Text

Mark II Design Assessment Rept, Revision 10
	ML20065G775
Person / Time
Site:	LaSalle
Issue date:	09/30/1982
From:	; COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO.
To:	;
Shared Package
ML20065G774	List: ML20065G767; ML20065G775;
References
	NUDOCS 8210040223
	Download: ML20065G775 (82)
	v • d • e

- - .

LSCS-MARK II DAR Rev. 10 9/82 LA SALLE COUNTY STATION MARK II DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT INSTRUCTIONS FOR UPDATING YOUR LSCS-MARK II DAR Changes to the LSCS-MARK II DAR are identified by a vertical line in the right margin of the page. To update your copy of the LSCS-MARK II DAR, remove and destroy the following pages and figures and insert the pages and figures indicated.

REMOVE INSERT Page vii Pages vii and vii (Cont'd)

Pages viii, ix, and x Pages viii, ix, and x Page xiii Page xiii

)

("%

\.)

Chapter 3.0 Page 3.1-6 Pages 3.1-6 and 3.1-7 Appendix H Pages H-ll and H-12 Pages H-ll and H-12 through H-12b After Page H-30 Pages H-31 through H-37 After Figure H.4-37 Figures H.4-38 through H.4-41, Tab for APPENDIX I, Pages I-l through I-21, Figures I.3-1 (1 Sheet),

I.3-2 (1 Sheet), and I.3-3

, (33 Sheets)

O 8210040223O{@[$h3 PDR ADOCK PDR P

1

1 LSCS-MARK II DAR Rev. 10 9/82 O TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)

PAGE H.3.1 Containment and Internal Concrete Structures H-4 H.3.2 Acceptance Criteria H-4 H.4 EVALUATION METHODS AND DESIGN ASSESSMENT H-5 H.4.1 Containment and Internal Structures H-5 H.4.1.1 Analysis for SRV Loads H-5 H.4.1.2 Analysis for 4TCO Loads H-5 l H.4.1.2.1 Condensation Oscillation Analysis H-5 H.4.1.2.2 Chugging Analysis H-6 H.4.1.3 Critical Design Sections H-6 H.4.1.4 Design Forces and Margin Factors H-6 H.4.2 NSSS and BOP Equipment H-7 H.4.2.1 Load Combinations H-7 H.4.2.2 Acceptance Criteria H-8 H.4.2.3 Reassessment of NSSS and BOP Equipment H-8 H.4.3 HVAC Work and Hangers H-9 H.4.3.1 Load Combinations and Acceptance Criteria a-9 H.4.3.2 Reascessment of HVAC Work and Hangers H-9 H.4.4 Piping and In Line Equipment Introduction H-9

/~% H.4.4.1 Response Spectra Comparison H-10

() H.4.4.2 Exceedance Evaluations H-ll E.4.4.3 High Frequency Subsystems in Wetwell H-12 H.4.4.4 High Frequency Subsystems Outside Wetwell H-12b H.5 CONCLUSIONS H-13 I.0 CONFIRMATORY ASSESSMENT AGAINST NUREG-0808 LOADS I-l I.1 INTRODUCTION I-l I.2 CONDENSATION OSCILLATION LOAD I-2 I.2.1 Load Definition I-2 i

I.2.2 Evaluation of Containment, Piping, and Equipment T-2 I.2.3 Conclusion '-2 I.3 CHUGGING LOAD I-2 I.3.1 Load Definition I-2 I.3.2 Evaluation of Containment I-3 I.3.2.1 Containment and Internal Concrete structures I-3 I.3.2.1.1 Load Combinations I-3 i

I.3.2.1.2 Analysis for Chugging Load I-4 I.3.2.1.3 Critical Design Sections and Acceptance Criteria I-4 4

I.3.2.1.4 Design Forces and Margin Factors I-4 g(j I.3.2.1.5 Conclusion I-5 I.3.2.2 Other Structural Components I-5 1.3.2.2.1 Evaluation I-5 I.3.2.2.2 Conclusion I-6 vii

LSCS-MARK II DAR Rev. 10 9/82 O TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)

PAGE I.*3.3 Evaluation of Piping and Equipment I-6 I.3.3.1 NSSS Piping and Components I-6 I.3.3.1.1 Conclusion I-6 I.3.3.2 Balance of Plant (BOP) Piping I-6 I.3.3.2.1 Response Spectra Comparisons I-6 I.3.3.2.2 Evaluation I-8 I.3.3.2.3 Conclusion I-8 I.3.3.3 BOP Equipment and HVAC Ductwork I-9 I.3.3.3.1 Method of Evaluation I-9 I.3.3.3.2 Conclusion I-9 I.4 VENT LATERAL LOAD I-9 I.4.1 Load Definition I-9 I.4.2 Evaluation of Downcomer Vents and Bracing System I-10 I.4.2.1 Load Combination I-10 I.4.2.2 Acceptance Criteria I-ll I.4.2.3 Analysis I-ll I.4.2.3.1 Analysis for Single-Vent Lateral Load I-11 I.4.2.3.2 Analysis for Multiple-Vent Lateral Load I-12 r- I.4.3 Conclusion I-12

'v}

I.5 DIAPHRAGM REVERSE PRESSURE LOAD I-12 I.5.1 Load Definition I-12 I.5.2 Evaluation of Drywell Floor I-13 I.5.2.1 Load Combination I-13 I.5.2.2 Analysis I-13 I.S.2.3 Critical Design Sections and Acceptance Criteria I-14 I.S.2.4 Assessment I-14 I.S.3 Conclusion I-14 I6 REFERENCES I-14 1

O

vii (Cont'd)

LSCS-MARK II DAR Rev. 10 9/82 O LIST OF TABLES NUMBER TITLE PAGE 1.0-1 Mark II Containment Supporting Program:

LOCA-Related Tasks 1.0-4 1.0-2 Mark II Containment Supporting Program:

SRV-Related Tasks 1.0-6 1.0-3 Mark II Containment Supporting Program:

Miscellaneous Tasks 1.0-7 1.1-1 Primary Containment Principal Design Para-meters and Characteristics. 1.1-2 3.1-1 Functional Capability Acceptance Criteria (Equation 9 of NB-3652 and NC-3652) 3.1-6 3.1.la Alternate Criteria for Functional Capability (Equation 9 of NB-3652 and NC-3652) 3.1-7 3.4-1 Conformance of the LSCS Design to NUREG-0478 Criteria 3.4-2 4.1-1 Design Load Combinations 4.1-4 4.3-1 LOCA and SRV Design Load Combinations -

Reinforced Concrete Structures Other Than Containment 4.3-3 4.3-2 LOCA and SRV Design Load Combinations -

(')

s- 4.4-1 Structural Steel Elastic Design Load Combinations for BOP Piping 4.3-4 4.4-4

4.4-2 Load Combinations and Allowable Stress Limits for BOP Equipment 4.4-5 4.5-1 Load Combinations and Acceptance Criteria for NSSS Piping and Equipment 4.5-3 5.1-1 Margin Table for Basemat for 2 Valves Discharge 5.1-13 l 5.1-2 Margin Table for Basemat for All Valves Discharge 5.1-14 5.1-3 Margin Table for Basemat for ADS Valves Discharge 5.1-15 5.1-4 Margin Table for Basemat for LOCA Plus

Single SRV 5.1-16 5.1-5 Margin Table for Containment for All valves l Discharge 5.1-17 l

5.1-6 Margin Table for Containment for Asymmetric Discharge 5.1-18

5.1-7 Margin Table for Containment for ADS Valves Discharge 5.1-19 5.1-8 Margin Table for Containment for LCCA Plus Single SRV 5.1-20 5.1-9 Margin Table for Reactor Support for all Valves

) Discharge 5.1-21 i vili F

, - , _ _ - - --y~, , , - - - - , , - - - , , -

LSCS-MARK II DAR Rev. 10 9/82

(]) LIST OF TABLES (Cont'd)

NUMBER TITLE PAGE 5.1-10 Margin Table for Reactor Support for Asymmeteric Discharge 5.1-22 5.1-11 Margin Table for Reactor Support for ADS Valves Discharge 5.1-23 5.1-12 Margin Table for Reactor Support for LOCA Plus Single SRV 5.1-24 5.1-13 Margin Table for Drywell Floor and SRV and LOCA Loads 5.1-25 5.1-14 Margin Table for Suppression Pool Column 5.1-26 5.2-1 Summary of Containment Wall Liner Plate Stresses / Strains for All SRV Cases 5.2-5 5.2-2 Summary of Containment Wall Liner Anchorage Load / Displacement for All SRV Cases 5.2-6 5.3-1 LOCA and SRV Design Load Comoinations Reinforced Concrete Structures Other Than Containment 5.3-10 5.3-2 LOCA and SRV Design Load Combinations rS Structural Steel Elastic Design 5.3-11

\_/ 5.3-3 Capability of Concrete (Other Than Containment) and Steel Structures 5.3-12 6.2-1 Plant Parameters 6.2-6 6.2-2 Pool Temperature Analysis Results 6.2-7 7.2-1 Retested HVAC Equipment 7.2-3 8.2-1 Margin Factors for Containment During Maximum Transient Condition 8.2-2 E-1 Comparison of Natural Frequencies Obtained by DYSEA E-5 E-2 Comparison of Maximum Loads Obtained by DYSEA E-6 H.4-1 Margin Table for Base Mat for ADS Valves Discharge H-14 l H.4-2 Margin Table for Base Mat for LOCA l

Plus Single SRV H-15 l l H.4-3 Margin Table for Containment for ADS Valves Discharge H-16 l H.4-4 Margin Table for Containment for LOCA Plus Single SRV H-17 H.4-5 Margin Table for Reactor Support for ADS Valves Discharge H-18 H.4-6 Margin Table for Reactor Support for LOCA Plus Single SRV H-19 l H.4-7 Margin Table for Drywell Floor l for SRV and LOCA Loads H-20 t

() H.4-8 Subsystem 1 Modal Frequencies and Participation Factors H-21 I

ix

O tscs-a^ax 11 o^a aev- to 9/82 LIST OF TABLES (Cont'd)

NUMBER TITLE PAGE H.4-9 Subsystem 2 Modal Frequencies and Participation Factors H-23 H.4-10 Subsystem 3 Modal Frequencies and Participation Factors H-24 H.4-ll Comparison cf Restraint Reactions for Subsystem 1 H-25 H.4-12 Comparison of Elbow Stresses for Subsystem 1 H-26 H.4-13 Comparison of Restraint Reactions for Subsystem 2 H-27 H.4-14 Comparison of Elbow Stresses for Subsystem 2 H-28 H.4-15 Comparison of Restraint Reactions for Subsystem 3 H-29 H.4-16 Comparison of Elbow Stresses for Sybsystem 3 H-30 H.4-17 Subsystem RH Modal Frequencies and Participation Factors H-31 q(.- H.4-18 Subsystem RH Modal Frequencies and Participation Factors H-32 H.4-19 Comparison of Restraint Reactions for Subsystem RH-36 H-33 H.4-20 Comparison of Stresses for Subsystem RH-36 H-34 H.4-21 Comparison of Restraint Reactions for Subsystem RH-42 H-35 H.4-22 Comparison of Stresses for Subsystem RH-42 H-36 H.4-23 Comparison of Mode Point Stresses for Subsystem RH-42 H-37 I.3-1 Base Mat Margin for ADS Valve Discharge I-15 1.3-2 Base Mat Margin for LOCA Plus Single SRV I-16 I.3-3 Containment Margin for ADS Valve Discharge I-17 I.3-4 Containment Margin for LOCA Plus Single SRV I-18 I.3-5 Reactor Support Margin for ADS Valve Discharge I-19 I.3-6 Reactor Support Margin for LOCA Plus Single SRV I-20 I.3-7 Drywell Floor Margin for SRV and

() LOCA loads I-21 X

LSCS-MARK II DAR Rev. 10 9/82 rm b LIST OF FIGURES (Cont'd)

NUMBER TITLE Q20.58-1 Experimental Data as Compared to Computer Code Prediction Q20.58-2 Comparison of Computer Code with EPRI Test Data, Water Velocity vs. Time Q20.58-3 Comparison of Computer Code with EPRI Test Data, Water Level vs. Time Q20.58-4 Pool Surface Position vs. Time Q20.58-5 Pool Surface Velocity vs. Time Q20.58-6 Pool Surface Velocity vs. Position Q20.58-7 Air Slug and Wetwell Pressure Q20.71-1 Pool Surface Elevation - Run 36 Q20.71-2 Pool Surface Elevation - Run 37 Q20.71-3 Pool Surface Velocity - Run 36 Q20.71-4 Pool Surface Velocity - Run 37 Q20.71-5 Bubble Pressure - Run 36 Q20.71-6 Bubble Pressure - Run 37 Q20.75-1 Multiple Main Vent Chugging Load Factor C-1 LOCA Air Clearing Velocity C-2 LOCA Air Clearing Acceleration C-3 Top View of 36' Sector of a Typical Mark II

