ML20205M282

Summary of 870324 Meeting W/Util & Cygna Re Soil Bearing Capacity Under Footings of Vapor Container.List of Attendees & Presentation Matl Used During Meeting Encl

ML20205M282
Person / Time
Site:	Yankee Rowe
Issue date:	03/27/1987
From:	Mckenna E Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8704020329
Download: ML20205M282 (27)

Text

3 .

MAR 2 71987 Docket No.50-029 LICENSEE: YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY (YAEC)

FACILITY: YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION

SUBJECT:

MEETING

SUMMARY

- MARCH 24, 1987 SEISMIC S0IL BEARING CAPACITY On March 24, 1987, members of the NRC staff met with representatives of YAEC to discuss soil bearing capacity under the footings of the vapor container (VC). A list of attendees is provided in Enclosure 1. Presentation material used during the meeting is in Enclosure 2.

During the staff review of the seismic reevaluation program, in particular for the vapor container, an issue was raised that the soils beneath the VC are not capable of resisting the anticipated seismic loads without exceeding i assigned foundation movements (rotation). Such rotation would increase the moments at the top of the short columns, increase lateral movement of the VC and decrease the translational response frequency. The staff has discussed this issue with the licensee at one of the previous review meetings (January i 1987)andbyconferencecall.

To resolve this concern, the licensee has performed additional analyses of both the bearing capacity and the structural response. These analyses are sumarized in Enclosure 2. A time-history analysis was run so that the maximum loads (axial, shear, etc.) could be identified as a function of time.

Different soil properties were used and horizontal soil springs were added.

Then at time steps of interest, the actual footing loads could be considered separately, rather than taking the maximum of each load (they do not occur simultaneously) and applying them together. The reduced resultant loads and froments were then used to investigate the behavior of each footing with

, respect to bearing capacity, rotation, and resistance to sliding. With the revised loads, the computed factor of safety for all footings was greater than 1.0. The structural elements were then reevaluated using the enveloped forces from the time-history analysis, rather than for the individual maximum time-step cases. The licensee's results show that all structural elements satisfy acceptable stress limits.

The licensee will provide a letter report documenting the results of these

! analyses. In addition, YAEC will provide some comparisons to previous YAEC analyses to aid in the staff's review. These include a comparison of the stress ratios for the structural elements, a comparison of the loads from the i

j l

1 0704020329 870327 PDR P ADOCK 05000029 PDR 4

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

s previous response spectra analysis and the new time-history analysis and a comparison of floor response spectra generated with a common model with the only parameter change being the soil properties and modeling. This information will be provided in the near future so that the staff can issue its-safety evaluation on the overall seismic reevaluation program, b

Eileen M. McKenna, Project Manager Project Directorate il Division of PWR Licensing-A

Enclosures:

As Stated cc's: See Next Page Office: PkfAWik PD/ PAD #1 Surname: EMcKenna/tg Glear Date: 03 4 /87 03/p')/87 L

i Mr. George Papanic, Jr.

Yankee Atomic Electric Company Yankee Nuclear Power Station cc:

Mr. James E. Tribble, President '

Yankee Atomic Electric Company 1671 Worcester Road Framingham, Massachusetts 01701 Thomas Dignan, Esquire Ropes and Gray 225 Franklin Street Boston, Massachusetts 02110

. Mr. N. N. St. Laurent

• Plant Superintendent -

h

• Yankee Atomic Electric Company Star Route

? Rowe, Massachusetts 01367 i

Chairman Board of Selectmen Town of Rowe Rowe, Massachusetts 01367 Resident Inspector Yankee Nuclear Power Station c/o U.S. NRC Post Office Box 28 Monroe Bridge, Massachusetts 01350 Regional Administrator, Region I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 Robert M. Hallisry, Director Radiation Control Program Massachusetts Department of Public Health 150 Tremont Street, 7th Floor Boston, Massachusetts 02111

MAR 2 71987

! Distribution (6'A NRC PDR

Local PDR l ORAS HDenton CRossi i Glainas .

l- DCrutchfield l PAD #1 r/f i PAD #1 s/f-l Glear EMcKenna Pshuttleworth

'TCheng- ,

, LHeller '

l CThomas OGC-Bethesda EJordan BGrimes JPartlow(EmergencyPreparednessonly)

Receptionist ACRS(10)

OPA LFMB r

DMossburg l NRC Participants (cc: LicenseeandPlantServiceList) 1 i

ENCLOSURE 1 NRR/YAEC MEETING ,

MARCH 24, 1987 NAME AFFILIATION Eileen McKenna NRC Thomas M. Cheng NRC Lyman W. Heller NRC Alfredo Urzua GEI Gonzalo Castro GEI I% . Michael Shulman T. Y. Wang CYGNA CYGNA Donald LeFrancois YAEC i George Papanic, Jr. YAEC George A. Harper YAEC Bruce W. Holmgren YAEC Cecil Thomas NRC/ISAFD l

l E ISSilE

SUMMARY

THE S0ILS BENEATH THE FOOTINGS 0F THE VC ARE.

i NOT CAPABLE'0F RESISTING THE NRC LOADS WITHOUT EXCEEDING EXPECTED FOUNDATION MOVEMENTS.

