s=---"D-=e:..:.fo""r-"m-'-'e:...:d"-

C=E-"'B _____ VERIFIER: -----'-'A""'.

T"'".

.!::'. c:' 0 *.:; "' > Cl> w -90 25 20 15 54 60 120 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 100 4 -50 80 58 60 62 -30 _,,.-----G---------------

35---------------

-Mer idi onal Bending , No D --

--Me r id i onal Bending , Simplified Redistribution , 1 *(Case D)+12.2*(Case M) ----*Meridional Bendi n g, Detailed Redistributi on, Case K 66 90 Figure LB -Comparison of Meridional Bending Moments at AZ 315° for Full Model Note: Each data point shown in the above plot represents average demands for an approximately 12 ft long hor i zontal section cut (equal to about eight wall thicknesses or about six element widths). 150252-CA-02 Appendix L -L-13-Rev i sion 0 FP 10098 5 Pag e 393 of 526 68 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB Appendix M PROJECT N0:. ___

DATE: _____

__ _ BY: _____

__ _ VERIFIER:

___ --'-A"--'.T-'--'.

S=a=ra,_,_,wi,.....*1

__ _ Analysis and Evaluation of Meridional Demands at El. +45.5 ft M1. REVISION HISTORY Revision 0: Initial document.

M2. OVERVIEW Evaluation of axial-flexure (PM) interaction in the meridional direction for the Standard-Plus Analysis Case shows a region of capacity exceedance above El. +45.5 ft at AZ 240°. The static load combination N0_ 1 is reevaluated using reduced stiffness properties in this region to simulate concrete cracking.

The adjusted stiffness properties are shown to reduce tensile demands acting on this section. M3. DESCRIPTION OF DEMANDS Evaluation of axial-flexure (PM) interaction in the meridional direction for the Standard-Plus Analysis Case shows a region of capacity exceedance above El. +45.5 ft at AZ 240°. Unlike other PM interaction exceedances which are primarily governed by flexural demands, initial evaluations of the controlling static combination (N0_ 1 as defined in Table 5) show that the tensile capacity of the wall is almost exceeded at this location, as illustrated in Figure M 1. The transition in wall thickness from 27 to 15 in. between El. +45 and +45.5 ft causes the wall's centerline to shift by 6 in., which causes the tensile demands to impart a bending moment on the wall about the hoop axis (Figure M2). Tensile demands at this location are caused by the mechanisms described below.

• Differential ASR expansion quantities acting vertically at the base of the wall ASR expansion applied to the CEB wall is based on measurements of crack index (Cl) as described in Section 6.3.1 of the calculation main body. The magnitude of grade ASR expansion in the vertical direction varies at different azimuths.

From AZ 0° to 180°, 0.015% expansion is applied. From AZ 180° to 270°, 0.04% is applied, and from AZ 270° to 360°, 0.06% is applied. The magnitude of vertical ASR expansion gradually tapers between adjacent wall segments.

The differences in vertical ASR expansions in adjacent segments of wall cause meridional tensile demands in the regions between the segments.

150252-CA-02 Appendix M -M-1 -Revision O FP 100985 Page 394 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB

• Out-of-plane pressures acting on the wall PROJECT N0:. ___ ---'1=50=2=52=-----

DATE: _____

__ _ BY: _____ ___,_R=.M=.'"-"M=o=ne=s

__ _ VERIFIER:

___

S=a=ra=wi=*t

__ _ The additional out-of-plane pressures modeled in the Standard-Plus Analysis Case between AZ 180° and 270° also cause meridional tensile demands at AZ 240°. M4. ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION METHODOLOGY The static load combination N0_ 1 for the Standard-Plus Analysis Case is reevaluated in this appendix with reduced stiffness in a horizontal strip of elements at El. +45.5 and AZ 240° to simulate localized concrete cracking where axial meridional tensile stress exceeds the modulus of rupture of concrete as defined in ACI 318-71 Section 9.5.2.2. These elements are highlighted in Figure M3. The reduced stiffness applied to these elements is equivalent to the stiffness of the meridional reinforcement, AsEs, where As is the area of steel (#9@12EF) and Es is the elastic modulus of steel (29,000 ksi). The reduced stiffness is used for cases where ASR loads are applied to the structure; all other load cases (self-weight, seismic, etc.) use unreduced stiffness equivalent to the gross concrete section. The stiffness reduction is applied by modifying the elastic modulus of the cracked elements in the CEB model. This reduction effectively reduces the stiffness of the concrete in both hoop and meridional directions, as well as the shear and bending stiffness of the concrete in this localized cracked region. The impacts of this modeling approach are assessed by analyzing membrane and shear forces and PM interaction close to this area. Demands are computed at Section Cut 28 as defined in Appendix N. Capacity for this section cut is computed using spColumn as documented in Figure M4. The spColumn capacity shown in Figure M4 takes into consideration additional strength of the section due to the curvature of the wall, which the PM interaction diagram in Figure M 1 (and generally used throughout this calculation) conservatively ignore. Since the cross-section is in tension, the adjustment to spColumn outputs to account for the difference in modern phi factors and ACI 318-71 phi factors in the compression regions of the interaction diagram is not needed (see Appendix E for additional information on this adjustment).

MS. DISCUSS.ION OF RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS The adjustment in stiffness to account for concrete cracking at El. +45.5 and AZ 240° reduces the tension demands caused by ASR loads through two mechanisms:

150252-CA-02 Appendix M -M-2 -Revision O FP 100985 Page 395 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER ,.........

I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB PROJECT N0: ___ __,_,15"-"0=25"°'2'-----

DATE: _____ __,J""u,_,_ly_,,,2_,,_01,_,,6'----

BY:. ______

VERIFIER:

____ _,_A,,...T,_,_.

=S=ar=awi,_,,*..__t

__ _

• Since tensile demands El. +45.5 are partially caused by differential vertical expansion of the below-grade wall, a portion of the tension demands are displacement-controlled.

This means that the reduction in meridional stiffness allows the imposed below-grade displacements due to ASR to occur with less resistance from the above-grade portion of the structure at this. location.

• The reduction of stiffness simulating concrete cracking causes additional demands to use other stiffer load paths within the structure.

Results of PM interaction evaluation after adjustment of stiffness is shown in Figure M 5, which shows that PM interaction demands are less than capacity.

Comparisons of axial hoop forces, bending moments about the vertical axis, and out-of-plane shear forces at the location where cracking was modeled is provided in Figures M6 through MB. These comparisons show that this localized cracking has a negligible effect on other demands within the structure.

150252-CA-02 Appendix M -M-3 -Revision O FP 100985 Page 396 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Ene rg y Seabrook PROJECT N0: ___ __,_,15=0=

25=2,__ __ _ DATE: _____ __,,J""ul"-y-'='20""'1'""'6---

BY: ______ ....:.R-""'

.M=.'-"M'-"o"-'n=es"-----

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Des i gn Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB VERIFIER: ____ _.r:.A"'-.T"'-. ,,,,S,,,,ar,,,,;awi"'

• ,,_t __ _ MG. FIGURES 600-' 500 -400 --300 --Q. .:::.!. 200 -ro x 1 00 -<! 0 --100 --200 -, -100 PM Evaluation

-Section Cut 28 -ASR Threshold

= 1.2 I I I L -so 0 M o ment (kip-ft/ft) 50 Capacity STATIC r 100 I Figure M 1. PM Interaction of Section Cut 28 for Standard-Plus Analysis Case for Load Combination N0_1 Before Reduction of Stiffness to Simulate Concrete Cracking 150252-CA-02 Appendix M -M-4 -R e vision 0 FP 100985 Page 397 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engi n e e r i ng of S t ruc t ur e s and B uil ding Enclosure s PROJECT N0: ____

DATE: ______ __,,J""u'"""ly-=2=0-'-'16"-----

CLIENT:

________________

BY: ______

SUBJECT:

_____ VERIFIER:

____ ----'-'A""'. =S=ar=a=wi,,,,,,*t

__ _ . I I I I I I I I I I I El. 45 ft-6 in. --I I I I El. 40ft-I I I I ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' I I I I ' * * ' --+! :+-6 in. : ! I 27in. I : Figure M 2. Eccentricity in Wall due to Thickness Reduction from 27 in. to 15 in. 150252-CA-02 Appendix M -M-5 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 398 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: N extEra E nergy S eabrook S U BJECT: Evalu a t i on and Des i gn Confir m a t ion o f As-D eforme d CEB PROJECT N0: ___ ----'1=50=2=5=-2 ___ _ DATE: ______ ,,_,Ju"'-l y'-'2"-'0'-'1""'-6 __ _

VER I FIER: ____ ....f:.A"'-

.T-'-'.-" S"" a"-" ra'--" wi"-'*1 __ _ Figure M3. Elements Selected for Stiffness Adjustment to Simulate Concrete Cracking 150252-CA-02 Append ix M -M-6 -Rev i s i on 0 FP 100985 Page 399 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER CLIENT:

SUBJECT:

I Eng i neering of S t ructures and Building Enclosures PROJECT N0: ____

DATE: ______ ___,J,,_,u"-ly,__,,.20,,_1'""'6'-----

__________________

BY: ________

___ _

______ VERIFIER: ____

424.8 x 38.33 in Code: ACI 318-08 Units: English Run ax i s: About X-axis Run option: Investigation Slenderness

Not cons i dered Column type: Structural Bars: User-defined Date: 07/28/16 Time: 11 : 54: 15 fs=O / fs=0.5fy -6000 (Pmax) / (Pmin) p (kip) 20000 spColumn v4.81. Licensed to: Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc. License ID: 63848-1047578-4-1ED95-1A93A F il e: m_15_el45az240

.ct i Project: 150252.12 Seabrook Column: 15_601_705 fc = 4 ksi Ee= 3605 ksi fc = 3.4 ksi e_u = 0.003 in/in Beta1 = 0.85 Confinement:

Other fy = 60 ks i Es = 29000 ksi ph i(a) = 0.7 , ph i(b) = 0.9 , phi (c) = 0.7 Engineer: RMMones Ag= 6375.31 i n'2 As = 72.00 in'2 72 #9 bars rho = 1.13% Xo = -0.00 in Ix= 431776 in'4 Yo = 7.85 i n ly = 9.5015e+007 in'4 Min clear spacing = 7.61 in Clear cover= N I A Figure M4. Axial-Flexure Interaction Capacity for Section Cut 28 150252-CA-02 Appendix M -M-7 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 400 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Build i ng Enclosures PR OJ E C T N 0: ___ ----'1=5=0 2=5=2 ___ _ D A TE: ______ CLIENT: N ext Era En e rgy Seabrook BY: ______ ---'-'R=.M""-"-" M=o'-" ne=s'----S U BJE C T: Evaluation and Des i gn Confirmat i on of As-Deformed CEB VER IF I E R: ____ __ _ -300

• Capacity *Demand , After St i ffness Adjustment A. Demand , Before Stiffness Adjustment 600 500* t( ** . . . . . .. .. * ** .. 400 ** ,.* ** .. .. .. <::... :: ) . . . -200 ****** ... -100 ***** o ****1 oo ** f; *** -1 co ......

• a -200 Mo m e n t (kip-ft/ft) 200 Figure MS. PM Interaction of Section Cut 28 for Standard-Plus Analysis Case for Load Combination N0_1 After Reduction of Stiffness to Simulate Concrete Cracking Note: Capacity curve i s from spColumn as shown in Figure M4. 150252-CA-02 Append ix M -M-8 -Revision 0 FP 10 09B5 P a ge 40 1 of 5 26 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I E ng in eeri ng o f S tr uc t u r es an d Build ing Enclosures PROJECT N0: ____

DATE: _______

CLIE NT:

__________________ BY: _______

__ _ SUBJEC T: _E_v_a_lu_a_t_io_n_a_n_d_D_es_i_g_n_C_o_n_fi_rm_a_t io_n_o_f _A_s_-D_e_f_o_rm_e_d_C_E_B ______ VERIFIER: ____ S=a,,,,_r,,_awi'""*"-1 __ _ ELEMENT SOLUTION STE P*9999 N ll (NO A VG) TOP OMX *.291449 S MN *-62292 .1 SMX *21271.5 6 250 1 2 5 00 18750 3125 93 7 5 1 5625 2 1 875 COMBOS -SEABROOK C EB -1 50252 Before Localized Cracking !.L!.M!NT SOLUTION STEP*9999 N ll (N O A VG) T OP OMX *.291'3 S HH *-62167. 5 SMX *209 44.2 6250 12500 I I I I 3125 9375 1 5625 C OMBOS -SEABROOK CEB -150252 After Localized Cracking 218 7 5 Figure M6. Comparison of Axial Forces in Hoop Direction (lbf/in.)

Around Location of Stiffness Reduction to Simulate Concrete Cracking 150252-CA-02 Appendix M -M-9 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 402 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER CL I ENT: SUBJE CT: I Engineering o f Str u ctu r es ond Build i ng E n c l o s ur es PROJECT N0: ____ _,1_,,5=02=5=2'-----

DATE: ______ __

BY: _______ ______ VER I FIER: _____

__ _ E L EMENT SO L UTIO N S T EP-9999 Ml l (NO A VG) T O P ELEME NT SOL U TIO N STEP*9999 M ll (N OAVG) JUL 2 9 201 6 08: 52121 OMX *.29 144 9 SMN *-552 1 93 SMX *3289 11 41250 82500 C OMBOS -S EAB ROOK C EB -150252 1 65000 2 4 1500 1 2 31 50 206250 Before Localized Cracking 288750 T O P OMX *.291 4 3 S MN *-55 2322 S MX *329 414 82 5 00 4 1250 COMBOS -SE AB ROOK CEB -15 0252 1 6 5 000 123150 I I 206250 After Localized Cracking Figure M7. Comparison of Bending Moments about Meridional Axis (lbf-inlin)

Around Location of Stiffness Reduction to Simulate Concrete Cracking 150252-CA-02 Appendix M -M-10 -FP 100965 Page 403 of 526 288150 Revis ion 0 l SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engin e ering of Str u c tur es and Building E nc lo s ur es PROJECT N0: ____

DATE: _______ "-'Ju .... l vi...::2.:<.0.!..:16"-----

CLIE N T:

BY: _______

SUB J ECT: ______ VER IFI ER: _____ '""'A""'.T'"'"._,,S"'a""'

ra ,,__,wi""*,_

1 __ _ E L l!:MENT SO L UT I O N STgp..9999 Q23 I N OAVG) TOP DllX -.2914 4 9 S MN *-1470 7. 4 SHX *37901. 5 -4000 -2000 0 2000 -3000 -1000 1000 30 0 0 COMBOS -S E ABROOK CEB -150252 Befo r e Locali z ed Crack i ng 1 ELEME NT SOLUTION STEP-9999 Q23 (NOAVG) TOP !J'IX *.291 4 3 S MN *-1 4 743. 6 SHX *37023. 9 -4000 -2000 0 2000 -3000 -1000 1000 3000 COMBOS -SEABROOK CE B -150252 Afte r Localized Cra c king F i gure MS. Comparison of Out-Of-Plane Forces Acting on the Hoop-Radial Plane (lbf/in) Around Location of Stiffness Reduction to Simulate Concrete Cracking 150252-CA-02 Ap pendix M -M-11 -FP 100985 Page 404 of 526 Rev isi o n 0 S I MPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of S tr uctures and Building En closures CLIENT: Ne xt Era Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

E valu at i on and Design Con firmati o n of As-Deformed CEB N1. REVISION HISTORY Revision 0 Initial document.

N2. OBJECTIVE Appendix N Section Cut Properties PROJECT NO:

DATE: ______

__ _ BY: _____

VERIFIER: __ _ The objective of this calculation i s to document the locations and section properties of section cuts used in the CEB evaluation. N3. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS The result of this calculation is the documented locations and sect i on properties of section cuts used in the CEB evaluation. Section cut properties are summarized i n Table N-1. Section cut lengths are limited to eight times the wall thickness. The allowable number of elements per cut is summarized in Figure N-1. The elements used for each section are shown beginning with Figure N-2. N4. DESIGN DAT A I CRITERIA Wall geometry , reinforcement layout, and material properties are based on the structural drawings listed in the project Criteria Document 150252-CD-03

[N-1]. N5. REFERENCES

[N-1] Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc., Criteria Document for Evaluation of As-Deformed Containment Enclosure Building at Seabrook Station in Seabrook , NH , 150252-CD-03, Revision 0 , Waltham , MA , 27 July 2016. 150252-CA-02 Appendix N -N-1 -Revis i on 0 FP 100985 Page 405 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structure s and Bu i lding Enclosures C LI ENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook S UBJ ECT: Evaluation and Design Confirmation o f As-Deformed CEB N6. TABLES Table N-1 -Section Cut Properties As , As , As , As , Cover , Cut Arc Chord Elevation Orient Thick Inner , Outer , Inner , Outer , Inner , Length Length (centroid) -ation -ness Merid Merid Hoop Hoop -ional -ional Hoop -in. in. in. -in. in.2/in. in.2/in. in.2/in. in.2/in. in. 1 1190.2 111 6.3 -36 0 HOR 36.7 0.16 0.16 0.27 0.57 4.2 2 1532.8 1377.0 -36 0 HOR 36.0 0.13 0.1 3 0.26 0.52 4.1 3 985.5 943.3 -36 0 HOR 36.9 0.14 0.14 0.26 0.52 4.1 4 673.8 660.2 -360 HOR 38.5 0.28 0.28 0.26 0.59 4.1 7 1062.6 1009.3 169 HOR 28.6 0.1 2 0.11 0.26 0.29 4.0 8 211.8 211.3 0 HOR 31.0 0.13 0.13 0.2 6 0.52 4.0 9 199.6 199.2 -67 HOR 31.0 0.13 0.13 0.2 6 0.52 4.0 10 204.0 203.6 -67 HOR 31.0 0.24 0.24 0.26 0.52 4.0 11 215.4 214.9 0 HOR 31.0 0.24 0.24 0.26 0.52 4.0 14 195.4 195.4 234 VER 27.0 0.11 0.11 0.26 0.26 4.0 15 195.4 19 5.4 3 00 VER 27.0 0.11 0.11 0.26 0.26 4.0 16 195.4 195.4 2 6 7 VER 27.0 0.11 0.11 0.26 0.26 4.0 17 195.4 195.4 202 VER 27.0 0.11 0.11 0.26 0.26 4.0 18 195.4 195.4 234 VER 27.0 0.11 0.11 0.26 0.26 4.0 19 195.4 195.4 137 VER 27.0 0.11 0.11 0.26 0.30 4.0 20 1 95.4 195.4 267 VER 27.0 0.11 0.18 0.26 0.26 4.0 150252-CA-02 Appendix N -N-2 -FP 100985 Page 406 of 526 PROJECTN0: ___

DATE:

__ _ BY: ______ __ _ VERIF I ER: __ _ Cover , Cover , Cover , As/in , Outer , Inner , Outer , perpend As/i n , Me rid-Me rid-parallel Hoop ional ional -icular in. in. in. in.2/in. in.2/in. 5.2 2.8 5.2 0.84 0.31 5.1 2.8 5.1 0.78 0.26 5.1 2.8 5.1 0.78 0.27 5.2 2.8 5.2 0.85 0.55 3.8 2.8 5.0 0.55 0.23 5.0 2.8 5.0 0.7 8 0.26 5.0 2.8 5.0 0.78 0.26 5.0 2.8 5.0 0.78 0.47 5.0 2.8 5.0 0.78 0.47 3.6 2.8 5.0 0.21 0.52 3.6 2.8 5.0 0.2 1 0.52 3.6 2.8 5.0 0.21 0.52 3.6 2.8 5.0 0.21 0.52 3.6 2.8 5.0 0.21 0.52 3.9 2.8 5.0 0.21 0.56 3.6 2.8 5.0 0.28 0.52 Revision O SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: Ne xtEra Energy Seab ro ok S UBJ ECT: Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed C EB

___ _ DATE: _____ __,J,_,,ueilv-=2=0-'-"'16""-----

__ _ VER I F I ER: __ _ Table N-1 -Section Cut P roperties (cont i nued) As , As , As , As , Cover , Cover , Cover , Cover , As/i n , Cut Arc Chord E l evation Orient Thick Inner , Outer , I nner , Outer , Inner , Outer , I nner , Outer , perpend As/in, Length Length (centroid) -ation -ness Merid Merid Me rid-Me rid-parallel Hoop Hoop -i o n a l -ion al Hoop Hoop ion al ion al -icula r -i n. in. in. -in. in.2/i n. in.2/in. in.2/in. in.2/i n. in. in. in. in. i n.2/in. in.2/i n. 21 195.4 195.4 267 VER 27.0 0.11 0.18 0.26 0.26 4.0 3.6 2.8 5.0 0.28 0.52 22 197.4 197.4 235 VER 27.0 0.11 0.11 0.26 0.26 4.0 3.6 2.8 5.0 0.2 1 0.52 23 203.6 203.6 336 VER 27.0 0.11 0.11 0.26 0.26 4.0 3.6 2.8 5.0 0.21 0.52 24 185.9 185.9 488 VER 19.8 0.10 0.10 0.22 0.22 4.0 3.6 2.7 4.9 0.20 0.45 25 195.4 195.4 234 VER 27.0 0.11 0.11 0.26 0.26 4.0 3.6 2.8 5.0 0.21 0.52 26 195.4 195.4 169 VER 39.0 0.17 0.17 0.26 0.48 4.0 4.8 2.8 5.0 0.33 0.74 27 134.9 134.9 783 VER 15.0 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 3.7 3.6 2.5 4.7 0.17 0.17 2 8 425 421 547 HOR 15.0 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 3.69 3.56 2.50 4.69 0.17 0.17 29 236 236 867 VER 15.0 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 3.64 3.55 2.47 4.64 0.16 0.16 3 0 216 216 372 VER 27.0 0.11 0.21 0.26 0.26 4.05 3.64 2.78 4.98 0.32 0.52 150252-CA-02 Appendix N -N-3 -FP 100985 Page 407 of 526 Revision 0 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building E nclosures CLIENT: Ne xt Era E ne rgy S e a bro o k SU BJE CT: Eva l uat i on and Des i gn Co n fi r ma t ion o f As-De f or med CEB N7. FIGURES Oft-1>2.0toN'.90 N'. 90 to N'. 180 1>2. 180 to N'. 270 PROJEC T NO: DATE: _____ B Y: ______ VERIFIER: __ _ ANSYS llNSYS is.o RlS.O P1D1' NJ. 3 N'. 270 to N'. 0 T h i ckn ess = 1 5-i n :. M axim um c u t l e n gth = 1 20-i n # e lements o n cut = 4 T hickness = 2 7-i n :. Max i mum c u t l en g th= 2 1 6-i n # el e men t s o n cut = 6 T hickn ess = 3 6-i n :. Max i mum c u t l e n gth = 288-in # elements on cut = 8 Cu t s going through u ppe r-pi l aste r and portio n o f 27-i n wal l: #el e ments o n cut= 6 Figure N-1 -Allowable Number of Elements per Section Cut Based on 8x Wall Thickness Note: Cut lengths in above figure are for evaluation of axial-flexu r e i nteraction. Out-of-plane shear acting at the base of the structure and in-plane shear acting throughout the structure a r e evaluated us i ng sect i on cuts up to 90 degrees or approx i mately 125 ft in length. 150252-CA-02 Appendix N -N-4 -Rev i s i on 0 FP 100985 Page 408 of 526 S I MPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures PR OJEC T N O: ____ DA T E: ______

C LIENT:

________________ B Y: ______

S UBJE C T: VERIFIE R: -----'A-"-.

