ML20151T468
| ML20151T468 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point, South Texas, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 01/31/1988 |
| From: | Gau J, Lam P, Scavuzzo R AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20151T466 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8808160374 | |
| Download: ML20151T468 (51) | |
Text
'
^
as '
Experimental and Finite Element Evaluatie) of spent Fuel Rack Damping and Stiffness t
By l
R. J. Scawzzo P.C. Lam l
J. S. Gau January,1988 1
8809160374 880809 PDR ADOCK 05000498 P
n f
1.0 Introduction it is the objective of this report to determine the damping and stiffness associated with the fusion welded joints of spent fuel ract design devaloped by U. S. Tool and Die Company.
The same procedure as Reference (Il was used.
Both the magintude of damping and stiffness affect the dynamic response of these fuel rack from seismic inputs.
The sandwich 304 stainless steel-neutron poison design behaves in a nonlinear mamer making an exact evaluation complex.
A finite element evaluation of the local stlfIness associated with the stainless steel box was conducted.
These analytical results are compared to experimental values.
In addition, hyteresis damping caused by the sandwich stainless steel-Boral (Boraflex) construction is examined.
2.0 Descrfotico of the Exoerimental ADoaratus Two three box (Indian PT 3 and South Texas project) about 6' 4' long were loaded with a 25 kip Instron Load Frame controlled with a t1odel 8000 digital console.
The poison at Indian PT 3 is Boral and the poison at South Texas is Boraflex.
The system was installed ard calibrated in June,1986.
Testing was conducted in September,1987.
Each 9' x 9' spent fuel storage box had eight weld spots in the vertical plane; the ceriter box had eight welds (4 top and 4 bottcm).
The top and bottorn boxes had four welds each.
A Boral (Boraflex) sheet was sandwiched between each box.
During the manufacturing process, the weld faces are forced together and welded.
As a result, there is some initial compression in each welded joint exists.
The tensile test machine was used to load two pair of welded joints at one end of the three box stack.
The load was applied through a 3/4-10 threaded rod.
An angle divided the load equally to the two welds.
The deflection at welds of the center box was measured with a dial indicator.
This dial indicator was not moved during the experiment.
For Indian PT 3 the load started from tension with total 4 completed cycles.
The load ranged between -1900 lb and 1500 lb.
The inillal and final half cycles were not used in this evaluation.
For South Texas project the load started from tension with total 41/2 cycles.
The load ranged between -1600 lb and 1500 lb.
The final half cycle was not used in this evaluation.
3.0 Exoerimental Rasults t1easurments of the external force to the three box stack (two welds) and the opening displacement of the conter box at one weld pair is listed in Table 1 and 2.
It should be noted that the cpening deflection for two box walls with identical forces through each weld pair on a side is obtained.
Deflection versus load are plotted on Fig.1-9.
The energy loss in each cycle can be calculated by numerical integration of these curves to determine the enclosed area.
The energy loss per cycle is determinded from the integral [1]
W = f F ds (1) where F is the force per weld (one-half of the applied value) and the displacement, s, is associated with one weld (one-half of the measured deflection).
Equivalent viscous damping can be calculated using the fallowing equation (2)
W = 2x2fCX2 (2)
a t
where C = equivalent viscous damping X = displacement f = structure natural frequency I) Test for Indian PT 3 The energy loss per cycle is 19A1 lb-in (Fig.2),11.84 lb-in (Fig.3) and 1
10.45 lb-in (Fig.4) for average value of 13.9 lb-in.
Equivalent viscous damping per weld versus frequency is plotted on Fig.10.
Average values of the force deflection curve are presented on Fig.11.
The stiffness was defined as the forces per weld per side.
Thus values obtained frorn the data of Table I were analyzed as follows:
F/2 K=
(Ib-in/ weld)
(3) 8/2 Stiffness in tension arV compression determined from this experimental curves are 18220 lb/in and 12C33 !Nin, respectively.
- 2) Test for South Texas project i
The energy loss per cycle is 30.07 lb-in (Fig.6),16.98 lb-in (Fig.7) 17.78 lb-in (Fig.8) and 13.03 lb-in (Fig.9) for average value of 19.46 lb-in.
