ML19053A796

LLC - Supplemental Response to NRC Request for Additional Information No. 132 (Erai No. 8971) on the NuScale Design Certification Application

ML19053A796
Person / Time
Site:	NuScale
Issue date:	02/22/2019
From:	Rad Z NuScale
To:	Document Control Desk, Office of New Reactors
Shared Package
ML19053A795	List: ML19053A796
References
AF-0219-64638, RAIO-0219-64637
Download: ML19053A796 (133)

Text

RAIO-0219-64637 February 22, 2019 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 Supplemental Response to NRC Request for Additional Information No. 132 (eRAI No. 8971) on the NuScale Design Certification Application

REFERENCES:

1. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "Request for Additional Information No. 132 (eRAI No. 8971)," dated August 05, 2017

2. NuScale Power, LLC Response to NRC "Request for Additional Information No. 132 (eRAI No.8971)," dated December 11, 2018 The purpose of this letter is to provide the NuScale Power, LLC (NuScale) supplemental response to the referenced NRC Request for Additional Information (RAI).

The Enclosures to this letter contain NuScale's supplemental response to the following RAI Question from NRC eRAI No. 8971:

03.08.04-13 is the proprietary version of the NuScale Supplemental Response to NRC RAI No.

132 (eRAI No. 8971). NuScale requests that the proprietary version be withheld from public disclosure in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR § 2.390. The enclosed affidavit (Enclosure 3) supports this request. Enclosure 2 is the nonproprietary version of the NuScale response.

This letter and the enclosed responses 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-8H12 Samuel Lee, NRC, OWFN-8H12 Marieliz Vera, NRC, OWFN-8H12 NuScale Power, LLC 1100 NE Circle Blvd., Suite 200 Corvalis, Oregon 97330, Office: 541.360.0500, Fax: 541.207.3928 www.nuscalepower.com

RAIO-0219-64637 : NuScale Supplemental Response to NRC Request for Additional Information eRAI No. 8971, proprietary : NuScale Supplemental Response to NRC Request for Additional Information eRAI No. 8971, nonproprietary : Affidavit of Zackary W. Rad, AF-0219-64638 NuScale Power, LLC 1100 NE Circle Blvd., Suite 200 Corvalis, Oregon 97330, Office: 541.360.0500, Fax: 541.207.3928 www.nuscalepower.com

RAIO-0219-64637 :

NuScale Supplemental Response to NRC Request for Additional Information eRAI No. 8971, proprietary NuScale Power, LLC 1100 NE Circle Blvd., Suite 200 Corvalis, Oregon 97330, Office: 541.360.0500, Fax: 541.207.3928 www.nuscalepower.com

RAIO-0219-64637 :

NuScale Supplemental Response to NRC Request for Additional Information eRAI No. 8971, nonproprietary 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.: 8971 Date of RAI Issue: 08/05/2017 NRC Question No.: 03.08.04-13 10 CFR 50, Appendix A, GDC 1, 2, and 4, provide requirements to be met by SSC important to safety. In accordance with these requirements, DSRS Section 3.8.4 provides review guidance pertaining to the design of seismic Category I structures, other than the containment. Consistent with DSRS Section 3.8.4, the staff reviews loads and loading combinations.

FSAR Section 3.8.4.4.1 indicates that an ANSYS model was created to evaluate the effects of thermal loads on the structure. Further, FSAR Section 3.8.4.5 indicates that load combination 10 from Table 3.8.4-1 has been determined to be the controlling load combination. The staff request the applicant to provide the following information.

1. Magnitude of the bounding forces and moments profiles for walls and basemat resulting from thermal loads, To and Ta. Clarify whether such values were used in the load combinations 10 and 13 in Tables 3.8.4-1.

2. Describe how load combination 10 was determined to be the controlling load combination instead of load combination 13, and provide an example of how the loads were combined.

NuScale Response:

In response to staff feedback, discussed January 23, 2019, supplemental responses and revised response to RAI 8971 Question 03.08.01-13 are provided as follows:

NuScale Nonproprietary

1. Staff Feedback - Section 2.1 states: For the operating thermal load condition, the convection loads are applied in the thermal model The only exceptions are: (2nd bullet) the wet regions of the pool walls where the bulk temperature varies linearly from 212°F at the free surface of the pool and 275°F at the pool floor. In addition, Section 2.13 discusses a design pool temperature range of 40°F to 140°F and a post-accident temperature of 212°F for the RXB. Please clarify whether the 212°F to 275°F profile is applicable to both operating and accident thermal conditions and if so explain the reasons for using the same temperature profile for both cases.

Response - The first and second bullets in section 2.1 are in context with the previous two sentences and outline the two instances in the overall analysis where the convective fluid bulk temperatures are not constant over an entire region. The convection loads are applied in the thermal model for the operating and accidental thermal cases. Normal operating temperature of the pool was run at 120°F. Accident temperatures were run from 212°F at the pool surface to 275°F at the pool bottom. The 212°F to 275°F temperature profile is only applicable to the accident case.

In order to clarify, the paragraph and subsequent bullets are provided below in the revised response.

2. Staff Feedback - Section 2.3 RXB discusses external and internal temperature ranges applicable to the NuScale Design. From this information is not clear to the staff the thermal load case(s) used in the analysis. Please provide a full profile of the temperatures for the thermal load cases T0 and Ta for all interior and exterior areas/regions. If different than the full set of temperature ranges identified in the response, provide the basis for the selected sets of temperatures.

Response - The following figures provide a graphical representation of the applied thermal loadings for both the To and Ta conditions, as described in Section 2.3.

NuScale Nonproprietary

Operating Temperature Convection Profiles for RXB Figure 1 - Operating Temperature (T0) Profile for the Reactor Building Steady State Analysis (Looking North)

NuScale Nonproprietary

Figure 2 - Operating Temperature (T0) Profile for the Reactor Building Steady State Analysis (Looking South)

NuScale Nonproprietary

Figure 3 - Operating Temperature Distribution (T0) throughout the Reactor Building (Looking North)

NuScale Nonproprietary

Figure 4 - Operating Temperature Distribution (T0) throughout the Reactor Building (Looking South)

NuScale Nonproprietary

Figure 5 - Accident Temperature (Ta) Profile for the Reactor Building Steady State Analysis (Looking North)

NuScale Nonproprietary

Figure 6 - Accident Temperature (Ta) Profile for the Reactor Building Steady State Analysis (Looking South)

NuScale Nonproprietary

Figure 7 - Accident Temperature Distribution (Ta) throughout the Reactor Building (Looking North)

NuScale Nonproprietary

Figure 8 - Accident Temperature Distribution (Ta) throughout the Reactor Building (Looking South)

3. Staff Feedback - Based on RAI response Table 3-1 and new DCA Part 2 Tier 2 Table 3B-59, it appears that the concrete strain check is performed only for the SDH loads. Clarify whether the concrete strain check was also performed for the additional thermal and pressure loads. If not, please provide the basis for performing the check for SDH loads only.

Response - Concrete strain checks were only performed for SDH loads and were not performed from the additional thermal and pressure loads. .

The allowable SDH extreme concrete compression fiber strain is 0.003 in/in according to Section 10.2.3 of ACI 349-06 . The allowance of a small exceedance in the extreme fiber of the cross-section to not be detrimental to the overall strength of the structure has been shown to be 0.0006 in/in according to Section 1.3 of ACI 349.1R-07 for a temperature gradient of 100 °F.

This 20% increase for concrete strain has been found to be inconsequential (ACI 349.1R-07) in NuScale Nonproprietary

reducing concrete section capacities. A 0.0006 in/in strain increase represents a 30% increase in strain for the reinforcement, but only represents a 20% strain increase for the concrete. The governing check becomes the reinforcement strain check and the sections can be checked by ensuring steel strain limits are equal to or below 1.2y for SDH and thermal loads. Concrete strains are checked for SDH loads to ensure the initial assumptions that concrete strains were below .003 prior to addition of thermal strains. Hence it was unnecessary to check the concrete strains for SDH and the additional thermal and pressure loads.

4. Staff Feedback - Section 3.1, Step 2, states: For computation of average strain, an effective length of approximately 4 times the thickness of the structural component (such as wall or slab) is considered. However, for the walls with liner plates such as pool walls, elements that correspond to larger lengths of the walls (up to the extent of the entire wall length) can be used for average strain determination It is not clear to the staff whether the entire wall length for average strain determination was actually used for the results presented in the RAI response. If so please clarify the specific walls in the RAI response for which it was used and provide justification that demonstrates that the liner plates permit the extending the length for the purpose of averaging the strain. If the entire length was not used for the purpose of averaging the strain, please remove the criteria from the response and respective DCA Part 2 Tier 2 markups.

Response - The specific locations where strain averaging were employed are indicated in FSAR Tables 3B-59, 3B-60 and 3B-61 for SDH, SDH+To and SDH+Ta+Pa load combinations respectively. Accordingly, Strain averaging for thermal and pressure loads was used on the following locations in the RXB:

• Pool Wall - Middle (Grid Line C)

• Outer Wall - North (Grid Line A)

• Pool Wall - North (Grid Line B)

• Pool Wall - East (Grid Line 6)

• Pool Wall - Middle (Grid Line C)

• Pool Gate Support Wall

• Roof Support Stiffeners

• RXM Support Walls

• Major Floor Slabs

• Pilasters at Grid Line A

• Buttress at TOC EL 126'-0" and 145'-0"

• T-Beams at TOC EL 50'-0", 75'-0", and 100'-0" NuScale Nonproprietary

The maximum number of elements used in an averaging group was 10 and occurred at the Pool Wall - Middle (Grid Line C) and consisted of the following elements: 11535, 10802, 9511, 8918, 8009, 7223, 6793, 6208, 5650, and 4544.

Even with this higher number of averaging, it did not extend for the full length of the wall as shown below in Figure 9. The statements of full wall averaging are modified in the Section 3.1 of the response and respective FSAR Tier 2, Section 3B.1.3 markups.

It is rationalized that the liner plates along with its anchors to concrete walls provide confinement and prevent water leakage. A304L material is highly ductile and can have much higher stain acceptance ~ 0.004 This is the rationale for considering larger lengths for determining average strain rather than a fewer elements to comprise a length of 4 times the thickness.

Figure 9 - Single Elements from Pool Wall - Middle (Grid Line C) with Insufficient Thermal Ta+Pa Strain Capacity for Load Combination 9-9 in X Direction NuScale Nonproprietary

5. Staff Feedback - The design check on the shear strength provisions of 21.7 of ACI 349-06 (as described in FSAR Appendix 3B.1.1.2 for walls) is not discussed in the RAI response. The use of the strain check criteria based on ACI 341.9R-07 bullet 4 does not appear to be applicable for demonstrating adequate shear strength. Please clarify whether the design check (i.e. considering thermal and pressure loads) on the shear strength provisions of 21.7 of ACI 349-06 as described in FSAR Appendix 3B.1.1.2 was performed or provide the basis for excluding those checks.

Response - The shear strength design checks are included in the 2nd term of the overall reinforcing steel stress demand checks contained in Section 3.2 bullet item 4. If shear capacities are exceeded, additional reinforcement stress required to resist the loadings are added to the bending and axial stress demands. Shear strength demands are inherently based on the provisions of section 21.7 of ACI 349-06 and are built into the s formula as shown below and in Section 3.2 bullet item 4 of the response.

((2(a),(c)

6. Staff Feedback - Please provide justification for the LC 9-9 related s result presented in Table 3-14.

Response - As shown previously in Table 3-14 of the response for the pilasters at grid line A, the total strain in the steel exceeds 1.2yfor load combination 9-9. Therefore, averaging of elements is necessary. Since the strain from Ta+Pa is 0.672x10-3, the remaining allowed strain from SDH is 1.811x10-3. Every element must be checked to see that it is within this allowed strain, and if it exceeds this value, it must be averaged. From the group of elements, frame element 2733 had the highest strain. The averaging for this element is performed below in NuScale Nonproprietary

Table 1. The Nt, M, and C are calculated for each element, and then averaged. From these averaged forces, new stress and strain values are obtained. NuScale Nonproprietary

Table 1 - SDH Stresses and Strains Obtained from Frame Elements 2476, 2733, 3157, and 3458. Strain Check Element Nt M C=T s s x10-3 s1 x10-3 (kips) (k-ft) (kips) (ksi) 2476 2260.6 9992.1 1082.0 59.09 2.038 2.038 2733 2125.1 11759.7 1273.4 62.39 2.151 2.153 3157 2038.4 11726.0 1269.8 61.14 2.108 2.109 3458 2036.0 10818.1 1171.5 58.48 2.017 2.017 AVERAGE 2115.0 11074.0 1199.2 60.27 2.078 2.078 Since the averaged s1 for Element 2733 is 2.078x10-3, adding this to the strain from Ta+Pa (0.672x10-3) gives a total strain of 2.750x10-3, which is greater than 1.2y. However, inspecting the location of the Ta+Pa strain distribution at the location of frame element 2733, which is near the bottom middle of the 5th pilaster counting from east to west (see Fig 3-10 for visualization), a Ta+Pa strain of 0.265x10-3 is used.. Therefore, adding the averaged s1to this updated Ta+Pa strain gives a total strain of 2.343x10-3, which is less than 1.2y (2.483 x10-3) and therefore is considered acceptable. Averaging was performed for every element in the pilasters that has a strain from SDH loadings greater than 1.811x10-3 to ensure that the pilasters were considered acceptable.

7. Staff Feedback - Related to RAI response Sections 4.3.2, 4.4.2, and 4.5.2 explain how the element averaging was performed for the beam elements. Confirm/clarify whether load redistribution to adjacent shell elements was considered in the element averaging.

Response - The methodology used for beam and column elements follows the same methodology used for shell elements. Individual elements are checked for demand forces and subsequent strains. If the elements exceed the allowable design limits, then adjacent elements are averaged and then re-checked. Averaging of beam elements to shell elements was not performed, only like element types were averaged. Subsequent load redistribution to adjacent shell elements was not considered in the beam element averaging, however inherent in the analysis was a distribution of loads between connected elements based on physical properties that would remain valid regardless of any element demand averaging due to the averaging of the connected shell element averaging of the connected group. NuScale Nonproprietary

Staff Editorial Comments The following editorial comments from the staff are incorporated in the revised response, shown below.

