ML20133M699
Text
.- .
- c. ~ L
,./
.,.- ~i
' s t:4 d
,1 t
APPENDIX F_
m
?
/
/
,/ g A THAN M.
NEWMARK 1114 Civil Engineering Building l
Con;ulting Engineering Services e Urbana, Illinois 61801
. June 28, 1968 I I )
l I
REPORT TO AEC REGUIATORY STAFF ADEqIACY OF ME STRUCTURAL CRIEitIA FOR THE MAINE YANKEE ATCHIC POWE MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY (AEC DOCKET NO. 50-309) by N. M. Newark and W. J. Hall
?%!!iINEfA h-i ON- .:-- :f.
't:;
- v, ::R;Qg, '
8508130219 850703 PDR FOIA PDR HERRMAN85-301 EQ'-9 UL
. , . s . n.:
,..g .. *'
j'
~ gy(
g,gqg$fg' f ,
'/UU6'ciod,i.ly&F"w.e.Pg
.p' -
i? TEE STRUCWRAL P CRI'IERIA FOR THE MAINE Y ATION b7 h,.7,
.j; .,jh.b
'9)$fW.~(I? N. M. Newcark and W. J. Hall
~(<t. - e -3 "a
.4@" A.. . ": ^IN'IRODUCTION' E' -
'Ihis report is concerned with the adequacy of th ;
'F a for the Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station for which appli cation for a construction permit has been made to the U
. S. Atomic Energy Co:cmission I
by the Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company.
'Ibe facility is located on the vest shore of Bsek River, 3 9 miles south of Wiscasset, mine .
Specifically this report is concerned with the design ;*.
criteria that de- <!
termine the ability of the containment system and !* '
\
as well as Class II structures and equipment, to withstand an O perating Basis j
l Earthquake of 0.05g maxim = transient horizontal ground a
cceleration simulta- 3 neously with other applicable loads forming the basis of design '
The facility is also to be designed to withstand a Design Basis Earthquak e of 0.10g maximum horizontal ground acceleration to the extent of insuring saf 3 containment. e shutdown and f .
This report is based on information and criteria set forth i n the Prelim- ,'
inary Safety Analysis Report (PSAR) and the amendments th ,
the end of this report. ereto as listed at Also, we have participated in discussions with the applicant, and the AEC Regulatory Staff concerning the design of thi s unit.
t A
1 1 b
r I i
2-DESCRIPTION OF FACILITY 2e Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station is described in the PSAR as con-sisting of a pressurized-vater type reactor employing three closed cooling loops connected in parallel to the reactor vessel. Each reactor coolant
,. loop is connected to a steam generator. De nuclear steam supply system vill be furnished by Combustion Engineering, Inc., and the turbine generator 3
is to be supplied by the Westinghouse Electric Corporation. De plant is to
. be designed for a power level of about 2440 MWt (827 MWe).
he containment structure is a reinforced concrete right cylindrical structure with a hemispherical dome and an essentially flat base. Se cylin-der has an internal diameter of 135 ft.-o in. with a 4 ft.-6 in. minimum van thickness. De springline of the dome is 102 ft. above the inside surface of 9 the foundation mat. D e dome vill have an inside radius of 67 ft.-6 in, and b:
Q3 x
a thickness of 2 ft.-6 in. De designers propose to make the containment ,
~
vall construction for the Maine Yankee plant adequate 'to accommodate operating, incident and earthquake loadings through the use of vertical and hoop rein-forcement with appropriate shear reinforcement, but without using diagonal reinforcing steel.
De inside surface of the concrete containment vessel is lined with a steel plate and below grade portions of the liner are treated with corrosion .
protective coating on the outside.
De steel reinforcing used for the reactor containment structure vill conform to AS E Specifications A15 or A408. With minor exceptions the liner plate vill conform to Specification AS M-A516, crade 60.
l ll l j- y e,
, . - . . _ , , , _ _, _ - , , , , . - - - . - - m - ---- ,-
.s L
h a c) Ye M..-
v,% ; W c .
'h. u:?. . . . / 'Ig. .hIf((, the area of the site where the facilit
- Re.le overburden consists of medium soft to medium stiff silty clays with
'.tx -
.,, occasional sandy lenses and pebbly sands.
Bis overburden varies from 15 to 20 ft.
in thickness and overlies bedrock of Silurian-Devonian age. De bed-rock is sound and vill provide good foundation support for structures and equipment. Se cajor structures are to be founded directly on the hard, j
crystalline bedrock, and minor structures s'e r to be founded either on rock or compacted granular till above the rock.
Se seismic survey at the site shows the average compressional wave velocity to be about 13,000 to 15,000 -
fps. No major faulting has been reported in the area.
SOURCES OF STRESSES IN CONTAINMENT STRUC'IURE AND fj TYPE I COMPONEN'IS po Be containment vessel is to be designed for the following conditions:
deadioad, including the effects of hydrostatic pressure, ice and snov loads; -
design accident pressure of 55 psig; thermal loads corresponding to an in-E~ ,
ternal design temperature of 280 F; an air test pressure 115 percent of the f'
/ design pressure; and interior pressure below the outside atmosphere (it is noted in the PSAR that the contain=ent vill vithstand a negative pressue approximately 7 5 psi below the outside atmosphere); a vind load corresponding to 35 psf on rectangular buildings 30 ft. above ground; and tornado vinds of 300 mph tangential velocity and 60 mph forward velocity concurrent with a
[
negative pressure drop of 3 pai, with associated missiles.
Se containment liner is shielded fro: impact from such objects of mis- !
siles which could conceivably have enough energy to penetrate it. Most-
> r se _
q l
,l '
s
.4 q
,y
_' pressurized equipment and pipelines are contained within the loop compartments (O
'g and are surrounded by reinforced concrete valls. A 2 ft. thick reinforced l '
h; concrete shield is placed over the control rod drive mechanisms to provide j such protection.
.g l
. n.3 'Ibe seismic design is to be made for an Operating Basis Earthquake based j
'7) upon a 0.05g maximum horizontal ground acceleration and a Design Basis Earth.
~:e.
lk quake based on a maxic:um horizontal ground acceleration of 0.10g.
~ $,j .
i n . 4 %i; % Q) h " $ '? X M
- W . w% ~ ' v Ann ~mrw. or Itf %
- 1; y : .; y ; : ...;".
.. 2.}. '~ %; _ . N.' ; ;. c } >> . . . . . ' 4 .' !
]f l
b COMMENTS ON ADEQUACY OF DESIGN '
i
l Foundations '
2e major structures are to be founded directly on hard, crystalline sIl- bedrock and minor structures are to be founded either on this same rock base, or compacted granular fill above the rock. On the basis of the information presented in the PSAR and in Amendment No. 4, the foundation conditions appear u acceptable to us.
Seismic Design Criteria j k'e agree with the approach involving a basic design for an Operating Basis Earthquake of 0.05g =1="- horizontal ground acceleration, with- the provision that safe shutdown can be achieved for a Design Basis Earthquake l
of 0. log. Rese earthquake design values are in agreement with those given L! by the U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey (Reference 4).
I-
. . . . 4 f . . '
. . ' .n 4% t,$v? $i'.
Y~M-C 3 1 '. e f.g ~;y. ' i. :
.;, .- g ,, .
ll - C$l
\
1
$6 p g # ;;!TN ' pe response spectra for the Operating Basis Earthquake and Design Basis
'b'
' +-
gy # e quake to be employed in the design are presented as Figs. 2 5-6 and
- g j ,
, , ., 4
' n W .' 2 5-7 in the PSAR. Rese spectra are scaled after spectra presented in
$fDr p g. ' ' earlier publications by Dr. G. W. Housner and we are in agreement with the gi5 spectra to be employed.
s PJ 2e earthquake analyses will include the effects of vertical ground t.
acceleration, which is to be taken as 2/3 of the horizontal ground accelera-tion. We are in agreement with this criterion.
