ML20024D565

Final Deficiency Rept DER 82-56 Re Condensate Storage Tank Scaled Down W/O New Calculations for Seismic Response. Initially Reported on 821015.Bechtel Analysis Details Encl. Item Determined Not Reportable Per 10CFR50.55(e)

ML20024D565
Person / Time
Site:	Palo Verde
Issue date:	07/21/1983
From:	Van Brunt E ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE CO. (FORMERLY ARIZONA NUCLEAR
To:	Sternberg D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V)
References
10CFR-050.55E, 10CFR-50.55E, ANPP-27346-BSK, DER-82-56, NUDOCS 8308050263
Download: ML20024D565 (31)

Text

_

56-SDP llEOSyra thic Arizona Public Service Company

!] a t },

Po. BOX 21666. PHOENIX. ARIZONA 85036 July 21, 1983 ANPP-27346-BSK/RQT U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region V Creekside Oaks Office Park 1450 Maria Lane - Suite 210 Walnut Creek, CA 94596-5368 Attention: Mr. D. M. Sternberg, Chief Reactor Projects Branch 1

Subject:

Final Report - DER 82-56 A 50.55(e) Report Relating to Condensate Storage Tank Was Scaled-Down Without New Calculations For Seismic Response.

File:

83-019-026; D.4.33.2

Reference:

A) Telephone Conversation between J. Eckhardt and G. Duckworth on October 15, 1982 B) ANPP-22179, dated November 1, 1982 (Interim Report)

C) ANPP-22696, dated January 11, 1983 (Time Extension)

D) ANPP-22845, dated January 27, 1983 (Time Extension) i E) ANPP-23276, dated March 17, 1983 (Time Extension) i F) ANPP-23467, dated April 12, 1983 (Time Extension) l G) ANPP-23868, dated May 24,1983 (Time Extension)

H) ANPP-24175, dated June 27, 1983 (Time Extension) 2

Dear Sir:

l Attached is our final written report of the deficiency referenced above, which has been determined to be Not Reportable under the requirements of 10CFR50.55(e).

Very truly you ctq ntLL E. E. Van Brunt, Jr.

APS Vice President, Nuclear Projects Management ANPP Project Director EEVBJr./RQT:ru I

Enclosure cc:

See Page 2 l

8308050263 830721 PDR ADOCK 05000528 S

PDR 1697

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page 2 cc:

Richard DeYoung, Director -

Office of Inspection and Enforcemer:t U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 T. G.' Woods, Jr.

G. C.. Andognini J. A. Roedel D. B. Fasnacht A. C. Rogers B. S. Kaplan W. E. Ide J. Vorees J. R. Bynum P. P. Klute/D. D. Green A. C. Gehr W. J. Stubblefield -

W. G. Bingham R. L. Patterson R. W. Welcher R. M. Grant D. R. Hawkinson L. E. Vorderbrueggen G. A. Fiorelli S. R. Frost-J. Self Records Center Institute of Nuclear Power Operations 1100 circle 75 Parkway - Suite 1500

(

Atlanta, Georgia 30339 f

I I

I i

i e

t L

I

4 l '

i FINAL REPORT - DER 82-56 j

DEFICIENCY EVALUATION 50.55 (e)-

' ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY (APS)

PVNCS UNITS 1,.2, & 3-I.

Condition Descritpion This report was intitated as a result of.the Torrey Pines Technology Independent Evaluation of PVNCS which requested that the design of the Condensate Storage Water Tank (CST) be reevaluated.

4

.The CST is required to be designed to resist stresses resulting from operating and extreme environment / accident loads. The analysis and design of the CST (Calculation 13-CC-CT-010) was based on the design of the Refueling Water Tank.(Calculation 13-CC-CT-015) without detailed engineering calculations. Due to the similarities in the geometry, the tank-wall reinforcement of the CST was scaled down from the reinforcement used in the RWT design due to the decreased height and mass of the CST. However, the review by Torrey Pines Technology indicated that the scaling approach may not be conservative because the CST is only embedded 4.5 feet into the soil while the RWT is embedded 15' feet. The CST, with the reduced embedment, has more flexible soil springs and less soil damping than that of the RWT, which could result in greater seismic response.

II.

Analysis of Safety Implications This condition is evaluated as not reportable.

Based upon a detailed analysis of the CST (separate from the Refueling Water Tank analysis) performed by Bechtel Engineering, the existing design for j

'the CST has been determined to be adequate for all load-combination specified in the project Design Criteria (see-attached report).

Therefore, a safety significant condition does not exist, hence the subject condition is not reportable under the requirements of 10CFR50.55(e) 4 i'

i I

t r,,,,

1

)

Final Report - DER 82-56 Page 2

- III. Corrective Action

l. Bechtel Engineering has performed a detailed analysis of the CST,

~

independently'from the Refueling Water Tank design calculation, per Revision 1 of Calculation 13-CC-CT-010.

Details of the analysis are presented in the attached report " Engineering 4

Evalution of the Design of the Condensate Water Storage Tank and

.the Refueling Water Tank", dated May, 1983.

Based.upon the results of the detailed analysis, it has been determined that the local yielding of some of the inside-face vertical rebar at the wall basemat junction occurs for the CST under certain load conditions. The 1/4 inch stainless steel liner plate, attached to the inside surface of the tank, ensures the leak tight integrity of the structure. Under the extreme loading condition

~

that might locally crack the concrete at the wall-basemat junction, the strain in the liner will remain well below allowable strain for stainless steel based upon ASME Section III Division 2 Code. Therefore, it has been demonstrated that this local yielding of the rebar in no way impairs the design function of the tank or poses any threat to any other Category I structure or equipment.

i

2. For the CST, Safety Analysis Report Change Notice 1100 is being issued to revise.Section 3.8.4.1.7 (subtitled " Condensate Storage Tank") of the FSAR. This revision clarifies the following of the CST: a) the concrete shell and the Seismic Category I stainless steel wall liner will retain the hydrostatic pressure; and b) the welded stainless steel liner ensures the leak tight integrity of the structure.

l i

f' i

4 f

...w:

--a-.u.--.-~.--~

..--.-:x--....a-..:---.

F. l DEFICIENCY EVALUATION REPORTS 82-56 AND 82-63

[l t<

[

R-t b

1 21 I

ENGINEERING EVALUATION FOR THE DESIGN OF THE CONDENSATE WATER STORAGE TANK AND THE REFUELING WATER TANK G

i PALO VERDE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION f

4 4

1 4

i 1

i e

JOB NUMBER 10407 BECHTEL POWER CORPORATION NORWALK, CALIFORNIA Revision 1 May 1983 I.

