ML20107F017
| ML20107F017 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 10/31/1984 |
| From: | BECHTEL GROUP, INC. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20107E986 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8411050186 | |
| Download: ML20107F017 (100) | |
Text
____ _ _ - _ _ - - _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _
m^
r U
VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT GEORGIA POWER COMPANY
[ .
[
[- .
[
[' .
Es b- FUEL HANDLING BUILDING DESIGN REPORT
[
[
[:
[
[
Prepared
{
by
( Bechtel Power Corporation, Los Angeles, California October 1984
(
8411050186 841031 PDR ADOCK 05000424
[_ . . . .
^ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
U VEGP-FUEL HANDLING BUILDING DESIGN REPORT 5
TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page
[-
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1
[.
^ 2. 0 DESCRIPTION OF STRUCTURE 2
[ 2.1 General Description 2 2.2 Location and Foundation Support 2 2.3 Geometry and Dimensions 3
{ 2.4 Key Structural Elements 3 2.5 Major Equipment 5 3.0 DESIGN BASES 6
[ 3.1 Criteria 6 3.2 Loads 7 3.3 Load Combinations and Stress / Strength Limits 12 3.4 Materials 12 4.0 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN 15 h 4.1 Selection of Governing Load Combination 16 4.2 Vertical Load Analysis 16 4.3 Lateral Load Analysis 17
(
4.4 Combined Effects of Three Component Earthquake Loads 18
{ 18 4.5 Roof and Floor Slabs 4.6 Shear Walls 19 4.7 Walls Supporting the Cask Handling Crane 21 4.8 Basemat 22
(- 4.9 Spent Fuel Pool Walls 25
[
[
{ .
1
VEGP--FUEL HANDLING BUILDING DESIGN REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont)
Section Page 5.0 MISCELLANEOUS ANALYSIS AND DESIGN 26 5.1 Ctability Analysis 26 5.2 Tornado Load Effects 27 5.3 Abnormal Loads Effects 28 5.4 Foundation Bearing Pressure 29
6.0 CONCLUSION
29
7.0 REFERENCES
29
~
TABLES FIGURES
~
APPENDICES ]
A Definition of Loads B Load Combinations C Design of Structures for Tornado Missile Impact
]
]
1 1
]
ii
L VEGP-FUEL HANDLING BUILDING DESIGN REPORT r:.
L.
LIST OF TABLES
(~
, Table Page
[' .
1 Fuel Handling Building Seismic Acceleration Values 31
~
2 Tornado Missile Data 32
- 3. Design Results of Representative Slab' Panels 33 4 Design Results of Representative Shear Walls 34 5 Design Results of Walls Supporting the Cask h Handling Crane 35 6 Factors of Safety for Structural Stability 36 7 Tornado Missile Analysis Results 37
{-
8 Maximum Foundation Bearing Pressures 38
[
[
[.
[
[
[
(T
[
{
{
iii
VEGP-FUEL HANDLING BUILDING DESIGN REPORT b -
r LIST OF FIGURES -
h Figure i 1 Location of Fuel Handling Building 2 Fuel Handling Building Floor Plan, El. 220'-0" ,
3 Fuel Handling Building Section Looking North E 4 Fuel Handling Building Sections Looking East i 5 Lvl A Floor Plan Showing Location of Shear p Walls 6 Lvl 3 Floor Plan Showing Location of Shear Walls 7 Dynamic Incremental Soil Pressure Profile f_
8 Hydrodynamic Pressure Profiles Acting on i Basemat Under OBE Hydrodynamic Pressure Profiles Acting on
[
=_
9 Pool Walls Under OBE 10 Hydrodynamic Pressure Profiles Acting on f Basemat Under SSE -
11 Hydrodynamic Pressure Profiles Acting on E
Pool Walls Under SSE 12 Wind and Tornado Effective Velocity Pressure Profiles -
13 Representative Roof and Floor Slab Details z 14 Representative Shear Wall Details 15 Cask Crane Beam Elevation 16 Cask Crane Beam Section l-17 Basemat Finite Element Model 18 Representative Results of Basemat Analysis -
Representative Results of Basemat Design 19 20 Center Section Basemat Reinforcing _
21 Basemat Section Details 22 Representative Results of Spent Fuel Pool Wall Analysis
- 23 Representative Results of Spent Fuel Pool Wall Design 24 Representative Spent Fuel Pool Wall Details iv
L UEGP-FUEL HANDLING BUILDING DESIGN REPORT
[
1.0 INTRODUCTION
[ The Nuclear Regulatory Commission Standard Review Plan, NUREG-0800, requires the preparation of design reports for Category 1 structures.
This design report represents one'of a series of 11 design reports and one seismic analysis report prepared for the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP). These reports are listed f below:
- Containment Building Design Report
(
- Containment Internal Structure Design Report
- Auxiliary Building Design Report
- Control Building Design Report
[
- Fuel Handling Building Design Report
- NSCW Tower and Valve House Design Report
{.
- Diesel Generator Building Design Report
- Auxiliary Feedwater Pumphouse Design Report
- Category 1 Tanks Design Report
- Diesel Fuel Oil Storage Tank Pumphouse Design Report
[
- Category 1 Tunnels Design Report
- Seismic Analysis Report The Seismic Analysis Report describes the seismic analysis methodology used to obtain the acceleration responses of
( Category 1 structures and forms the basis of the seismic loads in all 11 design reports.
The purpose of this design report is to provide the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) with specific design and construction information for the fuel handling building, in order to assist in planning and conducting a structural audit. Quantitative infor-mation is provided regarding the scope of the actual design computations and the final design results.
The report includes a description of the structure and its
{ function, design criteria, loads, materials, analysis and design methodology, samples of governing design forces, a design summary of representative key structural elements.
1
.~.~ . _ _ . . _ - - . _ . . .
=
RE VEGP-FUEL HANDLING BUILDING DESIGN REPORT g _
- r
==
2.0 DESCRIPTION
OF STRUCTURE }
2.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION [
The fuel handling building is a five-story reinforced concrete }
building common to the two-unit plant. It houses the new fuel I storage area, cask storage pit and washdown area, and two spent fuel pools. The principal functions of the building are to k
receive, store, and protect new and spent fuel and to prepare spent fuel for shipment. The building is a shear wall box-type [
structure with floor and roof slabs acting as rigid diaphragms {
spanning between the walls. The building is functionally divided 5 into three major areas, a center section that houses the Unit 1 g and 2 spent fuel pools, and the east and west wing sections that contain portions of the equipment buildings. Even though the h equipment buildings are seismic Category 2, they are designed to Category 1 criteria to eliminate any adverse interaction of the Z wings with the adjacent Category 1 buildings. The fuel handling building is designed to support the cask handling crane, which 7 is used to transport new and spent fuel casks to and from the building. The interior and exterior walls are solid with occasional openings for doorways, heating, ventilating, and air ,
conditioning (HVAC) ducts, piping and electrical cable trays and a large opening at grade level (elevation '.20'-0"), in the center of the south exterior wall, which provides access for the cask handling crane to the auxiliary building. }
2.2 LOCATION AND FOUNDATION SUPPORT _
All Category 1 structures are founded within the area of the power block excavation. The excavaticn removed in-situ soils to elevation 130'i where the marl bearing stratum was encountered. -
All Category 1 structures are located either directly on the marl bearing stratum or on Category 1 backfill placed above the =
marl bearing stratum. The backfill consists of densely compacted select sand and silty sand. The nominal finished grade elevation is 220'-0". The high groundwater table is at elevation 165'-0".
2
VEGP-FUEL HANDLING BUILDING DESIGN REPORT The fuel handling building is located south of the control Lbuilding,' north of the auxiliary building and in between the Unit 1 and-Unit 2 containments (see figure 1). A 5-1/2-inch seismic gap is provided to separate the fuel handling building
{
from these adjacent structures. The basemat is founded and
'placed directly on Category 1 backfill at elevation 154'-0" in the equipment building wing sections, and at. elevation 173'-0" in the center section. In addition, this Category 1 backfill is placed h against the north walls in the equipment building wing sections, west wall of the Unit 1 electrical tunnel, and the east wall of the Unit 2 piping tunnel (from elevation 154'-0" up to the bottom f
of the' adjacent control building and raised center section basemats, which is at elevation 173'-0").
{
2.3 GEOMETRY AND DIMENSIONS
.The fuel handling building is approximately 257 feet long by
- 75. feet wide and is 134 feet high. The stepped basemat eleva-tions are 154 feet bottom of concrete (BOC) of the wings and 173 feet BOC at the raised center section. There are piping and electrical tunnels that run north-south under the spent fuel pool floor at the transition from the lower wing basemats
[- to the raised center section basemat (see figure 1). Building plan and sections are shown in figures 2 through 4'.
(
2.4 KEY STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS The key structural elements in the fuel handling building include the roof and floor slabs, shear walls, walls that support the cask handling crane, basemat, and the spent fuel pool walls.
Listed below is a brief description of the function and design considerations for these elements.
[
U 2.4.1 Roof and Floor Slabs The fuel handling building has three main roof slabs, level 3 i -
(elevation 263'-8") of both wings, and level 4 (elevation 288'-
( 2") at the center section. The roof slabs are 1 foot 9 inches t
3
[ . -
X VEGP-FUEL HANDLING BUILDING DESIGN REPORT u-thick-minimum and the' roof is flat. :The slabs are' structurally
~
sup' ported by walls in the center section and walls and steel'
- columns in:both wings. Both wing roof slabs comprise part. of the equipment building roof, and have' openings for.HVAC and the ]
containment access and vent shafts. There are no openings in the q center section roof slab. ]
1 The main floor slabs are level B (elevation 179'-0"), level A (elevation 200'-_0"),. level'l (elevation 220'-0"), and level 3.
.(elevation 263'-8"). The' slabs vary from 1 foot 6 inches to
-4 feet 3 inches thick, and are structurally supported by walls. ]
'2.4.2 Shear Walls-
]
' Lateral-loads applied to the fuel handling building are resisted
'by the:four exterior walls, the fuel pool walls, and other shear walls indicated in figures 5 and 6. The-fuel pool walls-are'
']
~
-described in section 2.4.5. The exterio'r shear walls contain l }
l- ioccasional_ openings for doorways,, electrical and piping systems.
They vary from 2 to 3-feet thick.
]
2.4.3- -Walls Supporting.the Cask Handling Crane New and spent = fuel casks are-transported within the fuel handling building by the' cask handling crane. The cask handling crane-is' located at the center bay of the building. The cask handling crane is supported at elevation 264'-7" by a reinforced concrete f wall. The crane supporting wall is laterally stiffened by the l -level 3.and 4 slabs and has the structural characteristics of a deep beam.
'2.4.4 Basemat The fuel handling building basemat is approximately 75 feet wide f
- l. by 257 feet long and has a uniform thickness of 6 feet. The raised center section and both wings are structurally integrated
~
with'one another on a common stepped basemat. Top of the basemat at the east.and west wing sections is at elevation 160'-0" and the 4
l
VEGP-FUEL HANDLING BUILDING DESIGN REPORT r
L raised center section is at elevation 179'-0". The basemat f contains several. shallow sumps in both wings and center section that are approximately 5 feet below the top of their respective basemats. The cask loading pit (elevation 173'-0", top of
( concrete [ TOC]), two transfer tube canals, and two spent fuel pools are located at the center section basemat. These sumps, pit,, canals, and pools are lined'with 1/4-inch-thick stainless steel plate to serve as a leaktight membrane. Electrical and
( piping tunnels run north-south under the raised center section of the transition from the lower wings to the raised center section f basemat. The basemat is stiffened by the tunnels, fuel pool walls, interior and exterior walls at levels C and B that divide the building into several room compartments. Equipment anchored to or supported by the basemat includes the encapsulation vessels and the spent fuel storage rack system.
2.4.5 Spent Fuel Pool Walls
[ The fuel handling building contains two spent fuel pools, one for each unit. The fuel pool walls are a minimum of approximately 5 feet thick. The north wall of each pool forms part of the transfer tube canal and contains a gate to provide access'for the h transfer tube canal. The east wall of Unit 2 and the west wall of Unit 1 form part of the new fuel storage pit and contain a f _ gate to provide access to the cask loading pit. The fuel pool walls are lined with 1/4-inch-thick stainless steel plate to serve as a leak tight membrane.
2.5 MAJOR-EQUIPMENT The primary function of the fuel handling building is to provide storage for new and spent fuel assemblies. The spent fuel assemblies are lifted and transported by a bridge crane at elevation 220'-0" that travels the east-west length of the building.
'The spent fuel shipping cask is lifted and transported by the cask handling crane at elevation 264'-7" that travels north-south in the center bay of the building. Spent fuel storage racks in f
5 I
s
-VEGP-FUEL HANDLING BUILDING DESIGN REPORT
]
the. spent fuel pool are used for storage of the spent fuel ]
. assemblies. The new fuel storage area is a reinforced concrete pit that provides temporary dry storage for the new fuel assem-blies. An equipment and cask cleaning area is located adjacent lto the spent fuel pools and new fuel pit.
The fuel transfer canal system.is used to transport the new and spent fuel assem-blies between the fuel handling building and the two containment
-buildings.
)
3.0 DESIGN BASES
]
3.1 CRITERIA Thefollowing documents are applicable to'the design of the fuel handling building:
3.1.1 Codes and Standards
- American-Concrete Institute (ACI), building code ]
requirements for~ reinforced concrete, ACI 318-71, including 1974 supplement.
]
- American Institute of Steel Construction ( AISC),
specification for the design, fabrication, and erection }
of structural steel for buildings, adopted February 12, 1969, and Supplements No. 1, 2, and 3.
3.1.2 Regulations
- -10 CFR 50, domestic licensing of production and utiliza-tion facilities.
3.1.3 General Design Criteria (GDC)
3.1.4 Industry Standards Nationally recognized' industry standards, such as American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), American Concrete 6
'VEGP-FUEL HANDLING CUILDING DESIGN REPORT.
y Institute, and American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI), are used to specify material properties, testing procedures, fabrication, and~ construction methods.
3.2 LOADS Definition of each load term considered in the fuel handling h
building design is provided in Appendix A. The loads applicable to the fuel handling building design are individually discussed below.
L
'3.2.1 Normal Loads 3.2.1.1- Dead Loads (D)
The dead loads considered include the weight of concrete and steel structures; piping, cable tray, conduit, HVAC duct loads, large and small equipment loads, and hydrostatic load in the spent fuel pools.
A minimum of 50 psf uniform load was applied on the applicable area of each roof and floor slab to account- for piping, cable
[ tray,' conduit, HVAC duct, and small equipment loads.
The major equipment loads are listed below:
Center Area Wing Area f-Floor Weight Weight Elevation Equipment (lb) Equipment (lb) 263'-8" Exhaust 44,500 - -
unit 220'-0" Fuel cask 136,000 Exhaust and 60,000 filter unit 200'-0" New fuel 324,000 Spent fuel 52,000 racks (both pit heat units) exchanger 179' " Fuel rack 3,930,000 - -
(one pool) 7 l .
jf. -r-L s, - - .
VEGP-FUEL-HANDLING BUILDING' DESIGN REPORT
. v' ,
- 3 . 2 .1. 2 -. ;1L ive Load's-(L)
L The'lidI-loadsinclude<occupancyloads,soilpressures, hydro-Lstatic pressuiesi due' to groundwater, movable equipment loads,
~
and precipitation loads.
