ML20065S832
| ML20065S832 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Callaway  |
| Issue date: | 12/18/1990 |
| From: | Schnell D UNION ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| ULNRC-2344, NUDOCS 9012260096 | |
| Download: ML20065S832 (38) | |
Text
.
-_~_..__m
_..._._.~__.__.-________..__.m.
'^.,?
. 1901 Chouteau Avenue -
Post O!'ce Box 149 St Love, Mtsoun 63166
- 314-554 2650 Donald f,5chne0 rg y 1
Semot We hes&nt lEtucritic
=
uva.
'4] _
December 18, 1990 U.
S.-Nuclear Regulatory Commission
-ATTN:
Document Control-Desk Mail Station P1-137-Washington, D.C.
-20555 t
t Gentlemen:
ULNRC-2344 DOCKET NUMBER 50-483 CALLAWAY PLANT
' SEISMIC DESIGN OF SAFETY-RELATED ABOVE-GROUND VERTICAL' LIQUID STORAGE TANKS
References:
1.;-NRC Request for Information letter, J. N..Hannon to D.
F. Schnell, dated 5-23-89
-2.
ULNRC-2077 dated 9-21-89
'3.-.NRC Request'-for Additional-Information= letter, S.
V. Athavale to M
D.
F.
Schnell' dated 4-4-90 4.
-ULNRC-2237 dated-6-25-90 5.'.
NRC Request for Additional
+
Information letter, A. T.. Gody, Jr. to
-D.
P..Schnell, dated 10-5-90 3
.The attachments to this letter provideI the
'information requested;in Reference 5 regarding the:
- . seismic-design.of the Refueling-Water Storage Tank-(RWST) at Callaway.
The revised information further supports our determination'that the RWST's-seismic-design is adequate.
If you have any questions regarding these.
~
attachments,-please contact us.
Very truly yours, Donald F.
Schnell GGY/kea 4
h i9012260096'901218
{.
\\
TPDR -ADOCK 05000483-
)
\\
-PDR 9
Pc 1
~
STATE OF MISSOURI )
)
Donald F.
Schnell, of lawful age, being first duly sworn upon oath says that he is Senior Vice President-Nuclear and an officer of Union Electric Company; that he has read the foregoing document and knows the content thereof; that he has executed the same for and on behalf of said company with full power and authority to do so; and that the facts therein stated are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief.
By M
Donald F.
Schnell Senior Vice President Nuclear
/b '
day SUBSCSIBED and sworn to before me this of _ /T/We/Av
- 1990, ibt8d44 h. f)b g f
e-en DAR9 ARA J, PFAFF NOTARY FUBUC. SIATE OF M!s30VR1 D C07.ntissic 4 EXPlRES april 22, 1993 ST. LOUIS COUNTY.
cc:
T.
A.
Baxter, Esq.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 2300 N.
- Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20037 Dr. J.
O.
Cermak CFA, Inc.
4 Professional Drive (Suite 110)
Gaithersburg, MD 20879 R.
C.
Knop Chief, Reactor Project Branch 1 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region III 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 Bruce Bartlett Callaway Resident Office U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission RR41 Steedman, Misnouri 65077 Anthony T. Gody, Jr. (2)
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1 White Flint, North, Mail Stop 13E21 13555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852 Manager, Electric Department Missouri Public Service Commission P,0.
Box 360 Jefferson City, MO 65102
ULNRC-2344 ATTACHMENT 1 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING SEISMIC REANALYSIS OF VERTICAL STEEL TANKS FOR CALLAWAY PLANT QUESTION 1:
During the audit performed by the staff on February 14, 1990, at Bechtel in Gaithersburg, Md.,
a handout for the presentation was provided.
Provide the information contained in both Tables 2 and 3 including any other changes to the handout resulting from the reanalysis.
RESPONSE
The handout presented to the NRC during the audit on February.14, 1990 has been updated to indicate the subsequent results of the reanalysis. provides the revised handout.
Pages 18, 19, 26, 28 (Table 2), 29, I
and 31 (Table 3) of 31 have been revised as indicated by revision bars on.these pages.
New pages 20 and 30 are due to text " carryover" from changes to previous pages.
Changes were made to Table 2,. Flexible Analysis, Shell Course 6 OBE calculated and allowable stresses.
