ML20058E455

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Proposed Tech Specs to Increase Max Allowable Number of Spent Fuel Assemblies in Spent Fuel Pool
ML20058E455
Person / Time
Site: FitzPatrick 
Issue date: 10/31/1990
From:
POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (NEW YORK
To:
Shared Package
ML20058E445 List:
References
NUDOCS 9011070181
Download: ML20058E455 (93)
v • d • e


Text

{{#Wiki_filter:.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ i I l TABLE OF CONTDfTS EE2 Eat nzacy m ou ngg

1.0 INTRODUCTION

r 1-1 1.1 Introduction 1-1 r 2.0 NODULE IATOUT FOR INCREASED STORAGE 2-1 2.1 Now Froposed Racks 2-1 2.2 Synopsis of Existing Racks in the Pool 2-2 3.0 RACK FABRICATION AND AFFLICARLE CODES 3-1 3.1 Desiga Objective 3-1 3.2 Anatomy of the Rack Modale ' 3-2 3.3 Materials of Constraction 3-6 3.4 Codes, Standards, and Practices 3-8 for the spent Feel Fool Modifisation e 4.0 CRITICALITT SAFETE CONSIDERATICES 4-1 4.1 Design Bases 4-1 4.2 Summary of Cri*ia= H ty Safety Analyses 4-3 4.2.1 Bernal Operating conditions 4-3 4.2.2 Ahmosmal and Assident Canditions 4-4 4.3 Reference Feel storage Cell 4 L 4.3.1 Feel Assembly Desiga spesifications 4-4 4.3.2 Rask Cell [ storIIIostions spee 4-4 t 9011070181 901031 PDR ADOCK 05000333' ( P PNV

i TABLE OF CONTENTS l (continued) l I i $3S229E DEBERIPTION g 4.4 Analytical Methodology 4-5 i 4.5 Criticality Analyses and Tolerance Variations 4-6 4.5.1 N=%1 Design Case 4-6 4.5.2 Uncertainties Due to Rack Manufacturing Tolerances 48 4.5.2.1 Boron Loading variation 4-6 4.5.2.2 Beral Width tolerance i variation 4-6 4.3.2.3 Storage cell Latties Pitch variation 4-6 4.5.2.4 Stainless steel i Thickness Telerances 4-7 4.5.3.5 Sireomium Flow Chamael Density Tariation 4-7 4.5.3 Reactivity Rffeats of Soral Asial Length 47 4.5.4 Water Gay Spacing between Modales 4-8 4.6 Ahmesmal and Assident conditions 4-9 4.6.1 Temperstare and Water Density affects 4-9 4.6.2 Ahma ~'l Location of a Feel Assembly 4-9 i 4.6.3 Bosentrio Feel Assembly ..{ Positioning 4-10 i e 4.6.4 Dropped Feel Assembly 4-10 4.6.5' Feel Raek Lateral Novemmat 4-10 i 4.7 Referesses for section 4 4-11 h A to section 4: Benehmark A-1 lL estations () I I, -_._.._-._,.---_,-,,,-__--,-r-- .w---.-+e.. -.~.,.m e-.-. .r...--,,- .,,w, 7..-v.,__w....g. ~ m

s TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) AE21GB orscRIPTrow a i 5.0 TIERNAI, ETDRAULIC CONSIDERATIONS 5-1 i 5.1 Introduction 5-1

5.2 System Description

5-2 5.3 Decay Seat Load Calculations 5-6 i 5.4 Mathematical Idealisation of 5-7 the System 5.5 Nathematical Model and Results 5-7 5.6 Time-to-Soil 5-10 5.7 Leoal Pool Water Temperature 5-10 5.7.1 Basis 5-10 5.7.2 Model Description 5-11 l-5.0 Cladding Temperature 5-13 i 5.9 Slesked cell Analysis 5-15 i 5.10 Refereases 5-15 i 6.0 RACE STRUCTURAL CONSIDERA220NS L 6.1 Analysia Outline 6-1 6.2 Fuel Rask - Model 6-4 6.2.1 of Model for Campster code DTERRAct 6-5 6.2.2 Model Description 6-4 6.2.2 Fluid Compling 6-8 6.2.4 Damping 6-10 1 6.2.5 Impact 6-10 L 6.2 Assembly of the Dynamic Model 6-11 l l I t

) TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) IEEZ1QE DESCRIPTION g 6.4 Time Integration of the Equations 6-14 of Motion 6.4.1 Time sistory Analysis Using 6-14 Multi-Degree of Preedom Rack Model 6.4.2 Evaluation of. Potential for Inter-Rack Impact 6-16 6.5 Structural Acceptance criteria 6-17 6.6 Material Properties 6-18 6.7 stress Limits for various conditions 6-19 6 7.1 Woraal and et Conditions (Level A or 1 31 6-19 6 7.2 Level D Service Lim,ts 6-22 6.8 Rosslts for the Analysis of Speat 6 22 Feel Raske Osing a slagle Raek Model and 3-D seismic.Metion 6.9 Impact Analyses 6-25 6.9.1 Igest Landing Between Feel Assembly and Cell Wall 6-25 .6.9.2 Impasta Between Adjacent Raeks 6-25 6.10 Wald Stresses 6-25 6.10.1 Baseplate to Raek Welds and t call-t M ell Welds 6-26 6.10.2 Beating of as teolated Cell 6-27 6.11 Seismie Qualification using Maltiple 6-27 Time Bistories 6.12 lealti-Rask Analysis 6-28 h I (

r l i TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) l t EEEZI$E DESCRIPTION g 6.13 Definition of Terms Used in Section 6.0 6-31 6.14 References 6-32 Appendia to section 6 7.0 ACCIDENT ANALYSIS AND TEERNAL (SECONDARY) i STRESSES 7-1 7.1 Introdnetion 7-1 7.2 Recalts of Accident Reevaluation 7-1 7.2.1 Feel Peel 7-1 7.2.2 Fuel Storage Building 7-2 7.2.3 Reiseling Aasidents 7-2 7.2.3.1 Dropped Fuel i Assembly 7-2 7.2.3.2 Dropped Gate 7-3 7.3 Loeal took11ag of Feel Cell Walla 7-4 7.4 Analysis of Welded Joints in Rask 7-5 7.5 Refereases 7-6 0.0 IW-SERVICE SURTEZLL&BCE FROGRAN 0-1 8.1 Furpose 8-1 8.2 Compaa Sarveillease 8-1 8.2.1-Description of Test coupees 8-1 8.2.2 h h rk Data 8-2 8.2.3 Long Tesa Surveillanoe 0-2 9.0 700L STRUCTURAL AELLTE'IS 9-1 10.0 R&DIGIAGICAL CMSIDERhTIWS 10-1 4 11.0 COST / BENEFIT ASSESSMENT 10-1 f

i i 6.0 RACK STRUCTURAL CONSIDERATIONS The purpose of this section is to demonstrate the structural adequacy of the James A. FitzPatrick Plant spent fuel rack design under normal and accident loading conditions following the guidelines of the USNRC OT Position Paper (Ref. 6.12). The method of analysis presented uses a time-history integration method similar to that previously used in the licensing reports on high density spent fuel racks for Fermi 2 (USNRC Docket No. 50-341), Quad Cities 1 and 2 (USNRC Docket Nos. 50-254 and 50-265), Rancho Seco (USNRC Docket No. 50-312), Grand Gulf Unit 1 (USNRC Docket No. 50-416), Oyster Creek (USNRC Docket No. 50-219), V.C. Summer (USNRC Docket No. 50-395), Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2 (USNRC Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323), Vogtle Unit 2 (USNRC Docket No. 50-425) and Millstone Point Unit 1 (USNRC Docket No. 50-245). The results show that the high density spent fuel racks are structurally adequate to resist the postulated stress combinations associated with level A, B, C, and D _ conditions as defined in References 6-1 and 6-2, 6.1 ANALYSIS OUTLINE (FOR NEW PROPOSED RACK MODULES) [ The spent fuel storage racks are seismic class I equipment. They are required to remain functional during and after a ' Safe Shutdown Earthquake (Ref. 6-3). As noted previously, these' racks l are neither anchored to the pool floor nor attached to the sidewalls. The individual rack modules are not interconnected, i Furthermore, a particular rack may be completely loaded with fuel i 1 f I 6-1 1

e assemblies (which corresponds to greatest rack inertia), or it may be completely empty. The coefficient of friction, g, between the supports and pool floor is another indeterminate factor. According to Rabinowicz (Ref. 6-4), the results of 199 tests performed on austenitic stainless steel plates subserged in water show a mean value of g to be 0.503 with a standard deviation of 0.125. The upper and lower bounds (based on twice the standard deviation) are thus 0.753 and 0.253, respectively. Analyses are perfor:ned for single rack simulations assemblies with values of the coefficient of friction equal to 0.2 (lower limit) and 0.8 ) (upper limit), respectively. In order to predict the limiting conditions of rack module seismic response, the rack module with the maximum aspect ratio (length to width ratio), and maximum mass inertia should be evaluated. Therefore, the 6x14 and 11x12 modules merit seismic simulation for critical conditions of loading. They aret o Fully loaded rack (all storage locations occupied), I y = 0.8; 0.2 (# = coefficient of friction) O Nearly empty rack (6x14 only) i The simulations were performed using normal (unconsolidated) fuel; simulations are also performed for a heavier fuel. These modules are labelled Modules B and C in Section 2. As stated before, the former was selected due to its largest mass inertia, and the latter due to its maximum aspect ratio. 2-D multi-rack analyses are also performed to examine the interaction between racks. The seismic analyses were performed utilizing the time-history method. Pool slab acceleration data in three orthogonal directions was developed and verified to be statistically independent. 4 6-2 I k

The objective of the seismic analysis of single racks is to determine the structural response (stresses, deformation, rigid body motion, etc.) due to simultaneous application of the three statistically independent, orthogonal seismic excitations.

Thus, recourse to approximate statistical summation techniques such as the " Square-Root-of-the-Sum-of-the-Squares" method (Ref. 6-5) is avoided.

For nonlinear analysis, the only practical method is simultaneous application of the seismic loading to a nonlinear model of the structure. Pool slab accoloration data are developed from specified response spectra from two earthquakest SSE and OBE. Seismic time histories are calculated from the plant response spectra at level 326.8' at 1% damping. Figures 6.1 - 6.12 show the time-histories and comparison of the corresponding velocity spectra and the design spectra for SSE and OBE conditions. The seismic analysis of a single rack is performed in three steps, namely: 1. Development of a nonlinear dynamic model consisting of inertial mass

elements, spring,
gap, and friction elements.

