Text

Forwards non-proprietary & Proprietary Response to 970905 RAI Re Structural Evaluation of Proposed Mod of Plant Spent Fuel Storage Pool, .Proprietary Response Withheld, Per 10CFR2.790
	ML17309A622
Person / Time
Site:	Ginna
Issue date:	10/20/1997
From:	Mecredy R; ROCHESTER GAS & ELECTRIC CORP.
To:	Vissing G; NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned), NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
Shared Package
ML17264B076	List: ML17309A622;
References
	NUDOCS 9710230092
	Download: ML17309A622 (101)
	v • d • e

CATEGORY 1.

REUULATQ ZNFQRMATZON DZSTRZBUTZON '+OEM (RZDS)

ACCESSION NBR:9710230092 DOC.DATE: 97/10/20

'NOTARIZED: YES FACIL:50-244 Robert Emmet Ginna Nucleary Plant, Un1t 1 < Rochester AUTH.NAME AUTHOR AFFILIATION MECREDY,R.C.

Rochester Gas 6 Electric Corp.

RECIP.NAME RECIPIENT AFFILIATION, VISSINGFG.S.

DOCKET' G

05000244

+~PC'

SUBJECT:

Forwards non-proprietary

& proprietary response to 970905 RAI re structural evaluation, of proposed mod of plant spent fuel storage pool,dtd 970331.Proprietary response

withheld, C

per 10CFR2.790.

A DISTRIBUTION CODE:

AP01D COPIES RECEIVED:LTR ENCL SIZE:

TITLE: Proprietary Review Distribution Pre Operating License 6 Operating R

NOTES:License Exp date in accordance with 10CFR2,2.109(9/19/72).

05000244 E

RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME PDl-1 LA VISSINGF G.

COPIES LTTR ENCL 1

1 1

1 RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME PD1-1 PD COPIES LTTR ENCL 1

1 0

EXTERNAL: NRC PDR 1

1 OGC/HDS3 1

) 43 oaf 1

0 D

0 NOTE TO ALL "RIDS" RECIPIENTSz PLEASE HELP US TO REDUCE WASTE. TO HAVE YOUR NAME OR ORGANIZATION REMOVED FROM DISTRIBUTION LISTS OR REDUCE THE NUMBER OF COPIES RECEIVED BY YOU OR YOUR ORGANIZATION, CONTACT THE DOCUMENT CONTROL DESK (DCD)

ON EXTENSION 415-2083 TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED:

LTTR 6

ENCL

s I

+t N

ANn ROCHESTER GASANDELECTRIC CORPORATION ~ 89 EASTAVENUE, ROCHESTER, N. Y Id6rI9-000I AREA CODE716 546-2~00 ROBERT C. MECREDY Vice President Nvcteor Operations October 20 1997 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk Attn:

Guy S. Vissing Project Directorate I-1 Washington, D.C.

20555

Subject:

Response

to Request for Additional Information Spent Fuel Pool (SFP)

Modifications Structural Design Considerations (TAC No.

M95759)

R.E.

Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Docket No. 50-244 Ref. (1):

Letter from G.

S. Vissing (NRC) to R.

C. Mecredy (RG&E),

Subject:

Request for Additional Information Spent Fuel Pool Modifications Structural Design Considerations (TAC No. M95759), dated September 5,

1997.

Dear Mr. Vissing:

By Reference 1,

the NRC staff requested additional information regarding the proposed Modification of the Ginna Spent Fuel Storage Pool dated March 31, 1997.

The questions were related to the Structural Evaluation of the proposed Modification.

Enclosed are responses to the questions submitted by the NRC staff w z.c are p h'

re provided in two separate documents:

a Non-Proprietary and a

FRAMATOME Proprietary.

The Non-Proprietary document contains

'ns all the responses but omits the following information which is considered FRAMATOME Proprietary:

(a) selected data in response to NRC Question No. 4.b, and (b) electronic files with input data o

the ANSYS code as listed in responses to NRC Questions No. 2.e and 10.

The document entitled FRAMATOME Proprietary is a duplicate of Non-Proprietary version except that proprietary data has been added to that document.

The FRAMATOME Proprietary data in that document 97102300'tt2

'tt71020 PDR ADQCK 05000244 P

'DR

Mr. G.

S. Vissing October 20, 1997 is supported by an affidavit signed by FRAMATOME TECHNOLOGIES, INC..

Accordingly, it is respectfully requested that the document entitled "FRAMATOMEProprietary" be withheld from public disclosure in accordance with 10CFR 2.790 of the Commission's regulations.

Ver ruly yours, Robert C. Mecredy JPO c:

Mr. Guy S. Vissing (Mail Stop 14B2)

Senior Project Manager Project Directorate I-1 Washington, D.C.

20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region I 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406 Ginna Senior Resident Inspector Mr. Paul D. Eddy State of New York Department of Public Service 3 Empire State Plaza, Tenth Floor

Albany, NY 12223-1350

A.

My name is James H. Taylor.

I am Manager of Licensing Services for Framatome.

Technologies, Inc. (FTQ.

Framatome Cogema Fuels is administratively responsible to Framatome Technologies, Inc. Therefore, I am authorized to execute this Affidavit.

B.

I am familiar with the criteria applied by FTI to determine whether certain information of FTI is proprietary and I am familiar with the procedures established within FTI to ensure the proper application of these criteria.

C.

In determining whether an FTI document is to be classified as proprietary information, an initial determination is made by the Unit Manager, who is responsible for originating the document, as to whether it falls within the criteria set forth in Paragraph D hereof. Ifthe information falls within any one of these criteria, it is classified as proprietary by the originating Unit Manager.

This initial determination is reviewed by the cognizant Section Manager. Ifthe document is designated as proprietary, it is reviewed again by Licensing personnel and other management within FTI as designated by the Manager of Licensing Services to assure that the regulatory requirements of 10 CFR Section 2.790 are met.

D.

The following information is provided to demonstrate that the provisions of 10 CFR Section 2.790 of the Commission's regulations have been considered:

The information has been held in confidence by FTI.

Copies of the document are clearly identified as proprietary.

In addition, whenever FTI transmits the information to a customer, customer's

agent, potential customer or regulatory agency, the transmittal requests the recipient to hold the information as proprietary.

Also, in order to strictly limit any potential or actual customer's use of proprietary information, the substance of the following provision is included in all agreements entered into by FTI, and an equivalent version of the proprietary provision is included in all ofFTI's proposals:

~

Q

+

~

(Cont'd.)

"Anyproprietary information concerning Company's or its Supplier's products or manufacturing processes which is so designated by Company or its Suppliers and disclosed to Purchaser incident to the performance of such contract shall remain the property of Company or its Suppliers and is disclosed in confidence, and Purchaser shall not publish or otherwise disclose it to others without the written approval of Company, and no rights, implied or otherwise, are granted to produce or have produced any products or to practice or cause to be practiced any manufacturing processes covered thereby, Notwithstanding the above, Purchaser may provide the NRC or any other regulatory agency with any such proprietary information as the NRC or such other agency may require; provided, however, that Purchaser shall first give Company written notice of such proposed disclosure and Company shall have the right to amend such proprietary information so as to make it non-proprietary.

In the event that Company cannot amend such proprietary information, Purchaser shall, prior to disclosing such information, use its best efforts to obtain a commitment from NRC or such other agency to have such information withheld from public inspection.

Company shall be given the right to participate in pursuit of such confidential treatment."

~

I

~

'C (Cont'd.)

The following criteria are customarily applied by FTI in a rational decision process to determine whether the information should be classified as proprietary.

Information may be classified as proprietary ifone or more of the following criteria are met:

a.

Information reveals cost or price information, commercial strategies, production capabilities, or budget levels of FTI, its customers or suppliers.

b.

The information reveals data or material concerning FTI research or development plans or programs of present or potential competitive advantage to FTI.

c.

The use of the information by a competitor would decrease his expenditures, in time or resources, in designing, producing or marketing a similar product.

d.

The information consists of test data or other similar data concerning a

process, method or component, the application of which results in a competitive advantage to FTI.

e.

The information reveals special aspects of a process, method, component or the like, the exclusive use of which results in a competitive advantage to FTI.

f.

The information contains ideas for which patent protection may be sought.

The document(s) listed on Exhibit "A", which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, has been evaluated in accordance with normal FTI procedures with respect to classification and has been found to contain information which falls within one or

~

0

~

(Cont'd.)

more of the criteria enumerated above.

Exhibit "B", which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, specifically identifies the criteria applicable to the document(s) listed in Exhibit "A".

The document(s) listed in Exhibit "A", which has been made available to the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission was made available in confidence with a request that the document(s) and the information contained therein be withheld from public disclosure.

(iv)

The information is not available in the open literature and to the best of our knowledge is not known by Combustion Engineering, EXXON, General Electric, Westinghouse or other current or potential domestic or foreign competitors of Framatome Technologies, Inc.

(v)

Specific information with regard to whether public disclosure of the information is likely to cause harm to the competitive position of FTI, taking into account the value of the information to FTI; the amount ofeffort or money expended by FTI developing the information; and the ease or difficulty with which the information could be properly duplicated by others is given in Exhibit "B".

E.

I have personally reviewed the document(s) listed on Exhibit "A" and have found that it is considered proprietary by FTI because it contains information which falls within one or more of thecriteria enumerated in Paragraph D, and it is information which is customarily held in confidence and protected as proprietary information by FTI. This report comprises information

(Cont'd.)

utilized by FTI in its business which afford FTI an opportunity to obtain a competitive advantage over those who may wish to'know or use the information contained in the document(s).

JAMES H. TAYLOR State of Virginia)

City of Lynchburg)

SS. Lynchburg James H. Taylor, being duly sworn, on his oath deposes and says that he is the person who subscribed his name to the foregoing statement, and that the matters and facts set forth in the statement are true.

JAMES H. TAYL R IL'f" Subscribed and sworn before me this ++day ofgal 1997.

Notary Public in and for the City of Lynchburg, State of Virginia.

My Commission Expires 8l I99'7

. )

l'

/g I i fr f fr J

h '

I

97i0230092 U. S. NRC G. S. Vissing A-1 October 20, 1997 Tnr i in R

n Rochester Gas 8'c Electric Ginna spent fuel storage rerack structural qualification is performed using state ofthe art techniques.

To ease the licensing process, the majority ofanalytical methods, computer program use and verification are the same as the methods used in the current licensing documents.

The individual items are discussed during the response process.

The idealization ofthe rack using beam representation, the consideration ofhydrodynamic masses, and the seismic analysis methods are the same as 1985 licensing basis (References 3.23 and 3.24 ofthe Licensing Report).

The computer program ANSYS, version 5.2, was used for the majority ofstructural analysis calculations.

Since 1970, this program has been used extensively in the nuclear, chemical, building, and electronic industries throughout the world. Extensive use led to a high degree of reliabilityin obtained computer results, and has been extensively benchmarked by industry.

ANSYS has been and continues to be verified by a large volume ofusers.

AtFramatome Cogema Fuels, it is benchmarked to hand calculations and to verification problems provided by its

" developer, Swanson Analysis Systems, Inc. ANSYS has been used in many of 10CFR50 licensing analyses including seismic, time history, and gapped structural analyses.

AtFramatome Cogema Fuels the structural analysis personnel has extensive experience in the finite element methods and analysis to solve complex problems.

This experience and expertise serves to minimize modeling instabilities typically associated with large non-linear dynamic problems. For the models and analyses reported in the Ginna spent fuel storage rack licensing report, no instabilities existed.

The behavior ofspent fuel storage racks is complex, and some simplification ofthe actual behavior is appropriate when creating a mathematical model for use in a finite element analysis.

Throughout the structural analysis the results are checked against the simplified hand calculation methods.

In addition, the results have been compared against recently NRC-licensed spent fuel storage racks to verify the validity ofthe analysis results and to confirm the design ofthe racks.

Conservative structural analysis methods are used throughout the structural analysis.

Conservatisms include: enveloping seismic time histories, 'additional safety factors on the seismic time histories, safety factors on loads and displacements, conservative friction factors, and maximum fuel weight and loading in the rack, assumed concurrent impact ofall fuel assemblies.

The results summarized in Section 3.5.3.3 show large design margins for all rack hardware per ASME, AISC and ACI code allowables.

Additional margins exist which are integral to the codes themselves.

The resulting margins show the robustness ofthe Ginna spent fuel storage system design.

U. S. NRC G. S. Vissing A-2 October 20, 1997

~Rf~r~n~: (continues sequentially the reference numbers in the Licensing Report) 3.44 Application for Amendment to Facility Operating License, Revised Spent Fuel Pool Storage Requirements, Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation, R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, Docket No. 50-244, Letter dated March 31, 1997, from RGB to US NRC.

3.45 Scavuzzo-1979, "Dynamic Fluid Structure Coupling ofRectangular Modules in Rectangular Pools," R. J. Scavuzzo, et al., ASME Publication PVP-39, 1979, pp. 77-87.

3.46 Radke-1978, "Experimental Study ofImmersed Rectangular Solids in Rectangular Cavities," Edward F. Radke, Project for Master of Science Degree, The University of Akron, Ohio, 1978.

U. S. NRC G. S. Vissing A-3 October 20, 1997 8'ith respect to the single safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) artificialtime history used for stress analysis as mentioned on page 75 ofthe Reference, provide the following:

a)

A comparison between the response spectrum (RS) ofthe artificialtime history and the licensing basis design RS in thefinalsafety analysis report (FSAR).

b)

Demonstrate the adequacy ofthe artificialtime history including a demonstration ofthe extent ofconformance to a target power spectral density (PSD) function ofthe artificial tiIne history in accordance withguidance provided in Standard Review Plan (SRP)

Section 3.7.I.

c)

Ifthe RS ofthe artificialtiIne history does not envelope the licensing basis design RS in the FSAR, ivhat is the basis for usingit in the analysis?

~R~~n A total offour sets (X, Y, and Z components) oftime histories were generated, such that the average ofall four time histories, when multiplied by a factor of 1.10, enveloped the design response spectrum. A single time history set was then chosen (SSE1 for SSE conditions) and an additional factor of 1.20 was applied to the resulting loads and displacements to envelope the loads and displacements from all four time history sets.

a)

A comparison ofthe fuel pool safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) response spectra and the response spectra generated from the SSE1 time history used in the seismic analysis is provided in Figures NRCQ1a.1, NRCQ1 a.2 and NRCQla.3.

NUREG-800, SRP 3.7.1,Section II.1.b states "Each calculated spectrum ofthe artificial time history is considered to envelop the design response spectrum when no more than five points fall below, and no more than 10 percent below, the design response spectrum." For this comparison, the 10% below curve is also plotted in Figures NRCQla.1, NRCQla.2 and NRCQla.3.

The comparison shows:

East-West (X)Spectra 2 frequencies below design RS but within 10% threshold North-South (Y) Spectra 2 frequencies below design RS but within 10% threshold Vertical (Z) Spectra 1 frequency below design RS but within 10% threshold Therefore, this comparison shows that the selected seismic time histories meet the requirements ofSRP 3.7.1.

