ML19312C646
| ML19312C646 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 10/30/1969 |
| From: | Dromerick A US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Boyd R US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7912190854 | |
| Download: ML19312C646 (24) | |
Text
_ _ _ _
^
$i
' ;)
JT N
OCT 3 01963
....e : <
ci M i 'g
- g. C. C' ' ~~
R. S. Boyd, Assistant Director for Reactor Projects, DRL TERU: Saul Iavine, Assistant Director for Beactor Technolog:r, DEL DtX3 PCEER COMPANY -- OCCEEE EUCL2AR STATICN UNITS 1, 2, AND 3 -- FSAR STRUCTISAL RE7IEW Ibc structural information in the FSAR for the Oconee plant has been reviewed. Further information is needed in order that an assessment can be made as to the adecuacy of the design.
Our further informational needs fall in the following categories:
General information on containment t.xuctural design procedures a.
used and results achieved.
(See At**hmant A).
b.
In depth information na to design procedures and structural dew fing in areas where present information indicates that a problem (of structural adequacy) any exist.
(See Attachment 3).
General information on the structural quality control used, problens c.
encountered and results achieved as it relates to the adequacy of as-built structures.
(See Attachment C).
d.
Information relatins to the attention being given by the applicant to containment proof testing.
(3ee Attachment D).
Ceneral information on the plant's seismic design and seismic design e.
margins.
(See Attachment 3).
The attachments ccntaining the abcVe =entioned informational needs are enclosed herewith. All attacLw nts contain our informational needs in the form of questions for your consideration for transmission to the applicant. The applicant's seiscic design portion of the submittal is i
h D
a
'"moq,gy i1 y
R. S, Boyd 007 3 0 US9 especially deficient as to procedures used ami results achieved. Incor-poration by the applicant in the FSAR of the information required herein, vill meet our informational requirements and in addition, abould answer our consultant's (John A. Blume and Associates,1en=4m) questions as well.
A. W. Dromerick, Chief Containment 8. Component Teck. ology RT-737A aranch Td.:C'.CT3:FS Division of Reactor Licensing Inclosures:
1.
Att. A - Cont. Strue. Design 2.
Att. 3 - Jtrue. Problem Areas 3
Att. C - Quality Assurance 4.
Att. D - Cont. Struc. Proof Testing 5
Att. 3.- Jeismic Design ccw/encla:
C. Long, DRL A. Schwencer, DP1 A. mtwMann, DRL
- 3. G. Arndt, l'iL D. Ros.3, CRL bec:
S. Levine, DRL R. C. DeYoung, DRL A. W. Droscrick, DF1 F. Schauer, DPL DISTRI30TICN:
Suppl.,1 S
DEL Reading C&CT3 Realing AD/RT Reading O
Ui i
Ubu i
t 1
C&CT3[
DRL:C&CTB -
DRL: DAD /RT DRL:AD/RT DRL,;El omcs,
ekk r;. t Cv g;f x-73
.,j, y /
SURNAhtC D... er:egp[,,,,y,M omerick RCDeToung SLeifig,u om, lgp[/62,,,,,,l,,10/,<f,/@
10/,y./62,,,,_,,,10/,gf69
/
ror. Asc.318 (Rev. 9-33) AsCM 0240
- v. t sevennesev enti.e amca : inee o-sewis I
ATTACID1ENT A GENERAL INFORMATIONAL REQUIREMENTS i
CONTAINMENT STRUCTURAL DESIGN OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION 1.0 GENERAL STRUCTURAL DESIGN 1.1 Were the stresses resul' ting from a combination of primary steady state stresses and from the earthquake l
loading maintained within allowable working stress limits for (a) the containment and (b) other Class I structures?
/
1.2 Provide a list of all structures, equipment, systems, and components that are missile resistant or missile protected.
Include the characteristics of the missile and its origin in each case.
O i
b
s Attachment A 2-2.0 CONTAINMENT STRUCTURAL DESIGN 2.1 Under which design loading conditions, if any, were basic allowable stresses for the basic working stress increased because the yield criteria were more than satisfied?
