ML20205B071

Rev 0 to Evaluation of Structure-Soil-Structure Interaction Effect Between Bldg 10/Walkover Structure & Main Plant

ML20205B071
Person / Time
Site:	Fort Saint Vrain
Issue date:	12/31/1985
From:	Yen-Ju Chen, Singh S SARGENT & LUNDY, INC.
To:
Shared Package
ML20205B059	List: ML20205B056 ML20205B071
References
SAD-481, SAD-481-R, SAD-481-R00, TAC-55287, NUDOCS 8608110515
Download: ML20205B071 (50)

Text

.

Y -

l i,,

ATTACHMENT 3 EVALUATION OF STRUCTURE-SOIL-STRUCTURE INTERACTION EFFE BETWEEN BUILDING 10/ WALKOVER STRUCTURE AND THE MAIN PLAN' Public Service Company of Colorado Fort St. Vrain - Unit 1 Project No. 6117-32 SAD File Index 8.98.0 NUCLEAR SAFETY P. ELATED S. Singh Y. N. Chen 1

Revision 0 - December 1985 SARGENT&LUNDY

, ,Report No.

SAD-481 8608110515 860728 PDR P

ADOCK0500g7

t, n, Structurai Analytical Division Report Iseue Summary

, Fort St. Vrain Number 6117-32 o.

E ** Client Public Service Company of Colorado u Report EVALUATION OF STRUCTURE-SOIL-STRUCTURE

. Title INTERACTION EFFECT BETWEEN BUILDING 10/

a WALKOVER STRUCTURE & THE MAIN PLANT gf SAD-481 Nuclear Safety Related Yes No b Revision No.6Dat. Signatures Data Identification of Revisad Pages

,e . .

L2/16/85

-.-r.. , uy ~

~.....,

• • ~"'"kVf"r -

n ,r .. ,,.

%uW l

O ii

Report No. 481 Rev. 0 December, 1985 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION _ CONTENTS gggE List of Tables iv List of Figures v

1. INTRODUCTION 1

2.

STRUCTURE-SOIL-STRUCTURE INTERACTION PHENOMENON 1 3.

GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE BUILDINGS 4 A - Foundations B - Mass and Dynamic Characteristics of Buildings 4.

EVALUATION OF THE STRUCTURE-SOIL-STRUCTURE 7 INTERACTION EFFECT A - Building 10 Evaluation B - Walkover Structure Evaluation C - Torsional Effect

5.

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSION 11 REFERENCES 13 TABLES 15 FIGURES 20 111

Raport No. 481

. Rev. 0 December, 1985 LIST OF TAB _LES, PAGE Table 1 Masses of the Structure 15 Table 2 Summary of Significant Modes of Turbine / Reactor 16 Building Complex Table 3 Summary of Significant Modes of Building 10 17 Table 4 Summary of Significant Modes of Walkover Structure 18 iv

Report No. 4S1 Rev. 0 December, 1933 LIST OF FIGURES PAGE Figure 1 Comparison of isolated and coupled response spectra on 20 the AFT Complex foundation (Reference 7)

Figure 2 Comparison of isolated and coupled response spectra on 21 the reactor building foundation (Reference 7)

Figure 3 Location Plan of Turbine / Reactor Building, Building 10 22 and Walkover Structure at Elevation 4791 feet Figure 4 Comparison of isolated and coupled E-W translation 23 Spectra on Grade Floor of Building 10 - 1/24 Damping Figure 5 Comparison of isolated and coupled E-W translation 24 Spectra on Grade Floor of Building 10 - 14 Damping Figure 6 Comparison of isolated and coupled E-W translation 25 Spectra on Grade Floor of Building 10 - 24 Damping Figure 7 Comparison of isolated and coupled E-W translation 26 Spectra on Grade Floor of Building 10 - 5% Damping Figure 8 Comparison of isolated and coupled N-S translation 27 Spectra on Grade Floor of Building 10 - 1/24 Damping Figure 9 Comparison of isolated and coupled N-S translation 28 Spectra on Grade Floor of Building 10 - 14 Damping Figure 10 Comparison of isolated and coupled N-S translation 29 Spectra on Grade Floor of Building 10 - 2% Damping

Figure 11 Comparison of isolated and coupled N-S translation 30 Spectra on Grade Floor of Building 10 - 5% Damping y

- Raport No. 481

- Rev. 0 l December, 1995 l LIST OF FIGURES (CONT ' D)

PAGE Figure 12 Comparison of .solated and coupled E-W translation 31 Spectra on Grade Floor of Walkover Structure - 5% Damping Figure 13 Comparison of isolated and coupled N-S translation 32 l

Spectra on Grade Floor of Walkover Structure - 5% Damping 4

i vi

Report No. 481 Rev. 0 December, 1985

1. INTRODUCTION 1

Two new seismic safety-related structures, Building 10 and a walkover structure, have been added to the Fort St. Vrain nuclear plant complex. Building 10 is designed by Stone and Webster, and the walkover structure is designed by Public Service Company of Colorado (PSC). These two

! structures are isolated from each other and also from the

adjacent turbine / reactor building. In designing these new structures and the subsystems, the st.ructure-soil-structure interaction effect due to the adjacent turbine / reactor building was not considered. However, due to its proximity, it is expected that the turbine / reactor building

! will have some effect on the seismic response of the new structures.

This study will address the phenomenon of structure-soil-3 structure interaction for this particular case and will evaluate its effect on the two new buildings. The study was authorized by PSC per their letter NDG-85-0674, dated October 10, 1985. For this evaluation PSC forwarded the information related to the seismic analysis of Building 10 and the walkover structure (1,2,3).

2. STRUCTURE-SOIL-STRUCTURE INTERACTION PHENOMENON The effect of structure-soil-structure interaction on an adjacent structure depends on many factors. The important factors are: the comparative sizes of the adjacent j structures (both foundation size and their weights),

alignments of the structures with respect to each other, distances between ther, types of foundation, foundation embedments, the structure's dynamic characteristics and the soil properties. Tlese factors make the scructure-soil 1

' Rsport No. 431 Rev. 0 December, 1985 structure interaction a complex phenomenon and truly a three-dimensional problem. No completely satisfactory solution for-all types of cases is yet available. However, for certain special cases its effect can be conservatively evaluated.

Depending on the factors mentioned above, the effect of structure-soil-structure interaction may be significant for some structures and insignificant for others. In a specific example, Reference 4 shows that the presence of the two adjacent auxiliary buildings increased the maximum seismic response of the containment building by about 60 percent iae to the structure-soil-structure interaction phenomenon. In another example, Reference 5 shows that' this interaction effect on a turbine building was relatively insignificant. Similarly, Reference 6 provides a parametric evaluation of this phenomenon between a reactor building and an auxiliary building of a hypothetical plant. The results, which were obtained for different alignments and distances between the two buildings, show that the significance of the effect will vary in different cases.

The conclusions which can be drawn from the investigation (7) of structure-soil-structure interaction can be used in the present evaluation. The main purpose of the referenced investigation was to compare the soil-structure-interaction effects obtained using different analytical techniques.

The study also evaluated the structure-soil-structure interaction effect on two reactor buildings and the adjacent auxiliary / fuel-handling /*.urbine (AFT) building complex. The reactor buildings and the APT complex are on separate foundations but are quite close to each other.

The distances between foundations average 15 to 20 feet at the deeper foundation levels. The mass of the APT complex is about five times the mass of each reactor building.

2

I I

.~ Report No. 481 Rev. 0 December, 1985 Figure 1 shows the comparison of isolated and coupled foundation responses on the AFT complex foundation, and

}

Figure 2 shows the comparison on the reactor building foundation. The two horizontal and one vertical responses are compared from the analysis without considering structure-soil-structure interaction effect and the analysis accounting for the structure-soil-structure interaction effect. The results of the investigation show the following:

o Two characteristics of the structures and foundations which most affect the structure-soil-structure interaction phenomenon, are the relative sizes of the foundations and the relative masses of the structures.

o The building with a larger foundation and a larger mass is affected less than the building with a smaller foundation and a smaller mass. -

o The motion of the larger structure induces motion in the smaller structure. The frequencies associated with the larger structure response are amplified in the smaller structure. This implies that a structure that is much larger would drive the smaller structure foundation with its own foundatien motion.

o The effect of structure-soil-structure interaction is insignificant for structural modes close to or higher than the rigid frequency zone (33 Pz) .

o There is relatively less effect on the vertical translation motion.