-A uniform. load of 100, psf.was used as the floor design live load applicable in. areas not occupied-by equipment. A uniform load of
.30~ psf was used ass the roof slab live: load, which envelops the effects of occupancy,^ snow,.and 100-year rainwater ponding loads.
Static soil lateral pressure is also considered as live-load.
The lift capacity of the hoist plus the impact loads were con-sidered as the bridge crane / monorail live loads.
3.2.1.3' Operating Thermal Loads (T g)
.The thermalLloads-on the spent fuel walls and floor under normal operating conditions are considered in the pool wall and basemat design.: .The temperature data'are listed below:
- - ' Normal operating temperature. 120*F in-pool
^V
- Normal inside temperature in 90 F summer ]
- Normal inside temperature in 60 F winter 3.2.1.4 operating Pipe and Equipment Load (R g)
The' pipe and equipment reactions during normal or shutdown condition are accounted for as part of the 50 psf of the design dead loads, (D).
l3'.2.2 Severe Environmental Loads L3.2.2.1- Operating Basis Earthquake, OBE (E)
.. Based on the plant site geologic and seismologic investigations,
'the: peak ground acceleration for OBE Tus established as 0.12g.
LThe free-field response spectra and the development of horizontal 8
'VEGP-FUEL HANDLING' BUILDING DESIGN REPORT h
and vertical floor. accelerations and in-structure response
~
h spectra at the basemat, floor, and roof slab elevations are discussed in the seismic analysis report.
'The horizontal and. vertical floor accelerations are provided in h
-table 1.
I The OBE damping values as percentages of critical applicable to the fuel handling building design are as follows:
Reinforced concrete structures 4 Welded steel structures 2 f Bolted. steel structures 4 The dynamic lateral earth pressures due to the OBE are computed by the Mononobe-Okabe method of analysis for dynamic earth pressures in dry cohesionless materials. Figure 7 shows the
- dynamic incremental soil pressure profile.
Consideration is given to hydrodynamic pressures acting on the-fuel pool walls.~and basemat, (reference.1). Representative h
~ hydrodynamic-pressure profiles are provided in figures 8 and 9.
(. 3.2.2.2 Design Wind (W)
The fuel handling building is completely surrounded by other
{' ' Category 1 structures, and is designed for a wind velocity of
-110' mph, which is based on a wind speed 30 feet above ground.
Exposure C, applicable to flat open country is used. The effective velocity pressure profile for the 110 mph wind used in the design (see figure 12) is in accordance with reference 2.
3.2.3- Extreme Environmental Loads 3.2.3.1 Safe Shutdown Earthquake, SSE (E')
Based on the plant site geologic and seismologic investigations, the peak ground acceleration for SSE is established as 0.20g.
f.) The free-field response spectra and the development of horizontal and vertical floor accelerations and in-structure response 9
- b. .
VEGP-FUEL HANDLING BUILDING DESIGN REPORT
)
spectra at the basemat, floor, and roof slab elevations are discussed in the seismic analysis report.
The horizontal and vertical floor accelerations are provided in table 1.
' The SSE damping values as percentages of critical applicable to
- tle' fuel handling building design are as follows:
. Reinforced concrete structures 7 Welded steel structures 4 Bolted steel structures 7 The dynamic lateral earth pressures due to the SSE are computed by the Mononobe-Okabe method of analysis for dynamic earth pressures in dry cohesionless materials. Figure 7 shows the dynamic incremental soil pressure profile.
Consideration is given to hydrodynamic pressures acting on the fuel pool walls and basemat (reference 1). Representative ~
hydrodynamic pressure profiles are provided in figures 10 and 11.
3.2.3.2 Tornado Loads (Wt )
Loads due to the design tornado include wind pressures, atmos-pheric pressure differentials, and tornado missile strikes. The design tornado parameters, which are in conformance with the Region I parameters defined in Regulatory Guide 1.76, are as follows:
- Rotational tornado speed 290 mph
- Translational tornado speed 70 mph maximum 5 mph minimum f
- Maximum wind speed 360 mph
- Radius of tornado at 150 feet maximum rotational speed
- Atmospheric pressure -3 psi differential
- Rate of pressure differential 2 psi /sec change ]
8 10 heitufu hMin u nu una mim.ma ._ i iu i ii mis pe
1 VEGP-FUEL' HANDLING BUILDING DESIGN REPORT L
The resultant' tornado effective velocity pressure profile used in the design (see figure 12) is in accordance with reference 3.
('
The effective velocity pressure includes the size coefficient, and is used in conjunction with the external pressure coefficient to determine the net positive and negative pressures.
The fuel handling building is a partially vented structure.
[ Conservatively, all walls and slabs are designed for a tornado pressurization effect of i 3 psi.
The fuel handling building is also designed to withstand tornado missile input effects from airborne objects transported by the~
tornado. The tornado missile design parameters are listed in table 2. Missile trajectories up to and including 45 degrees off the horizontal use the listed horizontal velocities. Those trajectories greater than 45 degrees use the listed vertical velocities.
Tornado loading (W ) is defined as the worst case of the t
( following combinations of tornado load effects:
Wt =w tg (Vel city pressure effects)
( W t = tp (A hospheric pressure drop effects)
W t
- W tm (Missile impact effects)
W t
=w tq + 0. 5 Wtp W *w W
t Q+wh t tg + 0.5 Wtp
- tm 3.2.3.3 Probable Maximum Precipitation Load, PMP (N)
The load due to probable maximum precipitation is applied to the fuel handling building roof areas.
Special roof scuppers are provided with sufficient capacity to ensure that the depth of ponding water due to the PMP rainfall does not exceed 18 inches. This results in an applied PMP load of 94 psf.
11 I ___ ---- _ _ _ _ -- - - - - - - - - -
7 f
VEGP-FUEL' HANDLING BUILDING DESIGN REPORT 3.2.3.4' -Blast Load'(B) e The blast load accounts for a postulated site-proximity explosion.
The blast load is conservatively taken as a peak positive incident overpressure'of-2 psi (acting ~inward or outward) applied cc a uniform static load.
3.2.4 Abnormal Loads 3.2.4.1 Thermal Load (T,)
The thermal loads on the spent fuel wall and floor under abnormal conditions are considered in the spent fuel pool wall and basemat design. The design temperature in the pool is 195*F.
3.3 LOAD COMBINATIONS AND STRESS / STRENGTH LIMITS The load combinations and stress / strength limits for structural steel and concrete are provided in Appendix B.
3.4 MATERIALS The following materials and material properties are used in the design of the fuel handling building:
}
3.4.1 Concrete
- Compressive strength f = 4 ksi
- Modulus of elasticity E = ,830 ksi c
- Shear modulus G = 1,530 ksi
- Poisson's ratio o = 0.17 - 0.25
-3.4.2 Reinforcement - ASTM A615, Grade 60
- Minimum yield stress F y.= 60 ksi
- Minimum tensile strength F = 90 ksi ult
- Minimum elongation 7-9% in 8 inches 1
l 12
c L
VEGP-FUEL HANDLING BUILDING DESIGN REPORT i
.3.4.3 Structural Steel b
3.4.3.1 ASTM A36
(-
- Minimum yield stress F y
= 36 ksi
- Minimum tensile strength F ult = 58 ksi
- Modulus of elasticity E = 29,000 ksi
( s
. 3.4.3.2 ASTM A500, Grade B: Structural Tubing
- Minimum yield stress F = 46 ksi Y
- Minimum tensile strength Fult = 58 ksi
- Modulus of elasticity E = 29,000 ksi s
3.4.4 Structural Bolts 3.4.4.1 ASTM A325 (1/2 inch to 1 inch diameter inclusive)
- Minimum yield stress F = 92 ksi y
- Minimum tensile strength F
, ult = 120 ksi 3.4.4.2 ASTM A325 (1-1/8 inch to 1-1/2 inch inclusive)
[
- Minimum yield stress F = 81 ksi Y
- Minimum tensile strength F = 105 ksi ult 3.4.4.3 ASTM A307
{ F Minimum yield stress y is not applicable Minimum tensile strength F ult = 60 ksi 3.4.5 Steel Liner Plate - ASTM A240, Type 304L
- Minimum yield stress F = 25 ksi
- Minimum tensile strength F = 0 ksi ult E = 29,000 ksi
(
- Modulus of elasticity s f
(
I
i VEGP-FUEL HANDLING BUILDING DESIGN REPORT 3.4.6 Anchor Bolts and Headed Anchor Studs 3.<4.6.1 ASTM A36
- Minimum yield stress F = 36 ksi
- Minimum tensile strength F = 58 ksi ult 3.4'.6.2 ASTM A108
- Minimum yield stress F = 50 ksi
- Minimum tensile strength F = 60 ksi ult
.3.4.6.3. ASTM A307 Minimum yield stress F y is not applicable
- Minimum tensile strength F 60 ksi ult 3.4.6.4 ASTM A320, Grade B8
- Minimum yield stress F = 30 ksi y
- Minimum tensile strength F = 5 ksi ult 3.4.7 Foundation Media 3.4.7.1 General Description See section 2.2 3.4.7.2 Category 1 Backfill
- Moist unit weight y = 126 pcf m
- Saturated unit weight yt = 132 pcf
- Shear modulus G Depth (feet) 1530 ksf 0-10 2650 ksf 10-20 3740 ksf 20-40 5510 ksf 40-marl bearing stratum
- Angle of internal friction & = 34*
- Cohesion C=0 s l
14
L '
VEGP-FUELLHANDLING BUILDING DESIGN-REPORT t
3.4l7.3' Modulus-of Subgrade Reaction
~ Static
'
- 85 kcf
- 2 Dynamic 250 kcf 3.4.7.4 -Net Bearing Capacities-
{- -* Ultimate 64.0 ksf
- Allowable static 21.3'ksf h :* Allowable dynamic 32.0 ksf
~
.4.0 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN h
- This'section provides the methodologies employed to analyze the
. fuel' handling' building and to design its key structural elements, h '
.using the applicable loads and load combinations specified in section 3~.~0.
A preliminary proportioning of key structural elements is based
- on plant layout and separation requirements, and, where appli-(~ cable, the minimum thickness requirements for radiation shielding and for the prevention of concrete scabbing or perforation due i to tornado missile impact. The proportioning of these elements 3
is . finalized by confirming that strength requirements and where
. applicable, ductility and/or' stiffness requirements are satisfied.
l The structural analysis is performed either by manual analysis or computer analysis. In the manual analysis, the building structure
.._or' substructure is considered as an assemblage of slabs, walls, and columns, and the analysis is performed using standard structural analysis techniques. In the computer analysis, the building ,
structure'or substructure is modeled as an assemblage of finite elements and the analysis is performed using the' standard finite-element method utilizing a computer program.
For manual analyses, the analysis techniques, boundary conditions, and application of loads are provided to illustrate the method of analysis.
15 l ..
.VEGP-FUEL HANDLING BUILDING DESIGN REPORT For-computer: analyses,'the.modelingitechniques, boundary condi- t
.tions, application of loads, and description of the computer
. 1model are~provided to illustrate the overall method of analysis.
~
In addition;'for both manual and computer analyses and_ design, representative analysis and design'results are provided to
= illustrate the response of the key structural elements for governing load combinations.
-4.1 SELECTION OF GOVERNING LOAD COMBINATION
'An evaluation of load magnitudes, load factors and load combina-tions is performed to determine the load combination that governs the overall response of the structure. It is determined
.that load combination equation 2, for steel design (Appendix B, Table B.1) and equation 3 for concrete design ( Appendix B, Table B.2)'containing OBE, govern over all other load combina-tions, .and hence forms the basis for the overall structural analysis and design of the fuel handling building.
'All_other load combinations, including the effects of abnormal loads.and tornado loads, are evaluated where applicable on a local area basis (i.e., sections 5.2 and 5.3). The localized response is combined with the analysis results of the overall structural response, as applicable, to confirm that design integrity is maintained.
4.2 VERTICAL LOAD ANALYSIS The vertical load carrying elements of the fuel handling building consist of concrete slabs that support the applied vertical loads, .
walls and columns that support the slabs, and the basemat which transmits the loads from the walls and columns to the foundation medium. Representative vertical load carrying elements are identified in. figures 5 and 6.
The analysis of the building for vertical loads begins at the roof slab and proceeds progressively down through each level of the building to the basemat. Slabs and girders are analyzed for )
16 s
e VEGP-FUEL HANDLING BUILDING DESIGN REPORT F
(
the vertical loads applied to them.- The total vertical load on f a wall or column at a given level-is computed based on its self weight, the. vertical loads at that level from the slab tributary
[ areas, and the cumulative vertical-loads from the levels above.
4.3 LATERAL LOAD ANALYSIS The lateral' load carrying elements of the fuel handling building consist of concrete slabs acting as rigid diaphragms to resist
{l applied lateral loads, the shear walls which transmit the loads from the slab diaphragm to the basemat, and the basemat which transmits the loads from the walls and columns to the foundation medium. Representative lateral load-carrying elements are identified in figures 5 and 6.
Since the building structure utilizes the slab diaphragms for horizontal shear distribution, the lateral load analysis is performed by a conventional rigidity and mass analysis. In this
(! analysis, the maximum horizontal design forces for. earthquake loads and soil pressure loads are applied at each slab level, as
' appropriate. The design horizontal earthquake load at each level
{ of the building is obtained by multiplying the lumped story mass at that level by the maximum floor acceleration applicable to that level. The design horizontal soil pressure load of the building is obtained from the lateral earth pressure with due consideration to the seismic effects and the surcharge effects from the raised center section basemat. In the analysis, the horizontal shear loads are carried progressively down from the roof diaphragm through each level of the building to the basemat,
.to obtain the story shear'at each level. The story shear load at each level is distributed to the shear walls at that level in proportion to their. relative rigidities.
To account for the torsion caused by the seismic wave propagation effects, the inherent building eccentricity between the center of mass and center of rigidity at each level is increased by 5 percent of the maximum plan dimension in the computation of the torsional
. 17
__________ _ - -__ - _ _s
VEGP-FUEL HANDLING BUILDING DESIGN REPORT moment. The torsional moment is obtained as the product of this augmented eccentricity and the story shear at that level. The shear in the walls resulting from this torsional moment is computed based on the relative torsional rigidities of the walls.
For~a given shear wall, the shear due to story shear (direct shear) and shear due to torsional moment (torsional shear) are ]
combined at a given level to obtain the total design shear load.
The torsional shear is neglected when it acts in a direction opposite to the direct shear.
4.4 COMBINED EFFECTS OF THREE COMPONENT EARTHQUAKE LOADS The combination of co-directional responses due to three component earthquake effects is performed using the Square Root of the
+R !
Sum of the Squares (SRSS) method, i.e., R=[Ri+R k the Component Factor method, i.e., ( / ]
R=Ri + 0.4 R$ + 0.4 Rk 1 J
n = 0.4 Ri+R$ + 0.4 Rk R = 0.4 Ri + 0.4 R$+R' k wherein 100 percent of the design forces from any one of the three components of the earthquake is considered in combination with 40 percent of the design forces from each of the other two components of the earthquake.
4.5 ROOF AND FLOOR SLABS 4.5.1 Analysis and Design Methodology A representative slab panel plan (elevation 200'-0") of the fuel f handling building is presented in figure 5, showing the structural elements provided for vertical and lateral support of the slab panels, which consist of load bearing walls and load bearing shear walls. Based on the panel configuration, the relative stiffness of the supporting members and the type of fixity provided, slab panels are analyzed for one-way or two-way slab action using appropriate boundary conditions and standard beam and plate .