Equivalent viscous damping per weld versus frequency is plotted on flpJre 12.
Average values of the force deflection curve are presented on figure 13.
Stiffness in tension and compression determined from this experimental curves are 19545 lb/in and 90000 lb/in, respectively.
The decrease stiffness from compression to tension can be observed on flg.1-9.
A bilineaar force deflection curve typicd of preloaded joints is developed.
i F
i
~
4.0 S!anificiance of Damoina constant The critical damping ratio is defined as CT CT
(=
(4)
=
Ce 2m n i
The value of C7 s calculated to be as follows:
C = NI N2 N3 C (5)
T where NI = No. of welds per box N2 = No. of rows of boxes N3 = No. of columns of boxes less 1
- 1) Critical Damping for Indian PT 3 with unconsolidated fuel (12X10X12Xio.35X386) 18.2 %
(6)
( = (2)(23700+(132X1460)X2nXI 1.6)
=
- 2) Critical Da'nping for South Texas project with unconsolidated fuel (16X10X12X9.27)(386)
( = (2)(28000+(132X1750)X2nXi l.6)
= 18.2 %
(8)
- l v
v.
O Thus, from the sandwich construction of this design, significant damping is imparted to the structure. Other sources of damping are the sliding between the rack and floor, water turbulance and normal structural damping of a welded structure, it should be pointed out that the hysteresis damping caused by the sandwich construction will depend upon amplitude and thus additional experimental work should be conducted over a proper range of external loads to determine lhls damping as a function of amplitude.
S.O Finite Element Evaluation of Stiffnesses One finite element model of the 9' x 9' x 64* of the spent fuel storage box was developed for the center weld design study using the Cosmic version of the NASTRAN program (3).
A total 2873 elements with 2470 grid points were used to describe this stcrage box.
Five hundred and sixty-seven spring elements (CELAS2 elements), two rigid elements (CRIGD2 elements) and two thusand three hundred and four plate element (CQUAD2 element) were used in modelling the spent fuel storage box.
The two rigid elements were used to simulate the welds and the spring elements were used to represent the elastic properties of the Boral.
A pre-prococessor was developed and implemented into the NASTRAN finite element program so that the spent fuel box can be accurately modelled with little
(
engineering time. The finite element model of the spent fuel container for the center weld study is shown on Fig.14.
The container was loaded by placing two five hundred pound forces at l
the center location (grid points 3221 and 3239).
Roller constraints were
~
'4 placed at the center sida-wall of the box at grid points 3204,3216,3224 and 3236.
For the upper weld study, two five hundred pount forces were applied at the position (grid points 5221 and 5239) which is 12' from the top of the box (Fig.15).
As seen on Fig.15, no roller constraints were used for this case.
Using the different models, responses for various Boral (Boraflex) stiffness and structural characteristics are studied.
Deflections are evaluated at every grid points.
Only stiffness perpendicular to the plate is considered, with shear effects caused by friction being neglected.
Fourteen finite element were studies for the upper and center welds.
A parametric study in which the Boral (Boraflex) modulus were varied from 0 psi to 995 psi was conducted.
A plot of the local center weld stiffness versus Boral (Boraflex) modulus are shown on Fig.16.
A results for the upper weld study is shown on Fig.17.
A summary of the lccal weld stiffness for both cases is included in Table 3.
6.0 Conclusion Heasures local stiffness of the welds between spent fuel boxes was determined.
Becaused of preloading caused by the manufacturing process a nonlinear deflection curve is developed which can be approximated by a bilinear curve.
For Indian PT 3 stiffness of 18220 lb/in and 128333 lb/in were measured in tension and compression, respectively.
Compression stiffness is 7.04 times than tension stiffness.
ForSouthTexasproject stiffness of 19545 lb/in and 90000 lb/in were measured in tension and
cornpression, respectively.
Compression stiffness is 4.6 times than tension stif fness.
Damping caused by the sandwich stainless steel Boral (8craflex) construction is about 18% for unconsolidated fuel and about 10%
for t
consolidated fuel.
There is additional damping of 5% to 6% associated with fluid structure interaction.