} REFERENCES .

! [1] CYGNA CALCULATION 83033/11-IF.

)

] [2] " VAPOR CONTAINER STRUCTURE. YNPS.. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS l

i REPORT". REV. 3. CYGNA. APRIL 1989. i i

[3] CYGNA CALCULATION 86064/1-F. SET L. .  :

ik

h. RESPONSE:

j{ THE ANALYSIS OF THE VC [REF. (1)] AND THE CORRESPONDING l REPORT (REF. (2)] ARE BASED ON A SOIL ROCKING STIFFNESS l CALCULATED ASSUMING THAT THE VC FOOTING IS IN FULL CONTACT WITH THE SOIL. HOWEVER. THE ANALYTICAL RESULTS INDICATED

) THAT THE TENSILE SOIL STRESS INTRODUCED BY THE SEISMIC MOMENT j IS LARGER THAN THE COMPRESSIVE SOIL STRESS INTRODUCED BY THE AXIAL FORCE. BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT SOIL CANNOT TAKE j) TENSION, THE FOOTING WILL BE PARTIALLY SEPARATED FROM THE i

! SOIL. IT WAS ALSO FOUND THAT AN 2-DIMENSIONAL TRUSS ELEMENT.

l INSTEAD OF A 3-DIMENSIONAL TRUSS ELEMENT. WAS USED TO MODEL

! THE DIAGONAL TIE RODS OF THE VC. USING THIS 2-D TRUSS f ELEMENT ARTIFICIALLY INCREASED THE STIFFNESS OF THE TIE RODS l SIGNIFICANTLY. BECAUSE OF THESE DEVIATIONS. THE VC WAS i j REANALYZED IN REF. (3). SINCE THE SEISMIC STRESS INTRODUCED ,

IN THE VC SHELL (OTHER THAN THE PIPE PENETRATIONS) IS INSIGNIFICANT. THE REANALYSIS WAS PERFORMED USING A MODEL ,

! i WITH FEWER SHELL ELEMENTS THAN THAT USED IN REF. (1) (SEE FOLLOWING FIGURES). ADDITIONAL CHANGES IN THE MATHEMATICAL  ;

MODEL ARE: (A) AD)ING HORIZONTAL SOIL SPRINGS. (B) THE AREA 0F THE DIAGONAL THE ROD IS MODELED AS ONE-HALF 0F ITS GROSS AREA. (C) THE REINFORCED BEAM-COLUMN JOINTS WERE MODELED WITH RELATIVELY RIGID ELEMENTS AND (D) MINOR MODIFICATIONS IN NODAL COORDINATES.

TO INVESTIGATE THE EFFECT OF THE PARTIAL SEPARATION BETWEEN THE FOOTING AND SOIL ON THE ROCKING STIFFNESS OF THE SOIL. A MOMENT-ROTATION (M-0) CURVE OF THE FOOTING AS SHOWN IN THE '

FOLLOWING FIGURE WAS CONSTRUCTED. IN CONSTRUCTING THE CURVE.

IT WAS ASSUMED THAT THE SOIL ROCKING STIFFNESS IS PROPORTIONAL TO THE MOMENT OF INERTIA..I. OF THE ~00 TING AREA

{, WHICH IS IN CONTACT WITH THE SOIL AND A SQUARE FOOTING CAN BC REPLACED BY A CIRCULAR FOOTING WITH THE SAME AREA. THIS M-9 l2 i

CURVE WAS CONSTRUCTED FOR AXIAL COMPRESSIONS VARYING FROM 140 KIPS TO 200 KIPS.