18
L VEGP-FUEL HANDLING BUILDING DESIGN REPORT Equivalent uniformly distributed loads are applied to slab f panels.. The design vertical earthquake loads for slab panels in a level are obtained by multiplying the effective mass from the applied loading (including its own mass) by the maximum floor
(_
acceleration at that level.
f Based on the floor flexibility study, it is concluded that the effects of vertical flexibility on the fuel handling building floor accelerations and response spectra are insignificant,-as
{ long as the fundamental floor system frequency is equal to or higher than 10 cps. The evaluation of the floor systems in the fuel handling building demonstrates that their frequencies are higher than this value. The details of the floor flexibility study are provided in the seismic analysis report.
Slab panels are selected for design on the basis of the con-trolling combination of- design load intensity, span, panel configuration, and support conditions.
The structural design is based on strength considerations and consists of sizing and detailing the reinforcing steel to meet f the ACI 318 Code requirements. In general, the reinforcing requirements are determined for the governing face of the slab
( and conservatively provided on both faces.
As appropriate, additional reinforcement is provided in the
( slab adjacent to large floor openings.
4.5.2 Design Results The design results for governing load combinations are presented in table 3 for representative slab panels. See figure 13 for representative design details.
4.6 SHEAR WALLS 4.6.1 Analysis and Design Methodology The location of shear walls are identified in figures 5 and 6 for representative elevations.
19
( ..
+ VEGP-FUEL HANDLING BUILDING DESIGN REPORT
]
-s The' details:of-the. analysis methodology-used to compute the total
-in-plane design loads at various-levels of a shear wall are described under vertical and lateral load analyses in sections 4.2 and 4.3'. -The in-plane design loads-include axial loads resulting ,
from-the overturning moment.
'The out-of-plane-design loads thatLare considered include the )
inertia loads on the walls due to the structural acceleration c caused by the design earthquake. ]
The design in-plane shear force and the overturning moment acting on:a shear wall at a given_ level is computed by considering the shear loads acting at all levels above, and the resulting over-turning moments. Conventional beam analysis is used to compute the bending moment and out-of-plane shear forces resulting from the out-of-plane design loads. At controlling sections, the com-bined effects of in-plane overturning moment and axial loads, and
-the out-of-plane loads are evaluated.
The shear wall design is performed in accordance with the ACI 318 -
Code using the following methodology:
A. The horizontal and vertical reinforcement required to resist the. design shear loads is determined.
'B. The flexural capacity of the shear wall using the reinforcement determined is obtained using the Cardenas equation (reference 4).
C. If the flexural capacity computed is less than the design overturning moment, then the reinforcement required is determined in one of the following two ways:
- 1. The total vertical reinforcement required for the design moment is computed using the Cardenas equation and is distributed uniformly along the length of the wall. ,
- 2. The reinforcement required in the end sections of the wall to resist the overturning moment is computed. j 8
20
VEGP-FUEL HANDLING BUILDING DESIGN REPORT
-D. The reinforcement provided for the in-plane loads is
( evaluated for the combined effects of in-plane and out-of-plane loads, and additional reinforcing steel is added if necessary.
(
4.6.2 Design Results The design results for governing load combinations are presented in table 4 for representative shear walls. See figure 14 for
{ representative design details.
4.7 WALLS' SUPPORTING THE CASK HANDLING CRANE 4.7.1 Analysis and Design Methodology The structure supporting the cask handling crane is designed as a simply supported deep beam, consisting of the wall in web action, and the effective areas of the roof slab and the level 3 floor slab in flange action. The deep beam moments and shears are determined using standard beam formulas.
. Uniformly distributed roof and floor loads are converted to an equivalent uniform linear load using the tributary load method.
Concentrated cask handling crane truck loads are applied eccentri-cally to the bottom of the wall at the rail centerline. The design vertical earthquake load for the supporting wall is f obtained by multiplying the tributary mass from the applied loading (including the deep beam wall's own mass) by the maximum floor acceleration at the level 4 roof.
{
The structural design of the walls supporting the cask handling crane is governed by strength considerations, and consists of
{ sizing and detailing the reinforcing steel in accordance with the provisions of the ACI 318 Code. Appropriate consideration is given to the corbel-like torsion action on the vall ledge.
i 21
VEGP-FUEL HANDLING EUILDING DESIGN REPORT 4.7.2 Design Results The design results for governing load combinations are presented in table 5 for representative walls supporting the cask handling crane. See figures 15 and 16 for design details.
4.8 BASEMAT 4.8.1 Analysis Methodology and Computer Model The basemat is analyzed utilizing a finite element model with the Bechtel Structural Analysis Program (BSAP), which is a general purpose computer program for finite element analyses. This program uses the direct stiffness approach to perform linear elastic analysis of a three-dimensional finite element model.
The finite element model includes the structural elements in the building through elevation 220'-0" and the basemat, and is prepared using conventional modeling techniques. Plate elements are used to model the basemat, the spent fuel pool walls, and all other structural walls and slabs below elevation 220'-0". Boundary (spring-type) elements are used as follows:
A. To charncterize the stiffness effects of soil beneath the basemat.
B. To eliminate singularity conditions by providing boundary conditions that prevent in-plane rotation of walls that are oriented in a manner which precludes the use of global boundary conditions to eliminate the inplane rotational degrees of freedom.
The vertical stiffness of each soil spring is determined by multiplying the nodal tributary area by the modulus of subgrade reaction. The horizontal spring stiffnesses are computed to model the stiffness effect of the soil in the horizontal direction.
The structural shear walls to elevation 220'-0" are modeled to represent the stiffness interaction effects at the wall /basemat junction. There are a total of 1002 boundary elements which represent soil stiffness, 1489 plate elements to model the basemat 22
VEGP-FUEL HANDLING BUILDING DESIGN REPORT and walls, and 8 beam elements along the periphery of the basemat
( in the penetration area to model the thickened portion of the mat around the containment building.
( Computer plots of the fuel handling building basemat model, including node numbers and element numbers, are shown in figure 17.
Only one half of the fuel handling building is modeled to take
( advantage of the symmetry of the building in the east-west direction about the centerline of the two-unit plant.
The boundary conditions for the basemat model are as follows:
boundary elements, representing the translational soil stiffness, are applied at each basemat node in the three global translational directions; boundary elements with large rota'tional rigidity and no translational rigidity are applied at the plate element nodes to eliminate singularity conditions by restraining in-plane
( rotation; along the axis of building symmetry, symmetrical boundary conditions are used for vertical and north-south loads, and anti-symmetrical boundary conditions are used for east-west
(
loads.
4.8.2 Application of Loads The magnitude and distribution of loads applied to the basemat model are consistent with the cumulative results of the vertical and horizontal load analyses of the overall building structure.
As described in the other sections of this report, the loads include dead load, live load, hydrostatic, and hydrodynamic loads, vertical and horizontal seismic loads, and lateral soil pressure loads.
Dead load, live load, and vertical and horizontal seismic loads for the elements in the model are accounted for internally by the f computer program by assigning a mass density to the plate elements and applying the appropriate static acceleration. Dead load, live load, and vertical and horizontal seismic loads associated
{ with the portion of the structure above elevation 220'-0" are applied as nodal forces at elevation 220'-0".
23
VEGP-FUEL HANDLING BUILDING DESIGN REPORT Hydrostatic loads due to water in the fuel pool are applied to the appropriate plate elements as equivalent pressure loads. The hydrodynamic effects of the water, including both impulsive and convective forces (reference 1) are applied to the appropriate plate elements as equivalent pressure loads.
Lateral soil pressura loads and surcharge from the center portion of the fuel handling building are applied to the electrical tunnel wall (refer to section 2.4.4).
4.8.3 Design Methodology The design of the basemat, including the sizing and detailing the reinforcing steel, is done in accordance with the requirements of the ACI 318 Code.
The required flexural reinforcement in the basemat is calculated using the OPTCON module of program BSAP-POST. BSAP-POST (which consists of a collection of modules that perform specific indepen-dent tasks) is a general purpose, post-processor program for the BSAP finite element analysis program. BSAP-POST reads computed BSAP results into an internal common data storage base and optionally performs one or several additional operations (i.e.,
plotting) or calculations (i.e., creating load combinations or designing reinforced concrete members).
In general, the OPTCON processor is a reinforced concrete analysis and design program for doubly reinforced concrete sections which creates reinforced concrete interaction diagrams based on the maximum allowable resistance of a section for given stress and strain limitations (code allowables). Any load combination whose falls design axial force and corresponding moment (load set) within the interaction diagram indicates all stress and strain code criteria are satisfied.
The thermal effects on the basemat under operating conditions are evaluated using the methodology described in section 5.3.
Basemat shear is computed using the design moments from the finite I element analysis and determining the moment gradient between adjacent elements.
24 f
VEGP-FUEL HANDLING BUILDING DESIGN REPORT 4.8.4 Design Resnlts Representative results of the basemat analysis is provided in
( figure 18. Representative results of the basemat design is provided in figure 19. Representative design details are shown in figures 20 and 21.
4.9 SPENT FUEL POOL WALLS 4.9.1 Analysis Methodology and Computer Model The spent fuel pool walls are analyzed utilizing the basemat finite element computer model. The analysis methodology and computer model are described in section 4.8.1.
4.9.2 Application of Loads The load application procedures for the analysis of the spent fuel pool walls are described in section 4.8.2.
Design Methodology
( 4.9.3 The design of the spent fuel pool walls, including the sizing and
( detailing of reinforcing steel, is done in accordance with the strength design provisions of the ACI 318 code.
( The required flexural reinforcement in the spent fuel pool walls is determined based on the design forces obtained from the BSAP analysis (refer to sections 4.8.1 and 4.8.2), with the use of a
(
OPTCON computer program. For a description of computer design using the OPTCON module of BSAP-POST refer to section 4.8.3.
/ 4.9.4 Design Results Representative results of the spent fuel pool analysis is provided in figure 22. Representative results of the spent fuel pool wall design is provided in figure 23. Representative design details are shown in figure 24.
25 l
l
- _ _ _ _ _______ _--_____________.___.____________________ __________ _____________.________________j
g - .VEGP-FUEL HANDLING BUILDING DESIGN REPORT' 5.0 MISCELLANEOUS ANALYSIS AND DESIGN Once..the' basic design of the fuel handling building has been
. completed (refer to section 4), the structure is evaluated for
..the effects of abnormal loads and tornado loads. This is done on a local area basis where applicable. In addition, the overall stability of the fuel handling building is evaluated to ensure an adequate safety factor against instability is provided. This section-describes these analyses and significant special pro- )
visions employed in the ' fuel handling building design.
5 .1- STABILITY ANALYSIS The overall stability of the fuel handling building is evaluated by determining the factor of safety against overturning, sliding, and flotation.
5.1.1 Overturning The factor of safety against overturning is determined using the equivalent static method and the energy balance method.
The equivalent static method does not account for the dynamic characteristics of the loading and therefore results in a factor of safety lower than the energy balance method. The factor of safety obtained from the energy balance method reflects the actual design conditions and therefore provides a more appropriate measure of the design margin.
The factor of safety against overturning using the equivalent static method is defined as the ratio of the resisting moment due to net gravity forces to the overturning moment caused by the maximum lateral forces acting on the structure. The gravity forces are reduced to account for the effects of buoyancy and the vertical component of earthquake.
The factor of safety against overturning using the energy balance method is defined as the ratio of the increase in the potential energy at the point of overturning about the critical edge of the ,
J 3
26
VEGP-FUEL HANDLING BUILDING DESIGN REPORT structure to the maximum kinetic energy that could be imparted to the structure as a result of earthquake loadings. The energy balance analysis methodology is described in reference 5.
5.1.2 Sliding The factor of safety against sliding is defined as the ratio of
(- combined frictional and passive sliding resistance of the founda-tion to the maximum calculated lateral force.
5.1.3 Flotation The factor of safety against flotation is defined as the ratio of the total weight of the structure and its foundation to the buoyant force, defined as the volume of the ground water displaced by the submerged portion of the structure multiplied by the unit
( weight of water.
5.1.4 Analysis Results
(
The minimum required factors of safety and the calculated factors of safety for stability are provided in table 6.
(
5.2 TORNADO LOAD EFFECTS Tornado load effects result from wind pressures, atmospheric pressure differentials, and tornado missile strikes. The magni-
[
tude and combinations of tornado load effects considered are described in section 3.2. The load combination involving tornado load effects is specified by equation 8 of Table B.2 in Appendix B.
Controlling roof and exterior wall panels are evaluated for tornado load effects, and the localized response is combined with the analysis results of the overall structural response, as applicable, to confirm that design integrity is maintained.
Additional reinforcing steel is provided in accordance with the ACI 318 Code, if necessary, to satisfy design requirements. In addition, barriers are provided for the openings in the exterior 27
r 5
VEGP-FUEL HANDLING BUILDXNG DESIGN REPORT r -
=
walls or roofs unless the systems or components located in the exterior rooms are nonsafety-related. In this case, the interior walls and slabs are treated as barriers for the safety-related j Any openings systems or components located in the interior rooms. -
in the exterior walls or slabs and the interior walls or slabs -
that may be susceptible to missile entry are evaluated to ensure _
that no safety-related systems or components are located in a potential path of the missile.
The methodology used to analyze and design the structural elements ;
to withstand the tornado load effects is described in reference 3.
Specific procedures used for analysis of missile impact effects i are described in Appendix C.
Representative results of the tornado missile analysis are g provided in table 7.
All wall and roof panels providing protection against tornado 5 load effects have a minimum thickness of 24 and 21 inches -
respectively, to preclude missile perforation and concrete ;
scabbing. -
5.3 ABNORMAL LOADS EFFECTS .
For this structure the only applicable abnormal loads are -
generated by a postulated accident which occurs only in the spent fuel pool. _
The spent fuel pools are located between column lines FA.3 and FA.8, and F 4 and F 6 f r Unit 1, and F 1 and F 3 f r Unit 2. _
The spent fuel pool walls and floor are analyzed using the BSAP computer program, utilizing a finite element model as described -
in sections 4.8 and 4.9. The loads applied to the model include dead loads, live loads, vertical and horizontal OBE/SSE loads, hydrodynamic and hydrostatic, and thermal loads. Load combination equations 9, 10 and 11 of Appendix B, Table B.2 are considered in determining the design forces.
28
VEGP-FUEL HANDLING BUILDING DESIGN REPORT c
- The reinforcing steel provided on the basis of overall structural' response, as per the design methodology described in section 4, is evaluated for the governing design forces resulting from the effects of abnormal loads, to ensure that the requirements of the.ACI.318' Code are' satisfied. This is accomplished using OPTCON computed program described in section 4.8.3.
OPTCON calculates the thermal moment induced by the thermal gradient, by considering the relaxation effects of concrete
- cracking and reinforcement-yielding. For each load combination analyzed, the state of stress and strain is determined before the thermal load is applied. The thermal moment is approximated i
based upon an iterative approach which considers equilibrium and compatibility conditions. The final force-moment set (which includes the cracked section final thermal moment) is checked to
(- verify that it falls within the code allowable interaction
. diagram.
5.4 FOUNDATION BEARING PP. ESSURE The maximum calculated bearing pressures under the governing design load conditions are provided in table 8.
6.0 CONCLUSION
The analysis and design of the fuel handling building includes all credible loading conditions and complies with all applicable design requirements.
7.0 REFERENCES
- 1. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Nuclear Reactors and Earth-quakes, Division of Technical Information, Report TID-7024, August 1963.