1 2 3 4 AN SYS R 15.0 y N.Oto/>2.90 A2. 9 0 to l>2. 1 80 A2. 1 8 0 to A2. 2 70 l>2. 2 7 0 to l>2. 0 Sect i on CUt Number 0 1 Figure N-2 -Elements Comprising Section Cut 1 150252-CA-02 Appendix N -N-5 -Revision 0 FP 1 0 0 98 5 Pag e 409 of 5 2 6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Eng i neering of S t ructures and B u ild i ng Enc losures PR O JE C TN 0: ___

C LIE N T:

B Y: ______

SUBJECT:

_E_v_a_lu_a_ti_o_n

_____ V ER I F I ER: 1 4 AN SYS Rl S.O 3 J_y P2. 0 to P2. 90 P2. 90 to P2. 1 8 0 P2. 180 to P2. 27 0 P2. 2 7 0 to P2. 0 Sect i on cut Numt.e r 02 Figure N-3 -Elements Comprising Section Cut 2 150252-CA-02 Appendix N -N-6 -Revision 0 F P 1009 8 5 Page 41 O o f 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building E nclosures PR OJ E C TN 0: ____

DATE: ______

___ _ C LIEN T: _

_______________ B Y: ______

SUBJECT:

_E_v_a_lu_a_ti_o_n_a_n_d_D-'e'""s_,,ig"-n'-C"""o.:...n

__ fi __ 1rm--'-at"'--i o'-n_o"-f-'-A--s'--'-D

-'-ef'-"o_rm--'-e"'-d--'C_E_B

_____ V ERIFIER: 3 z xl_y 1 z 2 z J 4 AN SYS R15.0 P2. 0 to AZ 90 P2. 90 to P2. 1 80 P2. 180 to P2. 270 P2. 270 to P2. 0 Sect i on CUt Numter 03 Figure N-4 -Elements Comprising Section Cut 3 150252-CA-02 Appendix N -N-7 -Revis i on 0 F P 100985 Page 4 11 of 526 S I MPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of S t ructures and Building E nclosures PROJECTN0: ___

DATE: ______ ___ _ CLIENT: _ ________________ B Y: ______ S UB JECT: _____ VER I FIER: -----'-A""'.T'-'-. =S=a r_,,_aw-'-"-'-i t __ _ 1 L ANSYS R15.0 3 z J_y 4 AZ 0 to AZ 90 AZ 90 to AZ 1 80 AZ 180 to AZ 2 7 0 AZ 2 7 0 to AZ 0 Sect i on cu t Numl:::er 0 4 Figure N-5 -Elements Comprising Section Cut 4 150252-CA-02 Appendix N -N-8 -Rev i sion 0 FP 100985 Page 412 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures PROJE CTN0: ___

DATE: ______

CLIENT: ________________

B Y: ______

SUBJECT:

_____ VERIFIER: 1 4 AN SYS R15.0 3 J_y AZ 0 to AZ 90 AZ 90 to AZ 1 80 AZ 1 80 to AZ 270 AZ 270 to AZ 0 Section cut Numter 07 Figure N-6 -Elements Comprising Section Cut 7 150252-CA-02 Appendix N -N-9 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Pag e 41 3 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures PROJECTN0:

____

CLIENT:

_______________ BY: ______

__ _

SUBJECT:

_____ VERIFIER:

____ _,A"""._,_T'""'. S=a""ra=wi

=*t"----1 2 J 3 J_y z AN SYS RlS.O 4 AZ 0 to 1'2. 90 AZ 9 0 to AZ 1 80 AZ 180 to AZ 2 70 AZ 2 70 to 1'2. 0 Sect i on CUt Nurnl:er 08 Figure N-7 -Elements Comprising Section Cut 8 150252-CA-02 Appendix N -N-10 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 414 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structu r es and Building Enclosures PROJECTN0:

___

CLI ENT: ________________

B Y: ______ SUBJE C T: _____ VERI FIE R:

1 3 J_y 4 AN SYS RlS.O P2 0 to P2 90 P2 90 to P2 1 80 P2 1 80 to P2 270 P2 270 to P2 0 sect i on cut Numt.er 09 Figure N-8 -Elements Comprising Section Cut 9 150252-CA-02 Appendix N -N-11 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 415 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclo sures PROJECTN0:

___

CLIENT:

________________

BY: ______

SUBJECT:

_E_v_a_lu_a_ti_o_n

_____ VERIFIER: 1 4 AN SYS RlS.O 3 J_y A'2.0t.oA'2.90 A'2. 90 t.o A'2. 1 80 A'2. 180 t.o A'2. 270 A'2. 270 t.o A'2. 0 Section CUt Numter 10 Figure N-9 -Elements Comprising Section Cut 10 150252-CA-02 Appendix N -N-12 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 416 of 5 2 6 ---I i I SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures PROJECTN0: ____ CLIENT:

________________

BY: ______

__ _

SUBJECT:

_____ VERIFIER:

AN SYS RlS.O 1 4 2 3 z y l>2. 0 to "l>2. 9 0 "l>2. 90 to "l>2. 1 80 "l>2. 180 to "l>2. 2 70 l>2. 2 7 0 to "l>2. 0 Section cut Numl::::er 11 Figure N-10 -Elements Comprising Section Cut 11 150252-CA-02 Appendix N -N-13 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 417 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I E n ginee r i ng o f St r uctu r es a n d B uil d ing E nc l osures CLIENT: ________________ B Y: ______

SUBJECT:

_____ VERIF IER: ____ _,_A"'-.T"'". =S=ar""'a""'

wi"'-*1 __ _ 1 2 z J 3 z xl_y 4 AN SYS RlS.O P2 0 to 1':2. 90 P2 90 to P2 1 80 1':2. 180 to 1':2. 270 P2 270 to P2 0 Section cut Nl..IITllEr 14 Figure N-11 -Elements Comprising Section Cut 14 150252-CA-02 Appendix N -N-14 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 418 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Eng i neer i ng of S t ructures and Build i ng E nclosures PROJEC T N0: ___ ----'1=5=02=5=2

___ _ DATE: ______ CLIENT: ________________ BY: ______

SUBJECT:

_____ VERIFIER: 1 4 AN SYS RlS.O 3 J_y P2. 0 t.o P2. 90 P2. 90 t.o P2. 1 80 P2. 180 t.o P2. 270 P2. 270 t.o P2. 0 Sect i on cut Numt.er 15 Figure N-12 -Elemen t s Comprising Sect i on Cut 15 150252-CA-02 Appendix N -N-1 5 -Rev i s i on 0 FP 100985 Page 419 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures PROJECTN0: ___

CLIENT:

_____________

___ BY: ______

__ _

SUBJECT:

__::E:;_;v..:ca.;..;;

lu"'a""ti"""o

"-n ..:ca c..;n"'"d ..::D-"e"'s'"'" i g,_n_C'--o'--n

'--fi_rm-'-at'--io'-n-o'--f-A-"s--D-e_f_o_rm_e

_d_C_E_B _____ VERIFIER: 1 2 z J y 4 AN SYS R1 5.0 3 A2. 0 to l>:Z 9 0 A2. 90 to A2. 1 80 A2. 180 to A2. 2 70 l>:Z 27 0 to A2. 0 S ecti o n cut N umte r 1 6 Figure N-13 -Elements Comprising Section Cut 16 150252-CA-02 Appendix N -N-16 -Revision 0 FP 100 9 85 Page 420 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Encl osures P R O JE C T N0: ____ DATE: ______ C LI ENT: _______________ B Y: ______ __ _ SU B J E C T:

_____ VERIF I E R: ____ _,_A_,,_.T_,__,.__,S""a"""'r a"'" wi'""*1'----4 AN SYS R lS.O 3 J_y P2 0 t.o AZ 90 AZ 90 t.o AZ 1 80 AZ 180 t.o P2 2 7 0 AZ 2 7 0 t.o AZ 0 S ecti on cu t Number 1 7 Figure N-14 -Elements Comprising Section Cut 17 150252-CA-02 Append ix N -N-17 -Rev i s i on 0 FP 100985 Pa g e 421 o f 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER CLIENT: I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures PROJECTN0: ____

DATE: ______

SU B JECT: _____ VERIFIER: 1 3 4 AN SYS RlS.O AZ 0 to AZ 90 AZ 90 to AZ 1 80 AZ 180 to AZ 270 AZ 270 to AZ 0 Section cut Numrer 18 Figure N-15 -Elements Comprising Section Cut 18 150252-CA-02 Appendix N -N-1 8 -Rev isi on 0 FP 100985 Page 422 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and B uilding Enclosures PROJECTN0: ___

CLIENT:

________________

BY: ______

SUBJECT:

__:: E:...v_:.;a.;.ol u-"a-'-ti-'-on-'--'-a

__ _____ VERIFIER: __ _ 1 AN SYS Rl S.0 4 3 z y "2.0t.o l>.29 0 l>2. 90 t.o l>2. 1 80 l>2. 180 t.o l>2. 2 70 l>2. 2 7 0 t.o l>2. 0 Sec ti on cut Nurnb2 r 1 9 Figure N-16 -Elements Comprising Section Cut 19 150252-CA-02 Appendix N -N-19 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 423 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures PR O JEC T N0: ____

DA T E: ______

C LIENT:

________________ BY: ______

SUBJECT:

_E_v-'-a_lu--'a-'-ti_o_n

_____ VERIF I ER: 1 2 3 4 AN SYS Rl S.O AZ 0 to AZ 90 AZ 90 to AZ 180 AZ 180 to AZ 2 7 0 AZ 270 to AZ 0 Sect i on CUt Numl:er 20 F igur e N-17 -Elements Comprising Section Cut 20 150252-CA-02 Appendix N -N-20 -Revision 0 FP 100 98 5 Page 4 2 4 of 5 2 6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures PROJECTN0:

____

DATE: ______ CLIENT:

________________

BY: ______

SUBJECT:

_____ V E RIFI E R: 1 3 J_y 4 AN SYS RlS.O l>2. 0 to l>2. 90 l>2. 90 to l>2. 18 0 l>2. 180 to l>2. 270 P2. 270 to P2. 0 Sect i on cut Numter 21 Figure N-18 -Elements Comprising Section Cut 21 150252-CA-02 Appendix N -N-21 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 425 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures PROJE C T NO: ____ D A TE: ______

C LIENT:

________________

B Y: ______ __ _ SUBJE CT: _____ V ERIFIER: 2 z J 3 'i'. xl_y 4 AN SYS Rl S.O P2 0 to /.2. 90 P2 90 to P2 1 80 P2. 1 8 0 to P2 270 P2 270 to /.2. 0 Sect i on CUt Numl::e r 22 Figure N-19 -Elements Comprising Section Cut 22 150252-CA-02 Appendix N -N-22 -Revision 0 FP 1009 8 5 Page 4 26 of 5 2 6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures DATE: ______

___ _ CLIENT:

________________

B Y: ______

S UBJE CT:

_____ VERIFIER:

____ _,_A-".""'T.""'S"-"a"" ra""'wi'""*1'----1 4 AN SYS RlS.O 3 J_y AZ 0 to AZ 90 A:2 90 to A:2 18 0 A:2 180 to AZ 270 AZ 270 to A:2 0 Sect ion cut Numter 23 Figure N-20 -Elements Comprising Section Cut 23 150252-CA-02 Appendix N -N-23 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 427 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering o f Structures and Building Enclosures PROJECTN0: ___

DATE: ______

___ _ CLIENT: _

________________

B Y: ______

SUBJECT:

_____ VERIFIER: ____ AN SYS RlS.0 3 J_y 4 1 P2. 0 to 1'2. 9 0 P2. 90 to P2. 1 80 1'2. 1 8 0 to P2. 270 P2. 270 to 1'2. 0 Sect i o n cut Numl::er 24 Figure N-21 -Elements Comprising Section Cut 24 150252-CA-02 Appendix N -N-24 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 428 of 526 I L SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosure s PROJECT N 0: ____ DATE: ______ CLI E NT: ________________

BY: ______ S UB J E C T: _____ VERIFIER: __ _ 3 J_y 1 4 AN SYS RlS.O AZ 0 to AZ 90 AZ 90 to AZ 1 80 AZ 180 to AZ 270 AZ 270 to AZ 0 section cut Numl::;er 25 Figure N-22 -Elements Comprising Section Cut 25 150252-CA-02 Appendix N -N-25 -Revis i on 0 FP 100985 Page 429 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures PROJECTN0: ___ DATE: ______ C L IENT:

________________

SUBJECT:

_____ VERIFIER: 1 3 4 AN SYS Rl S.O y P2. 0 to P2. 9 0 P2. 90 to P2. 1 80 P2. 1 80 to P2. 27 0 l>2. 2 7 0 to P2. 0 Section cut Numl:er 26 Figure N-23 -Elements Compris i ng Section Cut 26 150252-CA-02 Ap p endix N -N-26 -Re vi s i on 0 FP 1 0 0985 Page 4 3 0 of 52 6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER CLIENT: I Engineering of Structures and Build i ng Enclosures PROJECTN0: ___

DATE: ______

___ _

SUBJECT:

_____ VERIFIER:

3 4 AN SYS R15.0 y A2. 0 to A2. 90 AZ 90 to AZ 1 80 AZ 1 80 to A2. 270 AZ 270 to AZ 0 Secti o n CUt Numt:er 27 Figure N-24 -Elements Comprising Section Cut 27 150252-CA-02 Appendix N -N-27 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 431 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLI E NT: NextEra Ene rgy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB 1 3 J_y 2 z J AZ 0 to AZ 90 AZ 90 to AZ 1 8 Section cut Numl::;er 28 PROJECTN0: ___

___ _ DATE: _____ __,J=u_,...ly--"2=0_,_,16"------

BY: ______

VERIFIER: __ _ z AN SYS R15.0 4 AZ 180 AZ 270 Figure N-25 -Elements Comprising Section Cut 28 150252-CA-02 Appendix N -N-28 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 432 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I E n ginee r i n g of St r uctu r es a n d B u i l d i ng En c l os ur es CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB 2 z J 3 J_y A2. 0 to l>2. 9 0 A2. 90 to A2. 1 8 S ecti on cut Nurnl::Er 29 PROJECTN0: ___

DATE: _____

BY: ______ __ _ VERIFIER: -----'-A""".T

"'". __ _ 4 A NSY S RlS.O A2. 1 80 A2. 2 7 0 Figure N-26 -Elements Comprising Section Cut 29 150252-CA-02 Appendix N -N-29 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 433 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook SUBJE C T: Evaluation and Design Confirmat i on of As-Deformed CEB 2 z J 3 z xl_y AZ 0 to l>2. 90 l>2. 90 to l>2. 1 8 S ecti o n CUt Numl:er 30 PROJECTN0: ___

___ _ DATE:

BY: ______ VERIFIER: __ _ 4 AN SYS R1 5.0 l>2. 180 l>2. 2 7 0 Figure N-27 -Elements Comprising Section Cut 30 150252-CA-02 Appendix N -N-30 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 4 3 4 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineer i ng of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB Appendix 0 PRO J ECT NO: 1 50252 DAT E: _____ _,J,_,,ue.i.

l v.=2"'-01,_,,6'--

--BY: _____ VERIFIER: ___ __,A_,,_.T-'-'.--"S""a,_,,ra=w'-'--

i t __ _ EVALUATION OF REINFORCED CONCRETE SECTION DUCTILITY DEMAND 01. REVISION HISTORY Revision 0 Initial document.

02. OBJECTIVE The objective of the present appendix is to present results and associated calculations for the determination of ductility demands of selected reinforced concrete section walls in the containment enclosure building subjected to moment and axial load demands. The selected section walls have been identified with the highest demand-to-capacity (D/C) ratios due to " Standard" and "Standard-Plus" load combinations and are subjected to moment redistribution. 03. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS Wall section cuts showing the highest ductility demands are reported in Table 0-1. These ductility demands are reported only for the " Standard-Plus" load combination due to the similarity of results with the " Standard" case. The highest ductility demand i s 3.51 at section-cut

22. The corresponding strain in the steel is 0.00699 (0.7%) which is well below the strain limit of 0.070 (7%) for Grade 60 bars at fracture {Table 2 of ASTM Standard A615-78 [0-1]). Consequently, this wall section and all of the other wall sections with less ductility demands are adequate for moment redistribution.

04. ASSUMPTIONS No assumptions are made in this calculation.

05. METHODOLOGY The ductility demand in the reinforced concrete section wall is reported as the ratio between the maximum strain of the steel rebar to the yielding strain of the steel. The maximum strain of the rebar is calculated based on curvature in the section needed t o store energy equivalent to the linear-elastic s tr ain energy in the section due to the moment demand. 150252-CA-02 Appendix 0 1 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 435 of 5 2 6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineer i ng of Structures ond Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB PROJECT NO:

DATE: _____ _,J=u,.._ly_,,,2"'-01=6

__ _ BY: VERIFIER:

Energy that is stored on the section for a given curvature is calculated by integrating the nonlinear moment-curvature response curve of the section. The moment-curvature response of the section is calculated based on material models for the concrete and steel ([0-2] to [0-9]). The linear-elastic strain energy due to the moment demand is calculated based on the slope of the linear-elastic portion of the moment-curvature response curve of the section. Ductility demand is calculated for wall sections of the containment enclosure building (Table 0-1) which have been identified with the highest D/C ratios and subjected to moment redistribution. 06. COMPUTATIONS Ductility demand calculations for wall section cuts listed in Table 0-1 for the " Standard-Plus" case are presented in the following pages. Section properties and moment and axial force demands used in the evaluation of the flexural-axial force capacity of the walls are used as inputs for the calculations. As noted in the main body of the calculation , rebar covers for the flexural-axial force capacity of the walls are computed with conservatism to account for possible variations in the rebar configuration. Because section-cut 22 shows the highest ductility demand (3.51 ), the moment-curvature response calculation of this section is performed based on design concrete covers. 150252-CA-02 Appendix 0 2-Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 4 36 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineer i ng of Structures and Building Enclosures PROJ E C TN 0: ___

CLIEN T: ________________ BY: ______ __ _ S U BJEC T: _E_v.=-a-=.lu-'--a-'--tio-'--n--'--an_d'---'-D-=-e-=-si'""'g""'n-'C:....: o'""'"n""'fi"'"'rm-'-'-a"'"t::..:i o'""'" n'-o::....f-'-A..;.:: s_;-D::...e.::..;f-=.

o-=.r m-=.e.::..;d::....-=.C c:: E c:: B _____ V ERI F IER: 07. TABLES Load Combination Section Cut Demands Steel Yielding Strain Steel Strain Ductility Moment (kip*ft/ft)

Axial L oad (kip/ft) (E y) (E.) (EJE y) 4 {M i ddle Segment) 911.5 11.4 1.989E-03 2.95E-03 1.48 STANDARD-P L US 8 322.3 -140.8 1.989E-03 3.66E-03 1.84 22 1 69.5 -30.9 1.989 E-03 6.99E-03 3.51 Table 0-1. Ductility Demands 1 50252-CA-02 Appendix 0 3-Revis i on 0 FP 100985 Page 437 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures ond Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB 1. REFERENCES PROJECT NO: DATE: __ _ BY: _____

VERIFIER: S=a=ra=w=i t __ _ [0-1] American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 1979 Annual Book of ASTM Standards , Standard Specification for Deformed and Plain Billet-Steel Bars for Concrete Reinforcement A615-78, Pages 580-586. [0-2] Karthik and Mander, Stress-Block Parameters for Unconfined and Confined Concrete Based on a Unified Stress-Strain Model, ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering V137 N2 February 2011. [0-3] Eric Setzler, Modeling the Behavior of Lightly Reinforced Concrete Columns Subjected to Lateral Loads , MS Thesis , Ohio State University, 2005. [0-4] Pilkey, W. D. Formulas for Stress, Strain , and Structural Matrices , Second Edition , John Wiley & Sons 2005. [0-5] Mander , Priestley and Park, Theoretical Stress-Strain Model for Confined Concrete , ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering V114 N8 August 1988. [0-6] Cornelissen , H. A. W., Hordijk , D. A. and Reinhardt , H. W. Experimental determination of crack soften i ng characteristic of normal weight and lightweight concrete.