It is indicated in ansver to Q$estion 513 of Amendment No.10 that the ;
earthquake loadings will be added linearly and directly as appropriate to the deadload, liveload, operating and accident loadings. We are in agreement with this criterion.
Se method of dynamic analysis to be employed for Class I structures l
and components is described generally on page 2 5-6 of the PSAR and for the ll h
containment structure in more detail in the answer to Q1estion 5.4 of Amend-ment 10. Se applicant advises us that his study showed that the rocking and i t
translational response was not significant. Se general procedure described i f.
for the containment structure design appears acceptable to us. !
1 ne damping values to be employed in the design are listed in hble 2 5-1 and we are in agreement with the values given there. ,
Be loading expressions given in hble 51.2-1, with amended load factors I
as noted in the answer to 42estion 5 22, appear acceptable to us for use in j ,
the design of the containment structure.
1 -
w ,
( q.: p i 1 . w. i /.~ 3.o N 7 31?J i :l N F P t .~. P r W st 4' c . ;
d-y .
l 1
~ ~
.h Ne N ~
l Be allovable stresses to be used with the Design Basis Earthquake load- !
I ing and under conditions of safe shutdown and containment, are stated at k;{
z ,
k Q various places in the PSAR and amendments as being limited to 90 percent of l D
W the yield stress. Se criterion is acceptable to us.
l go With regard to the liner, it is noted in the answer to @estion 5.8 that
[' .
the liner participation is not relied upon to provide assistance to lateral y shear arising from the earthquake. Moreover, in the answer to 4estion 5 6 of Amendment 9, it is noted that the liner will not be stressed above yield under any of the loading conditions. R ese criteria are acceptable to us.
'o However, we find no discussion of the buckling criteria for design of the liner except under operating conditions as, described on page 51-10 of the t
PSAR. We have been advised by the applicant that the general statement
~
"s.
s concerning the design of the liner as given in the answer to 4estion 5 6 in-
'tG cludes consideration of the possibility of buckling at all design stages and, in view of this assurance, we are in agreement with the general design procedure'.
Se matter of carrying the lateral shear in the structure arising from I earthquake and accident loadings, through the use of orthogonally spaced reinforcing steel (i.e., without diagonal steel), has been reviewed in de-tail in meetings with the applicant and individually in studies by ourselves.
i In the present case, with the lov seismic risk, and on the basis of informa-l
! t. ion currently available, it is our belief that this approach to the design for this particular plant is acceptable. Additional studies on this matter are underway at various places in the United States.
,I 1
I l
c4
~:nlgh~ : ';:, fa l*5%W' 2.
s.. . y .
].$.,.x y v%,3$ ? I p$
iYS&Tf.*$d[p,.g' (
e n A.h ' p j .#76' ts
? U p&ifkf.1 With regard to the major penetrations, the general design approach with J
3'-+4 ,g ocy'
- p regard to reinforcement, etc. , is described on page 5 1-5 of the PSAR.
~
The ?
d@7E f E 5
$dy';!
applicant advises t' hat the method of analysis does account for equilibrium 4 and compatibility of deformation in the vicinity of the penetrations. On
,[;~h: this basis we believe the general design procedure is acceptable. ! '.;
9 Se design of Cla n ,II structures is discussed in the answer to Ques-tion A515 of Amendment 10. It is our recom=endation that if the design of
~
Class II structures is made to the Uniform Building Code that a factor of *C O 31 be applied to the coefficients for Seismic Zone 3, which corresponds to about 1.25 times those applicable to Seismic Zone 1. If UBC's approach 1
is not employed, the method used should provide an equivalent margin of I safety.
N Piping, Reactor Internals and Vessels !
.a ,w s . s . . t J. . . . s ,n ' t " -?S d' 9* 1'* E $ Although the general criteria put forth there appear generally acceptable, it would be our recom-
) mendation that there be a restriction of the maximum allovable deformation I
J for the design of the various classes of piping for the design criteria in- '
volvin6 safe shutdown. he applicant advises us that the strain limits vill ,
not exceed 20% of the uniform strain corresponding to the maximum stress for i
j pipind, reactor internals and vessels. Bis criterion is acceptable to us.
he design criteria for reactor internals as described in the answer to Question 3.11 of Amendment 9 appear generally acceptable since it appears l ;.
I l
f f
P.
.A '
8-that there is about a 50 percent margin of safety for defomations that would g lead to failure.
- m. ;., r~ 1, -w r . . ; 3-s s . .
- n. w . . , . , , .
l j
I Although the method involving the use of the '
f 6 to the appropriate dan: ping factor is generally acceptable, as noted 1
in item 4 in the listing on page 2 5-6 of the PSAR, it would be our recommenda- '
{
y tion that this should be demonstrated for certain of the critical piping
{
'Ihe appli-h systems by comparison with that of a rigorous dynamic analysis.
k cant has advised us that such comparisons have been made on critical systems
?
[
[ - for another similar nuclear facility. Se applicant states that the com-s j
parisons confi23ed the adequacy of the approach that is to be used in the A
-.- , Q -
Maine Yankee design and these comparisons are available for review. j i
With regard to the design criteria for instrumentation, controls, bat-teries and battery supports which are critical for safe shutdown and contain-ment, little detailed inforation is noted in the PSAR or amendments concern- l li ing the seismic design. We recommended that careful attention be given to l
1 e this aspect of the plant during the design phase. l N '
he general design criteria provided for the crane as described in f
Amendment 6 are acceptable to us. I iT i*
d 5
'l W
b n
s 4
l4
,s L _
<.?g'?.,.S l'
\
&6:j&,~~'E *
\
- ..i ;
- figg& ~1
.%'j& ,' * ) % .* k'.1 N
A,,,;,
)
CONCIUSION COMMENT
~r,? y",_
-['. On the basis of information presented in the PSAR and amendments and 1.-13 ?, . in keeping with the design goal of providing serviceable structures and YkV '
components with a reserve of strength and ductility, we believe that the
'c .
15 design outline for the containment and other Class I structures and equip- -
i ment, and Class II structures and components can provide an adequate margin of safety for seismic resistance. However, in arriving at this conclusion we have made cc:mnents in the report concerning the design of the penetra-tions, piping, Class II structures, and instrumentation and batteries, r n Y
.m .
i I
- 4
+
OO I
J
- i l l
j f
C 1 m
/ '
tu:.t atBNCES _
i
" Preliminary Safety Analysis Report -- Volumes I and II," Maine Yankee i
1.
Power Station, Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company, 1967
- 2. " Preliminary Safety Analysis Report -- Amendments 1,2,3,4,5,6,7, ,
9, lo," Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station, Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company, 1968.
- 3. "'lbermal Shock Analysis on Reactor Vessels Due to Emergency Core Cooling System Operation," by W. H. Tuppeny, Jr. , W. F. Siddall, L. C. Hsu, Combustion Engineering, Inc., Report A-68-9-1, March 15,1968.
- 4. " Report on the Seismicity of the Maine Yanke'e Power Station Site," 1 U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey, Rockville, Maryland, Jun ,e 7, 1968. l
, 'q .
i
- t M,
i
.p
.b .
iY
.D 4
.1o 9
n
.f 9
+
. $b 4 ;
1 .
d 1 W
l i !
~-
4 7
1, 2 A a
f
. 'N
. B.2 STONE G WEBSTER EQUIPMENT N
B.2.1 Analyses and Design Criteria of Seismic Class I and Seismic class II Piping B.2.1.1 General analytical procedure Analyses of Seismic Class I and some seismic Class II piping sys-tems are performed by the modal analysis response spectra method.
Each piping system is idealized mathematically as an elastically coupled dynamic structural model in three-dimensional space.
