L-15-310, C-CSS-099.20-069, Rev 0, Shield Building Laminar Cracking Limits.

C-CSS-099.20-069, Rev 0, Shield Building Laminar Cracking Limits.

ML15280A312
Person / Time
Site:	Davis Besse
Issue date:	05/06/2015
From:	FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co
To:	Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
Shared Package
ML15280A293	List: L-15-310, C-CSS-099.20-069, Rev 0, Shield Building Laminar Cracking Limits. ML15280A287 ML15280A303 ML15280A304 ML15280A305 ML15280A306 ML15280A308 ML15280A309 ML15280A310 ML15280A311
References
L-15-310, TAC ME4640 C-CSS-099.20-069, Rev 0
Download: ML15280A312 (43)

Text

Page i CALCUI.ATION tfOP-CC-3002-01 Flev. 03cALCULAnOil NO.

C.C$S.O3O.20{69INMANilG I'OCUMEHT 2588+00o.TCGAM-m00sI I VcNDOR CALC SUilnAFYVENDOR CALCU LATIOI{ T{O.

f] BVl fI BVz DB IPY TltlailSubiocl:

Shield Buildng Laminar Craddng Limib Calrgory E Active E Histon:at EI study Claseiflcellon E Tier 1 Cabulation El Satety-Retated/Augmented Aralty I Nonsafeg.Fetatad Opcn Aasumptions?EYes ElHo lf Yes, Enter Tracking Number$yrtem ilumbarDB-SUB 099.20 Fungtional Locetlon lvA Gommitmonts:

None (Perry & Davir.Beaae Odyl Calculation Tvpe: l.l/A Hefererrcad In Atlas? B YeB El No (PerryOnlYl Referenced In USAR Validetion Databass I Ves fl t'to GompstGr Progrem{al Program Name VErsion / Fevbion Category Status Deecdption ANSYS 13.0 c Aclive Finite Element Analytis, validated undarBechtel's QA Program MathCAD 15.0 c Aclive Mathematlcaf compdation Rev.Aff*ctd Pages Originator (Prtnt. Sftn I ogltell Rgdemr/Design VerifterPdrrt. Sffi? i Date)Approtrur{mnf SnI Danl 000 All Jevild A. Munshi (Bechfel)HerJfun L.qF' &1n 4n*vv{G, f ltltrHmgcfiun Uu (8ofitel)

I h tl6lr Descripliwr of Changn: Inilial issrpInitiailrg Doctrnont 25884-00GTc'GAit-m0os Describe where ths calcufa{on willbe evaluated for 10CFR50.59 apdicaHlfty:

l'l/A Rev.tJfoct*d Pagoe OdginaorFinL Sfrrn I EJg,tel Revlewsr/Dad gn Vadfier lPrinl Sbr? t Datel Appmwr (Prlnt, S@t

• Dab.)001 Ilescdplim of Changolnitiatlng Docncrient Describe rfiers the cabllation will be evalualed h'r 10CFR50.59 spdbability.

Rev.Affected Pages otl$nabrlPrint. Skrn Dalta)

Reviev*erltleslgn Vef ft er PrtnI$itr1 A Date)ApproverPililt. Sront Oatel 002 Descriplion ol GhangaInlfiatlng Docunent:Describo tdtero lhe cabdafion willbe avduated tur 10CFR50.59 eppficability.

Page ii CALCULATION NOP-CC-3002-01 Rev.03 CALCULATION NO.C-CSS{199.20-069, Rev.000I I VENDOR CALC SUM]IlARY VENDOR CALCULATION NO.TABLE OF COI{TENTS COVERSHEET:

OBJECTIVE OR PURPOSE SCOPE OF CALCULAT]ON

SUMMARY

OF RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS LIMITATIONS OR RESTRICTION ON CALCUI.ATION APPLICABILITY IMPACT ON OUTPUT DOCUMENTS DOCUMENT INDEX I iii iii iii iii iii iv GALCULATION COMPUTATTON (BODY OF CALCULATTON):

METHOD OF ANALYSIS ASSUMPTIONS ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA COMPUTATION RESULTS 2 2 2 3 17 ATTACHMENTS:

A. ANSYS lnput and OutputB. Memo from Prof. Mete A. SozenC. Memo from Prof.

David Darwin 13 3 2SUPPORTf NG DOCUMENTS (For Records Copy Only)DESIGN VERIFICATION RECORDCALCULATION REVIEW CHECKLISTDESIGN INPUT RECORDDESIGN INTERFACE

SUMMARY

DESIGN INTERFACE EVALUATIONS 50.59 DOCUMENTS OTHER:1 Page3 Pages O PAcCs o Ps'oFs 0 ereFs ,{tA NIAEXTERNAL MEDTA? (MlCROFlCHE, ETC.) (tF yES, PROVlDE LlST tN BODY OF CALCULATION) n YES aNoTOTAL NUMBER oF PAGES lN CALCUTATION (COVERSHEETS

+ BODY + ATTACHMENTS) 39 Pages NOTES:

CALCULATIONI I VENDOR CALC

SUMMARY

VENDOR CALCULATION NO.CALCULATION NO.C-CSS-099.20-069, Rev.000 OBJECTIVE OR PURPOSE: The purpose of this calculation is to identify and define the limits of crack propagation and crad( widths that ar*acceptable under the DIN 1 and ib associatad tedtnical basis induding the testing program canied out at Purdue University and the University of Kansas. The intent is to establish limits in terms of crack prcpagation and widths,to ensure that the Shield Building (SB) continues to meet and is in compliance with the d*sign basis reouirements.SCOPE OF CALCULATION/REVIS ION

The scope of this calculation is listed below: Performing an analytical upper-bound modal analysis of the shield building to estimate an approximate extent of cracking, for which the seismic loads derived from the original designs still remain valid. This was accomplished by reviewing

/ re-evaluating Attachment A of the DIN 1.ldentifying and defining the acceptable limits of crack propagation and crack widths based on testing carried out at Purdue University and the University of Kansas to define a conservative upper-bound cracking threshold both in extent and width.Review and update of previously established effects of laminar cracking on stiffness, strength, serviceability, ductility and long-term durability in view of bounds (of cracking) established in ltem 2.Review and update of the previously established "Code Compliance" review (DlN 1, Att.L) in view of bounds (of cracking) established in ltem 2.

SUMMARY

OF RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS:

Based on the above discussed scope, a conservath/e upper-bound crack c-riterion has been *stablished in thiscalculation, which can be us*d as a basis to verif, compliance of the Shi*ld Building against ongoing crack monitoring program. With considerable margin presented in DIN 1, the limit of crack width is conclud*d as 0.02inches, and the limit of crack propagation has been established as following:Upper-Bound Limits for Crack Propagation Reoion-1 (EL 801.0 - 812.75): No crad( (Dome region)

Reoion-2 (EL 774.5 - 801.0): 100% of the alea is cracked, # of efiec{ive (unqacked) flutes: 0 Reoion-3 (EL 643.0 - 774.51: 50% of the ar*a is cracked, # of efiective (uncracked) flutes: 0 Reoion-4 (EL 565.0 - 043.0): 20% of the area is cracked, # of efiec{ive (uncracked) flutes: 1Furthermore, it is verified that the bounds of cracking establish*d herein do not change the previously establishedcode compliance of the Shield Building (DlN 1, Att.L).

LIMITATIONS OR RESTRICTIONS ON CALCULATION APPLICABILITY:

N/A 1.2.3.4.IMPACT ON OUTPUT DOCUMENTS:

No system descriptions are affected by this calculation.

Page iv CALCULATION NOP-CG3002-01 Rev.03CALCULATION NO.

C-CSS-099.20-069, Rev.000I I VENDOR CALC

SUMMARY

VENDOR CALCULATION NO.DOCUMENT INDEX o z z oDocument Numberffitle Revision, Edition, Date o{)c E e o g,:'o.c 3 o.3 o 1 FENOC Calculation No. C-CSS-099.20-063, ShieldBuilding Design Calculation Rev. 01 tr a u 2Original Calculation No. VC01/801-01, Shield Building -Thermal Stresses - Shield WallRev.0, Approval Date 10/0111976 n EI tr 3 Bechtel Report 25593-000-G83-GEG-000 1 6, Effect of Laminar Gracks on Splice Capacity of No. 11 Bars basedon Testing Conducted at Purdue University and University of Kansas for Davis-Besse Shield Building 2012 tr B tr Page 1CALCU LATION COMPUTATION NOP-CG3002-01 Rev.03 CALCULATION NO.c-css-099.20{)69 REVISION: 000BODY OF Calculation List of Sections

-Sections Page no.1. Method of Analysis 2 2. Assumptions

23. Acceptance Criteria 2 4. Computation 3 5. Results 17 Fh#netrru-tPage 2CALCU LATION COTUIPUTATION NOP-CC-3002-01 Rev.03 CALGULATION NO.c-css-099.20.069 REVISION: 0001.0 llethod of AnalysisThe method of this calculation is listed below:1. Performing an analytical uppEr-bound modal analysis of the shield building to estimat* an approximateextent of cracking, for which the seismic loads derived from the original designs still remain valid.

Thiswas accomplished by reviewing

/ re-evaluating Attachment A of the DIN 1 .2. ldentirying and defining the acceptable limits of crack propagation and crack widths based on testing canied out at Purdue Univ*Eity and the Univesity of Kansas to define a conservative upper-boundcracking threshold both in extent and width.3. R*vielv and update of previously established efiec'b of laminar cracking on stifriess, strengfth, serviceability, duc'tility and long-term durability in viem of bounds (of cracking) established in ltam 2.4. Review and update of the previously

• stablished

'Code Compliance" review (DlN 1, Att.L) in view of bounds (of cracking) established in lt*m 2.2.0 AssumptlonsThero is no open assumption applied in this study calculation. In modal analysis conduc,ted in Section 4.1, thecriterion for s*lecting an acceptable assumed upper-bound cracking scenario is that the new fundamental frequencies and model shapes are approximately within 5% differences from those determined in the original FE analysis (DlN. 2). This limit of 5olo difference is based upon widely used practic* in engine*ring.

3.0 Acceptance

Crlterla The acceptanc*

criteria of this calculation are established by defining limits of acceptable crack propagation andthe crack widths based on testing caried out at Purdue University and the University of l(ansas, for ufiich the cunenty established design basis in DIN 1 remain valid.

Page 3CALCU LATI ON COTTI PUTATION NOP-CG3002-01 Rev.03CALGULATION NO.

c.css-099.20-069 REVISION: 0004.0 Computation 4.1 Upper-Bound Modal AnalysisIn this section, an upper-bound modal analysis of the shield building has b*en canied out to estimata anapproximate extent of cracking for which the s*ismic loads de.iv*d from the odginal designs still remain valid.This was accomplished by using the same methodology adopted in Attachment A of DIN 1.As discussed in DIN 1, Attachment A, Figure 1 shows the Finite Element (FE) model used in the original seismicanalysis and design of the SB. As shown in this figure, the SB was modeled as a simple cantilevertpe beamshucture consisting of 13 beam elements and 14 nodes from EL 565'to EL812.75'. In DIN 1, Attachment A, thesame methodology and the same modeling parameters were used except for the sec'tional properties.

