ML20069L365

Rev 2 to Containment,Annulus Concrete Design,Const & Testing for Perry Nuclear Power Plant

ML20069L365
Person / Time
Site:	Perry
Issue date:	04/01/1983
From:	GILBERT/COMMONWEALTH, INC. (FORMERLY GILBERT ASSOCIAT
To:
Shared Package
ML20069L355	List: ML20069L365 PY-CEI-NRR-0039, Forwards Rev 2 to Containment Annulus Concrete Design, Const & Testing for Perry Nuclear Power Plant
References
NUDOCS 8304280180
Download: ML20069L365 (78)

Text

y s

o CONTAINMENT ANNULUS CONCRETE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION and TESTING for the PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT North Perry, Ohio Rev. 2 k

The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company April 1, 1983 8304280180 830425

~

PDR ADOCK 05000440 A

PDR mf w

i.

^

]

l o

a TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title M

i I

1:00 INTRODUCTION 1

t 2:00 MODELLING CONSIDERATIONS 4

2:01 Introduction 4

2:02 Containment Vessel - Annulus Concrete Interface 4

2:03 Basemat Foundation - Annulus Concrete Interface 7

2:04 Shield Building.- Annulus Concrete Interface 7

3:00.

DESIGN 12 3:01 Load combinations 12 3:02 Vertical Reinforcement 12 3:03 Horizontal Reinforcement 12 3:04 Transverse (Radial)' Shear Reinforcement 13 3:05 Tangential Shear Reinforcement 13 I

3:06 Reinforcing Steel Strain Limits 20 3:07 Concrete Strain Limits 21 3:08 Tangential Shear Transfer at Basement 21 4:00 MATERIAL, TESTING AND CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATION 23 4:01 Reinforcing Steel 23 4:02 Concrete Supply and Placement 23 l

4:03 Testing 24 5:00 CONCLUSION 26 i

6:00 REFERENCES 27 7:00 LIST OF FIGURES 29 4

8:00 LIST OF TABLES 41 APPENDIX A -

Comparison of SRVD Response Spectrs for the Containment Vessel with and without the Anaus.s Concrete sentIcemmenene

m lo-4 x

4 CONTAINMENT ANNULUS CONCRETE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND TESTING 4

1:00 INTRODUCTION The Perry Nuclear Power Plant (PNPP) is located in North Perry, l

Ohio, 35 miles northeast of Cleveland, on the south shore of Lake Erie. The plant consists of two identical units, each powered by a Boiling Water Reactor (BWR), nominally rated at 1200 Megawatts, electrical output.

~

Each of the reactors is housed in a separate Reactor Building and contained by a steel Containment Vessel. The containment vessels are free-standing right cylindrical steel shells with ellipsoidal

-steel domes, designed-and fabricated by Newport News Industrial Corporation of Ohio. The cylindrical steel shell and steel dome comprise the pressure boundary for the sides and top, and were-designed and built in accordance with Section, III, Division 1 of the ASME Code (l); but, the bottom of the pressure boundary is formed by a reinforced concrete basemat. For this reason, the steel portion of the containment was not "N" stamped, even though it was built in accordance with the rules of ASME.

Originally, there was a five (5) foot wide annulus between the Containment Vessel and the Shield Building for the entire height.

(See Figure 1.1).

With the inclusion of safety relief valve (SRV) vibrations for the BWR Mark III, it_was necessary to fill this annulus with concrete for a height of 23'-6" above the top of the basemat in order to dampen vibrations in the Containment Vessel due to the SRV actuations. Safety relief valve discharge response spectra are presented in Appendix A to this report for three locations on the containment vessel. Two sets of response spectra are provided for each location. The response spectra are shown for the containment vessel with and without the annulus concrete in order to provide an indication of the changes in response which are caused by the annulus concrete. Since the annulus concrete Catert/Commoneenth 1

l y

~

was only required to provide stiffness to the Containment Vessel and was initially not required for strength, the design philosophy was to design the annulus concrete to ACI 318-71(2).

This was the same design criteria used for the concrete Shield Building.

However, since the original design, several conditions have developed as a result of increased loads, the methods of applying

' load calculations and construction problems. These conditions have dictated that the annulus concrete be used for strength and

'that ASME Code Case N-258 " Design of Interaction Zones for Concrete ContainmentsSection III, Division 2"(3) be followed.

Accordingly, the annulus concrete has been evaluated against the ASME Code,Section III, Division 2, Subsection CC, 1980 edition with the Summer 1981 Addenda (4). The design meets all Code provisions as interpreted by ASME Code Case N-258(3) which states that the steel containment vessel shall be designed to Se'etion III, Division 1 and the annulus concrete shall be designed to Section III, Division 2.

The annulus concrete also complies with NUREG-0800, SRP 3.8.1 Concrete Containment (6) with one exception. The exception pertains to the allowable tangential shear stress to be resisted by the concrete (v ) which e

, is limited to 40 psi and 60 psi, depending on the load category.

in SRP 3.8.1.

These allowable values for v are more stringent e

than the values in the ASME Code.

Sections 3:05 through 3:08 herein provide the justification for using the higher values for the Perry concrete. Consideration is given to recent research

~results, serain limits for reinforcement and concrete, and the s

tangential shear transfer at the basemat.

It is concluded that the present reinforced concrete design for the annulus concrete has sufficient strength and stiffness to resist the design tangential shear forces and that the acceptance criteria for s

concrete and reinforcement strains are met.

CdhertICommonweenn -

2

a The following discussion is divided into four sections:

Modelling considerations Design Materials, Testing and construction Considerations Conclusion o

I']

e k

\\

]

(

M i

A s

s Yi 5

N w

3 4

Gdbert / Commonwealth s

'N 3

I L

L 2:00 MODELLING CONSIDERATIONS 2:01 INTRODUCTION One of the first steps in the design process is to define the model to be used for analysis. The model, to be complete, must include the Containment Velsel, Shield Building, basemat foundation, as well as the annulus concrete being designed.

Because the annulus concrete is to be placed after all surrounding structures are complete, some unique modelling problems concerning the interface between these structures and this new concrete are introduced.

'The manner in which each of these interfaces was considered is discussed below.

The annulus concrete was analyzed using two computer programs -

ASHSD2 and ANSYS. The ASHSD2 program was used to analyze the Containment Vessel, annulus concrete, and Shield Building for static loads, suppression pool dynamic loads and seismic loads.

The finite element model used for these analyses is shown in 3

Figure 2.1.

Because the ASHSD2 program does not have thermal load capability, a second finite element model was required to analyze the response to thermal loads. The ANSYS thermal analysis model is shown in Figure 2.2 2:02 CONTAINMENT VESSEL - ANNULUS CONCRETE INTERFACE The interface between the Containment Vessel and the annulus concrete is represented in the ASHSD2 finite element model with common nodes for the axisymmetric solid elements and the axisymmetric shell elements. This representation is selected for the mechanical loads because these loads do not produce a tendeccy for significant slip at the interface, compared to the thermal loads discussed below. Some of these loads also are GeertIce-on stn 4

t 8-I f

non-axisymmetric'or dynamic and ASHSD2 does allow these types of loads.

Because-ASHSD2 did not have thermal load capability, an ANSYS model was developed for the thermal loads.

The interface between the Containment Vessel and the annulus concrete is represented in the ANSYS finite element model by i

modelling the vessel and adjacent annulus concrete with separate nodes which.are connected by " gap" elements. The vessel is anchored in the annulus concrete at the embedded circumferential stiffeners. The gap elements are used because under the accident temperature condition, the vessel experiences a temperature increase while the concrete through most'of its thickness does not. This discontinuous temperature distribution creates thermal forces and moments in the vessel and in the annulus concrete which depend on the degree of bond at the interface between the two structures. The Containment Vessel and annulus concrete are analyzed for this condition by using a feature of ANSYS which considers the vertical shear stress between the vessel and between the annulus concrete to be a function of the normal stress between the two structures at the interface (Gap Element).

If the vertical shear stress is less.than or equal to a constant multiplied by the normal stress, no slip occurs between the two l

structures.

If the vertical shear stress is greater than a constant multiplied by the normal stress, the surfaces can slip.

and a sustained value of shear stress equal to the constant times the normal stress is developed. This constant is similar to the static coefficient of friction between concrete and steel. Two different values of the constant, 0.7 and 0.0, were used for the design. A parametric study indicated that for valaes of the constant as large as 2.0 the forcet and moments in the annulus concrete did not change significantly from those corresponding to a 0.7 value for the constant. This approach conservatively bounds the actual degree of bond at the interface since a bond breaker is raerucommon=ese 5

1

. e s

applied to.the Containment Vessel on the vertical surface to be covered by concrete. Above the fourth ring stiffener and below the first, 3 inches of compressible material is placed between the concrete and vessel to reduce thermal compressive stresses. The compressible material was included in both computer models. The analysis using each value of this constant produced different critical stress' values; thus creating an envelope of maximum values for design.

As discussed above the design uses ANSYS model results with the non-linear " gap" element for the thermal loads and combines them with the linear ASHSD2 model results for the mechanical loads. To determine the acceptability of this approach, a study was made to evaluate the effect of combining the results from the two different fiaite element models used in the design. A finite element analysis was performed using the ANSYS model with gap

' elements and the dominant loads from the controlling load combination:

pressure, seismic, and thermal. Since the model is limited to axisymmetric loads, an equivalent seismic load was used for this analysis. The results from the above approach were compared to a second approach which combine results from two ANSYS models. The first model did not include the gap elements and

- analyzed the pressure and equivalent seismic loads. The results I

from this model were combined with the thermal results from a second model with gap elements. This is the same approach used for the annulum concrete design.

l-Comparing the two approaches, reinforcing steel stresses at each section were calculated from element stresses generated by each approach. The maximum or design reinforcing steel stresses from each approach are within 11%. Observation of Table 3.1 indicates that these small differences will not effect the final design.

1 6

6 4

- + -.

s. -. -

-,em,-

,..,,,-----,-,.,.--em-.-...-r.,

.. ~. -

.,,or

--r-,

--n--- - -

~

2:03 BASEMAT FOUNDATION - ANNULUS CONCRETE INTERFACE The basemat had been placed without considering the annulus filled with concrete; therefore, there is no mechanical connection (dowels) between the basemat and the annulus concrete. The origiaal ASHSD2 analysis for mechanical loads conservatively modelled this condition with the base of the annulus concrete being independent of the basemat with no restraint against either upward or downward vertical movement. However, the Shield Building and vessel were-fixed at the basemat. This model required the vessel and Shield Building to carry all the transverse shear forces. The results of this analysis indicated that the Shield Building was overstressed. The next logical step was to more realistically model this interface area; therefore, the basemat stiffness was added to the model removing the fixed conditions of the vessel and Shi. eld Building. The results of this analysis indicated that the Shield Building was marginally within allowables for the shear forces. Although the shear stresses were within allowables, the decision was made to mechanically protect the Shield Building. To achieve this, the basemat was prepared for the new concrete by cutting a shear key to resist some of the radial shear being transferred through the annulus concrete.

The analysis for the thermal loads with ANSYS incorporated a

" gap" element to create the effect of a compression with no tension capability boundary between the basemat and annulus concrete. The " gap" element accurately models the actual

~

interface.

l 2:04 SHIELD BUILDING - ANNULUS CONCRETE INTERFACE l

l The Shield Building - annulus concrete interface was modelled as a i

monolithic section, in other words, no slip is assumed to occur along the interface. To evaluate this assumption, the interface shear and normal stresses were reviewed for the critical load Geert/Commoneestth 7

... ~ -

~_

combinations. The variation of these stresses along the height of the annulus concrete is shown in Figure 2.3 for the

abnormal / extreme environmental condition, which is controlling.

From this figure, it is seen that for the region starting above L

section 1 and extending above section 7, a distance of approximately 12 feet,-the normal stresses are entirely

. compressive. Over this region the maximum vertical shear stress is 108 psi with the average stress of 55 psi. For the region etarting just above section 7 extending through 9 (4 feet), the normal stresses are tensile with a peak value of 60 psi accompanied by small values of shear stress (25 psi maximum).