, 2. " Building Code Requirements for Minimum Design Loads in Buildings and Other Structures," ANSI A58.1-1972, American National Standards Institute, New York, N.Y., 1972.
29
VEGP-FUEL HANDLING BUILDING DESIGN REPORT
- 3. BC-TOP-3-A, Revision 3, Tornado and Extreme Wind Design Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants, Bechtel Power Corp.,
August 1974.
- 4. -Design Provisions for Shear Walls, Portland Cement Association, 1973.
- 5. BC-TOP-4-A, Revision 3, Seismic Analyses of Structures and Equipment for Nuclear Power Plants, Bechtel Power Corp.,
November 1974.
9 4
30
b' VEGP-FUEL' HANDLING BUILDING DESIGN REPORT TABLE 1 FUEL HANDLING BUILDING SEISMIC ACCELERATION VALUES FLOOR ACCELERATIONS (g's)III f
SSE OBE Elevation E-W N-S Vert. E-W N-S Vert.
160'-0" 0.24 0.21 0.39 0.16 0.14 0.24 179'-0\" 0.34 0.25 0.41 0.22 0.17 0.27 200'-0" 0.37 0.27 0.42 0.24 0.19 0.28 f
220'-0" 0.39 0.30 0.43 0.25 0.20 0.29 (grade level)
(-
263'-8" 0.54 0.41 0.46 0.35 0.28 0.31
( 263'-8" 0.54 0.42 0.46 0.35 0.28 0.31 288'-2" 0.61 0.49 0.49 0.42 0.33 0.33
( (1) The actual acceleration values used in the design of the structure may be higher than the values shown.
(-
(-
[
(
(
(
31
F -
i VEGP-FUEL HANDLING BUILDING DESIGN REPORT 1
TABLE 2 TORNADO MISSILE DATA f End-On End-On 1 Height Horizontal Vertical J Weight Limit Velocity Velocity Missile W (lb) (ft) (ft/sec) (ft/sec) 4" x 12" x 12' Plank 200 216 200 ,
160 3" 9 std x 10' Pipe 78.5 212 200 160 8 Unlimited 317 254' 1" 9 x 3' Steel Rod s 6" # std x 15' Pipe 285 101 160 128 12" 9 std x 15' Pipe 744 46 150 120 1490 30(1) 211 169 13-1/2" 9 x 35' Utility Pole 2- 4000 0 75 60 Automobile (20 ft project area)
(1) To 30' above all grade levels within 1/2 mile of facility structures.
32
. .:... .,n .: , .,,.- . . . . - ; _ , +
,. s.,.g m :;- ;. , a. . s-*. >> . .- ;., v : .; - ^ --~- . *. - 3 u .- .. + .c . - . n- : -
TABLE 3 DESIGN RESULTS OF REPRESENTATIVE SLAB PANELS A
s Required (in.2/ft) A s Provided (in. /ft)
Governing (1)
Load Design Force N-S E-W N-S E-W $
O Combination Moment Element Equation k-ft/ft Top Bot. Top Bot. Top Bot. Top Bot. 7 Level A N-S +!!" == 32. 2 0.44 0.44 Center 3 N-S 24.3 0.39 0.51 0.39 0.39 0.60 0.60
-M" (2) (2)
Section (2) @
Corridor Slab g t'
Level A 3 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 E-W M" = 1 54.0 (2) (2) (2) (2) $
New Fuel Storage Pit tn w
" Slab $
0.28 0.28 0.60 0.60 0.44 0.44 b Level 1 N-S +M" = 21.8 0.54 0.38 Center 3 N-S -Mu = 30.5 (2) (2) y Section Corridor Slab @
un Level 1 N-S +M = 43.3 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o Z
Cask Washdown 3 N-S-(=79.0 (2) (2) (2) (2)
Area Slab y m
Level 4 N-S +My = 65.9 H@
Roof Slab 3 N-S -M = 140.5 1.67 0.74 2.90 1.28 3.12 1.56 3.12 3.32 Between E-W +M = 120.1 F3 &F 4 E-W -Mu u = 266.9 (1) Load combination equations correspond to equations in Appendix B.
(2) Governed by minimum code reinforcement requirements.
. .+ w. . - u..s . 2 :-
+
2 . m ; m -;. . . ; _ , ~. .n ,, ; . .
. y .y_;..g 3,.,79
.. .g. ., , p.
.j p ,,,y .(,,, . . _. .3-, _
3
p.. _ _ _ _ _ _ . . .
TABLE 4 t
DESIGN RESULTS OF REPRESENTATIVE SHEAR WALLS Design Forces (In-Plane) A Required A s Provided s
Governing III (in.2/ft) (in.2) (in.2/ft) (in.2) g Load N V M O Combination u u u Element Equation (k) (k) (k-ft) Horiz. Vert. ER(3) Horiz. Vert. ER I) h tn Level 3 3 747 4,575 112,047 0.72 0.72 - 2.00 2.00 -
North Wall (2) (2) -
Between F and F 6 2 O
u, .. vel 3 3 89 1,406 34,433 1.08 1.08 - 2.00 2.00 -
m A South Wall (2) (2) $
Between F4 g and F6 g O
Level 2 3 473 9,735 516,989 2.28 2.00 133.4 3.12 2.54 220.00 e East or @
H West Wall Between O FA and FB @m Level B 3 13,717 25,271 1,013,740 2.35 2.35 - 2.54 2.54 -
f3 H
North Wall (2) (2)
Between F y and F 6 1
1 Level B 3 8,869 15,628 1,126,030 1.08 1.08 - 2.00 2.00 -
South Wall (2) (2)
Between Fy and F6 (1) Load combination equations correspond to equatf 's in Appendix B.
(2) Governed by minimum code reinforcement requirements.
(3) ER - End reinforcement I
- p. ;y __'[; a;,;.
c.' g_y.; g- > g :- q q s y v p _. n l '-
5 -f .-;;,-:y;; _' ;.-: [.' ,; L : ..;h . ; u .e -
- ;.y y .; v7
- .n m. n n n n n_ ~
.n n m TABLE 5 DESIGN RESULTS OF WALLS SUPPORTING THE CASK HANDLING CRANE Governing III Load _ $ '.
Combination Design Force Ag Required A, Provided o Element Equation 7 3 80,000 k-ft 70.33 in.2 83.25 in.2 h Deep Beam "
wall Shear-friction 144 k/ft 2.02 in.2/ft 3.00 in.2/ft e m
Corbel 3 Direct tension E ;
w 46k/ft. m
- moment 2.21 in.2/ft (2) 2.53 in.2/ft $
215 k-ft/ft g Torsional stirrup h Torsion 0.74 in.2/ft 1.00 in.2/ft e Crane Beam 3 2,280 k-ft Longitudinal reinf. Q 18.3 in.2 34.3 in.2 (1) Load combination equations correspond to equations in Appendix B. g m
(2) Governed by minimum code reinforcement requirements.
O s
.s m . -
% 1,; Jjzf Sg .
- ,,:;4:g e w t, . ,'.;;..y.., y: n.4 ;m
,,,r.: .
TABLE 6 FACTORS OF SAFETY FOR STRUCTURAL STABILITY Overturning Sliding Flotation Factor of Safety Factor of Safety Factor of Safety $
o Calculated 7 Load II}I ) Minimum Equivalent Energy Minimum Minimum "
Combination Required Static Balance Required Calculated Required Calculated D+H+E 1.5 1.6 See note 1.5 1.67 - -
(2) e E
184 1.1 1.34 - - o D + H + E' 1.1 1.3 to w - - 1.1 15 $
m D + F' - - -
b Dead weight of structure g (1) D =
H = Lateral earth pressure E = OBE @
E' = SSE $
o F' = Buoyant force :2 (2) The factor of safety for the SSE load case also satisfies the minimum y m
required factor of safety for the OBE case. o
- o H
(3) Lateral loads caused by design wind, tornado, and blast are less in magnitude than lateral loads caused by design OBE and SSE.
1 L
VEGP-FUEL HANDLING BUILDING DESXGN REPORT
[
TABLE 7 II)
TORNADO MISSILE ANALYSIS RESULTS
( Panel Size Computed Allowable Panel Description Length Width Thickness Ductility Ductility Ratio Ratio
( and Location (ft) (ft) (ft)
Level 4 Roof 73 26 2 2.0 10 Area Between
{ Lines F and F and F3 kndF B 10
( Level 4 Roof 73 47 2 1.3 Area Between Lines F and F
( and FA nd F B Level 3 Exterior 26 24.5 3 1.0 10 Wall Along F B
( Line Level 3 Exterior 73 24.5 3 1.2 10 f Wall Along F y Line
{ (1) Governing combination of tornado load effects is W
- tg + 0.5 Wtp + tm t
L(
l 37
{
kJ
VEGP-FUEL HANDLING BUILDING DESIGN REPORT r
E TABLE 8 [
MAXIMUM FOUNDATION BEARING PRESSURES II) [=
Allowable Net (2) Computed Factor (3) _}
Gross Net Gross Net Bearing Capacity of Safety [ _
Static Static Dynamic Dynamic Static Dynamic .
(ksf) (ksf) (ksf) (ksf) (ksf) (ksf) Static Dynamic E
8.1 0.1 23.4 15.4 21.3 32.0 640 4.2 I
(1) Maximum foundation bearing pressures are defined as follows:
Gross Static = Total structure dead load plus operating -
live load divided by total basemat area. -
Net Static = The static pressure in excess of the over- -
burden pressure at the base of the structure.
Gross Dynamic = Maximum soil pressure under dynamic load- -
ing conditions (i.e., unfactored SSE).
Net Dynamic = The dynamic pressure in excess of the over- ,
burden pressure at the base of the structure.
(2) The allowable net static and dynamic bearing capacities are obtained by dividing the ultimate net bearing capacity by factors of 3 and 2 respectively. The ultimate net .
bearing capacity is the pressure in excess of the overburden pressure at the foundation level at which shear failure may occur in the foundation stratum. ;
(3) The computed factor of safety is the ultimate net bearing -
capacity divided by the net static or net dynamic bearing pressure. _
=
38
'Ik a
tu mMIM
{~ . -=vu uso,e 1
t'nw no . - e ee sso l ---
5ar er tre ym ,n conn,m , __ _y os g_g ry se ==_rog* _ _ , ,
[ ,,e qx. . _ as.e .w.e .e e _.c e _ sw w-e _ y B l '
l i A l l b. ; .m. z, 4' m o--.--.--
s, .,
y 1 45'-e 45' f
' -g-
) L g.s4 rm r 4_t -s *--
s trw-q= W$, ~ ~~~}y,y,,,'s o*
, nr.e , .a ar.e .<.e . . w ss.e ~ *
' rxn wr tse
_L _ .
___ Q* e -.
li - -- 1 ~ M .
/~ -
--{3 - __ ":# ..
jj g -q l l[ ]l 1_ t___._. -.. p A L % . n 4, m J
' -
- s
- sfin .e nos.se sao'es e- , ,,m rw~ee <m=.om j e 4 w=
-3 m f 1 - , u wsoo4 . sen,,,roa I R. , _ y nattas--. -a L'
- . . ..{
i i con M ,.,r m , wr e,
+
s'o**sst ' , m_ _J' ! L._ _ _ __ ___J M
! g
!a 3-2 m
,~
3 l 4 I 1 i Q f$ ' _o,, y r .,w,, e R F W-&a' ,)m, rr,wr, e - - ! 2 - l :::,,, T 4 u' t jt t l- 1__-
^
Mlp i R ; d,, ,n LLW. tr.n. !:bP c Lj
}.I.f, + 6=
e ! ~
,,,y m sa = - s- lar i
_ , r,
}9**.'? **g2f &.W,,
. ? % :' , ~' *l ~ MS?'r,y au wmL /
nR # W % "~
% _-j t- t
( giy nj\
, "G:3-(-~ . _-f*L Ig e - nsa . 9 yIa==* = 4;
\ >
-e u ! 't [r pj3 Lj.. $
unieresarr _. I, !. _
\ h --* g;
$ma _5_/ g$*8= - -
. ;' \.
era !, !g c
.vo , v .wnv E
" h $ osc3n d
'c0a!kar E l 1 'r _ __
cow.aiw l l }, xsr d-- O'87'Y l "L'"L" f / tl
, - b FUEL HANDLING , ,
- d. a "*d, h 7
- i=* e t : J i Aisi\ BUILDING
./ R M,,' / i c
- 4 %M fM.!E: j m.l } > ._y ( *. l{ !,
D' "" t m.e ' *!
~^
. - i-
~
1
't'h l' _;.;;;;;;;u ..w ..
45 ~< .2 Gb ; pb% m,g- y,c.,
><j.
g ! i
); i E47#,% \^ Lm -
> 3 k Jn"=,1 :, W i;:.i % ;i S,A y a
'"T" ~' 'M - nor i , , = - = - -7 r,=, ,y; J Fn. il: w . <, c , _ _ , ,
=
! D__EI" bfEST-
, c =.=_a::.. lm.a
^~NQfdh35 @enU"!
sm -- _-= =s hM= Ms7sa Mb Ah.t:7 -- ( &, . f1*% ; ,\\_- II a O o }~:L~ h[ g ]m~^ (({y{ ~I~ s
.' ---,5 nea :. .~:- Q,t?~ h ~
w m- - 4.43e
. :i .g ,arermm.c., .
m s l b p ,m i 1 b ~
/
1 @@-
$m ufe.e (_; ]/ww,e g +., e I.J @i@
l I. _ , , - ,,,, y =,, =, j -<,.. i - g- g- k .; # a ~~
,, , %,y,_
1 ._ rt..;= , . 7 - , - ~ + -
- \ _
TrV'dl r ru n w_ Yens _ .. Y> w W'L'a'Ta2. rn,a u"" .
.C.lLi"'i'd_?ll*
mat r y .IM i%Tia"ll*rn & w _ ..
\ m hl g*'ZI*M - s* .. d( W N7 d-? f,se - h --; f - - ----- h- h- -- - f y a ~ u , - s ,
t p Is % a k-4
V7 P-FUZL N AN' LINO CUILDIN $ Dill N REPORj
- p. .- --
l 3 ( 3 r ' q- - _' .i ! g .( ___ . _ _ .. 2 s -- -9 ~, _m.,
-33 q-m _
_, .m#. s s
....., r m - w 3 i 4 x z Q. a
,t 4
s i L _ s .m,, ~,_,,
~~ % q. 0 '"
./~ , ,
~.,
~
p .;-~ uv 5 e gND 'L xm m
,%,p p<AffD <
. . . , I , s I. - .c \ w.a .s, .
=
--; -- .. .. -___ _ g g-
.._g
, ' 1 --
- - .-(\ \
n-
~/.l. -,
~~. ,
N
\
\
i N
'4= , ' _] i i . m.,..<
M Ed l, - I
., a e f e 3 s N , , ,'< n~;a__ 'W Q ? unwrcswr ex Vf^ ?
I k - _0. v, 31
, 1r I
t ibs R.
?
_w.a x ,,... as*' v '
; w. ,,
i , O *
>} n ) L , ;k' i
7 Q * -'m,D i o..,.. c=a -
\:
a- n , N.
= %.; == =i..Mso e y ug -
o g < w '
.,. r . ,
um aw w,~a
.5
~
\
+ M sa m
=--,.7.ywww n 1 9.
@ G4 f%
SECarrry g
- n n 5 a~ . n.n
- k
)
;- fQ .%
h dTr! ie% "..D. l; Y e l
, ,?
iln i f.,:..; q r ;/
! :: $em
' m. .. t '
9 TI':' M:s Qy,2_J j"' - g
- rt.?,. 6
~ , , , -
7)&j,. .