The sectional propelties of each beam were calculated considering difierent levels of cracks in the following threedifferent FE models:

Model-l: No laminar crackinq This model was used as the baseline of the original FEA results and verifies the FE models with different cracking levels developed in DIN 1 Model-2: Laminar crackinq in all flutes/shouldersThis model assumed that all flutes / shoulders are cracked while no cracking between flutes was considered.. llodol*: Laminar crackino based on the crack mao Four different regions with difierent cracking levels werc considercd based on the crack map, i.*.Reoion-1 (EL 801.0 - 812.75): No crack (Dome region)Reoion-2 {EL 774.5 - 801 .0): 70016 of the area is cracked, # of efiective (uncracked) flutes: 2 Reqion-3 (EL 643.0 - 774.5): 20% of the area is cracked, # of eff*ctiv* (uncracked) flutes: 1 or 2 (depended on elevation, se* Attiachment A of DIN 1 for detail)

Reoion-4 (EL 565.0 - O43.0): No crack, # of efiactive (uncracked) flutes: 2Also Note that each flute has two shoulders. In this calculation, in order to find out an upper-bound extent ofcracking, for which the seismic loads derived from th* original designs still remain valid, various assumed cracking-configurations of th* shield building have been investigated.

lt is concluded that the following case (Model4) can be defined as an upper-bound scenado, for which the extent of cracking propagation iE struclurally acceptable.Note that the critorion for selecling such an acceptable assumed upper-bound cracking scenario is that the nenffundamental ftequencies and model shapes are approximately within 5% differences from those determined in theoriginal FE analysis (DlN. 2). This limit of 5%

difference is based upon widely used practice in engineering.. Model4: Postulated laminar clackino scenario (Uooer-Bound)

Reoion-1 (EL 801.0 - 812.75t: No crack (Dome region)Reqion-2 (EL 774.5 - 801.0): 100o/o of the area is cracked, #

of effective (uncracked) flutes: 0 Reqion-3 (EL 643.0 - 774.5): 50% of the area is cracked, # of effective (uncracked) flutes: 0 Reqion-4 (EL 565.0 - 643.0t: 20o/o of the area is cracked, # of effective (uncracked) flutes: 1 Page 4 CALCU LATION COTUIPUTATIONNOP-CG3002-01 Rev.03 CALCULATION NO.c-css-099.20.069 REVTSTON: 000 SHIELD.BLDG.

Region-3 Region-4 Figure 1. The Finite Element (FE) model used in the original SB seismic analysis Page 5 CALCULATION COMPUTATION NOP-CC-3002-01 Rev.03 CALCULATION NO.c-css-099.20.069 REVlSTON: 000Dryis Besse SB stick FE modeling parameters fr/um,ber Gf nodesj Nrrodel= 14 IUumber of members: Nelmnt:= I i Secfionaf pmperfies.Second momenf of inertia of S8: ORIGI\:= I i := I ..Nr,ode I " s.lmnt Rirr:= 69.5ft (lnner face radius)

Routr= T;ft (Outer face radiuslAg :- .3 l.+5fr: (Flute cross section area. VS01IB1-31

\, := I I t0.r ? # 1SA wall cross section eree* VS01/81-31 h s{n}:=\- +- I I 10.; ifr-Ag + 2l.{Jftl Io.+:?$t:83.3 lfrJ {vs01tB1-3}

Ri' e 69.5ft R.q, *{\+ n.Afl}7r* Ri,i-+1 T YTri J r\* i'r}tq - Ri",r Note that the same methodology in the original seismic analysis calc (VS01/81-3l is utilized to calculate the Znd moment of inertia of the flute (i e.. using an equivalent radius considedng flute areas!"-icorl l= l50Pcf fc := +000psi E c_used:= -\ l.t

? 5 *d[Gc used:= 30990tkf

{VS01/81-3}

Numhr of l?sles considered in the ongina/ seismicanalysrs calc (V501/Bl-3):

E.;t*hrt, ,r$ Flt-tes;l (s*a b*5. c'til)

EL 5{ 5 {p HL 6;3 -- ?. trl-rtca Gl{ e}EL G o3 *,r FL.6+1 - a,Flu\et (*lre/t)EL6+3tp EL cio: *trr*.+ (*r,i,s,tq)

El- L{s {,, E tBol-ob- B r4*rtc+- ( r\.1)

Page 6CALC U LATI O N COTUI PUTATI ON NOP-CG3002-01 Rev.03 CALCULATION NO.c-css-099.20-069 REVlSlON: 000 t1 l3 IT ll r0 I I?I 6 J*3 1 f t{Elevf lr of Flt}Elcr. :- FL. :-tl tEfrect

• of Fh afur crachl{Node #}!$odr" :*tbesed on the crack the crrck is deternunsd

$l?"?Jft 80Ift?71.Jft?48ft?Ioft 692ft 660ft 6f6.Jft 613ft 609tr 603ft Jm.tft t?0.7Ift J6Jft Note that the efrectlus number of frutes afler rH8p.llodel-l: ilo crugk lorlglnrl SB dechnl Ax fftr} An r $r* + ru;Ag Ay tft'I Ay.,- +I lftlf I. :- ln +- n, I f t-n(a Page 7 CALCU LATION COilIPUTATION NOP-CG3002-01 Rev.03 CALCULATION NO.c.css-099.20-069 REVTSION: 000 Alr {fir}: Ay {ltr}:l {ftr}: Arl := 1554ftI fut*:=

0ft1 Page 8CALCU LATION COMPUTATION NOP-CC-3002-01 Rev.03 CALCULATION NO.c-css-099.20.069 REVISION: 000 ModelJ: Cracls in some flutes and elsewhere (based on dre crack map. rnore accurmel Bss*d on the cracft map. the SB 'vrnll is divided into the follo,rdng 4 regims havirg different levels of cnacks and/s clifferent effective run$en d flutes.

Resim-l tEL 801-0 ^ 812.75): Fb crack Regint-2 tEL 774.5 - 801.01,: 7Wo ot the aea is cr*ked @ OF rcbar lqyer Resim-3 (EL 8f3.0 ^ 774.5I ilI% of the aea is cr*ked @ OF rebar layer Regim4 tEL565.0 - 813.0l: l'lo crck Cross sectisrs are linearly prorated by usirg a factol Fck. lpsed m the cnack map-Fck, .= Oct (Regkm-l )Fctrr;= ?04i (Regim-2)j := 3..8 Fck, := l0P,i (Reglm-3)j .= 9..14 Fc\ := 0.qir FeOim.ll Reductr'ons of lhe secfrona/ a,*a and f,he Znd rar,tent of nertia drc to fhe cmc* aiorE tire OF rebelr layer AA:=c{ F Sirl dtt F l'4lin&. hRu$ -,.* - + ;Ao* F ,ri &.1 - *-tt tu-\" A[:=rro = (ongind Elev. =t cc ts 3if, dt t + l.4lir R*.*Rnu-i*.*!

L.

• Tin.*-q^*;

LL 4'h -k.AI = 3-59? " 105 S4# of fldesl FI*. : {Effective # sf fiutes,wtrere no creckl 1 e{ = 138-8tJ fr-B 12.75 801 774.5 748 7?0 693 fr60 646.5 tr3 60s 603 5S9.5 570,75 565 0 I I B I I 4 4 3 3 2 2 2 0 14 13 12 11 10 g B 7 6 5 4 a J 7 1 E e 7 7 2 e x 1 2 2 e 7 2 0 Page 9CALCU IATI ON COTI PUTATION NOP-CG3002-01 Rev.03 CALCULATION NO.c-Gss-099.20.069 REVTSTON: 000\ ,= 29$1468fr4 It4,= OA4 t.rt:r. r i:

Oft-I+

fu*fuergy E-:t Page 10 CALCU LATION COTII PUTATI ON NOP-CG3002-01 Rev.03CALCULATION NO.

c-css-099.20,069 REVISION: 000 ffigde l 4 : Assu.mgd, f pmi rlar crqctin g _Sce na rio Region-1 (EL 801.0 - 812.751:0% of the area is cracked @ OF rebar layer Region-2 (Et 774.5 - 801.0): 10006 of the area is cracked @ OF rebar layer Region-3 (EL 813.0 t 774.51: 50% of the area is cracked @ OF nbar layer Region4 (EL 565.0 - 6a3.0f: 20%

of the area is cracked @ OF rebat layerCross sections are lineady polated by using a hctor. Fck. based on the crack map Fch I :! F.'t (Region-l)

Fck* ;= l00o,'1 (Region-z'

• 3.. I t*j :* 50g.ir (Region.3)

- 9.. t-f ft :*

!09'a (Region4)Rductions of lhe secliaral area and the Znd moment of inerlta drc to the cnck alwg tlrc QF rebar layer:

AAp cc +- 3in dlt

• t.llin R..

• Ro*rt -t I- t-Acc

• t\R..\-A**1 lIA

• 138.8t2.ft-Eltv. =812.75 801 774.3 748 724 692 660 646.5 o43 609 603 589.5 579.75 565 AI .-Ei - (onginal cc e 3for dI I

• l.{lin R..

• Ro,rt -*{ {Icc

• i,(*.*L'- I"aAt- 3,59?x tO5.R{# of frutes!

Nodt. =I FLc.-t 0 I I I I I 4 4 3 3 2 2 2 0 l4 13 L2 11 10 I I 7 6 5 4 3 2 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t I I 1 1 0 E-t Page 1 1CALC U LATI ON CO]UI P UTATI ON NOP-CG3002-01 Rev.03 CALCULATION NO.G-CSS-099.20.069 REVTSION: 000 Ax {ft2}: Av {fizf: r fft!l: Axr:- \+ F[cr'.\ - FdiAA Arl :r lt5{ft-1Ar. . :- Oft-

-- td It - I99l{6m4 l*

• 0fr4 Model4 has been simulated using ANSYS version 13.0, and results are then compared with those of Models 1-3as well as the available original modal analysis results, which are presented in DIN 1, Attachment A.As discussed in Attachment A of DIN 1, only the natural frequencies and mode shapes in the lateral direction areavailable from the original seismic analysis calculation as shown in Figure 2, so Model-l represents the originalSB design condition and is considered as a reference/baseline for comparing with mode shapes from Models 2, 3,&4.Table 1 shows the naturalfrequencies and Mass Participation Factors (MPFs) calculated from the four FE modelsand the natural frequencies from the original seismic analysis, and the conesponding mode shapes are also presented in Figure 3. As shown in Table 1, the natural frequencies for Model 4 (upper-bound case) have good agreements with the original ones. For the first and second modes having significant (MPF is 74o/o and 160/o, respectively) contributions to the dynamic behaviors, the natural frequency difference with the original one is 4.0%and 5.1olo, respectively. The natural fiequency difference for the third mode is 5.9%. However, the associated MPF of this mode is only 4.0%, which is considered insignificant based on its potential influence on the dynamicbehaviors/ response of the SB. Similarly, the corresponding mode shapes are also calculated for Models 1,2,3and 4. All the mode shapes for the first four modes are compared and the comparison shows good agreements between all four models. lt is then concluded that the assumed crack propagation scenario considered in Model4can be used as an "upper-bound" condition, for which the structural evaluations performed in DIN 1 remain valid.