EFICIENCY EVALUATION REPORTS 82-56 AND 82-63 y

s ENGINEERING EVALUATION FOR THE DESIGN OF THE CONDENSATE WATER STORAGE TANK AND THE REFUELING WATER TANK j

PALO VERDE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION

,. r r b

PREPARED BY:

/

G. S. LIMA M REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER STATE OF CALIFORNIA (28415 (O f ha w

W. R. HUGHES

'J REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER STATE OF CALIFORNIA #29290 frl N. 0An oY S. H. BERGQUIST (jf7 CIVIL ENGINEER REVIEWED BY:

K. M. SCHECHTER

~

W46 REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER KEM9pfl MICINE' STATE OF ARIZONA #12746 0$

$'/W R.'ELBERTS REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER STATE OF CALIFORNIA #31639 Q,

APPROVED FOR USE ON PVNGS BY:

. M w t,'ARLb W. G. BINGHAM PROJECT ENGINEERING MANAGER Revision I May, 1983 REVIEWED AND APPROVED FOR USE ON PVNGS BY:

. 03 b

JOB NUMBER 10407 BECHTEL POWER CORPORATION NORWALK, CALIFORNIA Revision 1 May 1983 T

DEFICIENCY EVALUATION REPORTS 82-56 AND 82-63 h

O t

[

CONTENTS Pagg 1

PROBLEM INTRODUCTION 1-1 1.1 DESIGN CRITERIA 1-1 1.2 DISCOVERY OF PROBLEM 1-1 i4 1.3 ENGINEERING ACTION 3-1 2

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSIONS 2-1 3

DISCUSSION OF THE ANALYSIS 3-1 l

a 3.1 PURPOSE 3-1 f

3.2 GENERAL 3-1 3.3 BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE ANALYSIS 3-1 l

3.4 BEAM STICK MODEL 3-1 4

3.4.1 DYNAMIC ANALYSIS 3-1

{

3.5 THREE-DIMENSIONAL FINITE ELEMENT MODEL 3-1 l

f 3.5.1 LOADING 3-2 1

3.5.1.1 DEAD LOAD 3-2 3.5.1.2 SEISMIC LOADING 3-2 3.5.1.2.1 VERTICAL 3-2 3.5.1.2.2 HORIZONTAL 3-2 3.5.1.3 THERMAL LOADS 3-2 3.5.1.4 LOAD COMBINATIONS 3-3 3.5.2 PRIMARY LOADING (DL AND SEISMIC) - EQUIVALENT 3-4 STATIC ANALYSIS 1

3.5.3 SECONDARY LOADING (THERMAL) - EQUIVALENT 3-5 STATIC ANALYSIS 1

i i

i I

I

~

,[

DEFICIENCY EVALUATION REPORTS 82-56 AND 82-63 e

t L

CONTENTS e

Pagg 4

RESULTS OF ANALYSIS 4-1 4.1 DYNAMIC ANALYSIS RESULTS OF THE BEAM STICK HODEL 4-1 r

4.2 EQUIVALENT STATIC ANALYSIS RESULTS - PRIMARY LOADING 4-1 4.2.1 TANK-WALL 4-1 ll 4.2.1.1 ANALYSIS OF VERTICAL REINFORCING STEEL 4-1 4.2.1.2 ANALYSIS OF HOOP REINFORCING STEEL 4-1 l

1 4.2.1.3 RADIAL SEAR 4-2 4.2.1.4 TANGENTIAL SHEAR 4-2 4.2.2 BASEMAT 4-2 a

4.2.2.1 ANALYSIS OF BASEMAT REINFORCING STEEL 4-2 4.2.2.2 SOIL PRESSURES 4-2 j

i 4.3 EQUIVALENT STATIC ANALYSIS RESULTS - PRIMARY PLUS 4-2

(

f SECONDARY THERMAL LOADING

\\

4.

3.1 INTRODUCTION

4-2 4.3.2 PROCEDC(E 4-3 4.3.3 TANK-WALL 4-3 4.3.3.1 ANALYSIS OF VERTICAL AND HOOP REINFORCING STEEL 4-3 4.3.3.2 RADIAL SHE_AR 4-4 4.3.3.3 TANGENTIAL SHEAR 4-4 4.3.4 BASEMAT 4-4 4.3.4.1 ANALYSIS OF BASEMAT REINFORCING STEEL 4-4 4.3.5 LINER PLATE 4-4 1

4.3.5.1 LINER PLATE STRAINS 4-4 1

5 REFERENCES 5-1 j

l 1

May 1983 ii Revision 1 l

.._.___._._..w

.--...m___.m___...

DEFICIENCY EVALUATION REPORTS 82-56 AND 82-63 i

'e s

w FIGURES

[

i.'

Figure l-1 Condensate Water Storage Tank Fixed-Base Stick Model 2

Condensate Water Stcrage Tank Flexible-Base Stick Model 3

Condensate Water Storage Tank Stick Model SSE Response Spectrum Analysis Results 4

Condensate Water Storage Tank Stick Model OBE Response Spectrum Analysis Results g

5 Condensate Water Storage Tack 3-D Finite Element Model

]

6 Refueling Water Tank Fixed-Base Stick Model

}

7 Refueling Water Tank Flexible-Base Stick Model I

8 Refueling Water Tank Stick Model SSE Response Spectrum Analysis Results 9

Refueling Water Tank Stick Model OBE Response Spectrum i

Analysis Results 4

10 Refueling Water Tank 3-D Finite Element Model l

l iii L

^

L a. w ~.

, az

. L.L.a '

w.

~;'^^

s i

cx i

i 1 PROBLEM INTRODUCTION i

1.1 DESIGN CRITERIA 1

The Refuel n Water Tank (RWT)(1) and the Condensate Water Storage Tank (CST) 2 shall be designed as Seismic Category I structures in accordance with PVNGS Project Design Criteria, Volume III, Civil /

i Structural, Structures and Systems, page CT.2-1 and ZY-1.

The Refueling Water Tank shall house and protect the 750,000 gallons of borated water against adverse environmental occurrences including the safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) and tornados.

The Condensate Water Storage Tank shall house and protect the 550,000 gallons of condensate water for the steam generators against adverse environmental occurrences including the safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) and tornados.

i Both tanks shall consist of a reinforced concrete cylindrical shell supported on a square reinforced concrete mat foundation. The roof is supported by structural steel beams. The inside of the tanks are lined with a stainless steel liner plate.

