ML20044G794

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Structural Integrity Test Rept,Containment Structure,Unit 1
ML20044G794
Person / Time
Site: Susquehanna, 05200001  
Issue date: 06/30/1977
From:
BECHTEL GROUP, INC.
To:
Shared Package
ML20044G792 List:
References
NUDOCS 9306040278
Download: ML20044G794 (68)
v • d • e


Text

{{#Wiki_filter:. USQUhMANNA e '~ 5 M ELECTRIC STATION PENNSYLVANIA POVVER s LIGHT COMPANY AlleNtown, Pennsylvania i C- . 3,. STRUCTURAL ly.TEGRITY TEST REPORT CONTAINMENT STRUCTURE UNIT 1 1 w S. i I BECsTEL POWER.CORPOR ATION SAN FRANCISCO JUNE 1977

886 188 H ZiB88aos PDR A

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NO. LIST OF FIGUMES 1. INTRODUCTION 1 2.

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSIGNS 3 3. DESCRIPTION OF CONTAINMENT STRUCTURE 4 4. TEST PLAN AND PRCCEDURES 6 4.1 Test Plan 4.2 Test Procedures 4.3 Calibration 4.4 Estimated Accuracy of Measurements 5. TEST RESULTS 17 5.1 Containment Structure Deformations 5.2 Containment Structure Strains 5.3 Comparison of Test Results with Predictions 5.4 tiargin of Safety 5.3 Gase Slab Deflections 5.o Surface Concrete Cracks 3.7 Post-Test Inspection 6. REFERENCES 62 Appenoices 1. Specification for Structural Integrity Test, oddo-C-44 2. Extensometer, cial gage, and strain gage data k t e e

LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 3-1 Containment Structure 4-1 Pre prization Schedule 4-2 Concrete Strain Sensor Locations - Typical Section 1 Az 225* 4-3 Concrete Strain Sensor Locations Equipment Hatch e Az 315* 4-4 Extensometer and Temperature Sensor Locations (Except Equipment Hatch) 4-5 Extensometer and Temperature Sensor Locations at Equipment Hatch @ Az 315* 4-6 Extensometer Installation and Operation 4-7 Locations of Concrete Surface Crack Mapping Areas 5-1 Radial Deformation vs Test Pressure for Extensom-eters R1 Through R6 5-2 Radial Deformation vs Test Pressure for Extensom-eters R7 Througn R12 5-3 Radial Deformation vs Test Pressure for Extensom-eters R13 Through R18 5-4 Radial Deformation vs Test Pressure for Extensom-eters R19 Through R24 5-5 Radial Deformation vs Test Pressure for Extensom-eters R25 Through R30 5-6 Comparison of Typical Radial Extensometer Measure-ments at flid-height of Suppression Chamber with Predicted Deflection Comparkson of Typical Extensometer Measurements at 5-7 Mid-height of Drywell with Predicted Deflection 5-8 Radial Deformations at Mid-height of Suppression Chamber for 30 psig and 61 psig 5-9 Radial Deformations at Mid-height of Drywell for 30 psig and 60 psig 5-10 Vertical Extension vs Test Pressure for Extensom-eters V1 Through V6 ii m

FIGURE 3-11 Vettical Extension vs Test Pressure for-Extensom-eters Througn V12 5-12 Vertical Extension vs Test Pressure for Extensom-eters V13 Through Vlo 5-13 Vertical Extension vs Test Pressure for Extensom-eters Vlv tnrougn V24 6-14 Comparison of Typical Vertical Extensometer Measure-ments in Suppression Chamber with Predictions 2-15 Comparison of Typical Vertical Extensometer Measure-ments in Drywell with Predictions 5-16 Radial Deformations Above and Below Equipment Hatch 3-17 Radial Deformations on Either Side of Equipment Hatch 5-ld Deformations Across the Horizontal and Vertical Diameters of the Equipment Hatch 3-19 Comparison of Deformation Above and Below Equio-ment Haten witn Typical Deformation Away From Equipment Hatch at 30 psig 3-20 Compariscn of Deformation Above and Below Equip-ment Hatch with Typical Deformation Away From Equipment Hatch at 61 psig 5-21 Comparison of Deformation Above and Below Eouip-ta e n t Haten with Typical Deformation Away From Equipment Hatch at 28.2 psig 3-22 Comparison of Deformation Above and Below Ecuip-ment Hatch with Typical Deformation Away From Equipment Hatch at 61 psig in the Drywell and 28.2 psig in the Suppression Chamber v. 5-23 Comparison of Deformation on Either Side of Equip-ment Hatch with Typical Deformation Away From Equipment Hatch anc with Predicted Deformation at ol psig 5-24 Comparison of Racial Deformation Calculated From tieasureo Hoop 5 trains at Elevation 662'-0" With Radial Deformations Measured With Extensometers at Elevation 660'-U" -iii-

5-25 Comparison of Radial Deformation Calculated From heasurec Hoop Strains at Elevation 673'-lu" With Radial Deformations Measured Witn Extensometers at 67 -0" 5-26 Comparison of Radial Deformation Calculated From Measured Hoop Strains at Elevation 7d5'-5" With Padial Deformations Measurco With Extensometers at Elevatico 705'-V" 5-27 Comparison of Radial Deformation Calculatec From Measures Hoop Strains at Elevation 747'-7" With Radial Deformations Measured With Extensometers at Elevarlon 7%'i'-4" 5-2s Comparison of Padial Deformation Calculated From Measure 6 dooo Strains at Elevatin 766'-0" With Radial Deformations Measured with Extensometers at Elevation 7ey'-y" 5-29 Plot of Predictec and Measured Meridional Strains vs. Test Pressure for Outside of Suppression Chamcer Wall at Mid-height 5-30 Plot of Predictec and Measured Hoop Strains vs Test Pressure for Outside of Suppression Chamber Wall at Mid-height 5-31 Plot of Predicted and Measured Meridional Strains vs Test Pressure for Outside of Drywell Wall at Mid-height 5-32 Plot of Predicted and Measured Hoop Strains vs Test Pressure for Outside of Drywell Wall at Mid-height 3-33 Comparison of Radial Deformations Calculated From Hoop Strains, Racial Deformations Measured With Extensometers and Precicted Radial Deformations at 3u psig 4 6-34 Comparison of Radial Deformations Calculated From Hoop Strains, Radial Deformations Measured With Cxtensometers, anc Predicteo Radial Deformations at 61 psig 3-35 Deformation of Base Slab at 61 psig 5-36 Surface Concrete Cracks Observec in Crack Mapoing Area No. 2 -iv-

FIGURE 5-37 Surface concrete Cracks observed in Crack Mapping Area No. 4 5-38 Sur e Concrete Cracks Observed in Crack Mapping Area No. 6L 5-39 Comparison of Vertical Extension Measured by Ex-tensometers V22 and V23 With Vertical Extensions tueasured by Extensometers Vl9 Through V21 and V24 5-40 Comparison of Radial Deformations Measured by Dial Gages and Extensometers a t Similar Elevations and Azimuths 1 1 -v- .I

1. INTRODUCTION The Susquehanna Steam Electric Station's unit one primary containment was' bj'ec t ed to the structural acceptance test d u ring the peri f January 15 and 16, 1977. The purpose of the test was to demonstrate the structure's ability to withstand the postulated ?ressure loads by pressurizing it to 115 percent of its design cressures. The containment is a reinf orced concre te structure consist-ing of a cylindrical suppression chamber beneath a conical drywell. The structure is consider ed to be a prototype f or three reasons (see Reference 1): (1) t.he diaphragm slab separating the two chambers is connected to the wall: (2) diagonal reinforcement was used; and (3) the drywell dome is not spherical. In order to gain information for future sim-ilar containments, strain sensing devices were embedded at various locations in the structure so that strains could be monitored during the test. Deformations were also monitored a nd the relation between strain and deformation is discussed in this report. The test was done in accordance with Reference 1 with the following six exceptions: 1) A continuous increase in containment pressure, rather than incremental pressure increases, was used. This is considered justifiable since data observations at each pressure level are made rapidly. " Rapidly" is defined as requiring a time interval for the data point sample sufficiently short so that the change in pressure during the observation would cause a change in structural response of less than five percent of the total antici-pated change. Also, the maximum rate of pressurization was lim i t ed to 3 psig/ hour to ensure that the structure would respond to the pressure load without any time lag. 2) The distribution of measuring points for monitoring radial deflections was selected so that the as-built condition could be considered in the assessment of the general shell response.g In general, the locations of measuring points for radial deflections was in agreement with Ref-erence 1, figure B, except point 1. point 1 was provided at a distance of two times the wall thickness (12 feet) from the base mat. This variation was made to properly predict the containment behavior near the base mat to wall connection. If coint I had been located at a height of three times the wall thickness (18 feet), it would have been very close to point 2 (suppression chamber wall midheight is 26 feet) and would not have yielded any addi-tional behavior pattern of the containment. 3) Some of the strain gage instrumentatirn was farther from the equipment hatch than 0.5 times ths wall thickness (3 feet) as required by Reference 1, pararaph C.5. This was necessary in order to clear reinforcement and is con-sidered justifiable since tne intent of tne Regulatory Guide was m i.e., to demonstrate the structural inte-grity of th ,ontainment. 4) Tangential deflections of the containment wall adjacent to tne egai? ment natch were not .e a s u r ed cecause the pre-d:cted values of tangential deflection were very small and it would have been difficult to octain fix ed reference points for reasurement of local tangential deflections. 5) Because of the current state of the art, triaxial concrete strain measurements, while taken, may not be used to eval-uate tne concrete strain distribution. The concrete strain will be evaluated usina linear strain measurements in the meridional and hoop directions. 6) Humidity inside the containment was not measured during the test since it does not contribute to the response of the structure. - i j

2.

