Text

Forwards Response to Request for Addl Info Re Proposal to Increase Spent Fuel Pool Capacity Through Installation of Spent Fuel Pool Storage Racks
	ML18100A858
Person / Time
Site:	Salem
Issue date:	02/02/1994
From:	Labruna S; Public Service Enterprise Group
To:	; NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
	LCR-93-02, LCR-93-2, NLR-N94005, NUDOCS 9402100260
	Download: ML18100A858 (58)
	v • d • e

.-. :,\\ ~::*

/. '

Public Service Electric and Gas Company

/

Stanley LaBruna Public Service Electric and Gas* Company P.O. Box 236,.Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 609-339-1700 Vice President - Nuclear Engineering FEBO 2 1994 NLR-N94005 LCR 93-02 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk Washington, D.C.

20555 Gentlemen:

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SALEM GENERATING STATION UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NOS. DPR-70 AND DPR-75 DOCKET NOS. 50-272 AND 50-311 In a letter dated January 12, 1994, the NRC staff transmitted a request for additional information regarding Public Service Electric and Gas Company's (PSE&G) proposal to increase spent fuel pool capacity through the installation of new spent fuel pool storage racks.

PSE&G has provided responses to the identified questions in the enclosed attachment.

In our previously submitted Licensing Report, we referenced draft Regulatory Guide (RG) 8.38 "Control of Access to High and Very High Radiation Areas in Nuclear Power Plants."

Subsequent to our submittal, RG 8.38 was issued as final.

The NRC Staff requested that PSE&G commit to the final version of RG 8.38 and include RG 8.38, Appendix A "Procedures for Diving Operations in High and Very High Radiation Areas," if diving operations are conducted.

PSE&G agrees to comply with the final version of RG 8.38 for spent fuel pool reracking operations, and to RG 8.38, Appendix A if diving operations are necessary in the spent fuel pool.

Pursuant to our conversation with Jim Stone, the submittal date of this letter was extended.

Should you have any questions on this transmittal, please contact us.

Sincerely,

~*

nf.1.ri:1?4

...,... \\.... - "*

r~

0i4oR*-210AoD-B~~. b~g5g~72 I PD PDR

I I

~l f I

"' p

Document Control Desk NLR-N94005 2

c Mr. T. T. Martin, Administrator - Region I

u. s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406 Mr. J. c. Stone, Licensing Project Manager -

Salem

u. s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission one White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852 Mr. c. Marschall (S09)

USNRC Senior Resident Inspector Mr. K. Tosch, Manager, IV NJ Department of Environmental Protection Division of Environmental Quality Bureau of Nuclear Engineering CN 415 Trenton, NJ 08625 FEB 0 2 1994

. RESPONSE TO REQUES NEW SPENT FUEL POOTLFOR ADDITIONAL INFO RE STORAGE RACKS REC'D W/LTR DTD 02/02/94

.... 9402100260

~NOTICE~

THE* ATTACHED FILES ARE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE INFOR.MATION &

REPORTS MANAGEMENT BRANCH.

THEY HAVE BEEN CHARGED TO YOU FOR A LIMITED TIME PERIOD AND

MUST BE RETURNED TO THE RE-CORDS & ARCHIVES SERVICES SEC-TION P1-22 WHITE FLINT. PLEASE DO*

NOT SEND DOCUMENiS CHARGED OUT THROUGH THE MAIL. REMOVAL OF ANY PAGE(S) FROM DOCUMENT FOR REPRODUCTION MUST BE RE-FERRED TO FILE PERSONNEL.

-NOTICE-

ATTACHMENT 1 REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SALEM GENERATING STATION LCR 93-02 UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NOS. DPR-70 AND DPR-75 DOCKET NOS. 50-272 AND 50-311

1.

NRC QUESTION

/

a.

Explain the physical meaning of the negative hydrodynamic pressures shown in Tables 6.8.4 and 6.8.10 of the submittal.

b.

If the negative pressure indicates a cavitation, discuss whether PSE&G expects the occurrence of such a phenomenon as part of the fluid-rack interaction in the spent fuel pool during an earthquake event.

Also, discuss how the DYNARACK computer program accounts and/or assumes such an interaction in the codification of the computer code.

c.

Describe the procedure used in the analysis to calculate the hydrodynamic pressure.

d.

Provide the largest magnitude of the hydrodynamic pressure distribution along the height of the rack and pool wall during the fluid and rack interaction for each case of the 3-D single and whole pool multi-rack (WPMR) analyses.

e.

Tables 6.8.4 and 6.8.10 show average dynamic pressures of

-0.0038 psi to +0.0063 psi in x and y directions.

Provide the magnitude of the hydrodynamic pressure in the vertical direction used in the spent fuel pool concrete wall analysis.

If PSE&G used an average hydrodynamic pressure, rather than the peak (largest) hydrodynamic pressure, in the concrete wall analysis, justify the use of such a small

{almost zero) average dynamic pressure as a conservative approach.

f.

Indicate whether or not an analysis with the peak dynamic pressure would not alter the calculated safety margin of 1.22 for the East Wall with respect to the bending strength evaluation {Table *8.5.2).

If it alters the margin, what is the revised margin?

Also, discuss its implication.

g.

The staff anticipates a smaller safety margin if an analysis is carried out with the maximum dynamic pressure.

This margin also can be changed depending on analytical methodologies and other parameters, such as, material properties used in the analysis.

Since it is very important to maintain the pool structural integrity during a critical 1

h.

1.

a.

loading combination, PSE&G is requested to submit both the input and output of the pool structural analyses of a slab and four walls including the upper, middle and lower sections of the walls for all four different critical loading conditions.

Also provide the physical dimensions and reinforcement areas and locations for further staff review.

Any technical assumptions made during the analyses should be discussed in details..

In addition to the average hydrodynamic load, identify any other loads included an E or-E' terms of the four critical loading conditions used in the concrete wall analysis and provide the magnitudes of those loads.

PSE&G RESPONSE The results presented for wall hydrodynamic pressures due to rack dynamics are peaks of only the time varying component d~e to opening and closing of fluid gaps.

The total pressure on the walls at any instant consists of the hydrodynamic component plus the hydrostatic pressure.

The magnitude of the total pressure is the key value of importance in assessing propensity for cavitation.

As the rack array in the pool oscillates about its at-rest positions during a seismic event, the dynamic component of pressure increases and decreases from the value of the hydrostatic pressure.

What is printed in Tables 6.8.4, 6.8.10 is only the increase or decrease, not the total pressure.

Thus, by itself, the negative peak dynamic pressure in those tables directly indicates that the array is moving away from the wall (on the average) at the time of the peak.

b.

For the Salem analyses, the total pressure (at the top of the rack) consisting of hydrostatic pressure plus or minus the peak dynamic instantaneous value never drops below ambient pressure; thus, no cavitation is indicated.

c.

DYNARACK makes the a'priori assumption that no cavitation occurs during the time of the seismic event.

This is subsequently confirmed by evaluation of the results.

Should any analysis lead to results indicating a negative total pressure, then either the gaps would be adjusted to reduce the hydrodynamic effect over the total event time, or DYNARACK will need to recompute the mass matrix at the proper time points to incorporate drops in pressure below the ambient.

The fluid kinetic energy in the entire pool, (or around a single rack in the case of a single rack analysis) is computed in terms of the horizontal components of all of the racks in the pool (or in the case of a single rack analysis, 2

d.

in terms of the velocity components of the rack being analyzed). The calculation is based on well established irrotational fluid mechanics principles. The Lagrangian formulation of the equations of motion leads to the automatic development of the appropriate additional fluid contributions to the system mass matrix.

Thus, while fluid pressures in the gap are not directly calculated at each instant in time, the total force on each rack due to these pressures is computed in terms of a sum of terms involving the rack accelerations and the hydrodynamic masses (which involve the nominal gap values).

Therefore, at each instant in time the effect of the hydrodynamic pressures on rack moments, forces, and displacements are correctly evaluated.

Subsequent to the simulation, the archived rack accelerations are used to evaluate total pool wall forces and Tables similar to 6.8.4 and 6.8.10 can be developed.

As noted in (c) above, the version of DYNARACK used for the Salem evaluation archives only the information necessary to compute the average pressure between the proximate rack walls and the pool walls.

The detailed pressure field could be developed without introducing any new theory.

However, the existing version of DYNARACK would require additional program modification to archive the detailed pressure distribution for all of the racks.

The code is presently configured to provide only the space averaged wall hydrodynamic pressure (as a function of time) because only the spatial averages are used (and needed) for fuel pool structural integrity.

e.

The average dynamic pressures listed in Tables 6.8.4 and 6.8.10 (almost zero) are not used in the pool evaluation.

The average dynamic pressure over the entire time duration of the seismic event should be near zero as it is expected that the array of racks will oscillate around their rest value.

The value used in the pool evaluation is the "dynamic pressure adder" which is the equivalent static pressure which gives the same total impulse (for as calculated by using all of the positive pressures or all of the negative pressures) over the time duration where the dynamic pressure is either positive or negative.

This dynamic pressure adder is 1.636 psi for the DBE case in the pool structural evaluation.

Although the effective dynamic adder is less than the instantaneous peak, its use in the pool structural analysis is consistent with the qualification methodology of the ACI code which is based on statically applied loads.

3 Aoi-

f.

The analysis for Salem used the following unfactored static pressures on the East Wall to account for the dynamic effects of the water contained in the spent fuel pool, and for the dynamic effects of the fuel racks (as transmitted through the water).

DBE Cpsil p 1 = 3.317 (over entire height of wall) plus p

= 1.636 (on wall from base to top 2

of racks)

OBE (psi) 2.793

1. 307 Therefore, on the East Wall below the top of the racks, the applied static pressure (prior to applying load factors) was:

DBE = p 1 + p 2 = 4.953 psi OBE = p 1 + p 2 = 4.100 psi If the values for instantaneous hydrodynamic peak pressure were used below the top of the rack, instead of the effective dynamic adder, then the total (peak) pressure would be DBE = 3.317 + 5.52 (Table 6.8.4) = 8.837 psi OBE = 2.793 + 3.38 (Table 6.8.16) = 6.173 psi In the actual pool analysis, the response spectrum method is used to evaluate the pool structure response as opposed to static methods.

For the purposes of this response, however, a static pressure on the East Wall that would represent the structure self-excitation effect is calculated as (applied over the total height of the wall):

DBE = 3.36 psi OBE = 2.813 psi Thus, in the event of a worst case direct combination of all pressures, the total pressures applied below the rack top and leading to E' would be pDBE = 4.953 + 3.36= 8.313 psi (using effective adder) pDBE = 8.837 + 3.36 = 12.197 psi (using peak hydro pressure) or PDBE/PDBE = 1.467 The corresponding total pressures involved in E would be (applied below the rack top):

4

g.

Po BE = 4.100 + 2.813 = 6.913 psi (using _effective adder)

Po BE = 6.173 + 2.813 = 8.986 psi (using peak hydro pressure) or PoBE/PoBE = 1.30 We conclude that using the most conservative combination methodology, there could be an increase of 30% in E if we use instantaneous peak pressures (for East Wall regions below the top of the racks).

A conservative estimate of the increase in E' is 46.7%.

Similar conclusions are reached for other walls for regions below the top of the spent fuel racks.

The governing East Wall safety margin of 1.22 involves dead load, seismic load, and thermal load.

The thermal loading is a large contribution to the overall bending moment.

We have evaluated the effect of the individual contributions to the limiting factored load combination and find that using the most conservative combination of D, E, T, with a 30% increase in E, will change the margin°from 1.22 to 1.17.

If we use E' instead of E in the above combination, then the margin of 1.22 decreases to 1.14.

The use of the effective dynamic adder is consistent with the philosophy underlying the ACI Code (which is a static analysis Code).

If we consistently used peak instantaneous values for dynamic loads, it would also be appropriate to increase the allowable strengths to incorporate rate effects. This we have not done, either in the analysis, or in the above calculations.

Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the actual margin would remain about the same.

It is recalled also that all hydrodynamic pressures are based on time-histories which include an amplifier of 1.1 for extra conservatism and are developed from a conservative spectrum that initially envelopes the Salem spectrum after broadening.

The Staff requested that PSE&G submit the pool structural analyses input and output for the pool slab and all four walls, including all four different loading conditions.

This information is voluminous.

PSE&G contacted Mr. J.

Stone (Salem NRR Project Manager) to discuss the specific NRC needs.

On January 26, 1994, a telecon was conducted between Dr. A. Solar (Holtec) and Mr. D. Jeng (NRR Technical Branch).

Based on that telecon, D. Jeng requested that we provide a sample calculation.

We have included this calculation as Attachment 3.

5

The analytical model of the walls and slab uses the finite element code ANSYS and employs solid elements to model the walls and slab.

To model the load carried by the pool walls acting as support to the roof, additional shell elements were used to model (for purposes of mass only) the structure above the level of the pool walls.

Tables 1 and 2 (attached) from the archive pool calculation package summarize the reinforcement pattern, material properties, and strengths for the various sections.

The major conservative assumptions used in development of the model are:

1.

All analysis is carried out using linear elasticity to develop moment distribution.

2.

Ultimate strengths are computed using standard methods which are well established in the civil engineering concrete community.

3.

Redistribution of thermai moments due to yielding at a section is conservatively neglected.

4.

Section moduli are computed assuming concrete has no tensile strength.

The effect of different reinforcement patterns show up as orthotropic material properties for each element in the mesh.

Thus, the load distributions to various sections are correctly addressed.

5.

No credit for mean compressive loads is taken when computing bending limits.

h.

The loadings included in E or E' consist of:

1.

Pool wall and slab self-excitation (due to the concrete weight)

2.

Horizontal hydrodynamic forces due to rack dynamics and fluid motion above the height of the racks acting on the walls.

The response spectrum method was used to impose the self-excitation loading so it is difficult to quantify this load in terms of a uniform pressure applied to the walls.

The actual combinations were done in a conservative manner and are shown below.

6

2.

For both the DBE and OBE cases, the seismic loads E are formed as E z = [ IE I

IE

... IE I.. 'E ']2

'"'* I I h,'

[IE, I

IE.., I

I E, I

IE,, I ]

2 1

1 1

[ IE I

IE I + IE c I

IE,, 1]2 1'1 w,

I I

wh411 E,, E,, and E a11 iM x, y, and z components, respectively, of the 7

rack dynamic loads, E..,, E..,, and E.., art tM components of iM hydrodynamic loads, a

7 Ee, Ee, and Ee an 1M compontnu of tM ZPA self-acitatitJn load.r, a

7 E,., E,., and E c art tM components of w response spectrum self-a:irarion a

7 loads, which, in tum, art formed as (E,. )2 = (E,. )2 + (E,.J2 + (E,. )2 + *** + (E. )2 Sol (E111)2 = (E,.,)2 + (E,.J2 + (E~)2 *... + (E,.

