ML20040F447
| ML20040F447 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 02/05/1982 |
| From: | Matra J, Rinaldi F Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20040F437 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, ISSUANCES-OM, NUDOCS 8202090207 | |
| Download: ML20040F447 (30) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:-__ i 02/05/82 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY Docket Nos. 50-329 OM & OL 50-330 OM & OL (Midland Plant Units 1 and 2) l l TESTIMONY OF FRANK RINALDI AND JOHN MATRA FOR THE NRC STAFF REGARDING THE B0 RATED WATER STORAGE TANKS, THE EMERGENCY DIESEL FUEL OIL STORAGE TANKS AND ELECTRICAL DUCT BANKS Q.1 Please state your names and positions. A. My name is Frank Rinaldi, I am a Senior Structural Engineer in the Structural Engineering Branch, Division of Engineering, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Coninission. My name is John Matra. I am a Consultant to the Structural Engineering Branch, Division of Engineering, Office of Nuclear Peactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Q.2 Have you prepared a statement of professional qualifications? A. Yes. Copies of these statements are found in Attachments 1 (FrankRinaldi)and2(JohnMatra). Q.3 Have you previously testified in this proceeding regarding the duration'.and nature of your responsibilities with respect to the Midland Plant Units 1 and 2? l ' 3 310siTg citICU!AL 1 , my _ ~ 8202090207 B20205 PDR ADOCK 05000329 T PDR
, A. Yes. Thai. testimony can be found following page 6128 in the transcript for this proceeding. Q.4 What is the purpose of this testimony? A. This testimony addresses: the remedial measures for the Borated Water Storage Tanks (BWST) and their foundation structures (represented in Attachment 3); the Emergency Diesel Fuel Oil Storage Tanks (represented in Attachment 4); and the underground utility electrical duct banks (represented in Attachment 5). Q.5 What information has the Applicant provided to the Staff regarding the BWSTs and their foundation structures? A. The information provided by the Applicant includes: 1. Letter dated November 13, 1981, with enclosure, " Design Report for the Borated Water Storage Tank Foundation." 2. Letter dated November 24, 1981, with enclosure, " Addendum No.1 - Design Report for the Borated Water Storage Tanks Foundation Analysis." 3. Letter dated January 11,'1981, resubmitted on January 18, 1981, with enclosure, " Evaluation of Midland Nuclear Power Plant Borated Water Storage Tanks for Non-Uniform Support Loading Resulting from Ring Wall Settlement." Q.6 Briefly describe the information related to your review area provided in each of the above items.
. A. In the submittal of November 13, 1981 the Applicant provided, in relevant part: (1) drawings showing details of the surcharge operation and of the new reinforced ring beam to be constructed around the existing ring wall, (2) the proposed design and acceptance criteria for reinforcing the ring wall, (3) applicable loads and loading combinations, (4) preliminary seismic and static analyses, and (5) a monitoring program for settlement and crack evaluation. The existing BWST foundation ring consists of a 4'6" high ring wall with a 4' wide footing. Each valyc pit is 10'8" high and extends 4'8" below the bottom elevation of the ring wall foundation. The design is further described in the Staff testimony offered for this hearing session by Hood, Singh, and Kane. A new ring, to be located on the periphery of the existing ring, represents the proposed remedial action for the foundation-structure. Shear connectors would under this proposal transfer the shear forces from the existing ring wall to the new ring beam (see Attachment 6). Staff has examined Consumers' dynamic and static analyses of the BWST design proposa' and believes that Applicant used a satisfactory mode of evaluation. In these analyses, the existing ring wall was modeled with curved shell elements; the ring wall footing and valve pit were modeled with plate elements; the new ring beam was represented by thickening the curved shell elements representing the ring wall and affected plate elements (see Attachment 7); and the 1 l
