ML20064K924
| ML20064K924 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Robinson  |
| Issue date: | 02/04/1983 |
| From: | Zimmerman S CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| To: | Varga S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| REF-SSINS-6820 IEB-80-11, LAP-83-01, LAP-83-1, NUDOCS 8302150055 | |
| Download: ML20064K924 (33) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:* Cp&L Carolina Power & Light Company February 4, 1983 SERIAL: LAP-83-01 Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attention: Mr. Steven A. Varga, Chief Operating Reactors Branch No. 1 Division of Licensing United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 H. B. ROBINSON STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, UNIT NO. 2 DOCKET NO. 50-261 LICENSE NO. DPR-23 IE BULLETIN 80-11, MASONRY WALL DESIGN
Dear Mr. Varga:
As requested by your letter dated October 4, 1982, Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L) has completed the response to your request for additional information regarding IE Bulletin 80-11, Masonry Wall Design, for the H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant Unit No. 2 (HBR2). In Section II of the enclosed report our consultant has listed each request as identified in your Technical Evaluation Report (TER) followed by their response to the request. With regard to request No. 11, all proposed masonry wall modifications are complete. As discussed with your staff in a telecon on Friday, February 4, 1983, our consultant is continuing their analysis of a missile shield wall. Carolina Power & Light Company will submit the results of this analysis on or before March 1, 1983. In the event the report is affected by the analysis results, CP&L will forward the revised pages with the analysis results. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please contact a member of the Nuclear Licensing Staff. Yours very truly,
/W/cHkz" S. . immerman anager Licensing & Permits DCW/cfr (6132DCW) cc: Mr. J. P. O'Reilly (NRC-RII)
Mr. G. Requa (NRC) Mr. Steve Weise (NRC-HBR) 8302150055 830204 {DRADOCK 05000261 teviHe Street
- P. O. Box 1551
- Raleigh, N. C. 27602 PDH
CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY H. B. ROBINSON STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT 700,000 KW EXTENSION UNIT NO. 2 CONCRETE MASONRY WALLS RESOLUTION OF NRC QUESTIONS ON IE BULLETIN 80-11 EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED 145 TECHNOLOGY PARK / ATLANTA NORCROSS, GEORGIA 30092 JANUARY 1983 l l ' . _ _ _ . _ - _ _ , _ , _ . . ~ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . .
CONCRETE MASONRY WALLS RESOLUTION OF NRC QUESTIONS ON IE BULLETIN 80-11 l 1 CONTENTS i Pace INTRODUCTION . . . . . ........... ... . . . . .. I I -
SUMMARY
. . . .. ........... .. ... . .. . 2 II - DISCUSSION - NRC COMMENTS AND EBASCO RESPONSES . . . . . . 3 APPENDICES A - SAMPLE CALCULATIONS FOR A TYPICAL MULTI-WYTHE WALL . ... A.1 B - JUSTIFICATION OF RESPONSE ACCELERATIONS USED IN THE DESIGN CALCULATIONS .................. B.1 l
I
-t-
INTRODUCTION .O This report provides additional information requested by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Docket No. 50-261, dated October 4, 1982, regarding the previous responses by CP&L to IE Bulletin 80-11, Concrete Masonry Walls, located in the Reactor Building, Reactor-Auxiliary Building, and the Fuel Handling Building at H. B. Robinson Unit No. 2. _1_
9 I - SD01ARY 4 - In accordance with the requirements of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission's IE Bulletin 80-11, and subsequent request for additional infor-mation required to complete their review of Concrete Masonry Walls in the Reactor Building, Reactor-Auxiliary Building, and the Fuel Handling Building before issuing a final technical evaluation report, responses to their com-ments are provided in this report. (%?. es f i l 2 l I
II - DISCUSSION - NRC C0miENTS AND EBAE',0 RESPONSES NRC Comment 1: The Structural Engineering Branch (SEB) criteria indicate that, for operating plants, the load combinations provided in the plant FSAR should be used in the re-evaluation of masonry walls. Explain and justify the difference (if any) between the load combinations provided in the plant FSAR and the load combinations given in Reference1 3 . Also, indicate whether any wall is subjected to wind, tornado, or pipe rupture reaction loads. Ebasco Response: The load combinations in the updated FSAR, Section 3.8.1.3.2., relevant to seismic accelerations of the masonry walls are: (b) C = 1.0D 1 0.05D + 1.25E (c) C = 1.0D 0.05D + 1.0E' E = OBE Earthquake E' = DBE Earthquake (hypothetical earthquake) The load combinations given in Reference 31 are: (1) For concrete masonry (D) + (E) (2) For structural steel (D) + (E) (E) = Hypothetical Earthquake in reanalyses per Bulletin 80-11, the value of E' was used as a worst case. A five percent variation in vertical loading (the only dead load acting is the wall self weight) will not significantly affect the stresses in the stractural elements since these stresses are primarily due to horizontal seis51c forces. However, a review of calculations including a five percent increase in loads indicate no overstress in any structural element. Therefore, we can see that the load combination specified in Reference1 3 , i.e. (D) + (E), is essentially the same as that specified in the updated FSAR, C = 1.0D ! 0.05D + 1.0E'. No Category I masonry wall is subjected to loads due to pipe rupture, wind, or tornado wind loads. See the response to NRC Comr^'d 10 for additional data regarding the seismic ana? 91 1 CP&L Letter to NRC, dated November 5, 1980, File: FG-3513(R), Serial: NO-80-1633 II - DISCUSSION - NRC COMMENTS AND EBASCO RESPONSES [ NRC Comment 2: Provide and justify the boundary conditions and modeling techniques used for the re-evaluation of masonry walls at H. B. Robinson Unit 2. Ebasco Response: The masonry walls are modeled as vertical beams, either cantilevered off the floor or spanning between horizontal supports. Each wythe is assumed to span independently with no interaction between the adjoining wythes. The boundary conditions used in the analyses conservatively assumes that there is no bend or friction between wythes or betueen the top and side edges of a masonry wall panel and its adjoining reinforced concrete element. The masonry wall is vertically supported by a reinforced concrete floor. The floor connection is assumed to be a simple support with induced overturning load transmitted to the adjoining ref n-forced concrete elements by means of steel members and concrete anchors. Shear loads are transmitted to the floor by friction between the wall and the floor and/or by steel mecbers attached with concrete anchors. Loads are trans-mitted across the vertical and overhead reinforced concrete element / block wall interface by means of steel members and concrete anchors. The steel members are either cantilevered off or framed between the adjacent reinforced concrete 2;, elements.
