ML14324A040: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
Line 20: Line 20:
=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:U.HOINTERE0lLTN AT IECON ALHoltec Center, 555 Lincoln Drive West, Marlton, NJ 08053Telephone (856) 797- 0900Fax (856) 797 -0909SEISMIC ANAL YSIS OF THE LOADEDHI-TRAC IN THE SFP AND SFP SLABQUALIFICATIONFORENTERG YHoltec Report No: HI-2104715Holtec Project No: 1916Sponsoring Holtec Division: HTSReport Class: SAFETY RELATED HOLTEC INTERNATIONALDOCUMENT ISSUANCE AND REVISION STATUS'DOCUMENT NAME: SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF THE LOADED HI-TRAC IN THE SFP AND SFPSLAB QUALIFICATIONDOCUMENT NO.: HI-2104715 CATEGORY: = GENERICPROJECT NO.: 1-6 0 PROJECT SPECIFICRev. Date Author'sNo.2  Approved Initials VIR #7 4/17/2014 Z.Yue 815009DOCUMENT CATEGORIZATIONIn accordance with the Holtec Quality Assurance Manual and associated Holtec Quality Procedures(HQPs), this document is categorized as a:1'1 Calculation Package3 (Per HQP 3.2) L- Technical Report (Per HQP 3.2)(Such as a Licensing Report)El Design Criterion Document (Per HQP 3.4) L] Design Specification (Per HQP 3.4)L--] Other (Specify):DOCUMENT FORMATTINGThe formatting of the contents of this document is in accordance with the instructions of HQP 3.2 or 3.4except as noted below:DECLARATION OF PROPRIETARY STATUS17 Nonproprietary [] Holtec Proprietary E] Privileged Intellectual Property (PIP)This document contains extremely valuable intellectual property of Holtec International. Holtec's rights to the ideas,methods, models, and precepts described in this document are protected against unauthorized use, in whole or in part, byany other party under the U.S. and international intellectual property laws. Unauthorized dissemination of any part of thisdocument by the recipient will be deemed to constitute a willful breach of contract governing this project. The recipient ofthis document bears sole responsibility to honor Holtec's unabridged ownership rights of this document, to observe itsconfidentiality, and to limit use to the purpose for which it was delivered to the recipient. Portions of this document may besubject to copyright protection against unauthorized reproduction by a third party.* , ........- ,1. This document has beer subjected to review, verifIcation and approval process set forth in the HoltecQuality AssuranceProcedures Manual. Password controlled signatures of 1oltec personnel who participated in the preparation review andQA validation of this document are saved on the company.s network. The Validation Identifier Record (VIR) number Is arandom number t at :s generated bythe computer'after the specific revision of this document has undergone the required.review and 2approval process, and the appropriate Holtec personnel have recorded their password-controlled electroniccon'cumrrence to Iredouet2. Arevision t this document ,ill be ordered by the Project Manager and carried out if any of its contents incI dingrevisions to referencesn is materially affecte, during evolution of this project The determination as to the need for revsion.will be made by the Project Managerwith input from~ others, as, deemred necessary by him.3. Revisions to this document may be *made by adding supplements to the document and replacing the ofContents", this page and the "Revision Log".
{{#Wiki_filter:U.HOINTERE0lLTN AT IECON ALHoltec Center, 555 Lincoln Drive West, Marlton, NJ 08053Telephone (856) 797- 0900Fax (856) 797 -0909SEISMIC ANAL YSIS OF THE LOADEDHI-TRAC IN THE SFP AND SFP SLABQUALIFICATIONFORENTERG YHoltec Report No: HI-2104715Holtec Project No: 1916Sponsoring Holtec Division: HTSReport Class: SAFETY RELATED HOLTEC INTERNATIONALDOCUMENT ISSUANCE AND REVISION STATUS'DOCUMENT NAME: SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF THE LOADED HI-TRAC IN THE SFP AND SFPSLAB QUALIFICATIONDOCUMENT NO.: HI-2104715 CATEGORY: = GENERICPROJECT NO.: 1-6 0 PROJECT SPECIFICRev. Date Author'sNo.2  Approved Initials VIR #7 4/17/2014 Z.Yue 815009DOCUMENT CATEGORIZATIONIn accordance with the Holtec Quality Assurance Manual and associated Holtec Quality Procedures(HQPs), this document is categorized as a:1'1 Calculation Package3 (Per HQP 3.2) L- Technical Report (Per HQP 3.2)(Such as a Licensing Report)El Design Criterion Document (Per HQP 3.4) L] Design Specification (Per HQP 3.4)L--] Other (Specify):DOCUMENT FORMATTINGThe formatting of the contents of this document is in accordance with the instructions of HQP 3.2 or 3.4except as noted below:DECLARATION OF PROPRIETARY STATUS17 Nonproprietary [] Holtec Proprietary E] Privileged Intellectual Property (PIP)This document contains extremely valuable intellectual property of Holtec International. Holtec's rights to the ideas,methods, models, and precepts described in this document are protected against unauthorized use, in whole or in part, byany other party under the U.S. and international intellectual property laws. Unauthorized dissemination of any part of thisdocument by the recipient will be deemed to constitute a willful breach of contract governing this project. The recipient ofthis document bears sole responsibility to honor Holtec's unabridged ownership rights of this document, to observe itsconfidentiality, and to limit use to the purpose for which it was delivered to the recipient. Portions of this document may besubject to copyright protection against unauthorized reproduction by a third party.* , ........- ,1. This document has beer subjected to review, verifIcation and approval process set forth in the HoltecQuality AssuranceProcedures Manual. Password controlled signatures of 1oltec personnel who participated in the preparation review andQA validation of this document are saved on the company.s network. The Validation Identifier Record (VIR) number Is arandom number t at :s generated bythe computer'after the specific revision of this document has undergone the required.review and 2approval process, and the appropriate Holtec personnel have recorded their password-controlled electroniccon'cumrrence to Iredouet2. Arevision t this document ,ill be ordered by the Project Manager and carried out if any of its contents incI dingrevisions to referencesn is materially affecte, during evolution of this project The determination as to the need for revsion.will be made by the Project Managerwith input from~ others, as, deemred necessary by him.3. Revisions to this document may be *made by adding supplements to the document and replacing the ofContents", this page and the "Revision Log".
Project 1916Report 1-2104715HOLTEC SAFETY SIGNIFICANT DOCUMENTSIn order to gain acceptance as a safety significant document in the company's quality assurancesystem, this document is required to undergo a prescribed review and concurrence process that,requires the preparer and reviewer(s) of the document to answer a long list of questions crafted toensure that the document has been purged of all errors of any material significance. A record ofthe review and verification activities is maintained in electronic form within the company'snetwork to enable future retrieval and recapitulation of the programmatic acceptance processleading to the acceptance and release of this document under the company's QA system. Amongthe numerous requirements that this document must fulfill, as applicable, to muster approvalwithin the company's QA program are:* The preparer(s) and reviewer(s) are technically qualified to perform their activities perthe applicable Holtec Quality Procedure (HQP).* The input information utilized in the work effort is drawn from referencable sources. Anyassumed input data is so identified.* All significant assumptions are stated.* The analysis methodology is consistent with the physics of the problem.* Any computer code and its specific versions used in the work have been formallyadmitted for use within the company's QA system.* The format and content of the document is in accordance with the applicable Holtecquality procedure.The material content of the report is understandable to a reader with the requisite academictraining and experience in the underlying technical disciplines.Once a safety significant document, such as this report, completes its review and certificationcycle, it should be free of any materially significant error and should not require a revision unlessits scope of treatment needs to be altered. Except for regulatory interface documents (i.e., thosethat are submitted to the NRC in support of a license amendment and request), editorial revisionsto Holtec safety significant documents are not made unless such editorial changes are deemednecessary by the Holtec Project Manager to prevent erroneous conclusions from being inferredby the reader. In other words, the focus in the preparation of this document is to ensurecorrectness of the technical content rather than the cosmetics of presentation.Page 1 of 28G:\Projects\1916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7I Project 1916Report 1-2104715REVISION LOGRevision 0 -Original issue.Revision 1 -Report is revised to address client comments. Racks considered in the evaluationsare Racks E l through E 10 and N I through N5 (Campaign II and Campaign III). Appendix F andmain report are revised. The slab is still structurally adequate. All changes are marked withrevision bars.Revision 2 -Report is revised to address the effect of the non-conservatism identified in reportHI-92952 (reference [5.4]). Appendix H is added to demonstrate the structural adequacy of thefloor slab in the Campaign II and III configuration. All changes are marked with revision bars.Appendix H is a newly added appendix and no revision bars are used.Revision 3 -Report is revised to address the effect of the non-conservatism identified in reportHI-92952 (reference [5.4]). Appendix I is therefore added to demonstrate the structural adequacyof the floor slab in the Campaign II and III configuration. It is recognized that a leveling platform[5.13] is used in the spent fuel pool to support the HI-TRAC 100)D cask. Therefore, AppendicesJ, K and L are added to demonstrate that the leveling platform is structurally adequate to supportthe HI-TRAC 1 OOD cask under the normal, SSE and OBE conditions. Appendix C is updated toinclude a latest version of ACPL and add ANSYS as computer code used. All changes aremarked with revision bars. Appendices C, I, J, K and L are newly added/updated appendices andno revision bars are used. Appendix H is deleted.Revision 4 -Report is revised to address client comments. Main body of the report andappendices E, F, I and J are revised with revision bars on the right margin. The slab isstructurally adequate.Revision 5 -Report is revised to address client comments. The main body of the report and theappendix E are revised for editorial changes. The revision bars are shown on the right margin.Appendix H is newly added to evaluate lifting of the leveling platform and no revision bars arePage 2 of 28G:Projects\1 916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7 Project 1916Report HI-2104715used in Appendix H. The revision bars in other appendices are carried over from previousrevisions and are not applicable to this revision.Revision 6 -Report is revised to address client comments. The main body of the report and theappendix E are revised to reflect the new location of HI-TRAC due to the introduction ofleveling platform. The clearances to adjacent structures are updated and safety factors arerecalculated. The revision bars are shown on the right margin. Appendix H is revised to beconsistent with drawing change. The platform drawing reference in Appendix J is updated andyield strength of stainless steel is corrected at pool temperature. The abovementioned changesare marked with revision bars and the revision bars in other appendices are carried over fromprevious revisions and are not applicable to this revision. All conclusions remain valid for thisrevision.Revision 7 -Report is revised to address client comments. The main body of the report and theappendix E are revised to reflect the new location of HI-TRAC per latest revision of drawing8777. The clearances to adjacent structures are updated and safety factors are recalculated. Theabovementioned changes are marked with revision bars and the revision bars in other appendicesare carried over from previous revisions and are not applicable to this revision. All conclusionsremain valid for this revision.Page 3 of 28G:\Projects\1916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7 Project 1916 Report I--2104715TABLE OF CONTENTSHOLTEC SAFETY SIGNIFICANT DOCUMENTS ............................................................................................... 1R EV ISIO N LO G .......................................................................................................................................................... 2T A BLE O F C O N T EN T S ............................................................................................................................................ 41.0 IN T R O D U C T IO N A N D SC O PE ...................................................................................................................... 62.0 METHODOLOGY AND ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA ............................................................................. 72.1 M ETHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................................... 72.2 A CCEPTANCE C RITERIA ................................................................................................................................... 93.0 A SSU M PT IO N S ............................................................................................................................................... 104.0 IN PU T DA TA ................................................................................................................................................... 114.1 INPUT W EIGHTS FOR D YNAM IC A NALYSIS ................................................................................................. 114.2 SEISM IC INPUTS .............................................................................................................................................. 114.3 FRICTIONAL INPUT ......................................................................................................................................... 115.0 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS AND COMPUTER FILES ...................................................................... 125.1 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................................. 125.2 COM PUTER CODES AND FILES ........................................................................................................................ 136.0 AN A L Y SES ...................................................................................................................................................... 147.0 RE SU LT S ......................................................................................................................................................... 157.1 H I-TRA C STABILITY ..................................................................................................................................... 157.2 POOL SLAB A SSESSM ENT ............................................................................................................................... 167.2.1 Slab C apacity C heck ............................................................................................ ..187.2.2 Leveling Platform Punching Shear Check ............................................................. 188.0 C O N C LU SIO N S .............................................................................................................................................. 219.0 FIG UR ES .......................................................................................................................................................... 22FIGURE 1. M ODEL OF LOADED H I-TRA C C ASK ON SLAB ................................................................................... 22FIGURE 2. MASS PROPERTIES (INCLUDING HYDRODYNAMIC MASS) OF HI-TRAC .............................................. 23Page 4 of 28G:\Projects\1916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7 Project 1916Report HI-2104715FIGURE 3. CONSTANT BUOYANCY FORCE APPLIED TO CASK ................................................................................... 24FIGURE 4. BOUNDING INERTIA FORCE APPLIED TO THE CASK (ALL DIRECTIONS) ............................................... 25FIGURE 5. POOL LID/SLAB INTERFACE STIFFNESS AND DAMPING FOR HI-TRAC MODEL .................................. 26FIGURE 6. POOL LID/SLAB INTERFACE FRICTION FOR HI-TRAC MODEL ............................................................. 26FIGURE 7. MAXIMUM POOL LID/SFP FLOOR INTERFACE LOAD -(SSE EVENT) .................................................. 27FIGURE 8. POSITION OF THE TOP OF HI-TRAC (SSE EVENT) ................................................................................... 2710.0 APPENDICES (NUMBER OF PAGES) ............................................................................................... 28APPENDIX A -VISUALNASTRAN NUMBER OF FACETS CALCULATION (2) .......................................................... 28APPENDIX B -STIFFNESS AND DAMPING EVALUATION (1) ................................................................................ 28APPENDIX C -APPROVED COMPUTER PROGRAM LIST (6) ................................................................................. 28APPENDIX D -COEFFICIENT OF RESTITUTION (2) ............................................................................................... 28APPENDIX E -HYDROSTATIC AND HYDRODYNAMIC EFFECTS (5) ........................................................................ 28APPENDIX F -CALCULATIONS OF FACTORS (2) ................................................................................................. 28APPENDIX G -BASELINE CORRECTION OF SSE TIME HISTORY (5) ..................................................................... 28APPENDIX H -LIFTING ANALYSIS OF LEVELING PLATFORM (11) ........................................................ 28APPENDIX I-ANALYSIS OF SPENT FUEL POOL SLAB IN CAMPAIGN H AND III CONFIGURATION (8) ..................... 28APPENDIX J -ANALYSIS OF LEVELING PLATFORM ASSEMBLY UNDER NORMAL, SSE AND OBE CONDITIONS (27)28APPEND IX K -AN SY S INPUT FILES (12) ................................................................................................................. 28APPENDIX L -AN SY S OUTPUT FILES (3) ........................................................................................................... 28Page 5 of 28GAProjects\1 916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7 Project 1916Report 1-H-2104715
Project 1916Report 1-2104715HOLTEC SAFETY SIGNIFICANT DOCUMENTSIn order to gain acceptance as a safety significant document in the company's quality assurancesystem, this document is required to undergo a prescribed review and concurrence process that,requires the preparer and reviewer(s) of the document to answer a long list of questions crafted toensure that the document has been purged of all errors of any material significance. A record ofthe review and verification activities is maintained in electronic form within the company'snetwork to enable future retrieval and recapitulation of the programmatic acceptance processleading to the acceptance and release of this document under the company's QA system. Amongthe numerous requirements that this document must fulfill, as applicable, to muster approvalwithin the company's QA program are:* The preparer(s) and reviewer(s) are technically qualified to perform their activities perthe applicable Holtec Quality Procedure (HQP).* The input information utilized in the work effort is drawn from referencable sources. Anyassumed input data is so identified.* All significant assumptions are stated.* The analysis methodology is consistent with the physics of the problem.* Any computer code and its specific versions used in the work have been formallyadmitted for use within the company's QA system.* The format and content of the document is in accordance with the applicable Holtecquality procedure.The material content of the report is understandable to a reader with the requisite academictraining and experience in the underlying technical disciplines.Once a safety significant document, such as this report, completes its review and certificationcycle, it should be free of any materially significant error and should not require a revision unlessits scope of treatment needs to be altered. Except for regulatory interface documents (i.e., thosethat are submitted to the NRC in support of a license amendment and request), editorial revisionsto Holtec safety significant documents are not made unless such editorial changes are deemednecessary by the Holtec Project Manager to prevent erroneous conclusions from being inferredby the reader. In other words, the focus in the preparation of this document is to ensurecorrectness of the technical content rather than the cosmetics of presentation.Page 1 of 28G:\Projects\1916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7I Project 1916Report 1-2104715REVISION LOGRevision 0 -Original issue.Revision 1 -Report is revised to address client comments. Racks considered in the evaluationsare Racks E l through E 10 and N I through N5 (Campaign II and Campaign III). Appendix F andmain report are revised. The slab is still structurally adequate. All changes are marked withrevision bars.Revision 2 -Report is revised to address the effect of the non-conservatism identified in reportHI-92952 (reference [5.4]). Appendix H is added to demonstrate the structural adequacy of thefloor slab in the Campaign II and III configuration. All changes are marked with revision bars.Appendix H is a newly added appendix and no revision bars are used.Revision 3 -Report is revised to address the effect of the non-conservatism identified in reportHI-92952 (reference [5.4]). Appendix I is therefore added to demonstrate the structural adequacyof the floor slab in the Campaign II and III configuration. It is recognized that a leveling platform[5.13] is used in the spent fuel pool to support the HI-TRAC 100)D cask. Therefore, AppendicesJ, K and L are added to demonstrate that the leveling platform is structurally adequate to supportthe HI-TRAC 1 OOD cask under the normal, SSE and OBE conditions. Appendix C is updated toinclude a latest version of ACPL and add ANSYS as computer code used. All changes aremarked with revision bars. Appendices C, I, J, K and L are newly added/updated appendices andno revision bars are used. Appendix H is deleted.Revision 4 -Report is revised to address client comments. Main body of the report andappendices E, F, I and J are revised with revision bars on the right margin. The slab isstructurally adequate.Revision 5 -Report is revised to address client comments. The main body of the report and theappendix E are revised for editorial changes. The revision bars are shown on the right margin.Appendix H is newly added to evaluate lifting of the leveling platform and no revision bars arePage 2 of 28G:Projects\1 916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7 Project 1916Report HI-2104715used in Appendix H. The revision bars in other appendices are carried over from previousrevisions and are not applicable to this revision.Revision 6 -Report is revised to address client comments. The main body of the report and theappendix E are revised to reflect the new location of HI-TRAC due to the introduction ofleveling platform. The clearances to adjacent structures are updated and safety factors arerecalculated. The revision bars are shown on the right margin. Appendix H is revised to beconsistent with drawing change. The platform drawing reference in Appendix J is updated andyield strength of stainless steel is corrected at pool temperature. The abovementioned changesare marked with revision bars and the revision bars in other appendices are carried over fromprevious revisions and are not applicable to this revision. All conclusions remain valid for thisrevision.Revision 7 -Report is revised to address client comments. The main body of the report and theappendix E are revised to reflect the new location of HI-TRAC per latest revision of drawing8777. The clearances to adjacent structures are updated and safety factors are recalculated. Theabovementioned changes are marked with revision bars and the revision bars in other appendicesare carried over from previous revisions and are not applicable to this revision. All conclusionsremain valid for this revision.Page 3 of 28G:\Projects\1916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7 Project 1916 Report I--2104715TABLE OF CONTENTSHOLTEC SAFETY SIGNIFICANT DOCUMENTS ............................................................................................... 1R EV ISIO N LO G .......................................................................................................................................................... 2T A BLE O F C O N T EN T S ............................................................................................................................................ 41.0 IN T R O D U C T IO N A N D SC O PE ...................................................................................................................... 62.0 METHODOLOGY AND ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA ............................................................................. 72.1 M ETHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................................... 72.2 A CCEPTANCE C RITERIA ................................................................................................................................... 93.0 A SSU M PT IO N S ............................................................................................................................................... 104.0 IN PU T DA TA ................................................................................................................................................... 114.1 INPUT W EIGHTS FOR D YNAM IC A NALYSIS ................................................................................................. 114.2 SEISM IC INPUTS .............................................................................................................................................. 114.3 FRICTIONAL INPUT ......................................................................................................................................... 115.0 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS AND COMPUTER FILES ...................................................................... 1


==1.0 INTRODUCTION==
==25.1 REFERENCES==
AND SCOPEThe HI-TRAC 100)D transfer cask (hereinafter referred to as HI-TRAC) is loaded with fuel whilesubmerged in the Pilgrim Station Spent Fuel Pool (SFP) and positioned in the SFP cask loadingarea at El. 74.25' near the SFP north wall (Fig. 2.1 of [5.3]).This technical report and supporting calculations demonstrate the kinematic stability of theloaded HI-TRAC submerged in water in the cask loading area when subjected to postulated SSEseismic event. The analysis also reports the peak load on the SFP floor slab from the HI-TRAC(bounding case) under the SSE loading. Subsequently, the structural integrity of the pool slab isassessed.The simulation model used to evaluate the stability of a loaded HI-TRAC in the cask loadingarea (El. 74.25') is developed using the non-linear dynamic simulation computer codeVisualNastran (VN) [5.1]. VN is a Holtec validated rigid body dynamic analysis code used onnumerous occasions to simulate the response of the systems (casks) under earthquake events atvarious nuclear plants. Figure 1 shows the simulation model of the HI-TRAC loaded with MPCplaced on the SFP slab. The inputs used to couple the hydrostatic and hydrodynamic effects inthe VN simulations are developed in Appendix E. The inputs used as the driving inertial loads inthe VisualNastran (VN) model are the baseline corrected acceleration time-histories fromAppendix G.To overcome potential interferences on the SFP floor and provide for a level resting surface forthe HI-TRAC, an adjustable leveling platform [5.13] will be installed on top of the SFP liner inthe cask loading area. The structural adequacy of the adjustable leveling platform to support theloaded HI-TRAC under normal operating and seismic load conditions is evaluated in AppendicesJ, K, and L. The leveling platform is not included in the VN model since it has minimal effect onthe dynamic response of the HI-TRAC (see Section 2.1 for further discussion).Page 6 of 28G:\Projects\1916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7 Project 1916Report M1-21047152.0 METHODOLOGY AND ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA2.1 MethodologyTo perform the required dynamic analysis, the HI-TRAC system is modeled as a freestandingassemblage of three rigid bodies (the HI-TRAC with the contained MPC, top lid, and the poollid). Initially modeling the system as separate bodies ensures that the correct centroidal heightsare preserved. For dynamic analysis, the separate bodies are constrained to move as one sixdegree-of-freedom body. Figure 1 shows the assembled cask, as constructed in VisualNastran(VN) [5.1 ], ready for simulation.As discussed in Section 1.0, the HI-TRAC actually rests slightly above the surface of the SFPslab on an adjustable leveling platform. Since the leveling platform is a low-profile structure,which stands only 7 inches tall (approx.), and all of the steel members used to construct theplatform are at least 2 inches thick, it is effectively rigid in both the vertical and horizontaldirections. Also, the leveling platform has a wider support base than the freestanding HI-TRAC.For these reasons, the leveling platform will not amplify the driving motion at the base of the HI-TRAC as the earthquake travels upward from the SFP slab through the leveling platform, norwill it have a significant influence on the dynamic response of the freestanding HI-TRAC.Therefore, the leveling platform is not included in the VN model shown in Figure 1. However,the peak interface loads at the base of the HI-TRAC from the VN model are conservatively usedin Appendix J to inform the structural evaluation of the leveling platform.The computer code VisualNastran is a rigid body dynamics code that includes large orientationchange capability, simulation of impacts, and representation of contact and friction behavior.VisualNastran performs time history dynamic analysis of freestanding structures using theacceleration time-histories in the three orthogonal directions as the input. For the seismicevaluations herein, acceleration time histories appropriate to SFP floor elevation [5.3] are used asinput. A change of variables allows the problem to be formulated as a fixed ground with the caskmoving in response to applied driving forces, equal to the component mass times the calculatedPage 7 of 28G:\Projects\1916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7I Project 1916 Report HI-2104715ground acceleration in each of three directions, applied at the component's mass center. Refer toAppendix E for detailed evaluation of the hydrostatic and hydrodynamic effects.In MSC VisualNastran Desktop the following rules apply to the surfaces in contact:" In simple surface contact model (impulse-momentum) when 2 bodies collide thecoefficients offriction between two bodies are determined by taking the lower of the twocoefficients given to the bodies in contact." If two bodies collide, one with a custom contact model and the other with the simplesurface model, the equations defined in the custom contact model will be used forcollision response.* If two bodies collide, each with custom contact models having different equations, theminimum normal and friction force values as computed by the MSC VisualNastranDesktop simulation engine will be used.The results from the analyses provide the time history of the net horizontal displacement of theHI-TRAC cask and the interface loads between the cask pool lid and the supporting structure.These results are further processed and compared with appropriate allowables to meet theacceptance criteria.Subsequently, the structural integrity of the leveling platform and the pool slab are assessedusing the peak impact load from the VN dynamic simulation for SSE and OBE events.Page 8 of 28G:\Projects\1916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7 Project 1916Report HI-21047152.2 Acceptance Criteria2.2.1 Per Assumption 3.6, the cask is positioned at the center of the cask leveling platform. PerAppendix E, the minimum gap between the cask and surrounding structures is 4.8125",existing between the HI-TRAC cask and the N2 rack. The maximum displacement ofracks (at the top and bottom comers) in the two horizontal directions from Tables 6.7.2and 6.7.3 of [5.5] is 0.3881". Based on these inputs, the maximum allowable HI-TRACcask displacement is 4.4244" (= 4.8125" -0.3881") in E-W or N-S direction. Per [5.15],the minimum gap between the leveling platform and the surrounding structures is 3",existing between the platform and the North Wall. Therefore, the maximum allowableleveling platform displacement is 2.6119" (= 3" -0.3881").2.2.2 The net effective load on the pool slab from the spent fuel racks in Campaign II and IIIconfiguration (racks N1 through N5 and E1 through El0 with regular fuel), plus a loadedHI-TRAC cask, must be within the calculated floor slab capacity based on Pilgrim FSARdesign criteria for concrete structures.Page 9 of 28G:\Projects\1 916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7 Project 1916Report FHI-21047153.0 ASSUMPTIONS3.1 In the dynamic analysis that qualifies the application, the loaded cask is simulated as asingle freestanding rigid body with appropriate geometry, mass, and inertia propertiesobtained by adding the contribution of the component parts. The component parts of thesystem are constrained to move as a single body. This is conservative as it neglectsrattling of the internals, which would serve to dissipate energy.3.2 During the dynamic analyses, any hydrodynamic coupling in the annulus between theMPC and the HI-TRAC is neglected. This is conservative since this coupling serves todampen the response and absorb lateral energy.3.3 The heaviest weight system is used in the seismic analysis; the results from this analysiswill bound the results from any other configuration. This is a conservative assumptionwhich maximizes the vertical load on the slab. For pure sliding, the weight does not enterinto the equations of motion.3.4 The upper bound coefficient of friction (COF) between HI-TRAC pool lid and slab istaken as 0.8. The lower bound COF is conservatively taken as 0.2.3.5 The effects of the surrounding fluid are incorporated into the model in accordance withestablished principles [5.6, 5.7]. Any increase in hydrodynamic mass occurring fromchanges in cask location relative to the wall or adjacent racks, is conservativelyneglected.3.6 The cask is assumed to be positioned at the center of the cask leveling platform.Page 10 of 28G:\Projects\1916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7 Project 1916Report HI-21047154.0 INPUT DATA4.1 Input Weights for Dynamic AnalysisLoaded HI-TRAC IOOD bounding weight: 191,000 lb. (bounding weight [5.8])HI-TRAC IOOD Pool lid -8,000 lb. (bounding weight [5.8])Note that Case 7 in Table 7.0.2 of [5.18] for the loaded HI-TRAC weight when lifted for removalfrom the SFP specifies a weight of 196,716 lb, which is greater than the 191,000 lb input above.However, there is an approximate 5% overestimation in the computed weight of 196,716 lb inTable 7.0.2 [5.18] (see footnote of Table 7.0.2). The actual weight of the HI-TRAC can bereasonably estimated to be 196,716 lb x (100% -5%) = 186,880 lb, which is less than 191,000lb. Therefore, the use of 191,000 lb as HI-TRAC weight in this analysis is conservative andacceptable.The effect of the surrounding fluid (hydrodynamic) mass is included in the analysis. Theappropriate added mass value is computed in Appendix E.4.2 Seismic InputsThe baseline-corrected (performed in Appendix G) 20-second duration acceleration timehistories appropriate to SFP floor elevation for SSE condition [5.3] are used as input in the VNsimulation model.4.3 Frictional InputTo establish bounding results, the coefficient of friction (COF) at the contact interface betweenthe HI-TRAC pool lid and its supporting surface are evaluated at 0.2 and 0.8. An additional casePage 11 of 28G:\Projects\l 916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7I Project 1916Report HI-2104715with COF value of 0.5 at the above mentioned interface is included in the analyses as asensitivity study.5.0 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS AND COMPUTER FILES5.1 References[5.1] VisualNastran 2004, MSC Software, 2004.[5.2] Holtec Position Paper DS-340, Rev. 1, QUANTIFYING THE DAMPING FACTORFOR LOW VELOCITY IMPACTS IN THE HI-STORM SYSTEM.[5.3] Holtec Report HI-92926, Synthetic Seismic Acceleration Time-histories of theSpent Fuel Pool Slab for Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, Rev. 0, Project 20930.[5.4] Holtec Report HI-92952, Calculation Package For Pilgrim Spent Fuel Pool SlabStructural Requalification, Rev. 1.[5.5] Holtec Report HI-92925, Licensing Report For Spent Fuel Storage CapacityExpansion at Pilgrim Station, Rev. 1.[5.6] Holtec Position Paper DS-246, Seismic Analysis of Submerged Bodies, Rev. 2, Jan.2006.[5.7] ASCE Publication 4-98, Seismic Analysis of Safety-Related Nuclear Structures,Subsection C3.1.6.2.[5.8] Holtec Report HI-2002444, HI-STORM 100 FSAR, Rev. 9.[5.9] Holtec Drawing 1074, Pool Layout -Campaign I for Spent Fuel Storage Racks,Rev. 1.[5.10] Theory of Elasticity, Timoshenko, S. P., Goodier, J. N., 3rd Edition, 1970, Mc Graw-Hill.[5.11] ACI 349-85, "Code Requirements for Nuclear Safety Related Concrete Structures".[5.12] Holtec Drawing 4130, Rev. 13, HI-TRAC 100D.[5.13] Holtec Drawing 8262, Rev. 7, Leveling Platform Adjustable Assembly,Page 12 of 28G:\Projects\1916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7 Project 1916[5.14][5.15][5.161[5.17][5.181Report HI-2104715Holtec Purchase Specification, PS-5256, Rev. 0, Purchase Specification for PilgrimLeveling Platform.Holtec Drawing 8777, Rev. 5, Spent Fuel Pool Dry Cask Configuration.ANSI/AISC N690-1994, "American National Standard Specification for the Design,Fabrication, and Erection of Steel Safety-Related Structures for Nuclear Facilities".ASME CODE, Section II, Part D, 1995 edition.Holtec Report HI-2104716, Cask Handling Weights and Cask Handling Dimensionsat Pilgrim, Rev. 2.5.2 Computer Codes and FilesAppendix C contains the listing of approved computer codes used for this calculation. Allrelevant computer files associated with this calculation package are archived on the HoltecServer and saved on the network under:G." IProjectsi 19161REPORTSIStructural Reports ISFP Evahlation TRev 7The old revisions are saved atG: \Projects \1916\REPORTSýStructural Reports\SFP EvaluationlRev 6G: Projects \1916ýREPORTSIStructural ReportsISFP Evaluation 5G: IProjects 19166REPORTSIStructural Reports ýSFP Evahlation ýRev 4G: Wrojects 1916REPORTSYStructural Reports ISFP Evaluation IRev 3G: ýProjects l 1916IREPORTSIStructural Reports ISFP Evaluation Iev 2G: Projects 1916ýREPORTSIStructural Reports MSFP Evaluation IRev 1G: Projects I 9196REPORTSIStructural Reports ISFP Evaluation IRev 0Page 13 of 28G:\Projects\1916\REPORTS\Structurai Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7I Project 1916Report 1-H-21047156.0 ANALYSESDynamic simulations are performed for SSE condition with 0.2, 0.5 and 0.8 coefficients offriction (COF) for the contact interface between the HI-TRAC pool lid and its supportingsurface. The effect of the water in the cask loading area is included in the dynamic model in theform of a hydrodynamic mass that is added to the structural mass, and a displaced mass term thatserves to reduce the magnitude of the driving force input. Appendix E computes thehydrodynamic mass for the HI-TRAC, accounting for the confinement due to the adjacent walland spent fuel racks. Figure 2 shows the total mass (structural plus hydrodynamic) and inertiaproperties associated with the cask. Figure 3 shows the additional constant upward force addedto the loaded HI-TRAC cask, to ensure that the net vertical force is corrected for the automaticinclusion (by the VN algorithm) of the horizontal hydrodynamic mass in the vertical direction.Figure 4 shows the three directional inertia forces applied at the centroid of the HI-TRAC cask.The facet calculation for cylindrical surface is presented in Appendix A. The contact interfacebetween the pool lid and the support surface in VN is simulated using a "custom contact" modelwith appropriate local stiffness and damping as evaluated in Appendix B. The frictional force ateach contact interface is evaluated as the product of the COF and the instantaneous normal forceevaluated by the VN dynamic code. Figures 5 and 6 show the stiffness, damping and frictioncoefficient inputs to the VN model at the HI-TRAC pool lid/support structure interface.Appendix D presents the derivation of the relationship between coefficient of restitution anddamping. Appendix G performs baseline correction on the original SSE acceleration timehistories to obtain baseline-corrected time histories.Appendix H evaluates the lifting of the leveling platform to meet the requirements of [5.14].Appendix I demonstrates the structural adequacy of the floor slab in the Campaign II and IIIconfiguration in consideration of non-conservatism identified in report HI-92952 (reference[5.4]).Page 14 of 28G:\Projects\1916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7 Project 1916Report I 2104715Appendix J addresses the structural qualification of the leveling platform [5.13] that supports theHI-TRAC cask and bears on the SFP floor slab. It demonstrates that the leveling platform isstructurally adequate to support the HI-TRAC 100D cask under the normal, SSE and OBEconditions. Appendices K and L are supplements to Appendix J providing ANSYS input filesand output files for weld evaluation.7.0 RESULTS7.1 HI-TRAC StabilityIn this section, the results from the dynamic simulations of HI-TRAC seismic response in thecask area at El. 74.25' are documented. Figure 7 shows time history plot of typical impact forceon the slab and Figure 8 shows maximum displacement at the top of the HI-TRAC cask in thecask area under the SSE seismic excitation with 0.8 COF at the pool lid/SFP floor interface. TheCOF between the HI-TRAC base (pool lid) and SFP slab is taken as 0.8 (upper bound) and 0.2(lower bound) per assumption 3.4. An additional case with COF value of 0.5 is also performed.Hence, a total of three SSE runs were made and results are tabulated in Table 1. Table 1summarizes the results for maximum displacements at the top of the cask, peak vertical loads,and peak frictional forces between pool lid and slab interface for the three cases considered.The maximum lateral displacement (in H1 or H2 direction) of the top of the HI-TRAC isobserved to be 2.458" for the postulated SSE seismic event. The resulting safety factor againstimpact with the surrounding structures and the loaded HI-TRAC is 1 (4.4244" / 2.458") (seeSection 2.2.1 for the derivation of the value of 4.4244"). The maximum lateral displacement ofthe bottom of the HI-TRAC is observed to be 2.450" for the postulated SSE seismic event. Theworst scenario is observed when the HI-TRAC and the leveling platform move as one. Theresulting safety factor against impact with the surrounding structures and the loaded levelingplatform is 1.07 (2.6119" / 2.450") (see Section 2.2.1 for the derivation of the value of 2.6119").Page 15 of 28G:\Projects\1916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7 Project 1916Report -11-2104715The peak vertical force on the cask loading area slab at any time instant is obtained as 511,750lbf under SSE condition, as seen from Table 1.Table 1: Peak Results from Dynamic Analyses of HI-TRAC Cask under SSE EventCOF MaximumMaximum Maximum Maximumbetween Y-DirectionalX-Directional Y-Directional X-Directional Peak PeakHI- (112)(HI) (112) (1) Vertical FrictionaCase TRAC (H)(2 H) Displacement[Displacement Displacement Displacement of Load I ForcePool Lid of Bottom ofof top of HI- of top of HI- Bottom of HI- (lb.) (lb.)and SFP HI-TRAC (l. (b)TRAC (in.) TRAC (in.) TRAC (in.)Floor (in.)Case 1 0.2 2.458 1.096 2.450 1.063 212,520 42,420Case 2 0.5 0.922 0.846 0.161 0.184 391,500 194,420Case 3 0.8 1.369 1.343 0.083 0.163 511,750 387,900Since SSE seismic event is stronger than OBE event, the analysis is not repeated for the OBEevent. As shown in Section 7.2, an evaluation of current configuration under OBE event isunwarranted.7.2 Pool Slab AssessmentFor reference only, the net resultant load on the SFP slab from the Final Reracked Configuration[5.4] (with regular fuel) and that from Campaign II racks (racks El through ElO, plus NIthrough N4) and Campaign III rack (rack N5) (with regular fuel, i.e., 680 lbf fuel) including aloaded cask in the cask area, are presented below. Please note that Campaign III rack N6 is notincluded in the load summation for Campaigns II and III since the Rack N6 cannot co-exist withthe HI-TRAC cask. The dead load of the racks from both Campaign II, III and Final RerackedConfiguration are directly obtained by summing the individual rack weight and the fuel within[5.5]. The maximum dead load on the SFP floor is 191,000 lbs (Table 3.2.2 of [5.8]) and itoccurs when the loaded HI-TRAC cask is placed on the floor. Table 2 compares the dynamicloads on the slab under the SSE event, from the Final Reracked Configuration and the CampaignII and III Configuration including a loaded HI-TRAC.Page 16 of 28G:\Projects\1916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7 Project 1916Report M-2104715Table 2: Comparison of Total Dynamic Loads on SlabCampaigns II andFinal Reracked III (Racks El thruLoad Classification / Pool Configuration El0 and N1 thruLayout (regular fuel) N5) (regular fuel)(SSE) IncludingLoaded Cask (SSE)Dead Load on Slab from Fully 3,112,220 2,949,480Loaded Racks (Dr), lbf §Dead Load on Slab from Fully 191,000Loaded Cask (DJ), lbfDynamic Adder from Rack0.372 0.372Dynamic Analysis (Ar) +Dynamic Adder from Cask0 1.680Dynamic Analysis (AJ) *Buoyancy Factor (B) y 0.873 0.873Total Dynamic Load[Drx B x (1 + Ar)] + [D, x (1 + 3,727,680 4,044,638A.)]§ The dead loads on slab (Dr) are calculated in Appendix F. All of the racks present in a configuration are fully loaded withregular fuel weighing 680 lbf.*The dynamic adder from the cask dynamic analysis is incremental factor applied to the dead load to obtain the seismic load(Ac = 511,750/191,000 -I = 1.680).4The dynamic adders from the rack seismic analysis Ar are the incremental factor applied to the submerged weight of the loadedracks to obtain the seismic load. They are calculated in Appendix F. Although the calculated dynamic adder is for the FinalReracked Configuration racks, it is used for the Campaign II and III racks as well. Since the total mass of fuel and the number offuel cells in the Final Reracked Configuration racks is considerably higher than the corresponding numbers for the Campaign IIand Ill racks, it is justifiable to use the dynamic adder from the Final Reracked Configuration to calculate the total dynamic loadfor the Campaign II and III racks.y The multipliers applied to the dry weight of the racks plus fuel to account for buoyancy effects in water are calculated inAppendix F.Page 17 of 28G:\Projects\1916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7 Project 1916Report 1-21047157.2.1 Slab Capacity CheckIt is recognized that the finite element model described in Ref. [5.4] is non-conservative becauseit credits temporary columns to support the spent fuel pool slab. further evaluation is needed forthe slab under the effective load from the Campaign II and III racks plus the loaded HI-TRAC.Therefore, Appendix I is added herein to demonstrate the structural adequacy of the spent fuelslab in Campaign II and III configuration without crediting any of the steel beams/girdersbeneath the slab. The minimum factor of safety for slab flexural capacity presented is Appendix Iis 1.228.7.2.2 Leveling Platform Punching Shear CheckThe HI-TRAC cask is supported by the leveling platform in the spent fuel pool per [5.14] and theadjustable support pedestals of the leveling platform assembly are contacting with the slab.Appendices J, K and L are added to demonstrate the structural adequacy of the leveling platformin supporting the HI-TRAC cask under normal, SSE and OBE conditions.Since the load from the loaded cask is concentrated on the spent fuel pool slab through theleveling platform pedestals, local punching shear and bearing evaluation are performed below.To evaluate the punching shear on the slab at a location of impact, the maximum allowablepunching shear force is calculated per ACI Code [5.11 ].The distance from the most compressed fiber to the tensile reinforcement is:d = 57 in. Page 6-90 of [5.4]Leveling Platform adjustable support diameter (chamfer considered): D = 4.75 in. [5.13]Page 18 of 28G:\Projects\1 916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7 Project 1916 Report 1I-2104715Bearing Pad thickness: t = 2 in. [5.15]Assume the pedestal load spreading of 45 deg. through the bearing pad.The effective perimeter around the impact location is:bo = 2 x n x (D + 2xt + d) bo = 413 in.(Note that the load is conservatively assumed to be applied to only two pedestals due to rockingin the SSE and the OBE conditions. The same assumption is also used in Appendix J inevaluating the leveling platform)Concrete compressive strength: fc = 4,000 psi Page 6-90 of [5.4]Therefore, the punching shear capacity is calculated per ACI Code [5.11 ] as:Vcap = 0.85 X 4 X (f)12 X b0 x d Vcap = 5,063,600 lbfThe maximum impact load from the loaded cask is:Vimp = 511,750 lbf (Table 1)Therefore the safety factor against a punching shear failure of the slab is:SF = Vcap/ Vimp SF p9.89The bearing capacity of the concrete slab is calculated per ACI Code [5.11] as:S1ar = 2 x 0.85 x 0.7 x fc Sjear = 4,760 psiThe bearing stress on concrete slab based on the peak impact force on HI-TRAC baseplate iscalculated as:S. = Vimp / (2x0.25xrt(D+2xt)2) S. = 4,255 psiTherefore, the safety factor against the bearing stress on the concrete slab is:SF = Sbear/ Sas SF- 1.2Page 19 of 28G:\Projects\1916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7 Project 1916Report 1-2104715The bearing capacity of the bearing pad is calculated per AISC [5.16] as:Sbarbp = 0.9X27,500 psi Sbearbp = 24,750 psiWhere 27,500 psi is the yield strength of SA-240-304 at 150 deg. F per [5.17].The bearing stress on bearing pads based on the peak impact force on HI-TRAC baseplate iscalculated as:Sas_bp = Vimp / (2x0.25xrt(D)2) Sasbp = 14,440 psiTherefore, the safety factor against the bearing stress on the bearing pads is:SF = Sbe.b p/ Sasbp ;SF 1.71lThe above calculated safety factors are for the SSE event. As for the OBE event, ACI code(Section 9.2.1 of [5.11]) defines 1.7 and 1.4 as the load factors for impact load and dead load,respectively. Note that the above calculated safety factors for concrete are both greater than 1.7,therefore, the corresponding safety factors for OBE events will be greater than 1.0, even if theSSE results are conservatively used as OBE results. Hence it is confirmed that an evaluation ofOBE events are unwarranted.Page 20 of 28G:\Projects\1916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7 Project 1916Report HI-2104715
.................................................................................................................................................. 125.2 COM PUTER CODES AND FILES ........................................................................................................................ 136.0 AN A L Y SES ...................................................................................................................................................... 147.0 RE SU LT S ......................................................................................................................................................... 157.1 H I-TRA C STABILITY ..................................................................................................................................... 157.2 POOL SLAB A SSESSM ENT ............................................................................................................................... 167.2.1 Slab C apacity C heck ............................................................................................ ..187.2.2 Leveling Platform Punching Shear Check ............................................................. 188.0 C O N C LU SIO N S .............................................................................................................................................. 219.0 FIG UR ES .......................................................................................................................................................... 22FIGURE 1. M ODEL OF LOADED H I-TRA C C ASK ON SLAB ................................................................................... 22FIGURE 2. MASS PROPERTIES (INCLUDING HYDRODYNAMIC MASS) OF HI-TRAC .............................................. 23Page 4 of 28G:\Projects\1916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7 Project 1916Report HI-2104715FIGURE 3. CONSTANT BUOYANCY FORCE APPLIED TO CASK ................................................................................... 24FIGURE 4. BOUNDING INERTIA FORCE APPLIED TO THE CASK (ALL DIRECTIONS) ............................................... 25FIGURE 5. POOL LID/SLAB INTERFACE STIFFNESS AND DAMPING FOR HI-TRAC MODEL .................................. 26FIGURE 6. POOL LID/SLAB INTERFACE FRICTION FOR HI-TRAC MODEL ............................................................. 26FIGURE 7. MAXIMUM POOL LID/SFP FLOOR INTERFACE LOAD -(SSE EVENT) .................................................. 27FIGURE 8. POSITION OF THE TOP OF HI-TRAC (SSE EVENT) ................................................................................... 2710.0 APPENDICES (NUMBER OF PAGES) ............................................................................................... 28APPENDIX A -VISUALNASTRAN NUMBER OF FACETS CALCULATION (2) .......................................................... 28APPENDIX B -STIFFNESS AND DAMPING EVALUATION (1) ................................................................................ 28APPENDIX C -APPROVED COMPUTER PROGRAM LIST (6) ................................................................................. 28APPENDIX D -COEFFICIENT OF RESTITUTION (2) ............................................................................................... 28APPENDIX E -HYDROSTATIC AND HYDRODYNAMIC EFFECTS (5) ........................................................................ 28APPENDIX F -CALCULATIONS OF FACTORS (2) ................................................................................................. 28APPENDIX G -BASELINE CORRECTION OF SSE TIME HISTORY (5) ..................................................................... 28APPENDIX H -LIFTING ANALYSIS OF LEVELING PLATFORM (11) ........................................................ 28APPENDIX I-ANALYSIS OF SPENT FUEL POOL SLAB IN CAMPAIGN H AND III CONFIGURATION (8) ..................... 28APPENDIX J -ANALYSIS OF LEVELING PLATFORM ASSEMBLY UNDER NORMAL, SSE AND OBE CONDITIONS (27)28APPEND IX K -AN SY S INPUT FILES (12) ................................................................................................................. 28APPENDIX L -AN SY S OUTPUT FILES (3) ........................................................................................................... 28Page 5 of 28GAProjects\1 916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7 Project 1916Report 1-H-210471