. soil subgrade was modeled by brick elements (see Attachment 8). Two sets of elastic moduli were used in the analysis, one set for long term loads (see Attachment 9) and the other set for short term loads (see Attachment 10). Long tenn loads include differential settlement loads as well as dead and live loads. In the submittal of November 24, 1981, the Applicant provided both the basic details for the foundation remedial work and the final seismic and static analyses. Applicant has modeled the tank by considering the horizontal impulsive mode, the sloshing mode and the vertical mode of the fluid-structure interaction. Each of these modes is modeled with its own individual model, and the seismic forces imposed upon the tank shell ring foundation from each of these models was added by the square-root-sum-of-squares (SRSS) method. In the impulsive mode the tank shell stiffness is modeled by vertical beam elements between mass points distributed up the tank shell. The beam elements represent the shear and flexural stiffness of the tank. The roof weight is lumped at the roof level, and the shell wall weights are lumped at discrete points of the tank shell. Impulsive fluid effective weights are added to the tank shell weights it each of these mode points at and below the top of the fluid. This horizontal impulsive mode tank model was attached to the ground at its base by soil-structure interaction impedance
L g . functions (defined in terms of translation and rocking stiffnesses anddashpots). The resulting overturning moment and base shear at the base of this model represent the forces imposed on the ring foundation by the horizontal impulsive mode (see Attachments 11 s and12). For the sloshing and vertical modes, empirical formulae were used to evaluate the natural frequency, the fluid effective sloshing weight, height of application, base shear and overturning moment on the ring foundation. Use of these empirical formulas is acceptable to the Staff. The model used in the design of the foundation rings was a simpler model that developed higher loads (see Attachment 13). The foundation rings have been designed to these higher loads, thus resulting in a conservative design. In the submittal of January 11, 1982, which was resubmitted on January 18, the Applicant evaluated the current condition of the BoratedWaterStorageTanks(BHST). Survey measurements of the ring walls indicate that the tops of the foundation rings have been distorted from their original positions, therefore resulting in a non-uniform support condition for the steel tanks. Based on Staff's review of the results of the finite element analyses, this condition did not impose any unacceptable stresses to the tank components. A three-dimensional finite element model was constructed to represent the BWST cylindrical wall. The model is constructed of
6-flat plate elements possessing both' bending and membrane stiffness. Vertical boundary elements are utilized at ' he bottom surface to t t represent ahe nonlinear behavior of the asphalt-impregnated fiberboard between the tank and ring wall, (see Attachments 14 and 15). Additional horizontal boundary elements at the tank wall lower \\ edge represent the stiffness and rest'raint offered by the flat tank bottom. The upper edge of the tank isJ: stiffened by a ring girder with properties chosen to represent the stiffness of the tank roof and the restraint that it offers to'the tank at the roof / cylinder intersection, s s' x_, s s Loading conditions include dead weight of the tank roof, weight of the cylindrical shell,' and weight o' *b effective annulus of water plus measured anchor bolt loads. .ostatic radial pressure loads acting on the tank wall were~also included. Q.7 Has the Staff found acceptable the remedial actions proposed by the Applicant for the BWSTs and their foundations? A. Yes. The proposal to add a new ring to the existing BWST foundation ring can in concept be structurally adequate. The Staff has identified certain concerns and conditions that should be addressed by the Applicant at dif ferent stages of construction. These concerns are ident'ified in answer to Question 9 of this testimony. Q.8 What-is the basis for Staff's. approval of the general concept of the proposed remedy? x l E I
s 7-A. Adding a new ring to the periphery of the existing ring, as proposed by the Applicant, will result in a foundation structure for the BWSTs which will provide support as good as that which was originally proposed by Consumers in its construction permit application. Additionally, as discussed in the Staff testimony of Hood, Singh and Kane for this hearing session Applicant has considered soil conditions in the analyses of the tanks and the foundation ring structu es which represent actual soil conditions for the subject tanks. Q.9 What are the areas of Staff's concerns on the foundations of the Borated Water Storage Tanks? A. The Staff requires additional infonnation on the following items: 1. Evaluation of eccentricities resulting from geometries and loads. 2. Rationale for load factors in load combinations. 3. Treatment of existing cracks, and evaluation and treatment of potential cracks in the new ring wall. 4. Identification of and justification for the proposed leveling scheme for the tanks. Q.10 Discuss the Staff's concerns on the remedy for the foundations of the Borated Water Storage Tanks. l A. The finite element model provided by the Applicant for the evaluati6n of the foundation ring wall consists of a symmetrical T-beam cross-section loaded through the center of mass. The addition of the new ring beam changes the original T-beam