Inertial characteristics of the piping system are simulated by discrete masses of piping components, including all eccentric masses, such as valves, valve operators, etc. , lumped at selected ~
nodes. The stiffness matrix of the piping system is cal'culated by Stone & Webster computer program PIPESTRESS, based on formu-lations presented in Reference 1. Modal seismic resp 9nses at each node of the piping system, due to amplified response spectra excitation applied at its support points, are calculated by Stone
& Webster computer program SHOCK 2. The modal analysis technique used in SHOCK 2 computer program computes the peak inertial responses for all significant participating modes, which are then combined by the method of square root of sum of square (SRSS) at each mass node. Normal Mode, linear elastic, and small displacement theory are incorporated in SHOCK 2 and PIPESTRESS computer programs.
~. Structural response spectra, consisting of peak responses of a family of seismic loadings for the piping systems, are amplified response spectra, obtained for discrete locations in the structure where the piping system is supported. The development of the c=plified response spectra is covered in Section B.1.5 entitled, " Amplification of Ground Response Spectra for Seismic Design of Equipment and Piping." Damping factors used for vital piping and components are 0.5 percent for Operating Basis Earthquake (OBE) and one percent for Design Basis Earthquake (DBE) .
The uncertainties in the calculated values of fundamental structural frequencies due to reasonable variations in subgrade and structural material properites are taken into account. The peak resonant period value(s) in the amplified response spectrum '
are subject to !
developed as described in Section B.1.5.2 variations of 125 percent for this plant and site. !
I' Accordingly, piping systems designed using those amplified response spectra having modal periods within 125 percent of the peak resonant period (s) are assigned the peak response value (s) .
Beyond this range, the amplified response spectra are utilized exactly as shown.
. Where a piping system is subjected to more than one amplified I response spectrum as when support points are located in different parts of the structure, the amplified response spectrum which is w/
B.2-1
- W * . L""i* " "** &.M*u1**.% w
_ . a,* * *. **** M *?.:.7 ,* m g ,,._ -, .-*-y, ,-y==-.-==--~+ -*;**--..-*--+-_-- .~..;,
BUPS FSAR closest to and higher in elevation than the center of mass of the piping system is applied to this system.
Relative seismic structural displacements between the piping supports and anchor points, that is, between floor penetrations and equipment supports at different elevations within a building and between the buildings, are used as inputs of equivalent static boundary displacement conditions in the computations.
Relative seismic displacements between the pipe support points at different buildings are always considered to be out of phase in order to obtain the most conservative piping responses.
Internal forces / moments and displacements in all Seismic class I and some seismic class II piping systems, due to relative seismic displacements between piping supports, are computed at each mass -
node by the PIPESTRESS computer program. . Seismic responses due to anchor displacements are due to all three superimposed with moments or displacements due to inertial effects to become the total seismic response in each- global coordinate direction of the piping system. The total seismic responses of the piping system are then combined with responses from deadweight, pressure, thermal, and all other mechanical loads to comple te stress analysis of the Seismic class I and some seismic class II piping.
Maximum stresses are computed by Stone & Webster computer program MOMENTCOMBINER, based on formulations specified in ANSI-B31.1 (Reference 1) . Wherever the analysis indicates that a stress . is in excess of the allowable stress, the system is redesigned and (.
then recalculated to verify that the stresses satisfy the '
The design loading combinations and stress limits for criteria.
Seismic class I piping systems are defined in Table B. 2-1. The following are the basic steps and equations used in the j analytical procedure:
B.2.1.2 Flexibility / stiffness influence '
coefficient matrix The flexibility influence coefficient matrix [q), as defined !
here, gives the deflections in the structure due to unit loads at I each static degree of freedom. This matrix is related to the -
stiffness matrix by the following:
[d ][ K] = [I] (1) j Where (k] is the square stiffness matrix of all mass nodes of the piping system obtained by combining the stiffness of individual piping elements, and [I] is a unit matrix. The flexibility matrix of each beam element includes the coupled axial, bending, shear, and torsional flexibilities. The size of the stiffness matrix for each piping structural element is 12 x 12, since six forces / moments and six deflections / rotations are considered by ,
the piping flexibility program in each of the two nodes of an element.
B.2-2
-.- - m=_ - . .. . ==. ~ . = .;;z : ._ ; _ .- =_ .u-------- ,_
- = - - - - - - - -3 ;- _
BVPS FSAR matrix of a dynamic The unrestrained gene ral stiffness [k]
structural model is condensed to a reduced stiffness matrix [k]
to exclude rigid constraints and to condense rotational stiffness displacement of linear coordinates as, dependent coordinates stiffness matrix by formulations presented in Reference 3.
B.2.1.3 Normal mode frequencies and mode shapes development of stiffness and mass matrices, natural After are determined by frequencies and their associated mode shapes solution of the following equations:
((k] - v g2[n)) [Q il = 0 (2) ,
Where [k] = squ'are reduced stiffness matrix
[m] = mass matrix w, = natural frequencies of system
[Q g ] = mode shape vector associated with the i-th mode Through the use of SSW computer program SHOCK 2, the w values and (i = 1, 2...n,
[Q ] matrix for each of the n modes are system computeddynamic structural n = degrees of freedom of piping model).
^ -
B.2.1.4 Modal response quantities For the acceleration response spectrum method of analysis, the maximum displacements in global coordinates can be shcwn as:
(7,,x}x " M (g,x) ,,(3) where (m] {D) [W * ]~ {S,) (4)
( g ) = [M ] [Q) and
[M, J = generalized mass = [Q]T g,) g 93
[Q] = square matrix containing eigenvector vector for each mode
[S,) = spectral acceleration values
. (D} = direction vector B.2-3
" "** ** " = = * ** "
- w*w estr ew m m .
BUPS FSAR l
Equation (4) may be written as:
(y ) = [Q] {r), [W' , ]-1 {s,)
(5) defining the quantity of [M n3-1 [QlT [m] (D) in Eq. (4) 'as the participation factor {r), of the system.
I,et: d = number of modes considered Inerteria forces for each mass point may then be calculated
- from Eq. (6). ,
(F ),= [m]d I*n I d Imax n B.2.1.S' Piping Stress Limits -
~
r seismic class I piping systems are analyzed using Stone & Webster computer program MEMENTCOMBINER, based on formulations specified in Reference 1. The seismic stresses are governed by the following allowables:
Pressure stress (S p) + dead load stress (S DL) 58 h (7) i Pressure stress + dead load stress + Operating Basis (8)
Earthquake stress / $ 1.2 Sh Pressure stress + dead load stress + Design Basis (9) .
Earthquake stress / $ 1.8 S h Thermal stress s (1.25 s, + 0.25 sh ) #
- g where: (h ~! LP + DL S = allowable stress ,of material at hot temperature, h
Tables A-1 and A-2 of ANSI-B31.
Se = allowable stress of material at cold temperature, Tables A-1 and A-2 of ANSI-B31.1. .
f = stress range reduction factor for cyclic con-dition, Table 10 2. 3. 2 (c) , ANSI-B31.1.
Dynamic force loadings, resulting from sudden closure of isolating valve system or turbine throttle valve on the piping system (for example, transient loading on steamline due to turbine trip) are to be included as occasional mechanical loads in piping analysis. Constraints or hydraulic snubbers will be 8
B.2-4
_ _ ._. . i ., .. _ . . , . . . . - . - - , . .m -:- . . - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - ,
. _ ~ .- _ _ _ . _ - _ _ . , _ _ _ _ _ . . . -. _ - - _ . . .
1 BVPS FSRR 4
used as required to control excessive displacements or moments due to these transients loadings.
seismic supports and constraints for Seismic Field location of class I piping system, including snubbers and dampers will be installed in accordance with seismically designed piping shown on i approved construction drawings. Inspections will be conducted at seis mic restraints are j the jobsite to verify that these fabricated and located in accordance with approved documentations and drawings.
