ML20211H969
| ML20211H969 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05200003 |
| Issue date: | 09/30/1997 |
| From: | Joseph Sebrosky NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9710070225 | |
| Download: ML20211H969 (168) | |
Text
_- . _ - . - - - - - - - - _ . _ - - _ . . _ . - _ _ -- - -- . . _ _ _ -
ry -oc ~!L pn teeg ge k UNITED STATES
- .}2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 80u6-0001
\*...*/ .
September 30, 1997 APPLICANT: Westinghouse Electric Corporation PROJECT: AP600
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF AP600 MEETING TO REVIEW THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF NUCLEAR ISLAND STRUCTURES The subject meeting was held August 4 through August 15, 1997, in the Rockville offices of the Westinghouse Electric Corporation. Attachment 1 is a list of the participants. The agenda for the two week review is contained in Attachment 2.
Although the highlights of the meeting are provided below, the meeting resulted in two major issues being identified. The issues are the adequacy of the nuclear island basemat and the fire water tank design. The staff took an action to forward their position on these issues to Westinghouse as soon as possible.
Hiohliohts of Auaust 4 throuah 8 review:
Attachment 3 are the handouts provided by Westinghouse during the week.
The issues that the staff identified during the week are contained in Attach-ment 4. In a letter dated August 7, 1997, (NSD-NRC-97-5262) Westinghouse provided a standard safety analysis report (SSAR) markup for Chapter 2 that resolved the majority of the staff's issues related to the design site conditions and shallow soil sites. Attachment 5 contains the SSAR markup that Westinghouse proposed for Chapter 3.7 and 3.8 that were discussed during the week. Attachment 6 contains information resulting from the staff's site amplification study and a staff comment concerning the passive containment /
cooling water storage tank liner that was given to Westinghouse during the meeting.
/
A major issue that was resolved was what procedure would be used for sites with site parameters that fell outside of those in the certified design. The issue was identified in a November 4,1996, letter to Westinghouse as one of the three major issues that the Civil Engineering and Geosciences Branch had with the AP600 design (i.e., shallow soil sites). As a result of the meeting the staff and Westinghouse agreed to the seismic requirements a Combined License (COL applicant must demonstrate for a proposed site (SSAR Sec-tion 2.5.2.1 and the )rocedure to be followed for sites with site parameters outside of t ose for tie certified design (SSAR Section 2.5.2.2).
For non-uniform soil conditions, the staff found Westinghouse's proposal that certain types of non-uniform sites are evaluated as part of the design certification unacceptable. Specifically, Westinghouse proposed depth criteria for sloping bedrock sites, undulatory bedrock sites, and geologically 9710070225 9709b0 DR ADOCK 052000 3
(( g l..lll ll..... lllllll ll
)
DISTRIBUT:ON w/ attachments:
Docket F1'e POST R/F PUBLIC BHuffman JWilson TKenyon JSebrosky GBagcht, 0-7 HIS Tcheng, 0-7 HIS 1 RPichumani, 0-7 HIS l BRothman, 0-7 HIS CMunson 0-7 HIS NChokshi, T-10 L1 RKenneally, T-10 L1 l DISTRIBUTION w/o attachment:
Sco111ns/FMiraglia, 0-12 GIS
-BSheron 0-7 D25 RZimmerman, 0-12 GIS JRoe Matthews TQuay W0ean, 0-5 E23 ACRS (11)
JMoore, 0-15 B18 I
l l
J
September 30, 1997
- impacted sites, and if a COL applicant could demonstrate a site met these criteria no further analysis would be required. The staff disagreed with this approach and as a result SSAR Sections 2.5.4.5.3 and 2.5.4.5.3.1 were revised.
The staff and Westinghouse also discussed soil variability. Westinghouse indicated that the calculated flexural reinforcing would be increased by 20 percent which would allow the basemat to tolerate soil variations of plus or
- inus 20 percent in alternate adjacent spans. However, soil stiffness variation after two spans, instead of alternate spans, would increase the shear force in the large panels even further. Westinghouse has an action to address this item.
The staff expressed a concern about the stiffness of the shear walls. A Calculation (1200-CCC-107) performed by Bechtel using the Bechtel Structural Analysis Program was reviewed which considered the effect on shear wall stiffness of openings in the walls J and K , which were not considered in the previous finite element models. However, the conclusion that the reactions at the base of the wall only varied less than 5 percent from the previous calculations was not consistent with the results reported. Furthermore, the actual stiffnesses of walls J and K were underestimated and overestimated, respectively. Westinghouse has an action to correct the problems with the calculation.
The staff also disagreed with Westinghouse excluding the effect of construc-tion settlement on developed moments and shears in the post-construction load combinations for the nuclear island (the effect of construction settlement is only included in the construction load combination). The staff recommended a procedure for suitably accounting for these effects that Westinghouse agreed to evaluate (see Westinghouse action item number 6 from August 6,1997, in Attachment 4).
Desian of the Basemat:
In Section 3.8.4 of the SSAR Westinghouse connitted that (1) the design and analysis procedures for Seismic Category I structures are in accordance with American Concrete Institute (ACI)-349 Code for reinforced concrete structures, and (2) the ductility criteria of ACI 318 Code, Chapters 12 and 21, are constdered in detailing, placing, anchoring and splicing of the reinforcing steel. As a result of its review of design calculations for the foundation mat by Westinghouse, the r,taff identified the following significant concerns:
- 1. Westinghouse desigt.ed the shear reinforceunt of the foundation mat as a one way slab in n cordance with paragrap5 11.11 of ACI-349. The NRC staff stated that, according to the ratio of span to depth, the nuclear island foundation mat should be classified as deep flexural members and be designed for the requirements for deep flexural members, which are given in paragraph 11.8. For deep flexural members, ACI-349 Code requires that the critical section for shear is to be located at 0.15 times the span length from the support edge with reinforcing steel over full span.
September 30, 1997 The staff believes the forthcoming ACI 349 Code will incorporate the deep flexural member shear requirements of the ACI 318-89 Code and the ACI 316-95 Code. _These codes have revised the provisions for continuous deep flexural member from those of ACI 4' 49-85. However, Westinghouse did not treat the foundation mat as a deep flexural member. The shear reinforcement considered in the design is based on much reduced shear force at a section which is further away at a distance equal to the effective depth of the mat. Therefore, the staff believes that the provisions of ACI 318-95, 11.8 should be used to design portions of the basemat spanning between walls.
The revised amount of shear reinforcement would require the use of l larger reinforcing bars which would be spaced at a distance not more than "d/2" throughout the length of the member.
- 2. According to Chapter 21 of ACI 318-95 Code, stirrups used as-shear reinfcrcement in flexural members of frames (paragraph 21.3.3.4) shall be provided with a 135 degree hook at both the top and bottom faces of the foundation mat. However, stirrups with only 90 degree hooks at each end were provided by Westinghouse in the design for resisting shear.
Also, the flexural reinforcement is spaced at 6 inch centers in the area 1 of the bottom mat where shear reinforcement is required. Therefore, the provision of 135 degree hooks both top and bottom may not be practical for this basemat. The 6 ft thick basemat does not appear to be con-structable with the heavy reinforcements needed to meet the code.
The staff agreed to provide Westinghouse a position concerning the basemat as soon as possible.
Hiohliohts of Auaust 11 throuah 15 review: l Attachment 7 contains the handouts that Westinghouse provided during the week.
Attachment 8 contains the issues that the~ staff identified during its review, and Attachment 9 contains the SSAR markups that Westinghouse proposed to resolve the staff's issues.
One of the agenda items for the second week of the review was Westinghouse's justification of the design adequacy of the steel containment shell against the thermal shock due to post-72 hour actions. Although, the review was scheduled for the second week it was discussed during both weeks of the meeting. There were meetings on August 5, (see Attachment 4), and August 7 1997. Westinghouse provided information In response to those meetings during the second week. Attachment 10 contains a synopsis of the issue, the meeting participants, and the handouts provided by Westinghouse concerning the issue.
The staff agreed to review the Westinghouse material, and to determine if the material presented by Westinghouse resolves the issue.
An exit meeting was held with Westinghouse on August 15, 1997, to discuss the staff's significant concerns for the week of August 11 through 15. Brian McIntyre, Ed Cummins, and Rao Mandava of Westinghouse participated in the
1 A draft of this telecon summary was provided to Westir.ghouse to allow them the opportunity to comment on the summary prior to issuance.
1 Joseph M. Sebrosky, Project Manager Standardization Project Directorate Divisioil of Reactor Prcgram Management Office of Nuclear Reacter Regulation Docket No.52-003 Attachments: As stated 1 cc w/atts: See next page j I
DISTRIBUTION w/ attachments:
Docket File PDST R/F TKenyon PUBLIC BHuffman DTJackson JSebrosky GBagchi, 0-7 HIS Tcheng, 0-7 HIS RPichumani, 0-7 HIS BRothman, 0-7 HIS CMunson 0-7 HIS NChokshi, T-10 L1 RKenneally, T-10 L1 DISTRIBUTION w/o attachment:
SCollins/FMiraglia 0-12 G18 BSheron. 0-7 D25 RZimmerman, 0-12 G18 JRoe DMatthews TQuay WDean, 0-5 E23 ACRS (11) JMoore 0-15 B18 i
DOCUMENT NAME: A:S \
To ..i ... ,.ii4..i TRC.TRL
.i.... S.UMs co,, is.ui .c%i . . co , iin .ti.ch nu.neio.u,. u No eopy 0FFICE PM:PDST:DRPM 0: Ecrgd6, SCSBiM$pl\ D:PDST:DRPM NAME JMSebrosky:sg.b W GBufc'h i^ ~ JKudr W \ IRQuay DAfE v'/W/97 V T/M/97 4h'%/(TB I / /97 _
0FFICIAL REGERD*C00
Westinghouse Electric Corporation Docket No.52-003 cc: Mr. Nicholas J. Liparulo, Manager Mr. Frank A. Ross Nuclear Safety and Regulatory Analysis U.S. Department of Energy, NE-42 Nuclear and Advanced Technology Division Office of LWR Safety and Technology Westinghouse Electric Corporation 19901 Germantown Road P.O. Box 355 Germantown, MD 20874 Pittsburgh, PA 15230 Mr. Russ Bell Mr. B. A. McIntyre Senior Project Manager, Programs Advanced Plant Safety & Licensing Nuclear Energy Institute Westinghouse Electric Corporation 1776 I Street, NW Energy Systems Business Unit Suite 300 Box 355 Washington, DC 20006-3706 Pittsburgh, PA 15230 Ms. Lynn Connor Ms. Cindy L. Haag .
Doc-Search Associates l Advanced Plant Safety & Licensing Post Office Box 34 Westinghouse Electric Corporation Cabin John, MD 20818 Energy Systems Business Unit Box 355 Dr. Craig D. Sawyer, Manager Pittsburgh, PA 15230 Advanced Reactor Programs GE Nuclear Energy Mr. M. D. Beaumont 175 Curtner Avenue, b 754 Nuclear and Advanced Technology Division San Jose, CA 95125 Westinghouse Electric Corporation One Montrose Netro Mr. Robert H. Buchholz 11921 Rockville Pike GE Nuclear Energy Suite 350 175 Curtner Avenue, MC-781 Rockville, MD 20852 San Jose, CA 95125 l Mr. Sterling Franks Carton Z. Cowen, Esq.
U.S. Department of Energy Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott NE-50 600 Grant Street 42nd Floor 19901 Germantown Road Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Germantown, MD 20874 Mr. Ed Rodwell, Manager Mr. S. M. Modro PWR Design Certification Nuclear Systems Analysis Technologies Electric Power Research Institute Lockheed Idano Technologies Company 3412 Hillview Avenue Post Office Box 1625 Palo Alto, CA 94303 Idaho Falls, ID 83415 Mr. Charles Thompson, Niclear Engineer AP600 Certification NE-50 .
19901 Germantown Road Germantown, MD 20874
AP600 REVIEW OF STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF NUCl. EAR ISLAND STRUCTURES PARTICIPANTS DURING AUGU!T 4 THROUGH B, 1997 M DMIZATION DON LINDGREN WESTINGHOUSE RICHARD ORR WES11NGHOUSE RA0 MANDAVA* WESTINGHOUSE -
PAUL C. RIZZO* PAUL C. RIZZO ASSOCIATES i
(WESTINGHOUSE CONSULTAN1)
NISH VAIDYA* PAUL C. RIZZO ASSOCIATES I
GOUTAM BAGCHi* NRR/DE/ECGB
, TOM CHENG NRR/DE/ECGB l BOB ROTHMAN* NRR/DE/ECGB l RAMAN PICHUMANI* NRR/DE/ECGB
! CLIFF MUNSON* NRR/DE/ECGB i
C. J. COSTANTIN0* NRC CONSULTANT GUNNAR HARSTEAD* NRC CONSULTANT NILESH CHOKSHi* RES/DET/SGEB ROGER M. KENNEALLY RES/DET/SGEB TED QUAY
- NRR/DRPM/PDST JERRY WILS0r(* NRR/DRPM/PDST J0E SEBROSKY* NRR/DRPM/PDST PARTICIPANTS FOR AUGUST 11 THROUGH 15, 1997 M ORGANIZATION RICHARD ORR WESTINGHOUSE RA0 MANDAVA* WESTINGHOUSE BRIAN MCINTYRE* WESTINGHOUSE COUTAM BAGCHI* NRR/DE/ECGB TOM CHENG NRR/DE/ECGB SEUNG LEE
- NRR/DE/ECGB TOM TSAI NRC CONSULTANT LOWELL GREIMANN* NRC CONSULTANT FOUAD FANGUS* NRC CONSULTANT JOE SEBROSKY* NRR/DRPM/PDST
- PART TIME Attachment 1
_ - . - ~ . . . - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Agenda for the Final Review Meetino of Structural Deslan of AP600 Nuclear Island Structures Ditti August 4 through August 8, 1997 Tooics:
- 1. Review the construction sequence, possible interface problems and the generation of loads due to the construction sequence for the design of the foundation mat and lower elevation structures.
- 2. Review the site conditions (for example, uniform and non-uniform sites) and geotechnical related issues including the characterization of the soil stiffness variability with the foundation mat foot print.
) 3. Review the final design calculations of critical sections related to the foundation sat and exterior embedded walls.
- 4. Resolve issues identified from the review of SSAR revision changes, if any.
i i D11t1 August 11 through August 15, 1997 Tonics:
J
- 1. Review the model revision and new SASSI analysis changes due to post-72 hour actions, and live and(snow loads in theincorporation of
- seismic model and analysis results) of the nuclear island structures.
The staff review will also cover the adequacy of the site condition selected by Westingliouse for the new SASSI analysis.
- 2. Review the new 3D ANSYS analysis (modeling and results) of the shield building roef structures (including the PCCWST and fire tank). The staff review will also cover the adequacy of the revised model due to design changes of the increased water flow required for post-72 hour actions, and the incorporation of snow load in the 3D model.
- 3. Review Westinghouse's justification of the design adequacy of the steel containment shell against the thermal shock due to post-72 hour actions.
- 4. Review design calculations for critical sections of the auxiliary building and shield building roof structures (including the PCCWS tank).
- 5. Review the design of the fire protection system tank (FPST).
- 6. Resolve issues identified from the review of SSAR revision changes, if any.
- 7. Resolve open issues related to SSAR Sections 3.7.1, 3.7.2, 3.8.2 and 3.8.4.
Attachment 2 1
I i
f I
6 1
j Westinghouse Handouts l Provided During the Week of l
4 August 4 through August 8,1997.
i i
t k
i I,
I 4
I i,
t l Attachment 3
.j NUCLEAR ISLAND BASEMAT LJ l AGENDA -
i INTRODUCTION R.MANDAVA T.CHENG i
AGENDA AND RELATED AP600 DESIGN INFORMATION R.ORR i i
FOUNDATION SITE VARIABILITY P.C.RIZZO i
l 4
SITE FOUNDATION MATERIAL EVALUATION CRITERIA R.ORR i EFFECTS OF CONSTRUCTION SETTLEMENT '
l AND SCHEDULE P.C.RIZZO l
AUDITS OF DESIGN DOCUMENTS i .
l SEISMIC SITE PARAMETERS FC.. SHALLOW SOIL SITES i SSAR CHANGES OPEN ITEM STATUS
- EXIT DISCUSSION i
) 31eowenso-os/04/97 13
._- .- . _ _ - _. ~ . . . - - - - . - ._. . _ . _ _ _ _ _
L, .
[ AP600 structural analysis and design December 9-13,1995 '!
i- ,
- 2. Evaluation of soil variability on basemat response and design (OITS#769) i
- 3. Shallow soil site and site specific seismic input and acceptance criteria (OITS#628) i 5. Horizontal member forces in shear walls (OITS#767) i l 8. Type of stirruos to be used in the basemat slab (OITS#5029) l 10. The effects of construction related loads on basemat design (OITS#768) i
- 11. The effects of in-plane shear in the basemat design (OITS#5030) t
, t i 15. Design adequacy of 18-inch thick part of the baserr.at in the elevator pit (OITS#5032)
I i
i i sie m nsocem e
NRC Structural Meetings - August,1997 Week of August 4 to 8 - Nuclear Island Basemat I
NRC agenda AP600 Documents Remarks 1 Review the construebon sequence, possible 1000-X1-002, Rev 0 Summary report wasissued to NRC.
interface problems and the generation of loads due 1000-X1C-001, Rev 0 to the construction sequence for the design of the 1000-XCC-001, Rev 0 foundation mat and lower elevation structures OITS# 547,768,5232 2 Review the site condit;ons (for example, un4orm 1000-X1-001 Rev2 SSAR Chapter 2 markupissued and non-uniform sites) and geotechnical related 1010-CCC-009, Rev 0 issues includog the characterization of the soil + see item 3 below OITS# 769,5231 stiffness variability with the foundation mal footprint 3 Review the final design calculations of cntcal See attached table of nuclear sections related to the foundabon mat and exterior island basemat design documents embedded walls ' OITS# 767,5029,5030,5032 4 Resolve issucs idenbfied from the review of SSAR including SSAR Chapter 2 markup sent to revisions,if any NRC to be included in rev 15 5 Resolve open issues related to sections 2 5.4, Seismic site parameter - OITS# 628,5234 3.7.2 (SSI) and 3.8.5 Site investipi;on - OITS#5229,5230, Confirm closure of OITS# 549,649,762, 772,5233 i i
i I
3190wtrRSCMS/04/97 19
?
I
REFERENCES FOR NUCLEAR ISLAND 11ASEMAT Reference Document Number Number Revision Title Design Calculatiorts i 1010 CCC 001 A Concrete Slab El.vation 66' 6' - Nuclear Island Basemat 2 1010-CCC-001 1 Concrete Stab Elesation 66' 6' - Nuclear Island Basemat 3 1010 CCC 002 2 Basemat Reactions Considering Liftoff 4 1010 CCC 003 0 Nuclear Island Basemat - Asisymmetric Model for Pressure and Seismic Analyses 4
l 5 1010-CCC 004 0 Nuclear Island Basemat - Shell Versus Solid Model for 22 Foot Thick Portion Under Containment 6 1010 CCC 005 2 Design of 6 Foot / thick Area 7 1000 XI 002 0 Effects of Settlement and Construction Scheiule on the AP600 1000 XIC-001 0 Basemat 8 1010-CCC 007 0 Nuclear Island Subgrade Modulus Parametric Study 9 1010-CCC 008 0 Nuclear Island Basemat - Phasing of Seismic Responses 10 1000 XI-001 2 Foundation Interface Conditions fer Combined License Application for AP600 11 1010-CCC 009 0 Effect of Soil Variability on Basemat 12 1000 S2C 027 0 Study of Seismic Soil Pressure Distribution on Nuclear Island Structure 27 1200-CCC 107 1 Effect of Shear Walls on Basemat Behavior Design Drawings 13 1210-CC 121 3 Auxiliary Building - Concrete Floor Elevauon 66' 6' Areas 1
&2 14 1210-CC 341 2 Auxiliary Building - Concrete Roor Elevation 66' 6' Areas I 3&4 15 1210 CC 561 2 Auxiliary Building - Concrete Floor Elevation 66' 6' Areas 5&6 16 t il0 CC 121 1 Containment / Shield Building - Concrete Roor Elevation 66' 6' Areas I & 2 17 Il10-CC 341 1 Containment / Shield Building - Concrete Floor Elevation 66' 6' Areas 3 & 4 18 Il00-CC 901 1 Containment / Shield Building - Section A.A 19 1000-CR 001 3 Nuclear Island Basemat - Bottom Reinforcement 20 1000 CR 002 $ Nuclear Island Basemat -Top Reinforcement,6-foot thick Area and Center Region Below Shield Building 21 1000-CR 004 5 Nuclear Island Basemat - Top Reinforcement, Shield Building Area
-22 1000-CR 901 5 Nuclear Island Basemat - Reinforcement Sections
y, c .-
, Foundation subsurface variability Westinghouse agreed in meeting in June,1996 to define a site parameter related to soil variability.
SSAR markup was prepared for December 1996 meeting in. meeting in March 1996 it was agreed that specification of a site parameter on soil variability was a reasonable approach and that Westinghouse and NRC would schedule a meeting to address the structural issues related thereto.
Westinghouse has included this site parameter in the SSAR.
o a
31eoweRso-oemtw 11
4 %
Site Parameter for Foundation Soil Variability 1
Uniform site to a depth of 120 feet.
i Nonuniform sites within design certification i
Nonuniform sites with site specific subsurface evaluation included in COI.
l application rigid basemat analysis flexible basemat analysis f
i i
i
- t
l 1
yy l nm<
Site Parameter for Foundation Soil Variability 1
Nuclear Island basemat is analyzed on uniform soil springs. The analyses neglect benefit of side soils.
Reinforcement design of 6 foot thick basemat includes 20 percent margin to accommodate variability of subgrade modulus.
COL applicant requirement is included to demonstrate that foundation soil variability is within basemat design capability.
I Effect of soil variability on the coefficient of subgrade modulus must be within variability considered in design of.basemat.
~
rJ
\
o Site Foundation Material Evaluation Criteria
. For a site to be considered uniform, the variation of shear wave velocity in the material below the foundation to a depth of 120 feet below finished grade within the nuclear island footprint shall meet the criteria outlined below:
. For a rock site having consolidated natural material with an average zero strain shear wave velocity greater than or equal to 2500 feet per second at the ground surface, the layers should be approximately equal thickness, should have a dip no greater than 20 degrees, and the shear wave velocity at any location within any layer should not vary from the average velocity within the layer by more than 20 percent.
statwttrtsomoew I
p3 m oo o
Site Foundation Material Evaluation Criteria For a site to be considered uniform, the variation of shear wave velocity in the material below the foundation to a depth of 120 feet below finished grade within the nuclear island footprint shall meet the criteria outlined below:
For a soil site having consolidated natural material with an average zero stram l shear wave velocity less than 2500 feet per second at the ground surface, the !
iayers should be approximately equal thickness, should have a dip no greater than 20 degrees and the shear wave velocity at any location within any layer should not vary from the average velocity within the layer by more than 10 percent.
6 e
I 3131wbRSCMNVON97 2
a Site Foundation Material Evaluation Criteria Foundation conditions evaluated within design certification
. Sloping Bedrock Site i Sites where tile surface at the sloping bedrock surface is greater than 50 feet below finished grac'e within the nuclear island footprint.
