ML20197C267
| ML20197C267 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Grand Gulf  |
| Issue date: | 06/30/1978 |
| From: | Mcdonald J TEXAS TECH UNIV., LUBBOCK, TX |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-NRC-04-76-345, CON-NRC-4-76-345, REF-GTECI-A-38, REF-GTECI-IT, TASK-A-38, TASK-OR NUDOCS 7811210046 | |
| Download: ML20197C267 (41) | |
Text
!
h'h l
10 i
l0, ASSESSMENT OF TOANADO DAMAGE
!j to the lo GRAND GULF NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION l l
by James R. Mcdonald lo l
June,1978 l
!O l
l ns':itu:e "or 7saster Researc1 i
O
~~EXAS ~EC- U s VE TS ~~Y I
~~
_ubboc5, exes 79409 o
7811210cq6 o
O ASSESSMENT OF TORNADO DAMAGE to the GRAND GULF NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION C) .
~
by C)
James R. Mcdonald, P.E.
O Prepared for O
Environmental and Siting Branch Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Contract No. NRC-04-76-345 O
O June 1978 O
. Institute for Disaster Research Texas Tech University
() Lubbock, Texas O
l
- O j I
1 FOREWORD A tornado struck the Grand Gulf Nuclear Power Generating Station, Port Gibson, Mississippi, around 11:30 p.m. on April .
17, 1978. Upon learning of the incident the next morning and at the suggestion of Robert F. Abbey, Jr. of the Environmental and Siting Branch, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, a two man team of storm damage investigators from the Institute for Disaster Research, Texas Tech University, was dispatched to survey the damage.
O Other investigators from the University of Chicago, USNRC,.
Region II, Carolina Power and Light and Bechtel Power Corpora-tion were also on the scene. It was agreed that Dr. Ted Fujita O f the University of Chicago would survey and map the damage path from the air. The Texas Tech team would survey the plant from ground level.
Dr. Fujita's report [1] gives the meterological situation that produced the Grand Gulf tornado and the seven others that O
occurred in Louisiana, Arkansas a..d Mississippi on the night of April 17 and the early morning hours of April 18, 1978. The report contains aerial surveys of the entire damage path and O detailed surveys of the plant site itself.
This report presents an engineering evaluation of the da b age at the plant. It is based primarily on information gained from the ground survey. The study is a part'of the scope of O
work of a research project entitled " Assessment of Tornado Risks and the Analysis of Near Ground Wind Fields," USNRC Cont.act No. NRC-04-76-345. Robert F. Abbey, Jr. is the con-tract monitor. Dr. James R. Mcdonald serves as priniciple
- O investigator.
9 O
i O
, - . . . . ~ , . . ._ .. -- _ _ . . - . _ _ ._ _ ._ ._ ~...- _ - . - . _ -. _ _ . _ _ . -
Ol l
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS !
.O Many persons.were helpful in the tornado damage documenta-tion effort.
The free exchange of information and photographs between
'O Dr. Ted Fujita and the author has been very beneficial in making the damage evaluations. A damage report [2] and the exchange of
- information and photographs with Julius Rotz of Bechtel Power Corporation is also acknowledged.
- O The helpful cooperation of the quality assurance section of Mississippi Power and Light is greatfully acknowledged. .Without the assistance of Thomas E. Reaves, Jr., Manager of Quality Assurance and Phillip W. Sly, Quality Assurance Field Supervisor,
- .O the information contained-_in this report could not have been assembled. The guidance offered by Charles R. McFarland, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region II is also acknowledged.
O-
'O
-O O
l I
J O
ii l l
4
__ _ _ . _ _ . . _ _ . . _ ._ _ .__ _ _ ... _ . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ . _u
.O l
TABLE OF CONTENTS j (3
Page LIST OF TABLES iv
() ,
LIST OF FIGURES iv I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGE 3
'(3 A. Cooling Tower 3 B. Generating Plant Area 4 C. Batch Plan Area 7 D. Switch Yard 9 E. Zurn Industries Precast Yard 9 F. Lay Down Area 10
- O III. WINDSPEED ESTIMATE 12 A. Tree Damage 12 B. Mobile Trailers 13 C. Pre-Engineered Metal Buildings 14 c) D. Windborne Missiles 14 IV. WINDBORNE MISSILE BEHAVIOR 16 A. Missiles That Were Transported 16 B. Objects That Did Not Move 16
-(3 C. Windborne Missile Threat to Power Plants 17 V. CONCLUSIONS 18 REFERENCES 19 O
O d
O iii O
LIST OF TABLES
'O Page
- 1. Missiles That Flew .20 0 "
LIST OF FIGURES
, 1. Overall View of Plant Looking Northeast 21
- 2. Unit #1 Cooling Tower 22 0 3. Damage to Unit #1 Cooling Tower 23
- 4. Crane Wreckage and Debris at Base of Cooling Tower 24
- 5. Aerial View of Crane Wreckage 25
- 6. Collapsed Tower Crane and Manitwoc 4600W Crane 26
- 7. Boom of Manitwoc Crane on Roof of Turbine Building 26
- 8. Plant Warehouse Building 27 o (a) Windward Wall (b) Leeward Wall 27 27
- 9. Wreckage of Shop Building in Batch Plant Area 28
- 10. Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory Building 29 O
- 11. Aggregate Conveyor System 30
- 12. Undercarriage of Batch Plant Office Trailer 31
- 13. Damage to Switch Yard Equipment 31 0 Warehouse and Office Building.in the Zurn Yard 32 14.
- 15. Aerial View of Lay Down Area 32
- 16. Scattered Transite Pipe in Lay Down Area 33 O
- 17. Sand Spreaders in Lay Down Area 34
- 18. Steel Alignment Rig 35
- 19. Distance Traveled by Alignment Rig 35
,0
- 20. Joints of Fiberglass Pipe Tossed by the Winds 36 ;
iv O.
rw:-ew-m- y
? !
I I. INTRODUCTION O
The Grand Gulf Nuclear Generating Station, located near Port Gibson, Mississippi, was less than fifty percent complete on the night of April 17, 1978, when it was struck without warn-O' ing by a tornado at 11:30 p.m. This incident, to the author.'s knowledge, marks the first time a nuclear generating station has
~
been struck by a tornado.
When completed in 1984, the Grand Gulf plant will have two
~O units, each capable of generating 1250 megawatts of power. The owner is Mississippi Power and Light Co., Jackson, Mississippi.
Design and construction of the plant is by Bechtel Power Corpora-tion.
Figure i shows a general view of the plant looking northeast
~
along the tornado path. Areas affected by the tornado are iden-tified in the photograph, including the Unit #1 cooling tower, the lay down (storage) area, the Zurn Industries construction
.O yard, the concrete batch plant area, the generating area, which includes both containments, auxiliary and turbine buildings for Unit #1, the administration building and plant warehouse, and the switch yard.
O The tornado first touched down about nine miles south of the plant. The centerline of the tornado passed just to the right of the cooling tower, across the concrete batch plant area and the n rtheast corner of the switch yard. The storm then continued O
through a wooded area for a distance of eight miles.Section III of this report establishes that the windspeeds were in the 125-150 mph range. The damage path at the plant was 1500-1800 ft wide.
