ML18304A476

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
LLC Response to NRC Request for Additional Information No. 136 (Erai No. 8933) on the NuScale Design Certification Application
ML18304A476
Person / Time
Site: NuScale
Issue date: 10/31/2018
From: Rad Z
NuScale
To:
Document Control Desk, Office of New Reactors
References
RAIO-1018-62394
Download: ML18304A476 (64)
v • d • e


Text

RAIO-1018-62394 October 31, 2018 Docket No.52-048 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852-2738

SUBJECT:

NuScale Power, LLC Response to NRC Request for Additional Information No.

136 (eRAI No. 8933) on the NuScale Design Certification Application

REFERENCES:

1. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "Request for Additional Information No. 136 (eRAI No. 8933)," dated August 05, 2017
2. NuScale Power, LLC Response to NRC "Request for Additional Information No. 136 (eRAI No.8933)," dated October 3, 2017 The purpose of this letter is to provide the NuScale Power, LLC (NuScale) response to the referenced NRC Request for Additional Information (RAI).

The Enclosure to this letter contains NuScale's response to the following RAI Question from NRC eRAI No. 8933:

  • 03.07.02-16 A majority of the responses to RAI No. 136, eRAI No. 8933, questions were previously provided in Reference 2. The response to question 03.07.02-17 will be provided by December 20, 2018.

This letter and the enclosed response make no new regulatory commitments and no revisions to any existing regulatory commitments.

If you have any questions on this response, please contact Marty Bryan at 541-452-7172 or at mbryan@nuscalepower.com.

Sincerely,

.~

Zackary W. Rad Director, Regulatory Affairs NuScale Power, LLC Distribution: Gregory Cranston, NRC, OWFN-8G9A Samuel Lee, NRC, OWFN-8G9A Marieliz Vera, NRC, OWFN-8G9A Enclosure 1: NuScale Response to NRC Request for Additional Information eRAI No. 8933 NuScale Power, LLC 1100 NE Circle Blvd. , Suite 200 Corvalis, Oregon 97330 , Office: 541.360.0500 , Fax: 541.207.3928 www.nuscalepower.com

RAIO-1018-62394 :

NuScale Response to NRC Request for Additional Information eRAI No. 8933 NuScale Power, LLC 1100 NE Circle Blvd., Suite 200 Corvalis, Oregon 97330, Office: 541.360.0500, Fax: 541.207.3928 www.nuscalepower.com

Response to Request for Additional Information Docket No.52-048 eRAI No.: 8933 Date of RAI Issue: 08/05/2017 NRC Question No.: 03.07.02-16 10 CFR 50 Appendix S requires that the safety functions of structures, systems, and components (SSCs) must be assured during and after the vibratory ground motion associated with the Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE) through design, testing, or qualification methods.

In FSAR Section 3.7.2.1.2.1, the staff noted that the dry dock is assumed to be full of water and part of the UHS in the seismic analysis. The nominal water level is at EL. 94 ft. In FSAR Section 9.1.3, the staff also noted that the dry dock can be drained partially or completely to support plant operations. In FSAR Section 9.1.3.3.5, the staff further noted that a failure of the dry dock gate while the dry dock is empty could result in a decrease in water level at the UHS pool by about 12 ft. Since the dry dock contains a large body of water, draining of a large mass of water could affect the dynamic characteristics of the SASSI and ANSYS models thereby potentially affecting the seismic demand based on full dry dock assumption. Therefore the applicant is requested to provide a technical basis for not considering different water level conditions for the dry dock in the seismic analysis. In addition, the applicant should address the effect of potential variation in water level of the UHS on the seismic analysis of the Reactor Building (RXB) and NuScale Power Module (NPM) including the analyses conducted in FSAR 3.7.2.9.1 to address the effect of operation with less than the full complements of NPMs. The applicant should also describe in the FSAR the analysis and design criteria to ensure that no adverse seismic interaction occurs between the dry dock gate and adjacent Seismic Category I SSCs.

NuScale Nonproprietary

NuScale Response:

Seismic weight calculations determined the reactor building (RXB) weight to be approximately 587,147 kips with a full dry dock and full reactor pool. The water weight contained in the dry dock is approximately calculated by: 64ft x 31.5ft x 69ft x 62.4 lbf/cf, which equates to around 8,680 kips. This represents less than 1.5% of the total seismic weight of the RXB. When compared to the 64,700 kips of overall seismic pool water weight, it only represents 13.4% of the total. When adding in the additional 15,568 kips NuScale Power Module (NPM) weight and 8,842 kips of other additional equipment weight, the representation drops to less than 10% of the total variable pool water and equipment weight contained in the RXB. Based on the ratios expressed above, any variance due to temporary usage of the dry dock area is enveloped by the peak spectra broadening inherent in the seismic analysis, and is, thus, enveloping of this variance in weight. In addition, NPM variances investigated in FSAR Section 3.7.2.9.1 outlined the effects of non-symmetrical loading on the RXB. Results showed there was not a tangible change in the reaction of the RXB as a whole. An empty dry dock is included in the envelope of that study and produces similar, bounding results. The dry dock gate is seismic category II and analyzed for full safe shutdown earthquake (SSE), in accordance with DSRS 3.7.2,Section II Acceptance Criteria 8(c). It will not fail during an SSE event. Even if a beyond-design-basis event were to occur in which the dry dock door fails with an empty dry dock, the resulting redistribution of mass of less than 1.5% of the total RXB mass would occur in a vertical plane, resulting in diminished torsional effects due to mass offsets.