The calculated stress was revised to reflect the use of the licensed OBE level of 0.12g-rather than the previous use of 0.13g. _The allowable stress was revised to reflect a more accurate interpolation of values from Figure VII-1102-4 of-the ASME Code, 1974 Edition through Winter 1975~ Addenda.
The Table.3 value for shear in a typical slab strip, calculated using flexible-analysis, was revised-per the response to Question 3 below, QUESTION 2:
L.
Provide the maximum stress values (due to-eloshing) in the l.
angle welds at the roof-cylinder junction with stresses L
combined from three components of earthquake-(SSE).
- Also, provide a comparison of these stress values with the allowables.
l l
l l
ULNRC-2 3 4 4 ATTACllMENT 1 j
QUESTION 2 (cont.)
RESPONSE
The maximum force on the h inch circumferential fillet weld of the steel angle connecting the tank roof to the tank cylinder was calculated with consideration given to the sloshing effects during an earthquake.
A comparison f the calculated maximum force with the allowable force is onown below:
CALCULATED MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE FORCE FORCE (KIPS / INCH)
(KIPS / INCH) 0.0253 3.00 QUESTION 3:
Provide a summary of the maximum stresses in the base slab (rebar and concrete) including those under the sump.
- Also, provide a comparison of the maximum stresses with the allowables.
RESPONSE
The table below provides values of the allowable moments and shears at various sections of the base slab and the corresponding maximum design values.
The maximum design values are based on factored loads and the allowable values are based on nominal s6rength multiplied by strength reduction factors in accordance with the American Concrete Institute code (ACI 318-1983).
ALLOWABLE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE MAXIMUM MOMENT DESIGN MOMENT SHEAR DESIGN SHEAR LOCATION (KIP-FT/ft)
(KIP-FT/ft)
(KIPS /ft)
(KIPS /ft) 1 Typical 216.57 174.2 79.35 63.5 base slab strip 2
Slab strip 568.3 494.0 79.35 74.5 around the sump pit 3 -Sump pit 88.5 13.2 32.9 11.9 slab (2'6" thick)
ULNRC-2344 ATTACHMENT 1 QUESTION 4:
In response to question :2(a) of the staff's RAI dated April 4, 1990, you-indicated that, because of the - static friction between the tank bottom and the concrete slab, the bolts will not experience any shear load.
This cannot be justified unless slotted or oversized bolt holes are used to allow for_ tank bending and flexibility.
Provide maximum calculated stresses in bolts under the three components of earthquake (SSE), in pure tension as well as when tension j
and shear are combined (if applicable).
Provide a comparison of these strasses with allowables.
I
RESPONSE
As requested in Reference 3 and reported in Reference 4, the anchor bolt analysis was revised using classical methods to I
be consistent with the foundation analysis.
The analysis for transmitting shear loads from the tank to the foundation was also revised to consider the static friction between the L
tank bottom and the concrete footing.
With consideration given to this static friction, it was demonstrated that tank sliding will not occur and, therefore, the anchor bolts will not experience any shear loads.
The tank base is anchored to the foundation by 2 inch-diameter anchor bolts and the' base plate is provided with l
3 inch diameter holes for the bolts.
Since oversized bolt l
noles are used, the static friction utilized in the analysis for transferring shear loads' is justified.
Based upon the above, the anchor bolts have been adequately' evaluated for pure-tension resulting from uplift loads.
The maximum tension load calculated in any anchor bolt under the three components of the earthquake (SSE) is 9.864-kips; the corresponding allowable tension per anchor bolt is 50.625 kips.
l l
1
ULNRC-234 4 ATTACilME!1T 2 BEVISED FEBRUARY 14, 1990 HANDOUT
l CALLAWAY & WOLF CREEK RWST SEISMIC ANALYSIS i
- 1. TANK MODEL - MASS i
1 IAASS FOR CONVECTIVE (SLOSHING) EFFECTS 11 MASS FOR BASE SLAB 9 MASS POINTS FOR SHELL AND IMPULSNE COIAPONENTS OF FLUID 4
i PG.1 OF 31
U
)
h CALCULATION SHEET
~
(
.co m.
