ML19308E099
| ML19308E099 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River  |
| Issue date: | 12/27/1973 |
| From: | US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19308E096 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8003200823 | |
| Download: ML19308E099 (12) | |
Text
-- T
. a~
.-~.
d FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT f:0. 3 GEftERATIriG STATION STRUCTURAL EVALUATION FOR FSAR 3.3 WIND AND TORNACO CRITERIA The design wind velocity for the seismic Category I (FSAR Class I) structures is 110 mph at 30 feet above ground based on a recurr-ance interval of 100 years.
All seismic Category I (FSAR Class I) components and equipment are protected by being housed in tornado resistant structures, or are provided with tornado missile shields.
The design tornado for such structures is a 300 mph maximum tan-gential velocity.
The simultaneous atmospheric pressure drop is i
3 psi in 3 seconds.
ASCE paper flo. 3253 was utilized to determine the loads resulting from taese wind and tornado effects.
The load factor associatad with wind load is 1.25 against the required ultimate capacity for concrete.
For tornado loads concrete structures were designed for a lead facter of 1.0.
Steel structures were designed in accordance with the AISC specifications (1953 Edition).
The criteria used in the design of Seismic Category I (FSAR Class I) structures to account for the loadings due to specified winds and tornadoes postulated to occur at the plant site provide a conserva-tive basis for engineering _ design and the method of determining the forces en the structure will adequately assure that such environ-mental forces represent the loadings imposed on the structure.
The use of these loading criteria provides reasonable assurance that, in the event of winds or tornadoes, the structural integrity and safety function of Seismic Category I (FSAR Class I) structures will not be impaired by the specified enviror. mental forces.
Con-formance with these criteria is an acceptable basis for satisfying s003200 822
-m y
,-j t
the requirements of AEC General Design Criterion 12.
The Seismic Category I (FSAR Class I) structures are so arranged.
on the plant site (or protected) such that any interaction between non-Category I (FSAR Class I) and Seismic Category I (FSAR Class I) structures, in the event of winds or tornadoes damaging non-Category I (FSAR Class I) structures, is not expected to affect the structural integrity of Seismic Category I (FSAR Class I) structures, systems, or components.
The criteria in the design arrangement and the means employed for protection of Seismic Category I (FSAR Class I) and non-Category I (FSAR Class I) structures are an acceptable basis for compliance with the pro-visions of AEC General Design Criteria #2 and #4 as related to structures.
3.4 WATER LEVEL (FLOCD) DESIGN CRITERIA The facility's major structures and buildings are located or constructured so as to be undistrubed by the maximum water level which is due to the probable Maximum Hurricane.
The design hydraulic force on facility structures included both the static and dynamic effects from the hurricane.
The use of these design loading critaria provides reasonable assurance that, in the event of ficoding, the Seismic Category I (FSAR Class I) structures can be expected to withstand the specified environmental forces without impairment of their structural integrity and safety function.
Conformance with these criteria is an accept-able basis for satisfying the requirements of AEC General Criteria
- 2 and #4 as related to environmental design basis for structures.
3.5 MISSILE DROTECTION The tornado generated missiles include a spectrum of possible items that could be dislodged during tornadic winds and beccme missiles.
. The selection of missiles _is a wood plank, a wooden utility pole, a schedule 40 pipe and an automobile.
The approach to determin-ing missile effects on structures makes use of the NDRC~(National Defence Research Ccuncil) formula with modifications suggested-in U. S. Army Technical Manual Ti4 5-1300 for penetration resistance, potential interior missiles are generally controlled by reinforced concrete and steel barriers and missile shields.which are provided with a 25% margin in energy absorption capacity.
The criteria used in the design of Seismic Category I (FSAR Class I) structures to account for the loadings due to specified missile impacts postulated to occur at the plant site provide a conserva-tive desigri basis for determining the forces on the structure to assure that such impact forces will not cenetrate structures, shields, and barriers beyond acceptable limits as governed by the strength and resistance offered by such structures, shields and barriers.