As a result, analyses are only performed for two water levels in the dry dock - when it is full, and when it is empty. The full dry dock case was completed previously and served to determine the required reinforcement for the structure. The empty dry dock case was completed as a sensitivity study, and is discussed in the next section.

A detailed SASSI seismic analysis was undertaken to investigate the effects of an empty dry dock condition during an SSE event on the overall RXB design. Parameters of the analysis were as follows:

1. Three RXB models with an empty dry dock and three NPM stiffness cases: nominal and approximately +/- 15% frequency shifts
2. Two structural concrete damping ratios: 4% for ISRS generation and lug support reaction calculation and 7% for force and moment calculation.
3. One concrete condition: cracked.
4. One soil type: 7.

NuScale Nonproprietary

5. One certified seismic design response spectra (CSDRS)-compatible seismic input:

Capitola.

Analysis has shown that, based on the comparison of seismic demand and design loads, the empty dry dock condition does not affect the RXB design, which is based on the full dry dock condition. Comparisons were made for out-of-plane (OOP) shears and moments in the four exterior walls, forces and moments in one pilaster in the north wall at Column Line RX4, forces and moments in the four walls around the dry dock, and total vertical reaction forces.

Comparison of OOP shear forces and moments in the 5'-thick exterior walls.

The OOP shears, Vxz and Vyz, OOP moments, Mxx and Myy, and the twisting moment, Mxy, are shown in Table 1. In the calculation of the OOP moments of an element, the twisting moment, Mxy, is added to Mxx and Myy by the absolute sum method.

The maximum OOP shears and moments over all of the elements in each row around the four walls are provided in Table 2 for the three empty dry dock models. The Z-coordinates shown are measured from the bottom of the basemat to the centroid of a shell element. As can be seen in the table, the differences among the models with an empty dry dock are negligible. The maximum difference is less than 0.6%, found at Z=760.4".

NuScale Nonproprietary

Table 1: Out-of-Plane Shears and Moments due to Capitola Input in Exterior Walls, Empty Dry Dock Models Row Elevation Vxz Vyz Mxx+Mxy Myy+Mxy No. (in) (kip/ft) (kip/ft) (kip-ft/ft) (kip-ft/ft)

Model 1- MHM 1 1147.0 85 84 249 233 2 1060.4 91 91 417 407 3 985.1 81 81 224 209 4 907.5 57 64 392 382 5 840.3 90 90 248 229 6 760.4 105 105 233 220 7 685.1 64 67 217 204 8 607.5 55 59 176 176 9 532.5 51 53 156 161 10 457.5 46 45 138 141 Maximum 105 105 417 407 Model 2- MHM-P15 1 1147.0 84 84 259 233 2 1060.4 91 90 417 406 3 985.1 80 81 224 209 4 907.5 57 64 392 383 5 840.3 90 90 248 230 6 760.4 105 105 233 220 7 685.1 65 67 217 207 8 607.5 55 59 175 176 9 532.5 50 52 156 161 10 457.5 46 45 138 141 Maximum 105 105 417 406 Mode 3- MHM-M15 1 1147.0 85 84 260 233 2 1060.4 91 91 418 408 3 985.1 80 81 224 210 4 907.5 57 64 391 382 5 840.3 90 90 248 229 6 760.4 104 105 233 220 7 685.1 64 68 217 204 8 607.5 55 59 176 176 9 532.5 51 53 156 161 10 457.5 46 45 138 142 Maximum 104 105 418 408 NuScale Nonproprietary

The maximum shears and moments among the three empty dry dock models are presented below with the corresponding capacities. As can be seen in Table 2, there is plenty of margin.

Table 2- Maximum Out-of-Plane Shears and Moments due to Capitola Input in Exterior Walls Empty Dry Dock Vxz Vyz Mxx+Mxy Myy+Mxy (kip/ft) (kip/ft) (kip-ft/ft) (kip-ft/ft)

Maximum 105 105 418 408 Capacities 212 1298 Comparison of Forces and Moments in Pilaster A4 The forces and moments calculated from the three empty dry dock models due to Capitola input in a typical pilaster are shown in Table 3. The selected pilaster, A4, is located at Column Lines RXA and RX4 (X=1872") in the north wall.

The maximum forces and moments among three empty dry dock models are shown at the bottom of Table 3. The maximum moment of 36,151 kip-ft is found above grade at Z=1582". The section design is Type 5, as provided in Table 4. Based on the capacities and D/C ratios of Pilaster A4, provided by section design Type 5, there is plenty of margin. Thus, the condition of the dry dock has no effect on the design of Pilaster A4 based on a full dry dock.

NuScale Nonproprietary

Table 3: Maximum Forces and Moments in Pilaster A4 (X=1872")

Empty Force (kip) Moment (kip-ft)

Dry Empty Dry M2 M3 P2 P3 Dock Dock Model P1 M1 (Moment (Moment (EW (NS Model Description (Axial) (Torsion) about EW about NS Shear) Shear)

Used axis) Axis)

Nominal Model 1 RXM 713 120 1,311 318 35,730 539 Stiffnesses RXM Stiffnesses Model 2 719 119 1,333 319 36,151 540 Factored by 1.3 RXM Stiffnesses Model 3 713 121 1,335 319 36,134 538 Factored by 1/1.3 Maximums 719 121 1335 319 36151 540 Table 4: D/C Ratios and Capacities of Pilaster A4 (X=1872")

Cross Section Type 5 (above Grade) Reinforcement Section ID RXB; PI; D/C Ratios 10' x 5' Pilaster; 6 A4; 126- Moment Moment Shear Axis Row 8 (Bundled)