. Undulatory Bedrock Site Sites where the undulatory rock surface is greater than 80 feet below finished grade within the nuclear island footprint.
. Geologically impacted Site Sites where the hard rock surface is greater than 120 feet below finished grade within the nuclear island footprint.
3Cowtr.ftSO-Oa94f97 3
~ . . . ~ . - . - . -. . _-. . . .. .- . - . . - .
r
- 2. Site Characteristics i
(
~
256' _
~
- l a
i I
.3
. n l i 117'-6*
93.,9 I
_"_ i i._1.
1 L 138' _'_ 11s' _l i
I
') tt 307 I
i 4
I l
- 0-W;E GRADE j i Et 13 i
EL 100 ,
khho'750 EL 60 l l
A.a UNtFORM SO'l LAYERS ] ' ,,, **~
4 Vs = 1200 TO 2500'/SEC
,,,-r, i l' g
SLCPING BEDROCK ,, *"' VARICUS ROCK I i SURFACE FORmTIOW vs = 3500'/SEC g Figure 2.5-2 Sloping Bedrock Site i
j ' J1 Revision: 13 May 30,1997 2-24 W
- Mdin@m
==
L_
- 2. Site Characteristics "'
E s
l 255' i
-- i
,b ,
117*-6" g ,
L '
1.
I
__ 13a' 118' _l 1
E_. 307 l
J EL 180 SITE GRADE i
EL 155 EL 100 s= 8 SOtt 1200 y/SEC EL 60 I A i
' Vs = 2000*/SEC
= W1 : c Wl: ACTUAL ROCK l (TYP.) (TYP.) p SURTACE h [ T ./ '1 / h d2 LN } N ) , N )
Vs = 3500*/SEC IDEALIZED ROCK
, enorwr conen r g Figure 2.5-3 Undulating Bedrock Site U _
Revision: 13 y Westinghouse 2 25 May 30,1997
G i
L 255" l
, c
. T 11 T- 6" h i v , y 138' '1 b
!= =
- Et J07 l
a 1
SITE GRADE EL 155 EL 100 i khho'fSECEL 60 f
il I /
e 1 I l e7 Rt w2 'I L
! I R2 R3 i l 'i NOTES:
- 1. roR Casts 2A THRoucw 20. R2 is A BRtecaTro sw AR ZLN! (vtRTicAL). f f
- 2. FOR CASES 2E 90 2r. R215 AN INTRUSivt D*t (VERTICAL).
Figure 2.5-4 Geologically Impacted Site Revision: 13 May 30,1997 2 26 y ggg
p.3 A Ph 0 ri Site-Specific Subsurface Uniformity Design Basis
' Design basis provide a clear specification of the design commitment and evaluation criteria required to demonstrate that a site specific application satisfies AP600 requirements.
~
Application of the AP600 to sites using this site-specific evaluation is not approved as part of the AP600 design certification and the evaluation should be provided and reviewed as part of the Combined License 3191wbRSCHwors7 4 t
yn AP60
- 1. Site-Specific Subsurface Uniformity Design Basis Rigid Basemat Evaluation A site with nonuniform soil properties may be demonstrated to be acceptable by evaluation of the bearing pressures on the underside of a rigid rectangular basemat equivalent to the nuclear island. Bearing pressures are calculated for dead and safe shutdown earthquake loads.
The safe shutdown earthquake loads used -for the evaluation are associ_ded with one of the AP600 design soil cases evaluated for design '
certification. The soil case representative of the site-specific soil is used.
Alternatively, the safe shutdown earthquake loads may be determined from a site-specific seismic analysis of the nuclear island using site specific inputs.
For the site to be acceptable, the bearing pressures from the site specific analyses need to be less than or equal to 120 percent of the bearing pressures calculated in rigid basemat analyses using the AP600 design ground motion at a site having uniform soil properties.
31ts0*b R3008to4s7 5
y ,;
a vvv.
Site-Specific Subsurface Uniformity Design Basis
' Flexible Basemat Evaluation A site-specific analysis may be performed using the AP600 basemat model and methodology described in subsection 3.8.5.
The safe shutdown earthquake loads are those from the AP600 design soil case representative of the site-specific soil.
Alternatively, bearing pressures may be determined from a site-specific soil structure interaction analysis using site specific inputs- .
For the site to be acceptable the bearing pressures from the site-specific analyses need to be less than the capacity of each portion of the basemat. .
I S139 min PRheOFrM97 i
i
. IIIRBiiEV Foundation Interface Conditions
- Westinghouse AP600 Prepared by Paul C. Rizzo Associates i
b
..6'
IRRRAMillF Staff Position: (January 31,1997 Letter)
! w Basemat needs to be designed so that it can be located at sites with a full range of conditions of soil stiffness variability.
- e During Construction phase, structural cracking of the Basemat can occur unless the Basemat is constructed following a precise sequence.
I119BlllllF OurInterpretation of the issues l
w What is Reasonable Soil Stiffness Variability and how do we define the site parameters to identify sites outside the range.
w What are the Basemat stresses resulting during l construction and how.are these affected by the construction sequence.
t j . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- NfMIElilF i
Standard Design Requirements l For Foundations ,
e Allowable Bearing Pressure > 8,0C0 psf i e Shear Wave Velocity > 1,000 ft/sec
- e Site must satisfy 10CFR 100 Criteria
i I111BlllllF Foundation Considerations in Standard Design e Seismic Response and Soil Structure Interaction (W) e Foundation Analysis for Operating Loads (W) e Subgrade Modulus (R)
I e Guidelines for Site Investigations (R}
e Independent Assessment of Foundation Mat (R)
/ Settlements ;
- / Construction Sequence
- / Soil Conditions
EE M EIElilF Foundation Media 22 Site Specific Profiles e '11 sites with shallow rock e 11 sites with soil profiles
/ Depth to rock--50 ft to 4,000 ft
/ All marine, deltaic or lacustrine
/ No lateral variation within footprint (except possibly Monticello}
1 5 -
..M
IIBRAElliEF Foundation Media Types
- i e Rock Sites (Vs > 2,500 ft/sec)
- e Soft to Medium Soil Sites (1,200 fps <
Vs < 2,500 fps) e Soft Soil Sites (1,000 fps < VS < 1,200 fps)
IIIRBillllV Uniform Site i
e No significant lateral variation in the basic soil properties beneath the foundation footprint e For a " Uniform" site, no special modeling is j required and response will be within the AP600 i
envelope.
e Captures 85% of potential AP600 sites in the eastern U.S.
I111BlEllllF Two Basic Questions e What is a " Uniform Site"? ;
i e Under what conditions can a "Non-Uniform" Site be compliant with the I AP600 Design Requirements?
i i
\
4 R111BlllllF ,
4 Uniform Site Criteria l
e Acceptable Vs Variation depends on media type e Dip equal to or less than 20 degrees is
" horizontal"--applies to both interfaces (NUREG CR-0693) .
.i i
l . . . . . . . . . ..... . .
11118illlIV Non-Uniform Compliant Sites e Sloping Bedrock Site
/ Typical Riverfront Site '
e Geologically impacted Site
/ Abrupt Facies Change l :
l / Shear Zone or Intrusive Dike t l e Undulatory Bedrock Site
/ Erosion Surface i
/ Differential Weathering or Soft Zones i
_l ENMIEliF Geotechnical Site Investigations e Goals
/ Fulfill Appendix A Requirements
/ Show Compliance with In1:erface Criteria e Perform Site Investigation in accordance with R.G.1.132 and 1.138 l
1
- s
IIIIBallIV 1 l
Geotechnical Site Investigations e Objectives
/ Define type of site (rock, soft to medium, etc.),
i 1 / Establish uniformity, or
/ Define non-uniform site conditions
= cover footprint + 40 feet beyond borings on a grid of 10 to 40 feet
=
18114!Mlllll7 Independent Foundation Mat Assessment e Selected Subsurface Prof!'es (2 Limitin.q Soil Conditions) e Controlling Construction Sequences
- Estimate:
l
/ Settlement Potential
/ Differential Displacements
- / Associated Moments anc! Shears in the Mat at Various Stages of Construction i e Assess the Moments and Shears Vs. Capacity t
-h- M e.EAC h Wh,M MM h 6 h e hh45ata-INm.M-NE-Sh-NNE-'- - - '-MW45-%h'WNmb WE-Nh= M A E Am-m=E*r.N-#"-4AM Ma Wo w m ' h h h hh"w--MW L NE mei-I EENi!!Ei!F p f~'N s s
O f-
's
/
s
.____-----h-___/
t O ALTERNATING SAND AND g CLAY LAYERS SITE l l l --
ELASTIC HALFSPACE PROFILE 1 1
i
l
- i
/
/
l f
i
/
/
/
h
/
8 '
\
/
f c
ty, m I r
,~ ,
4/
/
/ - , s. 4 f
/ '
' 's
~
x /,
0 4
Q jlf
/
l I
l l
- C. Os /
s z *O. Opp
/
l
/
/
j'I l
/ .
1
EffMalilF -
i Construction Schedules i ,
e Base Construction Sequence e Delayed Shield Building Construction i
e Delayed Auxiliary Building Construction 1 ;
i f
l , .
i
IIIIBMillil l
Base Construction Schedule l
lD Task Name 1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 ' 41 46 1 DEWATERNG -
\
i .. . . _ - _ . . _ _ _ . . . . . _ . .
! 2 EXCAVATON .
g l
3 RICE SI553[FOi)NDAiiON MWI
~
4 SET PEDESiAL ANDCRADLE l REBAR -. . . . . .. -
CONSTRU.CTION TO 100 FT.
CONSTRUCTON TO 1M p. _ _ _ _ _
'< i) (2) i 7 AUXLIARY BULDNG TO 135 FT. g . .
g
~ ~
m 8 SHIELD BULDNG TO 135 FT ]' g I
(1) Shield Building Concrr e to 84'.
(2) Stop Dewatering.
(3) Auxiliary Building Corstruction to 11T-6*.
t i
E % . ' 6 !
- i ,
W IliRAEllEiB Imposed Loading From Construction Activities
% 4 DtJRATION O F CONSTRtCYlON 3
I CONSTRtCTION10 B.135* SIIIp3D BtMtJMNC 2 10 s.2w CO N5TRtCTION TO W. IW g BEIN BASBtAT rL 2
e
.I
% I!ND DEW ATBt19G 2'
EXCAVAD N
.)
10 -TIME (WEEKS) im B
B
. ... . . N .. . ..
t HMM ;
i Input Settlement Analysis Soil Conditions --+ Compute Elastic . . . . _
Construction Sequence Def anation and l Consolidation Potential Foundation Loads at 11 Profile Points r c Compute Equivalent Soil Compliance Independent Foundation Mat Foundadon/
Structure Analysis Assessment Compute Foundation l OverallMethodology Bearing Pressures ,
v j Compute Deflections, Moments and Shears i t
e ~ .
t
/
l l .
I
/
(,
/ g,g s
i) / , s /
' dt g .
+ '
/.
/ j /, /
-r* -i - w w-- - c - --r-----m-4
i i EEEEJElliEF - 4' , 4 ! Displacement Contours - Sand and Clay Site L 1 Base Construction Schedule Disp!atemeni z ' O 23 in r j H o3 ;n { 0.30 in i 0.34 in ~ < 02 f , ./ T,_ .QN,-.s 's 'k\ 4 0.46 in , j 0.49 in ~/ .- - I 0.54 in ' } j f
. N( ;
/i, // s s f 7 ,- _, , s '
/ ,- ,
. i g
}
a
/ ,
\ ,
~
1 g / s ,
\ ( l. / / l l #g - ~ ~_ -
- , ,/ j
.g -
. - ~ - .__
I Auxiliary Buildog Walls to 824' (no stifress), CV Head and Pedestal i t 2 - '
'*9 f . .
E E N E l E lil F Displacement Contours - Sand and Clay Site Base Construction Schedule Dispiatement
" # 8 '"
[ H 0.61 in 0.77 in 0.9 2 in 1.4 0 in # 1.ss in 1.72 in
/ \\
\ !
, i / )
\\ \
s
's x .
/
~
/
/
/ l
\. y
\
N -
/
,f f
' ., x'N_
Y \
, /- ,
( .\ N. . -
.y'
,/
, , l Auxiliary Buildog Walls to 100'(Stiff to 82.5*)
Shield Buildog Concrete to 84* (Stiff to 76*) - I
~ ' IllRDmilliiW 1 Displacement Contours - Sand and Clay Site Base Construction Schedule
. Disp lacernent ,
2 OA 8 " i H 024 in 0.32 in ] - 0.42 in m
. L 0 68 h o 77 n
\g kI
/
l i k i : i
/
! \ t
-s \\ !
l 'g \ \ / / / j \
' \ ,_
e , j \ 'N '..
, / /-
y \ x N~ j' - t j J
,'m ~,,'
\ ~. -f / l j , x ._
, j l 17 N __ / / '
i i j l Auxiliary and Shield Buikh,gs Constructed and j l Stiff to100', End Dewatenno
- m. - ... _.- _ . _ . . . _ . _ . _ . . - _ _ . - - - _ _ _ . _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _
l i l 4 i 1 l 4 l 1111Bllllll1 .." .- . - - :-' - , _ . . -
-- , i.' -
i Y ^ '
~
~
. l
.- +
{ re. ,- - L, . < _- , - e g. '.-. ,.., , i
, ' 3,%S .. a .fd~- 1,':s.,.-gg
-g fv g.. 4~ :.**
- 3,,
..4 , ,
%3h:
- - - - - u.2'--e,.',. .
J4.. . . _ , . sg~; k4, n. u- 4: <
. ;. c . n '. , - ..
l *
-.+'. + ~ . ~ . .f . ~
~ -9 +fy? icesn .
4,, > .. , . . l .-1A. '
~-
_ .. + " ' ' - a ,- . . i, .-;- .
..A . -
2 DURATION OF CON 5'fMUCTION i D l DEDIN ER$9E AT CetTBt OF SOUTH AUK. BLDG. ,' O - I OC DEWAigtsc i ^ 1 l ! E l
= CONSTRUCTION TO EL.135" l
NA l [ 2 ! [ FOUN[MTION SETTLEMetr y C9(TER OF NORTH AUK. BLDil
- i
. 4 i l 4 ___.,T i ! C98TBt OF CONTAINWr3tf N ERNLDNQ i TO EL 24r i i i j 10 IN 1 Tla8E (WEEKS) i 4 i
O EEEEJElillilr Foundation Settlements Due to imposed Loading from Construction Activities Clay-Only Site - Base Construction Schedule 3.00 DURATK)N OF JONSTRUCTR)N p < s BEON HASEM AT END DEW ATER NO
- Q 7 w.,,
'N CONSTRUCTN)N TO FL 3 35* .
~
h
-3.00 FOUNDATK*N SETTtJNENT CENTER OF SOUTil AUL HtDG.
dJ -6.00 g [ FOUNDATR)N SETTOWENT \ M CENTER OF NOR Til ADE BIDO
\
-9.00 '
~
\ -
\,
. ' . 00 - , \
FOUNDATK)N SETTIEMENT _ CENTER OF CONTANMENT g Sitt ID RUEDNG TO El 2 4 6*
-15.00 10 100
IIII M illV Maximum Positive Moment - Sand and Clay Site Base Construction Schedule i TIME (WEEMS) 18 22 25 LOCAT10Nf8 SHIELD BUILDING Outer Ring 77 / >260 1772 / 2642 4229 / 4938 East wt centerine or SB @ colurm Ene K I intermediate Ring 94 / >260 2600 / 2642 2583 / 2642 East west cenxaims SB g colurm Ene L i inner Ring 82 / >260 417 / 1254 434 / 1254 East west centerine of sa e coeurm sne u
- AUMLIARY BUILDINGS i South Aux. 73 / 1851 503 / 1851 123 / 1851 werface of SB @ coturm line K-2 i
I North Aux. 50 / 1851 739 / 1851 227 / 1851 hrerface or ss e co!urmiine u RED = DEMAND, BLACK = CAPACITY I UNITS ARE KIP-FT PER FT i I i
t
#EEEE!Eilir Maximum Positive Moment - Clay-Only Site Base Construction Schedule TIME (WEEMS) 18 22 25 LOCATIONA SHELD BUILDING i
Outer Ring 23 / >260 994 / 2642 2798 / 4938 East West Centertne or sa g cokmn une J ! intermediate Ring 42 / >260 1657 / 2642 1780 / 2642 East West Centerine of SB e colurm Ene K-2 4
- inner Ring 14 / >260 276 / 1254 301 / 1254 Eat West Centerine of S8 e cm line M AUXILIARY BUILDINGS l South Aux. 46 / 1851 202 / 1851 79 / 1851 hierface of S8 g cohnm rne 5 and K-2 North Aux. 34 / 1851 345 / 1851 106 / 1851 keerface or se e coeurmline M RED = DEMAND, BLACK = CAPACITY UNITS AREKIP-FTPERFT
- i,
IIIIBilillF Foundation Settlements Due to l Imposed Loading from Construction Activities l Alternating Sand and Clay Site - Delayed Shield Building \ 1.00 FotNIMTNN SFin.EMINr GNTER W SOUril AUX HLDG g 0.00 y FamnarxwserrtrMLwr o ctNrER OF NLRDi AUX IE.IX) d a _1.00 - -
! ramtwixwserTtaewr
/
LM OF GwIANMINT
-2.00 TIME (WEEKS) h
1 . I i NEfi!!Eil!F l Maximum Positive Moment - Sand and Clay Site - j Delayed Shield Building i j TIME (WEEMS) 22 25 36 LOCATIONA ! SHIELD BUILDING j Outer Ring 68 / >260 63 / >260 54 / >260 South East SB @ cokmn Ine 5 l ) Intermediate Rang 75 / >260 66 / >260 43 / >260 South East SB @ cokum Ene 5 i i inner Ring 58 / >260 42 / >260 N/A / >260 Nor1h Sout Centertne of SB @ colunn Ene 7 AUXILIARY BUILDINGS l South Aux. 75 / 1851 72 / 1851 132 / 1851 Center of SAB @ cokum Ine J2 1 1 North Aux. 84 / 1851 11 / 1851 200 / 1851 Center of MB @ cokum Ene L RED = DEMAND, BLACK = CAPACITY UNTTS ARE KIP-FT PER FT
IIIIBililiF Foundation Settlements Due to
- imposed Loading from Construction Activities l Alternating Sand and Clay Site - Delayed Auxiliary Building j 1.00 FOLNDATMM SETTLEMNr CDJTTR M SOtJGI AUX BtDG Bir,IN CONSTRtK.TKW FOUNDATNESETTLEMENT U CENTER OF NORTil AUX DLDG b
l ~ d
~
I -1.00 ! b m = anstwTmw smuuEm CDJTER G C(NTAINMENT
-2.00 l 10 100 TIME (WEEKS) i t
i !ERIIBalllE , Maximum Positive Moment - Sand and Clay Site - Delayed Auxiliary Building TIME (WEEMS) 22 25 LOCATKWm l SHIELD BUILDING j Outer Ring 1983 / 2642 3735 / 4938 East West Centerline d SB @ coluim line K intermediate Ring / 2642 2158 / . 2642 2914 Bst West Centerline of SB @ coluim line L l inner Ring 464 / 1254 351 / 1254 East West Centerline of SB @ column line M AUXILIARY BUILDINGS l South Aux. 591 / 1851 715 / 1851 hterface of SB @ colurm line N a i North Aux. 677 / 1851 844 / 1851 hierface of SB @ colurm line M i I
- RED = MMND, BUCK = CmCHY
} UNITS ARE KIP-FT PER FT l l 4 1 1 1
4 IIIIBBiiEF i l Results e Base construction schedule does not challenge ! the foundation mat beyond its allowable capacity. I e in the delayed Shield Building scenario, the l auxiliary building walls can be constructed to El. . ! 117' ) e in the delayed Auxiliary Building scenario, the l Shield Building concrete can be placed to El. 82'-6". i
IIIIBilillV . Conclusions se AP60C Mat Design is adequate for practically all eastern U.S. Soil Sites and, within defined limits, can tolerate major variations in construction sequence.
COMBINATION OF St-I I LEMENT INDUCED LOADS WITH OTHER LOADS , NORTH AUXILIARY BUILDING AT FACE OF SHIELD BUILDING r Construction loads durina basemat construction Maximum longitudinal moment during construction occurs for the construction sequence with de!ay in the auxiliary building. i Construction is stopped at 25 weeks when the containment area is constructed to elevation 534' and no walls have been constructed above the basemat in the auxiliary building. ; construction moment = 844 kip.ft/ft. design strength = $ Mn = 1279 kip-ftMt buring pressures =3 ksf below shield building
= 1.4 ksf below the north auxiliary building.
When construction restarts, shear walls in the auxiliary building are constructed. The weight of this construction in the auxiliary building reduces the moment in the basemat at the face of the shield building. However, assume that the strain corresponding to a moment of 844 kip-ft/ft is locked in.
.,_ n--.- ~ - --- - --u- -
a .. O OGG G G G e
~ + Js ~ ~+ ei "A y - A di '
- 4. J(
35 44,
~
.Y6 +4 4J +4 4J
~
4I M
- 11
@ , .9._,.9._._.9...._._....,---- .
g i I i 1 i i i j k *
'4 i .
l l k I I I I i I l l , I I I j i
.k... .I. .gl l 1 I I
}
@. M !
I ( I l i lb l l l U l A. ! l. i. d 6' d. f i I i 1 1 - I j @ -
#8 rr 1
- [ l r
t i g
/ ' .
! i !
l
- I i i i g
i l l } '.<.- .dy . d @ l F 9 1. j 6 &
. l L t 1
I C
' 1 I' 9.
i f . . . . . q. . .4 . . .IN ,', .... 7 . . . . .. . . .
^
.. ,i g i . u _ag. p . . s. a i , i 4 l 9
l e
. e I l
Al . I e l 1 l l l k l . j j k. l i i
, 1 i ... J ..a ,
7 a
\- n
.'! q,p * = * * * = *- - - j
[ h I h si C t
' '- 4 it l P, -
;l l
, , t. !. : i
- m. 8
. b l l
~ ~
eU .N l at ( I i 1 i
/'g n i
d . -j . _ i i i _.g et I I
-ta l
i ! Je ! i
* . t l
I 2 h "l '
. ei-._3.-. ._.L. 4. ' ._ ]._._.4 =
l
+4 +l* AJ~
~.5 4T
~ '
- 4 ..e4 .4 . 44 .9 .94 .9 44
+49 O@ (D @ @ G s
_ m
COMBINATION OF St- 1 I LEMENT INDUCED LOADS WITH OTHER LOADS NORTH AUXILIARY BUILDING AT FACE OF SHIELD BUILDING Construction loads after basemat construction As construction continues bearing pressures on the underside of the basemat increase. The increase in loads is resisted by two way action of the basemat (bay M-P,9-11). This will increase moments at the shield building support. Finite element analyses of the 6' basemat in bay M-P, 9-11 assuming fixed boundary conditions shows that the moment at the shield building due to a unit 1.0 ksf bearing pressure is 13.8 kip.ft/ft. The bearing pressures below this bay for full dead load is about 6 ksf. Thus the bearing reactions increase by 4.6 ksf during the later construction stages. This results in an increase ir mnt of 4.6 x 13.8 = 63.6 kip ft#t. The total moment is 908 kip.ft/ft. i i i SSE loads The SSE results in a maximum bearing pressure of 14 ksf at the outside edge of the bay. This would increase the moment at the shield building by a further 14 x 13.8 = 193 kip-ft/ft, giving a total moment of 1101 kip-ft/ft. This is within the design strength of the section. l L -
=
- COMBINATION OF St-I I LEMENT INDUCED LOADS WITH OTHER LOADS i
i l' NORTH AUXILIARY BUILDING AT FACE OF SHIELD BUILDING i i l' Desian of basemat l Bay M-P, 9-11 is rectangular with a length in the north south direction about 2.5 times its width. The design considers the bay as a one way slab spanning in the east-west l direction. Reinforcement is sized for the bearing pressures associated with the full dead j load (6 ksf) and the SSE (14 ksf). Moments and shears in the east west direction are primary and are not significantly
- l affected by settlement during construction. Member forces induced during the early stages - ,
l .ofcons truc on ti are par ot f the member forces calculated for dead load in the final ' ! configuration. i i Reinforcement in the north south direction in the final configuration is provided for crack l control. i l i
P COMBINATION OF St- 1 I LEMENT INDUCED LOADS WITH OTHER LOADS NORTH ' AUXILIARY BUILDING AT FACE OF SHIELD BUILDING Summary The strength of the basemat to resist bearing pressures is provided by the reinforcement in the east west direction and is not affected by the " locked in" strains due to early stages of construction. In the north south direction in the final configuration only nominal reinfo cement is required to control cracking. Reinforcement is provided for loads during early stages of construction. Evaluation of this reinforcement shows that the member forces remain within the capacity of the section.