(-}

\_- Suppression Pool C-4 Schematic View of Section A-A of Typical Mark II Suppression Pool C-5 Model/ Data Comparisons C-6 Cylinder Locations C-7 Flow Around Unequal Cylinders C-8 Top and Side view of Structure and Source Locations C-9 Location of Horizontal Submerged Structure in the Suppression Pool l C-10 Top and Side View of (Second) Structure and Source i Location C-ll Location of Vertical Cub"erqcd Structure in the Suppression Pool C-12 Horizontal Component of Velocity Along a Structure Segmented Into 4, 8 and 32 Sections C-13 Vertical Component of Acceleration t.long a Structure Segmented Into 4, 8 and 32 Sections C-14 Radial Component of Velocity Along a Structure Segmented Into 4, 6, 8 and 32 Sections C-15 Radial Component of Acceleration Along a Structural Segmented Into 4, 6, 8 and 32 Sections E-1 Lumped-Mass Model of RPV, Internals =nd Reactor Building H.4-38 Subsystem RH-36 Geometry Plot H.4-39 Subsystem RH-42, 24-Inch Strainer Geometry Plot l

() H.4-40 H.4-41 Fundamental Frequency Distribution Subsystems RH-48 and RH-49 Front View l I.3-1 Pressure on Pool Boundary - Symmetric Case ,

l I.3-2 Response Spectra Locations I.3-3 Response Spectra Comparisons l xiii

e LSCS-MARK II DAR Rev. 10 9/82

() TABLE 3.1-1 FUNCTIONAL CAPABILITY ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA (Equation 9 of NB-3652 and NC-3652)

For all piping and classes, D/t < 50, where D = Outside Diameter t = Wall Thickness i Class 1 Piping for tees and branch connections, Service Level D l all other piping, Service Level C 2 l Class 2, 3 Piping for tees and branch connections, Service Level C for elbows,3 Service Level B l or Service Level C when 0.8B 2 is substituted for 0.75i and the lower of 1.8 S h r 1.5 S y is used for Service Level C allowable.

l l for curved and straight pipe, and all other piping, Service Level B for piping where Dg /t > 50, B 26, and B2r are divided by 2'

! (1.3-0.006 D/t) (1.033-0.00033 T) for ferritic material, and (1.3-0.006 D/t) for other materials.

f-- ~ -~ 7 1aere~1aEea~c~;e7enecriterieiaredte31-1eweeesea.

O I For austenitic steel use 1.5 S for Service Level C limit l and 2.0 S for Service Level D Ylimit.

3 Y For elbows where h < 0.25, B may be set equal to zero and B equal to 0.67 C 7 1 l 2 2 31d-3

LSCS-MARK II DAR Rev. 10 9/82 TABLE 3.1-la Os ALTERNATE CRITERIA FOR FUNCTIONAL CAPABILITY (Equation 9 of NB-3652 and NC-3652)

ALLOWABLE STRESS IN VARIOUS CODE SERVICE LEVEL (a) For Class 1 Piping B +B I" m Equation B) 1 2t 2Z NB-3652 LOADING CONDITIONS VALUE OF TERM "a S,"

CORRESPONDING TO TEES & BRANCH OTHER CODE SERVICE LEVEL CONNECTIONS COMPONENTS Design 2.0 S y 1.5 S y

A 2.0 S 1.5 S y y B 2.0 S 1.5 S y

C 2.0 S 1.5 S y

D 2.0 S 1.5 S 0 Y Y (b) For Class 2/3 Piping D

max I# 0S Equation (9) 0.5 + 0.75i h 2t n

Z NC/ND-3652.2 LOADING CONDITIONS CORRESPONDING TO VALUE OF TERM "S Sh "

CODE SERVICE LEVEL ALL COMPONENTS Design 1.5 S y

A 1.5 S y

i B 1.5 S Y

l C 1.5 S i Y D 1.5 S Y

l Reference GE Topical Report " Functional Capability Criteria for 1 O 8 eatie1 ser* 11 eietas a8Do - 21985, ana Memoranaum erom J. P. Knight to R. L. Tedesco, Subject, " Evaluation of Topical Report - Piping Functional Capability Report."

3.1-7 l

J LSCS-MARK II DAR Rev. 10 9/82 O of responses at other locations. The spectra for the points on Figure H.4-1 are shown in Figures H.4-2 through H.4-34.

H.4.4.2 Exceedance Evaluations To investigate the effects of a spectra input that contains high-frequency components, the subsystem being analyzed must have an appropriate mathematical model and a wide range of frequencies. The subsystems shown in Figures H.4-35 through H.4-37 were selected for evaluation. To accurately predict high-frequency recponse,. detailed lumped mass models, including support stiffness effects, were constructed. Subsystems 1, 2, and 3, shown in Figures H.4-35 through H.4-37, were modeled with 108, 90, and 56 modal points, respectively. The modal frequencies and participation factors for the excitations in the X, Y, Z directions are presented in Tables H.4-8 through l

{} H.4-10 for the three subsystems. All three subsystems had their first modal frequency under 10 Hz and their final modal frequency above 99 Hz. Also, all three subsystems exhibited response contributions from a wide range of frequencies. The input response spectra for these subsystems was the vertical and horizontal spectra giving the worst exceedances, speci-l fically the vertical response spectrum at location 266 and t

the horizontal response spectrum at location 227.

Comparison of Responses The results of the analyses using the current design basis spectra and the 4TCO load spectra are compared by computing the percent variation of the 4TCO load results with respect to the current design basis results. The responses compared are the restraint reactions and the elbow stresses. The restraint reactions were chosen because they are generally more sensitive to high-frequency response and generally have a lower design

[]} margin. The elbow stresses were chosen because pipe stresses are highest at the elbows.

H-ll

LSCS-MARK II DAR Rev. 10 9/82 (A

_) Tables H.4-ll and H.4-12 compare the restraint reactions and elbow stresses respectively for Subsystem 1. The reactions and stresses are always lower for the 4TCO load response:

reactions are lower by 4% to 58% and stresses are lower by 17% to 51%. Tables H.4-13 and H.4-14 compare the reactions and stresses for Subsystem 2. The reactions and stresses are always lower for the 4TCO load response: reactions are lower by 15% to 50% and stresses by 37% to 48%. Tables H.4-15 and H.4-16 compare the reactions and stresses for Subsystem 3.

Again, the reactions and stresses are always lower for the 4TCO load response: reactions are lower by 36% to 48% and stresses by 33% to 42%.

From the worst-case comparisons shown, it is concluded that the 4TCO load yields a tower response than or, at best, equal to the current design basis load. In conclusion, the higher, high-frequency response is more than compensated for by the D)

(. decreased responses in the lower frequency regions.

H.4.4.3 High Frequency Subsystems in Wetwell The subsystems with the highest fundamental frequencies are the portions of the ECCS discharge and suction piping located in the wetwell. Their high fundamental frequencies result from the fact that these subsystems are relatively short and are rigidly supported. Two of these subsystems, RH-36 and RH-42, were chosen to compare the analysis effects resulting from utilizing the 4TCO load spectra versus the design basis spectra. Geometry plots of these subsystems are shown in Figures H.4-38 and H.4-39.

Their dynamic characteristics (modal frequencies and partici-pation factors) are presented in Tables H.4-17 and H.4-18.

These subsystems were analyzed for 4TCO loads using the hori-zontal and vertical spectra for location 227.

() Note that subsystems located in the wetwell may be loaded by submerged structure, and pool swell and fallback (PSF) loads in H-12

LSCS-MARK II DAR Rev. 10 9/82

() addition to response spectra loads. Subsystem RH-36 is loaded by all three of the loadings and Subsystem RH-43 is loaded by only submerged structure and response spectra loads (the elevation of RH-42 is below the elevation of the downcomer exits and therefore it is not affected by PSF).

Comparison of Responses The results of the analyses using the current design basis spectra and the 4TCO load spectra are compared by computing the percent variation of the 4TCO load results from the current design basis results. The parameters compared are restraint reactions and node point stresses.

Tables H.4-19 and H.4-20 compare the restraint reactions and node point stresses, respectively, for Subsystem RH-36. The design l basis restraint reactions are not affected by the 4TCO loads. This !

() is because the bounding loads do not involve chugging or CO; PSF loadings result in the bounding load case. For the same reason most of the design stresses, including the largest magnitude stress, are not af f ected. For several locations (node points 14 l through 20) chugging and CO do influence the bounding stresses.

The stresses at all but one of these locations decreased, with the increase being only 0.29%.

Tables H.4-21 and H.4-22 compare the restraint reactions and node point stresses, respectively, for Subsystem RH-42. For this subsystem chugging and CO do influence the bounding loads (RH-42 is not loaded by PSF). As the tables illustrate both the restraint reactions and node point stresses decrease as a result of utilizing the 4TCO spectra.

The above subsystems were chosen, because of their high fundamental frequencies, to assess the effects of analyzing to the 4TCO chugging

() and CO response spectra. These subsystems were not adversely affected by the 4TCO spectra and the design basis is chown to be conservative.

H-12a

LSCS-MARK II DAR Rev. 10 9/82 O H.4.4.4 High Frequency Subsystems Outside Wetwell A survey of the fundamental frequencies was made of all sub-systems penetrating the containment wall below elevation 730 feet.

The distribution of these subsystems is shown in Figure H.4-40.

The two high frequency subsystems found are part of the RHR safety relief discharge piping as shown in Figure H.4-41.

They are almost identically routed, consist of approximately 8 feet of 2-inch schedule 80 piping, and have no supports.

The highest ratios of calculated stress to allowable stress of Equation 9 are shown in Table H.4-23. These stresses must be increased 9 times in order to exceed the Code allowables.

Considering the low stress levels in these subsystems, and that using a time history analynis will reduce the impact of the high 4TCO response spectra, the current stress analyses of these subsystems are suf fic: ent to show their adequacy to withstand the increased 4TCO loads at the 698 foot elevation.

I 1

l (2) l H-126 l

LSCS-MARK II DAR Rev. 10 9/82 O

TABLE H.4-17 .

1 SUBSYSTEM RH MODAL FREQUENCIES AND PARTICIPATION FACTORS MODE FREQUENCY PARTICIPATION FACTORS NUMBER Hz X Y Z 1 26.25 -1.008 0.000 -0.732 2 27.57 0.715 -0.332 -0.984 3 69.58 0.029 1.388 -0.040 4 80.77 0.171 0.000 0.124 l

5 93.19 0.465 -0.000 0.338 i 6 103.30 0.424 0.499 -0.583 7 137.36 0.632 -0.000 0.458 i

() 8 152.43 0.508 -0.184 -0.701 9 199.20 0.574 -0.000 0.416 10 246.30 -0.517 -0.101 0.714 11 282.48 -0.663 0.000 -0.480 12 330.03 0.029 0.730 -0.040 13 335.57 0.113 -0.000 0.084 14 353.35 0.058 -0.138 -0.083 l 15 392.15 0.522 0.000 0.377 l

l t

i I

O H-31

(

LSCS-MARK II DAR Rev. 10 9/82 O

TABLE H.4-18 SUBSYSTEM RH MODAL FREQUENCIES AND PARTICIPATION FACTORS MODE FREQUENCY PARTICIPATION FACTORS NUMBER Hz X Y Z l 18.76 1.579 1.169 -2.248 2 19.35 -2.479 0.001 -1.739 3 77.40 0.480 -2.860 -0.686 4 113.76 0.769 -0.000 0.537 5 178.89 1.681 -0.291 -2.409 6 222.22 1.943 0.043 1.362 7 223.21 0.230 -2.490 -0.257

() 8 330.03 -0.525 -0.957 0.749 9 374.53 -0.841 -0.000 -0.589 10 456.62 0.021 0.078 -0.029 11 456.62 -0.131 0.000 -0.088 12 561.79 0.117 -0.398 -0.166 13 578.03 -0.417 -0.279 0.;90 l 14 595.23 0.178 0.000 0.122 15 606.06 -0.009 0.632 0.004 O

H-32

LSCS-MARK II DAR Rev. 10 9/82 O

TABLE H.4-19 COMPARISON OF RESTRAINT REACTIONS FOR SUBSYSTEM RHe36 MODE DESIGN REVISED VARIATION NUMBER DIRECTION (lbf) (lbf) (%)

(Resultant) 5 14,160 14,160 00 9 X 3,495 3,495 00 9 Y 48,286 48,286 00 25C X 10,159 10,159 00 25C Y 302 302 00 25C Z 180 180 00 25R X 10,243 10,243 00 0 25R Y 302 302 00 25R Z 178 178 00 1

O H-33

LSCS-MARK II DAR Rev. 10 9/82 TABLE H.4-20 COMPARISON OF STRESSES FOR SUBSYSTEM RH-36 STRESSES AT NODE POINTS MODE DESIGN REVISED VARIATION NUMBER (psi) (psi) (5) 5 15,902 15,902 00 6 3,000 3,000 00 7 6,767 6,767 00 8 13,656 13,656 00 9 20,309 20,309 00 10A 14,993 14,993 00 10B 12,636 12,636 00 11 9,085 9,085 00 12 9,429 9,429 00 13 9,475 9,475 00 14 8,934 8,703 -2.58 l

l 15 8,516 8,541 0.29 16 9,570 9,418 -1.59 17 10,348 10,004 -3.32 18 11,139 10,795 -3.09 19 11,201 10,910 -2.59 20 9,850 9,709 -1.43 21 7,441 7,441 00 25 5,914 5,914 00 27 4,422 4,422 00 35 984 984 00 40 984 984 00 O