B.2.1.6 Buried seismic Class I piping Responses of buried Seismic Class I piping to differential ground motion, due to particle motions caused by seismic wave propa-gations, are calculated by a method developed by N. M. Newmark in '
i . Reference 4.
I Reactions and bending moments of buried seismic class I piping, due to differential motion at structural penetrations, are calcu-lated by con _sidering buried pipe as a semi-infinite at beam on structural elastic. soil foundation with full restraint penetrations. Using the maximum expected seismic displacements
' at structural penetration and the modulus of soil foundation, the stress thus calculated is superimposed with axial tension-compression stress meet the requirements defined in ANSI-B31.1
~
code for Pressure Piping. If these stresses are found to be I~ excessive, a seismic design of the underground piping within concrete or steel conduits (unattached to structure) combined
. - with or without expansion joints is incorporated in the system.
n,?.1.i Seismically induced effects of seismic class II piping on seismic class I piping seismic class II piping systems are designed to be isolated from by either a the seismic class I piping systems constraint / barrier,- or remotely removed from seismic class I piping systems -- if failure of se,ismic class II piping can seismic class I piping systems. If it is propagate failure of piping l
not feasible or practical to isolate the seismic class I~
i system from the seismic class II piping system to prevent any l
adversely induced seismic effects, then adjacent seismic class II piping will be seismically designed according to the criteria class I described in this section, applicable for the seismic piping system. .. .
B.2.1.8 Pressure relief devices The design criteria for all safety / relief valves are in accor-dance with the rules in paragraph 122.6 of ANSI-B.31.1. Maximum i, stresses - on each valve nozzle is calculated based upon its full discharge loads (i.e., thrust and bending) and internal design Maximum, stress intensity in the run pipe or header ,
pressure. bending and torsion) and under full discharge loads (thrust, i
B.2-5
.e
} - a . -. -_. _ _ __
. , , , . an--.v, ,.n-, ~,,.,-,.-..,,-,-n-.,.--. ._.-_.--._-..,.---,,,,_,,..n.,__,..-- . , _ _ . - - _ ,_ ,.._.-.,-- - ,.----,
BVPS FSAR internal design pressure is also computed by Stone & Webster "PITRUST" computer program. "PITRUST" computer program is based upon Bijlaard's method of calculating local stresse s and experimental results developed in Reference 5.
In the event where the safety / relief valves are mounted on a common header and a full discharging occurs concurrently, the additicnal stresses induced in the header will be combined together with the computed local and primary membrane stresses to obtain the maximum stress intensity.
B. 2.1.1. 9 Simplified seismic analysis of small size
- seismic class I piping .
Piping systems designed to ANSI-B31.1 pressure piping code with diameters of 6 in. NPS and below, are subjected to analyces using acceleration values from the amplified re.sponse spectra. The length of span between supports is selected such that the fundamental frequency is removed from the resonant band of the
. amplified response spectra as specified in Section B.1. 5.
The basic approach to the design of small-size seismic class I piping is to make the system relatively rigid whenever engineering design criteria dictate.
The spacing between pipe ccnstraints is determined so that fundamental frequency fp of piping section will always be greater 8 than 1.5 f where f = peak resonant frequency of structure, as determined from applicable amplified response spectrum. Inertial loads ("g" factor), from OBE and DBE, are conservatively set at one-half peak acceleration of OBE and DBE respectively, using this predetermined span. The deadweight stresses are multiplied by the applicable "g" factor in X, Y, and Z directions as specified, which is set at one-half peak acceleration or 0.5 G minimum; this produces seismic stress induced by OBE and DBE re spectively, in all three directions. The seismic stress calculation is based upon equations in paragraph 119. 6. 4 of Reference 1. The "g" factor for the X, Y, and Z directions is specified explicitly for each problem'. Pressure stress is calculated as Pd2/ (do r _da) , as per para graph 102. 3. 2 (d) of Reference 1. Thermal stresses based on paragraph 102.3.2 of Reference 1 of the piping sections can be calculated under applicable boundary conditions.
The approach is to perform stress calculations for small-size pipes in a sectionalized "between supports" manner without using computer analyses. This is justifiable because a rigid system with sufficient pipe supports represents many one-dimensional, straight-beam problems, wherein the coupling effects of the three-dimensional piping systems are eliminated by placing constraints near all elbows, tees, and concentrated masses, such as valves, etc. These calculations of maximum combined stresses provide sufficient a,nd conservative data to satisf y the >
B.2-6
- * * - - * - **""**-e "*"J
- < m e -- - e - we e .. .p w. m ewe enowe* es=== N -e**-e-e-*h****-**
- - - - _ - - , - . - - , . - , . . - . - , - - - . - . . - - - - - - . - , - - e
EUPS FSAR Amendment 1 4/23/73 )
Question 3.23 Submit a list of computer programs that will be used in dynamic l and static analyse s to determine mech anical loads and I deformations of Seismic Category I structures, components and equipment and the analysis to determine stresses in ASME Code Class 1 components. In each program, include a brief d'escription of the theoretical basis, the assumptions and references used, and the extent of its application.
Response
The following computer programs will be used in dynamic and stress analyses of Stone and Webster supplied seismic piping
- systems:
Class I
- 1. "PSTRESS" - Piping flexibility, thermal stress, and dead load stress program
- 2. " SHOCK 2" - Piping dynamic analysis program
- 3. "PITRUST" - Trunnion-supported piping stress analysis program
- 4. "PILUG" - Lug-supported piping htress anaiysis program
- 5. "SAVAL" -
Piping junction with safety / relief valve nozzle stress analysis program All' of the above computer programs are operational in the IBM 370/165 computer of the Stone & Webster computer Division.
Description of each program follows.
(-
Q 3. 2 3- 1
~+ -. -.
~~ -,.....__,,.n.~.....:,,- , , . - . . _ . . -
, - - - - - -v -
BVPS FSAR Amendment 1 4/23/73 PSTRESS
- " PSTRESS" is a program for flexibility, deadload stress analysis in accordance thermal stress, and Pipe Code. with ANSI-31.1.0 Power This program accepts the complete geometric and physical description error-check and coordinate check of the piping system, provides a complete responses for a variety of staticfor the inputs; and computes deadweight, loading cases including thermal expansion, applied forces, displacements, uniform weight, and applied computed responses concentrated loads. The and equipment reactions, displacements, and stress levels. include internal fo This program applies the algorithm described in Reference 1 to calculate the flexibility matrices. The deflections at branch points and reactions of each branch, all referenced to the global origin,
- 2. Forare calculated using the algorithm described in Reference each point within each branch, the program deflection, combined stresses, and restraining reactions.then computes Program "PSTRESS" has been verified by comparing its solutions of a testthe of problem (Figure Response 3.23-1), to the results obtained same problem by an independently written piping flexibility program, "MEL-40", in the public domain. The "MEL-40" piping flexibility program was developed by Mare Island Naval Shipyard and is presently used by the U.S., Navy Department and engineering companies.
A comparison of results is tabulated in f
- Table Response 3. 23-1, 3. 23-2, 3. 23-3, and 3. 23-4.
Reference s.
- 1. Supplement W. M. Kellog Company to The Design of Piping Systems - Second Edition, (John Wiley & Sons, 1965).
- 2. " Piping Chen, Journal Flexibility of Applied and Analysis by Stif fness Matrix", L. H.
Mechanics; Paper No. 59-APM-24, 1959.
O C
Q3.23-2
- . . w m r c.* *,. . ." l*1'k' '**.7 . - - = = = = * * - - ' ~ * * * * * * * ^ ' _.'~
7=..
