ML20077K986
| ML20077K986 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Ginna  |
| Issue date: | 08/02/1983 |
| From: | Barrett D FRANKLIN INSTITUTE |
| To: | Persinko D NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17255A400 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-NRC-03-81-130, CON-NRC-3-81-130 TAC-48881, TER-C5506-420, NUDOCS 8308040259 | |
| Download: ML20077K986 (37) | |
Text
l . .
TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT REVIEW 0F WIND AND TORNADO LOADING RESPONSES ROCHESTER GAS AND ELECTRIC ~ CORPORATION ROBERT E. GINNA NUCLEAR POWER PLANT NRCDOCKETNO. 50-244 FRC PROJECT C5506 NRCTAC NO. 48881 FRC ASSIGNMENT 17 NRC CONTRACT NO. NRC-03-81-130 FRC TASK 420 Prepared by Franklin Research Center Author: D. J. Barrett 20th and Race Streets Philadelphia, PA 19103 FRC Group Leader- D. J. Barrett Prepared for Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Lead NRC Engineer: D. Persinko August 2, 1983 This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Govemment nor any agency thereof, or any of their employees, makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for any third party's use, or the results of such use, of any informattori, appa-ratus, product or process disclosed in this report, or represents that its use by such third party would not infringe privately owned rights.
Prepared by: Reviewed by: Approved by:
/V E YW hf M Principal Author Project Manager Department Dirg6 tor (/
Date: 4"W 2 4'G Date: W2 /b Date- E~ 2 ~ D sM Copy.Has.Been.SenLloM ,
~
od . 0. Franklin Research Center 0 40 A Division of The Franklin Institute
=/
9f% he Bensmn Frankhn Pernway. Pheia.. Pe 19103 (215) 448 1000 v.m
TER-C5506-420 CONTENTS Section Title Page 1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.1 Purpose of Review . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.2 Generic Issue Background . . . . . . . . . 1 1.3 Plant-Specific Background . . . . . . . . . 1 2 REVIEW CRITERIA. . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3 TECHNICAL EVALUATION . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.1 General Information . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.2 Effective Tornado Loadings. . . . . . . . . 8 3.3 Structural Loadings . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.4 Structural Analysis and Modeling . . . . . . . 12 3.5 Structural Acceptance Criteria. . . . . . . . 16
! 3.6 Structural Systems. . . . . . . . . . . 18
- 4 CONCLUSIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 l
5 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 APPENDIX A - REVIEW CALWTIONS l
l l
l iii
\
l . .
TER-C5506-420 FOREWORD This Technical Evaluation Report was prepared by Franklin Research Center under a contract with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conunission (Office of Nuclear Peactor Regulation, Division of Operating Reactors) for technical assistance in support of NRC operating reactor licensing actions. The technical evaluation was conducted in accordance with criteria established by the NBC.
1
. - , 1 a
G rl V
TER-C5506-420
- 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE OF REVIEW The structural reanalysis prograf (GSRP) of 'the Robert E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant was undertaken by the Rochester Gas and' Electric Cor > oration -
(BG&E) to study a nunber of safety issceh concerning the plant's civir ' -
engineering structures. Part of the program sought tU establish the strength of the structures under a windstorm or a tornado strikh. The purpose of this review'is to provide.s technical evaluation of the approach, analysis, and conclusions of the GSRP tornado study.
- 1.2 ' GENERIC ISSUE BACIQGROUND , ,
i The cur' rent design cri:teria for nuclear power plant structures contain H provisions for protection against windstorus and tornadoes. These requiremanha ware not in effect at the tima that some of the older nuclear plants were designed and licensed. .Due to concerns regal; ding the extent to which these older plants can satisfy the current wind loading licensing
< criteria, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (N'RC) , as part of the Systematic Evaluation Program (SEP), initiated Topic III-:s, " Wind and Tcrnado Loadings," -
l, to investigate, and assess 'the structural safety of existing designs.
2
~ , ,
The'SEP encompasses a , broad' range of safety-related issues, many of which l aire' concerned with, the integrity of plant structures. The Franklin Research ,
L l'1 ' Center 1FE),providtd technicaf essistance to the NBC in the review of several.. ,
i SEP topics and wasfresponsible-for technical evaluations for Topic III-2 under t- .
h . ~_ Assignment 17 of NBC Contract Nd. NE-03-81-130.-
, 1.3 PLANT-SPECIFIC BAC3 GROUND ,
s
?= .
In a previous work (1), the FRC staff reported tn3 results of a study examining the structural systems of the Ginna . plant under high wind and
, tornado loadings. This effort determi'ned that the, structures were not
. . designed to meet the provisions of current licensing criteria and. identified 7 [ ungpalified contponents in several Class 1 structures. In response to an NBC-9 4 -
- w s
7.
_1_
'__ M b i- .. . ._ .-- . _ _. _ _ _ . . _ _ _
____'t _
nqs _ _ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
, ;c .
y-
- TER-C5506-420
\
issued Integrated Plant Safety Assessment' report (2], which contained the results of the FBC study, RG&E initiated a detailed high wind and tornado analysis as part of the GSRP.
PJ.. The results of the GSRP [3, 4] were transmitted to FRC on June 1,1983, in a' meeting between FRC and NBC personnel. To assist FRC in reviewing the GSRP, a meeting of FRC, NBC,' and BG&E personnel with representatives from the .
utility's angineering consultants, Gilbert Associates, was held on June'14, 1983. Since then, FRC staff has been in contact with NBC and M&E to resolve several outsts.nding issues.
