ML20197A395

Part 02 - Final Safety Analysis Report (Rev. 4.1) - Part 02 - Tier 02 - Chapter 03 - Design of Structures, Systems, Components and Equipment - Section 03.08 - Des. Cat I Str. - Pgs 141 - 271 (Rev. 4.1)

ML20197A395
Person / Time
Site:	NuScale
Issue date:	06/19/2020
From:	Bergman T NuScale
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Cranston G
References
NUSCALESMRDC, NUSCALESMRDC.SUBMISSION.12, NUSCALEPART02.NP, NUSCALEPART02.NP.5
Download: ML20197A395 (131)

Text

below.

Reactor Building Effective Dead Weight with Water Table Buoyancy The effective dead weight, or buoyant weight, is calculated using the following equation:

Deffective = WRXB - Rbuoyancy Eq. 3.8-3 where, WRXB = 587,147 kips.

Therefore, Deffective = 587,147 - 279,445 = 307,702 kips Control Building Effective Dead Weight with Water Table Buoyancy The effective dead weight, or buoyant weight, is calculated using the following equation:

Deffective = WCRB - Rbuoyancy, where WCRB = 45,774 kips.

Therefore, Deffective = 45774 - 40,500 = 5,274 kips 5.4 Design and Analysis Procedures 5.4.1 Foundation Basemat Analysis Foundation basemats are analyzed and designed for static and seismic loads.

Forces and moments in the basemat and pressures below the basemat are evaluated. Where a linear analysis did not provide acceptable results, a nonlinear analysis showed satisfatory conclusions.

5.4.1.1 Analysis of Reactor Building Basemat RXB Basemat and Stability Linear Analysis The design input parameters used to perform the flotation, sliding, and overturning evaluations are listed in Table 3.8.5-1.

2 3.8-141 Revision 4.1

The envelope of the soil bearing pressure due to the seismic loads is calculated using the two SASSI2010 models, and the soil bearing pressure envelope due to the static loads is calculated using the two SAP2000 models. A separate SAP2000 model was developed for the RXB basemat model. The two layers of the solid elements modeling the RXB concrete foundation were replaced by a single layer of shell elements. The thickness of the shell elements is the same as the foundation thickness (i.e., 120") and the centerline of the shell elements is at the bottom of the basemat. The pilasters on the building perimeter and walls within the footprint were connected to the shell elements, thereby acting as inverted supports to the basemat. All the pilaster and wall joints at the top of the foundation (i.e., Z = 120") are restrained for the six degrees of freedom.

Elements above the elevation Z = 120" were deleted. The shell elements of the basemat model are subjected to out-of-plane loading. The purpose of restraining the nodes associated with the walls is to hold the basemat in the vertical direction to apply the out-of-plane loads. Under vertical soil pressure loads, walls are expected to provide sufficient vertical support to create fixed-node behavior at nodes shared by walls and basemat. The applied loads on the basemat shell model are the out-of-plane soil pressure extracted from static and dynamic analyses of the RXB. After the soil pressure is calculated from the static and dynamic analysis, these soil pressures are applied as out-of-plane pressure to the basemat shell elements. The results of this analysis would provide the internal moments and shear for the design of the basemat.

Table 3.8.5-16 shows a summary of the RXB basemat model.

Figure 3.8.5-1 shows the SAP2000 RXB basemat model. The area elements shown in light red tinge are shell elements representing the base slab.

Figure 3.8.5-2 and Figure 3.8.5-3 show the static and seismic base pressure contours on the shell foundation in the RXB basemat model.

Figure 3.8.5-4 and Figure 3.8.5-5 show the main bending moments due to static base pressures in the RXB basemat model.

Figure 3.8.5-6 and Figure 3.8.5-7 show the main bending moments due to seismic base pressures in the RXB basemat model.

For both the seismic and static base pressures, the applied base pressures will directly give the forces and moments for the foundation. The demands obtained thus are acceptable for foundation solid elements that are not connected to any wall or pilaster. However, for foundation solid elements that are connected to walls or pilasters, the demands will be much higher than what is obtained by the application of base pressures. In view of this, for solid elements that are connected to the walls and pilasters, the fixed end forces and moments are added to the affected foundation shell element responses.

The static forces and moments in the basemat are calculated with both the standalone and the combined building SAP2000 models.

2 3.8-142 Revision 4.1

combined SASSI2010 models. The enveloped base pressures were applied to the solid foundation model to evaluate the responses. To be consistent with the SASSI2010 analysis, absolute values of all responses obtained by applying base pressures from SASSI2010 were used together with the fixed end forces and moments from walls and pilasters to arrive at the seismic demands.

As shown in Table 3.8.5-5, the linear analysis for stability gave factors of safety less than 1 for sliding. Therefore a nonlinear analysis was performed for RXB Sliding.

Nonlinear Analysis Approach for RXB Sliding where Linear Analysis is too conservative Where the RXB linear sliding analyses did not yield acceptable factors of safety results for sliding, detailed nonlinear sliding analyses were performed using ANSYS. The fixed base boundary conditions for this analysis were compared favorably with the SAP2000 linear analysis boundary conditions, and the model is shown in Figure 3.8.5-8. The nonlinear ANSYS analysis uncoupled the soil domain from the building to permit simulation of sliding under seismic conditions by creating two coincident joint/nodes in the finite element mesh, one belonging to the RXB and one belonging to the backfill soil. The coincident nodes were used to define a nonlinear contact region as shown on Figure 3.8.5-9. A coefficient of friction of 0.5 was used so that the tangential force required for overcoming compressive normal force resistance to allow the building to slide and uplift relative to the soil is equal to half of the normal force between the RXB walls and soil.

The seismic analyses were performed in SASSI for Soil Type 11 backfill. The SASSI results yielded acceleration versus time in the global N-S, E-W, and vertical direction for each node on the external surface of the RXB and the backfill soil. The SSI seismic input acceleration histories in the three orthogonal directions obtained at representative skin node 946 were applied to 5,822 RXB and backfill soil nodes in contact with the in-situ soil. These nodes are shown on Figure 3.8.5-11 and Figure 3.8.5-12. There were a total of three time histories for each soil type considered.

Rather than directly applying the SASSI accelerations to the RXB and backfill soil, coincident nodes were created. Nonlinear node-to-node CONTA178 elements were defined between the coincident nodes as shown in Figure 3.8.5-13 and Figure 3.8.5-14. Figure 3.8.5-15 illustrates the CONTA178 definition wherein forces are transferred between the end node-I and node node-J only when the gap is closed, i.e., transmitting compression but not tension. The elements directly under the RXB basemat have a coefficient of friction of 0.58 defined to resist sliding.

A pressure of 36.92 psi was applied to the bottom of the basemat to account for buoyancy effects as shown on Figure 3.8.5-16. The static surcharge effects from the backfill soil against the RXB outer wall are ignored.

2 3.8-143 Revision 4.1

links/supports.

East-west and north-south unidirectional, horizontal time-history analyses were performed for each of the surrounding Soil Types 7, 8, and 11. For all cases, the respective acceleration time-history from the SASSI representative skin node 946 was applied uniformly to all the boundary nodes in the ANSYS model, while the displacements in the other two directions were constrained.

Thus, for each soil type, the cases performed were acceleration time history in the east-west direction, with the displacements in the vertical and north-south directions fixed and acceleration time history in the north-south direction, with the displacements in the vertical and east-west directions fixed.

Figure 3.8.5-17 through Figure 3.8.5-19 show the input acceleration time histories for each of the Soil Type 7 cases.

Figure 3.8.5-20 through Figure 3.8.5-22 show the input acceleration time histories for each of the Soil Type 8 cases.

Figure 3.8.5-23 through Figure 3.8.5-25 show the input acceleration time histories for each of the Soil Type 11 cases.

5.4.1.3 Analysis of Control Building Basemat The static load results are obtained from the SAP2000 model of the CRB. Both the stand-alone and the combined CRB SAP2000 models are used to obtain the static forces and moments in the basemat, using the most critical static load combination for the calculation of structural responses. Bending moments, axial and shear forces in the basemat are extracted from the SAP2000 CRB global model. To do this, the foundation's solid elements' nodal forces from the CRB model are converted into axial and shear forces, and moments, by applying equilibrium along the solid faces perpendicular to the global X and Y axes. Final bending moments include the effect of the twisting moments.