O
_ The purpose of this report is to provide an engineering assessment of damage to the plant. Specific objectives are to
- document the extent of damage and the failure modes, to estimate O
6
O maximum windspeeds and to evaluate the missile hazard. These O objectives are addressed in Sections II, III and IV respectively.
The final section contains general conclusions based on the damage investigations.
O.
k
>O O
O )
\ l
. l
'O l 1
l l l l
l l
O '
W O l l
l 2 l l l
.O
0 l'
II. ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGE
!O Contained in this section are the types of damage and the failure modes of the various components of the plant that were
-affected by the' tornado. For purposes of describing the damage
-O -
the plant has been divided into four general areas: Unit #1 cooling ' cower, generating plant area, batch plant area, the Zurn
~
Industries precast yard and a lay'down area.
The major damage to the plant was caused by the collapse of ,
several construction cranes. The construction superintendent for the night shift, Mr. Joe Pool, stated that they did not re-ceive a tornado warning on the night the storm occurred. As the severe thunderstorm approached, the superintendent, as a matter O
of routine, ordered the crane operators to secure their equip-ment for possible high winds. The operators then came out of their cranes because of the danger of a lightening strike.
Ideally,'the booms on the crawler cranes would be laid on
.O the ground prior to high winds. -This precaution is not prac-tical with the large cranes, because the long booms cannot be laid down without assistance from another crane. The tower cranes must be disassembled before they can be laid on the ground.
O
.The horizontal boom on a tower crane is allowed to rotate freely in a high wind, because the tower does not have the capability of resisting high torsional loads. The boom tends to align it- '
self with the' direction o'f the wind and acts much like the staoi-O lizer on a windmill.
'O The cooling tower shell for Unit #1 was complete to the 450 ft level. Shown in Figure 2.the 8 in. thick hyperbolic shell of revolution was within 75 ft of being topped.out. A tower crane rested on the foundation and extended through'the center of the
.O_ cooling tower shell. The horizontal boom was located above the 3
'O
l
.O l
, shell rim and was used for placing the concrete in the slip form lO operation.
When struck by the tornadic winds, the vertical stem of the l tower crane fell toward the east, striking the upper rim of the cooling tower shall. The horizontal boom and a large section 0 - - of the concrete fell to the ground on the outside of the cooling i tower. Figure 3 shows a close-up view of the gaping hole in the concrete shell. The vertical stem of the tower crane landed in a folded position inside the cooling tower.
O The pieces of concrete and the crane boom fell on the out-side of the coolihg tower (Ref. Fig. 4). There were a few minor scratches on the tower foundation where the debris landed, but no structural damage. The columns around the base of the tower :
O were not damaged. The pieces of concrete were not transported by the winds as they fell to the ground.
The only damage to the cooling tower was that caused by the collapse of the crane. Bechtel engineers stated that the cool-O ing tower is designed to withstand 90 mph winds. Although not completed to it full height, the cooling tower experienced windspeeds 40-70 percent greater than its design values.
- O B. Generatino Plant Area Facilities affected by the storm in the genera, ting plant area include: Unit #1 containment, auxiliary building, turbine O building, administration building and plant warehouse.
The steel containment liner of Unit #1 was completed to the point that the liner dome, which had been prefabricated on the
! . ground, was ready to be set in place. A Manitwoc 4600W crane
!c with a lifting capacity of 300 tons, was set up on the west side
- of the Unit #1 auxiliary building to make the lift. A tower l
'O 4
,0
s O
crane, similar in configuration to the one in the cooling tower, (3 was sitting nearby. It has been used for erecting the contain-ment liner and for placing the reinforced concrete covering on the outside of the containment. As.the threatening weather approached, the operator stowed the Manitwoc for high wind con-C) _ ditions. He pointed the boom toward the south and set the brakes on the ring girder. The horizontal boom on the tower crane was
- allowed to rotate freely in the wind. Figure 5 shows an aerial view of the resulting crane wreckage.
() , When the tornado struck, a ring in the gear box of the Manitwoc sheared, and allowed it to rotate freely. The boom rotated counterclockwise through approximately 90 and struck the vertical stem of the tower crane at a height of 35 ft (3 above grade. The tower crane buckled and fell on top of the containment liner. The blow produced large dents on each side of the liner rim. The tower crane apparently bounced off of the containment liner and came to rest on the roof of the auxil-C) iary building. As it fell the tower crane clipped a 30 ft sec-tion of the horizontal boom of a similar tower crane that was located on the east side of the Unit #1 containment. The hori-zontal boom of the collapsed tower crane fell across part of the (3 containment and the roof of the auxiliary building. Some of the counter weights and the operator's cab were perched precariously atop of the containment. The other_ counter weights fell to the roof of the auxiliary building, but did not cause any observable CD damage. None of the crane components fell into the containment itself. Figure 6 shows the collapsed tower crane and the Manitwoc 4600W from ground level.
The boom of the Manitwoc crane, after striking the tower CA crane, came to rest on the roof of the Unit #1 turbine building (Ref. Fig. 7). Bechtel engineers after inspecting the steel rigid frames that support the turbine building roof, concluded
~
that the frames were not harmed by the impact of the Mantiwoc
' Cl 5
0
O boom. The frames did not .;cear to be deformed as we viewed O them from the main floor of the turbine ouilding. Several purlins were badly deformed. The sheet metal roof was perfo-rated at several locations. By chance, the hook of the crane traveling block caught on a purlin .nd was prevented from O -
falling inside the blilding. The length of the cables would have prevented the bicc9. from falling to the floor below. The traveling block assembic weighs approximately one and one-half tons.
O The sheet metal siding on the turbine building was not removed by the winde. The siding, which was probably 18 gage, was well anchored to the girts by heavy self-taping screws.
Built-up asphalt and gravel roofing material was removed from O
parts of the turt.ine building. The Zonolite insulation was also removed in some places. Zonolite is a light weight insulating material that is cast in place prior to application of the roof-ing material.
O The Administration Building is located just outside of the damage path boundary. Material was removed from a section of the roof and a concrete masonry wall under construction was blown down.
O The power plant warehouse, which is also located near the boundary of the damage path, suffered a classical wind failure.
The windward wall failure can be seen in Figure 8(a). The con-nection between -the girt and the column failed when the bolts O
tore through the metal in the girt web. The sheet metal around the anchor screws tore out allowing the siding to push inward.
Deflection of the overhead door caused the rollers tc come out f their track guides. Failure of the windward wall allowed the
.O
. wind to get inside the building and create additional internal pressure, which combined with the leeward wall pressures to l
- produce a breach in the leeward wall. As shown in Figure 8(b),
g the sheet metal siding was pushed outward. The sheet metal tore 6
s O
____ __ __ _ _ _ _ ~
. . . . - - . . - .. - - ~. .--
- O around the heads of the anchor screws. The opening C) in the leeward wall relieved the internal pressure inside the building and pherhaps prevented additional damage.
