ML20112G422

Forwards Response to Request for Addl Info Re TR Tramm Concerning Design & Const of Facilities

ML20112G422
Person / Time
Site:	Byron, Braidwood, 05000000
Issue date:	12/11/1984
From:	Tramm T COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO.
To:	James Keppler NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
References
9507N, NUDOCS 8504010119
Download: ML20112G422 (25)

Text

'

/

x Commonwealth Edison

}

.g ! > one First National Plazt. Chicago, Illinois

( a 7 Address Reply tz Post Offica Box 767 [p- III (MIN

\ f Chicago. Illinois 60690 t,, er

~jr.)) $Y

~

December 11, 1 8 JR g Ni d ---

]

r MLk.a.5,

.Mr. James-G. Keppler Regional Administrator

.U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 799. Roosevelt Road Glen'Ellyn, IL- 60137'

Subject:

Byron Generating Station Units 1 and 2 Braidwood Generating Station Units 1 and 2 Design Concerns NRC Docket Nos.- 50-454/455 and-50-456/457-Reference (a): November 26, 1984 letter from T. R. Tramm to J. G. Keppler.-

i

Dear Mr. Keppler:

This~ letter provides supplemental information to addres's

-items of concern regarding the design and construction of Byron and Braidwood stations. This additional information was requested by the Region III Staff during their review ~of the responses provided in referetice (a).

Please address further questions regarding this matter to

.this office.

Very truly yours, f, f4w=--- -

T. R. Tramm Nuclear Licensing Administrator i

-

lm cc: J. Streeter J. Muffett

. $1 9507N K h h 454 DEC 131984

.. O

m ,

\ .

. \

o -

r .

ADDITIONAL INFORM TION REQUESTED BY THE NRC IN RESPONSE

• TO CONCERNS B.l.ii THROUGH B.l.vv On December 1, 1984, calculations were reconstructed to substan-tiate the ",$'" factors used in the simplified design process as described in the Project Design Criteria - DC-ST-03-BY/BR, Rev.

-8, Section 37.0. -

What follows is a discussion of:

a. Whatthe"p"factoris,

b. How the "d" factor was numerically quantified.

-c. The bounding parameters involved in the selection of the "p* factors.

.d. Tables 15.1 and -15.2 which summarize the "O" factors used and the sample calculations performed to substantiate them.

e.

~

Attachment 15.5 which is a reproduction of one of-the calcula-tions performed highlighted to show the~ elements of design required by the project design criteria.

m 1.

L -4 -

I

^

)

n-k- . .

~s .

WHAT THE [ FACTOR IS h The project. design criteria enumerates allzthe-design require-

~

ments-for auxiliary' steel supports.- In addition to the major contribu' tion of'the actual appl'ied pipe load, the effects of the,following additive minor: tolerances, eccentricities and member self-weight seismic excitation must be considered as specified in the Byron-project design criteria'section and.further clarified.__

-by reference 1to Figures 15.1, 15.'2, 15.3A and.15.3B.

37.1.1-Item e .

fl0% lateral structural-steel' misalignment for simply supported W-shaped l beams and double channels,'and.a 1% lateral struc-

' tural steel. misalignment ~ for W-shaped cantilevcr and knee br, ace brackets. -(see Figure 15.1) 37.l'.lIItem f 0.5%. vertical' structural steel misalignment'for simply sup-ported W-shaped members subject-to an' axial load. (see Figure

15.1) . -

(

37.1.1 Item h . -

' 6" tolerance for the location of the hanger component along the' longitudinal axis of the support steel. (see Figure 15.1)

L 4

e S

g,

• I.h> b

-y* - - e ,-s-=3- ,, --

y , , psm-mwmy- , re -t y+ m e -wy-,,----*~e.-. -.m-+~w-n + ws e ve---+v--er-m --

c -

A  !

37.1.1 Item i 1/4" location tolerance for the attachment of a lug on W- "

shaped member flanges _with respect to the center line of i

the web. (see Figure 15'.1') '

l

~

37.1.1 Item 9

, 2% hanger component displa~ cement from its design position for all loading cases. - (see Figure 15.2) --

37.1.1. Item b Self weight OBE and SSE excitation'of the auxiliary steel and component hardware in the three principal orthogonal directions. The. governing peak seismic excitation values, 2.0 g horizontal and 4.0 g vertical, have been used for all cases. (see Figures 15.3A and 15.3B) m Item b.is a design requirement conservatively calculated by using the peak acceleration values (2.0 g horizontal and 4.0 g vertical) .