U. S. NRC G. S. Vissing A-4 October 20, 1997 b)

The target power spectral density (PSD) ofthe SSE time history is plotted in Figures NRCQlb.1, NRCQlb.2 and NRCQlb.3.

Standard Review Plan SRP 3.7.1, Appendix A, specifies the minimum PSD requirements.

Those minima are also plotted on the same figures for comparison.

The comparison shows that all ofthe artificial time histories used in the analysis meet the minimum PSD requirements ofthe SRP 3.7.1.

c)

The artificial time history envelopes the spent fuel pool design response spectra and meets the requirements of SRP 3.7.1.

U. S. NRC G. S. Vissing A-5 October 20, 1997 in In Fr I

K1-H rim n 5

C 0

~~

8 80 I

I I

IJ I

II II IY I

I II I

J J

I I

IY I

I I

II I

I II I

II I

I I

I II I

J I

I I

J I

I I

I II I

J II I

'Y I

s II IJ I

~F I

P I

Js

~

I

~

I

~

I I

~ J

~ ~ ~

~

I I

~

I I

I

~

J

~ J J

~

I

~

I

~

I I

~

I I

I

~

I I

~

1 I

I

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

I I

I JI I

I I

~

I I

~

IY I

~

I JIII I

I I

I I~

VI

~ I

~'

~

I I

I

~

J I

s js I~

's I

I I

II I

I III I

I

~

I

~

II I

II

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

I I

I

~

I

~

I

~

'YY

~

I

~

I

~

I I

I

~

I I

I

~

I I

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~

I I

J

~

I I

~

s

'I

~Is I

I I

JJI1). J I

~ I I

I I

I Y

1 I

I II I

J I

~

I

~

I I

~

I I

I J

~

J

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

I I

I

~ 'I h 1

~

1 1 IIII

~ I I

IY I

I I

I IJ I

I II I

I IIJ I

I I

I

~ ~

~

I I

I JIPI

~

I

~

II I 4

~

I I

S Y shs

'I

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

s

~

~ J J J

J

~

I I

I

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

I I

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

ll

~

J I

~

I I

I

~

I hS I

~

I

~I I

~

I I

I

~

I I

I

~

I

~ %

I I

~

~ '+

s

~

I

~

I Q

I I

I

~

II lh I

I is I

I I

I

~

I I

~

I

~

I I

~

I

~

I I

~

I

~

I I

~

I

~

I I

~

I

~

I I

I

~

I

~

I I

~

I

~

I I

~

I I

~ J J

~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~

II I

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I I

~

I I

1 I

I

~

~ ~

II I

I I

~ ~ ~

I I

I 1 ~ ~

I I

~

1

'1 I

I I

I

~ J I

I I

I

~ ~ ~

I I

I

~

I I

I

~

s J I

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

I I

~

I J

J

~

I

~

I I

~

I

~

I

~

I I

~

I I

I IIIIlllsll I

~

I I

I

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

I I

I

] lssll I

I I

~

J L

I

~

I

~

I I

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

I I

~

I

~

I

~

s

~

I 10 Natural Frequency f (Hz) 1QO

A-6 U. S. NRC G. S. Vissing i

r R

1 2

October 20, 1997 D

i nV In tF r INNA K1-H rim n IY 5

C D

~~

8 8

D0 x

0.1 0.1 I

I I

I II I

I I

I J ~

~

I I

~

I

~

I

~

I I

~

I

~

J J I

I I

~

I

~J I

~

I I

~1

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

I I

~

J

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

I I

I

~

~ I

~

I

~

I I

~

I

~

I I

~

I

~

I I

~

~ J II

~ ~ ~

I I

I

~

I

~

I

~

I I

~

I

~

I

~

J

~

I I

.M.. q.

I I

I

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

J I

I

~

I I

Isr III S I I

I

~

I ~ ~

I I

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

1 1 1

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

IJ

~

1$ II

'I I

I II II

~

II~II

~

I

~ I II I r

~

I 1

~

I

~

I I

~

I I

~

I I

~

I I

~

I

~ J

~I ~)

I

~ II I

I I

1 I

II I

~ A I

IL.

I 1

A I

1 I

II IIII I

I I

I

~ ~ II II III I

I 1

1 I

~

I

~

I

~

I I I I

AI~ ~

~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~

~

I

~

I

~

I I

~

I

~

I 1

~ J 1

~ ~

II I

I I

I II I

I III

~ A II II III

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

I I

~

I I

~

I I

~I A I

I I

~

I I

I

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

I I

~

I I

I

~

I I

II ~ ~ ~ ~

~

~'I

~

I

~I ~ ~

I

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

I I

~

I I

~

I

~

I I

's

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g

~

~ ~ ~ I ~ ~

I I

I

~s I

Is I

I s

I I

s

~

~A

~ I~ A

~

I

~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I

~

I I

I

~

I I

~

II I lr I

~

Is ~

II III II I

I

'I 1 11 '

4

~

I

~

I

~

I I

~

I rI Ia

~

r

~

'I

~

I

~

I I

~

I I

I

~

I

~

~s

~ II

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

I lr I

J

~

I Ir I

r I

Jl I

~

I I

~

I

~

I I

I

~

I I

I

~

I I

I

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

1 10 Natural Frequency f (Hzj I

~

I

~

I I

I

~

I

~

I 1

I I

I

~ ~ ~I~ ~

II I

I I

I

~ ~ I~

I

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

I~

L

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

I ~ I I

I

~

I I

~

I I

I

~ ~I

~

IIIIII II IIII

~

I I

I Illlm,'II

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

I I

I

~

~'I I

~

1 1

~

I

~

I I

I

~

I I

~ I A

~

I

~

I

~

I I

~

I I

~

I I

~ I A

~

I

~

I I

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

(IIIII I

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

I I

~

I I

300

0 l

A-7 U. S. NRC G. S. Vissing Fi r NR 1a.3 in In tFr I

October 20, 1997 1-Vr cl 0) 8 G0

~~

(5 L8 Cf V

X5 0.1 0.1

~

I

~

t

~

I

~

I

~

~ ~ ~ ~

~

I

~

I

~

t

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

~ J

~

I

~

~ ~ 'I~

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

IA

~

I J

~ ~

A

~

I I

J

~ A III

~ ~ ~ J

~

I I

~

A

~

I I

IIIIIJ II III Y

I II I

I I

III I

I I

J I

II I

III Y

I I

II

~ ~ ~

IIIIIII IIIII

'I I

I II I

~

I A

~ ~

~

~ I ~

~

I I

I AJ I

~

~ J

~

I

~

I

~

I I

h II

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I

~

~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~

II

~ ~ ~

I

~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~

I

~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~

I

~ ~ ~

I I

~ ~

~ ~ ~ J

~ ~ ~

~ ~ 'I ~ ~ ~

~ A

~ t

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ I

~

~ ~ ~

I

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

A

~ AJ

~

~ ~

~

t

~

Al~ ~ ~

~

I I

I

~

I

~

I

~

II 1III I

I

~

Y I

~

I

~

I I

I

~

I I

II IIII I

I

~

I I

~

I J

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

I I

I A

~

I

~

I I

I

~

I

~

I

~

I I

~

A l

~

I

~

I I

I

~

~r I

I II I ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

A

~ ~ 1

~

~r 4 I ff ~ f I

~

I1fl fft1 t

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

I I

f1 ff f1

~

I

~

V ff~ 1 I

I

~

I

~

I

~

I

~ ltl

~J I 'e Af>>

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

t

~

f

~

~ ~ A

~

I

~

1 Y

~

t

~

I

~

I

~A

~

~Y

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

I I

~

I

~

AJ

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

I I

1 J'

1 II

~

I

~

I Y

I I

Y I

I

~

Y1

~

" 'L jv'gpss

~t

~tt

'p'jif I

~

I I

~

I I

~

I I

~

I I

~

I

~

J I

hl J'

~

I

~

10 Natural Frequency f (Hz)

~

~ A

~

~ ~ A

~

~ J

~

I

~

1 Y

~

I I

~

I

~

~ A

~

I I

~

1 1

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

1

~

I I

I

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

f 1

~

I

~

I I

1

~

I

~

~I

~

I I

~

I I

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

I I

~

I I

lffflf ff1 f(fl I

I

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

I I

I

~

100

A-8 U. S. NRC G. S. Vissing Fi re NR October 20, 1997 P 9 m ari nFr IN A E1-Hrizn 1X 1000

~

p p 'I I

I I

I

~

J I J

~

J

~

P P

h P

~

h h I

P P

'h

~

L h

J h I J J

\\

L L

~

J

~

IOO 1

I r r l

L L

I

~

I

~

Y Y

~

e'

~

I I

~

Y J

'Y rY LJ

~

I'1 I

~

Y JIIY II

~

I

~

I 4 J I

~

P a

I J

L Y

Y J

Y

~

I' Y

~

P

~

Y1

~

'a

~

F

~ ~ ~ ~

F I

I Y

Y 4

~

J a

e I

~

I I

~

I

~

I I

~

I I

~

I

~

I

~

s

~

\\

~

P

~

'h

~

P

'I h

~

IP F

1 1

a II~

Ja J l

~

J

~

1 1

~

'I

~

V Q

lO CU C

~~

D rD 0

10 0.1 I

1

'I

~ ~ ~

)

F I

F F

F e

CL C

Ll F

s

~

~4

~

d I

~

C C

r I

~

P P

h J

YY

~

p 'I P

4I al I

eIIJ I

~

C C

'4d d

J

~

r I'

~

I

~

I

~

CX>

I J J LJ J

~

rYY p 'a

~

4 C

~

e h

L

~

J h J J

~

L d

L J dLJ J J

I L

~

I

~

J I

e

~

II~

J II~ JI J J

~

I

~

I I

~

I I

I

~

~~+ I r----r

~

I

~

I

~

I I

~

I

~

I p

p 'I p'I 'I

~

p

~

'h P

~ 'I

~

P r Y YYY1

~

Y r Y'YY'YY

~

r r

~

J

~ J J

~

I

~

h

~

J

~

I J

~

PPr J

I I

~

1

~

I I

~

1 1

1 I

~

'h I

'I

~

J

~ 'I

'a

~

~ J J

~

'h

~

~,

J e

I I

~

I

~

J J

~

1 YY1 1 YY1

~ J J

~

p

~

'a h I

~

I I

h

~

J

~

I

~

I

~

I

~ J J

~

I

~

I I

~

I

~

C )

L J

J J

~

I J

J J

~

Y 1

1 h

~

p

~

'a \\

~

I Y

~

p ~

~

Y F

Y I

I

~

I

~

Y 1

Y F

1 1

~

I

~

p I

'I I

~

p

'I

'I I

r

~

Y

~

1 1

Y

~ 'Y' 1

1 P

'I h

e

~

I

~

J I

~ I

~

p p

'I

'h I

a

~

I

~

4 h

~

J a

~

I

~

I

~

I I

~

I I

~

J J

l J

J

~

I

~

I I

~

I I

~

I I

~

I I

C C

)

t )

~L L

J JI, l J

J Y

r r

r 4

~

1 Y

F 1

'I 1

Y F

1 1

I J ~

~

I I

~

J

~

J

~

C L

J J

~

F 1

1 J

I C

C L

I I

~

Y I

P I

h e

~

eh I

~

~ J

~

~ l I

~

I

~ ~

J

~

J J

~

I

~

J

~

l I

II~

J J

l J

J

~

F F

r Y h YYY

~

I

~

1 r

Y Y

'1 'Y1

~

I Y

I 1

0 F

1 1

~

I

~

I

~

'I I

~

I P 'I P'I 'I

~

P I

~

I

~

'h e

P P

~

'h

~

I

~

I I

~

I I

~

I I

~

I

~

h h

J h J J

~

h

~

0.01 0.1 I

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

30 100 Frequency (Hz)

Ir U

f

A-9 U. S. NRC G. S. Vissing Fi ur NR 1

2 PD mari nFr I

October 20, 1997

<1-H rim n t Y 1000:

~

P

~

~ P

~

1 I

~ I

~ ~ ~ P PP

'I

~

~ ~

~

J1 A J

~

AA

~

'VA

'I I

~

~ A

~

~ JJ

~

~ A

~ 1A

~

~ r

~ CY

~ d

~ ld

~

I"r-I r r

~

P

~

P

~

~ ~

~

l III I

~

1

~

1 J ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ J ~

~

1 1

I 1

1 I

~

~ I

~

1 1

I 1

1

~

I

~

I

~

~ '

~

1 I

~

~ ~

~

~ I I

~

I I ~ l I

~

I

~

I

~

1 1

I 1

~

I

~

I

~

I I

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

AA

~

h A

J A

~

I" r

Y Y

~ 'VY 1

Jl Jl J

J

~ J A

~

I I'

Y Y 1 YY I

~

I

~

I

~

P I

A

~

'\\

I

~

I I

~

I

~

I I

I

~

I

~

4 1

J J

~

J J Y

J YA

'I

'I 1

1 1

I A

~

h

~

I

~

P

~

P 100.:

I P

P

'1

~

P ~

~

P ~ ~ 'h

'h

'h A I ~ ~

~

P ~

~ P

'I Y

~ ~ ~

~ ~ 4 ~ ~ J1 A A

~ AA

~

~ ~ ~

'1 Jl A A

~

J A

~

P

~

1

~ lA

~

~ Jl

~ ld

~

I I

~

I A

J J

l l

I I

1 ~

A J

~

J J

I J J

~

I

~

I

~

'V Y

~ 'V'V

~

l I

~ l I

~

I I~WC-r-r

~

~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~I~ ~

~

~ ~ l~

J J

I II I

I I

Y I

I

~

I I

JP 1I II

~

I

~

I I

~

I

~

P

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

~ ~ ~ ~

~

P ~

~

P ~

h h

~ ~ h 10 CU 1

Q (0tL

~

P P

I P

~

r r

'v Y

~

Y r

Y Y 1 'I 'I

~

~ ~ ~ ~ P

~

P 'I'I

~

4 ~

~

J A

~

I

~

I

~

P

'I h

~

h

~I J

A

~ ~ ~ J I

~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~I ~ ~ J J

~ ~ J J

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

4. ~..

~...........

~

I

~

'" C'C

)

) )')')'

~

t

'4 J

J I J J

~

I

~

I

~

r r

'\\

'v 1 'v'v C

r 0

Y 1 YY

~ ~ ~

~

A

~ ~ J A

~

~ ~ ~

h

~ 'I I

~

I I

~

~ J

~

J J I

~

I I

~

1 1

4 ~

J A

~ AJ

~

I

~

C C

) )))) ))

1 I

A A I J J Jl Jl J

J I J J

~

r Y Y Y 1 Y'I

~

P P

~ '1

'I

~

I

~

P

~

~'

~

P

~

I

~

'V Y

1

~

1 1

I' 1

C ~ ~ 1 ~ 1 ~ ~ ~

~

Ih

~

1 JP ~

~

I

~

I

~

r

~ CY CY 1I~

C I ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~

~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

'I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~

I

~

I I

~

~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I

~

I

~

I I

I

~

J I

I

~

l~

~

C I

I

~

I

~

)

~

)I ~ I ~ ~ ~

"~

~ ~

c I

~

~ ~ ~ I

~

'I I

~

1

'1 I

~

1 I

~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~

~

~ ~ ~

~

h

~

~ ~

I

~

I I

~

J

~

~ ~

~

I

~

I

~

A

~

I

~

I

~

I I

I

~

))[))

A I

~

~ I J

I I

1 ~ ~ I

~

~ ~

~

Y 1

1 I

1 1

~

I

~

Y 1

1 I

1 1 I

~

I

~

I I

~

I

~

1 I

1 1

~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~

~

I

~ ~

~

P

~

I

~

1

~

~ 1

~

~ ~ ~ ~

I

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

C

))'C ) CC

~

'1

~

1 I

~

I.