C. Batch Plant Area
() -
The batch plant had the most visible damage of the entire facility. .A small shop building was totally destroyed, the Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory was damaged and the aggregate con-veyor system was ripped from the batch plant tower. In addition
)
there were a number of construction office trailers and semi-trailers used for storage of material and equipment that were destroyed and/or transported by the winds.
O
- 1. Shop Building The shop building collapsed due to failure of its light metal framing system. Most of the sheet metal was stripped from L C) the building, possibly after collapse of the frame. Numerous objects stored in the building were exposed to the winds, but were not carried away (Ref. Fig. 9).
- C) 2. Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory Building Figure 10 shows a view of the Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory building. The girt line visible in the photo is evidence of an inward acting wind pressure on the wall. The wall on the oppo-
) site side of the building had its metal siding pulled outward.
The collapsed light pole probably helped prevent uplift of the roof at the corner. The three holes in the wall at the back of the building were possibly caused by missile impacts. The
'O impacting objects could-not be found.
- C) 7 0
. - . , . - - . . . , _ . , . _ - . - - . , , . . ~ . . - . - . . - . . . - - . - . . . - . - . .
O 3 .. Aggregate Conveyor System
. The aggregate conveyor system was torn from its connection with the batch plant and the aggregate bins (Ref._ Fig, 11). The conveyor was heavily damaged and will have tt; be replaced. The ;
o_ conveyor probably experienced the maximum winds of the tornado.
l
, 4. Mobile Trailers Several construction office trailers were affected by the O wind along with some semi-trailers used for storage of materials and equipment.
The batch plant office trailer (30 x 10 ft) was ripped from its steel undercarriage and was transported into the switch yard O by the winds. Figure 12 shows that the undercarriage lodged between an overturned semi-trailer and the base of the computer trailer.
The batch plant computer trailer had its walls ripped from D their anchorage to the floor. The floor and the undercarriage remained intact because they were securely anchored to a con-crete slab. The computer console was still in place, although it was heavily damaged by water, dirt and debris. A corner of O the computer trailer can be seen in Figure 12.
A large semi-trailer, with tandem wheels, was located between the Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory building and the batch plant. It contained equipment for making ice, which is used for controlling temperature of the concrete mix. The compressor unit of the ice machine was found near the railroad tracks that I are located be', ween the batch plant area and the switch yard (Ref. Fig.1). The semi-trailer housing continued into the O
switch yard and finally came to rest at the north end ai 'r impacting a large piece of switch gear. It had traveled approx-imately 1000 ft from its original locatien. The tandem wheels came off of the semi-trailer and traveled in the opposite 8
O
'O direction, coming to rest near the Unit #1 cooling tower.
O Several other semi-trailers were overturned or moved slightly. An overturned semi-trailer can be seen in Figure 12.
It is heavily loaded with bags of red clay. Another semi-trailer, that was located behind the office trailer was rotated
.O -
45 , but did not overturn. There also were various sizes of storage tanks and aggregate bins located in the batch plant area. None of these were significantly affected by the winds.
O Switch Yard 0.
~
Installation in the switch yard gear was complete. The equipment was energized up to the plant boundary. Typical dam-
- O age to the condutors and insulators is shown in Figure 13. The main transmission line towers were not damaged. Most of the 15-20 f t trussed support towers remained standing, but the insulators and conductors were torn away. Many of the trussed
.o towers were bent and distorted. Circuit breakers and other heavy equipment in the switch yard did not appear to be damaged. The impact of the ice machine trailer only caused superficial damage to the equipment.
O E. Zurn Industries Precast Yard Figure 1 shows that the Zurn Industries precast yard was partly included in the tornado damage path.
,0 The office and warehouse building (Ref. Fig. 14) were not seriously damaged. The five foot overhang at the south end of the building was particularly susceptible to the winds. However, the roof did not uplift and no significant damage occurred.
O Two semi-trailers, parked side by side, were tossed approx-imately 20 ft into the plant access road. Both were heavily l -damaged.
Other than some light weight objects (buckets, empty barrels, O
9 l
lo l
, _ _ - _ . _ - _ . . _ . - . _ , . _ , . - , . ~ . ~ . . _ _-.._ . -
l 0 !
l pieces of loose sheet metal, inslalation, etc.), nothing of any O
appreciable size was moved in the open storage yard. Large pieces of precast concrete were stacked in the yard, but did not move.
According to the Zurn yard superintendent two 5 ft x 7 ft
-O -
x 6 in. pieces of precast concrete that were sitting on a stack of similar pieces flipped upside down during the storm. They were not transported, but simply did a flip. Although not readily explainable, the incident was likely caused by local O
turbulence.
F .- Lay Down Area
~O There are several areas on'the plant site where pieces of equipment and materials are stored until needed in the construc-tion operation. The tornado passed directly over the one located just south of the Zurn yard .(Ref. Fig.1).
O A large number of wooden crates of Transite pipe were stored in the area-(Ref. Fig. 15). In some' cases'the cases were stacked two-high. The winds toppled the crates and the pipe spilled out on the ground. Pieces of pipe were scattered over a large area, O but none traveled more than 25-30 ft. The pipe joints are 8 in, dia x 8 ft long. Transite pipe is a fiber-reinforced asbestos pipe. Some of the joints broke into pieces as the crates fell and rolled down the slight grade. Figure 16 shows the scattered
.O- pipe and the undamaged crates in the background.
Six sand spreaders were also stored in the lay down area.
Five of the six spreaders are shown in Figure 17. They are con-structed of steel plate and pipe. They were used in the earth-O work phase of construction. After being filled with sand, they l-are. lifted and are used in the same way as a concrete bucket.
One of the-spreaders was rolled and tumbled by the winds for a distance of approximately 300 ft. Scratch marks on a. concrete
~O 10 O
c - , - . - . - - - - - _ _ - - - _ .. ___
'O apron and indentations in the soft ground indicate that the spreader was not airborne, but rolled and tumbled. Why only (3 one of the spreaders moved is not entirely clear, Perhaps !
it was resting on a slight incline and had a higher tendency of impending motion. The path traveled by the spreader is a j fairly steep downhill grade. !
() .
The most surprising object to be moved by the winds is the large alignment rig made from steel wide flange beams. It is 1
- constructed in the form of a gable roof, as shown in Figure 18.
Estimating the steel beams to weigh about 40 lbs per ft, the 13 rack would weigh approximately 8000 lbs. The rig moved a dis-tance of 100 ft from its original location along the path shown in Figure 19. No ground marks were visible along its path of travel. How could a heavy object like this with a relatively
. C) small surface area be moved by the winds? Two possible explana-tions are offered: the construction people were not positively sure of the original location of the rig. It may not have traveled as far as suggested above. Otherwise, the rig may C) have been hit by a burst of intense turbulence (suction spot?)
which could have moved it the indicated distance. Neither of these explanations are entirely satisfactory. Nearby damage is not consistent with a wind intensity necessary to move the rig.