Present, for working stress design members, the. increased stresses in tabular form showing the original allowable stress, required yield capacity, pro-vided yield capacity and the final yield capacity.
Each case, of course, will represent some specific stress caused oy a particular loading combination.
2.2 At what value of stress in the concrete was the non-linear stress / strain relationship assumed to begin?
Under what loading conditions, in what areas, and to what value was
/
the modulus of elasticity corrected?
For a sample area under a given loading condition, tabulate the magnitude of stress'before and after the modulus of elasticity revision.
2.3 Explain how the total force, moment, and shear are obtained for a cross section from the output stresses at each nodal point.
i Y
'1 l
l Attachment A 3-2.4 From the finite element analysis (which did not consider cracking of the concrete), the resulting stress plots of the analysis, and the superimposed non-axisymmetric loading-induced stresses, the various sections were proportioned.
Define in detail, mathematically, the. procedure used to determine the area of conventional reinforcing required as well as the stress in the concrete resulting from the loading condition, considering the effects of cracking, where required.
2.5 Cracking is noted to reduce the thermal moment, but unless the change in section stiffness is used to reanalyze the system; the new reduced moment is unknown.
Explain in detail, with a numerical example, for the loading of f
D+F+P+Tg + E at Section G-G, how the total moment, stress distribution, and strain distributions were obtained and used for the proportioning of this section.
2.6 What types of loads and where were they applied in the plane stress, flat plate analysis for the hatches?
How were the curvature and varying thickness of.the shell accounted for in the analysis?
2.7 Insufficient information is supplied regarding the applica-tion of the finite element program for axisymmetric 4
Attachment A structures with non-axisymmetric loads.
Supply addi-tional information.
For example, triaxial stress conditions exist in the buttresses.
How were they determined and treated in design?
2.8 Insufficient information is presented in the FSAR with regard to the results of the containment analysis.
Please provide for both structural concrete and liner:
a.
A summary of allowable stresses used in the design.
b.
A tabulation at actual locations of principal, meridional, hoop and radial stresses; the allowable stresses at these locations; and the factors of safety comparing critical, allowable and computed f
stresses for each of the loading combinations.
l The complete finite element grid system used in c.
the analysis.
d.
Stress plots for maximum, minimum, h,oop, meridional, and radial stresses for each of the load'ings considered in the design taken separately and in combination with j
the other considered loads (at pertinent factors).sWhere one dimensional loads have been applied to the structure _(such as from the seismic analysis), an' explanation of how these loads have been translated
~.
1
's into stress values will be included.
Attachment A.
e.
Clarification of how the computed stress values and principal stress. directions were arrived at from computer node point output data.
f.
Details of the developed prestressing tendon and reinforcing steel arrangement.
2.9 What is the NDT temperature for the containment liner plate and how does this relate to the lowest anticipated operating temperature including the containment spray.-
N water contacting the liner plate?
2.10 Explain the methods used for the structural design of the containment interior structure:
1 1
7 Establish the. reliability of the pressure differentials.
a.
b.
Indicate the design temperature differentials betwegn different parts of the structure, c.
Explain the computation of jet forces.
2.11 What was the maximum. radial shear stress in.the concrete under the controlling design load case and what was the radial shear stress'under D
+-F + P + TA + E?
Define the value of shear for:each component of loading forces of the load combination.
4 i* I
Attach =ent A 2.12 It is stated in the FSAR that the loads and stresses at transfer of prestress vill be compared to those allowed by ACI 31d-63 However, the seating stresses shown for the three,t.ndon types exceed the ACI value.
Explain why this is acceptable.
2.13 Cn page 5-12 it is stated that the finite element =esh for the base slab was extended down into the foundation material to take into consideration the elastic nature of the foundation material and its effect upon the behavior of the base slab. This extension below the base slab is apparently not shown on Figure 5-4, "Eeactor Building Finite Element Mesh."