. configuration into a composite-beam fonned by the old and new rings. The resulting composite beam does not have a symetrical cross-section and is not loaded through the center of mass. Therefore, it cannot be adequately analyzed using the old model without additional considerations. The Applicant has agreed to re-evaluate the foundation ring wall using the composite configuration of the old and new ring, and to determine that the new ring wall is able to resist the resulting stresses without exceeding the allcwable stress values identified in the acceptance criteria. Also, the Applicant has agreed to provide justification for the amount of water column assumed to act on the ring beam based on the stiffness of the plate wall junction on an elastic foundation. In addition, the rationale for applying unity load factors in the applicable load combinations was not addressed by Consumers. The Applicant has orally stated that the new ring beam interface shear connecto" and the new ring foundation of the BWST foundation is designed to the requirements of ACI 349-76, as supplemented by Regulatory Guide 1.142. This information has not been otherwise provided to the NRC Staff. This thus remains as a condition to be cleared by a submittal documenting the Applicant's verbal commitment. The proposed commitment is acceptable to the Staff. The Applicant has also committed to a pressurized application of epoxy to cracks in the old foundation ring prior to the construction of the ring wall, and to inspect the new ring foundation for a l l
. six-month period to detect, monitor and evaluate any cracks which may result during that period. This proposed plan is acceptable to the Staff, subject to satisfactory selection of cracks to be treated, as well as details of the monitoring and evaluation program for the new ring. The Applicant and the Staff have also agreed that leveling of the tanks is necessary. Consumers has not, however, finalized its leveling plan. Q.11 Does the NRC Staff at this time have reasonable assurance that the proposed remedial measures for the BWSTs and their foundations are acceptable? A. Yes. The Staff finds that the proposed fix as substantiated by analyses, monitoring programs and additional commitments addressing remaining Staff concerns is acceptable, subject to satisfactory documentation of the information which addresses the following concerns: 1. Evaluation of composite ring beam. 2. Commitment to the design requirements of ACI 349-76 augmented by R.G. 1.142. 3. Satisfactory evaluation of any significant cracks in the new ring wall. 4. Provision of an adequate leveling scheme for the BWST. Q.12 Are there other seismic Category I tanks at the Midland NPP site on l or in the fill naterial? 1
. A. Yes. There are four Category I steel Emergency Diesel Fuel Oil Storage Tanks which are located south of the Diesel Generator Building, buried 6' underground. The Applicant has analyzed these tanks for seismic induced loads in conjunction with normal, thermal and differential settlement loads. In addition, the Applicant has provided a reinforced concrete cover to resist the impact of postulated tornado missiles. These tanks have been designed and fabricated to the requirements of ASME Code, Section III, Class 3 (1974). Their reinforced concrete foundation pedestals have been designed to ACI 318-71, and their tie down is designed to the AISC-1971. The Staff has found that the load combinations and acceptance criteria used by the Applicant to design the four buried steel Emergency Diesel Fuel Oil Storage Tanks meet the Staff's design requirements. The Applicant has monitored the effects of the soil settlement conditions on the tanks and has not reported to the Staff any significant problem area. Based on the limited interaction area of each tank-pedestal, the Staff does not expect any significant structural problems for these tanks and their pedestals resulting from differential settlement. The Staff plans to audit the Applicant at the offices of its Architect / Engineer to verify the above conclusions prior to issuance of the OL.