==8.0 CONCLUSION==
==51.0 INTRODUCTION==
SIt is demonstrated in the foregoing sections that the maximum lateral excursion of the HI-TRACis 2.458" at the top of the cask, which is less than the allowable excursion of 4.4244" betweenthe HI-TRAC and the surrounding structures. It is further shown that the HI-TRAC cask remainsstable at the conclusion of the 20 seconds duration SSE seismic event (bounding).It is shown that the spent fuel slab floor is structurally adequate in the current configuration(Campaign II and III racks with regular fuel plus the loaded cask) under the postulated SSE andOBE events without the temporary columns. The leveling platform is also structurally adequateto support the loaded HI-TRAC cask under normal, SSE and OBE conditions. The safety factorfor slab flexural loading is 1.228. The safety factor against the local punching of the slab isshown to be 9.89, based on the peak load on the slab from the HI-TRAC cask seismic analysis.The safety factor of the slab against the bearing is shown to be 1.12.It is therefore concluded that the HI-TRAC cask, when submerged in water in the spent fuel poolat El. 74.25' at Pilgrim, has adequate margins in terms of the kinematic stability and the slabstructural integrity.Page 21 of 28G:\Projects\1 916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7 Project 1916Report 1-H-21047159.0 FIGURESThe VN graphical outputs (result plots) and input screen captures in this section correspond tothe HI-TRAC cask simulation under SSE event with 0.8 COF at the HI-TRAC base (PoolLid)/SFP floor interface. Similar plots can be obtained for other simulations (including 0.2 and0.5 COF at HI-TRAC base (Pool Lid)/SFP floor interface) which are archived on the Holtecnetwork.Figure 1. Model of Loaded HI-TRAC Cask on SlabPage 22 of 28G:\Projects\1 916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7 Project 1916Report HI-2104715Proeries of bod[2 "HJ~ C ?Vel Material Cylinder. Central Inertia Contact j FEAFDensity Mass 1311795.520 Ibmr~ ensitY Mass I ...... ... .: ............... .bC Uniform( Customi bm in'20 000 1 0.. ..09 -7. ....0.. t0.0! ....... ... .. ... oo o o o .. ...... .f ~ -1990..011600000.000 j~° ... ......... ..(Inertia about center of .masialigned with body axes)ppys Help... * ,.,,- .: ,.," " ..... ...o. ......Vel" Material Cylinder [Central .nertialI Contact1 FEiA 4L Material PropertiesC[ ustom material for body[2] ., .,:'!.Mass F311795.520 IbmVolume 11 in.3Coeff. Restitution 10.254 ...Coeff. Friction 0.800C lPpy HelpFigure 2. Mass Properties (including hydrodynamic mass) of HI-TRACPage 23 of 28G:\Projects\1 916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7I Project 1916Report MI-2104715= ;.,~~ ~ ~ .x-ýM , 7_ " "Appearance ~Structural Load jActiveY o.10o00 lbfZ J164265.192 lj bfFrame ...- ...... .'r World0-:8'dyC CoordrCoordinates(* Cartesian !C CylindricalC Face normalFigure 3.Constant Buoyancy Force Applid Et C aPFigure 3. Constant Buoyancy Force Applied to CaskPage 24 of 28G:\Projects\1 916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7 Project 1916Report HI-2104715,Edit For ulaI .'m 1w 4,Graph Property. Math Logic Function.e'v 7C ?I, INM-191 000(input[16]) Ibf9000o0.0ao.0.ooG.aogea5.oo6oo0(.oD8.oo9.aooJ.a(Time (sec)---------- -A.6I. EdtFomlaMGraph Property: Math Logic Function'we X "v W Tj 0 ffl N-191 000([input[391) Ibf............. .Ei t orulGraph Property Math Logic Function'r Ni 7E q El ffl 1bf-191 000'input[4011 IbiIA~4==Tlme(see)OK Cancel' HelpFigure 4. Bounding Inertia Force Applied to the Cask (All Directions)Page 25 of 28G:\Projects\1 916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7 Project 191ýReport HI-2104715I*1 S Prpriso bd~]'OLl)' M "V9* el .. .Mteral C....ra. e...a FEA Co .tact C* ..we. .Contact detectibow -Conitact response--r Facetted wdaface r Ilmpulse/,,omitumr. AllRow Penetration. r- Custom modelFacett..PropertiesSmooth =uoface..... ..... ..,. ,Mod" ......... ... OK "Ir mpuloe/m omentumO" Custom :_.:.Coe. Rettiution 1 --Ctf. ,Frictio .... , " .I ,. Normal foremfiodek ti, Vrpenatrot1mmr-JFrctnir force mo .1e .t l 0,... .Ga o. MathL gic : JE: .IF-ý -/r N\ 7C ?I (DG(- 3923 t fin)pm ehatio.11 -(5129 hItI[Tnme (sec)Figure 5. Pool Lid/Slab Interface Stiffness and Damping for HI-TRAC ModelEit. FomlaTE222Graph Property. Math Logic Function-#, %./" 'v 7E. T! 91 ff 1W0081normalcomP0"tangentvels/tangentvel 0"J.0001 inls) ... ,OK---] Can~el ielC,*.00~.00o.008.0@.0 aosoos.oari.ao8.0o.OOM.OCTtme (sec)i -Figure 6. Pool Lid/Slab Interface Friction for HI-TRAC ModelPage 26 of 28G:\Projects\1 91 6\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7 Project 1916Report HI-2104715Figure 7. Maximum Pool Lid/SFP Floor Interface Load -(SSE Event)Valuex 0.004 iny 0.094 in2 194-243 inMin Max-1.255 1.369-1.311 1.343194.233 194,529Figure 8. Position of the Top of HI-TRAC (SSE Event)(the original position of the top of HI-TRAC is (0 in.,0 in., 194.25 in.))Page 27 of 28G:\Projects\1 916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7 Project 1916 Report H1-210471510.0 APPENDICES (Number of Pages)Appendix A -VisualNastran Number of Facets Calculation (2)Appendix B -Stiffness and Damping Evaluation (1)Appendix C -Approved Computer Program List (6)Appendix D -Coefficient of Restitution (2)Appendix E -Hydrostatic and Hydrodynamic Effects (5)Appendix F -Calculations of Factors (2)Appendix G -Baseline Correction of SSE Time History (5)Appendix H -LIFTING ANALYSIS OF LEVELING PLATFORM (11)Appendix I -Analysis of Spent Fuel Pool Slab in Campaign II and III Configuration(8)Appendix J -Analysis of Leveling Platform Assembly Under Normal, SSE andOBE Conditions (27)Appendix K -ANSYS Input Files (12)Appendix L -ANSYS Output Files (3)Page 28 of 28G:\Projects\1 916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7 Project 1916 Report 1-11-21 04715I Project 1916Report HI-2104715 IAppendix A: VisualNastran Number of Facets CalculationThe purpose of this appendix is to determine the number of facet points (i.e. contact locations) themodel has for defining custom contact in VisualNastran [5.1].The pool lid is placed on the spent fuel pool floor (cylindrical surface on flat ground) and allowed toreach steady state. The compression is then measured using an arbitrary stiffness input.Guess stiffness4 IbfinGuess damping1000. lbf secin7zAfter steady state has been reached, knowing the weight and the final deflection with thearbitrary stiffness, the number of facets can be computed.Appendix A -1 of 2G:\Projects\1 91 6\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 0\
AND SCOPEThe HI-TRAC 100)D transfer cask (hereinafter referred to as HI-TRAC) is loaded with fuel whilesubmerged in the Pilgrim Station Spent Fuel Pool (SFP) and positioned in the SFP cask loadingarea at El. 74.25' near the SFP north wall (Fig. 2.1 of [5.3]).This technical report and supporting calculations demonstrate the kinematic stability of theloaded HI-TRAC submerged in water in the cask loading area when subjected to postulated SSEseismic event. The analysis also reports the peak load on the SFP floor slab from the HI-TRAC(bounding case) under the SSE loading. Subsequently, the structural integrity of the pool slab isassessed.The simulation model used to evaluate the stability of a loaded HI-TRAC in the cask loadingarea (El. 74.25') is developed using the non-linear dynamic simulation computer codeVisualNastran (VN) [5.1]. VN is a Holtec validated rigid body dynamic analysis code used onnumerous occasions to simulate the response of the systems (casks) under earthquake events atvarious nuclear plants. Figure 1 shows the simulation model of the HI-TRAC loaded with MPCplaced on the SFP slab. The inputs used to couple the hydrostatic and hydrodynamic effects inthe VN simulations are developed in Appendix E. The inputs used as the driving inertial loads inthe VisualNastran (VN) model are the baseline corrected acceleration time-histories fromAppendix G.To overcome potential interferences on the SFP floor and provide for a level resting surface forthe HI-TRAC, an adjustable leveling platform [5.13] will be installed on top of the SFP liner inthe cask loading area. The structural adequacy of the adjustable leveling platform to support theloaded HI-TRAC under normal operating and seismic load conditions is evaluated in AppendicesJ, K, and L. The leveling platform is not included in the VN model since it has minimal effect onthe dynamic response of the HI-TRAC (see Section 2.1 for further discussion).Page 6 of 28G:\Projects\1916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7 Project 1916Report M1-21047152.0 METHODOLOGY AND ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA2.1 MethodologyTo perform the required dynamic analysis, the HI-TRAC system is modeled as a freestandingassemblage of three rigid bodies (the HI-TRAC with the contained MPC, top lid, and the poollid). Initially modeling the system as separate bodies ensures that the correct centroidal heightsare preserved. For dynamic analysis, the separate bodies are constrained to move as one sixdegree-of-freedom body. Figure 1 shows the assembled cask, as constructed in VisualNastran(VN) [5.1 ], ready for simulation.As discussed in Section 1.0, the HI-TRAC actually rests slightly above the surface of the SFPslab on an adjustable leveling platform. Since the leveling platform is a low-profile structure,which stands only 7 inches tall (approx.), and all of the steel members used to construct theplatform are at least 2 inches thick, it is effectively rigid in both the vertical and horizontaldirections. Also, the leveling platform has a wider support base than the freestanding HI-TRAC.For these reasons, the leveling platform will not amplify the driving motion at the base of the HI-TRAC as the earthquake travels upward from the SFP slab through the leveling platform, norwill it have a significant influence on the dynamic response of the freestanding HI-TRAC.Therefore, the leveling platform is not included in the VN model shown in Figure 1. However,the peak interface loads at the base of the HI-TRAC from the VN model are conservatively usedin Appendix J to inform the structural evaluation of the leveling platform.The computer code VisualNastran is a rigid body dynamics code that includes large orientationchange capability, simulation of impacts, and representation of contact and friction behavior.VisualNastran performs time history dynamic analysis of freestanding structures using theacceleration time-histories in the three orthogonal directions as the input. For the seismicevaluations herein, acceleration time histories appropriate to SFP floor elevation [5.3] are used asinput. A change of variables allows the problem to be formulated as a fixed ground with the caskmoving in response to applied driving forces, equal to the component mass times the calculatedPage 7 of 28G:\Projects\1916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7I Project 1916 Report HI-2104715ground acceleration in each of three directions, applied at the component's mass center. Refer toAppendix E for detailed evaluation of the hydrostatic and hydrodynamic effects.In MSC VisualNastran Desktop the following rules apply to the surfaces in contact:" In simple surface contact model (impulse-momentum) when 2 bodies collide thecoefficients offriction between two bodies are determined by taking the lower of the twocoefficients given to the bodies in contact." If two bodies collide, one with a custom contact model and the other with the simplesurface model, the equations defined in the custom contact model will be used forcollision response.* If two bodies collide, each with custom contact models having different equations, theminimum normal and friction force values as computed by the MSC VisualNastranDesktop simulation engine will be used.The results from the analyses provide the time history of the net horizontal displacement of theHI-TRAC cask and the interface loads between the cask pool lid and the supporting structure.These results are further processed and compared with appropriate allowables to meet theacceptance criteria.Subsequently, the structural integrity of the leveling platform and the pool slab are assessedusing the peak impact load from the VN dynamic simulation for SSE and OBE events.Page 8 of 28G:\Projects\1916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7 Project 1916Report HI-21047152.2 Acceptance Criteria2.2.1 Per Assumption 3.6, the cask is positioned at the center of the cask leveling platform. PerAppendix E, the minimum gap between the cask and surrounding structures is 4.8125",existing between the HI-TRAC cask and the N2 rack. The maximum displacement ofracks (at the top and bottom comers) in the two horizontal directions from Tables 6.7.2and 6.7.3 of [5.5] is 0.3881". Based on these inputs, the maximum allowable HI-TRACcask displacement is 4.4244" (= 4.8125" -0.3881") in E-W or N-S direction. Per [5.15],the minimum gap between the leveling platform and the surrounding structures is 3",existing between the platform and the North Wall. Therefore, the maximum allowableleveling platform displacement is 2.6119" (= 3" -0.3881").2.2.2 The net effective load on the pool slab from the spent fuel racks in Campaign II and IIIconfiguration (racks N1 through N5 and E1 through El0 with regular fuel), plus a loadedHI-TRAC cask, must be within the calculated floor slab capacity based on Pilgrim FSARdesign criteria for concrete structures.Page 9 of 28G:\Projects\1 916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7 Project 1916Report FHI-21047153.0 ASSUMPTIONS3.1 In the dynamic analysis that qualifies the application, the loaded cask is simulated as asingle freestanding rigid body with appropriate geometry, mass, and inertia propertiesobtained by adding the contribution of the component parts. The component parts of thesystem are constrained to move as a single body. This is conservative as it neglectsrattling of the internals, which would serve to dissipate energy.3.2 During the dynamic analyses, any hydrodynamic coupling in the annulus between theMPC and the HI-TRAC is neglected. This is conservative since this coupling serves todampen the response and absorb lateral energy.3.3 The heaviest weight system is used in the seismic analysis; the results from this analysiswill bound the results from any other configuration. This is a conservative assumptionwhich maximizes the vertical load on the slab. For pure sliding, the weight does not enterinto the equations of motion.3.4 The upper bound coefficient of friction (COF) between HI-TRAC pool lid and slab istaken as 0.8. The lower bound COF is conservatively taken as 0.2.3.5 The effects of the surrounding fluid are incorporated into the model in accordance withestablished principles [5.6, 5.7]. Any increase in hydrodynamic mass occurring fromchanges in cask location relative to the wall or adjacent racks, is conservativelyneglected.3.6 The cask is assumed to be positioned at the center of the cask leveling platform.Page 10 of 28G:\Projects\1916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7 Project 1916Report HI-21047154.0 INPUT DATA4.1 Input Weights for Dynamic AnalysisLoaded HI-TRAC IOOD bounding weight: 191,000 lb. (bounding weight [5.8])HI-TRAC IOOD Pool lid -8,000 lb. (bounding weight [5.8])Note that Case 7 in Table 7.0.2 of [5.18] for the loaded HI-TRAC weight when lifted for removalfrom the SFP specifies a weight of 196,716 lb, which is greater than the 191,000 lb input above.However, there is an approximate 5% overestimation in the computed weight of 196,716 lb inTable 7.0.2 [5.18] (see footnote of Table 7.0.2). The actual weight of the HI-TRAC can bereasonably estimated to be 196,716 lb x (100% -5%) = 186,880 lb, which is less than 191,000lb. Therefore, the use of 191,000 lb as HI-TRAC weight in this analysis is conservative andacceptable.The effect of the surrounding fluid (hydrodynamic) mass is included in the analysis. Theappropriate added mass value is computed in Appendix E.4.2 Seismic InputsThe baseline-corrected (performed in Appendix G) 20-second duration acceleration timehistories appropriate to SFP floor elevation for SSE condition [5.3] are used as input in the VNsimulation model.4.3 Frictional InputTo establish bounding results, the coefficient of friction (COF) at the contact interface betweenthe HI-TRAC pool lid and its supporting surface are evaluated at 0.2 and 0.8. An additional casePage 11 of 28G:\Projects\l 916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7I Project 1916Report HI-2104715with COF value of 0.5 at the above mentioned interface is included in the analyses as asensitivity study.5.0 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS AND COMPUTER FILES5.1 References[5.1] VisualNastran 2004, MSC Software, 2004.[5.2] Holtec Position Paper DS-340, Rev. 1, QUANTIFYING THE DAMPING FACTORFOR LOW VELOCITY IMPACTS IN THE HI-STORM SYSTEM.[5.3] Holtec Report HI-92926, Synthetic Seismic Acceleration Time-histories of theSpent Fuel Pool Slab for Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, Rev. 0, Project 20930.[5.4] Holtec Report HI-92952, Calculation Package For Pilgrim Spent Fuel Pool SlabStructural Requalification, Rev. 1.[5.5] Holtec Report HI-92925, Licensing Report For Spent Fuel Storage CapacityExpansion at Pilgrim Station, Rev. 1.[5.6] Holtec Position Paper DS-246, Seismic Analysis of Submerged Bodies, Rev. 2, Jan.2006.[5.7] ASCE Publication 4-98, Seismic Analysis of Safety-Related Nuclear Structures,Subsection C3.1.6.2.[5.8] Holtec Report HI-2002444, HI-STORM 100 FSAR, Rev. 9.[5.9] Holtec Drawing 1074, Pool Layout -Campaign I for Spent Fuel Storage Racks,Rev. 1.[5.10] Theory of Elasticity, Timoshenko, S. P., Goodier, J. N., 3rd Edition, 1970, Mc Graw-Hill.[5.11] ACI 349-85, "Code Requirements for Nuclear Safety Related Concrete Structures".[5.12] Holtec Drawing 4130, Rev. 13, HI-TRAC 100D.[5.13] Holtec Drawing 8262, Rev. 7, Leveling Platform Adjustable Assembly,Page 12 of 28G:\Projects\1916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7 Project 1916[5.14][5.15][5.161[5.17][5.181Report HI-2104715Holtec Purchase Specification, PS-5256, Rev. 0, Purchase Specification for PilgrimLeveling Platform.Holtec Drawing 8777, Rev. 5, Spent Fuel Pool Dry Cask Configuration.ANSI/AISC N690-1994, "American National Standard Specification for the Design,Fabrication, and Erection of Steel Safety-Related Structures for Nuclear Facilities".ASME CODE, Section II, Part D, 1995 edition.Holtec Report HI-2104716, Cask Handling Weights and Cask Handling Dimensionsat Pilgrim, Rev. 2.5.2 Computer Codes and FilesAppendix C contains the listing of approved computer codes used for this calculation. Allrelevant computer files associated with this calculation package are archived on the HoltecServer and saved on the network under:G." IProjectsi 19161REPORTSIStructural Reports ISFP Evahlation TRev 7The old revisions are saved atG: \Projects \1916\REPORTSýStructural Reports\SFP EvaluationlRev 6G: Projects \1916ýREPORTSIStructural ReportsISFP Evaluation 5G: IProjects 19166REPORTSIStructural Reports ýSFP Evahlation ýRev 4G: Wrojects 1916REPORTSYStructural Reports ISFP Evaluation IRev 3G: ýProjects l 1916IREPORTSIStructural Reports ISFP Evaluation Iev 2G: Projects 1916ýREPORTSIStructural Reports MSFP Evaluation IRev 1G: Projects I 9196REPORTSIStructural Reports ISFP Evaluation IRev 0Page 13 of 28G:\Projects\1916\REPORTS\Structurai Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7I Project 1916Report 1-H-21047156.0 ANALYSESDynamic simulations are performed for SSE condition with 0.2, 0.5 and 0.8 coefficients offriction (COF) for the contact interface between the HI-TRAC pool lid and its supportingsurface. The effect of the water in the cask loading area is included in the dynamic model in theform of a hydrodynamic mass that is added to the structural mass, and a displaced mass term thatserves to reduce the magnitude of the driving force input. Appendix E computes thehydrodynamic mass for the HI-TRAC, accounting for the confinement due to the adjacent walland spent fuel racks. Figure 2 shows the total mass (structural plus hydrodynamic) and inertiaproperties associated with the cask. Figure 3 shows the additional constant upward force addedto the loaded HI-TRAC cask, to ensure that the net vertical force is corrected for the automaticinclusion (by the VN algorithm) of the horizontal hydrodynamic mass in the vertical direction.Figure 4 shows the three directional inertia forces applied at the centroid of the HI-TRAC cask.The facet calculation for cylindrical surface is presented in Appendix A. The contact interfacebetween the pool lid and the support surface in VN is simulated using a "custom contact" modelwith appropriate local stiffness and damping as evaluated in Appendix B. The frictional force ateach contact interface is evaluated as the product of the COF and the instantaneous normal forceevaluated by the VN dynamic code. Figures 5 and 6 show the stiffness, damping and frictioncoefficient inputs to the VN model at the HI-TRAC pool lid/support structure interface.Appendix D presents the derivation of the relationship between coefficient of restitution anddamping. Appendix G performs baseline correction on the original SSE acceleration timehistories to obtain baseline-corrected time histories.Appendix H evaluates the lifting of the leveling platform to meet the requirements of [5.14].Appendix I demonstrates the structural adequacy of the floor slab in the Campaign II and IIIconfiguration in consideration of non-conservatism identified in report HI-92952 (reference[5.4]).Page 14 of 28G:\Projects\1916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7 Project 1916Report I-1-2104715Appendix J addresses the structural qualification of the leveling platform [5.13] that supports theHI-TRAC cask and bears on the SFP floor slab. It demonstrates that the leveling platform isstructurally adequate to support the HI-TRAC 100D cask under the normal, SSE and OBEconditions. Appendices K and L are supplements to Appendix J providing ANSYS input filesand output files for weld evaluation.7.0 RESULTS7.1 HI-TRAC StabilityIn this section, the results from the dynamic simulations of HI-TRAC seismic response in thecask area at El. 74.25' are documented. Figure 7 shows time history plot of typical impact forceon the slab and Figure 8 shows maximum displacement at the top of the HI-TRAC cask in thecask area under the SSE seismic excitation with 0.8 COF at the pool lid/SFP floor interface. TheCOF between the HI-TRAC base (pool lid) and SFP slab is taken as 0.8 (upper bound) and 0.2(lower bound) per assumption 3.4. An additional case with COF value of 0.5 is also performed.Hence, a total of three SSE runs were made and results are tabulated in Table 1. Table 1summarizes the results for maximum displacements at the top of the cask, peak vertical loads,and peak frictional forces between pool lid and slab interface for the three cases considered.The maximum lateral displacement (in H1 or H2 direction) of the top of the HI-TRAC isobserved to be 2.458" for the postulated SSE seismic event. The resulting safety factor againstimpact with the surrounding structures and the loaded HI-TRAC is 1 (4.4244" / 2.458") (seeSection 2.2.1 for the derivation of the value of 4.4244"). The maximum lateral displacement ofthe bottom of the HI-TRAC is observed to be 2.450" for the postulated SSE seismic event. Theworst scenario is observed when the HI-TRAC and the leveling platform move as one. Theresulting safety factor against impact with the surrounding structures and the loaded levelingplatform is 1.07 (2.6119" / 2.450") (see Section 2.2.1 for the derivation of the value of 2.6119").Page 15 of 28G:\Projects\1916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7 Project 1916Report 2104715The peak vertical force on the cask loading area slab at any time instant is obtained as 511,750lbf under SSE condition, as seen from Table 1.Table 1: Peak Results from Dynamic Analyses of HI-TRAC Cask under SSE EventCOF MaximumMaximum Maximum Maximumbetween Y-DirectionalX-Directional Y-Directional X-Directional Peak PeakHI- (112)(HI) (112) (1) Vertical FrictionaCase TRAC (H)(2 H) Displacement[Displacement Displacement Displacement of Load I ForcePool Lid of Bottom ofof top of HI- of top of HI- Bottom of HI- (lb.) (lb.)and SFP HI-TRAC (l. (b)TRAC (in.) TRAC (in.) TRAC (in.)Floor (in.)Case 1 0.2 2.458 1.096 2.450 1.063 212,520 42,420Case 2 0.5 0.922 0.846 0.161 0.184 391,500 194,420Case 3 0.8 1.369 1.343 0.083 0.163 511,750 387,900Since SSE seismic event is stronger than OBE event, the analysis is not repeated for the OBEevent. As shown in Section 7.2, an evaluation of current configuration under OBE event isunwarranted.7.2 Pool Slab AssessmentFor reference only, the net resultant load on the SFP slab from the Final Reracked Configuration[5.4] (with regular fuel) and that from Campaign II racks (racks El through ElO, plus NIthrough N4) and Campaign III rack (rack N5) (with regular fuel, i.e., 680 lbf fuel) including aloaded cask in the cask area, are presented below. Please note that Campaign III rack N6 is notincluded in the load summation for Campaigns II and III since the Rack N6 cannot co-exist withthe HI-TRAC cask. The dead load of the racks from both Campaign II, III and Final RerackedConfiguration are directly obtained by summing the individual rack weight and the fuel within[5.5]. The maximum dead load on the SFP floor is 191,000 lbs (Table 3.2.2 of [5.8]) and itoccurs when the loaded HI-TRAC cask is placed on the floor. Table 2 compares the dynamicloads on the slab under the SSE event, from the Final Reracked Configuration and the CampaignII and III Configuration including a loaded HI-TRAC.Page 16 of 28G:\Projects\1916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7 Project 1916Report M-2104715Table 2: Comparison of Total Dynamic Loads on SlabCampaigns II andFinal Reracked III (Racks El thruLoad Classification / Pool Configuration El0 and N1 thruLayout (regular fuel) N5) (regular fuel)(SSE) IncludingLoaded Cask (SSE)Dead Load on Slab from Fully 3,112,220 2,949,480Loaded Racks (Dr), lbf §Dead Load on Slab from Fully 191,000Loaded Cask (DJ), lbfDynamic Adder from Rack0.372 0.372Dynamic Analysis (Ar) +Dynamic Adder from Cask0 1.680Dynamic Analysis (AJ) *Buoyancy Factor (B) y 0.873 0.873Total Dynamic Load[Drx B x (1 + Ar)] + [D, x (1 + 3,727,680 4,044,638A.)]§ The dead loads on slab (Dr) are calculated in Appendix F. All of the racks present in a configuration are fully loaded withregular fuel weighing 680 lbf.*The dynamic adder from the cask dynamic analysis is incremental factor applied to the dead load to obtain the seismic load(Ac = 511,750/191,000 -I = 1.680).4The dynamic adders from the rack seismic analysis Ar are the incremental factor applied to the submerged weight of the loadedracks to obtain the seismic load. They are calculated in Appendix F. Although the calculated dynamic adder is for the FinalReracked Configuration racks, it is used for the Campaign II and III racks as well. Since the total mass of fuel and the number offuel cells in the Final Reracked Configuration racks is considerably higher than the corresponding numbers for the Campaign IIand Ill racks, it is justifiable to use the dynamic adder from the Final Reracked Configuration to calculate the total dynamic loadfor the Campaign II and III racks.y The multipliers applied to the dry weight of the racks plus fuel to account for buoyancy effects in water are calculated inAppendix F.Page 17 of 28G:\Projects\1916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7 Project 1916Report 1-21047157.2.1 Slab Capacity CheckIt is recognized that the finite element model described in Ref. [5.4] is non-conservative becauseit credits temporary columns to support the spent fuel pool slab. further evaluation is needed forthe slab under the effective load from the Campaign II and III racks plus the loaded HI-TRAC.Therefore, Appendix I is added herein to demonstrate the structural adequacy of the spent fuelslab in Campaign II and III configuration without crediting any of the steel beams/girdersbeneath the slab. The minimum factor of safety for slab flexural capacity presented is Appendix Iis 1.228.7.2.2 Leveling Platform Punching Shear CheckThe HI-TRAC cask is supported by the leveling platform in the spent fuel pool per [5.14] and theadjustable support pedestals of the leveling platform assembly are contacting with the slab.Appendices J, K and L are added to demonstrate the structural adequacy of the leveling platformin supporting the HI-TRAC cask under normal, SSE and OBE conditions.Since the load from the loaded cask is concentrated on the spent fuel pool slab through theleveling platform pedestals, local punching shear and bearing evaluation are performed below.To evaluate the punching shear on the slab at a location of impact, the maximum allowablepunching shear force is calculated per ACI Code [5.11 ].The distance from the most compressed fiber to the tensile reinforcement is:d = 57 in. Page 6-90 of [5.4]Leveling Platform adjustable support diameter (chamfer considered): D = 4.75 in. [5.13]Page 18 of 28G:\Projects\1 916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7 Project 1916 Report 1I-2104715Bearing Pad thickness: t = 2 in. [5.15]Assume the pedestal load spreading of 45 deg. through the bearing pad.The effective perimeter around the impact location is:bo = 2 x n x (D + 2xt + d) bo = 413 in.(Note that the load is conservatively assumed to be applied to only two pedestals due to rockingin the SSE and the OBE conditions. The same assumption is also used in Appendix J inevaluating the leveling platform)Concrete compressive strength: fc = 4,000 psi Page 6-90 of [5.4]Therefore, the punching shear capacity is calculated per ACI Code [5.11 ] as:Vcap = 0.85 X 4 X (f)12 X b0 x d Vcap = 5,063,600 lbfThe maximum impact load from the loaded cask is:Vimp = 511,750 lbf (Table 1)Therefore the safety factor against a punching shear failure of the slab is:SF = Vcap/ Vimp SF p9.89The bearing capacity of the concrete slab is calculated per ACI Code [5.11] as:S1ar = 2 x 0.85 x 0.7 x fc Sjear = 4,760 psiThe bearing stress on concrete slab based on the peak impact force on HI-TRAC baseplate iscalculated as:S. = Vimp / (2x0.25xrt(D+2xt)2) S. = 4,255 psiTherefore, the safety factor against the bearing stress on the concrete slab is:SF = Sbear/ Sas SF- 1.2Page 19 of 28G:\Projects\1916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7 Project 1916Report 1-2104715The bearing capacity of the bearing pad is calculated per AISC [5.16] as:Sbarbp = 0.9X27,500 psi Sbearbp = 24,750 psiWhere 27,500 psi is the yield strength of SA-240-304 at 150 deg. F per [5.17].The bearing stress on bearing pads based on the peak impact force on HI-TRAC baseplate iscalculated as:Sas_bp = Vimp / (2x0.25xrt(D)2) Sasbp = 14,440 psiTherefore, the safety factor against the bearing stress on the bearing pads is:SF = Sbe.b p/ Sasbp ;SF 1.71lThe above calculated safety factors are for the SSE event. As for the OBE event, ACI code(Section 9.2.1 of [5.11]) defines 1.7 and 1.4 as the load factors for impact load and dead load,respectively. Note that the above calculated safety factors for concrete are both greater than 1.7,therefore, the corresponding safety factors for OBE events will be greater than 1.0, even if theSSE results are conservatively used as OBE results. Hence it is confirmed that an evaluation ofOBE events are unwarranted.Page 20 of 28G:\Projects\1916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7 Project 1916Report HI-210471
 