TABLE 1 COMPARISON OF SETTLEMENTS FIRST LAYER VOID RATIO = 0.43 VS 0.7 e0 m .43 e0 m .7 week elastic consolid total elastic consolid total On) (in) On) tin) On) On) 13 3.72 11.04 14.76 3.72 10.51 14 23 25 5.04 12.24 17.28 5.04 11.7 16.74 diff(2513) 1.32 1.2 2.52 1.32 1.19 2.51 1 TABLE 2 -
~
CONTRIB'JTION OF LAYER 1 TO TOTAL SURFACE DISPLACEMENT total layer 1 layer 1 TYPE + sand On)l On)l On) elastic 1.32 0.187 0.442 consolid 1.2 0.347 0.347 This calculation evaluates the effect on the surface settlements of the inidal void ratio assumed for the clay layer immediately underlying the foundadon mat. The results reported in the SSAR are based a void nuo of 0.43. For clays with a shear wave velocity of about 1000 feet per second. the void ratio could be h8gher, perhaps on the order of 0.7. Settlement calculations for the load steps from week 13 to week 25 were repeated changing the void ratio to 0.7. This duration was chosen because the critical construction induced foundation mat stresses occur during this period. The above Table presents the clastic, consolidation and total settlements under the center of the Shield Building for two cases of the void ratio at week 13 and week 25. The difference in the settlements at these time points results in moments and shears in the fout.dation mat. A larger void rado results in larger settlements as well as heave. The calculadons show that during this period of construction. the difference between the two cases is relatively small. Therefore, the effects on the resulting moments and shears is also expected to be small. Table 2 shows the contribution to the total surface settlements from the first clay layer beneath the foundation mat and the contribution of the underlying sand layer. The Table shows that the contribution of the clastic settlement is significant compared to the contribution from the consolidation settlement. This, in part, tempers the effects of the void ratio on the surface settlements.
% HEN S/'h?
e Staff Issues identified During the Week of August 4 through August 8,1997. l Attachment 4
August 4,1997 Action item, from Structural Design Review Meeting Westinnhouse Action Itenst
- 1) Delete wording at top of page 2-11 on dynamic loading
- 2) Remove the term " rock" from definition and remove the term "zero" strain and replace the latter with " low" l
- 3) Explicitly state that dewatering will not be turned off until all walls are at the 100 foot elevation.
- 4) Writeup a proposal to obtain preliminary agreement on approach for
" shallow soils sites." Include the follow' ng:
a) Site conditions for certified design (e.g., V, > 1000 feet /sec, depth > 120 feet) b) Certified design spectra of SSAR Figures 3.7.1-1 and 3.7.1-2 c) Site specific soil amplification study (convolution up) d) Comparison to show adequacy
- free field at grade
- free field at forindation level
- 5) For Section 2.5.2.2 revise NRC markup of July 31, 1997, as follows:
a) Remove comparison at location at top of basemat at elevation 66.5 feet, b) Retain all other locations included in the markup. NRC Action Items:
- 1) Review 0.43 void fraction number for clay soils assuming a shear wave velocity of greater than 1000 ft/sec Discussion Items:
- 1) Look at site foundation elevation criteria and Goutam's concern that the criteria will " average out" problems with the soil.
- 2) Sloping bedrock and undulating bedrock site submittal from Westinghouse is unacceptable to the staff.
- 3) NRC position concerning loads is that dead load + construction loads +
seismic loads should be combined. Westinghouse's analyses used dead loads + seismic loads.
l i . August 5, 1997 Action Items from Structural Design Review Heeting i Westinnhouse Action Items:
' 1) Redistribution of neaative momein Westinghouse will revise SSAR Section 3.8.5.4.4 to clarify that redistribution is limited to 20 percent of 6he negative moment.
- 2) A meeting was held with Jack Kudrick to discuss concerns with rivulets of water from the Passive Containment Cooling System (PCCS) leading to stresses in the containment. Westinghouse took the following actions prior to discussing the issue again on July 7, 1997:
a) Identify where the stress concentrations are the worse and identify the thermal hydraulic code that was used to arrive at the answer. b) Specify how the width of the stripes was determined for the analysis. 4 Does the meridional temperature distribution cause worse conditions for the containment shell buckling? c) Specify what the water profile is for the containment shell. d) Specify the critical time for the peak stress (i.e., does the peak stress occur early or late after PCCS initiation). NRC Action Items:
- 1) An issue arose during a discussion of thermal shock to the shell from PCCS initiation after a severe accident. However, the staff needs to determine if Westinghouse should consider the effects a preexisting flaw in the containment would have on the fracture toughness of the contain-ment after the PCCS is initiated.
Discussion Items:
- 1) Stirruos with Seismic Hooks: In the SSAR Westinghouse commits to ACI-31I Cha1ter 21, which states that stirrups should be provided with 135 eg ee hoo(s at the top and bottom. Westinghouse does not meet this comniteent with their current design.
- 2) Deep Flexural Member: The ratio of span to depth is such that the basemat and walls shall be considered as deep flexural members. The code (ACI-349-85) requires that the critical section for shear is only 0.15 times the span length from the support edge. Westinghouse does not meet this requirement with their current design. Westinghouse needs to consider parabolic shear decay to account for soil stiffness variation.
August 6, 1997. Action Items from Structural Design Review Meeting ; Westinnhouse Action Items:
- 1) Westinghouse will develop response spectra at the foundation level in the free field for the horizontal and vertical directions that will be used i to compare against the site specific soil amplification study results by the COL applicant.
1
- 2) Westinghouse will Revise 2.5.4.5.3.1 to address the following issue: l l
a) The staff's concern with Westinghouse's statement that the site l specific bearing pressures need to be less that 120 percent of bearing pressures calculated for unifom soil properties.
- 3) The staff is concerned that site uniformity is currently defined by acceptence limits or bearing pressure only. The effect of site charac-teristics on SSI response must also be evaluated when site non-uniformity is taken into account.
- 4) Fix the reference in SSAR Stction 3.8.5.5.1 to Section 2.5.4.7. SSAR Section 2.5.4.7 does not exist and the correct referened should be 2.5.4.6.
- 5) Develop a course of action for addressing the staff's concern with calculations (See NRC action items).
- 6) Westinghouse Action Item on Construction Induced inads:
Effect of construction settlements on developed moments and shears in the NI can be suitably accounted for by using the following procedure:
- a. Obtain output at critical locations on the NI from the following load cases: (a) PCRA Case 1 (Deep Clay Site), (b) PCRA Case 2 (Sand / Clay Site), (c) Simplified INITEC Winkler spring models;
- b. Obtain maximum values of stress resultants at each critical location from all cases in Item 1. This list of maximum values is then considered as the resultant Dead Load Stress solution;
- c. The DL stress solution is then to be combined with all other solu-tions to obtain stress resultants satisfying the various load case requirements. For each load case, the list represents the elastic demand on the NI;
- d. The elastic demand is then to be com)ared with the section capacities to judge adequacy of the design of tie NI.
l l l
- e. Pressures calculated in PCRA analyses are appropriate. Calculation of stress resultants in FEM may be questionable where element discretization is coarse. Pressures can be used in calculations to reassess moment and shears.
MRC Action items:
- 1) Continue reviewing calculation and develop a list of concerns with the l calculations.
Summary of resolution of Westinghouse Action Items Date and Westing- Status Applicable house Action item OITS num-Number ber 8/4/97,1 Confirm W 8/7/97 letter from Westinghouse N/A - new (NSD-NRC-97-5762) issue 8/4/97,2 Confirm W. 8/7/97 letter from Westinghouse 5231 (NSD-NRC-97-5702) 8/4/97, 3 Closed, SSAR revision 15 sect 3.8.5.4.3 5232 8/4/97,4 Confirm W, 8/7/97 letter from Westinghouse 5235 (NSD-NRC-97-5762) 8/4/97,5 Confirm W, 8/7/9/7 letter from Westing- 5234 house (NSD-NRC-97-5262) 8/5/97,1 Confirm W (Attachment 5 page 3.8-60) N/A - new issue 8/5/97, 2 Action N, See Attachment 10 writeup of the N/A issue 8/6/97, 1 Action W 5233 8/6/97,2 Confirm W 8/7/97 letter from Westinghouse N/A - new (NSD-NRC-97-5762) issue 8/6/97,3 Confirm W, 8/7/97 letter from Westinghouse 5233 (NSD-NRC-97-5762) 8/6/97,4 Confirm W (Attachment 5page3.8-61) N/A - new issue i
Date and Westing- Status Applicable house Action Item OITS num-Number ber 8/6/97,5 Resolved, All of the staff's questions N/A concerning Westinghouse's calculations were resolved prior to the end of the mee-f.ing 8/6/97,6 Action W. Westinghouse will consider the 768 staff's procedure to address the effects of combining construction loads in the basemat in selected locations and provide the results to the NRC. Summary of resolution of NRC action and Discussion items DATE and Issue Status Applicable Number OITS number 8/4/97,NRC Resolved, Based on further information the N/A - new Action item I staff finds the basis for Westinghouse issue using a 0.43 void fraction number accept-able 8/4/97, Discus- Confirm W, 8/7/97 letter from Westinghouse N/A - new sion Item 1 (NSD-NRC-97-5762) issue 8/4/97, Discus- Confirm W 8/7/97 letter from Wastinghouse 5231 sion Item 2 (NSD-NRC-97-5762) 8/4/97, Discus- Action W. See Westinghouse Action item 6 768 sion Item 3 from 8/6/97 8/5/97, NRC Action N See Westinghouse Action item 2 N/A Action Item 1 from 8/5/97 and Attachment 10 , 8/5/97 Discus- Action W and N, See major issue 2 under 5029 sion Item 1 the design of the basemat in the cover letter 8/5/97, Action W and N, See major issue 1 under N/A - new Discussion Item the design of the basemat in the cover issue 2 letter. 8/6/97,NRC Resolved, All of the staff's questions N/A Action item 1 concerning Westinghouse's calculations were resolved prior to the end of the mee-ting
i l 1 Standard Safety Analysis Report Markups Provided During the Week of August 4 through August 8,1997. . Attachment 5
- 3. Desigi of Structures, ComponcID, Eqdpme:t, and Systems Table 3.7.218 (Sheet 4 of 4)
COh1PARISON OF hfAXIhiUh1 hiEMBER FORCES DUE TO TIME IllSTORY (TH) AND RESPONSE SPECTRUM (RSA) ANALYSES CONTAINhiENT INTERNAL STRUCTURES HARD ROCK CONDITION Maximum Forces (x103 Kips) Elevation A:lal N S Shear E.W Shear (ft) TH RSA TH RSA TH RSA Above Elevation 135.25', West 50 Compartment , 158.00 0.02 0.05 0.16 0.16 0.13 0.15 153.56 0.02 0.05 0.28 0.29 0.22 0.28
^
148.00
,g 0.03 0.24 0.81 0.81 0.65 0.76 135.25 Above Elevation 135.25', East 50 Compartment 148.00 0.03 0.13 0.31 0.31 0.24 0.27 135.25 Below Elevation 135.25' 135.25 0.32 1.99 6.14 5.73 6.09 5,98 121.50 0.32 1.99 6.24 5.83 6.16 6.07 107.17 0.67 4.07 7.30 7.02 6.34 6.90 103.00 .
0.86 6.55 7.35 7.65 6.37 7.54 100.00 I I Note: I Time history analyses consider vibration modes up to 33 Hertt. Response spectmm analyses combine vibration I modes up to 33 Hem by double sum method and add high frequency etiects. (See subsection 3.7.2.7.) Revision' RW If
'A 9,1996 3.7 108 3 Westinghouse
3., Design,9f Strvetures Compo::etts, Equiproe::t, and Systems l 1
- s.s , , , . ,AP600
, , .31(* Df31GN RCSP0ntt SPICtt A, $f 0.m p :*a.
, , ...>> - - ==1 =
-- ei;;p,g w r= ...4
*f. Y4wY see esti set.se 800
-- ' 'L'*d'a g!l Aes, **5- j.es *-"
8., . .. u . .. e.,. . e ... a 1
.g. .. .. . .. . . ... . . ... .. .
h** h. y 3 i'a 1 . fsy s aw 1.t ,- s (a
\ '
- 4._: :-
~ ... . . . ..... . . . . . . . .
1, ,e ne W rsesanct uto 4 Figure 3.7.215 (Sheet 9 of 9) Coupled Shleid & Auxiliary Buildings SSE Floor Response Spectra Revision:P y Westinghouse 3.7 213 A NAFf~
-r p. ~-
w =?!
- 3. DElgn cf Structures, C:mpone:ts, Eq:lpment, cnd Systems -
1 .i as supplemented in the following paragraphs. De faceplates are considered as the reinforcing steel, bonded to the concrete by headed studs, he application of ACI.349 and the supplemental requirements are supported by the behavior studies described in subsection l 3.8.3.4.1 De design of critical sections is described in the design summary report (see I subsection 3.8.3.5.7). , 3.83.53.1 Design for Axial Loads and Bending ' l Design for axial load (tension and compression), in-plane bending, and out-of-plane bending is in accordance with the requirements of ACI 349, Chapters 10 and 14. 383.5.3.2 Design for In. Plane Shear Design for in-plane shearis in accocdance with the requirements of ACI 349, Chapters 11 and 3
- 14. De steel faceplates are treated as reinforcing steel, contributing as prosided in Section 11.5 of ACI 349, 3.83 53.3 Design for Out-of Plane Shear Design for out-of plane shear is in accordance with the requirements of ACI.349, Chapter 11.
3.S.3 5.3.4 Evaluation for 'Ibermal Loads
,3 De effect of thermalloads on the concrete filled structural v 1 modulesis evaluated by using I the working stress design method for load combinationd of Table 3.8.4-2 " ' "-
-i --
T. His evaluation is in addition to e evaluation using the strength design method of ACI 349 for the load combination without the thermal load. Acceptance I for the load combination with normal thermal loads, which includes the thermal transienu l described in subsection 3.8.3.3.1, is that the stress in general areas of the steel plate be less I than yield. In local areas where the stress may exceed yield the total stress intensity range I is less than twice yield. His evaluation of thernal loads is based on the ASME Code I philosophy for Service I.4 vel A :oads given in ASME Code, Section III, Subsection NE, l Paragraphs NE-3213.13 and 3221.4. 3.8.3.53.S Design of Trusses - The trusses provide a structural framework for the modules, maintain the separation between the faceplates, support the modules during transportation and erection, and act as " form ties" between the faceplates when concrete is being placed. After the concrete has cured, the trusses are not required to contribute to the strength or stiffness of the completed modules. However,
,I the/ do provide additional shear capacity between the steel plates and concrete as well as additional strength similar to tnat provided by stirrups in reinforced concrete. De trusses are i designed according to the requirements of AISC-N690.
l I t Revision: T Westirighouse 3.8 33 Apru4e[6 r W/h-r'- '7'30-77
GEP 11 '97 12:07 FROM APG00 DESIGH CERT TO HRC PAGE,002
- 3. Design of Structure, Components, Equipment, and Systems 3.8.4.4 Design and Analysis Procedures 3.8.4.4.1 Setsmic Category I Structures De design and analysis precedures for the seismic Category I swetures (other than the f containment vessel and containment internal stmetures), including assumptions on boundary I conditions and czpected behavior under loads, are in accordance with ACl.349 for noncrete stuctures, with AISC-lM90 for steel structures, and AISI for cold formed steel structures.
'C De structural modules in the auxiliary building m designed using the same procedures as
- n -a' a; the structural modules in the containment intemal structures described in subsection 3.8.3. The l j lT- ductility criteria of AC1318, Chapten 12 and 21, an considend in detailing. placing, anchoring and splicing of the reinforcing steel. De bases of design for the tornado, pipe E !3 breaks, and seismic effects are discussed in Sections 3.3, 3.6, and 3/F, respectively. The
- d-E.. -y foundation design is described in subsection 3.8.5.
.a.
4 v
)*.'
,P De seismic Category I structuns are reinforced concrete and structural module shear wall structures consisting of vertical shear / bearing walls and horizontal slabs supported by structural steel framing. In. plane seismic fotees m obtained from the respense spoetrum
* . Q sE (-
3 analysis of the three dimensional finite element models described in Table 3.7.214. These , Y results are modified to account for soil structun interaction and accidental torsion as described ( I f
-g a 7 m subsecuon 3.7.WAlso evaluated and considend in the shear wall and floor slab design are
! ] out o' plane bending and shear loads, such as live load, dead load, seismic, lateral carth l ,
- 8: (
I [ a pressure, hydrostatic, hydrodynamic, and wind pressure. These out.of plane bendmg and shear gg $ b = loads are obtained from the response spectrum analyses supplemented by hand calculations. ( D The exterior walls of the seismic Category I structures below the grade an.Nigned to resist E 4Jgr t the worst case lateral earth pressure loads (static and dynamic), soil surcharge loads, and loads T *+g.y '{ due to external flooding as described in Section 3.4. Appendix 2C describes the setsmic . 5 analyses used to calculate the lateral earth pressures on the eterior walls below gtsde. The 3 g '4 exterior walls are also designed for full passive earth pressure which is utilized in the sliding 5 .)43g g j evaluation described in subsection 3.8.5.5.3. Figure 3.8.4 2 shows typical shear w j j , j arrangement of the ninforcing steel. Figure 3.8.4 3 shows typical reinforcing for the slabs. De shield building roof and the passive con a.inment cooling water storage tank are analyzed using three. dimensional finite element modu with the GTSTRUDL computer codes. The modelis shown in Figure 3.8.4-9. It represents one quarter of the roof with symmetric or asymmetric boundary conditions dependent on the applied load. Leads and load combinations are given in subsection 3.8.4.3 and include construction, dead, live, thermal, wind and seismic loads. Seismic loads an applied as equivalent static accelerations. De seismic response of the water in the tank is analyzed in a separate finite element response spectrum analysis with
. seismic input defined by the floor response sperwn.
De liner for the passive conta!nment cooling water storage system tank and the fire water storage tank is analyzed by hand calculation. De design considen construction loads during concrete placement, loads due to handling and shipping, normal loads including thermal, and the safe shutdown earthquake. Buckling of the liner is prevented by anchoring the liner using the embedded stiffeners and weided studs. The liner is designed as a seismic Category I steel g g
\
Revisioot 14 Jnoe 27,1997 3.8-48 3 Westingh0t!S' i s -
, .3. Design sf Structures C:mpone ts, Equipment, cod Systems Seismic time histories of the member forces at the base of the nuclear island stick models are reviewed. Member forces in the basemat are largest when assuming that the loads on the three sticks are in phase.
I
-O \
4 S . The three dimensional finite element model has a subgrade modulus (520 kips per cubic j $ v foo:) corresponding to a soft to-medium soil. A parametric study wa3 performed that
.q, K indicated soft to-medium soil resulted in higher shears and bending moments in the
.T3 h:( E basemat than stiffer soils or rock.
. De three-dimensional finke element model uses a uniform soil stiffness (520 kips per Cy cubic foot) over the entire nuclear island foundation. Parametric studies were performed ega -
p]j, g using a simplified model for two other soil stiffness variations. One variatiok 4 g 4 considered the subgrade modul's u equal to 1200 kips per c'ubic foot at the edget.and
'd g-{ .N, varied linearly to 400 kips per cubic foot at the cent-r he other global variation considered 400 kips per cubic foot at the edges and v Q5 i d linearly to 1200 kips per d( g,E p> cubic foot at the center Neither of these cases resulte in higher shear or bending moments than those f the uniform stiffness of soft t medium soil.
1 44 Q
*R c 4s. 4 Local variation of soil stiffness is considered. A buried rock pinnacle was considered
.m W N kD .14 Ith at a soft-to-medium soil site and the increase in reactive soil pressure vias estimated j g]
using linear elastic models. The analysis indicated that the increase in soil pressure was less than 15 percent for 15 feet of cover and less than 5 percent with 20 feet. t
-4 y 4 .
Lateral variation of soil stiffness is evaluated using a rigid basemat model on soil 4 springs. The AP600 is represented by an equivalent rectangular basemat. Bearing g 's h37yf reactions for cases with lateral variation of the subgrade modulus are compared against the bearing reactions at the same locations for the same loading on a uniform subgrade
] j 4 modulus. These investigations show that lateral soil variability which would be y identified during the site investigation does not affect the bearing reactions by more
{ fE:- ; than'20 percent unless the lateral variability is fairly extreme.
+ y" 2 ,,.c 5 .
The three-dimensional finite element model uses a shell element and comtraint j y .fc g equations to represent portions of the basemat up to 22 feet thick. A comparison was w 2 '2 made of the results of a similar model against the results of a more detailed axisymmetric model. Results of the three-dimensional finite element seismic analyses are compared against those of an axisymmetric model of the portion of the nuclear island basemat below the shield building and containment vessel. This axisymmetric model was also used to investigate the effects of containment pressure, , 3.8.5.43 Analysis for Loads during Construction Construction loads are evaluated in the design of the nuclear island basemat. His evaluation is performed for soil sites meeting the site interface requirements of subsection 2.5.4 at which settlement is predicted to be maximum. In the expected basemat construction sequence, i Revision: 13 W Westiflgh0Use 3.8-57 May 30,1997
= g
=
- 3. Design cf Structures. Ccmponents, Equipment, cnd Systems
_ e concrete for the mat is placed in a single placement. Construction continues with a portion ; of the shield building foundation and containment intemal structure and the walls of the auxiliary building. The critical location for sheat and moment in the basemat is around the perimeter of the shield building. Once the shield building and auxiliary building walls are completed to elevation 82' 6*, the load path changes and loads are resisted by the basemat l stiffened by the shear walls.jCocked-in strains dunng construction tncome seconcary IIM i compleuon of the auuhary Duilding walls. They do not reduce the strength of the section and l need not be included in the design load combinations for the completed structure. _ )T ne analyses account for the construction sequence, the associated time varying load and stiffness of the nue: car island structures, and the resulting settlement time history. To
, maximize the potential setti,ement the analyses consider a 360 feet deep soft soil site with soil properties consistent with the soft soil case described in subsection 2A.2. Two soil profiles are analyzed to represent limiting foundation conditions, and address both cohesive and cohesionless soils and combinations thereof:
A soft soil site with alternating layers of sand and clay. The assumptions in this profile maximize the settlement in the early stages of construction and maximize the impact of dewatering.