- .~p ll__.,g,g-
, .= u. s di c igag.
T e., sy ~~'" Also Available On
\ a
?"*m,; .- - ~'"
"dF+(L- rf,#t" '
ifL L - Aperture Card
% v4- 7,3 _ . at,iW *9 C3l -
enewv 1 y=a.,u
.,2 l .(sra apns ,,. H VS
,-, *'a,~=
w)n.g " , d
.- = ! q[rMAdd,a
,,$.+ J._rg -
. ., r-s- p ,s.,, ,
j I e ,
, q i v _
.. , \ f h
, c -
.t'. 3.%n A a _w 'v. .l N em,ns
'M
- r. a.., w=r
{M+I - l - R ~
- L f
O n,Ja'!," a a 4 g
?
-> u %,
oaooo n res
) ; ;e z %
a rot . wasm. cur /
' 00, Figure 1 LOCA710N OF FUEL HANDLING BUILDING 8411050186-O/
k.
]h
$ 1 i
.t, 1
1 i b ', PUEL TRANSFER NAL b GONTRol I o"TAd"' Q A @* b "I t IT NG 2 l / SEE D%G l
,. , g 220'-e,' leLatro' -'va '*- -
/ ,
W~%y
, 4 r _-*. --. .
y ,, g l8 3Qp [ _ _
- m
_t B L1 _/ l
\ VALKvaY(Tya g'.h-} EL18 -9M g (ggm l is <- CuW b ~~ '
h -- T ! ._ _ _ _ _L. r" N [r case [Ein - r$ _~ , ~ Pt_ N_
-5", / ! j#ire NE * ~
k
\ sN iy CONTAINMENT , ;
Nll. DING 2 ,l' r.-._ 6 . L-UNIT No 1 s v k N e- - -- l
,0gy i
's g*
SPENT NPL POOL A _ f_ g.
'JNIT NO,2 me .. / [ j' __ _. _a s exzzo-*- e i eLnt-ois' e u2ie'.4' "
E (" MAT NOTC A6 MaI ) ECiqZ'.7Y2sN ASI l t [lj' "SD" We* ^- \ 2 os " [ .
- c ,y,~ m ec y e.>~ ~ ,w, m u- -
[ ELMl}tk (m fC
' Ss "d2 Ilmt.c? Owe-f ., ^
y p%TEpilE N *g [ w l -- . - - _ _ _ , , - __ . _S d S WT AG l L_ _
~lI a g 7 -
.. A.g' 16q -
23 - myt- n t
==st.zad-o)s _d
.i--
TOC.RS -
.* H y-mi r
- J j1 EL12CP.*/ -T
\ # 8 4 N 5)
~
;l r g2 wee,y.Q
~
l '
.Q' g cenaicoR e[R-C6]J .-
[O LADOER
,8b JTIIITI[Lhd j [108{
4 v r .g>- M+ 4+om st.ezooi a______q e,s r _q___ - 2O' \@ E(237.N 9 < '@ D. - -
/ TO CJAS l
t UXtLIARY BUILO NG
~
,/EL.12ci-G' UNIT 2 - -
sez oss Xxteos^oa N
@ Q os
~@@ M T f
i c t i i
- 1
o V E 7 P-FUIEL M AN ? LIN T+ CUILDIN:=) D Al!.N LEPO Rr O l I
- l. 'u ILDIN G/ FL TRANSPEig CANAL; DET /4\4 M
"'I "
Nho*' i [ ' st$2i'-o' eg[ "
'L. ./ - . y y ., rv 9 e
' ' 'I E / @
i/ wp,os1
- coNTAINrpq suiLoiNGs d
_ ~ --mrm_ - c e.. y= 'l Li _ p. 5J , g, eo r ggcug i _L_suuwp
}
F H N ne,7 -, Q
)\ w . ,-
wvev G sa,Pir. - i et24 4_'f \\su .e'-ihn . w e/,,i, + eT= o*Ta mTu et_,32 w e mr u~ez Jw*^ c Jo f , '\ E" CONTAINMENT /
/ \)I
[1 r'"f PLATE - _ ' , i _ ~e: -
! J . Bul LDI NG /
' '"j e
" ' g Ugii7 so i 12C'-{n I SPENT NEL PCOL d6 \\ T .
; UNIT NO. i k 4 o Jojyge . i giggis*
l et W c'( L a N
\ -
g@ e,7 q, r , l g +d-
, , ,wpuerr ew zz2:a o
nnmwe a:o . i
\ _,m,
\
Tece et 220'..' n;3i&"L rm co g_.aQ,Q - s l.
- l. t , mec.u gf--
l - -m p,fe)
-w1r__ -
-t
~--
- . mme em.es
+.i m
~., -
ls T
- nh t ~~ yt+ y ,3p ..~e-.sss-os
=
gy&qe $t145*-i_ / [ g%, iR*o71 !=-+oele Jg a x .
+ m... e c - me
'L4ooma
, a s ,,
r
, E_# IO- b,[d!M fTNm 3.
.' _.c,cune n szo,-o L, Fe
?. .-
/ , ./ , =; -- - -_
Y [fyEuS4Wa [ vo% o ro come l
. \ es%7,ay gy a e.c. 237-o*c.Aer cssd _a_. no-e
< /
AUKlGAY SUIL. DING ~ q - LINIT I eer m a g fase m. 3tici25e . M~) UNIT PLANT \ k / T (p$]
\ '
\ M e,urem4
%2WA%%+w suumra ns.eremet+
N Y APERTUd cao Alf ^$$!" Figure 2 FUEL HANDLING BUILDING FLOOR PLAN, EL. 220'-0" 8411050186-02_.
m - - - - , - - -
- - - - - - c- -. m r-,
UNIT NO.1 UNIT 50.1 e~ e G S S S 6 I l'
,3 ___
l
. IU s.2= l l' l l*<
gg y=--- :=== : - - - 1
@[78 N_ ;f- i 2EEU 8 ES'd7 u~iv No. e g%c mo.z '
T7 2k
-K
/
~ ~ ~LevgL S ft_ _ .d7-
'~ T ~ , ,
M, x _,., 3 - tE8 ,G j n : 8
- R&u?"T I ~l C-
-teveL z- - - - mm2 / '-h _I cggENT l l M .0^ = . u%.T wo i I N. .._.
R . w e r;". - ,-,. y 4,: r <u; a' 'n m. E . - _L. EVE _L . - ( *
- ] edM E2d p et soo'.s R
.LEYEL A w. ;O , 73 ,, ,
LEVEL e l" N W
-h h _.y . .
st
,. . i
} _ .
M # - I tevet c '"#N [- , - R I SECTION M W E ft 1 Om 50 c7 EE G Figure 3 El2 g 3c FUEL HANDLING BUILDING SECTION LOOKING NORTH 55 m
- m , r
- r. - - - - - - - - _- - m ,-- - - - -
A A O9 l EI'E-i m M' **^k I gh EW,.A m _ - _
~
. EN'-
.s ,
I TO CRA*=E ELAI 6 r- - !{ ,ewus' e' et us'-s' _- r -- l tavat 3 .- ugve g ., . e_ 24a'-o' ' [ c .m co.caou Auxiu Amy -- u.c gosr m ryst.o*
=
p_ , A no%s _muso=* T g,y EL. 2 2d-o' -_, t M wm / is jet: es- LEVEL 'l ' n &n;- a j '22d E d c' 220'-o' Auxiua=y _Egia_ h w g cQy
, rc,q r
' 1 4
N R'** 3 Ia .v. ,,,,
-; Ta.M d_
i eu zoe 'e* 's e ; goof-om -
=u_
n -l '
' Eve' ,A. . .' . c ..
i- M - L fj ; } }
% 7 nuess Levet as' ,a i , ; ,
l eura'--rt_s l "-- &J .u.w.s~
.. LE V E L f C '.__._ _ __._ _ - .7 l
sacTioN M SECTiON M t'y %Y E r< Om in e7 C
- c
-r
=
Figure 4 Ei FUEL HANDLING BUILDING SECTIONS !! oC LOOKING EAST az 40
6
. 4 i (
1 9 1 I l s' I E l _PUEL HANE
'_ BU LCIN CONTRCCBulk l m M M D@o SST uNEO 4MWNW NC G T l
~
_ e, e [N".ap - l EL184Le%* \ I E5"d ~ i l NBLPUEL mm, m i s+o. a Ts ' .C l
\hhy,pT N
{ }- l
,L t,
,,,,g
- UNIT F40.
f j 3j7 4 l *- g $P5.NT F'UEL, PCOL"' = s UNIT No.2 a . fi I [ I gj *Sf' as!*=fsl".S',, ~1 - - -- v> = - 3-- L._L. . .l _._1_. I 1 .a - Tf,a'"* e:.n E
;;,7,4._ - - -ww
~~ , m
; &E
- J[d :n;um g NS H
7 [ , o e i' m
, tpgg connioen ,
i
+
-'i'(4*,
- i%' ' On * {
.i.o t .
g ___' g cg . ;,# '\gs g..J%, .,,
' \ xxn d(
- J b b E5 SLAB PANEL FRAMING PLAN E i
1 I
) LEGEND:
LO AD BEARING WALL 9 LO AD BEARING SHEAR WALL l k h i
.J
--,--_m _ ___ -- -e~ ,* - --... ---
.u25fN#a'ht^"fMi i I
& S S
'NG ngl i j i
_NNem m
/'
run. eks
- k. s,cos w n s u un.o se se, : " 's Tl mpg eu w jm -
,n 4 UER
~'
.r. ! . ~1,,. z._ t >
fI i I f~ l I CON %MmTf euitoiws / I $$T bMED! , IT No.t
- l **lulifs' cqr. w it *' ib
+.
N I ?#-
/;e==,',
bdYj _. L, 9 'EiO'TO k i _L i i i _J .. E x
- s. sewn Eisa l ,'Q N Q m., w ~'=~
?dy'MGL "
nh is mm :N' e : e 1 bg 0 . cc o,oca i N t;.,ger m a-I,
' ; y\x '
. .. l .
L .s m j
$~;{sig, _--w me-
' * ' " l ace. mi\ LW :
)
%~ ~- -
o- m .'\ GI &- G,, L' 200'-o" (UNO) Also Available On
- Aperture Card l
l i Figure 5 LVL A FLOOR PLAN SHOWING " LOCATION OF SHEAR WALLS l 841105 018 6 -D3
- 1
- 1 Ik l 1
i l l 1 _i 1 1 e i 6 i U Y lT '?. - G 6 8 "H N N CONTs
% r-EM
[ THIN 4 .
. To co~c.
,x E s . 2 W - 7 *_
Q2r ]. l[ , _-g . l
/AECHANiC AL ROCVA .
CRAq in-w 1 I
, @ 1 3 1 I
i WAL NostNa L
.. 1 i e w sT e w usT
~
i
/ i LTE3 .
t plTER
\s EQUIPMENT ' )
BUILDING
' N
/
] ROOF SLAB j C@,E6 d &zus'-z' _c._. :x' L i
~i a xm i
n
;-/
l l J
.. Nw ..
I N t N l
._a=*m*Tm W \a !..'
Tr:rs :[
'\A-~~~~ UX tLi, D-' i
.M PLAN A%
i i
, LEGEND:
LOAD BEARING SHEAR WALL 9 I I e
. . . . . - - . , . - - ..-,.-.......-____.w_. -
. - _ , . _ _ _ . . _ _ ,. _-,-,__.m__... . . . . . , . . - _ _ _ . . -
P sUIL IN D $ GN I . i .
>. UNIT I Q
MulLDING ,
@s _ -i a
Re N Q N l 1 s
's'l '
m um F. l J -- VESTI8UL N S"3 &@ - e-l POST ACCIDENT POST ACCI ENT AREA EXHl mlLTER WA EXH FILTER PA lR-so3ll I n-wl I i B 5, EQUIPMENT BUILDING ! . ROOF SLAB [tyg.ff,* i
/I
__/.J N / F
- x. g_m'.e s u'v
/
i Y ._' _ l -.. , RY BUILDING I 't -
- E L. 263'-8" d180 Available 01:
l Aperture Card r Figure 6 , LVL 3 FLOOR PLAN SHOWING LOCATION OF SHEAR WALLS _ - _ _ _ _ - - _841105 018 6 -Of _ _
r nun".EInYoY.IUn*EM"$ L [ l F Pd _ / I
- /. R j
-H
[ u o [ H: HEIGHT FROM BASE OF STRUCTURETO SOIL SURFACE Pd= DYNAMIC INCREMENTAL S0llPRESSURE R: RESULTANT FORCE 2 R =.075 VmH (SSE)* 2
= .045 Vm H (OBE)*
P" d 7m = S0ll MOIST UNIT WEIGHT, PCF f
- DERIVED USING THE PEAK GROUND ACCELERATIONS OF 0.12g AND 0.20g FOR OBE AND SSE RESPECTIVELY.
l f Figure 7 DYNAMIC INCREMENTAL SOIL PRESSURE PROFILE
cuitoIn"s'8EI"["Er'oN -
~
(. s [' (FUELPOOL ( FUEL POOL { +325 PSF
+200 PSF 6 o o < ' o '
t
..o ...
j/ . . EL.179'-0-1/2" lf > E L 179'-0-1/2" [f J Y -
/
[ / o o ,, o o o
-200 PSF
-325 PSF h
[ 8.5' 17.0' 8.5' 12.5' _ 25.0' 12.5' ( N-+ S EXCITATION E-+W EXCITATION (LOOKING WEST) (LOOKING NORTH) ( -(OPPOSITE SIGN FOR S-+ N EXCITATION) (OPPOSITE SIGN FOR W-+E EXCITATION) L [. [ l { Figure 8 l HYDRODYNAMIC PRESSURE PROFILES i ACTING ON BASEMAT UNDER OBE
r- cun 5tNS DS 2N P i L i (. {-
- 87 PSF 115 PSF a .
o 12.75- 12.75-
; \
\
\
g o i , o
- 420 PSF h
~ 267 PSF n
( : h 12.75' f 12.75-
=
~
- it it n
o 13.96' : 13.96* 2 1 ( u EL.179'-01/2" 795 PSF y EL.179'-0-1/2" 535 PSF l SOUTH (NORTH) POOL WALL WEST (EAST) POOL WALL UNDER N-+-S (S+N) EXCITATION UNDER E-*-W (W+ E) EXCITATION (OPPOSITE SIGN FOR REVERSED EXCITATION) l Figure 9 HYDRODYNAMIC PRESSURE PROFILES ACTING ON POOL WALLS UNDER OBE
s h cusSfuYo'[aIa*n^"ErSN ( p, FUEL POOL [FUELPOOL l +511 PSF
+312 PSF o o o o o
/
t / E L.179'-0-1/2" EL.179'-01/2" c 7 / [ } / J
-312 PSF ,,,,, , , ,
[_ -511 PSF { 8.5' 17.0' _ _ 8.5* _ _ 12.5' _ _ 25.0' _ 12.5" _ N-+ S EXCITATION E-+W EXCITATION
, (LOOKING WEST) (LOOKING NORTH)
(OPPOSITE SIGN FOR S-+-N EXCITATION) (OPPOSITE SIGN FOR W-+- E EXCITATION) { l - Figure 10 HYDRODYNAMIC PRESSURE PROFILES ACTING ON BASEMAT UNDER SSE _ _j
+ cuiS $ 7o7 tim 7 E M U L,- { {. 146 PSF 206 PSF L n i \ l-
- 12.75' l \ 12.75'
\ _ \
l \ o
- 416 PSF u } 690 PSF
- o : a
[ 12.75' ) _ 12,75'
^
m [ i - db
} di _
13.96' - 13.96' [. 5 o EL.179'-0-1/2 1243 PSF o E L.179'-0-1/2" ' 835 PSF (' l } SOUTH (h0RTH) POOL WALL WEST (EAST) POOL WALL {f- UNDER N-+-S (S-+-N) EXCITATION UNDER E-*W (W-* E) EXCITATION (OPPOSITE SIGN FOR REVERSED EXCITATION) { l l Figure 11 HYDRODYNAMIC PRESSURE PROFILES ACTING ON POOL WALLS UNDER SSE
EUIL IN CZ2 2N EP A f. L I
\
/ \
{ / CONTAINMENT ) I 49 PSF 212 C (psf) p E L. 288'-2., l D
+ =
5
+ =
l + : [ " = l FUEL CONTROLI HANDLING A TORNADO ( BUILDING BUILDING l BU L NG WIND { EL 220'-0" ( P = C, P,,, C, WHERE: .
