ML20216D306
| ML20216D306 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 09/04/1997 |
| From: | SOUTHERN NUCLEAR OPERATING CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20216D301 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9709090282 | |
| Download: ML20216D306 (364) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:. , . .-. - . . . 4 - 0 a 8 i Modification Report
- for Increased Spent Fuel Pool Storage Capacity O
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Unit 1 Docket No. 50-424 I I hs l G 9709090282 970904 PDR ADOCK 05000424 P PDR
TAllLE OF CONTENTS iv) 1.0 i NTR O D UC TI O N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.0 111G1i DEN SITY S PENT FU E L RAC KS...... ........................... ..................... . .. 2. I 2.1 G en eral D e sc ri p t io n . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-. .1. . . . . . . . . . 2.2 D e s i g n C ri t e ri a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 2 2.3 A pplicable Codes and Standards . . ... ...................... ............................. .. 2-2 2.4 Q uality Ass urance Program . .. . . ... .. ... . ... . . . .. .... . . ... ... . .... . . . . . . . . .. . . .. .. ... .. ... . .. 2 6 2.5 M e c h an i cal D e si g n . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 6 2.0 Rac k Fa b ri c at i on . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 3.0 MATERIAL AND HEAVY LOAD CONSIDERATIONS........... .................. .... 3-1 3.1 I n t ro d u c t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Rack Struc t ural M aterials ..... .... . .. .. . . . ... . ....... .. .. .. .... .. .. .. . . .. . . . . . . .. .. . . . .. .. . 3-1 3.3 Poison Material (Neutron Absorber) .................. .................... ................ 3-1 3.4 Compatibility with Coolant ......... .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2 3.5 11eavy Load Considerations for the Proposed Reracking Operation ......... 3-3 3.6 References... ................................................................................. 3-5 4 . i
/
v 4.0 CRITICALITY SAFETY ANALYSES......(this section will be submitted at a later date) 5.0 TH ERM AL-H YDRAULIC CONSIDERATIONS............... ................. .............. 5-1 5.1 I n t rod u c t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 Spent Fuel Cooling and Purification System Description ...... ........ . ...... 51 5.3 Discharge / Cooling Alignment Scenario ... . ...... .. ...... ......... .... ............ 5-2 5.4 Decay H ea t Load L i m i t s . .. . . . . . .. . . . .. . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5-2 5.5 Time-to-Boil................................................................................. 54 5.6 Local Pool Water Temperatures................. ...... ................. .................. .... 5-5 5.6.1 Local Temperature Evaluation Methodology.............. ...... . ........ 5-6 5.7 Fuel Rod Cladding Temperature....... .... . ................... ........ ..... ............ 54 5.8 Results............................................................................................... 5-9 5.8.1 Decay Heat Load Limits. . .. .. . ... ... ..... . . . . . . ....... ....... ...... . . . . . . .. .. 5-9 5.8.2 Ti m e-t o- B o i l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-10 5.8.3 Local Water and Fuel Cladding Temperature.... . .. . .. .. .. ...... , 5-10 5.9 R e fe re n c e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-11 fm\/ ( v I
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) h 6.0 STRUCTURAL /SElShilC CONSIDERATlONS... ... .. ........ . . ... . . ............. 61 6.1 I n t ro d u c t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 Acceptance Criteria... .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1 6.3 Loads and Load Combinations..... . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.I 6.4 Struct ural E valuation of Racks..... . . .. ..... .... .. ... ...... ..... ..................... 6-2 6.4.1 Overview....... ... .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-2 6.4.2 1 n p ut Loa d i n g s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-5 6.4.3 Acceptance Criteria for Spent Fuel Rack Design... ............... . .... 6-5 6.4.3.1 Kinematic and Stress Criteria . ........... . . .. ........... .... 6-5 6.4.3.2 Dimensionless Stress Factors .. ............. ...... .. . ....... .... 6-8 6.4.4 Loads and Loading Combinations for Spent Fuel Racks.... .... .... 6-9 6.5 Se:smic Evaluation o f Racks......... .... . ............... .. .. .. .. ....... . . . . . . . . . . . 6-10 6.5.1 Synthetic Time-1listories.... .......... .................................... 6-10 6.5.2 hiodelling for Dynamic Simulation... . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-11 6.5.3 The 3-D 22-DOF hiodel for Single Rack hiodule Analysis of hiaximum Density Racks.... .. .. .......... ........ .... . .. ....... .......... 6-12 7 6.5.3.1 Assumptions .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-12 6.5.3.2 hiodel Details for Spent Fuel Racks . .... ........... ..... .. .. 6 13 6.5.4 Fluid Coupling Effect.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 6-13 6.5.5 Stiffness Element Details...... ..... ...... . ..... .... ..... ........... .... .... . 6-14 6.5.6 Whole Pool hiulti Rack (WPh1R) hiodel... .. .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-15 6.5.6.I G e n er al Re m arks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-15 6.5.6.2 hiulti-Body Fluid Coupling Phenomena . ...... . .............. 6 15 6.5.6.3 Coe flicients o f Friction . ...... . ..... ...... ..... . .... ......... 6-16 6.5.6.4 hiodeling Details .... ...... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-16 5.5.7 Governing Equations of hiotion... ..... ............ ....... . ........... .. 6- 17 6.5.8 Structural Evaluation of Racks........ . ... ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-18 6.5.9 Fatigue Analysis . ... .. . .. .. ..... . . ... ... . . . .. . . . . . .. . . .. .. . . . . . . .. . . .. 6-21 6.5.10 Local Buckling of Fuel Cell Walls.... ... .. . ... . .... ... ..... ......... . . 6-22 6.6 Re ferences... .... ... . ... .. . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-24 7.0 ACCIDENT ANALYSIS AND hilSCEL.LANEOUS STRUCTU RA L EVALU ATlON S........ ... . .............. ..... .... .. ......... . ....... .. 7- 1 7.1 1ntroduction....... ..................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1 7.2 Refueling Accidents.. . ...
......................................... 7-1 7.2.1 Dropped Fuel Assembly - Deep Drop Scenario................... ..... 7-1 7.2.2 Dropped Fuel Assembly - Shallow Drop Scenario.... . .. . .... .... 7-2 7.2.3 Conclusion.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. . . . . . . . 7-2 O
s"% . __ o
TABLE OF CONTENTS (conti2urd) 7.3 Ex t e rn al Fo rc e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4 Re fe re n c es . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . z - 8.0 FUEL POOL STRUCTURE INTEGRITY CONSIDERATIONS........................ 8-1 8.1 i n t rod u c t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . 8.2 Cod es and S t andards . .. . ... .. . . ... .. .. . . . . .. .. . . .. . .. . . ... . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . ... . 8-1 .. . . . .. . . . .. .. . .. . .. . . . 8.3 Loads......................................................................................................... 82 8,4 Spent Fuel Pool Structural Finite Element Analysis ................................. 3 8.5 Pool Liner Integrity Analysis................... ......................................... 8-4 8.6 Bearing Pad Analysis.................................. ....................................... 85 8,7 References.................................................................................................. 8-6 9.0 RA DI O LOGI CAL EVA LU AT10N.. .... .......... .............. ............. . .......................... . 9-1 l 9.1 S o l i d Rad wast e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2 G a se o us R e l e as e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.3 Personnel Expo su res.. . ....... . . . .. .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. ... . . .. . .. . . . 9-1 9.4 Anticipated Exposure During Reracking.................................................... 9-2 9.5 Disposal Of Existing Unit 1 Racks............................................................. 9-3 9.6 NRC Concerns From Other Facilities.......................................................... 9-3 9.6.1 Use o f Remote Too ls.. . .. . . . . . . .. ... . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . .... ... . . .. .. . . . . . . . .. . . 9-3 9.6.2 Spalling From Spent Fuel Assemblies........................................... 93 9.7 References.................................................................................................. 9-4 10.0 ENVIRONMENTAL COST / BENEFIT ASSESSMENT...................................... 10-1 10,1 I nt rod u c t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . 10-1 ........................... 10.2 Imperative For increasing Spent Fuel Storage............................................ 10-1 10.3 Proj ec t Cost Estimate. . . . . . .. . . .. .. .. . . . . ... . .. . . . . . ... . . .. .. .. .. . .. . . . .. . ...... .......... ..... ...... .. 10-1 10.4 - ; Appraisal Of Alternative Options............................................................... 10- 1 10.5 Re so urce Commi tm ent. . . . . . . .. .. . . ... .. . . .. ... ... . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . ... . . .. .. . . . . .. .. . . . . . .. . . .. . 10-2 10.6 Environmental Considerations........ ........................................................... 10-2 10.7 References................................................................................................... 10-3 11.0- IN S TA L L ATI O N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.1 I n trod u c ti o n. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.2 Removal And Decontamination Of Existing Racks............................ . ..... I l-1 11.3- S torage O f Existin g Rac ks. ... .. . . .. . . .. .. . .. . . .. . .. . ..... .. . . . .. . .. ... . . . . . . . ... . . . .. . . . . . . . ... .. . Il-1 g __1 1,4 11.5 I nstal lation O f New Racks. . . . .. . .. . . . . .. ... . . . .. ..... . . . ... .. ... . .. .. . . ... .... . . ... .... . . . . . . . .. I1-1 Project Quality And Alara Controls........ ................................................... Il-2
.11.6 - References................................................................................................ Il-3 111
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Vogtle Electric Generation Plant Unit 1, operated by Southern Nuclear Operating Company Inc. (SNC) is a PWR reactor located in Burke County, Georgia. in order to increase the storage capacity of the spent fuel pool, Southern Nuclear Operating Company has procured the high density racks originally licensed and installed for use at the Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company. These particular racks have been recently removed from the Maine Yankee spent fuel 3 pool as part of that plant's fuel storage expansion project. Presently, the Unit I spent fuel pool contains two Boraflex equipped spent fuel racks. Under the proposed capacity expansion, the 2 existing racks are to be removed and replaced by the 26 flux trap high density modules containing the Boral neutron absorber resulting in a cumulative i-storage capacity of 1,476 storage cells. With the exception of the number of speat fuel racks, the
- ' Unit 1 Spent Fuel Pool is the same as the Unit 2 Spent Fuel Pool which contains storage location for 2098 spent fuel assemblies.
The flux trap racks to be installed into the Vogtle I spent fuel pool are free standing and self-supporting. The principal construction materials for these flux trap racks are 300 series stainless steel sheet and plate except for the threaded support legs which are A564-630 precipitation hardened steel. In addition, each individual cell is welded to a stainless steel welded support grid structure comprised of plate which makes up the rack base. The only non stainless material O utilized in the rack is the neutron absorber material which is a boron carbide and aluminum-d composite sandwich available under the patented product name Boral. The analysis required to establish the safety and integrity of the reracked Vogtle unit one pool have been carried out by Holtec Intemational, Westinghouse Electric Corp., and Southern Services. This Licensing Report documents the design and analyses performed to demonstrate that the racks to be installed into the Vogtle I spent fuel pool meet all governing requirements of the applicable codes and standards, in particular, "OT Position for Review and Acceptance of Spent Fuel Storage and Handling Applications", USNRC (1978) and 1979 Addendum thereto. The analysis methodologies employed in the Vogtle I storage capacity expansion are a direct evolution of over.,50 previous rerack license basis analysis executed by lloltec International. I Sections 2 and 3 of the Licensing Report provide an abstract of the design and material information on the new racks. In Section 2, the design basis and applicable design codes are listed and a detailed description of the rack modules is provided. Section 3 provides a detailed description of the materials used in the rack module fabrication in order to show the acceptability of the materials both from a durability and pool compatibility standpoint. Section 3 also discusses heavy load considerations during rerack operations. The criteria set forth in Section 3 provide assurance that handling operations will be performed in a safe and controlled manner. Section 4 will provide the criticality safety evaluation which requires that the neutron multiplication factor for the stored fuel array be bounded by the USNRC ker limit of 0.95 under 1-1
. 3 assumptions of 95% probability and 95% confidence. The criticality safety analysis will take (O credit for the Boral in the fuel storage racks. The criticality analysis'will be performed in accordance with WCAP 14415-NP-A. The analysis will show that the fuel racks and proposed rack layout meet the criticality requirements. The thermal hydraulic safety evaluation is provided in Section 5. Thermal hydraulic consideration requires that fuel cladding will not fail due to excessive thermal stress, and that the steady state pool bulk temperature will remain within the limits prescribed for the spent fuel pool to satisfy the pool structural strength, operational, and regulatory requirements. The thermal-hydraulic analyses discussed in Section 5 shows that the fuel racks and proposed rack layout will meet the required thermal hydraulic considerations. i
- Demonstrations of seismic and structural adequacy of the rack modules are presented in Section 6.0. This section describes the application of the proven methodology for whole pool multi rack I
(WPMR) dynamic analysis. Seismic and structural acceptability of the fuel racks requires that i the primary stresses in the rack module structure will remain below the ASME B&PV Code ( Section 111, Subsection NF) allowables. The results discussed in Section 6 show that the rack i module primary stresses will remain below ASME Section 111, Subsection NF allowables under all postulated service conditions. The consequences of postulated accidents as defined in the Vogtle Updated Final Safety Analysis A Report (UFSAR) are provided in Section 7. The structural qualification of the rack modules must show that the subcriticality of the stored fuel will be maintained under all postulated L accident scenarios. The results summarized in Section 7 show that the racks are structurally j qualified to withstand the postulated accidents defined in the Vogtle UFSAR. Section 8 contains the structural analysis to demonstrate the adequacy of the spent fuel pool structure. Included in this section is a synopsis of the geometry of the Vogtle I reinforced concrete structure, a description of the loads applied to the structure, a summary of the analysis methods, acceptance criteria, and results. The radiological considerations are documented in Section 9.0. Sections 10 is a summary of the 4 environmental cost / benefit assessment demonstrating reracking as the most cost effective approach to increase the onsite storage capacity on the Unit I spent fuel pool. A general summary of the rack removal and installation is described in Section 11. The analyses presented herein clearly demonstrate that the rack module arrays possess wide margins of safety in respect to all governing considerations specified in the OT Position Paper, namely, nuclear suberiticality, thermal-hydraulic safety, seismic and structural adequacy, i radiological compliance, and mechanical integrity. These analysis underlie the basis for an
. affinnative conclusion with respect to a no significant hazards assessment and the operating ; license amendment request to the Commission pursuant to 10CFR50.92.
O l2
() v 2.0 HIGH DENc.!TY SPENT FUEI RACKS 2.1 General Description Under the proposed reracking effort, the Vogtle I spent fuel pool, pictorially illustrated in Figure 2.1.1, will be reracked with a total of 1,476 storage cells. The storage capacity expansion of the Vogtle I spent fuel pool will feature spent fuel racks of the flux trap genre. In the proposed enhanced storage scheme, these flux trap modules will be utilized to store fuel up to 5 weight percent Um. Tables 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 provide the essential geometric and physical data on the proposed flux trap Vogtle 1 spent fuel rack modules for flux trap racks. l All flux trap rack modules for Vogtle I will be of the " free standing" type which implies that the modules do not attach to the pool floor nor do they require any lateral brace or restraints. These rack modules will be placed in the pool in their designated locations. Each flux trap rack module will be supported by four legs which are remotely adjustable using a removable handling tool. Thus, the racks can be made vertical and the top of tha racks can easily be made co-planar with each other. The rack module support legs will be capable of accommodating undulations in the fuel pool l flatners. The placement of the racks in the Vogtle 1 pool is designed to minimize the number of l support legs located over the liner weld seams, Icak chases, and existing obstructions on the pool floor. Each rack support foot rests upon a bearing pad that rests upon the pool liner and serves to O v diffuse the dead load of the loaded racks into the reinforced concrete structure of the pool slab. 2.2 Design Criteria The key design criteria for flux trap spent fuel racks are set forth in USNRC memorandum entitled "OT Position for Review and Acceptance of Spent Fuel Storage and Handling Applications", April 14,1978 as modified by amendment dated January 18,1979. The individual sections of this report expound on the specific design criteria derived from the above mentioned "OT Position Paper". Nevertheless, a brief summary of the design bases for the Vogtle 1 racks are summarized in the following:
- a. Disnosition: All flux trap rack modules are free standing with no attachment to the spent fuel pool floor or walls,
- b. Kinematic Stability: All free-standing modules must be kinematically stable (against tipping or overturning) if a seismic event which is 150% of the postulated SSE is imposed on any module,
- c. Structural Comnliance: All primary stresses in the rack modules must satisfy the limits postulated in Section 111 subsection NF of the 1995 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code.
A t \
\_) d. Thermal-Hydraulic comnliance: The spatial average bulk pool temperature is required to remain within the current NRC approved limits.
2-1 a
(e- -
- e. Criticality Comnliance: The flux trap storage cells must be able to store fuel of the 17x17 Westinghouse design with maximum enrichment of 5,0 percent without limi:ation while maintaining the reactivity < 0.95,
- f. Radiological Comnliance: The reracking of Vogtle 1 must not lead to violation of the off site dose limits, or adversely affect the area dose environment as set forth in the Vogtle UFSAR. The removal of the existing racks and installation of the new racks must be conducted in such a manner as to minimize radioactive exposure.
- g. Pool Structure: The ability of the reinforced concrete structure to satisfy the load combinations set forth in NUREG-0800, SRP 3.8.4 must be demonstrated.
- h. Rack Stress Fatigue: In addition to satisfying the primary stress criteria of Subsection NF, the altemating local stresses in the rack structure during a seismic event are also required to be sufficiently bounded such that the " cumulative damage factor" due to one SSE and five OBE events does not exceed 1.0.
- i. Liner Integrity: The integrity of the liner under cyclic in-plane loading during a seismic event must be demonstrated.
- j. Bearing Pads: The bearing pads must be sufficiently thick such that the pressure on
[l the liner contin.ies to satisfy the ACI limits during and after a design basis seismic d event.
- k. Accident Events: In the event of postulated drop events (uncontrolled lowering of a fuel assembly, for instance), it is necessary to demonstrate that the subcdticality of the rack structure is not compromised.
1, Construction Events: The field construction services required to be carried out for executing the reracking must be demonstrated to be within the " state of proven art". The foregoing design bases are further articulated in Sections 4 through 9 of this licensing report. 2.3 Aonlicable Codes and Standards The following codes, standards and practices were used as reference documents in the analysis of the "Boral" racks for use in the Vogtle 1 spent fuel pool. Additional specific references related to detailed analyses are provided in each section, as applicable.
- a. Design Codes
(~) (1) AISC Manual of Steel Construction,1980 Edition and later, w) i 2-2 t
i _(2) ANSI N2101976, " Design Requirements for Light Water Reae Spent Fuel Storage Facilities at Nuclear Power Stations" (contains guidelines for fuel rack design). , (3)- American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section III,1995 Edition. (4) ' ASNT-TC-1 A- June,1975 American Society for Nondestructive Testing (Recommended Practice for Personnel Qualifications). (5) American Concrete Institute Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete (ACl318-63) and (ACl318-71). (6) Code Requirements for Nuclear Safety Related Concrete Structures, ACl349- ! 85/ACl349-85, and ACl349.lR-80. l (7) ASME NQA-1, Quality Assurance Program Requirements for Nuclear Facilities. (8) ASME NQA-2-1989, Quality Assurance Requirements for Nuclear Facility-Applications,
- b. Material Codes - Standards of ASTM
-(1) A240 - Standard Specification for Heat Resisting Chromium and Chromium-Nickel Stainless Steel Plate, Sheet.and Strip for Fusion-Welded Unfired Pressure Vessels.