11)2 (E,.)2 = (E,. )2 + (E,.J2 + (E,. )2 + *** + (E,. )2 aJ, where E,.. is the modal response for mode j, coordinate direction i, included for all modes 1 ~ j :s; n with mode frequencies less than 40 hz.

In the formation of E,. etc., closely spaced modes, if they occur are combined directlv in accordance with appioved &uidelines.

NRC QUESTION PSE&G stated that four artificial time histories were generated from the design response spectra defined in the FSAR, and they were used for dynamic analyses.

PSE&G is requested to submit the digitized time histories representing the input motions at the spent fuel pool floor which correspond to the safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) and operating basis earthquake (OBE) in a 3.5-inch diskette for use by the staff in performing an independent analysis

7

.ll;-'

2.

PSE&G RESPONSE As noted in the licensing report, four time history sets were used to generate a bounding response spectra in each direction.

This bounding spectra was then used to generate a controlling set of time histories (one set each for DBE and OBE).

The two sets (one each for DBE and OBE) of three time-histories are provided on 3.5" diskette.

The format is 6Ell.5 with accelerations in "g" units at 0.01 sec.

intervals.

The time-histories do not include the 1.1 multiplier discussed in 6.3.2.e. of the licensing report.

This multiplier is applied after the seismic files are inputted into DYNARACK.

3.

NRC QUESTION PSE&G indicated that an analysis is performed for the pool liner using the ANSYS computer program.

However, it did not provide detailed quantitative information related to the integrity of the pool liner in the submittal.

PSE&G is requested to provide the following:

a) b)

c) d)

e)

Analytical approaches or methodologies, Loading conditions, analysis model and assumptions *

used, Liner failure (tear and rupture) criteria, Material properties used including concrete bearing strength and friction coefficient used between the rack pedestal and liner, and Provide complete summary of the analytical results.

3.

PSE&G RESPONSE It is recognized that the spent fuel liner is not a safety-related component.

Nevertheless, the integrity of the liner was established by a detailed cycle life evaluation using the analysis procedure recommended in Section III of the ASME Code for Class 1 components.

a/b. Analytical Approaches or Methodologies & Analysis Model and Assumptions:

1.

Stress analysis of the liner is based on a finite element model of liner which includes compression-only contact elements to simulate underlying slab.

The finite element model is used to predict the liner stress distribution under the action of peak vertical and horizontal loads from the most severely loaded pedestal.

The liner 8

2.

model includes a simulated weld seam adjacent to the bearing pad.

Flat plate elements simulate the liner and bearing pad and compression-only gap elements simulate the underlying slab and contact between liner and bearing pad.

Results of the finite element analyses are used to establish peak stress ranges in the liner.

Results from the WPMR analysis are used to estimate stress cycles for seismic events.

Cumulative damage factors for assessment of fatigue life are computed in accordance with ASME Section III guidelines.

Loading Conditions Four load cases are subject to finite element analysis.

They are:

Case 1:

Case 2:

Case 3:

Case 4:

Hydrostatic pressure on liner A peak vertical load (z direction) V from DBE event (includes dead weight of rack plus fuel)

Friction force H applied in X direction Friction force H applied in Y direction Applied Loads v = 337,600 lb; H = 130,000 lb (applied simultaneous.ly in two horizontal directions on top of bearing pad).

These loads are the peak pedestal loads from the WPMR analysis for the pedestal deemed most limiting for liner evaluation and based on a bounding fuel loading in all spent fuel racks which is heavier than the standard fuel used for licensing the racks.

Hydrostatic pressure= 17.77 psi

c.

Liner Failure Criteria

1.

Maximum stress in liner (and seam weld) should not exceed ultimate strength.

2.

The cumulative damage factor in the liner at most limiting location should not exceed 1.0 under the action of 1 DBE and 20 OBE events.

9

d.

Material Properties

1.

Liner - stainless steel properties @ 200° from appropriate ASME tables.

2.

Concrete bearing strength per applicable section of ACI = 2083 psi based on concrete strength =

3500 psi

(.7 x [.85fc'])

3.

The vertical and horizontal (friction force) loadings are obtained from the dynamic analysis run. The loading set selected corresponds to the maximum value for the seismic event under the bounding fuel loading.

This bounding fuel loading assumed that the fuel assembly weight per cell was almost twice that of intact fuel.

4.

Coefficient of friction between pedestal and liner is 0.8 for load case considered.

e.

Results

1.

Maximum alternating tensile stress in liner is 29563 psi.

2.

Cumulative damage factor =.00063 < 1.0 for 20 OBE and 1 DBE

3.

steady state compressive thermal stresses in the liner do not exceed 11000 psi.

It is concluded that since the maximum stress (membrane plus bending) in the liner is less than the material endurance limit, liner fatigue life is essentially infinite.

Also since stresses are well below the ultimate material strength, rupture of the liner, under a single load application will not occur.

4.

NRC QUESTION Provide complete gap sizes among. racks, and between the racks and the spent fuel pool walls shown in Figure 6.1.1.

4.

PSE&G RESPONSE All gap information is applicable to both Salem Units.

The new racks have 8"x 3/16" bumper bars installed near the top on all four sides.

10

~.:

Gap between new racks is O. 5 "- except at bumper ba:::-

locations, where the gap is 0.3125".

Gap between existing racks is 1.6".

Gap between new and existing racks is 1.0" except at bumper bar locations, where the gap is o.8125".

Gap between new racks and the East/West walls is 2.7" except at bumper bar locations, where the gap is 2.5125 11

Gap between new racks and the North/South walls is

3. 0 11

except at bumper bar locations, where the gap :.s 2.8125 11

Gap between existing radcs and the East wall is 2. 7.,.

Gap between existing racks and the West wall is 7

~"

5.

NRC QUESTION

5.

6.

Describe plan and procedure for the post-QBE inspection of spent-fuel-rack gap configurations.

PSE&G RESPONSE PSE&G will incorporate, into the appropriate plant procedure, plans to measure the inter-rack and rack-to-wall gaps at pre-selected points (control locations) subsequent to an OBE event.

These control location gaps will be compared with the as-installed gaps measured and recorded on the Public Service Blue Print (PSBP) after completion of the rack installation.

In the event that the gaps are found to have changed, PSE&G will either analytically evaluate and demonstrate the continued acceptabiltiy of the altered gap sized, or restore the gaps to their original as-built values (within +/- 1/S inch tolerance).

If analytical evaluations are used, upon completion of these evaluations a safety evaluation will be performed in accordance with the provisions of 10CFR50.59.

NRC QUESTION Summaries of the worst results are shown in Tables 6.7.2 and 6.7.3 for the SSE and OBE single rack analyses, respectively.

All worst results of the maximum displacements and stress factors for the SSE analyses are obtained when single rack runs are carried out assuming in-phase motion of adjacent racks, while all worst results 11

6.

7.

for the OBE analyses are obtained when single rack runs are carried out assuming out-of-phase motion between the adjacent racks.

Describe the factors attributable to such findings.

PSE&G RESPONSE Table 6.7.1 summarizes all single rack analyses for Salem.

The design basis for single rack analyses is the opposed phase motion case since this maximizes the propensity for impacts.

For the Salem plant, an additional two runs were carried out for the DBE event assuming in-phase motion.

Since these results produced bounding loads, the results were* used where applicable for structural integrity evaluations.

Since all stress factors are less than 1.0 (which is the limit for the OBE events), even for the DBE event, it was not necessary to run any OBE cases with in-phase assumptions since those runs would never govern rack design.

NRC QUESTION The WPMR analysis indicated that there is no rack-to-pool wall impacts although impacts are found to occur at rack top corners among the racks during an SSE event as well as during an OBE event.

Describe the factors attributable to the no rack-to-pool wall impacts (e.g., boundary condition effects, any DYNARACK program limitations, etc.).

The WPMR analysis shows a small magnitude of impact force between rack-to-rack impact considering the rack corner displacements (0.9 to 1.2 inches) and heavy weight of the rack and fuel assemblies (more than 200,000 lbs.).

Provide the parameters involved in calculation of the impact force with discussion of the procedure to determine those parameters.

Also, describe analytical approach used in the analysis to calculate the impact force.

PSE&G RESPONSE No rack-to-pool wall impacts occur since the maximum rack displacements never exceed the rack to wall spacing set by the pool and rack array geometry.

Given the size of the pool, the rack array was established to provide maximum rack-to-wall gaps to eliminate the potential for rack-to-wall impact. There are no limitations to the DYNARACK code which would prevent it from recording or tracking rack-to-wall gaps if they were to occur.

Although the WPMR indicates that maximum rack corner displacements (.9" to 1.2") are not infinitesimal, this by itself does not imply that rack-to-rack impact forces occur 12

that need be substantial in magnitude.

The maximum displacements reported are displacements relative to the pool.

Since the array of racks generally tends to move in-phase, the gaps between racks at corners generally do not tend to close with a substantial relative velocity. Thus, while large absolute displacements of adjacent racks may occur, this does not imply large impact forces.

The rack-to-rack corners have been "hardened" with additional plate sections to provide a defined "impact location" above the active fuel region.

Thus, the nominal rack-to-rack gap at these locations is minimal so as to inhibit the build-up of large rack-to-rack relative velocities.

At each site of potential impact with an adjacent structure, a compression-only gap element is located.

Figure 1 shows a typical corner gap element.

At any instant of time, the current gap g is q.. q0 + X2 - Xl where q is the initial gap ~ o.o and Xl, X2 are the current rack co~ner displacements (in the direction across the gap) relative to the pool.

The f o_llowing relation computes the current force F s in the gap element at each instant in time:

F = 0 if g a 0 s

F

.. K a if g < o = -a The gap spr!nq rite K is set equal to 10,000 lb/in at the rack upper corners which is representative of the local elastic stiffness of the rack.

8.

NRC QUESTION Table 6.8.19 shows large difference between the results (maximum displacements, pedestal vertical loads and stress factors) of the single rack and the WPMR analyses.

Discuss the factors attributable to those differences, and provide a rationale for concluding that these results are accurate and reasonable.

8.

PSE&G RESPONSE Table 6.8.19 reports differences between single and multi-rack analysis for Rack 9 (a new rack).

The single rack analyses and WPMR analyses are complementary.

The single rack model includes the effect of rack elasticity and fuel mass vertical distribution, while the WPMR analysis uses a reduced rack modelling scheme but includes a more accurate measure of whole pool hydrodynamics as well as a 13

I more realistic description of the potential spatial variation of coefficients of friction over the whole pool.

It is not expected that there will necessarily be an exact match of results.

The connection between the two analyses is made when establishing the basic rack "building block" for the WPMR analyses; that is, the choice of rack model for WPMR simulations is established to ensure that if a WPMR is performed for only one rack in the pool, the displacement results from the WPMR model bound the results from the single rack model for the same input geometry and seismic excitation.

For the Salem plant, the in-phase single rack analysis run minimizes the effect of hydrodynamic gaps and gives the maximum results for top displacements and pedestal forces.

While such an isolated rack configuration may never occur in practice, it was, nevertheless, assumed to provide the design basis results for pedestal evaluation.

The major differences between WPMR analysis and single rack analyses are summarized below:

Single Rack COF is.2 or.8 for all pedestals in rack.

Hydrodynamic effect is only calculated for the modelled rack, and is based on assumptions regarding the behavior of adjacent racks.

Only one rack modelled.

WPMR COF is random with mean of.5 and lower and upper limits of

.2 and.8 for each pedestal.

Hydrodynamic effect is computed for all pool racks, with no assumptions other than the fluid is treated as an "ideal" fluid.

All pool racks are modelled.

In both models, where assumptions are made, they are made to err on the side of conservatism.

The key modeling parameters which affect rack response are:

a.

Pedestal-liner interface friction coefficient.

b.

Cell-to-fuel assembly gap.

c.

Cell-to-fuel assembly gap spring stiffness.

d.

Rack pedestal to pool floor interface stiffness

e.

Non-uniqueness at acceleration time-histories.

14

I I

f.

Mass of the fuel assembly

g.

Extent of fluid coupling between the cell wall and the fuel assembly.

In all cases of the aforementioned modeling parameters, wherever possible, the assumptions are made which result in exaggerating the computed response.

Furthermore, several assumptions enroute to the simplified dynamic modeling contain large elements of conservatism.

For example,

a.

Randomly rattling fuel assemblies in a rack are replaced with one giant fuel assembly, i.e., all fuel assemblies vibrate in unison.

b.

No credit is taken for form drag due to fuel assembly motion in the cell or due to rack motion in the pool.

c.

Fluid coupling terms are based on nominal gaps which is conservative since variable gaps further reduce the response of the vibrating body.

d.

Upper bound values are used for all gap spring constants, which is a proven method to amplify the overall structural response.

e.

No internal structural damping in the rack is assumed to exist.

9.

NRC QUESTION Was the rack design controlled mainly by the results of the single rack analysis? If yes, was there any physical rack design change necessitated by the results of the WPMR analysis?

As applicable, describe the change(s).

9.

PSE&G RESPONSE The. rack pedestal loads were larger in the single rack simulations in comparison to the WPMR runs.

However, the rack displacements turned out to be larger in the WPMR analyses, necessitating the recourse to impact hardening of the rack module corners.

This result is consistent with Holtec's previous experience as described in the attached paper, "Seismic Qualification of Free-standing Nuclear Fuel Storage Modules -

The Chin Shan Experience" (Attachment 2).

10.

NRC QUESTION Provide detailed information regarding the analytical 15

simulation of the rattling fuel assembly impacting against the cell wall including the following:

a)

How you calculated the magnitude of the largest impact force and location of the impact in the fuel assembly and cell wall, b)

How you determined and analyzed the fuel assembly and cell wall integrity, c)

Discuss the consideration given regarding the effects of the fluid between the fuel assembly and cell wall during the interactions, and d)

Provide available experimental studies that verify the reasonableness of the numerical simulation adopted to represent the fuel assembly and cell wall interaction.

10.

PSE&G RESPONSE

a.

b.

The rattling effect of fuel assemblies inside of the storage cells is modelled in the single rack analysis by five lumped masses at five equi-spaced elevations.

The maximum rattling forces at the five locations and the time instants when the impacts occur are archived.

At each mass location, four impact springs are used to track the impacts.

Figure 6.4.4 of the licensing submittal shows the configuration.

At each instant in time the existence of an impact force and the calculation of same is performed in the manner already discussed in our response to Question 7.