For dynamic loads, the basemat solid element stresses obtained from the SASSI analysis are used. The axial and shear forces are obtained by multiplying the axial and shear stresses by the solid element thickness. The bending moments are calculated using a separate SAP2000 shell element basemat model. In this model, the nodes along the base of the concrete walls are fixed and the soil pressure from the SASSI analysis results are applied as out-of-plane pressure to the basemat shell elements. For the shell elements on the perimeter of the basemat, the end moments of the perimeter walls, obtained from SASSI results, are used.

For the tunnel basemat, the bending moments are also estimated by considering the tunnel basemat as a simple-supported one-way slab spanning between the exterior and middle tunnel walls. Conservatively, the ends moments of the exterior and middle walls are averaged and added to the 2 3.8-144 Revision 4.1

The solid element seismic stresses are calculated using the stand-alone and combined SASSI2010 models. Figure 3.8.5-2a and Figure 3.8.5-3a show the CRB basemat contour pressure for static and seismic load combinations.

Figure 3.8.5-4a and Figure 3.8.5-5a show the CRB basemat static Myy and Mxx from the standalone SAP2000 model. Figure 3.8.5-6a and Figure 3.8.5-7a show the CRB basemat seismic Myy and Mxx. The enveloped seismic pressures are obtained as a result of the four-step, post-processing method described in Section 3.7.2. Absolute values of the responses are used.

Control Building Basemat and Stability Linear Analysis Acceptance criteria for flotation/ uplift, sliding, and overturning is based on a factor of safety (FOS) determined from the ratio of the driving force to the resisting force. These analyses are performed statically using the maximum forces from the combinations of soil profiles, time histories, and cracked/uncracked conditions discussed in Section 3.7. The FOS performed for the CRB yielded unacceptable results (less than 1.1 FOS) for uplift stability; therefore, the uplift, sliding and overturning of the CRB is determined by a nonlinear sliding and uplift analysis.

5.4.1.4 Control Building Basemat Nonlinear Analysis Model Description For the nonlinear analysis, the ANSYS CRB model with fixed-base boundary sliding and uplift conditions was changed to:

1) Provide independence of the building and soil domain by establishing coincident joints/nodes for the building and soil in the finite element mesh.

2) Define a nonlinear frictional contact region with the coincident nodes as shown in Figure 3.8.5-26. A coefficient of friction of 0.5 (between the CRB walls and soil) was used so that the tangential force required to overcome the resistance from any compressive normal force is equal to half the normal force, allowing the building to slide and uplift relative to the soil.

3) Obtain, at a typical skin node near the CRB basemat, the seismic input acceleration time histories in the three orthogonal directions for the Soil Type 11 backfill in combination with the surrounding Soil Type 7 and Soil Type 11. Three time histories for each soil type were considered by uniformly applying the time histories from the typical skin node to the CRB and backfill soil nodes, as shown in Figure 3.8.5-27, which are in contact with the in-situ soil. The SASSI time histories for the Capitola input case were selected since that case produced the largest horizontal base reactions, as shown in Table 3.8.5-3. The three time histories are shown in

• Acceleration time history for each of the Soil Type 11 cases (Figure 3.8.5-28 through Figure 3.8.5-30) 2 3.8-145 Revision 4.1

4) Create coincident nodes and define nonlinear node-to-node CONTA178 elements as shown on Figure 3.8.5-34 and Figure 3.8.5-35 to accurately model the contact gap between CRB and soil. The typical definition of CONTA178 elements is shown in Figure 3.8.5-15, where forces are transferred between node-I and node-J only when the gap is closed. The elements directly under the CRB foundation have a coefficient of friction of 0.55 defined to resist sliding, i.e., transmitting compression but not tension.

The elements on the sides of the CRB have a coefficient of friction of 0.50 defined to resist sliding.

5) Account for buoyancy effects by applying a pressure of 29.399 psi to the bottom of the basemat, as shown in Figure 3.8.5-36. The buoyancy pressure was determined as follows:

Total modeled area = basemat area + tunnel area = 78' x 116.667' + 25' x 18.667'

= 9,100 ft² + 466.67 ft² = 9,566.67 ft² Buoyancy pressure = 40,500,000 lbs / (9,566.67x144) in² = 29.399 psi

6) Include Poisson's ratio effect in the static soil pressure profile due to the deadweight of the backfill soil on the CRB walls as a conservative measure.

The pressure profile is shown in Figure 3.8.5-37. The Poisson's ratio effect produces a complex pressure distribution depending on the local flexibility of the walls (Figure 3.8.5-38 and Figure 3.8.5-39).

The model summary showing quantity of elements in the ANSYS structural analysis model including joints, frame elements, shell elements, and solid elements is shown in Table 3.8.5-10. A comparison of the SAP2000, SASSI2010, and ANSYS models also is shown in Table 3.8.5-10.

The coordinate system for the nonlinear analysis is represented by the CRB SAP2000 model as shown in Figure 3.8.5-40. The X axis points to the East, the Y axis point to the North, and the Z axis points vertically upward. The X-coordinate of the west side of the CRB tunnel is 350'-0" (4,200") in the global X-direction (East-West) from the origin of the global SAP2000 coordinate system.

Item 3.8-3: A COL applicant that references the NuScale Power Plant design certification will identify local stiff and soft spots in the foundation soil and address these in the design, as necessary.

2 3.8-146 Revision 4.1

5.5.1 Flotation and Uplift Stability Analysis Approach Flotation is calculated for static conditions and uplift is calculated with the earthquake present.

The factor of safety is calculated as follows, with load combination E for flotation and load combination C for uplift:

F resisting FOS = ------------------------ Eq. 3.8-1 F driving D

FOS flotation = ---- Eq. 3.8-2 B

D+F FOS uplift = ---------------- Eq. 3.8-3 B + Rz Where Fresisting is the resistance of the buried portion of the structure. This includes two components:

D= the weight of the building F = Vertical friction due to static soil pressure The driving forces for uplift are from groundwater and seismic motion. This includes two components:

B = the buoyant force from groundwater or floodwater at grade.

Rz = Upward inertia = Seismic vertical base reaction (when soil moves downward in the direction of gravity).

5.5.2 Sliding Stability Analysis Approach The sliding stability evaluation is done with load combination C as described in Section 3.8.5.3.

The stability evaluation is determined by comparing the total resisting sliding forces and the total driving sliding forces. A sliding evaluation is performed for both directions separately; one for east-west movement (Global X-direction) and one for North-South movement (Global Y-direction).

2 3.8-147 Revision 4.1

and basemats is considered.

The sliding driving force is the inertia force due to seismic. By neglecting insignificant damping forces, the total inertia force equals the sum of all reaction forces on walls and basemat. The inertia force is thus calculated by adding seismic reactions.

Friction Resistance to N-S Sliding Two force components result in frictional resistance against North-South sliding:

• Friction resistance between foundation and soil.

• Frictional resistance on East and West walls from effective static soil pressure.

See Section 3.8.5.3.2 for the definition of effective static soil pressure.

Friction Resistance to E-W Sliding Two force components result in frictional resistance against East-West sliding:

• Friction resistance between foundation and soil

• Frictional resistance on North and South walls from effective static soil pressure. See Section 3.8.5.3.2 for the definition of effective static soil pressure.

Friction between Basemat and Soil due to Effective (or Buoyant) Dead Weight For sliding stability evaluation, the effective dead weight, or buoyant weight, of the RXB is an important stabilizing force.

The RXB buoyant dead weight is calculated in Section 3.8.5.3.3 as:

Deffective = 307,702 kips The RXB friction resistance R_sliding between basemat and soil against N-S or E-W sliding is calculated by multiplying the buoyant weight and the friction coefficient as follows:

Rsliding = Deffective x (Eq 3.8-6) = 307,702 x 0.58 = 178,467 kips Similarly, the CRB buoyant dead weight, calculated in Section 3.8.5.3.3, is 5,274, kips. The frictional resistance Rsliding between the basemat and soil against N-S or E-W sliding is:

Rsliding = Deffective x = 5,274 x 0.58 = 3,059 kips 2 3.8-148 Revision 4.1

The overturning stability evaluation is done with load combination C as described in Section 3.8.5.3. The factor of safety for overturning is calculated as follows:

M restoring FOS overturning = ------------------------------ Eq. 3.8-4 M overturning The overturning evaluation is determined by comparing the total resisting overturning moment and the total driving overturning moments. An overturning evaluation is performed for both directions separately; one for the North-South movement (moment about Global X-direction) and one for the East-West movement (moment about Global Y-direction).