'(2) A666 - Specification for Austenitic Stainless Steel Sheet, Strip, Plate and Flat
' Bar for Structural Applications.
(3) A276 - Standard Specification for Stainless and Heat-Resisting Steel-Bars and Shapes. (4) A312 - Specification for Seamless and welded Stainless Steel Pipe.
-(5) A564- Standard Specification- for Hot-Rolled and Cold-Finished Age-Hardening Stainless and Heat-Resisting Steel Bars and Shapes.
(6) - C750 - Standard Specification for Nuclear-Grade Boron Carbide Powder,
.. Fabrication Codes .
(1) - ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section IX - Welding and Brazing Qualifications,1980 Edition. 2-3
(2) ANSI - N45.2.11, Quality Assurance Requirements for the Design of Nuclear Power Plants,
- d. Ctnyernine NRC Desien Docun$ents (1) NUREG 0800, Section 15.7.4, Radiological Consequences of Fuel Handling Accidents.
(2) "OT Position for Review and Acceptance of Spent Fuel Storage and Handling Applications," dated April 14,1978, and the modifications to this document ofJanuary 18,1979. (3) NUREG 0612. " Control of Heavy Loads at Nuclear Power Plants", USNRC, Washington, D.C., July,1980.
- e. Other ANSI Standards (not listed in the precedine_) _
(1) ANSI /ANS 8.1 (N16.1) - Nuclear Criticality Safety in Operations with Fissionable Materials Outside Reactors. (2) ANSI /ANS 8.17, Criticality Safety Criteria for the Handling, Storage, and [v Transportation of LWR Fuel Outside Reactors. (3) N14.6 - American National Standard for Special Lifting Devices for Shipping Containers Weighing 10,000 pounds (4500 kg) or more for Nuclear Materials, f, Code-of-Federal Reculations (1) 10CFR20 - Standards for Protection Against Radiation. (2) 10CFR21 - Reporting of Defects and Non-compliance. (3) 10CFR50 Appendix A - General Design Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants. (4) 10CFR50 Appendix B - Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants and Fuel Reprocessing Plants,
- g. Regulatory Guides (1) RG 1.13 - Spent Fuel Storage Facility Design Basis (Revision 2 Proposed).
f)
'v (2) RG 1.25 - Assumptions Used for Evaluating the Potential Radiological Consequences of a Fuel Handling Accident in the Fr i Handling and Storage Facility of Boiling and Pressurized Water Reactors.
2-4
~
x -
-(3) RG 1.29 - Seismic Design Classification.
(4) _ RG 1.61_- Damping Values for Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants, , Rev.O,1973, (5) RG 1.92 - Combining Modal Responses and Spatial Components in Seismic Response Analysis.
- (6) RG 1.122 - Development of Floor Design Response Spectra for Seismic Design of Floor Supported Equipment or Components, (7)- RG 1,124 - Service Limits and Loading Combinations for Class 1 Linear-L Type Component Supports, Revision 1,1978, (8) Reg. Guide 8.8_ - Information Relative to Ensuring that Occupational Radiation Exposure at Nuclear Power Plants will be as Low as Reasonably Achievable (ALARA).
(9) IE Information Notice 83 Fuel Binding Caused. by Fuel Rack
' Deformation.
(10) Reg. Guide 8.38 - Control of Access to High and Very High Radiation Areas in Nuclear Power Plants, June,1993, h, Branch Technical Position (1) ASB.9 Residual Decay Energy for Light-Water Reactors for Long Term
- Cooling -
- i. ~ Standard Review Plan (1) SRP 3.2.1 ; Seismic Classification.
(2) SRP 3.2.2 - System Quality Group Classification. (3)- SRP 3.7.1 - Seismic Design Parameters. (4) SRP 3.7.2 - Seismic System Analysis. (5)- SRP 3.7.3 - Seismic Subsystem Analysis. (6)~ SRP 3.8.4 - Other Seismic Category I Structures (including Appendix D), Technical Position on Spent Fuel Rack. (7): SRP 3.8.5 - Foundations for Seismic Category 1 Structures, Revision 1,1981. 2-5
)
(8) SRP 9.1.2 - Spent Fuel Storage, Revision 3,1981. (9) SRP 9.1.3 - Spent Fuel Pool Cooling and Cleanup System. (10) SRP 9.1 A Light Load Handling System. (11) SRP 9.1.5 - Heavy Load Handling System. (12) SRP 15.7.4 - Radiological Consequences of Fuel Handling Accidents. J. AWS Standards (1) AWS Dl.1 Structural Welding Code, Steel. 2.4 Ouality Assurance Program The governing quality assurance requirements for analysis of the spent fuel racks are enunciated in 10CFR50 Appendix B. The quality assurance program for the seismic, thermal hydraulic, and accident analyses, is described in Holtec's Nuclear Quality Assurance Manual. The criticality safety analysis was performed by Westinghouse Electric Corp. under their Quality Assurance Program. These programs have been r: viewed and approved by Southern Nuclear Operating Company. The f' remaining analysis has been performed under Southern Nuclear Operating Company's Quality Assurance program which meets 10CFR50 Appendix B. 2.5 Mechanical Design The Vogtle 1 rack modules are designed as cellular structures such that each fuel assembly has a prismatic square opening with conformal lateral support and a flat horizontal bearing surface. The basic characteristics of the Vogtle I spent fuel racks are summarized in Tables 2.1.1 and 2.1.2. The next subsection presents an item-by item description of the anatomy of the Vogtle I rack modules. 2.6 Rack Fabrication Flux trap storage cell locations have a single poison panel between adjacent box wall surfaces. The significant components of the racks are: (1) the poison canister, (2) the base support grid structure, (3) the neutron absorber material. (4) the protective sheathing (outer square weldment), and (5) the i support legs.
- 1. Poison Canister: The poison canisters are die formed and welded together at the top to form the top grid of the rack. These canisters also provide lead-in surfaces for the O
V fuel. The poison canisters are also welded to the bottom grid (base support grid structure). 2-6
g ( 4 The poison canister consists of two concentric stainless steel tubes with Boral in the annulus. The shorter and thinner outside tube is welded to the longer and thicker inside tube at the top and bottom. Each poison canister has two flow holes punc.hed near its bottom eoge. Additionally,
%" diameter holes are punched out on the inside or outside tube near the top and bottom of the Boral region in order to allow the annulus to be flooded (for increased flux trap) and to allow venting.
Figure 2.6.1 shows an elevation view of an array of poison canisters which form a assemblage of rack storage cell locations. Figure 2.6.2 provides a cross sectional , view of the poison canister.
- 2. Base Suoport: The base support structure is comprised of individual 1/2" thick stainless steel plates that are welded to each other using fillet welds to make up a grid section as shown in Figure 2.6.3. Within each opening, two plates are welded to eac' other and to the main grid structure in order to form a support cross that is used to support the fuel. The base support structure is attached to the cell assemblage by fillet welds.
- 3. The neutron absorber material: Boral is used as the neutron absorber material. A
! Detailed description of Boral is piavided in subsection 3.3. l w g I
- 4. Sheathing: The sheathing (external box), serves as the !scator and retainer of the poison material.
- 5. Suonort legs: All support legs are the adjustable type (Figure 2.6.4). Each support leg is equipped with a readily accessible socket to enable remote leveling of the rack after its placement in the pool. The foot design is such that a casting is welded to the base support structure, and then the foot is threaded into the casting. Each foot is of a " ball and socket" design, such that incongruities in the fuel pool liner floor levelness can be overcome to allow full bearing of the support leg on its designated resting location.
'd 2-7
o Table 21.I a GEOMETRIC AND PIIYSICAL DATA FOR FLUX TRAP MODULES Rack Number of Number of Dimension (inches) . Num S.PP'"E Submerged Weight I.D. Cells ;rof Cells Per Module (Ibs) (Ibs) N-S E-W N-S Direction E-W Direction [Z 6 6 1 36 62 62 12.700 11.050 6 1 36 62 62 12,700 6 W 7 8 1 56 72.25 82 17.550 15.270 A 7 8 1 56 72.25 82 17.550 15.270 J 7 8 1 .i6 72.25 82 17,550 15.270 R 6 8 1 48 82 62 16,900 14,700 X 6 8 1 48 82 62 16,900 14,700 K 6 8 1 48 82 62 16,900 14,700 C 6 8 1 48 82 62 16,900 14,700 P 7 8 1 56 72.25 82 17.550 15.270 L 7 8 1 56 72.25 82 17,550 15,270 S 7 8 1 56 72.25 82 17.550 15,270 B 6 9 1 54 92.25 62 17,100 14,880 U 7 9 I 63 92.25 72.25 19,750 17,200 2-8 l -
O Table 2Il l GEOh1ETRIC AND PilYSICAL DATA FOR FLUX TRAP hf0DULES Rack Number of Number of Dimension (inches) . Number of Sh.ippmg I.D. Cells Cells Per Submerged Weight Afodules Weight gg Af W u'e (Ibs) N-S E-W N-S Direction E-W Direction E 6 9 1 54 92.25 62 17,100 14.880 T 6 9 I 54 92.25 62 17,100 14.880 1 8 9 1 72 92.25 82 22.400 19,500 II 8 9 1 72 92.25 82 22,400 19.500 V 8 9 1 72 92.25 82 22,400 19.500 F 6 8 1 48 62 82 16,900 14,700 Y 7 9 1 63 92.25 72.25 19,750 17,200 G 6 9 1 54 92.25 62 17,100 14,880 D 6 9 1 54 92.25 62 17,100 14,880 N 8 9 1 72 92.25 82 22,400 19,500 0 8 9 ! 72 92.25 82 22,400 19.500 h1 8 9 i 72 92.25 82 25,075 21,850 2-9
Tcble 2.1.2 MODULE DATA FOR VOGTLE 1 SPENT FUEL RACKS Storage cell insidgdimension (nominal) 8.75" Storage cell height (above the baseplate) 167.625" Support Structure Orid Cell Opening 9.75" Support Stnteture Grid Plate Height 4" Support leg height 5.125" (nom.) Support leg type Remotely adjustable legs , Number of support pedestals Four l Remote lifting and handling provisions Yes Poison material Boral Poison length 140" Poison width 8" Cell nominal pitch 10.25" V g) 2-10
- . - , . . . - - . - - . , , , , - - - - . , . - - - , -----.------.r--------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , - - - - - - - - f% ( ~ m ns D pssss 9faaaan gsaaaannssy N
'l asesc9
' av -
n g- u a g"' a v C$u , - i C C O 14 git gH X ii H g i k m le 48, u u o t1 it bn ba M 9 ti u 03 s g a t d " 'd d
' t d" 't$ "
E & G ,, iA G f,
, ,, & %;i A ,, ' ' d
,, e ,, = ,. m- ,, m .. =
=
1 il II i, s ,. n ., e i, e i. Lt g Il g g , - a Hg g g '9 84 g 43 g 4 b N n es d H tt nb d b h U con Cu. m O u a c x: u q c :. :i, n x - : x : "
'bg, ' ,::_ n o" sn = ,,
e ,, f a ea "e s u d" e ", = m 64 It N QnM Ls g . in M 4 m im Mit Q O H >= a x x ,, is is p -g-9 it is xo x . x li 8 is a ti it d H I d u Id 9 h d it I' h g H w E c"i a g a6 4 m M4 3 " i= m d 11 il H u. n 16 . d w
,, X,it, M 48 M ll *(_ la N p il
-o ,,
.. m ,
g O tt y p9 O H sp q C p qu @. g 11 u o i m h c,3 11 H @ It to 11 n il n H n g II n
.{ M it H M tl x 11
~~~
It u it d en I b n is u b g g n ;r 1 i R o 11 n D w o it e u xn u 2 m & Ru . es a ii
=
u is H u x it X 8 b h n d C 15
-p H rd n T n a d C 'd tf n it u fd o "
u n gl in si D 11 f t l' It # g II di gi u il 11 ti it , ,D, h g bsss a m [ht. s +a a w w s 't. v it et 2 errrskss % *L ? N l ;~ m ~ i m'a s % >
~i e
,V ). -
b r h { gl N e
f - ( i f
.; 4-n( i i
{} i i f i' ' o - O t 1 i I f g e i I I ! I j I i l i g i I I d :
- e9 ~
I i 1 a i 4 I i i e
! 'I k i
d I/ \[
- tt i
j j h,{i$ k I{iId M g -,u,
' FIGURE 2.6.1; ELEVATION TIEW 0F POISON ASSEMilLY (n\
x_/
)
m
i i 1 i i [e ')
~.J i
l ANotLUS WITH BOPAL m N pf . c s Q g h 4 i l- :
, s LOCAllDN OF WELD '
; SEAM INNER TLf3E , ,
, ~
- i s 7 -
LOCAi![N OF lb ]) l WELO SEAM OF DU1ER TUBE
~
- e g % N N s % N s - i , ,
h h g % s - ; , N %
~ ~
; i s s -
% N g s 6, g
=
.i i
I l t c PIGl'RE 2.6.2: CROSS SECTIONAL VIEW 0F POISON ASSEMBLY . i ' ! /
\
m i l l l l
o .
., s e c 3
;[
.{
L
+
/ N, l
+ X, X X X +
o X X X X XX . X X XX ;X X X X X1' X X X XX X X X
+:X X X X +
FIGURE 2.6.3:= RACK BOTTOM YlEW
.( .
-l
~
/~T-();. '
/'N 6
I i g 4 l , i , l i .
- l. ,
{ l g i i I g i V O t i , I
\
i s i i
;- AhN
. \'N l
u L111 J - q / /h '
/E/// j i FIGURE 2.6.4; SUPPORT LEC 'N N
3.0 MATERIAL AND HEAVY LOAD CONSIDERATIONS 3.1 Introduction Safe storage of nuclear fuel in Vogtle 1 requires that the materials utilized in the rack fabrication be of proven durability and be compatible with the pool water environment. All activities in the rerack installation process are required to comply with the provisions of NUREG-0612 to climinate the potential ofinstallation accidents. Thb section provides the necessary information on these two subjects. 3.2 Rack Stmetural Materials All material used in the construction of the rack modules is series 300 stainless steel except for the pedestal support legs which are precipitation hardened A564-630 and the poison material I which is discussed below. 3.3 Egison Material (Neutron Absorber) in addition to the structural and non-structural stainless steel material, the racks employ Boral", a patented product of AAR Manufacturing, as the neutron absorber material. A brief description of Boral follows. I Boral is a thermal neutron poison material composed of boron carbide and i100 alloy aluminum. Boron carbide is a compound having a high boron content in a physically stable and chemically inert form. The 1100 alloy alumimun is a lightweight metal with high tensile strength which is protected from corrosion by a highly resistant oxide film. The two materials, boron carbide and aluminum, are chemically compatible and ideally suited for long-term use in the radiation, i thermal and chemical environment of a nuclear reactor or a spent fuel pool. Boral has been exclusively used in fuel rack applications in recent years. Its use in the spent fuel pools as the neutron absorbing material can be attributed to its proven performance (over 150 pool years of experience) and the fellowing unique characteristics:
- i. The content and placement of boron carbide provides a very high removal cross-section for thermal neutrons, ii. Boron carbide, in the form of fine particles, is homogeneously dispersed throughout the central layer of the Boral panels.
iii. The boron carbide and aluminum materials in Boral do not degrade as a result oflong-term exposure to radiation. n 3-1
(m)
iv. The neutron absorbing central layer of Boral is clad with permanently bonded surfaces of aluminum.
- v. . Boral is stable, strong, durable, and corrosion resistant.
As indicated in Table 3.3.1, Boral ::as been licensed by the USNRC for use in numerous BWR < and PWR spent fuel storage racks and has been extensively used in intemational nuclear installations. Boral Material Characteristics Aluminum: Aluminum is a silvery white, ductile metallic element. The 1100 alloy aluminum is used extensively in heat exchangers, pressure and storage tanks, chemical equipment, reflectors and sheet metal work, it has high resistance to corrosion in industrial and marine atmospheres. Aluminum has atomic
. number of 13, atomic weight of 26.98, specific gravity of 2.69 and valence of 3. The physical, mechanical and chemical properties of the 1100 alloy aluminum are listed in Tables 3.3.2 and
, 3.3.3. l l The excellent corrosion resistance of the 1100 alloy aluminum is provided by the protective n oxide film that develops on its surface from exposure to the atmosphere or water. This film i prevents the loss of metal from general corrosion or pitting corrosion. Boron Carbide: The boron carbide contained in Boral is a fine granulated powder that conforms to ASTM C-750-74 nuclear grade Type 11. Typical properties of boron carbide are provided in Table 3.3.4. The rack modules to be installed in the Vogtle 1 pool come from the Maine Yankee fuel pool. Thus, the Boral has already been passivated in a water environment during the time period the racks were in the Maine Yankee fuel pool. The protective layer of oxide film on the Boral panels assures that the integrity of the Boral will be maintained during the life expectancy of the Vogtle fuel racks. 3.4 Comnatibility with Coolant All materials used in the construction of these flux trap racks have an established history ofin-pool usage. Their physical, chemical and radiological compatibility with the pool environment is an established fact at this time. As noted in Table 3.3.1, Boral has been successfully used in both vented and unvented configurations in fuel pools. Austenitic stainless steel is perhaps the most widely used stainless alloy in nuclear power plants.
>(3 V
3-2
( 3.5 Heavy Load Considerations for the Pronosed Reracking Oneration The Fuel Handling Building Bridge crane is. currently rated for 125 tons, and contains a 15 ton auxiliary hook. The maximum weight for the racks to be installed is 25,075 lbs and that for the i existing two racks is 33,000 lbs. This crane will be utilized to transfer racks to and from the Fuel Building. As a result, this overhead crane is qualified to accept the anticipated load during the rerack project. Within the Fuel Building itself, there presently is no overhead crane to handle the rack movements. In order to handle the new rack installations and the removal of the existing racks, a i temporary gantry crane rated for 20 tons will be erected on the existing fuel bridge rails. l l kemotely engaged lift rigs, meeting NUREG 0612 stress criteria, are used to lift the empty existing and new rack modules. The existing rack lift rig consists ofindependently loaded lift i rods in a lift configuration which ensures that failure of one traction rod will not result in l uncontrolled lowering of the load being carried by the rig (which complies with the duality feature called for in Section 5.1.6(3a) of NUREG 0612). The new rack lift rig consists of four lift legs that are part of a single H frame construction with a single non-dual lift point and a safety factor of 10 times the maximum combined concurrent static and dynamic load (which complies with section 5.1.6(3b) of NUREG 0612). The rigs have the following attributes:
- a. For the existing rack lift rig, the traction rod is designed to prevent loss of its engagement with the rig in the locked position. Moreover, the locked configuration can be directly verified from above the pool water without the aid of an underwater camera. For the new rack lift rig, the lift legs are designed to slip thru lift windows located at four positions at the top of the ruk within individual cells. This design uses the rack load itself to prevent loss of engag ment.
- b. The stress analysis of the rigs are carried out using a finite element code, and the primary stress limits postulated in ANSI 14.6 (1978) are shown to be met.
- c. The rigs are load tested with 300% of the maximum weight to be lifted. The test weight is maintained in the air for 10 minutes. All critical weld joints are liquid penetrant examined to establish the soundness of all criticaljoints.
Pursuant to the defense-in-depth approach of NUREG-0612, the following additional measures of safety will be undertaken for the reracking operation.
