ML17262A558
| ML17262A558 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Ginna  |
| Issue date: | 07/11/1991 |
| From: | Mecredy R ROCHESTER GAS & ELECTRIC CORP. |
| To: | Andrea Johnson NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM), Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17262A559 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-80494, NUDOCS 9107230241 | |
| Download: ML17262A558 (14) | |
Text
),AC'f~ELERATED
. ISTB2BUTION DEME
-TPATION SYSTEM REGULATORY INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (RIDS)
ACCESSION NBR: 9107230241 DOC. DATE: 91/07/11 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 DOCKET 05000244-R
SUBJECT:
Forwards Rev 1 to EWR 5327, "Design Verification Ginna StatioContainment Foundation Mat Analysis," in response to 910625 request for addi info re contaa.nment integrity.
DISTRIBUTION CODE:
AOOID COPIES RECEIVED:LTR Q ENCL Q SIZE: i+
, G TITLE: OR Submittal:
Gen'eral Distribution D
NOTES:License Exp date in accordance with 10CFR2,2.109(9/19/72).
05000244 RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME PD1-3 LA JOHNSON,A INTERNAL: NRR/DET/ECMB 7D NRR/DOEA/OTSB11 NRR/DST/SELB 7E NRR/DST/SRXB 8E OC/LFMB 01 EXTERNAL: -NRC PDR COPIES LTTR ENCL 1
1 2
2 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
0 1
1 1
1 REQIPIENT ID CODE/NAME PD1-3 PD NRR/DET/ESGB NRR/DST 8E2 NRR/DST/SICB8H7 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
~ O'O cw'tspvo i7 D
NOTE TO ALL"RIDS" RECIPIENTS:
A D
D PLEASE HELP US TO REDUCE WASTE! CONTACT THE DOCUMENT CONTROL DESK, ROOM P 1-37 (EXT. 20079) TO ELIMINATEYOUR NAMEFROM DISTRIBUTION LISTS FOR DOCUMENTS YOU DON'T NEED!
TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED:
LTTR 18 ENCL 16
~,. I IIIjIIIIIIII ZIIIIIIII AHD PEii/g~
ROCHESTER GAS AND ELECTRIC CORPORATION o
rrt+
lair OMITS 89 EAST AVENUE, ROCHESTER N.Y. 14649-0001 ROBERT C MECREDY Vice President Cinna Nuclear Production TELEPHONE AREACOOE7tB 546 2700 July 11, 1991 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk Attn:
Allen R. Johnson Project Directorate I-3 Washington, D.C.
20555
Subject:
Ginna Containment Integrity Request for Additional Information R.E.
Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Docket No. 50-244 (TAC No.
80494)
Dear Mr. Johnson:
This letter transmits to you the additional information requested by you in your June 25, 1991 letter (TAC No. 80494).
Table 1 presents all the load cases and parametric variations on properties and boundary conditions that have been analyzed in this evaluation.
RG&E believes that the true behavior of the cylinder ring beam connection is bounded by "Run Names" RGE08 to RGE12 inclusive (refer to Table 2).
These runs simulate resp-ectively a truly pinned connection, increasing variations in radial restraining
- moment, and a fully fixed condition.
The fully fixed condition is judged not to exist based on the physical examination of the neoprene and based on the historically consistent results of the tendon liftoff tests.
As an additional means of judging the integrity of the containment, RG&E compared the results of the analyses for the condition of fully pinned to fully fixed for the assumption of sliding and no sliding (Run Names RGE08 to RGE12 and RGE14 to RGE20 respectively).
Table 3 presents the results of all those compar-ison of the critical moments considered in the UFSAR load combin-ations to the ultimate section capacities.
Figure 1 is a graph of radial displacements vs moment for the full range of base rotational resistance due to internal pressure.
They demonstrate the response of the structure for the sliding and non-sliding boundary conditions.
As can be seen, the upper bound for both deflection and moment is at the pinned condition, and decreases as rotational resistance increases.
Figures 2 is a plot of radial displacements of the containment for RGE08 (pinned),
RGE12 (fixed), and the results of the original Structural Integrity Test (SIT). Also shown are the displacements 910723024l 9l07ll T7~
(
,. nporr, nrnooK onooo24+
for RGE03.