~

Items e, f, h, i and g are installation tolerances. That is, they'do not change the applied piping' load but are effects on stress in auxiliary steel due to. variation in support installation.

~

Their main effect is to introduce torrional stresses in the auxil-lary support steel.

4 h

3. o ' ' I) # "

l Prior to.1980, detailed design was manually performed to account s

for the major applied loads and the minor tolerances listed above.  !

This was a time consuming and laborious process. Therefore, ,

a need arose to conservatively remove some of-the tedious elements of thefhand calculation-effor.t without neglecting their effect on'the member design. Thus,.the ",O'" factor was develop 63. Minor I

tolerances and load effects which result in relatively low member-stress were lumped together and were accounted for in the design

' bytheuseoftheffactor.

This "p" factor is an allowable stress reduction factor introduced into the design process to account only for minor load effects.

Stresses due-to major load effects such as the actual applied load are directly calculated and are not included in the'j/, factor.

Thisffactorisonly-intendedforcertainsupportconfigurations and member types as shown in Table 15.1.

All the tolerances, items e, f, h , i and g are accounted for by this factor and in item b the effect of auxiliary steel self weight acceleration and component hardware acceleration in the longitudinal' direction of the member is included in the ",d" factor. )

.This longitudinal effect was chosen since.its contribution is very minor when compared.to all the other loadings since it amounts j to a small percentage of loads compared to the member allowable load.

l I

l

4. <, . ' '.< h s

. 1

N For detailed. analysis as-shown in the idealized support on Figure 15.3A, the loads other than piping-applied load (PA) act as follows:

a. Auxiliary Steel member weight (WS) - excited seismically in 3 directions, applied at the center of beam and midspan.

s

b. Har}ger hardware (WH) - excited seismically in 3 directions, applied.at the hardware pin point, eH from the centerline of the beam.

For simplified analysis as shown in the idealized support on

. Figure 15.3B, all the loads are applied at the shear center of the beam. (Note

no seismic excitation in the longitudinal direc-

-tion).

4 4

1

.~

O h

~

i:,

.5,

\

~

L FIGi dkk 15._I

-g AUXILIARY STEEL ,

~

. \-- , j

/ .

,\, p 0.01 in/in

's -- -

g IN-PLACE STRUCTURAL STEEL f*E-EEs.=sr.w _a _-]l'~

f

. /

/

/

/

'\ \

r u -

- b 0.10 in/in hg AUX 1LIARY STEEL . .

PLAN VIEW PLAN VIEW Sim ply Supp.ered ca.nii leoce (Item e)

LATERAL MISALIGNMENT G _G) 23 -

p i i;u i

. . . y l .- l o.o os in/In

.. .r.-- 1 - , - .

Ifem. h

'T' ,

. p ----

4" locition. tolerecc ELEVATION ak, a. mem bT ,

VERTICAL MISALIGNMENT' (Iiem .f) .

{ t.. BEAM . .-

v ei.,

su -

l i

. I,,

g'%

2

0. 25 in

-g ATTACHMENT -

SECTION .

ATTACHMENT MISALIGNMENT .(Itemi) 6;. __

. fINURG -

l0. ?

T.

. . !P%

i.

l e ,l a

. i

• em tm  ; ,

j i . .

O.02 in/In =

. -f 0.02 in/In

~

. 4h. -G-

!:~ :p PY p

-i .

PY SECTION ELEVATION .

DOUBLE-CHANNELS 9

4- ECWTc a .

< e== =.= =: .== = .. .- ,

m- W \ iz-t Y a b .' + i _O .

, PX \ 6.02in /in -

F

- 0.02 in/in - - 0. 02 ir./in j

0.02 in /in 'i j.

. . [ PX .y PY $PY SECTION - PLAN VIEW SECTION ELEVATION A

ll 11 II' '

_-i 5 .

. i i 0.02 in/in ~

l

/4.

-

_,__ v

% ,, ,p7 11

~

U di O.02 in/In n-

'PZ PLAN VIEW '

ELEVATION WIDE FLANGE ,

h

• HANGER COMPONENT MISALIGNYENT (. Ite m g )

7.

.c ,

Fl40RE 15.3 A .

h ., .