. Q.13 Does Staff have any concerns with regard to the Electrical Duct Banks? A. The Staff expressed concerns on the adequacy of the Electrical Duct Banks following the differential settlement of the Diesel Generator Building, but now believes, or, the basis of the following, that those concerns can be dismissed subject to adequate documentation by the Applicant. The Electrical Duct Banks, which run under the Turbine Building from the Diesel Generator Building to the Auxiliary Building, have been designed to assure that the cables within them remain functional despite the imposition of seismic and other loads. They are not, however, required to maintain a pressure boundary. Consumers has stated that it has re-analyzed the duct banks for a limiting case, and has repeated the analyses for three changes in the limiting case. No adverse effects have been reported. The analyses to evaluate the effects of soil / building differential movement indicated that the reinforcement did not reach the yield stress. In addition, the Applicant has used a device (a " Rabbit," see 5), to check the availability of the individual ducts within each Electrical Penetration Duct Bank. l l The Staff plans to audit the Applicant at the offices of its Architect / Engineer to verify the e.bove conclusions prior to the issuance of the OL. l
. Q.15 Are you familiar with Stamiris Contention 4B and 4C, and Warren Contentions 2B(1)and(2)? A. Yes. Q.16 Can you respond to those contentions? A. Yes. The Applicant has re-analyzed the Borated Water Storage Tanks to account for the effects of all applicable dynamic responses, and the effects of soil settlement as well as dewatering. As a result of the re-analysis, the Applicant has decided to construct an additional foundation ring to conservatively provide adequate support for the subject tanks. In addition the Applicant has placed a surcharge to limit the effects of past differential settlement, and plans to reset these tanks to eliminate some residual stresses due to settlement and the resultant geometrical configuration. Staff believes that these measures eliminate any structural concerns expressed in the referenced contentior,s in relation to the BWSTs. In regard to the Diesel Fuel Tanks, the Applicant has analyzed and monitored them for effects caused by the soil supporting them. The Applicant has not reported any problem areas from the analysis and monitoring program. Staff believes that the results of the analysis and monitoring program indicate that any structural concerns represented in the above contentions are without merit in regard to the fuel tanks, subject to an audit of the information to be supplied by the Applicant. i
O ATTACHMENT 1 Frank Rinaldi P.E. Structural Engineering Branch Division of Engineering Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission I My name is frank Rinaldi. I presently reside at 5506 Beech Ridge Drive. Fairfax, Virginia 22030, and I am employed as a Senior Structural Engineer in the Structural Engineering Branch, Division of Engineering Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C. 20555. Professional Qualification I received a B. S. degree in Civil Engineering from the City College of New York (1966) and a M. S. degree in Civil Engineering from Maryland University (1974). I am a registered Professional Engineer in the Comonwealth of Virginia (1972). I am a member of the Main Committee of the ACI-ASME Committee on Concrete Pressure Components for Nuclear Service (Conciete Reactor Vessels and Containments). I have been employed by the NRC Structural Engineering Branch since 1974 as e Senior Structural Engineer. My duties include development of design criteria for nuclear structures and participation in the fannulation of safety criteria. Duties also involve safety-related review of structural and seismic desig5-criteria (Safety Analysis Reports & Topical Reports) for power systems and the evaluation of nuclear containment structures, reactor vessels and other structures and components. IZ5IZ'23OMG M ' t s ~ .._.... _. _. _()301
aan -. u l l - 1 The following is a sumary of my previous professional experience: 1971-1 974 U. S. Atomic Ener.gy Comission Fuel Fabrication and Transportation Branch (Structural Engineer) Naval Facilities Engineering Comand - Division of Research 1970-1971 Development and Testing and Evaluation (seneral Engineer) Naval Facilities Engineering Comand - Electronics Facilities 1968-1971 Support Branch (Structural Engineer) Naval Facilities Engineering Comand - Chesapeake Division 1966-1968 (Civil Engineer) e M M e
h ATTACHMENT 2 JOHN P. MATRA, JR. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OFFICE NAVAL SURFACE WEAPONS CENTER WHITE OAK SILVER SPRING, MD 20910 My name is John P. Matra, Jr. I presently reside at 14010 Jarrettsville Pike, Phoenix, MD 21131, and I am employed as a Structural Specialist in the Structural Analysis Office of the Naval Surface Weapons Center, White Oak, Silver Spring, MD 20910. PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS Education 1. Bachelor Aeronautical Engineering 1953 Rensselaer Polytechnical Institute Troy, NY 2. Master of Mechanical Engineering 1962 Drexel Institute of Technology Philadelphia, PA Experience 1953 - 1967 Worked for the Martin Co. in Baltimore, Maryland. My assign-ments have been in the fields of structural analysis and design, liaison engineering, thermal and heat transfer design in structures, advanced design and research. 1967 - Present I have served as a structural analysis specialist for the G-Oepartment, N.S.W.C. 'iy duties include performing structural
' analyses of general applicability, developing advanced structural analysis techniques and providing consultations in structural design and evaluation in support of departments in NSWC responsible for engineering, involving structural el ements. Since February 1980 I have been assigned as a structural consultant to NRC Structural Engineering Branch to assist in conducting the structural review and audit of the applicants' analyses and designs of Category I structures at the Midland site. 1 -t
Q BORATED WATER TANK 1 I AUXILIARY BUILDING 32'-0" i DIKE WALL N,
- \\
r 1L. W \\ g k \\ 18" DlA PIPELINES COMPACTED ^ ^ ANCHOR BOLT CHAIR ] %" ASPHALT i IMPREGNATED BOARD 7 f OILED SAND f ANCHOR BOLT 1A-y s CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 & 2 t BORATED WATER STORAGE TANK M+ N FIGURE 1-
- c...... e.
