ML20137K157
Text
r 1
, 3,
,. t -
4:
'N
'N
/
h.
B,NL' Review of Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 4
- 3 upper Lateral Restraint Beam - Steam Generator Contributors
~ M. Reich, C.J. Costantino, S. Sharma, C. Miller and A.J. Philippacopoulos i
e 4
C,3Mf a
~.
0512030129 851106 FOIA P1)R ghDE85-M
~
INTRODUCTION On August 14 and 15, 1984, an audit was conducted by NRC and BNL at the offices of Gibbs and Hill, Inc. (G & H), New, York, on the subject of the upper lateral support beams (see Figures 1 and -2) for the steam generator compartment. At this meeting, various aspects of the structural analysis and design of the steel beam and concrete compartment were investigated. At the conclusion of the meeting, G & H was asked to provide additional information which was needed to complete the review.
This material was received during the final week of August. Additional material and clarifications were required during the review process. These were obtained via teiephone converstations and meetings held at BNL in Upton, NY, at NRC in Bethesda, MD and Gibbs and Hill in New York City. Specific dates for these meetings are
. November 5, 1984, November 13, 1984 and December 5, 1984. The BNL evaluations have now been completed and the ~ specific findings are summarized below.
LOAD COMBINATIONS Three separate load conditions were considered in the structural analysis, two LOCA loadings (at 0.5 and 216 seconds) and a Main Steam Break at 324 seconds. These load conditions were composed of combinations of pressure, temperature, dead, live, mechanical loads including primary system seismic loads, and seismic loadings from compartment motions. The last of these,
-seismic from compartment motions, were obtained from the peak acceleration output determined from the dynamic analysis of the stick model of the RCB.
The other loadings', having been previously investigated by the MEB of NRC, and thus were not considered as part of this audit. All load components for each load condition are summarized on pages 2 and 3 of the Letter Report GTN-69363 from G & H to Texas Utilities, dated August 21, 1984.
NONLINEAR FINITE ELEMENT STUDY A detailed nonlinear finite element model (FEM) analysis of.the upper lateral beam and concrete compartment walls was performed using the EBASCO version of the NASTRAN computer program.
The nonlinearity in the problem was introduced by allowing concrete cracking to occur as the load combination was applied to the structure.
Since the problem contains nonlinearities, all 4
._.,_.......r.
s.....
y
, applied loads, including seismic loads, must be applied at the same time to properly assess the extent of cracking. This was done by G & H.
Seismic loads were applied to the G & H model in three' coordinate directions, two horizontal and one vertical and were scaled such that 100% of the seismic load war, applied in the NS direction,'dO% in the EW direction and 40% in the vertical direction.
Normally, seismic analyses are performed by applying the dynamic loads independently in opposite directions. For this nonlinear analysis, such an approach leads to the requirement of performing
-nine separate analyses.- G & d performed two such analyses for the seismic loadings.
The FEM used by G & H was developed for one-half of the concrete compartment, since the compartment is symmetric ab6II{ the NS direc peTh model extends from an elevation of about 819' at the bottom to 88F at the top. Boundary conditions applied to the top and bottom nodes of the FEM are considered reasonable in view of the actual construction of the compartment.
Along the centerline, however, the node points were restrained in the EW direction (by using roller supports in the NS direction). The use uf this
. boundary condition leads to the result that the EW seismic loading condition '
cannot be correctly treated, since th'e model is artificially restrained. For the other loading types, namely pressure and temperature, this boundary condition is reasonable, since both the applied loadings are symmetric for these cases.
Thus, considering all the loads applied to FEM, two questions remain on the adequacy of the calculations associated with the seismic loads; namely, only two seismic load combinations were considered, and the boundary conditions used invalidate one component calculation. To evaluate the impact of these two restrictions on the nonlinear analysis, the results of previously obtained linear finite element seismic analyses were investigated. These analyses were performed by G & H using STARDYNE and hence did not suffer from the two restrictions mentioned above.
Concrete cracking effects were not considered in these runs, however. The results of these runs indicate that 4
P
...d
~
....r...
. - ~
e
, the stresses developed by the seismic loads are very small as compared to the stresses developed by pressure and thermal loadings. Therefore, it is our judgement that the deficiency in the analyses associated with the seismic loadings are not significant.
It should be noted that BNL arrived at this conclusion using the results of G & H's TARDYhE output together with a mesh diagram used for that run.
Another aspect of the numerical studies of interest to the audit team has to do with the verification of the modifications inserted into the NASTRAN Computer Code inserted to perform the nonlinear cracking analysis of con-crete. The analytic formulation of the model was ascertained and based on BNL's experience with concrete crack modeling it was found to be reasonable.
In addition, EBASCO was asked to perform two other computer model studies to further verify the applicability of the code to this particular type of load-ing problem. These had to do with the problem of bending behavior of members with significant axial loads.
NASTRAN VERIFICATION RUNS After the audit of August 14 and 15, 1984, EB ASCO performed the evalua-tion of several check problems. The results of these were sent to BNL early in September. After studying the output and after consultation with NRC staff, it was decided to further investigate one of these problems in greater detail. The specific problem (identified as CA29 in the EBASCO submittal),
and involves the prediction of load / deflection / cracking behavior and failure conditions for a RC beam rigidly held at both ends and centrally loaded.
A detailed finite element grid was developed by EBASCO, consisting of 200 elements, 10 layers through the thickness and 20 divisions along the half
-length. BNL used the same mesh and boundary conditicas, and ran a comparable a
e G
w
_m m
n m
.m
. analysis using the NFAP program (developed at BNL). The results of these two runs can be described as follows:
1.
At low loads of (about 15 kips in the linear region, before the de-velopment of substantial concrete element cracking), the two runs yield comparable load-deflection output.
2.
At. higher loads (about 22 to 24 kips), the BNL/NFAP results pre-dict diagonal tension cracking failure occurring near the supports for the beam. This result is very close to the value of ultimate capacity predicted by ZSUTTY'S equation, which is based on statis-tical evaluation of extensive experimentally determined data points.
(Bazant & Kim, paper 81-38, ACI Journal September - October 1984).
It should be noted that this failure load could also be deduced from the ACI Code.
3.
The failure pattern predicted by NFAP indicates that multiple cracking will develop in some of the elements of the mesh, prior to failure of the, beam.
4.
The results from NASTRAN indicate no failure even at a load of 32 kips where the run was terminated.
5.
The predicted crack pattern for this NASTRAN run (Sept. 84) did not indicate any multiple cracking.
In fact, the brief review of the output from all four sample problems presented by EBASCO did not show any
-mulitple crack patterns.
At this stage, a second meeting was-held between BNL and EBASCO to discuss these comparisons. This meeting was attended by R. Iotti and H. Chang who represented EBASC0/G&H and S. Sharma and M. Reich from BNL. The outcome of this meeting was that EBASCO would check the NASTRAN results and screen the problem to validate the EBASCO predicted results. At a subsequent meeting
~s e==
h
'. (November 5, 1984) at BNL, the results of the new computer runs for (EBASCO CA29) were presented by H. Chang. The written report given to BNL is attached to Appendix 1 of this paper. These results can be summarized as follows:
1.
EBASCO was able to show a failure load of 24 kips (comparable to test data) only by assuming a tensile strength of 120 psi, which is four times lower than the strength that would be normally assumed for the concrete.
(It should be noted that in the.. September run, the concrete tensile strength used in NASTRAN was 546 psi.)-
2.
The EBASCO results show that failure is associated with shear failure accompanied by very large displacements. This is contrary to the results of other studies, including the BNL/NFAP results, as well as experiments.
Diagonal tension failure in concrete is typically a brittle failure at normal displacements.
3.
The results of the EBASCO runs indicate that the assumed value of the shear retention factor has no impact on the computed failure loads (this factor was varied from 0.2 to 0.4).
This is not supported from studies re or d_jn_the literature, nor from the BNL/NFAP results. An o rrease in of shear re actor from 0.2,to 0.4 should lead to an increase in ul g capac Iy of the beam of about 20%.
\\
4.
The multiple crack pattern shown by EBASCO for this new run indicates cracks orthogonal to each other. This result would not normally be expected and needs further explanation.
On the basis of these results, BNL concludes that the EBASCO formulation of the concrete cracking model as implemented in their NASTRAN version leads to incorrect results for this verfication problem. Therefore, the adequacy of the results from the code for the steam generator compartment cracking prediction are considered questionable.
s P
- - - - - ~
.,_--....__,k
h h Mb.
-~
EVALUATION OF UPPER LATERAL SUPPORT BEAMS (ULRB)
M y
The four upper lateral restraint beams in the steam generator compartments are subjected to high thermal loads especially for the Main Steam Line Break (MSLB) case. G & H was requested to provide calculations showing that an upper bound estimate of the axial and bending. stresses in the ULRB would still comply wi I5C equirements. These computations were included in the G & Hietter_ Report' GTN-69363 mentioned previously. A review of the data,however, shows that the stresses were calculated for a peak temperature of 282 F which corresponds to a LOCA temperature loading. For the MSLB, the peak temperature reaches a value of 355'F according to G & H and EBASCO. For this latter case BNL carried out computations assuming rigid walls and found that the upper bound estimate (for the case when the beam is assumed ~ fixed at both ends) of stresses would not be in compliance with AISC-1.6-a.