1.2 DISCOVERY OF PROBLEM In September 1982, Torrey Pines Technology conducted an independent evalua-design calculations (g Water Tank and the Condensate Water Storage Tank tion of the Refuelin 3*4).

A Potential Finding Report was written on the design of the Condensate Water Storage Tank because the analysis and the design of the CST was based on the analysis of the RWT without detailed engineering calculations.

Due to the similarities in the geometry, the tank-wall reinforcing of the CST was scaled down because of its decreased height and mass from the reinforcement used in the RWT design. However, the review by Torrey Pines Technology questioned chat the scaling may not be conservative because the CST was only embedded 4.5 feet into the soil while the RWT was embedded 15 feet. Therefore, the CST with the reduced soil embedment, had more flexible soil springs and also less soil damping than that determined for i

the RWT. DER No. 82-56 was initiated because a preliminary engineering review indicated that the scaling approach used may not be appropriate.

j in October 1982, during further review of the RET calculation package by Bechtel Engineering, an error was discovered in the determination of the tank-wall bending moment at the junction of the basemat. The correction of this error in the calculation without a more detailed three-dimensional finite element analysis resulted in calculated stresses in some of the inside-face vertical rebar of the tank-wall that exceeded the Design Criteria allowables. Consequently, DER NO. 82-63 was initiated.

1.3 ENGINEERING ACTION i

Upon the discovery of the above stated problems, a detailed analysis of the Condensate Water Storage Tank (4*) and the Refueling Water TankI3*) was 1

initiated to more accurately determine the stresses in the tanks.

1-1 I

• .d.

w

'2

'~~ Q.i.T...

^= ^

L2'~

m' ^ -. G:1-.

1 DEFICIENCY IVALUATION REPORTS 82-56 AND 82-63 4

N O

4 I-2

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSION hn The Refueling Water Tank and the Condensate Water Storage Tank were initially designed using simplified hand calculations. After extensive review of the

(

design assumptions and hand calculations employed, it was determined that a 1

more detailed analysis of both tanks was required to accurately determine the

/

state of stress in the corresponding reinforcement. Three-dimensional ficite element models were therefore developed for each tank. These models were J

l extensively analyzed for the various load combinations specified by the t

Project Design Criteria.

L The tanks were originally modeled with the base of the tank-wall rigidly connected to the basemat (i.e. fixed). The results of the analysis indicated that local yielding of some of the inside-face vertical rebar at the wall-basemat junction might occur for either tank under certain extreme load conditions. To investigate the effects of the local yielding, the tanks were then modeled with a pin connection at the wall-basemat junction.

This analysis was performed in order to determine the performance of the tank in the event that portions of the tank-wall underwent local yielding at the basemat junction.

The results of the analysis of the pinned-base models of both tanks demonstrated that any high stress levels occurring at the base of the tank-walls would redistribute after local yielding occurred up into the lower stressed regions of the tank-wall. This would result in stress 4

levels throughout the balance of the tank falling within Design Criteria allowables. The local yielding of the rebar at the wall-basemat junction, if it does occur, would not jeoparidze the structural integrity of either tank.

In addition, the 1/4-inch stainless steel liner attached to the inside surface of the two tanks ensures the leak tight integrity of the 1

structures. Even under extreme loading conditions that might locally

]

crack the concrete at the wall-basemat junction, the strain in the liner i

will remain well below the allowable strain for stainless steel based upon che ASME Section III, Division 2 Code. Therefore, the Refueling Water Tank i

and the Condensate Water Storage Tank are adequately designed to meet their j

design functions for the primary plus secondary (thermal) loads specified by the Project Design Criteria.

j i

\\

l 1

4 i

I i

i May 1983 2-1 Revisica 1 l

t

[

- c:- w.

3 DISCUSSION OF THE ANALYSIS

{;

h(

3.1 PURPOSE The purpose of the detailed analysis of the RWT and the CST was to verify h

the structural adequacy of the existing design per Project Design Criteria.

N 3.2 GENERAL y

The method of analysis used for the RWT and the CST was identical, therefore, I

the following discussion of the analysis will be described without reference to a particular tank unless a significant difference requires identification.

(5 3.3 BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE ANALYCIS fG The following analysis required the formulation of two mathematical models

[

for each tank. The first mathematical model was a two-dimensional beam stick model that was used to determine the dynamic response of the tank.

The second model was a three-dimensional finite element model that was y

used to determine the Jocal section forces and moments.

4?

The response spectrum analysis was performed on the CST and the RWT which were modeled as two-dimensional lumped-mass beam sticks (figures 1 and 6).

y The models considered hydrodynamic effects calculated according to TID-7024(6). The soil springs and damping values were calculated per h,

Design Guide C2.44(7),

The three-dimensional finite element models (figures 5 and 10) were developed P

to determine section forces and moments in the tank-walls and basemats. The equivalent static analysis included the results of the response spectrum J

analysis of the beam stick model by representing the seismic loading as y

equivalent nodal loads. The soil structure interaction effects were approximated by developing a system of discrete springs that were attached

~

to the basemat nodes. The effects of the various possible directions of seismic input motion on the square basemat were investigated.

g?

1 3.4 BEAM STICK MODEL i

I4 s

Each rank was modeled as a two-dimensional lumped-mass beam stick. The 3

location of the lumped-masses were chosen to reflect the hydrodynamic as li' well as the structural effects calculated according to the TID-7024(6),

The two-dimensional stick models for the CST and the RWT are shown in figures 1 and 6 respectively.

l:

3.4.1 DYNAMIC ANALYSIS The following outline provides the procedure used for the dynamic analysis:

L A.

The fixed-base two-dimensional lumped-mass stick model was input l

into the BSAP program. The program calculated the natural

[

frequencies and the mode shapes for the fixed-base model.

L i

3-1 I

i

_a iC

-*7 x

2e ~ ~ - _= x

~ ~

^

^

DEFICIENCY EVALUATION REPORTS 82-56 AND 82-63 S

S.'

The fixed-base frequencies were used to calculate the initial B.

soil springs and damping values per Design Guide C2.44(7).

M C.

The BSAP DYNAM program used the mode shapes provided by the fixed-base model with the soil springs and damping values d.

calculated in step B) to determine the flexible-base frequencies g

and modal damping ratios.

7 D.

The flexible-base frequencies developed by DYNAM were used to cal-culate new soil springs and damping values as in step B.

g y

Steps C) and D) were repeated until the frequencies used to calcu-Q E.

late the soil springs and damping values were the same as the final y

R I

flexibic-base frequencies. The final soil springs and damping values along with the corresponding modal frequencies and modal damping ratios are sbown in figures 2 and 7.

p I

F.