3 Artsc8urai 4 0 I i 4 e a a m e O W W I O o O Z 4 (O TGY y? g 2 asz-n 3 CY) a.. 4W "isf,T ES asz.ta 3 mtJ i... oo a vez-n 3 ,3:f+Y m aw gf; t to 9\\ g E. ammO [} Vaz.Lg 3 37R ').. I r .a i Q[ Qn
- 9. H wIW N
eQ O 'T Z cc LO i I
.., y,.myy. g... h 4 T O. D. APPROX. ~ qEL. G35' 'T, O. FTQ, EL G30'-6' / /. f.s*/:- c. u .:.y { t_ n ~_ I __ MUO/AAT M i 7 a- - A_ T Y m m o. y 3.. - v-C.....~' I APPRCX. SHAFE CF DUCT SANK) ~ /. j [ / T.O. NATURAL GROUND A PPRC%. EL. 'GQ4' \\ /_ _ _ r s l f- /
- ,, /
/ I / T / / - / 5.0.C, F.L 65$*O' + MIN. DUC.T CESIGN l *tO ENVELOPE ItA ur DUCT BANK
- y MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 & 2 C0"SMS PCWS CCMPANY T.7 ELEVATlON.
._I c I T f/NO M h. II.ZCTRIcAI.
- 7. :
L;y; occ: zAxt II. 7A ::cs 72 I l PGURE CAT 7,.: 4/24473 ,..... a n,. :.. i ~ ._L.~.* 4 ,.,,,4,,,. a. ~ . %%.y -D C1 '. ". 5~'-'_, ,j:)) l. 3'_}. -=.y ~- c p. iG t f. ' **.%%.";2.,t.d y;f., K 4"i',.:r..
- ,.;. ;+y5. ;gy. e,., ',*.w :
l;
AT7' CRMEN7' 6 A ,a.s r. e. s.,.
- s.nes J4*
I w!d ) g 3 '% '. TA M F"h " - 'N \\
- f '
- Ui mr. mr seu and. l 6
e 3 s r r. sag apssg,_ Q e'?.'
- p",
r <ssurge. .f 4h g {~ h.. *aa',;, .\\'ls,. )l f- \\Y Q.M.tf 5f *- k,# 'ptca~ mt. ,,f \\ .,/ ?~s % '/aevis\\ . N d:, L. / ,,,,.. l - .l. .f.s. .' e 1- ' = ? ,,n a ec.c.pr,
- ._. q',%=. '..,t yre
) 4r' + / .. **, l,',, * ...s i = ... r: j e T *:,..q , {.T.' & 9 S =, s.:,l'**,9 ~' e l-.._ J .1**,
- v +.i:
y .fe*s;h :;...,. ~= e
- c. m s;*,
.t.
- ' gl6d (W.
'4 a ..r. ammr. 5 R
- f. f I ?
7099 O near m?2 R tsar r Ms:o= N ..,n.. } . + --.s t l / - /- /. .- + -+-- 4' ,f -+-. /--- -+/ sp =. - s t.,
- ' ', +fY 1-..7.
g 'N t fh
- I
.. ' 'g ~*). 5 ;" '".i. 1'A ]',. .gusa,' .' l , +. +,+ +.4 .+ q 2 .w H* . R d. W g . ~. i . i, s, g-,.
- c., W. y y
~ y, ._ l +... ?+ +..,.,..c, n ( s., a j , '5 {. ) 7 1 8* /:" B* '
- E.
2., ... k , w
- ..stt net * *!