Comp. Tension 163 Axis 2 Axis 3 3 #11 @ 12" c/c; #6 0.71 n/a 0.63 0.06 0.05 Ties Wraps @

Capacities 6" c/c; 7000 psi Moment Moment Shear concrete Comp. Tension Axis 2 Axis 3 Axis 3 (kips) (kips)

(kip-ft) (kip-ft) (kips) 87,100 9,025 3,564 22,277 13,141 Comparison of Forces and Moments in Walls around the Dry Dock Area For the calculation of the force and moments in the walls around the dry dock area, the following analysis parameters were used:

  • Cracked Concrete
  • 7% Structural Concrete Damping
  • Soil Type 7
  • CSDRS-compatible Capitola Input The following results were compared:
  • Maximum forces and moments in the north dry dock wall at Y= 453".

NuScale Nonproprietary

  • Maximum forces and moments in the south dry dock wall at Y=0".
  • Maximum forces and moments in the west dry dock wall at X=420".
  • Maximum forces and moments in the east dry dock wall at X=1255".

The maximum OOP shear forces and moments around the dry dock area for the cracked concrete condition by the three empty dry dock models are compared in Table 5.

Table 5: Shears and Moments in Dry Dock Walls for Empty Dry Dock Condition Vxz Vyz Mxx+Mxy Myy+Mxy Dry Dock Wall (kip/ft) (kip/ft) (kip-ft/ft) (kip-ft/ft)

Empty Dry Dock Model 1 (MHM)

N-Wall 38 73 205 228 S-Wall 128 180 1,056 1,053 E-Wall 44 142 390 532 W-Wall 92 39 370 116 Empty Dry Dock Model 2 (MHM-P15)

N-Wall 38 73 204 234 S-Wall 128 180 1,056 1,054 E-Wall 44 142 387 529 W-Wall 92 39 370 116 Empty Dry Dock Model 3 (MHM-M15)

N-Wall 38 72 205 228 S-Wall 128 180 1,056 1,053 E-Wall 44 142 389 523 W-Wall 92 39 370 116 The maximum forces among the three empty dry dock models, along with the ratios of each force to its corresponding capacity, are provided in Table 6. All maximums are much less than the corresponding capacity.

NuScale Nonproprietary

Table 6: Comparison of Maximum Shears and Moments in Dry Dock Walls with Capacities Vxz Vyz Mxx+Mxy Myy+Mxy Dry Dock Wall (kip/ft) (kip/ft) (kip-ft/ft) (kip-ft/ft)

Empty Dry Dock (Max among Models 1, 2, 3)

N-Wall 38 73 205 234 S-Wall 128 180 1,056 1,054 E-Wall 44 142 390 532 W-Wall 92 39 370 116 Capacities N-Wall 205 205 1158 1158 S-Wall 260 260 1,495 1,495 E-Wall 247 247 2046 2046 W-Wall 193 193 1541 1541 Max-Capacity Ratio N-Wall 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.2 S-Wall 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.7 E-Wall 0.2 0.6 0.2 0.3 W-Wall 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.1 Comparison of Total Vertical Base Reactions The maximum total vertical base reaction is obtained from the total base vertical reaction time history calculated by the time-step-by-time-step algebraic summation of the vertical reaction force time histories in all springs connecting the basemat and free-field soil.

For the vertical reaction calculation, the following analysis parameters were used:

  • Cracked Concrete
  • 7% Structural Concrete Damping
  • Soil Type 7
  • CSDRS-compatible Capitola Input The vertical reactions for the three empty dry dock models are provided in Table 7. The vertical reactions are not significantly affected by variations in RXM stiffness.

Table 7: Total Vertical Seismic RXB Base Reactions due to Capitola Input Dry Dock Condition Model Vertical Reaction (kips)

Model 1 (MHM) 223,054 Empty Model 2 (MHM-P15) 223,348 Model 3 (MHM-M15) 222,976 NuScale Nonproprietary

Based on the presented comparisons of OOP shears and moments in the four exterior walls, forces and moments in one pilaster in the north wall at Column Line RX4, forces and moments in the four walls around the dry dock, and total vertical reactions, variations in water levels of the UHS, coupled with the effect of operation of less than the full complement of NPMs, are bounded by the previous analysis outlined in FSAR Section 3.7.2.9.1.

To further demonstrate that the empty dry dock condition does not affect the RXB design, a series of in-structure-response-spectra (ISRS) were generated for the empty dry dock condition and compared to the governing FSAR figures which are based on a full dry dock. Additionally, transfer function (TF) plots were generated at select basemat and dry dock wall nodes to check for data consistency and spurious spikes. The locations selected for review are shown in Table

8. For each general location, the results lead to the following conclusions:
  • At the basemat: The ISRS shown in Figures 1 through 9 were observed to be enveloped by FSAR Figure 3.7.2-107, Reactor Building ISRS For Floor at E. 24-0 (X, Y, and Z directions for CSDRS).
  • At the pool floor: The ISRS shown in Figures 10 thru 33 were observed to be enveloped by FSAR Figure 3.7.2-108, Reactor Building ISRS For Floor at E. 25-0 (X, Y, and Z directions for CSDRS).
  • At the roof: The ISRS shown in Figures 34 thru 36 were observed to be enveloped by FSAR Figure 3.7.2-113, Reactor Building ISRS For Roof at E. 181-0 (X, and Z directions for CSDRS). For the Y direction due to CSDRS, the results showed an approximately 12% higher peak ISRS. This was deemed to not be of concern, due to the fact that, for this limited study, no ISRS averaging was performed from 5 sets of time histories.
  • At the dry dock: The ISRS shown in Figures 37 thru 45 were observed to be enveloped by FSAR Figure 3.7.2-111, Reactor Building ISRS For Floor at E. 100-0 (X, Y, and Z directions for CSDRS). A direct comparison for Location 13 was not possible, since it was not used in the FSAR ISRS generation, due to the fact there was no equipment attached to the mid-wall. Other observations based on design forces and moments in this wall were checked and found to be below their design values, as shown previously in this response.