Page 12CALCU LATION COM PUTATION NOP-CC-3002-01 Rev.03 CALCULATION NO.c-css-099.20-069 REVISION: 000Table 1. Comparison of the dynamic characteristic between the model including different levels of laminar cracking & the original model used for the seismic analysis Mode no.Natural frequencies and mass participation factors Frequency differences withrespect to the original calculation (Yrl Original Calculation (Ref. A3)Model-l (baseline)

Model-2 (all flute crack)Model-3 (more accurate)Model4 (upper'bound)

Freq (Hz)MPF ("/")Freq (Hz)MPF ('/")Freq (Hz)MPF (%)Freq (Hz)MPF f/t Freq (Hz)MPF (T")Model-1 Model-2 Model-3 Model-4 1 2.97 Not Avail.2.97 74 2.86732.90 73 2.85 73 0.0-3.5-2.2 4.0 2 10.52 10.55 16 10.09 16 10.20 16 9.99 17 0.2-4.1-3.1-5.1 3 20.65 20.70 4 19.57 4 19.65 4 19.42 4 0.3-5.2 4.8'5.9 4 29.02 29.10 2 27.72 2 27.87 2 27.53 2 0.3-4.5-4.0-5.1 SUM 96 95 95 96 lJ\oJe* I N\oAe.* 2 Ntooer. g iviocie*'

4 Fne X.reNcr=Z.:aB F*eX,," wc.r = lO.:i24 Fro5te uc'i' Za.r"48 F.UXue xcY*

29.O?0 Figure 2. Natural frequencies and mode shapes calculated from the original seismic analysis Page 13CALC U LATI ON COTII PUTATI ON NOP-CG3002-01 Rev.03 CALCULATION NO.c-css-099.20-069 REVISION: 000 P r{-tn g o+t (u o E-0.5 0 Normalized modal displra) 1't mode (MPF: 73o, ,5 tcement to-74o/ol 1 5 o4E tl tl tl ll tt tl ttt" _ __" I P (ts tn c o P (!o IJ.J-1-0.5 0.5 Normalized modal displacement (b) 2nd mode (MPF: 160/o-17%lo,l tr.f fi ln c o P (o o lrJ-0.5 0.Normalized modal disple (c) 3'd mode (MPF: 5 rcement 4Yo)1.5 I I l I j 1 I!-L 5 -0.5 0.5 L.5 Normalized modal displacement (d) 4th mode (MPF:2o/olFigure 3. Mode shapes calculated from the four FE models for the first four modes4.2 Limits of Acceptable Laminar Cracking Page 14 CALCU ISTION COTPUTATION NOP-CC-3002-01 Rev.03 CALCULATION NO.c-css-099.20.069 REVISION: 000 The permissible extent and width of cEcking is evaluated based on the testing canied out at Purdue and the University of Kansas (DlN 3). This testing canied out independently by two different industry experts evaluatedthe efiect of laminar cracking at the most critical location i.e. the lap splices of the Shield Building. To be conservative and to get lower-bound strengths, tested beams simulat*d two splices next to each other and insome cases (Kansas testrs) at only 6 days of strength for concrete. Note that the Shield building splices ar6 staggered and the actual in-place strcngth of concrete is much higher than what the test samples w*r* at when tested. Despite these aggressive test conditions, the lower-bound rssults from testing were determined to be wellabove the worst-case expected design basis forces/str*sses in the Shield Building with ad*quate margins.As indicated in the aftached Memo's from Profs. Sozen and Darwin (Attachments B and C), by testing the bondand development at the weakest location (lap splices), the testing carried out and the resulb thereof can be interpreted to be conseNatively applicable to the whole circumference of the Shied Building. Therefore, any laminar crack propagations from thqge observed previously would be covered and bounded by the rcsults of this t*sting up to and extending the full cirorrference of the Shield Building.

The testing canied out at Purdue University and the University of Kansas also gave clear insight8 on th* widths of laminar cracks at which the splices were still adequately able to perform their intend*d function of full loadtransfer. These crack widths were observed to be in exc*ss of 0.03 inches as reported in the attached Memo's byProf. Sozen and Prof. Darwin. Based on th6se test results and as confirmed by the attached Memo's, a conservative upper-bound crack width limit of 0.02 inches can be safely used as the limiting criterion for crackwidths for which the test results are deem*d to remain valid.In summary, based on the test results and as confirmed by Prof. Sozen and Prof. DaMin, any progression of theexisting laminar ctacking around the circurference of the Shield Building is rcpresented and bounded by the results of the tests. Also, both experts have independenfly confirmed that the test results can be deem*d to remain applicable as a basis for design compliance for observed crack widths of up to 0.02 inches.

Page 15 CALCU LATION COTI P UTATION NOP-CC-3002-01 Rev.03 CALCULATION NO.c-css-099.20.069 REVISION: 000 4,3 Code Compllance Revlow of Accopteble Lamlnar Gracklng A detailed Code Compliance review had been caried out as part of the (DlN 1, Attachment L) and the ob*rved laminar cracking at the time. This review had indicat*d that the Shield BuiHing still met all of the specific provisions of ACI 31863.In this calculation, this Gode Compliance study was re-evaluated in light of the new cracking bounds detined inSections 1.0 and 2.0. All the specific provisions of ACI 31843 in DIN 1, Attachm*nt L were found to still r*main valid, as a result of which no revisions to Code Complianc* is wananted. lt should be recognized that the ShieldBuilding has safely b*en able to perform its intended function so tar and the observed cracking is not expected toimpac't its overall structural integrity or future func,tionality as confirmed by Prof. Sozen in his Memo (seeAttachment B).

Page 16 CALCU LATION COMPUTATION NOP-CG3002-01 Rev.03 CALCULATION NO.c.css-099.20.069 REVISION: 000 4.4 lmpact of Acceptable Laminar Gracking Efiect of laminar cracking on stifiness, shength, serviceability, duc'tility and long{em durability was discussed indetail as part of the design basis calculation (DlN 1, Section 3.0). This calculation had mncluded that thete wasno appreciable impact to any of these paEmeters that would result in altering the expec{ed b*havior or performance of the Shield Building as a result of th* observed laminar cracking.

In this calculation, this evaluation was re*valuated in light of the new bounds of cracking established in thiscalculation. This review indicated that what had been discussed in OIN 1, Section 3.0 remained valid and th*rewas no impac't on these parameters or any additional issues expec'ted to be associated with the extended or progressing laminar cracking for crack widths within 0.02 inches.

Page 17 CALCU LATION COMPUTATIONNOP-CC-3002-01 Rev.03 CALCULATION NO.c-Gss.099.20.069 REVISION: 0005.0 Results This Calculation defines acceptable limits of cracking for variation in modal frequencies and mode shapes, for which th* original design basis seismic loading are deemed to rcmain valid. Based on this criterion, extent ofacceptable cracking is

• stablished for the Shield Building as described belovv.Upper-Bound Limits for Oack Propagation Reoion-1 (EL 801.0 - 812.75): No crack (Dome region)Reoion-2 (EL 774.5 - 801.0'l: 100% of the area is cracked, # of effective (uncracked) flutes: 0 Reoion-3 (EL &13.0 - 774.5): 50o/o of the area is cracked, # of effective (uncracked) flutes: 0 Reoion4 (EL 565.0 - 643.0): 20% of the area is cracked, # of effective (uncracked) flutes: 1 This calculation also addresses the limits of acceptable crack propagation around the circumference and thecrack widths based on testing caried out at Purdu* University and the Univ*r*ity of lGnsas, and defines aconseruative cracking threshold, for which the cunently established design basis Emain valid. lt is concluded thatthe Shield Building will continue to meet its design basis as long as the obs*rved cracking remains within thebounds defined below, especially crack width of 0.02 inches.

Attachment A: ANSYS Input and OutputCalc. No:

C-CSS-099.20-069, Rev. 000 Sheet No: 1 of 13 Sheet Rev.: 000PROJECT : DAVfS-BESSE 2013 SB new desiqn-basis calc ORIGINATOR : SHEN WANGCHECKER : HONGCHUN LIUSUBJECT :

Seisnic analysis evaluation considering lami.nar cracking on SBJOB NO : 25884 Examine the natural frequencies, MPFs, and mode shapes of SB consideringthe different leve1s of the laminar concrete cracks. Here, 3 different cases are examined as follows:! (1) Case-1: Origi-na1 design (VS01/801-03) - No crack, used as reference data point! (2) Case-2: Cracks in a1t flutes - conservative since not al-l f]utes are cracked.! (3) Case-3: Cracks in some flutes and elsewhere - more accurate, based on crack map! (4) Case-4: Postulated upper-bound limits for crack propagation.

! Note that all modeling parameters are taken from the original seismic analysis calc! except for the cross sectionaf propertj-es of the beam in the cracked area.!---------

FINI SH/CLEAR, START n_Case : 4 fname=STRCAT ( I SB_case', CHRVAL (n_case) ),/FILNAME, fname,l/PREP'7! ## (1) GEOMETRY ##*DIM, ELEV, ARRAY, 1.4 IrtrTl INODE #: I 2 3 4 5 t1 ELEV(1):565, 510.'75,589.5, 603, 609, 643, 646.5, 660, 692,'720,749,'t14.5,901, gI2.'75 t---------

NUMSTR, LINE,1*DO, r, 1, l_4K, II O' ELEV(I)*IF,I,GT,1,THEN TT1*ENDIF*ENDDO K, 101,1_0,ELEV(1)

!## (2)MATERIAL & SECTION

1. 1. • DrM, AX1, ARRAY, 13 l [FT^2]*DrM, IZI_, ARRAY, l_3 ! [FT^4]*DIM, WTI-, ARRAY, 13 ![KIP]*if , n_case, eq, 1-. thenl ---------tSLSt *, 1, 2 3 9 10 11 T2 13!---------

AXl-(1-): L]-53.'7, 1153.7, 1153.7, l_175.1, 11,'75.r, 1196.6, 1196.6, 1282.4, 1282.4, 1282.4, t282.4, 1282.4, 1554.0 IZL(L\= 289283' 289283, 289283, 294883, 294883, 3004E3, 3004E3, 3228E3, 322883, 322883, 322883, 3228E3, 299L83 WTl(1\= 2120.0' 279L.0, L697.0,3526.0,3311.0, 'J,526.A, 429A.0, 5771,.0,5386.0, 5244.0, 5L02.0, 4687.0t 4035.0

!---------

• else5-f, n_case, eq, 2, then IELEM #: 1 910 11 I2 13! ---------AX1 (1): 1110.8, 111_0.8, L110.8, 1,1L0.8, 1110.8, 1,11,0.9, 1,110.9, l,1l-0.9, 1110.8, 1110.8, 11L0.8, l_110.8, 1554.0 rz1(1):278183, 2'78]-83, 2'78L83, 2'78183, 2'781,E3, 2'r9183, 2'79LE3,2791E3, 2'79LE3, 2781E.3, 2"181E'3, 218LE3,2991E3 wrl-(1r: 2120.0, 279L.0, L69'7.0, 3526.0, 3311.0, L526.0, 4290.0, 5'77L.0, 5396.0, 5244.0, 5102.0, 4687.0, 4035.0

!---------

• elseif, n_case, eq, 3, thenl - - - -- - -- -

IELEM #: I 2 910 11 LZ-LJ!---------

AX1 (1):1153.7, l-153.7, L153.7, 1153.7, 1L53.'7, 1,104.5, 1.104.5, L125.9, Lr25.9, L125.9, 1,125.9, 1056.5, 1554.0 rz1(1):289283, 2892E3,289283, 2B92E3t 289283, 2?6583, 2'76583, 282083, 282083, 282083, 282083, 264083, 299183wT],(1): 2120.0, 2791,.0, 1,691 .0, 3526.0, 3311.0, 1526.0, 4290.0, 5'7'71.0, 5396.0, 5244.0, 5l-02.0, 4687.0, 4035.0

!---------

• elseif , n_case, eq, 4, then!---------

IELEM #: 1. 2 9 10 l1 1,2 13: ---------AXl-(1): 1104.5, 1104.5, 11-04.5, 1104.5, 1104.5, 1141.4, !r4I .4, II4r.4, L14L.4, 114L.4, 1,141 .4, 9'72, 1554.0 rzr(1):274583,274583t 2745E3, 274583t 274583,2601_E3, 260L83, 2601E3, 260L83,2601E3, 2601,83,2421,83,299183

!{Tl- (1): 2L20.Q, 2'791,.0, 1697.0, 3526.0, 3311.0, 1,526.0, 4290.0, 57'71.0, 5386.0, 5244.0, 5L02.0, 4687.0, 4035.0!---------

• endi-f MP, EX, l, 524757.