- i. The crane used in the project will be given a preventive maintenance checkup and inspection per the Vogtle maintenance procedures before the beginning of the reracking operation.
ii. The existing fuel racks will be lifted just above the pool floor and held at that U elevation for a length of time befor ' making any further rack movements. 3-3
O iii. Safe load paths will be followed for moving the existing and new racks in the Fuel Handling Building. The fuel racks will not be carried directly over any fuel located in the pool, for all fuel shall be moved to the Unit 2 spent fuel pool, iv. The rack upending or laying down will be carried out in an area which is not overlapping to any safety related component.
- v. All crew members involved in the use of the lifting and upending equipment will be given training.
In addition to the above precautions, the following criteria will be applied to the rigging requirements: , 1. All heavy loads are lifted in such a manner that the C.G. of the lift point is aligned with the C.G. of the load being lifted. l 2. For existing rack removal, tumbuckles rather than slings are utilized to " fine tune" the verticality of the rack being lifted. () , v. All phases of the reracking activity will be conducted in accordt.nce with written procedures which will be reviewed and approved by SNC. The proposed compliance with the objectives of NUREG-0612 follows the guidelines contained in Section 5 of that document. The guidelines of NUREG-0612 call for measures to " provide an adequate defense in-depth for handling of heavy loads near spent fuel...". The NUREG 0612 ) guidelines cite four major causes ofload handling accidents, namely
- i. operator errors ii. rigging failure iii. lack of adequate inspection iv, inadequate procedures The Vogtle i rerack program ensures maximum emphasis on mitigating the potential load drop accidents by implementing measures to eliminate shortcomings in all aspects of the operation including the four aforementioned areas. A summary of the measures specifically planned to deal with the major causes is provided below.
Operator errors: As mentioned above, Southern Nuclear Operating Company plans to provide comprehensive training to the installation crew. Rigging failure: The lifting devices designed for handling and installation / removal of the racks OV at Vogtle 1 are designed with a safety factor of 10 times the maximum combin~l concurrent static and dynamic load. Both rigs comply with all provisions of ANSI 14.6-1978, including 3-4
( compliance with the primary stress criteria, load testing at 300% of maximum lih load, and dye examination of critical we'ds. The Vogtle sig design for the new rack moduIes is similar to the rigs used in the initial racking or the rerack of numerous other plants, such as hiaine Yankee, Sequoyah, and Watts Bar. Lack of adequate inspection: The installer of the racks will develop a set ofinspection points which will climinate any incidence of rework or erroneous installation. Inadequate procedures: Southem Nuclear Operating Company will employ various operating procedures to addeces operations pertaining to the terack effort, including, but not limited to, rack handling, upending, liaing, installation, verticality, alignment, dummy gage testing, site safety, and ALARA compliance. Procedures for handling both the existing racks and new racks will be follov : ' fable 3.5.1 ;..ovides a synopsis of the requirements delineated in NUREG 0612, and its intended compliance. 3.6 References [3.5.1) " Spent Fuel Storage hiodule Corrosion Report", Brooks & Perkins Report 554, June 1,1977. [3.5.2] " Suitability of Brooks & Perkins Spent Fuel Storage hiodule for Use in PWR Storage Pools", Brooks & Perkins Report 578, July 7,1978. [3.5.3] "Boral Neutron Absorbing / Shielding hiaterial - Product Performance Report", Brooks & Perkins Report 624, July 20,1982, [3.5.4] USNRC Letter to All Power Reactor Licensees, transmitting the "OT Position for Review and Acceptance of Spent Fuel Storage and llandling Applications", April 14,1978. O d 35
l Table 3.3.1 i HORAL EXPERIENCE LIST (Domestic and International) J Pressurized Water Reactors Vented M fe. l Pl:nt Utility Construction Year i l Bellefonte 1,2 Tennessee Valley Authority No 1981 Donald C. Cook Indiana & hilchigan Electric No 1979/1992 i indian Point 3 NY Power Authority Yes 1987 hiaine Yankee Maine Yankee Atomic Power Yes 1977/1994 Salem 1,2 Public Service Elec & Gas No 1980/1994 Sequoyah 1,2 - Tennessee Valley Authority No 1979/1992 Yankee Rowe Yankee Atomic Power Yes 1964/1983 Zion 1.2 Commonwealth Edison Co. Yes 1980 Byron 1,2 Commonwealth Edison Co. Yes 1988 Br:ldwood 1.2 Commonwealth Edison Co. Yes 1988 Yankee Rowe Yankee Atomic Electric Yes 1988 Three hille is.1 GPU Nuclear Yes 1990 Connecticut Yankee Northeast Utilities Yes 1994 Fort Calhoun Omaha Public Power District Yes 1993 l Beaver Valley 1 Duquesne Light Company Yes 1992 ln l
'H:lling Water Resetors Browns Ferry 1,2,3 Tennessee Valley Authority Yes 1980 l Brunswick 1,2 Carolina Power & Light Yes 1981 Clinton Illinois Power Yes 1981 ,
Cooper Nebraska Public Power Yes 1979-Dresden 2,3 Commonwealth Edison Co. Yes 1981 l Du:ne Amold Iowa Elec. Light & Power No/Yes 1979/1993 J.A. FitzPatrick NY Power Authority No/Yes 1978/1988 E.1. Hatch 1,2 Georgia Power Yes 1981 Hope Creek Public Service Elec. & Gas Yes 1985 llumboldt Bay Pacine Gas & Electric Yes 1986 i Lacrosse Dairyland Power Yes 1976 Limerick 1,*.: Philadelphia Electric No/Yes - 1980/1994 hionticello ' Northern States Power Yes. 1978 i Pe:chbottom 2,3 Philadelphia Electric No 1980 Perry,1,2 Cleveland Elec. Illuminating No 1979 Pilgrim - Boston Edison No/Yes 1978/1994 Susquehanna 1.2 Pennsylvania Power & Light No 1979 Vermont Yankee Vermont Yankee Atomic Power Yes 1978/1986 llope Creek Public Service Elec. & Gas Yes 1989 Carolina Power & Light Yes 1991/1995 {['2hearon v aSalle Unit 1 Harris (B) Commonwealth Edison Company Yes 1991 ' 3-6 l
f) v Table 3.3.1 (continued) INTI'RNATIONAL INSTALLATIONS USING llOReiL FRANCE 12 PWR Plants Electricite de France SOUT11 AFRICA Koeberg 1,2 ESCOM SWITZERI.AND Beznau1.2 Nordostschweizerische Kraftwerke AO Gosgen Kernkraftwerk Gosgen Daniken AG TAlWAN 7 Chin Shan 1,2 (J Taiwan Power Company Kuosheng 1,2 Taiwan Power Company MEXICO Laguna Verde Comision Federal de Electricidad Units 1 & 2 O v 3-7
l l Table 3.3.2 (V) i100 ALLOY ALUMINUM PIIYSICAL PitOPEllTIES(TYPICAL) i Density 0.098 Ib/cu. in. 2.713 gm/cc Melting Range 11901215 deg. F 643 657 deg. C Thermal Conductivity 128 BTU /hr/sq ft/deg. F/A (77 deg. F) 0.53 cal /sec/sq cm/deg. C/cm Coef, of Thermal 13.1 x 10)in/in., *F Expansion 23.0 x 10 cm/cm,'C (68 212 deg. F) Specific heat 0.22 BTU /lb/deg. F (221 deg. F) 0.23 cal /gm/deg. C
/ _T Modulus of 10x10' psi Elasticity Tensile Strength 13,000 psi annealed (75 deg. F) 18,000 psi as rolled Yield Strength 5,000 psi annealed (75 deg. F) 17,000 psi as rolled Elongation 35-45% annealed (75 deg. F) 9 20% as rolled liardness (Brinell) 23 annealed 32 as rolled Annealing Temperature 650 deg. F 343 deg. C /~N.
U 38
il t u
?
Table 3.3.3 CilEhtlCAL COS11'OSIT10N. ALUS11NUS1(1100 ALI.OY) TYl'ICAL 99.00% min. Aluminum 1.00% max. Silicone and Iron 0.05 0.20% max. Copper
.05% max. Manganese
.10% max. Zinc
.15% max. others each O
O 3-9
l f .1
;. . Table 3.3.4 !
HORON CARHIDE PROPERTIES (TYPICAL) l- . l BORON CARBIDE CllEMICAL COMPOSITION. WEIGIIT % i 1 i ! Total boron 70.0 min. i 10
)
l B isotopic content in 19.45 min. , 1 natural boron i l ' , Total boron plus 97.0 min. ! j total carbon i I l BORON CARBIDE PilVSICAL PROPERTIES I i Chemical formula BC4 ! Boron content (weight) 78.28 % Carbon content (weight) 21.72 % -
- Crystal Structure rombohedral 1- 3 Density 2.51 gm/cc 0.0907 lb/cu. in.
, ~ i Melting Point- 2450*C.4442*F j !- Boiling Point 3500*C 6332*F ! 4 i k 4 i y i i =i 4 1 h I
+
i O ! 4 3 10 - 4 j ,
m Table 3.5.1 IIEAVY LOAD ll ANDLING COh1PLIANCE htATRIX (NUREG 0612) CRITERlON C0htPLIANCE
- 1. Are safe load paths denned for the movement of heavy loads to minimize the Yes potential ofimpact,if dropped on irradiated fuel?
l 2. Will procedures be developed to cover: l identification of required equipment, Yes inspection and acceptance criteria required before movement ofload, steps and proper sequence for handlir.g the load, defining the safe load paths, and special O precautions? V
- 3. Will crane operators be trained and quali0ed? Yes
- 4. Will speciallifting devices meet the guidelines of ANSI 14.6 19787 Yes
- 5. Will non custom lifting devices be installed and used in accordance with Yes ANSI B30.91971?
- 6. Will the cranes be inspected and tested prior to use in rcrack? Yes
- 7. Does the crane meet the intent of ANSI B30.21976 and ChihiA-707 Yes O
3 11
O ^ 5.0 TilERMAL llVDRAULIC CONSIDERATIONS J 5.1 Introduction This section provides a summary of the methods, models, analyses and numerical results to demonstrate the compliance of the reracked Vogtle Unit I spent fuel pool and spent fuel pool cooling and purification system with the provisions of Section 111 of the USNRC "OT Position Paper for Review and Acceptance of Spent Fuel Storage and llandling Applications" (April 14, 1978). Similar methods of thermal hydraulic analysis have been used in other rerack licensing projects (see Table 5.1.1). The thermal hydraulic qualification analyses for the rack array may be broken down into the following categories: (i) Evaluation of the maximum decay heat load limit as a function of the bulk temperature limit for the postulated discharge scenario. (ii) Evaluation of the " time to boil" if all forced heat rejection paths from the pool are lost. (iii) Determination of the maximum tempera'ure difference between the pool local (O temperature and the bulk pool temperature at the instant when the bulk temperature reaches its maximum value, (iv) Evaluation of the maximum temperature difference between the fuel rod cladding temperature and the local pool water temperature to establish that nucleate boiling at any location around the fuel is not possible with forced cooling available. The following sections present the plant system description, analysis assumptions, a synopsis of the analysis methods employed, and final results. 5.2 Spent Fuel Cooling and Purification System Descrintion The spent fuel pool cooling and purification system (SFpCpS) is designed to remove the decay heat generated by stored fuel assemblics from the spent fuel pool water. This cooling is accomplished by taking high temperature water from the pool, pumping it through a heat exchanger, and returning the cooled water to the pool. A secondary function of the SFPCPS is to clarify and purify the spent fuel pool water. A portion of the hot water discharged by the pump can be diverted through a water cleanup system and returned to the pool. The SFpCPS consists of two complete cooling trains. Each cooling train incorporates one heat exchanger and one pump. One purification loop, consisting of a demineralizer and a filter, services both cooling loops. Each cooling train is designed to service the spent fuel pool with the [V] design spent fuel assembly loading and to maintain the bulk pool temperature within acceptable 51
9 (V limits. lleat is rejected from the pool water, through the SFPCPS heat exchanger, to the component cooling water (CCW) system. The fuel pool heat exchangers are a split flo'whorizontal shell and tube design with a two pass shell side and a four pass tube side. Component cooling water circulates through the shell side ! and spent fuel pool water circulates through the tube side. The shell is carbon steel (SA516- l Gr.70) and the tubes are TP304 stainless steel. There are two fuel pool pumps installed for parallel operation. The pumps are horizontal, centrifugal units, with all wetted surfaces being stainless steel or an equivalent corrosion resistance material. The pumps are controlled manually. While the heat removal operation is in process, a portion of the spent fuel pool water, approximately 100 gpm, may be diverted through a demineralizer and a filter to maintain spent fuel pool water clarity and purity. This purification loop is sufficient for removing fission products and other contaminants which may be introduced if leaking fuel assemblies are transferred to tha spent fuel pool. Reduction in pool water inventory resulting from pool surface evaporation must be replaced to maintain the pool water level. Makeup water is avellable from three separate sources to maintain the level of water in the spent fuel pool. All connections to the spent fuel storage pool are made so as to preclude the possibility of siphon draining of the pool. V 5.3 Discharge /Cooiing Alignment Scenario A full core is transferred to the spent fuel pool. The decay heat generated by this new batch and all previously discharged batches is removed by the SFPCPS with a single operating train. The bulk pool temperature must be maintained below a limit of 170'F for this scenario. 5.4 Decav Heat Load Limit in this section, we present the methodology for calculating the decay heat load limit for the scenario presented in the preceding section. The heat load imposed on the pool is from the decay heat generated by fuel assemblies discharged into the pool. The primary safety function of the SFPCPS is to adequately transport this heat load to the CCW system and thereby maintain the bulk pool temperature within specified limits. Compliance with the limiting heat load will be ensured by administrative controls on the fuel inventory and discharge times and rates. Commonly used decay heat ca!culation methods based upon ASB 9 2 or ANS 5.1 will be used to provide conservative estimates of decay heat values for specific fuel pool inventories. (VD The following conservatisms are applied in the decay heat load limit calculations. 52
'- e SFPCPS heat exchanger thermal performance is based on the design maximum fouling level. This will consen atively minimize the heat rejection capability of the SFPCPS.
- Thermal inertia induced transient effects resulting in a lag in bulk pool temperature response are allowed to be considered. Ilowever, the re.sults presented here did not take advantage of this conservatism. This will conservatively lower the calculated decay heat load limit by forcing the peak decay heat load to coincide with the pool temperature limit.
It also ignores the fact that the heat load is decaying rapidly during the period of maximum decay heat. e in calculating the spent fuel pool evaporation heat losses, the building housing the spent fuel pool is assumed to have the maximum ambient air temperature of 104'F and 100% relative humidity. This will conservatively minimize the credit for evaporative heat loss. The mathematical formulation can be explained with reference to the simplified heat exchanger , alignment of Figure 5.4.1. Referring to the spent fuel pool cooling system, the goveming differential equation can be written by utilizing conservation of energy as: IT
,a C Ldt= O(t)-Gm(T)-Go-(T) where:
C = pool thermal capacity, Dtu!'F T = Pool bulk temperature, 'F T = Time after reactor shutdown, hr Q(t) = Time varying decay heat generation rate, Btu /hr Q (T) = Temperature dependent SFPCPS heat rejection rate, Btu /hr Qggy (T) = Temperature dependent evaporative heat loss, Btu /hr Subject to the second of the conservatisms listed above, this differential relationship can be reduced to the following algebraic relationship: Go . - Om( A,)- On (L..) = 0 where: T'". is the maximum bulk pool temperature limit, 'F Q ] is the decay heat load limit. Btu'hr Q,.(T) is a function of the bulk pool temperature and the coolant water flow rate and temperature, and can be written in terms of the temperature effectiveness (p) as follows: A
\.y Qm (T) = ll'a Co p -{ T - ts) 53
1 O where: W = Coolant water flow rate, Ib/hr C[= Coolant water specific heat capacity, Btu /(Ib=*F) p = SFPCPS heat exchanger temperature effr:tiveness T = Bulk pool water temperature, *F 1, = Coolant water inlet temperature. 'F The temperature effectiveness, a measure of the heat transfer efficiency of the SFPCPS heat exchangers,is defined as: ta - to . U " T - to where t, is the coolant outlet temperature ('F) and all other terms are as defined above. Q contains thE. (T)is a nonlinear function of the pool temperature and ambient temp ' the pool surface, and heat conduction through the pool walls and slab. Experiments show that i the heat conduction takes only about 4% of the total heat loss [5.4.1). The evaporation heat loss and natural convection heat loss can be expressed as [5.4.2): Qm(T) = h. A .(T- t ) + c .a . A .(T* ~ ta")+a . A (P.- Pa) h = Natural convection heat transfer coefficient, Blu/(hrxft x*F) A = Pool surface area, ff t, = Ambient pool building temperature,'F e a Emissivity of pool water , o = Stephan Boltzmann constant 2 a = Evaporation rate constant, Btu /(hrxft xpsi) P = Vapor pressure of water at pool temperature, psi P,= Vapor pressure of water at ambient temperature, psi The algebraic heat balance equation is solved for the decay heat load limit by rearranging the equation given above and substituting the maximum temperature limit for pool water . temperature (T). The major input values for this analysis are summarized in Table 5.4.1. + 5.5 Time-to Boil r in this section, we presenrhe methodology for calculating the minimum time to-boil following a loss of all forced cooling. The SFPCPS system has two independent trains, both of which are g seismically qualified and safety-related, so a complete loss of forced cooling is not possible V- under single failure criteria. Regardless of this fact, this evaluation is performed for a postulated non-deterministic loss of forced cooling accident. 5-4
1 (h U The following conservatisms are applied in the time to boil calculations. The decay heat load and bulk pool temperature are assumed to be the calculated decay heat load limit and corresponding maximum pool temperature limit. Maximizing the initial temperature and the decay heat load will conservatively minimize the time to boil.
- The transient reduction in decay heat over time is conservatively neglected. This maximizes the decay heat load at all points in time and will minimize the time to boil.
e it is assumed that sufficient makeup water exists to prevent the pool water level from dropping, but no credit is taken for the reduced temperature of the makeup water. This assumes that makeup water is provided at the bulk pool temperature, conservatively minimizing the time to boil. in calculating the spent fuel pool evaporation heat losses, the building housing the spent fuel pool is assumed to have the maximum ambient air temperature of 104'F and 100% relative humidity. This will conservatively minimize the credit for evaporative heat loss. The temperature rise of the water in the pool over any period of time is a direct function of the average net decay heat load during that period. Therefore, maximizing the decay heat load will p V maximize the pool temperature increase rate and minimize the corresponding time to boil. As a transient decay heat load would necessitate a reduced average net head load, the steady state assumptions are indeed conser.ative. The governing enthalpy balance equation for this condition, subject to these conservative assumptions, can be written as: C.dT dx
# Qu a - Qu (T) where t is the time after cooling is lost (hr) and all other terms are the same as dermed in Section 5.4.
This differential equation is solved using a numerical solution technique to obtain the bulk pool temperature as a function of time. The water boilotTrate is determined from the decay heat load and the latent heat of vaporization for 212 f water. The major input values fo. this analysis are summarized in Table 5.5.1. 5.6 1 ocal Pool Water Temnerature A In this section, a summary of the methodology for evaluating the local pool water temperature is O presented. A single conservative evaluation for a bounding amalgam of conditions is performed. 5-5
( 'the result of this single evaluation is a bounding temperature difference between the maximum ( local water temperature and the bulk pool temperature. in order to determine an upper bound on the maximum local water temperature, a series of conservative assumptions are made. The most important of these assumptions are:
- With a full core discharged into the racks farthest from the coolant water inlet after a 100 hour in core hold time, the remain'ng cells in the spent fuel pool are postulated to be occupied with previously discharged fuel. i 1
The coolant water inlet temperature, and therefore the bulk pool temperature, is artificially reduced to conservatively maximize the fluid viscosity. This assumption will maximize the head losses fbr water flowing through the fuel racks and fuel assemblies. No downcomer flow is assumed to exist between the rack modules.
- All rack cells are assumed to be 50% blocked at the cell outlet.
5.6.1 Local Temperature Evaluation Methodology The inlet piping which retums cooled pool water from the SFPCPS terminates above the level of G the fuel racks. It is not apparent from heuristic reasoning alone that the cooled water delivered to V the pool would not bypass the hot fuel racks and exit through the outlet piping. To demonstrate adequate cooling of hot fuel in the pool, it is therefore necessary to rigorously quantify the velocity field in the pool created by the interaction of buoyancy driven flows and water injection / egress. A Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) analysis for this demonstration is required. The objective of this study is to demonstrate that the principal thermal-hydraulic criteria of ensuring local subcooled conditions in the pool is met for all postulated fuel discharge / cooling alignment scenarios. The local thermal hydraulic analysis is performed such that partial cell blockage and slight fuel assembly variations are bounded. An outline of the CFD approach is described in the following. There are several significant geometric and thermal hydraulic features of the Vogtle Unit I spent fuel pool which need to be considered for a rigorous CFD analysis. From a fluid flow modeling standpoint, there are two regions to be considered. One region is the bulk pool region where the classical Navier Stokes equations are solved with turbulence effects included. The other region ie the heat generating fuel assemblies located in the spent fuel racks located near the bottom of the spent fuel pool. in this region, water flow is directed vertically upwards due to buoyancy forces through relatively small flow channels formed by the Westinghouse 17xl? fuel assembly rod arrays in each rack cell. This situation shall be modeled as a porous solid region in which fluid flow is governed by the classical Darcy's Law: O Ea- K(i) H 5 O OX, I'o - C p ll1 2 5-6
where Op/0Xi is the pressure gradient, R(1), V and C are the corresponding permeability, velocity and inenial resistance parameters and p,is the fluid viscosity. The pcnneability and inertial resistance parameters for the rack cells loaded with Westinghouse 17x17 fuel were determined based on the friction factor conclations for the laminar flow conditions typically encountered due to the low buoyancy induced velocities and the small size of the flow channels. I The Vogtle Unit 1 pool geometry required an adequate ponrayal oflarge scale and small scale i features, spatially distributed heat source:: in the spent fuel racks and water inlet / outlet l configuration. Relatively cooler bulk pool water normally flows down between the fuel rack outline and pool wall liner clearance known as the downcomer. Near the bottom of the racks, the flow turns from a vertical to horizontal direction into the bottom plenum supplying cooling water to the rack cells, lleated water issuing out of the top of the racks mixes with the bulk pool water. An adequate modeling of these features on the CFD program involves meshing the large scale bulk pool region and small scale downcomer and bottom plenum regions with sufficient onmber of computational cells to capture the bulk and local features of the flow field, The distributed heat sources in the spent fuel pool racks are modeled by identifying distinct heat generation zones considering full core discharge, bounding peak effects, and presence of background decay heat from old discharges. Three heat generating zones were modeled. The first consists of background fuel from previous discharges, the remaining two zor.es consist of O fuel from a bounding full core-discharge scenario. The two full core discharge zones are differentiated by one zone with higher than average Acay heat generation and the other with less than average decay heat generation. The background decay heat load is detennined such that the total decay heat load in the pool is equal to the calculated decay heat load limit. This is a conservative model, since all of the fuel with higher than average decay heat is placed in a cot.tiguous area. A unifonnly distributed heat generation rate was applied throughout each distinct zone. The CFD analysis was performed on the industry standard FLUENT [5.6.4) fluid flow and heat transfer modeling program. The FLUENT code enabled buoyancy flow and turbulence effects to be included in the CFD analysis. Turbulence efTects are modeled by relating time varying "Reynolds's Stresses" to the mean bulk flow quantities with the following turbulence modeling options: (i) k-e Model (ii) RNG k-e Model (iii) Reynolds Stress Model The k-e Model is considered most appropriate for the Vogtle Unit 1 CFD analysis. The k-e turbulence model is a time tested, general purpose turbulence model. This model has been demonstrated to give good results for the majority of turbulent fluid flow phenomena. The Renormalization Group (RNG) and Reynolds Stress models are more advanced models that were 5-7
i m developed for situations where the k e Model does not provide acceptable results, such as high . speed flow and supersonic shock. The flow regime in the bulk Huid region is such that the k e Model will provide acceptable results. 1 Rigorous modeling of fluid flow problems requires a solution to the classical Navier Stokes ; equations of fluid motion [5.6.1). The goveming equations (in modified form for turbulent flows " with buoyancy efic Niuded) are written as:
~
&p u, &p..(u.'ul) & ' Ou, Bu? ~ Op
+ =- +- -- - po D -(T- T.) . g, + &p.(us'ts')
Of Oxo Oxi .p hi
< hai , Exi by where u, derived from the turbulence induced fluctuating velocity c stresses , , ,
density at temperature T , p is the coefricient of thermal expansion, p is the fluid viscosity, g are the components of gravitational acceleration and x are the Cartesian coordinate directions. he Reynolds stress tensor is expressed in terms of the#mean flow quantities by defining a turbulent viscosity p, and a turbulent velocity scale k" as shown below [5.6.2]: p(u,'ul) = l p k.6,, ,. +exf, 3 Oxi - The procedure to obtain the turbulent viscosity and velocity length scales involves a solution of two additional transport equations for kinetic energy (k) and rate of energy dissipation (e). This methodology is known as the k-e model for turbulent flows as described by Launder and Spalding [5.6.3). Some of the major input values for this analysis are summarized in Table 5.6.1. 5.7 Fuel Rod Cladding Temneratute in this section, the method to calculate the temperature of the fuel rod cladding is presented. Similar to the local water temperature calculation methodology presented in the preceding section, this evaluation is performed for a single, bounding scenario, ne maximum fuel cladding superheat above the local water temperature is calculated, The maximum specific power of a fuel array qgcan be given by: qs = q Fu where: F, = Radial peaking factor q e Average fuel assembly specific power, Bta'hr n (Vh The peaking factors are given in Table 5.6.1. The maximum temperature rise of pool water in the most disadvantageously placed fuel assembly, defined as the one which is subject to the highest local pool water temperature, was computed for all loading cases.11aving determined the 5-8
maximum local water temperature in the pool, it is now possible to determine the maximum fuel cladding temperature. A fuel rod can produce F times the average heat emission rate over a is the axial rod peaking factor. The axial heat distribution in a rod is small length, generally a maximumwhere F,in the central region and tapers off peak Rus, at its two extremiti cladding heat flux over an infinitesimal area is given by the equation: qc = q Fn . Fu
.fc where A, is the total cladding extemal heat transfer area in the active fuel length region.
j Within each fuel assembly sub channel, water is continuously heated by the cladding as it moves axially upwards from bottom to top under laminar flow conditions. Rohsenow and liartnett [5.7.1) report a Nusselt number based heat transfer correlation for laminar flow in a heated channel. The film temperature driving force (AT) at the peak cladding flux location is calculated as follows: hi. 5 = Nu Kw O b A Ti = f Iv where, h is the water side film heat transfer coeflicient, D is sub-channel hydraulle diameter, Kw is water thermal conductivity and Nu is Nusselt number Ior laminar flow heat transfer. In order to introduce some additional conservatism in thg analysis, we assume that the fuel cladding has a crud deposit resistance R,(equal to 0.0005 fl hr *F/ Btu), which covers the entire surface. Thus, including the temperature drop across the crud resistance, the cladding to water local temperature difference (AT,) is given by: ATc = ATi + Ra ge 5.8 Results This section contains results from the analyses performed for the postulated discharge scenado. 5.8.1- Decay Heat Load Limits For the discharge / cooling scenario postulated in Section 5.3, the calculated decay heat load limit is in Table 5.8.1. Remembering that all transient etTects were excluded from the evaluations, this I- decay heat load corresponds to the invariant heat load which result in a steady-state bulk pool temperature which will not exceed the temperature limit. \ typical heat load for a full core discharge,100 hours after shutdown, is well below the value in Table 5.8.1. 59
These calculated decay heat load limits are not based on ar'y specific discharge conditions, but are mathematically derived quantities. Any conservative decay heat calculation used to detemiine the operational limits (i.e. in core Iptd time requirement) necessary to avoid exceeding this decay heat load will provide conservative operational limits. The operational limits will be determined based on the decay heat load limit in Table 5.8.1. Based on this limit, the Vogtle Unit I cooling systern will remain in compliance with the existing FSAll and SER. 5.8.2 Time to Boil
! If all SFPCPS forced pool cooling becomes unavailable, then the pool water will begin to rise in temperature and eventually will reach the normal bulk boiling temperature of 212'F. The time to i reach the boiling point will be the shortest when the loss of forced cooling occurs at the point in l time when the pool bulk temperature is at its maximum calculated value. Although the probability of the loss-of cooling event coinciding with the instant when the pool water has reached its peak value is extremely remote, the calculations are performed under this extremely unlikely scenario. Table 5.8.2 contains the results of this analysis. Figure 5.8.1 shows the pool bulk temperature versus time for the scenario.
5.8.3 Local Water and Fuel Cladding Temneratures Consistent with our approach to make conservative assessments of temperature, the local water temperature calculations are performed for a pool with decay heat generation equal to the d maximum calculated decay heat load limit. Thus, the local water temperature evaluation is a calculation of the temperature increment over the theoretical spatially uniform value due to local hot spots (due to the presence of a highly heat emissive fuel bundle). 2 The CFD study has analyzed a single bounding local thermal hydraulic scenario. In this scenario, , a bounding full core discharge with a 96 hour hold time is considered in which the 193 assemblies are located in the pool, farthest from the cooled water inlet, while the balance of the rack cells are postulated to be occupied by fuel from old discharges. Converged temperature contour and velocity vector plots obtained from the FLUENT model are presented in Figures 5.8.2 and 5.8.3. In this analysis, the difference between the peak local temperature and the coincident bulk pool temperature was conservatively calculated to be less than 8.4*K (15.l'F). Since the bulk pool temperature limit for the pool is 170'F, this result conservatively ensures local subcooled conditions with a substantial margin of safety. The peak fuel cladding superheat is determined for the hottest cell location in the pool as . obtained from the CFD model for the Vogtle Unit 1 pool. The maximum temperature difference between the fuel cladding and the local water (AT,) is calculated to be 43.I'F. Applying this calculated cladding AT , along with the maximum temperature difference between the local water temperature and the bulk pool temperature, to the bulk pool temperature limit of 170'F O yields a 228'F conservatively bounding peak cladding temperature. This is lower than the 236*F local boiling temperature on top of the racks. Thus, boiling does not occur anywhere within the Vogtle Unit I pool. 5-10
5.9 References [5.4.1) Wang, Yu, "lient Loss to the Ambient from Spent Fuel Pools: Conelation of Theory with Experiment",llottec Report 11190477 Rev. O, April 3,1990. [5.4.2) "An improved Correlation for Evaporation from Spent Fuel Pools",llottee Report 111971664, Rev. O. [5.6.1) Batchelor, G.K., "An introduction to Fluid Dynamics", Cambridge University Press,1967. l [5.6.2) llinze, J.O., " Turbulence", hicGraw 11111 Publishing Co., New York, NY,1975. [5.6.3) Launder, B.E., and Spalding D.B., " Lectures in hiathernatical hiodels of Turbulence", Academic Press, Loridon,1972. [5.6.4] "QA Documentation and Validation of the FLUENT Version 4.3 CFD Analysis Program", lloltec Report 111961444. [5.7.1) Rohsenow, N.ht., and liartnett, J.P., "llandbook of }{ cat Transfer", hicGraw liill Book Company, New York,1973. tO G P a 5 11
1tble5.1.1 O PARTIAL LlSTING OF RERACK APPLICATION USING SIMILAR MET 110DS OF TilERhiAL l{YDRAULIC ANALYSIS PLANT DOCKET NO. Enrico Fenni Unit 2 USNRC 50 341 ' Quad Cities 1 and 2 USNRC 50 254. 50 265 Rancho Seco USNRC 50 312 Grand Gulf Unit i USNRC 50 416 Oyster Creek USNRC 50 219 Pilgrim USNRC 50 293 l V.C. Summer USNRC 50 395 Diablo Canyon Units I and 2 USNRC 50 275.50 323 Byron Units 1 and 2 USNRC 50-454,50-455 Braidwood Units I and 2 USNRC 50-456,50-457 Vogtle Unit 2 USNRC 50-425 St. Lucie Unit 1 USNRC 50-335 Millstone Point Unit 1 USNRC 50 245 O' D.C. Cook Units I and 2 USNRC 50 315,50 316
~
Indian Point Unit 2 USNRC 50 247 Three Mile Island Unit 1 USNRC $0 289 J.A. FitzPatrick USNRC 50 333 Shearon 11arris Unit 2 USNRC 50-401 I liope Creek USNRC 50 354 Kuosheng Units I and 2 Taiwan Power Company Chin Shan Units I and 2 Taiwan Power Company O 5-12
I l l y , e i i ! i i i i i > i i Table 5.1.1 (continued) l
- PARTIAL LISTING OF RERACK APPLICATION USING ;
- SIMILAR METilODS OF TIIERMAL ilYDRAULIC ANALYSIS - i PLANT JOCKET NO. ,
L l Ulchin Unit 2 Korea Electric Power Corporation *
- - Laguna Verde Units I and 2 Comision Federal de Electricidad .
~ Zion Station Units I and 2 USNRC 50 295,50 304 Sequoyah Units 1 and 2 USNRC 50 327,50-328 La Salle Unit One USNRC 50-373 ; Duane Arnold USNRC 50 331
- Fort Calhoun USNRC 50 285
- Nine Mile Point Unit 1 USNRC 50 220
- Beaver Valley Unit 1 USNRC 50 334 f
Limerick Unit 2 USNRC 50 353 1 Ulchin Unit i Korea Electric Power Corporation
. a ,
p 1 f
- o .
1 i
- 5 13 ,
Table 5,4,1 l DATA FOR DECAY llEAT LOAD LIMIT EVALUATION I Length of Spent Fuel Pool 50 f t Width of Spent Fuel Pool 34 ft Pool Building Ambient 104 F Temperature Emissivity of Water @ 100 F 0.96 Specific Ileat of Water @ 80.6 F 0.998 Blu/(Ib x F) j liX Temperature Effectiveness 0.38 Coolant Water inlet Temperature 105 F Coolant Water Flow Rate 1.98x 100 lb/hr O n v 5 14
l l Table 5.5.1 DATA FOR TIME TO.IlOIL EVALUATION Length of Spent Fuel Pool 50 it Width of Spent Fuel Pool 34ft Depth of Spent Fuel Pool 3511 Total Fuel Rack Weight 489.525 lb , Number of Fuel Assemblies 1476 ) 130unding Assembly Weight 1467 lb Pool 13uilding Ambient 104 F Temperature Emissivity of Water (d! 100 F 0.96 ' Pool Thermal Capacity 3.243
- 100 13tu/ F Specific lleat of Water @ 80.6 F 0.998 Illu/(Ibx F)
Latent lleat of Evaporation of 970.0313tu/lb ! Water fill 212 F O O S 15 ~. ._ - . _ _
l i Table 5.6.1 DATA FOR LOCAL TEMPERATURE EVALUATION Reactor Thermal Power 3565 MWt i Reactor Core 31ze 193 assemblies
?
Maximum Fuel Transfer Rate 8 assemblics per hr l Maximum Average Burnup 60,000 mwd /MTU ! Bounding Assembly Weight 1467 lb Minimum In Core liold Time 100 hr Radial Peaking Factor 1.7 i Total Peaking Factor 2.5 Number of Fuel Assemblics 1476 SFPCPS Water Flow Rate 1.14x10* lb/hr Type of fuel assembly Westinghouse 17x17 Std. Fuel Rod Outer Diameter 0.374 in. ; Rack CellInner Dimension 8.75 in O Active Fuel Length _ 144 Number of Fuel Rods per 264 Assembly Rack Cell Length 168 3/8 in Bottom Plenum licight- 51/8 in ! i. . , . e 5:
- O 5 16 r w-w--g- -gw-- p .q-ygg.,,.%.g r, q -g&me., wy _, ,_ py -g-3.yp-pm qww..y ig.,aw,-,am -pyg ,p,qq,-.9 q w gem m mgycegg 7 g 9.g -.p'ty* e FT't=
1 1 2 1 Table 3.8.1 RESULTS OF DECAY llEAT LOAD LIMIT EVALUATION i Number of SFPCPS Maximum Bulk Maximum Decay Trains T emperature Limit lleat Load Limit . 1 170*F $ 1.87x10* i A 5 17
O Table 5.8.2 RESULTS OF TIME-TO DOIL EVALUATION Minimum Time To Boil 2.90 hrs O 5-18
.4_.- -_.uM_%hae.e a.Adi4.A.h.. -aJ,- h1WMoh4-4 4 M heu4 s a A-.h.M.p,#--,h-..5J-mWS.AD4h h haAu.mA.-he,-h_.h,) Amheh A + . ge a--=**+e--AMs .r A J 4J i - -. A da-A.M._
l i l
;O !
I ! r EVAPOMRONHEATLOSS ' i 1 I l =- _- - - i. SPENT,, FUEL POOL i i iO 1 i i k d < I 4 e HEATEXCHANGER i h P 7: l l ' 4 d , i b. i 1, i COOLANT tg % FIGURE 5.4,t Spent Fual Pool Cooling Model i a
- n -- .~ ,. - -,a..-- -n ~, . - , . - . , . . ., - .n., .- . - - ,, , . , , . . . - - , - ,,.--e. --- , , ,
O O O FIGURE 5.8.1: Bulk Pool Temperatwe Profile Full-Core Discharge,1 SFPCPS Train 220 210 200 E E
- s 3 190 .
E. 5 t 8 180 n. s5 170 160 153 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Time After Loss of Forced Coohng (hr)
l 3.32E+02 I 3.31 E+02 3.30E+02 I. 327E+02 329E+02 32CE+02 A th..a325E+02 m- -- . ,= m g a. - - - -
- , 324E+02 323E+02
, , . g.ithgg pg31.. ,f-L . .
.w 56-- ,
e . ,. . .~-?yp 5 m q Qifj;e..: l.f 3 g. ~
~
322E+02 PJ L : ,- -N. :u'd - N.U.. %IL h. -- 7.@, D. _ "2.Et@D-avd.T, , .F,.1' 321E+02 w s. _.. - 3' M'.@ ' A?$y[3 7 i2" 319E+02 $d N'I, .^ 2 ~s.('~7 ' [I$ *W i 3.18E+02 Nt SS.nm . M v hN[5:k w 6f:hN
-s
$.y {i' s)-[5 3.17E+02 *~ Hi ,C'.'Mi$;Gyg- 4GU
- 3.16E+02 T852EM".ItI - %;r.Wi.T-N E EM55*jiO'd.'
te ,- b23_-Q - 3.15E+02 ,I ggog.-c 3.q;Mt 3.13E+02 . E4h6 EN. 3.12E+02 ,j p. ~Qt 4 3.11E+02 . Gr. . M. IM, -
.. y; 3.10E+02 5 b'y * '"6 $ -O p d :;h frA 3.09E+02 I n #w T
3.07E+02 ,T,.- c -r x~ F-
. A 3.06E+02 T.