2. Generation of the equations of motion and inertial coupling and solution of the equations using the " component element' time integration scheme" (References 6-6 and 6-7)' to determine nodal forces and displacements. 3. Computation of the detailed stress field in the rack just above the baseplate and in the support legs using the nodal forces calculated in the previous step. These stresses are checked against the design limits given in Section 6.5. 6-3

r A brief description of the dynamic model follows. 6.2 FUEL RACK - DYNAMIC MODEL Since the racks are not anchored to the pool slab or attached to the pool walls or to each other, they can execute a wide variety of motions. For example, the rack may slide on the pool floor (so-called " sliding condition"); one or more legs may momentarily lose contact with the liner (" tipping condition"); or the rack may experience a combination of sliding and tipping conditions. The structural model should permit simulation of these kinematic events with inherent built-in conservatisms. Since the modules are designed to preclude the incidence of inter-rack

impact, it' is also necessary to include the potential for inter-rack impact phenomena in the analysis to demonstrate that such impacts do not occur. Lift off of the support legs and subsequent liner impacts must be modelled using appropriate impact (gap) elements, and Coulomb friction between the rack and the pool liner must be simulated by appropriate piecewise linear springs.

The elasticity of the rack structure, relative to the base, must also be included in the model even though the. rack may be nearly rigid. These special attributes of-the rack dynamir:s require a strong emphasis on the modeling of the lin=&r and nor. linear springs, dampers, and compression only stop elements. The term non-linear spring.is the generic term to denote the mathematical element representing the situation where the restoring force exerted by the element is not linearly proportional to the displacement.. In the fuel rack simulation the Columb friction interface between the rack support leg and the liner is a typical example of a non-linear spring. The model outline in the remainder of this section, and the model description in the following I 6-4

section, describe the detailed modeling technique to simulate i

these effects, with emphasis placed on the nonlinearity of the rack seiemic response. 6.2.1 outline of Model for Comeuter Code DYNARACK

a. The fuel rack a,tructure is a folded metal plate assemblage welded to a baseplate and supported on four legs.

An odd-tchaped module may have more than four legs. The rack se.ructure itself is a very rigid structure. Dynamic analysis of typical multicell racks has shown that the motion of the structure is captured almost completely by modelling the rack as a twelve degree-of-freedom structure, where the movement of the rack cross-section at any height is described in terms of six degrees-of-freedom of the rack base and six degrees of freedom defined at the rack top. The rattling fuel is modelled by five lumped masses located at H, .75H, .5H, .25H, and at the rack base, where H is the rack height as measured from the base. b. The seismic motion of a fuel rack is characterized by random rattling of fuel assemblies in their individual storage locations. Assuming a certain statistical coherence (i.e. assuming that all fuel elementu move in-phase within a rack) in the vibration of the fuel asaemblies exaggerates the computed dynamic loading on the rack structure. This assumption,

however, greatly reduces the required degrees-of-freedom needed to model the fuel assemblies which i

are represented by five lumped masses located at different levels of the rack. The centroid of ea,ch fuel assembly mass can be located, relativa to the rack structure centroid at that level, so as to simulate a partially loaded rack.

c. The local flexibility of the pedestal is modelled so as to account for floor elasticity, and local rack elasticity just above the pedestal.
d. The rack base support may slide or lift off pool floor,
e. The pool floor has a specified time-hi of seismic accelerations along the three orthogonal dirt..ons.

6-5 / 1 l

~.

f. Fluid coupling between rack and fuel assemblies, and between rack and adjacent
racks, is simulated by introducing appecpriate inertial coupling into the system kinetic energy.

Inclusion of these ef fects uses the methods of Referencea 6-4 and 6-6 for rack / assembly coupling and for rack / rack coupling (see Section 6.2.3 of this report). g. Potential impacts between rack and fuel assemblies are accounted for by appropriate " compression only" gap elements between masses involved. h. Fluid dam due to viscous effects between rack a.id assemblies, pingand between rack and adjacent

rack, is conservatively neglected; form
drag, however, may be
included,
i. The supports are modeled as " compression only" elements for the vertical direction and as " rigid links" for transferring horizontal stress. The bottom of a support leg is attached to a frictional spring as described in Section 6.3.

The cross-section inertial properties of the support legs are computed and used in the final computations to determine support leg stresses.

j. The ef fect of sloshing is negligible at the level of the top of the rack and is hence neglected.

i

k. The possible ic.cidence of inter-rack impact is simulated by j,

gap elements at the top and bottom of the rack in the two horizontal directions. The most conservative case of adjacent rack movement is assumed; each adjacent rack is assumed to move completely out of phase with the rack being analyzed. This maximizes the potential for impact.

1. Rattling of fuel assemblies inside the storage locations causes the " gap" between the fuel assemblies and the cell wall to change from a maximum of twice the nominal gap to a theoretical zero gap. Fluid coupling coefficients are based on the nominal gap.

I 6-6

s 9

m. The cross coupling effects due to the movesant of fluid from one interstitial (inter-rack) space tc the adjacent one is modelled using potential flow and Kelvin's circulation theorem.

This-formulation has been reviewed and approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, during the-post-licensing multi-rack analysis for Diablo Canyon Unit I and II raracking project. The coupling coefficients are based on a consistent modelling of the fluid flow. While updating of the fluid flow coefficients, based on the current gap, is permitted in the algorithm, the analyses here are conservatively carried out using the constant nominal gaps that exist at the start of the event. Figure 6.13 shows a schematic of the model. Twelve degrees of freedom are used to track the motion of the rack structure. Figures 6.14 and 6.15, respectively, show the inter-rack impact 1 springs (to track the potential for impact between racks) and fuel assembly / storage cell impact springs at a particular level. As shown in Figure 6.13, the modei for simulating fuel assembly motion incorporates five rattling lumped masses.~ The five rattling masses are located at the baseplate, at quarter height, m at' half height, at three quarter height, and at the top of the rack. Two degrees of freedom are used to track the motion of each rattling mass in the horizontal plane. The vertical motion of each q; rattling mass is assumed to be the same as the rack base. Figures 6.16, : 4.17 and 6.18 show the modelling scheme for including rack } elasticity and the degrees-of-freedom associated with rack elasticity. In each plane-of bending.a shear and a bending spring are used to simulate elastic effe ts in accordance with Reference 6.6. Table 6.3 gives spring .>nstants for these bending springs as .well as corresponding constants for extensional and torsional _ rack elasticity. 6-7

4 + 6.2.2 Model Descriotion The absoluta degrees of freedom associated with each of the mass locations are identifiedLin Figure 6.13 and in Table 6.1. The rattling masses (nodes 1*, 2*, 3*, 4*, 5*) are described by translational degrees-of-freedom q7-q16 1 Ui(t) is the pool floor slab displacement seismic time-history. Thus, there are twenty-two degrees of freedom in the system. Not shown in Fig. 6.13 are the gap elements used to model the support legs and the impacts with adjacent racks. 6.2.3 Fluid Couclina An effect of some significance requiring careful modeling is the." fluid coupling effect". If one body of mass (mi) vibrates-adjacent to another body (mass m2), and both bodies are submerged in a frictionless fluid medium, then Newton's equations a of motion for the two bodies have the-form: a n 2 -(mi + M11) X1+M12 X2 = applied forces on mass mi + 0 (x1 ) a n +M21 X1 + (m2 + M22) X2 = applied forces on mass m2 + 0 (x2 ) a-a X, X2 denote absolute accelerations of mass mi and m2r 1 4 : respectively. i

N21, and M22 are fluid coupling coefficients which M11, M12s depend on the shape of the two bodies, their' relative disposition, etc. Fritz (Ref. 6-9) gives datti for Mij for various body shapes

.and arrangements. The above equation indicates that the effect of the fluid is to add a certain amount of mass to. the body (M11 to body 1), and an external force which is proportfetial to the 6-8 M-

M acceleration of the adjacent body (mass m2).

Thus, the acceleration of one body affects the force field on another. This force is a strong function of the interbody gap, reaching large values for very small gaps. This inertial coupling is called fluid coupling. It has an important effect in rack dynamics. The lateral motion of a fuel assembly inside the storage location will encounter this effect. So will the motion of a rack adjacent to another rack. These effects are included in the equations of motion. For example, the fluid coupling is between nodes 2 and 2*

j in Figure 6.13. Furthermore, the rack equations contain coupling terms which model the effect of fluid in the gaps between adjacent racks. The coupling terms modeling the effects of fluid flovint; between - adjacent racks ars computed assuming that all adjacene. racks are vibrating 1800 out of phase from the rack being analyzed. Therefore, only one rack is considered surrounded by a hydrodynamic mass computed as if there were a plane of symmetry located in the middle of the gap region. .The rack-to-rack hydrodynamic mass coupling coefficients Mij are inversely proportional to the u Tular gap between the two bodies. This gap is a function of time as the two bodies vibrate, so that the hydrodynamic coefficients Mij are functions of time as 2 2 well. In the previous' equations, the notation 0 (x1 ),.o -(X2 )_ - represent additional nonlinear fluid restoring forces - that arise ~ from the - development of the interbody fluid coupling

v. f f ects,

l, L These nonlinear _ restoring forces are only important as the gaps ~ I between bodies become small as they are also proportional' to the inverse of the square of the currsnt gap. Proper accounting of the 1effect of gap size on the hydrodynamic mass Mij and on the ? 6-9

e n W fluid-restoring forces due to film squeezing is permitted at each step in the dynamic simulation. If the hydrodynamic mass is conservatively based on the nominal gap, and no updating is included, then these additional geometric nonlinear terms are not present..

Finally, fluid virtual mass is included in the vertical direction vibration equations of the rack; virtual inertia is also added to the governing equation corresponding to the rotational degree of freedom, q6(t) and q22(t).

