ML19324C424

Rev 0 to San Onofre Units 2 & 3 Fuel Rack Seismic Analysis for Final Pool Layout.

ML19324C424
Person / Time
Site:	San Onofre
Issue date:	10/31/1989
From:	Watson J WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, DIV OF CBS CORP.
To:
Shared Package
ML13304A439	List: ML13304A438 ML19324C423 ML19324C424
References
WNEP-8930, WNEP-8930-R, WNEP-8930-R00, NUDOCS 8911160297
Download: ML19324C424 (17)

Text

-. - - - . - - , - . - . - . - - - -

l l l 1 .

Q

. sii amw/

1

/ i

! l l l i l' l l'  ;

• I h

i

\. s _.

.. y l e V

b .

l 1

l- . j l

i I

W85tingh0use Nuclear Energy Systems g .

P

' _ M-_ _

.. j n

l WESTINGHOUSE, PROPRIETARY CLASS 3  !

g  !

W @

D l

i t

i SAN ONOF'tE UNITS 2 & 3 i FUEL RACK SEISMIC ANALYSIS FOR FINAL POOL LAYOUT {

I Resisjon 0 i October 1989  !

Author: J. O. /4/b _ f T. C. Watson  :

Advanced Engineerlag Analysis l

Yerlfled By: h '

E4.1 -

• T. S. Rees  !

) .

Advanced Engineering Analyils j

Approved by: . /3, / h-W. B. Middlebrooks, Manager i Advanced Engleeerlag Analysis l

This document Is the property of and costales proprietary  !

Informatlos owned by the Westinghouse Electric Corporstlos, Nuclear Energy Systems, and is tressaltted to .

you is confidence and trust and is to be returned upon '

request. . No permission is granted to publish, reproduce, transmit or disclose to another any leformatlos contained  ;

le this document, la whole or la part, without the prior writiec permition of the Westleshouse Electric Corporation.

WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION 1 Pensacola Plant

$301 Scenic Highway Pensacola, Florida 32514

- - - -.._----.,.-.........-.,..m ., , ~,- m---r.--v, - - , . ..-...------,w.- . . . . ~ . - . , , - - - , , . - -

I l

l f ,*

i I

l

< l h l TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION TITLE PAGE  :

I 1 INTRODUCTION 11 I i

l T

2 SEISMIC ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY 21 [

t t

3 SEISMIC ANALYSIS RESULTS 31 i

4 REFERENCES 4,3 l P

b P

! j l

i l

I i

-r a

y I

II t I

l-  !

11 l

l p

,E s . - ,. -, ,.-- ,,, -- . - - , , - , , , , - , . -,.- - e-

I i

l l

SECTION 1 l

i INTRODUCTION '

r i

This report presents the supplemental seismic anal > sis (henceforth referred to as the " confirmatory analysis") performed to address the final pool layout with

{

- a row of cells remoted from two Reglos Il racks and the resulting reilsed rack to rack and rack to pool wall spacing (Figure 11). This analysis is an

{

j extension of the seismic analysis (henceforth referred to as the " primary '

anal > sis") preslously performed for the preliminary poollayout shown la Figure

[

12. The primary anal > sis preslously performed is documented in Reference 1.  ;

The confirmatory seismic anal > sis consisted of nonlinear time history runs for selected cases uslag the multiple rack model. From these runs rack displacements were obtained and used to show that significant separation margin agalast impact with an adjacent rack or the pool wall remains. (Also obtained  ;

from the time history runs were loads which were used la the structural analysis of the racks and the pool. A description of the structural analysis  !

and the resulting margins to allowable is presented la Reference 2 and is not a  !

part of this report.)

AdditionalInformation conceralog the methodology used la the seismic analysis f

for the final poollayout is presented in Sectica 2. The displacement results obtained from the seismic analysis are detailed in Section 3. I I

4 l1 l .