!ksfMP, GXY, 1, 209900.

lksfMP, DENS, L, O.13 1_2 t_0 Attachment A:

ANSYS Input and Output GRAV: 32.L'7 4*DO, r,l_,l_3 I fr / <ar^2 Calc. No: Sheet No: Sheet Rev.: C-CSS-099.20-069, Rev. 000 2ot 13 000R, I,WT1 (I) /GRAV, ,WT1 (I) /GRAV*ENDDO! ## (3) ELEMENT ##ET, l_, BEAM188ET, 2, }4ASS2I

,,,2*DO, rr 1,13SECTYPE, I, BEAM, ASECSECDATA, AX1 ( I ) , IZI ( r ) , 0 . 0 , IZI ( I ) , , 100 sEccoNTRoLS,AXl, ( r ) *20 9900 . 0 / 2. 0,,AX1 ( r ) *20 9900 . 0 / 2. 0 sEcNUM, r*ENDDO*DO, r ,L,L3LSEL, S, LINE, , I 1,ATT,1, ,1, ,1,01-, ,r

• ENDDOESIZE, 100LSEL, ALLLMESH, ALL

• nn T 1 t?VV ' L ' L, LJ NN=NODE ( O , ELEV ( I+ 1 ) , O )TYPE,2REAL, I E, NN*ENDDO NN=NODE (0,ELEV(1)

,0)D, NN,ALL ALLSEL,ALL EPLOT! ## (4)ANALYSTS

+#/SOLU N_FREQ:20 ANTYPE,MODAL MODOPT, LANPCG, N-FREQ ALLSEL,ALL

/OUTPUT, fname,'OUTr SOLVE/POSTl*DO,I,1rN_FREQ ctrTIT PRNSOL, U, X*ENDDO SAVE FTNISH***** ANSYS SOLVE COMMAND ******** NOTE ***There is no title defi-ned*** NOTE ***CP: for this analysis.

4.664 TIME: 18:02:30 4.664 TIME:18:02:30No modes are being expanded (MXPAND command) and therefore the elementresul-ts wifl not be written to the mode file.

For more efficientcalcul-atj-on of element results ln the expansion pass of any downstream mode superposition analyses, expand al-l- modes during the modat analys j-s.*** sElEcilo*

o:-::l#-3r;ff3il?133'5fi";:R-APPLTcABLE ELEMENTS ***ELEMENT TYPE 1 IS BEAM]-88 KEYOPT(1):1 IS SUGGESTED FOR NON-CIRCUI,AR CROSSSECTIONS AND KEYOPT(3):2

]S ALWAYS SUGGESTED.ELEMENT TYPE 1 IS BEAM1BS KEYOPT(15) IS ALREADY SET AS SUGGESTED.

SOLUTION OPTIONSPROBLEM DIMENSIONALITY.

.3-D DEGREES OF FREEDOM. . UX UY UZ ROTX ROTY ROTZANALYSIS TYPE . .MODALEXTRACTION METHOD. .PCG I,ANCZOS Attachment A: ANSYS Input and OutputNUMBER OF MODES TO EXTRACT.

20 GLOBALLY ASSEMBLED MATRTX .SYMMETRIC LOAD STEP OPT]ONS LOAD STEP NUMBER. 1 Calc. No: Sheet No: Sheet Rev.: C-CSS-099.20-069, Rev. 000 3of13 000*** NOTE ***The PCG solver has automaticallv set model to 5.CP : 4.680 TIME: the l-evel of difficultv for 18 :02:30 this**** CENTER OF MASS, MASS, AND MASS MOMENTS OF INERTIA CALCUI,AT]ONS ASSUME ELEMENT MASS AT ELEMENT CENTROID TOTAL MASS : 1538.1CENTER OF MASS xc : 0.0000 YC : '702.26 zc : 0.0000TYPE NUMBER ENAME 1 13 BEAM1882 L3 MASS21 MOM. OF INERTIA ABOUT ORIGIN IXX = 0.7672E+09 rYY : 0.000 IZZ : 0.'76'l2E+09 rxY : 0.000 rYz : 0.000 rzx -- 0.000 MOM. OF INERTIA ABOUT CENTER OF MASS IXX : 0.8654E+07 IYY = 0.000 rzz : 0.86548+07 rXY : 0.000 rYz: 0.000 rzx: 0.0004 .696*** MASS

SUMMARY

BY ELEMENT TYPE ***TYPE MASS2 1538 .07Range of element maxj-mum matrix coefficients in globar coordinates Maximum : 3.900'742325E+11 at element 6.

Minimum : 4.3351-70757E+10 at efement 5.

• • • ELEMENT MATRIX FORMULATION TIMES TOTAL CP AVE CP0.000 0.0000000.000 0.000000Time at end of element matrix formulation Cp : 4.68002987.

Form Preconditioner

0 Cum. Iter.: 1 Cp= 4.696Load Step: 1 Mode= 1-.curEqn: 1,4 totEgn: 84 Job CP sec:Factor Done: l-8 Factor WaIl sec= j'706.884 rate= 0.0 Mflops Iteration= 12 Number of eigenvalues converged:

5 Wall= 0.0 Iteration: 22 Number of eigenvalues converged= 10 WalI:

0.0 Iteration

29 Number of eigenvalues converged= 17 Wall:

0.0 Iteration

32 Number of eigenvalues converged: 20 WalI: 0.0 Iteration=

33 Number of eigenvalues converged: 20 Wa1l=

0.0 fteration

34 Number of eigenval.ues converged: 20 WalI:

0.0 Iteration

35 Number of eigenvalues converged= 20 WatI:

0.0 Iteration=

36 Number of eigenvalues converged:

20 Wall= 0.0 Iteration: 37 Number of eigenvalues converged= 20 Wall=

0.0 Iteration

38 Number of eigenval-ues converged= 20 WaIl:

0.0 Iteration

39 Number of ej-genval-ues converged: 20 Wa11:

0.0PCG LANCZOS EIGENSOLVER HAS CONVERGED SUCCESSFULLYTHE REQUESTED 20 MODES HAVE BEEN FOUND SUCCESSFULLY

• • • • • ANSYS - ENGINEERING ANALYSISSYSTEM RELEASE 13.0

• • • • • ANSYS Mechanical 00203236 VERSION:WINDOWS x64 18:02:30 JAN 27, 2015 Cp:

• • • • • FREQUENCIES FROM PCG T,ANCZOS ITERATION

• • • • • MODE FREQUENCY (HERTZ)I 2.8501787542832 2.8501787542833 9.2626455554314 9.9919143845834 .'7 2'7 Attachment A: ANSYS Input and Output Calc. No: C-CSS-099.20-069, Rev. 000 Sheet No: Sheet Rev.: 4ot13 000 5 6 1 8 9 10 11 1.2 l-J I4 15 1,6 L1 18 19 20 9.991914384583

19.42260098850 19.422600988502't .5269959519"7 2'7 .526995951_9'72'7 . 98 4L'7 669L7 6 33.51142453937 33.51L424539374L . 293'7 623 48 4 4 4L.293'7 6234844 46.15446548341 48.8326ss81876

48.83265581876 59.0411,1_14959759. 04 11114 9597 63.2389I'724720

• • • • • ANSYS - ENGINEERING ANALYSIS SYSTEM RELEASE 13.0 *****ANSYS Mechanical 00203236 VERSION=WINDOWS x6418:02:30 JAN 27, 2015 CP: 4 .'72'7 FREQUENCYX DIRECTION RATIO EFFECTIVE MASS PART]C. FACTOR r 2.8501_82 2.850r,8 3 9 .26265 4 9.99191 5 9.9919L6 19.4226 1 79.4226 I 2'7 .52'709 27 .52'7010 27.9842 11 33.5114 Lt JJ.5-Ll-4 13 4L.2938 14 4L.2938 15 4 6. 15451 6 48 .832'7[t 48.832'7 18 59.0411 19 59.0411_20 63.2389 33.492 1.000000 1.8441 0.055062 0.20983E-08 0.000000 0.8'7429 0.026L04 15 . 961, 0 .4'7 65690.47962 0.014320 1 .6323 0.22'788r 5.6't'73 0.1_69512 r .2002 0.035835

0. 18036E-08 0.000000 3.79'75 0.113384 0.42940 0.012821 0.95700 0.028574 0.98068E-01 0 .002928 0.17104E-11 0.000000 0.2't378 0.008L74 0. 67084E-01 0.002003? .2396 0 .0 668 69 0.306s7 0.009153 0.325018-10 0.000000 rtzr.14 3.40086 0.440300E-170 .'7 643'7 6254.'7 6"7 0.230037 58.2517 32.2322 1.440500 . 32530 6E-17 14 .421,I 0.184384 0.915848 0.96I"1298-02 Q.2925358-230.74 9539E-01 0.450029E-02 5.015?8 0.939853E-01 0.105632E-20 PERIOD 0.35086 0.35086 0.10796 0.100080. r_00080 .514868-01 0.51486E-01 0.36328E-010 .36328E 0.35734E-01_

0.2984LE-01_

0.298418-0l_

0.242]-7E'-0]-

0.242L7E-0L 0.21666E-01 0.204788-010 .20478E-01 0.16937E-01

0.l_6937E-0L0. t_5813E-01 CUMUI,ATTVE MASS FRACTION 0.7510570 . 753334 0.7533340 .75384 6 4.924425 0.9245790 . 96358 1 0.985162 0.986L2'7 0.986L27 0.995'7820 . 99590 6 0.9965190 . 996s2 6 0.996526 0.9965760 . 99657 9 0.999937 1.00000 1.00000 RATIO EFF.MASS TO TOTAL MASS 0.'7293L2 0.221,11,LE-02 0.286267E'-20

0.496969E-03 0.165640 0.149561-E-030 .378731_E-01 0.209562E-01U. YJbSOZI!-UJ 0.2L15028-20 0.937606E-02 0.119880E-030. s954s1E-03 0.6252818-05 0.1901968-26 0.4873238-04 0.292593E-05 0.326108E-020. 6110588-04 0.686780E-24 sum L4 93.54 0.9'7104'7 FREQUENCY PERIOD 0.35086 0.35086 0.10796 0.10008 0. 10008 0.51486E-01 0.51486E-01 0.36328E-010 .36328E-01 U.J5 i J4T!-UI 0.29841E-01 0.29841E-01 0 .2421,78-01, 0.242L'7E-0\

0.2r.6668-01 0.20478E-01 0 .20478E-01 0.16937E-01 0.16937E-01 0.1581-3E-01 CUMUI,ATIVE MASS FMCTION 0.3322848-200 .382756E-200.8 6256s 0.862565 0.862565 0.862565 0.862s65 0.862s65 0.862565 0.948023 0.948023 0.948023 0.948023 0.948023 0 . 97 95030 . 97 9503 0 . 97 95030 . 97 9503 0.979503 1.00000RATIO EFF.MASS TO TOTAL MASS 0.318613E-20 0.483957E-21 0.82701'7

0. 699348E-21_

0.1130868-22 0."7060028-200 .315037E-21 0.66L233E-220 .1,3'7 4568-24 0.819421_E-01 0.1805188-24 0.733421E-220 .309'7 648-22

0.200885E-23

0.3018438-01 0.3347868-250 .583266E-23 0 .244'1908-24

0. t-84099E-250 . 1 9653 9E-0 1Y DIRECTION PARTIC.FACTOR RATIO EFFECTIVE MASS L 2.85018 2 2.85018 3 9.26265 4 9.991915 9.99191 6 19.4226't L9.4226B 2'7 .52109 2"1 .5210 t 0 2'7 .9842 11 33.5114 12 33.51_14 13 4r.2938 t4 4t.2938 15 46.1_545 16 48.8321L'7 48.832"7

18 59.0411 19 59.0411 20 63.2389-0 .22I31E-08 0.000000 0.862768-09 0.000000 35.667 1.000000 0.l_0371E-08 0.000000-0.13188E-09 0.000000-0.32953E-08 0.000000-0. 69610E-09 0.000000 0.31891E-09 0.000000 0. 14540E-10 0.0000001,1.226 0.314761 0.16663E-10 0.000000 0.33587E-09 0.000000-0.21828E-09 0.000000-0.55586E-10 0.000000-6.8136 0.191037 0 .71758E-11 0.000000 0. 94716E-10 0.000000