Above section 9, (5 feet) the shear stresses increase to a maximum of 227 psi, but these are accompanied by normal stresses at the interface which are compressive.

In the lower portion, below section 2 (2.5 feet), the shear stresses increase to a maximum of 212 psi in conjunction with a tensile normal stress of 60 psi.

The likelyhood that these stresses would cause debonding at the annulus concrete - Shield Building interface is discussed below.

The Corps of Engineers' report " Investigation of Methods of Preparing Horizontal Construction Joints In Concrete"(5) presents l'

the results of an experimental research program on construction joints. This report presents individual test results of tension and shear capacity across a construction joint that is rough, clean and dry. The age of the specimens at the time of testing was 17 days, at which time the concrete had achieved a compressive i

strength of approximately 1300 psi. The specimens contained

~

1-1/2 inch crushed limestone coarse aggregate. The tension values I

from nine tests ranged from 130 psi to 80 psi with an average of 105 psi. The shear values ranged from 150 psi to 240 psi with an average of 195 psi. The minimum test values were used to establish a reduced Mohr's failure envelope for the interface, and j

the combined shear and normal stresses from the curves in Figure 2.3 were evaluated with respect to this criteria. From this evaluation it is expected that debonding of the interface Geert/Commonmasth 8

i will not occur, except perhaps in a local region at the base of the annulus. However, the slip in this area is expected to remain small due to restraint provided by the bonded joint above and the basemat below.

The Corps of Engineers' report (5) also gives conclusions which are useful in defining the surface preparation of the Shield Building for the placement of the annulus concrete. The report concludes that the surface should be rough, clean and dry for best results.

To obtain these conditions the Shield Building surface in the annulus was bush hawmered to produce a roughened surface with a 1/4" amplitude which will be air cleaned before placement of the annulus concrete.

1.

For composite flexural members, ACI 318-71(2) contains design requirements for shear transfer across the interface of the components which comprise the member. Generally, these provisions permit a shear stress as large as 80 psi to be transferred across the interface without ties, if the interface is intentionally roughened and clean. An exception to this allowable is if tension normal to the interface exists. In this case ties are required to provide a' normal clamping stress necessary to develop the shear stress. The interface between the annulus concrete and the Shield' Building differs from the interface in a composite flexural member in several respects.

First, for a composite flexural member, if the calculated interface shear stresses exceed the shear strength of the joint, debonding occurs. Slip at the interface occurs and without tie.s,

no clamping mechanism exists to limit the slip or to develop any significant portion of the calculated shear stress at the interface. Consequently, composite action between the components is. lost across the entire width of the member and along its length where this condition exists. However, this condition would not occur at the untied interface of the annulus concrete and the O

i Geert/Comonesetth 9

Shield Buil. ding. The annulus. concrete and Shield Building can be

+

visualized as an inner cylinder contained within an outer cylinder. If debonding of the interface occurs, vertical slippage

-at the roughened interface between the two cylinders will develop a compressive clamping stress at the interface due to the axisymmetric geometry of the cylinders. This condition will limit slip and_ transfer shear without ties across the interface.

Another difference between the composite flexural member and the annulus concrete is the variation of the calculated shear stress at the interface. The annulus concrete interface normal and shear stresses plotted in Figure 2.3 are peak values. These values may occur at one location around the circumference, and they decrease away from this location. This differs from a flexural member in that the maximum calculated stresses are uniform across the entire width of the member, and if these stresses exceed the joint capacity composite action for the entire cross section is lost, Based on the above discussion it is concluded that significant g

slip at the annulus concrete - Shield Building interface is not expected to occur. Therefore, the assumption in the analysis model that the annulus concrete and Shield Building act as monolithic concrete is reasonable.

The preceding discussion provides the basis for the assumption in the finite element model that the Shield Building and annulus concrete act monolithically. However, an analysis was performed to demonstrate that the stresses in the Containment Vessel are not significantly influenced by this assumption. For the purpose Of the analysis, the vessel stresses produced by the long term LOCA 4

load combination were compared for the case of including the 3 ft.

Shield Building as a monolithic part of the 5 ft annulus concrete and for the case where the Shield Building is removed from the model.

1 l

Geert/ Commonwealth 10

-. _ =

For the long term LOCA load combination the largest stresses are caused by the' accident pressure and temperature loads. By performing a plane stress analysis for these loads, the vessel stresses were obtained. The design pressure of 15 psig was used with a temperature of 115 0F applied to the vessel. The value of 115 0F corresponds to the vessel experiencing a temperature-increase from its 70 0F stress free value to the maximum design LOCA temperature of 185 0F.

For these combined loads, the net vessel stress in the hoop direction is compressive and was calculated as 17400 psi for the 8 ft monolithic model and 15700 psi for the model consisting only of the vessel and the

. annulus concrete. This represents a 10% reduction in vessel compressive stress, which is not significant. However, as seen frorn the above results, use of the monolothic model actually gives a greater calculated hoop stress in the vessel.

L i

1 e

b 11

,,r--,

a-.--

4 o

0 3:00 DESIGN 3:01 LOAD COMBINATIONS The loading conditions used for the annulus' concrete design were the containment loading combinations presented in the FSAR including Appendix 3A and 3B.

However, the design has been evaluated using the load combinations specified in Table CC 3230-1 of the ASME Code (4) and the Appendix to NUREG-0800(6),

3:02 VERTICAL REINFORCEMENT The vertical reinforcement was designed to carry the vertical forces and moments along with the tangential shear forces as defined by ASME Section III, Division 2, Subsection CC 3521.1.1 c.

The final design is f18 Grade 60 reinforcing bars on 15 inch centers on both faces. To insure that the vessel and the antulus concrete act together and to spread the reinforement, the vertical reinforement next to the vessel is to be placed through holes in the horizontal stiffeners.

Figure 3.1 is a copy of a reduced construction drawing of the general steel layout.

Table 3.1 gives steel stress values for each section of the i

annulus concrete for the critical load combination. The table shows that the stresses in the vertical reinforcement range from small compression to 35.5 kai in tension. These stress values do not include the tangential shear stress that is transferred to the orthogonal reinforcement. This is discussed later in Section 3:05.

I 3:03 HORIZONTAL REINFORCEMENT The horizontal reinforcement was designed to carry the hoop forces and moments and the tangential shear force as defined in s

4 Geert/CommonuesRA 12

ASME Code,.Section III, Division 2,' Subsection CC 3521.1.1 c.

The final design is #18 Grade 60 reinforcing bars spaced from 6 to 12 inches on centers on both faces.

See Figure 3.1.

i l

j Table 3.1 shows that the horizontal reinforcement stresses range from small compression to 50.8 kai tension. Again the tangential l

shear stress has not been added.

j 3:04 TRANSVERSE (RADIAL) SHEAR REINFORCEMENT The horizontal ties (shear reinforcement) were designed to carry the transverse shear force in excess of what the concrete can carry. Although the original design was to ACI-318, it meets the criteria of the ASME Code,Section III, Division 2, Subsection CC 3421.4.1.

The ties are #7 bars spaced circumferential1y at each vertical bar below the horizontal stiffener #1 and above horizontal stiffener #4 and every other bar I

in the middle sections. Additional ties were added in regions of attachment plate stiffeners. The vertical distribution of shear ties is as follows:

-Below horizontal stiffener #1 -

4 tie elevations Between horizontal stiffeners #1 & #2 -

4 tie elevations Between horizontal stiffeners #2 & #3 -

4 tie elevations Between horizontal stiffeners #3 & #4 -

3 tie elevations i

Above horizontal stiffener f4 -

3 tie elevations 3:05 TANGENTIAL SHEAR REINFORCEMENT 3:05.1 Code and SRP Requirements Using the shear friction provisions of ACI 318-71, the original design included tangential shear in determining the reinforcement requirements in the vertical and horizontal directions, and l

inclined reinforcement was not provided. However, based on l

Geert/ Common esan 13

SRP. 3.8.1, inclined reinforcement is required if the tangential shear stress is greater than 40 psi for abnormal / severe environmental loads'and 60 psi for abnormal / extreme environmental loads. These limits are very conservative when compared with the ASME Code.

For the minimum reinforcement provided in the annulus concrete, CC3421.5.1(a) of the A3ME Code allows 107 psi before inclined reinforcement would be required. However, the maximum calculated tangential shear stress is 83 psi, which occurs for the abnormal / extreme environmental condition; therefore, inclined reinforcement is not required by the Code. The SRP 3.8.1 requirements would result in inclined reinforcement consisting of

1. 5 bars at a 12 inch center to center spacing. This amount of reinforcement seems rather inconsequential relative to the f18 bars provided in the v'ertical and horizontal directions. This conclusion is confirmed by the results of the analysis described in Section 3:05.3. Here it is shown that the stresses in the orthogonal reinforcement and the strains in the concrete are not significantly reduced by the addition of the #5 inclined bars.

The design of the annulus concrete for' tangential shear was based on the shear allowable of the ASME Code racher than the reduced allowables presented in SRP.3.8.1 for two reasons. First, the magnitude of the tangential shear stresses are not as severe as those for a typical concrete containment subjected to the same seismic input. More importantly, the results of recent research indicates that the tangential shear allowabica of the ASME Code are conservatively low considering the magultule of the stresses in the orthogonal reinforcement in the annulus concrete, as discussed below.

l Geert/ Commonwealth i

14 l

3:05.2-Tangential, Shear Research Tests on reinforced concrete specimens containing orthogonal reinforcement and subjected to simultaneous loads creating biaxial tension and tangential shear stresses have been performed at the Construction Technology Laboratories of the Portland Cement Association (PCA) and at Cornell University. The PCA tests were conducted on two (2) feet thick specimens containing #14 and

1. 18 reinforcement. The Cornell test specimens were smaller than those tested by PCA. The results of the PCA tests are reported in Reference 7.

The Cornell test results are presented in Reference 8.and summarized in a recent paper (9). This paper compares the Cornell and PCA results with others performed in Toronto and Japan. Table 3.2 presents a comparison of the calculated' tangential shear stresses occurring in the annulus concrete with tangential shear strengths based on the conclusions from the Cornell and PCA tests.

In Reference 9, the following expression is proposed as a conservative estimate of the allowable tangential shear stress in j

orthogonally reinforced concrete:

f( (2.7 + 0.006 Pfy (1-f /f ))

(1) vc=

s y 4

c = allowable tangential shear strength (psi) where v

fe = compressive strength of concrete (psi)

A = minimum steel ratio of the two 4

orthogonal reinforcements, fy = reinforcement yield stress (psi) fs =. reinforcement stress due to the biaxial forces (psi)

CatertICommoneeenn 15

This equation was developed from equal biaxial tension tests.

Equation (1) was conservatively applied to the annulus concrete using the stresses and-reinforcing. ratios presented in Table 3.1.

The largest reinforcement stress was taken to exist on both faces and used as f, in Equation (1).'

This resulted in the tangential shear strength values shown in columns 3 and 4 of Table 3.2.

The l

tangential shear strength of the section'is the minimum of these two values and is shown in column 5.

By comparing this with the calculated tangential shear stress appearing in column 2, it is seen that the shear strengths are in excess of the calculated shear stresses by the factors shown in column 9.

At the critical section 2, the strength exceeds the calculated shear stress by 172%.

Reference 7 (the PCA tests) concludes that the following expression provides a lower bound estimate of the shear strength of orthogonally reinforced concrete subjected to cyclic loads:

'Vso = 0.90 pfy (1-f,/f )

(2) y 7

where v,o = lower bound tangential shear strength (psi) p

= minimum steel ratio of the two orthogonal reinforcements 1

f

= reinforcement yeild stress (psi) y L

f,

= reinforcement stress due to the biaxial forces (psi)

To limit shear distortions and strains in the reinforcement, a

factor of 0.6 is recommended in place of the 0.9 appearing in equation (2).

