ML20135E495

Summary of 961209-13 Meeting W/W in Monroeville,Pa Re Audit W Calculations & Discuss Pertinent Open Items Related to SSAR Sections 3.7 & 3.8 on AP600 Structural Design. W/List of Attendees,Agenda & Handouts

ML20135E495
Person / Time
Site:	05200003
Issue date:	03/04/1997
From:	Diane Jackson NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:	NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
References
NUDOCS 9703070105
Download: ML20135E495 (200)

Text

.-

@ n:o p

t UNITED STATES g

,j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o

WASHINGTON. D.C. maa -3

+g March 4, 1997 APPLICANT: Westinghouse Electric Corporation FACILITY:

AP600

SUBJECT:

SUPMARY OF MEETING TO DISCUSS WESTINGHOUSE AP600 STRUCTURAL DES The subject meeting was held at the Westinghouse Electric Corporation (West-inghouse) office in Monroeville, Pennsylvania, on December 9 through 13, 1996.

The purposes of the meeting were to audit Westinghouse calculations and discuss pertinent open items related to standard safety analysis report (SSAR)

Sections 3.7 and 3.8 on the AP600 structural design.

i Westinghouse presented additional information in response to the NRC letter dated November 4,1996, which stated the staff positions on basemat capability regarling soil variability and soil condition (shallow soil sites). Rizzo Associates (Westinghouse consultant) presented additional information on the basemat capability to handle soil variability and proposed to provide detailed charar.terization of site soil stiffness variability that can be accommodated 4

by the basemat design for inclusion in the SSAR.

For shallow soil sites, Westinghouse proposed a SSAR description to justify the use of a site-specific seismic hazard (and response spectra) for soil cases outside the four analy:'d sites, specifically a shallow soil site. The proposal does not satisfy th(

staff position, because the design parameter, as stated in the SSAR, for the standard AP600 plant is 0.3g ground acceleration (with the response spectra).

The use of a site-specific seismic hazard and response spectra does not satisfy the standard AP600 plant design paianeter.

The staff reviewed certain Westinghouse calculations for the AP600 structural design. Ames Laboratory (NRC consultant) presented its confirmatory analysis results on.the shield building roof structure.

O I

070029 9703070105 970304 PDR ADOCK 05200003 E

PDR L

.. March 4, 1997 MEETING OPEN ITEM: An inconsistency was identified in the seismic model in the SSAR and design analysis report for the nuclear island structure model (elevation 85' vs. 82.5', etc.)

i

?

original signed by:

~

Diane T. Jackson, Project Manager Standardization Project Directorate 4

Division of Reactor Program Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No.52-003 Attachments:

1.

List of meeting participants 2.

Meeting agenda; list of pertinent open items 3.

Summary of major issues 4.

Status of open items 5.

Draft SSAR markups and proposed open item responses 6.

Westinghouse' handouts for discussion for basemat summary report 7.

NRC handouts for Ames Lab presentation on confirmatory analysis. results 8.

Westinghouse material from Rizzo Associates presentation on the basemat's capability to handle soil variability,and Westinghouse presentation on soil variability and shallow

. soil sites cc w/ attachments:

See next page DISTRIBUTION:

See next page 1

i DOCUMENT NA.ME: A:ECG12 9 MIN c/Mf1 2

n-...

i e oc.,.nw.n

-,.o.

r. co... a

,.... =. w.

OFFICE PM:PDST:D'PM_l, T:fEfj$1DE l

D:PDST:DRPM l

R NAME DTJackson:sg \\/T GBagtF TRQuay 4 %

DATE p/;V/97

( \\

D W 97 S/9/97 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY i

j

DISTRIBUTION w/ attachments:

. Docket File PUBLIC PDST R/F TKenyon BHuffman DTJackson JSebrosky TCheng, 0-7 HIS DISTRIBUTION w/o attachment:

SCollins/FMiraglia, 0-12 G18 AThadani, 0-12 G18 RZimmerman, 0-12 G18 TMartin DMatthews TQuay Dross, T-4 D18 WDean, 0-17 G21 GBagchi, 0-7 HIS I

ACRS (11)

JMoore, 0-15 B18 1

l

_ _._ _ _ _ _._ _ __q i

Westinghouse Electric Corporation Docket No.52-003 cc: Mr. Nicholas J. Liparulo, Manager Mr. Frank A. Ross Nuclear Safety and Regulatory Analysis U.S. Department of Energy, NE-42 Nuclear and Advanced Technology Division Office of LWR Safety and Technology Westinghouse Electric Corporation 19901 Germantown Road P.O. Box 355 Germantown, MD 20874 Pittsburgh, PA 15230 Mr. Ronald Simard, Director Mr. B. A. McIntyre Advanced Reactor Program Advanced Plant Safety & Licensing Nuclear Energy Institute Westinghouse Electric Corporation 1776 Eye Street, N.W.

Energy Systems Business Unit Suite 300 Box 355 Washington, DC 20006-3706 Pittsburgh, PA 15230 Ms. ifnn Connor Ms. Cindy L. Haag Doc-Search Associates Advanced Plant Safety & Licensing Post Office Box 34 Westinghouse Electric Corporation Cabin John, MD 20818 Energy Systems Business Unit Box 355 Mr. James E. Quinn, Projects Manager Pittsburgh, PA 15230 LMR and SBWR Programs GE Nuclear Energy Mr. M. D. Beaumont 175 Curtner Avenue, M/C 165 Nuclear and Advanced Technology Division San Jose, CA 95125 Westinghouse Electric Corporation One Montrose Metro Mr. Robert H. Buchholz 11921 Rockville Pike GE Nuclear Energy Suite 350 175 Curtner Avenue, MC-781 Rockville, MD 20852 San Jose, CA 95125 Mr. Sterling Franks Barton Z. Cowan, Esq.

U.S. Department of Energy Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott NE-50 600 Grant Street 42nd Floor 19901 Germantown Road Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Germantown, MD 20874 1

Mr. Ed Rodwell, Manager

.Mr. S. M. Modro PWR Design Certification Nuclear Systems Anaiysis Technologies Electric Power Research Institute Lockheed Idaho Technologies Company 3412 Hillview Avenue Post Office Box 1625 Palo Alto, CA 94303 Idaho Falls, ID 83415 Mr. Charles Thompson, Nuclear Engineer AP600 Certification NE-50 19901 Germantown Road Germantown, MD 20874 4

l AP600 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS & DESIGN NRC/ WESTINGHOUSE MEETING l

DECEMBER 9 THROUGH ',, 1996 LIST OF MEETING PARTICIPANTS N8BE ORGANIZATION GOUTAM BAGCHI NRC/DE/ECGB THOMAS CHENG NRC/DE/ECGB DIANE JACKSON NRC/DRPM/PDST CARL COSTANTINO CCNY/NRC CONSULTANT FOUAD FAN 0US AMES LAB /NRC CONSULTANT GUNNER HARSTEAD HEA/NRC CONSULTANT QUAZI HOSSAIN LLNL/NRC C0t!SULTANT SHERIF SAFAR AMES LAB /NRC CONSULTANT TOM TSAI NRC CONSULTANT ED CUMMINS*

WESTINGHOUSE D0HALD LINDGREN WESTINGHOUSE RA0 MANDAVA WESTINGHOUSE BRIAN MCINTYRE*

WESTINGHOUSE RICHARD ORR WESTINGHOUSE NARENDRA PRASAD WESTINGHOUSE B0B VIJUK*

WESTINGHOUSE KARL GROSS BECHTEL/ WESTINGHOUSE CONSULTANT CARLOS MARTIN INITEC/ WESTINGHOUSE CONSULTANT PAUL RIZZ0*

RIZZO ASSOCIATES / WESTINGHOUSE CONSULTANT HISH VAIDYA*

RIZZO ASSOCIATES / WESTINGHOUSE CONSULTANT GUILLERM0 VIDAL INITEC/ WESTINGHOUSE CONSULTANT i

• Part time participants i

12/03 6 TCE 1 20 FAI 412 374 5535 AP600

@ 002 j

4 AP600 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIh AND DESIGN NRC / WESTINGHOUSE MEETING AGENDA DECEMBER 9 - 13, 1996 MONDAY.12SS6 1:00P M INTRODUCTION R.MANDAVA T.CHENG i

NUCIEAR ISLAND BASEMAT DESIGN DOCUMENTATION R.ORR DISCUSSION OF BASEMAT

SUMMARY

REPORT j

i AUXILLARY BUILDING CRITICAL SECTIONS DESIGN DOCUMENTATION N.PRASAD l

TUESDAY 12/10S6 (T. Cheng, F. Fanous, R. Orr)

SHIELD BUILDING ROOF INDEPENDENT ANALYSES F. FANOUS COMPARISON AGAINST AP600 RESULTS DSER OPEN ITEMS - SHIELD BUILDING ROOF DSER OPEN ITEMS - CONTAINMENT VESSEL WEDNESDAY 12/1166 g

SUMMARY

- SHIELD BUILDING ROOF AND CONTAINMENT VESSEL T. Cheng DSER OPEN ITEMS - SEISMIC THURSDAY 12/12S6 DSER OPEN ITEMS NUCLEAR ISLAND BASEMAT AUX 1LIARY BUILDING MISCELLANEOUS ERIDAY 12/13h6 EXIT MEETLNG Note: structural audits will be performed in para 11cl with above meetings on nuclear island basemat, auxiliary building, and shleid building roof

=.. - - - - - -. -

i 12/03/96 1TE 12:20 FAI 412 374 5535 AP600 2003 i

!d DSER OPEN ITEMS FOR NRC REVIEW i

i DURING STRUCTURAL MEETINGS / AUDITS 1

Containment Internal Structures, Structural Modules, IRWST Analyses, Air baffle (to be covered in January meeting) 710 Module connection details 716 ACI/ AISC for module design Module construction process

. 717 718 Concrete placement stresses in steel plates 719 Combination of' ADS and SSE 720 Module seismic analysis methods i

722 Monolithic propenics in global seismic analysis 724 Composite behavior 725 Scismic modelling 729 Module composite behavior study j

i 730 Module conncenon details 731 Design Summary Repon for contamment intemal suucturcs 732 Structural audit of containment intemal structures 740 Description and design details for modules in auxiliary butiding 754 Descripdon and design details for spent fuci pool, and fuel transfer canal 757 Design criteria for modules in auxilary building 758 Modular consuuction in auxiliary building 2347 Design process for module design i

2349 Analysis of typical 30" wall

~

2348 Hydrodynaml: analyses 3247 RAI 230.98 Design of structural modules 755 Design Summary Repon for air baffle (to be included in Shield Building Roof Summary Repon)

N 1

I 1

12/03/96 'ITE 12:21 FAI 412 374 5535 AP600 Qlo04 t

DSER OPEN ITEMS FOR NRC REVIEW DURING STRUCTURAL MEETINGS / AUDITS (December,1996) h.

Seismic Analyses I

623 Damping for cable trays f,

628 Shallow soil site / site specific analyses 649 Effect of NI on seismic input to adjacent buildings 660 Classification of radwaste building 661 Use of ACI 318, AISC for seismic Category II 662 Classification of turbine building 664 Seismic margin of turbine building 668 Time hisery versus response spectrum analyses j

670 COL appilcant site speciSc analyses 672 Equivalent static analyses for subsystems 1885 COL applicant site specific analyses Nuclear Island Basemat 711

.CIS lift off 755 Design Summary Report for nuclear island basemat 761 Effect of contamment pressure 763 Horizontal soll springs l

766 Validation package for Initec computer codes 767 Simplifed analyses 768 Analyses for construction loads 769 Soil spring variability 770 Out of-phase seismic 775 Construction loads 776 Anchorage of reinforcement

! W 777 Liftoff and impact of basemat 778 Soil stiffhess coefficznts 779 Independent review of Initec design calculations 3248 Design of exterior walls 3252 Foundation soil variability 3253 Design of basemar around pits 3254 Construction induced stresses 3255 Effeu of soft and hard spots 3256 Shear reinforcement in basemat Shield Building Roof 750 Shield trallding roof design calculations 755 Design Summarj Report for shield building roof 3249 RAI 230.100 (a)

Venical component of earthquake 3250 RAI 230.100 (b)

Tension ring design 3251 RAT 230.100 (c)

Temporary tower loads on containment vessel 3375 R/J 220.103 Shear connectors for precast panels f

1:

12/03/98 TUE 12:22 FAI 412 374 5535 AP800

@ 005 m.

Containment vessel l[

678 Containment vessel design loads g

681 Containment vessel - design of large penetrations 2816 Code Case N 284, Rev 1

)

Auriliary Building 745 Combination of fuu live load with SSE 749 Specific design loads and analysis methods 755 Design Summary Report for auxiliary buuding Miscellaneous Open Items not included above 744 Design criteria for embedments 1

791 HVAC ductwork

?

698, 706. 708,1888, 2515 Containment vessel fragility - Westinghouse transmitting additional infonnation 4

Open items to be closed ( subject to NRC confirmation) i 463 469 4

762 Revise to W Confinnatory -include in SSAR revision shown in June,1996 meeting notes i

1886 1887

?

2928 2929 i

2930 g

3057 3058 3059 3060 3245 RAI 230.96 Compare FEM and stick model results 3246 i

4 4

i I

AP600 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS & DESIGN i

NRC/ WESTINGHOUSE MEETING t

DECEMBER 9 THROUGH 13, 1996 l

SUWiARY OF MAJOR ISSUES DISCUSSED 1.

The Use of Live Load in Seismic Design l

After the June 1995 meeting, Westinghouse was provided with the NRC staff l

position on the use of live load for computing the overall building seismic -

response (25 percent of the live load) as well as for computing the design basis forces and moments resulting from local vertical seismic response of floor or roof panels (100 percent of live load). The review of design i

calculations showed that:

(i) AP600 structural design criteria does not comply with the NRC staff position, and (ii) actual design calculations do not consistently follow AP600 structural design criteria (e.g., in the design of l

slab in Areas I and 2 at elevation 135'-3", the load combination for the extreme environment condition is D+ L/4 + vertical SSE Load + Ra; the use of L/4 here instead of L is unacceptable).

Westinghouse contended that actual live load is a very small percentage of the total design load, and as such the above discrepancy may not be significant.

The staff concluded that Westinghouse should:

(1) modify the AP600 structural design criteria to make it compatible with the staff position on the treatment of live load and (ii) demonstrate that the design actually complies with the AP600 structural design criteria.

l 2.

Evaluation of Soil Variability on Basemat Response & Design The design of the basemat was primarily based on the bearing pressure under i

the basemat obtained from the nonlinear ANSYS analysis of the nuclear island (NI) model (by Initec) in which an uniform subgrade modulus of 520 kips per cubic foot (corresponding to soft-to-medium soil) was assumed. To assess the effects of varying the subgrade modulus on the basemat bearing pressure and design, Westinghouse performed several parametric studies assuming rigid l

basemat and permitting lift off and concluded the following:

a)

The basemat design is not sensitive to lower values of uniform soil properties because the basemat and the superstructure are stiff.

For soft or hard rock case, bearing reactions would increase below the shear i

walls and reduce at mid-span of the basemat panels, thus reducing the bending moments and shear forces. Thus, for uniform soil properties, the assumption of soft soil is conservative for basemat design.

b)

The basemat design is sensitive to local subgrade modulus variations close to the underside of the basemat. Thus, site investigations will be l

required in sufficient detail to preclude local variations in subgrade modulus close to the underside of the basemat.

i t

The staff reviewed calculations 1010-CCC-002, Rev.1; 1010-CCC-007,- Rev. ~ 0; i

1010-CCC-009, Rev. O and draft report 1010-53R-001 and concluded that Westing-house should present the draft of the revised SSAR to the staff incorporating the guidelines for site investigations agreed upon between Westinghouse and the staff.

l 3.

Shallow Soil Site and Site Specific Seismic Input and Acceptance Criteria How the site specific seismic input and acceptance criteria will be selected for sites not covered by the seismic design basis of AP600 (e.g., shallow soil i

site) was discussed. The staff and the Westinghouse had different interpreta-l tions of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) provisions regarding this issue. The staff concluded that the current SSAR is unacceptab? a, j

4.

Consideration of Out-of-Plane Seismic Load in the Design of Wall Panels i

Out-of-plane seismic loads on the wall panels are caused by the inertia of the panel mass (local) as well as by the global behavior of the wall-floor system (which may cause panel support displacements resulting in out-of-plane moments and shears).

But in designing the wall panels, Initec considered only the.

local out-of-plane bending and did not consider the global 09t-of-plane moments and shears that were calculated by Bechtel.

t' The staff discussed this with Initec, Westinghouse, and Bechtel personnel as a generic issue; it was agreed that the appropriate way of _ combining the local and global moments and shears and its impact in the design will be addressed

~

by Westinghouse.

5.

Horizontal Membrane Forces in Shear Walls When the shear walls act as stiffeners to reduce the out-of-plane bending of the basemat slab (in the direction of the length of the shear walls), these j

walls behave like deep beams in the vertical direction and are likely to develop large in-plane horizontal tensile stresses near the bottom at the interface with the basemat. This behavior was observed in Initec Calculation I

No. 1010-CCC-001, Rev. 0, for wall L (e.g., Element Nos. 68S0, 6884, 6886, 6961, etc. where horizontal in-plane axial force A,, ranges from 40 to 46 kips l

per foot). But, at about the same location, the horizontal in-plane axial force S., in Calculation No. 1000-52C-031 (wall along column Line L, Areas 1/2, Group G49, see Page 354 & the associated computer output sheets) is shown i

as 4.456K/ft (Element No. 6 Load case 2, Seismic).

It is staff's understand-ing that this later calculation was used in the design of walls. The discrep-ancy in the loads is possibly because the later calculation assumed fixed-base l

conditions in which the basemat cannot flex and there is no in-plane deep beam action of the shear walls in the vertical direction.

i l

5

r

' design is based only on the fixed-base caseFrom this observ a if the wall may not be adequate for softer, soil cases., Westinghouse agreed tat ce this issue further and evaluate its effects on the wall d Item Il for the impact of this issue on the design of the ba o examine esign (see also semat).

6.

Difference between Response Spectra and Time-History Analy

• While making the comparison, the staff observed th t ses sometimes by a very large margin; nodal accelerations form resp a:

a b because of item ently higher response spectra generated from floor) time-histories ma(y)not be above, the floor,

a c) member forces from response spectrum and time history analyse always follow the same trend as the nodal accelerations conservative; element response spectrum analysis may not be cons o not Sometime the trend m the 3-D finite adequacy of both the final design floor resBased on these ob o justify the forces and moments for structural members. ponse spectra and the final design 7.

Validation of Initec's post-Processing Computer Codes package provided for review was mostly in Spac.!sh.The nce the validation provide an English version of the package for the staff to reviWestinghou ew.

8.

Type of Stirrups to be Used in the Batemat Slab justification on the basis of some discussion in theWestin an1 provides by Westinghouse conservativelystaff expressed a concern that the c code comientary.

The uncertainties that Westinghouse, did not or could not consider fand that, n erpreted considerations, the use of 135-degree bent stirrups is preferable rom practical 9.

American Concrete Institute Reinforced Concrete Members (ACI) Code Version for Torsional Design of some significant recent developments and should be us Westinghouse expressed a concern that the use of differe t In response,orp

-95 inc the same code for different design issues may be confusin n

from consistency and quality control considerations year versions of g and undesirable design provisions in AP600 structure design criteriaagreed orsional

i k

[

4

}

10. The Effects of Construction Related Loads on Basemat Design t

i The staff reviewed Bechtel Calculation No.1010-CCC-006, Rev. 0, that evalu-j ates the potential effects of differential settlements during basemat con-struction before the basemat is stiffened by the walls, and observed the following:

)

a)

The analysis assumed soft soil site (dynamic shear wave velocity 1000 fps or dynamic G = 3571 ksf), but conservatively used static G = 207.9 ksf, 4

Poisson's Ratio = 0.35 and unit weight = 115 pcf. Bedrock was assumed at i

120 ft. below grade (i.e., at 80 ft. below the basemat), and excavation was assumed to be completed before the basemat construction.

b)

A 2-D analysis was performed assuming the construction sequence that will a

be followed.

In addition, two deviations from the intended construction sequence were considered. The results were modified by a scale factor to i

j account for the 3-D effects (which is essentially equivalent to increas-ing the soil modulus by a factor of 2.9).

i c)

The forces and moments computed were found to be very sensitive to f

j construction sequence.

Stresses resulting from these settlement-induced i

forces and moments were assumed to be secondary and were not combined i

j with those obtained from the design basis loadings.

Based on these observations the staff provided the following review comments to Westinghouse:

(i) Construction sequence consistent with analysis must be i

rigidly followed avoiding any deviation.

(ii) Even though the use of static j

G-207.9 ksf is conservative, the use of a factor of 2.9 to take credit of the i

3-D effects seems excessive.- (iii) Settlement-induced stresses during I

construction can potentially be additive to design basis loadings at certain locations depending on the further construction sequence, the geometry of the j

4 i

structure, and the sense of the settlement-induced forces and moments.

For j

such cases, these moments and forces should be considered in the design.

11. The Effects of In-plane Shear in the Basemat Design The staff's review of the basemat design calculation showed that large in-plane shears in the basemat elements (as evidenced in Initec's nonlinear ANSYS analysis) were not considered. Since such large shears can potentially induce principal tension in a non-orthogonal direction, consideration of these j

shear forces may result in additional reinforcements. This issue was dis-p cussed with Westinghouse, Bechtel and Initec personnel. However, no defini-i tive response was given by Westinghouse.

i j

12. Updating Soil-Structure Interaction (SSI) Factors I

SSI factors were used in the design of some structural elements to account for SSI effects not bounded by fixed-base analysis results.

In response to i

)

4

- 't 4

staff's question if the earlier SSI factors have been updated when the new soft-to-medium soil case was added, Westinghouse stated that the SSAR Rev. 9 values are based on updated SSI factors.

i

13. The Effect of Impact Between the Radioactive Waste Building and Nuclear Island 2

The staff discussed with Westinghouse and agreed on the method of energy l

balance calculation to evaluate if the impact energy can be absorbed by the NI without undergoing excessive deformations. Westinghouse's approximate (unverified) calculation indicated that the elkstic strain energy capability t

of the NI is larger than the impact energy and hence no global damage poten-

)

tial exists.

The staff accepted the method and Westinghouse will briefly t

j describe the method and the results of the final verified calculation in the SSAR.

i I

14. Correction in Figure 3.7.2-18 of SSAR Rev. 9 The staff indicated that Elevation 85.5 ft., shown in Figure 3.7.2-18, seems to be inconsistent with Elevation 82.5 ft., shown in Figure 3.7.2-6.

Also, i

Figure 3.7.2-18 seems to lack a lateral support at Elevation 82.5 ft.

Westinghouse agreed to examine these apparent discrepancies and update the 1

SSAR accordingly.

j i

15. Design Adequacy of 18-inch Thick Part of the Basemat in the Flevator Pit.

1 The staff reviewed Calculation No.1010-CCC-005, Rev. I by Initec and observed the following:

a)

The soil reaction (= 19 ksf) was obtained from the nonlinear ANSYS analysis of the NI.

l t

b)

The basemat panel containing the pit (6 ft. x 9 ft.) was subjected to i

soil reaction load and was analyzed using a finite element model, t

I c)

The shear farce at the support (= Slk/ft) was read approximately from a i

contour map. Shear adequacy check was made at a distance t/2 + d, where i

t is the wall thickness and d is the slab effective thickness. At this location, the 51 k/ft support shear was reduced to a very low negative value. However, if the 6 ft x 9 ft pit slab is separately modeled as supported at its edges (by the wall and the 6 ft. thick basemat slab), a a

simple two-way slab analysis shows that the end reaction is about 48 k/ft j

(versus 51 k/ft from the panel finite element analysis) and the shear at the critical section (at distance d from the edge) is about 28 kips.

This is much larger than what has been used in the design. This discrep-l ancy raised a generic concern about the use of shear force computed from l

the contour at the edge (i.e. 51 k/ft in this case) and then to assume i

f i

k this value at the center of a very wide support (-36 inches), which artificially reduces the shear at the critical section. This issue was discussed with Westinghouse.