=
A soft soil site with clay, ne assumptions maximize the settlement during the later stages of construction and during plant operation. I The analyses focus on the response of the basemat in the early stages of construction when it could be susceptible to differential loading and defonnations. As subsequent construction incorporates concrete shear walls associated with the auxiliary building and the shield building, the structural system significantly strengthens, minimizing the impact of differential settlement. The displacements, and the moments and shear forces induced in the basemat are calculated at various stages in the construction sequence. These member forces are evaluated in accordance with ACI 349 using the load factors given in Table 3.8.4-2. nree construction sequences are examined to demonstrate construction flexibility within broad limits.
=
A base construction sequence which assumes no unscheduled delays. ne site is dewatered and excavated. Concrete for the basemat is placed in a single pour. Concrete for the exterior walls below grade is placed against the vertical sides of the excavation after the basemat is in place. Exterior and interior walls of the auxEiny building are placed in 16 to 18-foot lifts.
=
A delayed shield building case which assumes a delay in the placement cf concrete in
' the shield building while construction continues in the auxiliary building. His bounding case maximizes tension stresses on the top of the basemat. The delayed shield building case assumes that no additional concrete is placed in the shield building after the pedestal for the containment vessel head is constructed. He analysh incorporates construction in the auxiliary building to elevation 117'-6" and thereafter assumes that construction is suspended.
i'
.~
Revision: 13 May 30,1997 3.8-58 W Ylestingh0Use
- 3. Design et Structures, Ccmponents, Equipment, cnd Systems A delayed auxiliary building case which assumes a delay in the construction of the auxiliary building while concrete placement for the shield building continues. This bounding case maximizes tension stresses in the bottom of the basemat. The delayed auxiliary building case assumes that no concrete is placed in the auxiliary building after the basemat is constructed. De analysis incorporates construction in the shield building to elevation 84' 0* and thereafter assumes that construction is suspended.
For the base con +truction sequence, the largest basemat moments and shears occur at the interface with the shield building before the connections between the auxiliary building and the shield building are credited. Once the shield building and auxiliary building walls are completed to elevation 82' 6". the load path for successive loads changes and the loads are resisted by the basemat stiffened by the shear walls. Dewatering is discontinued once construction reaches grade,g the subsurface ex .d;, :. .d 0.c .=xt i- S 6 5t l- - - ' O. ftwlhg A re 4 Of the three construction scenarios analyzed, the delayed auxiliary building case results in the largest demand for the bottom reinforcement in the basemat. De delayed shield building results in the largest demand for the top reinforcement in the basemat. De analyses of the three construction sequences demonstrate the following: De design of the basemat and superstructure accommodates the construction induced stresses considering the construction sequence and the effects of the settlement time birt >ry. She design of the basemat can accommodate delays in the shield building so long as the auxiliary building construction is suspended at elevation 117
- 0". Resumption in construction of the auxiliary building can proceed once the shield building is advanced to elevation 100' 0".
He design of the basemat can accommodate delays in the auxiliary building so long as the shield building consuuction is suspended at elevation 84' 0" feet. Resumption in construction of the shield building can proceed.once the auxiliary building is
- advanced to elevation 100' 0". 4 g 4t;;, yo %7 After the structure is in place and cured to elevation 100' 0",1the loading due to construction above this elevation !" m tr@A significant additional flexural demand with respect to the basemat and the shield bui hing concrete below the containment vessel. Accordingly, there is no need for pl icing constraints on the construction sequence above elevation 100' 0". ,g 4 g De site conditions considered in the evaluation provide reasonable bounds on construction induced stresses in the basemat. Accordingly, the AP600 basemat design is adequate for practically all soil sites and it can tolerate major variations in the construction sequence without causing excessive deformations, moments and shears due to settlement over the plant life.
Revision: 13 W Westinghouse 3.8-59 May 30,1997
t&~
- 3. Design cf Structures, Csmpomnts, Equipment, end Systemt
. l
, i The analyses of alternate construction scenarios show that member forces in the basemat are !
acceptable subject to the following limits imposed for soft soil sites on the relative level of j construction of the buildings prior to completion of both buildings at elevation 82'6*: ! l
- Concrete may not be placed above elevation 82' 6* for the shield building or containment internal structure.
l
* . Concrete may not be placed above elevation 117'6' in the auxiliary building.
3 l3.85.4.4 Design Summary of Critical Sections , i De basemat design meets the acceptance cdteria specified in subsection 3.8.4.5. Two critical
- pordons of the basemat are identified below together with a summary of their design. De j boundaries are defined by the walls and column lines which are shown in Figure 3.7.212 (sheet 1 of 12). Table 3.8.5 3 shows the reinfc :ement required and the reinforcement provided for the critical sections. ,
Basemat between the shleid buildine and exterior wall dine 11) and column lines K and L This portion of the basemat is designed as a one way slab spanning a distance of 23' 6' between the walls on column lines K and L. De slab is continuous with the adjacent slabs to the east and west. The cdtical loading is the bearing pressure on the underside of the slab , due to dead and seismic loads, his establishes the demand for the top flexural reinforcement t at mid span and for the bottom flexural and shear reinforcement at the walls, ne basemat is designed for the bearing pressures and membrane forces from the analyses on uniform soil springs described in subsection 3.8.5.4.1. He design moments and shears are increased by 20 percent to accommodate the nonuniform sites fined in subsection 2.5.4.5 Negative moments are redistributed as permitted by ACI 34 e top and bottom reinforcement in the east west direction of span are equal. e reinforcement provided is shown in sheets 1l2 and 5 of Figure 3.8.5-3. l Basemat between column lines 1 and 2 and column lines K-2 and N nis portion of the basemat is designed as a one way slab spanning a distance of 22' 0' between the walls on column lines 1 and 2. De slab is continuous with the adjacent slabs to the notth and with the exterior wall to the south. The critical loading is the beanng pressure on the underside of the slab due to dead and seismic loads, his establishes the demand for the top flexural reinforcement at mid span and for the bottom flexural and shear reinforcement at wall 2. The basemat is designed for the bearing pressures and membrane forces from the analyses on uniform soil springs described in subsection 3.8.5.4.1. De design inoments and shears are increased by 20 percent to accommodate the nonuniform sites defined in subsection 2.5.4.5. The reinforcement provided is shown in sheets 1, 2 and 5 of Figure 3.8.5-3. i Revision: 13 May 30,1997. 3g.60 3 Westiligt100Se
SEP 11 '97 12:10 FROM Ap600 DESIGN CERT TO NRC PAGE.007 4 . l 3. Design or servetures, Coanponents, Equipment, and Sptems
~
? l Deviations from the design due to as procured or as. built conditions are acceptable based on i an evaluation consistent with the rnethods and procedures of Section 3.7 and 3.8 provided the following acceptance criteria m met.
- De structural design meets the acceptance criteria specified in Section 3.8
- The amplitude of the seismic floor response spectra do not exceed the design basis floor
, response spectra by more than 10 percent
. Depending on the extent of the deviations, the evaluation may runge from documentation of an engineering judgement to performance of a revised analysis and design.
I 3.SJJ Structural Criteria The analysis and design of the foundation for the nuclear island structures are according to ACI-349 with margins of structural safety as specified within it. Tbc limiting conditions for j' the foundation medium, together with a comparison of actual capacity and estimated structure loads, m described in Section 2.5. The minimum required factors of safety against sliding, ovenurnin; cyl flotation for the nuclear island structures a given in Table 3.8.5-1. 3.8.54.1 Nuclear Idand Maximum Bearing riessures t - De beanng pressures under the basemat are obtained in the analysis described in subsection 3.8.5.4. The maximum bearing stress due to the dead load alone is 11 kips per squm foot The maximum beanns stress due to the dead load, live load, and safe shutdown canhquake is 33.6 kips per sque foot. As stated in subsection 3.8.5.4, the horizontal bearing reactions on the side walls below grade have been conservatively neglected. Analysis where i the horizontal bearing reactions on the side walls are considered would result in lower bearing stresses, especially due to the combination of dead load, live load. and safe shutdown earthquake. Furthermore, as noted in subsection 3.8.5.4, the resuhs are conservatively based on soft rock case safe shutdown carthquake loads and soft-to-medium soil properties. Since i the AP600 d ~ n kbu on a range of soil conditions. the Combined License applicant is respo at the interfac7e a ability of the soil to support the applied foundation loads (see sub on 2.5.4 , \ s 4 4 i Revision: 13 3.8-61 May 30,1997 { Westinghouse i W
** TOTAL PAGE.007 **
i
i +
- 1 I
1 ] 4 : i 1 i i 1 l ) Staff handouts provided during the week l of August 4 through August 8,1997. 1 4 5 a 1 I l i 1 i ) l t i e i 4 ) I I i Attachment 6 l 1 i 4 i l l 5 j i :
)
i 1
i t
- i
,1- Surface Ground Motion _
0- h- - -
# .1 - _
i i 0 i f 10 15 ' 20 Time (sec) 10 ' ' ' ' Amplification Function H, = 120 ft H = ** V = 1000 ft/sec V,,= 6000 ft/sec 2 5-4.,= 10% 4,=2% _ y, = 115 lb/ft3 y, = 170 lb/ft3 0 , , , , l 0 5 10 15 20 25 Frequency (Hz) i i
, . . . i
_ 1- Rock Input - oc h 0--MW&W-= -
< 1-
. . i 0 5 10 15 20 Time (sec) 5
^
Surface 5% Damping 3_4 Rock Input
.1 43-
)
e b V'
<2- -
1 k1-m 0 M .. .. .. 0.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz) Kei'sE Jul310732 l
i i
- 1. ' i .
- _u 1- Surface Ground Motion .
j 0-. - -= _ 4 1- , 1 i i .
- 0 5 10 15 20 Time (sec) i i
l' 10 ' ' ' ' ! Araplification Function H, = 120 ft H = == i V = 2000 Maec V,'= 6000 ft/sec ! 2 5-C.,= 10% y, = 115 lb/ft3 4,=2% y, = 170 lb/ft3 j 0 , , , l 0 5 10 15 20 25
- Frequency (Hz) 1-
, f I t i _1- Rock Input . 5 g 02 =- -
< 1-
. i i 0 5 10 15 20 Time (sec) 5
Surface 5% Damping
~
5.4 Rock Input _
.I 3- -
<2- -
3
% W K1-vs .
0 .. .. .. 0.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz) KeiME Jul310726 l
M
\
4 4 4 4 I , , 1 f
- I' Surface Ground Motion 1
Q - { i g 0- @~ -
< 1- -
i a i j 0 5 10 15 20 j Time (sec) . I I 10 i
. Amplincation Function H = 120 ft H = ==
j V,= 3000 ft/sec V,, = 6000 Wesc 5- - (, 10% 4,=2% _ ; y, = 125 IWft3 y, = 170 lb#t3
~
1 0 . . . , 0 5 10 15 20 25 l Frequency (Hz) i i i i t ' _ 1, Rock Input - y . ! g 0- -- -
< 1. -
i l 0 5 10 15 20
- Time (sec) c l 5 Surface 5% Damping l C'84_ Rock Input _
! .5 i 3- -
<2- -
I E. k1-rn .
~
i 0 .. .. . ! 0.1 1 10 100 t i Frequency (Hz) Kei AbE Jul310738 l l l l _
' f f
' f 1- Surface Ground Motion - g 0- :- - - -
- 1_.
i i i 0 5 10 15 20 Time (sec) 10 ' Amplification Function H,= 100 ft H =** V = 1000 ft/sec V,,= 6000 ft/sec 2 5-4.,= 10 % y, = 115 lb/ft 3 (.=2% _ y, = 170 lb/ft3 0 . . . . ! 0 5 10 15 20 25 I Frequency (Hz) I I
' I t l 1- Rock Input -
t ne j 0-% = -
<9 .
i i i 0 5 10 15 20 Time (sec) 5 '
^
Surface 5% Damping 5_4 Rock Input . 3- ;
,2- .
k1-m 0 .. .i .. 0.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz) Ket',aE Jul3107.40 l
1 I t Surface Ground Motion 3 ]- - g 0-
# .1 -
$h@+- -- --
0 5 10 15 20 Time (sec) 10- - ' ' ' Amplification Function H, = 100 ft H=a V = 2000 ft/sec V,,= 6000 ft/sec 2 5-4.,= 10% y, = 115 lb/ft2 4,=2% y, = 170 lb/ft8 0 . . . . 0 5 10 15 20 25 Frequency (Hz) i I t 1- Rock input - 5 - g 0- =- -
- 1-l i i i 0 5 10 15 20 Time (sec) 5
. Surface 5% Damping
$_ 4 Rock Input .
3- -
<2- -
E k1-0 0.1
) ..
1 10 100 Frequency (Hz) LIME Jul3107.431
~ I t 1 l- Surface Ground Motion 3 -
% Q&$MW=
g 0- N - 1- _ i i i 0 5 10 15 20 Time (sec) 10 Amplification Function H, = 100 ft H = ** V = 3000 ft/sec V,, = 6000 ft/sec 2 5-4.,= 10% y, = 115 lb!ft 2 4,=2% _ y, = 170 lbit)
~
0 . i i i 0 5 10 15 20 25 Frequency (Hz) t f f 1- Rock Input 3 g 0- WMh= - 4 .1 - -
. . i 0 5 10 15 20 Time (sec) 5 Surface 5% Damping 3,4 Rock Input ,
3- -
<2- -
3 1- - 0 .. .. m-0.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz) [ tim A Jul3107A6 l
t t i 1- Surface Ground Motion - 0- --- - -
<1 a
i i i l 0 5 10 15 20 a Time (sec) i I 10 ' ' ! Amplification Function H=80h H== V,= 1000 ft/sec V,,= 6000 ft/sec 1 h3 4,,= 10% y, = 115 lb/ft8 4,=2% y,=170lb!ft8
^
0 i . . i ! O 5 10 15 20 25 I Frequency (Hz) i t t 1 l 1- Rock Input - 0- 'm- -
< 1-1 0 5 10 15 20 Time (sec) l 5 j Surface 5% Damping l 3_ 4 Rock Input _
i .I
~ ~
<2- -
! l. i * {1 _
- O .. .. ..
)' 0.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz) l Kei ARE Jul3107:50 l i i a
I t t 1- Surface Ground Motion - 0 =+ $ -s - - .
# .1 - .
0 5 10 15 20 Time (see) 10 l Amplification Function H,=90ft H === Y = 2000 ft/sec V,,= 6000 ft/sec 25 2 4.,= 1e". y, = 115 lb/ff 4, = 2% _ y, = 170 lb/ft2 A 0 . . . . l 0 5 10 15 20 25 Frequency (Hz) t i 1 m Ii Rock Input - 5 g0 - ----- - 4 .1 - - i . . 0 5 10 15- - 20 Time (sec) 5
. Surface 5% Damping 3_ 4 - Rock Input .
.I .
3- .
. +.
<2- -
E-1- - m . K 0 0.~t 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz) mususi@mI
, i i i 1- Surface Ground Motion -
0- WW=- - - -- -
# .1 i -
, i .
0 5 10 15 ll0 Time (sec) 10 '
. Amplification Function H, = 90 ft H==
V = 3000 Waec V,,= 6000 Wesc d5- < 4.,= 10% y, = 115 lb/ft8 4,=2% y, = 170 lb/ft3
~_
0 , r , , 0 5 10 15 20 25 Frequency (Hz) i i i , _1i Rock laput - 5 g0 N M hA*#* hem- - l 1 0 5 10 15 20 Time (sec) 5
^
. Surface 5% Damping 5.4 Rock Input .
3- -
<2- -
1. I- - V) , 0 . 0.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz) KeVRE JtA 3107:55 l
l
,1- Surface Ground Motion .
0-1- - i i i 0 5 10 15 20 l Time (sec) 10 ' ' Amplification Function H, = 60 ft H=a V = 1000 ft/sec V,, = 6000 ft/sec 5- 4.,= 10% 4,=2% _ y, a 115 lb/ft3 y, = 170 lb!ft3 0 i i i i 0 5 10 15 20 25 Frequency (Hz) t t t
. 1- Rock Input -
5 g 0-% m- -
< 1-i i i 0 5 10 15 20 Time (sec) 5
Surface 5% Damping 3_ 4 Rock Input _ 3- - 8 l
<2- -
3 k1-VJ . 0 .. .. . 0.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz) Kei A1E Jul3107:57 l
1- Surface Ground Motion l
- 1 0-4 .1 -
&h&&J+W --- -
. . i 0 5 10 15 20 l Time (sec) '
10 ' - Amplification Function H, = 60 ft H= V a 2000 ft/sec V,,a c./ 3 ft/sec 2 5-4., 10% y, = 115 lb/ft3 (,=2% _ y, = 170 lb/ft3
.h 0 i . . .
0 5 10 15 20 25 Frequency (Hz) \ _ 1- Rock Input - 0- %Mh' -
< 1_
. . i 0 5 10 15 20 Time (sec) 5
. Surface 5% Damping 3_ 4 Rock Input .
, i.i 3 - -
b'
<2- -
3 1- - 0 . 0.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz) Kei AbE Jul3107$9 l
. . t i e i
1- Surface Ground Motion
'E .
}O-
=: _
< 3-i i i l 0 5 10 15 20 i
Time (sec) i 10 ' i Amplification Function H, = 60 h H = ** V = 3000 ft/sec V,,= 6000 ft/sec 2 5-4.,= 10% y, = 115 lbW 4,=2% . y, = 170 lbW O , , , , j 0 5 10 15 20 25 Frequency (Hz) 4 t t t ' 1- Rock Input 3
- g 0- W M h =-- --
, # .1 - - i . 0 5 10 15 20 ' Time (sec) 1 i 5 e Surface 5% Damping 3,4 Rock Input ,
. I 3- -
i
<2- -
I E. k1-v) 0 .. . 0.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz) r Kei A A E Jtd 3108 02 l
Desian of Passive Containment Coolina Water Storaae Tank Liner Recently, due to the requirements for the post-72 hour actions, Westinghouse increased the water volume of the passive containment cooling water storage (PCCWS) tank from 450,000 gallons to 552,000 gallons and added 18,000 gallons of water contained in a fire system tank which is attached underneath the tank roof. As a result, the design of the PCCS tank was revised by (1) increasing the maximum water level from an elevation of 298 feet to 301.5 feet, (2) raising the top of the tank by one foot, (3) reducing the thickness of the tank roof from 24 inches to 15 inches, and (4) decreasing the thickness of the inner tank wall from 24 inches to 18 inches. Because of the potential high stresses, under events such as earthquake and severe temperature change, in the tank wall due to the increase of water containment and reduction of the tank wall thickness, the design for the tank liner leaktightness becomes more severe. For the PCCWS tank liner design, the staff raised a concern during review meetings that there was no description of design procedures and criteria provided in the previous versions of the SSAR. In response to this staff concern, Westinghouse, in Revision 14 of SSAR Section 3.8.4.1.1, describes the PCCWS tank as having a stainless steel liner which provides a leaktight barrier on the inside surface of the tank. The wall liner consists of a late with stiffeners on the concrete side of the ) late. The floor liner is we ded l to steel plates embedded in the surface of tie concrete. The liner is welded and inspected during construction to assure its leaktightness. Leakage, if it were to occur, is collected at the base of the cylinder walls. This permits monitoring for leakage and also prevents degradation for the reinforced concrete wall due to freezing and thawing. Based on the above SSAR commitment, Westinghouse concludes that the liner integrity is maintained. The staff's review of the SSAR, Revision 14 found that Westinghouse's design criteria and procedure for the tank liner are not sufficient (no discussion of leak chase channels, no discussion of concrete crack control) to ensure long reliable service for the reasons discussed below. The FCCWS tank, which is located on the top of the shield building and is the highest structure in the plant, will be subjected to the action of the severest environmental forces among which those from temperature changes (115'F in the summer and -40*F in the winter) affect the tank most. The reinforced concrete tank wall will not only be under the constant action of the hydrostatic pressure, but also, under the cyclic temperature change during the 60-year design life of tank structures. Because of the temperature change, the tank will be subjected to expansion and contraction, and will result in cracking of the tank wall, especially the exterior face allowing atmosphere moisture to accumulate. This will lead to deterioration from the freeze / thaw effect. It is expected that the lit.er plate will stretch and strain accumulation will take place near areas of non-uniformity in the concrete where the anchors are embedded after the tank is filled up. It is very important that all the welded seams of the liner plates be provided with leak chase channels and a leakage collection drain at the lowest location of the liner.
2 i For reliability and serviceability, the reinforced concrete tank walls must be designed to minimize cracking. In order to minimize cracks, it is essential that in designing and detailing the principal tank wall reinforcement, i.e., reinforcement to resist the applied tensile forces, considerations must be given to the use of steel bars in smaller sizes and spaced at distances as close as practical on the exterior side of the tank wall and, if necessary, additional shrinkage and temperature reinforcement should be used. Also, because of the importance of the tank integrity, it is essential to perform a crack width analysis of the tank wall. A crack width analysis may be performed using the guidelines such as ACI Publication SP-20, "Causes, Mechanism and Control of Cracking in Concrete" published in 1968 for the concrete cracking and crack control. In addition to the concern discussed above, the tank must be subjected to a structural integrity test, and appropriate monitoring requirements for minimum water levels tied to limiting conditions of operation in the technical specifications. (_
Westinghouse Handouts Provided During the Week of August 11 through August 15,1997. Attachment 7
~ . . ;. 7, A P600 A.GENDA AUGUST 11-15,1997 SEISMIC ANALYSES AND AUXILIARY AND SHIELD DUILDING DESIGN. INTRODUCTION R. MANDAVA / T.CHENG AGENDA AND'RELATED AP600 DESIGN INFORMATION R.ORR SHIELD BUILDING ROOF DESIGN CHANGES R.ORR SEISMIC EVALUATION OF POST 72 HOUR DESIGN CHANGES R.ORR AUDITS OF DESIGN DOCUMENTS SSAR CHANGES OPEN ITEM STATUS EXIT DISCUSSION seismic, aus and shiefd bldg design 8/11/97
AP600 structural analysis and design December 9-13,1996 .
- 4. Consideration of out-of-plane seismic loads in design of wall panel (OITS# 5028)
- 6. Differences between Response Spectra and Time Analyses (OITS# 668)
- 7. Validation of Initec's Post-Processing Computer Codes (ARMA) (OITS# 766)
- 9. ACI Code version for Torsional Design of Reinforced Concrete Members (OITS# 750)
- 13. The Effect of impact between the Radioactive Waste Building and Nuclear Island (OITS3 649)
I
-*. w.e*,w w anwr
v
^
..P6 '
Seismic analyses, auxiliary and shield building design NRC agenda AP600 Documents Remarks l 1 Review the model revision and the new Analysis and results are ' SASSI analysis (incorporation of design 1000-S2C-054, Rev 0 described in summary report , changes due to post-72 hour actions, and issued to NRC 7/25/97 ; live and snow loads iri the seismic model .