The RXB is a deeply embedded structure, therefore, the frictional resisting moments provided by the interaction between soil and structure on the exterior walls and basemat are considered. The restoring moment due to the effective vertical load is also included in the evaluation.

Three components result in resistance to overturning:

• Friction on Parallel Walls

• Friction on Perpendicular Walls

• Effective Dead Weight The North-South overturning pivot for the RXB is the north edge of the foundation.

The East-West overturning pivot is the west wall edge of the foundation.

RXB Resistance to North-South Overturning The resisting moment resulting from friction on the East and West walls is:

M1 = (FEAST + FWEST) x rcg Eq. 3.8-5 where FEAST = total friction force on the East wall FWEST = total friction force on the West wall rcg = Moment arm = perpendicular distance from pivot point (edge of North wall) to line of friction force = (150.5'/2) + 6' = 81.25' (Table 3.8.5-7)

The resisting moment resulting from friction on the South wall is:

M2 = (FSOUTH) x LNS Eq. 3.8-6 2 3.8-149 Revision 4.1

FSOUTH = total friction on the south wall LNS = moment arm = North-South width of the foundation = 156.5' The resisting moment resulting from buoyant dead weight is:

M3 = (Deffective) x LNS1 Eq. 3.8-7 where Deffective = 307,702 (Section 3.8.5.3.3)

LNS1 = moment arm = half width of North-South width of foundation = 81.25' M3 = 307,702 x 81.25 = 25,000,824 kip-ft The resultant frictional resistance to North-South overturning is:

MNS = M1 + M2 + M3 RXB Resistance to East-West Overturning The resisting moment resulting from friction on the North and South walls is:

M4 =(FNORTH + FSOUTH) x rcg Eq. 3.8-8 where FNORTH = total friction on the North wall FSOUTH = total friction on the South wall rcg = moments arm = perpendicular distance from pivot (edge of West Wall) to line of friction force = (346'/2) + 6' =179' The resistant moment resulting from friction on the East wall:

M5 = (FEAST) x LEW Eq. 3.8-9 where FEAST = Total friction on the East wall LEW = moment arm = East-West width of the foundation = 352' 2 3.8-150 Revision 4.1

M6 = (Deffective) x LEW Eq. 3.8-10 where Deffective = 307,702 kips (Section 3.8.5.3.3)

LEW = moment arm = half of East-West width of foundation = 179' M6 = 307,702 X 179 = 55,078,739 kip-ft The resultant resistance to East-West overturning is:

MEW = M4 + M5 +M6 5.5.4 Bearing Pressure Approach Average Bearing Pressure Average static bearing pressure is calculated by dividing the building weight by the building footprint. Seismic average bearing pressure is calculated by the algebraic summation of reaction time histories in the rigid springs below the basemat. The springs connect the basemat with the free-field soil. The algebraic summation yields three time histories of total basemat reactions in the three global directions due to each seismic input. From the time histories, the maximum reactions can be obtained. The vertical reaction divided by the total area of the basemat yields the average bearing pressure.

Localized Bearing Pressure Localized bearing pressure under each building's basemat is calculated using the forces in the rigid springs, which connect the RXB and the CRB basemats to the excavated free-field soil (or to a fixed support for the static case). The vertical force in a spring is divided by the tributary area of the spring to obtain the localized nodal soil pressure. For the seismic case, reactions are obtained as a result of the four-step post-processing method described in Section 3.7.2.4.1.

5.5.5 Settlement Approach A large-scale SAP2000 finite element model is used to determine the effect of foundation differential movements. To maximize the effect of the differential movements, the soil is modeled using the softest soil profile, i.e., Soil Type 11. In addition, the soil stiffnesses are further reduced by 50 percent to amplify the effect of differential movements or settlements. The 50 percent reduction in soil stiffness includes the areas below the triple building basemats and is extended to the entire free-field soil model. The size of the soil included in the model is so large that the static displacements induced by the static loads of the structures become 2 3.8-151 Revision 4.1

The size of the freefield soil block in the model is 2005.5' long, 768.5' wide, and 360' deep. Figure 3.8.5-41 shows the overall size of the freefield soil block with the three embedded buildings.

As discussed in Section 3.8.4, Load combination 10 using Equation 9-6 of ACI 349 governs U = D + F + H + 0.8L + Ccr + To + Ro + Esse For the dynamic analyses, the dead weight of the building was increased to account for the effect of live and snow loads.

The results presented in the NuScale Power Plant design certification application for which the soil stiffness is reduced by 50 percent include the following:

1) Determination of static demand forces for the RXB foundation design.

2) Determination of static demand forces for the CRB building and foundation design.

3) Determination of maximum differential displacements within each building foundation over 50 feet in length and maximum foundation bottom tilt angle of the CRB.

Results presented in the FSAR which include the effects of the 50 percent reduction in soil stiffness can be found in Table 3B-36 through Table 3B-38.

5.6 Results Compared with Structural Acceptance Criteria 5.6.1 RXB Stability Factors of safety (FOS) were determined for 16 cases for the RXB. The cases include enveloping seismic loads from two RXB models (a standalone RXB model and an integrated RWB+RXB+CRB triple building model), two concrete conditions (cracked and uncracked with 7 percent damping) and four soil profiles (Soil Types 7, 8, 9, and 11) and are shown in Table 3.8.5-5. The results in this table indicate that the linear analysis for RXB sliding stability did not yield a FOS of greater than 1.

The minimum acceptable factor of safety for flotation, uplift, sliding and overturning is 1.1. This was not achieved for RXB sliding. Table 3.8.5-5 summarizes the factors of safety for the RXB.

A nonlinear analysis was performed for the RXB to show sliding was insignificant.

Bearing pressure is used to establish a design parameter for bearing capacity for site selection. The bearing capacity of the soil should provide a factor of safety of 3.0 for the static bearing pressure and a factor of safety of 2.0 for dynamic bearing 2 3.8-152 Revision 4.1

allowable total settlement at any foundation node is four inches.

5.6.1.1 RXB Uplift As shown in Section 3.8.5.5.1, F resisting D D+F FOS = ---------------------- FOS flotation = ---- FOS uplift = ----------------

F driving B B + Rz The FOS for flotation is shown in Table 3.8.5-5 for each of the 16 cases considered, including cracked and uncracked conditions, Soil Types 7, 8, 9 and 11, and for RXB model and the triple building model. For each of the cases, an acceptable FOS for overturning was met.

5.6.1.1.1 Dynamic RXB Uplift Ratio The effect of foundation uplift has been evaluated for the RXB. The linear SSI analysis methods are acceptable if the ground contact ratio is equal to or greater than 80 percent. The ground contact ratio can be calculated from the linear SSI analysis using the minimum basemat area that remains in compression with the soil. The seismic total vertical base reactions are calculated by the time step-by-time step algebraic summation of all nodal vertical reactions of the nodes of the RXB basemat. The maximum seismic vertical reactions for the cracked and uncracked concrete conditions for the two models are summarized in Table 3.8.5-4. The base vertical reaction results for the uncracked condition are similar to those for the cracked concrete condition.

As shown in Table 3.8.5-4, the seismic reactions are much less than the total dead weight reaction of 471,487 kips over the rectangle basemat area. The dead weight reaction corresponds to the self-weight of the concrete structures, equipment, and water weight. Thus, the net reactions are always in compression.

The typical total basemat vertical reaction time histories are shown in Figure 3.8.5-42 through Figure 3.8.5-47. Figure 3.8.5-42 and Figure 3.8.5-43 show the reactions for comparison between the cracked and uncracked concrete conditions. Each of the CSDRS- and CSDRS-HF-compatible seismic inputs contain three acceleration components, X (EW), Y (NS), and Z (vertical).

Figure 3.8.5-44 through Figure 3.8.5-47 are for the cracked concrete condition for the CSDRS Capitola input and CSDRS-HF Lucerne input. As can be seen in these figures, the total reactions are always in compression.