Geert/Commeneesth 16

~..

}

_The report also establishes an upper limit on shear stress resisted by orthogonal reinforcement as:

gbh(7.5-fs/14300)

(3) vo=

]

whece vso = upper limit tangential shear strength (psi) f

= compressive strength of concrete (psi) c f,

= reinforcement stress due to the biaxial forces (psi)

The shear strength for each section of the annulus concre.e was calculated using the above expressions. These are presented in columns 6, 7 and 8 of Table 3.2.

Column 6 represents the minimum-directional shear strength determined by Equation (2). Column 8 presents the shear strength corresponding to limiting shear distortion. Column 7 is the upper bound on shear strength determined by Equation (3). The controlling limit on tangential shear stress is considered to be the distortion limit shown in Column 8.

When these values are compared with the calculated shear stress values shown in Column 2, it is seen that, as a minimum, the shear strength exceeds the calculated shear stress by 63%.

i The results of these tests reported in References 7 and 9 are considered to be applicable to the evaluation of the ability of i

the annulus concrete to resist the calculated tangential shear stresses without inclined reinforcement. From these test results it is concluded that sufficient shear strength exists and the shear distortions will be small using only orthogonal reinforcement in the annulus concrete. The conclusion that the shear distortions will remain small was confirmed by applying Duchon's(10) analytical model to the stress conditions shown in Geert/Commanusse 17

t Table 3.1.

This is discussed in Section 3:05.3 below. The Duchon model was selected because the research (7) has concluded it to be a reasonable approximation of the shear distortions experienced by completely cracked elements even for a large number of stress reversals.

3:05.3 Duchon Model To confirm for the current design that the shear distortions remain small without inclined reinforcement, Duchon's (10) analytical model was applied to the stress conditions of the annulus concrete, The input to Duchon model includes the following:

Forces - Vertical Horizontal Shear Concrete Area Steel Modulus Concrete Modulus Reinforcing Ratio - Vertical IIorizontal Inclined Angle of Inclined Steel The vertical and horizontal forces were input as the maximum of the inside or outside face reinforcing bar stress values at the section from Table 3.1, multiplied by the appropriate reinforcement area. At each section, the shear force was input as the product of the tangential shear stress from column (2) of I

Table 3.2, times the concrete section area.

e The Duchon model was also used to evaluate the effect of the addition of the #5 inclined bars which would result from the requirements in SRP 3.8.1.

The results from these analyses on the l

Geert/Commonweenn 18

factored load case are shown in Table 3.3.

Columns (2), (4), and l

(7) are the results for the current design with no inclined reinforcement. Columns (3), (5), (6), and (8) are the results with #5 bars at a spacing of 12 inches and inclined 450 in both directions. Adding the inclined reinforcement reduces the

{-

vertical and horizontal reinforcement stresses by an averge of 7%.

This reduction is not large enough to justify the addition of

' inclined' reinforcement considering that the orthogonal reinforcement in the current design is not overstressed. For the

1. 5 inclined bars in the model, some reach yield locally as shown in column (6) of Table 3.3.

This means that the stress carried by the inclined reinforcement would not be as great as that indicated in Table 3.3 for sections where the inclined reinforcement yields.

To be theoretically correct, the Duchon model would have to be revised to set all inclined reinforcement stress levels above yield (60 ksi) to 60 ksi, and then re-evaluate the equilibrium equations. This correction was not considered important and was not made for these analyses.

The lower allowable concrete shear stresses in SRP 3.8.1 produces a requirement for inclined reinforcement. This reinforcement is intended to control shear distortions, which in turn limits the strains in the reinforcement'and containment liner. It is believed that this intent of the SRP is met by the current design.

The distortional shear strains predicted by the Duchon model are shown in columns (7) and (8) of Table 3.3.

The PCA test results from Reference 7 indicate that the Duchon model gives a reasonable approximation of the shear distortions experienced by completely cracked elements even for a large number of stress reversals.

Column (7) shows that the distortional shear strain values range from 0.00147 rad to 0.00331 rad, with an average of 0.00217 rad for the current design. These values are small, and the 0.00217 rad average value is less than one-half of the ultimate values of shear distortion measured in the PCA tests in Reference 7.

Comparing these results with those in column (8), it i

Geert/Commanuseth 19

. =

=

+

is seen that the effect of the #5 inclined reinforcement is to reduce the distortional shear strains by approximately 8%. This reduction is not significant considering that the distortional shear strains in the current design are not large. The addition of the inclined steel would only slightly_ improve the distortional shear strains, but not enough to offset the problems associated with placing the' inclined reinforcement.

3:05.4-Conclusion on Tangential Shear 4

As discussed above, the current annulus concrete design for i

tangential shear meets all of the requirements of ACI 318-71 and ASME Section III, Division 2.

The design does not meet the l-reduced allowable shear provisions of SRP 3.8.1.

However, it has been shown that the current annulus concrete design meets the t

intent of the SRP to require a design with adequate shear strength and limited shear strains. This was demonstrated from an evaluation of the design using tangential shear test results obtained by PCA (7) and Cornell (9), and by applying the Duchon analytical model (10).

I-3:06' REINFORCING STEEL STRAIN LIMITS l

The ASME Code Section III, Division 2, Subsection CC 3410 l

generally limits reinforcement strains to the elastic range for i

factored loads, allowing the strains to go to twice yield only in specified cases. This constraint is more severe than ACI 318 i

which generally allows the steel to yield under factored loads.

Even though the annulus concrete was originally designed to ACI-318, a check of the critical loads indicates that the strain limits of CC 3422 are not violated. Interaction diagrams were developed using the ASME strain limits. Service and factored load combinations were plotted for each section on the interaction diagrams. Figures 3.2 to 3.7 are interaction diagrams with only the critical sections plotted. They show that all strains are within ASME allowables.

4 Geert/Commonussith r

20

3:07 CONCRETE STRAIN LIMITS Table CC-3421-1 and CC-3431-1 define the concrete stress limits for the ASME Code for Section III, Division 2.

The stresses in the annulus concrete are small and fall below the allowables presented. Figures 3.2 through 3.7 also show the concrete stresses to be less than ASME Code allowables.

3:08 TANGENTIAL SHEAR TRANSFER AT BASEMAT The annulus concrete is not mechanically connected to the bcsemat; therefore all the tangential shear force must be tr'fnsferred to either the Containment Vessel or the Shield Building.

This transfer of force has been evaluated with respect to the particular code governing the design of each building. This evaluation establishes the adequacy of the Containment Vessel, Annulus Concrete, and Shield Building to carry the tangential shear and ultimately to transfer this tangential shear to the foundation.

The models used for the annulus concrete analysis and design contain the Shield Building; therefore, the ANSYS analysis can be used to evaluate the tangential shear transfer to the basemat.

The Containment Vessel model does-not contain the annulus concrete; therefore, a special analysis was performed to evaluate the tangential shear transfer to the basemat. The Shield Building must carry 42.5 kips per foot (100 psi) of tangential shear during the critical load combination for the annulus concrete. When this tangential shear is combined with the vertical and horizontal reinforcing stresses for this critical load combination, there is a 16% safety margin over the ACI-318 allowable for the Shield Building. The effect of adding the annulus concrete has a negligible effect on the tangential shear design values. Because the critical load combination is different for the Shield Building and the annulus concrete due to thermal effects.a confirmation ames(coman wth 21

analysis was made which indicated that the shield Building -could carry all postulated load combinations within normal safety margins.

The Containment Vessel is required to carry an additional 1.68 kips per inch or 745 psi of tangential shear. The vessel designer (Newport News Industrial Corporation) supplied the basic vessel

' stresses which were increased by the 745 psi and evaluated. The vessel still meets all ASME Code,Section III, Division I design requirements for stress intensity levels. With allowable at 3Sm = 57.9 ksi the controlling. load combination produces only an intensity of 25 ksi.

k e

1 Geert/Commanneenh 22

4:00 MATERIAL, TESTING AND CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS 4:01 REINFORCING STEEL Purchasing, placing, and the mechanical (Cadweld) splicing of reinforcing steel bars in the annulus area was performed utilizing the Safety-Related PNPP specifications for concrete and reinforcing-steel, without consideration of the ASME Code, Sectior. III, Division 2 rules. However, to demonstrate the extent to which the ASME Code,Section III, Division 2, technical requirements were met, a third party, an Authorized Nuclear Inspector (ANI), was brought on-site by the Constructor. The ANI has reviewed all material certification and construction procedures to verify PNPP Specification compliance. Table 4.1,

" Reinforcing Steel and Splicing Code Comparison", is presented to indicate the detail to which the ANI reviewed this material and to establish Code compliance. All concerns of the ANI have been addressed and resolved, such that a letter has been issued stating Specification compliance.

It has been further demonstrated that the requirements of ASME Section III, Division 2, NCA-3461, which requires the Constructor to survey, qualify and audit certain suppliers, has been met with respect to the Code's intent, as related to reinforcing steel and Cadweld splices.

This was accomplished by producing combined Owner and Contractor records showing inspections and audits of these suppliers. This approach is used because the cost to remove and replace reinforcing steel according to the ASME Code has been estimated to be $20 million.

4:02 CONCRETE SUPPLY AND PLACEMENT Specification SP-14, " Supply of Concrete", which is the construction specification for all the nuclear safety related concrete for the PNPP has been revised to meet all ASME Code Section III, Division 2 requirements as provided in Tables 4.2 and 4.3.

Table 4.2 " Concrete Code Comparison" is a compilation, i

f Geert/Commenneen 23 p

o-g section by section, of the comparisons between the Code rules and the revised SP-14 rules..In addition, concrete testing requirements are compared in Table 4.3.

Additional review of Code sections including quality assurance, personnel qualifications, vendor surveillance, and an independent review by a third party, ANI, have further established CEI's ability to meet the intent of Code mandated practices in-these areas. For these reasons CEI's Site Organization will continue to operate the concrete batch plant; thereby, taking advantage of over seven (7) years of experience in supplying nuclear safety related concrete. This is in contrast with the ASME Code which states that the Constructor shall control the batch plant. No improvement in quality can be achieved by following this requirement; in fact, some reduction in quality could occur if the Constructor were required to control or supply a batch plang for the small quantities of concrete required for the annulus.

Upon discharge from the transit mix-truck, the plastic concrete will be ' conveyed, placed,. consolidated, cured, and tested in full compliance with ASME,Section III, Division 2 as required by the certified construction specification SP-801.

SP-801 was specifically prepared for the annulus. concrete placement, f

4:03 TESTING The Perry containment is scheduled to undergo a Structural Integrity Test (SIT) in accordance with the rules of ASME Section III, Division 1, Subsection NE-6000. There are currently no rules-in the ASME Code for the structural testing of the annulus concrete portion of the containment shell. However, rules for such a test have been proposed as a revision to the ASME Code Case N-258, and the Perry Containment SIT will comply with these proposed rules in addition to those of NE-6000. The proposed

. provisions require that displacement measurements and concrete crack inspections be performed to a limited extent.

The w

24

o displacement requirements call for radial displacements to be measured on the vessel near the top of the annulus concrete at four azimuths. The crack inspections are to be performed on a 40 square ft. area of the annulus concrete. The acceptance criteria are to be in accordance with ASME Section III, Division 2, Subse.ction CC-6000. Also, strain measurements are required in the region of the annulus concrete near the base sla.b and in the vicinity of the largest penetration in the annulus concrete.

A 9

9

- Geert/Commoneselth 25

_A 4

_m

., _ _.._.-.. +

m 5:00 CONCLUSION The concrete and reinforcing steel individually and collectively as a unit meet fully the ASME Code,Section III, Division 2(4),

except purchasing, placing and the mechanical. (Cadweld) splicing of reinforcing steel bars and the concrete supply. As indicated in Sections 4:01 and 4:02 the full intent of the Code has been followed with respcct to these areas. The design approach presented here is-the best possible considering the specifics of the Perry Containment Vessel, Shield Building and annulus concrete. The final design developed from this approach is capable of safely carrying all postulated loads and load l

combinations.