- cem, mrv.m.. een e.
f4894 C-19 89-f 3 0 0
~7 (ATOM OATI CHECKED DAT1 kN E *17-U l-ll. 99 nA i
\\ 1 I
t 2
B. Aneturicet ICOMPUTER hobELS '
4
- 1. R1Et>-EF)SE ltJMPE!) MASS MobE"L 1 e
L EC ENO '
g s
g D - MASS AHb NobE No.
to o
D - Ete+n ear No., EEAM
'q b - f.LEMEtJT N0.o E RIN6 f
13 6
3 14
(
4,.,@,
&LCEAL [00Rb! NATES '
c
..g it h3 e
'?
Y x
g x
9
'g locAt 00nbtHATES x e
n b
y
/.,
a (W i
~}
ii g
h l l i
864Ms
!j 6
i I
---(8) l EEY
_.g g
.g 8
'h L
j1 Sf2tN65
'y
{a g
u N
m PG. 2 OF 31
x.,o.
ca. c.
= v.
.,*n,.
(
fof4 c-trar-tye o
24 un
- d. 6/d 1.14.99 C l a d /t/ %
7-i, -n 1
3 Sumnan of Mh55 hNr HetGHTS
- s
//giq u75 ( r)
Poin r Homourat Veenest
- Tne Cbavecrive unrex Uitt I
B B
Be LVMPEC 07 Nob 5 4 FOK 1
12 l2 It1E VERTICAL &ALYSIS.
5 4
b Id/S Is AccEPTh8L e-f0R
+
4 925 RE VERTICAL b/2&CT/0N $1NCE r
9 9
$l0$HING he$ NOT $CCUR.
18 to s
20 20
(
1 36 36 to 721 O
t Il 1110 1210 r-4903*
4903#
18 to 31 Nores a
IHE fkevl0LIS ANh}L5ES,Ey THE VENboR (EEFERENCES i2-!4),
ConseRV6TIVEltl *LNCLt/DEO ktJ kbblTIONAL EboF lbob (SN 07 73 fJF 91734 ) OT MASS OINT@. %SISTEt4T UITH THE SN4PPS btTER1/) RND Btlil01NG, ANAL 1/ses(EEFEREt4CES 27-19),
Tais iono Neeo Nor Be Inct1steo Ta Trie Sessmic Auntysis.
m 31 1\\
g PG. 3 OF 31
h CALCULATION SHE$T Joe NO.
CALC.NO.
W. 43.
3HEET NO 14894 C-1189-15 o o
.s :
WTOR A n m.,,
QC(121
,. a.gq DATE 04CAED DATE 1
1 St>MH AR'LI Of lUMPEO Mes lhemerers '
4 s
HMS HEIG HT ffEIGHT 080VE. - SU1YU
--.... G --- --.
1 No.
MW Bee (AD li k-lt' t /f' k It' 8
55.7 7 24882 863 25745 f2 48.77 28542 f617 30159 6
37 7C 5700 754 64F4 9
33.43
/0058 f 6BG f f 744 2ss9 25.76 1897f69 2768 fa99937 fB 18.09 5891 3514 9405
(
20 10 42 2f72 40f5 6f87 36 276 272 2008 2280 72f 37 75 1027470 0
1027470 f2fo O
~
I51793 1S9797 O
Z-4903 Sol 229f f70f06 3i82397 ao 21 Torat Tu; ~.T,L,1s2,397 k ft *
(bre thenonrat bisecnons) 3 m
I' T **~
2 1.
" CA832 k-/E -htC o
as 21 28
~
13
~
30 31 M
PG 4 CF 31
RUST SEISMIC AhALYSIS
(
- 1. TANK MODEL - STIFFNESS STRUCTURE - 3D BEAMS
\\(TANK SHELL ONLY) a BASE SLAB - 3D BEAM CONVECTIVE \\(SLOSHING)
(
EFFECTS - SPRING SOIL - SPRINGS
(
PG. 5 CF 31
h_
CALCULATION SHEET f4894 c-tys9-tio o
8 Rtm AA ar..,
an oeceCC ald un
,. n. qq 2
- 2. Lumpet Mnss nocet of STRUCTURE-fovNbhTIDH $MSTEM 3 4
S e
7 O
O 10 (9
it 12 foe IMFomhnoM NOT SHsHM, SEE-SHEET No. 7 is G
a 9 '.u.
is g
D lesexibt 1
Q x
~
Son Spine,s Anb byees
~~
g (Hotet min 6 8svaleAgy Mew 73)
O w
a CD m
g m
(9)
,)
l st
(
cy hC[
-U---
C ' Cy 8'
_K 7
y y9 M
m meg PG. 6 OF 31
u J
CALCULATR N SHEET JC4 No.