~'t?
NRC Comment 3: Indicate how earthquake forces in three directions and equipment loads were considered in the analysis of the masonry walls. , Ebasco Response: The worst case (out-of-plane) loads due to horizontal reismic acceleration and loads due to vertical seismic acceleration are combined linearly per updated FSAR 3.7.1. Where stability of the wall due to in-plane horizontal loads was in question, numerical analyses were performed. Based on previous analyses, stresses in the wall elements due to horizontal in-plane loads are of low magnitude and are, therefore, not considered in the analyses. Since design criteria that simultaneously combine stresses due to three erthogonal seismic components (two in-plane loads and one out-,f-plane load) normally use the square root of the sum of the squares method for combination, the linear combination envelope utilized here can be considered conservative for the directiona considered. No safety-related equipment is known to be attached to the masonry walls under investigation. L;) II - DISCUSSION - NRC COMMENTS AND EBASCO RESPONSES NRC Comment 4: Specify the number of modes of vibrations considered in the seismic analysis and indicate how the effects of higher modes of vibration were accounted for in the masonry wall analysis. Ebasco Response: An equivalent static analysis was performed, instead of a dynamic analysis. In the updated FSAR, Section 3.7.2., Modal Analysis and Response Spectrum Techniques were used to develop the acceleration factors selected for the static analysis. The building dynamic analysis was based on the theory of modal superposition. Since it was known that the modal maxima do not occur at the same instant in time, it was the accepted practice to combine the various mode contributions on the square root of the sum of the squares basis. NRC Comment 5: Justify 5% damping factor used for all cases, while Regulatory Guide 1.61 allows only 4% damping for the operating basis earthquake (OBE). Ebasco Response: As discussed in response to NRC Comment 1, the most con-servative load combination used in these analyses involves the design basis earthquake (DBE), also called the hypothetical earthquake. Regulatory Guide 1.61 allows a 7% damping for sBE. Consequently, the 5% damping used in these analyses can be shown to be conservative. For additional discussion regarding justification of the use of DBE vs. the use of OBE, sce the response to NRC Comment 10. NRC Comment 6: Provide any increase factors that may have been used for allowable stresses under abnormal conditions. If they are higher than those factors . listed in the SEB criteria, provide justification. The SEB factors are listed below by type of stress: , Axial or flexural compression 2.5 Bearing 2.5 Reinforcement stress except shear 2.0 but not to exceed 0.9 fy Shear reinfercement and/or bolts 1.5 Masonry tension parallel to bed joint 1.5 Shear carried by masonry 1.3 Masonry tension perpendicular to bed joint Reinforced masenry 0 Unreinforced masonry 1.3 II - DISCUSSION - NRC COMMENTS AND EBASCO RESPONSES {. NRC Comment 6 (continued): Ebasco Response: No increase in allowable stresses beyond those allowed by the applicable design codes were used. These design codes are listed in Section 2.b. of Reference 31 . The maximum stress increase allowed by these codes is 1/3 when combined with seismic stresses. This increase is essentially equivalent to the minimum of the applicable SEB criteria factors listed with NRC Comment 6. NRC Comment 7: Provide information on construction practices and the availability of relevant quality assurance / quality control records to justify the use of allevable stresses of ACI 531-79 (6) applicable only to the special inspection category. Ebasco Tesponse: Ebasco design drawing G-190420 requires construction per the latest ACI specifications. The specification is assumed to have been ACI 67-23, per updated FSAR
- 3. 8. 4.1. 5. l (b ) (1) . However, since there is no confirmation of the use of this code, including inspection of construction, a review of the analyses,using reduced allowable stresses per ACI 531-79, Section 10.1.5, has been performed. For the purpose of the review, allowable masonry stresses, as shown 5$h' in ACI 531-79, Table 10.1, were modified by the factors shown below:
Compression: 1 x 2/3 x 1.33 = 0.89 . Tension and Shear: 1 x 1/2 x 1.33 = 0.67 All calculated masonry stresses were found to be less than or equal to these modified stresses after installation of the additional supports as shown in Reference 3 1. Since QA/QC records should be in the possession of CP&L, and were not made available to Ebasco, higher stresses permitted by ACI 531-79 vere not used in the analyses. NRC Comment 8: Provide sample calculations for: (a) block pullout analysis for attachments (b) missile impact (if applicable) (c) a typical multi-wythe wall. Ebasco Response: (a) No safety-related piping or equipment is known to be attached to the masonry walls included in these analyses. Therefore, no block pullout analysis was required. It should be noted, however, that wedge anchors were used at wall 3b to secure several reinforcing members to the ' (~"3 block. No block pullout calculations were performed, but by inspection, we can see that adequate edge distance was provided to permit 100% load capacity of the wedge anchor installation. 1
- See footnote, page 3.
II - DISCUSSION - NRC COMMENTS AND EBASCO RESPONSES [ NRC Comment 8 (continued): Ebasco Response: (b) Postulated missile impact loads are not applied to the Category I masonry walls considered in this report, since all the block walls are considered protected from this type of loading. (c) Even though multi-wythe walls are provided, no additional strength due to that fact is considered. Consequently, all masonry wall analyses used for final design are based on the assumption that the walls are single wythe. (Note that 6ne steel support framing is designed to resist loads induced by all wythes of multi-wythe walls). However, as noted in Reference 31, calculations to account for the multiple wyther were performed and a sample is attached in Appendix A. NRC Comment 9: Indicate whether any nonlinear technique was used in the analysis. Provide justification for its use. If any existing test data are used to justify the technique, the applicability area: of the tests should be discussed for the following (a) Nature of loads (;;^.,.s d? (b) Boundary conditions (c) Materials used (d) Wall sizes (e) Amount and distribution of reinforcement. Ebasco Response: No nonlinear techniques were used in the analyses. NRC Comment 10: Explain how seismic analysis was performed. Clarify whether acceleration values were selected from appropriate floor response spectrum. If not, provide justification and indicate whether the method used is consistent with the FSAR require-ments. Ebasco Response: An equivalent static analysis was performed for each wall.