The cracked and uncracked total reactions can be compared using Figure 3.8.5-42 for the cracked reaction and Figure 3.8.5-43 for the uncracked reaction due to Capitola input for Soil Type 7. The differences in 2 3.8-153 Revision 4.1

building models are small as shown in Table 3.8.5-4.

Based on the examination of the total vertical reaction force underneath the basemat, all net vertical reactions are in compression. Thus, the basemat is 100 percent in contact.

5.6.1.2 Reactor Building Sliding As shown in Section 3.8.5.5.1, R resisting FOS sliding = ---------------------- Eq. 3.8-11 R driving Linear evaluations have shown that an acceptable FOS for sliding is not met, as shown on Table 3.8.5-5. Therefore, a nonlinear sliding analysis has been performed to show that sliding is insignificant.

Nonlinear Analysis Figure 3.8.5-52 shows the designations used (A through D) for the locations on the RXB basemat where lateral displacements (sliding) were assessed between two end nodes of CONTA178 elements.

Figure 3.8.5-53 through Figure 3.8.5-60 show the E-W and N-S sliding displacements for Soil Type 7 for the four foundation locations (A, B, C, and D).

Figure 3.8.5-61 through Figure 3.8.5-68 show the E-W and N-S sliding displacements for Soil Type 11 for the four foundation locations (A, B, C, and D).

Figure 3.8.5-69 through Figure 3.8.5-76 show the E-W and N-S sliding displacements for Soil Type 8 for the four foundation locations (A, B, C, and D).

A detailed summary of the sliding displacement results are provided in Table 3.8.5-11. The results indicate that the deeply embedded RXB experiences less than 1/8" of sliding horizontal displacement. The magnitude of the displacements presented is insignificant.

5.6.1.3 RXB Overturning As shown in Section 3.8.5.5.3, M restoring FOS overturning = -------------------------------

M overturning The FOS for overturning is shown in Table 3.8.5-5 for each of the 16 cases considered, including cracked and uncracked conditions, Soil Types 7, 8, 9, and 2 3.8-154 Revision 4.1

5.6.2 CRB Stability The minimum acceptable factor of safety for flotation, uplift, sliding, and overturning is 1.1. This was not achieved for the CRB uplift.

Linear analyses were overly conservative and showed unsatisfactory results for the CRB Stability Analyses, so nonlinear evaluation was used. The uplift, sliding, and overturning stability analysis of the Control Building is performed using a nonlinear sliding and uplift analysis. A nonlinear sliding, overturning, and uplift analysis was performed for the CRB to show that sliding, overturning, and uplift are insignificant.

Figure 3.8.5-48 shows the designations used (A through I) for the locations on the CRB basemat where the relative vertical displacements (uplift) and lateral displacements (sliding) were assessed between the two end nodes of the CONTA178 elements.

Bearing pressure is used to establish a design parameter for bearing capacity for site selection. The bearing capacity of the soil should provide a factor of safety of 3.0 for the static bearing pressure and a factor of safety of 2.0 for dynamic bearing pressure. The maximum allowable tilt settlement for the Control Building is 1" total or 1/2" per 50 feet in any direction at any point in the structure. The maximum allowable total settlement at any foundation node is 4 inches.

5.6.2.1 CRB Uplift The key results are:

The relative displacements between the nodes at the basemat of the CRB are considered as actual uplift between CRB and surrounding soil. (Negative displacement values are considered as penetrations; a negligible amount of penetration is expected for penalty stiffness based contact algorithms.)

The elements transfer loads only when the contact is made. Therefore, the reactions drop to zero when there is a contact gap or uplift. This can be clearly seen from the force versus uplift comparison at location A in Figure 3.8.5-49 and Figure 3.8.5-50. The CRB is in an uplifted state at this corner location A for an infinitesimal duration of time just before the 10 seconds mark, resulting in zero reaction forces. The maximum uplift at location A is less than 1/64". The magnitude of this displacement is insignificant. Thus, the potential for uplift is insignificant.

5.6.2.1.1 Dynamic CRB Uplift Ratio The effect of the foundation uplift has been evaluated for the CRB. The linear SSI analysis methods are acceptable if the ground contact ratio is equal to or greater than 80 percent. The ground contact ratio can be calculated from the linear SSI analysis using the minimum basemat area 2 3.8-155 Revision 4.1

summation of all nodal vertical reactions of the nodes of the CRB basemat.

The maximum seismic vertical reactions for the cracked and uncracked concrete conditions are summarized in Table 3.8.5-14. The base vertical reaction results for the uncracked condition are similar to those for the cracked concrete condition.

As shown in Table 3.8.5-14, the seismic reactions are much less than the total dead weight reaction over the rectangle basemat area of 45,774 kips.

The dead weight reaction corresponds to the self-weight of the concrete and steel structures, and equipment (based on SAP2000 calculations). Thus, the net reactions are always in compression.

The typical total basemat vertical reaction time histories are shown in Figure 3.8.5-77 through Figure 3.8.5-82. The first two show the reactions for comparison between the cracked and uncracked concrete conditions.

Others are all for the cracked concrete condition for the CSDRS Capitola input and CSDRS-HF Lucerne input. As can be seen in these figures, the total reactions are always in compression. Each of the CSDRS- and CSDRS-HF-compatible seismic inputs contain three acceleration components, X (EW), Y (NS), and Z (vertical).

The cracked and uncracked total reactions can be compared using Figure 3.8.5-77 for the cracked reaction and Figure 3.8.5-78 uncracked reaction due to Capitola input for Soil Type 7. The differences in total reactions are small because the differences between the cracked and uncracked seismic reactions are small as shown in Table 3.8.5-14.

Based on the examination of the total vertical reaction force underneath the basemat, all net vertical reactions are in compression. Thus, the basemat is 100 percent in contact.

5.6.2.2 Control Building Sliding Figure 3.8.5-51 shows the relative sliding between the nodes at location A. In contrast to penetration compatibility, sliding can exhibit both positive and negative values equally since the nodes could move away from each other, towards one side or the other. Maximum sliding at A is approximately 0.006".

A summary of the results is provided in Table 3.8.5-12. The magnitudes of these displacements are insignificant. Thus, the potential for sliding is insignificant.

5.6.2.3 Control Building Overturning The results provided in Table 3.8.5-12 show that the deeply embedded Control Building experiences less than 1/10" of sliding displacement and less than 1/64" of total vertical uplift displacement. The magnitudes of these displacements are insignificant. Thus, the potential for overturning is insignificant.

2 3.8-156 Revision 4.1

As stated in Section 3.8.5.5.4, the average static bearing pressure is the dead load of the building divided by the footprint.

The seismic weight of the RXB is 587,147 kips and the calculated footprint is 58,175 ft2. This results in an average pressure of 10.1 ksf. This results in a factor of safety of 7.4 to the minimum soil bearing capacity of 75 ksf specified in Table 2.0-1.

The seismic weight of the CRB, including the tunnel, is 49,041 kips. The rectangular basemat area is 11,800 ft2, the tunnel area is 501 ft2, which makes a total area of 12,301 ft2. This results in an average static bearing pressure of 4.0 ksf. This provides a factor of safety of 19 to the minimum soil bearing pressure of 75 ksf provided in Table 2.0-1.

The average dynamic bearing pressure is obtained as described in Section 3.8.5.5.4, with the vertical reaction for the entire basemat computed at each time step. The RXB foundation average dynamic pressure is 4.6 ksf. The CRB average foundation dynamic pressure on the rectangular basemat is 2.3 ksf. The average dynamic pressure on the tunnel area is not calculated. Maximum dynamic pressures across the entire CRB basemat, including the tunnel basemat, are shown on Figure 3.8.5-3a. These pressures are obtained by the post-processing approach indicated in Section 3.7.2.4.1.

5.6.4 Settlement Displacement values are provided in Table 3.8.5-7a and Table 3.8.5-7b for selected nodes in the foundation shown in Figure 3.8.5-10. Summaries of different settlement types are given in Table 3.8.5-7c and Table 3.8.5-7d. The calculated angle of foundation rotation in these tables is based upon the building foundation dimensions in Table 3.8.5-19.

Total settlement, tilt settlement, and differential settlement are minimal, as shown in Table 3.8.5-7a through Table 3.8.5-7d. The maximum allowable differential settlement between the RXB and CRB, and between the RXB and RWB is 0.5 inch.