3

Report No. 481 i Rev. 0

3. December, 1985 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE BUILDINGS In this section the parameters which have a major effecton the structure-soil-structure interaction phenomenon ar e described for the two new buildings and the existing turbine / reactor building complex.

A. _ FOUNDATIONS Figure 3 shows the location plan of these buildings at elevation 4791 feet, the grade elevation for these buildings.

Building 10 and the walkover structure between Building 10 and the turbine / reactor building are on the east side of the turbine reactor building between column rows F and J of the turbine / reactor building.

Each of these buildings have separate foundations and are isolated from each other. Building 10 is supported on six 4-foot diameter reinforced concrete caissons, which go from the foundation slab at elevation 4791 feet to the bedrock at about elevation 4740 feet. The walkover structure is supported on a reinforced concrete footing with thicknesses varying between 4 feet and 6 feet.

The top of the footing is at elevation 4791 feet.

The turbine building is supported by caissons i

going to the bedrock, and the reactor building basemat is on the bedrock.

The turbine foundation structure is supported on the grade slab and caissons.

The distance between the grade level foundations of Building 10 and the walkover structure is 1 inch, the distance between the walkover foundation and the turbine / reactor complex foundation is also about 1 inch.

The foundation plan dimension of the turbine / reactor building is approximately 269 feet by 173 feet. The plan dimensions of Building 10 and the walkover are 45 feet by 34 feet and 36 feet by 7 feet, respectively.

4

Report No. 481 Rav. 0 December, 1985 Figure 3 shows a perspective of the comparative sizes of the foundations of these buildings. The two new l

buildings are very small compared to the turbine / reactor building complex.

B. MASS AND DYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF BUILDINGS Table 1 shows the masses of these buildings (including the mass of the foundation concrete slabs) . The total mass of the two new buildings is only about 1.8 percent of the mass of the turbine / reactor building complex.

Tables 2, 3 and 4 summarize the important vibrational modes of the turbine / reactor building, Building 10 and the walkover structure, respectively. Tables 2 and 3 also identify the vibrational modes which include 10 percent or more of mass participation. From Table 2 it is evident that the two modes of vibrations which significantly contribute to the horizontal translation motion of the turbine / reactor building grade slab have periods of vibration of 0.588 second (north-south direction) and 0.483 second (east-west direction).

The largest contributary modes for Building 10 have periods of vibration of 0.253 second (E-W direction) ,

0.238 (N-S direction) and 0.069 second (vertical d irection) . The vertical direction mode with a period of 0.069 second is mainly the foundation caisson mode.

The super-structure's vertical predominant mode 12 has a period of .017 second (Attachment D of Reference 3).

The important modes of vibration for the walkover stru.cture are: Mode 1 with a period of 0.381 second (E-W direction), Mode 3 with a period of 0.176 second (N-S direction) and Mode 18 with a period of vibration of 0.027 second (vertical direction). Mode 2, with a 5

- - . - - - . _ . - - . _ - - ~ - - - _ - - - - . _ - - - . . . _ . . . . _ - . - - _

,. , Rsport No. 481 Rev. O December, 1985 period of 0.274, is the second translational mode in the E-W direction.

The.following structure-soil-structure interaction related conclusions can be made from the above described foundation and dynamic characteristics of these structures:

o The masses of Building 10 and the walkover structure are very small compared to the mass of the turbine / reactor building complex. (Building 10 mass is 1.6% and walkover structure mass is 0.2% of the turbine / reactor building.)

o The foundations of Building 10 and the walkover structure are very small in size (about 44) compared to the foundation of the adjacent turbine / reactor building.

o The periods of significant contributary modes of

( vibration of the turbine / reactor building complex are very different from the periods of significantly contributing modes of Building 10 and the walkover structure.

o In the vertical direction, both new buildings are very stiff, i.e., the predominent vertical modes of vibration have frequencies in the rigid zone.

Based on the above dynamic and foundation characteristics of these buildings and the discussion given in Section 2 regarding the structure-soil-structure phenomenon, the following important conclusions can be made:

6

_ - - . - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - ^

' Rsport No. 481 Rev. O December, 1985 1.

Because the two new structures are very close to and their sizes and masses are very small compared to the turbine / reactor building, the turbine / reactor buildins will drive the grade slabs (elevation 4791 fest) of the new buildings by the same horizontal motion as the motion of its own grade slab.

2.

In the vertical direction the structure-soil-structure interaction will have an insignificant effect on these structures.

3.

The two new structures will not affect the seismic response of the turbine / reactor building.

4.

EVALUATION OF THE STRUCTURE-SOIL-STRUCTURE INTERACTION EFFECT As concluded in the previous section, the structure-soil-structure interaction effect of the two new buildings will lead to a grade elevation motion equivalent to the seismic motion of the turbine / reactor building grade slab (elevation 4791 feet). Hence, to evaluate the structure-soil-structure interaction effect, the seismic response spectra at the grade slabs for which the new buildings are designed are compared with the corresponding response spectra at the grade slab of the turbine / reactor building. The input motion for the seismic analysis of the new buildings is based on NRC Regulatory Guide 1.60. The turbine / reactor building is designed for a different input motion, as given in the Fort St. Vrain FSAR. Therefore, for the purpose of this evaluation the seismic input criteria used are the same as those for which turbine / reactor building complex was designed. The details of the seismic input criteria are given in Reference 9.

! 7

. Report No. 481 Rev. O December, 1985 Stone & Webster has analyzed Building 10 for two soil properties, one with a subgrade modulus of 50 lb/in 3 and the second with a soil subgrade modulus of 170 lb/in3 ,

Based on their results, Stone & Webster concluded that the analysis with a soil subgrade module of 50 lb/in 3 envelopes the building response (Attachment 2 of Reference 2) .

Hence, the response spectra corresponding to the subgrade modulus of 50 lb/in3 is considered in the present evaluation.

In the following comparison and evaluation, the response i

spectra developed by Stone & Webster for Building 10 and the response spectra used to design the walkover structure '

are called the " isolated" spectra because they do not include the structure-soil-structure interaction effect.

The response spectra expected at the grade elevation by including the structure-soil-structure interaction effect are called " couple" spectra.

A. BUILDING 10 EVALUATION Figures 4 through 11 compare isolated response spectra and the corresponding coupled response spectra at Building 10 grade floor (elevation 4791 feet) . The peaks of the isolated response spectra are widened by 20 percent on each side of the period scale per the note, "if equipment period is within 20 percent of the resonance period use peak value", given on the digitized response spectra data obtained from Stone & Webster (Attachment with Reference 3).

East-West Direction Response Spectra: The comparison between the isolated and coupled east-west direction spectra are given in Figures 4 through 7 for spectral damping of 1/2%, it, 24 and 54, respectively. These comparisons show that the isolated spectra envelope the 8

Report No. 481' Rev. 0 4

December, 1985 corresponding coupled spectra. From this comparison it is concluded that although the seismic analysis of Building 10 did not consider the structure-soil-structure interaction effect, the design spectra cover the interaction effect in the east-west direction.

North-South Direction Response Spectra: The comparison between the isolated and coupled north-south direction spectra are given in Figures 8 through 11 for spectral dampings of 1/2%, 14, 24 and 54, respectively. The comparison shows that the isolated spectra for 24 and 5% ,

dampings completely envelop the corresponding coupled spectra. For the low dampings of 1/24 and it, the coupled spectra exceed the isolated spectra by about 204 j at a localized period of 0.15-second.

A review of the major contributing modes of Building 10 (Table 3) shows that the fundamental N-S vibrational mode has a period of 0.238 second, and the next N-S contributing mode has a period of 0.09 second. Because these N-S contributing modes have periods away from the period (0.15 second) at which isolated spectra for 1/24 and it dampings are lower than the coupled spectra, it is concluded that the design based on the isolated spectra conservatively covers the effect of the interaction from the adjacent turbine / reactor building.

B. WALKOVER STRUCTURE EVALUATION For the seismic design of the walkover structure, PSC has used U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Guide 1.60 response spectra at the grade floor. The safe shutdown earthquake response spectra corresponds to 0.10g zero period acceleration and 74 structural damping.

9

~ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . _ _ .

. Re90rt No. 431 Rev. O December, 193-Fi~gares 12 and 13 show the comparison between the isolated response spectra and the coupled response spectra at the grade elevation for the E-W and N-S directions, respectively. The spectra are for 5%

structural damping. The comparison in Figare 12 shows that the E-W isolated spectrum practically envelopes the E-W coupled spectrum at all frequencies.

In the N-S direction (Figure 13) , the isolated spectrum is lower for periods smaller than 0.04 second and for periods between 0.06 second and 0.15 second. The differences in these period ranges vary from 0-22% of the coupled response spectrum values. These differences will be s'naller for 7% structural damping (the design damping). Also, the structure's predominent N-3 vibrational mode has a period of 0.176 second, and the next N-S vibrational mode has a period of O'.038 second (Table 3). At these two periods, the isolated response spectrum and the coupled spectrum are very close to each other (mar *<ed on Figure 13) . Hence the response of the structure due to the N-S isolated spectra will be close to the response obtained from the N-S coupled spectra.

Based on the above evaluation, it is concluded that the design based on the isolated response spectra will cover the response obtained from the expected coupled response spectra.

C. TORSIONAL ,EFFECT, The coupled response spectra used in the above evaluation are the response spectra at the mass center of the' turbine / reactor building grade slab. Due to the torsional effect, the response spectra at locations away from the mass center would not be exactly the same as at the mass center. In general this torsional effect is 10

, Raport No. 481 Rev. 0 December, 1985 small and, in practice, its effect is ignored. However, this effect is addressed here for the purpose of completeness.

The seismic analysis of the turbine / reactor building complex (9) shows that the maximum torsional induced (E-W translational acceleration at Building 10 would be about 15% of the E-W translational acceleration at the mass center of grade slab of the turbine / reactor building.

Its effect on the N-S is about 18% of the N-S translational acceleration at the mass center. The analysis also shows that the maximum torsional

' acceleration and the maximum traslational accelerations do not occur at the same time. Hence, the torsional effect will be comparatively small and can be ignored.

5.

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSION This report addresses the phenomenon of seismic structure-soil-structure interaction for structures with separate yet nearby foundations. The effects of this phenomenon on the seismic analyses of Building 10, the walkover structure and the turbine / reactor building complex of Fort St. Vrain i

nuclear plant are evaluated. The following conclusions are made based on this evaluation.

1. In th'e vertical direction the structure-soil-structure j i.nteraction has a insignificant effect on the responses of Building 10 and the walkover structure.

2. Because Building 10 and the walkover structure are very close to the turbine / reactor building foundation and their masses and foundation sizes are very small in i

comparison to the turbine / reactor building, the turbine / reactor building will drive the grade slabs 11

-,-e --w--r--_-w,,-,- -r.--, . , , - . - , ,,,-,y,y,,,,,,%.. _y_. , _ . , _ , , ..m_____ -y. . . , -.,,__.,er,-.m, , ,.,,,y., , .,,-.,m,, ~ _ - . - _ . _ . , , _ . , .

Report No. 481

. Rev. 0 December, 1985 (elevation 4791 feet) of smaller buildings by the same horizontal motion as the horizontal motion of its own grade slab.

3. The grade slab response spectra for Building 10 and the walkover structure which were obtained without considering the structure-soil-structure interaction ef fect are compared with the corresponding spectra including the structure-soil-structure interaction effect. Based on the comparison of these spectra and the dynamic characteristics of the two structures, it is

' concluded that even though the analyses of Building 10 and the walkover structure did not include'the structure-soil-structure interaction effect, the design spectra did cover the interaction effect.

i l

i I

12

Report No. 491 Rev. 0 December, 1985 REFERENCES 1.

M. Muellen of PSC, letter with attachments to C. Peterson of S&L, " Structure-Soil-Structure Interaction between Building 10/ Walkover Structure & Main Plant" No. NDG-85 70, dated September 10, 1985.

2. M. Mullen of PSC, letter with attachments to S. Wahlert of S&L " Structure-Soil-Structure Interaction Evaluation" No.

NDG-85-0593, dated September 17, 1985.

3. M. Mullen of PSC, letter with attachments to S. Wahlert of S&L, " Structure-Soil-Structure Interaction Evaluation" No.

NDG-85-0749, dated October 29, 1985.

4.

J. Lysmer, et al, " Efficient Finite Element Analysis of Seismic Structure-Soil-S tructure Interaction", Proceedings, Second ASCE Specialty Conference on Structural Design of 4

Nuclear Plant Facilities,.New Orleans, 1975.

5. C. Mueller and H. Furrer, " Structure-to-Structure Interaction Analysis for a Nuclear Power Plant",

Transactions of 5th International Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology, West Berlin, 1979.

6.

A. DelGrosso, D. Stura and C. Vardanega " Building-Soil-Building Interaction in Seismic Analysis of Nuclear Power Plants", Transaction of 5th International Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology, West Berlin, 1979.

l i

13

Raport No. 481 Rev. 0 December, 1985 7

O. R. Maslenikov, J. C. Chen and J. J. Johnson " Uncertainty in Soil-Structure Interaction Analysis Arising from Differences in Analytical Techniques - Seismic Safety Margins'Research Program," Lawrence Livermore CA,UCRL-5302 6, NUREG/CR-2077, 19 83.

8.

Y. N. Chen and S. Singh, " Generation of Seismic Response Spectra" Report No. 8-11-1-1 (SAD-377) , Revision 0, January 15, 1981, (Project No. 6117-36).

9. Y. N. Chen, " Generation of Response Spectra" SAD Calculation No. 8.11.1-1, Rev. O dated January 8, 1981, (Project No. 6117-36).

10. Y. N. Chen and S. Singh, " Structure-Soil-Structure Interaction Effect on Building 10/ Walkover. Structure", SAD Calculation No. 8.11.1-3, Rev. O December 10, 1985, (Project No. 6117-32).

14 i

. Report No. 481 Rev. O December, 1985 TABLE 1 - MASSES OF THE STRUCTURES BUILDING MASS (Kip-Sec 2/Ft)

Turbine / Reactor Complex 4410.

Building 10 72.

Walkover Structure 9.

i 15

Report No. 481 Rav. 0 December, 1985 TABLE 2 -

SUMMARY

OF SIGNIFICANT MODES OF TURBINE / REACTOR BUILDING COMPLEX Mode Number Period Participating Mode Description (Sec) (mass (%)

1 0.588 78 First N-S Translation Mode 2 0.483 76 First E-W Translation Mode 3 0.351 Torsional Mode for Slab 13 4 0.320 Translation Mode Slab 13 5-13 0.305-0.124 Local Slabs Modes 14 0.112 OverallTorsion[1 Mode 15-26 0.110-0.073 Local slab Modes 27 0.072 Higher E-W Translation Mode l 30 0.061 Higher N-S Translation Mode 16

• R8 port No. 481 Rev. O December, 1985 TABLE 3 -

SUMMARY

OF SIGNIFICANT MODES OF BUILDING 10 Mode Number Period Participating Mode Description (Sec) (mass (%)

1 0.253 72 First E-W Cantilever Mode 2 0.238 74 First N-S Cantilever Mode 3 0.157 Second E-W Translation Mode 1

(Joint 2) 4 0.093 11 E-W Lateral Mode (Foundation) 5 0.090 9 N-S Lateral Mode (Foundation) 6 0.069 37 First Vertical Mode 7 0.032 Higher E-W Cantilever Mode 17

Rsport No. 481

.' Rev. 0 December, 1985 TABLE 4 -

SUMMARY

OF SIGNIFICANT MODES FOR WALKOVER STRUCTURE Mode Number Period Mode Description (Sec.)