The only changes are that Xl, X2 now represent the local cell displacement in a given direction and the local assembly displacement in the same direction.

The initial gap is set by the geometry of cell and the fuel assembly envelope.

The spring rate K is conservatively computed based on the local flexibilitygof a cell wall and does not include any fuel assembly flexibility which would tend to decrease the value for Kg and lower the impact forces.

Once maximum impact forces are determined at the appropriate location, integrity of the fuel cell is checked by evaluating the local cell wall as a plate-like structure subjected to the maximum impact load.

For conservatism, the evaluation is carried out assuming that the load is statically applied.

The integrity of the fuel assembly is evaluated by demonstrating that the maximum impact load is well below the limiting allowable value provided by the fuel manufacturer.

16

c.

The fluid coupling between the fuel assembly and the storage cell was modeled using the classical Lagrange's formulation.

The fuel assembly was modeled as a square planf orm body vibrating in a square planform opening to calculate the hydrodynamic and coupling coefficients.

d.

Experimental study of the fuel assembly to cell wall interaction, to the best of our knowledge, is not available in the open literature.

We have, therefore, modeled the impact spring stiffness in a most conservative manner to ensure that the impact forces due to the rattling phenomena are computed as upper bounds on the values which will obtain in nature.

11.

NRC QUESTION

11.

PSE&G stated laboratory experiments were conducted to validate the multi-rack fluid-coupling theory.

Provide information related to these experiments, and discuss the basis for how the Fritz's two-body fluid-coupling model was extended to the multi-body applications.

PSE&G RESPONSE The laboratory experiments and validation of the multi-rack fluid coupling theory is proprietary information in its entirety and is available at Holtec International's office for inspection.

This theory has been utilized in several dockets (among them, Beaver Valley Unit 1, Zion, Sequoyah, Ft.. Calhoun, LaSalle Unit 1, and Duane Arnold) spent fuel pool capacity expansion amendment applications in recent years.

The fluid coupling experiments involved a set of instrumented rectangular blocks, scaled to simulate fuel racks, immersed in an enclosed tank simulating a fuel pool.

The tank was shaken on an instrumented shake table and the responses of the simulated racks recorded.

These responses were then compared with calculated responses for the same configuration.

The experiments validated Holtec's multi-body fluid coupling theory.

The theoretical basis for the multi-rack fluid coupling is described in Reference 6.4.5 (Fluid Coupling in Fuel Racks:

correlation of Theory and Experiment, NUSCO/Holtec Report HI-88243) of our previously submitted Licensing Report. The basic concepts of classical fluid mechanics, i.e.

incompressible, irrotational flow, are utilized to develop the governing equation in the manner of Fritz solution.

However, there is a substantial difference in level of 17

12.

difficulty associated with the two-body Fritz model and with the multi-body model.

In the Fritz two-body model, the fluid is constrained to move around one enclosed body so that there is only a single irrotational flow condition involved.

In the multi-rack model, the total volume of fluid is constrained to remain in the spent fuel pool, but its movement around various bodies (racks) is unknown a'priori. The fluid mechanics equations derived from continuity of flow and Kelvin's recirculation theorem, however, are exact within the assumptions of inviscid flow, and are applied to determine the complete fluid velocity*

distribution.

The result of the multi-rack theoretical analysis leads to a fully populated 2N x 2N fluid mass matrix (N = number of racks in the pool); the Fritz 2 body model (with 1 body being the pool) leads finally to a 2 x 2 mass fluid matrix involving the 2 independent degrees of freedom of the internal body.

One cannot develop the multi-rack matrix correctly by simply adding up Fritz model matrices for each rack in the pool.

In other words, the theoretical formulation for the multi-rack problem, therefore, can not be directly deduced from the Fritz model, but must be established from first principles of fluid mechanics.

The effect of axial (vertical) flow of fluid (in the interstitial space between the racks, and between the racks and pool wall) is incorporated into the multi-body planar fluid coupling model by comparison of the analytical results with experimental data.

The axial flow component was found to result in a very small correction to the fluid coupling matrix based on the planar formulation.

NRC QUESTION PSE&G stated that all computer programs utilized in performing the rerack analysis*were verified in accordance with Holtec International's nuclear Quality Program (QP).

Indicate whether the QP was reviewed and apprqved by the NRC staff, and provide pertinent references.

Also, indicate whether or not the QP documentation is available for staff audit.

With respect to the QP, provide results of any existing experimental study that verifies the correct or adequate simulation of the fluid coupling utilized in the numerical analyses.

Since the experimental study mentioned in the reference section does not fully reflect realistic rack configuration, boundary conditions, rack and fluid interaction, and dynamic input loading conditions, PSE&G is requested to provide any other available results of experimental study in addition to the experimental study 18

12.

indicated in the reference section of the submittal or provide justification that the current level of the DYNARACK code verification is adequate for engineering application, and thus, should be accepted without further experimental verification work.

PSE&G RESPONSE The Holtec International Nuclear Quality Program (QP) was not reviewed and approved by the NRC staff.

However, Holtec International's QA program has been audited by a large number of nuclear utilities and utility groups, including Nuclear Utilities Procurement Issues Committee (NUPIC).

The USNRC staff reviewers and Commission's consultants (such as the Franklin Research Center and the Brookhaven National Laboratory) have also made technical audits on specific dockets with particular focus on the dynamic analysis codes.

All in all, Holtec's QA program including its computer code development and validation systems has been audited over 40 times by different organizations with 10CFR50 appendix B programs and Part 21 reporting responsibility.

In particular, the NRC and its consultants (Brookhaven Laboratories) did a review of the codes during the Diablo Canyon ASLB hearings in early 1987 (Docket Numbers 50-275 and 50-323).

The validation of DYNARACK is in conformance with the provisions of the Holtec Quality Procedure HQP 5.2, Computer Programs, and demonstrates that DYNARACK meets all validation requirements of USNRC-SRP 3.8.1.Section II.4(e) of SRP 3.8.1 states that computer programs used in design and analysis should be described and validated by any of the following procedures or criteria:

(i)

(ii)

The computer program is a recognized program in the public domain, and has had sufficient history of use to justify its applicability and validity without further demonstration.

The computer program solution to a series of test 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 of applicability of the problems analyzed by the public domain computer program.

19

(iii)

The computer program solution to a series of test 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 problems should be demonstrated to be similar to or within the range of applicability of the classical problems analyzed to justify acceptance of the program.

A summary comparison should be provided for the results obtained in the validation of each computer program.

Since DYNARACK is a private domain program, the validation problems used for DYNARACK comply with criteria (ii) and (iii) above.

In the DYNARACK Validation Report, it is shown that DYNARACK meets the following criteria:

l*

All desired capabilities of the code perform as expected.

2.

3.

4.

Results from DYNARACK are in excellent agreement with solutions obtained from other sources.

The results obtained from DYNARACK fluid coupling methodology is in agreement with experimental results.

The code exhibits excellent convergence when applied to both linear and nonlinear problems.

The experimental verification of DYNARACK had to be performed on a scaled model since a full scale testing would involve very large inertia, fluid, and friction forces which would outstrip the capability of calibrated testing in any U.S. laboratory.

To our knowledge, the only effort at full scale testing was in Japan, which, too, falls short of the objective because some key loadings such as the fluid coupling forces, were eliminated from the experiment, presumably to keep the testing effort manageable.

Although the Japanese data is only of limited value because of the above-mentioned limitations, we have been unable to obtain them thus far from the owners of the data, despite several efforts.

Holtec's scaled model testing focussed on the two key contributors to the dynamics of the racks - the fluid coupling and inertia forces. The results from almost 100 experiments demonstrated remarkable agreement between the 20

predictions of the Code and the experimental data.

Recognizing that the empirical principles are used in ~he

constructing of the DYNARACK equations of motion and that the Code has been benchmarked against a wide array of linear and nonlinear problems in dynamics, the experimental validations have further reinforced the veracity of DYNARACK To our knowledge, DYNARACK is the only Code with such a complete underlay of validations.

This Code has been used in over 1000 dynamic simulations in over two dozen nuclear plant dockets since 1980.

Holtec International's nuclear Quality Program (QP) is available for audit by the NRC staff.

13.

NRC QUESTION 13 *

14.

Discuss the basis for selecting storage locations and newly discharged spent fuels versus the spent fuels which have been stored for some periods (i.e., the fuel storage location plan and the associated load distribution patterns as well as their effect on pool stress distribution and permanent deformations due to the previous spent fuel loadings, etc.).

PSE&G RESPONSE The analyses for the pool structure have been carried out by assuming that the dead weight in the pool has reached its maximum possible value, i.e., all fuel storage locations are occupied.

In our experience, this loading condition is the limiting mechanical and seismic load condition for spent fuel pool structures on grade (i.e., not elevated pools).

The thermal loading on the pool structure corresponds to the peak pool bulk temperatures after a full core discharge.

Maximum mechanical, seismic, and thermal load may occur only for a short duration and only once in the life of the plant.

In summary, the pool structure qualification was carried out with a highly conservative set of assumptions and bounds all storage location scenarios.

NRC QUESTION Provide the complete locations of the leak chase systems with respect to Figure 6.1.1 which shows the locations of the racks and pedestals.

PSE&G RESPONSE The attached Figure 2 shows the pool layout for one of the two Salem pools.

The cask pit is next to the three existing racks but separated by a full concrete wall.

The other pool is a mirror image.

Leak chases are shown by the dotted line pairs.

Note that pedestals are not located over leak chases.

21

ATTACHMENT 2 Excerpted from Nuclear Engineering International March 1991 Chin Shan analyses show advantages of whole pool multi-rack approach By KP Singh anti A I Soler Results from whole pool multi*rack (WPMR) analyses at Chin Shan and Oyster Creek point up the potential inadequacies of single rack 30 analyses, and show just how important it is to carry out WPMR simulations, despite their abstruseness and high cost Fuel 1torage racks arc essen&:iall)* 1hin*

1"lled. cdlW.r suuaurci of priamatk

~rion. Although the dm.ils or design \\'UY fi-om one aupplier ro an*

omer, czmin kcv physical anribuw arr common to all ~

For eum2lc, all nw fearutt "JllaR "lb of Nffitient opminJ size ind heifhr to enable inmtion and wi&hcirawal or thC' fuel uembh*.

The cells (or "boxes") arc menied in 1 lq\\J&re (or recraniu4r) panem and arc futmrd ro each ocher wing suha ble conncc1or* and welds. The amr of cells il potirion~ in 1 '-mical orienmion and i1 ruppo"eci off w pool 1lab aurf ace b'* (our or mo~ support I~ The 1pcnr fUel pool j, nllcd "ojth the individual fuel BCIU. The plenum c:reaced by tht' mpport lqJ is es..endal t'or proper c:oolini: of the fod usrmbliu nored in the nc:k. which rdia on narural c:onvcc*

Live cooling. [() amai:i rht hear emincd by the spem fuel. How~er. ir hu the insalu~* effect or ~

i.1 IUncrnaci*

ca.II)' Im stable. Rlplamn' l\\nhori1ics requirt careful ~iensivc anal-Y'i' of the respo_~_j rscld under thC' acismic modlijf,_w.red for thC' pool slab.

Nan-lillttr1* ltPrtmtl't. Suds 1n anah*sis cannot be' condueted in rht aannci of.

in~n1ional srruc1unl anah*sci for riewc: r plan11, bcgusc me clanical :1p-77a.- llllflH*J 111¥ u~1/I H.H.* J N1m1111i1UMI. ](JN)

Fairf"",w""'* Cl~ HJ/.. \\'.I l1ttfl0..' Jf>M. l'.s..f, proacba (\\'ii the rcsponsc 1pcctn1m method) att predicated on che usump-tion that the StNCEU~ ii linear. A fuel iadc, however, ii the epitome of 1 non*linear struc:nuc (defined as one in which d\\e appliad Force doa not have a linear rr.lacionship io the raulrina dis-plac:=mcnr). The nored fuel uscml>lit's, which c:oiminne over 60 per mu of me wcipt of a Cull~* loaded rack module. arc

!Tee tc ranle iiltidr rhe nor.~ c:ell durlni a seismic t\\"crn. The rac~ moduie iucltu ncn anac:hed ro the fuel pool slab.

Furthermore. the Coulomb friaion re-siHins the sliding oF ihe rack module on 1hc pool 111ri'lcc ;,, ~* ciclinition, 1 non-linear force.

TIMi IHTliQRATION TICHHIQUEI ln rec0picion of rhcsc hi~* nou-lincar anriburcs or rh-: d'*namic bchl\\'iour o(

fuel stO"IC racb. 'mcir seilmi~ simula*

rion has been carried ou1 iaing rim~

inr~uon techniques. Tht 'rart-of-thc-arr analyfi1 recnnique in\\'oh-c1 mQCi-cllint: 1 linJlt raclC module 1.1 1 JI) structure with rearures 10 eaprurc tl1e fuel usemb~* ranling. modult slidinr,,

rockins, and twiatint: motions.

Dewpirc the veratili~* or th~.\\IJ leismk model. d!r 1CC1HIC'. of rhc 1in~lr r.ac:J.; Jimuluioni ha.c been 1usrcc1 d~~ ro one ke\\

0 r:lemcnr: narnch', h,'Cfroch'llamic:

partici~arion or water irou'nd rhC. r:1eks.

This cffccr is und~nrood b,* con.sidcrint?.

the morion o( warer bcrwttn larllt' n.i planes of width w 111 a '.smalll distin(.( d apan. wnicli arc mo,*ing 1owud~ each oi:hct with vclociry u. The moving pl&nes. for simplicity o( this illumarion.

an uswned co be infinircly long. such mat thc 11\\0liOJl of warer mi:ing che intu-planc tpace is in me plant of W p&F in the diagram below. For chis geomeu,*. the velocit)' of water v 15 compurcd by direa \\'Olume balancr (continuity}:

In a rime inte~*al dl.

w (2u )ldr)

Jvc:I ldt) or v/u

w/d This leaO. LO the conclu,!on rhar rhe

\\'elocir:i-* of water cxidns the nuid gap i5 w/d timn the veloci~* of the: approa'h plane. In a f)'Pic:a.I spent fuc:I pool. che racks arC' 1bou t 2'50cm l l OOin) "idc, and ar~ spaced at 4.5*"..5tm (2*3in)

~ Two submergeO pa111ll1I fill pl1nes

pproacl\\ln;.. oh otntr.

l7

ATTACHMENT 2 Excerpted from Nuclear Engineering International March 1991 SPENT FUEL STOHAGE

~ inravala. For the rack. modules arrangt'ci in a typical spent fuel pool. w

1 OOin and d

lin, 10 vfu

50. Since kincric en~ is proportional tO die square of vdocicy, thr water exiting die inm*raclt apacie Will have 2SOO iimr.s the sp_ccihc liinctic en~ of rhe moving radt.