RGE03 is the lower bound for displacements because it was run with the hoop stiffness assumed to be based on an uncracked concrete section.
RGE08 and RGE12 are predictably higher than this case since these analyses were done with the hoop stiffness based on the reinforcing steel alone, which is orders of magnitude less than an uncracked section.
,As
- expected, the,SIT results are between these values because the actual stiffness at the test condition, is a combination of cracked and uncracked sections.
With this as an introduction, the specific issues will now be addressed.
Issue 1
In reference 2, it is stated (p.
5 of the report),
"For all
- cases, the results have shown no more than 10> increase from the original design value".
The staff review of attachment 1 of reference 1 indicates that at 3 ft. above the base, the magnitude of the meridional moments can be larger than twice the original design value and under some conditions (fixed) they could be in the opposite direction.
Provide justification for 10~ claim in the statement.
~Res ense Table 2
presents a
comparison of the meridional moments obtained from the parametric analyses to the values listed in the UFSAR.
The results of these analyses were compared to the moments at the critical section in the cylinder which are listed in the UFSAR.
The critical section for the cylinder is ten (10) feet above the ring beam.
The results of those comparisons for all analyses are shown in Table 2.
As can be
- seen, the effect of increasing rotational stiffness is a decrease in moment at the critical section.
The results for the bounding cases (cases RGE08 to RGE012) are shown to be below the UFSAR values.
A review of all other computer runs shows that the maximum increases is about 10%
which occurs in run RGE14.
This case is similar to RGE12 except that additional conservatism is added.
Elastic elongation of the tension rods is not permitted which is not considered represen-tative of actual behavior.
The 104 increase stated in the January 28, 1991 letter was intended to apply to those moments at the critical section only.
A discussion of the response at the 3 ft. level is given below.
Issue 2
Provide interaction diagrams for negative meridional moments (liner in tension).
Provide comparison of meridional moments found in the reanalyses that you have already performed for various base conditions against the capacity at 3 ft. and 6 ft. above the base.
(>
5
~Res onse The interaction diagram for negative meridional moment was transmitted to you in our April 8, 1991 letter.
The "Tendon Only" curve is applicable for resisting negative moments.
Table 3
presents the comparison of meridional moments to section capaci-ties.
As can be seen in Table 3, the capacity of the section is exceeded for only two cases, both of which are a fully fixed condition.
RG&E does not consider this a
concern because the "fixed" condition with no sliding cannot be physically achieved and the load combinations in which they occur include a
factored internal pressure of 90 psi (504 greater than design).
Issue 3
In the above comparisons where the capacity falls short of the demand induced by the appropriate load combination, provide the necessary justification for assuring containment integrity and propose what physical evidence can be obtained about the true base condition during an integrated leak rate test.
~Res onse The subject of capacity versus induced moments is discussed above.
The results of the original Structural Integrity Tests have been reviewed.
One data point at which radial displacement was measured was at 4 inches above the base.
A second data point for the same measurement was at 72 inches above the base.
The measured displacements at the 72 inch point and all points above are positive outward.
The displacement at the 4 inch point is negative inward.
The tension bars at the joint are located approximately 12 inches above the base.
These measured displacements above and below the tension bars would imply that a rotation about the bars had occurred.
Although the rotation itself was not measured, we have extrapolated a value, based on the radial displacements to be approximately 0.20 degrees.
The analytical results for a fully pinned condition indicate a rotation at the base of less than 0.20 degree.
Since a fully pinned condition is achieved with this small
- rotation, the extrapolated rotation from the SIT implies that the response of the containment was as designed and no negative moments can be developed in the section.
The graph, Figure 2, displays the expected behavior of three models in relation to the SIT results.
RGE03 (pinned, sliding
- base, uncracked concrete) matches fairly closely the SIT results near the base where you would not expect much cracking due to the presence of the radial tension bars.
At higher elevations, RGE03 understates the displacements because there is cracking.