C.tn. NO.
REY. NO.
OW.ET NO 14014 C-11st.3o o
18 L
m.
_OC GM
%As mm
,.,i. n
,. u 98 1
3 Summuu 0F MEHEER fbOPEQ7iEs 1
/
Menon AsrA Suese kans (/t') bra Moons of Euetrin lit *)
a w,nre
(/t')
Nr N
us av 4.20 *L 2.101 2.1o I 488 488 2
f.1427 0 782 0.f&t 3f2 372.
10 B
f.y417 0 782 0 792 372.
371 12 4
1701 0 192 0.fr2 392 111 u
5 J.27 f.435 f.43 r 653 453 14 0
3 724 1 762
- f. 742, 78 4 784 to 7
S.2 3 f 2.0/ 5T 2.415!i 1044 1044 no 8
S. 2*$ t 2.4156 2.L! 5 5 104 4 1044 m
9 1500 13fo f3fo 184317 184317 M
=
=
0)Seene Auerts Aee Tiexew As 'A hee Sa Taux Sveu Pe2-Espectus 31. Se Surs,. Seers.AEE THEru $5 0 9 ktEfr
.ha ferE-san..s 5t dsnMiess & Oscourtz Souc Secnoy.
bue To Synnerey, Toesion $)nt NorOCCUR. hE CoWurER EUUS, l
hwevea, Eeouwe Arv kpur Fop 7 (Tornomt. /foner.tr 0F kee n A ) To ExecuiE. As SveM EIT i
+tER hE CMcvMrEO VMve$
0F C On 6 ncnevs Vrue (of1.0 ft")IJul Be &pur.
- 90. 7 cr 31
U J
h CALCULATION SHEET
.co a c4u:. wo.
m.n m wo l4694 j
C-1989-190 0
31 omohATm DATI CPGCKED DAT1 O,. 4/d/w -
C $2'I 1.14.%
7 '/-* f
% i H
- ~
3 H. MATERIA L OOPERTI ES t
. DENSITY,
O CONCRETE Ye. ' W
' I45 Pcf f
Of $7 EEL Ys
" 490 P'l yovNis Mobutus, OFloNCREre
E
~ 524757 Ksf e
OFSrEEL E
4170000 Ksf
~
s io l
UdERE f * (4) (33)//l ^ (If 5) (33)/4000 pn e
SHeng Y)otutus, OF Concaere
Ge
~ 209903 Ksf OFSTEEL G)g
- lbl2800 N l
,(
ts s
UMERE &c ~ O.4 Ee, n
POISSON'S RhTin, for CONCREre Te 0.25 Foe Sreet v
~ o. 3 0 s
30 UMERE Ve.Ts Base 0 0n THe REtanoNsHIP BerNEEN E Ans Ge e
l)hMPINc,, STRUCTURE-f
. CMll/ECTIVE FLutD (EEFERENCE 3) ~ b.A m
n (I) SEe Secnon ns.s OFEEFERENCE 24 a) SEE REFERENCE 22.
(S) b5E HSE 137 OF EEFERENCE 24.
(
(4) kRcENT OF$RITICAL l)AMPING [0R A NELbEb $ TEEL $r2UCNRE FROM REFERENCE 25'.
M PG. 8 OF 31 m
RWST SEISMIC ANALYSIS 3
- 1. TANK MODEL - DAMPlNG
- l BASED ON SNUPPS FSAR (REG. GUIDE 1.61)
STEEL TANK OBE - 2%
SSE - 4%
CONVECTIVE FLUID 1/2 %
SOIL (BASED ON SNUPPS EMS /FEA STUDY APPROACH)
(
PG.9 OF 31
u RVIST SEISMIC ANALYSIS L
- 2. FOUNDATION MEDIUM
- NRC SUGGESTION TO USE SIMPLIFIED APPROACH u
n h
- CONSISTENT VflTH EMS /FEA h
STUDY
[
ii.i
- RICHERT EQUATIONS i
L
- LAYERING BASED ON l
WEIGHTED AVERAGE i
(DEPTH = BASE DIM.)