= SIZE C0 EFFICIENT C*
=.64 P
max = 0.00256 (V,,,)2
= 0.00256 (360 mph)2
= 332 Psf C = EFFECTIVE EXTERNAL PRESSURE E
COEFFICIENT (SEE FIG.14) P = (.ES) (332 psf) C,
= 212 Cp (psf)
( l p Figure 12 WIND AND TORNADO EFFECTIVE VELOCITY PRESSURE PROFILES
V 7FFUEL M ANDLIN18 LUILDIN3 DJitXN 84EPOJiT r l L I ra
#9 57!0 & /f
- _ 'h s'r f~ L + N l_
- g. %R , w9 74 sse"?op > ~
n ,
.-- r J r ,--- --v f , g ,g - - - -
^* ; f m.*470 # /P' I V. ;-
.y =
i t s j r n.4/e' s l l .e 4 '2 ' ; ._ l . .
. . --- La- 4 .----
).
' '4 'pY_ j. \ AT385ett*807 ,.
wa). 1e' I Ak 98 79/2*807 EA dNO
-~_ _h st___ , '
SECTION LEVEL 1 CASK WASHDOWN AREA SLAB rs 7
~ _
l I l 3*{r "4sf 0:O's /P' rea { i
._ 4 '4 ~*w is l - Q.< aa riese ' rep l l*'
^
l % C \_ l LAP TYP ~\_ _ji1 y
- f. ,7, so.u '
y , . - - - -----c,< -
, , g l ___i_'_, , ,;;;f,,
.c'.G s> /y -
\ . .. .
rev/tr/~ . l T~~Ti .',' J 4:p iets m 4* 'l( m 'ato/2*f27
""'A "N 'I( , n' - ,ll l r #st .
SECTION LEVEL 1 FLOOR SLAB ( l i I Figure 13 REPRESENTATIVE ROOF AND FLOOR SLAB DETAILS I .- _ - _ _ - - - - _ - - - _ --_ _ ----_----_ _-_--_- _____
V E W P-FU':L M ANDLIN 2 CUILLINS D3412N GEPORT F L [ 'l}p.
& $ gyp - -
& Y we..- --
/KdW4 ,-c j
"~
l _ l l __} l 7 ' it i __g _.._ s \ 1. \
.dVT-t07 } 6 e' _
ri. n.st:r'avr 2,. a* s- r:.sw.3riei) ?22!. u,qs.?orsa or.rorn , 22.#9,29'r */r' r F , _ 14 4.2'0 23.re.ge'r'rasiti h.'o_ l '
~
J4. r0M/ JG- 70FAL ( PARTIAL PLAN AT ELEVATION 240'-0" on awo g is socre >
~a ns f~o- scr r rrr<r se s.mnar re rr) es.xert a *naks74 ct)
MMMMt$ _ S.M/fy4 , y'~~g* 3.gypy3 l D5
, 0,,W, g, m' =
yyggy ygyggg3 ( N, g
, -,,, -r ,
,s p ,
y . i sveux,w,s m' ' f
$ \
@ .1 n
\
^ '
n ,a .,.,, n,,,,,,,,,,. h.
- g @
4 7 ,-,,
.,,,,,- 1 DETAIL M DETAIL m W W
{ l Figure 14 REPRESENTATIVE SHEAR WALL DETAILS
- k. ..
-m-------_,_______
L B U ILDIN DES GN REP R [ o svec7 77M s v/es. .* k S I {! [! U {! e
+e p_ _
f .y p= __ _ r I e ol l v -- ( ; l ~} -. _ _ . . .. , _
- . I l N ll l .
- r r a o
._P j w c ,
P ' l] k l a
- l~ i i l ' 3 l
r I I i 5 ' l f e I I l Meq ( E igi ,2 MI i _- -l- - l$ u 9
.l
*i 5
I R 2 l lIi l-r p ri:ag d'i g m
; r x, I: e ap3 a
( .I.a I t-5sl % a s : , mm s 'P d? 2 i.ll b I E : Sk 3 Ut b3. ze b'N 1 l i 4l l:.
's s *w ,s$
S% & e sm
.!i" U
'm z
e" y; e c l
' i b,>'s.h,3,,<w.)
I i *N 3 ?. j t s .s
<C CC
= '
I b=a 3 gN y4 e 0 Si> Awl\ !l l e :1 e x c UJ en l f
"~
[. {l T 2 ~ {p u { 'p'\, i l W-W l l I , # M 9 , j lL 4
}:: o ,
,I i ei i~
~
!$ n n l b . .
(
, r 1
\ ,
1 I ( l J g .g
* #~
k
'i
%( ,
i 5 =s,: - w bl ! n lmi n n
-f.
;; I
,I w! i t o L [, l $i bbt m 'b 5V
$j 8s l
IIk l zqp .h , 53!$ I5 c! h
% a l _
L VEOP-FUEL HQNDLING BUILDING DEstGN REPORT l
.=
9' _d4* 6*, 4* 7", 4 4 '6 5' _7", o* , f." _e (* l1 ii is:s:we _"l
~
l' nu 34ApeJ;s-e roer esoreir-WALL DwL s. y , l [ , , ti y n 9A+ gordnM1 reett-
., ,g ,/j ct ec.:7-j t.A,o.s:s os cAowcLo 3 , / ,
. ,o wygway - - -- .. _ -
####MI N*
W g pupg* , p- r'
\A \s /-et.zcs:n* "i 1_ _ _.
l
. . > {% emas rop.,
\1
~
/ l %
' l ,
% n ui n-l '
m ms
--- ,- - ,r j
o D . tt h s,e:, oocowe s eir- h t J'~A cte _ _L TY n isAl C.r tit *
\.
.ww cuan ries t
- - - t m
-I ,2 7- ' . .,
suscc wms sA#ad 'u~ ' [ ,
+==si s ,
l r8 .)j b ! . ! ! _.![ :
-r_. 4_+- ._._s- -
- - s,
,?
4-C " i 8 y1 _ w y --< -s-,- adq ---
'g-
*4,75:o'co r L ONGr nese w/ watt ws , , , , , , l PtAct to CLEAR ANCHOR BOL75 re e<27 g ,
t l ii s:s eie aor raansvcesc m- 1:o. 1:1, 1:ot. . 1- 1 _ o:o. f r~ * %. [ [ l Figure 16 CASK CRANE BEAM SECTION
1 . r i i @ 1 i i 143 128 99 98 4
! 121 107 BI l
1 144 129 101 100 j 2 122 108 82 N 145 130 103 102 73 72 50 45 123 109 84 l83 58 57 36 @ BEAM NUMBER 146 131 105 104 75 74 51 47 46 124 !!O 86 85 60 59 37 30 h 147 132 107 106 77 76 52 48 24 125 III 88 7 62 61 38 32 h 148 133 109 108 79 78 53 49 2 25 126 112 90 89 64 63 40 39 33 149 134 !!! 110 81 80 55 54 28 27 127 113 92 91 F6 65 42 41 14 150 135 113 112 83 82 57 56 30 29 128 !!4 94 33 68 67 44 43 35 < 151 136 115 114, 85 84 59 58 32 ? I 129 !!5 96 35 70 69 46 45 18 17 152 137 117 !!6 87 86 61 60 14 31 130 116 98 37 72 71 48 47 20 19 153 138 119 !! 8l 89 88 63 62 36 35 l 131 117 100 39 74 73 50 49 22 21 l [ 154 139 121 120 91 90 65 64 38 31 132 118 102 101 76 75 52 51 24 23 155 140 123 122, 93 92 67 66 40 39 l
} 133 !!9 104 103 78 77 54 53 26 25 2
, 156 141 125 124 95 94 69 68 42 41 i
. 134 120 106 l05 80 79 56 55 28 27 f l
{ 157 142 127 126 97 96 71 70 44 43 f
! BASEMAT AT ELEVATION 157.00 FEET f
@ FIGURE 19 SHEET 2 0F 2
VUIP
- FU3L H AN3 NM LD 3 p ,
s
> < [k bs 2:>
'YP.) KEY ISOMETRIC TI APERT g crao D 17
' @ Also Available On 12 is Aperture Card 19 14 13 12 8 20 16 /. 5 13 21 A ty 6 22 9 4 3
6 s 23 11 to s 2 Y n , Figure 17 X BASEMAT FINITE ELEMENT MODEL , (Sheet 1 of 6) 8411050186-0 5
\
E t i 350 349 299 297 295 293 250 249 248 233 204 203 18 1 167 166 116 !!S !!4 !!3 73 72 71 57 30 29 352 351 300 298 296 294 253 252 251 234 206 205 18 169 168 120 119 118 117 76 15 74 58 32 31 354 353 307 305 303 301 256 255 254 235 208 207 19 171 170 124 123 122 121 79 78 77 59 34 33 356 355 308 306 104 302 259 258 257 236 210 209 19
! 173 172 128 127 126 125 82 81 80 60 36 35 l
358 357 315 313 311 309 262 261 260 231 212 2tl 19 i 175 174 132 13! 130 129 85 84 83 61 38 37 i 360 359 316 114 312 310 265 264 263 238 214 213 19 1 333 88 87 86 62 40 l 39 a 177 i?6 138 131 13G
-3 268 267 266 239 216 215 19 I 362 3G1 323 321 319 134 91 90 89 63 42 41
-j 271 270 269 240 218 217 19 fi 179 178 14! 140 139 g3g 94 93 92 64 44 l 43
! 3G4 303 124 322 320 318 274 273 272 241 220 219 19 181 180 145 144 143 142 97 96 95 65 46 45 9
2 3G6 365 311 329 327 325 277 276 275 242 222 221 19 i l 3 183 182 149 148 147 146 100 99 98 66 48 47 3G8 3G7 312 310 328 326 280 279 278 243 224 223 19 185 184 153 152 151 150 103 102 101 67 50 49
~
310 369 319 317 315 333 283 282 281 244 226 225 19 l 187 186 157 156 155 154 106 105 104 68 52 51 312 371 340 338 336 334 286 285 284 245 228 227 20 189 188 161 160 159 158 109 108 107 69 54 53 174 313 347 345 343 341 289 288 287 246 230 229 20
; 191 190 165 164 163 162 112 !!! 110 70 56 55
, 376 375 348 346 344 342 292 291 290 247 232 231 20 BASEMAT AT ELEVATION 176.00 FEET I
, V2f P a FUJL M ANZ NM U D N4 i
B- 159 158 1090 1097 1098 1109 \
- 15 1 193 196 197 199 %
B 161 160 !!27 1128 1129 !!30 16 2 192 194 195 198 3 163 162 499 510 511 530 s 17 3 i 1 165 164 18 4 , 2 167 166 l KEY ISOMETRIC 19 5 lI 169 168 20 6 18 171 170 121 7 TI 5 173 172 h[Rf -
. 22 8 5 175 174 23 9 Also Available On 7 177 '78 AMm bd 24 10 B 179 178 h 181 180 26 12 D 183 182 27 13 1 105 184 28 14 2 187 186 Y
a Figure 17 BASEMAT FINITE ELEMENT MODEL rX (Sheet 2 of 6) 8411050186-04 ._ -
e I I 4 545 566 567 586 587 633 637 641 645 649 653 17 18 39 40 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 544 564 565 584 585 632 636 640 644 648 652 1 L 15 16 37 38 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 1
.; 543 562 563 582 583 631 635 639 643 647 651
~ 14 35 36 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 542 560 5bt 580 581 630 634 638 642 646 650 13 33 34 90 31 92 93 9u 95 96
}
l 54I 558 559 578 579 605 609 613 617 621 625
- e .
!! 12 31 3J 83 84 85 86 87 88 69 '2.
t 540 556 557 576 577 G04 608 612 616 620 G24
-1
?
[ 4 9 10 29 30 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 539 554 555 574 575 603 607 Gli 615 619 623 8 27 28 69 70 71 12 73 14 75 7 d 538 552 553 572 573 602 606 610 G14 618 622 1, I 7 25 26 62 63 G4 65 66 67 68 d 186 184 182 100 178 176 114 172 170 168 166
}
1
;4 5 6 2 *, 24 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 549 550 551 570 571 589 591 593 595 597 599 3 4 21 22 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 546 547 548 568 569 588 590 592 594 596 598 1 2 19 20 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 126 124 122 120 118 116 !!4 112 !!O 108 106 EAST WALL OF FUEL POOL (LOOKING WEST) 4 I
I. a
vcir - FUEL H AN HL N UI N 657 494 666 667 g N' 134 135 136 g 664 656 493 665 [- -::_ 131 132 133 -_ )s 655 492 662 663 __--_- y 128 129 130 ,- 654 491 660 661 125 126 127 629 490 658 659 KEY ISOMETRIC 124 678 489 1, 627 488 , CAgg - 676 487 121 164 162 160 158 120 139 140 Also Available On Aperture Card 601 497 1278 1279
!!9 130 141 6C, 495 1277 1280 118 131 142 104 102 100 98 2
n Figure 17
- y BASEMAT FINITE ELEMENT MODEL (Sheet 3 of 6) s 841105 018 6 -D7
7 4 1 m s 1# 129 733 75 690 691 692 717 721 725 7-t
-- j 16 17 53 54 55 56 57 1
687 688 689 716 720 724 728 732 7 %'
]
g i h 14 15 48 49 50 51 52 I , 4 684 685 686 715 719 723 727 731 7% j w i 4 12 13 43 44 45 46 47
. i.,
681 682 683 114 718 722 726 730 15 { i "r 10 11 38 39 40 41 42 Y G74 575 680 693 697 701 705 709 71 f
)
4 9 33 34 35 3G 31
)
672 673 1678 679 696 700 104 708 71 8 3 7 28 29 30 31 32 670 671 677 695 699 703 707 71 2 6 23 24 25 26 27 668 669 676 694 698 702 706 71 19 1 5 18 20 21 22 328 327 320 19 312 311 30 3 WEST WALL OF FUEL POOL (LOOKING WEST) 1 1 S Y I
?