9 h
7.0 References (il R.J. Scawzzo, P.C. Lam, and J.S. Gau, ' Experimental and Finite Element Evaluation of Spent Fuel Rack Damping and Stiffness',
Report prepared for U.S. Tool and Die Company, Sept,1986.
[2]
W.J. Thompson, ' Theory of Vibrations with Appilcations, 2nd Ed.,
Prentice Hall,1981, pp 68-69.
(3) NASTRAN User's Manual (Cosmic Version).
Load Disp Load Disp Load Disp Load Disp Load Disp kip in kip in kip in kip in kip in
.001
.0
.904
.011
.310
.003
.818
.051
.112
.004
.219
.004
-1.224
.014
.700
.008
.727
.045
.417
.017
.300
.007
-1.435
.015
-1.112
.011
.610
.039
.679
.033
.523
.013
-I.670
.017
-1.600
.014
.479
.032
.913
.046
.600
.024
-1.920
.018
-1.371
.013
.412
.029 1.131
.060
.906
.034
-1.415
.014
.995
.010
.I73
.017
.973
.054 1.005
.041
.960
.011
.741
.008
.016
.010
.672
.040 1.092
.051
.736
.009 364
.004
.104
.002
.392
.025 1.175
.060
.430
.007
.058
.001
.212
.000
.198
.018 1.480
.081
.178
.004
.137
.006
.408
.004
.017
.007 1.257
.079
.I21
.003
.294
.012
.623
.008
.291
.004
.995
.076
.395
.013
.494
.021
.881
.010
.620
.009
.783
.062
.600
.023
.584
.027
-1.125
.013
.930
.011 l
.688
.057
.882
.040
.649
.032
-1.448
.015
-1.261
.015
.565
.051 1.I44
.056
.730
.035
-1.145
.013
-1.470
.016
.380
.038 1.396
.061
.860
.042
.944
.011
-1.257
.014
.147
.026
.800
.059
.975
.051
.736
.010
.935
.012
.002
.015
.700
.048 1.I14
.058
.597
.009
.551
.009
.017
.000
.400
.031 1.218
.062
.401
.007
.280
.006 l
.297
.006
.225
.020 1.055
.060
.262
.005
.00I
.000
.506
.008
.016
.0 I I
.928
.055
.000
.001 Table I Load-Deflection Data of Indian PT 3 i
'[
I oad Disp Load Disp Load Disp Load Disp Load Disp L
i kip in kip in kip in kip in kip in
.002
.0
-1.200
.010
.324
.004
.298
.005
.640
.004
.I16
.003
-1.515
.012
.615
.002
.614
.001
.940
.006
.352
.009
-1.190
.009
.904
.006
.932
.006
-1.240
.010
.611
.018
.915
.007
-1.204
.010
-1.220
.010
-1.520
.011
.837
.029
.591
.004
-I.493
.012
-1.545 015
-1.260
.010
.983
.038
.297
.000
-1.216
.010
-1.168
.009
.900
.007 1.I63
.052
.070
.004
.905
.006
.918
.006
.588
.004 1.262
.06I
.I80
.012
.610
.004
.595
.003
.310
.000 1.411
.075
.354
.019
.292
.001
.284
.00I
.056
.009 1.480
.081
.592
.031
.003
.008
.014
.010
.316
.019 1.283
.075
.749
.040
.320
.020
.315
.020
.570
.03I
.983
.061
.904
.048
.610
.035
.6l0
.036
.890
.049
.682
.047 1.I96
,.065
.912
.050
.901
.048 1.213
.067
.393
.032 1.385
.076 1.212
.068 1.210
.065 1.500
.085
.103
.017 1.454
.082 1.503
.086 1.510
.084 1.281
.076
.002
.013 1.269
.076 1.290
.079 1.320
.078
.904
.060
.240
.005 1.009
.064
.892
.062
.970
.062
.596
.044
.440
.000
.710
.050
.614
.048
.333
.030
.330
.030
.745
.005
.374
.033
.282
.030
.003
.012
.002
.013
.%0 007
.035
.015
.008
.015 318
.00i Table 2 Load-Deflection Data of 5T. Project
Boundary Modull Deflection Stiffness Condition (psi)