The BSAP program, using the mode shapes and modal damping ratios developed by DYNAM, was used to perform a response spectrum analysis. The response spectrum curves were per the USNRC REG. GUIDE 1.60 and the structural damping conformed to USNRC REG.

GUIDE 1.61.

The free field acceleration values for the analysis were 0.25g for SSE and 0.13g for OBE. The results of'the response spectrum analysis for the CST and the RW are shown on figures 3, 4, 8 and 9.

4 3.5 THREE-DIMENSIONAL FINITE ELEMENT MODEL The concrete wall and basemat of the tanks were modeled using BSAP LCCT9

(

finite elements for the three-dimensional analysis (figures 5 and 10). The steel roof structure was not modeled as a structural element because it is very flexible relative to the tank-walls and the roof design was not a part of the DER. However, the effects of the roof structure were considered in the computation of the dead loads. Vertical and horizontal springs representing

?

the soil stiffness were connected to each node of the basemat of the three-dimensional model. The vertical springs were determined considering the average l

of the vertical spring (Kyy) and the rocking spring (Koe) provided by the flexible-base modal analysis of the two-dimensional stick model. Horizontal springs for the three-dimensional model were determined considering the horizontal spring (Kxx) of the stick model. The magnitude of each soil spring attached to the basemat was proportional to its nodal tributary area.

The soil around the RW wall due to embedment reduces tank-wall stressesHowever, because it provides resistance against internal hydrostatic pressure.

the resistance was very small and was conservatively neglected in the three-dimensional model. The three-dimensional finite element model representing a

the CST and the RW are shown in figures 5 and 10 respectively.

3.5.1 LOADING J

3.5.1.1 DEAD LOAD l

l The dead load effects of the roof structure, tank-wall, basemat and water These forces were (hydrostatic) were determined by conventional methods.

j applied either as nodal loads, mass density or pressure loads on the three-dimensional model.

i 3-2 I

~. - - -..- - -

- a ^. - -

e- -~

w =:.w.--

^

~. _. -

DEFICIENCY EVALUATION REPORTS 82-56 AND 82-63 i

3.5.1.2 SEISMIC LOADING 3.5.1.2.1 VERTICAL l

Vertical accelerations were obtained from the response spectrum analysis of i

the two-dimensional stick model (figures 4, 9).

The vertical seismic forces for the tank-walls were applied as nodal loads. The basemat forces were modeled as the product of mass density and an appropriate vertical acceleration and the water (hydrostatic) forces were modeled using pressure loads.

3.5.1.2.2 HORIZONTAL Shear forces were obtained from the beam-end-forces output of the response spectrum analysis of the beam stick model (figures 4, 9).

The shear force was separated into a water contribution and a tank-wall contribution. The shear contributed by the water was modeled as pressure loads and the shear contributed by the tank-wall was modeled as nodal loads on the three-dimensional model. The horizontal seismic force on the basemat was modeled as the product of the mass density and an appropriate horizontal acceleration.

3.5.1.3 THERMAL LOADS Seasonal temperature gradients were established using meteorological data for Phoenix, Arizona. The gradients were directly applied in the three-dimensional model developed for the BSAP program and the resulting elastic thermal forces for the uncracked sections were calculated. Later, these thermal forces were relaxed by the OPTCON module of the BSAP-POST program to obtain the final relaxed thermal loads on the cracked sections.

3.5.1.4 LOAD COMBINATIONS The load combinations for SSE, OBE and thermal were per Project Design Criteria sections as follows:

3.6.4 LOAD COMBINATIONS 3.6.4.1 Seismic Category I Structures (Concrete)

A.

Normal operating loads U = 1.4D + 1.7L + 1.9E U = 0.75 (1.4D + 1.7L + 1.9E + 1.7To)

U = 0.75 (1.4D + 1.7L + 1.7To + 1.7Ro)

B.

Extreme environmental / accident loads U = D + L + To + E' D = Dead load (including hydrostatic loads)

L = Live load (including soil pressure) 3-3 I

s I

{

a To = Thermal loads (operating or shutdown) i Ro = Pipe reactions (operating or shutdown) i E = Seismic loads due to operating basis earthquake (OBE)

E' = Seismic loads due to safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) l l

I Seismic loading was applied to the three-dimensional model in three orthogonal directions (horizontal X and Y, and vertical Z) by the following method.

E or E' = [1.0 Horizontal (X) + 0.4 Horizontal (Y) 1 0.4 Vertical (2)]

E or E' = [0.4 Horizontal (X) + 0.4 Horizontal (Y) 1 1.0 Vertical (Z)]

The above combinations were repeated for two possible basemat orientations to the seismic motion. The above variations were sufficient to evaluate the many possible seismic variations because of the symmetry of the geometry.

3.5.2 PRIMARY LOADING (DL AND SEISMIC) - EQUIVALENT STATIC ANALYSIS Dead load and equivalent three directional seismic forces were applied to the three-dimensional finite element model as static loads using the BSAP program. During the SSE lead combinations, horizontal seismic forces produced tension in some vertical soil springs indicating that the basemat was not in contact with the soil at those locations.

The vertical springs in tension were removed from the model by setting their stiffness close to zero (note horizontal springs attached to the same node as a vertical spring in tension were also removed). The static analysis was then repeated. This procedure was continued until all vertical springs in tension were removed.

During the OBE load combination, the entire basemat remained in contact with the soil (no vertical springs were in tension). The load factors of unity were used to calculate soil pressures for the OBE load combination.

However, the concrete design load factors were used to determine the final design forces in the tank.

Because the tanks were designed with a square basemat, the effects of the direction of the earthquake had to be considered on the soil-structure interaction. Hence, two seismic directions were considered for the primary horizontal excitation:

1.

Parallel to the sides of the basemat 2.

Parallel to the diagonal of the basemat.

3-4 T.

k DEFICIENCY EVALUATION REPORTS 82-56 AND 82-63 u

L 3.5.3 SECONDARY LOADING (THERMAL) - EQUIVALENT STATIC ANALYSIS

[

Temperature gradients were input as individual load cases in the three-I

{.

dimensional model using the BSAP program. Thermal stresses were then combined with primary stresses using the BSAP-POST, OPTCON program. OPTCON investi-gated the cracking effect of the concrete and the yielding effects of the reinforcement in order to determine the final cracked-section stresses.

L OPTCON then determined whether the reinforcement provided was adequate for the final stresses.

j t

i 4

l e

h 7

k e

0 a

i l

3-5 l

T

- ~. "

~.

