ML20217A734
| ML20217A734 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 11/15/1990 |
| From: | Devine J GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| TASK-03-07.B, TASK-3-7.B, TASK-RR 5000-90-1991, C321-90-2002, TAC-76879, NUDOCS 9011210258 | |
| Download: ML20217A734 (24) | |
Text
,
6 t. +
1 GPU Nuclear Corperstion N
I98r One Upper Pond Road Parsippany, New Jersey 07054 201 316 7000 TELEX 136 482 Writer's Direct Dial Number; November 15, 1990 C321-90-2002 5000-90-1991 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Att Document Control Desk Mail Station P1-137 Washington, DC 20555 Gentlement i
l Subjects Cyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station (OCNGS)
Docket No. 50-219 Response to Request for Additional Information Made by the NRC Staff on September 14, 1990 -- SEP Topic III-7B i
Related to Drywell Temperatures (TAC No. 76870)
By letter dated May 25, 1990 we provided information concerning the subject SEP I
topic.
Your letter dated September 14, 1990 requested additional information in order to complete the NRC staff's review of this SEP topic.
The specific information requested by the staff and our responses are provided in the attachment to this letter.
1 Very truly('yours, N
r
(
^
J. C. DeVir.e, sr.
Vice President and Director Technical Functions L
JCD/YN/p1p Attachment cc Administrator Region 1
[g U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- ONQ 475 Allendale Road
['$
- King of Prussia, PA 19406
,so
- otn
(>. 0 NRC Resident Inspector on; Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station
. t0 0 NO QQ Project Manager 0
[7 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
{l
- ' g Mail Station F1-137 l
oo.
Washington, DC 20555 YN:C3212002 GPU Nuclear Corporation is a subshary'6f G eral Pubhc Utikties Corporation
}
T ATTACHMENT
References:
1.
Orchard, D. F.
Concrete Technology, Vol. 1, 3rd Edition.
2.
Industry Report on Class 1 Structures Prepared for Electrical Power Research Institute Project RP-2643-27, January 1990.
1.
NRC Ouestion:
From the OCNCS drywell sketch, it appears that the shield wall extends up to the elevation 84'
-0".
In light of this, clarify the first sentence of your response.
"Above elevation 94 ft.
-0" in the Oyster Creek Drywell, the shield wall concrete is not insulated from the operating temperatures of the Reactor."
GPUN Responses As shown on GPUN drawing 3E-153-02-004, the top of the biological shield wall is at elevation 82'-2".
However, the drywell shield wall referred to in our letter of May 25, 1990 is the exterior concrete wall of the drywell.
The term "drywell shield wall" was used to be consistent with terminology used in the analysis performed by cur consultant.
The area addressed in our letter of May 25, 1990 is above the elevation where the drywell head bolts to the steel drywell.
2.
NRC Ouestion:
Provide a copy of Reference 5 or if submitted to NRC previously, provide date of the letter.
CPUN Resoonses A copy of Reference 5, "OCNCS Upper Drywell Shield Wall Thermal Analysis," Av attached to this response.
3.
NRC Ouestions The response indicates that based on the thermocouple data, the average temperature in the chield wall varies between 150'F and 225'F.
This is equivalent to the concrete temperatures near RPV shell to be in the order of 250'F to 300'F.
The cooler side could be at drywell temperatures. These are sustained operating temperatures. Since you are following ACI 349-80, the section A.4.3 is applicable here. A thorough evaluation of the :hield wall concrete is necessary, and it should include the followings Est. mating the "as is" strengths and modules of elasticities of the a.
con rete any reinforcing bars in a conservative manner.
b.
Establish!.ig the revised acceptance criteria.
Ana;yzing the wall to withstand the postulated loads including the c.
loads from the drywell truss and the RPV stabilizers, d.
Supporting the estimates with the inspection of accessible areas during an outage and core campling or other NDE methods.
A summary of results to address the above issues.
I l
YN C3212002 i
h
i i
AttO!hment
,C321-90-2002 Page 3 QPUN Responses As stated in the response to question 1, the concrete wall in question is the exterior wall of the drywell. The temperatures on the cooler side of the wall are the kmbient reactor building temperature and the temperature of the water in the spent fuel pool. The analysis discussed in Reference 5 of our letter of May 25, 1990 was performed with a conservative estimate of concrete and reinforcing strength based on an assumed drywell temperature of 340 F.
