ML21294A172
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 56 3.8 DESIGN OF CATEGORY I STRUCTURES 3.8.1 CONCRETE CONTAINMENT The Susquehanna primary containments Units 1 and 2 are boiling water reactor, Mark II (over/under) types. 3.8.1.1 Description of the Containment 3.8.1.1.1 General The primary containment is an enclosure for the reactor vessel, the reactor coolant recirculation loops, and other branch connections of the reactor coolant system. Essential elements of the primary containment are the drywell, the pressure suppression chamber that stores a large volume of water, the drywell floor that separates the drywell and the suppression chamber, the connecting vent pipe system between the drywell and the suppression chamber, isolation valves, the vacuum relief system, and the containment cooling systems and other service equipment. The primary containment (as shown in Dwgs. C-331, Sh. 1, C-371, Sh. 2, C-1932, Sh. 3, C-1932, Sh. 4, and C-1932, Sh. 5) is in the form of a truncated cone over a cylindrical section, with the drywell in the upper conical section and the suppression chamber in the lower cylindrical section. These two sections comprise a structurally integrated reinforced concrete pressure vessel, lined with welded steel plate and provided with a steel domed head for closure at the top of the drywell. Connection of the drywell head to the top of the drywell wall is shown on Figure 3.8-9. The drywell floor is a reinforced concrete slab structurally connected to the containment wall as shown on Dwg. C-284, Sh. 11 1. The primary containment is structurally separated from the surrounding reactor building except at the base foundation slabs where a cold joint between the two adjoining foundation slabs is provided. 3.8.1.1.1.1 Dimensions The dimensions of the primary containment are as follows: a) Inside Diameter
- 1) Suppression chamber - 88 ft. 0 in.
- 2) Base of drywell - 86 ft. 3 in.
- 3) Top of drywell - 36 ft. 4 1/2 in.
b) Height
- 1) Suppression chamber - 52 ft. 6 in.
- 2) Drywell - 87 ft. 9 in.
FSAR Rev. 65 3.8-1
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 56 c) Thickness
- 1) Base foundation slab - 7 ft. 9 in.
- 2) Containment wall - 6 ft. 0 in.
3.8.1.1.2 Base Foundation Slab The containment base foundation slab is a 7 ft. 9 in. thick reinforced concrete mat. The top of the base foundation slab is lined with a carbon steel liner plate. 3.8.1.1.2.1 Reinforcement The base foundation slab is reinforced with #18, Grade 60 rebar at top and bottom faces. The average rebar spacing is 18 in. Shear reinforcement consists of #8 and #9 vertical and inclined ties. Mechanical ("Cadweld") splices are used for splicing all main reinforcing bars. Dwg. C-332, Sh. 1 and C-333, Sh. I1 Ishows plan and section views of reinforcement. 3.8.1.1.2.2 Liner Plate and Anchorages The steel liner plate is 1/4 in. thick and is anchored to the concrete slab by structural steel beams embedded in the concrete and welded to the plate. See Dwg. C-281, Sh. I1 Ifor details of the liner plate and anchorages. All liner plate weld seams less than l/2 inch thick are provided with a leak chase system. 3.8.1.1.2.3 Pedestal and Suppression Chamber Column Base Liner Anchorages Dwgs. C-281, Sh. 1 and C-370, Sh. I1 Ishow the base foundation slab liner anchorages for the reactor pedestal and the suppression chamber columns, respectively. For the pedestal anchorage, B-series "Cadweld" sleeves are welded to the top and bottom surfaces of the thickened base liner to permit anchorage of the pedestal vertical rebar into the base foundation slab. Metal studs are welded to the top and bottom surfaces of the thickened base liner in order to transfer radial and tangential shear forces from the pedestal to the base foundation slab. For the suppression chamber column anchorage, pipe caps are welded to the thickened base liner, where the column anchor bolts penetrate the base liner, to ensure the leak-tight integrity of the base liner. 3.8.1.1.3 Containment Wall The containment wall is a 6 ft. 0 in. thick reinforced concrete wall. The inside surface of the containment wall is lined with a carbon steel liner plate. FSAR Rev. 65 3.8-2
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 56 3.8.1.1.3.1 Reinforcement The containment wall is reinforced with #18, Grade 60 rebar at inner and outer faces. The inner rebar curtain consists of two meridional layers and one hoop layer. The outer rebar curtain consists of one meridional layer, two hoop layers and two helical layers. Shear reinforcement consists of #6 horizontal and inclined ties. Mechanical ("Cadweld") splices are used for splicing all main reinforcing bars. Dwgs. C-334, Sh. 1, C-335, Sh. 1, C-336, Sh. 1, C-337, Sh. 1, C-338, Sh. 1, C-351, Sh. 1, C-352, Sh. 1, C-353, Sh. 1, C-354, Sh. 1, C-355, Sh. 1, C-356, Sh. 1, C-357, Sh. 1, C-358, Sh. 1, C-359, Sh. 1, C-360, Sh.1, C-393, Sh. 1, C-394, Sh. 1, C-395, Sh. 1, C-396, Sh. 1, C-397, Sh. 1, C-398, Sh. 1, C-399, Sh. 1, and C-400, Sh. I1 Ishow section and developed elevation views of suppression chamber and drywell wall reinforcement, respectively. 3.8.1.1.3.2 Liner Plate and Anchorages The steel liner plate is 1/4 in. thick and is anchored to the concrete wall by structural tee vertical stiffeners spaced horizontally every 2 ft. Horizontal plate stiffeners and horizontal structural channels spaced vertically every 5 ft. provide additional stiffening. See Dwgs. C-282, Sh. 1, and C-285, Sh. I1 Ifor details of the liner plate and anchorages. Around the containment liner plate penetrations, the liner is reinforced in accordance with ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, 1971 Edition. See Subsection 3.8.1.1.3.3 for a further description of penetrations. Loads from internal containment attachments such as beam seats and pipe restraints are transferred directly into the containment concrete wall. This is accomplished by thickening the liner plate and attaching to it structural weldments to transfer to the concrete any type of load without relying on the liner plate or its anchorages. Where internal containment attachment loads are large, the structural weldments penetrate the liner plate rather than being welded to opposite sides of the liner plate. This was done to eliminate the possibility of lamellar tearing. Where internal containment attachment loads are small, e.g., pipe hangers, HVAC duct supports, electrical raceway supports, etc., the load is transferred by means of the liner plate into the anchorages which are embedded in the containment concrete. No additional structural weldments are provided for these small attachments, since the liner plate and anchorages are capable of supporting such loads. See Subsection 3.8.1.1.3.4 for a further description of internal containment attachments. 3.8.1.1.3.3 Penetrations General Services and communications between the inside and outside of the containment are performed through penetrations. Basic penetration types include the drywell head, access hatches (equipment hatches, personnel lock, suppression chamber access hatches, CRD removal hatch), pipe penetrations, and electrical penetrations. Penetrations consist of a pipe with a plate flange welded to it. The plate flange is embedded in the concrete wall and provides an anchorage for the penetration to resist normal operating and accident pipe reaction loads. The pipe is also welded to the containment liner plate to provide a leak-tight penetration. FSAR Rev. 65 3.8-3
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 56 Meridional and hoop reinforcement are bent around typical penetrations as shown on Dwgs. C-288, Sh. 1, C-287, Sh. 1, C-283, Sh. 1, and Figures 3.8-20-1 and 3.8-20-2. Additional local reinforcement in the hoop and diagonal directions is added at all large penetrations as shown on Dwgs. C-288, Sh. 1, C-287, Sh. 1, C-283, Sh. 1, and Figures 3.8-20-1 and 3.8-20-2. Local thickening of the containment wall at penetrations is generally not required. See Subsection 3.8.2.1.5 for a further description of penetrations. Pipe Penetrations Details of typical pipe penetrations are shown on Dwgs. C-288, Sh. 1, C-287, Sh. 1, and C-283, Sh. 1. There are two basic types of pipe penetrations. For piping systems containing high 11 temperature steam or water, a sleeved penetration is furnished, thereby providing an air gap between the containment concrete wall and the hot pipe. This air gap is large enough to maintain the concrete temperature in the area of the penetration below 200°F. A flued head outside the containment connects the process pipe to the pipe sleeve. For piping systems containing low temperature water, an unsleeved penetration is furnished. For this type of penetration, the process pipe is welded directly to the pipe penetration. Electrical Penetrations Figure 3.8-20-1 and 3.8-20-2 shows a typical electrical penetration assembly used to extend electrical conductors through the containment. The assembly is sized to be inserted in the 12 in., Schedule 80 penetration nozzles that are furnished as part of the containment. The penetrations are hermetically sealed and provide for leak testing at design pressure. Equipment Hatches and Personnel Lock Two 12 ft. 2 in. I.D. equipment hatches are furnished in the drywell wall. One of these equipment hatches includes an 8 ft. 7 in. I.D. personnel lock. Dwg. C-351, Sh. 1, C-352, Sh. 1, C-353, Sh. 1, C-354, Sh. 1, C-355, Sh. 1, C-356, Sh. 1, C-357, Sh. 1, C-358, Sh. 1, C-359, Sh. 1, C-360, Sh. 1, C-393, Sh. 1, C-394, Sh. 1, C-395, Sh. 1, C-396, Sh. 1, C-397, Sh. 1, C-398, Sh. 1, C-399, Sh. 1, and C-400, Sh. I1 Ishows details of reinforcement around the equipment hatches. Additional meridional, hoop, helical, and shear reinforcement is provided to account for local stress concentrations at the opening. The shell is thickened at the equipment hatches to accommodate the additional rebars. Drywell Head Assembly The drywell head lower flange assembly is anchored to the top of the drywell wall by one-third (108) of the total number of meridional reinforcing bars in the inner curtain as shown on Figure 3.8-9. Suppression Chamber Access Hatches Two 6 ft. 0 in. I.D. access hatches are furnished in the suppression chamber wall. Figure 3.8-15-2 shows a detail of reinforcement around the suppression chamber access hatches. Additional local reinforcement in the meridional, hoop, and diagonal directions is added as shown on Dwg. C-335, Sh. 1. 11 FSAR Rev. 65 3.8-4
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 56 3.8.1.1.3.4 Internal Containment Attachments Drywell Floor Embedments The drywell floor is attached to the containment wall by a structural weldment at the junction of the two structural components shown on Dwg. C-284, Sh. 1. Radial force and bending moment 11 carried by the drywell floor main reinforcement is transferred to the containment wall by cadwelding the drywell floor rebar to the top and bottom flanges of the structural weldment. The top and bottom flanges of the structural weldment penetrate the thickened containment liner plate and are embedded deeply into the containment concrete wall. Flexural shear in the drywell floor is transferred to the containment wall through the web of the structural weldment, which is welded to opposite sides of the containment liner plate. Beam Seat Embedments Beam seats are provided to support the drywell platforms. A typical beam seat embedment is shown on Dwg. C-286, Sh. 1. 11 Pipe Restraint Embedments Pipe restraints are provided to prevent pipe whip for all high energy piping systems. Typical pipe restraint embedments are shown on Dwg. C-291, Sh. 1. 11 Seismic Truss Embedments The seismic truss provides lateral support for the reactor vessel. A typical seismic truss embedment in the drywell wall is shown on Dwg. C-286, Sh. 1. 11 Snubber Embedments Snubbers dampen the vibratory motion of piping systems due to seismic or any other dynamic loading. A typical snubber embedment in the drywell wall is shown on Dwg. C-278, Sh. 1. 11 3.8.1.1.3.5 External Containment Attachments There are no major external structural attachments. A 2 in. wide separation gap is provided between the containment and the surrounding reactor building to prevent interaction of the two structures. The only place where the containment is in contact with the reactor building is at the base foundation slabs where a cold joint between the two adjoining foundation slabs is provided. 3.8.1.1.3.6 Steel Components Not Backed by Structural Concrete A description of steel portions of the containment that are not backed by concrete, such as the drywell head, equipment hatches, personnel lock, suppression chamber access hatches, CRD removal hatch, and piping and electrical penetrations, is given in Subsection 3.8.2. FSAR Rev. 65 3.8-5
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 56 3.8.1.2 Applicable Codes, Standards, and Specifications The codes, standards, and specifications used in the design and construction of the containment are listed in Table 3.8-1 and given a reference number. The reference numbers for the concrete containment are 10A, 12A, 1C, 2C, 3C, 6C and 2K. The reference numbers for the liner plate and anchorages are 4C, 1H, 1J and 1K. 3.8.1.3 Loads and Loading Combinations 3.8.1.3.1 General Table 3.8-2 lists the loading combinations used for the design and analysis of the containment. The loading combinations are in compliance with those given in Reference 12A of Table 3.8-1. The loading combinations shown in Table 3.8-2 do not include the hydrodynamic loads. The containment has also been analyzed and designed for hydrodynamic loads from main steam safety/relief valve discharge and LOCA. For a definition of these loads and loading combinations including hydrodynamic loads, refer to GEs "Mark II Containment Dynamic Forcing Functions Information Report" (NEDO-21061), and the "Susquehanna Plant Design Assessment Report. 3.8.1.3.2 Description of Loads Normal Loads: Those loads operation and shutdown, including dead loads, live loads, thermal loads due to operating temperature, and other permanent loads contributing stress such encountered during normal plant as hydrostatic loads. Dead and live loads are described in Subsection 3.8.1.3.2.1 and 3.8.l.3.2.2, respectively. Severe Environmental Loads: Those loads sustained during severe environmental conditions, including those induced by the operating basis earthquake (OBE) and the design basis wind. Loads due to OBE are discussed in Section 3.7 and Subsection 3.8.1.3.2.6. Wind loads are discussed in Section 3.3. Extreme Environmental Loads: Those loads sustained during extreme environmental conditions, including those induced by the safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) and the design basis tornado. Loads due to SSE are discussed in Section 3.7 and Subsection 3.8.1.3.2.6. Tornado loads are discussed in Section 3.3. Abnormal Loads: Those loads sustained during abnormal plant conditions. Such abnormal plant conditions include the postulated rupture of high-energy piping. Loads induced by such an accident include elevated temperatures and pressures within or across compartments, and jet impingement and impact forces associated with such ruptures. Loads due to postulated rupture of piping are discussed in Section 3.6. FSAR Rev. 65 3.8-6
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 56 3.8.1.3.2.1 Dead Load Dead load includes the weight of the structure plus any other permanent loads contributing stress, such as hydrostatic loads. 3.8.1.3.2.2 Live Load Live load includes those loads expected to be present when the plant is operating, such as movable equipment, piping, cables, and lateral earth pressure. 3.8.1.3.2.3 Design Basis Accident Pressure Load The design basis accident (DBA) is defined as a loss of coolant accident (LOCA) that produces the largest containment pressure. Transients resulting from the design basis accident are presented in Subsection 6.2.1 and serve as the basis for the containment internal design pressure of 53 psig. 3.8.1.3.2.4 Thermal Loads The temperature gradients through the containment wall are shown on Figure 3.8-24 for the operating and the postulated design accident conditions. The design accident temperature gradient shown on Figure 3.8-24 occurs five minutes after LOCA. This transient temperature gradient is used for the design of the containment since it produces the largest stresses in the structure. Thermal effects anticipated at the time of the structural acceptance test are insignificant because changes in temperature inside and outside the containment during the Unit 1 structural acceptance test were small. Therefore, thermal effects at the time of the structural acceptance test are insignificant. 3.8.1.3.2.5 Wind and Tornado Loads Tornado depressurization load has an insignificant effect on the containment since the pressure value is much less than the DBA LOCA pressure. See Section 3.3 for a description of wind and tornado loads. 3.8.1.3.2.6 Seismic Loads a) Loads from the Operating Basis Earthquake result from ground surface horizontal acceleration of 0.05 g, and vertical ground surface acceleration of 0.033 g, acting simultaneously. b) Loads from the Safe Shutdown Earthquake result from ground surface horizontal acceleration of 0.10 g, and vertical ground surface acceleration of 0.067 g, acting simultaneously. FSAR Rev. 65 3.8-7
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 56 3.8.1.3.2.7 External Pressure Load The containment shell is designed to withstand an external pressure of 5 psi differential. 3.8.1.3.2.8 Missile and Pipe Rupture Loads The containment wall is designed to withstand the missile and pipe rupture loads due to a postulated rupture of a 26 in. diameter main steam pipe, which produces the largest loads on the containment wall. These loads include the effects of jet impingement, pipe whip, and pipe reaction. An equivalent static load of 1000 kips is considered. This load includes an appropriate dynamic load factor to account for the dynamic nature of the load. See Section 3.6 for a further discussion of postulated pipe rupture loads. 3.8.1.4 Design and Analysis Procedures 3.8.1.4.1 General This subsection describes the procedures used for the design and analysis of the containment. The description does not include the effects of hydrodynamic loads from main steam safety/relief valve discharge and LOCA. For a description of the design and analysis procedures that consider the effects of hydrodynamic loads refer to GE's "Mark II Containment Dynamic Forcing Functions Report" (NEDO-21061) and the "Susquehanna Plant Design Assessment Report. The analysis procedure consists of two parts. First, the uncracked forces, moments, and shears for both axisymmetric and non-axisymmetric loads are determined. Axisymmetric loads are dead load, live load, design accident pressure load, vertical seismic load, and operating and design accident thermal loads. Non-axisymmetric loads are horizontal seismic load and localized missile and pipe rupture load. The second part consists of taking into account the expected cracking of the concrete and determining the concrete and reinforcing steel stresses and strains. The liner plate is not considered to be a load resisting element for the containment wall or the base foundation slab. The 3D/SAP computer program (Appendix 3.8A) is used to determine the uncracked forces, moments, and shears due to axisymmetric loads. The operating and design accident temperature gradients are computed using ME 620 computer program (Appendix 3.8A). For transient loads such as design accident pressure and thermal loads, the most critical combination of these loads is considered. The forces, moments, and shears in the uncracked structure due to seismic loads are determined per Bechtel Topical Report BC-TOP-4-A (Ref. 2K of Table 3.8-1). The effect of variations in the values of structural and foundation parameters on the modal frequencies is considered. See Section 3.7 for a description of the containment seismic analysis. The 3D/SAP program is used to analyze the containment for non-axisymmetric loads due to missile and postulated pipe rupture. The CECAP computer program (Appendix 3.8A) is used to determine the extent of concrete cracking and the concrete and rebar stresses and strains. The input data for the CECAP program consists of the uncracked forces, moments, and shears calculated by the 3D/SAP and seismic analysis programs. The CECAP program models a single element of unit height, unit width, and FSAR Rev. 65 3.8-8
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 56 depth equal to the thickness of the wall or slab. The program assumes isotropic, linear elastic material properties and uses an iterative technique to obtain stresses considering their redistribution due to cracking. The program determines the redistribution of thermal stresses due to the relieving effect of concrete cracking. 3.8.1.4.2 Containment Wall Figure 3.8-25 shows the 3D/SAP finite element model used to analyze the containment wall for axisymmetric loads. A 10 degree wedge of the containment is modeled using solid finite elements having linear elastic, isotropic material properties. The model includes the containment wall, base foundation slab, drywell floor, reactor pedestal and the foundation material. Boundary conditions are imposed on the analytical model by specifying nodal point forces or displacements. Referring to Figure 3.8-25, the nodal points lying along Boundary A are allowed to move within the X-Z plane, and Boundary B within the X-Y plane. Points along Boundary C are prevented from moving in the radial direction and points along Boundary D are prevented from moving in the hoop direction. Nodal forces, moments, and shears are applied to Boundaries E and F to account for reaction loads from the drywell head and reactor vessel and reactor shield wall, respectively. Figure 3.8-26 shows the 3D/SAP finite element model used to analyze the drywell wall for non-axisymmetric missile and pipe rupture loads. A 180 degree half model of the drywell wall consisting of linear elastic, isotropic, solid finite elements is used. Referring to Figure 3.8-26, the nodal points lying along Boundary A are allowed to move within the X-Z plane. Points along Boundary B are prevented from moving in the vertical and radial directions. Nodal forces, moments, and shears are applied to Boundary C to account for reaction loads from the drywell head. Tangential shears caused by seismic loads are totally resisted by helical reinforcing bars and concrete. No tangential shear is taken by the concrete. The tangential shear is considered as diagonal tension and compression components. The helical reinforcing bars resist diagonal tension and the concrete resists diagonal compression. In calculating the reinforcing steel requirement, the helical reinforcement is designed to resist stresses due to design accident pressure and thermal loads as well as tangential shears caused by seismic loads. 3.8.1.4.3 Base Foundation Slab Figure 3.8-27 shows the 3D/SAP finite element model used to analyze the base foundation slab. A 180 degree half model of the base foundation slab consisting of linear elastic, isotropic, solid finite elements is used. The model includes the base foundation slab, a portion of the containment wall and the foundation material. Referring to Figure 3.8-27, the nodal points lying along Boundary A are allowed to move within the X-Z plane, and Boundary B within the X-Y plane. Points along Boundary C are prevented from moving in the radial direction. Axisymmetric forces, moments, and shears calculated using the 3D/SAP containment model and seismically-induced, tangential shears are applied to Boundary D. The height of the model is chosen so that the overturning moment caused by the tangential shear is the same as the overturning moment determined by the seismic analysis. In order to be able to consider uplifting of the base foundation slab from its foundation, a thin layer of foundation material is provided immediately beneath the foundation slab. If the computer output indicates tension in any of these thin foundation elements, the modulus of elasticity of these elements is reduced to almost zero. Then a second computer run is made and FSAR Rev. 65 3.8-9
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 56 any additional uplift is identified. Further iterations and modifications of foundation material properties are made until the complete extent of uplift is determined. Uplift does not result in overstressing the containment foundation. 3.8.1.4.4 Analysis of Areas Around Equipment Hatches Figure 3.8-28 shows the 3D/SAP finite element model used to analyze the areas of the containment wall around the equipment hatches. A 60 degree wedge of the containment wall is modeled using solid finite elements having linear elastic, isotropic material properties. To reduce the size of the analytical model, Boundary A follows the vertical plane of symmetry of the equipment hatch. The points delineating the outermost boundaries of the model are located at a sufficient distance from the opening so that the behavior of the model along the boundaries is compatible with that of the undisturbed shell. Referring to Figure 3.8-28, the nodal points lying along Boundary A are allowed to move within the X-Z plane, and Boundary B within the X-Y plane. Points along Boundary C are prevented from moving in the hoop direction. Axisymmetric forces, moments, and shears calculated using the 3D/SAP containment model are applied to Boundary D. Seismic loads calculated by the seismic analysis are applied locally to the elements. Seismically induced, tangential shears around the equipment hatches are resisted by helical reinforcing bars and concrete in compression. 3.8.1.4.5 Liner Plate and Anchorages The design and analysis of the liner plate and anchorages is per Bechtel Topical Report BC-TOP-1 (Ref. 1K of Table 3.8-1). The analysis of the liner plate and anchorages for small attachment loads is done using membrane theory for the liner plate and the theory of beams on elastic foundations for the anchorages. 3.8.1.5 Structural Acceptance Criteria 3.8.1.5.1 Reinforced Concrete 3.8.1.5.1.1 Working Stress The preoperational testing condition listed in Table 3.8-2 is designed according to the stress limitations of ACI 318, Section 8.10 except that the maximum permissible tensile stress for reinforcement shall be 0.5 Fy. This criterion conforms to Reference 12A of Table 3.8-1. Since the temporary construction live load on the containment during and after construction is small, it did not govern the containment design. The containment was not analyzed for a "normal/extreme environmental" load combination. However, the containment was analyzed for a "normal/severe" load combination with a load factor of 1.425 on the OBE load. Since the SSE loads for Susquehanna SES exceed the OBE loads by only approximately 35%, the "normal/severe" load combination that was considered is more critical than a "normal/extreme" load combination with a load factor of 1.0 on the SSE load. Therefore, the "normal/extreme" load combination was not investigated. Also, the "abnormal/extreme" condition is critical compared to the "normal/extreme" condition. FSAR Rev. 65 3.8-10
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 56 Table 3.8-2 used working stress criteria for the "preoperational testing" condition. As discussed above, the "construction" load combination was not considered as it did not govern the design. For the "normal/severe" load combination, Table 3.8-2 used ultimate strength design (USD) as opposed to Table CC-3200-1 of the ASME Code which uses working stress design (WSD). A comparison of the OBE load factors and the allowable reinforcing steel tensile stresses is given below. OBE Allowable Reinforcing Load Factor Steel Tensile Stress USD 1.425 0.9 fy WSD USD 1.0 0.67 fy* Ratio WSD 1.425 1.343 WSD
- Includes a 33% increase per Subsection CC-3422.1 of the ASME "Proposed Standard Code for Concrete Reactor Vessels and Containments," April 1973 edition since load combination includes temperature loads.
A comparison of allowable concrete compressive stresses is unnecessary since concrete compressive stresses are low and do not govern the design. Since the USD load combination uses a 42.5% higher seismic load but allows only 34.3% higher reinforcing steel stress, the USD load combination is slightly more conservative than the WSD load combination. 3.8.1.5.1.2 Strength Method The factored load combinations listed in Table 3.8-2 are designed according to the strength method of ACI 318. The following allowable stresses are used: a) Concrete
- 1) Compression - 0.85 f'c
- 2) Tension - not permitted
- 3) Radial shear - ACI 318-71 (Chapter 11)
- 4) Tangential shear - not permitted b) Reinforcing Steel
- 1) Tension - 0.90 Fy
- 2) Compression - 0.90 Fy FSAR Rev. 65 3.8-11
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 56 The allowables are defined as: f'c = Specified compressive strength of concrete Fy = Specified yield strength of reinforcing steel 3.8.1.5.2 Liner Plate and Anchorages The allowable strain in the liner plate due to design basis accident thermal load is 0.5 percent. This value is based on ASME Code, Section III (Ref. 1J of Table 3.8-1), Figure I-9.l which permits an allowable strain of approximately 2 percent for 10 cycles. Since the graph in Figure I-9.l does not extend below 10 cycles, 10 cycles are conservatively used for the DBA instead of one cycle. The liner plate and anchorages are also used to support small loads from pipe hangers, HVAC duct supports, electrical raceway supports, etc. For this condition, the following allowable stresses are used: Loading Condition Allowable Membrane Tensile Stress Due to Mechanical Loads Normal 0.6 Fy Abnormal 0.9 Fy The allowables are defined as: Fy = Specified yield strength of liner plate. The allowable forces on the liner plate anchorages are in accordance with Bechtel Topical Report BC-TOP-1 (Ref. 1K of Table 3.8-1). 3.8.1.6 Materials, Quality Control, and Special Construction Techniques 3.8.1.6.1 Concrete Containment The concrete and reinforcing steel materials for the containment are discussed in Appendix 3.8B. Concrete design compressive strengths are given in Table 3.8-11. FSAR Rev. 65 3.8-12
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 56 3.8.1.6.2 Liner Plate, Anchorages, and Attachments 3.8.1.6.2.1 Materials Liner plate materials conform to the requirements of the standard specifications listed below: Item Specification Liner plate (less than 1/2 in. thick) ASTM A 285, Grade A Liner plate (1/2 in. thick or thicker) ASME SA-516, Grade 60 or 70 conforming to the requirements of ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (ASME B&PV Code), 1971 Edition with Addenda through Summer 1972, Section III, Article NE-2000 Anchorages and attachments other than ASTM A36 pipe restraints Pipe restraint attachments ASTM A441 3.8.1.6.2.2 Welding Liner plate and structural steel welding conform to the applicable portions of Part UW of Section VIII of the ASME B&PV Code. Specifically, Paragraph UW-26 through UW-38 inclusive apply in their entirety. The welding of liner plate butt welds and attachments that penetrate the liner plate is performed by either the shielded metal arc or the automatic submerged arc process. The minimum number of individual weld layers for welds that must maintain leak-tightness is two. Welders and weld procedures are qualified in accordance with either Section IX of the ASME Code or AWS D1.1. 3.8.1.6.2.3 Materials Testing Liner plate material 3/4 in. thick or over is impact tested at 0oF or below as required by the ASME Code. Liner plate or attachment material subjected to transverse tensile stress is vacuum degassed and ultrasonically tested in accordance with ASME Code, Section III, NB-2530 and conforms to the requirements of Article NE-2000 of Section III. 3.8.1.6.2.4 Nondestructive Examination of Liner Plate Seam Welds Nondestructive examination of liner plate welds is performed in accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.19, Revision 1 except that for leak chase testing, the leak chase pressure is 115 percent of design pressure instead of 100 percent of design pressure, and the pressure is held for 15 minutes instead of two hours. This exception is considered justifiable since any significant leakage (i.e., any pressure decay in excess of the rated accuracy of the pressure gage) will be determined within 15 minutes. FSAR Rev. 65 3.8-13
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 56 Spot radiographic examination is performed for all radiographable liner plate seam welds. Radiography is performed in accordance with Section V, Article 3 of the ASME Code. Personnel performing radiographic examinations are qualified in accordance with the Society for Non-Destructive Testing's Recommended Practice No. SNT-TC-1A, Supplement A, plus any additional requirements of the ASME Code, Section V. Acceptance standards are in accordance with Paragraph UW-51, of Section VIII, Division 1 of the ASME Code. The first 10 ft. of weld for each welder and welding position is 100 percent radiographed. Thereafter, one 12 in. long radiograph is taken for each welder and weld position in each additional 50 ft. increment of weld. A minimum of 2 percent of all liner seam welds are examined by radiography. For nonradiographable welds, the length of weld needed to meet the 2 percent requirement is accounted for by additional radiographs of that length for the accessible welds. Where nonradiographable weld joints are used, the entire length of weld is magnetic particle examined. All magnetic particle examinations conform to the ASME Code, Section V. Personnel performing magnetic particle examinations are qualified in accordance with SNT-TC-1A plus any additional requirements of the ASME Code, Section V. Acceptance standards are in accordance with the ASME Code, Section VIII, Division 1, Appendix VI. The vacuum box soap bubble test is performed on all accessible liner plate weld seams. A 5 psi minimum pressure differential is maintained for a minimum time of 20 seconds. The leak detecting solution is continuously observed for bubbles that indicate leaks. If a leak is detected, the defective weld is repaired and reinspected by vacuum box testing. Welds that are inaccessible for vacuum box testing are 100 percent liquid penetrant tested. Liquid penetrant examinations conform to the ASME Code, Section V. Personnel performing liquid penetrant examinations are qualified in accordance with SNT-TC-1A plus any additional requirements of the ASME Code, Section V. Acceptance standards conform to the ASME Code, Section VIII, Division 1, Appendix VIII. A leak chase system is provided on liner plate seam welds less than 1/2 in. thick on the base foundation slab liner plate and on that portion of the suppression chamber wall liner plate that is below the suppression pool water level. This system will allow periodic leak testing of welds that are submerged in the suppression pool. It also provides a secondary leak-tight barrier at the liner plate weld seams. Following installation of the leak chase system, the leak chase system is pressurized to 63 psig. The pressure is monitored by valving off the air supply and measuring any pressure decay with a pressure gage. Any pressure decay in excess of the rated accuracy of the pressure gage within 15 minutes is cause for rejection of that portion of the liner plate seam welds and the leak chase system. Any leaks are repaired, and following repair, the affected portion of the leak chase system is retested. 3.8.1.6.2.5 Quality Control Quality control requirements are discussed in Appendix D and amendments to the PSAR for the construction phase. 3.8.1.6.2.6 Erection Tolerances The specified erection tolerances for the liner plate are as follows: FSAR Rev. 65 3.8-14
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 56 a) The slope of any 10 ft. section of cylindrical liner plate, referred to true vertical, does not exceed 1:180. The deviation from theoretical slope of any 10 ft. section of conical liner plate, measured within a vertical plane, does not exceed 1:120. b) The cylindrical shell is plumb within 1/400 of the height. The vertical axis of the conical shell, as established at the top and bottom of the conical section, is plumb within 1/400 of the height. c) The radial dimension to any point on the liner plate does not vary from the design radius by more than +1 in., and at any given elevation the maximum diameter minus the minimum diameter shall not exceed 4 in., except that there is a radial tolerance of +2 in. for local out-of-roundness. Radial measurements are taken at 24 locations spaced equally around the containment at any elevation. Local out-of-roundness tolerance is used for not more than two measurements at any given elevation and is not used at adjacent measurements. d) Plates joined by butt welding are matched accurately and retained in position during the welding operation. Misalignment in completed joints shall not exceed the requirements of Paragraph UW-33 of Section VIII, Division 1 of the ASME Code. e) The levelness of anchorages placed in the base foundation slab is within -1/4 in. of the theoretical elevation over the entire area, plus a local tolerance of -1/8 in. in any 30 ft. length. Actual deviations from the above were handled in accordance with the procedures covered in Subsection 3.8.1.6.2.5. 3.8.1.7 Testing and In-service Surveillance Requirements 3.8.1.7.1 Preoperational Testing 3.8.1.7.1.1 Structural Acceptance Test This subsection briefly describes the Unit 1 containment structural acceptance test. For a more detailed description, refer to the "SSES, Unit 1 Containment Structure, Structural Integrity Test Report. The Unit 1 containment structural acceptance test was performed after completion of the containment structure but prior to installation of piping and equipment. The reactor vessel was installed at the time of the test and the suppression chamber was filled with water to the normal level. The Unit 2 containment structural acceptance test will be performed after completion of the containment including all piping and equipment. The Unit 1 test was a prototype test and, therefore, internal concrete strains were measured. The Unit 2 test will be a non-prototype test and, therefore, internal concrete strains will not be measured. The Unit 1 test was done and the Unit 2 test will be done in accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.18, Revision 1, except for the following: a) A continuous increase in containment pressure, rather than incremental pressure increases, was used. This is considered justifiable since data observations at each FSAR Rev. 65 3.8-15
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 56 pressure level were made rapidly. Rapidly is defined as requiring a time interval for the data point sample sufficiently short so that the change in pressure during the observation would cause a change in structural response of less than five percent of the total anticipated change. Also, the maximum rate of pressurization was limited to 3 psi/hr to ensure that the structure would respond to the pressure load without any time lag. b) The distribution of measuring points for monitoring radial deflections was selected so that the as-built condition could be considered in the assessment of the general shell response. In general, the locations of measuring points for radial deflections was in agreement with Regulatory Guide 1.18, Figure B, except point 1. Point 1 was provided at a distance of two times the wall thickness (12 ft) above the base mat. This variation was made to properly predict the containment behavior near the base mat to wall connection. If point 1 was provided at a height of three times the wall thickness (18 ft.), it would be located close to point 2 (suppression chamber wall mid-height is 26 ft.) and would not yield any additional behavior pattern of the containment. c) Some of the strain gage instrumentation was farther from the equipment hatch than 0.5 times the wall thickness (3 ft.) as required by Regulatory Guide 1.18, Paragraph C.5. This was required in order to clear reinforcement and is considered justifiable since the intent of the Regulatory Guide, i.e., to demonstrate the structural integrity of the containment, was met. d) Tangential deflections of the containment wall adjacent to the equipment hatch were not measured because the predicted values of tangential deflection were small and it would have been difficult to obtain fixed reference points for measurement of local tangential deflections. e) Triaxial concrete strain measurements were not used to evaluate the concrete strain distribution because the measured strain values could not be properly interpreted. The difficulty in interpreting the data was due to the large size of the strain gages relative to the wall thickness. The concrete strain was evaluated using linear strain measurements in the meridional and hoop directions. f) Humidity inside the containment was not measured during the test since it does not affect the response of the structure. The containment was pneumatically pressurized to 1.15 times the design accident pressure as shown on Figure 3.8-29. The drywell floor was tested to 1.15 times the design downward differential pressure. Structural measurements were taken at peak pressure and peak differential pressure as well as at intermediate stages. Measured structural data include the following:
- 1) Radial and vertical deflections of the containment
- 2) Internal concrete strains
- 3) External concrete surface cracks.