The RXB settles approximately 13/4 inch on the west end and approximately 2 inches on the east end. The tilt settlement of 0.25" is less than 1" as cited in Section 3.8.5.6.1. There is negligible tilt north to south. The east end of the building contains the pool and the NPMs.

The CRB settles approximately 13/4 inch on the west end and approximately 1 inch on the east end. The tilt settlement of 0.75" is less than the 1" limit cited in Section 3.8.5.6.2. North to south tilt is negligible. The CRB tilts toward the RXB.

Differential settlement between the two buildings is on the order of 1/4 inch. The displacements at the four corners of the tunnel foundation calculated for the cracked concrete condition are provided in Table 3.8.5-17, and the rotation of the tunnel foundation is -0.0361°, as shown in Table 3.8.5-18. The tunnel foundation has negligible differential settlement in the north-south direction, and the differential settlement over 50 ft length in the east-west direction is -0.36."

2 3.8-157 Revision 4.1

RXB. The RWB tilts approximately 1/5 inch in the north-south direction. Differential settlement between the RWB and the RXB is also on the order of 1/4 inch.

5.6.5 Thermal Loads During normal operation or accident conditions, a linear temperature gradient across the RXB foundation may develop. An explicit analysis considering these loads has been performed and described in Section 3.8.4.4.1 and Appendix 3B.1.3.

5.6.6 Construction Loads The entire RXB basemat is poured in a very short time. The building is essentially constructed from the bottom up. The main loads (the reactor pool and the NPMs) are not added until the building is complete. Therefore, there are no construction-induced settlement concerns. The CRB basemat is much smaller and will be poured later than the RXB basemat in the construction sequence.

5.6.7 Basemat Soil Pressures along Basemat Edges (Toe Pressures)

The static deadweight reaction at an edge node is added to the seismic reaction of the node to calculate the total reaction. The seismic reaction is obtained with the approach shown in Section 3.7.2.4.1, for combining seismic analysis results. The bearing pressure is calculated by dividing the total reaction by the tributary area of the node (i.e., localized bearing pressure). The edge bearing pressures, or toe pressures, along the edges are averaged to obtain the average toe pressures of the basemat. The average toe pressures for the RXB and CRB are shown in Table 3.8.5-13 and Table 3.8.5-15, respectively. The values shown in these tables indicate that two times the maximum toe pressure is less than the minimum soil bearing pressure capacity of 75 ksf as specified in Table 2.0-1.

5.6.8 Leak Detection Groundwater has the potential to leak through the RXB exterior walls through microscopic concrete cracks. Due to the exterior concrete wall thickness, these leaks will be very slow (<<1 gallon per day (gpd)). This leak rate through the wall is not enough to cause an interior flood in any of the rooms that share an exterior wall. Leaks of this nature will be discovered and dealt with in accordance with plant concrete maintenance specifications. Further reduction of groundwater seepage can be accomplished with a building dewatering system surrounding the RXB.

A leak chase system is provided in the RXB basemat to detect any leakage from the reactor pool.

5.7 Materials, Quality Control, and Special Construction Techniques Section 3.8.4.6 describes the materials, quality control, and special construction techniques applicable to the RXB and CRB including the foundations.

2 3.8-158 Revision 4.1

Section 3.8.4.7 identifies the testing and inservice surveillances applicable to the RXB and CRB including the foundations.

2 3.8-159 Revision 4.1

Description Value Seismic Weight (kips) 587,147 East-West Length (ft) 346 ween exterior faces of walls)

North-South Length (ft) 150.5 ween exterior faces of walls)

Height (ft) 167 Embedment Depth (ft) 86 dation East-West Length (ft) 358 dation North-South Length (ft) 162.5 dation Area (ft2) 58,175 Density, soil (pcf) 130 ficient of Friction between Wall and Soil 0.5 ficient of Friction between Basemat and Soil 0.58 tive Soil Density, eff = soil - water (pcf) 67.6 e of Internal Friction 30º Coefficient of Pressure at Rest, Ko 0.5 harge (psf) 250 2 3.8-160 Revision 4.1

Definition Symbol Results Units Reactor Building l Effective Soil Force on North Wall Fy1 46,967 Kips l Effective Force on South Wall Fy2 46,967 Kips l Effective Force on West Wall Fx1 20,429 Kips l Effective Force on East Wall Fx2 20,429 Kips l Static Wall Force Ftotal 134,792 Kips 2 3.8-161 Revision 4.1

Model Concrete Soil Seismic Load Global FX Global Fy Global Fz Case Type Case (kips) (kips) (kips) tor Building Cracked 7% S7 CSDRS Capitola 326528 177221 222932 Damping Chi Chi 303442 185109 254142 El Centro 253932 190969 264163 Izmit 273116 171747 234397 Yermo 277421 196458 254684 S8 CSDRS Capitola 306274 206799 205032 Chi Chi 318687 200201 229313 El Centro 250271 212788 234071 Izmit 298958 211286 226435 Yermo 268717 235929 233072 S11 CSDRS Capitola 151960 135837 185963 Chi Chi 188520 126654 182918 El Centro 143366 166150 191453 Izmit 146440 168663 199958 Yermo 171040 135521 199400 S7 CSDRS- HF Lucerne 119790 77946 147529 S9 CSDRS- HF Lucerne 126622 82652 162443 Uncracked 7% S7 CSDRS Capitola 331587 203856 225014 Damping Chi Chi 306830 192224 258618 El Centro 271625 197785 254444 Izmit 272082 190891 242807 Yermo 281972 190668 257452 S8 CSDRS Capitola 311880 212752 208268 Chi Chi 320551 215363 234958 El Centro 263147 219067 230481 Izmit 296880 212060 228292 Yermo 281020 234460 238766 S11 CSDRS Capitola 152056 138287 186456 Chi Chi 188000 128106 185511 El Centro 143524 167620 189535 Izmit 147560 170244 201724 Yermo 172026 135712 201374 S7 CSDRS- HF Lucerne 114361 82076 156119 S9 CSDRS- HF Lucerne 155572 99573 167031 trol Building Cracked 7% S7 CSDRS Capitola 23416 31065 22228 Damping Chi-Chi 22129 26172 26415 El Centro 20588 25473 27118 Izmit 21529 29205 24628 Yermo 21544 27899 25374 S9 CSDRS-HF Lucerne 15018 19859 21209 Uncracked 7% S7 CSDRS Capitola 25705 32251 23455 Damping Chi Chi 23304 28272 26333 El Centro 21920 26926 26885 Ismit 23147 31104 25146 Yermo 23161 28982 23616 S9 CSDRD-HF Lucerne 16523 20795 21017 2 3.8-162 Revision 4.1

Model Concrete Soil Seismic Load Global FX Global Fy Global Fz Case Type Case (kips) (kips) (kips) le Building Cracked 7% S7 CSDRS Capitola 343944 244056 231397 Damping Chi Chi 336167 239971 250624 El Centro 267968 269922 256483 Izmit 297510 245331 251341 Yermo 297715 236510 263351 S8 CSDRS Capitola 290751 274276 196053 Chi Chi 303767 234230 223377 El Centro 248628 267201 229007 Izmit 287011 252901 216609 Yermo 263706 265195 232279 S11 CSDRS Capitola 168396 119565 181518 Chi Chi 199376 117941 179024 El Centro 149150 165393 186060 Izmit 152976 161973 193875 Yermo 173035 120733 195737 S7 CSDRS- HF Lucerne 110986 91038 139697 S9 CSDRS- HF Lucerne 129899 98212 162049 Uncracked 7% S7 CSDRS Capitola 345847 277296 233754 Damping Chi Chi 340014 239492 255071 El Centro 284727 285248 253962 Izmit 289695 248614 241686 Yermo 300881 233505 267641 S8 CSDRS Capitola 292384 271970 202190 Chi Chi 305827 241469 226832 El Centro 259244 267925 221740 Izmit 284855 249438 219512 Yermo 273286 261749 236003 S11 CSDRS Capitola 170042 122301 180745 Chi Chi 200463 119167 180987 El Centro 151215 166685 183803 Izmit 153733 163189 195697 Yermo 174920 125096 196915 S7 CSDRS- HF Lucerne 105895 95761 134547 S9 CSDRS- HF Lucerne 143621 102666 165813 Maximum: 345847 285248 267641 e loads are the maximums of the total base reaction time histories obtained by the step-by-step combination of the tions in all springs below the foundation 2 3.8-163 Revision 4.1