6.2.4 Damnina In - reality, damping of the rack motion arises from material hysteresis (material damping), relative intercomponent motion in structures (structural damping), and fluid viscous effects (fluid-damping). In the

analysis, a

maximum of 1% structural damping is imposed on elements of the rack structure iduring'OBE. seismic simulations and 2% for SSE simulation. Material and fluid. damping due te fluid viscosity are conservatively neglected. The. dynamic model has the provision to incorporate form drag. effects; however, no form drag has been used for this analysis. Subsequent to the completion of all dynamic runs which are reported in Tables 6.5 and 6.6, key (governing) cases were i rerun - with 1% damping for both OBE and SSE simulations per FSAR requirementse The results show a very minor increase in the i . equipment

response, and all required stress and displacement l

limits are satisfied. ~ 6.2.5' Imoact Any fuel assembly-node (e.g., 2*) may impact the corresponding structural-mass node 2. To simulate this - impact, four compression-only gap elements around each rattling fuel assembly node are provided (see' Figure 6.15). The compressive loads developed in these springs provide the necessary data to evaluate the integrity of the cell wall structure and stored array during the seismic event. Figure 6.14 shows the location of the 6-10

k impact springs used to simulate any potential for. inter-rack impacts. Section 6.4.2 gives more details on these additional impact springs. Since there are five rattling masses, a total of 20 impact springs are used to model fuel assembly-cell wall impact. 6.3 ASSEMBLY OF THE DYNAMIC MODEL The cartesian coordinate system associated with the rack has the following nomenclature: O x = Horizontal coordinate along the short direction of rack rectangular platform 0-y = Horizontal coordinate along the long direction of the rack rectangular platform r O z = Vertical coordinate upward from the rack base If the simulation model is restricted to two dimensions'(one i horizontal motion plus vertical motion, for example) for the nurnoses of model clarification oniv. then a descriptive model of the simulated structure whien includes gap and friction elements is shown in Figure 6.19. The impacts between fuel assemblies and rack show up in the gap elements, having local stiffness K, in Figure 6.13. In Table I 6.2, gap -elements 5 through 8 are for the: vibrating mass at the top ' of ~ the rack. The support leg spring rates Ks are modeled by : o elements 11through~4 in Table 6.2. Note that the local compliance. of the. concrete floor is included in Ks. To simulate sliding potential, friction elements 2 plus 8 and 4 plus 6 (Table 6.2)- are shown.in Figure 6.19. The friction of the support / liner interface is modeled by a _ piecewise - linear spring with a suitably large stiffness Kg up to the limiting lateral load, gN, where N is the 6-11

s current compression load at the interface between support and liner. At every time step during the transient analysis, the current value of N (either zero for liftoff condition, or a compressive finite value) is computed.

Finally, the support rotational friction springs KR reflect any rotational restraint that may be offered by the foundation. This spring rate is calculated using a modified Bousinesq equation (Ref. 6-4) and is included to simulate the resistive moment of the. support to counteract rotation of the rack leg in a vertical plane.

This rotation spring is also nonlinear, with a zero spring constant value assigned after a certain limiting condition of slab moment l loading is reached. The nonlinearity of=these springs (friction elements 9, 11, 13, and 15 in Table 6.2) reflects the edging limitation imposed on tho' base - of the rack support legs and the shifts in the centroid of~ load application as the rack rotates. If this effect is neglected; any support _ leg bending, induced by liner /basepiste friction I.orces, is resisted by the leg acting as a beam 2 cantilevered from the rack baseplate. This leads to higher predicted loads at the support leg - baseplate junction than if the moment resisting capacity-due to floor elasticity at the floor is included in the model. ~ The spring rate Ks modeling-the effective ' compression stiffness of the structure in the vicinity of the support, is compuced from the equation: 1 1 1 1 = -+ + u KS Ki K2 K3 6-12 t.

I where: K1 spring rate of the support leg treated as a = tension-compression member K2 local spring rate of pool slab = spring rate of folded plate cell structure above I K3 a' support leg As described in the preceding section, the rack, along with j the base, supports, and stored fuel assemblies, is modeled for the j general three-dimensional (3-D) motion simulation by a twenty-two degree of freedom model. To simulate the impact and sliding phenomena

expected, up to 64 nonlinear gap elements and 16 nonlinear friction elements are used.

Gap and friction elements, with their connectivity and purpose, are presented in Table 6.2. Table 6.3 lists representative values for the B and c modules used in the dynamic simulations. For the 3-D simulation of a single rack, all support elements (described in Table 6.2) are included in the model.* coupling between the two horizontal seismic motions is provided both by any offset of the fuel assembly group centroid which causes the 1 ~ rotation of the entire rack and/or by the possibility of liftoff. D. Since inter-rack impact does not occur in the subject modules, only 8 gap elements are used around the bottom and top edges of the rack instead of the. twenty described in Table 6.2. Since-their purpose is only to signal: if an impact occurs, the exact number utilized has no bearing on the final reported results. \\ 6-13

of one or more support legs. The potential exists for the rack to be supported on one or more support legs during any instant of a complex 3-D seismic event. All of these potential events may be simulated during a 3-D motion and have been observed in the i analyses. 6.4 TIME INTEGRATION OF THE EQUATIONS OF MOTION 6.4.1 Time-History Analysis Usina Multi-Decree of Freedom Rack Model i Having assembled the structural

model, the dynamic equations of motion corresponding to each degree of freedom are written by using Lagrange's Formulation. The system kinetic energy v

can be constructed including contributions from the solid structures and from the trapped and surrounding fluid. A single rack is modelled in detail. The system of equations can be represented in matrix notation as: LM) (q") *' (Q) + (G) where the vector (Q) is a function of nodal displacements and velocities, and (G) depends on the coupling inertia and the ground acceleration. Premultiplying the above equations by (M)~1 renders the resulting equation uncoupled in mass. We have: (q") = (M)-1 (Q) +-(M)-1 (G) Note that since the mass matrix can w updated at every time step because of the time varying hydrody;'amic

effects, the
.+i inversion of the equations is carried out at every increment when the updating option is used.

The effect of the previously

mentioned nonlinear fluid restoring-forces is included in the 6-14

.y generalized forces Q and accounted for in the analysis when the .1 updating option'is used. As noted before, the analyses performed here do not use the updating option. . s, " As noted earlier, in the numerical simulations run to verify structural integrity during a seismic event, the rattling fuel assemblies are assumed to move la phase. This will provide maximum impact force level, and induce additional conservatism in the time-history analysis. This equation set is mass uncoupled, displacement coupled at L each instant in time, and is ideally suited for numerical solution using a central difference scheme. The proprietary, USNRC qualified, computer program "DYNARACK"* is utilized for this purpose. Stresses in various portions of the structure are computed from known element forces at each instant of time and the maximum value of critical stresses over the entire simulation is reported in summary form at the and of each run. y This code has been previously utilized in licensing of c, . similar racks for Fermi 2 (USNRC Docket No. 50-341), Quad Cities 1 and.2 (USNRC Docket Nos. 50-254 and 265),. Rancho Seco (USNRC Docket No. 50-312), Oyster Creek (USNRC Docket No. 50-219), V.C. Summer (USHRC Docket No. 50-395), L and Diablo Canyon 1 and-2 (USNRC Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323), St. - Lucia Unit I (USNRC Docket No. 50-335)', Byron Units I and II (USNRC Docket Nos. 50-454, o 50-4.55), Vogtle:2 (USNRC Docket 50-425), and Millstone Unit 1 (USNRC " Kat 245). s 6-15

.d-In summary, dynamic analysis of typical multicell racks has shown that the motion of the structure is captured almost completely by the behavior of a twenty-two degree of freedom structure; therefore, in this analysis model, the movement of the rack cross-section at any height is described in terms of the rack degrees of freedom (q1(t),...q6 (t) and gl7-922(t)). The remaining degrees of freedom are associated with horizontal movements of the fuel assembly masses. In this dynamic model, five rattling masses are used.to represent fuel assembly movement in the horizontal plane. Therefore, the final dynamic model consists of twelve degrees of freedom for the rack plus ten additional mass degrees of freedom for the five rattling masses. The totality of fuel mass is included ~ in the simulation and is distributed among the five rattling masses. 6.~4' 2 Evaluation of Potential for Inter-Rack Imnact Since the racks are closely

spaced, the simulation includes impact springs to model the potential for inter-rack impact.

To. account for this potential, yet still retain the simplicity ~ of simulating only a single rack, gap elements are located on the rack at the top and at the baseplate level. Figure 6.14 shows the location of these gap elements. Where impacts between racks. is permitted by specification, twenty gap elements at. each level would be used as shown. The rack design specification precludes any impacts between racks or between rack L and walls during any. single event; therefore, only sixteen impact i l springs are retained (8 at top and 8 at baseplates) solely to demonstrate that.the postulated gaps do~not close completely due L to rack motion. r 6-16 1 h l-

_ = _. -. 6.5 STRUCTURAL ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA There are two sets of criteria to be satisfied by the r rack modules: a. Kinematic Criterion This criterion seeks to ensure that the rack is a physically stable structure. The FitzPatrick racks are designed to preclude inter-rack impacts. Therefore, physical stability of the rack is considered along with the criterion that inter-rack impact or rack-to-wall impacts do not occur. b. Stress Limits j The stress limits of the ASME

Code, Section
III, Subsection NF, 1983 Edition are used since this code provides the most appropriate and consistent set of limits for various stress types and various loading conditions.

The following loading combinations are applicable (Ref. 6-1) and are consistent with the plant FSAR commitments. Jagdina Combination Stress Limit D+L Level A service limits D + L + To D + L +-To + E D + L + Ta + E Level B service limits ~ D + L + To + Pg D + L + Ta + E' Level D service limits D+L+Fd The functional capability of the fuel racks should ba demonstrated. where: Dead weight-induced stresses (including fuel D = assembly weight) 6-17

Live Load (0 for the structure, since there i L = are no moving objects in the rack load path). Fd Force caused by the accidental drop of the = heaviest load from the maximum possible height. Pg Upward force on the racks caused by postulated = stuck fuel assembly Operating Basis Earthquake (OBE) E = E' Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE) = Differential temperature induced loads (normal To = or upset condition) Differential temperature induced loads Ta = (abnormal design conditions) The conditions Ta and To cause local thermal stresses to-be produced. The worst situation will be obtained when an isolated s?.orage location has a fuel assembly which is generating heat at the n.sximum postulated rate. The surrounding storage locatior.s are assumed to contain no-fuel. The heated water makes j . unobst'tucted conta::t with the inside of the storage walls, thereby producing the maximum possible temperature difference between the -adjacent cells. The secondary stresses thus produced are limited to the body. of the rack; that' is, the support legs do not experier.ce the secondary- (thermal) stresses. 6.6 MATERIAL PROPERTIES i= 1 The data on the physical properties of the rack and-support materials, obtained from the ASME Boiler in Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, appendices, are listed in' Table 6.4. Since the o h 6-18 l