H-34

- . .- . . _ - . - . . _ _ _ _ . . - - . - ~ . . .-. . -_

i

. - LSCS-MARK II DAR Rev. 10 9/82 TABLE H.4-20 i

COMPARISON OF STRESSES FOR SUBSYSTEM RH-36 i

STRESSES AT NODE POINTS MODE DESIGN REVISED VARIATION -

NUMBER (psil_ (psi) (5) 5 15,902 15,902 00 >

6 3,000 3,000 00 7 6,767 6,767 00 8 13,656 13,656 00 9 20,309 20,309 00 10A 14,993 14,993 00 12,636 00 10B 12,636

- 11 9,085 9,085 00 12 9,429 9,429 00 l 13 9,475 9,475 00 14 8,934 8,703 -2.58 15 8,516 8,541 0.29 16 9,570 9,418 -1.59 17 10,348 10,004 -3.32 18 11,139 10,795 -3.09 19 11,201 10,910 -2.59 20 9,850 9,709 -1.43 21 7,441 7,441 00 25 5,914 5,914 00 27 4,422 4,422 00 35 984 984 00 40 984 984 00 O

H-34

LSCS-MARK II DAR Rev. 10 9/82 P

TABLE H.4-21 COMPARISON OF RESTRAINT REACTIONS FOR SUBSYSTEM RH-42 5

MODE DESIGN REVISED VARIATION NUMBER DIRECTION (lbf) (lbf) (t) 5 (Resultant) 53,491 52,518 -1.82 9 X 35,131 31,155 -11.31 9 Y 60,584 60,461 -0.20 0

1 O -

H-35

Q LSCS-MARK II DAR Rev. 10 9/82 TABLE H.4-22 COMPARISON OF STRESSES FOR SUBSYSTEM RH-42 STRESSES AT NODE POINTS MODE DESIGN REVISED VARIATION NUMBER (psi) (psi) (5) 5 10,694 9,563 -10.57 6 6,739 5,977 -11.31 7 8,532 7,853 -7.96 8 11,472 10,799 -5.86 9 13,893 13,627 -1.91 10A 19,390 18,982 -2.10 10X 13,140 12,843 -6.25 10B 6,076 5,696 -6.25 15 3,042 2,917 -4.11

O H-36

l O O O j '

l TABLE H.4-23 j COMPARISON OF NODE POINT STRESSES FOR SUBSYSTEM RH-42 i

i i

STRESS -

EQ. 9 ALLOWABLES EQ. 9 STRESSES RATIO ALLOWABLE 1

SUBSYSTEM S.L.B S.L.C S.L.B S.L.C S.L.B A.L.C t

j RH-48 18,000 27,000 1,833 3,040 0.102 0.113 y i n tn

. 8 i _ RH-49 18,000 27,000 1,918 3,160 0.107 0.117

H H

C l 8 J

t 1 ,

I o l

M '

i

Rev. 10 9/82 O

I

(

O L

I I E ,

M g M - M E_.a# - n 5 n

. =. =. m. . =. =. =. u. E. .J i

LA SALLE COUNTY STATION l MARK ll DESIGN ASS ESSM ENT REPORT O nocRe H.4-38 SUBSYSTEM RH-36 GE0 METRY PLOT

Rev. 10 9/82 O

.k t t t t t- i-i 1 8

c:

!iE =

33 5

8m O ! ig m c:

1 LA SALLE COUNTY STATION MARK 11 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT FIGURE H,4-39 SUBSYSTEM RH-42, 24-INCH STRAINER

} GEOMETRY PLOT

O O O 18 17 16 15 14 13 g 12 uJ H 11 en M

m 10

=s 9 en

u. 8 7

i 2

z r 9 6

$5 E

x 5 x

9

-i

- M

> 4 p grr 3 n

2 5 ,m 5 2 E

c 5

m z o

>O 1

' E z *c Q b.

Z 0 0+5 5+10 10+15 15+20 O 4 . 4 W 20+25 >25 E

n E

l4m>

-4 FIRST FREQUENCY -

HERTZ g

c m -4 <

m

O

8 m 2 a

n

Rev.10 9/82 O 4WR i PO i p5 b

d Fo !il 5

5 I

O s" e 0 l

l

_ x

! i 5 l

l l

l

%NK F

i LA SALLE COUNTY STATION MARK 11 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT FIGURE H.4-41 SUBSYSTEMS RH-48 AND RH-49 FRONT VIEW

O LSCS-MARK II DAR Rev. 10 9/82 I.0 CONFIRMATORY ASSESSMENT AGAINST NUREG-0808 LOADS I.1 INTRODUCTION Mark II power plants were originally designed to loss of coolant accident (LOCA) loads that included pressure and temperature loads, hydrodynamic loads due to water in the suppression chamber and jet impingement loads. Later, during General Electric (GE) Company's test in its Pressure Suppres-sion Test Facility (PSTF), additional LOCA loads were iden-tified. These included the short-term dynamic loads due to the drywell air / steam mixture being pushed through the downcomer vents and discharged into the suppression pool.

Once these loads were identified, the Mark II Owners Group Program was set up to examine the characteristics of these loads through test programs and by analytical models, and to define an acceptable design basis load definition. The pro-gram schedule, however, did not meet the needs of the licensing schedule of the La Salle County Station (LSCS). The needs of LSCS, as one of the lead Mark II plants, were then met by establishing a conservative LOCA load for the design O basis. This load has been documented in Section 3.3 of the LSCS Design Assessment Report (DAR). While most of the LOCA load definitions provided by the Mark II Owners Group Lead Plant Program were already included in the LSCS design basis, the definitions for the condensation oscillation (CO) and chugging loads were established later based on the 4TCO test results. As soon as the load definitions for CO and chugging loads became available, an assessment j for these loads was made and the LSCS design adequacy was confirmed. The documentation for this assessment has been provided in Appendix H of the LSCS DAR.

Finally, when the Mark II Owners Group completed its long-term program, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued the generic load definitions as documented in NUREG-0808, (Reference 1). Acknowledging that the LSCS, as the Mark II lead plant, had already been reviewed against the accep-tance criteria identified in NUREG-0487 and its Supplements 1 and 2 (Reference 2), the NRC requested that LSCS perform a confirmatory assessment against selected generic loads l specified in NUREG-0808. These selected loads are the conden-l sation oscillation load, chugging load, vent lateral load, and the diaphragm reverse pressure load (Reference 3).

This Appendix documents the results of the requested assess-ment and confirms that LSCS can adequately accommodate the

() NUREG-0808 loads.

l I-1

LSCS-MARK II DAR Rev. 10 9/82 O

I.2 CONDENSATIGM OSCILLATION , LOAD I.2.1 Load Definition The NUREG-0808 condensation oscillation (CO) load definition is based on the 4TCO test data. This load definition consists of two cases, the basic CO load and the CO load combination with automatic depressurization system (ADS) loads. Each of these two cases is described by a set of measured pressure-time histories selected so that the maximum power spectral density (PSD) observed for all applicable 4TCO test runs is bounded. As provided in NUREG-0808, the set of 4TCO test runs applicable to LSCS is determined from the complete set of the 4TCO test runs by excluding from it those test runs for which the pool temperature exceeded the LSCS bounding temperature.

The CO laods were also adjusted for the differences in the geometry of the 4T test facility and LSCS.

I.2.2 Evaluation of Containment, Pipinq and Equipment The NUREG-0808 CO load definition is identical to the LSCS lead plant load definition. The results of the plant assess-ment for the containment, piping and equipment for the lead

(') plant load definition have been documented in Appendix H.

I.2.3 Conc lu sion The NUREG-0808 CO load, which is identified to the LSCS lead plant load, has already been assessed and documented in Appen-dix H. The LSCS design can accommodate the NUREG-0808 CO loads.

I.3 CHUGGING LOAD I.3.1 Load Definition The NUREG-0808 chugging load definition for LSCS application is based on ten acoustic design sources inferred from the 4TCO data (Reference 4). These design sources are applied to the IWEGS/ MARS acoustic model (Reference 5) of the suppression pool to obtain the forcing functions. Each of the design sources is applied, one at a time, desynchronized to all vents in the suppression pool. The set of chug start times used is the one set having the smallest variance in 1000 Monte Carlo trials which were drawn from a uniform distribution of start times having a width of 50 msec. The start times are randomly assigned to the vents. The rigid-wall method is used in determining the suppression pool boundary pressures O from the point design sources; fluid structure interactions are taken into account in the structural analytical models.

I-2

__ _~ _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . . -

j LSCS-MARK II DAR Rav. 10 9/82 O

Two design chugging load cases are determined: the symmetric i . chugging load case and the asymmetric chugging load case.

' The difference between the two cases is in the design source <

strength. For the symmetric chugging load case, the design source strength is that inferred from the 4TCO test data.

For the asymmetry chugging load case, the asymmetry is obtained by determining a design moment axis and then adjusting the source strengths, used in the symmetric case, by the factor 1

(1+a) on one side of the design moment axis and by the factor (1-a) on the other side of the design moment axis. The method determination of the design moment axis and the parameter is based on plant specific data (Reference 5).

3 The methodology described above was used to calculate point pressure histories on the LSCS suppression pool boundary.

A typical pressure history is shown in Figure I.3-1. A sensi-tivity study was performed to determine the necessary number of pressure points on the suppression pool boundary resulting

. in a good representation of the pressure distribution on the 3-boundary at any time during the chugging transient.

I.3.2 Evaluation of Containment

() I.3.2.1 Containment and Internal concrete Structures The containment and internal concrete structures were re-evaluated for the pool dynamic loads to include the NUREG-0808 chugging loads. The load combinations considered and the details of the analysis and reevaluation are summarized below.

I.3.2.1.1 Load Combinations The containment and internal concrete structures were assessed '

for the applicable load combinations discussed in Section 4.0 and presented in Table 4.1-1.

The load categories considered for the assessment of the NUREG-0808 chugging loads include the following:

a. abnormal loads,

b. abnormal loads with severe environmental loads, and

c. abnormal loads with extreme environmental loads.

(

l I-3 m - - - - - , , ,,, .,,,,.r..~.,- - . , , ,,e%. ,_2 . . - - . -y.e.,..y,&,. ...-.,w.------y-+ = . 37.,,-,,vy-- r ---,y- - , , y,,_r,-Fr- r

LSCS-MARK II DAR Rev. 10 9/82 wJ The modes of SRV actuations considered for this assessment are:

SRV-ADS - Automatic depressurization actuation of seven valves SRV-Asymmetric - Actuation of three adjacent valves SRV-Single - Actuation of one valve.

The NUREG-0808 chugging loads are defined in Subsection I.3.1.

Other LOCA loads that were considered for the assessment and the manner in which they are combined are discussed in Section 4.1.

I.3.2.1.2 Analysis for Chugging Loads The forcing functions for the chugging loads used in this analysis are defined in Subsection I.3.1.

The analytical model used in the analysis for the chugging loads is similar to that described in Subsection 5.1.1. A time history analysis was performed for each load case by the direct integration method using Sargent & Lundy's axisym-metric finite element computer program DYNAX described in Appendix A.

p#

The resulting structural responses are combined with other appropriate loads as per load combinations described in Subsec-tion I.3.2.1.1. The margin factors from the load combinations are presented in Tables I.3-1 through I.3-7.

Acceleration time-histories obtained from the analysis were then used to compute respor.se spectra for subsystem and equip-ment assessment at selected locations within the reactor building using the computer program RSG described in Appendix A.

I.3.2.1.3 Critical Design Sections and Acceptance Criteria The containment and internal concrete structures have been reevaluated for the NUREG-0808 chugging loads in addition to other appropriate loads described in Subsection I.3.2.1.1.

The critical design sections considered are described in Subsec-tion 5.1.4.1. The acceptance criteria are the same as described in Section 4.1.

I.3.2.1.4 Design Forces and Margin Factors The design forces for the critical sections were obtained by combining the peak effects of all the loads by the ABS (3 method. The stresses at the critical design sections were

(/ obtained using computer program TEMCO IV described in Appendix A.

I-4

(} LSCS-MARK II DAR Rev. 10 9/82 Margin factors, defined as the ratio between the allowable stress and the actual stress in the section, were computed for each design section. If any of the loads (such as temper-ature) other than dead load reduced the design forces, it was deleted from the load combination to obtain the most conser-vative margin factor.

Margin factors for the basemat, containment wall, reactor support and drywell are reported in the following tables:

a. Basemat - Tables I.3-1 and I.3-2

b. Containment wall - Tables I.3-3 and I.3-4

c. Reactor support - Tables I.3-5 and I.3-6, and

d. Drywell floor - Table I.3-7.

Even though a few of the margins reported in the tables are close to 1.0, it must be emphasized that conservative loads and analysis procedures were used in the assessment in order to expeditiously verify the adequacy of the structure for

() the pool dynamic loads. Therefore, the margins reported are the most conservative. The actual margins will be higher than reported.