BG&E contends that the safety afforded by raising the strength of the structures to resist a sindspeed'.sssociated with a probability occurrence of 10-5 year is' adequate. For the site, such a probability corresponds to a 132 mph windspeec. Thits probability level is selected because it is considered the s&J6e as the protection level provided for other severe natural phenomena events.'. Therefore, EAE proposes to upgrade its structures as follows: ,
- 1. All primarf steel framing vill be modified to resist a 132 mph tornado windspeed. _
- 2. No secondary member modificacions"will,be made. Only minor _
modifications will be made to the exterior'shell.
s 3.- The required safe shutdown equipment will be protected from tornado missiles.
A s
p' 1 / ,-
s -
TER-C5506-420
- 2. REVIEW CRITERIA The intent of code regulations is to ensure the safety of systems vital to the safe shutdown of a reactor. The General Design Criteria (GDC) of 10CFR50, Appendix A [5] regulate the designs of these safety systems; in particular, GDC 2 requires that structures housing safety-related equipment be able to withstand the effects of natural phenomena such as tornadoes. The design basis must consider the most severe postulated tornado as well as the combined effects of tornado, normal, and accident conditions.
The Nuclear Regulatory Guide 1.76 [6] defines the design basis tornado (DBT) in terms of six descriptive parameters: the maximum wind speed, the rotational speed, the translational speed, the maximum atmospheric pressure drop, the rate of pressure drop, and the core radius. The specified magnitudes of these regional parameters (listed with respect to geographical location) are the accept.ble regulation levels; however, where appropriate, additional meteorological analysis may be performed to justify the selection of a less conservative DBT. In Reference 7, the NRC established the tornado parameters to be used in the SEP study of the Ginna plant.
Regulatory Guide 1.117 [8] identifies the structures and systems that should be protected from the effects of a DBT. This information is elaborated on in Branch Technical Position AAB 3-2 found in the Standard Review Plan (SRP) , Section 3.5.1.4 (NUREG-0800) [9]. The GSRP analysis reviewed in this report examined all of the original safety-related structural systems at the Ginna plant.
A velocity pressure model of a windstorm can be constructed from the ,
pressure and air flow assumptions stated in Section 3.3.1 of the SRP [10] and the American National Standards Instite.te (ANSI) design loading guide [11] . A velocity pressure model of a tornado strike can be constructed from the DBT characteristics based on the guidance of Section 3.3.2 of the SRP [12] and the engineering literature [13,14] . The actual loads. acting on a structure are calculated from these models through the use of experimentally determined pressure coefficients [11,15] . The loads act on the structural surfaces as nklin Research Center
~~
l TER-C5506-420 positive and negative pres:ures induced by the change in momentum of the wind and in the atmospheric pressure.
An additional tornado load is the impact of wind-borne missiles against structures. The potential missiles are listed in the missile spectrum of Section 3.5.1.4 of the SRP [9], and the particular missiles to be included in this study were identified by the NBC as part of the SEP assignment [7].
References 16 and 17 assist in the determination of the structural effects of missile impact, whereas the guidelines of the SRP [9] indicate acceptable combinations of impact effects with the loads resulting from wind and differential pressures.
Since the DBT is considered an extreme environmental event, tornado-induced loads are part of the loading combinations to be used in extreme environmental design (see Article CC-3000 in the ASME Boiler and Pressure vessel Code [18] and Section 3.8.4 of the SRP (19]). The structural effects of these loading combinations are determined by analysis; stresses are calculated either by a working stress or an ultimate strength method, whichever is appropriate for the structure under consideration. The ASME Code specifications for an extreme environmental event permit the applict. tion of reserve strength factors to allowable working stress design limits. The specifications also permit local strength capacities to be exceeded by missile loadings (concentrated loads) provided that this causes no loss of function in any safety-related systems.
The sources of criteria described above and other source documents used in the evaluation are listed below:
NBC Regulatory Guide 1.76, " Design Basis Tornado for Nuclear Power Plants" [6]
NBC Regulatory Guide 1.117, " Tornado Design Classification" [8]
NUREG-0800, Staridard Review Plan Section 3.3.1, " Wind Loadings" [10]
Section 3.3.2, " Tornado Loadings" (12]
Section 3.5.1.4, " Missiles Generated by Natural Phenomena" [9]
Section 3.5.3, " Barrier Design Procedures" [20]
Section 3.8.1, " Concrete Containment" [21]
1 l
TER-C5506-420 Section 3.8.4, "Other Seismic Category I Structures" [19]
Section 3.8.5, " Foundations" [22]
AISC Specification for Design, Fabrication, and Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings, Eighth Edition [23]
ACI-318-77, " Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete" [24]
ASME Boiler and Pressure vessel Code,Section III, Division 2 (ACI-359),
" Standard Code for Concrete Reactor Vessels and Containments" (18]
NBC/SEB, " Criteria for Safety-Related Masonry Wall Evaluation,"
Structural Engineering Branch (1981) [25]
ACI-307-79, " Specification for the Design and Construction of Reinforced Concrete Chimneys" [26].
u
~'~
e __ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TER-C5506-420
- 3. TECHNICAL EVALUATION 3.1 GENERAL INFORMATION Based on a meteorological study of the Ginna region, the NBC calculated site-specific tornado windspeeds with corresponding probability of recurrence (indicated in parentheses) of 132 aph (10" ),188 mph (10-6), and 250 mph (10-7). The DBT characteristics of the most severe tornado, which were used aa the basis of the initial review [1, 7] , were:
' Maximum wind speed 250 mph Maximum pressure drop 1.5 pai Rate of pressure drop 0.6 psi /sec Core radius 150 ft Note: This level of tornado intensity (10~7) is as required in current criteria.
