ML17262A340
| ML17262A340 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Ginna  |
| Issue date: | 01/28/1991 |
| From: | Mecredy R ROCHESTER GAS & ELECTRIC CORP. |
| To: | Andrea Johnson NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM), Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9102050274 | |
| Download: ML17262A340 (23) | |
Text
, ACCELERATED DISTRIBUTION DEMONSTRATION SYSTEM REGULATORY INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (RIDS)
ACCESSION NBR: 9102050274 DOC. DATE: 91/01/28 NOTARIZED: NO FACIL:50-244 Robert Emmet Ginna Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, Rochester G
AUTH.NAME AUTHOR AFFILIATION MECREDY,R.C.
Rochester Gas
& Electric Corp.
RECIP.NAME RECIPIENT AFFILIATION JOHNSON,A.R.
Project Directorate I-3
SUBJECT:
Responds to 900709 request for addi info re structural integrity
& documents info discussed at 901213 meeting at ABB Impell.Rept of containment structure integrity encl.
DISTRIBUTION CODE:
A001D COPIES RECEIVED:LTR
~
ENCL
/
SIZE:
TITLE: OR Submittal:
General Distribution DOCKET 05000244 R
D NOTES:License Exp date in accordance with 10CFR2,2.109(9/19/72).
05000244 A
RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME PD1-3 LA JOHNSON,A INTERNAL: NRR/DET/ECMB 9H NRR/DOEA/OTSB11 NRR/DST/SELB 8D NRR/DST/SRXB 8E R GALES ~0 EXTERNAL: NRC PDR COPIES LTTR ENCL 1
1 2
2 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
0 1
1 1
1 RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME PD1-3 PD NRR/DET/ESGB NRR/DST 8E2 NRR/DST/SICB 7E NUDOCS-ABSTRACT OGC/HDS1 RES/DSIR/EIB NSIC COPIES LTTR ENCL 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
0 1
1 1
1 D
D S
jv'N R
D NOTE TO ALL"RIDS" RECIPIENTS:
PLEASE HELP US TO REDUCE WASTE! CONTACT THE DOCUMENT CONTROL DESK, ROOM P 1-37 (EXT. 20079) TO ELIMINATEYOUR NAME FROM DISTRIBUTION LISTS FOR DOCUMENTS YOU DON'T NEED!
TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED:
LTTR 18 ENCL 16 D
D
IIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII La
~ ONIAA IIIII II ZcuZZu ROCHESTER GAS AND ELECTRIC CORPORATION o
89 EAST AVENUE, ROCHESTER N.Y. 1464S-000'I ROBERT C MECREOY Vice President Cinna Nucieac Production TELEPHONE AREACODE 71B 546 2700 January 28, 1991 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk Attn:
Allen R. Johnson Project Directorate I-3 Washington, D.C.
20555
Subject:
Report on Structural Integrity R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Docket No. 50-244
Dear Mr. Johnson:
a This letter is in response to the NRC's request for addi-tional information, dated July 9, 1990. It also documents the information discussed during our meeting at the ABB Impell offices on December 13, 1990.
As described in the enclosed report and its attachments, the actions that RG&E has taken with respect to:
removal of groundwater around the containment periphery, reanalysis of the containment structure which provides high assurance that the containment design functions can be fully met, with margins.
We trust this information is fully responsive to the NRC staff's request.
Very truly yours, LAS/200 Robert C.
Me red zc:
Mr. Allen R. Johnson;(Nail Stop 14D1)
Project Directorate'-3 Washington, D.C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region I 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406 C
Ginna Senior Resident Inspector 9i02050274 910i2S PDR ADOCK Ob000244 P
PDR o~
I I
tJ
'l ~'r
REPORT OF THE INTEGRITY OF THE R.E.
GINNA NUCLEAR POWER PLANT CONTA1NMENT STRUCTURE I. INTRODUCTION On June 27, 1990 members of the USNRC staff performed an inspection of the exterior containment structure of RG&E's R.E.
Ginna Nuclear Power plant.