It should however be noted, that this assumption is J
u'irealistically conservative and if reasonable if cons (rvative assumptions are r
made concerning the concrete wall flexibilitybhfstresses in the beam will be reduced significantly and they then satisfy AISC-1.6-la. A sample calculation is provided in Appendix 2.
These calculations show, that even if only through thickness compressive flexibility of the wall is considered, the beam stresses would reduce to allowable levels.
In reality the walls are even more flexible because of bending and shear deformations, and thus, the beam stresses will be substantially lower.
In all of the discussed calculations above, the assumptions were that the beam is rigidly held by the concrete walls, i.e., no end rotations are possible. This condition would change if the walls crack around the beam end supports. The beams could then be considered as simply supported instead of fixed. The net effect of this condition would be a further reduction in the thermal stresses. However, for the case of seismic loads this change of end fixity would increase the bending stresses by approximately a factor of two.
This is due to the fact that the maximum bending moment in a centrally loaded beam with simply-supported ends is twice that of a beam with fixed ends.
BNL, therefore, evaluated the adequacy of the ULRB under seismic laods assuming simply supported conditions. Both, the deflections as well as the stresses in the beam were found to be much below the ablowable limits.
It
. should be noted, however, that in carrying out this latter evaluation, BNL utilized the loads provided by G & H who obtained them from Westinghouse. The modeling assumptions used by Westinghouse especially with regards to gap-inoact phenomena between the steam generator and the ULSB were not evaluated.
EVALUATION 0F CONCRETE WALLS G & H and EBASCO used the modified NASTRAN results to establish the adequacy of the reinforced concrete walls for the four steam generator l
compartments.
In particular G & H provided calculations to show that the concrete walls of the steam generator compartments satisfied ACI shear strength criteria. These ca'.culations are however based on stresses obtained f rom the NASTRAN runs.
Since BNL had questions pertaining to the adequacy of the modified NASTRAN code, especially with regards to the shear failure mode, it was decided to evaluate the walls using simplified engineering concepts.
In performing these evaluations, flexibility calculation for the walls were made assuming that the walls deformed as plates fixed along the intersection lines with supporting, floors or walls. The reactor cavity walIs were found to be much more flexible than the outer compartment walls which are stiffened by various intersecting floors. Because of this flexibility the interior wall will deflect and substantially reduce the axial thermal thrust induced by the ULSB. Based on the reduced thrust it was however still foJnd that the reactor cavity walls undergo substantial flexural and shear (punching type) cracking. This type of failure is not likely to occur at the outer walls of compartments 1, 2 and 3, because of the intersecting floors (although some cracking of the concrete will probably also occur there).
In compartment 4, the intersecting floors are outside of the punching shear, zone, and hence, cracking cannot be precluded there.
It should be noted that thermal stresses are self limiting and consequently once this failure occurs, the beam expands axially, and the total thrust is corresponding reduced. Actually, the beam only has to expand approximately 1/3 of an inch to completely relieve its stresses.
It is therefore judged that the cracking will be of a localized nature and will not significantly affect the overall structural integrity of the compartment walls.
m-DN
, Because of the localized stress and deformation condition around the beam supports, the structural response away from.the supports should not be affected. Thus, with respect to the question pertaining to missing rebars at a much lower elevation, it is BNL judgement that the missing rebars will have negligible effect on the evaluations carried out for this report.
ANCILLARY INVESTIGATIONS In addition to the above items, several other questions were raised during the audit to which G & H was asked to respond. These had to do with what are considered to be relatively minor problems and those which, based upon engineering judgement and experience, could be relatively easily quantified.
1.
G & H was asked to provide calculations to show that in fact the con.
crete walls of the compartment are stiff enough such that the pres-sure rise time of LOCA loading is slow enough to eliminate dynamic effects. Such was in fact the case, with a dynamic load factor calcula-ted to be about 1.0.
2.
Calculations were requested to show that local buckling and torsional loading effects on the upper lateral restraint beam do not lead to a reduction in ' stress allowables. They do not.
It should be noted that the stress resultants used for these calculations were taken from the EBASC0/NASTRAN nonlinear output and as such may be in error. The moment resultants shown to us were small (on the order of 4% of the allowable for the MSLB case). Thus, even if they are in errar, they should not influence the overall conclusions.
3.
Additional calculations were requested to show that stresses in the anchor bolts and adjacent reinforcing rods at the beam-wall support junction are of no concern.
These calculations are included in the referenced G & H document (sheets 64-69). and are satisfactory.
P
'% N
....m_.
4.
The same peak temperatures were used in the upper and lower re-straint beams in the FEM analyses of the compartment. G & H was asked to estimate the magnitude of stresses that could be developed in the walls from the small differences in temperatures of the two beams that could develop during LOCA and Main Steam Break loadings.
The approximate analyses performed are felt to be reasonable, and the results indicate that the effects of the differential temperatures are small.
CONCLUSIONS Based on the discussions above BNL has arrived at the following conclusions:
1.
The ULRB can satisfactorily support the high thermal loads developed the LOCA and MSLB. Since the other load components are small, the ULRB is considered satisfactory.
2.
The calculations presented for th,e nonlinear concrete cracking of the Steam Generator Compartment are considered unverified, due to questions arising from the sample problem CA29 output from the modi-fied EBASC0/NASTRAN Code.
3.
BNL has investigated the effects of the ULRB axial loads developed during MSLB and it was found that significant shear and moment cracking will develop in the concrete compartment walls.
It is reasonable to expect that significant cracking will occur both to the interal (i.e.,
reactor cavity walls as well as at the outer wall of the 4th compartment.
Some cracking is also expected on the outside compartment walls of the other three compartments.
's P
1
, 4.
It. is our engineering judgement that cracking will be localized around the beam supports and should not significantly impair the structural performance of the walls and of the URLB.
L.
The effects of the wall cracks will be to change the end fixity of of-the ULRB to that of simply supported. Based on seismic loads provided by the applicant, the modification in end conditions will have little. impact.on the seismic response.
6.
No assessment was made with respect to the effect of the cracks on radiological shielding.
~.
P L
I Rg
=
3 1
i i
I
~
l 3
s 3
/
b s
i I
k.
I
^
i-3:-
y 1
i:!
t t
')
~
s
- a
,,2.
y'y..,
\\
1 3
I
,7,.. ' -. V.
b e
...s
' r \\\\ - '
S-
/
}
8, 5..js /'
t
\\'
A.N
';f i.
i i
l g
a t.I 5i Y b) l
- ,i
~s
,o y ft f
p.
-g jN :-
7_
.I y
2:
C}
f_
-),, -
'N h
d'.'
~
.s.
j
.a
.l
[h, t
g,
/
b
( t 2
- S.ri g
My');\\
w
- f.
2
'N h'y i
i' a
i
-i d.
y S
p
-y a
s i:
f%
j %[v!.
,,.)
j 4.,
i
.i l
. /" A 6 s
\\7 NN.
. N..
In.
=
88
.i
+
.3 u
)
ir U
-j-Y Figure 1-PlanDetailofSteamGeneratorCavitigsWithSupports.
e A"
8 l
% '~ 5
4 L
N..
g f*-lh*
- t'-,$*
A n
m c ae u rst a r.
oh 4 E.: sex.
45.. ser ona. n.cs
,l
._.4__4..
- 4. _ 1-. -
c
.(.. -
e i
+ -
33,
? !
'Y.
~,.y A 'ps, p-Ls.
$ y-o p
j ;
1 o
M*
I
/ l
' 3'r Sr*s 4 9 L
1
~
ls T
sv..
.'\\
FDR CE7 AIL 4
gap je,.
.~
i d:
. ses cua.ss;os,44:..
5
- 1--+~
a
.. h. -r*uoics.
,f.o A
st..
se-z
'l
.. sue el*e mis '
9 i.
s' s
'(
SECTION 13-13 ' '
.\\
s.r.
- 7. g s
o.
u 9
o.
=
g
,Y.&,
~
.~, '=
s -,i,rx < sin. M n.
y-,,-
a c w it y,s ~ c: o..
.t o.
t i i s-s:c.
ca n,--
n,
. aw,4,2;,.
c
...n.
.. f
'-l '
^.n j. w.m u :.
'q.'
~
l t',
,7
..,.s.
a.-
T g,h,.
o p,,,3,..,..
k,.
Y irk '
c
. s 4.0 *LO*f3
. IC:gaa.?
%.?.. \\ -
G.;,;,.e..-
peg cg7,pg SECTION 14 - 14.
5 E E O.w G Si.0344 * *
~.
.Y' Figure 2 - Typical Steam Generator Upper Lateral Support Detail.-
i l
l I
o
.g' j
g*
J
[.
e E
APPENDD( l VERIFICATION PROBLEM CA29 CONCRETE SHEAR FAILURE MODE STUDY Submitted by EBASC0~- November 5,1984 INTRODUCTION This is a continuation of verification problem CA29.
Verifica-tion problem CA29 is a reinforced concrete beam fixed at both ends.
Due to
- symmetry, half of the beam is modelled by two hundred CQDCA elements and forty CROD elements, the latter simu -
lating the two layer reinforcements (Fig 1).
The beam is loaded at its center with a series of concentrated
~
loads of 8,-
16, 24, and 32 kips.
The dimensions of the beam are 8 inches wide, 10 inches thick, and 78 inches long.