HERON 31(2), 45-56, 1 986. [0-7] Roy, H. E. H. and Sozen M.A., Ductility of Concrete, ACI Special Publication:

Flexural Mechanics of Reinforced Concrete , 1965 [0-8] Halil Sezen , Eric Setzler , Reinforcement Slip in Reinforced Concrete Columns. ACI Structural Journal , May-June 2008. 150252-CA-02 Appendix 0 4 -Revision 0 FP 1 00985 Page 4 38 of 526 SIMPSON GUMPERT? & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Bu il ding Enc losures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB Cut 22 "STANDARD-PLUS" Load Combination!

INPUT DEFINITION Set starting index of all arrays to 1 (the default is 0) ORIGIN= 1 Input Reading 1 1 "Seabrook!" 2 4*103 3 6*104 4 6*104 5 9*104 INPUTS= 6 3.95 7 1.495 8 12 9 27 10 324 11 9.01 12 ... INDEX= 1 colname := INPUTS 1' INDEX Concrete strength Steel yield strength Ultimate strength of rebar Calculation No. 150252-CA-02 Appendix 0 FP 100985 Page 439 of 526 5-PROJECT NO: 150252 DATE: July 2016 BY: ___

VERIFIER:

A. T. Sarawit colname = "Seabrook!" f y = 60*ksi f.u = 90*ksi Revision 0 cover (to centroid of steel) Width of column Height of column Gross Area Area of longitudinal bar Diameter of bar Area of longitudinal steel Young's modulus of steel Ultimate strain of rebar Modulus of stra i n harden i ng [0-2] Strain at strain hardening

[0-3] Young's modulus of concrete Po i sson's ratio Shear modulus of concrete Shear modification factor Table 2.4 of [0-4] Tors i onal Constan t Table 2.5 of [0-5] E s u := INPUT S 21 INDEX , E sh := INPUTS23 INDEX , v := INPUTS25 , INDEX O'. := INPUT S 27 , INDEX . 4 J := INPUTS28 , IND EX*m Calculation No. 150252-CA-02 Appendix 0 6-FP 100 98 5 Pag e 44 0 o f 526 cover= 3.9 5*in h co l = 12*in h co l = 27-in . 2 Ag= 324-m . 2 abar = l.2 7*m dbar = l.27*in . 2 As L = 2.54*m 4 ks" E s=2.9 x 10

• I E s u = 0.0 7 3 ks" E s h = 1.16 x 10

• I -3 E s h = 8 x 10 v = 0.17 3 ks" G e= 1.5 4 1 x 10

• 1 O'. = 1.185 0 4. 4 J=l.12l x l *ID Revision 0 Crack section i ndex crack:= INPUTS 14 0 , INDEX crack= "yes" Locate the longitud i nal bars i n the wall b ars := augme n t( su b matrix(INPUTS , 40, 59, INDEX , INDEX), su b matrix(INPUTS, 60 , 7 9 , INDEX , INDEX))* in Area of bars %ar := su b matrix(INPUTS

, 80,99,INDEX,INDEX)

• in 2 Diameter of bars d b ar := s ub matrix(INPUTS, 100, 119,INDEX , INDEX)*in index of bars b := 1.. 2 0 Reinforcement Locat i on I I

• 20'"" in *** 1 0'""

• 0 I I 0 5 10 b (1) ars in END OF INPUT Calculation No. 150252-CA-02 Appendix 0 7-Revis i on 0 FP 1 0 0985 P ag e 441 o f 5 26 SECTION PROPERTIES Elastic properties of uncracked cross section Transverse Shear Stiffness Flexural Stiffness Axial Stiffness Torsional Stiffness 1 3 lgi := -* hcol' bcol 12 Calculation No. 150252-CA-02 Appendix 0 8-FP 100985 Pag e 442 of 526 88 3. 4 lg2 = 3.8 x 10 *lil 2 Av= 2.25ft 9 EA= 1.168 x 10 *lbf Revision 0 CONCRETE MODEL Peak strain of unconfined concrete i n compression assumed to be 0.002 [0-5] Eco:= 0.002 From Table 1 of Karth i k and Mander [0-2] Ult i mate strain of unconfined concrete in compression Fa i lure strain of unconfined concrete in compression Peak strain of concrete i n tension Concrete tensile strength E cl := 0.0 036 -7 fc E s p:= 0.012 -7* 10 *p si -3 E co= 2 x 10 -3 Esp= 9.2 x 10 -4 c 10 = -2 x 10 f 1 = 474.342 p si Use Cornelissen , Ho r di j k and Re i nhardt (1986) to determ i ne ultimate tension stra i n [0-6] [0-6] Fig 6 [0-6] Eq 1 Tension Stress-Strain Curve 0 at(O) ** [i + (';:JF ,., (*.) a (li) := f { ot(li) -( :o) *ot( li 0)] x := Oµm, 1 µm .. 1 6 0µ.m -4 E cr=l.316x l0 100 x in Calculation No. 150252-CA-02 Appendix 0 9-F P 100985 P age 4 43 of 526 Revision 0 Fracture energy From Table 1 of Karthik and Mander [0-2]: Failure strain of concrete in tension Ultimate strain of concrete in tension Ultimate stress of concrete in tension -1 8 gf E u:=-.-in 5*f't 2*E u E u:= --9 Tension stress-strain curve , [0-2] Eq 1 , 2 & 3 fct( E e) := -1 * [0-2] Table 1 £;;1 := 1.74ksi m ult c r ack := I if crack= "no" if crack= "y e s" Calculation No. 150252-CA-02 Appendix 0 FP 100 985 P a ge 4 44 o f 526 10-l b f gf = 0.582*-.m -3 Eu= -4.415 X 10 -4 E u = -9.812 x 10 fi 1 = 1 5 8.11 4*p si m ul t crack = 0 Revision 0 Unconfined stress-strain curve [0-2] Eq 1 , 2 & 3 Calculation No. 150252-CA-02 Appendix 0 FP 100985 Page 445 of 526 4 0 Ee fct(Ec)*mult_crack if -< 0 Eco Ee if 0 -< 1 Ec o Ee Eel Eco Ec o ---fc1. Ec o Eco Ee l Ee Esp Eel E s p Cco Eco Eco ---Eco Eco Esp Ee 0 e:co Eco Unconfined Concrete Stress-Strain Curve per Ref 2 0 --Unconfined Concrete 11-0.01 Strain (in/in) 0.02 Revision 0 Stress-Strain Curve in Tension (for initially un-cracked members) 0.2--g s:i' .8 "' 0 i:l "' "' .., ti en -0.2--0.2 -0.4'--------'-'------..__*

____

-2x10-3 -1.5x10-3 -5xl0-4 0 Strain (in/in) --Unconfined Modified confinement pe r Roy and Sozen [0-7] Eq 5.3 3psi + 0.002*f e Esou := ----f e -lOOOpsi -3 Esou = 3.667 x 10 [0-7] -0.5*f e m_RoySozen := --Esou -0.002 m_RoySozen = -1.2 x 10 3.ksi b_RoySozen:=

0.002*(-m_RoySozen)

+(re) b_RoySozen = 6.4*ksi fc_RoySozen(Ee)

= fct{Ee)*mult_crack if Ee< 0 fe --*Ee if 0 Ee < 0.002 0.002 max( 0 , m _ RoySozen *Ee + b _ RoySozen) if 0. 002 Ee Calculation No. 1 502 5 2-CA-02 Appendix 0 FP 100985 Page 446 of 526 12-Revis i on 0 Comparison of Mander (Ref2) and Sezen (Ref7) Concete Models 0 Strain (in/in) --Unconfined Concrete (Ref2) --Unconfined Concrete (Ref 7) 0.01 fc_RoySozen(e:c) if INPUTS = "RoySozen" 34,INDEX fc( e:c) otherwise Concrete Model Used for Evaluation 0 0.01 Strain (in/in) --Unconfined Concrete Calculation No. 150252-CA-02 Appendix 0 13-FP 100985 Page 447 of 526 ksi 0.02 Revision 0 REBAR MODEL Stress -Stra i n curve o f rebar [0-2] Eq 5 [0-2] Eq 4. P := 1 if fsu = fy Esh*{ Esu -E sh) fsu -fy otherwise p = 2.397 Based on the recommendation of Sezen and Setzler ([0-8], and [0-3]), the steel st r ess strain curve i s modified slightly to make sure the plateau reg i on as a slight positive slope Slope of strain hardening := 0.0 2 Ad j ust fy such that area under the plateau stays th e same Steel yield strength Modified yield st r ength Yield strain [0-3] stra i n at stra i n harden i ng S t eel material model [0-3] Eq 3.3 fy-fy' -3 E cross := --+ E y = 5.989 x 10 fs h := fy' + (e:sh -

if P

• 1 [fy' + (e:c r oss -

ot h erwise fy-= 57.68-ksi

-3 Ey = 1.98 9 x 10 -3 Esh= 8 x 10 fsh = 61.166-ksi Steel curve from Setzler thes i s ([0-3]) (with correction per sezen for plateau region) fs_t4(e: s) := if P

• 1 Es*Es if Es E y fy' + (e:s -

if Ey Esh otherwise Es*E s if E s E y fy' + (e:s -

if Ey Ecross Calculation No. 150252-CA-02 Appendix 0 14-FP 10098 5 P age 448 of 526 Revision 0 Combined tension and compression behavior g "' "' ., J:l en g "' "' ., ti en 100 ---------------------------

fs_t4( Es) .. .. .. .. .. ksi fs_t( E s) 50 ksi 0.014 .. .. .. .. .. 0.028 0.042 strain (in/in) fs( E s) := 1-fs_t4( I E s l) if Es 0 0 otherwise Es_plot := -0.2,-0.1999

.. 0.2 Reinforcement Model I T 100'-0.056 I 0.07 rs( Es _plot) O'-ksi --ksi -fsu -0.05 0 Es_plot Strain (in/in) 0.05 Calculation No. 150252-CA-02 Appendix 0 15-Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 449 of 526 DUCTILITY CALCULATION Section inertia of uncracked cross section 4 . 4 lg= 2.163 x 10 *lil Concrete stress at a location (x) given a curvature, and neutral axis er_conc(cj>,x,NA)

= fc[cj>*(x

-NA)] Steel stress in a bar {b) given a curvature and neutral axis er_steel(cj>,b,NA)

= <!>*(barsb, 2 -NA)] Given Integration across the section to combine concrete and steel stresses must equal the applied vertical load independent of the curvature. (integrate by parts to help convergence)

J hco! b c 0 rer_conc(cj>, x , na_test) dx ... = Fv 0 + L (er _steel( cj>, b , na_test)*%arb) b Function to execute the solve block and find the neutral axis location as a function of curvature. na( cj>,Fv,na_test)

= Find(na_test)

Fv_plot := Okip -4 1 <!>plot:=

3* 10 *lil hcol hcentroid

= -2 Function to solve for the moment about the centroid for a given curvature hcentroid

= 13.S*in J hcol mom( cj>,NA,F v) := bc 0 rer _conc(cj>,x ,NA)*(x -hcentroid) dx ... 0 + L [er _steel( cj>, b , NA)*%arb*(barsb , 2 -hcentroid)J b mom(<l>piot>na(<l>piot*Fv_plot>0.8hcoi),F v_p lot) = 1.633 x 10 3-ki p*i n mom(-<l>p1otona(-<!>p1ot*Fv_plot*

0.2hco1) ,Fv_plot)

= -1.666 x 103*kip*in Calculation No. 150252-CA-02 Appendix 0 FP 100985 Page 450 of 526 16-Revision 0 Function to c h eck the resulting axial force J hcol chk(<!>,NA) := bc 0 r a_conc(<!>,x,NA) dx ... 0 + L(a_stee l (<!>,b ,NA)*%arb) b Fv_plot = O*ki p max_b ar := INPUTS 36 ,INDEX max b ar= 2 min_bar := INPUT S 3 7 INDEX , mi n bar= I To this point , compression is posit i ve and tension is negative , for computing steel strain and stress , use tens i on as posit i ve values. stee l_str a in(<!>,NA)

= -1* <!>*(b arsmin_b ar, 2 -NA) 0 <!>*(b arsmax_b ar, 2 -NA) if <!> < 0 st e el_ str e ss( cl>, NA):= -l* 1 a_steel(<!>,min_bar ,NA) 0 a_stee l (<!>,max_bar

, NA) if<!>< 0 d e p t h_b ar(<!>) := b ars . b 2 i f <!> 0 =-ar , b ars if <!> < 0 max_bar,2 d bar if <!> < 0 max_bar steel_ strain( <l>piot,na( <l>plot , Fv_plot , 0.8*hco1)) = 5.538 x 10-3 steel_ str e ss( <!>plot> na( <!>plot> Fv_plot> 0.8*hco1)) = 59.738-ksi fname := INPUTS124 , INDEX fname = "001 Wall uncracked filel.txt" ---Compute moment-curvature curves at various axial load , and curvatures. This requires the following programming loop , which writes results to a text file which is then read back in by this calculation. Index of curvatures numinc := INPUTS 139 INDEX , p := 1 .. numinc 1 <!>int:= INPUTS138 INDEX*-:-, lil <!>curve := (p -l)*<l>int p Calculation No. 150252-CA-02 Appendix 0 17-FP 10098 5 Page 451 of 526 -5 1 <!>int= 1 x 10 *lil Revision 0 o.s-<l>curvepo.6-

<l>curve 0.4-*** p 0.2----

0

<l>curve *in p fv := submatrix(INPUTS, 126, 13 7, INDEX, INDEX) fv := new +--fv 1 for j E 2 .. rows(fv) new +--new if fvj) new +--stack( new , fvj) otherwise return new* lbf 1 1 907.2 2 793.8 3 680.4 4 567 5 453.6 fv = 6 340.2 *kip 7 226.8 8 113.4 9 0 10 -43.2 11 -86.4 12 -129.6 f := 1 .. rows(fv) Output 1 , 1 := "Curvature (1/in)" Output 1 , 2 := "Moment (lbf*in)" Output 1 , 3 := "Axial Load (lbf)" Output 1 , 4 := "neutral axis (in)" Output 1 , 5 := "Concrete Strain" Output 1 , 6 := "Concrete Strain" Output 1 , 7 := "Steel Strain" Output 1 , 8 := " Steel Strain" fname = "001 Wall uncracked filel.txt" ---exist:= "no" on error READPRN(fname)

Calculation No. 150252-CA-02 Appendix 0 FP 100985 Page 452 of 526 18-Output 1 , 9 := "Slip Rotation (rad)" Output 1 , 10 := "Slip (in)" Output 1 , 11 := "" Output 1 , 12 := "LINE" Revision 0 zero(x,y)

= 0 out:= if exist = "no" APPEND P J fname, ( Outpul) ( J) T J for f e 1 .. rows(fv) na contin u e "yes" errorcount 0 for p e 1 .. numinc if continue = "yes" Ml

• in p m O [ 0 on error (mom( <l>curvep, <l>curvep, fv f' n a _last), fv f) )]

mO (0 if ( mO = 0 v sign( mO) *-sign( <l>curveP))

ml [O on error (mom( <l>curvep' <l>curvep' fv f' Oin), fv f ))J m2 [o on error (mom(

<l>curvvfv f' sign( <l>curvep)

• 0.5hcol)* fv f))J m3 [O on error (mom( <l>curvep' <l>curvV fv f' sign( <l>curvep)

• 0.9hcol), fv f) )] if lml I >max( l m21 , lm3 I) NA ( 0 on error <l>curvv fv f' Oin)) mo u t if l m2 1 lm3I) NA ( 0 on error <l>curvep ,fv f' sign( <l>curvep)

• 0.5hcol)) mout m2 if I m3 I max( Im l I , I m2 I ) (0 mo u t m3 mo u t M 2 lbf*in fvf 3 !b f NA m na NA M 5 <!>curve *(Oin -NA) p M6

• (hc ol -NA) p M7 <l>curvep*(barsmin_bar , 2 -NA) Calculation No. 150252-CA-02 Appendix 0 FP 100985 Page 45 3 o f 526 19-Revision 0 M8 <l>curvep*(b arsmax_b ar,2 -NA) M 12 errorcount errorcount

+ 1 if (NA = 0) v ( sign(mout)

• sign( <l>curvep))

v (M 6 > 0.010) errorco un t 0 otherwi se APPEND P RN ( fnam e , MT) M matrix(1 2, 1 , zero) contin u e "no" if err o r c o un t > 3 " no thing" otherwise data:= I READ P RN(fname) if exist = "no" exist otherwise 1 2 3 1 "Curvature (1/in)" "Moment (lbf*in)" "Axial Load (lbf)" 2 0 0 3 1*10-5 3.937*105 4 2*10-5 7.873*105 5 3*10-5 1.181*106 6 4*10-5 1.575" 106 7 5*10-5 1.937*106 d ata= 8 6*10-5 2.141*106 9 7*10-5 2.2*106 10 8*10-5 2.13*106 11 9*10-5 1.927*106 12 1*10-4 1.567*106 13 i.1*10-4 9.671*105 14 l.2*lQ-4 0 15 l.3*10-4 0 16 l.4*lQ-4 0 data:= d s u bmatrix( data, 1, 1, 1 , 12) fo r i E 2 .. ro ws( d a ta (i)) d d if

• o) d stack( d, su b matrix( data , i, i, 1 , 12)) otherwise r eturn d Calculation No. 150252-CA-02 Append i x 0 20-FP 10 0 985 P age 45 4 of 526 9.072*105 9.072*105 9.072*105 9.072*105 9.072*105 9.072*105 9.072*105 9.072*105 9.072*105 9.072"105 9.072*105 9.072"105 9.072*105 9.072*105

... Revision 0 clean data := APPENDPRN ( concat( "clean_" , fuame) , data) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 cleandata

= 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Calculation No. 150252-CA-02 Appendix 0 FP 100985 Page 455 of 526 1 "Curvature (1/in)" 0 1*10-5 2*10-5 3*10-5 4*10-5 5*10-5 6*10-5 7*10-5 8*10-5 9* lQ-5 1*10-4 1.1

• lQ-4 0 1*10-5 2*10-5 3*10-5 4*10-5 5*10-5 6* lQ-5 7* 10-5 8*10-5 9*10-5 1*10-4 1.l*lQ-4 i.2*10-4 1.3*lQ-4 1.4*lQ-4 1.5*lQ-4 0 1*10-5 2*10-5 3*lQ-5 4*10-5 5*10-5 6* lQ-5 7*10-5 21-2 3 "Moment (lbf*in)" "Axial Load (lbf)" 0 9.072*105 3.937*105 9.072*105 7.873*105 9.072*105 1.181*106 9.072*105 1.575*106 9.072*105 1.937*106 9.072*105 2.141*106 9.072*105 2.2*106 9.072*105 2.13*106 9.072*105 1.927*106 9.072*105 1.567*106 9.072*105 9.671*105 9.072*105 0 7.938*105 3.937*105 7.938*105 7.873*105 7.938*105 1.181"106 7.938*105 1.575*106 7.938*105 1.968"106 7.938*105 2.357*106 7.938"105 2.638*106 7.938*105 2.794*106 7.938*105 2.842*106 7.938*105 2.79*106 7.938*105 2.638*106 7.938*105 2.377*106 7.938*105 1.986*106 7.938*105 1.406*106 7.938*105 3.969*105 7.938*105 0 6.804*105 3.937*105 6.804*105 7.873*105 6.804*105 1.181*106 6.804*105 1.575*106 6.804*105 1.968*106 6.804*105 2.362*106 6.804*105 2.756*106

... Revision 0 S t ra i n l im i t strain lim := 0.005 1im := strain lim -3 lim=5 x l0 Column( d, i, s train_ lim) := acount 1 datas 1 2 acount, for r E 3 .. rows(d) if d 3 ;C d -1 3 r, r , datas 2 r-1 acount, acount acount + 1 datas acoun , datas t 2 ro w s( d) acoun , sub submatrix( d , 1, 1 , 1 , cols( d)) out submatrix( d , datasi , 1 , datasi , 2 , 1 , cols( d)) for j E 1 .. rows( out) if [( outj , 2 ;e 0 " sign( outj , 2) = sign( outj , 1)) v outj , 1 = oJ I p2 submatrix( out , j , j , 1 , col s ( d))

stack(sub , p2) sub sub otherwise cutoff2 0 for i E 2 .. rows(sub) cutoff2 i -1 if ( subi , 6 > strain_ lim) " ( cutoff2 = 0) cutoff2 ro w s( sub) if cutoff2 = 0 cutoffl 2 cutoffl 2 if sub 2 , 1 = 0 otherwise while s ub. 5 > strain lim I , -I cutoff! i + 1 i i + 1 return stack(submatrix(sub, 1, 1 , 1 , cols( sub)), submatrix(sub , cutoffl, cutoff2, 1, cols( sub))) StrainLim(limit)