I.3.2.1.5 Conclusion The containment and internal concrete structures have been evaluated for the NUREG-0808 chugging loads. The evaluation shows that the LSCS design of the containment and internal concrete structures can accommodate the NUREG-0808 chugging loads, l

I.3.2.2 other Structural Components Other structural components, such as, cable pan and cone.uit hangers, pipe support auxiliary steel and structural steel galleries have also been evaluated against the NUREG-0808 chugging load.

I.3.2.2.1 Evaluation The evaluation for the NUREG-08Ct chugging load was performed by replacing the design basis chugging load by the NUREG-0808 l

chugging load in the load combination. The results of this i evaluation show that the response of the aforementioned com-ponents are bounded by the LSCS design basis response in all

(~)'

'- but one location. Only the horizontal response at this I-5 1

~

LSCS-MARK II DAR Rev. 10 9/82 b,,

location, containment wall at elevation 694 feet 6 inches, exceeds the design basis response. But the exceedance occurs at higher frequencies (25 Hz and above) and affects the member design in the axial direction, which is insignificant.

I.3.2.2.2 Conclusion Based on the evaluation of the NUREG-0808 chugging load, it is concluded that all structural components are adequately designed, and that the NUREG-0808 chugging load does not affect the design basis.

I.3.3 Evaluation of Fiping and Equipment I.3.3.1 NSSS Piping and Components The NSSS piping and components under GE's responsibility have been designed on the basis of the same loading inputs which have been used for the balance of plant structures, piping and other components. Since 4TCO and the design basis chugging load generally bounds the NUREG-0808 chugging load, as discussed in Subsections I.3.3.2 and I.3.3.3.2, the NSSS piping and components are adequately designed against the NUREG-0808 chugging load.

I.3.3.1.1 Conclusion The NSSS piping and components are adequately designed against the NUREt-0808 chugging load.

I.3.3.2 Balance of Plant (BOP) Piping The NUREG-0808 generic chugging load is defined in Subsection I.3.1. The BOP piping and equipment were reassessed for NUREG-0808 chugging using the design basis load combinations listed in Subsection I.3.3.2.1 with the NUREG-0808 chugging replacing the design basis chugging. Since any exceedances over the design basis due to 4TCO loads have already been evaluated in Appendix H, this evaluation will only concern itself with areas where the 4TCO loads have been exceeded.

I.3.3.2.1 Response Spectra Comparisons At selected locations within the reactor building, three response spectra envelopes were plotted and compared. The model and the locations where responses are compared are shown in Figure I.3-2. The response spectra envelopes are as follows:

a. Design basis load combinations.

( b. Load combination with 4TCO loads.

I-6

LSCS-MARK II DAR Rev. 10 9/82 O

c. Load combination with NUREG-0808 chugging load substituted for the design basis chugging.

1. ENVELOPE OF DESIGN BASIS LOADING COMBINATIONS SRSS of (OBE + SRVADS + CHUG DB I SRSS of (SSE + SRVADS + CHUG DB I

+ Ol DB SRSS of (OBE + SRVALL/ SIN)

SRSS of (SSE + SRVALL/ SIN) + col DB SRSS of (OBE + SRVADS) + CO2 DB SRSS of (SSE + SRVADS) + CO2 DB

2. ENVELOPE OF LOADING COMBINATINS WITH 4TCO LOADS SRSS of (OBE + SRVADS + CHUG 4TCO I SRSS of (SSE + SRVADS + CHUG 4TCO I O sass or (oss + savALL/S1N + co14TCO) 01 SRSS of (SSE + SRVALL/ SIN + 4TCO I SRSS of (OBE + SRVADS + CO2 4TCO I SRSS of (SSE + SRVADS + CO2 4TCO I

3. ENVELOPE OF LOADING COMBINATIONS WITH NUREG-0808 CHUGGING SRSS of (OBE + SRVADS + CHUGASYM}

SRSS of (SSE + SRVADS + CHUG ASYM I

SRSS of (OBE + SRVADS + CHUGgyg)

SRSS of (SSE + SRVADS + CHUG SYM I SRSS of (OBE + SRVALL/ SIN + COlDB)

SRSS of (SSE + SRVALL/ SIN + COlDB)

SRSS of (OBE + SRVADS + CO2 DB I SRSS of (SSE + SRVADS + CO2 DB I I-7

,_ LSCS-MARK II DAR Rev. 10 9/82 b

where OBE = Design basis OBE load % dampling.

SSE = Lesign basis SSE load 1% damping.

col = Design basis Col load 2% damping.

DB CO2 = enign basis CO2 load 2% damping.

DB SRVADS - SRV all and asymmetric load enveloping 2% iamping.

SRV = Single valve (or 3 w setpoint)

ALL/ SIN and all valve load enveloping 2% damping.

CHUG = Design basis chugging load 2%

DB damping C01 = 4TCO Test CO load 2% damping.

4TCO m CO2 = 4TCO Test CO2 load 2% damping.

) 4TCO v

CHUG = NUREG-0808 chugging asymmetric ASYM load 2% damping.

CHUG gyg = NUREG-0808 chugging symmetric load 2% damping.

I.3.3.2.2 Evaluation l The response spectra comparisons are shown in Figure I.3-3.

The NUREG-0808 chugging loads were either enveloped by the design basis loads or by the 4TCO loads at all elevations for all frequencies, except at three locations. The NUREG-i 0808 chugging curves exceed the design basis and 4TCO at l locations 266, 273 and 285 by a maximum of 0.7 g's at a fre-quency above 35 Hz. These are minor exceedances and do not l require any reanalysis as per Subsection H.4.4, (Appendix H),

which evaluates the 4TCO exceedances over the design basis.

I.3.3.2.3 Conclusion The exceedances due to NUREG-0808 chugging are at high frequen-cies and therefore, similar to the exceedances of the 4TCO loads which were evaluated in Appendix H. Because the justifi-i cation of exceedances in Appendix H is also valid for this f's) evaluation, and because of the small magnitude of the exceedances, the NUREG-0808 chugging loads have no impact on the design of BOP piping.

I-8

LSCS-MARK II DAR Rev. 10 9/82 O

I.3.3.3 BOP Equipment and HVAC Ductwork

] The BOP equipment and HVAC ductwork were reassessed for the NUREG-0808 chugging load using the design basis load combination listed in Subsection 4.4.3 with the NUREG-0808 chugging replacing the design basis chugging.

?

I.3.3.3.1 Method of Evaluation The envelope of the following two load combinations was used for comparison

a. ug)

SRSS of (OBE + SRVADS +

b. SRSS of (SSE + SRVADS + Chug).

The existing design basis chugging loads were replaced by NUREG-0808 generic chugging loads. The damping values were conservatively selected to be 0.5% for OBE and 1% for SSE.

These new response spectra were compared with the design basis .

respons? spectra and the 4TCO combination response spectra. ;

I.3.3.3.2 Conclusion For all elevations where equipment and HVAC ductwork are located, the load con.binations with NUREG-0808 chugging are bounded by either the design basis load combinations or the load combinations using 4TCO loads.

1 Small exceedance of less than 0.lg was found at the reactor building slab elevation 823'6" in the vertical direction and at the primary containment wall elevation 740' in the horizontal

~

direction in the frequency range of 27 Hz through 70 Hz. Equip- '

pment and HVAC ductwork at these two elevations were reviewed and found not to be affected by these exceedances. All equip-l ment and HVAC ductwork are, therefore, qualified for the NUREG-0808 chugging loads.

I.4 VENT LATERAL LOAD l I.4.1 Load Definition The vent lateral load is defined in NUREG-0808 as a dynamic load to be applied at the end of the downcomer vent. Two

load definitions are given for a single downcomer vent lateral The first one is defined as a half-sine wave of duration load.

1 3 to 6 msec and the corresponding amplitude from 30 to 10 s klb g. The forcing function is given as, O (50 -20 I

Fy(t) =

3 ) sin (h) 1 I-9

\

LSCS-MARK II DAR Rev. 10 9/82 O

where F is the force on a single downcomer, t is the time with 0<1t<T, and 3 $ T 5 6 msec.

4 The second load is defined as a half-sine wave of 3 msec duration and the amplitude of 65 kib g. The forcing function is given as, F1(t) = 65 sin (15) 3 0 5 t 5 3 msec.

The above expressions yield the lateral load for a single downcomer vent in klb g.

When a vent lateral load due to a group of downcomers is considered, the multiple vent load per downcomer is defined as a half-sine wave of duration 3 to 6 msec and the corresponding amplitude between 30 and 10 kib g , adjusted for a multi-vent reduction factor M.

The forcing function for this case is given as, O e,(e> . n (50-20 4) sin 93, where Fn is the force per downcomer on a set of n downcomers, and 3 msec 1T5 6 msec and 0 < t it, the multi-vent reduction factor, M, was developed thorugh the Mark II Owners Group program (Reference 6).

I.4.2 Evaluation of Downcomer Vents and Bracing System The downcomer vents and bracing system, which are attached at the top to the drywell floor and at the sides to the suppres-sion pool walls, are reevaluated for the pool dynamic loads to include the dynamic vent lateral loads due to chugging.

A detailed description of the downcomers and downcomer vont bracing is contained in Subsection 5.3.3.1. The load combina- ,

tions considered and the details of the analysis and reeval-uation are summarized below.

I.4.2.1 Load Combinations The downcomer vents and bracing system were assessed for the

() applicable load combinations presented in Table 4.1-1 with the load factors set to unity.

I-10

-~ _ --_ _ .. _ ___. _ _ _ _ , _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ .- - -.

s LSCS-MARK II DAR Rev. 10 9/82 (I

The load categories considered for the assessment of the vent lateral loads include the following:

a. abnormal loads,

b. abnormal loads with severe environmental loads, and

c. abnormal loads with extreme environmental loads.

The SRV discharge loads include air bubble drag loads due to the following modes of actuation:

a. all valve, and

b. single valve subsequent actuation.

The vent lateral loads are defined in Subsection I.4.1. Other loads that were considered for this assessment are discussed in Subsection 5.3.3.2.

I.4.2.2 Acceptance Criteria

( The acceptance criteria used in the assessment of the downcomer vents and bracing system for the vent lateral loads are the same as described in Subsection 5.3.3.4.

! I.4.2.3 Analysis The downcomer vents and bracing system have been analyzed

. for the dynamic vent lateral loads described in Subsection I.4.1.

The analytical models used in this analysis are described in Subsection 5.3.3.5 and presented in Figures 5.3-3 and 5.3-4.

A time history analysis was performed for each load case by the direct integration method using Sargent & Lundy's computer program PIPSYS described in Appendix A. Details of the analysis for the single-vent and multiple-vent lateral loads are summa-rized below.

I.4.2.3.1 Analysis for Single-Vent Lateral Load The downcomers shown in the analytical models (Figures 5.3-3 and 5.3-4) were analyzed for the single-vent, dynamic, lateral loads. The forcing functions are defined in Subsection I.4.1.

The loads were applied at the vent tips conservatively as

() concentrated loads. The direction of application of the loads I-ll

L LSCS-MARK II DAR Rev. 10 9/82

()

! were chosen in order to maximize the effects of the impulse loads on the downcomers.

l The analysis results confirm that the 65-k1bf vent load with r 3 msec duration produces worse effects on the downcomers than i the 30-klbf load with 6 msec duration. The resulting structural :

responses are combined with other maximum loads such as seismic, SRV and chugging drag loads for the evaluation of the downcomers.

, The-forces were combined by ABS method using the appropriate

load combinations discussed in Subsection I.4.2.1.

The response of the bracing system to the single-vent lateral load is bounded by that due to the lateral loads on multiple-4 vent which is discussed in Subsection I.4.2.3.2.

I.4.2.3.2 Analysis for Multiple-Vent Lateral Loads The downcomer vents and bracing system were analyzed for the dynamic lateral loads on multiple vents in order to evaluate the structural response of the bracing system and its support anchorage at the pedestal and containment walls. The forcing i functions for this analysis for Multiple-Vent lateral loads are given in Subsection I.4.1.

!( In the analysis, various groups of downcomers were considered for load application in order to maximize the effects of the i lateral loads on the bracing system and its support anchorage.

For this purpose, all vents in a group were conservatively assumed to chug at the saiae time and experience the same impulse load in the same direction.

~l The resulting maximum structural response to the multiple-vent lateral loads was then combined with other maximum loads

! such as seismic, SRV and chugging drag loads for the evaluation of the bracing system and its support anchorage. The forces

, were combined by ABS method using the appropriate load combina-

tions discussed in Subsection I.4.2.1.

I.4.3 Conclusion i

The downcomer vents, the bracing system and its support anchorage are adeqaute to accommodate the NUREG-0808 chugging induced i vent dynamic lateral loads in spite of the extreme conservatism built in the load specification, methodology and the design load combinations.

I.5 DIAPHRAGM REVERSE PRESSURE LOAD

{} I.5.1 Load Definition The diaphragm reverse pressure load is defined as 5.5 psid in NUREG-0808. For LSCS, the assessment for the diaphragm I-12

LSCS-MARK II DAR Rev. 10 9/82 reverse pressure load is performed at the maximum wetwell airspace pressure. The maximum wetwell airspace pressure is defined as the sum of the drywell pressure, at the end of the pool swell, calculated by General Electric, and the maximum reverse pressure differential across the diaphragm.