1 0.381 First E-W Lateral Mode (Largest Contribution) 2 0.274 Second E-W Lateral Mode 3 0.176 First N-S Lateral Mode (Largest Contribution) 4 0.124 Higher E-W Lateral Mode 5 0.121 Higher E-W Lateral Mode 6 Coll 3 Localized E-W Mode (Joint 26*)

7 0.111 Localized E-W Mode -

(Joint 26,27) 8 0.094 Localized E-W Mode (Joint 27)

[

9 0.090 Localized E-W

! 10 0.081 Localized E-W Mode i

(Joint 1) 11 0.075 Localized E-W Modo (Joint 28,10) 12 0.067 Localized E-W Mode (Joint 13) 18

. Report No. 481 Rev. O December, 1985 TABLE 4 -

SUMMARY

OF SIGNIFICANT MODES FOR WALKOVER STRUCTUR (cont'd)

Mode Number Period Mode Description (Sec) 13 0.065 Localized E-W Mode (Joint 1) 14 0.061 Localized E-W Mode (Joint 25) 15 0.047 Localized E-W Mode (Joint 22) 16 0.043 Localized E-W Mode (Joint 14) 17 0.038 Second N-S Lateral Mode 18 0.027 First Vertical Mode

• Refers to joints of the Model (Reference 1 attachment) 19

?.eport ?l0 . 6

• 20 isolated '

Rcv. 3 (al -

Coupled, - -

December, l 'A

{(a) E-W Trans.

~

c. ,'b I\

g .-

2 .

i

' 3 10 -

r 'y ! j) ,

r i; -

j 1 i N

y

/l k u ,

0 isolated I 20 I (b)-

Coupled _. -

ll

~

7

'h.(b) N-S Trans.

c. .

t '

it 3 i

5  !

i 10 - j . I )t' -

E I]

• 3 N AL 0  !

20 isolated (cl-Coupled - -

4 (c) Vertical Trans c.~

' M 'l  !

3 4)

'3

- 10 -

I -

i i

[Ata i  !

0-1 1 10 19 Frequency (Hal Figure 1 Comparison of isolated and Coupled Response Spectra on the AFT Complex Foundation (Ref. 7) 20

Rcport No. 4 R v. O 30 Isolated (4 MN"

• 3 Coupled Unit 1 - - (a) E-W Translation

, Unit 2 - -

ji k- 20 - IU 1

t 1

3

.2 r\ ,)-

3 M 10 -

t ~

/

f.'

-_ - _ _a _

s 0

Isolated 30 Coupled (b) _

Unit 1 - - i Unit 2 - - -

n (b) N-S Translatior h4

$ 20 -

y -

8 i l 4

j i

/ rk'

< 10 -

4 f

rv

~

.v

' Q -

~

-m I

O  !

i I 30

'*' (c) ~

Coupled Unit t - -

, Unit 2 . - - (c) Vertical Translation n

3 20 -

10 _

L'a u

W_m e .ma i I 0

10.i i 10 10 2

Frequency (Hz)

Figure 2 Comparison of isolated and coupled response Spectra on the Reactor building Foundation (Ref. 7) 21

s Report No. ::

. Rcv. 0 Decembar, li::

---

AJ

...._g

.... c 1

y TURBINE BUILDING Walkover ....E G

Structure ~

ttASS CENTER

- 3 % ,--- = -

...._F, O

L '

E Building w

.a. 'iN 10

.r L. .. . .. . H i .  :

_. .J t ,

e x' ,

10 9 i 8

REACTOR BUILDIN ,

.__x i

i s.. yi 4

1

, / ,_. .

(

l -

i .

l #

\

l

• i e

i i i N....'..M1 i

i e i i -

, e i e i i i 8 7 5 4 , 3 2 1

. ._. I 7 3 - 6,, ...

--=l s

t Figure 3 Location Plan of the Turbine / Reactor Building, Building 10 and Walkover Structure at Elevation 4791 feet 22 i

Rev. l}

Lece nce r , 199-smem roa Cass. Ite.

new. Osas U ~ '"

• Safety-ReiserJ "r l'_ -,-Neessed Fues of Clone Pressed W ones Presses amassed W ones Pres.Ite. Esse. No. _Aseresed W oees

%. CPS W 11 m a 13 to is Le .i as - - - i- - - - - - - - -

g -l -l.-l i gigg-lg; me its

~

11 8

"' Isolated Spectrum ~

Peak Widened by 20% on Each as  : Side ,

, u as "

- - - - - - Coupled Spectrum [

i, Peak Widened by 15% on Each u Side 4e as J

to - te f j is J T a I ~

L5

~

/ g k

f I

\ J N N

~

u 1 \ I M ~

3

(

/ \

XI f L N

s j-

{ >

. _r - -P f- - -T r- 1 \ ~

'l

.e j f (  %'

,/ 1. _ .,

1 x 1

', )

./ .1

-- /

s .

~

/ i u ,

.f J t '

8

\  :

/

~

\  :

.u " -

g

/ -

- \  :

(

,g _ .# s

.C " -

, N b e.-

.h g g I

• I iiii I A Ai I I I I I I I

• iil il l L

'U

, g g g g g g a f 8 I I I I e l N

.. .m .e .m .e .: .u . .3 8 .i .e .e Le u u parea ta.

Figure 4 Conparison of isolated and coupled E-M translation Spectra on Grade Floor of Building 10 - 1/2% Da: ping

-_. -__ _ _ _ __ ._- _ _ ? 1_ _ . - _ _ _ _ _ . .

s e:. a w n ,be:, :. m

~c~ ~

cae. m.

n.. o.es e-c^*=

sw.v-am z 1, =  % .9 Close PNemed W Does W RM by Osse

% me. s . m. 4 s.s w D

, . us o n a a to u to to .,

me .. . .... , , , ,

,g,;,,.g,.g,

, ,..;...., , ,,,;,,,,, me

~

Its iu te Isolated Spectrum -

Peak Widened by 20% on Each

Side ~

te

~

te - - - - - Coupled Spectrum ~

as Peak Widtned by 15% on Each

u

. Side 4e _ <e to

. is Le ^

_ Le U .

' ~

u u ', u

\ , ,

's

. \ / \ '

a _ j g j g -

s 1 8

'e

/ \ / i E.

/ \/ \ -

_ _/**'N , - . = . t

-r I~ ~ \ *

~

j s i '

x  :

i N s. /

• 8

/ -

, 5 -

3

,/

j \ K  ;

' \  :

8 g  ;

/ \

o r

\  :

~~ ~ ~ ~

y \

.c '

" s -

.C . , ,

8 l

c T- g

,,,, ,,,, , , . ,,,, , ,,, iiir .

,g , , , ii. ...,

.O # .se .e .se .a .I . LS .# 3 8 .5 .e 8 Le Ll le l

• • M Figure 5 Comparison of isolatoi and coupled E-W translation Gpoetra on Grade Floor of Duilding 10 - 14 Damping 24

in. ]

Dscember, 1995 ease'"* **"

h h.

SARSENT& LUNOY l a oe.

c- caoo ,, m_ ..

U*" PNgared W Osas

%sse asumuss W oss.

Prei.me. Egeo. me. Apareved w ose, Freasuv. CP5 w n a w to ts to to .3 me - - - - - - - -

-l -l .-l-l -

)

lj'j-l-l . as ite ,

lie C' -

Isolated Spectrum

- Peak Widened by 20% on Each "'

te ,, Side  ; te as - - - - - Coupled Spectrum

- 'te to Peak Widened by 15% on Each Side 1.s 4e ,,

- , te

~

te . 1.

Le to

~

t$ . L1 f

L8 /  ! J f i t x '

\ /

j. ' '

/

\

\ /

/ \

i j.

{ -

/ \ / \ ~

j I  ;.,]I

's \/ \ -

/  :

/ - --

s -_  ;

\ ( -

8-g , s

' ~ '

b

/  ? \

i

.I

/

) ' . .,

\

~

~ u

y \

- ' ~

-~~~,, \ -

.c . '

_,. 1 -

.c \ -

s

' ' ' '. es ' a ' . .am .'.u'.

.O

.e '.e . .4 .s ' .e ' .8 Le is to ares sm.

Figure 6 Comparison of isolated and coupled E-N translation Spectra on Grade Floor of,eDuilding 1- - 21 Damping

Rev. 0

, December, '. '3 3 5

'"C'"*

• Cess.me.

.-- _a. om,

• ~'*^* sesmy-asemass r -_^ , neemos pass se Clem pre,,,ud W Osas W Assuund W Gees Prei.no. Esse. me. Aparased w 0 Freemnsy CPS C U N le to 13 to Le 1 me ., . .., , , , , , ,

ite ,

a, Isolated Spectrum

,,, - Peak Widened by 20% on Each me se

- Side -

as 48

- - - - - Coupled Spectrum - ,,

g, Peak Widened by 15% on Each Side

.e -

.s to . to Le _ to L1 L1 Le _ Le s

• 1

\ - *s

. . 3

( -

{

[ '\ / \ -

j

/ , j{

~

~,

\ / \

/ " '

i x i ,

j ._ _ _ _ .