M>

e 4

1 a

Gewt/Commoneesth 26

6:00 REFERENCES 1.

ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, 1974 Edition with Summer 1974 Addenda.

2.

ACI 318-71 Bulding Requirements For Reinforced Concrete.

3.

ASME Code Case N-258

" Design of Interaction Zones for Concrete ContainmentsSection III, Division 2" March, 1980.

4 4.

ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, 1980 Edition with Summer 1981 Addenda.

so 5.

U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station -

"Investiga' ion of Methods of Preparing Horizontal t

Construction Joints for Concrete" Tech. Report No. 6-518 July 1959 - Corps of Engineers.

6.

NUREG-0800 - SRP 3.8.1 " Concrete Containment" Rev 1, July 1981.

7.

Oesterle, R.G. and Russell, H.G.

" Shear Transfer in Large Scale Reinforced Concrete Containment Elements."

Construction Technology Laboratories, Portland Cement Association - NUREG/CR-2450, Dec 1981.

8.

Perdikanis, P.C.; White, R.N.; Gergely, P.

" Strength and Stiffness of Tensional Reinforced Concrete Panels Subjected to Membrane Shear, Two-Way Reinforcing" - Department of Structural Engineering, Cornell University - NUREG/CR-1602 July 1980.

9.

Cowley, White, Uilmy and Gergely

" Design Considerations for Concrete Nuclear Containment Structures Subjected to Simultaneous Pressure and Seismic Shear" presented at Session 53, 6th SMIRT Conf. Paris, 1981.

Gdbert/Commormenn 27

10.

Duchon, N.B.

" Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Membrane Subject to Tension and Shear", ACI Journal, Proc. Vol. 69, No. 9, Sept 1972 pp 578-583.

4

)

t e

Geert/Commoneesth 28

7:00 LIST OF FIGURES 1.1 Containment - Shield Building 2.1 ASHSD2 Model 2.2 ANSYS Thermal Model 2.3 Factored Load - Shield Building / Annulus Interface Stresses 3.1 Annulus Concrete Reinforcing 3.2 Vertical Steel - Service Loads Interaction Diagram 3.3 Horizontal Steel - Below Elevation 590'-6" serivce Loads - Interaction Diagram 3.4 Horizontal Steel - Above Elevation 590'-6" Service Loads - Interaction Diagram 3.5 Vertical Steel - Factored Loads Interaction Diagram 3.6 Horizontal Steel - Below Elevation 590'-6" Factored Loads - Interaction Diagram 3.7 Horizontal Steel - Above Elevation 590'-6" Factored Loads - Interaction Diagram GdbertICommonwealth 29

g.

n s

El. 757' 0" N

y 3

~.

t i

i S

i:

i w

2

~

T

/ F 4

El. 664' 10" m

=.

s i

F 4

El. 610 ' 5 "

H b

b 4

El.5 92' 2" 7.

~

s i+.

• . P

-w-ys fj..

4.

E l. 5 8 7,' 2 ",,

d

.. h r..

E l. 5 84, 2,,

i.

'J'-

-t '.

E l.581 2 F

E e

.. y.

.?.

a 1

1 1

Figure 1.1 Containment - Shield Building 30

4 "s.

1 s.

t t

l t

t t

t l

=

I 4

-l 11111!'-

E j] iL.!

.t Jr

-i r

i '. !

! 'lilj2.:!.

J s'

i i

ll m'2.1 pi;g j pl a.

e

!]1 c

g. i

j

j.

g.

[. l b is-s

<l.1i ai r JE il'!'t II',

e i i

'N, l llllil' I iii,i s

.s' I

e I *he I i i ! I i i i i i t i t i l ! i } t i l "h l i i t t i i t i I i i 1 e"_t Tr*i l i t i l l l l i l l li.'lll41n titolill!itti ej et*. I t i l t I i l i l i l i l l i i

.l', f l a t t I i ! I l i i i aj

','A llilitilli lilllill M itialli t

itt r,i 8

a itilii si!

=)

l.$

d list 6 eti el t'

iiIli i t v i a_- [

W 4to6i 6 i,.,i n.e g

O'Iii i!

t i i ad tu

..li 6i i ) a.e i

9*!

it i

W *.e 2:

4@

t gW i 6 6g

{

siip em L8J UJ

~ '-

a o

=

cn 3

S v

E k

e a

N GW

s

.A.

e.

I I

4 A

n y

t

I

.n j

e Tt y

{

p.

c s

I I

r

+

I I

s~~~j-3" 3

P C

I i

S.

r s

1 1

i l

t l

=

l t

l

=

g g

31

I 4

l l

1 l

I l

l

=

l O O O O

Section No. O 8-4 9

9 8

8 e e s

,:.........e ees h

@I F-G & @ 9 6 6 9 9 0 9 9 a

s

)!,

s' i

l

=

o slsjsjsl

@N

~

o i i iiii i i

.=-yu _ _

_ g-o e

l

=

1 i

s ps w=-

Ii jj s

i+ie i

e m'

.a V'

C;. _.

6 e e

-lllll ll leisiste

-[*l*l*-

>{

@ _. w w : r

. :,,e+ 4 m r. -.-. Je Is is i I I' y

-g c _. _.-

~

e'e e elelej-e llll l

l

~

/a e I 3 6

6

+

9 l l}l l

l g_.,.. L1L... I1,5p,e%=- _,

gg}

=

~..

3 l

+ G.

-- m....

• i,

k e pg, ; ;3, ege g

s'.+ + l_ e I_ e l.._ O--

9 ll l

+

l f _'

3 e

w e

e' e e s e o 3

ee

-=

[

ejejelSl" i i

(^.)

e a s e s s e e s e e e e s

g

gg g - -

ggr-

i..

E i iiiiiill I iI i i

i ! I ii

~

~~

3 Figure 2.2 ANSYS Thermal Model

.. _ _'L 3

Njph!'ll Izilillli 13 j. y!

i aldj!si

! I;! ldi

• I

i. i iTM !j i !.! :lilfi 1:n m' E i j II li i r Erf !ll ii

'sil!

I

~ *i F

.l}~!

r g-

]tiit:1 J.i. li.[ e.I 32

=

1

A&

?

j3q h

7 i

e

=%

X

/

4

/

Pj n

k I

\\

-Q $

\\

N k

/

h*

l b

/-

'? "

\\

s

/

Q

-h g

\\

3 k EI N l3 g

P'

/

dP

\\

-9@2

/

i N

p t

I

\\

/

%/

A 8

0

/

V b

k/

5-!

tC v' h

50; -R k

$a

=-

)a,

d y

e

?.

/

e_

r

,I e

i

+

C C

C 1

Q

-+

-r m

0

~) h

]

s ns a

l 3

4 s.,

33

I

(#0!lYRAD. "r0 k

/.10,/

8 Re A4.. c>LD&.

1. 66157(p M*

• TQP OF CONC.EL.59B* 4"

,'.,. }.,

thTHK.COCAtNMENT YESSEL

,3 *

~'

SHIEl.0 WAL!.

e y..

t 3.,THK.gPRESSIBLE i

i IL:

i L

88 l L d

Sl8 @l6k' tL-g 1

=

1 /-TtCL.

!.-2 {'CL.

G.

Q' p

~.---

q C

et D

g, l*THK. COMPRESSIBLE d

tL- $

MAT'L. (TYR E ACH ha 0;@=

Q,,

binFFENER RING)m eh t

g q

wb

• c v

.S' c

I St A. _T 'y j

k

\\

q, d: f O

(

5/4* e4K. STIFF.(TYP.)

3 a

f u' drYR)

D 2

~ f.

1 (TTR) '

l' :

t i

\\

x

\\

• O i

o Q,

l Y

?

Y,.:

w q

b Y

w

_9 t

w

-a

,Q

- y

~

6

'(

-h 87 Sits 2$7lES(TYR)

J _O 3

I D

o l

b

.y3

},

p 4

, _Iv

.o.

1 O

L.

O

[

O'

-d

.';g

~

"g l

6 i

-mi r._ =

9 3

'l

(*ie o.F.

'N

"% -I i

1 e

.rr o b.

,,/

• v-TURN SHEAR 7tES i

"g

=

AS REQ'O.TO CLE/R d

q t

E/4~74K.511FFENERS /

4

-.N co g~

1 0

s

'l6'S 0.T.

N[

[

i f

,?

S g

4

+

a TOP OF MAT in 11 M

D' EL.57C-C

)

]

{

• gl 2

Dl8

• <rl se i

I s-i

".'.7;.

I*

u

/

D w

1

,a (..

/

COM P RE5518 L E M AT'L. - 3" TH K.

PROVIDE 21*WiOE li'DP SHEAq KEY IN COMTAINMCWT BMF M AT.

SHE AR KEY TO BE CENTERED

/

Figure 3.1 ECTWEEN SH) ELD WAt.L ( CONT.

Annulus Concrete Reinforcing VESSEL P. FOR FULL CtRCUM.

stAENCE OF RE ACTOR BLDG.

34

idFf7 JT/AUPS-7X7.75 7V>l/JJ) t 3*f 31/7fu

,o05psj (GFG7 ?!OF 2f?Mf/4) ggg4__

7F/XF f3 0F) 3 l

FO f""'3,3 i

opsar7 rswpo777 sxsy-sero 7 Jb' d4t???F GPV DVts///

/

,,F@q)

/

"ma-cutn>

ei7od y

an av caou o

aces-o n-p, l

l l

l l

l l

=

'4"ap":

-- 00/-

gpg;

-, na,a fonSBcYd/VO?

U (uM) d

.esour$'A555NNv$$$55$$A p a.a.rs,ws,a as.u as.rs n ip a e u

32cf

ydf l

^'

W-A fl I

o u

l 1

ti as

)

e g

b E

a~

x e

t RR ge x

.i i58)i

~

k

~

g

}

ll

In pta

S0f07 33WJJ - A;26.9AP711/109V-732/5 7f.,/4&J/30,W ~

re s.7ne (Of07 7p//y 9,ivyt,1/0)V) f"l

ysy,..

/(Of07 7f/XY,#f/ VON) serss pyrj

/

009 /--

CDP / --

/Jph G,Y]937 002/-

ff(JPG,/VO?ff G,V/JJV)V/fd-

-- 00Z+

7Pfff077f J//ff-SGy07

/

fyj/y-ty)

--0

/*-

wo.b" 0". ' '. Jw' '..

o'n,

o, wo's. w@. 000.'o. wo's. oro.'Oi-oco.'zi cos.'ti,

9

'. w.

• • hh

• YJi

/

-- 003 -

Sere? Jyftd/Jd

,A/9/591ys'/YOP n

(t)/*) e cer7pe<.espo%'5S? sis opu 9/v/j/vss3.xt.7y V6 po/1235 Hof G12207d?Jr FJWCd Q111

/

?]f/v t

4 k::[

{'

w e

41 T4 d

He

) lk !

)s h-m wm 4

~

h

?hbhkh

~'g Mg::4 w(%I 4

- e w

1 Ik k

~

'NNT b'

i q Ut 3

b v

i M

48se

=

\\'

A 4.}

4 M'

(

e 5

li' t

k

'I 9

k.)4

)k

{

.1 R

a

%%--%h...

v,.

3 5

I

~

}

n A

k+l' i.

\\t k}ikk 2--

as 6

v c

..s

~~

M11!

5*

NeS>==

• m me-

-em awm (Off7 70'50' W YEN 0/W)

/

$'N'555$,$$$$$)y, as--

ie f

'N"%A

~"

apu,

"'~~

'/s"2)%l6

'47lv'if3 a,s::W s 09'0 7 J J U N /y d (H//J k')

E.

. a.2",h. *. 9.

'. a*'. a*". a&,

o, ".