-,,.,...,-..,,----..,._,,_...---,..n,-_.,-.,c,y.-w

oe I 44

>dij 4 e 4 I 8

++" 4 4  % p_

l d b i

5

• I

{

M l M l

" l l R h l i gg 1

$4 l s . . I I I j

e EI EE

• I .

J*IIs 3I  !

i 2

l I i 8 l g

- . 8N I I d  ;

x M E 3  !

(W E  !

i

e: e e g #R i ue ' q fp I E l

2 , i f

+N "E Q 5- -

x E I I

i

)l o

v S.n _  ;

te o

s.  ;

g

.s e 43 2L.

. 8 g  :

s' d i i

SAN ON0FRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION Unmi".3 SPEN. F Y TORA 0E j . RACK ARRANGEMENT FIGURE 11

. 1-2

i >

m/'"N 1 ~\J N

] ,

$AG.N ^

4  % 3.75 4 & 3.44 3.00 6-g 9,gg 4 , h 1 3 5 . 9 0 4 ,, % 4.0 2 M P 3 ,3 g g l

r a "

u x 15 w x ,5 w x is i

12 m 13 125.5, y ms gggg gens 133.07 fis (2) 2n.ee 7.00 k L h pr i f3.= i w

l 12 x t3 14 x 15 14 X ts

14 X 15 its.5e

j. " " M

\

e.00 6.90 h y

= 4-

, g i I e.m 3 **

vue s________ _ _ _ _ _ __ .____- I i ,, M3 x xx.o e m e 1

3 mEs og  :

i

l c

2

>4 3Cr EEz g e'* O nXm twu m

t 2 g ,,3 2 M M M2 i zy * -e M M BEL M

! 7 S 0">

"E" r *

(Unit 3 hasser w l set g N 1- 312 % ha 10.4 ACTC%

l *g, 3 ftEGIOps a: 1200 Seusse Landens as SA5 en. CfC Spessag l

s2 1sn vens i-

, feOTE- As essensions ese W asas w toestem.

1 1

{

SECTION 2 c .'  !

)

' SEISMIC ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY I Annissh Cug Stjectlen i

i This settles describes the seismic confirmatory anslysis performed to address  !

the final pool layout, la the analpls, the monlinear seismic model was rum l for the following cases:  !

l.

1. Region 11 Full / Full. 0.5 Friction Consolidated Fuel  !

2. Region II, Full / Full. 0.2 Friction, Consolidated Fuel i

3. Region 11, Empty / Full,0.2 Friction Consolidated Fuel  !

4. Reglos II, Empty / Full 0.8 Friction, Standard Fuel I

The nonlinear model used in the confirmatory analpis was identical to the

, model used la the primary analysis (see Reference 1 for a description of the

{

prlinary smalpls) with the exception of the change in h)drodynamic mass matrix salues (tsck to pool wall and tack to. rack) to reflect the change la rack.to pool wall and rack tc~ rack gaps.

j i

Ruh [gr, Con Selected For the primary selsmic analysis the soallaear snodel was,run for both Region I '

and Region Il racks while for the confirmatory analysis only cases for Region Il racks were run. The justification for selecting Region Il cases for the confirmatory analysis is the following: '

l l

A. The Region I and Region 11 racks hais similar stlifness and fundamental .

frequency. As evidenced by the results obtalmed from the primary analpis, for comparable fuel loading and hydredynamic mass salues the Region I racks respond to seismic loading in a manner siellar to the Region 11 racks.