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSIONS The containment structu re withstood 115 percent of the design pressures with indication of structural distress. All measured def orm ans were less than the predicted values. At various staces of pressurization, concrete cracks were m apped in seven areas considered to be the most susceptiole to cracking. The largest crack found was 0.032 inches wide a nd the largest change in a crack's wid th was 0.015 inches or less. A comparison of measured deflection and deflection computed f rom strains shows that the strain gages were generally accu-rate until the surrounding concrete cracked. After cracking, strain data indicated much larger deflections than we re mea.;- ured with extensometers and dial gauges. However, even the largest strain measured (940 x 10-0) indicates a reinforcing steel stress of less than 28 ksi. The results of the s t r uc tu r al acceptance test provide direct experimental evidence that the containment structure is cap-able of containing the design pressures with a sufficient margin of safety. 6 i,

3. DESCRIPTION OF CONTAINMENT STRUCTURE The containment (see figure 3-1) is a r ein f or ced concrete structure consisting.of.a cylindrical suppression chamber beneath a conic drywell chamber. The two chambers are separated by a icrete diapnragm slab and the drywell is covered with an ellipsoidal steel dome. The entire interior surface of the containment is covered with a 1/4 inch tnick welded ASTM A 235 Grade A steel liner pla te whien serves as a leak tight 'emorane. The main reinforcement in tne case mat and outer wall is made up entirely of pl8 bars. The diaphragm slan is reinforced with #14 and #13 bars. The reinforcement pattern in the diaphragm slab and base mat consists of hoop and radial bars in the top and cottom of each slab. The reinforcement pattern in the outer wall includes two layers of meridional bars and one layer of hoops near the inner surf ace of the walls and two layers of hoop bars, one layer of meridional bars and two layers of diagonals near the outer surface. l U O b EQU ll'f1EtjT ll ATCil So EL. 791'-9" h .w. 1 % N \\ STEEI LINER y 7 . / i m U l 2700_ q 90 EL. 724'-l N e e x., fa N l D 1 v' ~ a c \\ f. 4' [ .,, 3 -- EL. 704'-0 \\ in mi-I q t. j [ n i j / ~ / 3, - 6,, s / S o s 1 't EOUIPMENT liATCll 4 3 -6 g =o, STEEL COLUMN e m n m l 4 D O l 't? . 130 l-o ~y y dc

  • M ;*: ( !Y 'c 'fh '. 'r ;,,. '

,'. I * ',i f; EL. 640'-3" IlORIZONTAL SECTION TilROUGli g ~~~~~ 7'-9" CONTAltl'1EtlT STRUCTURE- @ EL. 724'-1" i R=30'-0" R=44'-0" 4-g- 6 ' - 0 ** r D=100'-0" = = 4 SECTION A-A l'I GU RE 3-1 CONTAINMENT.STHUCTURE +, .wv. ~ *. -. - - = w ,e n---eww,-...+... e+.. ,+4e+.- +.m,,,v-c es.e e <4,=. ir*,r- --wee-,e-,-ee.w--tv..

.e,-

-=4,,=m--w<, y .-,-e,......,.-..ee

4. TEST PLAN AND PROCEDURES The containment was pressurized to 61.2 psig (115% of design pressure plus. tolerance) in coth chamcers and to 33.1 psi alfferential pressure (115s of design differential plus tol-erance) between hambers to demonstrate structural integrity. Concrete strain, ontainment aeformation and concrete surface crack development were monitored to assess the structural response of tne containment to internal pressure load.

  • .1 Test Plan Pressurization The containment was pneumatically pressurizec as shown in Figure 4-1.

Pressurization rate was limited to 3 psi / hour to allow reasonable oevelopment of potential time dependent concrete response to the imposed loaa. Depressurization rate was not limited. The aifferential pressure was attained by first reducing the pressure in both chambers to 28.1 psig and suoseguently increasing drywell pressure to 61.2 psig. This secuence permittea closer control of the maximum differ-ential pressure across the diaphragm slab. The vent dow-comers and other pipes connecting the two chamoers were capped to allow imposition of the differential pressure. Concrete Strain Strain in tne concrete was transduceo by embedded instrumen-tation locatea as snown in Figures 4-2 and 4-3. The embed-dea devices - resistance strain gages bonded to No. 4 rein-forcing cars anc Carlson strain meters - were arrayea to measure circumferential and meridional components of strain at tne inner ano outer reinforcing curtain groups. Other aevices were locatea to measure the helical strain component at the outer reinforcing curtain anc tne diagonal component of strain near the wall mia-plane in regions of high trans-verse snear. Ine emoeacea aevices transducea average con-crete strain over relatively snort distances (10 inches for tne Carlson strain meters anc lo inches plus bona development length for the No. 4 bars compared with 10'-9" development leng th for a alb reinforcing car - see References 3, section 12.5 and 2, sectiq. 2.5.2). Consequently, cevice response after concrete cracking would not necessarily approximate that of the primary reinforcing steel. Containment Deformation Tne radial and vertical ceformations of the containment were measureo using taut wire extensometers and dial inoicators. located as snown in Figures 4-4 and 4-5. The remotely moni-torea taut wire extensometers were located both inside and outside of the containment. The visually monitored dial indi-cators were located only on the outside. Radial deformations of the containment were referenced to internal and external structures which were not ex pect ed to move in response to either pressure or short term temperature enanges. Vertical deformations we mea su r ed as celative movement between the top of cone, di hragm slab and base mat. The installation a nd operation o. .he taut wire extensometers is illustrated schematically in Figure 4-6. Concrete Surface Surveillance The exterior surface of tne concrete was examined for crack development in the areas shown in Figure 4-7. Crack examin-ation was visual asing 7X magnifiers to measure crack widtn. The examination a reas we re m ar ked in one foot squares (vary-ing size circular segments on the equipment hatch area) by chalk lines to facilitate thorough coverage by examination personnel. Concrete cracks exceeding 0.01 inches in width we re n o t ed and recorded. Other Measurements The following additional parameters were measured during the test u sing the equipment and instrumentation noted. o Drywell and suppression chamber pressure - mechanical bourdon tube pressure gages o Drywell and suppression chamber temperature - resistance temperature detectors ( RTD) located as shown in Figures 4-4 and 4-5. o Barometric pressure - aneroid barometer o Outdoor wetbulb and drybulb temperature (with a notation on general atmospheric conditions)-fluid column thermom-eters, dial thermometer a nd 100 ohm copper RTD o Date and time of day - digital clock incorporated into the data acquisition system descriced below. Data Acquisition Concrete strain and taut wire extensometer data were recorded u sing a scanning digital data acquisition system (DAS) with a 3 channel per second scan rate. The system incorporated a d ig i t al clock with day - hour - minute resolution and a paper tape orinter. A complete DAS record consisted of a day-time of day header followed by a sequential listing of channel numbers and raw voltage data. Containment pressure, dial indicator readings, barometric pressure and all temperatures were recorded manually. The RTD resistances were measured using a digital volt-ohm meter. Concrete surf ace examination data were also recorded manually. 4.2 Test Procedures Detailed test procedures are listed in the Appendix and sum-mar ized below. ~ Pretest Pr epa r ag ons Prior to the start of pressurization all measuring devices were installed and cperaticnally checked. Containment closure and otner necessary construction activities were completed as r e qu i r ed oy an extensive punchlist. Tne ~ suppression chamber was filled with water to El. 672 to provide tne design hydro-static pressure l oa d i ng on the suppression chamber wall. Initial Data To assess tne stability of tne instrumentation installed to measure containment response, concre te strain and taut wire extensometer data were recorded at tnree hour intervals for is hours prior to the start of pressurization. Pressuriza-tion was commenced when the pretest data had been evaluated a nd the instrumentation determined to be stable. Test Measurements Strain and taut wire extensometer data were recorded immedi- + ately prior to the start of pressurization; at drywell pres-sure increments and decrements of 5 psi; at tne beginning of., e nd of and one hour inte rvals during all constant oressure hold periods and upon completion of final depressurization. Containment pressure, time, temperature and barometric pres-sure data were recorded at the same times. Concrete surface surveillance areas were examined prior to the start of pres-surization, at 30 and 61.2 psig during initial pressuriza-tion, at maximum dif ferential pressure and f ollowing the completion of final depressurization. Dial indicator read-ings were r e c o rd ed at the same pressure levels as crack development data. Post Test Stabilit'[ Data Following the comoletion of final depressurization, strain wire extqnsometer data were r eco rd ed at four hour and taut intervals for 24 a nd 12 hours, respectively, to assess the post test stability of the instrumentation. Data Monitoring During initial pressurization and differential pressurization i selected data were r ed uced to strains and def ormations and evaluated to insure that the containment was responding to the pressure load in an acceptable manner. Following the completion of depressurization, all data were reviewed for sufficiency and credicility. -B-