The follow-ing properties of steel and concrete are used in performing the analysia.
e Concrete tensile strength = 546 pai 3,800,000 pai Concrete elastic modulus
=
= 0.15 Concrete poisson's ratio 30,000,000 pai Steel elastic modulus
=
Brookhaven indicates that this beam should have a shear failure when the concentrated load is approximately 22 kips.
The ahear 4
failure is ext.ibited by opening up two' cracks in some of the '
concrete elements and the vertical beam displacements become very i
large.
results[oftheanalysis performed by.
the
- However, from our EBS/NASTRAN
- program, this phenomenon is not observed even with concentrated load at 32 kips, e.i.,
no concrete element has two cracks and the beam vertical displacements are still reasonable.
This raises the question of whether the EBS/NASTRAN can correctly predict the ahear failure mode by opening up the second crack in the concrete elements.
By reviewing the theory implemeted in the program, it is deter-mined that the theory allows the opening of the second crack and thus predict the shear failure mode.
Brookhaven concurs the can correctness of the theory.
The program has been verified against many experimental data and manually computed
- data, hence the possibility of a coding error in the program is very small.
Our review of the coding has indicated no error.
Thus the difference between our resulta and Brookhaven's may be due to differences in parameters used.
.There are three parameters in the program which will affect the ahear failure mode.
The first is the angle limitation on the This strength is varied as one of the parpseters in this study.
a 1
...h.~--........
]
L
opening of the second crack..
The second la the shear interlock-ing factor.
And the third la the tensile strength of the con-crete used in the analysis.
These three parameter are discussed in detail in the followinga.
J ANGLE LIMITATION ON THE OPENING OF THE SECOND CRACK The program as developed is intended to be a designFng tool.
In designing a concrete structure, it la usually assumed that the tensile strength of the concrete is zero.
In order to prevent spurious opening of a second crack and render the nonlinear iteration scheme stable, the progarm adopted a criterion that the angle between the first crack and the second crack should be larger than 31.7 degree.
Otherwise, only one crack is assumed.
This criterion la derived from the rule that the stress parallel to the first crack is in compression'and the compressive stress is assumed to be larger than the ahear stress along the first crack (see attached notes).
In order to see whether this criterion will affect the shear failure mode, CA29 was.re-ran with the angle limitation criterion removed.
The results of this run together with the run for which this criterion la not removed are shown in Table 1.
It is seen that the results have no difference whether the anlge limitation criterion is re' moved or not.
9 SHEAR INTERLOCKING FACTOR When the concrete has one crack, the shear stiffness across the crack is reduced, but does not completely vanish because of the interlocking effect of concrete.
The reduced shear stiffness is obtained by multiplying the original uncracked shear stiffness by a constant which is called the shear interlocking factor.
The ahear interlocking factor is usually taken to vary between 0.2 to 0.4.
The progarm has adopted a default shear interlocking factor of 0.2.
In order to see whether the shear interlocking factor has any effect on the ahear failure mode, CA29 was re-ran with a shear interlocking factor of 0.4.
The results are tabulated in. Table 1.
It is seen that the shear interlocking constant of 0.2 gives very close results to those given by the shear interlocking constant of 0.4.
n 2
's
..,n-.._.
. ; w... -...
m 4
+
CONCRETE TENSILE STRENGTH The concrete tensile strength originally used'in CA29 is 546 pai.
The opening of the second crack is very much dependent on the concrete tensile strength used in the analysia.
The second crack s
will open if the diagonal tension obtained from the combined' effect of the stress parallel to the firs,t crack and the shear stress across the first crack is larger than the concrete tensile strength.
In order to see the effect of the concrete tensile strength on the shear failure mode, three runs have been performed.
The first run uses a concrete tensile,strenth of 60 pai and four loading cases:
10, 12, 14, and 16 kips The beam fails at the concentrated load equal to 12 kips.
The failure is a
shear failure mode which is exhibited by very large vertica) displace-nents.
Most of the concrete elementa nave two cracks.
The second run uses a concrete tensile strength of 120 pai and four loading cases:
22, 24, 26, and 28 kips.
This time, the beam fails at the concentrated load equal to 24 kips.
The third run uses a
concrete tensile strength of 180 pai and *four loading cases:
30, 32, 34, and 36 kips.
For this run, the beam fails at the concentrated load equal to 34 kips.
The resulta of these
. three run are tabulated in Table 2.
As an example, the crack angles of the ten concrete elements near the fixed end are shown ir. figure 2.
please note that these crack. angles occur with very large displacements.
Thus the example serves only as an indication of how many cracks in the element and their approximate orientation.
e CONCLUSION From above discussion, it is seen that the effect of the angle limitation criterion and the value of the shear interlocking constant on the opening of the second crack and the shear failure is negligible.
The most important parameter in the opening of the second crack is the concrete tensile strength used in the analysis.
Once the second crack
- opens, shear failure follows immediately.
The program pridicts the ahear failure by analyzing the condition in we can ask the each element.
From a macroscopic point of view, question:
what is the ratio of the beam nominal shear stress to the concrete tenalle strength which will cause the beam to fail in ahear.
The program predicts a value from 1.18 to 1.25 (see Table 2),
with the lower value at higher axial stresses.
The
~
theoretical' value for the simplest case of pure ahear la 1.0.
. Therefore, the prediction of the program is,in consistant with the conventional beam analysis method.
3
.._.........a..,
,, g, o, _A g. g,, p g.
,.3
...g 7
.,...,e
From above discussion, we conclude that the program correctly pridicts the ahear failure mode by cpening up the second crack in the concrete.
The reason we did not observe the shear failure in concrete for CA29 is that the concrete tensile strength of 546 pai used in the analysia is higher than the value of 180 pai which will cause the beam to fail at a loading of approximately 34.0 kips.
4
.m.
n n...,
/
4$ '
s...
TABLE 1.
THE EFFECT OF ANGLE LIMITATION CRIT'ERION AND SHEAR INTERLOCKING CONSTANT RUN LOAD
'TENSIL ANGLE SHEAR MAXIMUM MAXIMUM NO.
STRENGTH LIMITATIOl; INTERLOCK.
DISPLACEMENT REINF. STRESS kips pai CRITERION FACTOR inches kai 1
32.0 546.0 yds O.2 0.231 28.67 2
32.0 546.0 no.
O.2 0.233 28.57 3
32.0 546.O' no 0.4 0.225 28.98 Angle limitation criterion: yes means the angle between the first crack and the seccond crack must be larger than 31.7 degree.
No means this angle can be any value.
TABLE 2
. THE EFFECT OF CONCRETE TENSILE STRENGTH ON SHEAR FAILURE beam cross-sectional area A = 80 square inches RUN TENSILE FAILURE NOMINhL RATIO NO.
STRENGTH LOAD SHEAR STRESS
. TAU / FT FT, pai P,
kips TAU =P/A, pai 1
6O.O 12.0 75.0 1.25 2
120.0 24.0 150.0 1.25 3
180.0 3410 212.5 1.18 4
s 5
k-
..m.
(.
RC-Ild F. ( oeg o re te r v r e.il )
7 \\
l S
.f O s m
Q s
M
--m
=w--
.,2..m m.m._,.m.
JCN n\\
v-
.m..
g g
os
.n b
- ,t' Cs 0
i$
\\
C N
...'./ \\69
.kQ G
n s
.s
- a L)'-@
\\
m
.' 6
& \\
1,x C
.a\\
@3
\\ '!.b C
s o
s
@ G2 Cs N
m m
su)G3 Q, G,o's n,s S
s
_ 2 O G 3 1.'.'.... "/ R
/
L 1
R.I C A 29 - 91, ts r ren,,,a em. Mdl 3
P=b% o k at 8
O' s_t ca g '
Fig. 2 C*nsh.W.1.f e
P ""*
o Y
'q%.
l 'f "2-
' 8f, y p '%
t?.9 f
e
' v.o
- FiJ C^= cl
+.s EV
' v.1
,4 a
p "t
A
- t r.,
l I
c~.
n
~-
EBASCO SERVICES INCORPOR ATED YOM syld dW DATE b
sNEET OF i
- DATC IM N O.
OF$ NO.
G CLIENT
.C'
- ~ -
t' SusJECT__b kQ bu ts y
13 U
h btilh, ']w ~1 q.1%
t-P
% elic - c.l ; Du-<d A~A, mnk e a rG 3w
't A
w f {'<. y d o.
On-Cnt p 04'
,l i
CAP" V. (T.Al a dh W f
3 c, e, r.
du+t
>p +13
.>.s <. m. d c u d I
~8p2
{ 9ps g...
y [
~tPs u k'~ s.., p s d t,w d -d
/
.g o u. k t
1 i
(%z> % ) M LBn ei
, > 9.
I
- 6. u-k db.~A g MA
../h
/,
Act 3 (g e.o)1 l%
T IS
/
~
r s
-i c.
n
- {taa-i 0.: @i 2=
3 i,9i ; 9p.s c y,
~ 3* % -
e mm
APPENDIX 2 For the case involving the main steam break the maximum compressive lead with ends restraint would be P = Aa (ot)E
= 357 x 6.632 x 10-6 X (340-70) x 28,000
= 17912 kips.
If the wall were perfectly rigid, this would amount to an axial stress fa = P/A =
= 50.17 ksi.