• a d. ".*'

4 o-

4. '.

ff?57/jW077f fMFy 9dypf SdfQ7 ffrN/f/

'~

m3 Jfrefer.75 d,rt'Jyrktyd]

s.r

.rw se a cayer A

Off'JNrW/yd oot --

f o/9S.FU//re?

009--

~i (7.//v) d G

d

i 8:00 LIST OF TABLES 3.1 Reinforcing Steel Stresses Excluding Tangential Shear 3.2 Calculated Tangential Shear Strength Based on Cornell (9) and PCA(7) Tests 3.3 Results of Duchon (10) Analyses with (w) and without (w/o)

Inclined Reinforcement 4.1 Reinforcing Steel and Splicing Code Comparison 4.2 Concrete Code Comparison 4.3 Modified Table CC-5200-1 (ASME Code PNPP Spec. Comparison of Concrete Related Test Requirements) 9 C

4 Geber fr-- -

41

i l

o c

i Table 3.1 Reinforcing Steel Stresses Excluding Tangential Shear Section Reinforcing Stress - Tension (ksi)

No (1)

Vertical (2)

Horizontal (3)

Inside Outside Inside Outside i

Face Face Face Face 1

14.9 41.2 C

C 2

35.5 15.2 0

0 3

31.2 27.1 6.1 3.7 4

29.1 25.4 8.3 6.6 5

26.9 24.0 12.9 10.2 6

26.7 23.0 17.0 13.0 7

24.2 21.8 20.8 16.1 8

24.4 18.5 29.4 11.2 9

19.0 16.2 33.4 13.0 9A 16.3 C(4) 40.1 16.0 10 26.3 C

50.8 14.6

. Notes j

(1) See Figure 2.2.

(2) Reinforcing ratio is 0.009.

(3) Reinforcing ratio is 0.011 for Sections 1-7 and 0.017 for Sections 8-10.

(4) Small compression.

I' 1

Gdbert / Commonwealth 42

Table 3.2 Calculated Tangential Shear Strength Based on Cornell (9) and PCA(7) Tests Section Perry Cornell Tests PCA Tests Ratio-Tangential Shears No(a)

Tangential Tangential Shear Strength psi Tangential Shear Strength psi Tests / Perry i

Shear (b) psi Vertical Horizontal Minimum Minimum Minimum Limited Cornell PCA-(c)

Upper Distortion Minimum Limited Bound (d)

Distortion (1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

I 1

57 203 365 203 152 253 102 3.56 1.79 2

81 220 365 220 199-275 132 2.72 1.63 3

81 233 343 233 233 291 156 2.88 1.93 4

82 239 335 239 250 299 167 2.91 2.04 5

82 246 318 246 268 308 179 3.00 2.18 l

f6 83 246 303 246 270 309 180 2.96 2.17

e.

7 83 254 290 254 290 318 193 3.06 2.33 8

82 253 319 253 288 298 192 3.08 2.34 9

78 269 296 269 332 283 222 3.45 2.85 9A 62 277 259 259 305 257 203 4.18 3.27 10 41 248 199 199 141 216 94 4.85 2.29 i

Notes:

l (a) See Figure 2.2 I

(b) Peak Values l

(c) Minimum value of vertical and horizontal (d) Conservative bound of minimum values

1

~

TABLE 3.3 - RESULTS OF DUCHON(10) ANALYSES FOR THE FACTORED 14AD CASE l

WITH (W)* AND WITHOUT (W/0) INCLINED REINFORCEMENT Section Vertical Reinforcement Horizontal Reinforcement Inclined Reinforcement Concrete Distortional Stress (ksi)

Stress (ksi)

Stress (kei)

Shear Strain (Rad) l W/0.

W #5 W/0 W d5 W d5 W/0 W d5 (1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8) 1 45.3 43.1 17.0 14.7

~55.3 00200

.00182 2

42.9 40.5 21.5 19.2 59.2 00221

.00203 3

39.9 37.3 25.6 23.3 61.1 00231

.00213 4

31.6 29.1 28.4 26.3 56.7 00217

.00200 5

33.4 30.7 32.3 30.0 62.1 00237

.00219 1

6 38.1 35.1 36.0 33.4 69.8 00266

.00245 7

37.0 33.8 38.7 36.0 71.2 00271

.00250 8

34.7 31.6 41.9 40.1 72.7 00274

.00254 9

31.8 28.7 44.3 42.6 71.8 00269

.00250 i

{

9A 30.4 26.4 56.1 54.4 79.5 00293

.00269 10 32.4 28.6 52.8 51.1 78.6 00291

.00267 Avg.

36.1 33.2 35.9 33.7 67.1 00252

.00232-

% Decrease 8.0 6.1 7.9

• Inclined reinforcement is at 450 and spaced 12".on centers, both directions.

• • See Figure 2.2 for location of sections.

l b

4 w

i i

TABLE 4.1 REINFORCINC STEEL AND SPLICINC - CODE COMPARISON C:48E CORMESrONDING REMARKS SECTION SUBJECT PNPP CONSTRUCTION SPEC.

+

=

CC-2300 Haterial (Reinforcing Systems).

CC-2310(a) thterial used for reinforcing systems shall conform SP-663 2

05.1, 2:06 X

to ASTH A-615 CC-2310(b)

Haterial to be used for bar to bar splices shall SP-202 1:07.3 I

conform to ASTM A513, A519, A579 CC-2320 Reinforcing system shall be traceable to CNTR SP;663 2:07 X

during production and transit i

CC-2330 Special material testing.

CC-2331.1 One full diameter tensile bar of each bar size shall SP-663 2:06.1 X

be tested per each 50 tons or fraction CC-2331.2 Acceptance standard is ASTM A615 SP-663 2:06.1 X

1 i

If specimen fails - two retest.

SP-663 2:06.3 X

Single retest. Review of all

([

material test reports show no failures.

CC-2332 Bend test CC-2332.1(a)

Per ASTM 615 SP-663 2:06.1 I

t CC-2332.1(b)(1)

One full size specimen per heat SP-663 2:06.1 X

CC-2332.1(b)(2)

Tested at ambient ASTM A615 X

CC-2332.1(b)(3)

Tested around a 9d pin Not Addressed X

Tested around an 8d pin CC-2332.2 Acceptance standards CC-2332.2(b)

Absence of trar. serve cracking SP-663 2:05.1 X

If specimen fails - two retest.

SP-663 2:06.2.1 X

Single retest - review shows no failures.

CC-2333 Chemical analysis - reported in accordance with A615 SP-663 2:05.1 X

(+) ExceedsSection III, Division 2. Requirements

(=) Meets Code Requirements j

(-) Construction Specification Insufficient

1 TABLE 4.1 REINFORCING STEEL AND SPLICING - CODE' COMPARISON (Continued)

CODE CORRESPONDING REHARKS SMTfloti SUBJECT PNPP CONSTRUCTION SPEC.

+

=

=

CC-4300 Fabrication and Construction (Reinforcing Systems).

CC-4320 Bending or reinforcing steel SP-663 2:08.6 I

CC-4321.1 Standard flooks Ii CC-4321.2 Diameter SP-663 2:08.4 I

CC-4322 Stirups, tie hooks, and bend other than standard hooks SP,-663 2:08.4 X

. CC-4324 Bending

?

CC-4 323.1 All bars shall be cold bent SP-663 2:08.2 X

j Examination of bends SP-663 2:08.6 X

Inspected once per shift.

i CC-4 323.4 Tolerances per Fig. CC-4323-2 or 3 SP-663 2:08.4 X

Final ecceptance is based on as-built field condition.

+

4 ggCC-4330 Splicing or reinforcing bars CC-4331.1 As required or permitted by designer SP-202 1:07.1 X

CC-4331.2 Permitted types of splices SP-202 1:07.2 X

SP-202 1:07.2 X

CC-4332 Lap Splices CC-4333 Hechanical Splices CC-4 33 3.1.1 Required qualification - spilcers SP-202 1:08.2 X

Required qualification - splicing procedure Not Addressed X

PNPP utilized ERICO's proven splicing procedure CC-4333.1.2 NWintenance and certification of records S P-202 1:08.1.10 X

CC-4333.1.3 Splicing prior to qualification is not permitted SP-202 1:08.2 X

CC-4333.2 Splice system qualification requirements Not Addressed X

ERICO's long history of accepta-ble test results is an industry standard.

CC-4333.4 Initial quellfication test 2 per splice position SP-202 1:08.2 I

CC-4333.5 Continuing splice perform'ance tests

(+) ExceedsSection III, Division 2 Requirements

(=) Neets Code Requirements

(-) Construction Specification Insufficient

t

. TABLE 4.1 REINFORCING STEEL AND SPLICING - CODE COMPARISON (Continued) a CORRf5PNiblNG CUDE

-REHARES-SECTIDH SUBJECT PHPP ODNSTRUCTION SPEC.

+

=

l CC-4 333.5.1

. Conintuing series of testing shall be performed SP-202 1:09 X

iCC-4333.5.2 Splice samples SP-202 1:09.1 & 1:09.2 X

CC-4333.5.3(a)

Frequency - 1 test per 100 splice SP-202 1:09.3 I

CC-4333.5.4 Tensile testing requirements SP-202 1:09.4 X

f i CC-4 333.5.4 (a)

Tensile strength shall equal or exceed 125% yield SP-202 1:09.4.1 X

CC-4333.5.4(b)

Running average of 15 shall equal or exceed minimum SP-202 1:09.4.2 X

tensile CC-4333.5.5 Substandard tensile test result '

CC-4333. 5.5 (s)

Failure in b'ar - investigate with fabricator SP-202 1:09.5.1 X

Report to owner - only difference.

CC-4333.5.5(b)

Failure in splice SP-202 1:09.5.2 I

CC-4 333. 5. 5 (c)

Running sverage tensile strength failure SP-202 1:09.5.3 X

'C-4333.5.5 When splicing is resumed, frequency started snew SP-202 1:09.5.4 X

C CC-4 333.6 Recording of tensile test results SP-202 1:08.1.10 X

CC-4340 Placing reinforcing SP-202 1:06.4 I

CC-4341 Supports SP-202 1:06.5 X

CC-4342 Tolerances CC-4350 Spacing of reinforcement SP-14 5:07.2.3 & ACI 301 X

CC-4351 Layers X

SP-202 1:07 -

g CC-4352 Splices CC-4360 Surface condition SP-202 1:06.3 & 1:06.4.4

~K

(+) ExceedsSection III, Division 2 Requirements

(=) Meets Code Requirements

(-) Construction Specification Insufficient

F l

TABLE 4.1 REINFORCINC STEEL ANI) SPLICING - CODE COMPARISON (Continued) 8 Os et CORRESPONDING REMARKS SIrrl(W SUBJECT PNPP CONSTRUCTION SPEC.

+

=

CC-5300 Construction Testing and Examination (Reloforcing System)

CC-5300 Examination of reinforcing system f

CC-5320 Acceptance criteria for mechanical splices SP-202 1:07.3 & 1:08 X

CC-5321 Sleeve with ferrous filler metal splices i

j CC-5321(a)

One sleeve per crew visually examined daily for Not Addressed I

Const. Spec. to be revised, fit-up Contractor's procedure required at least one visual examination daily..

CC-5321(b)

All completed sleeves shall be examined fort filler metal at end and tap hole SP-202 1:08.1.9 X

check for allowable maximum void SP-202 1s08.1.9 X

i CC-53t.0 Eumination of bends i

The bent or straightened surface of bars shall be SP-663 2:08.6 X

Performed at fabricator facility, visuntly examined for indication of cracks i

(+) ExceedsSection III, Division 2 Requirements

(=) Meets Code Requirements

(-) Construction Specification Insufficient 1

=_

4 u

_.o.

.e l

Table 4.2 CONCRETE - CODE COMPARIS0N copt wanurwunw

{

REMARKS SECTION SUBJECT PNPP CONSTRUCTION SPgC.

+

=

CC-2200 MATERIAL (CONCRETE AND CONCRETE CONSTITUENTS).