. and analysis results) of the nuclear island structures. The staff review will also ;
cover the adequacy of the site condition OITS# 5318 selected by Westinghouse for the new
. SASSI analysis. i I
2 Review the new 3D ANSYS analysis I (modeling and results) of the shield 1070-S3R-010, Rev 0 ANSYS new stick model building roof structures (including the PCCWST and fire tank). The staff - 1277-S3C-006, Rev 2 GTSTRUDL analyses and review will also cover the adequacy of the design calculations revised model due to design changes of i the increased water flow required for OITS# 750,751,5318 ! post-72 hour actions, and the incorporation of snow load in'the 3D model. t
. % .ux.no ca e % o e a m m
. m . _._m ~ . - . _._4. . _ . . _ . .m _ m. .. . _ _ . m. . .. . ^
A P6 0 0 NRC agenda AP600 Documents Remarks 3 Review Westinghouse's justification of Assumptions in previcus the design adequacy of the steel responses have been reviewed containment shell against thermal shock and are conservative. , due to post-72 hour actions 4 Review design calculations for critical See attached list i sections of the auxiliary building and . shield building roof structures (including OITS# 5028 the PCCWST tank) - 5 Review the design of the fire protection 1277-S3C-006, Rev 2 OITS# 5246 I
~
system tank (FPST) 6 Resolve issues identified from the review of SSAR revision changes,if any 7 Resolve open issues related to sections TH versus RSA OITS# 670 3.7.1, 3.7.2 , 3.8.2 and 3.8.4 EKSSI comparison OITS# 5544,5545 Code Case N284 OITS# 5517 Containment Service Level OITS# 698,706,708,1888,3269, C Capacity 3271 Structural Modules OITS# 732, 740,744,754 Confirm closure of OITS# 623, 649,662,663,664,678,681,766, 1885 l l seistrWc aux and SNeid tidg design 8/11/97 L
m ~ AP600 DESIGN DOCUMENTS O FOR CRITICAL SECTIONS Location Document numbers Passive containment cooling system water storage tank 1277-CC-901. -902. -903. Rev 1; -904. -905. -906. Rev 0 1277-CR-901. Rev 0, 902. 904. 906. 907. 908. Rev 1; 903, 904. Rev 2 Shield building roof to cylinder location al columns 1277-CCC-006. Re 2 Shield building to auxiliary building connection at elevation 1P0' Elevation 160' Areas 5 and 6 1260-SSC-003. Revision 3 1260-CCC-003. Revision 2 1260-CR-566. Revision 1 Shield Building Wall 1200-CCC-Il9. Revision 0 1200-CR-566. Revision 1 2'-0" slab in auxiliary building (tagging room ceiling) 1252-CCC-002. Revision i 1250-CR-125. Revision i Typical steel and concrete details Typical Structural Steel Connections , 1200-SS-901. Revision 0 1200-SSC-001. Revision 0 Typical Reinforcing Details 1200-CR-901. 902, 903. Rev 0 Interior wall of auxiliary building (column line 7.3). elevation 66'-6" to 1200-CCC-102. Revision 2 elevation 160'-6" 1200-CR-932. Revision 1 West wall of main control room in auxiliary building (column line L). 1200-CCC-Il0. Revision 4 elevation 117-6" to elevation 153'-0" 1200-CR-913. Revision 1 North wall of auxiliary building (column line 11 between Q and P) 1200-CCC-101. Revision 0 elevation 117-6" to 153'-0" 1200-CR-910. -961. -962. -963 Revision 0 toisrNc. aux and sNeid tWdg design 8/11/97
U SHIELD BUILDING ROOF DESIGN CHANGES l The post 72 hour design change increases the maximum capacity of the PCS tank ! from 450,000 gallons to 552,000 gallons. It ) adds 18,000 gs!!ons in a separate inventory for fire protection. The changes to the configuration to provide- this additional volume are: , o Top elevation of shield building roof is raised one foot o Thickness of the PCS tank roof is reduced from 24 inches to15 inches reinforced concrete o 9 inch deep stainless steel fire tank is included in PCS tank roof structure. This tank Es normally full. o Thickness of inner wall of PCS tank is reduced from 24 inches to 18 inches o PCS tank floor liner is placed directly on structural concrete (4" grout deleted) o Maximum normal water level is established by an overflow at elevation 301'6". This provides freeboard of 57 inches below the underside of the roof.
.- - - n -
1
._ tt' d '
$8 . LC- - D'd' a sw.t I _ I y
e
.I l
.4
< 4. u n a' "
j N
\ 1
{ e , l l l l l g e g===' l : [ l 1 I I 8 rr et <- - s i e,4-l
- i _
pg l l i l l
+
. 3 s
1 i l 1 7 9! l t, .i ..s . I I- t -- I' I
. -}
- l &
; g !
o 6 y z .
- I I -
l' .I 9, I ,<. d.-,:.
.ca I
,. y Tu ser r
[ll Ic g , 1 s-
- 4. . .
m.
.c I' L \ ' -- . D ?,
^t n _ " ."
V '] I' -
.i l 9 '
,." . [r-O e ( ,
+/
o , ,. l 4 ..y
- 1 4 3,. ,.
r,, A g , * - s 5
- y. ,
'A h T h' 4
%q 4
43PW este
- 3. Destgo Cf Structures, Components and Splems l
) ,-
l , l
\ /
1
/
lsi=- ,,. . ~ . ..
...nc ...:..,/ .
/
I'
/;/ 1 u
./
i
.y h
; l i n
..i*
,. . . i,! . .
gi
- j3' )
; g s _
_.o_ . ._. . . . ..._ .... ::. _._ f I g ', I g 8 i
\ ,. .. . .
I, ;*
.s . . : .
1 l c . g
; j '
\ ; **
i
- ^
o N g xss l y l \ t _,. s
- 3 , f,J .' , p, _ .* ' .' e , ~,i ". 4 i 1 'e . 1l '".# $
/t .
}
- l. .
4 g \ I. ) . / ,, 3 gs ,
'\
Figure 3.8.4 7 Paulte Containment Cooling Tank l Revision: 15 August 8,1997 3.8176 3 Westingh0tlSe
= _ - __ __. _ _ - . - . .. _ - _ - _ -_ _ _ _ - - _ - - _ .--
- 3. Dwiga cf Struct:res. Components, Eq:1pme:t, and Systems
$9 27
/- ,
f22++-+ gr
- - i Q, - -
w , ) s N::: - +1 ib= :3]. # - l s Q :-Ef" -- - T3 je . l s' aw . a ' / s 0 7r . TM - s 7 F: '*:1 U h - x C ft - du x
, MFr t'
~
. e. .
/ ,,_ - .
. , w g -. w
$ 0,':ff;;7 - , , , ~ - ~
p . . g - (- \/\/4
,t : ..... .
s Ih V \/\/\/ \t \/\\Ah (i s s[NE N ss : r' l
3 jf;j;$-[
b5EE EEE 5_
)
h) ;d((j'
, ~~ . .- , -----
-](($.- 'l, s; bb/\/\/\/\/\/h
~
s N . 2\/\/\/\ M
/
s -- -_ <
/ -
N / N /
\
\* _ __.- '
/
N N / N *
/
N
%-- '/ .
~
Figure 3.6.4 9 Finite Element Model of Shield Building Roof ... Redsion: 14 T Westinghouse 3.8176C June 27,1997 .t::,
- p. .
4
s
. :S
~v
- 2
,t9
/ -
t' o
/ .
i x i i 4v / b 4W7 I'uB 4r7[,h 7
$ gj 4F w w i< :o -
tett 10 t LK4 ur, N *
./
'Q-Q.* , ,
.a ," 7*;,.
- 4 vy 'y '* ,..
< , . /) s i '.
- .1 (. y.. u . . .:5A. . "I g
. . .v'; .-~- . . . . , , .;.
J,i s N
. . . . < g .. <
4P. N
. . . w e i< cv N%t!L t
FIG,3 : GTSTRUDL POSITIVE SIGN CONVENTION FOR INTERPRETING RESULTS OF
- CUT' OPTION 4
e e , 4 i
Evaluation of Seismic Responses and Effects on Structural Design due to Post-72 Hour Requirements E The seismic models of the shield building including a 3D finite element model of the shield building roof structure, a 3D finite element model of the PCS tant ' including the water sloshing, and stick models with and without the water sloshing (75% of the snow load and 25% of the live load is included as mass). Although the water mass has increased by 24% the total mass only increases by 2.8%. 57% of this increase in mass is due to the mass of the snow which is present only a small fraction of the time. MASS OF STICK MODEL ABOVE EL.135'3" OLD MODEL NEW MODEL Translational Structure 86,561 85,421 Water 9,634 11,926 Snow on SB roof 0 1,522 Total 96,195 98,869
Evaluation of Seismic Responses and Effects on - Structural Design due to Post-72 Hour Requirements FREQUENCIES OF COUPLED AUXILIARY AND SHIELD BUILDING
\
New stick model New stick model Old stick model with snow without snow (hertz) (hertz) (hertz) 1'8 Horizontal E/W 4.23 4.30 4.35 1'8 Horizontal N/S 4.65 4.73 4.78
.2"d Horizontal E/W 8.94 9.08 9.10 2"d Horizontal N/S 9.10 9.26 9.26 1' S Vertical 6.60 6.69 6.77 2"d Vertical 19.10 19.29 19.34 sM aus and 6.'tield t*SQ design 8/1U97 m _ .
l Table 6: Maximum Acceterations. Uocer Bound of Soft to Medium Soil (2a) Case Max. Acc. (a) Time @ max acc (sec) Node Direction Existino New New/ Exist Existing New Delta T. 3001 NI NS 0.323 0.323 1.00 10.23 10.23 0.00 ' El 66.5' EW 0.293 0.290 0.99 4.73 4.73 0.00 V 0.330 0.327 0.99 7.30 7.30 0.00 3003 NI NS 0.347 0.346 1.00 10.23 10.23 0.00 El 100* EW 0.310 0.304 0.98 4.74 4.74 0.00 V 0.334 0.330 0.99 7.31 7.31 0.00 3004 NI NS 0.365 0.371 1.02 10.24 10.24 0.00 El 117.5* ,EW 0.344 0.341 0.99 4.75 4.75 0.00 i V O.346 0.342 0.99 7.31 7.31 0.00 3008 NI NS 0.506 0.518 1.02 10.24 10.25 0.01 El 180* EW 0.548 0.518 0.95 4.88 4.88 0.00 V 0.429 0.423 0.98 7.31 7.31 0.00 3016 NI NS 1.176 1.172 1.00 8.07 7.97 -0.10 El 307' EW 1.386 1.458 1.05 10.72 10.73 0.01 V 1.024 1.033 1.01 7.30 7.31 0.01 3110 SCV NS 0.491 0.525 1.07 7.80 10.23 2.43 El 205.3' EW 0.687 0.688 1.00 10.68 9.74 -0.94 V 0.415 0.418 1.01 5.53 5.53 0.00 3115 SCV NS 0.579 0.588 1.02 7.96 10.23 2 27 El 256.3* EW 0.863 0.879 1.02 10.69 10.69 0.00 V 0.800 0.779 0.97 5.78 5.78 0.00 3204 CIS NS 0.361 0.366 1.01 10.23 1024 0.01 El135' EW 0.365 0.351 0.96 4.87 4.87 0.00 V 0.355 0.350 0.99 7.30 7.30 0.00
Table 7 (a): Maximum Member Forces at Elevation 100' (Upper Bound of Soft to Medium,2g Case) - Forces (kips) Moments (ft-kips) Vertical NJ _EW. Torsion NS *" EW "*
- N1 Existmg 40.000 41.200 41.600 1.330.000 4.980.000 4.780.000 New 41.400 44.100 42.500 1.380.000 5.260.000 5.220.000 New/ Exist 1.04 1.07 1.02 1.04 1.06 1.09 C8S l Existeg 8.260 9.560 9.010 55.800 218.000 202.000 [
New 8.450 9.820 9.450 60,800 227.000 208.000 ! New/ Exist 1.02 1.03 1.05 1.09 1.04 1.03 SCV ExistinD 3.040 3.430 3.640 11.100 369.000 327.000 New 3.020 3.470 3.540 11.300 385.000 324.000 New/ Exist 0.99 1.01 0.97 1.02 1.04 0.99 i Note: '" Over-turning moment about NS and EW axes. l i i i
Table 7b: Member Forces at NI Stick Model for Uccer Bound of Soft to Medium Soif Case G_3) _ t F axialiksos) N_gde h Shear-as (kes) Shear-ew ikiosi Tocion fft-kies) (New) (Existing) (Ratio) (New) (Ex sting) (Ra'io) (New) (Existing) (Ratio) (New) (Existing) (Ratio) . t 3016 307.250 e i 1.74 1.71 1.02 IS7 1.99 OS9 2.42 2.33 1.04 2.10 2.37 0.89 3015 297.583 4S7 3.99 1.25 4.15 3.60 1.15 5.06 4.35 1.16 6.30 5.58 1.13 ' 3014 284.417 9S6 8S7 1.11 7.88 7.06 1.12 9.33 S.44 1.11 -15S 15.5 1.03 : 3013 272.417 14.60 13.60 1.07 11.70 11.30 1.04 14.10 13.10 1.08 27.9 29.3 OS9 3011 241.000 18.10 17.10 1.06 17.10 16.10 1.06 19.90 18.50 1.08 51.8 52.2 OS9 f 3010 220.000 20.10 19.20 1.05 19.70 18.90 1.04 . 23.00 21.80 1.06 71.5 73.5 OS7 22.10 21.00 1.05 22.20 20.90 1.06 25.30 23.90 1.06 94.3 96.8 OS7 3008 180.200 t 24.80 23.60 1.05 25.50- 23.60 1.08 28.10 26.80 1.05 1.070 1.010 1.06 3007 161.500 26.80 25.60 1.05 27.90 25.90 1.08 30.00 29.00 1.03 877 841 1.04 3006 153.500 ; 29.80 28.40 1.05 31.40 29.20 1.08 32.80 32.00 1.03 713 695 1.03 3005 135.250 35.50 33.90 1.05 37.60 34.90 1.08 37.30 36.60 1.02 1.130 1.100 1.03 3004 117.500 41.40 40.00 1.04 44.10 41.20 1.07 42.50 41.60 1.02 1.380 1.330 1.04 - 3003 100.000 i i I I
~
~
Table 7c- Over-tumina Moments at NI Stick Model for Upper Bound of Soft to Medium Soil Case (2G) (moments about the North-South and East-West axes) g h Momant-ns (ft-kios) Moment-ew fit-kios) (New) (Existing) (Ratio) (New) (Existing) (Ratio)
- 30 6 307250 10.3 102 1.01 10.3 10.6 0.97 3015 297.583 40.3 36.8 1.10 41.1 39.5 1.04 3014 284.417 132 119 1.11 127 123 1.03 3013 272.417 244 213 1.15 225 223 1.01 3011 241.000 779 713 1.09 627 610 1.03 i
3010 220.000 1.240 1.140 1.09 1.010 920 1.10 3009 200.000 1.720 1.600 1.08 1.430 1.320 1.08 3008 180 200 2.350 2.170 1.08 2.350 2.120 1.11 3007 161.500 2.960 2.770 1.07 2.830 2.590 1.09 3006 153.500 3230 3.030 1.07 2.770 2.530 1.09 3005 135250 3.910 3.670 1.07 3.610 3.280 1.10 3004 117.500 4.590 4.300 1.07 4.440 4.030 1.10 3003 100.000 5.280 4.980 1.06 5220 4.780 1.09
~
Evaluation of Seismic Responses and Effects on Idl l Structural Design due to Post-72 Hour Requirements 4 Changes in seismic reruits are considered insignificant if they meet the following criteria: l l ~
- o frequency of significant peaks on the floor response spectra differ by less than 5 percent o magnitude of peaks of updated floor response spectra does
! not exceed existing response spectra by more than 10 percent j o member forces from the updated model do not exceed the ! existing member forces by more than 10 percent.
- Technical committee reviewed results and endorsed l conclusions
7 e
..4 4
, ,C t
SWP I e
- d
~
a I. w .
** U 1
- W e g =w n erg .= l. .
'A cNo /',
y m
>- / -
Wm s
~JZ '
Z ka.J = 7 - (
"V i l l
wi l l l
/ I C. i
' /
-; . / !
**j T ,- *"
i C m ~ ZLt= l 5 d 5.. r
> i w
E,L. 1 ; r - m . .us' e.* ** f me
-i l ,
I '
"*e g ,"
e g
- *
- g a
% 7 C W L
- n. m \.
s
-: 8
,, < 4 i
. s i
== y N *-
l = w
=
- s .
.l t N -
~ O= s O Ob \
Z, e,e
, s
==
g, 6
- s -
em S gy g
. .z.3.
O l . g
\
h
.-. e.
- 1
- w. JW l
> a. . .
= O t
- .J
==W gg
]
1
'%
- i *
- w NZ _Z t \
EI W *
- I 3i- -
e 5' + i
-i
< -2*
o
.z. c .z. ol '
- i i i
1
- g ;
. ? e '
l,
- xx oi
*E- , l e t n
M
= .- ., =
' ~
r q -
.' 'h I '2 I I I 2 *#
e 2s1OBCC. e 9
- & 24/97 a
Al'tiO(! til'l'1 It lillllNI) til ' tli I TO MEDIUM SUII. (2 )9CASE pl o , . ....., r:: : --- T - i . ..1
. . mm t X I S I I NG . ( pt; 3 NI 3011-2 l Ni H HUC' ./ EI I VI *SNOL 3 IIIADS. t /t,1 . ELEV 241-l'XISTING ENVELOPE nr / t t. Salt t.ASES (EW) DIRECTION o
IS2 D AM1'I NI;) i, o . ... _ . _ _ _ _ . .
- I I o
I I u . I \ .
= g T en i I
,, ao . _.. .. ..
- 5
.. 1 o . 1
< - I I I
= / 1 T, I \
~ t \
," ?U - - - - - - - - - - -- -
7- z r_ A w
/
\
'i -
\
f
^5%-~-
- t. .2.s .. . .. _ a__._.t___t e ie n . _ .. _ n i i e a n _s t
,gy . ..~. i i 108 10 8 10 #
10 ' ' , Frequency ( fi r )
e be S 5 - O
~
l 4~ 6
~ .
t F 2 , . 4 O
}
, m ~.
t a y / y =-w y .
- w Ln s LT) cp tv - -
4 m O . g 3 y e. , - J> e zw- J
= -
r - mr. t.., 1 NL % ' l
% % I
~* %, .
y .,,. %
, 4 A^ ' o 7.
s / - - D
- f-
,J,,,, -
my .- C ~ a zh.
' i
~ ,
w g w u
- l .
~! l . % , p
~"
1 l W
" O N %
=
C a . q. W % L 3
%. . I
.N '.A
-< N.l ,
w -
\ ,( w 8
0 m
~'
. A w
k "., '
% 1
- s. y.
=. -
=.,
- sT e-
~
d., s
.=
- x. ,,, .
\. .
.i m.
ww 5
, j i at
-O l.
. I
\ -
= . -a - - ,'
. .. 4 .
j \ -
% l 1 g.-NZ 8*
a
\ q
-. g
~-
E! O .Z o gg , {
< -x. ,,
*S - i
~ ~
x _3 n _z_
~ .
.i \d i ,;
I . O O .. O . O-O *
". 7 .N O
, '3; . . 7 ., 3 3y 2 3800 4 4 s u- r, 9 , - w
;ll l
7. 9
/
4 2
/ s 6
2 . r . n 0 1 a _ e
- N - a O -
. I a
3 T -
-
- C E' 32E _ e _
S 1 02I 7R - - A 3 D - a
, C V E) -
)
I LV NE( 9 i 2 -
~
( - -
" l
\
l
- \
u \ 8 S 1
\
0 i 1 \ 1 1 a
- 1 M
J i g I e I I r - -
- \
.^: e Dr e
)
E _ M i I I I i r
- I g l l
/
b ( Or f T - 1_ y
- 1 c I t ' i
- / r F- 2, ES - -
/ es O- 1 2S - _ f .
p S- t A . L -
- r t c
, r lit -
ltl - f
) A U, 1
l I 1 *. N l t t l I i ? 8 l l me ., 0 1 ie l i - . .- 1
, N, r f-
- O
- l.
1
!. iE 1 - - . .
8 1 vP t. 1' - IO _ 1 : 3, LL ) - 1 t t E ,
- J.
2 V IN-- 0- : ( / N l - L
. E '
0- - I M G- t FG A - .
': NUN l - U 8
I UI . A- r HT i t e Wl S 2 1 - . . ( . xEx . 1 l NI ~ 8 0 1 t u o g 3 g 1 t I l i 4 s,
,, 8 u** . ,' ~ ' .. .. *
, ,- t t , . '
~ '
g24/97 I Al' GOD tII'I'l if IllillND I11 istil-:-, i I U Mi-,1-D i II M !.IlII (29 ) CASE , pl il : :- : : : .: :tr r- -- . .-1---- a ' l 1 x l's t I Nt'. . (/g;s NI 3014-3 l NLW RilOF ./ tt i VI e'aN!K I I II ADS. ( 21,3 ELEV 284-
- I
- IST ING ENVLt UPE Of AII S!lli t.ASES (V) DIRECTIUM s
(52 DAMPING) ^
; to U tt . ;
_ . n I \
=
I < l 1 I
. 4o I t to y
\
.{
l )
= 1 1
)" I I (
\
es O yg . . . . . . . _ . _ . . . . . _ _ . . . _ [ 1
\ .
/ \\
/
' % ~- _
/
r
- t. .l_1._1 . 8 ' f . 3- I 1 L 1
,g _ s- _ d .. 1_ J 1 3 f_L ..l.~I 8 8 ..
10 8 1 0 10 3 10 8 Irequency (hz1
'a __ _ _ _ w -% _
- 4. __ _ _ _, _4 m w-.1_~h -. _.._._.m -_
e l s
' C e
l q~ z - re O
*=
M *=
** t) l y - m=Cn b Q:w W eD N ==
4 .n o U > e~
/ .
-a> I Zw=
mL / "' fN t
~ * . l
. l /
-s -
p
$ /
,O,, l
. ..
- 4
" - /l =
c;) y{ <
=="""
", ~
=<
- a. . -
C m
.AJ e
*= e = ,
e.J = s _ *%
-* u m i 3 u
- 6. .
g e
-l
- .0_ w@ i % 0 NO ! l
*f % I.
.. *i =< 7 u \ - -
l
=i is z-
, \ l
' i
<D l
' h.
O O 'S w
, I s
t
- z. i
= = *
\i E
=-
s z.O _' l 1 i
-)
i q :,
, f i I i 1
=,, ."=.*6J
> L e
i l 1 l 7' -Q
- q l J
2.q~w . 6 a 4 i a, N > g
.p r * % 2 l' \=
,t SW - .
w - g I 0' J0 4 ' , i L ," Z Q Z o ; 1
< == 1
- N
. l
.S .7 *3 g'
~2- - .* ,
- MM , t
. 6Z .".
t t
. 3 C D D C#
- y 3
.. an .
='
.!) .: : 2.a as:y est:aag
b. l S S i i G I . - 1 Z
.O.
.. W
- l M Q l 4
- W g "Qb2o l ,
@ C l 4 . t, M Q
., >- 4 .
a@ l I p
^i ~
gy.a .Z.
- nL f N .l w.
8
* /j .