._.. _..m w

I DEFICIENCY EVALUATION REPORTS 82-56 AND 82-63 f

i e

4 RESULTS OF ANALYSIS

[.

S' 4.1 DYNAMIC ANALYSIS RESULTS OF THE BEAM STICK MODEL i

The results of the SSE and OBE response spectrum analysis for the lumped-mass E

beam stick model are shown in figures 3, 4, 8, and 9.

{

4.2 EQUIVALENT STATIC ANALYSIS RESULTS - PRIMARY LOADING I

4.2.1 TANK-WALL 4.2.1.1 ANALYSIS OF VERTICAL REINFORCING STEEL The output for the LCCT9 elements used to model the tabk-walls and basemat provided axial forces and moments at the midpoint of the element. Because the highest vertical moment occurred at the wall-basemat junction (along an element edge), it was necessary to determine the moment at the base of the lowest vertical element. The bending moment curve was plotted for the first three vertical elements. The equation of a second degree curve was developed analytically based on an assumed parabolic shape and the moment at the wall-basemat junction was determined.

The vertical bending moments were calculated for the six most highly stressed

(

tank-wall elements at the basemat junction. Three elements were chosen on the compression side of the tank and three on the tension side. The bending moments and axial forces were plotted on an OPTCON interaction diagram. The OPTCON interaction diagrams were a plot of the maximum allowable resistance of a section for moments and axial forces using ACI 318-71 criteria.

The vertical tank-wall stresses of the CST fell within the boundaries of the OPTCON interaction diagrams. Therefore, the CST vertical wall reinforcement is adequate for the moments and axial forces resulting from primary load combinations.

Some elements of the RWT along the wall-basemat junction were stressed i

slightly beyond design allowables. This overstress is considered in I

section 4.3, PRIMARY PLUS SECONDARY THERMAL LOADING.

I 4.2.1.2 ANALYSIS OF HOOP REINFORCING STEEL I

The hoop moments and axial forces of the highest stressed elements were I

plotted on the appropriate OPTCON interaction diagram.

The stres es in two elements of the RWT and three elements of the CST plot slightly outside of the OPTCON interaction boundaries. However, these stresses were found to be acceptable after considering the effects of the liner plate and that the actual strength of the reinforcing steel used for construction is normally greater than that used in design.

The horizontal reinforcing steel of the CST and the RWT is adequately designed for hoop stresses resulting from primary load combinations.

i I

4-1 i

f I

x.

a- -

a au :.w a _

c,

nw. -

a.

DEFICIENCY EVALUATION REPORTS 82-56 AND 82-63 1

i 4.2.1.3 RADIAL SHEAR i

The maximum radial shear occurred at the wall-basemat junction and is equal to the slope of the vertical moment diagram. Radial shear was determined for the six highest stressed elements considered in the analysis of the vertical steel. Radial shear was checked considering axial tension or compression on the section per ACI code provisions as specified by the Project Design Criteria.

All element shear stresses are within design allowables, therefore the CST and the RWT are adequately designed for radial shear stresses resulting from primary load combinations.

4.2.1.4 TANGENTIAL SHEAR Tangential shear forces were provided by the BSAP LCCT9 element output.

Several elements having the highest tangential shear were checked per ACI code provisions.

All element shear stresses are within design allowables, therefore the CST and the RWT are adequately designed for tangential shear stresses resulting from primary load combinations.

4.2.2 BASEMAT 4.2.2.1 ANALYSIS OF BASEMAT REINFORCING STEEL OPTCON interaction diagrams were developed and the highest stressed elements under moment and axial forces are plotted on the appropriate diagram.

The basemat stresses of both tanks fell within the OPTCON interaction boundari es. Therefore, the basemat reinforcing steel for the CST and the RWT is adequately designed for primary load combinations.

4.2.2.2 SOIL PRESSURES BSAP BOUNDARY elements representing soil springs provided output for soil spring compression forces. Soil pressures were calculated by dividing the spring compression force by the appropriate nodal tributary area.

The maximum soil pressures for the CST and the RWT are within Design Criteria allowables.

4.3 EQUIVALENT STATIC ANALYSIS RESULTS - PRIMARY PLUS SECONDARY THERMAL LOADING 4.

3.1 INTRODUCTION

During the SSE primary load combination (DL and seismic) analysis of the RWT, j

it was determined that some of the inside-face vertical wall reinforcement j

was stressed slightly beyond design allowables. This overstress would j

increase with the addition of secondary thermal loading. Thus, under the given load conditions, some yielding would occur in the RWT inside-face i

vertical reinforcement at the wall-basemat junction.

j 4-2 l

l 1

31

. J

DEFICIENCY EVALUATION REPORTS 82-56 AND 82-63 To determine the effects of the yielded condition of the RWT vertical reinforcement, the primary plus secondary load combination was applied to the tank with a pinned-connection conservatively modeled at the wall-.

j basemat junction. The pin condition was investigated to demonstrate that if the inside-face vertical reinforcement yielded all around the wall-basemat junction, which will not happen, the forces are redistributed i

to other parts of the tank-wall and the tank structural integrity is still maintained.

Although the vertical reinforcing steel of the CST remained within design allowables with a rigid connection at the base during primary load combina-tions, yielding occurred at the wall-basemat junction when secondary thermal stresses were applied. Therefore, the CST was also conservatively modeled with a pinned-connection at the wall-basemat junction to investigate the effects of primary plus secondary loading.

4.3.2 PROCEDURE The following outline provides the procedure used for the primary plus secondary thermal loading analysis:

A.

Run the BSAP program considering primary loading and secondary thermal loading on the pinned-base model.

B.

Run BSAP-POST, OPTCON program to determine the utilization factors (ratio of the actual moment to the allowable resisting moment for a given axial load) of all elements under primary loading for the pinned-base model. Locate the elements with the highest utilization factors to be checked with thermal 1

loading.

C.

Run OPTCON for the highest stressed elements under primary loading along with the corresponding secondary elastic thermal stresses developed in the BSAP run. OPTCON will calculate the cracked-section stresses and determine the final utilization factors.

4.3.3 TANK WALL 4.3.3.1 ANALYSIS OF VERTICAL AND HOOP REINFORCING STEEL The highest-stressed elements under primary loads for the pinned-base model were input into OPTCON with elastic thermsl stresses. All element stresses remained within design allowables.

Therefore, the tank-wall reinforcesent of the CST and the RWT is adequately designed for moment and axial forces under all load combinations when analyzed with a pinned-connection at the wall-basemat junction.

4-3 I.

.~..