The overall approach of the GSRP was to establish the cost of upgrading the building structures and components to resist various tornado windspeed levels. Based on the backfit costs and the probability of windspeed occurrence, RG&E proposes to upgrade the Ginna structures to resist a 132 mph windspeed which they consider to be a reasonable level of tornado protection, consistent with the protection levels associated with other severe natural phenomena.
The following sections review the approaches, analysis, and conclusions of the GSRP study. Each step of the study is evaluated and conclusions on the adequacy of the step are made. Although RG&E is proposing to upgrade to a 132 mph windspeed level, most of the conclusions are general and apply to higher windspeed levels.
As an aid in interpreting conclusions concerning the structures, a site plot plan is shown in Figure 1.
TER-C550 6-420 LAKE ONTARIO l
N
/ DISCHARGE CANAL SCREENHOUSE OIL STORAGE
\ BUILDING
< EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATOR ANNEX TURBINE BUILDING -+- ALL VOLATILE TREATMENT BUILDING INTERMEDIATE-BUILDING SERVICE BUILDING CONTAINMENT !
CONTROL
) ROOM AUXILIARY BUILDING ~
f [ rSTANDBY AUXILIARY FEEDWATER l # PUMP BUILDING Figure 1. Site Plot Plan
T TER-C5506-420 3.2 EFFECTIVE TORNADO LOADINGS 3.2.1 Atmospheric Pressure Change Evaluation Given the translational speed and the maximum windspeed of a tornado, there is a well-defined procedure for calculating the magnitude of the atmospheric pressure change that occurs in the tornado core [14] . In applying this procedure to the tornado characteristics specified for the Ginna site, FRC calculated values different from those specified in the GSRP (Appendix A,
- p. 3-4 of Reference 4 and Appendix A of this report) .
Conclusion For the final structural review, RG&E ande a commitmen? to reewamine the calculation for atmospheric pressure changes and will apply the appropriate value in the structural loadings.
4 3.2.2 Wind velocity Pressure Evaluation The method used in the GSRP to calculate wind velocity pressures for wind storms and tornado strikes follows the procedures delineated in Sections 3.3.1
[10] and 3.3.2 [.12] of the SRP, and ANSI 58.1 [11] .
Conclusion The wind velocity pressures were calculated in accordance with the accepted criteria.
3.2.3 Wind-borne Missiles Evaluation The GSRP established a shutdown system to be protected against the local effects of misslie impacts (p. 18 of Reference 3). However, the global structural effe<.ts of such loads were not considered; that is, the overall
. e TER-<550 6-420 structural response of frame members, building walls, etc. were not investigated. SRP Section 3.5.3 requires missile impacts to be modeled as concentrated loads to be applied to the structures in conjunction with other loads and the overall structural response (impact-induced forces, moments, and shears) of such loadings to be evaluated.
Conclusion BG&E has made a commitment to examine the effects of tornado-induced missile impacts on the primary structural members throughout the Ginna facility in its final analysis. The Licensee has indicated that a probablistic approach will be considered in establishing impact area 2.
3.3 STRUCTURAL LCEDINGS 3.3.1 Differential Pressure Load Evaluation The atmospheric pressure change of a tornado leads to e lowering of the ambient pressure outside of a structure. For an unvented structure, this change results in differential pressure loadings acting outwardly on the buil. ting surfaces. In the tornado strike analysis, the GSRP included the differential pressure as a basic loading condition. The magnitude of the differential pressure was based on a 250 mph windspeed (in contrast to a 0.04 pai pressure based on a 132 moh windspeed as reported in Appendix A, pp. 2-10 and 2-12 of Reference 4). Stress levels for differential pressures corresponding to other windspeeds were found by factoring the results for the 250 mph differential pressure load case [27] .
Conclusion The differential pressure load was applied to the structures in accordance with the applicable acceptance criteria (12] .
TER-C5506-420 3.3.2 Effective Structural Pressures Evaluation The wind velocity pressure is converted to actual structural loadings through the use of pressure coefficients and gust factors. These coefficients vary for the directi .;n of wind flow and for the section of the structure under consideration. The GSRP analysis draws from the appropriate reference sources
[10, 11, 12, 15] for the values of these coefficients.,
The applicable criteria [12,13] recognized that the peak wind velocity pressure occurs in a limited region and that this pressure rapidly decays away from this region. The GSRP accounted for this variation by averaging the pressure distribution to find an equivalent pressure loading. In doing this, the center of peak pressure was positioned on the structure so that the maximum equivalent pressure was found. Such a procedure will yield valid conclusions on the response of the main lateral force resisting components of the structure. However, the analysis will fail to determine if the load paths between the region of peak loading (which can occur anywhere along the face of a structure) and these main components are adequate.
l Conclusion The calculations for ccaverting wind velocity pressures to effective structural pressures are acceptable. The basic load, which is based on the average of the pressure distribution, is only adequate for examini.g the overall structural response. RGEE has made a commitment to examine the local effects of peak pressures on primary members in the final analysis.
3.3.3 Design Loads Evaluation The design loads that are to be considered acting in combination with tornado loads and wind loads are dead, live, thermal, and pipe reaction loads
[191 The GSRP determined the dead and live loads from the design drawings and from site inspections. The thermal and pipe reaction loads were estimated i I M
( ..W F tanklin Research Center
~
l i
i TER-C5506-420 i
as a percentage of the dead load, based on case studies and on engineering experlence. -i of particular interest in the design loads is the occurrence of large concentrated forces. The main steam and feedwater pipe reactions were treated as concentrated loads separate from the other pipe reaction loads. The crane dead loads were also treated as concen*:ated loads and were entered in the model at the weakest column locatP- The cranes were considered to be i i unloaded during a tornado strike.