-0.194048-10 0.000000-0.53213E-1L 0.000000 5.4981 0.154153 0. 4 900508-17 0.1 44362E-18 L212.II 0.107565E-17 0.173935E-19 0.108588E-16 0.484550E-18 0.101703E-18 0.2I]-4t88-21, IIO.UJJ u.z t tb5utl-lJ_

0. 112807E-18 0.4'76441E'-]-9 0.308977E-20 46.42560 .514 9268-22 0.8971-06E-20 0 . 37 650 6E-2 1 0.2831588-22 30.2292 sum I4'7 4 .190. 958857 Attachment A: ANSYS Input and Output Calc.Sheet Sheet C-CSS-099.20-069, Rev. 000 5of13 000***** PARTICIPATION FACTOR CALCULAT]ON

• • • • • Z DIRECTION MODE FREQUENCYr 2.85018 2 2.850183 9.2626s4 9.991915 9.99191 o J-y.qzzo7 L9.4226 I 2'7 .52'70 9 2'7 .527Q 10 21.9842).2 33.51_14 13 4r.2938 1_4 4r.2938 15 46.1545 L6 48.83271'7 48.832'718 59.04 r.1l-9 59.041120 63.2389 PERIODPARTIC.FACTOR RATIO 0.35086 -7.8441 0.0550620. 35086 33 .492 1

.000000 0.1-0'796

-0.30208E-09 0.0000000.10008 15.961 0.4'76569 0.10008 -0 .8'7 429 0.0261 04 0.51486E-01 7.6323 0.22'788r 0.51486E-01

-0.4'7962 0.0143200 .36328E-07

-7.2002 0 .035835 0.36328E-01 5.6'7'73 0.169512 0.35734E-01

-0.4'72558-09 0.0000000 .29841_E-01 -A .4294Q 0 .012821.

0.29841_E-01 3.'7975 0.113384 0.2421"'tE.-01

-0.98068E-01 0.0029280 .2421.'18-01 0. 95700 0.028574 0.21666E-01_ 0.111,70E-10 0.000000 0.20478E-01_

-0.67084E-01 0.002003 0.204788-01 0.213'78 0.008174

0. r_6937E-01

-0.30657 0.009153 0.1_6937E-0L 2.2396 0.066869 0.1-58138-01 0.31341E-09 0.000000 EFFECTIVE MASS 3.40086112]-.7 4 0.912548E-19254 .'7 670 .7 643'7 6 58.25L'7 0.230037 1.44050 32.2322 0.223304E-L80. 184384).4 .42L).

0.96]-"7298-02 0.915B48 0.1_247'7'78-210 .4500298-020 . 74 9539E-01 0.939853E-015.01 5780 .9822628-L9 CUMUI,AT]VEMASS FRACTION 0.22'7704E-02 0.753334 0.7533340 . 923 913 0.924425 0 .96342'7 0.963s81 0.964546 0.986L2"t 0.9861270 . 98 6250 0.9959060. 995912 0.996526 0.996526 0.996529 0 . 99657 9 0.996642 1 .000001 .00000RATIO EFF.MASS TO TOTAL MASS 0.22Lr1,3,8-02 0.72931_2 0.593306E-22 0.165640 0 . 4 96969E-03 0.3?8731-E-01 u.14y5bItl-uJ 0.936562E-03

0.2095628-01

0.1451848-21

0. 119880E-030 . 937 60 6E-020 . 62528 1E-05

0.595451_E-03 0.8L125'7E'-25 0.292593E-050 .48'73238-040. 6110588-04 Q.3267088-02o .6386318-22 sum14 93.54 0.971047***** PARTICIPAT]ON FACTOR CALCUI,ATION

• • • • • ROTX DIRECTION FREQUENCY PERIOD PARTIC. FACTOR RATIO EFFECTIVE MASS 0.1901-04E+07 0.627039E+09 U.19'JIZE-TJ0 . I 64 34 3E+08 2s9329.0.196381E+08 77551.1, 464893.0.104023E+08 0.'7326328-1"3 60084.60 . 4 69935E+07 3055.47 2909"7t.0.406959E-16 148'7 .96 24'782.5 30146.3 0 . 1 60884E+070 . 3120 61E-13 CUMUI,ATIVE MASS FRACTION 0.2524848-02 0.835318 0.8353180. 950114 0.9504s8 0.976541 0.976644 Q.9'7726r 0.99L077 0.991077 0.991156 0.997398 0 .99'7 402 0.997788 0.997?88 0.99'7'190 0.997823 0 . 9978 63 1.00000 1.000001, 2.8501-82 2.85018J t. zozo3 4 9.99191 5 9.9919L 6 19.4226'7 L9 .4226 8 2'7 .52'70 9 27 .52'70 1_0 27.98421T JJ.5-LI412 33.511_4L3 41-.2938t4 41.2938 15 4 6. 1545 L6 48.832"t 1'7 48.832718 59. 04 11L9 59.Q41"720 63.23890 .3508 6 -7378 .8 0 .0ss0620.35086 2s041. 1.000000 0.10796 -0 . 17185E-06 0.000000 0.10008 929'7 .0 0.37]-275 0.10008 -509.24 0.020337 0.51486E-01 4431.5 0.L'769'7I 0.51486E-0L

-2'78 .48 0.011121 0.36328E-01

-681.83 0.02'72290 .36328E-0]- 3225.3 0 . 128800 0.35734E-01

-0.210678-06 0.000000o .2984L8-01.

-245.1,2 0 .00978 9 0.298418-0L 2L6'7.8 0.0865710 .2421"'7E'-01" -55 .2'7 6 0 .00220'70 .242I'7E.-0L 539.42 0 .0215420.21666E-01 0.63793E-08 0.000000 0.204788-01

-38.574 0.0015400.204?8E-0t L57 .42 0.0062870. 1-6937E-01

-173. 63 0.0069340 .16937E'-03. L268

.4 0. 050653 0.1-581-3E-01 0.1 76658-06 0.000000 sum0 . 7 52 935E+0 91_ 2.850182 2.850183 9 .262654 9.991915 9. 99191 6 19.42267 19.4226 I 2't .527Q 9 2't .52"10 10 2't .984211 ?? q,11/tr2 33.51-14

13 4L.2938 14 41.2938 15 46. 1545***** PARTIC]PATION FACTOR CALCUI.ATION

• • • • • ROTY DIRECTION FREQUENCY PARTIC.FACTOR RATIO0.0000 0.0000000.0000 0.0000000.0000 0.0000000.0000 0 .0000000.0000 0.0000000.0000 0.0000000.0000 0.0000000.0000 0.000000 0.0000 0.000000

0 .0000 0 .000000 0.0000 0.0000000 . 0000 0.0000000.0000 0.0000000.0000 0.000000 0.0000 0.000000 PERIOD0 .3508 6 0.35086 0.10796 0. 10008 0.10008 0.51486E-01

0.51486E-01 0 .36328E-01 0.36328E-01 0.35734E-01 0.29841E-01

0.29841E-01

0.242L7E-0L 0.242L'78-070 .21666E-01 EFFECTIVE MASS 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 CUMULATIVE MASS ERACTION0 .00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Attachment A: ANSYS Input and Output Calc.Sheet No: c-css-099.20-069, 6of13 000Rev. 000 IO I'7 l_8 1v 20 48.832'7 48.832759. 04 1159. 04 11 63.2389 FREQUENCY 2.85018 2.85018 9.26265 9.991_919. 99r_9119 .4226 L9 .4226 21 .52'70 27 .52'70 27.9842 33.511433 . 511_4 41.2938 41.29384 6. 1545 48.832't 48.8321 59.0411 59.0411 63.2389 1.000000 0.055062 0.000000 0.020337 0.3'7I2'150 . 01112 L 0 .t'7 69'7I 0.128800 0.02't229 0.000000 0.086571 0.009789 0.021,542 0.002207 0.000000 0.006287 0.0015400 . 050 5s3 0.006934 0.000000 0.627039E+09 0.190104E+07 0.L42462E-LL 259329.0.8643438+08 77551.1 0.196381E+08 0.104023E+08 464893.0.104345E-110 .4 69935E+0760084 .6 29Q9'7L.3055.47 0.945614E-18 24'782.5 148'7.96 0.160884E+073014 6.3 0.335659E-15 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.000000. 00000 CUMULATIVE MASS FRACTION 0.832793 0.83s318 0.83s318 0.835662 0. 9504580. 950s61 0.9'76644 0.990459 0.991-077 0.991077 0.997318 0.997398 0.99't'784 0.997788 0.997788 0.99782r 0.9978230. 999960 L.00000 1.00000 0.20478E-01 0.0000 0.20478E-01 0.00000. 1,6937E-01 0.0000 0.16937E-01 0.0000 0.15813E-01 0.0000 PERIOD 0.35086 -25041.0.35086 -1378.8 0. 10796 -0. 119368-05 0.10008 -509.24 0.10008 -929'7 .0 0.51486E-0]-

-218.48 0.51486E-01

-4431.5 0.36328E-07

-3225.3 0 .36328E-01

-681 . 830 .35734E-01

-0 . 10215E-05 0.2984t8-0L

-2161 .8 0.29841E-0L

-245.r2 0.242I'tE-01

-539.420 .242L'78-01, -55 .2'7 6 0.216668-01

-0.972438-09 0.20478E-0t

-1.51 .42 0.20478E-01

-38 . 5740 . 16937E-01 -L268 .4 0.16937E-01

-173. 630 . l_5813E-01

-0 .I832rE-070.000000 0.000000.000000 0.00000 0.000000 0.000000.000000 0.000000.000000 0.00000 PARTIC.FACTOR RATIO EFFECTIVE MASS***** PARTICIPATION FACTOR CALCUI,ATION

• • • • • ROTZ DIRECTION 1 2 J 5 6'7 8 9 10 11 L2 13 I4 15 16 L'7 rY 2Q 0.752935E+09

• • • NOTE ***Solution is done !*** AI{SYS BINARY FILE STATISTICSBUFFER SrZE USED: l-63840.062 MB WRITTEN ON0.062 MB WRITTEN ON 0.062 MB WRITTEN ONFIN]SH SOLUTION PROCESSING cP=4.'72'7 TIME= 18:02:30 ELEMENT MATRIX FILE: SB_caseT.emat ELEMENT SAVED DATA FILE:

SB_caseT.esavMODAL MATRIX FILE: SB case?.mode4 .'789 INTERPRETATION (POSTl) *****ENABLE GRAPHIC D]SPLAY LEAVE POST11 . 0000 To 20 .000 BY 1 .0000

• • • • • ANSYS RESULTS ENTER /SHOW, DEV]CE-NAME TOENTER FTNISH TO*DO LOOP ON PARAMETER= I FROM USE LOAD STEP 1 SUBSTEPSET COMMAND GOT LOAD STEP: TIME/FREQUENCY:

2.8502TT TT T-1 FOR LOAD CASE 1 SUBSTEP: 1 0CUMUI,ATIVE ITERATION:

PRINT U NODAL SOLUT]ON PER NODE

• • • • • POST]. NODAL DEGREE OF FREEDOM LISTING *****LOAD STEP=

1 SUBSTEP: l-FREQ= 2.8502 LOAD CASE: 0 THE FOLLOWING DEGREE OF FREEDOM RESULTS ARE IN THE GLOBAL COORDINATE SYSTEM NODE UX1 0.0000 2 0.55497E-03 4 0.265468-026 0.44188E-02I 0.52638E-02 10 0.106338-01 Attachment A:

ANSYS Input and Output 12 0.11225E-01 74 0. 13577E-011-6 0.19468E-0118 0.24790E-0120 0.30062E-01 22 0.34845E-0124 0 .39436E-0126 0.41196E-01 MAXIMUM ABSOLUTE VALUES NODE 26 VALUE 0.41196E-01