1. The RAI response is missing Figures 3-1 to 3-4, referenced in Sections 3.1 and 3.2 of the response.

AGREE: Figures 3-1 to 3-4 have been added to the respons, as shown below.

2. RAI Response Table 3-1, 2nd row states: Reinforcing steel yield strain, y = fy/Es. As presented in the table it appears to be a limiting strain for thermal strain design whereas based on the results presented in the RAI response the limiting strain used was 1.2 y, also identified in the Table. For consistency, please consider removing y = fy/Es as a limiting strain from the Table or consolidating the y = fy/Es related information with the 1.2 y table row for purposes of defining y.

AGREE: The 2nd row will be removed to clearly indicate the yield strain limits for thermal design.

3. On the line for equation a = Astfy, the expression for jd = d-a/2, should be a separate equation.

AGREE. The formula will be corrected..

4. Verify if RAI Response Section 4.1.6 should refer to Table 4-6 rather than Table 4-5.

Additionally, this section refers to Table 7-17 which is not included in the response. Please update for consistency (e.g. update discussion in this section or provide the table). Similarly, please verify the reference to Table 7-41 in Section 4.1.12. AGREE. Section 4.1.6 should refer to Table 4-6 rather than Table 4-5, and will be corrected AGREE: The reference to table 7-17 will be removed from the response. AGREE: The reference to Table 7-41 will be corrected to Table 4-12.

5. For Section 4.2.3, verify if the reference to Figure 4-15 should be replaced with Table 4-15.

NuScale Nonproprietary

AGREE: The reference to Figure 4-15 will be corrected to reference Table 4-15.

6. Verify whether the reference to Figure 4-22 in Section 4.6.1 should be replaced with reference to Table 4-22.

AGREE: The reference to Figure 4-22 in Section 4.6.1 will be corrected to reference Table 4-22.

7. For new Table 3B-59 (see table name), and Tables 3B-60 and 3B-61 (the heading for the Max s columns), verify AGREE: The headers will be modified to indicate loadings from SDH loads in lieu of static loads.

NuScale Nonproprietary

Revised Response 1.0 Introduction RAI No. 9309 03.08.04-37 considered the effects of jet impingement, jet reactions and pipe whip. It was shown that such effects resulted in low local reaction forces/penetrations. Per ACI 349-01 Section F.7, design for punching shear is not required if the concrete thickness is at least 20% greater than that required to prevent perforation. Pipe Rupture Hazards Analysis (PRHA) Technical Report, TR-0818-61384, shows that for the 60-inch thick concrete pool wall, the maximum depth (20 foot pipe length whip through an angle of 90 degrees) represents approximately 22 percent of the overall wall thickness for pipe whip. This evaluation did not consider the effects of reinforcement in the wall and liner which would only improve the behavior. For jet impingement and reactions, the penetration depth was not calculated but the demand-capacity ratio for punching shear was obtained as 0.02 without any contribution from the liner. To respond to RAI 8971 03.08.04-13 and partly to RAI No. 9309 03.08.04-37, 3D Reactor Building (RXB) half models are developed using the ANSYS program for thermal and pressurization analysis. The half model considers that the RXB structure is approximately symmetric about the East-West (X) axis. In order to explicitly model the as-designed reinforcing steel inside the concrete foundation; roof, slabs, walls, pilasters, and buttresses are explicitly developed and integrated within the concrete volume of the RXB ANSYS structural analysis model. Since the thermal loads cause significant amount of concrete cracking, only cracked concrete properties are used. The ANSYS RXB thermal model provides the nodal temperatures throughout the entire RXB model for the operating and accident temperatures, T0 and Ta. The nodal temperature values at each node are then applied as an input to RXB structural analysis model for the operating and accident temperatures T0 and Ta. The high energy line break (HELB) maximum pressures, Pa, are also applied inside the RXB along with accident temperature, Ta, to produce the combined rebar strains for the design check using ACI 349-06, Eq. 9-9 load combination. Two steady-state thermal analyses are performed on the RXB, one to represent the operating thermal loads (T0) and one to represent the accident thermal loads (Ta). The results of these analyses provide the thermal gradients through the thickness and along the length of the structural members. The temperature loads are added to the operating and other accident NuScale Nonproprietary

loads such as dead weight and pressurization, appropriately, and two structural analyses performed to determine the rebar strains. The rebar strains from thermal loads, T0 and Ta, and the pressure load, Pa, are explicitly obtained from the ANSYS analyses, hence the design check evaluation is performed for ACI 349-06 Load Combinations (LC) 9-6 (now including T0) and 9-9 (now including Taand Pa). These correspond to LC 10 and 13 respectively in Table 3.8.4-1 of the DCA. The two load combinations that involve T0, Ta, and Pa are shown below:

• LC 9-6 ACI 349-06 (LC 10 in Table 3.8.4-1 of the DCA):

COMB-Static (1GZ+H+F+0.8L) + Ess + 0.28GZ + T0= SDH + T0

• LC 9-9 ACI 349-06 (LC 13 in Table 3.8.4-1 of the DCA):

COMB-Static (1GZ+H+F+0.8L) + Ess + 0.28GZ + Ta + Pa= SDH + Ta + Pa For brevity, the demand loads for the ACI 349-06 Load Combinations 9-6 and 9-9 without the thermal effects are named as SDH (Static + Dynamic/Seismic + Hydrodynamic Effect). Since the demand loads for the ACI 349-06 Load Combinations 9-6 and 9-9 without the thermal effects (namely, SDH loads) are already available from the FSAR phase, those results are directly used. The new ANSYS thermal stress analyses provides the detailed calculated strains in the reinforcing steel for the T0 loads (in load combination 9-6) and Ta+Pa loads (in load combination 9-9). These strains are added to the strains computed from SDH loads of the FSAR for each critical section to check the RXB design with consideration of thermal and pressure effects. The rebar finite elements for the following critical locations are selected to explicitly determine the strain levels for the T0 and Ta+Pa loads.

• Walls o Outer Wall - North (Grid Line A) o Outer Wall - East (Grid Line 7) o Outer Wall - West (Grid Line 1) o Pool Wall - North (Grid Line B) o Pool Wall - East (Grid Line 6) o Pool Wall - West (Grid Line 2) o Pool Wall - Middle (Grid Line C) o Pool Gate Support Wall o Roof Support Stiffeners (Grid Lines 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)

NuScale Nonproprietary

o Roof Support Wall Above Crane (Grid Line A.7) o NPM Support Walls (Grid Lines 4, 4.3, 4.7, 5, 5.3, 5.7)

• Slabs o Roof o Major Slabs (TOC EL 50'-0", 75'-0", 100'-0", and 126'-0")
• Pilasters o Pilasters at Grid Line A
• Buttresses o Buttresses at TOC EL 126'-0" and 145'-0"
• Foundation
• Steel Pool Liner The results from SAP2000 model were used for the static load [COMB-Static (1GZ+H+F+0.8L)]

and additional hydrodynamic load (0.28GZ) input to the load combinations. The results from SASSI2010 model were used for the dynamic input to the load combinations. 2.0 RXB Analysis under Thermal and Pressure Loads 2.1 Development of Half Symmetric 3D Thermal and Structural Model The finite element modeling tools available in the ANSYS structural analysis computer program were utilized to generate the finite element mesh of the ANSYS RXB north half model from the Solidworks geometry for the concrete, shown in Figure 2-1 and Figure 2-2. The half model considers that the RXB structure is approximately symmetric about the East-West (X) axis based on the RXB geometry. Reinforcing steel inside concrete elements are explicitly modeled. The ANSYS RXB thermal model, which provides the nodal temperatures throughout the entire RXB, uses higher-order thermal solid elements (SOLID87 and SOLID90) which capture the quadratic variation in temperatures across each of the element edges and provide the nodal temperature values for operating and accident temperatures, T0 and Ta. These nodal temperature values at each node are then applied as input to the RXB structural analysis model for operating and accident temperatures, T0 and Ta. The HELB maximum pressure loading, Pa, is applied in conjunction with accident temperature Ta to produce the combined rebar strains for the design check using ACI 349-06, Eq. 9-9 load combination. The ANSYS RXB thermal model is converted to the ANSYS RXB structural model. The ANSYS RXB structural model has identical geometry, number of solid elements and nodes as the ANSYS RXB thermal model. In the RXB structural model, the thermal solid elements are NuScale Nonproprietary

replaced by the structural elements (SOLID186 and SOLID187), and typical rebars are explicitly added. The steel rebars embedded in the concrete were explicitly modeled using the REINF264 uniaxial tension-compression line/truss elements. These REINF264 elements share the same nodes as the base solid elements. The reinforcing elements are firmly attached to its base solid element. No relative movement between the reinforcing element and the base is allowed. The bilinear isotropic hardening plasticity material model was used for the rebars to capture any local yielding and permanent plastic strains in case the rebar stresses exceed their tensile rebar strength. In addition, there is a 0.25" thick inner steel liner for the wet regions of the pool walls. The cracked concrete properties were used everywhere except for the foundation. All exterior concrete elements that are above grade level were assigned 7,000 psi compressive strength properties. All exterior concrete elements that are below grade and all interior walls and slabs were assigned 5,000 psi compressive strength properties. For operating and accidental thermal load conditions, the convection loads are applied in the thermal model. All exterior surfaces are assigned a convective heat transfer coefficient of 1.1347x10-5 BTU/s-in2 °F. All interior surfaces are assigned a convective heat transfer coefficient of 2.8368x10-5 BTU/s-in2 °F. The convective fluid bulk temperatures are constant over the entire region. The only exceptions are:

• The exterior walls from elevation 100' to 50' where the bulk temperature varies linearly from 21°F to 46°F.
• The wet regions of the pool walls where the bulk accident temperature varies linearly from 212°F at the free surface of the pool to275°F at the pool floor.

The bottom of the foundation has all degrees of freedom fixed in the structural analyses. There are no other constraints defined. For the Ta+ Pa load case, both the maximum temperatures and pressures are applied at the same time without consideration of phasing. In the thermal analysis, there are no temperature constraints in the model. In the RXB thermal analysis model no water mass, equipment, or surrounding soil are included since they have no effect on the thermal analyses. In the ANSYS model, the global coordinate axes are defined as follows: X axis = East-West (Positive X Direction pointing East) NuScale Nonproprietary

Y axis = North-South (Positive Y Direction pointing North) Z-axis = Vertical (Positive Z Direction pointing Upward) Figure 2-1. RXB 3D Solid Model Geometry (Looking North). NuScale Nonproprietary

Figure 2-2. RXB 3D Solid Model Geometry (Looking South). 2.2 RXB Thermal and Structural Analyses Models The ANSYS RXB thermal model provides the nodal temperatures throughout the section thicknesses of RXB walls, buttresses, pilasters, slabs, roof and foundations for the operating and accident temperatures T0 and Ta. These nodal temperature values at each node are then applied as input to RXB structural analysis model for operating and accident temperatures T0 and Ta. The HELB maximum pressures, Pa, are applied with accident temperature, Ta, to produce the combined rebar strains for the design check using ACI 349-06, Eq. 9-9 load combination. 2.3 RXB Thermal Analyses - T0 and Ta The ANSYS RXB thermal analyses provide the nodal temperature values throughout the RXB walls, buttresses, pilasters, slabs, roof and foundations for operating and accident temperatures, T0 and Ta. NuScale Nonproprietary

An ANSYS steady-state thermal analysis is performed using this temperature information. The results of the steady-state thermal analysis provide the thermal distribution profile (thermal gradients through the thickness as well as in-plane thermal variation along the length of the structural members). The temperatures from the thermal distribution are read in as body forces on to the corresponding structural analysis due to operating temperature distribution for T0. An ANSYS steady-state thermal analysis is performed using this temperature information. The results of the steady-state thermal analysis provide the thermal distribution profile (thermal gradients through the thickness as well as in-plane thermal variation along the length of the structural members). The temperatures from the thermal distribution are read in as body forces on to the corresponding structural analysis due to accident temperature distribution for Ta. NuScale standard structures are zero percent exceedance dry bulb values of -40°F and +115°F. The external soil temperature is assumed to be 21°F in the winter and 40°F in the summer. The RXB has a design internal air temperature range of 70°F to 130°F, and a design pool temperature range of 40°F to 140°F. The maximum post-accident temperature in the RXB is assumed to be 212°F. This temperature is used in conjunction with the external temperature for the evaluation. NuScale Nonproprietary

2.4 RXB Accident Pressure Load Condition - Pa The maximum accident pressures developed during the HELB are on the interior roof and walls during an accident scenario. An accident pressure Pa of 3 psi has been evaluated in the roof and pool area to account for the energy release of a high energy line break. 2.5 Results of RXB Structural Analysis For Rebar Strains Since the demand loads for ACI 349-06 Load Combinations 9-6 and 9-9 without thermal effects are already available from the FSAR phase, those results are directly used for the SDH loads. The ANSYS structural analyses provide the detailed strains in the reinforcing steel for the T0 loads (in load combination 9-6) and Ta+Pa loads (in load combination 9-9). These strains are added to the strains computed from SDH loads of the FSAR for each critical section to check the RXB design with consideration of thermal and pressure effects. The following figures (Figure 2-3 through Figure 2-10) provide RXB rebar strains distributions throughout the building for T0, Ta, Pa and combined Ta+Pa loads. NuScale Nonproprietary

Figure 2-3. RXB Rebar Elastic Strain - T0 - All Sections (View 1). NuScale Nonproprietary

Figure 2-4. RXB Rebar Elastic Strain - T0 - All Sections (View 2). NuScale Nonproprietary

Figure 2-5. RXB Rebar Elastic Strain - Pa - All Sections (View 1). NuScale Nonproprietary

Figure 2-6. RXB Rebar Elastic Strain - Pa - All Sections (View 2). NuScale Nonproprietary

Figure 2-7. RXB Rebar Elastic Strain - Ta - All Sections (View 1). NuScale Nonproprietary

Figure 2-8. RXB Rebar Elastic Strain - Ta - All Sections (View 2). NuScale Nonproprietary

