ML20040H493

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Vent Stack Reanalysis Rept
ML20040H493
Person / Time
Site: Quad Cities, 05000000
Issue date: 02/04/1982
From: Nelson R, Prasad K, Rosenquist J
SARGENT & LUNDY, INC.
To:
Shared Package
ML20040H481 List:
References
NUDOCS 8202180310
Download: ML20040H493 (12)
v • d • e


Text

. _

' c >.ecoua QUAD CITIES VENT STACK RB-ANALYSIS

[

REPORT QUAD CITIES POWER STATION - UNITS 1 & 2

  • i COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY PROJECT NO. 6531-00 J. E. Rosenquist R. D. Nelson K. M. Prasad
  • ~

~

February 4, 1982 I

8202180310 820210 PDR ADOCK 05000254 O

PDR l

SARGENT a LUNDY 3

ENGINEERS 55 E AST MON ROE STREET CHIC ACO, ILLINOIS 6080 3 TELEPHONE 312 269 2000 i

February 5, 1032 Project No. 6531-00 Commonwealth Edison Company Quad Cities Station - Units 1 & 2 I

Evaluation of the Quad Cities Station 1

Vent Stack l

Mr. E.

R.

Zebus Project Manager Commonwealth Edison Company P. O. Box 767 Chicago, Illinois 60690

Dear Mr. Zebus:

Enclosed is a copy of the report dated February 4,1982, addressing the evaluation we conducted on the structural capacity of the Quad Cities Station vent stack for tornado loads.

The report' verifies that the statements in the FSAR are correct.

An attempt has been made to determine the probability of the vent-stack falling on the reactor building in the vicinity of the spent fuel pool.

If you have any questions, or if you have any further tasks for this project please let me know.

Yours very truly,

% V.'?M2a A. Walser Senior Structural Project Engineer AW:dac Enclosure

~

Copies:

6wumfo16t1Hgan(lilly R. J. Goebbert (1/1)

M. Amin (1/1)

P. Gazda (1/1 original) s'

@O

~

Gr u s i. ~ s...

E N G 3 N E E Ft S

=

Cmwavo TABLE OF CONTENTS-I.

Introduction - Verification ~of SAR Statement l

II.

Summary of Re-Analysis A.

Vent Stack Shell & Foundation Ring Capacity.,

B.

Soil Capacity

(

C.

Footing Capacity

NC.

III.

Conclusions Confirmation of SAR

~

Probability of Occurance ye

+,

w r

a e #

[

O g

4 # +.

J l

i 9

+

e

,*d 4%

b

= -

--,c.-

E. 96 (s 114 L L si b e,

CHICAGO I.

INTRODUCTION This report summarizes Sargent & Lundy re-analysis of the Quad Cities reinforced concrete vent stack and confirms paragraph 12.2.1.2 of ithe Quad Cities Safety Analysis Report which states:

"The concrete chimney is designed for a wind velocity of 110 mph but is capable of withstanding a substantially higher (wind speed.

A wind speed of 217 mph is estimated to cause the chimney to fail at a point 60 feet above grade.

At this wind

speed, the reinforcing steel could theoretically rupture in tension and the chimney would then rotate -about a point on the outer shell on the opposite side from the failed steel and would fall to the ground."

II.

SUMMARY

OF ANALYSIS A.

Vent Stack The reinforced concrete vent stack ' was analyzed as a cantilevered column under combined axial load and bending moment.

Ultimate strength capacities for the vent stack column were determined using Sargent &

Lundy's COLID computer program.

This program utilizes the ultimate strength design method of ACI 318-77.

A load factor of 1.0 was used for determining ultimate strength as compared to a code required load factor of 1.3 for normal wind loading.

Input required for the COLID program was obtained from the Rust Engineering Co. Dwg.

C-5003-T-A-1 Rev. 1 for El.

595'-0" to El.

905'-0" (portion of stack above grade) and Sargent &

Lundy Engineers Dwg. B-391, Revised 8-6-69, for El.

548'-0" to El.

595'-0" (portion of stack below grade).

The ultimate bending capacity of the vent stack reletive to its height is plotted in Fig. 3.

From this l

plot it was determined that the vent stack would fail first at El.

655'-0"

(+60' from grade).