I a

)

i l

i l

j i

e i

s Y

l

)

i l

=

i i

i l

STATUS OF OPEN ITEMS Provided below is the status of the pertinent open items, using the open item tracking system (OITS) number, at the conclusion of December 9 - 13, 1996, meeting.

MEETING OPEN ITEM: An inconsistency was identified in the seismic model in the SSAR and design analysis report for N1 structure model (elevation 85' vs.

82.5',etc.)

Q1111 Ilaisi status Detail 463 Closed SRP does not require 469 Closed The staff reviewed the design calculation in the Decem-ber 1996 meeting.

s 622 Resolved The item is administrative 1y resolved. The issue will be technically resolved by DSER 3.7.1.1-1 (0ITS# 628).

628 Action W The SSAR proposal presented at the December 1996 meeting does not satisfy the staff position.

Westinghouse will respond.

649 Action W The staff reviewed the draft SSAR 3.7.2.8 in the Decem-ber 1996 meeting. The draft is incomplete. Westing-house does not have a means, such as a COL action item, to demonstrate that non-Category I structures adjacent to NI do not interact with NI.

l I

660 Resolved The staff reviewed the Westinghouse letter response (dated October 21,1996) and discussed it at the Decem-ber 1996 meeting.

661 Resolved The staff reviewed SSAR revision, Rev. 9.

662 Action W The staff reviewed the Westinghouse October 21, 1996, letter response. Westinghouse provided diagrams in the December 1996 meeting. A telephone conference call is necessary. Westinghouse needs to classify the turbine building as Category II or use an eccentric bracing i

system in the design.

668 Action W Westinghouse to reconciliation differences in time history and response spectrum results.

t 670 Action N The staff will review SSAR 2.5 for an adequate reconcil-intion evaluation with as-built condition.

i

l l

i

! 678 Action W The staff reviewed the draft response during the meet-ing. Additional staff review will be necessary when Westinghouse submi'.s the response.

681 Action W The draft SSAR markup is incomplete. Westinghouse does not describe the dynamic evaluation for local masses.

Action N The staff will provide Westinghouse the staff position on ASME Code Case 284.

L 744 Confirm W Westinghouse provided a draft markup at the December 1996 meeting.

It was agreed to be acceptable with the addition of " side" cover.

745 Action W The staff reviewed the Westinghouse letter response with draft markup. The response is unacceptable.

(1) West-inghouse does not include live load in tie :lobal seis-mic model. (Westinghouse has calculated to show insig-nificance - SSAR revision is needed)

(2) For local effects, the Westinghouse use of 25% of live load for SSE cases (rather than 100% in all cases) is unaccept-able.

(3) For global effects, Westinghouse does not include snow load as defined in the staff position (NRC letter dated July 18, 1996) - SSAR commitment is needed.

749 Resolved SSAR 3.8.4.4.1 revision was acceptable and the staff reviewed the design calculations in December 1996 meet-ing.

750 Action W Westinghouse will provide the design of the ring beam including torsional moment and axial tension.

751 Action W Post-construction testing is necessary to confirm ade-quacy of the PCS tank.

755 Action W The staff reviewed the summary reports shield building i

roof structure, basemat, and auxiliary building in the December 1996 meeting.

The containment internal struc-tures summary report will be reviewed in January 1997 audit meeting.

756 Resolved This item is administrative 1y resolved. The issue will be technically resolved in DSER 3.8.5-14 (0ITS# 772).

761 Resolved The staff reviewed the design calculation in the Decem-ber 1996 meeting.

762 Confirm W The staff reviewed the design calculation and the SSAR draft in the December 1955 meeting. The draft revision is acceptable. A SSAR revision is need.

763 Resolved The staff reviewed the design calculation in the Decem-ber 1996 meeting.

766 Action W Westinghouse has not provided (in english) the ARMA computer code validation and verification package.

767 Action W The simple analysis was reviewed and accepted. However, the December 1996 design audit identified a lack of consistency in the analysis and design of the entire structural system.

768 Action W The SSAR 3.8.5 draft is incomplete; more information is needed. Westinghouse does not consider the effects of settlement during construction and dewatering during construction.

769 Action W The SSAR 2.5.4 draft is incomplete; more information is needed on the geotechnical program. A cross-reference is needed in SSAR 3.8.5.

770 Resolved The staff reviewed the design calculation in the Decem-ber 1996 meeting.

772 Action W Westinghouse needs to ensure a consistent waterproof system, specifically the interface between the mudmat and the shotcrete sidewall. This information needs to be in SSAR 3.4.1.1.1.

A cross-reference is needed in SSAR 3.8.5.6.

775 Resolved This item is administrative 1y resolved. The issue will be technically resolved by DSER 3.8.5-10 (OITS# 768).

776 Resolved Adequate anchorage with longitudinal mat reinforcing bars was provided in accordance with ACI code.

777 Resolved The staff reviewed the design calculation in the Decem-ber 1996 meeting.

778 Resolved The staff reviewed the design calculation in the Decem-ber 1996 meeting.

779 Resolved During December 1996 meeting, post processing ARMA computer program was not used in basemat design.

1885 Action W This COL action is connected to DSER 3.7.1.1-1 (OITS#

628). The current SSAR proposal presented at the Decem-ber 1996 meeting does not satisfy the staff position.

t j.

3 I

1 The staff reviewed the comparison of Revision 0 and 1 2816 Closed for ASME Code Case 284 and found the comparison accept-able. The applicability of the code case will be resolved through DSER 3.8.2.4-3 (OITS# 681).

l 4

3 l

2828 Closed The staff reviewed SSAR revision, Rev. 7 2929 Closed The staff reviewed SSAR revision, Rev. 7 2930 Closed Input provided i

3058 Closed Acceptable response provided 3059 Closed Acceptable response provided j

j 3060 Closed Acceptable response provided 4

t l

3245 Closed The staff reviewed the design calculations 3246 Closed The staff reviewed SSAR revision, Rev. 7 1

i 3248 Closed The staff reviewed the design calculations in the Decem-ber 1996 meeting.

j 3249 Closed The staff reviewed the shield building final design l

j calculations in December 1996 meeting.

4 3250 Closed The issue will be technically resolved by DSER 3.8.4.4-2 (OITS #750).

i 3251 Closed The staff reviewed the design calculations in the Decem-j ber 1996 meeting.

3252 Closed The staff reviewed the design calculations in the Decem-i ber 1996 meeting. The issue of soil variability will be

)

technically resolved in DSER 3.8.5-11 (OITS# 769).

l 3253 Closed The staff reviewed the design calculations in the Decem-ber 1996 meeting.

l 4

3254 Closed The staff reviewed the design calculations in the Decem-i ber 1996 meeting. The issue will be technically j

resolved in DSER 3.8.5-10 (OITS# 768).

3255 Closed The staff reviewed the design calculations in the Decem-ber 1996 meeting. The issue of soil variability will be j

technically resolved in DSER 3.8.5-11 (OITS# 769).

2 3256 Closed This item is administrative 1y resolved. This item will be technically resolved in DSER 3.8.5-9 (OITS# 767).

3375 Closed The staff reviewed the design calculations in December 1996 meeting.

+

DRAFT SSAR CHANGES DECEMBER,1996

)

i v

+,,,..

._,~.m

...w._,.~.,-+s.r.m.m.y..=m m my,,.mm

.,,.m.m_,,.m_,wm_.-a....-m_,.-,._w,,,._u__,uum.-saum.....m....a.-

m u I

i

( )..

- J

^

l

~

. j i

l i

d.-

J d

4 i

1

.4-l i

I I

1 i

i 4'

J d

4 4

4 e

e a

a d

e i

4 l

1 J

1 l

i l

i I

i I

i i

1 l

1 i

i 1

I

2. Site Chcracteristics m-i l

Terzaghi and Peck (Reference 1), for both cohesive aIid cohesionless soils (both dry and saturated cases).

]

For cohesive soils, an estimate for undrained shear strength (S,, ) was made by using the j

relationship between low strain shear modulus (G ) and undrained shear strengths. The 1

shear modulus was obtained from the shear wave velocity profiles at a depth of approximately 90 feet. This corresponds to a depth of D+B/2 (Depth. D = 40 feet; Width, B = 104 feet, average) which accounts for the zone of influence under the nuclear island basemat. The water table has been shown to have no effect on the bearing capacity of mats on cohesive 1

soils. For cohesionless soils, relative density and friction angle were calculated from their relationships with shear wave velocity and low strain shear modulus. Location of the ground water table significantly influences the bearing strength of cohesionless soils in determining the bearing strengths, the ground water table was assumed to be at grade. For the rock profiles, the bearing strengths shown are based on the rock quality designation in accordance with Peck et al. (Reference 2.)

In general, higher beanng capacities are associated with more competent soil profiles. ' For selected soft soil profiles in cohesive soils, soil improvement techniques may be employed to improve the bearing strength. The bearing capacities provided in Table 2 2 ase preliminary estimates for static loading conditions only. The Combined License applicant will perform field and laboratory investigations to establish the material type and the associated strength parameters in order to determine the site-specific bearing capacity value.

Generally, once the static bearing capacity at a given site is adequate, the dynamic bearing demand will also be satisfied. For soft sites, site-specific SSI analysis may provide a more reasonable dynamic bearing demand as compared to the enveloping bearing demand.

2.5.4.3 Settlement Total clastic settlements of the nuclear island foundation have been estimated for the design soil cases and are presented in Table 2-3. The displaccinents are for both cohesive and cohesionless soil cases. The lumped representation of the stmeture-foundation interaction model was employed to estimate the vertical spring constants. Settlement has been estimated on pressure demand of 8,000 pounds per square foot at the center of the foundation. The depth of excavation was accounted for by deducting the removed overburden stress from the i

pressure demand. Since the nuclear island is embedded forty feet, the overburden stress is I

,4,600 pounds per square foot for material with a unit weight of i15 pounds per cubic foot.

I During construction, as the nuclear island basemat and concrete walls are constructed, the i

s ttlement will be negligible until the overburden stress is exceeded. Thereafter, settlement I

will increase until the settlements shown in Table 2-3 are reached for the completed structure.

s

() l' M The results presented in Table 2-3 are the overall immediate (clastic) settlements and are for

'f bf q l preliminary estimates only. Field and laboratory investigations will be performed on a site-ghek, ~ specific basis to establish the compressibility characteristics of t long-term consolidation and secondary settlements.

For the basemat on highly overconsolidated clay, the clastic settlements will constitute a significant ponion of the total hd\\ N N-

.. $4.we, Resision: Drall T Westinghouse 29 Decemher,1996

2_

2. Site Characteristics settlements. The largest predicted settlement of 1.3 inches assumes very compressible ground conditions. For such ground conditions, soil improvement techniques may be employed to improve the foundation conditions. Settlements for the other soil conditions are less than 0.75 inches.

Heave characteristics of soils are highly dependent on local ground conditions. An estimate of heave has been made using empirical relationships. Actual heave for specific ground conditions may vary. The nuclear island is embedded 40 feet below grade. There may be expansion and/or lateral flow into the excavated base with a rise in the base elevation, especially in the lower bound and soft soil profile cases. This phenomenon, termed as heave.

occurs as a result of loss in confining pressure and associated expansion. An approximate estimate of heave at the center and comer of the excavation is presented in Table 2-3. The calculation was based on the elastic theory cited in Harr (Reference 3). Some of the heave will eventually recover when the basemat pressures are in place. Heave may also occur if the excavation is in sand or rock, but the amounts are expected to be negligible.

The AP600 does not rely on structures, systems, or components located outside the nuclear island to provide safety-related functions. Differential settlement octween the nuclear island foundation and the foundations of adjacent buildings does not have an adverse effect on the safety-related functions of)tructures, systerns, and components. Differential settlement under the nuclear island foundation could cause the basemat and buildings to tilt. Much of this settlement occurs dunng civil constmetion prior to final installation of the equipment.

Differential settlement of a few inches across the width of the nuclear island would not have an adverse effect on the safety related functions of stmetures, systems, and components.

2.5.4.4 Liquefaction The potential for liquefaction was evaluated for the soft soil and the soft-to-mpdium parabolic soil pmnies. In this evaluation, the pmfiles were assumed to be of clean sand deposits with the water table at ground level. The cyclic shear stresses generated by the safe shutdown canhquake were evaluated against the cyclic shear strengths calculated in accordance with Seed's liquefaction chan (Reference 4). These strengths were estimated using nonnalized i

blow count values representative of the shear wave velocities. The evaluation indicated that the soft profile with clean sand deposits may be susceptible to liquefaction under the generic safe shutdown earthquake. However, other factors, such as the age of the deposit or the silt and clay content, can significantly increase the resistance to liquefaction. Such sites would j

require detailed site-specific investigation. The soft-to-medium parabolic soil pmfile and any firmer soil profiles are not susceptible to liquefaction.

2.5.4.5 Combined License Information Combined License applicants referencing the AP600 design will address the following site specilic information related to the geotechnical engineering aspects of the site. No funher action is required for sites within the bounds of the site interface criteria.

Itevision: Draft.wnu.w mm.

n December,1996 2 10 T Westilighouse I

2. Site Cicracteristics 1

i 2.5.4.5.1 Site and Structures - Site-specific information regarding the underlying site conditions and geologic features will be addressed. This infom:ation will include site topographical features, as well as the locations of seismic Category I structures.

2.5A.S.2 Properties of Underlying Materials - A determination of the static and dynamic engineering propenies of foundation soils and rocks in the site area will be addressed.

This information will include a discussion of the type, quantity, extent, and purpose of field explorations, as well as logs of borings and test pits. Results of field plate load tests.

field permeability tests, and other special field tests (e.g., bore-hole extensometer or pressuremeter tests) will also be provided. Results of geophysical surveys will be presented in tables and profiles. Data will be provided pertaining to site-specific soil layers (including their thicknesses, densities, moduli, and Poisson's ratios) between the basemat and the underlying mck stratum. Plot plans and pmfiles of site explorations will be provided Laboratory investigations of Underlying Materials - Information about the number and type of laboratory tests and the location of samples used to investigate underlying materials will be provided. Discussion of the results of laboratory tests on disturbed and undisturbed soil and rock samples obtained fmm field investigations will be pmvided.

I Key considerations with respect to the materials underlying the nuclear island are to I

define the type of site, such as rock or soil, and to determine whether the site can be considered uniform; or, if the site is nonuniform, to define the nonuniform soil I

characteristics such as the location and profiles of soft and hard spots. These key I

considerations can be assessed with the information developed in response to Regulatory l

Guides 1.132 and 1.138, with the possible exception of the number and spacing of I

borings.

I l

Appendix C to Regulatory Guide 1.132 provides guidance on the spacing and depth of I

borings for safety-related structures. Specific language sugges'ts a spacing of 100 feet I

supplemented with borings on the periphery and at the comers. Because the subsurface I

uniformity is a standard plant design interface, funher guidance on the spacing is provided I

herein. For foundation engineering purposes, a series of borings should be drilled on a I

grid pattem that encompasses the nuclear island footprint and a feet beyond the I

boundaries of the footprint. The grid need not be of equal spacing in the two onhogonal i

directions, but it should be oriented in accordance with the true dip and strike of the rock I

in the immediate area of the nuclear island footprint. If geologic conditions are such that I

true dip and strike are not obvious, or if the dip is practically flat, then the orientation of I

the grid can be consistent with the major onhogonal lines of the nuclear island.

I I

The spacing of the horings on the grid should be on the order of 50 to 60 feet. For I

example, an acceptable grid could have 5 borings in the shon direction and 7 borings in I

the long direction, resulting in 35 borings to cover the footprint and 40 feet beyond. This I

pattem would also satisfy Regulatory Guide 1.132. Consistent with Regulatory Guide I

l.132, at least one-founh of the primary borings should penetrate sound rock or to a depth I

of d Others may terminate at a depth below the foundation equal to the width of the o.

.. w e m m u e Resision: Draft 3 W8Stiligh0Use 2 11 December,1996

4

2. Site Characteristics I

structure. Fewer borings may be appropriate for a relatively uniform site, such as a flat-I lying sedimentary rock site. whereas more borings might be appropriate for a nonuniform I

site.

1 The AP600 is designed for application at a site where the foundation conditions do not I

have extreme variation within the footprint of the plant. The Combined License applicant I

shall demonstrate that the foundation subgrade modulus is within the range considered for i

design of the nuclear island basemat or a site specific analysis shall be performed. The i

variation of shear wave velocity in the foundation material to a depth of 80 feet below the I

hasemat within the footprint of the plant shall meet the following criteria:

I l

For a rock site or for bedrock below soil layers, defined by an average shear wave i

velocity greater than or equal to 2500 feet per second, the shear wave velocity at I

any location within any horizontal (that is, a dip less than 20 degrees) equal-I thickness layer does not vary from the average velocity within the horizontal layer i

by more than 20 percent.

1 l

For a soil site, defined by an average shear wave velocity less than 2500 feet per I

second, the shear wave velocity within any nearly horizontal soil layer (i.e., a dip i

less than 20 degrees) does not vary from the average velocity within the I

horizontal plane by more than 10 percent.

I I

In the definition of sites meeting the interfxe. criteria, it is recognized that the subsurf:}ce I

may consist of layers and that these layers may dip with respect to the horizorital.

I Depending on the extent of the dip, the physical properties of the foundation medium may I

or may not vary systematically across a horizontal plane. If the dip is less than about 20 I

degrees, the generic analysis using horizontal layers is applicable as described in NUREG l

CR-0693 (Reference 28).

I l

A site with nonuniform soil propenies may be demonstrated to be acceptable by site-I specific analyses of the bearing pressures on the underside of a rigid rectangular basemat i

equivalent to the nuclear island. Bearing pressures are calculated for dead and safe l

shutdown canhquake loads. The safe shutdown earthquake loads are those from the AP600 design soil case representative of the site-specific soil. Altematively, the safe I

shutdown canhquake loads may be determined from a site-specific seismic analysis of the I

nuclear island. Bearing pressures from the site-specific analyses shall be less than or i

equal to 120 percent of the bearing pressures for a uniform soil spring case.

I i

For firm soils the assumption of a rigid basemat may be overly conservative because loc:d I

deformation of the basemat will reduce the effect of local soil variability. For such sites.

I a site-specific analysis may be performed using the AP600 basemat model and I

methodology described in SSAR subsectica 3.8.5. Attematively, bearing pressures may I

be detennined from a site-specific soil structure interaction analysis. Bearing pressures I

from the site-specific analyses shall be demonstrated to be less than the capacity of each portion of the basemat.

Hevision: firaft..w m+:e:*

llecember,1996 2 12

[ Westingt10US8

2. Site Characteristics interior walls. This increased pressure only occurs over one element, that is, a length of about 6 feet.

The relative lateral earth pressure results are used to adjust the two-dimensional seismic pressures (Section 2C.I.7) at the comers for the design of the exterior walls. The two-dimensional seismic lateral earth pressures are increased by the ratio of the pressure at he I

comer divided by the pressure at the adjacent interior wall. The adjustment factors are shown i

in Table 2C-7.

No adjustment is made to the lateral earth pressures due to the effect of the interior walls.

This is conseivative for the design of the exterior wall since the redistribution reduces the bending moments and shear forces in the wall which spans between the interior walls and the floor slabs.

2C.4

, References 1.

Bechtel Corporation. " User's and Theoretical Manual for Computer Program BSAP (CE800)," Revision 12. 1991.

l i

i l

l l

Revision: Draft..wme:rmiti:nm

{

December,1996

[ W85tlRgh0US8 2C-4

3. Site Characteristics Table 2C-5 SEISMIC LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES ADJUSTMENT FACTORS FOR BOX EFFECTS EXTERIOR WALLS BELOW GRAD 8 Adjusta.ent Factors for Box Effect Elevation Range (ft)

Parabolic Hard Rock Soft Rock 1.0 x Gmx Soft Soil 66.5 to 70.0 1.76 1.79 1.56 1.50 70.0 to 75.0 1.00 1.49 1.58 1.60 75.0 to 80.0 1.00 1.42 1.55 1.60 80.0 to 85.0 1.00

' l.23 1.52 1.65 85.0 to 90.0 1.00 1.19 1.44 1.54 90.0 to 95.0 1.00 1.22 1.45 1.59 95.0 to 100.0 1.00 1.07 1.27 1.30 E2!U These adjustment factors apply only for a distance of 6 feet from the exterior comers.

I e

S e

Revision: Draft

.,s-m we m uom December,1996 y West @use 2C-14

p C

'7 4

l Proposed SSAR Revisions j:

Revise subsection 3.7.2.8 as shown below 3.7.2.8 Interaction of Seismic Category II and Nonseismic Structures with Seismic Category i

I Structures, Systems or Components I

j j.

Nonseismic stmetures are evaluated to determine that their seismic response does not preclude the safety functions of seismic Category I structures, systems or components. This is j

accomplished by satisfying one of the following I

{

• - The collapse of the nonseismic stmeture will not cause the nonseismic structure to strike

. a seismic Category I structure, sy' tem or component.

s The collapse of the nonseismic structure will not impair the integrity of seismic Categoif j

I stmetures, systems or components.

i

~

The structure is classified as seismic Category II and is analyzed and designed to prevent i

hs collapse under the safe shutdown.canhquake.

1 The structures adjacent to the nuclear island are the annex building. the radwaste building, and i

the turbine building. The annex building is classified as seismic Category 11 and is designed i

to prevent its collapse under the safe shutdown canhquake. The minimum space required j

i between the annex building and the nuclear island to avoid contact is obtained by absolute summation of the deflections of each structure obtained from either a time history or a response spectrum analysis for each structure. The nunimum clearance between the structural elements of the annex building above grade and the nuclear island is 4 inches.

1 i

The radwaste building is classified as nonseismic and is designed to the seismic requ.irements l

4 of the Uniform Building Code. Zone 2A with an imponance Factor of 1.25. As shown in'the

' radwaste building general arrangement in Figure 1.2-22 it is a small steel framed building. If i

it were to impact the nuclear island or collapse in the safe shutdown canhquake, it would not.

impair the integrity of the reinforced concrete nuclear island. The minimum clearance between the structural elements of the radwaste building above grade and the nuclear island is 4 inches.

The tuttine building is classified as nonseismic. As shown on the turbine building general

{.

arrangement in Figures 1,2-23 through 1,2-30. the major structure of the rustine building is separated fnom the nuclearisland by approximately 18 feet. Floors between the tuihine building main structure and the nuclear island provide access to the nuclear island. The floor beams are supponed on the outside face of the nuclear island with a nominal horizontal clearance of 12 j

inches between the structural elements of the turbine building and the nuclear island. These i

beams'are of light ccmstruction such that they will collapse if the differential deflection of the i

two buildings exceeds the clearance and will not jeopardize the two foot thick walls of the nuclear island. The roof in this area rests on the roof of the nuclear island and could slide relative to the nmf of the nuclear island in a large earthquake. The seismic design is upgraded from Zone 2 A. Imponance Factor of 1.25. to Zone 3 with an imponance Factor of 1.0 in order to provide margin against collapse during the safe shutdown canhquake. The turbine building is a concentrically X - braced steel frame structure designed to meet the following criteria:

The turbine building is designed in accordance with ACI 318 fiir concrete structures and with AISC for steel structures. Seismic loads are defined in accordance with the 1991

.Uniliimi Building Code provisions for Zone 3 with an Imponance Factor of 1.0. For a 1

- = - _..

8 i

concentrically X - braced structure the resistance modification factor is 8 (UBC-91, reference 1) using allowable stress design. When using allowable stress design, the allowable stresses are not increased by one third for seismic loads. The resistante modificatiorr factor is reduced to 5 for load and resistance factor design (ASCE 7-93, reference 35).

The nominal horizontal clearance between the stmetural elements of the turbine building above grade and the nuclear island and annex building is 12 inches.

S:::'.:=::=! '=:ing te=:::!^=r. := d::!g::d i$ : ff !:= :* eng : der:!cp : r !!:

y!:!d :- "M %=ri g Sfc= $: ec=::&- f:!!:. The design of the lateral bracing system complies with the seismic requirements for concentrically braced frames given in section l

9.3 of the AISC Seismic Pmvisions for Structural Steel Buildings. (reference 34). Quality l

assurance is in accordance with ASCE 7-93 (reference 35) for the lateral bracing system l

using the quality assurance plan for seismic Category 11 structures (see subsection 3.2.1.1.2).