Figure 2-9. RXB Rebar Elastic Strain - Ta+Pa - All Sections (View 1). NuScale Nonproprietary

Figure 2-10. RXB Rebar Elastic Strain - Ta+Pa - All Sections (View 2). NuScale Nonproprietary

2.6 Rebar and Pool Liner Strains Summary under Thermal and Pressure Loads A summary of the strains within different locations of RXB is presented in Table 2-1. Table 2-1. ANSYS RXB Reinforcing Steel and Liner Steel Elastic Strain Summary. Type Location Maximum Strain (x10-3) T0 Pa* Ta* Ta+Pa Reinforcing All Sections 0.514 0.181 1.342 1.343 Steel Outer Wall - North 0.373 0.055 0.666 0.672 Outer Wall - East 0.231 0.063 0.426 0.426 Outer Wall - West 0.256 0.062 0.677 0.687 Pool Wall - North 0.393 1.053 Pool Wall - East 0.317 0.85 Pool Wall - West 0.352 1.016 Pool Wall - Middle 0.444 1.057 Pool Gate Support Wall 0.459 1.343 Roof Support Stiffeners 0.333 0.87 Roof Support Wall Above 0.24 0.665 Crane NPM Support Walls 0.294 0.776 Roof 0.115 0.181 0.485 0.488 Major Slabs 0.514 0.961 Pilasters 0.373 0.672 Buttresses 0.373 0.616 T-beams 0.514 0.961 Foundation 0.112 0.367 Liner Steel Steel Pool Liner 0.895 2.181

• Shaded cell resultants are not extracted for individual load case and locations NuScale Nonproprietary

3.0 RXB Design Evaluation 3.1 Evaluation Approach The design criteria for the RXB include load combinations that contain operating temperature, accident temperature, and accidental pressure effects. The third bullet in Section 1.3 of ACI 349.1R-07 states the following: In nuclear power structures, the controlling load combinations are generally those that include Eo and Ess. These load cases provide sufficient reinforcement to control cracking. It would be counterproductive to add reinforcement to mitigate thermal effects because the additional reinforcement would stiffen the structure, thus increasing the stresses due to thermal effects. This is unnecessary because thermal effects typically self-relieve without the need for additional reinforcement. The evaluation of the various structural elements (slabs, walls, pilasters, buttresses, T-beams, and foundation) of the RXB structure for load combinations involving T0, Ta, and Pa are based on the strain criteria described below:

• From the FSAR RXB results, the strains for static, dynamic, and hydrodynamic pressure loads (FSAR RXB) used for load combinations 9-6 and 9-9 are calculated from the resulting stresses in the reinforcing steel. The static load is 1GZ+H+F+0.8L, the dynamic load is Ess, and the hydrodynamic pressure load is 0.28GZ. This strain calculation approach is described in Section 3.2.
• The strains for the reinforcing steel using T0 loads for load combination 9-6 and Ta + Pa loads for load combination 9-9 are obtained from the ANSYS analysis given in Section 2.6.
• The total strain in the reinforcing steel is the addition of the two strains above.

The following steps are used to evaluate the final strain obtained for each load case: Step 1: If the total strain in the reinforcing steel is less than 1.2y, the section is considered acceptable based on the 4th bullet in Section 1.3 of ACI 349.1R-07, which states the following about the reinforcing steel strain with thermal gradient, 1.2y: "Such an exceedance is inconsequential, and will not reduce the capacity of the concrete section for mechanical loads." NuScale Nonproprietary

If the strain in the concrete is less than 0.003 in/in, the section is considered acceptable since this value is the limiting strain set by Section 10.2.3 of ACI-349-06. Step 2: If the total strain in the steel exceeds 1.2y for any element in Step 1, the average strains from adjoining elements are calculated, since the finite element models often show highly localized forces and moments and the average presents a more realistic value. For computation of average strain, an effective length of approximately 4 times the thickness of the structural component (such as wall or slab) is considered. However, for the walls with liner plates such as pool walls, elements that correspond to larger lengths of the walls can be used for average strain determination. It is rationalized that the concrete walls confined within the liner plates provide enhanced integrity of the concrete walls to withstand the applied forces as an integrated entity that will enable consideration of larger wall lengths. If the average strain is less than 1.2y, the section is considered acceptable. Step 3: For sections that did not pass Step 2, the reinforcing steel in the region is further reviewed to determine if there is additional steel from the intersecting members that are underutilized. The extreme concrete compression fiber strain is 0.003 in/in according to Section 10.2.3 of ACI 349-06. The additional concrete strain for thermal effects of a fully constrained component can be estimated to be approximately 0.0006 in/in according to the 5th bullet in Section 1.3 of ACI 349.1R-07, and such a small exceedance in the extreme fiber of the cross-section will not be detrimental to the overall strength of the structure. Furthermore, the calculated maximum compressive strain in the rebar for the entire RXB for the Pa loads is 0.000181 in/in, which is insignificant compared to the extreme concrete fiber strain of 0.003 in/in. Hence, compressive strain for the Pa loads is ignored. HELB at the pool region causes the worst pressurization case, Pa from the global structural evaluation standpoint, and accordingly, this loading is applied in conjunction with thermal loads. Table 2-1 shows the maximum strain levels in the critical locations of the RXB from T0, Pa, and Ta+Pa loads. It should be noted from the strains provided in this table that the contribution of strains from Pa to total strains from Ta+Pa is much smaller. The comparison of strain plots presented in Figure 2-5 through Figure 2-10 indicates that maximum strains due to Pa and Ta+Pa do not occur at the same locations, which further reduces the effect of strain contribution due to Pa loads. The use of global maximum HELB pressure loads adequately envelops other HELB loadings that may occur in the galleries and these would produce lower strain levels than shown in Table 2-1. NuScale Nonproprietary

For acceptance, it is ensured that the strain in the concrete is less than 0.003 for SDH loads and that the strain in the reinforcing steel is less than 1.2y for SDH and thermal loads. A summary of the limiting strains is presented in Table 3-1. The idealized stress-strain curves for concrete and steel are shown in Figure 3-1 and Figure 3-2, respectively. Please note that for steel stresses beyond yield, the corresponding strain (s1) produces an area equivalent to that of a linear stress beyond fy (i.e. the yellow trapezoid and blue triangle have the same area). Typical stress-strain curves for Grade 60 reinforcing steel are shown in Figure 3-3. Table 3-1. Limiting Strains for Thermal Design. Description Parameters Value (in/in) Maximum concrete strain for SDH loads per Section cu 0.003000 10.2.3 of ACI 349-06 Reinforcing steel strain with SDH and thermal loads per 1.2y 0.002483 Section 1.3 of ACI 349.1R-07 NuScale Nonproprietary

Figure 3-1. Idealized Stress-Strain Curve for Concrete Figure 3-2. Idealized Stress-Strain Curve for Steel NuScale Nonproprietary

Figure 3-3. Typical Stress-Strain Curves for Grade 60 Reinforcing Steel ((

                                                }}2(a),(c)

NuScale Nonproprietary

((

                      }}2(a),(c)

NuScale Nonproprietary

((

                         }}2(a),(c)

NuScale Nonproprietary

((

                                                      }}2(a),(c)

Figure 3-4. Whitney Rectangular Stress Block NuScale Nonproprietary

((

              }}2(a),(c)

NuScale Nonproprietary

((

                         }}2(a),(c)

NuScale Nonproprietary

((

                         }}2(a),(c)

NuScale Nonproprietary

((

                         }}2(a),(c)

NuScale Nonproprietary

((

                         }}2(a),(c)

NuScale Nonproprietary

((

                         }}2(a),(c)

NuScale Nonproprietary

((

                         }}2(a),(c)

NuScale Nonproprietary

((

                         }}2(a),(c)

NuScale Nonproprietary

((

                         }}2(a),(c)

NuScale Nonproprietary

((

                         }}2(a),(c)

NuScale Nonproprietary

((

                         }}2(a),(c)

NuScale Nonproprietary

((

                         }}2(a),(c)

NuScale Nonproprietary

((

  }}2(a),(c)

NuScale Nonproprietary

((

  }}2(a),(c)

NuScale Nonproprietary

((

                         }}2(a),(c)

NuScale Nonproprietary

((

                         }}2(a),(c)

NuScale Nonproprietary

((

                         }}2(a),(c)

NuScale Nonproprietary

((

                         }}2(a),(c)

NuScale Nonproprietary

((

                         }}2(a),(c)

NuScale Nonproprietary

((

                         }}2(a),(c)

NuScale Nonproprietary

((

                         }}2(a),(c)

NuScale Nonproprietary

((

                         }}2(a),(c)

NuScale Nonproprietary

((

                         }}2(a),(c)

NuScale Nonproprietary

((

                         }}2(a),(c)

NuScale Nonproprietary

((

                         }} 2(a)(c)

NuScale Nonproprietary

4.0 Design Check Results The following sections perform the design evaluation of the various structural elements in the RXB. 4.1 Walls 4.1.1 Concrete Check for All Walls The maximum concrete strains from SDH for any element of the different walls are extracted. Table 4-1 shows a summary of the strain-based concrete design check for all walls. The total strain in the concrete is less than cu = 0.003 at all locations except for the middle pool wall at Grid Line C. Figure 4-1 and Figure 4-2 present the elements that exceed the allowable strain of cu = 0.003 for the X and Y direction, respectively. NuScale Nonproprietary

Figure 4-1. Single Elements from Pool Wall - Middle (Grid Line C) Exceeding Allowable Concrete Strain in X Direction. NuScale Nonproprietary

Figure 4-2. Single Elements from Pool Wall - Middle (Grid Line C) Exceeding Allowable Concrete Strain in Y Direction. NuScale Nonproprietary

Table 4-1. Strain-Based Concrete Design Check for All Walls After Averaging Affected Elements. Location Max c (x10-3) from SDH c < cu? X Y Concrete Outer Wall - North (Grid Line A) 0.348 1.173 OK Outer Wall - East (Grid Line 7) 0.323 0.786 OK Outer Wall - West (Grid Line 1) 0.290 0.434 OK Pool Wall - North (Grid Line B) 0.764 1.182 OK Pool Wall - East (Grid Line 6) 0.616 0.354 OK Pool Wall - West (Grid Line 2) 0.574 0.322 OK Pool Wall - Middle (Grid Line C) 2.094* 2.025* OK Pool Gate Support Wall 0.786 0.330 OK Roof Support Stiffeners (Grid Lines 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) 0.576 0.170 OK Roof Support Wall Above Crane (Grid Line A.7) 0.399 1.140 OK NPM Support Walls (Grid Lines 4, 4.3, 4.7, 5, 0.607 0.920 OK 5.3, 5.7)

       *Bold cell indicates averaging was employed.

4.1.2 Outer Wall - North (Grid Line A) The north outer wall at Grid Line A is an exterior structural wall that is 5 feet thick. The maximum strains from SDH for any element for the different reinforcement configurations for this wall are combined with thermal strains. Table 4-2 shows the strain-based steel design check for this wall, where SDH strains are combined with T0 strains for load combination 9-6 or Ta+Pa strains for load combination 9-9. The total strain in Y-direction exceeds 1.2y for SDH+Ta+Pa case for certain elements given in Figure 4-3. After averaging the single elements for load combination 9-9 using a strain contour based on the location, the strain check criteria is satisfied and the wall is considered acceptable. NuScale Nonproprietary

Figure 4-3. Single Elements from Outer Wall - North (Grid Line A) with Insufficient Thermal Ta+Pa Strain Capacity for Load Combination 9-9 in Y Direction. Table 4-2. Strain-Based Steel Design Check for Outer Wall - North (Grid Line A) After Averaging Affected Elements. Location Max s (x10-3) Max s (x10-3) Max s (x10-3) s < 1.2y? from SDH from T0 from LC 9-6 (SDH+T0) X Y X, Y X, Y LC 9-6 5'-0" Ext Wall, Above Grade 1.200 1.343 0.373 1.716 OK 5'-0" Ext Wall, Below Grade 0.824 1.458 0.373 1.831 OK 5'-0" Ext Wall, Below Grade 0.964 1.202 0.373 1.575 OK 5'-0" Ext Wall, Below Grade 0.746 1.962 0.373 2.335 OK Location Max s (x10-3) Max s (x10-3) Max s (x10-3) s < 1.2y? from SDH from Ta+Pa from LC 9-9 (SDH+Ta+Pa) X Y X, Y X, Y LC 9-9 5'-0" Ext Wall, Above Grade 1.200 1.343 0.672 2.015 OK 5'-0" Ext Wall, Below Grade 0.824 1.458 0.672 2.130 OK 5'-0" Ext Wall, Below Grade 0.964 1.202 0.672 1.874 OK 5'-0" Ext Wall, Below Grade 0.746 1.937 0.672 2.469* OK

         *Bold cell indicates averaging was employed.