(in)
(Ib/in)
Roller 995
.00623 80256 Roller 500
.00710 70442 Roller 200
.00871 57405 Roller 100
.01039 48123 Roller 50
.01258 39745 Roller 20
.01611 31036 Roller 0
.03527 14176 Free 995
.0097 51546 Free 500
.01113 44923 Free 200
.01369 36523 Free 100
.01622 30826 Free 50
.01929 25920 Free 20
.02385 20963 Free 0
.03964 12163 4
Table 3 Local Weld Stiffness vs Boraflex Modulus (Load = 500 lb)
e List of Figures i
' Figure No Title Fig.I force-Deflection Curves Ior Indian PT 3 Fig.2 Force-Deflection Curve Cycle I for indian PT 3 Fig.3 Force-Deflection Curve Cycle 2 for indian PT 3 Fig.4 Force-Deflection Curve Cycle 3 for indlan PT 3 Fig.S Force-Deflection Curve for ST. Project Fig.6 Force-D._. action Curve Cycle i for ST. Project Fig.7 Force-Deflection Curve Cycle 2 for ST. Project Fig.8 Force-Deflection Curve Cycle 3 for ST. Project Fig.9 Force-Deflection Curve Cycle 4 for ST. Project Fig.10 Damping Coefficient for Indian PT 3 Fig.1i Average Tenslie Md Compressive Stiffness for indian PT 3 Fig.12 Darnping Coefficient for ST. Project Fig.13 Average Tensile And Compressive Stifiness for ST. Project Fig.14 Finite Element Model of Center Weld Fig.15 Finite Element Model of Upper Wold
m 16 Center weld stiffness-rack configuration with E:0.0 psi.
17 Center weld stiffness-rack configuration with E=100 psl.
18 Center weld stiffness-rack configuration with E:500 psi.
19 Center weld stiffness-rack configuration with E:995 psi.
20 Center weld stiffness-rack configuration versus Young's modulus.
ea
$~
8 e
o~
z m
=o Z.
oo W
u Lt.J
-u. @..
J
/
ujo O
.o o
d-n o
o
' 2.00
-1.50
-).Oo
-O.50 o'.00 o'.50 l'.00 l'.50 LORD
[ KIP)
Fig.1 Force-Deflection Curves for Indian PT 3 e
e
,, ~
o _ =, " e z n
o2 obJILu&s_
t s
o.8 d O.
d Oo fE 2
00
-1' 5
0 F
ig
.2
-1' F
o 0
r 0
ce
-De f
le L.'
0 c
t O5 i
on R0 g
C D
urv
(
e Ko C
I y
0 P
c
)0 le m
i for
.o I
n d
5 i
0 an g/
PT 3
1 l
0 0
'-.e 1
5 0
DEFLECTION (IN) g_0.02 0,.00 0 02 0 011 0 06 0 00 T
8 f
.I. -
4 M
ta C
'W I
P'
-n 9
m t
r, e
ca c TO n
c3 m e.
m b.
o h) o_
E_.
,c 5
3 u
.o.
m Q
G
'e
\\
,nO
~^
~
OEFLECTCON (IN) g
. D2 0,.00 0,.02 0,. 0 tl 0,. 0G 0,.00
-0 I
e N=
M tcI I
- A I
L O~
m e
k o
g T
=
i 8
r- 'O~
C cs.c 3
"D D c3 n
m*-
q 7g ar w
W o
E
!i 31 w
~
P.
c.
O MQ
v-DEFLECTION (IN)
, 0.02 0,.00 0,.02 0,.04 0,. 0G 0,.00 8
!s o'
u o
"v1k 9
r.o' i2 o vi i
=
ro R
O
=
N 8
so N-p m 'o N
m g
s a
m 8
\\ 'N 4
P-m N
a s
o, N.-
d N
%'N 8
\\
tA M
O h
I l
1.
i I
DEFLECTION (IN)
,-0. 02,
0,.00 0,.02 0,.04 0,.OG 0,.00
- ru e
i 8
e tn
>k C
m a-klD I
m R
'o n
t2 y
2 c
r
,o -
8 om zo ns c
M n
7o y
m-ar 08 v
O 4
R W
O
\\
w
\\
o
\\
L
e-OEFLECTION (IN)
-0 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.0G 0 00 1
02_
i i
i i
i
,M Ng i
M t
T Q-St,
-a 4
n 9
o
=
8 I
c.
r
.o-8 ow n
33 w c
c3 3
n xo b
M *,
~
o ar "o
N m
4 a
W s.