1*

Add in references:

34. " Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings," American Institute of Steel Construction.

June 1992.

35. " Minimum Design 1. cads for Buildings and Other Structures." American Society of Civil Engineers, ASCE 7-93.

l l

.+

1 l

l l

r

.I l

i b

l

APMX) DSER Ol# 3.8.2.4-3 Based on the staff's review expoience of other nuclear power plants, local high stres.ses may occur in the vicinity of the concentrated masses such as the equipment hatches and persormel airlocks.

Westinghouse was requested to demonstrate that calculated stresses in the vicinity of the concentrated masses such as equipment hatches and personnel airlocks based on an equivalent static analysis bound the local stresses computed by the dynamic analysis. This was open item 3.8.2.4-3. In the August 3n through 31.1995 review meeting. Westinghouse stated that detailed analyses and design of the contaitunent vessel in vicinity of concentrated masses are beyond the scope of the APNW1 standard design. However. Westinghouse agreed to expand SSAR Section 3.8.2.4.1.2 to include:

1.

A detailed description of methods to be used for the dynamic analysis of local masses 2.

The approach for analyzing the local buckling potential of the contairunent shell adjacent to major penetrations.

3.

The stress redistnbution criteria to be applied for the shell adjacent to the local masses, and 4.

Methods for evaluating the compressive strength of the containment shell in the vicinity of major penetrations.

Response

s Revise SSAR subsection 3.8.2.4.1.2 as shown below.

3.8.2.4.1.2 Local Analyses The penetrations ana penetration reinforcements are designed in accordance with the rules of ASME Ill. Subsection NE. The design of the large penetrations for the two equipment hatches and the two airlocks use the results of finite element analyses which consider the effect of the penetration and its dynamic response as follows:

1.

The upper airlock and equipment batch penetrations are modeled in individual finite element models. The lower airlock and equipment hatch are modeled in a combined tinue element model (Figure 3.7.2-8) including the boundary conditions representing the embedment.

2.

Surface loads are applied for pressure and inenia loads on the shell included in the model.

Loads corresponding to the stresses in the unpenetrated vessel at the location of the penetration. obtained from the axisymmetric analyses described in the prevjous subsection, are i

applied as boundary conditions for the local finite element models.

3.

The out-of-plane stiffness of the containment vessel is detennined for unit radial loads and moments at the location of the penetration. The frequency of the local radial and rotational i

modes are calculated using single degree of freedom models with mass and rotationti inenias of the penetration. Seismic response accelerations for the radial and rotational modes ac determined from the applicable floor resportse spectra for the containment vessel. Equivalent static radial loads and moments are calculated from these seismic response acceleratioits 4.

Radial loads and moments due to the h> cal seismic response and due to extemal loads on the penetration are applied statically at the location of the penetration. These loads are applied individually corresponding to the three directioits of input (radial, tangential and venical). The three directions of seismic input are combined by the square root sum of the squares method j

or by the IIMPA. 40'%. 40'A method as described in subsection 3.7.2.

9 W

lo 5.

Stresses due to local loads on the penetration (step 4) are combined with those from the global vessel analyses (step 2). Stresses are evaluated against the stress intensity criteria of ASME Section III. Subsection NE. Stability is evaluated against ASME Code Case N-284. Revision 1.

The 16 foot diameter equipment hatch located at elevation 112' 6" and the personnel airlock located

(

at elevation litf 6" are in close proximity to each other and to the concrete embedment. Design of these penetrations uses the finite element model shown in Figure 3.8.2 7. The procedure is similar to that described above for individual penetrations. Loads due to the local seismic responses of the two penetrations are combined by the square root of the sum of the squares.

j Finite element analyses are performed to confinn that the design of the penetration in accordance with the ASME code provides adequate margin against buckling. A finite element ANSYS m(xlel, as shown in Figure 3.8.2-7, represents the ponion of the vessel close to the embedment with the lower equipment hatch and personnel airlock. This is analyzed for external pressure and axial loads and demonstrates that the penetration reinforcement is sufficient and precludes buckling close to the penetrations. The lowest buckling mode occurs in the shell away from the penetrations and embedment..

S t

l l

l

~

3. Design of Structures, Components, Equipment, and Systems The seismic Category I structures are reinforced concrete and structural module shear wall structures consisting of vertical shear / bearing walls and horizontal slabs supponed by structural steel framing. In-plane seismic forces are obtained from the response spectrum analysis of the three dimensional finite element fixed base models described in Table 3.7.2-14.

These results are modified to account for soil structure interaction and accidental torsion as described in subsection 3.7.2. Also evaluated and considered in the shear wall and floor slab design are out-of-plane bending and shear loads, such as live load, dead load, seismic, lateral earth pressure, hydrostatic, hydrodynamic, and wind pressure. These out-of-plane bending and shear loads are obtained from hand calculations. The exterior walls of the seismic Category I stiuctures below the grade are designed to resist the worst case lateral earth pressure loads (static ard dynamic), soil surcharge loads, and loads due to extemal flooding as described in Section 3.4. Appendix 2C describes the seismic analyses used to calculate the lateral earth I

pressures on the exterior walls below grade. The exterior walls are also designed for full l

passive earth pressure which is utilized in the sliding evaluation described in subsection 1

3.8.5.5.3. Figure 3.8.4-2 shows typical shear walls and the arrangement of the reinforcing steel. Figure 3.8.4-3 shows typical reinforcing for the slabs.

The shield building roof and the passive containment cooling water storage tank are analyzed using three-dimensional finite element models with the ANSYS and GTSTRUDL computer codes. Loads and load combinations are given in subsection 3.8.4.3 and include construction, dead live, thenna!, wind and seismic loads. Seismic loads are applied as equivalent static accelerations. The seismic response of the water in the tank is analyzed in a separate finite element response spectrum analysis with seismic input defined by the floor response spectrum.

The structural steel framing is used primarily to suppon the concrete slabs and roofs. Metal decking, supponed by the steel framing, is used as form work for the concrete slabs and niofs.

The structural. steel framing is designed for vertical loads. Figure 3.8.4-4 shows typical structural steel framing in the auxiliary building.

Computer codes used are general purpose computer codes. The code development, verificatien, validation, configumtion control, and error reponing and resolution are according to the quality assurance requirements of Chapter 17.

The finned floors for the main control room and the instrumentation and control room ceilings are designed as reinforced concrete slabs in accordance with ACI-349. The steel panels are designed and constructed in accordance with AISC-N690. For positive bending. the steel plate is in tension and the steel plate with fin stiffeners serves as the bottom reinforcement. For l

negative bending, compression is resisted by the stiffened plate and tension by top reinforcement in the concrete.

l 3.M.4.4.2 Seismic Category 1 Cable Tray Supports i

The design and analysis procedures for seismic Category I cable trays and their suppons are described in Appendix 3F.

I Revision: Draft..wwnwa wai:"*

l December.1996 3.g-48 W Westirighouse

12.

3. Desig2 of Struct:res, Compone:ts, Eq ipmert, end Systems 3.8.4.4.3 Seismic Category I Ileating, Ventilating, and Air Conditioning Duct Supports The design and analysis procedures for seismic Category I heating, ventilating, and air conditioning ducts and their supports are described in Appendix 3A.

3.H.4.5 Structural Criteria The analysis and design of concrete conform to ACI-349. The analysis and design of structural steel conform to AISC-N690. The analysis and design of cold-formed steel structures conform to AISI. The margins of structural safety are as specified by those codes.

.3.8.4.5.1 Supplemental Requirements for Concrete Structures Supplemental requirements for ACI 349 are given in the position on Regu!arory Guide 1.142 in Appendix 1 A. Design of fastening to concrete is in accordance with ACI 349-90. Appendix B with supplementary criteria based on references 46,47, and 48. Reference 46 provides background material and a recommended design approach for consideration in the ACI building code. References 47 and 48 evaluate the test data against various anchor bolt design approaches. These references are being considered by the code co'nmittee responsible for ACI 349. Pending revision to Appendix B. the AP600 criteria include the following considerations:

The 45 degree cone assumption used in the Appendix B approach is eliminated.

The basic single anchor capacities for tension and shear are calculated by empirical formulae based on test data.

Edge effects consider the effect of edges within a distance of one and a half times the embedment depth. Edge distances are sufficient to prevent lateral bursting.

Group effects consider the effect of adjacent anchors within a distance of three times the embedment depth.

S engib reduc:P fe.c:c= =d be ::::! ::reng$ a= sp c! Sed =2 ma: S: s:: ! y!:!ds I

pric: :c ce==:: f.!!c=. Anchors are designed wherever possible with sufficent depth I

of embedment and cover such that the steel anchor yields prior to failure of the I

concirte.

The effect of concrete cracking is considered for fasteners located within the tensile zone of supporting concrete.

1 3.M.4.5.42 Supplemental Requirements for Steel Structures Supplemental requirements for use of AISC-N690 are as follows:

,,- www.u*

Revision: Draft

[ Westirigt10US8 3.8-49 December,1996

l3

3. Design of Structures, Components, Equipment, and Systems 3.8.5 Foundations 3.8.5.1 Description of the Foundations The nuclear island structures, consisting of the containment building, shield building, and auxiliary building are founded on a common 6 foot-thick, cast-in-place, reinforced concrete basemat foundation. The top of the foundation is at elevation 66'-6".

Adjoining buildings, such as the radwaste building, turbine building, and annex building are structurally separated from the nuclear island structures by a 2-inch gap at and below the grade. A 4-inch minimum gap is provided above grade. This pmvides space to prevent interaction between the nuclear island structures and the adjacent structures during a seismic event. Figure 3.8.5-1 shows the foundations for the nuclear island structures and the adjoining structures.

Resistance to sliding of the concrete basemat foundation is pmvided by passive soil pressure and soil friction. This provides the required factor of safety against lateral movement under the most stringent loading conditions.

For case of construction, the foundation is built on a mud mat. The mud mat is lean, nonstructural concrete and rests upon the load-bearing soil. Waterpmofing requirements are described in subsection 3.4.1.1.1.

3.8.5.2 Applicable Codes, Standards, an.1 Specifications The applicable codes, standards, and specifications are described in subsection 3.8.4.2.

3.8.5.3 Loads and Load Combinations Loads and load combinations are described in subsection 3.8.4.3. As described in subsection 3.8.2.1.2. the bottom head of the steel containment vessel is the same as the upper head and is capable of resisting the containment intemal pressure without benefit of the nuclear island basemat. However, containment pressure loads affect the nuclear island basemat since the concrete is stiffer than the steel head. The containment design pressure is included in the design of the nuclear island basemat as an accident pressure in load combinations 5. 6, and 7 of Table 3.8.4-2. In addition to the load combinations described in subsection 3.8.4.3, the nuclear island is checked for resistance against sliding and overtuming due to the safe shutdown earthquake, winds and tomados, and against flotation due to floods and groundwater

. according to the load combinations pmsented in Table 3.8.5-1.

3.8.5.4 Design and Analysis Procedures The seismic Category I structures are concrete, shear-wall structures consisting of venical shear / hearing walls and horizontal lloor slabs. The walls carry the vertical loads from the structure to the basemat. Lateral loads are transferred to the walls by the mof and floor slabs.

.. we = munw,.

Revision: Oraft

{ West lngtlouse 3.8 1 December,1996

lit

3. Design of Structures. Components, Equipment, and Systems 4

i The walls then transmit the loads to the basemat. The walls also provide stiffness to the j

basemat and distribute the foundation loads between them.

The design of the basemat consists primarily of applying the design loads to the stmetures.

calculating shears and moments in the basemat, and determining the required reinforcement.

3.8.5.4.1 Three-Dimensional Finite Element Analyses The basemat is represented by a three-dimensional finite element model with the computer I

program ANSYS (Reference 21). The model considers the interaction of the basemat with the overlying structures and with the soil. Provisions are made in the model for two possible uplifts. One is the uplift of the containment internal structures from the lower basemat. The other is the uplift of the basemat from the soil.

The three-dimensional finite element model of the basemat extends to elevation 100' for the auxiliary building and to elevation 236'-0" for the shield building. The basemat. walls and slabs are simulated by shell-type elements. The vertical stiffness of the soil is represented by the subgrade modulus incorporated directly in the finite element used to represent the l

foundation slab. The horizontal stiffness is represented by horizontal springs attached to some of the nodes on the foundation. The horizontal springs are uniformly distributed. Horizontal bearing reactions on the side wa!!s below grade are conservatively neglected.

The contairunent intemal stmetures are simulated with tetrahedral elements and are connected to the basemat with spring elements normal to the theoretical surface of the containment vessel. Figure 3.8.5 2 shows some representative features of the model.

Normal and extreme environmental loads and containment pressure loads are considered in the analysis. The normal loads include dead loads and live loads. Extremq environmental loads include the safe shutdown earthquake. Safe shutdown earthquake loads for the soft rock case in combination with the propenies of soft to-medium soil, are used in t'he analysis since the soft rock case produces higher applied seismic forces to the structure than the soft-to-medium soil case. Hence, the approach is conservative.

The dead and live loads above elevation 100'-0" are applied as concentrated loads on the nodes of the supporting walls and as distributed loads on the top edge of the supponing walls.

j Below elevation 100'-0" the dead and live loads are applied as inenia forces and uniformly distributed loads. Safe shutdown canhquake loads are applied as static concentrated loads to j

the nodes at elevation 100'-0". An equivalent static acceleration is applied to the model below i

elevation 100'-0".

1 The safe shutdown earthquake loads are applied using the assumption that while maximum response from one direction occurs. the responses from the other two directions are 40 percent of the maximum. Combinations of the three directions of the safe shutdown earthquake are considered.

Revision: Draft..%wsa x"' idu December,1996 3.K-2

[ W85tingh0US0

IT

3. Desig2 of Structures, Components, Equipment, and Systems The analysis is an iterative process, since basemat lift-off occurs in 40 out of the 48 load combination cases evaluated. The soil clastic foundation stiffness capability included in the basemat elements is designed to support both tension and compression loads. Based on the results from each load combination, in the next iteration the tension capability is removed for those springs that are in tension. Similarly, the springs connecting the intemal structures with the basemat showing tension are deleted for the next iteration. This iterative process is continued until there are no more reactions or springs in tension.

The iterative process is performed for the most critical 12 load combination cases. These load cases are selected based on the results from linear analysis. The results from the analysis include forces, shears, and moments in the basemat, bearing pressures under the basemat, and the area of the basemat that is uplifted. Reinforcing steel areas are calculated from the member forces for each load combination case.

The required reinforcing steel under the shield building is determined by considering both the

' reinforcement envelope for the first iteration of the 48 load combination cases and the reinforcement envelope for the full iteration of the most unfavorable 12 load combination cases.

The required reinforcing steel for the ponion of the basemat under the auxiliary building is calculated from shears and bending moments in the slab obtained from separate calculations.

Beam strip models of the slab segments are loaded with the bearing pressures under the basemat from the three-dimensional finite element analyses.

Figure 3.8.5-3 shows the basemat reinforcement.

3.8.5.4.2 Parametric Analyses A series of parametric analyses are performed to confirm the assumptions and results of the three-dimensional finite element analysis used as the design basis for the nuclear island basemat as described in the previous subsection.

Bearing reactions from the three-dimensional finite element analyses are compared with reactions calculated assuming a rigid basemat on soil springs with and without lift-off.

Seismic time histories of the member forces at the base of the nuclear island stick models are reviewed. Member forces in the basemat are largest when assuming that the loads on the three sticks are in-phase.

The three-dimensional finite element model has a subgrade modulus (520 kips per cubic foot) corresponding to a soft-to-medium soil. A parametric study was perfonned that indicated soft-to-medium soil resulted in higher shears and bending moments in the basemat than stiffer soils or rock.

The three-dimensional finite element model uses a uniform soil stiffness (520 kips per cubic foot) over the entire nuclear island foundation. Parametric studies were perfonned

.. w m m mo unv.i:o w Revision: Draft

[ W85tirigh0USB 3.x-3 December,1996

M

3. Design of Structures, Components, Equipment, and Sptems using a simplified model for two other soil stiffness variations. One variation considered the subgrade modulus equal to 1200 kips per cubic foot at the edges and varied linearly to 400 kips per cubic foot at the center. The other global variation considered 400 kips per cubic foot at the edges and varied linearly to 1200 kips per cubic foot at the center. Neither of these cases resulted in higher shear or bending moments than those from the unifonn stiffness of soft-to-medium soil.

Local variation of soil stiffness is considered. A buried rock pinnacle was considered at a soft-to-medium soil site and the increase in reactive soil pressure was estimated using linear elastic models. The analysis indicated that the increase in soil pressure was less than 15 percent for 15 feet of cover and less than 5 percent with 20 feet.

I Variation of soil stiffness across the foundation is included in the design of the basemat i

by providing additional reinforcement above that required by the finite element I

analyses. The variability of the soil is limited by the interface conditions defined in I

subsection 2.5.4.5.2.

The construction sequsnce is evaluated in the design of the nuclear island basemat. In the basemat construction sequence, concrete is placed in sections. Construction continues with a portion of the shield building foundation and interior concrete structure completed before the walls of the auxiliary building are completed. The critical location for shear and moment in the basemat is around the perimeter of the shield building.

l These loads are included in the foundation design. Once the auxiliary building walls I

are completed, the load path changes and loads are resisted by the total structure as I

calculated in the basemat analyses. Locked-in stresses during construction become I

secondary after completion n'

• Auxiliary building walls. They do not reduce the I

strength pf the section and are not included in the design load combinations for the I

complete structure.

The three-dimensional firu.e element model uses a shell' element and constraint equations to represent ponions of the basemat up to 22 feet thick. A comparison was made of the results of a similar model against the results of a more detailed axisymmetric model.

Results of the three-dimensional finite element seismic analyses are compared against those of an axisymmetric model of the ponion of the nuclear island basemat below the shield building and containment vessel. This axisymmetric model was also used to investigate the effects of containment pressure.

3.8.5.5 Structural Criteria The analysis and design of the foundation for the nuclear island structures are according to ACI 349 with margins of stmetural safety as specified within it. The limiting conditions for the foundation medium, together with a comparison of actual capacity and estimated structure loads, are described in Section 2.5. The minimum required factors of safety against sliding.

overturning, and flotation for the nuclear island stmetures are given in Table 3.8.5-1.

Revision: Draft..wnwan kci>w December,1996 3.x.4 W Westinghouse

l1

3. Design of Structures, Components Equipment, and Systems i

3.8.5.5.1 Nuclear Island Maximum Hearing Pressures The bearing pressures under the basemat are obtained in the analysis desenbed in subsection 3.8.5.4. The maximum bearing stress due to the dead load alone is 1I kips per square foot. The maximum bearing stress due to the dead load, live load, and safe shutdown canhquake is 33.6 kips per square foot. As stated in subsection 3.8.5.4, the horizontal bearing rextions on the side walls below grade have been conservatively neglected. Analysis where the horizontal bearing reactions on the side walls are considered would result in lower bearing stresses, especially due to the combination of dead load, live load, and safe shutdown earthquake. Furthermore, as noted in subsection 3.8.5.4, the results are conservatively based on soft rock case safe shutdowrrearthquake loads and soft-to-medium soil propenies. Since

~

the AP600 design is based on a range of soil conditions, the Combined License applicantis

)

responsible for the interface capability of the soil to support the applied foundation loads (see subsection 2.5.4.5.7).

3.8.5.5.2 Flotation l

The factor of safety against flotation of the nuclear island is shown in Table 3.8.5-2 and is

~

calculated as follows:

i l

F.S.

=

D l

(F or B) where:

F.S. = factor of safety against flotation fre-design 'ri: Good I

WD = total weight of stmetures and foundation F

= buoyant force due to the design basis flood I

B

= buoyant force due to high ground water table I.

He fr:e e :afe:y agains: a :::i~' '~ :he n=!er :s!a.d !~ '.2.

^ < ^ev- " Tab'e '

• 5 !,

r n

h; -:""nt.T required fr:e e v4::y agains: "c:::!^ : ' '

r 3.8.5.5.3 Sliding The factor of safety against sliding of the nuclear island during a tomado or a design wind I

is shown in Table 3.8.5-2 and is calculated as follows:

)

l Es+F P

F.S. =

Fg l

where:

I F.S. =

factor of safety against sliding from tomado or design wind l

.. w,mm.. ant. i:mw.

Revision: Draft i

[ W85tingh00S8 3.8 5 December 1996 i

3. Design of Structures, Components, Equipmerrt, and Systems Fg maximum lateral force due to active soil pressure, including surcharge, and

=

tomado or design wind load The factor of safety against sliding of the nuclear island dunng a safe shutdown eanhquake I

is shown in TaNe 3.8.5-2 and is calculated as follows:

p, s, F, + F, Fn+Fg where:

F.S.

factor of safety against sliding from a safe shutdown eanhquake

=

Es shearing or sliding resistance at bottom of basemat

=

Fe maximum soil passive pressure resistance, neglecting surcharge effect

=

Fn maximum dynamic lateral force, including dynamic active canh pressures

=

F maximum lateral force due to all loads except seismic loads

=

s l

The sliding resistance is based on the friction force developed between the basemat and the I

foundation using a coefficient of friction of 0.55. The effect of buoyancy due to the water i

table is included in calculating the sliding resistance.

3.8.5.5.4 Overturning The factor of safety against ovenuming of the nuclear island during a tomado or a design I

wind is shown in Table 3.8.5-2 and is calculated as follows:

F.S. -

My where:

F.S. = factor of safety against ovenuming from tomado or desi n wind F

Ma = resisting moment Mo = overturning moment of tomado or design wind The factor of safety against ovenuming of the nuclear island during a safe shutdown I

canhquake is shown in Table 3.8.5 2 and is evaluated using the static moment balance appmach assuming ovenuming about the edge of the nuclear island at the bottom of the basemat. The factor of safety is defined as follows:

F. S. = M" M;

Resision: Draft..wmmu not.i:"w December,1996 3.g.6 W Westingh00Se

19

3. Design of Structures, Components, Equipment, and Systems where:

F.S.

factor of safety against ovenuming from a safe shutdown eanhquake

=

M, nuclear island's resisting moment against ovenurning

=

h(

maximum safe shutdown canhquake induced ovenuming moment acting on the

=

nuclear island, applied as a static moment The resisting moment is equal to the nuclear island dead weight, minus maximum safe shutdown eanhquak.e venical force and buoyant force from ground water table. multiplied by the distance from the edge of the nuclear island to its center of gravity.

3.8.5.6 Materials, Quality Control, and Special Construction Techniques The materials and quality control program used in the construction of the nuclear island structures foundation are described in subsection 3.8.4.6.

There are no special construction techniques used in the construction of the nuclear is;and structures foundation.

3.8.5.7 In Sersice Testing and Inspection Requirements There are no in-service testing or inspection requirements for the nuclear island structures foundation.

The need for foundation settlement monitoring is site specific and is the responsibility of the Combined License appicant (see subsection 2.5.4.5.1!).

3.8.6 Combined License Information This section has no requirement for additional information to be provided'in support of the Combined License application.

~

.. ww w. un7-cosv,,

Revision: Draft

[ W85tingh0US8 3.g.7 December,1996

= :

10

3. Design of Structures, Components, Equipment, and Systems Table 3.8.5-1 MINIMUM REQUIRED FACTOR OF SAFETY FOR OVERTURNING AND SLIDING OF STRUCTURES Load Combination Overturning Sliding Flotation l

D+H+B+W l.5 1.5 l

D+H+B+E 1.1 1.1 3

l D+H+B+W 1.1 1.1 D+F 1.1 D+B

,1.5 where:

D

= dead load excluding the fluid loads H

= lateral eanh pressure W

= wind load Es

= safe shutdown earthquake load W

= tomado load t

F

= buoyant force due to the design basis flood B

buoyant force on submerged structure due to high ground water t:d>!:

=

0 i

I a

A Revision: Draft..wenva x, i: +,

n December,1996 3 g.g W Westinghouse

3. Design of Structures, Compo:erts, Equipment, and Systems a

Table 3.8.5-2 FACTORS OF SAFETY FOR FLOTATION, OVERTURNING AND SLIDING OF NUCLEAR ISLAND STRUCTURES Environmental Effect Factor of Safety Flo/tation High Ground Water Table 3.4 Design Basis Flood 3.2 Sliding Design Wind, North-South 12.5 Design Wind, East-West 9.5 Design Basis Tornado, North South 6.9 Design Basis Tornado, East-West 6.1 Safe Shutdown Earthquake, North-South 1.1 Safe Shutdown Earthquake East West 1.3 Overturning Design Wind North-South 62.4 Design Wind. East-West 24.8 Design Basis Tornado, North-South iM Design Basis Tornado. East. West 8.7 Safe Shutdowa Earthquake, North-South 2.0 Safe Shutdown Earthquake East West 1.2 Revision: Draft oww w>ianut i2ru*

December,1996 3.8-10

[ W65tlligh0US8

.m 12.