~ l I

~

Y

~ tY

~

P

~

I I'

~

P

~

P P

~

Y h

I J

J A

A A

J J

'V Y

h I

'V Y

I

'h I

I

~

~ ~ ~ ~ 1

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I C

1l I

I 0.1

~

I I

1 1

1

~

r r

'V Y 1 Y1

~

I

~

~,

~

P P

h A

~

I

~

I

~

~ A

~

A J

~ J

~ ~

~

~ ~

~

I

~

I

~

~ ~ ~

~ ~

1 ~ f A

~ I

~

I I

~

I I

I

~

I A

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

I I

~

I

~

0.01 0.1 1

l0 100

~

~ A

~

J J

J

~

J

~

I A

A A

~

Frequency (Hz)

A-10 U. S. NRC G. S. Vissing Fi r

R 1

3 October 20, 1997 P D m

ri n F r INNA K1-Vertical Z 100 10 P)

Q 1

N t:

0.1 Q

(6 Q

0.01 0.001 0.1 I

I I

1 1

1

~

f I Y

~

I I'

I I

~

~ 4

~

~ r

~

J

~

A

~

~ 4

~

Isr O'

Y

~

J A

~

~Irr 1

Y Y

I

~

I I

~

4

~

~ yJ~

~

J 1J J

I~V( r

%QPAtAI

~

AJJssPAhh A

~

<Y Jthtrtth t

~

P ~ ~

~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ 'I

~ ~ ~ ~

~ 'I

~

~ ~ ~

~

J t A

II~

1 1 ~ II~

~ ~ A

~ ~ ~ ~ J J

~

h

~ tA A

~

I A

I Y

I

~

P

~ t P I'

Y I IY I

I"r-I I r" """

~

~ p Y

1 Y

Y 1'

h

~

I J

J

~

I

~

A

~

I h

~

J J

~ J A

~

~ I

~

4 J

J

~ AJ

~

1 I

I

~

1

~

I 1

1I

\\

~

I

~

1

~ I

~

1 I

I

~

Ir 1

YA

~

Y

~

I 1 YY I AA

~

1 YY

~

~ ~

'h

~

t \\

~

~ ~ ~t ~ ~ ~ ~

~

'I ~ ~t ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~

~

~ ~

~ I ~ ~

t ~ ~ t

~ t t

~

$ ~ I ~ I

~

I I

~

I I

1

~ I

~

I

~

I I ISI

~

1

~

I

~ ~ ~ I 1 ~ ~ ~

~

~ 4A f

1 151' I

1 1

~

I

~

~ ~

P P

h

'h P

P h

h

~

I'

'I d

J eff

~

I

~

J J

~ AA

~

I I

AA

~

I I

~

Y'Y

~

I

~

I A

J J

I

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

r P

'I

'h Y

r 1

Y 1 YY Y

Y

'I Y 1 YY

~

'I

'h

~ h tr A

A J

A

~ AA

~

P

~

h

'h

~ h h

~

J J

~ J J

~ I I

I I

1 1

C

~

C C

1

~

I

~

C rI

~

I I

~

C CCC 1 1

~

~ ~

~

I I I Isr

~

A A

~ ~

A

~ A I

I

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

)

C

$ ~ I

~

I

~

~ I

~

I

~

) )

~

1 1

C

~

\\

~

P

~

I t

~ t IA

~

\\

I I h

I

~

I

~

C C

C 1

1 I 1

I

~ A

~ I

~

I

~

Y I I I

~

s

~

s

~

~ ~ ~

~

CII C

1 I

I I

I 1

1 I

I'

~

1

~

f f

~

I'I'

~

P

~

I'

~

P t

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

I I

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

)I I 1

~

~ I

~

I I

I

~

I I

~

)

C

~

I

~

I

)C

)

I A

A A

A JAY

~

1 I

~

I ~

~

~'

~

Y Y

~

Y Y

Y

~

I

~

S

'h

~

t

~

I

~

I I

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

s C

1 I

.I.ZP.

I CAY I'r

~

~ s

~

I

~

h

~

C C

A d

A A

I'

~

A

~ AA

~

s

~

1

~

I

~

)C

) ))

A

~ AA I

~

Y

~ YY Y Y

~ YY A

~ AA

~

J

~

~ AJ

~

)

A J I J A J

A

~ AJ

~

Y Y

~ YY h

\\ Ah

~

'I Y

~ YY I

I

~

I

~ h h

~

A I

I

~

sI

~

I 1

10 100 Frequency (Hz)

U. S. NRC G. S. Vissing A-11 October 20, 1997 8'ith respect to the dynamic fliiid-stnictureinteraction analyses using the computer code, ANSYS, in the

Reference:

a)

Erplain how the simple stick model iisedin the dynamic analyses can accurately and realistically represent the actual highly complicated nonlinear hydrodynamic fluid-rack stnicture interactions and behavior ofthefiielassemblies and the box-type rack slnicture.

b)

Provide the results ofany existing experimental stiidy that verifies the correct or adequate simulation ofthefluidcoupling utilizedin the numeric analyses for thefiiel asseinblies, racks and walls. Ifthere is no such experimental study available, provide in detail techni caljustifications on how the currenl level ofthe ANSYS code verification is adequate for engineering applications and should be accepted withoutfiirther experimental verificationwork c)

Provide in a tabular form the material properlies including the sliffiiess (k) used for the simplified computer stnictural models shown in Figures 3.5-31 and 3.5-32 on the Reference, and the technical basis for the conclusion thai the properti es usedin the analyses are realistic and equi valent to the properties ofthe actual rack stnicture.

d)

Indicate whether you had any nuinerical convergency and!or stabilityproblem(s) during the nonlinear, dynainic single-and mulli-rackanalyses using the ANSYS code. Ifthere were any, how didyou overcome the problem?

e)

Submit the ANSYSinput data in ASCIIfor the Model I (3-D Single Rack Plate Model) and the Model 2 (3-D Single Rack Beam Model) analyses with complete information (i.e.,

artificialtiine history input motions, loading conditions, boundary conditions, material properlies, loading steps, etc.) on a 3.5-inch diskette.

~R~~n a)

The behavior ofspent fuel storage racks is complex, and some simplification ofthe actual behavior is appropriate when creating a mathematical model for use in a finite element analysis.

One has to assess the aspects ofthe structural behavior which are important to simulation while considering the end use.

U. S. NRC G. S. Vissing A-12 October 20, 1997 The racks are very rigid structures and their natural frequencies are much greater than the predominant seismic input forcing frequencies.

Hence, the rack structure motion can be described by a 3-D beam element (six degrees-of-freedom, three translational and three rotational).

The mathematical models (3-D single rack and whole pool multi-rack) used to perform dynamic analyses ofthe fuel storage rack structure simulated the three-dimensional characteristics ofthe rack modules in a comprehensive manner.

These models included features to allow for sliding and tipping ofthe racks and to represent the hydrodynamic coupling which can occur between fuel assemblies and rack cells, between racks, and between the racks and the reinforced concrete walls. The gap elements were incorporated to account for impact between the fuel assembly and the rack. To detect any impact between racks and/or any impact between the racks and the pool wall, additional gap elements were introduced into the 3D-whole pool model ofthe single rack The support legs were modeled as compression-only gap elements which considered the local vertical flexibilityofthe rack-support interface. Friction elements were used at the bottom ofthe support legs.

The spent fuel storage racks are free-standing structures.

They are constructed ofa simple tube structure assembled in a honeycomb pattern.

Under given seismic excitation they behave similar to a very rigid structure.

The beam representation gives adequate simulation for seismic loadings.

As discussed in the report, for thermal and other conditions, the complete rack was idealized using plate elements.

The spent fuel storage racks seem like a complex structure.

However, when compared to other 10CFR50 license applications, like reactor vessel internals, steam generator internals, containment building, which all are analyzed using beam representation, the spent fuel storage rack itselfis a very simple assembly ofsquare tube structures.

Also, the beam representation is consistent with the 1985 licensing basis, NRC SER dated November 14, 1984 (Reference 3.24 ofthe Licensing Report). Also, this approach is concurrent with recently licensed spent fuel storage racks, namely, Zion Station Units 1 and 2, Docket Nos. 50-295 and 50-304; Haddam Neck Plant, Docket 50-213; and Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, Docket 50-293.

In summary, the methodology used for the mathematical model ofthe rack structures is consistent with industry practice.

A-13 U. S. NRC G. S. Vissing b)

October 20, 1997 The experimental verification ofthe fluid coupling simulation is provided in Appendix NRCQ2-A to this question.

The results show very good agreement between the ANSYS results and the experimental test results.

The validation ofthe ANSYS Version 5.2 is in conformance with the provision ofthe Framatome Technologies Inc., Quality Assurance Program, Doc. No. 56-1201212 (Section 7.2 ofthe Licensing Report).

The validation meets the requirements ofthe subsection II.4.c ofSRP Section 3.8.4 and subsection II.4.e ofSRP Section 3.8.1.

SRP 3.8.1 states computer program validation should meet any ofthe followingprocedures or criteria:

(i) The computer program is a recognized program in the public domain, and has had sufficient history ofuse to justify its applicability and validitywithout further demonstration.

(ii) The computer program solution to a series oftest problems has been demonstrated to be substantially identical to those obtained by a similar and independently written and recognized program in the public domain.

The test problems should be demonstrated to be similar to or within the range ofapplicability ofthe problems analyzed by the public domain computer program.

(iii)The computer program solution to a series oftest problems has been demonstrated to be substantially identical to those obtained from classical solutions or from accepted experimental tests or to analytical results published in technical literature.

The test problem should be demonstrated to be similar to or within the range ofapplicability ofthe classical problems analyzed to justify acceptance ofthe program.

ANSYS is a widely used and accepted computer program in the public domain.

The validation ofthe fluid coupling element using classical equations was presented to the NRC Staff during a meeting on August 25, 1997.

The experimental verification is provided in Appendix NRCQ2-A to this question.

The computer program validation requirements ofthe SRP 3.8.4 and SRP 3.8.1 are met.

c)

The material properties used in the 3-D Single Rack and 3-D Whole Pool Rack model are given in Tables 3.4-2 through 3.4-8 ofthe Licensing Report.

The material properties for the structural material are from the ASME Code, which is referenced in the report.

The rack stiffnesses are generated internally in the computer program from cross-section properties and are provided in the following summary.

The rack stiffness, in terms of cross-section properties, is provided in Section 3.5.3.1.1.1, starting in page 136 ofthe Licensing Report. The stiffness properties are developed using classical applied mechanics equations.

The seismic analysis results are not sensitive to the rack stiffness, and this is demonstrated in Section 3.5.2.7.

U. S. NRC G. S. Vissing Fuel Cell Impact Stiffness summary:

Type 1 (Existing U.S. Tool 2 Die Racks):

Type 2 and Type 4 (New ATEARacks)

Type 3 (New ATEARacks) 4,449 lb/in 7,036 lb/in 6,595 lb/in October 20, 1997 The following axial stiffnesses (AE/L)are calculated internally in ANSYS, but are given for information purposes.

Allpage references are from the Ginna Licensing Report.

Consolidated Fuel Canister Structural Properties:

E = 27.87 E6 psi A= 3.6681 in',a

= 9.3920 in L=159in k,~ = 1.65 E6 lb/in (k for A,fr)

E (Zircaloy) = 12.0 E6 psi A=7.1419 m L= 159 in k = 5.39 ES lb/in Fuel Assembly Structural Properties:

U. S. NRC G. S. Vissing October 20, 1997 Support Pad Structural Properties (k represents individual support pad)

E = 27.87 E6 psi L = 10.0 in (for Rack Types 1,4), and L = 19.60 in (for Rack Types 2,3)

Legs ofType 1 Rack:

k = 3.75 E8 1b/in Legs ofRack 7 (2A):

k = 5.69 E7 lb/in Legs ofRack 8 (2B):

k = 7.54 E7 Ib/in Legs ofRack 9 (3C):

k = 3.84 E7 lb/in Legs ofRack 10(3A):

k = 5.69 E7 lb/in Legs ofRack 11(3E):

k = 5.69 E7 lb/in Legs ofRack 12(3D):

k = 3.84 E7 lb/in Legs ofRack 13(3B):

k = 5.23 E7 lb/in Legs ofType 4 Rack:

k = 2.91 E7 1b/in A= 134.5 in~

A=40.0 in~

A= 53.0 I A=27.0 in A=40.0 in A= 40.0 in~

A= 27.0 in~

A= 36.8 in'x

= 144.0 in4 Ix= 211.0 in'x

= 217.0 in'x

= 144.0 in'x

= 190.0in'y

= 144.0 in Iy= 211.0 in'y

= 217.0 in'y

= 144.0 in'y

= 190.0 in' A= 10.45in'x= 32.9 in4 Iy= 86.5 in'x

= 1372.6 in'y= 1274.6 in'x

211.0 in Iy

211.0in'x

= 290.0in'y= 290.0 in'

U. S. NRC G. S. Vissing A-16 October 20, 1997 Type 1 (Existing) Rack Structural Properties:

E = 27.87 E6 psi A= 420.3 in'

= 159 in k = 7.37 E7 lb/in Type 2 Rack Structural Properties:

E = 27.87 E6 psi L = 158.5 in Rack 7:

Rack 8:

A= 113.9 in'=1295in k = 2.00 E7 lb/in k = 2.28 E7 lb/in Type 3 Rack Structural Properties:

E = 27.87 E6 psi L=162in Rack 9:

Rack 10:

Rack 11:

Rack 12:

Rack 13:

A= 66.2 in~

A= 92.7 in~

A= 84.8 in'=

66.2 in~

A= 82.1 in'

= 1.14 E7 lb/in k = 1.59 E7 lb/in k = 1.46 E7 lb/in k = 1.14 E7 lb/in k = 1.41 E7 lb/in Type 4 Rack Structural Properties:

E = 27.87E06 psi L= 158.5 in Rack Type 4:

A= 25.9 in k = 4.55 E6 lb/in

U. S. NRC G. S. Vissing A-17 October 20, 1997 d)

There were no convergency or stability problems for either the single-or multi-rack model runs during the nonlinear, dynamic analyses.

Allload cases ran for the fulltime history and obtained a converged solution, using the same basic ANSYS program parameters.