! C) Several joints of 30 in, dia x 40 ft long fiberglass pipe were tossed around, but did not travel any appreciable distance i
(Ref. Fig. 20). The pipes have a large surface area to weight ratio, so the movement is not unexpected. Stacks of miscellaneous l C) pieces of concrete form were slightly disturbed by the winds, but none of the cieces were moved more than 5 ft. A typical form unit was 8 in. wide x 4 ft long and weighted less than 10 lbs.
O O
l 11 l
1 0
'O III. WINDSPEED ESTIMATE
-O There were no direct measurements of the tornadic wind-speeds. Peak gusts at a meteorological tower located'approxi-
~
4 mately 5000 ft from the Unit #1 containment were measured at D - '80 mph. An anemomenter located atop the Bechtel office build-ing was not monitored during the peak of the storm. Thus, windspeed estimates can be made only in indirect methods. The only method available in this case is to relate the appearance O of damage with previous damage inspection experience, where windspeed calculations have been made. This approach tends to make the results rather subjective. However, the general agreement with estimates by Fujita [1] and Rotz [2] seem to O substantiate the values obtained.
The key indicators of windspeed used here are tree damage.
and damage to mobile trailers, pre-engineered buildings and windborne missiles. The damage suggests that the maximum windspeeds at the' plant site were in the range of 125-150 mph.
These values are in general agreement with the F2 rating (113-157 mph) by Fujita [1] and the 120-140 mph range suggested by Rotz [2]. Each of the four windspeed indicators are discussed below.
A. Tree Damage <
lO Most of the damage prior to striking the plant was to trees in the forest. Eight to ten inch diameter trees were typically snapped off five to'six feet above the ground. Limbs of the l oak and elm trees were broken off and some were uprooted. There o is no direct correlation between windspeed and the tree damage.
Similar damage has been observed in tornadoes where the wind-speeds were in the range 125-150 mph. The tornadoes that hit Burnett, Texas, March 10, 1973, and Atlanta, Georgia, March
.o 24, 1975 had windspeeds in the 125-150 mph range based on other 12 i O ,
I l
. - . . . - - , - - . , , _ , . . - . . . . . . . . , . - _ . - . , _ - . - . . . . . - _ . - _ _ . . _ . _ - - , . _ ~ . . . - , . . - . . . ,- , - - . , - - - - . - - - . -
'O types of damage. The Brimingham, Alabama tornado of April 1977, O
had higher windspeeds and significantly more damage to the trees in the path. The tree damage observed near 'the Grand Gulf Generating Station is ' consistent with the damage description for F2 tornadoes.
B. Mobile Trailers In the concrete batch plant area (Ref. Fig.1) a number of d) mobile trailers were damaged or destroyed. The batch plant office trailer was stripped from its undercarriage and carried away by the winds to the switch yard. The computer trailer had its undercarriage well anchored to the ground, but its roof and C) walls were ripped away. Likewise the semi-trailer containing the ice making equipment was torn apart and transported 1000 ft.
The two semi-trailers in the Zurn yard were tossed about 20 ft into the plant access road.
C) Mobile homes tend to loose their roofs and have their walls collapse at windspeeds of 125 mph. Unanchored homes can be rolled and tumbled at these windspeeds. If the windspeeds are greater than 150 mph the debris is broken into small pieces and 13 is scattered over a wide area. The strength of the office trailers and semi-trailers are comparable to mobile homes, if not somewhat stronger.
The appearance of F2 Fujita scale damage is described in C) part as,
... trailer houses demolished; railroad boxcars pushed over, large trees snapped or uprooted; light-weight missiles generated...".
() Therefore the damage to mobile trailers tends to substantiate the 125-150 mph windspeed estimate.
O 13 20
O C. Pre-Engineered Metal Buildings O The shop building in the batch plant area probably felt the maximum winds of the tornado. This light steel framed temporary building was totally destroyed. The structural frame collapsed and much of the sheet metal siding and roof were torn away.
O .
The Pittsburgh Testing Lab building also saw the higher winds in the tornado. The collapse of the light standard may have helped minimize' damage to the building itself.
Uplift at the roof corner due to 150 mph winds could have O
been as high as 290 psf. Sheet metal normally comes off at these pressures, but the presence of the light standard may have helped hold it down. Some roofing did come off. The crease in the sheet metal at the girt line is evidence of relatively high O "
inward acting pressures. Thus the most severe damage to metal buildings is not inconsistent with the 125-150 mph windspeed estimate.
The plant warehouse building, a metal building in the
.O switch yard and the Zurn office and warehouse building were all on the edge of the tornado path. None of them were extensively damaged.
'O D. Windborne Missiles With the exception of the sand spreader and the alignment rig, only the very lightest objects, or those with large sur-o face areas (mobile trailers), were transported by the winds.
The light missiles included insulation, sheet metal, buckets, empty barrels and small pieces of timber. Several pieces of the 30 in, diameter fiber glass pipes were moved, but they did O not travel very far. As mentioned in Section II, these missile l
l incidents must be explained in terms of local turbulence or other unknown factors.
Since many other heavier missiles were available for trans-O port, the size and weight of the missiles picked up represent i 14 O
_ . , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ . . ~ . _ . . . _ _ . , _ _ _ . _ .. _ -. _ _ __.. . _ _ .. _ . _
O an upper bound on windspeed. -Unfortunately this upper bound O value cannot be quantitatively defined. Missile behavior, based on observations in other storms, is consistent with the esti-mated' win'dspeed range.
Thus the four indicators of windspeed considered support O
the proposed windspeed range. None of the structures damaged by
. the winds readily lend.themselves to windspeed calculations.
9 The metal buildings are temporary in nature with unknown fea-
- tures.and material properties. The free standing' light'stan-O dards-are relatively clean structures, but their low national frequency means that a dynamic analysis must be performed, which requires -knowledge of the time history of loading. The deformed shape of some of the poles suggested second or third mode shapes.
.O which are typical of complex dynamic behavior. Analysis of the ultimate strength.of the cooling tower will give an upper bound on windspeed since it was not damaged by the winds themselves.
This calculation is anticipated later, but is not available now.
)
t
'O lO l
i l
'O L
1 .
l I
C) l 15-l 1
l C)
._ _ _. _ ._. __ . _ _ ~ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ . . _ . - .. __
1 IV. WINDBORNE MISSILE BEHAVIOR O
In this report any object, regardless of size or weight, that moves a significant distance is, by definition, a windborne missile. A survey of this or any other plant construction site O .
reveals that there is_every size, snape and-form of potential windborne missiles available for transport by the winds. In many cases the objects are resting on sills or racks 12-18 in.
above the ground. In this section the types of missiles that were moved by the tornadic winds are tabulated. Specific mis-siles that did not fly are also listed. Finally, windborne missile threat.to a nuclear power plant is discussed in light of this storm.
O A. Missiles That Were Transported Table 1 is a list of the types of missiles that were trans-
- o. ported a significant distance by the wind. Items.1-12 in Table 1 are not surprising. Their movements are consistent with other forms of observed damage. The last two items in the table are somewhat puzzling. Details of their behavior are given in
~O Section II.