Es.

q m

f.

=

e 2

i g...j.._._____.__._._j_

l l

i

-t 9 --G i

I i

[

j s

i l

i i

i O

i i

I i

_,___.__________.___.__;..g ie l

5 l

m e

(3 y,_.

. L, j

i w

'.. P s I

y 1 y

.;. _. _ _ _ _ _ _ l _. _ g

\\

l f

g

.........l...-.....-...

..........a.-e A,:

'h 63 I

a a

i J

e.-

g l

s l

i

! g j

Y

'j r -i

~

• S 3

gp=-ay,

- &)

5 p.

q..._...

ejl4)

Alb

.1 p.....

l l

D I

i:

G) gy;==y, ---

I' 9

m" a

1 I

I Westinghouse Proprietary 5

2.3 1

i i

/

/

N s

/

s s

~'

N,

\\

j /

~

N N

/

p

\\

/

~~

s s

{

/

N

~_

Z

{

' <s/

N 4s y%. --- -)

/y' /

~~

e s

n

!{

N

/

/

s w

\\[

~ '

/ /

s m-N N

/ /

b ' s

<y' s

N ss

<-<'g %

. 1 s

u s

'N y

s

's s

s s

N 7 '-

s

--s 5;

%(

N

[

s

-s 3

N s s

-s N s g

s

~

s

' h

'hh Nuclear Island General Vi e w

{g,yg) 35

.2 Figure 7si ike+ 1.p 2.

Nuclear Island Finite Element Model - General View Draft, November 1996 ggg seio.s3m.eet au325..l.wpf.lbil25

• c0

WestLghouse Proprietary 24 3,

-,, h

-,:.h N c.CE iL

\\

Ni,

,L r

V

\\

\\

NN,l f

L 1 /

4

/

y_

j.

g4 t

i g

'"M I

/

s wwism o '

i 1

in!

l l

ll!;

llit 14 l,!!!

/

\\

/\\

}\\

Y?l} li )th-d 00 4 lj vx, u,, x,m i i y r'

A gj g g

it

\\

r!

,m r

1 I

r j,!,

N-MMOOM

.!\\

/

7 WN

\\/h/\\/\\/k/

i Il h\\ \\ /h (WL W, Nu c l e ar Is.

a n c.

- General Vi e w 3.s r. 2.

Figure W k r 1 4 2.

Nuclear Island Finite Element Model-Plan and Elevation Views Draft, November 1996 7 16 T Westinghouse 191643R 801 m\\3325w l.wpf:ltril25%

4

s

. z.e,..

/

,/

I

~-

)

l i

1 j

f

~,

a--

~--

~

1 l

\\

I l l

i N

l 1

\\

l ts.

l

\\

a

\\

"I wr "I

's Ui t

g' l

4 4.

I I

g l

/

/

l i

i ID l I

~

=

l I

I li l

BE w

=

I

1. g k

~

g 9- -

d m

ll I

I l

I

+

s I

M, I

y18

\\

l hCE

/

I i

j

1. 5a 1

z I

3

/

N T-

)

gI CE5

/

~

'd1

' #'. o f

W ll i

• l.l t

I

/

I me p

w; I

~

\\

c__

J_Lli

. /-__

.t m

f

=::--

/

l

?

i N

3 1 r. 3 W

a.

__. s sha l-I s). V E

~

{l Q

.. a i_ _ _

oj g'3

- ---[---

g E

1 l

y, I '^

REINFORCEENT NI BASEMAT TOP FACE FOR 6*-O". THICK SLAB AND y

v L

CENTER RE_910N !800N05 SHOuN ON DRAWINCLBELOW THE CONTAINMENT VESSEL W

,e-1 (t hit h M o t ore Pa t it um I

sii;rium os rap _

i t

1 3

I t =t s owinc sou=os tv

.,Pavie== ecto. vt g

CtDat A thedLMI vt Sst L -

6

_'o. 3_.... _.

e 3o -o-so -o-

/

'/p.

~.

j f

t t hi %**Delh6 80uh0% of Patttam

_ s ett De sun it lasti Sult Olesc

\\

\\

s I

\\

/

?

/

s

)

E I

it'-o-g I

i 1

i i

t

""o-

, 8__

I t

lLM i d.,/

l 5

i e

s e.

m e

s qmums I

\\

/

p a

I i

V

/

g f

\\

f E

m

't I

/

,I

/

g e s s

f

/

n a

T e

I i-s e

i s

l x

a y

0 3 g E

=

A q

=,

m e

i. i e

I 4

N a

i E

Y 5

ii.

G E!

~

• l fl

c..

-i

l%

o' 2:

C h,

3'I 3!

~

3 gI C O

w, 5

v

<<,0 m

2. -

2

2.;

e a

a r-W

{

c 5

. y ;;g e

w; el

-l.ajg 5

f ilu!,!

'T is.c

,z,,,

~

l o"3 o'

~

E35 s

ag tm w

og O

.. e

~ ~

.J.

glg 2

a l

(

g p

3:

3 '--

T-#

2 la.

s CD -

s sg S

N

$< U NN

\\

C

= 1.. I w.

\\\\

\\

/sa f

. 2

+

_ L.

s

\\\\

\\

Z.

oCEi

/

I M!

E5$IT

/

'o s

\\\\

g

'e l $ 't 1,

i g;

e

\\

\\\\

s g

.?

\\

\\\\

at I

\\

\\

wl i

j y

s gg, I

I s

\\

\\\\

\\

• 0.

I,

\\

g I

g 6!

I I

• st

+

\\

\\

h l

I; e

i I

g

,i a,

i we I

i m;

I I i

i

. <0 g

g

'I 4-I

\\

y f

I f

ID '

\\

'\\

\\

y i

II

,M g

\\

~>

\\

\\

\\

\\

l Z

N

/

/

/

ll

/

\\

\\

\\

's l

7

/

/

//

\\

\\

Mi N

/

2

\\

\\

'l~

/

Yl

_//

g f

\\

//

i s<

/

wi s

s U>

s g!

x w

~t_

ss gi

-s,

~ ~ _. -

s i

., ~

l We p

2j 3

s i

u.

1

>kV $ s f T

,) I

y REINFORCEMENT NI. BASEMAT BELOW SHIELD BUILDING (SECTIONI m y l'A I il RN llt L OW THE

{tJNIAINMLN1 VL S$1: t

1. 1 I t*0. IS - RAD (id h ni l tal. S* RAD f

54*-O" h Q

n11(#1.5-RAD C

=;

• W l

fw 46*-O" h f

T g

l 3g. -O" h I

I El 100 0"

• +--

r; i

• i i

I 31 * -O ~ @ _

j i

i i

l l

l I

30*

0" 7!

l I

/

i 82' C 2 3 * -O"/ h_

j l

I I

I I j

I

-11 o 6" hoop 11 0 12 -

I I

1 l

lI

-li c 6" crs.

j I

j

[

l l

[t 6b' 6" 110 6" hoop c

f

l..- r i

lw=110 12" hoop

• 14 @ 12 c f S NS.

• 14 @b"c r 5. I W est sWe sNe_M kW9

~ Wow on %

-14 e 6" crs both ways below shield bldg.

=

=

y-o-71' - O"

+

87-6"

I I

1 1

W W i ep y

y 1

N.I. BASEMAT - SHEAR REINFORCEMENT "t

1. 7 ties @ 24" North-south (d 24" East. West 1

i y.....,-UwY

' "' * ~

a i2

r" 1

Tl l l l

g 7 ties @ 24" North-South fyg

@ 24" Eass-West T

c\\

?lI#

\\~

1

[ c-

~

l r1 r

1. 7 tus @ 12" North-South

@ 24' East-West N

g

(

i AP6(X) DSER Ol# 3.8.2.4-3 Based on the staff's review experience of other nuclear power plants, local high stresses may occur in i

the vicinity of the concentrated masses such as the equipment hatches and personnel airlocks.

Westinghouse was requested to demonstrate that calculated stresses in the vicinity of the concentrated masses such as equipment hatches and personnel airlocks based on an equivalent static analysis bound the local stresses computed by the dynamic analysis. This was open item 3.8.2.4-3. In the August 30 l

through 31.1995 review meeting. Westinghouse stated that detailed analyses and design of the contairunent vessel in vicinity of concentrated masses are beyond the scope of the AP600 standard design. However, Westinghouse agreed to expand SSAR Section 3.8.2.4.1.2 to include:

t 1.

A detailed description of methods to be used for the dynamic analysis of local masses j

2.

The approach for analyzing the local buckling potential of the containment shell adjacent to j

major penetrations.

i 3.

The stress redistribution criteria to be applied for the shell adjacent to the local masses, and

)

4.

Methods for evaluating the compressive strength of the containment shell in the vicinity of major penetrations.

i

Response

i Revise SSAR subsection 3.8.2.4.1.2 as shown below.

3.8.2.4.1.2 Local Analyses The penetrations and penetration reinforcements are designed in accordance with the rules of ASME III. Subsection NE. The design of the large penetrations for the two equipment hatches and the two airlocks use the results of finite element analyses which consider the effect of the penetration and its dynamic response as follows:

1.

The upper airlock and equipment hatch penetrations are modeled in individual finite element models. The lower airlock and equipment hatch are modeled in a combined finite element model (Figure 3.7.2-8) including the boundary conditions representing the embedment.

2.

Surface loads are applied for pressure and inenia loads on the shell included in the model.

Loads corresponding to the stresses in the unpenetrated vessel at the location of the penetration, obtained from the axisymmetric analyses described in the previous subsection, are applied as boundary conditions for the local finite element models.

3.

The out-of-plane stiffness of the containment vessel is determined for unit radial loads and moments at the location of the penetration. The frequency of the local radial and rotational modes are calculated using single degree of freedom models with mass and rotational inertias of the penetration. Seismic response accelerations for the radial and rotational modes are determined from the applicable floor response spectra for the containment vessel. Equivalent static radial loads and moments are calculated from these seismic response accelerations 4.

Radial loads and moments :!ue to the local seismic response and due to external loads on the penetration are applied statically at the location of the penetration. These loads are applied individually contsponding to the three directions of input (radial, tangential and venical). The three directions of seismic input are combined by the square root sum of the squares method or by the 100%,40%,40% method as described in subsection 3.7.2.

l 5.

Stresses due to local loads on the penetration (step 4) are combined with those fmm the global vessel analyses (step 2). Stresses are evaluated against the stress intensity criteria of ASME t

Section 111. Subsection NE. Stability is evaluated against ASME Code Case N 284. Revision 1.

The 16 foot diameter equipment hatch located at elevation 112' 6" and the personnel airlock located at elevation 110' 6" are in close proximity to each other and to the concrete embedment. Design of these penetrations uses the finite element model shown in Figure 3.8.2-7. The procedure is similar to that described above for individu'il penetrations. Loads due to the local seismic responses of the two penetrations are combined by the square root of the sum of the squares.

I i

Finite element analyses are performed to confinn that the design of the penetration in accordance with i

the ASME code pmvides adequate margin against buckling. A finite element ANSYS model, as shown in Figure 3.8.2-7 represents the ponion of the vessel close to the embedment with the lower a

equipment hatch and personnel airlock. This is analyzed for external pressure and axial loads and demonstrates that the penetration reinforcement is sufficient and precludes buckling close to the j

+

penetrations. The lowest buckling mode occurs in the shell away from the penetrations and embedment.

i r

i i

l

DSER NRC letter dated July 15,1996 Revision 7 of SSAR Section 3.8.2.3 sununarizes the design loac' and load combinations considered in the design of the AP600 steel containment. In comparing the SSAR with the guide!!nes of Section 3.N.2 of the standard review plaa (SRP), the staff found that the load combinations documented in the SSAR are acceeptable. However, Westinghouse did not provide a justification,in Revision 7 of the SSAR, for not considering the other load combinations documented in the DSER in the design of the contaimnent vessel.

NRC letter dated April 5,1996 3.8.2.3-1 Loads and Load Combinations in Table 3.8.2-1 of the SSAR, Westinghouse summarizes the design loads, load combinations and the ASME service limits.for the containment vessel design. Based on the guidelines of Section 3.8.2 of the SRP and the load combinations recommended in Section 3.8.2.II.3.b of the SRP, the load combinations listed in Table 3.8.2-1 of early SSAR amendments for the containment vessel design are acceptable, except the following issues need to be resolved by Westinghouse:

(1)

For the load combination coiscspending to design conditions, the design extemal pressure was not included.

(2)

For Level A Service Limits:

The load case of multiple safety relief valve (SRV) actuation was not considered.

l The extemal pressure was not included in the LOCA (loss of coolant accident) case.

r The multiple SRV loads with a small intennediate pipe break accident case was not considered.

For the load combination indicated in the second to last column of Table 3.8.2-1 of the l

SSAR, the extemal pressure of 2.5 psi is combined with "To" and "Ro."

l Westinghouse should clarify whether the 2.5 psi extemal pressure is in combination l

with the nonnal operating plant condition or LOCA accident condition.

(3)

The load combinations for Level B Service Limits were not considered in the design.

(4)

For Level C Service Limits-The extemal pressure was not considered in the case of a LOCA in combination with the SSE.

For the case of an operating plant condition in combination with the SSE, it is not clear that operating pressure associated with To and Ro were considered.

The load combination related to multiple SRV actuation, in combination with a small or intennediate pipe t.mak accident and SSE, was not considered.

I f

l For the load combination indicated in the last column of Table 3.8.21 of the SSAR.

the extemal pressure of 3.0 psi is combined with "To" and "Ro."

Westinghouse should clarify if this was in combination with load combinations (iii)(c)(1) or (iii)(c)(2)

)

l of Section 3.8.2.11 of the SRP.

(5)

For Level D Service Limits:

)

' The extemal pressure was not considered for the case of a LOCA in combination with the SSE and local dynamic loadings.

The load combination related to multiple SRV actuation in combination with a small or intermediate pipe break accident and SSE and local dynamic loadings was not considered.

Mesponse l

i A response is given for each of the above items, and subitems. below. The design load combinations l

i have been included in the SSAR. Justification for loads and load combinations that are not applicable to the AP600 does not belong in the SSAR but is provided in this response. These include:

l there are no loads on the contailunent vessel due to actuation of the safety relief valves the event leading to extemal pressure is independent from other accidents. The loading is i

e conservatively taken concu Tent with SSE as requested by NRC staff.

l l

l (1)

De design extemal pressure has been included in the design condition load combination in f

Table 3.8.2-1 of the SSAR.

(2)

Level A Service Limits (a)

Multiple safety relief valve discharge is not a load case for a PWR containment vessel.

i The AP600 includes an automatic depressurization system (ADS) which dische;3;es into the in-containment refueling water storage tank (IRWST). T'e IRWST L M independent structure that is not part of the containment vessel, and transient load conditions associated with the ADS do not apply load to the containment vessel.

.l l

(b)

Extemal pressure results from an independent event from the LOCA. Therefore, j

extemal pressure is not included with the LOCA case. A positive extemal pressure j

would reduce the pressure difference across the vessel. The negative extemal pressure associated with the tomado is not postulated concurrent with the LOCA in accordarx e

. with Reg. Guide 1.117. See also (2)(d) below.

(c)

Multiple safety relief valve discharge is not a load case for a PWR plant. See (2)(a) above. A small or intennediate pipe break alone is bounded by the large LOCA.

{

i l

(d)

The extemal pressure case occurs in combination with a normal operating plant condition as defined by the To and Ro loads. The extemal pressure results from a loss of containment heating in extremely cold weather. This is described in SSAR j

section 6.2.1.1.2.

It is a separate event from the LOCA.

i i

i

(3)

Level B Service Limits For the AP(dX) nuclear plant th. are no. load combinations to be evaluated against Level B -

Service limits.

(4)

Level C Limits (a)

Consistent with (2)(b) above, external pressure is not included with the LOCA case.

Extemal pressure is combined with SSE.

(b)

Operating pressure associated with To and Ro has been included with the SSE in the SSAR for the operating plant condition load combination given in Table 3.8.2-1.

(c)

Multiple safety relief valve discharge is not a load case for a PWR plant. See (2)(a) above.

(d)

See (2)(d) and 4(a) above.

(5)

Level D Service Limits (a)

See (2)(b) and (3(a) above.

i (b)

Multiple safety relief valve discharge is not a load case for a PWR plant. See (2)(a) above.

i i

i I

t b

_..-___._..______..__.m 4

01 3.7.1.2 (#623)

ELECTRICAL RACEWAY DAMPING ELECTRIC CABLES ARE ROUTED IN HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL STEEL TRAYS SUPPORTED BY 3

CHANNEL TYPE STRUTS MADE OUT OF COLD ROLLED CHANNEL TYPE SECTIONS.

~

BNL REPORT " RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REVISION OF SEISMIC DAMPING VALUES IN REGULATORY GUIDE' 1.61" SUGGESTS USE OF 10 PERCENT DAMPING FOR ALL CABLE TRAY SYSTEMS.

BNL RECOMMENDATION IS BASED ON DATA FOR WELDED SUPPORTS 'AND STATES "THE PROPOSED i

DAMPING VALUES FOR FULLY LOADED TRAYS ARE CONSERVATIVE FOR BOLTED SUPPORTS. HOWEVER,

)

THE DIFFERENCE IN FLOOR SPECTRAL ACCELERATIONS BETWEEN 10% AND 20% IS l

TYPICALLY SMALL".

AP600 SUPPORTS ARE BOLTED CHANNEL TYPE SUPPORTS.

O CURRENT AP600 DAMPING IS THE SAME AS j

APPROVED ON OTHER ADVANCED PLANTS.

l 1

CURRENT AP600 DAMPING IS SUPPORTED BY TESTING AS REFERENCED IN SSAR.

i

Coupled Auxiliary & Shield Buildings O Elevation 117.50', North Edge East-West Floor Response Spectra AP600 SEISMIC ANALYSIS -

ENVELOPE OF ALL SOIL CASES 4

22 DAMPING NI 3163-2 32 DAMPING ELEV 117.58 (N) 42 DAMPING Y (EN) DIRECTION 52 DAMPING 7E DAMPING

-- 182 DAMPING

--- 2SE DAMPING 3

^m w

C L

O

.e4*etecee.

M N

[*

pI i:

E r-Y-1 e

2

.... i.

i o

o I. I.

f

../... *1 4

L.

.---,s i

l 1

--@i i' I

l

1 n.

..... - 4<

J

.y R

' / *r;a _ r ".

o

- Y.

I t

y vj,

?..y,,

cj ym sn

.,...i a /".. -. - s.,.-. - --.,..Q,.

/-

a/.,,e.

y.: ss

..s

/, < *.

l

...e e

a e

a e a a n g-t gge 101 Ig2 Frequency (hz) b a

---m

RELATIVE DISPLACEMENTS BETWEEN NUCLEAR ISLAND AND ANNEX BUILDING AT GRADE - MAXIMUM RELATIVE DISPLACEMENT IS LESS THAN O.5 INCH FOR BOTH SOFT ROCK AND SOFT SOIL PROFILES AT ELEVATION 154' - 1.17 INCH FOR SOFT ROCK SOIL PROFILE AT ELEVATION 180' - 2.19 INCH FOR SOFT ROCK SOIL PROFILE e

4 i

t

u-n

--a s-

-.a w

4 A-a a

1m,-

s

,,,ya,

,,a, OT 662.

Vgg or 3 7 2 f.s i

l 1

0 i

is 1

I 5n V

4 et i

i Y

0 0

1

]

e aeiO 1

1 h

9.4.h. K Bracing: In areas of high scismicity where it is envisioned that inelastic response to large motions will be required, the K type of CBF system is not a desirable method for seismic resistance. The same behavior discussed in the V type bracing occurs, but in the case of the K system a buckled brace causes the column to deform horizonWly.

Potentially this could cause column buckling and subsequent collapse.

In buildings ofCategories A, B, and a portion ofC, the K system is permitted unrestricted by these provisions. For the remainder of Categiry C as per l

l 1

i 1

i i

g I

I g-4 b'%

/ \\

1 "I

l

'Q

• ,g 1

'~j

\\

i i

/

g I

I I

\\

/

l

/

%\\

I f

)

p

/

/

/

\\ \\

i

\\

l

/

/

\\ \\

I g

t

/

/

\\

l s'

\\

I

\\

l I

/

\\

l I

I y,

r

\\

I

/ s

\\

l I

/ /

\\

I

\\

I I

f '

\\

lI i

s I

's

'l

/

i

's\\/g i

I Fig. C.9.8. Failm mechanism ofinvened VbraceJframe.

4

I l

P(RIP 9l I1 264 lI y

/

/

a:Nisw e,o

,p

$AxlAL(fig

~

y W8ste L.mFt Eth.to s ig a s se L&f tAAL &

Fig C9 6. P' 6 diasramfor a strut.

50 H0on) 4o

... v......,. ;.... 4M).,,

s,ie =.

i3,

'c -

,I 30 a

.s.

20

? $ 74/// /L/

~/

rjjy, y y

.,

e-o BC5 30

..........*40 FIG.1.2 HYSTERESIS BEHAVIOR. OF CONCENTRICALLY X-BRACED FRAME (2] *

3. Design of Structures, Compone:ts, Equipme:t, and Systems

1. - [$ 3 Table 3.7.217 (Sheet 1 of 3)

COMPARISON OF MAXIMUM ABSOLUTE NODAL ACCELERATION (ZPA) 1 l

DUE TO TIME HISTORY (TH) AND RESPONSE SPECTRUM (RSA) ANALYSES" COIJPLED AUXILIARY & SHIELD BUILDINGS l

HARD ROCK CONDITION Maximum Absolute Nodal Acceleration. ZPA (g) j Elevation N S Direction E.W Direction Vertical Direction (ft)

TH RSn TH RSA TH RSA 306.25 1.44 1.43 1.47 1.49 0.9 0.88 1

297.08 1.32 1.31 1.27 1.39 0.9 0.88 284.42 1.2 1.16 0.98 1.25 0.89 0.87 276.13 0.88 1.01 0.9 1.18 0.55 0.75 272.42 1.09 1.09 0.94 1.16 0.88 0.86 241.00 0.82 0.85 0.78 0.97 0.55 0.75 220.00 0.73 (0.75) 0.75 (0.95) 0.69 (0.73) 0.89 (1.06) 0.53 (0.65) 0.70 (1.26) 200.00 0.63 (0.64) 0.69 (0.84) 0.67 (.069) 0.77 (0.93) 0.49 (0.63) 0.62 (1.10) 180.20 0.51 (0.51) 0.59 (0.71) 0.60 (0.63) 0.61 (0.72) 0.45 (0.59) 0.47 (0.93) 161.50 0.44 (0.45) 0.48 (0.58) 0.54 (0.56) 0.56 (0.62) 0.42 (0.53) 0.37 (0.75) 153.50 0.42 (0.43) 0.44 (0.53) 0.51 (0.55) 0.54 (0.67) 0.40 (0.50) 0.33 (0.67) 135.25 0.38 (0.40) 0.33 (0.41) 0.4I (0.45) 0.45 (0.57) 0.37 (0.45) 0.30 (0.51) 117.50 0.34 (0.35) 0.30 (0.30) 0.34 (0.37) 0.30 (0.37) 0.35 (0.40) 6.30 (0.36) 100.00 0.30 (0.30) 0.30 (0.30) 0.30 (0.30) 0.30 (0.30) 0.32 (0.35) 0.30 (0.30) 82.50 0.30 (0.30) 0.30 (0.30) 0.30 (0.30) 0.30 (0.30) 0.30 (0.32) 0.30 (0.30) 66.50 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 i

l Notas:

1

1. Time history analyses consider vibration modes up to 33 Hertz. Response spectrum analyses combine vibration I

modes up to 33 Hem by double sum method and add high frequency effects. (See subsection 3.7.2.7.)

l l

2. Enveloped res):,onse results at the north, south, east and west edge nodes of the structure are shown in I

parentheses This is the maximum value of the response at any of these edge nodes.