\\ e -. maximum pool bulk temperature is less than 150 F, this is used as the. reference design temperature for evaluation of material properties. 6.7 STRESS LIMITS FOR VARIOUS CONDITIONS The following stress limits are derived -from the guidelines of the ASME Code, Section III, Subsection NF, in conjunction with the material ;roperties data of the preceding section. 6.7.1 Normal and UDset Conditions (Level A ' or Level B) a. Allowable stress in tension on a net section =Ft = 0.6 Sy or Ft= (0.6) (23,150) = 13,890 psi (rack material)- i Ft = is equivalent to primary membrane stresses Ft= (.6) (23,150) = 13,890 psi-(upper part of support feet) i = (.6) (101,040) = 60,625 psi (lower part of support feet) b. On the gross section, allowable stress in saear is: Fy =.4 S (.4)y(23,150) = 9,260 psi (main rack body) Ft= (.4) (23,150) = 9,260 psi (upper part of support feet) (.4) (101,040) = 40,416 psi (lower part of = support feet) l-1 l' l r. 6-19 l-

~_. k c. Allowable stress in compression, Fa: k12 2 (1 - /2Cc Sy Fa " 5 kl kl 3 3 (( ) + (3 ( ) /8Cc] - (( ) /8C e ] } 3 r r where: 2 12 (2r E) / cc"( l Sy k1/r for the main rack body is based on the full height.and cross section of the honeycomb region. Substituting numbers, we obtain, for both support leg and honeycomb region: Fa = 13,890 psi (main rack body) Fa = 13,890 psi (upper part of support feet) = 60,625 psi-(lower part of-support feet) d. Maximum allowable bending stress at the outermost fiber due to flexure about one plane of symmetry: Fb = 0.60 Sy-= 13,890 psi (rack body) Fb = 13,890 psi (upper part of support feet) = 60,625 psi (lower part of support feet) e.- Combined flexure and compression: b f fa Cmx f x Cmy by + + <1 Fa DxF x-DFy by b 6-20

where: Direct compressive stress in the fa = section Maximum flexural stress along x-fx = b axis fby Maximum flexural stress along y- = axis Cmx Cmy = 0.85 = 7' fa Dx = 1 F'ex fa Dy=1-F'ay where: 12 r2 E F'ex,ey = 2 ki x,y b rbx,y and -the subscripts x,y reflect the particular bending plane of interest. f. Combined flexure and compression (or tension): fa fx fby b + + < 1.0. 0.6S Fx Fby b y n-The above requirement should be met for both the direct tension or compression case. 6-21

s. 6.7.2 Level D Service Limits F-1370 (ASME Section III, Appendix F), states that the limits for the Level D condition are the minimum of 1.2 (S /F ) y t or (0.7Su/F ) times the corresponding limits for Level A t condition. Since 1.2 S is greater than 0.7 Su for the lower part y of the support feet, the factor is 1.674 for the lower section under SSE conditions. The factor for the upper portion of the support foot is 2.0. Instead of tabulating the results of these six different stresses as dimensioned

values, they are presented in a

dimensionless form. These so-called stress factors are defined as the ratio of the actual developed stress to its specified limiting value. With this definition, the limiting value of each-stress factor is 1.0 for the OBE and 2.0 (or 1.674) for the SSE condition. 6.8 RESULTS FOR THE ANALYSIS OF SPENT FUEL RACKS USING A SINGLE RACK MODEL AND 3-D SEISMIC MOTION A complete synopsis of the analysis of the modules subject to the postulated earthquake motions,. is presented in a summary Table 6.5-which gives the bounding values. of stress factors Ri ' (i = 1,2,3,4,5,6). The stress factors are defined as:. R1 Ratio of direct -tensile or compressive stress on a = itei. section to' its allowable value (note support feet only support compression) Ratio of gross shear on a net section in the x-I R2 = direction to its allowable value h 6-22

. = '4 Ratio of maximum bending stress due to bending R3 = about the x-axis to its allowable value for the section Ratio of maximum bending stress due to bending R4 = about the y-axis to its allowable value RS Combined flexure and compressive factor (as defined = 1 in 6.7.le above) Combined flexure and tension (or compression) R6 = factor (as defined in 6.7.lf above) Ratio of gross shear on a net section in the y-R7 = direction to its allowable value, t As stated before, the allowable value of Ri (i =1,2,3,4,5,6) is i 1 for the OBE condition and 2 for the SSE (exceot for the lower section of the sunoort where the factor is 1.674) 'The dynamic analysis gives the maximax-(maximum in time and in space) values.of the-stress factors at critical. locations in=the rack module. Values are also obtained - for maximum rack displacements and for critical impact-loads. Table 6.5 presents -critical results.for the stress factors, and rack to fuel impct load. Table

6. 6 - presents maximum results for horizontal displacements at the. top and~ bottom of the rack 'in the x and y direction.

"x" is always ' the short direction of the rack. In L Table 6.6,. for each run, both the maximum value of the sum of all i I support foot loadings (4 ' supports) as well as each individual maximum is reported. The-table also gives values for the maximum vertical' load and the corresponding' net shear. force' at the liner Lat essentially the same time instant, and - for the maximum ' net shear load and the corresponding vertical force.at a support foot L at essentially the same time instant. L lx Sl 1 6-23 1 1

6 The results presented in Tables 6.5, 6.6 are representative of the totality. of runs carried out. The critical case for structural integrity calculations is included. Appendix A to this Section 6 contains a partial output from one of the DYNARACK simulation runs of a single rack under 3-D excitation. The initial pages showing input data and model description are given along with the final summary pages giving maximum

loads, I

displacements, and stress factors. ) i The results corresponding to SSE give the highest load factors.

However, the results given ter the SSE still yield maximum stress factors (Ri) below the limiting value for the OBE j

condition for' all sections.The critical load factors reported for 'the support feet are all for the upper segment of the foot and for SSE simulations are to be compared with the limiting value of 2.0. Results for the lower portion of the support foot are not critical and are not reported in.the tables. 1 Analyses show that significant margins of safety exist against local deformation of the fuel storage cell due to rattling q impact:of fuel. assemblies. Results.obtained for partially loaded-racks will be ? enveloped by the Cata presented. Overturning has also been considered for the case of the C rack. adjacent to an, open area. This '. has been done - by assuming a multiplier. of 1.5 on the - SSE horizontal earthquakes (more conservative '. than the OT Position Paper) and l checking predicted displacements if there vera no obstacles. The.. horizontal displacements do not grow to such'an ^ 6-24 ,,y---. ~ r- +y-m.4 h

s: extent as to _ imply any possibility for overturning. Run C03 presents the maximum displacements for the case where the horizontal excitation level is increased by 50%. 6.9 IMPACT ANALYSES 6.9.1 Imoact Loadino Between Fuel Assembly and Cell Wall The local stress in a cell wall is conservatively estimated from the peak impact loads obtained from the dynamic simulations. Plastic analysis is used to obtain the limiting impact load. The limit load is calculated as 4585 lbs.- per cell which is much greater than the loads obtained from any of the simulations. 6.9.2 Impacts Between Adiacent Racks All'of the dynamic analyses assume, cone rvatively, that adjacent racks move completely -out of phase. Thus, the highest potential for inter-rack impact is achieved. The displacements obtained from the dynamic analyses are less than 50% of the rack-to-rack spacing or rack-to-wall spacing. It is also noted that the new fuel racks do not breach the theoretical plane between the new racks and the contiguous existing racks' indicating that impact with existing rack modules will not occur. This is a-plausible conclusion in view of the l fact that the existing racks and new racks have markedly different structural characteristics and their. displacement time histories will be randomly phased with respect to each other. Therefore, we conclude that no impacts between racks or between racks and walls occur during the SSE event. -6.10 WELD STRESSES critical weld locations under seismic loading are at the bottom'of the rack at the' baseplate connection and at the welds on the support = legs. - Results from the ~ dynamic analysis using the simulation codes are surveyed and ' the maximum loading is used to qualify the welds on'these locations. y I 6-25 1

6.10.1 Baseolate to Rack Welds and Cell-to-Cell Welds Section NF permits, for the SSE condition, an allowable weld stress r =.42 Su = 28,600 psi.- Based on the worst case of-all runs reported, the maximum weld stress for the baseplate to rack walds is 15860 psi for SSE conditions. This value occurs using a fuel weight of 1200 lbs. per cell. For normal fuel 1 loading the weld stress under SSE at this location is reduced to l'0785 psi. The weld between baseplate and support leg is checked using limit analysis techniques. The structural weld at that location is considered safe if the interaction curve satisfies F/F. + M /My<1 b y where Fy, My are the limit load and moment under direct load only and direct moment only. F, Mb are the absolute values of the actual peak force and moments applied to the weld section. This is ,a much more conservative relation than the actual interaction curve. For the worst case simulation, this criterion gives F/Fy+ M /My =.409 for the support lag to-bastsplate weld. b The critical area that must-be considered for fuel tube .to' fuel tube welds is the weld between the fuel tubes. This weld ') is discontinuous as we proceed along the tube length, a l L Stresses in the fuel tube to fuel tube welds develop along the-length of each fuel tube due ' to fuel assembly impact 'with the tube - wall. This occurs if fuel assemblies in adjacent tubes are moving out of phase with one another so that impact i l l 6-26

l loads in two adjacent tubes are in opposite directions which would I tend to separate the channel from the tube at the weld. The critical load that can be transferred in this weld region for the SSE condition is calculated as 5056 lbs. at every fuel tube connection to adjacent tubes. An upper bound to the load required to be. transferred is ./2 x 377.4 x 2 = 1067 lbs. where~we have used a maximum impact load of 377.4 lbs. (from Table 6.5), assumed two impact locations are supported by each weld

region, and have increased the load by /E to account for 3-D effects.