The critical bending moment at this elevation is 31,S39 ft-kips which corresponds to a vind velocity of 203 mph.

Cal-203 mph wind are plotted culated bending moments for a in Fig.

3.

Also shown in Fig. 3 are bending moments for a 110 mph design wind, a 300 mph tornado, and a 360 mph tornado wind.

Maximum membrane shears for 110, 203, 300 and 360 mph winds were also reviewed.

Tensile stresses in the reinforcing steel were calculated using shear f riction theory per ACI 318-77.

The resultant tensile stress in the reinforcing steel relative to height is plotted in Fig.

4.

Note that the vent stack fails in shear at

u.

CHICOCO

~

elevation 715'-0"

(+120) at a wind speed of 334 mph.

This greatly - exceeds the critical _ wind speed of 203 mph for bending failure and shows that bending failure con-trols the ultimate capacity of the vent stack.

.B.

Soil Capacity

^

The maximum contact pressure between the vent stack foundation and, underlying rock is due to overturning moment and dead load of the vent stack.

This stress-I will be applied to and carried by a 30 foot layer of

. dolomite limestone which is present from elevation 540' to 510 ' and h'as a unconfined compressive strength (qu) of 11000 to 32000 psi (Ref. Amendment 8 to the Quad Cities Safety Analysis Report).

Because of the presence of joints and other features in large rock masses, the Uniform Building Code and other codes recommend that the allowable bearing capacity of rock be taken as 0.2 qu.

Based on the qu = 11,000 psi 0.2qu, the allowable capacity and allowable bearing

=

is 2,020 psi (290 ksf).

With a normal factor of safety of at least 2.5 against a shear failure, the ultimate bearing capacity of the rock is in excess of 5,000 psi which exceeds ths 3,500 psi specified compressive strength of the concrete and insures that the bearing capacity of the rock is not critical.

C.

Foundation Capacity The vent stack foundation was originally designed using the ACI 318-63 working stress design me.thod for a wind speed of 110 mph wind per Addendum No. 2 of specification R2346 and has a factor of safety of 10.0 against overturning for this wind speed.

Additional calculations were made to determine the ultimate bending moment capacity of the foundation and factor of safety against overturning for various wind speeds.

These calculations utilized the ultimate strength design method of ACI 318-77 with a load factor

.of 1.0 for determining ultimate bending capacity of the foundation.

The factor of safety against overturning was determined using rigid body mechanics.

The results of these calculations are summarized below:

0 e

E N G ! f 4 L L I4 5 CHICAGO Resultant Factor of Wind Description Safety Against Speed of Failure Mode Overturning 10.0 110 None 205 Top steel of Foundation 5.0 begins to yield at windward face of shell 280

. Top steel of foundation 2.5 at windward face of shell has yielded.

No additional yielding occures.

290*

Top steel of foundation 1.0*

at windward face of shell has yielded.

Bottom steel of foundation at leeward face of shell begins to yield 300 Total yielding of 0.9 foundation at Leeward and windward face of shell assumed

  • Velocity of 290 mph was determined through interpola-tion and is approximate.

III. CONCLUSIONS The re-analysis has confirmed that the vent stack would fail at 60 feet above grade at wind speeds in excess of 200 miles per hour.

At this point, the vertical reinforcing in the windward face of the vent stack shell would yield causing the stack to rotate about a point on the shell opposite the failed steel and fall as stated in the safety analysis report.

Since the wind can originate from any direction there is a possibility that the vent stack could fall toward the Unit 2 reactor building fuel storage pool.

If this situation occurred, then the top of the vent stack would fall over the fuel pool by approximately 1 foot.

This is based on the assumption that the reactor, turbine and rad-waste buildings offer no resistance to the path of the falling vent stack.

If the vent stack breaks up on contact with the reactor building floor at this point then a portion of the vent stack could fall into the pool.

See Fig. 1 and 2 attached.

As shown in the tornado hazard probability curve, Fig.

5, the probability of tornado wind speed exceeding a value of

a. s s s..s EN GlN E ER S CHICAGS 200 mph is 0.9 x 10-5 per year at the site of the Dresden Nuclear Generating Station.