Revision: 9 i

August 9,1996 3.7 102 3 Westinghouse i

3. Design of Structures, Components, Equipment, and Systems Table 3.7.218 (Sheet 1 of 4)

COMPARISON OF MAXIMUM MEMBER FORCES DUE TO TIME HISTORY (TH) AND RESPONSE SPECTRUM (RSA) ANALYSES COUPLED AUXILIARY & SHIELD BUILDINGS HARD ROCK CONDITION 8

Maximum Forces (x10 Kips)

Elevation Axial N S Shear E W Shear (ft)

TH RSA TH RSA TH RSA 306.25 1.45 1.48 2.46 2.40 2.43 2.51 297.08 3.40 3.46 4.47 4.40 4.36 4.63 284.42 7.65,

7.76 8.30 8.26 7.67 8.80 272.42 11.54 11.66 12.52 1239 10.57 13.22 276.13 i

11'.54 11.66 12.52 12.39 10.57 13.22 241.00 15.44 12.78 16.43 16.41 15.68 17.03 220.00 18.05 14.24 18.72 18.64 I832 19.44 200.00 20.43 15.77 20.68 20.21 2032 21.32 180.20 23.40 17.62 23.28 22.11 23.03' 23.18 161.50 25.45 18.90 25.51 2332 25.17 24.48 153.50 28.14 20.80 28.82 25.11 28.40 26.57 135.25 31.92 23.54 34.03 27.82 33.57 29.%

117.50 34.96 26.04 37.54 29.79 37.59 32.85 100.00 I Iffiti l Tune history analyses consider vibration modes up to 33 Hertz. Respor.w nectnan analyses combine vibration I modes up to 33 Hertz by double sum method and add high frequency effec. iSee subsectior. 3.7.2.7.)

Revision: 9 T Westkighouse 3.7 105 August 9,1996

NOQAL ACCELERATIONS (ZPA) DUE TO RESPONSE SPECTRUM ANALYSES (RSA)

Center of Mass

_ - I ___ _L 1

I____

Z Direct input l _...._ I X Direction in:Ut Y Direction in mt

~51evation Node No.

X Y

I X

Y Z

~~

X v

Z (ft) 30625 3016 1.36 0.26 0.08 0.33 1.39 0.14 026 0.48 0.87 297.08 3015 1.27 G.18 0.08 022 129 0.14 023 0.47 0.87 284.42 3014 1.15 0.08 0.07 0.08 1.18 0.14 0.15 0.40 0.86 276.13 3017 0.93 0.15 0.06 0:16 0.94 0.28 0.38 0.67 0.69 272.42 3013 1.08 0.12 0.07 0.13 1.12 0.13 0.08 028 0.85 0.48 0.69

_ 241.00 3011 O 82 0.14 0.06 0.17 0.83 0.28

_0.13 0.50 0.65 220.00 3010 0.72 0.13 0.06 0.17 0.73 026 0.09 200.00 3009 0.66 0.14 0.05 0.17 0.67 0.23 0.09 0.36 0.57 18020 3006 0.57 0.17 0.05 0.14 0.58 0.13 0.07 0.07 0.45 161.50 3007 0.47 0.13 0.05 0.09 0.51 0.09 0.05 0.19 0.36 153.50 3006 0.43 0.08 0.05 0.08 0.48 0.10 0.05 022 0.31 135.25 3005 0.32 0.07 0.03 0.06 0.36 0.07 0.05 025 0.23 117.50 3004 0.18 0.05 0.02 0.04 0.22 0.05 0.04 0.17 0.16 100.00 3003 82.50 3002 66.50 3001 W

4

+

]

3. Design of structum, componects, Egripment, and Systems n

no.

.o s

am

.a Ii I i,I a,3 I;=

i;=

r..

i 1

I o

6 o

. o o

o

=<.

o--

o m,

}

-il q) me db (p

w.or o

'a=

o "s=

1 lQ

)

-. alar i

O cameo

.1-l X som essa

~

~~

[I i _

. w ci

" J; -

l-

p4 '

l, _ _

' n=

I

- sivesun Q

es,w l

H!n9

'~

l:k, i

_t I r.....

.=m.

l I

Figwe 3.7.2 4 (Sheet 1 of 2)

Coupled Stdeld & Andiary Building Lamped Mass Stick Model (North -South)

Revision: 9 August 9,1996 YN 3.7-138

3. Design of Structures, Compone;ts, Equipment, and Systems u

)

1 i

r noir noir noy I' I AI q,I 1

l 1

38 38 18 l

1 i

1>

()

~

N ll ll l

o o

~,

is.-

o 4

t>- ~4I o

\\

'* ' N

()

()

4 Ww lI ll

, ann

]'

Y O c = vans 1,

X m conun 4, - -

.., w I~~

an i

e i

Mj) a 'm

1. "i lh l

ld :

O' l

1, ew

^Y 7/)T///r//////;

6 "8F

-y F t se et wy gy Figure 3.7.2-4 (Sheet 2 of 2)

Coupled Shield & AAy Building Lamped Mass Stick Model (East West)

Revision: 9 August 9,1996 3.7-139

3. Design of Structures, Conoponerts, Equipment, and Systems Table 3.7.21 COUPLED SIIIELD AND AUXILIARY BUILDINGS LUMPED MASS STICK MODEL MODAL PROPERTIES Mode Freq.

Gent.

Partidpotles Factors Medal Masses Cummutative Mass, %

N'*

O X

Y Z

X Y

Z X

Y Z

l 0 12 1DO 0.003 0.343 0.000 0.000 0.118 0.000 0.0 0.0 0.0 2

0.12 1.00 0.264 0.001 0.000 0.069 0 000 0.000 0.0 0.0 0.0 3

0.12 1.00 0.037 1.354 0.000 0.001 1.833 0.000 0.0 0.0 0.0 4

0.12 1.00 0.730

-0.011 0.000 0.533 0.000 0.000 0.0 0.0 00 5

0.12 1.00 0316

-6395 0.000 0.100 40.891 0.000 0.0 1.0 0.0 6

0.12 1.00 6.005 0.297 0.000 36.057 0.088 0.000 0.8 1.0 0.0 7

0.12 1.00 0.231 5371 0.000 0.053 28 843 0.000 0.8 1.6 0.0 8

0.12 1.00 5.815 0.253 0.000 33.816 0.064 0.000 1.6 1.6 0.0 9

0.12 1.00

-0.114 3 t52 0.000 0.013 9.933 0.000 1.6 1.9 0.0 10 0 12 1.00

-3333 0 123 0.000 11.110 0.015 0.000 1.9 1.9 0.0 11 0.12 1.00 0.000 0.046 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 1.9 1.9 0.0 12 0 12 1.00 0.040 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 1.9 1.9 0.0 13 431 1.00 1380 35.789 1.662 1.904 1280 844 2.761 1.9 31.1 0.1 14 4.77 1.00 34.559 1.422 1.417 1194356 2.022 2.008 29.1 31.1 0.1 15 6.77 1.00 1.889 3.126 24.525 3367 9.773 601.462 29.2 31.3 13.8 16 8.84 1.00 2.018 11.455 0.090 4 072 131.206 0.008 29.3 34.3 13.8 17 9.17 1.00 7.506 16 98?

0232 56342 288.407 0.054 30.6 40.9 13.8 18 9.27 1.00 19.100 8.662 0.254 364.820 75.035 0D65 38.9 42.6 13.8 19 11.94 1.00 0 820 27.981 0.884 0.672 782.936 0.782 38.9 60.5 13.8 20 12.56 1.00 E.115 0850 0.125 906.937 0.722 0 016 59 6 60.5 13.8 21 14.81 1.00 0.211 1446 0.153 0.045 2.709 0.023 59.6 60 6 13.8 22 IP.50 1.00

-1.862 15.634 7.629 3 467 244.411 58.200 59.7 66.1 15.2 23 19.10 1.00 17.757

-1.624

-3.621 315324 2.638 13.110 66.9 66.2 15.5 24 1930 1.00 0354

-2.655 21.532 0307 7.051 814.057 66.9 66 4 34.0 15 22.19 140 3.638 4.774 11.694 13232 22.792 136.745 67.2 66.9 37.2 26 -

23.06 IDO 0.402 3.951 3.622 0.162 15.614 13.119 67 2 67 3 37.5 27 2338 1.00 3.023 0.628 26.338 9.139 0395 693.666 67.4 67.2 53.3 28 26.03 1.00 1324 15.045 0.658 1.754 226.357 0.432 67J 72.4 533 29 26 82 1.00 16.060 2.374 0.616 257.920 5.636 0379 73.3 72.5 53.3 30 31.18 IDO 2.832 2.517 0.779 8.019 6333 0.607 73.5 72.75 53.3 SUMMATIONS 3223.798 3186.667 2337.493

1. ^I" 4385.169 4384.559 4386.159 d!!!:

1. Fixed at elevanae 66.5*.

2. The Arzt twelve modes are pnacapaDy waner sloshing in the passive contamencet spasm task.

Revision: 8

$ Wes2Eh0088 3.7 55 June 19,1996

3. Design of Structures, Components Eq:lpmelt, and Systems I

~

1 l

Table 3.7.2-5 (Sheet 2 of 4)

MAXIMUM ABSOLUTE NODAI, ACCELERATION (ZPA)

{

COUPLED AUXILIARY & SHIELD BUILDINGS l

SOFT ROCK SITE CONDITION i

l Elevation Maximum Absolute Nodal Acceleration, ZPA (g)

(f8)

N S Direction E.W Direction Vertical Direction l

306.25 1.50 1.42 0.95 l

297.08 1.34 1.33 0.95 l

284.42 1.11 1.22 0.94 l

276.13 0.94 0.%

0.50 l

272.42 1.06 1.10 0.93 l

241.00 0.85 0.84 0.50 l

220.N 0.72 (0.76) 0.77 (0.79) 0.48 (0.61) l 200.00 0.62 (0.65) 0.69 (0.70) 0.46 (0.58)

'l 180.20 0.51 (0.55) 0.58 (0.62) 0.40 (0.53) l l'61.50 0.42 (0.46) 0.51 (0.53) 0.37

' (0.50) l 153.50 0.40 (0.43) 0.48 (0.50) 0.36 (0.48)

I 135.25 0.36 (0.37) 0.40 (0.42) 034 (0.45) l 117.50 0.34 (0.35) 0.34 (0.36) 0.34 (0.42)

I 100.00 0.32 (0.32) 0.32 (0.32) 0.33 (0.38) l 82.50 0.31 (0.31) 0.31 (0.31) 0.32 (0.35) l 66.50 0.30 0.30 0.32 Note:

1.

Enveloped response results at the north, south, cast and west edge nodes of the structure are shown in parentheses. This is the manmum value of the response at any of these edge nodes.

\\

)

i l

i i

l Revision: 7 T Westingh00S8 3.7-63 April 30,1996

1 h@

G

)

D1 G

L L

D2 L

BA L

A E

BA W

XR E

U A XR ED A

UA L

A E

)

IH S

3 X

UA AE R

A G

GD+

L B

A X E U R A A G G

)

DL U

C G

A BQ D6 O5 X

L L

U BA BA E

E A

XR XR 1 A UA A

G

>b ! _

I

AUXII,IARY Hull, DING CRITICAL SECTIONS

+

o South Wall at Column Line 1 4

o Interior Wall at Column Line 7.3 e

i o West Wall of Main Control Room i

s j

o Shield Huilding Wall 1

o Floor Slab on Metal Deck (El 135' 3")

o 2' Thick Reinforced Concrete Slab i

l j

o Finned Floor at El 135' 3" I

o Shield Huilding Roof 4

e i

k 3

j l

I I

i 3D ANALYSIS OF AP600 STANDARD PLANT SHIELD B.UILDING ROOF Ames Laboratory

)

i

4 Oreanization of the Presentation:

DRAFT e Three Dimensional Finite Element Model e Static Analysis Results a

e Response Spectmm Analysis Results

• Load Combinations e Comparison with Westinghouse Results l-l 1

1 1

4 4

k 4

1. Three Dimensional Finite Element Model:

8 307.25' e

e s

i l

l PCS Tank i

J..;, _ _ j, 288'-10 29/32"

~,

l'

/

N, 273'-3 1/16" l

ConicalPonion 250'-4 1/16" e

246'-0" i

Ventilation 241 -0" Openings i

i j

Cylindric'al Portion I

e i

180'-0" l

AP600 SBR s

Mesh Guide lines:

o Cylindrical ponion and PCS venical walls e Conical roof e Area around ventilation openings e Middle surface eccentricity e Water in the PCS tank e Air Baffle, Walkway, Stair Enclosure and Valve Room masses

4 4

1 1

a. Cylindrical Portion and PCS Vertical Walls:

l e Cylinder Subiected to Edge Loads:

A I000 K.in/in 4

100 k/in

.........g-......

i n

l l

Pan I h

X, = 2.3 (nf

7.... n.

i 852" 1

Pan 11 i

g

..........I......

)

(

Meridional Moment f

l e Mesh Sensitivity Study:

4 gego l

i'

-n, l

DIEID

= 8 sh A

/

--m e

/

0 1

i I

l

~

{=

s i

i i

g i

e l

[

kli 8ao y

n t

G j.-

j i

i I

o

Conclusion:

Select Mesh B w c.....

e Element Size: Pan 1 0.1 X, x 0.4X, i

}

Pan II 0.19X x 0.2X 4

C C

l.

1 1

4 3

1 i

_,,,....,-.-..--_-._.,--.---..E.-.-

i i

i i

I i

b. Conical Portion:

4 i

4 l

l e Conical Shell Subiected to Edee Loads:

Meridional Moment l

204" j

Pan II a

s i

Pani X = 380" 852-Ol c

s w... "..

k 8

l

100 K/in 1000 K inhn e Mesh Sensitivity Study

i i

{

MA m.m.

... m.

c b'

1 N

I 1

1,..

v 3

$=

9.

\\

/

..... =

i l

e

Conclusion:

Select Mesh B l

a Element Size:

Pan 1 0.1 X 4

C Pan 11 0.19 X l

i c

b l

i

c. Area Around Ventilation Openines:

o Axially Loaded Cylindrical Shell with Rectangular Opening:

P 2 m iii6ummmmmmmmm P = 100 kipsTm 246 o-a = 1 9 6,,

24i4 B b

b = 60" y_

=

e I

e Mesh Refinement Criteria:

l Minimum Strain Energy Error

~

j Convergence of Member Forces at Sec. B ig3 2000 180'0" 4

-o- <$ Enor m Rean' Cylinder with Rectanrular

- Total SE ernir Onening 15m s

s

\\

s I

h W

x lO U s

9 s

-.g s

u N

E l

j Sm y

I I

I I

g Mesh A Mesh B Mesh C Mesh D Mesh Con 0guranon e

Conclusion:

Select Mesh C i

1 l

I l

b -..

x

e 1.

l l

1 i

l

d. Middic Surface Eccentricity:

1 4

i l

l e Tension Ring-Cylinder Juncture:

6 i

I k

24' j

w n

i MeJJte Mir t.k c i

2 50' 4 1/16*, ' f" I

l*

42 2 4 6 ' -U~ +-

+4r Mrddle Surfac licentnot s 24 i o-

)

Midate surfx6 6

i I

}.. r

s. upual I la s.ar *n on.5LI!(

e Conical Rool-PCS w alls.lunctuie t

i n..

1

_.,'d a

x 1

.. :4 i

e. :a ja p : o.

zu s us.,,

2*'

rai 2 ph 21s.: pia

. 2r u_m_

.% trarnal I I, satoron on \\llit m

GEND e

w---

e-,

---,,.,-e--.,--,.,,,,-,,n-

---

,->-e--,---

-,-..,,-----,,n.--

e.--

e. Water in the PCS Tank:

l I

i l

i i!'

I

f. Air Bame. Walkway. Stair Encleare and Valve Room Mm=ces:

l i

Source: Westinghouse FE model Static analysis results (D+U4) l l

\\

g'.

/

J N NN.

-4>.t 4

/'

h.

N % %cN S

1 e i N

5 (i l/ Y

\\\\

\\

/

/Vi i

\\

{

Valve Room Suit klosure walkway and ADUP,

2 l

Goul Mass e 158 86 lb.sec ha)

(Tout Mass e 39 39 lbJac'Aa)

(Tmal Mass = 286 as to see nni 1

i

-,,,,y_.w-

-w w

---

T

~ ~ ' - - - ' ' - - ' * ' - ' - ' " - - ' - " - - - ' " " " ' - ' - - ~ - -

^ ' - ^

' '--- '^ ^ - - -

~

l l

l l

l 3D Finite Element Model i

I i

l l

l l'

l I

i l

l Finite Element Model Ames Lab Westinghouse Description Complete 3D Model I/2 Symmetry Model No. of Elements 10698 1468 Wave Front 1498 467 2

2 Total mass (Elev. I80')

76.8 kips.sec hn 77.1 kips.sec hn

i 1

l 3D Finite Element Model l

9 J

t l

i l

1 Finite Element Model Ames Lab Westinghouse l

Description Complete 3D Model I/2 Symmetry Model l

No of Elements 10698 1468 l

Wave Front 1498 467 l

Total mass (Elev.180')

76 8 kips.sec'/in 77.1 kips.sec /in 2

i l

(

i

2. Static Analysis Results:

a. Dead Load Case (99+22):

e Own Weight

• Hydrostatic pressure on PCS tank walls q

l i

e

,**y

^ %.

Y;..

l

' h;.

u l

4 l

l 1

1 I

i I

i

\\

t Isometric View Sectional Elevation l

Deformed Shape i

i i

-,,-n,

,, -,.,, -, - - - - -,, - - -, -. -. - - - -, - - -.,, - ~.. - - - -,, - - - - - - -,

.n.-

4

(

N1 Stress Resultants (D.L.)

300

- Opening

--- Column 280

~

260

\\

's%

________. -====~~~~~~~

.! 2 ;0

'" --==,%

2 s

_u s

w s

s

\\

1 I

220 -

g 200 -

180 150.0 100 0 50 0 00 50 0 Stress Resultant (k/ft) no

e N2 Stress Resultants (D.L.)

\\

300.0 i

- Opening

--- Column 280.0 l

260.0 s,

I a

^5

=

6 j 240.0 I

t E3

/

/

/

/

/

i 220.0 200.0 1

i 180.0 200 0 300.0 0.0 100.0 200 0 300 0 Stress Resultant (k/ft)

J m

M1 Stress Resultant-Dead Load 300 Opening

" " Column 280 260 g

""v i

c

$ 240

• ,..="*""~

m>cU ea 220 200 -

180

-40 20 0

20 40 60 80 100 120 Stress Resultant (kp.ft / ft)

\\4

i M2 Stress Resultant-Dead Load 300 1

)

Opening i

Column

).

280 i

l 6

lY i

1 260 s'

l I.

1

)

• =,, ' ~. 'm,

(

11

.... = = = =

• v c

O

= 240 8

5 4

o G

s' o

l e

220 -

200 1

180

-40 30 20 10 0

10 20 30 40 Stress Resultant (kp.ft I ft)

I l

> Computation of Strainine Acdons in the Tension and Comoression Rines:

l

\\

l Definidon:

PCS TM 92.8-Compmssion Ring i

Conical Ponion /

--4 l+-

24" 35*

k 52.1" Tension Sectional Elevation in SBR Ring H

42" Methodology:

g,'

m,'

M, r

g 2

2 + m,' (f

-j + r,'

.j

()

,, i 7,2 r,'

y, a

a 3

d+ rl 4 + m,'

}> - +T

~...

p sheii 2

A Q, sheii rp r,

Elemenu% p m[

Demenu a j,

h

/4 r,'

4 m,'

/

j Finite Element Nodal Section Strwning Forces Actwin N=Q M, = Q/

2 K

i E*

8*

M

• Rnite Element Results:

Axial Load in the Tension Ring Beam (D.L) 1000 I

i 900 7a.

.- Ey 8

' 800 700 O

5 10 15 20 Azimuth (Degs.)

Moment in the Tension Ring Beam (D.L) 1 350 300'-

250 200 R150 E100

5. 50 c

0 l 50

$ -100

-150 200 250 i

-300 0

5 10 15 20 Azimuth (Degs.)

asa

e Finite Element Results:

Torsion in the Tension Ring Beam (D.L) 300 200 2

vi 100

.9-M!

Oi 5

h -100 E

200 4

-300 O

4 8

12 16 20 Azimuth (Degs.)

Axial Load in the Compression Ring Beam (D.L)

-300

-325 7

.9 I -350

=

3a

-375 i

-400 0

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Azimuth (Degs.)

\\6

i

• Finite Element Results:

i Moment in the Compression Ring Beam (D.L) 1

-275 i

-300 c'

.N_-325 6

\\

c

[-350 O

lE

-375

-400 O

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Azimuth (Degs.)

)

l i

Torsion in the Compression Rina Ream (D.L) 30 25 2

vi I

.920 6

E

[15 o

E 10 5

0 5

10 15 20 25 30.

35 40 45 Azimuth (Degs.)

o

)

i t

1

b. Snow Load Case (23).

Pi i

307'.3-I P = 63 psf i

P 27343"16~

P2 P = 31.5 psf 2

4 l

' 250' 4 t/16' 2_w i

l 24 e AP600 SBR

).

4 1E.0-i I

t I

i I

J i

I i

1 l

l a

4 0

(

l ometric View Sectional Elevation l

l l

Deformed Shape 1

1 i

a l

I N1 Stress Resultants (Snow load) 300

- Opening

- = = Column i

280 I

I 1

260 g

,,,,,,,,.=**

"e S 240 2

u Q

g i

e I

220 g

i I

I i

1 l

200 -

180

.'3 i

6 5

-4 2

-l 0

1 2

Stress Resultant (kgg)

4 N2 Stress Resultants (Snow load) 1 4

300 t

4 4

- Opening

-= = Column 269 4

2 i

j j

260 t

g 1

g,,....- -

• Y p

g 4

240 4

I

.2 e

i W

e e

p

/

/

/

/

/

4 220 e

r 200 180 50 2.5 00 2.5 50 7.5 IO O Stress Resultant (k/ft) d

4, i.

M1 Stress Resultant-Snow Load 300 Opening Column 280 e

260

= =..

" = =.,

_C

"".===""g.

Co

• ..=

z 240

,,a g

.U e

e 220 200 160 2

1 0

1 2

3 4

Stress Resultant (kp.ft I ft)

.C

k 1

M2 Stress Resultant-Snow Load soo 3

Opening column l

280 t

4 26o

• o

'k

• =..., * = =.

i

.i l

g

,... -. = =

• e S 240

)

e e

m e

u a

220 200 I

180 1

1 0

1 1

2 Stress Resultant (kp.ft / ft)

C

• Finite Element Results:

Axial Lcad in the Tension Ring Beam (Snow) 40 e

T.9 g

r30 g

8 3

20 0

5 10 15 20 Azimuth (Degs.)

Moment in the Tension Ring Beam ($peJef Ql01A 400 300' g 200 vi E 100 g:

i E

O Eo 2-100

-200 300 0

5 10 15 20 Azimuth (Degs.)

e

i

• Finite Element Results:

9ean( ~

l Torsion in the Tension Ring Beam ($aew) 400 1

300

_ 200 9

E100 I

O w 5

E-100 E

-200

-300 -

-400 0

5 10 15 20 Azimuth (Degs.)

Axial Force in the Compression Ring Beam (Snow)

-6

?

.9-E -8 m

-10

-12 0

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Azimuth (Degs.)