The corresponding pressures for LSCS are 29.6 psig for the drywell pressure and 5.5 psid for the maximum diaphragm reverse pressures.

I.S.2 Evaluation of Drywell Floor The drywell floor of the containment was reevaluated for the pool dynamic loads to include the diaphragm reverse pressure loads. The load combinations considered and details of the analysis and reevaluation are summarized below.

I.5.2.1 Load Combination The drywell floor was assessed for the applicable load combina-tions discussed in Section 4.0 and presented in Table 4.1-1.

The load categories considered for the assessment of the diaph-(} ragm reverse pressure load include the following:

a. abnormal loads,

b. abnormal loads with severe environmental loads, and

c. abnormal loads with extreme environmental loads.

t Only the single valve mode of SRV actuations was considered l for this assessment since the diaphragm reverse pressure load l is postulated to result from a design-basis large break accident (DBA).

I.5.2.2 Analysis The magnitudes and nature of the diaphragm reverse pressure load and the corresponding drywell and wetwell pressures used in this analysis are defined in Subsection I.5.1.

The analytical model used in this analysis is similar to that described in Subsection 5.1.1. The containment structure was analyzed for the effects of diaphragm reverse pressure loads statically using Sargent & Lundy's axisymmetric finite element computer program DYNAX described in Appendix A.

3 The resulting drywell floor responses to the diaphragm reverse s) pressure loads are combined with other appropriate loads as per load combinations described in Subsection I.5.2.1.

I-13

LSCS-MARK II DAR Rev. 10 9/82 I.5.2.3 Critical Design Sections and Acceptance Criteria The drywell floor has been reevaluated for the effects of the diaphragm reverse pressure loads in addition to other appropriate loads described in Subsection I.5.2.1.

The critical design sections considered for the drywell floor assessment are described in Subsection 5.1.4.1. The acceptance criteria are the same as described in Section 4.1.

I.5.2.4 Assessment The design forces for the critical sections were obtained by combining the peak effects of all the loads by the ABS method. The stresses in the critical design sections were obtained using computer program TEMCO IV described in Appendix A.

I.5.3 Cpnclusion The stresses for all drywell floor critical design sections were found to be less than allowables for the critical load combinations considered in the assessment. Thus, the results 3 of the assessment confirm the adequacy of the drywell floor to withstand the effects of the NUREG-0808 diaphragm reverse pressure loads in the hypothetical combination of LOCA with one SRV valve actuation.

I.6 REFERENCES

1. " Mark II Containment Program Load Evaluation and Acceptance Criteria," C. Anderson, NUREG-0808, August 1981.

2. " Mark II Containment Lead Plant Program Load Evaluation and Acceptance Criteria," NUREG-0487, October 1978; Sup-plement 1, September 1980; Supplement 2, February 1981.

3. Letter from D. G. Eisenhut, NRC, to L. O. DelGeorge, Common-wealth Edison Company, transmitting NUREG-0808, dated September 24, 1981.

4. General Electric Company, " Generic Chugging Load Definition Report," GE Report NEDE-24302-P, April 1981.

5. General Electric Company, " Mark II Improved Chugging Meth-odology," GE Report NEDE-24822-P, May 1980.

6. Letter from R. H. Buchholz, General Electric, to J. F.

Stolz, NRC,

Subject:

" Mark II Containment Program Method CI of Supplying Mark II Single Vent Dynamic Lateral Loads to Mark II Plant with Multiple Vents," April 9, 1980.

I-14

O O O TABLE I.3-1 BASE MAT MARGIN FOR ADS VALVE DISCHARGE +

(With Plant Unique FSI)

STRESS REINFORCING

! COMPONENT STEEL CONCRETE SHEAR

'i' LOAD COMBINATION MARGIN *

CRITICAL * *

MARGIN CRITICAL MARGIN CRITICAL EQUATION

FACTOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION 1 NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 NA NA NA NA NA NA E l

3 NA NA 0

NA NA NA NA ,!.

H h

sn 4 1.36 2 2.98 2 2.09 2 E 1

4a NA NA NA NA NA NA U

' 0 5 1.18 2 2.57 2 1.65 2 g

)

i Sa NA NA NA NA NA NA 6 NA NA NA NA NA NA 7 1.16 2 2.49 2 1.55 2 7a NA NA NA NA NA NA

?

~ <

NOTES: '

Refer to Table 4.1-1 y

** Margin Factor = Allowable Stress / Actual Stress e

*** Refer to Figure 5.1-15

)

l NA = Not Applicable

+ Asymmetric response is bounded by ADS.

O O O TABLE I.3-1 BASE MAT MARGIN FOR ADS VALVE DISCHARGE +

(With Plant Unique FSI)

STRESS REINFORCING COMPONENT STEEL CONCRETE SHEAR LOAD COMBINATION MARGIN *

CRITICAL * *

MARGIN CRITICAL MARGIN CRITICAL EQUATION

FACTOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION 1 NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 NA NA NA NA NA NA E Pn 3 NA NA NA NA NA NA H

1 E 4 1.36 2 2.98 2 2.09 2 tn E

, 4a NA NA NA NA NA NA U 4

0 5 1.18 2 2.57 2 1.65 2 g Sa NA NA NA NA NA NA 6 NA NA NA NA NA NA 7 1.16 2 2.49 2 1.55 2 7a NA NA NA NA NA NA NOTES: * *

Refer to Table 4.1-1 y

- Margin Factor = Allowable Stress / Actual Stress e

- - Refer to Figure 5.1-15

)

NA = Not Applicable

+ Asymmetric response is bounded by ADS.

O O O TABLE I.3-2 BASE MAT MARGIN FOR LOCA PLUS SINGLE SRV (With Plant Unique FSI)

STRESS REINFORCING I COMPONENT STEEL CONCRETE SHEI.R

, LOAD l COMBINATION MARGIN *

CRITICAL * *

MARGIN CRITICAL MARGIN CRITICAL

! EQUATION

FACTOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION 1 NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 NA NA NA NA NA NA i 3 NA NA NA NA

, NA NA 4 t<

NA NA NA NA NA NA y m

y 4a 1.35 2 3.08 2 2.08 2 5 NA NA NA NA 4 , NA NA N H

Sa 1.17 2 2.62 2 1.61 2 H 6

o NA NA NA NA NA NA $

i 7 NA NA NA NA 1

NA NA 4

7a 1.13 :o

2 2.52 2 1.51 2 Q

g_ -------- ---

w

Refer to Table 4.1-1

- Margin Factor = Allowable Stress / Actual Stress

- - Refer to Figure 5.1-15 "

l NA = Not Applicable

O O O TABLE I.3-3 CONTAINMENT MARGIN FOR ADS VALVE DISCHARGE +

(With Plant Unique FSI)

STRESS REINFORCING COMPONENT STEEL CONCRETE SHEAR LOAD COMBINATION MARGIN *

CRITICAL * *

MARGIN CRITICAL MARGIN CRITICAL EQUATION

FACTOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION 1 NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 NA NA NA NA NA NA 3 NA NA NA NA NA NA [

n 4 4.63 3 2.34 3 1.96 '

5 7

' 7 B s 4a NA NA NA NA NA NA y*

4 5 1.44 16 2.02 1 1.62 16 [

Sa NA NA NA NA NA NA O

o 6 NA Nk NA NA NA NA 7 1.04 16 1.91 1 1.32 16 7a NA NA NA NA NA NA N

NOTES:

~ ~

Refer to Table 4.1-1 g

- Margin Factor = Allowable Stress / Actual Stress

- - Refer to Figure 5.1-15 (

NA = Not Applicable $

+ Asymmetric response is bounded by ADS.

! o o o i

TABLE I.3-4 1 CONTAINMENT MARGIN FOR LOCA PLUS SINGLE SRV (With Plant Unique FSI)

I STRESS REINFORCING i COMPONENT STEEL CONCRETE SHEAR i

! LOAD COMBINATIC N MARGIN *

CRITICAL **

MARGIN CRITICAL MARGIN CRITICAL EQUATION

FACTOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION 1 NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 NA NA NA NA NA NA ,

3 NA NA NA NA NA NA $

! 0

4 NA NA NA NA NA NA l H 3' j ,L 4a 3.80 11 2.16 1 1.93 5 y a m l 5 NA NA NA NA NA NA U 4

i O i 5a 1.36 16 2.05 2 1.47 16 g i

! 6 NA NA ,

NA NA NA NA 7 NA NA NA NA NA HA t I 7a 1.00 16 2.12 1 1.29 16 N

- - - - , - - _ _ _ = = _

NOTES: .

j

Refer to Table 4.1-1 s

O

- Margin Factor = Allowable Stress / Actual Stress

! e

{ *** Refer to Figure 5.1-15 x i

m N

NA = Not Applicable ,

e i

O O O TABLE I.3-5 REACTOR SUPPORT MARGIN FOR ADS VALVE DISCHARGE +

(With Plant Unique FSI)

I l STRESS REINFORCING COMPONENT STEEL CONCRETE SHEAR LOAD COMBINATION MARGIN *

CRITICAL * *

MARGIN CRITICAL MARGIN CRITICAL EQUATION

FACTOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION 1 NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 NA NA NA NA NA NA p tn 3 NA NA NA NA NA NA H 17 4 1.55 4.12 17 3.56 20 $

'

p.

4a NA NA NA NA NA NA g H

5 1.58 20 4.01 17 2.14 17 a Sa NA NA NA NA NA NA 6 NA NA NA NA NA NA 7 1.12 17 3.62 16 1.28 17 i

7a NA NA NA NA N.'. NA NOTES: *

Refer to Table 4.1-1 H O

- Margin Factor = Allowable Stress / Actual Stress e

- - Refer to Figure 5.1-15 g NA = Not Applicable "

+ Asymmetric response is bounded by ADS.

O O O TABLE I.3-6 i

REACTOR SUPPORT MARGIN FOR LOCA PLUS SINGLE SRV (With Plant Unique FSI)

STRESS REINFORCING j COMPONENT STEEL CONCRETE SHEAR

LOAD COMBINATION MARGIN ** CRITICAL ***

MARGIN CRITICAL MARGIN CRITICAL EQUATION

FACTOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION 1 NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 NA NA NA NA NA NA i [

o f 3 NA NA NA NA NA NA y s 4 NA NA NA NA E

NA NA m b

o 4a 1.54 17 4.16 18 3.54 20 H 5 NA NA NA NA NA NA S w

Sa 1.32 17 3.94 17 3.32 20 6 NA NA NA NA NA NA 7 NA NA NA NA NA NA l

7a 1.02 17 3.45 16 1.70 17 o

NOTES:

i

Refer to Table 4.1-1 o"

- Margin Factor = Allowable Stress / Actual Stress e

- - Refer to Figure 5.1-15 D to NT = Not Applicable I

i

.. .- .. -_ .- _ .~. - . .. .- .. -

O O O

-I TABLE I.3-7 DRYWELL FLOOR MARGIN FOR SRV AND LOCA LOADS (Nith Plant Unique FSI) u l STRESS REINFORCING COMPONENT STEEL CONCRETE SHEAR LOAD COMBINATION MARGIN ** CRITICAL *** MARGIN CRITICAL MARGIN CRITICAL EQUATION

FACTOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION 1 NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 NA NA NA NA NA NA t<

3 NA NA NA NA NA NA y 4 1.16 8 2.00 8 1.67 1 B x

Y

w 4a 1.04 8 1.87 8 1.38 8 s w m S 1.30 8 2.17 4 1.85 1 g x

Sa 1.14 8 2.01 8 '