Please provide a drawing of the
=esh used to account for the effects of the foundation material.
2.14 It is understood that the tendon access gallery is structurally
/
seps:.ited in the vertical direction from the base slab.
Please describe how the prestres: gallery was considered in the design of the base slab.
2.15 Cn page 5-14, it is stated that the liner was treated as an integral part of the structure.
Dces this =ean that it was included in the finite element =esh of the containment structure? 'If so, please provide a detailed sketch of the mesh.
2.16 For which loading cases do the isostress plots shown on Figures 5-6 1
and 5-7 apply?
,\\
s
\\
4 9
.g
4 A, tach =ent A 2.17 The finite elecent =esh shown for the containment building apparently does not include the interior structure.
- 5. hat influence does the interior structure have en the stresses in the base slab cc=puted by the finite element analysis? Ecv was the, base slab designed to resist the seismic shear and overturning =ccent from the interior structure?
3. a, nu4 a.., y JL,31.~ u:s uu
=
w.u e
31 What are the max 1:::um thermal stress calculated for the valls of tbn Opent fuel pool under.ner:al conditions and after prolonged cutage of the fuel pool ecclin6 syste=? Ynat provisions have been made to control -ract.ing of the concrete structure under these conditions?-
32 Ecv were the fuel storage racks designed for seissic loadings?
,i t,
C 0..
ia,v,v,. v,
- .v as s
4.1 Table 5 1-1, sheets 1 and 2, define the concrete strength at the haunch region of the cylinder, Section G-G, as being 4000 psi.
Clarify the location of the as-built interface of the 4000 psi and 5000 pai concretc.
N
\\
4.2 What was the magnitude of the worst as-built dimensions that defined the shape of the containment liner with regard to its s
capability?
/
m S
y
.g S
Attachment A
-8 4.3 Describe the details for the closure of the construction
,1 opening.
4 5.0 SURVEILLANCE AND SURVEILLANCE PROOF TESTING l
i 5.1 With regard'to the capability for periodic containment leak rate testing, indicate,the degree to which instru-4 mentation and equipment located within the containment I
must be protected or removed prior to the initiation of a full accident pressure test.
Tabulate the items to be j
)
i removed and those to be protected along with an estimate j
4 of plant down time to accomplish the removal and protection.
i 5.2 What are the capabilities of and precautions that must i
be taken to prevent internal equipment damage if the proof test were to be carried out at some later date than the initial proof test.
i 5.3 The integrated leak rate test to be made at various times during the 40-year life will be conducted at a pressure of 50% of design.
Evaluate the extent to which such tests would also serve to verify the continued structural. integrity of the containment.
t 2
9
ATTACHMENT 3 INFORMATIONAL REOUIREMENTS RELATED TO_
POSSIBLE STRUCTURAL PRO 3LEM AREAS 1.0 Since preparation of the FSAR, further tests on liner anchorages have been conducted by industry.
Provide a review of the results of these later tests for verification of the Oconee liner anchorage behavior, especially with respect to the be'-
havior of the concrete restraining the liner anchor.
The liner anchor tests were established to satisfy the following criteria.
Please indicate whether and how the Oconee 4
design satisfies enese
..iteria.
a.
The anchors, the welds attaching the liner plates to the anchors, and the concrete.around the anch' ors,~will be de-
)
fined as Class I elements and will be designed in accordance with the general criteria for the containment.
Specifically, the allowable stresses in the welds will not be higher than the allowable stre,sses in the connected materials and.the local str. esses in the concrete encasing the anchors will be in accordance with the. current ACI Code.
b.
The most unfavorable loads and load combinations will be considered.
l Transient thermal gradients;will'b'e used in.
all cases where the.use of steady state gradients under-estimates the J:resses and the strains.
The design will I
' N 4
\\
ccver not only the accident condition, but also'other is such as: start up during very cold weather,' af ter protracted shutdown; accident happening towards the end of the useful like of the structure, etc.