The allowble (Fa) for this beam has been calcualted (See sheet No. 56 attachment to GIN-69363, August 21,1984) to be 45 ksi.
Thus, under this assumption the upper lateral beam would not satisfy AISC 1.6-la requirer.ent..
The assumption of completely rigid wall is, however, unrealistically conservative. The walls in reality are flexible members and thus will move due to the axial thrust.
In order the assess the safety of the upper lateral support under conservative estimates but without going through a detailed complex model, BNL has performed the following calculations based on the assumptions given below:
(1) Walls at outer surfaces are fixed and are 6 feet thick.
This thickness assumption is based on the fact that only. the area adjacent to the beam support is modeled for the analysis.
(2) The axial force due to thermal expansion acts perpen-dicular to the wall.
- . =
e
Fage 2 (3).No in-plane displacanent is allowed in the walls. This further increases their stiffness by a factor "$ "
equal to 1.2 which is caused by the Poisson effect.
The specific calculation are perfonned in an interative manner as foll ows :
Initial Axial Force P = 17912 kips Assuming conservatively that this force is distributed uniformly at the base plate (area 65" x 66") - wall intersection, the compressive stress in the concrete is 17912 s " M = 4.175 ksi The compressive strength fc' for the concrete is 5.0 ksi. Then, c
corresponds to (see Fig.1) a uniaxial strain c = 0.00125. Thus the concrete strain (including the Poisson stiffening effect ec is, i
'~i 1
- c =
".001 is assumed to be distributed linearly through the walls thickness.
c c Tnerefore, the wall will yield by an amount 6, given by 6 =.001 x h = 0.036 in.
V.1,
This will reduce the axial force in the beam by an amount R = 2 6 x A x E L
,7.,
357 x 28000
= 0.72 x 163.2
= 4410 kips l
i I
\\
c.
t Page 3 Modified Upper Lateral Support Loads The new beam axial force P' = P - R = 17912 - 4410
13502 kips, and the ' compressive' stress in the concrete o c'
= 3.147 ksi.
This corresponds to a compressive strain cc' = 0.00085/1.2 = 0.00071.
The wall will thus yield, 6' =.00071 x f = 0.0255 in.
357 Axial force reduction R' = 2 x 0.0255 x
= 3124 kips.
163 Repeating the above iterative procedure, we finally arrive at a upper 1ateral beam axial force = 14000 kips.
The final axial stress fa is P/A = I4
= 39.2 ksi.
From CL 1.6 - la 3
of AISC manual f
C f mx bx mx by
< 1.0 fa/Fa + l.-h,) F "b '
F
~
. F,xj bx F
by ey Fa/F = h mile the other two factor in the above equation are given in sheet No. 60 (attachment to GIN-69363, August 21,1984) as 0.015 and 0.033 res pectively. Thus the left hand sum is.918 <1.
Since the above is obtained by conservative assumptions, it is the BNL opinion that upper lateral restraint beam will satisfy the AISC code require-ments.
t
3 IL Page 4 l
t 1
\\
1 1
4 OdN 8
O Q
08
~
i e
__ i o
r~.c O
un ee C3.
G O
n u
A 8
a
...s o
me n, 3.-: :.
%e.
i
- C,. u...,
/
AQ, as
- s...
O o
. *O c
ss O
O
'i O
O O
- ~.
',?,
O o
. *b o-O o
o o
m,e
\\
n Y,
en n
N e
Oa e
u O e-w9 p
O, m
e L
u.
e e
C O
U.
- y c
O U
s I
g l
8 gp e u
s.
s O"
ar=
C3.
y O
t--
O'
. 'r e
1.&J CI:
D tD m
e h
w c
w n
N e
O j$g '[/ 553Jjs 3J3;3u03 e
(
.- m
T
[ o qog'o p bp a
UNITED STATES t.
~s
['3q,j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Pktb W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 7
%,..../
u w
jL
- r. Ly.nk f
M MEMORANDUM FOR:
Comanche Peak Team Members FROM:
Vince Noonan, Comanche Peak
$ 05" SG A yA Team Leader 6
.t,, gg N
SUBJECT:
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUESTS wSL u'.<wig The NRC currently has pending 14 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests 7Mg,
relating to Comanche Peak.
A list of t41ose requests is shown as Enclosure 1.
Op under the F0IA, the NRC must identify all records which are subject to a re-VW quest. After an F0IA request is received by the agency, no records in ex-h istance at that time may be destroyed. Accordingly, you should all be aware of these requests and should identify records to that are in your possession and control that reasonably are asked for in there requests.
Please note the date of the requests. The FOIA is a point-in-time vehicle for access to agency records and a request is only legally entitled to records in the possession and control of the agency on the date a request is received.
Records received after that date may be volunteered to the requester, but they are not required to be processed or maintained.
(Policy Area.)
To the extent practicable, we will respond to all FOIA requests as soon as possible. However, the primary consideration is to assure the prompt resolution of the allegations and the health and safety of the public.
In responding to F0IA requests, the following guidelines will be followed:
a.
All records necessary to support your conclusions with. respect to any allegation shall be retained. The records shall be placed in a file folder and numbered by allegation.
I % ] k - $ $ 6)
L C/ 30s J
's b.
After completica of your phase of the investigation, all records, numbered as above, shall be forwarded to c.
In the absence of an FOIA request that specifically " captures" documents in your possession, you may review your file to retain only those records necessary to support your conclusions before sending the file to If an FOIA request that reasonably askes for documents in your allegation file is received, however, you must retain all records in that file for FOIA processing and forward them to d.
,To the extent possible, licensee records should be reviewed at the site and should not be retained in NRC files.
e.
Records containing proprietary infornation, the names of confidential sources, personal privacy information, law enforcement information, or other information exempt from disclosure under the FOIA should be specifically marked and the exempt portions bracketed.
If you have any questions concerning the administrative processing of these requests, please telephone on Questions concerning the requirements of the FOIA should be addressed to Ed j
Shomaker, Attorney,' ELD, on 492-8653 or Lyn Robinson, Chief. Freedom of Information and Privacy Branch, on 492-8133.
Vince Noonan, Comanche Peak Team Leader
Enclosure:
As stated
o 4
^
PENDING FOIA CASES INVOLVING COMANCHE PEAK 1.
03/26/84 F01A-84-213 - DRR Contact - Meyer Lynne Bernabei and Billie Garde, GAP Request: Records relating to any meetings or discussions between Darrell Eisenhut and officials of the Texas Utilities Generating Co. concerning Comanche Peak in February or March 1984.
2.
03/26/84 F0!A-84-222 - DRR Contact - Reed Bruce Millar, Fort Worth Star - Telegram Rec uest:
a.
All inter-office memoranda preceding the October 20, 1903 release on two OIA reports. The reports are:
Comanche Peak -
Markey letter re: Region IV Investigations / Inspections and Review of concerns expressed by CASE about conduct of RIV.
b.
All correspondence between William Dircks and the director of OIA between August and October 20 that is related to the aforementioned reports.
3.
04/17/84 F01A-84-307 - DRR Contact - Reed Thomas Westerman, Region IV Rec uest: All records relative to NRC Office of Inspection and Aucit (OIA) investigative reports of the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES) (Markey Letter regarding Region IV in-vestigations and inspection), and the CIA investigative reports of the concerns expressed by the Citizens Association for Sound Energy about the conduct of Region IV Investigations / Inspections at CPSES.
4.
04/18/84 F01A-84-314 - DRR Contact - Reed Robert G. Taylor, Region IV Request: Same as84-307 5.
04/18/84 F01A-84-315 - DRR Contact - Reed Robert C. Stewart, Region IV Request: Same as84-307 6.
06/12/84 FOIA-84-487 - DRR Contact - Isaacs Harry Huge, Rogovin, Huge, and Lenzner Request:_ Copies of :.ny studies, investigations or inquiries con-carning Comanche Peak and,in particular, materials concerning Brown and Root, including safety conditions, employee relations, work standards, allegations of inferior work, and deficient performance.
l 7.
07/16/84 F01A-84-614 - DRR Contact - Reed Bruce Miller, Fort Worth Star - Telegram Request: Copy of a affidavit by Dobie Hatley, a former Brown and Root supervisor at Comanche Peak taken following her firing on February 7.
8.
08/07/84 F01A-84-677 - DRR Contact - Reed Billie Pirner Garde. GAP Request: All records relating to the June 29, 1984 meeting between TUECO officials and the NRC staff about the investigation concerning illegal use of drugs on the Comanche Peak nuclear site.
9.
09/18/84 F01A-84-751 - DRR Contact - Reed I
Billie Garde and John Gregory, GAP Request: All records relevant to and/or generated in connection with the Comanche Peak 1.E. Report Documents no. 50-445 and no.
50-446, dated 9/17/84, and the contract between the N.R.C. and E.G.&G. of Idaho.
10.
10/01/84 F01A-84-777 - DRR Contact - Brown Billie Garde, GAP Reciuest: All information available to the Division of Licensing I
wh'ch led to the supplement safety evaluation report regarding the 4
I acceptability of wire splices at Comanche Peak detailed in the I
September 14 letter from B. J. Youngblood to M. D. Spence.
l 11.
10/01/84 F01A-84-778 - DRR Contact - Reed f
Billie Garde, GAP Request: All records ' relevant to and/or generated in connection with any and all inspections that Region IV has ever conducted into allegations by current or former employees of the Comanche F'eak project about the stainless steel liner plates of the spent fuel pool, transfer canal, refueling cavity, or any other facility at the site.