,o _
~
g 6
1 r
[ __
l 9
Ok.uJuu&uD2,"~ZM n
J
'e E oE O_. E o o:
O8 d Oe 2
00 1
5 0
F ig
.8 F
o r
0 c
0 e
-De f
le c
L.0 t
io O5 n
R0 C
e u
D rve (KI.0 C
l yc 0
P l
e
)0 3
for S
.T 0 '
5 P
0 ro jec t
c/
l 0
0
/
1.'
50 3
a e
QJ_uu Lot uo2 wa-z-s L
1J r
d o Om eo.o, d oo o_. 5 o_
=
~
~
2 00 s
i 1
5 0
F ig
.9 i
F 1
w 0
ce 0
-De f
le c
L.0 t
io O5 n
R0 Cu D
rve
(
C K.0 u
I c
0 P
le
)0 4
T w
S
.T 0
5 P
0 ro f
je
/
c l
t l
0 0
/,.
~.
l 5
0
\\
g.
ORMPING COEFF CLB-SEC/IN)
J. 00 4,.00 6,.00 1p.00 1,G.00 2,0.00 8
+-
=
e 8
e n
d' e+
b
.m '
o a
o a
=
/
2.2 O
R "8
R.
~-
e i
q 8
. g i'
A 8-u
,o
.E" 8
8
1 1
1
';ll
=
~
%. z-tu ou_3uut w02 s
?. Qc d OO o_, E 0__ O =
a8 d Oe
~
2 00 1
F 5
0 ig 1
1 A
v 1
e ra 0
g 0
e Ten s
i 0>
le L.
A O5 n
R0 d
D Com
(
p K-r I.0>
es P
s
)0 i
0 ve S
t i
f n
0 f
e 5
ss 0
for In d
1 ia n
0
/
P 0
T 3
1 5
0
ORHPING COEFF (LB-SEC/IN) g.co u,. 00 e,. 00 Ig.co Ip.cc 2p.00 o
O
?-
B
~
5-21 E
.N 9
g_
Ng
-a 04 t{
4 g.
i n'
I 8
I
,5-7
=
o o
8 n
ga 8
U 8
i
- O
I L
DEFLECTEON (IN)
.i. 0,02 i
i 0 00 0.02 0.04 0 0G 0 00 I
.-2" e
N f.
i t
mo
=4 F
c.6-O D
C3 n
l
-7,".
i S
~%
o o
<a..
w l
C.
4 A
e-4 O
d o
g w
-4 i
o o
o I
1
.N D
U l
l i
i i
i l
t
rr'~
4--9.165 in 6 t =.085 in 4.5 in 4
> 4
.08 in (thick of Boral)
' Fy=500 lb a
v 3214
=
A b 2 e
e v2 U T~
Vi og o
3206 I V Y
U Fy=500 lb b
b-.
1 in 4__
> <g 1.25in grid 6401
]
+
E l-c i
N E
3221 5
- Fy 5
3239 o
grid 201 s M
grid 101%
v grid 1 Fig.14 Finite Element (1odel of Center Weid
4--9. I 65 in t =.085 in 4.5 in 4
.08 in (thick of Boral) 7 Fy=500 lb jg at h-:
a e
to UT :
R m.
e I
V
&v Fy=500 lb
+
4 1 in 1.251n 4
grid 6401 a
\\
5 e
m
}
5221 'r' Fy 7
5239 E
v grid 201 s h
grid 10l%
V grid l ' '
Fig.15 Fi.ite Element (1odel of Upper Weid
~
STIFFNESS AT SPOT CLB/IN)
P10' g.00 2,0.00 u,o.co 8,0.00 8,0.00 1,00.00 O
O PJ C-o o
N G @-
m, 3
o e
w o 1
~
G FT1 r~
Q 3 {.
M C.