4 9

• Finite Element Results:

Moment in the Compression Ring Beam (Snow) 1 E

E.3 i

1 2

e g

o4 E

5 0

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Azimuth (Degs.)

Torsion in the Compression Ring Beam (Snow)

?

vi I

I l

• g E

Eo2 0

0 5

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Azimuth (Degs.)

k e

307 3..

c. Wind Load Case (24):

PartIII h 9; 35 psf P

i s

ny.1uw e Basic Wind Speed = 110 mph 4

g e Importance Factor = 1.10 P i34 psf n

250' 4 1/16' fail j

2ff 2.it P= 30.5 psf h

i i

i t

iso.o-

1 Wind Pressures dn Projected Area l

• Application of Wind Loads on the F.E. Model:

1. Direction: a. South-West Direction gy

b. South-East Direction W

2. Element Pressures:

I S

N_

X g

l x

F = 2 f prsin Od8 y

E q

Ton View F = pnr y

Since F = 2P r Y sucuan y

g 2P i

Therefore p =,"

p(6) = 2P* sin 6

's

,r j

//,

t

. 9...

x s'

's Compremon

's F

18

c_._______.___________.______.._______

I i

I i

l l

\\

e Finite Element Results:

h y l

l l

l l

l l

3 N

=

r N

e w

i O

E a

f Wind Pressures i

I I

l l

l

I P

I i:

I l

l e Finite Element Results:

{

l i

i l

f k

e 1

1 l.*

l l

t i

!i 6.

Isometric View l

Deformed Shape i

1

)

4 1

4 4

)

NI Stress Resultants (Wind load SE) 300 1

- Azimuth 135

- Azimuth 225

-=

• Aziumth 303.75 e

u 1

280 8

I

%.: )

t

'N, I

\\

260

,I I

k*

i;

\\

,s c

S 240

~,*

?

1, a

m I

e/

o 220

/

o

,/

l l

/

o

/

l 200 -

s

/

s

/

o

~

/

o

/

180 20

-l.5

-1.0

-05 00 05 10 15 2.0 l

Stress Resultant (k/ft) 1 t

O

4 4

N2 Stress Resultants (Wind load SE) 300

- Azimuth 135

- Azimuth 225

.g1

-- Ariumth 303.75 1

g 280 S

4 s

• \\'%

I

'N.%'

8 i

j g

I 260

)

/

1 1

g*.

g

, # * *'*

• p >

w j

, 240

.g 4

m

\\

o j

[

s I

220 -

.)

j e

i

,I I

/

o 200 -

,/

/

/*/

,/*

/

/, k 180 20

-l 5 1.0

-05 00 0.5 10 1.5 20 Stress Resultant (k/ft) 26

4 4

1 i

M1 Stress Resultant-Wind Load 300

'Az.135 Az.225 Az. 303.75 i

280 J

3 I

E.'y e-m a

t s

l i

E s%

t l

q c

l S.

.O 240 p

ai eQ R

f a

220

/.

/

l l

I 200 E

e e

n==g =, %.

s s

1

,,

• mum 180 1 50 1 00

, -0.50 0 00 0.50 1.00 1 50 Stress Resultant (kp/ft) 33

J a

t M2 Stress Resultant-Wind Load l

300

'Az.135

^

Az.225 j,

-Az. 303.75 i

,u..-..-.

l\\

M s 4. ' )

1

'eb

/\\

/

• • e 260 e

i a

l

./

e T......==*

.,4 C

. ** m.

.. =.,

• 1 e

S 240

=

i E

fI I

i l }

220 e

I!

I s

I i

200 a

e a

I

, Na

• % *** en s

s

• mm.

180

-0.25

-0 20 -015 0.10 -005 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0 20 0 25 Stress Resultant (kp/ft)

SM

i

• Finite Element Results:

Axial Load in the Tension Ring ( wind) 20 15 i

10 i

3 E, o

.3 5

10 15 20 0

5 10 15 20 Azimuth (degs.)

Moment in the Tension Ring ( wind) a 20 15-to 2

i N. 5 3

0 c

I I

j 5

o2 10 15

-20 0

5 10 15 20

l

• Finite Element Results:

Torsion in the Tension Ring ( wind) 2 I

1

)

a i

l x

l0 c

I i

o lE 1

j i

l 2

]

0 5

to 15 20 i

Azimuth (degs.)

Axial Load in the Compression Ring ( wind) 0 80 3

O 60 i

0 40 7 020 O.

2 0 00

~

si E

i 0 020 0 40 l

-060 0 80 0

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Azimuth (degs.)

e Finite Element Results:

Moment in the Compression Ring ( wind) 2.00 1.50 1.00 '

7 0.50

.9-5 0.00

.' ]

3 450

-1.00

-1 50 2.00 0

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Azimuth (degs.)

l Torsion in the Compression Ring (wind) 0 00 1

?

.95 0 20 R

3

=

0 40 0

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Azimuth (degs.)

33

4 1

l i

d. Thermal Load Case (26 includine thermal eradient):

t Material Properties: Coeff. of thermal expansion = 5.5 x 10-6 jop i

• Reference Temperature: 70 F Case "n"- (Global temocrature decrement)

Location near PCS far PCS Inner fibers

+ 407 40 7 Outer fibers

- 40T 40T 2

I i,

i 0

3 i

l l

1.

./

l i

z. --

i-5 l

(

I

I h

A

)

I s.

1 u.

k i

(sometric View Sectional Elevation J

Deformed Shape 1

.w.,.

-,y

_.,-_y,4_.-

.%..'.-t+w

+er-v

-e--

--h wv"-

T--e-'t me we

-vm?-

^--r+v-v

i N1 Stress Resultants (Temp n) 300.0

- Opening Column 4

280.0 1

260.0 i

2 C

4 j

E 240.0

2 i

4 e

220.0 -

4 I

e i

200.0 i

1 I80.0 40 0 30 0 20 0 10 0 00 10 0 20 0 30.0 40.0 Stress Resultant (k/ft)

l N2 Stress Resultants (Temp n) 4 300.0

- Opening

- Column 280.0 260.0 i

a e

3 240.0

.s W

220.0 200.0 180.0 0

. im.0 00 imo 2MO Stn:ss Resultant (k/ft) s

I M1 Stress Resultants (Temp n)

I 300.0 1

- Opening

- Column i

280.0 i

4

}

260.0 F

-e e

i S 240.0 k f o

G3 4

e 220.0 -

200.0 I80.g200 0 i

100 0 0.0 100 0 200 0 1

Stress Resultant (k fuft) l

=

An

M2 Stress Resultants (Temp n) 300.0

- Opening

- Column 280.0 260.0

}

_5 e

S 240.0 2

\\

u Ei l

l i

220.0 200.0 180.0 600 0 500 0

-400.0 300.0 200 0 100.0 00 100 0 200 0 Stress Resultant (k ft/ft)

Member Forces in Tension Ring (Temp n) 100 Axial Force (kips)

Moment Mx (k.ft)

-- Torque T (k.ft) 50 e

I

's

's a

,i a

/\\

N

,I s s

N e

r,

/\\

j s

n

/ N /

i.;

s

\\

/

\\ /

\\..;

E' s/

v

\\/

v s o so E

V V

u2

^

x f~

. 50 -

"I O

5 10 15 0

5 0

5 40 45 Angle (deg)

Y

Member Forces in Compression Ring (Temp n) 1100 700

- Axialforce(kips)

{

m

{

' oment Mx (k.ft)

M 3

-- Torque T(k.ft) v 2

i S

y 500 i

eu2 l

i 300 100

/,/'%.%.,'%.

s's*%.m's

%~m'%.s,/,

.,e

• s '

,gg i

0 5

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Angle (deg) 44

1 1

I e

i i

1 O Case "o" ' Global temperature incrementh t

i t

l 4

IAcation near PCS far PCS Inner Obers

+ 40T

+ ll5'F Outer Gbers

+ ll5*F

+ 1157 i

I*

a

,;~...

l Tc' m,..

. - g?

m... =. ..7;'

c_ _ g j

' ;.T_

. = n ",

..= ;....

..e.

... v,,,

.: w g

a v...

.x

. /*

(... -**

4 t-

,,,q n.,

. o j

.i. -

s-e -

t

. c:;.:,,.; -

~

a

. m...

4

~

n a.,

.. 7,,.,u.,

.. s.....

,3-

~.

, /),#.j $.'.. ':},. [ ( l ;t ;.,.[,

r...

~

I..

.,t),.'

,w I %,

,-l j',

r,; e.a

,..... ':.' ' s

.,;v,;., j i...

.. -. :..,,. t,1, j s,

>w.

.:, - Itc t;

ifl :tt

) /.

,'. p,ll<i,,l p ;! -.

- '. e c,'. - e,. -. '.. ' :f,, '

y.s,,n,,'c:

f(

..p, lr;:j li.,a g 7,g g ( _ zu.c,....

.,,o j.,'..,

.,, t j ' ' -

' '. '.l'!!

3.

1

..,., j t ',.. r....),, _,.

.c.

. q'L**b,,([ w.[f

.n'

" ' ' U,[, -12 ',, k,' '; '

.

• I,

• f l

..i. s.:r,..ii..? m....W,u W.v [, ;,c. 9 '..

o v.

...JEpM : n::. ;, m.<

- n'--

.. r.

p ::

i.

t t.

!;e i.. o.

m h,.,1 ca:i : :

I,:

i t.I * ;L L',:f--

w

,. L '.. [ [ [- ;. I.,:. [... ' '

e

, I g g. r,,. ' g g- (

.. t.,.. f.'. 6r t,-

..; : L t.i d,

g.cI.r g. e.

t,. '

/r. j i

.s y

,f

.,T,.

. r

.t

[.

...t.'.i 1,'s '.1..L..,jngr_,;r, g

,e;,-

.. ',.. /

e t

.t-

_r

.,,:,..,e..

7 X;,1 : ;' (: / ~ '_ t,- :'

i

,' - r.

. ~

/

,.,.j.

I.

I v',

,r

' p[o'. -,i.}i\\,.._',.~;

j V

-, - -.(f. l i lw 1 _, ; ; !:s 4.r 1

3.,...

i 4m

1

.,r, io.

. p.,g, g,.w.. a

.r

., +,.x,J., i..;;.. c 4..r.

Isometric View Sectional Elevation Deformed Shape w

l 1

I N1 Stress Resultants (Temp p) 300.0

- Opening Column 280.0 4

i 260.0 i

l 1

6.

w e

5 240.0 e

53 l

i 4

220.0 i

t j

200.0 -

180.0 10 0 00 10.0 20 0 30 0 Stress Resultant (k ft/ft)

d N2 Stress Resultants (Temp p) 300.0

- Opening Column 280.0 i

.i 4

260.0 i

{

i

_5 e

j 240.0

>aw 220.0 -

/

J 200.0 -

I80.0 200.0 150 0 100 0 50 0 00 50 0 100 0 150 0 200 0 Stress Resultant (k/ft) 4

i l

)

4 M1 Stress Resultants (Temp p) 300.0

- Opening

)

- Column 280.0 260.0 i

I l

_e S 240.0 I{

C 2

5

' 20.0 -

2 i

i 200.0 -

1 i80.0 200 0 150 0 100 0 50 0 00 50 0 100 0 150 0 200 0 Stress Resultant (k fvft)

M2 Stress Resultants (Temp p) 300.0 Opening Column F

280.0 i

I 4

260.0

-E c

E 240.0 m.

?3w 1

220.0 -

200.0 -

180.0 100 0 00 100 0 200 0 300 0 400 0 500 0 600 0 Stress Resultant (k ft/ft) 9 49

1 1

1 Member Forces in Tension Ring (Temp p) l 100

)

- Axial Force (kips) 1

- Moment Mx (k.h)

-- Torque T (k.h) 50 2

\\

a.$

~

v 2

(2 w

.8E.

u2 i

/s

'\\

% =lg'%

O f s,o o

N/

,/

'v"e-

/

g

./

v'

-50 O

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Angle (deg)

Member Forces in Compression Ring (Temp p) 200 i

""#~

'%.~~s,s***a

1. ~'

'%~%.

0 4

-200 Axial Force (kips)

Moment Mx (c.ft)

-- Torque T (k.ft)

-400 E

O.

i A

U 4

l O

O

-600 u.

w E

uk 800.

1 e

1000 -

-1200' -

1400 i

0 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Angle (deg) 5\\

3. Response Spectrum Analysis Results;

a. Modal Analysis:

1 e Eigen Mode Extraction in ANSYS:

(K){e} = A[M){e}

- Subspace Iteration.

Uses full mass and stiffness matrices Shift frequency modified to accelerate convergence Circulation modes of water are extracted

- Damped Eigen Solver.

Uses full mass and stiffness matrices Modes are extracted in conjugate pairs Requires large storage space and mntime

- Reduced Method.

Uses Reduced mass and stiffness matrices (Guyan reduction)

Automatic selection of master degrees of freedom

I I'

e Sloshing Modes of Water (Ames Laboratory):

Extracted first 20 modes.

Frequency range: 0.0,0.40 Hz 1

l f

l l

l Mode (1) f = 0.11 Hz Mode (12) f = 0.36 Hz Theory: f = 0.127 Hz Theory:

f = 0.356 Hz

. i = 1, j=0)

'(i= 1 j= 1 )

(

l Effective modal mass in X direction = 53% of water mass Effective modal mass in Y direction = 40% of water mass 1

1 l

i 63

e Sloshing modes (Westinghouse results);

i i

4

\\

\\

\\

\\ \\ \\

\\

' d5

}

.',\\',)'\\hq---

\\ lL

,1

- -~

,7

, ', 'n 7 w u

-ss 4,

's's's a

's s

s s

s N

s

l l

f Mode (1) f = 0.122 Hz Mode (12) f = 0.356 Hz (i= 1, j=0)

(i= 1, j= 1 ),

Mode Frequency (Hz)

Effective mass in X Direction Ames Westinghouse Ames Westinghouse 1

0.I 1 0.122 3051.4 2902.I4 12 0.353 0.356 1104.5 473.4 e

l e Stnictural Modes:

)

Extracted 49 Modes i

Frequency range: 1.0,23.5 Hz l

3 t

1 j

}.

Accumilative Effective Mass i

80000 j

i

- naam e a osumme j

-- asse a y pummen

-- neens = 2 osumme

....... t 2 x IE t

g r

y

=2

.i 40000 Sie g

l I

I I

,' I l

lI 20xo l

1 I

I I

i I

I I

o I

O

-:. r,

O to 20 to Frequency (Hn Effective modal mass in X direction = 80% of total mass Effective modal mass in Y direction = 82% of total mass Effective modal mass in Z direction = 51% of total mass no

e Structural Modes:

Effective Modal Masses Table

)

woa.

rr.a

=

w

=

u.a.

rr.a

=

=

=

1 6.118 19681.3 24710.3 7.8 26 18.970 24.3 14.7 3.8 2

6,138 23954.0 20000.3 43.9 27 19.020 2.7 14.0 1.1 3

6.851 26.9 4.9 37708.7 28 19.480 0.1 0.0 0.0 j

4 9.728 1262.2 3075.6 9,7 29 19.670 3.6 7.6 4.1 5

9.929 3419.4 2077.2 12.0 30 20.060 236.3 31.1 51.0 6

11.490 7 31.6 658.6 1.7 31 20.170 179.7 110.8 121.7 7

12.400 5.3 0.3 0.6 32 20.190 1282.3 37.8 245.6 8

12.460 23.1 18.5 3.0 33 20.400 374.5 352.8 8.2 9

12.530 15.5 0.3 105.2 34 20.590 1241.9 5190.8 3.4 I

10 12.550 40.5 0.3 31.9 35 20.660 2882.1 2535.9 139.8 11 12.680 127.9 162.3 51.0 36 20.930 297.8 9.7 228.5 12 13.110 367.4 416.7 2.8 37 21.110 69.1 184.3 68.2 13 13.260 1.7 15.3 0.1 38 21.840 57.0 5.7 33'2.1 14 13.380 0.8 0.6 0.1 39 22.280 25.7 6.5 56.1 15 13.420 7.8 0.5 4.8 40 22.520 17.1 0.9 1.9 16 13.470 0.1 90.0 1.0 41 22.910 8.3 16.3 0.1 17 15.450 1.5 4.0 2.5 42 23.140 0.1 8.2 11.0 18 15.700 0.2 4.4 0.4 43 23.340 9.4 0.0 48.0 19 15.970 1.5 226.8 0.1 44 23.610 1.8 0.8 9.6 20 16.160 215.5 0.1 0.5 45 23.690 0.0 0.9 4.2 21 16.330 112 3 7.8 1.1 46 24.150 0.0 5.4 326.1 22 18.770 8.6 0.0 3.2 47 24.760 62.1 32.5 9.1 23 18.860 1.8 0.3 0.4 48 25.310 42.9 18.5 0.2 24 18.900 40.7 3.1 1:1 49 25.450 35.1 4.2 159.1 25 18.910 8.6 2.1 7.7 Effective modal mass in X direction = 80% of total mass Effective modal mass in Y direction = 82% of total mass Effective modal mass in Z direction = 51% of total mass 56

e Structural Modes:

Participation Factors Table i

l moe.

cr.a r=

vv rr.a en w

1 6.118 140.30 157.20 2.80 26 18.970

-4.93 3.84

-1.96 2

6.138 154.80

-141.40 6.63 27 19.020 1.64

-3.74

-1.07 3

6.851

-5,19 2.21 194.20 28 19.4*0 0.37

-0.19 0.04 4

9.728

-35.53

-55.46

-3.11 29 11,670

-1.91 2.75 2.03 5

9.929 58.48

-45.58 3.46 30 20.060 15.37 5.58 7.14

{

6 11.490 27.05 25.66

-1.32 31 20.170

-13.41

-10.53

-11.01 7

12.400 2.31

-0.50

-0.78 32 20.190 35.81 6.14 15.67 8

12.460

-4.80

-4.30 1.73 33 20.400

-19.35 18.78

-2.86 9

12.530

-3.93

-0.57

-10.26 34 20.590 35.24

-72.05

-1.85 10 12.550 6.37 0.51

-5.64 35 20.660 53.69 50.36

-11.82 11 -

12.680

-11.31

-12.74

-7.14 36 20.930

-17.26 3.11 15.12 12 13.110

-19.17 20.41

-1.66 37 21.110

-8.31 13.58 8.26 13 13.260

-1.30

-3.91

-0.23 38 21.840

-7.55 2.40 18.22 14 13.380 0.88

-0.77 0.36 39 22.280

-5.07 2.55 7.49 i

15 13.420 2.79

-0.71.

2.18 40 22.520

-4.13 0.94 1.39 16 13.470 0.31 9.49 1.01 41 22.910

-2.88 4.04 0.25 17 15.450 1.24

-2.00

-1.59 42 23.140 0.37

-2.87

-3.32 18 15.700

-0.48 2.11

-0.63 43 23.340 3.07

-0.00 6.93 19 15.970 1.24

-15.06

-0.38 44 23.610

-1.34

-0.90

-3.10 20 16.160 14.68 0.29 0.68 45 23.690

-0.17

-0.97 2.05 21 16.330

-10.60

-2. 8 0-

-1.04 46 24.150 0.14 2.32

-18.06 22 18.770

-2.94 0.16

-1.79 47 24.760

-7.88

-5.70

-3.01 23 18.860 1.94

-0.54 0.63 48 25.310

-6.55 4.30 0.45 24 18.900 6.38 1.77 1.02 49 25.450 5.92 2.04

-12.61 25 18.910 2.92

-1.46 2.77

.D

e Structural Modes:

{

e 1

i l

l l

I I

i l

i k

l 3

Mode (1) f =6.118 Hz L.- -

-- -------- shedummR-atnsutn

l I

e Structural Modes:

i i

I i'

9 4

I

\\

\\

i I

Mode (2) f =6.138 Hz Westinghouse f =5.064 Hz

4 i

i I

o Shuc+.ral vicdes:

1 i

l l

i d

i Mode (3) f =6.851 Hz Westinghouse f =7.235 Hz t

e e

i l

l l

l l

9 4

4 t

e f

1

)

.l l

l

I o Structural Modes:

4 i

I i

l I

Mode (4) f =9.7 8 Hz Westinghouse f =9.627 Hz (g

1

l e Structural Modes:

l i

i I

i*

{

a l

l i

l 1

l Mode (5) f =9.929 Hz

.JLt -

1

b. Response Spectmm Analysis:

i e Soil Conditions:

- Hard Rock Site

- Soft Rock Site

- Soft - to - Medium Soil Site

- Upper Bound Soft - to - Medium Soil Site e I.ocation of Computed Spectra at Elevation 180':

Coupled Ausiliary & Sliicid tiuildings 1.ocation of Sei>nde Responses @ Elevation 180'.0"

3197 d

3167 l

CorfTAINntf.2ff 8

3187 5=>cm" l

l@(>

9d-:

l @

l l

8 i

l@

3008:

l O

i.

i

!n l4 )

o V

1 l

c,o,uruo l.

a sm

._.._...La..-------*----'--"**-"*~#

• 'I gmod ei 88@

~

3177 O

e

e Enveloped Response Spectra X response Spectrum for 4 Soil Conditions Damping Ratio = 7%

-- Hard Rock Site

- Soft Rock Site

-- Soft to Medium Soil Site (l *G)

-- Upper bound Soft to Medium Soil Site (2*G) 2.0 7

e

,I

,\\

1 i

l

,t i

)

5 1.5 I, s' sI g

8 g

E gi u

8 2

1

/

I lt

' l g

n, I

t 1

i

\\

es, s

y t

i di 8

.0 j ' '4 I

er i

l I

I

\\

M i

I g

s i

I 4

\\

\\

\\

\\

\\

5

%g

\\

.g i

\\ \\' -

s 0.5

\\ / %.. ',,, l I

^

l 1

j O.0 1

10 ioo l

Frequency (Hz) 1

1 l

e Combination of Modal Responses:

i j

i

- Modal Combination: (Closely Spaced Modes) 1 i

Raj=

[Rf;+ 2((lR Rgl ij j i

ik 1

R,j = Maximum response due toj* ground excitation i

R;) = Response ofi* mode due toj* ground excitation

- Directional Combination:

fR*

(

R m=\\1-1 m.

l

- High Frequency Modes:

Standard Review Plan, Sec. 3.7.2

)

i l

1 65

e Comparison of Base Shear and Moment Results at Elev.180':

- 3D Model results are obtained from Ames Laboratory Model

- Stick Model results are obtained from Westinghouse Model Straining Hard Rock Soft Rock Soft-to-Medium Upper Bound of Action Soft-to-Medium (NP**)

3D Model Stick 3D Model Stick 3D Model Stick 3D Model Stick Model Model Model Model 3

Qx x 10 21.104

'20.68 21.152 22.60 16.78 16.40 21.511 20.90 3

gj Qy x 10 21.35 20.32 21.464 22.30 16.97 20.50 21'.798 23.90

[ N x 10' 17.213 20.43 17.375 18.80 16.51 19.00 17.815 21.00 Mx x 10' 2016.8 1835.0 2050.3 2130.0 1627.7 1720.0 2092.7 2170.0 P. % jMy x 10' 2007.6 2140.0 2040.0 2040.0 1619.9 1840.0 2081.7 2120'.0 1

T x 10' 107.1 134.5

'83.50 126.0 60.50 74.80 77.04 96.8 e Comparison of Maximum Accelerations at Elev.180':

Accelers Hard Rock Soft Rock Soft-to-Medium Upper Bound of

)

tion (g)

Soft to-Medium 3D Model Stick 3D Model Stick 3D Model 56ck 3D Model S6ck Model Model Model Model Ax 0.53 0.51 0.56 0.51 0.49 0.44 0.56 0.50 Ay 0.66 0.60 0.63 0.58 0.48 0.47 0.59 0.55 Az 0.70 0.45 0.56 0.40 0.59 0.45 0.55 0.43 a

.=..