The results of RGE09 (pinned, sliding base, cracked concrete) and RGE12 (fixed sliding base, cracked concrete),
overstate the displacements
~
~
at all locations, as expected, but are closer to the SIT values at higher elevations.
~Issue 4
Provide calculations (or results of computer output) for maximum shear stresses in the basemat of the containment under hydrostatic pressure due to highest groundwater level to be considered in the design, and how the thinnest basemat sections can withstand the shear stresses.
R~es ouse Attachment A transmits the analysis of the base slab in which concrete shear stresses are checked and are shown to be within allowable values.
Very truly yours, Robert C.
Me redy LAS/231.ADD xc:
Mr. Allen R. Johnson (Mail Stop 14D1)
Project Directorate I-3 Washington, D.C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region I 475 Allendale Road Ginna Senior Resident Inspector
4
'Fr Case Reference Chart-Shell Model Run Name Load Applicabto Cases Loads (1)
(I)
Base Boundary Conditions Tie-Rods Tangential Vertical Rotational ft-Ibs/ft Material Pro rtios Modulus Radial Meridional Ciicumforencial Domo Sl sl si Poisson Ratio SEISMIC ONLY CONSTANT HOOP REINFORCEMENT SEISMIC ONLY RADIAL SLIDING NO RADIAL SLIDING SEISMIC ONLY RGEOI RGE02 RGE03 RGE05 RGE06 07 PINNED 08 ROTATIONAL IEGEDF RESISTANCE
)
RGE10 INCREASING RGEI I FIXED AGEI2 FiWIEO IIGE44 ROTATIONAL RGE15 RESISTANCE RGE16 INCREASING RGE17 FIXED RGEIE RGE20 RGE21 RGE22 D,PS,P,2E 2E D,PS,P,2E 2E D PS,P,2E 2E
,PS;P,2~8.
D.PS,P,2E D.PS.P D,PS(P,2E D PS P 5,)sS.)',2E 2
,P5;P,Z~
S,P D.PS,P,2E D,PS,P D,PS,P.2E D,PS.P D.PS,P,2E D,PS,P D PS,P,2E D,PS.P OPS,P,2E D,PS,P D.PS,P,2E D,PS,P D,PS,P,2E D,PS,P D,PS,P,2E D.PS.P DPSP2E DPSP lpga
.I D,PS,P,2E 2E D,PS,P,2E 2E Inacbvo inactive Acbve nacbvo Inactive Ac6ive Fixed Free Free Free Free Acbve Unor 2 Free Free Free Active Inacbve Inacbvo Acdvo Fix Active Fixed Acdivo Fixod Active Fixod Activo Fixed Inacdvo Fixed Inactive Fixed Inactive Fixed Inactive Fixed Inactive Fixed Fixod Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixod Fixod Fixod Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixod Fixed Fixed Fixod Fixod Fixod Fixed Fixed Free Free Froo Fixed 4.10EE06 3btBISi9 ncracked Fixed
- 4. IOE~06 3418@9 Uncrackod Froo 4,10EEO6 SSIS 9