For the determination of the unbalanced load on the c.
anchors, and the resultant stresses and strains, the I
following elenents will be considered:
I 1.
the case of a buckled panel adjacent to an unbuckled panel; a
2.
the unbalanced bending moment, the tangential force, and radial force, and axial force acting on the anchor; j
3.
variation of plate thickness of adjacent plates; f
i 4.
variation of yieid point of liner steel (in such caseswherestrainsreac$theyieldpoint);
5.
influence of Poisson's ratio, forthodimensional stress dis tributions in steel ;hnd 'concre.te; 6.
erection inaccuracies for plates, anchors, and concrete (local bulges, offsets at seans, wrong anchor l
l i
locations, local anchor de ormations, raulty anchor i
welding,.etc.);
7.
axial, radial,.and':aagential creep of concrete under prestressing load; its influence on plates and anchors;-
n b
~
s 3
A::achment 3 S.
cracking of concrete; 9.
Vacuun loads, or hydrostatic pressure on the'back 4
i of the liner; and 4
10.
elasticity of the anchors.
All assumptions on anchor elasticity will be fully documented.
If they are based j
on analytical considerations, conservative values will
+
be used.
If thev, are based on experimental evidence, tests will reproduce the actual arrangement used in i
the containment structure.
2.0 An unreinforced buttress detail has been indicated in the FSAR on the basis of Taylor's tests to be unsatisfactory, but the capability of the added aild steel reinforcing to provide the i
i l
necessary anchorage strength has not been demonstrated.
In-addition, Taylor's approach as used does n'ot consider hori-
- ontal tensile stresses.
As a result, the following information 1
is requested for anchor ones.at :ne d.neight or-the,outtresses t.
i
~
and the dome and vartical tendon anchor :ones at the ring girder.
4 a.
A drawing of the reinforcing in these zones.
.b.
The methed of anchoring or splicing _the reinforcing in such 4
an area of biaxial tension combined with unia.,ial compression.
i-i i
- 1..
l n.
, +,, - -,
'l
~
t
. - -The thermal. gradients used in the analysis, with special c.
consideration given the effect of transient thermal gradients due to start up or shutdown.
d.
The calculated triaxial stress levels.
The following design criteria have been used on similar plants.
Please indicate whether and how the Oconee design satisf' these criteria.
ANCHORAGE ZONE DESIGN OF PRESTRESSING TENDONS The design of concrete and rebars in the anchorage zones of prestressing tendons considers two main problems:
Evaluation of bearing stresses under the anchor bearing a.
/
plate.
b.
Determination of the transverse tensile force,s ~(bursting forces) and the design of the corresponding reinforcing bars.
To provide an adequate margin of safety, the desi'gn of the anchorage :cne shall be in accordance with the following criteria:
The tendon anchorage-':ene-will be defined as a Class I
~
a.
-element, as.is the structure itself.
Its designfwill be in accordance with-the general design criteria for the containae:.: structure'and-with the rec,uirements of the curren: ACI Code.
N.
N 1-j
- J
~
A :achnen: 3 _..
.c.
ine rol owing wil,
.ce estaollsnec on a conservative oasis by analytical, and/or experimental evidence:
(1)
Tha: there is no danger of delayed rupture of the concrete, under sustained load, due to local over-t s
stress anu microcrac.<1ng.
1 -
1 (2)
_That reinforcing-bars located in the anchorage zone
^i-
\\
are adecuate to carry the tension s tresses 'exis cing In ts.is :one, wit.n a sarety : actor similar to-the sarety ractors providec. in :.ne design or ne containment structure in general,.and that the cracking in"this zone will be safely controlled.
s (a. )
T.nat t.ne possi 111:y c:. concrete brea..xing along s.near planes is excluded.
/
.I c.
The most unfavorable-loads and load. combinations will be
' considered.
Transient thermal gradients-willjma used in all cases where the use of steady state gradients under-estimates the stresses-and strains.