B. Objects That Did Not Move The tornado did not pass over any of the plant parking lots,
.O so it is not known if automobiles would have been transported by the winds. A pickup truck parked in the area between the turbine building and the switch yard, was turned around and pushed over a conductor tunnel. This incident was the only reported damage O to trucks or automobiles at the site.
Hopper-type railroad cars loaded with aggregate for concrete were not overturned. The cars can be seen in Figure 1. The con-crete transport trucks that were parked in the batch plant area O did not move.
Various types of construction equipment in the area between 16 LO
o
' the Unit #1 cooling tower and the auxiliary building were not O ~
- significantly disturbed by the winds. There were also small i pieces of pipe, timber and other miscellaneous pieces of mate--
rial on the roof of the auxiliary building that were not transported by the winds.
O .
Pallets of bricks to be used as liners in the cooling tower-were slightly disturbed by the winds. The pallets were sitting
~
in rather precarious locations. A rocking motion created by the wind turbulence caused a few of the packaging bands to break O and the bricks spilled out. None were transported any distance.
C. Windborne Missile Threat to Power Plants O Because of the relatively weak intensity of this storm the findings regarding potential missile behavior are very inconclu-sive. There were no unexpected missile events. There was no damage to permanent facilities from missile impact, o One must conclude that at a power plant construction site -
there are thousands of potential missiles of all sizes and shapes.
In many instances they are sitting in favorable positions for injection into the tornado wind field. This investigation rein-O forces the concept that tornado missiles can be a principle dam-aging mechanism in tornadoes.
O O
9 9
O 17 O-1
C .
-V. CONCLUSIONS O
The strike of a tornado on.the Grand Gulf Nuclear Power Generating Station provides a rare opportunity to observe the effects of tornadic loads on the facility. Because the tor-O -
nado was relatively weak (125-150 mph), evaluations of the adequacy of tornado resistant design criteria are inconclu-sive. The following general conclusions are offered based on the information ootained from the field investigations.
O (1) The appearance of damage suggests windspeeds in the range of 125-150 mph, based on the author's damage investigation experience. The damage appearance is also consistent with a Fujita scale rating of F2.
O (2) Major damage to the power plant facility was due to the collapse of construction cranes.
(3) The switch yard installation was extensively damaged by the winds.
'O (4) The Unit #1 cooling tower was not damaged by wind-speeds 40-70 percent greater than design values.
Damage that did occur was from the collapse of a tower crane used in construction.
l (5) Findings on the behavior of potential missiles are lO inconclusive because of the weak intensity of the tornado.
I l (6) Nothing was found that would raise questions con-cerning the conservatism of current design standards for nuclear power plants.
O 9
O 18 O
1
D REFERENCES 3 j
- 1. Fujita, T.T. ,1978: " Aerial Survey of Grand Gulf Plant and Vicinity after the April 17, 1978 Tornado," SMRP Researen Report No. 162, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois.
O -
- 2. Rotz, J.V., 1978: " Tornado Damage Report, Grand Gulf Generating Station, Port Gibson, Mississippi,"
Internal Report, Bechtel Power Corporation, San Francisco, Califcenia. ,
O O
O O
O
.O O
19 0
O fs TABLE 1 MISSILES THAT FLEW O
Distance Missile Location Traveled, ft
- 1. Sheet metal siding Batch plant; Zurn yard -<50r 2' x 12' sheets O .
- 2. Small pieces of Lay down area; Zurn 1100 timber 1" x 4" x yard 6' long a
- 3. Buckets, small Zurn yard -<100 O barrels (empty)
- 4. Fiberglass pipe Lay down area 1100 30" dia x 40' long *
- 5. Transite pipe Lay down area -<50 0 8" dia x 10' long
- 6. Semi-trailer, Lay down area; near 120 flat bed (empty) auxiliary building
- 7. Semi-trailer, ice Batch plant -<1000 O plant 8' x 8' x 35' a
- 8. Office trailer Batch plant 1300
'",, 30' e
- 9. Computer trailer Batch plant ~<300 ,
O 8' x 40'
- 10. Flood light Batch plant 1200 assembly
- 11. Refrigeration unit Batch plant -<300 G (ice plant) c 3' x 4' x 6'
- 12. Insulators Switch yard 150 6" dia x 3' long s
O 13. Sand spreader Lay down area 1300
- 14. Steel alignment- Lay down area <100 t rig 10 ,
I 1
20
[
o a
l \l i
,~f p *RDf
,. j ,.
y 4w .
l*g r-
%c:.:
g.
- e. nc "AY m N
/
t 9
[Q@f R{2
- m
%%m,3 9 yuw',
?% g DR ,
~
<4,,..
9.fw.j~.b *A T
- 4s, -.
g Y .
S A
I my, H s "
c E
H C
.n_.:*'
~
T h'J T
..m' _ .. .* '- R I
W O
M m.
S
- . F= ':
gh P ;. .
G gr. -
N w ' . g~ ,+
E v
J.SW . .
% E -
mI+e A . I K
O
, Er R: O NE &A L G R fn#LOhg
.m - o -
- e. I W
- T aWw AsN
= - ._ SOT : O S O N
A C
p7;sD L r .
. . - P
, Y .
F A
% , 0
, L-g{T W E
- . , I
' 4 [1
?. .
V J
- L f
?.
z, .
- c. L b A
' R g
rQ E
^
V g? O
^
y c
w 1 E
R g - U
. G I
F
, ' s
. 1 f.
s N
llliIIl l[, l l
O O
O .
, y-N1 ' ['
. ;;$L ' g
?) ?"* h, i s.
t%s
,y bp,. ": # 4" ff
? w%gd /
' .F N
i u/w>gg pgQ[N ~
cres mE. - ,
+
~
- ~
$w', n w,. lk.+s,Q., .,
ng((h vp;gppsy" 4N=v.s%f-r %r . n;l, r e. n.A &
-, s-g l
- ^-
j - ?
[ k~"
O i'hhh,?q_M_'d. 7 ata ; S.25
, , . -fed 9.-
> ";;, a:. 'r ,
. g V. y. N;p ;
- 4. :i.N$$$ki 5 N S. .
- ? 0Nl
- ^A{hgRW?psto cw) gia
,pg _
gag-l:anwi 9'
- ' b h %l$2 ;,
.. - ' ' .bhENf.wi:, .. ~ '-
$a .
YkM- $
0 FIGURE 2 UNIT #1 COOLING TOWER O
9 O
22 O
O O
1 1
O . ? .
if( :. $' ,..g i x4
.t t
O
$hby)@-
'*E D{ykh&dw, 4 pm ; ,,,
O "
.I bB
- g. :p Sk ' g:'! ? . - pyigQ* jrfR.
I 1 it 3 j- g;i ,7 -
%l6}$ l '
afg#{j; Of fWe. jfjffg -
l t 1 ' $$ L.
' ~
O : sma i Efqf i nrm 3- g . .;g Q.y j dWl[g.