At that inspec-
- tion, a number of concerns were raised by the NRC concerning the integrity of the Containment structure.
In particular, the concerns focused on the intrusion of groundwater and its presence on the cylinder to found-ation ring beam connection of the Containment struc-ture.
As a matter of documentation, RG&E communicated its understanding of those concerns in a letter dated August 28, 1990 from R.
C. Mecredy (RG&E) to A. Johnson (NRC).
This document is RG&E's response to those concerns and presents the steps that RG&E has taken to address the issues.
II.
INVESTIGATION After the June inspection, RG&E began an investigation first to determine the source of water in the area and second to remove the standing water at the joint.
Most of the Containment foundation is accessible from the sub basement of the Intermediate Building.
This area is an area open for inspection with little ground-s water intrusion visible.
On the east side of the Containment, a sheet pile wall was originally con-structed to retain the backfill soil material so that access to the Containment interior at'the equipment hatch at El. 271'as possible.
An inspection of the annular space between the Containment structure and sheet piling determined that a visible flow of ground-water was leaking through the sheet piling. It was evident that the original design had anticipated an inflow of groundwater from this area because a diver-sion curb and collection sump system was installed during initial construction.
RG&E determined in its investigation that this curb system was damaged and not performing its design intent.
As a result of its inspections, RG&E was able to deter-mine the most significant source of water flowing into the sub basement.
The annular space between the Con-tainment and sheet piling extends from the ring beam at
El. 232'p to grade at El. 270'.
At grade a concrete slab
" had been constructed where entrance into the Containment through the equipment hatch is made annually (See Attach-ments 1
& 2 ). Because of seismic considerations, a four inch gap between the slab and Containment wall exists.
Original documents show that this gap was to be filled with a caulking material.
RG&E found that the condition of the existing material was ineffective in preventing water from passing through the joint.
As a result, any rainwater that fell on the Containment dome and wall in this area would run down the side of the structure and flow directly into the sub basement.
III. PHYSICAL RESOLUTION Having identified these sources of water RG&E took the following steps:
tl i
1.
the annular area at the Containment base was cleaned of debris and standing water; 2.
the curb/sump system was restored to perform its orig-inal design function; 3.
the joint between the Containment wall and slab at grade was cleaned and new caulking material installed; 4.
the existing inspection procedure will be upgraded to define reporting requirements if standing water is present in the annular space.
As a result of these actions, there is currently no standing water on the subject structural joint and the curb/sump system is performing its function.
IV. ANALYTICALSTUDY To address the other issues in RG&E's August 28, 1990 letter not pertaining to the physical condition of the area, a
detailed analytical study was performed.
The analysis utilized two detailed finite element analyses models (See Attachments 3
& 4 ).
The first model consisted of an axisymmetric solid model of the Containment shell and foundation structures.
The model simulated the structural characteristics of the cylindrical wall from the foundation up to the apex of the dome and included the neoprene
- pads, the tension tie rods, the found-ation slab/ring girder, the prestressed
- tendons, the rock
- anchors, and the supporting bedrock.
The model was con-
structed in a way such that any adverse conditions at the foundation structure/bedrock interface could be investiga-ted.
The second model was a three dimensional finite element shell model. It modeled.
one half (180
) of the Containment cylinder and tension ties with appropriate boundary condi-tions at the base from 0 to 180 degrees.
The model was constructed to permit variation of boundary conditions at the cylinder/ring girder interface.
As part. of the analytical approach and as a means of con-firming the accuracy of the chosen finite element
- mesh, the results of the models were checked against closed formed solutions for shells with various boundary conditions.
The details of these models were presented to your staff at the December 13, 1990 meeting held at Impell's office in Boston.
V.
SEISMIC STUDY Part of RGSE's investigation consisted of a review of the original design bases for the seismic analysis of the Con-tainment structure.
The original analysis consisted of treating a single degree of freedom spring/mass
- system, determining a fundamental frequency for the cantilever
- mode, and using the corres-ponding acceleration from the Housner Spectra.