= StrainLim "moment" "Slip Rotation" "P/Ag*fc") Calculation No. 150252-CA-0 2 Appendi x 0 FP 100985 Page 456 of 526 for f E 1 .. rows(fv) StrainLimf 1 1 Column( data , f , limit) ( (i)) + ' rows Column(data

, f , limit) , 1 StrainLimf 1 2 Column(data

, f , limit) ( (i)) + ' rows Column(data

, f , limit) , 2 StrainLimf 1 3 Column( data, f , limit) ( ) + ' rows Column( data, f, limit) , 9 fvf StrainLim f 1 4 --+ ' A g*f c return StrainLim 22-Revis i on 0 Moment -Curvature curves fo r diffe r ent axial forces plt := 1 .. 12 plot_ index pit:= I plt if plt rows(fv) 1 otherwise 4xl0 6 0 +++ 70.00% +++ 61.25% +++ 52.50% +++ 43.75% +++ 35.00% +++ 26.25% +++ 17.50% +++ 8.7 5% +++ -3.34% +++ -6.67% +++ -10.00% ...... ...... -Strain Lim= 0.003 --* Strain Lim= 0.005 Calculation No. 150252-CA-02 Append i x 0 F P 100985 Page 457 of 526 23-Moment -Curvature

...... ...... ... Curvature (l/in) Revision 0 Moment demand Axial load demand Total axial load Maximum axial load kip* ft Moment Sec := 169 .54 ---ft Mome n t := Mom e n t_ Sec* bcol ki Axial:= -30.932 ft Axia l_ Sec:= Axi a l*b col Max_axial

= Ag*(t'c) Calculated percent tension or compression of Ag*fpc Axia l S ec Percent:= Max a xial Percent compression or t ension See below fo r opt i ons , tens i on is negative Axial_p := -3.34 Stress l evel ap:= Calculation No. 150252-CA-02 Appendix 0 FP 1 0 0 985 P age 458 o f 5 2 6 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 1 2 if Axial_p = 70 if Axial_p = 61.2 5 if Axia l_p = 52.50 if Axia l_p = 4 3.7 5 if Axial_p = 3 5.00 if Axial _p = 26.25 if Axia l_p = 17.50 if Axial_p = 8.7 5 if Axi a l_p = -3.34 if Axia l_p = -6.67 if Axi al_p = 0-24-l b f*i n Moment Sec= 16 9 540*---in Mo m e nt= 2.034 x 10 6-l b f*i n 3 l b f Axia l= -2.578 x 10 *-.m Axia l Sec= -3 0 93 0 l b f Max axial = 1296000 l b f Percent = --0.024 a p = 10 Revision 0 Slope of linear moment curvature plot Linear curvature parameters Linear strain energy Linear curvature at moment Curvature points Moment points m := [(Column( data , plot_indexap'lim)(v) 4 -(Column( data,plot_in dexap'lim)(v)J ap [(Column( data,plot_indexap'lim)

(i)) 4 -(Column( data,plot_indexap'lim)

(1))2] Moment L Cur :=-----ap 2 m *lbf *in ap w := (L -inJ -ap L Mom_p(w) := m *w -ap L Area = 315 lbf a p -4 1 L Cur = 3.099 x 10 *-ap in L_Mom_p(w) = ( O 6 J 2.034 x 10 Max number of trapezoids to add when calculating moment under non-linear moment curvature curve Cmax := 37 Variables to calculate area under moment-curvature plot that represent width (b) and heights (h) of trapezoids Height (Moment) hl := Column(data

, plot index , lim)(v ap -ap h2 := Column(data, plot index , lim)(v ap -ap Width (Curvature) bl := Column(data,plot index ,lim)(i) ap -ap b2 := Column(data

, plot index , lim)(i) ap -ap Area under moment-curvature plot, based on summ in g trapezoidal areas Non-linear Curvature Cmax[l . [ 1 l] NL_Area := -*[(hl ) *lbf*i n + (h2 ) *lbf*ml (bl ) *-:--(b2 ) *-:-ap L.J 2 ap k ap k-1 J ap k 1Il ap k-1 m k =3 NL Area = 318 lbf -ap NL Cur := (column(data,plot index , lim)(J)) _..!._ -ap -ap Cmax in -4 1 NL Cur = 3.500 x 10 *-ap in Calculation No. 150252-CA-02 Appendix 0 FP 100985 Page 459 of 526 25-Revision 0 Vary c.max to make close to zero Parameters fo r plotting purposes Depth to neutral axis -ap [NL Cur *inJ Lim NL(y) := -NL Cur *in -a p d NA := nl'lfNL C ur , fv , 0.8 h co1) \-apap D i stance for stra i n i n steel calculation d strain :== d NA -cover Strain in steel Ductil i ty Demand Moment -Curv atur e NL Area -L Area = 3.0 75 l bf -ap -ap [ 0 J z*= 1

• Mom e nt*--l b f *in [L Cur inJ -ap Lim_L(z) := . L Cur *m -ap dNA == 23.925*in d strain = 1 9.9 75*in E stee! = 0.00699 E stee! --= 3.51 E y

+++ No n-Linear +++Linear +++ Non-Linear Limit +++ Linear Limit Calculation No. 150252-CA-02 Appendix O F P 1 00985 P a g e 460 of 526 Curva tur e (l/in) 26-Revision 0 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineeri ng of Structures and Bu il d ing Enc losures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB Cut 8 "STANDARD

-PLUS" Load Combination!

INPUT DEFINITION Set starting index of all arrays to 1 (the default is 0) ORIGIN= 1 Input Reading 1 1 "Seabrook!" 2 4*103 3 6*104 4 6*104 5 9*104 INPUTS= 6 3.53 7 1.495 8 12 9 31 10 372 11 9.01 12 ... INDEX= 1 colname := INPUTS 1 , INDEX Concrete strength Steel yield strength Ultimate strength of rebar Calculation No. 150252-CA-02 Appendix 0 FP 100985 Page 461 of 526 27-PROJECT NO: 150252 DATE: July 2016 BY: ___

VERIFIER:

A. T. Sarawit colname ="Sea brook I" fy = 60*ksi fsu = 90*ksi Revision 0 cover (to centro i d of steel) cover:= INPUTS 6 INDEX* in ' Width of column heol := INPUTS8 , INDEX*in Height of column heol := INPUTS9 , INDEX*in Gross Area . 2 Ag:= INPUTSlO , INDEx*m Area of longitudinal bar . 2 %ar := INPUTS13 INDEX*m ' Diameter of bar dbar := INPUTS14 INDEX* in ' Area of longitudinal steel . 2 AsL := INPUTS18,INDEx*m Young's modulus of steel Es := INPUTS 20 INDEX psi ' Ult i mate strain of rebar E: su := INPUTS2 l INDEX ' Modulus of strain hardening

[0-2] E s h := INPUTS22 , INDEX*psi Stra i n at strain hardening

[0-3] E: sh := INPUTS23 INDEX ' Young's modulus of concrete E e:= INPUTS 24 INDEX*psi

' Poisson's ratio v := INPUTS25 , INDEX Shear modulus of concrete Ge:= INPUTS 26 INDEX*psi ' Shear modification factor O'. := INPUTS27 , INDEX Table 2.4 of [0-4] Torsional Constant .4 J := INPUTS28 INDEX*rn Table 2.5 of [0-5] ' Calculation No. 150252-CA-02 Appendix 0 FP 100985 Pag e 462 of 526 28-cover= 3.53*in bcol = 12-in hcol = 31*in .2 Ag= 372-m %ar = 3.1 2*in 2 dbar = 0.5*in 9 . 2 AsL = .36-m Es= 2.9 x 10 4-ksi E:su = 0.07 E s h= 1.16 x 10 3-ksi E: sh = 8 x 10 -3 Ee= 3.605 x 10 3-ksi v = 0.17 Ge= 1.541 x 10 3-ksi O'. = 1.185 J = 1.351 x 10 4-in 4 Revision 0 Crack section index crack:= INPUTS 140 , INDEX crack= "yes" Locate the longitudinal bars i n the wall bars := augment( submatrix(INPUTS, 40, 59 , INDEX , INDEX), submatrix(INPUTS, 60, 79, INDEX, INDEX))* in Area of bars Diameter of bars index of bars Reinforcement Location END OF INPUT %ar := submatrix(INPUTS,80,99,INDEX,INDEX)

• in 2 d bar := submatrix(INPUTS, 100, 119,INDEX,INDEX)*in b := 1 .. 20 b <->> ars in *** I I

• 20--10-*

0 5 10 in Calculation No. 150252-CA-02 Appendix 0 FP 100985 Page 463 of 526 29-Revision 0 SECTION PROPERTIES Elastic properties of uncracked cross section Transverse Shear Stiffness Flexura l St iffne ss Axial Stiffness Torsional Stiffness 1 3 lg2 := -*hear he a l 12 Calculation No. 150252-CA-02 Appendix 0 FP 100985 Page 464 of 526 30-2 A v= 2.583ft 8 Ky= 4.834 x 10 *lbf 9 EA= 1.341 x 10 *!bf Revision 0 CONCRETE MODEL Peak strain of unconfined concrete i n compression assumed to be 0.002 [0-5] Eco:= 0.0 02 From Table 1 of Karthik and Mander [0-2] Ultimate stra i n of unconfined concrete i n compression Failure strain of unconfined concrete in compress i on Peak strain of concrete in tension Concrete tens i le strength E el := 0.0036 -7 fc Esp:= 0.0 12-7*1 0 *-. psi -3 E co= 2 x 1 0 -3 E s p= 9.2 X 10 -4 E 10 = -2 x 10 f 1 = 474.342 psi Use Cornelissen , Hord i jk and Reinhardt (1 986) to de t erm i ne ultimate tension strain [0-6] [0-6] Fig 6 0 0 := 16 0µm [0-6] Eq 1 Ii <rt (O) O= [1 + ( ';:)'F 693 (*,) CT (O) := r{ at(O) -(: o) *at(o 0)] x := Oµm , 1 µm .. 160µ.m Tension Stress-Strain Curve Calculation No. 150252-CA-02 Appendix 0 FP 1 00 98 5 P age 4 65 of 526 31-x in -4 Ecr=l.316 x 10 Revision 0 Fracture energy J li 0 gf := cr(x) dx 0 From Table 1 of Karth i k and Mander [0-2]: Failure stra i n of concrete in tension Ultimate strain of concrete in tension Ultimate stress of concrete in tension -18 gf E: *--.-u .-in 5.ft 2*E:u E:t1 := --9 ft ft1 := -3 Tension stress-strain curve , [0-2] Eq 1, 2 & 3 fct( e:c) := -1 * [0-2] Table 1 fc1 := 1.74ksi mult crack := I if crack = "no" if crack= "yes" Calculation No. 150252-CA-02 Appendix 0 32-FP 100985 Page 466 of 526 lbf gf = 0.582*m -3 E:u = -4.415 x 10 -4 E:t1 = -9.812 x 10 ft 1=158.114-psi mult crack = 0 Revision 0 Unconfined stress-strain curve [0-2] Eq 1, 2 & 3 4 0 Calculation No. 150252-CA-02 Appendix 0 FP 100985 Page 467 of 526 Ee fct(Ec)*mult

_crack if -< 0 Eco Ee ifO:S:-<1 Eco Ee Eel ifl:S:-<-Ec o Eco Eel E e Esp if-:5:-<-Eco Eco Eco E sp Ee 0 if -::;-Eco E co Unconfined Concrete Stress-Strain Curve per Ref 2 0 0.01 strain (in/in) --Unconfined Concrete 33-0.02 Revision 0 Stress-Strain Curve in Tension (for initially un-cracked members) 0.2-'2 0 *;;; 0 i:: "' "' "' !:J Cl) -0.2--o.i -0.4'--------1.l

______ ..__1 _____ 1.___ ___ -=-it-d' -2xI0-3 -1.SxI0-3 -lxI0-3 -Sxl0-4 Strain (in/in) --Unconfined Modified confinement per Roy and Sozen [0-7] Eq 5.3 [0-7] E sou := 3psi + 0.002*f e f e -lOOOpsi -0.S*fe m_RoySozen

= Esou -0.002 -3 Esou = 3.667 x 10 m_RoySozen = -1.2 x 10 3-ksi b_RoySozen

= 0.002*(-m_RoySozen)

+(re) b_RoySozen

= 6.4*ksi fc_RoySozen(Ee)

= fct(Ee)*mult_crack if Ee< 0 fe --*E e if 0 0.002 0.002 max( O , m_RoySozen*Ee

+ b_RoySozen) if 0.002 0 Calculation No. 150252-CA-02 Appendix 0 FP 100985 Page 468 of 526 34-Revision 0

"' "' Comparison of Mander (Ref2) and Sezen (Ref7) Concete Models ksi rn 0 strain (in/in) -Unconfined Concrete (Ref2) -Unconfined Concrete (Ref 7) 0.01 fc_RoySozen(e:c) if INPUTS = "RoySozen" 34,INDEX fc( e:c) otherwise Concrete Model Used for E v aluation 0 0.01 Strain (in/in) --Unconfined Concrete f'c ksi 0.02 Calculation No. 150252-CA-02 Appendix 0 35-Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 469 of 526 REBAR MODEL Stress -Stra i n curve of rebar (0-2] Eq 5 [0-2] Eq 4. P := 1 if f"su = fy Esh*(E su -E sh) f"su -fy otherwise p = 2.3 9 7 Based on the r ecommendation of Sezen and Setzler ([0-8], and [0-3]), the steel stress stra i n curve is modified slightly to make sure the plateau region as a slight positive s l ope Slope of strain hardening O'.s := 0.02 Adjust fy such that area under the plateau stays the same Steel yield strength Mod i fied yield strength Yield stra i n [0-3] strain at strain hardening Steel materia l m ode l [0-3] Eq 3.3 fy-fy' -3 Ecross := --+ Ey = 5.989 x 10 0-s* Es f°sh := fy +(Esh -E y}O-s*Es if P 7c-1 [fy' + ( Ecross -Ey}O-s*Es]

otherwise fy = 60*ksi fy = 57.68*ksi

-3 E y = 1.989 x 10 -3 E sh= 8 x 10 f°sh = 6 1.166*ksi Steel curve from Setzler thesis ([0-3]) (with correction per sezen for plateau region) fs_t4( Es) := if P

• 1 Calculation No. 150252-CA-02 Appendix 0 F P 10 09 85 P age 4 70 of 526 Es*Es if E s Ey fy + (Es -Ey}O'.s* Es if E y Esh otherwise Es*Es if E s E y fy + (Es -E y)*O-s* Es if Ey <Es Ecross 36-Revision 0 Combined tension and compression behav i or ,...._ g "' "' OJ .ti VJ 100 ----------**

---

fs_t4( es) .. .. .. .. .. ksi fs_t( Es) 50 ksi 0.014 .. .. .. .. .. 0.028 0.042 Strain (in/in) fs( e: s} := 1-fs_t4( le: s i} if 0 0 otherwise Es_plot := -0.2, -0.1999 .. 0.2 Reinforcement Model I I 100-0.056 I 0.07 -g rs( Es_plot} "' O'"" ksi VJ --ksi ksi-

-0.05 0 0.05 E s_plot Strain (in/in) Calculation No. 150252-CA-02 Appendix 0 37-Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 471 of 526 DUCTILITY CALCULATION Section inertia of uncracked cross section Concrete stress at a location (x) given a curvature , and neutral axis a_conc(<j>,x,NA) := fc[<J>*(x

-NA)] Steel stress in a bar (b) given a curvature and neutral axis a_steel(<j>,b ,NA) := fs[<l>*(barsb, 2 -NA)] Given Integration across the section to combine concrete and steel stresses must equal the applied vertical lo ad indep endent of the curvature. (integrat e by parts to help convergence)

J hc o! b c 0 r a_conc(<j>,x,na_tes t) dx ... = Fv 0 + L (a_steel(<j>,b,na_test)*%arb) b Function to execute the solve block and find the neutral axis location as a function of curvature. na( <j>,Fv,na_test)

= Find(na_test)

Fv_plot := Okip -4 1 <l>piot := 3* 10 lll hcol hce ntroi d := -2 hcentroid

= 15.5*in Function to solve for the moment about the centroid for a given curvature J hcol mom( <j>,NA,Fv)

= b c 0 r a _conc(<j>,x,NA)*(x -hcentroid) dx ... 0 + L[a_steel(<j>, b ,NA)*abarb

• (barsb, 2 -hcentroid)J b mom( <l>piot*na( <l>piot*Fv_plot

• 0.8hcol),Fv_plot)

= 4.689 x 10 3*kip*in mom(-<l>piot*

na(-<l>piot*Fv_plot*

0.2h co!) ,Fv_plot)

= -6.747 x 10 3 *kip*in Calculation No. 150252-CA-02 Appendix 0 38-FP 100985 Page 472 of 526 Revision 0 F un ction to check th e resul ti ng a xi a l fo r ce J hc o l chk(<!>,NA)

= bc 0 rcr_conc(cj>

, x,NA) dx ... 0 + L ( cr_steel(, b,NA}%arb) b F v_p lot = O*kip max_bar := 1NPUTS 36 ,INDEX max bar= 2 min_ bar := 1NPUTS37 , INDEX min bar= 1 T o thi s p o i n t, c o m pre s s i on i s po sitiv e an d t ens i on i s nega ti ve , for co mp ut i ng steel s tra i n and stre ss, use t e n s i on as pos i tive va l ues. steel_strain(cj>,NA)

= -1* <!>*(b arsmin_bar , 2 -NA) if 0 <l>*(barsmax_bar

, 2 -NA) if cj> < 0 steel_stress(cj>,NA)

= -l* 1 cr_steel(cj>

, min_bar , NA) if cj> 0 cr_steel(cj>,max_bar

, NA) if cj> < 0 depth_ bar( cj>) := bars . b 2 if 0 mm_ ar, bars if < 0 max_bar ,2 db(<!>):= dbarmin_b ar if dbar if <!> < 0 max_bar steel_ strain( <l>plot,na( <l>plot , F v_p lot,0.8*hc o l)) = 6.066 x 10-3 steel_stress( <!>plot> na( <!>plot, Fv_plot> 0.8*hcol)) = 60.044*ksi fname := 1NPUTS124 , INDEX fname = "001_ Wall_uncracked_filel.txt" Compute moment-curvature curves at v arious ax i al l oad , and curvatures.