N t:0 g CD m
- D o_
vP R
Lo o
-o O
8 r-f 8-E X 'o no CD w
W f0" to eoo uA~
o l
Oc l
n-a-n-
3
a i
STIFFNESS AT SPOT (LB/IN) x10' 8O.00 160.00 2LO.00 320.00 400.00 4,80.00 i
i i
i m
O 4
N P~
o a
Og-
"T1.
D T
--i C
-?
1 R
~
a C.g-n r-RM CU O CQ O rT1
- o c=g O o P-u) o 0
U s.
r iE-Xo
.-. O CD w
.ma N
Oo E
Oc
.n.
s a
,, - - ~
.i
- j:
f ATTACHMENT # 5 SYNTHESIZED TIME HISTORIES FOR THE SOUTH TE'aS PROJECT SPENT FUEL RACKS k
L4/NRC/bp
87g)p_ go-oO/c2.
~
- 7 DESIGN DECISIONS, INC.
CP.O. BOX 12884 PITTSBU RGH, PA 15241 (412) 941-4525
/a s
N DDI-TM-87-156 M 1967
'\\
March 23, 1987 R
I Co RECEIVED T&D/
U.
S. Tool & Die, Inc.
4030 Route 8 4
-4 Allison Park, PA 15101 U//g 6 B d SI80 Attention: Mr. Ray Linder Manager of Engineering RS, 87-70328 Ref: Synthesized Time Histories South Texas Spent Fuel Racks Engineerir.g Release Doc. No. 8709-00-0008, Rev.0, 3/6/87.
Gentlemen:
Time historica were synthesized for use in the seismic analysis of the South Texas spent fuel racks. All of the time histories span 15.0 seconds at a uniform time interval of 0.01 seconds.
_ z.
Thus, each time history contains 1501 data points starting with a V) zero acceleration at time zero.
All acceleration data are in Gs.
The synthesized time histories are stored on a Data General diskette.
Each time history is stored on an ASCII file.
The first record in the file contains a descriptive label of up to 70 characters. The next 1501 records contain the accelerations.
The following file names were used:
Desian Condition Damoina DG Diskette File Name Vertical SSE 4%
STEWOBE.DA Plots of the time histories and the resulting response spectra are attached. All spectra were calculated for the 46 frequencies suggested in Table N-1226.1 of Appendix N,Section III, of the ASME Code plus any additional frequencies required to resolve the specified design spectra, Figures 1-6 of 3F239NS1007, Rev.1.
l Spectra for the synthesized time histories exceed or equal the t
design curves to within 0.005 G at all frequencies considered.
^
.(y
U.
S. Tool & Die, Inc.
1 DDI-TM-87-156 D
March 23, 1987 Page 2 of 2 Section N-1213.1 of Appendix N of the ASME Code requires that the cross correlation coefficient be less than 0.16 and that the coherence function be in the range 0.0 to 0.3 with an average of about 0.2.
The following cross correlation coefficients were computed for the synthesized time histories:
Condition Cross Correlation Coef.
Vertical SSE and North-South SSE 0.073 Vertical SSE and East-West SSE 0.130 East-West SSE and North-South SSE 0.091 Vertical OBE and North-South OBE O.058 Vertical OBE and East-West OBE 0.187 East-West OBE and North-South OBE 0.084 Note that the cross correlation between the vertical and east-west OBEs slightly exceeds the allowable of 0.16. The intent of the 0.16 limit is to assure that the synthesized time histories approximate "natural" seismic loadings (in the three orthogonal directions) in regard to peak load phasing and independence. The Q
small deviation from 0.16 does not imply phasing or correlation.
Thus, the intent of the Code is satisfied.
The coherence function is also a
measure of phasing and correlation.
Unlike the cross correlation coefficient, the coherence function requires Fourier transformations of all the data over all frequencies of interest. This requires a great deal of both computer time and nanpower. Since the coherence function was not considered in past synthesized histories, it was not included here.
Very truly yours, DESIGN DECISIONS, INC.
P.
A. Stancampiano l
Attachments: Plots of all synthesized time histories and spectra.
PAS /ljs C.I 1
l l
l
(}
(7; 03/23/87 12:11:42 AcceteroEIon (G) 0.3_
0.2n 0.I V
v yy e.
u
-0. t_.