==58.0 CONCLUSION==
SIt is demonstrated in the foregoing sections that the maximum lateral excursion of the HI-TRACis 2.458" at the top of the cask, which is less than the allowable excursion of 4.4244" betweenthe HI-TRAC and the surrounding structures. It is further shown that the HI-TRAC cask remainsstable at the conclusion of the 20 seconds duration SSE seismic event (bounding).It is shown that the spent fuel slab floor is structurally adequate in the current configuration(Campaign II and III racks with regular fuel plus the loaded cask) under the postulated SSE andOBE events without the temporary columns. The leveling platform is also structurally adequateto support the loaded HI-TRAC cask under normal, SSE and OBE conditions. The safety factorfor slab flexural loading is 1.228. The safety factor against the local punching of the slab isshown to be 9.89, based on the peak load on the slab from the HI-TRAC cask seismic analysis.The safety factor of the slab against the bearing is shown to be 1.12.It is therefore concluded that the HI-TRAC cask, when submerged in water in the spent fuel poolat El. 74.25' at Pilgrim, has adequate margins in terms of the kinematic stability and the slabstructural integrity.Page 21 of 28G:\Projects\1 916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7 Project 1916Report 1-H-21047159.0 FIGURESThe VN graphical outputs (result plots) and input screen captures in this section correspond tothe HI-TRAC cask simulation under SSE event with 0.8 COF at the HI-TRAC base (PoolLid)/SFP floor interface. Similar plots can be obtained for other simulations (including 0.2 and0.5 COF at HI-TRAC base (Pool Lid)/SFP floor interface) which are archived on the Holtecnetwork.Figure 1. Model of Loaded HI-TRAC Cask on SlabPage 22 of 28G:\Projects\1 916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7 Project 1916Report HI-2104715Proeries of bod[2 "HJ~ C ?Vel Material Cylinder. Central Inertia Contact j FEAFDensity Mass 1311795.520 Ibmr~ ensitY Mass I ...... ... .: ............... .bC Uniform( Customi bm in'20 000 1 0.. ..09 -7. ....0.. t0.0! ....... ... .. ... oo o o o .. ...... .f ~ -1990..011600000.000 j~° ... ......... ..(Inertia about center of .masialigned with body axes)ppys Help... * ,.,,- .: ,.," " ..... ...o. ......Vel" Material Cylinder [Central .nertialI Contact1 FEiA 4L Material PropertiesC[ ustom material for body[2] ., .,:'!.Mass F311795.520 IbmVolume 11 in.3Coeff. Restitution 10.254 ...Coeff. Friction 0.800C lPpy HelpFigure 2. Mass Properties (including hydrodynamic mass) of HI-TRACPage 23 of 28G:\Projects\1 916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7I Project 1916Report MI-2104715= ;.,~~ ~ ~ .x-ýM , 7_ " "Appearance ~Structural Load jActiveY o.10o00 lbfZ J164265.192 lj bfFrame ...- ...... .'r World0-:8'dyC CoordrCoordinates(* Cartesian !C CylindricalC Face normalFigure 3.Constant Buoyancy Force Applid Et C aPFigure 3. Constant Buoyancy Force Applied to CaskPage 24 of 28G:\Projects\1 916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7 Project 1916Report HI-2104715,Edit For ulaI .'m 1w 4,Graph Property. Math Logic Function.e'v 7C ?I, INM-191 000(input[16]) Ibf9000o0.0ao.0.ooG.aogea5.oo6oo0(.oD8.oo9.aooJ.a(Time (sec)---------- -A.6I. EdtFomlaMGraph Property: Math Logic Function'we X "v W Tj 0 ffl N-191 000([input[391) Ibf............. .Ei t orulGraph Property Math Logic Function'r Ni 7E q El ffl 1bf-191 000'input[4011 IbiIA~4==Tlme(see)OK Cancel' HelpFigure 4. Bounding Inertia Force Applied to the Cask (All Directions)Page 25 of 28G:\Projects\1 916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7 Project 191ýReport HI-2104715I*1 S Prpriso bd~]'OLl)' M "V9* el .. .Mteral C....ra. e...a FEA Co .tact C* ..we. .Contact detectibow -Conitact response--r Facetted wdaface r Ilmpulse/,,omitumr. AllRow Penetration. r- Custom modelFacett..PropertiesSmooth =uoface..... ..... ..,. ,Mod" ......... ... OK "Ir mpuloe/m omentumO" Custom :_.:.Coe. Rettiution 1-7---Ctf. ,Frictio .... , " .I ,. Normal foremfiodek ti, Vrpenatrot1mmr-JFrctnir force mo .1e .t l 0,... .Ga o. MathL gic : JE: .IF-ý -/r N\ 7C ?I (DG(- 3923 t fin)pm ehatio.11 -(5129 hItI[Tnme (sec)Figure 5. Pool Lid/Slab Interface Stiffness and Damping for HI-TRAC ModelEit. FomlaTE222Graph Property. Math Logic Function-#, %./" 'v 7E. T! 91 ff 1W0081normalcomP0"tangentvels/tangentvel 0"J.0001 inls) ... ,OK---] Can~el ielC,*.00~.00o.008.0@.0 aosoos.oari.ao8.0o.OOM.OCTtme (sec)i -Figure 6. Pool Lid/Slab Interface Friction for HI-TRAC ModelPage 26 of 28G:\Projects\1 91 6\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7 Project 1916Report HI-2104715Figure 7. Maximum Pool Lid/SFP Floor Interface Load -(SSE Event)Valuex 0.004 iny 0.094 in2 194-243 inMin Max-1.255 1.369-1.311 1.343194.233 194,529Figure 8. Position of the Top of HI-TRAC (SSE Event)(the original position of the top of HI-TRAC is (0 in.,0 in., 194.25 in.))Page 27 of 28G:\Projects\1 916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7 Project 1916 Report H1-210471510.0 APPENDICES (Number of Pages)Appendix A -VisualNastran Number of Facets Calculation (2)Appendix B -Stiffness and Damping Evaluation (1)Appendix C -Approved Computer Program List (6)Appendix D -Coefficient of Restitution (2)Appendix E -Hydrostatic and Hydrodynamic Effects (5)Appendix F -Calculations of Factors (2)Appendix G -Baseline Correction of SSE Time History (5)Appendix H -LIFTING ANALYSIS OF LEVELING PLATFORM (11)Appendix I -Analysis of Spent Fuel Pool Slab in Campaign II and III Configuration(8)Appendix J -Analysis of Leveling Platform Assembly Under Normal, SSE andOBE Conditions (27)Appendix K -ANSYS Input Files (12)Appendix L -ANSYS Output Files (3)Page 28 of 28G:\Projects\1 916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7 Project 1916 Report 1-11-21 04715I Project 1916Report HI-2104715 IAppendix A: VisualNastran Number of Facets CalculationThe purpose of this appendix is to determine the number of facet points (i.e. contact locations) themodel has for defining custom contact in VisualNastran [5.1].The pool lid is placed on the spent fuel pool floor (cylindrical surface on flat ground) and allowed toreach steady state. The compression is then measured using an arbitrary stiffness input.Guess stiffness4 IbfinGuess damping1000. lbf secin7zAfter steady state has been reached, knowing the weight and the final deflection with thearbitrary stiffness, the number of facets can be computed.Appendix A -1 of 2G:\Projects\1 91 6\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 0\
Project 1Y16 Report HI-21U4715I Project 1916Report HI-21U4115 IContact forceFinal velocityFinal displacementNumber of facet pointsF,:= -8091.417. IbfinV,:= -0.02637.-secz:= -0.0024.ink- z+ c. V,N= 16Appendix A -2 of 2G:\Projects\1 916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 0\
Project 1Y16 Report HI-21U4715I Project 1916Report HI-21U4115 IContact forceFinal velocityFinal displacementNumber of facet pointsF,:= -8091.417. IbfinV,:= -0.02637.-secz:= -0.0024.ink- z+ c. V,N= 16Appendix A -2 of 2G:\Projects\1 916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 0\
Project 1916 Report HI-2104715Appendix B: Stiffness and Dampingi EvaluationSCOPE: Dynamic analyses of rigid bodies under seismic loading require simulation ofcontact between bodies. While classical impact-momentum analysis models may be used,contacts between two large flat surfaces undergoing low velocity impacts are betterrepresented by a series of peripheral springs that simulate the contact behavior. Here, wedetermine the spring rate and damping coefficient appropriate to simulate a damped systemhaving mass, W/g. There are N facet points at the contact; here, we determine the springand damper per facet to be input into the "custom contact" model in VN to represent theinterface between HI-TRAC pool lid and the SFP slab.NF := 16 Number of facets (Appendix A)Wtrac := 191000. lbf Bounding weight of loaded HI-TRAC [5.8]The premise for establishing this spring rate at the HI-TRAC base and SFP slab interface isthat the responses of interest when considering system behavior to seismic ground motionsshould focus on the predominate modes below 33 Hz and avoid modeling assumptions thatintroduce spurious mathematical artifacts that serve only to interject high frequency effectsinto the simulation. The predominant energy content from seismic events is in the frequencyrange below 16Hz (Page 2-6 of Ref. [5.3]). Therefore, any contact spring representation forthe dynamic model should not introduce artifacts leading to spurious and artificial higherfrequency effects. Therefore, the custom contact spring representation used herein is basedon the mass of the supported model, and is developed so that the 33Hz frequency is basedon a vertical oscillation of the mass on a rigid foundation. This renders the custom contactmodel independent of the local matedal and geometric shape of the contact surfaces.A local contact stiffness is chosen on the basis of the total supported mass and arequirement to eliminate all frequencies above 33Hz from this spring constant. The damperassociated with this local contact stiffness is chosen to produce a coefficient of restitutionvalue of 0.254 (Appendix 0) at the interface to suppress high frequency numericaloscillations.f := 33. Hz Rigid body frequencyContact StiffnessWtr~ac (2-Tr. f)2  1.K :2 K = 1329272.567.-Ig NF inCorresponding Damping2.0.4f Wrac-NF b eC =- K. IC = 5128.7351. NF inAppendix B -1 of 1G:\Projects\1916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 0\
Project 1916 Report HI-2104715Appendix B: Stiffness and Dampingi EvaluationSCOPE: Dynamic analyses of rigid bodies under seismic loading require simulation ofcontact between bodies. While classical impact-momentum analysis models may be used,contacts between two large flat surfaces undergoing low velocity impacts are betterrepresented by a series of peripheral springs that simulate the contact behavior. Here, wedetermine the spring rate and damping coefficient appropriate to simulate a damped systemhaving mass, W/g. There are N facet points at the contact; here, we determine the springand damper per facet to be input into the "custom contact" model in VN to represent theinterface between HI-TRAC pool lid and the SFP slab.NF := 16 Number of facets (Appendix A)Wtrac := 191000. lbf Bounding weight of loaded HI-TRAC [5.8]The premise for establishing this spring rate at the HI-TRAC base and SFP slab interface isthat the responses of interest when considering system behavior to seismic ground motionsshould focus on the predominate modes below 33 Hz and avoid modeling assumptions thatintroduce spurious mathematical artifacts that serve only to interject high frequency effectsinto the simulation. The predominant energy content from seismic events is in the frequencyrange below 16Hz (Page 2-6 of Ref. [5.3]). Therefore, any contact spring representation forthe dynamic model should not introduce artifacts leading to spurious and artificial higherfrequency effects. Therefore, the custom contact spring representation used herein is basedon the mass of the supported model, and is developed so that the 33Hz frequency is basedon a vertical oscillation of the mass on a rigid foundation. This renders the custom contactmodel independent of the local matedal and geometric shape of the contact surfaces.A local contact stiffness is chosen on the basis of the total supported mass and arequirement to eliminate all frequencies above 33Hz from this spring constant. The damperassociated with this local contact stiffness is chosen to produce a coefficient of restitutionvalue of 0.254 (Appendix 0) at the interface to suppress high frequency numericaloscillations.f := 33. Hz Rigid body frequencyContact StiffnessWtr~ac (2-Tr. f)2  1.K :2 K = 1329272.567.-Ig NF inCorresponding Damping2.0.4f Wrac-NF b eC =- K. IC = 5128.7351. NF inAppendix B -1 of 1G:\Projects\1916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 0\
Line 36: Line 39:
Project 1916 Report HI-2104715Annendix F: CalculItion of Factors I° "r'r ..............................This appendix calculates the buoyancy factors and dynamic adder used in Table 3 in the mainreport. The rack information is from Table 2.3 of Ref. [5.5] and rack configurations are from Fig. 2.1and Fig. 2.2 of [5.5]. The submerged weights and dynamic adder forces (SSE) are from Page 5-28of Ref. [5.4].Table 171: Final RerackedConfiguration (with 680 lbs Regular Fuel)--IiRack ID Rack Empty Weight (Ibs) No. of Cells Fuel Weight (Ibs) Total Weight (Rack+Fuel) (Ibs)Ni 29400 288 195840 225240N2 28600 270 183600 212200N3-- 27100 266 180880 207980--------- 0 247 167960ý 193160N5 520N27 1v6760 193160.... .. N 5 ... ... ............ .... ........... ........... ... ........... ............ .... ..... .. ..... ... .......... ....... ............... .................... .............. ............. ......... .... .......... .... .... ..... ...... .... ...... ..... ........ ..... ..... ...... I .... ........... .... .................2 4 .....19 1 6N6_ 0 21300 208 141440 162740E- 23600 214 145520 169120E2 25200 230 156400 181600E3 31700 293 199240 230940E4 29000 266 180880 209880E5 29000 266 180880 .209880E6 29000 266 180880 209880E7 29000 266 180880 209880-E8 29000 266 180880 209880E9 29000 266 180880 2098800El0 76800 0 0 76800......... ........ ..... ................... .. .. ....... .......Total Dead Weight of Fully Loaded Racks (Ibs) 3112220.SUBMERGED WEIGHT (lbs) 26.. ...... .............. B U O.......F.... ...... ... .... ... ... .......... ..... ...... ........ ---- --- -. ...... ....BUOYANCY FACTOR 0.873 -.SSE DYNAMIC ADDER FORCE 1010816.32SSE DYNAMIC ADDER ---0.372Note that the dead weight of equipment rack E10 is estimated by multiplying the maximum staticload of the slab load point #25 by four. That is, 19,200 lbs
Project 1916 Report HI-2104715Annendix F: CalculItion of Factors I° "r'r ..............................This appendix calculates the buoyancy factors and dynamic adder used in Table 3 in the mainreport. The rack information is from Table 2.3 of Ref. [5.5] and rack configurations are from Fig. 2.1and Fig. 2.2 of [5.5]. The submerged weights and dynamic adder forces (SSE) are from Page 5-28of Ref. [5.4].Table 171: Final RerackedConfiguration (with 680 lbs Regular Fuel)--IiRack ID Rack Empty Weight (Ibs) No. of Cells Fuel Weight (Ibs) Total Weight (Rack+Fuel) (Ibs)Ni 29400 288 195840 225240N2 28600 270 183600 212200N3-- 27100 266 180880 207980--------- 0 247 167960ý 193160N5 520N27 1v6760 193160.... .. N 5 ... ... ............ .... ........... ........... ... ........... ............ .... ..... .. ..... ... .......... ....... ............... .................... .............. ............. ......... .... .......... .... .... ..... ...... .... ...... ..... ........ ..... ..... ...... I .... ........... .... .................2 4 .....19 1 6N6_ 0 21300 208 141440 162740E- 23600 214 145520 169120E2 25200 230 156400 181600E3 31700 293 199240 230940E4 29000 266 180880 209880E5 29000 266 180880 .209880E6 29000 266 180880 209880E7 29000 266 180880 209880-E8 29000 266 180880 209880E9 29000 266 180880 2098800El0 76800 0 0 76800......... ........ ..... ................... .. .. ....... .......Total Dead Weight of Fully Loaded Racks (Ibs) 3112220.SUBMERGED WEIGHT (lbs) 26.. ...... .............. B U O.......F.... ...... ... .... ... ... .......... ..... ...... ........ ---- --- -. ...... ....BUOYANCY FACTOR 0.873 -.SSE DYNAMIC ADDER FORCE 1010816.32SSE DYNAMIC ADDER ---0.372Note that the dead weight of equipment rack E10 is estimated by multiplying the maximum staticload of the slab load point #25 by four. That is, 19,200 lbs
* 4 = 76,800 Ibs, where 19,200 lbs isfrom Page 5-28 of Ref. [5.41.Appendix F -1 of 2G:\Projects\1916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 4\
* 4 = 76,800 Ibs, where 19,200 lbs isfrom Page 5-28 of Ref. [5.41.Appendix F -1 of 2G:\Projects\1916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 4\
I Project 1916Report HI-2104715Table F2: Rack Conflauration Cam'aiqn II and III (with 680 lbs Regular Fuel)Rack ID Rack Empty Weight (Ibs) No. of Cells Fuel Weight (Ibs) Total Weight (Rack+Fuel) (Ibs)N1 29400 288 195840 225240N2 28600 270 183600 212200N3 27100 266 180880 207980N4 25200 247 167960 _ 193160 ___N5 25200 247 167960 193160El 23600 214 145520 ____ 169120 ___E2 25200 230 156400 181600E33100293 199240 230940.. .....3 ... ............ ....... ... .3 1 0 ....... ......... ... ..... ............. .&#xfd; ....... ........... .. ......... .... ... ...... .... .. ...... ....... .... ...... ....... .... .. .................. ...2 9 1 9 9 2 4 0 0 ..... ........... :...............E4 29000 266 180880 209880E5 29000 266 -180880 209880E6 29000 266 180880 209880El 29000 266 180880 209880E8 29000 _______ 266 180880 209880E9 26629000 266 180880 209880El0 76800 0 0 76800... ......... .. ..... ... ....... ... ........Total Dead Weight of Fully Loaded Racks (lbs- ..... 2949480Note that Rack N6 is removed since it cannot co-exist with a HI-TRAC placed into the SFP fordry cask operations.Appendix F -2 of 2G:\Projects\1916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 4\ I Project 1916Report HI-2104715APPENDIX GBASELINE CORRECTION OF SSE TIME HISTORYPage G-1 of 5G:\Projects\1 916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 0 Project 1916Report HI-2104715The seismic acceleration time-histories of spent fuel slab at El. 74.25' are taken from theacceleration time-histories (set no. 3, i.e, a-tsse.h31, a-tsse.h32 and a-tsse.vt3) generated in thereport [5.3]. The acceleration-time histories are are integrated twice to form a velocity anddisplacement time history. This is easily performed using a simple sphere model inVisualNastran with arbitrary mass and applying the acceleration time history induced inertiaforce to the spherical mass. Figure 1 shows the spherical model in VN and the result of the rawintegration for El. 74.25'. There is a nonzero velocity existing at the end of the event as well as alarge final movement. This appendix documents the VisualNastran (VN) analyses focused onadding small corrective acceleration to the original acceleration time-histories from [5.3] toensure the velocity and displacement are truly zero at the end of seismic event. The outputacceleration time-histories from this appendix are used as inputs to represent the driving inertialloads in the VisualNastran (VN) model.I....... ---Figure 1: Time Histories of Displacement, Velocity and Acceleration BEFORE BaselineCorrection at El. 74.25'Page G-2 of 5G:\Projects\1 916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 0 Project 1916Report HI-2104715To baseline correct this input, an incremental velocity is assumed in each direction having theform:A2t2dv= Alt+At2The two constants of integration are chosen so that the total velocity (integrated by VN from theacceleration data + incremental velocity) is zero at the end of the specified 20-second duration,and the average total velocity over the event duration is zero. The following results are obtainedfor the two constants:A1 = (2ve- 6va )/ gteA2 = 6(2va -ve)/g(te)2The quantities in the above relations have the units of acceleration and acceleration/sec. and havebeen divided by gravity for convenience:Time duration = teVelocity at end of duration from initial integrated numerical time history = VeAverage velocity over entire duration from integrated numerical time history = vaEach of the above pieces of data is available from the Excel spreadsheet (for each direction ofexcitation) that accompanies the initial VN solution. Returning to the VN simulation model andcorrecting the input inertia forces by including the new incremental acceleration in each lateraldirection.Page G-3 of 5G:\Projects\1 916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 0 Project 1916Report HI-2104715Baseline Correction at El. 74.25 ft.Require that end velocity be zero and average velocity over duration be zero in each direction.x direction:v., = 12.4 inseeA, =(2v, -6v,)/gt,A2 = 6(2Va -_ v)/g(t )2Check: VX20= Alte + A22 _)92)in inva = 97.7 -4.885-120. sec secA, = -5.841x 10-4A2 = _ 1.022 x 10-4 1seevx2o =-12.4secy direction:v =-5.44 inseeA, =(2ve -6v.)/gt,A2= 6(2va -ve)/g(te)2in inva = -23.3- =-1.165-i20. see secA, = -5.038x 10-4A2=1.208x10-4 1--secCheck:VY20 Alt,+ A22JVY20 = 5.44 -seez direction:v 0.375inseeA, =(2v, --6Va)/ gteA2 = 6(2v. _ vJ)/g(t,)2in inva, = -3.38 = -0.169-20. sec secA, = 2.284x 10-4A2=-2.77x110--seePage G-4 of 5GAProjects\ 1916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 0 Project 1916Report HI-2104715Check:VZ2o=( Ate + A2LeginVZ20 = -0.375-isecFigure 2 shows the time histories of velocity and displacement after baseline correction at El.74.25'. It is shown the end velocities and displacements are effectively eliminated by thebaseline correction.Figure 2: Time Histories of Displacement, Velocity and Acceleration AFTER BaselineCorrection at El. 74.25'Page G-5 of 5G:\Projects\1 916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 0 APPENDIX HAPPENDIX H: LIFTING ANALYSIS OF LEVELING PLATFORM1.0 IntroductionThis appendix contains the analysis of the lifting points of the Pilgrim levelingplatform.2.0 MethodologyThe analysis is based on strength of materials formulations. All analyses and thepreparation of this report are carried out using the Mathcad electronic scratchpadprogram [3.13] on a computer using Windows 7.3.0 References[3.1] Holtec Drawing 8262, Rev 6.[3.2] Not Used.[3.3] USNRC NUREG 0612, Handling of Large Loads in Nuclear Plants.[3.4] ANSI N 14.6 Special Lifting Devices for Shipping Containers Weighing10000 lbs. (4500 kg.) or More for Nuclear Materials, 1993.[3.5] ASME Code, Section II, Part D, 1995.[3.8] Manual of Steel Construction, AISC, 9th Edition.[3.9] CMAA Specification #70, Crane Manufacturers of America, 1988.[3.10] ASME Code, Section III, Subsection NF, 2011.[3.11] Machinery's Handbook, 27th Edition, 2004.[3.12] Crosby catalog, 2011.[3.13] MATHCAD, Mathsoft, Version 15.0.[3.14] ASME BTH 2011, Design of Below-the-Hook Lifting Devices, ASME.PROJECT 1916H-1 ofll1HI-2104715 APPENDIX H4.0 Acceptance Criteria, Allowable Strengths, and Assumptions4.1 Acceptance CriteriaLifting of heavy objects is governed by [3.3] which references [3.4] for actualnumerical values for allowable strengths. The primary normal stress ata given section must be less than the minimum of Sy/3 or Su/5 (Sy=materialyield strength; Su= material ultimate strength) when the applied load is equal tothe lifted load including any dynamic amplification. Further, in accordance with[3.4], a further reduction in allowable strengths, by a factor of 2.0, is mandatedif the lifting device does not have redundant load paths.There is no specific requirement for welds. Conservatively, it is assumed thatthe same requirement imposed on the base metal section is also imposed onthe weld section.There is no requirement to check any local or secondary stress states.4.2 Allowable StrengthsThe following materials and allowable strengths are used in this analysis.Values for yield strength and ultimate strength are obtained at 150 OF from [3.5].SA -240-304SA-479-304SY240 =26700.psiSy47926700-psiSU240 =73000.psiSU479 73000.psiBased on the above material strengths, the following allowable strengths arecomputed:(a20 fSY240 : SU,40 SY240 SU240(SY479 SU479 SY479 SU479)Sa7 i(6 :5 10 6'10)Sa24o= 4.45 x 103.psiSa47 = 4.45 x 103 psi4.3 AssumptionsPROJECT 1916H-2 of 11HI-2104715 APPENDIX HThe dynamic load factor is conservatively assumed to be 15% of dead weightto account for inertia effects, which is appropriate for low speed lifts.Shear strength is taken as 57.7% of the controlling normal stress allowable.The factor of 57.7% is the ratio of allowable stress in pure shear to theallowable stress in uniaxial tension based on the maximum distortion energyfailure theory.There is no limit set on local bearing stress in [3.3] and [3.4]; a limit on bearingstress is set at 90% of material yield at 3 times the lifted load to ensure noyielding under the test load.The total lifting load is uniformly distributed among the liffing slings. It can beachieved by adjusting the sling angles.4.4 Safety FactorThe safety factor at a particular location is defined as:SF. = allowable load (strength)/ calculated load (stress).The requirement for an acceptable design is that all safetyfactors be greater than 1.0.5.0 Input Data5.1 Load DataLoad:= 5000.IbfAnglel := 60.degAngle2:= 30.degDLF := .15Bounding Lift Load [3.1]Min. Sling Angle from Horizontal (note 10 of [3.1])Projected angle in plane of platform [3.1]Dynamic Load Factor to account for inertia effects [3.9]5.2 Geometry InputsThe geometry inputs are provided along with the corresponding analysis inSection 6.0.PROJECT 1916H-3 of 11HI-2104715 APPENDIX H6.0 AnalysesAll geometry inputs are from [3.1] unless otherwise noted.All item numbers and geometry data are from Ref. [3.1] unless otherwise noted.nsling 4 number of slingsLoad-(1 + DLF) _ 3Tension:= -Loa.(l+ L) -1.66 x 103. force in each slingnsling. sin(,Anglel1)Ph := Tension-cos(Angle1) = 829.941-1bf horizontal force componentP,:= Tension-sin(Anglei) = 1.437 x 1031Ibf vertical force component6.1 Lifting Shackle (item 7)Fwt 5tonne-g = 1.102 x 10 4-bf working load limit of shackle [3.12] 1Fu: F,1r4.5 = 4.96 x 104.1bf ultimate load limit is 4.5 timesworking load limit [3.12]Ful10 [SafetyFactort 2Safety Factortb .Tension f 2,988Note that the commerically procured shackle only needs to meet the 1/10th of theultimate per [3.3] and [3.4].6.2 Lifting Block (item 5)d := 4.5.inPROJECT 1916width of blockH-4 of 11HI-2104715 APPENDIX Hb := 0.75.inc:= 2indhole := 1-inhhol :=4-23in- lin = 3.719 in32dpi, :=0.75.inAnglel = 60.degdx := -= 2.25 in2thickness of lifting block near the topthickness of lifting block near the bottompin hole diameter at the toppin hole elevation (from the smallpinhole center near top to the root of thethin portion of block)lift pin diameter [3.12]angle of load applicationextreme fiber distance to centroidBearing Stress on block from Shackle Pin at Block TopAb:= dpin'b = 0.562 in2  bearing areaTension3Or := -2.951 x 10 3psi bearing stress on blockAbSY240Opbearing *= .9'- = 8.01 x 10 psi bearing stress allowable3SFb.- Upbearing [SFb = 2714 safety factor on bearingJ TbPROJECT 1916 H-5 of I1IHI-2104715 APPENDIX HTear Out of Pin at Liftina Block TorThe shear tear-out area is calculated using Eq (3-51) from [3.14].A,= 2[a + &#xfd;&#xfd;" (I- cos 1)tAssuming the tearout is in the vertical direction instead of along the slingdirection to obtain conservative shear area and to simplify calculations. Theminimum edge distance from pinhole to edge of plate is:dholea:= lin-- =0 .5.in25,.:= 55. = 41.25dholeA, := 2 + ---i-.(1 -cos((0.deg)) b = 0.89.in2Tension 3Tt :=- = 1.866 x 10 .psiA,shear plane and vertical angletotal area of shear planesshear stressSa240-0.577SFt :TtSF7= 1.376]safety factor on tear outPROJECT 1916H-6 of 11HI-2104715 APPENDIX HDirection ofappliedload Shear planesCurved edge AfNr RP CL holewhere:-, = total area of the two shear planes beyond the pinholea minimum edge distance from pinhole to edge of plate= plate thicknessDv = pin diameterDI, = hole diameter= 55LP (in degrees)Figure 1 [3.14]Tensile Stress at Pin Hole Cross-Section at Lifting Block TopAh := (d -dhole)-b = 2.625 in2Tensionh .- Te -= 632.336.psiAharea at pin hole cross-sectiontensile stress at pin hole cross-sectionsafety factor at hole cross-sectionSFh= _(rhSFh =7.03 7Stress at Root of Lifting Block's Thin PortionPROJECT 1916H-7 of 11HI-2104715 APPENDIX HThe thickness of lifting block transitions from thickness "b" to "c" near themid-height. The thickness "c" is 2.67 times the thickness "b". The loading pattemon the lifting block and the geometry determines the critical cross-section is at theroom of the lifting block's thin portion.The critical cross-section is subjected to tensile stress from vertical component ofsling load, shear stress from horizontal component of sling load, and bendingstress from the horizontal component of sling load.3M := Ph'hhole = 3.086 x 10. Ibf-ind3.b 4:= = 5.695 in12M d 13.sorb : d.= 1.219 x 10 psi1 2o- = 425.926-psib.d3(r1combine: (Tb + (t= 1.645 x 10 *psibending momentbending moment of inertiabending stresstensile stress from tensioncombined tensile stresssafety factor for tensile stressSa24oSFT I -O't combineFsF72-7 0 5TL.- -- 245.908-psib dshear stressSa240-0.577SFs.TLISS 0.441safety factor for shear6.3 Lifting Bar (item 6)PROJECT 1916H-8 of 11HI-2104715 APPENDIX HAll item numbers and geometry data are from Ref. [3.1] unless otherwise noted.The lifting bar (or pin) goes through the thicker portion of lifting block at the bottom.The pin is supported at two ends by the platform plate (item 1).dl := 1.5inlifting pin diameterload on pin is conservatively taken as the sling load.Ppin := Tension = 1.66 x 103.IbfThe pin is subjected to a shear load. The maximum shear stress in the pin iscalculated as:.pini Pi 469~.651-psi0.577-Sa479SFshear :shear stressSFshe, = 5.467EThe bending of the pin is evaluated by assuming simple support conditionsfor the pin. The beam span is conservatively assumed to be the distancebetween the mid-points of the supported ends of the pin. The beam spanassumption is an extremely conservative assumption. The lift load is appliedas a uniformly distributed load over the width of the lifting foot. It is notedthere is 1/8" gap between the lifting block and the inside edges of theplatform plate (2.125"-2"). The 1/8" gap may cause slight of-center loadingon the pin. However, the effect is negligible and therefore is not consideredherein.c = 2 inlifting plate thickness at bottom(6 -2.125)inL := + 2.125in = 4.063 in2assumed beam spana:= c = 2 inload spanPROJECT 1916H-9 of 11HI-2104715 APPENDIX Hcrl := 0.04indiametral clearance on pin and pin holeMoment:= .= 1.271 x 103.Ibf-in2 2 2ITr 4 4:= -.dl =0.249 in64dl 3('bendingI := Moment.- = 3.835 x 10 .psi2.1maximum bending stress in pinmoment of inertia of pinbending stress in pinSFbendl .(Tbending iSFbend = 1.16beafina at pinhole at liftinq block bottomLifting pin and lifting block are made of two different materials.min(SY479, SY240) 3rpbearing .9= 8.01 x 10 .psi3P.iO'bear= = 553.294"psidl'cSFbem1 := pbearingOTbearlbearing stress allowablebearing stressSFbearl = 14.477ftearout at pinhole at liftinc block bottomThe shear tear-out area is calculated using Eq (3-51)from [3.14]. The sketchis shown in Figure 1 above.PROJECT 1916H-10 of 11HI-210471 5 APPENDIX H1.54ina:= 2in -l.23in24:= dl0:= 55. -= 53.5711.54inA, := 2 a + -( -cos(dp-deg) c= 6.139.inpinTtearl .=..L. = 270.403.psiA,,.577Sa240SFteaI :=iTtearlminimum edge distance frompinhole to edge of plateshear plane and vertical angletotal area of shear planesshear stressISFteaz = 9.4967.0 ConclusionSince safety factors of parts that are in the load path are all greater than 1.0,using the specified allowable strengths in section 4.2, the lifting point meets therequirements of NUREG 0612 and ANSI N14.6. Therefore, the lifting point isacceptable.PROJECT 1916H-11 ofll1HI-2104715 Project 1916 Appendix I Report HI-2104715APPENDIX I: ANALYSIS OF SPENT FUEL POOL SLABIN CAMPAIGN II AND III CONFIGURATIONINTRODUCTIONThe finite element model described in Ref. [1.1] is non-conservative because itcredits temporary columns to support the spent fuel pool slab. This appendix analyzes thespent fuel pool slab under the limiting load combination (1.4D +1.7E) per [1.1], withoutcrediting any of the steel beams/girders beneath the slab. The applied flexural loads are fromthe slab dead weight, water in the pool, Campaign II and III racks (with regular fuel) andHI-TRAC IO0D cask.METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONSThe spent fuel pool slab is analyzed as a rectangular plate under a uniform pressure loadcorresponding to the limiting load combination 1.4D + 1.7 E. The flexure of the slab isanalyzed. Two different sets of boundary conditions are analyzed for the slab forcompleteness:1) all edges fixed;2) three edges fixed (north, south, and east) and one edge simply supported (west).The load on the slab is assumed to be uniform pressure.The SSE dynamic loads from the racks and HI-TRAC cask are conservatively assumed tobe the OBE loads.ACCEPTANCE CRITERIAThe calculated maximum bending moment in the slab under flexural loading shall be lessthan the reinforcement ultimate moment obtained from [1.1].REFERENCES[1.1] Holtec Report HI-92952, "Calculation Package for Pilgrim Spent Fuel Pool SlabStructural Requalification", Rev. 1.[1.2] Young, W.C., Roark's Formulas for Stress & Strain, McGraw Hill International,6th Edition.[1.3] Bechtel Drawing C-108 Rev. 3.Page I-1 of 1-8 Project 1916 Appendix I Report HI-2104715INPUT DATAL := 484.inW:= 366-int:= 60.inH:= 39.ftIc := 165-pcf-1w:= 62.42.pcfD1 2949480.lbfE :=0.372.D,D4 := 1910001bfE4:= 1.680.D4az := 0.3108Inside dimension of SFP in NS direction [1.3]Inside dimension of SFP in EW direction [1.3]Thickness of SFP concrete slab (Page 4-1 of [1.1])Height of SFP water above slab (Page 5.1C of [1.1])Weight density of reinforced concrete (Page 2-5 of [1.1])Weight density of waterDead weight of racks in Campaign II and III (with regular fuelweighing 680 lb per assembly) (from Table 2 of main report)OBE dynamic adder associated with loaded racks(conservatively uses SSE result from Table 2 of main report)HI-TRAC dead weight [5.8]OBE dynamic adder associated with HI-TRAC (conservativelyuses SSE results from Table 2 of main report)OBE vertical acceleration of SFP slab at 10.596 Hz(from p. 6-1C and 5B-6 of [1.1])Page 1-2 of I-8 Project 1916 Appendix I Report HI-2104715CALCULATIONSWeight of water in SFPD :=L.W.t.-YcSelf weight of reinforced concrete slab (excluding girders)D1 + D2 + D3 + D4D = 40.363psiL.WEquivalent pressure on wetted slab areadue to dead loads from racks and caskHydrodynamic force on slab due to OBE loadingSeismic inertia force acting on slab due to OBE loadingEl + E2 + E3 + E4E := L-= 15.04-psiL.Wq :=1.4-D + 1.7.E = 82.076-psiEquivalent pressure on wetted slab areadue to OBE loads from racks and caskFactored pressure load on slab for loadcombination 1.4D + 1.7EUse Table 26 from [1.2] to evaluate the flexural loads on the SFP slab. Two different sets ofboundary conditions are evaluated.Boundary Condition 1: All edaes fixed (Case No. 8 from Table 26 of [1.21)a:= Lb:= Wa-= 1.322bOlx:= (1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 1010P(0.3078 0.3834 0.4356 0.4680 0.4872 0.4974 0.5000)Page 1-3 of 1-8 Project 1916 Appendix I Report HI-2104715linterp( 01X T, OyT, a 0 = 0.415P2x:= [Ix022y:= (0.1386 0.1794 0.2094 0.2286 0.2406 0.2472 0.2500)linterp(s2XT, 02yT,fb) [2=0.198At center of long edge (east edge of slab at center):(71 .- -21 = -1.268 x 10 3psi2t2"I .- Crv M, 1= -761.098 kip.6 inkip-inMe:= 1027.1 Reinforcement Ultimate Moment (from p. 4B-4 and 4B-34 of [1.1])inSF:.- MI ISF = 1.349At center (slab center region):0 2.q-b22T2 2 O"2 = 603.973.psit2cr2.t kip.inM2 .- M2 = 362.384-k6 inMC:= 919.1-kp Reinforcement Ultimate Moment (from p. 4B-4 and 4B-34 of [1.1])inPage 1-4 of I-8 Project 1916 Appendix I Report HI-2104715SF .- ISF = 2.536IM21Boundary Condition 2: Three edges fixed, one edge simply supported(Case No. 9 from Table 26 of [I.21)a:= Lb:= Wa = 1.322b[3x (0.25 0.50 0.75 1.0 1.5 2.0 3.0)031y:= (0.020 0.081 0.173 0.307 0.539 0.657 0.718)y01 := linterp 01 x T,3y T,' a1 = 0.45702x,:= 1x02y:= (0.004 0.018 0.062 0.134 0.284 0.370 0.422)3:np T,0) T,a P, = 0.23102 / :=litep(2 -Y -b)03x:= O31x03y:=(0.016 0.061 0.118 0.158 0.164 0.135 0.097)33 := linterp03xT,033T,ba 133 = 0.162034x:= 131xPage 1-5 of 1-8 Project 1916 Appendix I Report HI-2104715134y:= (0.031 0.121 0.242 0.343 0.417 0.398 0.318)034 :=linterp(134x, , Y Tb34 = 0.391At x = 0, z = 0 (east edge of slab at center):2or tMI.-6Mc : 1027.1-&#xfd;&#xfd;ino"1 = -1.394 x 10 3psiM= -836.683 kip.ininReinforcement Ultimate Moment (from p. 4B-4 and 4B-34 of [1.1])SF .- meISF = 1.228]IMIIAt x = 0, z = 0.6b (slab center region):0,2.q-b 22t2cr2.M2 0=-2't-6M 919.1kip-inincr2= 704.637-psiM2= 422.782- kip.ininReinforcement Ultimate Moment (from p. 4B-4 and 4B-34 of [1.1])M cSF.-1 M21PSF = 2.174 JPage 1-6 of 1-8 Project 1916 Appendix I Report HI-210471503-q- 2U3* 222o-3.M 3 := --'--6Mc:= 729.inSF-McSF:=0-3 = 494.357.psiM3 = 296.614. kip7iinReinforcement Ultimate Moment (from p. 4B-4 and 4B-34 of [1.1])ISF = 2.458 1At x = +/- a/2, z = 0.6b (north and south edges of slab near center):-P34. q20T4 2t2(04'M4" 6Mc:= 1027.1.Ain("4 = -1.193 x 10 3psiM 4 =-715.962 .kip .-ininReinforcement Ultimate Moment (from p. 4B-4 and 4B-34 of [1.1])M cSF:=1M41ISF = 1.435 ]Slab Shear CheckThe "beam shear" is not a credible failure mode for the slab and therefore the beamshear stresses need not be evaluated. However, a peripheral shear check is requiredfor the gross floor slab load and is performed as follows.fc:= 4000psiconcrete compressive strength (Page 6-90 of [5.4])Page 1-7 of 1-8 Project 1916 Appendix I Report HI-2104715d := 57indistance from the most compressed fiber to thetensile reinforcement (Page 6-90 of [5.4])b0 := (L + W -2.d).2 = 1.472 x 103.inslab perimeterNext is to calculate the minimum shear capacity of slab, Vcap. Per Section 11.12.2.1 of[5.11], Vcap is the smallest of the following two capacities:L3:= = 1.322Wratio of long side to short side of the slab( 4~' 7VCap, :=O.85. (2 + &#xfd;pi b' = 2.266 x 10 .*fbfcapacity 1ot:= 30parameter of edge column( ~ d'- 7:= 0.85- 2 + p" b d = 1.426 x 10- lbfVcap2 0)VCOVcap:= min(VcapI, Vcap2) = 1.426 x 107.1bf7Dtotal: q.(L -d).(W -d) = 1.083 x 10 *Ibfcalculated minimum shear capacityper ACI Code [5.11]total vertical load on slabsafety factor.- VcapSF DtDtotal[SF = 1.317CONCLUSIONThis appendix analyzes the spent fuel pool slab under the limiting load combination (1.4D+1.7E), without crediting any of the steel beams/girders beneath the slab. It is shown thatthe calculated maximum bending moments in the slab under flexural loading are less thanthe reinforcement ultimate moment. Therefore, the existing loads on the SFP slab fromCampaign II and III racks (with regular fuel) and the loaded HI-TRAC cask are well within itsdesign capacity. Also, the slab shear stress around the periphery is within its capacity.Page 1-8 of I-8 Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-2104715APPENDIX J: ANALYSIS OF LEVELING PLATFORM ASSEMBLY UNDERNORMAL, SSE AND OBE CONDITIONS1.0 IntroductionIn this appendix, the leveling platform (adjustable supports or pedestals) that are used tosupport the loaded HI-TRAC 100D under normal and seismic conditions are analyzed forstrength and thread engagement length.2.0 Methodology & AssumptionsThe structural adequacy of the Leveling Platform is established using the formulations of strength ofmaterials and static equilibrium. The maximum tension, compression,shear, bending, and combinedstresses are calculated for the structural members of the Leveling Platform, and then safety factors areevaluated based on the allowable stress limits set in section 3.The required data for analysis is: 1) number of pedestals; 2) internal and external thread dimensions;3) load under normal and seismic conditions; and 4) material properties.E70XX series (or better) electrodes are used to fabricate the adjustable platform plate assembly, whichhas an ultimate strength of 70 ksi. The tensile strength of 70 ksi is used to compute the weld safetyfactor.3.0 Acceptance CriteriaThe acceptance criteria for normal and SSE conditions are based on ANSI/AISC N690 [J.8] as guidedby NRC and Purchase Specification For Pilgrim Leveling Platform [J.4].3.1 Level AStress limits for Normal Conditions (Level A) are derived from Sections Q1.5 and Q1.6 of AISCN690-1994 [J.8]. Terminology is in accordance with the AISC Specification.Allowable stress in tension is taken as 0.6 times yield strength on the gross area, but notmore than 0.5 times the tensile strength on the effective net area. (Q1.5.1.1)Ft = 0.60. Fy < 0.50Fuii. Allowable stress in shear on a effective cross-sectional area is taken as 0.4 timesyield strength. (Q1.5.1.2.1)Fv = 0.40. Fyiii. For stainless steel, allowable stress in compression on the gross section of axiallyloaded compression members whose cross-sections meet the provision of Kilr,the largest effective slendemess ratio of any unbraced segment, equal to or less than120, is taken as (Q1.5.1.3.5, Q1.5.9.1, Eq. Q1.5-11)Page J-1 of J27  