This requ i res th e fo ll owing p r ogram mi ng loop , wh i ch writes res ul ts to a t ex t fil e wh i ch i s then read back in by t h i s calculation. In de x o f c u rvatu r es numinc := 1NPUTS 139 ,INDEX p := 1 .. numinc <l>curve := (p -l)*<l>mt p Cal cu la t ion No. 150252-CA-0 2 Appendi x 0 FP 100985 Page 473 of 526 3 9--5 1 <l>mt = 1 x 10 *-:-m Re v is i o n 0 o.s<l>curvep 0.6-<l>curv e 0.4'"" *** p 0.2-0 0 I <!>c urve *in p ---I fv := su b matrix(INPUTS , 126 , 137 ,INDEX , INDEX) fv :=

fv 1 for j E 2 .. rows(fv) new if n ew sta ck( n e w , fvj) otherwise return new*l b f 1 1 1.042*103 2 911.4 3 781.2 4 651 5 520.8 fv = 6 390.6 *ki p 7 260.4 8 130.2 9 0 10 -49.6 11 -99.2 12 -148.8 f := 1 .. ro ws(fv) O u tp u t 1 , 1 := "Curvature (l/in)" Ou tpu t 1 , 2 := "Mome nt (lb f*i n)" O u tp ut 1 , 3 := "Axial Lo ad (l bt)" O u tp u t 1 , 4 := " ne u tral axis (in)" O utp ut 1 5 := "C o ncrete Strain" ' O utp ut 1 , 6 := "Concrete Strai n" O u tp u t 1 , 7 := "Stee l S tr ai n" O u tp u t 1 , 8 := "S t eel Strain" fname = "001 Wa ll uncracked filel.txt" ---exist:= " no" on error READPRN(fname)

Calculation No. 150252-CA-02 Appendix 0 FP 100985 Page 474 of 526 40-O u tput 1 9 := " Sli p R ota t ion (ra d)" ' Outpu t 1 , 10 := " Sl i p (in)" O utpu t *= "" 1 , 11 . O u tp u t *= "LINE" 1 , 12. Revision 0 zero(x,y)

= 0 out := if exist = "no" APPENDPJ fname , ( Outpul) ( i) T J for f E 1 .. rows(fv) na continue "yes" errorcount 0 for p E 1 .. numinc if continue = "yes" Ml

• in p mO [O on error (mom( <P c urvep'n' <PcurvVfv f' na_last), fvf))J mO (0 on error n'<Pcurvep

'fvf , na_last))

if ( mO = 0 v sign(mO)

• sign( <Pcurvep))

ml [ 0 on error (mom( <Pcurvep, n' <Pcurvep , fv f' Oin), fv f) )] m2 [o on error (mom( <PcurvVn'

<P c urvep , fv f' sign( <Pcurvep)*0

.5hcol), fv f))J m3 [O on error (mom( <Pcurvep'n'

<P c urvVfv f' sign( <Pcurvep)*0.9h co l), fv f))J if lmll >max(lm21 , lm3I) NA ( 0 on error n' <P c urv e p , fv f' Oin)) mout if lm21 ;?: max(lmll,lm3I) (0 on errorn,<Pcurv e p'fv f'sign(<Pcurv e p)*0.5hc o l)) mout m2 if lm3I ;?: max(lmll , lm21) NA ( 0 on errorn' <l>curvep, fv f' sign( <l>c urvep)* 0.9hc 0 1)) mo u t m3 mout M 2 lbf*in fvf M 3 lbf NA m na NA M 5 *(Oin -NA) p M6 *(h ea l -NA) p M7 <Pcurv e p*(barsmin

_bar , 2 -NA) Calcul ati on No. 1 50252-CA-02 Append i x 0 FP 100985 Page 475 of 526 41-Re vi s i on 0

<l>curvep*(barsmax_bar , 2 -NA) M 11 M 12 errorcount errorcount

+ 1 if (NA= 0) v ( sign(mout)

• sign( <l>curvep))

v (M 6 > 0.010) errorcount 0 otherwise AP P ENDPRN(fname,MT)

M matrix(12, I ,zero) continue "no" if errorcount

> 3 "nothing" otherwise data:= I READPRN(fname) if exist= "no" exist otherwise 1 2 3 1 " Curvature (1/in)" "Moment (lb f*i n)" "Axial Load (lbf)" 2 0 0 3 1 *10-5 5.958*105 4 2*10-5 1.192*106 5 3*10-5 1.787*106 6 4*10-5 2.38" 106 7 5*10-5 2.773*106 data= 8 6* lQ-5 2.901*106 9 7* 10-5 2.801*106 10 8* 10-5 2.469*106 11 9* lQ-5 1.848*106 12 1*10-4 6.486*105 13 i.1*10-4 0 14 i.2*10-4 0 15 l.3*10-4 0 16 1.4*lQ-4 0 data := d submatrix( data , 1, 1, 1 , 12) for i E 2 .. rows( data (i)) d d if ( datai, 2 :::; 0 A datai , 1

• 0) d stack(d, submatrix(data , i,i , 1, 12)) otherwise return d Calculat i on No. 150252-CA-02 Appendix 0 42-FP 100985 Page 476 of 526 1.042*106 1.042*106 1.042*106 1.042*106 1.042"106 1.042"106 1.042* 106 1.042*106 1.042*106 1.042*106 1.042*106 1.042*106 1.042*106 1.042*106

... Revision 0 cleandata

= APPENDPRN(concat("clean

_" , fname), d ata) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 clean da ta = 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Calcula t ion No. 1 50252-CA-02 Appendix 0 FP 100985 Page 477 o f 526 1 "Curvature (1/in)" 0 1*10-5 2*10-5 3*10-5 4* 10-5 5*10-5 6*10-5 7* lQ-5 8* 10-5 9* 10-5 1*10-4 0 1*10-5 2*10-5 3*10-5 4* lQ-5 5*10-5 6*10-5 7*10-5 8*10-5 9* lQ-5 1*10-4 l.l

• lQ-4 l.2*10-4 l.3*lQ-4 0 1 *10-5 2*10-5 3*10-5 4*10-5 5*10-5 6* lQ-5 7* 10-5 8*10-5 9*10-5 1 *10-4 43-2 3 " Moment (lbf*in)" " Axial Load (lbf)" 0 1.042*106 5.958*105 1.042*106 1.192" 106 1.042*106 1.787*106 1.042*106 2.38*106 1.042*106 2.773*106 1.042*106 2.901*106 1.042*106 2.801*106 1.042*106 2.469*106 1.042* 106 1.848*106 1.042*106 6.486*105 1.042*106 0 9.114*105 5.958*105 9.114*105 1.192*106 9.114*105 1.787*106 9.114*105 2.383"106 9.114*105 2.979*106 9.114*105 3.445*106 9.114" 105 3.688*106 9.114"105 3.744*106 9.114*105 3.626*106 9.114*105 3.33*106 9.114*105 2.832"106 9.114*105 2.053*106 9.114*105 6.692*105 9.114*105 0 7.812*105 5.958*105 7.812*105 1.192*106 7.812*105 1.787*106 7.812*105 2.383*106 7.812*105 2.979*106 7.812*105 3.575*106 7.812*105 4.085*106 7.812*105 4.365*106 7.812*105 4.468*106 7.812*105 4.467"106

... Revision 0 Stra i n li m i t strain lim := 0.005 lim := strain lim -3 lim=5x 10 Column(d,i,strain

_lim) := acount +---1 datas 1 +---2 acount, for r E 3 .. rows( d) if d 3

• d -1 3 r, r , datas t 2 +---r -1 acoun, acount +---acount + 1 datas acount, 1 +---r datas t 2 +---rows( d) acoun, sub +---submatrix( d, 1 , 1 , 1 , cols( d)) out +---submatrix( d, datasi , 1 ,datasi , 2 , 1, cols( d)) for j E 1 .. rows( out) if [ ( outj , 2 ;e 0 /\ sign( outj , 2) = sign( outj , 1)) v outj , 1 = 0 J I p2 +---submatrix( out,j ,j , 1 , cols( d)) sub+---stack(sub,p2) s u b +---sub otherwise cutoft2 +---0 for i E 2 .. rows(sub) cutoft2 +---i -1 if (subi, 6 > strain_lim)

/\ (cutoft2 = 0) cutoft2 +---rows(sub) if cutoft2 = 0 cutoffl +---2 cutoffl +---2 if sub 2 , 1 = 0 otherwise i +---2 while sub. 5 > strain lim 1 , -I cutoffl +---i + 1 i+---i+ 1 return stack(submatrix(sub , 1, 1, 1, cols( sub)), submatrix(sub, cutoffl, cutoft2, 1, cols( sub))) StrainLim(limit)

= StrainLim

+---("curvature" "moment" "Slip Rotation" "P/Ag*fc") Calculation No. 150252-CA-02 Appendi x 0 FP 100985 Page 478 of 526 for f E 1 .. rows{fv) StrainLimf 1 1 +---Column( data, f, limit) ( (i)) + ' rows Column( data, f, limit) , 1 StrainLimf 1 2 +---Column(data,f,limit) ( ) + ' rows Column(data,f,limit)

,2 StrainLimf 1 3 +---Column(data

, f,limit) ( (i)) + ' rows Column(data

, f,limit) ,9 fv S . . f trainLrm f 1 4 +---+ ' Ag*fc return StrainLim 4 4-R e vi s ion 0 Moment -Curvature curves for differen t ax i a l f orces plt := 1 .. 12 plot_indexplt

= I pit if rows(fv) 1 otherwise 0 +-++ 70.00% +-++ 61.25% +-++ 52.50% +-++ 43.75% +-++ 35.00% +-++ 26.25% +-++ 17.50% +++ 8.75% +++ -3.34% +-++ -6.67% +-++ -10.00% -Strain Lim= 0.003 --* Strain Lim= 0.005 Calc u lat i on No. 150252-CA-02 Appendix 0 FP 100985 Page 479 o f 526 45-Moment -Curvature Curvature (I/in) Rev i sion 0 Moment demand Axial load demand Total axial l oad Maximum axial load kip*ft Moment Sec := 322.26 ---ft Mome n t := Moment_ Sec* bc o l . 1 kip Axia := -140.77-ft Axial_ S ec:= Axial*b col Max_axial := Ag*(f'c) Calculated pe r cent tens i on o r compression of Ag*fpc Axial Sec Percent := Max axial Percen t compress i on o r t ens i on See below for options, t ens i on i s n egat iv e Axial_p := -10 S t ress l eve l ap:= Ca l culation No. 150252-CA-02 Appendix 0 FP 100985 Page 480 of 526 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 if Axial _p = 70 if Axial _p = 61.25 if Axial_p = 52.50 if Axial_p = 43.75 if Axial_p = 35.00 if Axial _p = 26.25 if Axial_p = 17.50 if Axial_p = 8.75 if Axial_p = -3.34 if Axial_p = -6.67 if Axial_p = 0-4 6-lbf*in Moment_Sec = 322260*-.m Moment= 3.867 x 10 6*lbf*in 4 lbf Axial= -1.173 x 10 *-.m Axia l Sec= -140770l b f Max axial = 1488000 lbf Percent = -0.095 ap = 12 Revis i on 0 Slope of linear moment curvature plot Linear curvature parameters Linear strain energy Linear curvature at moment Curvature points Moment points m := [( Column(data,plot

_indexap'lim)(2))

4 -( Column(data,plot_indexap'lim/2))

3] ap [( Column(data

, plot_indexap'lim/

1)) 4 -( Column(data,plot

_indexap'lim)

(1))3] 2 Ar Moment L ea := -------ap (2*map*lbf*in 2) Moment L Cur := -----ap 2 m *lbf*in ap w := (L c: *inJ -ap L Mom__p(w)

= m *w -ap L Area = 302 lbf a p -4 1 L Cur = 1.561 x 10 *--ap in L_Mom__p(w)

= ( O 6 J 3.867 x 10 Max number of trapezoids to add when calculating moment under non-linear moment curvature curve Cmax := 19 Variables to calculate area under moment-curvature plot that represent width {b) and heights {h) of trapezoids Height (Moment) hl := Column(data,plot index ,lim)(2) ap -ap h2 := Column(data, plot index , lim)(2) ap -ap Width (Curvature) bl := Column(data,plot index , lim)(l) ap -ap b2 := Column(data,plot index ,lim)(l) ap -ap Area under moment-curvature plot, based on summing trapezoidal areas NL_Area := [L[(hl ) *lbf*in + (h2 ) *lbf*inl[(bl ) -(b2 ) ap L..J 2 ap k ap k-1 J ap k m ap k-1 m k =3 NL Area = 310lbf -ap Non-linear Curvature ( ( . . )(1)) 1 NL Cur := Column data,plot mdex , lrm *--ap -ap Cmax in Calculation No. 150252-CA-02 Appendix 0 FP 100985 Page 481 of 526 47--4 1 NL Cur = 1.700 x 10 .--ap in Revision 0 Vary c.max to make close to zero Parameters for plotting purposes [NL Cur *inJ -ap Lim NL(y) := -NL Cur *in -ap Depth to neutral axis dNA := na/NL Cur ,fv , 0.8hco1) \-apap Distance for strain in steel calculation d strain := d NA -cover Strain in steel Ductility Demand Moment -Curvature NL Area -L Area = 8.609 lbf -ap -ap [ 0 J z *= 1

• Moment*--lbf *in [L Cur inJ -ap Lim_L(z) := . L Cur *m d NA = 25.04-in dstrain = 21.51*in Estee! = 0.00366 Esteel --= 1.84 e:y -ap 5 x I0 6.-------------------------------, 0 +-+-+ Non-Linear

+-+-+ Linear +-+-+Non-Linear Limit +-+-+ Linear Limit Calculation No. 150252-CA-02 Appendix 0 FP 100985 Page 482 of 526 Curvature (I/in) 48-Revision 0

---

SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enc l osures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB PROJECT NO: 150252 DATE: July 2016 BY: ____ VERIFIER: A. T. Sarawit Cut 4 (Middle Segment) "STANDARD

-PLUS" Load Combination!

INPUT DEFINITION Set starting index of all arrays to 1 (the default i s 0) ORIG IN= 1 Input Reading 1 1 "Seabrook!" 2 4*103 3 6*104 4 6* 1()4 5 9*104 INP UTS= 6 3.705 7 1.495 8 12 9 36 10 432 11 9.01 12 ... INDEX= 1 colname := INP UT S 1 IND EX ' colname = " Seabrook!" Concrete strength f'c=4*ks i Steel yield strength fy = 6 0-ks i Ultimate strength of rebar fs u = 9 0*ksi Calculation No. 150252-CA-02 Appendix 0 49-Revision 0 F P 1009 8 5 Page 4 8 3 of 5 26 cover (to centroid of steel) cover:= INPUTS 6 ,INDEX*in Width of column h e ol := INPUTS8 INDEX* in , Height of column heol := INPUTS9 , INDEX*in Gross Area Ag:= INPUTS10 , INDEX*in2 Area of longitudinal bar %ar := INPUTS13 , INDEX*in2 Diameter of bar dbar := INPUTS14 , INDEX*in Area of longitudinal steel . 2 AsL := INPUTS18,INDEX

• m Young's modulus of steel Es:= INPUTS20 , INDEXpsi Ultimate strain of rebar E s u := INPUTS21 INDEX , Modulus of strain hardening

[0-2] E s h := INPUTS22 , INDEX*psi Stra i n at strain hardening

[0-3] Esh := INPUTS23 , INDEX Young's modulus of concrete Ee:= INPUTS24 , INDEX*psi Poisson's ratio v := INPUTS25 , INDEX Shear modulus of concrete Ge:= INPUTS26, INDEX*psi Shear modification factor a := INPUTS27, INDEX Table 2.4 of [0-4] Torsional Constant .4 J := INPUTS28,IND E x*m Table 2.5 of [0-5] Calculation No. 150252-CA-02 Appendix 0 FP 100985 Page 484 of 526 50-cover= 3.705*in b co l = 12*in heol = 36*in Ag= 432*in 2 6. 2 %ar = 1.5 *m dbar= l.41*in 6. 2 AsL = 9.3 *m E s= 2.9 x 10 4*ksi E s u = 0.07 6 3 . E s h= 1.1 x 10 *ks1 E s h= 8 x 10 -3 Ee= 3.605 x 10 3*ksi v = 0.17 3 . Ge= 1.541 x 10 *ks1 a= 1.185 J = 1.639 x 10 4*in 4 Revision 0 Crack section i ndex crack:= INPUTS 140 INDEX ' crack= "yes" Locate the longitudi n al bars in the wall bars := a ugm e n t( s ub matrix(INPUT S , 40 , 5 9, IND EX , IND EX), s ub matrix(INPUT S , 60 , 7 9, INDEX, IND EX))* in Area of bars %ar := submatrix(INPUTS , 80, 99 , INDEX, INDEX)* in 2 Diam e t e r o f bars d bar := s u bmatrix(INPUTS, 1 0 0, 119,INDEX , INDEX)*in index of bars b := 1 .. 20 Re i nforceme nt L ocation END OF INPUT in *** Calculation No. 150252-CA-02 Appendix 0 FP 10 0 98 5 Pa ge 485 of 526 0 0 * *

• 51-I I * --*

• I I 5 10 b ars (J) in Revision 0 SECTION PROPERTIES Elastic properties of uncracked cross section Transverse S rear Stiffness Flexural Stiffness Axial Stiffness Torsional Stiffness l 3 Ig2 := -*hcorbcol 12 Calculation No. 150252-CA-02 Appendix 0 52-FP 100985 Page 486 o f 526 6 6 4 . 4 Ig 1 = 4. 6 x 10 *m A -3 ft 2 v-8 Kv = 5.614 x 10 *lbf EI2 = 1.869 x 10 10*lbf*in 2 9 EA= 1.557 x 10 *lbf Revision O CONCRETE MODEL Peak strain of unconfined concrete in compression assumed to be 0.002 [0-5] Eco:= 0.002 From Table 1 of Karthik and Mander [0-2] Ultimate strain of unconfined concrete in compression Failure strain of unconfined concrete in compression Peak strain of concrete in tension Concrete tensile strength Eel := 0.0036 -7 f c Esp:= 0.012-7*10 *-. psi -3 Eco= 2 x 10 -3 Esp= 9.2 x 10 -4 Eto = -2 x 10 ft= 474.342 psi Use Cornelissen , Hordijk and Reinhardt (1986) to determine ultimate tension strain [0-6] [0-6] Fig 6 [0-6] Eq 1 Tension Stress-Strain Curve 0 0 := 160µm 0 <rt(O) = [, + (';:JF '" ( *.) a (o) := r{at(o) -(:o) *at(oo)] x := Oµm , 1 µm .. 160µm -4 Ecr = 1.316 X 10 psi 200 100 0 x in Calculation No. 150252-CA-02 Appendix 0 53-FP 100985 Page 487 of 526 l Revision 0 Fracture energy From Table 1 of Karthik and Mander [0-2]: Failure stra i n of concrete in tens i on Ultimate strain of concrete in tens i on Ult i mate stress of concrete i n tension -18 gf Eu:=-*-in 5*ft 2*E u E u:= --9 Tens i on stress-strain curve , [0-2] Eq 1 , 2 & 3 fct(Ec) := -1* [0-2] Table 1 fc1 := l.74ksi mult crack := I if crack= "no" if crack = "yes" Calculation No. 150252-CA-02 Appendix 0 F P 100985 Page 4 88 of 526 54-l b f gf = 0.582*-.lil -3 Eu= -4.415 x 10 -4 Et1 = -9.812 x 10 fi 1 = 1 58. l 1 4*p si mult crack = 0 Revision 0 Unconfined st r ess-strain curve [0-2] Eq 1, 2 & 3 Calculation No. 150252-CA-02 Appendix 0 F P 1 0 0985 P age 4 89 o f 526 4 0 Ee fct(Ec)*mult_crack if -< 0 Eco Ee if 0 :::;-< 1 *:co E e E el if 1 ::;-<-E co *: co E el E e E sp if-::=;-<-Eco Eco Eco E sp E e 0 i f-::;-E co E co Unconfined Con c rete Stress-Strai n Curve p er Ref 2 0 --U n confine d Co n c r e t e 55-0.01 Strain (in/in) f'c ksi 0.02 Revision 0 Stress-Strain Orrve in Tension (for initially un-cra c ke d members) 0.2>--,.-... *o; c -;;-0 *o; 0 l:l "' "' ., ti <ZI -0.2>-

-0.4._ ____ __._1 _____ __._1 ______ .__1 ___ ... .i..I -2xl0-3 -1.5 x l0-3 -l x l0-3 -5 x l0-4 0 strain (in/in) --U nconfined Modified confinement pe r Roy and Sozen [0-7] Eq 5.3 3 p si + 0.002-f'c E sou := --f e -lOOOpsi -3 Esou = 3.667 x 10 [0-7] -0.5*f e m_R oySozen := E s ou -0.002 m _ RoySozen = -1.2 x 1 o 3

• ksi b_R oySoze n:= 0.002*(-m_R oy S oze n) +(re) b _ R o y S ozen = 6.4* ksi fc _ RoySozen( E e) := fct( Ee)* mult _crack if E e < 0 fe --*E e if 0 :=;;E e< 0.002 0.002 max(O , m_R oySozen*E e + b_RoySozen) i f 0.002 :=;;E e Calculation No. 150252-CA-02 Appendix 0 FP 10098 5 P a ge 4 9 0 of 5 2 6 56-Revision 0 Comparison of Mander (Ref2) and Sezen (Ref7) Concete Models ksi "' en 0 Strain (in/in) --Unconfined Concrete (Ref2) -Unconfined Concrete (Ref 7) 0.01 fc_RoySozen(Ec) if INPUTS = "RoySozen" 34,INDEX fc( Ee) otherwise Concrete Model Used for Evaluation 0 0.01 Strain (in/in) --Unconfined Concrete 0.02 Calculation No. 150252-CA-02 Appendix 0 57-Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 491 of 526 REBAR MODEL Stress -Strain curve of rebar [0-2] Eq 5 [0-2] Eq 4. P := 1 if fsu = fy Esh' ( E su -Esh) fs u -fy o the rwis e p = 2.39 7 Based on the recommendation of Sezen and Setzler ([0-8], and [0-3]), the steel stress strain curve i s modified slightly to make sure the plateau region as a slight positive s l ope Slope of strain hardening Os:= 0.0 2 Adjust fy such that area under the plateau stays the same Steel yield strength Modified yield strength Yield stra i n [0-3] strain at strain hardening Steel material model [0-3] Eq 3.3 E *"' *E h t;,. := fy -s -s s 2 fy-fy' -3 Ecross := --+ Ey = 5.989 x 10 Os* Es +/-'sh:= fy + (e: sh -e: y}ns*Es if P

• 1 [fy + (e: cross -e:y)*ns*Es] o therwise fy = 6 0*k:si fy = 57.68*ksi

-3 E y = 1.989 x 10 -3 E sh= 8 x 1 0 fsh = 61.166*ksi Steel curve from Setzler thesis ([0-3]) (with correction per sezen for plateau region) fs_t 4(e: s) := if P

• 1 Calculation No. 150252-CA-02 Appendix 0 FP 100985 P a ge 492 of 526 Es*E s i f E s E y fy + (E s -e: y)*ns* Es if E y <E s otherwise Es' E s if e; s E y f y' + (E s -e: y}Os*Es if E y E cross 58-Revision 0 Combined tension and compression behavior :[ "' "' OJ ./:l CZl 100 .. .. .. .. .. fs_t 4 ( E s) ksi fs_t( E s) 50 ksi 0 0 0.014 .. .. .. --**

.. --** 0.028 0.042 0.056 E s, Es Strain (in/in) 0.07 fs( Es) := 1-fs_t4( I Esl) if Es 0 0 ot h erwise Es_plot := --0.2,--0.1999