I 1
-0.d
-0.S_
-0.d I
i I
-1 I
I I
O 2
4 6
8 10 12 14 16 Tim. (s.c)
Synth. Ele Tim. History: Vert-SSE
(p G.h 03/23/87 12:30:13 Accelerotton (G)
!.2 Synthetie Il I
Design p
i l
1 0. 8___
[\\
(
B-8. 4._
l i
0.2L N
il 0
1 1
- l 1
- _1
_J l
1 0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Frequency (Hz)
VT SSE Floor Design Spectrum Ele 30' South Texas (Fig 1,
4% Damping)
(?).
G-03/23/87 12: 43:36 Acce!eratIon (G) 0.lE_
0.1 0.0E__
j b.Il l-ua-h I
Il I
. g yw-
- 0..A t
l vi j}
-0. OEL_
l
-0.1_
l
-0.1 EL_
-0. 0 I
I I
I I
I I
I O
2 4
6 8
10 12 14 16 Tim
(
c)
Synth. Ele Time History: Vert-0BE
s 03/23/87 12:35:20 Accelerotton (G) t 0. 9_
Synthetic 0. 8i_
D..Ign l
0.7.__
c F
0.6L i
O.5L_
i
- 0. 4L f
i 0.3 f
I 0.2;_
0.1 0
.._ L
. L....... L... L __ _ _ _ _1_ _...... L _._ _ _. _. L..._ _j 0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Frequency (Hz)
VT OBE Floor Design Spectrum Ele 30' South Texas (Fig 2, 2% Domp) i
N:
b^
03/23/87 12:49:23 Acceleration (G) 8.?
0.15 _
0.1.
l 0.05 __
b 0Ai{-
I.
1 I
d Aj.
k l
l l 7l I N
-0. 0!'
l i
-0. t -
-0.1E;_
-0.5 I
I I
I I
I I
I O
2 4
6 8
10 12 14 16 Time (.c)
Synthetic Tim. History: NS-SSE
k;
(:9 03/23/87 12:53:53 Accelerotion CG)
- 0. 7_
Synthetic.
0.6 n sion 0.5 _.
1 0.4J l
0.3_
8.2).
0.1 0
I I
I I
I I
I O
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 i
Frequency CHz) i I
N-S SSE Floor Design Spectrum Ele 30' South Toxos (Fig 3, 4X Damp)
I
($.
El 03/23/87 12:59:44 AcceieratIon (G) 8.OE_
0.0] __
0.0E m 0.02__
b 0.
b I
I
-0.01bl k 'l F)
N
-0. O'L.
-0.0EL_
-0.02_
- 0. 05l 1
I I
I I
I I
I O
2 4
6 8
10 12 14 16 Tim. (..c)
Synth. Ele Time Hi=Eory: NS-OBE u
i:: -
(;id b
03/23/87 13:04:I6 Acceleration (6) 0.6_
SynthetIe 0.5 I4 sign 0.4_
1 0.3_
i 1
0. 2' _
?
}
0.1 L.
A 0
I I
I I
I I
I O
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Frequency (Hz)
N-S (sBE Floor Design Spectruse Ele 30' South Toxos (Fig 4, 2X Domp)
-~
i
. < ; -Q,
eo M..
8..
00 O
N a
s t
^
N
=--
b MW,
=:55E h
elEuu
^
b
~
l U,
f O
~
e 9
V y
h
- I h
=
- _ - - = =
~
H z
n(o g
g v
E.
om-U Ul I
l 7C l
e o
V ',
y@e n.
n.
a
}
}
i i
i
~
C y
E LA 4
i l
l l
i i
l L
i,
((i 83/23/87 13:13:58 i
Acceleration (6)
- 1. 8_
Rynthetic 1.6_
Neign 1.4_
h l.7 I
l 0.8_.
0.6_
O4-
\\-
l l
0.2 i
l 0
I I
I I
I I
I O
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Frequency (Hz) i i
EV SSE Floor Design Spectrum Ele 30' South Toxos CFig 5, 4X Damp) i
O i
l l
M..
G M
i h.
(D O
N a
s r
9, b
N o
M
~
V m-g h
~M g
8 I
O O n
h g
=
8
=
V y
,3 8
-~
Q g
N v
H
~
U hN n.