THE REANALYSIS WAS PERFORMED FOR THE MOST CRITICAL LOAD COMBINATION IDENTIFIED IN REFS. (1) AND (2). DL2 AMBIENT THERMAL LOAD (DT 2700)

• NRC LOADS. USING THE TRIAL AND ERRORMETHOD.THESOILROCKINGS{IFFNESSOFEACHFOOTINGWAS ADJUSTED SO THAT THE MOMENT AND NOTATION OF THE FOOTING IS LOCATED BELOW THE M-9 CURVE CORRESPONDING TO THE AXIAL COMPRESSION DEVELOPED IN THE FOOTING.

l THE NRC LOADS WERE INPUT AS THE SYNTHETIC ACCELERATION TIME-f HISTORIES APPLIED SIMULTANEOUSLY IN THE N-S. E-W. AND VERTICAL DIRECTIONS. THE SOIL WAS EVALUATED AT DIFFERENT l

TIME INTERVALS. THE FORCES APPLIED AT THE BASE OF THE FOOTINGS ARE SHOWN IN TABLE 1. THE EVALUATION OF EACH FOOTING AGAINST SLIDING AND BEARING IS SHOWN IN TABLES 2 AND

3. THE MOMENT AND ROTATION OF ALL FOOTINGS AT CERTAIN TIME INTERVALS ARE MARKE0 IN THE M-9 CURVE OF THE FOOTING AS A REFERENCE.

l L_____________._________._____________________._____._____

THE STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS WERE EVALUATED FOR THE ENVELOPED FORCES OF THE ENTIRE TIME SPAN OF THE TIME-HISTORY ANALYSIS.

THE MAXIMUM STRESSES OR STRESS RATIOS OF THE VARIOUS STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS ARE SUMMARIZED BELOW:

O MAXIMUM ANCHOR BOLT STRESS AT COLUMN BASE CONNECTION =

0.6 FY 0 FOR THE COLUMNS AT THE BEAM-COLUMN JOINT. THE MAXIMUM COMBINED AXIAL AND BENDING STRESS = 0.90 FY. THE CORRESPONDING STRESS RATIO =90.95.

0 FOR THE COLUMNS BETWEEN THE BEAM-COLUMN JOINT AND TOP OF THE TIE RODS. THE MAXIMUM COMBINED AXIAL AND BENDING STRESS RATIO = 0.35.

4642. l

Z3 li.06 - 86 4.S 94.6 7o 6 4775 1451

-n,- - ----- -. --- - - -,,--...,a- , . , - - . - - - . ~ - - -.-.-n - - - , . - - - - - - - - - . . , . _ - - - , , - - - - - - - - - - -

y  :

s TABLE 2 SAFETY FACTOR AGAIN.ST: SLIDING

~

SAFETY FACTOR AGAINST <

N0DE SLIDING (II ,

790 1.59 -

791 -

1.54 792 f.88 793 1.43

(

~

794 1.55 ,

795 1.51 -

i 796 1.35 797 1.36 .'

798 1.50 799 1.601 800 1.68 801 2.09 802 2.30 803 1.47 804 . 1.14

'~ '

805 1.16 ,i ,,

t NOTE: '.

.\

(1) RESISTING FORCE = COMPRESSION X TAN S ,,.IlHERE 6 35 0 IS THE FRICTION ANGLE BETWEEN THE F00TI!10 AND SOIL. ,

PASSIVE SOIL PRESSURE AND FRICTIM ON THE' FOOTING'S VERTICAL SIDES ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE SAFETI FACTOR ,

CALCULATION. -

,. /

1

, l

~

p 4

, f

l'

, q .

3.

i; j

s' ,

c --

j ,_ " g- \

/ .

k . . .

f h '

- - A t '

( >

Jj!;

~s.

.. . Y

• Y 1

/5 k i

, ,v: ellM $1P*LIFIED P tLL PL 4 Ote.70 J s '

i VC WITH SIMPLIFIED SHELL 4

l .

i I

- \

l l

i

l

. 1

.l NODE NUMBERS l

III ttit

'rth ' -

,11 0

ttl ,gs

!IT lt00 M

, t20

• t33

' lt06

.l

' t21 232 t  ;

1

[q l

'2' f sib u ,

1 11 5 PC I r, a, >>

i 101 ;t:0 ',*3 3 11 8 i l%6 ige k95 2b I 2 29

'27 ,,,

EC I

saw lo -

b3)

,yp K) 96 po, at

.1%

[21 38 BQ5

, -s _

g i

, stu

' j 10 5 III P90 109 10 7 10 8 f93 IS!