- i 1
s, i,
. , 0
- e. . ,,
.. ,***# j M w4-
=
* 'q
- 16 f
=; . ,
es e
. g g a
LJ # m
~
g l_
= -
~~===.e== ' ~ ~~ ~ """ *%
t
,,, } y
% t
~
C
*~
~p *
- J ,,a 4 &
. "A . '. @
** = 4, % 7
( -
=- /- s i-
.N *
.=mp
<=.q g
- e. %
l \.
" g $
- ". d% CD.
~
4 v
= $.2
* * ~ ,
\
5
. . g 4
w 1
* * >4 '
- 7 "Q , ! 9
=a
-w
-w . , !
e
, > ** .I Om *\Z tw .
i
. - n g X .
- 2. aD,Z,,
i
- - C! - -
< ~2>
~ xu
- z .O. ~
, u Zw
- e .
l
"' = 3 3 c NM 88
- 3) . : . 3,a a: y i st:ar t
4 9 0 e s.
\( d
tw S . S l l l l
*w C
DW pe I e. l a On e.
- M .
l N. uy a f y
- LD f% Cr. . .
- en - '
O c0 R O 4 .M U >= l' -
,3
~ .. e /
~ zs- l O .
cv ~
~
I; O gag /
- a . s p
- w. ,
'w) ' f G ' I ~c y -
.I -
s < O " w # *
# ,_ M
~~
I k = O .
#_s 7
I l ed
- * *me m * ===
o _ g i !
.k. =. .I 55
, g , . I.
-<y **=
\
1
- i I
-N
=
O 5 .- $. -
<=
O C o* - . z
~
- H N, 3
- d%
.= p e
gag 988
- ad
% . C i ,
_t _w \J
- - > c. ')
7
-t'. "s a Q
** 8 l*
- C. t0 - w k. 0 l
s% > c -NZ " Zi l l.
.Sw 1 ,
w. i
'w ed * ' :
< .a.
r .Z o .Z o. . e e 1 x
,~. p n 1
. 4
.i f
* . t
"" MM me Z m.
ee O.
* ** - S on 9 ,
0 5B
.2 )
* ' II*I I*Oy 14;*3OC e
e M-
AWsL%M ..
. r;
.. <r a
9
- 1(
D r ** 1 0
* ~
% N
. 1 .
s . g . 2 .. I k .O. ' N M '
- 0 d ! I y - W h' @ 0:
w I. . LO es m I e 4.M > O
) w 3
/ -
- g> '
g
- Z W **
- n .
IN l -
~
l ess 4 / Cl
,n -
1
* ,s/ s /
/
e. L - "' f S 1 [ m W
~ .
E
- i ~ __
y
=-t -
* % l %
% ~,'
. ,e s J. ;. .
C. r4 N *
.: t s l 5 s - t
= .j ._ '
( - _ w
<** \j O 3 2 -
= _- ,3 -
=
=~ a '
=~
i h
~_ .' "r ; <
1
- - _5:a f .
A.9 -
~, . s ,
I'
. -o . f4
% > y *,
3 -%2 ,,, t
') J' 8W
- 3: I i . .a I
* ! ki r-E5m
~
~2- 3
?
1 = 4
%XR n' b L2% '
tl se M E .: "
. ! .: .a.a a::y 2..:ac -
4
M497 Al'tiUU UI'I'l it .llllilNI) 111 SOFT TU MEDIUM S011. (2 9) CASE . ...r te ital :- m- - r 's s t 's - i . . . . .. . . Sti 3115-1 Ex!5 TING. (2G)
-- NEW HOOF ./ t L I YL
- SNI.5 ! 1. II ADS . t2G ELEY 256-
- - Ex! STING ENVELOPE Or ett 5011 EASES INS) DIRECTION r- r I ,
I i (S2 DAMPING) g {
~}, t SO - - - - -
I
- . g i
- I o I g
. I ;
* . l I
. l r =.
_ _ . . _ _ _ . . p.
- in, . _ _ . _ _ _ .
I
.. g
.. i or l .
i r
/
~~
I w
' \
' ~
tr s j
,,,1 Stl - - - - - - - ---
--/ S i
,e g -
/ N
~_
7 [ 10 10 10 8
. . . . . m ._<
10' Irequency ( I.r 1
4 6. D 5 - N O L i 4~ L g - Z 6 e c -
. .=. . -
f
\
L.J N. . w l l : )
.w -m e a -
m
@ ~ rv Q
, 4 .m > )
>w" U 3 .
. u .s w /
a mWw l l cn . N I S
! /
- a l #
c p ._ j l-
- !c IL r" I
c . i 1 LLJ
-, ~ -1 .-
1 N Z -
' "*yp ~
/ \ ~
Ob l d
- [ :n l u g
[( ,e W
'm b ~
l [ -
,4. . Nm (I ,
~
. ys _
l e s ;
~h O d" I \
~
E= l
\ '
O: OO l
" i g Z.
. 5
- s' O
C
-- d' ' ' -
E " g
. z- , ,
a y,
- .73 ;
- k Y_
r'
-c i *
- *~.*.,e n i
- O Oww g ,
- N > y e
- -NZ _. .
%' SW - l w
- g
- l O+0 < 'l
=
-e .Z Oc .Z. c . ~, 1. .
- 41 =gw g .
y
*D 7' ~9 *
~3~ ~ . ,J
= MM 6
.2- I 'O 4 9 9
4 I - O
- 3 C C~
m
- sa -
- 1) .: .a.s s::y 2..:a : ,,
D O
\
1
- 3
- p. ' l .-
t I . f Z , f ,
.C. **
O e.
/
*
- t.J W "d@W / ,
L*
$ O
= t'y .ao:
C p # ,,, l
, y a
> w v. * ~,""- l u a :> /
OW-f~ * ** ~~ , Si i .- ,
. t i
. _: q - - -
-. i a==
. _an.m j g den w a g? I I i %, =,,,
C a I
' 5 -
gg - T .
.p g OL ua 1'F l ]m -
N. t i "
-. T j WP g l ! m
! l t u
-m
\ 9 C l T ',
Eso W- I. E. l
. ! *4 l l t
1 5
=.'
==
d O .a. , W 4 m ,
- C.
ew W8 i i m
* " ~ C m
- w
=
== == **g% 1 me one s ,
- l f
- y .. $ t
+. * , **
' d
- b.
- m. : 4
- > 1 ~
; ~ = .
l _ a _
- i 7
-w
= . N NZ>
.= e.
g E
~
+
i
~
4 9a - g I
=
4 om e.e ECZ # i ll
~
-C O l I,
< :g .
.. .n y
= . 3- ,,,,
at _. n I j Z '. O
.. ?a =
S.We 2.3 l': ,- 7 .,'. ; a :
- 3$. .
e 4 9
-4 n . . - - , . ,
-e
- 3. Design of Structuses, Cony >o:exts, Equipment, and Systems e
e 1 0'O N
- ll! MSIGN Itt3PONie SP!CiSA. 58 temp eaa 4 '
==** f ele %4eee ht s A45. g.Me.e ese Rtf 388.75 D1
*=* f: =Le%dess wll A91 1.H s., . .. 4 m e. .. .. . . .
I I l 1
- g. . . .. . . . . . . . . ,
w d e.e V V,
.0 f fy*
b / { / 'A i.e .t. s ik R - de. m J I t"' W ten ges
,rumiran uai Figwe 3.7.2 *1(Sheet 9 of 9)
Coupled Shield & Auxillary Buildings SSE floor Response Spectra Ib Revision:P I W85tingh0086 3.7 213 Ap 'P(AFr-4
Evaluation of Seismic Responses and Effects on 1.? Structural Design due to Post-72 Hour Requirements conclusions Seismic analysis models were modified to incorporate changes in the roof model and the addition of mass equal to 25% of the live load and 75% of the snow load.
. I' Seismic responses were recalculated and compared with the existing responses.
The existing design of structures and the specification of floor response spectra for the design of systems and components are acceptable with the following changes which have been implemented in the design: i
. Floor response spectra for the shield building roof were modified in the vertical
! direction in order to bound the results of the new analyses.
. The shield building roof structural design has been revised for the new configuration.
I
I i Staff Issues identified During the Week of August 11 through August 15,1997. Attachment 8
i Staff issues identified durina the week of Auaust 11 throuah 15. 1997
- 1. Westinghouse will include in Revision 16 to the SSAP. the changes in the shield building vertical floor response spectra that were madc due to changes in the design to meet the NRC position on post 72 hour actions.
The markup of Revision 16 to the SSAR was provided and is to be reviewed.
- 2. Westinghouse committed to using the new vertical rasponse spr .ra envelope it developed for the shield building for the design of piping systems connected to the fire water storage tank and the PCCS tank. I 1
- 3. Westinghouse agreed to address the staff's concern regarding the calcula-tions for the out of plane amplification of the annular region of the PCCWS tank roof.
- 4. The staff has the following preliminary concerns regarding the fire protection tank:
a) Because of the unique design of the tank, the staff is concerned about the process that will be used to construct the tank. b) The staff would like to know how the tank is supported on the ends prior to the construction of the shield building roof. c) After the construction of the shield building roof the tank is supported by the roof through the use of carbon steel studs which are attached to the stainless T beams. The staff's review of the shield building roof seismic analysis found that the frequency of the PCtWS tank roof out-of-plane vibration is around 14 Hz. The amplification of seismic loads due to the roof flexibility is about 40 percent. In other words, the tension force in these studs will be increased by 40 percent. Also, because the tank structures have not been analyzed and designed by Westinghouse, concerns related to (i) the adequacy of the stainless steel T-beam section which supports the wet concrete, (ii) seismic loads applied on the tank components (stainless steel T-beam section, bottom stainless steel plate near the outer tank wall, and carbon steel studs), and anchorages of stainless steel T-beam section at the inner and outer PCCWS tank walls for tension development need to be addressed by Westinghouse, d) The staff is concerned about what inservice testing will be done regarding the tank, and how it will be performed.
- 5. The new SASSI analysis based on the " soft-to-medium soil" site condition performed by Westinghouse shows some increase of seismic responses due to the inclusion of the post-72 hour action design changes, and live and snow loads in the seismic model. The staff's identified the following significant concerns:
Attachment 8
.-.mm-yy +,-wg ry -- - w *v- - -
a) In the design of the PCCWS tank roof, Westinghouse assumed the roof slab is rigid and did not consider the ainplification due to the out-of-plane flexibility. The staff's review of Calculation No. 1070-S3R-010 found that the frequency of the roof slab in the out-of-plane direction is in the 14 Hz range and a 30 to 40 percent amplifi- . cation of seismic load should be included in the design. b) The new SASSI analysis results showed that the peak of floor response spectra at Elevations 297 ft and 307 ft exceed those from the old analyses by a significant amount. Westinghouse should document these new floor response spectra in the SSAR and commit to use these floor response spectra for the design of piping systems connected to the fire protection water storage tank and the PCCWS tank.
- 6. 'The staff's review of design calculations of the shield building roof structures identified the following significant concerns:
a) For checking the design adequacy, Westinghouse should provide compar! sons of required reinforcement versus provided reinforcement , for the tension ring and column. This action is for documentation purpose. b) The reinforcement drawings do not show the vertical reinforcement in sides of the air inlet columns. The length of these bars should also be provided, c) Westinghouse should provide additional explanation on Table 11.6 of Appendix 11 to Calculation No.1277-S3C-006 for the calculation of the T-sections. Explain how the strains are calculated and provide the definition of the safety ratio. Also describe how the shear peak value becomes the shear flow described in Page 13 of Appen-dix 11. In addition, provide tha definition of the " shear triangle area." d) Westinghouse used double-U bars for the hoop reinforcement (or stirrups) at air inlet columns, tension ring beam and compression ring beam to resist shear and torsion (#8 rebar at 6 inches on center for the column, #6 rebars at 4 inches on center for the tension ring beam, and #6 rebars at 12 inches on center for the compression ring beam). In the air inlet columns, Westinghouse did not extend the shear hoop reinforcement (stirrups) and cross-ties above an: telow the air inlet openings. In the SSAR Westingnouse commits to ACI-318 Chapter 21, which rtates that stirrups should be provided with 135 degree hooks at both ends of the rebars. The use of double-U hars for the shear reinforcen nt by Westinghouse does not meet this m ,mitment with their current design. l
e) Some inconsistencies between the sumary table in Appendix 25 to Calculation No.1277-S3C-006 and the design & awing were identified. , Westinghouse should provide explanation for the concerns discussed below: (1) The conical shell roof at the tension ring beam shows that an
- amount of 2.14 square inches per foot bottom radial reinforce-ment is needed at the columns and an amount of 1.78 square inches bottom radial reinforcement over the air inlet. However, Table 11.6 of A)pendix 11 to Calculation No.1277-S3C-006 shows that one f 9 re)ar is provided above the air inlet and none at the column. Also, the drawing shows the bottom reinforcement discontinued at the end of conical roof.
(2) The conical roof at the compression ring shows that an amount of 2.04 square inches bottom radial reinforcement is needed. The same table shows no reinforcement provided. The drawing also shows the bottom reinforcement stopped at the compression ring. (3) The conical shell roof at the internal PCCWS tank wall shows 1 that nine #9 rebar were provided for the hoop reinforcement at the top and bottom faces. However, the drawing shows that 18 #9 rebars are provided but they are not properly distributed at the top and bottom faces. 4
- 7. The review of the design calculations for the auxiliary building roof slab at Elevation 180 ft (Calculation Nos. 1260-SSC-003, Revision 3 and 1260-CCC-003, Revision 2) identified two significant concerns:
- a. The effect of global out-of-plane seismic monents along the edge of the roof slab was not included in the design.
- b. Reinforcements for the concrete slab in the north-south direction (parallel to floor steel girders) along the roof edge should be
, checked assuming no composite action of the concrete slab with the steel girder. i- The review of the design calculations for the auxiliary building north wall at column line 11 (Calculation No.1200-CCC-101, Revision 0) identi-fled one significant concern. In the design calculations, the effect of global out-of-plane seismic moments along the edges of the wall was not j addressed. (
+ -
Summary of resolution of items for Attachment 8 Issue Status Applica-Number ble OITS number 1 Action N, the staff will review the markup of Revi- N/A - new sion 16 to the SEAR that was provided item 2 Action W N/A - new
,, item 3 Action W N/A - new item 4 Action W and N, See highlights of 8/11 through 5246 8/15/97 in the cover letter ,__
5 Dropped, for item 5.a Westinghouse wiii address N/A under item 3 above, for item 5.b Westinghouse will address under items 1 and 2 above. 6 Action W 750 7 Action W 5028
Standard Safety Analysis Report Markups Provided During the Week of August 11 through August 15,1997. Attachment 9
SS AR Channes cronosed bv Westnehouse durinn meetinus of Aunust 11-15.1997 P Subsection 311.1 Delete third paragraph beginning "The AP600 design for the site parameters..." and the fourth paragraph beginning "The AP600 may also be suitable....". Sntuiection 312.1.1. second paranraoh , The analyses are performed using the three dimensionsal finite element models of the coupled shield and auxiliary buildings and the containment intemal structures developed and discussed in subsection 3.7.2.3. . Subsection 3.7.2.L1 revise as follows-3.7.2.1.1 Response Spectmm Analysis Response spectrum analyses, using computer program BSAP (Reference 7), are performed to obtain the seismic forces and moments required for the structural design l of the auxiliary building, the shield building, and the containment intemal structures l on the nuclear island. The response spectrum analyses consider modes up to 33 hertz I using the double sum modal combination method, and consider high frequency responses using the procedure given in Appendix A to SRP 3.7.2, Revision 2. Counted shield and auxiliary buildines on fixed base The analyses are performed using the three-dimensional, finite element models of the l coupled shield and auxiliary buildings and the stick models of the shield building roof, l the steel containment vessel and the containment intemal structures developed and discussed in subsection 3.7.2.3. Figure 3,7.21 shows the finite element model of the coupled shield and auxiliary buildings without the shield building roof stick model. h-Mt: :!:m:nt meh! cf th eent:!=: t int:=! :t uct=: i: :hcr. In F!;;= 3.7.2 2. In addition, two typical wall sections of the coupled shield and auxiliary buildings are presented in Figure 3.7.2 3 Response spectrum analyses are performed for the hard rock site where the soil. structure interaction effect is negligible, as described in Appendix 2B, Response spectrum analyses are performed using the fixed-base, three-dimensional, finite element models. The support provided by the embedment below grade is not considered in these response spectrum analyses. A comparison of the member forces and moments obtained in the three-dimensional analyses of the lumped-mass stick models, Tables 3.7.211 through 3.7.2-13, shows 1
that the hard rock profile does not always govern design of the nuclear island structures. In cases where other design soit profiles give higher element forces than the hard rock profile, the in-plane-forces obtained from the response spectrum analyses of the finite element models for the hard rock site are increased by a scaling factor. The scaling factor, at a given plant elevation, is equal to the ratio of the largest three-dimensional stick model element force over the three dimensional stick model element force for the hard rock profile. l Coupled shield and auxiliary buildines on flexible base Response spectrum analyses are also~ performed using the Coupled Auxiliary and Shield Buildings on a flexible base. The model is the same as that used for the fixed. base hard rock site responso spectrum analyses described above, except that plate elements representing the basemat and horizontal and vertical springs are added to x represent the flexibility of the subgrade. Asiri'tWfi'id'b'ase hsrBYo'ck site response spectrum analyses, the support provided by the embedment below grade is not considered. The response spectrum analysis performed for the flexible base overestimates the seismic response because of the conservative treatment of soil structure interaction. It provides the relative distribution of loads to the various shear walls when the plant is located at a soil site. Adjustment factors are applied so that the overall forces in the structure match corresponding results from the SSI analyses performed previously using SASSI. The envelope of the in plane forces obtained from the response spectrum analyses on the fixed base and on the flexible base is used for the design of floors and walls. [ Containment internal structures l Response spectrum analyses of the containment internal structures on a fixed base are l performed using the three-dimensional, finite element models of the containment
] intemal structures developed and discussed in subsection 3.7.2.3. Figure 3.7.2-2 r, hows j
the finite element model of the containment intemal structures. The forces obtained l from the response spectrum analyses of the finite element models for the hard rock site are increased by a scaling factor to account for other soil profiles as described for the coupled shield and auxiliary buildings. Response spectrum analysis of the fixed-base nuclear island lumped-mass stick model is discussed in subsection 3.7.2.2. 1- - - - - - - - - - - - _
Subsection 3.7.3.3. last caracraoh Dynamic models are prepared for the following seismic Category I steel structures. Response spectrum analyses or time history analyses are performed for structural design. --Time-history-analys : re performed-where-floor-respen:: speetre-are-required for-4he-descupled analyses-of-piping-or-components-described in :ubsec4ica 3.'.3% Passive containment cooling valve room (room number 12701)
. Steel framing around steam gen rators .
. Containment air baffle l Seismic input for the subsystem and component design are the enveloped floor
- 1. response spectra described in subsection 3.7.2.5 or the response time histories for each l of the four design soil profiles as described iri~s6b'sVcticW3'.7.2l1."Where amplified response spectra are required on the subsystem for design of components, such as for use in the decoupled analyses of piping or components described in subsection 3.7.3.8.3, the amplified response spectra are generated and enveloped as described in l subsection 3.7.2.5.
Subsection 3 8.4.1.1. fifth and sixth oaracranhs The passive containment cooling system tank has a stainless steel liner which provides a leaktight barrier on the inside surfaces of the tank. The wall liner consists of a plate with l stiffeners on the concrete side of the plate. The floor liner is welded to steel plates embedded in the surface of the concrete. The liner is welded and inspected during construction to assure its leaktightness, Leakage;-if-it w=e te c::ur, i: cc!!ected :.t the b=: cf the-eylindrieal l wal!:. Leak chase channels are provided over the liner welds, This permits monitoring for leakage and also prevents degradation of the reinforced concrete wall due to freezing and l thawing ofleakage. The exterior face of the reinforced concrete boundary of the PCS tank is l designed to control cracking in accordance with paragraph 10.6.4 of ACI 349 with the l reinforcement steel stress based on sustained loads including thermal effects. l The fire protectica system-water tank is shown in Figures 3.8.4-8. It is a 9-inch high stainless steel tank at the top of the passive containment cooling system tank. It is constructed with a series of radial beams separating the upper and lower steel plates. The upper plate is connected to the concrete roof by welded studs located over the radial beams. l
l 3.7.2.6 add new earacraoh at the end The broadened floor response spectra for the shield building roofin the vertical direction are based on soil structure interaction analyses which include added inventory in the Passive Containment Cooling System tank. These analyses use the nuclear island seismic model described in subsection 3.7.2.3.3 as follows: l The top of the coupled shield and auxiliary building stick shown in Figure 3.7.2 4 was I revised to the new shield building rcof configuration. The elevations of the top nodes were raised from clevations 306.25' and 297.08' to elevations 307.25' and 297.58', l 75 percent of the snow load and 25 percent of the live load were added as mass to the l coupled shield and auxiliary building stick and to the containment internal structures stick. . SASSI analyses are performed for the upper bound of the soft to medium (2G) soil case, The results of this analysis confirm the adequacy of the seismic responses and the floor response spectra with the exception of the vertical spectra for the shield building roof which is affected by the additional water mass. The peak of the vertical broadened spectra for the shield building roof are increased to envelope the results of the additional analysis as shown in sheet l 9 of Figure 3.7.2-15. SS AR Finutes Figure 3.7.215, sheet 9 - see attached markup , Figure 3.7.218, sheets 1 and 2 - see attached markup SS AR Tables Table 3.7.217 (3 sheets) - see attached markup Tables 3.8.4 7 - update reinforcement quantities based on calculations reviewed during meeting plus any changes,if any,in response to reviewer comments. l
- 3. Destga of Structures, C mponents, Equiproerit, and Systems e
i .i
8 AP600
- 11f DCSIGN stCSPONSt SPEC 78A. 52 Ones ean e ' ' ' ' "' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
bed.W'4m b F"M
, g gg si ai+4
= El:::?.i:::t::!01:L:::::
3 1
.g. .. .. . . .... ,. . ,
5*' g g 3
\ i.
s .$ - 1 , i i m
\- nes .
'Iri w mouan tm te se Figure 3.7.215 (Sheet 9 of P)
Coupled Shield & Auxillary Buildings SSE Moor Response Spectra Revision:F IS T Winiu'pGilse 3.7-213 A WAW
- 3. Design of Structures, Compone2ts, Epipment, and Systems
=_
a l ( U t- 0 b Styr Mam semeta e, e, i ! 18 TICK ft' LTJ 4) 3 Mali 1Cs f!GLAC LtJ. e. [ hb,$5 5'YC" I!h. (!h n *' 8 p uw Figure 3.7.2-18 (Sheet 1 of 2) Connection Between Lumped Mass Stick Model - Fixed Base Analysis Revision: 12 3 Westiligh00S8 April 30,1997 3.7 229 1
. . = , , . .
. , . . ~ ~ . . -
- - - - . . , , - ~ - - - . - - .
" -~
;; 3, Design of Structures, Componuts, Equipment, cad Systems 4
t C O stirr tauss m=a . Sf!FF B(A't MMeCa e *
!* r.