Conclusion The design loads were determined in accordance with accepted engineering practice. To conform to the modeling assumptions, it is recommended that a procedure be implemented at the plant to unload the cranes during a tornado watch.
3.3.4 Shielding i Evaluation l The all volatile treatment and standby auxiliary feedwater pump buildings l
- were taken as complete shields with no transmission of lateral loads. The I
standard provisions [11] do not permit allowance for shielding. However, the buildings under consideration are reinforced goncrete structures engineered to resist tornado windspeeds of 360 mph', which, if they hadb'een included in the structural model, would have transmitted lititle or no lateral forces.
The service building, which is a steel frame structure, was not included in the structural model. The reactions due to the wind-induced forces, between this structure and the safety-related structures, were considered as loadings in the structural model.
Conclusion Allowances for shielding and the transmission of lateral forces were properly treated in the analysis.
l y e e i @JuJ Franklin Research Center
_ . . _ _ _ _ __._ A m * =a=#7he rc a ia== = . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ , _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _
l l
i TER-C5506-420 3.3.5 Load Combinations Evaluation The proper load combinations for severe and extreme environmental events are specified in the SRP (19] . For the review of the steel frame structures, the GSRP used the load combinations appropriate for elastic (working stress design) analysis. The components of these load combinations were treated as basic loads which were then combined in the proper manner.
Conclusion The load combinations considered in the GSRP were comprehensive and in accordance with accepted criteria.
3.4 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND MODELING l
3.4.1 Main Structural Frame Evaluation I
A linear elastic, three-dimensional frame analysis, using beam and plate finite elements, was performed on the main structural frames. Included in the model were the primary structural members, cross bracing, roof trusses, and lateral force-resisting components. The computer program GSTRUDL 82-02, a code of general acceptance and in wide use, was used to construct the model and perform the analysis.
The main frame members were modeled as beam elements. The concrete floors were represented by plate elements (modeling diaphragm action) in the floor plan. Other concrete components, such as walls, were also modeled by plate elements. The roof decks were modeled by plates and were given an appropriately low value of stiffness. Proper compatibility between the plate and beam elements was provided and a separate loading condition was created (Appendix A, p. 2-9 of Reference 4) to assist in modeling the transfer of load between these component.m. because the pressurization wall of the control building was tied into the structural frame and had substantial stiffness, it was included in the model. The armor wall of the same structure is separated
. . . . u_
TER-CS506-420 t
from the main frame and was omitted from the model. No composite action between steel and concrete members was considered.
Conclusion The model was constructed in accordance with accepted engineering practice and assumptions.-
3.4.2 Sequence of Failure Evaluation In the analysis, the structural model was subjected to different levels of tornado windspeeds. However, in the model, there was no accounting for the loss of components as the windspeeds increased; that is, the stiffness of the structure was not modified to account for the sequence of failure.
The emphasis of the GSRP was to develop information to assess the cost of backfitting the structures to resist various levels of wind loading. As such, the analysis undertaken was not as detailed as a final review would require.
Based on the cost-benefit study, RG&E is proposing a DBT with a 132 mph windspeed. However, for this level of windspeed, the loading combinations include the differential pressure loadings, although it is anticipated that the loss of roof decks and structural siding will relieve that loading.
Therefore, it is felt that the conclusions drawn from the model are adequate and conservative.
l Since subsequent analysis for higher level loadings did not modify the l
model for loss of components, the conclusions on the adequacy of members at l the higher windspeeds may not be conservative.
Cenclusion It is felt that conclusions reached in the structural frame analysis hold l for windspeeds of 132 mph. To verify this, RG&E will conduct a more detailed l analysis in the final review. Conclusions reached from the analysis for higher windspeeds are not necessarily conservative.
- 13_
A .--_-__.- -. - - --- - - - - - - - - - ---
TEIK 5506-420 3.4.3 Secondary Members Evaluation l
Secondary members are roof purlins and girts. Se GSRP modeled the l purlins as beam systems subjected to uplift forces for wind loads. Se girts likewise were studied through beam models under possitive and negative pressure loadings. For negative pressures, these components are particularly weak since the compression flange is not braced, as was reported in the GSRP. For positive pressures, the girts were considered braced by the siding, an assumption based on the spacing of the siding to girt connections and the I minimal requirements on force for such bracing.
Conclusion Secondary members were examined through methods consistent with
) engineering practice.
l 3.4.4 Masonry Block Walls
- Evaluation l
Depending on boundary conditions (connections), a masonry block wall can resist lateral loads through one- or two-way bending. W e GSRP modeled the exterior block walls with plate finite element models which could properly ,
account for the boundary conditions in a stress analysis.
In addition to the conventional stress analysis, a stability criteria analysis was used to examine the walls (a method that investigates the resistance after cracking has occurred). Se acceptability of this approach, l as an alternative to the current review criteria [25], is still under review.
Conclusion It is the NRC/SEP position that the stability criteria method has not yet been established'as a legitimate basis for review. Berefore, only the conclusions drawn from the conventional stress analysis will be approved.
= -
4 ~~~
w -
TER-C5506-420 3.4.5 Roof Decking .
Evaluation Roof decks are normally analyzed through beam bending models. This procedure was followed in the GSRP except for uplift loadings where no credit was given to the ability of the plug weld connections to provide adequate resistance.