PS2 vt 81TM 51MLIFIED SMELL

• DL & Die-10 I

EEMENT NUMBERS il 10 it

- ' I ,

(5

& g g l4 60

'1 l 87 t6 to :h

?~

i ts t i

t1 L5 to ~ "

'O 19 ' il

.n in 1

l6 pin d

}P3 ,,

L22

, a I#"

• i 1

s i

i7t Y l vn t >

1 2 1 i

y 2 y t? e L7

• I et l '

et h6 119 in g 4

.4 0 l29 ;3 5

19 i2 113 ,0

.1 414

}t6 ps 4C W11g 3 eL171ED y EtL - DL & Di r 70 1 3 i

l 1

l

1Z000 -

f=200 (0000 P= 100" f= lbo" o "to1(204)

'G 803 (7i5)

?

.h g93 - v

• Wm) p, g4p _

Boi

• M

• 900 (Is4) L24')

K ( t>S) 745(2n)

• b 34o(#5q) (f42) ?44 8 , g 3 6000 - 147 Ci94)

T 744 191(l30) (l12) A6 0 53) k b Oss) w3 (150)

N2.

4000 - (f:133)

BE6fNf4G OF PARTIAL #fARAfloN l._ 66TWEE4 TOOTING AMD SOIL

~

2000 l i t i i 1

.001 .002 .cos .004 .005 .006 ROTATION 9 (mi.)

VC FOOTINGS - t0 E NT - ROTATION RELATIONSHIP

G Cr.

s/We+

/3 eaeing Cc<jaa.ci-lg Forinula Non e -

i fooline-Trf cJ cal G

% ~- - ~-

,, ,,,~~ 7,~~ a ,'a - - - ~~- ~--n,~~

'N5

^

~

. i bac12 fill: t =.l.2s e<&

v-

,s, g

6n.zs 3 -

., _ _1 - ._ _. _

I

_.-l. . . . . . . . _ . . _ _ _ . . . . . - . .

.. ,/ -

-st o

%ectice . w'dAh .

_ _. _ _ __ _ / E" B'* **/ I

% 4Ci*l +EII #

t. inse ct

• 1ecr<ung Ccqcci g hmole hon c< cloplee! 6p U 5- Corps of Enjine.ers es osee!

• A shecc sheo]4h cy bacl2j.ill medeels <.s opaa ._ -

u.-w m , . e

. C=pcdy Andps of shc.llow b c!cAion s

G e

~

G s.r slu/s'+

GM50 b@f G C(~ YOYino1o bO h lg.j g . qo N -t- ig 33. B)? Nyy/'2

. A:

. Ngue =

beedog cspeag Ms g ,.g y .= sha pe f.cc-We s .

4

.m ..m -,w.-= . -_

.m -me = * . _.-e- e--m e -

.. . . -. . . - _ - %okn ..-._..__y.

- * --m ~m* e a=sie

--- im pbne passcoy hoch base f pe &g

+4 . _ _ _

e Kq = 6 -

14f

.<: b (a.yv.)

A> y . .=- C a p

. Npx _ M (nA~ +4A) l-.-_ BL= B.-2es .

l-1

._ L'_ = _ t - 2 ec _ _

E s. = . TbH /p

=- . -.

.., . &ny .

PRELIMINARY VAX. 3EAl::\G 37ESSL RE 20 i 19 -

18 - '

17 -

16 -

i 15 -

Cl3 g 14 -

g 13 -

12 -

3 u-a 10 -

g 9-Z B-m 7,,-

. ,. 4 m o.

7 - ,;i

<[ 5- y i LIJ 4-5

! CO 3- a

! 2- U I~ 5 i 5

0r I- i i T-i-- r- i i i i i i i i

'E i

F-9 F-8 F-7 F-6 F-5 F-4 F-3 F-2 F-1 F-16 F-15 F-14 F-13 F-12 F-il F-10

]

I

,i "I .~~~~~\]

. .. \ V]!] .

1 .-

1-

.., - f 9' ,. 1 PRELIMINARY - -

=S-3 EA 1:: N 3 A J A:::~~Y 5

1 I

f- 6 i

U a LL

<C cn 3-

~

/

L' FRICTION ANGLE = 35 ,

O .

g. .

O i

I E C__) 5 4 i_ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

g LL a u

. R n

, . S 0 ~Ir- -

i- -i r - -- -' i - r- r- 1 1 -r i r-- i i i" j F-9 F-8 F-7 F-6 F-5 T-4 F-3 F-2 F-1 F-16 F-15 F-14 F-13 F-12 F-il F-10 1

-m m -=== m ~

c. __ a \ 3_l I

l

}

, .., f 4' PRELIMINARY i

=S- 3 E A l:: N 3 JA 3AC::~~Y 10 9-t I 88 Lu 7-

<C ~,

6- 5/

O g O

5- FRICT. ION ANGLE = 40 i g- 4-O i i 3- [

o-i 4 a- - - - - - - - - - - -

g

! k n 1- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

g ti ti 0 i i i i , i N

i i i i i i i i i F-9 F-8 F-7 F-6 F-5 F-4 F-3 F-2 F-1 F-is F-15 F-14 F-13 F-12 F-11 F-10

= ' .--

w W -- -

. '  ! ll!1l i u5( h s g l -

I 0

- 1 F

= ,

1 1

F R

2 1

E_

\

Y F 3

B R ,1

- M A Y F

L N

I

~

~ .