7 FICURE M3.fJ-4p 55 ?!ca k 455 t FIGURE 3.1J la e. [bh i . 5 ' ' ico.oe _. ,
- ~
82,.fe' ss.se lM' i%%WW48iGj Figure 3.7.2-18 (Sheet 2 of 2) Connection Between Lurnped Mass Stick Model - Sassi Analysis i Revision: 12 April 30,1997 y Westinghouse 3.7-230 l _ _,\
- ~. -- - .- . _ _ --- . ..-
4
.m
- 3. Design tf Structures, Camponents, Equipm nt, end Systems Table 3.7.217 (Sheet I of 3)
COh1PARISON OF h!AXIhfUh1 ABSOLUTE NODAL ACCELERATION (ZPA) DUE TO TI51E HISTORY (TH) AND RESPONSE SPECTRUh! (RSA) ANALYSES"*8' COUPLED AUXILIARY & SHIELD BUILDINGS HARD ROCK CONDITION hiaximum Absolute Nodal Acceleration. ZPA (g) ' Elevation N.S Direction E-W Direction Vertical Direction (ft) TH RSA TH RSA TH RSA, 306.25 1.44 1.43 1.47 1.49 0.9 0.88 297.08 1.32 131 1.27 139 0.9 0.88 i 284.42 1.2 1.16 0.98 1.25 0.89 0.87 272.42 1.09 1.09 0.94 1.16 0.88 0.86 241.00 0.82 0.85 0.78 0.97 0.55 0.75 220.00 0.73 (0.75) 0.75 (0.95) 0.69 (0.73) 0.89 (1.06) 0.53 (0.65) 0.70 (1.26) 200.00 0.63 (0.64) 0.69 (0.84) 0.67 (.069) 0.77 (0.93) 0.49 (0.63) 0.62 (1.10) g 180.20 'O.51 (0.51) 0.59 (0.71) 0.60 (0.63) 0.61 (0.72) 0.45 (0.59) 0.47 (0.93) 161.50 0.44 (0.45) 0.48 (0.58) 0.54 (0.56) 0.56 (0.62)- 0.42 (0.53) 0.37 (0.75) 153.50 0.42 (0.43) 0.44 (0.53) 0.51 (0.55) 0.54 (0.67) 0.40 (0.50) 033(0.67) 135.25 038(0.40) 033(0.41) 0.41 (0.45) 0.45 (0.57) 037(0.45) 030(0.51) 117.50 034 (035) 030(030) 034(037) 030(037). 035(0.40) 030(036) 100.00 030(030) 030(030) 030(030) 030(030) 032(035) 030(030) 82.50 030(030) 030(030) 030(030) 030(030) 030(032) 030(030) 66.50 030 030 030 030 030 030 891EE
- 1. Time history analyses ensider vibration modes up to 33 Hertz. Response spectrum analyses combine vibration modes up to 33 Hertz by double sum method-A -AA '? ' 72- ; dE1. (See subsection 3.7.2.7.)
- 2. Enveloped response results at the north, south, east and west edge nodes of the structure are shown in parentheses.
This is the maximum value of the response at any of these edge nodes. , Revision: 13 May 30,1997 3.7-102 W Westinghouse
==
~
- 3. Design of Structures, Components, Equipmtot, c.nd Systems Ei Table 3.7.217 (Sheet 2 of 3)
COMPARISON OF MAXIMUM ABSOLUTE NODAL ACCELERATION (7.PA) l DUE TO T1hm HISTORY (TH) AND RESPONSE SPECTRUM (RSA) ANA. LYSES" STEEL CONTAINhENT VESSEL HARD ROCK CONDITION Maximum Absolute' Nodal Acceleration, ZPA (g Elevation N S Direction E-W Direction Vertical Direction (ft) TH RSA TH RSA TH RSA 25633 0.94 1.13 1.21 133 1,49 2.91 248.33 0.90 1.05 1.17 1.23 1.20 2.03 24033 0.87 (0.88) 0.98 (0.99) 1.13 (1,14) 1.14 (1.16) 1.N (1.15) 1.62 (1.96) 229.52 0.83 0.88 1.07 1.03 0.84 1.17 218.71 0.78 0.80 1.01 0.93 0.77 1.00 20533 0.72 (0.73) 0.73 (0.74) 0.93 (0.94) 0.86 (0.87) 0.75 (0.85) 0.95(130) 205.33 1.82 1,54 1.09 0.74 1.14 1.N (Polar Crane) 190.00 0.65 0.69 0.82 0.82 0.70 0.85 170.00 0.56 0.66 0.68 0.79 0.64 0.72 162.00 0.51 (0.52) 0.64 (0.65) 0.62 (0.63) 0.76 (0.77) 0.60 (0.68) 0.66 (0.87) 144.50 0.41 0.54 0.48 0.64 0.53 0.66 138.58 038 0.49 0.44 0.58 0.50 0.6 132.25 036 0.42 039 0.51 0.48 0.4 116.86 033(033) 030(030) 034 (0.34) 030(030) 0.41 (0.46) 030(034) 112.50 032 030 033 030 039 030 110.50 032 0.30 033 030 0.36 030 104.13 031 030 031 030 036 030 100.00 030 030 030 030 031 030 l Notes: 1 1. Time history analyses consider vibr' ation modes up to 33 Hertz. Response spectrum analyses combine vibration l modes up to 33 Hertz by double sum method W edd-Mgh f w.;pff;;s. (See subsection 3.7.2.7.) l l 2. Enveloped response results at the north, south, east and west edge nodes of the structure are shown in I parentheses. This is the maximum value of the response at any of these edge nodes. Revision: 9 3 WB5tiflgt10US8 3.7-103 August 9,1996
- 3. Design cf Structures, Compoie:ts, Eq:1pm:nt, and Syst:ms Table 3.7.217 (Sheet 3 of 3)
COh!PARISON OF h!AXIh1Uh! ABSOLUTE NODAL ACCELERATION (ZPA) l DUE TO TIh1E HISTORY (TH) AND RESPONSE SPECTRUh! (RSA) ANALYSES""2' CONTAINh1ENT INTERNAL STRUCTURES HARD ROCK CONDITION Muimum Absolute Nodal Acceleration, ZPA (g) Elevation N.S Direction E W Direction Vertical Direction (ft) TH RSA TH - RSA . TH RSA 158.00 0.79 0.84 0.65 0.82 030 0.30 (PRZ Compartment) 148.00 0.73 0.76 0.58 0.70 031 030 (SG. West Compartment) 148.00 0.69 0.77 0.54 0.67 032 030 (SG. East Compartment) 135.25 0.61 (0.73) 0.53 (0.94) 0.52 (0.71) 0.57 (0.93) 030(0.34) 030 107.17 032(032) 030 030(031) 030 030(032) 030 103.00 031 030 030 030 030 030 98.10 030 030 030 030 030 030 87.5 030 0.30 030 030 030 030 82.50 030 030 030 030 030 030 l Notes: I 1. Time history analyses consider vibration modes up to 33 Hertz. Response spectrum analyses combine vibration l modes up to 33 Hertz by double sum method --' _22 : j ' ; = , - -- ' - (See subsection 3.7.2.7.) l I 2. Enveloped response results at the north, south, east and west edge nodes of the structure are shown in l parentheses. This is the muimum value of the response at any of these edge nodes. 4 Revision: 9 August 9,1996 3.7-104 W Westingh0US8
'r
= _
- 3. Design of Structures, Compone:ts, Equipm:nt, and Systems I
- Dead load
- Intemal pressure
- Equivalent static seismic accelerations
- Polar crane wheel loads
- Wind loads
- Thermal loads The equivalent static accelerations applied in the seismic analysis are the maximum acceleration responses based on the envelope of the results for each soil case. These accelerations are applied as separate load cases in the east west, north-south, and vertical directions. De torsional moments, which include the effects of the eccentric masses, are increased to account for accidental torsior. ind are cyaluated in a separate calculation.
The results of these load cases are factored and combined in accordance with the load combinations identified in Table 3.8.21. Dese results are used to evaluate the general shell away from local penetrations and attachments, that is, for areas of the shell represented by the axisymmetric geometry. He results for the polar crane wheel loads are also used to establish local shell stiffnesses for inclusion in the containment vessel stick model described in subsection 3.7.2.3. The results of the analyses and evaluations are included in the containment vessel design report. Design of the containment shell is primarily controlled by the intemal pressure of 45 psig. The meridional and circumferential stresses for the internal pressure case are shown in Figure 3.8.2-5. The most highly stressed regions for this load case are the portions of the shell away from the hoop stiffeners and the knuckle region of the top head. In these regions the stress intensity is close to the allowable for the design condition. Major loads that induce compressive stresses in the containment vessel are internal and extemal pressure and crane and seistrJc loads. Each of these loads and the evaluation of the compressive stresses are discussed below. Internal pressure causes compressive stresses in the knuckle region of the top head and in the equipment hatch covers he evaluation methods are similar to those discu'ssed in subsection 3.8.2.4.2 for the ultimate capacity.
- Evaluation of extemal pressure loads is performed in accordance with ASME Code, Section III, Subsection NE, Paragraph NE-3'33.
- Crane wheel loads due to crane dead load, live load, and seismic loads result in local compressive stresses in the vicinity of th.e crane girder, nese are evaluated in accordance with ASME Code, Case N-284,"Rou m ;.
- Overall seismic loads result in axial compression and tangential shear stresses at the base of the cylindrical portion. Dese are evaluated in accordance with ASME Code, Case N-284rAnor,1.
Res W
~~
W BSilDgh00SC 3.8-7 NW ary 28,1997 C.I W ]
t
- 3. Design cf Stmetures, Ccmporests, Equipment, and Systtms e
. ~
ne bottom head is embedded in the concre,te base at elevation 100 feet. His leads to circumferential compressive stresses at the discontinuity under thermal loading associated with the design basis accident. De containment vessel design includes a Service Level A combination in which the vessel above elevation 100'is conservatively specified at the design temperature of 280'F and the portion of the embedded vessel (and concrete) is specified at a temperature of 70*F. Containment shell buckling close to the base is evaluated against the criteria of ASME Code, Case N 284, hi!= 1, using a BOSOR 5 model of the portion of the shell above elevation 100' extending up to the horizontal stiffener al elevation 132' 3". Material yield and stiffness propetties are based on properties at the design temperature of 280'F. Temperature differences are raised by small increments until buckling is predicted. Buckling occurred 20 inches above elevation 100' for a circumferential wave number. N = 190, at a factor of 6.0 times the design differential temperature condition. De half buckling wave length is less than 0.5 4(rt). His is not a significant buckling issue; buckling did not occur for wave numbers below N = 60, which is the critical range for the cylinder and top head under external and internal pressure, wGAr @ % 3.8.2.4.1.2 Local Analyses - De penetrations and penetration reinforcernents are designed in accordance with the rules of l ASME III, Subsection NE. De design of the large penetrations for the two equipment I hatches and the two airlocks use the results of finite element analyses which cotuider the I effect of the penetration and its dynamic response as follows: I l 1, { ne upper airlock and equipment hatch penetrations are modeled in individual finite
.1 element models, ne lower airlock and equipment hatch are modeled in a combined I
finite element model (Figure 3.7.2-8) including the boundary conditions representing the i embedment. He finite element models include a portion of the shell sufficient that the i boundary conditions do not affect the results of the local analyses.
.I
-1 2, Surface loads are applied for pressure and inertia loads on the shell included in the 1 model. Loads corresponding to the stresses in the unpenetrated vessel at the location 1
of the penetration, obtained from the axisymmetric analyses described in the previous I subsection, are applied as boundary conditions for the local finite element models. I I 3. De out-of-plane stiffness of the containment vessel is determined for unit radial loads I and moments at the location of the penetration. De frequency of the local radial and 1- rotational modes are calculated using single degree of freedom models with mass and 1- rotational inertias of the penetration. Seismic response accelerations for the radial and I rotational modes are determined from the applicable floor response spectra for the I containment vessel. Equivalent static radial loads and moments are calculated from I these seismic response accele' rations l l 4. Radial loads and moments due to the local seismic response and due to external loads 1- on the penetration are applied statically at the location of the penetration. Dese loads 1 are applied individually corresponding to the three directions of input (radial, tangential 1 and vertical). He three directions of seismic input are combined by the square root - km Revisi - WMr 28,1997 3.8-8 T Westingflouse
- 3. D: sign cf Simcoms, Osmpoznts, Equipmeit, and Systeins
-Insert A -
l Revision 0 of Code Case N.284 is used to the extent possible for the evaluation of the co t acnt l shell and equipment hatches. In some cases due to omissions and incomplete information, Revision 0 l of Code Case N 284 does not have sumcient information to specify the buckling evaluation. For l those evaluations, the corresponding paragraphs of Revision 1 of Code Case N.284 are used. In l particular, the equations and associated definfions from Revision I are used for the interaction l equations for local buckling described in Paragraph 1713 of the code case, l l 9
- Revision: 14 June 27,1997 3.8 6 3 Westingh00$8
I l i i l 1
- Containment Stress Due to Thermal Loads Attachment 10
/
Containment Stress due to Thermal Loads Backoround The staff was concerned that the containment stress analysis due to thermal loads that it had asked Westinghouse to perform in 1993 was no longer valid, because of the change in flow rates resulting from the Commission's position on post-72 hour actions. Westinghouse maintained that its analysis was a bounding analysis and that the change in flow rates resulting from the post-72 hour actions would have no effect on the conclusions of the analysis. Specifically, Westinghouse maintained that in its analysis the shell stresses due to the thermal loads were conservatively evaluated and demonstrated large margins against buckling. It further stated that the evaluation it did demonstrated that such temperature variations were not significant to the design of the containment vessel. (Westinghouse's response to the April 2, 1993, letter and its response to RAI 252.1 are provided in this attachment for reference). The staff's concerns were first addressed during a meeting on August 5, 1997 (See Action Item #2 of August 5, 1997, from Attachment 4), and Westinghouse took the following actions from that meeting: a) Identify where the stress concentrations are the worse and identify the i thermal hydraulic code that was used to arrive at the answer. b) Specify how the width of the stripes was determined for the analysis. Does the meridional temperature distribution cause worse conditions for the containment shell buckling? c) Specify what the water profile is for the containment shell. d) Specify tha critical time for the peak stress (i.e., does the peak stress occur early or late after PCCS initiation). Another meeting was held on August 7,1997, to discuss the issue further. The outcome of that meeting was Westinghouse took the action to discuss why they believed the 80 *F differential temperature used in the original analysis was conservative and to relate that number to the current WG0THIC analysis. Westinghouse provided the attached information as a result of this meeting during the second week of the review. The staff agreed to review the Westing-house material, and to determine if the material presented by Westinghouse resolves the issue. J
Participants during August 5, 1997 discussion H&ME ORGANIZATION DON LINDGREN WESTINGHOUSE RICHARD ORR WESTINGHOUSE GOUTAM BAGCHI NRR/DE/ECGB TOM CHENG NRR/DE/ECGB JACK KUDRICK NRR/DSSA/SCSB J0E SEBROSKY NRR/DRPM/PDST Participants during August 7, 1997 discussion HaME ORGANIZATION DON LINDGREN WESTINGHOUSE LARRY CONWAY* WESTINGHOUSE RON VIJUK WESTINGHOUSE GOUTAM BAGCHI NRR/DE/ECGB TOM CHENG NRR/DE/ECGB JACK KUDRICK NRR/DSSA/SCSB JOE SEBROSKY NRR/DRPM/PDST
- PARTICIPATED BY PHONE s
eerptf snu loizo tAA e12 Jie enJo- - - - . . _ - - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ AP600 @ 002 b*ntainment Shell Temperatures for Streas Analyses Below is summarized the wet and dry containment shell temperatures from WGOTHic (no eone heat ~w conduction between wet and dry stripes) and the ANSYS calculation (actual stripe pattem observed in testing at low PCS flows and conduction considered). ANSYS 2 0 Conduction Calculation with Wet Stripes @ 8.35-in. Spacing 45 psig,50% Wet (Note, th!s situation does not normally occur in response to (' design basis events but can be used for initialwetting scenario)
. Dryinside surface 240*F
. Dry outside surface 230*F e
Wetted area inside surface 227*F e Wetted area outside surface - 202.5'F - 45 psig. 25% Wet (Note, this situation does not normally occur in response to design basis events but can be used for initial wetting scenario)
. Dryinside surface - 254*F
.. Dry outside surface -253*F z_ _ _ . . _
Wetted area inside surface 245*F . . Wetted area outside surface - 223*F (this temp seems high and is based on ANSYS extrapolation) 2f psig,50% Wet (Occurs at 3 hours after PCs actuation) e Dry inside surface - 203.4*F e Dry outside surface 19B*F e Wetted area inside surface - 195.5*F Wetted area outside surface - 183.4*F 25 psig,25% Wet (Occurs at 30 houm after PCS actuation)
. Dry inside surface - 2iS*F e Dry outside surface - 212*F Wetted area inside surface - 209*F e Wetted area outside surface - 197*F WGOTHIC Analysis with no conduction butween wet and dry stripes High Pressure,.neMafemmunem 25 psig -
e Dryinside surface- 229*F
. Dry outside surface - 228'F e
Wetted area inside surface - t 58*F (max. temp) Wetted area outside surface *.77'F (min temp., location does not correspond to max. temp. location) The above infon.1stion should be sufficient to alleviate concems that the striped wet / dry water coverage pattem does not cause a new or limiting containment shtti stress concem. Note that the design basis situation is that the water coverage once established is 90% or greater when the containment pressure and temperature is high, and therefore WGOTHic type temperatures should be used. However as noted above, the information with stripes at high pressure may be used to gain ins!ght about shet! temperatures during the initial wetting process. The stress resulting from cold water applied to a fully heated containment shell should not be a limiting case, because the applied cold water is quickly heated to the shell temperature. Thus any stress due to the initial cold water temperature would be localized,i.e. limited to a small area at the center of the dome.
. _ _ _ __--- -- I
U5/13/WT C&W 15:20 FAA 412 JI4 4b30 Ar500 WOO 3 WOOTHIC AP600 Containment Medel Shell Surfac*eT5ir3eratures Ob}ective of this review is to estimate the maximum extemal shell weta$ry temperature difference predicted by WGOTHIC for both the SSAR LOCA and peak pressure MSLB transients. The wet and dry temperature difference is estimated from the WGOTHIC analysis which uses the assumptions described below. The temperature resolution for the top of the dome is enalyzed using a single clime to represent the shell from the top . of the dome down to the second wolr. The amount of PCS water Applied in the WGOTHIC modells obtained from the predicted evaporation rate for the LOCA transient. Finally, the maximum initial PCS water temperature (120 F) is used in the
. gontainment evaluatkm model;
. . _ . . ~ . . . -
The maximum temperature difference predicted by WGOTHIC was 70 F for the LOCA ' and 76 F for the MSLB. Note, the maximum temperature difference was obtained by subtracting the minimum wet shell surface temperature from the maximum dry shell surface temperature. The maximum temperature difference occured around 2000 seconds for the LOCA transient; at this time, the maximum dry surface temperature was about 260 F and the minimum wet surface temperature was about 190 F. The maximum temperature difference occured at 5000 seconds for the MSLB transient; at this time, the maximum dry surface temperature was about 229 F and the minimum wet surface temperature was about 153 F. (the end of the transient simulation). Also note, these temperature values are not located near one another on the shell surfsca; for the MSLB transient, the maximum dry surface temperature was at the top of the dome and the minimum wet shell temperature was at the operating deck level. The maximum temperature differential between adjacent stacks of a given clime would probably be lower than the values given above.
C8/A4/WI 'A*;U 14 : 3 A 1A1 413 374 3333
, AP900
% 002 12436 s
. ~ . Vhti k 1
\
O
~ ,. ., u .
I
.. 4*.
~..a 4
s " F5gwe1244
~
~
AP600 Contalmnerst Model CHme Noding Pattaen ( Serisitivity to Chme nan m:\3006w-11wy&1b@21sF g g,yf m3 . 4
..n.m - .nru 21::: rix .12 nr iiis ir . o o- - - - -- .. .
a- c o i ..
- . . . : .. .i ;..; . ;,9pt .q 8.8 ;.:n.g.:.y.... t .i q . r .. e.
w p 2-4 4.6CA . 97/10K # l5 1, d; 3,7 4.,8 Het Den Mt Dr.. n bjef Drn..... 4)e/ Dru. U ' s&7. w9. i -- -- ome ~ r y- \ /77.2> /853 /%.3,/8y. ( ... .5. 5).,ii.4. [..- ... .j %. ]...,~(,.7
~
y . ro?. toz
- 9' " . . " ....m.....
- ... . . . . _ . _ . . .m._... . ..
180, , /$3 7 / 78,1,)82,5 .t.y,2., itaf. 9o7. .ior.
/30.2,tgy.7
.~.~-... -
. .=._....
u s . I 79. , .1.1. 1.G .1 74 7,119 . I 'n. 4,132.9
- 178,9 .je.y. y ..,.s. . ..
~ . . . 567. . W 7. *- 2 0 M. , 2 5 4.1 . 2. 01, y 2 51.1-- t o f y 2 s 1.1 -...n.. 2,n/.</p.gS9.y n - -
- 3. . 10 7. _.. / o A ..... . ,-. .. .... m i .
- 1. . _-. ..
205.9/ 25f.T DOS.1>259 f...,toSA>.259.T to.58> .ES15 , 90?e /0 % w ar i
=
- e . )97 4 3 7.9.
f i.97.4 y2.61.1.. . l .9_7.4j 2S. ?.I LtZ yj 2SZ.f. .. .. . 1 2 f . . .... - - .
.B .
b .
e a n M &oS saz'374 5535~ _ . -
- . - - - - . - . ~ --- ~^~ ~ ~~~ '
AP600 2003 9e
. . :. .. . . . . - .:,:y.t:....;.gilg;. 4.:.;.gi.j.;,,y.t..,3.,.q.....c..
g , ,. .. yg . ., . . . .. . . . - .. . l M t Det.As - .._td et-T k &M_pa
- m. ..
17 v- toet h _ y 6 1. t !2D.7~l,2/4$_. .209.L.
' rlt s zo7 7, ris.t zet,2,..zt7,i g}SO . . - . .
N_ . . . ._.
~ '
t.\. $ .__2 4 . R Z /J .. . 2Qslo. . ? _ 1 o 5 8, 2 //. 2oC4, ztI.h tk4_3.. . 2D.5 2,. .aII. 2oM.8 ., zio.4 aos.z./ 2n. zos C> _z n Y g$fc.L 'lS_1,_,.229.1 /st,it1.L
~
./s9,2%t./ /S9,?z.f.I$...
_.u,.g..i../N._./..2_7.9.,7.- _ j /W,74.5
/44.V, 228.f /#.K,. 2._at.S. _
.&a.1./4.?'3_)W.I'1.__M7.32./~/.5 r /57.3 ~2I7,7 /57,3, 20,3
.i s
.. ? ? *- ( MMA NA *"* O -
.. f_cs "...o.._se_ r E 4 t d, a 4x4.
4 ... ___ f,
G0/15/97 FRI 17:04 FAI 412 374 5535 AP600 goog NRC REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
=u Request for Additions!Information related to AP600 Containment Buckling issues The following to Nicholas Request J. Liparuto, for Additionallnformation dated April 2,1993. was received in a letter from Frederick W. Ha At a meeting on February 10,1993 Wutinghouse pruented information on asymmetric temperature stress AP600 during passive conta ninent cooling. These stresses were for the case where n= 100 (100 water the shell). Additionally, Westinghouse provided the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) with stresse case where n=50. Following these discussions the NRC Haff has determmed that the worst case for stresses la the shell may not have been investigated.