The ANSYS solver uses the implicitintegration scheme which, upon convergence, produces a repeatable, stable solution within prescribed (program-chosen defaults) tolerance limits.

e)

The ANSYS input data in the ASCIIform are provided in the enclosed 3.5-inch computer diskette. Note that these input data are proprietary information and should be used only for the Ginna licensing effort. These data are for use with ANSYS Version 5.2. Alldata are self-explanatory and an experienced ANSYS user should be able to use it easily. If you encounter any problem, FRAMATOMEcan assist the NRC Staff at its Lynchburg offices.

Disk Files Include:

Disk ANSYS Input Files, File S3DR8PL. TXT 3-D Single Rack Plate Model File S3DR8SC. TXT 3-D Single Rack Dynamic Model The 3-D Single Rack Plate Model (Model 1) was used for the static stress, thermal, and the base plate stress analysis, as presented in the detailed descriptions ofModel 1 in Section 3.5.2.3 ofthe report. The model was not used with any time history input.

The loading conditions, boundary conditions, material properties, and loading steps are part ofthese input files. The time history input (SSE1) is included with the input for Model 2.

U. S. NRC G. S. Vissing A-18 October 20, 1997 Appendix NRCQ2-A

" Experimental Verification of ANSYS Hydrodynamic Mass Coupling and Dynamic Behavior ofImmersed Rectangular Solids in Rectangular Cavities 1.

Objective An ANSYS numerical study was made to demonstrate the correlation between an ANSYS model utilizing hydrodynamically coupled rectangular tube contained within a laterally excited rectangular container, or cavity, and the experimental results reported in References 3.45 and 3.46. A single degree-of-freedom (DOF) oscillator model (Ref. 3.45), used for estimating certain system's parameters is also compared to the ANSYS results.

2.

Experiment Setup Figure A1 Experiment Setup Accelerarneters Plexiglass Walls An experimental set-up, reported in References 3.45 and 3.46, is shown in Figure A1. A rectangular steel tube with a solid bottom is enclosed in a long rectangular plexiglass container rigidlyconnected to a solid base plate. The base plate is supported with four steel consoles acting as springs for the laterally imposed base plate motion via electromagnetic actuator.

The plexiglass container is additionally reinforced with a separate rectangular plexiglass plate fixed to the base plate (Fig.A1, left upper 4" x 4" Steel Tube corner).

Steel Springs (2)

Steel Support Springs (4)

Water Level Overlaplng Teflon Seals Shaker Concrete Black The steel tube bottom plate is connected to the base plate via two elongated steel plates acting as consoles. These vertical steel plates act as springs for the tube's laterally induced motion. At the top and bottom tube elevations, teflon seals are introduced in order to minimize eventual vertical mean flowalong tube walls. The seal's locations also define water column height. Apair ofaccelerometers is used to pick up acceleration time histories for both the tube and the rigid plexiglass container.

The shaker's frequency ranged from 5 to 35 Hz, to obtain adequate data points. The amplitude

U. S. NRC G. S. Vissing A-19 October 20, 1997 response ratio is measured for each excitation frequency.

The results are plotted for selected points in Figure A4.

3.

ANSYS Model Description The system shown in Fig.A1 is modeled in ANSYS as a series of two vertically connected

beams, with the upper one being hydrodynamically coupled to the enveloping plexiglass container, as shown in Figure A2.

Figure A2 ANSYS Model Beam Plexi-Walls Added Weight Lumped at the Tube Bottom Spring Beam Hyd.-Dynamic Coupling Elem.

Base Plate Input Motion The bottom beam represents a pair of vertical steel strips, while the upper beam represents the steel tube. ANSYS 3D element "BEAM4"(Ref. 3.40) is used for both beams, while hydrodynamic coupling is modeled with ANSYS "FLUID38" elements at the tube beam top, middle and bottom locations.

Additional weight placed in the tube (Ref. 3.46) is lumped at its bottom. Forced input harmonic motion is applied to both spring beam bottom (base plate) and plexiglass container walls.

Model properties are obtained as follows:

Steel Tube Tube envelope mass:

m, = V, (pg = 0.0174 ib-s~/in (weight = m, g = (0.0174)(386.4) = 6.72 lb),

where, V, = 4(a h t) = 24 in' the material tube envelope volume), a = 4.0 in ( tube side width),

h = 8.0 in ( tube height), t = 3/16" = 0.1875 in ( tube wall thickness) and p, = 72.46x10'b-s /in' tube wall density, steel, room temperature).

From Ref. 3.46, total tube weight is 15 lb, which includes additional weight together with bolts and nuts connecting tube base to steel springs. It is assumed that all additional mass is concentrated at the bottom ofthe tube; i.e., it is lumped at the bottom tube beam node. This lumped mass includes tube bottom plate.

U. S. NRC G. S. Vissing A-20 October 20, 1997 Lumped mass (tube bottom): mb= (total weight) / g - (tube envelope mass)

= 15.0/386.4 - 0.0174 = 0.0214 lb-s'/in or weight = (0.0214)(386.4) = 8.28 lb Tube cross section: A,=4(at) =3 in'ube cross section moment ofinertia: I, = 2[a t /12 + (a t) (a/2) ] = 8.0 in'teel Spring Equivalent spring beam consists oftwo vertical steel strips, each 4" long, 1" wide and 3/32" thick.

Bending occurs about the weak axis.

Eqv. Spring cross section: A, = 2(c t,) = 2(1")(0.0938") = 0.1875 in~

Eqv. Spring cross sect. moment ofinertia: I, = 2[t'c/12] = 2[0.09383(1")/12] = 1.373x10" in4 Eqv. Spring lateral stiffness:

k = 12 I,E / L = 772.3 lb/in, for both beam ends clamped, where:

E= 30 MSI(steel elastic modulus@room temperature) and L=4" (equivalent spring beam length). It is suggested in Ref. 3.46 that while excited, the tube remains practically parallel to the plexiglass container walls. In the ANSYS model, this effect is achieved by imposing rotational constraint at the common beams node.

Fluid Masses Hydrodynamic mass, Ref. 3.45: M=(16/3) ph b'/ w = 0.0908 Ib-s /in, where p=

9.345x10'b-s'/in'water density room temperature),

b = (a+w)/2 = (4+0.5)/2 = 2.25 in (water column centerline width, (Fig.A3)), and w = 0.5 in ( tube-to-wall gap).

Displaced fluid mass, Ref. 3.45: M, = (2b-w)'

p= 0.01196 lb-s'/in Fluid mass based on container volume, Ref. 3.45: M, = (2b+ w)'

p= 0.01869 Ib-s'/in Figure A3 Water Column Dimensions The effect ofhydrodynamic fluid coupling is discretized as 1/2 at the tube beam mid-height and 1/4 at its top and bottom (Fig.A2).

ANSYS fluid coupling element "FLUID38"(Ref. 3.40) is used with KEYOPT(3) = 2 for concentric arbitrary cylinders (i.e., rectangular) and KEYOPT(6) = 2 for local element coordinate system's lateral axes oriented in global X and Z directions.

2b

U. S. NRC G. S. Vissing A-21 October 20, 1997 Boundary Conditions Boundary conditions are shown in Fig.A2. AllDOFs ofthe spring beam bottom node are fixed (clamped condition) except the X-displacement component, which is prescribed as sinusoidal motion. The same also applies for the three wall nodes connecting hydrodynamic elements to the tube beam. Due to the fact that the tube remains practically parallel to the container walls, the tube beam bottom node is prevented from rotation about lateral Z-axis (spring's beam bending axis). To match the measured natural frequency in water, spring beam stiffness is adjusted as k =

(2m f,) [m+M]= (2n 9.2)

[0.0388+ 0.0908] = 433.1 lb/in.

Structural Damping A time history analysis approach is used to obtain the system's response amplitude ratio. The system is excited to a sinusoidal excitation at selected nodes and response amplitude, or nodal displacement response as a function oftime is obtained for selected points ofthe system.

The connecting node between the spring and the tube beams is chosen, since its motion sufficiently describes behavior ofthe system and it could also be compared against a single DOF theoretical model. Rayleigh damping is used for comparison purposes.

In addition to the stiffness matrix multiplier P, the mass matrix multiplier n is simultaneously used to provide more uniform damping over a desired range of frequencies.

These multipliers are obtained as a solution ofthe system oftwo simultaneous linear equations:

(;= o',/(2(o)+ Pio;/2, where io,.=2mf; [s']

By choosing known pairs ofnatural frequencies with their associated damping ratio values (Ref.

3.45), f, =15.3Hzand(, =0.053, inair; f~=9.2Hz and(2=0.062 in water, theRayleigh damping multipliers are u = 5.456 and P = 5.122x10'.

4.

Results The experiment (in water) data points are obtained from Ref. 3.46. Note that the accuracy of their coordinates in amplitude response plot (Fig.A4) might be insufficient, due to the small scale ofthe original experiment curve provided in Ref. 3.45. However, their trend is sufficient to validate the ANSYS model's comparison.

In the time history method, a 3 second displacement time history is created for each selected excitation frequency, and applied at the selected nodes of the system.

The amplitude for all time-histories is unity, i.e., 1.0 in. ANSYS results are also compared against single DOF oscillator model (equation 24 in Ref. 3.45, labeled as "Theory" in Fig. A4), with the total tube mass lumped at the top ofthe spring beam. Figure A4 shows good comparison between the ANSYS and theoretical response ratio predictions. A minor discrepancy between these models and the experiment is in part due to a sensitivity ofmeasuring equipment, as suggested in Ref. 3.46.

U. S. NRC G. S. Vissing A-22 October 20, 1997 Conclusions

1) It is concluded that ANSYS hydrodynamic element FLUID38 can be used to represent fluid-structure interaction ofrectangular prismatic containers with good correlation with both theory and test results.

There is a good agreement between ANSYS results and experimental test data for dynamic fluid-structure interaction problems.

This verifies the capacity ofANSYS to perform seismic time-history analyses ofsubmerged spent fuel storage racks in pools.

2)

Use ofbeam stick model and lumped masses is a realistic representation offuel and rack type structures for use in time-history driven dynamic analyses.

U. S. NRC G. S. Vissing I<'igure A4 Comparison ofResults A-23 October 20, 1997 2

o CL CD

~ 1.5 CD CL 1

CU 0

0 I

I I

Amplitude Response Ratio I

I

- Theory,'

I I

I Experimental ResLilts

--r I

I I

1 I

I I

I o

I I

I IIO I

I I

I ANSVS Time History I

I I

I 1

20 5

10 15 Excitation Frequency [Hz]

U. S. NRC G. S. Vissing A-24 October 20, 1997 N

8'ith respect to the dynamicfluidcoupling element (FLUID38ofthe ANSYS code) used in the analysis:

a)

Itis our understanding that the element FLUID38was developed for afluidflowstudy in an infinitelylong rigidcylindricalpipe. Explain how this element can be applicable for your 3-Dfluid-rack (single-and multiple-rack) interaction analysis.

b)

Ifthe ANSYSinput (real constants P2, Al, L, I", DX DZ, PX WZ M2, MI,MHX MHZ, CX CZ) and material properties (DENS)) were usedfor the FLUID38 element, provide the values and technical basis for the conclusion that those values are realistic.

c)

One ofthe assumptions for the PLUID38 element ofANSYS code is that the lumped option is not available with this element. Didyou use the lu>nped optionfor thefluid mass? Ifnot, how do you treat thefluidmass?

Explain.

~Ryan

)

b)

The ANSYS FLUID38 element is the dynamic fluid coupling element.

This element is a generic element to represent a dynamic coupling between two points ofa structure.

The points represent the centerline ofconcentric cylinders. The cylinders might be circular or have an arbitrary cross-section.

The default values are for a cylinder vibrating in a cylinder. However, when one uses KEYOPT(3) = 2 it can be an arbitrary cross section.

This option is used in the single-rack and multi-rack interaction analysis.

The dynamic fiuid coupling used is based on a rectangular body vibrating in fluid contained in an annulus created by a rectangular outer body. The fluid coupling values are based on the Singh-1990 (Reference 3.38 ofthe Licensing Report) paper.

The derivation of fluid'ynamic values are experimentally verified by Scavuzzo-1979, "Dynamic Fluid Structure Coupling ofRectangular Modules in Rectangular Pools" (Reference 3.45).

In the ANSYS FLUID38 element input ifKEYOPT(3) = 0 is used, it represents the concentric cylinders, and for that case R2, R1, etc., constants are required. In our case KEYOPT(3) = 2 for arbitrary cross sections was used. MMM~,and M>> terms ofthe fluid couple-mass matrix were also input. Tables 3.5-10 and 3.5-11 ofthe Licensing Report provide the mass matrix terms MM~M~ and M>> used in the fluid structure interaction analysis.

c)

The lumped mass option (LUMPM, ON) is not available for ANSYS FLUID38 element.

We did not use lump masses for this element.

The dynamic fiuid coupling is hydrodynamic mass based on potential theory, Singh-1990 (Reference 3.38).

Section 3.5.2.5 discusses the use and calculation ofhydrodynamic fluid mass.

U. S. NRC G. S. Vissing A-25 October 20, 1997 8'ith respect to t'e analytical simulation ofthe rattlingfuel assembly impacting against the cell:

a)

How didyou calculate the magnitude ofthe largest impactforce and the location ofthe impact in the fuel assembly and the cell wall?

b) c)

How didyou determine and analyze the fidel assembly and cell wall integrity?

Discuss the considerations given to the effects ofthefluidbetween the fuel assembly and cell wallduring the interactions.

d)

Provide available experimental studies that verify the reasonableness ofthe numerical simulation adopted to represent thefuel assembly and the cell wallinteraction.

~R~~n a)

Impacts between the rack and fuel assembly lumped masses were accounted for by the use ofgap elements, as shown in Figure 3.5-41 ofthe Licensing Report.

The impact forces are calculated from the seismic time-history analysis.

Gapped spring elements are employed to track the impact forces.

The peak forces on these gapped elements represent the impact force.

The impact forces between the fuel assemblies and the cell wall were obtained using the minimum and maximum results summary obtained through the post-processing capability ofANSYS. The post-processing used was POST26, which can extract requested data from a time-history analysis, in order to produce tables ofresult items versus time. The real-time fuel/rack impact loads were tabulated in POST26 for the sum ofboth the top and middle rack nodes throughout the entire time-history. The real time maximum impact load was thus obtained for all the fuel assemblies in any particular rack. The assumption that all fuel assemblies act in unison is conservative.

Therefore, the maximum combined fueVrack impact load was then divided by the number offuel assemblies in the rack to obtain a maximum fueVrack impact load per fuel assembly.

The summary ofthe resulting fuel-to-rack impact loads for each rack and for each load case is tabulated in Tables 3.5-46 through 3.5-57 of the Licensing Report.

e

A-26 October 20, 1997 U. S. NRC G. S. Vissing b)

The cell wall integrity is determined by stress analysis.

Section 3.5;2.2.2.4.discusses the stress analysis.

Table 3.5-58 provides the results ofthe cell wall stress analysis and shows comparison ofactual impact load against the allowable load.

The ANSYS finite element analysis was used to calculate stresses in the fuel rack-cell wall due to impact loading offuel assemblies.