I t ad
vatP. Fu:L N AME L N L.V N M - 4
!._ 434 752 753 N
19 80 81
/
i 433 750 751 76 77 78 s i 432 748 749 73 74 75 KEY ISOMETRIC 8 43! 746 747 70 71 72 1 410 144 745 67 68 69 e iff 743 APER 2 409 742 G4 65 66 h I 408 740 741
- 61 62 63 l
Also AvaIInble On ) 407 738 739 perbre Ord 1 58 59 60 1 303 296 295 z a Figure 17
- Y BASEMAT FINITE ELEMENT MODEL ,
(Sheet 4 of 6) L
. _. p41105 018 6 -O $
I
\
'I i
*}
n 434 438 442 446 450 454 462 477 478 486 36 37 38 39 40 48 59 67 75 433 437 441 445 449 453 461 475 476 485 31 32 33 34 35 47 58 66 74 432 436 440 444 448 452 460 473 474 484 i 6 j 26 27 28 29 30 46 57 65 73 4
/ 431 435 439 443 447 451 459 471 472 483 1
3 j 21 22 23 24 25 45 56 64 72 5 410 414 418 422 426 430 458 469 470 482
~.]
h 44 55 63 71
~ 16 17 18 19 20 e
409 413 417 421 425 429 457 467 468 481
.j 11 12 13 14 15 43 53 54 62 70
'l 408 412 416 420 424 428 456 USS 466 480
,l 6 7 8 9 10 42 51 52 61 C9 i
407 411 415 't . 9 423 427 455 463 464 479
! 2 3 4 5 41 49 50 60 68 I, 303 301 256 255 254 235 208 201 190 163 l I I
i 2 t s 2
! NORTH WALL OF FUEL POOL (LOOKING NORTH) i Y
I. t
. E
v m . ,u a ,.. pj,.,gogogg N 994 505 526 527 537 83 101 102 111 493 504 524 525 536 ( k 100 120 s 492 522 523 535 99 49: 520 52: 98 KEY ISOMETRIC 490 503 518 519 534 82 96 97 109 489 502 516 517 531 81 94 95 108 r l'f[ 488 50i Siy sis 532
.CAgo IUM 80 92 93 107 487 500 512 513 531 79 90 91 106 162 499 510 511 539 Also Ava11dle On Aperture Card 78 88 89 105 497- 498 508 509 529 77 86 87 104 495 496 506 507 528 76 04 85 103 )
i 107 73 72 50 45 Z n ! Figure 17 i BASEMAT FINITE ELEMENT MODEL j rX (Sheet 5 of 6) ( l
- i. 841105 018 6 -D9
_ . ~ ~
- f. b .
I i .g-4 5
?
b
.(
i i 1 776 777 805 690 809 813 817 821 825 , 775 64 65 66 67 68 69 17 15 16 63 773 774 804 687 808 812 816 820 824 772 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 76 13 14
?
770 771 803 684 807 811 815 819 823 769 e
^)
l 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 75
- 11 12 810 814 818 822
-9 766 767 768 802 681 806
)
10 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 14 Q 9
]
674 785 789 793 797 801
-j 763 164 765 781 1
fj 40 41 73 7 8 35 36 37 38 39
't, 1
780 672 784 788 792 796 800 760 761 162
-Q 1
4 32 33 34 72 i 5 6 29 30 31 a l 779 670 783 787 791 795 799 I'l 757 758 759 25 26 27 28 71 3 4 23 24 778 668 782 786 790 794 798 754 155 756 10 20 21 22 70 1 2 17 18 330 328 326 280 279 278 243 368 367 332 1 SOUTH WALL OF FUEL POOL (LOOKING NOR i 9 I i b
vare - ru2L ucurginguityw 833 848 849 857 587 p 91 93 101 109 832 846 847 856 585 90 91 100 100 831 844 845 855 583 KEY ISOMETRIC 88 69 93 107 830 842 843 854 581 86 87 98 106 8?9 840 841 853 579 C4 85 97 105 E 928 838 839 852 577
'N i 82 83 96 104 827 83c ear 85: 575 80 81 35 103 826 c34 835 850 573 78 79 94 102 224 223 198 179 178 z
h h rX Figure 17 , BASEM AT FINITE ELEMENT MODEL (Sheet 6 of 6) 8411050186 -/0
L vesp- rust Hawot n,a .uitogo L e O t i '
@ae @ @
FACE 0F 8 WAU. g b b 3 y P o GROUND l [ MOTION
-b
[ 3h [_ 1 1 3 FACE OF 0 WAR f aa M, (FT-KIPS) MOMENT PROFILE AT a-a _ FOR LOAD COMBINATION 3
~_8' l ,,
f
? jg o o
__ 5 mu
-8 <E FACE OF + _
WALL ---8
- _-g
- FACE OF WALL nT GROUND MOTION Figure 18 REPRESENTATIVE RESULTS OF BASEMAT ANALYSIS (Sheet 1 of 2)
I - _ _ - - - _ - - - - - - - - -
f cun".ENYoYd[d"NoU I t O l l g .
/ .
i
- =s GROUND }~g n
- e .z MOTION
'~ 8 - *I FACE OF#
WALL
-1"
~
E $$ u aw I _-o r t. _ T E 'It :s
- T! m' OgE8 53
- -:g 3 m=
$2
!g 1-1 Figure 18 REPRESENTATIVE RESULTS OF BASEMAT ANALYSIS
,(Sheet 2 of 2)
"'" ""' """ o's"S E"n'NoU 2
A' = 4.50 IN /FT. I d' = 7.35 IN. ir [ \
/ N 'I
/ %
d = 68.16iN.
- j 200t 7
/ \ .
m
/ \
2
/ \ A, = 2.25 IN /FT.
/ \ '
/ \
/ \
)
/
\
/ \
i \ 100C - l ) 9 / i ,
/
\ /
x '
/
e (Y. N I
/
e \ / a \ / 5 \ /
-4000
\ '
I te00 0'
/
/ 1000 2C00
- h. A"/
\ ELEMENT 34 0
\ /
Y MOMENT (L
- F 1 IAD -CENTER SECTION BASEMAT, E W REINFORCEMENT LEGEND:
O LOAD COMBINATION 3 h LO AD COMBINATION 10 A AVERAGE FOR LOAD COMBINATION 3 ALONG STRIP B-B 0F FIGURE 17 SHEET 2 0F 6.
~
Figure 19 REPRESENTATIVE RESULTS OF BASEMAT DESIGN (Sheet 1 of 2)
"*' "^" o$ioI."n'NoU 2
A' = 2.08 IN /FT. I d' = 3.711N. L j
! -20cc d = 68.29 IN. :
/ __
p 2
' A, = 1.56 IN /FT.
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ \
I / \ f -ioct 1
<n i
h
]~
\ l
/
( : \ '
; \ /
xy \ / 2 \ / s \ / c g \ / ELEMENT 85 93 /
-woo
\ o o'
ea' f acao I N y/ I MOMENT (L *F ) IAD - EAST WING AREA BASEMAT, E-W REINFORCEMENT LEGEND:
@ LOAD COMBINATION 3 A AVERAGE FOR LOAD COMBINATION 3 ALONG STRIP A-A 0F FIGURE 17 SHEET 10F 6.
Figure 19 REPRESENTATIVE RESULTS OF BASEMAT DESIGN (Sheet 2 of 2)
\
- 7 . o7 EE Z>2Or5* E 5 E o'0R* O3 3R' 2
- M 4 +,><<
N & L l ' , -, 0 e - P r 1 r /- 2 i s N U o
]
n N1 W ! - . d w t .
. :s a
1
$r
/s o
/
t
\
s. w i r 8e
,, n Ms
- ~, Qk.( k1* ' _ i( i Mx f s-e i - N,
?
r ,;- 4 4 6
- 4. , "< < ~
/- r/
tr # g\ e"
~ '
x "-- y'i . s '~ l
's.
s v a G
% -i N. ,~, N
.I J. ' IC
~ -.. _
R (,( 3 O f
. F
\ , N e
s u-(, s! I E R u T e, 0 A 2M eE rS l1;I d uA g i e
. iB s ss F
N r* a-s r O I
*- 4 T 2c C yD E
,p, ,,, ,' l a
se S
. sM R
. sx E Ny s,. T
= N
. e, E
. 2 w C 5 s.
W . s E. . zr .
- L '
4
/
i u x A C r. _ 4 t i Mew e r y u Cw
/ xc Eu Lr ri .
a E \ c ,
. s y rw s [l ' =
i W- c I N 4! - S
<iql, '.
le
+
m, - = 7 r n e _ r
.p a 'e t
- 1 z1 s.
o . u.r rb.1'5 oo7 s rr/ f, l
l VEGP-FUIL H ANDLING sueLDING DESIGN REPortT eM M
- f oW. ,3&*Lif Sir #EM
~
N c1 y - f ( j , 1 . - -esr uwe
- Et. o re ek,-] ,
w, % g l
$ .l adas ; < .$
1 4 roc
\,
""'q m-n ---? O
. . .w EL 173? d h IMMN ~
f.RUMe f.
- 4.Gd's
/-MM 62 ~
~ % 9/da 26 '9 "
/.4teVe /.M/43/7// 4/#6//
oh
, . * O I
-/-COM e f.MM8 7//.M/408 Gt0* 7!0
- BASEMAT SECTION s/
Mtit Mrt>O
' 'N' 4; use arrof a
k u
.v .
C J. ) ,
*s.darums es
;k Ff a *
. v
? i t' at unir e s'ons .=.
g
,' u esatserrrA *
?
o ,
\, !o O F 2' " 3 l
. . yea y m ...,wahww,+c. v i T~
\l l YR c..o uw l
I ( _ c
-- f#g:_(,wzamste
. - - - ntru m t<
- ,' 1 hnA 'c4 w w , 4 r. ~
MG4 *[su aca sNT ,,, % a",d','l,aS l *
***Y' TYPICAL SECTION DETAll OF UNIT 1 TUNNEL UNDER CENTER SECTION BASEMAT Figure 21 BASEMAT SECTION DETAILS
^
cunS?nYo?5$ "n""N5"A I ( L TOP OF BASEMAT
/
{ I:i:I:i:!;l: : !:!:l:l:lll:l
~ ~ ~
SOUTH POOL WALL (LOO KING WEST) M,(FT-KIPS) MOMENT PROFILE AT (, OF E? L 1 FOR LOAD COMBINATION 3 A GROUND MOTION Figure 22 REPRESENTATIVE RESULTS OF SPENT FUEL POOL WALL ANALYSIS
VO!P = FU!L M A%d L NG 7 U L*' NG r I 2 A' = 4.50 IN /FT. d' = 3.76 IN. i
/\ \ 3
.h i r f
/ \ '
f d = 66.25 IN. [ -aoot \N
/
/ \ ,
o
/I g I 2 T A, = 4.50 IN /FT.
[ l
\
/ \
/
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ -ioot (
u, 5
- \, ,.
11 Y
\, r
/
C
~
\ /
\ /
w \ > a N / 2 \ / d
~
\\ /
r 5 \ C e
/
-; coo x .iooo g g ico acoa
, ELEMENT 79
/
\ /
\ /
'\/
MOMENT ft+F1 LAD'- LEVEL B SOUTH POOL WALL, VERTICAL REINFORCEMENT LEGEND: O LOAD COMBINATION 3 h LO AD COMBINATION 6 A LOAD COMBINATION 10 Figure 23 REPRESENTATIVE RESULTS OF SPENT FUEL POOL WALL DESIGN i
v VT P.FU7L M ANELIN T CUIC IN 3 DEo He N 84E PO LT 2 - g i-3- Vfff/6'*/ WMt gs se o wg$es* g.g A*fsA/M Iff!CsV!' 4914%\ __J f~ > J ; 7/. 4 6 3'c. 4 "#.e-5 -
\ T AJ j CJ~
}
f.. ' i .
~ _ _.
af I .Se 14 *al /J'i'C6
' . - Ak ll W//:6 f* f I ~
M.ht ti 191 1'i i
,y .vo..is.v:i. c er >+n ._
r i
~ ?
PARTIAL PLAN AT ELEVATION 179'-0-1/2" l I ' j l l , l j i i g I i +-- [
. l l i . l .
l
. 4 ,
i V
! ! l l I
* ( ._,l l N'i
{ e i p a*gE/M g l . - - _ l ?-M M*'e # #* I N *4 I [ l l N gj W I I I I ' ._
. . 1 i
- u. i , i t - - -- - -- --
r 4
.+++ +Q i , t --
., g S . . %.. -L
.- _ ;{ ,
I o_ _i ._ ...., l
, e.t~.wse' ea
- D g l ;
, <:a. .
l
; in ima,,u 3
! ;f.el(,y9,.
I l ___ b PARTIAL PLAN AT ELEVATION 179'-0-1/2"
'llAn 11MPtA tt f.NGS ff ett'ft MM Burf of(OrtC TIG LAft1 M?ll D5%.W$)
- ,, _,n R
. yg f
/
4*7 Ass tvetatttMs V . ." ( ,
]
l @'IM : ! 4 A-i.g' i w cwb3 i
$_~ M '4 i
4 h $
.R g
.[ , Figure 24 REPRESENTATIVE SPENT FUEL POOL WALLS DETAILS
L VEGP-FUEL HANDLING BUILDING DESIGN REPORT f L
~
e APPENDIX A DEFINITION OF LOADS {
~
{ ( l .-------- _ -_---_---
L VEGP-FUEL HANDLING BUILDING DESIGN REPORT f APPENDIX A DEFINITION OF LOADS The loads considered are normal loads, severe environmental loads, extreme environmental loads, abnormal-loads, and potential site proximity loads. A.1 NORMAL LOADS Normal loads are those loads to be encountered, as specified, during construction stages, during test conditions, and later, during normal plant operation and shutdown. They include the following: D Dead loads or their related internal moments and forces, including hydrostatic loads and any permanent loads except prestressing forces. L Live loads or their related internal moments and forces, including any movable equipment loads and other loads which vary with intensity and occurrence, e.g., lateral soil pressures. Live load intensity ( varies depending upon the load condition and the type of structural element. ( Tg Thermal effects and loads during normal operating or shutdown conditions, based on the most critical transient or steady-state condition. Rg Pipe reactions during normal operating or shutdown conditions, based on the most critical transient or steady-state conditions. I J. A-1
VEGP-FUEL HANDLING BUILDING DESIGN REPORT A.2 SEVERE ENVIRONMENTAL LOADS Severe environmental loads are those loads to be infrequently encountered during plant life. Included in this category are: E Loads generated by the operating basis earthquake (OBE). These include the associated hydrodynamic and dynamic incremental soil pressures. W Loads generated by the design wind specified for the plant. A.3 EXTREME ENVIRONMENTAL LOADS Extreme environmental loads are those loads which are credible but are highly improbable. They include: E' Loads generated by the safe shutdown earthquake (SSE). These include the associated hydrodynamic and dynamic incremental soil pressures. Wt L ads generated by the design tornado specified for the plant. They include loads due to wind pressure, , differential pressure, and tornado-generated missiles. N Loads generated by the probable maximum precipitation. B Loads generated by postulated blast along transporta-tion routes. A.4 ABNORMAL LOADS . Abnormal loads are those loads generated by a postulated high-energy pipe break accident within a building and/or compartment thereof. Included in this category are the following: P Pressure load within or across a compartment and/or a building, generated by the postulated break. T, Thermal loads generated by the postulated break and including T g. A-2
VEGP-FUEL HANDLING BUILDING DESIGN REPORT i _R, -Pipe and equipment reactions under thermal conditions
- generated by the postulated break and including Rg .