Conclusion The roof decks were modeled in accordance with accepted practice.
3.4.6 Metal Siding Systems Evaluation The metal siding was tested for resistance to positive and negative pressure loadings. The test considered the actual support and connection t.rrangement that exists at the Ginna site. Although the number of continuous rpana varied at the site, the two span test results were applicable through cngineering comparison.
Windspeed ratings of strength for the panels were listed in the GSRP (Appendix A, pp. 3-26 to 3-28 of Reference 4) through calculations based on the test results and dynamic pressure loadings. For unvented structures, the coverest loading on the siding will be differential pressure, so ratings for panels should be adjusted for this condition (see Appendix A of this report) .
Conclusion The ultimate strength of the metal siding was established through testing. Qualification of these components for a given level of wind loading depends on the desired response and may require structural modifications (as proposed in the GSRP, Appendix A, p. 3-29 of Reference 4).
TER-C5506-420 3.5 STRUCTURAL ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 3.5.1 Steel Components Evaluation The extreme environmental structural acceptance criteria specified by the SRP [19] recognized the severity of the loadings presented by the rare occurrence of a tornado and, as such, permitted stress levels in steel components to approach yield conditions. The GSRP adopted two levels of structural acceptance; the first was in conformance with the SRP, whereas the second, called the "Second Level of Acceptance" (p. 30 of Reference 3),
permits stresses to exceed the levels specified in the SRP (see Appendix A of this report) . The results reported for the stress analysis and the cost study were based on the criteria in conformance with the SRP.
Conclusion The steel components were reviewed in accordance with the accepted criteria. The "Second Level of Acceptance" criteria, which were not used in the GSRP, will require further study before they can be approved for the final analysis.
3.5.2 Concrete Components Evaluation The concrete building codes [24] have undergone several changes since the design and construction of the Ginna facility. As part of another SEP topic, the structures at Ginna are being examined for the consequences of these code changes. In the GSRP, concrete components of the diesel generator building were identified as inadequate with respect to the code changes. In a previous review [1] , concrete components of this same structure were also found to be inadequate under tornado loadings. Although the GSRP did not detail the structural acceptance criteria to be used in the review of these concrete components, RG&E has stated [27] that all concrete components will be reviewed under the appropriate code provisions.
4 ranklin Research Center
- ^ 0"*""? "'* f***"W
TER-C5506-420 Conclusion RG&E has made a commitment to examine all concrete components under the current code provisions for wind and tornado loadings [19, 24].
3.5.3 Masonry Block Walls Evaluation The NBC/SEB masonry block wall stress criteria [25] permit an overload factor of 1.3 in extreme environmental events for tensile stresses perpendicu-lar to the block courses. The GSRP, however, used an overload factor of 1.6 for the basis of the structural review. Masonry walls are reviewed in a NRC/SEB topic (response to IE Bulletin 80-11) for which RG&E has prepared a report for the examination of the masonry walls under various loadings. The j NBC/SEB has not yet ruled on the adequacy of the procedures used by RG&E in l that study.
l Conclusion l Until the NBC/SEB responds to the RG&E masonry block wall study, this item will remain an open issue for the Topic III-2 review.
3.5.4 Connections Evaluation Steel connections are permitted the same overstress factor for extreme environmental loadings as steel members. This factor is applied to the code allowables as specified in the steel code [23]. The GSRP followed this procedure for the review of connections.
l The wind and tornado loadings can cause a unique load pattern which is not presently covered by code criteria, i.e., vertical (shear) and axial loads acting in unision on clip angles. For this condition, the GSRP used hanger l
tension criteria in developing interaction formulas for the shear and tensile stresses. In lieu of no presently available code criteria, such an approach is consistent with engineering practice.
. ..:m - - -- _ - . - - _ - -
l l
TER-C5506-420 1 l
Conclusion ,
Connections were examined in accordance with code criteria and good engineering judgment.
3.5.5 Roof Deck Evaluation Roof decks are typically constructed of light gage steel sheets. Under extreme loadings, the bending compression zones of the decks will be susceptible to local buckling failures. In establishing the capacity of the roof decks, the GSRP used beam bending formulas without any consideration to reducing stresses for buckling of local elements.
Conclusion RG&E has stated that the roof decks will be reexamined for potential buckling under extreme environmental loadings. The capacities of the roof decks, as reported in the GSRP (Appendix A, p. 3-31 of Reference 4), will be modified accordingly.
3.5.6 Architectural Details Conclusion RG&E has made a commitment to upgrade architectural items on a level consistent with other exterior shell components.
3.6 STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS 3.6.1 Cable Tunnel Evaluation .
l The cable tunnel is completely subterranean with no direct exposure to ~
the atmosphere. Access to the tunnel is limited to an opening located in the l
basement of the intermediate building.
l 1
l ... m .n u n % . _ _ . _ _ _ . - - - - - -
l TER-C5506-420 Conclusion The cable tunnel is sufficiently shielded from wind loads and will not require additional review.
3.6.2 Control Building Evaluation Concerns identified with the control building are the effects of depressurization of the turbine building (located on the north face of the control building) and the strength of the east face siding system. It was found that the pressurization wall excends throughout the whole height and width of the boundary wall between the turbine and control buildings, protecting the north side of the control building from the wind loadings. In a previous approximate study [1] the structural components resisting lateral pressures on the east face were found to be potentially limiting. In the improved GSRP structural model, the main structural components were not found to be critical, but the surface and skin components require further review.
Conclusion E&E has made a commitment to reexamine the control building east wall for the structural upgrade.