6.10.2 Heatino of an Isolated Cell Weld stresses due to heating of an isolated hot cell are P also computed. The assumption used is that a single cell is i heated, over its entire length, to a temperature above the value-associated with all surrounding cells. No thermal gradient in the vcrtical direction is assumed so that the results are -conservative. Using the temperatures associated with this unit, 1 - analysis shows that the weld stresses along the entire cell length do not exceed the allowable value for a thermal loading condition. Section 7. reports a-value for-this thermal stress. 6.11 SEISMIC QUALIFICATION USING MULTIPLE TIME HISTORIES It is. recognized ~ that the time histories corresponding L to a given spectrum are non-unique by definition. Therefore,. to l provide 'added confidence in the results, two additional sets of . synthetic.SSE. time histories have been generated to investigate the sensitivity of rack - behavior to different seismic events obtained from;the same response spectrum. Figures 6.20 to 6.31 l' l l 6-27 i

= - _._ ~ s show the additional SSE's together with a comparison of the regenerated and the original spectrums. The events are designated as 2nd SSE (H4, H5, H6 time histories) and 3rd SSE (H7, H8, H9 time histories). Tables 6.7 and 6.8 are similar in contert to Tables 6.5 and 6.6 and present the results of these additional analyses using the two new earthquake sets. While the individual results are different, as would be expected, the conclusions presented ir Section 6.8 and 6.9 based on the base time history snalysis remain the same. 6.12 MULTl-RACK ANALYSIS l.- Summary of Analysis In order to further confirm the structural adequacy of .the racks, a line of modules has been subjected to a single horizontal plus the vertical earthquakes to assess the implications of multi-rack effects. The model used ' and the methodology have been previously used in rack licensing etfotts at other dockets, most-recently Vogtle Unit 2, and have been [ -approved by the-USNRC. In order to examine maximum rack displacements, we assume that the 6x14 racks are turned 90 degrees to expose the direction kinematically more unstable to the seismic excitation direction. Figure 6.32 shows the 2-D scenario studied for the five rack array. The following degrees-of-freedom are defined in the uodal shown here: 4 horizontal displacement of xle X5, X9< X13rX17 = rattling' fuel horizontal displacement of-X2s X6s'X10, X14<X18 = mass center of rack-L l 6-28 l

~. t clockwise rotation of rack $3s $7s $11e $15t&l9 = module vertical displacement of rack X4, X8e X12e X16sX20 = plus fuel The gap eler.ents 3,. 4, 10, 11, 16, 17, 22, 23, 28, 29 represent impact springs to track rattling fuel-to-fuel-cell impact loads as a function of time. Gap elements 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, 24, 27 and 30 are impact springs used to track potential rack-to-wall or rack-to-rack impacts. Gap elements 7, 8, 13, 14, 19, 20, 25, 26, 31, 32 are impact springs to track the vertical load in the support feet in each rack. Each spring represents the cumulative stiffness of two support feet reflecting the two dimensional nature of the model. Finally, friction elements are used at each support location to simulate the potential for sliding. The limiting load in each friction element is based on the instantaneous load in the m element associated.with the support. Fluid coupling' associated = with the fluid external to the racks is included in the model. The'three dimensional nature of the external fluid coupling is accounted for by conservatively assuming a larger than actual hydrodynamic gap parallel to the - horizontal direction of the earthquake -when computing the contribution to hydrodynamic mass due to -cross coupling of the j l' motion. .This conservatively limits the fluid coupling j l contribution of the' flow in fluid' gaps parallel to the horizontal-excitation direction and is consistent with the USNRC position in this matter. q-a. E{ ,j. 6-29 1 l.

Fluid coupling between fuel and rattling mass is included. Based on the fuel configuration, we can estimate the kinetic energy of the fluid flow in a conservative manner and include the appropriate coupling effect in the analysis. The kinetic energy and generalized forces of the structural assemblage shown in Figure 6.32 can be determined and the governing equations developed by applying the Lagrangian techniques. The USNRC qualified computer code DYNARACK used in the single rack 3-D analysis is then used to study the behavior of the assemblage under the postulated seismic loading for the plant. Referring to Section 2 of this

report, the particular modules studied are Modules A (next to the South Wall), B1, B2, C1, and C2 (next to the North Wall).

This array is chosen because-it contains the largest racks and, a rack - with the . largest. length to width ratio. This array also has a low rack-to-walli coupling contribution, which would maximize the kinematic response of the racks. As noted earlier, we have turned the C racks in this model to expose the weakest direction to an ovarturning moment. All of the cells in all of the racks are assumed fully ' occupied with normal fuel assemblies. This is the critical case based on the single rack analysis results. The coefficient of' friction, p, is'.5 and is kept constant through the entire event. This is the mean value of the 6-30

i

e I

s coefficient of friction expected in the pool. The earthquakes applied are the N-S SSE and the vertical SSE. A similar model has been employed in a previous licensing submittal for Vogtle Unit 2. The support feet are modelled by gap elements and the bearing pad areas accounted for in the calculation of the pool floor stiffness. Table 6.9 summarizes the design basis values used in the 0 L simulation run. l: Table 6.10. summarizes the results of the regular fuel multi-rack analysis and demonstrates that there are no rack-to-rack impacts or rack-to-wall impacts. -The results. show that the support foot loads' are consistent with the single rack simulations. Figures 6.33 to 6.35 show the time history of the gaps between modules B1-and B2, B2 and C1, and C1 and C2. Figure 6.36 shows that the support foot movement for rack B2 is quite small. This is typical for all racks in the analysis. The kinematic results obtained from the 2-D'aulti-rack have the same orders of magnitude as the 3-D single rack analyses. 6.13 DEFINITION OF TERMS USED IN SECTION 6.0 S1, S2, S3, S4 Support designations Pi Absoluta degree-of-freedom number 1 qi Relative degree-of-freedom number.i n' Coefficient of. friction l; 6-31 l i

9 Ui Pool floor slab displacement time history in the i-th direction x,y coordinates horizontal direction z' coordinate vertical direction K I IEPact spring between fuel assemblies and cell K Linear component of friction spring f Ks Axial spring at support leg locations N Compression load in a support foot K R Rotational spring provided by the pool slab Subscript i When used with U or X indicates-direction (i = 1 x-direction, i = 2 y-direction, i = 3 z-direction) - 6.14 REFERENCES 6.1 USNRC Standard Review P3an, NUREG-0800 (1981). 6.2 ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code,-Section'III, Subsection NF (1983). 6.3' USNRC. Regulatory Guide 1.29, " Seismic' Design Classification," Rev. 3, 1978. 6.4 " Friction Coefficients of Water Lubricated Stainless Steels for a Spent Fuel !'ack Facility,". Prof. Ernest Rabinowicz, MIT, a report for Boston Edison Company, 1976. 6.5 USNRC Regulatory Guide 1.92, " Combining Modal Responses and Spatial, Components in Seismic Response Analysis,"- .Rev. 1, February, 1976. i 6-32

6.6- "The Component Element Method in Dynamics with Application to Earthquake and Vehicle Engineering," S. Levy and J.P.D. Wilkinson, McGraw Hill, le '.' 6. 6.7 " Dynamics of Structures," R.W. Clough and J.

Penzien, McGraw Hill (1975).

6.8 " Mechanical Design of Heat Exchangers and Prcssure -Vessel Components," Chapter 16, K.P. Singh and A.I. Soler, Arcturus Publishers, Inc., 1984. s 6.9 R.J.

Fritz, "The Effects of Liquids on the Dynamic Motions of Immersed Solids," Journal of Engineering for Industry, Trans. of the ASME, February 1972, pp 167-172.

6.10 " Dynamic Coupling in a Closely Spaced Two-Body System Vibrating in Liquid Medium: The case of Fuel Racks," K.P. Singh and A.I.

Soler, 3rd International Conference on Nuclear Power Safety, Keswick, England, May 1982.

6.11 USNRC Regulatory Guide 1.61, " Damping Values for Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants," 1973. 6.12 "OT Position for Review and Acceptance of Spent Fuel Storage and Handling - Applications", dated April 14, 1978, and January 18, 1979 amendment thereto. i i 6-33

I i Table 6.1 DEGREES OF FREEDOM Displacement Rotation Location Ux Uy Uz Ox Oy Og (Node') 1 P1 P2 P3 94 US 96 2-pi7 pl8 P19 q20 921 922 Point 2 is assumed attached to rigid rack at the top most point. 1 2* p7 p8 3* P9 P10 4* pli p12 5* p13 p14 1*' P15 P16 where: Pi 91(t) + U (t) i = 1,7,9,11,13,15,17 l qi(t) + U (t) i = 2,8,10,12,14,16,18 = 2 g qi(t) + U (t) i = 3,19 -= 3 Ui(t) are the 3 known earthquake displacements. a 6-34 l

4 4 Tabis 6.2 NUMBERING SYSTEM FOR GAP ELEMENTS AND FRICTION ELEMENTS I. Nonlinear Serinas (Gao Elements) (64 Total) Number Node Location DescriotioD 1 Support S1 Z compression only element 2 Support S2 Z compression only element ~ 3 Support S3 Z compression only element 4 Support S4 Z compression only element 5 2,2* X rack / fuel assembly impact element 6 1,2* X rack / fuel assembly impact element \\. 7 0,2* Y rack / fuel assembly impact element 8 2,2* Y rack / fuel assembly impact element 9-24 other rattling masses for nodes 1*, 3*, 4* and 5* 25 Bottom cross-Inter-rack impact elements section of rack (around edge) Inter-rack impact elements Inter-rack impact elements Inter-rack impact elements Inter-rack itpact elements Inter-rack impact elements Inter-rack impact elements 44 Inter-rack impact elements 45 Top cross-section Inter-rack impact elements of rack Inter-rack impact elements (around edge) Inter-rack impact elements Inter-rack. impact elements Inter-rack impact elements Inter-rack impact elements L'ter-rack impact elements 64 Inter-rack impact elements i 6-35

r vm r c Table 6.2 (continued) NUMBERING S*liTEM FOR GAP ELEMENTS AND FRICT70N ELEMEN'i'S II. Friction Elements (16 total) Number Node Location Descrintion 1 Support S1 X direction friction 2 Support S1 Y direction friction 3 Support S2 X direction friction 4 Support S2 Y direction friction 7 5 Support S3 X direction friction i 6 Support S3 Y direction friction 7 Support S4 X direction friction 8 Support S4 Y direction friction 9 S1 X Slab moment 10 S1 Y Slab moment 11 S2 X Slab moment 12 S2 Y Slab moment 13 S3 X Slab moment 14 S3 Y Slab moment 15 S4 X Slab moment 16 S4 Y Slab moment 6-36

Table 6.3 TYPICAL INPUT DATA FOR RACK ANALYSES (lb-inch units) Module B Module C Support Foot Spring 4.37 x 106 4,41 x to6 Constant Ks (#/iMa) Frictional Spring 1.061 x 108 1.061 x 108 Constant Kg (#/in.) 6 x .382 x 106 Rack to Fuel Assembly .409 x 10 6 ((y) (x) ) 2.13 x 106 Impact Spring constant (#/in.) .487 x 10 (y) Elastic Shear Spring for 56421. (x) 8097 (x) Rack (#/in.) 79507. (y) 218963. (y) Elastic Bending Spring 8.244x109 (y) 1.60 x 109 (y) for Rack ($-in/in.) 9.798x109 (x) 8.469x 109 (y) Elastic Extensional Spring 1.99 x 107 1.267 x 107 (#/in.) Elastic Torsional Spring 1.83 x 108 1.087 x 108 (#-in./in.) l Foundation Rotational Resistance 4.586 x 107 4.586 x 107 Springs KR (#-in./in.) Gaps (in.) (for hydrodynamic calculations) 1 (h, h3 are ,x faces; and h1 1.25 2.5 i h,h4 are ,+ y faces, 2 respectively) h2 .75 .75 h3 2.5 10. i h4 .75 10. i 6-37 i