-s \s  :

- / \ e- ~--.i e w t- , \. / \

. e  :

s,

. L) g' -

O m  :

- /

\

.C --

- " " " , s -

1 .

e n r -

'W g -

s -

.c , m

.v

, ,,,, iii. . . . . . . , , , i , , ,,,, ,% J .

,o .a .se .e .m .a .: .u .: .s .a .: .e .s to is to Paren las, rigure 7 Comparison of isolated and coupled E-H translation Spectra on Grado Floor of Building 10 - 54 Danping

-6 __ _ . _ _

1

~t e v . i l

. 34:?90er, 1933 ePECTNA POW g g, SARGEETS LUNDY Rev. Oees

• ~***

Seesey-Asemand r rz,-nelsess peas se Cl

• Prepared by Does P'*W88 Assumed by Oese Pr*Llie. Eewes. No. Appreund by Does frasmuv. CP5 O II # le le il to Le 1 to .> >

me iu  :

ite Isolated Spectrum  :

Peak Widened by 20% on Each  :

me . Side me

- - - - - Coupled Spectrum Peak Widened by 15% on Each -

u Side u -

u u .

u u 1 1 '

u

~ I I Le \ le L1

! f (~ f k -

Li I

i X u . , ,  ; a s .

~'

! \ I o l

~

/

l _ -_A' T 's

\/ '

\ -

': l

\ -

{ . f l 4 .

., 1 -

{

)

8 's . . .

l

, ,....m r -

5 l t

\ ',

N

.I , , s'  ; l f

\ s

. is

. u l .-

,e * .

s -

.c . \ _8

.o "- '

"~1 ,

,g i,,, ,,,, . '

, , , , ,iii iiin iiii i... . . > - . iiei

.O e .es .a .es .m .I .0 .I .5 .4 .I ,e .e Le Ll te w in.

Figure 8 Comparist n of isolated and coupled N-S translation Spectra on Grade "loorg f Suilding 10 - 1/21 Damping

i E9 '/ . 3 oncemoer, 1333 e == c 1'a A eoa l Cats, to.

SARGENT&LUNOV ,,,. ,,,,

c-=-== s, ,-n= = -_ - -nee.ed =. .e Cleme Prepared W Dem Presset Asummed W Oses

%. me. Eeme. me. App,esed W Does ifuemast. CPS o n a w u u to Le .5 me .'

- 'i- ' ' ' ' ' '

'l'i 'l'l '

i 'l'l'I'I'l q .

ue au  : ,, e

' Isolated Spectrum me ,

Peak Widened by 20% on Each "'

Side u se - - - - - Coupled Spectrum ~

u Peak Widened by 15% on Each ~

u Side u as '8

~

u .

u -

u

~

d u

~

ts g

[  % -

\

u . j , 1 _

u

! \ / i

.e

.e i.

j

, -- L t g f q

\ -

g

( ' .

/ J '\' f\ \ ~

eI

. /

,8

-s 1

,j

.  ;--- u -. .

i 3 i \  :

.s - - .s

, ,- ) ,

/

N) b -

i w ~

r  % -

5 4 \ _

/ \ '

.o

.n .  ;

" \  :

, , , , . \

- ~

.6

\ ,

" ~

.c ,

\ -

L- -: ,

.c  ;

'0

,,,, ,,,, , , , . . ,,i nimi . . .... . . i i - - i- >> e a .. .. .. .. .m . .o .: .: .8 .5 .e .e Le u u w ks.

Figure 9 Comparison of isolated and coupled N-S translation Spectra on Grade rioor o' Building 10 - 1% Damping 2Y

ace-.. .. .

R;v. 0 D^ccmbar, 1935 sauerna con gg MW&MY .-

N.. o.m C**^*d ausse,_sesses --

- _, m _ g g Chase p,essed W De M neummed by Dese Prei. No. Egney.108. Appresed by Den um cn

1. H a a to u as .' - i- -

le to .,

...,...., , ,,,i...., , , , ,,,,,,,,, ._ m, ne -

.~ .

11 0 me Isolated Spectrum  :

Peak Widened by 20% on Each me L8 Side -

gg

,, - - - - - Coupled Spectrum 18 Peak Widened by 15% cn Each -

. Side u Le .

=

• - 48 10 it 10 .

LC LS I 'T

/ ~

LS ,

/ , Lg r-j 'a -

/

-t

\ /

I \

( -

's 2

/ \ / 9 -

',1 l .. -r.[,. / \ / M al n -

,y 9 .a ~

[ '

~

3 _

.e5 a

> f

/ -

j s

, .t

/ -/

~

\,-

t

[

l i  : /

.n \  :

s' n

~ -

.c ~

\ _

m

.C . .

i t

s -

u C  %-

. .a

,g ,,,, ,,,, , , ,, . , ,,,, ..., ,,,, ,,,,

,,,i,,,,,,,,,,1,

.e .a .m .a .m .a .o .:

. . .a .s .e .a Le u .u i w ta.

i l

i Figure 10 Comparison of isolated and coupled N-S translation l

l Spectra on Grade Floor % Building 10 - 2% Damping

Re tr . 0

, Deccmbar, 1985 emerna s' *" h h.

MM& LUNOY m.. o.e

~

c ~ 'c ^*o

% nesess  %.m g g Cimme PNumed W Osas Pmgese Ro used W Osse Pmi. me. Eene. me. A,,, es w ass, w cn a n a a to 13 to te ,,

me .. - - - . - - - - - -

g.g..; -

l .,iiig -

me

~

11 8 ,,

ise

~

,e Isolated Spectrum ,e

. . Peak Widened by 20% on Each u . Side u

48

, - - - - - Coupled Spectrum "

u Peak Widened by 15% on Each 18 u

Side to u .

to to ,, ,

to

" ~

Ls Ll I

• Le , Le r i j ~,

/ \

'e .l f x -

{ 'l /  % l{

g I

j  %\ / <

y .

-l 1 'e -

43

[ --- s V N

\

x 3

/ / '3 wu--

1

) f a

g

- m -

r \

.c . f -

.u

.- s -

g

(

.c ,, .

m

.c a s -

. \ -

.c , .m

,g , ,,, ,,,, , , , . . . . ,,. .... .... ..,, , , , ,, ..,,ib',

.e .e .m .e .m .m .: .o .: . 4 .s .e .e u u u l NM k t

Figure 11 Comparison of isolated and coupled N-S translation l

l Spectra on Grade Floor of Building 10 - 5% Damping in

Rsv. 0 D ccmbar, 1985 e siis e rna no. ,g em. tem c - c a*o g_% . _.

g ,

CW peuuud W Osas )

% aedsund W one, M us. Eeme. k Asyemas W o.m ca -=v. us

1. ll a w to u to Le me .- - - . . - - - - , ,.. .... . ... .... . . . . .

.5

._ m, W

lie ~

lie me . -

me ae ." ~

Le u . - se to

. to 4e H

Isolated Spectrum u

~.

- - - - - Coupled Spectrum ~

" Peak Widened by 15% on Each Side "

LS .

L1 Le .

Le ge

.e g

.e -

. .e

.s

. .i

.a ,,

.a

.3 , --

' ~

s

,s ,

b, -_ _

.2 .

A  % f 7 g g ..- .

'g // \\ ~

//

,J

' m

- \

r _ --- \

~. m g x.

" . t '

% x ,

\ <

.c "

g".. . . . . . .. . . . . .... .... . ..

s .a

.... . . . . . . .... . N' .

.e .e .es .sp .m .m . .a .2 . .a .s .e .s u u u i

pen a sm.

Figure 12 Comparison of isolated anc coupled E-N translation Spectra on l

l Grade Floor of Walko verjtructure-5% 3 Damping

e RCV. 0 D;cGmb2r, 1985

. emev=4 a an.

SARSENT4LNEGY -

e c -c aso ,

• WW asse 5 andamed w emi.

Pmi. No. Esmo. No. AspenW W een m en W H a a to 13 to to .1 me .. - - - - - - - - . . . .... . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . .

me ste .

~

it.

~

me

+ me u .

e u .

se to to 4e . u to .