• ENDDO TNDEX: T***** POST1 NODAL DEGREE OF FREEDOM LISTING LOAD STEP= l- SUBSTEP= 2FREQ: 2.8502 LOAD CASE: 0 THE FOLLOW]NG DEGREE OF FREEDOM RESUL?S ARE IN THE GLOBAL COORDTNATE SYSTEM NODE UX1 0.00002 0.30557E-04 4 0.14617E-036 0.24331_E-03 8 0.28983E-0310 0.58549E-03 12 0.61807E-03t4 0. ?4755E-03 16 0.10719E-0218 0.13650E-0220 0.165538-0222 0.1918 6E-0224 0.21,'7L4E-0226 0.226838-02 MAXIMUM ABSOLUTE VALUES NODE 26 VALUE 0.22683E-02

• • • • • POST1 NODAL DEGREE OF FREEDOM LISTING *****LOAD STEP: 1 SUBSTEP: 3 FREQ: 9.2626 LOAD CASE: 0 THE FOLLOWING DEGREE OF FREEDOM RESULTS ARE TN THE GIOBAL COORDINATE SYSTEMNODE UX1 0.0000 2 -0.255168-l_0 4 0.64713E-106 0.11991E-10 I -0.960628-1110 0.3I20I8-I2 L2 -0.34919E-12 14 -0 . 8564 6E-11 16 -0.18s068-10 t 8 0.19154E-1020 0.91-901_E-11 22 -0.12330E-1-024 0.15519E-1226 0.20766E-11 MAXIMUM ABSOLUTE VALUES NODE 4 VALUE 0.64?13E_10

• • • • • POST1 NODAL DEGREE OF FREEDOM LISTING

• • • • • LOAD STEP: 1 SUBSTEP: 4 FREQ: 9. 991-9 LOAD CASE= 0THE FOLLOWING DEGREE OF FREEDOM RESULTS ARE IN THE GLOBAL COORDINATE SYSTEMNODE UX 1 0 .00002 0.17151-E-03 4 0.72650E-036 0.10951E-028 0.L2449E-0210 0.1881-2E-02 Calc. No: C-CSS-099.20-069, Rev. 000 Sheet No: 7 of 13 Sheet Rev.: 000 Attachment A: ANSYS Input and Output).2 0.I9L628-02 14 0.19960E-02 16 0.18049E-02 18 0.L22528-02 20 0 .36510E-03 22 -0.56026E-03 24 -0.15067E-02 26 -0 .r'7 9298-02MAXIMUM ABSOLUTE VALUES NODE 14 VALUE 0.19960E-02

• • • • • POST]- NODAL DEGREE OF FREEDOM LISTINGLOAD STEP: 1 SUBSTEP:

5 FREQ: 9.9919 LOAD CASE: O THE FOLLOWING DEGREE OF NODE UX 1 0.0000 2 0.313128-02 4 0.13263E-01 6 0.19992E-01 I 0.22'7288-0L 10 0.34344E-01 1_2 0 . 34 98 3E-01 L4 0 .36439E-01 16 0.32951E-01 18 0.2236'78-0r 20 0.66654E-02 22 -0.I0228E-0L 24 -0.27508E-01 26 -0.32'132E-0IMAXIMUM ABSOLUTE VALUESNODE )-4 VALUE 0.36439E-01

• • • • • POST1 NODAL DEGREE OFLOAD STEP:

1 SUBSTEP=FREQ= L9.423 LOAD Calc. No: Sheet No:Sheet Rev.:

C-CSS-099.20-069, Rev.8of13 000 000FREEDOM RESULTS ARE TNTHE GLOBAL COORDINATE SYSTEMFREEDOM LISTING 6CASE: O THE FOLLOWING DEGREE OF FREEDOM RESULTS ARE IN THE GLOBAL COORDINATE SYSTEM NODE UX1- 0.0000 2 0.35s36E-03 4 0. t-4 6208-026 0.20337E-02B 0.220098-Q2 10 0.20300E-02 12 0.19155E-02 1,4 0.13133E-02 16 -0.80245E-03 18 -0.20607E-02 20 -0.795268-02 22 -0.64539E-03 24 0.13389E-02 26 0.I"7582E.-02MAXIMUM ABSOLUTE VALUES NODE 8 VALUE 0.220098-02

• • • • • POST1 NODAL DEGREE OF FREEDOM LIST]NG LOAD STEP= 1 SUBSTEP= 1 FREQ= L9.423 LOAD CASE: 0THE FOLLOW]NG DEGREE OF FREEDOM RESULTS ARE IN THE GLOBAL COORDINATE SYSTEM NODE UX1 0.00002 0.56549E-024 0.23265E-01 6 0.32363E-018 0 .35024E-0110 0.323048-01t2 0.30482E-0114 0.20898E-01 Attachment A: ANSYS Input and Output 16 -0.12770E-01 18 -0.327928-0L 20 -0 .31072E-01 22 -0.10270E-0124 0 .21307E-01 26 0.27978E-01 MAXIMUM ABSOLUTE VALUES NODE 8 VALUE 0.35024E-01

• • • • • POST1 NODAL DEGREE OF FREEDOM LISTING *****LOAD STEP= L SUBSTEP: I FREQ: 21 .52'7 LOAD CASE: 0 THE FOLLOWING DEGREE OF FREEDOM RESULTS NODE UX 1 0.0000 2 4.84249E-02 4 0.32982E-0I6 0.40291-E-01B 0.40089E-01 t 0 -0 .744928-03 L2 -0.484248-02 14 -0.19781E-01 l-6 -0.32883E-01 18 -0.17965E-02 20 0.31080E-01 22 0.268288-01 24 -0.125898-01 26 -0.207388-01 MAXIMUM ABSOLUTE VALUES NODE 6 VALUE 0.40291E-01 C-CSS-099.20-069, Rev.9 of 13 000 000 ARE IN THE GLOBAL COORDINATE SYSTEM LOAD STEP: 1 SUBSTEP: 9 FREQ= 21.527 LOAD CASE=THE FOLLOWING DEGREE OF FREEDOM RESULTS ARE IN THE GLOBAL COORDINATE SYSTEM NODE UX1 0 .0000 2 0.178L0E-02 4 0.69726E.-026 0.851_76E-028 0.84750E-02 10 -0.15748E-03 L2 -0.1023'78-02 t4 -0.4]-81'tE-02 16 -0. 69515E-02 18 -0.37978E-03 20 0.65705E-02 22 0.56715E-02 24 -0.266L3E-02 26 -O .43841,E.-02 MAXTMUM ABSOLUTE VALUES NODE 6 VALUE 0.85176E-02

• • • • • POST1 NODAL DEGREE OF FREEDOM L]STING

• • • • • LOAD STEP: 1 SUBSTEP: 10 FREQ: 27.984 LOAD CASE: THE FOLLOWING DEGREE OF FREEDOM RESULTS ARE NODE UX 1 0.00002 0 .tI4 90E-l_04 0.45585E-10 6 -0.30387E-10 B -0.18692E-1010 0.l_2469E-10 1,2 0.224298-IL 14 -0.585058-11 76 0 .432'7'7E'-12 18 0.852788-12IN THE GLOBAL COORDINATE SYSTEM Attachment A: ANSYS Input and OutputTHE FOLLOWING DEGREE OF FREEDOM RESULTS ARENODE UX 1 0.0000 2 0.944998-03 4 0.35636E-026 0 .381,94E-02I 0.34577E-02 10 -0.35042E-02 12 -0.37250E-02 L4 -0.36514E-02 16 0.242518-02 18 0.32111E-02 20 -0.1-6448E-02 22 -0.35048E-02 24 0.88534E-03 26 0. t-7870E-02MAXIMUM ABSOLUTE VALUES NODE 6 VALUE 0.38194E-02 Calc. No: Sheet No: Sheet Rev.: C-CSS-099.20-069, Rev.10 of 13 000 000 20 -0.10438E-1122 0 .87 669E-1.2 24 -0.'7'7049E.-]-2 26 0.454208-1,2 MAXIMUM ABSOLUTE VALUES NODE 4VALUE 0.45585E-10

• • • • • POST1 NODAL DEGREE OF FREEDOM LISTING *****LOAD STEP:

]- SUBSTEP: 11FREQ= 33.511 LOAD CASE:THE FOLLOWING DEGREE OF FREEDOM RESULTS ARE IN THE GLOBAL COORDINATE SYSTEMNODE UX1 0.00002 0.835'728-02 4 0.31_516E-01_6 0.33778E-01I 0.30579E-01 10 -0.30990E-01 L2 -0.32943E-01 l-4 -0 .32292E-01 t 6 0.21441E-0118 0.28399E-01 20 -0. 1454 6E-01 22 -0.30996E-0124 0.'78297E-02 26 0.15804E-01 MAXIMUM ABSOLUTE VALUES NODE 5VALUE 0.33778E-01

• • • • • POST1 NODAL DEGREE OF FREEDOM LISTING

• • • • • LOAD STEP= 1 SUBSTEP: 12FREQ: 33.511 LOAD CASE:

IN THE GLOBAL COORDINATE SYSTEMLOAD STEP:

1 SUBSTEP: ]-3 FREQ: 4L.294 LOAD CASE:THE FOLLOWING DEGREE OF FREEDOM RESULTS ARE IN THE GLOBAL COORDINATE SYSTEM NODE UX1 0.00002 0.31925E-02 4 0. t_1189E-01-6 0.91731E-02B 0.654L'78-02 l_0 -0.2231,1E-01 t2 -0.20632E-01 14 -0. 6604 6E-0216 0.41758E-01

18 -0.34862E-01 20 -0.19192E-0122 0.42340E-01 Attachment A: ANSYS Input and Output Calc. No: Sheet No:Sheet Rev.:

C-CSS-099.20-069, Rev. 000 11 of 13 000 24 -0.423308-02 26 -0.15095E-01_MAXIMUM ABSOLUTE VALUES NODE 22 VALUE 0.42340E-01

• • • • • POST1 NODAL DEGREE OF FREEDOM L]STINGLOAD STEP: 1 SUBSTEP: 14FREQ: 4L.294 LOAD CASE= OTHE FOLLOWING DEGREE OF FREEDOM RESULTS ARENODE UX 1 0.00002 0.32'7t58-034 0.LI466E-026 0.94001E-038 0.67036E-03 10 -0.22863E-02 12 -0.2].1428-02 14 -0.67680E-03 16 0.427928-02 18 -0 .35'724E-02 20 -0.t96678-0222 0.43387E-02 24 -0.43378E-03 26 -0.15469E-02MAXIMUM ABSOLUTE VALUES NODE 22VALUE 0.43387E'-02

• • • • • POST1 NODAL DEGREE OF FREEDOM LISTINGIN THE GLOBAL COORDINATE SYSTEMLOAD STEP: 1 SUBSTEP: 15FREQ= 46.1-54 LOAD CASE: 0 THE FOLLOWING DEGREE OF FREEDOM RESULTS ARE IN THE GLOBAL COORDINATE SYSTEM NODE UX1 0.00002 0.11755E-13 4 0.322688-13 6 -0.13877E-l_28 0.14389E-1310 0.19671-E-11

1-2 -0.50107E-11L4 0.28'7028-]-216 0.51810E-14 18 0.93631E-14 20 -0.968458-14 22 -0.552998-14 24 -0.39957E-15 26 0.67851E-14 MAXIMUM ABSOLUTE VALUES NODE 1-2 VALUE -0.50107E-11

• • • • • POST1 NODAL DEGREE OF FREEDOM LISTINGLOAD STEP:

1 SUBSTEP: 1.6 FREQ: 48.833 LOAD CASE=

0THE FOLLOWING DEGREE OF FREEDOM RESULTS ARE NODE UX1 0.0000 2 0.128068-024 o.4t'7L4E-026 0.22'731E-028 0.84293E-03 10 -0.949568-02 L2 -0 .'7'7 988E-Q2 1_4 0.2'731_'78-0216 0.18277E-01 18 -0.400768-0120 0.49665E-01