$li
?h nih h t t MNTelk L*l{f#hED hphfp<,n d@q p; . ;; 7 s[hhh.ts
%M o:
i s !$}iI $ $! 9$
l FIGURE 3 DAMAGE TO UNIT #1 COOLING TOWER O
1 w
10 23 l
10
l
!O
'O l
l
.. O . '
O
'O t.
>9F gp$9]~?!? >c '% ?? , . v w' c
?Nk ?$-$
k hi$?$1;. *l$
kkh"h
- O .g 9. :,;M ';5-::;dy!.I!MfRNF4j'b(f.1yL.k?dyTh
'8Nf.ld 'hCi
% :W.? et n.> b(2: . % .
- g s q . g .,* _ , .
l FIGURE 4 CRANE WRECKAGE AND DEBRIS AT BASE OF COOLING TOWER O
O O
G O
24 O
L.._.,.-...____._..,_....,_,..____,._,.,_____.__ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ , . _ __
.O
.O O [{5$IP NE ~khS; NEE ~hhdN[' "YI h;'#:; l$E@
- @ M W d y b s M s . # ';g M.NyWR^ N 'k 4 d MI lkh?i i 9{stly?'f?bpif
- p y .
4 m, qnyqQf y;%y.:N.u m y m;f ym,,?
j g.
?;^? g%l)$p.
% ) mlp?g lyA i
+f
\
h
.a p:;:d g.
w p y n. ~ g e g wn y g ,m .
y .
. igne
<* . : i . . ...,;. . M, k , j~$ -
. n >g . . .
" _.,; . - g , I .. Sj ? I
,-.m ma f *y0-g.
M1 o a . g,g, u , .
1nu* ;@m g ne pf,t<r :
-(%ga
,M c'
.. 3- .
a.ljj;.yb}
el ,
4 a ,$b5Ihki s,M 2 bib gbhb$$hN bh$fi$m 9l d
. .m 0
b$ !I FIGURE 5 AERIAL VIEW 0F CRANE WRECKAGE O
O e
O 25 0
)
!o .e . ..7 .
r, di i yA L$jy!oj f%%9 st I 4:'.
i 0 fbkhfp N.pqh /d j[, A.
r Glf. X -c ;
2M @k h A
$$ld' i
- M -
t lo k (Qi; g_ ,: '):.
g44 s y Q ;
l
/
Ph . .h ll '
O +
lgg, .L dj~is[ ^
O .
.~- Jig"":Q ~ ~L._ --~ R
-}
c
-2@ sms!' wa* . .
FIGURE 6 COLLAPSED TOWER CRANE AND MANITWOC 4600W CRANE
,O
.O t-p.,, ,
f .
,O i -
'O O FIGURE 7 BOOM 0F MANITWOC CRANE ON ROOF 0F TURBINE BUILDING l
26 O
1O l f
gggheadh $$$hhk ^
I*S5*hEb5IhI M&vE :lF3 ..
o
-O ,
. u e y n' .se i w.,e.e.a,w..'..'. .
1 0 I'
- ~
,. g yM u z,s,n 4.,a
..t*
n%WM. mmh *r;wyt 1*
ipbyg.Jxp, .j ggi,,gg .l-1 iO ,.i;.wr W % .:. ".m:.eM5,l;
' ?" ._. . dikG2tm FIGURE 8 PLANT WAREHOUSE BUILDING (a) Windward Wall
!O
< m. .. .
,2., n. . . .
+
g ,
,',f.~- -l 1 f .
r 4
. v
- . . . u.
v 1~e v..: ,
' .; 3 e i l[
'{
- SJ
-y}z.. , ,t i r
, Q
.,v,..,
4
. .{L , .. l.y l . l<
- L ,nsn,u,; n ,. ,: ~
,ItqD' pp
- O ..
s ."
- 1
-~@
w wx w +
- a. >
w ~
vw g:n;r~ ,
v,n~
..-" . .,'j g ,, . *, )a
' :3 l ;q v d m ,?S!
.v .
s .n%
o([a,b' h f j] 4 O y ao a
.m
- a
/ (/ Q il b O .F'i;'Y,
.n a
m 4: g.
e - -
setB.,BBB.e,:satNn3%$4i5 gQshbyfkik$?Y4MA~ > - AW&W~ '* ' ;'" ' "'
O (b) Leeward Wall ,
27 O
_ m. * - -. ~
O O
< >f-4 ag g
,4 b V'.;* 1, f, , .
jW r ,,,4
'E , n, b ,
g
%Q p}g. . .
- 4 i$ ' y t sf ,
- . ' @ , Jtyan . . uit' Q , Lj p r
,&W' w;7 y , a
, ,l' q' W W,4 ,ingg g, uw , m ,tn, h g.w y; x6< ? [';s d'e.
xv.' w s v .-
- "il?.l.~3
. - ~ . e 9, -:f$. e M &;;g W . "; h.4 ,
, :, m ; .
? "iM. f pm. -Mf -
&. j.r.
%, .,, .A. g ,A:%< ,. $. .* 4 o e
( .. - - o
,,,....;.m v
?.s. .} i, - /'"if v@~ >:- . .. - t l
- ..z, J -
r y .' A
- n[
I
': GQQYh ,, j,[ I N2
q ( . ,; f f N. '
l,N' Q k. 'M'i/( /3*' Q? lpc:h.' .tjP [N "' #y *
- ;' J . V-lfc'g.y Q (4.6 &'y,3i r: 4(sg$@yl.y, ;ip %'apjfdyh L'Q#'h}e' o 1g asa
. .w, ~ n s;p%g n x , @yf ,y .
n % g@$
sg
.ni g& %p
@o g 'l a n
4 b;,q,y, m,
g g;g gk;1;R';0th y
a m ye, & n, w a:M. %,g_,y
- p sQ
' o$Y, ! ik?
^
- 1. , , - k hf ^ e If Ch0 .,f.,j,;$. _ h' f_k$C9Yh k
- ,.nm
,d% .
N , NE ' I
. N-(I. hk@.
3 q/WjN yg[P, g':
4 4 -
g@ $
ga,Ui f2Th ~Mg Nfgy'N*'
vn -, .
1 '" "
O O
- ' 2 I+ 3k) T,j g. --
si h -
.q Wtt!,2'.',x-tm>F; C p -W. bf eraE[ wwegp;f;g@dth:t .
n> t' 4e .
.pg.... 3 I
. l
~
'o 1 5 E n d i e s M M E M s t M E M a si FIGURE 9 WRECKAGE OF SHOP BUILDING IN BATCH PLANT AREA
,0 i
10 1
i i
l 1 -
10 28 1
l l0 1
_ _... _ _ . _ . . _ . ~ . . . _ __ __ . . .. _ ._ . . _ _ . . _ _ ___ _ . _ _ _
- 9 0
- O pyyr',y r ; 's
,%m;g y;p gy ?* 7ymygw;G o' u ,
_. m <
- u. uw %.: m
@a.uswn:$[ d 5 ' '
< $f w $ MM@E,'kM::w ;pun ;l @>Nbsh h,., y I5hN !
x yf;Qy
+l{NffM . MfyyYQ iggh (m$n fw e gs w e s.g'Ny "k ?
gg .
t;al%w<a FG ggggggg $}#$n%%m ;j'iy%n,;aww}r d ggg xw? ?