~

to

~

= Isolated Spectrun te to

- - - - - Coupled Spectrum u Peak Widened by 15% on Each

Side Le _ Le

'e e

.e .e

.i .9

.e 4

-t ' -

'i

/ f- N

8 d/  %- g q-1  :

o // 'N/ }N  :

'o .m g" .-  ;[- \ j

.m

/ \ &

~

a

, x-g 3

.e - 3 -

e

. s

'* ^*

a a a i eie i i i i e e a a ii i 1. tn a a i a aiaa a i a a a i a a a a s-a i == g

.e .e .e .e .e .e .: .s .: .s .e .s .e .e u u u w on.

Figure 13 Comparison of isolated and coupled N-S translation Spectra l

i 1

on Grade rioor of Walkover -Structure - 5% Damping

r I.

" Public F RT ST. VRAIN NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION

$9rVICG= Matsc ssRVICE COMPANY OF COLORADO ATTAChiiENT 4 CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION FOR CALCULATION NUM8ER MlAX/A1VA4 Adl.A77v'E CiGA AC =M=UrS . EA ST- WEST emeraneo av d. 73.saer oArt Sff/d 5 neviewto av -ff, -/m /C ,

oAis e/fo//f' cAtc. nev. jrAos / or

'12 FOLLOW wG C/tP:.A CE41EurS Fof. 7u~ C /45 .[EACot Ov/C~ G ACMCE~'r ~o WAU.ovEc Srcsc~ste Alc PEA K EA S7; k ESr DE-Fa=C- out Ali6i~G GC OA4 CO E' i4Pv7 GKOusuO A10TiOr. [ATA IU FEET YAKEU FLCM SALGEur Y lGUOV EMG/~'E2CS 4~ A ?? ^As F : st:J~5 C :/weau (A(CD).Cefotr 20. /G, "i=oc 67- VC4 ~

A/uCLEAK FanEL SrA770+J UM/Y / 7u~ tE/UE- &=AC73C EJ' ' G 6E/SA4iC AMA L YSIS , OY' CdU, ET A L , CA75=0 'E i5.>7, [& vtE 6/iD.

CEE .:A GE6 6 G A JC 2 - / 2 05 7;.'/.6 229027.

S fL x E >< C / TA TI OM 'V E X C / 7~A T/O U scss 'a l- ay* w m rot:u c a o=

suse Cys&cErEC wimour D CS!OU wr' MCStoU n ~..c ,., --

7t',C 6i o n W- A,#r 4,/U. 4, A r. 4 , iv. 4,At 4, /u. 4,At 4, /a.

/ 479/-O O.00/ O.0/2 - -

0.00/ O.0/2 0.00/ O.0/Z 2 48// I O Q.004 0.048 - -

0.004- 0.048 0.007. 0.0 2 +

3 4829'o 0.003 0.036 - -

0.0 0 4- 0.048 0.00 C O.374-O 4646'cs 0.003 0.036 - -

0.004- 0.046 0.0 % :. .:

x = ro2ru- Sour ' citeCroa, y' = EA ST. k/Es r O/teC 7oU EMv'E L OPEC MAX /M vM O/6PLA CEMGur /6 0. 043 id. (CE E) . Er 16 CO U6 E4 VAT 7v'E TO CQVEc_G TU/6 VALVE' GQK C62 ReSVLTS, 6/ ICE C6E GKOvuO 44Q770U !s 7W/CG Th'E 444GUITJCE Of O&c=

AUD AS SVMEO OA A1P/AJG VA LuE 502 D62 /6 N/GWEL Yn'AU ode.

Re PEAL 44sr- wes7- D'.$PLA CE4deur of rWE wAucoVGM Sicvc7v&4.W 70 ccA o cases tuvocvius ode iusur GCavuo $77ou i6 0,6 iacHes Govm euc as wAuxaver:

Sreac7v4t&AAM/UG A r AActox. ELE v. 48 4 5 ' O). 22 <2een c2 P- CEL TA STEuOt_ Rua cAreo i2//7/34. , 7;me iS: 20 : 4 2, '

777 Leo "WAccavec STtscTate DVuAMic AaALYsis '. 7LE FEAT < CE cu G C770U 05 Q. G /JC4&6 O C C u< 6 A r JO/M TS 3AC CQ UuCEK ER=ECT Cf LOAo COM8/UA770U /00.

~~ 5 41 A CM V41 5A CT- k./667 C/6fAC GME*G 7 O f ! L/'L DI /G /0

JE 2 C ' .:= ' CA C/~ 3 /6 C. :/ ucH25 AT EL6 v4 ~7ca e-An w.am k .M

, , pygggg FORT ST. VRAIN NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION

f.

• l jSerVICG= matsc sanvics COMPANY OF COLORADO CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION FOR CALCULATION NUMeER NA <iMV41 E&t.A7/v'E D/SPLA CEA12A/75 : 2A67* vs'G57 PREPARED SY v' M5uE,C OATE d// ,' d 6 REVIEWED BY f)y Mg&, DATE 7/gC/g CALC.REV. lPAGE 2 OF 000$'-O. AEf=EEMCE $7CuG f Vd'G/357EK. CAcc ciLA7?Os./

.%'o. C I. 2 (s'. O. Mo. /3 5<'s9.04-) 2ev'. O, 777z.ec "Wia: ccA s AUD EA K7"AJQVA/4.t= f AC6 AuO =c==c& C77au'S ", PA G E /C.

ECOM ACOVE F/GuAE6 MG MAWMJM AbdAlL.2 [/5#EMG,~L C/6AAC6442k/7" lie 7%UEEA./ M AG,./4CEM 672'vC7VA2 S 16 46 F o c. w w s :

/. E E M E EA/ YuRGiue=./ESAMA. Evic C/JG AUD L'ALx.oved $72acra,CE -

d, = (?)(0. 0 46 tu) + 0. 6 ta = 0. 70 su (DE6isu 6 Asis EAers./auAxe)

2. Eerneed w:Atxovet S7tucrse Auc dun.ciaa to-A:= 0. O ia r O. 2 / ia - O. 6 / iu (C&G'Ga 6 Asis EAcreavA< E) 0 w.

PAGE 2 Form ( Al344-24 4 JUS REV.D

. CLIENT L- , A.

C t. 97 Vn o w

, SARGENT LUNDY i PROJECT DESIGN BY >3.WvaH DATE 6 5. "'T .

_; ogno,-..i 2 /m 1 9 t,~7

..*(.1

.. ... . lCNGIN3 sac. ,

CHECKEO BY PA'weEl DATE ".V l(i 5H :T n Or * ?d

?

At.CS.FOR ERO M a t E S E t % M \ c. D e. c t o ta s E DAGED_ON . o T)

AMb 2.*/. b 4 m es a c, w s r a To tt sics c ..7.*,*,".*, l X - d i = u.y i o u Y b .= t e ie N (Prs 5,e u T B L oc.)

o x.i .oz o pr.. . 0 7 2. F r.

Asm .ot h . ots asi 014 . 013 Ass 003 , 003 a s, ,00+ . 00+ .

From Sargent & Lundy A s c. 007 .

, 008 Engineers Analytical axq oOl and Computer Division

. o oI .

• Report flo.16, " Fort a v4 0 c "1 . O Ol St. Vrain Nuclear Power Station, (Jnit 1 Turbine-A * *6 .Oo& , oo3 Reactor Building Seismic A .t ,oo4 , oo3 Analysis A m. .ooi . OoI By Chu, et. al.

dated 12/67 o I $ Fr.

~

I - A yn .oI8 FT. ,

revised 06/70

A y i,

.ot7 . o *L o A,y ,ot3 . o16 A yg 002 . 0 o 4-dy, 003 , o04 A y6 *003 '. 004 Ag y . C O I. . 002.

dy, 001 ,

, co3 ,

O3 y ,co3 , oo4 d yt , 0 0 4- .CO+

h y, , oo t . o01 G i. 000t9 go, , o c o 17 a ng, O,o 0 0 0 t*7 , 00017 09 . 000\4 . 00088 Os 00009 , 00009 09 , o o 007 . 00008 GG , o o co6 , 00o07 s-Or , o c oo l .Occol .

O,; .Oo00F 0oc06

- Cy . o o oo y

, o c.co (o PA & E 3 Ct ,ocoo+ . o0004 O. 00001 0 00r l

7.' - - I CLjENT 6 A.