1 N1 Stress Resultants (Seismic) 300.0

- Opening Column 280.0 260.0 5

A e

E 240.0 I

2

.u ua 220.0 200.0 180.0 i

i 00 50 0 100 0 150.0 2mo 250 0 W

Stress Resultant (k /ft)

$Y

1 t

i J

5 N2 Stress Resultants (Seismic) i 300.0 I

- Opening

- Column 280.0 260.0 2

1 g

- 240.0 9

CJ Ei 220.0 -

)

i 1

200.0 -

L I80.0 00 100 0 200 0 300.0 400.0 5000 i

Stress Resultant (k /ft)

I

M1 Stress Resultants (Seismic) 300.0 i

- Opening Column l'

j 280.0 1

i, i

260.0 2

\\

8g 240.0 -

>2 m

1 1

i-B

'220.0 -

200.0 -

180.0 50 0 50.0 150.0 250.0 350 0 Stress Resultant (k ft/ft) 1 91

d M2 Stress Resultants (Seismic)

-300.0

- Opening

--- column r

1 280.0 i

^

t i

s i

/

a 260.0 s'

s

,,_e

-5 8g 240.0 A

1

}

s#

w t

1 i

I i

220.0 n

a

\\

t I

I t

I

[

200.0 I

I 180.0 20 0 00 20 0 40 0 60 0 80 0 100 0 Stress Resultant (k ft/ft)

Member Forces in Tension Ring (Seismic )

2000 i

i

- Axial Force (1ips) 1750 Moment Mx (k.ft)

-- Torque T(k.ft)

' S00 i

1250 2

a E

e eg 1000

.8 e

o2 750 500 -

3 I.

s

/ \\

I

\\

g' I

\\

I

\\

s

\\

I

\\

I

\\.

I

\\

.I

\\

',I

\\,

I

'I 250 -

\\

I t,

I

\\,

\\.

l

'v

}

\\.

s

-./

f s

._,/

0 0

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 i

Angle (deg) 9 4 e

Member Forces in Compression Ring (Seismic )

500 Axial Force (kips)

Moment Mx (k.ft)

-- Torque T(k.ft) 400 h

sw E 300

~

c.5 8

8 u.

ti

.o Ev 2 200

/

=~.

.s*,#,-*s=ys~~~~..

100

,/'%.

,.#*,,/

0 0

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Angle (deg) 72

l i

4. Load Combinations:

e Load Combination 202:

U = 1.4D + 1.4F + 1.7L + 1.7W I

D = own weight F = hydrostatic pressure L = Snow Load W = Wind Load

- Methodology:

J

1. Enveloped stress resultants due to South East and South-West wind loads.

1

2. Maximum and minimum enveloped stress resultants due to wind loads are assumed axisymmetric.

1 4

e 13

4 QStress Resultants (C' mb. 202) j o

~

300.0

- Max

- Min 280.0 t

260.0 Sam w

8, 240.0 2

.ew I

i a

220.0 -

l 1

200.0 -

I 180 0 200.0

-100 0 0.0 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 Stress Resultant (k/ft)

RA

J Nj S*tess Resultants (Comb. 202) 300.0 d

- Max i

Min 280.0 4

I h

i 260.0 i

e 0

e i

E 240.0 1

2

.ow l

220.0 -

i i

200.0 -

180.0

-300 0 200 0

-100.0 00 100 0 Stress Resultant (k/ft) l 35

M1 Stress Resultants (Comb. 202) 300.0

- Mu Min 280.0 A

260.0 r

(

I I

2 j 240.0 220.0 200.0 1

I80.0 i

50.0 oo 50 0 100 0 150 0 Stress Resultant (k.ft/ft)

M Stress Resultants (Comb. 202) 300.0 Max Min i

280.0 l

260.0 S 240.0 o

i 220 0 200 0 180 0 100.0 0.0 100.0 200.0 300.0 Stress Resultants (k.ft/ft) 49

1 Finite Element Results:

o Tension Ring:

Force N(Kips)

Qz(Kips)

Qx(Kips)

Mx(k.ft)

T(k.ft)

Mz(k.ft)

Maximum 1250.74 205.0 60.27 419.45 485.45 338.59 1

Minimum 800.93

-236.5

-67.45

-396.25

-479.24

-119.84

• Compression Ring:

Force N(Kips)

Qz(Kips)

Qx(Kips)

Mx(k.ft)

T(k.ft)

Mz(k.ft)

Maximum

-504.8 22.48 11.14

-88.70 16.56 15.07 Minimum

-536.4

-23.14

-11.67

-181.66

-13.12

-21.63 e

1 l

I 4

.s

o Load Combination 203:

U=D+F+L+T+E

\\

T = Thermal Load E = Seismic bad l

- Methodology:

1. Enveloped stress resultants due to temperature increment

~ (Case p) and temperature decrement (Case n) load cases.

2. Assembled s'ress resultants due to Seismic load to increase t

the absolute value of maximum and minimum stress resultants due to other loads.

N2-pff Stress Resultants (Comb. 203) 300.0

- Max

- Min 7

280.0 260.0 2

e E 240.0 s

aw 220.0 I

200.0 180.0 500 0 250 0 00 250.0 500 0 750 0 1000 0 Stress Resultant (k/ft)

8\\

(2 Stress Resultants (Comb. 203) 300.0

- Max l Min l l

280.0 J

I 260.0 l

i 2

w 8= 240.0

?

5 220 0 200.0 -

i 1

180.0 600.0

-400.0 200.0 0.0 200.0 Stress Resultant (k/ft)

\\\\

4 H2-W Stress Resultants (Comb. 203) 300.0 Max

- Min 280.0 L

i 260.0 y

l

/

l 2

I i

j 240.0 I

C ra 220.0 -

l 200.0 180'0 1000 0 500.0 0.0 500.0 1000 0 Stress Resultant (k.ft/ft)

t 4

0\\

[ Stress Resultants (Comb. 203) 300.0

- Max Min 4

280.0 I

260.0 l

i i

i

' V -_

g

- - ~ -

g

= 240 0 i

0 i

e 220 0 -

200 0 -

180 0

-400.0 200.0 0.0 200.0 400.0 600.0 Stress Resultwts (k.ft/ft)

1 Finite Element Results:

• Tension Ring:

4 Force N(Kips)

Oz(Kips)

Ox(Kips)

Mx(k.ft)

T(k.ft)

Mz(k.ft) i Maximum 2524.0 511.62 143.54 856.01 904.82 784.57 Minimum

-839.10

-539.23

-148.30

-783.93

-885.22

-268.21 4

l e Compression Ring:

Force N(Kips)

Qz(Kips)

Qx(Kiss)

Mx(k.ft)

T(k.ft)

Mz(k.ft)

Maximum 1131.19 386.05 155.00 1132.38 165.35 202.83 Minimum

-1927.11

-334.12

-159.75

-1445.33

-163.29

-181.48 4

1 4

9 8

l l

l i

4

4

5. Comparison of Results with Westinghouse:

• Selected Sections for Comparison: '

. _ - - w. c 188'. to $3I,_

tl il S il'- 2 h* ~

4 11 35

-,L 173'. L 3/4" l

t n.. o.-

uv. e-

.14 l'. 0" M_

I SectionalElevation on AP600 SBR lii' 0' g

G

a. Cviladrical Portion Elev.180' to Elev. 250'h

[:, x w.,

~1. Dead Load (Load Case 99+22):

at Sec. 30: Total weight = 15,766 kips N = - 35.35 k/ft t

at Sec. 35: Total weight = 28,011 kips N = - 62.79 k/ft 1

Sec Elevation N1 N2-MI M2 A

W A

W A

W A

W A

W l

30 249 250

-5.04 28 184.2 186.6 74.36 73.2 27.84 22.4I

-46.8 55.5 132.2 175.6 20.49 33.43

-15.7 13.2 31 247 247 14.52 2.80 244.4 247.4 130.4 172.9 73.95 28.26 96.7 78.1 103.5 150.4 6.25

-83.7

-13.2

-13.0 32 241 241 25.6 8.61 79.2 142.2 61.01 13.98 17.13 30.83

-127.

84.8 0.36 82.04 37.81 4.35

-7.01 43.3

~

35 189 186 41.3 64.4 4.96 2.9I l.83 9.22 0.30 1.83 45.6

-65.2

-7.56 2.41 0.92 8.85 0.20 1.76 i

2 Snow Load (Load Case 23):

Total weight = 589 kips N = - 1.32 k/ft i

Sec Elevation NI N2 Mt M2 A

W A

W A

W A

W A

W 30 249 250 0.24 1.09 6.36 6.82 2.68 2.98 1.04 0.829 1.92 2.26 4.68 6.39 0.92 1.47 0.47 0.32 31 247 247 0.48 0.097 9.0 9.39 3.30 7.06 1.89 1.06 3.12 3.19 3.M 5.69 0.27 141 0.37

-0.26 32 241 241 0.84 0.359 2.76 5.54 1.36

' 125 0.53 1.22

-4.32 3.38 0.00 3.20 0.62 0.175 0.15 2.47 35 189 186 1.32 1.59 0.12 0.08 0 05 0.295 0.01 0 058

-1.44 1.62

-0.12 0.06 0.02 0.280 0.00 0 056 Rfl

• Wind Lead (lead Case 24):

Base Shear = 462 kips Pressure x projected area = 474 kips at Sec. 35 Moment = 22,690 k.ft M

• t = 1.43 k / fr f

evaded Hwy twkm\\ M6 i

/

t Sec Elevation NI N2 MI M2 A

W A

W A

W A

W A

W

+

30 249 250 0.72 3.66 1.92

-0.27 0.26 0.677 0.64 1.%1

-0.72 2.42

-2.16

-8.60

-0.26 1.77

-0.64

-2.49 31 247 247 1.20 2.304 3.96 9.79 0.30 2.012 0.62 2.114 1.20 1.38

-3.96 10.7 0.25 5.24

-0.62

-2.68 32 241 241 2.52 5.65 1.92 1.003 0.42 1.67 0.09 2.77 2.52

-4.17

-1.92

-8.65

-0.41 1.13 0.09

-1.23 35 189 186 0.98 5.89 0.24 0.12 0.15

-0.02 0.02 0.038 0.98

-0.01 0.24

-2.01

-0.15 1.37

-0.02

-0.07

4. Thermal Load (Load Case 26):

Sec Elevation NI N2 MI M2 A

W A

W A

W A

W A

W 30 249 250

-0.15 2.31 12.76 1.21 1.76 1.712 2.27 10.23 1.98

-002 8.75

-4.33 1.81

-20.0

-1.78 7.39 31 247 247 1.59 3.87 10.83 2.62 0.41 9.14 1.48 1.14 1.83 2.99 5.79

-4.34 3.28 17.8 2.19 2.75 32 241 241 0.61 2.16 1.98 12.07

-4.16 5.27 0.45 10.04 0.62 2.77 0.06 5.58 7.68

-0.57

-0.56

-4.03 4

Amn LJ nulk ex c) ekJ tmNm:II W. te n. lh c.ot d actl6 V

3. Seismic Load (Load Case 21):

Sec Elevation N1 N2 M1 M2 A

W A

W A

W A

W 4

W

~ '

30 249 250 73.3 116.5 334.5 314.3 119.5 97.8 66.6 66.41 2.79 67.01 239.7 273.9 25.9 58.5 11.6 21.74 1

31 247 247 156.2 110.8 456.4 442.0 207.5 243.8 112.7 78.2 0.86 27.12 161.7 231.4 7.81 103.1 5.53 26.12 32 241 241 281.7 166.8 154.5 283.6 100.5 37.3 40.41 102.0 33.8 19.78 5.31 154.9 ;48.9 6.96 2.34 43.8

6. Load Combination 202:

Sec Elevation N1 N2 M1 M2

{

A W

A W

A W

A W

A W

30 249 250

-6.49. 45.68-271.9 269.2 109.1 105.9 41.8 34.71 l

-69.7 85.6 I89 6 242.5 29.8 47.41 23.9

- l 8.2 31 247 247 23.16 4.18 364.2 369.5 188.5 254.5 107.8 44.63

-142.7 112.1 144.9 210.4 8.8

-121

-20.1 17.0 32 241 241 32.93 13.35 118.8 203.2 88.4 23.37 25.03 44.16

)

188.9 127.6 2.54 112.2 53.83 6.12 10.2

-90.6

7. Load Combination 203:

Sec Elevation N1 N2 M1 M1 A

W A

W A

W A

W A

W 30 249 250 37.53 103.5 534.3 505.2 197.6 153.7

%.5 82.23 123.8 52.34 170.4 455.8 43.0 95.4 56 9 17.9 31 247 247 78.48 33.66 676 2 694.7 344.2 404.8 193.9 104.6 256.7 21.59 263.7 389.2 83.8 24.53

-57.7 14.12 32 241 241 154.67 80.76 216 3 438.5 175.6 56.42 57 9 76.76

-409.4 28.64

-l 198 247.1

-44.3 11.09 24.5 35 06 B6

't

b. Conical Roof Tlev. 250' to Elev,47 2'):

4

1. Dead Imad (Case 99+22):

4 Sec Elevation N1 N2 M1 M2 A

W A

W A

W A

W A

W 21 285 285

-22.9

-21.3

-49.4

-21.3 5.98 2.36 3.21 1.66 27.6

-42.5

-59.4

-42.6 4.79 0.706 2.01

-0.22 25 275 275

-40.9

-50.2

-72.0 50.4 18.20 0.745 4.20

-0.95 3

-44.1

-52.2

-74.7 52.7 16.80

-3.59 2.38 3.I8 I

271 272

-73.0 50.8

-56.1 51.2 17.1

-5.96 3.27

-5.83 78.1

-75.0 57.3 75.0 19.3

-29.9

-4.38 29.7

}

30 251 250 1.89 100.2 108.3 99.6 43.7 53.01 15.92 53.8

-29.5

-32.3 71.02

-33.3 20.62 20.72,.1.I1 5.50

~

M 2 Snow Load (Case 23):

~

See Elevation N1 N2 MI M2 A

W A

W A

W A

W A

W 21 285 285

-0 67

-0.98 1.1

. -0.99 0.51 0.11

-0.01 0 086

-0.75 1.57 1.29 1.57 0.44

-0.06 0.06 0.06 25 275 275

-1.10

-1.53 2.22

-1.52 0.25 0.098 0 23 0.11 1.23

.l.94

-2.29

-1.94 0.21 0.02 0.I5

-0.02 1

271 272 1.86 2.11

-1.99 2.11 0.44

-0.05

-0.05

-0 05 1.98 2.45 2.03 2.45

-0.53

-0.93

-0.09

-080 30 251 250

-0.43 3.64 3.60 3.62 1.74 2.18 0 58 2.20 1.28

-1.37 2.27 1.40 0.87 0.91

-0.18

-0.17

3. V'. I Lors (Cm 4):

i Esc l,Ilei tk,4~ " El 2

Mt M2

~ ~

A W

A W

A W

A W

A W

{

21 285 285 0.16 0.31 0.19 0.317 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.06 1

-0.16

-0.14 0.19

-0.02

-0.01

-0.05

-0.04 0.05 25 275 275 0.13 0.53 0.34 0.55 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.025

-0.13 0.29

-0.34

-0.28 0.06

-0.08

-0.08 4.05 1

271 272 0.31 0.833 0.54 0.99 0.15 0.79 0.06 0.75

-0.31

-0.42 4.54

-0.15 0.15 0.05

-0.06 4.03 30 251 250 0.27 0.41 1.22 0.77 0.16 0.03 0.26 0.37

-0.26

-4.83

-1.28

-4.71

-0.17

-0.92 0.26 1.46 j

4. Thermal Load (Case 26):

See Elevation NI N2 MI M2 A

W A

W A

W A

W A

W 21 285 285 22.21 116.

65.88 118.

114.8 20.26 176.0 2.45 19.29 160.

54.55 160.

92.40 0.43 156.1 0.53 25 275 275 7.72

-9.25 60.94 12.7 89.55 17.43 159.3 17.50 1.44 57.2 58.99 57.4 82.04 9.23 153.8 9.30 1

271 272 20.83 111.

-103.

108.

33.43 41.6 2.02 33.11 4

16.94 190.

106.

I81.

29.59 7.86 3.03 7.98 30 251 250

-0.34 1.12 0.01 1.03 4.47 1.06 1.43 1.08 8.72 4.14 5.99 2.05 2.63 5.29 0.13 1.75

)

^

1

i

5. Seismic Load (Case 21):

Sec Elevation N1 N2 MI M2 A

W A

W A

W A

W A

W 21 285 285 25.99 48.98 74.49 49.96 18.68 3.78 14.20 3.76 8.98 35.85 49.74 35.64 3.54 2.86 5.56 2.27 25 175 275 83.31 67.99 106.8 61.45 27.43 5.54 20.32 5.15

~

36.97 55.39 79.27 59.61 10.86 3.24 4.69 2.93 1

271 272 121.5 99.90 80.77 95.03 33.57 46.47 11.60 46.5I 61.41 63.33 64.84 60.62 24.61 8.26 4.68 8.79 30 251 250 42.09 157.7 209.9 172.1 63.05 74.45 28.65 70.91 3.70 26.12 118.4 40.39 28.05 39.20' 2.98 9.71

6. Load Combination 202:

Sec Elevation N1 N2 M1 M2 A

W A

W A

W A

W A

W 21 285 285

-33 0

-31.6

-70.6 31.0 9.26 3.474 4.55 2.38

-40.2

-62.2

-85.7

-62.1 7.45 0.810 2.63

-0.33 25 275 275

-59.0 72.9 104.

72.2 26.01 1.071 6.41

-1.19

-64.0 76.9

-109.

77.1 23.81

-4.94 3.44

-4 44 1

271 272 104.

-75.2

-81.0 75.

24.5

-8.22

-4.58

-8.21

-113.

110.

84.6 108..

28.2

-43.1

-6.38

-41.7 30 251 250 2.92 138.2 160.0 145.I 64 43 76.36 23.71 76 62

-43.9

-47.7 101.1

-47.6 30.06 29.75 7 91

-7 37 e

9

7. Load Combination 203:

See Elevation N1 N4 i' ~

M2 A

W A

W A

W A

W A

W 21 285 285 22.7

-99.3 79.4

-105.

I34.3 26.33 187.2 23.67

-70.0 155.

192.

155.

-123.

3.83

-191.

3.0(

i 25 275 275 43.5 3.72 90.06

-4.16 134.0 23.00 182.0 19.43 j

-125.

-50.7 247.

52.5

-109.

9.42'

• 188.

10.08 i

1 271 272 65.92 101.

135.6

-%.2 46.37 50.61 11.40 49.13 233.

176.

-245.

-163.

-83.0 10.12 l 1.8 10.89 30 251 250 30.63 259.6 329.

273.3 108.2 128.7 45.42 126.

j 73.7

-1.56

-106.

4.457 30.1 61.89 22.2 2.44 l

0 4

I i

a

-l 4

s i

v e

c. Comoression Rinn miev. 284' Sec.19):

l Lead N1 N2 M1 M2 1

A W

A W

A W

A

'W i

i Dead 7.40 7.8

-50.3 50.2 0.07 3.77 0.88 4.06

)

(22 W )

3.I4 4.5 55.6 56.6 0.39 2.18 1.36

-2.4 i

Snow

-0.06 1.41

-0.86 1.56 0.12 0.13 0.00 0.11 (23) 0.18 0.41

-0.97 2.12 0.13 0.08 0.05

-0.04 Wlad 0.00 0.78 0.07 0.48 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.06-j_

(24) 0.00 0.00

-0.07 0.06

-0.01 0.02

-0.01 0.03 Therusal

-1.78 49.41 212.

176.9 2.48 5.35 4.86 8.33 t

(26)

-8.01 21.75

-217.

165.6 0.46 0.81 10.0 15.9 Seismic 22.10 11.6 61.49 60.86 2.12 4.13 8.99 5.15 (21) 2.67 6.61 34.93 53.76 1.14 2.56 3.16 1.71 Combination 10.25 14.7 71.8

-72.1

-0.08 5.58 1.25 5.82 (202)

-4.71

-6.%

-79.6 82.5 79 3.17

-2.00 3.39 I

Combination 38.39 56.62 209.7 179.7 6.55 10.58 14.64 11.98 t

l

@ 3I I8.7 26.37 333.

I65.7 2.85 5.56

-15.9

-10.3 i

il f

i L

8 6

f I

j 1

4 L

i 3

i f

t

[

i i

d. PCS Vertical Wall:

1. Dead Load (Case 22+99):

~

Sec Elevation N1 N2 MI M2 A

W A

W A

W A

W A

W I

275 272 11.7 7.38

-28.9

-46.6 8.90 59.8 1.89 14.2

-12.7

-10.8

-30.1

-48.9 7.90 53.8 1.13 10.8 18 287 287

-10.0

-7.72

-39.8 34.1

-9.59

-6.64

-1.43

-0.62

-12.2

-11.1

-42.8

-35.9 11.0

-8.54

-2.11 1.83

2. Snow Load (Case 23):

Sec Elevation N1 N2 MI M2 A

W A

W A

W A

W A

W 1

275 272

-0.53

-0.36

-1.19

-2.I4

-0.16 0.81

-0.03 0.37

-0.63

-0.51 l.23 2.21

-0.21 0.71

-0.05 0.07 18 287 287

-0.93

-0.91

-I.17

-1.58

-0.51

-0.90

-0.08

-0.15

-0.99 1.01

-1.26 1.70

-0.55

-0.92 0.11

-0.20

3. Wind Load (Case 24):

See Elevattoe N1 N2 M1 M2 A

W A

W A

W A

W A

W 1

275 272 0.26 0.30 0.25

-0.04 0.11 4.08 0.03 0.04

-0.26

-0.02 0.25 0.38 0.11 1.25 4 03

-0 25 18 287 287 0.09 0.243 0.20 0.11 0.16 0.24 0.03 0.053

-0.09 0.00 0.19 0 00

-0.16 0.05 0.03 0.010 e

i 1

4. Thermal Load (Case 26):

I Sec Elevation N1 N2 MI M1 A

W A

W A

W A

W' A

W 1

275 272 3.06 13.04 44.65

-86.0 56.72 24.1 81.79

-0.75

-2.76

-0.91

-40.1 88.7

-60.6

-31.1

-87.2

-17.5 1

18 287 287 2.99

-0.33 132.0 26.2 92.67 35.9 15.62 5.81

-3.04 1.81

-131.

29.0 98.3 38.1

-16.6

-10.5

5. Seismic Load (Case 21):

l Sec Elevation NI N2

.MI M2 A

W A

W A

W A

W A

W l

275 272 51.95 31.82 57.14 67.54 53.6 93.91 10.45 19.15 E.80 21.41 46.59 60.21 < 21.86 40.7 2.62 8.09 18 287 287 36.36 34.36 40.71 51.9 22.34 40.16 5.20 8.55 18.91 32.I6 31.50 50.6 11.74, 36.59 2.25 5.91 j

i

6. Load Combination 202:

Sec Elevation N1 N2 Mt M2 A

W A

W A

W A

W A

W 1'

275 272

-16.9 10.7 58.0

-69.5 42.6I 84 37 8.12 19.56 l

-20.6 15.6

-61.0 72.7 37.75 75.31 5 83 15.46 j

18 287 287

-15.5 12.0 57.4 50.3 14.0 10.5 2.08 l.08 18.9 17.1

-62.4 53.2 16.6 13.2 3.17 2.83 95

7. Load Combination 203:

Sec Elevation NI N2 M1 M2 A

W A

W A

W A

W A

W 1

275 272 38.95 32.14 58.8 71.4 139.2 126.9 97.4 31.14

-65.6 17.6

-139.

-77.4

-85.3 69.65

-91.9 3.'311 18 287 287 24.74 23.37 128.8

-11.2 102.5

-4.28 18.4 1.109 50.0 20.55

-214

-15.0

-130.

-9.08

-23.7

-5.63 e

S S

4 i

l 6.

Conclusions:

Comparison of results obtained from Ames lab and Westinghouse 3D models i

indicated the following:

i j

e Loading configurations:

j

- Applied dead and seismic loads on both models are consistent.

- Applied snow, wind and thermal loads on both models need to be resolved.

e Stress Resultants due to dead and seismic loads:

- Base shear and moments are comparable.

- N forces at the base are comparable.

i

- The values of N, M and M at the tension ring are comparable.

2 i

2

- Middle surface eccentricity produced higher M at the conical roof i

sections below the PCS tank.

- The values of N and M at the compression ring are comparable.

2 i

- The discrepancy of N at the tension and compression ring needs to i

be discussed.