- The analyses used a horizontal seismic acceleration factor of 0.2g, combined linearly with a vertical seismic acceleration of 2/3 x Horizontal = 0.134g.
From the seismic data in Appendix B of this report, we see that the accelerations from the appropriate floor response spectrum are (by using the NRC suggested damping factors specified in Regulatory Guide 1.61) lower than the assumed accelerations used in the analyses for the Fuel Handling Building and the Reactor Auxiliary Building. From Appendix B the following data is obtained: A. Reactor Auxiliary Building
- 1. Operating Basis Earthquake-0BE (10% G) at NRC suggested 4% damping, g = 0.13
- 2. Design Basis Earthquake-DBE (20% G) 1 at NRC suggested 7% damping, g -0.18
- See footnote, page 3. _7_
II - DISCUSSION - NRC COMMENTS AND EBASCO RESPONSES
, NRC Comment 10 (continued):
Ebasco Response: From the load combinations in NRC Comment I response, the horizontal acceleration with the applied load combination factor is: OBE 0.13 x 1.25 = 0.16 <[ 0.20 DBE 0.18 x 1.00 = 0.18 <[ 0.20 B. Fuel Handling Building
- l. Operating Basis Earthquake-0BE (10% G) at NRC suggested 4% damping, g = 0.12
- 2. Design Basis Earthquake-DBE (20% G) at NRC suggested 7% damping, g = 0.18 From the load combinations in NRC Comment 1 response, the horizontal acceleration with the applied load combination factor is:
OBE 0.12 x 1.25 = 0.15 <[ 0.20 DBE 0.18 x 1.00 = 0.18 < 0.20
.- C. Reactor Building 4[y7 1. Operating Basis Earthquake-0BE (10% G) at NRC suggested 4% damping, g = 0.17
- 2. Design Basis Earthquake-DBE (20% G) at F2C suggested 7% damping, g = 0.25 -
From the load combinations in NRC Comment I response, the horir.ontal acceleration with applied load combination factor is: OBE 0.17 x 1.25 = 0.21 > 0.20 DBE 0.25 x 1.00 = 0.25 > 0.20 These horizontal accelerations (and associated vertical accelerations) are greater than the values used in the analysis of Wall 6. A review of the analysis of Wall 6 (included as a sample calculation in Appendix A) reveals that the designed modifications are capable of withstand-ing these higher acceleration values. i NRC Comment 11: Provide the final status of the proposed wall modifications. Ebasco Response: Information required to respond to this NRC comment should l ' be in the possession of CP&L. Therefore, the final status (, of the modifications should be addressed by CP6L. s
C APPENDIX A SAMPLE CALCULATIONS FOR A TYPICAL MULTI-WTHE WALL C.
-~;
l l l [
.'.s 1
i f
EBASCO'5ERVICES INCORPORATED ev w.FNaJ o.re ocTB. So = c:" s,cer a o, CHKD.sy [0-l).b ors NO._1)h 1. D /1 h euc~r "DArE cf40 -
' d [4
. ,,,, ,, , c r W. e. W esosc> so uoiro -
susJect NOC E ULLF D O Oc2-l I f./ Of % W /-44 S - W e-t t (p . R 6/--cTo e . Excro 2dF DuoG : G leo 667 G.196 b)) . .
=
O I g h 4
'. J
, ., d A .. : * .
~
.? .
+
.. - r
+-- *
~y *
..y s s.3- .
C le wp-LL (.o ,
/ -
l l l 3 8TT PCA-Id ( ,- t
% . i'. c,
. . . . . . . . . . . , A.I
.iATED er W ist: n v orre Oci 6 . : .> suner Y cr CHKD.SY Pi DATE [O '
OFsNO._'2,7[pl.Ol) , *dO cuent Cf[ enOster l-{*b.?o6M600- 00o7'2. sue;rer Nf24-- 6 ott C Ti 0 . So-ll F3d.cc!!. - WA-t15 W A.u (.o 1,-6 b'a $a - t
, x
, s. c.
gc 140 . uo l i .
,- I 1 ,
dooC
- I \ l B,te w44 h.- , ' - - - li
. l ..-
) .
* (1 '%-- - TE H P o S t.x.t H & c 3 l
. l I .
, l ,
$l 17 b.d d,
- l j, . s, l .*., _
\..
,s . ,
seer H-M cs. mmj i Q, /9 o s 1/
, . . . . . . . . . . . . A. 2.
\ . _ . . _ _. -
EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED cv W. IA//4) i;.rc Ocf 6 80 N E D Y O,'M
$NEET 3 h CF cNxo.av d bM oau [O .I7 80 orseso. 2001 00 5."' 4ch cWENT CP
(. _ .? pnosect O 4 EO GCG*>'O - U C 'I E
' , suasecr k)t?C P> vu6D r *J 2pa-Il 6 Lode. \}]b.lL % ~
Yl)-LC,(p HULT?PLG W'(THG 6bLIO G OC, @W Q..,r U_ L,. l
~
- 8. 6 WYTHIL' ,
12 ' c; His t4. _ W7 of G e/I. . 12 'u MiGH/fTWir>TH.* . 8s8 4F
=. Mw.G iz . t -- _ --4 T+-
y +' - N , 2 ~ B G S , / ~7 '2 ? _ g,< O g - n ,= b' ' 4 CH0c4 ovec T0conoc, : ' a .- - i
, N.
"$ - ~
Ho.1 . nze- io a z l5 - i
? Y a e a ,. g ,. o W 8 # $ i. M , I b i)
Yl ./ N aa a- -
~
~~
- .s . 1.
Q EQVe @ G'Jf fO f.,e &)L LC,. *
=
*^ '
ywioc. cH/-pavas. P TaF & Hio H6senT 4L ccenT. Wi-L c; pr~o s NG9-Tsci-u~j STd Ci& paelS, ' c3~ic w n =. gu r- n e,.. wr cc:9 - ,,
~ :
f.s 6e o Quac pstc . ')? c,q.s Q . 63 2 ,.
.} -. -l. 7 -(.-- l l .