NuScale Nonproprietary

Table 8: List of Locations for Dry Dock Condition ISRS Generation.

Basemat 1 3995 0 873 120 NW Corner on Top of Basemat 2 4739 1872 873 120 Mid-Span of North Exterior Wall on Top of Basemat 3 5640 4092 873 120 NE Corner on Top of Basemat Pool Floor 4 6011 1872 177 132 RXM1 West Pool Wall at Floor

- SW Corner 5 6015 1872 453 132 RXM1 West Pool Wall at Floor

- NW Corner 6 6063 2167 177 132 RXM1 East Pool Wall at Floor

- SE Corner 7 6067 2167 453 132 RXM 1 East Pool Wall at Floor

- NE Corner 8 6271 3347 177 132 RXM6 West Pool Wall at Floor

- SW Corner 9 6275 3347 453 132 RXM6 West Pool Wall at Floor

- NW Corner 10 6323 3672 177 132 RXM6 East Pool Wall at Floor

- SE Corner 11 6327 3672 453 132 RXM6 East Pool Wall at Floor

- NE Corner Roof 12 32257 2019.5 537 1980 Mid-Span of Roof Slab Dry Dock Wall 13 24857 824 0 1020 South Dry Dock Wall at El 100 Mid Span 14 18466 824 453 720 North Dry Dock Pool Wall at El. 75 Mid Span 15 18379 420 228 720 West Dry Dock Pool Wall at El.

75 Mid Span NuScale Nonproprietary

Notes:

a. MHM - RXB Model with nominal NPM stiffness. This model is referred to as the MHM model
b. MHM-P15 - RXB Model with NPM stiffness multiplied by 1.3 to result in approximately +15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-P15 model.
c. MHM-M15 - Model with NPM stiffness divided by 1.3 to result in approximately -15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-M15 model.

Figure-1. X-ISRS at RXB Node 3995, NW Corner on Top of Basemat, Cracked Model NuScale Nonproprietary

Notes:

a. MHM - RXB Model with nominal NPM stiffness. This model is referred to as the MHM model
b. MHM-P15 - RXB Model with NPM stiffness multiplied by 1.3 to result in approximately +15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-P15 model.
c. MHM-M15 - Model with NPM stiffness divided by 1.3 to result in approximately -15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-M15 model.

Figure-2. Y-ISRS at RXB Node 3995, NW Corner on Top of Basemat, Cracked Model.

NuScale Nonproprietary

Notes:

a. MHM - RXB Model with nominal NPM stiffness. This model is referred to as the MHM model
b. MHM-P15 - RXB Model with NPM stiffness multiplied by 1.3 to result in approximately +15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-P15 model.
c. MHM-M15 - Model with NPM stiffness divided by 1.3 to result in approximately -15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-M15 model.

Figure-3. Z-ISRS at RXB Node 3995, NW Corner on Top of Basemat, Cracked Model.

NuScale Nonproprietary

Notes:

a. MHM - RXB Model with nominal NPM stiffness. This model is referred to as the MHM model
b. MHM-P15 - RXB Model with NPM stiffness multiplied by 1.3 to result in approximately +15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-P15 model.
c. MHM-M15 - Model with NPM stiffness divided by 1.3 to result in approximately -15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-M15 model.

Figure-4. X-ISRS, RXB Node 4739, Mid-Span of North Exterior Wall on Top of Basemat, Cracked Model.

NuScale Nonproprietary

Notes:

a. MHM - RXB Model with nominal NPM stiffness. This model is referred to as the MHM model
b. MHM-P15 - RXB Model with NPM stiffness multiplied by 1.3 to result in approximately +15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-P15 model.
c. MHM-M15 - Model with NPM stiffness divided by 1.3 to result in approximately -15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-M15 model.

Figure-5. Y-ISRS, RXB Node 4739, Mid-Span of North Exterior Wall on Top of Basemat, Cracked Model.

NuScale Nonproprietary

Notes:

a. MHM - RXB Model with nominal NPM stiffness. This model is referred to as the MHM model
b. MHM-P15 - RXB Model with NPM stiffness multiplied by 1.3 to result in approximately +15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-P15 model.
c. MHM-M15 - Model with NPM stiffness divided by 1.3 to result in approximately -15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-M15 model.

Figure-6. Z-ISRS, RXB Node 4739, Mid-Span of North Exterior Wall on Top of Basemat, Cracked Model.

NuScale Nonproprietary

Notes:

a. MHM - RXB Model with nominal NPM stiffness. This model is referred to as the MHM model
b. MHM-P15 - RXB Model with NPM stiffness multiplied by 1.3 to result in approximately +15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-P15 model.
c. MHM-M15 - Model with NPM stiffness divided by 1.3 to result in approximately -15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-M15 model.

Figure-7. X-ISRS at RXB Node 5640, NE Corner on Top of Basemat, Cracked Model.