. - - m . x .-. - m
. _ _ _ . _ . - _ , _ ,. _ __ ..,. ,.. -.- -_ . - , , _ _ . - . __. .. _- __ ._ --_ _ ._ ..-_. m, ,
BVPS FSAR Amendment 1 U 23/ 73 SH1CK2 2" is a program for dynamic responses of piping
" SH1CK systems under seismic loading' conditions. " SHOCK 2", using geometry and physical inputs from direct "PSTRESS" access, calculates the modal and combined internal forces andsystem moments due to dynamic responses of the piping as characterized by input amplified response spectra for points of support of the system. Amplified seismic structural J displacement responses are accepted statically at terminal points, and the piping responses are combined with dynamic responses to produce overall seismic responses. " SHOCK 2" provides direct access to "PSTRESS" for static solution of displacement responses. This program uses the Flexibility Matrix from "PSTRESS" which is inverted to form a Stif fness Matrix. By static condensation, the number of coordinates is .
reduced to translational coordinates only, and the frequency and mode shapes calculated.
- u. ., . y. . m. <, .
Q * ~ *: ( # A' '
,ssw.s'
?,&.* >T'*. $ f"'3Ty.
5"a M =tcQ-A2'E9 ,.[ p{ .. f,f *% Q*tf*n~ t &;*s*,u u. g
> . , H
.]!212 w g
.'n: z d.g.gy .yy & :.m ,m,,,,,.
- a. .q w4, .. g 3:plxg, ._
- }, '
q W& h. '.S' . ,!. 5:.YWWM$h~
. ; f;f ;L.;^ N .% "+'t = -s+ r ~ :: T m
'*?.
5YN.h 2 'ja. .
.~
s PITRUST "PITRUST" is a program to calculate local stresses in the pipe caused by cylindrical welded attachments under external loadings. This program uses the Bijlaard method as published in Reference 1 to calculate local attachments stresses inunder the pipe wall caused by cylindrical welded external loadings, including pressure, dead load, and combinations of maximum seismic reactions. .
Program "PITRUST" has been verified by comparing its solution of a test problem to the solution of the same problem by an independently written piping local stress program, "CYLNOZ",
in the public domain. The "CYLNOZ" piping local stress program was written by Franklin Institutecompanies. (Philadelphia, The Pa.) , and is presently used by engineering test problem is of a 72.375" O.D. x .375" thick run pipe, reacting under an external loading condition of bending 1000 lbs.
and force (normal and shear) and 1000 in-lbs.
A torsional moments transmitted by a 16" O.D. nozzle.
comparison of results is tabulated in Table Response 3.23-8 Program "PITRUST" has also been verified by comparing its solution of a test problem to the experimental results obtained in Reference 2. A comparison of these results is
(, , tabulated in Table Response 3.23-9.
Q 3. 2 3-3
-~-
- - - 3 LUPS FSAR Amendment 1
. 4/23/73 l l
l Ref er ences -
- 1. " Local Stress in spherical and Cylindrical Shells due to External Loading", Welding Research Council Bulletin, WRC-107, 1965.
- 2. " Experimental Elastic Stress Analysis of Cylinder to cylinder Shell Models and Comparison with Theoretical Predictions", J. M. Corum and W. L. Greenstreet, First International Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology (Berlin, Preprints Vol. 3, Part G, 1971).
O W
- e A
9 Q3.23-4
6 l
r AMENOMENT l
,g 4/23/ 73 iMs erg CM
) *As sa 'My CN
, 20 213 20
- a ,
(sM) 2,70 e0 - 200 0 (sM) 20F 2r4 f ar*0)268 gr 2ts. 20e 2re ggy gg et 2:0 2s4 et , 200 266
- CW fir CD se (Arno) ars0) anschonLD tot 2 21e g,so)- (as*01 gy #' 8 gg, CC 2fs ,
cv MAIN STM. r=0) C T Cu 260 en 2se Ce OUTER RING Cs *2es 220 CP 28' CM Cc Cw Ca (spa) tot 3,7 ANCHCat0 2$$
e# 2es e2 g aw gpe g,
' ttt 2os
- 154 eY 8' tes ter ay.op tas IAS*03 las = 0) OPEN END C2 (8880)
OlSCHARGEI g,
. 2as e
e-
..e 20 s.
g4e *246 EE! ou Assol 243 ,,
t>e tas 24 es 230
- 33s 23r (sPal so (sen) en op
(&ytt$
NOTES .
FIG. RESPONSE 3.23 -l
',[ ,",g$', , , ,., [ ,' TEST PROBLEM SCHEMATIC "PSTRESS" wattniaL.Canoon ststL asf MaaH)e.sa a 8
' EAVER VALLEY POWER STATION-FIN AL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT
.L-
- " ' * ^
~
"*f**-
e e' ,
i
\
~
m se .
I t'AsLa azSPONSE 3.Zhl.
coMPanzson or azacTroms ANo cossInsg;stagggEs POIsrrS SELEC"ED AT RANDOM - THJB!l6L_kQ&Q;Q!!LY-
.t Point No. Program Internal meactiones (Ib. and it-lb) f.E_ Fv Fx Mr My M_ combbed StE;ss 1PS R ,
I
]' 285 MEL-40 -535. 1614. 2092. 8587 -11548. 3391. 14922.
PSTREss -534. 1616. 2094. 8598. -11591. 3386. 14957.
, 275 MEL-40 2261. 235. 2092. -5013. 7996. 3281. 8765.
PSTR8Ss 2289. 240. 2094. ~5048. 8123. 3306. 8897.
290 MEL-40 -535. 1614. 2092. -2099. -6625. -3344 3197.
P6 tress -534. 1616. 2094. -2896. -6653. -3357. 3208.
254 MEL-40 -3549. 833. 2092. 1626. -21211. -2787. 8609.
J, PSTREss -3601. 843. 2094 1765. -21150. -2845. 8593.
215 MEL-40 -227. -203. 1234. -834 -11927 -1320. 5059.
PSTREss - 234. -260. 1327. -832. -12065. -1494. 5161.
t-s 5
! ,j .
i
/
i g i i .
l !
t
-1 t. .
I l
1 of 1 o ,
I l .i ' '
- 1
(. .
? .
SVPS FSAR nmendment 1 l
i 4/13/73
- %BLE RESPQlesE 3.23 -
. EgtLPAMSON OF DISPLACDIENTS POINTS SELEC"ED AT RANDON - FHM[g,WM_2%[
l
Translation (inches) Rotation (radians)
Point No.- Prograq X Y 2
- pr er 42 .
245 MEL-40 .056 -0.255 1.55 .00061 .00761 .00454 PSTRESS .0574 -0.2253 1.552,9 .000625 .00764 .004575 275 MEL-40 .845 .092 .739 .00258 .01439 .00159 PSTRESs .8489 .0925 .7398 .00258 .014439 .001603 290 MEL-40 .199 -0. 495 .0012 .00238 .00395 PSTRESS .1995 0. 4955 .00119 .002393 .00393 254 MEL-40 0. O. .916 .00017 .00018 .00270
, PSTRESS 0. O. .8955 .000144 .000156 .002701 1'
218 MEL-40 .029 0. 0. '
.00065
- .00564 .00035 PSTRESS .0281 0. O. .000544 .00546 .00032 h .
E 3
i, 4
. . . t .
1 4
3, .
- t .
i 3 1 of 1
- t
j BifPS PSAR * '
t Amendment t t -
4/23/73 l
1%BLE ItESPoetBE 1 23 COMPARISON OiP REACTIOles AND;go_!)g{!lgg;g[RESg POINTS SELEcrED AT RARIDOM DEAD IA&D ONLY- -
Point No. Proerast Zg Internal Reaction a (1b and it-lbi Zr ZE- , BE tir- 3E- Etahl'ind.sttggt_IggtL 235 MEL-40 0. -285. -1. -79. 3. -17, 84.