- USED DYNAM (BSAP FAMILY OF COMPUTER PROGRAMS PG. 'O C.: 31 n
( )
,_)
CA1.CULATION SHEET l
osec.
cA.c. ec.
nov. ec.
s e io.
?
14874 C-1789 130 0
If mrm un oecan un O
-%. M /t/Mo 7-I'-87 b,
1.)3.99 1
2 ONE Bf)SE d/ MENS 10N - (2%2f 4'#) a-42-8" i
2/SE 43 '
}
4 SITE OMCIFIC $ OIL fROMES ORE '
e 1
S. ib b Y.
s Ac:eerion GLty...
-f',yg*yHof"f,3Z*go e, ~'e
_. y. / 2 7 pc/, Va. o.47 12 0 (@ C - 0 000t 1)
- it*TO tsf UME R tituM AbER SMALE
.s 10 b#'el I'd
[e
$.obe 33 5000 b/
- E k
~
bo 472900rr/~__'
L I4outat 4tvM A D F A SM4 L E
~
'. bie Id 4
is
' h ta$.ohof sooo kt/ ~
33
~
,s
. GRn bon 04tRT (bMGibMERATE.
I7Z%M lj f0s 0
. _Y-8 pe/, Y- 0.59 27/o$8 ret
_G (t E.~ o O30 t.)*.18900 tsf. g i
_ g,y,4gy, gg4yggyg,7,4 guy t
16 8 NbttVILLG [0tHhilMS
.t Y
(
yaf40y/,Yao.),G*St:C0 D/
ToA0VfD LfHF370tJE 11
. BURLING,104, bJ5Mt EEG bb.
E^~ lb 0 f!
' 0*iO
. 8YNbf f [f f F 8:
q, yy
. 7-f 00 pc/, /DAMAT1643 _ 'v 18 Y - 0.42 N
4.ptoeg s 19 G - (,7 f o g psf OtbteCK m Uolf 0?&Ek g,
CA t t A W AV 2
EOR OAllA W A V 8 35 Z Yi H '
(171Yts) + (194.YlS) + (158YtS)
Y ~ I.44 45 135 pef
^
'n Ya ^ T W H2 (0.47Ytd f (o47Yt3) f(oMYrST
~
- 2. H (
43..
.~ ^ O.442 m
G,~ IGi41 (167eYf 50 + (79ooYIO +(f tr900Yr50 ao z nt 4s eas'2. Ksl 21
[
ZucontenAre Tne +/-30% on THE Vmpe CF Ga.
22 l
M 1
m PG.11 OF 31
RWST SEISMIC ANALYSIS i
- 3.
SUMMARY
OF RESPONSE -
MODES:
FREQ.
MODE EFFECTIVE RANGE MASS (Hz)
.22 (CONVECTIVE) 1F%
4.6/6.2 (1ST HORIZ) 70 %
8.4/13.1 (1ST VERT) 93 %
1
(
PG.12 OF 31
RWST SEISIMIC ANALYSIS
- 4. TREATMENT OF MODES HORIZONTAL DIRECTIONS
- HYDRODYNA/AIC COMPUTED PER NUREG CR-1161 (SRSS OF IMPULSE, SLOSHING AND i
VERTICAL IAODES
- HYDROSTATIC &
HYDRODYNAMIC SUMIMED ABS l
(
PG.13 CF 31
RWST SEISNIIC ANALYSIS
- 4. TREATMENT OF MODES HORIZONTAL DIRECTIONS:
(CONTINUED)
- ONE HORIZ. ANALYSIS (DUE TO SYMNIETRY)
?
- 2ND HORIZ. DIRECTION IS 40% OF FIRST
- ADDED NOZZLE LOADS FROM SEPARATE ANALYSIS FOR EACH DIRECTION PG.14 CF 31
RVIST SEISMIC ANALYSIS
- (
- 4. TREATMENT OF MODES (CONTINUED)
- COMBINED TV(O HORIZ.