Accordingly, Westinghouse is requested to evaluate and report to the NRC the cases where n=200 and n=400. Thee cases should combine struses due to temperature gredients and pressure and compare the results with allowable buckling struses in ASME Code Case N 2g4. whether or not additional research will be required in this area.This infonmation la aaca==='y in order to determ
Response
The following discension provides a summasy of the asymmetric thermal strees evaluation and includes both presented at the meeting noted in the request for additional information and subsequent work in raarnana to the
- request for additional infonnation. The matarial presented at b meeting is documented in Reference 1.
AP600 Coroniamaa__t Vessel Evaluation for Asvr=^rie Ta==sture Distribution latroduction
*Ihe AP600 includes a passive containment cooling system in which water flow onto the top of the containma is used to cool the containment. Tests of a preliminary water distribution system, reported in WCAP 132 abown that there snay be wet and dry sections of the containmant vessel. Typically the tests showed a num vertical dry strip surrounded by wet areas. Review of the test data indiented that the wet areas covered abo percent of the surface and that the dry areas could have a maximum width of about 15 laches. In the saf temperatures of the vessel were calculated separately for the wet and dry regions with no consideration of heat conduction dry regions of from 68'F. on, to the other. These analyses showed a mattmum differsece in tempersture between wet an Structural analyses were performed to investigate the effect of these tamperature variations on the vessel str The temperature difference was conservatively speelfied as 30*P, providing margin above b maximum calcul difference reported in the preceeding paragraph.
Below elevation 132'-3*, it was assumed that the metal tempersture was at the vessel design temperature of 280*P. At all elevations above elevation 132'4* it wu assumed that b metal temperature was coastant on a given salmuth and that the circumfereotial tempera defined by 15 Inch-wide dry strips at a tempersture of 280*P, alternating with 34-inch-wide wet strips Response to 4/2/93 Letter 1
00/19/07 001 17:UB FAI 412 374 5535 AP600 goes e NRC REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL. INFORMATION B _ _ _ temperature of 200*F. His case was represented by the uro harmonic plus four higher 100 200 harmonics of 300, and 400 in the Fourier series, with the co responding amplitudes of 224.4',41.'l',23.9',4.4*, and .
- 8.2*F rupectively, %e zero harmonic is an axisymmetric part of temperature distribution and does not contribute to asymmetric distribution. and therefore to the asymmetric strus pattem. his case does not produce any stre the region away from the discontinuities at Elevations 100'.0" and 132' 3". It is considered independe the subject of the present discussion is to investigste the effects of uymmetric temperature distribution An additional case was considered with 50 waves around the circumfenace. %is has dry regions larger than the maximuni observed in the water distribution tests. it was chosen bued on the containment structural analyse show that critical clastic bucuing of the AP600 head occurnd for n = 65 and plutic buckling occurred for n =
- 33. b purpose of naalyzing this case was to investigate the sensitivity of the strus neults to the number of waves.
Stresses due to Asymmetric Tewperature Distribution Analyses for the 50 and 100 harmonic loeds with an amplitude of 40'F were performed using the axisymmetric she of revolution model of the overall conta6mant veneel as used in the veneel analyses described in SSAR Subeectio 3.3.2.4.1. Analyses for the 100, 200, and 400 harmonic loads were performed using local models of the top head. Comparison of the results in the knuckle region for the 100 harmonic showed that the local model gave results th were consistent with those of the overall model. , i 4 M analysee were performed for asysunetric teinperatures specified by a cosine distribution with an amplitude o 40'P. A single Fourier harmonic, n, of 50,100,200, and 400, one term at a time, wm used. Table 1 abows strees resultsfor results forn n= = 50 and 100 for a typical lecstion in the cylinder away from the hoop stiffences. Table 2 shows 50,100, 200, and 400 at the knuckle location where the maximum compression occurs under internal preneurs. De maximum imridional tensile / compressive membrane strees is essentially the name for e harmonic, n, greater than 50, and approaches a maximum value of 7.0 kai, his is found in both the cylindrical shell and the top head knuckle. %is value is equal to the strees in a plate restramed in the meridional direction, in the ciscumferential direction, and subjected to a unifonn tempersture differseco of 40*F. A small strue of 0.6 kai occurs for n = 50 in the knucUe at the locatlon where the maximum compression occurs under internal pressure. Hoop and in-plane shear stresses around the circumfenoce are near zero for the higher in the knucue and for all harmonics in the cylinder. De precceding results for Fourier harmonics of 100,200,300, and 400 with the amplitudes of 41.7',23.9*,4.4 and 4.2*F, respectively, were combined to simulate the twponse due to the asymmetnc portion of the tempe defined by the case of 15 inch dry and 34-inch wet strips (Figurse 1 and 2). Maximum combined meridional compressive membrano stresses la the cylindrical shell and the top head knuckle (( = 105 degrees, tangent line
= 90 degrees) are 10.8 kai and 9.7 ksi, roepectively. Bees meridional stresses are very local around the circumfenace of the vessel. Dere are no other thermal stnee components present at these locations. h strese distribution patterns repeat every 49 inches for the cylindrical shell and every 44.5 laches for the top head kn at ( = 105 degnes. %ese strees plots are shown in Figures I and 2, respectively. Dere sto 100 repetitions arou the circumference.
, Response to 4/2/93 Letter 2 i
, _ -__a
08/15/97 FRI 17:06 FAI 412 374 5535 AP800 @ 004 NRC REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Buckling Evaluatloo for Asymmetric Temperatune N Cylindrical $ bell 1he alternate compression / tension seeridional loadsag was lavestigated considering simply supported edges at the salmuths of sero meridional stress (compression changing to tension and vice verse). This assumption permits the buckling investigation of a cylindrical shall model to be represented by a cylindrical panel model, b circumferential width of a panel is equal to tbs distance over which meridional umpression is acting and is about 18 laches (Figure 1). The width is conservatively used as 24.5 inches (one-half of 49 laches), which tankee an angts of 1.8 degrees = r/100 radian subtended at the axle of revolution (Figure 3). From page _486 of Refere.sce 2. the theoretical eteetic buckling senes, e a ,, is calculated as 477 kai for a uniform seeridional compression. Applying a capacity reductice factor of 0.252 (due to baperfection), a plasticity reduction factor of 0.358, and a factor of safety of 2, based on ASME Code Case N-284 (Refmoce 3), the allowabh buckling meridionel (Figure 1). (Note that the 10.3 strees, ag,kal is the maximum stress and is not the average str o e penet.) Therefore, it is concluded that there le no potential buckling of the cylindrical eheu due to asymmetric temperatures. An alternate appensch of distributing the meridioant load malformly over the half ways leegth, calculated bened on a cylindrical shell subjected to ensemal pressure and then comparing with the N 284 allowable, leede to the same , g conclusion. This approach is consided applicable because a cylindrical shell with closed aeds subjected to external pressure develops a susee condition of aeridional and circumferential compressica. This stress pattern is more severe then one with meridional compression aloes. The average metidional compressive stress over .he half-wave length of 106.5 laches is 0.5 kei(Figure 1). The corresponding ASME Code case N 284 allowable le 4.5 kei using the absoreucal elastic buckling strees of a,, = 35.8 kal a capacity nduction factw of 0.252, a plasticity reduction facace of 1.0, and a factor of safety of 2. Top Head Kauskk When subjected to extenal pneeurs, an suipsoidal shell (top bend) develope a saese condition of mridional compnesion and circumferential tension in the knuckk regica, whereas a spherical aben develops a strose conditica of equal meridional and circumfenotial compression. The external pressure buckling evaluatiors of the top head knuckk with meridional compression aloes can be tnoted as an equivaler.4 spherical shell of a radius equal to the conical radius of the top bend kamekle. (Note that the effect of tension on buck!bs is isnored in ASME Codo Case N 284.)It le therefbre conswadve 2 was alw minimum vales of the circumferential buckling wave length of an equivalent spherical shall when uniculating tto average senes. The meridional load le unifortaly distributed over the half wave length calculated based on equivalem spherical shell subjected to external pressure. This is demonstrated la Figure 2. The average omridices: compressive strees mer the half wave length of 63 inches le 1.4 kel.1he correspooding ASME Code ceas N 284 a!!owable is 3.6 kal using the theoretical elastic buckling stress of e,, = 34.9 kai, a cepecity reduction factor of 0.207 (this le based as proposed revision 1 of the Code Case, eiace this paragraph wa le couros of propeintion when the original code case y Response to 4/2/93 Letter 3
, . Y
08/15/g7 171 19:07 l'A1 412 374 6535 Al'600 @ 00$ I NRC REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION pw wu luued), a pluticity reduction factor of 1.0, and a factor of safety of 2. herefore, it is concluded that there is no poteollal bucuing of the top had due to pymmeJric temperaturw. Buciding Evaluation for Combined Asymmetric Temperatures and 1 sternal Pressures Cylindrical Shell
% wymmetric temperaturn produce meridional ettseau only (alternating comprsesloo and tension around the circumferen:e), wherus laternal prwours develope toeridional tension and circumferential tension. When both loadings are combined, the meridional compreselon will be reduced, resultlas la less severe buckling potential than that with pymmetric temperstures, as discussed earlier, herefore, there is no need to explore this further.
Top Head Knuckle W circumferential di.tribution of membrene stresses due to pymmetric temperarum plus internal presoun le shown in Figure 4. As described before, circumfarsetlal and emeridional compressive membrane stresses are, respectively, som and 1.8 kal(using the everage over the half wave length) due to asymmetric temperatures. The circumferential and eneridional enembrane stremens due to 45 pelg are 10.3 kal compreploe and 11 kal tension, twpectively. Comblnlog thme strueu with the stresses du to the internal prwoutes of 5 and 45 pois, the resulting enembtnoe stroenes and their N.284 buckling evaluation are as follows: I CASEI: Asymmetric temperatures + 5 pelg later W pressure Strees Componeet Strone Cirrumferential Eg::los 1.1 kal Maridional compressioe 0.6kai N 284 allowable compreselon for circumferential stressee 10.3kal N.254 allowable comprwsion for meridional stresses 2.2 kol Wrefore, there is no potential buckilag for & load ones. CASE 2: Asymmetric tempres + 45 pelg laternal pressure Strees Component Strese Circumforsetial compreselos 10.3kel Meridioant tenslos 9.2 kal N.244 allowable compreselon for circumferential stressee 10.3 kai N.284 allowable compression for meridional Stronese 2.2kel herefore, there is no potential buckilag for this load case. (Also, the meridional tension will have a poettive effect on preventing any possible bucktlag.) n..pon.. i. 4m.3 tet.r4 t g, ll _
06/15/97 IHI 17:07 l'A1 412 $74 5535 AP600 @ 006 NRC REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION l M 4 Considering tbc magnitude of the laternal prwsure buck!!ag capacity of the top boed, as deteradood by BOSOR5 analysis (Reference 4), ar.d the margin available in the bucWing evalution of the top bead subjected to asymmetric temperaturse alone, the combined loadings of maalmum 45 pelg daign laternal pruaure mad asymmetric temperatures will not lead to any poteatial buckling. Conclusions
%e contaltr.neot vesect was evaluated for temperature variations around the vessel that were conservatively postulated beasd on a review of the water distribution toets and otbet ufety saalyses. $ bell otrosses due to the i
thestnal loads were conservatively evaluated and demonettsted large margia against buckling. De evaluation demonstrates that such temperature varistloos are not algnlReant to the design of the coctalament vessel. References
- 1. L4t.er from N. J. Upatulo to Document Control Desk USNRC, dated February 8,1993.
- 2. Timoebenko, S. P. and Gore, J. M., ' Theory of Elastic Stability,' Second Edition,1961, McGraw Hill Book Co.
- 3. ASME Code Case N 244.
- 4. AP600 SSAR Subeection 3.8.2.4.2.2 Buckling Eva!untion of Top Head.
SSAR Revision: NONE I Response to 4/2/93 Letter 5 I i
s oo ow uu vuf w u w a uuuu 0o02-esic neoutsT Pon Anomount, peopm44 TION
. . . . . .e . ro,sm.. e Queedon 252.1 Dimmes es ^ skes to to ipsumsms of the W in ihm www of a swore aseidset.
Meepense' in ihm went of an oscidset, paedvs esmialsammt osebog syssen (pCE) weem is dueribuesd auto the contaimmat vessi la oder to prov6de saating along wie mamme one suomledan samling, thereby hearias ihn presame end insenemm indes W The weta new is n iiinand en a bish ~ p mm siemen. is emmin oma assieman, it een be posemisand est as pcs meter does um imisines than enlied apa, but does imideas haar im lhe mesmario when es essenhammet is het and premedeed. Rapid analing of he eastehusset vessel in omh a seamano .. , was mhaned as dummed in as 8 stewing paragraphs. A senseural emelysis of as samanismsmi vessel dwing pG water delivesy one performed to esses the is nyid easing, camadasset venet saadas ad smuss dwanaped danns a arak,ing sweno === m,est of ens,and wie es shimmes n,asky of e samt. It amused est pCs .eter, a lam minismo temy.mnim of 407, is dueribuend as he oestalammet shall whom to -eh is et hidi pnosen sad euyamama. Cahimal pasmans sad immynnames hr the h wars estressed from emnlyses of swore soddames is whid the PCS henow. are described in Appensa L of the AP900 pRA weest synessaof hined, and have freyssasies essenemme heof een 7,4 eveses are Qa and 5.4 a 1 . 10"3 Cass CC involves a small less of coolset amendsat in utd4 lbs ingesaminammt rehmling water storage tok sheek vaivas adt to syn in mesdam, en p mi. -w enoung synne sud se pendw asidual hem sumami heat eachsegun ha to spents. Three of abs iner ease makesy tanks and assummastase are availshin ser een biaselan. At han ene i=6 er as summede f .2-' sy nn e is ope n demsl. Com OKP is es same a Com CC, mosyt ed all four son makeup tanks and sesommleton m evedshls for 14sselen. omphs e wins a s -" ses m ad ======m ove as arm 48 h ro vor as t - mais m.- pneamed as pages L 74, L.75, and L es or en PILA. The rumbs inciale commstumen imm he geantion of hydmgen.d* say, eering ts enddent. In ed61 ion, pnesses and temperamuss et key times dunng the socident ese psevided in Tabiss 252.1 1 sad 252.12. Cass Cc envelopes with a sensiassa puesmo of 65.3 puis et da homes. The e et 61s tium is 2067, whid is a lials lower than for Cass OKy. por case CC, abe passes samtimmes to rise bsyemd 4s bosse beseems of mamandsmshie ses geometiam, 36ereas for cass OKP the passes nm. ins undy e mmmm. c u et e. m dis a n homm indsome est me p sms womid rim i. as pdg. Espid sooling of the vennel was evoimated ist Cass CC et 72 hours. Initission of the pC3 water was postulsand at en ==*w eessalemmet yeesame wiels es Erst 72 hours. This is ocasissant wit he esempticalgromad fuls for te pr.A est, given me hilses of eaminimammt la lhe Ibst 72 hours, . , @ accident managemsat measuns een be takaa to prevent =% hihms.
+ - - , . + , - . . , ,y--. ,,, . ,
Imc REQUEST POR ADDIT 10NAL MPORMATIDI1
,ay e a6 w,"
m sois _ m_ . . _ _ .h m .mo h _ evelandon was partenmed at he esp of es dans sinse his is es reglas etase es woest news omeo the vessel. Deer regions me has orieloal immoe smesses is she dans sway from the crows are k,wer, and weser would be hensed ' as it Sows down en. does. The shnu temperstmo pner em PCs inleistian wGl be neuer shun es essenismsat pas ennuyersame; houwwer, it was esmeervasively assumed that es shst was as a tessysreause of 300'P. The amends arboo was sensavedvely assumed to be reduced *r 4 to the 40'F esesperature of the PCS woest. ne stress in the arves of e' n say head due to the inasmal pnesse of 88 pig at 72 baars is M.d hai bened en the sendas of the vessel stress smalysis deserted in SSAR subanesion 3.8.2.4.1. The stress in this sogies at the mislaase pnesmo esynney of the seassimmat is he ihan risis as ducseed h SSAn subasosion s.a.2.d.2. madnessa of e. surfeos esagerature hem 300' en 40'F vesults is a estmal semis of 0.16 poroset. Based en almans analysis l assusslag beannel sesuranet of thermal asemaalam in es plane of the platelike ^ __, _ change produces a tammus ' W A tenmal areas of H.! kal. Combialag en intenal pressee seress at 72 Lours and ths normal stress sendes in a " . tunsde press of IM.$ hai et she omanids surke of the venant. na ASMr. Onds ====&d-e aurhus sensmen psodened by tenant abock as peak seresses. He basic sharesessiede of sush a seress is het it does met esses any =a':a==m distonies sad is i ^'-- ? only as a passible emmee of a Isaigne esm& ar a briade Bruceure. Evelmasian of sue seresses is seguired only for Servies Imois A and B leeds and is not regebed for Servies Imol C er D. For Servies Levels A and 3 leads, abs toes) senes, h by elassic senlyses, is liaised to the abowshis senes. 8 of $80 kai for 10 load cycles n&s high umgestada, mesmesany sanier ihan ytald, sesents to ism est en memes e peak semes and met yieldma wol alisa es tenmal seneses. no serfeos seress of 64.1 kaiis mentiin comparison wi6 the AIME eBowohle for Servies Imel A leads (5, = $80 hui) and dass ant even have to be considered Gor Servme 1mels C and D loads, which could insinds censin asvere assidsman. Ahst iministoon of es PCs water, the ' , __ ymnie through the histmens of the plass wGI erasmision from ihs assussed malions tempemame of 300'F to a lower aser emifona temperesso alaaller to shoes calculsaed imr es design basis see6 dent mal shown in Tshis 6.2.1.1.d of he SSAR. For this conditism ibs abrough ddokasas gretant is ameB and thanmal stresses are not signinount. Thermal seresses during this transubos wiu be lower esa ihn surtase sense evelamand previously, ne somenisment vessel een resist &c unmisman sateena. laduced by rapid coohng earing a sevese accidet wishout stresammt inDure, ne vammt is constructed of ASME SA337 Qass 2 semel, wie a abdomus yield managik of 40.0 kel and an skisses tensus arength of 80.0 kai. A typical stroentrala ouve for 8A537. Class 2 material shows shimmes strams as M.5 ksi at a serais of 8 persant; he alonention et supeme wes 265. ne altimsee sepacity a(6s vesnt is governed by gross memhnme yield of the cylindrical portaan. If supid cooling occurs when the imamenal pasare h clues to unia , en oombined amm will .aos.4 yield sad kom! yishlag win accer, wie heat plasse semin win be abitanneurhas ihan es amia esponsiy of as met and win mot m home of me vammt. no evehnden shows ibat sayid cooling of the ----* vessel by addition of cold PCs waner ki a hat osmannamani does not emme ha of en vesset. non i sem-s am adf% .ad me usan 1. songeriana v46 the *1=ana maserial smain. q.
"N* "
W We @ ghese l
l 1 NRC REQUEST FOR AD0m0NAL INF0fWATION P*"* , . . . . , , , , . SCAR Rev6sion: NONE
^
Tame 251.11 Centainement Gas Prouwse and T . for Case CC Tbme CHr) F (pale) P(peig) T ('F)0 0 30.0 15.3 215.0 2 g3.5 28.8 250.0 13 68.0 53.3 305.0 - 48 80.0 65.3 296.0 Tame 251.14 Castehumani Gas Presswa and Temperstwos for Case OKF Thas Git) P(pois) P(paia) T (*F) 0 29.0 14.3 209.0 2 44.0 29.3 252.0 7 42.0 27.3 305.0 16.5 71.1 $6.4 314.0 48 75.4 60.7 314.0 252.1 3
- * ~= . , , , . - . ,
l 1 Status of Draft Safety Evaluation Report I Open items as a Result of the Two Week Meeting 1 Attachment 11 b
Status of DSER Open Items Provided below is the status of the pertinent open items, using the open item tracking system (01T5) number, at the conclusion of the August 4 through 8, and 11 through 15, 1997 meeting. OITS No. Status Status Detail 623 Resolved The staff reviewed Revision 12 of the SSAR, t 628 Resolved This item is Administrative 1y resolved. The issue will be technically resolved in Section 2 of the SER. 649 Resolved The staff reviewed Revision 12 of the SSAR and the March 26,1997 submittal. 662 Resolved The staff reviewed Revision 12 of the SSAR and the March 26, 1997 submittal. 663 Resolved The staff reviewed Revision 12 of the SSAR. 668 Action W Response to this open item by Westinghouse is not acceptable. A response that outlines the difference between the response spectrum and the time history should be provided. ] 670 Resolved
Conclusion:
1 within the bo(un)d of the AP600 standard design, afor si analysis summary report will be available, and (2) for sites with the design site parameters outside the " bound of the standard design including non-uniform sites, the issue will be technically resolved in , Section 2.5 of the SER. 672 Resolved The staff reviewed Revision 12 of SSAR Sec-tion 3.7.3.8.3. 1885 Cicsed See Item No. 670. 5031 Confirm W The staff reviewed the draft of SSAR Revision 16. 5032 Closed The corrected design calculation was reviewed and found acceptable. 5344 Closed The staff reviewed the W July 31, 1997, submittal. 5545 Closed The staff reviewed the M July 31, 1997, submittal . 678 Resolved The staff reviewed the M December 18, 1996, submittal and the discussion conducted in the August 11 through 15, 1997 meeting.
l l 681 Resolved The staff reviewed Revision 11 of SSAR Sec-tion 3.8.2.4.1.2. . I 744 Resolved The staff reviewed Revision 7 of the SSAR and the ) discussion conducted in the January 16, 1997, meeting. 750 Action W The design for the shear reinforcements of the air inlet columns, tension ring beam and compression rin , beam is not acceptable (See item number 6 of Attach g ment 8). 751 Confirn W The staff reviewed the draft of SSAR Revision 16. 754 Action N W's res >onse was provided in Revision 12 of the SSAR and is >eing reviewed by the staff. ) 762 Resolved ine staff reviewed the design calculation in the l August 11 through 15, 1997, meeting. I a 766 Resolved The staff reviewed the English version of the valida-tion and verification pac < age of INITEC's ARMA computer program in the August 11 through 15, 1997, meeting. I 767 Action N W's response was provided in Revision 14 of the SSAR and is being reviewed by the staff. 768 Action W M's response to this open item (foundation design for the construction loads) is not acceptable (See Attach-ment 4 August 6, item number 6). 769 Confirm W The staff reviewed changes in Revision 15 and in the draft of Revision 16 of SSAR Section 2. 772 Confirm W The staff reviewed the draft of SSAR Revision 16. 5028 Action W See the sumary of significant concerns (Item 7 in , Attachment 8). 5029 Action W and N See the summary of major issues concerning the basemat in the cover letter. Also see discus-sion item 1 from Attachment 4 from 8/5/97. 5242 Confirm W The staff reviewed the draft of SSAR Revision 16, 5243 Closed The staff reviewed June 11, 1997, submittal and Revi-sion 15 of the SSAR. 5244 Closed The staff reviewed June 11, 1997, submittal and Revi-sion 15 of the SSAR. 2
1 5245 Confirm W The staff reviewed June 11, 1997, submittal. 5246 Action N See the summary of significant concerns regarding the fire protection tank in the cover letter. Also see item number 4 in Attachment 8. 5517 Action W ){ will arovide changes in Revision 16 of the SSAR. Westing 1ouse will include the criteria and equations directly in the SSAR. A reference to revision 1 of Code Case N-284 is not acceptable. 5318 Closed The staff reviewed the May 23, 1997 subitittal. L I}}