~~
[
%*~J l
J,
.u G
O b.
u.
u, G
G n.
w G
G G
(D 2
i
-G G
G G
I G
l w
k m
e.
i l
i l
L
y 4
4 03/23/87 13:23:43 AcceferatIon (6)
- 1. 4_
Synthelle 4
1.2 Design I
0.8 _
l 0.6 _
}
h e.4; i
A
~
0.2 0
I I
I I
I I
I O
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Frequency (Hz)
E-W OBE Floor Design Spectrum El 30' South T xo. (Fig 6, 2X Damp)
~ c-y ATTACHMENT # 6 HANDOUT ON MULTI-RACK CONNECTIVELY (3 RACK MODEL RESULTS)
L4/NRC/bp
/d U.S. TOOL & ole, INC)
CY 2#88 DATE M(/8[. SU3 JECT._
//('lT-##<4 SECT.
.. SHEET.__.
..OF..
ll DATE h/h $
/fulo'l *RACA / / U4 ~
PROJ.NO. P Q _.
CHKD. BY t
-i.
~%
A/o J //
p%Y/f' c'OA 'A'. ~(* 7/ V' 7 Y
/
p,tl
^0 - Full uttr9 e
8 I
B WA G Am
~8 eAeA eA 9A_e.A8 nB U
E t i 8
q,3g_e_A m
cyA o
$f[e3 o A (9 A E55 eA! b A
["[,: eA h;
g g
g g
g
<> A e A ea e a eA g
"' ~
8_*mAf&".U'83 OAF'-
(l i#
E!
i El 81__
i 81 81-tf 36
,VOff '
/
7.THeaW /?/?f 7//t-V0
/) Fu/L - tect Gni > s/V?wGs c
2.) run. sat noio co umas
i U.S. TOOL S3 ole. INC.
BY DATE
__ SUBJECT _
. SECT.. _ __ SHEET.._.
OF CHKD. BY DATE PROJ. N O.
Sc/N/ r An'? O/ sf'f.ru /s'r t
I).%tst'7/ /Farf /FA/P/ 7r/s
/*far/ mum RS/Arn/F D/r /VA c rx fnis s'f Twi"fm N47#CfN ? /PACN 34A/RT
, / Y Mc //f f
$)
/ Vdotfst? O f JAff r 7sN M 7 F Ac //
/ft/f4 n
W/
w/o
. & wv
- 72 Y kips
? ? ? kips fy pg
/ SN k/fs
/ 3 F A it's
~
3) ri.s nic n"
- Yr/r Foe Psorr />.iz d' u7 Zss Tsa or/w PNAff f 7Hf fr/s7/n6 DRV sionosf s c al D'rds neers 7//r rGN4 /7/DNf 0F 7///
PN'4rf I
/MAffrifn isr/oe
/?NO fffry/ TS /A' NCTff7Af/E f4f87Y f/AridA'S
?NAff $
t TNf
/?AC h To t#A//
f/u/P
(*0 V P//wG M/7.rf l
l
'YS[$/ $
hkN / $$/
[/$fh
//t/ /$(
/$
f Hasf
/5 A?N4/ f / /f I//f' f/V9.rf f.
{~or'f/6' v/?H 77M'
/J fMt'/'r 704Y fu Vf/o Pr6
/>
U.S. TOOL G DIE, INC.
BY DATE SUBJECT SECT. _ ___ SHEET _ _.
OF CHKD. BY DATE PROJ. NO.
fNf FNWff $
$NN/ ?J~/f fW Ma,
fe h $b p N rii e E r
- o. 7 e r i as i
f) fuh/
h// TH
//t/s 7/Ad 8ff/j' 4Gerffs']
84ff C'4rf IM 0/5fMCf Is/7FD WJA'acf
[j pr 4 Y
'/OS / N/f/
Wf k/PJ 9 0 '/ h/**l fg n g y
/ 71 h/PJ
/i f $/ff
/ 7 2 h/PJ
ATTACHMENT # 7 COPY OF PAPER, "INVESTIGATION OF DESIGN CRITERIA FOR DYNAMIC LOADS ON NUCLEAR POWER PIPING", BY SCAVUZZO AND IAM L4/NRC/bp