Table 6.4 RACK MATERIAL DATA Young's Yield Ultimate Modulus Strength Strength Material E (psi) Sy (psi) Su (Psi) 304L S.S. 27.9 x 106 23150 68100 Section III Table Table Table Reference I-6.0 I-2.2 I-3.2 SUPPORT MATERIAL DATA Material 1 ASTM-240, Type 304L 27.9 x 106 23,150 68,100 (upper part of support psi psi psi feet) 2 ASTM.564-630 27.9 x 106 101,040 145,000 psi psi psi 6-38

TABLE 6.5 STRESS FACTORS AND RACK TO TUEL IMPACT LOAD STRESS FACTORS Rack / Fuel l Impact Load (f) ) Run Remarks (Per Cell) R1 R2 R3 j C01 Rack C 377.4 .022 .017 .133* ^ Pull Load 6X14 Heavier Fuel .224 .041 .175** i Cof = .8, SSE CO2 Rack C 339. .015 .011 .101 SSE, COF =.8 Pull Load, .159 .027 .168 Regular Fuel C03 Rack C N/A N/A N/A N/A COP =.8 (Not applicable Full Lewd for this case) Heavier Fuel A.5 SSE in horizontal directions (stability check) C04 Rack C 63. .008 .003 .036 SSE, COF =.8 8 Cells centrally .037 .007 .064 Loaded, Regular ruel B14 Rack B1 Negligible .019 .006 .004 Cof =.8 Impact load rull Load, OBE 11x12 .220 .012 .084 Heavier Fuel Upper values are for rack baseplate section. Lower values are for support foot cross section (upper part) See continuation of table for stress factors R -R ). 4 7 6-39

T Table 6.5 (continued) STRESS FACTORS Rack / Fuel Impact Load (f) Run Remarks (Per Cell) R1 R2 R3 B13 Rack B1 245. .026 .012 .109' Cof = .8, SSE Full Load Heavier Fuel .325 .023 .209** B12 Rack B1 124. .016 .008 .050 Cof = .2, SSE Full Load, Regular Fuel .172 .019 .206 Bil Rack B1 Negligible .014 .004 .003 Full load, Impact Load Regular Fuel .303 .162 .397 Cof = .8, OBE B10 Rack B1 124.- .016 .008 .050 Cof =.8 Full Load, SSE .172 .019 .206 .6 Regular Fuel Upper values are for rack baseplate section. Lower values are for support foot cross section (upper part) See continuation of table for stress factors R -R ). 4 7 6-40

) 9 Table 6.5 (continued) ) STRESS FACTORS Rack /Puel Impact Run Remarks (Per Cell) R4 R5 R6 R7 C01 See previous pages .139 .196 .229 .018 for these columns .254 .407 .443 .025 CO2 .074 .144 .169 .015 .169 .262 .293 .026 CO3 N/A N/A N/A N/A C04 .01 .042 .048 .004 .051 .089 .099 .01 B14 .004 .020 .021 .006 .088 .271 .282 .012 B13 .082 .151 .177 .017 .159 .508 .539 .032 B12 .035 .072 .084 .012 .129 .334 .365 .03C + 6-41

t Table 6.5 (continued) STRESS FACTORS Rack / Fuel Impact Run Remarks (Per Cell) R4 R5 R6 R7 Bil See previous .003 .016 .017 .004 pages for these columns .061 .162 .170 .008 B10 .034 .072 .084 .012 .103 .298 .322 .024 P e ? k e 6-42

(* 4 s. Table 6.6 RACK DISPLACEMENTS AND SUPPORT LOADS (all loads are in lbs.) FLOOR LOAD MAXINUM (sum of all SUPPORT VERTICAL SREAR DX DY RUN" " support feet) LOAD LOAD

  • LOAD" (in.)

(in.) C01 1.27x105 1 44990. 52000 4147 .6682 .0811* " 2 43700. 30502 6787 .0026 .0008 3 48940. 4 52080. c02 7.16x104 1 2.75x104 34610. 1018. .3826 .0626 2 2.840x104 11693. 4313. .0017 .0007 3 3.265x104 4 3.461x104 c03 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.039 .1071 .0043 .0011 C04 1.621x10 1 8.253x103

8253, 977.

.0588 .0258 4 3 2 7.896a10 7393. 1454. .0032 .0009 3 6.834x103 4 7.073x103 The first line in any set of data is the maximum vertical load and the second line reported is the vertical load when the not horizontal shear at the liner is maximum. The first line is the not horizontal liner shear when the vertical load is maximum; the second line is the maximum value of the not horizontal shear on any single support foot. The first line reports results at the top of the rack; the second line reports results at the baseplate; the times at which these maximums occur may be different. "" see Table 6.5 for definition of runs. w 6-43 o

i I i l Tablu 6.6 (Continued) RACK DISPLACEMENTS AND SUPPORT LOADS (all loads are in lbs.) i i i FLOOR LOAD MAXIMUN (sua of all SUPPORT \\v.RTICAL SHEAR DX DY RUN-support feet) LOAD LOAu' LOAD ** (in.) (in.) 314 1.924x105 1 48130. 48140. 65. .008 .0072 1 2 48000. 40441 1803. .0000 .0000 3 48090. I 4 48140. 313 2.046x105 1 59820. 71120. 4871. .1943 .2059 2 71120. 34639 4873. .0011 .0014 3 61640. 4 70000. 312 1.150x105 1 36820. 37470. 2404. .0798 .0939 2 34240. 33715. 4459. .0005 .0006 3 37470. 4 32410. til 1.131x10B 1 28300. 28300. 46. .0058 .005 2 28260. 23053. 1255. .0000 .0000 3 28270. 4 28300. 310 1.150x105 1 36820, 37470. 2223. .0797 .0936 2 34290. 20548. 3599. .0005 .0006 3 37470. 4 32300. ( 6-44 i

1 TABLE 6.7 STRESS FACTORS AND RACK TO FUEL IMPACT I4AD STRESS FACTORS Rack / Fuel Impact Icad Run Remarks (f/ Cell) R1 R2 R3 b20 11x12, Full 141 .015 .009 .036 Normal 2nd SSE .174 .018 .115 Cof. =.8 C21 6x14, Full 373 .021 .012 .147 Heavier Fuel 2nd SSE .199 .018 .199 Cof..=.8 C22 6x14, Full 304 .014 .009 .111 Normal 2nd SSE .146 .022 Cof. =.8 C34 6x14, 8 Cells 55. .008 .003 .032 with fuel (normal) 3rd SSE .045 .007 .079 Cof. =.8 C32 6x14, Full 226. .014 .009 .127 Normal 3rd SSE .147 .022 .207 Cof. =.8 C31 6x14 381. .021 .015 .151 l Full L Heavier Fuel .236 .028 .280 l Cof. =.8 4 C24 6x14, 8 Cells 85. .009 .003 .033 with normal fuel .037 .006 .070 2nd SSE l Cof. = .8' l l i j w 6-45 I

m Table 6.7 (continued) STRESS FACTORS Rack / Fuel Impact Load Run Remarks (#/ Cell) R1 R2 R3 b32 11x12, Full 159. .015 .012 .066 Normal fuel ( 3rd SSE .204 .038 .252 Oof. =.2 b30 11x12, Full 159. .015 .012 .066 Normal fuel-3rd SSE .205 .028 .387 Cof. =.8 b23 11x12, Full 239. .022 .015 .072 Heavier fuel 2nd SSE .309 .030 .199 Cof. =.8 b22 11x12, Full 141. .015 .010 .036 Normal fuel 2nd SSE .174 .022 .115 Cof. =.2 t 6-46

h Table 6.7 (continued) STRESS FACTORS Rack / Fuel Impact Run Remarks (Per Cell) R4 R5 R6 R7 b20 See_ previous cages for .060 .071 .082 .009 these columns .120 .254 .272 .017 C21 .071 .138 .161 .023 .118 .364 .394 .030 C22 .062 .134 .156 .013 .139 .259 .283 .024 j C34 .018 .046 .053 .004 p .043 .118 .131 .011 C32 .077 .139 .162 .015 .139 .290 .317 .032 C31 .120 .199 .233 .027 .193 .406 .447 .040 i C24 .008 .040 .046 .004 .043 .096 .106 .043 6-47 1 i

~ Table 6.7 (continued) Rack /Puel Impact Run Remarks (Per Cell) R4 R5 R6 R7 b32 See previous pages .077 .114 .133 .011 for these columns .257 .444 .490 .037 b30 .073 .111 .130 .012 .139 .356 .387 .025 b23 .097 .118 .137 .015 .202 .443 .468 .029 b22 .060 .071 .082 .009 .151 .276 .298 .017 4 I 6-48

) i l Table 6.8 RACK DISPLACEMENTS AND SUPPORT LOADS For Additional Seismic Loads (all loads are in lbs.) FLOOR LOAD MAXIMUM (sua of all SUPPORT VERTICAL SHEAR DX DY RUN support feet) LOAD LOAD

  • LOAD **

(in.) (in.) 5 4 (x 10 ) ( x 10 ) b20 1.123 1 3.269 38120. 1418. .1192 .0652 2 3.754 20304. 2640. .0008 .0005 3 3.333 4 3.812 c21 1.253 1 4.159 44210. 1551. .3466 .0894 2 4.103 16797. 4343. .0013 .0009 3 4.421 4 4.250 c22 .71 1 3.032 31790. 1476. .2857 .0671 2 3.028 24354. 4012. .0011 .0007 3 3.179 4 3.072 C34 .1495 1.9796 9796. 1954. .0904 .0254 2 .9121 9796. 1954. .0071 .0044 3.6759 4.7205 C32 .7056 1 3.162 32280 2439. .3859 .0770 2 3.079 20463 4621. .0014 .0008 3 3.228 4 3.197 6-49

  1. 4i.

4 Table 6.8 (continued) RACK DISPLACEMENTS AND SUPPORT LOADS For Additional Seismic Loads (all loads are in lbs.) FLo0R LOAD MAXIMUM (sum of all SUPPORT VERTICAL SHEAR DX DY RUN support fett) LOAD LOAD

  • LOAD" (in.)