This hwnulic mav u catbcr drawn fiom or ' added to the moving r.~.

modifying iu submerpd motion in a aipihc:am mmocr. The dynamics of o~ rad:. therefore, aR'eca die motion of aJ1 others in the pool A dynamic runulacion which trcau only one rack. ot

& 1maJJ ;rou.,ing of radu, therefott, is intrinai"1!Y 1nadcquatt ro prcdia the motion of rack mocha)a wiili any qu.an*

tinablc lCYel of aa:uraq*.

UP!AIENC! IN TAIWAN Taiwan -

no ~.ranger to seismic trem-on -

has three nud;ar inStallationr.

Kuosh~g. Mu.nihati and Chin Shan.

Tmwan Power Company procured racks For w Chin Shan sire from General Electric Cornpan)' in 1986. Tbue racks art of the 10o-cilled honeycomb con-muction. and welt' initially anal}'Kd by a single rack lD seismk model. Recog-nizing th~ ~uacr of men

model to prognostu:atc die potanial haarc! of rack-co-rad< (or rack*lO*pool "-a!i) co!U*

sions durin& a 5"Cl'C acismic ~nt, Taiwan Power scr out ro derennint the rspome ro racks b~* a comprchcnsi~

wbOle pool analyai1.

Under a canaultin1 conn.ct with Taiwu P09m', Holtce lntem11tional

{USA) 11ndenook to prcpuc-a c!)'!lunic model of the cntin: aaemblagc of radca (a total of 14 modules) in the pool, witb dllt comidcntion of Awd coupling cffeca. H.oltec'a code D'r'NAIACK, Which uses the Q)IDponent clement method for non-linear dynamic an&lylis. and has bun med in over 1 doaen fuel raclc licensing projcca..,,... used for tbis purpote.

The reaulca of this Sm ever so-calli:d whole ~

multi.rack (WPMR) analytis providid turthcr i~t into the in-~l rack dynamic bchaviO\\lr. Tracking or the intcz.rack pp ahowed thar the presence of Wltcr nu the circa of injc:cring a certain l)'IDmCb)' inro me motion of adjacenc racks. althoush 1 cc:nain

&mOWlt of 01&t-Ofrpbuc motion OGGW'I.

Complriaon with sinJk rack 3D analy-

,a. ~.

poinled io che ra1hcr unsctdina _ conClwion that w sm,lc rack models do not bcNnd the rcsuln of the whole peol aimlllaiiona. 111 1he Chin Shan analysis. the 'Wl'Mrt analy1n yielded a mairn1.Jrn kinc:matic displacc:mc:nr of a rack in the paol -

8. 5 times the single rack analysis prediaion. The impac:t loacb between rack support pedestals and the pool dab dcacucCI uigtitlY from ihc valua obtained from the sing1c r-.c:k an&lym. In 'h' Chin Sban anal)"Si,, the coefficient of friction bctw=n pedestal pd slab was about O.l. E'VCll though the rad; displacements rclaci~ to thC slab showed a w;e increase over the single rack raulti. no raclM~rack or rack*to-wall imr-cu were prcdiaed.

OVSTIR CAalK ANALYSES S~uent ta the Chin Shar. analysis, Holtec lniemational oomplmd some similar work for GPLJ Nuclear Oyncz Creek plant locarcd near Toms RJver, New Jersey. The Oysw Credi analym weft perl_ormed using coefficients of friction of 0.2 and 0.8. In this cue, thr mlXimum displacement oi any rack in the pool prcdiard by the '<<'T'MR analyses wu 1.4 tima the single rack analysis p.-=i~ion. ln this anal~. 1he pedeatal 10 slab impact lo.di predicted by the W'PMR anal)'ICI a.re 5ligh U)' gr cater dun thC' values obtained from the sin~le r1i:k 11u1ras.

ATTACHMENT 3 Additional Information in response to NRC Question.lg_

ATTACHMENT 3 The following pages give additional details on the methodology employed for pool structural evaluation. Detailed text explanation is provided to provide insight into the calculation procedure. Where necessa:ry, sample calculations are included as are pages reproduced from the archive calculation package for the analysis.

The description presented in the following references FORTRAN codes developed for the Salem analysis to aid in post processing the data developed by ANSYS. These codes are validated in accordance with Holtec's QA procedures.

PAGE 1 OF 28

ATTACHMENT 3 Salem Pool Structural Analysis Sample Margin Calculation for the East Wall

1.

MOMENT 1.1 Allowables 1.2 Allowable moment M. is computed according to the procedure of Attachment A using Holtec QA validated computer program "CONPRO".

The computation by Holtec does include the small compressive reinforcement of the rebars.

ex.

for east pool wall, water side in compression, moment about a horizontal axis parallel to the water-side wall surface, we have Af = -253879 in -lb

= -253. 9 Kip - in in m

(see Attachment B, east wall reinforcement diagram, and Attachment C, related CONPRO output)

Computed 1.2.1 ANSYS ANSYS pool structural model is based on 8 node solid elements and produces stresses at each of 8 nodes for each of 3 coordinate directions for each of several load cases; these stresses are converted to equivalent moments for each of the several load cases using the procedure of Attachment D, which is implemented as part of an ANSYS postprocessor.

Resulting moments for each of the several load cases are combined as required by the load combination of SRP 3.8.4. This is also automatically implemented as part of an ANSYS postprocessor.

1.2.2 FORTRAN The output files produced by the ANSYS postprocessor (one for each load combination) contain load _combination results data for every finite element in the pool model. As such they are rather long, and important data contained therein is not readily accessible; for this reason, a series of three additional postprocessors were written in FORTRAN to further process the output data.

2 PAGE 2 OF 28

ATTACHMENT 3 The first of these, MAXMOM, extracts the extreme combined moment values and the element of their occurance for each load combination.

The second, LCOMOM, takes one file for each load combination from MAXMOM, scans all load combination data for the extreme values of bending moment about the horizontal and vertical axes, and produces a single summary file (see Attachment E).

The third postprocessor, MARMOM, incorporates ultimate moment data from CONPRO and produces a file of governing margins based on the extreme values of the load combinations from LCOMOM. This output is provided as Attachment F.

ex.

East pool wall ("material 2"): From Attachment E, the governing values of load combinations are moment value (Kip-in/in) load combination element horizon~

horizon~a:

verti~

vertica~ax

-260.4 154.0

-161.9 6

1 2

422 369 145 The corresponding margins for the east wall, as shown in Attachment F, are:

horizontal, water side in compression:

1.26 horizontal, water side in tension:

3.29 vertical, water side in compression:

1.22 vertical, water side in tension:

2.40 of which 1.22 governs.

208.2 3

144 The reported margins are simply MjEXTR, with the number under the column LC indicating the corresponding load combination.

Note that all walls and the slab are treated automatically by the procedure described above; we emphasize here only the east wall since it gives the lowest margin.

3 PAGE 3 OF 28

2.

ATTACHMENT 3 GROSS AREA SHEAR 2.1 Allowables Allowable shear v. is computed according to the procedures of ACI 318-71 in § 3.44 of the archival pool calculations (see Attachment G).

ex.

For east pool wall, shear in a horizontal plane (xy), we have

v. = +/- 259.0 psi 2.2 Computed stress 2.2.1 ANSYS pool structural model produces shear stresses T 1Y' T Y7-' T llZ in principal planes of the elements for each of several.load cases.

Shear stresses for each of the several load cases are combined as required by the load combinations of SRP 3.8.4~ the combinations are implemented internally as part of an ANSYS post processor.

2.2.2 In a manner similar to that described for the calculated bending moments, a series of FORTRAN postprocessors extracts the individual contributions to shear and determines the extreme values for each load combination for each. wall.

ex.

East pool wall ("material 2"):

The governing values of load combination are:

T yz, min Tyz, ma:

T -q, min T -q, mu:

value (psi)

-66.0 40.0

-116.9 107.1 load combination 2

3 4

3 element.

145 424 370 424 and the corresponding margins are:

T llZ. min:

3.32 T llZ. mar 5.49 T -q, min:

2.22 T xy, ma::

2.42 4

PAGE 4 OF 28

3.

ATTACHMENT 3 PUNCHING SHEAR The punching shear calculation from the pool report is included in its entirety as Attachment H. Governing margin over the entire pool is 17.4.

5 PAGE 5 OF 28

C:TR1 :.r--r * ~1* I

._, 1.... I k *'< r.._ R ~p ~RT ATTAGHMErJI A

~oR Tr I

r. "-

PSE&G C:.LC. 'JJ. fSJ*157L SAL EM Si="P thickness. This is appropriate since only gr_oss moments and shears are needed rather than detailed. stress variations thru thickness.

Solid element results in terms of stresses will be converted to forces and moments for purposes of structural integrity evaluation.

For purposes of convenience in modeling and results interpretation, the various regions of the SFP structure are identified with multiple element type and material property numbers.

The correspondence of these numbers with the various SFP regions is given in Table 3.2.1.

3.3 Displacement Boundary Conditions For purposes of applying boundary conditions to the finite element model, the. fill concrete substructure is assumed to provide a perfectly rigid support for the structural elements of the SFP.

Therefore, all nodes at the bottom of the slab (that is, all nodes at EL. 78 '-0") are completely fixed restrained to zero displacement in all three translational degrees-of-freedom)

3.4 3.4.1 Material Properties Ultimate Moment in Concrete Section Let M be the moment applied at the mid-surface of the concrete section. Assume concrete can only withstand compression and that the steel reinforcement supports all tension.

The concrete compressive strength reduction factor ¢ is O. 85 and the total strength reduction factor <Pt is 0.9.

b =

As =

f' =

c width of section tension reinforcement area reinforcement yield stress concrete compressive strength @ 28 days Other geometry is defined in Figure 3.4.1.

3-3 PAGE 6 OF 28

ATTACHMENT A

~f'/q'

'~

STR.UCT AIJAL REPCJf?-T FOr2.. IHE SALEM SFP PSE"&G-

~c.. tJo.

'=:.S0- ltc.74 Force equilibrium requires that where a = kd Therefore Moment equilibrium requires that M = fy As (d - a} + ~ fc a b :

But ¢ fc' a b = fy As so that a

M.. fr As [d - -I 2

The above relation gives the ultimate strength of the section in the presence of small axial forces. The allowable moment for the section is limited by ACI 318 to 90% of the ultimate.

Therefore, without considering compression reinforcement, Credit for compressive reinforcement may also be taken.

The calculations described above are automated in Hol tee computer program "CONPRO" (2.5.2), in which credit is taken for both tensile and compressive reinforcement. The results are summarized in Table 3.4.l, and hardcopies of associated computer outputs are provided on pages 3-7, 3-8, 3-10, 3-11, 3-13 through 3-18, 3-20, 3-21, 3-23, and 3-24.

3.4.2 Calculation of the Neutral Axis and Equivalent Moduli of Elasticity for Reinforced Concrete Section Calculation of the iocation of the neutral axis and calculation of equivalent moduli of elasticity for cracked concrete are computed in accordance with the procedures of Reference [2.1.24], assuming that concrete acts in compression only and that steel acts in both tension and compression.

The calculations described in this section is automated in Hol tee computer program "CONPRO" [2.5.2).

The results are summarized in Table 3. 4

l.

PAGE 7 OF 28

\\N

~

)::>

IT1 00 0 -n N

00 r-b 1

000 h

~;~"'

ti~* I Stress Oiogron

--i0fc'r-flfc'bo~J 0

kd L _

--~--NEUTRA_L ~

Strain Oiogron ec =0.001 T A f -{

~

As I = 5 y-.a

- - - - - - - ~

d

====

L e5=ly!Esl 1------1 J

~

c

~ r,

\\ "Jl}

~ 1> ~

~*~

0 r>

I Ill rtt FIGURE 3.4.1 NOMENCLATURE FOR SECTION 3.4.~2 CALCULATIONS

~~

~

~ ~ )::>

CJ-r-

~

'1 0 f;

-t--

~

(:

~

0 w

STRUCT AN;..L Rt.PORT F JR THE A TTA:GH M 5"" N I

.B PSE&G HOLTEC INTER..~ATIONAL CALCULAT101'< SHEET SAi ;'."M SFP Project No.-"-=-Zo_J""'-'*,r_o __________ _

f o&f 7 S"

-l,f;"'?Y 1/1S/f7 Date Date C

~ Ll~.HACH~T 3-c.: J. *,. -..:

1-1 L. Nu. t...i

.'.J1.

Page---- Rev.

Other ---------

E-Asr--- - WALL - -.. -<.,.~-ot'.--t/.f-K.,--------**--*--*-----------*-***---

.-4.,_~"i:l'a..-..... ::....,_......_. ___.-1>*"*.&...-....- *.

--- -- f i

.. 4/-(0 @>9-~~NF---- -*----* ------ ------------t 3 r~

. --*---.--1-1* ---* - "#" ff"@J't'(-r=r=-- **-*-:---- -* -*- :-:-*--- ---~--

-~

(

....,.,_. *-- *v-.*... -.:--.. *.-*-.* ~-**..c.*.-,._._.. ____._..._._,_~ ---- _"'I'..,..-.--.* *..-....-* *WI-.._..,_**

. "'-*".,_"("'I

/'"'

I

-id~---~----.*

-""~ 3 Yz. Mr 0

1'\\

---*---------- ---------*----- - --t----t---

T-Y-J?t-~

--~*;*-----

~~*.**~--..---~.

---= _;:;;. _________. 7L

.z;cq"~"D*~--

->---**--#ft©t---~--mtr~~

/

c~r*-;---- *

**- v~----~*--- ---------------------:----t---1~---------*--*

I

.- ;----*- -----,:,--t---------

- -* ---.. ---S--- -----------------------:----t----1-----1--------*---*-----

-------t-----1---------.......

i

..... ~-;o---

i--,.._ ___....., ___

~--

-* ---=-____ _,_ __________ :--------,.----t----11-----;1--------

.---*---*----t--------------------------~---t----1~---;1----~--

~ -:--~ ?f1~~+----.--------'-----,..............--1---t,----t----

'-f-'--. -~----1--------------:,.------------"---+---f'*----+----------- -

l<o--------.,q.4~!..,,'~*'-'--------~~----'-...._ ________ _

-r

~-----------------,-----------------------*--*

1 4

I I

i

~

---Vit-uJ---.~-~ti.~~S'-rE>;c:;.--~--------~----

.... ~-****'-----*-*----------=------*----------------

--'---------~-----...;..._-~--.-------.-----------.;----;-:- -- -**.