4.3 Calibration All measuring devices except the magnifiers used for concrete surface crack inspection were caliorated on an individual or lot basis. Thegaut wire extensometer sensing units, ther-mometers ( ex cepWRTD 's ), dial indicators, Carlson strain meters, barometer, pressure gages and digital indicators were individually calibrated using instrumen ts cer tified traceable to the National Bureau of Standards. Resistance strain gages o n *:o. 4 reinf orcing cars and 100 ohm copper RTD's were lot calibrated by the manufacturers, 4.4 Estimated Accuracy of Measurements The following estimates of measurement error are based on calibration data, equipment specifications, computation of small errors not corrected in data reduction, judgement con-cerning reading errors and data stability records, o Drywell and suppression chamber pressures - + 0.2 psig o Conc re te strain (elongation of sensor) - 5% of measured strain + 20 microstrain o Containment deformation - 4% of measured deformation a +.01 inches o Containment temperature - + 2* F o Concrete crack width - +.005 inches l l l l 1 1 1 l J j i

s' s' t t t k 2183 HMS 1600 HMS A-2303 HR$ - 1707 HRS 61.25 PStG e3.28 PSto 80 / \\ / \\ / 90 DRYWELL PRESSURE f yM" - 48.9 PSIG / e E [ t i u / 8 a a E / 8 I m E I / 2 2. 3 ~ [ SUPPRESSION CHAMBER PRESSURE 8 y 2s.1 Psic -

s 0155 HRS 0255 HRS

- se w 2316 HMS - z r - I I I I I l 1 .I i 1 l'

  • l,

4' .S' ,12 it 20 24 e 4 3 12 16 m. 24 , JASL 18,1977 , JAN.15,1977 \\ ' N ,- 4 ilME Iq,*I PRESSURIZATION SCHEDULE

FIGURE 4.1 a

-3 k L l I EL 706*.1, a H .. >. a.C. .~.t EL 775* 1" Y" \\ li ( I l I f 0 H EL 747* 1" of], = ',~'.;% -. s a H s.- .d EL 71S*-0" / / [ EL 704' 11" f: I I i \\ j g g Hp E L 698' 11" H [ i { > pg EL 050'4" ' SYMBOLS 9 INSTRUMENTED l BAR OR CARLSON l METER ORIENTED t IN CIRCUMFERENTIAL l l OIR ECTION j l INSTRUMENTED I' M E L. 673" 10" 8AR OR CARLSON l l

  • 'h METER ORIENTED IN OIRECTION H

SHOWN (EXCFT MELaCAL s ETRAIN M9EHLS T' >M EL M-O" , As NOTEDI t H HELICALSENSOR H ALIGNEO A2-EL 651'-0" WITH HELICAL I l R EINFCRCING

e y v y

y y E L 64s' 0" -y -/ o v u" v" EL $40' 3" I r 2" ',i s*-s" 24'-s", 17 10", ar O" i q c c ~ 1 i [!GURE 4.2 CONCRETE STRAIN SENSOR LOCATIONS - TYPICAL SECTION 9 AZ. 2250

f*, t L. .l .J f,s, ' c ,1 _

re s 4-s 4-r-o-i

./ ,7 4.6 + ( X ).( h----) .yf,.a c o N e ^ g s ~ 6* 6-4'

  1. . _i

_i_ _x d d. v v A A

  1. ~

6*- 6* g, y', .J [ i -x 0.o o o 9g . gy, C spj e eg of - - f *f ) j re ~f f b v'- J n I g-e l" OUTSIDE ELEVATION SECTION 8-8 SECTRON C-C x 3 ~_ ^ d SYMSOLS ,.. et ' 6'*y * -STRABN SENSOR IN PLANE OF F4GURE .o;o

  • .D ih*

9 STRAIN SENSOR NORMAL TO PLANE OF FIGURE. 7 SECTION A-A - 4-e FIGUHE 4.3 ' CONCRETE STR AIN SENSOR LOCATIONS - EQUIPMENT HATCH @ AZ 315a m-m.- c.- ,_v--

wra,

., w .,w.- s.ve.- v v. -.-..,w. w .ry-,

A 4 E RTENSOMETEQ (TYD) RTD (TYP) 9 EL 789'-9" UNO R25 9 488 R26 9102' R2791628 EL 790'-5" l R28 9 229'55' E L 790'-1" I R29 9 282* d p d 1 R30 9 3448 EL 79&-7 5" RTO 1 0 102' [ {*,,*, ~ ^ ~ ~ E 9 EL 747'-4" UNO EL790*#, 8 0 l R19 9 38 08' 8 t R 20 9 99 8 / R21 9159 R22 9 219' E L 749' 0" s 8 \\ R23 9 279 I { \\ R24 9 339' E L. 746* 4" 8 i RTD 2 9 99 9 D V19 20'.6" RAD 9 25' I / V20 20' 8" R AD 9 51' hl V2121* 9" R AD 9150' / V22 21' 4" RAD 9160'30' 8 V23 20' 8" R AD 9 270 8g V24 20' 1" RAD 9 2958 S EL 706*-0" UNO R'3

  • WW Ik IW'2" O

R14 9101*2F ir R15 9161*20' EL 705' 2.5" Ris 9 22s*8 R17 9 M1 01* EL. 700' 2.5" Ris 9 ses* RTD 3 9101*20' O ho.u. ir.iO- %f 7+ s ~. [g % > (, V13 9 30' V14 9 47*W- , " 'd * - 9; * ., e V15 9190* vis 9 ist*30' 8 V17 9 270 vis 9 2st*3r i 9 R Adit >$ 24*-0" V7 9 30' f .J* * / vs 9 47*3r O VS 9150' fo - o n V10 0181*30'

  • Of*

V119 2708 j 8,0 g,0)f.- e V12 9 201'30' o u o ,e

  • o.

+ */ 9 RADluS 34* 9* N V1 9 30* ,8 V2 9 #7'30' N V3 9150' V4 9181'30' Ny VS 9 270* Ns vs 9 2:1'3r 9 EL 677 0" 8 O DIAL GAGE 9 48',282',398 9 EL 87f F* g .e 's R10 9 2288 R110 252*8 R12 9 348 RTD 4 9102' 8* 9 E L. 640'-0" j R 19 0* .o R2 9 758 [," 8

  1. ,* +

R3 9120 R4 9181* 0 '4 8 As 9 3e0 Rs 9 3o0* FIGURE 4.4 EXTENSOMETER AND TEMPERATURE SENSOR LOCATIONS (EXCEPT EQUIPMENT HATCH) _.t be h,~ i 1 S E8 (E L. 739*-8" 9 316'27') +. EXTENSOMETER END POINT (TYP) ' 9 E5 (E L. 734* 9".9 315'38'l ' [ g TEMPER ATURE SENSOR t E4 4E L. 730'-3" # 315'l ' I > 3 D E7 ES E13 E11 E12 e- -e' E L. 725' 7.5" E L. 725'-6.5" 9- -4 E14 iEL.724*.1" g. Es E10 6' 2" s' 2'* \\ 10'8" 10'-8" ,s -\\ '/ 18'-3*, \\ '^ 3.-~.. ' 15*7' s, c E3 (E L. 717* 11" # 315') t 9 E2 (EL. 713' 5" 9 315') ~ r'! 9 E1 (E L. 70t* 1" # 313'37') I .l _ I i_ 1 ..i 8 315 r ,f E13 & 14 ACROSS HORIZONTAL & VERTICAL OPENING OtAMETERS i VERTICAL WERE PARALLEL TO CONE SURFACE I + i s - e. ,\\ flG.UR E. 4.5 EXTENSOMETER AND TEMPERATURE SENSOR LOCATIONS 9 EQUIPMENT HATCH 9 AZ 3'150., e - r