. PSTREss 1. -286. -2. -84 6. -14 84.
275 MEL-40 0. 132. -1. -11. 6. ' -49. 52.
- PSTRESS - 2. 131. -2. -11. -10. -42. 46.
290 MEL-40 0. 439. -1. -3104. 4. -525. 565.
PSTRESS 1. 438. -2. -1308. 16. -521. 565.
1 254 MEL-40 0. 200. -1. -167. -13. -19. 68.
PSTRESS 2. 193. -2. -153. 4. -21. 64.
218 MEL-40 0. 146. -1. 51. -7 . ,
- 7. 21.
j f P8 TRESS ~ 1. 141. -2. 40. 16. -20. 19.
1 .,
i i
l 1
! I i
I l
l .
t I
{
j i -
< i -
j ,
. e e
1 1
4 +
k ~
i ; 1 of 1
- i
- I
.4
- 1
' TABLE RESPONSE 3. 23 - DEAD LOAD- ONLY COMPARISON OF REACTIONS AT SUPPORTS DEAD LCAD REACTIONS AT SUPPORTS- (LB)
PSTRESS MEL-40 PSTRESS Uniform Load Uniform Load Nodes Conc. Load
-577. -576.
BD -684 -1161.
-1142. -1157.
BG -234. e
-274. -233.
BN -176.
-169. -175.
BP -477.
-477. -479.
BR -523.
-517.
-518.
BU -322. -327.
BY -329. -421.
-401. -407.
- CA - -465. -478.
CD -473. -417.
-419. -421.
CG -333.
-357. -322.
CK -580.
CM , -610. -581.
-866. -867.
CS -865. -603.
-632. -643.
CW e
.(e*
e 9
e S
e e
o 9
1 of 1
..__..uo .. ..__ _ . _ ._ _ , , , , _ , _ , , , _ , -~ e-.-+-o. . . . . . , _ . . , _ _ _ _ , _ _ _
r :
l 3
7
- e. /
2 K
C E
M
. DH H O
A b
@O.
2 3
0 0
II S
C N I
TI O
T R
O P
E d
. " A AT9 w . 8 4
-CEHRY SI e
. . 3 L
,_ . 2. S W ONA
_ . 0
. . 3MP A 7 .
. EY Y ELE T '
2 SBL N O L E
. O A F P RVA
.. l SP E R S
. RTE L b..
. . S VAAN 4...m88 GE EI I
. FTBF s
0 2 .
.X:: a F .
A A
9 A
A I
4
%'~eU" w , P
.W EE N P 4
=
E Y 9
2 9
C.
I T H
T0 L 4 9 A w
2 L -
al b e 1
T N.A I
8
. 3 L
. E
. 0E
- a. T.
0 .
E 0.
N L 8 N 4
= . 4
- 4. T.
E L 21
. A.6
. E
. E T P A 6
s P a e
y 1
g<
O' i
.j ! ,!l1f ,li 2-i -]
ia.
BVPS FSAR Amendment 1 4/23/73 TABLE RESPONSE 3.23-5 COMPARISON OF NATURAL FREQUENCIES SHOCK 2 ADLPIPE calculated Frequency calculated Frequency Mode (CPS) (CPS)
No.
2.768 2.768 1
2 5.016 5.015 -
7.999' 7.999 3
4 10.034 10.028 5 11.214 11.155 6 12.346 12.050
- 7 14.852 14.787 g.i s.)
1 of 1
. - o. c,
- sr-i h
1
(
Amendment 1 BVPS PSAR 4/23/73 l T_ ABLE RESPOMSE 7tlh6,-
- COMPARISON OF MODAL IlefERMAI, FORCES- AMD. MO4ENTS -
P OINTS SELECTED AT RAN !!geento Lt [;l$2M ggnas- {
51 !!E-Forcee in Pounde- 55 ,
[1
[3- {I-0 -76 94 Mode No,_ Point Not # -163 -76 99
- 22 6 0 ADLPIPE 6 -164 L 1
630 - 22 209 53 SHOCK 2 -166 i'
-25 211 53
-2 -1 - 17 1 l ADLPIPE -2 -25 i 696 -2 136 266 SHOCK 2 -285
-48 146 278
-10 179 -305 $
638 ADLPIPE 191 -53 2 -12 -61 23 suoCK 2 28 i 20 -65 27 15 325 28 l, ADLPIPE 345 21 710 17 10 saoCK 2 -10 2 F
-2 ? 10 P
-2 -1 -10 ADLPIPE 1 -2 3 634 -2 2 SHOCK 2 22 -2
-14 -3 -2 2 O 22 ADLPIPE -14 > -3 698 0 SHOCK 2 e -
e I
e e I 1
O e
I 6
1 of 1 s \
g t'
- l. -
Y STFs Ps4R suneedment 1 6 4/23/73 !
TamLa assromes 3.23 Cofr4RISEHf CF 8 meal IlfrERNEL FORCES Alm 8804 TWT 1-
, POIIrF5 "h _ a av AT "" 9s _ _____
Forece in Poesses gements _in:,g20t-Founds M W. Point M. Eg gg gg gg. gr gs,-
1 630 ADLFIFE 22 6 -163 0 -76 94
[
gF-22 sis 0CK 2 6 - 164 0 -76 98 .
l 696 ADLFIFE -2 -1 -25 -166 209 53 !
ss0CK 2 -2 -2 -25 - 17 1 211 53 h 2 639 ADLFIFE -10 179 -44 -285 136 266 snocK 2 -12 191 -53 -305 146 278 718 ADLFIFE 15 325 20 29 -61 23 f snocK 2 17 345 21 28 -65 27 3 634 ADLFIFE -2 -1 -2 -10 2 10 sitocK 2 -2 -
1 -2 -10 2 10 698 -
ADLPIPE O -14 -3 22 -2 2 succK 2 9 -14 > -3 22 -2 2 P
e m
O O
=
h e o S
, e 9
1 of 1 t
9 9
l
.. l BVPS FSAR Amendment 1 4/23/73
/
TABLE RESPONSE 3.2 3-7 COMPARISON OF MODAL DEFLECTIONS - .
POINTS SELECTED AT RANDOM C Mode Point Deflections in Inches No. X Y, Z No. _
1 630 ADLPIPE .298 0 0 SHOCK 2 .300 0 0 .
696 ADLPIPE s.011 .004 .012
- SHOCK 2 .011 .004 .012 2 638 ADLPIPE .017 .198 .046 SHOCX 2 .019 .212 .049 -
7k0 ADLPIPE .004 .032 .010 SHOCK 2 .004 .033 .010 3 634 ADLPIPE 0 .002 .001 SH,0CX 2 0 .002 .0007
- 698 ADLPIPE 0 .003 .001
.0027 .001
'( SHOCK 2 0 i
9 e
e O
s 1 of 1
-- -----.9 -
L
. 5 ?^!E.?nyg5&t#vdbig@ db h hh h hi?kW!&/ .%NhV& . .s g.
\N. kik .w. Y ;D, Qck k . f h5 f'? . h.i m.
, o.
~ . . , .m. r a% .. w% .-;
. ..,s A. mbdv! .%%w.M.m.
pa
, s. v. a 4* p. a. u,w ww WWQ m w , ~:.
,.y.w
, e
.. m u,., Psi.M.m.h, z.
e .n i mx.
y?
,a r .x ut ;.;sc m t ~, acw.. . ., as w
. ,4y.
- .m. v.e.
n:,a.P , w.2x.yp. e
?. we;.9 p n.m w.
gs q.,xw4 7,: -
- a e
4 w w. n..wc.w;s.
- m. .nm ,. p;4.
..n. s . m .: ) k -
$ .y m
p a p ;
w, o
w .
m...
h,"e f ,..
Q.
-1 x v< ;/ ,p., u 9.e.m .