^, E '+..+: * + +, .. + '++;% . ' ~ n t##W s e s -- S .. e* * - . r *..,.. . #syst cauc.q er ,,,1"1.7. h'. t--e te m > ) / 2 ..s,.,, h.= 0 : 2 G ** W * i qv,e7."*- . =9= * # h.* e,
,O=..,e==**@
= = -, -. - m ~ .k. ,0, ,3 -1 O'. t-- g.. L-.. g/.C/ 4/ C/ d 21 i 1 .Y.\\M.- ~ \\ 17 % 4 / / / 1dO a\\ r-. a l' .e } 1._,
- 1. ro e em sars
/ ...i l l l
i NM Y AD N2 4 1 A & 3 P 1 M1 L G OS ED CT I R N M E U 5 WT E ON RU PA G L I S P F RED E L MN U A N S L F D NI OM C \\ T IP E V aU LAV N s i O3yR i; < c < t i As' b l T ^h l I LLAW G N IR 7 in% s \\ F lll ll
0 'c,, 0 g6' N\\ / \\\\ W LAYER 1' 62, f
- jjj-m
\\ EL 625'-4' i ~!jjj5 ( Ei ) / EL 615'-0" 1 M LAYER 3 4 kI // \\\\ f--
- / r
/ / s N g // .\\ 's y / / / 4 LAYER 4 \\ j/ / }K j / EL 600'-0" N i Q _J -j / j j w M LAYER 5 s N / EL 580'-0" l s s / N / s / 4 LAYER 6 \\ N / j< EL 550'-0" / g l (' g s i N / ~ ,i l N / N / %m% .-'/ ~ y M s CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 & 2 ( l BORATED WATER STORAGE TANK FINITE ELEMENT 1 MODEL OF SUBGRADE g FIGURE 6 i F. t M l O%
0 I[. :Y Iflf// /
- l
- Y.OY/
d.h i ! 4{!3g}! !y>jggj!P;fsmii!!W:'....? !!bh8@$0hflll$jff(h[lfhhh[$!$$!$$$.$WB89@ !EiNN E $PE i 19!$$ eMk'W5 O LAYER 1 d - q ?M e LAYER 2 LAYER 3 E = 400 ksf LAYER 4 s LAYER 5 E = 900 ksf LAYER 6 E = 2,400 ksi l t L \\ CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 & 2 l BORATED WATER STORAGE TANK M LOtJG-TERM ELASTIC q MODULI OF SUSGRADE FIGURE 9 G f f414 D9
t <e 's y
- ,,;;} ; : , : ', :;'
n:1 .,t ::: -' ,; 4,,,* ' " ' l ~ G. ' ' *u, ' ', # ss < t.< s t, y r,',, ~<?< :'c :ss- ~;, a + ;,,. r., < < v+ f ~\\ <, 3.,, ~ ;, n ~ $ss.'s $$... ' l ( ,s %[ $$K7N; ..t. ~ { E = 1,827 ksf l E = 5,278 ksf l E = 5,149 ksf 1 E = 5,149 ksl l t N s CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 & 2 i BORATED WATER STORAGE TANK SHORT-TERM. ELASTIC MODULI OF SUBGRADE 3 FIGURE 10 g- ,..a u n.
l N4 ne ov ii t s uu bl iorm tI g s W l e Ov.