The use of these design bases for missile protection provides reasonable assurance that, in the event of the generation of the postulated missiles, resulting loads and effects will not impair the structural integrity of Seismic Category I (FSAR Class I) structures, or result in any loss of protection intended for systems and components contained by such structures.
Conformance with these design loading criteria is an acceptable basis for satisfying the AEC General Design Criteria #2 and #4.
3.7.1 SEISMIC INPUT The seismic design response spectra indicate amplification factors of 2.7 at the period of 0.8 seconds, of 2.0 at the period of 0.17
)
seconds and of greater than i in the period range of 0.03 to 0.17 seconds for 2% damping.
.uw e--
- w 4 N.
e.,
ae-p--5
+-e-
_a
,e#,.i m
n e.w
=
The structure and equipment damping is in accordance with the damping factors which have been accepted for all recent1/ licensed plants.
The modified time history used for component equipment design is' adjusted in amplitude and frequency to envelope the response spectra specified for the site.
We conclude that the seismic input criteria used by the applicant provides an acceptable basis for seismic design.
3.7.2 SEISMIC SYSTE'i ANALYSIS A?ID 3.7.3 SEISMIC SUBSYSTEM AtlALYSIS Modal response spectrum and time history methods for multi-degree-of-freedom systems form the bases for analyses of all major Category I structures, systems and components.
Governing response parameters are ecmbined by the square root of the sum of squares to cbtain maxima when the mcdal response spectrum method is used.
The absolute sum of responses has been used for in-phase closely spaced frequencies.
Two components of seismic motion are considered:
one horizontal and one vertical.
The total response is obtained by the absolute sum of the responses to the two components.
Floor spectra inputs used for design and tc-t verification of structures, systems and components were generated from the time history rethod.
Dynamic analysis of vertical seismic systems has been employed for all structures, systems and components where structural amplifications in the vertical direction are significant.
System and subsystem analyses has been performed on an elastic basis.
Effects on floor response spectra of expected variations of structural properties and damping have been accounted for by wicening the respcnse spectra peaks hy + 10%.
~
s We conclude that the dynamic methods and procedures for seismic
- systems used by the applicant provide an acceptable basis for seismic design.
3.7.4 SEISMIC IflSTRUME lTATIOTI pRCGRAM The type, number, location and utilization of strong motion accelerographs to record seismic events and to provide data on the frequency, amplitude and phase relationship of the seismic response of the containment structure correspond to the recom-mendations of Regulatory Guide 1.12.
Supporting instrumentation will be installed on Category I struc-turas, systems and components in order to provide data for verification of the seismic responses determined analytically for such Category 1 items.
We conclude that the Seismic Instrumentation Program proposed by the applicant is acceptable.
3.S.1 CCliCRETE CONTAINME?lT The containment structure is a soil supported prestressed concreta containment in the form of a right vertical cylinder with a shallow dome and a conventionally reinforced concrete flat slab base.
The inside surface of the containment will be steel lined in order to form 'a leak tight membrane.
The design of the prestressed concrete centainment was Lased on the concepts of ACI 318-63 using the working stress desing pro-cedures for the loading ccmbinaticns representing tha construction conditions and the normal operating conditions.
Under the various accident conditions l'ncluding earthquakes, wind or tornado the design criteria were based on the ultimate strength design procedures i
-1 i
J y.
e
-6.
using load. factors. The design criteria including the load combinations, stress allowables and analytical procedures that were utilized are consistent with those used on 'other similar prestressed concrete containments previously licensed such as.
Three Mile Island Unit No. 1, Palisades, Point Beach and Turkey Point.
The leads considered in the containment _ design include appro-priate combinations.of dead and live loads, thermal loads, loss-of-coolant accident induced loads and severe onvironmental loads such as earthquake loads, and wind and tornado loads.
A' test pressure load of 1.15 times the design accident pressure is also included.
The static analysis for the containment shell was based on classical thin shell theory.