.. 0.2 Reinforcement Model I I I 100--ks i -fsu -0.05 o 0.05 Strain (in/in) Calculation No. 150252-CA-02 Appendix 0 F P 100985 Page 493 o f 526 59-Revis i on 0 DUCTILITY CALCULATION Section inertia of uncracked cross section 0 4. 4 l g= 6.096 x 1 *m Concrete stress at a location (x) given a curvature , and neutral axis cr_con c(<j>,x,NA)

= fc[<j>-(x -N A)] Steel stress in a bar (b} given a curvature and neutral axis cr_s t ee l (<j>, b ,NA) := f{<!>*(barsb , 2 -NA)] G iv en Integration across the section to combine concrete and steel stresses must equal the applied vert i cal load independent of the curvature. (integrate by parts to help convergence) J h.:01 b c 0 r cr_c on c(<j>,x, n a_tes t) dx ... = Fv 0 + L(cr_s teel(<j>, b ,n a_te st)*%ar b) b Function to execute the solve block and find the neutral axis location as a function of curvature. := F ind (n a_test) Fv_plot := Oki p -4 I <!>plot := 3

• l 0 . m heal hcentro id := -2 hcentroid

= 18*in Funct i on to solve for the moment about the centro i d for a give n curvature J hcol mo m( <j>,NA,Fv) := b c 0 rcr _c onc (<j>,x,NA)*(x -h centro i d) dx ... 0 + L [er _st e el(<)>, b , NA)*%arb*(b ars b , 2 -hcentroid)J b

= 9.443 x 10 3-kip*i n "

= -5.871 x 103*ki p*in Calculation No. 150252-CA-02 Appendix 0 60-FP 1 0 098 5 P a g e 4 9 4 of 526 Revision 0 Function to check the r esult i ng axial force J hc oJ chk(<j>,NA)

= b c 0 r rr_conc(<j>,x

, NA) dx ... 0 + L(rr_steel(<j>, b ,NA)-%arb) b Fv_plot = O*kip max_bar:= INPUTS 36 ,INDEX max bar= 5 min_bar := INPUTS 37 ,INDEX min bar= 1 To this point , compression is positive and tension is negative , for computing steel strain and stress , use tension as positive values. steel_strain(<j>,NA)

= -1* <J>*(barsmin_bar

, 2 -NA) if <j> 0 <l>*(barsmax_bar

, 2 -NA) if <j> < O steel_stress(<j>,NA)

= -l* 1 rr_steel(<j>,min_bar,NA) if <j> 0 c;_s teel(<j>,max

_bar ,NA) if <j> < 0 depth_bar(<j>)

= bars . b 2 if <j> 0 mm_ ar , bars if <j> < 0 max_bar,2 dbar if <j> < 0 max_bar steel_strain( <l>pJ ot* na( <l>pJot* Fv_plot* 0.8*hco1))

= 5.859 x 10-3 steel_stress( <l>pio t*n a( <l>plot* Fv_plot* 0.8*hco1))

= 59.925*ksi fname := INPUTS124 , INDEX fname = "001_ Wall_uncracked_filel.tx t" Compute moment-curvature curves at various axial load, and curvatures. This requires the following programming loop, which writes results to a text file which is then read back in by this calculation. Index of curvatures numinc := INPUTS 139 INDEX ' p := 1 .. numinc <l>curve := (p -1) * <l>int p Calculation No. 150252-CA-02 Appendix 0 61-FP 100985 Page 495 of 526 -5 1 <l>int = 1 x 10 lll Revision 0

<l>c urvep 0.6-<l>c urv e 0.4-*** p 0.2---

0 2x l0-3 <l>c urve *in p fv := submatrix(INPUTS, 126 , 137 , INDEX, INDEX) fv :=

fv 1 for j e 2 .. rows(fv) new if new stack( new , fvj) otherwise return new*lbf 1 1 1.21*103 2 1.058* 103 3 907.2 4 756 5 604.8 fv = 6 453.6 *kip 7 302.4 8 151.2 9 0 10 -57.6 11 -115.2 12 -172.8 f := 1 .. rows(fv) Output 1 , 1 := "Gurvature (l/in)" Output 1 , 2 := "Moment (lbf*in)" Output 1 , 3 := "Axial Load (lbf)" Output 1 , 4 := "neutral axis (in)" Output 1 , 5 := "Concrete Strain" Output 1 , 6 := "Concrete Strain" Output 1 , 7 := "Steel Strain" Output 1 , 8 := "Steel Strain" fuame = "001 Wall uncracked filel.txt" --exist:= "no" on error READPRN(fuame) Calculation No. 150252-CA-02 Appendix 0 FP 100985 Page 496 of 5 2 6 62-Output 1 , 9 := "Slip Rotation (rad)" Output 1 , 10 := "Slip (in)" Outputl , 11 := "" Output 1 , 12 := "LINE" Revision 0 zero(x,y)

= 0 out := if exist = "no" APPENDPJ fname, ( Outpul) ( i) TJ for f E 1 .. rows(fv) na last+--"" continue+--"yes" errorcount

+--0 for p E 1 .. numinc if continue = "yes" Ml +--<!>curve

• in p mO +--[ O on error (mom( <l>curvv n' <l>curvv fv f' na _last), fv f) )] mout +--mO NA +--( 0 on error n' <l>curvep ,fv f' na_last)) if ( mO = 0 v sign(mO)

• sign( <l>curvep))

ml +--[ 0 on error (mom( <l>curvep, n' <l>curvep, fv f' Oin), fv f) )] m2 +-[0 on error (mom( <l>curvVn'

<l>curvVfv f' sign( <l>curvep)*0.5hcol)*

fv f))J m3 +--[O on error (mom( <l>curvvn'

<l>curvvfv f'sign( <l>curvep)*0.9hcol)*

fv f))J if lml I >max( l m2 1 , lmJ I) NA +--( 0 on error n' <l>curvep, fv f' Oin)) mout +--ml if lm21 max(lmll , lmJI) NA +--( 0 on error n' <l>curvV fv f' sign( <l>curvep)*0.5hcol)) mout +--m2 if lmJI lm21) NA +--( 0 on error n' <l>curvV fv f' sign( <l>curvep)*0.9hcol))

mout +--m3 mout M +---2 lbf*in fvf M +--3 lbf NA M4 +---.m na last+--NA M 5 +--<!>curve *(Oin -NA) p M6 +--<!>curve

• {hcol -NA) p M7 +--<l>curvep*(barsmin_bar ,2 -NA) Calculation No. 150252-CA-02 Appendix 0 63-FP 100985 Page 497 of 526 Revision 0

<l>c urvep*(barsmax_bar , 2 -NA) M 1 2 e rr o r co un t e rr orco un t + 1 if (NA = 0) v ( sign(mout)

• sign( <l>c urvep)) v (M 6 > 0.010) errorcount 0 ot he rwise APP E NDP RN(fname,M T) M m a trix(1 2 , l , ze ro) contin u e "no" if errorco un t > 3 "nothing" otherwise da ta:= I READP RN(fname) i f exist = "no" exist otherwise 1 2 3 1 " Curvature (1/in)" "Moment (lbf*in)" "Axial Load (lbf)" 2 0 0 3 1*10-s 9.331*105 4 2*10-s 1.866*106 5 3*10-s 2.799*106 6 4*10-s 3.597*106 7 5*10-s 3.903*106 d ata= 8 6* 10-s 3.786*106 9 7* 10-s 3.247*106 10 8* 10-s 2.143*106 11 9* 10-s 0 12 1*10-4 0 13 1.1

• lQ-4 0 14 1.2* lQ-4 0 15 0 0 16 1*10-s 9.331*1os d a ta:= d s ub matrix(d ata, 1 , 1 , 1, 12) fo r i E 2 .. rows( d a ta ( i)) Calculation No. 150252-CA-02 Appendix 0 FP 1 00 98 5 P age 4 98 of 526 d d i f

• o) d s t ack(d ,s ub matrix(data

, i,i, 1 , 12)) otherwise return d 64-i.21*106 i.21*106 i.21 *106 i.21 *106 1.21 *106 1.21 *106 1.21 *106 1.21*106 1.21*106 i.21*106 i.21 *106 i.21*106 1.21 *106 1.058*106

... Revision 0 cle a n d ata := APPENDPRN( co n cat("cle an _" , fname), d ata) 1 2 3 1 " Curvature (1/in)" " Moment (lbf*in)" "Axial Load (lbf)" 2 0 0 i.21*106 3 1 *10-5 9.331*105 i.21 *106 4 2*10-5 1.866* 106 i.21*106 5 3*10-5 2.799*106 i.21 *106 6 4*10-5 3.597*106 i.21*106 7 5*10-5 3.903*106 i.21 *106 8 6*10-5 3.786*106 1.21*106 9 7*10-5 3.247*106 1.21 *106 10 8*10-5 2.143*106 1.21*106 11 0 0 1.058* 106 12 1*10-5 9.331*105 1.058* 106 13 2*10-5 1.866*106 1.058* 106 14 3*10-5 2.799*106 1.058* 106 15 4*10-5 3.732*106 1.058* 106 16 5*10-5 4.55*106 1.058* 106 17 6*10-5 4.968*106 1.058*106 cleandat a = 18 7* 10-5 5.042*106 1.058* 106 19 8* 10-5 4.8*106 1.058* 106 20 9*10-5 4.226"106 1.058* 106 21 1 *10-4 3.233*106 1.058* 106 22 l.1 *lQ-4 1.469*106 1.058* 106 23 0 0 9.072*105 24 1*10-5 9.331*105 9.072*105 25 2*10-5 1.866*106 9.072*105 26 3*10-5 2.799*106 9.072*105 27 4*10-5 3.732*106 9.072*105 28 5*10-5 4.666*106 9.072*105 29 6*10-5 5.494*106 9.072*105 30 7* 10-5 5.916*106 9.072*105 31 8*10-5 6.051*106 9.072*105 32 9*10-5 5.993*106 9.072*105 33 1*10-4 5.701*106 9.072*105 34 i.1*10-4 5.167"106 9.072*105 35 l.3*10-4 3.115*106 9.072*105 36 0 0 7.56*105 37 1*10-5 9.331*105

... Calculation No. 150252-CA-02 Appendix 0 65-Revision 0 FP 100985 P age 49 9 of 526 Strain limit strain lim := 0.005 lim := strain lim Column( d , i, s train _l i m) := acount 1 datas 2 acount , 1 for rE 3 .. rows(d) if d 3

• d -1 3 r , r , datas 2 r-1 acount , acount acount + 1 d atas 1 r acount , datas 2 rows( d) acount , s u b s u bmatrix( d, 1 , 1 , 1 , cols( d)) o u t su b matrix( d , datasi , 1 , datasi , 2 , 1, co l s( d)) for j E 1 .. rows( out) if [( outj, 2

• 0 /\ sign( o u tj, 2) = sign( outj , 1)) v outj , 1 = OJ I p2 submatrix( o u t , j ,j , 1 , cols( d)) stack(sub,p2) s u b s u b otherwise cutoff2 0 for i E 2 .. rows( sub) cutoff2 i -1 if (subi , 6 > strain_lim) /\ (cutoff2 = 0) c u toff2 rows( su b) if cutoff2 = 0 cutoffl 2 cutoffl 2 if sub 2 , 1 = 0 otherwise while sub. 5 > strain lim I, -I cutoffl i + 1 i i + 1 return stack(su b matrix(sub, 1, 1 , 1 , cols( sub)), s u bmatrix(sub , cutoffl, cutoff2, 1, cols( sub))) StrainLim(limit)

= StrainLim "moment" "Slip Rotation" "P/Ag*fc") for f E 1 .. rows(fv) StrainLimf 1 1 Column( d ata, f , limit) ( (l)) + ' rows Column(data,f

, limit) , 1 StrainLimf 1 2 Column(data

, f , limit) ( (1)) + ' rows Co l umn(data,f

, limit) , 2 St r ainLimf 1 3 Column( d ata , f, limit) ( <v) + ' rows Column(data

, f,limit) , 9 fvf StrainLimf 1 4 --+ ' Ag*fc return StrainLim Calculat i on No. 150252-CA-02 Appendix 0 66-Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 500 of 526 Moment -Curvature curves for different axia l forces plt := 1 .. 12 plot_indexplt

= I plt if plt rows(fv) 1 otherwise Moment -Curvature +++ 70.00% +++ 61.25% +++ 52.50% +++ 43.75% +++ 35.00% +++ 26.25% +++ 17.50% +++ 8.75% +++ -3.34% +++ -6.67% +++ -10.0 0% -Strain Lim= 0.003 --*Strain Lim= 0.005 Calculation No. 150252-CA-02 Appendix 0 67-FP 1 00985 Pa g e 501 o f 526 Curvature (1/in) Revision 0 Moment demand Axial l oad demand To t a l ax i al load Max i mum ax i a l l oad kip* ft Moment Sec:= 911.53 ---ft Moment := Moment_ Sec* bcol . kip Axial:= 11.41-ft Axial_ Sec:= Axia l*bcol Max_axial := Ag*(t'c) Calcula t ed pe r cent t ens i on o r compress i on of Ag*fpc Axial Sec Percent:= -Max axial Pe r ce n t compress i on or t ens i on See below for op ti ons , te n s i on i s nega ti ve Axial_p := -3.34 Stress l eve l ap:= Calculat i on No. 150252-CA-02 Append i x 0 FP 100985 Page 502 of 526 if Axial _p = 70 2 if Axial _p = 61.25 3 if Axial_p = 52.50 4 if Axial_p = 43.75 5 if Axial_p = 35.00 6 if Axial _p = 26.25 7 if Axial_p = 17.50 8 if Axial_p = 8.75 10 if Axial_p = -3.34 11 if Axial _p = -6.67 12 if Axial_p = 0-68-lbf*in Moment Sec= 911530*---in Moment= 1.094 x 10 7-Ibf*in . 8 lbf Axial= 950. 33*-m Axial Sec = 11410 !b f Max axial = 1 728000 lbf -3 Percent= 6.603 x 10 ap = 10 ap:= 9 Revisi on 0 S l ope of l i near moment curvature plot Linear curvature parameters Linear stra i n energy Linear curvature at moment Curvature points Moment points m := [( Column(data

, p lot_indexap'lim)('.2)) 4 -( Column(data

, p lot_indexap'lim)('.2))

2] ap [( Column(data

, plot_in d exa p'lim/1)) 4 -( Column(data

, p lot_in d exa p'lim)(1))2] Moment L C ur := -----a p 2 m *lbf*in ap w := [L a: *i n J -ap L Area = 820 l b f a p -4 1 L Cur = 1.499 x 10 *--ap in L_Mom__p(w)

= [ O 7 J 1.094 x 10 Max number of trapezo i ds to add when calculat i ng moment under non-linear moment curvature curve Cmax := 18 Variables to calculate area under moment-curvature p l ot that represent width (b) and he i ghts (h) of trapezoids He i ght (Moment) hl := Column(data

, p lot in d ex , lim)('.2) ap -ap h2 := Column(d ata , plot in dex , lim)('.2) a p -ap W i dth (Curvature) bl := Column(data

, plot in d ex , lim)(i) ap -ap b 2 := Column(data,plot in d ex , lim)(i) ap -ap Area under moment-curvatu r e plot , based on summ i ng trapezoidal areas Non-l i near Curvature Cmax[l [ 1 l] NL_Area := -*[{hl ) *l b f*in + {h2 ) *lbf*i n l (bl ) *:--(b2 ) *:-a p L..i 2 a p k ap k-1 J a p k m a p k-1 m k=3 NL Area = 895 l b f -ap ( ( . . )(1)) 1 NL Cur := Column data , p lot mdex , lim *--ap -ap '1nax in -4 1 NL Cur = 1.600 x 10 *-ap in Calculation No. 150252-CA-02 Appendix 0 FP 100985 Pa g e 50 3 of 526 69-Revis i on 0 Vary c.max t o make close t o zero Parameters for p l o t ting purpose s (NL Cur *inJ -ap Lim_NL(y) := . NL Cur *m -ap Dep t h to neutral ax i s dNA := nalNL Cur , fv , 0.8hcol) \-apap D i stan c e fo r s t ra i n in s t eel c alcula ti o n dstrain := dNA -cover Strain in steel D u c tili ty Demand Moment -Curvature NL Area -L Area = 74.975 lbf -ap -ap [ 0 J z *= 1

• Moment*--lbf *in -ap (L Cur inJ Lim L(z) := -L Cur *in dNA = 22.154*in dstrain = 18.449* in Estee! = 0.00295 E s tee! = l .4 8 Ey -ap 1.5xl07.-------------------------------, 0 +++ Non-Linear +++Linear +++ Non-Linear Limit +++ Linear Limit Calculation No. 150252-CA-02 Append i x 0 F P 100985 Page 504 of 526 Curvature (l/in) 70-Revision 0 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB APPENDIXY PROJECT NO: __ 1=5=02=5=2

___ _ DATE: ----=Ju=ly

...... 2=0_,_,16,.___

__ _ BY:

VERIFIER:

---

"A_,,_.T,_,_._,,,S=ara=w=it,__

__ _ Source Code of Project-Specific Computer Routines NOTE: For brevity, the first 5 pages and last 5 pages of this appendix (not including this title page) are included in this calculation.

The full version of this appendix is 179 pages long (including this page) and the last page number is Y-179. The page numbers for the shortened version of this appendix are renumbered to Y-1 through Y-11. All source code in this appendix is also provided in the attached 150252-CA-02-CD-01.

150252-CA-02 Ap1oendix Y FP 100985 Page 505 o 526 -Y-1 -Revision 0 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT NextEra Energy Seabrook SUBJECT Evaluation and Design-Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB File: SR_MISC_ACCPROF

_rO.apdl Notes: None Line 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 Source Code 1 RMMones SR_MISC_ACCPROF

_rO.apdl JUNE 2016 ANSYS 15 Define seismic acceleration profiles Ref: UE SBSAG-4CE Sheets 22 through 26 Elev. E-W N-S Vertical -0360.00 0.130000 0.130000 -0152.00 0.130000 0.130000 0000.00 0.130000 0.130000 0240.00 0.130000 0.130000 0444.00 0.130000 0.130000 0612.00 0.162000 0.150000 0816.00 0.215000 0.204000 1020.00 0.265000 0.256000 I 1224.00 0.310000 0.303000 1428.00 0.354000 0.348000 1620.50 0.397000 0.391000 1813.50 0.442000 0.435000 2006.00 0.487000 0.481000 2198.50 0.531000 0.526000 2391.00 0.570000 0.567000 AccPro Size = 15 *DIM,AccPro_Elevation,ARRAY, 15 AccPro_Elevation(1)

= -360.00 AccPro_Elevation(2)

= -152.00 AccPro_Elevation(3)

= 0.00 AccPro_Elevation(4)

= 240.00 AccPro_Elevation(5)

= 444.00 AccPro_Elevation(6)

= 612.00 AccPro_Elevation(7)

= 816.00 AccPro_Elevation(8)

= 1020.00 AccPro_Elevation(9)

= 1224.00 AccPro_Elevation(10)

= 1428.00 AccPro_Elevation(11)

= 1620.50 AccPro_Elevation(12)

= 1813.50 AccPro_Elevation(13)

= 2006.00 AccPro_Elevation(14)

= 2198.50 AccPro_Elevation(15)

= 2391.00 *DIM,AccPro_OBE_EW,ARRAY,15 AccPro_OBE_EW(1)

= 0.13 AccPro_OBE_EW(2)

= 0.13 AccPro_OBE_EW(3)

= 0.13 AccPro_OBE_EW(4)

= 0.13 AccPro_OBE_EW(5)

= 0.13 AccPro_OBE_EW(6)

= 0.16 AccPro_OBE_EW(7)

= 0.22 AccPro_OBE_EW(8)

= 0.27 AccPro_OBE_EW(9)

= 0.31 150252-CA-02 Aooendix Y FP 100985 Page 506 of 526 < 0.130000 0.130000 0.130000 0.130000 0.144000 0.171000 0.208000 0.243000 0.274000 0.303000 0.327000 0.347000 0.362000 0.371000 0.375000 -Y-2 -PROJECT NO. 150252 BY R.M. Mones CHECKED BY A.T. Sarawit CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE Revision O

SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER Ir""'" I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT NextEra Energy Seabrook SUBJECT Evaluation and Design-Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB File: SR_MISC_ACCPROF

_rO.apdl (Continued)

Notes: None Line Source Code 52 AccPro_OBE_EW(10)

= 0.35 53 AccPro_OBE_EW(11)

= 0.40 54 AccPro_OBE_EW(12)

= 0.44 55 AccPro_OBE_EW(13)

= 0.49 56 AccPro_OBE_EW(14)

= 0.53 57 AccPro_OBE_EW(15)

= 0.57 58 *DIM,AccPro_OBE_NS,ARRAY,15 59 AccPro_OBE_NS(1)

= 0.13 60 AccPro_OBE_NS(2)

= 0.13 61 AccPro_OBE_NS(3)

= 0.13 62 AccPro_OBE_NS(4)

= 0.13 63 AccPro_OBE_NS(5)

= 0.13 64 AccPro_OBE_NS(6)

= 0.15 65 AccPro_OBE_NS(7)

= 0.20 66 AccPro_OBE_NS(8)

= 0.26 67 AccPro_OBE_NS(9)

= 0.30 68 AccPro_OBE_NS(10)

= 0.35 69 AccPro_OBE_NS(11)

= 0.39 70 AccPro_OBE_NS(12)

= 0.44 71 AccPro_OBE_NS(13)

= 0.48 72 AccPro_OBE_NS(14)

= 0.53 73 AccPro_OBE_NS(15)

= 0.57 74 *DIM,AccPro_OBE_V,ARRAY,15 75 AccPro_OBE_V(1)

= 0.13 76 AccPro_OBE_V(2)

= 0.13 77 AccPro_OBE_V(3)

= 0.13 78 AccPro_OBE_V(4)

= 0.13 79 AccPro_OBE_V(5)

= 0.14 80 AccPro_OBE_V(6)

= 0.17 81 AccPro_OBE_V(7)

= 0.21 82 AccPro_OBE_V(8)

= 0.24 83 AccPro_OBE_V(9)

= 0.27 84 AccPro_OBE_V(10)

= 0.30 85 AccPro_OBE_V(11)

= 0.33 86 AccPro_OBE_V(12)

= 0.35 87 AccPro_OBE_V(13)

= 0.36 88 AccPro_OBE_V(14)

= 0.37 89 AccPro_OBE_V(15)

= 0.38 90 Elev. E-W N-S Vertical 91 -0360.00 0.250000 0.250000 0.250000 92 -0152.00 0.250000 0.250000 0.250000 93 0000.00 0.250000 0.250000 0.250000 94 0240.00 0.250000 0.250000 0.250000 95 0444.00 0.250000 0.250000 0.250000 96 0612.00 0.268000 0.250000 0.294000 97 0816.00 0.350000 0.334000 0.353000 98 1020.00 0.424000 0.411000 0.407000 99 1224.00 0.491000 0.481000 0.457000 100 1428.00 0.555000 0.547000 0.504000 101 1620.50 0.620000 0.610000 0.544000 102 1813.50 0.687000 0.677000 0.579000 150252-CA-02 Ap1oendix Y FP 100985 Page 507 o 526 -Y-3 -PROJECT NO. 150252 DATE July 2016 BY R.M. Mones CHECKED BY __ ---'-A"""'.T-'-.