POINT (1) MAGNETIC ATTACHMENT TO RPV OR LINER PLATE - TURNSUCKLE FOR .".s' LYDT CORE AD M MENT C* e.. .000" DI A INVAR 1 UNIVERSAL SW1 VEL v 1 P ON dl j COEFFICIENT f} / / \\ 7 = 7:17 FF) f I \\. 4.. N s !b-Y Y I \\ \\_ n, \\ s x -r- / h ~~/- a y,, CRIMP SLEEVE y LVDT CORE LINEAR VARIABLE DIF F ER ENTIAL TRANSFORMER (LVOT) (1" LINE AR STROKEl COLL HOUSING SENSING UNIT OUTER CASE PRING-TENSION OVER UNIT OPERATING RANGE ~ 17-19 LSS. POINT (2) WELDED. ATTACHMENT TO DRYWELL LINER i OPE R ATION: IN OPERATION, SPRING MAINTAINS APPROXIMATELY CONSTANT TENS 40N (ISLBI ON WIRE. WRING RATE IS ASOUT 2 LS/IN. ELECTRBCAL OUTPUT OF LVDT IS LINEARLY RELATED TO POSITION OF - CORE IN COIL HOUSING AND THEREFORE LINEARLY RELATED TO CHANGE IN DISTANCE BETWEEN POINTS (1) AND (2) i 4 e FIGURE 4.6 EXTENSOMETER INSTALLATION AND OPERATION 1

i

'./: .... + ) .\\ ) Y, 1*.3 S/16" i es /g GRID LOCATION TYP - SEE DETAIL 1 t e, Eu um ..P.,. .....z \\ eI 3' 6"--./ p / M b 0' 7 3/4" 3150 E L 738' 0" /. l l .. +. I l' E L. 724'.1** EQUIPMENT. HATCH - 5'6-6 -{ EQUIP. H ATCH.I E L. 698*-6" } y.g q y_- () EL $73'#* h %. . 4, E L. MTV* 215 315' OUTSIDE EL # EQUIPMENT HATCH h 9 <s-I j' {. j. l I i i l f ^! l l 1 S,. i 0-b 1 \\[ 7 SP # 1* 0" s r s i DETAIL 1' 1

. I e

t ELGURE. 4.7 CONCRETE SURFACE CRACK MAPPING AREAS - 1 si

5. TEST RESULTS Ine. results of the structural acceptance test provide direct experimental evidence tnat tne containment structure can contain the design internal pressure with an ample margin of safety. The test data confirm that the analytical methods anc assumptions usea to predict the deformations due to pressure are valid though very conservative. No large cracks openea curing tne test anc an inspection after-the test re-vealea no structural damage (the ciapnragm slao liner plate was ceformea locally, as will be discussed later, but this cia not encanger tne integrity of the structure). 5.1 Containment Structure Deformations Radial-1 Deformations measured by the radial extensometers are plotted in figures 3-1 through 5-5. In each figure the lower plot.is of test pressure versus time and the upper plot shows the range of racial deformations due to the corresponcing pressure shown in the lower plot. Figure 5-5 shows the deformation curve for extensometer R-29 in addition to the range of defor-mations obtained from the other extensometers at that eleva-tion. From this figure it may be concluded that deformations measured cy R-23 were not reliable. Figures 5-6 and 5-7 show typical radial extensometer readings and figures 5-d and-5-9 show radial deformation vs azimuth. Vartical f Deformations measured by the vertical extensometers are plotted in figures 5-10 through 5-13. Again, the upper plot shows the range of ceformations. In figures 5-10 through 5-12 however, there are two ranges shown in the upper plot. One range is for even numbereo gages and the other range is for odd numbered gages. Even numberea gages were anchorea to the decking under tne ciagnragm slab. Odd numoered gages were anchored to the cottom of wioe tlange ceams. The two ranges were shown to il-lustrate the cifference in behavior. In figure 5-13 the defor-mation curves for extensometers V-22 and V-23 are shown in addi-tion to the range of the other extensometers. From this curve-it may be seen that deformations measured by these two devices were not accurate. Extensometer V-22 measured large deforma-tions because it was anchored to the sump liner plate which was ceformea auring the test. V-23 was anchored to the liner plate where a voia existea beneath the plate, thus accounting for the large deformations measured oy that cevice. Figures 5-14 anc i 5-15 show typical vertical extensometer measurements. Ecuioment Hatch Measured ano predicted deformations arouna the equipment hatch for varicus pressures are taculated in_ figures 5-16 through 5-13. Figures 5-19 through 5-22 compare the deformations t measured anove and below tne hatch with " typical" deformations -) (i.e. aeformations away from the hatch). Figure 5-23 comoares precicted deformations on either sice of tne hatch with measured ano typical dsformations at ol psig. 5.2 Containment Structure Strains strain sensing cevices were embedoed in the structure at various locations so that strains could be monitored during the test. Figures 5-24 through 5-2d show racial deforma-tions computec from hoop strains and a range of radial defor-mations octainea from extensometers at approximately the same elevations. Assuming the extensometer measurements to oe accurate (see figure a-4v for comparison of extensometer and dial gage readings) the strain gages are seen to be accurate up to at least 3V psig. After 30 psig, concrete begins cracking and the strain measurements increase rapidly. Just above the ciaphragm slac the deformations calculated from strain gage data seem to be high at low test pressures anc then tney are accurate at maximum test pressure. This. apparent anomaly is due to the fact that the deformations are extremely small there anc the extensometers are not accurate enough to register them reliably (see section 4.4). Typical strain gage data are plotted in figures 5-29 through 5-32. 5.3 Comparison of Test Results with Precictions In figures 6-33 ana 5-34 curves are plotted to show radial ceformations obtained from three sources. One curve shows tne preolcted racial oeformations, one curve shows the radial deformations measured oy racial extensometers and one curve snows the racial deformations computec from measured hoop strains. Figure 5-33 is for 30 psig and figure 5-34 is for al psig. From figure 5-33 it may be seen that deformations computed from noop strains closely match deformations measured by racial extensometers. In figure 5-34 the curve for deformations computed from strain reacings ooes not match tne curve for deformations measurea by radial extensometers in the suppression pool. The reason the two curves do not match is that figure 5-34 is for 61 psig ano at that pressure the concrete has crackea resulting in very high strain measurements. The curve of l oeformations measureo by extensometers however, is similar in snape to the curve of precicteo aeformations. This sim-ilarity indicates that the design methods and assumptions usea were valia though very conservative. The conservatism in these predictions came from at least four sources: i -lo-l =

1) The mogulus of elasticity of concrete was assumed to be 5x 10 psi. The actual modulus of elasticity, agcording to test results may have been as much as 7.5 x 10 psi. 2) The concrete was assumed to have a tensile strength of-200 psi. 'The test results indicate that the actual tensile strength was about 450 psi. Theref ore,. there was less cracking than predicted. 3) In the drywell, the credictions were made using reinforcement ratios wnich reflected less reinforcing steel tnan was actually installed. 4) All calculated strains and displacements, which were conservative for the above three reasons, were increased oy 156 before they were reported. To compare predicted and measured def ormations around the equipment hatch, see figures 5-16 through 5-23.. From these figures it may be seen that the increases in deformation around the hatch are much less than predicted. This was to be ex pe c t ed however, since the deformation predictions around the equipment hatch were based on the assumption that the concrete was completely cracked. The predictions were, therefore, an upper bound. 5.4 Margin of Safety The predicted de f ormations, if they had occurred, would have produced a maximum stress of 25 ksi in the suppression pool wall (except near the equipment hatch where a 45 ksi stress was predicted). From figure 5-34, it may be seen that the actual deformations and, therefore, stresses experienced d u ring the test were far less than predicted throughout the structure. Therefore, it is safe to say that the containment structure possesses a suf ficient margin of safety. 5.5 3ase Slab Deflections The case slab deflections were not measured directly, however, strain gages were placed in the slab =(see figure 4.2 for loca-tions) and the deflections were calculated from the data from these gages. The deflections were c'alculated by two methods and the results of both methods are shown in-figure 5-35. The two calculation methods are described below. Both methods are i based on strains measured at 40 psig (a pressure at wnich very little cracking had occurred) and the results are multiplied by 61/40 to obtain deflections at 61 psig. Radial Strain Method i The base slab curvature was determined at each group of gages by the relation: -19 3

cottom E to

  • elev top aage - elev cottom gage The curvature diagram was then plotted anc the deflected shape ot the slab was obtained by the moment-area method.