I Project 1916Report HI-2104715Table F2: Rack Conflauration Cam'aiqn II and III (with 680 lbs Regular Fuel)Rack ID Rack Empty Weight (Ibs) No. of Cells Fuel Weight (Ibs) Total Weight (Rack+Fuel) (Ibs)N1 29400 288 195840 225240N2 28600 270 183600 212200N3 27100 266 180880 207980N4 25200 247 167960 _ 193160 ___N5 25200 247 167960 193160El 23600 214 145520 ____ 169120 ___E2 25200 230 156400 181600E33100293 199240 230940.. .....3 ... ............ ....... ... .3 1 0 ....... ......... ... ..... ............. .&#xfd; ....... ........... .. ......... .... ... ...... .... .. ...... ....... .... ...... ....... .... .. .................. ...2 9 1 9 9 2 4 0 0 ..... ........... :...............E4 29000 266 180880 209880E5 29000 266 -180880 209880E6 29000 266 180880 209880El 29000 266 180880 209880E8 29000 _______ 266 180880 209880E9 26629000 266 180880 209880El0 76800 0 0 76800... ......... .. ..... ... ....... ... ........Total Dead Weight of Fully Loaded Racks (lbs- ..... 2949480Note that Rack N6 is removed since it cannot co-exist with a HI-TRAC placed into the SFP fordry cask operations.Appendix F -2 of 2G:\Projects\1916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 4\ I Project 1916Report HI-2104715APPENDIX GBASELINE CORRECTION OF SSE TIME HISTORYPage G-1 of 5G:\Projects\1 916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 0 Project 1916Report HI-2104715The seismic acceleration time-histories of spent fuel slab at El. 74.25' are taken from theacceleration time-histories (set no. 3, i.e, a-tsse.h31, a-tsse.h32 and a-tsse.vt3) generated in thereport [5.3]. The acceleration-time histories are are integrated twice to form a velocity anddisplacement time history. This is easily performed using a simple sphere model inVisualNastran with arbitrary mass and applying the acceleration time history induced inertiaforce to the spherical mass. Figure 1 shows the spherical model in VN and the result of the rawintegration for El. 74.25'. There is a nonzero velocity existing at the end of the event as well as alarge final movement. This appendix documents the VisualNastran (VN) analyses focused onadding small corrective acceleration to the original acceleration time-histories from [5.3] toensure the velocity and displacement are truly zero at the end of seismic event. The outputacceleration time-histories from this appendix are used as inputs to represent the driving inertialloads in the VisualNastran (VN) model.I....... ---Figure 1: Time Histories of Displacement, Velocity and Acceleration BEFORE BaselineCorrection at El. 74.25'Page G-2 of 5G:\Projects\1 916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 0 Project 1916Report HI-2104715To baseline correct this input, an incremental velocity is assumed in each direction having theform:A2t2dv= Alt+At2The two constants of integration are chosen so that the total velocity (integrated by VN from theacceleration data + incremental velocity) is zero at the end of the specified 20-second duration,and the average total velocity over the event duration is zero. The following results are obtainedfor the two constants:A1 = (2ve- 6va )/ gteA2 = 6(2va -ve)/g(te)2The quantities in the above relations have the units of acceleration and acceleration/sec. and havebeen divided by gravity for convenience:Time duration = teVelocity at end of duration from initial integrated numerical time history = VeAverage velocity over entire duration from integrated numerical time history = vaEach of the above pieces of data is available from the Excel spreadsheet (for each direction ofexcitation) that accompanies the initial VN solution. Returning to the VN simulation model andcorrecting the input inertia forces by including the new incremental acceleration in each lateraldirection.Page G-3 of 5G:\Projects\1 916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 0 Project 1916Report HI-2104715Baseline Correction at El. 74.25 ft.Require that end velocity be zero and average velocity over duration be zero in each direction.x direction:v., = 12.4 inseeA, =(2v, -6v,)/gt,A2 = 6(2Va -_ v)/g(t )2Check: VX20= Alte + A22 _)92)in inva = 97.7 -4.885-120. sec secA, = -5.841x 10-4A2 = _ 1.022 x 10-4 1seevx2o =-12.4secy direction:v =-5.44 inseeA, =(2ve -6v.)/gt,A2= 6(2va -ve)/g(te)2in inva = -23.3- =-1.165-i20. see secA, = -5.038x 10-4A2=1.208x10-4 1--secCheck:VY20 Alt,+ A22JVY20 = 5.44 -seez direction:v 0.375inseeA, =(2v, --6Va)/ gteA2 = 6(2v. _ vJ)/g(t,)2in inva, = -3.38 = -0.169-20. sec secA, = 2.284x 10-4A2=-2.77x110--seePage G-4 of 5GAProjects\ 1916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 0 Project 1916Report HI-2104715Check:VZ2o=( Ate + A2LeginVZ20 = -0.375-isecFigure 2 shows the time histories of velocity and displacement after baseline correction at El.74.25'. It is shown the end velocities and displacements are effectively eliminated by thebaseline correction.Figure 2: Time Histories of Displacement, Velocity and Acceleration AFTER BaselineCorrection at El. 74.25'Page G-5 of 5G:\Projects\1 916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 0 APPENDIX HAPPENDIX H: LIFTING ANALYSIS OF LEVELING PLATFORM1.0 IntroductionThis appendix contains the analysis of the lifting points of the Pilgrim levelingplatform.2.0 MethodologyThe analysis is based on strength of materials formulations. All analyses and thepreparation of this report are carried out using the Mathcad electronic scratchpadprogram [3.13] on a computer using Windows 7.3.0 References[3.1] Holtec Drawing 8262, Rev 6.[3.2] Not Used.[3.3] USNRC NUREG 0612, Handling of Large Loads in Nuclear Plants.[3.4] ANSI N 14.6 Special Lifting Devices for Shipping Containers Weighing10000 lbs. (4500 kg.) or More for Nuclear Materials, 1993.[3.5] ASME Code, Section II, Part D, 1995.[3.8] Manual of Steel Construction, AISC, 9th Edition.[3.9] CMAA Specification #70, Crane Manufacturers of America, 1988.[3.10] ASME Code, Section III, Subsection NF, 2011.[3.11] Machinery's Handbook, 27th Edition, 2004.[3.12] Crosby catalog, 2011.[3.13] MATHCAD, Mathsoft, Version 15.0.[3.14] ASME BTH-1 -2011, Design of Below-the-Hook Lifting Devices, ASME.PROJECT 1916H-1 ofll1HI-2104715 APPENDIX H4.0 Acceptance Criteria, Allowable Strengths, and Assumptions4.1 Acceptance CriteriaLifting of heavy objects is governed by [3.3] which references [3.4] for actualnumerical values for allowable strengths. The primary normal stress ata given section must be less than the minimum of Sy/3 or Su/5 (Sy=materialyield strength; Su= material ultimate strength) when the applied load is equal tothe lifted load including any dynamic amplification. Further, in accordance with[3.4], a further reduction in allowable strengths, by a factor of 2.0, is mandatedif the lifting device does not have redundant load paths.There is no specific requirement for welds. Conservatively, it is assumed thatthe same requirement imposed on the base metal section is also imposed onthe weld section.There is no requirement to check any local or secondary stress states.4.2 Allowable StrengthsThe following materials and allowable strengths are used in this analysis.Values for yield strength and ultimate strength are obtained at 150 OF from [3.5].SA -240-304SA-479-304SY240 =26700.psiSy47926700-psiSU240 =73000.psiSU479 73000.psiBased on the above material strengths, the following allowable strengths arecomputed:(a20 fSY240 : SU,40 SY240 SU240(SY479 SU479 SY479 SU479)Sa7 i(6 :5 10 6'10)Sa24o= 4.45 x 103.psiSa47 = 4.45 x 103 psi4.3 AssumptionsPROJECT 1916H-2 of 11HI-2104715 APPENDIX HThe dynamic load factor is conservatively assumed to be 15% of dead weightto account for inertia effects, which is appropriate for low speed lifts.Shear strength is taken as 57.7% of the controlling normal stress allowable.The factor of 57.7% is the ratio of allowable stress in pure shear to theallowable stress in uniaxial tension based on the maximum distortion energyfailure theory.There is no limit set on local bearing stress in [3.3] and [3.4]; a limit on bearingstress is set at 90% of material yield at 3 times the lifted load to ensure noyielding under the test load.The total lifting load is uniformly distributed among the liffing slings. It can beachieved by adjusting the sling angles.4.4 Safety FactorThe safety factor at a particular location is defined as:SF. = allowable load (strength)/ calculated load (stress).The requirement for an acceptable design is that all safetyfactors be greater than 1.0.5.0 Input Data5.1 Load DataLoad:= 5000.IbfAnglel := 60.degAngle2:= 30.degDLF := .15Bounding Lift Load [3.1]Min. Sling Angle from Horizontal (note 10 of [3.1])Projected angle in plane of platform [3.1]Dynamic Load Factor to account for inertia effects [3.9]5.2 Geometry InputsThe geometry inputs are provided along with the corresponding analysis inSection 6.0.PROJECT 1916H-3 of 11HI-2104715 APPENDIX H6.0 AnalysesAll geometry inputs are from [3.1] unless otherwise noted.All item numbers and geometry data are from Ref. [3.1] unless otherwise noted.nsling 4 number of slingsLoad-(1 + DLF) _ 3Tension:= -Loa.(l+ L) -1.66 x 103. force in each slingnsling. sin(,Anglel1)Ph := Tension-cos(Angle1) = 829.941-1bf horizontal force componentP,:= Tension-sin(Anglei) = 1.437 x 1031Ibf vertical force component6.1 Lifting Shackle (item 7)Fwt 5tonne-g = 1.102 x 10 4-bf working load limit of shackle [3.12] 1Fu: F,1r4.5 = 4.96 x 104.1bf ultimate load limit is 4.5 timesworking load limit [3.12]Ful10 [SafetyFactort 2Safety Factortb .Tension f 2,988Note that the commerically procured shackle only needs to meet the 1/10th of theultimate per [3.3] and [3.4].6.2 Lifting Block (item 5)d := 4.5.inPROJECT 1916width of blockH-4 of 11HI-2104715 APPENDIX Hb := 0.75.inc:= 2indhole := 1-inhhol :=4-23in- lin = 3.719 in32dpi, :=0.75.inAnglel = 60.degdx := -= 2.25 in2thickness of lifting block near the topthickness of lifting block near the bottompin hole diameter at the toppin hole elevation (from the smallpinhole center near top to the root of thethin portion of block)lift pin diameter [3.12]angle of load applicationextreme fiber distance to centroidBearing Stress on block from Shackle Pin at Block TopAb:= dpin'b = 0.562 in2  bearing areaTension3Or := -2.951 x 10 3psi bearing stress on blockAbSY240Opbearing *= .9'- = 8.01 x 10 psi bearing stress allowable3SFb.- Upbearing [SFb = 2714 safety factor on bearingJ TbPROJECT 1916 H-5 of I1IHI-2104715 APPENDIX HTear Out of Pin at Liftina Block TorThe shear tear-out area is calculated using Eq (3-51) from [3.14].A,= 2[a + &#xfd;&#xfd;" (I- cos 1)tAssuming the tearout is in the vertical direction instead of along the slingdirection to obtain conservative shear area and to simplify calculations. Theminimum edge distance from pinhole to edge of plate is:dholea:= lin-- =0 .5.in25,.:= 55. = 41.25dholeA, := 2 + ---i-.(1 -cos((0.deg)) b = 0.89.in2Tension 3Tt :=- = 1.866 x 10 .psiA,shear plane and vertical angletotal area of shear planesshear stressSa240-0.577SFt :TtSF7= 1.376]safety factor on tear outPROJECT 1916H-6 of 11HI-2104715 APPENDIX HDirection ofappliedload Shear planesCurved edge AfNr RP CL holewhere:-, = total area of the two shear planes beyond the pinholea minimum edge distance from pinhole to edge of plate= plate thicknessDv = pin diameterDI, = hole diameter= 55LP (in degrees)Figure 1 [3.14]Tensile Stress at Pin Hole Cross-Section at Lifting Block TopAh := (d -dhole)-b = 2.625 in2Tensionh .- Te -= 632.336.psiAharea at pin hole cross-sectiontensile stress at pin hole cross-sectionsafety factor at hole cross-sectionSFh= _(rhSFh =7.03 7Stress at Root of Lifting Block's Thin PortionPROJECT 1916H-7 of 11HI-2104715 APPENDIX HThe thickness of lifting block transitions from thickness "b" to "c" near themid-height. The thickness "c" is 2.67 times the thickness "b". The loading pattemon the lifting block and the geometry determines the critical cross-section is at theroom of the lifting block's thin portion.The critical cross-section is subjected to tensile stress from vertical component ofsling load, shear stress from horizontal component of sling load, and bendingstress from the horizontal component of sling load.3M := Ph'hhole = 3.086 x 10. Ibf-ind3.b 4:= = 5.695 in12M d 13.sorb : d.= 1.219 x 10 psi1 2o- = 425.926-psib.d3(r1combine: (Tb + (t= 1.645 x 10 *psibending momentbending moment of inertiabending stresstensile stress from tensioncombined tensile stresssafety factor for tensile stressSa24oSFT I -O't combineFsF72-7 0 5TL.- -- 245.908-psib dshear stressSa240-0.577SFs.TLISS 0.441safety factor for shear6.3 Lifting Bar (item 6)PROJECT 1916H-8 of 11HI-2104715 APPENDIX HAll item numbers and geometry data are from Ref. [3.1] unless otherwise noted.The lifting bar (or pin) goes through the thicker portion of lifting block at the bottom.The pin is supported at two ends by the platform plate (item 1).dl := 1.5inlifting pin diameterload on pin is conservatively taken as the sling load.Ppin := Tension = 1.66 x 103.IbfThe pin is subjected to a shear load. The maximum shear stress in the pin iscalculated as:.pini Pi 469~.651-psi0.577-Sa479SFshear :shear stressSFshe, = 5.467EThe bending of the pin is evaluated by assuming simple support conditionsfor the pin. The beam span is conservatively assumed to be the distancebetween the mid-points of the supported ends of the pin. The beam spanassumption is an extremely conservative assumption. The lift load is appliedas a uniformly distributed load over the width of the lifting foot. It is notedthere is 1/8" gap between the lifting block and the inside edges of theplatform plate (2.125"-2"). The 1/8" gap may cause slight of-center loadingon the pin. However, the effect is negligible and therefore is not consideredherein.c = 2 inlifting plate thickness at bottom(6 -2.125)inL := + 2.125in = 4.063 in2assumed beam spana:= c = 2 inload spanPROJECT 1916H-9 of 11HI-2104715 APPENDIX Hcrl := 0.04indiametral clearance on pin and pin holeMoment:= .= 1.271 x 103.Ibf-in2 2 2ITr 4 4:= -.dl =0.249 in64dl 3('bendingI := Moment.- = 3.835 x 10 .psi2.1maximum bending stress in pinmoment of inertia of pinbending stress in pinSFbendl .(Tbending iSFbend = 1.16beafina at pinhole at liftinq block bottomLifting pin and lifting block are made of two different materials.min(SY479, SY240) 3rpbearing .9= 8.01 x 10 .psi3P.iO'bear= = 553.294"psidl'cSFbem1 := pbearingOTbearlbearing stress allowablebearing stressSFbearl = 14.477ftearout at pinhole at liftinc block bottomThe shear tear-out area is calculated using Eq (3-51)from [3.14]. The sketchis shown in Figure 1 above.PROJECT 1916H-10 of 11HI-210471 5 APPENDIX H1.54ina:= 2in -l.23in24:= dl0:= 55. -= 53.5711.54inA, := 2 a + -( -cos(dp-deg) c= 6.139.inpinTtearl .=..L. = 270.403.psiA,,.577Sa240SFteaI :=iTtearlminimum edge distance frompinhole to edge of plateshear plane and vertical angletotal area of shear planesshear stressISFteaz = 9.4967.0 ConclusionSince safety factors of parts that are in the load path are all greater than 1.0,using the specified allowable strengths in section 4.2, the lifting point meets therequirements of NUREG 0612 and ANSI N14.6. Therefore, the lifting point isacceptable.PROJECT 1916H-11 ofll1HI-2104715 Project 1916 Appendix I Report HI-2104715APPENDIX I: ANALYSIS OF SPENT FUEL POOL SLABIN CAMPAIGN II AND III CONFIGURATIONINTRODUCTIONThe finite element model described in Ref. [1.1] is non-conservative because itcredits temporary columns to support the spent fuel pool slab. This appendix analyzes thespent fuel pool slab under the limiting load combination (1.4D +1.7E) per [1.1], withoutcrediting any of the steel beams/girders beneath the slab. The applied flexural loads are fromthe slab dead weight, water in the pool, Campaign II and III racks (with regular fuel) andHI-TRAC IO0D cask.METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONSThe spent fuel pool slab is analyzed as a rectangular plate under a uniform pressure loadcorresponding to the limiting load combination 1.4D + 1.7 E. The flexure of the slab isanalyzed. Two different sets of boundary conditions are analyzed for the slab forcompleteness:1) all edges fixed;2) three edges fixed (north, south, and east) and one edge simply supported (west).The load on the slab is assumed to be uniform pressure.The SSE dynamic loads from the racks and HI-TRAC cask are conservatively assumed tobe the OBE loads.ACCEPTANCE CRITERIAThe calculated maximum bending moment in the slab under flexural loading shall be lessthan the reinforcement ultimate moment obtained from [1.1].REFERENCES[1.1] Holtec Report HI-92952, "Calculation Package for Pilgrim Spent Fuel Pool SlabStructural Requalification", Rev. 1.[1.2] Young, W.C., Roark's Formulas for Stress & Strain, McGraw Hill International,6th Edition.[1.3] Bechtel Drawing C-108 Rev. 3.Page I-1 of 1-8 Project 1916 Appendix I Report HI-2104715INPUT DATAL := 484.inW:= 366-int:= 60.inH:= 39.ftIc := 165-pcf-1w:= 62.42.pcfD1 2949480.lbfE :=0.372.D,D4 := 1910001bfE4:= 1.680.D4az := 0.3108Inside dimension of SFP in NS direction [1.3]Inside dimension of SFP in EW direction [1.3]Thickness of SFP concrete slab (Page 4-1 of [1.1])Height of SFP water above slab (Page 5.1C of [1.1])Weight density of reinforced concrete (Page 2-5 of [1.1])Weight density of waterDead weight of racks in Campaign II and III (with regular fuelweighing 680 lb per assembly) (from Table 2 of main report)OBE dynamic adder associated with loaded racks(conservatively uses SSE result from Table 2 of main report)HI-TRAC dead weight [5.8]OBE dynamic adder associated with HI-TRAC (conservativelyuses SSE results from Table 2 of main report)OBE vertical acceleration of SFP slab at 10.596 Hz(from p. 6-1C and 5B-6 of [1.1])Page 1-2 of I-8 Project 1916 Appendix I Report HI-2104715CALCULATIONSWeight of water in SFPD :=L.W.t.-YcSelf weight of reinforced concrete slab (excluding girders)D1 + D2 + D3 + D4D = 40.363psiL.WEquivalent pressure on wetted slab areadue to dead loads from racks and caskHydrodynamic force on slab due to OBE loadingSeismic inertia force acting on slab due to OBE loadingEl + E2 + E3 + E4E := L-= 15.04-psiL.Wq :=1.4-D + 1.7.E = 82.076-psiEquivalent pressure on wetted slab areadue to OBE loads from racks and caskFactored pressure load on slab for loadcombination 1.4D + 1.7EUse Table 26 from [1.2] to evaluate the flexural loads on the SFP slab. Two different sets ofboundary conditions are evaluated.Boundary Condition 1: All edaes fixed (Case No. 8 from Table 26 of [1.21)a:= Lb:= Wa-= 1.322bOlx:= (1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 1010P(0.3078 0.3834 0.4356 0.4680 0.4872 0.4974 0.5000)Page 1-3 of 1-8 Project 1916 Appendix I Report HI-2104715linterp( 01X T, OyT, a 0 = 0.415P2x:= [Ix022y:= (0.1386 0.1794 0.2094 0.2286 0.2406 0.2472 0.2500)linterp(s2XT, 02yT,fb) [2=0.198At center of long edge (east edge of slab at center):(71 .- -21 = -1.268 x 10 3psi2t2"I .- Crv M, 1= -761.098 kip.6 inkip-inMe:= 1027.1 Reinforcement Ultimate Moment (from p. 4B-4 and 4B-34 of [1.1])inSF:.- MI ISF = 1.349At center (slab center region):0 2.q-b22T2 2 O"2 = 603.973.psit2cr2.t kip.inM2 .- M2 = 362.384-k6 inMC:= 919.1-kp Reinforcement Ultimate Moment (from p. 4B-4 and 4B-34 of [1.1])inPage 1-4 of I-8 Project 1916 Appendix I Report HI-2104715SF .- ISF = 2.536IM21Boundary Condition 2: Three edges fixed, one edge simply supported(Case No. 9 from Table 26 of [I.21)a:= Lb:= Wa = 1.322b[3x (0.25 0.50 0.75 1.0 1.5 2.0 3.0)031y:= (0.020 0.081 0.173 0.307 0.539 0.657 0.718)y01 := linterp 01 x T,3y T,' a1 = 0.45702x,:= 1x02y:= (0.004 0.018 0.062 0.134 0.284 0.370 0.422)3:np T,0) T,a P, = 0.23102 / :=litep(2 -Y -b)03x:= O31x03y:=(0.016 0.061 0.118 0.158 0.164 0.135 0.097)33 := linterp03xT,033T,ba 133 = 0.162034x:= 131xPage 1-5 of 1-8 Project 1916 Appendix I Report HI-2104715134y:= (0.031 0.121 0.242 0.343 0.417 0.398 0.318)034 :=linterp(134x, , Y Tb34 = 0.391At x = 0, z = 0 (east edge of slab at center):2or tMI.-6Mc : 1027.1-&#xfd;&#xfd;ino"1 = -1.394 x 10 3psiM= -836.683 kip.ininReinforcement Ultimate Moment (from p. 4B-4 and 4B-34 of [1.1])SF .- meISF = 1.228]IMIIAt x = 0, z = 0.6b (slab center region):0,2.q-b 22t2cr2.M2 0=-2't-6M 919.1kip-inincr2= 704.637-psiM2= 422.782- kip.ininReinforcement Ultimate Moment (from p. 4B-4 and 4B-34 of [1.1])M cSF.-1 M21PSF = 2.174 JPage 1-6 of 1-8 Project 1916 Appendix I Report HI-210471503-q- 2U3* 222o-3.M 3 := --'--6Mc:= 729.inSF-McSF:=0-3 = 494.357.psiM3 = 296.614. kip7iinReinforcement Ultimate Moment (from p. 4B-4 and 4B-34 of [1.1])ISF = 2.458 1At x = +/- a/2, z = 0.6b (north and south edges of slab near center):-P34. q20T4 2t2(04'M4" 6Mc:= 1027.1.Ain("4 = -1.193 x 10 3psiM 4 =-715.962 .kip .-ininReinforcement Ultimate Moment (from p. 4B-4 and 4B-34 of [1.1])M cSF:=1M41ISF = 1.435 ]Slab Shear CheckThe "beam shear" is not a credible failure mode for the slab and therefore the beamshear stresses need not be evaluated. However, a peripheral shear check is requiredfor the gross floor slab load and is performed as follows.fc:= 4000psiconcrete compressive strength (Page 6-90 of [5.4])Page 1-7 of 1-8 Project 1916 Appendix I Report HI-2104715d := 57indistance from the most compressed fiber to thetensile reinforcement (Page 6-90 of [5.4])b0 := (L + W -2.d).2 = 1.472 x 103.inslab perimeterNext is to calculate the minimum shear capacity of slab, Vcap. Per Section 11.12.2.1 of[5.11], Vcap is the smallest of the following two capacities:L3:= = 1.322Wratio of long side to short side of the slab( 4~' 7VCap, :=O.85. (2 + &#xfd;pi b' = 2.266 x 10 .*fbfcapacity 1ot:= 30parameter of edge column( ~ d'- 7:= 0.85- 2 + p" b d = 1.426 x 10- lbfVcap2 0)VCOVcap:= min(VcapI, Vcap2) = 1.426 x 107.1bf7Dtotal: q.(L -d).(W -d) = 1.083 x 10 *Ibfcalculated minimum shear capacityper ACI Code [5.11]total vertical load on slabsafety factor.- VcapSF DtDtotal[SF = 1.317CONCLUSIONThis appendix analyzes the spent fuel pool slab under the limiting load combination (1.4D+1.7E), without crediting any of the steel beams/girders beneath the slab. It is shown thatthe calculated maximum bending moments in the slab under flexural loading are less thanthe reinforcement ultimate moment. Therefore, the existing loads on the SFP slab fromCampaign II and III racks (with regular fuel) and the loaded HI-TRAC cask are well within itsdesign capacity. Also, the slab shear stress around the periphery is within its capacity.Page 1-8 of I-8 Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-2104715APPENDIX J: ANALYSIS OF LEVELING PLATFORM ASSEMBLY UNDERNORMAL, SSE AND OBE CONDITIONS1.0 IntroductionIn this appendix, the leveling platform (adjustable supports or pedestals) that are used tosupport the loaded HI-TRAC 100D under normal and seismic conditions are analyzed forstrength and thread engagement length.2.0 Methodology & AssumptionsThe structural adequacy of the Leveling Platform is established using the formulations of strength ofmaterials and static equilibrium. The maximum tension, compression,shear, bending, and combinedstresses are calculated for the structural members of the Leveling Platform, and then safety factors areevaluated based on the allowable stress limits set in section 3.The required data for analysis is: 1) number of pedestals; 2) internal and external thread dimensions;3) load under normal and seismic conditions; and 4) material properties.E70XX series (or better) electrodes are used to fabricate the adjustable platform plate assembly, whichhas an ultimate strength of 70 ksi. The tensile strength of 70 ksi is used to compute the weld safetyfactor.3.0 Acceptance CriteriaThe acceptance criteria for normal and SSE conditions are based on ANSI/AISC N690 [J.8] as guidedby NRC and Purchase Specification For Pilgrim Leveling Platform [J.4].3.1 Level AStress limits for Normal Conditions (Level A) are derived from Sections Q1.5 and Q1.6 of AISCN690-1994 [J.8]. Terminology is in accordance with the AISC Specification.Allowable stress in tension is taken as 0.6 times yield strength on the gross area, but notmore than 0.5 times the tensile strength on the effective net area. (Q1.5.1.1)Ft = 0.60. Fy < 0.50Fuii. Allowable stress in shear on a effective cross-sectional area is taken as 0.4 timesyield strength. (Q1.5.1.2.1)Fv = 0.40. Fyiii. For stainless steel, allowable stress in compression on the gross section of axiallyloaded compression members whose cross-sections meet the provision of Kilr,the largest effective slendemess ratio of any unbraced segment, equal to or less than120, is taken as (Q1.5.1.3.5, Q1.5.9.1, Eq. Q1.5-11)Page J-1 of J27  
[Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-2104715IFa FJF -2.15 .'20 &deg;where I = Unbraced length,r = Radius of gyration,if C = K < 120rK = Effective length factor,iv. Allowable stress in bending is taken as 0.75 times yield strength for solid roundand square bars.(Q1.5.1.4.3)Fb = 0.75.Fyv. Members subjected to both axial compression and bending stresses shall beproportioned to satisfy the following requirements (Q1.6.1)fa + rCmx'fbx Cmy'fby <1.0F+ fe bx + --I F<yFex) -Fey)fa fbx0.6Fy Fbxfbyy 1.0EbyFor structural grade steelsI127r-EFe.F =2:3 K.- L(\ rb)For stainless steels2T" .E2Fe 2-k,. rb jICmEE2is a coefficient whose value is conservatively taken as 1.0 in this study.is the modulus of elasticity, 29,000 ksi (steel)is the initial modulus of elasticity of stainless steel 28,000 ksivi. Allowable shear stress on an effective area of a fillet weld is taken as 0.3 timesnominal tensile strength of weld metal.Allowable tension or compression parallel to axis of fillet welds is the same as theallowables in the base metal.(Table Q1.5.3)Page J-2 of J27 Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-21047153.2 Level DSection 7.1 of PS-5256, Rev. 0, "Purchase Specification For Pilgrim Leveling Platform" [J.4] specifiesthat the allowable stresses should not exceed the ones from N690-1994 [J.8].As Per Table Q1.5.7.1 in AISC N690-1994 [J.8], the allowable stresses in tension, bending, andcompression are taken as 1.6 times the values in Level A conditions; while the allowable stresses inshear are taken as 1.4 times the values in Level A conditions. Therefore, the stress limits for the Level Dcondition are established as follows:i. Allowable stress in tension is taken as 1.6 times the value in Level A conditions.ii. Allowable stress in shear on a effective section is taken as 1.4 times the valuein Level A conditions.iii Allowable stress in compression is taken as 1.6 times the value in Level Aconditions.iv. Allowable stress in bending should be taken as 1.6 times the value in Level A conditions. Insteadthe allowable is conservatively taken as 0.95 Sy.v. Allowable stress in welds is taken as 1.4 times the value in Level A conditions.4.0 CompositionThis document is created using the Mathcad (version 15.0) software package. Mathcad uses the symbolI:='as an assignment operator, and the equals symbol '=' retrieves values for constants or variables.5.0 References[J.1] E. Oberg and F.D. Jones, "Machinery's Handbook", 27th Edition, Industrial Press, 2004.[J.2] ASME CODE, Section II, Part D, 1995 edition.[J.3] Holtec Drawing 8262, Revision 6.[J.4] PS-5256, Revision 0, "Purchase Specification For Pilgrim Leveling Platform".[J.5] Not Used.[J.6] ASME Code Section III, Appendix F, 2004.[J.7] ANSI/ASME BI. 1, "Unified Inch Screw Threads, UN and UNR Thread Form", 2003.[J.8] ANSI/AISC N690-1994, "American National Standard Specification for the Design, Fabrication,and Erection of Steel Safety-Related Structures for Nuclear Facilities".[J.9] PILGRIM Final Safety Analysis Report, Revision 27.(J.10] Holtec Report HI-2002444, HI-STORM 100 FSAR, Rev. 9., Table 3.2.2.[J.11]ANSYS 13.0, SAS IP, Inc. 2010.Page J-3 of J27 Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-2104715[J.12] Pilgrim specification No. C-114-ER-Q-EO, "Seismic Response Spectra".6.0 Analyses6.1 Input Datadb := 5 inLas:= 5.25indb2Ad:= 4.-N:= 4--inp:= -= 0.25.inNAdjustable support diameter [J.3]Total length of adjustable support [J.3]Area of the unthreaded portion of the adjustable supportNumber of threads per inch (UN) [J.3]Thread pitch [J.7]Leng:= 2.5.in Minimum thread engagement [J.3]Note: Minimum thread engagement is assumed to be the same as the blocksupport pedestal thickness.From Section 5.8 of [J.7], Class 1A (external threads) pitch diameter tolerance is calculated as:tOlpD [2A:= 0.0015- + 0.0015. -+- intOlPD 2 = .O89ialllA:= 0.3-tOIpD_2AalllA = 0.003267.in Class 1A (external threads) allowance [J.7]Class IA (external threads) major diameter tolerance is calculated as:(1)tOlMD-IA:= 0-09'[(-.E)l -ininPageJ-41A = J27Page J-4 of J27 Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-2104715Class IA (external threads) pitch diameter tolerance is calculated as:tOIpD_lA:= 1.5.tOIpD_2A tOlpD_1A = 0.016334.inClass 1B (internal threads) minor diameter tolerance is calculated as:tOIMDIB := [.25.,7 -0.4 ).] -in tOIMDIB = 0.0375-inClass 1 B (internal threads) pitch diameter tolerance is calculated as:tOIpD1B := 1.95"tOIpD_2A tOIpD_1B = 0.021234.inD2 := 4.8376.in basic pitch diameter [J.7, table 9]DI 4.7294-in basic minor diameter of internal threads [J.7, table9]d3 = 4.7023 in minor diameter of external threads [J.7, table 9]Thread dimensions below are calculated as per [J.7, table 17]:Dsmin:= db -alllA -tOIMD 1A Dsmin = 4.961 -in minimum major diameter of external threadEsmin := D2 -alliA -tOIpD_1A Esmin = 4.818 -in minimum pitch diameter of external threadKnmax:= D1 + tOIMD_lB Knmax = 4.7669.in maximum minor diameter of internal threadEnmax:= D2 + tOIpD_lB Enmax = 4.8588-in maximum pitch diameter of internal threadTensile stress area [J.1, page 1510]Esmin 0.16238 2 2At, := 3.1416. 2 -N At1 = 17.622-in tensile stress area for S564At2 := 0.7854.(db -At2= 17.769-in2tensile stress area for S240Page J-5 of J27  
[Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-2104715IFa FJF -2.15 .'20 &deg;where I = Unbraced length,r = Radius of gyration,if C = K < 120rK = Effective length factor,iv. Allowable stress in bending is taken as 0.75 times yield strength for solid roundand square bars.(Q1.5.1.4.3)Fb = 0.75.Fyv. Members subjected to both axial compression and bending stresses shall beproportioned to satisfy the following requirements (Q1.6.1)fa + rCmx'fbx Cmy'fby <1.0F+ fe bx + --I F<yFex) -Fey)fa fbx0.6Fy Fbxfbyy 1.0EbyFor structural grade steelsI127r-EFe.F =2:3 K.- L(\ rb)For stainless steels2T" .E2Fe 2-k,. rb jICmEE2is a coefficient whose value is conservatively taken as 1.0 in this study.is the modulus of elasticity, 29,000 ksi (steel)is the initial modulus of elasticity of stainless steel 28,000 ksivi. Allowable shear stress on an effective area of a fillet weld is taken as 0.3 timesnominal tensile strength of weld metal.Allowable tension or compression parallel to axis of fillet welds is the same as theallowables in the base metal.(Table Q1.5.3)Page J-2 of J27 Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-21047153.2 Level DSection 7.1 of PS-5256, Rev. 0, "Purchase Specification For Pilgrim Leveling Platform" [J.4] specifiesthat the allowable stresses should not exceed the ones from N690-1994 [J.8].As Per Table Q1.5.7.1 in AISC N690-1994 [J.8], the allowable stresses in tension, bending, andcompression are taken as 1.6 times the values in Level A conditions; while the allowable stresses inshear are taken as 1.4 times the values in Level A conditions. Therefore, the stress limits for the Level Dcondition are established as follows:i. Allowable stress in tension is taken as 1.6 times the value in Level A conditions.ii. Allowable stress in shear on a effective section is taken as 1.4 times the valuein Level A conditions.iii Allowable stress in compression is taken as 1.6 times the value in Level Aconditions.iv. Allowable stress in bending should be taken as 1.6 times the value in Level A conditions. Insteadthe allowable is conservatively taken as 0.95 Sy.v. Allowable stress in welds is taken as 1.4 times the value in Level A conditions.4.0 CompositionThis document is created using the Mathcad (version 15.0) software package. Mathcad uses the symbolI:='as an assignment operator, and the equals symbol '=' retrieves values for constants or variables.5.0 References[J.1] E. Oberg and F.D. Jones, "Machinery's Handbook", 27th Edition, Industrial Press, 2004.[J.2] ASME CODE, Section II, Part D, 1995 edition.[J.3] Holtec Drawing 8262, Revision 6.[J.4] PS-5256, Revision 0, "Purchase Specification For Pilgrim Leveling Platform".[J.5] Not Used.[J.6] ASME Code Section III, Appendix F, 2004.[J.7] ANSI/ASME BI. 1, "Unified Inch Screw Threads, UN and UNR Thread Form", 2003.[J.8] ANSI/AISC N690-1994, "American National Standard Specification for the Design, Fabrication,and Erection of Steel Safety-Related Structures for Nuclear Facilities".[J.9] PILGRIM Final Safety Analysis Report, Revision 27.(J.10] Holtec Report HI-2002444, HI-STORM 100 FSAR, Rev. 9., Table 3.2.2.[J.11]ANSYS 13.0, SAS IP, Inc. 2010.Page J-3 of J27 Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-2104715[J.12] Pilgrim specification No. C-114-ER-Q-EO, "Seismic Response Spectra".6.0 Analyses6.1 Input Datadb := 5 inLas:= 5.25indb2Ad:= 4.-N:= 4--inp:= -= 0.25.inNAdjustable support diameter [J.3]Total length of adjustable support [J.3]Area of the unthreaded portion of the adjustable supportNumber of threads per inch (UN) [J.3]Thread pitch [J.7]Leng:= 2.5.in Minimum thread engagement [J.3]Note: Minimum thread engagement is assumed to be the same as the blocksupport pedestal thickness.From Section 5.8 of [J.7], Class 1A (external threads) pitch diameter tolerance is calculated as:tOlpD [2A:= 0.0015- + 0.0015. -+- intOlPD 2 = .O89ialllA:= 0.3-tOIpD_2AalllA = 0.003267.in Class 1A (external threads) allowance [J.7]Class IA (external threads) major diameter tolerance is calculated as:(1)tOlMD-IA:= 0-09'[(-.E)l -ininPageJ-41A = J27Page J-4 of J27 Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-2104715Class IA (external threads) pitch diameter tolerance is calculated as:tOIpD_lA:= 1.5.tOIpD_2A tOlpD_1A = 0.016334.inClass 1B (internal threads) minor diameter tolerance is calculated as:tOIMDIB := [.25.,7 -0.4 ).] -in tOIMDIB = 0.0375-inClass 1 B (internal threads) pitch diameter tolerance is calculated as:tOIpD1B := 1.95"tOIpD_2A tOIpD_1B = 0.021234.inD2 := 4.8376.in basic pitch diameter [J.7, table 9]DI 4.7294-in basic minor diameter of internal threads [J.7, table9]d3 = 4.7023 in minor diameter of external threads [J.7, table 9]Thread dimensions below are calculated as per [J.7, table 17]:Dsmin:= db -alllA -tOIMD 1A Dsmin = 4.961 -in minimum major diameter of external threadEsmin := D2 -alliA -tOIpD_1A Esmin = 4.818 -in minimum pitch diameter of external threadKnmax:= D1 + tOIMD_lB Knmax = 4.7669.in maximum minor diameter of internal threadEnmax:= D2 + tOIpD_lB Enmax = 4.8588-in maximum pitch diameter of internal threadTensile stress area [J.1, page 1510]Esmin 0.16238 2 2At, := 3.1416. 2 -N At1 = 17.622-in tensile stress area for S564At2 := 0.7854.(db -At2= 17.769-in2tensile stress area for S240Page J-5 of J27  
[Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-2104715At:= min(Atl,At2)IT 2Agross:= -'dbsqw:= 1.375inT.(d,)4 sq64 12"T"(d3)2 sq 2A, :=- sqw4At = 17.622.in2minimum tensile stress areaAgross = 19.635.in2Gross area of support11 23.702. in 4A, 15.476*in 2r, 1.238-inwidth of square inside the adjustable support [J.3]moment of inertia of the adjustable support(conservative)cross sectional area of the adjustable support(conservative)r1:= -radius of gyrationL, := 4.25-in Unsupported length of the adjustable support [J.3](conservative)Since both ends of the pedestal are fixed in rotation, the recommended effective K value as a guidedcantilever beam is:K1:= 1.2 Slendemess Ratio [J.8, table CQ-1.8.1]6.2 Material Properties:SA-240-304 Stainless Steel (at 150 dee F temoerature)Sy:= 26700-psiSu :=73000 psi7E, 2.78077-10 .*psiYield Stress [J.2]Ultimate Stress [J.2]Young's Modulus [J.2]Note: Internal and external thread materials have different strengths.Page J-6 of J27 Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-2104715SA-564-630, H1100 Stainless Steel (at 150 deg F temperature)S564y:= 109200-psiS564u:= 140000.psi7E:=2.85.10 .psiYield Stress [J.2]Ultimate Stress [J.2]Young's Modulus (J.2]6.3 Level A Allowable Stresses (Section 3.1 of this appendix)SA-240-304 Stainless SteelAllowable Tension Stress Sten_nor:= min(0.6Sy,0.5.Su) Sten_nor= 16020.psiAllowable Shear Stress Sshnor :0.4.Sy Sshnor = 10680 -psi0.3Weld Allowable Stress Sw-nor :=   70ksi Sw-nor= 14849.2. psiNote: 1. The &#xfd; factor is to account for the minimum throat area of a fillet weld.2. The use of 70 ksi tensile strength is based on Section 2- Assumption in this Appendix.SA-564-630, H1100 Stainless SteelAllowable Tension StressAllowable Shear StressStennor2 := min(O.6. S564y, 0.5 S564u)Ssh_nor2:= 0.4.S564ySten_nor2 = 65520-psiSsh_nor2 = 43680 .psiAllowable Compression StressK1 .L1C:=- = 4.121r1< 120s564y 6S564y 2.15.ksiScmp-nr2 "-2.15.ksi 1 -1 ksicompknor 120Scomp-nor2 = 49252.5 .psiSbennor2 = 81900.psiAllowable Bending StressSben~nor2 := 075*564yPage J-7 of J27 Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-21047156.4 Level D Allowable Stresses (Section 3.2 of this appendix)SA-240-304 Stainless SteelAllowable Tension StressAllowable Shear StressWeld Allowable StressSten_acc:= 1..6StennorSshacc := 1.4 SshnorSw_acc:= 1.4.SwnorSten acc= 25632-psiSshacc 14952-psiSw-acc = 20788.9 psiSA-564-630, H1100 Stainless SteelAllowable Tension StressAllowable Shear StressStenacc2 1.6.Stennor2Sshacc2 : 1.4-Sshnor2Sten-acc2 =104832-pSi5Sh-acc2 =61152.psiAllowable Compression Stress Scompacc2 := [.6-Scompnor2 Sompacc2 = 78804.014.psiNote: The critical buckling stress is 1.7 times the Level A compressive allowable per Section Q2.4 of [J.8].Allowable Bending Stress Sben acc2 := 0.95.S564y Sben_acc2 = 103740 psi6.5 Level A Stresses and Safety Factors Calculations:Maximum load on adjustable supports (or pedestals), for conservatism buoyancy affects is not includedLoaded HI-TRAC 100D (Bounding)Weight of leveling platform (Bounding)Peak Vertical Load (Bounding)Number of Pedestals to be ConsideredWHTRC:= 191000.lbf [J.i10WLp:= 5000.lbf [J.3]WPVL := WHTRc + W1P 196000. lbfNB:= 6 [J. 3]WPVLWped= -= 32666.667.1bfN BMaximum Load per PedestalPage J-8 of J27 Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-2104715I6.5.1 Length of Engagement/Strength CalculationsIn this section, it is shown that the length of thread engagement is adequate. The method andterminology of [J. 1] are followed.7t.NLeng.Knmax.*2 + 0.57735-(Esmin -Knmax)] = shear area of the exterAs:=~~~sea atrN'Lag omfx th + e2.1"nrnal threadsAn := 7r. N. Leng" Dsmin' -+ 0.57735 .(Dsmin -Enma = 28.677.in2  shear area oThe tensile stress area is conservatively used for compression.LCped:= (Scompnor2).At LCped = 867942.6.lbf Pedestal CompressionLCpedthrd := (Ssh-nor2).As LCpedthrd = 1010654.5.1bf Pedestal Extemal ThrELCsp := (Sshnor).An LCsp = 306265.2.lbf Support Plate intemalTherefore, the total minimum load capacities are calculated as:Loadped:= NB. LCped Loadped = 5207655.6-1bfLoadpedthrd := NB LCpedthrd Loadpedthrd = 6063927.1 -1bfLoadsp := NB.LCsp Loadsp = 1837591.3 .Ibff the intemal threadsLoad Capacityead Load Capacitythread Load CapacityLoadpedS~ped .WPVLLoadpedthrdSFpedthrd .WPVLLoadspSFp.-WpVLISFped = 26.57 1ISFpedthrd = 30.938IFs- = 9-375Page J-9 of J27 IProject 1916 Appendix J Report HI-210471516.5.2 Bending stress on adjustable supportMaximum coefficient of friction[Section 4.3]Maximum shear load on each pedestalcof:= 0.8SLW:= cof.WpedSL, = 26133.3 .lbfFor a beam with rotational restraints on both ends and fixed at one end, if a force F is applied atone end of the beam, then the maximum moment occurs at the same end which is equal to FL/2.Per note #6 in DWG 8262 [J.3], the minimum thread engagement of support is 2.5",therefore, the maximum unsupported length of the adjustable support isLuas:= Las -2.5in = 2.75. inMaximum bending moment in the support, conservatively usingLuasMoment := SLw.- Mome2Luas:= L, 4.25. in4nt = 5.553 x 10 .*lbf-inMaximum stress due to bending in the supportMoment.dbO'bend := 211Sbennor2Sbend.-O'bendO'bend = 5.857 x 10 3psi[SFbend= 13.982]6.5.3 Combined comoression and bendinq on adiustable supportInitial modulus of elasticity of stainless steelE2e := 28000ksiFor stainless steels2*T E2eFe =2Fe = 7.569 x 106. psiTo obtain the most conservative results, the largest coefficient values for Cmx andCmy as indicated in Section Q1.6 of [J.8] are used here:Cmx:= 1.0Cmy:= 1.0For the combined axial compressive and bending stresses, two bounding cases are evaluatedPage J-10 of J27 Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-2104715here. The first case is the bending stress in one direction only. The second case is thebending stress in the direction of 45 degrees from the x coordinate, which indicates bendingstresses in both x and y directions.Case 1.Bending stress in x direction onlyfa=Wpedfbx:= cJ'bendFa := Scompnor2Fbx:= Sbennor2fab+ = 0.109Y- Fe ~Fbxfa fbx+ -= 0.10.6 S564y Fbx< 1.0- OK< 1.0- OKCase 2. Bending stress in 45 degree to x directionfbx:= &deg;'bend " N -2fby:= O'bend" %F2Cmx'fbx-t +1 -* FbxFe)Fbx:= Sbennor2Fby:= Sben_nor2faFaCmy" fbyCmy -0.139-l ~Fby<1.0-OKbx bya ++ + = 0.1290.6. S564y Fbx Fby<1.0-OK6.5.4 Shear stress in Pedestal Block and Adiustable SupportPage J-11 of J27 Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-2104715Conservatively using the cross-sectional area of adjustable support.Apb:= A1Apb = 15.476.in2Shear stressSIL,ApbO'pb = 1688.7. psiISFpb = 6.325 ]Safety factorSsh norSFpb: .-O'pb6.5.5 Support Pedestal Block to Shim Plate WeldThere are two forces applied on the block support pedestal: compression force and friction force. Theseloads tend to twist the pedestal causing a tension load on one side and compression on the other side.Therefore, one comer of the block support pedestal may be placed in tension. The maximum weld stressis then derived from combination of the maximum shear force and the maximum tensile force. Themaximum shear stress from friction can be obtained through simple calculation as shown below. AnANSYS [J.11] model is used to develop the load along the welds surrounding the pedestal and to obtainthe maximum tensile stress.Maximum coefficient of friction[Section 4.3]cof:= 0.8Maximum shear load on weld of each pedestalThickness of fillet weld #1 [J.3]Size of square Support Pedestal Block [J.3]Weld length of stiffener plates [J.3]Thickness of fillet weld #2 at stiffener plates [J.3]Minimum thickness of Shim Plate [J.3]SLw := cof.Wpedtw:= 0.5.inLbl:= 6.75-inLgp:= 3.375 intwg := 0.375intsp := 1.75-inSLw = 26133.3 -lbfWeld area for each Block (6.75 X 6.75) and attached four stiffener plates [J.3]Aw:= tw.(4.Lbl) + twg.2.Lgp-4Shear stress in the weldAw = 23.625-in2SLWaw = 1106.2. psiWeld stress is derived from combination of the maximum shear stress from normal conditionPage J-12 of J27  
[Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-2104715At:= min(Atl,At2)IT 2Agross:= -'dbsqw:= 1.375inT.(d,)4 sq64 12"T"(d3)2 sq 2A, :=- sqw4At = 17.622.in2minimum tensile stress areaAgross = 19.635.in2Gross area of support11 23.702. in 4A, 15.476*in 2r, 1.238-inwidth of square inside the adjustable support [J.3]moment of inertia of the adjustable support(conservative)cross sectional area of the adjustable support(conservative)r1:= -radius of gyrationL, := 4.25-in Unsupported length of the adjustable support [J.3](conservative)Since both ends of the pedestal are fixed in rotation, the recommended effective K value as a guidedcantilever beam is:K1:= 1.2 Slendemess Ratio [J.8, table CQ-1.8.1]6.2 Material Properties:SA-240-304 Stainless Steel (at 150 dee F temoerature)Sy:= 26700-psiSu :=73000 psi7E, 2.78077-10 .*psiYield Stress [J.2]Ultimate Stress [J.2]Young's Modulus [J.2]Note: Internal and external thread materials have different strengths.Page J-6 of J27 Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-2104715SA-564-630, H1100 Stainless Steel (at 150 deg F temperature)S564y:= 109200-psiS564u:= 140000.psi7E:=2.85.10 .psiYield Stress [J.2]Ultimate Stress [J.2]Young's Modulus (J.2]6.3 Level A Allowable Stresses (Section 3.1 of this appendix)SA-240-304 Stainless SteelAllowable Tension Stress Sten_nor:= min(0.6Sy,0.5.Su) Sten_nor= 16020.psiAllowable Shear Stress Sshnor :0.4.Sy Sshnor = 10680 -psi0.3Weld Allowable Stress Sw-nor := 70ksi Sw-nor= 14849.2. psiNote: 1. The &#xfd; factor is to account for the minimum throat area of a fillet weld.2. The use of 70 ksi tensile strength is based on Section 2- Assumption in this Appendix.SA-564-630, H1100 Stainless SteelAllowable Tension StressAllowable Shear StressStennor2 := min(O.6. S564y, 0.5 S564u)Ssh_nor2:= 0.4.S564ySten_nor2 = 65520-psiSsh_nor2 = 43680 .psiAllowable Compression StressK1 .L1C:=- = 4.121r1< 120s564y 6S564y 2.15.ksiScmp-nr2 "-2.15.ksi 1 -1 ksicompknor 120Scomp-nor2 = 49252.5 .psiSbennor2 = 81900.psiAllowable Bending StressSben~nor2 := 075*564yPage J-7 of J27 Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-21047156.4 Level D Allowable Stresses (Section 3.2 of this appendix)SA-240-304 Stainless SteelAllowable Tension StressAllowable Shear StressWeld Allowable StressSten_acc:= 1..6StennorSshacc := 1.4 SshnorSw_acc:= 1.4.SwnorSten acc= 25632-psiSshacc 14952-psiSw-acc = 20788.9 psiSA-564-630, H1100 Stainless SteelAllowable Tension StressAllowable Shear StressStenacc2 1.6.Stennor2Sshacc2 : 1.4-Sshnor2Sten-acc2 =104832-pSi5Sh-acc2 =61152.psiAllowable Compression Stress Scompacc2 := [.6-Scompnor2 Sompacc2 = 78804.014.psiNote: The critical buckling stress is 1.7 times the Level A compressive allowable per Section Q2.4 of [J.8].Allowable Bending Stress Sben acc2 := 0.95.S564y Sben_acc2 = 103740 psi6.5 Level A Stresses and Safety Factors Calculations:Maximum load on adjustable supports (or pedestals), for conservatism buoyancy affects is not includedLoaded HI-TRAC 100D (Bounding)Weight of leveling platform (Bounding)Peak Vertical Load (Bounding)Number of Pedestals to be ConsideredWHTRC:= 191000.lbf [J.i10WLp:= 5000.lbf [J.3]WPVL := WHTRc + W1P 196000. lbfNB:= 6 [J. 3]WPVLWped= -= 32666.667.1bfN BMaximum Load per PedestalPage J-8 of J27 Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-2104715I6.5.1 Length of Engagement/Strength CalculationsIn this section, it is shown that the length of thread engagement is adequate. The method andterminology of [J. 1] are followed.7t.NLeng.Knmax.*2 + 0.57735-(Esmin -Knmax)] = shear area of the exterAs:=~~~sea atrN'Lag omfx th + e2.1"nrnal threadsAn := 7r. N. Leng" Dsmin' -+ 0.57735 .(Dsmin -Enma = 28.677.in2  shear area oThe tensile stress area is conservatively used for compression.LCped:= (Scompnor2).At LCped = 867942.6.lbf Pedestal CompressionLCpedthrd := (Ssh-nor2).As LCpedthrd = 1010654.5.1bf Pedestal Extemal ThrELCsp := (Sshnor).An LCsp = 306265.2.lbf Support Plate intemalTherefore, the total minimum load capacities are calculated as:Loadped:= NB. LCped Loadped = 5207655.6-1bfLoadpedthrd := NB LCpedthrd Loadpedthrd = 6063927.1 -1bfLoadsp := NB.LCsp Loadsp = 1837591.3 .Ibff the intemal threadsLoad Capacityead Load Capacitythread Load CapacityLoadpedS~ped .WPVLLoadpedthrdSFpedthrd .WPVLLoadspSFp.-WpVLISFped = 26.57 1ISFpedthrd = 30.938IFs- = 9-375Page J-9 of J27 IProject 1916 Appendix J Report HI-210471516.5.2 Bending stress on adjustable supportMaximum coefficient of friction[Section 4.3]Maximum shear load on each pedestalcof:= 0.8SLW:= cof.WpedSL, = 26133.3 .lbfFor a beam with rotational restraints on both ends and fixed at one end, if a force F is applied atone end of the beam, then the maximum moment occurs at the same end which is equal to FL/2.Per note #6 in DWG 8262 [J.3], the minimum thread engagement of support is 2.5",therefore, the maximum unsupported length of the adjustable support isLuas:= Las -2.5in = 2.75. inMaximum bending moment in the support, conservatively usingLuasMoment := SLw.- Mome2Luas:= L, 4.25. in4nt = 5.553 x 10 .*lbf-inMaximum stress due to bending in the supportMoment.dbO'bend := 211Sbennor2Sbend.-O'bendO'bend = 5.857 x 10 3psi[SFbend= 13.982]6.5.3 Combined comoression and bendinq on adiustable supportInitial modulus of elasticity of stainless steelE2e := 28000ksiFor stainless steels2*T E2eFe =2Fe = 7.569 x 106. psiTo obtain the most conservative results, the largest coefficient values for Cmx andCmy as indicated in Section Q1.6 of [J.8] are used here:Cmx:= 1.0Cmy:= 1.0For the combined axial compressive and bending stresses, two bounding cases are evaluatedPage J-10 of J27 Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-2104715here. The first case is the bending stress in one direction only. The second case is thebending stress in the direction of 45 degrees from the x coordinate, which indicates bendingstresses in both x and y directions.Case 1.Bending stress in x direction onlyfa=Wpedfbx:= cJ'bendFa := Scompnor2Fbx:= Sbennor2fab+ = 0.109Y- Fe ~Fbxfa fbx+ -= 0.10.6 S564y Fbx< 1.0- OK< 1.0- OKCase 2. Bending stress in 45 degree to x directionfbx:= &deg;'bend " N -2fby:= O'bend" %F2Cmx'fbx-t +1 -* FbxFe)Fbx:= Sbennor2Fby:= Sben_nor2faFaCmy" fbyCmy -0.139-l ~Fby<1.0-OKbx bya ++ + = 0.1290.6. S564y Fbx Fby<1.0-OK6.5.4 Shear stress in Pedestal Block and Adiustable SupportPage J-11 of J27 Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-2104715Conservatively using the cross-sectional area of adjustable support.Apb:= A1Apb = 15.476.in2Shear stressSIL,ApbO'pb = 1688.7. psiISFpb = 6.325 ]Safety factorSsh norSFpb: .-O'pb6.5.5 Support Pedestal Block to Shim Plate WeldThere are two forces applied on the block support pedestal: compression force and friction force. Theseloads tend to twist the pedestal causing a tension load on one side and compression on the other side.Therefore, one comer of the block support pedestal may be placed in tension. The maximum weld stressis then derived from combination of the maximum shear force and the maximum tensile force. Themaximum shear stress from friction can be obtained through simple calculation as shown below. AnANSYS [J.11] model is used to develop the load along the welds surrounding the pedestal and to obtainthe maximum tensile stress.Maximum coefficient of friction[Section 4.3]cof:= 0.8Maximum shear load on weld of each pedestalThickness of fillet weld #1 [J.3]Size of square Support Pedestal Block [J.3]Weld length of stiffener plates [J.3]Thickness of fillet weld #2 at stiffener plates [J.3]Minimum thickness of Shim Plate [J.3]SLw := cof.Wpedtw:= 0.5.inLbl:= 6.75-inLgp:= 3.375 intwg := 0.375intsp := 1.75-inSLw = 26133.3 -lbfWeld area for each Block (6.75 X 6.75) and attached four stiffener plates [J.3]Aw:= tw.(4.Lbl) + twg.2.Lgp-4Shear stress in the weldAw = 23.625-in2SLWaw = 1106.2. psiWeld stress is derived from combination of the maximum shear stress from normal conditionPage J-12 of J27  
[Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-2104715obtained above and the maximum tensile stress obtained from ANSYS model. Only the weldsbetween the support pedestal block and the shim plate is modeled in ANSYS. The weldsbetween the four stiffener plates and the shim plate is not included for simplicity. Since thepedestal is fixed in rotation at both ends, the length of the pedestal as a cantilever beamelement in the ANSYS model is 0.5 times its actual unsupported length.ANSYS Inout Data: (See Appendix K for input file)Length of square pedestal sideLbI = 6.75 inOverall effective height of the pedestalMaximum shear load on weld of any pedestal(Frictional load)Maximum axial load on any pedestalWeld area per node (total 8 nodes on one pedestal side)Weld Area5.25Hbl := -in2SLw = 26133.333 .lbfWped = 32666.667.lbfLbIANT := --tw8ANT = 0.422.-in2Maximum tensile force on nodemtfs := 64.1011bf(see ANSYS output list, FORCESNOR.LST in Appendix L)Weld stress:Safety factor:(_ mtfs 2+e , ANT) +SwnorSFweld.-O'weld(Tweld = 1116.559.psiIS.d = 3.29916.5.6 Shear stress in the base metal (Shim Plate)Shear area of the base metal (Shim Plate)Shear stress in the base metal (Shim Plate)Safety factor for base metal (Shim Plate)Asp:=AwSLwAp= 23.625. in 2Us5= 1106.2.psiSsh norSFsp: oTspSFsp = 9.655 1Page J-13 of J27 Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-21047156.5.7 Bending stress in the base metal (Shim Plate)There is no significant bending stresses in the plate since the HI-TRAC sits directly above thesupport pedestals. In other words, the load travels from the bottom of the HI-TRAC pool lid to thetop plate of the leveling platform, from the top plate to the pedestal support block through directcompression, and from the pedestal support block to the threaded pedestals through the threads.Since the support pedestals are within the footprint of the HI-TRAC, the top plate of the platformdoes not carry any load in bending. Also, the platform is not anchored to the floor, so platform willtend to follow the HI-TRAC as it rotates from vertical.6.6 Level D Stresses and Safety Factors Calculations:In the event of an earthquake causing rocking of the cask the load will be carried by only two pedestals.Therefore, for seismic load cases SSE (level D) and OBE the load is distributed over two pedestals.Peak Vertical Load (Bounding)Weight of leveling platform (Bounding)WSSE:= 520000.lbfWLP:= 5000.1bf[Table 1][J.3]Total Vertical Load(" WssE "Wtotal:= WSSE + WLP'- W-'TRc= 5336131lbfNote: for the SSE and the OBE conditions the load is conservatively applied to two pedestals onlyto account for rocking.Number of Pedestals to be ConsideredMaximum load per pedestal (Bounding)NB:= 2[J.3]WtotalWped := = 266806.lbfNB6.6.1 Length of Engagement/Strength CalculationsIn this section, it is shown that the length of thread engagement is adequate. The method andterminology of [J. 1] are followed.recallA, = 23.138-in2An = 28.677- in 2Therefore, the minimum load capacities are calculated as (conservatively use tensile stress area incompression evaluation)LCped := (Scomp acc2)'AtLCpedthrd := (Sshacc2)'AsLCsp := (Sh_acc).AnLC ped = 13 88708.2 -lbfPedestal Compression Load CapacityLCpedthrd = 1414916.3 -lbf Pedestal Extemal Thread Load CapacityLCsp = 428771.3. lbfSupport Plate internal thread Load CapacityPage J-14 of J27 Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-2104715SFp=LC.PSF~WpedSFsp= 1.6077LCpedthrdSFpedthrd -WpedLCpedWpedSFpedthrd = 5.303ISFped = 5.205716.6.2 Bendina stress on the adjustable supportPeak Frictional Force (Bounding)WPFL= 400000.lbf[Table 1]Maximum shear load on weld of any support (Bounding)SL: WF = 200000.lbfFor a beam with rotational restraints on both ends and fixed at one end, if the friction forceapplied at one end of the beam is F, the maximum moment occurs at the same end whichequals to FL/2.Per note #6 in DWG 8262 [J.3], the minimum thread engagement of support is 2.5",therefore, the maximum unsupported length of the adjustable support isLuas := Las -2.5in = 2.75 inmaximum bending moment in the support, conservatively usingLuasMoment:= SLw.- Mome2Luas:= L1= 4.25.innt = 4.25 x 105.1bf inmaximum stress due to bending in the supportMoment.dbO'bend 21,Sben acc2SFbend :=O'bendO'bend = 4.483 x 10 .psi[SFbend= 2.314]6.6.3 Combined compression and bending on adPustable suJportPage J-1 5 of J27 Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-2104715Initial modulus of elasticity of stainless steelE2e := 28000ksiFor stainless steels27T .E2eFe 2.15 K, LuasrFe=7.569x 10 .psiTo obtain the most conservative results, the largest coefficient values for Cmx and Cmyas indicated in Section Q1.6 of [J.8] are used here:Cmx:= 1.0Cmy:= 1.0Again, two bounding cases are considered.Case 1. Bending stress in x direction onlyWpedfa := Wpd Fa := Scomp_acc2Atfbx := O'bend Fbx := Sben acc2fa Cmx fbx 0.625+ =- .Fbx< 1.0- OK< 1.0- OK0.65S564yfbx+ -= 0.663FbxCase 2. Bending stress in 45 degrees to x directionfbx:= &deg;'bend 2fby:= &deg;'bend 2Fbx:= Sben_acc2Fby:= Sben_acc2fa Cmx fbx+Fa fa( 1 -I FbxFe)Cmy fby- 0.804Fe +j.Fby< 1.0- -OKPage J-16 of J27 rProject 1916 Appendix J Report HI-2104715fa fbx fby+ -+ 56= 0.8420.6. S564y Fbx Fby<1.0- OK6.6.4 Shear stress in the Pedestal Block and Adjustable SupportConservatively using the cross-sectional area of adjustable support.SLwO'pb:= "A,Ssh accSFpb.O'pbO'pb = 12923.4.psiISFpb= 1.1576.6.5 Axial Compression Evaluation (Buckling of compressive member)Per Section Q2.4 of ANSI/AISC N690-1994, in the plane of bending of columns which woulddevelop a plastic hinge at ultimate loading, the slenderness ratio KI/r shall not exceed Cc.The following formula is from Section Q2.4 of [J.8] unless otherwise noted.Since both ends of the pedestal are fixed in rotation, the recommended effective K value asa guided cantilever beam isKs:= 1.2Table CQ-1.8.1 of [J.8]Ks .L1-= 4.121< Cc:= 120for stainless steelThe gross area of the adjustable support:Agross = 19.635.in2The maximum strength of an axially loaded compression member shall be taken asPC,: 1.7-Agross *Scomp-acc26Pcr =2.63 x 10 .lbfApplied axial loadsafety factorP: WpedPcrSFbuck:= -6.6.6 Combined axial load and bending momentFrom the above analysis of "bending stress on the adjustable support", themaximum applied moment isPage J-17 of J27 Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-2104715M:= -M = 3.542 x 104.1bf.ftTo obtain the most conservative result, the largest coefficient value for Cm (Section 1.6of [J.8]) is used here:Cm:= 1.0Euler buckling load23 8gross e = 2.848 x 10 .lbf12grse-For columns braced in the weak direction, the maximum moment that can be resisted bythe member in the absence of axial load isplastic section modulusplastic momentdb3Z:=6.3Z = 20.833.inMm:= MP = 1.896 x 105.lbf.ftPer Section Q2.4 of [J.8], members subject to combined axial load and bending momentshall be proportioned to satisfy the following interaction formulas:Pc+ 0.288P')P M+ = 0.283S564y.Agross 1.18.Mp<1.0 -OK<1.0 -OKTherefore, the adjustable support meets the AISC requirement and buckling is not credible forthis compressive member under SSE seismic loading. This evaluation bounds the situation innormal and OBE seismic loading conditions.6.6.7 Support Pedestal Block to Shim Plate WeldMaximum shear load on any weld [Table 1]Shear stress in the weld of any pedestalSLw:= 400000. lbf(Bounding)SLWa-, = 8465.6 -psiNl ASimilar to the normal condition (Level A), the maximum tensile force on the weld is obtainedPage J-18 of J27 Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-21047151from ANSYS model with updated friction and axial loads on the pedestal. (See Appendix Kfor input file)SLwMaximum shear load on weld of any pedestal -= 200000.lbfNB(Frictional load)Maximum axial load on any pedestal Wped = 266806.lbfMaximum tensile force on node mtfs := 235.151bf(see ANSYS output list, FORCESSSE.LST in Appendix L)Weld stress: O'weld NT + wweld = 8.484 X 103psi&#xfd;/kAN T)Y+ wSafety factor:SWaccSFweld : -(TweldSFweld = 2.456.6.8 Shear stress in the base metal (Shim Plate)Shear stressSafety factorSLwP NB AspSsh accSFsp --O'sprsp = 8465.6.psiSFsp = 1.766 16.7 Stresses and Safety Factors Calculations OBE Condition:Conservatively the OBE stress limits will be checked against (level A) stress conditions in section3.1 of this appendix.The results in table 1 are presented for the Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE) ground motion. TheOBE results are obtained by dividing the SSE results by a factor of 1.875, which is the ratio ofthe SSE (0.15g) to OBE (0.08g) maximum ground acceleration, as per section 5.1 of [J.12].Loaded HI-TRAC 100D (Bounding)WHTRC := 191000*lbf[J. 10]Page J-19 of J27 Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-2104715IPeak Vertical Load (Bounding)Wtotai:= 520000.lbf(Table 1]Added load for SSE condition WSSE := WtotaI -WHTRC = 329000.lbfWSSEAdded load for OBE condition WOBE1 := -= 175466.667.1bf1.875Weight of leveling platform (Bounding) WLp := 5000.1bf [J.3]WOB2 : WBE1+ WTR + ~p(WoBEl -"'Peak vertical load for OBE condition WOBE2- WOBE + WHTRc + WLP= + I 376060.lbf( WHTRCPeak vertical load for OBE (Bounding) WOBE:= 380000.1bfNote Peak frictional force (Ib) is conservatively calculated as:Coefficient of friction (0.8) x Peak vertical load for OBE (bounding)Peak frictional force (bounding)WPFF := 0.8.WonE = 304000. lbf6.7.1 Length of Engagement/Strength CalculationsIn this section, it is shown that the length of thread engagement is adequate. The method andterminology of [J. 1] are followed.recall As= 23.138 in2 A, = 28.677. in2The tensile stress area is conservatively used for compression.LCped := (Scompnor2).At LCped = 867942.6-lbf Pedestal Compression Load CapacityLCpedthrd :=(Ssh-nor2).ASLCsp := (Ssh-nor) -AnLCpdthPd = 10e10654.5 -lbfLC5p = 306265.2.lbfPedestal External Thread Load CapacitySupport Plate internal thread Load CapacityTherefore, the total minimum load capacities are calculated as:Loadped:= NB.LCped Loadped = 1735885.2-lbfLoadpedthrd := NB. LCpedthrd Loadpedthrd = 2021309. bfPage J-20 of J27 Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-2104715Loadsp:= NB.LCspLoadpedS ped.-WOBELoadsp = 612530.4.1bfSFped = 4.568]]SFpedthrd = 5.319ISFs~p = 1.612LoadpedthrdSFpedthrd .WOBELoadspSFsp .-WOBE6.7.2 Bending stress on adjustable supportMaximum coefficient of friction[Section 4.3]cof:= 0.8Maximum shear load on each pedestalWOBESLw:= cof.NBSLw= 152000*IbfFor a beam with rotational restraints on both ends and fixed at one end, if a force F is applied atone end of the beam, then the maximum moment occurs at the same end which is equal to FL/2.Per note #6 in DWG 8262 [J.3], the minimum thread engagement of support is 2.5",therefore, the maximum unsupported length of the adjustable support isLuas := Las -2.5in = 2.75 inMaximum bending moment in the support, conservatively usingLuasMoment:= SLw*- Mome2Luas.&#xfd; L, = 4.25-in*nt =3.23 x 10 .lbf-inMaximum stress due to bending in the supportMoment.dbO-bend 211Sben_nor2S F bend .-O'bendO'bend = 3.407 x 10 4.psi[SFbend = 2.404 16.7.3 Combined compression and bending on adiustable supportPage J-21 of J27  
[Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-2104715obtained above and the maximum tensile stress obtained from ANSYS model. Only the weldsbetween the support pedestal block and the shim plate is modeled in ANSYS. The weldsbetween the four stiffener plates and the shim plate is not included for simplicity. Since thepedestal is fixed in rotation at both ends, the length of the pedestal as a cantilever beamelement in the ANSYS model is 0.5 times its actual unsupported length.ANSYS Inout Data: (See Appendix K for input file)Length of square pedestal sideLbI = 6.75 inOverall effective height of the pedestalMaximum shear load on weld of any pedestal(Frictional load)Maximum axial load on any pedestalWeld area per node (total 8 nodes on one pedestal side)Weld Area5.25Hbl := -in2SLw = 26133.333 .lbfWped = 32666.667.lbfLbIANT := --tw8ANT = 0.422.-in2Maximum tensile force on nodemtfs := 64.1011bf(see ANSYS output list, FORCESNOR.LST in Appendix L)Weld stress:Safety factor:(_ mtfs 2+e , ANT) +SwnorSFweld.-O'weld(Tweld = 1116.559.psiIS.d = 3.29916.5.6 Shear stress in the base metal (Shim Plate)Shear area of the base metal (Shim Plate)Shear stress in the base metal (Shim Plate)Safety factor for base metal (Shim Plate)Asp:=AwSLwAp= 23.625. in 2Us5= 1106.2.psiSsh norSFsp: oTspSFsp = 9.655 1Page J-13 of J27 Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-21047156.5.7 Bending stress in the base metal (Shim Plate)There is no significant bending stresses in the plate since the HI-TRAC sits directly above thesupport pedestals. In other words, the load travels from the bottom of the HI-TRAC pool lid to thetop plate of the leveling platform, from the top plate to the pedestal support block through directcompression, and from the pedestal support block to the threaded pedestals through the threads.Since the support pedestals are within the footprint of the HI-TRAC, the top plate of the platformdoes not carry any load in bending. Also, the platform is not anchored to the floor, so platform willtend to follow the HI-TRAC as it rotates from vertical.6.6 Level D Stresses and Safety Factors Calculations:In the event of an earthquake causing rocking of the cask the load will be carried by only two pedestals.Therefore, for seismic load cases SSE (level D) and OBE the load is distributed over two pedestals.Peak Vertical Load (Bounding)Weight of leveling platform (Bounding)WSSE:= 520000.lbfWLP:= 5000.1bf[Table 1][J.3]Total Vertical Load(" WssE "Wtotal:= WSSE + WLP'- W-'TRc= 5336131lbfNote: for the SSE and the OBE conditions the load is conservatively applied to two pedestals onlyto account for rocking.Number of Pedestals to be ConsideredMaximum load per pedestal (Bounding)NB:= 2[J.3]WtotalWped := = 266806.lbfNB6.6.1 Length of Engagement/Strength CalculationsIn this section, it is shown that the length of thread engagement is adequate. The method andterminology of [J. 1] are followed.recallA, = 23.138-in2An = 28.677- in 2Therefore, the minimum load capacities are calculated as (conservatively use tensile stress area incompression evaluation)LCped := (Scomp acc2)'AtLCpedthrd := (Sshacc2)'AsLCsp := (Sh_acc).AnLC ped = 13 88708.2 -lbfPedestal Compression Load CapacityLCpedthrd = 1414916.3 -lbf Pedestal Extemal Thread Load CapacityLCsp = 428771.3. lbfSupport Plate internal thread Load CapacityPage J-14 of J27 Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-2104715SFp=LC.PSF~WpedSFsp= 1.6077LCpedthrdSFpedthrd -WpedLCpedWpedSFpedthrd = 5.303ISFped = 5.205716.6.2 Bendina stress on the adjustable supportPeak Frictional Force (Bounding)WPFL= 400000.lbf[Table 1]Maximum shear load on weld of any support (Bounding)SL: WF = 200000.lbfFor a beam with rotational restraints on both ends and fixed at one end, if the friction forceapplied at one end of the beam is F, the maximum moment occurs at the same end whichequals to FL/2.Per note #6 in DWG 8262 [J.3], the minimum thread engagement of support is 2.5",therefore, the maximum unsupported length of the adjustable support isLuas := Las -2.5in = 2.75 inmaximum bending moment in the support, conservatively usingLuasMoment:= SLw.- Mome2Luas:= L1= 4.25.innt = 4.25 x 105.1bf inmaximum stress due to bending in the supportMoment.dbO'bend 21,Sben acc2SFbend :=O'bendO'bend = 4.483 x 10 .psi[SFbend= 2.314]6.6.3 Combined compression and bending on adPustable suJportPage J-1 5 of J27 Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-2104715Initial modulus of elasticity of stainless steelE2e := 28000ksiFor stainless steels27T .E2eFe 2.15 K, LuasrFe=7.569x 10 .psiTo obtain the most conservative results, the largest coefficient values for Cmx and Cmyas indicated in Section Q1.6 of [J.8] are used here:Cmx:= 1.0Cmy:= 1.0Again, two bounding cases are considered.Case 1. Bending stress in x direction onlyWpedfa := Wpd Fa := Scomp_acc2Atfbx := O'bend Fbx := Sben acc2fa Cmx fbx 0.625+ =- .Fbx< 1.0- OK< 1.0- OK0.65S564yfbx+ -= 0.663FbxCase 2. Bending stress in 45 degrees to x directionfbx:= &deg;'bend 2fby:= &deg;'bend 2Fbx:= Sben_acc2Fby:= Sben_acc2fa Cmx fbx+Fa fa( 1 -I FbxFe)Cmy fby- 0.804Fe +j.Fby< 1.0- -OKPage J-16 of J27 rProject 1916 Appendix J Report HI-2104715fa fbx fby+ -+ 56= 0.8420.6. S564y Fbx Fby<1.0- OK6.6.4 Shear stress in the Pedestal Block and Adjustable SupportConservatively using the cross-sectional area of adjustable support.SLwO'pb:= "A,Ssh accSFpb.O'pbO'pb = 12923.4.psiISFpb= 1.1576.6.5 Axial Compression Evaluation (Buckling of compressive member)Per Section Q2.4 of ANSI/AISC N690-1994, in the plane of bending of columns which woulddevelop a plastic hinge at ultimate loading, the slenderness ratio KI/r shall not exceed Cc.The following formula is from Section Q2.4 of [J.8] unless otherwise noted.Since both ends of the pedestal are fixed in rotation, the recommended effective K value asa guided cantilever beam isKs:= 1.2Table CQ-1.8.1 of [J.8]Ks .L1-= 4.121< Cc:= 120for stainless steelThe gross area of the adjustable support:Agross = 19.635.in2The maximum strength of an axially loaded compression member shall be taken asPC,: 1.7-Agross *Scomp-acc26Pcr =2.63 x 10 .lbfApplied axial loadsafety factorP: WpedPcrSFbuck:= -6.6.6 Combined axial load and bending momentFrom the above analysis of "bending stress on the adjustable support", themaximum applied moment isPage J-17 of J27 Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-2104715M:= -M = 3.542 x 104.1bf.ftTo obtain the most conservative result, the largest coefficient value for Cm (Section 1.6of [J.8]) is used here:Cm:= 1.0Euler buckling load23 8gross e = 2.848 x 10 .lbf12grse-For columns braced in the weak direction, the maximum moment that can be resisted bythe member in the absence of axial load isplastic section modulusplastic momentdb3Z:=6.3Z = 20.833.inMm:= MP = 1.896 x 105.lbf.ftPer Section Q2.4 of [J.8], members subject to combined axial load and bending momentshall be proportioned to satisfy the following interaction formulas:Pc+ 0.288P')P M+ = 0.283S564y.Agross 1.18.Mp<1.0 -OK<1.0 -OKTherefore, the adjustable support meets the AISC requirement and buckling is not credible forthis compressive member under SSE seismic loading. This evaluation bounds the situation innormal and OBE seismic loading conditions.6.6.7 Support Pedestal Block to Shim Plate WeldMaximum shear load on any weld [Table 1]Shear stress in the weld of any pedestalSLw:= 400000. lbf(Bounding)SLWa-, = 8465.6 -psiNl ASimilar to the normal condition (Level A), the maximum tensile force on the weld is obtainedPage J-18 of J27 Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-21047151from ANSYS model with updated friction and axial loads on the pedestal. (See Appendix Kfor input file)SLwMaximum shear load on weld of any pedestal -= 200000.lbfNB(Frictional load)Maximum axial load on any pedestal Wped = 266806.lbfMaximum tensile force on node mtfs := 235.151bf(see ANSYS output list, FORCESSSE.LST in Appendix L)Weld stress: O'weld NT + wweld = 8.484 X 103psi&#xfd;/kAN T)Y+ wSafety factor:SWaccSFweld : -(TweldSFweld = 2.456.6.8 Shear stress in the base metal (Shim Plate)Shear stressSafety factorSLwP NB AspSsh accSFsp --O'sprsp = 8465.6.psiSFsp = 1.766 16.7 Stresses and Safety Factors Calculations OBE Condition:Conservatively the OBE stress limits will be checked against (level A) stress conditions in section3.1 of this appendix.The results in table 1 are presented for the Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE) ground motion. TheOBE results are obtained by dividing the SSE results by a factor of 1.875, which is the ratio ofthe SSE (0.15g) to OBE (0.08g) maximum ground acceleration, as per section 5.1 of [J.12].Loaded HI-TRAC 100D (Bounding)WHTRC := 191000*lbf[J. 10]Page J-19 of J27 Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-2104715IPeak Vertical Load (Bounding)Wtotai:= 520000.lbf(Table 1]Added load for SSE condition WSSE := WtotaI -WHTRC = 329000.lbfWSSEAdded load for OBE condition WOBE1 := -= 175466.667.1bf1.875Weight of leveling platform (Bounding) WLp := 5000.1bf [J.3]WOB2 : WBE1+ WTR + ~p(WoBEl -"'Peak vertical load for OBE condition WOBE2- WOBE + WHTRc + WLP= + I 376060.lbf( WHTRCPeak vertical load for OBE (Bounding) WOBE:= 380000.1bfNote Peak frictional force (Ib) is conservatively calculated as:Coefficient of friction (0.8) x Peak vertical load for OBE (bounding)Peak frictional force (bounding)WPFF := 0.8.WonE = 304000. lbf6.7.1 Length of Engagement/Strength CalculationsIn this section, it is shown that the length of thread engagement is adequate. The method andterminology of [J. 1] are followed.recall As= 23.138 in2 A, = 28.677. in2The tensile stress area is conservatively used for compression.LCped := (Scompnor2).At LCped = 867942.6-lbf Pedestal Compression Load CapacityLCpedthrd :=(Ssh-nor2).ASLCsp := (Ssh-nor) -AnLCpdthPd = 10e10654.5 -lbfLC5p = 306265.2.lbfPedestal External Thread Load CapacitySupport Plate internal thread Load CapacityTherefore, the total minimum load capacities are calculated as:Loadped:= NB.LCped Loadped = 1735885.2-lbfLoadpedthrd := NB. LCpedthrd Loadpedthrd = 2021309. bfPage J-20 of J27 Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-2104715Loadsp:= NB.LCspLoadpedS ped.-WOBELoadsp = 612530.4.1bfSFped = 4.568]]SFpedthrd = 5.319ISFs~p = 1.612LoadpedthrdSFpedthrd .WOBELoadspSFsp .-WOBE6.7.2 Bending stress on adjustable supportMaximum coefficient of friction[Section 4.3]cof:= 0.8Maximum shear load on each pedestalWOBESLw:= cof.NBSLw= 152000*IbfFor a beam with rotational restraints on both ends and fixed at one end, if a force F is applied atone end of the beam, then the maximum moment occurs at the same end which is equal to FL/2.Per note #6 in DWG 8262 [J.3], the minimum thread engagement of support is 2.5",therefore, the maximum unsupported length of the adjustable support isLuas := Las -2.5in = 2.75 inMaximum bending moment in the support, conservatively usingLuasMoment:= SLw*- Mome2Luas.&#xfd; L, = 4.25-in*nt =3.23 x 10 .lbf-inMaximum stress due to bending in the supportMoment.dbO-bend 211Sben_nor2S F bend .-O'bendO'bend = 3.407 x 10 4.psi[SFbend = 2.404 16.7.3 Combined compression and bending on adiustable supportPage J-21 of J27  
[Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-2104715Initial modulus of elasticity of stainless steelE2e := 28000ksiFor stainless steels27 .E2eFe2:=.15K LuasjFe = 7.569 x 10b psiTo obtain the most conservative results, the largest coefficient values for Cmx andCmy as indicated in Section Q1.6 of [J.8] are used here:Cmx:= 1.0Cmy:= 1.0For the combined axial compressive and bending stresses, two bounding cases are evaluatedhere. The first case is the bending stress in one direction only. The second case is thebending stress in the direction of 45 degrees from the x coordinate, which indicates bendingstresses in both x and y directions.Case 1.Bending stress in x direction onlyWOBEfa -- Fa := Scomp-nor2NB-Atfbx := &deg;'bend Fbx := Sben-nor2f Crux"fbxf-+ =_ 0.635Fa (faFfa fbx+ -= 0.5810.6. $564y Fbx< 1.0 -OK< 1.0- OKCase 2. Bending stress in 45 degree to x directionfbx := 7 bend ' -2f b y : = ( 'b e n d " "Fbx:= Sbennor2Fby := Sbennor2Page J-22 of J27 Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-2104715fa C rux "fbx O nm y "fbyf+ + = 0.808F, faFeFefa fbx fby+ -+ -= 0.7530.6. S564y Fbx Fby<1.0-OK<1.0-OK6.7.4 Shear stress in Pedestal Block and Adjustable SupportConservatively using the cross-sectional area of adjustable support.Apb:= A1Apb = 15.476,in-2Shear stressSLWApbO'pb = 9821.8. psiSFPb = 1.08Safety factorSshnorSFpb .O'pb6.7.5 Axial Compression Evaluation (Buckling of compressive member)Per Section Q2.4 of ANSI/AISC N690-1994, in the plane of bending of columns which woulddevelop a plastic hinge at ultimate loading, the slenderness ratio KI/r shall not exceed C..The following formula is from Section Q2.4 of [J.8] unless otherwise noted.Since both ends of the pedestal are fixed in rotation, the recommended effective K value asa guided cantilever beam isK,:= 1.2 Table CQ-1.8.1 of [J.8]Ks-L1=4.121< Cc:= 120for stainless steelThe gross area of the adjustable support: Agross = 19.635.in2The maximum strength of an axially loaded compression member shall be taken asPcr := 1.7.Agross.Scompacc2Pcr = 2.63 x 106.lbfPage J-23 of J27 Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-2104715Applied axial loadWOBEP:= -NBPcrSFbuckPsafety factorIS~k = 3.844f16.7.6 Combined axial load and bending momentFrom the above analysis of "bending stress on the adjustable support", themaximum applied moment isM:= SLw.--M = 2.692 x 104.lbf.ftTo obtain the most conservative result, the largest coefficient value for Cm (Section 1.6of [J.8]) is used here:Cm:= 1.0Euler buckling load23 8Pe -Agross'Fe = 2.848 x 10 .lbfFor columns braced in the weak direction, the maximum moment that can be resisted bythe member in the absence of axial load isplastic section modulusdb3Z: --6Z = 20.833 in3plastic momentMp:= Z.S564yMm:= MP = 1.896 x 105.lbf.ftPer Section Q2.4 of [J.8], members subject to combined axial load and bending momentshall be proportioned to satisfy the following interaction formulas:-+ = 0.214Pcr I}P MMP M+ -10.209$564y *Agross I- 18"M p<1.0 -OK<1.0 -OKTherefore, the adjustable support meets the AlISC requirement and buckling is not credible forthis compressive member under OBE seismic loading.Page J-24 of J27  
[Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-2104715Initial modulus of elasticity of stainless steelE2e := 28000ksiFor stainless steels27 .E2eFe2:=.15K LuasjFe = 7.569 x 10b psiTo obtain the most conservative results, the largest coefficient values for Cmx andCmy as indicated in Section Q1.6 of [J.8] are used here:Cmx:= 1.0Cmy:= 1.0For the combined axial compressive and bending stresses, two bounding cases are evaluatedhere. The first case is the bending stress in one direction only. The second case is thebending stress in the direction of 45 degrees from the x coordinate, which indicates bendingstresses in both x and y directions.Case 1.Bending stress in x direction onlyWOBEfa -- Fa := Scomp-nor2NB-Atfbx := &deg;'bend Fbx := Sben-nor2f Crux"fbxf-+ =_ 0.635Fa (faFfa fbx+ -= 0.5810.6. $564y Fbx< 1.0 -OK< 1.0- OKCase 2. Bending stress in 45 degree to x directionfbx := 7 bend ' -2f b y : = ( 'b e n d " "Fbx:= Sbennor2Fby := Sbennor2Page J-22 of J27 Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-2104715fa C rux "fbx O nm y "fbyf+ + = 0.808F, faFeFefa fbx fby+ -+ -= 0.7530.6. S564y Fbx Fby<1.0-OK<1.0-OK6.7.4 Shear stress in Pedestal Block and Adjustable SupportConservatively using the cross-sectional area of adjustable support.Apb:= A1Apb = 15.476,in-2Shear stressSLWApbO'pb = 9821.8. psiSFPb = 1.08Safety factorSshnorSFpb .O'pb6.7.5 Axial Compression Evaluation (Buckling of compressive member)Per Section Q2.4 of ANSI/AISC N690-1994, in the plane of bending of columns which woulddevelop a plastic hinge at ultimate loading, the slenderness ratio KI/r shall not exceed C..The following formula is from Section Q2.4 of [J.8] unless otherwise noted.Since both ends of the pedestal are fixed in rotation, the recommended effective K value asa guided cantilever beam isK,:= 1.2 Table CQ-1.8.1 of [J.8]Ks-L1=4.121< Cc:= 120for stainless steelThe gross area of the adjustable support: Agross = 19.635.in2The maximum strength of an axially loaded compression member shall be taken asPcr := 1.7.Agross.Scompacc2Pcr = 2.63 x 106.lbfPage J-23 of J27 Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-2104715Applied axial loadWOBEP:= -NBPcrSFbuckPsafety factorIS~k = 3.844f16.7.6 Combined axial load and bending momentFrom the above analysis of "bending stress on the adjustable support", themaximum applied moment isM:= SLw.--M = 2.692 x 104.lbf.ftTo obtain the most conservative result, the largest coefficient value for Cm (Section 1.6of [J.8]) is used here:Cm:= 1.0Euler buckling load23 8Pe -Agross'Fe = 2.848 x 10 .lbfFor columns braced in the weak direction, the maximum moment that can be resisted bythe member in the absence of axial load isplastic section modulusdb3Z: --6Z = 20.833 in3plastic momentMp:= Z.S564yMm:= MP = 1.896 x 105.lbf.ftPer Section Q2.4 of [J.8], members subject to combined axial load and bending momentshall be proportioned to satisfy the following interaction formulas:-+ = 0.214Pcr I}P MMP M+ -10.209$564y *Agross I- 18"M p<1.0 -OK<1.0 -OKTherefore, the adjustable support meets the AlISC requirement and buckling is not credible forthis compressive member under OBE seismic loading.Page J-24 of J27  
[Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-2104715I6.7.7 Support Pedestal Block to Shim Plate WeldThere are two forces applied on the block support pedestal: compression force and friction force.These loads tend to twist the pedestal causing a tension load on one side and compression on theother side. Therefore, one corner of the block support pedestal may be placed in tension. Themaximum weld stress is then derived from combination of the maximum shear force and themaximum tensile force. The maximum shear stress from friction can be obtained through simplecalculation as shown below. An ANSYS [J.11] model is used to develop the load along the weldssurrounding the pedestal and to obtain the maximum tensile stress.Maximum coefficient of friction[Section 4.3]cof:= 0.8Maximum shear load on weld of each pedestalWOBESLw:= cof.NBSLw= 152000.lbfThickness of fillet weld #1 [J.3]Size of square Support Pedestal Block [J.3]Weld length of gusset plates [J.3]Thickness of fillet weld #2 at stiffener plates [J.3]Minimum thickness of Shim Plate [J.3]tw:= 0.5.inLbl:= 6.75.inLgp:= 3.375intwg := 0.375intsp:= 1.75.inWeld area for each Block (6.75 X 6.75) and attached four stiffener plates [J.3]Aw:= tw.(4.Lbl) + twg-2.Lgp.4Shear stress in the weldAW = 23.625-in 2SLWaw=643 3.9 -psiWeld stress is derived from combination of the maximum shear stress from normal conditionobtained above and the maximum tensile stress obtained from ANSYS model. Only the weldsbetween the support pedestal block and the shim plate is modeled in ANSYS. The weldsbetween the four stiffener plates and the shim plate is not included for simplicity. Since thepedestal is fixed in rotation at both ends, the length of the pedestal as a cantilever beamelement in the ANSYS model is 0.5 times its actual unsupported length.ANSYS Input Data: (See Appendix K for input file)Length of square pedestal sideLbI = 6.75 -inPage J-25 of J27 Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-2104715]Overall effective height of the pedestalMaximum shear load on any weldMaximum axial load on any pedestalWeld area per node (total 8 nodes on one pedestal side)Weld AreaMaximum tensile force on node(see ANSYS output list, FORCES_OBE.LST in Appendix L)Weld stress: Oweld:= +( .ANT)Sw norSafety factor: SFweld'weld6.7.8 Shear stress in the base metal (Shim Plate)Shear area of the base metal (Shim Plate) As, = 23.6255.25Hbl:= -in2SLw= 152000.lbfWOBEWaxiaI := = 19000.lbfNBLbIANT := --tw8ANT = 0.422 in2mffs:= 372.861bfOweld = 6494.283 psiISFweld = 2.287?2aIsp = 6433.9-psir ISFsp = 1.66 1.iShear stress in the base metal (Shim Plate)Safety factor for base metal (Shim Plate)SLwSFsp= shnaspPage J-26 of J27  
[Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-2104715I6.7.7 Support Pedestal Block to Shim Plate WeldThere are two forces applied on the block support pedestal: compression force and friction force.These loads tend to twist the pedestal causing a tension load on one side and compression on theother side. Therefore, one corner of the block support pedestal may be placed in tension. Themaximum weld stress is then derived from combination of the maximum shear force and themaximum tensile force. The maximum shear stress from friction can be obtained through simplecalculation as shown below. An ANSYS [J.11] model is used to develop the load along the weldssurrounding the pedestal and to obtain the maximum tensile stress.Maximum coefficient of friction[Section 4.3]cof:= 0.8Maximum shear load on weld of each pedestalWOBESLw:= cof.NBSLw= 152000.lbfThickness of fillet weld #1 [J.3]Size of square Support Pedestal Block [J.3]Weld length of gusset plates [J.3]Thickness of fillet weld #2 at stiffener plates [J.3]Minimum thickness of Shim Plate [J.3]tw:= 0.5.inLbl:= 6.75.inLgp:= 3.375intwg := 0.375intsp:= 1.75.inWeld area for each Block (6.75 X 6.75) and attached four stiffener plates [J.3]Aw:= tw.(4.Lbl) + twg-2.Lgp.4Shear stress in the weldAW = 23.625-in 2SLWaw=643 3.9 -psiWeld stress is derived from combination of the maximum shear stress from normal conditionobtained above and the maximum tensile stress obtained from ANSYS model. Only the weldsbetween the support pedestal block and the shim plate is modeled in ANSYS. The weldsbetween the four stiffener plates and the shim plate is not included for simplicity. Since thepedestal is fixed in rotation at both ends, the length of the pedestal as a cantilever beamelement in the ANSYS model is 0.5 times its actual unsupported length.ANSYS Input Data: (See Appendix K for input file)Length of square pedestal sideLbI = 6.75 -inPage J-25 of J27 Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-2104715]Overall effective height of the pedestalMaximum shear load on any weldMaximum axial load on any pedestalWeld area per node (total 8 nodes on one pedestal side)Weld AreaMaximum tensile force on node(see ANSYS output list, FORCES_OBE.LST in Appendix L)Weld stress: Oweld:= +( .ANT)Sw norSafety factor: SFweld'weld6.7.8 Shear stress in the base metal (Shim Plate)Shear area of the base metal (Shim Plate) As, = 23.6255.25Hbl:= -in2SLw= 152000.lbfWOBEWaxiaI := = 19000.lbfNBLbIANT := --tw8ANT = 0.422 in2mffs:= 372.861bfOweld = 6494.283 psiISFweld = 2.287?2aIsp = 6433.9-psir ISFsp = 1.66 1.iShear stress in the base metal (Shim Plate)Safety factor for base metal (Shim Plate)SLwSFsp= shnaspPage J-26 of J27  
[Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-21047157.0 ConclusionThe preceding analyses demonstrate that the adjustable supports (or pedestals) have beendesigned to sustain normal and seismic loading. The size and length of thread engagementof pedestals is conservatively set. The welds between blocks and shim plate have alsobeen analyzed.8.0 Computer Code and FilesThe ANSYS calculation is performed on Computer 1038, as listed on the Approved ComputerProgram List (ACPL) in Appendix C. All the files used in this calculation are located in the followingdirectory:G:\IProjects\l 916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 6Page J-27 of J27 Appendix K -ANSYS Input FilesInput File for Normal Condition:PROPRIETARYReport HI-2104715K1 of K1Project 1916 Appendix L -ANSYS Output FilesOutput File for Normal Condition: (FORCESNOR.LST)PRINT ELEMENT TABLE ITEMS PER ELEMENT***** POST1 ELEMENT TABLE LISTING *STAT CURRENTELEM FORCE114 64.101115 -42.905116 -149.80117 -256.07118 -360.85119 -463.57120 -564.52121 -664.60122 57.413123 -48.151124 -153.25125 -257.34126 -359.98127 -461.05128 -560.89129 -660.14132 63.140133 -666.42136 62.130137 -667.85140 60.920141 -668.29144 59.580145 -667.46148 58.420149 -665.49152 57.735153 -662.89MINIMUM VALUESELEM 141VALUE -668.29MAXIMUM VALUESELEM 114VALUE 64.101Report HI-2104715L1 of L3Project 1916 Appendix L -ANSYS Output FilesOutput File for SSE Condition: (FORCES_SSE.LST)PRINT ELEMENT TABLE ITEMS PER ELEMENT***** POST1 ELEMENT TABLE LISTING *STAT CURRENTELEM FORCE114 235.15115 -567.06116 -1368.3117 -2164.6118 -2948.9119 -3717.1120 -4471.4121 -5218.7122 183.34123 -607.71124 -1395.0125 -2174.4126 -2942.3127 -3697.6128 -4443.2129 -5184.2132 226.65133 -5233.6136 217.94137 -5245.2140 208.05141 -5249.1144 197.66145 -5242.6148 189.21149 -5227.0152 184.78153 -5206.2MINIMUM VALUESELEM 141VALUE -5249.1MAXIMUM VALUESELEM 114VALUE 235.15Report HI-2104715L2 of L3Project 1916 Appendix L -ANSYS Output FilesOutput File for OBE Condition: (FORCESOBE.LST)PRINT ELEMENT TABLE ITEMS PER ELEMENT***** POST1 ELEMENTTABLE LISTINGSTAT CURRENTELEM FORCE114 372.86115 -249.53116 -871.25117 -1489.4118 -2098.8119 -2696.3120 -3283.5121 -3865.5122 333.98123 -280.03124 -891.30125 -1496.8126 -2093.8127 -2681.6128 -3262.3129 -3839.6132 367.27133 -3876.2136 361.40137 -3884.4140 354.37141 -3887.0144 346.57145 -3882.2148 339.83149 -3870.7152 335.84153 -3855.6MINIMUM VALUESELEM 141VALUE -3887.0MAXIMUM VALUESELEM 114VALUE 372.86Report HI-2104715L3 of L3Project 1916  
[Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-21047157.0 ConclusionThe preceding analyses demonstrate that the adjustable supports (or pedestals) have beendesigned to sustain normal and seismic loading. The size and length of thread engagementof pedestals is conservatively set. The welds between blocks and shim plate have alsobeen analyzed.8.0 Computer Code and FilesThe ANSYS calculation is performed on Computer 1038, as listed on the Approved ComputerProgram List (ACPL) in Appendix C. All the files used in this calculation are located in the followingdirectory:G:\IProjects\l 916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 6Page J-27 of J27 Appendix K -ANSYS Input FilesInput File for Normal Condition:PROPRIETARYReport HI-2104715K1 of K1Project 1916 Appendix L -ANSYS Output FilesOutput File for Normal Condition: (FORCESNOR.LST)PRINT ELEMENT TABLE ITEMS PER ELEMENT***** POST1 ELEMENT TABLE LISTING *STAT CURRENTELEM FORCE114 64.101115 -42.905116 -149.80117 -256.07118 -360.85119 -463.57120 -564.52121 -664.60122 57.413123 -48.151124 -153.25125 -257.34126 -359.98127 -461.05128 -560.89129 -660.14132 63.140133 -666.42136 62.130137 -667.85140 60.920141 -668.29144 59.580145 -667.46148 58.420149 -665.49152 57.735153 -662.89MINIMUM VALUESELEM 141VALUE -668.29MAXIMUM VALUESELEM 114VALUE 64.101Report HI-2104715L1 of L3Project 1916 Appendix L -ANSYS Output FilesOutput File for SSE Condition: (FORCES_SSE.LST)PRINT ELEMENT TABLE ITEMS PER ELEMENT***** POST1 ELEMENT TABLE LISTING *STAT CURRENTELEM FORCE114 235.15115 -567.06116 -1368.3117 -2164.6118 -2948.9119 -3717.1120 -4471.4121 -5218.7122 183.34123 -607.71124 -1395.0125 -2174.4126 -2942.3127 -3697.6128 -4443.2129 -5184.2132 226.65133 -5233.6136 217.94137 -5245.2140 208.05141 -5249.1144 197.66145 -5242.6148 189.21149 -5227.0152 184.78153 -5206.2MINIMUM VALUESELEM 141VALUE -5249.1MAXIMUM VALUESELEM 114VALUE 235.15Report HI-2104715L2 of L3Project 1916 Appendix L -ANSYS Output FilesOutput File for OBE Condition: (FORCESOBE.LST)PRINT ELEMENT TABLE ITEMS PER ELEMENT***** POST1 ELEMENTTABLE LISTINGSTAT CURRENTELEM FORCE114 372.86115 -249.53116 -871.25117 -1489.4118 -2098.8119 -2696.3120 -3283.5121 -3865.5122 333.98123 -280.03124 -891.30125 -1496.8126 -2093.8127 -2681.6128 -3262.3129 -3839.6132 367.27133 -3876.2136 361.40137 -3884.4140 354.37141 -3887.0144 346.57145 -3882.2148 339.83149 -3870.7152 335.84153 -3855.6MINIMUM VALUESELEM 141VALUE -3887.0MAXIMUM VALUESELEM 114VALUE 372.86Report HI-2104715L3 of L3Project 1916}}
}}