Assuming the same curve to be applicable to the Quad Cities Station and considering the geometry of the vent stack falling toward the fuel storage pools tae associated' hazard probability is approximately evaluated as:

(180+20)

Pr

=

3600 -

x ( 0. 9 x10-5 )

~

[

= 5.0 x 10-7 occuranc. / year.

e 9

0 0

4

  • e e*

]

4 4

4 S

M' S

,7

W

,o;oe

,oioei i<

p G~

g O2 g

i m >,

+

i

?,$$

P'67_ _L i~ 4 6 f

7 U J 42 e

2 I

s 3

<J s_ g <E 0 2

-d

( g (L o5 0

~$

D j o d a g

I 2

.' d 0

l

-,og->

. >-s I

2 g

l I

e u

C

/6 5 l

3 2

.ogs I

l

\\

\\F-7 1

I a

? i -t)- [

l l

-l pd l

l US p

-9 l

i

<c

/

\\

u h $,d

\\

I e

,e

.r,l D

\\f 6

x!/

S O

5 d

s y

gl l

$o i

4 6~'

g NP 8

BsL--

I Z

"o

'3 b

i

~J <.1 1

U J

'i

-~7

'I h.

$Nd*Sj,[l l tt gj E

cz

- u.

5 $

$\\/ y

_j<@jM 7

s x

o r--._ _

3 w >e l

/

1L

\\

l 9

/

..\\

1

'l

(

-e lh I

I I

-i l

~

i L__J

.i l

l u

o z

-ae I

e u

u Ob i

d

,7 l

l L__.J l

l l

~

~

~-

e j

r

.a

. ~

EL. 9 05'-08

- 4 _/

.1d 2'o.o /jt

\\

.#1 i

s z

..y

g. / (..

'I Y f

$, ~')

40 d_@ '97 $

117 d b o'.b 100'-0" l

l e

44'-o.

-.l o

l 1

F.T.L. 737 0" b

r 3

in.L.700 O' EL.Q90 G" r EL.G87'd I_

_7 l

l I

/

l l

L_

l s' csi' e'

$ PUEL STORAAE l-oo L

. 25'-7 Wo. O.

gyh.$w]

[

[ EL.595' o' I g

w.

.s uvA w

o

~

A 4

QUAD CITIEG

.s.

PL ANT LAYOUT

-. y (,

i SCALE: 40Lo" la r

P l

e-

-6T r

i i

.ClC1. 2.

~4' Jo!!. N.. G G 51-0 0 MofETH ELEVATION D F:Av/ N t:, f A. NI TA a

r/cuivyty esto -

EL. 9 o 5 -C'

+ 300 -h

. MoMEMT DIAGRAM I

FIG. 3 s

+2som t

\\,

noo -

\\\\

4!So-

-O F.t I L.

9 U ia a h

tloo -

I o

V-3GOMPH

\\

+50-

\\-

ACf ULTIMATE

\\.

CAPACITY 7/SRADE o.

E' 99 4G' v=cosMen

_ y,3 g, g y.g. _

v-itoMrs SOTT. CWit4W EY

  • g
  • g
  • g

=9

'o

  • o
  • g

-55 EL. 5 40*-o -

o o

o 9

a a

3 8

9

. Si 1

4 2

2 u

3c.

MOMENT ocAte::,co.io = 57

~

n

1

.. 310 -

i h

E y

O T

2 l

k L

u.

I O

210 t

En t

3 p

J i-fg 180 --

o

-O l-b.1 1

I o 02ul

$ 4 15 0 --

o U>

111=l 1

(,

W

=

f f 120

[

g+

4 0

.9 '

h O

/

0 I-O T

N 9

go..

?

S

$g I

g,o..

l l

po..

'O i

l l

10 20 30 40 so RE.BAR stresses (ksi)

(DUE To M EM BR AN E. sHE.AR)

SCALE: I"= IO Ksl MEMBRAklE SHEAR. DIAGRAM FIG. 4

,o t

2 3

4 5 67008 1

2 3 4 S eFes.

i

i i
l.

i

! ; ! !!!i

.c.

1 2

5 4

    • 7"
  • 4 Se7**:

r i

2 8 4 5 *res-

.i I I I.

i - -

l

. l.:

IIlli'i' I

4-3 Il I i!Il'i!'!' N W I" N ' 7 '

I~~I"T*'7 'I " "

-!oUH!;dHt..J$$,.aT.lc. 4'. J'I' ' pl.I'Q. ;[ Wl i.