NuScale Nonproprietary

4.1.3 Outer Wall - East (Grid Line 7) The east outer wall at Grid Line 7 is an exterior structural wall that is 5 feet thick. The maximum strains from SDH for any element for the different reinforcement configurations for this wall are combined with thermal strains. Table 4-3 shows the strain-based steel design check for this wall, where SDH strains are combined with T0 strains for load combination 9-6 or Ta+Pa strains for load combination 9-9. Table 4-3. Strain-Based Steel Design Check for Outer Wall - East (Grid Line 7). Location Max s (x10-3) Max s (x10-3) Max s (x10-3) s < 1.2y? from SDH from T0 from LC 9-6 (SDH+T0) X Y X, Y X, Y LC 9-6 5'-0" Ext Wall, Above Grade 0.706 1.044 0.231 1.275 OK 5'-0" Ext Wall, Below Grade 1.352 1.339 0.231 1.583 OK Location Max s (x10-3) Max s (x10-3) Max s (x10-3) s < 1.2y? from SDH from Ta+Pa from LC 9-9 (SDH+Ta+Pa) X Y X, Y X, Y LC 9-9 5'-0" Ext Wall, Above Grade 0.706 1.044 0.426 1.470 OK 5'-0" Ext Wall, Below Grade 1.352 1.339 0.426 1.778 OK As shown in Table 4-3, the total strain in the steel is less than 1.2y (2.483 x10-3) for all sections within this wall, satisfying both load combinations 9-6 and 9-9. Therefore, the wall is considered acceptable. 4.1.4 Outer Wall - West (Grid Line 1) The west outer wall at Grid Line 1 is an exterior structural wall that is 5 feet thick. The maximum strains from SDH for any element for the different reinforcement configurations for this wall are combined with thermal strains. Table 4-4 shows the strain-based steel design check for this wall, where SDH strains are combined with T0 strains for load combination 9-6 or Ta+Pa strains for load combination 9-9. Total strain in the steel is less than 1.2y(2.483 x10-3) for all sections within this wall, satisfying both load combinations 9-6 and 9-9. Therefore, the wall is considered acceptable. NuScale Nonproprietary

Table 4-4. Strain-Based Steel Design Check for Outer Wall - West (Grid Line 1). Location Max s (x10-3) Max s (x10-3) Max s (x10-3) s < 1.2y? from SDH from T0 from LC 9-6 (SDH+T0) X Y X, Y X, Y LC 9-6 5'-0" Ext Wall, Above Grade 0.731 0.984 0.256 1.240 OK 5'-0" Ext Wall, Above Grade 1.076 1.516 0.256 1.772 OK 5'-0" Ext Wall, Below Grade 0.687 1.166 0.256 1.422 OK 5'-0" Ext Wall, Below Grade 1.441 1.222 0.256 1.697 OK Location Max s (x10-3) Max s (x10-3) Max s (x10-3) s < 1.2y? from SDH from Ta+Pa from LC 9-9 (SDH+Ta+Pa) X Y X, Y X, Y LC 9-9 5'-0" Ext Wall, Above Grade 0.731 0.984 0.687 1.671 OK 5'-0" Ext Wall, Above Grade 1.076 1.516 0.687 2.203 OK 5'-0" Ext Wall, Below Grade 0.687 1.166 0.687 1.853 OK 5'-0" Ext Wall, Below Grade 1.441 1.222 0.687 2.128 OK NuScale Nonproprietary

4.1.5 Pool Wall - North (Grid Line B) The north pool wall is an interior wall of the RXB that is 5 feet thick. The maximum strains from SDH for any element for the different reinforcement configurations for this wall are combined with thermal strains. Table 4-5 shows the strain-based steel design check for this wall, where SDH strains are combined with T0 strains for load combination 9-6 or Ta+Pa strains for load combination 9-9. As shown in Table 4-5, the total strain in the steel is less than 1.2y (2.483 x10-3) at all locations for load combination 9-6. However, there is exceedance for load combination 9-9. For groups of elements where adding the maximum strain from Ta+Pa would make the average fail, a more accurate Ta+Pa strain was obtained based on its location using the strain contour. Please note that the maximum SDH strain and maximum thermal strain do not necessarily occur at the same location, therefore, the maximum combined strain is not the sum of both maximum strains. Since the strain from Ta+Pa is 1.053x10-3, the remaining allowed strain from SDH is 1.430x10-3. The elements that exceed this allowed strain are presented in Figure 4-4 and Figure 4-5 for the X and Y directions, respectively. Figure 4-4. Single Elements from Pool Wall - North (Grid Line B) with Insufficient Thermal Ta+Pa Strain Capacity for Load Combination 9-9 in X Direction. NuScale Nonproprietary

Figure 4-5. Single Elements from Pool Wall - North (Grid Line B) with Insufficient Thermal Ta+Pa Strain Capacity for Load Combination 9-9 in Y Direction. NuScale Nonproprietary

Table 4-5. Strain-Based Steel Design Check for Pool Wall - North (Grid Line B) After Averaging Affected Elements. Location Max s (x10-3) Max s (x10-3) Max s (x10-3) s < 1.2y? from SDH from T0 from LC 9-6 (SDH+T0) X Y X, Y X, Y LC 9-6 5'-0" Pool Wall 1.574 1.782 0.393 2.175 OK Location Max s (x10-3) Max s (x10-3) Max s (x10-3) s < 1.2y? from SDH from Ta+Pa from LC 9-9 (SDH+Ta+Pa) X Y X, Y X, Y LC 9-9 5'-0" Pool Wall 1.368 1.627 1.053 2.481* OK

          *Bold cell indicates averaging was employed.

4.1.6 Pool Wall - East (Grid Line 6) The east pool wall at Grid Line 6 consists of several wall thicknesses. The maximum strains from SDH for any element for the different reinforcement configurations for this wall are combined with thermal strains. Table 4-6 shows the strain-based steel design check for this wall, where SDH strains are combined with T0 strains for load combination 9-6 or Ta+Pa strains for load combination 9-9. The total strain in the steel exceeds 1.2yfor one type of reinforcement for load combinations 9-6 and 9-9. Since the strain from T0is 0.317x10-3, the remaining allowed strain from SDH is 2.166x10-3. The elements that exceed this allowed strain are presented in Figure 4-6 and Figure 4-7 for the X direction for load combinations 9-6 and 9-9 respectively. NuScale Nonproprietary

Figure 4-6. Single Elements from Pool Wall - East (Grid Line 6) with Insufficient Thermal T0 Strain Capacity for Load Combination 9-6 in X Direction. NuScale Nonproprietary

Figure 4-7. Single Elements from Pool Wall - East (Grid Line 6) with Insufficient Thermal Ta+Pa Strain Capacity for Load Combination 9-9 in X Direction. NuScale Nonproprietary

Table 4-6. Strain-Based Steel Design Check for Pool Wall - East (Grid Line 6) After Averaging Affected Elements. Location Max s (x10-3) Max s (x10-3) Max s (x10-3) s < 1.2y? from SDH from T0 from LC 9-6 (SDH+T0) X Y X, Y X, Y LC 9-6 5'-0" Pool Wall 0.837 0.967 0.317 1.284 OK 5'-0" Pool Wall 1.838 0.698 0.317 2.155* OK 7'-6" Pool Wall 0.875 0.941 0.317 1.258 OK Location Max s (x10-3) Max s (x10-3) Max s (x10-3) s < 1.2y? from SDH from Ta+Pa from LC 9-9 (SDH+Ta+Pa) X Y X, Y X, Y LC 9-9 5'-0" Pool Wall 0.837 0.967 0.850 1.817 OK 5'-0" Pool Wall 1.511 0.698 0.850 2.361* OK 7'-6" Pool Wall 0.875 0.941 0.850 1.791 OK

         *Bold cell indicates averaging was employed.

4.1.7 Pool Wall - West (Grid Line 2) The west pool wall at Grid Line 2 consists of a 5 ft thick wall. The maximum strains from SDH for any element for the different reinforcement configurations for this wall are combined with thermal strains. Table 4-7 shows the strain-based steel design check for this wall, where SDH strains are combined with T0 strains for load combination 9-6 or Ta+Pa strains for load combination 9-9. Total strain in the steel is less than 1.2y(2.483 x10-3) for all sections within this wall, satisfying both load combinations 9-6 and 9-9. Therefore, the wall is considered acceptable. NuScale Nonproprietary

Table 4-7. Strain-Based Steel Design Check for Pool Wall - West (Grid Line 2). Location Max s (x10-3) Max s (x10-3) Max s (x10-3) from s < 1.2y? from SDH from T0 LC 9-6 (SDH+T0) X Y X, Y X, Y LC 9-6 5'-0" Pool Wall 1.451 0.945 0.352 1.803 OK Location Max s (x10-3) Max s (x10-3) Max s (x10-3) from s < 1.2y? from SDH from Ta+Pa LC 9-9 (SDH+Ta+Pa) X Y X, Y X, Y LC 9-9 5'-0" Pool Wall 1.451 0.945 1.016 2.467 OK 4.1.8 Pool Wall - Middle (Grid Line C) The middle pool wall at Grid Line C consists of an interior wall that has two different thicknesses. The maximum strains from SDH for any element for the different reinforcement configurations for this wall are combined with thermal strains. Table 4-8 shows the strain-based steel design check for this wall, where SDH strains are combined with T0 strains for load combination 9-6 or Ta+Pa strains for load combination 9-9. The total strain in the steel exceeds 1.2y for both wall thicknesses for both load combination 9-6 and 9-9. Figure 4-8 through Figure 4-11 show the elements that exceed the allowable strain for combinations 9-6 and 9-9 in X and Y directions. The total strain in the steel is less than 1.2y (2.483x10-3) after averaging the single elements without sufficient thermal capacity for load combination 9-6, therefore the condition is satisfied and the wall is considered acceptable. For groups of elements where adding the maximum strain from Ta+Pa would make the average fail, a more accurate Ta+Pa strain was obtained based on its location using the strain contour. NuScale Nonproprietary

Figure 4-8. Single Elements from Pool Wall - Middle (Grid Line C) with Insufficient Thermal T0 Strain Capacity for Load Combination 9-6 in X Direction. NuScale Nonproprietary

Figure 4-9. Single Elements from Pool Wall - Middle (Grid Line C) with Insufficient Thermal T0 Strain Capacity for Load Combination 9-6 in Y Direction. NuScale Nonproprietary

Figure 4-10. Single Elements from Pool Wall - Middle (Grid Line C) with Insufficient Thermal Ta+Pa Strain Capacity for Load Combination 9-9 in X Direction. NuScale Nonproprietary

Figure 4-11. Single Elements from Pool Wall - Middle (Grid Line C) with Insufficient Thermal Ta+Pa Strain Capacity for Load Combination 9-9 in Y Direction. NuScale Nonproprietary

Table 4-8. Strain-Based Steel Design Check for Pool Wall - Middle (Grid Line C) After Averaging Affected Elements. Location Max s (x10-3) Max s (x10-3) Max s (x10-3) s < 1.2y? from SDH from T0 from LC 9-6 (SDH+T0) X Y X, Y X, Y LC 9-6 5'-0" Wall 1.370 2.014 0.444 2.458* OK 6'-0" Dry Dock Wall 2.137 2.020 0.444 2.461* OK Location Max s (x10-3) Max s (x10-3) Max s (x10-3) s < 1.2y? from SDH from Ta+Pa from LC 9-9 (SDH+Ta+Pa) X Y X, Y X, Y LC 9-9 5'-0" Wall 1.370 1.718 1.057 2.479* OK 6'-0" Dry Dock Wall 1.627 1.546 1.057 2.469* OK

       *Bold cell indicates averaging was employed.

NuScale Nonproprietary

4.1.9 Pool Gate Support Wall The pool gate support wall consists of a 6 ft thick wall under the pool gate. The maximum strains from SDH for any element for the different reinforcement configurations for this wall are combined with thermal strains. Table 4-9 shows the strain-based steel design check for this wall, where SDH strains are combined with T0 strains for load combination 9-6 or Ta+Pa strains for load combination 9-9. The total strain in the steel exceeds 1.2y for the 6'-0" wall for both load combination 9-6 and 9-9. The total strain in the steel exceeds 1.2y for both wall thicknesses for both load combination 9-6 and 9-9. Figure 4-12 through Figure 4-15 show the elements that exceed the allowable strain for combinations 9-6 and 9-9 in X and Y directions. The total strain in the steel is less than 1.2y(2.483 x10-3) after averaging the single elements without sufficient thermal capacity for load combination 9-6, therefore the condition is satisfied and the wall is considered acceptable. For groups of elements where adding the maximum strain from Ta+Pa would make the average fail, a more accurate Ta+Pa strain was obtained based on its location using the strain contour. NuScale Nonproprietary

Figure 4-12. Single Elements from Pool Gate Support Wall with Insufficient Thermal T0 Strain Capacity for Load Combination 9-6 in X Direction. NuScale Nonproprietary

Figure 4-13. Single Elements from Pool Gate Support Wall with Insufficient Thermal T0 Strain Capacity for Load Combination 9-6 in Y Direction. NuScale Nonproprietary

Figure 4-14. Single Elements from Pool Gate Support Wall with Insufficient Thermal Ta+Pa Strain Capacity for Load Combination 9-9 in X Direction. NuScale Nonproprietary

Figure 4-15. Single Elements from Pool Gate Support Wall with Insufficient Thermal Ta+Pa Strain Capacity for Load Combination 9-9 in Y Direction. NuScale Nonproprietary

Table 4-9. Strain-Based Steel Design Check for Pool Gate Support Wall After Averaging Affected Elements. Location Max s (x10-3) Max s (x10-3) Max s (x10-3) s < 1.2y? from SDH from T0 from LC 9-6 (SDH+T0) X Y X, Y X, Y LC 9-6 6'-0" Dry Dock Wall 2.023 1.351 0.459 2.482* OK Location Max s (x10-3) Max s (x10-3) Max s (x10-3) s < 1.2y? from SDH from Ta+Pa from LC 9-9 (SDH+Ta+Pa) X Y X, Y X, Y LC 9-9 6'-0" Dry Dock Wall 1.229 0.976 1.343 2.402* OK

           *Bold cell indicates averaging was employed.

4.1.10 Roof Support Stiffeners The roof support stiffeners are 4 foot thick segments at Grid Lines 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 under the roof. The maximum strains from SDH for any element for the different reinforcement configurations for this wall are combined with thermal strains. Table 4-10 shows the strain-based steel design check for this wall, where SDH strains are combined with T0 strains for load combination 9-6 or Ta+Pa strains for load combination 9-9. The total strain in the steel is less than 1.2y (2.483 x10-3)for only one type of reinforcement for load combination 9-6. The total strain in the steel exceeds 1.2y (2.483 x10-3)for all other reinforcement types. Figure 4-16 and Figure 4-17 show the roof support stiffeners with insufficient thermal capacity in X direction for load combinations 9-6 and 9-9 respectively. The total strain in the steel is less than 1.2y (2.483 x10-3) after averaging the single elements without sufficient thermal capacity for both load combinations 9-6 and 9-9, therefore the condition is satisfied and the wall is considered acceptable. NuScale Nonproprietary

Table 4-10. Strain-Based Steel Design Check for Roof Support Stiffeners After Averaging Affected Elements. Location Max s (x10-3) Max s (x10-3) Max s (x10-3) s < 1.2y? from SDH from T0 from LC 9-6 (SDH+T0) X Y X, Y X, Y LC 9-6 4'-0" Interior Wall 2.092 1.139 0.333 2.425 OK 4'-0" Interior Wall 1.864 1.080 0.333 2.197* OK Location Max s (x10-3) Max s (x10-3) Max s (x10-3) s < 1.2y? from SDH from Ta+Pa from LC 9-9 (SDH+Ta+Pa) X Y X, Y X, Y LC 9-9 4'-0" Interior Wall 1.308 1.139 0.870 2.178* OK 4'-0" Interior Wall 1.269 1.080 0.870 2.139* OK

        *Bold cell indicates averaging was employed.