2 3 77 , 3. ,4
~[1 l ~ T' Y *l g , , 14'%.%.2-)*b,c,4,4 37 % g_
- 6 .t . .
- .
]O
/G2, l% % fIS Y f'.i.
-r==,
s d. 0 U. l h 3 j
.G:.,
Me ,
. t.
1-
.y:.yp 3
v
,......n....
A5
EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED cy w.FeraJ c.1 ocra. ta NEW YC.5K cHxo. oy[ br-L Dave lo 17-80 ors wo. 7 ~7Ca? e O 5."' 4 0 2, cuENT ChkL="
. PaoJcct l-l. Pa D610b 0- 0 0'T h sueJect__ N - Q d S ULLP 7"r A Bo-ll SOCU W.2.L_4.s -
W/-l.L, b CouT c.9ect c40eet. %ppaer (secoca Gg eg) tw o op camet. */>
. 8682 x w.2 , 2e>7 2
spuo = a' o
+n 4- la.
Mi +" , 2ex 7 (3)u s H57 - 16673 5 - Ta r G 8 < m a e Q _865 d- I 5 8 7 s' /6270 po; 2. . G .ed. o.E b . soa (9 uss C8t/3,7f c a ec tc_, toe.or.:e A-ocaoits rar z. g y w.4, . 7.%I '9a f M.k H M r- i s s73 *-'* n - q.,
-rr-Te a v. o % ia H M I r b 2 9 /,2 .. . II s 6 .t- _ _ _ _ . .
Te u+ as 'ibe To A.d r t. . 2s7cs, 38G 9 ' 6 r.% c [_db < l 3 75 i {-' TOI h U$*
- d w N _.. .
3
$$Yb =+ b bb m lh0] xl b , 7, % l % [ .}. O / D
'f ( k-(tout) , Lo @#
b Q: A.4
SWEET sumEcr
. { TM CFS N3. '
. lD$Le Of]
N V-C P.13.T2n S A.,0r>o w -0 Oi F 2 . u Vl W fr P - 00 " ll- - VJf.-n.L. [J' N ot.U Uh-LL %* . , _ CHSc C _.
\/Jtie O 6 Lt!
I? G L . O t d 8J - ib.16
+.is bh::, ,
tb y678 _. bD _ 8 p", S M* ~ 2 bd + A ' of CHAN4'r( 6 (l2Ej~ ; BlocuGsTT t F/-(c5 3, . b:> . I d=d 74-7) h
- c-Ps ub. m l1
, 6 .c 2x.8<.2j.(20 t 3, i 2, ,,
'. A.
cw ce k_._-- ' Crness n..s7 e %r 4. :
- l e
$ .,. 1 z",l
\[lb M S 1
\ l 2-- + 77 /
a m./'".
/26"l lic~
a 3 wata s,w \ :
%o o >,o a a .70
=
Ilss au
) . to s "
=c r) .
om s Gole IG B @
% wu a l
\ e oeu est n av p.y,
,- - aY ^
-Q *g.. ,4. :=ca: w; ;g::
~ s .~v 7 l5L Qiw WN$L%:ep%pg:-g';2.yg..,AgJywgen~~~
y.&. .
. n
= A5 '35M
?
_ . . . . ' -k .- e** - M'
, a*
EBASCO SERVICES INCORPOR., or_\M.SGAd anin Oc7 s . Qa NE'z voRx sseer el o,
~
cwxo. avA dM oAre /0-/ 7- b OFS NO. 2.% Z. O/) w,
- 40_1 _
L CUeNr [P
.; pno;cer M.B. Po P.ip dm o - OO AT ~A suesecr_ u P.t. Pa uu c~ To r.D P>o-I) - 6 L o c IC. Vil-LC S wJ-u. Cp C R d clG V3. b cc9 on S h PAsf (t2 Lg p.
(' ' M irz, - N Wt*
,, .16878
~& .h c. ?> . [,
Hi-c TeosioO w 68.r GEitB ' /'
~E~~ nbsX/d" "*
A - Moz HW Mc A IL , 767 Q, 'bt% ,. a . s}lt
-2. i it i 4
%6 '6.54 paitups w. /-o cAu e I 4
bol 234 , ; T}Wous ' '[w.n{l
\
2:I C ( 16 c t- %* \ v.2 ..
'l \ l --s -
b ac_c , 16f.il 'S 3 63 = 12.(t-
, l~) o uO ..
? ' *
, n t- , co l 0 S c:. ~64 %.
L.4 Pnove ca. .4 a l$'Si/ ebf W h- C I 6" /C-CHaclC.- Ovat2 'fotzu1Hf.9 1H opla2 Dt/?dcT or ' ____,_ q H = , 2 x. I 4b z . 6,c Ib- x f.o, + (T r --
.,, lo s 2- .
ova 9 T. y Y I-.I n. 0G3 L le D s lO Ol coe,r . O-
- f. 6 s l,ps
%:+, lo81[)un. _ d o 3im p'.c L L' ecov.pe soepaar e Tcf of wuc. i l
,o-........,,
A.G
EBASCO'5ERVICES INCORPORATED cv W.Fera) ..,c ocra. ao we=< car s,,,, 23 o, u,. cwxo. av/ dMoric (o -Il- OD ors wo._ 2,% 2.. o/ l So." 4 at cucur CfM eno;ccr M. P; 'Eo e:>toso v U OT TO - sus;cct W GG. Dou.6DP Bo-ll - 8/_oe K. \N/-d S_ - W M L.-[.0 _ R 6MTCPs bOC7 26F Ex.oG : G. leo % G -l W b ] ]l W .
, , *~
i
'. +
q .. . x; * ,* 3
. * ,. N >
4 2
.t sY l s' .y..
. ,s . ' .
- s. 0 s 9
C I w p f.f. G o
( .4 ' an w . D,g . l'. o
. o . . . a s, ,., .
A.7
EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED i cv Vl[Al24) ears ocr S. ta NE3 YORK p g CHKD.By b DM OArE [O #f # 0 OF5NO.J } 1.Ol)
, A .7 O
) curar C Pd' C
~
(- enoner suener H rLo
\-l. fo.'B o b % o a .