That accel-eration was determined to be 0.44g.
However, the peak of the spectra of 0.46g was used as an equivalent static load-ing for the design.
More detailed seismic analysis of the Containment were performed as part. of the Systematic Evaluation Program (SEP) in 1980.
The Containment was analyzed as a lumped mass model.
The results of that analysis determined that the existing design met or exceeded then existing (1980) crit-eria.
As part of RGGE's current investigation, a dynamic modal analysis of the finite element shell model was per-formed.
Close correlation with the SEP analysis was found to exist.
Therefore, analyses done in 1980 and now in 1990 have confirmed that the design parameters used. for the original design of the Containment, bound those values determined by today's methods and criteria.
IV. RESULTS OF THE ANALYSIS The results of the axisymmetric solid model were reviewed. to determine the behavior of the Containment structure and its foundation.
Dead load, pre-stress, and LOCA pressure loads were applied and combined as defined in the UFSAR.
4
The results show that there is no evidence of any detri-mental tensile stresses
- present, either in the Containment
-structure or the supporting bedrock.
Lack of tensile stresses sufficient to cause cracking of the concrete foun-dation supports RG&E's opinion that the foundation structure is not cracked and that. the source of water in the annular area is not from beneath the building.
The finite element shell model was used to perform para-metric studies on the behavior of the Containment for various conditions at the cylinder/ring beam interface.
These analyses were performed to address the concerns of sliding or no sliding, partial fixity, function of the tension rods and function of the bellows.
Attachment 5 defines all the load conditions and boundary combinations that were analyzed.
The Containment structure has been analyzed for four load conditions:
dead load., pre-stress load, seismic load and internal pressure.
Each of these loads establish distinct stress conditions in the structure.
Dead load and tendon pre-stress create vertical axial compressive (meridional) stress in the Containment shell.
The behavior of the Con-tainment from seismic loads is essentially the response of a cantilever beam under lateral loading.
As the structure responds as a cantilever, axial compressive and tensile stresses are created.
No bending stresses are created in the shell from seismic loadings.
The response of the Containment. to internal pressure is somewhat more complicated.
Under internal pressure the shell is expanding in all directions, creating tensile stress in both the meridional and hoop (horizontal) directions.
However, the tension rods restrain the outward expansion of the cylinder at its base.
The combined. effect of this restraint and internal pressure create bending moments in the cylinder.
Therefore, the critical section in the Containment is where the combined effects of axial load plus bending are present.
Xn particular, this critical section for the Ginna Containment occurs in the shell at a point that is ten feet above the base.
The findings of these current analyses are also in agreement with the original design basis which also indicate this to be the critical location.
With respect to sliding, the behavior of the Containment under= combined loads was also determined.
Under an internal
- pressure, the cylinder at the base expands (slides) outward and stresses the tension bars creating a very small gap between the containment wall and the two foot base slab.
When seismic is applied, because of the presence of the
- neoprene, the Containment, as a whole, moves horizontally.
~ ~
This movement, although quite small, is sufficient to exceed the outward expansion from pressure.
The combined effect is that the cylinder moving from seismic will bear against the top two feet of the foundation base slab on the inside and create additional displacements on the other side of the cylinder.
As can be seen on Attachment 5 many variations of the bound-ary conditions were examined.
For the tension rods in particular, it was determined that the maximum stress occurs when the base is totally restrained from translation and rotation.
Even for that postulated extreme condition, the stresses in the tension bars remained. below yield for the worst load combination.
For those conditions which simulate the original design basis (pinned), the stresses in the bars are approximately 60-o of yield for the worst load combina-tion.
As stated
- above, the critical section for the design of the containment:shell is ten feet above the base.
Attachment 6,
which is Table 3.8-5 of the UFSAR, is a tabulation of stress resultants and couples in the containment structure.
The parametric studies that have been performed have compared the current output values with those of Table 3.8-5.
For all cases, the results have shown no more than a
10% in-crease from the original design values.
As part of this investigation,'G&E considered.
a worst case seismic scenario.