Figure 4-16. Single Elements from Roof Support Stiffeners with Insufficient Thermal T0 Strain Capacity for Load Combination 9-6 in X Direction. NuScale Nonproprietary

Figure 4-17. Single Elements from Roof Support Stiffeners with Insufficient Thermal Ta+Pa Strain Capacity for Load Combination 9-9 in X Direction. 4.1.11 Roof Support Wall Above Crane (Grid Line A.7) The roof support wall above the crane is a 4 foot thick wall at Grid Line A.7 under the roof. . The maximum strains from SDH for any element for the different reinforcement configurations for this wall are combined with thermal strains. Table 4-11 shows the strain-based steel design check for this wall, where SDH strains are combined with T0 strains for load combination 9-6 or Ta+Pa strains for load combination 9-9. NuScale Nonproprietary

Table 4-11. Strain-Based Steel Design Check for Roof Support Wall Above Crane (Grid Line A.7). Location Max s (x10-3) Max s (x10-3) Max s (x10-3) s < 1.2y? from SDH from T0 from LC 9-6 (SDH+T0) X Y X, Y X, Y LC 9-6 4'-0" Interior Wall 0.955 1.770 0.240 2.010 OK Location Max s (x10-3) Max s (x10-3) Max s (x10-3) s < 1.2y? from SDH from Ta+Pa from LC 9-9 (SDH+Ta+Pa) X Y X, Y X, Y LC 9-9 4'-0" Interior Wall 0.955 1.770 0.665 2.435 OK 4.1.12 NPM Support Walls The NPM support walls are 5 feet thick interior walls inside the pool area. The maximum strains from SDH for any element for the different reinforcement configurations for this wall are combined with thermal strains. Table 4-12 shows the strain-based steel design check for this wall, where SDH strains are combined with T0 strains for load combination 9-6 or Ta+Pa strains for load combination 9-9. As shown in Table 4-12, the total strain in the steel is less than 1.2y (2.483 x10-3) at all locations for load combination 9-6. However, the total strain in the steel exceeds 1.2y (2.483 x10-3) for one type of reinforcement for load combination 9-9. An averaging for these exceeding elements shown in Figure 4-18 is performed. Table 4-12. Strain-Based Steel Design Check for NPM Support Walls After Averaging Affected Elements. Location Max s (x10-3) Max s (x10-3) Max s (x10-3) s < 1.2y? from SDH from T0 from LC 9-6 (SDH+T0) X Y X, Y X, Y LC 9-6 5'-0" Interior Wall 1.909 1.451 0.294 2.203 OK Location Max s (x10-3) Max s (x10-3) Max s (x10-3) s < 1.2y? from SDH from Ta+Pa from LC 9-9 (SDH+Ta+Pa) X Y X, Y X, Y LC 9-9 5'-0" Interior Wall 1.487 1.451 0.776 2.263* OK

         *Bold cell indicates averaging was employed.

NuScale Nonproprietary

Figure 4-18. Single Elements from NPM Support Walls with Insufficient Thermal Ta+Pa Strain Capacity for Load Combination 9-9 in X Direction. NuScale Nonproprietary

4.2 Slabs 4.2.1 Concrete Check for All Slabs The maximum concrete strains from SDH for any element of the different slabs were extracted. Table 4-13 shows the strain-based concrete design check for all slabs. The total strain in the concrete is less than cu = 0.003 at all locations. Table 4-13. Strain-Based Concrete Design Check for All Slabs. Location Max c (x10-3) from c < cu? SDH X Y Concrete Roof 0.564 1.062 OK Major Slabs (TOC EL 50', 75', 100', 126') 0.572 1.069 OK 4.2.2 Roof The roof is a 4 foot thick slab that begins at EL 163'-0", slopes inward, and is flat at TOC EL 181'-0". The maximum strains from SDH for any element for the different reinforcement configurations for this slab are combined with thermal strains. Table 4-14 shows the strain-based steel design check for this wall, where SDH strains are combined with T0 strains for load combination 9-6 or Ta+Pa strains for load combination 9-9. The total strain in the steel is less than 1.2y (2.483 x10-3

 ) for all sections within the roof, satisfying both load combinations 9-6 and 9-9. Therefore, the roof is considered acceptable.

NuScale Nonproprietary

Table 4-14. Strain-Based Steel Design Check for Roof. Location Max s (x10-3) Max s (x10-3) Max s (x10-3) s < 1.2y? from SDH from T0 from LC 9-6 (SDH+T0) X Y X, Y X, Y LC 9-6 4'-0" Roof 1.507 1.834 0.115 1.949 OK Location Max s (x10-3) Max s (x10-3) Max s (x10-3) s < 1.2y? from SDH from Ta+Pa from LC 9-9 (SDH+Ta+Pa) X Y X, Y X, Y LC 9-9 4'-0" Roof 1.507 1.834 0.488 2.322 OK 4.2.3 Major Floor Slabs The major floor slabs for the RXB are found at EL 50'-0", 75'-0", 100'-0", and 126'-0". They are all 3 foot thick sections. The maximum strains from SDH for any element for the different reinforcement configurations for these slabs are combined with thermal strains. Table 4-15 shows the strain-based steel design check for this wall, where SDH strains are combined with T0 strains for load combination 9-6 or Ta+Pa strains for load combination 9-9. For groups of elements where adding the maximum strain from T0 would make the average fail, a more accurate T0 strain was obtained based on its location using the strain contour. For groups of elements where adding the maximum strain from Ta+Pa would make the average fail, a more accurate Ta+Pa strain was obtained based on its location using the strain contour. Figure 4-19 and Figure 4-20 show the elements with insufficient capacity in Y-direction for load combinations 9-6 and 9-9 respectively. NuScale Nonproprietary

Figure 4-19. Single Elements from Major Floor Slabs with Insufficient Thermal T0 Strain Capacity for Load Combination 9-6 in Y Direction. NuScale Nonproprietary

Figure 4-20. Single Elements from Major Floor Slabs with Insufficient Thermal Ta+Pa Strain Capacity for Load Combination 9-9 in Y Direction. NuScale Nonproprietary

Table 4-15. Strain-Based Steel Design Check for Major Floor Slabs After Averaging Affected Elements. Location Max s (x10-3) Max s (x10-3) Max s (x10-3) s < 1.2y? from SDH from T0 from LC 9-6 (SDH+T0) X Y X, Y X, Y LC 9-6 3'-0" Floor Slab at EL 50'-0" 1.228 1.935 0.514 2.449 OK 3'-0" Floor Slab at EL 75'-0" 0.917 1.085 0.514 1.599 OK 3'-0" Floor Slab at EL 100'-0" 1.170 1.897 0.514 2.411 OK 3'-0" Floor Slab at EL 126'-0" 1.406 2.228 0.514 2.443* OK Location Max s (x10-3) Max s (x10-3) Max s (x10-3) s < 1.2y? from SDH from Ta+Pa from LC 9-9 (SDH+Ta+Pa) X Y X, Y X, Y LC 9-9 3'-0" Floor Slab at EL 50'-0" 1.228 1.776 0.961 2.459* OK 3'-0" Floor Slab at EL 75'-0" 0.917 1.085 0.961 2.046 OK 3'-0" Floor Slab at EL 100'-0" 1.170 1.767 0.961 2.469* OK 3'-0" Floor Slab at EL 126'-0" 1.406 2.164 0.961 2.469* OK

        *Bold cell indicates averaging was employed.

4.3 Pilasters 4.3.1 Concrete Check for Pilasters at Grid Line A The maximum concrete strains from SDH for any element of the pilasters at Grid Line A are then extracted. Table 4-16 shows the strain-based concrete design check for the pilasters at Grid Line A. The total strain in the concrete is less than cu = 0.003 at all locations. Table 4-16. Strain-Based Concrete Design Check for Pilasters at Grid Line A. Location Max c (x10-3) from SDH c < cu? X, Y Concrete Pilasters at Grid Line A 1.007 OK 4.3.2 Pilasters at Grid Line A The pilasters on the wall at Grid Line A consist of five types of reinforcement. The maximum strains from SDH for any element considering all reinforcement configurations for these pilasters are combined with thermal strains. Table 4-17 shows the strain-based steel design check for this wall, where SDH strains are combined with T0 strains for load combination 9-6 or Ta+Pa strains for load combination 9-9. NuScale Nonproprietary

Figure 4-21 and Figure 4-22 show the elements that showed exceedances. An averaging for these exceeding elements is performed. NuScale Nonproprietary

Figure 4-21. Single Elements from Pilasters at Grid Line A with Insufficient Thermal T0 Strain Capacity for Load Combination 9-6. Figure 4-22. Single Elements from Pilasters at Grid Line A with Insufficient Thermal Ta

                   +Pa Strain Capacity for Load Combination 9-9.

NuScale Nonproprietary

Table 4-17. Strain-Based Steel Design Check for Pilasters at Grid Line A After Averaging Affected Elements. Location Max s (x10-3) Max s (x10-3) Max s (x10-3) s < 1.2y? from SDH from T0 from LC 9-6 (SDH+T0) X, Y X, Y X, Y LC 9-6 Pilasters at Grid Line A 2.131 0.373 2.482* OK Location Max s (x10-3) Max s (x10-3) Max s (x10-3) s < 1.2y? from SDH from Ta+Pa from LC 9-9 (SDH+Ta+Pa) X, Y X, Y X, Y LC 9-9 Pilasters at Grid Line A 2.078 0.672 2.468* OK

           *Bold cell indicates averaging was employed.

4.4 Buttresses 4.4.1 Concrete Check for Buttresses The maximum concrete strains from SDH for any element of the buttresses were extracted. Table 4-18 shows the strain-based concrete design check for the buttresses. The total strain in the concrete is less than cu = 0.003 at all locations. Table 4-18. Strain-Based Concrete Design Check for Buttresses. Location Max c (x10-3) c < cu? from SDH X, Y Concrete Buttress at TOC EL 126'-0" and 145'-0" 0.918 OK 4.4.2 Buttress at TOC EL 126'-0" and 145'-0" The buttresses at TOC EL 126'-0' and 145'-0" consist of a single reinforcement type. The maximum strains from SDH for any element for the different reinforcement configurations for these buttresses are combined with thermal strains. Table 4-19 shows the strain-based steel design check for this wall, where SDH strains are combined with T0 strains for load combination 9-6 or Ta+Pa strains for load combination 9-9. The total strain in the steel is less than 1.2y (2.483 x10-3) at all locations for load combination 9-6. However, the total strain in the steel exceeds 1.2y(2.483 x10-3) for load combination 9-9. Figure 4-23 show the elements with exceedances. An averaging for these exceeding elements is performed. NuScale Nonproprietary

Figure 4-23. Single Elements from Buttress at TOC EL 126'-0" and 145'-0" with Insufficient Thermal Ta+Pa Strain Capacity for Load Combination 9-9. NuScale Nonproprietary

Table 4-19. Strain-Based Steel Design Check for Buttress at TOC EL 126'-0" and 145'-0" After Averaging Affected Elements. Location Max s (x10-3) Max s (x10-3) Max s (x10-3) s < 1.2y? from SDH from T0 from LC 9-6 (SDH+T0) X, Y X, Y X, Y LC 9-6 10'x5' Buttress at EL 126'-0" 1.937 0.373 2.310 OK 10'x5' Buttress at EL 145'-0" 1.881 0.373 2.254 OK Location Max s (x10-3) Max s (x10-3) Max s (x10-3) s < 1.2y? from SDH from Ta+Pa from LC 9-9 (SDH+Ta+Pa) X, Y X, Y X, Y LC 9-9 10'x5' Buttress at EL 126'-0" 1.862 0.616 2.478* OK 10'x5' Buttress at EL 145'-0" 1.857 0.616 2.473* OK

        *Bold cell indicates averaging was employed.

4.5 T-Beams 4.5.1 Concrete Check for T-Beams The maximum concrete strains from SDH for any element of the T-beams are then extracted. Table 4-20 shows the strain-based concrete design check for the T-beams. The total strain in the concrete is less than cu = 0.003 at all locations. Table 4-20. Strain-Based Concrete Design Check for T-Beams. Location Max c (x10-3) c < cu? from SDH X, Y Concrete T-Beams at TOC EL 50'-0", 75'-0", and 100'-0" 0.872 OK 4.5.2 T-Beams at TOC EL 50'-0", 75'-0", and 100'-0" The T-beams are embedded within the slabs at EL 50'-0", 75'-0", and 100'-0". The maximum strains from SDH for any element for the different reinforcement configurations for these T-beams are combined with thermal strains. Table 4-21 shows the strain-based steel design check for this wall, where SDH strains are combined with T0 strains for load combination 9-6 or Ta+Pa strains for load combination 9-9. NuScale Nonproprietary

The total strain in the steel is less than 1.2y (2.483 x10-3) at all locations for load combination 9-

6. However, the total strain in the steel exceeds 1.2y (2.483 x10-3) for two elevations for load combination 9-9 as shown in Figure 4-24.