3.6.3 Auxiliary Building Evaluation certain steel columns of this structure exceed the maximum allowable slenderness ratios for compression members [1, 231 In addition, some columns are weakly braced at the roof steel level for resistance to lateral loads.
Conclusion M&E will' upgrade the columns of the auxiliary building for general stability.
M, _
TER-C5506-420 3.6.4 Diesel Generator Building Evaluation The GSRP examined the roof steel and exhaust breeching of the diesel generator building and found these components to be weak under tornado loadings. Although not specifically examined, it is anticipated that the reinforced concrete walls of the same structure will also be found limiting Ill .
Conclusion 1
BG&E has made a commitment to reexamine the reinforced concrete components of the diesel generator building in the final analysis.
-20_
l A-'
-J f nter -
TER-C5506-420
- 4. CONCLUSIONS The results of the review of the GSRP windstorm and tornado strike analysis are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1. GSRP Review Summary StatusI "I Review Item 1 2 3 4 Effective Tornado Loadings Atmospheric Pressure Change X Wind Velocity Pressure X Wind-borne Missiles X Structural Loadings Differential Pressure Load X Effective Structural Pressures X Design Loads X (D) l Shielding X l
Load Combinations X Structural Analysis and Modeling Main Structural Frame X Sequence of Failure X (c) l Secondary Members X Roof Decking X Metal Siding System X (d)
Structural Acceptance Criteria Steel Components X (*)
Concrete Components X
_21 4
TER-C5506-420 Table 1 (Cont.)
Status (*}
Review Item 1 2 3 4 Connections X Roof Deck X 1
Architectural Details X Structural Systems Cable Tunnel X Control Building X Auxiliary Building X Diesel Generator Building X
, d. "he status of each item is defined as 1, 2, 3, or 4, as follows:
I
! l = The review item is in conformance with the accepted criteria.
2 = The review item is in conformance with the accepted crieria, but the conclusions are limited to a windspeed of 132 mph.
3 = The review item.is not in conformance with the accepted criteria, but
. RG&E has made a commitment to correct / reexamine this item in the final
! analysis.
I 4 = The review item is not in conformance with the accepted criteria and l remains an open issue.
i
- b. Implementation of a procedure for unloading the cranes during a tornado watch is recommended.
- c. The cost and strength conclusions based on the preliminary analysis are judged valid for a 132-sph windspeed. Extension of the review scope to draw conclusions on higher wi 4dspeeds would require some consideration of this topic.
- d. Windspeed strength ratings are specified for velocity pressure loadings.
It should be noted that differential pressure loadings would lead to lower l winaspeed ratings for negative pressures. However, since the GSRP
' discounts the resistance of the siding, the change in strength rating would not affect the structural conclusions.
- e. The "Second Level of Acceptance" criteria will require further review
' before they are approved.
branklin Research Center
TER-C5506-420 The masonry block walls (see Sections 3.4.4 and 3.5.3 of this report) have not been included in the review snnunary since the proposed analysis and review criteria are still being reviewed generically.
i l
l l
0 i
l l
4 . . <
U000
~ Frankiin a _rch cent , . . _ - . - -
TER-C5506-420
- 5. REFERENCES
- 1. Barrett, D. J. and Agarwal, R.
" Wind and Tornado Loadings, Robert E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant" Franklin Reseach Center, Technical Evaluation Report TER-C5257-400, December 1981
- 2. Integrated Plant Safety Assessment, R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, Final Report U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission December 1982 I
, 3. J. E. Maier (RG&E) i Letter to D. M. Crutchfield (NBC) ll
Subject:
Structural Reanalysis Program, SEP Topics II-2.A, III-2, III-4.A, and III-7.B R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant
- Docket No. 50-244
- April 22,1983
- 4. J. E. Maier (NBC) i Letter . to D. M. Crutchfield (NBC)
Subject:
Structural Reanalysis Program, SEP Topics II-2.A, III-2, III-4.A, and III-7.B R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Docket No. 50-244 i May 19, 1983 i
- 5. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 50 Appendix A, " General Design Criteria"
- 6. " Design Basis Tornsdo for Nuclear Power Plants" NBC, April 1974 Regulatory Guide 1.76
- 7. E. J. Butcher (NRC)
!l I
Letter to S. P. Carfagno (FRC)
Subject:
Tentative Work Assignment P April 23, 1981
- 8. " Tornado Design Classification" l NBC, Rev. 1, April 1978
- 9. Standard Review Plan i
Section 3.5.1.4, " Missiles Generated by Natural Phenomena" NRC, July 1981
'f' NUREG-0800 I
A -24.- .
000 ranklin Research Center
TER-C5506-420
- 10. Standard Review Plan Section 3.3.1, " Wind Loadings" NRC, July 1981 NUREG-0800
- 11. " Building Code Requirements for Minimum Design Loads in Buildings and Other Structures" New York: American National Standards Institute,1982 ANSI A58.1-1982 12 . Standard Review Plan Secton 3.3.2, " Tornado Loadings"
- NBC, July 1981 NUREG-0800 l
i 13 . Mcdonald, J. R. , Mehta, K. C. , and Minor, J. E.
I
" Tornado-Resistant Design 05 Nuclear Power Plant Structures" Nuclear Safety, Vol.15, No. 4, July-August 1974
- 14. Mehta, K. C. , Mcdonald, J.R. , and Minor , J. E.