22 -0.34084E-0124 0 .36305E-03 26 0.10252E-01IN THE GLOBAL COORDINATE SYSTEM Attachment A: ANSYS Input and OutputMAXIMUM ABSOLUTE VALUES NODE 20VALUE 0. 4 9665E-01

• • • • • POST1 NODAL DEGREE OF FREEDOM LISTING *****LOAD STEP: 1 SUBSTEP: I'7FREQ= 48.833 LOAD CASE= 0THE FOLLOWING DEGREE OF FREEDOM RESULTS ARENODE UX 1 0.0000 2 0.31379E-034 0.r022L8-026 0.55699E-038 0 .20654E-03 10 -0.23267E-02 12 -0.19110E-021,4 0.669368-0316 0.44786E-02 18 -0.981998-0220 0.12169E-01 22 -0.83518E-0224 0.88959E-04 26 0.25t2I8-02MAXIMUM ABSOLUTE VALUES NODE 2QVALUE 0.12169E-01

• • • • • POST1 NODAL DEGREE OF FREEDOU LISTINGLOAD STEP:

1 SUBSTEP= 18FREQ: 59.041 LOAD CASE= 0THE FOLLOWING DEGREE OF FREEDOM RESULTS ARENODE UX1 0.0000 2 0.15283E-014 0.423258-0I 6 0.254858-02 I -0 . 1- 6138E-01 1-0 -0.48959E L2 -0.31784E-01L4 0.57827E-01 16 -0.14382E-01l-8 0.4'79328-02 20 -0.16833E-0222 0.530058-0324 0.18440E-03 26 -0.23037E-03MAXIMUM ABSOLUTE VALUES NODE 14VALUE 0.57827E-01

• • • • • POST1 NODAL DEGREE OF FREEDOM L]ST]NG *****LOAD STEP: ]- SUBSTEP: 19FREQ: 59.041 LOAD CASE= 0THE FOLLOWING DEGREE OFNODE UX 1 0.00002 0.20920E-024 0.57938E-026 0.34886E-03 8 -0.2209LE-02 10 -0.67018E-02 12 -0.43508E-02 74 0 .7 91 58E-02 16 -0.19686E-0218 0.65612E-03 20 -0.230428-0322 0.7255'7E-04 24 0.252428-04 26 -0.31534E-04 MAXIMUM ABSOLUTE VALUES Calc. No: Sheet No: Sheet Rev.: C-CSS-099.20-069, Rev.12 of 13 000 000IN THE GLOBAL COORDINATE SYSTEMIN THE GLOBAL COORDINATE SYSTEMFREEDOM RESULTS ARE IN THE GLOBAL COORDINATE SYSTEM Attachment A: ANSYS Input and Output NODE ].4VALUE 0.79158E-02

• • • • • POST1 NODAL DEGREE OF FREEDOM LISTINGLOAD STEP:

1 SUBSTEP: 20 FREQ: 63.239 LOAD CASE: OTHE FOLLOWING DEGREE OF FREEDOM RESULTS ARE NODE UX 1 0.00002 0 .57438E-134 0.645L18-L2 6 -0.81878E-12 I Q. s8s28E-r_2 10 -0 .6'76LLE-L2 L2 -0.8225'78-L2 1_4 -0 .239348-L216 0.14029E-11 18 -0.LI622E-II 20 -0.65539E-12 22 0.142888 24 -0.I4L94E-12 26 -0.509068-12 MAXIMUM ABSOLUTE VALUES NODE 22VALUE 0.14288E-11

• • • NOTE *** cP : DELETED BACKUP FILE NAME: SB case4.dbb.

• • • NOTE *** cP : NEW BACKUP FILE NAME:

SB case4.dbb-ALL CURRENT ANSYS DATA WR,ITTEN TO FILE NAME:FOR POSSIBLE RESUME FROM THIS POINT EXIT THE ANSYS POST1 DATABASE PROCESSOR***** ROUTINE COMPLETED

• • • • • CP : Calc. No: Sheet No:Sheet Rev.:

C-CSS-099.20-069, Rev. 000 13 of 13 000IN THE GLOBAL COORDINATE SYSTEM 4 .805 TIME: 18 :02:30 4 .805 TIME:

L8:02:30SB_case4 . db 4 .820 To: FROM: RE:Calculation C-CSS-099.20-069, Rev.

0, Aftachment B, Page 1 of 3 Mr. Javeed Munshi Mete A.soz*n,5E

{filinois} [{.tc *,i{a" u-*On The Effect of Laminar Cracks Observed in the Shield Structure of the Davis-Besse Nucfear Power Station DATE: 25 March 2015 Not having made the crack-width measurements in person, let me start with a iummary ofwhat I know about the distribution and development of laminar cracks observed in the shell ofthe structure.

As documented in Table I of this note, a totaf of 15 bores have been subjected to repeated crack width measurements over the course of 2 to 3 years. None of the repeated measurements identify an appreciable trend of increasing crack width.Crack widths reported in 2011 range from 5 to 13 mils. Those made in 201? and ?013 range from 5 to 10 mifs.In the data reported in Table 1, there is no trend that would be inferred to suggest a change inthe strengfh of the structure.

This conclusion is in agreement with the standard expectationthat, unless there is a serious disturbance in its surroundings, a reinfurced concrete structurethat has been built decades ago should not have criticaf change in its properties within its expected life span.Results of experiments carried out at Bowen Laboratory in 2012 focusing on the effect of laminar cracks on strength of unconfined lap splices of #11 reinforclng bars provide a basis for understanding the strength state of the Shield Structure at the Davis-Besse Nucleaf Power Station, The question to be ansrfi,ered is simple and direct. Given that the observed laminar cracks in the Shield Structur* were not caused by bond stress, the questinn is "What fraction of the yield stress of the relnforceme nt can be developed by a splice with an existing laminar crack of a Biven magnitude?" Eight of the twelve tests reported were focused on that questionr.

Test girders with 120-in.

and 79-in. spfices (Figure 1 & f l were loaded to develop laminar cracks, unloaded, and then loaded to failure ts determine the effect of "existingl' cracks. Their results in relation to the questionto be answered are sumrnarized in Table 2. The glrders measured L7 518 by 30 in. in cross section.In the tests with 120-in. spfices (Series Al, it was observed that a splice with an existing crack as large in thickness as 120 mils developed 120% of the measur*d yield stress of the reinforcement.

ln the tests with 79-in splices (Series B), it was observed that a splice with an t M. A. Soren and 5. Puiol, 'An Investlgation of The effects of Laminar Cracks on $trength of Unconfined Lap Splicerof *11 reinforcing bars,' e report submitted to First Energy Nuclear Operating ComBany, Oak Harbqr, Ohio, Xl July 2012.

Calculation C-CSS-099.20-069, Rev. 0, Attachment B, Page 2 of 3 existing crack width of 30 mils developed 105% of the measured yield strers of the reinforcement.In both cases the existing crack widths exceeded those measured in the Shield Buitding.

The mea$urements made in the tests at Bowen Laboratory confirm that the reported laminar cracks in the Shield Building sf the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power $tation will not prevent the structure from fulfilling its design mission of ductility in the event of impulsively applied internal or external forces.It is relevant to note the ACI 318-63 document states in Article 805 "Splices at points of maximum tensile rtress shsuld be avoided wherever possible; such splices where used shall be welded, lapped, or otherwise fully developed." In the tests made at Bowen Laboratory wlth faminar cracks, the 120-in. splices developed a minimum ot77 ksi and the 79-in. splices developed a mlnimum of 59 ksi. The minimum reinforcement stress developed in both types of splice exceeded the nominal yield stress (60 ksi) as required by ACt 318-63. .Recommendetlon Based upon the study of the tests performed at Bowen Laboratory, 0 conservative lswer bound erack-width can be establlshed.

lf the measured laminar crack width does not exceed 0.0?inches, the splices wif l continue to satisfy thelr original design objective.

TABUT ml TU l0t3 ID Cncklttidth Date Cnd Wdh Drte CrdWldth Date Cn*lilifthOateCnckWidthDate 0ffilin.0.Ol ln.0Olin.0"filtin.$ffiiil.$tmil.s lUtUt0ll efiutsH 5+ea$$1$2ff20'11 NoCl6 t/illou u$/lCI$s773.16*u2unfilt9fi5/Ifi!

s665.S&10/2sil11 s5rul!s7-6$',t.S25 xonryro}r e/sn0$5S653.$9 1T 5/trynu tloCllG uz{eu t{oC}lG ffiunu IN e/u/st: 5$666.$11 ilrumll sltw ifoClG USm: f'loCl6 ilvlot3 e$/$t!tln5.?a5{0 10/3U20u (I0 5NWlt lloCllG wlffi2 ilo [tf6 g#mu el34l?ou tu-5617'1) il0$fi{m: elluHs 511"569.$l?

10[6/mil e/u/m$5U-666S4 10124/r0tr tio Cl6 iltVmu ililm: 1l elluilu 5lt66S8 1Uyt01t lt u$nfit 9ls613.$46 s10$/251rur No CHG u$/nu r{9H4lt01 r+n4,o3.5<lll EB/NU erulslr flnt${13 1u4l0u!{o CHG uB/40il t{o CtlS g3/101: 1(elB/mu Calculation C-CSS-099.2S069, Rev. 0, Attachment B, Page 3 of 3 TABTE ZL*{t cdflrE 3ffi-I L, t I I'?r EomrTr Sarrn ,, L_,u It -r Ir I'.J l-,oJ 3 l-Figure I Test Girder Series A rg q I 1'Er$r.f $lH RcdTest Girder lD txlrtlng Crack Wldth0,001 In.Tesile StressDeveloped in Reinforc*ment ksi Yield $tress ksi A1 150 79 66 A2 80 7g 66 A5 80 79 65 A6 60 77 66 B2 30 69 65 B3 15 7A 66 B5 25 72 66 B6 15 72$6s-a 3" _l ,.I L.f.r (Llp Sprat tmdrrFigure 2 Test Girder Series B 3a'{'rl 3, L- s4 s'--l r'.r Calculation C-CSS-099.20-069, Rev. 0, Attachment C, Page 1 ol2DAVID DARWIN, consuftins Eneinesr Struc'tu ral E ngineering Engineedng Matefials 1901 Camelback Drfve Lawrence, l(ansEs 66&t7 78ffi6+3827 78S41-2888 C*ll 785-764-9922 MEMORAT{DUM TO: Javeed MunshiFROM; David Darwin DATE: March 24,2A15

SUBJECT:

Potential Limits 611 lqminar Qs6[iag in Davis-Besse Shield Building This memo is in response to three questions addressing the laninar cracking in the Davis-Besse Shield Building.l. Do the testing and results reported ia University of Kansas Center for Research, Inc. SL Report 12-2, dared Juoe mlz, in any way place a limit on the laniaar cracking around the Shield Building?

In other words, if tbe laminar cracking is p,resent thtougbout the Shield Buildin& are the rcsts and test results valid?Response: The t*$ts and test results reported in SL R*port l2-2 cover the conditioo of firll del"'niqation in the vicinity of splices, and thus, conespond to laninar cracking throughout the Shield Building.2, Is there a limit to the crack width that can be allowed based oa tbe t*st results rcported in SL R*port r2-2?Response:

Five of the six test specimens described in SL Report l2-2 were fabicded using a cold joint (obtained using two colrcrctc placements) to simulme a laninar crack Three out of these five specimens were preloaded to obtain la"'ina' cracks in the plarc ofthe spliced bars with wi&hs in the nnge of20 to35 mils (0.020 to 0.035 in.). Those specimens were subsequently reloaded lo failure - a ftilure that was governed by splice shength. One of the tbree preloaded specimens had a splice lenglh of79 in" Ils initial l6qding resulted in a laminar crack width of 20 mils (0.020 in.). Upon subsequent reloading, a sbess of 57,000 psi was obtained in the spliced bar.