An averaging for these exceeding elements is performed. After averaging the single elements without sufficient thermal capacity for load combination 9-9, therefore, the condition is satisfied and the wall is considered acceptable. Figure 4-24. Single Elements from T-Beams at TOC EL 50'-0", 75'-0", and 100'-0" with Insufficient Thermal Ta+Pa Strain Capacity for Load Combination 9-9. NuScale Nonproprietary

Table 4-21. Strain-Based Steel Design Check for T-Beams at TOC EL 50'-0", 75'-0", and 100'-0" After Averaging Affected Elements. Location Max s (x10-3) Max s (x10-3) Max s (x10-3) s < 1.2y? from SDH from T0 from LC 9-6 (SDH+T0) X, Y X, Y X, Y LC 9-6 T-Beams at EL 50'-0" 1.913 0.514 2.427 OK T-Beams at EL 75'-0" 1.430 0.514 1.944 OK T-Beams at EL 100'-0" 1.699 0.514 2.213 OK Location Max s (x10-3) Max s (x10-3) Max s (x10-3) s < 1.2y? from SDH from Ta+Pa from LC 9-9 (SDH+Ta+Pa) X, Y X, Y X, Y LC 9-9 T-Beams at EL 50'-0" 1.405 0.961 2.366* OK T-Beams at EL 75'-0" 1.430 0.961 2.391 OK T-Beams at EL 100'-0" 1.330 0.961 2.291* OK

          *Bold cell indicates averaging was employed.

4.6 Foundation 4.6.1 Concrete Check for Foundation Table 4-22 shows the strain-based concrete design check for the foundation. The total strain in the concrete is less than cu = 0.003 at all locations. Table 4-22. Strain-Based Concrete Design Check for Foundation. Location Max c (x10-3) from c < cu? SDH X Y Concrete RXB Basemat (Perimeter Region) 0.919 0.852 OK RXB Basemat (Interior Region) 0.806 0.687 OK 4.6.2 Reinforcing Steel Check for Foundation The reinforced concrete section for the basemat is comprised of a 120 in. overall thickness concrete slab. The strains for static, dynamic, and hydrodynamic pressure (SDH) for the maximum demand forces and moments for the RXB foundation basemat were calculated in Section 3.3.4 and combined with thermal strains. Table 4-23 shows the strain-based steel design check for the foundation, where SDH strains are combined with T0 strains for load combination 9-6 or Ta+Pa strains for load combination 9-9. NuScale Nonproprietary

Table 4-23. Strain-Based Steel Design Check for Foundation. Location Max s (x10-3) Max s (x10-3) Max s (x10-3) s < 1.2y? from SDH from T0 from LC 9-6 (SDH+T0) X Y X, Y X, Y LC 9-6 RXB Basemat (Perimeter Region) 2.157 2.230 0.112 2.342 OK RXB Basemat (Interior Region) 1.628 1.523 0.112 1.740 OK Location Max s (x10-3) Max s (x10-3) Max s (x10-3) s < 1.2y? from SDH from Ta+Pa from LC 9-9 (SDH+Ta+Pa) X Y X, Y X, Y LC 9-9 RXB Basemat (Perimeter Region) 2.157 2.230 0.367 2.597 OK RXB Basemat (Interior Region) 1.628 1.523 0.367 1.995 OK The total strain in the steel is less than 1.2y (2.483 x10-3) at all locations except at the perimeter region for load combination 9-9 where it is exceeded by 5%. However, the SDH strains calculated are conservative because they are based on the maximum axial, shear, and moment components over all of the elements. These do not occur at the same location or time. If the strains were based on the forces and moments occurring simultaneously at the same location, and if averaging were used, the strains would be lower. Also, the thermal strain of 0.000367 for Ta+Pa is the maximum over the entire basemat and occurs in the pool area. The thermal strains in the foundation perimeter region are lower. Therefore, the strains are extremely conservative, and the foundation design is considered acceptable. 4.6.3 Steel Pool Liner 4.6.3.1 Steel Check for Pool Liner The pool walls and NPM support walls are lined with a 1/4" thick stainless steel plate to protect the concrete and reinforcing steel from the boron-containing water and to protect the water chemistry from contaminants. Table 4-24 shows the strain-based steel design check for the steel pool liner, where SDH strains are combined with T0 strains for load combination 9-6 or Ta+Pa strains for load combination 9-9. NuScale Nonproprietary

Table 4-24. Strain-Based Steel Design Check for Steel Pool Liner. Location Max s (x10-3) Max s (x10-3) Max s (x10-3) s < 0.004? from SDH from T0 from LC 9-6 (SDH+T0) X Y X, Y X, Y LC 9-6 Steel Pool Liner 0.363 0.066 0.895 1.258 OK Location Max s (x10-3) Max s (x10-3) Max s (x10-3) s < 0.004? from SDH from Ta+Pa from LC 9-9 (SDH+Ta+Pa) X Y X, Y X, Y LC 9-9 Steel Pool Liner 0.363 0.066 2.181 2.544 OK Per Table CC-3720-1 of ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, the allowable strain limit for the liner plate is 0.004 in/in for service load conditions. The total strain in the steel is less than 0.004 in/in at all locations for load combinations 9-6 and 9-9. Therefore, the steel pool liner is considered acceptable. 5.0 References 5.1 American Concrete Institute, "Reinforced Concrete Design for Thermal Effects on Nuclear Power Plant Structures," ACI 349.1R-07, Farmington Hills, MI. 5.2 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, Division 2, 2017. Impact on DCA: FSAR Tier 2, Sections 3B.1.3 and FSAR Tier 2, Tables 3B-59 through 3B-61 have been revised as described in the response above and as shown in the markup provided with this response. NuScale Nonproprietary

NuScale Final Safety Analysis Report Design of Category I Structures RAI 02.03.01-6 As shown in Table 2.0-1, the external temperature design parameters for the NuScale standard structures are zero percent exceedance dry bulb values of -40° degrees F and +115° degrees F. The external soil temperature is assumed to be 21° degrees F in the winter and 40° degrees F in the summer. RAI 03.08.04-13 The RXB has a design internal air temperature range of 70° degrees F to 130° degrees F, and a design pool temperature range of 40° degrees F to 1420° degrees F. These temperatures are used to determine the stresses and displacements. The CRB has a maximum temperature differential of 110° degrees F, based on an external temperature of -40° degrees F and an internal temperature of 70° degrees F. This gradient has been determined not to affect the design stresses in the building. T0 is not a load for the CRB. 3.8.4.3.9 Accident Thermal Loads (Ta) The maximum post accident temperature in the RXB is assumed to be 212° degrees F. This temperature is used in conjunction with the external temperature to determine the stresses and displacements. The CRB does not have any high energy or high temperature piping. Ta is not a load for the CRB. 3.8.4.3.10 Rain Load (R) RAI 02.03.01-3 The flat portion of the roof of the RXB does not have a parapet or any means to retain water. The CRB roof is sloped and the parapet has scuppers to disperse rainwater. An additional drainage pipe limits the average water depth on the CRB roof to a maximum of 4 inches. Therefore a rain load is assumed bounded by the snow load and extreme snow load. 3.8.4.3.11 Snow Loads (S) RAI 02.03.01-2, RAI 02.03.01-3 As shown in Table 2.0-1, a roof snow load of 50 psf is assumed for normal load combinations. Equation 3.8-1 (taken from Equation 7-1 of Reference 3.8.4-8) is used to convert from ground-level snow loads to roof snow loads. An exposure factor of 1.0 is used. A thermal factor of 1.0 is used. An importance factor of 1.2 is used for buildings listed as Seismic Category I in Table 3.2-1 and an importance factor of 1.0 is used for the other buildings. p f = 0.7C e C t Ip g Equation 3.8-1 Tier 2 3.8-63 Draft Revision 3

NuScale Final Safety Analysis Report Design of Category I Structures 3.8.4.3.16 SSE Seismic Loads (Ess) RAI 02.03.01-2 The SSE for the site independent evaluation of the RXB and CRB is the CSDRS and the CSDRS-HF from Table 2.0-1. SSE Seismic Loads (Ess) are derived from evaluation of the structures using ground motion accelerations from the CSDRS and the CSDRS-HF as described in Section 3.7. Seismic dynamic analyses of the buildings considered 100 percent of the dead load and, 25 percent of the floor live load during normal operation and 75 percent of the roof snow load as the accelerated mass. 3.8.4.3.17 Crane Load (Ccr) This load comes from the RBC. The RBC is a bridge crane located at EL. 145'-6" and provide lifting and handling for the NPMs. The RBC is described in more detail in Section 9.1 and Section 3.7.3. The RBC has a total weight of approximately 1,000 tons and a lifting capacity of 850 tons. The crane live loads are used for the design of the runways beams, connections and crane supports. These crane live loads are due to the moving crane and include the maximum wheel load, vertical impact, lateral impact and longitudinal impact loads. The maximum wheel load for the RBC is produced by the weight of the bridge, plus the sum of the maximum lift capacity and the weight of the trolley positioned on its runway at the location where the resulting load effect is maximum. The hook and trolley are assumed to align with the crane wheel location. Therefore, the trolley and lift load are assumed to act 100% percent on the ends. The bridge weight is distributed 50% percent to each end. There are 16 crane wheels at each end of the crane. There are no large cranes in the CRB. Ccr is not a load for the CRB. 3.8.4.3.18 Accident Pressure Loads (Pa) RAI 03.08.04-13 Accident pressure loads, within a compartment or the entire building are due to the differential pressure generated by a postulated pipe rupture, including the dynamic effects due to pressure time-history is considered in the design. In the RXB an accident pressure of 13.0psi has been evaluated in the pool area to account for the energy release of a high energy line break. There are no accident pressure loads in the CRB. Pa is not a load for the CRB. 3.8.4.3.19 Jet Impingement Load (Yj) RAI 03.08.04-12, RAI 03.08.04-13 Tier 2 3.8-65 Draft Revision 3

NuScale Final Safety Analysis Report Design of Category I Structures This is a localized load on the structure due to the steam/water jet from a high energy line break and is evaluated per COL Item 3.6-2 and COL Item 3.6-3. The magnitude of the Jet Impingement Load in the RXB is 57.2 kips. There are no high energy lines in the CRB. Yj is not a load for the CRB. 3.8.4.3.20 Pipe Break Reaction Loads (Yr) RAI 03.08.04-12, RAI 03.08.04-13 This is a localized load on the structure generated by the pipe hanger that is due to a high energy line break and is evaluated per COL Item 3.6-2 and COL Item 3.6-3. The magnitude of the Pipe Break Reaction Load in the RXB is 57.2 kips. There are no high energy lines in the CRB. Yr is not a load for the CRB. 3.8.4.3.21 Missile Impact Loads (Ym) This is a localized load on the structure due to the whipping high energy line or a missile from a high energy line break. Internal missile loads, if they occur, will be evaluated on an individual basis as a localized load per COL Item 3.6-2 and 3.6-3. There are no high energy lines in the CRB. Ym is not a load for the CRB. 3.8.4.3.22 Other Loads 3.8.4.3.22.1 Buoyant Force (B) The buoyant force is the upward pressure exerted on the bottom of the foundation during a saturated condition. It is the equivalent weight of the water that would otherwise occupy the below grade volume of the structure. The buoyant force is equal to the volume of the building below grade multiplied by the density of water. See Section 3.8.5.3 for use of buoyant force with the RXB and the CRB structures. 3.8.4.3.22.2 Construction Loads Construction loads are loads from events and activities during construction. These loads will be developed in accordance with Standard SEI/ASCE 37-02, Design Loads on Structures During Construction. Construction loads are not included when determining seismic loads. 3.8.4.3.22.3 Operation with Less than 12 NuScale Power Modules The NuScale design allows for operation with less than twelve NPMs. The building analysis was performed with all twelve NPMs in place. However, a study was performed as described in Section 3.7.2.9.1 to evaluate the dynamic effects of an earthquake when operating with less than twelve NPMs. That study concluded that the dynamic effects on the building with less than twelve Tier 2 3.8-66 Draft Revision 3

NuScale Final Safety Analysis Report Design of Category I Structures All applicable loads are converted to lumped joint masses for use in dynamic analyses. This is accomplished in SAP2000 by using the Mass Source function. In the RXB, mass comes from concrete self-weight, lumped joint masses (RBC, NPMs, and hydrodynamic mass), equipment joint nodal and uniform loads, uniform floor live loads, and roof snow loads. The specified load cases used in computing dynamic mass are defined by specifying the multiplier for each load case considered. In this model, all long term loads were assigned a multiplier of 1.0, live loads a multiplier of 0.25, and snow loads a multiplier of 0.75. Live load mass participation requirements for dynamic analyses are described in Section 3.8.4.3.4. Table 3.8.4-7 lists the additional masses included from various load cases and its corresponding multipliers, which are considered as one of the mass sources for the RXB SAP2000 models for 1-g and dynamic analyses performed. The purpose of the 1-g analysis is to verify the SAP2000 model has been converted accurately to the SASSI2010 model. In addition to comparing structural frequencies of the two models, 1-g analysis (i.e., total weight) is performed in the three global directions, and the total model weight is obtained at the fixed base of the model in the loading direction. As shown in Table 3.8.4-13 and Table 3.8.4-14, total weights of the two models are nearly identical. Thus, it is concluded that the SAP2000 model of the RXB with backfill has been accurately converted to the SASSI2010 model. RAI 03.08.04-29 Lumped joint masses for use in dynamic analyses also apply to time history analyses performed to assess fluid-structure interaction (FSI) and sloshing of the pool water in the RXB. Table 3.8.4-11 provides the type of dynamic analysis, computer code name, and purpose of these analyses. RAI 03.08.04-29 The crane weight is included by providing an RBC model in the RXB SAP2000 and SASSI2010 models with its associated mass properties. In the ANSYS models, the RBC self-weight and its lift load are applied as nodal masses along the crane rail locations. RAI 03.08.04-29 Only load patterns EQ-125, EQ-100, EQ-75, EQ-50, EQ-24, L-LIVE, and S-SNOW, identified in Table 3.8.4-7, apply to the ANSYS models. Load cases are developed in (or converted to) SAP2000 to address the different design loads discussed in Section 3.8.4.3. These cases are individually evaluated or combined to address the load combinations identified in Table 3.8.4-1 and Table 3.8.4-2 for the RXB. RAI 03.08.04-13 ANSYS Model for Thermal and Pressurization Analysis RAI 03.08.04-13 3D RXB half models are developed using the ANSYS program for thermal and pressurization analysis. The half model considers that the RXB structure is approximately symmetric about the East-West (X) axis. In order to explicitly model Tier 2 3.8-69 Draft Revision 3