Uncrackcd racked Cracked Cracked Cracked Cracked Froe Free Free Free f ee Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fix d Froe Free 4.10E+06 4.10E+06 Uncrackod Free 3.00Etpt 9.00EGOI 3.00EG02 Fixed ebar Vanos obar Varies ebar Varies char Varies obar Varies obar Varios char Varios ebar Varlos obar Varies ba Vaiio 4.10E>06 R
4.IOEt06 R
- 4. IOEG06 R
- 4. IDES 06 R
i 4JGE DA R
4.10Et06 R
4.10EG06 R
4.10E ~06 R
- 4. IOE<06 R
0 0
R Cracked Cracked Cracked Cracked Cracked Fmo 3.DOE+01 9.00E<OI 3.00EI02 Fix d 4 IDEAS Uncrackcd 4 IOEE06 Uncracked Rebar Varies Cracked Froo (90-180')Fxd 4.10Er06 Free (72-180o)Fxd 4.10Ei06 Free (81-180')Fxd 4.10EI06 Frco Fixed 4.10E+06 4.10E+06 Un cracked Froe Fixed
- 4. IOE~06 4.10Ei06 Uncra eked Free Free 4.10EG06 4 IOEG06 Uncracked 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0
(I) D Dead Weight PS To Tendon prestress P
60 psi Intomal Prosuro (2) Uner ~ The tangenbal stiHnoss associated with tho stool containment liner TABLE 1
TABLE 2 (60 PSIG INTERNAL PRESSURE ONLY)
MERIDIONAL HOMENT (FT-KIPS/FT)
COHPUTER RUN I
MOHENT I
PERCENT OF I
MOMENT I
PERCENT OF I
AT
(
UFSAR I
AT I
UFSAR COHMENT I
NAME I
10 FT I
VALUE I
15 FT I
VALUE I
I
-I I
RGE01 I
129 8 I
53-3 I
101.5 I
RGE02 RGE03 129.8
(
53.3 I
101.5 I
99.3 4o.s
(
7s.5 I
32.2 I
RGE04 258 I
105.9 I
249.7 I
102.5 RGE05 258
(
105.9
(
249.7 I
102 ~ 5 I
I II-P RGE06 223.8 I
217.1 I
89.1 RGE07 99.4 40.8 I
12.7 I
5.2 I
RGE08 231
~ 8 I
95.2 I
223.8
(
91
~ 9 I
PINNED CONDITION I-I RGE09 217. 7 I 89.4 I
216 I
88.7
(
ORIG.
DESIGN COND.
(ODC)
RGE10 191.5 I
78.6 I
202.5 I
83.1
(
THREE (3)X(OOC) HOHENT RGE11 100.1 I
41.1 I
155.3 I
63.8
(
TEN (10)X(ODC) MOHENT RGE12
-26.2
(
-10.8
(
90.9
(
ROTATION FIXED RGE14 RGE15 268.8
(
110.3 I
259.5 I
106.5 I SIHILAR TO RGE08 NO SLIDING I-I 254.4 104.4 I
206.8 I
84.9
( SIHILAR TO RGE09 NO SLIDING RGE16 RGE17 RGE18 RGE20 234.7 I
96.3
(
244 '
100.2
( SIHILAR TO RGE10 NO SLIDING
(-I 1SS 63 6 I
208.3 I
85.5 I slHILAR TQ RGE11 No sLIDING
-I
-3s.1 I
15.6 I
121.3 I
49.8 I SIHILAR TO RGE12 NO SLIDING
-I 46.4 I
'88.7 I
36 ~ 4 I
UFSAR 243.8 FT-K/FT AT 60 PSI AT TEN FEET
~
~
4 LOAD COHBINATION 29 "a" TABLE 3 MERIDIONAL MOMENT FT-K/FT (1.0*DL) + (1 ~ 0*VP) + (1.0*OTw) + (1.5*IP) + (1.0*AT90)
I ROTATIONAL BASE I
FIXITY ILOCATION I
I ABOVE I
IBASE(FT)
I HOHENT-SLIDING PERMITTED PERCENT I
MOMENT-IULTIMATE I NO SLIDING ICAPACITY I
PERMITTED I
PERCENT I
IULTIMATE I CAPACITY I
I FREE (PINNED) 3 6