CC-2220 Concrete Constituents.

CC-2221

- Cement i

CC-2221.1 Material Requirement - shall conform to ASTM C-150, SP-14 5:06.1 X

SP-14 requires the optional tests Type II plus establishes more conservative values for certain tests.

CC-2222 Aggregates.

CC-2222.1 Aggregates shall conform to ASTM C-33 SP-14 5:07.1 & 5:07.2 I

CC-2222.1(b)

Flat and elongated particles - 15% CRD-C119 SP-14 5:07.2.5 I

CC-2222.1(c)

Optional - Potential Alkali Reactivity of Cemen6 SP-14 5:07.2(c)

X SP-14 requires additional optional Aggregate Combination Agg. ASTM C-227 tests.

Optional - Potential Reactivity Aggregates SP-14 5:07.2(c)

I SP-14 requires Aditional optional l

ASTM C-289 tests.

Optional - Potential Volume Change of Cement SP-14 5:07.2(c)

I SP-14 requires additional opItianal Aggregate Combination ASTM C-342 tests.

Required - Petrographic Examination SP-14 5:07.2(c)

X CC-2222.1(1)

Water Soluble Chloride Content of Aggregates SP-14 5:07.2.8 I

Test has been performed. Test ASTM D-1411 results are less than 10 PPM.

t CC-2222.1(e)

Tangential Shear (L.A. Abraston) Max. 40%

SP-14 5:18.3.3(1)

X Review of material Test Reporta

[

ASTM C-131 Max. = 32%.

l CC-2222.1(f)

Max. Size of Aggregate SP-14 5:07.2.3 & ACI 301 X

CC-2222.4 Aggregate for Grout - Conforms to ASTM C-33 SP-14 5:07.1.1 X

(+) ExceedsSection III, Division 2 Requirements

(=) Meets Code Requirements

(-) Construction Specification Insufficient

~

Table 4.2-CONCRETE - CODE COMPARISION (Continued)

CODE Lunnr.srunu1IE l

l REMARKS SECTION SUBJECT PNPP CONSTRUCTION SPEC.

+

=

CC-2223 Mixing Water CC-2223.1 Water Shall be Clean with Max. Total Solids of SP-14 5:09.1 I

SP-14 requires 1,000 ppe per APHA i

2000 PPM. ASTM D-1888 test.

Water shall be tested for Chlorides ASTM 512 SP-14 5:09.1.3 I

4 CC-2223.2(a)

Time of setting ASTM C-191 SP-14 5:09.2.1(b)

X CC-2223.2(b)

Compressive Strength SP-14 5:09.2.1(c)

X i

CC-2214 Admixtures CC-2224.1 Construction Specification Shall Specify Type, SP-14 5:04.9 I

Dur present admixtures contribute Quantity, and Additional Limits. Each Admixture less than 5 PPM by weight.

4 shall not contribute more than 5 PPM, by weight of Chloride Ions to total concrete constituent CC-2224.2.1 Air Entraining Admixtures shall conform to ASTM C-260 SP-14 5:08.1 X

CC-2224.2.3 Chemical Admixtures shall conform to ASTM C-494 SP-14 5:08.2 X

itn

o l

CC-2230 Concrete Mix Design i

CC-2231.1 Properties of Concrete which influence the Design shall SP-14 X

be established in the Constructior. Specification.

CC-2231.2 Chloride Content of Cement Paste shall not exceed SP-14 5:04.10 X

400 ppe by weight CC-2231.3 Applicable Concrete Properties in Table CC-2231-1 SP-14 5:02 I

shall be defined in Const. Spec.

(+) ExceedsSection III, Division 2 Requirements

(=) Meets Code Requiremente

(-) Construction Specification Insufficient t

l

Table 4.2 i

CONCRETE - CODE COMPARISON (Continued) l code L. univ.srunulls SECTION SUBJECT PHPP CONSTRUCTION SPEC.

+

=

REMARKS CC-2232 Selection of Concrete Mix Proportions CC-2232.1 Trial Mix Design Proportions SP-14 5:04.2 I

CC-2232.2

, Strength Tests SP-14 5:04.2 X

CC-2232.3 Durability CC-2232.3.1 W/C shall not be exceed 0.53 for Concrete SP-14 5:10.1 Y

SP-14 requires a maximum W/C ratio

(

Expose to Freezing Temperatures.

of 0.50 l

CC-2240 Cement Grout CC-2241 Constituent for Cement Grout CC-2241.1 Cement shall conform to ASTM C-150 SP-14 5:06.1 X

SPr14 requires the optional teste plus establishes more conservative values for certain tests.

CC-2241.2 Aggregate shall conform to ASTM C-33 SP-14 5:07.2 X

kCC-2241.3 Water shall conform to CC-2223 SP-14 5:09 X

CC-2250 krking and Identification of Concrete Constituents CC-2251 Cement shall be sealed and tagged before leaving SP-14 5:06.5.4 X

supplier showing lot number, specification, grind SP-14 5:06.10 date and type CC-2252 Aggregate shall be identified to size, source, and Not Addressed X

Presently addressed in Nonnotallic specification Material knufacturer's QA Program.

CC-2253 Admixture tanks shall be labeled with name, Not Addressed X

Nonnetallic Material Manufacturer's specification, and storage requirements.

QA Program requires labeling all but storage requirements. QA manual being revised. Storage require-ments have been labeled.

(+) ExceedsSection III, Division 2 Requirements

(=) Meets Code Requirements

(-) Construction Specification Insufficient

,w Table 4.2 CONCRETE - CODE COMPARISON (Continued)

~

CODE waar.srunu11R; SECTION SUBJECT PNPP CONSTRUCTION SPEC.

+

=

=

REMARKS CC-4200 FABRICATION AND CONSTRUCTION (CONCRETE)

CC-4220 Storing, batching, mixing and transporting.

CC-4221.1

'. Stockpiling and storing cutgregate.

SP-14 6:09.1 & 6:11.10 X

ACI 301 CC-4221.2 Sterage Cement & Adrixture.

SP-14 6:09.1 & 5:07.4 X

CC-4222 Batching CC-4222.1 Distribution

1) Conform to ACI-304 SP 14 6:11 X

SP-14 references ACI 301 require-ments. ACI 301 and 304 requirements are consistent.

2) Only accepted material used SP-14 5:18.3 X

our present practice is to conduct the aggregate testing the day before.

CC-4222.2 Hessuring

1) By weight - Cement & Aggregates SP-14 6:11.3 I

2) By volume - H O SP-14 6:11.5 X

2

3) Free moisture correction Ahall be ScCounted for SP-14 5:11.5 X

4) Tolerances per ASTM C-94 SP-14 6:11.9 X

CC-4223.1 Mixing per ASTM C-94 SP-14 6:11.11 X

CC-4223.2 Operation of mixer per ASIM C-94 SP-14 6:11.10 & ACI 301 X

ACI-301 Sect. 7.2.2 gives same requirements as ASTM C-94 CC-4224.1 Conveying from mixer to point of placement SP-14, SP-801 5:05.5 I

Specs satisfy code requirements.

CC-4224.2 Conveying equipment SP-801 5:05, SP-14 6:09 X

Specs satisfy code requirements.

(+) ExceedsSection III, Division 2 Requirements

(=) Meets Code Requirements

(-) Construction Specification Insufficient

Tabel 4.2 CONCRETE - CODE COMPARISON (Continued)

CODE WmWNIN REMARKS SECTION SUBJECT PNPP CONSTRUCTION SPEC.

+

=

CC-4225 Depositing CC-4225.1 General SP-801 5:05.6 X

CC-4225.2

- Continuity SP-801 5:05.6 I

CC-4226 Consolidation CC-4226.1 General - per ACI-309 SP-801 5:05.7 X

CC-4240 Curing j

(A) Moist & protected through minimum curing period SP-801 5:05.9 X

(D) When mean daily temperature is below 40*P, conc SP-801 5:05.9 X

to be at least 50*F & moist for 7 days CC-4250 Formwork and Const. Joints

, CC-4251.1 Ceneral properly designed braced and tied SP-801 5:05.2 X

CC-4251.2 Design of formwork - ACI-347 SP-801 5:05.2 X

CC-4251.3 Use of liner as formwork SP-801 5:05.2 X

CC-4252 Construction joints located as shown on drawings SP-801 5:05.3 X

CC-4260 Cold and hot weather conditions SP-14 15:3.1 X

SP-801 5:05.10 CC-4270 Repairs to concrete - as directed by designer and SP-801 5:06.6 X

per CC-4252 of code.

(+) ExceedsSection III, Division 2 Requirements

(=)MeetsCodeRequirenegte

(-) Construction Specification Insufficient t

e e

e m

Table 4.2 CONCRETE - CODE COMPARISON (Continued) i CODE wpur.srupuum REMARKS SECTION SUBJECT PNPP CONSTRUCTION SPEC.

+

=

i, CC-5200 CONSTRUCTION TESTING AND EXAMINATION (CONCRETE).

CC-5200 Concrete examinations I

CC-5210 Ceneral SP 801 X

Authorized Inspector will have access to batch plant.

CC-5220 Concrete Constituents i

CC-5221.1 Cement Requirements SP-14 5:18.3.7 X

Option tests are required plus more conservative values are established for certain tests.

CC-5221.2 Testing frequency See modified Table CC-5200-1 X

CC-5223.1 Admixture requirements ASTM C-494 SP-14 5:18.3.5 X

5:04.1c CC-5223.2 Testing frequency See modified Table CC-5200-1 X

CC-5224.1 Aggregate requirements SP-14 5:04.1.8, 5:18.3.3 X

CC-5224 Testing frequency See modified Table CC-5200-1.

X CC-5225.1 Mixing water requirements SP-14 5:18.3.4 I

CC-5225.2 Testing frequency See modified Table CC-5200-1 X

CC-5231 Concrete, sampled to ASTM C-172 SP-801 5:06.4 X

CC-5232.1 Slump requirements to ASTM C-143 SP-801 5:06.4 X

CC-5232.2 Testing frequency SP-801 5:06.4 X

CC-5233.1 Temperature requirement SP-801 5:06.4 X

Air content to ASTM C-173 or ASIM C-231 SP-801 5:06.4 X

(+) ExceedsSection III, Division 2 Requirements

(=) Meets Code Requirements

(-) Construction Specification Insufficient 4

Table 4.2 CONCRETE - CODE COMPARISON (Continued)

CODE wucarunulmi SECTION SUBJECT PNP? CONSTRUCTION SPEC.

+

=

REMARES Unit weight to ASTM C-138 SP-801 5:06.4 X

CC-5233.2 Testing frequency SP-801 5:06.4 X

CC-5234.1

, Compressive strength cylinders ASIN C-31 or ASTM C-39 SP-501'5:06.4 X

CC-5234.2 Evaluation and acceptance SP-801 5:06.5 X

(+) ExceedsSection III, Division 2 Requirements

(=) Heats Code Requirements

(-) Construction Specifiestion Insufficient h

DW38/B/7/jg

Tabel 4.3 MODIFIED TABLE CC-5200-1 ASME CODE /PNPP SPEC. COMPARISON OF CONCRETE RELATED TEST FREQUENCIES wnnr.arunuluu REMARKS MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS AND METHOD FREQU2NCY PNPP CONSTRUCTION SPEC.

+

=

=

ZEMENT Standard chemical prop. ASTN C-114 Each 1200T SP-14 5:18.3.7 K

Optional test required.

Fineness ASIM C-204 or ASTM C-115 Each 1200T SP-14 5:18.3.7 X

Maximum fineness of 4,000 CM8/SRAM.

. Auto clave expansion ASTM C-151 Each 1200T SP-14 5:18.3.7 X

Compressive strength ASTM C-109 Each 1200T SP-14 5:18.3.7 X

Minimum 4,500 pai at 28 days.

Time of setting ASIM C-266 or Each 1200T SP-14 5:18.3.7 X

ASTM C-191 ACCRECATE Gradation ASTM C-136 Each 1000 C.y.

SP-14 5:18.3.3.A X

Daily test.

Moisture ASTM C-566 Twice Daily SP-14 5:18.3.3.5 X

during production Material finer than #200 ASTM C-117 Each 1000 C.y.

SP-14 5:18.3.3.C X

Daily test.

Organic impurities ASTM C-40 Each 1000 C.y.

SP-14 5:18.3.3.D 1

Daily test.

Flat and elongated particles Monthly SP-14 5:18.3.3.1 X

CRD C-119 Friable particles ASTM C-142 Monthly SP-14 5:18.3.3.E X

Light weight particles ASTM C-123 Monthly SP-14 5:18.3.3.F X

Specific gravity and absorption Monthly SP-14 5:18.3.3.H X

ASIN C-127 or ASTM C-128 L.A. Abrasion ASTM C-131 or ASIN C-535 Fvery 6 months SP-14 5:18.3.3.H X

Potential reactivity ASIN C-289 Every 6 months SP-14 5:18.3.3.J X

Soundness ASTM C-88 Every 6 months SP-14 5:la.3.3.K X

Water soluble chloride ASTM D-1411 Every 6 months CP-14 5:18.3.3.0 X

Testing program has started.

(+) ExceedsSection III, Division 2 Requirements

(=) Meets Code Requirements

(-) Construction Specificatics Insufficient

_ ~.

Tabel 4.3 MODIFIED TABLC CC-5200-1 ASME CODE /PNPP SPEC. COMPARISON OF CONCRETE RELATED TEST FREQUENCIES Lunna.srunuinu REMARKS MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS AND METHOD FREMIENCY PNPP CONSTRUCTION SPEC.

+

=

WATER & ICE Effect on compressive Str. ASTM C-109 Every 6 months SP-14 5:18.3.4 X

Testing program has started.

Effect on setting time ASTM C-191 Every 6 months

.SP-14 5:18.3.4 X

Testing program has started.

Total solids ASTM D-188S Every 6 months SP-14 5:18.3.4 X

Testing program has started.

Chlorides ASTM D-512 Honthly SP-14 5:18.3.4 X

Testing program has started.

ADHIXTURE Uniformity - infrared spectrophoto-Each load SP-14 5:18.3.5 X

Spectrophotometry, PH, Specific metry, PH and solids per ASTM C-494 Cravity and Total Solids tests are conducted.

CONCRETE Mixer uniformity ASTM C-94 Initially red SP-14 5:18.3.1.A X

every 6 months Compressive strength ASIM C-39 or 1 set every 100 cy SP-801 5:06.4 X

CRD C-84 1 set a day for each class h$

Slump ASTM C-143 1st batch & every SP-801 5:06.4 X

50 cy.

Air Content ASTM C-173 or C-231 1st batch & every SP-801 5:06.4 X

50 cy Temperature 1st batch & every SP-801 5:06.4 X

50 cy Weight / Yield ASTM C-138 Daily during SP-801 5:06.4 X

e production

(+) ExceedsSection III, Devision 2 Requirements

(=) Meets Code Requirements

(-) Ceaetruction Specification Insufficient IM38/D/2/jg t

G

. ~.

4

.i 4

APPENDIX A-l Comparison of SRVD Response Speectra for the ContainmentLVessel with and without the Annulus Concrete i

i I

Response spectra are presented for' Elevation '579'-5" (node 155), Elevation 664 '-10 ' (node 272), and Elevation. 749 '-4" (node 311) in the radial

'(direction 3), vertical (direction 2), and tangential (direction 3) directions for the General Electric safety relief valve discharge (SKVD) random. loading for 19 valves, load case 23.

Figures 1-3-tre the response i

spectra for the.SRVD analysis which does not include the annulus concrete.

l The~se response spectra curves are envelopes of GE random loadinge

. 19 valves - load case 23, 19 valves - load case 32, and 19 valves - load case 46.

Load case 23 provided the largest response of the three load cases and therefore these curves can be compared to the response spectra curves presented in Figures 4-6 which are= generated from random load 19 valves -

losd case 23.

Some problems may arise since the response spectra from three enveloped load cases are being compared to one individual load case; however, the comparison.provides a-good indication of the changes caused by

.the addition of the annulus concrete.

Node 155 is located in the suppression pool, node 272 is located on the cylindrical portion. of the vessel abov'e the pool, and node 311 is located on the dome.

' As an example, if Figure 3a is compared to Figure 6a, it is observed that the peak acceleration response for the 1% damping curve was reduced. from.

1

~10.7 g to 0.44 g A frequency shift. caused by the addition of the annulus i

L concrete occurred.

The center of the peak for the analysis which did not include annulus concrete'is located at approximately 18.0 Hz (figure 3a) while the center of the peak for the analysis which did include the annulus-concrete is located at approximately 25.0 Hz.

The additional stiffness I'

provided by the annulus concrete caused's substantial reduction in the acceleration response of the Containment Vessel and a frequency shift in the location of the peak response.

k

'e i

Geert/Commanuseth Al

.=

5=

so PERRY PROJECT

_i

- 5, '.

-(

- s

• i I

f f

f.

l SRVA i

t-

-,l I

==m e.

\\

lI a.

-1

=

a. =.:.:

=E'.

s

.- d ;

I*

I..-

~

y

.:n..;s3,c.;-

zw, 1

j.

Oc==?mo a :.03 3

.' E,

l

<- ~,, g l

....,3,.:,

cm l -

x

~ ',

Il

\\

l

\\

c-**ws. C.:-

2l Wn

\\

.\\

1; Mdl W

j --

l

/p Ql f-

/

si I

• 5 S 7 8 9 1 0*

2 4-s s i s_sio' i

3 4

s s-FREQUENCY (CPS)

.s ENVELOPED SPECTR4 FOR JOI'T-155 10 CIRECTION 1 N

FOR LCAD CASES 19231. 19321. 19461 A

FIGURE la RADIAL RESPONSE SPECTRA AT EL. 579'-5" NO ANNULUS CONCRETE

\\

A2

\\

R j

PERRY PROJECT k!

I l-:

3ay9-

[

L

=

il.

I C*

I

ar tsa :.::

-)

g 1=.

h g

. t

..ss. :.=

cr

\\g Ocs*!sa C '.02 C

>~

\\

m c=

[

l-

i

-*'s3 2.:7' h

b MY i

=

ly mgg n

.'i "5

8.7 s s 10:

2 e

$ s i e $ i0 2

3 i

s s FREQUENCY (CPS)

ENVELOPED SPECTRR FOR JOINT 155 IN DIRECTION 2 FOR LORD CASES 19231. 19321. 19461 FIGURE lb VERTICAL RESPONSE SPECTRA AT EL. 579'-5" NO ANNULUS CONCRETE A3

8 e

PERRY PROJECT-Ml1 l

e SRVA C

_=

I e-

{

~

\\

c-rso. :.::

=

.O,

-- E

/

I oe- :sc. 0.:::

cm z

i w

\\

n-rss. c.:3:

1 l l/

\\\\

~

b8

/ _/ /

M.

-:c-s3. c.:::

=~

~

l-l I

i _.

lI

[

r

-c-rs:. :.: :

8l l

j/: ' ' ),,

l ' i i "/

N 3

I w

8 ll

$^ s ? s s 10' 2

3 i

$ 5 -i 8 $ I O' 2

3 4

5 5 FREQUENCY (CPS)

-ENVELOPED SPECTRA FOR JOINT ISS IN DIRECTION 3 FOR LORD CASES 19231. 19321. 194S1 FIGURE lc TANGENTIAL RESPONSE SPECTRA AT EL. 579'-5" NO ANNULUS CONCRETE A4

E.

e' t PERRY PROJECT E

i l

l-l l

SRVR i

E!

l l

- rg t

1 e1 i

.=3. :.:.

C$c.

2

(

y l

f

-f

'\\

D4"8?N3 a C.C2' "N

C~

f f p:

.,ar.=:.. c. : r e

u a

j I

l u,

y he' f

I

• AP*!=G a C. 0 4 '.

- Vg i'

i

. ac-.:=3. :.:r i

=i I

f, i

o P

\\!

l 8

• 5..s7 8 9 '10' i

5.

A 5 e i 55 10' i

5 i

5s FREQUENCY (CPS 1 ENVELOPED SPECTRA FOR JOINT 272 IN DIRECTION 1 FOR LOAD CASES 19231. 19321. 19461 FIGURE 2a RADIAL RESPONSE SPECTRA AT EL. 664'-10" NO ANNULUS CONCRETE A5

e s

5 5

PERRY PROJECT 8

5 SRVR

~8

,i

';+-

car *'us. 0,0;;

E 1/

I1

-l a=*!=s 0.02:

x

j

=c?*ims. 0.03:

2 w*=

/

\\

. e, f;

i cro'%s. 0.04:

=,

ci

.\\

ecr*'Ns a 0.070

-S

'h N

8

\\!

4 L

.7 8

ll

• 5: $7 8 9 1 0'. -

2 3

4 _i s i e 5 IO 2

3 i

se 5

FREQUENCY (CPSJ ENVELOPE 0' SPECTRA FOR JOINT 272 IN DIRECTION 2 FOR LORD C ASES 19231. 19321. 19461 FIGURE 2b VERTICAL RESPONSE SPECTRA AT EL. 664'-10"'

NO ANNULUS CONCRETE A6

= _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

U l

PERRY-PROJECT

'k f

j 1

SRVA

.._E

/l l II il

\\

l c=

I.

ar tss. :.::

=

?=

f

\\{

=a

=c. 0.02 y

y.

\\

car :so c.:

c

\\\\

o car.,s..:,

Oc= !%3 a 0.07

/d WI 7.

E j

5 s i s s 10' -

i s

4- $ $ i e $ 10' i

3 A

5 $

FREQUENCY- (CPS)

. ENVELOPED SPECTRA FOR JOINT 272 IN DIRECTION 3

- FOR : LORD C ASES 19231. 19321. 19461 FIGURE 2c TANGENTIAL RESPONSE SPECTRA AT EL.'664'-10" NO ANNULUS' CONCRETE A7

E

.L, PERRY'

~

PROJECT

=

n

(

\\\\

E' SRVA e

_,5 1 3 1 c:

'\\

z

\\-}j

'"S

• C ' M EE-g oc

=3 0.::

\\

ll

\\

l M

f/

\\

\\

\\

car ras. 0.cz 5

-\\

/[

\\

/

a n y=..,3. :.

,5 fe' k-Y[/

(

,..~3. :.::

/

\\4,

~ 2!

l/

1

\\\\ ;

- l/'

(l ll w

E s.

i

$$ s t e s iO

.i 4

s. 5 i e i 10' i

i 5s 2

FREQUENCY (CPS)

ENVELOPED SPECTRA FOR JOINT 311 IN DIRECTION 1 FOR LOAD C ASES 19231. 19321. 19461

' FIGURE 3a RADIAL RESPONSE SPECTRA AT EL. 749'-4" NO ANNULUS CONCRETE A8

_______a_~._-_-__-------_---__----_----_-----_------u

Y E

E PERRY j

PROJECT

=

3:

1 K

i t

SRVR et I

l l

-e

'~i l

\\\\

{-

c-w3. c.:.

==

!4l gy' (f

c-ws. :.::'

\\

e no. c.: :

3 a_

p i

d5

/

/

l\\ \\

-c..ws c. c.:t

'C" l

l

}

'\\

\\

= ns. :.:-e

\\

=l

.1,,

i

w,J Ef "s

s 1 e s i O'.

2 3

i

$ 6 i e s I 0' i

3 4

5 S FREQUENCY ICPS1 ENVELOPED SPECTRA FOR JOINT 311 IN DIRECTION 2 FOR LORD C ASES 19231. 19321. 19461 FIGURE 3b VERTICAL RESPONSE SPECTRA AT EL. 749'-4" NO ANNULUS CONCRETE A9

e C'

U PERP,Y PROJECT 8

5 SRVA-8 2e-E i

3*"* S

• O M z

-Eg g

-ce*'m3 0.02:

=

\\

~

ecF='wo. C.03!