! 1.54 8 t

6 NA NA NA NA- NA NA 7 1.36 8 2.22 4 1.98 1 1 ;

7a 1.00 8 1.76 4 1.12 7 m

~~~~~~~~~~~~

NOTES:

I

Refer to Table 4.1-1 g

- Margin Factor = Allowable Stress / Actual Stress

- - Refer to Figure 5.1-15 (

NA = Not Applicable $

l

O O O 1

i i

30 I

R=14.96 FT.. RZ= 6 OEG.. Z:13.42 FT.

25.- .

t 20.- .

15.-

o -

m en .-

Q. .

i w

. 10.- I )

E .-

a w

j "

w -

) w 5.-

E .

(L. -

x ) l J x > r -

! $ $# 0. ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

1 g _m _

~

^

mn C ~) -

<m o r m

zo

m

- 5 r -

m=

o C o m -5.-

xo

~

x m

Z O -

n8r- > O m C n . .

>m w m 2 -10.-

wo ,

m ... , , , . . . .

! "E0 "

{y< 0.00 0 15 0.30 0.45 0.60 0 75 0.90 1 05 1 20 E z

$ TIl1E. SECONOS

< ~ x

' O

$ >d

8o g

$z e

N CO N

Rev. 10 9/82

,r 8 47 '-0" O

l 347:

3 51 0 E 824'-0"

( 7 818.76' 331, f 810.50' 322 I

7 790.00' 292 294 7 764.50' y 0285 O , 7 743.30 266: '

i I

7 7I4.00' l x 227 245 7 698.00'

[ 673.33' LA SALLE COUNTY STATION MARK 11 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT l

FIGURE I.3-2

! RESPONSE SPECTRA LOCATIONS l

Rev.10 9/82 FREQUENCY IN CPS 500.0 200 0 100.0 50.0 20.0 10 0 5.0 20 10 0.5 s 8.00 ..t i isiuu n 1 ,. > > , , ii...... , , , , , ,,, n ...., , , , , .

7.00 l.oad Combinalion with 6 00 ' "" I ^d k 5.00

- f . .. ,

z . I t Load Combination with

,I I NUREC-0808 Chugging c "

a: 4.00 .

. I b

u f

I \

\

c . I t l g -- Design Basis 3.00 I '

1 l R \i

. ," 1 %

2.00 d

\ / \ {\ f

/

t

,s' y ---

l 1 00 '

( < m E {

, -/ \ l e -

(,

0.00 . iiin on i i i i i i inii un- ii>> nn i i i i i , iii, on ,,o ,,n , , , , , , ,,,, ,,,,

.002 0.004 0.006 0.010 0 020 0.040 0.060 0.100 0.400 0.600 0.t00 1.0 2.0 PERIOD IN SECBNDS LA SALLE COUNTY STATION MARK ll DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORf LOCRTION 227 FIGURE I.3-3 l O. HORZ-NS RES) SPECTRA COMPARISONS (SHEET 1 0F 33)

Rev.10 9/82 FREQUENCY IN CPS 500.0 200.0 100 0 50.0 20.0 10.0 F.0 2.0 10 0.5 8.00 - - ' ""' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' " " " ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ""' '

7 00

. Load Combination with

~4TCO I.oad 6.00 Ju 5.00 0 f

. . /* '

i - Load Combinat ion with 2 "

i NI' REG-0808 Chugging e , # g C

cr -

I s i I z 4.00 ; .

m , s u . 8 \

Cr .

I --Design Basis g

3.00 8 ---

1 l l'.

s f* "%

t i

) \

j 2.00

hj ,_, _.

i [ ) ,

j

/

/ u %

f

.< , A o T

f e l O \ _

\

U N 0.00 . . . . , ..... . ., ,, ., ,, ,, ...., . . . . . . . . . . . . . , ,, . ,, .4 .. . .... .~. .... .m. . . . ., . . . . . .

- .002 0.004 0.006 0.010 0.0E0 0.040 0.060 0.100 0.t00 0.400 0.600 10 2.0 PER!a0 IN SEC8NDS LA SALLE COUNTY STATION MARK ll DESIGN ASSESSM ENT REPORT LOCRTION 227 FIGURE I.3-3 O senz-ew assgonsc s,sc1a,cong,aisons (SHEET 2 0F 33)

Rev.10 9/82 FREQUENCY IN CPS 500.0 200.0 100 0 50.0 20.0 10.0 5.0 f.0 10 0.5 8.00 i> ' ' ' ' '"' i' ' ' ' ' ">',it iiii >>>'>>umusi.Leie i v -

7.00 6.00 5.00 cs z -

as -

e.-.

e-. "

C m: 4.00 w

-.s .

d o

Design Basis

~

C .

J O

V 3.00 I

I Load Combination with ps 4TCO l.oad s ,

. m 2.00 ) / \

ll , -s \

,/ \

s 1 00 /

! k / 7 S -

j u/ (8

// N \ y

. Load Combinc* ion withj N NLREG-0808 Chugging 0.00 ' "" ' - > > > ' > > ' ' " " ' ' ' ' " " " o r ' m n i i nisi '"

.002 0.004 0.006 0.010 0 020 ' I ' .I ' l ' I ' ' ' .l ' 0.t00 0.040 0 060 0 100 ' i i ' " " l ' ' '

0.400 0.800 10 f .'O PERISD IN SECBNDS LA SALLE COUNTY STATION MARK al DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT LOCRTION 227 FIGURE I.3-3 p

V VERT RESPONSE SPECTRA COMPARISONS (SHEET 3 0F 33)

Rev. 10 9/82 FREQUENCY IN CPS 500.0 200.0 100.0 60.0 20.0 10 0 5.0 t.0 10 0.5 mm.,._......_.., .. . .

r3 s.00 .. . . _om.., .. . .m .. . m _

, , , u , , o ., , _,m

\s' .

7.00 6.00 5.00 cs z -

O .

m -

= 4.00 it;

.E .

ts; o .

U

= -

3.00

._ ioga omi, niat n,n a t i, Nl:Ril.-tISOS t lent;y ine 2.00 I

)

t

. I)es ign Bas is -

load Omliin.it lon wit h

~4100 ioads ]

1.00 " --

I

( r 8< %<m\

~- --

%~

w

' '"' ' ' ' ' ' "" ' ' ' '"' i' ""' ui""' '1 0.00

".!>>io'""

l

.002 0.004 0.006 0.010 0.020 ' ".040 0 0.060 0 100 0.E00 0.400 0.600 10 20 l

PERIOD IN SECONDS l

LA SALLE COUNTY STATION MARK 11 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT L0 CATION 245 FIGURE I.3-3 J HORZ-NS RESP 0tiSE SPECTRA COMPARISONS (S11EET 4 0F 33)

Rev.10 9/82 FREQUENCY IN CPS 500.0 200.0 100 0 80 0 20.0 10 0 5.0 20 10 0.5 g 8.00 _.a u , us,u i e n ii e i ie i . iian n i sa e i i s .: e iso si s i i eie i ,

%) .

7.00 6.00 5.00 CD 2 -

.O -

H -

g x 4.00 w

-I .

W U .

O T .

/

/ .

L 3.00 l.oad Combinatton with

. NUREG-0808 Chugning 2.00 Des ign Bas i s -

1.oad Combination with

~41CO toad 1 00 " f i

\

3 hp '

s T 0.00 1 .... .... , , , , , . ..., ,,,, ,,,, ,,,,, ,, .- .. . . . .... .... . . . . .... . . . . . . .... . . .

.002 0.004 0.000 0.010 0.0t0 0.040 0.000 0 100 0.t00 0.400 0.800 1.0 20 PERIBD IN SECBNDS LA S ALLE COUNTY STATION MARK la DESIGN ASSESSM ENT REPORT LeCATION 245 rrcuaE 1.3-3 O HORZ-EW RESPONSE SPECTRA COMPARISONS (SHEET 5 0F 33)

Rev. 10 9/82 FREQUENCY IN CPS 500.0 200.0 100.0 50.0 20.0 10.0 5.0 2.0 1.0 0.5 em 8.00 1 i i - ' ni"'i't i' ' ' ' ' ""i'i' ' ' ' ' " " ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' t

/.00 6.00

. Design Basis Load Combination with , \ s_

""d o

5.00 b w

Z "

E3 B- "

M a:4.00 na J .

SLC o Load Combination with T -

NL' REG-0808 Chunging 3.00 t

\

\[ m 2.00 > \

/

~

1

,s '%,

[ k .

" 4 1 00 I h ! I' m \I

. /

A [ \

-r.

/--s

.. ....- a=*

U %Z

=

0.00 iiis on i > > i i i iiii on. iiin on ii ,i ii n o ii iiin i n nl .. n i n n! .. .. i! . .: . . .. ....

, 002

. 0.004 0.000 0.010 0.0TO 0.040 0.000 0 100 0.t00 0.400 0.800 1.0 f .'O PERIBD IN SEC8NDS LA S ALLE COUNTY STATION MARK 11 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT LaCRTION 245 FIGURE I.3-3 O vest RESPONSE SPECTRA COMPARIS0NS (SHEET 6 0F 33)

Rev. 10 9/82 FREQUENCY IN CPS 500.0 200.0 100.0 50.0 20.0 10.0 5.0 E.0 10 0.5

'"'"iii 'i<''1 'i"" - >

8.00 i- > > io n ii n iii> i i O

NJ "

7 00 6.00 el 5.00 o -

~

Z c3 ~

m 6- "

E m 4.00 w

J y

9 0 .

U T .

Oj "

l v 3.00

. v

/~

'" d '" * ""'I"" "I'h7 I (

2.00 NURI G-OMOS Cling' 4 in.i

lIl1ll I

~

l.oad Combinat ton witli-4 TCO 1.oad llll l ,

Design Basis -

LJL '=3 P"'

e - , /

m/ _1 r ;,dd O.00 .... .... . . . . . . .... .... .. . . . . . . . .. ... ... .. . . . . .

.002 0.004 0.006 0.010 0 020 0.040 0.080 0 100 0.t00 0.400 0 000 1.0 2.0 PERIBD IN SEC8NDS LA S ALLE COUNTY ST ATION MARK 11 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT LBCATION 266 FIGURE I.3-3 o

V HORZ-NS RESPONSE SPECTRA COMPARIS0NS (SHEET 7 0F 33)

Rev. 10 9/82 FREQUENCY IN CPS 500 0 200.0 100.0 50.0 20.0 10.0 5.0 2.0 10 0.5 ii i i ."ni' iie '

8.00 ie i i ""i'i> 'iie i ' ii i i ' "mii ii i a

(% ,-

) .

7.00 6.00 5.00 o

w -

2 e -

m W

C a: 4.00 w

J .

W u .

O E .

3.00 O

1.oad Combination with .

NCREG-0808 Chunt;lny

[]

2.00

\

l 1.oad Combination w i t h_ ""

41 C0. l.o.ad. . ... g

. Iksign Basis -

\

1.00 _- -

r- ~,

g.. s

. -/ --

u --\

a,- -d

, 0.00 mi' "" - i i i : iiii iiii i i i i i i >> >"i aiu i i i i i i iio ""

00t 0.004 0.008 b 'J10 " ".0f0 0 " ".040 0 0.080 0 100 0.t00 " ".400 0 0.800 1.0 2.0 PERIBD IN SECONDS i

! LA SALLE COUNTY STATION i

MARK 11 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT LaCRTION 266 FIGURE I.3-3

, O HORZ-EW RESPONSE SPECTRA COMPARISONS (SHEET 8 0F 33)

Rev. 10 9/82 FREQUENCY IN CPS sea.o roo.o too.o so.o ro.o io.o s.a e.o n.o a.s

=- - "'">'< a > ' ' ' ' '"' " ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '-

8.00 _.tiu_ i. .ui un u i u_ u _i_

(O /

Design Basis 7.00 -

6 00

. Load Combination with

. NUREG-0808 Chugging y --~,'

5.00 '

e e

. I 2 I ED -

- [

W ' t c '

a:

ia 4.00 i i

I . g Id u . - ' t u j t C -

1 Load Combination with I -4TCO Loads p .

(,,) 3.00 ,

. I f l

~%s l

\

3 2.00 ) I r ) \

/ s- / ~

't s* '

=,

4

. \

1.00

/

/ i L

/ , .

x Y V/

(~ th

/.

. / . . .# % \

\

0.00 . ...., ,,,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, , ,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,, , , , , ,,,,,,,, , , ,,,,,,,, , ,,,,,,,,, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

, .002 0.004 0.006 0.010 O.Oto 0.040 0.000 0 100 0.t00 0.400 0.500 1.0 2.0 PERIBD IN SEC8NDS LA S ALLE COUNTY ST ATION MARK 11 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT LOCRTION 266 FIGURE I.3-3 O VERT RESPONSE SPECTRA COMPARIS0NS (SHEET 9 0F 33)

Rev. 10 9/82 FREQUENCY IN CPS 500 0 200.0 100.0 50.0 20.0 10.0 50 2.0 1.0 0.5

,/"] 3,00 iii i i t as: inniei iii.r ii,,i un nitiii ii i i t i i a i 'ti' s e i n i i ii e i I G' ,

7.00 6.00 5.00 e -

w ,

E -

E3 '

m G"

= 4.00 i;

J .

LaJ LJ .