NuScale Final Safety Analysis Report Design of Category I Structures the as-designed reinforcing steel inside the concrete foundation; roof, slabs, walls, pilasters, and buttresses are explicitly developed and integrated within the concrete volume of the RXB ANSYS structural analysis model. Since the thermal loads cause a significant amount of concrete cracking, only cracked concrete properties are used. RAI 03.08.04-13 First, two steady-state thermal analyses are performed on the RXB, one to represent the operating thermal loads (T0) and one to represent the accident thermal loads (Ta). The results of these analyses provide the nodal temperatures through the thickness and along the length of the structural members. The nodal temperature values at each node are then applied as an input to RXB structural analysis model for the operating and accident temperatures, T0 and Ta. The HELB maximum pressures, Pa, are also applied inside the RXB along with accident temperature Ta. 3.8.4.4.2 Control Building Analysis SAP2000 Model of the Control Building RAI 03.08.04-27 Two analysis models with fixed base boundary conditions were created to consider the cracked and uncracked concrete conditions. The level of cracking considered for the cracked SAP2000 analysis model was based on guidance from ASCE 43-05 Section 3.4.1 and Table 3-1. Section 3.7.1.2.2 and Table 3.7.1-7 and Table 3.7.1-7a specify the level of cracking used in these models. RAI 03.08.04-27 The basis associated with the assumed level of cracking is that this approach accounts for fully enveloped conditions. Envelope demand forces and moments from the uncracked and cracked condition are used regardless the demand moments and shear reach their cracking limits. RAI 03.08.04-27 The purpose of these models is to envelope the extracted demand forces and moments from the cracked and uncracked models from the static analysis. These maximum demand forces and moments are then used in the design. The two CRB SAP2000 analysis models are identical in geometry and applied loads. Figure 3.8.4-21 through Figure 3.8.4-26 show the CRB SAP2000 model in various isometric and perspective views. Table 3.8.4-8 tabulates the total number of joints and elements developed in both the uncracked and cracked SAP2000 analysis models. The CRB finite element models are developed to represent the primary structural members including walls, beams, columns, pilasters, floors and roofs. Walls, floors, metal decking and wind siding elements are represented by shell elements and the beams, columns, braces and pilasters are modeled by frame (beam) elements. The basemat foundation is modeled by solid elements and shell elements. The excavated soil is modeled by solid elements only. All shell and frame elements are Tier 2 3.8-70 Draft Revision 3

Tier 2 NuScale Final Safety Analysis Report RAI 03.08.04-12, RAI 03.08.04-13 Table 3.8.4-1: Concrete Design Load Combinations Load Design Loads ACI 349-06 Combinations1 D F H L Lr Ro Ra To3 Ta3 R S Se W Wt/Wh Eo Ess Ccr Pa3 Yj 2 Ym2 Yr2 Section (Equation) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 1 1.4 1.4 1.4 1 9.2.1 (9-1) 2 1.2 1.2 1.6 1.6 0.5 1.2 1.2 1.4 3 1.2 1.2 1.6 1.6 1.2 1.2 0.5 1.4 9.2.1 (9-2) 4 1.2 1.2 1.6 1.6 1.2 1.2 0.5 1.4 5 1.2 1.2 0.8 0.8 1.6 1.2 1.4 6 1.2 1.2 0.8 0.8 1.2 1.6 1.4 9.2.1 (9-3) 7 1.2 1.2 0.8 0.8 1.2 1.6 1.4 8 1.2 1.2 1.6 1.6 1.2 1.6 9.2.1 (9-4) 9 1.2 1.2 1.6 1.6 1.2 1.6 9.2.1 (9-5) 10 1 1 1 0.8 1 1 1 1 9.2.1 (9-6) 11 1 1 1 0.8 1 1 1 9.2.1 (9-7) 12 1 1 1 0.8 1 1 1 1.2 9.2.1 (9-8) 3.8-88 13 1 1 1 0.8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9.2.1 (9-9) 14 1 1 1 0.8 1 1 1 - Notes:

1. The load combinations are also evaluated with 0.9D to assess the adverse effects of reduced dead load.

2. Design loads Yj, Ym, and Yr, from load combination 13 will be re-evaluated per COL Item 3.6-2 and COL Item 3.6.3 for localized effects. Also see Section 3.8.4.3.19 and Section 3.8.4.3.20.

3. Design loads T0, Ta, and Pa in the RXB are per Section 3.8.4.3.8, Section 3.8.4.3.9, and Section 3.8.4.3.18.

Design of Category I Structures Draft Revision 3

NuScale Final Safety Analysis Report Design of Category I Structures 3.8.5.6.5 Thermal Loads RAI 03.08.04-13 During normal operation or accident conditions, a linear temperature gradient across the RXB foundation may develop. An explicit analysis considering these loads has been performed and described in Section 3.8.4.4.1 and Appendix 3B.1.3. RAI 03.08.04-13 An explicit analysis considering these loads has not been performed, as thermal loads are a minor consideration. Thermal loads are, by nature, self-relieving by means of concrete cracking and moment distribution. This is especially true of the NuScale RXB, as it is not a traditional pre-stressed/post-tensioned, cylindrical containment vessel, but, rather, a rectangular reinforced concrete building with several members framing into the roof, external walls, and basemat. 3.8.5.6.6 Construction Loads The entire RXB basemat is poured in a very short time. The building is essentially constructed from the bottom up. The main loads (the reactor pool and the NPMs) are not added until the building is complete. Therefore, there are no construction-induced settlement concerns. The CRB basemat is much smaller and will be poured later than the RXB basemat in the construction sequence. 3.8.5.6.7 Basemat Soil Pressures along Basemat Edges (Toe Pressures) RAI 03.08.05-22S1 The static deadweight reaction at an edge node is added to the seismic reaction of the node to calculate the total reaction. The seismic reaction is obtained with the approach shown in Section 3.7.2.4.1, for combining seismic analysis results. The bearing pressure is calculated by dividing the total reaction by the tributary area of the node (i.e., localized bearing pressure). The edge bearing pressures, or toe pressures, along the edges are averaged to obtain the average toe pressures of the basemat. The average toe pressures for the RXB and CRB are shown in Table 3.8.5-13 and Table 3.8.5-15, respectively. The values shown in these tables indicate that two times the maximum toe pressure is less than the minimum soil bearing pressure capacity of 75 ksf as specified in Table 2.0-1. 3.8.5.6.8 Leak Detection Groundwater has the potential to leak through the RXB exterior walls through microscopic concrete cracks. Due to the exterior concrete wall thickness, these leaks will be very slow (<<1 gallon per day (gpd)). This leak rate through the wall is not enough to cause an interior flood in any of the rooms that share an exterior wall. Leaks of this nature will be discovered and dealt with in accordance with plant concrete maintenance specifications. Further reduction of groundwater seepage can be accomplished with a building dewatering system surrounding the RXB. Tier 2 3.8-151 Draft Revision 3

NuScale Final Safety Analysis Report Design Reports and Critical Section Details subtracted from the static axial load to create a minimum and maximum value. Compression is not checked if both the minimum and maximum values are positive and tension is not checked if both values are negative. Axial compression capacity: P C = c 0.8f' c A g Eq. 3B-37 Compression D/C ratio: P D C C = ---------- Eq. 3B-38 P C Axial tension capacity: P T = m f y A s Eq. 3B-39 Tension D/C ratio: P D C T = ---------- Eq. 3B-40 P T RAI 03.08.04-13 3B.1.3 Thermal and Pressurization Analysis and Design Methodology RAI 03.08.04-13 The strains for static, dynamic, and hydrodynamic pressure loads are calculated from the resulting stresses in the reinforcing steel. The strains for the reinforcing steel using T0 loads for load combination 10 and Ta + Pa loads for load combination 13 of Table 3.8.4-1 are obtained from the ANSYS analysis described in Section 3.8.4.4.1. The total strain in the reinforcing steel is obtained by summing the two strains. The following steps are used to evaluate the final strain obtained for each load case: RAI 03.08.04-13 Step 1: If the total strain in the reinforcing steel is less than 1.2y, the section is considered acceptable based on the 4th bullet in Section 1.3 of ACI 349.1R-07, which states the following about the reinforcing steel strain with thermal gradient, 1.2y: "Such an exceedance is inconsequential, and will not reduce the capacity of the concrete section for mechanical loads." If the strain in the concrete is less than 0.003 in/in, the section is considered acceptable since this value is the limiting strain set by Section 10.2.3 of ACI-349-06. RAI 03.08.04-13, RAI 03.08.04-13S1 Tier 2 3B-15 Draft Revision 3

NuScale Final Safety Analysis Report Design Reports and Critical Section Details Step 2: If the total strain in the steel exceeds 1.2y for any element in Step 1, the average strains from adjoining elements are calculated, since the finite element models often show highly localized forces and moments and the average presents a more realistic value. For computation of average strain, an effective length of approximately 4 times the thickness of the structural component is considered. However, for the walls with liner plates such as pool walls, elements that correspond to larger lengths of the walls can be used for average strain determination. It is rationalized that the concrete walls confined within the liner plates provide enhanced integrity of the concrete walls to withstand the applied forces as an integrated entity that will enable consideration of larger wall lengths. If the average strain is less than 1.2y, the section is considered acceptable. RAI 03.08.04-13 Step 3: For sections that did not pass Step 2, the reinforcing steel in the region is further reviewed to determine if there is additional steel from the intersecting members that are underutilized. 3B.2 Reactor Building 3B.2.1 Design Report Structural Description and Geometry The RXB is a Seismic Category I concrete structure. For a detailed description of the RXB, see Section 3.8.4.1.1. The RXB geometry and floor layout are shown in Figure 1.2-11 through Figure 1.2-20. Structural Material Requirements The RXB design is based on the following material properties:

• Concrete Compressive Strength - 5 ksi (7 ksi for exterior walls of the RXB above grade)

Modulus of Elasticity - 4, 031 ksi Shear Modulus - 1,722 ksi Poisson's Ratio - 0.17

• Reinforcement Yield Stress - 60 ksi (ASTM A615 Grade 60 or ASTM A706 Grade 60)

Tensile Strength - 90 ksi (A615 Grade 60), 80 ksi (A706 Grade 60) Elongation - See ASTMs A615 and A706

• Structural Steel Grade - ASTM A992 (W shapes), ASTM A500 Grade B (Tube Steel), ASTM A36 (plates)

Ultimate Tensile Strength - 65 ksi A992, 58 ksi A500 Grade B and A36 Tier 2 3B-16 Draft Revision 3

NuScale Final Safety Analysis Report Design Reports and Critical Section Details the lug assembly. In this table, the demand is the load that is resisted by each component, due to an applied total load of 3500 kips in the SAP2000 model. RAI 03.08.04-21S3 The highest D/C ratio is for concrete bearing against the shear lugs at 0.777. Since this maximum ratio is due to the 3500 kips load, the maximum capacity of the lug assembly is 3500 kips/0.777=4500 kips. 3B.2.7.4.2 Overall Lug Restraint Reaction RAI 03.07.02-10, RAI 03.07.02-10S1, RAI 03.08.04-36 Table 3B-28 presents the envelope lug reactions, for all twelve bays, using the three analysis cases with Soil Type 7 for Capitola input motion with 4 percent structural damping of the SASSI RXB model and the equivalent analysis performed on the NPM detailed seismic model (Reference TR-0916-51502). Since the maximum lug reactions are below the lug support design capacity of 4,500 kips, the design is acceptable. RAI 03.08.04-13 3B.2.8 Evaluation of RXB for Load Combinations Involving Thermal and Accident Pressure Loads RAI 03.08.04-13 T0, Ta, and Pa strains in the reinforcing steel and liner steel of the RXB are given in Table 3B-58. Concrete strains under combined static load cases are given in Table 3B-59. Reinforcing steel and liner steel strains for Load Combinations 10 and 13 are given in Table 3B-60 and Table 3B-61 respectively along with demand from combined static demand and individual maximum T0 and Ta+ Pa strains. RAI 03.08.04-13 Strain averaging is employed at some localized regions as described in Section 3B.1.3. It should be noted that, for regions where averaging is employed, linear addition of T0 and Ta+ Pa strains with static load cases do not necessarily give load combination 10 and 13 resultants as these strains do not necessarily occur at the same location, therefore, the maximum combined strain is not the sum of both maximum strains. RAI 03.08.04-13 As an example, in the foundation, the total strain in the steel is less than 1.2y (2.483 x10-3) at all locations except at the perimeter region for load combination 13 where it is exceeded by 5 percent. However, the static strains calculated are conservative because they are based on the maximum axial, shear, and moment components over all of the elements. These do not occur at the same location or time. If the strains were based on the forces and moments occurring simultaneously at the same location, and if averaging were used, the strains would be lower. Also, the thermal strain of 0.000367 for Ta+Pa is the maximum over the entire basemat and Tier 2 3B-33 Draft Revision 3

NuScale Final Safety Analysis Report Design Reports and Critical Section Details occurs in the pool area. The thermal strains in the foundation perimeter region are lower. RAI 03.08.04-13 The pool walls and NPM support walls are lined with a 1/4" thick stainless steel plate. Per Table CC-3720-1 of ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, the allowable strain limit for the liner plate is 0.004 in/in even for service load conditions. The total strain in the steel is less than 0.004 in/in at all locations for load combinations 10 and 13. Therefore, the steel pool liner is considered acceptable. 3B.3 Control Building 3B.3.1 Design Report Structural Description and Geometry The CRB is a Seismic Category I concrete structure at elevation 120'-0" and below, except as noted in Section 1.2.2.2. Above EL 120'-0" the CRB is a Seismic Category II steel structure. For a detailed description of the CRB, see Section 3.8.4.1.2. The CRB geometry and floor layout are shown in Figure 1.2-21 through Figure 1.2-27. Structural Material Requirements The CRB design is based on the following material properties:

• Concrete Compressive Strength - 5 ksi Modulus of Elasticity - 4, 031 ksi Shear Modulus - 1,722 ksi Poisson's Ratio - 0.17
• Reinforcement Yield Stress - 60 ksi (ASTM A615 Grade 60 or ASTM A706 Grade 60)

Tensile Strength - 90 ksi (A615 Grade 60), 80 ksi (A706 Grade 60) Elongation - See ASTMs A615 and A706

• Structural Steel Grade - ASTM A992 (W shapes), ASTM A500 Grade B (Tube Steel), ASTM A36 (plates)

Ultimate Tensile Strength - 65 ksi A992, 58 ksi A500 Grade B and A36 Yield Stress - 50 ksi A992, 46 ksi A500 Grade B, 36 ksi A36

• Foundation Media For a description of the soils considered in the design of the CRB, see Section 3.8.5.4.2 and Section 3.7.1.3.1.