Soil Seismic Load Standalone Model Triple Building Model Dead Weight Type Case Cracked Uncracked Cracked Seismic Uncracked (kips)

Seismic Seismic Vertical Seismic Vertical Vertical Vertical Reaction Reaction Reaction Reaction (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips)

S7 CSDRS Capitola 222,932 225,014 231397 233754 471,487 Chi-Chi 254,142 258,618 250624 255071 471,487 El Centro 264,163 254,444 256483 253962 471,487 Izmit 234,397 242,807 251341 241686 471,487 Yermo 254,684 257,452 263351 267641 471,487 S8 CSDRS Capitola 205,032 208,268 196053 202190 471,487 Chi-Chi 229,313 234,958 223377 226832 471,487 El Centro 234,071 230,481 229007 221740 471,487 Izmit 226,435 228,292 216609 219512 471,487 Yermo 233,072 238,766 232279 236003 471,487 S11 CSDRS Capitola 185,963 186,456 181518 180745 471,487 Chi-Chi 182,918 185,511 179024 180987 471,487 El Centro 191,453 189,535 186060 183803 471,487 Izmit 199,958 201,724 193875 195697 471,487 Yermo 199,400 201,374 195737 196915 471,487 7 CSDRS-HF Lucerne 147,529 156,119 139697 134547 471,487 9 CSDRS-HF Lucerne 162,443 167,031 162049 165813 471,487 S8, S9, S11 designate Soil Types 7, 8, 9, and 11, respectively.

2 3.8-164 Revision 4.1

Cracked Condition Uncracked Condition tability Vertical N-S E-W Stability Vertical N-S E-W Case 1: Cracked RXB Model, Soil Type 7 Case 2: Uncracked RXB Model, Soil Type 7 otation 2.34 - - Flotation 2.34 - -

Sliding - 1.06 0.78 Sliding - 1.00 0.76 erturning - 1.52 1.53 Overturning - 1.51 1.52 Case 3: Cracked Triple Model, Soil Type 7 Case 4: Uncracked Triple Model, Soil Type 7 otation 2.34 - - Flotation 2.34 - -

Sliding - 0.79 0.76 Sliding - 0.86 0.75 erturning - 1.49 1.50 Overturning - 1.50 1.50 Case 5: Cracked RXB Model, Soil Type 8 Case 6: Uncracked RXB Model, Soil Type 8 otation 2.34 - - Flotation 2.34 - -

Sliding - 1.03 0.82 Sliding - 1.00 0.80 erturning - 1.66 1.66 Overturning - 1.64 1.65 Case 7: Cracked Triple Model, Soil Type 8 Case 8: Uncracked Triple Model, Soil Type 8 otation 2.34 - - Flotation 2.34 - -

Sliding - 0.85 0.84 Sliding - 0.85 0.83 erturning - 1.71 1.71 Overturning - 1.69 1.70 Case 9: Cracked RXB Model, Soil Type 11 Case 10: Uncracked RXB Model, Soil Type 11 otation 2.34 - - Flotation 2.34 - -

Sliding - 1.50 1.47 Sliding - 1.49 1.47 erturning - 1.95 1.96 Overturning - 1.94 1.95 Case 11: Cracked Triple Model, Soil Type 11 Case 12: Uncracked Triple Model, Soil Type 11 otation 2.34 - - Flotation 2.34 - -

Sliding - 1.60 1.40 Sliding - 1.58 1.38 erturning - 2.00 2.00 Overturning - 2.00 2.00 Case 13: Cracked RXB Model, Soil Type 9 Case 14: Uncracked RXB Model, Soil Type 9 otation 2.34 - - Flotation 2.34 - -

Sliding - 2.66 1.86 Sliding - 2.21 1.51 erturning - 2.31 2.31 Overturning - 2.24 2.25 Case 15: Cracked Triple Model, Soil Type 9 Case 16: Uncracked Triple Model, Soil Type 9 otation 2.34 - - Flotation 2.34 - -

Sliding - 2.24 1.81 Sliding - 2.14 1.64 erturning - 2.31 2.32 Overturning - 2.26 2.26 2 3.8-165 Revision 4.1

Items ANSYS Number of Joints 40009 Number of Joint with Restraints 5822 Number of Joint with Lumped Mass 7877 Number of Frame Elements 1541 Number of Shell Elements 15851 Number of Solid Elements 15012 Number of Link/Spring Elements 120 Number of Nonlinear Contact Elements 2100 Number of Nonlinear Gap Elements 5822 2 3.8-166 Revision 4.1

Overturning Force Overturning Moment Arm Arm Length Overturning Moment about the Y-Axis (E-W) cal Seismic Reaction Half of East-West Width of Basemat 179 ion Forces on North and South Walls Perpendicular Distance between Line of Action of 179 Friction Force Centroid and Pivot ion Force on East Wall East-West Width of Basemat 352 tive Structural Dead Weight (Buoyant Weight) Half of East-West Width of Basemat 179 Overturning Moment about the X-Axis (N-S) cal Seismic Reaction Half of North-South Width of Basemat 81.25 ion Forces on East and West Walls Perpendicular Distance between Line of Action of 81.25 Friction Force Centroid and Pivot ion Force on South Wall North-South Width of Basemat 156.5 tive Structural Dead Weight (Buoyant Weight) Half of North-South Width of Basemat 81.25 2 3.8-167 Revision 4.1

ilding Node Node Coordinates (inch) Displacement (inch)

Location No. X Y Z U1(EW) U2(NS) U3(Vert)

RWB West 41173 -2460 -825 570 -0.1 0.01 -0.6 41189 -2460 96 570 -0.1 0.01 -0.61 41206 -2460 1149 570 -0.08 0.02 -0.52 Middle 41887 -1380 -825 570 -0.11 0.01 -1.04 41903 -1380 96 570 -0.1 0.01 -1.04 41920 -1380 1149 570 -0.09 0 -0.9 East 42517 -300 -825 570 -0.12 0.01 -1.63 42533 -300 96 570 -0.11 0.01 -1.62 42550 -300 1149 570 -0.12 0.03 -1.46 RXB West 129 0 -873 0 -0.02 -0.03 -1.75 140 0 0 0 -0.03 0 -1.81 151 0 873 0 -0.02 0.04 -1.75 Middle 801 1872 -873 0 -0.01 -0.01 -1.89 812 1872 0 0 -0.02 0.01 -2.05 823 1872 873 0 -0.01 0.03 -1.88 East 1616 4092 -873 0 0.02 -0.02 -1.95 1627 4092 0 0 0.02 0.02 -2 1638 4092 873 0 0.01 0.05 -1.94 CRB West 31066 4470 -705 345 0.15 0.01 -1.75 31078 4470 -8 345 0.15 0.01 -1.78 31089 4470 705 345 0.15 0.02 -1.73 Middle 31327 4980 -705 345 0.16 0.01 -1.36 31339 4980 -8 345 0.16 0.01 -1.36 31350 4980 705 345 0.16 0.02 -1.34 East 31559 5406 -705 345 0.16 0.01 -1.04 31571 5406 -8 345 0.16 0.01 -1.05 31582 5406 705 345 0.17 0.02 -1.02 2 3.8-168 Revision 4.1

ilding Node Node Coordinates (inch) Displacement (inch)

Location No. X Y Z U1(EW) U2(NS) U3(Vert)