Y L ad n a smeture generated by de reacdon of a r ruptured high-energy pipe during the postulated event. Yj Load on a structure generated by the jet impingement from a ruptured high-energy pipe during the postulated break. Y, Load on a structure or pipe restraint resulting from the impact of a ruptured high-energy pipe during the postulated event. (~ l ( ( . l A-3/4 l . . .. .
k VEGP-FUEL HANDLING EUILDING DESIGN REPORT ( ( APPENDIX B { LOAD COMBINATIONS l I -
e VEGP-FUEL HANDLING CUILDING DESIGN REPORT . APPENDIX B LOAD COMBINATIONS B.1 STEEL STRUCTURES The steel structures and components are designed in accordance with elastic working stress design methods of Part 1 of the
.American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) specification, using the load combinations specified in table B.l.
B.2 CONCRETE STRUCTURES The concrete structures and components are designed in accor-
' dance with the strength design methods of the American Concrete Institute (ACI) Code, ACI 318, using the load combinations specified in table B.2.
f [ l I I 6 B-1/2
- 1. . . . .
-- ~ .-
.- . .- _- ~
v - TABLE B.lI "} STEEL DESIGN LOAD COMBINATIONS ELASTIC METHOD strength In Limit (f,) M D L a T, Ta E E' W "t I o Ia bI r N 3 Service Imad conditions 1 1.0 1.0 1.0 Q 1.0 I 2 1.0 1.0 1.0 3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 t-' 5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 6 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 p Factored Load w 7 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.6 g (See note b.) 8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.6 9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.6 h f W 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.6 (See actes c and d.) 10 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 11 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.7 g (See notes e and d.) 1.0 1.0 1.0 12 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.6 g 1.0 1.0 1.6 13 1.0 1.0 1.0 l M to
- a. See Appendix E for definition of load symbols, f is the allowable stress for the elastic design method defined in Part 1 of the AISC, " Specification for the Design, Fabrication, and Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings." The one-third increase in allowable stresses permitted for seismic or wind loadings is not hm considered. O
- b. When considering tornado missile load, local section strength may be exceeded provided there will be no loss of W function of any safety-related system. In such cases, this load combination without the tornado missile load is d also to be considered.
- c. and Y loads, local section stren9th may be exceeded provided there will be no loss of When considering Y , Y,relateE system. In such cases, this load combination without Y functionofanysakety- 3
, Yr ' ""O In is also to be considered.
- d. For this load combination. in computing the required section strength, the plastic section modulus of steel shapes, except for those which do not meet the AISC criteria for compact sections, may be used.
i L
9 - ,..: .. .. ._ . .
.x . .. . ..
, , . a. ..
,.,_c. . ,, ,. . ., . . . . .._ .
TABLE B.2I " I CONCRETE DESIGN LOAD COMBINATIONS STRENGTH METHOD Pa Yo Ya Wt R R Y Yr Ya Strength E E D L E E' W o a i N B Limit Service Load conditions < M 1 1.4 1.7 U (See note b.) 2 1.4 1.7 1.7 U I (see note c.) 3 1.4 1.7 1.9 U 4 1.05 1.275 1.275 1.275 U M p 5 1.05 1.275 1.275 1.275 1.275 U 6 1.05 1.275 1.275 1.425 1.275 U Factored Load Conditions [ 7 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 U zg (see note d.) 8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 U g U3 9 1.0 1.0 -1.5 1.0 1.0 U C I M
.h (See note e.) 10 1.0 1.0 1.25 1.0 1.25 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 U (See note e.) 11 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 U g 12 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 U 55 O
13 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 U U M Un H
- a. See Appendix A for definition of load symbols. U is the required strength based on strength method per ACI 318-71. b g
- b. Unless this equation is more severe, the load combination 1.2D+1.7W is also to ba considered.
- c. Unless this equation is more severe, the load combination 1.2D+1.9E is also to be considered. p3
- d. When considering tornado missile load, local section strength may be exceeded provided there will be no loss of function of M any safety-related system. In such cases, this load combination without the tornado missile load is also to be considered. M
- e. loads, O When considering Y , $Ysysfem.
any safety-related , and Y,such In caees, this load combination without Y , Y , local'section strength and Y, may is be alsoexceeded provided there will be no loss of function of to be considered. l f. Actualloadfactorsusedindesignmayhaveexceededthoseshowninthistdble r 1 l . . - .- . .. . . .. -- , ,;- */ : '
,_.,c. y yy .- '--gg, . i '. s .$ % "'f '-( N W ? ?'. % ',2 $ Rg N # U .*
d
; Y ~ -)
4 - ',~ * .
.*hv'$-
'. ' ~$ g, : t- '1
- 1. I ' - ) G , . ~ '* -
h % ..I #@ k _ #, ). b Y ~' f $ h
's [ . M., -
<[ '*
*h
[
- f[ ) k' kf '( '
L-VEGP-FUEL HANDLING BUILDING DESIGN. REPORT [- [ - L APPENDIX C DESIGN OF STRUCTURES FOR TORNADO MISSILE IMPACT homnamaissim muss muss iii e i as i u-
VEGP-FUEL HANDLING BUILDING DESIGN REPORT APPENDIX C DESIGN OF STRUCTURES FOR TORNADO MISSILE IMPACT C.1 INTRODUCTION This appendix contains methods and procedures for analysis and design of steel and reinforced concrete structures and structural elements subject to tornado-generated missile impact effects. Postulated missiles, and other concurrent loading conditions are identified in Section 3.2 of the Design Report. Missile impact effects are assessed in terms of local damage and structural response. Local damage (damage that occurs in the immediate vicinity of the impact area) is assessed in terms of perforation and scabbing. Evaluation of local effects is essential to ensure that protected items would not be damaged directly by a missile perforating a protective barrier or by scab particles. Empirical formulas are used to assess local damage. Evaluation of structural response is essential to ensure that protected items are not damaged or functionally impaired by / deformation or collapse of tho impacted structure. Structural response is assessed in terms of deformation limits, strain energy capacity, structural integrity, and structural stability. Structural dynamics principles are used to predict structural response. C.1.1 Procedures The general procedures for analysis and design of struc a res or ? structural elements for missile impact effects include:
- a. Defining the missile properties (such as type, material, deformation characteristics, geometry, mass, trajectory, strike orientation, and velocity).
C-1
VEGP-FUEL HANDLING BUILDING DESIGN REPC.T
- b. Determining impact location, material strength, and thickness required to preclude local failure (such as perforation for steel targets and scabbing for rein-forced concreteitargets).
- c. Defining the structure and its properties (such as geometry, section strength, deformation limits, strain energy absorption capacity, stability characteristics, and dynamic response characteristics).
- d. Determining structural response considering other concurrent loading conditions.
- e. Checking adequacy of structural design (stability, integrity, deformation limits, etc.) to verify that local damage and structural response (maximum defor-mation) will not, impair the function of safety-related items.
C.2 LOCAL EFFECTS Evaluation of local effects consists of estimating the extent of local damage and characterization of the interface force-time function used to predict structural response. Local damage is confined to the immediate vicinity of the impact location on the struck element and consists of missile deformation, penetration of the missile into the element, possible perforation of the element, and, in the case of reinforced concrete, dislodging of concrete particles from the back face of the element (scabbing). Because of the complex physical processes associated with missile impact, local effects are evaluated primarily by applicntion of empirical relationships based on missile impact test results. Unless otherwise noted, these formulas are applied considering a normal incidence of strike with the long axis of the missile parallel to the line of flight. C-2
VEGP-FUEL HANDLING BUILDING DESIGN REPORT C.2.1 Reinforced Concrete Elements { The parts of the building structure that offer protection for safety-related equipment against tornado-generated missiles are { provided with f = 4000 psi minimum concrete strength, have 24-inch-minimum-thick walls, and have 21-inch-minimum-thick roofs. Therefore, the walls and roofs of these structures are resistant to perforation and scabbing by the postulated missiles discussed in Section 3.2 of the Design Report under tornado loads. C.2.2 Steel Elements Steel barriers subjected to missile impact are designed to preclude perforation. An estimate of the steel element thick-ness for threshold of perforation for nondeformable missiles is provided by equation 2-1, which is a more convenient form of the { Ballistic Research Laboratory (BRL) equation for perforation of steel plates with material constant taken as unity (reference 1). (Ek)
- bY s Tp =
672D k 2 (2-1) where: Tp = steel plate thickness for threshold of perforation (in.). E = m ssile kinetic energy (ft-lb). k 2 M, = mass of the missile (lb-s /ft). Vg = missile striking velocity (ft/s). D = missile diameter (in.).I"}
- a. For irregularly shaped missiles, an equivalent diameter is used. The equivalent diameter is taken as the diameter of a circle with an area equal to the circumscribed contact, or projected frontal area, of the noncylindrical missile. For pipe missiles, D is the outside diameter of the pipe.
C-3
VEGP-FUEL HANDLXNG BUILDING DESIGN REPORT The design thickness to prevent perforation, t p, must be greater than the predicted threshold value. The threshold value is increased by 25 percent to obtain the design thickness. t p
= 1.25 T p (2-2) where:
t p
= design thickness to preclude perforation (in.).
C.3 STRUCTURAL RESPONSE DUE TO MISSILE IMPACT LOADING When a missile strikes a structure, large forces develop at the missile-structure interface, which decelerate the missile and accelerate the structure. The response of the structure depends on the dynamic properties of the structure and the time-dependent nature of the applied loading (interface force-time function). The force-time function is, in turn, dependent on the type of iepact (elastic or plastic) and the nature and extent of local damage. C.3.1 General In an elastic impact, the missile and the structure deform elastically, remain in contact for a short period of time (dura-tion of impact), and subsequently disengage due to the action of elastic interface restoring forces. In a plastic impact, the missile or the structure or both may deform plastically or sustain permanent deformation or damage (local damage). Elastic restoring forces are small, and the missile and the structure tend to remain in contact after impact. Plastic impact is much more common in nuclear plant design than elastic impact, which is rarely encountered. For example, test data indicate that the impact from all postulated tornado-generated missiles can be characterized as a plastic collision. C-4
1 i VEGP-FUEL HANDLING BUILDING DESIGN REPORT If the interface forcing function can be defined or conserva- { tively idealized (from empirical relationships or from theoreti-cal considerations), the structure can be modeled mathematically, and conventional analytical or numerical techniques can be used to predict structural response. If the interface forcing func-tion cannot be defined, the same mathematical model of the structure can be used to determine structural response by appli-cation of conservation of momentum and energy balance techniques with due consideration for type of impact (elastic or plastic). In either case, in lieu of a more rigorous analysis, a conserva-tive estimate of structural response can be obtained by first determining the response of the impacted structural element and then applying its reaction forces to the supporting structure. The predicted structural response enables assessment of struc-tural design adequacy in terms of strain energy capacity, defor-mation limits, stability, and structural integrity. Three different procedures are given for determining structural response: the force-time solution, the response chart solution, and the energy balance solution. The force-time solution involves numerical integration of the equation (s) of motion and is the most general method applicable for any pulse shape and resistance function. The response chart solution can be used with compar-able results, provided the idealized pulse shape (interface forcing function) and the resistance function are compatible with the response chart. The energy balance solution is used in cases where the interface forcing function cannot be defined or where an upper limit check on structural response is desired. This method will consistently overestimate structural response, since the resisting spring forces during impact are neglected. In defining the mass-spring model, considerution is given to local damage that could affect the response of the element. For concrete slab elements, the beneficial effect of formation of a fracture plane which propagates from the impact zone to the back of the slab (back face fracture plane) just prior to scabbing C-5
l VEGP-FUEL HANDLING BUILDING DESIGN REPORT (reference 2) is neglected. The formation of this fracture plane limits the forces transferred to the surrounding slab and signifi-cantly reduces overall structural response. Since scabbing is to be precluded in the design, the structural response check is made assuming the fracture plane is not formed. It is recognized, however, that should the missile velocity exceed that for thresh-old of scabbing, structural response would be limited by this mechanism. Therefore, the structural response is conservatively evaluated ignoring formation of the fracture plane and any reduction in response. C.3.2 Structural Assessment The predicted structural response enables assessment of design adequacy in terms of strain energy capacity, deformation limits, stability, and structural integrity. For structures allowed to displace beyond yield (elasto-plastic response), a check is made to ensure that deformation limits would not be exceeded, by comparing calculated displacements or required ductility ratios with allowable values (such as those contained in table C-1). C.4 REFERENCES
- 1. Gwaltney, R. C., " Missile Generation and Protection in Light-Water-Cooled Power Reactor Plants," ORNL NSIC-22, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, for the USAEC, September 1968.
- 2. Rotz, J. V., "Results of Missile Impact Tests on Reinforced Concrete Panels," Vol 1A, pp 720-738, Second Specialty Conference on Structural Design of Nuclear Power Plant Facilities, New Orleans, Louisiana, December 1975.
C-6
VEGP-FUEL HANDLING BUILDING DESIGN REPORT TABLE C-1 DUCTILITY RATIOS (Sheet 1 of 2)- Maximum Allowable Value Member Type and Load Condition of Ductility Ratio (p ) Reinforced Concrete FlexureIII: Beams and one-way slabs (2) 0.10 110 P-P' Slabs with two-way reinforcing (2) 0.10 <10 or 30 p-p' TSee 3 and 4) Axial-compression (1) Walls and columns 1.3 Shear, concrete beams and slabs in region controlled by shear: Shear carried by concrete only 1.3 Shear carried by concrete and stirrups 1.6 Shear carried completely by stirrups 2.0 Shear carried by bent-up bars 3.0 Structural Steel' Columns (5) A/r 120 1.3 A/r >20 1.0 Tension due to flexure 10 Shear 10 e Axial tension and steel plates in 0.5 Y membrane tension (6) Compression members not required 10 l for stability of building structures i C-7
- . = - - . - .- . - . - . _ - . _ - . - . - _ .. . . . ..
1 F7.' ' VEGP-FUEL HANDLING-BUILDING DESIGN REPORT l l TABLE C-1 DUCTILITY RATIOS-(Sheet 2 of 2) Notes: , i (1) The interaction' diagram used to determine the allowable ductility. ratio =for elements subject to combined flexure and axial compression is provided in figure C-1. (2) p and p' are the positive and negative reinforcing steel ratios, respectively. (3) LDuctility. ratio up to 10 can be used without an angular rotation check.
. (4). Ductility ratio up to 30 can be used provided an angular rotation check is made.
(5)- 2/r is the member slenderness ratio. The value specified is
-for axial compression. For columns and beams with uniform moment the following value is used:
14 x 104 1 [g&T ,2 < 10 F y \r / (6)_ e and e are the ultimate and yield strains. e shallybe taken as the ASTM-specified minimum. A i l t C-8 _. . _ ~ - ~ . _ ,
- - _ _ . . . .-~ _ . . . _ - _ .
i EUEd[N D 1 EN 30 L I
,,i p, = DUCTILITY RATIO FOR k e COMPRESSION ONLY y, = DUCTILITY RATIO FOR P' b b
= OAD AM FLEXURE ONLY MOMENT UNDER FOR VALUES OF pg AND #9 SEE TABLE C 1 P
P, , Pu"
\
x M- cM;
\
N
-N P,M
" o O 4
< o 3 $
b a 1
< x E <
P3. M, ( l i I I 0.1f*A,
/
l: y I
, 1 0
M$ Mc Mt MOMENT u ALLOWABLE DUCTILITY R ATIO (A) REINFORCED CONCRETE INTERACTION IB) ALLOWABLE DUCTILITY R ATIO pVS P DI AGR AM (P VS M) Figure C-1 MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DUCTILITY RATIO FOR REINFORCED CONCRETE SECTION WITH BEAM-COLUMN ACTION I _ _______ ---_---__--}}