- o m my e m,gse# ho kg gv-p ;q;syl~%~d'!hm&%?@11?
': 9 w%hw' it & J P
- _m
'q 2
,C
- lra , I w4 A y i
. s.
O <
- e $
- igt:Ap:
q
. n -
a n ,. mm .
L.- .-_
'9 ~~
n;.y s&. w e -
7.;;~s?, _'g"
- sW*# j
^
,.p y qiggy p g g J.w C ?Mg f;f:) ) 3 [y$ gg g,M yyy e g: g jy![ [
r
. MWcs nkyy 4 v);yyyA m m a nbuhk ndw&ssp;
, x,a >,
- n .. a m - --
/Jo,eb;7 m. m.#Q$m,7
.n.
.a , ys
.,y n
- @m es.::am:d4;nk;mMW ;~
+ g w&g;%$4. a A, <
. uut ,;y - _ um y s;;c
, pr. -.s , -c.ny%Vg>:; ft;-M.:q. yW 4
c ;
W49,G+:m/w; 'y ~' l;:@-(@.q% yn' +. ,, ,v* n ., g: p , i'1 ; ,f.. D
. -,3:?5"' ?;
Q&:;' * ;kkly . 'y;S c%
Q .,
.u s ; a m a
- , . n.
. :d;. , c 9
.a ,
w., nym:w-r :+ .nn, 9y,%. .. A;f.t
.w- 3R5 swx .
a'c .,~ e a ~ >
- n. -
- y. ; s sag, -Q,~ga,g.
.s w --
a;
~
, .Q-FIGURE 10 PITTSBURGH TESTING LABORATORY BUILDING O
1 l
10 1
4 l
l
'O 29 O
.h O
O O .
gw ,3m7yry,yggp v rk ;;a y
,n:g , ,ey,m,,,.
s ,
, . g
_ 3.,,m w;.
n
?
m$ a g & h h0 & & &y
- 3,ame&O&adkjelg}
&hb % k (y ,$ &n m by# <
.e
-, fY .% b 9
7pg fM,@Q,nig g ,% % ,* R g g ? ,q i g ,g ,
y, w: 4, ea sp x+ g y3., u,y
- j N&}&y4'bdhlid.39+
4: 9 $ ' "_
. * ~ "
, ;.3 ug,fjA .b.g
*'s 1:p{
3
% g %4 f 4%6 L
- . y g% i
~
O L 9 in , ..
? ) (gg4;ty g 'y p - .. _. ,, . .
,g i
. , , s yf( ( / \, Y
+, f .~ ,dh--
k... L, l. -
4 b '" .[' gy w ' ,. :... 7 j v ] '
" "- m W,,,, ,. W. ~%ewt,;2% .
u' a dMtyQ:'y%'.
e Q ,
,,m L ggy -
,- ., gg w.;g ..- . tyly9~. f.g;y
- t
, '~
$/. ' i ._. .
-:w 7.Y. ..
34-
' $5/I[ f shd1hd$k .f T" #.. ...
fo !! $ h p M M @ s N @ ! f D N [ I j l
FIGURE 11 AGGREGATE CONVEYOR SYSTEM O
l O ,
O O
30 i
t l
lC y 9---- wp- >,a -
,,-vv ~
.O wpqvpp 39._ ,s; g w.ypm,,y w,._.. , o ,4 , ,
. 3.m r ' p ,'
+
, ,W
= < ./ . . . ..L)Q g.y? :4ia .d i d :
. 9 O; y(:.
n hc M
(-) , ,; m~ ?.
. M.
j..- .e } ;;2
~
-)4)c. s'
- s. 3: ;: .
,e 't g+p ; .~
y;9 g.
- f .;
. A g g'M k*.ff.t'fg'aQ CQ 4
3
~
. / O.
-r hg' w yfjr s 7- ,
o 7~ c . 3 y g gi c -- g .
^' ,,
FIGURE 12 UNDERCARRIAGE OF BATCH PLANT OFFICE TRAILER O
W G ,))c-y ..%. % $ . $, - Q. . ,,. ( Q !Q @ $ 4 ) ( $. f %. : }o . VJ / , ]!}e ,
, . .,w .v.m~ . e.. .. . ,
f -
. ag, . u, ,,.f gj
. wgt g re -;99, p, g, ,~ gg . ,.v; .
ag% . y;
}. e
}
j
' ' ' 1 h ., , 4 ac.3.., g x.;' . .; ' $ .'< i r,
'O 'a ;r. 4 ss
.., 13 E ; 4.*6J
.y p
- .m. s a , ,
- j ., y1 t 1
?
.- 'w,m,p 01 m p?
.~
- ' g4 ' l
, e :
I 'S. .
1 j 1 g.q g
' l s
,; s
':4n.. .-
g ., I
~ .. . ,
.b
/ .
..p.
-[w 7 '
.. .. ~
~ '.
~ '.
5 .
~ .
- n. i ' < * 'T f .
-p zg
_.,.9
. s c %.. .,yo
~
% o e . . .
O -
6
.,, :. o. ;. -
.. ..., ..,; 39, p ,
. .,.4, ,-_
\ ,,[.4'. '
4 k6.hN$EfV. ; '.'
. n .. x ...[ x :.r y.@yw'if.N,[w.'
- :. . . 1 a., ' I s. '.
l,'?; .
......c ..
, a.. c n;m:
lO FIGURE 13 DAMAGE TO SWITCH YARD EQUIPMENT 31
!O
l l
l
- O
- . c_. .
. y ,. 7 g
' ?l ' p.y.5
. . s.
L )p.[p.. ... ,~'kf~'hh@f
,g.' ggg..
l l
m Mm, O q.
.<91.d.~9W,
.a . . J. . m',*Jbs ," < ; 4"m.
. - *W,;F.
u eLna. 9s e u
e ;v - l 1
N.h';l)Mk * ,# '
3 rg$g
{ }Q ;; ]. ..
- '\
- '. y ., & . y -
l c,
,e ' - t, O
e' l - - -
- . ,. y . . ,
s l i - / .
j
& . .s -
. . /
U
- Mj}&MQ
, . . . .g.: .. m. . . . .- - .s- .
.O
.. _'9,11F , ...~.
. i s FIGURE 14 WAREHOUSE AND OFFICE BUILDING IN THE ZURN YARD
~O ;
g ; mwy ,n. .
- W .L.. g\ : J < m&p- LT z . -
.,.m-. .
n m l pa . [jL Q .c. r' O .i;; ,i- - : . . :-. g- .
~
h,: ' g. '\ < . ,-[1 U?c?., .,,_y'
y)) f({a .y' "n" p>,:. ,\, Q.
$4 j. ;. " q.Qg: a
- ., . ?
.. . ; ny . ~ . .
g/ f; N _ 9;dp'l 44_ p- :y
.R , / '
A' is i
.: ,I 3
pf' um* c.4 . x O-
.A-16 4 ti 1 .;< \
;' .,. W .ry.t J;f T p F <;< s + .