NuScale Nonproprietary

Notes:

a. MHM - RXB Model with nominal NPM stiffness. This model is referred to as the MHM model
b. MHM-P15 - RXB Model with NPM stiffness multiplied by 1.3 to result in approximately +15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-P15 model.
c. MHM-M15 - Model with NPM stiffness divided by 1.3 to result in approximately -15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-M15 model.

Figure-8. Y-ISRS at RXB Node 5640, NE Corner on Top of Basemat, Cracked Model NuScale Nonproprietary

Notes:

a. MHM - RXB Model with nominal NPM stiffness. This model is referred to as the MHM model
b. MHM-P15 - RXB Model with NPM stiffness multiplied by 1.3 to result in approximately +15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-P15 model.
c. MHM-M15 - Model with NPM stiffness divided by 1.3 to result in approximately -15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-M15 model.

Figure-9. Z-ISRS at RXB Node 5640, NE Corner on Top of Basemat, Cracked Model.

NuScale Nonproprietary

Notes:

a. MHM - RXB Model with nominal NPM stiffness. This model is referred to as the MHM model
b. MHM-P15 - RXB Model with NPM stiffness multiplied by 1.3 to result in approximately +15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-P15 model.
c. MHM-M15 - Model with NPM stiffness divided by 1.3 to result in approximately -15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-M15 model.

Figure-10. X-ISRS at RXB Node 6011, RXM1 West Pool Wall at Floor - SW Corner, Cracked Model.

NuScale Nonproprietary

Notes:

a. MHM - RXB Model with nominal NPM stiffness. This model is referred to as the MHM model
b. MHM-P15 - RXB Model with NPM stiffness multiplied by 1.3 to result in approximately +15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-P15 model.
c. MHM-M15 - Model with NPM stiffness divided by 1.3 to result in approximately -15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-M15 model.

Figure-11. Y-ISRS at RXB Node 6011, RXM1 West Pool Wall at Floor - SW Corner, Cracked Model.

NuScale Nonproprietary

Notes:

a. MHM - RXB Model with nominal NPM stiffness. This model is referred to as the MHM model
b. MHM-P15 - RXB Model with NPM stiffness multiplied by 1.3 to result in approximately +15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-P15 model.
c. MHM-M15 - Model with NPM stiffness divided by 1.3 to result in approximately -15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-M15 model.

Figure-12. Z-ISRS at RXB Node 6011, RXM1 West Pool Wall at Floor - SW Corner, Cracked Model.

NuScale Nonproprietary

Notes:

a. MHM - RXB Model with nominal NPM stiffness. This model is referred to as the MHM model
b. MHM-P15 - RXB Model with NPM stiffness multiplied by 1.3 to result in approximately +15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-P15 model.
c. MHM-M15 - Model with NPM stiffness divided by 1.3 to result in approximately -15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-M15 model.

Figure-13. X-ISRS at RXB Node 6015, RXM1 West Pool Wall at Floor - NW Corner, Cracked Model.

NuScale Nonproprietary

Notes:

a. MHM - RXB Model with nominal NPM stiffness. This model is referred to as the MHM model
b. MHM-P15 - RXB Model with NPM stiffness multiplied by 1.3 to result in approximately +15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-P15 model.
c. MHM-M15 - Model with NPM stiffness divided by 1.3 to result in approximately -15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-M15 model.

Figure-14. Y-ISRS at RXB Node 6015, RXM1 West Pool Wall at Floor - NW Corner, Cracked Model.

NuScale Nonproprietary

Notes:

a. MHM - RXB Model with nominal NPM stiffness. This model is referred to as the MHM model
b. MHM-P15 - RXB Model with NPM stiffness multiplied by 1.3 to result in approximately +15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-P15 model.
c. MHM-M15 - Model with NPM stiffness divided by 1.3 to result in approximately -15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-M15 model.

Figure-15. Z-ISRS at RXB Node 6015, RXM1 West Pool Wall at Floor - NW Corner, Cracked Model.

NuScale Nonproprietary

Notes:

a. MHM - RXB Model with nominal NPM stiffness. This model is referred to as the MHM model
b. MHM-P15 - RXB Model with NPM stiffness multiplied by 1.3 to result in approximately +15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-P15 model.
c. MHM-M15 - Model with NPM stiffness divided by 1.3 to result in approximately -15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-M15 model.

Figure-16. X-ISRS at RXB Node 6063, RXM1 East Pool Wall at Floor - SE Corner, Cracked Model.

NuScale Nonproprietary

Notes:

a. MHM - RXB Model with nominal NPM stiffness. This model is referred to as the MHM model
b. MHM-P15 - RXB Model with NPM stiffness multiplied by 1.3 to result in approximately +15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-P15 model.
c. MHM-M15 - Model with NPM stiffness divided by 1.3 to result in approximately -15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-M15 model.

Figure-17. Y-ISRS at RXB Node 6063, RXM1 East Pool Wall at Floor - SE Corner, Cracked Model.

NuScale Nonproprietary

Notes:

a. MHM - RXB Model with nominal NPM stiffness. This model is referred to as the MHM model
b. MHM-P15 - RXB Model with NPM stiffness multiplied by 1.3 to result in approximately +15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-P15 model.
c. MHM-M15 - Model with NPM stiffness divided by 1.3 to result in approximately -15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-M15 model.

Figure-18. Z-ISRS at RXB Node 6063, RXM1 East Pool Wall at Floor - SE Corner, Cracked Model.