• • g'-

DEFICIENCY EVALUATION REPORTS 82-56 AND 82-63 i

4.3.3.2 RADIAL SHEAR Radial shear was determined by conservatively summing the shear developed on the fixed-base model resulting from primary loading with the elastic (uneracked) shear developed on the pinned-base model resulting from thermal loading. All radial shear stresses remained within design allowables.

The CST and RWT are adequately designed for radial shear stresses under all load combinations when analyzed with a pinned-connection at the wall-basemat j unction.

1 4.3.3.3 TANGENTIAL SHEAR Thermal loads had very little effect on tangential shear stresses.

Thus, the CST and the RWT are adequately designed for tangential shear stresses under all load combinations when analyzed with a pinned-connection at the wall-basemat junction.

l 4.3.4 BASEMAT 4.3.4.1 ANALYSIS OF BASEMAT REINFORCING STEEL i

The highest stressed elements of the basemat under primary loading for the pinned-base model were input into OPTCON with elastic thermal stresses.

The results show that all reinforcing steel stresses remain within allowables.

l Therefore, the basemat reinforcing steel of the CST and the RWT is adequately designed for all load combinations when analyzed with a pinned-connection at the wall-basemat junction.

4.3.5 LINER PI>TE 4.3.5.1 LINER PLATE STRAINS Based upon the results of the detailed analysis, it was determined that local yielding of some of the inside face vertical rebar at the wall-basemat junction occurs under certain load conditions. This condition 1

i i

might cause the concrete to crack. However for all loading conditions, the liner plate will still remain intact and will ensure the leak tight integrity of the structure. To demonstrate this the strain in the f

liner plate at the critical locations at the wall-basemat junction was l

determined. The strain was found to be well below the allowable strain for l

stainless steel based upon the ASME Section III, Division 2 Code. Therefore, the liner plate is adequately designed for all loading combinations.

t i

l 4-4 Revision 1 May 1983 1

..-..._ _i.' L.

c':

^~:

'L

~

DEFICIENCY EVALUATION REPORTS 82-56 AND 82-63 5

REFERENCES 1.

RkT Reference Drawing 13-C-ZYS-706 2.

CST Reference Drawing 13-C-CTS-703 3.

Calculations 13-CC-CT-015: REFUELING WATER TANK 4.

Calculations 13-CC-CT-010: CONDENSATE WATER STORAGE TANK AND PUriPHOUSE 5.

Potential Finding Report PVNGS Quality Assurance Verification.

PFR No. 2426-021, Revision Issue A.

6.

TID 7024, Nuclear Reactors and Earthquakes, U.S. Department of Commerce 7.

Design Guide C2.44, Seismic Analysis of Structures and Equipment for Nuclear Power Plants 5-1 E

P 1

H i.

6 i

Y l

a f\\

Z<%X ts j

4.0" E

MASS PROPERTIES n

NODE ELEVATION

}.

Mn W

Q g

is NUM0ER (FEET) 2 2

l E

=

D (KSEC /FT)

(KSEC /FT)

(KSEC nFT)

V n.11 Q

y 1

2.25 50.00 211.00 11,044.00 N

l.I d

2 2.00 11.40 3.10 2,005.00 k

c,1'-9

1'-9 [.

3 5.00 15.05 4.32 2,011.00 c "

n6 4

0 27 2 7.41 4AWM INSIDE AMETER 2.

5 17.00 33.27 10.50 0,014.00 t.

h I;-

0 20.00 37.20 11.74 7,750.00

'4

=

E~

7 30.00 43.00 13.50 0,047.00 f

[

d f;

4 25<

e 0

40.00 20.00 0AS 2,000.00 N

t..... ' ;. Y 4.-

3 ' 'O.. '!.'**' ' ':' *.*: ':*.I'L-

... ;... r.'k _.,6.#*.

>1*

1 10 m

I.

-m O

52.00 5.71 5.71 722.00 w

1 n

( 8ASEM AT ELEMENT 11 30.00 24.30 t-50'-O SOUAR E N'JM8Elt E

m i i il FIXED-BASE STICK MODEL CONDENSATE WATER STORAGE TANK Figure 1 riI il L

,H i

}-

t l

l i

+

SUMMARY

OF SOIL SPRINGS & DAMPING i

S0lt SPRINGS SOIL DAMPING KFT/ RAD Kp r Cxx Cyy C yr l

9O Knx(R/FT)

KyyW/FT)

(K.FT/RAll W.SEC/FT)

(K SECIFT)

(K4EC/ RAD) 8 6

8( )

SSE 486.00 53,800 3.04x10 9,005 15.648 1.20x10 ts M

8 6

OBE 60,300 70,500 3.90x18 10,026 17,094 0.78x10 s

7t >-011 E

Q

SUMMARY

OF MODAL FREObENCIES & DAMPING RATIOS U

l h

( )6 MODE SSE OBE e

I N O.

FREQUENCY DAMPING FREQUENCY DAMPlNG p

l (CPS)

(%)

(CPS)

(%)

g as

( )5 1

0.26 0.5 0.26 0.5 SLOSHING g

WATER

[.

O I

2 4.49 11.8 4.99 10.2

()4 3

6.99 63.7 8.00 80.7 STRUCTURAL O

0.,

MODES 03 02 4

11.12 46.1 12.37 43.5 Kun D

I 5

42.90 22.3 43.28 15.0 g

4 E

YY 6

47.32 14.2 47.58 10.3 r

i I

FLEXIBLE-BASE STICK MODEL h

CONDENSATE WATER STORAGE TANK 1

Figure 2 1

l L

i i

, mm... w,._, x m wmmmmm+MMW e, + m ?i'~mW m*i."YV*"."T.W T'

.,_,.....-.--m._,__c

b I

,(

f l

[ll.