5 gc'Jfw- wr -- ,o. l
., .( ) s ,(.S l
;4 ;.{M e, ' - '
7 '. ~. . h ,+, ' ' f
'. 4
'o!
. .i r: ", * .
g
< 'r 1 f .,!f e'
^
j
, ; - y 4; j . ' '", ,
'. 7 jf " . ,
'[ ' '. -* ', ,. l h} ..
ll , . J- f. n
; prf,g - angy < n a my 44 g.,g.
u ;gg g
; , w; :e g s g g g .
p l r ,
- s lO
~
~
g %gg%n.yh/,. . 396 g .q
- t AV 1 - . , .
j ,
. i nt,'O , ,&ty T.'" .
, I * $;h.ht; I
' j
;i m. ;K1
. o' .. i
, . A 3. ,
y)4,
. n: , .o ms n
(', O 317 6
~
i
,e
- .. 2 .
, - , . . 1i ; ..' [ .,
j 4 ou , d'? \ ('\ I% jO FIGURE 15 AERIAL VIEW 0F LAY DOMN AREA I 32 j lO ,
. _ _ . - - i.., . --- . ...s.. ..s-...au. .,. - - ,a 4 m . g _ ap --
- O
- O 1
gy ' gm , Q U *- y. , wg i Dy Ma O a , u w y ;a .wm
.. j?l/ nt;, - .:o' ,> j:
v ep .Qi f M ^ A' ; .. ,. m , , ';j :' - '.{T
- ri :
;j M f[-s .p- w;,R y,;L::
r-
. v4
! 4 :; . > .
w a .. s i , ;w '
;pi s ' ,l} L.
n
.f.
s
> r%.. . , ; W.y d Qsd. sY 1 < u Y ' w. 'h : < . &a ;
s ,
;$ '. . .. ya
.. _,s
.'.s : '. .
- 0. g i'54 W.k. , , FV
, iME [f8.. , i
]M- :,9% s ,, , ' ..f ' ';t 2.[';( .
z ;;,if ':ff , ' .. Y:6ik N!N W N , . f. ? .~ . 'i4hkh . N <. Y O?> Y, ,.,, k a' :- o ar n c
. J O %}7f)gijf.j;n& y j g. ,
,j l *yl}}qvG l- l. .. } &g; % }.&u,d:. 4,fl'f l m ygc . m u wa;q.mW m. , _;tr. , ~ m a
~nq w 8 7 n mg m <~
b
~
Lx c: r- , 19':.,. s e. " u;m}~ _
. m. , , w: ,ws: ahw. ,
wLw , m[f. 1
,sm
>
- n' / > ;.n a
-; .4^>O 2:Q q.;,
n' s <n1.-JMfyiVi L,2 , %y ..f..; e J:k, W,u',- x .* ! 4;>. "::',Tgy gy, M.iQy(._
- . ~ s
.e -l - y
. ' ~
t g+'. i
' Q (C
- 74 .4 4,p4, g .,
g: 4 , y 7g
".1 w, c <
s , nf f p w .- he mT ..
> .: }
I l 9
~
u.n; , Mm. .,. y T '* # \. - _. O ..
, N_o- 7,@:!q < . . I l
f ,,; f.5 w.~e ,
, .,Jo s 1 l
%n 4;p c;& W~ W.,x &g^y#.y.ta.1.W 4;p,%gx N , '
d $ ~ h h ', 3 ' ON 'r I," ' );cY' +D.M
- q. . r;,; r... *
[5'% y . %L. - 2 NMr%% e - Ah J ~ q' f.. . 9x n. 3 N'b h k-f . A %g
, l o ..
y.;,;,
.Yh$UhNf(,Jfy,*' %jyg%Ihh ee g. , m, v...; nal's w .u. w!
b5 kih wa., ;,n$$p5$hI
- -b w wu n.,a+>n.w.
M. e.--s-- w m. j .hh,v N,
.n("s A,b..>
N,6 "Vk'M e t 4s a n .. QdG t $,3 .. . m't J G' A%.UWY h%.Wrd .1 \ e %: t '!* 4 i it 41 .Y 1 \ n' W *' *1 'SL ' .< , h b 4' W .. W'O Y '*- e ' '# 'N FIGURE 16 SCATTERED TRANSITE PIPE IN LAY D0WN AREA lO l l I l 1 i l l iO 1 I e r 6 I e i l l 1 'O 33 LO
O un - - weg-a .-
- .g. i l
i O l O ,
- s. . .
O .- e: AI54*Ch o3u- - 0 O nrmqng.wwn-we"smmsvammuvv im
/ .u-gdy. 4p q';-v g kk,w h :a
,4- . h O
O 4 g;gg p.
. 19p -
[.*%m*w u.pd:?il%*$khd$,hy
. - -ss:
.+
dagumsa:r* :%... . lO . FIGURE 17 SAND SPREADERS IN LAY DOWN AREA 34 O t___ . _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _- _ _ . - - . _ _ _ _ - - _ _ - - - - - --
i (O r .l t(. kl y - b , i:;~ <
, Dv '
0 $1 ' ' [." y '. I 5 v'n. .,.,t y
-m? % .. ~
.j ;
- ; f}[)F - .
%. 4
, lY
~ ' ~
W, ??' '
,,,, h s, - - =
v , p ,
... .. ? _=:kfr- .
w c%- .
-} p ,1 e .
e - a, .
,Q y-.' ;
. .... ; . r -
7 g;Cf,,jf , FIGURE 18 STEEL ALIGNMENT RIG
- O e
(O , 4
%;sge : 3 Q" : k w
% ;; . \ '
f' .- s I
'O c *
.~ .
***...{
gig;qy~ ~
- g. . . ~ , .,:
s i,' -
> , Nt. ,.? ?.:Y$k R{fb h db ',h'$%h
>. ~. hff ~:x -
.w &$nJira.-
4 FIGURE 19 DISTANCE TRAVELED BY ALIGNMENT RIG
'O 35
- O
F l lO I l
- O I
I
- O .
- p...gwn,.r...w n g< m
= v- -, -
-8 r ..wi.
, p .
_ . _ , ., x N l i's
' .'. j'i_sw_1 , , . :
- h,-
;- L8\ ,
&4:.. ,7 ? "3 i
O tJ:!'ytw! g;r , :z-g x, J 'r *r l x ., N d,.-: .
~ ..
.Q ..
,Q .
l' "l 'N*~.; '.if;'~' , w_ , & q.
.- - , a ; ., ,
,4 e . -
. . . . .y . .
e- - e'< _ fSi. M; ",_
,a + 7 . .c .s : ' . ;; .
4.<;A+Qm '3; % , , , . , . - a g q'p**&$ - ~- *s,, 'v-w : .. a . ..mano. 4
" s.
l f' ___ ' % g. m ~ -mi n ' _ _ . O x A by ses a w?Eanme' rm'Y:msuc:sw O FIGURE 20 JOINTS OF FIBERGLASS PIPE TOSSED BY THE WINDS O O e e e e O 36 0}}