3.0SE+02
"?>.'.:2 bY - t"-- '.2 + -
.n .~ - . ?y6. %.
3.04E+02 3.03E+02 3.01E+02 3 00E+02 2.99E+02 2.98E+02 2.97E+02 VOGTLE UNIT 1 LOCAL TEMPERATURE ANALYSIS Apr 221997 x Temperature (K) Fluent 4.32 Max = 3.325E+02 Min = 2.967E+02 Fluent Inc. FIGURE 5.8.2- Converged Loca.' WaterTemperature Contoms
,- ,g -
I,m\ l \ N.] /
\
{O 3.90E-01 3.76E-01 3.63E-01 3.50E-01 3.36E-01 3.23E-01 3.09E-01 .: : : ---
- ; ; ; u r -- -- 1 2.96E-01 . , , , _ , __
. . ~ ~ ~ ~ -
-" M U 2.82E-01 ~ ^ "#
~
2.69E-01 i ..,,.,,,,,,um__
- - wsu\ \ 11 2.56E-01 i........,,,,uu---- - sou\\1l l '
' ' ' ' ' ' " ' ' ' " ' " " " ' " ~
2.42E-01 . e s . . ... s s s s e o r n n'~~ -- ^-~~~--- - = ~ ~ ' '
- 01
........................i:1Ii 2.29E-01 .... .ii:,,,,,,,,,,,,,....... ,
n,... ..................... ........arrt1I 2.15E-01 ' D iII:s ---- n/// fl,,,
.-ss g g g a g i s m--- - -
- wa/////f,.,
2.02E-01 ---s gww,.s _ _
=- -
^ *#IIIII 1.88E-01 :-N//r 1.75E-01 '..,. m s % __
1.62E-01 .. . , , . ... . , . .....is< ii, 1.48E-01 , ,, , , ,, .
......., .1 1.35E-01 , ,, ,, , , ,, ,
......,, ,,1 1.21 E-01 ,,,
.,,..,,,, ,,1 1.08E-01 .... . . . .........i.
9.44E-02 ..
. _ __ ___ ._. f t i .f 8.10E-02 - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - _ .-_ _
6.75E-02 5.41E-02 4.07E-02 2.72E-02 1.38E-02 3.89E-04 s VOGTLE UNIT 1 LOCAL TEMPERATURE ANALYSIS Apr 181997
.. x Velocity Vectors (M/S) Fluent 4.32 Max = 3.898E-01 Min = 3.895E-04 Fluent Inc.
FIGURE 5.8.3: Converged Local Water Velocity Vectors
I 6.0 STRUCTURAUSEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS U 6.1 Introduction The structural adequacy of the high density spent fuel racks, the bearing pads, and the pool liner is considered in this section. The analyses undertaken to confirm the stnictural integrity of the racks to demonstrate compliance with the USNRC Standard Review Plan [6.1.1] and the O.T. Position Paper [6.1.2] are as follows: 3 D transient analyses of the spent fuel racks individually and as an assemblage acting as free standing submerged bodies subjected to seismic excitations applied as synthetic acceleration time-histories. Evaluation of the primary stresses in the rack structure to establish compliance with the stress limits for ASME Section til Subsection NF [6.1.3]. Evaluation of the secondary and peak stresses amplitudes in the most severely loaded rack sections to ensure that failure from cyclic fatigue will not occur. 7
'd For each of the analyses undertaken, an abstract of the methodology, modelling assumptions, key results, and stimmary of parametric evaluations are presented.
6.2 Accentance Criteria All spent fuel rack analyses and evaluations are in compliance with the requirements af the OT (Office of Technology) Position Paper, Section IV [6.1.2], and are in compliance with the stress and displacement limits of the relevant ASME Code [6.1.3] Further delineation of the relevant criteria are discussed in the text associated with each analysis. 6.3 Loads and Load Combinations The principal loadings considered in the mechanical integrity evaluation are the following:
- a. dead weight of the rack submerged in a pool of water
( ) b. seismic excitation loads for the SSE and OBE events
- c. fluid coupling loads arising from the relative motion of the racks with respect to each other and with respect to the pool walls 6-1
i (n V) d. fuel assembly to-cell impact loads
- e. dynamic coupling loads due to' rattling of the fuel in the storage cells arising from the seismic inputs to the free standing racks
- f. rack pedestal / liner frictbn forces which counteract other horizontal loadings during seismic events
- g. mechanical loads arising from abnormal events such as a fuel handling accident The mandated loads and load combinations are obtained from the references cited in the foregoing.
6.4 Structural Evaluation of Racks 6.4.1 Overview fl V The Vogtle Unit I spent fuel racks are designed as Seismic Category I as required by [6.4.1]. The response of a free standing rack module to seismic inputs is hi, hly nonlinear involving a complex combination of motions (sliding, rocking, twisting, and turning), resulting in impacts and friction effects. Linear methods, such as modal analysis and response spectrum techniques, cannot accurately simulate the structural response of such a highly nonlinear structure to seismic excitation. An accurate simulation is obtained only by direct integration of the nonlinear equations of motion using actual pool slab acceleration time-histories as the forcing function. The acceleration time-histories used for dynamic analysis of the spent fuel racks were previously devdoped during the 1988 rerack campaign for Vogtle Unit 2. These synthetic time-histories for thr' .aogonal directions comply with the guidelines of the USNRC SRP (6.1.1]. In particular, the .thetic time-histories meet the criteria of statistical independence and enveloping of the design response spectra. Having obtained an admissible set ofinput excitations, the next step in the analysis process is to develop a suitable dynamic model. Reliable assessment of the stress field and kinematic behavior of the rack modules calls for a conservative dynamic model incorporating all key attributes of the actual structure. This means that the model must feature the ability to execute concurrent sliding, rocking, bending, twisting and other motion forms compatible with the free-standing installation of the modules. Furthermore, the model must possess the capability to effect momentum transfers which occur due to rattling of fuel assemblies inside storage cells and the capability to simulate lift off and subsequent impact of support pedestals with the pool liner. The contribution of the water mass in the interstitial spaces around the rack modules and within the storage cells O'V must be modeled in an accurate manner since erring in quantification of fluid coupling on either side of the actual value is no guarantee of conservatism. The Coulomb friction coefficient at the pedestal-to-pool liner interface may lie in a rather wide range, and a conservative value of 6-2 o
i l 3 (d friction cannot be prescribed a priori. la fact, a perusal of results of rack dynamic analyses in numerous dockets (Table 6.4.1) indicate that an upper bound value of the coefficient of friction,
, often maximizes the computed rack displacements as well as the equivalent elastostatic stresses. Finally, the analysis considers that a rack module may be fully loaded, partially loaded, or nearly empty of fuel assemblies. The pattem ofloading in a partially loaded rack may also have innumerable combinations. In short, there are a large number of parameters with potential influence on the rack motion. The comprehensive structural evaluation must deal with all of these without sacrificing conservatism.
The three-dimensional single rack dynamic model introduced by Holtec International in the Enrico Fenni Unit 2 rack project (ca.1980) and used in some 40 rerack projects since that time (Table 6.4.1), addresses the above mentioned array of parameters. The details of this methodology are published in the permanent literature (6.4.2]. Briefly, the single rack 3 D model handles the array of variables as follows: Interface Coemeient of Friction Parametric runs are made with upper bound and lower bound values of the coefficient of friction. The limiting values are based on experimental data which have been found to be bounded by the values 0.2 and 0.8. (3 Imnact phenomenn Compression-only gap elements are used to provide for opening and closing ofinterfaces such as the pedestal to-bearing pad interface, and the fuel assembly-to-cell wall interface. Fuel Loadine Scenarios The fuel assemblies are conservatively assumed to rattle in unison which obviously exaggerates the contribution ofimpact against the cell wall. The different pattems of possible fuel assembly loadings in the rack are simulated by orienting the center of gravity column of the assemblage of fuel assemblies with respect to the module geometric center of gravity in an appropriate manner. Fluid Coucling The contribution of fluid coupling forces is ascertained by prescribing the motion of the racks (adjacent to the one being analyzed). The most commonly used assumption when dealing with a single rack is that the adjacent racks vibrate out-of-phase with respect to the rack being analyzed. Despite the above simplifying assumptions, targeted for accuracy and conservatism, a large menu of cases is prepared to foster confidence in the calculated safety margins. Most safety analyses Q V reported in previous dockets (Table 6.4.1) over the past decade have relied on the single rack 3-D model. From a conceptual standpoint, all aspects of the 3-D single rack model are satisfactory except for the fluid coupling effect. One intuitively expects relative motion of free-standing racks in the pool to be poorly correlated, given the random harmonics in the impressed slab 6-3
motion. Single rack analyses cannot model this interactive behavior between racks. However, as described later, analytical and experimental research in this field has permitted rack analyses to be extended to all racks in the pool simultaneously. Holtec International extended Fritz's classical two-body fluid coupling model to multiple bodies and utilized it to perform the first two-
- dimensional multi rack analysis (Diablo Canyon, ca. 1987). Subsequently, laboratory experiments were conducted to validate the multi rack fluid coupling theory. This technology was incorporated in the computer code DYNARACK which now could handle simultaneous simulation of all racks in the pool. This development was first utilized in Chin Shan, Oyster Creek and Shearon Harris plants (6.4.3, 6.4.4] and, subsequently, in numerous other rerack projects. The Whole Pool hiulti-Rack (WPMR) 3 D analyses have corroborated the accuracy of
, the single rack 3 D solutions in predicting the maximum structural stresses, and also serve to improve predictions of rack kinematics. The Whole Pool hiulti-Rack analysis methodology is the vehicle available to establish the presence or absence of specific rack-to rack impacts during the seismic evrt. 3 Recognizing that the analysis work effort must deal with both stress and displacement criteria, the sequence of model development and analysis steps that are undertaken are summarized in the following.
- a. Prepare 3 D dynamic models suitable for a time-history analysis of the new racks.
' b. Perform 3-D dynamic analyses on limiting module geometry types (from all those present in the spent fuel pool) and include various physical conditions (such as coefficient of friction and extent of cells containing fuel assemblies).
- c. Perform stress analysis of high stress areas for all of the single rack dynamic analysis runs made in the foregoing steps. Demonstrate compliance with ASME Code Section III, Subsection NF limits on stress and displacement.
- d. Prepare a Whole Pool Multi-Rack dynamic model of all rack modules in the pool, which includes all fluid coupling interactions among them, as well as fluid coupling interactions between racks and pool walls. This 3-D simulation is referred to as a Whole Pool Multi Rack (WPMR) model.
- e. Perform 3-D Whole Pool Multi-Rack (WPMR) analyses to demonstrate that all kinematic criteria for the spent fuel rack modules are satisfied, and that resultant structure loads confirm the validity of the single rack structural qualification. The principal kinematic criteria are (1) no rack-to-peol wall impact, and (2) no rack-to-rack impact in the cellular region of the racks containing active fuel [6.4.4].
As shown in Figure 6.4.1, a total of 26 free-standing rack modules in six sizes (i.e.,6x6,6x8, O V 6x9, 7x8, 7x9, 8x9) are arrayed in the Vogtle Unit 1 pool at relatively close spacings (the intermodule gap is 2 inches). The peripheral gaps between fuel racks and the adjacent pool walls are significantly larger (the minimum gap to the wall is 19 inches). Figure 6.4.2 is a sketch of a typical high density fuel rack array submerged in water. 6-4
e O 26.4.2 Innut Loadinos The primary loading causing a limiting stress state in the spent fuel racks is the seismic loading. The seismic loading induces other loadings in the racks, as discussed in Section 6.3. - 6d.3 Acceptance Criteria for Soent Fuel Rack Desion 64.'3.1- Kinematic and Stress criteria - There are two sets of criteria to be satisfied by the rack modules:
- a. Kinematic Criteria in order to be qualified as a physically stable structure it is =necessary. to-demonstrate that an isolated rack in water does not overtum when seismic events of magnitude 1.1 times' the governing faulted condition and- 1.5 times the governing upset condition are applied separately [6.1.2].
b.- Stress Limit criteria
. Stress-. limits must not be exceeded under the postulated load combinations-provided in Section 6.4.4 herein.
I
' The stress limits presented below are derived from the ASME Code, Section III, Subsection NF '
[6.1.3]. Parameters and terminology are in accordance with the ASME Code. Material properties - are obtained from the ASME Code Appendices (6.4.5], and are listed in Table 6.4.2. (i) Normal and Upset Conditions (Level A or Level B)
- a. Allowable stress in tension on a net section is:
Ft = 0.6 S y
!CN V Where, Sy= yield stress at temperature, and Ft is equivalent to primary membrane
-stress.
6-5 J
(3
- b. Allowable stress in shear on a net section is:
Fy = .4 Sy
- c. Allowable stress in compression on a net section ki F . . S , ( .4 7 444f) 1 kl/r for the main rack body is based on the full height and cross section of the honeycomb region and does not exceed 120 for all sections.
/= unsupported length of component k= length coefficient which gives influence of boundary conditions. The following values are appropriate for the described end conditions:
(~N V =
=
1 (simple support both ends) 2 (cantilever beam)
= % (clamped at both ends)
E= Young's Modulus r= radius of gyration of component
- d. Maximum allowable bending stress at the outermost fiber of a net section, due to flexure about one plane of symmetry is:
Fe = 0.60 S y (equivalent to primary bending)
- e. Combined bending and compression on a net section satisfies:
fr , C-fu , C-f6 g3 F. D Fu D Fu (~Sa
\s/
6-6
. _. . - . . -. . ~ - - - - ._ - -- . _ _ .
g where: a fa Direct compres.sive stress in the section
=
fbx Maximum bending stress along x axis
=
fby Maximum bending stress along y-axis C mx = 0.85 Cmy . - 0.85 Dx = 1 -(f a/F'ex) D = 1 -(f a/F'ey) F'y ex,ey = ( n- E)/(2.15 (kl/r)2x,y) and subscripts x,y reflect the particular bending plane.
- f. Combined flexure and compression (or tension) on a net section:
I" + b + bFs,s l.0 0.6% Fu .q The above requirements are to be met for both direct tension or compression. ! 1 v
- g. Welds Allowable maximum shear stress on the net section of a weld is given by:
Fw = 0.3 Su where Suis the material ultimate strength at temperature. For the area in contact with the base metal, the shear stress on the gross section is limited to 0.4Sy. (ii) Level D Service Limits Section F-1334 (ASME Section Ill, Appendix F) [6.4.5], states that the limits for the Level D condition are the minimum of 1.2 (Sy/Ft) or (0.7S u/F t) times the corresponding ( j-limits for the L'evel A condition. S uis ultimate tensile stress at the specified rack design temperature. Examination of material properties for 304L stainless demonstrates that 1.2 times the yield strength is less than the ultimate strength. 6-7
C U Exceptions to the above general multiplier are the following: a. Stresses in shear shall not exceed the lesser of 0.72S y or 0.42Su. In the case of the Austenitic Stainless material used here,0.72Sy governs.
- b. Axial Compression Loads shall be limited to 2/3 of the calculated buckling load,
- c. Combined Axial Compression and Bending - The equations for Level A conditions shall apply except that:
Fa= 0.667 x Buckling Load! Gross Section Area, and the terms F'ex and F'ey may be increased by the factor 1.65,
- d. For welds, the Level D allowable maximum weld stress is not specified in Appendix F of the ASME Code. An appropriate limit for weld throat stress is conservatively set here as:
Fw = (0.3 Su) x factor O
%J where:
factor = (Level D shear stress limit)/(Level A shear stress limit) 6.4.3.2 Dimensionless Stress Factors For convenience, the stress results are presented in dimensionless form. Dimensionless stress factors are defined as the ratio of the actual developed stress to the specified limiting value. The limiting value of each stress factor is 1.0 for Levels A, B (where 1.2S y < 0.7S u ). The Level D limit for stress factors is 2.0 for the single rack analysis and 1.0 for the Whole Pool Multi-Rack analysis. (The single rack model calculates stress factors based on Level A allowables, which are equal to half of the responding Level D allowables for 1.2Sy < 0.7 S u.) The stress factors reported are:
=
Rt Ratio of direct tensile or compressive stress on a net section to its- allowable value (note pedestals only resist compression)
= Ratio of gross shear on a net section in the x-direction to its R2 p allowable value V
=
R3 Ratio of maximum bending stress due to bending about the x-axis to its allowable value for the section 6-8
=
R4 Ratio of maximum bending stress due to bending about the y axis to its allowable value for the section
=
R5 Combined flexure and compressive factor (as defined in the foregoing)
=
R6 Combined flexure and tension (or compression) factor (as defined in the foregoing)
=
R7 Ratio of gross shear on a net section in the y-direction to its allowable value 6.4.4 Loads and I oading Combinations for Snent Fuel Racks The applieble loads and their combinations which must be considered in the seismic analysis of rack modules are excerpted from References [6.1.2] and [6.4,6] and are presented in the following: /^\, h Loading Combination Service Level D+L Level A D + L + To D+L+T+E o D+L+T+E a Level B D + L + Tn + Pr D + L + Ta + E' Level D D+L+T+Fd o The functional capability of the fuel racks should be demonstrated. Abbreviations are those used in Section 3.8.4 of the Standard Review Plan and the OT Position Paper on " Review and Acceptance of Spent Fuel Storage and Handling Applications" section. D = Dead weight-induced loads (including fuel assembly weight) ('~%, V L = Live Load (not applicable for the fuel rack, since there are no moving objects in the rack load path) 6-9
-(D L/ Fd
=
Force caused by the accidental drop of the heaviest load from the maximum possible height specified in the plant FSAR. .