The allowable stress and strain limits were those defined in reference codes. For the' loading ccmbinations cited previously, reinforcing bar yield was the most significant limit. For specific critical areas such as the equip-ment hatch area there were additional detailed studies completed by the applicant.
In general, finite element techniques were used in those situations.
The in' erior structures of the containment were designed for the t
same general conditions considered for the containment shell with, of course, differences in magnitude.
The primary shield wall is designed for 170 psi and the secondary shield wall is designed for 15 psi with capability to-17.5 psi taking the. reinforcing
. steel to yield.
The secondary shield wall was, however, designed in accordance with ACI. 318-71 in order to attempt to keep the components designed late in the construction of the facility consistent with the: latest-codes.
w
+. -. -
. ~ -. -
~
i The construction was carried out using ACI 301-66, Specifications.
for Structural Concrete Buildings with the modifications enu-merated in the 'SAR. Applicable sections of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section III and Section IX were used in conjunction with the construction and design of the steel liner and penetrations.
The testing of the containment will be as prescribed in a report entitled, " preliminary Report on Structural ' Integrity Testing of Reactor Containment Structure", by Gilbert Associates, Incorper-ated, dated January 12, 1970.
Strain measurement instrumentation consisted 70 instrumented and embedded steel reinforcing bars and rosettes on the liner plate at six general locations with additional rosettes around three typical penetrations.
Displace-ments will be measured using jig transits, precision levels, invar tapes and linear variable displacement transducers. Four visual menitoring locations for cracking etc are defined totalling 1230 square feet of surface area which is to be closely monitored for cracking.
The tendon surveillance program proposed by the applicant does not meet Regulatory Guide-l.35 although the applicant has stated that there is no physical reason that would limit their ability to meet the Guide.
The Structural Engineering Branch has reviewed the justifications presented by the applicant for the deviations from the Guide and has determined that the current state of experience with large tendon systems (2000 kips) is not extensive enough to permit acceptance of the applicant's prccesed program.
Consequently it is the position of the Regulatory Staff to require that the tendon surveillance program 'that will be incorporated into W
m=
=.. m
- - - - - =
O the Technical Specifications be in conformance with Regulatory.
Guide 1.35.
The criteria used in the analysis, design and construction of the concrete containment structure and the related interior structures to account for the loadings and. conditions that are anticipated to be experienced by the structures during the service lifetime, are in conformance with acceptable codes, standards and specifica-tions.
The use of these design criteria defining the applicable codes, standards and specifications; the load and loading ccmbinations; the design and analysis procedures, the structural acceptance criteria; the materials, quality control and special construction techniques; and the testing, provided reasonable assurance that, in the event of winds, tornados, earthquakes and various postulated accidents occurring within the containment, the Seismic Category I containment structures will withstand the specified conditions without incairmGn: of their structural integrity and safety function.
Ccnformance with these criteria constitutes an accept-l able basis for satisfying the requirements of AEC General Design Criteria #2, #4, #16 and #SO.
3.8.2 DESIGN OF OTHER CATEGORY I STRUCTURES Important Category I (FSAR Class I) structures other than contain-ment include the auxiliary building, the control complex, the L
diesel generator building, the intermediate building and the i
intake structure.
These structures were designed to basically the same criteria that were utilized for the contafement structure.
l The exceptiens are as fo11cws:
a strict application of the ACI 318-53 ultimate strength design with the Code specified load factors was used and there was a portion of the steel superstructure
y g
. of the Auxiliary Building which was not dasigned ag missiles however the spent fuel pool is provided wit missile shield.
The high energy pipe breaks hypothesized outside the related interactions with structures hav the applicant in a report entitled, " Effects of High Ene y
Piping System Breaks Outside the Reactor Building" rgy
, dated October 1, 1973 and amended November 6, 1973.