21

...-,.-,,..n.,. -. - , , , _, . _ . , . . , . _ , . . _ , _ - . , , - . . - , . _ . - - - . _ , . _ , , .,_..-,.,-,,,-,..,---..._w

)

l 1

)

i Therefore, for the floal poollayout where the hydrodynamic effects are

)

slallar for the Region I and Reglon il racks, the response of the two t> pes of racks will likewise be comparalcle, i i

B. A comparlson of the final poollayout with the preliminary layout  !

etaluated in the primary analysis shows that the rack to pool wall go,as for the Region 11 racks change by a greater percentage than do the gaps

{

for the Region I racks. Therefore, the effect of the resised poolla>out  !

on the response r<f the racks will be greater for the Region !! racks as j

cornpared to the Region I racks, l

f C. In the preliminary layout analysis, the cases for the Region 11 racks resulted in larger pool floor loads and larger rack structure loads than did the cases for the Region I racks.

(

D. The results of the preliminary la>out analysis showed that the maximum I absolute displacement in the north south direction occurred for the Region 11 racks.

i E. The results of the preliminary layout analysis also showed that la the l east west direction the Region !! racks have the limiting absolute l

displacement. (It is noted that although a case for the Region I racks  !

l did produce a larger displacement, this case was not limiting because of j the larger initial clearances la the east. west direction for the Region I l racks.)

l The selection of the particular four Region 11 cases is based on a eetlew of t the preliminary pool layout analysis results and an explanation of the

{

selections is provided by the following: '

A. The case of Full / Full,0.3 Friction, Consolidated Fuel was included since ,

it produced the largest tack structure and spent fuel pool floor loads.

,. 2-2

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

i t

B. The case of Full / Full. 0.2 Friction, Consolidated Fuel was included since i it produced the maximum absolute displacements, t

i C. The case of Empty / Full,0.2 Friction, Consolidated Fuel was included  !

since it produced the maximum relative displacements.  !

r D. The case of Empty / Full. 0.8 Friction, Standard Fuel was included since it  ;

produced both large loads and large displacements for standard fuel.

i Analvsls DescrIntion t The confiranatory anal > sis was performed by running the nonlinear enodel for the selected cases for the final pool layout and comparing the Region 11 rack l*. response with the results obtained in the primary analysis.[ ,

l l

l

)

Since the selsmic analysis was conducted on a multiple rack model, the relatise I (where relative is the displacement of one rack with respect to an adjacent  !

rack) displacements between racks at both the bottom and top of the racks as  !

well as the absolute (where absolute is the displacement of a rack with respect '

to the ,0001 floor) displacements at the bottom and top of the racks were  ;

obtained. The salues of these results were searched through the duration of the time history to obtain the maxter.um salues. The maximum tatues of the j displacement results were used to show that significant separation margin i against impact with an adjacent rack or the pool wall remains.

23

I

. , '* . .)

1 i

, i l

y

)

SECTION 3

'l' SEISMIC ANALYSIS RESULTS I

This section proildes the displacement results obtalatd from the confirmatory i seismic saalpls. Listed in Table 31 is a summary of the maximum displacement salues from the seismic anal 3 sis performed for the final pool layout. Results 1 are reported for the four cases for which woollaear analysis was performed.

These salues were obtained by searching the time history duration. The displacements represent the maximum talue for the corners of the fuel rack at i both the top and bottom.

l The salues under the heading " Absolute Displacement" are the absolute f

displacements of the rack which represents the displacements of the rack with

, respect to the pool floor. The values under the headles "Relattie i Displacement" are the relatlie displacements of one rack with respect to the  !

adjacent rack. -

A comparison of the seismic displacements listed la Table 31 for the Region 11 racks f ar the final pool layout sersus the displacements listed in Table 3 2

for these same racks for the treliminary pool layout leads to the following  !

l obsertations:

A. Consolldated fuel north. south absolute displacements [

b l

]seieral cases.

t l B. i l

Consolidated fuel east. west absolute displacements [

]bThe limiting case displacement [ l 3'

~

C. Consolidated fuel north south relatise displacements -

b D. Consolldated fuel east west relative displacements ( ,

] The limiting case

, displacement 31

i E.