The maximum allowable fuel rack load was defined as one which would reach the maximum stress intensity based on the stress limit specified in the ASME Code Section III, Subsection NF. The calculation gave an allowable load per cell of2290.0 pounds for the OBE condition and 2900.0 pounds for the SSE condition. These allowable loads are much lower than the load value required to ensure the fuel assembly integrity. The elastic load limits ofthe fuel assembly spacer grids tested range from [b, c, d]. The fuel assembly structural integrity is assured, ifthe spacer grid impact loads are lower than the spacer grid elastic load limit. The highest impact load value obtained from the OBE analysis is 908 pounds and from the SSE analysis is 1600 pounds.

These calculations confirm the local rack cell wall integrity and the fuel assembly integrity for the maximum fuel to rack cell wall impact loads.

c)

The fluid between the fuel assembly and the cell wall was considered in the seismic analysis.

The theory ofcylinder vibrating in the fluid (Reference 3.38 ofthe Licensing Report) is utilized in the hydrodynamic mass calculations.

The fuel assembly containing 179 individual fuel rods, 16 guide tubes and one instrument tube was utilized in the calculation.

Section 3.5.2.5.1 provides the detailed fuel assembly hydrodynamic calculations for W-Standard, W-OFA and Exxon fuel assemblies.

d)

Section 3.5.3.1.1.3 discusses the numerical simulation between the fuel assembly and the cell wall. This is a classic engineering mechanics problem. No experimental studies are required for the general structural problem. No known experimental study exists at Framatome Cogema Fuels. Allthe experiments performed by Babcock &Wilcox are for fuel impacting a rigid surface or impacting other fuel assemblies.

U. S. NRC G. S. Vissing i n A-27 October 20, 1997 Provide a complete deformation shape with magnitudes ofthe deformations ofthe rackfion> the bottom to the topfor the single-rack SSL analysis when the maxhnum displacement at the rack top corner occurs.

Reels The single-rack 3-D model was used for parametric studies only. The displacements and loads were obtained from the whole-pool multi-rack model. A summary ofall the maximum absolute horizontal displacements is provided in response to NRC Question ¹ 7. A review ofthose displacements shows that the maximum displacement for any rack, for all loading conditions, occurs at Rack ¹7, during Load Case ¹1. The summary ofthose maximum displacements are provided in the table below. Therefore, the description ofthe maximum absolute displacements for Rack ¹7 are provided for the rack bottom, middle, and top four corners.

Table NRCQ5.1 Max. Rack Horizontal crisp.

Top - LC¹1 GINNA3D Whole Pool Model - Without Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹1 - Unconsolidated Fuel - SSE - Mu = 0.8 Maximum Rack Horizontal Displacements (Xand Y- (in))

Rack MinX 1

-0.25760 2

-0.28680 3

-0.29000 4

-0.25190 5

-0.38440 6

-0.35710 7

-0.59190 8

-0.55160 9

-0.58630 10

-0.53080 11

-0.52280 12

-0.49180 13

-0.50680 Max X 0.33280 0.26240 0.18640 0.19140 0.24140 0.27190 0.41610 0.55660 0.56700 0.44060 0.57350 0.57140 0.45750 MinY

-0.42080

-0.36870

-0.26200

-0.25300

-0.19250

-0.24400

-0.27550

-0.32230

-0.33660

-0.28250

-0.29340

-0.33350

-0.37800 Max Y 0.28260 0.26970 0.19300 0.17590 0.19140 0.20520 0.16960 0.20600 0.19350 0.14030 0.16560 0.14440 0.10220

U. S. NRC G. S. Vissing A-28 October 20, 1997 Rack Corner Nodal Displacements at Rack's Top, Middle, and Base for Rack ¹7 (inches)

~r~nr Top South-West South-East North-West North-East Rack Center

-0.52334

-0.66054

-0.59194

~Y

-0.17714 0.01878

-0.07918

~7

-0.07794 0.19580

-0.07786 0.19588 0.05897

~r~nr Mid South-West South-East North-West North-East Rack Center

~5(

-0.26183

-0.39891

-0.33037

~Y

-0.17708 0.01867

-0.07920 MZ

-0.07639 0.19417,

-0.07606 0.19449 0.05905

~i~r Base South-West South-East North-West North-East Rack Center

~X

-0.00563

-0.00589

-0.14242

-0.14266

-0.07427

~Y

-0.17587 0.01925

-0.17622 0.01925

-0.07840 MZ

-0.07059 0.18817

-0.06957 0.18918 0.05930

I U..S. NRC G. S. Vissing A-29 October 20, 1997 Provide the largest magnitude ofthe hydrodynamic pressure distribution along the height ofthe rack during thefluidand rack interaction for each case ofthe 3-D single-and multi-rack analyses.

~Res ense:

The single 3-D rack model was used for parametric studies.

The loads, including the hydrodynamic loads, and displacements were all obtained solely with the multi-rack whole-pool model. Therefore, the requested hydrodynamic pressure distribution is provided for the whole-pool multi-rack model. The hydrodynamic pressure distributions are tabulated for each rack that interfaces with the spent fuel pool walls. The real-time summation ofhydrodynamic loads for the bottom, middle, and top ofeach rack was used to provide an average hydrodynamic pressure for the entire height ofthe rack. Also, a real-time summation ofhydrodynamic loads was obtained for all the racks facing each ofthe four walls. The real-time averaged wall pressure for each of the four walls was then determined, and is provided in the following tables.

The tables NRCQ6.1 thru NRCQ6.12 are for each ofthe Load Cases 1 thru 12.

U. S. NRC G. S. Vissing A-30 October 20, 1997 Table NRCQ6.1 Max. Rack Seismic Hydro Pressures - LC¹1 GINNA3D Whole Pool Model - Without Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹1 - Unconsolidated Fuel - SSE - Mu = 0.8 Maximum Rack Pressures Due to Seismic Loading Rack West Side Rl-WW R2-WW Min.

Max.

Press.

(psi)

-2.497 2.853

-2.693 2.956 East Side R7-EW Rl 1-EW R12-EW R13-EW J

South Side Rl-SW R3-SW RS-SW Rj-SW Rl 1-SW

-3.052 3.935

-3.786 5.008

-7.643 10.077

-4.176 4.995

-5.418 3.758

-15.162 11.255

-18.334 15.081

-3.322 2.726

-3.220 2.477 North Side R2-NW R4-NW R6-NW R10-NW R13-NW

-5.325 3.671

-18.282 13.105

-10.452 8.595

-5.775 4.522

-2.524 2.001

'um ofReal Time Rack Pressures (psi) Averaged for Each Side SUM-WW

-1.397 1.564 SUM-EW

-2.383 3.144 SUM-SW

-8.709 6.782 SUM-NW

-8.023 6.051 Note:

The above reported pressures are on the perimeter racks.

U. S. NRC G. S. Vissing A-31 October 20, 1997 Table NRCQ6.2 Max. Rack Seismic Hydro Pressures - LC¹2 GINNA3D Whole Pool Model - Without Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹2 - Unconsolidated Fuel - SSE - Mu = 0.2 Maximum Rack Pressures Due to Seismic Loading Rack West Side Rl-WW R2-WW Min.

Max.

Press.

(psi)

(p>>)

-2.538 2.322

-2.683 2.478 East Side Rj-EW R11-EW R12-EW R13-EW

-3.399 3.937

-3.514 4.294

-6.801 8.846

-3.808 4.191 South Side Rl-SW R3-SW RS-SW Rj-SW R11-SW

-3.994 3.166

-11.901 10.363

-16.997 14.018

-3.209 2.633

-3.252 2.489 North Side R2-NW R4-NW R6-NW R10-NW R13-NW

-4.159 3.021

-14.293 12.220

-9.635 7.681

-5.423 4.571

-2.441 2.121 Sum ofReal Time Rack Pressures (psi) Averaged for Each Side SUM-WW

-1.405 1.288 SUM-EW

-2.316 2.789 SUM-SW

-7.461 6.320 SUM-NW

-6.835 5.746 Note:

The above reported pressures are on the perimeter racks.

U. S. NRC G. S. Vissing A-32 October 20, 1997 Table NRCQ6.3 Max. Rack Seismic Hydro Pressures

- LC¹3 GINNA3D Whole Pool Model - Without Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹3 - Consolidated Fuel - SSE - Mu = 0.8 Maximum Rack Pressures Due to Seismic Loading Rack West Side Rl-WW R2-WW Min.

Max.

Press.

(psi)

-1.076 1.058

-1.136 1.165 East Side R7-EW Rl 1-EW R13-EW

-3.434 3.065

-8.085 7.052

-4.144 3.297 South Side Rl-SW R3-SW R5-SW R7-SW Rl 1-SW

-2.819 3.758

-7.232 9.212

-9.799 11.062

-2.064 2.120

-2.113 2.302 North Side R2-NW R4-NW R6-NW R10-NW R13-NW

-3.087 3.713

-9.412 11.433

-5.921 7.043

-3.287 3.491

-1.539 1.679 Sum ofReal Time Rack Pressures (psi) Averaged for Each Side SUM-WW

-0.573 0.594 SUM-EW

-2.598 2.140 SUM-SW

-4.441 5.411 SUM-NW

-4.438 5.224 Note:

The above reported pressures are on the perimeter racks.

U. S. NRC G. S. Vissing A-33 October 20, 1997 Table NRCQ6.4 Max. Rack Side Seismic Hydro Pressures - LCII4 GINNA3D Whole Pool Model - Without Perimeter Racks Load Case 84 - Unconsolidated Fuel - SSE - Mu = 0.5 Maximum Rack Pressures Due to Seismic Loading Rack West Side Rl-WW R2-WW Min.

Max.

Press.

(psi)

(p>>)

-2.496 2.716

-2.693 3.450 East Side R7-EW Rl 1-EW R12-EW R13-EW

-2.833 3.557

-3.635 4.561

-8.232 10.163

-4.412 5.273 South Side Rl-SW R3-SW R5-SW R7-SW Rl 1-SW

-4.812 4.002

-13. 171 11.270

-18.104 15.125

-3.234 2.738

-3.143 2.562 North Side R2-NW R4-NW R6-NW R10-NW R13-NW

-4.900 3.999

-16.626 13.171

-10.289 8.305

-5.717 4.574

-2.516 2.100 Sum ofReal Time Rack Pressures (psi) Averaged for Each Side SUM-WW

-1.397 1.649 SUM-EW

-2.444 3.044 SUM-SW

-7.890 6.804 SUM-NW

-7.345 6.082 Note:

The above reported pressures are on the perimeter racks.

U. S. NRC G. S. Vissing A-34 October 20, 1997 Table NRCQ6.5 Max. Rack Seismic Hydro Pressures - LC¹5 GINNA3D Whole Pool Model - With Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹5 - Unconsolidated Fuel - SSE - Mu = 0.8 Maximum Rack Pressures Due to Seismic Loading Rack West Side Rl-WW R2-WW Min.

Max.

Press.

(psi)

-2.472 2.545

-2.886 2.509 East Side R7-EW Rl 1-EW R12-EW R13-EW

-3.613 2.986

-3.397 2.998

-8.074 6.885

-4.146 3.585 South Side Rl-SW R3-SW RS-SW R7-SW Rl 1-SW

-4.976 4.245

-14.174 11.671

-19.040 15.898

-3.244 2.753

-3.190 2.722 North Side R2-NW R4-NW R6-NW R10-NW R13-NW

-4.206 3.657

-15.838 13.773

-11.010 8.848

-5.730 4.647

-2.598 2.032 Sum ofReal Time Rack Pressures (psi) Averaged for Each Side SUM-WW

-1.439 1.232 SUM-EW

-2.529 2.120 SUM-SW

-8.327 7.067 SUM-NW

-7.579 6.289 Note:

The above reported pressures are on the perimeter racks.

U. S. NRC G. S. Vissing A-35 October 20, 1997 Table NRCQ6.6 Max. Rack Seismic Hydro Pressures - LCP6 GINNA3D Whole Pool Model - With Perimeter Racks Load Case A'6 - Consolidated Fuel - SSE - Mu = 0.8 Maximum Rack Pressures Due to Seismic Loading Rack Min.

Press.

(psi)

Max.

Press.

(psi)

West Side Rl-WW R2-WW

-1.506 1.348

-1.471 1.416 East Side R7-EW Rl 1-EW R12-EW R13-EW

-3.261 2.409

-3.998 3.217

-7.709 6.599

-3.798 3.236 South Side Rl-SW R3-SW RS-SW R7-SW Rl 1-SW

-3.140 3.605

-7.733 9.405

-10.036 11.641

-2.006 2.053

-2. 166 2.111 North Side R2-NW R4-NW R6-NW R10-NW R13-NW

-3.025 3.625

-9.821 11.752

-6.090 7.459

-3.323 3.438

-1.556 1.628 Sum ofReal Time Rack Pressures (psi) Averaged for Each Side SUM-WW

-0.798 0.735 SUM-EW

-2.464 2.025 SUM-SW

-4.705 5.519 SUM-NW

-4.472 5.300 Note:

The above reported pressures are on the perimeter racks.

U. S. NRC G. S. Vissing A-36 October 20, 1997 Table NRCQ6.7 Max. Rack Seismic Hydro Pressures - LCP7 GINNA3D Whole Pool Model - With Perimeter Racks Load Case P7 - Unconsolidated Fuel - SSE - Mu = 0.2 Maximum Rack Pressures Due to Seismic Loading Rack West Side Rl-WW R2-WW Min.

Max.

Press.

(psi)

(p>>)

-2.669 3.256

-2.892 2.950 East Side R7-EW Rl 1-EW R12-EW R13-EW

-3.089 3.847

-3.311 3.281

-6.694 7.194

-3.281 3.099 South Side Rl-SW R3-SW RS-SW R7-SW Rl 1-SW

-4.174 3.541

-12.369 10.802

-17.681 14.806

-3.088 2.660

-2.896 2.522 North Side R2-NW R4-NW R6-NW R10-NW R13-NW

-4.512 3.821

-16.343 13.617

-10.252 8.157

-5.470 4.614

-2.374 2.129 Sum ofReal Time Rack Pressures (psi) Averaged for Each Side SUM-WW

-1.452 1.661 SUM-EW

-2.157 2.288 SUM-SW

-7.704 6.603 SUM-NW

-7.332 5.982 Note:

The above reported pressures are on the perimeter racks.

U. S. NRC G. S. Vissing A-37 October 20, 1997 Table NRCQ6.8 Max. Rack Seismic Hydro Pressures - LCIIS GINNA3D Whole Pool Model - With Perimeter Racks Load Case P8 - Consolidated Fuel - OBE - Mu = 0.8 Maximum Rack Pressures Due to Seismic Loading Rack West Side Rl-WW R2-WW Min.

Press.

(psi)

-0.610

-0.712 Max.

Press.