=
Pr Upward force on the racks caused by postulated stuck fuel assembly E = Operating Basis Eanhquake (OBE) E' = Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE) To = Differential temperature induced loads (normal operating or shutdown condition based on the most critical transient or steady state condition) Ta = Differential temperature induced loads (tne highest temperature associated with the postulated abnormal design conditions) T aand To produce local thermal stresses. The worst thermal stress field in a fuel rack is obtained
~~N (b
when an isolated storage location has a fuel assembly generating heat at maximum postulated rate and surrounding storage locations contain no fuel. Heated water makes unobstructed contact with the inside of the storage walls, thereby producing maximum possible temperature difference between adjacent cells. Secondary stresses produced are limited to the body of the rack; that is, support pedestals do not experience secondary (thermal) stresses. 6.5 Seismic Evaluation of Racks 6.5.1 Synthetic Time-Histories Two sets of acceleration time-histories (OBE and SSE) were previously developed for Vogtle during the 1987-1988 rerack of the Unit 2 spent fuel pool. The elevation of the Unit I and Unit 2 pools is 179 feet, which is the elevation for which the time-histories were prepared. The synthetic time-histories in three orthogonal directions were shown to be in accordance with the provisions of SRP 3.7.1 [6.1.1). A preferred criterion for the synthetic time-histories in (6.1.1) calls for both the response spectrum and the power spectral density corresponding to the generated acceleration time-history to envelop their target (design basis) counterparts with only finite enveloping infractions. The time-histories for the Vogtle spent fuel pool satisfied this preferred and more rigorous criterion. Figures 6.5.1 through 6.5.9 contain the graphical plots of p the three time-histories for the SSE event (3 figures), proof of response spectrum enveloping (3
-() figures), and proof of enveloping of the target spectral density (3 figures). Similar plots for the three OBE time-histories are shown in Figures 6.5.10 through 6.5.18. The seismic files also 6-10
I (,,) satisfy the requirements of statistical independence mandated by [6.1.1]. These artificial time-V histories are used in all non linear dynamic simulations of the racks. 6.5.2 Modelling for Dynamic Simulation The dynamic modeling of the rack structure is prepared with special consideration of all nonlinearities and parametric variations. A rack may be completely loaded with fuel assemblies (which corresponds to greatest total mass), or it may be nearly empty. The coefficient of friction, p, between pedestal supports and pool floor is indeterminate. According to Rabinowicz [6.5.1], results of 199 tests performed on austenitic stainless steel plates submerged in wates show a mean value of p to be 0.503 with standard deviation of 0.125. Upper and lower bounds (based on twice standard deviation) are 0.753 and 0.253, respectively. Analyses are therefore performed for coefficient of friction values of 0.2 (lower limit) and 0.8 (upper limit), and for random f.iction values clustered about a mean of 0.5. The bounding values of p = 0.2 and 0.8 have been found to bracket the upper limit of module response in previous rerack projects. Lift-off of support pedestals and subsequent liner impacts are modeled using impact (gap) elements, and Coulomb friction between rack pedestals and pool liner is simulated by piece, vise linear (friction) elements. Rack elasticity, relative to the rack base, is included in the model with linear springs representing beam like action, twisting, and extensions. These special attributes of rack dynamics require strong emphasis on modeling oflinear and nonlinear springs, dampers, and compression-only gap elements. The term " nonlinear spring" is a generic term to denote the 'v mathematical element representing the case where restoring force is not linearly proportional to displacement. In the fuel rack simulations, the Coulomb friction interface between rack support pedestal and liner is typical of a nonlinear spring. Three-dimensional dynamic analyses of single rack modules require a key modeling assumption. This relates to location and relative motion of neighboring racks. The gap between a peripheral rack and adjacent pool wall is known, with motion of the pool wall prescribed. However, another rack, adjacent to the rack being analyzed, is also free-standing and subject to motion during a seismic event. To conduct the seismic analysis of a given rack, its physical interface with neighboring modules must be specified. There are two ways to consider the spacings ! between racks in single rack analysis. The first is to specify that neighboring racks move 180 out-of-phase in relation to the subject rack. Thus, the available gap before inter-rack impact l c : curs is 50% of the physical gap. This " opposed-phase motion" assumption increases the likelihood ofinter rack impacts and is thus conservative. However, it also increases the relative contribution of fluid coupling, which depends on fluid gaps and relative movements of bodies, making overall conservatism a less certain assertion. The alternative approach is to assume that all racks move in-phase. The entire array of racks move together as one body. Therefore, the critical dimensions are the boundary gaps between the fuel racks and the adjacent pool walls. This method of analysis predicts larger rack displacements and higher stress ratios, but the likelihood of inter-rack impacts is decreased. The 3-D analyses of single rack modules permit detailed evaluation of stress fields, and serve as a kinematic benchmark check for the much more ]C involved WPMR analysis. 6-11
h Particulars of modeling details and assumptions for the 3 D Single Rack analysis for the new fuel racks and for the Whole Pool Multi Rack analysis for the entire array of racks are given in the following. . 6.5.3 The 3-D 22-DOF Model for Sincie Rack Module Analysis of Maximum Density Racks 6.5.3.1 Assumotions
- a. The fuel rack structure motion is captured by modeling the rack as a 12 degree-of-freedom structure. Movement of the rack cross-section at any height is described by six degrees of freedom of the rack base and six degrees of freedom at the rack top. In this manner, the beam-like response of the module, relative to the baseplate, is captured in the dynamic analyses once suitable springs are introduced to couple the rack degrees of freedom. Rattling fuel assemblies within the rack are modeled by five lumped masses located at li, .75H, .5H, .25H, and at the rack base (H is the rack height measured above the base). Each lumped fuel mass has two horizontal displacement degrees of freedom. Vertical motion if the fuel assembly mass is assumed equal to rack vertical motion at the base. The centroid of each fuel assembly mass can be located off-center, relative to the rack structure 9 centroid at that level, to simulate a partially loaded rack.
(O
- b. Seismic motion of a fuel rack is characterized by random rattling of fuel assemblies in their individual storage locations. All fuel assemblies are assumed to move in-phase within a rack. This exaggerates computed dynamic loading on the rack structure and, therefore, yields conservative results,
- c. Fluid coupling between the rack and the fuel assemblies, and between the rack and the wall, is simulated by appropriate inertial coupling in the system kinetic energy. Inclusion of these effects uses the methods of [6.5.2, 6.5.3] for rack / assembly coupling and for rack-to-rack coupling. Fluid coupling terms for rack-to-rack coupling are based on either in-phase or opposed-phase motion of adjacent modufes.
- d. Fluid damping and form drag are conservatively neglected.
- e. Sloshing is found to be negligible at the top of the rack and is therefore neglected in the analysis of the rack.
- f. Potential impacts between the cell walls of the new racks and the contained fuel assemblies are accounted for !y appropriate compression-only gap elements between masses involved. The possible incidence of rack-to-wall or rack-to-rack f]
V impact is simulated by gap elements at the top and bottom of the rack in two horizontal directions. Bottom gap elements are located at the rack base. 6-12
($ g g. Pedestals are modeled by gap elements in the vertical direction and as " rigid V links" for transferring horizontal stress. Each pedestal support is linked to the pool liner by two friction springs. The spring rate for the friction springs includes any lateral elasticity of the stub pedestals. Local pedestal vertical spring stiffness accounts for the floor elasticity and the local rack elasticity just above the pedestal,
- h. Rattling of fuel assemslies inside the storage locations causes the gap between fuel assemblies and cell wall to change from a maximum of twice the nominal gap to a theoretical zero gap. Fluid coupling coefficients are based on the nominal gap dimension.
6.5.3.2 Model Details for Scent Fuel Racks Figure 6.5.19 shows a schematic of the dynamic model where pi (i = 1,2,3,7,8,...,19) represent the translational degrees of freedom, and qi (i = 4,5,6,20,21,22) represent the rotational degrees of freedom. Translational and rotational degrees of freedom 1-6 and 17-22 describe the rack L motion; the rattling fuel masses, which arr located at nodes 1*, 2* 3*, 4*, and 5* in Figure 6.5.19, are described by translational degrees of freedom 7-16. Table 6.5.1 lists the degrees of freedom for the single rack model. f')' ('- Figures 6.5.20 and 6.5.21, respectively, show the inter-rack impact springs (used to track the potential for impact between racks and between racks and the pool walls) and the fuel f assembly / storage cell impact spriip at each of the fuel mass locations (i.e, nodes 1*,2*,3*,4*, 5' in Figure 6.5.19). Figure 6.5.22 shows the modeling technique and the degrees of freedom used to describe rack elasticity. In each bending plane a shear spring and a bending spring simulate elastic effects [6.5.4]. Linear elastic springs which couple the rack vertical and torsional degrees of freedom are also included in the model. Additional detalis concerning fluid coupling and determination of stiffness elements are provided below. 6.5.4 Fluid Counling Effect in its simplest form, the so-called " fluid coupling effect" [6.5.2, 6.5.3) can be explained by considering the proximate motion of two bodies under water. If one body (mass mi) vibrates adjacent to a second body (mass m2), and both bodies are submerged in a frictionless fluid, then Newton's equations of motion for the two bodies are:
/^N i !
V (m1 + M 11) A1 + hil2 ^2 = applied forces on mass mi + 0 (X1) M31 A 1+ (m2 + M 22) A2= applied forces on mass m2 + 0 (X2) 6-13
m ( - - . - . - . a 4- , A 1, A denote 2 absolute accelerations of masses mj and m2, respectively, and the notation O(X2 ) . denotes nonlinear terms.
- i. '
hig1, M12. M21, and ht22 are fluid coupling coefficients which depend on body shape, relative disposition, etc.. Fritz (6.5.3) gives data for M ji for various body shapes and arrangements. The , fluid adds mass to the body (Mi1-to mass mih and an inertial force proportional to the
- acceleration of the adjacent body (mass m2). Thus, acceleration of one body affects the force
, field applied to the other body. This force field is a function ofinter-body gap, which reaches [ . large values for small gaps. Lateral motion of a fuel assembly inside a storage location encounters this effect. For example, fluid coupling occurs between nodes 2 and 2* in Figure 6.5.19. The rack analysis also contains inertial fluid coupling terms which model the effect of fluid in the gaps between adjacent racks. The terms modeling the effects of fluid flowing between racks in a single rack analysis depend L upon the assumed motion of the adjacent racks (i.e., "in phase" or "out-of phase"). For the in-4 phase case, the modeled rack is enclosed by a hydrodynamic mass which is proportional to the peripheral rack to-wall gaps. If the adjacent racks move out-of phase, then the hydrodynamic mass is equivalent to 50% of the fluid channels between the analyzed rack and the adjacent racks. 6.5.5 Stiffness Element Details i The cartesian coordinate system associated with the rack has the following nomenclature: x= Horizontal coordinate along the short direction of rack rectangular planform y= Horizontal coordinate along the long direction of the rack rectangular planform
-z= Vertical coordinate upward from the rack base
- Table 6.5.2 lists all spring elements used in the 3-D 22-DOF single rack model.
i If the simulation model is restricted to two dimensions (e.g., one horizontal motion plus vertical motion), for the purposes of model clarification only, then Figure 6.5.23 describes the configuration. This simpler model is used to elaborate on the various stiffness modeling elements. Gap elements modeling impacts between fuel assemblies and rack have local. stiffness K1 in
. Figure 6.5.23. In Table 6.5.2, for example, gap elements 5 through 8 act on the rattling fuel mass at the rack top. Support pedestal spring rates Ks are modeled by elements 1 through 4 in Table ;. - 6.5.2. Local compliance of the concrete floor is included in Ks . Friction elements 2 plus 8 and 4 2 ' .
plus 6 in Table 6.5.2 are shown in Figure 6.5.5. Friction at support / liner interface is modeled by the piecewise linear friction springs with suitably large stiffness Kr up to the limiting lateral load, pN, where N is the current compression load at the interface between support and liner. At every 6-14 x .-
3 time step during transient analysis, the current value of N (either zero if the pedestal has lifted (O off the liner or a fmite compressive value) is computed. Finally, support rotational friction springsl Krreflect any rotational limitations (such as edging as the rack rotates) that may be offered by the foundation. The rotational frictSn spring rate is calculated using a modified Boussinesq equation [6.5.4] and is included to simulate resistive moment by the slab to counteract rotation of the rack pedestal in a vertical plane. The nonlinearity of these springs reflects the edging limitation imposed on the base of the rack support pedestals and the shift in location of slab resistive load as the rack pedestal rotates. The gap element Ks , modeling the effective compression stiffness of the structure in the vicinity of the support, includes stiffness of the pedestal, local stiffness of the underlying pool slab, and local stiffness of the rack cellular structure above the pedestal. The previous discussion is limited to a 2-D model solely for simplicity. Actual analyses incorporate 3-D motions ed include all stiffness elements listed in Table 6.5.2. 6.5.6 Whole Pool Multi-Rack (WPMR) Model 6.5.6.1 General Remarks p The single rack 3-D (22-DOF) models for the new racks outlined in the preceding subsection are used to evaluate structural integrity and physical stability of the rack modules. Prescribing the motion of the racks adjacent to the module being analyzed is an assumption in the single rack simulations which cannot be defended on the grounds of conservatism. For closely spaced racks, demonstration of kinematic compliance is further verified by including all modules in one comprehensive simulation using a Whole Pool Multi-Rack (WPMR) model. In WPMR analysis, all rack modules are modeled simultaneously and the coupling effect due to this multi-body motion is included in the analysis. 6.5.6.2 Multi-Body Fluid Coucline Phenomena During the seismic event, all racks in the pool are subject to the input excitation simultaneously. The motion of each free-standing module would be autonomous and independent of others as long as they did not impact each other and no water were present in the pool. While the scenario of inter-rack impact may not be a common occurrence, the effect of water the so-called fluid coupling effect is a universal factor. As noted in Ref. [6.5.2,6.5.4], the fluid forces can reach 1 The term " rotational friction spring" is used to connote the parallel between the force which opposes [V 1 lateral movement of a compressively loaded pedestal due to Coulomb friction and the moment offered by the foundation against rotation of a compressively loaded pedestal. The resistive moment reaches its limiting value when the pedestal contact reaches the so-called
- edging" cond?. ion, just as the friction reaches a limiting value and remains constant thereafter.
6-15
l 1 1 i /7 rather large values in closely spaced rack geometries. It is, therefore, essential that the V contribution of the fluid forces be included in a comprehensive manner. This is possible only if all racks in the pool are allowed to execute 3 D motion in the mathematical model. For this reason, single rack or even multi-rack models involving only a portion of the racks in the pool, , are inherently inaccurate. The Whole Pool Multi Rack model removes this intrinsic limitation of the rack dynamic models by simulating th: 3 D motion of all modules simultaneously. The fluid coupling effect, therefore, encompasses interaction between every set of racks in the pool, i.e., the motion of one rack produces fluid forces on all other racks and on the pool walls. Stated more formally, both near-field and far-field fluid coupling effects are included in the analysis. The derivation of the fluid coupling matrix [6.5.5) relies on the classical inviscid fluid mechanics principles, namely the principle of continuity and Kelvin's recirculation theorem. While the derivation of the fluid coupling matrix is based on no artificial construct, it has been nevertheless verified by an extensive set of shaketable experiments (6.5.5]. 6.5.6.3 Coefficients of Friction To eliminate the last significant element of uncertainty in rack dynamic analyses, the friction coefficient ascribed to the support pedestal / pool bearing pad interface are made consistent with Rabinowicz's data [6.5.1). Friction coefficients, developed by a random number generator with Gaussian normal distribution characteristics, are imposed on each pedestal of each rack in the b(N pool. The assigned values are then held constant during the entire simulation in order to obtain reproducible results.2 Thus, in this manner, the WPMR analysis results are brought closer to the realistic structural conditions. To further assure that the analysis results are conservative, two aditional cases of pedestal / liner coefficient of friction are analyzed. The coeflicient of friction at every pedestal location is set at 0.2 (lower limit) and 0.8 (upper limit), alternatively. 6.5.6.4 Modeliny Details in Whole Pool Multi-Rack analysis, a 16 degrees of freedom discretization is used to model each rack plus contained fuel. The rack structure is modeled by twelve degrees of freedom, and the contained fuel is modeled by four horizontal degrees of freedom. The only difference between the single rack model, which is described in subsection 6.5.3, and the WPMR model is the number of rattling fuel masses. The WPMR model has two fuel masses which are located at nodes 3* and 5* in Figure 6.5.1. Thus, the WPMR model involves all racks in the spent fuel pool with each individual rack and its fuel modeled as an 16-DOF structure. Figure 6.5.24 shows the rack and pedestal numbering scheme used for WPMR analysis. ,m 2 It is noted that DYNARACK has the capability to change the coefficient of friction at any V pedestal at each instant of contact based on a random reading of the PC-clock cycle. However, exercising this option would yield results that could not be reproduced. Therefore, the random choice of coefficients is made only once per run. 6-16
Ob The WPMR model includes gap elements that represent compression-only pedestals, impact potential at fuel assembly fuel rack interfaces, and impact potential at rack to rack and rack to-wall locations. The rack to rack and rack to wall impact springs are located at the top and bottom comers of the rack. Each pedestal has two friction elements associated with the force in the vertical compression element. The spring constants are equal to the corresponding values from the 22 DOF single rack model, 6.5.7 Governine Equations of Motion Using the structural model discussed in the foregoing, equations of motion corresponding to each degree of freedom are obtained using Lagrange's Formulation [6.5.6]. The system kinetic energy includes contributions from solid structures and from trapped and surrounding fluid. The final system of equations obtained have the matrix form: [u](q} = {G} + {a} where: (M) - total mass matrix (including structural and fluid mass contributions). The size of this matrix will be 22x22 for a single rack analysis or 16n x 16n for a WPMR analysis (n = number of racks in the spent fuel pool). {q} - the nodal displacement vector relative to the pool slab displacement (double dot stands for second derivatives with respect to time) {G) - a vector dependent on the given ground acceleration {Q) - a vector dependent on the spring forces (linear and nonlinear) and the coupling between degrees of freedom The above column vectors have length 22 or 16n. {if } = [M]" {G} +(M}" {G} p This equation set is mass uncoupled, displacement coupled at each instant in time, numerical Q solution uses a central difference scheme built into the proprietary computer program DYNARACK [6.5.7]. 6-17 i
s 6.5.8 Structural Evaluation of Racks r V The seismic / structural analysis of the modules is carried out using the methodology described in the preceding subsections. The two most critical rack modules for single rack analysis are the most slender rack (i.e., highest aspect ratio)'and the rack with the most fuel storage locations. The justification is that slender racks have a greater propensity to overturn during a seismic event because of the shorter distance between pedestal centers in one direction. Also, for racks with an equal number of pedestals, the highest stresses in the pedestal region correspond to the rack with the most fuel storage locations. This is because the weight of the stored fuel, when fully loaded, is a maximum. Rack "T" is one of five 6x9 rack modules; the aspect ratio of which is 1.5 (i.e.,9/6 = 1.5). This is the highest ratio of all of the racks in the Vogtle spent fuel pool Rack "H" has the maximum number of fuel storage locations at 72. These racks were analyzed for a number of bounding input parameters; Tables 6.5.3 and 6.5.4 list all of the single rack analyses performed. As can been seen from the above mentionet ables, a total of 85 distinct single rack 3 D analyses have been canied out to investigate the structural adequacy of the Unit I rack modules. Tables 6.5.6 through 6.5.8 provide an overall summary of the loads, displacements, and stress factors for all 3-D single rack analyses performed. The results of each individual run which is listed in Tables 6.5.3 and 6.5.4 are presented separately in Tables 6.5.9 through 6.5.93, in addition to the single rack analyses, a number of Whole Pool Multi-Rack (WPMR) analyses were also carried out. As shown in Table 6.5.5, four distinct Whole Pool Multi Rack simulations were performed to demonstrate the kinematic and structural compliance of the stored rack arrays in the Unit I fuel pool. The results of the WPMR runs are summarized in Tables 6.5.94 and 6.5.95. The results for every rack, from each of the runs which are listed in Table 6.5.5, are presented separately in Tables 6.5.96 through 6.5.199. The results of the single rack and WPMR analyses can be summarized as follows: (i) The largest compressive pedestal load in any single pedestal in the pool is 235,000 lb (Table 6.5.149) for the SSE condition. For the OBE case, as determined from either single or WPMR analysis, the largest compressive load is 176,168 lb (Table 6.5.28). The total vertical load (i.e., the sum of all pedestal loads) is shown plotted versus time for each WPMR run in Figures 6.5.25 through 6.5.28. (ii) The maximum pedestal stress factor for the SSE condition is 0.659 (Table 6.5.76). This value is obtained from a single rack run where the factor limit is 2.0 for SSE. When the result is normalized to a factor limit of 1.0, the result becomes 0.330. The maximum OBE stress factor at a support pedestal location is 0.557 (Table (V3 6.5.28). In both cases, the maximum pedestal stress factor is well below the allowable limit of 1.0. 6-18
(iii) For the SSE condition, the mrximum . stress factor in the cell region, after (,} normalization to a factor limit of 1.0, is 0.380 (Table 6.5.135)3 The maximan OBE stress factor is 0.576 (Table 6.5.197). In both cases, the max mum cell stress factor is well below the allowable lim:t of 1.0. (iv) No rack to-wall impacts are predicted. This is expected for a layout with such large gaps between the fuel racks and the adjacent pool walls. The smallest rack-to wall gap in any direction is 19 inches. Figure 6.5.29 shows a plot of the N S displacement of rack "Z" at the top southeast corner versus time. (v) The rack modules exhibit large margins against overturning as evidenced by the maximum rack movements for the cases with seismic amplifiers (Table 6.5.3). (vi) Impacts do occur between adjacent racks at the top elevation. The maximum rack-to-rack impact is between racks "Z" and "Q", and it measures 167,500 lb. Figure 6.5.30 shows the typical area of impact on the rack structure. To demonstrate that these loads are admissible for these racks (i.e., the stored fuel assembly can be removed by normal means), a plastic deformation analysis is carried out, as summarized below. The total cross sectional area of the four composite walls that directly support the impact is Q) A = [ 7(0.105 in) + 0.375 in ] x 4 in = 4.44 in2 The average compressive stress in the walls, assuming that plastic deformation occurs, is 167,000.lb o= = 37,600 ps. 4.44 in' Based on the material properties listed in Table 6.4.2 and a bi-linear approximation of the stress-strain curve (with a rupture strain of 0.38 for stainless steel), the maximum local strain at the impact face is
, au 37,600, psi- 21,300 psi 038 = 0.138 ar 66,200. psi-21,300 psi 3
g The computer code DYNARACK [6.5.7) does not incorporate the provisions from ASME Code Section 111, Subsection NF [6.1.3] for structural members of high width-thickness ratios. The slenderness ratio (b/t) of [ } v the storage cell walls, however, exceeds the critical limit. Therefore, the stress results calculated using DYNARACK must be adjusted according to section NF-3322.2 of the Code. The cell stress factors listed in the result tables must be divided by 0.611 to obtain the corrected value; the values in (iii) reflect this increase. 6-19
(' If the impact load spreads downward at a 45 degree angle from the impact face (see Figure 6.5.30), then the distance d at which the local strain reaches zero is 167,000 lb
,g d=
- W = 3.06 in 7-(0.105 in)+ 0.375 in Therefore, the local strain decreases linearly from a maximum of 0.138, at the impact surface, to zero, at a distance d (= 3.06 in) from the impact surface, according to the equation du 0.138 c(x) = -Dx= 0.138 .x 3.06. in i
where x is measured in inches. The total deformation of the cell walls is then equal to l n a.m Du
!] -,dr = 0.211 in This indicates that the storage cells that border the impact area will deform 0.211 inches under a 167,000 lb impact load. The potential concern is that, after impact, the size of the cell openings is too small to remove the stored fuel assemblies by normal means. The dimensions of the rack cells prove that this is not the case, The undeformed size of the cell openings at the top elevation is approximately a 10 inch square. This area is considerably larger than the storage area of the cells (8.75 in x 8.75 in) at lower rack elevations. The reason is that each cell is flared outward over a 3.5 inch span at the top of the rack. If one side of the 10 inch square opening is reduced by 0.211 inches, the open area still envelops the area of the cell at rack mid-height.