S=a=ra=w'"'-it

__ CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE Revision 0 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT NextEra Energy Seabrook SUBJECT Evaluation and Design-Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB File: SR_MISC_ACCPROF

_rO.apdl {Continued)

Notes: None Line 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 Source Code ! 2006.00 0.758000 ! 2198.50 0.829000 ! 2391.00 0.893000 0.747000 0.822000 0.889000 *DIM,AccPro_SSE_EW,ARRAY, 15 AccPro_SSE_EW(1)

= 0.25 AccPro_SSE_EW(2)

= 0.25 AccPro_SSE_EW(3)

= 0.25 AccPro_SSE_EW(4)

= 0.25 AccPro_SSE_EW(5)

= 0.25 AccPro_SSE_EW(6)

= 0.27 AccPro_SSE_EW(7)

= 0.35 AccPro_SSE_EW(8)

= 0.42 AccPro_SSE_EW(9)

= 0.49 AccPro_SSE_EW(10)

= 0.56 AccPro_SSE_EW(11)

= 0.62 AccPro_SSE_EW(12)

= 0.69 AccPro_SSE_EW(13)

= 0.76 AccPro_SSE_EW(14)

= 0.83 AccPro_SSE_EW(15)

= 0.89 *DIM,AccPro_SSE_NS,ARRAY, 15 AccPro_SSE_NS(1)

= 0.25 AccPro_SSE_NS(2)

= 0.25 AccPro_SSE_NS(3)

= 0.25 AccPro_SSE_NS(4)

= 0.25 AccPro_SSE_NS(5)

= 0.25 AccPro_SSE_NS(6)

= 0.25 AccPro_SSE_NS(7)

= 0.33 AccPro_SSE_NS(8)

= 0.41 AccPro_SSE_NS(9)

= 0.48 AccPro_SSE_NS(10)

= 0.55 AccPro_SSE_NS(11)

= 0.61 AccPro_SSE_NS(12)

= 0.68 AccPro_SSE_NS(13)

= 0.75 AccPro_SSE_NS(14)

= 0.82 AccPro_SSE_NS(15)

= 0.89 *DIM,AccPro_SSE_V,ARRAY, 15 AccPro_SSE_V(1)

= 0.25 AccPro_SSE_V(2)

= 0.25 AccPro_SSE_V(3)

= 0.25 AccPro_SSE_V(4)

= 0.25 AccPro_SSE_V(5)

= 0.25 AccPro_SSE_V(6)

= 0.29 AccPro_SSE_V(7)

= 0.35 AccPro_SSE_

V(8) = 0.41 AccPro_SSE_V(9)

= 0.46 AccPro_SSE_V(10)

= 0.50 AccPro_SSE_V(11)

= 0.54 AccPro_SSE_V(12)

= 0.58 AccPro_SSE_V(13)

= 0.61 AccPro_SSE_V(14)

= 0.62 AccPro_SSE_V(15)

= 0.63 150252-CA-02 Ap1oendix Y FP 100985 Page 508 o 526 0.606000 0.622000 0.628000 -Y-4-PROJECT NO. 150252 DATE July 2016 BY R.M. Mones CHECKED BY __

END OF FILE Revision 0 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER CLIENT I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures NextEra Energy Seabrook SUBJECT Evaluation and Design-Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB File: SR ILC 01 I rO.apdl Notes: None Line Source Code 1 ! RMMones 2 ! SR_ILC_01_1_r0.apdl 3 ! JUNE 2016 4 !ANSYS15 5 ! 6 ! DUMMY MODEL, NO LOADS !Generate the model... /PREP? /INPUT, SR_MODEL 1_PROPERTIES_A_r0, apdl /INPUT, SR_MODEL 1_NODES_r0, apdl 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 /INPUT, SR_MODEL 1_ELEMENTS_CONCRETE_r0, apdl /INPUT, SR_MODEL 1_ELEMENTS_STEEL_r0, apdl /INPUT, SR_MODEL 1_CONN_BASE_r0, apdl /INPUT, SR_MODEL 1_CONN_RADIAL_r0, apdl /INPUT, SR_MODEL 1_CONN_TANGENT_r0, apdl /INPUT, SR_MODEL 1_BOUNDARY

_A_r0, apdl SAVE !(No loads) 22 23 !SOLVE 24 ALLSEL, ALL, ALL 25 /SOLU 26 ANTYPE,STATIC 27 OUTPR, ALL, NONE 28 OUTRES I ALL 29 ALLSEL, ALL, ALL 30 SOLVE 31 SAVE 32 FINISH 150252-CA-02 Ap1oendix Y FP 100985 Page 509 o 526 -Y-5-END OF FILE PROJECT NO. 150252 BY R.M. Mones CHECKED BY A.T. Sarawit ( Revision 0 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT NextEra Energy Seabrook SUBJECT Evaluation and Design-Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB File: SR ILC 02 I rO.apdl Notes: None Line Source Code 1 ! RMMones 2 ! SR_ILC_02_1_r0.apdl 3 ! JUNE 2016 4 ! ANSYS 15 5 ! 6 ! EXTRACT MASS TRIBUTARY TO EACH NODE 7 8 ! Generate the model... 9 /PREP? 10 /INPUT, SR_MODEL 1_PROPERTIES_A_r0, apdl 11 /INPUT, SR_MODEL 1_NODES_r0, apdl 12 /INPUT, SR_MODEL 1_ELEMENTS_CONCRETE_r0, apdl 13 /INPUT, SR_MODEL 1_ELEMENTS_STEEL_r0, apdl 14 /INPUT, SR_MODEL 1_CONN_BASE_r0, apdl 15 /INPUT, SR_MODEL 1_CONN_RADIAL_r0, apdl 16 /INPUT, SR_MODEL 1_CONN_TANGENT_r0, apdl 17 !/INPUT, SR_MODEL 1_BOUNDARY

_A_r0, apdl 18 19 ! Modify dome material cards so density term includes 25% 20 ! of the snow load and self weight 21 MP, DENS, 10, 0.000241 +0.0000222*0.2 22 MP, DENS, 12, 0.000241 +0.0000222*0.4 23 MP, DENS, 14, 0.000241 +0.0000222*0.6 24 MP, DENS, 16, 0.000241 +0.0000222*0.8 25 MP, DENS, 18, 0.000241 +0.0000222*1.0 26 27 ALLSEL, ALL 28 D,ALL,ALL 29 ACEL,0,0, 1 30 31 !SOLVE 32 /SOLU 33 ANTYPE,STATIC 34 OUTPR, ALL, NONE 35 OUTRES, ALL 36 ALLSEL, ALL, ALL 37 SOLVE 38 SAVE 39 FINISH 40 41 !POST 42 /POST1 43 NSEL,S,NODE,,2000000,2999999 44 *GET, nodeNum, NODE, 0, COUNT 45 *GET, nodeMin, NODE, 0, NUM, MIN 46 *GET, nodeMax, NODE, 0, NUM, MAX 47 nodeOperate

= nodeMin 48 /OUTPUT,SR_MISC_NODEMASS_rO,apdl 49 /NOPR 50 *DO,i, 1,nodeNum 150252-CA-02 Ap1oendix Y FP 100985 Page 510 o 526 -Y-6 -PROJECT NO. 150252 BY R.M. Mones CHECKED BY A.T. Sarawit Revision 0 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT NextEra Energy Seabrook SUBJECT Evaluation and Design-Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB 51 ESEL,A,ELEM,, 2303726 File: SR ILC 48 I rO.apdl (Continued)

Notes: None Line 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 Source Code ESEL,A,ELEM,, 2303728 ESEL,A,ELEM,, 2303734 ESEL,A,ELEM,, 2303735 ESEL,A,ELEM,, 2303736 ESEL,A,ELEM,, 2303737 ESEL,A,ELEM,, 2303869 ESEL,A,ELEM,, 2303871 ESEL,A,ELEM,, 2303875 ESEL,A,ELEM,, 2303876 ESEL,A,ELEM,, 2303877 ESEL,A,ELEM,, 2303878 ESEL,A,ELEM,, 2303879 inistate,set,CSYS,-2 inistate,set,DTYP,EPEL inistate,defi,,, 1, 1,-0.0000001 inistate,defi,,, 1,3,0.0000001

!SOLVE ALLSEL, ALL, ALL /SOLU ANTYPE,STATIC OUTPR, ALL, NONE OUTRES, ALL ALLSEL, ALL, ALL SOLVE SAVE FINISH /POST1 ESEL,S,ELEM,, 2303576 ESEL,A,ELEM,, 2303577 ESEL,A,ELEM,, 2303583 ESEL,A,ELEM,, 2303585 ESEL,A,ELEM,, 2303586 ESEL,A,ELEM,, 2303587 ESEL,A,ELEM,, 2303594 /PAGE,,,-1 PRESOL,SMIS,4 PRESOL,SMIS,5 FINISH 150252-CA-02 Ap1oendix Y FP 100985 Page 511 o 526 PROJECT NO. 150252 DATE July 2016 BY R.M. Mones CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE END OF FILE -Y-7-Revision 0 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER ,,.........

I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT NextEra Energy Seabrook SUBJECT Evaluation and Design-Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB File: SR ILC 49 I rO.apdl Notes: None Line Source Code 1 ! RMMones 2 ! SR_ILC_ 49_1_r0.apdl 3 !JULY2016 4 ! ANSYS 15 5 ! 6 !MOMENT REDISTRIBUTION 13 7 !PLACEHOLDER 8 9 !Generate the model. .. 10 /PREP? 11 /INPUT, SR_MODEL 1_PROPERTIES_C_r0, apdl 12 /INPUT, SR_MODEL 1_NODES_DEFORMED_r0, apdl 13 /INPUT, SR_MODEL 1_ELEMENTS_CONCRETE_r0, apdl 14 /INPUT, SR_MODEL 1_ELEMENTS_STEEL_r0, apdl 15 /INPUT, SR_MODEL 1_CONN_BASE_HINGE_r0, apdl 16 /INPUT, SR_MODEL 1_CONN_RADIAL_r0, apdl 17 /INPUT, SR_MODEL 1_CONN_TANGENT_r0, apdl 18 /INPUT, SR_MODEL 1_BOUNDARY

_A_r0, apdl 19 20 SAVE 21 22 !(No loads) 23 24 !SOLVE 25 ALLSEL, ALL, ALL 26 /SOLU 27 ANTYPE,STATIC 28 OUTPR, ALL, NONE 29 OUTRES, ALL 30 ALLSEL, ALL, ALL 31 SOLVE 32 SAVE 33 FINISH 150252-CA-02 Aooendix Y FP 100985 Page 512 of 526 -Y-8 -END OF FILE PROJECT NO. 150252 DATE _____

___ BY R.M. Mones CHECKED BY __

Revision 0 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT NextEra Energy Seabrook SUBJECT Evaluation and Design-Confinnation of As-Deformed CEB File: SR ILC 50 I rO.apdl Notes: None Line Source Code 1 ! RMMones 2 ! SR_ILC_50_1_r0.apdl 3 !JULY2016 4 ! ANSYS 15 5 ! 6 !MOMENT REDISTRIBUTION 14 7 !PLACEHOLDER 8 9 !Generate the model. .. 10 /PREP? 11 /INPUT, SR_MODEL 1_PROPERTIES_C_r0, apdl 12 /INPUT, SR_MODEL 1_NODES_DEFORMED_r0, apdl 13 /INPUT, SR_MODEL 1_ELEMENTS_CONCRETE_r0, apdl 14 /INPUT, SR_ MODEL 1_ELEMENTS_STEEL_r0, apdl 15 /INPUT, SR_MODEL 1_CONN_BASE_HINGE_r0, apdl 16 /INPUT, SR_MODEL 1_CONN_RADIAL_r0, apdl 17 /INPUT, SR_MODEL 1_CONN_TANGENT_r0, apdl 18 /INPUT, SR_MODEL 1_BOUNDARY_A_r0, apdl 19 20 SAVE 21 22 !(No loads) 23 24 !SOLVE 25 ALLSEL, ALL, ALL 26 /SOLU 27 ANTYPE,STATIC 28 OUTPR, ALL, NONE 29 OUTRES, ALL 30 ALLSEL, ALL, ALL 31 SOLVE 32 SAVE 33 FINISH 150252-CA-02 Ap1oendix Y FP 100985 Page 513 o 526 -Y-9 -END OF FILE PROJECT NO. 150252 DATE July 2016 BY R.M. Mones CHECKED BY A.T. Sarawit Revision 0 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT NextEra Energy Seabrook SUBJECT Evaluation and Design-Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB File: SR ILC 51 I rO.apdl Notes: None Line Source Code 1 RM Mones 2 SR_ILC_51_1_r0.apdl 3 JULY 2016 4 ANSYS 15 5 PROJECT NO. DATE BY CHECKED BY 6 SIMULATE MERIDIONAL STIFFNESS REDUCTION ABOVE EL. 45 ft AT AZ-240 7 8 ! Generate the model... 9 /PREP? 10 /INPUT, SR_ MODEL 1_PROPERTIES_C_r0, apdl 11 /INPUT, SR_MODEL 1_NODES_DEFORMED_r0, apdl 12 /INPUT, SR_MODEL 1_ELEMENTS_CONCRETE_r0, apdl 13 /INPUT, SR,_MODEL 1_ELEMENTS_STEEL_r0, apdl 14 /INPUT, SR_MODEL 1_CONN_BASE_HINGE_r0, apdl 15 /INPUT, SR_MODEL 1_CONN_RADIAL_r0, apdl 16 /INPUT, SR_MODEL 1_CONN_TANGENT_r0, apdl 17 /INPUT, SR_MODEL 1_BOUNDARY

_A_r0, apdl 18 19 SAVE 20 21 ALLSEL,ALL 22 23 !Top nodes: 24 D,2200841,UZ,0.0001 25 D,2200968,UZ,0.0001 26 D,2201114,UZ,0.0001 27 D,2201263,UZ,0.0001 28 D,2201377,UZ,0.0001 29 D,2201504,UZ,0.0001 30 D,2201650,UZ,0.0001 31 D,2201807,UZ,0.0001 32 D,2201940,UZ,0.0001 33 D,2202103,UZ,0.0001 34 ! Bottom Nodes: 35 D,2200840,UZ,-0.0001 36 D,2200967,UZ,-0.0001 37 D,2201113,UZ,-0.0001 38 D,2201262,UZ,-0.0001 39 D,2201376,UZ,-0.0001 40 D,2201503,UZ,-0.0001 41 D,2201649,UZ,-0.0001 42 D,2201806,UZ,-0.0001 43 D,2201939,UZ,-0.0001 44 D,2202102,UZ,-0.0001 45 46 !SOLVE 47 ALLSEL, ALL, ALL 48 /SOLU 49 ANTYPE,STATIC 50 OUTPR, ALL, NONE 150252-CA-02 Ap1oendix Y FP 100985 Page 514 o 526 -Y-10 -150252 July 2016 R.M. Mones A.T. Sarawit Revision O

SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT Nex!Era Energy Seabrook SUBJECT Evaluation and Design-Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB 51 OUTRES, ALL File: SR ILC 51 I rO.apdl (Continued)

Notes: None Line 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 Source Code ALLSEL, ALL, ALL SOLVE SAVE FINISH /POST1 esel,S,elem,, 2300487 esel,a,elem,, 2300567 esel,a,elem,, 2300651 esel,a,elem,, 2300737 esel,a,elem,, 2300851 esel,a,elem,, 2300945 esel,a,elem,, 2301031 esel,a,elem,, 2301131 esel,a,elem,, 2301241 esel,a,elem,, 2301345 esel,a,elem,, 2301460 esel,a,elem,, 2301576 /PAGE,,,-1 PRESOL,SMIS, 1 PRESOL,SMIS,2 PRESOL,SMIS,3 PRESOL,SMIS,4 PRESOL,SMIS,5 PRESOL,SMIS,6 FINISH 150252-CA-02 Ap1oendix Y FP 100985 Page 515 o 526 -Y-11 -PROJECT NO. 150252 BY R.M. Mones CHECKED BY A.T. Sarawit CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE END OF FILE Revision 0 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER ,...,... I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT: NextEra Energy Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB NOTE: APPENDIXZ FEA Model Definition PROJECT NO: __ 1=5=02=5=2

___ _ DATE:

BY: ____ __._R=.M=.'-"M=o=ne=s'-----

VERIFIER:

__

For brevity, the first 5 pages and last 5 pages of this appendix (not including this title page) are included in this calculation.

The full version of this appendix is 1420 pages long (including this page) and the last page number is Z-1420. The page numbers for the shortened version of this appendix are renumbered to Z-1 through Z-11. All source code in this appendix is also provided in the attached 150252-CA-02-CD-01.