Standard fuel displectments (absolute and relatlie){

J' Based en the a above, seismic displacements for other cases [ I

}were determined. Displacements were calculated using results from the seismic analysis performed for the preliminary pool la)out (" primary i anal > sis") and applying the following factors.

I A. For both Region I and Region !! racks for all cases where the I coefficient of friction equals 0.2, the primary analysis  ;

displacements (absolute or relatlie) were[

] This approach was consertatliely followed for both i standard and consolidated fuel and for both north south and east west directions.

.. l B. For Region I racks for all cases where the coefficient of friction

!. , l equals 0.8, the primary analysis displacements (absolute or i t

relatlie) were( )e .

This approach was conservatively followed for both standard and  !

consolidated fuel and for both north south and east-west directions.

C. For Region II racks for the cases where the coefficleat of friction i 5

equals 0.8, auf '

L  ;

}sTo account for possible lacreased rocking displacement for the 13 x 15 racks,{ ]*

This factor was calculated using the lift off energy on a per '

location basis determined for the 14 x 15 racks and applying the  !

~

same energy to a 13 x 15 rack. From the calculation, a possible

.b -

1 la top of rack lateral displacement was determined. The l net result for this case is that the original anal > sis displacements j

i (absolute or relatlie) were This approach was conservatliely followed for both standard and consolidated fuel and for both north south and east west p

32 l

1 i i

( ,.

l l

• i

[

i i

alrections. It is noted that for the case with the coefficient of l

friction equal to 0.2 (where sliding tather than rocking dominates), I an adjustment to the displacements is not appropriate sloce rack

{

slee is not a significant factor la the amount of slidleg f

' displacement. For the low coefficient of friction condiflom, the 14 x 15 rack displacements apply to the 13 x 15 rack as well. l For the two cases run with a coefficient of friction of 0.8, the displacements  :

obtained from the moelleear anal sis for the final poollayout also were modified. [

)

Table 3 3 provides a summary of the resulting seismic displacements. The table [

t l, shows both the displacements explicitly calculated by the reilsed pool layout l nonlinear analysis and the displacements deteranised by appl >les factors to the

, results obtained from the preliminary poollayout analysis.  ;

Using the displacement results from the confirmatory seismic analysis the determination of the remalmles gaps is shown in Table 3 4. The remaining gap l Is determined by startles with the nominal gap and then subtracting the seismic ,

displacement, thermal growth, and rack lastallation tolerance. In the case of f the gap between the racks and the pool wall, an additional adjustment is made .

to account for pool wall variation.

From the results presented in the trble,it is concluded that the racks are '

spaced with suffi: lent clearance so that rack to rack and rack to pool wall I impact does not occur.

33 t

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

,--.-.-...-.4 .,_.--.~.,,,,-e,., -

. , ,n- m-.-

I

.- l l

f i

TABLE 31  !

r

?

DISPLACEhtENTS FROh! Tih1E HISTORY RESULTS  ;

(FINAL POOL LAYOUT) I i

2 Absolute Relatlie  :

Fuel Displacement Displacement I hfodel T> pe(I) Type blu (In.) (Is.) f NS EW NS EW  !

i Region II, E/F Std 0.8 1.16 1.15 0.95 0.74  ;

14 x 15 Rack

• fi Region II, F/F Consol 0.2 2.11 2.54(2) 0.42 0.44  !

14 x 15 Rack '

Region 11, F/F Consol 0.8 1.07 1.39 0.83 0.91 14 x 15 Rack Region !!, E/F Consol 0.2 1,32 1.52 1.17 1.30(2) 14 x 15 Rack i I

i

(

(1) E/F Refers to Empty / Full (I rack empty, I rack fuel) Ii F/F Refers to Full / Full (Both racks full of fuel) )

(2) Limiting case displacements based on remaining gap r

34

_ _ _ _ . _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . - , _ _ - ,, , _ - , . , . - . . _ - - , _ - - _ .__. ,_r . . . . - ,

s TA8tE 3-2 #

SAs GuGF#E RACK OISPLACEMEuf Sisette?

(PoELI#INARf LAYOUT)

@loitte Diso (in) Set Diac (in) figgsency (nz) i 8EDEL TYPE

• g e5 E_W #5 (W LOCATION e5 EW neg.1, Std, Fut t .2 1.50 1.80 .33 .41 Top /Tep 14.1 17.9 seg. 1, 5td, tutt .8 1.49 1.37 .84 44 fepriep 14.1 1T.9 seg.1, std, E/F .2 1.30 1.51 1.39 1.73 fep/Tep 14.7 18.6 Reg.1, std, E/F .8 1.42 1.60 .99 1.23 fep/Tep 14.T 18.6 seg. 1, 2mstd, tutt .2 2.09 2.46 .33 75 Top /fep 11.82 13.28 seg. 1, Zustd, futt .8 1.05 1.24 1.18 1.4T Tap /Tep 11.82 13.28 meg. 1, 2msto, E/F .2 1.97 2.69 1.68 2.38 set / sot 13.65 16.95 Reg.1, 2mstd, E/F .8 .78 .79 .2 .92 Top /Tep 13.65 16.95 Reg. 1, 5td, Sund .2 .39 .43 ** **

Top /tep 75.1 17.1 Weg. 1, Std, Gued .8 .67 .33 ** **

Tep/fep 15.1 17.1 I Reg. 1, 5td, Rows .2 .33 .60 ** **

fop /Tep 15.1 17.2 Y

u, Reg. 1, 5td Rows .6 .35 .64 ** **

Top /Tep 15.1

• T.2 Reg. 2, Std, futt .2 1.00 1.39 .26 .59 fep/ Top 13.8 14.1 Reg. 2, 5td. Futt .8 1.44 1.36 .68 .76 Top / fey 13.8 14.1 Reg. 2, 5td, E/F .2 1.09 1.05 .99 .83 Top / Top 14.2 15.2 Reg. 2 Std E/F .8 1.39 1.33 1.17 .96 Tep/Tep 14.2 15.2 Reg. 2, 2mstd Futt .2 2.28 2.38 .44 .38 tot /Tep 11.T 12.0 seg. 2, 2mstd, Futt .8 a.33 1.34 .8T .83 Top /Tep 11.7 12.0 Reg. 2, 2mstd, E/F .2 1.29 1.3T 1.2T 1.22 Set / Sot 13.1 14.5 Reg. 2, 2mstd, E/F .8 1.40 1.14 .98 .79 fep/Tep 13.1 14.5

• Leading Conditions Four ternes are used to define the dif f erent f eeding conditions. They ere defined as follows !.p{l is usa to descritse the fatty toeded situation. Uf describes a case eAere ene rack is fvtt and e,other is empty. Quod represents e se gle rack case =Aere ene quadrant only is toeded. R_ous describes a case eAere enty four rock rows art toeded. Finetty, Zm3tj$ t represents a fuel essembly with doui.te muess, ircreened tsease stif fness, and increased hydrodynewic smess.

These are single rack cases. Relative t'iW ecements do twyt apply.

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

b -

4 t

l. . TABLE 3 3 I i

SAN ONOFRE R ACK DISPLACEMENT

SUMMARY

(FINAL LAYOUT)

I t b Absolute Diso fini Rei Dito fin]  !

l t

hiqdel TvoeO) hin b'S EE til G Reg.1, Std Full .2 1.67 2.00 .37 .46 Reg 1, Std, Full .8 1.65 1.52 .93 .49 F Reg. I, Std E/F .2 1.44 1.68 1.54 1.92  ;

Reg.1, Std, E/F .8 1.58 1.78 1.10 1,37 '  !