I 10 I
15 158 I
24.7 I
373.2 I
42.9 I
401 I
46.1 I
282.9 I
32.5 I
185 328. 1 428.7 454.5 28.9 I
37.7 I
49.3 I
I I
52.2 I
I I
I 0 FT-K/FT I
I I
I I
10 15 252.5 I
29 I
301.1 34.6 I
351
~ 9 I
40.4 I
411.6 47.3 389.3 44.7 I
446.8 51.4 120 I
18.8 I
149 I
23.3 I
I I
90 FT-K/FT I
I II-I 3
6 I
10 I
15 I
46 I
72 I
78 194 3 I
22.3 I
246.9 312.8 I
36 I
377.4 369 I
42.4 I
431.4 12.2 2s.4 I
I 43.4 I
I 49.6 I
I I300 FT-K/FT 3
6 10 I
-212 I
33.1 I
9.5 I
1.5 I
20.2 I
-173 57.55 257.9 I
27 6.6 I
I I
29.6 I
I 15 I
298.2 I
34.3 I
377.6 43.4 FIXED 3
6 I
10 I
15 I
-574 I
89.7 I
-780
-293.4 I
45.8 I
401 '
-14 I
22 I
-31.9 201.6 I
23.2 I
247.2 121.9 I
I 62.7 I
I 5
I I
28.4 I
DL = DEAD LOAD VP = TENDON PRESTRESS OTw = OPERATING TEMPERATURE WINTER IP = INTERNAL PRESSURE (60PSI)
AT90 = ACCIDENT PRESSURE (90PSI)
T = 312 F
1/4
TABLE 3 LOAD COHBINATION 31 "b" HERIDIONAL MOHENT FT-K/FT (1.0*DL) + (1.0*VP) + (1.0*OTs) + (1.5*IP) + (1.0~AT90)
I ROTATIONAL I
BASE FIXITY I
I I
FREE (PINNED)
I I
I ILOCATION I
I ABQVE I
IBASE(FT)
I 3
I-I 6
I I
10 I-15 HOHENT-I PERCENT I
MOHENT-SLIDING IULTIHATE I NO SLIDING PERMITTED I CAPAC I TY I
PERMITTED 184 I
28 '
I 211 312.4 I
35.9 I
357.6 I
385 I
44.3 I
440.5 I
372.2 I
42.8 I
425.7 PERCENT IULTIHATE I CAPACITY I
I 33 I
I 50.6 I
48.9 I
I I
I 30 FT-K/FT I
I I
I I
3 146 I
22.s I
175 27.3 I
10 I
363.7 I
41.8 I
360.5 I
41.4 I
423.4 418 I
48.7 I
I 48 I
I 6
I 282 I
32.4 I
330.6 I
38 I
I I
I 90 FT-K/FT 72 I
11.3 I
223.8 I
25.7 I
103 276.4 I
16.1 I
31.s I
10 I
'24.6 I
37.3 I
389.2 44.7 I
I I300 FT-K/FT I
I I
I I
I-I=
15 3
I I
6 I
10 I
I 15 46.3 I
I 25.9 I
2OI 23I 87 I
10 I
I 187.4 I
21.5 I
269.7 269.4 I
31 I
348.8 31 I
- ---I 40.1 I
340.2 I
- 39. 1 I
402.6 I
-186 I
29.1 FIXED 3
I 6
10 I
-548 I
85.6 I
-754 I
263.9 I
41
~ 2 I
372.3 I
-2.2 I
0.3 I
20 117.s I
I 58.2 I
I 2.3 15 I
172.8 I
19.9 I
218 I
25.1 I
DL = DEAD LOAD VP = TENDON PRESTRESS OTs = OPERATING TEMP.
SUHHER IP = INTERNAL PRESSURE (60PSI)
AT90 -" ACCIDENT PRESSURE (90PSI)
T = 312 F
2l4
lg LOAD COHBINATION 41 "c" TABLE 3 MERIDIONAL MOMENT FT-K/FT (1.0*DL) + (1.0*VP) + (1.0*OTw) + (1.0*IP) + (1.0*AT60) + (2.0*E)
ROTATIONAL BASE 1
FIXITY I
FREE (PINNED)
I I
II-1 1
I 6
I 15 i LOCATION I
ABOVE
/BASE(FT)
MOHENT-SLIDING PERHITTED 184.3 21.2 i
253 29.1
)
286.4 32.9 i
PERCENT
)
IULTIMATE I ICAPACITY I 00 I
15.6 I
PERCENT iULTIMATE ICAPACITY I
I HOHENT-NO SLIDING PERMITTED 118 I
18.4 214.5 24.7
)
I 290
)
33.3 I
37 322.1 I
I 30 FT-K/FT I
I I
I 10 15 75 18.9 i
238.8 I
27.4 I
278.6 i
32
)
94 I
14.7 196.4 22.6 278.6
)
32
)
I 317 I
36.4 25 t
3.9
)
46 I
7.2 90 FT-K/FT 125.2 14.4 160.3
.18.4 l-I I
I 10 15 265.2 I
30.5 I
212.7
(
24.4 255.8 306.8 I
29.4 35.3
(-I 300 FT-K/FT Il-I 6
I 10 I-15
-10.7 121.2 1.7 I
13.9 I
217.9 I
25 I
"147 i
23
-120 34.1 176.1 270.9 18.8 3.9 f-I 20.2 FIXED l
I-II-II-I 10 15
-199.9 31.2
)
-5.2 I
0-8 I
153.6 388 I
60 6 I
-525
-272.2
-17. 1 183.9 82
)
I I
42.5 I
2.7 I
21.1 DL = DEAD LOAD VP = TENDON PRESTRESS OTw = OPERATING TEMPERATURE WINTER IP -"INTERNAL PRESSURE (60PSI)
AT60 = ACCIDENT PRESSURE (60PSI)
T -" 286 F
E "-0.10 G EARTHQUAKE HORIZONTAL + VERTICAL sl4
TABLE 3 LOAD COHBINATION 43 "d" HERIDIONAL HOMENT FT-K/FT (1.0~OTs)
+ (1.0*IP) + (1.0*AT60) + (2.0*E)
(1 '*DL) + (1.0*VP) +
I PERCENT I
IULTIHATE I
ICAPACITY I
I I LOCATION ABOVE IBASE(FT)
HOHENT I
PERCENT SLID I NG I ULTIMATE PERMITTED ICAPACITY I ROTATIONAL BASE I
FIXITY I
HOHENT-NO SLIDING PERMITTED 22.5 I
125.8 I
19.7 I
I I-II-I I-I I
I I
FREE I
(PINNED)
I I
I I
144 244 I
28 I
213.8 I
24.6 34.7 I-I 264.8 I
30.4 301.8 10 33.7 I-I 257.6 I
29.6 293.3 15 18.6 I-I 3
I-100 I
15.6 I
I I 30 FT-K/FT I
I I
I I-119 I
193 '
I 22.2 26 I-I I
6 I-225.9 250.6 I
28.8 I
10 I-33.4
-I 290.4 I
33.1 I
I 15 249.8 I
28.7 288. 2 I
I 11.3 I
8 I
I I
I 90 FT-K/FT I
II-I I-II-I 51 I
72 21.8 I-I 154.7 I
17.8 189.8 I
30.8 I-I 224.5 I
25.8 267.6 10 278 I
32 I-I 236.4 I
27.2 I
14.8 I-I 121 I
18.9 3
I-I 6
I-I 10 I-I 15
-95 I
7.3 I-I I
FT K/FT I
I I
II-63.6 18.8 I
2.2 21
~ 6 I
133 I
15.3 187.9 I
27.8 I-I 242.1 189.1 I
21.7 78.1
-I I
I I
FIXED I
I I
I 3
I-6 I-I 10 I-
'l5 363 I
56-7
-500 37.9 I-I 170 '
I 26-6
-242.7 6.6 I
0.8 I
0.8 I-I
-5.3 I
17.8 I
124.8 I
14.3 155.1 DL = DEAD LOAD VP = TENDON PRESTRESSS OTs = OPERATING TEHPERATURE SUMMER 4/4 IP = INTERNAL PRESSURE (60PSI)
AT60 "- ACCIDENT PRESSURE (60PSI)
T = 286 F
E = 0.10 G EARTHQUAKE HORIZONTAL + VERTICAL
p
~
~
DISPLACEMENT. (IN.)
mL 37 Gl m
lO A
fg"
ITI2(
0 Q)
R
~
0 o
I 0
0 ITl m
2 z
- Ql
'g I
O ZlA m
0 <(n Zr
'go 0 g Z O'9 l7l m <
.0 0
> r Q,o 0
Q XIA m
4 C..-
% o
~Q 0
m A
m C)
G)
O ITl ITl 0K 27A m
Vl A
m FIGURE 1
STRUCTURAl INTEGRITY TEST
~
RGE03 RGE08 o
RGE12 I
5 LLLM5 LLl O4 Cl I
4 X
C9 LLJ 10 A2 S3 RADIALDISPLACEMENT (IN.)
.4 S5 CONTAINMENT RADIALDISPLACEMENT FIGURF 2
t
'J