RWB West 41173 -2460 -825 570 -0.1 0.01 -0.6 41189 -2460 96 570 -0.1 0.01 -0.61 41206 -2460 1149 570 -0.08 0.03 -0.53 Middle 41887 -1380 -825 570 -0.11 0.01 -1.04 41903 -1380 96 570 -0.1 0.01 -1.04 41920 -1380 1149 570 -0.09 0 -0.89 East 42517 -300 -825 570 -0.12 0.01 -1.64 42533 -300 96 570 -0.11 0.01 -1.63 42550 -300 1149 570 -0.12 0.03 -1.46 RXB West 129 0 -873 0 -0.02 -0.04 -1.75 140 0 0 0 -0.03 0 -1.81 151 0 873 0 -0.02 0.04 -1.75 Middle 801 1872 -873 0 -0.01 -0.01 -1.89 812 1872 0 0 -0.02 0.01 -2.06 823 1872 873 0 -0.02 0.03 -1.88 East 1616 4092 -873 0 0.02 -0.02 -1.95 1627 4092 0 0 0.02 0.02 -2 1638 4092 873 0 0.01 0.05 -1.94 CRB West 31066 4470 -705 345 0.14 0.01 -1.75 31078 4470 -8 345 0.14 0.01 -1.78 31089 4470 705 345 0.15 0.02 -1.74 Middle 31327 4980 -705 345 0.15 0.01 -1.36 31339 4980 -8 345 0.15 0.01 -1.36 31350 4980 705 345 0.16 0.02 -1.34 East 31559 5406 -705 345 0.16 0.01 -1.04 31571 5406 -8 345 0.16 0.01 -1.05 31582 5406 705 345 0.16 0.02 -1.02 2 3.8-169 Revision 4.1

cale Final Safety Analysis Report Summary of Foundation Settlements (Uncracked Triple Building Model) Response Combination 9-6: (COMB-Static(1GZ+H+F+S+0.8L)-Concrete Building Maximum Vertical Average Vertical Foundation E-W Rotation about NS Foundation N-S Rotation about Differential Settlement Settlement1 Settlement2 Tilt3 Axis4 Tilt5 EW Axis6 between Structures 7 (inch) (inch) (inch) (degree) (inch) (degree) (inch) 0.2 RWB -1.63 -1.05 0.99 0.0264 0.13 0.0039 (between RWB and RXB)

-0.21 RXB -2.05 -1.89 0.19 0.0027 0.004 0.0001 (between RXB and CRB)

CRB -1.78 -1.38 -0.72 -0.0442 0.02 0.0008 (n/a) s:

aximum settlement among the 9 selected nodes at the bottom of each foundation e average values of the settlements of the 9 selected nodes positive tilt for a building implies the east edge of the building is lower and the building is leaning toward the east.

gative tilt for a building implies the west edge of the building is lower and the building is leaning toward the west.

e angle of foundation rotation of a building about the NS axis was calculated by dividing the EW tilt by the EW dimension of the foundation (see Table 3.8.5-19).

Positive tilt for a building implies the south edge of the building is lower and the building is leaning toward the south.

gative tilt for a building implies the north edge of the building is lower and the building is leaning toward the north.

e angle of foundation rotation of a building about the EW axis was calculated by dividing the NS tilt by the NS dimension of the foundation (see Table 3.8.5-19).

is is the difference in settlement between two neighboring buildings. It was calculated by subtracting the settlement of the west edge of the east building from the ement of the east edge of the west building.

sitive value implies that the building in the east settles more than that in the west.

Design of Category I Structures

cale Final Safety Analysis Report Summary of Foundation Settlements (Cracked Triple Building Model) Response Combination 9-6: (COMB-Static(1GZ+H+F+S+0.8L)-Concrete Building Maximum Vertical Average Vertical Foundation E-W Rotation about NS Foundation N-S Rotation about Differential Settlement Settlement1 Settlement2 Tilt3 Axis4 Tilt5 EW Axis6 between Structures 7 (inch) (inch) (inch) (degree) (inch) (degree) (inch) 0.2 RWB -1.64 -1.05 0.99 0.0264 0.13 0.0039 (between RWB and RXB)

-0.21 RXB -2.06 -1.89 0.2 0.0027 0.005 0.0001 (between RXB and CRB)

CRB -1.78 -1.38 -0.72 -0.0443 0.02 0.0007 (n/a) s:

aximum settlement among the 9 selected nodes at the bottom of each foundation e average values of the settlements of the 9 selected nodes Positive tilt for a building implies the east edge of the building is lower and the building is leaning toward the east.

gative tilt for a building implies the west edge of the building is lower and the building is leaning toward the west.

e angle of foundation rotation of a building about the NS axis was calculated by dividing the EW tilt by the EW dimension of the foundation (see Table 3.8.5-19).

Positive tilt for a building implies the south edge of the building is lower and the building is leaning toward the south.

gative tilt for a building implies the north edge of the building is lower and the building is leaning toward the north.

e angle of foundation rotation of a building about the EW axis was calculated by dividing the NS tilt by the NS dimension of the foundation (see Table 3.8.5-19).

is is the difference in settlement between two neighboring buildings. It was calculated by subtracting the settlement of the west edge of the east building from the ement of the east edge of the west building.

sitive value implies that the building in the east settles more than that in the west.

Design of Category I Structures

Description Value Seismic Weight (kips) 49,041 ancy Load (kips) 40,500 East-West Length (ft) (between exterior faces of walls) 81-0 North-South Length (ft) (between exterior faces of walls) 119-8 Height (ft) 95-0 Embedment Depth (ft) 55-0 Main Foundation East-West Length (ft) 91-0 Main Foundation North-South Length (ft) 129-8 Foundation Area (ft²) 11,800 Tunnel Foundation East-West Length (ft) 19'-6" Tunnel Foundation North-South Length (ft) 25'-8" el Foundation Area (ft2) 500.6 Density, ysoil (pcf) 130 Coefficient of Pressure at Rest, Ko 0.5 nd water level Less than plant elevation 98-0 d level Less than plant elevation 99-0 harge (psf) 250 ficient of Friction between Wall and Soil 0.5 ficient of Friction between Basemat and Soil (static analysis) 0.58 ficient of Friction between Basemat and Soil (nonlinear analysis) 0.55 oyancy load based on the water level at Elevation 100'-0" for conservatism.

2 3.8-172 Revision 4.1

Elevation Lateral Static Soil Pressure (psi) 100-0 to 76-6 12 76-6 to 50-0 31 50-0 to 45-0 38 highlighted region at EL 50'-0" & 45'-0" represents the pressure on the 5 ft thick foundation.

2 3.8-173 Revision 4.1

Items SAP2000 SASSI ANSYS Number of Joints 8872 17055 12142 Number of Joint with Restraints 864 0 2029 Number of Frame Elements 1393 1393 2098 Number of Shell Elements 4069 4069 3974 Number of Solid Elements 3966 3966 3967 2 3.8-174 Revision 4.1

Buoyancy) irection of Input Description of Results Maximum Sliding - inch Motion Soil Type 7 Soil Type 11 Soil Type 8 E-W (X) E-W Sliding (X) 0.11 0.03 0.10 N-S (Y) N-S Sliding (Y) 0.06 0.04 0.06 2 3.8-175 Revision 4.1

Description of Results Maximum Sliding and Uplift Displacement - inch Soil Type 7 Soil Type 11 (Location/Excitation) (Location/Excitation)

+Buoyancy+Static Pressure Vertical (Z) Displacement - Static 0.0353 0.0353 DW+Buoyancy+Static Pressure + Seismic E-W (X) 0.044 (A /E-W) 0.017 (C/E-W)

DW+Buoyancy+Static Pressure + Seismic N-S (Y) 0.08 (D/N-S) 0.029 (D/N-S)

W+Buoyancy+Static Pressure + Seismic Vertical (Z) Uplift 0.01 (C/E-W) 1 0.015 (D/Vertical) itation in the E-W direction produces uplift displacement, 2 3.8-176 Revision 4.1

Basemat Edges WEST EAST NORTH SOUTH Total Reaction (kips) 61,580 73,004 133,073 133,321 Total Tributary Area (ft2) 1,869 1,950 4,296 4,296 Average Toe Pressure in ksf 33.0 37.4 31.0 31.0 Average Toe Pressure in psi 229 260 215 216 2 3.8-177 Revision 4.1

Concrete Soil Seismic Load Cracked Seismic Uncracked Seismic Dead Weight Vertical Reaction Vertical Reaction Case Type Case (kips) (kips) (kips)

Cracked 7% S7 CSDRS Capitola 22,228 23,455 45,774 Damping Chi Chi 26,415 26,333 45,774 El Centro 27,118 26,885 45,774 Izmit 24,628 25,146 45,774 Yermo 26,253 26,015 45,774 S8 CSDRS Capitola 22,129 22,284 45,774 Chi Chi 26,196 26,074 45,774 El Centro 26,565 26,562 45,774 Izmit 24,857 25,868 45,774 Yermo 26,284 26,267 45,774 S11 CSDRS Capitola 20,173 20,103 45,774 Chi Chi 24,121 23,885 45,774 El Centro 24,400 24,413 45,774 Izmit 21,793 21,150 45,774 Yermo 24,260 24,132 45,774 S7 CSDRS-HF Lucerne 18,371 19,126 45,774 S9 CSDRS-HF Lucerne 21,209 20,637 45,774 S8, S9, S11 designate Soil Types 7, 8, 9, and 11, respectively.