FSAR Rev. 65 3.8-16
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 56 The above data were measured for the containment and for the largest opening which are the two equipment hatches. Since the areas of the containment wall around the equipment hatches are of identical design, only one of the hatches was instrumented. See Figures 3.8-30 and 3.8-31 for the locations of deflection measuring devices for the containment and the equipment hatch, respectively. See Dwg. C-384, Sh. I1 Ifor the location of strain gage instrumentation for the containment and the equipment hatch, respectively. Strain gages were located within the walls and slabs at the rebar layers in the direction of the main reinforcement. An inspection of external concrete surface cracks was performed at six locations. Each crack inspection area was at least 40 sq. ft. Dwg. C-387, Sh. I1 Ishows the locations of the crack mapping areas. Deflections and strains were calculated prior to the test. A 15 percent margin was added to the calculated values of deflection and strain to arrive at the predicted values. The FINEL computer program (Appendix 3.8A) was used to calculate the deflections and strains for the containment. The program performs a finite element, static analysis of axisymmetric structures with axisymmetric loading. Special material properties that can be considered include bilinearity in compression and bilinearity or cracking in tension. Figure 3.8-34 shows a vertical section through the model. Points along Boundary A are prevented from moving in the vertical direction and points along Boundary B are prevented from moving in the radial direction. Concrete, reinforcing steel, and liner plate materials are included in the model. The SUPERB computer program (Appendix 3.8A) was used to calculate the predicted deflections and strains for the equipment hatch. Figure 3.8-35 shows the analytical model of the equipment hatch. Shell elements are used to represent the containment wall around the equipment hatch and the drywell floor. Points along Boundary A are allowed to move within the X-Z plane, and Boundary B within the X-Y plane. Points along Boundary C are prevented from moving in the hoop direction, and points along Boundary D are prevented from moving in the radial direction. Nodal forces, moments, and shears are applied to Boundary E to account for the reaction loads from the upper portion of the drywell wall. Deflections and strains measured during the test were less than or equal to the predicted values at all critical locations. Thus, the design of the containment provides an adequate safety margin against internal pressure. Figure 3.8-36 shows a comparison between measured and predicted deflections for the containment at peak pressure. Figure 3.8-37 shows a comparison between measured and predicted deflections for the equipment hatch at peak pressure. The maximum strain occurs at mid-height of the suppression chamber wall. Figures 3.8-38, 3.8-39, 3.8-40, 3.8-41 and 3.8-42 compare measured and predicted strains at this location. Very little concrete cracking was observed. Figure 3.8-43 shows the cracks mapped at mid-height of the drywell wall where the greatest amount of concrete surface cracks were observed. 3.8.1.7.1.2 Leak Rate Testing Preoperational leak rate testing is discussed in Subsection 6.2.6. 3.8.1.7.2 In-service Leak Rate Testing In-service leak rate testing is discussed in Subsection 6.2.6. 3.8.2 ASME CLASS MC STEEL COMPONENTS OF THE CONTAINMENT FSAR Rev. 65 3.8-17
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 56 This subsection pertains to the ASME Class MC steel components of the concrete containment that form a portion of the containment pressure boundary and are not backed by structural concrete. These components include the drywell head assembly, the equipment hatches and personnel lock, the suppression chamber access hatches, the CRD removal hatch, and piping and electrical penetrations. 3.8.2.1 Description of the ASME Class MC Components 3.8.2.1.1 Drywell Head Assembly The drywell head provides a removable closure at the top of the containment for reactor access during the refueling operation. The drywell head assembly consists of a 2:1 hemi-ellipsoidal head and a cylindrical lower flange. The lower flange is supported on the top of the drywell wall as shown on Figure 3.8-9. The head is made of 1-1/2 in. thick plate and is secured with 80 2-3/4 in. diameter bolts at the 4 in. thick mating flange. Double rubber gaskets are provided at the head-to-lower flange connection to permit local leakage testing of the gaskets. The inside diameter (ID) of the drywell head at the mating flange is 37 ft. 7-1/2 in. A 24 in. diameter double-gasketed manhole is provided in the drywell head. Figure 3.8-44 shows details of the drywell head assembly. 3.8.2.1.2 Equipment Hatches and Personnel Lock Two 12 ft. 2 in. ID equipment hatches are furnished in the drywell wall to permit the transfer of equipment and components into and out of the drywell. One hatch is furnished with a double-gasketed flange and a bolted dished door. The other hatch is furnished with a double-gasketed flange and a bolted personnel lock. The personnel lock is an 8 ft. 7 in. ID cylindrical pressure vessel with inner and outer flat bulkheads. Interlocked, double-gasketed doors are furnished in each bulkhead. A quick-acting, equalizing valve vents the personnel lock to the drywell to equalize the pressure in the two systems when the doors are opened and then closed. The two doors in the personnel lock are mechanically interlocked to prevent them from being opened simultaneously and to ensure that one door is closed before the opposite door can be opened. The personnel lock has an ASME Code N-stamp. See Dwg. C-287, Sh. I1 Ifor details of the equipment hatch and the equipment hatch with personnel lock, respectively. 3.8.2.1.3 Suppression Chamber Access Hatches Two 6 ft. 0 in. ID access hatches are furnished in the suppression chamber wall to permit personnel access and the transfer of equipment and components into and out of the suppression chamber. Each hatch is furnished with a double-gasketed flange and a bolted flat cover. See Dwg. C-283, Sh. I1 Ifor details of the suppression chamber access hatches. FSAR Rev. 65 3.8-18
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 56 3.8.2.1.4 CRD Removal Hatch One 3 ft. 0 in. ID CRD removal hatch is furnished in the drywell wall to permit transfer of the control rod drive assemblies into and out of the drywell. The hatch is furnished with a double-gasketed flange and a bolted flat cover. See Dwg. C-288, Sh. I1 Ifor details of the CRD removal hatch. 3.8.2.1.5 Penetrations The entire length of any penetration sleeve is considered an MC component and, as such, is designed in accordance with Subsection NE of the ASME B&PV Code, Section III. See Subsection 3.8.1.1.3.3 for a description of the containment penetrations. Dwgs. C-288, Sh. 1 and C-283, Sh. 1 and Figure 3.8-20 show details of typical pipe and electrical penetrations, respectively. 3.8.2.2 Applicable Codes, Standards, and Specifications The codes, standards, and specifications used in the design and construction of the containment are listed in Table 3.8-1 and given a reference number. The reference numbers for the ASME Class MC components are 7C, 1H, 1J, and 1K. 3.8.2.3 Loads and Loading Combinations 3.8.2.3.1 General Table 3.8-3 lists the loading combinations used for the design and analysis of the ASME Class MC components. The loading combinations comply with Regulatory Guide 1.57. The loading combinations shown in Table 3.8-3 do not include the hydrodynamic loads. The ASME Class MC components have also been analyzed for hydrodynamic loads from main steam safety/relief valve discharge and LOCA. For a definition of loads and loading combinations including hydrodynamic loads, refer to GE's "Mark II Containment Dynamic Forcing Functions Information Report" (NEDO-21061), and the "Susquehanna Plant Design Assessment Report. The loading combinations given in Table 3.8-3 are not in agreement with those of SRP Section 3.8.2.II.3.b. Table 3.8-3 does, however, base allowable stresses on Subsection NB of the ASME code. Table 3.8-3a compares FSAR and SRP load combinations and allowable stresses for ASME Class MC components. The principal material for the MC components is SA-516, Grade
- 70. The allowable stresses listed in Table 3.8-3a are based on the following values:
Sm = 19.3 ksi Sy = 38.0 ksi for T 100°F 29.4 ksi for T = 550°F (local steam/water jet temperature) FSAR Rev. 65 3.8-19
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 56 Su = 70.0 ksi (minimum) for T 100°F Assume Su at T = 550°F
= 70.0 ksi x 29.4 ksi = 54.2 ksi 38.0 ksi 3.8.2.3.2 Description of Loads 3.8.2.3.2.1 Dead and Live Load For a description of dead and live load, see Subsections 3.8.1.3.2.1 and 3.8.1.3.2.2, respectively.
3.8.2.3.2.2 Design Basis Accident Pressure Load The MC components are designed for a containment design basis accident internal pressure of 53 psig. The personnel lock is also designed for a design basis accident internal pressure of 53 psig. 3.8.2.3.2.3 External Pressure Load The MC components are designed for a containment external pressure of 5 psi differential. 3.8.2.3.2.4 Thermal Loads The operating and postulated design accident temperatures for the MC components are as follows: Temperature (F°) Suppression Condition Drywell Chamber Operating 135 90 Design Accident 340 220 Thermal cycles used in design are as follows: a) Startup and shutdown - 500 cycles, 105°F range b) Design Basis Accident - 1 cycle, 220°F range. FSAR Rev. 65 3.8-20
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 56 3.8.2.3.2.5 Seismic Loads 3.8.2.3.2.5.1 Design Basis Loads The MC components are designed for acceleration values, which are calculated using methods described in Bechtel Topical Report BC-TOP-4-A (Ref. 2K of Table 3.8-1). The following acceleration values are used for the design of the drywell head assembly: a) - 1.5g horizontal, +/-0.6g vertical The following acceleration values are used for the design of all other class MC components: a) For equipment hatches, personnel lock, control rod drive removal hatch. E = 1.10 g horizontal, +/- 0.65 g vertical E' = 0.75 g horizontal, +/- 0.54 g vertical LOCA = 1.68 g horizontal, +/- 1.06 g vertical SRV = 0.26 g horizontal, +/- 0.70 g vertical b) Suppression chamber hatches and all other components in the suppression chamber. E = 0.43 g horizontal, +/- 0.38 g vertical E' = 0.38 g horizontal, +/- 0.31 g vertical LOCA = 4.5 g horizontal, +/- 0.51 g vertical SRV = 1.3 g horizontal, +/- 0.28 g vertical 3.8.2.3.2.6 Missile and Pipe Rupture Loads The drywell head assembly is designed for a local pipe rupture load of 48,000 lb. uniformly distributed over a circular area of 0.56 sq. ft. at any location on the drywell head. This load is due to the postulated rupture of the 6 in. diameter reactor vessel head spray pipe, which produces the largest load on the drywell head. The equipment hatches are designed for a pipe rupture load of 1,200,000 lb. uniformly distributed over a circular area of 12 ft. diameter. The CRD removal hatch is designed for a pipe rupture load of 160,000 lb. uniformly distributed over a circular area of 3 ft. diameter. The loads on the equipment hatches and the CRD removal hatch are due to the rupture of a 28 in. diameter recirculation loop outlet pipe, which produces the largest load on the components. The above values of static load include an appropriate dynamic load factor to account for the dynamic nature of the load. See Section 3.6 for a further discussion of pipe rupture loads. FSAR Rev. 65 3.8-21
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 56 3.8.2.4 Design and Analysis Procedures 3.8.2.4.1 Drywell Head Assembly The analysis of the drywell head assembly is done using the thin shell computer program E0781 (Appendix 3.8A). This program calculates the stresses and displacements in thin-walled, elastic shells of revolution when subjected to static edge, surface, and/or temperature loads with an arbitrary distribution over the surface of the shell. The drywell head assembly is divided into two analytical models. Figure 3.8-45 shows the drywell head model and the lower flange model. Displacement compatibility of the two models at the mating flange surface is maintained in the analysis. Boundary conditions are imposed on the analytical models by specifying boundary forces or displacements. Referring to Figure 3.8-45, the translation and rotation of the top of the drywell wall are imposed as boundary conditions to Boundary A. Boundary forces applied to Boundary B are calculated in accordance with thin shell theory. 3.8.2.4.2 Access Hatches Access hatches, including the equipment hatches, personnel lock, suppression chamber access hatches and CRD removal hatch, are designed as pressure retaining components. The portions of the sleeves not backed by concrete are designed and analyzed according to the provisions of Section III, Subsection NE of the ASME B&PV Code. At the junction of the hatch cover to the flange on the sleeve, where local bending and secondary stresses occur, the computer program E0119 (Appendix 3.8A) is used for analysis. This program is also used for the analysis of the flat head covers. 3.8.2.4.3 Pipe and Electrical Penetrations For nuclear Class I flued head penetrations, the stress calculations are performed according to the requirements of Article NB-3200 of the ASME B&PV Code, Section III for design, normal and upset, emergency, and faulted conditions. Nuclear Class II flued head penetrations are designed for the most severe condition which is the faulted condition. The stress calculations are performed using acceptable simplified equations or finite element computer program. For Class IE electrical cable penetrations, the procedures used in design and analysis are in compliance with Subsection NE of the ASME Code, Section III, Division 1. The stress calculations were performed using acceptable simplified equations shown in Appendix A-5000 of the ASME Code, Section III. 3.8.2.5 Structural Acceptance Criteria Table 3.8-3 lists the allowable stress criteria used for the design and analysis of the ASME Class MC components. The criteria comply with Regulatory Guide 1.57 except that the Code addendum (Summer 1973) applicable to the Regulatory Guide is subsequent to the Code addendum used for the design of the MC components (Summer 1972). FSAR Rev. 65 3.8-22
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 56 3.8.2.6 Materials, Quality Control, and Special Construction Techniques 3.8.2.6.1 Materials 3.8.2.6.1.1 General All carbon steel materials conform to the requirements of Article NE-2000, Materials, Section III of the ASME B&PV Code, 1971 Edition, with addenda through Summer 1972. Stainless steel materials for the CRD supply and return pipe penetrations conform to the requirements of Subsection NC of Section III of the ASME B&PV Code, 1971 Edition, with addenda through Summer 1972. 3.8.2.6.1.2 Drywell Head Assembly Item Specification Drywell head and lower flange SA-516, Grade 70, normalized Bolts SA-320, Grade L43 Nuts SA-194, Grade 7 3.8.2.6.1.3 Access Hatches Item Specification Sleeve and cover SA-516, Grade 60 or 70, normalized Bolts SA-193, Grade B7 Nuts SA-194, Grade 7 3.8.2.6.1.4 Penetrations Item Specification Carbon steel sleeves SA-333, Grade 1 or SA-516, Grade 60 normalized Carbon steel caps for spare penetrations SA-234, Grade WPB Stainless steel sleeves for CRD supply SA-312, Grade TP 304 Stainless steel fittings for CRD supply and return SA-182, Grade F 304 penetrations FSAR Rev. 65 3.8-23
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 56 3.8.2.6.2 Welding Welding conforms to the requirements of Subsection NE, Section III, ASME B&PV Code, except all welding of the CRD supply and return penetrations conforms to the requirements of Subsection NC of Section III of the ASME B&PV Code. All pressure boundary welds are full penetration welds of double welded, bevel type. Welders and weld procedures are qualified in accordance with either Section IX of the ASME Code or AWS D1.1. Penetrations, access hatches, and the drywell head flange are post-weld heat treated in accordance with Article NE-4000 of Section III of the ASME Code. Penetrations are preassembled into the liner plate sections and post-weld heat treated as complete subassemblies. 3.8.2.6.3 Materials Testing Impact testing as required by the ASME Code is performed at 0°F or below. 3.8.2.6.4 Nondestructive Examination of Welds All welds between penetrations and liner plate, access hatches and liner plate, and pressure retaining welds not backed by concrete are examined in accordance with Article NE-5000 of Section III of the ASME Code. Nondestructive examination complies with Regulatory Guide 1.19. 3.8.2.6.5 Quality Control Quality control requirements for the construction phase are discussed in Appendix D and amendments to the PSAR. 3.8.2.6.6 Erection Tolerances The specified erection tolerances for ASME Class MC steel components of the containment are as follows: a) Suppression chamber penetrations are within 1 in. of their design elevations and circumferential locations. b) Drywell penetrations are within 1 in. of their design circumferential locations. Critical penetrations, such as main steam, feedwater, core spray, etc., are within 1 in. of their design elevations. All other drywell penetrations vary from within 1 in. of design elevations for penetrations near the base of the drywell wall to within 2 in. of design elevations for penetrations near the top of the drywell wall. c) Alignments of penetrations are within 1 degree of the design alignments. d) The average elevation of the mating flange between the drywell head and the lower flange is within 3 in. of the design elevation. The mating flange is within 1/2 in. of level. FSAR Rev. 65 3.8-24
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 56 Actual deviations from the above were handled in accordance with procedures covered in Subsection 3.8.2.6.5. 3.8.2.7 Testing and In-service Inspection Requirements 3.8.2.7.1 Preoperational Testing 3.8.2.7.1.1 Structural Acceptance Test The drywell head assembly, equipment hatches, suppression chamber access hatches, CRD removal hatch, and pipe and electrical penetrations are pneumatically tested to 1.15 times the design accident pressure during the containment structural acceptance test. See Subsection 3.8.1.7.1.1 for a description of the structural acceptance tests. The personnel lock is pneumatically tested to 1.25 times the design accident pressure, following shop fabrication and following field erection, to verify its structural integrity. The CRD supply and return pipe penetrations are hydrotested to 1.25 times the design pressure of 1750 psig following field erection in accordance with the ASME Code, Section III, Subsection NC. 3.8.2.7.1.2 Leak Rate Testing Leaktightness of the containment Class MC components that are pressure retaining is verified during the integrated leak rate test. See Subsection 6.2.6 for a description of the containment integrated leak rate test. The personnel lock is leak rate tested to 100 percent of the design accident pressure following shop fabrication and following field erection. The maximum allowable leak rate is 0.2 percent of the weight of the contained air in 24 hours when measured at ambient temperature and test pressure. 3.8.2.7.2 In-service Leak Rate Testing In-service leak rate testing is discussed in Subsection 6.2.6. 3.8.3 CONTAINMENT INTERNAL STRUCTURES 3.8.3.1 Description of the Internal Structures The internal structures of the containment perform the following major functions: a) Support and shield the reactor vessel b) Support piping and equipment c) Form the pressure suppression boundary. FSAR Rev. 65 3.8-25
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 56 The containment internal structures are constructed of reinforced concrete and structural steel. The containment internal structures include the following: a) Drywell floor b) Reactor pedestal c) Reactor shield wall d) Suppression chamber columns e) Drywell platforms f) Seismic truss g) Reactor steam supply system supports Dwgs. C-331, Sh. 1, C-371, Sh. 2, C-1932, Sh. 3, C-1932, Sh. 4, and C1932, Sh. I5 Ishow an overview of the containment including the internal structures. 3.8.3.1.1 Drywell Floor The drywell floor serves as a barrier between the drywell and suppression chamber. It is a reinforced concrete circular slab with an outside diameter of 88 ft. 0 in. and a thickness of 3 ft. 6 in. See Dwg. C-348, Sh. 1, C-349, Sh. 1, and C-350, Sh. I1 Ifor details of the drywell floor reinforcement. The drywell floor is supported by the reactor pedestal, the containment wall, and 12 steel columns. The connection of the drywell floor to the containment wall is shown on Dwg. C-284, Sh. 11 1. The drywell floor is penetrated by 87 24-in. diameter vent pipes. Additional reinforcement is furnished at vent pipe penetrations. A 1/4 in. thick carbon steel liner plate is provided on top of the drywell floor and anchored to it. The liner plate prevents bypass of the vent pipes during LOCA. Refer to Subsection 6.2.1 for a description of the bypass leakage requirements. The liner plate also provides support for attachments such as pipe hangers. Loads from these attachments are transferred by means of the liner plate into the anchorages which are embedded in the drywell floor concrete. Dwg. C-293, Sh. I1 Ishows the drywell floor liner plate and anchorage system. FSAR Rev. 65 3.8-26
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 56 3.8.3.1.2 Reactor Pedestal The reactor pedestal is a 82 ft. high, upright cylindrical reinforced concrete shell that rests on the containment base foundation slab and supports the drywell floor, reactor vessel, and reactor shield wall as well as drywell platforms, pipe restraints, and recirculation pumps. The connection of the reactor pedestal to the base foundation slab is shown on Dwg. C-281, Sh. 1. The reactor pedestal below the drywell floor has a 19 ft. 7 in. inside diameter and a 5 ft. 1 in. wall thickness. The reactor pedestal above the drywell floor has a 20 ft. 3 in. inside diameter and a 4 ft. 5 in. wall thickness. The thickness at the top of the pedestal is increased to 5 ft. 4 in., where it supports the reactor vessel and the reactor shield wall. See Dwgs. C-340, Sh. 1 and C-341, Sh. I1 Ifor details of reinforcement. Openings are provided in the reactor pedestal to permit flow of air and suppression pool water into and out of the pedestal cavity. Additional reinforcement is furnished at openings. A 1/4 in. thick carbon steel form plate is provided on the inside and outside surfaces of the reactor pedestal below the drywell floor. This plate acts as a concrete form during construction and preserves the water quality of the suppression pool by preventing the leaching of chemicals from the reactor pedestal concrete into the suppression pool. 3.8.3.1.3 Reactor Shield Wall The reactor shield wall is a 49 ft. high upright cylindrical shell which rests on the top of the reactor pedestal and provides primary radiation shielding as well as supports for pipe restraints and drywell platforms. The reactor shield wall is constructed of inner and outer carbon steel plates and unreinforced concrete between the two plates. See Dwg. C-376, Sh. I1 Ifor details of the reactor shield wall. The reactor shield wall has a 25 ft. 7 in. inside diameter and a 1 ft. 9 in. wall thickness. The outer steel plate is 1-1/2 in. thick and is designed to withstand any local pipe restraint and drywell platform attachment loads. The inner steel plate is 1/2 in. thick and is designed to act with the outer plate to withstand local and non-localized loads. The inner and outer plates are connected with steel bars spaced on 2 ft. 6 in. centers. The annular space between the inner and outer plates is filled with unreinforced concrete. The concrete is used for radiation shielding only and is not relied upon as a structural element. Normal density concrete is used in the top and bottom portions of the reactor shield wall. High density concrete is used at the mid-height of the reactor shield wall opposite the reactor core for additional radiation shielding. The reactor shield wall is connected to the top of the reactor pedestal by 48 2 in. diameter, high strength anchor bolts as shown on Dwg. C-344, Sh. 1, and C-377, Sh. 1. The seismic truss and seismic stabilizer, which 11 provide lateral support to the reactor vessel, are attached to the top of the reactor shield wall. Penetrations with hinged doors or removable plugs are provided in the reactor shield wall to facilitate piping connections to the reactor vessel and to provide access for in-service inspection. The wall thicknesses of penetration sleeves are large enough to prevent local stress concentrations in the inner and outer plates. 3.8.3.1.4 Suppression Chamber Columns Twelve hollow steel pipe columns are furnished to support the drywell floor. Each column is 52 ft. 6 in. long, 42 in. outside diameter, with a 1-1/4 in. wall thickness as shown on Dwg. C-370, Sh. 1. 11 The columns are connected to the base foundation slab at the bottom and to the drywell floor at the top with embedded anchor bolts. Dwg. C-370, Sh. I1 Ishows the connection to the base foundation slab. FSAR Rev. 65 3.8-27
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 56 3.8.3.1.5 Drywell Platforms Platforms are furnished at five elevations in the drywell to provide access and support to electrical and mechanical components. The platforms consist of structural steel framing with steel grating. Builtup box shapes are used for beams that must resist biaxial bending. Beams that span between the pedestal or shield and the containment wall are provided with sliding connections at one end. Thus, no thermal axial loads are developed in the beams and no radial loads are imposed on the pedestal, shield, or containment wall. See Dwgs. C-362, Sh. 1, C-363, Sh. 1, C-364, Sh. 1, C-365, Sh. 1, and C-367, Sh. I1 Ifor details of the drywell platforms. 3.8.3.1.6 Seismic Truss and Seismic Stabilizer The seismic truss and the seismic stabilizer provide lateral support for the reactor vessel during earthquake and pipe rupture loading. The seismic truss spans between the containment wall and the reactor shield wall, and the seismic stabilizer spans between the reactor shield wall and the reactor vessel. For a description of the seismic stabilizer, see Section 3.9. The seismic truss is shaped like an eight pointed star and is fabricated of steel plates. See Dwg. C-380, Sh. 1 for details of the seismic truss. Dwg. C-286, Sh. I1 Ishows the connection of the seismic truss to the containment wall. This connection is designed to allow vertical and radial movement of the seismic truss relative to the containment wall but to prevent tangential movement. 3.8.3.1.7 Reactor Steam Supply System Supports The steam supply system piping and pumps are supported by hangers, which in turn are supported by the reactor pedestal, reactor shield, and drywell platforms. A description of these supports is given in Section 3.9. In addition, the reactor vessel itself is supported on the reactor pedestal by 120, 31/4 in. diameter, high strength anchor bolts as shown on Dwg. C-344, Sh. 1, and C-377, Sh. 11
- 1. The reactor vessel is supported laterally by the seismic truss and seismic stabilizer as discussed in Subsection 3.8.3.1.6.
3.8.3.2 Applicable Codes, Standards, and Specifications The codes, standards, and specifications used in the design and construction of the containment internal structures are listed in Table 3.8-1 and given a reference number. The reference numbers for the drywell floor are 10A, 12A, 1C, 2C, 3C, 6C, and 2K. The reference numbers for the drywell floor liner plate and anchorages are 4C, 1H, 1J, and 1K. The reference numbers for the reactor pedestal are 7A, 10A, 12A, 1C, 2C, 3C, 6C, and 2K. The reference numbers for the reactor shield wall are 1B, 6C, 1H, and 2K. The reference numbers for the suppression chamber columns are 1H, 2H, 3H, 1J, and 2K. The reference numbers for the drywell platforms and seismic truss are 1B, 1H, 2H, 3H and 2K. FSAR Rev. 65 3.8-28
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 56 3.8.3.3 Loads and Loading Combinations 3.8.3.3.1 General Tables 3.8-2, 3.8-2a and 3.8-4, 3.8-5, 3.8-6 and 3.8-7 list the loading combinations used for the design and analysis of the containment internal structures. The loading combinations shown in these tables do not include hydrodynamic loads. The internal structures have also been analyzed for hydrodynamic loads from main steam safety/relief valve discharge and LOCA. For a definition of loads and loading combinations including hydrodynamic loads, refer to GE's "Mark II Containment Dynamic Forcing Functions Information Report" (NEDO-21061) and the "Susquehanna Plant Design Assessment Report. 3.8.3.3.2 Drywell Floor and Reactor Pedestal Table 3.8-2 lists the loading combinations used for the design of the drywell floor. The loading combinations are in compliance with those given in Reference 12A of Table 3.8-1. Table 3.8-2a lists the loading combinations used for the design of the reactor pedestal. The loading combinations are in compliance with those given in SRP Section 3.8.3.II.3. 3.8.3.3.2.1 Description of Loads Dead Load, Live Load, and Seismic Loads For a description of dead load, live load, and seismic loads, see Subsections 3.8.1.3.2.1, 3.8.1.3.2.2 and 3.8.1.3.2.6, respectively. Design Basis Accident Pressure Load The drywell floor and the reactor pedestal are designed for the following pressures: a) Maximum pressure: 53 psig in the drywell and the suppression chamber b) Maximum differential pressure: 28 psig (53 psig in the drywell and 25 psig in the suppression chamber). Thermal Loads The temperature gradients through the drywell floor and the reactor pedestal are shown on Figure 3.8-58 for the operating and the postulated design accident condition. The design accident temperature gradients shown on Figure 3.8-58 occur five minutes after LOCA. These transient temperature gradients are used for the design of the drywell floor and the reactor pedestal because they produce the largest stresses in the structure. Thermal effects anticipated at the time of the structural acceptance test are insignificant since changes in temperature inside and outside the containment during the test will be small. FSAR Rev. 65 3.8-29
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 56 Missile and Pipe Rupture Loads The drywell floor and the reactor pedestal are designed to withstand the missile and pipe rupture loads due to a postulated rupture of a 28 in. diameter recirculation loop pipe, which produces the largest loads on the structures. These loads include the effects of jet impingement, pipe whip, and pipe reaction. An equivalent static load of 1030 kips is considered. This load includes an appropriate dynamic load factor to account for the dynamic nature of the load. See Section 3.6 for a further discussion of postulated pipe rupture loads. 3.8.3.3.3 Reactor Shield Wall The reactor shield wall is designed using the elastic working stress design methods of AISC, "Specification for the Design, Fabrication, and Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings, dated 1969, Part 1. Table 3.8-4 lists the load combination used for the design of the reactor shield wall. Since this loading condition combines the design basis accident loads with the maximum seismic loads, it is the most severe loading condition and other, less severe load combinations are not considered. 3.8.3.3.3.1 Description of Loads Dead Load, Live Load, and Seismic Loads For a description of dead load, live load, and seismic loads, see Subsections 3.8.1.3.2.1, 3.8.1.3.2.2 and 3.8.1.3.2.6, respectively. Design Basis Accident Pressure Load The reactor shield wall is designed for internal pressure due to a postulated pipe rupture at the connection of the pipe to the reactor vessel nozzle safe end. The following two pressure conditions are considered: a) Maximum unbalanced pressure: pressure condition shortly after pipe break, which produces the largest lateral load on the reactor shield wall, as shown in Figure 6A-3b. b) Maximum uniform pressure: 70 psig internal pressure. Thermal Loads The temperature gradients through the reactor shield wall are shown on Figure 3.8-59 for the operating and the postulated design accident conditions. The design accident temperature gradient shown on Figure 3.8-59 occurs five minutes after LOCA. This transient temperature gradient is used for the design of the reactor shield wall since it produces the largest stresses in the structure. FSAR Rev. 65 3.8-30
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 56 Missile and Pipe Rupture Loads The reactor shield wall is designed to withstand the missile and pipe rupture loads due to a postulated rupture of any high energy pipe that penetrates the reactor shield wall and connects to the reactor vessel, such as recirculation and feedwater pipes. These loads include the effects of jet impingement, pipe whip, and pipe reaction. Equivalent static loads are considered, which include an appropriate dynamic load factor to account for the dynamic nature of the load. See Section 3.6 for a further discussion of postulated pipe rupture loads. 3.8.3.3.4 Suppression Chamber Columns The suppression chamber columns are designed using the plastic design methods of AISC, "Specification for the Design, Fabrication, and Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings, dated 1969, Part 2. Table 3.8-5 lists the load combinations used for the design of the suppression chamber columns. The columns are designed to resist the reaction loads from the drywell floor for the LOCA conditions. Subsection 3.8.3.3.2 includes a description of the loads for the drywell floor. The abnormal loading conditions govern the design since they include the design basis accident pressure load, which is the critical load for columns. 3.8.3.3.5 Drywell Platforms The drywell platforms are designed using working stress design methods except for the pipe restraints supported on the platforms. The pipe restraints are designed to undergo local inelastic deformations due to postulated pipe rupture loads. However, there is no loss of function of the pipe restraints since they will restrain any postulated pipe whip. The built-up box beams that support the pipe restraints are designed to withstand all postulated pipe rupture loads. Design accident pressure and operating and design accident thermal loads do not affect the design of the drywell platforms. For the design of box beams, seismic loads due to dead weight of the beams may be neglected since these loads are insignificant relative to the pipe rupture loads. For the design of the framing beams, seismic loads due to dead weight of the beams are small and may be neglected since these beams are laterally braced by other framing beams and by the grating. The uniform design live load for the grating and framing beams is 200 psf. The live load for the framing beams also includes the gravity load, thermal reaction load, and seismic SSE reaction load of all piping and equipment supported on the beams. Table 3.8-6 lists the load combinations used to design the drywell platforms. Pressure, thermal and seismic loads are not considered since they are not critical. 3.8.3.3.6 Seismic Truss The seismic truss is designed using working stress design methods. It is designed primarily for lateral seismic loads. However, it is also designed for jet impingement loads due to the postulated rupture of a 26 in. diameter main steam pipe. Design accident pressure and operating and design accident thermal loads do not affect the design of the seismic truss. Table 3.8-7 lists the load combination used to design the seismic truss. Pressure and thermal loads are not considered since they are not critical. FSAR Rev. 65 3.8-31
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 56 3.8.3.4 Design and Analysis Procedures This section describes the procedures used for the design and analysis of the containment internal structures. The description does not include the effects of hydrodynamic loads from main steam safety/relief valve discharge and LOCA. For a description of the design and analysis procedures that consider the effects of hydrodynamic loads, refer to GE's "Mark II Containment Dynamic Forcing Functions Report" (NEDO-21061) and the "Susquehanna Plant Design Assessment Report. 3.8.3.4.1 Drywell Floor The design and analysis procedures used for the drywell floor are similar to those used for the containment wall. Used for the analysis are 3D/SAP, CECAP, ME620, and seismic analysis computer programs (Appendix 3.8A). See Subsection 3.8.1.4.1 for a detailed description of the analysis procedures. Figure 3.8-60 shows the 3D/SAP finite element model used to analyze the drywell floor for all loads other than seismic loads. A 15 degree wedge of the drywell floor is modeled using solid finite elements having linear elastic, isotropic material properties. One vertical boundary plane goes through a suppression chamber column and the other is halfway between two columns. The model includes the drywell floor, suppression chamber wall, reactor pedestal below the drywell floor, and a suppression chamber column. Boundary conditions are imposed on the analytical model by specifying nodal point forces or displacements. Referring to Figure 3.8-60, the nodal points lying along Boundary A are allowed to move within the X-Z plane, and Boundary B within the X-Y plane. Points along Boundary C are prevented from moving in the hoop direction. Points along Boundary D are prevented from moving in the radial direction to account for the restraining effect of the inner portion of the drywell floor. Nodal forces, moments, and shears are applied to Boundaries E and F to account for reaction loads from the drywell wall and reactor pedestal above the drywell floor, respectively. Analytical techniques as described in Bechtel Topical Report BC-TOP-4-A (Ref. 2K of Table 3.8-1) are used to analyze the drywell floor for seismic loads. 3.8.3.4.2 Drywell Floor Liner Plate and Anchorages The design and analysis of the drywell floor liner plate and anchorages is in accordance with Bechtel Topical Report BC-TOP 1 (Ref. 1K of Table 3.8-1). The analysis of the liner plate and anchorages for attachment loads is done using membrane theory for the liner plate and the theory of beams on elastic foundations for the anchorages. 3.8.3.4.3 Reactor Pedestal The reactor pedestal is designed for axisymmetric loads using the FINEL computer program (Appendix 3.8A). The program performs a finite element, static analysis of axisymmetric structures with axisymmetric loading. Both concrete and reinforcing steel materials are included in the model. Special material properties include bilinearity in compression and bilinearity or cracking in tension. The operating and design accident temperature gradients are computed using ME620 computer FSAR Rev. 65 3.8-32
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 56 program (Appendix 3.8A). For transient loads such as design accident pressure and thermal loads, the most critical combination of these loads is considered. Figure 3.8-34 shows a vertical section through the FINEL model of the containment used to analyze the reactor pedestal below the drywell floor. Points along Boundary A are prevented from moving in the vertical direction and points along Boundary B are prevented from moving in the radial direction. Figure 3.8-61 shows the FINEL model used to analyze the reactor pedestal above the drywell floor. The model includes the reactor pedestal above the drywell floor and portions of the reactor vessel and the reactor shield wall. Local thermal effects at the top of the reactor pedestal due to heat input from the reactor vessel are determined by using the ME620 computer program (Appendix 3.8A). Referring to Figure 3.8-61, nodal points along Boundary A are prevented from moving in the vertical and radial directions. Nodal forces, moments, and shears are applied to Boundaries B and C to account for reaction loads from the reactor vessel and the reactor shield wall, respectively. Non-axisymmetric loads on the reactor pedestal include seismic loads and reactor vessel and reactor shield reaction loads. Seismic forces, moments, and shears are calculated as described in Section 3.7. Vertical forces, horizontal shears, and overturning moments at the base of the reactor shield wall are determined as described in Subsection 3.8.3.4.4. These loads are applied to the top of the reactor pedestal. Concrete and reinforcing steel stresses in the reactor pedestal due to the above loads are calculated using the design methods of ACI 307. ACI 307 includes equations for determining the neutral axis of reinforced concrete cylindrical shells subjected to axial force and overturning moment. The position of the neutral axis satisfies the equilibrium of internal stresses and external forces and moments. Concrete and reinforcing steel stresses due to axisymmetric and non-axisymmetric loads are combined to determine the total stress. Additional meridional, hoop, and shear reinforcement is provided at the top of the pedestal as shown in Dwg. C-341, Sh. I1 Ito resist local loads on the pedestal from the reactor vessel and the reactor shield. The seismically-induced tangential shears on the reactor pedestal are considerably less than the seismically-induced tangential shears on the containment wall. Therefore, helical reinforcement is not provided in the reactor pedestal in order to resist tangential shears. Meridional and hoop reinforcement is designed to carry the entire tangential shear by shear friction using the design methods of ACI 318-71. 3.8.3.4.4 Reactor Shield Wall The reactor shield wall is analyzed in two stages. First, the effect of openings on the behavior of the reactor shield is investigated. This is done to determine whether the shield may be analyzed as an axisymmetric cylindrical shell without openings or whether the openings cause local stress concentrations. Loads considered for this analysis are design accident pressure and postulated pipe rupture loads. The EASE computer program (Appendix 3.8A) is used for this analysis. Figure 3.8-62 shows the finite element model. A full 360 degree section of the reactor shield wall is modeled using plate elements having linear elastic, isotropic material properties. One 64 in. diameter recirculation outlet penetration and two adjacent 48 in. diameter recirculation inlet penetrations are included in the model. Smaller finite elements are used in the area of the openings to obtain an accurate stress gradient. Referring to Figure 3.8-62, points along Boundary A are prevented from moving in the vertical and radial directions. Boundary B is a free edge. The results of this analysis confirm that there are no significant local stress concentrations in the shield around the openings. This is due to the stiffening of the shell that is provided by the FSAR Rev. 65 3.8-33