Absolute deflections were then obtained from this deflected sha pe by sa tis f ying the equilibrium condition of n'o vertical force on the foundation. Hoop Strain Method Tne radial movement of each hooo gage was calculated. The slope of the base slab at eacn group of gages was determined by tne dif f erential radial movement of gages at the top and the bottom of the slab. The deflected shace was clotted using these slopes and absolute deflec-tions were found and adjusteo as in the first method. 5.6 Surface Concrete Cracks surf ace concrete cracks were mapped in six areas in which cracking was expected to be the most extensive (see fig. 4-7 for locations of the six areas). Cracks were mapped at the following internal test pressure stages: stace Test Pressure 1 0 psig 7 30 psig 4 61.25 psig (peak pressure) 30 61.22 psig in drywell, 28.1 psig in suppression chamber (maximum differential) 44 0 psig_, The results of the crack mapping are shown in figures 5-36 through 5-38. Crack mapping areas 1, 3, 5, and 60 are not-shown because no cracks were found in them. - The largest crack found was 0.032 inches wide (see fio. 5-37) and the largest change in a crack's width was 0,015 inches or less (see fig. 5-38). The maximum allowable crack width was 0.06 inches (see Appendix 1, Attachment 2). 5.7 Post-Test Inspection The interior of the containment structure was inspected fol-lowing the conclusion of the test. The only evidence of unexpected behavior was in the sump areas of the diaphragm slab j ;

liner plate. The liner plate in these areas had been def ormed upward, apparently oue to pressurizec air oeing driven into the space between'the concrete slab anc the liner plate. This air coula have come from two sources: 1) from the drywell through the unlined concrete of the RPV pedestal, and 2) from the sup-pression chamber through the ciaphragm slab. When the test pres-sure was reduced, the air under the sumo liner olate could not escape cack tnrougn tne concrete rapidly enough to keep the pressure uncer tne plate approximately ecual to the pressure in tne crywell. Consequently, tne sump liner plate, which is the largest panel in tne ciaphragm slao liner plate, was forced up-wara, resulting in a perma".ent ceformation. Despite this defor-mation, nowever, the liner olate remained intact and served its function as a leak-tight memorane. Data from vertical extensometer V-22, which was anchored to one of the sump liner plates, are plotted in figure 5-13 as a solid line ano again in figure 5-39 to a larger scale. The plots in-aicate tnat the liner plate was also experiencing larger than normal displacements where extensometer V-23 was attached. It was ciscovereo later that there was a small void beneath the liner plate at that location. The test pressure had forced the plate approximately 0.2 inches closer to the slab than it had been before pressurization. At the completion of the test the liner was 0.02 inches higher than it had been before the test thus incicating that the space under the plate had been pressur-izec ano tnat the plate remainea oeformea even after the excess air under it had escaped. This amount of permanelit deformation will not effect tae behavior of the liner plate curing plant operation. I t r,

b 3 PANGE CT R-1 THRU R-6 E (SEE TICURE 4-4 TOR LOCATIONS)

== 5$ .12 /A C V/ 5 .10 / n 5.OB fh l//l/ .06 04 s .02 2 p/ /////} N '///// 7 f .00 >J M 60 5 50 i I I / \\ / ) .0 I I / \\/ / \\ 30 i / \\ 20 10 / \\ I ]l R $ %; 3 "l = PRESSURIZATION STAGE TIG"RE 5-1 RADIAL DETORMATION VS TEST PRESSURE FOR EXTENSCMETERS R-1 THROUGH R-6 d

  • 5 L

-??- p p ,y_ ---p.g-.u-- g-gr y

.20 I i l 1 I I i

  • 10 f /

^ RANGE CF R-7 THRU R-12 4 / ;' (SEE FIGURE 4-4 FCR LOCATICNS) f .16 f h 14 g p o r y1 L z l } }

  • 10 ll/////////J L y

l} Q'//////,'/l' [l m a, c .c. i 06 i 5 / .C4 Y!/ ' / ///} ,e, I .0, I i i i I I e i i a4 ; i il i I i i iI/i ,\\ i l i Vi i l I 11 \\ s so i l / ! l \\' /t i 1 I I I A iiN A i i n 3: a l / I il i i I i l\\l 2, 10 r 0 $2 E A~ ~

  • ~

z PP.ESSUPIZATION STAGE E TIGUPE 5-2 RADIAL OEFOR,*% TION VS TEST PRISSURE FOR EXTENSCMETERS R-7 THROUGH R-12 d m. ~ w

~ F 2 - i r 2 ~ F r i E d D .?. h /~ RANGE OT R-13 THRU R-18 / (SEE FIGURE 4-4 FOR LOCATIONS) g / g

.04 5

f C2 2- .n y s //x ,<,vi., /- qy,e -l l 1 2 .00 o l e a i i I J I i i i i J 60 i I i i I / h V \\ I i I i Vi IN fl h I i i i /i i (A I /t i I I v 1 i \\1 ( 9 :' i 1/i i I c 60 ~ si 0 i ll N R . 8 t' 4l PRESSURIZATION STAGE m$ \\ r!GURE $-3 RADI AL OEFOPJ% TION VS TEST PRESSURI' FOR $g EXTENSOFITERS R-13 THROUGH R-1B E . 1 e -e-e. e y r-7- l

i j l i l l i 1 t 4 ~ { t 1 i l } t i -% RANGE CT R-19 THRU R-24 Ey [ (SEE FIGUPI 4-4 TCR I.CCATIONS) m z i ~ .;0 1 i l 2 .9, i U .06

  1. A

.36 Y) / ~.04 ) Q w, m, /}/ \\ I /// / / /3 .02 w t f ) 00 / I 60 M i

$g 40 3g I

l l/l l \\ v. 20 t l l in / N 1-0 .j .1 I 5 IR l0 I, ; ; .z i- ~ ~ PPISSURIZATION STAGE Ui .<c FIGU PI 5-4 PAOIA1. CET0pp.ATION VS TEST PPISSURE FOR yE EXTENSCMITERS R-19 THROU".H R-24 .=2 .$~ l t-a 1 l ) l

1

)

I l J b ~ b a t e 5 " RANGE OF R-25 THRU R-2 8 AND R-3 0 (SEE FIGURE 4-4 FOR LOCATIONS) e E = 7 08 l D2h 2 lbu V/$$ .u A>< s h VAWbh% fh $.02 A ,, A;:::dT e - " ?%E///j i !i i iiii i i l l 1 l l I m M l 3 i fl IT i /1 L l l l if I l\\1 ift li I i 1 /i iI N/ t IA I i l / I I II i \\l / i I 'l ( o ,/ \\ I l

a a :: :

i pg E$ i ParsstRI:AT:cs sTAcE ( gm ric::Rr 5-5 RAD:AL DEroFr.AT:ON VS TEST PRESSURE FOR =g ez EXTENSCMETERS R-25 THROUGH P-10 C I l i ~

b t i r a .50 .45 l I l ] l l i i i '4U l l t i I/ \\I l 7 j PredictadQ \\l 1 3 35 1 11 n\\;i E l l l \\ l I 0.30 l j a 1 i ( t.25 e j l \\ j i [ I s } r'i\\ r o\\ 2 I i , t.a x i ~" j //[ \\ t r " 1 __)Nk\\ I i

i l

l 1/ }

i. r

" N .05 y ,.p i, A co - I I / \\ / i\\ r

so -

i eL I / \\ / 1 [ y 30 1 1 5 20 mW I 10 - /, \\ 0 -:, i / N N IO ! s ~* b} PRES $URIZATION STAGE TICUPE 5 COMPARISON OF TYPICAL RADIAL EXTENSOMETER ga MEAS'.; AIMENTS AT MIO-HEIGHT Cr SUPPPESSION CHAMBER z WITH PPIDICTED DETLECTION ,g E '

l .3, t ^ l t .25 ) I I Predicted l i '(

2 i

y 5 V O.15 E V i t C .la l l l i i i /b6[D D,q. ~ .oS y.' v,_,,j p GW\\ Q o n so - l I / \\ / \\ l So _ i I I / \\ / A! {\\i 3o - 2, _1 V i \\l t lo -/ lx o= ). U Z N E O E ~

  • h-l PPISSURIZATION STAGE FIGURE $-7 COMPARISON OF TYPICAL EXTE*;SOMETER ea 8

i MEA 5t;REME::TS AT MID-HEIGHT OT OPYWELL WITH PPIDICTED OETLECTIO!; c t ! i

4 ~ .30 i 1 .24 E 61 psig / s 5 .18

  1. [

N i c

  1. j i:

2 8 S .12 'i a $c .06 g -30 psic 0 0 0 48 102 162 228 282 348 (R7) (n8) (R9) (R10) (Rll) (R12) AZIMUTH (EXTENSOMETER)' FIGURE 5-8 RADIAL DEFORMATIONS AT MIDHEIGHT OF SUPPRESSIO5 CHAMBER FOR 30 psig AND 61 psig

i 1 .15 .12 Ew -61'esig l .09 / = 1 .06 O Iuo ? .03 e -30 psig 0 U 00 0 38 06' 990 - > 1590 2190 279 339 (R19) (P20) (R21) (R22) (R23) (R24)- AZI.MUTH (EXTENSOMETER) r FIGURE 5-9 RADIAL DEFORMATIONS AT MIDHEIGHT OF DRYWELL I'OR 30 psig AND 61 psig } i -30. i I

.J .20 ~ 'i .15 R ANGE OF V1, V3 AND V5 / / l h i l l $'o l". 5 @h i A&N@dh K M M wA~e eFV2.. ~oV ~W phy m ~- 0 r q N4f 1 i .i I l' l l V \\l I / \\ 1/1 i NI / X 1 s l '0 I / i I \\ / / t \\ r s 3 v e / \\ E 20 i i b 'I y l x i 1 3 5 7 g 11 .14 14e 19 22 $5 23 30 h M 41 8 HOURS AFTER 1 PRESSURIZATION STAGE final stoWDOWN i FIGUPI 5-10 VERTICAL EXTENSION VS TEST PRESSURE FOR EXTENSOMETERS V-1 THROUGH V-6 t I t I 10 t ) ~ ~ 05 l l ,R ANGE OF V 7, V-9 AND V-11 / 1 l 3 l //// s [0 l I I I l C " ^ " ' '~' ' ~ l R ANGE OF V 8.V 10 AND V.12 h l 1 1 I I \\ .05 y .e } a> .10 i I l P .15 i I I i s 50.I I I / l\\ l i V \\ l l i !I I I /1 Li\\ / 1 I i,0 1 I /i i \\l A / i i l i I l/ 1 1 C 20 10 y / \\ j 1 3 '5 7 9 11 14 14a 19 22 25 27 30 30s 34 41 44 [ 8 HOURS AFTER. PRESSURtZATION STAGE FINAL 8 LOWDOWN i l t i FIGURE 5-11 VERTICAL EXTENSION VS TEST PRESSUPI FOR EXTENSOMETERS V-7 THROUGH V-12 , i

.15 10 5 l r Y

.05 l

f R'ANGE OF V 14 AND V 16 [ b V 18 ,ii /l IHs t i 7 i i ll KN / q j

, /1

_ s ^ ' h w, _-.,, a >a RANG OF V.1 V 15 AN V 17 . 05 L .10 1---. w I I V I l\\ l / \\ S, i VI \\l /l i i,,0,1 I I V I I \\/ I / \\ l i II i/ I I l i i i \\ 10 / I N l 1b 19 22 25 30 30s 34.41 44 1 3 5 7 9 11 14 B O SATE PRESSURIZATION STAGE OWDOM. i FIGURE 5-12 VERTICAL EXTENSION VS TEST PRESSURE FOR EXTENSOMETERS V-13 THROUGH V-18 i t i e. t

1 i i e .20 2 [ /NL l .15 j ~ V-23 I 5 2 I ,J.,* " n , I, l _b" M i / f .13 ) / p y v 4 .I k .cs / 'I - RxN=E cr V-19 thru k\\h\\\\ V-21 AND V-24 / \\ 1 \\ / ~ .05 1 j w l 6C jmi

%p

/ \\ / \\ 3 so / \\ / i 40 m / \\/i / \\ 30 20 13 0 ji

!==

= 2 e :: A .1 PRESSURIZATION STAGE =a FICURE 5-13 VERTICAL EXTENSION VS, TEST PRESSURE FOR e$ M ENSOFITERS V-19 THROUGH V-24 [ t 1 -

z l l I I i } t .01 t 't l 0 s f -4 \\ j- .= l 1 l ts n. I IY~12' I\\ \\ l S .01 C l 'er 5 .02 g xx ? .o3 \\ \\ .k.ll 1 \\' l e 3 + =

- 04 s

\\ l Predicted .05 5 f .06 f f .07 I i I l l I l l l l.I -ll L 3 60 - Mi JMI l I I V \\ / i\\ = 5, _ i i I i Vi \\1 / AI 30 _ l V T/ /.\\1 2, _ I / ~ \\t i i 10 V iN-i 0 -- /

  • O I

N S- %O s i ~ " PRESSURIZATION STAGE U<$ FIGURE 5-14 COMPARISCN OF TYPICAL VERTICAL mm 8 EXTENSCMETER MEASUREMENTS IN SUPPPESSION CHAMBER WITH PREDICTIONS i l .) .I

I ? 1 I 'I l ) i b f .33 a i I i l Predicted _.25 I m i 5 1 i 1 i s i 1 20 l \\\\ h- - \\ il ( '73 ( l !.15 i: i f / V-19' ( b f !.10 A'/)' k -i \\ /^ '?' \\ \\ 6. /- i .os I l 's i ~.[ x // 1 / l V' __/ l l \\ \\ l i r ? eo _l i I / \\ / \\ 2 J do - 3, _ t iI / T/ / \\ If I \\l i e / i 2o _ k / E 10 _ \\ o,

: s=

=a:: -h; PRESSURIZATION S* AGE FIGURE 5-15 COMPARISON OF TYPICAL VERTICAL ga EXTENSOMETER MEASUREMENTS IN CRYWELL WITH-zg P REDICTIONS .g C

TEST PRESSURES (psig)

  • 30
  • 61
  • 28.2
  • 61/28.2, f1EA-DRE-E6 SURED D I C T EI' b

.010 .067 .36 .047 .080 I E5 .013 .068 .37 .054 .088 1 m I E4 _q ) .011 .074 .38 _.054 .090 ~ o I i j t ~ I w l g_ Y 724'-1" r = i i m 2 E3 = m o 4 2 ^ .000 .052 .29 .046 .064 E2 f_/ /- .000 .048 .19 .040 .057 El U .007 .037 .11 .030 .042

  • NOTE - DEFORMATIONS WERE PREDICTED ONI.Y FOR 61 psi FIGURE 5-16 DEFORMATIONS ABOVE AND BELOW EQUIPMENT IIATCil

.( RADI AL, WITil RESPECT TO CONTAINMENT)

TEST PRESSURES (pstq)

  • 10
  • 61
  • 28.2
  • 61/28.2 MEA-PRE-E12 SURED DICTEL it q

f .n19 097 .37 .066 .109 J Ell .029 106 .37 .069 .120 / .h 1 E10 -1 J r .022 086 .37 .063 .101 m o l l ~ 0 y 315 l-e 8

m

) E9 h o N 078 .37 .050 .092- .014 J m 0 E8 .-4 i .Q19 087 .37 .053 .101-o _n11 080 .37 .051 .004

  • NOTE DEPORT 4ATIONS WERE PREDICTED ONLY FOR

^ '61-psi FIGURE 5-17 DEFORt*ATIONS -ON EITilER SIDE OF EOUIPMENT IIATCH - (RADI AL WITH. RESPECT TO CONTAINf1ENT) 'L I ,. +,. - - - -.m....,.._i- ,,,,m.--. --...-.~..--.....-.v, e--..J. -.,s.'- .-~--..~,.,...,-.,-.L,. .--..~.~,-,J.-..--... ...---,._...I

D GN NU I O Cl t RA O 2 l FT C NN 8 4 2 T ' r I E [- 2 1 7 R A EB / 0 0 O i R l l F Lli '6 T PEC D N OET E E T lOTA 1 C p l Sl f l il ) q I I D u i s E n p 2 0 0 R E ( 1 4 P 8 0 0 l \\ CN i E 2 E 1H R - TI O i E SNMADI S W ROOII I T S ~ AI C RC m F BS EEE L l i E 1 9 NY NOIlH Rl .I ,;A P - T OL PETT I T 1 1 EC I N OT ED N T RI TO O DSl O i S 1 PD A l NNSTL Zi l l 1 E 6 D U i I EE A I C - E 4 5 s TRNN RT T T AR 1 6 Op PI lI l OA EU 0 0 F l E1 MS D6 ET I N ITE M E SP 0 5 T SI 0 0 1 O OU 3 0 0 N E RO T CE O A a 5; F N SO N R OS - E I R TE NT 3 4 AT EE 1 1 TM E E ME XO RM ES O A FI ED D L 8 A i 1 C l C I T 5 T 4 A R 1 I E E I E R V 3 F U 1 O G D E 5 I N I1 N FA 3 O I TAVEL E 1- ~~ 4 2 7~ 0eI