V',

l,,.

shO@Q

%Hgz g oWd oN&

b n

t 2

r 9

5 2

0 9

9h 5

1, M

7 0 A

6 7 R

2 3

/

G 1

4 2,

0 A

1 5

1 I

5 1

D 7,

5 1

8 8

T 8

7 4

3, N

TF 2

0 F

8 7,

'8~

2 E

9 7

8 5

M 5

7 9

7, 0

9 O

IM 0

3 7

2 M

2 2

1 5

6, G

5 5

1, 2

6 0

N 2

0, 3

I 1

1 D

3 0

8 4

N 1

7 6,

E 4

1 5

B 4

S 7 7 T

7 /

L 7

2 USER S

I I

S K

1 8

5 4-Y N

2 3

L A

9 8

8-A T

7, 8

4 7

9 2

M N

7 3,

A A

F, 2

R G

1 3

0, G

A A 4

2 A

R R

S 0

ID C T T

O P

8 I

4, 1

R E

S 3

K 0

A P

4 E

S R

e 6

0 H

E r

4 7

S E

T u

2 S

A g

2 N W i

3 O

F 1

P E

S T

E A

R SN E

E N

S D

O S

NO 2

2 1

8 5

1 9

7 5

T L

C 2

7 7

7 6

6 6

3 5

5 A

E C

9 9

9 9

9 9

9 9 9

D E

S E

O

/

L T

E M

F C

K A

C I

TS NO T

2 A

C R

E 5

0 5

3 0

7 f

E 3

9 6

1 f

/

3 2

0 4

E T

2 2

7 4

5 6

6 0

2 7

2 C

F 1

1 2

1 0

9 8

8 A

1

~

L S

E T

s' i

D I

s,'

s, s,

s O

'8

'7

'6 5

N 8

U "T *1 o

i n

r o

a

' 7 i

< ?'m f

T i

i

~

(';

(

{

.!e iibii {l: I;Ia ef1i I.i ttd Y,Q H5* % 0

$E g

sn 1

2 20 4h 2

7 M

1 A

7 7

R 8

3

/

G 7

1 5

9 A

1 6

1 f

2 7

7 D

3 2

8, 2

4 T

0 5

T 3

5 2

6, N

F 3

E 7

1 4

P 2

2 M

I 7,

6 0

K 4

4 M

1 7

1 1

1 G

3 4

4 N

3 9,

I 05 3,

6 D

5 N

3 E

6 7

8 S

S 1

N T

9 L

1 1

USER S

I 5

S K

5 Y

N 7

8 L

A 8

9 7

M N

4, A

T 5

2 1

7 27 2

A A E 1

R G

0, G

A A 6

1 S

6 A

R R

P 6

T O

I 8

D C T lK 7

R E

S 4

49 A

P 4

E S

R e

7 H

E r

3 S

E T

u S

A g

N W i

O F

P E

S T

E A

R SN E

E N

B D

O O N 2

2 1

9 7

4 3

2 0

T O

2 1

1 1

0 0

0 0 0 0

A T

C C

5 5

5 5

5 5

5 5 5

E E

D S

E L

O

/TF E

M C

K

-~

A C

ITS_

NO T

2 A

C E

8 8

R S

3 6

3 E

0 f

/

5 8

7 2

1 T

E 1

1 9

0 5

6 6

F 7

3 3

8 5

2 6

5 4

4 4_

A h

4 L

S E

T

)

)

s'

)

)

)

D I

4

,s N

g 4

, '6

, '8 17 o

' o U

n 2

i o$

S b

H

,toh(I 7 nI( [ ; { [ 1 !'

Y li Ie

, I{!I>

[gt lt:

{

o o gNO8H" cweu* n,p., r,4 m i 4

e3s.Mgga Q%d 3

v t.

3 q

m T

O f

0

-4 e.

0 c

0. -

A 4

2

'0 r

c 3' 2 M

1 1

,S 3

N E

s S

A B.

e 1,

e s

n

,s. 7.T n

n O.

7 e

i

,7 J

PY

~

~

T

(

J m

P O.

Y T

N

(

m E

O D

O N

N T

N E

M E

L E

n L

n

.L A

2 2

W K

4 N

m

. K A

s i

N L T

A E T D E

O G T M A

S R

C T O

N T y.

F E S

5 O M i}I E

R e n.N L

E r

O E T

u I

A g

T E W i

)

A T F

PY V I E

T i

E N T

l.

. L I A

O E F S

N N

D D E

E D

uE -

D O

P 3 N

N O

O L

C

.,....u n

n.

E V

s i

f E

.\\

./

D

\\

/

\\

/

n x

e

' x N

A x

f.

L

P a

s T A

M E

S A

B D

is

/

.x' m

/

N n

.N

/

_\\

/.

+

I

" *. s s

u a

{

3 s

8 a

n s

" g:'S * ;*

u s

, i H

i' 1t '

h

_[k ij[p i

,l gig.

I N8 gQ Q$

.@ hon" 0* 9o m b

~

)

L y

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

s 0

T p

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

e.

0 O

R 2 0

8 1

4 0

0 4

1 3

7

(

C 4

2 4

2 3

9 5

0 2

2 E

8, 0,

8, 8,

3, 9,

0 9,

9, 7

p, S

1 2

2 5

8 0

9 7

2 1

m K S

I

(

IE

)

T

)

R T

T R F/

0 1

2 8

6 9

2 3

e 1

EP E 2 3

1 3

8 3

2 2

5 s.

7 O

V C 4

3 4

8 2

3 4

4 s

5 R

_E 8

1 1

1 1

(

yS 2

P M K S

(

SA

)

)

M T

R F

0 7

7 0

0 0

0 0

5 1

0

/

0 2 C 2

3 0

0 4

2 0

0 7

4 1

5 4

pE 7

1 5

1 5

3 1

1 u S 5

1 1

3 4

4 4

4 2

2 K

(

NO)

IT T 5

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

A E 2

0 0

0 0

0 5

0 0

0 0

y V

2 2

5 9

9 9

0 2

e 8

2 E

1 2

4 5

s 0

5 E (F L

E R

EE 0B 1

2 3

4 5

8 7

8 9

0 2

L 0M E

1 1

NU D K N

O N M AT KC R I

E 6 T T S

A e

W r

1 D

u 1

X E

G g

g 'g48 d' d1

~ O S

N i

r 2

A I

F B

L 8,'

I D

1 E

6 5

1 D U t

Z a' '

E F

Y X

E I

R F

0 N~

b*:

'0 "

'0.o. y*

~

0 4 3 4

1

L 1 l

3r

'L.

=

"9 M

1 ij U

R E

d*

E R

T y,.

A E

U M

8 A

O EV ID o

aS 6"J O"

64 E

D 4

0' I

I'.

5 S

N Y'.

I d

9"

~*/

1 c

=

p'

~'

+

~

Y'.S p o m

~

H

~

i

.}

I j

f[.tV l!

-j.

e

,![.i i

tI

b

%o$g c7y g y0 N5OEp U c

L g.

G A

INR RS g

E UE HT TD S A C O OLW UM g

R S

TS 3

)

D n

6 6

A A

0 0

S R

R N

1 1

/

x x

5 8

5 8

1 3

t T

6 5

p F

E 1

5 r

0 1

5 9

0 6

t 1

6 5

2 1

K S

2 2

A w

K D

(

S G

O N

)

I T

T E

IP F

6 6

A B

f 6

9 1

O l

/

A C

E 0,

4 1

D S.