Prior to Gaching this stress, a l+'ninr crack wi&h of 35 mils (0.035 in.) was measured The other two preloaded specimens had splice leogths of 120 in- Thesespecirnens were preloaded to produce laminr crack widths of 35 and 30 mils (0.035 aod 0.030 is), respectively. Upon reloading, the specimens achiwed respective bar stresses at splice failme of 67,000and 69,000 psi. Given that all tbree beams achiwed a laminar crapk width of at least 30 mils (0.030 ia.), a crack width of 20 mils (0.020 in.) would be a prudent upper limit for the Shield Building.3. Assumhg ifu4 the Shield Building has laminar cracking around its firll cfuumference aod that the cfiack widtbs are maintained within the limits to your r*sponse to Erestion 2, how does this situation in theShield Building meet the provisions of ACI 3 I E-63?Response: Splice design in accordance with ACI 318-63 rcquires that qplices fransfcr the entire oomputed shess from bar to bar without exceeding tbree-quarters of the permissible bond values (expressed as an ultimate bond sbess).

The lap length must be increased by 20% for contact splices speced lderally closer than 12 bar diameters or located oloser than 6 in. or 6 bar diamaers tom m ouside edge. these critaiawere considered for the initial de"igrr of the Sbield Building. Neither ACI 318{3 nor any other ACI code Celculation C-CSS-099.2G069, R*v. 0, Att8chment C, Page 2 of2Javeed MunstdI{arch 24,2015 Page2addrcsses the presence of lanrinar cracts in the plane of the einfor*ement. That said, the tests and rsults described in SL Report l2-2 demongtrate that bar stresses of 57,000 psi and grearer c*n be provided by splices in the p,resence of laminar cracks with widlhs of 20 mils (0.020 in.) or gI*aler, Thus, lhe dcsign forces in the bars can be maintainc4 even for concrete that has mdergone significat laminar cracking with crack widtbs cqual to or greater tban the recomncnded upper limit of 20 mils (0.020 in).

Page I of 1 DESIGN VERIFICATION RECORDNOP-CC-2@i-01 Rev.00 DOCUMENI(S yACTrVfTy TO BE vERTFlED: Shield Buiklinq Laminar Crackinq Limits, C-CSS499.20{69 Rev 0 El SNrEW RELATED fI nUcUENTED QUALITY f] NONSAFETY RELATED SUPPORTING/REFERENCE DOCUMENTS Refer to the body of the calculation.DESIGN ORIGINATOR:grtnt and Sr'gr Name)ShenWang W DATE 0lft*/ugVERIFICATION METHOD f0necl ono)8 OeSrcN REVIEW (Comptateoes,gn EI ru-fenNATE CALCULATION il OUru-tflCATlON TESTINGReview CDeclr/isf u Calculation Review Chacklisl)

J USTI FICATION FOR SUPERVI SOR PERFORM I NG VERI FICATION

APPROVAL: (Print and Srgn Name)DATE EXTENT OF VERIFICATION:

Verified using Galculation Review ChecklistCOMMENTS, ERRORS OR DEFICIENCIES IDENTIFIED?

E VCS A NORESOLVED BY: (Print aN Sign Name)DATE VERf FIER' (Print and Srgn Nane)

JaveedA.Munshi Fforr,lthurr

[:a {nr IaUg&t lt4,lnflr', do.DATE or /ob /wltAPPROVED BY: (Pfint aN Sign ft/ame)Hongchun Liu DATE o5fo6 l"ou E F!o ss 8R$0 o I; s??efi E =E J gF?o3-L' . ur.': J>O=<iuoz oE<:t=ltj I ul tr z I F J 3 C)Jtt : vB (f, s F c)C)sl d O d.o z o4 Qro---t O<*-o qE bp 6:i c')c n c o.9 c CD tn 0)D E c IE sf p o E g rt o o o 8 o ql.o (U o o.CL (!E'5 o o c (6 E o (J (t (U.E es EO s-8@c o o ll o a.>G tr G tr o)h o!'o s aC ()u oo r)r drg 3H l\, (l)zg TH G-v0}:f c'cL ulg E E!v o'i3 c-tr rE T'3 (J 5EE 3eS 6Ep b g;EEfi< oE E$E c o.9, o tr o (t E g (!-g tl o c 0 o GI o c.o-g: C'(lt TJ o E o tt c.q ct E 3 3n{, (t ^.=it ll,o c,.rly')q(ll rt .Cl;ts;*Ito=-o g*FE C'g EH E6 8.9 f;E qr3 SE oP o EE F-S tr-g 3(,l!?s s9 58 88-5(E 9E O(o-o aIc or PO e5 9-o C r., po E(,: o=8E:(,-cctt o co SE=o'E>EE E8 o.ga (r,o tro.J^sf,!F Fg$Eg;frE oE8 (6o.E*.EE oP 8E 5,;htt lgG 6(l, g?t EE r[o EF e,E gE tl tr 5: o:'o 5 CL.g EE, G'E s*.3p OErr Eee E O'E* xe BiE E$E*oo>\c*,8 s'3.cS rt, ob EE fis tsE.$c Fr!o"o FiE s8E-E E8 wt!H*ao-It0'P.E E3 SR Fo bl9 gE a()'3'r E.E g6 o=.F .E E8;9 6=.o 8s 6 8s FHfi E*!s*E$$g o>*E$$c o ct o a G c o qt E IE c o (, o (!o E^g e s E TE o o o 5 CL.E*H o E.9 E*'p u, c o ()O).E t!o CL o-!P.cl G'.9 a.ES G-:al!t C (E E.9 g o p E 6.g (, c o o It at o-o c r0 o ,tr E o E o o.o a s sl o (t o c EE ag ol.s o-o.9 c o c ll (!IJ o 3 3 o.o C)o o tt o o ct o o o o=CL o.>-.J o tt o tt o G o o.c a o o o

• o Nclss flR s?3l'3n I: $:= ;8 7 xtE 3e i;si (,G<3 z o tr 3 J o o lr, tr p 2 UJ E E o ()F a I J v O llJ-()-=ltj I uJ tr z o I F J=o J O;G+F o I 0-o z o z x ct o x x x x x x x xxx x><x x x x x X (=xxx z o F o u, f o o o 3 E s o a.g.o o a)O o z ut IL o E c o I'c'.g E ll, o 3 cl, tr o o tn E E ol e o.o 3 CL tr EC\5g 9'6!o 9E oi N t,.e5 9"8 5*E*EE EE>E Qo gs Sa oE Eg (U6 g-E EE$*6 crt=o E9T bs..-'e -;ET;o=Oui gE B b8E eaE tt.lP .i;gEE rt p f o (t TE E o o g).!a u, o=(5=z G 3 o (E o E (f u.l tr o o e o c o (t,CL rr.r('ra=e=o v@EE o.o tr.c Ro ar (0 FTI-au 5E I N (\.tt o o o I o o o , (E-c 3 T'c to o: o..g o tt@o o E o ()c o s?.9 o G g o o TE o f o.:'o o f CI E o (t o E I rrt$l!l tr G o*u e o.cl, c'c o o.g c't t o E o N c Er o (, E E 3 E o ln'a c o (, x6:to uo JG oo Ee 6'6,- e6# o.g6 oS E *.E Fe9-(f!t I ectt, al.g o c o c.9 G=e, o c o o o o at Jl1'E e!t o!t o CL tr o o (J'-a, t!'lt o c o Qe PO srgl otr oo otr EC o$lt st r o e (, o qt o t a o o E It c o E I e CI tt o E o E o o a c, o e o o o ii o.;F C'E o E (!E.8 o o 3{i GI.9 o o c o o E.E E o o:'(J o o c o.g o ts o IJ-rU.e'a E o st o E ,g (!c o C'c 5 6 Oir E.E;o=O FTE F>Ets 4ts!ro wct 19c.o_go I.(t ot sl (\o t g o E!t C o Q c 5 o o g o G;tt o c o o E o=5 o E.t g ci o r.:t Et.tr c tn o o c o E o 6 E o a o I o a g o o E I o o-o o E d, E 2 t o I c o.l ctl c ot t c.9 E s o c o (, I e o a o-;CO s.o=o c.;D E 6 ct E o o c o s 3 E o 6 o g o tt c 6 o.o o c o a 6 E:t o o o c o o!t c E nE ZE 9o Es dla z Es s.o'c o'g (J o I{6 c\o ()C'o o c, E g n c.9 o o tt o E$g o c o G.g=,h 5.;-o o C o o (B E G E a},,8 ll,)t.l(?tc)(\.(n t=, 3 o E g.9 o=o rE o o E c o!!o o (0.o-g.o IU 5 o.:.q c.9 o o c'o o It o t!g, o q ()c o 1A E!, c TE c.9{I E IJ (E (, E.E o c, E o o t G c o c (0 It I o.o E 3 c F r!c o: (t o o o o Ctl 8.r-O 6*arE E:;(C I d (vls.-0D D'6 3*o o E o c o.g g E.g c.9.U E o.E r[g (o (t, o o o!r o o g g G 5 o ,c't o s (U lt$r b.e 9E dcs EE k5$!g6 EE E'E-IJ (E EE 5!Eb aE 5:E E5 r-E.E o-oo 9-g IEH l.tf\i(9 E 7 o (, c (6 E o g o ocs.E3 F5 CE P*EgIJ G'cto-c)E9 oc)EQt' rr'FE o-go qC 6g FC H8 oc a*?i -g E3 FO oo*(t te'jt (It oTt=c gs 16(er6 9E rO (r)o;tt a g TE E T'r!a o C gt.A g!t o rU Ec..EC-o h3 d.g-ct >-o b: Eg FF iE fi=6(E o!t.E{d:o_so EF 9E Ho-:=o Gs arO 5.C=f fo :t Ir!i.o, (n (\. I wl o o E]tUl fi q o IA o.o cI g o c o (J tr.g s T'ol c.t2 x o.E&3 E o o ttt o 5 U'o C o-g t og-o do Z=uf6 8e J>>a 9.r-an!rotrt st o.F.o (6 cl e a o o a o 1'o E o cll nf(D ttlG- .{=cDc.E',=Pd 8..8':i o=(!E:!gD_-o ct:l ,o.9, tr oo{g FF 60 9o JO L'O 6(/)oE 9.o Q'-6o 9tr:<YA FTL-tt (!o a o c o o (U E o!t c o o c o o E E{'s l0 c\i t U'tr o E o'5 cr E c o 6 E o.g c.gl th o E g&$C'E rg t0 E o lt, f E o CL E o.c.g g f (!E*9d!E ra)dig IO (v)\'

$o}$s f;R oi or I o 6 I o <=d 2;Z, -!g i,iE.si[=*g'5 r{8l-1\c'(v)r\a rt:t}lll g o o o (!t e t o-F a-J v o uJ E c)3 UJ I nJ E z o F J 3 C)J o;G g$*N: EI;EE;iei CL!-EgE oo E EEg$Eg--59*88iii o- t ie E:-cLf C r--'- o eH E:oo-tl .o SeE}FE;EEg!g$E 94 60.EE GO.9()FUJ 6=ea g;'6>ott oo oc iP sr5 ao fl*sg co t5cl c(U (l*o'-..eS cE 6*tro r*.s.g SE 5a*<ea E*;)oP (0=F5.Jr r!$iio E c rE*o o E'6 c o ()c o o o c o-(!5 IJ (!(t$g 5*ot,'{o E6*E;q{ tt 5o- tt'r{f gr EJ F5 q{\l -tl C rtJ AcF If.9 o o.o c CD.A o!t.g E o (, c, E o o o (U 3 c.9 (o E l, (!()o o g.E o o lt o G o, E o-c.9 d E rJ 6 o o E p (]