3-9

,---~--- *-*---

PAG~ 9lOF 28

!>: lr,+-c-tt M E ~ I'

'T~!'('_.I *:O:i'L K'"'r'"'!RT

<J K:J \\....

.... i' v

.

P F JR THE r:r~ f/~/f3 SAL:M SFP

~Salem Unit 1 Spent Fuel Pool East Wall, Vertical Moments PSE&G (Vertical moments induce axial stress in vertical rebars.)

File \\PSEG\\POOL\\EVER.MOM

- - - - HOLTEC INTERNATIONAL*****

COMPUTER CODE CONPRO Revision:

1.0 S

Date:

28 Aug 1991 15:48:20 S

Logfile:

C:/RACKHEAT/CONTROL/CON~RO.FOV $

segsfpeastmatlver TOTAL OF 1 REINFORCEMENT REINFORCEMENT MAT 1:

10@ 12.(inside) 8@ 12.(outside) fc=

3500.000000 fs=

60000.000000 n = Es/Ee =

8.599815 Thk. h=

72.000000 cover thk. de & dt=

5.000000 COMPR. REINF. CONSIDERED IN CALCULATIONS.

CONCRETE PROPERTIES FOR psegsfpeastmatlver Water Side In Tension MAT Ast/ft Ase/ft Eeff Mu Mc Ms 1

1.27

. 79

.3583E+06 387799. 1166281.

403883

Water Side In Compresion

~=--~=:::: __ ~::::: ____ ~===-~--

~~-~---- -~=--

Ms 1

.79 1.27

.2330E+

253879 957273.

253572.

NOTES:

Mu is allowable for Ultimate Strength Method.

Mc & Ms are allowables for Working Stress Method based on full strength.

Factors should be applied to them during analysis. /(

c CALC.

ATTACHMENT 3 NO. E.SJ*lo/~

PAGE 10 OF 28

Proiect J\\o. ( G-,_; E" ~ / c. )

~

(Jk'epared By HOLTEC INTER"l'\\ATIOl'\\AL CALCL'.LATIO?\\ SHEET Repon l\\o. -------

bate Reviewed By Date ATTACHMENT 3 Page-""k"---- ReY. -

Other -------

~~~~~

~Ft_~

!~ ~

A-4-'

~

1!

. NL.~

h C: r- 0,,---

r

/3 f

~

h I

0r -oe *?? 3 2:-_ *:.-

h "2.... 0

)

...L

--o-o:

. -.. -h -..... 3..

T 8

/2..

2. -*

/

-*---*-~-

'2-l 1t

.1-,t'r

~----

J

"> 'Y

/

PAGE 11 OF 28

ATTACHMENT 3 HOLTEC I::\\TER~ATIONAL CA.LCL'LA Tio~,; SHEET Page....c:,,a.=-*

__ Re\\'. --

Oilier-----~

Report J\\o. --------

bate Reviewed By Date t 3-M

= ::..L-. (6: - o:. )

X* *

/ 2.

ZJ*

z,-

,/I t ~

,A1

= 2-. (er - er )

x.

I 2-J'J*

y,,

.Jn t'a-l""fx.

= -f (cf. - oY. )

llH

2.

WI

t1

- £_ (6:. - 0

)

x,,....,

I 2...

z,.,

t 2-

11

=- 2 (o. -tr )

xko I 2.

>k:

Yo J..

.A1 = tz.. ( o. - er )

x,?

12..

)/

rp

= -!{_ (o.. -0.. )

/ 2.

lo Zp g /11., = A1y.. t-

,At>:

r,A1x,

/\\.

rl' J:./

,,,.. f-,A1 J:

f-,A1k

f-.t11 X

f /11K f-.A1 X Of J"'

1"'1 f<.o l,P

-* *ta...

- **-- *,,k/Yjl.. ::..,~--(~.- °x, )

.. *-ta.. --. -.. *-*

= ~ (ff.: -tr )

/2-x0 x,<<..

a..

.. t...

ft1

=..L- (o_ - (). )

z.;I

12.

Y; Y1

~ =

z.~

J t a.

_,MJ'rm = I:. (

~p* ~ o;~ ) ----*-* -

z..

-t. *---

11

_:_ ( d:.

- tJ: )

(o,.,

. I 2-zo 2n

.. i: -

- - .41v - =... --!__ __ ( cTz.- Oz* )

ti/

17..

I

z.

-** -. ****** --. *-*........ *t *-~.-

- -*~= :-~=~At.!~i- =_ (i *_(~~-~~-~i ~.-..

t L-

~z.. = ~

(l1,;. -

~-)

- I _'-___

I v

- t*.2...*--*-******

/!17

.=-.~ (~ -~ )

ltJn I 2-i1

'l",At z.. =- /11 z. r-ftf z. f-At 7

f- /112 f-fil.z... f-.A1z,,,

f- ""'1 z.

f-frf z

' I

-:;'J:.

"'?t7f'

J i'..t

/'""

PAGE 12 OF 2B

ATTACHMENT 3 HOLTEC INTER:'IATIONAL CALCLJLATlO:\\ SHEET Proiect No.-----------

Report ?\\o. -------

Page~~-- Re\\'. --

Other ------

~~

¢/q3 I Date Reviewed B)*

Date t.2,..**

_: :_(CT.y.-O:)

12

,/

/#'f

_/If tp/

z..

.. t

=__::_(er -o..)

I z.

'i>

K;

,A1,x**

'nt

z.

-----~~~ *--~-:jfx~- --~---~ ~:_-~./ayk.-- 7a )

...... -- t ;J-

,A1

=.2:- /~ -0,, )

* -

x1p **** --*;z_*

~" Y; Yp t :z-... ****-* --*--*--*- ----

. /!1'0_

-~ --~;- ~~ff-=-~~}_*~~.... --. '.

PAGE 13 OF 28

...=;- TT A-C h IV\\ t"-A..I i E

~!/J<jV ST RU Ci A 1'J J.. L Rt.PORT ATTACHMENT 3 FOR THE

~

~AL *-.t,1 SFP PSE&G C~.LC. NO. ES0-1674

~I ti SALEM POOL ANALYSIS EXTREME BENDING MOMENTS FROM LOAD COMBINATIONS (KIP-IN/IN) 03/05/93 13:52 MATERIAL l:

LC HMIN ELEM HMAX ELEM VMIN ELEM VMAX ELEM l

-100.7 520 105.5 341

-37.0 211 161. 8 508 2

-264.4 508 2.2 205

-77.8 212 77.6 484 3

100.2

213, 285.6 340

-220.4 211 106.7 502 4

-80.6 508 222.0 228

-256.5 212

61. 7 484 5

98.5 209 288.8 232

-206.l 207 81.8 502 6

-43.1 508 233.7 228

-243.2 212 35.9 484 7

82.3 213 237.6 340

-177.6 211 121.2 508 8

-100.0 508 160.5 228

-210.5 212 53.l 484 9

82.0 209 236.3 340

-173.5 211 114.2 508

10

-90.0 508 163.6 228

-207.0 212 46.2 484 11

-59.6 520 78.8 485

-26.5 211 135.3 508 12

-192.3 508 1.0 205

-55.5 209 50.4 484 13 74.2 508 231.4 320

-178.6 211 98.9 502 14

-89.5 508 166.6 228

-209.4 212 59.2 484 15 so.a 213 229.9 340

-174.6 211 92.2 502 16

-79.5 508 169.7 228

-205.9 212 52.4 484 17

-74.4 520 70.7 341

-27.6 211 111. 9 508 18

-181.9 508 2.0 205

-54.0 212

~6.5 484 EX

.-264.4 288.8

-256.5 161.8 LC 2

5 4

l MATERIAL 2:

LC HMIN ELEM HMAX ELEM VMIN ELEM VMAX ELEM 1

-21.2 144 154.0 369

-53.2 406 111.0 144 2

-167.5 390 33.8 164

-161. 9 145 24.0 286

"'-3

-170.8 290 15.0 370

-95.3 406

"'208. 2 144 4

-259.3 396

-77.8 141

-111.6 412 140.8 286 5

-168.9 290

-7.2 370

-78.3 406 190.8 144 6

-260.4 422

-75.9 141

-94.4 412 124.4 125 7

-130.6 290 32.2 370

-79.0 406 184.8 144 8

-227.7 396

-65.l 141

-103.2 418 108.2 286 9

-130.1 290 26.3 370

-74.4 406 180.l 144 10

-222.1 399

-64.6 141

-98.5 418 103.5 286 11

-15.5 i44 110.9 369

-35.5 406 86.8 144 12

-123.9 390 23.2 164

-124.1 145 13.5 305 13

-134.4 156 26.9 370

-82.0 406 174.7 144 14

..;,219. 8 396

-60.2 370

-96.7 412 115. 7 286 15

-132.1 290

.20.9 370

-77.5 406 170.1 144 16

-213.7 396

-62.2 141

-92.1 412 111.1 286 17

-22.3 144 105.9 369

-38. 6 406 76.7 144 18

-115.1 390 26.5 164

-110. 4 145 19.5 286 EX

-260.4 154.0

-161.9 208.2 LC 6

1 2

3 MATERIAL 3:

LC HMIN ELEM HMAX ELEM VMIN ELEM VMAX ELEM l

-7.5 437 241.4 466

-.1 472

51. 2 431 2

-47.8 466 12.6 461

-77.5 431

15. 4 433 3

-80.6 443 214.2 466 7.3 466 125. 9 455 4

-104.l 443 8.6 472

-14.3 466 108.5 455 5

-74.4 443 188.3 466 7.8 454 124.6 455 6

-97.9 443 7.8 472

-11.4 466 107.5 467 7

-64.2 443 201.9 466 6.3 466 103. 5 449 8

-86.4 443 6.4 472

-15.4 431

83. 6 455 9

-62.6 443 195.0 466 6.6 454 102. 7 449 10

-84.8 443 6.1 472

-14.5 431 83.2 455 l-s PAGE 14 OF 28

ATTACHMENT 3

?~

1/Zd/fJ ST RU CT ANAL Rc.PJRT PSE&l, C~Lr. NO. S0*16~

FOR THE I~

SAL Ei'r1 SFP 11

-5.5 437

.175.9 466

.6 468 38.3 431 12

-37.6 466 7.3 461

-57.0 431

11. l 433 13

-65.0 443 190.3 466 5.3 466 101. l 449 14

-85.7 443 6.9 472

-13.6 466 84.9 455 15

-63.4 443 183.4 466 6.1 466 100.4 449 16

-84.0 443 6.7 472

-12.8 466 84.5 455 17

-6.l 443 164.3' 466

-.2 472 34.8 434 18

-26. 8 443 ll.9 461

-51. 7 431

11. 9 433 EX

-104.l 241.4

-77. 5 125.9 LC 4

l 2

3 MATERIAL 4:

LC HMIN ELEM HMAX ELEM VMIN ELEM VMAX ELEM l

-15.7 313 167.3 317

-.4 317 73.4 312 2

-76.7 314 29.6 317

-181.1 312

-2.5 318 3

-158.2 314 27.S 317 89.8 312 110.1 314 4

-205.4 314

-6.9 318

-101.l 312 83.9 316 5

-146.l 314 18.4 318 92.6 318 111. 7 313 6

-193.3 314

-13.6 318

-86.7 312 83.2 316 7

-126.7 314 46.0 317 75.6 318 94.3 314 8

-169.8 314

-5.6 318

-105.5 312 64.6 318 9

-123.5 314 38.9 317 75.3 318 94.8 313 10

-166.6 314

-7.4 318

-101. 6 312 64.3 318 11

-12.1 313 122.9 317

-.1 317 55.8 312 12

-53.9 314 17.8 317

-132.7 312

-2.4 318 13

-127.6 314 38.8 317 72.5 312 89.3 314 14

-169.0 314

-3.7 318

-94.9 312 65.6 318 15

-124.3 314

31. 7 317 74.3 318 89.5 314 16

-165.7 314

-s.s 318

-91.l 312 65.3 318 17

-12.6 313 115.6 317

-.9 317 45.3 312 18

-53.0 314 25.0 317

-122.2 312

-1.4 318 EX

-205.4 167.3

-181.1 111. 7 LC 4

1 2

5 MATERIAL 5:

LC HMIN ELEM HMAX ELEM VMIN ELEM VMAX ELEM 1

-18.4 175 280.9 200

-7.6 298 94.1 293 2

-150.1 294 48.1 298

-299.6 293

-10.0 200 3

-367.5 175 101.4 298 37.9 297 166.8 179 4

-431.2 175

-39.4 299

-199.0 293 104.8 183 5

-351. 2 175

61. 7 298 39.0 297 169.4 179 6

-414.9 175

-66.3 299

-171. 4 293 105.2 183 7

-291. 5 175 116. 6 298 33.0 297 138.0 179 8

-350.3 175

-31.6 299

-199.1 293 76.3 183 9

-287.l 175 106.0 298 33.3 297 138.7 179 10

-345.9 175

-38.8 299

-191.8 293 76.4 183 11

-14.4 176 204.4 200

-4.7 298

72. 5 293 12

-105.5 294 28.6 298

-219.3 293

-8.4 200 13

-293.0 175 105.2 298 30.3 297 133.2 179 14

-348.8 175

-23.9 299

-182.7 293 79.7 183 15

-288.6 175 94.7 298 30.6 297 133.9 179 16

-344.5 175

-31.1 299

-175.4 293 79.8 183 17

-16.5 176 193.4 200

-6.3 298 56.1 293 18

-103.5 294 40.0 298

-202. 9 293

-6.8 200 EX

-431. 2 280.9

-299.6 169.4 LC 4

1 2

5 MATERIAL 6:

LC HMIN ELEM HMAX ELEM VMIN ELEM VMAX ELEM 1

-14.4 178 115.S 198

-5.3 173 26.3 178 2

-52.2 178 23.2 190

-135.1 177

-25.3 190

~-Ip PAGE 15 OF 28

lju/r.J ST.RUCT A ;\\JAL R P "'i ATTACHMENT 3

~

c..1 v K FOR THE PSr=-&r. r.t Lr. "JO. ESJ*l67<1

~

SAL~M S FP 3

-228.9 173 17.2 190 155.5 198 391.0 181 4

-252.2 174

-36.2 190 120.8 198 314.0 185 5

-228.6 173

1. 5 190 160.3 190 406.8 177 6

-243.6 174

-51.9 190 126. 3 198 325.0 185 7

-178.7 173 28.6 190 122.5 198 306.9 181 8

-203.8 174

-28.7 190 88.9 198 234.8 185 9

-178.6 173 24.4 190 124.0 198 311.0 181 10

-201. 5 174

-32.9 190 90.4 198 237.7 185 11

-11.0 178 84.9 198

-4.4 173 19.4 178 12

-36.6 178 13.5 198

-96.1 177

-18.2 190 13

-179.3 173 23.4 190 120. 9 198 303.5 181 14

-203.2 174

-23.4 190 90.5 198 237.9 185 15

-179.3 173 19.2 190 122.4 198 307.6 181 16

-200.9 174

-27.6 190 92.0 198 240.8 185 17

-11.4 178 79.9 198

-7.3 173 16.0 178 18

-36.2 178 18.6 198

-92.8 177

-17.4 190 EX

-252.2 115. 5

-135.1 406.8 LC 4

1 2

5 MATERIAL 7:

LC HMIN ELEM HMAX ELEM VMIN ELEM VMAX ELEM 1

-34.5 275 200.4 555

-1.6 351 179.4 257 2

-205.3 532 59.7 573

-119.9 256 9.0. 7 568 3

149.1 253 389.6 337

-197.2 252 191. 7 562 4

43.9 532 293.9 336

-296.5 255 166.4 562 5

142.3 253 410.3 337

-191. 8 357 163.1 562 6

70.1 532 302.8 337

-291. 6 241 137.9 562 7

127.6 249 344.7 555

-145.8 331 173.4 550 8

-4.0 532 225.0 336

-262.1 255 138.1 562 9

126.1 249 336.9 555

-142.6 330 166.0 550 10 3.0 532 223.4 336

-260.4 241 130.5 562 11

-24.9 275 168.9 555 3.9 551 156.0 257 12

-159.3 532 31.1 333

-98.2 255 60.9 568 13 121.2 249 313.7 555

-156.8 252 165.1 568 14 14.7 532 233.4 355

-243.1 255 142.8 562 15 119. 7 249 306.4 337

-153.3 331 157.4 568 16 21.6 532 228.7 336

-240.0 255 135.2 562 17

-27.7 275 138.0 555

-3.5 351 121.7 257 18

-140.6

~32 45.3 573

-81.8 256 65.8 568 EX

-205.3 410.3

-296.5 191. 7 LC 2

5 4

3 MATERIAL 8:

LC HMIN ELEM HMAX ELEM VMIN ELEM VMAX ELEM 1

31.2 70 187.4 25

-26.9 21

-11.1 65 2

7.9 92 37.3 65

-93.6 51

-17.7 66 3

-59.7 70 101.8 25 35.6 22 136.9 90 4

-109.5 99 2.1 21 8.0 22 122.7 90 5

-67.0 70 72.4 25 47.1 22 144.2 90 6

-123.5 99

-12.8 21 19.5 22 130.0 90 7

-42.0 70 113. 7 25 27.1 22 105.8 90 8

-90.8 99

-4.3 21

-3.7 22 90.9 90 9

-44.0 70 105.9 25 30.1 22 107.7 90 10

-94.5 99

-8.2 21

-.6 22 92.8 90 11 23.1 70 144.1 25

-18.9 30

-7.1 64 12

-4.5 92 25.0 55

-69.1 51

-13.2 66 13

-43.1 70 99.1 25 23.8 22 104.6 90 14

-82.0 99 5.7 21

-.4 22 92.1 90 15

-45.1 70

91. 2 25 26.9 22 106.5 90 16

-as.a 99

1. 7 21 2.7 22 94.0 90 17 22.1 70 129.5 25

-20.6 21

-8.2 65 18 8.6 92 28.3 26

-64.7 51

-12.5 66 PAGE 16 OF 28

~-?

EX LC

-123.5 6

STRUCT ANAL Rc.PJR1 FOR THE SAL t:Y1 SFP 187.4

-93.6 l

2 ATTACHMENT 3 PSE&G CALC. NO. ESu*l674 144.2 5

PAGE 17 OF 28

ST RU CT A :'Jh L R c. P JRT F QR THE SALEM SFP SALEM POOL ANALYSIS MIMIMUM SAFETY MARGINS, BENDING 03/05/93 13:53 MATERIAL l:

NORTH WALL (8'-9" THICK)

DIREC EXTR LC Mu HWSC

-288.8 5

-483.8 HWST 264.4 2

483.8 vwsc

-256.5 4

-371. 2 VWST 161.8 1

371.2 MATERIAL 2:

EAST WALL (6'-0" THICK)

DIREC EXTR LC Mu HWSC

-260.4 6

-327.3 HWST 154.0 1

505.9 VWSC

-208.2 3

-253.9 VWST 161.9 2

387.8 MARGIN l.68 l.83 l.45 2.29 i

2 MATERIAL 3:

SOUTH WALL UPPER SECTION (4'-0" THICK)

DIREC EXTR LC Mu MARGIN HWSC

-104.1 4

-389.1 3.74 HWST 241.4 1

389.1

l. 61 VWSC

-125.9 3

-3S3.6 2.81 VWST 77.5 2

353.6 4.S6 MATERIAL 4:

SOUTH WALL TRANSITIONAL SECTION DIREC

EXTR LC Mu MARGIN HWSC

-20S.4 4

-791. 6 3.85 HWST 167.3 1

791.6 4.73 vwsc

-111. 7 5

-454.7 4.07 VWST 181.1 2

454.7 2.Sl MATERIAL 5:

SOUTH WALL MIDDLE SECTION (6'-0" THICK)

DIREC EXTR LC Mu MARGIN HWSC

-431.2 4

-1194.1

2. 77 HWST 280.9 1

1194.l 4.25 vwsc

-169.4 5

-SSS.8 3.28 VWST 299.6 2

555.8 1.85 MATERIAL 6:

SOUTH WALL LOWER SECTION (6'-0" THICK)

DIREC EXTR' LC Mu MARGIN HWSC

-2s2.2 4

-613.8 2.43 HWST 115.5 1

613.8 5.31 vwsc

-406.8 5

-SSS.a 1.37 VWST 13S.1 2

SSS.8 4.11 MATERIAL 7:

WEST WALL (9'-7" THICK)

DIREC EXTR LC Mu MARGIN HWSC

-410.3 5

-S31. 2 1.29 HWST 205.3 2

663.5 3.23 vwsc

-296.S 4

-406.7 1.37 VWST 191.7 3

506.0 2.64 MATERIAL 8:

SLAB ( 11 '-0" THICK)

DIREC EXTR LC.

Mu MARGIN HWSC

-123.5 6

-474.8 3.84 HWST 187.4 1

588.2 3.14 vwsc

-144.2 5

-474.8 3.29 VWST 93.6 2

474.8 S.07 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT F

P*S E & G CAL C. N 0. ES 0*16 7

PAGE 18 OF 28

ST R!J CT A Nf.-L R "-p..:;RT c;,

ATTACHMENT 3 PSE&G CALC. NO. cSJ*iS!~

1'1-TTACHMENI FOR THE HOLTEC L"l'\\TER.~ATIONAL CALCULATION SHEET SALEM SFP Project No.

.2.o 8 '7 <'

Report ?"-io. _q ___

3 _q_7_5 ____ _

r l\\D s "'"'"

~=..:..&

kb.,.1,,19 3

..22 ~ey-* V'-'& /9 ~

Page--- Kev. ---

Oili~ ~-------

'PreparedBy __ (L 1

Date Revie\\JlclBy

' _'_n_a_te----~---~*---

\\~~~~~--~~~--*'. -. --~==---~*

----~=¥-: _~4:c_:r __ 3;?--:;..71

=-~-;; --~ ~-====-===--=-=-~~ _- --

-~- ~--~~~--,~ ~?~~~-:-~---.. 4-:Cv:~~~ )-.

*---_~~=~--~==*~- (;~-,) ;1-2-)

--~~- ~ _Y c-*-~ 2~~

ci. ~~-~==~- _____ ~ _ --_-__ ~~-=---==---= =---=-=- _ (11-3)

-*-----~~~=;~v~-~~----2Jic-'--~d-=-=~~ ~-~,-~C~-~--* -*:--

____________________ b - --- --*

~-~-- ~- ~*)

d.=_ w-d,l_~

.--'"'*..._.._,,,i.1._.. __ ~~---.. --..~-........--------*----->C-.*0..:...--.. -.

,-~ *----*-----*- w-

-~ **-

.l'c. __ =::._ __ 3no_?.,. _ ____________ _

~---- ----- ---..:......------------------------ *-

~--------*

__ :_ ________ ~

__ := __ o_. __ 't_s:_ __

~---------~----. ------v.----

' * ;: ____ --*----~--~

--- ;~_:_t *--=-*v-;--=--b~*

. *~~~,~---b~--

us = t):-Av.

S

~:

£/-~~()~a *.ft.~;;

I

-Av~~;~.*-:_

.* *"°Atl~-:*--,r--

'---------------------~---~-:-

...-..,.__~____$..

l

--~~~;~ ~; ~Jf~'. ~ }t..~0~t._.....U;~~-fa-~~~------~--~~~

~.

!.~'.;::,:_:,,./.'... '~,-~_:_L~:

-_- ~~~~--:-**--**:*"c/*~~7_----_:__ _____ _