' PROJ ECT F, . 6,- VwAin jo,B so. .r..t et SARGENT . LUNDY ii DESIGN BY h 3 k vo S t DATC

,b' ,,

'- C' /

it

't....

~

_. ~. _ J E N G I N E E A B b CHECKED BY 3f*fte ill DATE NOV 8' I7 SHEET EL{ OF y

• 2 r .

-LCS.FOR bo% ABL E S E i SMi c W e as vo N s F B AGE b ou . o 5'..

Aub 2 Yo D AwytQ G w s T g o d,7- T o tt S t e N Y R E: SEMT D L t) G .

e. eLau w e c.c,r.v,,, X* Di=ce.Tsoa Y - O s e= c.c r i o w an x O.O~38 "-

A t to 0.02.6 AxS O.Of9 A xe O. cot .

A x7 O.o O 4 A s c. O.003 Axf 0.00 1 A n* O.00 3 ,

AO O.003 ,

b v2 0.003 bet o.00t aya o. o 2 8 " * ,

6 vio O.o2 3 L hvs o . O I lo .

A ye 0.o05-

. 4 11 .

O.00 5 A yc. ,0,002 A ys O.Co/

\ sys 0.004-c . c o a.

l av, An .

o. O O 2 A yi O.00I S

l e

I. -

- PAGE L/

i~

l

9 g

~

• t, l

J /s E m

- aK  :

7

• sE

/ . m.

fs \

,p l N#

/

s* A $ -

/ . 4

, e 3

2 3 / 'p q n p -

/ -

J: .- +t W

o g

"?? ,/ *

- . .gg, 6

~ ~th }

I 9

= e 5 '9

+x 9 ' Y%  ; 'e

• $ gru 1 4:

7 2

zg s% y

/

/ *'- rn ffW

/

f~

nr

/ jn

'e

. 3

s 3H ,

zu. ,

/ /e <

c.

- wu r.,

,3 ~ %a ,:{

241s

/

/ .-

i J'= 2 i  ;

L

, 12 e Y

~aa ,

,/

f~ 1

. o

• k- a s 3 n

1*s

• es NEC y .

PA4e r

, - - - , - - - - - , . - - , . . - - . . . , - . , . - - , , , , . , . ,,n.,_,.---._n,,..---,r-n,.--,,c,,-.-- a,_, . - , - - - _ , , - - - , - - , - - - , - , - , , - , , - - - - - , , - - - - , -

e, e

tJ

's T wea - o m LN 4 4 -

WN UM MM *= h NNLm t0 N 44 tG M e-e **W C GJV NL<

C C3 0 += 0 U eM LO > r=

0. to e-e o G * * . .

"O M to U Om C OC E 'O h I b 5=

N 8

w

!= nu gyn m sg-S m,8a 0

a oooo gl-s,

$1ll1 881185li**

o 88 S8S 88 $888i

• Regg  ?????* ????????? ????S

?T.'

R N

i lill

????

eoo. llllll lllllllll llll!

????? ???????? ????S fR%0 98yR$F ;*QC?R32? %%A51 4R*R *:_ca: fR & SS$2 2"RSC he k oooo $$$ $ $$ $ $$$$ $ $$5

?"??  ?????? ? ??????? ??? 1 7 s s l

l ngg- --n -n 444n. 4m .-ng 8 jet g g 808 Pgt !$~5 R;;fR R 8 stRR -

88RIgj !2$3'?8dLg[R8- a Fy:

.c o8558$Ril; $55

' a a m

~

KARs ~

oooo ~

E *2 "  ?????? ????????? ????'

o E E

$0i w w W W . ***URRA::s*?:50;;$$5 l

s

! " so,g~R "& =*&$$lg2s*RSKS8R02 a

!, oso3 3a E ssE* eas:s us: 0eab:*

, E&> * -

8

$ a :E3.sa

• 8m g

227- 8E

= g

> ?????? ????????? ??? *

!q G

h e

.- w $322 m .

m . g :I"R

• 0 R ; a * ;; a R j"*R; g!  !" R

3 E

$' a ~s wW

& E & sRO '33 3 R:26** $28:$h.3RR o?ss;

, g n n B ai s

, oooo W

w , oooo88 8co "00gB.02220 oooc oogoc 22 -

Y t  ???? 3 3  ?????? ???????? ????S gs gs I

s a =

E E W - -

Eu dd44 8 44dd 8 44444t 4444444tt dddda S- 8888 - 8888 - 888888 888888888 88882 m

w 4- sadd 5 dddd i daddda ddsdsdddd ddddz yg g g PA&E G e

; r; 5 !k!$ 5 !kk! 5 -nn.ce >2

20:*tR RRsR; A. E. V.. D .

e..

i CALCULATION SHEET **"'"*'*""'""'"'""

4.5./U.0. / CALCULAf f s4 k%. EEvise 04 & gag p sono si PIEPM E;J/3 ATE I NM . O k h die ie b O '3 b' LEVI '!E2/ EC%E2 / D ATE IJE PEICE%T EEVIE",ER / QATE D. A.rM u] G -lS- S2 h- M C'70 4*M*h' SUSJECT/ TITLE 04 CATESC AY / CODE CL ASS INEA/D 2 DAM ANf) f M fM D UA4-s* LDA M AND DKFl/f7279AK NoATM- Sc 4/TN A f/L fC7 sp N.C ( /NCH)

. Fl.002.

6LfVATION '

90 mPn 300 mfN oBE $$6 D Es tGN wsNC 70RN AO C 4791'-o O.0%o o.0737 c.0094 c.CSG7 4 800 '- 6 ~ o.0567 c . 0 90 8 o. oll4 c ) 0 t4 4 BII'- o ' O. 06 BT c . II 0 0 0. o I s co 0. l1 A l 4824'-o O.082.5 o . 13 2.1 0.016I 0. I A ST

~

4 83f '-6 ~ 0 0963 0.1643 c.0185 0. lG 68 '

48f) ' o ~ 0 4 l 7.I c . I"19 5 0, 0 7.13 0.l905 SAsr- wrs7 se /c K7 soul csNex) i FLoo R. .

ELEvhT>oH 90 mon too men 066 $50 DESIG H LolND TOANADO A991' c " 0.04S2. O.072.5 0.0s29 O , II85

+2co '- c. ' O.0582. 0.0 9.11 0 . 0 t. G z. o .1+8 9 l

l AB I) '- o " o.0738 0. ll 6 I o . O z o 2. C. I 6 30 l

4614'-o' O. 0914 0.14(a 3 0.02As o. 22o 8 463r 'c ~ o.10 98 o. n S 1 c. 0 za 9 c. zsa 7 ot r.r '-o '- c.i s o s o.1o9+ o . os3 e o.3017

.. . L.

nu.v ^.a PAGE 7

Public FORT ST. VRAIN NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION OSGTVIC9=PUBUC SERVICE COMPANY OF COLORADO ATTACHiENT 5 CALCULATION WORKSHEET s CALCULATION NUMBER CALCULAJ(ION 94 FORsteg; ego /C 0pncory s44- x. YH N WYAC PRE 9ARED s1 Q ggfysAs lOATE 3 # 6 - 2 [ sf4 s sy. M Reviewto av w ./%. 4~.,__ '/"EdoATs 3 /f.fg c4Lc. nev. IPAce / or E l

Ceuc rwe - -A os.ca, -,,g cape,,y ,, ,.y ,. g "g,,,,

culexes ing rz- de ca rgo ., a -rs s- 2,.uu-rana

$ 7 W J c v utt l' yq KM' W8fcMu) d "o. c. a

~

h frid4. k

& '(CMicMWED) v' g ,couc<- r \

v/,:, fraservxe l ,

L . fra,e run s s

df= ft*T/CA) / R ostf S tJy 8 - V s ! # f y k srs ars.t i

APAC'Ty O f f73'L/ s475 sJ Cnp.et.r.riea -

.rfer - xs P'e pceries s

1- ' ,bsl '2(.2S) 3- ,,

' P" /2 rre r'= a

1  % = 0 O / S S ,~

• f 37-sd' iz(..zs) ' .

g

0. /24, 1

=

Yk = ff = S.2 S'h * , l,',".