• Stress resultants used in design:

- Stress resultants used in design needs to be compared to load combination 203 results.

oecelo du incdiccd D W(p c w>c cAce n

o11 So'd 00ocbhoru EMMo{ eM -

o it.

4 N.I. BASEMAT DESIGN ISSUES i

j NRC LETTER OF NOVEMBER 4,1996 IDENTIFIED:

DESIGN OF BASEMAT FOR HARD AND SOFT SPOTS SHALLOW SOIL SITE CONDITIONS o

HARD AND SOFT SPOTS:

IN A MEETING IN NEW YORK ON JULY 11 IT WAS AGREED BETWEEN NRC AND WESTINGHOUSE THAT WE WOULD DEFINE INTERFACE CRITERIA i

FOR ALLOWABLE LOCAL VARIABILITY OF SOIL 1

WESTINGHOUSE AND PAUL RIZZO ASSOCIATES HAVE REVIEWED EXISTING SITES AND DEFINED THE INTERFACE CRITERIA WESTINGHOUSE CONDUCTED ANALYSIS SUPPORTING THE INTERFACE 2

CRITERIA I

SHALLOW SOIL SITE CONDITIONS:

]

WESTINGHOUSE PROPOSED SITE SPECIFIC ANALYSIS IN THE SSAR FOR THESE SITES THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH NOVEMBER 4th LETTER i

4 OVERALL COMMENTS:

AP600 BASEMAT DESIGN IS ADEQUATE EXTENSIVE TECHNICAL ANALYSIS / EVALUATIONS SUPPORT THE EXISTING DESIGN WESTINGHOUSE REQUESTS NRC TO EVALUATE THE BASEMAT DESIGN BASED ON ITS TECHNICAL MERITS

i l

?

b

\\

l Foundation Interface Conditions Westinghouse AP600 Prepared by Paul C Rizzo Associates s

(

l Standard Design Requirements For Foundations i

SSE ZPA n 0.30g with Reg Guide 160 Allowable Bearing Pressure > 8000 psf Shear Wave Velocity ><1000 ft/sec -

, No liquefaction or other geologic hazards l

1 4

1 r

-+-..~r

-m.. ---

r

.._,.....-_.,...-.__--,e--__.--,_,_------_m..___-_,...

.---.,m-

\\

l f

l

(

'"*,W-g/

M

~

'r p.

-:y;:.

Two Broad Foundation issues Effect of foundation media variability on seismic response s

Effect of foundation media variability on forces and moments in the foundatior4 mat mummmmmmmmmmer N

Foundation Media 22 Site Specific Profiles 11 sites with shallow rock 11 sites with soil profiles

. Depth to rock--50 ft to 4000 ft

• All manne, deltaic or lacustone

. No lateral variation within. footprint (except possibly Monticello) l

-=e--

-- -- ---~ * ' -

nw *'- '===

l I

i l

' ' ' ^

w -Y,.... ns,.,R

',1, ~ ~...

Wf s g;g E&..

ap.

-v

-a.

=&

.m W

Q]Lx q"1.1::c

-~"i i

Foundation Media Types i

n Soft to Medium Soil Site -1200 fps <Vs<2500 fps l

• , Embedment Site founded on rock

~

g I

Shallow Site-< 80 ft of soit under foundation e

I i

g intermediate Site-80 to 260 ft.of soil Deep Site > 260 ft of soil under foundation e

Soft Soil $ite - 1000 fps < Vs < igd 0 fps l

Same as above tj I

ii 1

i e

11~

4 i

(,,

~ ~ 1.

J f 7 f.;.1 ()'tI.;^'~""'~

i N

f.:,.

i l

l

$,,, [I

~

Uniform Site No significant lateral variation in the basic soil properties beneath the fotpidation footprint For a " Uniform" site, no special modeling is j

required and respon'se will be within the AP600 envelope.

I l

I I

i i

i i

t s.

I l

i l

~

Uniform Site-Corollary Question i

Under what conditions can a "non-uniform" site be compliant with the AP600 design requirements?

i i

I 4

l We 5

Q/Lx up;!::

1 Uniform Site Criteria i

Acceptable Vs Variation depends on media type Dip eq'ual to or less than 20 degrees is "horizontar--applies to both interfaces (NUREG CR-0693) l

.........A s

l

. ~.,

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

Y

~

t 1

m_..

.1 l

u

~

Uniform-Rock Site j

\\

/

Layers are " horizontal" f-dip? 20 degrees Vs does not vary by more,than 20% of average Vs in the honzontal layer Sublayenng within a rock layer for modeling purposes is encouraged to meet entena i

-r.

l s

c N

Uniform Soft to Medium Soil Site Layers are " horizontal' --dip < 20 degrees Vs does not vary by more than 10% of average Vs in the hon.zontal layer Sand--K does n'ot vary by more than 10%

2 Clay--G/Su does not vary by more than 10%

l l

Sublayering within a soillayer for modeling purposes is encouraged to meet criteria I

l

~

l

\\

i i

l

!?.

N Uniform. Soft Soil Site.

l Same Cntena as for Soft to Medium ' oil Site S

i I

t N

N q,

g _. -

I i

Q /[g;$> r ;;;;'A' - [

Non-Uniform Compliant Sites Sloping Bedrock Site

. Typical Riverfront Site Geologically impacted Site I

j

. Abrupt Facies Change l

. Shear Zone or intrusive Dike l

Undulatory Bedrock Site l

. Erosion Surface

. Differential Weathe' ring or Soft Zones r

i.

1

I l

\\

n

- S

~

Subgrade Modulus Parametric Study '

1 Layenng Foundation Shape

~ Foundation Embedment Subgrade Modulus distnbution i

1 t

K = qolAH =1/ (BIE,) x (1.

2) x 1, x 1, o

1 8 = width E, = weighted average modulus.

{

I, = Shape Factor l

1, = Embedment Factor

)

a l

J e,

w,

--- - - - - - - -m-----.w------

-w..-.

---w,,

.---r-e----,

---

w

>----r

-=

---

,sr

--e-+

,4 1

1 f

/

i 1

Liny :::: -

l l

l l

l l

l 1

n t e :7+

M j

g I

Subgrade Modulus Distribution l

1 Relative flexibility of the mht relative to l

subgrade l

Clay versus Sand i

i i

l W

l

.1

i i

I*

i Rigid Mat Pressure Distribution

~

f qcl y-4e elliptic di pibution j

3 i

Rigid Mat Pressure Distribution For Theoretically Rigid Mat I

l qci = 0.7qo & qc = 2 24 go (infinite) i For AP600 Mat j

qct = 0.85 qo & qc = 162 go i

j l

l i

1 l

1 l

l 4

k.

j

i.

l' d

~

9 K'(x,yt 7 O,y x Ko x BL where Cxy is ghometry-dependent factor I

i i

l i

l l

I i

b

/

Elliptic distribution suggests 20%

increase in bearing pressures af corners of the AP600 Mat. This is l

within the' allowable margin in the design I

I

0 I

i

-.. y.,

@ L)C'< -C' M l

Accountin or Non-Uniformity l

at-l Non-Uniform Compliant Sites I

l Ko(x,y) = 1/(B/E,,y) * (1-2) x 1, x 1, i

l l

where E,y = weighted average @ x,y s

l l

l h

j g l[:O f..

Geotechnical Site Investigations Goals

' 9 Fulfill Appendix A Requirements Show Comphance with Intedace Criteria e

Perform Site Irivestigation in accordance with R G 1 132 and 1 138 d

I i

a

. - - - - - -. ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

i O

4 i

1 Y

y Geotechnical Site investigations Objectives Define type of site (rock soft to medium. etc ),

Establish uniformity or e

l Define non uniform site conditions cover footpont + 40 feetNyond l

borings on a god'of 50 to 60 feet

[

1/4 of primary borings to penetrate sound rock u.

r

'g t ' tu

(..t c.-

'n.

Field Investigations b

t l

Stand $rd penetratron tests supplemented by cone i

penett ation tests i

Undisturbed sampling for compressible. soils Rock coring and samphng Shear wave velocity measurements p

a

/

l l

e i

\\

> x.m

-~

I

{

Laboratory Testing Modulus degradation and dampi,ng of soils (4 to 6 in i

each layer) l CU triaxial with pore pressure measurements F

h

/

l jW l

l 1

l I

)

1 1

i a

I l

(

4 1

N LO D

C 1

o cn 256' w$

m3 53

)

h n

117'-6" 9 0'- 9" U

l y

138'

-118' y y

-=

=

c c y g SUBCASE d=

8= SLOPE y g tJO.

DEPTH ANGLE i

U E 1A 10' 30' l

EL. 307 1B 10' 40' rj 1C 25' 37 ee 10 25' 40' 8

3 R I

e l

l 2

hb SITE GRADE--

EL 155 77

\\

EL 100

$3 SOIL Vs =

1200'/SEC EL 60 l

h d

UNIFORM SOfL LAYERS

/

p,-[

u Y

3

' -y vs = 1200 TO 2500'/SEC i

SLOP t G BE ROCK p

' VA lOUS OKl FIGURE 3-1 Vs = 3500'/SEC SLOPING BEDROCK AP600 FOUNDATION INTERFACE CONDITIONS SCALE PREPARED FOR WESTINGHOUSE 100 0

100 FT PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA Paul C Rizzo Associates.Inc.

w CONSULTANTS

~ --

2 i

1 i

M O

{

D I

g

$N f$ e g&

a 256'

=

4, M

q k

R t

gO oE 6

2 2

2 "W &

' Si Vd VM 3

2A 2500 2000 8000

-50 0

20 2500 2000 8000

+50 0

g 20 2500 2000 8000

-50 20 8m 20 2500 2000 8000

+50 20 2E 2500 S000 2500

-50 20

-l 117-6 o

2F 2500 8000 2500

+50 20 cn i

I I

Y 138'

_ l _

118' i

5 5 o e EL. 307 U b S e i

5 ?

I 6

3' h N

EL 180 d

SITE GRADE 8

EL 155 8

EL 100 i

O'/SEC EL 60

[

g-il I

y d2 l

_l

~l

,'l R1 l

W2 _' l l_

l I

R2 R3 1

NOTES:

1.

FOR CASES 2A THROUGH 2D, R2 IS A g

BRECCATED SHEAR 2ONE (VERTICAL).

FIGURE 3-2 2 roR CASES 2E AND 2F. R2 IS AN INTRUSIVE oiKE (VERTICAL).

CASE 2 i

GEOLOGICALLY IMPACTED SITE AP600 FOUNDATION INTERFACE CONDITICNS SCALE PREPARED FOR t

v m.

WESTINGHOUSE 100 0

100 FT PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA l

1

')("' 'l ) 1%1 C Rizzo Associate Iser b CONSULTANTS

E k

I I

NOC l

O 256*

_e

~

l Ce c2

+c',o h

o og of i

g

~~

O 4 117'-6" p

3A 40 20 20 y

39 80 20 20 l

3C 40 100 20

138, 110 30 80 100 20 p

[ [

l EL. 3Q7 5 $

2 E l

g u

o 3 2 EL 180 i

SITE GRADE EL 155 2

EL 100 SO!L Vs =

8 1200'/SEC EL 60 I

h

[l1

' Vs = 2000'/SEC

- Wl-ACTUAL ROCK l

(TYP.)

(TYP.)

y SURFACE d2

[

~M

{\\

[

i JLY k

k i

Vs = 3500'/SEC 1

IDEAi iND ROCK SURFidE PROFILE E

FIGURE 3-3 CASE 3 UNDULATING BEDROCK SURFACE a

AP600 FOUNDATION INTERFACE CCNDITIONS SCALE o

PREPARED FOR s

WESTINGHOUSE 100 0

100 R P TTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA 7

1%1 C Rizzo Associates.Inc.

CONSULTANTS

.-.-.-...~--..x.

e l

4 O<

l l

N tO C

e G

U*

1.0 g

o2 65

\\

09 N

T

-s N

l N

O

>^wm.

N 3

e" s

m x \\ %,, *s a

s Yg

/4 4

l

! l 5

'y c

\\

'/

\\

{

l

! ?

% x \\a, x x

/

N' g N

0.6 g

3 N S bel

\\

A i

0.5 i

M

@ h oc 2 C C

C C

C C

l iw d dddd ei M

V W

d j

Depth ratio,D/B

~

l l 1 i

4 FIGURE 4-1 INFLUENCE FACTOR FOR EMBEDMEN AP600 FOUNDATION INTERFACE CONDITIONS 1

1 J

PREPARED FOR WESTINGHOUSE REFERENCE; PITTSBURGH. PENNSYLVANIA Dow:.ES, JOSEPH E. FOUNDATION ANALYSIS e

DC3 GN. 4TH EDITeON.

'# c C o A W - H".t.

aul r20 Associates. Ir.c

1 l

i SUP9MRY OF MEETING TO DISCUSS WESTINGHOUSE AP600 NUCLEAR ISLAND FOUNDATION MAT DESIGN

(

~

I July 11, 1996, i

i Action W -- Westinghouse will in~ lude in the standard safety analysis report i

c (SSAR) site interface criteria related to the local variability of the soil stiffness below the foundation mat.

The allowable variability will be incl ced in the design of the foundation mat.

Westinghouse expects that the i

allowaL*.. stiffness variability will affect the design member forces (e.g.,

bsnd'i.; moments and -shears in the foundation mat).

Westinghouse will describe the,trameters of the foundation mat design that are affected by local l

.; tiff.k.:s variability.

The COL applicant will perform site investigations to l

a63u % variability on stiffness is within the acceptance criteria.

i l

i t

I

~

SITE INTERFACE FOR FOUNDATION SOIL VARIABETY I

NUCLEAR ISLAND BASEMA'2'IS ANALYZED ON UNIFORM SOIL SPRINGS.

TliiZ ANALYSES NEGLECT BENEFIT OF SIDE SOILS.

i REENFORCEMENT DESIGN OF 6 FOOT THICK BASEMAT INCLUDES 20 i

PE2 CENT MARGIN TO ACCOMMODATE VARIABILITY OF SUBGRADE MT,DULUS.

COL APPLICANT REQUIREMENT IS INCLUDED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT FUJNDATION SOIL VARIABILITY IS WITHIN BASEMAT DESIGN

.CA1 ABILITY.

EFJECT OF SOIL VARFABILITY ON THE COEFFICIENT OF SUBGRADE M63ULUS MUST BE WITHIN VARIABILITY CONSIDERED IN DESIGN OF BASEMAT.

l i

i

l 4

SITE INTERFACE FOR FOUNDATION SOIL VARIABILITY CASE 1 "NEAR" UNIFORM SITE. THIS JS EXPECTED TO COVER MOST EXISTING NUCLEAR PLANT SITES.

CASE 2 BEARING PRESSURES ON UNDERSIDE OF RIGID BASEMAT LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 120 PERCENT OF THOSE FOR SIMILAR ANALYSIS ON UNIFORM SUBGRADE MODULUS.

I CASZ3 SITE SPECIFIC BASEMAT ANALYSIS WITH ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA ON BEARING PFiESSURES OR REINFORCEMENT.

i i

i E

l 256*

l I

lI d

i 117'-6" 90'- 9" i

U U

118'

_l__

l __

138' e-a SUBCASE c=

8* SLOPE No.

OEPTH ANCLE i

4 1A

• 10' 30' b EL 307 18 10' 47 g

1C 2S' 30' 10 2s*

47 l

i I

EL 180 SITE CRADE i

i EL 155 EL 100 SOIL vs =

1200'/SEC EL 60

)

UNIFORW SOfL LAYERS U

j

-f Vs = 1200 TO 2500'/SEC i

1 SLOPtNC BEDROCK

,,, ""' VARIOUS ROCK i i

}

SURFACE FORMATIONS vs = 3500*/SEC g

SCALE 100 0

100 FT 1%1 C R::e Ase ciates !ae.

comsmes Figwe 8 1 Sloplag Bedrock Site

. ~..

%z

.g 3

"O E

~

3 w

.9.b4

.3. 00

(

h l

I

{

a

- 7...'

l h

E 1

• 4 E

,I

'#(

h l

~

A E

.i E

\\

..._.l............_:........

2 I

e. j-

.s' r

j g

e l

s

t l

N e

/

4 e'

i j

1 g

b e

i 2

I.

t 8

\\

D i

L..---.-

m

.b.h

.*,0 hl

SUBGRADE DISPLACEMENTS;AND MODULUS SOIL 1200 fps; BEDROCK 3500 fps 2000 0.006

^u_

4 (n

5

\\

c

\\

1500.2 W

w s

N' E

-b y

0.004 s

a e

s

1. [F.

m 1000 s b

's

[

O 2

A W

U wa 5

s s

n.

E g'

g E2 0 002

• q 0

E

~ ~.g' ' A- - 4.

500 o

B E

m

~A

-g-__.g__ g _

g l

O id - + _.

.... _ o _.,.., _, -

+-n w

n 0

0 0

100 200 300 400 DEPTH OF SOIL LAYER Z e TOTAL DISPLACEMENT

+ LAYER INTERFACE DISPLACEMENT

[

A SUBGRADE MODULUS

t 4

l 1

t E

l f

g

\\

gbq~

f

=

=

i e'

C u

u b

l E

E E

• E w

$e s

e e

e r

24 2Soo 2000 sooo

-So o

H 8

20 2500 2000 Gooo

+S0 o

h 2C 2$00 2000 0000

-So 20 b,

117'-6*

20 2Soo 2000 sooo

+50 2o 2t 2500 sooo 2500

- 50 20 o

2r 2Soo 8000 2Soo 50 to ci i

O U

l_

138' s-198' I

EL 307 I

a SITE GRADE EL 155 EL 100 i

k*SEC EL 60

.i i

.!L2 I 1 l. I

• 1 N 'J L_

RS f Rg

-l, V notes-g g

1. rom CAST $ 2A twRouCM 20. R2 IS A DrtCC*TED SMCAR 20 set (VERTICAL).

b k

2. FOR casts 2C ANo 2f. R2 IS AN emeUSNC D*C (vtWitCAL).

9 5CALE 100 0

100 FT 1%=1 C lhee Aseeewtm Inc.

cowwe Figwe 8 2 ceososicany hop.cted site

1 0

i t

256"

%4.;-

z U

4 a

e 3

117*-6*

3 3A 40 20 20 0

i!

se so 20 to E ;8 l: !8

!=

iw "e

= !

=

EL 307 9

1 0 SITE GRADE EL ISS El 100 Soll Vs =

8 i

1200*/SEC EL 60 o

s

. v.. =0 /SEC (TY )

fTY )

mbm U

FA Y

m c2 1

)

)

,\\

)

l vs = 3500'/SEC iDEALI2ED ROCK SURFACE PROFILE f

SCALE 100 0

100 FT Ibn C Ibsi. Am cata.!ae.

ca.ewm Figure 8 3 Unduladng Bedrock Site

l SITE INTERFACE FOR FOUNDATION SOIL VARIABILITY THE VARIATION OF SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY IN THE FOUNDATION MATERIAL TO A DEPTH OF 80 FEET BELOW THE BASEMAT WITHIN THE FOOTPRINT OF THE PLANT SHALL MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA:

~

i i

FOR A ROCK SITE OR FOR BEDROCK BELOW SOIL LAYERS, DEFINED BY AN AVERAGE SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 2500 FEET PER SECOND, THE SHEAR t

WAVE VELOCITY AT ANY LOCATION WITHIN ANY HORIZONTAL (THAT IS, A DIP LESS THAN 20 DEGREES)

EQUAL-THICKNE'SS LAYER DOES NOT VARY FROM THE AVERAGE VELOCITY WITHIN THE HORIZONTAL LAYER BY MORE THAN 20 PERCENT.

i 4

FOR A SOIL SITE, DEFINED BY AN AVERAGE SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY LESS,THAN 2560 &&2T f*ER SECOND, THE SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY.WITHIN ANY NEARLY HORIZONTAL SOIL LAYER (I.E., A D10P LZSS TfiAN 20 DEGREES) DOES NOT VARY

.l FROM THE AVERAGE VELOCITY WITHIN THE HORIZONTAL l

PLANE BY MORE THAN 10 PERCENT.

I t

l l

l SITE INTERFACE FOR FOUNDATION SOIL VARIABILITY A SITE WITH NONUNIFORM SOIL PRbPERTIES MAY BE j

DEMONSTRATED TO BE ACCEPTABLE BY' SITE-SPECIFIC ANALYSES OF THE BEARING PRESSURES ON.THE UNDERSIDE OF A i

l RIGID RECTANGULAR BASEMAT EQUIVALENT-TO THE NUCLEAR l

ISLAND. BEARING PRESSURES ARE CALCULATED FOR DEAD AND i

l

. SAFE SHUTDOWN EARTHQUAKE LOADS. THE SAFE SHUTDOWN

[

l EnRTHQUAKE LOADS ARE THOSE FROM THE AP600 DESIGN SOIL CASE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE SITE-SPECIFIC SOIL.

ALTERNATIVELY, THE SAFE' SHUTDOWN EARTHQUAKE LOADS MAY BE DETERMINED FROM A SITE-SPECIFIC SEISMIC ANALYSIS i

OF THE NUCLEAR ISLAND. BEARING PRESSURES FROM THE SITE-i S?ECIFIC ANALYSES SHALL IIE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 120 PERCENT OF THE BEARING PRESSURES FOR A UNIFORM SOIL SMNG CASE.

~

i i

SITE INTERFACE FOR FOUNDATION SOIL VARIABILITY FGA 'JIRM SOILS THE ASSUMPTION OF A RIGID BASEMAT MAY BE OV22oY CONSERVATIVE BECAUSE LOCAL DEFORMATION OF THE BAS 2 MAT WILL REDU.CE THE EFFECT OF LOCAL SOIL VARIABILITY.

FC1 SUCH SITES, A SITE-SPECIFIC ANALYSIS MAY BE PERFORMED I

US-T1JG THE AP600 BASEMAT MODEL AND METHODOLOGY DESCRIBED IN'3SAk SUBSECTION 3.8.5. ALTERNATIVELY, BEARING PRESSURES l

MA.Y. 3E DETERMINED FROM A SITE-SPECIFIC SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION ANALYSIS. BEARING PRESSURES FROM THE SITE-

~

SP2ClJIC ANALYSES SHALL BE DEMONSTRATED TO BE LESS THAN i

THE GAPACITY OF EACH PORTION OF THE BASEMAT.

~

i

[

I

~

~

[

l l

- ~ - -

~

SITE SPECIFIC SEISMIC ANALYSES SSAR SUBSECTION 2.5.4.5.5

=

FOR SITES WHERE THE SOIL CHARACTERISTICS ARE OUTSIDE THE

~

RANGE CONSIDERED IN APPENDIX 2A.2 AND~ APPENDIX 2B.2, SITE-3 SPECIFIC SOIL STRUCTURE INTER TCTION ANALYSES MAY BE r

PERFORMED BY THE COMBINED.uCENSE APPLICANT TO DEMONSTRATE i

ACCElrl' ABILITY BY COMPARISON OF FLOOR-RESPONSE SPECTRA AT THE i

FOLLOWING LOCATIONS. THESE ANALYSES WOULD USE THE SITE SPECIFIC SOIL CONDITIONS AND SITE SPECIFIC SAFE SHUTDOWN EARTHOUAKE. THE THREE COMPONENTS OF THE SITE SPECIFIC GROUND i

~

MOTION TIME HISTORY MUST SATISFY THE ENVELOPING CRITERIA OF j

STANDARD REVIEW PLAN 3.7.1 FOR THE RESPONSE SPECTRUM FOR DAMPING VALUES OF 2,3,4,5 AND 7 PERCENT AND THE ENVELOPING l

. CRITERION FOR POWER SPECTRAL DENSITY FUNCTION. COMPARISON OF THE FLOOR RESPONSE SPECTRA AT THESE LOCATIONS IS SUFFICIENT DEMONSTRATION THAT THE SITE SEISMIC CONDITIONS ARE WITHIN THE AP600 DESIGN BASIS.

REACTOR VESSEL SUPPORT CONTAINMENT OPERATING FLOOR SHIELD BUILDING ROCF l

CONTROL ROOM FLOOR i

i

- -