(vii) The maximum hydrodynamic pressure distributions, which develop between the fuel racks and the surrounding pool walls during an earthquake, are shown in Figures 6.5.31 through 6.5.34 for each of the WPMR runs. The paths are located along the periphery of the rack array (i.e., between the outermost racks and the pool walls), and each path corresponds to a pool wall which is identified at the bottom of the figure (e.g., Wall 1 = South Wall). The curves represent plots of the instantaneous wall pressure versus distance from the wall edge / corner. The " distance along path" for Walls 1 and 3 is
/N measured from East to We:t; Walls 2 and 4 are measured from North to South. The b pressures are calculated as an average value over the height of the rack modules.
6-20
(viii) The maximum pedestal shear load in any single pedestal in the pool is 136,000 lb (Table (_)
'" 6.5.130) for the SSE condition. For the OBE case, as determined from either single or WPMR analysis, the largest shear load is 97,715 lb (Table 6.5.27). The total horizontal loads (i.e., the sum of all pedestal shear loads) are shown plotted versus time for each WPMR run in Figures 6.5.36 through 6.5.44.
6.5.9 Fatigue Analysis Deeply submerged high density spent fuel storage racks arrayed in close proximity to each other in a free standing configuration behave primarily as a nonlinear cantilevered structure when subjected to 3 D seismic excitations. In addition to the pulsations in the vertical load at each pedestal, lateral friction forces at the pedestal / bearing pad liner interface, which help prevent or mitigate lateral sliding of the rack, also exert a time-varying moment in the baseplate region of the rack. The friction-induced lateral forces act simultaneously in x and y directions with the requirement that their vectorial sum does not exceed pV, where p is the limiting interface coefficient of friction and V is the concomitant vertical thrust on the liner (at the given time instant). As the vertical thrust at a pedestal location changes, so does the maximum friction force, F, that the interface can exert. In other words, the lateral force at the pedestal / liner interface, F, is given by F s p N(t) I ,T where N (vertical thrust) is the time-varying function of x . F does not always equal pN; rather, pN is the maximum value it can attain at any time; the actual value, of course, is determined by the dynamic equilibrium of the rack structure, in summary, the horizontal friction force at the pedestal / liner interface is a function of time; it's magnitude and d!rection of action varies during the earthquake event. The time varying lateral (horizontal) and vertical forces on the extremities of the support pedestals produce stresses at the root of the pedestals in the mamer of an end loaded cantilever. The stress field in the cellular region of the rack is quite complex, with its maximum values located in the region closest to the pedestal. The maximum magnitude of the stresses depends on the severity of the pedestal end loads and on the geometry of the pedestal / rack baseplate region. Alternating stresses in metals produce metal fatigue if the amplitude of the stress cycles is sufficiently large. In high density racks designed for sites with moderate to high postulated seismic action, the stress intensity amplitudes frequently reach values above the material endurance limit. leading to expenditure of the fatigue " usage" reserve in the material. Because the locations of maximum stress (viz., the pedestal / rack baseplate junction) and the close placement of racks, a post-earthquake inspection of the high stressed regions in the racks is (,) not feasible. Therefore, the racks must be engineered to withstand multiple earthquakes without reliance of nondestructive inspections for post-earthquake integrity assessment. The fatigue life evaluation of racks is an integral aspect of a sound design. 6-21
The time history method _ of analysis, deployed in this report provides the means to obtain a h d complete cycle history of the stress intensities in the highly stressed regions of the rack. Having determined the amplitude of the stress intensity cycles and their number, the cumulative damage factor, U, can be determined using the classical Miner's rule vqg where nj is the number of stress intensity cycles of amplitude aj, and Nj is the permissible number of cycles corresponding to ci from the ASME fatigue curve for the material of construction. U must be less than or equal to 1.0. To evaluate the cumulative damage factor, a finite element model of a portion of the spent fuel rack in the vicinity of a support pedestal was constructed in sufficient detail to provide an accurate assessment of stress intensities. Figure 6.5.35 shows two different views of the finite element model. The finite element solutions for unit pedes'ai loads in three orthogonal directions were combined to establish the maximum value of stress in'. nsity as a function of the three unit pedestal loads. Using th: archived results of the spent fuel rack dynamic analyses (pedestal load histories versus time), enables a time history of stress intensity to be established at the most limiting location. This permits establishing a set of alternating stress intensity ranges versus cycles for an~SSE and an OBE event. Following ASME Code guidelines for computing U, it is found that U = 0.523 for one SSE and five OBE events. This well below the ASME Code limit of 1.0. 6.5.10 Local Buckling of Fuel Cell Walls This subsection presents details on secondary stresses produced by local buckling. The allowable local buckling stresses in the fuel cell walls are obtained by using classical plate buckling analysis. The following formula [6.5.8] for the critical stress, which is appropriate for one wall of a rectangular cell, has been used based on a width of cell "b" (see Figure 6.5.45) where q is the applied stress, a is the length of the section, b is the width, and t is the plate thickness. p .n . E.t* 2 ou = 12.b,[3_p) 2 a The above result assumes simple support conditions on all sides of the buckling plate. o cr is the limiting vertical compressive stress in the tube, E = 27.6 x 106 psi, = 0.3, (poisson's ratio), t = ( 0.105", b = 8.75". The factor B is a coefficient depending on a/b and has a value of 4.0 for a long panel. For the given data. 6-22
as = 14,368 psi O lt should be noted that this elastic stability' calculation is based on the applied stress being uniform along the entire length _of the cell wall. In the actual fuel rack, the compressive stress comes from consideration of overall bending of the rack structure during a seismic event and as such is negligible at the rack top and maximum at the rack bottom. it is very conservative to apply the above equation to the rack cell wall if we compare o er with the maximum compressive stress anywhere in the cell wall. As shown in Subsection 6.5.8, the local buckling stress limit is not violated anywhere in the body of the rack modules. The maximum compressive stress in the outermost cell is obtained by multiplying the limiting value of the stress factor R6 (for the cell cross-section just above the baseplate) by the allowable stress. Thus, from Section l-6.4.3 e = R6x allowable stress = 0.576 x (.6 x 21,300) = _7,361 psi, under upset conditions and L = 0.380 x 2 (.6 x 21,300) = 9,713 psi, under faulted conditions. ,O V 6-23 a
6.6 References fh [6.1.1] USNRC Standard Review Plan, NUREG-0800 (SRP 3.7.1, Rev.1,1981). [6.1.2] "OT Position for Review and Acceptance of Spent Fuel Storage and Handling Applications", dated April 14, 1978, and January 18, 1979 amendment thereto, [6.1.3] ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code Section III, Subsection NF, (1980). [6.1.4] ACI 318 71, Section 10,1971. [6.4.1) USNRC Standard Review Plan (SRP 3.8.4, Rev.1, July 1981). [6.4.2) Soler, A.I. and Singh, K.P., " Seismic Responses of Free Standing Fuel Rack Constructions to 3 D Motions", Nuclear Engineering and Design, Vol. 80, pp. 315-329 (1984). [6.4.3] Singh, K.P. and Soler, A.I., " Seismic Qualification of Free Standing Nuclear 1uel Storage Racks - the Chin Shan Experience, Nuclear Engineering Intemational, UK (March 1991). O [6.4.4] Specification No. X6AN10B, " Technical Provisions for Analysis and Qualification of Spent Fuel Storage Racks for Georgia Power Company Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Unit 1," Rev. O, February 1997. [6.4.5] ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, Appendices (1980). [6.4.6] Georgia Power Company Vogtle Plant UFSAR, Table 9.1.2-1. [6.5.1] Rabinowic::, E., " Friction Coefficients of Water Lubricated Stainless Steels for a Spent Fuel Rack Facility," MIT, a report for Boston Edison Company,1976. [6.5.2] Singh, K.P. and Soler, A.I., " Dynamic Coupling in a Closely Spaced Two-Body System Vibrating in Liquid Medium: The Case of Fuel Racks," 3rd International Conference on Nuclear Power Safety, Keswick, England, May 1982. [6.5.3] Fritz, R.J., "The Effects of Liquids on the Dynamic Motions ofimmersed Solids," Journal of Engineering for Industry, Trans. of the ASME, ,/~'S February 1972, pp 167-172. U 6-24
1 4 _ [6.5.4] L Levy, S. and Wilkinson, J.P.D., "The Component Element hiethod in ~!
- Dynamics with' Application to Earthquake and Vehicle Engineering,"
11 McGraw 11i11,1976. ' . ;-4 3 [6.5.5] Paul,LB., " Fluid . Coupling in Fuel Racks: Correlation of Theory and 3 j Experiment",(Proprietary), NUSCO/Holtec Report HI 88243, ; , [6.5.6] " Dynamics of Structures," R.W. Clough and J. Penzien, McGraw Hill r (1975). ' [6.5.7] . Soler, A.I., DYNARACK Validation Manual, Holtec Proprietary Report ; E - HI 91700, Rev. O, October,1991.
.[6 5.8)- " Strength of Materials," S.P. Timoshenko,3rd Edition, Part II, pp 194 197 l _(1956), i t
1-1 k' i O 4 N d O
- 6-25 o
r
.....,-y1-. . - - -
gy y . - ,- , r - w --.
1 l Table 6.4.1 PARTIAL LISTING OF FUEL RAQK APPLICATIONS USING DYNARACK PLANT DOCKET NUMBER (s) YEAR Enrico Fermi Unit 2 USNRC 50-341 1980 Quad Cities 1 & 2 USNRC 50-254,50-265 1981 Rancho Seco USNRC 50-312 1982 Grand Gulf Unit 1 USNRC 50-416 1984 Oyster Creek USNRC 50 219 1984 Pilgrim USNRC 50-293 1985 V.C. Summer USNRC 50-395 1984 Diablo Canyon Units 1 & 2 USNRC 50 275,50-323 1986 Byron Units 1 & 2 USNRC 50 454,50-455 1987 Braidwood Units 1 & 2 USNRC 50-456,50-457 1987 Vogtle Unit 2 USNRC 50-425 1988 St. Lucie Unit i USNRC 50-335 1987 4 Millstone Point Unit i USNRC 50 245 1989 , D.C. Cook Units 1 & 2 USNRC 50-315,50 316 1992 Indian Point Unit 2 USNRC 50-247 1990 Three Mile Island Unit 1 USNRC 50-289 1991 James A. FitzPatrick USNRC 50-333 1990 Shearon Harris Unit 2 USNRC 50-401 1991 Hope Creek USNRC 50-354 ' 1990 Kuosheng Units 1 & 2 Taiwan Power Company 1990 Ulchin Unit 2 Korea Electric Power Co.- 1990 4
Table 6,4,1 (continued) PARTIAL LISTING OF FUEL RACK APPLICATIONS USING DYNARACK PLANT DOCKET NUMBER (s) YEAR Laguna Verde Units 1 & 2 Comision Federal de 1991 Electricidad Zion Station Units 1 & 2 USNRC 50-295,50-304 1992 Sequoyah USNRC 50-327,50-328 1992 LaSalle Unit 1 USNRC 50-373 1992 Duane Arnold Energy Center USNRC 50-331 1992 Fort Calhoun USNRC 50-285 1992 Nine Mile Point Unit 1 USNRC 50-220 1993 Beaver Valley Unit 1 USNRC 50-334 1992 Salem Units 1 & 2 USNRC 50 272,50-311 1993-Limerick USNRC 50-352,50-353 1994 Ulchin Unit i KINS 1995 Yonggwang Units 1 & 2 KINS 1996 Kori-4 KINS 1996 Connecticut Yankee USNRC 50-213 1996 Angra Unit i Brazil 1996 Sizewell B United Kingdom 1996 f) V
4
- O 4
1 i l . Table 6.4.2 RACK MATERIAL. DATA (200 F) (ASME . Section 11, Part D) ., Component Young's Modulus Yield Strength Ultimate Strength .l (Material) (E), psi (S., t psi (S,,), psi i Cell Structure 27.6 x 100 21',300 66,200 (304L St. Stl. ASTM A.240) {O. Female Pedestal 27.6 x 100 21,300 66,200 (304L St. Stl. ASTM A 240) Male Pedestal 27.6 x 100 1 6,300 140,000 (63011 1100 St. Stl. ASTM A.564)
=Q v
I l 1 l l i l Table 6.5.1 DEGREES OF FREEDOM DISPLACEMENT ROTATION
- I,0 CATION (Node)
X Y Z X Y Z l Pl P2 94 P3 95 96 2 pt7 pig pig q20 921 922 . i Point 2 is rigidly attached to the tack at the highest point. ; O 2 p7 pg 3' p9 pio : 4' pgi p12 S' pl3 p14 L l' pt$ pl6 ' L The ' absolute displacement variables pj(t) are defined as: I p (t) = rj(t) + Ux(t) i = 1,7,9,11,13,15,17
= i = 2,8,10,12,14,16,18 l-r (t) + Uy(t)
= rj(t)+ Uz(t) i = 3,19 l
where ri(t)is the displacement relative to the pool slab. ,
- Uj(t) is the earthquake displacement in the j direction.
i 1 O i l l- \ ,.
,+. . ,, .. - . , - - -
< - ,. ._v _ -, . . , , ~ , - , _ . . . . - . . . . . - - - _ - - . , , - - - . _ , , . . .
i Table 6.5.2 O NUMDERING SYSTEh! FOR OAP ELEhtENTS AND FRICTION ELEh1ENTS (DYNARACK)
- 1. Nonlinear Springs (Oap Elements)(64 Total)
Number Node Location Description 1 Support S1 Z compression only element 2 Support S2 Z compression only element 3 Support S3 Z compression only element 4 Support S4 Z compression-only element 5 2,2 ' X rack / fuel assembly impact element 6 2,2 ' X rack / fuel assembly impact element 7 2,2' Y rack / fuel assembly impact element 8 2,2 ' Y rack / fuel assembly impact element 9 24 Other rattling masses for nodes l',3',4' and 5' g 25 Bottom cross Inter rack impact elements (j section of rack (around edge) Inter rack impact elements Inter rack impact elements Inter rack impact elements 44 Inter rack impact elements 45 Top cross section Inter rack impact elements of rack (around edge)
- Inter rack impact elements
+
Inter rack impact elements Inter rack impact elements 64 Inter rack impact elements O l
I O 5 Table 6.5.2 (continued) NUMBERING SYSTEM FOR OAP ELEMENTS AND FRICTION ELEMENTS (DYNARACK)
- 11. Friction Elements (16 Total)
Number Node Location Description 1 Support S1 X direction friction
-2 Support S1 Y direction friction 3 Support S2 X direction friction 4 Support S2 Y direction friction
~
5 Support S3 X direction friction 6 Support S3 Y direction friction 7 Support S4 X direction friction 8 Support S4 Y direction friction 9 S1 X slab moment 10 S1 Y slab moment 11 S2 X slab moment 12 S2 Y slab moment 13 S3 X slab moment 14 S3 Y slab moment 15 S4 X slab moment 16 S4 Y slab moment
O O O Table 6.5.3 LIST OF SINGLE RACK ANALYSES FOR RACK"II' Run Run I.D. Scismic Event Iloundary Condition Fuci Imading Cocilicient of No. Friction i drog-ri.sf2 - SSE In-phase Fully Loaded 0.2 2 drog-ri.s5 SSE In-phase Fully Loaded 0.5 3- drog-ri.sfB SSE In-phase Fully Loaded 0.8 4 dvog-ri.sfr SSE In-phase Fully Loaded Gaussian Dist. 5 dvog-ri.se2 SSE In-phase Nearly Empty 0.2 6 dvog-ri.se5 SSE In-pluse Nearly Empty 0.5 7 drog-ri.se8 SSE In-phase Nearly Empty 0.8 8 drog-ri.ser SSE In-phase Nearly Empty Gaussian,Dist. 9 dvog-ri.sx2 SSE In-phase iIalf Loaded Along X Axis 0.2
- 10. dvog-ri.sx5 SSE In-phase IIalf Loaded Along X Axis 0.5 11 dvog-ri.sx8 SSE In-phase IIalf Loaded Along X Axis 0.8 12 dvog-ri.sxr SSE In-phase 11alf Loaded Along X Axis Gaussian Dist.