'e%.,.f. . nw, ag ..r... ,~Q ':. . w... ..w.3.,9e.%:. <M-n a ..m y.a. . m .p. p
- >r .44.qgp -
p WDpg,
! ; yWM,5gE9. Wy.p<<Q,ct.G. &: g .:4,4q85 5Yp
?Y y h$f$ .
h hh* h u .m E ( . hk e y ..&R.g.N?'g;gd.t@Y@PRD;M.% u.y.y!.
Qy+.'*T w . .- q. o.' < w#ii:g@sg$p%..% g.
.4.v.d.g d w,y.e.m. .x t...
p2 ; M. . u.. W.1
- 3. . . . ,
ighe.r P
.. c. s .Wg. y p .w. g% #
g~. -
yigw e,. % w w... ag w9.. , g. .m..:.
t
.p..
gAp.,,
,e, a
'm,,,y. ,d % m .... .
- w y n p @ g ,~..f, ...,glon
- v. .. ... s
&e's,. . Wy y s.'.fe.,{f:? err.1 P $'e:% ;tt...'.t . %. .4.h. . _* :,& 4 M. m%4t g* ' ~ w- . M 'v .d sW: .m . . . ,. ~
(':
. , .i, 'N' N,,. '.?.t; .s it'P..G,m.9.,.@. -
?:.4.7?. s
. N. .. / l e
_.). i O, e'.* f/.^4 . ' - +
- a. .
.y *U *. - ,8%'s#.
' v1 m.
t
. .i . .Ts .O *1.'. [~. *. ,.**. #,fjgs & W l.?.m 'ti ,4p.t . r ,btg .[. ba$.,4
- 16*..* "- ~ ha %'\ . . ~4 .
! . . ,N
O m PlQ)}.4V f, f% . . .. t. ..T* y sh
- n .? *.
h, u
e . ,'
- 9. e s. q..s.e.. N. . y+. n,,.
. . . ~
. s,,.9,
.[
M. , ma.. akrr,. ,m f fd yT *"k.. . ., ,d' l' *. '.
, . .e w w m >,~o. n .v.-.n. .w .
i.v .
hiNNd*Nh,$
C hYdA@%',$d'yeMiki 'NN . .Yh h,hh?)h..(hh'$ .b h h W .Y"5 r. $j.. ${ik~Yk
,. .R@J..t. f t .
L51; $~f j',!'&. " . CG' .b'bl.h. l8',.
,' .z.
F.^h W. A. .
4 ; < ,. g e1 c
r M e*k - , .m. ',m, .,, i. oy*y.a . *
., 4wW .".".
. L ': m.. %. .
qw.,i(* o.M,.. . s.t'>
J. ...',..oxn.ls'., .v. 9;yy.g,Q: p. f.n e *.Q.c : ., , hY,%:N, ,,A. O,
., sHQ. .r. :..- 2 , ~ ' .
- L c,b v , h,6. >q . .,~.' .3. ; r. L ~*y: . .
i ._ ,. f ww.,.
. ,4 , - . . . , . , , . . . . .
a p .v. r t.+
t.' . . M. a.c,. y? .e... re .x .. y.h!,g,(+9. .vMe, ,d.wl. t yk. u .. . .. . r.. .> ,. ,7.9
. .y ye ,a .m.m4 e, <.
s . ,
h.y., c ".s .M 9.e n 4 t$,.
. . 3...>... ,d,.(y.g.t
- a. *.M[l*J,k'd .".., .m- l'L%Tf/U - [ ' *f 'fM.{'.'."
c - .
h1'.'.Y.iMi*' M ft'.;'.!$,4
/,we +.> Mr 'd,MYdMM h]n.hy $ 5pin, 'I'. a.m 4'8'
%.c , ."m. P 4p. 'y*q.a m2 >M/
- U e 7:. ,.& .. ..n,.
l g ., sr W o,\.a ! .f:%.,.Q..,k . . . ,,,' .: f..gW,';m a :t 'r Mr :n :.:. .t. .-
p . .- ,. r . w. ,
o..;.g '.,s . . , * . .o .
> e . , . .e . . . ,,es . x. . .
sp a = . . . .s , . . ,
e e e.,, . . . . .e.
. .i u." .,h g ,y.W:.$. . 2,. c. . ': ' ^. .'. -: .. ~ ; . .!; ~ . ,. '.. "; :,- . . . .
- t. . . <.v . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . ,
r, 1.~ . -
, . :. - n. sp*,
i s ;- n -
. . e.w 7, wm 4,y;g;,, ,, .., t ,.) s-e. ~ . .,. ~ ,. ~ - >
[ ,.......,p . .
,- e... . * . a- . ~ . . .
- ~ yt *,,eip,.,,s jg,., +- t. . . . . - .
' i
', y v. g , ' .
2 . .
. . ' , , j.p ..,, P . c .. . A ...* '
,p.ve */, 4. :
3.' .,
- . 3 ee' .
- ' 9 .l.*.*3 P L . . . . ' . , .
- l j .4 o, .n
,, g., .
a
- c. - .- .
- r*T*,*+ - " - - .
, , L *: , .. . - < ' .3 .c.. y , .. , - . (, g--
. 7, . . ., f , . ,
- j. s $..r. 4 . 2.* ~ ,- .. .
s ;. . .- , . ,y. 0,
~~ ,; . ,.,
4
. , . .. ~
. . ~ , .
- 2. , ..y g - c. ** > e,- u
,*f*> , -Ave ' sv cf . p,
~! , &q -e.- <f.e.
- o s , s *"
. . . .+
,ed a
- ' s. *
- e ..
' % .* 1 PE '
e d
%4 4 #*
4/.a'). t J 4 4 . " -
- k r w *] '
- t- 4 s . , . . ~.. < .. j
.-p.
, , ~.
e- ., . , , ,
6 8
, e
. .p
. ,. ,e 8'
.vp.. <
r
,, e t~ re . p s >
.~,n
- e 4 yr
~ es r
.a 9b;,4, e - 6 s4 + s. 'q * * (s'9 s 4 b "9 $ %
4 , , , :,. - , . * .
J.l a # , k ,
^
.) i g
- e, 9, '.j"'
g &
N g , , 4 g "a l , g $ ,
l q l - - i +4-.,
w +-
,.4 *,p
( 1_ ,.y4- ,, ,- . > . 4 , *,,.4 w . , ' , . t + .
gr ,
.,. -4~_ - -
3 .- ,, . > 6
, 7
- .~<*q,..
- g. , ,
, , ' r ,. . - --
. . . ,. q.. .
7 p f* , se 3 g *I -
- f 4 e ,,
tes.
+ = . r;
=
, se e g, _ - -
' t
, = , '
r s , f 6(- a en e
- g 0 pe. ,
g v. i !
~
o... f-f.
7 f
I b 6 m ~
- r S.
g , a g W f
g
, b'
- r. . e *
- 4
' a
?
er.
f...
,p %
4' w
3l
. 4 3 y 4 h
. 1 f '
f,, , . . 4. . . - s a
- 4 4 e g N 8 I
- 4 ,, ,,,
', f 9
.e
' , , a - c y.' .
g E-
.I w, e n 4
- Nk '
- ' 4 r h e-
^
lC: , ,
4 4 ' s . ,
st t -
W6a *i W. 9 " #
t %
v, .. . . * , ,
sb *
- m. .
as 5(
tw f.?
4 ,
an - . .. .
- p. -
- e
- 6 6
r *
\' .
n . .. ,
. s 's .r e
, ,- g ,o *% *A p.
,r.,--. ,.. ,p. .,,. . + , e % ,, . $
- r e- g - ' * - - I '( '
J- - - _ __ u . + t %.
- , _ s4 ..- _' _ . ' , ,---._..W_ _ _'-'** ~_.-__,.