" Tornadic Loads on Structures" Proc. of U.S.-Japan Research Seminar on Wind Effects on Structures,1976 i
j 15. " Wind Forces on Structures"
. New York: Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 126, Part II, 1962 ASCE Paper No. 3269 I
- 16. Williamson, R. A. and Alvy, R. R.
l
" Impact Effect of Fragments Striking Structural Elements" Holmes and Naruer, Inc.
i Revised November 1973
- 17. " Full-Scale Tornado-Missile Impact Tests" Palo Alto, CA: Electric Power Research Institute, July 1977 Final Report NP-440, Project 399
- 18. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section III, Division 2
" Standard Code for Concrete Reactor Vessels and Containments" i New York: American Society of Mechanical Engineers,1973 ACI-359 l 19. Standard Review Plan Section 3.8.4, "Other Seismic Category I Structures" NRC, July 1981 NUREG-0809 gu _
TER-C5506-420
- 20. Standard Review Plan Section 3.5.3, " Barrier Design Procedures" NRC, July 1981 NUREG-0800
- 21. Standard Review Plan
' section 3.8.1, " Concrete Containment" j NBC, July 1981 NUREG-0800 t
j '
- 22. Standard Review Plan i Section 3.8.5, " Foundations" NBC, July 1981 NUREG-0800
- 23. " Specification for Design, Fabrication, and Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings" New York: American Institute of Steel Construction,1978
- 24. " Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete" Detroit: American Concrete Institute, 1977 ACI 318-71
- 25. Criteria for Safety-Related Masonry Wall Evaluation NRC, Structural Engineering Branch,1981 .
- 26. " Specification for the Design and Construction of Reinforced Concrete Chimneys" American Concrete Institute, 1979 ACI 307-79
- 27. FRC Telephone Memo Conservation between D. Barrett (FIC) , D. Persinko (NBC) , T. Weis (RG&E) ,
G. Wrobel (RG&E) , and L. Sucheski (Gilbert Assoc.)
July 7,1982 nklin Research Center
APPENDIX A
REVIEW CAICULATIONS i
(
l 4
.... Franklin Research Center A Division of The Franklin institute The Benjamin Frankhn Parkway. Phila.. Pa. 19103 (215) 448.t 000 e e
W i
f~%n Proiect a z. G - c550 6 - o t Page
- 4-/
I Luu Franklin Research Center ,, o,,, c3.,., o,,, ,,,, nos, ..
A w, Dmsson
% r,- e- of The Franidin en . Inst,itute
- p. i ica Sv o- YWS2 -
. T. tie ,
[$if A) CNSW L$Of/ )N$ , l4Nk '
OAs'1*t'ArY$
4 k .sp en Offfdi%7M; Egi~if Vdi- da I #2 ra A-3 -
1
$hlN $ k6 b l **
. +,
1k x
% bg I
Y a
s
,oe 0
-9 l
l , .1
- l i
e s ,.
/
l
.* e i i i _
- s. --
, '\ .
em
~
,~ j
- a. s ,
s , ,
da
. =
q - Page Protect
__ fd.;^ ozd - <* G dd - O/ A-3 F. i a ,.. o.,,
s bu Franklin Resea,rch Center 3, o ,, es t, o ,,
m WVU s
A,..D.ivision,of ,_. The,
. ,FranWin.Inso,tute m . i ic3
- 7,tio
[$:.N. ~~ J J '.t5 JsAsC5/ '[d hf~.'.4a' Y b a.:.,1hs"A:~! .
, a s , i r /s A..
p/.9dhM)O_ A,JJAnp ./_V N.'C' w*
~ s
. -\
\
s
. N ! W .'. W ... V ? A W f -. -
f
, -C&~kL *#- .V.O C Q .. - - . _ . _ _ . . _ , - . . . . - . . . . ..
/
.% =,f k 7 ' Vgw.h v
/ s'i.Mc'1 MJ4 ff /N Dd::T/CAJ
~~%'~
lY S.
e,4 Vf~?NikftUs'155/U V:M/T'l. /
/ a
+--- % - -
- Vr_" 1- -
l
=. \lu A x.__ .- - =---._ _ . . - . - --....- --
t h4Ax '.C H42/Htoy ...H a di N. N YML.- - . - - - . .- ----..--
- . .& & ...'..f s'K Na0 .. ....L.-.-
I Assona~. . . - ..Vau . . ... . .ts .; as.. . . --. - kr. =. '. rdAnuariaa.: - . . fM Mc dwai / 4,-.- .
l l' YHjf. *** W. . . _ _ ' ' _ .
d.,7
- . AO 1*A *l'*/.;.^/A " - .. .- - - - . - . . - .-
. 7 t
- E
-. 7. d..hd[A=7/IM.
.- . A O . . .. .. . -
Q 4
l l
< e- . - - - - ...
~ _
.i Protect Page
[n~y^ ' .
o .4 - z Gmc -o r A' ':
, .LUd Franklin Research Center ,, o ,,, c3.,., o,,, g ,,, o,,,
A Dnnsion of The Frank'in !nsutute n., w rem omm m . v. setas Ds#..ip 3 6a miseu o; drwf.e%< ikste ~' 6JMr~ 4lkr :wsw t
4 $bU AUA) $654 M 4$L C.LP b4Nr & MYAffcWMC b, G, AkO N) isz ,;4 nwoo uo.pr zo n >. . n z g 4 VT =
T Mfh (HwMuM TAAN54.wA Gy kG dwar~ InTk)
\
' Vg a = % x - V T
- E2 b JN Ve w . M l% = ll4 le sa rm Ay = tycz}/w)* . 44 m (n.h m ose,n4 w- Anaysa)
/%^'[
ice 3;a rsa.wo n~ayan tw =in y M' { I
.: ho = hax-ly- ies 94
% = .sf lua = M5 mj/r w Ay- t.~ra J/c)'=.n >w 61. eo ni ua m dm ky m)
/w ~y l '
l .