__4_ KI.lW.M' i.

. LL

..l;! ;,L.,

1h 44 4

a,..

,3-p

~

llazard Tornado Windspeed (?!Pil)

Remarks R FERENCE:

Probability Per. Year Expected Lower Upper Value Limtt Limit Dresden 1&2, "SEP Topic II-2.A: ' Severe Weather

-0

- Phenomena", December 15, 1980, Dockets No. 50-10 1.x10 102 56 162

~

and 50-327.- Enclosure No.1, "NRC Sta ff Evaluation

5~

1.x10-195 138 242

- - - - for Dresden Site" and Enclosure No. 2, " Tornado and i,

-6 Straight Wind llazard Probability for the Dresden j

1.x10 261 200 321 Site."

Prepare'd by Texas Technical University b '1.x10 337 Institute for Disaster Research, pp.10-11.

259 417 3

'; - f.

0. 5 x 10 -7 360 280 450 C

J 1

_.... " 1. 7x 10-6 250 185 300 A-Qrir p l.]i ] ]

8,:.

II.l.ij :..

.,.u.

.,I,i t

'i i

! :)

d'

.to 3*

-5

.:,7

_ _.g 93.q, c.g;_.;-~ jf

'.-;" jit j;-

]

] p.P

!4 y!;

o,9x10 200 145 250 D*

q,=.-

~2T- -4.I.%,q

] j,j f-g

[

__l-1,i I

p ';'.

i

.Il.

.II.lGM m

'I

!lil l l

j j

l

_4

- 7 ; ; 7'. _ '

- f' llll l

t 3

F' ; l ' T5 LL_[.Ot i : Ti--

l '

-;-c

._LQTI: a :.-i.m La i-T- y' l

l 13.

.:1.

j{

,y i

,f L

'ti Mr--

1 :;

l

..N'q.

gii I h..

I

.. '.i

.l

. -- M,!

l n:.

t p' ic w/337,- lp'.~ j. l 'jj: 0 l j P coltaai1ity o q;!li':i.-

-[

i.

P,ro. Jab f.l t y o.f..T.orriado.?.I

..l

:i N-c 1

,1

2..

1..

7

l!

d@l'.Pl 4. ::.

,j'I 9 i./

l' N

h/

f'

,N

,,,h.l;7.r!: Jl.'

!h. !!!.

~ 1 li!.!:

I

-@ l!ll.y!'.'

L ;j Tirna;l 1

' 250 uli'll; i,l

%.yi,]

n j

I-a n p..m...

Nlgl ' !,II N[r.

..r 1

i p. 7.t el m

i

, s

.i.

p i

.i J

I I,b g

I.

roba ai!f.

! U 1 'i i'

&;,hif

.I.4 3

5

_ _j lili I

Probability of.

1. j.

l 4

.{.

t i :!ii 0

.D i' SI I' 'l Id I N3'6 )

m'ph l/

df.@or' o'

i (c xUapi at eN)

II1 ;I l.E Tg,rnado w/,200 mph

  • i l

t r

I I

. i

-j: fi

' d'

] jjij.t..i[.- 7

'T. thi g j-

~ f I

l l"

yi d..l l0":

qI ]lJe.

]

.: 4[

1. -lp li i !:
f:

jI

' T

~

il*! :i' r'

l l 1::

..i.?_.:'

i_l. !.

p

.ai.':

' a r

r r: : p:
:[t: T-

~

i' ;'I ii.e w m'-

l 7c d

1 u

i p

i r

2 7

'l' 9t

l;i p

il:

m i!

l I

,l i

l:!

F j b[- <ll igi' ?

?

i

- i i

a.

c i

t

!::,lj:

g!-
:li T

m t,

l

, i,

. l l.

l,i!.i l

,; i l ll:

l i

':..,1:.:...

i.

i ip

i.:
.-.c i:.

'l..

~

4 1

.i

.:;.t.-a c

t.

1.x10~"

8 1.x10-7

1. x10~

1.x10'D l.x10-4 1.x10-3 O.5x10-7 l

PROBABILITY PER YEAR IN LOG. SCALE l

FIGURE 5 TORNADO llAZARD. PROBABILITY CURVE FOR DRESDEfl (With 95% Confidence Limits) v J

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20040H493&oldid=4551412"