(psi) 0.565 0.616 East Side R7-EW R11-EW R12-EW R13-EW

-1.122

-1.710

-3.812

-1.701 1.317 1.775 3.869 1.849 South Side Rl-SW R3-SW RS-SW R7-SW R11-SW

-1.787

-4.039

-4.853

-0.909

-0.895 1.756 4.728 5.393 0.928 0.895 North Side R2-NW R4-NW R6-NW R10-NW R13-NW

-1.776 1..756

-5.043 5.911

-3.019 3.327

-1.412 1.448

-0.671 0.701 Sum ofReal Time Rack Pressures (psi) Averaged for Each Side SUM-WW

-0.356 0.311 SUM-EW

-1.026 1.149 SUM-SW

-2.389 2.668 SUM-NW

-2.291 2.546 Note:

The above reported pressures are on the perimeter racks.

U. S. NRC G. S. Vissing A-38 October 20, 1997 Table NRCQ6.9 Max. Rack Seismic Hydro Pressures - LCP9 GINNA3D Whole Pool Model - With Perimeter Racks Load Case 89 - Unconsolidated Fuel - OBE - Mu = 0.2 Maximum Rack Pressures Due to Seismic Loading Rack West Side Rl-WW R2-WW Min.

Press.

(psi)

-1.165

-1.271 Max.

Press.

(psi) 1.201 1.198 East Side Rj-EW Rl 1-EW R12-EW R13-EW

-1.176

-1.073

-2.231

-1.349 1.344 1.364 2.632 1.243 South Side Rl-SW R3-SW R5-SW R7-SW Rl 1-SW

-1.987

-5.749

-7.889

-1.247

-1.241 1.989 5.831 7.210 1.405 1.072 North Side R2-NW R4-NW R6-NW R10-NW R13-NW

-2.070

-7.087

-4.472

-2.099

-0.983 1.676 6.834 3.717 1.453 0.986 Sum ofReal Time Rack Pressures (psi) Averaged for Each Side SUM-WW

-0.656 0.636 SUM-EW

-0.724 0.871

'UM-SW

-3.463 3.296 SUM-NW

-3.206 2.817 Note:

The above reported pressures are on the perimeter racks.

U. S. NRC G. S. Vissing A-39 October 20, 1997 Table NRCQ6.10 Max. Rack Seismic Hydro Pressures - LC¹10 GINNA3D Whole Pool Model - Without Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹10 - Unconsolidated Fuel - OBE - Mu = 0.2 Maximum Rack Pressures Due to Seismic Loading Rack West Side Rl-WW R2-WW Min.

Max.

Press.

(psi)

-0.919 0.908

-1.149 0.950 East Side Rj-EW Rl 1-EW R12-EW R13-EW

-1.108 1.294

-1.163 1.449

-2.398 2.540

-1.237 1.369 South Side Rl-SW R3-SW RS-SW R7-SW Rl 1-SW

-1.854 1.911

-5.474 5.362

-7.407 6.794

-1.344 0.962

-1.251 0.997 North Side R2-NW R4-NW R6-NW R10-NW R13-NW

-1.957 1.522

-6.723 6.387

-4.172 3.581

-2.265 2.203

-1.021

1. 169 Sum ofReal Time Rack Pressures (psi) Averaged for Each Side SUM-WW

-0.550 0.500 SUM-EW

-0.740 0.828 SUM-SW

-3.312 3.047 SUM-NW

-3.064 2.681 Note:

The above reported pressures are on the perimeter racks.

U. S. NRC G. S. Vissing A-40 October 20, 1997 Table NRCQ6.11 Max. Rack Seismic Hydro Pressures - LCP11 GINNA3D Whole Pool Model - WithPerimeter Racks Load Case 011 - Mixed Fuel - SSE - Mu = Mixed Maximum Rack Pressures Due to Seismic Loading Rack West Side Rl-WW R2-WW Min.

Press.

(psi)

-1.595

-1.649 Max.

Press.

(psi) 2.038

. 2.091 East Side R7-EW Rl 1-EW R12-EW R13-EW

-1.773 1.560

-2.573 2.054

-6.048 5.603

-3.290 2.499 South Side Rl-SW R3-SW RS-SW Rj-SW Rl 1-SW

-3.179 2.417

-8.105 6.179

-6.950 6.892

-1.458 1.411

-2.096

'1.857 North Side R2-NW R4-NW R6-NW R10-NW R13-NW

-3.344 2.535

-11.218 8.439

" -5.235 4.926

-2.636 2.160

-1.841 1.375 Sum ofReal Time Rack Pressures (psi) Averaged for Each Side SUM-WW

-0.859 1.110 SUM-EW

-1.770 1.435 SUM-SW

-4.227 3.473 SUM-NW

-4.561 3.617 Note:

The above reported pressures are on the perimeter racks.

U. S. NRC G. S. Vissing A-41 October 20, 1997 Table NRCQ6.12 Max. Rack Seismic Hydro Pressures

- LC¹12 GINNA3D Whole Pool Model - With Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹12 - Mixed Fuel - OBE - Mu = Mixed Maximum Rack Pressures Due to Seismic Loading

Rack, West Side Rl-WW R2-WW Min.

Press.

(p>>)

-0.427

-0.329

'- Max.

Press.

(psi) 0.453 0.385 East Side R7-EW Rl 1-EW R12-EW R13-EW

-0.727

-1.437

-2.964

-1.343 0.683 1.378 2.354 1.223 South Side Rl-SW R3-SW RS-SW R7-SW R11-SW

-0.884

-4.968

-6.250

-0.876

-0.883 0.845 3.847 4.785 0.801 1.030 North Side R2-NW R4-NW R6-NW R10-NW R13-NW

-0.737 0.608

-3.948 3.091

-3.349 2.345

-1.220 1.017

-0.497 0.517 Sum ofReal Time Rack Pressures (psi) Averaged for Each Side SUM-WW

-0.203 0.225 SUM-EW

-0.836 0.736 SUM-SW

-2.679 1.955 SUM-NW

-1.893 1.369 Note:

The above reported pressures are on the perimeter racks.

U. S. NRC G. S. Vissing A-42 October 20, 1997 Provide a summary ofthe peak response results (i.e., maximum absolute displaceInents at the top and bottom ofthe rack, magnitudes ofthe bending, shear and axial stresses with their locations, maximum pedestal horizontal and vertical loads, impact loads, etc) ofthe single-and multi-rack SSE analyses in a tabular form.

~RNLnn; The 3-D single-rack dynamic model and the 3-D whole pool multi-rack dynamic analysis models, and their intended uses, are described in Sections 3.5 (page 73 ofthe Licensing Report) and Section 3.5.2.3 (pages 107 to 109 ofthe Licensing Report). As presented, the 3-D single-rack dynamic model was used for various sensitivity studies.

The displacements, loads, and associated stresses are obtained from the 3-D whole pool multi-rack dynamic mathematical model.

Therefore, the following results are presented for the multi-rack model only.

The displacements provided in the Licensing Report were relative displacements - between the racks and surrounding racks, or between the perimeter racks and the spent fuel pool wall. The maximum absolute displacements at the top and bottom ofthe racks are tabulated in the attached Tables NRCQ7.1 through NRCQ7.24, for all load cases.

The rack maximum forces (bending and shear), moments (bending and torsion) are reported in Section 3.5.3.1.8.1, Tables 3.5-67 through 3.5-90 in a tabular form.

The rack maximum bending, axial and shear stresses are reported in Section 3.5.3.1.2.7.

The maximum pedestal horizontal and vertical loads are reported in Section 3.5.3.1.5, Tables 3.5-22 through 3.5-45 in a tabular form.

The maximum fuel to rack impact loads are reported in Section 3.5.3.1.6, Tables 3.5-46 through 3.5-57 in a tabular form.

U. S. NRC G. S. Vissing A-43 October 20, 1997 Table NRCQ7.1 Max. Rack Horizontal Disp.

Top - LC¹1 GINNA3D Whole Pool Model - Without Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹1 - Unconsolidated Fuel - SSE - Mu = 0.8 Maximum Rack Horizontal Displacements ( X and Y- (in))

Rack MinX 1

-0.25760 2

-0.28680 3

-0.29000 4

-0.25190 5

-0.38440 6

-0.35710 7

-0.59190 8

-0.55160 9

-0.58630 10

-0.53080 11

-0.52280 12

-0.49180 13

-0.50680 Max X 0.33280 0.26240 0.18640 0.19140 0.24140 0.27190 0.41610 0.55660 0.56700 0.44060 0.57350 0.57140 0.45750 MinY

-0.42080

-0.36870

-0.26200

-0.25300

-0.19250

-0.24400

-0.27550

-0.32230

-0.33660

-0.28250

-0.29340

-0.33350

-0.37800 Max Y 0.28260 0.26970 0.19300 0.17590 0.19140 0.20520 0.16960 0.20600 0.19350 0.14030 0.16560 0.14440 0.10220 Table NRCQ7.2 Max. Rack Horizontal Disp.

Base - LC¹1 GINNA3D Whole Pool Model - Without Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹1 - Unconsolidated Fuel - SSE - Mu = 0.8 Maximum Rack Horizontal Displacements ( X and Y- (in))

Rack MinX 1

-0.03724 2

-0.08373 3

-0.04396 4

-0.04533 5

-0.04523 6

'0.05074 7

-0.08194 8

-0.06622 9

-0.04845 10

-0.07122 11

-0.06686 12

-0.07009 13

-0.04091 Max X 0.06038 0.04358 0.02711 0.02433 0.02999 0.02506 0.03318 0.06787 0.07066 0.03151 0.06603 0.05713 0.08492 MinY

-0.07127

-0.05174

-0.05670

-0.05314

-0.03317

-0.04841

-0.11520

-0.13520

-0.13020

-0.09588

-0.15610

-0.13950

-0.13190 Max Y 0.04580 0.05001 0.03254 0.03130 0.03733 0.03996 0.01411 0.01375 0.00962 0.00988 0.00744 0.01199 0.00621

U. S. NRC G. S. Vissing A-44 October 20, 1997 Table NRCQ7.3 Max. Rack Horizontal Disp.

Top - LC¹2 GINNA3D Whole Pool Model - Without Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹2 - Unconsolidated Fuel - SSE - Mu = 0.2 Maximum Rack Horizontal Displacements ( X and Y- (in))

Rack 1

2 3

4 5

6 7

8 9

10 11 12 13 MinX

-0.20310

-0.20330

-0.17020

-0.16100

-0.16430

-0.17680

-0.36910

-0.31460

-0.39740

-0.22680

-0.46800

-0.47080

-0.27060 Max X 0.24260 0.20100 0.14690 0.16980 0.13740 0.17760 0.14020 0.17830 0.18650 0.24660 0.13850 0.11450 0.15340 MinY

-0.23770

-0.19230

-0.24880

-0.25310

-0.28210

-0.30480

-0.35310

-0.37400

-0.38660

-0.30850

-0.28450

-0.26690

-0.34380 Max Y 0.26350 0.26430 0.14400 0.14120 0.15670 0.17370 0.13700 0.17430 0.13990

0. 13140 0.11700 0.15710 0.09970 Table NRCQ7.4 Max. Rack Horizontal Disp. @Base - LC¹2 GINNA3D Whole Pool Model - Without Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹2 - Unconsolidated Fuel - SSE - Mu = 0.2 Maximum Rack Horizontal Displacements ( X and Y- (in))

Rack MinX 1

-0.07600 2

-0.09061 3

-0.03990 4

-0.05535 5

-0.05633 6

-0.07367 7

-0.26450 8

-0.23370 9

-0.31630 10

-0.14470 11

-0.40710 12

-0.41700 13

-0.18190 Max X 0.06355 0.06818 0.03548 0.07545 0.02840 0.08071 0.07782 0.09739 0.10490 0.17440 0.07303 0.05288 0.08832 MinY

-0.16120

-0.10310

-0.17800

-0.18220

-0.20670

-0.23090

-0.23310

-0.23790

-0.23890

-0.17410

-0.16430

-0.12700

-0.21120 Max Y 0.17780 0.19000 0.06131 0.06546 0.05355 0.07678 0.01380 0.01596 0.00823 0.00730 0.03825 0.05833 0.02261

U. S. NRC G. S. Vissing A-45 October 20, 1997 Table NRCQ7.5 Max. Rack Horizontal Disp. @ Top - LC¹3 GINNA3D Whole Pool Model - Without Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹3 - Consolidated Fuel - SSE - Mu = 0.8 Maximum Rack Horizontal Displacements ( X and Y - (in))

Rack MinX 1

-0.28250 2

-0.24240 3

-0.15660 4

-0.19240 5

-0.18440 6

-0.19730 7

-0.27200 8

-0.32720 9

-0.39270 10

-0.25340 11

-0.40990 12

-0.43600 13

-0.32440 Max X 0.34740 0.28350 0.16630 0.19310 0.17210 0.19930 0.29190 0.35680 0.36180 0.25620 0.47120 0.44050 0.30230 MinY

-0.34790

-0.30640

-0.22950

-0.21630

-0.21540

-0.24260

-0.21980

-0.29730

-0.31500

-0.23730

-0.28000

-0.25880

-0.32240 Max Y 0.33030 0.29540 0.18970 0.19670 0.21510 0.26420 0.24110 0.24860 0.23560 0.20660 0.16950 0.19930 0.15130 Table NRCQ7.6 Max. Rack Horizontal Disp. @Base - LC¹3 GINNA3D Whole Pool Model - Without Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹3 - Consolidated Fuel - SSE - Mu = 0.8 Maximum Rack Horizontal Displacements ( X and Y- (in))

Rack MinX 1

-0.02963 2

-0.03071 3

-0.02215 4

-0.02593 5

-0.02152 6

-0.02460 7

-0.04509 8

-0.04295 9

-0.07166 10

-0.03239 11

-0.09444 12

-0.06613 13

-0.04723 Max X 0.08100 0.02842 0.02441 0.02377 0.02363 0.02322 0.05602 0.06551 0.03030 0.05243 0.02620 0.04315 0.05821 MinY

-0.06999

-0.06237

-0.04722

-0.04187

-0.03840

-0.03077

-0.04370

-0.08174

-0.09566

-0.04473

-0.08570

-0.06909

-0.07137 Max Y 0.05401 0.04588 0.02990 0.03227 0.03303 0.04759 0.02714 0.03714 0.02131 0.02635 0.01601 0.03757 0.02015

U. S. NRC G. S. Vissing A-46 October 20, 1997 Table NRCQ7.7 Max. Rack Horizontal Disp.

Top - LC¹4 GINNA3D Whole Pool Model - Without Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹4 - Unconsolidated Fuel - SSE - Mu = 0.5 Maximum Rack Horizontal Displacements ( X and Y - (in))

Rack MinX 1

-0.29140 2

-0.24370 3

-0.28440 4

-0.24970 5

-0.37750 6

-0.34400 7

-0.57590 8

-0.53350 9

-0.57660 10

-0.52700 11

-0.52520 12

-0.49170 13

-0.49680 Max X 0.29570 0.25830 0.17620 0.19300 0.25800 0.28940 0.44130 0.59220 0.58020 0.44280 0.58540 0.58170 0.48470 MinY