6 0u.G Te o . bo-ll ou o r 2. P.dr.ac!/ W M S - WAu. ca 1:6 ;b 'O $. a -
=
, ,, :d <
- a. 2.4.o.o. I I l .
1 1 , doaC . l t s SLEWh.Q h .
-l i
I
~
2@ . 5 I f
. I l'
, l ,
GL 2:2b . .> a_ l l, ,
..* ,e * , ,j' e .
e /h
- Q
,e
- e * *
'd ydic hk [6. /bb'7/
(9 [7 l9 * ' / 4.3
.TED cv W' k ~~dMM oAre 10/#>// 8'd'-) NEW YQXK
, g g cmxo. av A.N Q /- oAre //' /'80 ors no.276 2. o / ~7 U,"* efd S '
)
curar dFM L encarcy Yb S0 6 /^160 ^) ()!)/ T AIO 2 susJact A/4'c." d ul_ L I T/ A/ /So - / / [tdek 4dA4 / $ i ; _ . _ Yl/-LL -h d - _. i . . i -
, 1' 4 . , _ . _
_. 9.- W[MG bl . ; _ _ -_ i [ _ . _ _. . ,
.. 2-2
_.,__._,,1._._ '. _..,._ _ ____ i_._e __i._ _.i...t.__,___..4__.
.2 . __ : .c :_ .
._ l 82 ~ 5@Q 8.4k Ve.LM,. l
~
!. j _ ___ l_ _:
..[_ .
- i
.. . i , i .i i
- -t
__ .O[ b[. .W/~ bLa . o. . _ .J .. . _ ._ h
...s ,. .
, i
. hf l .g. - l . . . . .
_ . . _ . -~ .14b .e. l.6x_ I2 x % = 77n. ' _._;._.___:__ _ , _. . , _ . . . j ..'_ . _ - _ . . . _ - . . ..., . i - .- 4 -
/-/ .._.-,.. 772.2c.Z e. l % 4,A _..~
N' / "' Y ws .
.. g 3 _ .__ . _ _ . .
,u voiran.e
. _., .JhM 9- h> psf . Nah .
. _ . . . . l~2 x.D '
M
. a.
._ /2 h _::... h 7 7 I'..._***_ .
'# Y h ItofJ . MOR /I . .
WHW. . . -46 (%)x, 9 f'rg7
. 19 9
'2- .
i . . '. - . :_ . iN3
._ 0.
_b__d __
- \12)(.18) 2, .,
f,4. 8 . . G . T I t t i , ; . _. SrWc+s' _ I Df .< 1 *l . = 5. 6 .,os i . . < 40 . . _ G Q. b . .. \ C He< ld . . 'MIMP---- . . . . .
. g, . .
9 HW ., _ BC. - - i
......o,.,,
A.9
....2 _.
acer a:p or - c-f.H KO. sY < 81[ OATE " [" OFS NO.
- O/ h41 cutNT d L PnoJEc7 O O "/80M dA>/7~ A/o 2-suaaec7 ^l M O!JL!. ET'r) c?.0 - / / bloc)" _ &)9 L.f $
Wh.a fo p 9772&ss =. 4 NV/ ;/
@ HEAL 2. 12 9 0 & f_GI
_._'__..._-.._..!_- __ L -
. -. .. J&LIb. -. . . . ot.
. .CHeic C VERT dotvi- Tessop .Dua To fx Low t, , - - .
9 . ..:.. _.. _..._ . .. _.._ - _.._. . .c. . ..' _ _Fw is44 4_,_.. _ .eg m,44 4 . _ .g ,s1 en l2 40 ps. ; o x.
. . l _. ? _ L . _. _. I _ :._ . .' . _ _ .
n'x 12 * / 6 . . - i_.$. i ( , ,
! . _ 2 _. . _ . _ .
CHctG CoHAR douaT '0; ' LL SHEAl2- - JiV! WTTub .
- ' 1
/
. T H/a
.. . D . !. . . .
N _: ._ . . ._ . . g t . __ . _ . t . . . _ ; .. . K. ,. .
'g Q J,
\ >
- g. . - . 1. . . . . . .
_. ,. s.
~ ~ -
. V. . .. :. _ 12 '1 h;. . _ . ]2 J. fP 4.. h :. 4% . . .
,4 ..
I,6 ,
~E = .
12(l0)S... .: 6 8 63. . .: . .. . . . . 12 . 1 4 _f _.
/2.',, ' . . . . . _ '_ . . i -
i
- ..L _ - : . .
_qf. i /.2.el .c. 4 6F .L. B pl .o.E. t
.. o . 8 /Wi
} } . _ .
. -f, _ l . .. . 4 - -
h Ltou> I t. PORMSetREV779 A. lo
i APPENDIX B JUSTIFICATION OF RESPONSE ACCELERATIONS USED IN THE DESIGN CALCULATIONS - ~;;; .3 a , ,e
5 APPENDIX B Method of analysis for determining the appropriate response acceleration using the Housner Charts:
- 1. The peak response acceleration with damping factor was obtained from available sources.
- 2. The appropriate period was selected from the Housner Chart using the peak acceleration and damping factor.
- 3. Using the period from Step 2, the response acceleration for an array of damping factors was reed off the Housner Chart.
- 4. Interpolate the response acceleration for the assigned damping factor from the array of data generated by Step 3.
9 a g (.. B.1
%J r- I r,-
'p- N o HEtGHT ABoVE BASE (,ft) o y -
O
,a O
w o e 3. o o g-Q
- o *
- t ,
N ' ' i i i i
- o \ }
- y. o 1 a -
O .a . - - ) t.tHEA9, ExTENs10M l- Y _
=
o 8-- o S' '" \
\
C '
\
k "
- p. ~~ Y DIRECTION (0.lg)l DESIGN EARTHQUAKE o Q m .o , o.so _ _.___..___ .-
w - o c 8_ X DlR Ckg}g y ,o 3 9, DESIGN i EARTHqu'fg ~ ~\' ~ o d ,- - g
\
O -
\ -
o Zg- . Y DIRECTION (0.2 ) g HYPOTHETICA1. EAR CHQUAKE
@ g. xgo _ _._.__ _.r ._ ____ _
. i g
; i
- n; raa R
5 ,, z* (h> s (O o s Y E 9 O O
". n2OK O O Y go
.v s
\-ng %s N gd.r.,
s
~
5 Y i g3G5 #o . g- -
& o#
M i
?
$$'{ e o p -
1 25;
$5 .
r3 C
. 6' o
s 1 (-
~
s , a ,u eco - .< , y .e - v,T?g'on
,s.- iy x ,, v ^ , u w s. --
2".Ey,2.,dy,,_M.^' 1 v;_rix js : NN 4,.",~_,x <;<. A,e'sfx , ^ x _ ;r _
<<f,,,y .,
. < , .~ s .
v _a_ _ y . . .;.. ,., q.