- t. s t
ct s i ca l eM of bfd aEi r u \\l afl \\ PoF \\ EL \\ \\ DO \\ M ED y\\ OM \\ '-~ E V I k S n L i U L PM d I ig I i I i I I L W' W W W A i R T Q d @>-d N O Z I R 0 b D i 4 q 1 i l R S S s 3 S S S T W W U W W S 4 W v B d iu u 2 l F E f R o e U r pU G u I o
- 5 t n F
T co uies I rt cn t cno a -%d Saai rdt l eec f l t pn o onmu o e Siif R s a B i i ~ l ,I ll \\ I l
TANK SilELL PROPERTIES 6 E = 4.176x10 ksf; v = 0.3 94 > 35.4' g y Rigid Link 2 4 1/4" 1.70 ft 1150 ft 2 3/8" 2.55 ft 1726 ft 1 277.9 7 4 g 27.2' 2 503.6 3 523.8 4 512.1 di 6( ) 22.4' 5 426.0 50ll IMPE0ANCE FUNCTION 6 312.7 Properties 7 172.3 STIFFNESS ~ 8 25.9 k, k i' (k/ft) (k-ft/ rad) 9 28.6 5 7 Lower Dound 1.124x10 3.639x10 5 7 Best Estimate 2.247x10 7.277x10 5 I Upper Bound 3.371x10 10.916x10 3( )- 8' .E n 1 2( ) 4' DAMPING O k K, a, = 6S1 S" 1( O' b 5 8 = 51% K j , _ 3. ___,<S__
l M1AQ/At9V7 /3 SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF THE BWST HORIZONTAL COMPUTER MODEL E 2 1 SP1 1 1/4" TANK 2 1/4" TANK 1 3 3/8" TANK 4 CONCRETE FOUNDATION NODE OBJECT 2 1* SLOSHING EATER 2 ATTACHMENT POINT POR SLOSHING WATER C.4 3* RIGID WATER & TANK 4 JUNCTION 1/4" & 3/8" TANK 5 JUNCTION 3/8" TANK & 3 FOUNDATION 6* FOUNDATICN C5 MASS NODE SP1 - SPRING PICKED TO 4 CIVE CORRECT FREQUENCT TO SLOSHING WATER SF2 - SOIL SPRINGS A A A_ vi ' Y MASS NODE P2 W/HHs r ~ CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 & 2 v 8WST SEISMIC MODEL FIGURE A 1 ,7 ~ . & n ~<-,- C.;-a:.nynu qq.v. '.~i:j29,pp,.;;.; ;., s O ^--
MTAconrNil$ v Y 401 N 402 403 go 404 1 e,39 ? s \\ i g y\\ 4[ N 3 9, s y 'Ce h E 4.5'A A 9 . TYPICAL ,p 10 g d TANK IT-60 + 12 _3 _ 3 s 13 N u g/ 1 m / 15 1 gW 17 4 pg 18 2S e 20 3 22 21 g \\ / G 1 Qp ggy NOTE: INNER CIRCLE OF NUMBERS REPRESENT NODES ON THE TOP OF THE TANK. OUTER CIRCLE OF NUMBERS REPRESENT NODES AT THE OUTER END OF THE BOUNDARY ELB4ENTS AT THE TANK BOTT0ft. FIGURE 2-1. PLAN VIEW 0F TANK MODEL 2-8
ArrAo mnrW7 ff m w e Q W -g 8
== m z e da o< = g ze E 5 MS 8 s= 8 3 8 o S 8 e So 8 o 8 T ? ? ? ? ?? i o -f d dE 5 5 5 5 E5, 5 5 0 y 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 o u = = = z = = = = z z z .s cac-3 9 zsc-aw .S*LOE - y 9*0lE - A EN o s .9*6LE-t = a w E .9* 8zE ~ 2 d a t e s s Q .9.LCC _ u = m E w g "S'"*I @ @ p j e .9 sse-a e e e e e s e ee p i 'a
- m., -
m o. m 3 ,,.ct _ @ @ 2 j I .9 zz - / @ 9 tE - / .S* 07 - f
- E
/
- 9*6V -
A a / d/ 2
- g.gg _
A / R,/ 2 s 1. m Q z Z y W =W 5 d 5 80 5 w w =w a k8 m a m l l I 1 i
~' srmcpaeNT ir ir-i j \\ .l T r-- 3, e F ~ r k .d d G J u J L J ("[ INSIDE DIAMETER OF CONDUIT = %" OUTSIDE DIAMETER OF MANDREL = 3V y y DIAGRAM OF MANDREL (~ RABBIT)USED TO CHECK CONDUITS MIOLAND PLANT UNITS 112 CONSUMERS POWEA COMPANY : I r manntT l cs rom Et.T.CTRICAL DUCT ~ FH3umE 7.- 3._ _, car J,24 T9 ) h 9O' O here
- +2Wy k8 FS N - a6
'. s %.1%' :.
- X,' :y} *; **.
'g9'* '7;~'T ~.. L 3 ic..'.::,a a' ,: 7-2/k'3L,..,....f','f} *.%%M 54 8' N8 ~ .,' + y $S -d.
- * * 'sL'h O
- * ' ~ ~ ~ '
^ -.r.. de;cesa.wt,.. ....e.. m;. F.,t.4.. ' z,'igp'9=,ygge,ggy3,37;,;./;.,,,p.p,..;gg,;;-g; ' '7
- .*c 4;f.gfg$ st;A q g4,**.,i_ssy -__
== s =-i=_.}}