1 L R25-R30 g TYDICAL DEFORMATION R19-R24 E6 ON ABOVE HATCH E5 E4 3\\ s E3 E2 3 IMFOPl"dhL.GELOW HATCH El ) R13-R18 3 U7 DEFORMATION SCALE (INCHES) 6 _q .000 .040 FIGURE 5-19~ COftPARISON OF DEFORMATION ABOVE AND BELOW EnUIDf1ENT HATCH WITH TYPICAL DEFORf1ATION AWAY FROf4 EOUID'1ENT HATCH AT 30 psig -

i i t R25-R30 g TYDICAL DEFORMATION l t i / s / DEFORMATION ABOVE HATCH f R19-R24 T\\ V E E. ES E4 T \\37 / i i DEFORMATION BELOW HATCH-E3 E2 TW '//l El \\kb R13-R18 } IJ# DEFORMATION SCALE (INCHES) .000 .040 ] 1 i FIGURE 5-20 COMPARISON OF DEFORMATION ABOVE AND BELOW EOUIDMENT HATCH WITH TYPICAL DEFORMATION AWAY FROM EQUIPMENT HATCH AT 61 psic

4 / R25-R30 g TYPICAL DEFOR!% TION \\ DEFORMATION ABOVE HATCH' f R19-R24 T\\ Ee ES T \\l7 / E4 i s DEFOPJ% TION BELOW HATCH E3 E2 T\\p -fyj El }\\h [f R13-R18 3, i jr . i. i DEFORitATION SCALE (INCHES). M Jf l .000 .040-FIGURE 5-21 COMPARISON OF DEFOPJMTION ABOVE AND BELOW EOUIPMENT HATCH WITH TYPICAL DEFOPJiATION AWAY FROM EQUIP!"ENT HATCH AT 28.2 psig 4 l 1 'f

R25-R30 ( TYPICAL DEFORMATION I DEFORMATION ABOVE HATCH R19-R24 \\\\ V M E, T\\17# E3 3U [ E4 DEFOR"ATION BELOW-HATCH E3 E2 1@ V \\kb El R13-R18 } Ih' DEFOP."ATION SCALE (INCHES) .000 .040 FIGURE 5-22 COMPARISON OF DEFORMATION ABOVE AND BELOW EQUIPMENT HATCH WITH TYPICAL DEFORMATION AWAY FROM EOUIPMENT HATCH AT 61 psic IN THE DRYWELL AND 28.2 psig IN THE SUPPRESSION CHAMBER

+

i i i ~ INTERIOR SURFACE BEFORE r PRESSURIZATION i ,/ ( i S - PREDICTED DEFORMATION OF \\ INTERIOR SURFACE. \\ N p TYPICAL DEFORMATION OF INTERIOR \\ SURFACE AWAY FROM EOUID. HATCH. 4 s\\ i f / \\ MEASURED DEFORMATION OF INTERIOR SURFACE NEAR HATCH. h / i 7 i

h_. _

b m \\ ~ o m i g.H ATCH { m S 4 ~ 5 E 9 m__ l 1 ] I I A V / t 0 .2 i / (INCHES) / .1 .3 FIGURE 5-2) CCMPARISON OF DEFOR'!ATION ON EITHER SIDE OF EQUIP. MENT HATCH UITH TYPICAL DEFORMATION AWAY FROM EQUIPME!!T HATCH AND PREDICTED DEFORMATION AT 61 psig. i f .. { 5

I .40 i l .35 5 1 i r .30 G .25 / ' N RG-121~ u= m f .20 ,/ e-(.. 3 b E ~! + 2 .15 l -c -RG-120 i c: j -/, o . 's .N i s i j. J .05 N - -N \\ 's N \\'N RINGE OF \\ R-1 THRU R-6 3 s 0.00 -, i ~ 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 i TEST PRESSURE (psig) l FIGURE 5-24 COMPARISON OF RADIAL DEFORitATION' CALCULATED i FROM tiEASURED HOOP STRA!NS AT' ELEVATION 662*-0" WITH t RADIAL DEFORMATIONS MEASURED WITH EXTENSOMETERS AT ELEVATION 660'-0",

/ .48 I[ .42 I' ~ / CM-017 j /> / .36 I f s l. I' l ) 5. 30 }}. e G RG-133-- I/_ 3 il ? 24 ji N i , l - RG-0 7 4 E l 5 l l a< .18 o 1 .12 's F I .06 / CM-006s 0.00 r 7 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 TEST PRESSURE (psig) FIGURE 5-25 COMPARISON OF RADIAL DEFORMATION CALCULATED FROM MEASURED HOOP STRAINS AT ELEVATION 673'-10" WITH i RADIAL DEFORMATIONS MEASURED WITH EXTENSOMETERS AT 674'-0" 1 1 -- a

.029 - -~~~-~ p (f. f S h .024 I RG-06 6 % z f 3 i D l lh 'j .020 - _ !1 J y C l s s 2 s ' x1 l g . 016 _ i s ,v s l l RG-03 ] %,\\ l / '.'N' I I .. _c .012 s 7 i N. N l s i s, / sNs;s-N - s i i ,4 x [ ', ; .. ',.) .008._l .l l ls 's. ' _ .] l ..t. \\\\y* l i N N 1 .\\ x. j s. .x v y \\ \\ .','s' ~ I sNN s ', sls - 's x-sN s s l / s p..:_. .004 w.._ / I !"!s'""Ed ( M k;gs 'h RANGE OF 's [ q x \\y..\\'s ( ,N' x l A., 's s . s s 's 0.000 9 0 10 20 30 40 50 61 TEST DRESSURE (psics ) FIGURE 5-26 COMDARISON OF RADI.3L DEFORMATION CALCULATED"FROM MEASURED HOOP STRAINS AT ELEVATION 705'-5" WITH RADIAL DEFORP.ATIONS MEASURED FITH EXTEMSOMETERS AT ELEVATION 705'-0" 'h -_l 'I j .1 j

  • q l'

. l- 'I i .14 -- i l '.i I' i A k' V. u i e j L l = E .12 ? i t 8 l j .10 -l __ __' { E-i g i o 1 li-L i u C i i RG-075M i E t -i.i ~ 1 'l

  • C g

.08 4 N. {

3..

__. : '? .06 ,, ?.I ! I st \\, t t N n, g u-i. s 3 I s. l I e J _. 1 . I :, .04 I J. j: 't

C" -0 2 7 _-.,,

j -l .i is l p l.' - 3,\\ = .02 i / CM-002 \\' ' uW' t[ \\ 'K,.'.' h s-N, ' ' RANr.'E.' C F R-19 /. \\ QN THRU. R-24 '!l5 a A, ' ' N ' f !! .,'O', sSN (s 1; 0.00 - - s s'. I [ O 10 20 '3 0 - 40 50 A '. : TEST PRESSURE (psig)- I FIGURE 5-27 COMPARISON OF RADIAL ~ DEFORMATION CALCULATED ' FROM MEASUPID HOOP STRAINS AT ELEVATION : 7 47 '-7"- WITH RADIAL DEFORMATIONS MEASURED WITH EXTENSOMETERS AT ELEVATION 747'-4" 15 =. S w s-- w + -+q

i .08 i ~. .07 .06 l .05 / E H U= 0 .04 6 .[ RG- 0 97%, H E / l 5 .03 a l P RANGE,JF /! .02 R-25 THRU' N i, R-30 % . \\, I NNN 1- ,N J 2 x .01 \\\\h \\ s s's _ RG-108-0.00 i 0 10 20 30 40 50 60-TEST FRESSURE (psig) j FIGURE 5-28 COMPARISON OF RADIAL DEFORMATION. CALCULATED FROM MEASURED. HOOP STDAINS AT ELEVATION 786'-0" WITF R?DI A.L DEFORMATIONS MEASURED ';IT!! EXTENSOMETERS AT ELEVATION 789'-9" ;

l i I I I t I 1 l 500 400 l l Predicted ) i 1 300 E I I l h j I i I E [1 I 200 l I V t i I 100 em RC-117 I i /e%.%.==.:_1.._. s. ss _ a. cM-01 < J

  • s <m,]

l i o I I I i I i i i 1 1 i i. l 60 _ l -i -i I / \\ / t\\ I i ,, _ I I I i / I! \\ / A ~_! I I / \\/ /i\\ 30 ,, _ l l V I I I\\ 10 / A ~ D- /

5 : : ~;-

5 g. 6-PRESSURIZATION STAGE I - FIGU RE 5-29 PLOT CF PREDICTED AND w.EASURED MERIDIONAL STRAINS VS. TEST PPES$URE FOR OUTSIDE OF SUPPPESSION 8i CHAMBER WALL AT MIL-HEIGHT

  • 3 9

-l l r j l P i l 800 / 700 P t j' 600 /- \\ $00 IJl[ CM-006- \\\\ z ~ l 1 71' z 400