2 3.8-178 Revision 4.1

Basemat Edges WEST EAST NORTH SOUTH Total Reaction (kips) 18,620 21,078 16,974 15,338 Total Tributary Area (ft2) 1,190.4 1,199.4 853.1 853.1 Average Toe Pressure (ksf) 15.64 17.57 19.90 17.98 Average Toe Pressure (Psi) 108.6 122.0 138.2 124.9 2 3.8-179 Revision 4.1

Item RXB Basemat SAP2000 Number of joints 2,360 Number of joints with restraints 559 Number of frame elements 40 Number of shell elements 2,366 Number of solid element 0 2 3.8-180 Revision 4.1

Displacement (inch)

Node No.

U1 (EW) U2 (NS) U3 (Vertical) 9590 0.05 0.02 -2 9594 0.05 0.01 -2.01 31071 0.14 0.01 -1.79 31075 0.14 0.01 -1.8 2 3.8-181 Revision 4.1

West East Foundation Tilt Settlement Settlement over 50 Tilt Angle about NS Axis (degree)

(inch) (inch) (inch)

-2 -1.8 -0.36 -0.0361 6" = [(-2.00")-(-1.80")]/27.5'x50'; EW Tunnel Foundation Model Width = 27.5' 2 3.8-182 Revision 4.1

Building E-W Width (ft) N-S Width (ft)

RXB 341 145.5 CRB 78 116.67 CRB Tunnel 27.5 18.67 ce the settlements are calculated at the foundation nodes in the centerlines of walls, an E-W or N-S width used for dation tilting angle calculation is the distance between the centerlines of two exterior walls.

sed on nodal coordinates.

2 3.8-183 Revision 4.1

cale Final Safety Analysis Report in the Longitudinal Direction, Y Axis is in the Transverse Direction, and Z Axis in the Vertical Upward Direction)

Design of Category I Structures

cale Final Safety Analysis Report Reactor Building Basemat (psi) (Positive X Axis is to the Right of the Image and Positive Y is to the Top of the Image)

Design of Category I Structures

cale Final Safety Analysis Report in the Control Building Basemat (psi) (Positive X Axis is to the Right of the Image and Positive Y is to the Top of the Image)

Design of Category I Structures

cale Final Safety Analysis Report in the Reactor Building Basemat (psi) (Positive X Axis is to the Right of the Image and Positive Y is to the Top of the Image)

Design of Category I Structures

to the Right of the Image and Positive Y is to the Top of the Image) 2 3.8-188 Revision 4.1

cale Final Safety Analysis Report Basemat Model (Positive X Axis is to the Right of the Image and Positive Y is to the Top of the Image)

Design of Category I Structures

cale Final Safety Analysis Report (Positive X Axis is to the Right of the Image and Positive Y is to the Top of the Image)

Design of Category I Structures

cale Final Safety Analysis Report Basemat Model (Positive X Axis is to the Right of the Image and Positive Y is to the Top of the Image)

Design of Category I Structures

cale Final Safety Analysis Report (Positive X Axis is to the Right of the Image and Positive Y is to the Top of the Image)

Design of Category I Structures

cale Final Safety Analysis Report Basemat Model (Positive X Axis is to the Right of the Image and Positive Y is to the Top of the Image)

Design of Category I Structures

cale Final Safety Analysis Report the Right of the Image and Positive Y is to the Top of the Image)

Design of Category I Structures

cale Final Safety Analysis Report Basemat Model (Positive X Axis is to the Right of the Image and Positive Y is to the Top of the Image)

Design of Category I Structures

cale Final Safety Analysis Report the Right of the Image and Positive Y is to the Top of the Image)

Design of Category I Structures

cale Final Safety Analysis Report Design of Category I Structures cale Final Safety Analysis Report Design of Category I Structures cale Final Safety Analysis Report Design of Category I Structures cale Final Safety Analysis Report Design of Category I Structures cale Final Safety Analysis Report Design of Category I Structures cale Final Safety Analysis Report Design of Category I Structures cale Final Safety Analysis Report Design of Category I Structures cale Final Safety Analysis Report Design of Category I Structures cale Final Safety Analysis Report Design of Category I Structures cale Final Safety Analysis Report Design of Category I Structures cale Final Safety Analysis Report Design of Category I Structures cale Final Safety Analysis Report Design of Category I Structures cale Final Safety Analysis Report Design of Category I Structures cale Final Safety Analysis Report Design of Category I Structures cale Final Safety Analysis Report Design of Category I Structures cale Final Safety Analysis Report Design of Category I Structures cale Final Safety Analysis Report Design of Category I Structures cale Final Safety Analysis Report Design of Category I Structures cale Final Safety Analysis Report Design of Category I Structures cale Final Safety Analysis Report Design of Category I Structures cale Final Safety Analysis Report Design of Category I Structures cale Final Safety Analysis Report Design of Category I Structures cale Final Safety Analysis Report Design of Category I Structures cale Final Safety Analysis Report Design of Category I Structures cale Final Safety Analysis Report Design of Category I Structures cale Final Safety Analysis Report Design of Category I Structures cale Final Safety Analysis Report Design of Category I Structures cale Final Safety Analysis Report Design of Category I Structures cale Final Safety Analysis Report Design of Category I Structures cale Final Safety Analysis Report Design of Category I Structures cale Final Safety Analysis Report Design of Category I Structures cale Final Safety Analysis Report Design of Category I Structures cale Final Safety Analysis Report Design of Category I Structures cale Final Safety Analysis Report Design of Category I Structures cale Final Safety Analysis Report Design of Category I Structures cale Final Safety Analysis Report Design of Category I Structures cale Final Safety Analysis Report Design of Category I Structures cale Final Safety Analysis Report Design of Category I Structures cale Final Safety Analysis Report Design of Category I Structures cale Final Safety Analysis Report Design of Category I Structures cale Final Safety Analysis Report Design of Category I Structures cale Final Safety Analysis Report Design of Category I Structures cale Final Safety Analysis Report Design of Category I Structures cale Final Safety Analysis Report Design of Category I Structures cale Final Safety Analysis Report Design of Category I Structures cale Final Safety Analysis Report Design of Category I Structures cale Final Safety Analysis Report Design of Category I Structures cale Final Safety Analysis Report Design of Category I Structures cale Final Safety Analysis Report Design of Category I Structures cale Final Safety Analysis Report Design of Category I Structures cale Final Safety Analysis Report Design of Category I Structures cale Final Safety Analysis Report Design of Category I Structures cale Final Safety Analysis Report Design of Category I Structures cale Final Safety Analysis Report Design of Category I Structures cale Final Safety Analysis Report Design of Category I Structures cale Final Safety Analysis Report Design of Category I Structures cale Final Safety Analysis Report Design of Category I Structures cale Final Safety Analysis Report Design of Category I Structures cale Final Safety Analysis Report Design of Category I Structures cale Final Safety Analysis Report Design of Category I Structures cale Final Safety Analysis Report Design of Category I Structures cale Final Safety Analysis Report Design of Category I Structures cale Final Safety Analysis Report Design of Category I Structures cale Final Safety Analysis Report Design of Category I Structures cale Final Safety Analysis Report Design of Category I Structures cale Final Safety Analysis Report Design of Category I Structures cale Final Safety Analysis Report Design of Category I Structures cale Final Safety Analysis Report Design of Category I Structures cale Final Safety Analysis Report Design of Category I Structures cale Final Safety Analysis Report Design of Category I Structures cale Final Safety Analysis Report Design of Category I Structures cale Final Safety Analysis Report Design of Category I Structures cale Final Safety Analysis Report Design of Category I Structures cale Final Safety Analysis Report Design of Category I Structures cale Final Safety Analysis Report Design of Category I Structures