{in.) 5 (x 10 3 <x to4 3 I c31 1.243 1 4.823 51670. 3484. .5984 .0918 2 4.881 36229. 5857. .0023 .0010 3 5.080 4 5.167 i c24 .1773 1 .741 7993. 1598. .0617 .0340 2 .7467 7993. 1598. .0347 .0108 3 .7993 4. .7574 t b32 1.116 1 4.462 44620. 4497. .181 .1215 2 4.353 39074. 6658. .0011 .0008 3 4.415 4 4.473 b30 1.116 1 4.455 44730. .2269 .1732 .1215 2 4.353 38396. .4554 .0010 .0008 3 4.300 4 4.473 b23 1.986 1 6.112 67470. 2547. .2287 .1309 2 6.590 49234. 4333. .0013 .0009 3 5.869 4 6.747 b22 1.123-1 3.27 38120. 1410. .1192 .0652 l 2 3.754 32084. 3234. .0008 .0005 3 3.340 4 3.812 f l 6-50

o 7 Table 6.9 Spring Constant Values for Multi-Rack Analysis Rack-to-Fuel (A,B 6 Gap Elements .409 x 10 f/in racks) Support Foot 7 Gap Elements .882x10 f/in. Friction Elements .212 x 1010 Coefficient of .5 Friction Rack-to-Wall .1 x 106 (top of rack) Impact Springs .2 x 106 (baseplate to wall) Rack-to-Rack .05 x 106 (top) Impact Springs .1 x 106 (baseplate) Rack Height 171." Support Foot Height 11.625" B.-1 E-1

9..1 G.1 Width of each 70.25 70.25 70.25 89.375 89.375 rack (in.)

Length of Rack 70.25 76.625 76.625 38.5 38.5 (in.) 3 direction),o horizontal (parallel t Rack Weight (lbs) 12800 13900 13900 8850 8850 Fuel Assembly Weight 643 lbs. per cell Side Gaps for Fluid 7.5" Cross coupling 6-51

l A i Table 6.10 Results of Multi-Rack Analysis Maximum values Rack-to-Rack Impact Force No Impacts Rack-to-Wall Impact Force No Impacts Support Foot Loads Rack A 51950. Ibs. Rack B1 58450. lbs. Rack B2 57400. lbs. Rack C1 34200. lbs. Rack C2 34245. lbs. Upper Bound on Displacement at Top of Rack r Rack A .0733" Rack B1 .08129" Rack B2 .08149" Rack C1 .07032" Rack C2 .06524" call-to-Fuel Assembly Impact Load Per Cell Rack A 82.4 lbs. Rack'B1 94.7 lbs. Rack B2 113.3 lbs. l Rack Cl 82.2 lbs. Rack C2 74.9 lbs. l 1 6-52

I 1 l n 1 b I Oo

d I

I I I i l -o l i l l l 1 -O ~N l l 1 I I l l i l l l l 1 I l 1 I l I l l 1 m I I I i l i _ o o_ I I i l l I og ___,____,______o i I l - o (f) g i l I i N l l I w I I I O I--------- 1 I 0.) 1 --====i -1 I (

oCD J

l ___J____J_&____d w i I l Z -O E-o -o o s i i i d - r-O C I i i T I I I O v i i i I I x o (n i I I o o-a _ _._ _,_ g _ _ dg i l l H< oo s l I I I I a g i i N ~ l l C l i I O I

0 E

-0 7-OE'O O L 'O 00'0-Ol'O-03'0-0C'0-0F0>i (s,9) ecoy l 6-33

55.00 : ~ 50.00 _ 45.00 2 40.00 j j n35.00 : 3 d o 30.00 : ) y) e i b N25.00 - t \\ E 20.00 _ I x15.00 : V y} ~ g f o 10.00 : )fI % I 4Wk u N f O E %h O 5.00 O.00 j SPECTRUM MATCH HORIZONTAL sse FITZPATRICK 4 -5.00 ~ g 3 4 4 3 4 6 l 1 10' (0z.) = rec. FIGURE 6.2

i i r -e i-i [ l d I l l l 3 I l l O _______a i l l _o i i O I i l O, i o i i I i m i 1 l l 1 1 = v0 I i i i i aj O i i ______J_______ 09 1 0 0 3 8 8 8 l { ( l I I 1 1 1 I i I I O l I i i L q ______;_______t______;_______i ) l j O I i j FITZPATR)CK HORIZON 7AL 2 sse 2 O I I I l iiiiiiile l ...i iiil ie l iia i i iei iiei ie Q.o:o 500.00 1000.00 1500.00 2000.00 ) ~~ime S :e as (.07 sec./s':e 3) FIGURE 6.3

45.00 - 40.00 35.00 f I 30.00 2 m f 0 25.00 5 e T y) E N20.OO _ l l C i O15.00 i i X ~ ~ 10.00 2 } j 1 5.00 Y O 0.00 j SPECTRUM MATCH HORIZONTAL 2 sse FITZPATRICK -5.00 ~ 2 1 -rec . (0z.) 1 10 FIGURE 6.4

h i i i l \\ l O l d: I I I I 1 I I i [ i 1 I I i l 0i-___ _L______f_____-_l l O{ g g g j' -{ l I i. El - 1 I j o___ d I I I b I I j nO : I I i j m

i g

I b iE l l l U}) f n I I O-i , d' i OI I I l 0 5 I I I l } 0- _r------ i g.. l l: 1 I I i I I I 0 1 I I I j g.- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ y _ _ _ _ _ _ _ r _ _ _ _ _. _ y _ _ _ _ _ _ _ i FITZPATRlCK VERTICAL lsse l l l l O 2 I I I i l NI i i i I .0 d ' ' ' ' '5 0 0.d d ' idbd.bb'l$dd.bb 2ddd.00 ~~ime S :e as .O' sec. s :e a FIGlJRE 6.5 1

9 9.00 - 8.00 ~ \\ 7.00 - 6.00 - m O 5.00 i O (o eh \\ 4.00 - ~ i d ( C 3.00 { x 1 w 2.00 - O O 1.00 2 ~ \\ 0 3> 0.00 5 PECTRUM MATCH VERTICAL sse FITZPATRICK l -1.00 ~ 2 1 10 1 (0z.) - rec. FIGURE 6.6 r W' '-+~ 'c o--- a-m m-- m

4 s O O __d i I I I I -O l l I I I -O ~ I I I I I l l l l l 1 l l 1 1 I m I I I I l O O_ O l i I I I o,,q) _____y_____,_______O ~ 1 I I I (f) .g\\ I I I I - r-1 I I I ~ I I l l O s O J l I I I .O l l I l _o W w _ _ _ _ _.J _ _,g. - --d E i_____ I l -O 2 i

==

i i -O' w 1 I U. -r0 l l i i i i 2 G I I I I E o 1 I I i O W ___7_____1__0___- O. O_ l I o q) u o l I I I g-p i I I I g g i I s i I I I E-l i 1 I l CD 1 I I I C i.. .i ..i,i..... .iii,i .....i......... 8, ; L L i i i O L 'O-03'O-O E

  • 0> '

00('O-s,9)ecoy 03'O O L'O 6-59

50.00 - 45.00 j 40.00 j 35.00 n -30.00 - O Q) (n 25.00 - ,hN ~: d 20.00 15.00 - x -s > -- 10.00 -- O O 5.00 j a)> 0.00 SPECTRUivi iviATCH MUNILONTAL OBE FITZPATRICK - 5.00 10 1 f N rec. \\ ~,L.. ) FIGURE 6.8

- ~ _ l i 4 O O _______d i l i I I l -o l l l l 1 -O I I I l l lN I I I l 1 1 1 1 1 I m l i i l I _O Q, i l l I l l .. O g _____,_____,_______a, ~ @K I I I l (f) i I I I I I I l l m l I l l l O 5 O w I i 1 l w m O = 1 1 I I I o O W $1 i_____J_ __J_____J__"..___d t) i I I l a -O l l l l [ -O' l I l l g --O ~ I I I l v i l I i m g' I w O (/) l I I l u -O q _,_____y__ g._ d l l [O b o -i > m I I I l-g g i i l i ~ ~ l l' I i l i I i O I l i I C -o C iiiiiii...i iiiiiiiiii i O;- OE'O O L'O 00('0-s,9) O L *0-0E'O-O E 'O> ' ecoy 6-61 l

l{ ili t {l ljl {il i0 1 ( K C IRTAP z l iF E B ) O .z 2 0 L 1 A ( 6 TN E F O U Z qG I I R eF O r H F H CT AM M URTCE P S b

l_:

l_- l_ i_~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 n d O g x. c O x >: o O e > re"

y m.~ .gn,

\\1

- J oo ._-_____________________________d i I I I I l -o l l 1 l l 1 -o - CN I I I l l 1 I I I I I I 1 I I I I I m i I I I I I _o Q-1 I 1 I I I - Q q) r- -1 I ,____,______o _g i i 1 - o (f) -o I 1 i i 1 - r-N I I I l ~ O l' I I I I I I O -~o e i I I o U) x i _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ J _ _ _ _. J _ _d g i i l l I -o, S w l m -o a I' h l, r-O o a I-1 I y v i 3 i-i 6. i-, 1 I I y o U) l I I _o q - , _ _ __ _, q _m, _ _ _ _ q _ _ _. _ q _ u ~g 1 I I O oO m -s_> u 'l-1 I y g i l I I i A N 1 I l [ 1 I I I l N O I I I I I -o c h,,,,,,,,.i.........,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,j,,,,,,,,,j,,,,,,,,, o;- OL'O' 90'O 00'O-90' - 0 L 'O -- 9 L 'O-02" @ ' (s,9 aooy 6-6,3

17.50 _ ~ 15.00 - i i l 12.50 - I m ~ 10.00 - o D ? y) \\ E } 7.50 { \\ c { ~ 5.00 - I y e i o 2.50 - U g ~ SPECTRUM MATCH VERTICAL OBE FITZPATRICK ~ ~ -2.50 .....i .......i 10 -' - 1_ 10 10* FIGURE 6.12

Vos Mt __7 / ]!o /2 --c

p. pg Pa 1

Pp 7 His 3* e ~ >P10 'I RACK GEOMETRIC CENTER LINE N D H/4 H >- P12 l ?[Hl4 E11 >P14 6 H/ b + S f P13 95 4 </ -~s X A B e[ Yg /> "1, d g LONG DIRECTION Aur. SUPP'T / I /S S' g 2 'E 'rtP. FRICTION ELEMENT 4 f1 SCHEMATIC MODEL FOR DYNRACK FIGURE 6.13 i 6-65