DIRECTIONS AS VECTOR SUM i
- VERTICAL DIRECTION CONSERVATIVELY ADDED ABS TO HORIZ
- USED MULTIlAODE
{
APROACH TO COIABINE ALL MODES IN A '
SPECIFIC DIRECTION
(
PG.15 CF 31
RWST SEISMIC ANALYSIS I
- 5. SLOSHING HEIGHT
- BASED ON NUREG CR-1161
- CONSIDERED ROOF STRESSES
- SNOVf LOAD CONTROLLED PG.16 CF 31
)
i U
J CALCULATION SHEET
.co e cac wo.
pgy, go, f
I4894 C-f789-f30 0
6 A /thn, s.ny?,,
~0[ @[.},
{;,qq 1
3
- 19. Seercr+es (couriutiec),
O llQurb l EVE L *-4 !*'
e 7
o e
'o
'E 8
r
.e - = = m,,,, h.-
)
0'M io n
.ra
.n 11 I
p
/
m
~~:
H Q
~
12 p
J/fg u
~
}
[gy,g
_i1_
3/ttl
'S y
is
'e 3
17 4*
Coutse 3
-U 8/IC 5
is
(
K l
=
o
'E h
m t) l y
Cevs.se +
t' i
o 23 I
i cong5 ts m
Se 66 O
'S 0HttE 4
' 'd b
- '::::t
._..._. /_
m t--_---_
-Y f.
- 'g y
YnLYE//*uSE
- 1 sw u
- l i
?
g
.(
,g ELEVATION VIEkl lEMIOtJ.* RETE (SEE REFERENCES 12,14 ANb 22)
PG.17 O= 31 0
l
\\
\\
RV(ST SEISWC ANALYSIS l
t
- 6. UPLIFT POTENTIAL
-ANALYSIS BY CLASSICAL METHOD INDICATES UPLIFT
( l.E. TENSION IN BOLTS) l
-TANK DISPLACEMENTS CONSIDERED IN PIPE ANALYSIS l
l l
(
PG,18 UF 31
RV(ST SEISIAlC ANALYSIS
- 7. OVERTURNING IAO!AENTS
-CONTROLLING CASES l
-FULL TANK '//ISEISMIC
-EMPTY TANK 'I/I'//IND
-BOLTS DESIGN PER CLASSICAL METHOD, BOLTS TAKE TENSION LOAD ONLY
-SHEAR LOAD TRANSFERRED TO CONCRETE FOOTING BY STATIC FRICTION BET'//EEN TANK BOTTOM AND CONCRETE (OVERSIZED HOLES PROVIDED PG.19 CF 31
RWST SEISMIC ANALYSIS IN TANK BASE TO JUSTIFY THE ABOVE) l l
'l i
PG.20 OF 31 1
CALCULATION SHEET q
14s14 C 1989 150 0
5 CAs.AAt Ost DATE CHECALS CATE O a AdV.w
( 27 vi hCOdil
- 7. II-9q 1
3
[v, hE?ICH Culh7 tons _ t O
R. TaneIfavatnrion Arnnemeur Seerenes s (Res. t2 ts 4.e n) s I
4./
?
\\.
210 8
'o
.>,s
'g
- u
,f 4
n
. rov.t n
neus 14 VR f23'41' i.
"e
,,. 3,f,.
<s e
T
, 3 m.
.i o
-A c4 to s :is q
.e,,,.y.
e i.
y...
juf
. <N
.Q
]~ *>
s
.. s.
S g.
ev N.
ri
. s
=
+-
~ ',
. b50' rme x
+
besy ua
.., 4. * &
.,... u wt n
......,p.--......_....
s...
_ k 4 N Yi E W.
I (FRon REFERENCE 22) a
=
PG. 21 CF 31
4 RVIST SEISMIC ANALYSIS
(
- 8. STRESSES IN SHELL
- BASED ON ORIGINAL SPEC. FOR TANKS
- ASME SECTION III SUBSECTION NC 1
(
PG. 22CF 31
h j
i.
RWST SEISNIIC ANALYSIS i
I i
i 9.