Revision as of 17:29, 16 June 2018

HI-2104715, Seismic Analysis of the Loaded HI-TRAC in the SFP and SFP Slab Qualification.
ML14324A040
Person / Time
Site: Pilgrim
Issue date: 04/17/2014
From: -NeedNewValue
Holtec
To:
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
1916, 2.14.077, TAC MF3237 HI-2104715, Rev 7
Download: ML14324A040 (101)
v • d • e


Text

U.HOINTERE0lLTN AT IECON ALHoltec Center, 555 Lincoln Drive West, Marlton, NJ 08053Telephone (856) 797- 0900Fax (856) 797 -0909SEISMIC ANAL YSIS OF THE LOADEDHI-TRAC IN THE SFP AND SFP SLABQUALIFICATIONFORENTERG YHoltec Report No: HI-2104715Holtec Project No: 1916Sponsoring Holtec Division: HTSReport Class: SAFETY RELATED HOLTEC INTERNATIONALDOCUMENT ISSUANCE AND REVISION STATUS'DOCUMENT NAME: SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF THE LOADED HI-TRAC IN THE SFP AND SFPSLAB QUALIFICATIONDOCUMENT NO.: HI-2104715 CATEGORY: = GENERICPROJECT NO.: 1-6 0 PROJECT SPECIFICRev. Date Author'sNo.2 Approved Initials VIR #7 4/17/2014 Z.Yue 815009DOCUMENT CATEGORIZATIONIn accordance with the Holtec Quality Assurance Manual and associated Holtec Quality Procedures(HQPs), this document is categorized as a:1'1 Calculation Package3 (Per HQP 3.2) L- Technical Report (Per HQP 3.2)(Such as a Licensing Report)El Design Criterion Document (Per HQP 3.4) L] Design Specification (Per HQP 3.4)L--] Other (Specify):DOCUMENT FORMATTINGThe formatting of the contents of this document is in accordance with the instructions of HQP 3.2 or 3.4except as noted below:DECLARATION OF PROPRIETARY STATUS17 Nonproprietary [] Holtec Proprietary E] Privileged Intellectual Property (PIP)This document contains extremely valuable intellectual property of Holtec International. Holtec's rights to the ideas,methods, models, and precepts described in this document are protected against unauthorized use, in whole or in part, byany other party under the U.S. and international intellectual property laws. Unauthorized dissemination of any part of thisdocument by the recipient will be deemed to constitute a willful breach of contract governing this project. The recipient ofthis document bears sole responsibility to honor Holtec's unabridged ownership rights of this document, to observe itsconfidentiality, and to limit use to the purpose for which it was delivered to the recipient. Portions of this document may besubject to copyright protection against unauthorized reproduction by a third party.* , ........- ,1. This document has beer subjected to review, verifIcation and approval process set forth in the HoltecQuality AssuranceProcedures Manual. Password controlled signatures of 1oltec personnel who participated in the preparation review andQA validation of this document are saved on the company.s network. The Validation Identifier Record (VIR) number Is arandom number t at :s generated bythe computer'after the specific revision of this document has undergone the required.review and 2approval process, and the appropriate Holtec personnel have recorded their password-controlled electroniccon'cumrrence to Iredouet2. Arevision t this document ,ill be ordered by the Project Manager and carried out if any of its contents incI dingrevisions to referencesn is materially affecte, during evolution of this project The determination as to the need for revsion.will be made by the Project Managerwith input from~ others, as, deemred necessary by him.3. Revisions to this document may be *made by adding supplements to the document and replacing the ofContents", this page and the "Revision Log".

Project 1916Report 1-2104715HOLTEC SAFETY SIGNIFICANT DOCUMENTSIn order to gain acceptance as a safety significant document in the company's quality assurancesystem, this document is required to undergo a prescribed review and concurrence process that,requires the preparer and reviewer(s) of the document to answer a long list of questions crafted toensure that the document has been purged of all errors of any material significance. A record ofthe review and verification activities is maintained in electronic form within the company'snetwork to enable future retrieval and recapitulation of the programmatic acceptance processleading to the acceptance and release of this document under the company's QA system. Amongthe numerous requirements that this document must fulfill, as applicable, to muster approvalwithin the company's QA program are:* The preparer(s) and reviewer(s) are technically qualified to perform their activities perthe applicable Holtec Quality Procedure (HQP).* The input information utilized in the work effort is drawn from referencable sources. Anyassumed input data is so identified.* All significant assumptions are stated.* The analysis methodology is consistent with the physics of the problem.* Any computer code and its specific versions used in the work have been formallyadmitted for use within the company's QA system.* The format and content of the document is in accordance with the applicable Holtecquality procedure.The material content of the report is understandable to a reader with the requisite academictraining and experience in the underlying technical disciplines.Once a safety significant document, such as this report, completes its review and certificationcycle, it should be free of any materially significant error and should not require a revision unlessits scope of treatment needs to be altered. Except for regulatory interface documents (i.e., thosethat are submitted to the NRC in support of a license amendment and request), editorial revisionsto Holtec safety significant documents are not made unless such editorial changes are deemednecessary by the Holtec Project Manager to prevent erroneous conclusions from being inferredby the reader. In other words, the focus in the preparation of this document is to ensurecorrectness of the technical content rather than the cosmetics of presentation.Page 1 of 28G:\Projects\1916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7I Project 1916Report 1-2104715REVISION LOGRevision 0 -Original issue.Revision 1 -Report is revised to address client comments. Racks considered in the evaluationsare Racks E l through E 10 and N I through N5 (Campaign II and Campaign III). Appendix F andmain report are revised. The slab is still structurally adequate. All changes are marked withrevision bars.Revision 2 -Report is revised to address the effect of the non-conservatism identified in reportHI-92952 (reference [5.4]). Appendix H is added to demonstrate the structural adequacy of thefloor slab in the Campaign II and III configuration. All changes are marked with revision bars.Appendix H is a newly added appendix and no revision bars are used.Revision 3 -Report is revised to address the effect of the non-conservatism identified in reportHI-92952 (reference [5.4]). Appendix I is therefore added to demonstrate the structural adequacyof the floor slab in the Campaign II and III configuration. It is recognized that a leveling platform[5.13] is used in the spent fuel pool to support the HI-TRAC 100)D cask. Therefore, AppendicesJ, K and L are added to demonstrate that the leveling platform is structurally adequate to supportthe HI-TRAC 1 OOD cask under the normal, SSE and OBE conditions. Appendix C is updated toinclude a latest version of ACPL and add ANSYS as computer code used. All changes aremarked with revision bars. Appendices C, I, J, K and L are newly added/updated appendices andno revision bars are used. Appendix H is deleted.Revision 4 -Report is revised to address client comments. Main body of the report andappendices E, F, I and J are revised with revision bars on the right margin. The slab isstructurally adequate.Revision 5 -Report is revised to address client comments. The main body of the report and theappendix E are revised for editorial changes. The revision bars are shown on the right margin.Appendix H is newly added to evaluate lifting of the leveling platform and no revision bars arePage 2 of 28G:Projects\1 916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7 Project 1916Report HI-2104715used in Appendix H. The revision bars in other appendices are carried over from previousrevisions and are not applicable to this revision.Revision 6 -Report is revised to address client comments. The main body of the report and theappendix E are revised to reflect the new location of HI-TRAC due to the introduction ofleveling platform. The clearances to adjacent structures are updated and safety factors arerecalculated. The revision bars are shown on the right margin. Appendix H is revised to beconsistent with drawing change. The platform drawing reference in Appendix J is updated andyield strength of stainless steel is corrected at pool temperature. The abovementioned changesare marked with revision bars and the revision bars in other appendices are carried over fromprevious revisions and are not applicable to this revision. All conclusions remain valid for thisrevision.Revision 7 -Report is revised to address client comments. The main body of the report and theappendix E are revised to reflect the new location of HI-TRAC per latest revision of drawing8777. The clearances to adjacent structures are updated and safety factors are recalculated. Theabovementioned changes are marked with revision bars and the revision bars in other appendicesare carried over from previous revisions and are not applicable to this revision. All conclusionsremain valid for this revision.Page 3 of 28G:\Projects\1916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7 Project 1916 Report I--2104715TABLE OF CONTENTSHOLTEC SAFETY SIGNIFICANT DOCUMENTS ............................................................................................... 1R EV ISIO N LO G .......................................................................................................................................................... 2T A BLE O F C O N T EN T S ............................................................................................................................................ 41.0 IN T R O D U C T IO N A N D SC O PE ...................................................................................................................... 62.0 METHODOLOGY AND ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA ............................................................................. 72.1 M ETHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................................... 72.2 A CCEPTANCE C RITERIA ................................................................................................................................... 93.0 A SSU M PT IO N S ............................................................................................................................................... 104.0 IN PU T DA TA ................................................................................................................................................... 114.1 INPUT W EIGHTS FOR D YNAM IC A NALYSIS ................................................................................................. 114.2 SEISM IC INPUTS .............................................................................................................................................. 114.3 FRICTIONAL INPUT ......................................................................................................................................... 115.0 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS AND COMPUTER FILES ...................................................................... 1

25.1 REFERENCES

.................................................................................................................................................. 125.2 COM PUTER CODES AND FILES ........................................................................................................................ 136.0 AN A L Y SES ...................................................................................................................................................... 147.0 RE SU LT S ......................................................................................................................................................... 157.1 H I-TRA C STABILITY ..................................................................................................................................... 157.2 POOL SLAB A SSESSM ENT ............................................................................................................................... 167.2.1 Slab C apacity C heck ............................................................................................ ..187.2.2 Leveling Platform Punching Shear Check ............................................................. 188.0 C O N C LU SIO N S .............................................................................................................................................. 219.0 FIG UR ES .......................................................................................................................................................... 22FIGURE 1. M ODEL OF LOADED H I-TRA C C ASK ON SLAB ................................................................................... 22FIGURE 2. MASS PROPERTIES (INCLUDING HYDRODYNAMIC MASS) OF HI-TRAC .............................................. 23Page 4 of 28G:\Projects\1916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7 Project 1916Report HI-2104715FIGURE 3. CONSTANT BUOYANCY FORCE APPLIED TO CASK ................................................................................... 24FIGURE 4. BOUNDING INERTIA FORCE APPLIED TO THE CASK (ALL DIRECTIONS) ............................................... 25FIGURE 5. POOL LID/SLAB INTERFACE STIFFNESS AND DAMPING FOR HI-TRAC MODEL .................................. 26FIGURE 6. POOL LID/SLAB INTERFACE FRICTION FOR HI-TRAC MODEL ............................................................. 26FIGURE 7. MAXIMUM POOL LID/SFP FLOOR INTERFACE LOAD -(SSE EVENT) .................................................. 27FIGURE 8. POSITION OF THE TOP OF HI-TRAC (SSE EVENT) ................................................................................... 2710.0 APPENDICES (NUMBER OF PAGES) ............................................................................................... 28APPENDIX A -VISUALNASTRAN NUMBER OF FACETS CALCULATION (2) .......................................................... 28APPENDIX B -STIFFNESS AND DAMPING EVALUATION (1) ................................................................................ 28APPENDIX C -APPROVED COMPUTER PROGRAM LIST (6) ................................................................................. 28APPENDIX D -COEFFICIENT OF RESTITUTION (2) ............................................................................................... 28APPENDIX E -HYDROSTATIC AND HYDRODYNAMIC EFFECTS (5) ........................................................................ 28APPENDIX F -CALCULATIONS OF FACTORS (2) ................................................................................................. 28APPENDIX G -BASELINE CORRECTION OF SSE TIME HISTORY (5) ..................................................................... 28APPENDIX H -LIFTING ANALYSIS OF LEVELING PLATFORM (11) ........................................................ 28APPENDIX I-ANALYSIS OF SPENT FUEL POOL SLAB IN CAMPAIGN H AND III CONFIGURATION (8) ..................... 28APPENDIX J -ANALYSIS OF LEVELING PLATFORM ASSEMBLY UNDER NORMAL, SSE AND OBE CONDITIONS (27)28APPEND IX K -AN SY S INPUT FILES (12) ................................................................................................................. 28APPENDIX L -AN SY S OUTPUT FILES (3) ........................................................................................................... 28Page 5 of 28GAProjects\1 916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7 Project 1916Report 1-H-210471

51.0 INTRODUCTION

AND SCOPEThe HI-TRAC 100)D transfer cask (hereinafter referred to as HI-TRAC) is loaded with fuel whilesubmerged in the Pilgrim Station Spent Fuel Pool (SFP) and positioned in the SFP cask loadingarea at El. 74.25' near the SFP north wall (Fig. 2.1 of [5.3]).This technical report and supporting calculations demonstrate the kinematic stability of theloaded HI-TRAC submerged in water in the cask loading area when subjected to postulated SSEseismic event. The analysis also reports the peak load on the SFP floor slab from the HI-TRAC(bounding case) under the SSE loading. Subsequently, the structural integrity of the pool slab isassessed.The simulation model used to evaluate the stability of a loaded HI-TRAC in the cask loadingarea (El. 74.25') is developed using the non-linear dynamic simulation computer codeVisualNastran (VN) [5.1]. VN is a Holtec validated rigid body dynamic analysis code used onnumerous occasions to simulate the response of the systems (casks) under earthquake events atvarious nuclear plants. Figure 1 shows the simulation model of the HI-TRAC loaded with MPCplaced on the SFP slab. The inputs used to couple the hydrostatic and hydrodynamic effects inthe VN simulations are developed in Appendix E. The inputs used as the driving inertial loads inthe VisualNastran (VN) model are the baseline corrected acceleration time-histories fromAppendix G.To overcome potential interferences on the SFP floor and provide for a level resting surface forthe HI-TRAC, an adjustable leveling platform [5.13] will be installed on top of the SFP liner inthe cask loading area. The structural adequacy of the adjustable leveling platform to support theloaded HI-TRAC under normal operating and seismic load conditions is evaluated in AppendicesJ, K, and L. The leveling platform is not included in the VN model since it has minimal effect onthe dynamic response of the HI-TRAC (see Section 2.1 for further discussion).Page 6 of 28G:\Projects\1916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7 Project 1916Report M1-21047152.0 METHODOLOGY AND ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA2.1 MethodologyTo perform the required dynamic analysis, the HI-TRAC system is modeled as a freestandingassemblage of three rigid bodies (the HI-TRAC with the contained MPC, top lid, and the poollid). Initially modeling the system as separate bodies ensures that the correct centroidal heightsare preserved. For dynamic analysis, the separate bodies are constrained to move as one sixdegree-of-freedom body. Figure 1 shows the assembled cask, as constructed in VisualNastran(VN) [5.1 ], ready for simulation.As discussed in Section 1.0, the HI-TRAC actually rests slightly above the surface of the SFPslab on an adjustable leveling platform. Since the leveling platform is a low-profile structure,which stands only 7 inches tall (approx.), and all of the steel members used to construct theplatform are at least 2 inches thick, it is effectively rigid in both the vertical and horizontaldirections. Also, the leveling platform has a wider support base than the freestanding HI-TRAC.For these reasons, the leveling platform will not amplify the driving motion at the base of the HI-TRAC as the earthquake travels upward from the SFP slab through the leveling platform, norwill it have a significant influence on the dynamic response of the freestanding HI-TRAC.Therefore, the leveling platform is not included in the VN model shown in Figure 1. However,the peak interface loads at the base of the HI-TRAC from the VN model are conservatively usedin Appendix J to inform the structural evaluation of the leveling platform.The computer code VisualNastran is a rigid body dynamics code that includes large orientationchange capability, simulation of impacts, and representation of contact and friction behavior.VisualNastran performs time history dynamic analysis of freestanding structures using theacceleration time-histories in the three orthogonal directions as the input. For the seismicevaluations herein, acceleration time histories appropriate to SFP floor elevation [5.3] are used asinput. A change of variables allows the problem to be formulated as a fixed ground with the caskmoving in response to applied driving forces, equal to the component mass times the calculatedPage 7 of 28G:\Projects\1916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7I Project 1916 Report HI-2104715ground acceleration in each of three directions, applied at the component's mass center. Refer toAppendix E for detailed evaluation of the hydrostatic and hydrodynamic effects.In MSC VisualNastran Desktop the following rules apply to the surfaces in contact:" In simple surface contact model (impulse-momentum) when 2 bodies collide thecoefficients offriction between two bodies are determined by taking the lower of the twocoefficients given to the bodies in contact." If two bodies collide, one with a custom contact model and the other with the simplesurface model, the equations defined in the custom contact model will be used forcollision response.* If two bodies collide, each with custom contact models having different equations, theminimum normal and friction force values as computed by the MSC VisualNastranDesktop simulation engine will be used.The results from the analyses provide the time history of the net horizontal displacement of theHI-TRAC cask and the interface loads between the cask pool lid and the supporting structure.These results are further processed and compared with appropriate allowables to meet theacceptance criteria.Subsequently, the structural integrity of the leveling platform and the pool slab are assessedusing the peak impact load from the VN dynamic simulation for SSE and OBE events.Page 8 of 28G:\Projects\1916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7 Project 1916Report HI-21047152.2 Acceptance Criteria2.2.1 Per Assumption 3.6, the cask is positioned at the center of the cask leveling platform. PerAppendix E, the minimum gap between the cask and surrounding structures is 4.8125",existing between the HI-TRAC cask and the N2 rack. The maximum displacement ofracks (at the top and bottom comers) in the two horizontal directions from Tables 6.7.2and 6.7.3 of [5.5] is 0.3881". Based on these inputs, the maximum allowable HI-TRACcask displacement is 4.4244" (= 4.8125" -0.3881") in E-W or N-S direction. Per [5.15],the minimum gap between the leveling platform and the surrounding structures is 3",existing between the platform and the North Wall. Therefore, the maximum allowableleveling platform displacement is 2.6119" (= 3" -0.3881").2.2.2 The net effective load on the pool slab from the spent fuel racks in Campaign II and IIIconfiguration (racks N1 through N5 and E1 through El0 with regular fuel), plus a loadedHI-TRAC cask, must be within the calculated floor slab capacity based on Pilgrim FSARdesign criteria for concrete structures.Page 9 of 28G:\Projects\1 916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7 Project 1916Report FHI-21047153.0 ASSUMPTIONS3.1 In the dynamic analysis that qualifies the application, the loaded cask is simulated as asingle freestanding rigid body with appropriate geometry, mass, and inertia propertiesobtained by adding the contribution of the component parts. The component parts of thesystem are constrained to move as a single body. This is conservative as it neglectsrattling of the internals, which would serve to dissipate energy.3.2 During the dynamic analyses, any hydrodynamic coupling in the annulus between theMPC and the HI-TRAC is neglected. This is conservative since this coupling serves todampen the response and absorb lateral energy.3.3 The heaviest weight system is used in the seismic analysis; the results from this analysiswill bound the results from any other configuration. This is a conservative assumptionwhich maximizes the vertical load on the slab. For pure sliding, the weight does not enterinto the equations of motion.3.4 The upper bound coefficient of friction (COF) between HI-TRAC pool lid and slab istaken as 0.8. The lower bound COF is conservatively taken as 0.2.3.5 The effects of the surrounding fluid are incorporated into the model in accordance withestablished principles [5.6, 5.7]. Any increase in hydrodynamic mass occurring fromchanges in cask location relative to the wall or adjacent racks, is conservativelyneglected.3.6 The cask is assumed to be positioned at the center of the cask leveling platform.Page 10 of 28G:\Projects\1916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7 Project 1916Report HI-21047154.0 INPUT DATA4.1 Input Weights for Dynamic AnalysisLoaded HI-TRAC IOOD bounding weight: 191,000 lb. (bounding weight [5.8])HI-TRAC IOOD Pool lid -8,000 lb. (bounding weight [5.8])Note that Case 7 in Table 7.0.2 of [5.18] for the loaded HI-TRAC weight when lifted for removalfrom the SFP specifies a weight of 196,716 lb, which is greater than the 191,000 lb input above.However, there is an approximate 5% overestimation in the computed weight of 196,716 lb inTable 7.0.2 [5.18] (see footnote of Table 7.0.2). The actual weight of the HI-TRAC can bereasonably estimated to be 196,716 lb x (100% -5%) = 186,880 lb, which is less than 191,000lb. Therefore, the use of 191,000 lb as HI-TRAC weight in this analysis is conservative andacceptable.The effect of the surrounding fluid (hydrodynamic) mass is included in the analysis. Theappropriate added mass value is computed in Appendix E.4.2 Seismic InputsThe baseline-corrected (performed in Appendix G) 20-second duration acceleration timehistories appropriate to SFP floor elevation for SSE condition [5.3] are used as input in the VNsimulation model.4.3 Frictional InputTo establish bounding results, the coefficient of friction (COF) at the contact interface betweenthe HI-TRAC pool lid and its supporting surface are evaluated at 0.2 and 0.8. An additional casePage 11 of 28G:\Projects\l 916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7I Project 1916Report HI-2104715with COF value of 0.5 at the above mentioned interface is included in the analyses as asensitivity study.5.0 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS AND COMPUTER FILES5.1 References[5.1] VisualNastran 2004, MSC Software, 2004.[5.2] Holtec Position Paper DS-340, Rev. 1, QUANTIFYING THE DAMPING FACTORFOR LOW VELOCITY IMPACTS IN THE HI-STORM SYSTEM.[5.3] Holtec Report HI-92926, Synthetic Seismic Acceleration Time-histories of theSpent Fuel Pool Slab for Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, Rev. 0, Project 20930.[5.4] Holtec Report HI-92952, Calculation Package For Pilgrim Spent Fuel Pool SlabStructural Requalification, Rev. 1.[5.5] Holtec Report HI-92925, Licensing Report For Spent Fuel Storage CapacityExpansion at Pilgrim Station, Rev. 1.[5.6] Holtec Position Paper DS-246, Seismic Analysis of Submerged Bodies, Rev. 2, Jan.2006.[5.7] ASCE Publication 4-98, Seismic Analysis of Safety-Related Nuclear Structures,Subsection C3.1.6.2.[5.8] Holtec Report HI-2002444, HI-STORM 100 FSAR, Rev. 9.[5.9] Holtec Drawing 1074, Pool Layout -Campaign I for Spent Fuel Storage Racks,Rev. 1.[5.10] Theory of Elasticity, Timoshenko, S. P., Goodier, J. N., 3rd Edition, 1970, Mc Graw-Hill.[5.11] ACI 349-85, "Code Requirements for Nuclear Safety Related Concrete Structures".[5.12] Holtec Drawing 4130, Rev. 13, HI-TRAC 100D.[5.13] Holtec Drawing 8262, Rev. 7, Leveling Platform Adjustable Assembly,Page 12 of 28G:\Projects\1916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7 Project 1916[5.14][5.15][5.161[5.17][5.181Report HI-2104715Holtec Purchase Specification, PS-5256, Rev. 0, Purchase Specification for PilgrimLeveling Platform.Holtec Drawing 8777, Rev. 5, Spent Fuel Pool Dry Cask Configuration.ANSI/AISC N690-1994, "American National Standard Specification for the Design,Fabrication, and Erection of Steel Safety-Related Structures for Nuclear Facilities".ASME CODE,Section II, Part D, 1995 edition.Holtec Report HI-2104716, Cask Handling Weights and Cask Handling Dimensionsat Pilgrim, Rev. 2.5.2 Computer Codes and FilesAppendix C contains the listing of approved computer codes used for this calculation. Allrelevant computer files associated with this calculation package are archived on the HoltecServer and saved on the network under:G." IProjectsi 19161REPORTSIStructural Reports ISFP Evahlation TRev 7The old revisions are saved atG: \Projects \1916\REPORTSýStructural Reports\SFP EvaluationlRev 6G: Projects \1916ýREPORTSIStructural ReportsISFP Evaluation 5G: IProjects 19166REPORTSIStructural Reports ýSFP Evahlation ýRev 4G: Wrojects 1916REPORTSYStructural Reports ISFP Evaluation IRev 3G: ýProjects l 1916IREPORTSIStructural Reports ISFP Evaluation Iev 2G: Projects 1916ýREPORTSIStructural Reports MSFP Evaluation IRev 1G: Projects I 9196REPORTSIStructural Reports ISFP Evaluation IRev 0Page 13 of 28G:\Projects\1916\REPORTS\Structurai Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7I Project 1916Report 1-H-21047156.0 ANALYSESDynamic simulations are performed for SSE condition with 0.2, 0.5 and 0.8 coefficients offriction (COF) for the contact interface between the HI-TRAC pool lid and its supportingsurface. The effect of the water in the cask loading area is included in the dynamic model in theform of a hydrodynamic mass that is added to the structural mass, and a displaced mass term thatserves to reduce the magnitude of the driving force input. Appendix E computes thehydrodynamic mass for the HI-TRAC, accounting for the confinement due to the adjacent walland spent fuel racks. Figure 2 shows the total mass (structural plus hydrodynamic) and inertiaproperties associated with the cask. Figure 3 shows the additional constant upward force addedto the loaded HI-TRAC cask, to ensure that the net vertical force is corrected for the automaticinclusion (by the VN algorithm) of the horizontal hydrodynamic mass in the vertical direction.Figure 4 shows the three directional inertia forces applied at the centroid of the HI-TRAC cask.The facet calculation for cylindrical surface is presented in Appendix A. The contact interfacebetween the pool lid and the support surface in VN is simulated using a "custom contact" modelwith appropriate local stiffness and damping as evaluated in Appendix B. The frictional force ateach contact interface is evaluated as the product of the COF and the instantaneous normal forceevaluated by the VN dynamic code. Figures 5 and 6 show the stiffness, damping and frictioncoefficient inputs to the VN model at the HI-TRAC pool lid/support structure interface.Appendix D presents the derivation of the relationship between coefficient of restitution anddamping. Appendix G performs baseline correction on the original SSE acceleration timehistories to obtain baseline-corrected time histories.Appendix H evaluates the lifting of the leveling platform to meet the requirements of [5.14].Appendix I demonstrates the structural adequacy of the floor slab in the Campaign II and IIIconfiguration in consideration of non-conservatism identified in report HI-92952 (reference[5.4]).Page 14 of 28G:\Projects\1916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7 Project 1916Report I-1-2104715Appendix J addresses the structural qualification of the leveling platform [5.13] that supports theHI-TRAC cask and bears on the SFP floor slab. It demonstrates that the leveling platform isstructurally adequate to support the HI-TRAC 100D cask under the normal, SSE and OBEconditions. Appendices K and L are supplements to Appendix J providing ANSYS input filesand output files for weld evaluation.7.0 RESULTS7.1 HI-TRAC StabilityIn this section, the results from the dynamic simulations of HI-TRAC seismic response in thecask area at El. 74.25' are documented. Figure 7 shows time history plot of typical impact forceon the slab and Figure 8 shows maximum displacement at the top of the HI-TRAC cask in thecask area under the SSE seismic excitation with 0.8 COF at the pool lid/SFP floor interface. TheCOF between the HI-TRAC base (pool lid) and SFP slab is taken as 0.8 (upper bound) and 0.2(lower bound) per assumption 3.4. An additional case with COF value of 0.5 is also performed.Hence, a total of three SSE runs were made and results are tabulated in Table 1. Table 1summarizes the results for maximum displacements at the top of the cask, peak vertical loads,and peak frictional forces between pool lid and slab interface for the three cases considered.The maximum lateral displacement (in H1 or H2 direction) of the top of the HI-TRAC isobserved to be 2.458" for the postulated SSE seismic event. The resulting safety factor againstimpact with the surrounding structures and the loaded HI-TRAC is 1 (4.4244" / 2.458") (seeSection 2.2.1 for the derivation of the value of 4.4244"). The maximum lateral displacement ofthe bottom of the HI-TRAC is observed to be 2.450" for the postulated SSE seismic event. Theworst scenario is observed when the HI-TRAC and the leveling platform move as one. Theresulting safety factor against impact with the surrounding structures and the loaded levelingplatform is 1.07 (2.6119" / 2.450") (see Section 2.2.1 for the derivation of the value of 2.6119").Page 15 of 28G:\Projects\1916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7 Project 1916Report 2104715The peak vertical force on the cask loading area slab at any time instant is obtained as 511,750lbf under SSE condition, as seen from Table 1.Table 1: Peak Results from Dynamic Analyses of HI-TRAC Cask under SSE EventCOF MaximumMaximum Maximum Maximumbetween Y-DirectionalX-Directional Y-Directional X-Directional Peak PeakHI- (112)(HI) (112) (1) Vertical FrictionaCase TRAC (H)(2 H) Displacement[Displacement Displacement Displacement of Load I ForcePool Lid of Bottom ofof top of HI- of top of HI- Bottom of HI- (lb.) (lb.)and SFP HI-TRAC (l. (b)TRAC (in.) TRAC (in.) TRAC (in.)Floor (in.)Case 1 0.2 2.458 1.096 2.450 1.063 212,520 42,420Case 2 0.5 0.922 0.846 0.161 0.184 391,500 194,420Case 3 0.8 1.369 1.343 0.083 0.163 511,750 387,900Since SSE seismic event is stronger than OBE event, the analysis is not repeated for the OBEevent. As shown in Section 7.2, an evaluation of current configuration under OBE event isunwarranted.7.2 Pool Slab AssessmentFor reference only, the net resultant load on the SFP slab from the Final Reracked Configuration[5.4] (with regular fuel) and that from Campaign II racks (racks El through ElO, plus NIthrough N4) and Campaign III rack (rack N5) (with regular fuel, i.e., 680 lbf fuel) including aloaded cask in the cask area, are presented below. Please note that Campaign III rack N6 is notincluded in the load summation for Campaigns II and III since the Rack N6 cannot co-exist withthe HI-TRAC cask. The dead load of the racks from both Campaign II, III and Final RerackedConfiguration are directly obtained by summing the individual rack weight and the fuel within[5.5]. The maximum dead load on the SFP floor is 191,000 lbs (Table 3.2.2 of [5.8]) and itoccurs when the loaded HI-TRAC cask is placed on the floor. Table 2 compares the dynamicloads on the slab under the SSE event, from the Final Reracked Configuration and the CampaignII and III Configuration including a loaded HI-TRAC.Page 16 of 28G:\Projects\1916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7 Project 1916Report M-2104715Table 2: Comparison of Total Dynamic Loads on SlabCampaigns II andFinal Reracked III (Racks El thruLoad Classification / Pool Configuration El0 and N1 thruLayout (regular fuel) N5) (regular fuel)(SSE) IncludingLoaded Cask (SSE)Dead Load on Slab from Fully 3,112,220 2,949,480Loaded Racks (Dr), lbf §Dead Load on Slab from Fully 191,000Loaded Cask (DJ), lbfDynamic Adder from Rack0.372 0.372Dynamic Analysis (Ar) +Dynamic Adder from Cask0 1.680Dynamic Analysis (AJ) *Buoyancy Factor (B) y 0.873 0.873Total Dynamic Load[Drx B x (1 + Ar)] + [D, x (1 + 3,727,680 4,044,638A.)]§ The dead loads on slab (Dr) are calculated in Appendix F. All of the racks present in a configuration are fully loaded withregular fuel weighing 680 lbf.*The dynamic adder from the cask dynamic analysis is incremental factor applied to the dead load to obtain the seismic load(Ac = 511,750/191,000 -I = 1.680).4The dynamic adders from the rack seismic analysis Ar are the incremental factor applied to the submerged weight of the loadedracks to obtain the seismic load. They are calculated in Appendix F. Although the calculated dynamic adder is for the FinalReracked Configuration racks, it is used for the Campaign II and III racks as well. Since the total mass of fuel and the number offuel cells in the Final Reracked Configuration racks is considerably higher than the corresponding numbers for the Campaign IIand Ill racks, it is justifiable to use the dynamic adder from the Final Reracked Configuration to calculate the total dynamic loadfor the Campaign II and III racks.y The multipliers applied to the dry weight of the racks plus fuel to account for buoyancy effects in water are calculated inAppendix F.Page 17 of 28G:\Projects\1916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7 Project 1916Report 1-21047157.2.1 Slab Capacity CheckIt is recognized that the finite element model described in Ref. [5.4] is non-conservative becauseit credits temporary columns to support the spent fuel pool slab. further evaluation is needed forthe slab under the effective load from the Campaign II and III racks plus the loaded HI-TRAC.Therefore, Appendix I is added herein to demonstrate the structural adequacy of the spent fuelslab in Campaign II and III configuration without crediting any of the steel beams/girdersbeneath the slab. The minimum factor of safety for slab flexural capacity presented is Appendix Iis 1.228.7.2.2 Leveling Platform Punching Shear CheckThe HI-TRAC cask is supported by the leveling platform in the spent fuel pool per [5.14] and theadjustable support pedestals of the leveling platform assembly are contacting with the slab.Appendices J, K and L are added to demonstrate the structural adequacy of the leveling platformin supporting the HI-TRAC cask under normal, SSE and OBE conditions.Since the load from the loaded cask is concentrated on the spent fuel pool slab through theleveling platform pedestals, local punching shear and bearing evaluation are performed below.To evaluate the punching shear on the slab at a location of impact, the maximum allowablepunching shear force is calculated per ACI Code [5.11 ].The distance from the most compressed fiber to the tensile reinforcement is:d = 57 in. Page 6-90 of [5.4]Leveling Platform adjustable support diameter (chamfer considered): D = 4.75 in. [5.13]Page 18 of 28G:\Projects\1 916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7 Project 1916 Report 1I-2104715Bearing Pad thickness: t = 2 in. [5.15]Assume the pedestal load spreading of 45 deg. through the bearing pad.The effective perimeter around the impact location is:bo = 2 x n x (D + 2xt + d) bo = 413 in.(Note that the load is conservatively assumed to be applied to only two pedestals due to rockingin the SSE and the OBE conditions. The same assumption is also used in Appendix J inevaluating the leveling platform)Concrete compressive strength: fc = 4,000 psi Page 6-90 of [5.4]Therefore, the punching shear capacity is calculated per ACI Code [5.11 ] as:Vcap = 0.85 X 4 X (f)12 X b0 x d Vcap = 5,063,600 lbfThe maximum impact load from the loaded cask is:Vimp = 511,750 lbf (Table 1)Therefore the safety factor against a punching shear failure of the slab is:SF = Vcap/ Vimp SF p9.89The bearing capacity of the concrete slab is calculated per ACI Code [5.11] as:S1ar = 2 x 0.85 x 0.7 x fc Sjear = 4,760 psiThe bearing stress on concrete slab based on the peak impact force on HI-TRAC baseplate iscalculated as:S. = Vimp / (2x0.25xrt(D+2xt)2) S. = 4,255 psiTherefore, the safety factor against the bearing stress on the concrete slab is:SF = Sbear/ Sas SF- 1.2Page 19 of 28G:\Projects\1916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7 Project 1916Report 1-2104715The bearing capacity of the bearing pad is calculated per AISC [5.16] as:Sbarbp = 0.9X27,500 psi Sbearbp = 24,750 psiWhere 27,500 psi is the yield strength of SA-240-304 at 150 deg. F per [5.17].The bearing stress on bearing pads based on the peak impact force on HI-TRAC baseplate iscalculated as:Sas_bp = Vimp / (2x0.25xrt(D)2) Sasbp = 14,440 psiTherefore, the safety factor against the bearing stress on the bearing pads is:SF = Sbe.b p/ Sasbp ;SF 1.71lThe above calculated safety factors are for the SSE event. As for the OBE event, ACI code(Section 9.2.1 of [5.11]) defines 1.7 and 1.4 as the load factors for impact load and dead load,respectively. Note that the above calculated safety factors for concrete are both greater than 1.7,therefore, the corresponding safety factors for OBE events will be greater than 1.0, even if theSSE results are conservatively used as OBE results. Hence it is confirmed that an evaluation ofOBE events are unwarranted.Page 20 of 28G:\Projects\1916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7 Project 1916Report HI-210471

58.0 CONCLUSION

SIt is demonstrated in the foregoing sections that the maximum lateral excursion of the HI-TRACis 2.458" at the top of the cask, which is less than the allowable excursion of 4.4244" betweenthe HI-TRAC and the surrounding structures. It is further shown that the HI-TRAC cask remainsstable at the conclusion of the 20 seconds duration SSE seismic event (bounding).It is shown that the spent fuel slab floor is structurally adequate in the current configuration(Campaign II and III racks with regular fuel plus the loaded cask) under the postulated SSE andOBE events without the temporary columns. The leveling platform is also structurally adequateto support the loaded HI-TRAC cask under normal, SSE and OBE conditions. The safety factorfor slab flexural loading is 1.228. The safety factor against the local punching of the slab isshown to be 9.89, based on the peak load on the slab from the HI-TRAC cask seismic analysis.The safety factor of the slab against the bearing is shown to be 1.12.It is therefore concluded that the HI-TRAC cask, when submerged in water in the spent fuel poolat El. 74.25' at Pilgrim, has adequate margins in terms of the kinematic stability and the slabstructural integrity.Page 21 of 28G:\Projects\1 916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7 Project 1916Report 1-H-21047159.0 FIGURESThe VN graphical outputs (result plots) and input screen captures in this section correspond tothe HI-TRAC cask simulation under SSE event with 0.8 COF at the HI-TRAC base (PoolLid)/SFP floor interface. Similar plots can be obtained for other simulations (including 0.2 and0.5 COF at HI-TRAC base (Pool Lid)/SFP floor interface) which are archived on the Holtecnetwork.Figure 1. Model of Loaded HI-TRAC Cask on SlabPage 22 of 28G:\Projects\1 916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7 Project 1916Report HI-2104715Proeries of bod[2 "HJ~ C ?Vel Material Cylinder. Central Inertia Contact j FEAFDensity Mass 1311795.520 Ibmr~ ensitY Mass I ...... ... .: ............... .bC Uniform( Customi bm in'20 000 1 0.. ..09 -7. ....0.. t0.0! ....... ... .. ... oo o o o .. ...... .f ~ -1990..011600000.000 j~° ... ......... ..(Inertia about center of .masialigned with body axes)ppys Help... * ,.,,- .: ,.," " ..... ...o. ......Vel" Material Cylinder [Central .nertialI Contact1 FEiA 4L Material PropertiesC[ ustom material for body[2] ., .,:'!.Mass F311795.520 IbmVolume 11 in.3Coeff. Restitution 10.254 ...Coeff. Friction 0.800C lPpy HelpFigure 2. Mass Properties (including hydrodynamic mass) of HI-TRACPage 23 of 28G:\Projects\1 916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7I Project 1916Report MI-2104715= ;.,~~ ~ ~ .x-ýM , 7_ " "Appearance ~Structural Load jActiveY o.10o00 lbfZ J164265.192 lj bfFrame ...- ...... .'r World0-:8'dyC CoordrCoordinates(* Cartesian !C CylindricalC Face normalFigure 3.Constant Buoyancy Force Applid Et C aPFigure 3. Constant Buoyancy Force Applied to CaskPage 24 of 28G:\Projects\1 916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7 Project 1916Report HI-2104715,Edit For ulaI .'m 1w 4,Graph Property. Math Logic Function.e'v 7C ?I, INM-191 000(input[16]) Ibf9000o0.0ao.0.ooG.aogea5.oo6oo0(.oD8.oo9.aooJ.a(Time (sec)---------- -A.6I. EdtFomlaMGraph Property: Math Logic Function'we X "v W Tj 0 ffl N-191 000([input[391) Ibf............. .Ei t orulGraph Property Math Logic Function'r Ni 7E q El ffl 1bf-191 000'input[4011 IbiIA~4==Tlme(see)OK Cancel' HelpFigure 4. Bounding Inertia Force Applied to the Cask (All Directions)Page 25 of 28G:\Projects\1 916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7 Project 191ýReport HI-2104715I*1 S Prpriso bd~]'OLl)' M "V9* el .. .Mteral C....ra. e...a FEA Co .tact C* ..we. .Contact detectibow -Conitact response--r Facetted wdaface r Ilmpulse/,,omitumr. AllRow Penetration. r- Custom modelFacett..PropertiesSmooth =uoface..... ..... ..,. ,Mod" ......... ... OK "Ir mpuloe/m omentumO" Custom :_.:.Coe. Rettiution 1-7---Ctf. ,Frictio .... , " .I ,. Normal foremfiodek ti, Vrpenatrot1mmr-JFrctnir force mo .1e .t l 0,... .Ga o. MathL gic : JE: .IF-ý -/r N\ 7C ?I (DG(- 3923 t fin)pm ehatio.11 -(5129 hItI[Tnme (sec)Figure 5. Pool Lid/Slab Interface Stiffness and Damping for HI-TRAC ModelEit. FomlaTE222Graph Property. Math Logic Function-#, %./" 'v 7E. T! 91 ff 1W0081normalcomP0"tangentvels/tangentvel 0"J.0001 inls) ... ,OK---] Can~el ielC,*.00~.00o.008.0@.0 aosoos.oari.ao8.0o.OOM.OCTtme (sec)i -Figure 6. Pool Lid/Slab Interface Friction for HI-TRAC ModelPage 26 of 28G:\Projects\1 91 6\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7 Project 1916Report HI-2104715Figure 7. Maximum Pool Lid/SFP Floor Interface Load -(SSE Event)Valuex 0.004 iny 0.094 in2 194-243 inMin Max-1.255 1.369-1.311 1.343194.233 194,529Figure 8. Position of the Top of HI-TRAC (SSE Event)(the original position of the top of HI-TRAC is (0 in.,0 in., 194.25 in.))Page 27 of 28G:\Projects\1 916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7 Project 1916 Report H1-210471510.0 APPENDICES (Number of Pages)Appendix A -VisualNastran Number of Facets Calculation (2)Appendix B -Stiffness and Damping Evaluation (1)Appendix C -Approved Computer Program List (6)Appendix D -Coefficient of Restitution (2)Appendix E -Hydrostatic and Hydrodynamic Effects (5)Appendix F -Calculations of Factors (2)Appendix G -Baseline Correction of SSE Time History (5)Appendix H -LIFTING ANALYSIS OF LEVELING PLATFORM (11)Appendix I -Analysis of Spent Fuel Pool Slab in Campaign II and III Configuration(8)Appendix J -Analysis of Leveling Platform Assembly Under Normal, SSE andOBE Conditions (27)Appendix K -ANSYS Input Files (12)Appendix L -ANSYS Output Files (3)Page 28 of 28G:\Projects\1 916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7 Project 1916 Report 1-11-21 04715I Project 1916Report HI-2104715 IAppendix A: VisualNastran Number of Facets CalculationThe purpose of this appendix is to determine the number of facet points (i.e. contact locations) themodel has for defining custom contact in VisualNastran [5.1].The pool lid is placed on the spent fuel pool floor (cylindrical surface on flat ground) and allowed toreach steady state. The compression is then measured using an arbitrary stiffness input.Guess stiffness4 IbfinGuess damping1000. lbf secin7zAfter steady state has been reached, knowing the weight and the final deflection with thearbitrary stiffness, the number of facets can be computed.Appendix A -1 of 2G:\Projects\1 91 6\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 0\

Project 1Y16 Report HI-21U4715I Project 1916Report HI-21U4115 IContact forceFinal velocityFinal displacementNumber of facet pointsF,:= -8091.417. IbfinV,:= -0.02637.-secz:= -0.0024.ink- z+ c. V,N= 16Appendix A -2 of 2G:\Projects\1 916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 0\

Project 1916 Report HI-2104715Appendix B: Stiffness and Dampingi EvaluationSCOPE: Dynamic analyses of rigid bodies under seismic loading require simulation ofcontact between bodies. While classical impact-momentum analysis models may be used,contacts between two large flat surfaces undergoing low velocity impacts are betterrepresented by a series of peripheral springs that simulate the contact behavior. Here, wedetermine the spring rate and damping coefficient appropriate to simulate a damped systemhaving mass, W/g. There are N facet points at the contact; here, we determine the springand damper per facet to be input into the "custom contact" model in VN to represent theinterface between HI-TRAC pool lid and the SFP slab.NF := 16 Number of facets (Appendix A)Wtrac := 191000. lbf Bounding weight of loaded HI-TRAC [5.8]The premise for establishing this spring rate at the HI-TRAC base and SFP slab interface isthat the responses of interest when considering system behavior to seismic ground motionsshould focus on the predominate modes below 33 Hz and avoid modeling assumptions thatintroduce spurious mathematical artifacts that serve only to interject high frequency effectsinto the simulation. The predominant energy content from seismic events is in the frequencyrange below 16Hz (Page 2-6 of Ref. [5.3]). Therefore, any contact spring representation forthe dynamic model should not introduce artifacts leading to spurious and artificial higherfrequency effects. Therefore, the custom contact spring representation used herein is basedon the mass of the supported model, and is developed so that the 33Hz frequency is basedon a vertical oscillation of the mass on a rigid foundation. This renders the custom contactmodel independent of the local matedal and geometric shape of the contact surfaces.A local contact stiffness is chosen on the basis of the total supported mass and arequirement to eliminate all frequencies above 33Hz from this spring constant. The damperassociated with this local contact stiffness is chosen to produce a coefficient of restitutionvalue of 0.254 (Appendix 0) at the interface to suppress high frequency numericaloscillations.f := 33. Hz Rigid body frequencyContact StiffnessWtr~ac (2-Tr. f)2 1.K :2 K = 1329272.567.-Ig NF inCorresponding Damping2.0.4f Wrac-NF b eC =- K. IC = 5128.7351. NF inAppendix B -1 of 1G:\Projects\1916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 0\

WT-91n4715-~-1916 AhPWPENDI C R r I-141HOLTEC APPROVED COMPUTER PROGRAM LIST' REV. 226July 312012APPROVED IN CERTIFIED REMARKS: See OPERATING APPROED IndicatePROGRAM USNRC PART VERSION USER FOR "A" CODE report indicated SYSTEM & COMPUTERS: Computer(Category) 50 & 71/72 SER: (Executable) ESEXPERT or special VERSION(Docket #) 2 limitations (Service pack4) Listed by ID ID(s) usedMA, SPA, AB,11.0 CWB, RI, PK. AL, CWB HI-2012627 Windows XP (2) 1017, 1018,1019,HP, VRP, ER, IR, 1039, 1060AIS, ZY, JZMA, SPA, AB,12.0 CWB, RJ, PK, AL, CWB HI-2012627 Windows XP (2) 1016, 1017HP, VRP, ER, IR,AIS. ZY, JZMA, SPA, AB, Windows XP (2) 1019, 106012.1 CWB, RJ, PK, AL. CWB H 1-2012627 1021, 1023, 1025,DOC 50-298 HP, VRP, ER, IR. Windows 7 (0,1) 1031, 1032, 1044,ANSYS (A) DOC 72-1014 AIS, ZY, JZ 1093MA, SPA. AB, Windows XP (2) 1017.1018, 1019CWB, RJ, PK, AL, 1023,1025,1031,13.0 HP, VRP, ER, IR, CWB H 1-2012627 1038 1044 1127.AIS, ZY, JZ. YC, Windows 7 (0,1) 1139:1187:1888, 1038VM 1189,1190,1179MA, SPA, AB,CWB, RJ, PK, AL,14.0 HP, VRP, ER, IR, CWB HI-2012627 Windows 7 (0,1) 1162,1044,1187AIS, ZY, JZ, YC,VMAutoCad2011 3.0 N/A JAG HI-2125187 Windows 7 (11 1158 N/ACOMPRESS Build 7140 N/A VM HI-2125173 Windows XP(2) 1058SPA, BDB, KB,4-2.05.14 HF, SVF, TH, BK, SPA HI-2104750 Windows XP (3) 1006DOC 50-271 DMM, VIM, ES, PSCASMO (A) DOC 71-9336 SPA, BDB, KB,5M -1.06.00 DMMHF. SVF, TH, BKI SPA HI-2104750 Windows XP (2) 1008, 1013DMM, VIM. ES, PS 108,01 ofPage C1 of C6 Project 1916APPENDIX CReport HI-2104715HOLTEC APPROVED COMPUTER PROGRAM LIST' REV. 226July 31 2012APPROVED IN CERTIFIED REMARKS: See OPERATING APPROVED IndicatePROGRAM USNRC PART VERSION CODE report indicated SYSTEM & COMPUTERS: Computer(Category) 50 & 71/72 SER: (Executable) USERS FOR"A" EXPERT for special VERSION 4T Compused(Docket #) ' limitations (Service pack4) Listed by ID ID(s) usedSPA, BDB, KB,5-2.00.00 HF. SVF, TH, BK, SPA HI-2104750 Windows 7 (0.1) 1051DMM, VIM, ES, PSSPA, BDB, KB, Windows 7 (0,1) 10515-2.02,00 HF, SVF, TH, BK. SPA H 1-2104750DMM, VIM, ES, PS Windows XP (2) 1008CORRE 1.3 N/A CWB N/A Windows XP (3) 1020Windows 7 (0,1) 1049DECAY 1.6 N/A ER N/A Windows XP (2) 1016Windows XP (31 1016Windows XP (2) 1016DECOR DOC 50-423 1.3 N/A ER N/A Windows XP (3) 1016Windows 7 (0,1) 1027Dr. Beam Pro 1.0.5 N/A CWB N/A Windows 7 (0,1) 1031, 1044,1162DYNAMO I.0AIS,CWB, VRP,SYNMe0 A)H, KKG CWB HI-2114848 Windows 7.(0,I1) 1044,1021Suite (A) HP, KKGWindows XP (2) 1016Fluent (A) DOC 50-368 ER. IR, DMM,DOC 72-1014 4.56 AHM, YL, INP, ER H 1-981921MH, JGR Windows XP (3) 1022Windows 7 (0,1) 10271002, 1003, 1016,Windows XP (2) 2003Windows XP (3) 10011026, 1193, 1027,Windows 7 0.1) 1135'Fluent (A) DOC 50-368 ER, IR, DMM,DOC 72-1014 6.3.26 AHM, YL, INP, DMM H 1-2084036 Red Hat Ent.MH, JGR (3,.43-9.EL4) 1004Linux (2.6.9-5)Red Hat Ent.(4.4.2-48) Linux 1070,1071,1072(2.6.18-194.e15)Server Release 5.5Page C2 of C6 1QlgIPPRNnTY RPoLTEC 1916O VE APPEN CP Re ' HEV.0276HOLTEC APPROVED COMPUTER PROGRAM LIST' REV. 226July 31 2012APPROVED IN CERTIFIED REMARKS: See OPERATING APPROVED IndicatePROGRAM USNRC PART VERSION USERS FOR "A" CODE report indicated SYSTEM & COMPUTERS: Computer(Category) 50 & 71/72 SER: (Executable) COES EXPERT for special VERSION(Docket #) 2 CODES limitations (Service pack4) Listed by ID ID(s) usedGENEQ 1.3 N/A AIS, CWB N/A Windows XP (3) 1028HTRI XIST 6.00 N/A KK N/A Windows XP (3) 1057LONGOR DO( 50-305 1.1 N/A ER N/A Windows XP (2) 1016Windows XP (3) 1016971 AB, SPA, RJ, AL,'ls971sR4.2) HP, VRP, KPS, JZ N/A Windows XP (2) 1018AIS, JZ, ZY971 AB, SPA, RJ, AL,10s71 sR5.0) HP, VRP, KPS, JZ N/A Windows 7 (0,1) 1031, 1032LS-DYNA DOG 50-298 AIS, JZ, ZY(A) DOC 72-1014 971 AB. SPA, RJ, AL,(ls971dR5.0) HP, VRP, KPS, JZ N/A Windows 7 (0,1) 1025, 1093AIS, JZ, ZY971 AB, SPA, RI, AL, Windows Server 1033, 1034, 1035,HP, VRP, KPS, JZ N/A HPC 2008 1036, 1037(mpp971dR5.0) AIS, JZ, ZYLS-DYNA DOC 50-298 971 AB, SPA, RJ, AL, Windows Server 1033, 1034, 1035,(A) DOC 72-1014 (mpp971sR5.0) HP VRP, KPS, JZ N/A HPC 2008 1036, 1037AIS, JZ, ZYMACCS2 1.13.1 N/A SPA HI-2104750 Windows XP (3) 1041Windows XP (2) 1008, 10021006, 1009, 1010,SPA, BDB, KB, Windows XP (3) 2001. 2002, 2004.4A HF, SVF, TH, BK, KB H 1-2104750 2005,2006, 2007DOC 50-368 DMM, VIM, ES. PS 20.20,20MCNP (A) DOC 71-9336 1011, 1013, 1014,Windows 7 (0, 1) 1015, 1030, 1051,1113, 1114, 11154B SPA, BDB, KB, KB HI-2104750 Windows XP (3) 2001,2002aHF, SVF, TH, BK, fPage C3 of C6 Proiect 1916APPENDIX CReport HI-2104715HOLTEC APPROVED COMPUTER PROGRAM LIST' REV. 226July 31 2012APPROVED IN CRIEDREMARKS: See OPERATING APRVD IdctAPPROVEDEINAPPROVED IdctPROGRAM USNRC PART VERSION CODE report indicated SYSTEM & COMPUTERS: Compute(Category) 50 & 71/72 SER: (Executable) US ES EXPERT for special VERSION Listed Compused(Docket #) abe) CODES limitations (Service pack4) Listed by ID ID(s) usedDMM, VIM, ES, PS Windows 7 (0,1) 1051Windows XP (2) 1002, 1003, 1008SPA, BDB, KB, 1006. 1009, 1010,5.1.40 HF, SVF, TH, BK, KB H 1-2104750 Windows XP (3) 1012, 001,2002,DMM, VIM. ES, PS 2004, 2005, 2006,20071011. 1014, 1015,Windows 7 (0,1) 1051, 1113, 1114,1115Windows XP (2) 1002 1003, 1008,20031006, 1009, 1010.DO 038SPA, BDB, KB, Windows XP (3) 2001. 2002. 2005,DOC 50-368 5.1.51 HF, SVF, TH. BK, KB H 1-2104750 2006.2007MCNP (A) DOC 71-9336 DM ,VM S S2006,2007DMM, VIM. ES, PS 1011,1013,1014,Windows 7(0,1) 1015, 1051, 1076.1113, 1114,1115MR216 (A) 2.40 AIS, CWB. VRP. CWB HI-2125267 Windows 7 (0,1) 1049HP, KKGWindows XP (2) 1016MULPOOLD 2.3 N/A ER N/A Windows XP (3) 1016Windows 7 (0,1) 1026Nanotec Wet Pravin Windows Server 1146Chemistry 0 N/A Kumar N/A 003 revision 2 114ONEPOOL 1.7 N/A ER N/A Windows XP (2) 1016Windows XP (3) 1016ORIGEN2 486 N/A ER HI-92784 Windows XP (2) 1016Windows XP (.3) 1016Page C4 of C6 Prolect 1916APPENDIX CReport HI-2104715HOLTEC APPROVED COMPUTER PROGRAM LIST REV. 226July 31 2012APPROVEDCV CERTIFIED REMARKS: See OPERATING IndicatePROGRAM USNRC PART VERSION USERS FOR"A" CODE report indicated SYSTEM & COMPUTERS: Computer(Category) 50 2 OE EXPERT for special VERSION(Docket # a) CODES limitations (Service pack4 Listed by ID ID(s) usedORIGEN-S,SAS2H,KENO-Va, DOC 50-346 Windows 2000NITAWL & DOC 71-9336 4.3 KB, SPA, BK KB, SPA N/A (2) 1050BONAMI(Modules ofSCALE 4.3)ORIG EN-S &SAS2 DO 503461006, 1009, 1010,S(s2 o DOC 50-346 4.4 N/A KB, SPA N/A Windows XP (3) 2004,2005,12007(Modules of DOC 71-9336 20,0520SCALE 4.4)ORIGEN-S, 1011 1013, 1113,SAS2H & Windows 7 (0,1)KENO-VI 5.1 KB, SPA, BK KB, SPA N/A 1015,1076,1088(Modules of Windows XP (3) 2002 2004, 2005,SCALE 5. 1) 20077.6.0 N/A AIS N/A Windows 7 (0,1) 1044,1093,1025SHAKE 20007.7.0 N/A AIS N/A Windows 7 (0,1) 10210 NWindows XP (3) 1020Windows 7 (0,1) 1038, 1049ShapeBuilder6.0 N/A VRP HI-2053361 Windows 7 (0,1) 1044Windows XP(2) 1077 1081, 1082, N/ASolidWorks 0i/doI2012761 X 1083% 1085, 108620 04 1078 1079, 1080, N/AWindows 7 (0,1) 1084STER 5.04 N/A ER N/A Windows XP(3) 10161011, 1013, 1015,1051, 1076, 1088.SX 1.0 N/A KB N/A Windows 7 (0, 1) 1108,1113,1114,.1115Page C5 of C6 Proiect 1916APPENDIX CReport HI-2104715HOLTEC APPROVED COMPUTER PROGRAM LIST" REV. 226July 31 2012APPROVED IN CERTIFIED REMARKS: See OPERATING APPROVED IndicatePROGRAM USNRC PART VERSION CODE report indicated SYSTEM & COMPUTERS: Computer(Category) 50 & 71/72 SER: (Executable) USERSEXPERT for special VERSION(Docket #) 2 CODES limitations (Service pack4) Listed by ID ID(s) usedWindows XP (2) 2004, 2005, 2006,2007, 1008Windows XP (3) 1006, 1009, 1010Windows XP (2) 1016TBOIL 1,11 N/A ER N/A WindowsXPl() 1016Windows XP (3) 1016VERSUP 1.0 N/A AIS N/A Windows XP (2) 1016Visual DOC 50-133 24/A Windows XP (2) 1017, 1018 E101__8 ]EE_Nastran DOC 72-27 2004 N AIS, CWB N/A Windows XP (3) 1020,10281 C 72 I ,Windows 7 (0,1) 1044,1045Page C6 of C6 Project 1916 Report HI-2104715Appendix D: Coefficient of RestitutionCoefficient of Restitution / Percent Critical Damping Relationship(i-i1) ______ gii:= 1.. 40 z. 40 1-t cor. :=eS 40 2.[1-(z)2]1= co.=Z1 11 02 0.924 0.0250.854 0.050.79 0.0755 0.729 0.16 0.673 0.1250.621 0.158 0.572 0.1750.527 0.2100.484 0.22511 0.444 0.2512 0.407 0.27513 0.372 0.314 0.34 0.32515 0.309 0.3516 0.281 0.37517 0.254 0.418 0.229 0.42519 0.205 0.4520 0.183 0.475Appendix D -1 of 2G\Projects\1 916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev O\

Project 1916Report HI-210471500 cori I0U0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1Percent Critical DampingIn order to account for the non-linear impact occurring at interfaces of floor/cask duringan earthquake, the damping percentage at this interface is artificially set at 40%(corresponding to cor = 0.254) based on the results of the low velocity cask impactsimulations in DS-340 [5.2]. This value is not to be interpreted as a measure of intemaldamping, rather as a "pseudo damping" value that enables a reasonably accuratesolution of a non-linear dynamics problem using a simplified model. This approach hasbeen used previously by Holtec for Colombia Generating Station and Private FuelStorage, LLC and Hope Creek Generating Station.Appendix D -2 of 2G:\Projects\1 916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 0\

Project 1916 Report HI-21 04715I Project 1916Report HI-2104715 IAppendix E: Hydrostatic and Hydrodynamic Effects1. CALCULATION OF CAVITY FREE SPACE BASED ON AS-BUILTSThe dimensions are taken from Fig. 2.1 of [5.5] and [5.9]. Also, Fig. 2.1 is attached as Fig. El in thisAppendix.Cask cavity size:N-S direction:NSPit:= 116.125in +1.875in = 118. M'E-W direction:From Fig. El, based on the number of cells in Rack E3988.50in -- = 56.893. in14h := 30.5ft -L -199.587in -3in = 106.52

  • inhtotai : =h + 3.91lin = 110.43 -inwhere a gap of 3.91 inch is assumed as in Fig. El.EWPit := htotai = 110.43- inMaximum Cask Width (use the trunnion tip to tip distance) [5.12]ML := 91.5inThe leveling platform [5.13] is placed in the pool at an exact location specified by [5.15]. TheHI-TRAC is placed at the center of the platform. Per [5.15], the closet adjacent structure to theplatform center is identified as the N2 Rack as shown in calculation below, where 92" and 98. 75"are the width of platform [5.15, 5.13] in E-W and N-S direction, respectively.9 92in> 14gapEw := (4in+- + 4.8125. in16 2 298.75in~ MLgapNs:= 3in + 2 2=6.625iTherefore, the minimum gap around the HI-TRAC is calculated below and is used to assess if theHI-TRAC hits the surrounding structures under seismic event:gapmin := min(gapEw, gapNs) = 4.8125- inReference [5.15] shows the minimum gap between the leveling platform and the surroundingstructures is 3", existing between the platform and the North Wall. This minimum gap is used toassess if the leveling platform hits the surrounding structures under seismic event.Appendix E -1 of 3G:\Projects\1916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7\

I Project 1916Report HI-2104715I0zE2Fig. El Pool Layout -Campaign IAppendix E -2 of 3G:\Projects\1 916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7\ I I Project 1916Report HI-21047152. CALCULATION OF DISPLACED MASS OF CASK CONSIDERED AS A SINGLE BODYPROPRIETARYAppendix E -3 of 3G:\Projects\1916\REPORTS\StructuraI Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 7\'

Project 1916 Report HI-2104715Annendix F: CalculItion of Factors I° "r'r ..............................This appendix calculates the buoyancy factors and dynamic adder used in Table 3 in the mainreport. The rack information is from Table 2.3 of Ref. [5.5] and rack configurations are from Fig. 2.1and Fig. 2.2 of [5.5]. The submerged weights and dynamic adder forces (SSE) are from Page 5-28of Ref. [5.4].Table 171: Final RerackedConfiguration (with 680 lbs Regular Fuel)--IiRack ID Rack Empty Weight (Ibs) No. of Cells Fuel Weight (Ibs) Total Weight (Rack+Fuel) (Ibs)Ni 29400 288 195840 225240N2 28600 270 183600 212200N3-- 27100 266 180880 207980--------- 0 247 167960ý 193160N5 520N27 1v6760 193160.... .. N 5 ... ... ............ .... ........... ........... ... ........... ............ .... ..... .. ..... ... .......... ....... ............... .................... .............. ............. ......... .... .......... .... .... ..... ...... .... ...... ..... ........ ..... ..... ...... I .... ........... .... .................2 4 .....19 1 6N6_ 0 21300 208 141440 162740E- 23600 214 145520 169120E2 25200 230 156400 181600E3 31700 293 199240 230940E4 29000 266 180880 209880E5 29000 266 180880 .209880E6 29000 266 180880 209880E7 29000 266 180880 209880-E8 29000 266 180880 209880E9 29000 266 180880 2098800El0 76800 0 0 76800......... ........ ..... ................... .. .. ....... .......Total Dead Weight of Fully Loaded Racks (Ibs) 3112220.SUBMERGED WEIGHT (lbs) 26.. ...... .............. B U O.......F.... ...... ... .... ... ... .......... ..... ...... ........ ---- --- -. ...... ....BUOYANCY FACTOR 0.873 -.SSE DYNAMIC ADDER FORCE 1010816.32SSE DYNAMIC ADDER ---0.372Note that the dead weight of equipment rack E10 is estimated by multiplying the maximum staticload of the slab load point #25 by four. That is, 19,200 lbs

  • 4 = 76,800 Ibs, where 19,200 lbs isfrom Page 5-28 of Ref. [5.41.Appendix F -1 of 2G:\Projects\1916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 4\

I Project 1916Report HI-2104715Table F2: Rack Conflauration Cam'aiqn II and III (with 680 lbs Regular Fuel)Rack ID Rack Empty Weight (Ibs) No. of Cells Fuel Weight (Ibs) Total Weight (Rack+Fuel) (Ibs)N1 29400 288 195840 225240N2 28600 270 183600 212200N3 27100 266 180880 207980N4 25200 247 167960 _ 193160 ___N5 25200 247 167960 193160El 23600 214 145520 ____ 169120 ___E2 25200 230 156400 181600E33100293 199240 230940.. .....3 ... ............ ....... ... .3 1 0 ....... ......... ... ..... ............. .ý ....... ........... .. ......... .... ... ...... .... .. ...... ....... .... ...... ....... .... .. .................. ...2 9 1 9 9 2 4 0 0 ..... ........... :...............E4 29000 266 180880 209880E5 29000 266 -180880 209880E6 29000 266 180880 209880El 29000 266 180880 209880E8 29000 _______ 266 180880 209880E9 26629000 266 180880 209880El0 76800 0 0 76800... ......... .. ..... ... ....... ... ........Total Dead Weight of Fully Loaded Racks (lbs- ..... 2949480Note that Rack N6 is removed since it cannot co-exist with a HI-TRAC placed into the SFP fordry cask operations.Appendix F -2 of 2G:\Projects\1916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 4\ I Project 1916Report HI-2104715APPENDIX GBASELINE CORRECTION OF SSE TIME HISTORYPage G-1 of 5G:\Projects\1 916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 0 Project 1916Report HI-2104715The seismic acceleration time-histories of spent fuel slab at El. 74.25' are taken from theacceleration time-histories (set no. 3, i.e, a-tsse.h31, a-tsse.h32 and a-tsse.vt3) generated in thereport [5.3]. The acceleration-time histories are are integrated twice to form a velocity anddisplacement time history. This is easily performed using a simple sphere model inVisualNastran with arbitrary mass and applying the acceleration time history induced inertiaforce to the spherical mass. Figure 1 shows the spherical model in VN and the result of the rawintegration for El. 74.25'. There is a nonzero velocity existing at the end of the event as well as alarge final movement. This appendix documents the VisualNastran (VN) analyses focused onadding small corrective acceleration to the original acceleration time-histories from [5.3] toensure the velocity and displacement are truly zero at the end of seismic event. The outputacceleration time-histories from this appendix are used as inputs to represent the driving inertialloads in the VisualNastran (VN) model.I....... ---Figure 1: Time Histories of Displacement, Velocity and Acceleration BEFORE BaselineCorrection at El. 74.25'Page G-2 of 5G:\Projects\1 916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 0 Project 1916Report HI-2104715To baseline correct this input, an incremental velocity is assumed in each direction having theform:A2t2dv= Alt+At2The two constants of integration are chosen so that the total velocity (integrated by VN from theacceleration data + incremental velocity) is zero at the end of the specified 20-second duration,and the average total velocity over the event duration is zero. The following results are obtainedfor the two constants:A1 = (2ve- 6va )/ gteA2 = 6(2va -ve)/g(te)2The quantities in the above relations have the units of acceleration and acceleration/sec. and havebeen divided by gravity for convenience:Time duration = teVelocity at end of duration from initial integrated numerical time history = VeAverage velocity over entire duration from integrated numerical time history = vaEach of the above pieces of data is available from the Excel spreadsheet (for each direction ofexcitation) that accompanies the initial VN solution. Returning to the VN simulation model andcorrecting the input inertia forces by including the new incremental acceleration in each lateraldirection.Page G-3 of 5G:\Projects\1 916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 0 Project 1916Report HI-2104715Baseline Correction at El. 74.25 ft.Require that end velocity be zero and average velocity over duration be zero in each direction.x direction:v., = 12.4 inseeA, =(2v, -6v,)/gt,A2 = 6(2Va -_ v)/g(t )2Check: VX20= Alte + A22 _)92)in inva = 97.7 -4.885-120. sec secA, = -5.841x 10-4A2 = _ 1.022 x 10-4 1seevx2o =-12.4secy direction:v =-5.44 inseeA, =(2ve -6v.)/gt,A2= 6(2va -ve)/g(te)2in inva = -23.3- =-1.165-i20. see secA, = -5.038x 10-4A2=1.208x10-4 1--secCheck:VY20 Alt,+ A22JVY20 = 5.44 -seez direction:v 0.375inseeA, =(2v, --6Va)/ gteA2 = 6(2v. _ vJ)/g(t,)2in inva, = -3.38 = -0.169-20. sec secA, = 2.284x 10-4A2=-2.77x110--seePage G-4 of 5GAProjects\ 1916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 0 Project 1916Report HI-2104715Check:VZ2o=( Ate + A2LeginVZ20 = -0.375-isecFigure 2 shows the time histories of velocity and displacement after baseline correction at El.74.25'. It is shown the end velocities and displacements are effectively eliminated by thebaseline correction.Figure 2: Time Histories of Displacement, Velocity and Acceleration AFTER BaselineCorrection at El. 74.25'Page G-5 of 5G:\Projects\1 916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 0 APPENDIX HAPPENDIX H: LIFTING ANALYSIS OF LEVELING PLATFORM1.0 IntroductionThis appendix contains the analysis of the lifting points of the Pilgrim levelingplatform.2.0 MethodologyThe analysis is based on strength of materials formulations. All analyses and thepreparation of this report are carried out using the Mathcad electronic scratchpadprogram [3.13] on a computer using Windows 7.3.0 References[3.1] Holtec Drawing 8262, Rev 6.[3.2] Not Used.[3.3] USNRC NUREG 0612, Handling of Large Loads in Nuclear Plants.[3.4] ANSI N 14.6 Special Lifting Devices for Shipping Containers Weighing10000 lbs. (4500 kg.) or More for Nuclear Materials, 1993.[3.5] ASME Code,Section II, Part D, 1995.[3.8] Manual of Steel Construction, AISC, 9th Edition.[3.9] CMAA Specification #70, Crane Manufacturers of America, 1988.[3.10] ASME Code,Section III, Subsection NF, 2011.[3.11] Machinery's Handbook, 27th Edition, 2004.[3.12] Crosby catalog, 2011.[3.13] MATHCAD, Mathsoft, Version 15.0.[3.14] ASME BTH-1 -2011, Design of Below-the-Hook Lifting Devices, ASME.PROJECT 1916H-1 ofll1HI-2104715 APPENDIX H4.0 Acceptance Criteria, Allowable Strengths, and Assumptions4.1 Acceptance CriteriaLifting of heavy objects is governed by [3.3] which references [3.4] for actualnumerical values for allowable strengths. The primary normal stress ata given section must be less than the minimum of Sy/3 or Su/5 (Sy=materialyield strength; Su= material ultimate strength) when the applied load is equal tothe lifted load including any dynamic amplification. Further, in accordance with[3.4], a further reduction in allowable strengths, by a factor of 2.0, is mandatedif the lifting device does not have redundant load paths.There is no specific requirement for welds. Conservatively, it is assumed thatthe same requirement imposed on the base metal section is also imposed onthe weld section.There is no requirement to check any local or secondary stress states.4.2 Allowable StrengthsThe following materials and allowable strengths are used in this analysis.Values for yield strength and ultimate strength are obtained at 150 OF from [3.5].SA -240-304SA-479-304SY240 =26700.psiSy47926700-psiSU240 =73000.psiSU479 73000.psiBased on the above material strengths, the following allowable strengths arecomputed:(a20 fSY240 : SU,40 SY240 SU240(SY479 SU479 SY479 SU479)Sa7 i(6 :5 10 6'10)Sa24o= 4.45 x 103.psiSa47 = 4.45 x 103 psi4.3 AssumptionsPROJECT 1916H-2 of 11HI-2104715 APPENDIX HThe dynamic load factor is conservatively assumed to be 15% of dead weightto account for inertia effects, which is appropriate for low speed lifts.Shear strength is taken as 57.7% of the controlling normal stress allowable.The factor of 57.7% is the ratio of allowable stress in pure shear to theallowable stress in uniaxial tension based on the maximum distortion energyfailure theory.There is no limit set on local bearing stress in [3.3] and [3.4]; a limit on bearingstress is set at 90% of material yield at 3 times the lifted load to ensure noyielding under the test load.The total lifting load is uniformly distributed among the liffing slings. It can beachieved by adjusting the sling angles.4.4 Safety FactorThe safety factor at a particular location is defined as:SF. = allowable load (strength)/ calculated load (stress).The requirement for an acceptable design is that all safetyfactors be greater than 1.0.5.0 Input Data5.1 Load DataLoad:= 5000.IbfAnglel := 60.degAngle2:= 30.degDLF := .15Bounding Lift Load [3.1]Min. Sling Angle from Horizontal (note 10 of [3.1])Projected angle in plane of platform [3.1]Dynamic Load Factor to account for inertia effects [3.9]5.2 Geometry InputsThe geometry inputs are provided along with the corresponding analysis inSection 6.0.PROJECT 1916H-3 of 11HI-2104715 APPENDIX H6.0 AnalysesAll geometry inputs are from [3.1] unless otherwise noted.All item numbers and geometry data are from Ref. [3.1] unless otherwise noted.nsling 4 number of slingsLoad-(1 + DLF) _ 3Tension:= -Loa.(l+ L) -1.66 x 103. force in each slingnsling. sin(,Anglel1)Ph := Tension-cos(Angle1) = 829.941-1bf horizontal force componentP,:= Tension-sin(Anglei) = 1.437 x 1031Ibf vertical force component6.1 Lifting Shackle (item 7)Fwt 5tonne-g = 1.102 x 10 4-bf working load limit of shackle [3.12] 1Fu: F,1r4.5 = 4.96 x 104.1bf ultimate load limit is 4.5 timesworking load limit [3.12]Ful10 [SafetyFactort 2Safety Factortb .Tension f 2,988Note that the commerically procured shackle only needs to meet the 1/10th of theultimate per [3.3] and [3.4].6.2 Lifting Block (item 5)d := 4.5.inPROJECT 1916width of blockH-4 of 11HI-2104715 APPENDIX Hb := 0.75.inc:= 2indhole := 1-inhhol :=4-23in- lin = 3.719 in32dpi, :=0.75.inAnglel = 60.degdx := -= 2.25 in2thickness of lifting block near the topthickness of lifting block near the bottompin hole diameter at the toppin hole elevation (from the smallpinhole center near top to the root of thethin portion of block)lift pin diameter [3.12]angle of load applicationextreme fiber distance to centroidBearing Stress on block from Shackle Pin at Block TopAb:= dpin'b = 0.562 in2 bearing areaTension3Or := -2.951 x 10 3psi bearing stress on blockAbSY240Opbearing *= .9'- = 8.01 x 10 psi bearing stress allowable3SFb.- Upbearing [SFb = 2714 safety factor on bearingJ TbPROJECT 1916 H-5 of I1IHI-2104715 APPENDIX HTear Out of Pin at Liftina Block TorThe shear tear-out area is calculated using Eq (3-51) from [3.14].A,= 2[a + ýý" (I- cos 1)tAssuming the tearout is in the vertical direction instead of along the slingdirection to obtain conservative shear area and to simplify calculations. Theminimum edge distance from pinhole to edge of plate is:dholea:= lin-- =0 .5.in25,.:= 55. = 41.25dholeA, := 2 + ---i-.(1 -cos((0.deg)) b = 0.89.in2Tension 3Tt :=- = 1.866 x 10 .psiA,shear plane and vertical angletotal area of shear planesshear stressSa240-0.577SFt :TtSF7= 1.376]safety factor on tear outPROJECT 1916H-6 of 11HI-2104715 APPENDIX HDirection ofappliedload Shear planesCurved edge AfNr RP CL holewhere:-, = total area of the two shear planes beyond the pinholea minimum edge distance from pinhole to edge of plate= plate thicknessDv = pin diameterDI, = hole diameter= 55LP (in degrees)Figure 1 [3.14]Tensile Stress at Pin Hole Cross-Section at Lifting Block TopAh := (d -dhole)-b = 2.625 in2Tensionh .- Te -= 632.336.psiAharea at pin hole cross-sectiontensile stress at pin hole cross-sectionsafety factor at hole cross-sectionSFh= _(rhSFh =7.03 7Stress at Root of Lifting Block's Thin PortionPROJECT 1916H-7 of 11HI-2104715 APPENDIX HThe thickness of lifting block transitions from thickness "b" to "c" near themid-height. The thickness "c" is 2.67 times the thickness "b". The loading pattemon the lifting block and the geometry determines the critical cross-section is at theroom of the lifting block's thin portion.The critical cross-section is subjected to tensile stress from vertical component ofsling load, shear stress from horizontal component of sling load, and bendingstress from the horizontal component of sling load.3M := Ph'hhole = 3.086 x 10. Ibf-ind3.b 4:= = 5.695 in12M d 13.sorb : d.= 1.219 x 10 psi1 2o- = 425.926-psib.d3(r1combine: (Tb + (t= 1.645 x 10 *psibending momentbending moment of inertiabending stresstensile stress from tensioncombined tensile stresssafety factor for tensile stressSa24oSFT I -O't combineFsF72-7 0 5TL.- -- 245.908-psib dshear stressSa240-0.577SFs.TLISS 0.441safety factor for shear6.3 Lifting Bar (item 6)PROJECT 1916H-8 of 11HI-2104715 APPENDIX HAll item numbers and geometry data are from Ref. [3.1] unless otherwise noted.The lifting bar (or pin) goes through the thicker portion of lifting block at the bottom.The pin is supported at two ends by the platform plate (item 1).dl := 1.5inlifting pin diameterload on pin is conservatively taken as the sling load.Ppin := Tension = 1.66 x 103.IbfThe pin is subjected to a shear load. The maximum shear stress in the pin iscalculated as:.pini Pi 469~.651-psi0.577-Sa479SFshear :shear stressSFshe, = 5.467EThe bending of the pin is evaluated by assuming simple support conditionsfor the pin. The beam span is conservatively assumed to be the distancebetween the mid-points of the supported ends of the pin. The beam spanassumption is an extremely conservative assumption. The lift load is appliedas a uniformly distributed load over the width of the lifting foot. It is notedthere is 1/8" gap between the lifting block and the inside edges of theplatform plate (2.125"-2"). The 1/8" gap may cause slight of-center loadingon the pin. However, the effect is negligible and therefore is not consideredherein.c = 2 inlifting plate thickness at bottom(6 -2.125)inL := + 2.125in = 4.063 in2assumed beam spana:= c = 2 inload spanPROJECT 1916H-9 of 11HI-2104715 APPENDIX Hcrl := 0.04indiametral clearance on pin and pin holeMoment:= .= 1.271 x 103.Ibf-in2 2 2ITr 4 4:= -.dl =0.249 in64dl 3('bendingI := Moment.- = 3.835 x 10 .psi2.1maximum bending stress in pinmoment of inertia of pinbending stress in pinSFbendl .(Tbending iSFbend = 1.16beafina at pinhole at liftinq block bottomLifting pin and lifting block are made of two different materials.min(SY479, SY240) 3rpbearing .9= 8.01 x 10 .psi3P.iO'bear= = 553.294"psidl'cSFbem1 := pbearingOTbearlbearing stress allowablebearing stressSFbearl = 14.477ftearout at pinhole at liftinc block bottomThe shear tear-out area is calculated using Eq (3-51)from [3.14]. The sketchis shown in Figure 1 above.PROJECT 1916H-10 of 11HI-210471 5 APPENDIX H1.54ina:= 2in -l.23in24:= dl0:= 55. -= 53.5711.54inA, := 2 a + -( -cos(dp-deg) c= 6.139.inpinTtearl .=..L. = 270.403.psiA,,.577Sa240SFteaI :=iTtearlminimum edge distance frompinhole to edge of plateshear plane and vertical angletotal area of shear planesshear stressISFteaz = 9.4967.0 ConclusionSince safety factors of parts that are in the load path are all greater than 1.0,using the specified allowable strengths in section 4.2, the lifting point meets therequirements of NUREG 0612 and ANSI N14.6. Therefore, the lifting point isacceptable.PROJECT 1916H-11 ofll1HI-2104715 Project 1916 Appendix I Report HI-2104715APPENDIX I: ANALYSIS OF SPENT FUEL POOL SLABIN CAMPAIGN II AND III CONFIGURATIONINTRODUCTIONThe finite element model described in Ref. [1.1] is non-conservative because itcredits temporary columns to support the spent fuel pool slab. This appendix analyzes thespent fuel pool slab under the limiting load combination (1.4D +1.7E) per [1.1], withoutcrediting any of the steel beams/girders beneath the slab. The applied flexural loads are fromthe slab dead weight, water in the pool, Campaign II and III racks (with regular fuel) andHI-TRAC IO0D cask.METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONSThe spent fuel pool slab is analyzed as a rectangular plate under a uniform pressure loadcorresponding to the limiting load combination 1.4D + 1.7 E. The flexure of the slab isanalyzed. Two different sets of boundary conditions are analyzed for the slab forcompleteness:1) all edges fixed;2) three edges fixed (north, south, and east) and one edge simply supported (west).The load on the slab is assumed to be uniform pressure.The SSE dynamic loads from the racks and HI-TRAC cask are conservatively assumed tobe the OBE loads.ACCEPTANCE CRITERIAThe calculated maximum bending moment in the slab under flexural loading shall be lessthan the reinforcement ultimate moment obtained from [1.1].REFERENCES[1.1] Holtec Report HI-92952, "Calculation Package for Pilgrim Spent Fuel Pool SlabStructural Requalification", Rev. 1.[1.2] Young, W.C., Roark's Formulas for Stress & Strain, McGraw Hill International,6th Edition.[1.3] Bechtel Drawing C-108 Rev. 3.Page I-1 of 1-8 Project 1916 Appendix I Report HI-2104715INPUT DATAL := 484.inW:= 366-int:= 60.inH:= 39.ftIc := 165-pcf-1w:= 62.42.pcfD1 2949480.lbfE :=0.372.D,D4 := 1910001bfE4:= 1.680.D4az := 0.3108Inside dimension of SFP in NS direction [1.3]Inside dimension of SFP in EW direction [1.3]Thickness of SFP concrete slab (Page 4-1 of [1.1])Height of SFP water above slab (Page 5.1C of [1.1])Weight density of reinforced concrete (Page 2-5 of [1.1])Weight density of waterDead weight of racks in Campaign II and III (with regular fuelweighing 680 lb per assembly) (from Table 2 of main report)OBE dynamic adder associated with loaded racks(conservatively uses SSE result from Table 2 of main report)HI-TRAC dead weight [5.8]OBE dynamic adder associated with HI-TRAC (conservativelyuses SSE results from Table 2 of main report)OBE vertical acceleration of SFP slab at 10.596 Hz(from p. 6-1C and 5B-6 of [1.1])Page 1-2 of I-8 Project 1916 Appendix I Report HI-2104715CALCULATIONSWeight of water in SFPD :=L.W.t.-YcSelf weight of reinforced concrete slab (excluding girders)D1 + D2 + D3 + D4D = 40.363psiL.WEquivalent pressure on wetted slab areadue to dead loads from racks and caskHydrodynamic force on slab due to OBE loadingSeismic inertia force acting on slab due to OBE loadingEl + E2 + E3 + E4E := L-= 15.04-psiL.Wq :=1.4-D + 1.7.E = 82.076-psiEquivalent pressure on wetted slab areadue to OBE loads from racks and caskFactored pressure load on slab for loadcombination 1.4D + 1.7EUse Table 26 from [1.2] to evaluate the flexural loads on the SFP slab. Two different sets ofboundary conditions are evaluated.Boundary Condition 1: All edaes fixed (Case No. 8 from Table 26 of [1.21)a:= Lb:= Wa-= 1.322bOlx:= (1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 1010P(0.3078 0.3834 0.4356 0.4680 0.4872 0.4974 0.5000)Page 1-3 of 1-8 Project 1916 Appendix I Report HI-2104715linterp( 01X T, OyT, a 0 = 0.415P2x:= [Ix022y:= (0.1386 0.1794 0.2094 0.2286 0.2406 0.2472 0.2500)linterp(s2XT, 02yT,fb) [2=0.198At center of long edge (east edge of slab at center):(71 .- -21 = -1.268 x 10 3psi2t2"I .- Crv M, 1= -761.098 kip.6 inkip-inMe:= 1027.1 Reinforcement Ultimate Moment (from p. 4B-4 and 4B-34 of [1.1])inSF:.- MI ISF = 1.349At center (slab center region):0 2.q-b22T2 2 O"2 = 603.973.psit2cr2.t kip.inM2 .- M2 = 362.384-k6 inMC:= 919.1-kp Reinforcement Ultimate Moment (from p. 4B-4 and 4B-34 of [1.1])inPage 1-4 of I-8 Project 1916 Appendix I Report HI-2104715SF .- ISF = 2.536IM21Boundary Condition 2: Three edges fixed, one edge simply supported(Case No. 9 from Table 26 of [I.21)a:= Lb:= Wa = 1.322b[3x (0.25 0.50 0.75 1.0 1.5 2.0 3.0)031y:= (0.020 0.081 0.173 0.307 0.539 0.657 0.718)y01 := linterp 01 x T,3y T,' a1 = 0.45702x,:= 1x02y:= (0.004 0.018 0.062 0.134 0.284 0.370 0.422)3:np T,0) T,a P, = 0.23102 / :=litep(2 -Y -b)03x:= O31x03y:=(0.016 0.061 0.118 0.158 0.164 0.135 0.097)33 := linterp03xT,033T,ba 133 = 0.162034x:= 131xPage 1-5 of 1-8 Project 1916 Appendix I Report HI-2104715134y:= (0.031 0.121 0.242 0.343 0.417 0.398 0.318)034 :=linterp(134x, , Y Tb34 = 0.391At x = 0, z = 0 (east edge of slab at center):2or tMI.-6Mc : 1027.1-ýýino"1 = -1.394 x 10 3psiM= -836.683 kip.ininReinforcement Ultimate Moment (from p. 4B-4 and 4B-34 of [1.1])SF .- meISF = 1.228]IMIIAt x = 0, z = 0.6b (slab center region):0,2.q-b 22t2cr2.M2 0=-2't-6M 919.1kip-inincr2= 704.637-psiM2= 422.782- kip.ininReinforcement Ultimate Moment (from p. 4B-4 and 4B-34 of [1.1])M cSF.-1 M21PSF = 2.174 JPage 1-6 of 1-8 Project 1916 Appendix I Report HI-210471503-q- 2U3* 222o-3.M 3 := --'--6Mc:= 729.inSF-McSF:=0-3 = 494.357.psiM3 = 296.614. kip7iinReinforcement Ultimate Moment (from p. 4B-4 and 4B-34 of [1.1])ISF = 2.458 1At x = +/- a/2, z = 0.6b (north and south edges of slab near center):-P34. q20T4 2t2(04'M4" 6Mc:= 1027.1.Ain("4 = -1.193 x 10 3psiM 4 =-715.962 .kip .-ininReinforcement Ultimate Moment (from p. 4B-4 and 4B-34 of [1.1])M cSF:=1M41ISF = 1.435 ]Slab Shear CheckThe "beam shear" is not a credible failure mode for the slab and therefore the beamshear stresses need not be evaluated. However, a peripheral shear check is requiredfor the gross floor slab load and is performed as follows.fc:= 4000psiconcrete compressive strength (Page 6-90 of [5.4])Page 1-7 of 1-8 Project 1916 Appendix I Report HI-2104715d := 57indistance from the most compressed fiber to thetensile reinforcement (Page 6-90 of [5.4])b0 := (L + W -2.d).2 = 1.472 x 103.inslab perimeterNext is to calculate the minimum shear capacity of slab, Vcap. Per Section 11.12.2.1 of[5.11], Vcap is the smallest of the following two capacities:L3:= = 1.322Wratio of long side to short side of the slab( 4~' 7VCap, :=O.85. (2 + ýpi b' = 2.266 x 10 .*fbfcapacity 1ot:= 30parameter of edge column( ~ d'- 7:= 0.85- 2 + p" b d = 1.426 x 10- lbfVcap2 0)VCOVcap:= min(VcapI, Vcap2) = 1.426 x 107.1bf7Dtotal: q.(L -d).(W -d) = 1.083 x 10 *Ibfcalculated minimum shear capacityper ACI Code [5.11]total vertical load on slabsafety factor.- VcapSF DtDtotal[SF = 1.317CONCLUSIONThis appendix analyzes the spent fuel pool slab under the limiting load combination (1.4D+1.7E), without crediting any of the steel beams/girders beneath the slab. It is shown thatthe calculated maximum bending moments in the slab under flexural loading are less thanthe reinforcement ultimate moment. Therefore, the existing loads on the SFP slab fromCampaign II and III racks (with regular fuel) and the loaded HI-TRAC cask are well within itsdesign capacity. Also, the slab shear stress around the periphery is within its capacity.Page 1-8 of I-8 Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-2104715APPENDIX J: ANALYSIS OF LEVELING PLATFORM ASSEMBLY UNDERNORMAL, SSE AND OBE CONDITIONS1.0 IntroductionIn this appendix, the leveling platform (adjustable supports or pedestals) that are used tosupport the loaded HI-TRAC 100D under normal and seismic conditions are analyzed forstrength and thread engagement length.2.0 Methodology & AssumptionsThe structural adequacy of the Leveling Platform is established using the formulations of strength ofmaterials and static equilibrium. The maximum tension, compression,shear, bending, and combinedstresses are calculated for the structural members of the Leveling Platform, and then safety factors areevaluated based on the allowable stress limits set in section 3.The required data for analysis is: 1) number of pedestals; 2) internal and external thread dimensions;3) load under normal and seismic conditions; and 4) material properties.E70XX series (or better) electrodes are used to fabricate the adjustable platform plate assembly, whichhas an ultimate strength of 70 ksi. The tensile strength of 70 ksi is used to compute the weld safetyfactor.3.0 Acceptance CriteriaThe acceptance criteria for normal and SSE conditions are based on ANSI/AISC N690 [J.8] as guidedby NRC and Purchase Specification For Pilgrim Leveling Platform [J.4].3.1 Level AStress limits for Normal Conditions (Level A) are derived from Sections Q1.5 and Q1.6 of AISCN690-1994 [J.8]. Terminology is in accordance with the AISC Specification.Allowable stress in tension is taken as 0.6 times yield strength on the gross area, but notmore than 0.5 times the tensile strength on the effective net area. (Q1.5.1.1)Ft = 0.60. Fy < 0.50Fuii. Allowable stress in shear on a effective cross-sectional area is taken as 0.4 timesyield strength. (Q1.5.1.2.1)Fv = 0.40. Fyiii. For stainless steel, allowable stress in compression on the gross section of axiallyloaded compression members whose cross-sections meet the provision of Kilr,the largest effective slendemess ratio of any unbraced segment, equal to or less than120, is taken as (Q1.5.1.3.5, Q1.5.9.1, Eq. Q1.5-11)Page J-1 of J27

[Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-2104715IFa FJF -2.15 .'20 °where I = Unbraced length,r = Radius of gyration,if C = K < 120rK = Effective length factor,iv. Allowable stress in bending is taken as 0.75 times yield strength for solid roundand square bars.(Q1.5.1.4.3)Fb = 0.75.Fyv. Members subjected to both axial compression and bending stresses shall beproportioned to satisfy the following requirements (Q1.6.1)fa + rCmx'fbx Cmy'fby <1.0F+ fe bx + --I F<yFex) -Fey)fa fbx0.6Fy Fbxfbyy 1.0EbyFor structural grade steelsI127r-EFe.F =2:3 K.- L(\ rb)For stainless steels2T" .E2Fe 2-k,. rb jICmEE2is a coefficient whose value is conservatively taken as 1.0 in this study.is the modulus of elasticity, 29,000 ksi (steel)is the initial modulus of elasticity of stainless steel 28,000 ksivi. Allowable shear stress on an effective area of a fillet weld is taken as 0.3 timesnominal tensile strength of weld metal.Allowable tension or compression parallel to axis of fillet welds is the same as theallowables in the base metal.(Table Q1.5.3)Page J-2 of J27 Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-21047153.2 Level DSection 7.1 of PS-5256, Rev. 0, "Purchase Specification For Pilgrim Leveling Platform" [J.4] specifiesthat the allowable stresses should not exceed the ones from N690-1994 [J.8].As Per Table Q1.5.7.1 in AISC N690-1994 [J.8], the allowable stresses in tension, bending, andcompression are taken as 1.6 times the values in Level A conditions; while the allowable stresses inshear are taken as 1.4 times the values in Level A conditions. Therefore, the stress limits for the Level Dcondition are established as follows:i. Allowable stress in tension is taken as 1.6 times the value in Level A conditions.ii. Allowable stress in shear on a effective section is taken as 1.4 times the valuein Level A conditions.iii Allowable stress in compression is taken as 1.6 times the value in Level Aconditions.iv. Allowable stress in bending should be taken as 1.6 times the value in Level A conditions. Insteadthe allowable is conservatively taken as 0.95 Sy.v. Allowable stress in welds is taken as 1.4 times the value in Level A conditions.4.0 CompositionThis document is created using the Mathcad (version 15.0) software package. Mathcad uses the symbolI:='as an assignment operator, and the equals symbol '=' retrieves values for constants or variables.5.0 References[J.1] E. Oberg and F.D. Jones, "Machinery's Handbook", 27th Edition, Industrial Press, 2004.[J.2] ASME CODE,Section II, Part D, 1995 edition.[J.3] Holtec Drawing 8262, Revision 6.[J.4] PS-5256, Revision 0, "Purchase Specification For Pilgrim Leveling Platform".[J.5] Not Used.[J.6] ASME Code Section III, Appendix F, 2004.[J.7] ANSI/ASME BI. 1, "Unified Inch Screw Threads, UN and UNR Thread Form", 2003.[J.8] ANSI/AISC N690-1994, "American National Standard Specification for the Design, Fabrication,and Erection of Steel Safety-Related Structures for Nuclear Facilities".[J.9] PILGRIM Final Safety Analysis Report, Revision 27.(J.10] Holtec Report HI-2002444, HI-STORM 100 FSAR, Rev. 9., Table 3.2.2.[J.11]ANSYS 13.0, SAS IP, Inc. 2010.Page J-3 of J27 Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-2104715[J.12] Pilgrim specification No. C-114-ER-Q-EO, "Seismic Response Spectra".6.0 Analyses6.1 Input Datadb := 5 inLas:= 5.25indb2Ad:= 4.-N:= 4--inp:= -= 0.25.inNAdjustable support diameter [J.3]Total length of adjustable support [J.3]Area of the unthreaded portion of the adjustable supportNumber of threads per inch (UN) [J.3]Thread pitch [J.7]Leng:= 2.5.in Minimum thread engagement [J.3]Note: Minimum thread engagement is assumed to be the same as the blocksupport pedestal thickness.From Section 5.8 of [J.7], Class 1A (external threads) pitch diameter tolerance is calculated as:tOlpD [2A:= 0.0015- + 0.0015. -+- intOlPD 2 = .O89ialllA:= 0.3-tOIpD_2AalllA = 0.003267.in Class 1A (external threads) allowance [J.7]Class IA (external threads) major diameter tolerance is calculated as:(1)tOlMD-IA:= 0-09'[(-.E)l -ininPageJ-41A = J27Page J-4 of J27 Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-2104715Class IA (external threads) pitch diameter tolerance is calculated as:tOIpD_lA:= 1.5.tOIpD_2A tOlpD_1A = 0.016334.inClass 1B (internal threads) minor diameter tolerance is calculated as:tOIMDIB := [.25.,7 -0.4 ).] -in tOIMDIB = 0.0375-inClass 1 B (internal threads) pitch diameter tolerance is calculated as:tOIpD1B := 1.95"tOIpD_2A tOIpD_1B = 0.021234.inD2 := 4.8376.in basic pitch diameter [J.7, table 9]DI 4.7294-in basic minor diameter of internal threads [J.7, table9]d3 = 4.7023 in minor diameter of external threads [J.7, table 9]Thread dimensions below are calculated as per [J.7, table 17]:Dsmin:= db -alllA -tOIMD 1A Dsmin = 4.961 -in minimum major diameter of external threadEsmin := D2 -alliA -tOIpD_1A Esmin = 4.818 -in minimum pitch diameter of external threadKnmax:= D1 + tOIMD_lB Knmax = 4.7669.in maximum minor diameter of internal threadEnmax:= D2 + tOIpD_lB Enmax = 4.8588-in maximum pitch diameter of internal threadTensile stress area [J.1, page 1510]Esmin 0.16238 2 2At, := 3.1416. 2 -N At1 = 17.622-in tensile stress area for S564At2 := 0.7854.(db -At2= 17.769-in2tensile stress area for S240Page J-5 of J27

[Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-2104715At:= min(Atl,At2)IT 2Agross:= -'dbsqw:= 1.375inT.(d,)4 sq64 12"T"(d3)2 sq 2A, :=- sqw4At = 17.622.in2minimum tensile stress areaAgross = 19.635.in2Gross area of support11 23.702. in 4A, 15.476*in 2r, 1.238-inwidth of square inside the adjustable support [J.3]moment of inertia of the adjustable support(conservative)cross sectional area of the adjustable support(conservative)r1:= -radius of gyrationL, := 4.25-in Unsupported length of the adjustable support [J.3](conservative)Since both ends of the pedestal are fixed in rotation, the recommended effective K value as a guidedcantilever beam is:K1:= 1.2 Slendemess Ratio [J.8, table CQ-1.8.1]6.2 Material Properties:SA-240-304 Stainless Steel (at 150 dee F temoerature)Sy:= 26700-psiSu :=73000 psi7E, 2.78077-10 .*psiYield Stress [J.2]Ultimate Stress [J.2]Young's Modulus [J.2]Note: Internal and external thread materials have different strengths.Page J-6 of J27 Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-2104715SA-564-630, H1100 Stainless Steel (at 150 deg F temperature)S564y:= 109200-psiS564u:= 140000.psi7E:=2.85.10 .psiYield Stress [J.2]Ultimate Stress [J.2]Young's Modulus (J.2]6.3 Level A Allowable Stresses (Section 3.1 of this appendix)SA-240-304 Stainless SteelAllowable Tension Stress Sten_nor:= min(0.6Sy,0.5.Su) Sten_nor= 16020.psiAllowable Shear Stress Sshnor :0.4.Sy Sshnor = 10680 -psi0.3Weld Allowable Stress Sw-nor := 70ksi Sw-nor= 14849.2. psiNote: 1. The ý factor is to account for the minimum throat area of a fillet weld.2. The use of 70 ksi tensile strength is based on Section 2- Assumption in this Appendix.SA-564-630, H1100 Stainless SteelAllowable Tension StressAllowable Shear StressStennor2 := min(O.6. S564y, 0.5 S564u)Ssh_nor2:= 0.4.S564ySten_nor2 = 65520-psiSsh_nor2 = 43680 .psiAllowable Compression StressK1 .L1C:=- = 4.121r1< 120s564y 6S564y 2.15.ksiScmp-nr2 "-2.15.ksi 1 -1 ksicompknor 120Scomp-nor2 = 49252.5 .psiSbennor2 = 81900.psiAllowable Bending StressSben~nor2 := 075*564yPage J-7 of J27 Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-21047156.4 Level D Allowable Stresses (Section 3.2 of this appendix)SA-240-304 Stainless SteelAllowable Tension StressAllowable Shear StressWeld Allowable StressSten_acc:= 1..6StennorSshacc := 1.4 SshnorSw_acc:= 1.4.SwnorSten acc= 25632-psiSshacc 14952-psiSw-acc = 20788.9 psiSA-564-630, H1100 Stainless SteelAllowable Tension StressAllowable Shear StressStenacc2 1.6.Stennor2Sshacc2 : 1.4-Sshnor2Sten-acc2 =104832-pSi5Sh-acc2 =61152.psiAllowable Compression Stress Scompacc2 := [.6-Scompnor2 Sompacc2 = 78804.014.psiNote: The critical buckling stress is 1.7 times the Level A compressive allowable per Section Q2.4 of [J.8].Allowable Bending Stress Sben acc2 := 0.95.S564y Sben_acc2 = 103740 psi6.5 Level A Stresses and Safety Factors Calculations:Maximum load on adjustable supports (or pedestals), for conservatism buoyancy affects is not includedLoaded HI-TRAC 100D (Bounding)Weight of leveling platform (Bounding)Peak Vertical Load (Bounding)Number of Pedestals to be ConsideredWHTRC:= 191000.lbf [J.i10WLp:= 5000.lbf [J.3]WPVL := WHTRc + W1P 196000. lbfNB:= 6 [J. 3]WPVLWped= -= 32666.667.1bfN BMaximum Load per PedestalPage J-8 of J27 Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-2104715I6.5.1 Length of Engagement/Strength CalculationsIn this section, it is shown that the length of thread engagement is adequate. The method andterminology of [J. 1] are followed.7t.NLeng.Knmax.*2 + 0.57735-(Esmin -Knmax)] = shear area of the exterAs:=~~~sea atrN'Lag omfx th + e2.1"nrnal threadsAn := 7r. N. Leng" Dsmin' -+ 0.57735 .(Dsmin -Enma = 28.677.in2 shear area oThe tensile stress area is conservatively used for compression.LCped:= (Scompnor2).At LCped = 867942.6.lbf Pedestal CompressionLCpedthrd := (Ssh-nor2).As LCpedthrd = 1010654.5.1bf Pedestal Extemal ThrELCsp := (Sshnor).An LCsp = 306265.2.lbf Support Plate intemalTherefore, the total minimum load capacities are calculated as:Loadped:= NB. LCped Loadped = 5207655.6-1bfLoadpedthrd := NB LCpedthrd Loadpedthrd = 6063927.1 -1bfLoadsp := NB.LCsp Loadsp = 1837591.3 .Ibff the intemal threadsLoad Capacityead Load Capacitythread Load CapacityLoadpedS~ped .WPVLLoadpedthrdSFpedthrd .WPVLLoadspSFp.-WpVLISFped = 26.57 1ISFpedthrd = 30.938IFs- = 9-375Page J-9 of J27 IProject 1916 Appendix J Report HI-210471516.5.2 Bending stress on adjustable supportMaximum coefficient of friction[Section 4.3]Maximum shear load on each pedestalcof:= 0.8SLW:= cof.WpedSL, = 26133.3 .lbfFor a beam with rotational restraints on both ends and fixed at one end, if a force F is applied atone end of the beam, then the maximum moment occurs at the same end which is equal to FL/2.Per note #6 in DWG 8262 [J.3], the minimum thread engagement of support is 2.5",therefore, the maximum unsupported length of the adjustable support isLuas:= Las -2.5in = 2.75. inMaximum bending moment in the support, conservatively usingLuasMoment := SLw.- Mome2Luas:= L, 4.25. in4nt = 5.553 x 10 .*lbf-inMaximum stress due to bending in the supportMoment.dbO'bend := 211Sbennor2Sbend.-O'bendO'bend = 5.857 x 10 3psi[SFbend= 13.982]6.5.3 Combined comoression and bendinq on adiustable supportInitial modulus of elasticity of stainless steelE2e := 28000ksiFor stainless steels2*T E2eFe =2Fe = 7.569 x 106. psiTo obtain the most conservative results, the largest coefficient values for Cmx andCmy as indicated in Section Q1.6 of [J.8] are used here:Cmx:= 1.0Cmy:= 1.0For the combined axial compressive and bending stresses, two bounding cases are evaluatedPage J-10 of J27 Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-2104715here. The first case is the bending stress in one direction only. The second case is thebending stress in the direction of 45 degrees from the x coordinate, which indicates bendingstresses in both x and y directions.Case 1.Bending stress in x direction onlyfa=Wpedfbx:= cJ'bendFa := Scompnor2Fbx:= Sbennor2fab+ = 0.109Y- Fe ~Fbxfa fbx+ -= 0.10.6 S564y Fbx< 1.0- OK< 1.0- OKCase 2. Bending stress in 45 degree to x directionfbx:= °'bend " N -2fby:= O'bend" %F2Cmx'fbx-t +1 -* FbxFe)Fbx:= Sbennor2Fby:= Sben_nor2faFaCmy" fbyCmy -0.139-l ~Fby<1.0-OKbx bya ++ + = 0.1290.6. S564y Fbx Fby<1.0-OK6.5.4 Shear stress in Pedestal Block and Adiustable SupportPage J-11 of J27 Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-2104715Conservatively using the cross-sectional area of adjustable support.Apb:= A1Apb = 15.476.in2Shear stressSIL,ApbO'pb = 1688.7. psiISFpb = 6.325 ]Safety factorSsh norSFpb: .-O'pb6.5.5 Support Pedestal Block to Shim Plate WeldThere are two forces applied on the block support pedestal: compression force and friction force. Theseloads tend to twist the pedestal causing a tension load on one side and compression on the other side.Therefore, one comer of the block support pedestal may be placed in tension. The maximum weld stressis then derived from combination of the maximum shear force and the maximum tensile force. Themaximum shear stress from friction can be obtained through simple calculation as shown below. AnANSYS [J.11] model is used to develop the load along the welds surrounding the pedestal and to obtainthe maximum tensile stress.Maximum coefficient of friction[Section 4.3]cof:= 0.8Maximum shear load on weld of each pedestalThickness of fillet weld #1 [J.3]Size of square Support Pedestal Block [J.3]Weld length of stiffener plates [J.3]Thickness of fillet weld #2 at stiffener plates [J.3]Minimum thickness of Shim Plate [J.3]SLw := cof.Wpedtw:= 0.5.inLbl:= 6.75-inLgp:= 3.375 intwg := 0.375intsp := 1.75-inSLw = 26133.3 -lbfWeld area for each Block (6.75 X 6.75) and attached four stiffener plates [J.3]Aw:= tw.(4.Lbl) + twg.2.Lgp-4Shear stress in the weldAw = 23.625-in2SLWaw = 1106.2. psiWeld stress is derived from combination of the maximum shear stress from normal conditionPage J-12 of J27

[Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-2104715obtained above and the maximum tensile stress obtained from ANSYS model. Only the weldsbetween the support pedestal block and the shim plate is modeled in ANSYS. The weldsbetween the four stiffener plates and the shim plate is not included for simplicity. Since thepedestal is fixed in rotation at both ends, the length of the pedestal as a cantilever beamelement in the ANSYS model is 0.5 times its actual unsupported length.ANSYS Inout Data: (See Appendix K for input file)Length of square pedestal sideLbI = 6.75 inOverall effective height of the pedestalMaximum shear load on weld of any pedestal(Frictional load)Maximum axial load on any pedestalWeld area per node (total 8 nodes on one pedestal side)Weld Area5.25Hbl := -in2SLw = 26133.333 .lbfWped = 32666.667.lbfLbIANT := --tw8ANT = 0.422.-in2Maximum tensile force on nodemtfs := 64.1011bf(see ANSYS output list, FORCESNOR.LST in Appendix L)Weld stress:Safety factor:(_ mtfs 2+e , ANT) +SwnorSFweld.-O'weld(Tweld = 1116.559.psiIS.d = 3.29916.5.6 Shear stress in the base metal (Shim Plate)Shear area of the base metal (Shim Plate)Shear stress in the base metal (Shim Plate)Safety factor for base metal (Shim Plate)Asp:=AwSLwAp= 23.625. in 2Us5= 1106.2.psiSsh norSFsp: oTspSFsp = 9.655 1Page J-13 of J27 Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-21047156.5.7 Bending stress in the base metal (Shim Plate)There is no significant bending stresses in the plate since the HI-TRAC sits directly above thesupport pedestals. In other words, the load travels from the bottom of the HI-TRAC pool lid to thetop plate of the leveling platform, from the top plate to the pedestal support block through directcompression, and from the pedestal support block to the threaded pedestals through the threads.Since the support pedestals are within the footprint of the HI-TRAC, the top plate of the platformdoes not carry any load in bending. Also, the platform is not anchored to the floor, so platform willtend to follow the HI-TRAC as it rotates from vertical.6.6 Level D Stresses and Safety Factors Calculations:In the event of an earthquake causing rocking of the cask the load will be carried by only two pedestals.Therefore, for seismic load cases SSE (level D) and OBE the load is distributed over two pedestals.Peak Vertical Load (Bounding)Weight of leveling platform (Bounding)WSSE:= 520000.lbfWLP:= 5000.1bf[Table 1][J.3]Total Vertical Load(" WssE "Wtotal:= WSSE + WLP'- W-'TRc= 5336131lbfNote: for the SSE and the OBE conditions the load is conservatively applied to two pedestals onlyto account for rocking.Number of Pedestals to be ConsideredMaximum load per pedestal (Bounding)NB:= 2[J.3]WtotalWped := = 266806.lbfNB6.6.1 Length of Engagement/Strength CalculationsIn this section, it is shown that the length of thread engagement is adequate. The method andterminology of [J. 1] are followed.recallA, = 23.138-in2An = 28.677- in 2Therefore, the minimum load capacities are calculated as (conservatively use tensile stress area incompression evaluation)LCped := (Scomp acc2)'AtLCpedthrd := (Sshacc2)'AsLCsp := (Sh_acc).AnLC ped = 13 88708.2 -lbfPedestal Compression Load CapacityLCpedthrd = 1414916.3 -lbf Pedestal Extemal Thread Load CapacityLCsp = 428771.3. lbfSupport Plate internal thread Load CapacityPage J-14 of J27 Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-2104715SFp=LC.PSF~WpedSFsp= 1.6077LCpedthrdSFpedthrd -WpedLCpedWpedSFpedthrd = 5.303ISFped = 5.205716.6.2 Bendina stress on the adjustable supportPeak Frictional Force (Bounding)WPFL= 400000.lbf[Table 1]Maximum shear load on weld of any support (Bounding)SL: WF = 200000.lbfFor a beam with rotational restraints on both ends and fixed at one end, if the friction forceapplied at one end of the beam is F, the maximum moment occurs at the same end whichequals to FL/2.Per note #6 in DWG 8262 [J.3], the minimum thread engagement of support is 2.5",therefore, the maximum unsupported length of the adjustable support isLuas := Las -2.5in = 2.75 inmaximum bending moment in the support, conservatively usingLuasMoment:= SLw.- Mome2Luas:= L1= 4.25.innt = 4.25 x 105.1bf inmaximum stress due to bending in the supportMoment.dbO'bend 21,Sben acc2SFbend :=O'bendO'bend = 4.483 x 10 .psi[SFbend= 2.314]6.6.3 Combined compression and bending on adPustable suJportPage J-1 5 of J27 Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-2104715Initial modulus of elasticity of stainless steelE2e := 28000ksiFor stainless steels27T .E2eFe 2.15 K, LuasrFe=7.569x 10 .psiTo obtain the most conservative results, the largest coefficient values for Cmx and Cmyas indicated in Section Q1.6 of [J.8] are used here:Cmx:= 1.0Cmy:= 1.0Again, two bounding cases are considered.Case 1. Bending stress in x direction onlyWpedfa := Wpd Fa := Scomp_acc2Atfbx := O'bend Fbx := Sben acc2fa Cmx fbx 0.625+ =- .Fbx< 1.0- OK< 1.0- OK0.65S564yfbx+ -= 0.663FbxCase 2. Bending stress in 45 degrees to x directionfbx:= °'bend 2fby:= °'bend 2Fbx:= Sben_acc2Fby:= Sben_acc2fa Cmx fbx+Fa fa( 1 -I FbxFe)Cmy fby- 0.804Fe +j.Fby< 1.0- -OKPage J-16 of J27 rProject 1916 Appendix J Report HI-2104715fa fbx fby+ -+ 56= 0.8420.6. S564y Fbx Fby<1.0- OK6.6.4 Shear stress in the Pedestal Block and Adjustable SupportConservatively using the cross-sectional area of adjustable support.SLwO'pb:= "A,Ssh accSFpb.O'pbO'pb = 12923.4.psiISFpb= 1.1576.6.5 Axial Compression Evaluation (Buckling of compressive member)Per Section Q2.4 of ANSI/AISC N690-1994, in the plane of bending of columns which woulddevelop a plastic hinge at ultimate loading, the slenderness ratio KI/r shall not exceed Cc.The following formula is from Section Q2.4 of [J.8] unless otherwise noted.Since both ends of the pedestal are fixed in rotation, the recommended effective K value asa guided cantilever beam isKs:= 1.2Table CQ-1.8.1 of [J.8]Ks .L1-= 4.121< Cc:= 120for stainless steelThe gross area of the adjustable support:Agross = 19.635.in2The maximum strength of an axially loaded compression member shall be taken asPC,: 1.7-Agross *Scomp-acc26Pcr =2.63 x 10 .lbfApplied axial loadsafety factorP: WpedPcrSFbuck:= -6.6.6 Combined axial load and bending momentFrom the above analysis of "bending stress on the adjustable support", themaximum applied moment isPage J-17 of J27 Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-2104715M:= -M = 3.542 x 104.1bf.ftTo obtain the most conservative result, the largest coefficient value for Cm (Section 1.6of [J.8]) is used here:Cm:= 1.0Euler buckling load23 8gross e = 2.848 x 10 .lbf12grse-For columns braced in the weak direction, the maximum moment that can be resisted bythe member in the absence of axial load isplastic section modulusplastic momentdb3Z:=6.3Z = 20.833.inMm:= MP = 1.896 x 105.lbf.ftPer Section Q2.4 of [J.8], members subject to combined axial load and bending momentshall be proportioned to satisfy the following interaction formulas:Pc+ 0.288P')P M+ = 0.283S564y.Agross 1.18.Mp<1.0 -OK<1.0 -OKTherefore, the adjustable support meets the AISC requirement and buckling is not credible forthis compressive member under SSE seismic loading. This evaluation bounds the situation innormal and OBE seismic loading conditions.6.6.7 Support Pedestal Block to Shim Plate WeldMaximum shear load on any weld [Table 1]Shear stress in the weld of any pedestalSLw:= 400000. lbf(Bounding)SLWa-, = 8465.6 -psiNl ASimilar to the normal condition (Level A), the maximum tensile force on the weld is obtainedPage J-18 of J27 Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-21047151from ANSYS model with updated friction and axial loads on the pedestal. (See Appendix Kfor input file)SLwMaximum shear load on weld of any pedestal -= 200000.lbfNB(Frictional load)Maximum axial load on any pedestal Wped = 266806.lbfMaximum tensile force on node mtfs := 235.151bf(see ANSYS output list, FORCESSSE.LST in Appendix L)Weld stress: O'weld NT + wweld = 8.484 X 103psiý/kAN T)Y+ wSafety factor:SWaccSFweld : -(TweldSFweld = 2.456.6.8 Shear stress in the base metal (Shim Plate)Shear stressSafety factorSLwP NB AspSsh accSFsp --O'sprsp = 8465.6.psiSFsp = 1.766 16.7 Stresses and Safety Factors Calculations OBE Condition:Conservatively the OBE stress limits will be checked against (level A) stress conditions in section3.1 of this appendix.The results in table 1 are presented for the Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE) ground motion. TheOBE results are obtained by dividing the SSE results by a factor of 1.875, which is the ratio ofthe SSE (0.15g) to OBE (0.08g) maximum ground acceleration, as per section 5.1 of [J.12].Loaded HI-TRAC 100D (Bounding)WHTRC := 191000*lbf[J. 10]Page J-19 of J27 Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-2104715IPeak Vertical Load (Bounding)Wtotai:= 520000.lbf(Table 1]Added load for SSE condition WSSE := WtotaI -WHTRC = 329000.lbfWSSEAdded load for OBE condition WOBE1 := -= 175466.667.1bf1.875Weight of leveling platform (Bounding) WLp := 5000.1bf [J.3]WOB2 : WBE1+ WTR + ~p(WoBEl -"'Peak vertical load for OBE condition WOBE2- WOBE + WHTRc + WLP= + I 376060.lbf( WHTRCPeak vertical load for OBE (Bounding) WOBE:= 380000.1bfNote Peak frictional force (Ib) is conservatively calculated as:Coefficient of friction (0.8) x Peak vertical load for OBE (bounding)Peak frictional force (bounding)WPFF := 0.8.WonE = 304000. lbf6.7.1 Length of Engagement/Strength CalculationsIn this section, it is shown that the length of thread engagement is adequate. The method andterminology of [J. 1] are followed.recall As= 23.138 in2 A, = 28.677. in2The tensile stress area is conservatively used for compression.LCped := (Scompnor2).At LCped = 867942.6-lbf Pedestal Compression Load CapacityLCpedthrd :=(Ssh-nor2).ASLCsp := (Ssh-nor) -AnLCpdthPd = 10e10654.5 -lbfLC5p = 306265.2.lbfPedestal External Thread Load CapacitySupport Plate internal thread Load CapacityTherefore, the total minimum load capacities are calculated as:Loadped:= NB.LCped Loadped = 1735885.2-lbfLoadpedthrd := NB. LCpedthrd Loadpedthrd = 2021309. bfPage J-20 of J27 Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-2104715Loadsp:= NB.LCspLoadpedS ped.-WOBELoadsp = 612530.4.1bfSFped = 4.568]]SFpedthrd = 5.319ISFs~p = 1.612LoadpedthrdSFpedthrd .WOBELoadspSFsp .-WOBE6.7.2 Bending stress on adjustable supportMaximum coefficient of friction[Section 4.3]cof:= 0.8Maximum shear load on each pedestalWOBESLw:= cof.NBSLw= 152000*IbfFor a beam with rotational restraints on both ends and fixed at one end, if a force F is applied atone end of the beam, then the maximum moment occurs at the same end which is equal to FL/2.Per note #6 in DWG 8262 [J.3], the minimum thread engagement of support is 2.5",therefore, the maximum unsupported length of the adjustable support isLuas := Las -2.5in = 2.75 inMaximum bending moment in the support, conservatively usingLuasMoment:= SLw*- Mome2Luas.ý L, = 4.25-in*nt =3.23 x 10 .lbf-inMaximum stress due to bending in the supportMoment.dbO-bend 211Sben_nor2S F bend .-O'bendO'bend = 3.407 x 10 4.psi[SFbend = 2.404 16.7.3 Combined compression and bending on adiustable supportPage J-21 of J27

[Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-2104715Initial modulus of elasticity of stainless steelE2e := 28000ksiFor stainless steels27 .E2eFe2:=.15K LuasjFe = 7.569 x 10b psiTo obtain the most conservative results, the largest coefficient values for Cmx andCmy as indicated in Section Q1.6 of [J.8] are used here:Cmx:= 1.0Cmy:= 1.0For the combined axial compressive and bending stresses, two bounding cases are evaluatedhere. The first case is the bending stress in one direction only. The second case is thebending stress in the direction of 45 degrees from the x coordinate, which indicates bendingstresses in both x and y directions.Case 1.Bending stress in x direction onlyWOBEfa -- Fa := Scomp-nor2NB-Atfbx := °'bend Fbx := Sben-nor2f Crux"fbxf-+ =_ 0.635Fa (faFfa fbx+ -= 0.5810.6. $564y Fbx< 1.0 -OK< 1.0- OKCase 2. Bending stress in 45 degree to x directionfbx := 7 bend ' -2f b y : = ( 'b e n d " "Fbx:= Sbennor2Fby := Sbennor2Page J-22 of J27 Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-2104715fa C rux "fbx O nm y "fbyf+ + = 0.808F, faFeFefa fbx fby+ -+ -= 0.7530.6. S564y Fbx Fby<1.0-OK<1.0-OK6.7.4 Shear stress in Pedestal Block and Adjustable SupportConservatively using the cross-sectional area of adjustable support.Apb:= A1Apb = 15.476,in-2Shear stressSLWApbO'pb = 9821.8. psiSFPb = 1.08Safety factorSshnorSFpb .O'pb6.7.5 Axial Compression Evaluation (Buckling of compressive member)Per Section Q2.4 of ANSI/AISC N690-1994, in the plane of bending of columns which woulddevelop a plastic hinge at ultimate loading, the slenderness ratio KI/r shall not exceed C..The following formula is from Section Q2.4 of [J.8] unless otherwise noted.Since both ends of the pedestal are fixed in rotation, the recommended effective K value asa guided cantilever beam isK,:= 1.2 Table CQ-1.8.1 of [J.8]Ks-L1=4.121< Cc:= 120for stainless steelThe gross area of the adjustable support: Agross = 19.635.in2The maximum strength of an axially loaded compression member shall be taken asPcr := 1.7.Agross.Scompacc2Pcr = 2.63 x 106.lbfPage J-23 of J27 Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-2104715Applied axial loadWOBEP:= -NBPcrSFbuckPsafety factorIS~k = 3.844f16.7.6 Combined axial load and bending momentFrom the above analysis of "bending stress on the adjustable support", themaximum applied moment isM:= SLw.--M = 2.692 x 104.lbf.ftTo obtain the most conservative result, the largest coefficient value for Cm (Section 1.6of [J.8]) is used here:Cm:= 1.0Euler buckling load23 8Pe -Agross'Fe = 2.848 x 10 .lbfFor columns braced in the weak direction, the maximum moment that can be resisted bythe member in the absence of axial load isplastic section modulusdb3Z: --6Z = 20.833 in3plastic momentMp:= Z.S564yMm:= MP = 1.896 x 105.lbf.ftPer Section Q2.4 of [J.8], members subject to combined axial load and bending momentshall be proportioned to satisfy the following interaction formulas:-+ = 0.214Pcr I}P MMP M+ -10.209$564y *Agross I- 18"M p<1.0 -OK<1.0 -OKTherefore, the adjustable support meets the AlISC requirement and buckling is not credible forthis compressive member under OBE seismic loading.Page J-24 of J27

[Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-2104715I6.7.7 Support Pedestal Block to Shim Plate WeldThere are two forces applied on the block support pedestal: compression force and friction force.These loads tend to twist the pedestal causing a tension load on one side and compression on theother side. Therefore, one corner of the block support pedestal may be placed in tension. Themaximum weld stress is then derived from combination of the maximum shear force and themaximum tensile force. The maximum shear stress from friction can be obtained through simplecalculation as shown below. An ANSYS [J.11] model is used to develop the load along the weldssurrounding the pedestal and to obtain the maximum tensile stress.Maximum coefficient of friction[Section 4.3]cof:= 0.8Maximum shear load on weld of each pedestalWOBESLw:= cof.NBSLw= 152000.lbfThickness of fillet weld #1 [J.3]Size of square Support Pedestal Block [J.3]Weld length of gusset plates [J.3]Thickness of fillet weld #2 at stiffener plates [J.3]Minimum thickness of Shim Plate [J.3]tw:= 0.5.inLbl:= 6.75.inLgp:= 3.375intwg := 0.375intsp:= 1.75.inWeld area for each Block (6.75 X 6.75) and attached four stiffener plates [J.3]Aw:= tw.(4.Lbl) + twg-2.Lgp.4Shear stress in the weldAW = 23.625-in 2SLWaw=643 3.9 -psiWeld stress is derived from combination of the maximum shear stress from normal conditionobtained above and the maximum tensile stress obtained from ANSYS model. Only the weldsbetween the support pedestal block and the shim plate is modeled in ANSYS. The weldsbetween the four stiffener plates and the shim plate is not included for simplicity. Since thepedestal is fixed in rotation at both ends, the length of the pedestal as a cantilever beamelement in the ANSYS model is 0.5 times its actual unsupported length.ANSYS Input Data: (See Appendix K for input file)Length of square pedestal sideLbI = 6.75 -inPage J-25 of J27 Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-2104715]Overall effective height of the pedestalMaximum shear load on any weldMaximum axial load on any pedestalWeld area per node (total 8 nodes on one pedestal side)Weld AreaMaximum tensile force on node(see ANSYS output list, FORCES_OBE.LST in Appendix L)Weld stress: Oweld:= +( .ANT)Sw norSafety factor: SFweld'weld6.7.8 Shear stress in the base metal (Shim Plate)Shear area of the base metal (Shim Plate) As, = 23.6255.25Hbl:= -in2SLw= 152000.lbfWOBEWaxiaI := = 19000.lbfNBLbIANT := --tw8ANT = 0.422 in2mffs:= 372.861bfOweld = 6494.283 psiISFweld = 2.287?2aIsp = 6433.9-psir ISFsp = 1.66 1.iShear stress in the base metal (Shim Plate)Safety factor for base metal (Shim Plate)SLwSFsp= shnaspPage J-26 of J27

[Project 1916 Appendix J Report HI-21047157.0 ConclusionThe preceding analyses demonstrate that the adjustable supports (or pedestals) have beendesigned to sustain normal and seismic loading. The size and length of thread engagementof pedestals is conservatively set. The welds between blocks and shim plate have alsobeen analyzed.8.0 Computer Code and FilesThe ANSYS calculation is performed on Computer 1038, as listed on the Approved ComputerProgram List (ACPL) in Appendix C. All the files used in this calculation are located in the followingdirectory:G:\IProjects\l 916\REPORTS\Structural Reports\SFP Evaluation\Rev 6Page J-27 of J27 Appendix K -ANSYS Input FilesInput File for Normal Condition:PROPRIETARYReport HI-2104715K1 of K1Project 1916 Appendix L -ANSYS Output FilesOutput File for Normal Condition: (FORCESNOR.LST)PRINT ELEMENT TABLE ITEMS PER ELEMENT***** POST1 ELEMENT TABLE LISTING *STAT CURRENTELEM FORCE114 64.101115 -42.905116 -149.80117 -256.07118 -360.85119 -463.57120 -564.52121 -664.60122 57.413123 -48.151124 -153.25125 -257.34126 -359.98127 -461.05128 -560.89129 -660.14132 63.140133 -666.42136 62.130137 -667.85140 60.920141 -668.29144 59.580145 -667.46148 58.420149 -665.49152 57.735153 -662.89MINIMUM VALUESELEM 141VALUE -668.29MAXIMUM VALUESELEM 114VALUE 64.101Report HI-2104715L1 of L3Project 1916 Appendix L -ANSYS Output FilesOutput File for SSE Condition: (FORCES_SSE.LST)PRINT ELEMENT TABLE ITEMS PER ELEMENT***** POST1 ELEMENT TABLE LISTING *STAT CURRENTELEM FORCE114 235.15115 -567.06116 -1368.3117 -2164.6118 -2948.9119 -3717.1120 -4471.4121 -5218.7122 183.34123 -607.71124 -1395.0125 -2174.4126 -2942.3127 -3697.6128 -4443.2129 -5184.2132 226.65133 -5233.6136 217.94137 -5245.2140 208.05141 -5249.1144 197.66145 -5242.6148 189.21149 -5227.0152 184.78153 -5206.2MINIMUM VALUESELEM 141VALUE -5249.1MAXIMUM VALUESELEM 114VALUE 235.15Report HI-2104715L2 of L3Project 1916 Appendix L -ANSYS Output FilesOutput File for OBE Condition: (FORCESOBE.LST)PRINT ELEMENT TABLE ITEMS PER ELEMENT***** POST1 ELEMENTTABLE LISTINGSTAT CURRENTELEM FORCE114 372.86115 -249.53116 -871.25117 -1489.4118 -2098.8119 -2696.3120 -3283.5121 -3865.5122 333.98123 -280.03124 -891.30125 -1496.8126 -2093.8127 -2681.6128 -3262.3129 -3839.6132 367.27133 -3876.2136 361.40137 -3884.4140 354.37141 -3887.0144 346.57145 -3882.2148 339.83149 -3870.7152 335.84153 -3855.6MINIMUM VALUESELEM 141VALUE -3887.0MAXIMUM VALUESELEM 114VALUE 372.86Report HI-2104715L3 of L3Project 1916

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML14324A040&oldid=717354"