~~~:;;::.*.,;.j !

~~---,

, "'11":

;**o/ -

if: \\

=-----7'----;J =._:a<_t:'.

c. -b. s_-;,_---------~

.. r:,d

ci-

~

I i

~

i i

l J

i i

l I

i

~

j I

i i

1

~

1y-*11

___ v_ *-_ -~_\\

.-----_'. 'C~_ !E~-t1-rck-~'-(~_-1-_J::s}-=-t-~c2/~'; f-

~_<;1_) --

r~~~---------~----~-.,.

_.._,,_.;_*----o...1*>*-

tiJ+/-_:_; _

.1:u~.:__J.2f~µ;:__~--t:-. -Ir-~?-_.-~.. -*,:_:~-,--=. ~---~=---

! I i ;

,.

i

(-*.

s d. 7__, * *

' i i t: - IJZ7: - : ;- - -, t: - ~-

7

~-*-:. _ : __,_}~'?y5 __ : _:_; _: ~-~--: : _, ; °' r ~--- -~ ~ -~Je4:)----f9i~~--19~0F 28

Page--- Rev. --

Oilier------~

-*AS\\',- -*-*sl-\\

-* *- ---;+~-----*-- -*--*-

.-try-**--

-- -- -w ~v--.

--~-------~

-- -1* -

.. /rStJ... ----------*- ***-----------*****...

I y.tSH

----------- ---=2;;

-.. -- - ---------- 7----------- --- -

*-------~---'(. *-~*-*

I 1

x-: --- ---

t.. -..... *-=---*-----.,..-~J-w

~-... -

I

.-. -------- - ---*------**- ---**--_.... -;,I"-* -

/

------*---.=--------*

. -----------.-~-----~--*--.. ---------..

-5-.J=l-yi ;_.

-~-* r~::_5kL_hy--v~£~~~~-.s-. __

=-* ;l!x'v*-, -

-~-. -~-!;l: ~+/--~--~--~rZ~-i-~-~-* ______ :=~ ~-----=~-

l I

"No~ T'tt_

I I :

.J~_,_L"'f-S _

__._e_g_7_?.j_1--L~f,S'f.5~-*-"'Pf;7Z ?-.*~-o---*-

1 l l !

i i

t------1------1

~S_T:

__ t__.____,_! -"-'2.-___,_J.!?_Z._7...J_ _

_._L_3_b_3_S'.'_..J...f;,_ef_S_~'i 7 U- __ : - --**

i ;

i I

(

I I

i

~o i.rr-1+/--~-*--!--.z..:---_: -;- _._j__f_~ '1- _.1G!t.f.9.= i'l~!i!i

!a./_;)t.~'!l --*

I I !. ! !

~!

l.

_i_'_* _*_. =-;-s= *_ ~-1.f_r;__~q

~.: 2_f1;'fi-: ~._1_t-8_i:~ _._z_r_,_f_g __ =-= -~.-=::::.-

~

I J

J

~

.... -.:--..~-..... -

~t.~~~

I I

3 -;).{o PAGE 20 OF 28

ATTACHMENT 3 STRUCT ANAL RE.PCRT FOR THE PSE&G ('tLr. 'IC'. f~')-167.!

SrP HOLTEC L'l\\'TER1'iATIONAL CALCUlATJO?\\ SHEET Report No. ---------

~~

Date Page--- Rev. --

Oilier --------

-~N'-.;/I_~~ -__nid = ::-__hN.. -=-~ ~.j;~-= ~=- d--== *---~--. ~---

---*-- *-- -- --- *-*---- - * -/J-Vj-VGR.T

--frv, m,a-t* --- ___ (,-,._) ___________ {_~-- -- -

~ ---*----

-*---*s-*-*- * --- ---- --Cfs/J __ ----if.$i)

HO"J tl~T"

---*---***- -t-*-.... ----....... *--** - -- *---*-*..-.*,..

_,,.... ----* _..... -.. _. ___ _,, __,,_.,. __.... ~.... - _.,_......

__ A/o..e-nf _______ _)_ _____..... i3o?o. _ ___..

/7'f~'f-. __ /6S _______ J61.. 2---- ___ [S~...f.

_ C7t.~-;;~= : -~= _?-::. =

~: i ~ i.7-i- _::_ -~ ;_;-;-;_;_ __ ::=£,__=---- -~~-i.r.£. f: ---8

-*-~*_..