SUN 1 MARY - HOOP STRESS RIGID ANALYSIS:
4 l
-ONLY HYDROSTATIC l'
PRESSURES CONSIDERED
-PRESSURES COMPUTED AT 1
BASE OF EACH COURSE l
PG 23 OF 31
R/(ST SEISMIC ANALYSIS z
FLEXIBLE ANALYSIS:
-HYDRODYNAMIC AND HYDROSTATIC PRESSURES V(ERE CONSIDERED
-PRESSURES COMPUTED ONE FOOT ABOVE BASE OF EACH COURSE THICKNESS REQUIREMENTS COMPARED IN TABLE 1 t
PG. 24 OF 31
I i
TABLE 1
(
comparison of Required Shell Course Thicknesses (inches)
Shell Cenuted Recuired Thierness Actual Courses Ricid Analysig Flexible Analysis Thickness 1
0.0520 0.1875
- 0.1875 2
0.1041 0.1875
- 0.1875 3
0.1563 0.2179 0.3125 4
0.2083 0.2789 0.3750 5
0.2605 0.3418 0.5000 6
0.3126 0.4061 0.5000
- Minimum Requirements Govern PG.25 CF 31
l RWST SEISMIC ANALYSIS K
I 4
l 9.
SUMMARY
- ROOF DESIGN
-SLOSH HEIGHT OF 3.36 FT l
(CALCULATED PER NUREG CR-1161) l
-PREVIOUS DESIGN LOADS (ROOF SNO'// LOADS)
CONTROL
-CONNECTION '// ELD BET //EEN TANK ROOF AND CYLINDER JUNCTION CHECKED I
PG. 26 OF 31
l' RWST SEISMIC ANALY5IS i
i l
9.
SUMMARY
- COMPRESSION
-SEISMIC GOVERNED OVER WIND l
-SSE CONTROLLED RIGID J
ANALYSIS
-FLEXIBLE ANALYSIS I
CONSIDERED OBE AND SSE COMPRESSION STRESSES COMPARED IN TABLE 2
(
PG. 27 OF 31
.k s
a TABLE 2 Comparison Of Longitudinal Compression Stresses (PSI)
Shell Riald Analysis Flexible Analysis courses Stress Allevable Stress Allevable 1
124 (----)
2698 (1484) 2 165 (----)
2698 (1484) 3 1912 3307 140 (----)
4200 (2310) 4 2925 3933 2670 (----)
5400 (2970) 5 4273 (2749) 7000 (3850) 6 4235 4964 6584 (3927 )
7000 ( 2960 )
Signifies Negligible Course 5 was enveloped by Course 6 In flexible analysis, OBE values are given in parenthesis.
Values shown as (----)
were not computed since SSE stress was less than the CBE allowable.
(
I
\\
lr L
l PG.28 OF 31
=
(~
RHST SEIS/AIC ANALYSIS 9.
SU!AMARY - FOUNDATION
-SOIL PRESSURES
-SHEAR AND MOMENT IN
(
BASE SLAB EVALUATED
-SHEAR AND MOMENT IN BASE SLAB ADJACENT TO SUMP PIT EVALUATED
-SHEAR AND MOMENT IN SUMP PIT SLAB (2'-6" THICK)
(
EVA LUATED l
PG.23 CF 31
I 1
lm RWST SEISMIC ANALYSIS l
-COMPARISONS PROVIDED IN TABLE 3 l
l l
l l
l PG. 30 OF 31
.g -
TABLE 3 Foundation Comparisons Item of Comparison Ricid Analysis Flexible Analysis Allowable Static Soil Pressure (ksf) 3.36 3.27 20.00 Dynanic soil Pressure (ksf) 7.81 15.14 30.00 Shear in Typ. Slab Strip (Vu in Kips /FT) 49.90 63.5 79.35 Moment in Typ. Slab Strip (Mu in Kip-Ft/Ft) 107.90 174.20 216.57 Shear in Slab Strip around the Sump Pit 74.5 79.35 (Vu in Kips /ft)
Moment in Slab Strip around the Sump Pit 494.0 568.3 (Mu in Kip-FT/ft)
Shear in 2'-6" thick Sump Pit Slab 11.9 32.9 (Vu in Kips /ft)
Moment in 2'-6" thick Sump Pit Slab 13.2 88.5 (Mu in kip-FT/ft)
PG,31 OF 31