7 SUPPORT DESf 6iN' REGOtREMEMTS .

~-

DETAtLEo AMA W 515 '- '

9 Aurst.ikny srzei Megseg w3: gpg h *

~

h

~

Wg = HAeoWARE -

. -WEtett f >

.. j .

Pa : PlPIM4 APPLIED LGAD ,

.?

AC.TU AL SUPPOR.T

~~

\lERTicAL hIs x9 H IL

/ LATEEAL

.a ea

- ./---

• Ws x eJ H +

u 1.oN41TuoinA:.

1r WHH Y gg

• - e.

'I W5 x Qv

.. .. f .

WHH XOH P N4Y # Oy F pg

-- .. ..s . -

,- I.DEAlllED ' 5dPPOR7' -

NHH: \ del 4HT of NARDWARE_ IM THE. Nott'ZoWTAL DIREc Tso4 .

WHy : WEl44T OF NAtoWAEE. 14 'illE ,VERTi< g DIRECT:op g: 55.tsMic Acc.ELse rsoN VAtUE' .

.gge. 7. 0 (HoRitoRTAL) ey= e(.c ErJTRic.lTY OF TkE HARDWAEE "

gy:- 4.0 . - g, -

WEIAHT FroM THE { of M E M E.Ert

. -. (VERTICAL).. .

FI6 uRE: 15.36 suppoe.T oEstd kJ i REQOtEEMENTS

~

SIMPLIFIED Ah!ALY515 -

. QWIuAsty '57e.ct. Menset W3~ set F kIEmHT h

nr s

Wg = klAcowARE. -- --

WIL4HT

.l' p p p1p:44 APPLIE.D LOAD ACIOAL SUPPORT VERTic4L NHH V 84 NS *SH LATERAL r

/ / /

/ ./

/ > LOM4tTODl4AL 1

l' WHv a Sv l' W3 x 3v

. r 3 '

PA -

IDEAtl2ED SUPPOR.T t

FOR DEFidtTio45 SEE. Fl4 15.3 A _,

h er t>

~

T'u.

-f~ . '

9- .

N '

.It~is important to note that even for these minor load effects

~ " '

ethis " simplified" approach which uses a. reduction factor yields conservative: designs compared to the detailed hand calculation r-

procedure. .

5 HOW THE d' FACTOR WAS NUMERICALLY ' QUANTIFIED 4 ,

The[jd factor is defined as the ratio of the design interaction ratio.obtained-by the simplifled-calculation to the design inter-

action. ratio obtained by a detailed calculation. .In the form

of-an. equation:

I, Simplified Int'eraction-Ratio

. =.

4

- I Detailed Interaction Ratio D

l .,

is the ratio of the actual member The design interaction ratio, I,  ;

stress divided by:the allowable member stress. Before.the advent 1

of the computerization of the design parameters, the. simplified j and detailed. analyses were perforn.ed manually. The " Aux-Steel" program was developed in 1980 to aid in the preliminary selection of mechanical componentsupport steel members. This program con-siders all of the design-requirements of the detailed analysis as specified in the Byron Project Design Criteria. To expedite thereverificationoftheffactors,-the" Auxiliary-Steel" program t was used both for the simplified approach and the detailed approach.

l l

k o

-- + + = = = .-e.-

, p 4

• N

+

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

\

Thus, for, calculations. performed on December 1, 1984theklfactor

_can be quantified by the-ratio:

Design interaction obtained with the " Aux-Steel" program using the simplified design criteria and all applicable loads.

b =-

<f Design interaction obtained with " Aux-Steel" pro-e

- gram with each-and every detailed requirement and all applicable loads. -

The simplified and detailed calculation requirements are pictor-

.ially represented in' Figures 15.3A and 15.3B. Both figures show

- the actual support configuration and the idealized design condi-tion locating the loads and the direction of loads to be consid-ered.

To obtain the design interaction necessary to compute the "p" factors, certain parameters were considered its determining the

- bounding conditions used to select the piping support configura-tions. What follows is an identification of how those parameters l

were used in the selection process. A more detailed description will be discussed further with the introduction of Tables 15.1 and 15.2 which summarize.the results of the calculations performed

~

on December 1, 1984.

l I

~.~~ _ _

11, . .

\ .

. i, W

BOUNDING PARAMETERS IN THE SELECTION OF.THE 6 FACTORS .

.The bounding parameters are:

a. Auxiliary-steel configuration and support conditions.