-0.40560

-0.35330

-0.24460

-0.24040

-0.18660

-0.22980

-0.25950

-0.30110

-0.31510

-0.27800

-0.29130

-0.31280

-0.30700 Max Y 0.27690 0.25780 0.16400 0.16420 0.17500 0.20010 0.16410 0.20690 0.19580 0.13920 0.14680 0.14290 0.14850 Table NRCQ7.8 Max. Rack Horizontal Disp. @Base - LC¹4 GINNA3D Whole Pool Model - Without Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹4 - Unconsolidated Fuel - SSE - Mu = 0.5 Maximum Rack Horizontal Displacements ( X and Y - (in))

Rack MinX 1

-0.06448 2

-0.04869 3

-0.03082 4

-0.02337 5

-0.05038 6

-0.03523 7

-0.06854 8

-0.05219 9

-0.03128 10

-0.07351 11

-0.04714 12

-0.05441 13

-0.04132

'Max X 0.03943 0.04497 0.02787 0.02694 0.02519 0.04108 0.04104 0.08899 0.09148 0.03912 0.07810 0.06937 0.11050 MinY

-0.08053

-0.05841

-0.05235

-0.04774

-0.03337

-0.06152

-0.10440

-0.11510

-0.09633

-0.10520

-0.10090

-0.10640

-0.06561 Max Y 0.03250 0.05560 0.03424 0.03357 0.03860 0.04440 0.01376 0.01568 0.00852 0.00869 0.01362 0.00840 0.01893

U. S. NRC G. S. Vissing A-47 October 20, 1997 Table NRCQ7.9 Max. Rack Horizontal Disp. @Top - LC¹5 GINNA3D Whole Pool Model - With Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹5 - Unconsolidated Fuel - SSE - Mu = 0.8 Maximum Rack Horizontal Displacements ( X and Y - (in))

Rack MinX 1

-0.18990 2

-0.20260 3

-0.21380 4

-0.17870 5

-0.29270 6

-0.25300 7

-0.56010 8

-0.51250 9

-0.52430 10

-0.46080 11

-0.52940 12

-0.48790 13

-0.48880 Max X 0.17380 0.23700 0.17460 0.20350 0.20990 0.23450 0.32340 0.47370 0.48480 0.38520 0.46670 0.47870 0.40670 MinY

-0.31140

-0.25600

-0.20670

-0.20880

-0.19080

-0.22940

-0.24590

-0.29380

-0.31760

-0.28720

-0.30500

-0.33800

-0.33210 Max Y 0.32050 0.33370 0.22220 0.21170 0.18430 0.21310 0.17240 0.22330 0.22230 0.16000 0.13070 0.13440 0.15320 Table NRCQ7.10 Max. Rack Horizontal Disp. @Base - LC¹5 GINNA3D Whole Pool Model - With Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹5 - Unconsolidated Fuel - SSE - Mu = 0.8 Maximum Rack Horizontal Displacements ( X and Y - (in))

Rack MinX 1

-0.03580 2

-0.03048 3

-0.03755 4

-0.02851 5

-0.03759 6

-0.02547 7

-0.06249 8

-0.07255 9

-0.04499 10

-0.04656 11

-0.05161 12

-0.05549 13

-0.04446 Max X 0.04627 0.03778 0.02401 0.02860 0.02726 0.04116 0.05345 0.07396 0.06142 0.04498 0.07697 0.08894 0:08146 MinY

-0.07851

-0.03985

-0.03321

-0.03982

-0.03663

-0.04466

-0.06886

-0.07892

-0.11320

-0.09735

-0.12170

-0.12510

-0.10460 Max Y 0.08393 0.08068 0.04379 0.03519 0.04251 0.05161 0.01393 0.01529 0.02185 0.00944 0.00730 0.00820 0.00609

U. S. NRC G. S. Vissing A-48 October 20, 1997 Table NRCQ7.11 Max. Rack Horizontal Disp.

Top - LC¹6 GINNA3D Whole Pool Model - With Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹6 - Consolidated Fuel - SSE - Mu = 0.8 Maximum Rack Horizontal Displacements ( X and Y - (in))

Rack MinX 1

-0.23050 2

-0.25070 3

-0.16650 4

-0.18690 5

-0.14570 6

-0.16020 7

-0.28190 8

-0.36950 9

-0.39160 10

-0.29210 11

-0.38140 12

-0.35640 13

-0.37140 Max X 0.32670 0.29760 0.24240 0.20970 0.19100 0.18780 0.29620 0.36500 0.36150 0.27430 0.48770 0.42070 0:30730 MinY

-0.31260

-0.27540

-0.22420

-0.21230

-0.21370

-0.23410

-0.21080

-0.28280

-0.30990

-0.24680

-0.28570

-0.29250

-0.33660 Max Y 0.35880 0.32310 0.19550 0.18510 0.20160 0.24650 0.23420 0.24120 0.23780 0.19220 0.15630 0.18600 0.14670 Table NRCQ7.12 Max. Rack Horizontal Disp. @ Base - LC¹6 GINNA3D Whole Pool Model - With Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹6 - Consolidated Fuel - SSE - Mu = 0.8 Maximum Rack Horizontal Displacements ( X and Y - (in))

Rack MinX 1

-0.02900 2

-0.03887 3

-0.02250 4

-0.02394 5

-0.01934 6

-0.01997 7

-0.03452 8

-0.03769 9

-0.06204 10

-0.02691 11

-0.08069 12

-0.06606 13

-0.04278 Max X 0.04717 0.03377 0.03253 0.02860 0.02418 0.02465 0.05312 0.08631 0.05149 0.06189 0.04502 0.04247 0.05559 MinY

-0.05076

-0.04990

-0.04870

-0.04665

-0.04324

-0.03789

-0.03707

-0.07240

-0.06606

-0.04530

-0.07084

-0.05413

-0.07601 Max Y 0.10330 0.07382 0.03116 0.03141 0.03416 0.04483 0.02709 0.03487 0.02612 0.02590 0.00969 0.01296 0.01875

U. S. NRC G. S. Vissing A-49 October 20, 1997 Table NRCQ7.13 Max. Rack Horizontal Disp. @Top - LC07 GINNA3D Whole Pool Model - With Perimeter Racks Load Case 87 - Unconsolidated Fuel - SSE - Mu = 0.2 Maximum Rack Horizontal Displacements ( X and Y- (in))

'ack MinX 1

-0.16800 2

-0.19030 3

-0.14140 4

-0.15330 5

-0.13170 6

-0.13850 7

-0.20840 8

-0.25400 9

-0.28070 10

-0.19430 11

-0.38570 12

-0.54530 13

-0.24120 Max X 0.14430 0.19600 0.15520 0.14850 0.15470 0.13650 0.26540 0.26810 0.22720 0.23080 0.20760 0.13120 0.19910 MinY

-0.20100

-0.13870

-0.15140

-0.17600

-0.19070

-0.24190

-0.33540

-0.37390

-0.41170

-0.29410

-0.32050

-0.30840

-0.31250 Max Y 0.31790 0.29530 0.19160 0.16990 0.15910 0.19320 0.13150 0.17870 0.14390 0.14100 0.11840 0.14560 0.13130 Table NRCQ7.14 Max. Rack Horizontal Disp. @Base - LCP7 GINNA3D Whole Pool Model - With Perimeter Racks Load Case 87 - Unconsolidated Fuel - SSE - Mu = 0.2 Maximum Rack Horizontal Displacements ( X and Y- (in))

Rack MinX 1

-0.05906 2

-0.06482 3

-0.03077 4

-0.04402 5

-0.03820 6

-0.05557 7

-0.09401 8

-0.14690 9

-0.17890 10

-0.11120 11

-0.29860 12

-0.47840 13

-0.15870 Max X MinY 0.05380

-0.11980 0.08367

-0.05676 0.03802

-0.06922 0.03961

-0.09945 0.05111

-0.12820 0.04126

-0.18950 0.20160

-0.21490 0.19920

-0.24550 0.15780

-0.24740 0.16080

-0.15860 0.12690

-0.22860 0.07696

-0.21290 0.13330

-0.20260 Max Y 0.24900 0.21150 0.11760 0.09140 0.07477

'0.10770 0.01396 0.02873 0.00780 0.01001 0.01035 0.02105 0.03134

U. S. NRC G. S. Vissing A-50 October 20, 1997 Table NRCQ7.15 Max. Rack Horizontal Disp.ITop - LC¹8 GINNA3D Whole Pool Model - With Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹8 - Consolidated Fuel - OBE - Mu = 0.8 Maximum Rack Horizontal Displacements ( X and Y- (in))

Rack MinX 1

-0. 11370 2

-0.11330 3

-0.07782 4

-0.07965 5

-0.06691 6

-0.07055 7

-0.13950 8

-0.14260 9

-0.17750 10

-0.11340 11

-0.21430 12

-0.23460 13

-0.17900 Max X 0.12630 0.12120 0.09454 0.08075 0.07764 0.06913 0.11230 0.12930 0.15580 0.11080 0.21500 0.21000 0.14510 MinY

-0.18140

-0.16620

-0.10110

-0.09862

-0.10910

-0.13020

-0.13890

-0.18670

-0.17680

-0.16160

-0.17720

-0.16030

-0.20540 Max Y 0.19330 0.16670 0.09726 0.09388 0.10090 0.12030 0.11900 0.13040 0.13740 0.09546 0.08728 0.10050 0.07412 Table NRCQ7.16 Max. Rack Horizontal Disp. @Base - LC¹8 GINNA3D Whole Pool Model - With Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹8 - Consolidated Fuel - OBE - Mu = 0.8 Maximum Rack Horizontal Displacements ( X and Y - (in))

Rack MinX 1

-0.01840 2

-0.01355 3

-0.01043 4

-0.01016 5

-0.00727 6

-0.00716 7

-0.02067 8

-0.02089 9

-0.02940 10

-0.01621 11

-0.03166 12

-0.03222 13

-0.02951 Max X 0.01274 0.01180 0.00924 0.01054 0.00980 0.01015 0.01675 0.01944 0.01972 0.01572 0.03701 0.03183 0.01986 MinY

-0.02858

-0.02813

-0.01734

-0.01771

-0.02037

-0.02334

-0.01500

-0.02212

-0.01614

-0.01618

-0.02075

-0.02836

-0.02110 Max Y 0.03217 0'.02744 0.01667 0.01487 0.01845 0.02099 0.01485 0.01655 0.01291 0.'01084 0.00847 0.00446 0.00904

U. S. NRC G. S. Vissing A-51 October 20, 1997 Table NRCQ7.17 Max. Rack Horizontal Disp. @Top - LC¹9 GINNA3D Whole Pool Model - With Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹9 - Unconsolidated Fuel - OBE - Mu = 0.2 Maximum Rack Horizontal Displacements ( X and Y - (in))

Rack MinX 1

-0.10670 2

-0.09604 3

-0.08225 4

-0.07036 5

-0.07050 6

-0.06763 7

-0.10050 8

-0.12450 9

-0.16780 10

-0.10710 11

-0.14200 12

-0.15780 13

-0.19130 Max X 0.10160 0.09986 0.07480 0.07243 0.07250 0.07034 0.15700 0.14890 0.13950 0.10240 0.12880 0.10660 0.07786 MinY

-0.19560

-0.16950

-0.10910

-0.10590

-0.08731

-0.10830

-0.10310

-0.11810

-0.09962

-0.08660

-0.11780

-0.09529

-0.12740 Max Y 0.13740 0.16200 0.07603 0.07939 0.08764 0.09834 0.08977 0.09964 0.11460 0.08530 0.07094 0.09744 0.05970 Table NRCQ7.18 Max. Rack Horizontal Disp.

Base - LC¹9 GINNA3D Whole Pool Model - With Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹9 - Unconsolidated Fuel - OBE - Mu = 0.2 Maximum Rack Horizontal Displacements ( X and Y- (in))

Rack MinX 1

-0.02387

-0.01530 3

-0.01889 4

-0.00885 5

-0.00655 6

-0.00820 7

-0.00659 8

-0.03091 9

-0.09305 10

-0.02025 11

-0.07416 12

-0.11550 13

-0.11360 Max X 0.01397 0.02630 0.00689 0.01303 0.01352 0.02331 0.07038 0.05374 0.05786 0.03915 0.06133 0.04983 0.02916 MinY

-0.11270

-0.07639

-0.03814

-0.03253

-0.01651

-0.03289

-0.01164

-0.03022

-0.01004

-0.00683

-0.04825

-0.01237

-0.02082 Max Y 0.05502 0.09551 0.01685 0.01629 0.02084 0.02285 0.01420 0.01279 0.03093 0.02048 0.00655 0.02229 0.00730

U. S. NRC G. S. Vissing A-52 October 20, 1997 Table NRCQ7.19 Max. Rack Horizontal Disp.

Top - LC¹10 GINNA3D Whole Pool Model - Without Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹10 - Unconsolidated Fuel - OBE - Mu = 0.2 Maximum Rack Horizontal Displacements ( X and Y- (in))

Rack MinX 1

-0.14200 2

-0.11540 3

-0.07823 4

-0.08496 5

-0.08016 6

-0.08274 7

-0.11070 8

-0.11620 9

-0.17870 10

-0.14480 11

-0.11900 12

-0.20090 13

-0.20950 Max X 0.13680 0.13340 0.09438 0.10960 0.08358 0.09461 0.16890 0.16780 0.15250 0.09360 0.17610 0.09320 0.07103 MinY

-0.17300

-0.17490

-0.11040

-0.10800

-0.10670

-0.10430

-0.10380

-0.13110

-0.14890

-0.10690

-0.10420

-0.12120

-0.13520 Max Y 0.09902 0.11270 0.08676 0.08037 0.09304 0.11000 0.09089 0.10390

'.10430 0.08482 0.07383 0.09207 0.07252 Table NRCQ7.20 Max. Rack Horizontal Disp. @Base - LC¹10 GINNA3D Whole Pool Model - Without Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹10 - Unconsolidated Fuel - OBE - Mu = 0.2 Maximum Rack Horizontal Displacements ( X and Y - (in))

Rack MinX 1

-0.03095 2

-0.02385 3

-0.01250 4

-0.01344 5

-0.01303 6

-0.00979 7

-0.00921 8

-0.00983 9

-0.08851 10

-0.06550 11

-0.03869 12

-0.15990 13

-0.14080 Max X 0.03006 0.03886 0.01011 0.01401 0.01195 0.01194 0.07850 0.07407 0.07162 0.02948 0.09176 0.04029 0.01560 MinY

-0.09498

-0.07780

-0.02894

-0.02704

-0.03653

-0.01566

-0.02239

-0.03278

-0.02074

-0.02159

-0.03615

-0.02132

-0.02246 Max Y 0.02311 0.02193 0.01621 0.01555 0.01636 0.03323 0.01061 0.01321 0.01459 0.01749 0.00760 0.01312 0.01026

U. S. NRC G. S. Vissing A-53 October 20, 1997 Table NRCQ7.21 Max. Rack Horizontal Disp. @ Top - LC¹11 GINNA3D Whole Pool Model - With Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹11 - Mixed Fuel - SSE - Mu = Mixed Maximum Rack Horizontal Displacements ( X and Y- (in))

Rack, MinX 1

-0.05948 2

-0.07477 3

-0.19750 4

-0.11830 5

-0.04267 6

. -0.13300 7

-0.37730 8

-0.31710 9

-0.43740 10

-0.24290 11, -0.38210 12

-0.45110 13

-0.37550 Max X 0.19390 0.20290 0.02548 0.15000 0.22040 0.18390 0.14160 0.21120 0.34140 0.20000 0.37110 0.37320 0.32950 MinY

-0.27610

-0.20820

-0.11660

-0.14470

-0.17710

-0.16050

-0.07047

-0.18530

-0.25770

-0.15430

-0.20210

-0.25110

-0.28790 Max Y 0.17710 0.21940 0.15300 0.12360 0.06950 0.15850 0.21700 0.14650 0.14450 0.12330 0.12490 0.12960 0.11450 Table NRCQ7.22 Max. Rack Horizontal Disp.