NuScale Nonproprietary

Notes:

a. MHM - RXB Model with nominal NPM stiffness. This model is referred to as the MHM model
b. MHM-P15 - RXB Model with NPM stiffness multiplied by 1.3 to result in approximately +15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-P15 model.
c. MHM-M15 - Model with NPM stiffness divided by 1.3 to result in approximately -15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-M15 model.

Figure-19. X-ISRS at RXB Node 6067, RXM1 East Pool Wall at Floor - NE Corner, Cracked Model.

NuScale Nonproprietary

Notes:

a. MHM - RXB Model with nominal NPM stiffness. This model is referred to as the MHM model
b. MHM-P15 - RXB Model with NPM stiffness multiplied by 1.3 to result in approximately +15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-P15 model.
c. MHM-M15 - Model with NPM stiffness divided by 1.3 to result in approximately -15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-M15 model.

Figure-20. Y-ISRS at RXB Node 6067, RXM1 East Pool Wall at Floor - NE Corner, Cracked Model.

NuScale Nonproprietary

Notes:

a. MHM - RXB Model with nominal NPM stiffness. This model is referred to as the MHM model
b. MHM-P15 - RXB Model with NPM stiffness multiplied by 1.3 to result in approximately +15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-P15 model.
c. MHM-M15 - Model with NPM stiffness divided by 1.3 to result in approximately -15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-M15 model.

Figure-21. Z-ISRS at RXB Node 6067, RXM1 East Pool Wall at Floor - NE Corner, Cracked Model.

NuScale Nonproprietary

Notes:

a. MHM - RXB Model with nominal NPM stiffness. This model is referred to as the MHM model
b. MHM-P15 - RXB Model with NPM stiffness multiplied by 1.3 to result in approximately +15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-P15 model.
c. MHM-M15 - Model with NPM stiffness divided by 1.3 to result in approximately -15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-M15 model.

Figure-22. X-ISRS at RXB Node 6271, RXM6 West Pool Wall at Floor - SW Corner, Cracked Model.

NuScale Nonproprietary

Notes:

a. MHM - RXB Model with nominal NPM stiffness. This model is referred to as the MHM model
b. MHM-P15 - RXB Model with NPM stiffness multiplied by 1.3 to result in approximately +15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-P15 model.
c. MHM-M15 - Model with NPM stiffness divided by 1.3 to result in approximately -15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-M15 model.

Figure-23. Y-ISRS at RXB Node 6271, RXM6 West Pool Wall at Floor - SW Corner, Cracked Model.

NuScale Nonproprietary

Notes:

a. MHM - RXB Model with nominal NPM stiffness. This model is referred to as the MHM model
b. MHM-P15 - RXB Model with NPM stiffness multiplied by 1.3 to result in approximately +15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-P15 model.
c. MHM-M15 - Model with NPM stiffness divided by 1.3 to result in approximately -15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-M15 model.

Figure-24. Z-ISRS at RXB Node 6271, RXM6 West Pool Wall at Floor - SW Corner, Cracked Model.

NuScale Nonproprietary

Notes:

a. MHM - RXB Model with nominal NPM stiffness. This model is referred to as the MHM model
b. MHM-P15 - RXB Model with NPM stiffness multiplied by 1.3 to result in approximately +15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-P15 model.
c. MHM-M15 - Model with NPM stiffness divided by 1.3 to result in approximately -15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-M15 model.

Figure-25. X-ISRS at RXB Node 6275, RXM6 West Pool Wall at Floor - NW Corner, Cracked Model.

NuScale Nonproprietary

Notes:

a. MHM - RXB Model with nominal NPM stiffness. This model is referred to as the MHM model
b. MHM-P15 - RXB Model with NPM stiffness multiplied by 1.3 to result in approximately +15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-P15 model.
c. MHM-M15 - Model with NPM stiffness divided by 1.3 to result in approximately -15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-M15 model.

Figure-26. Y-ISRS at RXB Node 6275, RXM6 West Pool Wall at Floor - NW Corner, Cracked Model.

NuScale Nonproprietary

Notes:

a. MHM - RXB Model with nominal NPM stiffness. This model is referred to as the MHM model
b. MHM-P15 - RXB Model with NPM stiffness multiplied by 1.3 to result in approximately +15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-P15 model.
c. MHM-M15 - Model with NPM stiffness divided by 1.3 to result in approximately -15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-M15 model.

Figure-27. Z-ISRS at RXB Node 6275, RXM6 West Pool Wall at Floor - NW Corner, Cracked Model.

NuScale Nonproprietary

Notes:

a. MHM - RXB Model with nominal NPM stiffness. This model is referred to as the MHM model
b. MHM-P15 - RXB Model with NPM stiffness multiplied by 1.3 to result in approximately +15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-P15 model.
c. MHM-M15 - Model with NPM stiffness divided by 1.3 to result in approximately -15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-M15 model.

Figure-28. X-ISRS at RXB Node 6323, RXM6 East Pool Wall at Floor - SE Corner, Cracked Model.

NuScale Nonproprietary

Notes:

a. MHM - RXB Model with nominal NPM stiffness. This model is referred to as the MHM model
b. MHM-P15 - RXB Model with NPM stiffness multiplied by 1.3 to result in approximately +15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-P15 model.
c. MHM-M15 - Model with NPM stiffness divided by 1.3 to result in approximately -15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-M15 model.

Figure-29. Y-ISRS at RXB Node 6323, RXM6 East Pool Wall at Floor - SE Corner, Cracked Model.