This analysis demonstrates that although cracking of the concrete is predicted, the structural integrity and functionability of the wall is not compromised. As noted in our letter of May 25, 1990, data gathered since this calculation was performed indicates that maximum recorded drywell temperatures have not exceeded 0
294 F.
In addition, as discussed in our letter, recent studies indicate that significant degradation of concrete occurs only upon prolonged exposure to temperatures in excess of 300 F(l). Therefore, the thermal conditions experienced in the upper drywell have no detrimental impact on the functionability of the concrete wall.
- 4. - NCR Q testion: The shield wall is also subjected to sustained neutron and gamma radiation.
Provide an assessment of the effects of the radiation together with that of temperatures, and factor it into respranse to 3 above.
GPUN_Respongst As stated in the response to question 1, the wall addressed in our letter of May 25, 1990 is not the biological shield wall. The subject area is above the elevation where the drywell head bolts to the drywell. While the wall is subjected to sustained radiation, the levels are not sufficient to cause significant concrete degradation (2).
k l
YNIC3212002 i
h 713 0
g y
TDR No.
Revision No.
1 Buoget 315302 1
20 Technical Data Report Activity No.
Page of Fro,ioct: OYSTER CREE 3; NUCLEAS STATION Department /Section Eneineering Meehaniee Release Date Revision Date Document
Title:
OCNGS UPPER DRYWELL SHIELD WALL THERMAL ANALYSIS Orig 6nator Signature Date Approval (s) Signature Date John F. Stonieerny (IMpri t Giuliano DeGrassi (IMPrit.
_ Sr. Engineer).
Supervisor Encineer)
L LLn Maka 91 wies b. A %
+Auu
//
/
9 Appepval fgt Exterrpi Distnbuten Date W /k --
N W90 r-Does this TDR include recorrmondat6on(s)? OWs ENo if yea, TFWR/TR#
i l
o Distribution Abstract:
F. Ihrbieri a.
Brief Statement of Problem J. Bart on G. Ca # anno' Above the 94' elevation in the Oyster Creek Upper Drywell T. H. Chang Shield Wall, the shield wall concrete is not insulated D. K. Croneberger from operating temperatures of the reactor. Thermocouple P. F1 d er L. Garibian data indigate temperatures at the drywell head (dome) may reach 285 F.
GPUNhaspostulagedthataconservative upper bound temperature of 340 F at the drywell head is n
EU M. Laggart M. Radvansky Therefore, this analysis was performed to investigate the M' S^^f d temperature and stress distributions in the upper drywell W. Smith shield wall and to evaluate structura}F at the drywell integrity for T. W intenz assumed temperatures of 285 F and 340
- $,' h,' h[no head.
This was accomplished through the use of the finite element method of analysis.
Specifically, the ANSYS computer code was used for heat transfer and stress g CM2f7
- analysis, b.
Summary of Key Results The upper drywell shield walf concrete has been analyzed based on temperatures of 285 F and 340 F at the drywell head.
The analysis predicts that cracking will occur in both the longitudinal and hoop directions.
However, the maximum stress level in the steel rebag is 30,000 PSI which is below the yield stress at 300 F.
The predicted depth of concrete cracking is approximately half-way through the wall at the worst location.
M Q Abstract Only N*
i TDR No. 713 i
Page la c)
Conclusions Although concrete cracking is predicted in the upper drywell %ield wall, the structural integrity and functionability of the wall is not compromised.
The predicted temperature for the 3400F case at the inside surface of the concrete shield wall is 260-2800F, t
l and the average temperature through the 5' thickness is 180-2150F.
These values exceed normal. recomended limits
(
for thick walled concrete structures:
2000F surface, 0
150 F average.
( Re f. 14 ).
Exceedence of normal temperature limits is considered acceptable.
Loss of strength and deterioration only become a significant problem above 3000F.
(Rev. 15 ).
The analysis conducted has established a basis for structural adequacy of the upper drywell shield wall under a postulated worst case therms 1 environment:
3400F steady state condition on the drywell head.
In addition, seismic and dead weight loading conditions were evaluated and found to have no significant impact on the results and conclusions of the analysis.
1 1
.._._m.,,,,..-
. ___,_.,,~
<._..m.,
m
j TDR Wo. 713 Page 2 THERMAL ANALYSIS OF OYSTER CREEK UPPER ORYWELL SHIELD WALL Abstract Title Page No.
a.
Brief Statement of Problem 1
b.
Sunnery of Key Results 1
c.
Conclusions
-la Section 1.0 Introduction 3
2.0 Methods & Analysis 3
3.0 Results 10 4.0 Conclusions 10 5.0 References 19
(~
s i
~- -,
,,,,.,m-
,-w-,-
m.
m, - - -
1 l
TDR No. 713 Page 3 l
1.0 Introduction The purpose of this analysis is to detemine the structural, integrity of the Upper Drywell Shield Wall when exposed to temperatures resviting from the drywell head (done) being at 285'F and 340'F. The 285'F done temperature was obtained through the use of themocouples mounted in the i
region of the drywell head. The 3400F done temperature i
was specified by GPUNC to be a conservative upper bound condition.
The resulting steady state temperature distributions and stresses in the Upper Drywell Shield Wall for the 2860F and 3400F dome temperature cases will be l
investigated using the finite element method. Based on the I
resulting stresses, the structural integrity of the Upper Drywell Shield Wall will be determined.
2.0 Methods & Analysis This analysis was performed in two phases.
In the first or preliminary phase, axisyvenetric themal and localized 3-D stress finite element models were developed and resulting thermal distributions and stresses determined.
The sticond phase of the analysis utilized a more detailed 3-D themal and stress model to detemine the temperature distributions and stresses in the Shield Wall.
The axisyneetric themal i
l model of the Phase I Analysis was used to obtain the themal boundary conditions on the inside surface of the g
shield wall. The following sections provide a detailed p
description of the phase I A II efforts.
2.1 Phase I ( Axisymmetric) Analysis i
The Phase I effort involved an axisyinnetric thermal and stress analysis of the Oyster Creek Upper Drywell shield wall. The general purpose finite element computer code ANSYS (Ref.1) was used to develop the models and perform the analyses.
The analysis considered the drywell head (dome) to be at 2850,
F The axisyvenetric themal model (Figures 1,2) is comprised of 2-D isoparametric thermal solids, convection links, radiation links and conduction bar elements. The radiation link and convection link elements were used to accomodate the radiation and convective heat transfer between the drywell head (dome) and stainless steel liner on the inside wall of the secondary shield wall.
In addition, radiation link elements were used to transfer heat through the
.-~
l TDR No. 713 Page 4 l
air gap between the stainless steel liner :end concrete portion of the upper drywell shield wall.
Since the radiation links were attached to non-similar materials, effective emissivities were i
calculated and used for the radiation links.
Effective emissivities were calculated for the radiation links in the air gap, between the drywell head and concrete floor above,)and between the drywell head (vertical portion and stainless steel liner located.05" from the concrete wall.
The effective emissivity calculation can be seen in Impe11 Calculation #003 (Ref. 2).
Heat transfer by conduction between the drywell head and stainless steel liner was negligible due to the large air vol tane.
Conduction bar elements were used to account for the radial conduction of heat through the radial i
reinforcing bars.
These elements were spaced every 2 feet vertically to account for the actual radial rebar spacing.
Since the thermal model is axisynenetric, the total radial rebar area per unit radial circumferential area length was calculated.
(See Ref. 3) and used in the analysis.
2-D isoparametric therwal solids were used to model the concrete and horizontal and hoop steel rebar in the shield wall..
Only conduction was considered as a heat transfer mechanism through the concrete shield well.
Equivalent thermal conductivities for the elements representing the longitudinal and hoop steel rebars were calculated based on an equivalent wall
-i thickness of 0.8".
This equ1
~
calculated was 7.7 Btu /hr/ft.}alent conductivity
/0 /ft compared F
with the conductivity of concrete at 1.05 Btu /hr/ftz/0F/ft. (See ref. 4).
The boundary conditions used in the thermal analysis assumed that the air temperature outside the drywell 0
shield wall was 104 F and had a natural convective heat transfer film coefficient of 0.55 Btu /hr-ft2.
OF.
Using the above boundary conditions, the following four load cases for the thermal analysis was run:
I.
Temperature at drywell head (T ) = 340 F 0
h Emissivity of concrete (Ec) = 0.88
W TDR No. 713 Page 5 Entssivity of steel (Es) = 0.73 Conductiv{ty of concrete ke = 1.05 Stu/hr/ft /0F/ft i
II.
= 2850
= 0.88 s = 0.73 ke = 1.05 III.
Th = 2850F Ee = 0.88 Es = 0.3 ke = 1.05 IV.
Th = 2850F Ec = 0. 73 0.86 Es=
ke = 0.75 Figure 3.0 plots the resulting inside wall temperature distribution for the four load cases mentioned above.
Once the temperature distributions were determined from the above load cases a stress model was developed. The stress model differed from the thermal model in that it was a 3-D model representing a 1 foot deep 450 circLaferential slice of the concrete shield wall.
This stress model was developed in order to better represent the effects of the non-axisynnetric geometry of the shield wall.
The stress model was comprised of 30 solid elements representing the concrete shield wall, and 3-D beam elements for the steel reinforcing bars. Figure 4.0 shows the node and element descriptions of the stress model.
Since the stress model differed from the thermal model, the temperature distributions resulting from the thermal analysis could be not be directly used.
The worst case radial temperature condition from the themal model was applied to the stress model.
The circumferential distribution was assumed to be uni form.
e Only the 2850F case was analyzed for stress during Phase 1.
The temperatures of Load Case III of the themal analyses were used as input to the stress analysis since these were judged to be most representative.
Impe11 Calculation # 006, p. 5 (Ref.
- 6) tabulates the thermal stress model correspondence.
The stress analysis considered the
7 TDR No. 713 Page 6 t
shield wall behaving as a ring structure and as an arch.
These two effects were analyzed separately I
utilizing the following boundary conditions:
A)
Ring Analysis (Ref.16) 1)
syinnetry conditions at the end planes (0=0, 450) 0 11) bottom of model fixed in vertical directiori 111) top of model constrained to grow vertically an equal amount for each radial line of nodes B)
Arching Effects (Ref.16)
Ux = UY = 0 at 9 = 0*;
i)
UY = 0 at 9 = 0*; symmetry at 9 = 450 11) bottom of model fixed in vertical direction i-iii) top of model constrained to grow vertically l
an equal amount for each radial line of nodes Initially, the stress analysis considering ring-like behavior and arching effects were performed assuming that no cracking existing in the concrete (i.e., all elements active).
l For elements that were stressed above tensile or compressive concrete allowables, the ring and arching effect analyses were run again with the overstressed elements released.
This was accomplished by reducing the material properties of these elements by the ratio 1/100.
Due to the limitations of the Phase I model, a more detailed 3-D model was developed in Phase II.
2.2 Phase II (3-D Analysis) i The phase II analysis was an extension of the axisymmetric phase I analysis, using the conservative upper bound dome temperature of 3400F and a 3-0 thermal and stress model.
The 3-D-thermal and stress model (See Fig. 6.0) accounted for the effects of the constraints that the fuel pool walls and floor in# posed on the shield wall.
The models extended vertically from the 95'-3" to 119'-3" elevations in the reactor building.
The north east corner of the structure (See Ref. 6.0) was selected to be modeled due to the large fuel pool walls which would impose the greatest degree of thennal constraint to the shield wall.
The thermal model consisted of 3-D isoparametric thermal solid elements, and the stress
TDR No. 713 Page 7 i
model 3-0 isoparametric solid elemen ts.
Unlike the phase I analysis, the themal and strass models are directly compatible; therefore, temperature distributions obtained in the thermal analysis.can be directly applied to the stress model.
The 3-D models do not explicitly model the steel robars, however, the effects of the rebars are accounted for by using equivalent thermal conductances and moduli of elasticity values for the inner and outer rings of elements.
Since the models have 4 elements through the wall thickness, these inner and outer rings of elements represent those elements that have both rebars and concrete in their composition. The calculation of the equivalent themal conductivities L
used in the thermal analysis can be seen in Impe11 Calculation f,SW-002 (Ref. 7).
The equivalent moduli of elasticity calculation used in the stress analysis can be seen in Impe11 Calculation # SW-005 (Ref. 8).
l The thermal analysis utilized the axisynnetric model l
from the Phase I effort to determine the nodal l-temperature distribution on the inside surface of the concrete shield wall.
The only changes incorporated in the axisymmetric themal model for use in the phase II analysis is as follows:
a) dome temperature is at 340 F.
0 b) the effective emissivity between the drywell head (vertical portion) and the stainless steel concrete liner is 0.186 (Ref, 9).
To obtain a more accurate circumferential temperature distribution for the inside surface of the 3-D Upper Drywell shield wall model, the axisynnetric phase I themal model with the aforementioned modifications, was run for 3 cases; (See Impell Calc. # SW-003, Ref.
l 9 and Figure 5 for a pictorial description of the 3 cases).
I.
The first case represents the section of the Upper Drywell shield wall whose outside surface is directly exposed to room air at 1040F.
This run used the same thermal boundary conditions on the outside surface as the Phase I analysis.
II.
The second case represented the portion of the Upper Drywell shield wall whose outside surface is directly exposed to the fuel pool water.
Here, the outside wall temperature was held at 1000F per Ref.10.
~
}
~..
TDR No. 713 Page 8 III.
The third case represented the portion of the shield wall where the outside surface intersects the spent fuel pool wall and fonas a knuckle area of increased thickness.
To acconnodate this effect, the axisyumetric thermal model wall thickness was increased by 1/2 the additional maximum radial thickness at the knuckle. Since this area is also directly in contact with the fuel pool water, the 0
outside surface was held at 100 F, These three cases formed the initial temperature distribution on the inside surface of the 3-D thermal model.
Impell Calculation # SW-003 (Ref. 9) show the resulting temperatures. These temperatures formed the therwel boundary conditions for the inside surface.
r The outside surfaces of the 3-D model had varying L
thernal boundary conditions.
For the area exposed to room air,2.8nvective film coefficients of 0.55 c
Btu /hr-ft F were used, at a temperature of 0
104 F, Where the shield wall was directly exposed to the fuel pool, the surface was held at 1000F up to an elevation of approximately 116.96' per Ref.
10.
Also, the inside wall surface of the fuel pool was held at 1000F likewise.
Once these boundary conditions were applied, the steady state temperature solution was obtained for the 3-D model.
The next step involved preforming the 3-D stress analysis.
The 3-0 thernal and stress models are directly compatible, that is there exists a one to l
one nodal correspondence.
The only changes made to the stress model were that the elements were made 3-D isoparametric solids, and the concrete column (See Impell Calc. # SW-004, pg. 8 Ref.11), located on the outside surface of the shield wall included.
The boundary conditions used consisted of applied nodal temperatures and displacement constraints.
The nodal temperatures were obtained from the above steady state thernal analy sis and directly applied.
The following lists the displacement boundary conditions used (See Ref.11, Impell Calc. # SW-004) 1)
All the nodes at the base of the model (E1.95'-3") are constrained in all directions.
This situation is assumed due to the constraint of the adjoining floor and walls below.
I TDR No. 713 Page 9 11 )
All nodes at the Y=0 plane from elevation 96'-3" to 116'-9", except the nodes to which the concrete column is attached, and the nodes at the end of the modeled fuel pool wall, are constrained in the Y direction.
iii)
All nodes at the X=0 plane are left free.
This condition exists due to the removable shield plugs that are located in this area for the fuel pool.
iv)
All nodes at the top of the model (E1.
119'-3"), except for the nodes for which the concrete beam attaches, are constrained in the X and Y directions only.
The stress analysis was then perfomed in different phases.
The initial phase assumed that no cracking in the wall existed; therefore, all the elemental material i
properties were concrete.
If the initial analysis I
revealed overstresses in either tension, or compression, than cracking would occur in the i
concrete and the properties adjusted.
The first adjustments were made to the inside and outside row l
of elements which has steel rebars located within 4
their volume.
The modulus of elasticity of these elements were adjusted by the ratio of the steel volume to the elemental volume multiplied by the modulus for steel.
Since the concrete is now cracked in these elements, only the steel will carry the load, therefore the modulus of steel was used in the adjustment.
This case was then run and resulting stresses observed.
If the resulting stresses in the remaining layers of concrete were still overstressed, these elements moduli were reduced by 1/100 to effectively release that elements capability.
Iterations of this nature were performed uncil conditions warranting cracking or crushing did not i
exist.
See Impe11 Calc.# SW-005 for the detailed description of the moduli adjustments (Ref. 8) i I
TDR No. 713 Page 10 3.0 Results The upper drywell shield wall concrete has been analyzed based on temperatures of 2850F and 340 F at the drywell 0
head.
The analysis predicts that cracking will occur in both the longitudinal and hoop directions.
However, the maximum stress level in the steel rebar is 30,000 PSI, which is below the yield stress at 300'F.
The predicted depth of concrete cracking is approximately half way through the wall at the worst location for the 3400F case.
Impe11 Calculation # SW-006 (Ref.13) provides detailed elemental stress results for the 3400F case.
4.0 Conclusions Although concrete cracking is predicted in the upper 1
drywell shield wall, the structural integrity and functionability of the wall is not ccepromised.
The predicted temperature for the 3400F case at the inside surface of the concrete shield wall is 260-2800F, and the average temperature through the 5' thickness is 180-2150F. These values exceed normal recommended limits for thick walled concrete structures:
2000F surface, i
0 150 F average.
( Re f. 14 ).
Exceedence of normal temperature limits is considered acceptable.
Loss of strength and deterioration only become I
a significant problem above 3000F (Ref.15).
1 The analysis conducted has established a basis for structural adequacy of the upper drywell shield wall under a postulated worst case thermal environment:
3400F steady state condition on the dr l head.
In addition, seismic and dead weight loading ugitions were evaluated and found to have no si nificant..apact on the results and conclusions of the anal sis.
L 4
4 TDR No. 713
( Fo o -,* o,e-e.a u s u r. m..,
Page II 4E *o)
> *.. d..(
}
.s t' (f.f ees :ds.,c w m
u.
w w,. a.. nc,,,
6hNOj?.!%9 29 898Ed E
j
. g,2 g
..y.;
., m c.,
r.
208 SBC G-@ 0 91E9$$,
_g i
y wwew
- ,c u.
m, Oj[4.-Ng 2e B8@@@ @ @ GD@ 80
, u, m.
.or u.,
!.a
.. r.
- a. m. =,,
OpB0 @!9
"@ @?@!B OG1D...'N S-
$55 h 'b59 d3 O 'O fh UUdd 3."P 2.c wr
~
m 12.
-,c.,, u..
999 O OSS S6 38S$$
s%
m n
m v
i.n
,3,
.., d.. %
- - g a
%@@ G S G IS
@;G
$3 3t@
m.%
..,r u,
.. ;. 4.c,,.
'a
$? $,9 9;9"9 G G Md:9Cig 9.7 I -
..e m
a g.
~,
., w 4.
bbb b ' b
,-s n.....
g'
~ n
'n ms w
g,g i nw. n.wv ao
'M
- u n n e
(
pg
-g4 gg, in -u a.
r o.
-iu 4u u,
,2.
.n,,3 g,@..; -.
pg 3 33 6
@ h6 33 p q~
i.,
l >Fe.pe ^ i++
i"'
.. r
$k$ 6 $
D ! 'S 3 '3 fMk9$k q.3 '
I l
Si r-u m. = i. m n - --
- r is v,.. y@ >:.E Ob D9
$ Nh
.,g,,;
j 3 Sh
- e.,-
w,w u
+
u u w. m
@f@ D Nl@l@
@ O l9j%
l D
G. 9
.,,u m
v s.
.:9 rs ia u.i e.
n n
.o w
l-b h b bf3IO S 6,,3l3 h f
g e :., :. w. n-s,,,, 2r
.3 m
O D O
D E l 3 & tlClD\\Wb g9 m,t n.
.w v-( '7 l'5 !@e 7;3 't 9
'3 E'-ht? V;OY p
- u. sr ce o
- 2 o
o 3
.r
> ~
6 i x -
n,9,;
Ran,.r?.c :
...c:.
., e a Fioure 1 Axisymmetric Thermal Model JOS NO PAGE g-aEh c4Le no 10 k
D 16 Rev av oats cMecnacl oArt
1 j
i i
TDR No. 713 l
Page 12 p47 N
i b
)D Q
s11 b Ww m
in N b
'I3 h 524 h~
s nr S O. b b@
sn Sti uo ' t-w O&
O O i,1.s s,,
m-o O
DID s.s 2'i 36 - wr
%F i.v f.,
f,s 1
tg h b
'@ g p
s!a to
)
pej s o
n 2.s + m
- ,3 m,,,
m nnzu,m wr 2,<
l 1
i7 s
I f
5
,T
.c '
x w/ :,
Fioure 2 Axisymmetric Thermal Model JOS NO PAGE O
REV BY OATE CHECKED DATE N
________________--_J
i:
I'!:
, s![L o
[fi
m 2
~
d" F ~ y
^
22 "
- \\
o A
e I Z A
+&
l 1
N B
- 2 2
H3 W_
I E E E E sS t 6 2
A A A a
't
~.
CC C C s
t,
n AxO*
o )
i t
I u
o b
e m
. s i
s i e r a c
t h
a s P
- 4 f i
(
g e 6 r
D
- 1 u
l S
e e r d e
e u o
- e d
t M
t i
3 a
s r
l t n e e a I
r p m e6 u m r N
n g e e O
i T
h m_
F T
,S i s l
r l
c e
a i
b W r g
.u m
t n u e e N
d m
u m
i e
s y
4 d ns s 9 a Ii x
A
+
y g
ee
(
A x
- 5 1
A
- i. g
,n o
a a.
n
~
a
- o
. 4 p
e, n
x e
r.
g 3
y I
5 8
p
.5%g E?
'05 2
AW h
Q55 5
,4 El
.98 gg
)
TDR N6, 713 Page 14 s,
3 N n
N.
1 s
)
+
2 e
, 5 N
a,-
- a m/@Y N
f?
f* epN.,@ @ %v '
./@7 mfer aR
\\
y e./m er -. e
@@9g @@
r
)
/
-1 xe s e
a n
s y
n @ 5\\
M
+'
~
\\
wr 5x @ *\\
t 3 $
R & \\ (@
g @ @g 6~Ja 1
.r t
s X@ *\\
1
\\
4 4 e @g b @t+ $,,
A eT JXm A m
EV W@%
G t.* G @
'X@ w1 e i'S t - @ E g Q $g';,].
z\\@R G 2\\@a\\ @
??G1,g@*
a J
i\\@5\\ @
e u1-
~ \\gg @
- \\@t\\ c9
'.') G %\\@ @ # e'6 1 d\\@\\ @
l'WG\\GW)k%, z nest @
~we1t@ W \\ F.c 3 Wh Y \\. s $,,.s..-.
_ _. W @\\@_ 6 u.,,' 1
! \\@\\ d,';
_-.... _,e_
({$)
,b a
7 -)r
.'e,, \\ e a. _...,_ __ ' wg,ggM m
r
-C f
-E ~ F c.
s 3
a
+
m,4 l
I U
s' 0
Joe NO PAGE OF MV SY~
DATE CHECKED DATE N*
}g i
.1
r TOR No. 713 Page 15 Pcated kt CA M 1r Re sotn a
REGCM OR
, EL Pool CASE m Res.as
, wg7sg h
/,.
/
/,..
loo F o
m.a e
./
.N cau I Resan x.,
\\
/
's s
j
[
l l;
/
/-
j ObT)51bE RiR /
l.p:r 1/AnFi l
/
- INS UL. ATED
'Fioure 5 3 0 Thermal Model Regions For Cases I,II,III Phase II Axisymmetric Thermal Analysis JOS NO PAGE k-=NY.
CALCNO 4
nev sv pn cMecuso un 16
op l,*,,"[; 7n
/
o%
g I
jg n
i
,,, e
,,+
g e,
e i
g
"' Q
'% Q "
e
/
d g
Q
%,3
[s y/g,y
% v@
- g ag,.
cs g
-i
} @3Qs/g[.g,,,
e m
~~ c Q
y '" Q
'" g "G '9 G 'e f
Q r.,
c 3a %
e 4g qrg g
. #g
/
fp
~g
,, D
?y "Y
.~
a
/gy;e
- e' m G\\
f
'"?
e e/,p g
s
-e,.
s y.
~e w a 3, g w
+,
,;x.-
,,.f$spw,e g
s g
/,
,.. =.
u7 m,.
w -.
y.V.
- D e.
s e
gss o
f.7
)S}z s
p s
0 q
f"
=
b
$ f,!
(
- r y.khf
- f 8 $
I.
i s
}
m.
2NV i
fi%'*e 6 e
phase ij 3 odel 1
~1 v
TDR No. 713 Temperature (O )
Page 17,
(
F 5
4 s
a a
O o
S f
'8 v,;
9 e
t f6 O
U1 O
o 4m o
0-o m@
3 N
i n
k
, e mN k b, -.
WO.
s
'O i
F
.t d
c
=s c t/\\
k h i
I u e y QN.
4 o
o 1
1.-
g g
- c. vs (D r+
1 L] -
7 5m re -
8
$81 o
L o
l i
-D 7.
E" 8 m m i:
44 (f4 SD
.1 O S1 d5'
. y-71.
O 4 s' 3
J 4
JOS NO PAGE 09 k C088S**
MV
. BY DATE CHECMED DATE ll
l 2 8 n
m I
h i
1 aa B
306 A N i
g 2 9
I 5 250 C
db I
W t
0 B
E 200 h
i F-150 e
S h
.i 5
Ioo S
4 3
2 l
AbOES Mr e(,tf TH/(Eden ik 0:O*
(EQ g
i
. 'bo 2.9 26 2T 26 thus rnrovul inscr stw sar e: Sa= W) a So
.4S-43 47 46 goor5 Tucoucri Tsioc,stss are-v &l)
=
h Figure 8.0 Temperature Distribution Through 5' Thick Shield Wall. for Phase II Analysis
\\
TDR No. 713 Page 19 5.0-References 1.0 ANSYS Finite Element Computer Program by Swanson Analysis Systems Inc., Revision 4.18 2.0 Impe11 Calculation #00:s, " Effective Emissivity", Rev.
0 3.0 Impe11 Calculation #002, " Equivalent Themal Conduction Area of Radial Directional Rebar". Rev. 0 4.0 Impe11 Calculation #004, " Equivalent Thermal Conductivity for Layer with Longitudinal & Ho(p e
Robar" Rev 0 5.0 Impe11-Calculation #005, "Themal-Model of Upper Section Shield Wall". Rev. 0 6.0 G.E. Drawing #4056-7, "RB 4th floor El. 95'-3" Plan and Sections" 7.0 _ Impe11 Calculation #SW-002, " Material Properties for Thermal. Analysi s", Rev. 0 8.0 Impell Calcula1.on #SW-005, " Equivalent Elastic
' Properties for Cracked.or Crushed Sections", Rev. 0 9.0 -
Impell. Calculation #SW-003, "Themal Model and i
Boundary Conditions", Rev. O 10.0 GPU. Letter from T.H. Chang to R. Morante, Dated 2/6/85, " Spent Fuel Pool Water Temperature" 11.0 :Impe11 Calculation #SW-004, " Stress Model and Boundary Conditions" 12.0 " Composition and Properties of Concrete", G. Troxell, H. ' Davis,-J. Kelly..McGraw-Hill Civil Engineering-Series, 1968.
13.
Impe11 Calculation # SW-006, "Overstress Results for the Upper Drywell Secondary Shield Wall", Rev. O.
l
y, - _ - -...... - -
S.
. TDR No. 713 Pa9e 20 5.0 ~
References (Cont 1nued)
.14..
Code Requirements for Nuclear Safety Related Concrete L'
Structures-(ACI 349-80) and Commentary ( ACI 349R-80).
15.
Concrete Technology, D.F. Orchard, Vol 1, 3rd Edition, u
l l-16.
Impe11 Calculation No. 006 "The'rmal Stress Model",
L Rev. O.
e e
I l.
1 1
l' r
i
.