Specific load combinations which were taken-from a position document of the Stru Engineering Branch have.been used. As a result of m to the facility based on the Branch positions ons
, it is concluded that the effects associated with the high energy breaks containment can be adequately resisted by the structures outside The seismic Category I (FSAR) Class I structures we a ecmposita of structural steel and reinforced ccncrete m rom In general, the structures were designed as continuous sy with slabs, walls, beams and columns being integrated design.
The design methods for reinforced concrete follcw o the ultimate strength design provisions of ACI-318.
For structural steel design the AISC Specification was utilized.
The loading combinations used for the design of these s included normal dead and live loads, wind and tornado ructures j
earthquake loads.
oads, and
\\
The analyses were being based on elastic analysis proce the design executed using the ultimate strength desig ures with of ACI 318 for concrete and the working stress desig n provision
, of the AISC Code for structural steel.
=.
O:
~
. Construction practice for the Category I structures was accomplished in accordance with ACI-301 appropriately modified to account for the specialized nature of the construction.
It is concluded that the criteria used in the analysis and design of seismic Category I structures, to account for the loadings and conditions that are anticipated.to be experienced by the structures during the service life time, are in compliance with acceptable codes, standards, and specifications.
The use of these design criteria defining the applicable codes, standards and specifications; the load and loading combinations; the design and analysis procedures; the structural acceptance criteria; the materials, quality control and special construction techniques; and the testing and inservice surveillance requirements, provide reasonable assurance :: hat, in the event of winds, tornados, earthquakes and various postulated accidents, these seismic Category I (F5AR Class I) structures may be expected to withstand the specified ccaditions without impairmert of their structural-integrity and safety function.
Conformance with these criteria constituted an acceptable basis for satisfying the requirements of AEC General Design Criteria #2 and #4.
W l
i
.c
- n FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT NO. 3 SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT COCKET NO. 50-302 Section 3.3 Wind and Tornado loadings 3.3-l= " Wind Forces on Structures," Final Report of the Task Committee on Wind Forces of the Committee on Load and
' Stresses of the Structural Division, Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers, 345 East 47th Street, New York, N. Y.10017, Paper No. 3259, Vol.125, Part II,1951, p.1124-1198.
Section 3.5 Missile Protection 3.5-1 A.' Amirikian, " Design o# Protective Structures," Bureau of Yards and Docks, Publication No. NAVDCCKS P-51,- Cepart-cent of the Navy, Washington, D. C., August.1950.
3.5-2 National Defense Research Committee, Effects of Impact and Explosion, Sumnary Technical Report of Division 2, Vol.1, Washingten, D. C.,1945.
3.5-3 R. C. Gwaltney, " Missile Generation and Protection in Light-
!later-Cooled Power Reactor Plants," USAEC Report ORflL-NSIC-22, September 1958.
3.5-4 " Structures to Resist the Effects of Accidental Explosions,"
TM 5-1300, MAVFAC P-397, or AFM 88-22, Depart ents of the Army, the Navy and the Air Force, June 1959.
Section 3.8 Design of Catecory I Structures 3.8-1 American Institute of Steel Construction, " Specification-
~
and 3.3-1 for Design, Fabrication & Erection of. Structural Steel for Buildings," 101 Park Avenue, New York, M. Y.10017, 1953.
3.8-2 Acerican Ccncrete -Institute, " Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete (ACI-313-63 a -71)," P.O. Box 4754, Redford Station, Detroit, Michigan 48219.
3.8-3' American Society of Mechanical Engineers and the American Concrete ' Institute, " Proposed Standard Code for Concre:a Reactor Vessels and Containments," United Engineering Center, 345 East 47th Stree., New York, M. Y. 10017.
-.+ m l '-
2->
~
3.8 American Society of Mechanical Engineers, "ASME ~ Boiler and Pre.esure Vessel Code."Section III, United Engineering'
-Center, 345 East 47th Street,. Mew York, N. Y. 10017.
t i
l i -
4 4
4 4
i 1:
~
}
?
I
~
4 I
I' f.
' *'* =,
- f y
Hy,2.w.
n--.
,pe
,..,y t
sp. -
- w,
e g -
-*r q
y-