Support conditions can be said to bound a selection process __

if'they are more critical, that is, produce greater stress levels than other support conditions. When the simplified design = process was used manually, a frame was conservatively considered as being composed of simply supported and canti-  !

levered' members without considering the continuity of the memberi. Thus, simply supported members and cantilevered

.mem b ers are bounding support conditions over frame assem-blies since the redundancy of a frame allows redistribution of stresses over~its multiple members. A simply supported or cantil,evered member has no other members to share its stresses. Frame assemblies are bounded by other-conditions since it can be said that a frame is an extension of a simply supported condition and two cantilevered conditions.

Therefore, the ",d" factor of 0.75 is conservative when compared to the factors for sloply supported and cantilevered

- members.

O e

> . - ~

12.

L l

i

b. Auxiliary' steel size and shape. - - -

1. The auxiliary steel sizes and shapes must be represent- -

~

. ative of actual field requirements. The selection process -involved choosing the most commonly used sizes i'

and' shapes.

~

2. A size and shape ~ selection can be said to bound a selec-tion process if the more critically stressed size and shape is chosen. For example, once it has been deter-mined.what"/" factor is required for a wide flange shape, a determination of a' factor for an angle shape is not required. Warping normal torsional stress added to the bending stresses is the primary reason for the factor used and this-effect occurs in wide-flange shapes -

but not in angle shapes. The consideration of the same tolerances produce torsional shear stresses in angle shapes that are not added to the bending stresses.

4. In addition, the wide variety of members selected are bounding torsional strength comparisons. Since the effect of the design requirements that the pl factor replaces is primarily one of torsion, by comparing.

the strong axis strength to the torsional strength, 4

.pm- .- = - . $+,.--- - = = , p 6 gy

. one can determine: bounding conditions .cnt members.

Thus,.a_W8x31 strong axis-strength to torsional strength

has a ratio of'about 19.- A W4x13. strong axis. strength-to. torsional strength has a ratio of approximately

~12._-Therefore,-the W8x31 is bounding over the W4x13.

c. Span length

..n.m

Representative lengths.were selected. Auxiliary-steel.

rembers span between in-place main-steel or embedded plates.- '

Lased on this,~ spans ranging from 5'-0 to 8'-0 encompass t

, lengths for simply-supported cases and ther' fore, e were.

selected. -However,-since the detailed interaction values

~

.are fully stressed,-the length variation has very little effect-on theJI factor..

. d. Load location along the span

• Various locations along the spans of simply supported mem-bers were selected. For cantilevers, the load was placed i 'at the end of the member where its placement would have the most critical effect. For simply sapported cases, the position of the load was.placed close to the center of the center where its location would have the most con-

'servative effect.

w h

14.

. . \ .

.., *o.- "Locd' direction' '

.The most critical applied piping load is a load creating torsion cn1 a member. The if factor does not account for this.effect and thus, separate hand calculations-must be per-formed to account.for this effect.

An applied vertical' piping load on a member produces no torsion and thus, a load from any tolerance . creating tor--- ._

sion changes a-torsional stress from 0% to.some. finite number which theoretically is an infinite percentage in- ,

crease; whereas, a. load from any tolerance causing torsion on a member already designed forean applied, piping load that produces torsion will have a substantia'lly lower percen-Ltage. increase than one with a vertically applied loading producing no torsion. All ff factor calculations were per-formed with the most: conservative direction of the applied

. piping. load - the direction vertical to the member. In ,

.an actt.tal calculation where the actual applied piping load is at.an angle t' the member, the components of this load-ing are considered in a manually performed detailed analysis.

f. Load magnitude i

Various magnitudes of loadings were selected to assure lI D = 1.0 or as close as possible to ensure that the stress t

v k - . -

• 3g.

L

9 cally stressed condi. tion. " Tables 15.1 and 15.2 summarizes the calculations performed,.and a detailed discussion on the-results

. obtained follows.

e

/

N6 e

0 e

e a

6 e

D 16.

e-

~

Table 15.1 is a_ summary,_of'the commonly _used member sizes

wiE.h-the corresponding appropriate-configurations. Representative configurations'are shown in Figure 15.3c.

s' TablelL5.2Lis a recreation of a table available:in Calculation

~

Book 13.3.15. completed December 1, 1984, with the. problem "I.D."