TYPICAL TOP IMPACT ELEMENT-k<

~
  • !5 a

!b~ ' H i {M L / g RACK STRUCTURE T i TYP, BOTTOM IMP ACT ELEMENT f / W d ~ g A M _ Ml l l /7<7 s R ACK TO.R ACK lt.iPACT 57RlflGS FIGURE 6.14

l -- i 4 Y i f--- CE L L WAL L f f / M ASS i XB l' B f / 4 r FUEL ASSEMBLY / CELL g IMPACT SPRING C / / / YB / / / / / / >x IMPACT SPRING ARRANGEMENT ~ 6-67 FIGURE 6.15

e t 4. 4 a N z O C M H 7 ~ O N E W U< M C O E N M m m C .m C o m A W

  • c CL1 M

CL) ct: D A O O H C&e M Esl N b-n m 7 A 4 N O 7 ms

a j

'6-68

. - ~. 17 h 9 1 J i L 2 O L 921 N 2 l G 9 5 1 i i i FIGURE 6.17 RACK DEGREES OF FREEDOM FOR X_Z PLANE BENDINC o b d

L_ ,,_,_g. a _,, _ _,. e 18 - d 2 d - g -5 y c 3 g >e i 1 c O O e 0 i FIGURE 6.18 RACK DECREES OF FREEDOM FOR Y-Z PLANE BENDING O h' s C

FUEL ASSY/ CELL It0'ACT SPRING, g m%1 lN(- b a n 0.25H E j' W2 ~%1@ h%^ a 0.25H FaCK N C.G. S u 41mw L b 0.25H H/2 y q p u h TYPICAL PATI' LING MASS ~ 0.25H FRICTION N b - INTERFACE S SPRI.lG, K g 5 J )2

=

,,lss- ,,l, s, FOUNDATION ROTATIONAL COMPLIANCE SPRING, K R 4 FIGURE 6.19 2-D VIEW OF RACK MODEL 6-71

a 1 d~ l l l l S: 1 l c i i l 6: i = M l l : f l 1 i j .o_ i !,gh' !'I!! !' e mO.~ j l K l i I l UJ i-l ij i i t i !

l
i, Ib-i."

l' ~ p ]; j j :', l fj!..' ! :i . J',i i l ! i j;! I iL ft : l l L

it v

Oj l i 4 1 d l il !l j l l q)o-I_ l U ) j 0 4 3 0ea-6: FITZPATRICK H4-SSE EARTHOUAKE 1: O~- f.Od ' 4dO.OO f3dO.OO ' ' ' bd.50 ' ' ' bd.00 12 16 ime Ste as (.O' sec./s :e 3) ' FIGURE 6.20

155.00 - ~ f 50.00- ~ 45.00 - 40.00 ~ 35.00 5 i 4 Q30.00 5 s ( 0 N i O 25.00 5 a t (n a >20.00 5 C Q15.00 5_ r O 5 h' '/ k > 10.00 : }d N 5.0 0 ~ 3 0.00 - FITZPATRICK SSE SPECTRUM COMPARISON H4 - 5. 00 ~ i i iiii i i i, 1 1 1< 1 " rec. -Z) FIGURE 6.21'

g O O O 4 .O-l l )j, L l i p j 'l.( l pfl jf M I l A h + n +; 1 .L q 23 = .ei i = <s FITZPATRICK H5' SSE EARTHOUAKE - Horizontal 'E @b k.Od'4dO.dO '53dd.dO ' ' ' ' ' ' ' bd.dO' ' ' ' ' ' ' bd.00 12 16 ime S:easj.0 .sec./s :e a)

g. 45.00 - 4 40.06 - ,I

35.00 Z i1 30.00 2 y

m25.00 - \\ 2 i d U O 20.00 _ 6 cn \\ 15.00 2 l ( C v L 10.00 Z 3,n V \\ / N o /QL 5.00 2 t O.00 _ FITZPATRICK SSE SPECTRUM COMPARISON H5 ~ -5.00 'N' i = rec. bz) 1 FIGURE 6.23

4 'E: 2 f5 h !-h i U a-b5 1:

  • 2 T!

o! FITZPATRICK SSE EARTHOUAKE ACCELERATION H6 - Vertical d O. dO '53dd.dO ' ' ' ' ' ' ' bd.dO' ' ' ' ' ' ' bd.0 0 ^ 4 12 16 .00 ime S:eas (.O ' sec./s :e 3) FIGURE 6.24

9.00 - i I ~ 8.00 7.00 -: W 6.00 _ j i s y 5.00 ~ /p a 10 4.00 -~ ~ U3 's 3.00 - C: O 2.00 - .o I 1.00 _ ~ O.00 FITZPATRICK SSE SPECTRUM COMPARISON H6 - Vertical ~ -1.00 ..i 2 1-1 10 fre c -Z) FIGURE 6.25

w .4 90

m Q

i ue ... ~ . g r -- Aena e gg .=a-4 _a - m m 7_ z _,- - g O d_ - ;-- 7, p -O v l7 o _.- 5. ^. ;:.- g N ~Q D N. _ _.... m g - +., -.._.5-._ ~~ { 4 e -r-~:.. -. = = _ s q N aee. gm Q og e b 7 O Q d Ow m D O _ ~ _ -~~~ m' Oa Eg 9 o n o. n n o m m m ga ~ -============e-- )v O5 x o3 o )n o. f( 4 D.h-O 9' ~ = y r <, f _ O 4 .-l !1 111 1i ' lit l Ii I iiiI f I !iiiiiit iIIiiiiI 111l liiiiiitI 1 01 0-02 0-03.)4 02 0 010 00).0--s'G( . eccA 9-48

7 4 3 ~

=

'^ :. 45.00 - 4.0.00 { t 35.00 j 30.00' f ~ b i n25.00 - o s i O 20.00 5 \\ 3 (n N 15.00 2 L / C [$ j, O '[ l i 10.00 - f'1 5.00 0.00 - -FITZPATRICK H7 SSE EARTHOUAKE - Horizontal -5.00 ~ 1 1 10 ' ' rec -Z) FIGURE 6.27

4 1 o m. o -l- -p.- 1 f l I ~ i .o ~ e j 1-o l i r i l ,1 l 'g l l ! -l I J l 1,. I - h'j;1 !!ll l 1-) ' ll j[. I" l! I. I t 4 f i - lc i i; L i d[,; .o . ' lnl :ll l ' !I .f !; - [j] p.l! l m9 4 l l I- .l-lil', ri rj i l pl-i n-l 1

l gj o

{ 7 Q l i l: j - l . [I j l g v j I r I o i OO I 0 7 O <C l i o e m I o 1 I i i FITZPATRICK SSE EARTHQUAKE ACCELERATION H8 - Horizontal a L ro ii iii.i i i i iie i i : iiiiii i i i iiii ime Ste as (.0' sec. s :e 3) FIGURE 6.28 l f .~ ~ = ..~.,

- -.. =, = ~ ' ~ ', .[.3 ~ +

8._.

..3 .S' 1 o:- 1 ?

o. _

i o: / ro i q q. j d$5 (D m : Cn a f b \\b }1f 1 c 8.: V / .-u: s 1 J Ltj > 8. _ o-1 l o_ FITZPATRICK SSE SPECTRUM COMPARISON H8 - Horizontal - o. _ o i i. 4 - i i i i i i i ii "1 10 10' FREQUENCY (Hz.) FIGURE'6.29 l . ~ s = . ~

q l c i 05 I i oi l m o: i 5 k i OE i e L a, C) 1 : i v go- -d? @'5 O Ovg o <C o : i i: t / i e .p' c:.' i n.: f i S! E FITZPATRICK SSE EARTHQUAKE ACCELERATION H9 - Vertical I om: ' bd.dd ' ' ' ' ' 16bd.00 .0d' 4dO.OO' 8dO.d0 12 i Time Steps (.O' sec./ste a) l FIGURE.6.30 L

= O 2 8_ d; .i i m: i c: o_ 1 D3 0 .i O / y) o: \\ i =u q j C E U p v o: 4 1 o-i" idi LLI 3 > 8.:: = i o: ~oi FITZPATRICK SSE SPECTRUM COMPARISON H9 - Vertical o-t .g ..i ...i 2 il 10 10 rREQU E\\CY ( z.) FIGURE 6.31 ,m .-.,_ I ~.

~ ~

r.
  • ?

t SOUTH ~ C' ~ ./ R Representative. 4tt Fuel Assenbly- / 181 e3 4%e W4 43 g h $ g j th f ig 7- >7 '- > e f r is h h /r Cekfs -f hk C}s l hk 'e]is hl / i Ce 1 C h~$ 2-G b ,$14- .ml,g / s6 0 'O h ~h hh _0 @h ~ _/ / f77 / ////// ///// / /////// // /// // /// // ///, / / /'/ // //// // // // / // ? Pool Liner l I HULTI-RACK 10 DEL. 5 R/ICK ARRAY. FIGURE 6.32 a f

mm -i ~ 1.515 - ~ l 1.510 - i l : ( 1.505 I l ~ l -l ~ l l,l i ~ j 3 1.500 - l l 3 l f l i f ~ [ 1.495 h l N m l ~ 1 m 1.490 f 5 1.485 h ~ TOP GAP -BETWEEN' RACKS 2 and 3 Rock COF=.5,al! rocks 1.480 ... i........i....i.......i....i......................i....i......., = 0 1 2 3' 4-5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 .5 16 w E (sec.) FIGURE 6.33 . _..... =..... ---.._._.-_-....-...s

1-1.525.- ~ 1.520 _ 1.515 5 ~ 1.510 '1.505 _ g l i 1.495 - 1.490 5 q c 1.485-5 1.480 1.475 - i TOP GAP BETWEEN RACKS 3 arid 4 Rock COF= 5,all rocks 4 1.465 ~....... i.. .. i. i.. i..,.., l u E (sec.) FIGURE 6.34

] . x. 1.515 - 1.513 h 2 1.510 _ 1.508 i 1.505 : I !:::::!4j; $'l ) 5 1.503 d. 1.495 - 1.493 - 1.490 - 3 TOP GAP. BETWEEN RACKS 4 and 5 Rock COF=.5,all rocks 1.485 ~,...,,,,....,,,,....,,,,,,,,....,,,,,,,,,, i. ,,,,,,,,,,,, i V E (sec.) ~ FIGURE 6.35 -J

y +

7. -

-= s-0.005 - 0.004 0.003 l ~ 0.002 - _o.oo o -0.002 - 0 I l -0.003 5 9-04 .o RACK #3 SUPPORT FOOT MOVEMENT C0F=.5, All Rocks l -0.006 - ii.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,~,,,,,,,,, i,, i..,,,,,, i,,,,, i ~~ VIE (sec.) y FIGURE 6.36 m.. ,}}

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20058E455&oldid=4474551"