Tier 2 3B-34 Draft Revision 3

NuScale Final Safety Analysis Report Design Reports and Critical Section Details zones have D/C ratios that are less than 1.0; and therefore, the pilasters are acceptable.The bounding static, dynamic (seismic), and final design forces and moments are shown in Table 3B-49a and Table 3B-49b. 3B.3.5 T-Beams 3B.3.5.1 T-Beams at EL. 120'-0" The slab at elevation 120'-0" contains six T-beam sections running east-west and two T-beam sections running north-south. The SAP2000 analysis model plan view is shown in Figure 3B-83, along with the frame element labels. The reinforcement details are shown in Figure 3B-84 and Figure 3B-85 for Type 1 and Type 2, respectively. RAI 03.08.04-11, RAI 03.08.04-36 A summary table of the design check results for the beams at elevation 120'-0" is presented in Table 3B-50. This summary table shows the maximum D/C ratios within each design check zone. As shown in Table 3B-50, all design check zones have D/C ratios that are less than 1.0; therefore the T-Beams at elevation 120'-0" are all acceptable. The bounding static, dynamic (seismic), and final design forces and moments are shown in Table 3B-50a and Table 3B-50b. 3B.4 References 3B-1 SAP2000 Advanced (Version 17.1.1) [Computer Program]. (2015). Walnut Creek, CA: Computers and Structures, Inc. 3B-2 SASSI2010 (Version 1.0) [Computer Program]. (2012). Berkeley, CA. 3B-3 American Concrete Institute, "Code Requirements for Nuclear Safety-Related Concrete Structures and Commentary," ACI 349-06, Farmington Hills, MI. 3B-4 American National Standards Institute/American Institute of Steel Construction, "Design, Fabrication, and Erection of Steel Safety-Related Structures for Nuclear Facilities," ANSI/AISC N690-12, Chicago, IL. 3B-5 American National Standards Institute/American Institute of Steel Construction, "Specification for Structural Steel Buildings," ANSI/AISC 360-10, Chicago, IL. RAI 03.08.04-21S2 3B-6 NuScale Power, LLC, "NuScale Power Module Seismic Analysis," TR-0916-51502. RAI 03.08.04-13 3B-7 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, Division 2, 2017. RAI 03.08.04-13 3B-8 American Concrete Institute, Reinforced Concrete Design for Thermal Effects on Nuclear Power Plant Structures, ACI 349.1R-07, Farmington Hills, MI. Tier 2 3B-39 Draft Revision 3

NuScale Final Safety Analysis Report Design Reports and Critical Section Details RAI 03.08.04-13 Table 3B-58: ANSYS RXB Reinforcing Steel and Liner Steel Elastic Strain Summary for T0 and Ta+Pa Maximum Strain (x10-3) Type Location T0 Pa* Ta Ta+Pa All Sections 0.514 0.181 1.342 1.343 Outer Wall - North 0.373 0.055 0.666 0.672 Outer Wall - East 0.231 0.063 0.426 0.426 Outer Wall - West 0.256 0.062 0.677 0.687 Pool Wall - North 0.393 1.053 Pool Wall - East 0.317 0.850 Pool Wall - West 0.352 1.016 Pool Wall - Middle 0.444 1.057 Pool Gate Support Wall 0.459 1.343 Reinforcing Steel Roof Support Stiffeners 0.333 0.870 Roof Support Wall Above Crane 0.240 0.665 NPM Support Walls 0.294 0.776 Roof 0.115 0.181 0.485 0.488 Major Slabs 0.514 0.961 Pilasters 0.373 0.672 Buttresses 0.237 0.616 T-Beams 0.514 0.961 Foundation 0.112 0.367 Liner Steel Steel Pool Liner 0.895 2.181

             *Shaded cell resultants are not extracted for individual load case and locations Tier 2                                                      3B-155                                         Draft Revision 3

NuScale Final Safety Analysis Report Design Reports and Critical Section Details RAI 03.08.04-13, RAI 03.08.04-13S1 Table 3B-59: ANSYS RXB Strain Based Concrete Design Check for SDH Loads Max c(x10-3) from SDH c < cu? Location X Y Concrete Outer Wall - North (Grid Line A) 0.348 1.173 OK Outer Wall - East (Grid Line 7) 0.323 0.786 OK Outer Wall - West (Grid Line 1) 0.290 0.434 OK Pool Wall - North (Grid Line B) 0.764 1.182 OK Pool Wall - East (Grid Line 6) 0.616 0.354 OK Pool Wall - West (Grid Line 2) 0.574 0.322 OK Pool Wall - Middle (Grid Line C) 2.094* 2.025* OK Pool Gate Support Wall 0.786 0.330 OK Roof Support Stiffeners (Grid Lines 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) 0.576 0.170 OK Roof Support Wall Above Crane (Grid Line A.7) 0.399 1.140 OK NPM Support Walls (Grid Lines 4, 4.3, 4.7, 5, 5.3, 5.7) 0.607 0.920 OK Roof 0.564 1.062 OK Major Slabs (TOC EL 50', 75', 100', 126') 0.572 1.069 OK Pilasters at Grid Line A 1.007 1.007 OK Buttress at TOC EL 126'-0" and 145'-0" 0.918 0.918 OK T-Beams at TOC EL 50'-0", 75'-0", and 100'-0" 0.872 0.872 OK RXB Basemat (Perimeter Region) 0.919 0.852 OK RXB Basemat (Interior Region) 0.806 0.687 OK

             *Bold cell indicates averaging was employed.

Tier 2 3B-156 Draft Revision 3

NuScale Final Safety Analysis Report Design Reports and Critical Section Details RAI 03.08.04-13, RAI 03.08.04-13S1 Table 3B-60: ANSYS RXB Reinforcing Steel and Liner Steel Elastic Strain Summary for Load Combination 10 Max s Max s

                                                                                       -3 Max s(x10 )         (x10-3)       (x10-3)

Type Location from SDH Loads from T0 from LC 10 s < 1.2 y? X Y X, Y X, Y LC 10 Outer Wall - North 0.746 1.962 0.373 2.335 OK Outer Wall - East 1.352 1.339 0.231 1.583 OK Outer Wall - West 1.076 1.516 0.256 1.772 OK Pool Wall - North 1.574 1.782 0.393 2.175 OK Pool Wall - East 1.838 0.698 0.317 2.155* OK Pool Wall - West 1.451 0.945 0.352 1.803 OK Pool Wall - Middle 2.137 2.020 0.444 2.461

• OK Pool Gate Support Wall 2.023 1.351 0.459 2.482* OK Roof Support Stiffeners 1.864 1.080 0.333 2.197* OK Reinforcing Steel Roof Support Wall Above Crane 0.955 1.770 0.240 2.010 OK NPM Support Walls 1.909 1.451 0.294 2.203 OK Roof 1.507 1.834 0.115 1.949 OK Major Slabs 1.406 2.228 0.514 2.443* OK Pilasters 2.131 2.131 0.373 2.482* OK Buttress 1.937 1.937 0.373 2.310 OK T-Beams 1.913 1.913 0.514 2.427 OK Foundation 2.157 2.230 0.112 2.342 OK Steel Pool Liner 0.363 0.066 0.895 1.258 OK

        *Bold cell indicates averaging was employed.

Tier 2 3B-157 Draft Revision 3

NuScale Final Safety Analysis Report Design Reports and Critical Section Details RAI 03.08.04-13, RAI 03.08.04-13S1 Table 3B-61: ANSYS RXB Reinforcing Steel and Liner Steel Elastic Strain Summary for Load Combination 13 Max s Max s

                                                                                       -3 Max s(x10 )          (x10-3)      (x10-3)

Type Location from SDH Loads from Ta+Pa from LC 13 s < 1.2 y? X Y X, Y X, Y LC 13 Outer Wall - North 0.746 1.962 0.672 2.469* OK Outer Wall - East 1.352 1.339 0.426 1.778 OK Outer Wall - West 1.076 1.516 0.687 2.203 OK Pool Wall - North 1.368 1.627 1.053 2.481* OK Pool Wall - East 1.511 0.698 0.850 2.361* OK Pool Wall - West 1.451 0.945 1.016 2.467 OK Pool Wall - Middle 1.370 1.718 1.057 2.479* OK Pool Gate Support Wall 1.229 0.976 1.343 2.402* OK Roof Support Stiffeners 1.308 1.139 0.870 2.178* OK Reinforcing Steel Roof Support Wall Above Crane 0.955 1.770 0.665 2.435 OK NPM Support Walls 1.487 1.451 0.776 2.263* OK Roof 1.507 1.834 0.488 2.322 OK Major Slabs 1.406 2.164 0.961 2.469* OK Pilasters 2.078 2.078 0.672 2.468* OK Buttress 1.862 1.862 0.616 2.478* OK T-Beams 1.405 1.405 0.961 2.366* OK Foundation 2.157 2.230 0.367 2.597 OK Steel Pool Liner 0.363 0.066 2.181 2.544 OK

        *Bold cell indicates averaging was employed.

Tier 2 3B-158 Draft Revision 3

RAIO-0219-64637 : Affidavit of Zackary W. Rad, AF-0219-64638 NuScale Power, LLC 1100 NE Circle Blvd., Suite 200 Corvalis, Oregon 97330, Office: 541.360.0500, Fax: 541.207.3928 www.nuscalepower.com

NuScale Power, LLC AFFIDAVIT of Zackary W. Rad I, Zackary W. Rad, state as follows:

1. I am the Director, Regulatory Affairs of NuScale Power, LLC (NuScale), and as such, I have been specifically delegated the function of reviewing the information described in this Affidavit that NuScale seeks to have withheld from public disclosure, and am authorized to apply for its withholding on behalf of NuScale.

2. I am knowledgeable of the criteria and procedures used by NuScale in designating information as a trade secret, privileged, or as confidential commercial or financial information. This request to withhold information from public disclosure is driven by one or more of the following:

a. The information requested to be withheld reveals distinguishing aspects of a process (or component, structure, tool, method, etc.) whose use by NuScale competitors, without a license from NuScale, would constitute a competitive economic disadvantage to NuScale.

b. The information requested to be withheld consists of supporting data, including test data, relative to a process (or component, structure, tool, method, etc.), and the application of the data secures a competitive economic advantage, as described more fully in paragraph 3 of this Affidavit.

c. Use by a competitor of the information requested to be withheld would reduce the competitor's expenditure of resources, or improve its competitive position, in the design, manufacture, shipment, installation, assurance of quality, or licensing of a similar product.

d. The information requested to be withheld reveals cost or price information, production capabilities, budget levels, or commercial strategies of NuScale.

e. The information requested to be withheld consists of patentable ideas.

3. Public disclosure of the information sought to be withheld is likely to cause substantial harm to NuScale's competitive position and foreclose or reduce the availability of profit-making opportunities. The accompanying Request for Additional Information response reveals distinguishing aspects about the method by which NuScale develops its design check for the reactor building.

NuScale has performed significant research and evaluation to develop a basis for this method and has invested significant resources, including the expenditure of a considerable sum of money. The precise financial value of the information is difficult to quantify, but it is a key element of the design basis for a NuScale plant and, therefore, has substantial value to NuScale. If the information were disclosed to the public, NuScale's competitors would have access to the information without purchasing the right to use it or having been required to undertake a similar expenditure of resources. Such disclosure would constitute a misappropriation of NuScale's intellectual property, and would deprive NuScale of the opportunity to exercise its competitive advantage to seek an adequate return on its investment. AF-0219-64638

4. The information sought to be withheld is in the enclosed response to NRC Request for Additional Information No. 132, eRAI 8971. The enclosure contains the designation "Proprietary" at the top of each page containing proprietary information. The information considered by NuScale to be proprietary is identified within double braces, "(( }}" in the document.

5. The basis for proposing that the information be withheld is that NuScale treats the information as a trade secret, privileged, or as confidential commercial or financial information. NuScale relies upon the exemption from disclosure set forth in the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 USC § 552(b)(4), as well as exemptions applicable to the NRC under 10 CFR §§ 2.390(a)(4) and 9.17(a)(4).

6. Pursuant to the provisions set forth in 10 CFR § 2.390(b)(4), the following is provided for consideration by the Commission in determining whether the information sought to be withheld from public disclosure should be withheld:

a. The information sought to be withheld is owned and has been held in confidence by NuScale.

b. The information is of a sort customarily held in confidence by NuScale and, to the best of my knowledge and belief, consistently has been held in confidence by NuScale.

The procedure for approval of external release of such information typically requires review by the staff manager, project manager, chief technology officer or other equivalent authority, or the manager of the cognizant marketing function (or his delegate), for technical content, competitive effect, and determination of the accuracy of the proprietary designation. Disclosures outside NuScale are limited to regulatory bodies, customers and potential customers and their agents, suppliers, licensees, and others with a legitimate need for the information, and then only in accordance with appropriate regulatory provisions or contractual agreements to maintain confidentiality.

c. The information is being transmitted to and received by the NRC in confidence.

d. No public disclosure of the information has been made, and it is not available in public sources. All disclosures to third parties, including any required transmittals to NRC, have been made, or must be made, pursuant to regulatory provisions or contractual agreements that provide for maintenance of the information in confidence.

e. Public disclosure of the information is likely to cause substantial harm to the competitive position of NuScale, taking into account the value of the information to NuScale, the amount of effort and money expended by NuScale in developing the information, and the difficulty others would have in acquiring or duplicating the information. The information sought to be withheld is part of NuScale's technology that provides NuScale with a competitive advantage over other firms in the industry.

NuScale has invested significant human and financial capital in developing this technology and NuScale believes it would be difficult for others to duplicate the technology without access to the information sought to be withheld. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on February 22, 2019. Zackary W. Rad AF-0219-64638}}