12.
10/01/84 F01A44-779 - DRR Contact - Reed Billie Garde, GAP
)
Request: All records relevant to and/or generated in connection with all of the reports listed in Board Notification 84-149, dated August 23, 1984, published by the Office of Investigations.
13.
11/20/84 F01 A-84-869 - DRR Contact - Reed Bruce Millar, Fort Worth Star - Telegram l
Request: All documents relating to the NRC staff review of the E.G.&G. Report on intimidation of workers at Comanche Peak.
. {
}
l 14.
11/26/84 F01 A-84-876 - DRR Contact - Reed i
Stephen Kohn, GAP Request: All records concerning Dobie Hatley and her allegations concerning Comanche Peak and her employment discrimination case i
against Brown and Root under 42 U.S.C. 5851.
6 l
7..
4..*si,A.. b kb.....
P L " U M * E ' ' ' ' E ' 6'13
). p)
,f t.t.,si 4..
.. ot.
d...
J.
,I y'
N a vd Yo t.st Q>.y,,u... 23.2.3.+.l...
- ,..,m,.. u.. :s :>.'.
... m. i. b... R...e.. n..s.f..& '>. 6.._.E.L 7 cto '- G,' *9
.a
_5 / - 0.6. o. 1.........
c m
t.,.
l
..,. m er.. e. 4
.e,
~~ 7 y
.v e.,.. :p t S !c h.. I'-to "
Bdr n~ % <r S-s a
e
.,. ~.
mi..
EL - 79 O '- G "y ER'. S. m-(19 ', '
4.e
,. {= z o. gl..}-$[
y
=
~=
_ -.== -
-hT=
==....=e._.
= - - - -
D, L. - -
hlf us-f. c) C c.o w c.vd c. + 1:en r A ='. '1 oo /
.os H. Pt(.,e n e
=
v
^
'2 '
, S 50 '</c i PerA-es=5o 200 L.L.
.G.l2.
. LClW
- nyt,y. ;r:c.
J
,. t..
\\%o m c.'n_L c,. ci ;'i) i.L $ v
\\S f,k3T /f-$-(.Y' ~~ !!
f,.
N
.w, /
.b.g L,' e !
=J
~ ' '
) O.
QD /
' h ro.f
?. 4 0 t.e t * \\ :.a.o C.v!f Gy rs g.cr (n u
=.
s, io, i o.
. AA/:, f.. f /k -
g._.
b p.:
\\.-} \\-
is,r p.yp '
A.../ oh:
- .bQ.lbi')+l.$(ld'0 or; il;.
..,. /
l.
y w. iv.s.uc
- . 'c-Ym 1.ko-F
- j + '. ?
I 56'.41 v
\\. '.
s
- ..' f 14.. q t /g 2 --
n ii n
f
.5,t4i
/
j b: s4", d. r 3.o.2
, p
'")
m i, 7 y. 3 9 i g,j
.u.
'y p.
g
. ; i.,,
s F 4 hO
- J.2.'i'S.?
.. % y
\\
p =.c o il
') w.u irsp o n,o o o go'
(.90 S 3,f'in.,,;3. ns g y */o.
s
,j' L. /9, - f 'b d.. O C5 (f3 I.7..') (
L Q
E*.vm,:..P,,:.i,s.4.3g
9 D e. 6, )
t, S S,\\0
.. T' I [v a l
A. :. p t. d..e (. *v.s.'..* ; ',:
y-
/
.y/
Sih. 44 :
.. D "A D. /JId/9"('iW,",-3/0.,><y.:.
l
% ' 32 'r it.4 T.
t so U.'A 'li.9 6N %, /gt.:{ -> Q,'.h,...., t.
cc L t
,w
~~.a_o e H.it!. inc. $\\ b nu,,, e e.D'R..=RF
' b a l...?.3 / u.4.9 7 s erbb y
~..,--- - ~
y ',
ta = "a uu v " w e = vas s.. u....
.ci.......
i c i, n,.. v.y : s..
Ntw Yong
.l.....
o a u 2 6 u...U.2.,3. A..
r wan,.,,s.n,...
cair.cn re n r,owru s ', AhDITrorML E.7U.L Sct e ggg, s >,.<, t n:. :< t. A e t;.'t :rc.u t:ciJs.............................. n.t. o..is,.... u.. v......' E L. :.79 0....R'...
.-).
(e.c. A-5 & B-5 A9t>
~
4-5 /< 4,3 5 ) 's i'- do" SLAS 4 0.G 245 h,;
7151 F
=
x 7162 Fg=
+ 0.7G 19 d/n 3 /
i k
7d58 Fg =
+ 0. 5 7 2 7,
/u
- I 745 4' F >c =
+0.GGGO Yr '
i SLAIS REltJ r.
IN bN L'S, b l R.EC.TICtd iS Fo#,. Ttit4P, C-f.filreC%C.
-Y I. U ~~~
o
~7g hs= 0.-950A<WYL =' O.o7917 rn'h ;
I
'?P.oVI bi:b : A 8 @,
C
~>
0, o ks 6 4.2/d y P EQuillcb By cot.s : o, o o dj x ix 22f
=
r.;.
AAg = 0,o7 017 - c c39 4.= 0,c 39 5 7 A' es', i AbblTio tJAL sTLCL t '$ on. h] MAIJG TGtJL5tJs." ; 0.76'19/(2X6ox0 9) = 0.007e%
F bks <' A A s, u. ra ud. b-a det A ic.2. !
- 0. Ic. /
g
, g ' p 'P
%f';,'8
8' i y.'u o r.11 > 0 2'lkii~<!!L:.Qil'0'
)
9
)
3 4
a r*
.am;
p 556-IcCC')-
R3//.f./.4 R77 u m m m. n w w m -,. I n c.
2i
. nnx, c J..
cctb6 I:: s t/t
.n.....
\\.
3,,,,,n,,,,q,,,,,,$,,,,
coi or...d(,,..$p N""8 *'*"' *'t.i n ucions NEW YoeK cws/Arca.u,.).#,.'.7...
c s. H 2.i. u...P.2.),6,,
CilCCW O'? bVWCI.LG
- A DDITi ctJA LL STECL 50 saw '.tn.nA r:-C *. n*tista tJ &,
0 n=' on !="c n= sm q' c. u bof
P (se. 5-5 l-7-5.~/ b-s SE-5)
T-7055 F =
)
T-705G F=
z T - 7073 i:t =
T-70 74 F==
5 No 'l,N PLANE" TEN 5!ofJS. - DOMELLS I
T-7096 F5-COMPUTEb FCP, BENbIM6 O, K.
T-7o97 Q=
~
T - 7103 Fg. =
T - 7104 Fa=
s 4
e
- e a
e
.,,,..e...-.
.-w-e-=*+-+-~~~"*-
j
i G) \\ ';'
35 G -- )o (, C a.
c.c p8.JP..2:.?.T.......
G i b b a a H itt. i n e.
nun ca..............
c.i. or /I P.O.........
- uu mw 'u aw~ mis
.... N... !... o. 8
)
New Yomst Chh'd/Arped. By.......he C & H J.h N.. t".'h. ".. *>.f.['
Y w.....r... E...L.. 7...M '. 6.......................... fi e l. D w g./S p. e. N... scg. c..(.;c.. 7_
Subt.ct.%..'#%. 0..
g
/.'r.
e.'...
v AC i r-
+til!
tu I.
m...., s.
,I a
L-9,; $ ;..........
,3
.g l
'}
l
- /
t r
t t ' IO t 'e> '
i m
3 g
6
'l
[.
O, I
.h',.
i !! 1j.J:
'4
-u i
u _.
h. ' '.
w wC.
1....
. T
}
l t
.f i '
/
t f
l Q_.
C-5
/3 c
w PART fi AO /.T EL '70 C'-6 3
l' d V SL A b + : ' rItd.V l,*El MM &L/Lk ACEA BI' i.'M C :J$.:X (It.')
t
.~
...:, w :m. t....i?.,n,. ~c.
.-... u - i.:..,.
.I.,r.....
G.
.,.o.
u......
i e
,,..c <.............
. ~ ~.
..'c.we,....p,C.S.)....
- 0) {(o n...... 2..... 5...
- * ' a " s m a. u.s =
i.
Id,.w YCo n cw m,.r.,s. n,...%..,.s,j.
c c n s u..d.7,
. i.ic..
. y.... S 1 mb... R e.'0.4.... l5.J).
fe.:..i.W.':.6. T... n... o..,..<. u.. 5./. f.??.6.0.L...
j Slo b - l '- 1 O "
hh, 4 4 '4. 5 5
E.1. - 7 9 0 '- G " '"
htw. C- $ + D-S &
J
'D. L,. -
%dF w 'r. o F c.o w c.Mt i-Cs c.4 s. ?s c' o '-
_ t/. Pto m
. 0 E 0 :..
\\,
i
~'
~
. 35"O x/n'./
l~. l...
~. 2 00 *c/fr i
./
s/
8,00 ss WoJl La(
__ g ' >c 1 y AL7 ' K, /5 : 2. A gr gf 3
/C (m) %.< +
Le, c <t, __.