NuScale Nonproprietary

Notes:

a. MHM - RXB Model with nominal NPM stiffness. This model is referred to as the MHM model
b. MHM-P15 - RXB Model with NPM stiffness multiplied by 1.3 to result in approximately +15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-P15 model.
c. MHM-M15 - Model with NPM stiffness divided by 1.3 to result in approximately -15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-M15 model.

Figure-30. Z-ISRS at RXB Node 6323, RXM6 East Pool Wall at Floor - SE Corner, Cracked Model.

NuScale Nonproprietary

Notes:

a. MHM - RXB Model with nominal NPM stiffness. This model is referred to as the MHM model
b. MHM-P15 - RXB Model with NPM stiffness multiplied by 1.3 to result in approximately +15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-P15 model.
c. MHM-M15 - Model with NPM stiffness divided by 1.3 to result in approximately -15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-M15 model.

Figure-31. X-ISRS at RXB Node 6327, RXM6 East Pool Wall at Floor - NE Corner, Cracked Model.

NuScale Nonproprietary

Notes:

a. MHM - RXB Model with nominal NPM stiffness. This model is referred to as the MHM model
b. MHM-P15 - RXB Model with NPM stiffness multiplied by 1.3 to result in approximately +15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-P15 model.
c. MHM-M15 - Model with NPM stiffness divided by 1.3 to result in approximately -15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-M15 model.

Figure-32. Y-ISRS at RXB Node 6327, RXM6 East Pool Wall at Floor - NE Corner, Cracked Model.

NuScale Nonproprietary

Notes:

a. MHM - RXB Model with nominal NPM stiffness. This model is referred to as the MHM model
b. MHM-P15 - RXB Model with NPM stiffness multiplied by 1.3 to result in approximately +15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-P15 model.
c. MHM-M15 - Model with NPM stiffness divided by 1.3 to result in approximately -15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-M15 model.

Figure-33. Z-ISRS at RXB Node 6327, RXM6 East Pool Wall at Floor - NE Corner, Cracked Model.

NuScale Nonproprietary

Notes:

a. MHM - RXB Model with nominal NPM stiffness. This model is referred to as the MHM model
b. MHM-P15 - RXB Model with NPM stiffness multiplied by 1.3 to result in approximately +15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-P15 model.
c. MHM-M15 - Model with NPM stiffness divided by 1.3 to result in approximately -15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-M15 model.

Figure-34. X-ISRS at RXB Node 32257, Mid-Span of Roof Slab, Cracked Model.

NuScale Nonproprietary

Notes:

a. MHM - RXB Model with nominal NPM stiffness. This model is referred to as the MHM model
b. MHM-P15 - RXB Model with NPM stiffness multiplied by 1.3 to result in approximately +15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-P15 model.
c. MHM-M15 - Model with NPM stiffness divided by 1.3 to result in approximately -15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-M15 model.

Figure-35. Y-ISRS at RXB Node 32257, Mid-Span of Roof Slab, Cracked Model.

NuScale Nonproprietary

Notes:

a. MHM - RXB Model with nominal NPM stiffness. This model is referred to as the MHM model
b. MHM-P15 - RXB Model with NPM stiffness multiplied by 1.3 to result in approximately +15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-P15 model.
c. MHM-M15 - Model with NPM stiffness divided by 1.3 to result in approximately -15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-M15 model.

Figure-36. Z-ISRS at RXB Node 32257, Mid-Span of Roof Slab, Cracked Model.

NuScale Nonproprietary

Notes:

a. MHM - RXB Model with nominal NPM stiffness. This model is referred to as the MHM model
b. MHM-P15 - RXB Model with NPM stiffness multiplied by 1.3 to result in approximately +15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-P15 model.
c. MHM-M15 - Model with NPM stiffness divided by 1.3 to result in approximately -15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-M15 model.

Figure-37. X-ISRS at RXB Node 24857, South Dry Dock Wall at El 100 Mid Span, Cracked Model.

NuScale Nonproprietary

Notes:

a. MHM - RXB Model with nominal NPM stiffness. This model is referred to as the MHM model
b. MHM-P15 - RXB Model with NPM stiffness multiplied by 1.3 to result in approximately +15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-P15 model.
c. MHM-M15 - Model with NPM stiffness divided by 1.3 to result in approximately -15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-M15 model.

Figure-38. Y-ISRS at RXB Node 24857, South Dry Dock Wall at El 100 Mid Span, Cracked Model.

NuScale Nonproprietary

Notes:

a. MHM - RXB Model with nominal NPM stiffness. This model is referred to as the MHM model
b. MHM-P15 - RXB Model with NPM stiffness multiplied by 1.3 to result in approximately +15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-P15 model.
c. MHM-M15 - Model with NPM stiffness divided by 1.3 to result in approximately -15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-M15 model.

Figure-39. Z-ISRS at RXB Node 24857, South Dry Dock Wall at El 100 Mid Span, Cracked Model.

NuScale Nonproprietary

Notes:

a. MHM - RXB Model with nominal NPM stiffness. This model is referred to as the MHM model
b. MHM-P15 - RXB Model with NPM stiffness multiplied by 1.3 to result in approximately +15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-P15 model.
c. MHM-M15 - Model with NPM stiffness divided by 1.3 to result in approximately -15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-M15 model.

Figure-40. X-ISRS at RXB Node 18466, North Dry Dock Pool Wall at El. 75 Mid Span, Cracked Model.

NuScale Nonproprietary

Notes:

a. MHM - RXB Model with nominal NPM stiffness. This model is referred to as the MHM model
b. MHM-P15 - RXB Model with NPM stiffness multiplied by 1.3 to result in approximately +15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-P15 model.
c. MHM-M15 - Model with NPM stiffness divided by 1.3 to result in approximately -15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-M15 model.