--- ---.. -.................. _._..._....~-

__.s~c.1n-1_ -- --*-._.!>______

Z-'f ['J'!.'t. ---

3~J_t/_'{_ -

.. 'ft*------ ___ 'f1b.~.I---*- ___.'/st.~

*-..... ___.... ___ cf-*.... ___. _.. :::.. ____. ___

(se~ DE low;

=====-===--;:--~= ~: ~i~-i~= : ~ S;,-;~-:.-= =~~;-;, _~

.. 31*=1== ~=J2L r-

. _....'f.6_ts __ -L 3 2_t'i_t _____ z-;... ____

3J_o~9-- --3-~i.3 __ _

_:~-?L._ __ ---:-7--: -

-~L'£f_'l,._{ ___ _._/_t{_n_~- __ //S:_: __,__J_"°C._. __ 3 ___ __ L '8'8._?> __

~-------1 *~

C""**__.,~

.i.5.t.~---*-_, ___

. 8_*--'-_ 1_._L3..o_t:t.-Q. ___ /.t/:_i_ 2S'. ___

L~_z.,,, __ ~..1-:-1. _

__ J ~.. 7. j __

I (E _.., )

(,.I - <:; )

~

~_f,a..,/, = :__~~"d'-S/ri~f::-a.IY~1:d._c: __

..i

---~-----------~-----------------_,_._ _____,

I I

-i.;

v~q-- ;

I i j£

S Ho.et l I

l

2 K.r_'f:__o_-~_i.~~72 If i r?. &fL......:: '.._...;...-~__;___;..._ __ _

i -~-* --~'~3_-i-~3_-l_LL~.:z-l 3.!LJ.2_,_~_,.....,: __ ~'-------

~..L__;_

_;.__~_c_~i ~s~: _;__ ~LJ'(_..__r-+-r!L;z-t~--t-tz~-7-:-0-f~1-:-

1 ---.---+--;----

~

{

i- ! :

I

ATTACHMENT 3 A'"/TAC.HMEN I H

STRUCT ANAL Rc.PJRT FOR THE HOLTEC INTER1'1"ATIOi\\?Rf & G

~ !:. I ~ M s F p CALCULATION SHEET CALC. NO. ES0*1S7

-Rev. --

Oilier --------

~:O

~4ro Repon No. _'?.....__.3..-1...:...7..;:;5 ____

-~*

.. 4-yls;fv,

~ ~

,.l-//2 are By Date ReviewelBY Date

*---*.. -*----~--*-

---~----rt..-=--p!~-~.S:.-._, _____._"'"***---~---~~~--.... *-*-

*-----* ---- ------------------------------~-""'--~ ***-

_./!c-~-=-3~~-f'~*--* ---*--*-*---~~-~-----

~:_-__ h_~~---=1.. 3 2_." ~ ~~- --- ---====-~-

~~---= =-=~~~=-

-;:;'"~_.__---~-.. --------*--;~

.=--.*

____ d_ =

tJ. J_):,.__:__. / "-.!"~ '-

_____ :_ __ ~t~-~-?--<:1-.

.-s.. -;'-.<,,<_ __ ~_.J

,___ __, _:_ ________. ---* _____...u...-~~~r~----~-C-~:_)

i I

I I

i

-~-~---,

l*Z.,-.S-7:i

10~.,,..;;"i:/iif'-~-: ---.----~-----

~-

I B

~,~i.....-~--,_...~--'";--'--

H

-5;!.p-_ ---~-.-~......._-

/

I

---'----"'---i- _.

- ----+--~--:-1

~----------:---r---

1--.;---~--------~-1--J- _j_ _i -.,;;..,,s_; _.....' -.,.=----,---'-----....,.--i __

,__"t-........... ---

1

- t (_ d...L..: s-.!. :+- ;c/

~ ) !

....; vu u "

i-----------_., _ __,. __

t-----i~---a

-~

.2.

Z v

1-1...J.... f.

~

d Q

1 I

l j

I r-----'--...,..-~-!-1.-~

--2--,- -;~j 1 i i ;.

i I

,__.....,~ ___

i _i----t-;

! ~-~~~

--' 1---s}..'ic~:_=~~-~;-~~ : : ! i * *

~

J J

2.-.

~

7-~---~-

-. Q

~

j i : --~----.-*--r

, ~-x ;:. 2..-/ 2 /st).f-z/!!. Y+ :z (12. 5'78))

-o----=-*... W-\\.....

~-:-L..z. -.. - --

j

' =-

2 'i.3.~S-11 1

i i

J I

I I

I 1'

i' i

I l

I

.1 I i

, JL /:.'L. j I

i

.* j

/

..£ 1 +

).

j

~....----~---.... ~ : = '. rn -~-:-~-e~~-.s~_S,'.....2-J~,,...-:.....,....-~----,-.....---....-----

' _. --....-----~ ~: ~x.~ lP¥~-*-~

b.,,)..._; _____________ _

)..- J?, ")/'

1

_ ____:_;_~----

PAdE ~2 QF --2~-

~-.

ATTACHMENT 3 CALC. NO. ESO*l67-STRUCT A.\\Jt-.L Rc.PJRT PSE&G F 0 R T HE HOLTEC L~TER.1'1"ATIONAL CALCULATIO~ SHEET SA I i=" fJ.

S FP Page Rev. --

Project No. Z'o1f1 b' Report No. "! 39 7 S-Other -------

~

-, ;h

~/1s/!..3

~~

)/n.- /'f; ared By Date Revie~d By Date

~-----*~-**--------

~- --:~~-Z ~==-=-=-=~-~=-~===:-~ ~~~-*~--~0 -~~-

i

~

'::-.~~=>-. ~~-G.- ~~~ -~~ ~~~e.----_

i~~: ~--<--- ~:-~-~ --

6

.. *-**z. --* *-- --*-*...

~-~

=~-i- ~ ~+- f

-~ s ~ ~ ~

~~- ~-- ~~-~~-~~--=--=~.

=---**..... -.-.: ______ ---

__.....,,,._),.... "'~*...----------...--~

I 4'

I.

r-

=-~-~-~*: ~ ~~~---~-=~s~ --= --~-

-~-- ~-~--~ ~

~. *-:-~~~=.*==----=-~=,,--

- -- ____________ _____ 1.. nb +-_'!._12r' :. "-SdlJ +- r.(J.r.i._r. 1,_77 {, __ = __ '2.2 *-' s {,, _. _

~=~-~-~:~~;t_(t.(f)~~.. -~-~(i:{\\+/-.--;_-.(;~-~;6 )... +.--ilf._0£.i;>°;~~~) ---~-'t~.9-7*_:*.

~~~-~:~~

~~;:£:

__ ~

__go~.l:..L~-(~).:t_~{:!:-£1.:L?-.2:.dS:..b.~"t-l~~f;z._s_)._=-_:.,i_ 'J~_3 ____ ~*-....

). i

~

'~

l l !

l

/'

- ,--~Ar

~

2,_

(;J'"~ll_/?_3~~~:-~-~-- -r ----.

1 I 1 I ! i "G~v.e_i ~

~

l I

i I.,,, ;.,

j

,l. **

~

I ; ' ' * ' ' '

' : 1J:??"'

i ' ~f*

--~"L~~!L_

1 1.,

Ii*~*=*

J,Jf.i:I; I

I

-~__j__'

I 1

1 !

i 1

l

9' j !.

rz..S78' 1

I I ;

I

\\

i i

~

1

I t

I

~

I I

I t

~

I Iii

~

i I

z:Ii; !

1,,;.;:!

--.~_-,;.-.-, 1--*rrt=:,;

I I ; ' : i '.

i

I

**-~*--*---~--

1 I ;... : ' : :!:--' -

~

I

2.

i 1

l !

1 4

~

1

~-. *r j

i l ! 1-:-: -*~:- : ~------:-:---~~{~*-. -~;- --; ____ :_*1:,**-----'-..... ;-----'-----

~

' l-~1.,.~£2._-t-_1...::1:...2 +-

Z....:...Z. ~ ~ L'* ~-E...7.Y-., __ _

)<'

~-

/

-:-~

i

~

~I --

t-+----.-.....* ___

v.--=-~,-3-~~-)_-t:_i__( S_:i,:_).__f-_l'2._,_~-?8_-t-_Lf._~µ.i_. _µ_)~'f o-'l_-Lt-. _ _ __ _

~

1 i

I j

/

i

t j

l

~

1;i1;~~iiJ 1;

i!ii:ij 1

i I

~

I

~

-:f;'~-3 j

1 i

L....l.-L-~~~.!....;.._:_~._;._~~~~~~~-----~.,--~~-:-~--~~

I i i j

l

! __,_\\ __

_:__ __ '---'----* -*-: ~---: _'._-AAGE--a---OF* 28-*-

ATTACHMENT 3 STRUCT ANAL REPORT f?Sl="&G FDR THE HOLTEC I:!'TER~ATIONAI:

CAl.ClJLATION SHEET CALC. NO. ESO*l67~

S!-~?/'A SF?

@!;~No Rev. ---

Report No. ~f_3_9_7_S' _____ _

~~

~/l~/1:7 Date t'~"L Al-LL_-__

. ---~------*.

*----~~---*---**---

-**~*-******

d.

l/'

__ 4 d

2..-

---*--..a~

... -~.. ---*.. d -- -

... ---------=--r=---

- --------- --* b0. ~.2 ( ~ (;:.) +-.3 {k)) =- __ 3 S 2.. '!?' _ _'~_ ---*--** ____ _

_____ 6-~.u.~_ 6_.!* __ -

=----=-~-=-~=:~~~,~~~]

I 0 I!.. w a, I/_ __ ---. ----. --*-- --- -

1-.. --*..--------~,..... :a--.... ~---*-*-

(}

-.---------- *--*;,_. I

- --0

---~-F= -

. -=-~-=~-==~~=-====--

=-

~f--- ---~ ~-c=-~-~--~==-=- --=~:-

--r.-6-.

~---b....

2.-

d.*

~

I I

j

.;..__-~.....,.....-----'--;-;----s=*

_--1~,rl\\*'-_-;t_,--'-.... _-""""-_-_

...... _-_-_-_-_'-_--'-*~-...,....;..----~-------_,_-_~-,----~-

..__..;__ ___ __.____... ___ :. -, - --e--*-

. - ~6

,~*

-*. __... _.r._..,. __,,.,.

d'

-- -*----+-------.....--~------*- -

'l.-

i I j

4-..__._,

_!,___! -1 _.._____~_-*_-~----

-~.......__,_!

~-'---'-.....----'---....-----:------- -----.

i=+=,__......_i

, -!~I-_.....___~_-_-:_~-_;_i ~-'. _* _: ~-:--~ l~--;-------;--+--<'---+-~-i~ ___ _

I ! !

.::;; 'iJi Ti

P~GE ~24 bF,ga..:_ __ _

i-.~~~~~-~~~~

)..

ATTACHMENT 3

~TRUCT ANAL Rt.PORT FOR THE.

PSE&G HOLTEC L1'lTER..1'lATIONAL CALCULATION SHEET CALC. NO. ESO*l6~

SFP

~ev. --

Other --------

epared By Re* wed By Date

~-----*-

~()/' 9-.

-~----=- ~------- --*-*-*-****--* ----*--r __ :.===--=-~-

d

*----*- -- *---** *-*-*---*--*-**--*---- - - *-*----*--** z:-----. ---*----

---*----*- --*- *---- -** ---a* **---**--*-- -

'=----=~--~-==--~-==-= -.-=.:-f4*-~. -~-~ :~~-~~: __.

_'2.._ 2.~.! s-_ '*---- *-- --* -* **-

---l-r--------~,;'**---*--** -*-* -..... ~-

- --*~ ~-* -*--- -

- - ~ ------~--...,,.._.

~--?;\\-- ---~*-~ -_ Q~.

__ i-+---_:~

s-f_---~------*-

__.:-~ ~

__ u_____

_v __ +-..... '~--~--------- --

- - ----L--. *------ -*--

, :z.

.~.,....------...-.-..... --*--*---t--t--------l---t--1+/-E------*--..-

--*---- 4-~:-

~1:-~-j_-.1._ ~--i-~--.-,S-b-... -.-.*. PE.:-

'"'"... -i~-

~-

----- -**-*--*~----***-- ***---__ -.J 2..---

---~~---~----~-~-row_..~.__

~------,._~_,.~-__ _.....__.

'-----9~_{.;_e__(_C;_j__~~~~--~-q_ __

~

. 9:~ t!.I° ~~;-.-~-:-~--. --------~--------* - --

~-----~----------------------------~*- -~****-

'd 1---4------~- ----'-~~'-'~-;+~-1----8

--: --=ffi1---_.___ _

__,___;___._~---

i 1-----------------+-------------.---*-***

(

~1__;__..;..._~~

~:; ~

1<---"------------ -

~--- -

__, __. -l--"---'----...---'--_._---

i I

l __________ 6-i~:-_:_ffi-:--. --*-----------*--1-------------

1 Cl i

! i l~

,__......__;__..:._ __..__--'-----.2:- -~--- -----.,-'-----1-~-+--*1---.;....-___;--"--~---'--*-

-.----~ d i

d. ~

-_____ * -:--; --~*-1-l.--~SL-.-

~-)-,-- - -6 *-.-2:.-*1-::_; _ __;__;'-----~

~-*----'2.:::.-;-*:-----.:---_;. ___________ --*--*

l

~---

ATTACHMENT 3 STRUCT ANAL REPORT PSE&G CALC. NO. ES:J-15~

F "R THE HOLTEC INTER.NATIONAL u

CALCL1.A TlON SHEET S*~.I

~1.l Pro'ect No*. 2.b t1'¢ f P Report No. f 397~

~

ft'flt)

~ ~

n1J:1';,

. ~ ___

D_a_te __

R_eVl_*_~..,..eej_... 'B_Y ___

~-----:-D-at_e ______ _

Rev. --

Other --------

1 I

---~v...e_12_: __________________ J. __________,--______

i 2-j

! * ~~----~-~--

~=-== ~:::_8. -- -.' -= =- - *_

c

~~

=M=~--~~- ~~~=--J~-*-=~~-*

4..

I

-: --.: 0:.-.

L:=.* -.

\\;;;

--(:;-:_--*------~--------*

1lJ

d.

*--" _...__ ----i-.------ --*.- ---;::~-----... ------~-.-----...... -~.*

===~~-*--=* =~=~~=--* -__, ~.

~ ; ~--*-Ft=~~=~--=-=*::.====--==*-* _

.. _z... __ l... f,..

_2..-.

C:,/.!,l).VL_l_.3 __ !_

J~-.

~*--t-. _. -:---* ---*-.. ----*--.... _

H-~--*-700/-w~f/-.

.'_ --'--------* -----t--------~~~-~~r- -----~

~=~~:* __ :~.-

'---'---'-------'----~"-~8--!-- -*---------~----

1'"

i I)\\ J d.__

I

,/ :

,, __________,....,,'t""(....;li:.-.=.,L "-

~- ;

I l

b

--~-~-~-~--

PAGcl 26 OF 28.

. ~

I STRUCT ANAL Rt.PORT r.: c~-r~1

\\ -

r 0 R THE HOLTEC LNTE~ATIONAL SAL~ M. s FP CALCULATION SHEET

~:

.2: !'l O Report No. ---"q_3_q_7_~-----

.:...,._'-J..-!.~--:__:..=.:** :..;.:'":__-______

~~!'..t...:.1 r'l;i.../~1 fr

~

"?'?=

~Jr~-/'J 2 ared By Date Rcvi~

By

/

Date ATTACHMENT 3

I'"°'~'

i*...

Page--- Rev. ---

Oilier --------

-;m ____ _._._

~

--~~(//>__;_C/ :_

---~--~--~-/..)._

~-, ___ G~vf'

___ Zo: -----~-

. ~

__ /_3 ___________

'----- G-1!11f/,P__ 2 2 ~-

-~

a.4---

. ~*-*

_/_

. ----- ------~---*

---*---~~<.1,P__ Z3: -** -~--~ ~-*~ __________ *---** *-----------

~,._,,_._,.__.. ____ :op-,.,,,_ _ _....._,...._~-*~.,~-** *'*

.-.l.*-**-...-..,..-.... ----.~-.--,-.-

-------- G-~t.Jt° ___ 2'/_{ --~-..:rv.z.. ~

-~--*-----*----- -------- -----

Gfl<J v;?

ZS- :

=~ ~~=~ *-* ~: __ L*_* _-_-_--_---_--_-_-_-*--_--**_*-*-___

-----*----r-.

~:-:.=-~ =~.~-_

~_-__ -_=_ =-~

d.

--*~-....._~--w-.-... _._ -----~-*... ___..,._,. ____... :*****--

.... --.... -------~- _____............ :--u---------*---*-*

--+---*------

.!r2:. r78-=::.:r-

+---+---+---.-:-~~--..,.~--+---.:--*-----.. --..... -... ___.

-,---------- rl-i-"'*,,.__,...,.;_~---: :.-::.-.===-:l'j*..,

__ -"-_..>j_ -~-- ~--*------*---

, s."".2.-=-: __ 1_,_._01 ~------

1----"---.-'oiG,&;JJJ_Z-7~-~:6; ! i j

! i ; i I

=

. :_(~~-*wdf_ ~

~--~)

i.:

~:.

7*~-:---***-:*---;~1 ii~-~ 1 l----------

l I

~~~~---*- -*-.... ~-~~

~~.!----:

~

v ; i

~-1----:-:--0:

/,(, _E_~ tk (1)=-1' A'-2.) I

/>

. 7-.