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 56 thick-walled penetration sleeves. Therefore, the use of an axisymmetric analytical model without openings is justified. The second stage analyzes the reactor shield wall as an axisymmetric shell. For axisymmetric loads, which include dead load and design accident thermal load, the FINEL computer program is used. The most critical temperature gradient as determined by the ME620 computer program (Appendix 3.8A) is considered. The FINEL program performs a finite element, static analysis of axisymmetric structures with axisymmetric loading. For non-axisymmetric loads, which include design accident pressure load, seismic load, and pipe rupture load, the ASHSD computer program (Appendix 3.8A) is used. The ASHSD program performs an elastic, finite element, static, or dynamic analysis of axisymmetric structures with non-axisymmetric loading. The distribution of non-axisymmetric load around the shell is approximated by a Fourier series expansion. Figure 3.8-63 shows a vertical section through the model used for FINEL and ASHSD programs. Points along Boundary A are prevented from moving in the vertical and radial directions. For non-axisymmetric loads, Boundary B at the connection of the seismic truss to the containment wall is prevented from moving in the radial direction. Total stresses in the reactor shield wall are determined by summing the axisymmetric and non-axisymmetric stresses. 3.8.3.4.5 Suppression Chamber Columns Axial force, shear, and moment in the columns due to axisymmetric loads, such as dead load and design accident pressure and thermal loads, are determined using the FINEL computer program (Appendix 3.8A). Figure 3.8-34 shows the FINEL model of the containment used to analyze the suppression chamber columns. A description of the program and the boundary conditions is given in Subsection 3.8.3.4.3. Since the FINEL program can consider only axisymmetric structures, the 12 columns are modeled as an equivalent cylinder having the cross-sectional area and axial stiffness of the columns. Axial force in the columns is calculated from the axial stress determined by the FINEL program. Shear and moment in the columns are calculated from relative displacements of the drywell floor and the base foundation slab determined by the FINEL program. Axial force, shear, and moment in the columns due to seismic loads are determined using several methods. Axial force in the columns due to horizontal seismic load is determined using the ASHSD program (Appendix 3.8A). Figure 3.8-64 shows the model. Axisymmetric shell and solid finite elements having linear elastic, isotropic material properties are used. Nodal points lying along Boundary A are prevented from moving in the vertical direction and points along Boundary B are prevented from moving in the radial direction. The load applied to the ASHSD model is the seismic horizontal shear and overturning moment for the containment calculated as described in Section 3.7. Shear and moment in the columns due to horizontal seismic load are determined using the analytical procedures described in Bechtel Topical Report BC-TOP-4-A (Ref. 2K of Table 3.8-1). The lumped mass model of the containment including columns and vent pipes is shown in Figure 3.8-65. Since the vent pipes are laterally braced to the columns, shear and moment are produced in the columns due to seismic motion of the vent pipes. Axial force in the columns due to vertical seismic load is determined by applying the vertical forces calculated from the containment seismic analysis to the drywell floor at its connections to the containment wall and the reactor pedestal. The vertical force transmitted to the columns through FSAR Rev. 65 3.8-34
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 56 the drywell floor is calculated considering the relative vertical stiffnesses of the containment wall, reactor pedestal, and columns. The postulated rupture of a 28 in. diameter recirculation loop pipe produces a vertical jet impingement load on the top of the drywell floor and, therefore, produces loads in the columns. Axial force, shear, and moment in the columns due to jet force is calculated by the CE 668 computer program (Appendix 3.8A). The program performs a static, linear elastic analysis of flat slabs of arbitrary dimensions subjected to arbitrary loading. Figure 3.8-66 shows the 180 degree model of the drywell floor. A vertical jet force is applied along the axis of symmetry and the reaction is calculated in the column adjacent to the applied load. Edges of the drywell floor along Boundaries A and B are considered to be fixed supports. Nodal points at the columns are fixed in the plane of the model. The total axial force, shear, and moment in the columns for all load combinations are determined by summing the results of the separate analyses. Stability of the columns for the most critical load combination is checked using the plastic design methods of AISC, "Specification for the Design, Fabrication, and Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings, dated 1969, Part 2 (Ref. 1H of Table 3.8-1). 3.8.3.4.6 Drywell Platforms The drywell platforms are designed using conventional elastic design methods which conform to the AISC Specification, 1969, Part 1 (Ref. 1H of Table 3.8-1). 3.8.3.4.7 Seismic Truss Seismic forces in the seismic truss are calculated using the methods described in Bechtel Topical Report BC-TOP-4-A (Ref. 2K of Table 3.8-1). Axial force, shear force, and moment in the seismic truss due to postulated pipe rupture loads are calculated using moment distribution. Figure 3.8-67 shows the rigid frame model including boundary conditions. 3.8.3.5 Structural Acceptance Criteria 3.8.3.5.1 Reinforced Concrete The allowable stresses for the reinforced concrete portions of the containment internal structures are the same as the allowable stresses for the reinforced concrete portions of the containment. See Subsection 3.8.1.5.1 for a description. 3.8.3.5.2 Drywell Floor Liner Plate and Anchorages The structural acceptance criteria for the drywell floor liner plate and anchorages are the same as the structural acceptance criteria for the containment liner plate and anchorages. See Subsection 3.8.1.5.2 for a description. FSAR Rev. 65 3.8-35
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 56 3.8.3.5.3 Structural Steel Structural steel portions of the containment internal structures include the reactor shield wall, suppression chamber columns, drywell platforms, and seismic truss. For normal loading conditions, the allowable stresses are in accordance with the AISC Specification (Ref. 1H of Table 3.8-1). For extreme environmental and abnormal loading conditions, the allowable stresses are as follows: a) Bending - 0.90 Fy b) Axial tension or compression - 0.85 Fy except, where allowable stress is governed by requirements of stability (local or lateral buckling), allowable stress shall not exceed 1.5 Fs. c) Shear - 0.50 Fy For extreme environmental and abnormal loading conditions, the allowable stress for bolted and welded connections is 1.7 Fs. The allowables are defined as: Fs = Allowable stress according to the AISC Specification, Part 1 (Ref. 1H of Table 3.8-1) Fy = Specified yield strength of structural steel 3.8.3.6 Materials, Quality Control, and Special Construction Techniques 3.8.3.6.1 Concrete Containment Internal Structures The concrete and reinforcing steel materials for the containment internal structures are discussed in Appendix 3.8B. Concrete design compressive strengths are given in Table 3.8-11. 3.8.3.6.2 Drywell Floor Liner Plate, Anchorages, Attachments 3.8.3.6.2.1 Materials Liner plate materials conform to the requirements of the standard specifications listed below: Item Specification Liner plate (less than1/2 in. thick) ASTM A 285, Grade A FSAR Rev. 65 3.8-36
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 56 Liner plate (1/2 in. thick or thicker) ASME SA-516, Grade 60 or 70 conforming to the requirements of ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (ASME B&PV Code), 1971 Edition with Addenda through Summer 1972, Section III, Article NE-2000, Materials Anchorages and attachments ASTM A 36 3.8.3.6.2.2 Welding Welding requirements for the drywell floor liner plate and anchorages are the same as the welding requirements for the containment liner plate and anchorages. See Subsection 3.8.1.6.2.2 for a description of the welding requirements. 3.8.3.6.2.3 Nondestructive Examination of Liner Plate Seam Welds Nondestructive testing of liner plate welds is performed in accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.19, Revision 1. Liner plate seam welds are 100 percent magnetic particle examined. Liner plate seam welds are also 100 percent vacuum box soap bubble tested. Welds that are inaccessible for vacuum box testing are 100 percent liquid penetrant tested. Examination procedures, personnel qualification, and acceptance standards are in accordance with Subsection 3.8.1.6.2.4. 3.8.3.6.2.4 Erection Tolerances The specified levelness of anchorages placed in the drywell floor is within 1/4 in. of the theoretical elevation over the entire area, plus a local tolerance of +/-1/8 in. in any 30 ft. length. Actual deviations from the above were handled in accordance with quality control procedures covered in Appendix D and amendments to the PSAR. 3.8.3.6.3 Reactor Shield Wall and Seismic Truss 3.8.3.6.3.1 Materials Item Specification Inner and outer plates, seismic truss, pipe restraints, ASTM A 588, Grade A or B etc. Internal stiffeners ASTM A 36 Seismic Truss Male Stabilizer Block ASME SA 181, Grade II FSAR Rev. 65 3.8-37
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 56 3.8.3.6.3.2 Welding and Nondestructive Examination of Welds Welding and nondestructive examination is performed in accordance with AWS D1.1. 3.8.3.6.3.3 Materials Testing The 1-1/2 in. thick outer plate and other plates subjected to transverse tensile stress are vacuum degassed and ultrasonically tested in accordance with supplementary requirements S-1 and S-8.1, respectively, of ASTM A 20-72a. 3.8.3.6.3.4 Erection Tolerances The specified erection tolerances for the reactor shield are as follows: a) The radial dimension from the as-built centerline of the reactor vessel to any point on the reactor shield is within 3/8 in. of the theoretical radius. b) The top of the reactor shield is set within 1/4 in. of its theoretical elevation. c) The azimuths of the shield penetrations are within 1/2 in. of the theoretical azimuths. d) Seismic truss members do not deviate from axial straightness by more than 1/1000 of axial length. Actual deviations from the above were handled in accordance with procedures covered in Appendix D and amendments to the PSAR. 3.8.3.6.4 Suppression Chamber Columns 3.8.3.6.4.1 Materials The column shafts, base plates, and top plates are fabricated of ASME SA-516, Grade 70 material. 3.8.3.6.4.2 Welding Weld procedures and qualifications conform to the provisions of Section IX and Section VIII, Division 1 of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, 1971 Edition with addenda through Summer 1972. All welders are qualified in accordance with Section IX of the ASME Code. 3.8.3.6.4.3 Nondestructive Examination of Welds Nondestructive examinations conform to Section V of the ASME B&PV Code, 1971 Edition with addenda through Summer 1972. All personnel performing nondestructive examination are qualified in accordance with the American Society for Nondestructive Testing's Recommended FSAR Rev. 65 3.8-38
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 56 Practice No. SNT-TC-1A and its applicable supplements. Acceptance standards conform to Section VIII, Division 1 of the ASME Code. 3.8.3.6.4.4 Fabrication and Erection Tolerances The specified fabrication and erection tolerances for suppression chamber columns are as follows: a) The outside diameter, based on circumferential measurements, does not deviate from the theoretical outside diameter by more than 0.5 percent. b) Out-of-roundness, defined by the difference between the maximum and minimum diameters related to the theoretical diameter, is in accordance with ASME Code, Section VIII, Division 1, Paragraph UG-80. c) The finished length does not differ from the theoretical length by more than 1/4 in. d) The finished column shaft does not deviate from straightness by more than 1/8 in. in 1 ft, with a maximum for the full length of 1/1000 of the total length. e) Erection tolerances are in accordance with the AISC Specification (Ref. 1H and 2H of Table 3.8-1). Actual deviations from the above were handled in accordance with procedures covered in Subsection 3.8.3.6.6. 3.8.3.6.5 Drywell Platforms 3.8.3.6.5.1 Materials Item Specification (or Engineer Approved Equal) Box Beams ASTM A 441 Rolled Shapes ASTM A 36 Connection Bolts ASTM A 325 3.8.3.6.5.2 Welding and Nondestructive Examination of Welds Welding and nondestructive examination is performed in accordance with AWS D1.1. 3.8.3.6.5.3 Erection Tolerances Erection tolerances for the drywell platforms are in accordance with AISC Specification (Ref. 2H of Table 3.8-1). FSAR Rev. 65 3.8-39
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 56 3.8.3.6.6 Quality Control Quality control requirements for construction are discussed in Appendix D and amendments to the PSAR. 3.8.3.7 Testing and In-service Inspection Requirements 3.8.3.7.1 Preoperational Testing 3.8.3.7.1.1 Structural Acceptance Test The drywell floor is tested to 1.15 times the design downward differential pressure. See Subsection 3.8.1.7.1.1 for a description of the structural acceptance tests. Deflections and strains of the drywell floor measured during the Unit 1 test were less than the predicted values. Thus, the design of the drywell floor provides an adequate safety margin against internal pressure. Figure 3.8-68 shows a comparison between measured and predicted deflections for the drywell floor at peak differential pressure. 3.8.3.7.1.2 Leak Rate Testing Preoperational leak rate testing is discussed in Subsection 6.2.6. 3.8.3.7.2 In-service Leak Rate Testing In-service leak rate testing is discussed in Subsection 6.2.6. 3.8.4 OTHER SEISMIC CATEGORY I STRUCTURES This section gives information on all Seismic Category I structures except the primary containment and its internals. It also describes non-seismic Category I structures designated with a safety classification of other. The structures included in this section are as follows: Seismic Category I Structures Reactor Building Control Building Diesel Generator 'A-D' Building Diesel Generator 'E' Building Engineered Safeguards Service Water Pumphouse Spray Pond FSAR Rev. 65 3.8-40
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 56 Non-Seismic Category I, Structures Designated with a Safety Classification of Other Turbine Building Radwaste Building The general arrangement of these structures is shown on Dwgs. A-11, Sh. 1, A-12, Sh. 1, A-13, Sh. 1, M-203, Sh. 1, M-204, Sh. 1, A-16, Sh. 1, and A-17, Sh. 1. Figures 3.8-77 and 3.8-78. Dwgs. M-227, Sh. 1, M-237, Sh. 1, M-260, Sh. 1, M-261, Sh. 1, M-5200, Sh. 1, M-5200, Sh. 2, M-284, Sh. 1, C-64, Sh. 1, C-65, Sh. 1, C-66, Sh. 1, and C-67, Sh. 1, M-270, Sh. 1, M-271, Sh. 1, M-272, Sh. 1, M-273, Sh. 1, and M-274, Sh. 1. 11 3.8.4.1 Description of the Structures Reactor Building Refer to Dwgs. A-11, Sh. 1, A-12, Sh. 1, A-13, Sh. 1, M-203, Sh. 1, M-204, Sh. 1, A-16, Sh. 1, A-17, Sh. 1, Figures. 3.8-77, 3.8-78 and Dwg. A-17, Sh. 1. 11 The reactor building encloses the primary containment, and provides secondary containment when the primary containment is in service during power operation. It also serves as containment during reactor refueling and maintenance operations, when the primary containment is open. It houses the auxiliary systems of the nuclear steam supply system, new fuel storage vaults, the refueling facility, and equipment essential to the safe shutdown of the reactor. The reactor building, up to and including the operating floor, is of reinforced concrete on a mat foundation. The bearing walls are of reinforced concrete and are designed as shear walls to resist lateral loads. The floors are of reinforced concrete supported by a steel beam and column framing system and are designed as diaphragms to resist lateral load. The framing runs in both east-west and north-south directions, with the exterior ends of the beams supported by either the bearing walls or steel columns. The steel columns are supported by base plates on the mat foundation. The reinforced concrete walls and floors meet structural as well as radiation shielding requirements. Where structurally permissible, concrete block masonry walls are used at certain locations to provide better access for erection and installation of equipment. The block walls also meet the radiation shielding requirements. The reactor building superstructure above the operating floor is a steel structure. The structural steel framing supports the roof, metal siding, and overhead cranes. The framing consists of a series of rigid frames connected by roof and wall bracing systems. The roof consists of built-up roofing on metal deck. The refueling facility is located above the containment structure. It consists of spent fuel pool, fuel shipping cask storage pool, steam dryer and separator storage pool, reactor cavity, skimmer surge tank vault, and load center room. The facility is supported by two reinforced concrete girders running north-south, spanning over the containment. The girders are supported at the ends by concrete walls and at intermediate points by steel box columns. A gap is provided between the bottom of the girders and the top of the containment to ensure that loads from the refueling facility are not transferred to the containment. The walls and slabs of the spent fuel pool, the fuel shipping FSAR Rev. 65 3.8-41
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 56 cask storage pool, the reactor cavity, and the steam dryer and separator storage pool are lined on the inside with a stainless steel liner plate. The facility meets the radiation shielding requirements. The reactor building is separated from the primary containment by a gap, except at the foundation level, where a cold joint is provided between the two mats. A gap is also provided at the interface of the reactor building with the diesel generator and turbine buildings. Control Building Refer to Dwgs. A-11, Sh. 1, A-12, Sh. 1, A-13, Sh. 1, M-203, Sh. 1, M-204, Sh. 1, A-16, Sh. 1 and Figure 3.8-77. I I The control building houses the control room, the cable spreading rooms, computer and relay room, the battery room, H&V equipment room, off-gas treatment room, and the visitors' gallery for the control room. The control building is structurally integrated with the reactor building. It is a reinforced concrete structure on a mat foundation. The bearing walls are of reinforced concrete and are designed as shear walls to resist lateral loads. The floors and roof are of reinforced concrete supported by steel beams, and are designed as diaphragms to resist lateral loads. The beams span in the east-west direction and are supported by the bearing walls at the ends. The reinforced concrete walls and floors meet structural as well as radiation shielding requirements. Where structurally permissible, concrete block masonry walls are used at certain locations to provide better access for erection and installation of equipment. The block walls also meet the radiation shielding requirements. The control building is separated from the turbine building by a gap, except at the foundation level, where a cold joint is provided between the two mats. Diesel Generator 'A-D' Building Refer to Dwgs. M-260, Sh. 1 and M-261, Sh. 1. 11 The diesel generator 'A-D' building houses diesel generators A, B, C and D which are essential for safe shutdown of the plant. The diesel generators are separated from each other by concrete walls. A concrete overhang on the east side of the building serves as an air intake plenum. A concrete plenum for diesel exhaust is located on the roof. It is a reinforced concrete structure on a mat foundation. The bearing walls are of reinforced concrete and are designed as shear walls to resist lateral loads. The floors and roof are of reinforced concrete supported by steel beams, and are designed as diaphragms to resist lateral loads. The south side of the building interfaces with the reactor building; there, a reinforced concrete wall is provided from foundation up to the design high water table level and then a steel frame is provided up to the roof. Where structurally permissible, concrete block masonry walls are used at certain locations to provide better access for erection and installation of equipment. The diesel generators are supported by reinforced concrete pedestals. The pedestals are separated from the operating floor by a gap to allow for their independent vibration. FSAR Rev. 65 3.8-42
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 56 Diesel Generator 'E' Building Refer to Dwgs. M-5200, Sh. 1 and M-5200, Sh. 11 2. The Diesel Generator 'E' Building houses diesel generator E which is used to replace one of the A-D diesel generators. Openings for air intake and diesel exhaust are flush with the north and south exterior walls, respectively. Interior plenums are provided for missile protection. It is a reinforced concrete structure on a mat foundation. The bearing walls are of reinforced concrete and are designed as shear walls to resist lateral loads. The floors and roof are of reinforced concrete and are designed as diaphragms to resist lateral loads. The building is a free-standing detached structure with no other building in the immediate vicinity. Concrete block masonry walls are not used in this building. Diesel Generator E is supported by a reinforced concrete pedestal. The pedestal is separated from the operating floor by a gap to allow for their independent vibration. Engineered Safeguards Service Water (ESSW) Pumphouse Refer to Dwg. M-284, Sh. 1. 11 The ESSW Pumphouse contains the Emergency Service Water (ESW) and Residual Heat Removal Service Water (RHRSW) pumps and the weir and discharge conduit for the spray pond. It is a two-story reinforced concrete structure on a mat foundation. The bearing walls are of reinforced concrete and are designed as shear walls to resist lateral loads. The operating floor and roof are of reinforced concrete supported by steel beams and are designed as diaphragms to resist lateral loads. A mezzanine floor composed of grating over steel beams is provided to support the heating and ventilating equipment. Spray Pond Refer to Dwgs. C-64, Sh. 1, C-65, Sh. 1, C-66, Sh. 1, and C-67, Sh. 11 1. The spray pond is a reservoir, free form in shape, which holds approximately 25 million gal. of water during normal operation. The water surface area is approximately eight acres and has a depth of approximately 10 ft. 6 in. It is designed so that normal operating water is retained in excavation alone, i.e., not by constructed embankments. Embankments are provided to ensure a minimum freeboard of 3 ft. and to direct flood water away from safety related facilities in a controlled manner. The ESSW pumphouse is located at the southeast corner of the spray pond. A reinforced concrete liner covers the entire spray pond and is integrated with the outer walls of the ESSW pumphouse. The water level in the pond is controlled by a weir housed in the ESSW pumphouse. During normal operation, excess water is discharged into the Susquehanna river via a conduit from the ESSW pumphouse. FSAR Rev. 65 3.8-43
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 56 An emergency spillway is provided at the east end of the pond. The only anticipated use of this spillway will be either during a malfunction of the discharge conduit leading out of the ESSW pumphouse or during certain postulated flood conditions. This is discussed in Subsection 2.4.8. The ESSW and RHRSW pipes enter the south side of the pond and traverse to the spray bank areas buried in 18 in. of concrete, provided as missile protection. Concrete columns support the riser pipes in the spray bank areas. Turbine Building Refer to Dwgs. A-11, Sh. 1, A-12, Sh. 1, A-13, Sh. 1, M-203, Sh. 1, M-204, Sh. 1, A-16, Sh. 1, Figure 3.8-77, Dwg M-227, Sh. 1, and M-237, Sh. 11 1. The turbine building is divided into two units with an expansion joint separating the two units. It houses two in-line turbine generator units and auxiliary equipment including condensers, condensate pumps, moisture separators, air ejectors, feedwater heaters, reactor feed pumps, motor-generator sets for reactor recirculating pumps, recombiners, interconnecting piping and valves, and switchgears. Two 220-ton overhead cranes are provided above the operating floor for service of both turbine generator units. Two reinforced concrete tunnels, one for each unit, are provided for the off-gas pipelines at the foundation level between the recombiners and the radwaste building. Reinforced concrete tunnels are also provided for the main steam lines below the operating floor from the reactor building to the condenser areas of the turbine generators. The turbine building rests on a reinforced concrete mat foundation. The superstructure is framed with structural steel and reinforced concrete. Rigid steel frames support the two 220 ton cranes. They also resist all transverse (east-west) lateral loads. Steel bracings resist longitudinal (north-south) lateral loads above the operating floor. Below this level, reinforced concrete shear walls transfer all lateral loads to the foundations. A seismic separation gap, also serving as an expansion joint, is provided near the center of the building between the two units. Seismic separation gaps are also provided at the interface of turbine building with the reactor, control, and radwaste buildings. The floors of the turbine building are of reinforced concrete on structural steel beams. They are designed as diaphragms for lateral load transfer to the shear walls. The roof is built-up roofing on metal decking. Exterior walls are precast reinforced concrete panels except for the upper 30 ft. which are metal siding. Interior walls required for radiation shielding or fire protection are constructed of reinforced concrete block. These walls are not used as elements of the load resistant system. The turbine generator units are supported on freestanding reinforced concrete pedestals. The mat foundations for the pedestals are founded on rock at the same level as the base mat for the turbine building. Separation joints are provided between the pedestals and the turbine building floors and walls to prevent transfer of vibration to the building. The operating floor of the building is supported on vibration damping pads at the top edge of the pedestal. FSAR Rev. 65 3.8-44
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 56 Radwaste Building Refer to Dwgs. M-270, Sh. 1, M-271, Sh. 1, M-272, Sh. 1, M-273, Sh. 1 and M-274, Sh. 11.1 The radwaste building houses systems for receiving, processing, and temporarily storing the radioactive waste products generated during the operation of the plant. It is a reinforced concrete structure on a mat foundation. The bearing walls are of reinforced concrete and are designed as shear walls to resist lateral loads. The floors and roof are of reinforced concrete supported by a beam and column framing system and are designed as diaphragms to resist lateral loads. The columns are supported by base plates on the mat foundation. The reinforced concrete walls and floor meet structural as well as radiation shielding requirements. Where structurally permissible, concrete block masonry walls are used at certain locations to provide better access for erection and installation of equipment. The block walls also meet the radiation shielding requirements. The radwaste building is separated from the turbine building by a gap. 3.8.4.2 Applicable Codes, Standards, and Specifications The codes, standards, and specifications used in the design, fabrication, and construction of the structures listed in Subsection 3.8.4 are shown in Table 3.8-1. 3.8.4.3 Loads and Load Combinations The following loads and load combinations are considered in the design of Seismic Category I structures (other than the containment). 3.8.4.3.1 Description of Loads For a general description of loads, see Subsection 3.8.1.3.2. 3.8.4.3.2 Load Combinations Table 3.8-8 describes the load combinations applicable to the reactor building. Tables 3.8-9 and 3.8-9a contain the load combinations applicable to Seismic Category I structures other than the reactor building. Table 3.8-10 describes the load combinations used in the design of the turbine and the radwaste buildings. 3.8.4.4 Design and Analysis Procedures The structures described in Subsection 3.8.4.1 are designed to maintain elastic behavior under various loads and their combinations. The loads and the load combinations are fully described in Subsection 3.8.4.3. All reinforced concrete components of the structure are designed by the strength method per ACI 318 and ACI 349 (Ref 10A and 12A of Table 3.8-1). All structural steel components are designed by the working stress method per AISC specification (Ref 1H of Table 3.8-1). Determination of wind and tornado loads is described in Section 3.3. FSAR Rev. 65 3.8-45
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 56 Seismic design of structures is described in Section 3.7. The buildings are analyzed dynamically. Design of structure for missile protection is covered in Subsection 3.5.3. Computer programs STRESS and ICES STRUDL-II (Ref 1 and 2, respectively, of Subsection 3.8.4.8) are used to analyze structural steel framing. The refueling facility of the reactor building is designed based on finite element analysis by use of computer program MRI/STARDYNE 3 (Ref 3 of Subsection 3.8.4.8). The spray pond is basically a concrete-lined soil structure. Its design is discussed in Subsection 2.5.5. Concrete masonry blockwalls in all Seismic Category I structures have been analyzed dynamically as described in Section 3.7b.3.l.5. They are designed for out-of-plane and in-plane inertia forces generated by the mass of the blockwall and attachment loads, combined with other loads as described in Tables 3.8-8 and 3.8-9. Walls in the turbine and radwaste buildings have been designed for seismic loads per UBC (Ref. 1L of Table 3.8-1). 3.8.4.5 Structural Acceptance Criteria Reinforced Concrete The reinforced concrete structural components are designed by the strength method per ACI 318 and ACI 349 (Ref 10A and 12A of Table 3.8-1) for loads and load combinations described in Subsection 3.8.4.3. Structural Steel The structural steel components are designed by the working stress method per AISC specification (Ref 1H of Table 3.8-1) for loads and load combinations described in Section 3.8.4.3. The allowable stresses for different load combinations are indicated therein. Concrete Block Masonry Walls All masonry blockwalls are reinforced walls and do not act as shear walls. Masonry blockwalls are designed by the working stress method per UBC (Ref. 1L of Table 3.8-1). The allowable loads per UBC Tables 24-B or 24-H (special inspection) are modified as described in Tables 3.8-8, 3.8-9 and 3.8-12, except as noted below. For double wythe walls designed as composite sections and having concrete or grout infill thickness of 8 inches or more, the allowable shear or tension between masonry block and infill is _t 1/1 f ' i.e. 43 psi. However, the actual design stress does not exceed 15 psi. For other double wythe walls, allowable shear/tension stress is assumed to be zero at the interface. FSAR Rev. 65 3.8-46
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 56 3.8.4.6 Materials, Quality Control, and Special Construction Techniques 3.8.4.6.1 Concrete and Reinforcing Steel The concrete and reinforcing steel materials are discussed in Appendix 3.8B. Concrete design compressive strengths are given in Table 3.8-11. Materials for concrete block masonry walls are discussed in Appendix 3.8C. 3.8.4.6.2 Structural Steel 3.8.4.6.2.1 Materials The various structural steel components conform to the following specifications: Item Specification (or Engineer Approved Equal) Beams, girder, and plates ASTM A36 and ASTM A588 Box columns including base plates ASTM A588 and cap plates Structural tubing ASTM A500 and ASTM A501 High strength bolts ASTM A325 and ASTM A490 Studs AWS D1.1 3.8.4.6.2.2 Welding and Nondestructive Testing Welding and nondestructive testing is performed in accordance with either AWS D1.1 (Ref. 1B of Table 3.8-1) or Section IX of the ASME Code (Ref. 1J of Table 3.8-1). 3.8.4.6.2.3 Fabrication and Erection The fabrication and erection of structural steel conforms to the AISC specification (Ref. 1H, 2H and 3H of Table 3.8-1). 3.8.4.6.2.4 Quality Control Quality control of structural steel for the construction phase is discussed in Appendix D of the PSAR and amendments to the PSAR. FSAR Rev. 65 3.8-47
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 56 3.8.4.6.3 Special Construction Techniques Techniques involved in the construction of Seismic Category I structures are standard construction procedures. 3.8.4.7 Testing and In-service Inspection Requirements Testing and in-service inspection are not required for Seismic Category I structures (other than the containment). 3.8.4.8 Computer Programs Used in the Design and Analysis of Other Seismic Category I Structures
- 1) STRESS, Department of Civil Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
- 2) ICES STRUDL-II, Department of Civil Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
- 3) MRI/STARDYNE (Version 3), Control Data Corporation.
For other computer programs refer to Subsection 2.5.5 and Section 3.7 3.8.5 FOUNDATIONS This subsection describes foundations for all Seismic Category I structures except the spray pond. The spray pond is basically a soil structure and its design is discussed in Subsection 2.5.5. Descriptions of foundations for non-seismic Category I structures designated with a safety classification of other such as the turbine building and the radwaste building, are also included in this section. 3.8.5.1 Description of the Foundations Typical details of the foundations for various structures are shown on Dwg. C-795, Sh. 11 1. Reinforced concrete mat foundations have been provided for all structures. The mats rest on sound rock except the ESSW pumphouse mat is supported by natural soil. All bearing walls of the structures are rigidly connected to the foundation mat. Where steel columns are provided, they are attached to the mat by base plates and anchor bolts. The bearing walls and the steel columns carry all the vertical loads from the structure to the mat. Horizontal shears due to wind, tornado, and seismic loads are transferred to the shear walls by the roof and floor diaphragms. The shear walls transfer the horizontal shears to the foundation mat and from there to the foundation medium through friction. Also, as shown on Dwg. C-795, Sh. 11 1, the sides of the base mats of all the structures except the ESSW pumphouse are keyed to the foundation rock all around by poured concrete, which helps in transferring the horizontal shears to the FSAR Rev. 65 3.8-48
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 56 foundation rock. The edges of the ESSW pumphouse base mat are poured directly against the excavated slopes of the natural soil formation. A mudmat (unreinforced concrete layer) is provided between the base of the foundation mat and the foundation medium. Except for the ESSW pumphouse, a waterproofing membrane is provided in the mudmat and on the outside face of peripheral subterranean walls. Perforated pipes are provided around the periphery of the buildings to collect groundwater seepage and drain it to the sumps. Waterproofing membrane under the ESSW pumphouse foundation mat is not considered necessary as the predicted groundwater table at the pumphouse site is well below the foundation mat (refer to Subsection 2.5.5). Peripheral subterranean walls are designed to resist lateral pressures due to backfill, groundwater, and surcharge loads, in addition to dead loads, live loads, and seismic loads. Containment: The containment foundation is described in Subsection 3.8.1. Reactor Building and Control Building The foundation mats of the reactor and control buildings are poured monolithically. The reactor building foundation mat is approximately 4 ft. 9 in. thick and is reinforced typically with
- 11 bars at 12 in. centers at top and bottom in both the north-south and east-west directions. The mat surrounds the containment mat, with a cold joint separating the two.
The control building foundation mat is about 2 ft. 6 in. thick and is reinforced typically with #8 bars at 12 in. centers at top and bottom in the north-south direction and #11 bars at 12 in. centers at top and #8 bars at 12 in. centers at bottom in the east-west direction. A cold joint is provided between the control and the turbine building mats. Diesel Generator Buildings: The foundation mats of the diesel generator 'A-D' and 'E' buildings are approximately 2 ft. 6 in. thick and 3 ft. 10 in. thick, respectively. The foundation mats are reinforced typically with #9 bars at 12 in. centers at top and bottom in both the north-south and east-west directions. Cold joints are provided between the diesel generator pedestals and the diesel generator building mats. SSW Pumphouse: The foundation mat of the ESSW pumphouse is about 3 ft. thick and is reinforced typically with #9 bars at 12 in. centers at top and bottom in both the north-south and east-west directions. Turbine Building: The turbine building mat is approximately 2 ft. 6 in. thick and is reinforced typically with #6 bars at 12 in. centers at top and bottom in both the north-south and east-west directions. A cold joint is provided between the turbine pedestal mat and the turbine building mat. Radwaste Building: The radwaste building mat is about 3 ft. thick and is reinforced typically with #9 bars at 12 in. centers at top and bottom in both the north-south and east-west directions. 3.8.5.2 Applicable Codes, Standards, and Specifications FSAR Rev. 65 3.8-49
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 56 The codes, standards, and specifications used in the design, fabrication, and construction of foundations of structures are listed in Table 3.8-1. 3.8.5.3 Loads and Load Combinations The loads and load combinations used in the design of the containment foundation are described in Subsection 3.8.1.3. The loads and load combinations used in the design of foundations of other Seismic Category I structures are discussed in Subsection 3.8.4.3. In addition, the following load combinations are considered to determine the factors of safety against sliding and overturning due to winds, tornadoes, and seismic loads, and against flotation due to groundwater pressure: a) D+H+W b) D+H+W' c) D+H+E d) D+H+E' e) D+F where: D, W, W', E, and E' are as described in Subsections 3.8.1.3 and 3.8.4.3 and H and F are as follows: H = Lateral earth pressure F = Buoyant force due to groundwater pressure. 3.8.5.4 Design and Analysis Procedures The foundations are generally designed to maintain elastic behavior under different loads and their combinations. The loads and the load combinations are described in Subsection 3.8.5.3. The design and analysis of the reinforced concrete mat foundations have been carried out in accordance with ACI 318. Design and analysis of the reinforced concrete mat foundation was also carried out in accordance with ACI 349 for the Diesel Generator 'E' Building. (Refs 10A and 12A of Table 3.8-1.) The bearing walls and the steel columns carry all the vertical loads from the structure to the foundation mat. The lateral loads are transferred to the shear walls by the roof and floor diaphragms, which then transmit them to the foundation mat. Determination of overturning moment due to seismic loads is discussed in Subsection 3.7b.2.14. Except for ESSW pumphouse, settlement of the foundations of Seismic Category I structures is considered negligible as the foundations are supported by sound rock. The settlement of the ESSW pumphouse mat is considered in the design and is discussed in Subsection 2.5.4. As explained in Subsection 3.8.5.1 and shown in Dwg. C-795, Sh. 11 1, the sides of the foundation mats (except for the ESSW pumphouse) are keyed to the rock by poured concrete, which resists sliding of the mats. Stability against sliding for the ESSW pumphouse is maintained by the friction on the underside of the basemat and passive resistance of the soil against the edge of the mat. FSAR Rev. 65 3.8-50
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 56 Detailed description of the foundation rock and soil is contained in Subsections 2.5.4 and 2.5.5. For design purposes, the allowable bearing pressures of rock and soil are 40 and 2.5 tons/sq. ft., respectively. The calculated bearing pressures for loads and load combinations described in Subsection 3.8.5.3 do not exceed these allowable values. The design and analysis of the containment foundation mat are discussed in detail in Subsection 3.8.1.4. 3.8.5.5 Structural Acceptance Criteria The foundations of all Seismic Category I structures are designed to meet the same structural acceptance criteria as the structures themselves. These criteria are discussed in Subsections 3.8.1.5 and 3.8.4.5. In addition, for the additional load combinations delineated in Subsection 3.8.5.3, the minimum allowable factors of safety against overturning, sliding, and flotation are as follows: Minimum Factors of Safety Load Combination Overturning Sliding Flotation a) D+H+W 1.5 1.5 - b) D+H+W' 1.1 1.1 - c) D+H+E 1.5 1.5 - d) D+H+E' 1.1 1.1 - e) D+F - - 1.1 The calculated factors of safety exceed the above minimum factor of safety. 3.8.5.6 Materials, Quality Control, and Special Construction Techniques The foundations of Seismic Category I structures are constructed of reinforced concrete. The concrete and reinforcing steel materials are discussed in Appendix 3.8B. Concrete design compressive strengths are given in Table 3.8-11. Techniques involved in the construction of these foundations are standard construction procedures. 3.8.5.7 Testing and In-service Inspection Requirements The containment foundation is load tested during the structural acceptance test as described in Subsection 3.8.1.7. An in-service surveillance program to monitor the settlement of the ESSW pumphouse foundation has been instituted. Detailed discussion of the program is contained in Subsection 2.5.4. Testing and in-service inspection is not necessary for foundations of all other Seismic Category I structures. FSAR Rev. 65 3.8-51
SSES-PSAR TABLE 3.8-1 LIST OF APPLICABLE CODES, STANDARDS. RE(X)flt£NDATIONS, AMI> SPP.ClFICATIOfllS Page 1 of 11 Reference Dulanatton Title Edltlon* ltuaber (A) Aaerlca Concrete I.rwtltate 1A ACI 211.1 Jte~nded Practice for Selecting Proportions for 1970 lloraal and ll!avyvelght Conct"ete 2A ACI 214 Recoaaended Practice for haluatton of Collpreeelon 1965 Te t Reaulta of Fleld Concrete JA Act 301 Speclflcatlona for Structural Concrete for Batldlnga 1972 4A ACl 304 Rec<<-nded Prac.tlce for Meaaurtn1. Mi:aing, 1973 Transporting, and Placing Concrete 5A Acr. 305 Racownded Practice for Bot Weather Concreting 1972 6A ACI 306. R.ecoallended Practice for Cold Weather Concreting 1966 (1972) 7A ACl 307 Spectfl~tlon for the DHign and Collatructlon 1969 of Relnforced Concrete Otlaneya 8A ACI l08 Rec~nded Practice for curing Concrete 1971 9A Act 309 Recc.-ended Practice for OouoUdltlon of COnerete 19-72 lOA ACt 318 lulldtna Code '.Requlreaent* for RelnfOTced C.oncrete 1971
- Prlnctpal edition* uaed are ll*ted1 later edition ..y be applied for apectftc caaee, auch H the diesel generator *E 1 bulldlna.
lteY. 40, 09/M
SSES-FSAR
'lilU l.1-1 (Continued) Page 2 of 11 Rllference Dutgnatlon Title Edition*
NUllber 11A ACI 3-\7 *Recollllended Practice for Concrete Pol"IM>rlt 1968 12A ACI Y.9 Criteria for Reinforced Concrete Nuclear PGWr Contalraent StructuN* (included In ltCl Man.aal of Standard Practice, Part 2, 1973) 1.lA ACI SP2 Mansal of Concrete ln.pec:Uon 1975 (B) Aaer_~can_Weldl!!I Society 1B AWS D1.1 Structural Welding Code 1972 (Generally all vorlt) 1975, 1980, 1981 (Soae wrk after June 1975) 2B AWS D12.1 ReCGaaended Practice for Weldtng Reinforcing Steel 1961
-1ld Connections in Reinforced Concrete Con*tTIJCtlon (C) ~_ llu_,c_l~r bplatory Coaal*alon lC lG 1.10 Mechanical ( ~ l d ) Sp lice* ln Reinforcing Bars of Re*ldon 1 Cateac,ry I Cobcrete Structures Jan. 1973 2C RC l.lS Te tlng of Retnforctng Bars for category I Re~blon 1 Concrete Structure* Dec. 1972
,c 1.C 1.18 Structural Acceptance Te*t for Cooncrete Re*laion 1 Prt.ary 'Re<<tor Contat.-ent* Ott. 1972
- Prlnclpal edltiona uaed are lhted1 later edltton* . .,. be applied for apeclflc ca*** ucti ** the dle el pner*tor 'E' bulldtna *
..... 40, 09/88
Page 3 of U SS!S-FSAA TABLE l.8-1 (Continued) Reference Deatan*tlon Title Eclltl~ Naber ltC 1G 1.19 Rondutructb*e ltualnaU011 of Priaary Revision 1 Cont*lnaent Llner Weld* Aug. 1972 5C RC l . ~ Quallt:, M811Tance ltequtreaenu for Protective June 1973 Coatlnga Applied to W*ter*Cooled Poller Plant* 6C ltG 1.55 c.onerete Place.mt f.n Category I Structure. June 197l 7C RC 1 .. 57 Design Lt.It* and Loading Cc:ablnatlona for June 1973 Metal Prblary Reactor Contatnaent Syatea Coapanenu 8C ltC 1.58 Quallflc.tlon of Nuc:lear Power Plant Inapectlon 1 Aug. 1973 EX.ialnation, and Teatlng Penonnel 9C RC 1.69 Concrete Radiation Shield* for Nuclear Power Plant Dec. 1973 lOC RO 1.~ Quality Assurance lequireaent* for ln*t*llatlon, Apr. 1975 lnapec:tlon, and Te*ting of. Structural Concrete and Structural Steel During the Conatructlon Phase of Nuclear PcNier Plant* llCfr'II' RC 1.28 Qualt ty AaBUTance P'rogr- Requt reaenu (Delign and Conetructlon) Feb. 79 I
- Prtnclpal edltlona ueed an lhtedi, later editlor1* aay be *Plllled for *pectftc case*, .uch aa the dteeet generator 'I' building.