E .

O 3.00 1

t Load Combination with 4TCO Load 2.00 JL

f _ Design Basis i

\___

/

1 00

/ ,- , ,

J

/: /l 7 2' >.

h;C

~~

Load Combination with NUREG-0803 Chugging

]

0.00 ,..n. ..n. , , ,, ,, . .. . ,,,, ,..i. .... i.e, . . . . . . .........,........., . ..i...i. .. .

i

.002 0.004 0.006 0.010 0.0E0 0.040 0.080 0 100 0.t00 0.400 0.500 t.0 f .'O

~

( PERISD IN SEC8NDS l

l LA SALLE COUNTY STATION MARK 11 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT LOCRTI6N 273 FIGURE I.3-3 O sesz-Ns assg0nst sgscra,c0sg,ais0ns (SHEET 10 0F 33)

Rev. 10 9/82 ,

FREQUENCY IN CPS 500.0 200.0 100 0 50.0 20.0 10.0 5.0 2.0 1.0 0.5

- - - > > - in"ui ii i 8.00 - . * ' ' " " > .. , . . >, - - - """ ,, , '

O -

7.00 6.00 5.00 e -

w g . .

e

m b- "

E E 4.00 W

-J .

W u .

O E -

~

O s 00 a Desien Basis l.oad Combination with 1.oad Combination with '~

t[4TCO1.oad NUREG-0808 Chugging j

. J

C

/ -1F- (

I.00 >

I s' "( ~ \-,

. 9 ,

[ A a

,q/ l \

gf-' M

~

0.00 ,,,, ,,,, , , ,, ,, ,, .l , , , , , . . . . , , , , , , , , , , , ,, ,, ,, , , , . . . . . .... ,,,, ,,,, , ,, , ,, , , ,,,, ,,,,

.002 0.004 0.006 0 010 0.020 0.040 0.060 0.100 0.t00 0.400 0.600 10 f .'O PERIBD IN SECONDS LA S ALLE COUNTY STATION MARK 18 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT LBCATION 273 FicuRE 1.3-3 l

O HORZ-EW RESPONSE SPECTRA COMPARISONS 1

(SHEET ll 0F 33)

Rev. 10 9/82 FREQUENCY IN Cf'S 200 0 100 0 50 0 20.0 10 0 5.0 2.0 10 0.5 500 0 fm 8.00 .ua .i uniti i i i i i i iii i i i ioni ei ei i ie i ie i i i inen ii iiti

)

7.00 6.00 5.00 z -

O -

~

H "

G*

= 4.00 ta J .

y ~

F' - Design Basis e l I I I IIll O,

Load Combination with V ~ 4TCO Load F' s 3.00 2.00

, / \

/ \

. , g< ,

[ ,

/ , ',,

1 00

! / / s '\ t j l/ W \ '

J/ \ y s =

l

--- Load Combination with, ,

Q Sl' REG-0808 Chugging

> i' " o " .iii"";

"" i i >>ii "no >>>i iiii' 1 ! ! !>!>! i 0 00 iisi

.002 i i i 0.004 0.006 i

0.010 0.0f0 0 040 0.060 0 100 !" 0".!iiiii' t00 ".! - 0.600 0 400 10 2.0 PERIOD IN SECONDS LA S ALLE COUNTY ST ATION MARK 11 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT LaCRTION 273 FicuRE i.3-3 O veaT RESPONSE SPECTRA COMPARIS0NS (SHEET 12 0F 33)

Rev. 10 9/82 FREQUENCY IN CPS 600 0 200.0 100 0 50.0 20.0 10 0 50 20 1.0 0.5 D 8.00 '- - - ' ' " ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' " ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' " ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

V a

7.00 6.00

- 5.00 c3 z -

to -

6- "

C x 4.00 ta d - ,

u .

O C -

3.00 I

. W

/-

Load Combination with 5-SUREG-0808 Chugging l \

2.00

\

k_

Load Combination with, l

4TCO, Load il l \

. Design Basis -

1 00 \ P' >

h ,I '\' s h/ ,

g M x

l 0.00 'in "" i i > > > > >>>> 1"- 'i i > i i ' ' 'i'> ' i '>> > > i n ' i ii>> ini

.002 0.004 0.006 0.010 0 020 " ".040 0 0.060 0.100 0.200 > 0" '. 4 00 0.8001.0 E .'O PERISD IN SECONDS l

LA SALLE COUNTY STATION l MARK 11 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT l

L m ieN zes E100RE 1.3 3

' O H6RZ-NS RESPONSE SPECTRA COMPARISONS (SHEET 13 0F 33)

Rev. 10 9/82 FREQUENCY IN CPS 500.0 200 0 100.0 50 0 20 0 10.0 5.0 2.0 1.0 0.5

/7 8.00: - - . iiiiiii. .- - - - - - - - - - - >i>>>iiii V .

i 7.00 6.00 5.00 c.D g .

so -

m e- "

E ac4.00 W . .

J .

W u .

O m G -

3.00 O Load Combination with 73 p- NUREG-0803 Chugg ing 2.00 \ \

' \

Design Basis i i i ""

1.oad Combination with l

'TCO Load \

1 00 t iII Iii TT i i*

I (1r I

\

, .Jf

, , , .e.d'e - --

f i

l l 0.00 - - - i m' - ! >l nimi .iii, ii>> iiii' i i > 4 ' - > ' .- > -

.002 0.004 0.006 0.010 0.020 0.040 0.000 0 100 0.t00 0.400 0.000 1.0 2.0 PERIBD IN SECBNDS LA SALLE COUNTY STATION MARK 11 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT L6CRTIBN 285 FIGURE I.3-3 U<~ HORZ-EW RESPONSE SPECTRA COMPARISONS i

(SHEET 14 0F 33)

Rev. 10 9/82 FREQUENCY IN CPS 500 0 200 0 100.0 80 0 20.0 10 0 5.0 2.0 10 0.5 m 8.00 ' ' ' ' " " " ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' """ ' ' " ' ' ' ' ' ' " " ' " ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

(A Design Basis 7.00 ' "

6.00 5.00 CS w - WI Z "

to I e-.

F- j C

ct: 4.00 I w ,

J . '

w s I U .

O E -

l g

()

I Load Combination with

" Load 3.00 ['_4TCO

- I Load Corbinat ion wi t h- f K [ r I

N!' REG-0808 Chugnine N I 2.00 '

_,j

/ ~*

\

1 00 \r '

p# y* n

,/

p J

\\

0 00 .002 0.004 0.008 0'.010 0.020 " ".040 0 0.000' 0.100

" " ".'t00 0 0.400 0 000 1.0 2.0 PERISD IN SECONDS LA S ALLE COUNTY STATION MARK ll DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT LOCATION 285 71ayat 1,3_3 (m J VERT RESPONSE SPECTRA COMPARIS0NS (SHEET 15 0F 33)

Rev.10 9/82 FREQUENCY IN CPS 10.0 5.0 2.0 1.0 0.5 500 0 200 0 100.0 50.0 20.0 O 8 oo 7.00 i

6.00 5.00 en -

z O -

~

>- ~

E x 4.00 w

.J .

W O .

O 3 " -

(j

\ -

3.00 2.00 Design Basis-Ill l I I I 1 00 Load Combinatton with-Arco 1.oad

{ ~~~%

Ill l s l

Load Conbinat ion wit h - .J r.-

NL'Hf:G-0808 Chug 2ine g ;L v h%

0.00 iiii "" > > > > > i i i i i ' ' ' '

.002 0.004 0.008 0 010 " ".020i 0 i i "".040

' 0 0.060i 0 100 " "0 . 2 00i" ".400 0 0.600 1.0 2.0

~

PERIBD IN SEC8NDS LA SALLE COUNTY STATION MARK 11 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT LOCATION 292 FIGURE I.3-3 O HORZ-NS RESP 0tlSE SPECTRA COMPARIS0f15 (SHEET 16 0F 33)

Rev.10 9/82 FREQUENCY IN CPS A 500.0 200.0 100.0 50.0 20.0 10.0 5.0 2.0 1.0 0.6

( 8.00 o 2..t_ _ ui ., . .. . - 4 .. . . , , . . . . , . , . . . . .. . . .....- - -

7.00 6.00 5.00 cs -

Z tD

o F- ~

M m

ta 4.00 I

(AJ U

U

\s .

i 3.00 2.00

~

Design Basis-

' Illi i l I I I o.nl 4 o:nb in.tt ion c i t 11-41Cli l o.hl s l 1 00 iiin i i L I o h! Conbi na t i on w i t b Sl'RI.G-(NI)S ( liwa;itn: b \

Y x $"' ,,,

X i .

0.00 - - - - - - - . . . I- - - - - -

l .002 0.004 0.006 0.010 0.020 0.040 0.000 0 100 0.t00 0.400 0.000 10 2.0 i

PERISD IN SEC8NDS i

( LA SALLE COUNTY STATION MARK 11 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT LOCATION 292 FIGURE I.3-3 Q

HORZ-EW RESPONSE SPECTRA COMPARISONS f

i (SHEET 17 0F 33) i

Rev.10 9/82 FREQUENCY IN CPS 500 0 200.0 100.0 80 0 20.0 10.0 5.0 2.0 10 0.5

, 8.00 ei i lisoitis iie i i ii . . i un is ei'eie i i i... < 'unii. ie i i

t. ) -

7.00

. Design Basis-

^

6.00

/~~ /~ 4 TC" I' "d j i f

J 5.00 0 -

2 -

e -

T cc4.00 w i_

J .

W u

'j Load Combination with

~ NC RI:G-0808 Chugging

,3 .

C/ 3.00 2.00

{\

[\

r %

,# \

q[/ i

k 1 00 i d b \ \

'- \

\k ss :

4 0 00 i'ii i i i i i i >>'i "" ni's i '1 '; >' i: i' iiii' i"i 'iii '"i i n' i n i i iiii ai"

.002 0 004 0.006 0.010 0.020 'i".040 0 0.060 0 100 0.E00 0.400 0.600 1.0 E .'O PERIBO IN SECBNDS LA SALLE COUNTY STATION MARK 11 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT LOCATION 292 FIGURE I.3-3 m

l U VERT RESPONSE SPECTRA COMPARISONS (SHEET 18 0F 33)

Rev.10 9/82 FREQUENCY IN CPS 500.0 200.0 100.0 50.0 20.0 10.0 5.0 2.0 10 0.5 8.00 ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

/~T .. . . ....'.. -

i....,..

U .

7 00 6.00 5.00 o -

x -

.e E

x 4.00 w

J .

w U .

O e .

3.00 l 2.00

, IA sien Basis -

l

~

llll l 1.oad Conbination wi 1 IIb-

~~

4iCO 1.o. a.1 1 00 !!!! ! !

I.oad Conbination with -

NURI.C-0808 Chuccine r- Ik e

, jd JL.- M %

0.00 ..... ,....,, ,. ,, ,, ,, ,,,..,, ,,,,, ,.... ,,,, , . . . . . .... . . . . . ..m .... . . . . . . .... ....

.002 0.004 0.008 0.010 0 020 0.040 0.000 0 100 0.t00 0.400 0 800 1.0 f .'O FERISD IN SEC8NDS LA SALLE COUNTY STATION MARK 11 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT LOCATION 294 FIGURE I.3-3 O sesz_Ns RESPONSE SPECTRA COMPARIS0NS l (SHEET 19 0F 33) l l

l l

Rev. 10 9/82 FREQUENCY IN CP3 500.0 200.0 100.0 E0.0 20.0 10.0 5.0 t.0 10 0.5 A 8.00 e i i i " "i > ' ' ' ' ' ' " " ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

\ ./

x 7 00 6.00 5.00 CD z -

.e3

=

>- ~

E ac tu 4.00 8 .

to O .

O c .

v) 3.00 .

2.00 Design Basis-

. Illl l I I I 1.oad Conb inat ion wi t li-1.00 bi"N I'" d

' I l t Iodd'dobbina'tionwith NCHLG-0808 Chutut ine 7, JL , \-g x $

\

0.00 ,,,, ,,,, . .. ,, ,, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . . . , , , , , , , , , ,,,, ,, ,, ,, , , , , , , , , , ,

.002 0.004 0.006 0.010 0.0tD O.040 0.080 0 100 0.t00 0.400 0.000 10 f .'O PERIOD IN SECBNDS LA SALLE COUNTY STATION MARK tl DESIGN ASSESSM ENT REPORT LOCRTION 294 FIGURE I.3-3 O

v HORZ-EW RESPONSE SPECTRA COMPARISONS l

(SHEET 20 0F 33)

L

Rev.10 9/82 FREQUENCY IN CPS

("Nj g 500.0 200.0 100.0 50.0 20.0 10.0 5.0 20 10 0.5 t 8.00 . no.i > > ia - - - ' ' " i'i 'a > ' ' ' ' i 2 m2 u u si- . 4_ :

7 00 _

?

A

. t 6.00 -

5.00 c5 2

e -

ee H

cr '

= 4.00 W

.s .

W u .

O cr .

O) r 3.00

. Load Combinat ion with

. ~NUREG-0808 Chungine 2.00

~

_1.oad Combinalion with 4TCO 1.oad