.x .x ~ , w,,<xs
,gy,- 4 _< y_x 3 _ x < es ,'
< - v < ,
's , ,
. st ,; f s, _ ; N ^. X X V.'.V / X /x / '
'/'. . ': A 'N N x v v.
6"M , 7
- i nu xx w&wsn/ /(\ s!'[~ T.IYl'M/NW/b/Y'YD M mac.xw N M O,s>cexdwn M Y'" h m@hw 'i ,,
' f ',' EX 'M'2$.$'I'Qh
, , r,- ;-%g.1--t-WR
.\
W ,q,^lCM ,'cQ' ;- 5 -- r u ,
- w ,v < x ,x a 4 wg u,d, T 4: .F '_,d-(, W.//X' X /N _XMN/Xs.'//', :-
<//< /v A A vs n,swWA .kA W.
Mg -v - s.//<< ,? e Q;.Z
$NY/b/N /\/\'XRD'8 ' v^fW V'.
. 8\K4M I/ $N D)2 '
A%M MY ' '8Kf'Nd /XRN6'Xb5 N . (>Wf . A , kNXk'&;'&%WSKe(&QRin
$, ENMNN'9l@ ~
l xX'MOhMM /'\2k.kh:WE-
~
w.
~
[ M,sM$' './M,8MM,
- s , . ,. s m .
/ps s, ,x -
sw,W ' d $ M, w e m )
, ,, _s s
,-. A q,
_,;,j,;
, f. ,sf,. ,.
_ ,-s f.y _ .
,s
, x x s y., , x f . ;
..,r< x ,x x s < w., , ,. ___s , ,
wx _
/4<fv Afy 'ff s/ ~
'.*f2'/X
</v A A X /\ X M e,'yv.~g'p,j W /i;g,..,.,3,. 's s x1 6 f// / :X / \ '/ _
./ .
X'Av /_ y A AA% ;- ,'
. M< /h/N /N// . . 29Xff\ /N /N/@)&XM #W /$gg,[ '
'i'>? ^
!6'4'M XM 4X>C<#h'< MX MM'RxMM W ],M N Y '>(mxw 1, >e M meuxx x>kj N,M' $Nhik COya%g%MOQ#2886%'r%xq ay ,
A Ai
.. - .o . - ....o... .a ..
--- 163 .
..m PERIOD (secs)
AUY lLl AC.Y hult.Dt NC3 G 6*.h DAMhuq cj : C.!! (at usT/ e T . , m e. m c,. me : . '. a f g . c.:, H. 8. ROBINSON UNIT 2 - FIGURE
' ' ~
Carolina Power & Light Company 0.1 G RESPONSE SPECTRUM 2.5.2 - 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT F.S
s 5ss+ ,m. . ms,,+xx<v. c , ,
..s,.,.x,g + ,,n v x.c,.__,x.
,_.s s,_,. .
u._.,w ,ot ..~,. s
, , , s .w x,,x ,
, .\_A\ ,y'. s . ., _..u
. . . / . , , v , .s a _ n,.,, ,
\\ W' '\*
40 na mn,!/ w/
= . . \ \ g
_ h 9'N /NN M4%W Ntxrxx w'V/ N_'x.X n /~ c'/a< 4.:..< ' ?>.4N
. .' . : N. ~
M6 . . .' M
'M NM MN Y,7 .' ,j . ?4% M' '
?
. MM M M .
j,G E.. O~gg2gp ,
'M. h?,h: y~ -
-Shk&f
/ / M 'Y ZM
-s 4 ', Ts: 'x f.' .T s_
g - A ev < x fs a s wv. ,>x FV'N A /c [ ,/7 f MI5 b ,x/ . M-^ M- ' %W x x ,v M $EN? f ,v . ow. ._ q' < v ^ es vsv hv/ vf.w^^ wwsv// < ,s , g, v.
- e w'/Y'X /\ 'X. 'vNN M.
n /c'TX/Af N# XNWW/X . . '. M '; .
".!$KXL/h/N /N/NMW XX/\//^vf\ W2xN$< i !,.
E EMX! MM 'MM'K MX25O( M'M(X>6NDM (Mk
'l
% I F n) xezv, x& ' ' Sw%#9X$R%"%(.1mx*xx
.s x<s4-
,v. v 4 sf
,s f ,
,x s , 4, a,u #.w v n , - y es s .x, s f.
F- ( x wm ~
^, -fs s3 vs o
> v 7f g'{ A 8
~
-' fff/ / X /s. .///4- .jer',.f A A fy X y v'N\r., - + ,' r K iN A sN'
* //(N A /'///A YN/////V A /\ VWe '/,e < V /N /N Ne
-M//LX /N///_ MNNN:"//>: iX /N :XfX *,Y, '/.'47X 'X /4'XJ'\ \
~
, N/h/\.'/MNYMN /h/N /MWNMM/ W /.NNMD RSW '/M >#'6(xSM MX,' MMMM ,
'XgT 1, D'$3@, waxw M%ve M x C I'/M -
<r
.t .
'v
.. ~o.
)gy
.. . .o . n
~'
.4 ..
JC
.o . , .--..4, Q
PERIOD (seed Auutacy 6 wmq e G% CAunaq y c.Lo (8L '1.S$') G 10% OAMPIM4 g : c.16
., H. B. ROBINSON FIGURE y) UNIT 2
- Carolina Power & Light Company 0.2 G. RESPONSE SPECTRUM 2.5.2 - 3 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT
- b. h
m s , / ,,. ,s , s .s x.w , m s /m. m ,s ,w+ ..,..s ... ,. - g -N
/( / A 3 / if\ 's; \ 'yxNJ _ t ! \ _f_N, / / v s e 's = _ \ 's ,' '
, [v,e,.y s ., Y D.^' . =,,
. E,).5:
o x 'Xx '.<NNN w g j u x'A54 xW . s. s. , . trf.L. d.riN&.