Base - LC¹11 GINNA3D Whole Pool Model - With Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹11 - Mixed Fuel - SSE - Mu = Mixed Maximum Rack Horizontal Displacements ( X and Y - (in))

Rack MinX 1

-0.01445 2

-0.01573 3

-0.03814 4

-0.01484 5

-0.01465 6

-0.01800 7

-0.03193 8

-0.11330 9

-0.03733 10

-0.03297 11

-0.06541 12

-0.08157 13

-0.03724 Max X 0.05982 0.04529 0.00370 0.01815 0.02287 0.02262 0.05243 0.00274 0.05549 0.08081 0.02504 0.03135 0.06029 MinY

-0.15590

-0.10070

-0.03602

-0.03315

-0.03013

-0.03820

-0.01931

-0.09398

-0.10420

-0.06981

-0.06771

-0.06574

-0.08769 Max Y 0.01150 0.03121 0.03054 0.02177 0.02401 0.03220 0.03262 0.03485 0.02030 0.04140 0.01611 0.00541 0.01894

U. S. NRC G. S. Vissing A-54 October 20, 1997 Table NRCQ7.23 Max. Rack Horizontal Disp. @ Top - LC¹12 GINNA3D Whole Pool Model - With Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹12 - Mixed Fuel - OBE - Mu = Mixed Maximum Rack Horizontal Displacements ( X and Y- (in))

Rack MinX 1

-0.12800 2

-0.02762 3

-0.03787 4

-0.03407 5

-0.10000 6

-0.10610 7

-0.07496 8

-0.12220 9

-0.13640 10

-0.07718 11

-0.18440 12

-0.22110 13

-0.14960 Max X

-0.05099 0.02608 0.03915 0.03728

-0.00996

-0.00685 0.10240 0.12010 0.16730 0.09392 0.18660 0.15880 0.11520 MinY

-0.13840

-0.09272

-0.05966

-0.04433

~

-0.02910

-0.04246

-0.04333

-0.10590

-0.11620

-0.10030

-0.12090

-0.22060

-0.16270 Max Y 0.03572 0.02421 0.04653 0.04576 0.08573 0.09343 0.07983 0.07594 0.07165 0.04885 0.06964

-0.01558 0.06942 Table NRCQ7.24 Max. Rack Horizontal Disp.

Base - LC¹12 GINNA3D Whole Pool Model - With Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹12 - Mixed Fuel - OBE - Mu = Mixed Maximum Rack Horizontal Displacements ( X and Y - (in))

Rack MinX 1

-0.01067 2

-0.01613 3

-0.00473 4

-0.00827 5

-0.01120 6

-0.01198 7

-0.00469 8

-0.02037 9

-0.02629 10

-0.00686 11

-0.03173 12

-0.02413 13

-0.02462 Max X 0.00032 0.01311 0.00567 0.00950 0.00375 0.00319 0.07092 0.01650 0.01897 0.04084 0.01917 0.03670 0.01230 MinY

-0.02250

-0.08309

-0.01409

-0.01946

-0.00882

-0.01166

-0.00503

-0.01667

-0.02377

-0.04963

-0.01639

-0.06873

-0.01833 Max Y 0.01146 0.01242 0.00958 0.01329 0.01935 0.01812 0.03917 0.01072 0.00620 0.00555 0.00689

-0.00189 0.00719

U. S. NRC G. S. Vissing A-55 October 20, 1997 Ifthere is animpact between a rack and a reinforced concrete spent fuelpool (SFP) wall:

a)

Provide the magnitude ofthe hydrodynamic pressure usedin the SFP concrete wall analysis.

b)

Provide the temperature profiles with magnitudes usedfor the SFP slab and walls analyses.

c)

Provide the calculated safety margins for the fourwalls and the slab with respect to the bending and shear strength evaluations.

d)

Ifthe ANSYS code was used for the analyses ofthe SFP walls and slab, provide a technical explanation on how the effects ofreinforcement and concrete cracking is J'eflected in the computer modeling simulations.

Submit the complete input including the ANSYS model with all boundary and loading conditions usedfor the SFP analyses ofthe walls and slab on a 3.5-inch diskette.

~Rien The gaps between the racks and between the racks and the walls are designed such that for any of the seismic (OBE and SSE) events, the racks do not impact the spent fuel pool wall. This is true for both resident U.S. Tool and Die racks and also for the new ATEAracks.

This is discussed in Section 3.1, "Scope," Section 3.2.2, "Acceptance Criteria," and Section 3.5.3.5, "Conclusion," of the Licensing Report.

I The results ofall the 3-D whole-pool multi-rack model runs demonstrated that there were not any rack-to-pool wall impacts (nor any rack-to-rack impacts) from any ofthe analyses.

Further, as stated in Section 3.5.3.1.14 on page 279 ofthe Licensing Report, there were no impacts after the cumulative efFects of 5 OBE's plus 1 SSE.

The minimum rack to pool wall gaps existing after the cumulative efFects of5 OBE's plus 1 SSE were as follows:

West Wall:

East Wall:

South Wall:

North Wall:

9.434 in 2.686 in 4.516 in 1.184 in The above numbers were taken directly from Tables 3.5-137 and 3.5-138 on page 282 ofthe Licensing Report.

U. S. NRC G. S. Vissing A-56 October 20, 1997 Indicate whether there were rack-to-pool wallandlor rack-to-rackimpacts from the multi-rack analysis.

~Ryan The gaps between the racks and between the racks and the walls are designed such that for all of the seismic (OBE and SSE) events, the racks do not impact the spent fuel wall nor the racks impact any other racks.

This is true for both resident U.S. Tool and Die racks and also for the new ATEAracks.

This is discussed in Section 3.1, "Scope," Section 3.2.2, "Acceptance Criteria," and Section 3.5.3.5, "Conclusion," ofthe Licensing Report.

In summary, there were neither any rack-to-rack nor any rack-to-pool wall impacts from any of the analyses.

Further, as stated in Section 3.5.3.1.14 on page 279 ofthe Licensing Report, there were no impacts after the cumulative e6ects of 5 OBE's plus 1 SSE.

U. S. NRC G. S. Vissing A-57 October 20, 1997 Submit the ANSYSinput data on a 3.5-inch diskette for the weld analysis, thefuellrackirnpact analysis and the rack thermal stress analysis as mentionedin the Reference.

~Rq~n~g:

The listing ofthe computer input data is provided on a 3.5-inch computer diskette in ASCII format. These input are for the ANSYS Version 5.2. These data are proprietary.

The weld stress analysis is discussed in Section 3.5.3.1.3.

The weld stress analysis was performed using classical equations.

The computer program ANSYS was not used.

The Disk Files Include:

Disk ANSYS Input Files, File FUELLOAD.TXT Fuel Rack Impact Model File S3DPR8TO. TXT Rack Thermal Stress Model

U. S. NRC G. S. Vissing A-58 October 20, 1997 Discuss the quality assurance and inspection programs to preclude installation ofany irregular or distorted rack structure and to confirm the actualfiielrack gap configurations with respect to the gaps assumedin the ANSYS analyses after installation ofthe racks.

ggg~n,:

The Quality Assurance procedures are discussed in Section 7.0 ofthe Licensing Report.

Section 7.2.13 discusses the procedures for the Handling, Storage, and Shipping.

Section 7.2.14 discusses the procedures for Inspection, Tests, and Operating Status.

This section also discusses installation and testing.

The following QA/QC actions willassure that the fuel racks are properly fabricated and installed:

Dimensional inspections ofthe racks, by ATEAQuality personnel, willoccur during the rack fabrication. A Source Inspection willbe performed by FTI QC on the fuel storage racks prior to shipment from ATEAin accordance with an inspection plan prepared by FTI. This inspection willverify that the racks meet drawing requirements, and willcheck for warpage and distortion.

a)

The results ofthe inspections willbe documented on an inspection report.

b)

Non-conforming conditions willbe presented to ATEAfor corrective action, in accordance with the ATEAQA Program. FTI willfollow-up on the disposition of the ATEAnon-conformance rep'orts and, ifrequired, reinspect the fuel rack assemblies.

RGB QAwillperform surveillance ofthe inspection and preparation for shipment activities to provide additional assurance that the racks are fabricated as required.

2.

Following shipment to Ginna and prior to installing the fuel racks, a receipt inspection will be performed to check for shipping damage.

3.

The installation ofthe fuel racks willbe in accordance with the RG&E-approved FTI Safety-Related QAProgram.

ATraveler/Installation Procedure and installation drawings willbe used to install the racks.

The Traveler/Procedure willprovide detailed instruction to sequence the installation and provide documentation (measurements, verifications, sign-offs for step completion, etc.) to show that the racks are properly installed.

The Traveler/Procedure willinclude in-process QC HOLD points to verify critical installation steps and measurements and allow forRGB HOLD points.

These procedures willbe prepared by the cognizant FTI Engineering organization, in accordance with the FTI QAProgram, approved by FTI QA, and provided to RGE for concurrence.

5.

Personnel willbe trained and certified, as required by the FTI QA Program.

The

U. S. NRC G. S. Vissing A-59 October 20, 1997 5.

Personnel willbe trained and certified, as required by the FTI QA Program.

The installation crew willreceive mock-up training, pre-job briefings, and other task-specific training, as required to support the task.

6.

FTI QA/QC willperform a final inspection and detailed review ofthe installation procedure and supporting documentation at the completion ofthe task to verify that the work was done in accordance with the applicable procedure(s) and the FTI QA Program.

In-process and final inspection willbe performed in accordance with approved installation procedures and drawings. Lack ofdistortion and gap configuration willbe a requirement ofthe installation process.

Specific details that address distortion, irregularities, and gap configuration in accordance with the Structural Evaluation in the Licensing Report willbe developed and approved prior to installation ofthe racks.

8.

Allinstallation activities willbe subject to oversight and assessment by RGB QA, in addition to FTI oversight activity.

U. S. NRC G. S. Vissing A-60 October 20, 1997 Provide the locations ofthe leak chase systems with respect to the locations ofthe racks and pedestals.

Reels

/

The ATEADrawing described below provides the location ofleak chases and also the location of rack support pads.

The reference drawing provides support pad locations for both the resident spent fuel storage racks and the new ATEAracks.

ATEADrawing No. SA20.001.00000, Sheet 2 of2, Revision D (Framatome Technology Drawing No. 02-1186074F-03).

Title, "Rochester Gas 2 Electric Co., R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Station No 1, General Arrangement Support Pads Location."

U. S. NRC G. S. Vissing A-61 October 20, 1997 Describe the method ofleak detection in the SFP pool stnIcture.

Ho>v are leaks monitored? Is there any existing leakage?

~R~n The leak detection system consists ofa grid ofrectangular indentations in the concrete behind the steel liner, located in the fioor ofthe spent fuel pit and refueling canal.

They were formed during the initial construction ofthe pit. The grid is arranged such that any leakage is channeled to a collection chamber, which is periodically checked and drained ofany collected borated water, which undergoes treatment.

There has been a history ofleakage from the spent fuel pit/refueling canal area, and RG&E believes it has been determined that the source ofthe leakage is in the refueling canal. RG&E is taking measures to stop this leakage and willmonitor the leakage again at our next scheduled refueling outage (the refueling canal is normally empty during normal plant operations.)

U. S. NRC G. S. Vissing A-62 October 20, 1997 u tin 14 Indicate whether or not you are planning to place an overhead platform on the racks permanently or as temporarystorage during the installation ofthe racks.

~RLnne:

There is no plan to place an overhead platform on the racks either permanently or as temporary storage during rack installation.

n 0

U. S. NRC G. S. Vissing A-63 October 20, 1997

'0'as the rack design controlled mainly by the results ofthe single-rack analysis? Ifyes, was there any physical rack design change necessitated by the results ofthe multi-rack analysis?

As applicable, describe the change(s).

Response

The 3-D single-rack dynamic analysis model and 3-D whole-pool multi-rack dynamic analysis models and their intended use are described in Section 3.5 (page 72 ofthe Licensing Report) and Section 3.5.2.3 (pages 106 to 109 ofthe Licensing Report).

As described, the 3-D single-rack dynamic mathematical model is used for various sensitivity studies.

The loads, displacements, and associated stresses are obtained from the 3-D whole-pool multi-rack dynamic mathematical model. The length and location oftabs, the weld size, the weld size ofsupport legs, etc., are designed from the loadings and stresses from the 3-D whole-pool multi-rack dynamic analysis.

The gaps between the racks and the gaps between the rack and the wall are designed to preclude any impact from the results ofthe 3-D whole-pool multi-rack dynamic analysis.

The single-rack model was used for parametric studies.

The whole-pool multi-rack model was used for the loads and displacements.

Therefore, the rack design was not controlled by the results ofthe single-rack analysis.

There were several items that were modified based on the results of the multi-rack analysis.

Those items are as follows:

a)

Rack base plate welds were adjusted to ensure adequate design margins.

b)

Rack inter-connecting tabs and associated welds were adjusted to ensure adequate design margins.

0

U. S. NRC G. S. Vissing A-64 October 20, 1997 Describe the plan and procedure for the post-operating basis earthquake inspection offuel rack gap configurations.

~R~Lnn, RG&E has seismic instrumentation located in the sub-basement ofthe Intermediate Building.

That instrumentation willactivate and record various data ofthe event, the purpose ofwhich is to determine ifan Operating Basis Earthquake has occurred.

That data is processed by way ofthe Technical Engineering Guidelines TEG 2.0, "Response Spectrum Calculation," and TEG 2.1, "SSE and OBE Exceedance Determination". Upon processing ofthe data, and ifan Operating Base Earthquake had occurred, a detailed structural engineering inspection would be conducted to determine ifany structural damage did occur. Although inspection ofthe gaps is not specifically identified as a requirement ofthis inspection, the spent fuel pit and the condition ofthe

'spent fuel racks/fuel assemblies would receive close scrutiny. These inspections would be performed by Professional Engineers experienced in seismic analyses/design and also trained as Seismic Capability Engineers, per requirements ofthe Seismic Qualification User's Group (SQUG) Generic Implementation Program.

ML17309A622

Contents

Text

SUBJECT:

Subject:

Response

Subject:

Dear Mr. Vissing:

Reference:

211.0 in Iy

Response

Navigation menu

ML17309A622

Text

SUBJECT:

Subject:

Response

Subject:

Dear Mr. Vissing:

Reference:

211.0 in Iy

Response

Navigation menu

Search