- !)es i gn H.n s i s l l lll ~~

i 1 00 -- ""

I

\

- /

, \

s e -l

) I'n

- /, .

l I 1 1 A2111EAi 1 1 1 1 2 JiJtJAI E 1 R 1JB111l 1 1 1A l1A1at 1 I E a 1 a li .t a a a a1ea a aaa aa a a 1 1 i .00t 0.004 0.006 0.010 0.020 0.040 0.080 0.100 0.t00 0.400 0.000 1.0 2.0 PERIBD IN SECONDS I

LA SALLE COUNTY STATION MARK 11 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT LOCATION 322 FIGURE I.3-3 O'v HORZ-NS RESPONSE SPECTRA COMPARISONS t

I (SHEET 22 0F 33)

Rev. 10 9/82 FREQUENCY IN CPS 500.0 200 0 100.0 50.0 20 0 10.0 5.0 2.0 1.0 0.5 8.00 , - - - - " " > - - - - - - " ' - - ; a - t 't i 2 . 1- ai"' ' ' ' ' '

7 00 6.00 5.00 O -

w Z

ID -

w F '

E a:4.00 nas D .

taJ u .

O G .

n\d 3.00

. n Load Conbination with

.Nt'RF.G-0808 Chuen ing 2.00 [

4 Load Combinat ion wit h 4TCO Load 1 I l l l 1 I I I I i i I

- th w i s n 1;a s i s 1 00 " \

\

/ 3 [

A g

u

, s\

\

0.00 1 , ,, ,,o , i i i i , .... nn . . . . ..n , , ,, , , , ,,,, un ,,m ,,n . , , , , , ii, ,,o

, .002 0.004 0.008 0.010 0.020 0.040 0.080 0 100 0.E00 0.400 0.800 10 f.'O PERIBD IN SEC8NDS LA SALLE COUNTY STATION MARK 11 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT LaCRTION 322 FIGURE I.3-3 D'

HORZ-EW RESPONSE SPECTRA COMPARIS0NS (SHEET 23 0F 33)

Rev. 10 9/82 i FREQUENCY IN CPS 500.0 200 0 100 0 50 0 20.0 10.0 5.0 2.0 10 0.5 8.00 > > > > > - na - .1 - - '. '< * . " - - - -

O .

7.00 S.00 5.00 o -

Z -

e -

ee H "

I T

m: 4.00 la f

J l td Design Basis 8 -

1 I I I I III T .

Load Combinat ion wit h N 4TCO !.oad 3.00 .-

s m

2.00

~

/ \

( ,

)

/ \

(

i 1 00

/

) m V\)

N

' }{ f'
( f/ [\
t y/ 1.oad Conbination with '
>N
. NUREG-0808 Chugging %
0.00 1 . . . . ,,,, , , , , , , ,,,, ,,,, ,,,,. ,,,, , r , , , r , i , ,, , , , , , , o m , , , m . ,,n , , , , , , ,,,, ,,m
, .002 0.004 0.008 0.010 0.020 0.040 0.08t/ 0.100 0.t00 0.400 0.800 1.0 2.0 l'ERIOD IN SECONDS LA SALLE COUNTY STATION MARK 11 DESIGN ASS ESSM ENT REPORT LOCRTION 322 FIGURE I.3-3 O VERT RESPONSE SPECTRA COMPARIS0NS (SHEET 24 0F 33) 1
r l
Rev.10 9/82 FREQUENCY IN CPS i soo.o roo.o too.o so.c ro.o to.o s.o e.0 n.o o.s O " oo 7.00 6.00 5.00 e .
= .
ED .
b E
m: 4.00 it; J
inJ U .
O e .
O 3.00 2.00 L
_ i .,. , a . . .cm i n . . .,n ...
P '; ""i l l IIl
- Des inn !!as is 1 00 I I I I I IIIII y_\
i o.nl tor.l. i n.it ion o i t b ]
~ N t'!(I q . -11MI N I r in .' i n -
. A-1r l
~
0.00 .... .... . . . . . . .... .... .... .... . ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, .... , . . . . . - . . , . . . , . , , , ., , , . . . , . . . . , ....
, .00t 0.004 0 000 0.010 0.Or0 0.040 0.000 0.100 0 .'c o r '.400 0 000 t.0 e .'O PERIOD IN SEC8WD3 LA SALLE COUNTY STATION MARK 11 DESIGN ASSESSM ENT REPORT LOCATION 331 O Hesz-Ns RESPONSE SPECTRA COMPARISONS (SHEET 25 0F 33)
Rev. 10 9/82 FREQUENCY IN CPS 5.0 2.0 10 0.5 500.0 200 0 100.0 50.0 20.0 10.0 8.00 .> > > unu si 4 2 a i a s. 4 .i Jusu.a i. i u t auA'
7 00 6.00 CD
.5.00 -
2 tD m
6- '
T a: 4.00 tu J .
LaJ U .
O T
O' 3,00 l
2.00 J 1
-l o.ed Comb inat ion u i t h
~
I : I'"i '""'I
-!>cs i en Ha s i ,
l l lll 1 00 I I I I I I IIII \ -
I l.o.id Comb i nal ion 'ith i
. L i< l L -118113 ( ho e i,w .
k )
ir
- \- l 0.00 ,... .... . , . ..,,, , , . . . . , .;.., , , , , , , , , , , ,, ,, . . . < . , ,, . . . . , .... ,..........,............;
.002 0.004 0.006 0.010 0.0f0 0 040 0.000 0 100 0.t00 0.400 0.900 10 E.0 PERI 80 IN SEC8NDS l
I LA S ALLE COUNTY STATION MARK 11 DESIGN ASSESSMENT HEPORT LaCRTION 331 FicuaE 1.3-3 O sesz-ew gesgonss sgsc1,,cosg,aisons (SilEET 26 SF 33)
L
Rev. 10 9/82 FREQUENCY IN CPS 100.0 20.0 10.0 5.0 20 1.0 0.3 500.0 200.0 50.0 8.00 .,i i i i niii .4 ii i 4 ; i i .,i ii i unu,u u.u - r i ii,iioni i. '>i . .
f] .
7 00 6.00 5.00 cs .
w z -
ED -
r
E a: 4.00 w
-J .
w a .
Iksien %is i s O
1 I I I Illi 7 _ l.u.id ( omb i n.it t on w i t b (Q 3.00 stuu -oxos < hum in,-
1 1 1 1 I l
- 1.o;1d ronbin;it inn w i t h 4It o : .o.id m
2.00 I \
/
}
7/ ,\,
6
/<-E7 8
1.00 ;
V ;
/ f \ %
fl \s r
u/ nE g %
iii,, ...i iiil ..il .: i! .. ., >> . ... ....
0.00 .>>>> iii. . . . > > r ,i>> .... .>>. . . . . . ., ,, . , ,1, i i i f .'O
.002 0.004 0 000 0.010 0.0f0 0.040 0.000 0 100 0.t00 0.400 0.800 10 PERI 80 IN set 0NDS LA S ALLE COUNTY ST ATION MARK ll DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT LOCRTION 331 FIGURE I.3-3 n
V VERT RESPONSE SPECTRA COMPARISONS (SHEET 27 0F 33)
Rev. 10 9/82 FREQUENCY IN CPS 0.5 10.0 5.0 2.0 10 100.0 50.0 20 0 D 500.0 200 0 - - - "- - - -
[a "' - -
" ~ ~ ' - - - - - -
8.00 _
7.00 6.00 5 00 CS -
Z ED '
e. e H ~
G z 4.00 W
J .
W U .
3.00
. I o.nl t onb iinit f ort . i( !i
NL'Hi s .-IISh8 t ini - in- _l i
2.00 1.o.td ( onb i n..t i on w i t i'
~ 4 !( O l o.id 1 I i 1 l __
- !h si_n Hasi~
r---
1 00 e d
, J 1r 0.00 , . , ,,,, ,,,, ,
0.020 0 040 0.060 0 100 0.t00 0.400 0.600 1.0 20
.002 0.004 0.008 0 010
~
PER180 IN SEC8NDS LA SALLE COUNTY STATION
MARK #1 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT LOCATION 347 FIGURE I.3-3 hs HORZ-NS RESPONSE SPECTRA C0ftPARISONS (SHEET 28 0F 33)
Rev.10 9/82 FREQUENCY IN CPS s00.0 r00.0 i00.0 s0.0 ro.O i0.0 s.O r.0 30 0.s 8.00 ;a. . > - on+1t i .. . . ... . . . iiis ti .ii.. ..ii.,.g i... i,ii. i l v .
l l 7 00 -
6.00 5.00 o -
w y . .
en
m W
m "
m: 4.00 w
J .
W u .
O E .
O v 3.00 f.oad Combinat ion wit h
-NUREG-Ot108 Cinw.n ine U 2.00
/ O L
- 1.oad Conb i n.it ion w i t h
/elfo, l.a.nl l llll
- Ih .s i nn Ha s i s 1 00 \
/ \
L
-/ N t
\
0.00 ..... .... . . . . . . .... .... .... .... . . ... ... .... . . . . ,.
.002 0.004 0.005 0 010 0 0f0 0.040 0.000 0.100 0.t00 0.400 0.00* 1.0 2.0
~
PERl80 IN SEC8NDS LA SALLE COUNTY STATION MARK ll DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT LOCRTION 347 FIGURE I.3-3 O nesz_ew ass,oss, s,sc1,,cong,,, sons (SHEET 29 0F 33)
Rev. 10 9f" FREQUENCY IN Cf3 500 0 200.0 100 0 50 0 20.0 10.0 5.0 E.C 1.0 0.5 8.00 '- > - - - '- - - ' ' ' '
(O d .
7.00 6.00 5.00 o -
w 2
to -
w c
= 4.00 ia J .
td liesign Basis 0
E 1 I I I I Ill
~3 1 oad ronbinat ion wi t h
. IN- 41 ui 1.o.id 3.00 --
Y
?
~
7 2.00
/
[
t 1
~
f p *'%
i f
l l \ '
(
'[p ,
I 1 00 W
' / \ -
N T gaY[
t l
1 oad fonbinat ion n i t hj
. N1 RII-(18tlH Chuge ine %
0.00 i- "" i i ili i i iiii. noi i i ii inn . i n n i ow i i i n i n n i n i n n n i ii,, ,, ii .i . > > > > m1
.002 0.004 0.000 0.010 0.0fD 0.040 0.000 0.100 0.t00 0.400 0.000 10 f.0
~
PERIBO IN SECONDS LA SALLE COUNTY STATION MARK 81 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT LOCATION 347 FIGURE I.3-3 O'- VERT RESP 0tlSE SPECTRA COMPARIS0NS (SHEET 30 0F 33) l I
Rev. 10 9/82 FREQUENCY IN CPS 500.0 200.0 100.0 50.0 20.0 10.0 8.0 2.0 10 0.5 8.00 e i a > " ani>> >
>_ _u_1 : _..n,.. ,
.. . . 4 b
a 7.00 6.00 5.00 _
c w
z -
to ew C
cc4.00 w
.J .
W u .
O G -
' 90 l o.id forhin.it ion wit h NiklC-OM08 rhuceIne -
2.00 , I \
l 30.1d Combin.ition with j ! ( O, I o hl, j j lll
- llewlon H.h i s 1 00 -
\
. <r a
,-_]
f .
0.00 ,,,, ,,,,. , , , , , , ,,,, ,,,, ,,,, ,,,, , , , , , , ,,,, ,,,, , . , ,,,, , , , , , , ,..
_ .00t 0.004 0.006 0.010 0.020 0.040 0.080 0.100 0.t00 0.400 0.000 1.0 2.0 l
PERIBD IN SEC8NDS c
,; LA SALLE COUNTY STATION MARK ll DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT LOCRTION 351 FicuRE I.3-3 s
O HORZ-NS RESPONSE SPECTRA COMPARISONS L'
(SilEET 31 0F 33) l
Rev. 10 9/82 FREQUENCY IN CPS 600 0 200 0 100.0 50 0 20.0 10.0 5.0 20 10 0.5 S.00 i> - - 4 > >>>i. .- ... . .. . . .- .. .. . . . . . . ....ii,
.O 7.00 6.00 5.00 .
o m w
Z (D
e 6-M a: 4.00 w
J ttJ U
U C
rx 3.00 I . .hi i.. > i u,it ...i ;
'- ' 1 u t . i s, is i- ,in 2.00 J i l L f
__ .. a ,m., .
e' e i l l l
~ l h s i u n B.1 % is 1 00 (
/ \ -
s
~
u T
0.00 <.... .... , , , , , , .... ,,,, , , , , , , , . . , , , , , . ,,,, ,,,, ,,m ,,,, , , , , , , ,,,, ,,,,
.002 0.004 0.008 0 010 0.0f0 0.040 0.000 0 100 0.t00 0.400 0.800 10 f.'O PERIBD IN SECBNDS LA S ALLE COUNTY ST ATION MARK ti DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT LOCRTION 351 FIGURE 1.3-3 O Hesz-ew RESP 0tiSE SPECTRA COMPARIS0NS l
(SHEET 32 0F 33)
Rev.10 9/82 FREQUENCY IN CPS 500.0 200.0 100.0 50.0 20.0 10.0 5.0 20 1.0 0.5 16.00 ' ' 'c - - - ' ' 1 ' ' ' < > '.. . ' .- ' ' ' ' - - <
O .
14.00 12.00 10.00 3 .
Ih sien 1; asis 3
' 'l i I I l I
$ ' Load Combination with hf-p 4TCO 1.oad 't__
E x 8.00 as l .
ta.A O .
O E .
6.00 4.00 load Combination with NUREG-0808 Chugging
~
! l CN 2.00 ; I
'/ T
, \
,. .___ d v N\s
. g 0.00 > > <- o i e' iiii inni'>"- '>> '" iiia""oni'i>>'"" >'"";
>>i>I'".0040.006
.002 0 0.010 " ".0f0 0 0.040 0.000 'i> ' " ".100 0 0.t00 0.400 0.600 10 E.C PERIBO IN SEC8NDS l
LA SALLE COUNTY STATION MARK 11 DESIGN ASSESSM ENT REPORT FIGURE I.3-3 MT i
l RESPONSE SPECTRA COMPARIS0NS (SHEET 33 0F 33) i
-_ . .- . - - _ _ - _ - _ - . _ . _ _ -

ML20065G775

Text

Subject:

Navigation menu

Search