- e. . . >,. x ^ x :,, x v. %
!hs :r(#.e N /9;[' hf5 ! .9INNW i . /Ni'@6hN/
5hhN Yk Y Y Y /
%f. ,.
,e < _
!\ MNN P'_ b 4 . .-
+
/
.~
9,X ^,A .' ,N,~4~' / <,v,. /(r' ^
, -;.y- - ~~ ~ r--- ? / .M& @y' t 7.&. ~
g - ?. ,v / x ,x n - ; .
, ,/
=
vu A A w w / a A w .co; w n q, e <+</ / X' X / \ 'X 'X \ . /> 7 /VA XM _ . < .' Y - 4' P ' -
. !$9(/h/N!/\/NWYf/, N/\ Xg6'7// % wi _g ,
$ % M W l>'~1 V M s'_ < ,XXM A Y,& % kW_.I $$<'T(&Q':;I
/# b %.Q t 1P
$ ENMM3y ' . '$/ k W ,x' '
[~' s MN N M/^\XX',ks.%
[ M d@l1'I_f M M,N,,5DE M h. N,.,"xW
.x ,x ~ w. + 2,a .
r',3 6s
../_s-?,- 8- ,
N
~
v"'., v_ c _{_ j- _ .
. j.',c_/ , _// . '_,x>
js,
,T_37 s
- g. /s fg /s % \ \
f , v < ,'s / x > x y .c. x f ~g s..',, ps /g. ' x *
,1 '/ ^(N A A 'd ,y A/ A /_'
@// ;/M /N tX/ ; f'.v'/
'// /X /vx Afx_ A / N V'We,M'p=
A Xi,1. . 5 g V x lxi Ad,.,( x v.. N'M/\/N /^'/
' f2D'FX /\/\1 /N#* .>'X9XM # b'N /k;',s[% ~
%M M A & &%'
MM8M@(MY ')Ok 189>WS'MM 'f5':N y _, x,xmmman , PsVA%YX000@raxxonx%w
.o s .a . .o s .o .s .,
888%VE.. .s .. , , 2M^y') . . .~ PERIOD (secs) Fugu hsousq &.04 s F',, DAM M g g: c. .O EL C.C,') G C% OAMM4 e.I c. 4 H. B. ROBINSON UNIT 2 - FIGURE Carolina Power & Light Company 0.1 G-RESPONSE SPECTRUM 2.5.22 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT
- b. co
l 1 ,. .
~5
' ' L': ^,[; } ,'^ Q ' " '
~ '
_.' ^ l)/- A; h,'-'.Q'r' /V1',^mX;Q . ,s,
. , ,x. A x w s 3'\
, u)f'.
,- ?',fy'N,^,w 4 g,. 7 r=
g . / \/M N'\'XW///X_,'V / N/ i Nghaj..,4c.Z.u ,( , N _ . o'4 ,'Q g; , __ # , q x / x W x x x w / x A / x . 4 /a a.;. c.g. . - s y;g.-
',.:c'./ T/ ' ? N y/&~
. ~; ,
NM M% M, I v% T.N /hdNYJ)%&(MN /l. '
. N$?'g/ Y
)2" E'k,? s ~
?&W .'% N}/ -
'$)&f IN9@#M
~
' ^
~
NW *,
2 . g -u,v<xesAsw w e f~ A ' ' '.f,C,,^ '< - ,'N , 'ieX'/r'r'%'%' vev. ' , /. s, es vs ww/x/.w/sn '/v q* w//XiX s< v
/N 'X.VNNv/;?//'y/AfN/AfXNNW//Y ' ,
wwax , s e X 3 W/h/N /VN')'NMXX'h/x//N4NYBM' . s M,' j L . x%K %% ~ XMX ' > M>C6%1 MN Y,d M t_',) M.% %tR I 5,EM) 5 MMYNh['. .'Yx . 3NMM*N<h N . I
, I'h' '
k 4W '/',eh ~ f t , N M',n 'K.'0 ( O.),Tx'4 & '4:s M "
' u,v < /Nx o
//Y/V' /'///
Ac N///^//V m/N'x , u,v / x/\ fs/\xYNxww V_' . v,v / < Yx/N,x/sx 'Y
.? *
-W/YiX /V/K Yx'WX//x iX AN W Y*, .
' ViX /\ ' X. ,~ Y ~
' $<X'/h/\/MNYMM'(/h/N /M( 9XM # . '
RhM . M2'1^XAM M'Xf' WF2'4N'9tM f - X in axe
- xxx<dysom'
./ ,
s.
'M)QQ'
.. a
.o . ...-.c... 4 ..
J Q >[s'n N Q
-~ ~
a PERIOD (secs) FUEL NMOLtHG; 6t.pq @ 9% CWWING g = c. f C (EL ?.2c) e lo l. O m ris a, g,o.'.S (7.. H. B. ROBINSON FIGURE (Q~ .,'l UNIT 2
- Carolina Power & Light Company 0.2 G RESPONSE SPECTRUM 2.5.2 - 3 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY p.flALYSIS REPORT h.l
c .m
@^ , Om '
, l.h.E 'IIN
= .
i FORl7.C'NTA1. RELrONSE ArCELERATION SPECTRUtd
! H.b. RO E,!tG 37 ' L1 EAM ELErTRIC PLAhlT -UNIT NO. 2
! REACTOR INNER E.7 RUCTU AL t
ELEY. 23 2*- 6" EQUIPMENT DAMPING RAllt e 0.05 j Nol< mal.12ED EAP,THQUAKE OF O.2c & g,g . BUILDING DhMPlNG itATIO O.05
. 3: o 89 e
Z 5__ ti .. 1 5 1 d
'8< .
N 2 c.so- - I 2 1 iltt .