D. L
. 73 *,
L. 4. = s.E F "
su p4.g: d.5
..@Q......_.9. y... ;.,
s.s> d.,,
g a'n,.< p.p.u,3 4' m.g_ >.
2- %.,..c_r;Q._, <-
_,.x,;: =.,.
n-W.r t-y. y _.... c c._...
I
-1.; 9.l*6'//
\\
)
s
.M..- ewu. d.-. s
/
/
D'?p t. = (.u / *
. 3 S x C.9. / ~4S '
a,9 n m n.
/0
/O '
u
.Exf.1.!.;.).i
/.'/x.m%t-M u. _..w P
.=
/0 to, J f.
i W) wt. :..ud__ x m (, b' - % +. 6 )
fr, = %. n. M i,.
<>. n
, t, o V,.
?
s s..
e a.m__.,.'.,w. Y_.y,. s a.
., t s,q
- z.;. ~,,3.... [,
4 I,., s t.
v.w,,
- V.r 5 ? ( 9 ? i'
?.'t,' Yt ;
'2Q' I/, 7
/.*
~
o.....:,...l. U....
W.9 .;. :,S': 1l'i.-l..J$
s:.. s c ;. '. '. '...'."..Y'..': ':
s
. em i,,...t% 0..).....
"+^. ~ ~. = > e ~ ~ $
i.
n....,,,...J..... 8.....
6 Ntw Yonu J c. m... n,.. 3... >,. -
i o m.... 23.a.e....
..,,,,,. S h h.. P.w>.E.. ;..&.:?)..... E L... l} ft 9. !.6 :'...... n..er...... :i.l. :.Q.W.1.....
rnovssc...ds ee c';.
+
Tbc Rcad,O h.
Po.h'-
D 1. :
73 x s.? s x (s.3 s) ' e../hs).
2 l ~5 s
.. " tk 115 wi v
S.W83.74(s.:.z-)2/g),-
L4 :
,ej.
ix
.~
. 7. 6 ly) o = 3 D + 3 w + 3 2. v.t. + 1 7 L ca-).#- /. 7 L. C e r s).
3 @.9) t-3 Cb) t 3 ( 9-7+ l. ? (I ?)2. / I 7 (,7. @)
=
,2
- 7. 7 -A '/ 7,cf..,,, )a 4 n p9 f. j g,7q.
/OS *
- =.
- 7. 4g b = l a.' ' d
- a. o, S
~
1
?
Al f.4 l
, Qs..
,c p._ f*g
~.... -...-. -.-
e o0.00)%
I 2 9< l 79 n
Nu - M v t= - 10 B
= ?.4 E 1 '
- .0041
/h.
f L. J :. (c o p 3 ) (34) (,w.T)
- NB l..c 2."h'y av) (0..?.i "%,'./., O }
=.
- ~
Vte.* t Q,/Qiw (lsI4,9)-->JLIc. nson
.7
,(. 9.t,
7 f 7, g.- s. )"T'),.G
% e n+g. :
<0 k.( W r.%+um
- 5.) -
i j.
/) 5 :- (.Oo I fi ) (, p. ) (.mfr )
o, ::
p y q.-3 v, (,, u z. T.
. > > 'e i!. )
-=
C U
.,4.
- r (~ib. t &,% -s......,.
.(-.=.2'$.:. '.~)
JYb,p -l 'i.% f!. ~
V
-.. - =..
b f (f,' ** ' *"8.','"*^*l h=.~ * *N l h N"It /I,.
)g (,).,
g Q W U t~t:s:e v I '.~.1.}T'.*l % V!l.'E. l.. /. f'... '. l. !
.........T/.7.4.....
. c,t,b,. s.. _., s.t.' m. ! n c
..... c s.-? M e = 2 ^
.n co.n,....A.r.
w.~ m'v.c n.w.mm a
4..a y.. a..
..v -
~ ~ v-igt g s-f o sca, o n,.s n xp.,3.n..
c,................ e.... s
..,... Sh. b....b.t.66.. ;. :9>...h.. Sl.. 2 9.Q '.d."n... n..es,.... u...S I..9.6 02......
, v. v >
( y o
a
)
s t-
~
M(
A
.M c.
3 3
w *\\ K 13 g_.
g n ).
)
tl !Lq i
- w u.;'.
W Q'N.-.[' Y 1L 3,.; g-Pl
-A*t r
g
- l *r v.),,
.,,.q y
(.,2oh vt..:.
.. q.
.W N
se*m U) 6...,[^; u,,,
)na t.S,
nt y
am UL) n c o.4 u z. r.33 -
/* g -/,,.; da;
~
~
sf j.,
N:3b
'ocam Oh,c.W u n s.cre-s.
g*
b L.* t' !/ x 4
r,o yNg :- A'r. I' / h ' /. l&ed.40 Y(7 defs w.it (.a) b.L.: 2.1oM a;
4 -~~,
.s y*L,.y,,goag
~
2 W. / % ( N., d. 5 / N 4 g r %'
.t. r t
1&.b2AB H.6r4- %s
\\
1.,
ie. uv/>c.
ib
<~
l L = 7 S
1
.t
,sr.
v 7 D.l.. - -
O v.e -}o ' stab y %51' x 3 5":
/. 6 o
/,76 "//
- s
.7s 'v y.W.
. a.G
./
. /.. t
_.. c o c. to Eb d
- 4. 67 ' x..I 9/
s
/.061
=
s 7s ' y. 2
. / s*
/
NCN.N Oc(k. ( l }
* - -
- 2,
f (,$ CC b i c.
. O, Irg o V f.',,
== *
w o. a.w a. o.).. _
.y g v, x 3. w - e 9.o S w,a f
<o
..ee.e-q e
-y.
r.
,;.'..'Ej.?.4.....~.
. a. u. n n. e..t. w. r,._t,. =
- 3. \\ Cf n,. c.f.H.-!?.fS r
- c.,......a. a.....
~. ~.v. - -
.\\
..... r.... s...
New Yonst e,,.m...... n,...:.. :y '
aau,...u. 23 D.ti...
..,...., 5.les.b...R.c rd..t...%.B.... 5,1... 7.9.o !-fe. ?. n... o
..o,...... s. t.o.h9. A......
3 m
-D L. +
L._.L...
C o wt__
)
hr. s c e c. I f ost. nee.l o / 4 /e. Y
~ ~ ' ' "
~ -
t v
V.
y, 4.M5' x, o$ r :, 7 3 'V s
'D.L.
s% (. n : G.7 f
t.
u i-L. L '.
13 % tQ j (,,7 7' x y. W X. 2.c o. i s,rg p.
D.L.
4 % ls) : 3. F) X 4.') T >.0a.s'
,6 F '
- s. -
i.
/
b'. L.-
O % ( %) S,3 D 'X h.7 7 % e 1 0 O L
,1
/
v
/
' D.L.
S% (./1)
- 2 72 3 X.. l. l 6 Y. 0 2 T ::. 07 *b L-0 % (.'2 5. b.d y ) f) I4 v...$o o ":.,Yp V L
.y v
D. L
' fb m Ly } :.
3.'? / ~ ' X ' l. l (o ' x, o p. 5",
, / / b e,
t..Lc a % U.q u.5,7 l ' x,1, / b' )c, 10 o
- , f (, " v Th rawEydd
)
- t. -
Mot hb') : E I 2-
- 1. n (. 2 5) 1
- f. 2. S '
G 7,z.' " y A
4 9,u. 4. 6.:r (e.. f+,.h t.i, ) l YYL. c.hb3 = u.; i 1
. l. o G (. 7. Sh ' - M.S t 1
1
.):
D r,.a.. Q.oq 11 J).v...)..i 1 I
. 5 Y..
g 6. K"',-
~.2.
(9
.2..
~2 m
r
,.,,,,. e3,-: a..t. 9.y.u
.,nnei...,.4...C14.....
-~.~.-....G....I...{l,l,1. l....
Gii.r!.sa g',,,,,, c,
,,8,,
,czn nr.... /S.4.@7....
i e uri m m. %.co.o1.e.:r:,n 3
/
(/-
Ntvs Yo n Chk d/ App.d. tir.... ! ! *.\\ *'
h --/ O [
~
C & H Jet. Bio.d ).,/.*.h.
s.6...
31 c.'o.. R, e.cfx..;.. 5. J6......V.t-. 7 9.d.M,...,_,.,,,...... 3 ;._.a.c,.0,.t..
.s
...\\.................
~
momenh cod.
e
)q.o
)
M ou ' ucJI(fY 1 q x ? s. = ts a G7.C
- y
~
n%. - e % d). :.5c.7,s) [ S $'*3.
~
3 e.% c ) - sis' O.s'y 4 9a * )
. nw.
/
.65 Q).$)'. F.5 * ';
Dl o t - G m (J.'.)
=
e m ci) = s..u/.u.s-)z44f.4'5 mu -
v m e - Om Ch') =, o]/Q.s) :.
f
- 1
]'
n nh - Sm L3 ')
S.4 Q 5') <- % G
- 5
/
y
/
Ol ot - h (. 4)
.. // ( N..l.S)
, S' )
v
/
u m u - A er)
. s c. (9.2.s'), 3,. 4, '";
]
(Y)v = 3 D * -t-I.~1 L
= 3 (,sa.3 + n. 3 e h. 2. t s.s + s + }
~
]
t f. 7 ( f. % 't + yy 4. M t y.t c 3 (,,)
- a v 3 3. 3 )
4-i. v (. n.o. s) 7/7 9 + 20 '/,9 L.T
- =-
03 Ip p (n.z 4 ec,.7 + o.s + c.2 + s.v a c os)+ 1.7 < (2 5 ? + 4 0 7 + 44d *
[
+ 4 ' + 9 : 9 2 7
- i
.. ~
l SS B-lo 4 C
.tw.>....h...].4....