,\\;:*

?-~ =~~¢-~;_p0_d_::*.. z11_Z'/jL/~b~-~(11_~_bj_;_;_* __ _

i

~

i.

¢*Ve:-----~-~~

""'-!: :~:==*-

! i

~

--:--~:.. : :**

~-: ---* ----.--*

---'-~-'--'---"--'--

W-..... !-----~ -'. _. -+-1--; : ; i. :

~ !

-~-.. '

! ! ~ j ! ! ~ ; -l i i I;

~-~-~-~*

_ --*-~~~-

I I

I i

-=

I

.... ~ :.....-1* A i__;,,_:_~.:.....-<~~~

.*. <:;,. *-~~~~~.

-~;;tL_;~ ~VV-.---

~.

~

i l

I

~

,L_ -L, _j__L_..!._/.;i':..-i~"t.E:.--'.~~~~*_:___ __

. ---,--* ----c- ~--;_,*--,*-------'-

PAGE 27 a°F 2S..

... l l

~'

ATTACHMENT 3 PS F. & G CA l C'. NO. ES O

1 6 7 4 HOLTEC INTER.~ATIONAL CALCULAT10K SHEET Page--- Rev. --

Oili~ -------

..----*-~-----i: kc~ c,kecL~-~-~-.

---- -** -*- ~-*-*-

b0 * (Ill}. _

<;/;VG (/b)

_.V,,.0b) ___ A1a4'"fin __

_________,_...... -~--

___..,._...;****--~--**-.,*-

,___ _______ __ t_ ___ --**.. _zg 3,_~---

6. ~zz.. E6

_ 1. '17'1 E".S. ___._ __ "f~ *. 7.___' _______ _

____ _ ___ -z-______ _____

'1.19. 3 __ _ e.1~~.C.6 s.t,S"7c:s_.__.. z-t.. ~

j __

'. --***--** ___ ;3 it_9!3._.

S."ttJ6 E'. _.3.~lb..S' ____ _ Z.3. 3 ____________ _

'----*--...... __ t, __.:_ __... 'fo !",J ___ - 8. b6'lcb. - 3. o'l"~es.::_ -.. 2~_.s:-____

---~*--"""~---

....3~_2..:..f.._. _ 7. tf 'If ~6 __ -~. ~'.. t;f~g+/-_~_IZ~:...:::Z...._ __

_, _______ ____ b________

zs-9.,_

S: ~okc t.

. 2-; ~": >__ _

'f~-7.---~--.

_: _: ___

_______..:1._____ _..;¥6.f __

'!. 'f 52£,.... IP,g2.6Ef_ -__ t.3S.~L-* __

~-----..... _ "f 1'9....:._'S_

f. 9o/,_£./, __.3. 'ft. ~s_ __ ___.. z.~."J________ **- --

______ J __

~*-******.. {:;f:-J... ~.e.. ~- __. 1...?>~_f!=.7_... ~. 070§.s:-_~.._.--~-'2:-l:.7--~- ~~~-*

_ _LQ. ________ C:,2/~ _ ;. '3rtjc_7 ____ 6~ t°3'(£_S"_:_ ____ _1_1 *. ':, ______ **--*-

i i

- **-------**---* ---------'-~--- ___ *_,

-~* ---------*-

_JJ__* _______ S'f'.J.. _9._:... 1.1sr~7 __ o~_c_3_iA..~_* ___ 1_z.. L~-------*

i-;----.. :.-J..2-

____ 'f.7_~_._'[ ____ J, o 1.-zq ___ 'l.~7.i.~f:_: ___ Jo},_~_~_. __

.~~

--.~~;.f;___'8.L3,(f~----*2.-]B;f:5 ;_ __ z.'L 2-.

~- '~.-

'. 'f':.

':l.'/..G_,_'f_._* _ 1.~'f--~2..CJ:, ___ 6. ~3.i c:f-

~

t_'f_J_,_&'<....'_* __

l---. ___ :--1._&

__ i:_L!L3__* __ 8.'1olo, __ 3_ *. 3aS:..S::.._'.._ ___ Z"*".

~{..: ____ re, Z-..Lo __

,___1._s1..'L.:J._ _b_.!.'+/-lc~~--'Zl.;_S'. __ --'----

~,

1"""z _____ tp_;.l. o:

_L.... 3.f..1...0

';..[2. 5 £ 2012.-'

~'-----.:-11.~

___.S-.'f.3_,_'f_ __ 1.1.r.£.c:z_-_6. 1 *tzc:...s._, __ L'J.. ' "--*----..--

1 t,1

. ¥7 6'. *l : /..Af."Z;c-.J__;_/. o 2.'lC:. s:_: __

Lo..L__u_l. __ _

.__, _ __;.~_Lu

..31.Z.~8".l_i __.9.L3.La._:_~.:._/. 3 6U

z '~ 7 ~

j i ! I I I

~

1 !

~

l 4::1 ea;.,_,

! I j I I

f I

i j

I I I

i I

I ! !

i

! I I

I I

tbl+/-~..?- ! l i

I l l

j &.. ;

i

-~;£ G-___j_

I i

I

' fi~d 1 i

i I

I i

j

~

l I

I i

I

~

TABLE L-ELEMD'l' TYPE AND MATERIAL PROPERTY NUMBERING SCHEME REGION NAME REGION DESCRIPTION ELEMENT TYPE ELEMENT MATERIAL TYPE TYPE NOMBER NOMBER North wall North wall above *laJ:)

STIF4S 1

l and adjacent to SFP Ea*t wall Ea*t wall above *lab STI1'45 2

2 and adjacent to SFP South wall, South wall betw.. n STIP'45 3

3 Opper *ection EL. 130 1 -0* and EL.

107 1 -6* adjacent to sn South wall South wall between STIF45 3

4 tran*ition EL. 107 1 -6* and EL.

- ct ion 105 1 -6* adjacent to sn South wall, South wall between STIP'45 3

5 middle EI.. 99 1 -6* and EI..

- ct ion 105 1 -6* adjacent ~o SFP South wall, South wall between STIF45 3

6 lower **ction EL. 89°-0* and EL.

99 1-6* adjacent to SFP We11t wall W**t wall above *lab STIF45 4

7 and ad1acent to sn Slab Slab within water-STI!'45 s

8

id* bound&rie* of north, ea*t, *outh, and wect wall*

Corner*

All reizlforced STIF45 10 10 Mneret* below EL.

lJO*-o* not de*cri):)ed aboTe Wall* and All modeled wall and STIF63 9

9 root roof *tructw:e above EL. 130 1 -0*

i\\'

ll 1-TABLE 2 REINFORCEMENT, EFFECTIVE SECTION MODOI.US, AND ULTIMATE BENDING MOMENT DATA

SUMMARY

A w T

WATER SIDS IN TENSION, C

WATER SIDE IN COMPRESSION MATERIAL l:

DIREC HORIZONTAL VERTICAL MATERIAL 2:

DIREC HORIZONTAL VERTICAL MATERIAL 3:

DIREC HORIZONTAL VERTICAL MATERIAL 4:

DIRZC HORIZONTAL VERTICAL MATERIAL 5:

DIREC HORIZONTAL VERTICAL MATERIAL 6:

DIREC HORIZONTAL VERTICAL MATERIAL 7:

DIREC HORIZONTAL VERTICAL MATERIAL 8:

DIREC N-S E-W NORTH WALL (8 1 -9* THICK)

R!:BARS Eeff

.22SSE+06 T

.22SSE+06 C

.1724!+06 T

l 724E+06 C

8 @ 9* WA~ SIDE

8 @ 9* AIR SIDE

8 @ 12* WATER SIDE

8 @ 12* AIR SIDE EAST WAI.I. (6 1 -0* 'l'BICK)

RE BARS

10 @ 9* WA'l'ZR SIDE

8 @ 9* AIR SIDE

10 @ 12* WATZR SID!

8 @ 12* AIR SIDE Ea ff

.4636!+06 T

.3037E+06 C

.3583!+06 T

.2330!+06 c Mu 483.769 T

-483.769 c 371.194 T

-371.194 c Mu 505.909 T

-327.349 c 387.799 T

-253.879 c SOOTH WALL UPP!R SECTION (4 1 -0* THICK)

REBARS

!ef f

11 @ 9* WATER SIDE

.7276E+06 T

11 @ 9* AIR SIDE

.7276E+06 C

11 @ 10* WATER SID!

.6642E+06 T

11 @ 10* AIR SIDE

.6642E+06 C SOOTH WALL TIUUiSITIONAL SECTION REBA.RS

!ef f

.8773E+06 T

.8773E+06 C

.5867E+06 1'

.5867E+06 C Mu 389.149 T

-389.149 c 353.581 T.

-353.581 c Mu 791. 629 T

-791.629 c 454.669 T

-454.669 c SOIJT!i WALL MIDDI.Z RE BARS SECTION (6 1 -0* TBICX)

11 @ 5* WATER SIDE

11 @ 5* AIR SIDE

11 @ 10* WA'?Zll SID!

11 @ 10* AIR SIDE Ee ft

.1027E+07 T

.l027E+07 c

.5091E+06 T

.5091!+06 c Mu 1194.109 T

-1194.109 c 555.757 T

-555.757 c SOOTH WALL LOWD SECTION (6 1 -0* THICX)

R.EBARS Eef f

11 @ 9* WA1'!R SIDE

.5592E+06 T

11 @ 9* AIR Sibl

.5592!+06 C

11 @ 10* WA'l'Zll SIDE

.5091E+06 T

11 t 10* AIR SIDE

.5091!+06 C WEST WALL (9 1 -7* THICX)

U8ARS It I g* WATD SIDE I g* AIR SIDE 19 I 12* WATD SIDE

,. I 12* AIR SIDE SLAB (11 1 -0* THICJC)

RE BARS

9 @ 12* WATER SIDE

8 @ 12* SOIL SIDE

8 @ 12* WATER SIDE

8 @ 12* SOIL SIDE Ee!t

.2600!+06 T

.2094!+06 c

.1991!+06 T

.1600E+06 C Ee!t

.l 7'3!+06 T

.l398E+06 C

. U98E+06 T

.l398E+06 C Mu 613.789 T

-613.789 c 555.757 T

-555.757 c Mu 663.469 T

-531.169 c 505.969 T

-406.744 c Mu 588.195 T

-474.795 c 474.795 T

-474.795 c

r

-~

-J Rack to Rack gap *element

-~* x2 x1 g

Rack 1 Kg Rack2

II I o.

11

~

I II I

~

I t

I c I EG OJ I ) II I

II

11 -

I

.o I

I -

I I

I 0 11 I

I nr 1*

L

_u J L

.... -- -.. - - i-I I lE<<; IOI I,..

I 1 I ii II II I I o.

II II II

.o 11 II I

I II II

~ :,,,

. II I

I Cl EC Oit'-. )..

I II ill I

I I o, II

~ - JL 1011 -

10* -

10

.o.

. o.

.o

-:1._

\\

I YP I CAL SllJAllE m'ARIN; PAO I SEE Oi.1111 I.

~

. o

-.o. 101 I

I I

J IN I

111 lJ I

I I

C~D IOI I )

I cm IOI I I

I I

I

.o.

I

.o I

101 I

I I

I 10 I

10 I 101 I

I -

I I

I.

~

I

- J.._

!!: C"

- J -

- - - - ~

I c lt'.G IOI I )

I

- l IJ I

1

'.. ~"' I""

I I

.o.

I 10 I

,Q, I

-. I I

I

.o I

. o I I.o.

I I -

I I

"'Ii' I

H ;-,

I JL I

I Ill KCI ON II)

I lK ilil lift I

I I

I '\\

J'I 1C I

'\\.

Cl I.o I*

\\.

J -

_J ~ - -

J

~ - --

i-

llffll!I LEli "v

I IYP I LEAK CHASE WI\\. llti llELO SEMI I D.\\SllD L llE I o;

{QIT]__jQJ 1011 II I

I II II I

.1 J I/ "J I If(, ~

~1 I

J, fl, " Jj I

II I

0 I

I I

1J rl

)

I

~

10 )

I J:j L~

I.

Cl Eel y, )

I I

101 10 1 0

0 I

I 1of~n II 0

I 0 I

I I

101 I

I

~, J I

~.., I f( I I

J, f1 II 1r I I

I

/

I I

I 0

I

-1..J -

- -.... =

1 *

rF - - -

I

~~:

EJ

.I

,s 111 I

I I

}ff I

J l

I

[IJ I

I I

I

.o. o; ITJ 0 II QI I

II II II o1

.. t;W,.;

0 II

.o.

II I

11 I

II I

, ('

II l*i I

II I

0 I

I I

II I

ffiB I I EB II II

~

II IO I

~

I I

II I

I II I

s. -

II 101 o:

0

~

II

.,,. ~

_JI - -....

..J

~~

ML18100A858

Contents

Text

~:_-__ h_~~---=1.. 3 2_." ~ ~~- --- ---====-~-

-, ;h

SUMMARY

1 *

Navigation menu

ML18100A858

Text

~:_-__ h_~~---=1.. 3 2_." ~ ~~- --- ---====-~-

-, ;h

SUMMARY

1 *

Navigation menu

Search