.,. Reference UNd for the dle*l pnerator *z* bulldlna. ~ . 40, 09/88
Page 4 of 11 SSES-PSAR TAIU J.8-1 (Continued) Reference Deatpatlon Title Edition* Niaber UC.,.. IC 1.60 Dealgn 1teaponae Spectra for Set*lc Design of Dec. 73 an. 1 Mlle tear Powr Ptanu lJC. . ltG 1.61 Daplng Yaluee fOT Sel*lc De.Ip of teuclear Oct. 73
.... 0 'hver Plmta l~ 1tC 1.76 De*tan a.ate t'omado for Nuclear Power Plante Apr. 74
~- 0 1~ RC 1.92 Coat,lnln& Modal 1'ellJ)Ollaea and Sp.tittal Collponent Feb. 76
-... l tn Set*tc lteapcn1e Anatyata 16C"' llC 1.117 Tornado Dealgn Claa1lflcatlot1 Apr. 78
.... 1 17CH ltC 1.132 Site ln.eattptl0118 for Foundatlot1a_of IIJclur Apr. 78 Re.. 1 PcNer Plante 19Cff' 1.11t2 Safety-It.elated Concrete Structure* for Nuclear Oet. 81 Power Plant* (other than Reactor Yeaeeta end
""* 1 Contal...-nte)
(D) Aaerlcm Socl~~y for Te,tlffl and Mlterlala 1J) ASt'M A519 Se-leH Carbon and Atloy Steel ~cbanlcal Tubing 1971~ 1974, 1975 2D ~ A615 Deforaed and Plain Billet Steel Bar* for Conct-ete 1972, 1,1,. 1975 lltelnforceaant
- Prtnctpal edtttona u.aed are thteds later edltlona . ., be applied for apedftc cuea, auch ** the d1@*~
generator *t:* bulldlns
- H ltef*N11Ce ua.ct for the dle*l . .nerator 'E' t..dldtna.
*,.v . 1.n no '**
SSES-FSAR TAIU 3.8-1 (Continued) Page S of 11 Reference Dealgnatlon Title Edition* Nuaber lD AsrM C2' Unit Weight of Ag;regete 1971
,.D ASTMCll .._Ung and Curing Concrete THt Speciaen* tn the 1969 Pleld 5D Asnt C33 Concrete Agp-eptea 1971., 1974-6D ASTM C39 Ccapre dYe Strenath of Cyllndrtcal COncrete 1972 Speclaen*
7D AS1'M C40 Orpnic l11purltlea ln Sanda for Concrete 1966, 1973 8D ASnt C87 Effect of Or1anic laput'"ltlea in Fine Agregate on 1969 Strenath of Morur 9D A51'M C88 SoundneH of Aezrepte* by U.e of Sodl* Sulfate or 1971, 197:3 Hagnesiua Sulfate 100 AS'Dt ~ Jteacty*Mbed Concrete 197.J, 1974 llD AS'Dt C109 o.,re -tft Strength of RJdraullc Ceaerlt Mortar. 197], 1975 12D AS'!M Cl17 Naterlat. Finer than No. 200 Ste.e In Mineral 1969 Aaresate* by Vaahtng llD ASt'M Cl23 Ltglltwelaht Piece* tn Aaaregate 1969 140 AS'114C127 Specific Crnity and Abaorptlon of Coarae Aarea*te 1968, 1973
- Prlnctpal edltlona ulled are lbted1 later edttiONI MY be applied for epeclftc generator *E* butldl ...
~y
- 4n - ,,. ,,.,.
CAN*, euc:h H the dl*ael I
S5£8-F'SAR TAIIL! 3.8-1 (Continued) Page 6 of 11 Reference Dellgnation Title [dltlon* Nuaber 15D Asnt C128 Specific Gravity and Abaorption of nne Aggregate 1968. 197) 16D ASl'N CUl Resistance to Abrasion of Saatl Size Coarse Aggregate 1969 t,y Uae of the Lo* Ange lee Hechine 17D AS'l'M C136 Steve or Screen Analyst. of Fine and Coarse Agregatee 1971 18D ASl'M C138 Unit Welsht, Yield, and Air Content. of Concrete 1973, 1974 1 197S 19D ASDt CV.2 Clay t.u.t,* .net Friable Particle* in Agreptea 1971 '* 200 AS'l'lt Cl43 SI~ of Portland Ceaent. Concrete 1971. 1974 21D AS1'M Cl50 Portl-1d Ceaent 1973, 1974, 1976, 1978, 1980 22D AS!M C215 Pund-ntal Trannerse, Longitudinal, and Torsional 1960 FTequend.e* of Concrete Specillens 23D AS'1'M C2ll Alr Content of Preshly Mis.ed Concrete by the 1973, 1974, 1975 Pressure Metllod 24D AS?M C2l5 Scratch Hardness of Coarae Aggregate Particles 1968 25D iMtM C260 Air Entraining Adllixture* for Coflerete 1973t 1974 26D AS!M C289 Potential ~*cthlty of Aggreptu 1971 27D A5J'M C295 Petrographic Eu*lnatlon of Aggreptea for Concrete 1965
- Principal edltlon9 uaed are UatedJ tater edltlona aay be applied for *peclflc eHe** aruc:h ** tlw dteHl '
aenerator *t* buUding. Rev * .O, ,,./88
SSES-PSAR DILE l.8-1 (Continued) Page 7 of 11 Reference Dealpattoa Title Edition* W.ber 28D ASlM C311 5-.pling and Testing hy Ash for UM ** an Adllixture 1968 1ft Portland Ceaent Concnte 29D AS?NC3l0 Uahtwetgflt Aggreptu for Struetural Concrete 1969, 1975 30D AS'Dt C469 Static Modula of Etaattclty and Poi*aon** Ratlo of 1965 Concrete tn Ccapreaalon 310 AS1M C494 ~ealcal Adlltuturea for Concrete 1971 321> AS'Df C566 Total Moiature Content of Agregate by Drying 1967 330 AS1M C618 Fly Aah and Rav or Calcined Natural Pouolena for 197' UN ln Portland Ceaent Concrete 340 AS1M C637 Agrepte1 for Radiation Shielding Concrete 1973 (E) -.edcan AHoclatf.on of State HyhNY and 'fian-,ortat1on Off lclala ll MSID'O T26 Quality of Water to be Uaed ln Concrete 1970 2! AASRro !150 Percent** of Pntlcle1 of LeH TIMin 1.9S Specific 1949 CTavtty tn C.O.ne Aagrepte
- Prlnclpel edition* uNd are l11tedS later edltlon aa7 be applted fOT' 1pectftc caN , 1uch ** the dteset generator 'E' buildlna.
Rev. 40, 09/88 I
SSES-FSAR T.UU 3.8.. 1 (Continued) Page 8 of 11 Reference Dealpaclon Title Edition* 11\aber lE MSRTO n61 Realetance of Concrete Speciaena to Rapid Freezing 1970 and 'Dulwing ln Water (F) US A!!Z Co!J!! of ~lneeH lF CRD C36 Te*t for 'l'henaa 1 Dt ffu*b1t7 of Concrete 1973 2F CRD C39 Te*t for COefficlent of Linear 'lheraal Expanaton 1955 of Concrete JF CRD Cll9 Te*t for Flat and Elongated Particle* in Coarse 1953
.Aaregate
,.,.,.. CRD CS72 Speclftcatlon for Polyvlnylchloride V*ter*top 1971t I
(C) Aaerlcm1 National Standarda In U~te lG ANSI MS.2.5 Supple.entary QA Requlreaent11 for lnatallatton. 1972 lMpectton and Tntlna of St nae tura l Concrete and Structural Steel Dudng tbe Construction ftaee of Nuclear Power Plant* 2G ANSI NlOl.6 Concrete Radiation Shield* 1972 JGfl'-A AIISl M5.2 Quallty Aaaurance Progr- Requ.lre-ente for Nuclear FeclU.tle. 1977 I
- Principal edition* uaed *re lined; later edition* . .y be applied for peclflc cue., auch . . the diesel generator *g* bulldlna.
,.. Reference uaed for the dleHl generatOI' 'I' building. ~ - 40. 09/88
Page 9 of 11 SS!S-PSAR
'IAJIL! 3.8-1 (Continued) hference DH l.p,at ion Title Edition*
Muaber
~ MS! M5.2.2 Pacu11na, Shipping, Jtecet.tng, Storap and 1978 Handtlna of Iteau for Nuclear Power Plante 5C"""' AJISI M5.2.6 Qullflcattona of Inapectton, EualnatiOII and 1978 Teatlna Peraonnel for the Conatructl011 Phase of lllclear Power Plant*
~ AJISI MS.2.9 Requlnaents for ~llectton, Storap, and 197ft Matncenance of Qualtty A1eurance ~ord11 for Nuclear Power Plante 7GHr AIISI .....5.2.10 Quality A ~anee Tena and Definition* 1973
~ ANSI M5.2.11 Quall ty Aaaurance Jteqolnaent* for the Dealgn 1974 of "'-clear PcNer Plant 9Cfl""' ANSI M5.2.12 Requlreaenta for Madtttna of Quatity Aaaurance 1917 Protr- for Nuc:lear Power Plant 100-- AIISI 111.5.2.ll Quality AHurance ltequlrment* for Control of 1976 Proeureaent of lteaa and Senlce* for Nuclear Power Plant*
ll.CH' AJISl M5.2.23 Qu.aliflcatlona of Quality Asurance Protr* Audit 1978 Peraonnel for fluclear Power Plant*
- Principal lNlttlone aed are lhtedJ later ttdltton* -y be- appUed ror apecHI~ c*ae*, auch ** the dfese-1 aenerator- '!' l,utldtna *
.,. bference oaed for the dteel 1.wrator '!' butJcttna. lie¥. 40, 09/88
SSES-PSAR BAU 3.8-1 (Continued) Page 10 of 11 lteference Deei&Mtion Title Edition* MWlber (R) Aaertcan In*tltute of Steel Conatructlon 1H AtSC Spec lflcatlon for the Deatan, Fabrication, and 1969 Erection of Structul'al Steel for lulldlng11 and Suppleaent Noa. 1, 2 and l 2JI AISC Code of Standard Practice for Steel lluUdtnge 1970 (Soae work befon) and Brtdae* 1972 (Generally *11110rk) 1976 (Saae wort after Sept. 1976) 3R AISC Speclflcatlon for StnJCtural Joint* Uelna 1966,1972 and 1976 Asnt A.325 or A.490 lolt* 4H AtSC Speclflcatioo for the cledgn, 1978 ( ~ work fabrication and erection of after July 1977) Structural Steel for building* (J) Aaerlcan Soc lety of Mechanical Enatneer* 1.J Asr<< ASIC loller and Preaaure Ye1R 1 Code 1 1971 with Addenda Section* ll, III, V, VIII, and IX through Suilller 1972 (It) Bechtel Power Corporation, San Franctaco 1 C&llfomla, Toplul Reports ll BC-1'0P-l Contalnaent lluildtna liner Plate bvldon 1 Deetgn ltepot't Dec. 1972
- Prlnclpat edttton* IINd are ll*teda later edttt.0111 *1 be applied for apec:Ulc ca**** such H the dleeel generator '!' butldlna.
1
..... '-0, 09/N
SSES-FSAR TABLE 3.8-1 (Continued) _Page 11 of 11 Reference Dedpatlon Title Edition* Nuaber 2K BC-D>P-4-A Selnic Analyees of Structure.11 and F.qulpaent Revtaton 3 for Nuclear Power Plant* Nov. 1974 31( IC*TOP-9A Design of Stnactures for NIH Ue I11p11ct b*tAlan 2 Sept. 1974 (L) :international Conference of llaildlna Offid*l*. lL UIC Unifora llul14 lng Code 197l. 1976
- Principal edition* ueed are liJlted1 later edf.tlOlls . .y be applied fol' *peclflc ca.ea, auch ** the dleael pneratoT 'E' building.
""* 409 09/88 I
SSES-FSAR LOAD CO~BINATIONS FOB PRiftARY CONTAIN"ENT AND DRYlf!LL Fl.OOR _______________________________________________________ e1gt_l
!Q1!ti2n~:
s Required capacity of the section based on the working stress desiqn Dethod and the allowable stresses in ACI 318-71, Section 8.10 except that the aximum allowable tensile stress for reinforcement shall be 0.5 Fy. vhere Fv is specified yield strenqth of reinforcing steel. fl = Required capacity of the section based on the strength desiqn method described in ACI 318-71. D = Dead load L = Live load
'rt. :: Thermal effects anticipated at ti e of structural acceptance test. 'l'o = Thermal effects durinq normal operating conditions including temperature qradients and equipae~t and pipe reactions.
T = Added thermal effects (over and above operating ther al a effects} which occur during a design accident. p = Desiqn basis accident pressure load R ::: Local force or pressure on structure due to postulated pipe rupture includinq the effects of steam/vater jet impinqe~ent, pipe vbip. pipe reaction, steam pressurization, and water flooding. E = Load due to Operating Basis Earthquake.
'P, I ::: Load due to Safe Shutdown Earthquake.
B = Hvdrostatic loadinq due to post-LOCA flooding of the pri~arv containment to the reactor core. p I = Pressure of atmosphere in the primary containment vith the containment flooded to the reactor core. l> V
-= External Pressure Load The primary containment and dryvell floor are designed for the followinq load combinations:
Condition . Preopera tiona 1 Testinq S = 1.00+1.0L+1.0Tt +1.15P Rev. 3 5, O7 / 8 4
SSES-FSAR TABLE 3.8-2 (Continued) Page 2 Normal U = 1.4D+l.7L+l.OT0 + 1.0 Pv* Normal/Severe U = 0.75(1.4D+l.7L+l.9E)+l.OT0 + 1.0 Pv* Abnormal U = 1.0SD+l.051+1.0(To+T a )+I.OR+l.SP Abnormal/Severe U = 1.05D+l.OSL+l.O(T +T )+l.OR+l.25P+l.2SE
- o a Abnormal/Extreme U = 1.0D+l.OL+l.O(T
. o+T a )+1.0R+l.OP+l.OE' Abnormal/Severe . U = l.05D+l.OB+l.25P'+l.25E (Post-LOCA flooding)
- This load was not considered along with other loads in the original design. Since Pv is small, relative to other loads, it may be combined with other loads without affecting the design.
The containment liner plate and anchorages are designed for all loads and load combinations listed above except that all load factors are 1.0. Rev. 35, 07/84
Table 3.8-2a Load Combinations for Reactor Pedestal Security-Related Information Table Withheld Under 10 CFR 2.390
SSES-FS ~R IAIH&~_J,Ji=1 LOAD COMBINATIONS AND ALLOWABLE STRESSES FOR ASME CLASS "C CO"PONENTS (For definitions of loads. see Table 3.8-2) The drvwell h~ad assembly. equipment hatches, .personnel loc(, suppression chamher access hatch~s, and CRD removal hatch are desiQn9d for the follo~inq loadinq combinations and allowable stre$.;es: Preop~r~tional D+L+Tt+l. 15P 1.15 ti11es ASPIE, Tcstinq s~ction 111. Class ~c for "Desiqn Conditions" AbnorM 1 DL (T0 +T8 ) +p ASME, Sectiou III, Class ~c tor "Desiqn ConcHtions" Abnorma 1/Severe tHL+ (T0 +T 8 ) +P+R+E ASME, Section Ill, Fiqure NB-32Jij-1. foe "Emerqency Conditions" ASNE, Section Ill, Figure NB-3225-1 for "Faulted Cor1<1i tio ns" The MC compon~nts are also de~iqn~J fot elternal pressur~ loddS accor1iaq to ASME. 5Pcti~n III, subsection NE-3113. The pipe and el~ct~ical p~netrations are designed for the follo~in~ load combinations and dllowable stresses: al The loi-lds usf'..1 in the desiqn are as foilows:
- 1) .~ om n ts a n l for c es +. c ans mit t e d b y t h~ p i pi nq 1~
to the penetration due to therm~l expansion. waiqht, edrthquake (includinq inertial effects dnd ~nchor movements) and other dynamic loads.
- 2) Pressures
- 3) '!'hermal t.ransiP-nts
- 14) numb~r of operatinq cycles
- 5) PiPP f~ilure loads for faulted condition b) Th~ loa1Hnq cornbin,,tions are specified in
- >ection J. g.
c) Stress limits specified in ASME Code, Section III, Article NB-3220 ~tQ used as the desiqn criteria for Clas~ I flued heads for design, normal and 1Jpset, and einerqcncy condition. The rul~s cont a inP.*1 in AS~E Code, Section III, Appen.Jix f arc used in ~valuatirtq the faulted condition for Class'r and II flue~ heads.
- - - ..... - ---* - - - - - -~ - -- - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -* - - - - - -
Rev. 35, 07/84
TABIE 3. 8-3a COHPARISON OF FSAR AND SRP LOAD COHBINATIONS AND ALLOWABLE STRESSES FOR ASNE CLASS HC COHPONENTS Pa,ce 1 C011P.uhon c,f__}.llowable Stl"esse (k i) SRP Section Coaparative Load Priar~tresses Pri ary and 3.8.2.11.3.b Combination No. ( I) Cobination froa SRP or fSAR Table 3.8-) Preoperalional Testing fSAR SRP FSAR General Netab.
.9 P
s1 = 34.2 1.15 S* = 22.2 Localb. _ _PL-- 1.25 Sy= ,1.s I.JS x J.S S* = 33.3 Bend. He b.
& Local P8..!...ft l.2S Sy= 47.5 l.lS x 1.5 S* = JJ.3 3
~condary Stresses
- s. = 57.9 3 S = S1.9 Prak Stresse Consider for fati1ue analy1i*
N/A* Buckl lng 1251 of allovabl~ given by NE-3133 N/A (2) and (J) SltP S = 19.l l.S S = 29.0 1.S S* = 29.0 :3 S = 57.9 Consider for All9'1able given by
* *
- fatigue analy1i1 NE-3133 FSAR
* - Abnonaal SRP FSAR s* ==- 19.3 1.S S
* - 29.0 t.5 s. = 29.0 l S
* = S7.9 N/A N/A (4) Abnoraal/Severe SRP S = 19.3 t.5 S = 29.0. 1.5 s. = 29.0 N/A' N/A Allowable 1iven by
*
- NE-3133 rs~ s, = 29.4 I .S Sy - 44. t 1.!, s, = 44.1 N/A. N/A. N/A
(~) SltP s = 19.J LS S = 29.0 l.S S* = 29.0 tf/A 'II/A Allovabl~ given by
*
- NE-3133 FSAR Allowable given by NE-3131 Rev. 39, 07/88
'l.'itBI.E 3.8-3a (oont'd)
Page 2 Comparison of Allowable Stres1e1 {kal) SRP Section Priu~ ~tresses Pdaary and
, C011parative Load
).8.2.11.).b : Co*binalion froa SRP or Genera I Keb. Local Heb. Bend. & Local Secondar-y Peat p Str-eases Strease* Budliog Coabin~tion No. FSAR Table J.8-3
-FSAR
-- -.-PL-- Hellb. PB~L (6) - SRp1/4 s, = 19.4 1.5 Sy = 44. I 1.5 s, = 44. l M/A N/A 120l of allowable given by N[*3131 FSAR (7) - SRP Sy= 29.4 1.5 Sy = 44.1 l.5 Sy = 44. l N/A N/A 1201. of allowable given by tf£-J133 FSAll - - - - - Allowable given by NE-3133 (8) Abnorw.al/E*trnac SRpw S = 0.85 x 0.10 x S I.S S = 48.3 1.5S =48.3 N/A N/A )Si of allowable given
* =32.2 u
- by F~1325 of Appendix F*
FSAR1/4 sy = 29.4 I.S Sy - 44. J 1.5 s, - 44.1 N/A tf/A N/A (9) - SRP 1.5 s. = 29.0 1.5 Sy 1:1 57 .0 1.5 Sy = 57.0 N/A N/A 1201. o( allowable given by NE-Jill FSAR
- Integral and Continuous P.ev. 39, 07/88
T.ABIE 3.8-3a (ocnt'd) SRP Section Comparative Load Page 3 3.8.2.II.3.b Combination from Combination No.* FSAR Table 3.8-3 Conclusions (1) Preoperational Since load combinations are identical and FSAR allowable stresses are less than or equal Testing to SRP allowable stresses, FSAR criteria is as conservative as SRP criteria. (2) and (3) SRP load combinations (2) and (3) need not be considered since FSAR "Abnomal" load combination causes higher actual stresses and considers the same allovable stresses. Abnomal See Above (4) Abnormal/Severe FSAR load combination includes pipe rupture loads (including effects of steam/water jet impingement. pipe whip, and pipe reaction) and SRP load combination does not include these loads. FSAR allowable stresses are s2i larger than SRP allowable stresses. Pipe rupture loads increase actual stresses by at least S2%. Therefore, FSAR criteria is as conservative as SRP c~iteria. (5) Since SRP and FSAR used the same buckling allowable, FSAR is as conservative as SRP. (6) SRP load combination does not include pipe rupture loads. Since FSAR "Abnonnal/E.xtreme11 load combination includes pipe rupture loads and uses the sae allowable stresses as SRP load combination, SRP load combination need* not be considered. (7) Since FSAR buckling allowable is less than SRP buckling allowab]e, FSAR criteria is more conservative than SRP criteria. (8) Abnormal/Extreme Since load combinations are identical and FSAR allowable stresses are less than SRP allowable stresses, FSAR criteria is more conservative than SRP criteria. (9) Based on the folloving reasons, SRP load combination (9) is less critical than FSAR "Abnormal/Extreme" load combination and, therefore, need not be considered:
- 1. SRP allowable stresses for load combination (9) are similar to FSAR allowable stresses for "Ahnormal/Extreme" toad co111bination.
- 2. Hydrostatic pressures due to post-1.0CA flooding are J~&s than design basis accident pressure.
- 3. OBE seimic loads during post-LOCA flooding are similar to SSE seis*ic loads for FSAR 11 Abnormal/E:xtreme 11 load combination.
- 4. SRP load combinalion (9) does not include pipe rupture loads.
Rev. 39, 07/88
SSES-PSAR TAB1 E_J. 8-4 LOAD COMBINATION FOR THE REACTOR SHIELD VALL (For definitions of loads, see Table 3.8-2) The reactor shiel~ vall is designed for the follo~inq loading combination: Abnonal/ExtreJne Rev. 3 5, 07 / 8 4
SSES-FSAR lifii;_Js!=~ LOAD CO"BINATIONS FOR THE SUPPRESSION CHA~BER COLU~NS (For definitions of loads, see Table l.A-2) The suppression cha~ber columns are designed for the following loadin~ combinations: Nor ma 1/Severe 1.7D+1.7L+1.7E Normal/SP.Vere 1. 3 (D+L+E+To) E 1 Nor al/Extreme* D+L+T0 Abnot al 1. 0 5D+ 1
- 0 5L + 1
- 0_ (T O +li ) + 1
- 0 R* 1
- 5 P Ahn or ma 1/Se ve re 1.05D+1.05L+1.0(T 0 +T~ t1.0R*1.25Pt1.25E Abnormal/Extreme 1
- 0 D + 1
- 0 L + 1
- 0 [ T O* Ta ) +' 1
- 0 R
- 1
- 0 P t 1* 0 E'
*Allowable stresses = 90i of the values given in Subsection J.8.3.5.3 for extreme environmental and abnor~al lOdding conditions.
Section strength ~ 901 of the allovables given in Part 2 reguired for of the AISC Specification. 1969 stability (Ref. lH of Table J.R-1). Rev. 35, 07/84
SSES-FSAR TABLE J~_e.=§ LOAD COMBINATIONS POR THE DRYWELL PLATPOBMS (For definitions of loads, see Table 3.8-2) The dcvvell platforMs are desiqned for the following loadinq combinations: Nor ma 1 D+L Abnormal D+L+R Rev. 35, 07/84
SSES-FSAR TABL.Ll.z.~.=1 LOAD CO"BINATION POB THE SEISftlC ?ROSS (For definitions of loads, see Table 3.8-2) The seismic truss is desiqned for the follovinq loadioq combination: t .9..D ~ .i!.i.Qll Atnor al/Extre~e O+R+E* Rev. 35, 07/84
SSES-FSAR TABLE 3.8-8 Pagel of 4 LOAD COMBINATIONS APPLICABLE TO REACTOR BUILDING Notations w :a: Wind load W' C Tornado wind load Wms= Site proximity missile load (Diesel Generator 'E' fs
- Building only)
Calculated stress in structural steel I Fs = Allowable stress for structural steel Fy s Yield strength of structural steel H 0 m: Force on structure due to thermal expansion of pipes under operating conditions H a C Force on structure due to thermal expansion of pipes under accident conditions D a: Force on blockwall due to story drift under s Operating Basis Earthquake Loading D' s
- Force on blockwall due to story drift under Safe Shutdown Earthquake Loading S m Allowable stress for reinforced concrete masonry per m
UBC, Table 24-H (special inspection) for global wall analysis; or allowable stress for unreinforced concrete masonry per UBC Table 24-B (special inspection) for local wall analysis as a result of attachments. f 8 -= Allowable working stress in tension for reinforcing steel (as specified in UBC). fy = Yield strength of reinforcing steel. For all other notations, see Table 3.8-2. A. Reinforced Concrete Normal operating loads: U
- l,4D+l.7L+l.OT + 1,25 H Normal operating loads wi~h Severe 0 environmental loads:
V
- 0.75(1.4D+l.7L+l.7(1.l)E]+l.OT + 1.25 H 0
U
- 0.75(1.4D+l.7L+l.7W)+l.OT0 + 1.25 H Where overturning forces cause net tension in the absence of live load, the following load combinations are considered; U
- 0.9D+l.3(1.l)E+l.OT0 + 1.25 H0 U
- 0.9D+l.3W+l.OT + 1.25 H0 0
Rev. 40, 09/88
SSES-FSAR TABLE 3.8-8 (Continued) Page 2 of 4 For structural shear walls carrying seismic forces, the following load combination is also considered: Us l.OD+l.OL+l.8E+l.OT 0 + 1.25 H0 Normal operating loads with Extreme environmental loads: U
- l.OD+l.OL+l.OT 0 +l.OW' + 1.0 H0 Normal operating loads with Abnormal loads:
U ~ l.05D+l.OSL+l.O(T0 +Ta)+l.OR+l.SP + 1.0 H0 Normal operating loads with Severe environmental and Abnormal loads: U
- l.OSD+l.05L+l.O(T 0 +T 8 )+1.0R+l.25P+l.25E + 1.0 H0 Where overturning forces cause net tension in the absence of live load, the following load combination is considered:
0 = 0.9SD+l.25E+l.O(To+T a)+l.OR + 1.0 Ho Normal operating loads with Extreme environmental and Abnormal loads: U
- l.OD+l.OL+l.O(T0 +T 4 )+l.OE'+l.OP+l.OR + 1.0 H8 U
- l.0D+l.OL+l.OT0 +1.0E'+l.OR + 1.25 Ha Rev. 40, 09/88
SSES-FSAR TABLE 3.8-8 (Continued) Page 3 of 4 B. Structural Steel Condition Load Combination Allowable Stress Increase Normal operating loads: D + L + T0 + H0 Fs Normal operating loads with Severe environmental loads: 1.25 Fs
- 1. 33 Fs Normal operating loads with Extreme environmental loads: See note below Normal operating loads with Extreme environmental and Abnormal loads: D+L+R+T 0 + E'+P+H See note below D + L + R + (T + T8 ) See note below
+ P + E' + ff o a
Note: The allowable stress in structural steel does not exceed 0.9 Fy in bending, o.es Fy in axial tension or compression, and 0.5 Fy in shear. Where Fs is governed by requirements of stability (local or lateral buckling), fs does not exceed 1.s Fs. Rev
- 4 0 , 0 9 / 8 8
SSES-FSAR TABLE 3.8-8 (continued) Page 4 of 4
- c. Co'lcrete Masairy Structures (Blockwalls)
Safety related blockwalls in category I structures other than the reactor building are designed for the following load carbinations and allCMable stress increase. The load ccrrt>inations awly to out-of-plane loading as well as in-plane loading. Acceptance criteria is in acoordance with section 3.8.4.5. Condition Load carbinatioo Allowable Stress Increase Nomal D+L+T +H o a No increase Nonnal/Severe D+L+T +H +E+D N:, increase 0 0 S Nonnal/Extrere D + L + T0 + H0 + W' See Table 3.8-12 Atnomial D + L + (T0 + T8 ) + R + H + 1.25P See Table* 3 .. 8-12 4 Abnormal/severe D+IA-(T0 + T8 )+R+Ha +l.25E+D8 See Table 3.8-12 Atr'loz:rnal/ExtrEJM D+IA-(T +T )+R+H +E'+D' See Table 3.8-12 o a a s Rev* 4 0, 09 I 8 8
TABLE 3.8-9 Pagel of 4 LOAD COMBINATIONS APPLICABLE TO SEISMIC CATEGORY I STRUCTURES OTHER THAN CONTAINMENT, REACTOR BUILDING AND DIESEL GENERATOR 'E' BUILDING Notations: See Tables 3.8-2 and 3.8-8 A. Reinforced Concrete Nonnal operating loads: U
- l.4o+l.7L+l.OT + 1.25 H 0 0 Normal operating loads with Severe environmental loads:
V
- 0.75(1.4D+1.7L+l.7(1.1E))+l.OT 0
+ 1.25 B0 U* o*. 75(1.4I>+l.*7L+l. 7W)+l.0T0 + 1.25 B 0
Where overturning forces cause net tension in the absence of live load, the following load combinations are considered: U
- 0.9D+l.3{1.1E)+l.OT0 +1.25 H 0
V
- 0.9D+l.3w+l.OT +1.25 H 0 0 For structural elements carrying mainly seinic forces:
U
- 1.0o+l.OL+l.8E+l.OT0 + 1.25 B Normal opetating loads with Extreme environmental loads:
U
- l.OD+l.OL+l.OW'+l.OT0 + 1.0 B Nonial operating loads with Severe environmental and Abnormal loads:
U
- l.OSD+l.OSL+l.25E+l.O{T 0 +T* )+l.OR + 1.0 B Where overturning forces cause net tension in the absence of live load, the following load c01Dbination is considered:
U
- 0.95I>+l.2SE+l.O(T o+Ta )+1.0R + 1.0 H Rev. 40, 09/88
SSES-FSAR TABL£ 3.8-9 (Continued) Page 2 of 4 Normal operating loads with Extreme environmental and Abnormal loads: U
- l.OD+l.OL+l.OE'+l.OT0 +l.OR + 1.2S H0 U
- l.OD+l.OL+l.OE'+l.O(To+T a )+1.0R + 1.0 Ra Rev. 40, 09/88
SSES-FSAR TABLE 3.8-9 (Continued) Page 3 of 4 B. Structural Steel Condition Load Combination Allowable Stress Normal operating loads: D+L+T +H0 Fs 0 Normal ope~at1ng loads with Severe environmental loads: D+L+T0 +E+H0 1.25 Fs D+L+T +W+B0 1.33 Fs 0 Normal operating loads with Extreme environmental loads: I>+L+T +W'+B See note below 0 0 Nomal operating loads with Extreme environmental and Abnormal loads: D+L+R+T +E'+H See note below D+L+R+T 0 +T +Eq+H See note below 0 *
- Note: The allowable stress in structural steel does not exceed 0.9 Fy in bending, 0.8S Fy in axial tension or compression, and 0.5 Py in ahear. Where F1 ia governed by requirements of etab111ty (local or lateral buckling), £1 does not exceed 1.5 Fa.
Rev. 40. 09/88
SSES-FSAR TABLE 3.8*9 (Continued) Page 4 of 4 C. Concrete Masonry Structures (Bloclcvalls) Safety related blockwalls in the reactor building are designed for the following load combinations and allowable stress increase. The load combinations apply to out-of-plane loading as well as in-plane loading. Acceptance criteria is in accordance with Section 3.8.4.5. Allowable Stress Condition Load Combination Increase Normal D+L+T +H No increase 0 0 Normal/Severe D+L+T +H +!+D 8 No increase 0 0 Normal/Extreme D+ L + T0 + H0 + W' See Table 3.8-12 Abnormal D + L + (T0 + T ) + R See Table 3.8-12
+ 1.5P + e0
- Abnormal/Severe D + L + (T + T ) + R See Table 3.8-12
+ 1.25P + fta + !.2SE + Da Abnormal/Extreme D + L + (T + T ) + R + P See Table 3,8-12
+ B + D' i E' 8 a
- Rev. 40, 09/88
SSES-FSAR TABLE 3.8-9a Page 1 of 2 LOAD COMBINATIONS APPLICABLE TO DIESEL GENERATOR 'E' BUILDING (See Tables 3.8-2 and 3,8-8 for definitions of loads and other notations) The Diesel Generator 'E' Building is designed for the following load combinations: A~ Reinforced Concrete Service Load Combinations:
- a. u
- 1.40 + l.7L
- b. u - 1.4D + l.7L + l.9E
- c. u
- 1.40 + l.7L + 1.7W
- d. u
- 1.2D + l.9E
- e. 0
- 1.2D + 1.7W Where soil or hydrostatic pressures are present and have been included in Land D, in addition to all the preceding combinations, the requirements of Sections 9.2.4 and 9.2.5 of ACI 318.77 have been satisfied.
Factored Load Combinations:
- a. U
- 1.0D + 1.0L + l.0E'
- b. U
- 1.00 + l.0L + 1.owt
- c. u
- 1.00 + 1.0L + 1.owm8 '
Regarding preceding loads which are variable, the full range of variation has been considered in order to determine the most critical combination of loading.
- 8. Struetural Steel The following combinations of loadings have been considered in the design of structural steel seismic Category I structures. Sis the required section strength based on the elastic design methods and the allowable stresses defined in Part I of American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC)
Specification for the Design, Fabrication and Erection of Rev. 40, 09/88
SSES-FSAR Table 3.8-9a Page 2 of 2 Structural Steel for Buildings, November, 1978, except that the 33-percent increase in allowable stresses for seismic or wind loadings has not been permitted. In determining the most critical loading condition to be used in design, the absence of a load or loads has been considered as appropriate. Service Load Combinations
- a. S
- D + L
- b. Sa D + L + E
- c. S
- D+ L + W Factored Load Combinations
- a. 1.6$
- D+L+E'
- b. 1.6$
- O+L+Wt
- c. 1.6S
- D+L+Wms Rev. 40, 09/88
TADLE_J.8-10 LOAD CO~UI~AfIO~S AP~LICABLf TC TUR61N£ ~ __
- _ **-- ______ !UD<<AS Tl;_ BfJIL DIN~~--- _____ *. -~-
Notdtion: See Table~ 3.R-2 ~nJ J.8-8 Normal Opgratinq Loa~s: U = 1
- UD t 1* 7 L + 1
- 0 'l1o + 1
- 2 5 Ho Nor ma 1 ope r a t.i n q Lo a *i s wit h s P. v ere en v i r o n ii c n t d l l cq d s :
H = 0.7'J(1.4D+1.7L +1.?W)+1.01c, +1.l5H 0 Where overturninq forc~ .s CdU5E~ net te-nsion 1.n tltt~ til>senc'"' of 1 iv~ lor.\ *l, the fol low i nq load com~ ina t ion i.3 c J n3 j ,l~r t->(~: 1 U -= 0.9D+1.3W+1.0 To+1.25£lo Con*Htion l!Ofl -l _Cl>W bi nat. 10n Narmd Opeutinq Loa l~ 1 o+L+T 0 *n0 1-'s Normal ~perdtinq Lodd~ with D + L+1' 0 +t1 0 +W 1.J1 f..:-; Severe environwcntal lo~ds l' h e tu r bin e an d r ~ d wd a t ~ 1, t1 il d i a Q :1 a r e al so ri c .-; i q n e r1 t .o prevent collaps~ un ,.t~r S::rn a ud tor uaJo load i nqs. Th-~ followinq lo.id combinations ar-P. usect when SSE dn l trau !\ l,J loddinqs dCP ~onsiJere1: Rei ntotce,i_Concr cte u = 1.on+1.01,+1.ow 1 +1.01c+1.oa 0 U -= 1. 0 O+ 1. OL + 1. OE' +1. 0'; + 1. 2 'jlJ 0 Load_CQmhlnat ion n+t+T 0 +~*+H 0 SC~ U O t; {J !) 'd O *
- tHL+T 0 +E' +H 0 5'=~0 not~ lHlnW'.
Note: The Ulowable !.;trE>*B in structardl r,t~el dO=-!S not -.::-x,;,Hd 0 * '3 P' v i n b ,~ n iii n q , O. 8 5 F y i n cU i a 1 t ~ 11 s ion or co 1n pr~ c:; s ion , a n1 o* c; F y in sh e ,1/4 r
- wh <.? rt! rs i ~ 4 o v ~ : ,-1 1 !, v requirements of stctbilitv (loc:tl o: lat~rdl tucklin,1).
r-~1-d 1.>e~ not OXCP.f'1, 1. ', Fs. Rev. 35, 07/84
SSES*FSAR TABLE 3. 8-11 CONCRETE DESIGN COMPRESSIVE STRENGTHS Concrete Design Compressive Strength, Structure f'c (psi) Turbine generator pedestal 3000 All other Seismic Category I and 4000 safety-related, non-Seismic Category I structures and their associated foundation mats including: a) Containment (including its internal structures) b) Reactor Building c) Control Building d) Diesel Generator 'A-D' Building e) Diesel Generator 'E' Building f) ESSW Pwnphouse g) Spray Pond h) Turbine Building i) Radwaste Building Rev. 40, 09/88
SSES-FSAR TABLE 3.8-12 ALLOWABLE STRESS INCREASE FACTOR FOR MASONRY STRUCTURES INCREASE STRESS FACTOR CO?-filNT Axial or flexural compression 1.67 Bearing l.67 Reinforcement stress except shear 1.67 See Note l Shear Reinforcement and/or bolts 1.5 Masonry tension parallel to 1.5 bed joint Shear carried by masonry LO See Note 2 Masonry tension perpendicular - to bed joint For reinforced masonry 0 For unreinforced masonry Not applicable
- 1) Shall not exceed .90 fy.
- 2) The actual shear stress carried by masonry is in acco~dance with masonry walls acceptance criteria in section 3.8.4.5 vith no increase factor applied.
Rev. 39 , 0 7/ 8 8
THIS FIGURE HAS BEEN REPLACED BY DWG. C-331, Sh. 1 FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Figure 3.8-1 replaced by dwg. C-331, Sh. 1 FIGURE 3.8-1, Rev. 48 Figure Fsar 3_8_1.doc
THIS FIGURE HAS BEEN REPLACED BY DWG. C-371, Sh. 2 FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Figure 3.8-2 replaced by dwg. C-371, Sh. 2 FIGURE 3.8-2, Rev. 48 AutoCAD Figure 3_8_2.doc
THIS FIGURE HAS BEEN REPLACED BY DWG. C-1932, Sh. 3 FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Figure 3.8-3 replaced by dwg. C-1932, Sh. 3 FIGURE 3.8-3, Rev. 55 AutoCAD Figure 3_8_3.doc
THIS FIGURE HAS BEEN REPLACED BY DWG. C-1932, Sh. 4 FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Figure 3.8-4 replaced by dwg. C-1932, Sh. 4 FIGURE 3.8-4, Rev. 55 AutoCAD Figure 3_8_4.doc
THIS FIGURE HAS BEEN REPLACED BY DWG. C-1932, Sh. 5 FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Figure 3.8-5 replaced by dwg. C-1932, Sh. 5 FIGURE 3.8-5, Rev. 55 AutoCAD Figure 3_8_5.doc
rm4 r----
.. , ~-~--'-'- '--'----~----1.*
/tJ'-11'~
,2~~'~;.~~,::_*---:1~~---------------0=-'-_.:._/_J:~"'~*-~-----------~~
T.0. (J-r!Nt/!I
$,..., .,~4'-4'-'f."'
i.*4 A., .. ~ 1'Y/fl, (.l!Ol.41!1')
;/.jt*GllAT/,V'41 ;!.*xi'SIIAL ill<IC----
CONT/Nt/QU.#' Sll,fl. At.A Tl
$1/!IPMIINT.!1 ( S Q - r #KT.3.
FSAR REV.65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT PRIMARY CONTAINMENT DRYWELL HEAD CONNECTION FIGURE 3.8-9, Rev. 47 Auto-Cad Figure Fsar 3_8_9.dwg
THIS FIGURE HAS BEEN REPLACED BY DWG. C-284, Sh. 1 FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Figure 3.8-10 replaced by dwg. C-284, Sh. 1 FIGURE 3.8-10, Rev. 48 Figure Fsar 3_8_10.doc
THIS FIGURE HAS BEEN REPLACED BY DWG. C-332, Sh. 1 FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Figure 3.8-11-1 replaced by dwg. C-332, Sh. 1 FIGURE 3.8-11-1, Rev. 49 Figure Fsar 3_8_11_1.doc
THIS FIGURE HAS BEEN REPLACED BY DWG. C-333, Sh. 1 FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Figure 3.8-11-2 replaced by dwg. C-333, Sh. 1 FIGURE 3.8-11-2, Rev. 49 Figure Fsar 3_8_11_2.doc
THIS FIGURE HAS BEEN REPLACED BY DWG. C-281, Sh. 1 FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Figure 3.8-12 replaced by dwg. C-281, Sh. 1 FIGURE 3.8-12, Rev. 48 Figure Fsar 3_8_12.doc
THIS FIGURE HAS BEEN REPLACED BY DWG. C-281, Sh. 1 FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Figure 3.8-13 replaced by dwg. C-281, Sh. 1 FIGURE 3.8-13, Rev. 55 Figure Fsar 3_8_13.doc
THIS FIGURE HAS BEEN REPLACED BY DWG. C-370, Sh. 1 FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Figure 3.8-14 replaced by dwg. C-370, Sh. 1 FIGURE 3.8-14, Rev. 48 Figure Fsar 3_8_14.doc
THIS FIGURE HAS BEEN REPLACED BY DWG. C-334, Sh. 1 FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Figure 3.8-15-1 replaced by dwg. C-334, Sh. 1 FIGURE 3.8-15-1, Rev. 49 Figure Fsar 3_8_15_1.doc
THIS FIGURE HAS BEEN REPLACED BY DWG. C-335, Sh. 1 FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Figure 3.8-15-2 replaced by dwg. C-335, Sh. 1 FIGURE 3.8-15-2, Rev. 49 Figure Fsar 3_8_15_2.doc
THIS FIGURE HAS BEEN REPLACED BY DWG. C-336, Sh. 1 FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Figure 3.8-15-3 replaced by dwg. C-336, Sh. 1 FIGURE 3.8-15-3, Rev. 49 Figure Fsar 3_8_15_3.doc
THIS FIGURE HAS BEEN REPLACED BY DWG. C-337, Sh. 1 FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Figure 3.8-15-4 replaced by dwg. C-337, Sh. 1 FIGURE 3.8-15-4, Rev. 49 Figure Fsar 3_8_15_4.doc
THIS FIGURE HAS BEEN REPLACED BY DWG. C-338, Sh. 1 FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Figure 3.8-15-5 replaced by dwg. C-338, Sh. 1 FIGURE 3.8-15-5, Rev. 49 Figure Fsar 3_8_15_5.doc
THIS FIGURE HAS BEEN REPLACED BY DWG. C-351, Sh. 1 FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Figure 3.8-16-1 replaced by dwg. C-351, Sh. 1 FIGURE 3.8-16-1, Rev. 49 Figure Fsar 3_8_16_1.doc
THIS FIGURE HAS BEEN REPLACED BY DWG. C-352, Sh. 1 FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Figure 3.8-16-2 replaced by dwg. C-352, Sh. 1 FIGURE 3.8-16-2, Rev. 49 Figure Fsar 3_8_16_2.doc
THIS FIGURE HAS BEEN REPLACED BY DWG. C-353, Sh. 1 FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Figure 3.8-16-3 replaced by dwg. C-353, Sh. 1 FIGURE 3.8-16-3, Rev. 49 Figure Fsar 3_8_16_3.doc
THIS FIGURE HAS BEEN REPLACED BY DWG. C-354, Sh. 1 FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Figure 3.8-16-4 replaced by dwg. C-354, Sh. 1 FIGURE 3.8-16-4, Rev. 49 Figure Fsar 3_8_16_4.doc
THIS FIGURE HAS BEEN REPLACED BY DWG. C-355, Sh. 1 FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Figure 3.8-16-5 replaced by dwg. C-355, Sh. 1 FIGURE 3.8-16-5, Rev. 49 Figure Fsar 3_8_16_5.doc
THIS FIGURE HAS BEEN REPLACED BY DWG. C-356, Sh. 1 FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Figure 3.8-16-6 replaced by dwg. C-356, Sh. 1 FIGURE 3.8-16-6, Rev. 49 AutoCAD Figure 3_8_16_6.doc
THIS FIGURE HAS BEEN REPLACED BY DWG. C-357, Sh. 1 FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Figure 3.8-16-7 replaced by dwg. C-357, Sh. 1 FIGURE 3.8-16-7, Rev. 49 AutoCAD Figure 3_8_16_7.doc
THIS FIGURE HAS BEEN REPLACED BY DWG. C-358, Sh. 1 FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Figure 3.8-16-8 replaced by dwg. C-358, Sh. 1 FIGURE 3.8-16-8, Rev. 49 AutoCAD Figure 3_8_16_8.doc
THIS FIGURE HAS BEEN REPLACED BY DWG. C-359, Sh. 1 FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Figure 3.8-16-9 replaced by dwg. C-359, Sh. 1 FIGURE 3.8-16-9, Rev. 49 AutoCAD Figure 3_8_16_9.doc
THIS FIGURE HAS BEEN REPLACED BY DWG. C-360, Sh. 1 FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Figure 3.8-16-10 replaced by dwg. C-360, Sh. 1 FIGURE 3.8-16-10, Rev. 49 Figure Fsar 3_8_16_10.doc
THIS FIGURE HAS BEEN REPLACED BY DWG. C-393, Sh. 1 FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Figure 3.8-16-11 replaced by dwg. C-393, Sh. 1 FIGURE 3.8-16-11, Rev. 49 Figure Fsar 3_8_16_11.doc
THIS FIGURE HAS BEEN REPLACED BY DWG. C-394, Sh. 1 FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Figure 3.8-16-12 replaced by dwg. C-394, Sh. 1 FIGURE 3.8-16-12, Rev. 49 Figure Fsar 3_8_16_12.doc
THIS FIGURE HAS BEEN REPLACED BY DWG. C-395, Sh. 1 FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Figure 3.8-16-13 replaced by dwg. C-395, Sh. 1 FIGURE 3.8-16-13, Rev. 49 Figure Fsar 3_8_16_13.doc
THIS FIGURE HAS BEEN REPLACED BY DWG. C-396, Sh. 1 FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Figure 3.8-16-14 replaced by dwg. C-396, Sh. 1 FIGURE 3.8-16-14, Rev. 49 Figure Fsar 3_8_16_14.doc
THIS FIGURE HAS BEEN REPLACED BY DWG. C-397, Sh. 1 FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Figure 3.8-16-15 replaced by dwg. C-397, Sh. 1 FIGURE 3.8-16-15, Rev. 49 Figure Fsar 3_8_16_15.doc
THIS FIGURE HAS BEEN REPLACED BY DWG. C-398, Sh. 1 FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Figure 3.8-16-16 replaced by dwg. C-398, Sh. 1 FIGURE 3.8-16-16, Rev. 49 Figure Fsar 3_8_16_16.doc
THIS FIGURE HAS BEEN REPLACED BY DWG. C-399, Sh. 1 FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Figure 3.8-16-17 replaced by dwg. C-399, Sh. 1 FIGURE 3.8-16-17, Rev. 49 Figure Fsar 3_8_16_17.doc
THIS FIGURE HAS BEEN REPLACED BY DWG. C-400, Sh. 1 FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Figure 3.8-16-18 replaced by dwg. C-400, Sh. 1 FIGURE 3.8-16-18, Rev. 49 Figure Fsar 3_8_16_18.doc
THIS FIGURE HAS BEEN REPLACED BY DWG. C-282, Sh. 1 FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Figure 3.8-17 replaced by dwg. C-282, Sh. 1 FIGURE 3.8-17, Rev. 48 AutoCAD Figure 3_8_17.doc
THIS FIGURE HAS BEEN REPLACED BY DWG. C-285, Sh. 1 FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Figure 3.8-18 replaced by dwg. C-285, Sh. 1 FIGURE 3.8-18, Rev. 48 AutoCAD Figure 3_8_18.doc
THIS FIGURE HAS BEEN REPLACED BY DWG. C-288, Sh. 1 FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Figure 3.8-19-1 replaced by dwg. C-288, Sh. 1 FIGURE 3.8-19-1, Rev. 55 AutoCAD Figure 3_8_19_1.doc
THIS FIGURE HAS BEEN REPLACED BY DWG. C-287, Sh. 1 FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Figure 3.8-19-2 replaced by dwg. C-287, Sh. 1 FIGURE 3.8-19-2, Rev. 55 AutoCAD Figure 3_8_19_2.doc
THIS FIGURE HAS BEEN REPLACED BY DWG. C-283, Sh. 1 FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Figure 3.8-19-3 replaced by dwg. C-283, Sh. 1 FIGURE 3.8-19-3, Rev. 55 AutoCAD Figure 3_8_19_3.doc
!Y-O'
,I A
,. I *
, r 1--= A:::)~J:Z, '°:..A "i~
~ NEt-O*NECK
!=t_AtvC,E FSAR REV.65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT SUPPRESSION CHAMBER ELECTRICAL PENETRATION DETAILS FIGURE 3.8-20-1, Rev. 48 Auto-Cad Figure Fsar 3_8_20_1.dwg
HeA CER PI-.A ,-~ ( Nt!l- a -N~C K t:t_,A.NGI!: ~ lzx ~,- --, FV£L Cl~C ~I FSAR REV.65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT DRYWELL ELECTRICAL PENETRATION DETAILS FIGURE 3.8-20-2, Rev. 48 Auto-Cad Figure Fsar 3_8_20_2.dwg
THIS FIGURE HAS BEEN REPLACED BY DWG. C-286, Sh. 1 FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Figure 3.8-21 replaced by dwg. C-286, Sh. 1 FIGURE 3.8-21, Rev. 48 AutoCAD Figure 3_8_21.doc
THIS FIGURE HAS BEEN REPLACED BY DWG. C-291, Sh. 1 FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Figure 3.8-22 replaced by dwg. C-291, Sh. 1 FIGURE 3.8-22, Rev. 48 AutoCAD Figure 3_8_22.doc
THIS FIGURE HAS BEEN REPLACED BY DWG. C-278, Sh. 1 FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Figure 3.8-23 replaced by dwg. C-278, Sh. 1 FIGURE 3.8-23, Rev. 55 AutoCAD Figure 3_8_23.doc
252 0 ,.._,
~ ~[)eSIGN ACCIOcNr CONDITION 1,y' I \
l
!.350~- '\. OPERA r1N:S CON;JtrtON INSIDE - ~5°F FACe---
OR"IWcLL WALL
-- DESIGN ACCIDENT COND!rtoN 0 / /3~ F - " ,.
1
- OPcRA TING CONDlilON I
90° F -r-'-.::----L_ _ __ I - (;So,= SUPP~e-:5:SION CHA M8cR WALL FSAR REV.65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT CONTAINMENT WALL TEMPERATURE GRADIENTS FIGURE 3.8-24, Rev. 47 Auto-Cad Figure Fsar 3_8_24.dwg
80VNOA~Y ~OUNOA~'f 0 F---
-----+---1301/NOA~Y A FSAR REV.65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT CONTAINMENT WALL ANALYTICAL MODEL FOR AXISYMMETRIC LOADS FIGURE 3.8-25, Rev. 47 Auto-Cad Figure Fsar 3_8_25.dwg
-BOI.INDA~"t C
\
I \ .*
-LOADS DUE ro I \ .*
MISSILES ANO I 80UNDARY A ( Ve-l<'T!CAL SYMME Tl<'Y I I I I
/
\
\
/\
._ -111 \
\
P!Pe Rt.JP TURE-
~-BcJUNOA -~"t A PLANe) I \
I \
\
I r I \ I I I I I I I I I X y I
)._ -.
/301./NOARY
--- ~
/
FSAR REV.65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT DRYWELL WALL MODEL FOR NON-AXISYMMETRIC MISSILE & POSTULATED PIPE RUPTURE LOADS FIGURE 3.8-26, Rev. 47 Auto-Cad Figure Fsar 3_8_26.dwg
BOUNDARY A (VcRrlCAL
.SYMMEiRY PLANE)
FSAR REV.65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT BASE FOUNDATION SLAB ANALYTICAL MODEL FIGURE 3.8-27, Rev. 47 Auto-Cad Figure Fsar 3_8_27.dwg
/3Of.lNDA~Y A---4-.._
(Vc,f'T/CAL SYMMer~y PLANE)
~OUN.l)A ~ "t FSAR REV.65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT EQUIPMENT HATCH ANALYTICAL MODEL FIGURE 3.8-28, Rev. 47 Auto-Cad Figure Fsar 3_8_28.dwg
rfz~~ HOLO PE~IOOn I_ 11.25 PSIG I* - *- .,.211 PIIG
. \
_/ \ I DIIYWElL l'IIESIURo/ \ _ ..._.,SIG I I I I . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 30 n.1 PIIG - --------------------.J
/ ll.l'HIISIION CHAMBEII HIISIUIII I lj H' I HOLO Pt-!i:100 10
- I 12 28 .92 TIMI CHOUIIII FSAR REV.65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT STRUCTURAL ACCEPTANCE TEST PRESSURIZATION SEQUENCE FIGURE 3.8-29, Rev. 47 Auto-Cad Figure Fsar 3_8_29.dwg
i I r I DHLECTIOIJ
!)E't'IC.£: (T'1P) l"'l':ASU~ING
*EL. 711!1"-9"'UNO A25*.q0
- A26. 102° A21
- 162° IEL. 790'*5" A210 229°55' EL. 790'- I" R29.212° RJO O J.qll EL 790'-7.s-Vl9 20"-r AAD. 25o
/ V20 20'-r RAD
- 51o V21 21'-r AAD
- 1'50'"
,/ VU 21"-4" RAO O 1 o°30'
,,--' V2'3 20'-r AAO
- 270° AAO
- 2115o
,,...- / V24 20'*1"
/ ,,/ _,./' - A*I J EL.* 105'-0"'
.qll41"'EL.
UNO705'*2"
.\ A14
- 101°20' AIS. 161°211" IEL. 'J'OS',2.S
.. ,.. mo
_/ 1117
- 211o01* IEL, 705'*2.5"
/::::~
\ 1111*348°
/
/
- RADIUS ,r.,r
\ /
\,, , v1s* 11!111"
" V16
- 1111°30'
/* \ vn
- v,1.21,._.2111°
/,
- RADIUS 24'.o" I
- rY7*JO" I v,.,...
VI* 47"30' v10* 111,._.
/
V11
- 2111° v12*a,._.
- AADIUS:M'.o" v2**,._.
VJ. 1511" v** ,.,... V!I
- 2111° ve*211._
.1111*
, ,ne
- ILl7.--0" lllt*la9 111,,.D.98 1111 **Z-1112*3AI" FSAR REV.65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT STRUCTURAL ACCEPTANCE TEST LOCATION OF DEFLECTION MEASURING DEVICES FOR THE CONTAINMENT FIGURE 3.8-30, Rev. 47 Auto-Cad Figure Fsar 3_8_30.dwg
_______;,h-______________.,--------~ e H (EL. 739"-8"
- 318°27'1 P) f 17 H 11!.13 EU E12
*- El. 7:zlS',6.!"
\
I EL. 725'-T' EL. 725'-T'
-* El. 12'5'*7.5" 1
I~
}
I E3 1£1., 71T*11"
- 3158 t II
- E2 IEL. 7\3'*5"
- 315°1 1
___..i,,,..-----+--,-----<<~--- e Et IEL. 70l'-1"
- 313°37'1 ltJ. ,. ACIION MOIIIZONTAL
- vu,TICAL OPINING OIAMITIRS I VIRTICAL "'"I "MAI.LIL TO COfill 9UR,ACI I FSAR REV.65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT STRUCTURAL ACCEPTANCE TEST LOCATION OF DEFLECTION MEASURING DEVICES FOR EQUIPMENT HATCH FIGURE 3.8-31, Rev. 47 Auto-Cad Figure Fsar 3_8_31.dwg
THIS FIGURE HAS BEEN REPLACED BY DWG. C-384, Sh. 1 FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Figure 3.8-32 replaced by dwg. C-384, Sh. 1 FIGURE 3.8-32, Rev. 48 AutoCAD Figure 3_8_32.doc
THIS FIGURE HAS BEEN REPLACED BY DWG. C-387, Sh. 1 FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Figure 3.8-33 replaced by dwg. C-387, Sh. 1 FIGURE 3.8-33, Rev. 48 AutoCAD Figure 3_8_33.doc
\
t
*4
.,_.__dOUNDAR't ~
.!301../Nl)A,f!'t A FSAR REV.65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT STRUCTURAL ACCEPTANCE TEST CONTAINMENT ANALYTICAL MODEL FIGURE 3.8-34, Rev. 47 Auto-Cad Figure Fsar 3_8_34.dwg
--BOUNDAT?'! E
!jOUAIDAli?f
~ - f30U"'DA..R"t A c--- (VERTICAL SYMMc-r~r PLA .VI:)
--r--S0UNOA~Y 0 B0UNOA~Y 13
/"'x FSAR REV.65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT STRUCTURAL ACCEPTANCE TEST EQUIPMENT HATCH ANALYTICAL MODEL FIGURE 3.8-35, Rev. 47 Auto-Cad Figure Fsar 3_8_35.dwg
--- = PREO/Crcc OerLECr/OA.'
X =AVERAGe DEFLECTION MEASUReO
'\ \
\
\
\
I
,I 0 I I I
I I SCALE I
\
\
\
. \
u * +---- .. , - - - - - - - - - .
"' \
q -+---+----------, \ FSAR REV.65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT STRUCTURAL ACCEPTANCE TEST COMPARISON OF MEASURED & PREDICTED DEFLECTIONS FOR THE CONTAINMENT FIGURE 3.8-36, Rev. 47 Auto-Cad Figure Fsar 3_8_36.dwg
,,,,,-- _...- -- iI~ -- --.. ....... I I I I I
!NTcRIOR e-FOi? l!:
!~
! .::t
' SURFAC=-- 5 PR!:'S.SU~l'2Ail0N
~ HAiCH __
X X X )(
)(
PL A "I
/Nre,?tOR su~~ACe BE!=O~E' PRE"S5UR.l'2 ,1 Tl/'1AJ fl N 0 0.1 0.2 SCALE
--- - PRc01cre-o c~r1..ecr10N X - MeA.SI.J~~J) OEFl..~cr,oN FSAR REV.65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT STRUCTURAL ACCEPTANCE TEST COMPARISON OF MEASURED &
PREDICTED DEFLECTION FOR THE EQUIPMENT HATCH FIGURE 3.8-37, Rev. 47 Auto-Cad Figure Fsar 3_8_37.dwg
toO 50 ~ 40 30 JOl?~DICT'~O I/
-,,-/
' /
r h
\
~ 20
./ \ 7 ~
I Q /0
/ \ ~' \
~ ~ 0
-10
/ . -*
---,~~* \
LI"
/ -20
~
~, .-
...,., ""1' ,,:...... -*--*-
~
-30
\. ,, ...r, -- V" \i' 1 ,,
-40 \. ~
ME ASI.I.RE'O - l I
-30 - \.
V
-~o ~ I
'*v
-70 foO - - ~
50 40
/'
/ \
\ ~/
~
V '}
.30 /
/
I \ / I
/
7 I 20
/ \
\.
/0 V
0 O 4 8 12 16 70 24 2~ 32 3fo 40 44 "15
' 52. 546 FSAR REV.65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT STRUCTURAL ACCEPTANCE TEST INSIDE MERIDIONAL STRAIN AT MID-HEIGHT OF SUPPRESSION CHAMBER WALL FIGURE 3.8-38, Rev. 47 Auto-Cad Figure Fsar 3_8_38.dwg
1000 v~, !?JOO
~ 'E A.$t.ltf'eJ:? ~ - ,1/'"'"1\
- 800 r-.. _, \ !\
700 I J/' I / \ \ Pi '4.lOICTe () r*- ~ \ ~- ; I fi,00 ~
!500
/
V rl I 1
\
- j. 1 4CO V i) -- -- --- ...... l\..
300 200
/00
,/"
/ ii H
ii
,~--*--*-
\ *, --- i-,_
0
/ ' -- - -- - ~
\
f.0 50 / ~ ~v I 40 / LI'
\ V J 30 /
V
\ V I '1
,/
/
20
\ /0 V \.
0 V o 4- a 12 ,~ 20 24 2B 32 31, 40 44
" 4~ ~2 5J FSAR REV.65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT STRUCTURAL ACCEPTANCE TEST INSIDE HOOP STRAIN AT MID-HEIGHT OF SUPPRESSION CHAMBER WALL FIGURE 3.8-39, Rev. 47 Auto-Cad Figure Fsar 3_8_39.dwg
500 -t--+-----lf----1 ----L- - - - - - - iI *- 400 PRE OIC 1 : !.i 0 60 50 I V
\
/
-\
40
/ \ ,, / A I
/" \.;1 I\
30 - t- V \ 20 10 i I jll,. VI I 0 ' -I I I I I ' I I I 0 4 8 12 ,~ 20 24 28 :2 3~ 40 44 48 sz s, FSAR REV.65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT STRUCTURAL ACCEPTANCE TEST OUTSIDE MERIDIONAL STRAIN AT MID-HEIGHT OF SUPPRESSION CHAMBER WALL FIGURE 3.8-40, Rev. 47 Auto-Cad Figure Fsar 3_8_40.dwg
eoo iOO \.9 I GOO
!;)
""500 0
~.... 400
~
~ 3CO
'I) 200 100
. *-- . - - ....... ****' l
' 0 1 ,. L...-
~ fiJO
~
U) Q.. 50 - I I V \'1
/
v 40 l / ~ / ~
'lJ ; :/ I \.,. I,"
I \
~ 30 ' \
V> 20 - I I i
/ :
- 3 /0 - lV .v I Iii!,.
a: ' I 0 - ' .. - -- I I I I I 0 4 a 12 I~ 20 24 28 !c 36 40 44 48 SZ 5tE TIME (HOU~S) FSAR REV.65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT STRUCTURAL ACCEPTANCE TEST OUTSIDE HOOP STRAIN AT MID-HEIGHT OF SUPPRESSION CHAMBER WALL FIGURE 3.8-41, Rev. 47 Auto-Cad Figure Fsar 3_8_41.dwg
700 (i,00 r-i
/ 1 500 PJ teDICT~l _..,, I \, ~
~ \ I 400 / I \ r;... ' Q ~ 300 I
/.
I I \ \
~ ,:
I ~
- I \
~ ~
W) 200 J F I I r-I -
... *eA ,u~~o
--- --- -** _, \ \
\ . \
JOO '.\.. I I *- 0 I~**
--- --* - \
'-0 50 40
/r
/ '\ ,. /
,,V
'I 30 /
V
\ . I
/
V 20
/0 V
0 V '\ o 4 1J 12. ,~ 20 24 2a az s~ 40 44 .,., 52 5t, FSAR REV.65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT STRUCTURAL ACCEPTANCE TEST OUTSIDE HELICAL STRAIN AT MID-HEIGHT OF SUPPRESSION CHAMBER WALL FIGURE 3.8-42, Rev. 47 Auto-Cad Figure Fsar 3_8_42.dwg
10 -0 I l'-0" STAGE 7 EXT.
--0 0.030 TYPICAL GRID 0.030
--144 0.027 FSAR REV.65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT STRUCTURAL ACCEPTANCE TEST EXTERNAL CONCRETE SURFACE CRACKS AT MID-HEIGHT OF DRYWELL WALL FIGURE 3.8-43, Rev. 47 Auto-Cad Figure Fsar 3_8_43.dwg
I Jrn ~ (~ ,_ l ,~
\r- -? FSAR REV.65
- I: ~ )(
SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION I 0 0 UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT DRYWELL HEAD FIGURE 3.8-44, Rev. 47 Auto-Cad Figure Fsar 3_8_44.dwg
f!30UNDARY I!, ORYWElf-HcAO MOOE'l
\ LOWeR
' FLA.NGE MODEL 80UNOA~Y NOTc:
clt!0:5S 1A rc1-1e o AlfEA s A~e MOOeLLED AS OR'Tl10i~OPIC LA'fE/f'S. FSAR REV.65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT ANALYTICAL MODEL OF DRYWELL HEAD ASSEMBLY FIGURE 3.8-45, Rev. 47 Auto-Cad Figure Fsar 3_8_45.dwg
THIS FIGURE HAS BEEN REPLACED BY DWG. C-348, Sh. 1 FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Figure 3.8-46-1 replaced by dwg. C-348, Sh. 1 FIGURE 3.8-46-1, Rev. 49 AutoCAD Figure 3_8_46_1.doc
THIS FIGURE HAS BEEN REPLACED BY DWG. C-349, Sh. 1 FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Figure 3.8-46-2 replaced by dwg. C-349, Sh. 1 FIGURE 3.8-46-2, Rev. 49 AutoCAD Figure 3_8_46_2.doc
THIS FIGURE HAS BEEN REPLACED BY DWG. C-350, Sh. 1 FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Figure 3.8-46-3 replaced by dwg. C-350, Sh. 1 FIGURE 3.8-46-3, Rev. 49 AutoCAD Figure 3_8_46_3.doc
THIS FIGURE HAS BEEN REPLACED BY DWG. C-293, Sh. 1 FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Figure 3.8-47 replaced by dwg. C-293, Sh. 1 FIGURE 3.8-47, Rev. 48 AutoCAD Figure 3_8_47.doc
THIS FIGURE HAS BEEN REPLACED BY DWG. C-340, Sh. 1 FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Figure 3.8-48 replaced by dwg. C-340, Sh. 1 FIGURE 3.8-48, Rev. 48 AutoCAD Figure 3_8_48.doc
THIS FIGURE HAS BEEN REPLACED BY DWG. C-341, Sh. 1 FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Figure 3.8-49 replaced by dwg. C-341, Sh. 1 FIGURE 3.8-49, Rev. 48 AutoCAD Figure 3_8_49.doc
THIS FIGURE HAS BEEN REPLACED BY DWG. C-376, Sh. 1 FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Figure 3.8-50 replaced by dwg. C-376, Sh. 1 FIGURE 3.8-50, Rev. 48 AutoCAD Figure 3_8_50.doc
THIS FIGURE HAS BEEN REPLACED BY DWG. C-344, Sh. 1 FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Figure 3.8-51-1 replaced by dwg. C-344, Sh. 1 FIGURE 3.8-51-1, Rev. 49 AutoCAD Figure 3_8_51_1.doc
THIS FIGURE HAS BEEN REPLACED BY DWG. C-377, Sh. 1 FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Figure 3.8-51-2 replaced by dwg. C-377, Sh. 1 FIGURE 3.8-51-2, Rev. 49 AutoCAD Figure 3_8_51_2.doc
THIS FIGURE HAS BEEN REPLACED BY DWG. C-362, Sh. 1 FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Figure 3.8-52 replaced by dwg. C-362, Sh. 1 FIGURE 3.8-52, Rev. 48 AutoCAD Figure 3_8_52.doc
THIS FIGURE HAS BEEN REPLACED BY DWG. C-363, Sh. 1 FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Figure 3.8-53 replaced by dwg. C-363, Sh. 1 FIGURE 3.8-53, Rev. 55 AutoCAD Figure 3_8_53.doc
THIS FIGURE HAS BEEN REPLACED BY DWG. C-364, Sh. 1 FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Figure 3.8-54 replaced by dwg. C-364, Sh. 1 FIGURE 3.8-54, Rev. 55 AutoCAD Figure 3_8_54.doc
THIS FIGURE HAS BEEN REPLACED BY DWG. C-365, Sh. 1 FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Figure 3.8-55 replaced by dwg. C-365, Sh. 1 FIGURE 3.8-55, Rev. 48 AutoCAD Figure 3_8_55.doc
THIS FIGURE HAS BEEN REPLACED BY DWG. C-367, Sh. 1 FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Figure 3.8-56 replaced by dwg. C-367, Sh. 1 FIGURE 3.8-56, Rev. 48 AutoCAD Figure 3_8_56.doc
THIS FIGURE HAS BEEN REPLACED BY DWG. C-380, Sh. 1 FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Figure 3.8-57 replaced by dwg. C-380, Sh. 1 FIGURE 3.8-57, Rev. 48 AutoCAD Figure 3_8_57.doc
0 ZfoS F t {Dl!S/GN ACCIDENT I\ CONDITION I I\ . OPeRArlNG CONDITION t3so ,= I \ 1140,=
~
TOP OF '~OF FLOOR---.J DRYWELI- rl.00/f 0 25~0 r 255 F ~ ), I\ (t=oestGN ACCtOcNr- ._ I\ CON/)/i/ON . I \,.. /~5°F . . . . - - - - - - ~ ~ Ol"~~Ar!NG C0NDlrt0N \ f!.1°F /02°F eo°F ..--------c..- lNSIJ)E FACE l!J~I..OW O~YW~LL FLOO/f FSAR REV.65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT TEMPERATURE GRADIENTS FOR DRYWELL FLOOR AND REACTOR PEDESTAL FIGURE 3.8-58, Rev. 47 Auto-Cad Figure Fsar 3_8_58.dwg
340°F I J i340 0 F "II OCS!GN ACC!l)EN7' r
,11 11 CONDITION--....; I 1\
I ', // I -----OPE!fATING 1 "-' / CONDITION 135°F --~--......::..-""""---. INS/OE r A CE -----.. FSAR REV.65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT REACTOR SHIELD WALL TEMPERATURE GRADIENTS FIGURE 3.8-59, Rev. 47 Auto-Cad Figure Fsar 3_8_59.dwg
~OUNDARY c---
SOUNDA~Y ,: e,oUNOA~Y A -t---+--- SOflNl)A~Y /!, y FSAR REV.65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT DRYWELL FLOOR ANALYTICAL MODEL FIGURE 3.8-60, Rev. 47 Auto-Cad Figure Fsar 3_8_60.dwg
<<JVNOA!fY I!, f!,Ol./NOA~Y C 60UNOA~Y A/ FSAR REV.65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT ANALYTICAL MODEL FOR REACTOR PEDESTAL ABOVE DRYWELL FLOOR FIGURE 3.8-61, Rev. 47 Auto-Cad Figure Fsar 3_8_61.dwg
FSAR REV.65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT REACTOR SHIELD WALL "EASE" PROGRAM ANALYTICAL MODEL FIGURE 3.8-62, Rev. 47 Auto-Cad Figure Fsar 3_8_62.dwg
-t~BOUNDA~Y 13 set.SMIC rR(/S~
(MoOeLE-0 ,=a~ NON-AXISYMMErRIC LOADS ONLY) BO<JNOAK'Y A FSAR REV.65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT REACTOR SHIELD WALL ANALYTICAL MODEL FOR "FINEL" AND "ASHSD" PROGRAMS FIGURE 3.8-63, Rev. 47 Auto-Cad Figure Fsar 3_8_63.dwg
1301./NOA~Y 8
/!OUNDA/ltY A FSAR REV.65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT SUPPRESSION CHAMBER COLUMNS "ASHSD" PROGRAM ANALYTICAL MODEL FIGURE 3.8-64, Rev. 47 Auto-Cad Figure Fsar 3_8_64.dwg
---~EFUEL!NG BELLOWS SEISMIC .SrAl!,I/_ IZ rR --i
/5El5MtC r~uss Re-ACTOR
..SHteLO - .,....
CONTAIN/vie-NT ) WALL R EAC iOR,,,,.
'IE-SSEL ORYWELL t=LOOR.
cot. UMNS-/4
,__ VcN r P/Pc_S r ' -RE-ACTOR PEDE-5iAL 1.
FSAR REV.65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT SUPPRESSION CHAMBER COLUMNS SEISMIC MODEL FIGURE 3.8-65, Rev. 47 Auto-Cad Figure Fsar 3_8_65.dwg
y COLUMN (TYPICAL) FSAR REV.65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT SUPPRESSION CHAMBER COLUMNS "CE 668" PROGRAM ANALYTICAL MODEL FIGURE 3.8-66, Rev. 47 Auto-Cad Figure Fsar 3_8_66.dwg
0 .,.
'Os FSAR REV.65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT SEISMIC TRUSS ANALYTICAL MODEL FIGURE 3.8-67, Rev. 47 Auto-Cad Figure Fsar 3_8_67.dwg
OA 0 O 0.tJ2 0.04 0.01 0.03
.:,CALE 0 - P~LDICTeD ~FL~CTION X - AV~ltAt#~ D~F LE-CTIOAI (M~A~t!-D ON COLUMN AZIHUTHs)
A
- A\IE~AGE DeFLECTION
( /ti EASl.l~EO MrWPE-11 COL UMJI AZIMVTH.5} FSAR REV.65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT STRUCTURAL ACCEPTANCE TEST COMPARISON OF MEASURED AND PREDICTED DEFLECTIONS FOR THE DRYWELL FLOOR FIGURE 3.8-68, Rev. 47 Auto-Cad Figure Fsar 3_8_68.dwg
THIS FIGURE HAS BEEN REPLACED BY DWG. A-11, Sh. 1 FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Figure 3.8-69 replaced by dwg. A-11, Sh. 1 FIGURE 3.8-69, Rev. 55 AutoCAD Figure 3_8_69.doc
THIS FIGURE HAS BEEN REPLACED BY DWG. A-12, Sh. 1 FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Figure 3.8-70 replaced by dwg. A-12, Sh. 1 FIGURE 3.8-70, Rev. 56 AutoCAD Figure 3_8_70.doc
THIS FIGURE HAS BEEN REPLACED BY DWG. A-13, Sh. 1 FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Figure 3.8-71 replaced by dwg. A-13, Sh. 1 FIGURE 3.8-71, Rev. 55 AutoCAD Figure 3_8_71.doc
THIS FIGURE HAS BEEN REPLACED BY DWG. M-203, Sh. 1 FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Figure 3.8-72 replaced by dwg. M-203, Sh. 1 FIGURE 3.8-72, Rev. 55 AutoCAD Figure 3_8_72.doc
THIS FIGURE HAS BEEN REPLACED BY DWG. M-204, Sh. 1 FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Figure 3.8-73 replaced by dwg. M-204, Sh. 1 FIGURE 3.8-73, Rev. 48 AutoCAD Figure 3_8_73.doc
THIS FIGURE HAS BEEN REPLACED BY DWG. A-16, Sh. 1 FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Figure 3.8-74 replaced by dwg. A-16, Sh. 1 FIGURE 3.8-74, Rev. 55 AutoCAD Figure 3_8_74.doc
THIS FIGURE HAS BEEN REPLACED BY DWG. A-17, Sh. 1 FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Figure 3.8-75 replaced by dwg. A-17, Sh. 1 FIGURE 3.8-75, Rev. 55 AutoCAD Figure 3_8_75.doc
Security-Related Information Figure Withheld Under 10 CFR 2.390 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT REACTOR, CONTROL AND TURBINE BUILDING SECTIONS LOOKING NORTH FIGURE 3.8-77
Security-Related Information Figure Withheld Under 10 CFR 2.390 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT REACTOR BUILDING SECTION LOOKING WEST FIGURE 3.8-78
THIS FIGURE HAS BEEN REPLACED BY DWG. M-227, Sh. 1 FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Figure 3.8-79 replaced by dwg. M-227, Sh. 1 FIGURE 3.8-79, Rev. 55 AutoCAD Figure 3_8_79.doc
THIS FIGURE HAS BEEN REPLACED BY DWG. M-237, Sh. 1 FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Figure 3.8-80 replaced by dwg. M-237, Sh. 1 FIGURE 3.8-80, Rev. 55 AutoCAD Figure 3_8_80.doc
THIS FIGURE HAS BEEN REPLACED BY DWG. M-260, Sh. 1 FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Figure 3.8-81 replaced by dwg. M-260, Sh. 1 FIGURE 3.8-81, Rev. 55 AutoCAD Figure 3_8_81.doc
THIS FIGURE HAS BEEN REPLACED BY DWG. M-261, Sh. 1 FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Figure 3.8-82 replaced by dwg. M-261, Sh. 1 FIGURE 3.8-82, Rev. 55 AutoCAD Figure 3_8_82.doc
THIS FIGURE HAS BEEN REPLACED BY DWG. M-5200, Sh. 1 FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Figure 3.8-83 replaced by dwg. M-5200, Sh. 1 FIGURE 3.8-83, Rev. 55 AutoCAD Figure 3_8_83.doc
THIS FIGURE HAS BEEN REPLACED BY DWG. M-5200, Sh. 2 FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Figure 3.8-84 replaced by dwg. M-5200, Sh. 2 FIGURE 3.8-84, Rev. 55 AutoCAD Figure 3_8_84.doc
THIS FIGURE HAS BEEN REPLACED BY DWG. M-284, Sh. 1 FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Figure 3.8-85 replaced by dwg. M-284, Sh. 1 FIGURE 3.8-85, Rev. 55 AutoCAD Figure 3_8_85.doc
THIS FIGURE HAS BEEN REPLACED BY DWG. C-64, Sh. 1 FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Figure 3.8-86 replaced by dwg. C-64, Sh. 1 FIGURE 3.8-86, Rev. 48 AutoCAD Figure 3_8_86.doc
THIS FIGURE HAS BEEN REPLACED BY DWG. C-65, Sh. 1 FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Figure 3.8-87 replaced by dwg. C-65, Sh. 1 FIGURE 3.8-87, Rev. 48 AutoCAD Figure 3_8_87.doc
7+,6),*85(+$6%((1 5(3/$&('%<':*
&6K
)6$55(9
68648(+$11$67($0(/(&75,&67$7,21 81,76
),1$/6$)(7<$1$/<6,65(3257
)LJXUHUHSODFHGE\GZJ
&6K
),*85(5HY
$XWR&$')LJXUHBBGRF
THIS FIGURE HAS BEEN REPLACED BY DWG. C-67, Sh. 1 FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Figure 3.8-89 replaced by dwg. C-67, Sh. 1 FIGURE 3.8-89, Rev. 48 AutoCAD Figure 3_8_89.doc
THIS FIGURE HAS BEEN REPLACED BY DWG. M-270, Sh. 1 FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Figure 3.8-90 replaced by dwg. M-270, Sh. 1 FIGURE 3.8-90, Rev. 55 AutoCAD Figure 3_8_90.doc
THIS FIGURE HAS BEEN REPLACED BY DWG. M-271, Sh. 1 FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Figure 3.8-91 replaced by dwg. M-271, Sh. 1 FIGURE 3.8-91, Rev. 55 AutoCAD Figure 3_8_91.doc
THIS FIGURE HAS BEEN REPLACED BY DWG. M-272, Sh. 1 FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Figure 3.8-92 replaced by dwg. M-272, Sh. 1 FIGURE 3.8-92, Rev. 55 AutoCAD Figure 3_8_92.doc
THIS FIGURE HAS BEEN REPLACED BY DWG. M-273, Sh. 1 FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Figure 3.8-93 replaced by dwg. M-273, Sh. 1 FIGURE 3.8-93, Rev. 55 AutoCAD Figure 3_8_93.doc
THIS FIGURE HAS BEEN REPLACED BY DWG. M-274, Sh. 1 FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Figure 3.8-94 replaced by dwg. M-274, Sh. 1 FIGURE 3.8-94, Rev. 55 AutoCAD Figure 3_8_94.doc
THIS FIGURE HAS BEEN REPLACED BY DWG. C-795, Sh. 1 FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Figure 3.8-95 replaced by dwg. C-795, Sh. 1 FIGURE 3.8-95, Rev. 48 AutoCAD Figure 3_8_95.doc
SSES-FSAR APPENDIX 3.8A Computer Programs This appendix contains a description of the computer programs used for the structural analysis of all Seismic Category I structures. For each computer program, there is a brief description of the program's theoretical basis, the assumptions and references used in the program, and the extent of the application. Examples of verification procedures are included for each PP&L in-house program. The computer programs discussed in this section are those programs used for the original plant design. Changes to later versions of these programs or the addition of entirely new computer programs for safety related applications is controlled by procedures under our Operational Quality Assurance Program. 3.8A.l 3D/SAP 3D/SAP is a finite element program used to perform the static analysis of arbitrary, three-dimensional, elastic solids subjected to concentrated or distributed (pressure) loadings thermal expansion and/or arbitrarily directed static body forces. 3D/SAP is a mathematical version of 11 SAP 11 {Reference 3.SA-1) which is a general purpose structural analysis computer code. 3D/SAP was developed by the Control Data Corporation and is in the public domain. 3.8A.2 ASHSD ASHSD (Axisymmetric Shell And Solid) is a special-purpose program which can be used in the elastic, static or dynamic analysis of structural systems capable of being represented as axisymmetric shells and/or solids. This program is a refinement of the original ASHSD code developed at the University of California at Berkeley. The present program has been highly modified for the special purpose of static and dynamic analysis of nuclear containment structures. The modified program has the following features:
- The code has a shell finite element which uses an interaction stiffness that allows analysis of layered shells.
Rev. 51, 02/97 3.8A-1
SSES-FSAR
- Since shell layers may be bonded or unbonded from each other, it is possible to describe concrete shells in their actual geometric form. For example, it is possible to describe liner plate, concrete, reinforcing steel, and post-tensioning steel in their real spatial locations.
- Q Post-tension forces may be applied to the shell by subjecting only the unbonded post tensioning elements to a pseudothermal loading.
- Isotropic or orthotropic elastic constants are possible for both shell and solid elements. The orthotropic material properties may be used to describe the different stiffness of reinforcing steel in the hoop and meridional directions, for examples.
- Nonunifonn thermal gradients through the wall thickness may be imposed.
- Eigenvalues and eigenvectors may be computed by the program.
- Three dynamic response routines are available in the program. They are:
Arbitrary dynamic-loading or earthquake-base excitation using an uncoupled {modal) technique. Arbitrary dynamic-loading or earthquake-base excitation using a coupled (direct integration) technique. Response spectrum modal analysis for absolute and square root of the sum of the squares displacements and element stresses.
- The coupled time-history solution has the capability to allow an arbitrary damping matrix.
- The stiffness and mass matrices may be obtained as punched output for input into other programs.
This program allows a useful study of the interaction between a typical nuclear containment structure modeled as an axisymmetric shell and the subsoil modeled as an axisymmetric solid. This program was verified by comparing the computer results with hand calculations and published references. Three sample problems are presented as examples of verification. Rev. 51, 02/97 3.8A-2
SSES-FSAR Sample Problem: Closed Cylinder finder Internal Pressure Thie problem demonstrated the membrane state of stress in a closed cylinder subjected to a uniformly distributed internal pressure. Hand calculations were used to verify this aspect of the program. The selected problem was a cylinder with closed ends subjected to internal pressure. Only one half of the cylinder was required in the model because of symmetry. Furthermore, it was assumed that the closed ends were distant from the section being analyzed and they were excluded. Two models of the cylinder were actually analyzed. One model used the thin shell elements and the other used the axisymmetric solid elements. These models are shown in Figures 3.8A-1 and 3.SA-2 with their key dimensions. The problem parameters for both test cases are as follows: Boundary Conditions: Node 1: z displacement= O 0 displacement= O Rotation in R-Z plan= o {free to move radially) Node 16: 8 displacement= 0 (free to move axially, radially and to rotate about thee axis} Numerical Data: Material: concrete Modulus of Elasticity= E = 4.031 x 10 6 psi Thickness= t = 36" Radius= R = goon Poisson's Ratio= u = 0.17 Pressure= p = 60 psi Length; L = 1800" N = 27,000 lb/in (an equivalent node load applied at Node 16) The theoretical values for the membrane force resultants were calculated to be pR/2 (= 27,000 lb/in) axial force, and pR {= 54,000 lb/in) for the circumferential force (hoop direction) . Rev. 51, 02/97 3.8A-3
SSES-FSAR The results obtained from the ASHSD program are presented in Table 3.8A-l, both for the thin shell and the layered shell models. Analytical computations indicated maximum errors at Node 16 of .4% for the longitudinal force and 3.2% for the circumferenti al force. Sample Problem: Cyclindrical Shell Subjected to Internal Pressure and Uniform Temperature Rise This test example demonstrated the use of a combined static load and thermal load condition. A short circular cylindrical shell clamped at both ends was subjected to an internal pressure and a uniform temperature rise. The theoretical solutions given in Reference 3.SA-2 were used to verify this analysis. This test used a short cylinder that was clamped at both ends. The cylinder had an internal pressure applied and was subjected to a uniform temperature increase. The general arrangement is shown in Figure 3.8A-3. Because of symmetry, only one-half of the cylinder was used for the finite element model. This is shown in Figure 3.SA-4 with Node 1 located at the middle of the cylinder. For the purpose of inputting the thermal coefficient of expansion of this isotropic shell, it was required to identify the shell material as orthotropic. Boundary Conditions: At center of cylinder, Node 1: Z displacement = O B displacement = O Rotation in the R-Z plane= o At end of cylinder, Node 26: R displacement o z displacement ; o e displacement = o (tangential) Rotation in the R-Z plane::;;; 0 Rev. 51, 02/97 3.8A-4
SSES-FSAR Numerical Data Material: concrete Modulus of Elasticity~ E = 4,030,508 psi Poisson's Ratio - u = 0.17 Thermal Coefficient of Expansion - Ci. = 55 x 10- 7 in/in!°F Thickness~ t = 30" Radius= R = 600 8 Length= L ~ 1200" Pressure= p = 60 psi Temperature= T = 150°F R/t = 20 L/R = 2 The theoretical results are shown in Figure 3. SA- 5. These values were obtained by using the following equations from Reference 3.8A-2: Axial Moment: where and Et 3 Dx;;: 12 (l-v 2 ) Normalized length: Ln. ~ ~/R) (L/2R) Figure 3 . BA,;. 5 compares the results obtained from the ASHSD program and the theoretical solution. The results of ASHSD agree well with those of the reference. Sample Problemi Asymmetric Bending of a Cylindrical Shell The purpose of this test example was to illustrate the use of higher harmonics for asymmetric loading cases. As a comparison to the computer output, results for this problem were taken from B. Budiansky and P. P. Radkowski's Numerical Analysis of Unsymmetric Bending of Shells of Revolution (Reference 3. 8A-3) . Rev. 51, 02/97 3. SA-5
SSES-FSAR The cylindrical shell that was analyzed was a short, wide cylinder as shown in Figure 3. BA-6. The finite element idealization of the cylinder and the pertinent data are illustrated in Figure 3.8A-7. At each end of the cylinder, moments of the fonn M =M O cos 0 were input for harmonics n = o, 2, 5, 20. The problem parameters are as follows: Material: steel E = 29 X 10 6 psi t = 1.25 11 R = 60.0 11 u = 0.3 L :r;i,: 60.0 11
= L/R = 1 R/t = 48 Mo = Et 2 100(1-u 2 )
= 497939.56 lb - in/in The comparison results were taken directly from the reference.
Those results were plotted in Figures 3.BA-8-1 and 3.8A-8-2. The comparison of the computer results to the reference results are shown in Figures 3.SA-8-l and 3.SA-8-2. (Note that the longitudinal momenta and radial displacements are expressed as nondimensional ratios.) The reference and computer results showed good agreement. This verified the accuracy of the program for this type of analysis.
- 3. SA. 3 CECAP CECAP computes stresses in a concrete element under thermal and/or non-thermal (real) loads, considering effects of concrete cracking. The element represents a section of a concrete shell or slab, and may include two layers of reinforcing, transverse reinforcing, prestressing tendons, and a liner plate.
CECAP assumes linear stress-strain relationships for steel and concrete in compression. Concrete is assumed to have no tensile strength. The solution is an iterative process, whereby tensile stresses found initially in concrete are relieved (by cracking) and redistributed in the element. Equilibrium of nonthermal loads is preserved. For thermal effects, the element is assumed free to expand inplane, but fixed against rotation. The capability for expansion and Rev. 51, 02/97 3. 8A-6
SSES-FSAR cracking generally results in a reduction in thermal stresses from the initial condition. To verify this program, example problems were analyzed by CECAP and compared with hand calculation solutions. These example problems considered a reinforced concrete beam as shown in Figure 3.SA-9. The problem parameters are as follows: Concrete modulus of elasticity, Ee = 3 X 10 6 psi Rebar modulus of elasticity, Es = 30 X 10 6 psi Concrete Poisson's ratio, Uc = .22 Concrete coefficient of thermal CX.c = 6 X 10- 6 in/in/°F expansion Temperature difference llT = 100°F Rebar coefficient of thermal O!R = Cle expansion Three sample problems are presented as examples of verification. Sample Problem; Beam with a Thermal Moment The analysis of a reinforced concrete beam subjected to a linear thermal gradient was performed to test the redistribution of thermal stresses due to the relieving effect of concrete cracking. The results were compared with hand calculations. Figure 3. BA-10 shows the reinforced concrete beam and the corresponding CECAP concrete element used in the analysis. Boundary. conditions, geometry, and applied loads are illustrated. The following illustrates how thermal loads are treated in a cracked section analysis of a reinforced concrete beam. The main assumptions pertaining to thermal boundary conditions are: (1) The beam is allowed to expand freely axially. ( 2) There is no rotation of the initial thermal stress slope. Rev. 51, 02/97 3. BA-7
SSES-FSAR The beam cross-section and initial thermal stress distribution are shown in Figure 3. BA-11. For T - 100°F, the equivalent thermal moment and concrete and rebar stresses are: M ::;: ATacEcbt 2 /12 = {100) (6x10- 6 ) (3x10 6 ) (12) {42) 2 /12
= 3,175,000 in-lbs (JC = 6TacEc/2 ::: (100) {6x10- 6 ) (3x10 6 ) /2 = 900 psi
{compression) (JC (t/2-2) ae = {21-2} 900 = 814 psi (tension) t/2 21 The stress diagram used for the cracked section analysis with thermal loading is shown in Figure 3. SA-12. The assumptions of free movement axially and constant thermal stress slope are maintained by a lateral translation of the initial reference axis to a final cracked position. From force equilibrium: Frebar + Fconcrete ~ 0 Frebar Fconcrete Solving for ac*,
!Hlc = 582 psi Rebar and concrete stresses are:
fs = (814+582)10 = 13,970 psi (Tension) fc ~ 900-582 = 318 psi (Compression) Location of cracked neutral axis is: kd - x = ( goo-sa 2 ) 21 = 7.42 in. 900 Rev. 51, 02/97 3.BA-8
SSES-FSAR Self-relieved thermal moment is: _ 13970 (1) (40-2. 47) _ inch-lb 43 690 12 ' inch The rebar and concrete stresses, self-relieved thermal moment and neutral axis location obtained from the CECAP program are compared with the hand calculations in Table 3.BA-2. It can be seen that the CECAP results compare favorably with the hand calculations. sample Problem; Beam With a Real Moment The analysis of a reinforced concrete beam subjected to a real moment was performed to test the CECAP program for non-thermal moments. The results were compared with hand calculations. Figure 3.BA-13 shows the loading and geometry for the reinforced concrete beam and the corresponding CECAP concrete element model. The following illustrates the working stress analysis of reinforced concrete beams. The beam cross-section, stress block, and transformed sections are shown in Figure 3.8A-14. The resultant forces and moment are: (kd) (b} /2 T = Ai, fs M = Cjd = Tjd Equating the first moments of the compression and tension areas about the neutral axis of the transformed section, kd(b)J.kdl_ = nAs (d - kd) 2 which yields kd2 + l.67kd - 66.67 = 0 Solving for kd; kd = 7.37 in. Rev. 51, 02/97 3.BA-9
SSES-FSAR The resultant forces are: C==T=- = 3,175,000 M jd (40 - Lfl) C; T = 84,570 lb. Rebar and concrete stresses are: J_ fs = As ::::: 84,574 psi (tension) fc ::::: 2C = ~(~i,S7il = 1,193 psi (compression) kdb (7. 37) (12) Table 3.BA-3 shows a comparison of rebar and concrete stresses and neutral axis locations obtained from the CECAP program and hand calculations. The CECAP results are shown to compare to hand calculations within the force accuracy limits in the p:r::ogram. Sample Problem: Beam with a Real Moment and a Real Axial L This verification problem involves the analysis of a reinforced concrete beam subjected to both a real moment and a real axial compressive load. A hand calculation solution using the equations presented in Reference 3. BA-4 was obtained and compared with the CECAP results. The loading and geometry for the reinforced concrete beam and corresponding CECAP model are illustrated in Figure 3.8A-15. The following illustrates the working stress analysis of reinforced concrete beams subjected to both moments and axial compressive loads. The beam cross-section and stress block are shown in Figure 3. SA-16. The analysis uses the equations presented in Reference 3. SA-4, which are simplified to the following: 6nA 6nA d (1) (kd) 3 + 3 ( !! - ~) (kd) 2 + - - 8 Cd-~+~) (kd) - _bs (d-~ +l!) = O N 2 b 2N 2N Rev. 51, 02/97 3.8A-10
SSES-FSAR (2) {3) fgkd M fc = - - - - for - 2: t/6 n(d - kd} N Equation (1) becomes: kd3 + 55.8kd2 - 293kd = 11720 = o M/N = 317500 = 31.4 ~ t/6 = 42 = 7 101000 6 Solving the above equations by iteration for kd yields: kd = 12.7 in. The resulting rebar and steel stresses are: f - 101000 (Jl. 4 + 12
- 7 / 3 - 21 ) ::.:. 41 320 psi ( Tension)
B - 1.0 )40 - 12.7/3} ' t c -_ 41320 (12. 7) ( _ . ?) = 1,922 psi (Compression) 10 40 12 The rebar and concrete stresses and neutral axis location obtained from the CECAP program are compared with the hand calculations in Table 3. 8A-4. The results for the two solution methods agree very closely. 3.8A-4 CE 668 This program performs the linear elastic analysis of a plate with arbitrary shape and supports, stiffener beams, and elastic subgrade, under loads normal to the middle plane of the plate. This program was verified by comparing selected hand calculated values to CE 668 values with the deflections and moments of a rectangular plate for different loading and support conditions. Rev. 51, 02/97 3.8A-11
SSES-FSAR Sample Problem: Rectangular Plate with a Concentrated Load at the Center The simply supported rectangular plate, shown in Figure 3. 8A-17 was subjected to a concentrated load of 300 lbs. at the center. Because of symmetry only half of the plate was modelled by the finite elements. The boundary conditions were zero displacement with free normal rotation at the simply supported edges and free displacement with zero normal rotation at the symmetry axis. The plate had isotropic structural properties. The problem parameters are as follows: Poisson's Ratio u = 0.3 Young's Modulus E = 2.9 X 10 7 psi Thickness h = 0.5 in. Concentrated Load p :::: 300 lb. The formulas for the deflections and moments were taken from Reference 3.SA-5. a) Deflection 3 0 0 ( 10 0) 12 {1- ( . 3) 2 )
@ center w = . 01695 Pa 2 = . 01695 D (2. 9 X 10 7 ) (. 53) w = . 00153 in. @ Node 116 b) Moments The hand calculated values for deflections and moments are compared with the CE 668 values in Table 3.8A-5. The results are very close with the greatest difference being 1.55%.
Sample Problem: Uniform Load on a Rectangular Plate With various Edge conditions The rectangular plate had one edge fixed, one edge free, and two edges simply supported as shown in Figure 3.SA-18. It was subjected to a uniformly distributed load of intensity q = 2.0 psi. Because of symmetry only half of the plate was modelled by finite elements. Boundary conditions were specified according to the appropriate edge support conditions. Rev. 51, 02/97 3.8A-12
SSES-FSAR MX (for b> >) a 1 - sin 7T X
@x = 2,y = 0 MX = - P ( 1 + v ) ln [ a ]
8 11' 1 + sin 1r X a 1 - sin 7r Mx = - 3 0 0 ( 1
- 3 ) 1n [ 5 ] == ( -1 s . s 2 } { -1 . 3 4 s )
811' n 1 + sins Mx. = 2 0 . 9 2 lb - in. @ Node 113 My : (for b > > a) 1 - sin~
@x = 6 ,Y + o My =
-P(l +v) ln (
a ] 81T" 7T' X 1 +sin-a-1 - sin 3 1r]
-300 (1.3)
= ln [ 5 ]
87r 31T 1 + sin 5
= (-15.52) (-3.685)
My = 57 .198 lb-in@ Node 117 The problem parameters are as follows: Poisson's Ratio u = 0. 3
- Young's Modulus E I::! 2.9 X 10 7 psi Thickness h ::::; 0.2 in.
Load Intensity q :::; 2.0 psi The formulas used to calculate the deflections and moments were taken from Reference 3.8A-5. a) Deflection
@x = 15,y= 15w = .0582 (gb 4
}
.0582 [2(15)*(12) (1-(.3) 2 ) ]
D (2.9 X 10 7 ) ( .2) 3 w = .277 in. @Nodell b} Moments The hand calculated values for the deflection and moments are compared to the CE 668 results in Table 3.SA-6. The results Rev. 51, 02/97 3.8A-13
------------- --~--~-~~-- ------------- ---.
SSES-FSAR
@x ;;:; 1s, y = 1s Mx =
- 0293 ga 2 = . 0293 (2} (30) 2 Mx_ = 52. 74 in-lbs @ Node 11 My:
@x = 1s, y ::;: o My =
- 319 gb 2 * =
- 319 ( 2 ) ( 15 ) 2 My = 143. 55 in-lbs. @ Node 121 agree closely, with the largest difference being 3.4%.
- 3. BA. 5 EASE EASE (Elastic Analysis for Structural Engineering) performs static analysis of two- and three-dimensional trusses and frames, plane elastic bodies and plate and shell structures.
The finite element approach is used with standard linear or beam elements, a plane stress triangular element or a triangular plate bending element. The EASE program accepts thermal loads as well as pressure, gravity, or concentrated loads. The program output includes joint displacements, beam forces and triangular element stresses and moments. EASE was developed by the Engineering Analysis Corporation, Redondo Beach, California, in 1969 and is in the public domain. The version currently used by Bechtel is maintained by the Control Data Corporation, Cybernet Service. 3.8A.6 E0119 This program performs an analysis of a bolted flange. Flange dimensions reflect the corroded condition. Symbols, terms, and mathematics are in accordance with Appendix XI of ASME Code Section III. Stress values for both design (operating) and bolt-up conditions are printed. Both allowable and actual stresses are printed out for bolts, longitudinal flange stress, radial flange stress, and tangential flange stress. The shape constants and moments are printed out for information only. Two program solutions are included in verifying Program EO119. A welding neck flange design and a slip-on flange design have been prepared. Also attached are solutions of the same problems as published in Bulletin 502, Modern Flange Design from Gulf & Western Manufacturing Company (Reference 3.8A-6). Rev. 51, 02/97 3.BA-14
SSES-FSAR The problem parameters for the two sample problems are as follows: Design pressure g 400 psi Design temperature= 500°F Atmospheric temperature= 75°F Poisson's ratio: 0.30 Corrosion allowance= O Gasket width== 0.75" Effective gasket width~ 0.306" Gasket Factor= 2.75 Gasket seating strength= 3700 psi Sample Problem; welding Neck Flange Figure 3. BA-19 shows the dimensions of the welding neck flange. Table 3.8A-7 compares the results of E0119 computer program with those published in Reference 3.8A-6. The results compare very closely. Sample Problem; slip-on Flange Figure 3. BA-20 shows the dimensions of the slip-on flange. Table 3.BA-8 compares the results of EO119 computer program with those published in Reference 3.BA-6. The results compare very closely.
- 3. SA. 7 E078l The Shells of Revolution Program was developed by Aerturs Kalnin while at Yale University. The Mathematics are based on a method of analysis contained in his paper 11 Analysis of Shells of Revolution Subjected to Symmetrical and Non-Symmetrical Loads" published in the Journal of Applied Mechanics, Vol. 31, September, 1964 (Reference 3.8A-7).
This program calculates the stresses and displacements in thin walled elastic shells of revolution when subjected to static edge, surface, and/or temperature loads with arbitrary distribution over the surface of the shell. The Geometry of the shell must be symmetric, but the shape of the median is arbitrary. It is possible to include up to three branch shells with the main shell in a single model. In addition, the shell wall may consist of different orthotropic materials, and the thickness of each layer and the elastic properties of each layer may vary along with the median. Rev. 51, 02/97 3.8A-15
SSES-FSAR Program E0781 numerically integrates the eight ordinary first order differential equations of thin shell theory derived by H. Reissner. The equations are derived such that the eight variables are chosen which appear on the boundaries of the axially symmetric shell so that the entire problem can be expressed in these fundamental variables. Kalnin's program has been altered such that a 4 x 4 force-displacement relation can be used as a boundary condition as an alternative to the usual procedure of specifying forces or displacements. This force-displacement relation can be used to describe the forces at the boundary in terms of displacements at the boundary, or the displacements at the boundary in terms of forces or some compatible combination of the two. In this manner, it is possible to study the behavior of a large complex structure. It is also possible to introduce a "Spring Matrix" at the end of any part of the stress model. This matrix must be expressed in the form, Force = Spring Matrix X Displacement. In addition, to the above changes, the Kalnin's Program has been modified to increase the size of the problem that can be considered and to improve the accuracy of the solution. This program was verified by comparing the computer results with experimental measurements and published references. Two sample problems are presented as examples of verification. Sample Problem: Comparison of 2:1 Ellipsoidal and Torispherical Heads Subjected to an Internal Pressure Load This problem illustrates Program E0781's ability to generate cylindrical, torispherical, and ellipsoidal shapes. A comparison is made to an experimental investigation of 2:1 ellipsoidal heads subjected to internal pressure (see Reference 3.SA-8). The problem consists of comparing a 2:1 ellipsoidal head to an equivalent torispherical head subjected to the same uniformly distributed internal pressure. An equivalent torisphere will be defined as one having the same height above the tangent line as the ellipsoid and a minimal L/b ratio (thus having the least possible discontinuity between the torus and the sphere). For the geometry shown in Figure 3.8A-21: (L-b) sin ¢ 0 = A-r (1) {L-b) cos ¢ 0 - L-B (2) Rev. 51, 02/97 3.SA-16
SSES-FSAR Minimizing L/b using (1) and (2): tan ¢ 0 = B/ A = 0. 5019
¢ 0 = 26. 653° 2
C = B/ A + A/ B = 2. 4 94 L = lB.l 9 [2.5 + V6.22 - 4.99) = 32.778 11 2 b = B [B / A - L/ A] + A = 9 . 13 [ . 5019 - 1. 8019 8] + 18 . 19 = 6 . 3 2 " Note: For purpose of calculation: A = 18.19 11 B = 9.13" from Figure 3.8A-21 Segment lengths used are: cylinder - Yrt = V 18.16 (0.31) = 2.37 tori sphere 5° to 10° - 4 @ 1. 25° 10° to 26.567° - 4. @ 4.13° 26.567° to 90° - 6@ 10.57° ellipsoid 5° to 10° - 4 @ 1. 25° 1 oO to 3 0° - 4 @ 5° 3 OO to 90° - 6 @ 10° Boundary Conditions: It will be assumed that at 5° from the pole a membrane state of stress exists in both the ellipsoid and the torisphere: Q = M</> = 0 Nef> = pr 2 sin¢ Rev. 51, 02/97 3.BA-17
SSES-FSAR where r = distance to pole= 32.778 11 Q = tranverse shear in direction. M¢ = moment resultant in¢ direction. N¢ = membrane force in¢ direction. Letting p = 680 psi Then for the torisphere: N¢ = {680/2) (32.778) = 11,144.5 lb/in. If N¢ = 11,144.5 lb/in., a preliminary run yields Q = 95.202 lb/in., so a new value for N¢ for the torisphere was calculated: 6.N = 6. _Jl..._ tan¢ N¢ 11,144.5 + aN = 10056. 3 lb/in. and an appropriate membrane state was generated. For the ellipsoid r = A sin¢ R where R = / ci + ( 1- c1 ) sin 2¢ c1 = (B/A} 2
= o.2s19 2
R == V.2519 + .7481 (0.0871557) = 0.5075 Nt/>= A sin¢ P = 18
- 19 <680 > =12 185.781b/in.
R 2 sin¢ 2 {0
- 5075 ) '
To better compare the heads it seemed desirable to have the longitudinal displacement at the center of the cylinder O (µ¢ = 0). So the problem was run twice, the first run yielding the radial displacement, W required for O displacement at the center (W = 0.0966").
- 1. Start W ~ 0.0966" N¢ = 10,056 lb/in M¢ = N = 0
- 2. End Q ~ N = M¢ = 0 N~ = 12,186 lb/in.
Figure 3.BA-24 shows the analytical model with boundary conditions. Rev. 51, 02/97 3.SA-18
SSES-FSAR Results To check the results, first the answers at the boundaries should be examined. It was assumed that there was a membrane state of stress at the boundaries and, therefore, at the edges Q and M must be appro~imately 0. o Clbs/in) M¢ Cin. - lbs/in.) Start - 0.01027 0.0 End - 0.0008613 -0.0001487 Also to satisfy equilibrium in the cylinder, N¢ ..:: o. Spr = 6169 lb/in. Plots of the hoop force and longitudinal bending from EO781 results compare the ellipsoidal and torispherical heads. Even though the change in radii has been minimized the disturbance at the junction of the sphere and torus is considerable (see Figure 3.BA-25). Comparison to the experimental ellipsoidal head shows good correlation of stress values. See Figures 3. 8A-26 through
- 3. 8A-30 for plots V¢ and VB on the inside, outside, and meridian of the head. Deviations are caused by the changes in thickness and the experimental head's variation from a true 2:1 ellipsoidal head.
sample Problem; Cylindrical water Tank with Tapered walls This problem illustrates Program E0781's capability to analyze a pressure load with one fixed boundary condition and one free boundary condition. The problem used for this verification is "Shell of Variable Thickness" taken from 11 Stressea in Shells", by W. Flugge, pp. 289-295 (Reference 3.BA-9). The problem consists of a tapered shell filled with water. The shell has a radius of 9' -0" and is 12' -on high. The shell thickness varies from 11" at the bottom to 3n at the top. See Figure 3.8A-31 for location of the Z axis. The length of a segment is 18" (v'rt ) . _ Taking the weight of water as 62.5 lb/ft 3 , the pressure at the bottom of the tank is p = (12 ft) (62.5 1b/ft 3 ) = 5 _2083 psi 144 inl/ftl Rev*. 51, 02/97 3.BA-19
SSES-FSAR The pressure at the top is zero. The pressure varies linearly so that only two points are needed in the function generator in order to fully describe the function. Boundary conditions W - displacement normal to surface U¢ - displacement component in~ direction B¢ - rotation of reference surface in¢ direction Q - transverse shear in¢ direction N¢ - membrane force in¢ direction M¢ - moment resultant in¢ direction
- 1. fixed at start W ::z Uc/; ;;; 0
- 2. free at end Q = N¢ = 0 Results Table 3.BA-9 lists the Program EO781 results and compares them with the theoretical solutions from Reference 3.SA-9 at two locations.
Program EO781 gives a maximum hoop force, N8 = 346.8 lb/in. = 4160 lb/ft at 54 11 from the base. This value differs from the theoretical solution of 4180 lb/ft by 0.48%. Program EO781 gives a maximum moment of the base, M¢ = 1539 in-lb/in. ~ -1539 ft-lb/ft. This value differs from the theoretical solution of -1470 ft-lb/ft by 4.69%. 3.BA.8 FINEL This program performs the static analysis of stresses and strains in plane and axisymmetric structures by the finite element method. In this method, the structure is idealized as an assemblage of two-dimensional finite elements of triangular or quadrilateral shapes having arbitrary material properties. Reinforcement of concrete materials is included by adjusting the element material properties. Special emphasis is made on bilinearity in compression and bilinearity or cracking in tension. FINEL computes the displacements of the corners of each element and the stresses and strains within each element. To verify this program, example problems were analyzed by FINEL and compared to experimental and/or hand calculated solutions. Three sample problems are presented as examples of verification. Rev. 51, 02/97 3.BA-20
~-------------------~~~-------------------------
SSES-FSAR Sample Problem: Simply Supported Beam with a Concentrated Load at the center The beam shown in Figure 3.8A-32 has been the subject of an experimental and analytical investigation. The purpose of this investigation is to* compare results obtained from the FINEL program with those obtained from References 3.8A-13 and 3.8A-14. The finite element mesh used in Reference 3.BA-14 and in the FINEL analysis are shown in Figures 3. BA-33 and 3. SA-34, respectively. The FINEL analysis required a finer mesh because it used linear displacement elements while Reference 3.8A-14 used quadratic displacement elements. The material properties of the concrete and reinforcing steel, and the loading history used in the FINEL analysis are given in Tables 3.SA-10 and 3.BA-11, respectively. This problem was not continued beyond the yield point of the reinforcing steel due to an error in the FINEL program. The stiffness of an element which yielded should have been determined according to: where, E0 = initial material stiffness or modulus Ty = yield stress T = element stress, in yield direction, at end of previous cycle (<Ty) n = Eplast /Eo ; Eplast -= plastic stiffness Eeff = effective stiffness, in yield direction, to use in next cycle A new Eeff should be calculated after each cycle. The FINEL program calculated an Eeff only after the first cycle following yielding, (or first cycle in a restart run) , and used the value of E for all subsequent cycles in the same computer run. (This error could be overcome by making a series of one cycle restart runs). The cracking patterns obtained from Reference 3. BA-14 and FINEL are shown in Figures 3. SA-35-1 and 3. SA-35-2. The load-deflection curves from References 3.8A-13 and 3.8A-14 and the FINEL analysis are shown in Figure 3. BA-36. The load Rev. 51, 02/97 3.SA-21
SSES-FSAR deflection curve obtained from the FINEL analysis show very good agreement with the experimental results. The cracked region grows faster in the FINEL analysis and more slowly in Reference 3. SA-14, since the FINEL and Reference 3. BA-14 load-deflection curves show difference gradients (stiffnesses) . The results of analytical, experimental, and FINEL solutions are shown in Figure 3.SA-36. The FINEL analysis agrees well with the experimental results up to the point where the reinforcing steel in the beam yields. After the yield point, the FINEL analysis incorrectly calculated the effective stiffness of elements which have yielded. Therefore, the solution was not valid for further loadings. However, since all reinforcing steel remains elastic for the containment analysis, the FINEL program is verified and restricted for that application. Sample Problem: Axially Constrained Hollow Cylinder with a Distributed Pressure Loading This verification involves the response of an axially constrained hollow cylinder to internal pressure. A hand calculated solution yields values of tangential, axial, and radial stresses at various radii from the center of the cylinder, which are then compared to the FINEL values. The finite element model is illustrated in Figure 3. SA-37. Nodal points are free to move only in the radial direction, representing the conditions of axisymmetry and plane strain. The problem parameters are as follows: Poisson's Ratio u = 0.25 Young's Modulus E = 4.32 x 10 5 ksf Number of nodal points == 22 Number of elements = 10 Internal Pressure P = 1.0 ksf From Reference 3.BA-15, the following equations were used: hoop or tangential stress, T, : Rev. 51, 02/97 3. BA-22
SSES-FSAR axial stress, T z 2 T _ p a z - z 2 2 b - a radial stress, T: R where a = 65.0 ft. b ;:; 68.75 ft. p = 1.0 ksf a s r s b The results from FINEL for tangential, axial, and radial stresses of the hollow cylinder are compared with the hand calculated values in Table 3.SA-12. The results are exactly the same except for one value where there is only 4 .17% difference. Sample Problem: Axially Constrained Hollow Cylinder with a Linear Temperature Gradient The response of an axially constrained hollow cylinder to a radially varying linear temperature gradient was the problem used for this verification. The tangential, axial, and radial stresses were determined by hand calculations and compared to the FINEL results. Figure 3. 8A-38 illustrates the finite element mesh. The conditions of axisymmetry and plane strain were imposed by using the axisymmetric quadrilateral element and restraining all nodes against axial displacement. The temperature profile is shown in Figure 3.SA-39. Rev. 51, 02/97 3.SA-23
SSES-FSAR The problem parameters are as follows; Poisson's Ratio V = 0.25 Young's Modulus E = 4.32 x 10 5 ksf Coefficient of Thermal Expansion Ci :::::; 6 X 10- 6 ft/ft/°F Number of nodal points =: 22 Number of elements = 10 From References 3.SA-16 and 3.BA-17, the following equations were used: hoop or tangential stress, ~, 2 + 2 68 = CiE l [( r a ) /1 Trdr + _F' Tr 1 dr 1 - TR 2 ] 1-v r2 b2 _ a2 a a axial stress, 6z radial stress, Or where: a = 65. O ft. b:; 68.75 ft. T = T(r) = temperature above reference (TREF = 100°F) Expression for the temperature field: T (a) = 2 5 = C1 + 6 5
- 0 C2 T ( b) = - 2s = c1 + 6 a. 7SC2 Rev. 51, 02/97 3.BA-24
~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ - ~ ~ - = - = - - - -................................_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _-ii SSES-FSAR solving, C2 = -50 = -13.33 68.75-65 Cl = 68.75(-13.33) = 891.67 then T(r) = -13.33r + 891.67 Evaluation of the integral: J Trdr - J (-13.33r + 891.67) rdr
-13. 33r3 + 891. 67r2 + C 3 2
= -4.44r 3 + 445.83r1 + C r Tr' dr' = -4. 44 (r3 -a 3 ) + 445. 83 (r2-a1 )
af The results from FINEL for the tangential, axial, and radial stresses are compared with the values obtained by hand calculations in Table 3.8A-13. The results between the two methods of solution agree very closely. 3.8A.9 ME 62Q The heat conduction program, ME 620, is used to determine the temperature distribution, as a function of time, within a plane or axisymmetric solid body subjected to step-function temperature or heat flux inputs. The program is also used for steady-state temperature analysis. The program utilizes a finite element technique coupled with a step-by-step time integration procedure as described in 11 Application of the Finite Method to Heat Conduction Analysis" by E. L. Wilson and R. E. Nickell {Reference 3.SA-18). The program was developed at the University of California, Berkeley, by Professor E. L. Wilson and subsequently modified by Bechtel Corporation to incorporate the save and restart capabilities. Rev. 51, 02/97 3.BA-25
SSES-FSAR To verify this program, example problems were analyzed by ME 620 and compared with program data. Two sample problems are presented as examples of verification. Sample Problem: Heat Conduction in a Square Plate with one Edge ouenched This problem tested the ability of the program to solve the temperature changes in a plane region subjected to conduction boundary conditions. The plate was brought to an equilibrium temperature and one edge was quenched while the other three edges were kept insulated. A square plate was brought to equilibrium at a given initial temperature, T . Three edges were perfectly insulated while a third edge was suddenly brought to a lower temperature, T This quench was kept constant for the .entire analysis. A temperature time history was then obtained for the corner farthest from the quenched edge. Figure 3.8A-40 shows the actual plate arrangement, while Figure 3.SA-41 shows a diagram of the finite elements. The problem parameters are as follows: Nomenclature L = length of longest heat flow path T0 = initial temperature of slab (°F) T1 = quenching temperature of edge (°F)
~:
The plate was 10 11 x 10" square. T0 = 100°F T1 = 0°F Diffusivity a= 1.0 in2 /sec (chosen for convenience) Time increment ~T - 1 second for numerical solution At any time t during the transient state, the time factor T (or characteristic time) is given by T = a t/L2
- The time to reach steady-state is given when T = 1.0, hence the transient time is t = L2 / ~ = 100 seconds. The results derived from Reference 3.SA-19 are plotted in Figure 3.BA-42.
Rev. 51, 02/97 3.8A-26
SSES-FSAR The temperature variation at point A was plotted in Figure 3.8A-42 according to the results of ME 620 and compared with the theoretical transient change. The curves are seen to agree quite well. Deviations are due to the selected finite* element mesh size and to the selected time step for the analysis. Sample Problem: Heat Conduction in a Surface Quenched sphere This problem tested the ability of ME 620 to analyze the temperature distribution in an axisymmetric solid with given temperature boundary conditions. The results of the program analysis were compared to a closed-form solution derived from Reference 3.SA-20. This problem considered a solid steel sphere (shown in Figure 3. SA-43} that was brought to an equilibrium temperature, and then its surface was suddenly quenched to a lower uniform temperature. The quenching environment was held at a ~onstant temperature. A temperature-time history for three seconds was obtained from the program for all node points. The points used for the comparison were at a radius of 0.2 inches, and only one time period was checked. The finite element model is shown in Figure 3.BA-44. The problem parameters are as follows: Nomenclature: L = length of the longest heat flow path (radius of sphere) T0 = initial temperature of sphere (°F) Ti ~ quenching temperature of outer surface (°F) Radius of sphere= R = .59 in. T0 ::. 1472°F Tl = 68°F Conductivity = 6. 02 x 10** Btu/in-sec-°F Diffusivity s Ol = . 0193 *in2 /sec Specific heat = .11 Btu/(lb-°F) Density = p = .284 lb/in 3 Time increment = .. 2 sec. At any time, t, during the transient state, the time factor T (or characteristic time) is given by T = a t/L 2
- The time to reach steady-state is given when T ~ 1.0, hence the transient time is t = L2 /a = 3.0 seconds. The result from Reference 20 Rev. 51, 02/97 3.8A-27
SSES-FSAR for the temperature at a radius of 0.2 inches at time t = 1.8 seconds; was 933.8°F. The temperatures from both the program and the reference are shown in Table 3.BA-14. There is an error of 1.1%. 3.BA.10 SUPERB SUPERB is a general-purpo se, isoparametric , finite element computer program. The program determines the displacement and stress characteristi cs of complex structures subjected to concentrated loads, pressure distributions , enforced displacements , and thermal gradients, as well as the temperature distribution due to steady-state heat transfer. Isoparametric elements with curved boundaries and high-order strain variations permit curved regions and area with high stress concentration s to be accurately represented with a minimum number of elements. The SUPERB program is a recognized program in the public domain and has had sufficient history of use to justify its application and validity without further demonstration . The version of the program currently used by Bechtel is maintained by the Control Data Corporation, Cybernet Service. 3,8A.11 REFERENCES
- 3. 8A-1 Wilson, E. L., 11 SAP; A General Structural Analysis Program", Report No. UCSESM 70-20, Structures and Materials Research, Department of Civil Engineering, University of California at Berkeley, September, 1976.
3 . BA-2 Kraus, H. , "Thin Elastic Shel ls" , John Wiley, publisher, 1967, p. 136. 3.BA-3 Budiansky, B. and P. P. Radkowski, Numerical Analysis of unsymmetric Bending of Shells of Revolution, AIAA Journal, Vol. 1, No. 8, August 1963.
- 3. BA-4 Blodgett, O. W., "Design of Welded Structures 11
, The James F. Lincoln Arc Welding Foundation, June, 1966, pp. 3.3 3.3-10.
3.BA-5 Timoshenko, Theory of Plates and Shells, 2nd Edition, McGraw-Hill, 1959, pp. 208-211. 3.BA-6 Bulletin 502, Modern Flange Design, Gulf and Western Manufacturing Company. Rev. 51, 02/97 3.SA-28
SSES-FSAR
- 3. BA-7 Kalnin, A., "Analysis of Shells of Revolution Subjected to Symmetrical and Nonsymrnetrical Loads", Journal of Applied Mechanics, Vol 31, September, 1964.
3.SA-8 Horowitz, J. M. and R. Henschel, Experimental Investigation of 2; 1 Ellipsoidal Heads Subjected to Internal Pressure (Volume one>, Progress Report January 17, 1974 to April 16, 1976, Foster Wheeler Energy Corp., for Welding Research Council. 3.BA-9 Flugge, w., Stresses in Shells, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1973.
- 3. BA-10 Gerdeen, J. c., The Effect of Geometrical variations on the Limit Pressures for 2;1 Ellipsoidal Head Vessels Under Internal Pressure, April. 1975, Michigan Technology University for Welding Research Council.
- 3. BA-11 Gerdeen, J. c., Progress Report on the Effect of Geometrical Variations on the Limit Pressures for Ellipsoidal Head Vessels. September 27. 1972, Michigan Technology University for Welding Research Council.
3.BA-12 Horowitz, J. M. and R. Henschel, Experimental Investigation of 2; 1 Ellipsoidal Heads subjected to Internal Pressure (Volume Two}, Progress Report January 17, 1974 to April 16, 1976, Foster Wheeler Energy Corp., for Welding Research Council. 3.BA-13 N. H. Burns and C. P. Siess, 11 Load Deformation Characteristics of Beam-Column Connections in Reinforced Concrete", Structural Research Series No. 234. Civil Engineering Studies, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Ill., January, 1962. 3.SA-14 M. Suidan and W. C. Schnobrich, "Finite Element Analysis of Reinforced Concrete", Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 99, No. STlO, pp. 2109-2122, October, 1973. 3.8A-15 Roark, Raymond, Formulas for Stress And Strain, McGraw-Hill, Fourth Edition, Copyright 1965, p. 308 3.8A-16 Timoehenko and Goodier, Theocy of Elasticity, Second Edition, McGraw-Hill, Copy right 1951, p. 412. 3.SA-17 Manson, Thermal Stress and Low Cycle Fatigue, McGraw-Hill, Copyright 1960, pp. 28-29. Rev. 51, 02/97 3.8A-29
SSES-FSAR 3.BA-18 Wilson, E. L. and Nickell, R. E., "Application of the Finite Element Method to Heat Conduction Analysis", Journal of Nuclear Engineering and Design, 1966. 3 . BA-19 Arpac i , V. S. , .:=:C~o~n:.:::d:.:U:,::C~t:.:i=o=n=---=H=e=a=t=----=-T-=r..i.::a=n:.i:.s=f.:.:.e:i:.:t::.r, Addison-Wesley, 1966.
- 3. 8A-20 Heat Conduction With Engineering, Geological, and Other Applications, Ingersol, Zobel, Ingersol, 1954, Maple Press Co., Inc., York, Pa., p. 165.
Rev. 51, 02/97 3.8A-30
SSES-FSAR TABLE 3.8A*1 TABULATION OF MEMBRANE STRESS RESULTANTS FROM THE ASHSD PROGRAM Thin Shell Layered Shell Longitudinal Circumferential Longitudinal Circumferential Node Point force *Force Force Force Jb/in lb/in lb/in lb/in 1 27000. 54004. 27000. 54004. 2 27000. 54005. 27000. 54005. 3 27000. 54008. 27000. 54008. 4 27000. 54012. 27000. 54012. 6 27000. 54015. 27000. 54015. 6 27000. 54012. 27000. 54012. 7 27001. 53999. 27001. 53999. 8 27001. 53968. 27001. 53968. 9 27001. 53912. 27001. 53912. 10 27000. 53829. 27000.
- 53829.
11 26999. 53731. 26999. 53731.
,2 26997. 53654. 26997. 53654.
13 26994. 53674. 26994. 53674. 14 26989. 53912. 26989. 53912. 15 26984. 54532. 26984. 54532. 16 27111. 55724. 27111. 55724. NOTE: Node Point 1 represents the center of the cylinder. Rev. 48, 12/94
SSES-FS AR TABLE 3.BA-2 CECAP and Hand Calculation Comparison - Thermal Gradient CtCAP HAND CALCULATIONS % ERROR
- t. 13,150 psi 13,790 psi 5.9 fc -331 psi -318 psi 4 .1 kd 7.55 in 7.42 in 1.8 Mr 43,760 in*lb/in 43,690 in-lb/in 0 .2 Rev. 48, 12/94
SSES-FSAR TABLE 3.SA-3 Comparison of CECAP and Hand Calculation Results - Real Moment CECAP HANO CALCULAT.tO:NS
% ERROR f5 79,170 psi 84,570 psi 6.4 fc -1,84.5 psi -1.913 psi 3.6 kd 7.6 in 7.4 in 2.7 i
.i Rev. 48, 12/94 f
SSES-FS AR CECAP and Hand Calculation Comparison - Real Moment and Real Compressive Load CECAP *HA.NC> CALCULATIONS % ERROR 41,620 psi 41,320 psi 0.7 1. fC *1908 psi *1922 psi 0.7 kd 12.2 in 12.7 in 3.9 Rev. 48, 12/94
SSES-F SAR TABLE 3.SA-5 Comparison of Results for the Rectangular Plate with a Concentrated load at the Center Hand Calculations CE 668 Deflection (in): @ Node 116 0.00153 0.00151 Moments (in-lbs): Mx@ Node 113 20.92 21.24 M1 @ Node 117 57.198 56.377 Rev. 48, 12/94
SSES-FSAR TABLE 3.SA-6 Comparison of Results for the Rectangular Plate with Various Edge Conditions Hand Calculations CE 668 Deflection (in): @ Node 11 0.277 0.278 Moments (in-lbs): Mx@ Node 11 52.74 50.92 Mx@ Node 121 143.55 142.28 Rev. 48, 12/94
SSES-FSAR TABLE 3.BA-7 Comparison of Stresses for Welding Neck Flange Allqwable Actual Stress (psi) Stress *-stre$s ,*** Corr'i'ponent (ps.i)_ -- . .
*:E<l'119 :Reference 3.SA-6 A. Design (opera~ing} condi_ti~n .
Bolts 25000 21801 -- Longitudinal 26250 22856 22865 Flange Radial Flange 17500 10981 10982 Tangential 17500 6799 6800 Flange
- 8. Bolt-up Condition Bolts 25000 6077 --
Longitudinal 26250 20278 20288 Flange Radial Flange 17500 9743 9744 Tangential 17500 6032 6033 Flange Rev. 48, 12/94
SSES-FSAR TABLE 3.8A-8 Comparison of Stresses for Slip-on Flange Allow~ble Actual Stress (psi) Stre~s . Stress* Component * (psi) * .
- EOi 19 Reference 3.SA-6 A. Design (operating) condition Bolts 25000 20971 *-
Longitudinal 26250 21160 21163 Flange Radial Flange 17500 11128 11128 Tangential 17500 13763 13764 Flange B. Bolt-up Condition Bolts 25000 5671 -- Longitudinal 26250 15644 15648 Flange Radial Flange 17500 8227 8228 Tangential 17500 10175 10177 Flange Rev. 48, 12/94
SSES-FSAR TABLE 3.SA-9 Comparison of Final Results for Hoop Force, N, and Meridional Moment, M,
. '.'.:: _* *.._.. . . .. . ... *.. ::* ..
- _: *_.: ....-.:.: .. :.. *.. *' ._:.:*:**/:-:' *:*.:::.**/::::::-::::::*.?.:._.;:::::*:=-:-: _.::_.*:::.:..-.::_- :_**:: .*.... ,.::--
. :* :* :::=: '* :, : ** * * * ** * ** * :: :
Dis~~=~f.rg~~i ::~!~iill:'~~li!l lf~ ~ ~ ,1;~:A~~~='~:ms o * * * * * * * *: * * * * ** ** * * * * * * * '* I 0.0 6.919 X 10"' -1539.0 M_. = *1470 ft-lb/ft 6.0 21.15 -903.9 12.0 71.29 -440.6 18.0 134.0 -124.8 24.0 194.3 71.47 30.0 253.3 177.1 36.0 297.2 218.3 42.0 327.3 192.8 48.0 343.3 192.8 54.0 346.8 167.1 N, = 4180 lb/ft 60.0 339.6 119.5 66.0 324.2 85.46 72.0 303.0 57.80 78.0 277.9 36.29 84.0 250.8 23.41 90.0 222.9 15.00 96.0 195.1 10.58 102.0 167.8 8.685 108.0 141.4 8.075 114.0 115.9 7.754 120.0 91.45 7.032 126.0 68.13 5.584 132.0
- 46.29 3.453 138.0 28.50 1.177 144.0 94.53 -1.481 x10*3 Rev. 48, 12/94
SSES-fSAR 1aterial Properties of the Concrete and Jeinforcin9_St~eJ. ysed_for PINEL_Yeriti,atj6n Pcoperty £2.9~1.:~1~ filf~A E 4.lx10 6 pal 29x10* psi V .1s
- 29 Tyield -4820 psi ,!44900 psi Eyield o. o.
+546 psi 1 crack -----
Ecrack 1.0 psi ----- Shear -;tiffnp:.;s tPduction factoc foe one~ cc~cked concret~ o. 5 Rev. 35, 07/84
SSES-PSAR
'Iahle_l.8A-11 Lo11iny History us01 for
_!.h.~_flN~1.__Y.~£!.!.i£~t.i2!L Lo -1 1, P Number of cycle~ ~t Loa1 for Conver1Pnco 1 lb. 1 8~700 lh. 4 20,000 lh. u 28,000 lb. 1 )l,200 lb. ij l*
- Reinforcing it@el yielded Rev. 35, 07/84
SSES-FS~R Table_l.1.BA-12
~~~~~J1~9D_Q!_~!I~§§_~~§~1!§ Ta]g~ntial_StressAksf Axial_StieSSiksf Radi3l_stressLk$f Hand Hand Hand Element r,ft. Calculated FINEL calculated tlNEL Calculate,i FINEL - _... _. __________ ~-----*-- ---------------------------...- ....---~----------- -- - - - -- - - - --
l 65.19 17. 79 17. 79 4.212 4.212 -0.95 -U.*J5 .2 65.56 17.69 17.69 4.212 4.212 -o.sq -0. 1H 3 oS. 9l4 17.58 17. 58 4.212 4.212 -0.71 -U.7J ij 66. 31 17 .48 17.48 ~-212 q.212 -o. 6 3 -0.61 5 66. 69 17 *.18 17. 38 ta.212 4.212 -0.5] -0.SJ 6 67.06 11. 28 17.:l8 4. l 1 l
- 4.212 -0.43 -0.43 1 67.44 17.18 17.18 4.212 4.212 -o. 3) - u. J .I H t;7.81 17.08 17.08 4. 212 ... 212 - 0. 2q -U.2J q 68.lq 16.99 16.99 ij.212 "-212 -0.1~ -U.lij 10 68.56 16.89 16.89 4. 212 4.212 -0.05 -o.or, Rev. 35, 07/84
SS ES-FSA R Table J.BA-13 comp~~iscn_o!_Stcess_Results Hand Haud Hand ElemPnt __ r~ft ___ Calculations FIN:L __ ca~~lation§_f!titL __ CalculatioD.§_flNE .l f5.i9 -78.Jtl -78.Jl -77.96 -77.96 -0.22 -0.] 2 65.*56 -60.67 -60.66 -60.68 -60.6t) -0.62 .. 0. '> J 6S.94 -43.10 - 4 3. 0 9 -4J.t40 -Ll3.40 -0.'H -0. *~ 4 <,6.Ji -25.t,J -25.62 -26.12 -26. 12 -1.10 - l. l
- 5 66.i,9 -
- 8. 26 - 8.25 - 8.64 - ij. 8 (4 -1.trl -1.1 6 6?.06 .9. 0 l 9.02 8. l,lij 8. 4 J4 -l.18 - l. 1
- 7 67.qij 26.lg 26.20 25.72 25.12 -1. OR -1. o, R. 67.dl 43.27 4].28 43.00 43.0C -0.'38 -0. u.
() bE.19 60.26 60.27 60.28 60.28 -0.5() - 0. Cj -~ 10 hcl.~6 77.lo 77.17 77.56 77.56 -o. 21 -o. n I Rev. 35, 07/84
SS F.!i- FSA fl Temp. 1.8
- seconds after quenchin g 92 l. 4 .
Rev. 35, 07/84
z 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 16 II 60"
- 900" 8
7 6 5 4 3 2 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.1...._ _ _____._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ R 1
*-R*900"-~
FSAR REV.65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT THIN SHELL CYLINDER FIGURE 3.8A-1, Rev. 47 Auto-Cad Figure Fsar 3_8A_1.dwg
t""t z L 12" L 18" 1 l 16 e 116 e 14 13 112 11 7 LENGTH (IN) 10 9 7 I 6 6 ELEMENT NUMBER L----------'::---:?:~~~--.....__________ 20 R Z RADIUS (IN) FSAR REV.65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT LAYERED CYLINDER FIGURE 3.8A-2, Rev. 47 Auto-Cad Figure Fsar 3_8A_2.dwg
LENGTH .. 1200" INTERNAL PRESSURE .P DIAMETER
- 1200" FSAR REV.65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT GENERAL LAYOUT OF CYLINDER FIGURE 3.8A-3, Rev. 47 Auto-Cad Figure Fsar 3_8A_3.dwg
HEIGHT z 600 26 --- 25 ENDOF7 24 CYLINDER 6@ 15"
- 90" 23 22 21 20 ----
19 18 17 16 15 14 THIN SHELL ELEMENTS 13 15
- 30"
- 450" 12 11 10 9
8 7 6 5 ---- 4 CENTER OF 3 4 @ 15"
- 60" CYLINDER 2 RADIUS R
~ 600" ~1
'I 1
FSAR REV.65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FINITE ELEMENT MODEL FIGURE 3.8A-4, Rev. 47 Auto-Cad Figure Fsar 3_8A_4.dwg
AXIAL MOMENT (LB/IN) 0.4 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ , r - - - ~ - - ~ ~ - - y - - - - - r - - - - - - . . 0.2---- _ ________. -*------ *******-*-*****- -
-0.6
- - ~ - - - - + - * -* --*-
*1.2 ----+-----l-----1-------1-------1~-----l----l-------l~-_.....--~
1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 NORMAUZED LENGTH 0 *ASHSD
- *REFERENCE FSAR REV.65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT AXIAL MOMENT FIGURE 3.8A-5, Rev. 47 Auto-Cad Figure Fsar 3_8A_5.dwg
LENGTH z 60" l 1 DIAMETER= 120" FSAR REV.65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT CYLINDER WITH HINGE ENDS FIGURE 3.8A-6, Rev. 47 Auto-Cad Figure Fsar 3_8A_6.dwg
z 27 26 25 24 6 II 1.5"
- 9" 23 22 21 ------
20 19 18 17 16 15 14 14 fl 3"
- 42" 13 12 11 10 9
B 1 6 6 4 e
- 1.s** -sr 3
2 1 FSAR REV.65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FINITE ELEMENT MODEL FIGURE 3.8A-7, Rev. 47 Auto-Cad Figure Fsar 3_8A_7.dwg
1.0 0.8 N*O 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 Z/L -0.2 0 0,1 0:2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.2
,.___-'---Z/L
-0.2 .___.._______....,J..._-J-_ _.,..._ __,...___,.___""-- _ o 0.1 0.2 o.3 o.4 o.s
- o.e o; 1 o.e o.s , .o o ASHSD (RADIAL DISPLACEMENT Wl 6 ASHSD (LONGITUDINAL MOMENT M>')
REFERENCE 3.BA-3 FSAR REV.65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT COMPARISON OF RESULTS FOR CYLINDRICAL SHELL SUBJECTED TO AN ASYMMETRIC BENDING FIGURE 3.8A-8-1, Rev. 47 Auto-Cad Figure Fsar 3_8A_8_1.dwg
1.0 w T 0.8 0.6 0.4 -0.2 .__-+---l---+---+--1-------l----4--~- o 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.0 * !, 0.8 * - ~- 1-----------*-- Mx N*20 Mo 0.6 0.4 \ --- w
/
~-T b 0.2
~ -- ~~
-~
----1 0 . ~
Z/L -0.2 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 O ASHSD (RADIAL DISPLACEMENT Wl 6 ASHSD (LONGITUDINAL MOMENT Mxl
- REFERENCE 3.8A-3 FSAR REV.65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT COMPARISON (CONT'D) OF RESULTS FOR CYLINDRICAL SHELL SUBJECTED TO AN ASYMMETRIC BENDING FIGURE 3.8A-8-2, Rev. 47 Auto-Cad Figure Fsar 3_8A_8_2.dwg
-*r--------- ------
40" 42" FSAR REV.65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT REINFORCED CONCRETE BEAM FIGURE 3.8A-9, Rev. 47 Auto-Cad Figure Fsar 3_8A_9.dwg
THERMAL GRADIENT REINFORCED CONCRETE BEAM 2$4,600 INi~B~ (UNCRACKEO) CECAP CONCRETE ELEMENT MODEL FSAR REV.65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT REINFORCED CONCRETE BEAM AND CECAP CONCRETE ELEMENT MODEL FIGURE 3.8A-10, Rev. 47 Auto-Cad Figure Fsar 3_8A_10.dwg
r l I- .- T
- 42" As*l.O IN~
J_ 2 s=12"-I T BEAM CROSS
- SECTION r-Oc---{
T...,__.., T/2 l_ INITIAL THERMAL STRESS DISTRIBUTION FSAR REV.65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT BEAM CROSS-SECTION AND INITIAL STRESS DISTRIBUTION FIGURE 3.8A-11, Rev. 47 Auto-Cad Figure Fsar 3_8A_11.dwg
r-9~PSl7 T21" l_ I
~ FINAL CRACKED NEUTRAL AXIS I
I I ~~ ~ :~1 4 INITIAL REFERENCE AXIS FSAR REV.65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FINAL THERMAL STRESS DISTRIBUTION FIGURE 3.8A-12, Rev. 47 Auto-Cad Figure Fsar 3_8A_12.dwg
3,175.200 IN-LBS REINFORCED CONCRETE BEAM 2"
~
- II I I I I..J...
--- I I
- u- -':.I....3 ....
IN 2 '
~
CECAP CONCRETE ELEMENT MODEL FSAR REV.65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT REINFORCED CONCRETE BEAM AND CECAP CONCRETE ELEMENT MODEL FIGURE 3.8A-13, Rev. 47 Auto-Cad Figure Fsar 3_8A_13.dwg
1 __ J_ 2 l---e=1z*~ T BEAM CROSS
- SECTION 1----Fc--l T
KO J_ JD
~---T f l l l l l l l l l l Illa NA.s STRESS BLOCK TRANSFORMED SECTION FSAR REV.65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT REINFORCED CONCRETE BEAM AND CECAP CONCRETE ELEMENT MODEL FIGURE 3.8A-14, Rev. 47 Auto-Cad Figure Fsar 3_8A_14.dwg
3,175,200 IN-LB REINFORCED CONCRETE BEAM 8417 LB/IN I I I I I I I - I 1-J.... I
*..J--~.......
3 IN2 ' , T
~':--RM I--, ..__ ..,
l CECAP CONCRETE ELEMENT MODEL FSAR REV.65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT REINFORCED CONCRETE BEAM AND CECAP MODEL FIGURE 3.8A-15, Rev. 47 Auto-Cad Figure Fsar 3_8A-15.dwg
KO
!"--Fc---1
~
T 2 T D r KD C M
~ __ o-fl 1= N
-T 2 *-
- T
~B---1 BEAM CROSS-SECTION STRESS BLOCK FSAR REV.65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT BEAM CROSS-SECTION AND STRESS BLOCK FIGURE 3.8A-16, Rev. 47 Auto-Cad Figure Fsar 3_8A_16.dwg
r*300 LB X
--i 20" B,. 40" 113 116 117 121
-111 I@ I R"
~ 110 I ' I I I
100 I@ foo' I ' 20" ' I 34 21 I - 23 - 12' r12_
~
,_L_ ,,0~ L
' l ' l A '~ ~
I J -A FSAR REV.65 z 10" - ' I' SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT PLATE GEOMETRY, LOADING AND FINITE ELEMENT MESH FOR RECTANGULAR PLATE WITH A CONCENTRATED LOAD AT THE CENTER FIGURE 3.8A-17, Rev. 47
'Auto-Cad Figure Fsar 3_8A-17.dwg
_x ----x SIMPLY SUPPORTED
- E l I I I I l I l I [ I I I I j
30"-----------, 15" i I 110
@ 121 99
@)
33 (io) 22
+
11 A* I I jo) PREE FIXED I I I I I lS"
) ~ ~
~
0
~ I.
zl 100 I 34 23 12 111 s,J y B
- 15" --'-
0 SIMPLY SUPPORTED FSAR REV.65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT PLATE GEOMETRY, LOADING AND FINITE ELEMENT MESH FOR RECTANGULAR PLATE WITH VARIOUS EDGE CONDITIONS FIGURE 3.8A-18, Rev. 47 Auto-Cad Figure Fsar 3_8A-18.dwg
---0.500" l
2.760" 2.000"
- 32.000"; -I 0.063"*___,1__,
i.......-- 37.000" ,P --~1 36*1" BOLTS .....___ 39.125" 'P J FSAR REV.65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT WELD NECK FLANGE DETAIL FIGURE 3.8A-19, Rev. 47 Auto-Cad Figure Fsar 3_8A-19.dwg
f 2.500" 1.125" 2.126" l 0.063"~--,
- 33.250" - - J 40
- 1.t' BOLTS~____....._~__, 38.150" f - - . . j
~ 40.376" t/> J FSAR REV.65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT SLIP-ON FLANGE DETAIL FIGURE 3.8A-20, Rev. 47 Auto-Cad Figure Fsar 3_8A_20.dwg
ZAXIS
- - - T (SEE FIG. 3.8A-22 &
FIG. 3.8A-23! 8=9.13" TORISPHERE B 6.32" 27.5" CYLINDER 8 = 9.13" ELLIPSOID l
.,.__ _ A~ 0/2
- 18.19" - - -
FSAR REV.65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT GEOMETRY OF TORISPHERICAL AND ELLIPSOIDAL HEADS (FIT TO CORRESPOND TO GEOMETRY OF ELLIPSOIDAL HEAD IN REFERENCE 3.8A-9) FIGURE 3.8A-21, Rev. 47 Auto-Cad Figure Fsar 3_8A_21.dwg
THICKNESS, INCHES 0.40 0.35 0.30 0.25
- MEASURED DATA
- ASSUMED VARIATION l -*---.. .-----------
0.20 ........... 20 30 40 60 60 COORDINATE,;, DEGREES 70 80 80 FSAR REV.65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT MEASURED THICKNESS VARIATION IN EXPERIMENTAL HEAD NO. 1 (FROM REF. 3.8A-10 PAGE 18) FIGURE 3.8A-22, Rev. 47 Auto-Cad Figure Fsar 3_8A_22.dwg
THICKNESS. INCHES
.40 .35 .30 /'
L WE LO LOCATION
.25
- MEASURED DATA
- ASSUMED VARIATION .20 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 COORDINATE, Z, INCHES FSAR REV.65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT THICKNESS VARIATION IN CYLINDER NO. 1 (FROM REF. 3.8A-11 FIG. 4)
FIGURE 3.8A-23, Rev. 47 Auto-Cad Figure Fsar 3_8A_23.dwg
Nit,* 10.056 LB/IN. M¢*N=O ___ W
- 0.0966"
..,__ START TORISPHERE CYLINDER ELLIPSOID N4'= 12.186 LB/IN.
Q:N""M4>==0 END FSAR REV.65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT ANALYTICAL MODEL WITH BOUNDARY CONDITIONS FIGURE 3.8A-24, Rev. 47 Auto-Cad Figure Fsar 3_8A_24.dwg
HOOP FORCE, NO, (KIPS/IN.) TORlsPHERE
- - - ELLIPSOID 15.0 10.0 6.0
,J o.o ~---,0---'---"'~~~o=----=50"=-~60!.--~10.,,._---:::~l'"--JIII~* 5" 10"
-5.0
*10.0 LONGITUDINAL MOMENT,M,t,, - (DEGREES)-
(KIP-IN.JIN.) 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 KNUCKLE REGION CYLINDER FSAR REV.65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT PLOT OF HOOP FORCE AND LONGITUDINAL MOVEMENT FROM E0781 OUTPUT FIGURE 3.8A-25, Rev. 47 Auto-Cad Figure Fsar 3_8A_25.dwg
( V 6) 6 ,c 10*3 (PSI) 60.00 40.00 20.00 0.0
- PROGRAM E078\ OUTPUT
*20,00
- EXPERIMENTAL HEAD RESULTS
-40.00
-60.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
20 40 60 80 90 0.5 f DEGREES. ELLIPSOID Y/L, CYLINDER FSAR REV.65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT PLOT OF STRESS IN THE O (HOOP) DIRECTION ON THE INSIDE SURFACE (O = 0°) (REF. 3.8A-12 PAGE G-14) FIGURE 3.8A-26, Rev. 47 Auto-Cad Figure Fsar 3_8A_26.dwg
(V8) fJ x 10*3 (PSI I 80.00 40.00
--0.00
-40.00
- PROGRAM E0781 OUTPUT
- EXPERIMENTAL HEAD RESULTS
-80.00
-120.00 --------.....----,r-------. eo
. . . . ---------- 0.5 I
20 40 80 DEGREES, ELLIPSOID Y/L, CUN DER FSAR REV.65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT PLOT OF STRESS IN THE O (HOOP) DIRECTION ON THE OUTSIDE SURFACE (O = 0°) (REF. 3.8A-12 PAGE G-11) FIGURE 3.8A-27, Rev. 47 Auto-Cad Figure Fsar 3_8A_27.dwg
- PROGRAM E0781 OUTPUT
- EXPERIMENTAL HEAD 70.00 RESULTS 60.00
- 30.00 10.00
-10.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 20 60 80 90 0.5
- , DEGREES, ELLIPSOID Y/L, CYLINDER FSAR REV.65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT PLOT OF STRESS IN THE O I (LONGITUDINAL)DIRECTION ON THE INSIDE SURFACE (O = 0°)
(REF. 3.8A-12 PAGE G-20) FIGURE 3.8A-28, Rev. 47 Auto-Cad Figure Fsar 3_8A_28.dwg
- PROGRAM E0781 OUTPUT 60.00
- EXPERIMENTAL HEAD RESULTS 40.00 20.00 0.0
-20.00 I I I 20 40 60 80 90 0.5 4,. DEGREES, ELLIPSOID Y/L, CVLINOE R FSAR REV.65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT PLOT OF STRESS IN THE OI (LONGITUDINAL) DIRECTION ON THE OUTSIDE SURFACE (O I = 0°) (REF. 3.8A-12 PAGE G-17) FIGURE 3.8A-29, Rev. 47 Auto-Cad Figure Fsar 3_8A_29.dwg
MEMBRANE STRESS (V '1¢)MIPSI) x 10*3 60.0 50.00
- PROGRAM E0781 OUTPUT
- EXPERIMENTAL HEAD RESULTS 40.00 30.00 20.0 10.0 0.0 ~ - - - , - - - - - - . - - - -......- - - - . , . - - - , - - - - - - - - - -
20 40 60 80 90 0.5 I DEGREES, ELLIPSOID I Y/L, CYLINDER FSAR REV.65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT PLOT OF MEMBRANE STRESS (O = 0°) (REF. 3.8A-12 PAGE G-23) FIGURE 3.8A-30, Rev. 47 Auto-Cad Figure Fsar 3_8A_30.dwg
Z AXIS 144"
..-...........,~-- R
- 108" FSAR REV.65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT DIMENSIONS OF CYLINDRICAL WATER TANK FIGURE 3.8A-31, Rev. 47 Auto-Cad Figure Fsar 3_8A_31.dwg
T 20" 1
.,Ie** I 1 P/2 A
_jA 7~*-------......-12......._ _ _ _ _ __ 72" 6" 6" REINFORCING STEEL, p AREA* 1.581N2 REINFORCING STEEL J_~ +. CROSS-SECTION A-A T n 8" r r1 20" P/2
,!*+
FSAR REV.65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT EXPERIMENTAL BEAM DIMENSIONS FIGURE 3.8A-32, Rev. 47 Auto-Cad Figure Fsar 3_8A_32.dwg
I
~
I C, I( I"'
"'w a:ln I ii ... * . ~ 1 ...
FSAR REV.65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT REFERENCE 3.8A-14 MESH FIGURE 3.8A-33, Rev. 47 Auto-Cad Figure Fsar 3_8A_33.dwg
.12 24 36
... @)
44 52 80 68 78 84 92 100 108 116 124 132 140 148
@ (§ @) @ @) @ @) @ @. @,
a.. FSAR REV.65 Auto-Cad Figure Fsar 3_8A_34.dwg FIGURE 3.8A-34, Rev. 47
~
SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION
~,,
{1 r. r/'//. ,,, 11 *14V/,1 FINEL FINITE ELEMENT MESH "f/,/, '//~ ' r / / //fI 'ff/,~ '/ff/~ '//II f/11~ 1,/f/f/ ' f f f f / / 1
~
. @ @) Q2) Q~ (ae) @3) @ ~ ~2J t" UNITS 1 & 2 1
(15) ~~ 13 25 V///7////A REINFORCING STEEL FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT
REGIONS OF CRACKING SEE FIG. 3.8A-35-1 & 3.8A-35-2 FSAR REV.65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT REGIONS OF CRACKING SEE FIG. 3.8A-35-1 & 3.8A-35-2 FIGURE 3.8A-35, Rev. 36 Auto-Cad Figure Fsar 3_8A_35.dwg
FINEL
- 8.7 kips KIPS IEF
- 3 .8A 8.0 KIPS (NO CRACKING IN FINEL BELOW 8.7 KIPS)
FINEL AND REF. 3.8A-l4 - 20.0 lC.lPS BOUNDARY OF CRACKED REGION. REF. 3. 8A-l4
~ CRACKED REGION, FINEL FSAR REV.65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT REGIONS OF CRACKING FIGURE 3.8A-35-1, Rev. 47 Auto-Cad Figure Fsar 3_8A_35_1.dwg
FINEL AND REF. 3.BA 28.0 KIPS FINEL ANO REF. 3.BA 31.2 KIPS FSAR REV.65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT REGIONS OF CRACKING (CONT.) FIGURE 3.8A-35-2, Rev. 47 Auto-Cad Figure Fsar 3_8A_35_2.dwg
P (KIP$)
**** REF. 3.8A-13 (EXPERIMENTAL)
- - REF. 3.8A-14 (ANALYTICAL) 40 - FINEL I r- ------~ .-.- - --* -::::.,.
I ************
/ *******---REINFORCING 30 / **** STEEL YIELDED I ****
I I *** -* I. ****** 20 r-.~~*
,A***..
I 10 0 -----------~----""T"""--------*------
.1 .2 .3 .s DISPLACEMENT UNDER LOAD (INCHES)
FSAR REV.65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT LOAD DISPLACEMENT CURVES FROM FINEL VERIFICATION USING A SIMPLY BEAM FIGURE 3.8A-36, Rev. 47 Auto-Cad Figure Fsar 3_8A_36.dwg
Z.FT 2 4 6 20 22 1.0 OUTER RADIUS
- B
- 68.75 FT FSAR REV.65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FINITE ELEMENT MODEL FIGURE 3.8A-37, Rev. 47 Auto-Cad Figure Fsar 3_8A_37.dwg
Z,FT 2 4 6 8 20 22 1.0 . 0 00 @ 0 0 ~ 1 3 6 7 19 21
- R.FT INNER RADIUS*A*65.0 FT--1 FSAR REV.65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FINITE ELEMENT MODEL FIGURE 3.8A-38, Rev. 47 Auto-Cad Figure Fsar 3_8A_38.dwg
T,°F 100 50 0 L----- -----:R~-~A:--------- - - - -R=-B - ~ - - -
- R,FT FSAR REV.65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT TEMPERATURE DISTRIBUTION FIGURE 3.8A-39, Rev. 47 Auto-Cad Figure Fsar 3_8A_39.dwg
10" 1c* 100°F PERFECTLY INSULATED FSAR REV.65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT SCHEMATIC OF TEST PROBLEM FIGURE 3.8A-40, Rev. 47 Auto-Cad Figure Fsar 3_8A_40.dwg
1O" 8" 6" 4" 2" 0 0 10" INCHES NODE NO. ELEMENT NO. 26 FSAR REV.65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FINITE ELEMENT LAYOUT FIGURE 3.8A-41, Rev. 47 Auto-Cad Figure Fsar 3_8A_41.dwg
TEMPERATURE AT POINT A (°F) 100 90 80
;\
70 60 50
' ~
SOLUTION BY ME 620 40 THEORETICAL SOLUTION _ _......_ FROM REF. 3.8A-19 30 20 ...... .. 10
'-----.......----.r----"T'"----r----.r-----r---, I f 0 10 20 30 ~ ~ so ro 80 ~ 100 TIME ISECONDS)
FSAR REV.65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT COMPARISON OF RESULTS FIGURE 3.8A-42, Rev. 47 Auto-Cad Figure Fsar 3_8A_42.dwg
RADIUS
- R * .69"
/
I (
...__ __.,,, To*1472° FSAR REV.65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT STEEL SPHERE FIGURE 3.8A-43, Rev. 47 Auto-Cad Figure Fsar 3_8A_43.dwg
y CD 20 X
.1"
.2"
.2975"
.3950"
.4925"
.6900"
, 2 FSAR REV.65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FINITE ELEMENT MODEL FIGURE 3.8A-44, Rev. 47 Auto-Cad Figure Fsar 3_8A_44.dwg
Text Rev. 47 SSES-FSAR APPENDIX 3.8B CONCRETE, CONCRETE MATERIALS, QUALITY CONTROL, AND SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES Materials, workmanship, and quality control are based on the codes, standards, recommendations and specifications listed in Tables 3.8B-1, 3.8B-2, and 3.8B-3. Documents in Table 3.8B-1 are modified as required to suit the particular conditions associated with nuclear power plant design and construction while maintaining structural adequacy, for all structures except the diesel generator 'E' building. Extent of application and principal exceptions are indicated herein, and as follows: ACI 301-72 a) Provisions of ACI 301-72, Chapter 12, Curing and Protection, shall be modified as follows: i) Paragraph 12.2.1 shall be revised to read as follows:
"For concrete surfaces not in contact with forms, one of the following procedures shall be applied immediately after completion of placement and finishing except that the curing process may be interrupted as necessary not to exceed 8 hours providing requirements for weather protection are maintained. Such curing process may not be interrupted more than twice with a minimum of 8 hours elapsing between interruptions. If the curing is interrupted for up to 8 hours, the curing time shall be extended to provide a total of 7 days curing."
ii) Paragraph 12.2.3 shall be revised to read as follows:
"Curing in accordance with Section 12.2-1 and 12.2.2 shall be contained for at least 7 days in the case of all concrete except high-early-strength concrete for which the period shall be at least 3 days. Alternatively, if tests are made of cylinders kept adjacent to the structure and cured by the same methods, moisture retention measures may be terminated prior to 7 days when test results indicate that the average compressive strength, has reached 70 percent of the specified strength, f'c. Required period of initial curing need not be greater than the lesser of the two periods. If one of the curing procedures of Section 12.2.1.1 through 12.2.1.4 is used initially, it may be replaced by one of the other procedures of Section 12.2.1 any time after the concrete is one day old provided the concrete is not permitted to become surface dry during transition. Curing during periods of cold weather shall be in accordance with Section 12.3.1."
iii) Paragraph 12.3.1 shall be deleted and replaced with the following:
"Initial curing and protection measures for the concrete during periods of cold weather shall be in accordance with the recommendations of ACI 306-66 (1972)."
FSAR Rev. 69 3.8B-1
Text Rev. 47 SSES-FSAR b) Provisions of ACI 301-72, Chapter 14, Massive Concrete, shall be modified as follows: i) Paragraph 14.4.1 shall be deleted and replaced with the following:
"The slump of the concrete as placed shall be 3" or less except that a tolerance of up to 2" above this indicated maximum shall be allowed for batches provided the average for all batches or the most recent 10 batches tested, whichever is fewer, does not exceed 3". Concrete of lower than usual slump may be used provided it is properly placed and consolidated."
ii) Paragraph 14.4.3 Delete the first sentence of the paragraph and substitute the following:
"Concrete shall be placed in layers approximately 24" thick."
iii) Paragraph 14.5.1 shall be deleted and replaced with the following:
"The minimum curing period shall be in accordance with Section 12.2.3."
iv) Paragraph 14.5.4. The requirement for controlled cooling at the conclusion of the specified heating shall be accomplished by leaving the cold weather protection in place at least 24 hours after heating is discontinued. In extremely cold weather, the field engineer shall require that additional measures be taken to prevent rapid cooling of the concrete by this method. ACI 318-71 a) Provision of ACI 318-71, Chapter 5, "Mixing and Placing Concrete" shall be modified as follows: i) Paragraph 5.5 shall be revised by the addition of the following new paragraph 5.5.3: 5.5.3 The curing requirements as described in Sections 5.5.1 and 5.5.2 above may be interrupted as necessary not to exceed 8 hours providing requirements for weather protection are maintained. Such curing process may not be interrupted more than twice with a minimum of 8 hours elapsing between interruptions. If the curing is interrupted for up to 8 hours, the curing time shall be extended to provide a total of 7 days curing. b) Provisions of ACI 318-71, Chapter 6, Formwork, Embedded Pipes, and Construction Joints, shall be modified as follows: i) Paragraphs 6.3.2.4, 6.3.2.5, 6.3.2.6 and 6.3.2.7 shall be deleted and replaced with the following: 6.3.2.4 "All piping and fitting shall be tested in accordance with the requirements of the code governing that piping system (e.g., ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, ANSI B 31.1, state or local FSAR Rev. 69 3.8B-2
Text Rev. 47 SSES-FSAR plumbing codes, etc.) or in accordance with applicable design or technical specifications, or design drawings. Whenever the piping system is not governed by such applicable codes, code cases or design documents, then such systems shall be tested for leaks prior to concreting. The testing pressure above atmospheric pressure shall be 50 percent in excess of the pressure to which the piping and fittings may be subjected, but the minimum testing pressure shall not be less than 150 psig. The pressure test shall be held for 4 hours with no drop in pressure except that which may be caused by air temperature." 6.3.2.5 "Drain pipes and other piping systems not governed by applicable codes and designed for pressures of not more than 1 psig need not be tested as required above." 6.3.2.6 "Piping systems which are not governed by applicable codes, code cases or design documents and which carry liquid, gas or vapor which is explosive or injurious to health, shall be retested in accordance with Section 6.3.2.4 subsequent to the hardening of the concrete." 6.3.2.7 "Piping systems may be energized with water not exceeding 50 psi nor 90oF if approved by the responsible Field Engineer". Other piping systems, including systems governed by piping system codes or design documents exceeding 50 psi or 90oF or energized with other than water, may be energized 7 days after the concrete placement provided that the temperature does not exceed 150a 1F nor the pressure exceed 200 psig. Piping systems may be energized prior to and during the placement of concrete provided that: (a) the above temperature and pressure restrictions are applied, (b) the energized system is not shut down within 24 hours of concrete placement, and (c) if the pressure in the energized system drops, the lower pressure shall become the limiting pressure until the seven-day-post-placement time limit has elapsed. Piping systems which have been energized within 24 hours of concrete placement may be reenergized at any time more than 24 hours after concrete placement up to the limiting pressure. 3.8B.1 CONCRETE AND CONCRETE MATERIALS - QUALIFICATIONS 3.8B.1.1 Concrete Material Qualification Cement Cement is Type II, portland cement conforming to ASTM C150. Certified copies of material test reports showing chemical composition of the cement and verification that the cement being furnished complies with requirements are furnished by the manufacturer for each batch or lot. FSAR Rev. 69 3.8B-3
Text Rev. 47 SSES-FSAR Normal Weight Aggregate Fine and coarse aggregates conform to ASTM C33. Aggregate source acceptability is based on the following test requirements: Method of Test Designation Unit Weight of Aggregate ASTM C29 Organic Impurities in Sands ASTM C40 Effect of Organic Impurities in Fine Aggregate on ASTM C87 Strength of Mortar Soundness of Aggregates ASTM C88 Materials Finer Than No. 200 Sieve ASTM C117 Lightweight Pieces in Aggregate ASTM C123 Specific Gravity & Absorption of Fine Aggregate ASTM C128 L. A. Abrasion ASTM C131 Sieve or Screen Analysis of Fine & Coarse Aggregates ASTM C136 Clay Lumps & Friable Particles ASTM C142 Scratch Hardness of Coarse Aggregates ASTM C235 Potential Reactivity of Aggregate ASTM C289 Petrographic Examination ASTM C295 Lightweight Aggregates ASTM C330 Percentage of Particles of Less Than 1.95 Specific AASHTO T150 Gravity in Coarse Aggregate Resistance of Concrete Specimens to Rapid Freezing AASHTO T161 and Thawing in Water Flat and Elongated Particles CRD C119 Coarse aggregate loss from the L.A. Abrasion Test (ASTM C131) using Grading A is limited to 40 percent by weight at 500 revolutions. Coarse aggregate grading is for size numbers 4, 8, and 67 as defined in ASTM C33 and the quantity of flat and elongated particles is limited to 15 percent in any nominal size group. When fine and coarse aggregates are tested per ASTM C117 to meet the requirements of ASTM C33, and when the results of any of the aggregate sizes exceed the stated limits for fines, the aggregate is accepted, provided the total amount of aggregate fines in a given mix is not greater than the total amount permitted for each aggregate size at ASTM C33 limits. FSAR Rev. 69 3.8B-4
Text Rev. 47 SSES-FSAR High Density Aggregates The requirements for high density aggregates are the same as for normal density aggregates except as noted below. Fine and coarse aggregate conforms to ASTM C637 except that grading is as follows: Sieve Size Percentage Passing U.S. Std. Fine Aggregate Coarse Aggregate Sq. Mesh (Sand) 1-1/2 in. 2 in. 100 1-1/2 in. 95-100 3/4 in. 35-70 3/8 in. 100 10-30 No. 4 75-95 2-15 No. 8 55-85 0-10 No. 16 30-60 No. 30 15-45 No. 50 10-30 No. 100 0-15 The fineness modulus of the fine aggregate is not less than 3.2 nor more than 4.2. Both fine and coarse aggregate have a minimum bulk specific gravity of 4.0. These aggregates are not tested per AASHTO T161 unless the structure is exposed to a design freeze-thaw environment and are also not tested per ASTM C330. Certified test reports are prepared by an independent testing laboratory for each material shipment attesting to aggregate conformance to cleanliness requirements when tested per ASTM C117 and specific gravity requirements when tested per ASTM C127 and C128. Pozzolan Pozzolan, when used, conforms to ASTM C618 for Class F except that the maximum loss on ignition of 6 percent. Prior to shipment a minimum of one sample is taken and tested in accordance with ASTM C311 to demonstrate conformance with the above. Such documentation accompanies material shipment. Mixing Water and Ice Water and ice used in mixing concrete is free of injurious amounts of oil, acid, alkali, organic matter, or other deleterious substances as determined by AASHTO T26. Such water and ice does not contain impurities that would cause either a change in the setting time of portland cement of more than 25 percent or a reduction in compressive strength of mortar of more than 5 percent compared with results obtained with distilled water. The water and ice do not contain more than 250 ppm of chlorides as C1, or more than 1000 ppm of sulphates as SO4. The pH range is between 4.5 and 8.5. FSAR Rev. 69 3.8B-5
Text Rev. 47 SSES-FSAR Admixtures Air entraining admixtures, when used, conform to ASTM C260. Water reducing and retarding admixtures, when used, conform to ASTM C494 for types A and D. Types A and D are used in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations. Certificates of conformance stating conformance to the applicable ASTM specification are furnished with each shipment. Use of calcium chloride is not permitted. 3.8B.1.2 Concrete Mix Design Concrete Properties Concrete Properties Concrete properties required for each type of mix design are verified by testing for the applicable properties indicated below: Property Test Designation Compressive Strength ASTM C39 Unit Weight ASTM C138 Slump ASTM C143 Air Content ASTM C231 The following additional properties of selected mix designs have been determined to ascertain material compatibility with design assumptions: Static Modulus of Elasticity ASTM C469 Static Poizzon's Ratio ASTM C469 Dynamic Modulus of Elasticity ASTM C215 Dynamic Poizzon's Ratio ASTM C215 Thermal Diffusivity CRD C36 Thermal Coefficient of Expansion CRD C39 Concrete Mix Proportions Proportions of ingredients are determined and tests conducted in accordance with ACI 211.1, except as noted below, for combinations of materials established by trial mixes. These proportioning methods provide required concrete strength, durability, and unit weight while maintaining adequate workability and proper consistency to permit required consolidation without excessive segregation or bleeding. The design strength (f'c) of mixes that contain pozzolan is measured at 90 days; for those that do not contain pozzolan, f'c is measured at 28 days. Three cylinders are tested for each mix design and age as follows: Pozzolan Mix Nonpozzolan Mix 3 days 3 days 7 days 7 days 28 days 28 days 90 days FSAR Rev. 69 3.8B-6
Text Rev. 47 SSES-FSAR Concrete mixes for limited uses such as in radiation-sensitive facilities and high density concrete do not contain pozzolan. All other concrete mixes are based on use of approximately 15 to 20 percent pozzolan by weight as cement replacement. Further concrete mixes except limited application use, such as high density concrete, are based on 3 to 6 percent air entrainment for both 3/4 and 1-1/2 in. nominal maximum size coarse aggregate. These measures provide a concrete possessing both good freeze-thaw and sulphate resistance. In lieu of establishing limits on water-cement ratio, the concrete is proportioned and mixed so as to be placed at specified slumps. The average slump at the point of placement is less than the"Working Limit," which is the maximum slump for estimating the quantity of mixing water to be used in the concrete. An "Inadvertency Margin" is the allowable deviation from the "Working Limit" for such occasional batches as may inadvertently exceed the "Working Limit." Jobsite tests have indicated that concrete with slumps at the "Inadvertency Margin" will produce acceptable quality concrete. 3.8B.1.3 Proprietary Concrete The above described concrete (3.8B.1.1 & 3.8B.1.2) is from original construction. EC 2198239 authorizes an alternate concrete made from proprietary materials from companies such as BASF and Five Star. Such concrete is proportioned in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations and tested for compressive strength, bonding, and freeze/thaw resistance with water and aggregate content recommended by the manufacturer prior to use. The dry concrete is a proprietary mix. Aggregates conform to ASTM C33. Mixing (potable) water will comply with ANSI/NSF 61. Certified copies of material test reports showing chemical composition of the concrete and verification that the concrete being furnished complies with requirements are furnished by the manufacturer for each batch or lot OR the concrete will be dedicated. Certified test reports are prepared by an independent testing laboratory for each material shipment attesting to aggregate conformance to cleanliness requirements when tested per ASTM C117 and specific gravity requirements when tested per ASTM C127 and C128 OR the aggregate will be dedicated as part of the concrete. For admixtures, certificates of conformance stating conformance to the applicable ASTM specification are furnished with each shipment OR the admixtures will be dedicated as part of the concrete. Concrete properties required for each mix are verified by testing for the applicable properties indicated below: Property Test Designation Compressive Strength ASTM C39 Bonding Strength ASTM C882 (bonding agent not required) Air Content ASTM C231 The design strength (f 'c) of mixes is measured at 28 days. Three cylinders are tested for each mix design at 3, 7, and 28 days. The concrete will have established limits on aggregate-concrete mix ratio. The concrete mix will either have established limits on water-cement ratio OR the concrete will be proportioned and mixed so as to be placed at specified slumps. The average slump at the point of placement is less than the "Working Limit," which is the maximum slump for estimating the quantity of mixing water to be used in the concrete. FSAR Rev. 69 3.8B-7
Text Rev. 47 SSES-FSAR Minimum testing requirements for concrete materials and concrete included in Table 3.8B-1 do not apply to the alternate proprietary concrete. 3.8B.1.4 Grout Construction Grout Construction grout for use at horizontal construction joints and similar applications is proportioned from the same materials as for concrete. Grout strength is determined in accordance with ASTM C109. Starter Mix Starter mixes are used in applications such as at the bottom of foundation slabs and in lieu of construction grout and are proportioned from the same materials as for concrete. These mixes are generally proportioned for a "Working Limit" slump 2 in. greater than the associated concrete mix. Trial mixes are prepared and tested for strength as described for general concrete mixes. Nonshrink Grout Nonshrink grout is prepared from proprietary materials such as Embeco LL-636 by Master Builders Company or Five Star Grout by US Grout Corporation. Such grouts are proportioned in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations and are tested for expansion, compressive strength, and flow characteristics with maximum water content recommended by the manufacturer prior to use. 3.8B.2 CONCRETE AND CONCRETE MATERIALS - BATCHING, PLACING, CURING, AND PROTECTION 3.8B.2.1 Storage Storage of aggregates, cement, pozzolan, and admixtures is in accordance with the recommendations of ACI 304. 3.8B.2.2 Batching, Mixing, and Delivering Concrete for principal structures is provided as central mixed concrete from a batch plant located on the jobsite. Some limited amounts of concrete are obtained from an offsite batch plant. All such batch plant facilities are certified by the National Ready Mix Concrete Association (NRMCA) and measuring devices are calibrated at required intervals and more frequently when deemed appropriate. Measuring of materials, batching, mixing, and delivering normal weight concrete conform to ASTM C94, Alternate No. 1 except as otherwise noted. Regulatory Guide 1.69 has basically adopted ANSI N101.6. This ANSI standard is interpreted to be applicable only to high density concrete serving as radiation shields and is therefore not used on this project. As the concrete has a dual function of providing shielding and structural adequacy, the standard practices described herein are adopted for normal weight concrete. When higher density FSAR Rev. 69 3.8B-8
Text Rev. 47 SSES-FSAR concrete is required for shielding purposes, the practices adopted are in general agreement with those outlined in the ACI Journal of August 1975 report by ACI Committee 304: "High Density Concrete Measuring, Mixing, Transporting, and Placing." The delivery of materials from the batching equipment is within the following limits of accuracy: Over and Under Percent Material Weight Weight Less than or equal Greater than to 30 percent of 30 percent of scale capacity scale capacity Cement Minus 0 1 Plus 4 Pozzolan Minus 0 1 Plus 4 Water 1 1 Ice 1 1 Aggregate equal to or smaller than 1-1/2 3 2 (See note below) Admixture when batched separately 3 1 Note: Or plus or minus 0.3 percent of scale capacity, whichever is less. NRMCA Section 2.7 provides additional tolerances for batching recorders. 3.8B.2.3 Placing Placing of normal weight concrete is in accordance with the recommendations of ACI 304. Placing of high density concrete is as described above. 3.8B.2.4 Consolidation Consolidation of concrete is in accordance with the recommendations of ACI 309. 3.8B.2.5 Curing Curing of concrete is in accordance with the recommendations of ACI 308. 3.8B.2.6 Hot and Cold Weather Concreting Measures taken to mitigate the effects of hot and cold weather during each step of the concreting operation are in accordance with ACI 305 and 306 respectively. FSAR Rev. 69 3.8B-9
Text Rev. 47 SSES-FSAR 3.8B.3 CONCRETE AND CONCRETE MATERIALS-CONSTRUCTION TESTING An independent concrete and concrete materials testing laboratory has been established at the project site to monitor the quality of such work and materials and to promptly report any deviations from specified conditions. Such testing personnel are qualified to meet the requirements of NRC Regulatory Guide 1.58. Procedures and tests for accomplishing such work are reviewed and accepted by Bechtel prior to use. Qualifications and procedures in use by Bechtel quality control personnel and the extent of conformance to Regulatory Guide 1.94 are described in Section 3.13. Production testing for concrete and concrete materials is as shown in Table 3.8B-1. Materials that do not meet test requirements are not used in the construction. If the measured concrete temperature, slump, unit weight, or air content falls outside the limits specified, a check is made. In the event of a second failure, the load of concrete represented is not in the construction. Concrete cylinder tests results are reviewed for compliance with Chapter 17 of ACI 301 and are evaluated in accordance with ACI 214. Materials or portions thereof that do not meet the above criteria but may inadvertently be used are handled as described in Appendix D and amendments to the FSAR. 3.8B.4 CONCRETE REINFORCEMENT MATERIALS - QUALIFICATIONS Reinforcing steel for concrete structures conforms to ASTM A615, Grade 60, including Section S1 for bar sizes 14 and 18. Certified copies of material test reports indicating chemical composition, physical properties and dimensional compliance are furnished by the manufacturer for each heat. When permitted by the design drawings, reinforcing steel is furnished by the supplier to special chemistry requirements to enhance reinforcing weld characteristics. The chemistry of such bars meets the following chemical analysis requirements expressed in maximum percentage by weight: C - 0.50% P - 0.05% Mn - 1.30% S - 0.05% Weld splicing of reinforcing is not performed in the primary containment structures. Each bundle of reinforcing steel is tagged to ensure unique heat traceability during production, while in transit and into storage. During storage and installation reinforcing steel is collectively traceable to the group of certified material test reports received. Prior to installation at the jobsite all reinforcing steel is subjected to a testing program meeting the requirements of NRC Regulatory Guide 1.15. Any reinforcing steel which does not meet these requirements is not used in the construction. Sleeves for reinforcing steel mechanical splices conform to ASTM A519 for Grades 1018 and 1026. Certified copies of material test reports indicating chemical composition and physical properties are furnished by the manufacturer for each sleeve lot. FSAR Rev. 69 3.8B-10
Text Rev. 47 SSES-FSAR 3.8B.5 CONCRETE REINFORCEMENT MATERIALS - FABRICATION 3.8B.5.1 Bending Reinforcement Hooks and bends are fabricated in accordance with ACI 318 Chapter 7.1. Bars partially embedded in concrete are bent subject to the following conditions. Bending Partially Embedded Reinforcement The minimum distance from existing concrete surface to the beginning of bend and the minimum inside diameter of bend is: Bar Size Min. Dist. From Surface Min. Inside Bend Diameter to Beginning of Bend No. 3 through No. 8 3 Bar Diameters 6 Bar Diameters No. 9, No. 10, No. 11 4 Bar Diameters 8 Bar Diameters No. 14, No. 18 5 Bar Diameters 10 Bar Diameters Bars No. 3 to No. 5 inclusive may be bent cold once. Heating is required for subsequent straightening or bending. Bars No. 6 and larger may be bent and straightened, provided that heating is used. When heat is used, it is applied as uniformly as possible over a length of bar equal to 10 bar diameters, and is centered at the middle of the arc of the completed bend. The maximum bar temperature is between 1100 and 1200oF, and maintained at that level until bending (or straightening) is complete. Temperature-measuring crayons or a contact pyrometer is used to determine the temperature. Heat is applied in such a way as to avoid damage to the concrete. Care is taken to prevent rapid quenching of heated bars. Straightened bars are visually inspected to determine whether they are cracked, reduced in cross-section, or otherwise damaged. Any damaged portions are removed and replaced. 3.8B.5.2 Splicing Reinforcement Lap Splices In general, lapped splices are used for No. 11 and smaller bars. Such lap splices are in accordance with Sections 7.5, 7.6, and 7.7 of ACI 318. Mechanical Splices In general, mechanical (Cadweld) splices are used for all No. 14 and No. 18 splices, for splices across liner plates and in lieu of standard hooks when a plate anchorage is required or desirable. To obtain an effective level of quality control for this splicing process, a qualification, inspection, testing, FSAR Rev. 69 3.8B-11
Text Rev. 47 SSES-FSAR and acceptance program in accordance with NRC Regulatory Guide 1.10 has been used. Welding of splice sleeves to liners, or other plates and shapes is in accordance with AWS D1.1. Welded Splices Whenever both lap and mechanical splices have been determined to be impractical, welded splices are used on a case-by-case approval basis. Such welding is performed by qualified welders using a procedure conforming to the basic recommendations of AWS D12.1. 3.8B.5.3 Placing Reinforcement Reinforcement is securely tied with wire and held in position by spacers, chairs, and other supports to maintain placement accuracy within the tolerances established for reinforcement protection and the design requirements. 3.8B.5.4 Spacing Reinforcement Spacing and reinforcement is in accordance with Sections 3.3.2, 7.4.1, and 7.4.5 of ACI 318. 3.8B.5.5 Surface Condition Reinforcement surface condition at the time of concrete placement is in accordance with Section 7.2 of ACI 318. 3.8B.6 CONCRETE REINFORCEMENT MATERIALS - CONSTRUCTION TESTING Inspection of reinforcement materials to ensure that bending, placing, splicing, spacing, and surface condition requirements are met is in accordance with the program described in Chapter 17 as is the extent of conformance to Regulatory Guide 1.94. 3.8B.7 FORMWORK AND CONSTRUCTION JOINTS Formwork is designed and constructed in accordance with ACI 347. Such formwork maintains position and shape to keep deformations within limits established by the design requirements. Prior to concrete placement, construction joints are cleaned to remove unsatisfactory concrete, laitance, coatings, debris, and other foreign material and to expose the aggregate. The joints are then saturated to produce a saturated surface dry condition. Horizontal construction joints then shall be covered with either approximately 1/4 in. of construction grout or a layer of starter mix which is approximately 4 to 6 in. deep. Except as discussed below, concrete is placed in accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.55. Regulatory positions 2 and 3 of the Regulatory Guide state the presumed functional responsibilities of the "Designer" and the "Constructor." Under the designer's role are listed the responsibilities for checking shop drawings and locations of construction joints. On this project, the former is fully delegated to the Bechtel field, although the design engineering office may check significant portions and may advise the field accordingly. The responsibility for construction joint location is partly delegated to the field in the sense that the field has to follow the guidelines set out in the design FSAR Rev. 69 3.8B-12
Text Rev. 47 SSES-FSAR drawings and specifications prepared by the design engineering office. In interface areas, a delegation of the design engineering office's responsibility to the field office is within the definition of the terms "responsibility" and delegated responsibility" as discussed in Paragraph 1.3 of the proposed ANSI N45.2.5. Delegation of the responsibilities for checking the reinforcing drawings to the field engineering group is justified by the following: a) The Bechtel field engineering group is segregated from the field supervision group, although both are located at the jobsite and eventually report to the project construction manager. b) The field engineering group is staffed, for the most part, by graduate engineers who have been trained in the use of the ACI code and understand the design implication of the proper location, splicing, and embedment of reinforcing steel. c) The field inspection of the actual rebar as placed in the forms is conducted using the engineering drawings as the primary source document. This ensures a check on any errors which may have passed the critical review of the field engineer in checking the shop detail or erection drawings. d) It is standard practice in the civil engineering profession that engineering requirement drawings for reinforcing be converted to shop detail and erection drawings in accordance with ACI standards applied by steel detailers at the reinforcing steel vendor's shop. Most contractors installing reinforcing steel rely upon their superintendent and foreman for correct interpretation of these detail drawings in erecting the reinforcing steel. While this is also true of Bechtel field operation, we do have the additional help and guidance of the field engineers both during the installation phase and finally at the inspection phase prior to final sign-off on the report card. e) The field engineers have the added benefit of being able to plan and witness the actual installation and can, therefore, better foresee any difficulties in meeting the intended design requirements. Their assessment of the situation is further assisted by regular telephone communication with the design engineers who also periodically visit the jobsite. The above procedure of delegation of the design engineering office's responsibility to the field personnel and periodic monitoring by the engineering office ensures correctness and conformance of the shop drawings to the design drawings and therefore meets the intent of Regulatory Guide 1.55. FSAR Rev. 69 3.8B-13
Page 1 of 2 SSES-FSAR
'IABU 3.81-1 Hin.___ Teettng Frequencle* for Concrete Materials and Col\cret@
(Except for the Diesel Generator *E* Bulldtng) I Material bqulnaent Test Frequency Cellent Standard Pby lcal and Oleatc*l AS1M Cl50 The le St!!r of each 5000 cubic yard* of Properttea production concrete of each 1200 tona of ceaent uaed Jtozzolan 0-.tcal and Pby*lcal Propertiee AS'IN C311 Each ahlpaent of pozzolan by aanufacturer per AS'Dt 0618 and upon occasion by the jobsite AgTegate Unit Weight of Aa't'eaate AS'DI C29 Once for eadl 5000 cubic yard* of production Organic lllpurltie* ASTM CltO once dally for each 1000 cubic yards of production SoundneH of Agregate* AS".IM C88 Once for each 5000 cubic yards of production Material Finer than llo. 200 SiHe ASl'H Cl17 Once dally for each 1000 cubic yards of production Ltghtwetpt Piece* 1n Aggregate AS'IM C123 Once for each 5000 cubic yards of production Specific Cr**lty and Abaorptlon Asnt Cl27/Cl28 Once for each 5000 cubic yards of pr-oductlon L. A. Abra.ton AS?M Clll Once for each 5000 cubic yards of production Re¥ 40, 01/88
Page 2 of 2 SSES-FSAR TABLE 3.8'1-l (Continued) Mated.al Requlreaent Teat Frequency Gradation As>>J Cll6 Coarse Acareaate Once dally for each 1000 cubic yards of production Pine Aaareaate lwtce dally for each 1000 cubic yards of production Petroarapbtc r.x-tnatton AS'l'M Cl<<JS Once for each 10.000 cubic yard* of production Ml>leture AS'IM C566 Co.ne Aggregate Once dally for each 1000 cubic yards of production Ftne Aggregate 'l\rtce daily for each 1000 cubic yards of production Flat and Elongated Particles CJU> C119 Once dally for each 1000 cubic yarde of production 'Water Quality of Water to be Uaed in AASll'l'O T26 Once each three 11011ths or each 5000 cubic yards of ahd Concrete (To .eet the requlreaent* production I~ herein) Adllhturea ,..,, 40, 01/98
Page I of 3 SSES-PSAR TABt.E l.81J*2 Testing Requireaenta for Concrete Materials Used in the Diesel Generator 1 E' Building Frequency of Teat By ttm.&factunr/Suppller/ Material Te*t (~lflcatloa) Contractor By Labor-atory Reaarlca ee.ent Coaplete physical Initial Qualification (H) Sap le froa at 11
& chealcat analyeb Each ehlpaent (N) Saaple froa 111 (ASDI C-150) Per AS'IM C*l83 Saple fro. batch plant Coapreaalve strength Material atored 4 aontha Saaple fro. storage of Mortar Cube1 (ASt'M C-109) or 910re Each 111 run Saap le f roa all l AQ-regatea.,,. Die followt.111 teat covered in AS'D4 C*33 plus c ua.
C 295 and C'RJ)Cl19 aa follova: Ste,,e Analy i* Initial Qualtflcatlon (a) Datlyft (AS1M C136) Material Ftner than Initial Qualification (e) DallY" No. 200 Steve (C 117) Motature Content (C566) Initial Quallftcatton (s) DaUY,, Clay Luap* (AS'IM Cl42) Inltlal Qualification( ) Mont11ly Organic lapurttle* Initial Quallflcetion(a) Weekly (AS'D4 C40) L.A. AbrHton Initial Quattftcatfon (a) 2-ch 4000 ton* or (AS'Dt C131) every 6 IIOfltha Potential ReactlYlty Initial Quallflcatlon ( ) Elleh 4000 tona or (AS'l'M C299) every 6 aontha Soundne** (AS'JM C88) lnlttal Quallflcatlon (a) Each 4000 tona or-every 6 .ontha Re-Y 40, 07/88
Page 2 of) TABU 3.88-2 (Continued) F r e ~ of Teat
'By Manufacturer/Supplier/
Material Teat (~l_ftcatlon) Contractor By Laboratory Reaarlta Llst,.tvelpt Pteeea lft1t1 1 Qualification (s) tbnthly (AS'Dt C123) Scratch llardne** Initial Qwallficatlon ( ) Monthly Replaces of CoarN Agreaate Soft Frapent11 (C851) (C-23S) Spec1flc Crnity Initial Quellflcatton (a) !ach 4000 tons
& Abaorptlon, C.A. (C127)
Specific Cravlty Initial Qualtflcatlon <*> Each 4000 ton
& Ab110rptton, F .A. (Cl28)
Mortar Making Inttlal Quallffcation (s) Each 4000 ton11 hoperttee (C87) Flat & Elongated Initial Qualification (s) Each 4000 ton11 Particle* or every 6 aonthe Corp of E * (CRD C-119) PtneneH Modulus Initial QualifiutiOll (e) Da:fl,. F. A. (C3J) Petrographic Exa.lnatlon lnittal Qualtficatton (a) Each 4000 tons of AaTeA*tea for Concrete (C29S) Adlllxturea Co.position and tnltial Quallficatlon (M) Water Reducer unlfonlty (AS'IM C494) Each lot shipped (M) (type* A & D) Atr ec.po*ition and Inttlal Quallflcatlon (") Entratning uniforwity (ASD4 C260) Each lot ahlpped (M) Agent Water Oitortcle Content lntttal Qualification (c) ~ery 6 aonth* (AS1M 0512) ltin "°* 01/tJ8
Page J of l TABLE l.8B*2 (Continued) Frequency of reet By Manufacturer/Supplier/ Material feat (!!!clflcation) Contractor By 1...-boratory Reaarks ec.p.n fol lowing lntttal Quallficatlon (c) !very 6 aonth* propertte, far ls.1111 water*** dl*tllled water: Scundne** (An'M C151) Tlae of Se~ (AS'IM C191) OoapNJaalve atrength of Mortar Cubes (AS'!M C109)
- lbe dally te*t* on the aurept~ *hall be pet'fOred only on thon actually being batched that day *
.., 1. Additional te*t* ehall be perforaed for each change tn eource of eupply and for each chante tn SUpplter*s Quarry locat10ft.
- 2. Materials lfhlch fall to aeet requtNaenU of the tens shall not be uaed and shall be ftllOVed to
- apoU area.
- 3. A tolerance of +511. Oft qum,tlty of agTepte ts acceptable for the agregate te*t* to be perfo1'111ed at a frequency of "eadl ltOOO tone of *are1ate."
.._ 40. 07/88
Page 1 of 3 SSES-FSAR TABLE l.8!*3 Teetlng ~utrmenta for Concrete Uaed tn the Diesel Generator 'E' Building 1~- Teat (Speclflcatlon) or Activity ly Pre~ Rearks Design HlM* De lgn .nd qualify teat uea. Eatabll b ls properties of: Ceaent Plyaah Wat.er Contractor Initial quallflcation Concrete material* Coane Agregate of each propoaed ix to aeet quallflcatfon teats of Fine Aggregate Table l Air Entratnins Adatxture* Water A.educ lng Adlltxturee Deteraine for eaeb ix: O:apreaaive atrenath (AS'Dt C39) Static Modulu* of Elaattctty Contractor Initial qualification ( AS'DI et.69) of each proposed tx. Pota110n'e Ratio (ASDI C469) Production Collpre**lve etftftgth (AS1M C39) Laboratory 1 eet of atrensth spec:lena Following ACI 301, 16.3.4 Concrete (Laboratory cured) for eacb 100 c.y. or fraction except use 4 speciaena. of each alx. Test 2 at 7 and 2 at 28 days.
- c.c.preaalve Strength of Laboratory 1 M! t of 6-2 inch cubes for Three cubes shall be teated Grout/Mortar (AS'l'M C109) each 100 c.y. or fraction or at 7 days and three at 28 days.
(Laboratory CUred) fraction of each ix 5-pltng Method (AS1M C172) Laboratory Coapt"ea tve atrenath (AS1'M C31) Laboratory 1 eet of strength (Field cured) *peciaelul for each *tructure or . .jor part as directed by thl! Enctneer Rn 40, O'J/88
Page 2 of 3 SSES-FSAR TABLE 3.8B*3 (Continued) Jte. Teat (Specification) or Activity By Frequency Rellarlts Slu.p (ASDt C143) Laboratory Each *trength teat, flrat batch Mt!!aaured at point of deposit each day and every 50 c.y. aa defined tn Section 5.2.1 of thta Spec iftcation Air Content (AS'IM C231) Laboratory With eech set of ccapreaaton cylinders and every 50 cub. yd. Production Unit Uelght of Preah Concrete Laboratory Each atrength teat Concrete (AS!M Cl.38) Teaperature Laboratory t.cb strength teat, Flret Batch each d.,- and every 50 cub. yda. Batch Tldtet lnforaatlon. L&boratory Each Batch Produced Batch Tickets shall Include tlle following: be forvarded to tM Date C.C,natructor*s Q.C. ri.e batched Inspector vlth e ch Location tnickload of concrete Operator deli*ered to the site. Truck No. Mu Nuaber Quantity batched Pour toc::atlon 11Aa latched" quantities Mu.I.. atze of agp-epte Aaount of water vi thbeld t the Batch Pl.-.t AaJunt of water aubaequently added prior to placeaent Concrete Te*t Report Laboratory Each atrenath apectaen *et In addition to the batch tlcut lnforaetlon the followinK *hall be reported: Jtey 40, 09/89
Page 3 of 3 SSf:S-fS.U
'tAIIL£ l.8B*l (Continued)
Itea 'test (Specification) or Activity ly Frequency Reaarka Sm1pler Tiae1 *apled and teated
- Alr teaperature Concrete teaper-ature M!aaured propertie* of freah concrete Cyllnder nmbera Coapre**lve *trenatha Cappin1 aaterial Type of break
'teated by
- Note: Strenath testing la not Tequlred for the Crout/Mortar ued for buttering at horizontal ~onstruction joints per Section 4.11.4 of this epeclficatlon b* 40, 09/98
SSES-FSAR APPENDIX 3.8C CONCRETE UNIT MASONRY, MASONRY MATERIALS AND QUALITY CONTROL Materials,*workmanship and quality control are based on the applicable codes, standards, recommendations and specifications listed in Table 3. 8-1. These documents are modified as required to suit the particular conditions associated with nuclear power plant design and construction while maintaining structural adequacy. 3.8C.l CONCRETE UNIT MASONRY AND MASONRY MATERIALS - QUALIFICATIONS Concrete Unit Masonry Concrete unit masonry conforms to either ASTM C90, Type 1, Grade N for hollow masonry units or ASTM Cl45, Type I, Grade S for solid masonry units. Masonry Mortar Masonry mortar conforms to ASTM C270, Type M, and is of the following ingredients: Portland cement conforming to ASTM ClSO, Type I or II. Hydrated lime conforming to ASTM C207, Type S. Aggregate conforming to ASTM Cl44. Masonry Grout Masonry grout conforms to ASTM C476. concrete Infill Concrete infill conforms to the program and requirements described in Appendix 3.8B. Reinforcing steel Reinforcing steel conforms to the program and requirements described in Appendix 3.8B. Rev. 46, 06/93 3.8C*l
SSES-FSAR Horizontal Joint Reinforcement Horizontal joint reinforcement is made of wire conforming to ASTM A82. Certificates of compliance stating conformance to ASTM A82 are furnished for the joint reinforcement . 3.8C.2 CONCRETE UNIT MASONRY AND MASONRY MATERIALS - CONSTRUCTION AND ERECTION Construction and erection of concrete unit masonry and masonry materials is in conformance with the requirements of the Uniform Building Code. 3.8C.3 CONCRETE UNIT MASONRY AND MASONRY MATERIALS - CONSTRUCTION TESTING An independent testing laboratory has been established at the project site to monitor the quality of concrete unit masonry and masonry materials and to promptly report any deviations from specified conditions. Procedures and tests for accomplishing such work are reviewed and accepted by Bechtel prior to use. Production testing for concrete unit masonry and masonry materials is as follows: Concrete Unit Masonry Tests of concrete unit masonry are performed at a frequency of six units randomly selected from each lot of 5000 units or fraction thereof delivered to the jobsite. Such units are tested in accordance with ASTM C140 to demonstrate compliance with ASTM C90 for hollow masonry units and with ASTM Cl45 for solid masonry units. Such tests are performed and acceptability determined, prior to use of that lot of masonry units. Masonry Mortar Tests of masonry mortar are performed prior to use initially and then for each 5000 concrete masonry units placed. Such tests are performed in accordance with and meet the acceptance standards of ASTM C270. Rev. 46, 06/93 3.SC-2
SSES-FSAR Masonry Grout Tests of masonry grout are performed at a frequency of once for each 100 cubic yards of each class of masonry grout produced. Each test consists of 6 two inch cubes made, cured and tested in accordance with ASTM C109. Three cubes are tested at 7 days and three at 28 days. Concrete Infill Concrete infill is tested at the same frequency and by the methods described for Appendix 3.8B. Materials that do not meet test requirements are not used for construction. Materials or portions thereof that do not meet the above criteria but may inadvertently be used are handled as described in Appendix D and amendments to the PSAR.
\
Rev. 46, 06/93 3.SC-3}}