Figure-41. Y-ISRS at RXB Node 18466, North Dry Dock Pool Wall at El. 75 Mid Span, Cracked Model.

NuScale Nonproprietary

Notes:

a. MHM - RXB Model with nominal NPM stiffness. This model is referred to as the MHM model
b. MHM-P15 - RXB Model with NPM stiffness multiplied by 1.3 to result in approximately +15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-P15 model.
c. MHM-M15 - Model with NPM stiffness divided by 1.3 to result in approximately -15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-M15 model.

Figure-42. Z-ISRS at RXB Node 18466, North Dry Dock Pool Wall at El. 75 Mid Span, Cracked Model.

NuScale Nonproprietary

Notes:

a. MHM - RXB Model with nominal NPM stiffness. This model is referred to as the MHM model
b. MHM-P15 - RXB Model with NPM stiffness multiplied by 1.3 to result in approximately +15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-P15 model.
c. MHM-M15 - Model with NPM stiffness divided by 1.3 to result in approximately -15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-M15 model.

Figure-43. X-ISRS at RXB Node 18379, West Dry Dock Pool Wall at El. 75 Mid Span, Cracked Model.

NuScale Nonproprietary

Notes:

a. MHM - RXB Model with nominal NPM stiffness. This model is referred to as the MHM model
b. MHM-P15 - RXB Model with NPM stiffness multiplied by 1.3 to result in approximately +15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-P15 model.
c. MHM-M15 - Model with NPM stiffness divided by 1.3 to result in approximately -15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-M15 model.

Figure-44. Y-ISRS at RXB Node 18379, West Dry Dock Pool Wall at El. 750- Mid Span, Cracked Model.

NuScale Nonproprietary

Notes:

a. MHM - RXB Model with nominal NPM stiffness. This model is referred to as the MHM model
b. MHM-P15 - RXB Model with NPM stiffness multiplied by 1.3 to result in approximately +15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-P15 model.
c. MHM-M15 - Model with NPM stiffness divided by 1.3 to result in approximately -15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-M15 model.

Figure-45. Z-ISRS at RXB Node 18379, West Dry Dock Pool Wall at El. 75 Mid Span, Cracked Model.

Transfer function plots at the pool floor and dry dock wall are presented in Figures 46 through 51 below.

NuScale Nonproprietary

Notes:

a. MHM - RXB Model with nominal NPM stiffness. This model is referred to as the MHM model
b. MHM-P15 - RXB Model with NPM stiffness multiplied by 1.3 to result in approximately +15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-P15 model.
c. MHM-M15 - Model with NPM stiffness divided by 1.3 to result in approximately -15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-M15 model.

Figure-46. X-TF at RXB Node 5640, NE Corner on Top of Basemat, Cracked Model.

NuScale Nonproprietary

Notes:

a. MHM - RXB Model with nominal NPM stiffness. This model is referred to as the MHM model
b. MHM-P15 - RXB Model with NPM stiffness multiplied by 1.3 to result in approximately +15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-P15 model.
c. MHM-M15 - Model with NPM stiffness divided by 1.3 to result in approximately -15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-M15 model.

Figure-47. Y-TF at RXB Node 5640, NE Corner on Top of Basemat, Cracked Model.

NuScale Nonproprietary

Notes:

a. MHM - RXB Model with nominal NPM stiffness. This model is referred to as the MHM model
b. MHM-P15 - RXB Model with NPM stiffness multiplied by 1.3 to result in approximately +15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-P15 model.
c. MHM-M15 - Model with NPM stiffness divided by 1.3 to result in approximately -15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-M15 model.

Figure-48. Z-TF at RXB Node 5640, NE Corner on Top of Basemat, Cracked Model.

NuScale Nonproprietary

Notes:

a. MHM - RXB Model with nominal NPM stiffness. This model is referred to as the MHM model
b. MHM-P15 - RXB Model with NPM stiffness multiplied by 1.3 to result in approximately +15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-P15 model.
c. MHM-M15 - Model with NPM stiffness divided by 1.3 to result in approximately -15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-M15 model.

Figure-49. X-TF at RXB Node 18446, North Dry Dock Pool Wall at El. 75 Mid Span, Cracked Model.

NuScale Nonproprietary

Notes:

a. MHM - RXB Model with nominal NPM stiffness. This model is referred to as the MHM model
b. MHM-P15 - RXB Model with NPM stiffness multiplied by 1.3 to result in approximately +15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-P15 model.
c. MHM-M15 - Model with NPM stiffness divided by 1.3 to result in approximately -15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-M15 model.

Figure-50. Y-TF at RXB Node 18446, North Dry Dock Pool Wall at El. 75 Mid Span, Cracked Model.

NuScale Nonproprietary

Notes:

a. MHM - RXB Model with nominal NPM stiffness. This model is referred to as the MHM model
b. MHM-P15 - RXB Model with NPM stiffness multiplied by 1.3 to result in approximately +15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-P15 model.
c. MHM-M15 - Model with NPM stiffness divided by 1.3 to result in approximately -15% NPM frequency change for dominant modes. This model is referred to as the MHM-M15 model.

Figure-51. Z-TF at RXB Node 18446, North Dry Dock Pool Wall at El. 75 Mid Span, Cracked Model.

NuScale Nonproprietary

Impact on DCA:

There are no impacts to the DCA as a result of this response.

NuScale Nonproprietary

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML18304A476&oldid=2615515"