The design will cover
-not only the_ accident condition alone, but also other cases such as: start:up during very cold weather, after prottacted shutdown; accidene happening-towards.:he end cf the' r
i useful' life of the structure, etc.
1 O
4 i
b
.s
.., C.. ] a..e.. q
. 6
.u s
1 T.h.e de3.nn.
4 a..
.? y s e 3
+. 4... l i d.a
- a...q. 4, a
.1, c-
.m,a d i m..a,3.4C ".. ^ '_1 n
a m.
3 -
3 b
3 s
a1s-..:k.,,.4c, 4,
..;. v u,..u.% o.. c,. e s, 4,
d,;r4... C. a 7. m 4
..3 o..
c m,
,.4 1 o
pe".'i*.
u.b. * ". a^ ^ #. v' ". ' ' O V _'.7 u m' *u # o ".. o #.
3' *v *. e s s C c ".-
m maximum tension and shear stresses.
centrations and at-Standard design methods (by Guyon, Leonhardt, Taylo!, etc.)
, s. 4.- -. cn
..v u.:J..;ad C
v ;.
.,..,a.
C.;.,.. e. s- :. o..,.- so. ass n
w
..a
. a.s 4
12 cistr1Dut1Cn existing la t.,,als
- one.
.. eXperlOenta,'
l 44 v..Je w.,d,
4.
h.4 7 7 J
- a. V. w e n. c e
.4s 7,, A 1,..C iuue a
.h..
2 2
- d. 4 m..e.,.d.4 c. a-1--
n s tres s Cis tr100 1on s 131.3 ar to O, e Oos t unf avora,o.3 e s tres s 2,
. s.
- 4. b u. 4e. c n es.\\. 4. s-
- .,. 3 2,
t r..,
ac.,,a,.
so.mu....a.
-%.ae t.
.m almensiona., creep and sy.ain,< age or. concrete wil.,ce considered.
e
-f h
T
\\.
s
/
1 i
1
s
/
ATTACHMENT C N
s INFORMATIONAL.P30UIREMENTS RELATED TO CUALITY ASSURANCE
~
1.0 On what basis was each of.the independent tes: laboratories i
selected?
To what organization did the test laboratory personnel report all their findings and what organization exercised control over the test laboratory?
2.0 Document the quality control testing that was accomplished during cont'ainment construction.
Include specifically the test results obtained from quality control testing of pre-stressing steel, prestressing anchorage ass'emblies, reid forcing steel, splices and concrete properties.
/
3.0 It is noted that an outside consulting firm was retained by the architect-engineer to assist in the development of the containment design criteria' submitted in he PSAR and to be involved in the continued updating of.the criteria. -Were the final design criteria for the containment reviewed by this consultant?
Is-the consultant's-review documented and will this documentation become part of the quality assurance docu-mentationrekatingtothe_ design?
4.0-In implementation of the " Records Requirements" of the General Design Criterion, specify the design. reports, fabrication / quality control: records'and as-buil: construction drawings'that are now
1 4
a i.
a.
4*.w w C.u.n., e
- + +,,.
.w t,
._ o. _
n e t,., a e,.a u,y o.u.e off.2 C,..
na
.c.
,,oe C.nwa..
a,.,, d C.,,.. e a, e q,w. 4,.OC..,
o w n
m-n a a m
.y w..ww...
g.a g.4... ev.g.g 'wo k
w.0e 4.e
.e.,.g.3
. '4.3 e.,.w 4
S, a-. e. n.
.nw.C g.,, + %.. s A.....w as fw
.g ww a
w.
. y w.
w w w ww..n.
- w,. c., -..p,. avge.s*,w1,
%.. C.1,,,.. n
.e,,w 3 w,.,. 7 9 g.,. 4_.g g..w.ue..
-k.na a
...w o
..w w w
ws.
w..,
a o
thece vitcl records will bc within your Control.
It is requested that the Containment design report be submitted.
t 50 For. Containnent Coatings, picace provide the fclicving information:
12.en. 4.e.4C a*.# ".. c ' "m.'wC." #
'wO
',e U3 a.d,.' *w C w" 'w #.v^."., m.'
- "w"..C *w#.^ P..
g.
w w.
5
~
4 1
'c.
.o.u./ 4.C a,
- 6. e.A.
C.>.u.,., 4, e n.,.,e,.,,,.<c,.t.a,.
.. w.
.<v...
o.s C.
'. c.*.',r_.'... e " *..* ^." * ' a ' d a.. w ( ~u^,C.1) -..di',,
- c".s #...' "~4 4.".g va..b.w wn.,
4 w.
1 4
i
.,d,,..,,,.,a...e_,,.,.,,c._..e,..,.,.,., -.,e.
- o. e.,,
4.
e.. e.,.,eC4.,a e,
y
..e w
j
,d. Ex;crimental data on the effect of exclusion for ed by spray w,.,.
.,,, t,.,,.g..,. o,.4.,,, wn e c.4.,.
t.,.,.,., 4..C
. w,....,.
a O.,,d. 4.., nS-....
ww wu.
w.
ug.4 af. S,f w a 1
/
COcZie3 and the Ccre.
- a. e.
a...,, ans,e,.
,,r.
.-,...ec..,.
c C,a-,4
. n
,.e
, e cww
,, w c.
w a,
3 faces if Carried in sciution.
1 b
w....
o.0
.r a s._- a. e
.,,x..
.e,...,n s..
.a... r., a.. a.,. n,e.a.,.6 u e.,, a. e,..,.,.
- s..o., le.,.
.w w
t 7.#.a C..ar.ge b.a- ",e.....~ e '..-.
,,S e.". v^ - C4" 7.3.' ~ d.'*..~a ' ' y.. d.' ^ ate ^,
d
. -o juctify_in cotai'. each test data, perror ance cata, etc., the l
' equivalence of the caterial selected.
I I
I t
- --m
.m e
m a.
mm m
ATTACHMENT D 4
GENERAL INFORMATIONAL REQUIREMENTS CONTAINMENT STRUCTURAL PROOF TESTING The containment proof test plans and containment monitoring accomplished to date have not been described in sufficient detail for us either to evaluate the adequacy of the planning for conduct of the test or permit us to assess the meani.7 goof test results in terms of structural adequacy.
Provide for the' structural proof test:
a.
An updated description of the instrumentation to be used to monitor the structure during the test.
Place particular 1
emphasis on the extent to which embedded instrumentation remains operable and describe the extent to which failed
/
instrumentation will interfere with judging structural adequacy from the :est and/or will be replaced prior to the pressurization of the structure.
b.
The final procedures for and sequence of structural proof testing to include procedures for and extent of observation of structural behavior during pressurization and depressuri:ation of the structure.
Include a discussion of the extent to which the internal containment temperature'will be controlled and the basis for the control selected.
O
. ]
1
Attachment D.
c.
A summary of the stress, strain, and deflection results that have been obtained from structural monitoring to date and an evaluation of these results in the context of predicted t
structural behavior.
d.
A tabulation of the stress, strain, and deflection predictions for the structure during proof testing.
Include in the tabula-tion indication of measurement accuracies and error bands based
~
on the cccuracy of the analysis techniques used to predict the i
structural behavior.
Provide also a description of where, at what load, and at what orientation structural cracking is expected to occur during the testing.
e.
The steps that will be taken if anomalous structural behavier develops during pressurization of the structure, f.
Confirmation that the evaluated results of the test verifying the acceptability.of the structure to perform its intended function will be available and submitted for our review prior to plant start up s
1
-s-Y e
g b
5 m e
/
e I
se i
e m
.u.s.x... :
I.-,s e. m.y - y r., ~%, m~:..
- ..,.,e.a it f v.
- th U.e..a
. wv SZISMIC STRUCTURAL DZSIGN 1.0 For each conponent, syste=, and structure ide.itified to require a high e
degree of safety related seistic resistanco (i.e., identified as Class I) provide a separate section with the following informatidn:
a.
An engineering sketch of the principle structural features of the item.
b.
A sketch of the mathematical model idealizing the syste= for dynamic t.nalysis purposes.
c.
A tabulation of the macs and cection properties that constitute the model.
d.
A description of the degrees of freedom considered and a discussion (to include exa ples) of the procedures used for lumping masses and co=puting section properties.
'N N
A discussion of the accuracy with which the codel describ'es the e.
particular ite: considered.
2.0 For co=penents, syste=s, and structures identified as requiring a high
/
degree of safety-related ceismic resistance and analysed by a dynamic method provide in addition:
a b
Attach ent I,,
The equations of notion for the approximatin6 =cdel.
The = atrix a.
a3cebra format may be used but all matrix elements will be specified.
~
b.
The procedure for evaluating resistance elements (and, as applicable, damping ele ents) for the matrix shown in "a" above.
I The =cde shapes, frequencies, and participation factors if a modal c.
analysis procedure is indicated.
d.
The manner in which modal damping percentages have been determined if a spectral analysis procedure is indicated.
A justification for the technique used and the specific codal values employed should be included.
The input forcing function considered if different frc the basic e.
ground otion characterization.
f.
The procedure ceployed for combining =0dal effects, if a spectral analysis procedure is indicated.
g.
The predicted deformations and internal shears, eccents, axial and torsional forces at critical points resulting frce the analysis.
h.
A tabulation of resultant stresses at critical locations for the iten under censideration for both the seismic forces separately and, also, in combinaticn with the other combined loads.
Also specify, for ec=pariscri, the alicwable values at these locations.
Include the cyclic basis for the values specified.
30 For ito:s identified e.s requiring a high degree of safety-related' seismic resistance and analyzed by an approximate static =ethod also provide:
Attach =ent E a.
Details en the specific procedure used to include the =anner of static force selection and application in ec=puting design accelera-tions, displace =ehts, shears, =c=ents and stresses.
b.
Justirication of the conservatisa or the procedure with respect to results cotainable thrcuch a =cre exact analysis.
The predicted dercr:ations and internal shears, =ccents, axial and.
c.
~
torsional rcrees at critical. locations resulting rro: the analysis.
d.
A tabulation of resultant stresses at critical locations for the iten under consideration rcr both the seismic forces seaparately and, also, in ec=bination with the Otner concined acada.
Also speciry, for cc=parison, the allevable values at tnese locations to include the cyclic casis for the values speciriea.
h.0 For cc=p0nents, systems, and structures identified to require some degree f
of seismic resistance (i.e., identified as Class II) provide a detailed description of the procedures used, the constants selected and exa=ples of their application in a specific situation to an example (a) cc=ponent, (b) structure, and (c) system.
50 provide a discussion of the possibility and significance of dynamic coupling between the nuclear steam syste= and the supporting structure (internal structure within the containment building).
o.O What provisions were made to transfer seis=ic and vind shear forces across construction joints?
l+ -
70 It is understood that spectra from the highest point in the Auxili;u y Building at which the piping systems are anchored are used for piping in both the Auxiliary Building and the Turbine Building. Will not the spectra for the two buildings be different and. exhibit different ampli-fications at different frequencies? Has rocking of the Turbine Support Structure been considered? please de=onstrate that if the spectra from the Auxiliary Building are utilised for pipes in the Turbine Building, the resulting seismic stresses vill be conservative.
8.0 It is understood that the Turbine Building has been designed to resist the earthquake loadings postulated for the site in order to protect the Seismic Class I equipment and piping located within the Turbine x
Building. The structure has been designed for a uniform static lateral y
/
coefficient of 0.22 g(?) for the maximum hypothetical earthquake, and this coefficient corresponds to the peak spectral acceleration for 2fo damping.
please demonstrate that this =ethod is conservative as stated.
Can contributions from the various modes of response result in an accelera h tion at the roof that is higher than 0.22g? If so, vill the structure be able to withstand this loading?
i I
f
..