l
f i
I Proiect Page A'; 7 s'-
oM 'ff)S-O/ g-4 M!J Franklin Research Center ,, o ,,, en.,., o,,, n,.. o,,,
A Division of The Franklin insatute f.,
we e- r,mm Pn..c. she. Pa 19103 VV 7.D J
' Titie l Secasiog4 y dccu;~~AML~ &i~idi4 . N4DW$~4'.:iLC FM Stri7. MTVdf4s t
S ypxd/Sa4 on' fxe-ex aa $x; e y (Kf.) dc .wi~~ rAi"~ Sena4xj deq,wt:"
sirpeid dus nc~ psawri.>ns s.:' wa~ Si m.<xx 0 da im a A .4 N .l4:*6
.:.>ar xt.consw Aarn .n6< Loss fauv4 Mad enxsvi~e2wawic:rs EVEni),
m e s--__s SerM ** hrq Mr >las .frasi = %
f<ay A/S(,
W 7e'rsit ~fnecurs/ = Z.0 Max Airr SEC7/04 Se:.aws,y Qau- Ginn/ (S44) au.? M & uor scet2' vins f av aru ,ua w . eas ~ rer m .
Arse _
SAP SAC dx' srend *
- Xs I.c. Q Kn L.a. Ks. % i x xc;est--
M o sr4-u h~77 .% G G */4 0o4.1g -100)la 8~. re,s... .s,e a r- .so n< . s ;e -
sue-g Au he , fezr,v n Axe 4 a t rases,/s.4rg,,ug dsg
,c ASSwes 4cfsosu os Ase'7" .fetf/JM, M*/Hu4 ??i4.fs!! .T74/^47/.i's 50 1
547 ~YEt.c s . 'id f~ ksy '
/
se s- r, ss
- /o istwond" = % .hr5 An
.u ?C Ad
?,'i s' /:y :'Z' /;y i'r/ ?$'i) fb) ' :
c
,c ;
- - ?i+- ($rfy/ fey l m.-
f;* f 'le' /fy!.*// /fg)'?/ /t.Yl'Cf r:/
i . /
t'/
't sh y js'h
- W9
- C
_ % >'? W Kf *fy *CW 3 '
~)
- [9 '/,i & Y/f?f
/ -
- W 8M J// b7Pvr23,$ ,
- /'*.'. jt /sg W - /::y A/'9 /;:y9?! O c'L c/, c 9 hF h3' (h)9f-h) I'":/
g:> ? ?vt- f<r c
=
.- :wm % 'r.y c ?! W(ez? y N$v 2+v cn 's'r -
SGFh?/y (V'Y/y' f'y/p,Jeute ss=vvows
/
NO hr0 6'p.'2If/'T C!Y 0:7p' ' Afr!S?>uf' h '02 'ye.f O */ fa *$f W J W y2 )p,g
>' m
[ ~ *) 'l : 'ff 002 > Y/g.v ~ 02/
SWFH.2HibnntPs>u ma: ax > n , 4 ,< , y DS_~. f MV./ ,
VipH?w twm >.".y
[5 C, P,7
,( Fftx) - g/gy GVg
- C/s ' 'IW '?
'5; Y' ' ? '
4'c=.g .ec > cry yp. pu s
T.1X.'$ ,,7':T s*'C'he)
- /
.%w:p/ -u:'.:5 w :'is;x.$ :-i.e .=r:~g
- V','?'. ?Q . i.'%= =3// OkPm=,5 astu c
p</- c,j, .c,,- eg tonst eo wa====n mu m *u ma a2narzsui utptuey ay1;o uotswG V
^* u ma p.w.c ma As
_c-y Jalua3 43Jeasag utp{ueJJ Eqp-
. c - T C.::.' ~ 2 0 y ,' = ,L shd 1381 Jd W
~ .
- - - - . . . - - . - . . . s
- Project Page 4-3
[nn 'l Frankh.
, lil n Research Center A Dmsson of The Franidin insutute By 2:J - : ~x -:> i Date, e
Ch.k'd Date R ev. Date n, s, r. a c.a., p . r. isto3 Cd 7/4>,93 ietle e' t'/ N= 'W l l-L s) La o e ** s.,~ AMlQO /Ae(4,0ftkY /$dk $*N ) $N$
! M wo,v -&d x,,m :r; o : .:A. .* . A -- feo,a.c. .,,tg-fw,- L e K.- e.,,,( r g
~
T.) A . G T- % M A u 7-h :IWC ladd/M.C (,ve~J 47'/4e") . ~7Hd'~ Me s.n ov ;
. .dA<.'*.'.s tu. : a su: ,w- a r.sa - .r w, s. swa ymt suc es.:.au rQ:
$re/46 7 $.Try
- hot.x,
'75'57*0,v= V6 }{<a N#M A'sdu,41.z. fo FJF /33 Mf *d /s*: * <r Swiscan sk.z,, f/ ES~ /33 N'N / ff *'r' /G "A
$ " $y 3 74~Af $Q M5 /Z$~ WN /pC 1
/r*f'~'"s#N
~
nr % s-7, r s-u s; A,p~oa s, r e,<eue- +
i S N fAC/?' W
.Mh3 n . ej k l
WY $$e#%*l W/N/Ne'JW Yk&$YlO&f,,,. $fg[J) dd*'* fY$
l l
l I
l4 l
l
. _ _ , _