Gil:>fx?
-. ~_8 H,,.ifi,. in.c rm...c.......... q a,.. n,.
2.. m..g n.. -
'ca, n,.....A. C.6...
- ' mo. ciw.tw a:*:ss ti
\\
/.
un~ voen G & H Jol. Ha.
./. 2 Chh d/Ag red. Ity....
3 u.. S.I.c:h... E c.Nf J).:>,.\\'6.... 3..G.L.. ?. 3 Q b."n......,s,....u....S./.9.692...
L
.)
l O
.f g, 'y / -
< \\wo <
v
~el d
\\/ou ( 'sIe M l. i G (,."h 5)y~
I Y ( j' r
J. *-
)
t.stc N ) =
1.o C ( I_ s Y I?
3' C
~
w.c l
g t
lg 0
- )
- b..twe~l\\Y.. 2 4 & (.J.S') - aMC c h rc i i g..'...,,.a/.4.
4p V DL.l W C+
6 - -
a. > >,.
.:)
i.g, o. 2: ' '. r,..;.,.v. a.>N. -
c y
V' ou. Le % B '
, 7.3 te. c. w.i. u i.3
- n.c. y s ++ 'c t V Lt
(,,bm I) A,h.T 5 j.,q l ' (,'l -)
jg.
f,,.
l' " Y'
\\,j o u. (.e m Q = (6 (
r C i t 't -l Gi* 1 p
v uu L. (W Q ; 5'. 21. v'. l.;:._.... g p:i II'i l.a A ' '#' ~
l,,,,.
0 o '.*
V c>u t. a m 3 )
- .b7 /
a j :.'c r: u
.D. )G :,~
g, g a y,
i
'g gy '. f '. o.%-
v t c ( % Y ) :. S W pj rir,.. 17 0 t', 7 ~. ; a '
W g,,, ( h Lt} :.. Il 6'
/
c/<
fy. tu)y' V et. L G m th. :.. % F 5
5'
,i.20
/
/
}
/
/
W = 3 (,I c/ ~ + 204. +. 7 3. t.(,C+. 0 7 +, //) + 9. o
+
V t/
t/
s/
s/
l
?
' t /. 7
(,T + S.8T + S. D. +. c'4 +. 2 6,) = / 6 7 r ]' ' !
V
~
3
$ (_3 6. /G,) +. /. 7 ( aa </ g i
y
=
/ O?.T t 34.,?D K
{
/ p,6 "/6.7.5 g-1 ae.,-e.-
m e
e.
<,., :..l-):....l.(~[I
,Gih!::.~.: !?m[~,.!!t,i.,f,.,:.:~:.
- 2
'4 nn.n c.e.T.'.j3 ju c.
e <-
^
.1 e.6 n,..... B.9.
- *' "" w i "u m " " W
/\\
si,= n..
S
.on.. ;;...
v-
'fr w Yosin g
.,. 1 -y )
)-
cwen:.:..d. is,.... S. ~. P
- C&HJeinNe.C'l9.C.j.$.
s e...... '5.1.c@.. R c.Onf.. '....o'.cnh.v re.4.s
.... c,...m...... s. t..o. c>.o L......
l 7
(
./
h 't '".O.
Q. *.
c1N N
(n C.Ch. Y%. '*
....? ?. ~ ' _Y..I. !. '..b';'
- .: 1 - *
- v. i.
,. s~ '... :..... c.
t
lY)ob.
(= 'd Ll,,
<k = 'b 4, 6,
.j;.
~
D et.
.o
.. r.. i n
[..:..... '
f*- hL~ sa,ooo
- . 2.% tl 0 v l : L ' '
i
il'
~
i
} ; ;.
L. - :
4.,. 7 p,><
,, q g f ':2' L',, -
DTY IM /
- b70'
[ l j.. K v ITi o /p : 9h[. g, 3 g j
Q oo pg i f
- i t.
'l f...
p-I.,. -
/'
. /4 = p b& = cocm) 34eq.s) =e.W,,-
la
- t f.
- ~.
0.t r-l. t'..,. i: -
.7/5'/d
_{j m' {ffg g,.
g4 7
_g
<,/.
m
.I'. H : I.: n Ji()
bem A : 2 t" ~ 2,&,g'h._ z.x(c.g' f ::. no 'G
.. :,. n-Q,,
q.eg.
0 N & '/1,0"t.uf, - 9" $ ur. 7},,, n 3
- '94<., A/.,,f,.,, = d.375 "e.tu%,, fif.u., 8m '.#
4
^'k-b.:.I.Li-
, x >ooo Q.0 % %~
? ' ' ' " ' ' * * ' * " ' ""
,, 9 5' x :3 41,. y 3 (!. 5~
'i "i oT/ p I 4.67e j'
~
.-/! -
.i., n:;;.. -,..... -
b'W'
- I'.2.I.2.:'-.. : Il'j(,!iI'-
E *l ' '
e
(.., -:. L' * )
4-N c.5. o '. w e -j; " p St.'w v.v 33, A4, (J. le 5 4 2.X.19 G, ;. ?,9 2. if e4"
:: AvxCr
.' M 2 x ?.,0000 = /,.3 n,-
j C4TA-%,) X,N
([$Gt':},2.y ac, fo r l'd B c(, dit.t' 0:. G '
/
O b 6. NO S k.9 0 v-
'> p o C : e'i n T h :>. n & Q r. $ p
- 2 5
.I g,r.
()t..-C.II'k h ff:\\
l l
9 i
l.*
% b* t ht.W.g.;f l{.
( *Y,*.
W s
~~l.s..c..zi......
cibua e p-mr. inc.
n\\,13,,,%hD.:.!.4.'.9.h
~,
~ ~ ~ ~
o1 ss.....:...t.. ei. m.
....... :rf E.
.s......
New Yomu
.,,,., ~...,a..,. p...
c,,..,,,,....,.........
........'.C..'.(c..'...................... n. i. o.../s,... u...S.. l..C. Cl.. '.Z
.I s..... %.. l.: P'....A..T.... &.. l.
]
I i
- _ __.tf. --
y, j
lN y
L___
I l
'/
N m
I s
.J
./
L--,
j I
1
/
l I
l 11 I
g i
l
\\
'l e
x
.s j L.., g l
1
-.e.s - -
--._.J
-,,; ;.i-l-y..ia.
l 1
7.
I.
4ag' i j.
1 I
t4 kv ss'./
ls,
.i:
s l
I-
.i x
l I
l i
- l
'l f _tl!.
l-i
,, p i
w t_
i.
l u_.
l..u. u
/
/ 39
/
L. _. _-: -l-
\\
/
- i...
Q._.... -
- 1.....
l v
\\
/.
,----____ w ____-
x
\\
\\
/
~-
\\
/
\\
3*
\\
./
/
N
\\.
[
'6.M
.s 5,p.
g I
(
i L_ __ '.
I I
1
- 1
's PART Pl.A W 6T FL. ~790.'b' V i
l l-to VStA S t.&.=iUl.W
^l
( i * ' '" l p r
l l PEtJoTEC StA S A G~A FE196 ccic~.-?L.E D g.
.p%.gus...
-m.
=
e
. ~.....,.,'(,)' ' ' / O y L. A
- 4..............;........
(.- t.>
,' w. f...?.r.r.it.,:...
ss.... r...s.
..-......s.
UA".W. L'ho."i. co.snuac1ci's l l L y.,,,,,,,
- , c.,,,,,,,, r,V. C *,
mu venc<
i T
,.m. t C%,tJe.t.1:..*7r.T)jl..
- 1 Q *1 *
=
Clik* d,A pr. J.,4 r,."..' b
- e..
..,,........i... h.. r. r. m.E...;..%.e.... rs.t.. rn.%.'.'.,,...,,....,.L......S. I.. c xu.
%.b - 1 '- to "
%h s k~.,
s ~*C3 go E'L-M O' G"
Tfs.d te;.. s. (,b. C; - (c.. q i u
-..-.a c o r' '
, g: sh k.,
vr D,L.
hlf u_.t. o G Wb t F N CDd, :. 3 5 0 p.
- .. AC)o V
L. L.
A = Lo. > '
.,lri..
~lI r
2-2 "' '
-[r' 0>,o i 3,,g q,, >,s '
O')p.t. :. J.o I
. ? 4 ( / 0 1 2.
/O
/o D1 c.t
.Lo [
. A. ( / M) 2.0 Yri
(.,1
/Q
.i O
., ~
fP) v : 3 D + I.7 (_
w u.
. e-
~*) (.~5. $ } t I.~7 (.7..)
=
l U. 5t 3. 4 v c
I Ll. ' '
=.
w b :.
l %
(b:.20.C F
O,3,,,o :. 9 '1. ",
t u-4 /,f
- 7. 313 h^s 4.ot>/r N v. (Y') o p.
~
2.