  • = =

I./ \\ '/. f i / \\ --- + - \\ / c 300 t Y[' f RG-074 \\ fl \\ sh 200 i i I 100 .d t 0 60 - 2 JMI E 50 - 40 *0 i L / N/ /\\ 3, 8 l 20 ~ 10 V l N 0 = i ~

  • C N

E %~. PPISSt'RIZATION STAGE i FIGUPE 5-30' PLOT CF PREDICTED AND MEASURED HOCP .E 8 STAA!NS VS.. TEST PRESSUPI FOR OUTSIDE OF SUP-- 24 PRESSION CHAMBER WALL AT MID-HEIGHT-eI l

6..

i i l L r

.I i 4 ,I 50 l i JR /O c i I -l k Pred10ted ! /' M. i 33 f i i r~g / 3 20 1 z, 4 / \\ / \\ i I \\ / s i = \\g / \\ CM-02V ""/ \\- i 10 i / / i / \\ - I s 0 1 . \\ xs m i l _i i i i i i u i r !I i l i V \\ / \\ l i" I I I V1 \\ -/ A i ='9 i V \\/ H m 30 - If I\\' 8 B'10 i / ( l 5 0-d

    • [

E EO m hj PRISSURIZATION STAGE a FIGU RE 5-31 PLOT CF PPIDICTED AND MEASURED.MERI:IONAL pa .j 5 TRAIN 5 V5. TEST PRESSURE FOR CUTSIDE OF DRYWELL WALL zj j AT MID-HEIGHT =z. ? 7 t I - t.i i {

d

't

'i ) sie i I i i ( 9, I 700 l ) ( } 600 l j i f 500 l l l I 3,og Prea:ctee - 5 \\ -Sl \\ \\ I l Z l i 2 l J O j \\; \\\\ y j300 / \\ t I \\ PG-075 Q I 200 1/ l I \\ I I t, fI l 100 lt I, [ . f * %' CM-002 ~ ~ " %,N. .j f

h. C
  • t o

l i I lL jj i l I i .I M j%n 60 l l I I / \\ / ti 1 i 30 _ I i l i f: \\ / i-i 3 / \\i t h \\f f \\ 40 ,0 _ ! l fl l \\ 30 - f ( 10 - 0 -: r / j r y,. y O a g, n ~ ~ + s e ~ pg r r., y PRESSURIZATION STAGE "3' i FIGURE 5-32 PLCT CT PREDICTED AND. MEASURED HOOP e m. STRAISS VS. TEST PRESSURE FOR CUTSIDE OT ORYKELL j, WALL AT MID-HEICHT '*5 x i l -53. e I

i ,l / f' / -Q ' / ~ { / \\ i O Predicted Radial Defermations 4 \\ i \\' gy -OPadial Defomati~ alculated Fran Hooo C. uns j \\\\ Adage Radial Deforration \\ f' Measured wit.h Extenscreters i i l L m / l \\ I \\ l I I I i g- \\ \\ i

t;,.

\\ I \\ l t i 7 I \\ ] \\ \\ \\ \\ p 1_ St ' ~. i - -- - [ ~.' 1 '.- \\ l T .\\ f \\ l \\ a i, \\ I 1 ~ e, E I i / / b z 1 1 1 l I {i U.yl<.f*. ?C) ( .000 .200 4. 'c *e h I'.$ c ( (INCHES) l c l FIGURE 5-33 COMPARISON OF RADIAL DEFORMATIONS CALCULATED FROM HOOP STRAINS, RADIAL DEFORuATIONS MEASURED WITH j EXTENSOMETERS AND PREDICTED RADIAL DEFORMATIONS AT 30 psig i

j l i, l [/ 5 ' I ,/ .[ ./ N \\ f \\f g s k \\ / i \\ s l \\ I +--- O oredicted-Radial Defomation. \\ /fi 'ORadial Defomations Calculate. L l [ \\ I 'j Frcrn Hoop Strain l / l l - [l O Average Radial Defomation l Measured with Extenscreters 1T ?A!.. t ) I y /. g e. 1 \\ \\ l i I i i.- m y', 4 e... f. ' .T .~4, g .gy ...;-r >- \\ 2 g 1 i g. s \\ \\\\\\ t lL-u ~1.g ) a# a w vg f / ) w' g,r., [,i., pc-[ .000 .200 i i i,g.[h (INCHE'S ) 4 - 4.- g i FIGURE'5-34 COMDARISON OF RADIAL DEFORMATIONS CALCULATED FRO". MOOD ~5 TRAINS, RADIAL DEFORMATIONS MEASURED' PITH EXTENSO' DETERS, AND PREDICTED-RADIAL DEFORMATIONS AT 61 psig -ss-

( REACTOR m C i I m n L c l ,& g, :- ~ l - SUPPRESSION POOL WALL +.0142 / ,0122, [ 5 i +.0015 (,/. i / 1 8 DEFLECTION l BASED / o o c p: QN RADIAL STRAIS c c e .0136p ' .0063 ,0191/ DEFLECTION BASED ON HOOP STPAIN .0250 .0247 / .0189 1 ^ - # .0222 p-- .0248 .0259 9'-0" 42 '-11 1/2" FIGURE 5-35 DEFORMATION OF BASE SLAB AT 61 psig ) 44 0.008 l t 30 0.01- ^ I 1 l I l i i 0.01 l I 0 01 I y. 0.01 ss's ( 0.01 C'. 01 [ V T i -n !.. o 2 e-- e q rU } i l'-0" STAGE EXT. ~ TYPICAL G:!D f 6 FIGURE 5-36 SURFACE CONCPETE CRACKS OBSERVED IN CRACK MAPPING AREA No. 2 / l l STAGEi E XTI. STAGE EX / \\ ) 0.010 SThGE Q EXT. i ) V 30 0.009 L-t- - I g 44.0. 003 e STAqr A ; EXT-l STAGE Q EXT. f 14 i STAC E Q EXT. Q l V-4 '6 S y <r l f 0.0 25 STAG kT. / O. 032 'O.025 f C 032 0.027 I O.032 O.030 0.030 ] g STAGE Q EXT' t g o,030 0,030 l'-0" TVPICAL GRID 0.030 q 0.030 0.030 l O.027 s FIGURE 5-37 SURFACE CONCRETE CRACKS OBSERVED IN CRACK j PAPPING AREA No. 4 m q { ( O' g 3 ~l ]' -' ~ +' y (l.N ,o a ,/\\, .o e s ( ti % / o / 3' L

  • TY P-

$\\* / '/. 4 / ' y ,/ ? %. / ,/ / J' EQu1PMENT \\ 3 eO \\AhTC\\ \\ 'i s'p- / N/ / o h i h I'.fo"11P tem 4 o / N a ~( k~- ~ / 3 t ti N n / 0 o o'g 31S* AZIM.

T 1 P \\ .50 .40 f P .30 g ! WE CF ,/ [ - v-22 Y'19 * / .20 N )[ r . ]'sfs\\e' O r V-23 V-21 6 V-24 a--,- z- .10 3 0 - sg 'W [ / A s c s s E .10 = \\ f C .20 .2 D y .30 s .40 \\ .50 AWL AML fQ / \\ / \\ 50 gg / V I \\ !,0 / \\ 20 " 10 / \\ 0 / 5 9 7 O E R %~ ~

  • U2 PE.SSJRIZATICN SI'A2

<g mm TIC'J RE S-3 9 COMPARISON OF VERTICAL EXTENSION MEASUPID BY ~ EXTENSCd'1TERS V-22 AND V-2 3 WITH VERTICAL EXTENSIONS MEASUPID ^ BY EXTENSOMETERS V-19 THROUGH V-21 AND V-24. RADIAL DEFORMATIONS t PPESSURE AZIMUTH 450 AZI."UTH 2820 AZI'tUTH 3480 l SUPP. STAGE DRYWELL CHAM. GAGE 1 R7 GAGE 2 Fil GAGE 3 R12 1 0 0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 i i 7 30.4 30.4 .010 .015 .024 .013 .019 .019 L t 14 61.25 61.25 .127 .136 .188 .179 .138 .141 r 30 61.25 28.11 .090 .091 .112 .110 .088 .089 44 0 0 .040 .037- .046 .043 .034 .034 i i FIGURE 5-40 COrdPARISON OF RADIAL DEFOR.V.ATIONS MEASURED BY DI AL GAGES AND EXTENSO"E'.!:95 AT SIMILAR ELEVATIi'NS AND AZI'!UTHS I i 1

6. REFERENCES 1. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Regulatory Guide 1.18, Revisrion 1 2. ACI-349; Criteria for Reinforced Concrete Nuclear Power Containment Structures 3. ACI-313-71; Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Conc:ete . }}

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20044G794&oldid=4529133"