M ,, 3__ _'_._,,e. _
w., m ,
M A.M fd fhkf 4
i The ultimate load capacity of the as modified by the safety provisions of ACI-318-63. Section 150h, is not less than that required to satisfy the following structural loading criteria:
- 1. (1.0 1 0.05) D + 1.5P + 1.0 (T + TL)
- 2. (1.0 2 0.05) D + 1.25P + 1.0 (T + E) + 1.25E .
3 (1.0 1 0.05) D + 1.0T + 1.0C_
- k. (1.0 1 0.05) D + 1.0P + 1.0 (T + TL) + 1.0E' D - Dead load of structure , including effect of any hydro-static pressure, ice and snow loads, when their effect increases the resultant stresses and equipment and operating loads.
P - Design incident pressure load.
T - Effect of temperature gradien't through the concrete shell and mat.
TL - Mad exerted by the exposed liner, based upon temperature associated with 15 times design incident pressure. The sidewall liner is insulated to a height of approximately 30 ft above the top of the mat. .
E - Load exerted by the exposed liner, based upon temperature ?$id ,
associated with 1.25 times design incident pressure. kg l TL - Load exerted by the exposed liner, based upon temperature associated with 1.0 times design incident pressure.
E - Load due to acceleration from the design earthquake. 066 E' - Load due to acceleration from the hypothetical earthquake. 93C -
. . . . . - - . , . . . ..i
.. % v in,p m e 6'When the.. equivalent.effecT, of a vind .
load.on.the. structure of 35 psf on rectangular' #' buildings 30 ft above ground exceeds the earthquake effects, the vikd load vill replace E or E'. It is assumed that maximum forces due to vind and those due ta earthquakes do not act d A, at the same time. This vind pressure agrees with that recomended by American National Standards Institute A58.1 l
for Minimu:n Design Mads in Buildings and Other Structures for round or elliptical structures in this area.
l % .
5-3 L .- _ _. _ _ _ _ ._ _ _ _ _
A5.13 . . _
y ,
$f $ W ff ..
l 5.13 GUE3710:1 -
The r.cthod of scistic cnalysis for Class I structures and .'
1 co .conents is described -encrally en a 2 5-6 of the PSAR "*
- . . . . . . _ . . . . . _ . - , , . - The explanation as to how the Z certhquake effects are to be cer.bined with the stresces arising frc:a other operating and accident loads is not precisely clear and we '.
should like confirmation that the carthquake loadings will be added +: .
linearly and directly as appropriate to the dead load, live load, $ l cperating and accident loadings. -
77,
.i .
M15.lDt 5 The earthqua!:e leadings will be added linearly and directly J 03 appropriate to the dead load, live load, operating and accident ',y loadings. 3
- g 3?
tb f:
..,0 .
.. .4 %
~~
$w
.4
- w. .
O r.
.:q 15.
M.%.
- p 33
^ y.
.n
'/
.g-e O
t W M- .T
a Table 5.1.2 _ .
i 5
...N y LOADIg COMBI:;ATIC:iS '?
- 1. 1.0D + 1.5P + . 0(T+TL)
- 2. 1.0D + 1.0P + 1.0(T+TL) + 1.5E
. t ,
j 3. 1.0D + 1.0T + 1.0c !
i
't
- j 4 1.0D + 1.0P + 1.0(T+TL) + 2.0E
.i 7 D - Dead load of structure, including effect of any hydrostatic y:
q pressure, ice and snov loads, when their effect increases the resultant stresses and equipment and operating loads..
':j n .,
m f P - Design pressure load.
1 1
T - I. cad due to maximum temperature gradient through t'.5 concrete '
j shell and mat. .i '
n 4
l TL - Load exerted by the exposed liner, based upon temperature 4 tj associated with 1.5 times design incident pressure.
~2 T
J - Load exerted by the exposed liner, based upon temperature '.
associated with 1.0 times design pressure. ..,
.m un = E 1 , c5
. . , , . . , . r j ., ., . .
' II -
l m M.
- - =:a r '
"4 1 When the equivalent effect of a wind load on the structure of 4*E Y
! 35 psf on rectangular buildings 30 feet above ground exceeds.
! l the earthquake effects, the vind load vill replace E. It is %%
l assumed that maximum forces due to vind and those due to A.
earthquakes do not act at the same time. This vind pressure J?i agrees with that reco== ended by A=erican Standard Building L(
Code Requirements Standard A58.1 for Minimum Design Icads in Buildings and Other Structures of the USAI for round or
~
7.' a)
El l h i elliptical structures in this area. -41 h ***
d C - Load due to negative pressure of 3 psi associated vita assumed d d
k tornado and load due to 300 mph horizontal winn velocity ]
l i associated with the assumed tornado. . r.f
{ 'h a n l } 'I
(
< l.. 1 i
p., J p *wm e*+
- 9
-.=_...
- a u.u 6 N. -
' :=:S
.=:: :--.~
i i
.esec _ .
, - - - - - , , , , . . , , . _ . . , _ . - - - - . , . , . - - - - _ - _ - -.__a__--_-~_,,,,_ , , . , , , , , . - - - , _ , . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , - - -
. ~
2.5-b
, The resi.cnce spectrue is the envelo;.c cf rc: pence cf cizple stru:-
, m.
tures with variable d: pir.g to the accelerritient :.cacurec in a nt.:.ber of carthq'uar.cs . This aca.ysis is ap,:,1f cc inr all st: u: ures and cen;.cr.er.tc i:.
[- this class und crcups tuerecf the:e rc penses msy i.e i..terde;.e:. dent., ec .-
X*;:- cidering their natural perice and u::ir.?, spt.rc; ria.e car 7 1ni- racters e.c 11:: . !
- c. In Table 2.5-1.
$E.
e g- .
c.
_ Clasc 1 structures and com;.cnes.ts are ceci, ned in the fc11cwing ar. 3 Ceneral manner
- l
{
' 1 1. An analysic is asae tc ceter=ir.e tr.e r.:.tcral ;.cricds of l a ~ vibration of the strE.cture using equivalent lu .; nacs t syste=s or distributed :sss systems as is con:ricered appropriate. In these analyces, pericos and noce sha,res-
, f e are aeternir.cc for et.ch lue;.ca cass sede. These data
'. then defi:.e participe. tion facters fcr each str:.cture.
- anere ' structures are su .1.nrteu on their evn four. cati ns ,
foundation cia; acements are concicerca in ueterminin.,
natural rericdc and t .rticipatier. fc.ct.cra. It sh:uld te 6 noted, hwever, that Class 1 structur<:: at t:.1 site are foundcl cn granite cneics. Acccral:.;1y f:unar.tien yieJd-
,g- .
, , ing vill te very neall und t.uy in c.r.ny essee t:e nec1cetca
' without ir.treuucinc significar. errcr.
a x 2. The earthqu:9.c decign acceleraticr. value fcr the c;ct ific
- +,,
f1 natural perica of the structure or cc rc:.ct Luing un-t u sidered is deter::ined frcm Fi,:ua
-er 2.i-c :1: . upr.rc: . iat e e e damping factors. . . _ _ _ . .
N '
n-t ~
- 3. Design of the reactor contai:.:. etat is perf:.rned in acccid r.ce l
with the criteria as established in Section 5.J.
[~['. !+ . Fcr some structures, and especially for vitratcry sy :ar: of a hi Chly comelex nature,
- f. .
Ki g' .
- 5. A tabulation of typical dr.= ping factor: which are used for b various vibratory syste=s important to nuclear safety is U precerited in Table 2 5-1. Conservative r. lues e.rc sho .:
7 for various mater'ials, =ethods of conctra:tien, and loca-
.E tion with recrect to the ;;rcund.
'W i.-. .
i w .~
W:
"TI
% r
-Gea f
M l T L
..-_____ - - - -