]
I l t .. abe g 0 . ( @ I I l l o.O OSo 1. oo l PFAIOD IN TJCof4DR ._ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
s x e' ~ M_ NNb NN <(j< ~' - s -b- ~~~
,, hj[^ kk{ ,
~
- s. N s' '/ ' N' N' , us P,.' .p . f'*f.' f \X X 4.'.*N A)< A / N-
~ ' ','j *
,\ ,' \ A A N ',',
~ !%L 7 ~,
h'5 b'D9N/UN i$% NNkN'is W:/I'xfN' E' . WW/M._/l.. &hQ ~ ')?
. ,, MMM
.\M.MN 3.0 kk b
_' E ,o s . J ' i'J/ u [-6,v4d ' ' M Y W-
.,n<^
- s. . s ,s a wcs s e.. .:x w . / x ev/
, s < < .o -^
' F rlv @
. /
"-~ N 2% g/
$s-Q
-W t-r-f. *
(, W/X'X
.u < x/.,e % XN . , .- - - . i%d h /N N N XQ 6 M [v^d b M $7'{ Y C K - .._- E $ EM MMi ~ .' @ /Yd MXM/iXX)'6_'pg W
s .
$ 'f 'L ' MA s* m rk.x $$$ws'xwi v a///uax$$+'h.'L#@'@
s '
...'6
- , 'A / .Q ,
. , / / s , , ,x . ,.. - -
. < < , y , ,8 s e c. ,s , , ,.s. , . . , , . +
.s , // /- fs , a.i '"
( %; /1 e ._ . N N v' f -s f, 's-s s x .qq , u, cf x <x x_ w /.y - fr<f ,s ex7.'s w +, .. y , x , RN < j . ~
</N v A A s / //x N ^ ^ VWo qAAAv ,
F// QX /\ 9:/ ^ .W/ V X /\ X Mo,$.f ;VcX ,'N X~ '.
=
6%N NN A/ .N9W NN NQ? NAM /% / /W D b X M M ,2 9 N .fN 'NX,' MM6M/ ~ f P
? .j.
A
'Y , h . ....'
... .o . . . '.o. .~ ~ L .a ,4 ,- . ..e PERIOD (secs) 1 f\EAC.JCC, hulLOtHQ d Y7.*lo Dat4PlWH g: 0 46 (EL ZB2.'-fo) G Z*I. Dufm4 o 0. '.O s 9 'l. cwn uq 4s c.tv G lO [o OWINg g: 0.ll
, ,. H. B. ROBINSON FIGURE
- 7) UNIT 2 -
Carolina Power & Light Company 0.1 G-RESPONSE SPECTRUM 2.5.22 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT b'O
[ti. ' '?'?. "T; ^ .',OM'
/ ,x ,-
n.
,K '; ' 'j'. ^ (X' . T'.( ,6 4:4:-V r.X:% x ,n7-~
4/
/ ,. , y ,-_. s x . g<'_. N . s7 '. 3 3 3 , <N- T ; V N 'is N'. "
~
N'/b/ 'v'4 / V'N\WX N'NNMWAY'A XxW//X/V/\A_/N '6 N y/s i"E'5;, ,g, '.'.sg:. /76 X Q.,[ 684s M ./hdN'>'MANM/ W /; .#-
^
. .;; : X C'D}/I?
&% NM QM% N, . , .
%M 'f
. M ,YY
,v
[,
.m/.wan~><M_ , mw Szwcwr
/,'4%-;
^
,v < x ^;-C lXO: fs ,N 'N'hc,xOR v i v % , * .v f <
g
, -x , ; _.
- i&&'-t u \ wu ,
w v.v//sA w 6sv/re, - 7
+<'
<>'w'X / eX /NA A A v svb ..:/T '
nu /vN m'XY'mw x^ x mwm/A,'//A/NAXW.'W/V ! L kQ, e
= ,
$ EMMi MN . MM'\ , N MYbhi, h Y,EM ?, Y l . , (h
$ ENMMM ' '
. MYNNkMM' #.f I
(~M']fMR ~~
. //+-5 in . _ > . ./, + <, s m s +
l r..+, x _XQ mm
'g 5 /r'/ 'N' /i /'. 'I7 / /f ~f \ /(f/V fi <\ '_w N N:'5. I \ fr' # v 's . N ', A 'M w
//.///A / \ A \ V"N'N A - N / *' r Ai\ A \_y\
~
8
- // rV f X /V f/// z_*'. 's .es_ *
'/ N N A /- W.wrnN A A vsW,ffpy v ^ ^ vsN
- W/'/iX / . X'N N 9 X/X 'X /N tX Y*,1AN>vj Y > X d'4' A3NN' .
, N dNMDYd/h/\l /WNMM# W / NDW' '
k '/%,M6dfM M M N U)' $Cx $' M $ . f 4%e mwh_ g 'xxx1 ege
, ., s
- i l
CT(fSKM. .c.).KXY
' ><%'fs>gg ,x$
.b . .. z . .. . .. .. . . . . . . . ..o PERIOD (secs)
EEACTors 6t:lLot h!Cg e 'h. */. DAM PI Nh y o.S9 (EL '2.W-6) e 7.*/. DW9 t N c, y c .4.7 e 9 */. 06mpm c; y 0.15 e l0 % QLM f1 M o, 9: 0 . 'i.O H. B. ROBINSON FIGURE UNIT 2 - Carolina Power & Light Company 0.2 G-RESPONSE SPECTRUM 2.5.2 - 3 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT l b.10 l
APPENDIX B -
SUMMARY
OF RESPONSE ACCELERATIONS
;' AUXILIARY BUILDING OBE 2% damping factor g = 0.16 5% damping factor g = 0.11 4% damping factor g = 0.13 DBE 5% damping factor g = 0.20 10% damping factor g = 0.15 7% damping factor g = 0.18 FUEL HANDLING BUILDING OBE 2% damping factor g = 0.14 5% damping factor g = 0.10 ,_ 4% damping factor g = 0.12 'b[) DBE 5% damping factor g = 0.20 10% damping factor ,
g = 0.15 , l 7% damping factor g = 0.18 REACTOR BUILDING OBE 2% damping factor g = 0.22 l 5% damping factor g = 0.15 l 4% damping factor g = 0.17 DBE 5% damping factor g = 0.28 10% damping factor g = 0.20 7% damping factor g = 0.25 B.ll}}