• C n2 f) = /8. / 7 xx, nea- 3 k c A~-m f;' /8. i '? ( a.1 C61) = d'+' S x,ps,/s-r sa Broo e l km:x: =

{jc A2(. /2 S) = 2. 7 h - <4 ,

7; - 73 fa, 8 Wl='n'LJ Form I A) 344-244300

D PubilC F RT ST. VRAIN NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION t Si SGTVIC9= PUBUC SERVICE COMPANY OF COLORADO CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULADON FOR CALCULATIO.N NUMBER Alit. kW f// [algcatCRCD ACIT)r M. I PREPARED BY g gp/s DATE 3.g gg' l /4 f. f ge. pg REVIEWED 8Y W A /4, C[DATE 3./2. M l CALC. REV. lPAGE q OF f l fdfAR (Apneary ac Y f h fra Yrso Avceam -

/J3S 4lc ri a r r . a facsg d' e/rr "

j" = 339' &r ~ sk ersr zaeg Eumew r loacerrc $wnse 6 coy rx W= 3.S' & 3 S 7 y oa'

, yy E I P-'r' afexts

) '$_% f / //=

V = id c

= 0.2S(o 2)(.to ?)

• SA/ hr s

Yppxax de)/ex 7;xx f,g., a r , c /<./r- & rs.u w w o acic d*<sv 9'8// ' oir 9'8 2:9' ~ /8 s r- wr- 9sr-de' <. + 8c<aw ff W 3.J 8-9f' .2, ff3, + VS8) Cou.u < a rs t

- {cxcircrt' daox /0 x.,z.z s o.S C/fo) = /d,f00 #

^'' 1 " ' E' "-

~ Sw/*xew3 Shrse-

"D /2 " r+ 8 2 (22 x to)(1. 043 %r) # glo "

- tsrn, At;. n . t.a.

y . m ese

.,qaq , H >cs, S T/2xia) = /,/ 0 0 '

~ GoRafn.s

.2. - A//2X22 x /97 r

• 8 40 2 U/2x /f af fpr = / </ 0 "

- C.ea , i 9 -t<)29' xSh /87 r = 3'94 0

- Begc3

/06 ss- A n '3 x 'e / D //. / *Xer = /, / / 0 , do<o/ar =

~ f-o-2 6'00 , .2 *539 ,3y]L-'

d - 4) 8x to x /Os r -

22 Qpr 7 m.nts Soti = g829 # 2 /', /is eie.

D /3.'t"/w #) (18 no x2) ,,2 9, 3 3 y?

t Form iA 6 344-244]C1

866 3 ac f

~

. Z s~~ rMr Svc,or as A .crusni< Oceeaacwcr rxe

{N,C Kfit ?c4 YEJ sJo U4 D WAo 4 AJ Y#r  !/y' ##$ g.J e M oit 2.s rs Inst . Bassa . . .a osa. Asp #ppie. x. .x

-rac sJftyN rs ox 4 .fcc rio 4 oa ryis .fy'xacretes-JJF / .mja YHer raf bel YJ sJoac a FAis AY A 3 - A?>secc ** 33y//sti.1 se o.25y -

~

_2'J n frissnie dv'es.ir ror fresrivs $cererwxr=ws Bcrucca rac 70' esser Eau os.~y *x 2" >' os uy *

f A da rac /</neu - ovcic fricaerame asy 4,xezy fxerts O. 25 3 . L sse a 4 __

cnst r.gc pisrc .eaat fica _

(v/Af 8 at r f fe-A M if5 PESCR i eED ABc c/E*)

L /n~ o 47 .Af .2 " gap ar-rs.)fra .rwr friracru.ce.s ; 79c

.mny . Ac44rivr Paj:>< xer~ car serJerw roc PGe an.ic Beay naa t'M r 4.Jgeic auric 5'rmeraree a fcp. <.a re_a, Afs 0. 8/ " i .a 4ccr.esoes # 3-A exf bear rH4 r rMr Psr.srive beteensroo -a.r BtrnJcea ;r W / E w <- = 9 r' .Desi aor Garc r-M c brc yo Tsic. r?/c sinpro Z-nos oa rst 7Dn e-ac

$Jsco J J.<.)i L L Bf .A.A:>se rs.JAfL . Alo n s Afr Schads; Casex Bes.e s.a. ,fran.< . .a An racr.or 6miecre &)

I lexo A-7 Eact /n'a vec ~E3 ? h~r e" b. 2S(12) = lllPs!

fg~ = ph o(' .8f/i k) = 0. y[0.85(3foo)(3f.-- d'218 (Io. /6. /)

[g '= .,,2 fa = 2(6298) = /2, 47d' & '.> g C.oca ,-- -

We V1 ' c ,,caen y s ,e d uo,cr;, uy rac

-ma.- .s- s~ u7

.ss, -,xe s. 6 aer friz crs,,, .ss- o., s'nuasey J. ,ec, ywe - rey x<ry ox .rwe G e-ac A - o ya

.,/ 4 /f .$f/Jr71 ! C $VEsj'y'".

llh 8/6/8f pr.sssf 67w

PubllC FORT ST. VRAIN NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION (d/ h $9fVICG= Pusuc SERVICE COMPANY OF COLORADO CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION FOR CALCULATION NUMBER ft/ ' {hfC)((Rfc f 14)*AC

• 7y = Aut. b 6 bW PREPARED SY g d_s fjg DATE f.m% l REVIEWED BY Mpfj pjf DATE 7.f .f. g l CALC. REV.

j4f, lPAGE g of f

/Pr u eraccs

/- $sismic Qa s ,7,c x riaJ Fox frxse rakrs d 3 % 9-//

tJ/o fme rans frcsz Anmc , Psv D 2- f4mr Ms A fso /c p,4y 79/

3- Psc derreg r. wa- A//c .Dc " B 862 98 9- ACZ 3/8 - 77 Form t Ai 344-244300

e Public FORT ST. VRAIN NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION l

SC TVIC';* PUZLIC CERVICE C'IMPANY CF CILSRADD

, CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION FORJ CALCULATION NUMBER 8VALVAMM of &OS /0 . STEP S72/r7t/2n PREPAREO BY g fy [ f/'/,/gg f , DATE 7-g*/-fg REVIEWED BY gM OATE 7 J7 86 CALC. REV. lPAGE [ OF f

. e LM.DG 10 Wit.L

)

(-o" 3'.c, -

b" 4BiZ'- d' ,

n -s -

> e. se.

• ,- s

" :'# (.. 2 4 ..

48tl'-O \}. s L* ,

, d..'~T #

[ *-

\* 4@teF*wELS C.C.EW .2_  ;

SECT-lON F-l 3/4 f-O' REE l'S& DWr.:.. /7- VS~2 -

77/5 .crrp .srzte:TazE 3NOwN A &*VE KS 42r4rf D A f 545VA Y. TOM YSH S O " ON THf EASr MD5 OF 77/E Walk-Ot/6)2- J TE V C T2/2-5 i AO7ACfAfr~ re BVK4 DENS /0 ' A GNs

_T.N4H //") GAP Exts7~r BE7werN r/ixs s172t/crzies flND rsE /94.6 of BvzzDDVS /0, AS SMWN .[N TRB A80t/E SE47~roA/. 77/E MAxxxvm Actsrrvr DI5PLAWEAfr B277 VEE // rsETWs BVZ4DZA/SS XS 0, li'l 1 W // (AEM S&STE-QE 7A8 9,EEVD A 2If3-2/PJ) MSV4XZ~46; E208 rst oss sarsnxc sy,ror, FAM' r#5 AEOV8 DzscV.ssrox, Er15 MALff 74AT TNf -STfD STET Y77/LE fvfA4 A/67~~ pfAds~ BtA2DENf /0 t OyRZNfr A SEZGM.fC 6t/CMTW l

3 nrssusw a caus&ne coaxwo ms seen 22A ozo sr re w are

.L TNCH GAP, AS Z3 cusica /Ey gp G m p con gfy&77cwr MAc722'g

.Ir TS NorA crRFCTVEAL 24fM/fNr AND us.rts. svor rrANVcr

/.0AD BETAsf6N TAf 7}VO 57AVCTV2ES. 77/BEEFOL)E> TNG 64/4 hi~AM OWM/JA/O TS Ate 9: w r c O rs! Tm FVAL UA 7i~nA /-

Form IA) 344244303 1

L _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _