ML20153G317
| ML20153G317 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 09/02/1988 |
| From: | Cockfield D PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8809080113 | |
| Download: ML20153G317 (40) | |
Text
i 1,
" '"1
. PortlandGe 1eral ElectricCornxuly r _ss E David W. Cockfield Vice President, Nucleaf September 2, 1988 Trojan Nucioar Plant Docket 50-344 License WPF-1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cornmission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington DC 20555
Dear Sir:
Control Building Structural Analysis in gupport of Control Room Ventilation Modifications
Reference:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to Portland General l Electric Company (PCE) Letter, Control Room Habitability.
l March 31, 1988 1
Trojan Technical Specification (TTS) 5.7.2.2 states that prior NRC approval
! is required for modifications to the control Building that result in an
- increase in lateral shear forces in the wall of more than ono percent. In the above reference, we committed to provido an analysis which justifies exceeding the one percent limit. This is being done to allow equipment associated with control room ventilation modifications to be installed on j the Control Building roof.
Ther efore, based on the encDesed analysis, we are requesting NRC persis-sion to exceed the one percent limitation. Ycur approval of this analysis justifying the change is requested by March 1, 1989.
Sincerely. ,
l Attachm<nt c: Mr. John B. Martin Regional Administrator, Region V U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. Bill Dixon State of Oregon Department of Energy Mr. R. C. Bare NRC Resident Inspector l
Tro.ian Nuclear Plant p0l 8809080113 88090'2 li l
PDR ADOCK 05000344 \ t ,
P PLC )
- s w _ nm 5
- .s t M na om rp
.- ,1
)
., Tr2jan Nuclear Plcnt Document Contral Desk l Docket 50-344 Attachment A ,
- License NPF-1 September 2, 1988 i l Page 1 of 6 SEISMIC REEVALUATION OF THE CONTROL / AUXILIARY / FUEL BUILDING COMPLEX FOR PLANNED
- COWTROL ROOM VENTILATION SYSTEN MODIFICATION WEIGHT ADDITIONS f
- 1. INTRODUCTION !
t Modifications to the Control Room Emergency Ventilation system
. (CB-1), which will significantly improve its performance and relis-l bility, are planned to be completed by the end of the 1989 Refueling !
Outage. As part of these modifications, ventilation system dampers, actuators, and backup compressed air tanks would be added at the roof i level of the control Building (El.117 ft (see Figure 1 3.,
Attachment C)). This weight addition (approximately 8,000 lbs),
together with weight previously added to the Control Building, would i result in exceeding of the Trojan Technical specification j Section 5.7.2.2(a) limit of a i percent increase in the laterai shear j forcer in the top story (El. 93 ft to El. 117 ft) of the i control / Auxiliary / Fuel Building complex (Complex).
l l In May of 1979, a PCE Nuclear Plant Engineering Procedure (NPEP 200-18 j Plant Modification Structural Interface Control) was implemented to 1 provide a convenient means to account for the cumulative effects of ,
Plant modifications on all safety-related structures pursuant to :
i Trojan Technical Specification 5.7. NPEP 200-18 requires that effects i such as new penetrations, new attachments, and weight additions i resulting fror a planned modification be documented and approval received before proceeding with the modification. A summary of the
! accumniated effects of modifications on safety-related structures is '
periodically generated when judged to be necessary, but at least l
! annually. The cumulative weight additions resulting from modifica-l tions to the Criplex through August 1988 are shown in Table 1-1. As >
j can be seen in Table 1-1 (Attachment 31, the percentage weight
] additions at other than E1. 117 feat are less than 0.20 percent.
2 With the Cg-1 system modification, the total increase in weight at the l
! roof level and, hence, the increase in story shear would become l
]
approximately 1.1 percent. The Technical specification Section 5.7.2.2 exemplion to allow an increase in equipment weight (not to exceed 10 percent on a per story, per building basis) could
, not be utilized because there was originally minimal equipment weight
- tributary to the Control Duilding roof. Hence, a structural reevalu-ation of the Complex was performed to demonstrate continued adequacy with a conservative weight addition enveloping all previous, weight additions and the weight addition attributable to the planned CB-1 modifications, i
The Complex was analyzed using the STARDYNE finite element computer program in 1979 (referred to es the original STARDYWE Analysis) and i the results of that analysis are reported in PCE-1020. "Report on the
}
+
1 d
, i Terjan Nucir:r Plant Do:ument Contr:1 Desk
. Dock:t 50-344 Att:chment A LicerJe KPF-1 September 2, 1988 Page 2 of 6 Design Modifications for Trojan Control Building, July 14, 1979".
For purposes of the reevaluation described herein, a conservative increase of 3 percent was uniformly applied to all weights used in the original STARDYNE analysis of the Complex. The effects of this weight incroase on sheer wall capacity-to-force ratios, floor res-ponse spectra, and interstructure displacements were then reevalu-ated. This report summarizes the results of the reevaluation.
- 2. Shear Wall Reevaluation The vertical load carrying system for the Complex consists of rein-forced concrete slabs, a vertical load carrying stool space frame, and masonry, concrete or composite masonry-concrete walls. All of the walls where they are developed with the slabs or steel frame are considered to be shear walls to resist lateral loads. The total weight, including the 3 percent weight addition, remains well within the capacity of all components of the vertical load carrying system.
There is a siisht increase in shear wall capacity that would result from the additional compressive load (see PCE-1020 Section 3.4.2.2). This slight increase in capacity is considered to be negligible, however, and has not been included in the reevaluation.
The f.ew shear forces resulting from the uniform 3 percent increase in the weight of the Complex were obtained by increasing all the shear forces from the original STARDYNE analyses by 3 percent. The accept-ability of this analytical approach is discussed below.
When performing a reismic spectral analysis of a structure, the analytically determined shear forces are essentially a function of the spectral acceleration and the weight of the structure. The spectral acceleration, in turn, depends upon the period (frequency) of the modes of vibration. A 3 percent increase in the weight would
, result in a 1.5 percent increase in the period of the structure. For the Complex, the first and secona modes of vibration dominate the overall structural responses in the north-south and east-wast direc-tions, respectively. Higher modes of vibration, although having much less influence in the overall response of the structure, are also similarly affected. Therefore, the periods of the first and second modes can be used to illustrate the effects on spectral accelerations corresponding to a 1.5 percent increase in the period. The dominant period of the Complex in the north-south and east-west directions, based on the original STARDYNE analyses, are compared with the l periods corresponding to the 3 percent weight increase as follows: l i
Frequency
- l (cycles per Period Increased Period Direction second) (see) (See)
North-South 7.62 0.131 0.133 East-West 9.89 0.101 0.103 l
- Table 3.3-1 of PGE-1020 J
i i Trojan Nuclear Plant DoIument Contr21 Desk
. Dolk:t 50-344 Att channt A License NPF-1 September 2, 1988 Page 3 of 6 As can be seen from the Operating Basis Eart.hquake (OBE) Ground Response Spectra (FSAR Figure 3.7-1), the change in the spectral acceleration at 2 percent damping is so slight that a difference in spectral acceleration cannot be determined from the curve. !
l The other factor influencin~g the shear fore]s is the building weight. Its effect was considered directly through the 3 percent increase in weight, since the shear forces vary linearly with she weight. Therefore, it is appropriate to obtain the new shear forces ,
for the relatively small 3 percent increase in the weight of the ;
complex by increasing the origina! STARDYNE shear forces by 3 percent.
The shear walls are shown in plan on Figures 2-1 through 2-10. -
k Comparison of the increased shear wall forces and previously calcu- ,
lated shear wall capacities for the OBE are given in Tables 2-1 through 2-4 and Figures 2-11 through f,-23. Except as noted below, the capacities of the shear walls exceed the increased shear forces.
The conditions where shear wall forces exceed the shear wall capaci- '
' ties were previously documented in PCE-1020. Since the magnitude of the changes from the origins 1 STARDYNE analysis results is small, the l justification for acceptability is considered to be equally applic-able to the reevaluation results for the 3 percent increase in shear forces. The shear forces exceed the capacities in the following !
) locations:
- a. Wall No. 6, between Elevation 45 feet and 61 feet (Table 2-1). !
- b. Wall No. 8, between Elevation 45 feet and 61 feet (Table 2-1).
, c. Elevation 93 feet along Column Line 46 on Wall R (Figure 2-16). !
i ;
- d. Between Elevation 93 feet and Elevation 61 feet along Column Line 46 on Wall N (Figure 2-17).
I At Locations a and b above, the shear forces exceeded the capacities in the original STARDYNE analyses prior to the 3 percent increase in ,
, shear forces. These minor shear walls will undergo inelastic i deformation, and redistribution of loads will occur to adjacent I
walls. The amount of redistributed load, which is approximately i 1 percent of the total base shear, does not exceed the reserve l capacities which exist in the adjacent major shear walls. 1 At Locations e and d above, the vertical shear forces also exceeded the calculated capacities prior to the 3 percent increase. In those local areas, a small amount of tension will develop to mobilise the
, excess shear resistance from below. In both cases, the total verti-
! cal capacity along the entire vertical plane is more than the verti-cal shear force demand.
, l 1
4 1 J
t, Tr3jan Nuc1 Or Plant Document Control Desk Dock;t 50-344 Attachment A i License WpF-1 September 2, 1988 page 1 of 6
- 3. Floor Response Spectra Reevaluation The following is a discussion of the effect of the 3 percent overall weight increase of the complex on floor response spectra.
Floor response spectra used in seismic analysis of individual structural components, piping, equipment, and mechanical and electrical components located in the Complex are generated from the analytical models used for the structural analysis of the Complex.
An artificial time history record is synthesized which will produce a spectrum enveloping the design ground response spectrum. This time i
history is then used as input into the analytical models to generate response time history records at selected points on each floor elevation. Floor response spectra are then generated from the floor response time histories at each selected point. These spectra from several locations are first combined for each floor and the resulting envelope spectra are then broadened, based upon the frequency of each peak. This spectra broadening is performed to account for possible frequency variations that may result from uncertainties in natorial properties, structural mass and stiffness characteristics, and i seismic analysis techniques. This approach yields floor response spectra for subsequent use in analysis and design which have a substantial amount of conservatism.
j As previously discussed, a aniform 3 percent increase in weight would represent an approximate 1.5 percent increase in response periods, or decrease in the response frequencies of the Complex. Because of the spectra broadening, a frequency shift of this small magnitude would have no noticeable effect on the floor response spectra curves.
In addition, the peaks in the floor response spectra are quite con-servative because, as described above, the synthesired time history is generated such as to produce a ground motion spectrum which
- envelopes (exceeds) the design ground motion spectrum (see Trojan FSAR Figures 3.7-7 and 3.7-8, page 25 of Attachment C). Therefore, the 3 percent uniform increase in the weight of the structure would be accounted for by the conservatisms in the analyses and would have i no significant effect on the floor response spectra. l
- 4. Interstructure Displacement Reevaluation Technical specifications Sections 5.7.2.2(c) v J (d) place condi- J tional limitations on increased displacements and reduction in clear spaco betwoon the Control and Turbine Buildings. These limi,ts are '
- a. Five percent increase in combined interstructure displacements '
between the Control and Turbine Buildings, and I
- b. Five percent reduction in clear space between the Turbine and Control Buildings.
i i
Trojan Nue100r pitnt Document Contr:1 Desk
. Dock t 50-344 Attcchment A License NpF-1 September 2, 1988 page 5 of 6 With a 3 percent increase in the woight of the Complex, the displace-ment of the Control Building would increase linearly by 3 percent (the Control Auxiliary, and ruel Buildings are connected by ,
The calculated displacements of the Turbine Building have not changed Wignificantly since previously reported. The relative displacement j and the clear gap between the Control Building and Turbite tailding were described in response to NRC Question 20, NRC (Schwencer) to PGE (Coodwin) letter, May 18, 1979.
j Changes in weight in the Turbine Building since 1979, associated with such modifications as the feedwater heater replacements and the moisture separator reheater tube bundle replacements, have resulted in not decreases in weight in the Turbine Building of less than 1 percent at Elevation 93-feet and less than 0.5 percent at Eleva-tion 69 feet. There slight amounts of weight decreases, which would decrease the Turbine Building displacement by insignificant amounts, have not been included in the reevaluation.
The maximum relativt east-west displacements between the Contedl Building and Turbine Building prior to and after the 3 percent r increase in the displacements of the Control Building are shown in I Table 4-1. The maximum increase in combined displacement of O.6 percent in the east-west direction is well within the Technical Specification limits. The north-south increase combined relative displacements are bounded by the 0.6 percent. The results in ,
1 Table 4-1 also verify that the existing clear space between the two buildings would remain within Technical Specification limits.
- 5. Summary and conclusions The proposed modifications to CB-1 would add weight to the Control ,
a Building roof which, together with previous neight .dditions, would ,
I result in increasing the story shear between Control tuilding i 3
Elevations 93 ft and 117 ft by approximately 1.1 percent. To [
envelope this weight addition, a reevaluation of the complex was '
performed for a hypothetical weight addition of 3 percent at all mass -
points in the STARDYNE model, not just at the Control Building roof. .
I For this sa411 Tercentage of weight increase, it was found that the !
seismic response characteristics of the complex were essentially i unchanged. The story shears would be increased linearly by 3 percent and still remain acceptable with adequate overall margins, floor response spectra would not be noticeably affected, and interstructure relative displacements would remain sna11 and within the Technical l Specification limits.
I i
L _______-_____________ - ____ __ - _ - ________ __ _ _ __ ____ _ _______ ___-_ __ _ __
. e ;
Tr jan Nucic r Plant Document Conte:1 Desk i
Do2k t 50-344 Attcchment'A ,
License NPF-1 September 2. 1988 Page 6 of 6 It is concluded that the 3 percent uniform weight addition, bounding the weight addition due to the CB-1 modification is acceptable and does not result in strvetural considerations for the Complex that are significantly different from those previously reviewed.
i i
)
l ;
i l
4 l
l j !
l l
1 i
)
l i
I -
. l l
l BLK/mr ,
' 2524W.888 l 1 I l;
r I
hrojanNuclearPlant Do;ument Contr:1 De:k Dock;t 50-344 Attachment 5 License WPF-1 September 2. 1988 Page 1 of a TABLE 1-1 SUMMAF,f 0F WEIGHT ADDITIONS TO THE COMPLEX THROUGH AUGUST 1988. SINCE THE ORIGINAL STARDYNE ANALYSIS i Weight Used Percent in original Weltht Additions (kids) Weight Addi-Stardyne Model control Auxiliary Fuel Total tion Through Elevation Analysis (kip 31 Duildins Buildint DJildini (kids) futust 1911_
61/65 ft 18.523 9.583 1.850 0.590 12.023 0.06 77 ft 19.485 11.359 19.11,3 0.110 30.592 0.16 r 93 ft 18.792 13.635 2.230 0.750 16.615 09 105 ft 2.512 2.400 0.02 - 2.420 0.10
- 117 ft 7.849 77.570 0.00 - 77.570 0.99 J
BLK/ar 2524W.888 r 4
I i
l i
l
)
d
T'rojan Nuc1CCr Plant Document Control Desk
. Doak:t 50-344 Attcchment B License NFF-1 September 2,1988 Page 2 of 8 TABLE 2-1
) FORCE CAPACITY COMPARISON i NORTH-SOUTH NOTION 3
NORTH-SOUTH NINOR WALLS i
OBE = 0.153, 8 = 2 Porcent
( Prior to 3% Increase With 3% Increase Wall Capacity Jhear Force Camacity Shear Force Casacity Elevation Number Jkins) Dips) Force ikins) Force 45 Ft - 61 Ft 2 776 451 1.72 465 1.67 t 3 616 292 2.11 301 2.05 a
5 4399 2042 2.15 2103 2.09 4
i 6 177 239 0.74 246 0.72
) !
t 7 585 377 1.55 388 1.51 i l
I 8 113 171 0.66 176 0.64 61 Ft - 77 Ft 2 509 427 1.19 440 1.16 a
5 1892 1371 1.38 1412 1.34 j 6 873 455 1.92 469 1.86 l 1
7 734 523 1.40 539 1.36 77 Ft - 93 Ft 5 1093 681 1.60 701 1.56 h i
6 654 344 1.90 354 1.85 8 584 329 1.78 339 1,72 4
95 Ft - 105 Ft 6 575 344 1.67 354 1.62
, 1 105 Ft - 117 Ft 6 556 226 2.46 233 2.39
'f i
4
Trojan OJelear Plant Document Control Desk
. Docket 50-344 Attachment B License NPF-1 September 2, 1988 Page 3 of 8 j Z&SLE 2-2 FORCE CAPACITY COMPARIS0N
! EAST-WEST NOTION EAST-WEST MINOR WALLS OBE = 0.15g, 8 = 2 Percent ;
i Prior to 3% Increase With 3% Increase Wall Capacity Shear Force Caoscity Shear Force Capacity Elevation Number (kips)_ (kiss) Force (kips) Force i 45 Ft - 61 Ft 11 373 264 1.41 272 1.37 i
i 12 433 310 1.40 319 1.36 14 332 260 1.28 268 1.24 15 833 566 1.47 583 1.43 3
61 Ft - ?? Ft 14 2970 1170 2.54 1205 2.46 15 996 864 1.15 890 1.12 16 1291 405 3.19 417 3.10 l i
, 77 Ft - 93 Ft le 3998 984 4.06 1014 3.94 '
t
,, 15 2973 1163 2.56 1198 2.48 t
93 FL - 105 Ft 15 1493 10A0 1.41 1092 1.37 l I l 105 Ft - 117 Ft 15 1493 814 1.83 838 1.78 ,
I i
l l
BLK/mr 2524W.888 l
1
Tr2jan Nuclear Plant Document Control Desk Dock;t 50-344 Attcchment 5 License NPF-1 September 2, 1988 Page 4 of 8 TABLE 2-3 (NRC Question - October 2, 1979)
FORCE CAPAC1'tY COMPARISON NORTH-SOUTH NOTION NORTH-SOUTH WALLS OBE = 0.153, 8 = 2 Percent Prior to 3% Increase With 3% increase Wall Capacity shear Force capacity shear Force CacLeity Elevation Number _Lhips)_ (kips) Force (kips) Force 45 Ft - 61 Ft 17A 204 96 2.13 99 2.06 21 304 271 1.12 279 1.09 22 308 270 1.14 278 1.11 23 851 587 1.43 605 1.41 24 308 286 1.08 295 1.04 24A 839 731 1.15 753 1.11 61 Ft - 77 Ft 17 366 91 4.02 94 3.90 18 135 79 1.71 61 1.66 19 150 84 1.79 87 1,72 20 1539 827 1.06 852 1.81 21 514 430 1.20 443 1.16 22 739 276 2.68 284 2.60 23 260 246 1.06 253 1.03 24 2193 1034 2.12 1065 2.06 77 Ft - 93 Ft 18 156 145 1.08 149 1.05 19 379 178 2.13 183 2.07 4
Tr jan Nuciscr Plant Document Control Desk l
- Dock;t 50-344 Att:chment B l License NPF-1 september 2, 1988 Pese 5 of 8 1
TABLE 2-3 i
(Continued) t 4
Prior to 3% Increase With 3% Increase Wall Capacity Shear Force Capacity Shear Force Capacity 3
tievation _ Number (kins) (kiss) Force (kiss) Force 1
1 19A 478 78 6.13 80 5.98
] ,
j 20 451 214 2.11 220 2.05 I
t 20A 333 132 2.53 136 2.45 ;
l j 208 151 119 1.27 123 1.23 [
l l 21 553 484 1.14 499 1.11 22A 588 388 1.52 400 1.47
- ii
- 24 *40 195 2.26 201 2.19 !
' I 24A 444 174 2.55 179 2.48 5 j 93 Ft - 105 Ft 20+21 913 600 1.52 618 1.48*
l l 4
24 930 454 2.05 468 1.99 {
24A 196 75 2.61 77 2.54 (
105 Ft - 117 Ft 20 913 484 1.89 499 1.83* l i
j 24 748 259 2.89 267 2.80 i
?
) i
- Data revised to reflect modifications performed pursuant to LIR 83-01, f j Revision 1.
\
t
}
i 1
Trojan Nuclear Plant Document Control Desk i
- Dock;t 50-344 Attcchment B License NFF-1 Septenber 2,1988 ,
Page 6 of 8 TABLE 2-4 (NRC Question - October 2, 1979) '
FORCE CAPACITY COMPARISON EAST-WEST NOTION EAST-WEST WALLS ont = 0.15s, 8 = 2 Percent t I
Prior to 3% Increasu With 3% Increase
. Wall Capacity Shear Force Casacity, Shear Force Casseity Elevation Number (kiss) (kiss) Force ,, (kiss) Force j 45 Ft - 61 Ft 10A 2904 2800 1.04 2884 1.01 16A 412 264 1.56 272 1.51 !
15A 1280 903 1.42 930 1,38 I
13A 7103 6110 1.16 6293 1.13 l l
i {
1 61 Ft - 77 Ft 25 179 34 S.26 35 5.11 1
1 26 182 114 1.60 117 1.55 .
27 253 121 2.09 125 2.02 h 10A 3360 2112 1.59 2175 1.54 I 4
16A 572 564 1.72 581 1.67 l
)-
ISA 2345 1805 1.30 1859 1,26 I 1 28 241 209 1.15 215 1.12 '
1 4 29 630 267 2.36 275 2.29 ;
- i 143 1312 247 5.31 254 5.16 !
1 1
14A 3510 3S0 9.00 402 8.73 l 13A 4914 3860 1.27 3976 1.24 '
30 456 284 1.61 293 1,56
]
4 l
a Trojan Nucicar Pitnt Docueont Control Desk
- Dock;t 50-344 Atttchment B License NFF-1 September 2,1988 Fate 7 of 8 j 1
I TABLE 2-4 l
I (Continued) 1 i
Prior to 3% Increase With 3% Increase .
Wall Capacity Shear Forca Casseity Shear Force G3Pacity I Elevation Nupber (kiss) (klos) Force (kiss) Force 77 Ft - 93 Ft 25 179 27 6.63 28 6.39 l l
26 182 92 1.98 95 1.92 -
t 27 170 99 1.72 102 1.67 10A 2653 1679 1.58 1729 1.53 15A 11805 2163 5.46 2228 5.30 14A 12852 1948 6.60 2006 6.41 13A 6298 3200 1.97 3296 1.91 30 1243 253 4.91 261 4.76 ;
{
93 Ft - 105 Ft 10A 1634 855 1.91 881 1.85 ,
15A 2908 1425 2.04 1468 1.98 i
13A 524 382 1.37 393 1.33 l 30 660 184 3.59 190 3.47 !
t I
)
105 Ft - 117 Ft 10A 1634 781 2.09 804 2.03 !
15A 2908 1031 2.82 1062 2.74 3 13A 1357 438 3.10 451 3.01 l
\'
BLK/mr 2524W.888
Trojan Nue10cr F1snt Document Control Desk Docket 50-344 Attcchment 5 License WPF-1 September 2, 1988 Page 8 of 8 TABLE 4-1 RELATIVE DISPLACEMENT COMPARISONS MA11 MUM SSE EAST-WEST DISP *ACEMENTS (inch) f AI I I""#*** "I '" I' " "I Prior to 3 Percent eight by 3 percent Increase
- Increased Diselacement Total Displacement E1. 93 ft El 69 Ft E1. 93 ft _El. 69 ft E1. 93 ft El 69 ft.
Turbine sids 0.90 0.15 0 0 0.90 0.15 ,
Control 31ds 0.046 0.031 0.001 0.001 0.047 9.032 Combined Displacements 0.946 0.181 - - 0.947 0.182 Percent Increase in 0.1% 0.6%
combined Displacemart
- Hefer to PCE response to NRC Question 20 dated May 5, 1979.
I i
BLK/nr j 2524W.588 i !
i h
l l
< \
$ I i i l
l i i
l 1 ,
I l
_w--_m____- E - _ _- wm a __.h .__ma _,.__ _a ._-A.- ~_--4 ___.--__A-. a-. ._ __.h_ _ _ , __m_ a___m2._
e n n e
w -;
~.
CONTROL BUILDING AUXILIARY BUILDING YM FUEL But. DING a%
s
.I
, -; s !\
!'s N -e x.,\. p % ._'Ng;;79dd s
.,h '9"ALy[W' ,c' i D. -
-%_ npyc.c44b sz@ h=, Fi
- m.p -
mgamyaun k $ h r m. , 2 yt ag s-es : ;3 xas x . -gNgm,hggg.g#g2h ~ ., s)s nyp MYI-M:v.
. T3h M N ?
"N\ \ D
%.4, .
s
-s- m_
x - -s g -
,+?M,fs' s-
\
y.-
NWND> -
g xg NA A , i s s f5qs
, 'g -
.yf~kiyE p.A 0
3 bx w1' ;R
.='hfg 'b -
'A $ 9 x
- _h
\
a, l
?w# /-
'\;
S x x N ;rr-i- ;
n s sc __.-
0 5eY i
w n; FIGURE l-1 STARDYNE MODEL g;
! .~ .
I i
1
Trsjan bucicar Plant Docu;:nt C:ntrol Desk
. Doskst 50-344 Attachment C Licenso tiPF-1 Page 2 of 25 l e ...
h Al
@ @ hI k~? & U3 i
@ r- - - , ; {-
I i l L i t l l g . _ _ _ .
- ; _. p _. __ __ ._ ._ _
i i i i l
@ _ ._ __ l _ _ _.i ._. - __,i __ _. .J __. _ _ .j_ _ _
t i i i I
- l l I l , i I i
i
- i n e
' i i
@ i i s A
i t
l P. ** "
l g _ _ _ _
r 3
/P:.
I, 4^. .__ :
._ _ . _.b _ .!. ,
- r_
,f ! ,
a'I (t. ,
%w , ,
V '
'{, .= f I i n v O-
&, 3 i
l
, s
- (W P *
- _}s...
{
qv i ,
n 1 g- N
~
.l.-l- _ -
e~ v
' =
( 9, l i
- n ,
D k *** Y i
, 'y12 & .
f ; i s
- .g _ _ __ __ _ __ ; a . _ ._
_ _ _ ._ tL.m _
1 tm i '
.L.
W
-. - .o . - _ _ -
3 Figure 2-1 .:all Key Plan For Elevati:r,15 61 !
l t
m vux5 Dock 3t bO-344 Attachment C License NPF-1 Paso 3 of 25 i
@ i i
r i i l i l "i I i ,
I
._r_,
i i
i i i g L__ __ __
__l._. .__l___.l __
_. d __
l l l I
I i
o I ,
l i
@ p. __ __ . ._ __.
i i
@ L ._ 7 , 7_ _.
q ~, 'O e. 3 !
g I r- .
I ! O !
g t_ _ _ q _ 2.
e i
,b
.t _. :
@-i
'4 ----
i i
e ,
g- _ . _ _. -
.- ._ } __ _. . ,
i .
@ *m
) '>
i i 1
' l
@ i i .
n de
@ l
~
% ) am m I
t.
. 'dii!!L F'. ATE n nr. 22 .n <,,om :,e...uce c.n i
LGCDGt EXa)-LOG LEUaE'"U W b
, License NPF-1 Page 4 of 25 l l i I i i i g ,
I 9__
- l l l
@ __ ._ l__ l
_ -. l __
. I l i i I
g i
' I I 1 i
i s
l
, 1 I
g .
i I
I
- @ l- , -
n- ,
i i _
Og l -J P 1 .
n >
I I I
@ n- h E
Q ;%- ._. _?._ .
_._ 7 i !
b r-i i
T I
4 3 '
l i
g __ __ _
l
, , I
~
@ _.___'__ ._ l_ _. _. ._
]
l .
l F& i l
l 1
I __ j -. ... . p .
<W 'L i
1
, ___.y ..
J f
)
i Figure 2-3 all
. Agy P13n FCP [ltnatirn .f3
'otMJDD LD3BD001MOIG LG303]DG MGOU lbsD
, Dgeket 50-344 Attacha:nt C Licensa NPF 1 P:ge S cf 25
@ @ @ @ @O @ @
g _ _._.__ _
i I i I i
@ j ._ __ l .__ ._ _.; __ _ __ l
_ _. L _ { __ __ _ _l l 1 I
@ l
_. ._ _ _L __ __ _ ll ._ __.L.__l-__l _7 __ _ f i .
. l l i i , i
@ i_.__'
l
,.__ _ _i_ _ _i_ .J ____ u __ I l I g L. _ __ _t 1
i l 1 i i i
@ r___ ___
I I
@ i _ ._ ._ _ . _ _ _ _ - ._ _ J . . risure revi ea l l to reflect g i 4 _ _ __ _ ,i tu u.oi, nev. i
@ I_h kh l l
@ L I i i
._ 7 - __ p __. _. _ ,
I i
@ (S) -
4._ ._ _. _ O l l
i
@ _ ._ _ 4. __ __
t !
.- i @ i ._
l Figure 24 Wall Key Plan For Elevation 93 105 i i
Document C:ntrol Desk
, %cket 50-344 Att.chment C Licerse NPF-1 Pa.e 6 cf 25 t
@' @ @ @ O@ @ @
@ r-,
, r, i I I i
i
@ l -- q - l - -t l l-li e l_ _ ,i _._4_l_._.l_l_.4._-
I
- I I j I ia l I
@ l _ _. - : ;
I I L_ .J t I !
@ l- - - f- - - i-I
- -d n. ore revi.ea to reflect l l l LER 83-01, Rev. 1
@- ,- - _ _ - - - _1 a.t.,
I
@ i _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
7 __ _ a i
g I
+ l I @ @ l g _ _ .a i
I g _
I l
I
@ __ __. a _ __ __l - __ _. ,
I g @ _. _ __ J _ __ _ _. _. ._ _. _ O
@ __.__l.___]____
- g. ..
=
1 2 : -
risur, 25 .11 r,y n r r r e,vatier ::5. n
~
Dock t $0 344 Attach:ent C Lic'ense NFF.1 Page 7 of 25 C, @
@ @ @E .
l
+ ly.%
. f, : . - - . _
- y A l l
- l l
' I 1 I l 1 l l . I l
.g . _
l
- \ l l l
, I , l 4, _ . _ _ _ . _ . . - - _ _ , - ,
i l l ,
- p. . .
. g.
I ~2'.%n s a e.>
>+..,-
l l
" 3 .7- ,
l e- u' s m
'6 '*
e 1. .,,
I t e i ** ' g
- _ s.g
. I l,
' ')/
i.
t y..-- .. _ s. l ra l -
._ . x
,G, . .. _ .- ,
0 i e
) . i j
i
.c v ..._ ._ ._ _ _
3 s
l 3 _ _ - -
t g._. - _ _. _
l
^
l I g- e, .ame w i
V, -- i I
.~ i e
.g -. - .- - - . -
i I
.t - s e< l q - .
1
,< l 1 g
^
- .,. _i==== l s.
Figurt 26 M&ll Key Plan For Elevatien 45 61
Docket 50-344 Attachmsnt C
- ~
License NPF-1 Page 8 of 25 e_- i7 "--,
l l I l ; 7 l
[
h- ,/ l 1 i i I
,_ g. ,
._g_. --L__
.m l l l '2 26
~l l I_ _y_ ,
_-_l b ,_, - - -
e 'o;+
h - . _.
2o..
m s
I 1
B-I g!
1 I
, . . 4- .
. l g6 . . . 30-s e- g. -+ _s_
s j
, r,'
. *- 3
-2b"
- 16 15A
@ p_ __ _ _ . . _ - _ _ .
.g,_+,
4 -- -
@ L___ _t- __
l s .
4A" l !
l
@ _ l __ __ _.
l
.i__
@ '~ l 1 I
' l l .
1 u - _.
Q . .. - __ __ .__' f - .- .
I l '
== 1 O9. 3- c.
L Figure 1 7 Wall Key Plan For Elevation 61-77
Trojcn Nuchsar Phant IMcussnt Montro)1 Desh ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
, Dacket 50-344 Attachmsnt C Li' cense NPF-1 Pa88 9 of 25
@ @ @ @ @ O @ @
i I l i 1
': *- g +
l 1 g l
.r T . I i 1 e ,
lE .
__: M9+ __: __
< ,'--+ l l .
l l Wb ~
,, l gpr- - --
>r . ,
m _ ,, _ -
i l l e rg+
i l
- --- -- -- i- _I
.sr*
10A *- il. + .
g ...
+- - 7/.t ->,
l g i___ _ =
'4 A, h
1 9
I -. _ .
i I
g ; _ _ _.
T 9 d 6 l
I i g _ __
l l
@ _ L- .- -_ --
I g __ _L_ l___ .
, ' I
@_ < sw . ,anssum.
Figure 2-8 Wali Key Flan For Elevation 77 93
. . Trojan Nuclear P1snt Docursnt Control Dar.k Docket 50-344 Attachmsnt C
, Licsnsa NPF-1 < Page 10 of 25 t
~ ~~~
T ~~
~ ~~ ~ ~
l l
~ "1 I I I I i
@ ._-__l__. ' _ . . _ _ _. L _ L ._. _ _ _ _
I l l 8 i
- _ _i_ _ _ .!_ _ l_ _
! :.een . 4, l
d, l : l I I i
@ ---i fy - - - -
O I
e
.L n
_._n
- 4. ,
at.
e i_ _ _
l
_. _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ .i I
i O @
~
l
- Figure revised
~ ~ ~ ~l g to reflect l
LER 83-01, Rev. 1 l--- _ ___ ._ data.
I I g I ,, ,, I e ___; .
_h___
l i ;
e ___
l u___
l 1
@ ___4__i ; l l
} l Figure 2 9 Wall Key Plan For Elevation 93-105
Trojen Nuclear,Plent ~ ~ hcurnt sontros EOsb
' Doc'ko t 50-344 Attechmsnt C Page 11 of 25 License NPF-1
@ @ @ @ @@ @ Gip I
i
, i i
pI ,
---]
I I i i I l g _ .. _ _ !_ I l I __Il l l l i l l j
- g. ,
I l _ ._ _
' i \ l l l '
- . i
'_ ; j
_ _ _ _ __ __ _ _. L_ __ _I t i ,
I
@. _ _ ._ .L _ _ _ ._
.__.y 6D ,
g _. _,
r-@-+. _
._ m _ _i f
- Figure revised i
H --- - - - - -
---4 to reflect l
LER 83-01, Rev. 1 data-O i l
g _ ._ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ J l
I o o I
I
@ . _a__ ;-__
i .
I l
_ _ __ q _ _ _ __
i i l g.. . _ '
Figure 2-10 Wall Key Plan For Elevation 105-117
Trojcn Nuc10 r Plcnt Docurcnt C:ntrol Desk
- . Dockst 50-344 Attachm:nt C
, Licensa NPF-1 Pegs 12 of 25
~
Elv.
- -) -
117' k l k 2039 i
1 L _ _ _ .3 .-
195, k I k 2328 399 1
2482 k .
p ..j - _
93, r 2400 k
[
2338 2390[ k 1
2554 ,
77, t _ _ _ _1 I t k
3142 l4780 1
k -- J 2730 p3E2r --
65' g .
61' '
I k l k 2204 i 3750 i
1
W - -
45' Unfactored OBE Force increased by 3%
Capacity
)
I F:yure 2-11 Force Cacacity Co ;arison CBE = 0.159, p = 2'; l Wall @ Along Colu.tn '.ine R
6 U31LLU btows tnMLLbr%busanGOLs
,,a Do,ckat 50-344 Attcchm:nt C LicGnso NPF-1 Pcgs 13 of 25
- N'
..) . . . . _
gg7 k
814 k
h750 - - --
105' I
k '
845 l 3 - ._
93 n
i .
k
. l'60
, l1850k l
L.. 5 . .
77 l
k 2900 N
1648 pa _ .
65' i
k k 1658 i2500 l l I
45' Unfactored OBE Force increased by 3%
Capacity 1
l Figure 2-12 Force Capacity Comparison
- CBE
- 0.!!g. p = 2% i Wall @AlongColumnt.ine41 !
I
'l l
1 i
Vragen Wellcer LMant umeUJtoS GGIEETICsb j
- Dqcket 50-344 Attachasnt C Li'ccnse NPF-1 Paga 14 of 25 Elv.
--i 117' e .
. 4 k
2070 l2990.#
l
,- J -
105' k k 2410 l2400 W s
- 93' t
k 659 k 2431 l2690k l
- . . t. _ , 77' k k 1082 2338 3960 k
r- y 65' 1833 _ __j304o __ ,
k 1195 k 2112 l
,2240 k
~
i k j 1936 i .
45' Wall h .
Wall @
Unfactored OBE Force increased by 3%
Capacity Figure 2-13 Force Capacity Comparison -
OBE = 0.15g, 8 = 25 Along Column Line N
_ - _ _ - _ = - - _ _ - - - - .-
l 9rojcn Cuc8ccr Plcnt hcuscnt C::ntrol Desk
,, .Dockst 50-344 ^ " *"
Licens2 NPF-1 'E*
5 Elv.
.-3 - -
117 k 8 559 k
l1400 . .
105' i ;
k 700 l, rd - -
93' l
k 8 556 l1060 i
l . .
77' I
i k
773 ;
65' 1082' J' 2340" r- - 61, i
! 1960 N
- k I 1586 s' ,
. .J .
45' Unfactored OBE Force increased by 3%
Capacity Figure 2-14 Force Cacacity Cotearison '
08E = 0.159 8 = 2%
Wall h Alen; Column '.ine 46 l
l l
l l
l
- - , , , .,, ,- , --n-, - - - - . , - -- - -
, a Trojcn Nucloer Plcnt Docu3snt Control Desk Dock t 50-344 Attachmsnt C Licens2 NPF-1 Pego M of 25 i
l l
{
Elv. <
i
. __ __ ____ __, - 117' l k
k l6170 1112 ;
i r
8 105' i
1597 k ' 6020k
,- . . 93' l
k !
2802
!5150k i
_ , _ _; ... . ._ 77 1
I k
3358 !4400k ,
I l., . .-
61' l
k 4542 l5280 e
i I
i
. .J _ .-
45' Unfactored OBE Force increased by 37.
capacity Figure 2-15 Force Capacity Comparison 08E = 0.159, 8 = 25 Wall h Along Column Line 55 d
l l
. ,- -----.m-- . , - , .-
+------------r
L ,
4 -
48 i 1 1- I EP.
GB I i i
l :ae m - eIM st M iIM
- 5?
w 337* -
33sek
's '. 7%
g
'. 202* s ki ~*h s
- '.g\ M L \ Mek nov p - L1 W -
\ .s yd s h
s
k S 1hk
- x 21s7 s '
k
\s346
- s \*g' 895 g '.
5s \ 1022" k '39 '.
C 3' ' '# 131 98o g
\ ','
g s, ,
765 g, , s g i s
I 1659*
I '1096"
's k
. 1355 Y g.1817 33g3 22:e r83 I
n- 968 k'iw -
3293
\\ \s 1 i )%
\\ \ 's \ .,
\\ g
~
k k g i 20 \s 'y 2870k \ts 2538 1432 k c3 1813 2s 4 11831 1ho '* 2et 2050** \Mio" 3 l sg. \, ', s
's
\
- st
\ 's
\
\ 's \\
k 1660k.
__ [ ,207 g y ,,,g 2M .
K
. s._ 3,,4 __2297 32f6 t
2337"
' 3, 4152 2898 .
- N em (Oost
-- - og ctsy*
Figure 2-16 Vertical Stacar Forces (N-S Det 0.85g, a - 2Z) and -- Force (1.4 W El gg Cap.acities* Along Column Lines On Wall R oa n M ID .
O iib
- The capacitics are tused on summetton of entire sleear-frict ton componcest ok at leerizontal reinforcing steel and only thg f rictnomal composecent of bese- mn h
culesens cometectipass ,
Her. (Letter to NRC dated 2/13/80) g.
Ioads Increased by 3%
b e
8
& 0 8i" 2 T>
ME l l y
- - gree - - - -
tsse" 32.ek n - .-
i,,. _
,l'g ,
ig
\ k
\ \
\ k 237 k 3h6 l
g h12 h -
2b7 1
game 155* \5M 3%
p g __.__
\ i s s
8 -- '33*
- c ,,__ .
>17
$7$ -
589
\\
g\
k' \
\s g
39 g
\ 995k
\ k \
- - ~ - -
k Til g jr - i ask - - 1082 .
1 o -- - - I030 1 42
- 895 It \ ,\
\
\I 1
1730" k -
65'- LOO 9 415his - 12h6 1745 --
1741 Ph37
- ~ ~
1236 l k gg.
\ \.\
\r -y \
h D
- 15tak - - -
eM-~~ 220h P
, lh94 _ _ 1g3 ,_
~
28TO 2092'
~
Ftwes (est)
capacity * ,>
- n. -
FIgnare 2-17 Vertical Slecer Forces (?.-S OBE 0.153 , p - 21) Force (1.4 ml Q "
and Capacities
- Along Catessasi I.ines on Wall N 5[
~
o$
mn
- See footnote ou Figure 2-16 Ref. (letter to NRC dated 2/13/80) yo loads Increased by 3%
i l
i G G) O O -
05' i
2e 2%
i nr I.,no- .
gw I sw l 1d l2 g gy
'. I H ', is '. 7Y
\
i 6 . i
- i. i .
( i m- g i
, i. (,i% i.
t . I k l'90 ' ' '
k 631:$ k ,517,k k *,e k {['gssk k.
., _1r (i k . 350 h4 464 59('
i2d 453 391 ,3, 57 ' I
\
~
k's' ('
I ' c
\\ \ '\ .
1\
_E' ,
44k *as2.k 587 s, 783 96 seek 762 57 5
' 202 i ', n i
{\'s g i
'. =
\.'. '
1
\
9 k 61 k $, ,99 k r3 ,
1 1154 1143
. . .\
', ,i '
! \ I j .
L t. I
__ s- (752 k
's29 1020 _ _i2emak 11 8 S k i 1360 k ,t
( 1
,w 071 k
j 1053 lia28 k _-)__
165 7 nne 1904^ 1500 l
i - re.a gossi
! - - -. csonacity
- i FIgwre 2-18 Vertical St car Forces (E-W DaE 0.15g, p - 21) and Capactriese Along Colesem Lines On Wall 41 -- C* I I * * """i 7N i
SEo GW Ref. (letter to NRC' dated 2/13/80) og eSee footnote on Figure 2-16 Loads Increased by 3% *"
[0
i -
o m- b '
(n) . o T cs*
1 . .
. twe I I I l m:
i a u * ----
1 W -
I uW i
- - - - ~ ~ -
\#
N
\ n * - - ~~
i 5rW iM
%o 7.
l \ \ >t g ~"$
k \ ;
k b59 gana# ig3 k n2ck ,x .
p7g (naek liik [ h j nes* g . 59 a
134 I
'g \ 'Ns \;
N, g
\g {g *,* -90, a
47(k k k k t22Jeg 350 g 6 31 " V2m" 692 's22 d 1,9h \692 4
- w. 453" 49 .k1
\
\'f090 \
\ ;
\
\\
V ' 's ',
ano
- \.id"
\ \- \ \ \ \
k312* paid 628" T9 k' qa 73* -
's) 6 -
186 12fa0 #
x 199 1399 \g
\ s 67
- \.
\s
. \sw .
i ;
\ s,
\
x \ '. s k k
\2062"sunk - n54 1 6 k 2019k 'gend 1576 2206 ensk Ib73 nok Cl* ~ 1133 66 n2*ld 1442 ,
\\ \ \ \ \ \ ', \\
'g I 1720 ', 3 k
- 200Y
{ _ , _ E-
{,3,p 2019 } ,, ,,, p 2025 _k g es. I49 sf k
aw#
- pggj 2827 k pg3$ k 2408 2092
- ressw gone g
_ . c ,, cagy
- Figure 2-19 Vertical SIscar Forces (E-nf OBE O.15g. S = 21) - Forcett.4 oust y g g and Capacitiese Along Colume Lines On Idall 55 gg{
Ber. (Ietter to NRC dated 2/13/80) o :s $
- See footnote en Figure 2-16 y g g g n 2
a
VrojJcn RFticllocr t/)Jant LGcuusnt @cntrol Desk
',
- Dockst 50-344 Attachm3nt C
. Licenso NPF-1 Pege 21 of 25 Elv.
7--- i g,
A 2039 A '2855 q . r- I --
105'
'.700 v k k k 2328 3259 l
- I -
93
)
I h
3T49 l 5620 l
3873 h 51021 ! _, _ p, I
I k k 225
- 599)t: ;6540 I
l 61' k357 k
6100 k [ -
65' l 9 I6400" l
1 I
I i -J --- 45' reres (05E; I
~~------ C ap a ci ty
- Ter:e(1.4 03E) e I
Tigure 2-20 t#=crrtal shear Tor:ss ard capacities' Cn Wall P..
l
- I
- See fccccma in Tir=3 2-16 (35 Increase in Shear Forces)
Ref. (Letter to NPC dated 2/13/80) i
Trojen Nuc1ccr Plcnt Docu2:nt ConUol Desk
.
- Dockot 50-344
~
Attachm2nt C Lic:nso NPF-1 Pego 22 of 25 h
E:1*.
__.,______3 ,1:7 I
k 2070 . 2896 l4710 4
-] [ -
105' ,
I k
k 2Lr k 14650 337k
- I 6.. . j -
93 I .
I k '
3090 h326 .: 14670 l
q 2
_. _ 7,,
3L08 h772 l 4780 ,
k
~
k -h 65' 3028 _ k?39 -
61' k
3306, L629 j g9 h .
I k g3g h l l
31E
-J -
45' Terce (03E)
Capa city *
,- Terce (1. 4 CBE)
Figure 2-21 ft:riserttal Sheer Forens ard "W ties
- On Hall N - .
- See focMmota in Figure 2-16 (3% Inernase in Shear Forces)
Fef. (Letter to NRC dated 2/13/80)
)
lirejcn lJucHear IPBcnt - 1Gcuins MonGros Tinsh
. -Dackat 50-344 -
Attcchm:nt C ;
. Licensa NPF-1 Paga 23 of 25 '
l Fiv.
qq . .- 117 1
814
'.W - -
10s.
l 1
l 1
8 45
- a182 L ,- , - -
,3, l k
I k 1 1360 19c3 3020k ,
i I l
., L, -
n, ,
I k i 196 230T I I 3500k
\
- 65' f
[J l '.!
1656* !'2322432M I
l kJ _
43 Terce (car)
= = ~ ~ ~ = C uaci?,y*
m, . , T,c ce(l.4,03E)
T14'Te 2-22 Bor*:ct.t.11 Shas.! Tc:mte and Fars tias*
Cn Ifall 41 .
- See focrtncts in Ti.fge 2-16 l
(33 Increate in Shear Torces)
Trojcn Nuclect Plent Docu ent @cntrol Desk
- dockat 50-344 Attechmsnt C Liconse NPF-1 P&ge 24 of 25 l
\
, E3V.
p ____/- ___ _
117:
k' k 5330k 1112 l 1557 ;
--1 -
105' I i 1597* l2235* l
- u__, _
,3, l l i l 16460k 2359 l
{3302*
- L . _ p.
l .
I I 2657 l3720* l6180k 1 ,
f r--J l
- 61' !
l k k
- 2678 137 9 l5200k 8
I I i ,
I I 45' Terce (08E:
- 1
_ _ . - - capacity * - '
Fcree(1.4 CBE)
Figure 2-23 Barimental Shear Forces and r*Sitias' On Hall 55 in the Centrol P'41d4g
- See foot: nota ir. Fiqure 2-16 (35 Increase in Shear Forces) l l
Ref. (letter to NRC dated 2/13/80)
$Tri:j:n Nuc1xr Pirnt Docur nt C;ntral Desk Dbcket 50-344 Attcchm:nt C
'_ Licens] NPF-1 P .e 25 cf 25 IM
(
.n -
h 4
- IV g
i N
g I
/
/ ,
\(\
\
E ett U
/ \\\
t 5 >/
$ 8 64 * >T
/ \
/
'~
OM -
gg i i i i t i Iil I iI t IfII! I I I t i1t1 01 2 4 6 0 18 2 4 6 8 100 2 4 6 8 100 falcuinci-CPS COMPARISON OF THE ACCILERAtlON REPONti ytCTRW OF TMt $YNTMtTIC TlWE MitTORY nlTH THE TROJAN F8AR DisiCN SPICTMW POR 1% DAWPIN",
Figure 3.7-7
{'
in sn -
.ix -
a h i t4M' 1,A ,Np'
$ \
z 0'[)j
/t
'" \
- v < ,
58u - 7/' \', , ,
j
\
$n -
f 1
gg t 1 1 1 iifff 1 i f f I t 111 I i 1 i i t ii St I e 4 l 18 3 4 6 8 ill I 4 6 l 180 f etwvit:5.tP1 i ConseARiso% of TMl ACCILIRAf TON RtyQN$l $PtCTRW Of TMl $YNTMittC TRdl Milf 0RY wifM TMt TROJAN P&&R 01513% IPICTRW FOR M D AW*iNO.
Tigure 3.7-8 l