[

d-d:s

~\\

.\\.

. r3C

/ /

3..,33,;,;;;

cw r

z_q g

I q

f-X I

scrarse

3. ?:

N l'

l N

i

\\

~

s I

"5 S 7 8 9 I O' -

i 3

4

$6 7 e 9 '10' 2

3 e

s s FREQUENCY ~

(CPS)

ENVELOPED SPECTRA FOR JOINT 311 IN DIRECTION 3 FOR LORD CASES 19231. 19321. 19461 FIGURE 3c TANGENTIAL RESPONSE SPECTRA AT EL. 749'-4" NO ANNULUS CONCRETE A10

.y y

c, t a

M k

=

=I PERRY I.

PROJECT 4,

1I i

I i

l l

SRVR 5

'l 1

i

/

\\

'=!

I' l

t l.

\\

g e

~

.- : i ll

.i i

i l

l

- l g

i l

=-a ws. :. :.

j.

g.- j ~ r i

i r-4

\\

1-r

\\

l U

~-

On-a w 3.,,.,....

f.

N' O

~

t' i

i i

i 1

l

- }~

J x-a%c. :.0:

,E, I :)

ff l

L) x

=_

x i

m.,3. o. :.

j I i-

- -- i i

\\;

a f,!

p

-l[,)

s r-i i

!. :w ws. :. -

\\s/

=t

-,i. j i.

l l.

j

[

1

=.

,.I_

V

-t ei l.i -

t

.: = ;

i -

~

". i 5 7 13 I D' 2

i

$ st4$IO' i

3 4

5 s FREQUENCY

[CFSJ t

"(

ENVELOPED-SPECTRG FOR JOINT 155 IN DIRECTIGN 1 FOR LORD' C ASES 22222 FIGURE 4a RADIAL RESPONSE SPECTRA AT EL. 579'-5" ANNULUS CONCRETE All

.+

....~.e

~.,

m#,

.,,~...,,4

,-...,_.r, y.-.

-,,,m--

e..y

l

=

mW PERRY i

i I

l I

PROJECT i

i!

l l

=!

i i,

1 ll

\\

\\

!./

I SRVA i

ell l 'r l-f

=!

_N i i

i r

-, = t

, i i i i

4 i

- l'l l

i j.

I/

-~

i l l is i

l 5

j I

g j

l 7

c-a c.. 0.

i

>I I I

l

.~ i l

t!

h

{I

-/

i

c,...w. c.;;:

2~

i lll l Illl M

1 i i

[

i

\\{

f,

c-e c.cs:

2

! I I

Ij

[

lX\\l My h Ni

=,

_- 1 1

i

.c..w....

l

!.Ill, i i 1.i /

H

- ic-w. :. : :

,{!i,f/

l (D

i !

I l

iiI i

g KQ,

Yq 5'

l

'I l

MilhW' N

(

i ll

[/t

~!

i l

j

it l

I

' I i

=8 i i i

=l

! t i

"5 5 7$$II 2

3 4

$ $ i $ $ I C' i

3 4

5 $

FREQUENCY (CPSJ ENVELOCED SPECTRA FOR JOINT 155 IN DIRECTICN 2 FOR LORD C ASES 22222 FIGURE 4b VERTICAL RESPONSE SPECTRA AT EL. 579'-5" ANNULUS CONCRETE A12

E l

PERRY i

i i

i i

PROJECT

.I 1

%t t

l 1 [

[*

l I

l-I SRVA l

'1

j l

l l

==:

,l l

-.l l

r-

. 1 p-

c-se. :.:.:

= i

l i

i i it; l

t 23

. 1,

a. wo. :.:::-

i l

i

-:- wa..::: i

-~=

n l'

I f

i g=

c-ws..:::-

l l

/-

}.

J I

c-wa. :. :

l f/ /

'ii idT hk.

i

=;

( /-

.t i !.

,_Q>m t

, )

e -

.3

==%LN.,,

,i 1

~, '

.-l-i.

i

(

l l

l l

" i s 7.-s 3 1 0; i

3 4

s 5 i 6 iIO i

s A

5 $

FREQUENCY (CFSJ ENVELOPE 0'SPECTRR FOR JOINT 155 IN CIRECTION 3 FOR LORD CASES 22222 1

FIGURE 4c TANGENTIAL RESPONSE SPECTRA AT i

~

EL. 579'-5" ANNULUS CONCRETE A13 i

l 1

--m.

.. ~.. - ~....

. ~...,, _

e 4

1 p

i ;-

.h :

4 1

4

~

l l

PERRY

-l

. PROJECT

? l-'

j I iR l

\\

i I

~!l:

I i;. [

J l

SRVR J

i i

. -i

-l i

i i

'. - 3 4 I

l l.'

c' i

i

}

.l

-~

1. ~

n.-='u. ~; :;

E-i l

[

s E

I i

fI p

r j

t l

.J/

c-e's. 3.:-

==

~

t a

i/ \\

l..

c-e u. : ::-

~

f

/

i M

i

/

\\\\

l.i i

i.

=_;

l-

[. l l

((

l \\\\\\l

~l.

,J/ ! 1 T/

l i

• • • "

• O'C'

-[i _

l ll i.

t-

~;

i.

.lu.

V,f ii-g v

q?

J.

~~

! L J

/

o, I

I E

l 1

r p

l s3 10_

i 3

e sytg4 10' I

i 5 $

~5 s~7 FREQUENCY fCPSJ ENVELOPED.SPECTRR FOR JCINT 272-'IN DIRECTION 1 FOR LORD CASES 22222 FIGURE Sa RADIAL RESPONSE SPECTRA-AT EL. 664'-10" ANNULUS CONCRETE A14 i

1

=

=e i

j ' PERRY

.l

. i 1.

i I

i' PROJECT

-3 I l

-l l

l

.=;.,-_-.

i i

.i-,'

l l

. I i

SRVR i

6

.i e

!g

. I l

j i

i I

l l

j

'_' 3

=i

.4

-l 6

t

-+

3. f

. - 1.'

- l l

l

.0 8

{

t-i

.c-a so i;,:;..

r i

i

"!E ';

i

- c l

j I

og-='ss. ;. ::

l I

i.

I p

-)\\

j c-+'ss. J.; : <

i

\\

~=)

t

I l/

.Q,.

o_f :

i l-i

~

!/

,,..,,3,3,;2: :

==

.c

_/

/

/,'

kg

[

1.

i

/

.N --g

.s

n-ess. ;.: : :

.- i..

l

= i' ;,I 3 I

i 'C0 7

4 d/

s-L'.\\

; t i,i

/

(9M-L

/,

k-N l

s;

' l f illl

" 5.s' t s s i c3 11 s

i. s - s 7_ s s I C' i

i s s l

. FREQUENCY--(CPSJ_

4 ENVELOPED SPECTRA FOR JOINT 272-IN DIRECTION 2 FOR LORD CASES 22222 FIGURE'5b VERTICAL RESPONSE SPECTRA AT.

t EL. 664'-10" ANNULUS CONCRETE i

A15

?

~

r--,)

.,m

,_,_,,,,y_m

,._..nn_.

,w._.,

_,,,-,...-.y._..

s

=

l t

- I t

PERRY I

i i

PROJECT

.1 t

1 5!

i 1

i i

I i.

SRVA I

f f

-i I

l i

=

i I

1 i

==

i-i i

i i

1

cr so. :. ::

- =

I lI l

M

'l f'\\

i l

i

c...~3. :.:::

- c

[

- x l

.c-so. :.:s:

1

.=

l

-7 N

cr*!sG

040

~l i

'l

/

ye\\

t l

i i

l i

a a

Oc-e so. :.07; f

a i

i i

C/l

_ik

=:

l e.. =f/

^

3., :

i e

l l

=

1 e

l

=L i

i 1

i.

i i

"5 s7s$ic; i

_3 4

$ s i s $ 10' i

3 4

5_$

FREQUENCf

[ CPS)

ENVELOPED'5PECTRA FOR JOINT 272 IN DIRECTION 3 FOR LORD CASES 22222 FIGURE Sc TANGENTIAL RESPONSE SPECTRA AT EL. 654'-10" ANNULUS CONCRETE A16 y

,-_.._.%.-,y--,

_ _ + - - - _.

.m--

-.--e s

---

e

+

- o:

e:

=

l j

j PERRY PROJECT ll Si 1

i 6.

ll f

SRVA t

=!

l

/

-I i

e i <,

/

I i

3"i l !lll I

,,i l

l l

. l- [

l

are %c.

- ?I

! !! j j

=-

t l

i e

i

,,r.,s3, :.:::

E=

~

i l

t,f l

C

,/

?y oc-s2. :.:::

r.

b$

I

/l I.\\

. r O

l

/

n..n. :,:::

==

l

.l I

t t

i i

h

_,e 1 i

~

n-u r.:::

}

k jY e

i r_.,

_\\

~;

t i

\\

1 El l

t.

/

=

l l

l'-

c i

"$ $ 7 8 9 If i

i

$ $ i 8 $ I O' i

5 A

$ 5 FREQUENCY fCPSJ ENVELOPED SPECTRA FOR JOINT 311 IN DIRECTION 1 FOR LOAD CASES 22222 FIGURE 6a RADIAL RESPONSE SPECTRA AT EL. 749'-4" ANNULUS CONCRETE A17 3

="

~

PERRY ~

t F

l 1

i a

f 8

I.

PROJECT 5

i Ii I

41 i i t i

l i

i

. !-!l' SRVA l

l t

i l', '..

L l

I g

=l i

_ =5 t

i 8

l t

i i

i g 3. j -

j j.

c-s3. :.::

i 23l

- ! q l-i l.

.:n-se. :.::

x

+ s i

f~

e s:.. :,: 3 '

l a..

I

.E 2

I

/ l l

l l

=; l - > 1

c.-

s3. :. :

i i

i t

+

\\\\ \\

l i

'i

..i s\\.\\.

'l

c r s3. L:-

- r,'

/.f i

O

2,

'i!

s4.-

s,

l i

l-irtl l

l i

/

I E

i j

j l'

" 4 : s - 7 s a 't 0 -

1 3

-i s.s t 6 s 4 0' i

i s 5-3 FREQUENCY -(CPSJ ENVELOPED.SPECTRR FOR JOINT 311 IN DIRECTION 2 FOR. LORD CRSES 22222 FIGURE 6b VERTICAL RESPONSE SPECTRA AT EL. 749'-4" ANNULUS CONCRETE A18

+

-h p-3

.,-.--4..,_s--

ve,-

r

-.,.a

--.ru-

-- e *- + - - - - - - -

-rw+ - - >

- og #

=

=1-l l

PERRY 1

~

l PROJECT i

i l

l

= 1-t i

i e

~

'i

-l I

i;

,i SRVR i

=!

i i

_*t i

t j

i

==>

i

- l I

I

/I i

i.

~

H Il

/l

c-s:.. :.:.

[li

\\

l ZEj

, / ;-

\\;

i i

l l

\\','

=- e. :.::

c=

i i

I

/

~.T

n-e u. :. ;; <

,5,_=]

i i:

l

/

.!{

g t

r. N l

i 5 :; -

If i -1 l.

m 7

,...u,

l Y

lf j7 l\\-

y, gi l

a- *u. :. :-

i fVi. 3y f(

,'\\

l ji t

i t

l Y

)

~

=

I.-

l j

g I

o 5 $ 7 9 3 I G -.

i i

s s 7 s $ 10' i

4 ss FREQUENCY

[ CPS}

ENVELCFEO SPECTR4 FOR JOINT 311 IN DIRECTION 3 FOR LORD CASES 22222 4

FIGURE 6c.

TANGENTIAL RESPONSE SPECTRA AT EL. 749'-4" ANNULUS CONCRETE i

r A19

.-