numbers renumbered for the~ convenience of grouping the auxiliary steeliconfiguration.- Therefore, a one-to-one' correspondence 5etween' the'"I.D."-number in Table-15.2 and the summary table provided in Calculation Book 13.3.15 is' not appropriate. However, when reviewing' -

' Calculation Book.13.3.15, all problem "I.D." numbers were identified 4

correspondingly with the calculation page numbering sequential to what is listed in the summary table provided in Calculation Book 13.3.15.- -

q For simply supported cases =from Table.15.1, the.most commonly used shapes with appropriate load ranges and spans are shown. -

A total of 15 sample problems were selected and summarized in

- Table 15.2 and a review of Table 15.2 when compared to Table 15.1 will show a member. size correspondence; loading ranging.from 503-pounds to 7,723 pounds compared to 500 to 4,000 pounds;.

span ranging-from 5'0" to 8'-0" compared to spans ranging from 510".to,9'-0".

w g- - . -

n 17.

'l

, N

'In addition to the ~ member sizes being representative, they - -

offer a wide cross section.of various structural shpaes ranging from torsionallyEweaker to: torsionally stronger, e.g., double- -

' channel C3x4.1 to TS3x3x1/4.

All. types of mechanical component hardware were considered on the

~

Edesign. process and.the most conservative combinations were selected.

~~

Foriexample,Ein problem I.D. No. 2 for-the member W4x13 with a

$' calculation = 0.76,.a variable spring hanger was used. This

'woul$ h' ave the effect 'of creating the most torsional stress in

~

the member that the % factor must account 1for.

The commonly..used cantilever configurations summarized.in Table i "

15.1.Nhen one compares the Table to Table 15.2 it will show a member ~ size correspondence; loads ranging from 500 to 2,000 lbs. ,

comparedDto loads ranging-from 475 lbs. to'12,059 lbs.; spans >

. ranging from~1'-6" to 3'-0" compared to spans ranging from t

1!-6" to 3'-6".

For commonly used bracket configurations summarized in Table 15.1 when. compared to Table 15.2 again shows a correspondence to size, i

' loading, and spans.

For commonly used frames without hardware summarized in Table 15.1 when compared to Table 15.2 again show a correspondence to size,_ l

' loading, and spans. _

.": . - - _ ..__ . p . .,

18. .

h:  !'

. FIGURE 15. 3. C. i

. I .s.

p

. 01MPLY D G GUFFORTED . ,-

g ,.

. ~15 .

e

-. 4' 7

, O .

. : e e ~  :  !

'g -

CARTILEVER .,^ , 4,s. {

w

- g, l

O j

't i

BRACKE ,

. 69 OR .M w  !

v

~ '

O j I

i w* h i

FRAME W/ . 7G ]

HARDWARG E I y

\

e k O f 2

l

~/ Sf'~ /h ~n l

l FRAME W/o 9v y . 90 HARDWARE 4

+ e t 6 e

e-

, 19. '

TABLE 15.1 , ,

Summary of $ Factor used for Design of Auxiliary Steel for Mechanical Cwuponent Supports' Commonly Used on Byron /Braidwood. Project p Factor onfigurations Load Range Shapes Sections .

g Spans Used l (Included in.Q Factor Wide Flange W4x13, W6x25, W8x31 Derivation Prior to :1982 ,

See Attach.'A & B) "

Simply (Included in Q Supported C3x4.1, C4x5.4, C5x .7, C6x8.2 Factor Derivation to to .75 Double Channel 4000 ,

Prior to 19 82, 8 -0

. See Attach. A& B)

Tube Section TS3x3x1/4, TS4x4xl/4 .

Wide Flange W4x13, W5x16, W8x3.1 (Included in % Factor Derivation Prior to 1982, See Attach. A& B)

Double Channel C12x20.7 500 l'-6" to to .65 Cantilever 2000 3'-0" Angle L 3x3x3/8, U4x4xl/4

• Tube Section TS4x4xl/4 Bracket Wide Flange W4x13, W8x31 (Included'in % Factor Deriva- 250 3'-0"- ,40 (Knee Brace) tion Prior to 1982, See to to or Attachments A & B) 2000 5 ', - 0 " .65 (Included in % Factor Deriva- 250 4'-0" rdware Wide Flange W4x13, W8x31 11 tion Prior to 1982, see to to .75 Attachment B) 2000 6'-0" Frame W/O Wide Flange W4x13 1, - 6 ,,

Hardware- 500 Angle L 4x4xl/4 .

20.

I

g.. -

TABLE 15.2 y ,

SUMMARY

OF BACKUP CALCULATIONS FOR % FACTOR , Mg3 1, CONFIGUR- SPAN LOAD CALC.

PROBLEf1 I.D. NO. DESIGN COMPARISON OF $

'ATION MEMBER (' ") (lbs) $ FACTOR  % _ FACTOR FACTOR REMARKS Simply Supported 1 (2) C6x8.2 8'-0" 2694 0.80 0.75 Acceptable

, 2 W4x13 6'-0" 3229 0.76 0.75 Acceptable 3 W6x25 8'-0" 7723 0.77 0.75 Acceptable 4 (2) C3x4.1 6'-0" 1100 0.82~ 0.75 Acceptable 5 (2) C6x8.2 6'-0" 3600 0.78 0.75 Acceptable 99 6 TS 4x4xl/4 6'-0" 5130 0.97 0.75 Acceptable w- .

7 TS 4x4xl/4 6'-0" 4900 1.00 0.75 Acc'eptable 8 TS 3x3xl/4 6'-0" 1475 1.00 0.75 Acceptable c- 9 (2) C3x4.1 5'-8" 587 1.00 0.75 Acceptable 10 (2) C5x6.7 7'-9" 2200 0.87 0.75 Acceptable 11 (2) C4x5.4 8'-0" 1143 1.03 0.75 Acceptable 12 W4x13 5'-8" 503 1.10i, 0.75 Acceptable 21.

~

TABLE 15.2 Paga 2,

SUMMARY

OF BACKUP CALCULATIONS FOR $ FACTOR ,

CONFIGUR" SPAN LOAD CALC. DESIGN COMPARISON O'F @

ATION PROBLEM'I.D. NO. MEMBER (' ") (Jbs) Q. FACTOR $ FACTOR FACTOR REMARKS Simply Supported 13 W8x31. 7'-0" .4750 0.80 0.75 Acceptable 14 W18x50 9'-0" 2500 1.63 0.75 Acceptable-15 W4x13 5'-0" 1300 0.76 0.75 Acceptable Cantilever 16 W5x16 3'-0" 1609 0.74 0.65 Acceptable 17 W8x31 2'-0" ,

12059 0.66 0.65 Acceptable 18 (2) C12x20.7 2'-0" 12016 0.66 0.65 Acceptable 19 L 3x3x3/8 l'-6" 513 0.72 0.65 Acceptable 20 W4x13 2'-0" -

1954 0.77 0.65 Acceptable 21 L 3x3x3/8 l'-6" 600 0.83 0.65 Acceptable 22 L 4x4xl/4 2'-0" 475 0.77 0.65 Acceptable 23 TS 4x4xl/4 3'-0" 2000 0.74 ,

0.65 Acceptable j _.----

24 W4x13 2'-3-7/16' 2550 0.67 [ 0.65 Acceptable

22. -

t TABLE 15.2 P::ga 3 ,

SUMMARY

OF BACKUP CALCULATIONS FOR.5 FACTOR ,

CONFIGUR- SPAN LOAD CALC. DESIGN COMPARISON Of %

ATION PROBLEM I.D. NO. MEMBER (' ") (lbs) % FACTOR $ FACTOR FACTOR REMARKS Cantilever 25 W5x16 3'-6" 497 0.67 0.65 Acceptable Bracket 26 W8x31 4'-0" 12645 0.52 0.40 Acceptable 27 W4x13 5'-0" 3000 0.71 0.65 Acceptable 28 W4x13 3'-6" 497 1.06 0.65 Acceptable 29 W4x13 3'-9-3/4" 266 1.01 0.65- Acceptable 30 W4x13 4'-3" 222 2.80 0.65 Acceptable Frame 33 W4x13 l'-3" 10500 d.97 0.90 Acceptable 32 L 4x4x1/4 2'-0" 603 0.88 0.90 Acceptable 6

t 23.

7.

. ., 'o .

j rz

_t_

CONCLUSION The/ calculation presented in this response demonstrates-that

-the factors are correct and support th'e' Byron /Braidwood project ^

-design criteria. and the auxiliary steel support design for Byron Unit 1. .

h N'.

E o

s O

e e

i e

1

(

j -

')

- 1,

!' ~ t f

1. =

0 4 ." _

e d

I

. I

, - - g. . . _ . _ _ - - -

24.  !

- j.

L  !