150252-CA-02 Ap1oendix Z FP 100985 Page 516 o 526 -Z-1 -Revision 0 l'-, SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER pil""'" I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT NextEra Energy Seabrook SUBJECT Evaluation and Design-Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB File: SR_MODEL 1_BOUNDARY

_A_r0.apdl Notes: None Line Source Code 1 RM Mones 2 SR_MODEL01_BOUNDARY.apdl 3 JUNE 2016 4 ANSYS 15 5 6 DEFINE BOUNDARY CONDITIONS 7 8 CSYS,1 9 10 !Vertical support at base of fdn: 11 NSEL,S,NODE,, 1000000, 1999999 12 NSEL,R,LOC,Z,-485,-475 13 D,ALL,UZ 14 15 !Tangential support (concrete mat): 16 NSEL,S,NODE,,5000000,5999999 17 D,ALL,ALL 18 19 !Radial support (concrete fill): 20 NSEL,S,NODE,,4000000,4999999 21 D,ALL,ALL 150252-CA-02 Ap1oendix Z FP 100985 Page 517 o 526 -Z-2 -PROJECT NO. 150252 BY R.M. Mones END OF FILE Revision 0 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER pill"'" PROJECT NO. 150252 I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures DATE _____ Ju-"ly_2_01_6

___ _ CLIENT NextEra Energy Seabrook SUBJECT Evaluation and Design-Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB File: SR_MODEL 1_CONN_BASE_HINGE_r0.apdl Notes: Only used in Moment Redistribution Cases Line Source Code 1 ! RMMones 2 ! SR_MODEL 1_CONN_BASE_HINGE_r0.apdl 3 ! JUNE 2016 4 ! ANSYS 15 5 ! 6 7 ! Model the connection between wall and foundation as hinge 8 BY CHECKED BY 9 ! Make coincident nodes at the base to insert hinge release moment about the hoop axis 10 *DO,ii,1,124,1 11 N,31 OOOOO+ii,NX(21 OOOOO+ii),NY(21 OOOOO+ii),NZ(21 OOOOO+ii) 12 *ENDDO 13 14 ! Rotate the new nodes to cylindrical coordinate system 15 CSYS, 1 16 NSEL,S,,,3100001,3100124 17 NROTAT, ALL 18 ALLSEL,ALL 19 20 ! Constraint all DOF except rotation about the hoop axis 21 *DO,ii,1,124,1 22 CE,NEXT,0.,31OOOOO+ii,UX,1.0,21 OOOOO+ii,UX,-1.0 23 CE,NEXT,0.,31OOOOO+ii,UY,1.0,21 OOOOO+ii,UY,-1.0 24 CE,NEXT,0.,31OOOOO+ii,UZ,1.0,21 OOOOO+ii,UZ,-1.0 25 CE,NEXT,0.,3100000+ii,ROTX, 1.0,21 OOOOO+ii,ROTX,-1.0 26 CE,NEXT,0.,31OOOOO+ii,ROTZ,1.0,21 OOOOO+ii,ROTZ,-1.0 27 *END DO 28 29 ! Spiders connect wall (hinge connection) to foundation 30 TYPE, 1841 31 EN,3400001,3100001, 1001989 32 EN,3400002, 1002000,3100001 33 EN,3400003,3100002, 1002022 34 EN,3400004, 1002035,3100002 35 EN,3400005,3100003, 1001960 36 EN,3400006, 1001947,3100003 37 EN,3400007,3100004, 1002063 38 EN,3400008, 1002076,3100004 39 EN,3400009,3100005, 1001904 40 EN,3400010, 1001917,3100005 41 EN,3400011,3100006, 1002104 42 EN,3400012, 1002116,3100006 43 EN,3400013,3100007, 1001864 44 EN,3400014, 1001875, 3100007 45 EN,3400015,3100008, 1002146 46 EN,3400016, 1002157,3100008 47 EN,3400017,3100009, 1001821 48 EN,3400018, 1001838,3100009 49 EN,3400019,3100010, 1002183 50 EN,3400020, 1002198,3100010 51 EN,3400021,3100011, 1001784 CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE 150252-CA-02 Ap1oendix Z FP 100985 Page 518 o 526 -Z-3-R.M. Mones A.T. Sarawit Revision 0 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER PROJECT NO. 150252 I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures DATE July2016 CLIENT NextEra Energ:t Seabrook BY R.M. Mones SUBJECT Evaluation and Design-Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB CHECKED BY A.T. Sarawit File: (Continued)

Notes: Only used in Moment Redistribution Cases Line Source Code 52 EN,3400022, 1001797,3100011 53 EN,3400023,3100012, 1002228 54 EN,3400024, 1002241,3100012 55 EN,3400025,3100013, 1001743 56 EN,3400026, 1001756,3100013 57 EN,3400027,3100014, 1002268 58 EN,3400028, 1002282,3100014 59 EN,3400029,3100015, 1001699 60 EN,3400030, 1001714,3100015 61 EN,3400031,3100016, 1002310 62 EN,3400032, 1002322,3100016 63 EN,3400033,3100017, 1001661 64 EN,3400034, 1001673,3100017 65 EN,3400035,3100018, 1002358 66 EN,3400036, 1002383,3100018 67 EN,3400037,3100019, 1001590 68 EN,3400038, 1001611,3100019 69 EN,3400039,3100020, 1002431 70 EN,3400040, 1002465,3100020 71 EN,3400041,3100021, 1001506 72 EN,3400042, 1001529,3100021 73 EN,3400043,3100022, 1002506 74 EN,3400044, 1002547,3100022 75 EN,3400045,3100023, 1001420 76 EN,3400046, 1001460,3100023 77 EN,3400047,3100024, 1002588 78 EN,3400048, 1002629,3100024 79 EN,3400049,3100025, 1001339 80 EN,3400050, 1001378,3100025 81 EN,3400051,3100026, 1002678 82 EN,3400052, 1002731,3100026 83 EN,3400053,3100027, 1001248 84 EN,3400054, 1001303,3100027 85 EN,3400055,3100028, 1002756 86 EN,3400056, 1002814,3100028 87 EN,3400057,3100029, 1001169 88 EN,3400058, 1001221,3100029 89 EN,3400059,3100030, 1002824 90 EN,3400060, 1002895,3100030 91 EN,3400061,3100031, 1001148 92 EN,3400062, 1001085,3100031 93 EN,3400063,3100032, 1002911 94 EN,3400064, 1002975,3100032 95 EN,3400065,3100033, 1001009 96 EN,3400066, 1001065,3100033 97 EN,3400067,3100034, 1002991 98 EN,3400068, 1003054,3100034 99 EN,3400069,3100035, 1000924 100 EN,3400070, 1000988,3100035 101 EN,3400071,3100036, 1003075 102 EN,3400072, 1003128,3100036 CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE 150252-CA-02 Z -Z-4 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 519 o 26 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER PROJECT NO. 150252 I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures DATE July 2016 CLIENT NextEra Energi'. Seabrook BY R.M. Mones SUBJECT Evaluation and Design-Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB CHECKED BY A.T. Sarawit File: SR_MODEL 1_CONN_BASE_HINGE_r0.apdl

{Continued)

Notes: Only used in Moment Redistribution Cases Line Source Code 103 EN,3400073,3100037, 1000842 104 EN,3400074, 1000907,3100037 105 EN,3400075,3100038, 1003217 106 EN,3400076, 1003156,3100038 107 EN,3400077,3100039, 1000759 108 EN,3400078, 1000827,3100039 109 EN,3400079,3100040, 1003307 110 EN,3400080, 1003229,3100040 111 EN,3400081,3100041, 1000675 112 EN,3400082, 1000748,3100041 113 EN,3400083,3100042, 1003312 114 EN,3400084, 1003393,3100042 115 EN,3400085,3100043, 1000581 116 EN,3400086, 1000669,3100043 117 EN,3400087,3100044, 1003386 118 EN,3400088, 1003482,3100044 119 EN,3400089,3100045, 1000497 120 EN,3400090, 1000593,3100045 121 EN,3400091,3100046, 1003567 122 EN,3400092, 1003475,3100046 123 EN,3400093,3100047, 1000414 124 EN,3400094, 1000504,3100047 125 EN,3400095,3100048, 1003552 126 EN,3400096, 1003646,3100048 127 EN,3400097,3100049, 1000332 128 EN,3400098, 1000431,3100049 129 EN,3400099,3100050, 1003698 130 EN,3400100, 1003589,3100050 131 EN,3400101,3100051, 1000241 132 EN,3400102, 1000362,3100051 133 EN,3400103,3100052, 1003782 134 EN,3400104, 1003680,3100052 135 EN,3400105,3100053, 1000177 136 EN,3400106, 1000291,3100053 137 EN,3400107,3100054, 1003872 138 EN,3400108, 1003762,3100054 139 EN,3400109,3100055, 1000106 140 EN,3400110, 1000211,3100055 141 EN,3400111,3100056, 1003956 142 EN,3400112, 1003843,3100056 143 EN,3400113,3100057, 1000071 144 EN,3400114, 1000172,3100057 145 EN,3400115,3100058, 1003926 146 EN,3400116, 1004058,3100058 147 EN,3400117,3100059, 1004156 148 EN,3400118, 1003974,3100059 149 EN,3400119,3100060, 1004253 150 EN,3400120, 1004049,3100060 151 EN,3400121,3100061, 1004129 152 EN,3400122, 1004347,3100061 153 EN,3400123,3100062, 1004199 CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE 150252-CA-02 ApEendix Z -Z-5 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 520 o 26 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER Jll"""" I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT NextEra Energy Seabrook SUBJECT Evaluation and Design-Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB File: SR_MODEL 1_CONN_BASE_HINGE_r0.apdl (Continued)

Notes: Only used in Moment Redistribution Cases Line Source Code 154 EN,3400124, 1004467,3100062 155 EN,3400125,3100063, 1004285 156 EN,3400126, 1004538,3100063 157 EN,3400127,3100064, 1004636 158 EN,3400128, 1004362,3100064 159 EN,3400129,3100065, 1004437 160 EN,3400130, 1004690,3100065 161 EN,3400131,3100066, 1004763 162 EN,3400132, 1004478,3100066 163 EN,3400133,3100067, 1004519 164 EN,3400134, 1004790,3100067 165 EN,3400135,3100068, 1004572 166 EN,3400136, 1004814,3100068 167 EN,3400137,3100069, 1004589 168 EN,3400138, 1004841,3100069 169 EN,3400139,3100070, 1004602 170 EN,3400140, 1004855,3100070 171 EN,3400141,3100071, 1004631 172 EN,3400142, 1004874,3100071 173 EN,3400143,3100072, 1004607 174 EN,3400144, 1004862,3100072 175 EN,3400145,3100073, 1004593 176 EN,3400146, 1004848,3100073 177 EN,3400147,3100074, 1004579 178 EN,3400148, 1004820,3100074 179 EN,3400149,3100075, 1004525 180 EN,3400150, 1004792,3100075 181 EN,3400151,3100076, 1004769 182 EN,3400152, 1004485,3100076 183 EN,3400153,3100077, 1004448 184 EN,3400154, 1004699,3100077 185 EN,3400155,3100078, 1004373 186 EN,3400156, 1004645,3100078 187 EN,3400157,3100079, 1004291 188 EN,3400158, 1004544,3100079 189 EN,3400159,3100080, 1004204 190 EN,3400160, 1004471,3100080 191 EN,3400161,3100081, 1004354 192 EN,3400162, 1004136,3100081 193 EN,3400163,3100082, 1004061 194 EN,3400164, 1004258,3100082 195 EN,3400165,3100083, 1003984 196 EN,3400166, 1004162,3100083 197 EN,3400167,3100084, 1003930 198 EN,3400168, 1004068,3100084 199 EN,3400169,3100085, 1003848 200 EN,3400170, 1003958,3100085 201 EN,3400171,3100086, 1000078 202 EN,3400172, 1000171,3100086 203 EN,3400173,3100087, 1000214 204 EN,3400174, 1000112,3100087 150252-CA-02 Ap1oendix Z FP 100985 Page 521 o 526 -Z-6 -PROJECT NO. 150252 DATE July 2016 BY R.M. Mones CHECKED BY A.T. Sarawit CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE Revision 0 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER PROJECT NO. 150252 I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures DATE July 2016 CLIENT NextEra Energy Seabrook BY R.M. Mones SUBJECT Evaluation and Design-Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB CHECKED BY A.T. Sarawit File: SR_MODEL 1_PROPERTIES_D_r0.apdl

{Continued)

Notes: Only used in Moment Redistribution Cases Line Source Code 154 155 !!STEEL, 1#10@12EF

+ 1#8@121F 156 SECTYPE, 612, SHELL, ,612 157 SECDATA, A 10*2/12+A08*1

/12 158 SECOFFSET, MID 159 160 !!STEEL, 1#10@12EF

+ 1#6@6EF + 1#8@121F 161 SECTYPE, 613, SHELL, ,613 162 SECDATA, A10*2/12+A06*2/6+A08*1/12 163 SECOFFSET, MID 164 165 !!STEEL, H #11@12 EF 166 SECTYPE, 614, SHELL, ,614 167 SECDATA, A11*2/12 168 SECOFFSET, MID 169 170 !!STEEL, H #10@12 EF 171 SECTYPE, 615, SHELL, ,615 172 SECDATA, A10*2/12 173 SECOFFSET, MID 174 175 !!STEEL, H #11@6 EF 176 SECTYPE, 616, SHELL, ,616 177 SECDATA, A11*2/6 178 SECOFFSET, MID 179 180 !!STEEL, H #10@6 EF 181 SECTYPE, 617, SHELL, ,617 182 SECDAT A, A 10*2/6 183 SECOFFSET, MID 184 185 !!STEEL, H #11@6 EF &#6@6 EF 186 SECTYPE, 618, SHELL, ,618 187 SECDATA, A11*2/6+A06*2/6 188 SECOFFSET, MID 189 190 !!STEEL, H #10@6 EF & #6@6 EF 191 SECTYPE, 619, SHELL, ,619 192 SECDATA, A 10*2/6+A06*2/6 193 SECOFFSET, MID 194 195 !!STEEL, H #10@12 EF & #6@6 EF 196 SECTYPE, 620, SHELL, ,620 197 SECDATA, A10*2/12+A06*2/6 198 SECOFFSET, MID 199 200 ! !STEEL, H #11@12 EF & #6@6 EF 201 SECTYPE, 621, SHELL, ,621 202 SECDATA, A11*2/12+A06*2/6 203 SECOFFSET, MID 204 CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE 150252-CA-02 Z -Z-7 -Revision 0 FP 100985 Page 522 o 26 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT NextEra Energy Seabrook SUBJECT Evaluation and Design-Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB File: SR_MODEL 1_PROPERTIES_D_r0.apdl (Continued)

Notes: Only used in Moment Redistribution Cases Line Source Code 205 !!STEEL, H 1#10@12EF

& 1#6@61F 206 SECTYPE, 622, SHELL, ,622 207 SECDATA, A10*2/12+A06*1/6 208 SECOFFSET, MID 209 !!STEEL, H UNASSIGNED SECTYPE, 699, SHELL, ,H_NULL SECDATA, 0.001 SECOFFSET, MID 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 !!STEEL, 2#11@60F + 1#14@121F

+ 1#11@121F SECTYPE, 701, SHELL, ,701 SECDATA, A11*2/6 + A14*1/12 + A11*1/12 SECOFFSET, MID !!STEEL, 1#9@12EF SECTYPE, 702, SHELL, , 702

• SECDATA, A09*2/12 SECOFFSET, MID !!STEEL, V#11@6 EF SECTYPE, 703, SHELL, , 703 SECDATA, A11*2/6 SECOFFSET, MID !!STEEL, 1#8@12EF SECTYPE, 704, SHELL, , 704 SECDATA, A08*2/12 SECOFFSET, MID !!STEEL, 1#9@6EF SECTYPE, 705, SHELL, ,705 SECDATA, A09*2/6 SECOFFSET, MID !!STEEL, 1#8@6EF SECTYPE, 706, SHELL, , 706 SECDATA, A08*2/6 SECOFFSET, MID !!STEEL, V 2#14@60F & 1#11@61F SECTYPE, 707, SHELL, ,707 SECDATA, A14*2/6+A11*1/6 SECOFFSET, MID !!STEEL, V 1#6@12EF SECTYPE, 708, SHELL, ,708 SECDATA, A06*2/12 SECOFFSET, MID !!STEEL, V2#11@6 OF & 1#11@6 IF 150252-CA-02 Aooendix Z FP 100985 Page 523 of 526 -Z-8 -PROJECT NO. 150252 DATE ____

___ _ BY R.M. Mones CHECKED BY __ ---'A"""".T'"""'".-"'S=ar=awi"""'t'----

CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE Revision 0 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER CLIENT I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures NextEra Energy Seabrook SUBJECT Evaluation and Design-Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB File: SR_MODEL 1_PROPERTIES_D_r0.apdl

{Continued)

Notes: Only used in Moment Redistribution Cases Line Source Code 256 SECTYPE, 709, SHELL, ,709 257 SECDATA, A11*3/6 258 SECOFFSET, USER, -3.5 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 ! ! STEEL, V Steel Pilaster Low Elevations SECTYPE, 710, SHELL, ,710 SECDAT A, A 11*3/6+A11

• 6/60 SECOFFSET, USER, -4.5 !!STEEL, V Steel Pilaster Upper Elevations SECTYPE, 711, SHELL, ,711 SECDAT A, A 11*2/6+A11

• 6/60 SECOFFSET, MID !!STEEL, V 2#14@60F & 1#14@121F

& 1#11@121F SECTYPE, 712, SHELL, ,712 SECDATA, A14*2/6+A11*1/12+A14*1/12 SECOFFSET, USER, -3.5 !!STEEL, V 1#6@6EF SECTYPE, 713, SHELL, ,713 SECDATA, A06*2/6 SECOFFSET, MID !STEEL, V UNASSIGNED SECTYPE, 799, SHELL, ,V _NULL SECDATA, 0.001 SECOFFSET, MID !STRUCTURAL CONCRETE, CEB MP, EX, 1, 3605000 MP, NUXY,1, 0.15 MP, DENS, 1, 0.000225 MP, REFT, 1, 0.00 !STRUCTURAL CONCRETE, FDN MP, EX,2, 3120000 MP, NUXY,2, 0.15 MP, DENS,2, 0.000225 MP, REFT, 2, 0.00 !HORIZONTAL STEEL FOR APPLICATION OF ASR EXPANSION MP, EX,6, 1000 MP, EY,6, 1000 MP, EZ,6, 1000 MP, GXY,6, 1000 MP, GYZ,6, 1000 MP, GXZ,6, 1000 MP, NUXY,6, 0.000001 MP, NUYZ,6, 0.000001 MP, NUXZ,6, 0.000001 PROJECT NO. 150252 DATE ___

__ _ BY R.M. Mones CHECKED BY __ _...;_A""'.T-'-.

S=a=ra=wi'"'"-*t

__ CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE 150252-CA-02 Aooendix Z FP 100985 Page 524 of 526 -Z-9-Revision 0 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER ,....... I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures CLIENT NextEra Energy Seabrook SUBJECT Evaluation and Design-Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB File: SR_MODEL 1_PROPERTIES_D_r0.apdl (Continued)

Notes: Onlv used in Moment Redistribution Cases Line Source Code 307 MP, DENS,6, 0.000001 308 MP, REFT, 6, 0.00 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 !!VERTICAL STEEL FOR APPLICATION OF ASR EXPANSION MP, EX,7, 1000 MP, EY,7, 1000 MP, EZ,7, 1000 MP, GXY,7, 1000 MP, GYZ,7, 1000 MP, GXZ,7, 1000 MP, NUXY,7, 0.000001 MP, NUYZ,7, 0.000001 MP, NUXZ,7, 0.000001 MP, DENS,?, 0.000001 MP, REFT, 7, 0.00 !STRUCTURAL CONCRETE, FOR DOME ELEMENTS WITH !PROJECTED AREAffOTAL AREA= 0 to 0.2 !INCLUDES ADDED WT OF PERMANENT FORMWORK MP, EX, 10, 3605000 MP, NUXY,10, 0.15 MP, DENS, 10, 0.000241 MP, REFT, 10, 0.00 !STRUCTURAL CONCRETE, FOR DOME ELEMENTS WITH !PROJECTED AREAffOTAL AREA= 0.2 to 0.4 !INCLUDES ADDED WT OF PERMANENT FORMWORK MP, EX,12, 3605000 MP, NUXY,12, 0.15 MP, DENS, 12, 0.000241 MP, REFT, 12, 0.00 !STRUCTURAL CONCRETE, FOR DOME ELEMENTS WITH !PROJECTED AREAffOTAL AREA= 0.4 to 0.6 !INCLUDES ADDED WT OF PERMANENT FORMWORK MP, EX, 14, 3605000 MP, NUXY, 14, 0.15 MP, DENS, 14, 0.000241 MP, REFT, 14, 0.00 !STRUCTURAL CONCRETE, FOR DOME ELEMENTS WITH !PROJECTED AREAffOTAL AREA= 0.6 to 0.8 !INCLUDES ADDED WT OF PERMANENT FORMWORK MP, EX,16, 3605000 MP, NUXY, 16, 0.15 MP, DENS, 16, 0.000241 MP, REFT, 16, 0.00 !STRUCTURAL CONCRETE, FOR DOME ELEMENTS WITH !PROJECTED AREAffOTAL AREA= 0.8 to 1.0 !INCLUDES ADDED WT OF PERMANENT FORMWORK PROJECT NO. 150252 DATE ___

___ _ BY R.M. Mones CHECKED BY __

__ CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE 150252-CA-02 Ap1oendix Z

• FP 100985 Page 525 o 526 -Z-10-Revision 0 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER PROJECT NO. I Engineering of Structures and Building Enclosures DATE CLIENT NextEra Energy Seabrook BY SUBJECT Evaluation and Design-Confinnation of As-Deformed CEB CHECKED BY File: SR_MODEL 1_PROPERTIES_D_r0.apdl (Continued)

Notes: Only used in Moment Redistribution Cases Line 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 Source Code MP, EX, 18, 3605000 MP, NUXY,18, 0.15 MP, DENS, 18, 0.000241 MP, REFT, 18, 0.00 !<<ALL INPUTS BELOW ARE FOR CRACKED SECTION PROPERTIES>>

kcr=0.50 !STRUCTURAL CONCRETE, CEB, <<FOR CRACKED SECTIONS>>

MP, EX, 3, 3605000/(kcr**0.5)

MP, NUXY, 3, 0.15 MP, DENS, 3, 0.000318/(kcr**0.5)

MP, REFT, 3, 0.00 !CONCRETE, THICKNESS

= 36 in. (CEB WALL) <<FOR CRACKED SECTIONS>>

SECTYPE, 236, SHELL, , Crck36in SECDATA, 36*(kcr)**0.5

!CONCRETE, THICKNESS

= 27 in. (CEB WALL) <<FOR CRACKED SECTIONS>>

SECTYPE, 227, SHELL, , Crck27in SECDATA, 27*(kcr)**0.5

!CONCRETE, THICKNESS=

15 in. (CEB WALL) <<FOR CRACKED SECTIONS>>

SECTYPE, 215, SHELL,, Crck15in SECDATA, 15*(kcr)**0.5 N !CONCRETE, THICKNESS

= 48 in. (PILASTERS)

<<FOR CRACKED SECTIONS>>

SECTYPE, 248, SHELL, , Crck48in SECDATA, 48*(kcr)**0.5

!CONCRETE, THICKNESS

= 39 in. (PILASTERS)

<<FOR CRACKED SECTIONS>>

SECTYPE, 239, SHELL, , Crck39in SECDATA, 39*(kcr)**0.5 150252-CA-02 Ap1oendix Z FP 100985 Page 526 o 526 END OF FILE -Z-11 -150252 July 2016 R.M. Mones A.T. Sarawit Revision 0