Q p m n
.003 2, u-s s
o g/
A.3 P b A. :(, o6.v,g (f.') (y. o, gg., 3; p, l
- O IB gj,
- g '.h,
\\
'~j I l e
/-
, C. CN ' k. s " rs (',
t,
.b
' A, t * *ft '.
--.'s T.(OO1ff)
(2.0.S.
. -.. 'h '..
U ' I'.'.
.. r_
.,. n..
~
s s.
.....!;. S. h h s A.S.
'.)_ i ',}..sY.
,,h... (,. M : n TyeC:d,)p.2l.'?#lo(<r*;..
~['
r. > <.. ;.. an. u.....n > x ;.;.. t.....y.,.
.s
rah,.
... 9.k.I.'...
~
. o.)..l!:: 1.. ?.f......
Gibbr: S t-!/II In.c.
1 c.
- sGdiEr...
.[........
ENGiPett 5. DE54GN(H5. CON 5f dVCidA5 h
Shts t Ns...... O f..* ~.'...
4-Qj Petw Y3548
/
Chk d/A perd. By.
.bt.
C & H Job He.
. *T..D.Y...
-)cp' f *
........d.u.....i..G..'.......................g...... Rel. Dwg./ Spec. No. v.s....:...O. L...........
=
5 biest.
.'.y.,:
l I
- __.i I.
I n
_J s
i m.,.S i
/
____._____-I s
}
\\
4
/
'ti, g
a N
\\
j
/
\\
/-
N
/
/
.\\
\\'
/
\\
/
y i____
l I-g.
.I j.
i..
.c F __ _
l' l
l l
l-
-.l l
l l'...
., s.
l l
.m I
O'
. 1.1 l
l
.l I
ei I
l
.I I
l 1...
l l
l
[
,. ls'c,
g-l, -
.,s:p" l
l
--]-
m
-l l
l I.
I l
.l l
i m
..l l
l
.I I
I
- o
,., o s
.s a
O a Si g
b33
.e V
l '82L Asi "DItouc. si AS I
I PekJCTrs D.As giecr, br:.m Gr.secers
-..,._.m._.,-...-.._
6 4
- g
., n
..i f f B-/ 0 ta n
i c..... ;'::::..'........
Gibb.c 8 Hill. Inc>.
r m.. Con..............
C a lc D r.. '. "......,.....
) }i ENGth t t A5. Ot Sker.t 8t S. CON ST F u;TO95
~
Sheet No. v-1... Of.......
+/
NEW YonE I
Chk'd/Apped. By............
G & H Job tie. #.. 7. :1\\....
-> v
, '. ~,
=m s r.' t.
f
- t
=)
Su bses t...I.l.'.*.;........../.'....*.,'............................... Ref. Dwg./ Spec. No..q s....F.Y.".7..........
~
L t <c a
2050' L 9,wa =
IS 00 '
k' t.-
DL =. 22 C'(I XI X).SO t. o so
,462. ES F~
200 'ksF l
LL'
=
i u,
c l4t_ =
462 tro.=o)z =
i9.405 x vr lou
. Zod(. 'roso3q s#
- M u_
- 6. 405 k.Fr
(
=
=
I D
f.
g'.
y' lh = 3C 9. 40E0 + 1.T, S.405) 72. E 'M.
K FT
/
</
b = 1 2." 3 cl i I8
0 F =- 12 ( is _f
=. 324 V l 2 o u ).-
v Ex=
~715." '.
273.n8 ".
.324 '
n.n 9? :
. o v.p As =..;bs7(12.Xia) e 799 #
. '. / =.p.oM
.o
[
. - -,.a.
VSE
- 2*
k=
I.05
'? 9 99 crQ D l....,...--
g.
1 'g," \\s.,*[(
/ i",I,*.
..I..%d.
ic
.~
k =. /'"/
. Ob' '. k. ~~~ ( 2 : - C'
~--
di
.,: s /.. -
{.f_f 2.
0 ':
t )C.((
f y E. * "
l, =
t,. O c.
FJ..Q ')
1
,n,-.v.e.
,.a...,e.
,y+-.
. ~ -, ~ g eo,
n m--
-+ -
~
.om.?'l.E!?.f1(?...
Gib_b__.m S (4lli_In,c.
rumi c.d,' '..?.N.'. 6..,.
]
sh..: re.. lN.~. 'or.h..'.
cieur..Y.
E'.....'..
3
'"G"d'"S D'5";. co%>wcihs tvaw vonn
- g Ch k' d/ A pped. Hy...... '...
C & H Joh No.h. :'.6 [-; (I.
s.,i,,.. TN !.1...%.. t.:.L.:. w '.'.!/...t'4. b. G.......G..L.
'.7.9. 0...'. G...' '.. n.i. o...es,.. u....... 5. l.. '.....--
.P b
-N' L__ _ __
_ _ _ _ _ _ _t I
p----
l I
l l
I l
l 9
I I
l I LIO" 6LAS -l 2" FINISt-l I
I 1
I7'.S*
) _ 4 '-7"
~
q l
r I
I 79o-vi l
I l.
l 3
7 A-s PLAT 4 AT E l,. ~/ 9 0 '-6
7.7-S-5 g=j' SCALE :
3
. 5s o (. i t.u)( z2 3 3)
DL:
4 5,74-k.
=
L L :-
.to o (_ t1.tS) ( 2.2 3 3)
F4,7Ii'"
=
z.77 2.7 + 13,oi = 3so.k3 M t 5 rJ LoAo 3 D + /,7 L
=
p t.c r 6 sa Moscur
= (3so.2.3 Xit.2s )
5 s 2.zz
><. - a r (P'NNED t 9)< )
$(
5 *' 1' 3 2. s.F-pr /wr.
=
~.
17 75
' 3
/
0' 0 5 k', [~~
P.f...'1,p;f., : ; K : U W'. :l2{A :? : % 1.?:~'.~~ x ( 7 77K i f)=
~
l 0.Q.
.. =.
~
pm..% ]I:(.?.l 7.Q....
_Gibb_.s S T-!ii!. In.c.
,\\...,rw.,C.e......~.....'.'..
' ' ~ 5 E~
o.cmuns.on.cr. uor.sIaucwas
,,,,,, y,,,,l,s o,,?/4,,.,
c,,, o,, J P. s J
New Yonn C & H J on. No.k 's.'7 _7..
7 ;'* -
Ch k'd/A ppe J.11y.........
Sobrect..u.. #.I...S. A..F.E. 6. 0..A. R..D. S...B..L. D..G.........E..L.
- 7. 4. 0..'.6.. ". fiel. D w g./ Spec. N o.......... :
C T
c t
cl: 19,76 in.
y
}
j: :
126975f-
,39 o
.l4ooO Kw=
3 2..t
=,oo33 g4,, g g,
5g
=
,,q 2A o
)
S
- o. 7e t 'N'/ pr b A3 c
MG9" ls 5 0FF ic IEt4T Re trJ Po e.c Fasca r' O.39 y & w l.05
'"*/P T 3
(I =.0 0 4-4 Oerav.sv THE o es,a i Acr is AT oNE E tJ D Q1=
THE 5FAM ;
A. PI NAIED ENb
- Ard A t. T S / 5 D'
Rssu G.5 S TfihY hio HotsEM r CAPAC.tTV l5
/J EEb2 0 AT Tile EtJDS i
,f j
/'
-i g
- n.,:.
?.
i g.u.,+.a w a
.~
i.
j.
.. /
.i
~
t
'1.***
,,1 ' i f....
4
.,.I
.t
[
r f,,
3 O
5
es&}.G.l.7.b......
Gib!~n 8 Hili. f.NN.
n n... c a.. '.' '. '.......
_n cuwu...'.Ib.or.M?:
^.
'~ l '
. co e n, v! t..':........... -
""""'s " v N w You
.s m,,
cw en e,.. u.. i..... :
a s n s.s u...-6..:, ;,!:.
r 3
d s.,.. T..O. S.. I...S..h. rc. 6. 0. h. R. r.f. 2.4..p.6......G. L... '79. 0..'..G.. "..... n. s. o-..ise.<. ng.......".......
A p
S Ik
+
I A.7-5 3
n--
--j i
I I
l l
l l
)
I I
l.b l
I l-
.l-l
[
I I
I
~
l l
l l
i l
790-5 I
l 1v l
I I-b N I
l l
l4 /i /
l 4
a m'
- e. se
. f. a Q
+
A-S 7-5 PLArd AT E L. 79DL A
SCALE. J/ % 1 '
4 DL =. 350 (12..'z 5{ 7.417) =
3 I.3
- 3 2o0 C1.}.5)(7.417) 15, 2.
- V L L :.
JC!G t1 tcA.c :
3 b + 1.~l L
- - $5 <4 i-30 9 # I2G 'S'/
i f
V-C 2_G.3 ) 7,4,i D _
7 2, i S - F r V' ~.-- ;.-- _ _3 T>E.S ( 6 rd I4 o M e rJT
'3 (F ieo EdoO l2-4,g, 7R =
y, (, Y - Pr/ p r-
... _.. ' b
__... - 2 (O.
f,'
[
f :. I 2-( l9' Y y 0 $
Q .]Mo - l 9,5 r..
- 12.,o 0 0 USE f,,;, L 00 33 A3 = o.7sof7 4 s e9 is sume,vr; Ag i.oy-h1) 790 - 4 /5 TifE S Ar4e M
/MSPEgT/{,{_ _,,;
j 1