0 2

G 2

2 t

K N

Y l

(

I C

0 P

N S

M E

6 8

6 4

2 1

G A

U 2

2 2

7 1

1

)

0 4

7 1

6 1

N T

D Q

m 1

3 4

I E

P F

0 9

4 9

R L

/

M C

A E

3, 9

S F

E 3

4 E

D D

S.

O K 1

1 I

K C

M N

(

N A

S E

K T G

U C

N Q

I R

I

)

E T

E 7

R D

R G

S T

P A

8 8

A e

0 0

F N

S R

5 6

7 5

6 2

E W r

1 1

I L

x x

L P

0 2

0 1

1 3

S u

T 9

1 A

M 1

7 6

2 2

A G

g I

O 4

7 D

A B

N i

S g

4 5

O D

I F

g E L F

M L

E O

S F

B U

Y G

)

R N

1 O

I F

E A

R

/

0 0

Y S

X E

I F

0 0

S E

R P

k R

L M

7 5

S y

6 3

A F

M t

y K

M Y

5 7

U lO M

C S

S U

N 6

7 8

5 4

4 E

)

S 2

8 3

5 8

5 T

U 0

3 6

0 5

0 0

0 Q

F 1

3 4

/

0 0

E k(

1 2

R n

1 5

F u

5 6

K E

E E

D O 1

2

'3 4

5 6

S B

O N S

D M

xx K

y j

y y

w 0 9 7

6 5

4 3

2 K

10

(>

0 0

u

)

)

t

(

(

(

M.

4 H

i.

L { P

[!f I f,i

!lf{;!!

h;

)![e

,f r fi!f:

e$5sgO ype>Ny o$m cYg { $EW o

\\

9 0

7 2,

4 8

5 1

M 6

2, 7

8 R

0 6 3 2

7, G

3

• 6 I

1 1 2

I 3

A 4,

4, 2

8' 1 D

2 2

1 8

T 7

1 1

N T

4

/

0 E

F 3,

6, W

0 P

0 I'

9 73 I

8 '

K 1

5, /

0 G

3 6

7 N

I 2

5,

' /

D 7

5 9 7

0. 2 8,

2 1

9 5

S 4

7 T

6 /

L 9

1 U

S ER 3

S 1

5 4

1 6,

I 6,

S 1

1 3

4 5,

3 Y

2, 3

L 3

A 1

N K 7

7 A N 2

A 3

A T 0

R 3

2, T R p

3 2

I gg C E 3

0' E T 8

9 P A 9

S W e

9 6

r 3

E G u

I S

N g

N I

i O L F

P E

S U

E F

R E R

E N

S O

S T

2 A

L C

E E

D S

6 5

4 1

6 2

7 5

4 g

EL O

/

4 4

4 4

3 3

2 2

2 2

E M

T 9

9 9

9 9

F 9

9 9

9 9

C K

A C

ITS NO T

2 6

8 6

3 9

j A

2C 5

3 8

5 4

0 5

3 3

9 E

4 3

9 6

3 1

5 1

6 5

2 2

1 1

1 1

1 9

s 8

7

/T E

F e

A h

si p3V 3 h,' h I, hy L

4 2

E 7

6 5

S 0

T 1,

,s

,s' g

,s D

)

IN s

ss s

O U

s o

I' o M

,5~ '

a i

,NI

,.0 i:tS '

i

.h H

.f l'

)i.

e i

t y(g[,

f

,{ jgi.

j

, ~.

O@a y e$s@

5m ue 0" oY,w

• m 4

1 07-3 7

M 34, 1

R 9 7 0,

G 3

1 9

4 3

8 5 A

6, 1,

8-8 I

D 4

7 3

6 7

T 2

6 y

0 0

1 N

p 4

2 E

8, 0,

7 3,

W y

7 g

8 5 4

1 g

2 4 4 7

M 8

5, 0,

/

1 82 8 0 3

G 4

93 N

I

/

D 5

5 8

p 5

i N

/

1, E

5 S

/

ST 3/

L g

U y

y SER q

g S

g 3

0 3

I 0

7 2

8, 3,

S 1

Y 8,

1 L

1 A

0 N

y A K M

4 4,

N 1

R A A 7

4 G

R T SP 1

A TC R I

1 I

K S

D E

E 9 S

P T

4 I

6 S A e

k 3

W r y

H E

u n

y S

S G g

N N i

O I

F P L S

E E U R F E

w E R n

B N

O O

e 2

T L

C A

E E

D 5

5 5

3 1

8 5

2 1

E O

0 8

A

/

9 9

9 9

8 8

8 8

8 7

E T

L M

4 4

4 4

4 F

4 4

4 4

4 K

C e

A C

ITS NO 2

9 9

5 0

7 3

T C

7 1

3 6

9 7

0 6

E 2

2 0

1 0

8 6

5 7

3 4

9 S

1 1

1

/

4 4

T 4

3 L

F E

?

e

~

A h 3, h

,r @j

'8, L

S y

6 S

4 2

E T

,m u

,s D

I s'

s IN

,s s

,s

,s O

~

U m

i 1'

o o

,U" N~ '

u o

" _ by i

o

. I

'N*

~

s I

H

1i i

,l I

l,a i ; !I j

.i1

ptje f kc. p

.t!!!

..t i,!t!

[I

.t.

,j

ij. r 5

i y

m

? g a$HM 0yv* n8 wImw e,'" n.$ Q N b gs O!

~ * -

r I

5' 0'

8 8

e e.

8 T

4 4

5 1

A 1

81 4

y r m

i I

1 s

,'3',

t y

s A

a s.

a

=

s 0

e a

s 8

r.

s s

n.

e s

J T

)

e P

Y t.

P O

Y n

T N

E

(

O 0

0 N

N T

N E

M u

E L

E n

y L

.L m

A r

l

. W ugg l,

e e K L s N E

. A D K

m

.T O N M A s

T

..T T

a W

nR N R 0 E

E 1

M T

.nF E A e

O e

L W r

nN E u

O G

g j

enI E N i

p T T I

F yr

.. A I L g

a V N E o

E I U

n a

g

.. nL F F

E E

o o

u D R n

D -

s

,...:'.e:"

nP

. E 3

. nLO

/.

\\

/

e

\\

E

\\

-/

. V

. E

.,D n

x f

m x

N A

m es

~

L P

a a

T

. A M

E

~

S AB e

- x s

n

/

x

/

/

-\\-

/

N

\\

a a

u

....... n :

e n

n s : s r

.. a:

s n

,gs."*

F 9

9 H

_