Reg.1, Consol, Full .2 2.32 2.73 .37 .83 Reg. I, Consol, Full .8 1.17 1.38 1.31 1.63 ,

Reg.1. Consol E/F .2 2,19 2.99 1.86 2.64 Reg.1, Consol. E/F .8 .87 .88 .98 1.02 l Reg. 2. Std, Full .2 1,11 1.34 .29 .6$

Reg. 2, Std. Full .8 1.73 1.63 .82 .9 )

Reg. 2. Std, E/F .2 1.21 1.17 1.10 .92 Reg. 2 Std, E/F .8 1.25 1.24 1.03 .80 )

0'. Reg. 2, Conso!, Full .2 2.11 2.54 .42 .44 Reg. 2, Consol, Full .8 1.16 1.50 .90 .98 Reg. 2, Consol, E/F .2 1.32 1.52 1.17 1.30 Reg. 2. Consol E/F .8 1.68 1.37 1.17 .95 '

(1) Two terms are used to define the different loading conditions. They are defined as '

follows: Enllis used to describe the fully loaded situation. E/Idescribes a case where  !

one rack is full and another is empty.

. 8sC 6

I 36

o .

o .

i .. .

TABLE-3-4 -

SIMIARY OF STACK DISPLACEMENT VERSUS CAP (FINAL LAYOUT) ,

854tafWI mWEIRE 98FIAGUEWT5 Istflat ugegent A9JWS18ENT pet IWuf. MIDOC 14WML WWWIW pesettatte Eggestes anEX FWEL Ear (Is.) Pest tatt vehntaffe 9tsplatpEst 1 antz samamamer enP EGIGI DIE CTION M LO CK.19. M teLL) (Is.1 tie.1 (3a.3 EM.3 135.1 1 m-S Std 6.M 1.06 1.6T 3.10 9.B 3.3 >

1 E-w Std 11.71 1.M 2.00 9.10 SE 3.3 l 1 m-S Cenoot 4.94 1.0L 2.32 0.18 0.5 2.63 l

1 E-W Casset 11.71 1.36 2.99 8.10 9.5 T.99  !

l 2 m-S Sed T.95 1.96 1.T3 9.18 9.8 3.51 2 E-w Std 5.43 1.M 1.43 9.18 SE 1

2.29 2 m-S Caneet T.55 1.ss 2.11 e.1e em 3.13

, 7

~

2 E-W Cornet 5.43 1.M 2.56 9.10 SE 1.E i

! tuut3158 ELAYIVE DIPEAGNNE i

i letflat ulpetenL Mar. SEf 58tC 1sE W ut EW Wfte dub 5eLLatte mumgetes l

Sam NEL GAP (*W.) StWLatMUEst 2 RAMS 1GLEWWEE enP l EGI98 DieECTIst M (WIM 19 m tas.1 tie 1 taa 3 tas.3 1 4-S Std 6.00 1.36 SR .39 1.M ,

l 1 E-W Sed T.00 1.92 SR .M 4.38 4

i 1 m-S Coreet 6.88 1.06 9.29 .30

! 1.64 1 E-w Carnet T.00 2.66 9.20 .30 3.46 1

3 2 a-S Std 6.00 1.19 J 29 .30 2.29 i

2 E-v Std 3.38 .92 e.20 .Se 1.76 l

2 m-S Conset 1.17 l 4.00 8.28 .50 2.0 4

j 2 E-w Ceset 3.38 1.30 0.29 i .50 1.33

! AfA-99-166 i

r ,

I l  !

,. i

?

i SECTION 4 l

I REFERENCES '

?

l

1. " Spent Fuel Pool Reracking Licensing Report". Reilslon 3 Southern i California Edison San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Units 2 and 3, September 1989.

I

2. " Spent Fuel Pool Reracking Licensing Report", Reilslon 4, Southern l California Edison San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Units 2 and 3.  !

October 1989, i

s.

I 5

I 6

I '.

41 l

I i

- . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ __ _..___ _. . _ . _ _ _ _ _ - - . ._ , _ . . _ .