/ ,1 4

F N

M

\

C Y,5 1

I -

L A F

0

n. E 5 _ .

R J - ,

1 F __

P A 5 o C 4 . A " ,

1 F

- A J

= = 2 G  %

F

\

\ .

, r-3 0 T

F _-

~

5 -

A - 3 4

F E -

G

=

B " r-5F

\

v'% - .

S ,

6 F

= 0

" r -

7 0 F

/,

-8 -

,F

~

- 9 i

r-F 6 4 2 0 8 6 4 2 0 8 8 4 2 0 2 a 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 l

l l l

4W ,,O TOI ]<i I [

i

... . F El' .<

PRELIMINARY .

_S--S___,__N',a i 3.0 2.8 -

i I

2.6 -

' 2. 4 -

ll_l o '

Lt_ a.a - FRICTION ANGLE = 35

<C 2. 0 - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

i CD i.e -

1 1.6 i s y a/

O i4- 'N ,/

y 1 . 2 -- _,,

o g,o _ . . .. . . . . . . g

0. B - E i ']

C 'e i <[ 0. 6 - g bl.- 0. 4 - A s

0.2 - @

= .

0 0.0 r-- r - i -- i i - r -- -

i i i -- i i , , , l l

F-9 F-8 F-7 F-6 F-5 F-4 F-3 F-2 F-1 F-15 F-15 F-14 F-13 F-12 F-11 F-10'

.. \3 V -

t i

3

= A :~~ : ~lS  := S A =E- Y 3 EAR::\ 3 CA3 . S _.:: D:: \3 I -

F00 TING NUMBER  %= 35  %= 40 pd= 35 F-9 3.8 8.1 1.59

~

F- 8 3.2 6.5 1.58 t F-7 4.6 9.6 1.88 F- 6 3.5 7.4 1.43 F-5 4.5 9.8 1.55 F-4 3.8 8.1 1.52 F-3 3.2 6.7 1.35 F-2 3.1 6.5 1.36 F 'I 2.7 5.8 1.50 F-:16 2.9 6.1 1.59 F :15 1.3 2.5 1.69 F-14 3.5 7.2 2.08 F- 13 4.6 9.7 2.30 F-12 2.6 5.4 1.47  !

l F-11 2.1 4.5 1.14 F-10 2.5 5.2 1.16 L

PREUMINARY l

l

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS INC.  ;

l Protect R 7D F4 r.re j 2 / 2, f p ; ,, g, c a==i s/o<kee o.,,

s=w v< o.J & pc+c -s tJ a -cs.e er Approved By 1000 -

~

k w e.

U "  :

k I I

s 1500 -

Ohtski c / 7 wa tc k ?nci 1000 -

t-c,- f 9

HArtimam , pompel Till i l

, k g,p t i e e i f i e i e soo i i i ISO C 50 O

D 4fr p T s.v/a Rowe-e /

? l Pe e k ; WL*'to '

yg ._

! d fhotet but*t iS 44 <-

\/ 5owu1 2

k. v

.s p:u

- I /

Hwinu , *Danp/ TiiI i~

h /

m ' ' ' ' ' ' *

• 1 ' *

• i 30 i

O 50 10 0 ISO YL , blC W: / gh$

~

Rowe :da hu-1 1

. PT, lJ blows j{+

0 20 4-) to 2:.) sa o I I e

.i i i i

- S sct -

'Q k

/

/

k

/

h b .

// qh

, I k3 o p.

1010 -

7 5

• /m

/ o e

/ o

/

o

• 2. k

% 3 4(e -+ 0

% 80 % -

L i

C 4

w e we s*

It4 -Vo b 100 0 -

\tJ

+e

1. g 9 -+ o 796 -

4 I99 " o 99 0 -

1

}

• S3 wes t,, pqyy j O SE Wnlon ,,1928 (, 55 6 I j In Rn.,,,1 ,aggg Syy l

r , - - _ _ .

3/23/87

. - . .- _. - - . . - _ . -- .-