That is, total loss of the tension bars and, the cylinder free to slide.
Under that condition the cylinder contacts the upper two feet of the foundation slab on one side and displaces away from it on the opposite side.
The transfer of force is achieved by action of the horizon-tal (hoop) steel in the Containment wall.
High stresses occur in a very localized area near the base of the cylin-der.
Although cracking of the concrete and yielding of the
'einforcing steel will occur, sufficient reinforcement in the hoop direction exists in the structure to limit local-ized overstress to 10-o of the height of the vessel after load redistribution due to yielding.
To address the concern on the bellows the same postulated.
extreme condition described above was used.
For this con-dition, the maximum displacement at the base is 1/2 inch.
Review of the geometry of the tendon details implies that the centerline of the tendon bundle must be at the center-line of the conduit/bellows.
In that case the outermost wire of the tendon bundle is 9/16 inch away from the inside of the bellows.
Therefore, the tendon wire would not con-tact the bellows.
In the extremely low probability that the outermost tendon wire is in contact with the bellows, there are sufficient gaps between the tendon wires such that a one half inch displacement would not damage the wire.
SUMMARY
RG&E believes that it has determined the actual sources of groundwater intrusion and has taken measures to 'control the intrusion.
Since the physical work has been completed no standing water is present on the foundation joint.
The condition of the annular space is checked daily for standing water.
The existing inspection procedure is being upgraded to assure reporting of standing water to the Technical Engineering group of the plant.
The behavior of the cylinder/ring beam has been extenstively analyzed.
Our conclusion is that it is insensitive to possible variations of the structural boundary conditions.
The parametric studies show no more than a
10% increase in the value of stress at, the critical section of the contain-ment shell due to the worst possible combination of boundary conditions, when compared to the original design.
RG&E has concluded that the containment shell/foundation mat is sound and that it will perform its design function under all postulated loadings.
LAS/199
, ~
f
)4 e
t sC 4
. ~
h RJ t"
I h
f Y.
~ ~
QP Q4 I
(1s Ss ST'sf QS'raa 1.st C
OF Qs
~ I (saN cole acL
~ 'f rra aatasssa r C J
/ISSaraar.a SSSL s '
~
LSTSsa avtN"a m a
'v7 I'ra NNTTSN SL, ssa'j as ~
I I I~
~ sl NORTH
~r>>
CiMXJL'w
~ 8
~
~
~sl
~ ~
~ ~ ~
l ~ ~ ~
I JJ
~srl t
~
I a ~
s ~
~-
..PA' j OS
- .- (il'
~
~ I
~ ~
$ W ~
,/
gn /
~
~
S++ aaaaa
~ sa v
~I
~
rt
~ Ir r
(CNIN salaaN la'o
~ asa t~
asavv
~
sj I
I I
sIQ.vP',
~rs swa I
~v, LNw r Ivrl~~
ssasar sara I~srr
, v slab
(
CL('
~
TI I
".s,I L
~
~
I
~ '.-Q<
4 I
!IT
~
~
~
~
~ ~
~
I I (arrl
'e'
~
~
~
~L caars aasotsv, SI a as Iaa'at os
~
/. ~
1l
~ )
( Prg r/ tr I'k 0.~
~
(ssrl
~
~
~
Qs ttretlalav cr ~
~
v r
15 ro SLA(s so
~
r S II
~ '
~
~
KS wa
~
~
~I d 0 vtats cvaas Lsssta raNas rts(ss No aassss saas oaaaassNr rLars ssc WO SSOI S
~
~
I L
4e Tsssca AL,(ar ~ j~
0 SISCAsa LINC l
I
~
PLAIaj ABOVE (=.A EI/IEMT R OOR
~
I
~
I I
I(OS
$ S ll.~
Nt4 Lasa ass:a I=I i-t=
sWP C
8 UNITTO(SSNSTWOTXS(l AS NOTKO I rs(TLSNNANT N(TT SOII CQNSAIEKTCNI I NOES(
SCC TTN4. 35OI)
CIIO fOR CIC5 RIILTIOIIS Cls C(S'Jsfa(CNT S srNlgTLINCQ ATTACHMENT 1
~PINNA STATION INNSNa NNINAnNce Ssrsa Ia aI' I
PlANT ARRANGEMPNT CONT STRUCT t INTERMEDIATE BLDG PLAN BASEMENT FNQR EL 255' rase I
e Ie 14 racial, eet aa >Il4'll OLS41 vtol SIICA I
C vt'litt I
TLVI SIKE
~ Caetwweeo 0
eallt 440 VACAOC Telate 44ll Qa Q
A a(aea 4ataltvtl LI4444 E Let ee>44 I ~ teeaveea
~E'.Leae cg IILAScveeeet ca>> Lt fetewteaf4 Aeee LI,>44 VTI GC I ~
L(
I la'4 I
~ecl ~llll4'!I'~'l~
~ eea 0 st OTE4> etvta oalL oel sl>cAO LL
( eaa eeoa w>T coat(
~via 4toe 44tseoecalr OAAOC
~A>4 l La lal4'atla4 sc>44 Ca<Lot
'll'I'l I' eewc re/taft.c
~a aer v Ta aaa ael 0' Atvw aeee
~ D tte ~
j 0 ta44444 SSActe lt r'ISL I/4 wc fever ee, TOIELT
~IL lecASA ecole L
LSO eeet ae 4es LVI>a
~ 4' 4 Aeeee wea I4ale'r taeae eeet OTCSC Oeee 4 SAOLIL Es'fwcalooe I facta>144( '
>>all eeew, g~eaw elcese Kle4 OLI a waa teeaees
~4 ELWV
~ ~
e'(
I4 EL/4
~4 ~'IEV
/e, taeaeaoa
~etta <<,
I' a well Iv/,e/
4 eea re
~ ~
ve
~4 awv
~<<a te Lo wr eeoa
~La.
~I \\Tlr loco te weTA Eee
~
I; eeeeeo T ~. Venal lllee I. /
~
~
lalteloa SILAT CIOLAI Dlvafee VVI4\\I e ~ cALAA/
Aet 4
~4w' va I
~Let a
~ eav j
O elf Akt 4T
~ 4 '4 STSA>a
~4>IEOAIDA So a
ACPO044 I
~we elf cv tc la Aw
~ tee
~
A
~ /
IL IITVV
~4 ~ I
~vo<<4 tot\\4 I A
~ASSEA Aot el I' Ia/
~ OA I
~ I wet/awww ewe lel 4wteea we OSSA wwa jt~
'hlal eooao I ~
e I
I
~
art I ~
e'aew I 4 pea 4'
(
~OSLAL/weall
~aesa avow/
~vov eat I
ee I
~Ia ~
~
~
I4 fewtwetea aw afo/t
~a. ~ v 4 ES'Tetca.
~ewE 4
~ <<Aaa 4 el ees IOLCCALO
~ <<ee
+(WC Sae aee
~Eae CL Lva'wfa L N at
~e T
L
~
~
r nII
~e ~ e>(
~
~
~ a
~
~
I ~
~4 4/e
>> lele ee Aof EL
~lof4 wr ae(
~l Va vee
/aaa.ac/.Its'DAO ACCL\\0 (sscaea+4 Ol w/ oeeoaeac vetch SKTLove oola/ICE ooe>A
~ecc AllaIwv ASVOLAOLATLAT, LLAAcrr 0>>'loseeeetoat co r.4 Aaao 4 44404 ELALI LI(TV/
esa ths I0 4 CIvvol ttle
/
IACAOA ~ Owa ~ T4 o>SA SIAA LES law
, L, ~
DLOO e
~ Ootve e
ewt Le CI LSO oe
~Lcwvea
~4I
~
~
Aet
<<o v ocl ac ceaaea 44
~eoh e
~
~at T. T<<ee/e ~
4
~ ~ V'
~ LACTOAa\\Seel~
0' I~'e I ~ IwE
~
~
I ew V+tee I'V~~
~(aae <<~>>
I
(~ft ee
(
Aof, ES a 4' e
re Eeoc 4
~ ~
4'e
, ~
10 Sloe
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
e
~,
~ v
~C eeetl I
~,'
Og
~
r e
4 eaectee ceeaeor tvao
)
awe acocee 4
avcaea Lareeoe war/
oeaeaece 4 evwee oeawaaarwe vaw
~eeeweaee cawwe V rv/wca cwwa<<
~EACA e/44 oe cata Ijtaaaat>VLA
~ eovteee OEToct'OA <<<<we (tvo ~ I I44 0 SLI 4ea ~ eal
( i>tea
~ ~
tr AlasT 4>c/ewteol 1.4 EOVA La Slave/
~Se aee4 Wta/40 a'lwc. OLA.cveewe
~IAoea ss4v a ~ a>et TOVO44 OAOAOA Stave
~lac/I eeoaeA eoa t.
~ee soe ~ ~Lveet
)~et Steer eeaeva
~Lat ICI/'
cateeah eeet'LCTSSII
~ta ace 't I ~
LI~
~'vec eaevf 0 oeleo sts'tsa Ta 4 rseae>LA w I
I 44taSL
~Itwa eeaeww'to aa aeeelo el teeew(floe eee oeeowaa
~ lae ~ It>t >>OL> Ie>a,
>la'L lel,>le ~ el ~ aee IIO \\ I It ATTACHMENT 2
AXISYMMETRICMODEL ATTACHMENT 3
SOLID 180'ODEL ATTACHMENT 4
Case Reference Chart - Shell Model File Name R
EA01 RGEA02 RGEA03 RGEA04 RGEA05 RGEA06 RGEA07 RGEA1 4 RGEA08 RGEA09 RGEA1 0 RGEA11 RGEA12 RGEA15 RGEA16 RGEA17 RGEA1 8 RGEA20 RGEA21 RGEA22 Load Cases D,P,P,2E D,PS,P,2E D,PS,P,2E D,PS,P,2E D,PS,P,2E D,PS,P,2E D,PS,P,2E D,PS,P,2E D,PS,P,2E D,PS,P,2E D,PS,P,2E D,PS,P,2E D,PS,P,2E D,PS,P,2E D,PS,P,2E D,PS,P,2E D,PS,P,2E D,PS,P,2E D,PS,P,2E D,PS,P,2E Base Boundary onditions Free Free Free Free Free Free Free Free Free 3.00E+01 9.00E+01 3.00E+02 Fixed 3.00E+01 9.00E+01 3.00E+02 Fixed Free Free Free Inactive Inactive Active Inactive Inactive Active Active Inactive Active Active Active Active Active Inactive inactive Inactive Inactive Active Inactive Inactive Tension Rods Rotational
[ft-Ibs/ft]
Radial Fixed Fixed Free Fixed Fixed Free Free Fixed Free Free Free Free Free Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed (90-1 80') Fxd.
(72-1 80') Fxd.
(72-180')Fxd.
Materia Properties 0 uus Meridional
[psil 4.10E+06 4.10E+06 4.10E+06 4.10E+06 4.10E+06 4.10E+06 4.10E+06 4.10E+06 4.10E+06 4.10E+06 4.10E+06 4.10E+06 4.10E+06 4.10E+06 4.10E+06 4.10E+06 4.10E+06 4.10E+06 4.10E+06 4.10E+06 Circumferencial
[psi]
4.10E+06 4.10E+06 4.10E+06 3¹1 819" 3¹18O9" 3¹1 8O9" 4.10E+06 Rebar Varies Rebar Varies Rebar Varies Rebar Varies Rebar Varies Rebar Varies Rebar Varies Rebar Varies Rebar Varies Rebar Varies 4.10E+06 4.10E+06 Rebar Varies ATTACHMENT.5
Table 3.8-5 CONTAINMENT STRUCTURE STRESSES
~Loadie:
Dead Load 81 Location in Feet U
From Base/Element No.
Meridional N4 Hoop NQ Stress Resultants Meridional Hoop MQ Stress Cou les Meridional Shear Vf Radial Displacement 6R Base 00 I
P Ul Springline e
Dome Anchor foal 0
3 6
10 15 20 30 40 60 75 85 90 95 99 102 105 108
-111 111
+111 114 117 123 130 Apex
-70.9
-69.4
-67.8
-65.2
-63.3
-60.5 55
~ 7
-50.5
-40.3
-32.7
-27.6
-25.0
-22.5
-20.4
-19.4
-18.5
-17.5
-16.8
-16.8
-16.8
-16.1
-15.4
-14.3
-13.2
-10.2 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
+20.4
+18.3
+16.2
+14.1
+12.2
+12.2
+12.2
+10.5
+8.7
+5.5
+2.2
-10.2 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0.0
+20.0
+27.8
+31.0
+32.3
+31.0
+26.5
+28.0
-1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0.0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0.0 0
0 0.0
Table 3.8-5 CONTAINMENT STRUCTURE STRESSES (Continued)
~Loadin Final Paesesess 82 636 k/tendon N
160x636 x108.5 Location in Feet V
From Base/Element No.
Meridional N4 Hoop NO Stress Resultants Stress Coules Meridional Hoop MQ MO Meridional Shear VQ Radial Displacement 6R Hase Springline Dome Anchor 0
3 6
10 15 20 30 40 60 75 85 90 95 99 102 105 108
-111 111
+111 114 117 123 130 Apex
-299.0
-299.0
-299.0
-299.0
-299.0
-299.0
-299.0
-299.0
-299.0
-299.0
-299.0
-299.0
-299.0
-299.0
-299.0
-299.0
-299.0
-299.0
-299.0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
00' 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
~
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
Table 3.8-5 CONTAINMENT STRUCTURE STRESSES (Continued)
~Loadin Operating temperature 83 Winter N 0
= kry = 116.5 (651) y = 912 y'c k/ft 12 1000 g r = -0.143 Location in Feet U
From Base/Element No.
Meridional N$
Hoop Ne Stress Resultants Meridional Hoop Mo Stress Cou les Meridional Shear v4 Radial Displacement 6R Hase Spri.ngline Dome Anchor 0'
6 10 15 20 30 40 60 75 85 90 99 102 105 108
-111 111
+111 114 117 123 130 Apex 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
+130.2
+95.6
+65.0
+27.3 0.0
-14.6
-19.2
+11.8 0.0 0.0 0.0
+20.0
+34.6
+48.3
-24.8
-12.1 3
~ 7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
-9.7
-3.6
+19.8
+59.7
+100.2
+160.4
+188.0
+192.3
+185.6
+186.0
+149.1
+157.3
+173.8
+28.1
+31.9
+31.8
+28;2
+28.2
+28e2
+28.2
+28.2
+28.2
+28.2
+28.2 99.5 99.5 99.5 99.5 99.5 99.5 99.5 99.5 99.5 99.5 99.5 99.5 99.5
+99.5 28.2 28.2 28.2 28.2 28.2 28.2 28.2 28.2 28.2 28.2 28.2
-6. 6
-0.3 4.0 7.2 8.4 7.6 4.3 1.5
-0.4 0.0 0.0
+0.8
+3.1
+5.9
-1.0
+1.0
+1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.000
.038
.075
.113
.143
.159
.164
.156
.144
.142
.143
.121
.105
.090
.093
.072
.058
.052
.052
.052
.052
.052
.052
.052
.052
CONTAINMENT Table 3.8-5 STRUCTURE STRESSES (Continued)
~Loadie Operating temperature 84 Summer Location in Feet U
From Base/Element No.
Meridional
~N Hoop Ntl Stress Resultants Meridional
~M Hoop MQ Stress Cou les Meridional Shear
~V Radial Displacement QR Base Springline Dome Anchor 0
3 6
10 15 20 30 40 60 75 85-90 95 99 102 105 108-ill 111
+ill 114 117 123 130 Apex 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
-130. 2
-38.3
-30.1
-19.1
-15.5 2 ~ 7
+2.7
+2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
+16.1
+25.9
+31.6
+30.9
+25.7
+12.5
+3.3
-1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 '
+6.6
+4.2
+2.4
+0.6
-0.7
-1.3
-1.2
-0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.000
+.101
+.110
+.122
+.126
+.140
+. 146
+. 146
+. 143
+.143
+.143
+.143
+.143
+.143
+.143
+.143
+.143
+.143
+.143
+.143
+.143
+.143
+.143
+.143
+. 143
Table 3.8-5 CONTAINMENT STRUCTURE STRESSES (Continued)
~Loadie Internal Pree'aura p
85 60 psig 6R
- 0. 383 0.492 in.
Location in Feet U
From Base/Element No.
Stress Resultants Hoop N8 Meridional
~N Stress Cou Meridional
~M les Hoop M8 Meridional Shear
~V Radial Displacement
$ R Base Springline Dome Anchor 0
3 6
10 15 20 30 40 60 75 85 90 95 99 102 105 108
-111 111
+111 114 117 123 130 Apex 227.0 227.0 227.0 227.0 227.0 227.0 227.0 227.0 227.0 227.0 227.0 227.0 227.0 227.0 227.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 227.0 227.0 227.0 227.0 227.0 227.0 227.0
+79.6
+127.4
+199.4
+282.2
+363.1
+418.8
+469.0
+473.2
+454.2
+454.0
+438.0
+428.0
+354.0
+322.0
+210.0
+182.0
+229.0
+243.0
+243 '
+243.0
+243.0
+238.0
+230.0 227.0 227.0
-30.0
+106.0
+190.6
+243.0
+243.6
+205.7
+102.8
+28.9
+10.8
-7.1
-3.9
+34.7
+7.7
-60.5
-126.7
-199.1
+19.8
+10.3
+10.3
+10.3
+4.3
+0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
+55.3
+36.2
+20.9
+6.2
-4.8
-9.7
-9.5 5 ~ 2 0.0 0.0 0.0
-0.4
-12.8
-21.6
-18 '
-25.0
+3.1
+3.3
+3.3
+3.3
+2. 0
+0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0
.009
.149
.226
.314
.401
.460
.514
.518
.498
.492
.480
.470
.388
.353
.346
.301
.368
.402
.402
.402
.402
.393
.388
.383
.383
Table 3.8-5 CONTAINMENT STRUCTURE STRESSES (Continued)
~Load in Accident Temperature p = 60 psig, T ~ 286'F Location in Feet U
From Base/Element No.
Stress Resultants Hoop N8 Meridional Meridional M4 Hoop Me Stress Cou les Meridional Shear v4 Radial Displacement 5R Base Springline Dome Anchor 0
3 6
10 15 20 30 40 60 75 85 90 95 99 102 105 108-ill 111
+ill
>>4
>>7 123 130 Apex 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8 '
8.0 8.0 8.0 111.0 111.0 111.0
>>1.0
>>1.0 111. 0 1>>.0 1>>.0
-1.5
-0.6
+1.2
+3.0
~
+5.0
+6.0
+6.7
+6.7
+6.7
+6.7
+25.8
+54.1
+102.4
+120.7
+54.0
+84.4
+103.7 111.0
>>1.0
>>1.0 1>>.0 1>>.0 111.0 111.0 111.0 0.0 2.5 4.3 5.5 5.5 4.6 2.3 0.6
-0.2 0.0
-80.0
-85.7
-66.8
-28.4
-0.3
+8.7
+8.2
+5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2
-0.8 0.5 0.1
-0.1
-0.2
-0.2
-0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
+0.9
+6.8
+13.7
-5.6
-1.0
+0.9
+1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.000
.001
.003
.005
.007
.008
.009
.009
.009
.009
.030
.061
.114
.134
.179
.229
.261
.273
.273
.273
. 273
.273
.273
.273
.273