13 dvog-ri.sd2 SSE In-phase IIalf Loaded Along Diagonal 0.2 14 drog-ri.sd5 SSE In-phase IIalf Loaded Along Diagonal 0.5
O U Y Table 6.53 (continued) LIST OF SINGLE RACK ANALYSES FOR RACK "If' .Run Run I.D. Seismic Event .. Boundary Condition Fuel Loading Coefficient of ' No. Friction 15 dvog-ri.sd8 SSE In-phase lialfleaded Along Diagonal 0.8 16 drog-ri sdr - SSE In-phase Italf Loaded Along Diagonal Gaussian Dist. 17 dvog-ro.sf2 SSE Out-of-phase Fully Loaded 0.2 18 dvog-rosf5 SSE Out-of-phase Fully Loaded 0.5 19 drog-ro. stb SSE Out-of-phase Fully Loaded 0.8 20 dvog-ro.sfr SSE Out-of-phase Fully Loaded Gaussian Dist. 21 dvog-ro.se2 SSE Out-of-phase Nearly Empty 0.2 22 dvog-ro.se5 SSE Out-of-phase - Nearly Empty 0.5 . 23 dvog-ro.se8 SSE Out-of-phase Nearly Empty 0.8 24 dvog-ro.ser SSE Out-of-phase Nearly Empty Gaussian Dist.
.25 drog-ro.sx2 SSE Out-of-phase IIalf Loaded Akmg X Axis 0.2 26 dvog-ro.sx5 - SSE Out-of-phase IfalfLoaded Along X Axis 0.5 27 - drog-ro.sx8 SSE Out-of-phase IIalfLoaded Along X Axis 0.8 28 dvog-ro sxr SSE Out-of-phase IIalf Loaded Along X Axis Gaussian Dist.
O O O Table 6.5.3 (continued) LIST OF SINGLE RACK ANALYSES FOR RACK "IF' Run Run LD. . Seismic Event Boundary Condition Fuel Loading . Coefficient of-No. Friction 29 drog-ro.sd2 SSE Out-of-phase IIalfLoaded Along Diagonal 0.2 30 drog-ro sd5 SSE Out-of-phase llalfLoaded Along Diagonal 0.5 31 dvog-ro sd8 SSE Out-of-phase IIalf Loaded Along Diagonal 0.8 32- ' drog-ro.sdr SSE Out-of phase IIalf Loaded Along Diagonal Gaussian Dist. 33 dvog-ri.of2 OBE In-phase Fully Loaded 07 34 dvog-ri.of3 OBE In-phase Fully Leaded 0.5 35 drog-ri.ofE OBE In-phase Fully Loaded 0.8
'36' dvog-ri.ofr OBE In-phase Fully Imaded Gaussian Dist.
37 drog-ri.oe2 OBE In-phase Nearly Empty 0.2
.38 drog-ri.oe5 OBE in-phase Nearly Empty 0.5 39 drog-ri.oe8 OBE In-phase Nearly Empty 0.8 40 dvog-ri.oer. OBE In-phase Nearly Empty Gaussian Dist.
41 drog-ri.ox2 - OBE In-phase IIalf Loaded Along X Axis 02 42 dvog-ri.ox5 OBE in-phase IlaifLoaded AlongX Axis 0.5
r . i O O O ; Table 6.53 (continued) F j LIST OF SINGLE RACK ANALYSES FOR RACK"II" 3 Run l Run I.D. Seismic Event Boundary Condition Fuel Loading Coefkient of- i No. Fdction i l '43 drog-ri.ox8 OBE In-phase HalfLoaded Along X Axis 0.8
! t j 44 dvog-ri.oxr OBE In-phase lialf Loaded Along X Axis Gaussian Dist.
l l l 45 drog-ri.od2 ~ OBE In-phase IIalf Loaded Along Diagonal 0.2 ; l 46 dvog-ri.od5 OBE In-phase Ifalf Loaded Along Diagona! 0.5 [ 2 47 drog-ri od8 OBE In-phase . IIalf Loaded Along Diagonal 0.8 48 dvog-ri.odr OBE In-phase IIalf Loaded Along Diagonal Gaussian Dist. 49 drog-ro.of2 OBE Out-of-phase Fully Loaded 0.2 l 50 drog-ro.of5 OBE Out-of-phase Fully Loaded 0.5 51 drog-ro.ofB OBE Out-of-phase Fully Loaded 0.8 . 52 drog-ro. oft OBE Out-of-phase Fully Loaded Gaussian Dist. 53 dvog-ro.oe2 OBE: Out-of-phase Nearly Empty 0.2 54 drog-ro.oe5 OBE Out-of-pha Nearly Emp;y 0.5 OBE 55 . dvog-ro oe8 Out-of-phase Nearly Empty 0.8 j 56- drog-ro.oer OBE Out-of-phase Nearly Empty Gaussian Dist. j } I ! i l i 4 j t i
- l
= t i ! 1 , i ! i 4 i i
O O O Table 6.53 (continued) I LIST OF SINGLE RACK ANALYSES FOR RACK "II" Run Run I.D. Seismic Event Boundary Condition Fuel Loading Coefficient of No. Friction 57 drog-ro ox2 OBE Out-of-phase IIalfLoaded AlongX Axis 0.2 58 dvog-ro.ox5 OBE Out-of-phase llalf Loaded Along X Axis 0.5 59 dvog-ro.ox8 OBE Out-of-phase IIalf Loaded Along X Axis 0.8 60 drog-ro.oxr OBE Out-of-phase IIalf Loaded Along X Axis Gaussian Dist. 61 drog-ro.od2 OBE Out-of-phase IIalf Loaded Along Diagonal 0.2 62 drog-ro.od5 OBE Out-of-phas.: IIalf Loaded Along Diagonal 0.5 ' 63 drog-ro.od8 OBE Out-of-phase IIalf Loaded Along Diagonal 0.8 64 drog-ro.odt OBE Out-of-phase IIalf Loaded Along Diagonal Gaussian Dist-65 dvog-rs.110 1.10 x SSE - Combination that produces maximum displacement from Run Nos.1 - 32 66 drog-ro.150 1.50 x OBE Combination that produces maximum displacement from Run Nos. 33 - 64 d 1 1
O O O Table 6.5.4
' LIST OF SINGLE RACK ANALYSES FOR RACK"T Run Run I.D. Seismic Event Boundary Condition Fuel Loading Coeffrient of No. Friction 67 drog-pi.sf2 SSE In-phase Fully Loaded 0.2 68 dvog-pi.sf5 SSE In-phase Fully Loaded 03 69 drog-pisfB SSE In-phase Fully Loaded 0.8 70 drog-pi.sfr SSE In-phase Fully Loaded Gaussian Dist.
71 dvog-pi.se2 SSE In-phase Nearly Empty 0.2 72 dvog-pi.se5 SSE In-phase Nearly Empty 03 73 dvog-pi.se8 SSE In-phase Nearly Empty 0.8 74 dvog-pi.ser SSE In-phaw Nearly Empty Gaussian Dist. 75 dvog-pi.sx2 SSE In-phase IIalfLoaded Along X Axis 0.2 76 drog-pi.sx5 SSE In-phase IIalf Loaded Along X Axis 03 77 dvog-pi.sx8 SSE In-phase IIalf Loaded Along X Axis 0.8 78 drog-pi.sxr SSE In-phase IIalf Loaded Along X Axis Gaussian Dist. 79 drog-pi.sd2 SSE In-phase IIalf Loaded Along Diagonal 0.2 80 dvog-pi.sd5 SSE In-phase IIalf Loaded Along Diagonal 03
Table 6.5.4 (continued) LIST OF SINGLE RACK ANALYSES FOR RACK T Run Run LD. Seismic Event Boundary Condition Fuel Loading Coefficient of No. Friction - 81 dvog-pi.sd8 SSE In-phase. IIalf Loaded Along DiagM 0.8 ~ 82 dvog-pi.sdr SSE In-phase IIalf Loaded Along Diagonal Gaussian Dist. 83 drog-po.sxr SSE Out-of-phase Combination that produces maximum dispixoxnt from Rtm Nos. 67 - 82 84 dvog-ps.110 ' l.10 x SSE Combination that produces maximum displacement from Run Nos. 67 - 82 85 dvog-po.150 1.50 x OBE Combination that produces maximum displacement from Run Nos. 67 - 82 u ._ . _ - .
C t 1 i Table 6.5.5 i LIST OF WIlOLE POOL MULT1-RACK ANALYSES Run No. Run LD. Seismic Event Fuel Loading Coeflicient of Notes
' ~
Friction l df-vog.sf2 SSE All Racks Fully Loaded 0.2 Entire Layout (26 Racks) ; 2 df-vog.sfB SSE All Racks Fully Loaded 0.8 Entire Layout (26 Racks)
- 3 df-vog.sfr SSE All Racks Fully Loaded Gaussian Dist. Entire Layout (26 Racks) I j 4 Jf-vog. oft OBE All Racks Fully Loaded Gaussian Dist. Entire Layout (26 Racks) !
i f
- [,
4 i i I l . !. [ i I i 4 i ! [ i I
O O O Table 6.5.6
SUMMARY
OF MAXIMUM RESULTS FROM SINGLE RACK ANALYSIS OF RACK "If'(SSE)* Result Wlue Run No.*
- Run LD.
Maximum total vertical pedestal load, Ib 443.593 4 , dwg-ri.sfr Maximum vertical load in any single pedestal, Ib 214,147 4 drog-ri.sfr Maximum shear load in any single pedestal, Ib 121,898 3 drog-ri.sl3 Maximum fue!-to-cell impact at one local position, Ib 1.7% 15 dmg-ri.sd8 Maximum rack-to-wall impact at baseplate, Ib 0 - - Maximum rack-to-wall impact at rxk top,Ib 0 - - Maximum rack-to-ack impact at baseplate, Ib 0 - - Maximum rack-to-rack impact at rack top, Ib 0 - - Maximum corner displac.-ment at rack top, in 2.58 15 drog-ri.sd8 Maximum corner displacement at baseplate, in 2.67 1 drog-ri.sf2 Maximum stress factor above baseplate 0.565 (R6)"' 4 drog-ri.sfr Maximum stress factor at support pedestal 0.630 (R6) 2 drog-ri.s5 The results of Run No. 65 (Table 6.5.3) are not included in the summary tabic. The scismic input data for that run are amplified by 10% in order to assess the kinematic stability of the rack. Run Nos. are defined in Table 6.5.3. The output stress factor from DYNARACK is adjusted per ASME Code for compressive members with high skrakii,rm ratios (see footnote 3 on page 6-19 of Subsection 6.5.8).
O O O Table 6.5.7
SUMMARY
OF MAXIMUM RESULTS FROM SINGLE RACK ANALYSIS OF RACK"lF(OBE)* l Result Value Run No." Run I.D. i' ,' Maximum total vertical pedestal load. Ib 277,431 35 drog-ri.of3 Maximum vertical load in any single pedestal, Ib 176.168 3.6 drog-ri.ofr j Maximum shear load in any single pedestal, Ib 97.715 35 drog-ri. ole
- Maximum fuel-to-cell impact at one local position, Ib 1,444 43 drog-ri.ox8 Maximum rack-to-wall imps at baseplate, Ib 0 - -
Maximum rack-to-wall impact at rack top, Ib 0 - - Maximum rack-to-rack impact at baseplate, Ib 0 - - j Maximum rack-to-rack impact at rack top, Ib 0 - - Maximum comer displacement at rack top, in 1.85 45 dmg-ri.od2
! Maximum corner disp 1xement at baseplate, in I.80 45 dvog-ri.od2 i Maximum stress factor above baseplate 0.455 (R6)'" 36 drog-ri.orr
. Maximum stress factor at support pedestal 0.557 (R6) 36 drog-ri.ofr ) ne results of Run No. 66 (Table 6.53) are not included in the summary table. De seismic input data for that run are i amplified by 50% in order to assess the kinematic stability of the rack. i' Run Nos. are defined in Table 6.53. l De output stress factor from DYNARACK is adjusted per ASME Code for compressive members with high slenderness ratios j (see footnote 3 on page 6-19 ofSubsection 6.5.8). 1 i I l
t ! O O O i
- j. Table 6.5.8 i-F
SUMMARY
OF MAXIMUM RESULTS FROM SINGLE RACK ANALYSIS OF RACK "T'(SSE)*
- Result Value Run No." Run I.D.
l Maximum total vertical pedestal load, Ib 291,599 68 drog-pi.sf5
- Maximum vertical load in any single pedestal, Ib 176,303 68 drog-pi.sf3 l Maximum shear load in any single pedestal,Ib 80.426 69 drog-pi.sfE 4
! Maximum fucl-to-cell impact at one local position, Ib 1,749 82 drog-pi.sdr i Maximum rack-to-wall impact at baseplate, Ib 0 - - Maximum rack-to-wall impact at rack top, Ib 0 - - Maximum rack-to-rack impact at baseplate,Ib - 0 .
- f. Maximum rack-to-rack impact at rack top, Ib 0 - -
Maximum comer displacement at rack top, in 4.81 78 drog-pi.sxt ,. Maximum corner displacement at baseplate, in 1.77 80 dvog-pi.sd5 j Maximum stress factor above baseplate 0.480 (R6)"' 68 dvog-pi.sf5 Maximum stress factos at support pedestal 0.659 (R6) 68 drog-pi.s5 l. l 'Ihe results of Run No. 84 (Table 6.5.4) are not included in the summary tabic. The seismic input data for that run are
- amplified by 1(M in order to assess the kinematic stability of the rack.
i
- Run Nos. are defined in Table 6.5.4.
l 'Ihe output stress factor from DYNARACK is adjusted per ASME Code for compressive members with high sienderness ratios ] (see footnote 3 on page 6-19 of Subsection 6.5.8). i i i i
- , _ . . - , , _ - _ ~ _ - . , _ . _ _ _ , . - . - . . _ . . _ . . _ . . . _ . . . . _ . , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _
Table 6.5.9 SUM!%RY RESULTS OF 3 D Sitt3Lt RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: RACK H lloltec Run I.D.: dvog ri.sf2 Seismic Loading: 1.0 x SSE Fuel Assembly 1.D. and Weight: Intact Fuel,i 1600.0 (1bs.) Fuel Loading: 72 cells loaded; Fuel centroid X,Y: . 0, .0 (in.) Coefficient of. friction at the bottom of support pedestal: 0.2
$ Revision: 3.47 $
$Logfile: C / racks /dynam0/ dynamo.foy $
$ Revision: 2.5 $-
$Logfiles C / racks /dynam0/dynasi.foy $
$ Revision: 3.37 $ ,
SLogfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/dynas2.foy $ DYNAMIC IMPACT LOADS (1bs.) (1) Maximum total vertical pedestal load: 365023.2 , (2) Maximum vertical load in any single pedestal: 186279.7 p (3) Maximum shear load in any single pedestal: 37254.4 l (4) Maximum fuel cell impact at one local position: 1433.8 (5) Maximum rack to wall impact at baseplate .0 (6) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at rack top: .0 (7) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at baseplate: .0 (8) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at rack top .0 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in.) Locations X direction Y-direction Top corner: 2.5598 1.6717 Baseplate corner: 2.6667 1.2076 MAXIMUM STRESS FACTORS
- Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 -R5 R6 R7 Above baseplates .067 .026 .161 .154 .270 .312 .028 Support pedestal .232 .067 .347 .293 .423 .470 .055
- See Section 6.4.3.2 of the Licensing Report for definitions.
l l t Table 6.$,10
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF 3+D SINGLE RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: RACK H ! Holtec Run I.D.: dvog ri.sf5 Seismic Loading: 1.0 x SSE ruel Assembly I.D. and Weight: Intact Fuelsi 1600.0 (1bs.) Fuel Loading: .72 cells loaded; Fuel centroid X,Y: . 0, .0 (in.) Coefficient of friction at the bottom of support pedestal: 0.5
$ Revisions 3.47 $
$Logfile: C / racks /dynam0/ dynamo.fov $
$ Revision: 2.5 '$
$Logfile C / racks / dynamo /dynasi.fov $ ]
$ Revisions. 3.37 $ -
$Logfile C:/ racks /dynam0/dynas2.fov $ '
~ .
DYNAMIC IMPACT LOADS (1bs.) i (1) Maximum total vertical pedestal load: 421973.6 (2) Maximum vertical load in any single pedestal:- 201610.7 (3) Maximum shear load in any single pedestal: 77542.'4 ' (4) Maximum fuel-cell impact at one local position: 1628.9 p (5) Maximum rack-to. wall impact at baseplate .0 7
' (6) Maximum rack-to wall impact at rack top .0 (7) Maximum rack-to' - rack impact at baseplate
.0 (s) Maximum rack to-rack impact at rack top .0 >
MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in.) : Locations X direction Y-direction [ i Top corners- . 2.1043 1.4679
^
Baseplate corner .0849 . 1318 MAXIMUM STRESS FACTORS *
- Stress-factor: R1. R2 R3~ R4 ' R5 R6 R7 Above baseplates. .032 .181- '
.083 208- .299 .344 ,035 Support pedestal: ,251 .124 .348 .502 .555 4630 .142' I e
- See Section.6.4.3.2 of the Licensing Report for definitions.
1
,U.-, . . ~ , E ,. r_,.._.hw . , . . . . . , . , - .
. , , . , ,5 m . ,M'., , ,, ,m., .-,,..,,.,,m.-%.,,,,,,._,.,,__m,,,.,_M,..,..m..._ ,#_y_.y.__m._,._,,,. . ,
Table 6.5.11
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF 3-D SIl1GLE RACK AllALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: RACK +H Holtec Run I.D.: dvog ri.sf8 Seismic Loading: 1.0 x SSF Fuel Assembly I.D. and Weight: Intact Fuels; 1600.0 (1bs.) Fuel Loading: 72 cells loadeds Fuel centroid X,Y: .0, .0 (in.) Coefficient of friction at the bottom of support pedestal: 0.8
$ Revision: 3.47 $
$Logfile C / racks /dynam0/ dynamo.fov $
$ Revision: 2.5 $
$Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/ dynast.fov $
$ Revision 3.37 $
$Logfile: Cs/racas/ dynamo /dynas2.foy $
DY11AMIC IMPACT LOADS (1bs.) (1) Maximum total vertical pedestal load: 433597.6 (2) Maximum vertical load in any single pedestal: 208264.2 (3) Maximum shear load in any single pedestal: 121897.7
& (4) Maximum fuel cell impact at one local position: 1632.2 (5) Maximum rack to wall impact at baseplate .0 (6) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at rack top: .0 (7) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at baseplates .0 (8) Maximum rack-to rack impact at rack top: .0 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in.)
Locations- X-direction Y-direction i Top corner: 1.6504 1.4439 l Baseplate corner .0974 .1130 I MAXIMUM STRESS FACTORS
- l Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 i
Above baseplate .086 .037 .186 .222 .292 .336 .031 Support pedestal .259 .186 .351 .407 .546 .600 .225 [\s./
- See Section 6.4.3.2 of the Licensing Report for definitions.
Table 6.5.12
SUMMARY
RF.SULTS OF 3 D SINGLE RACK ANALYS!& FOR RACK MODUL2: RACK H l Holtec Run I.D.: dvog ri.str Seismic Loading: 1.0 x SSE Puol Assembly I.D. and Weight: Intact Fuels; 1600.0 (1bs.) Puel Loading: 72 cells loaded; ruel centroid X,Y: .0, .0 (in.) Coefficient of frictisn at the bottom of support pedestal: Gaussia
$ Revision: 3.47 $
$Logfile C:/ racks /dynam0/ dynamo.foy $
$ Revision 2.5 $
$Logfile: c:/ racks / dynamo /dynasi.fov $
$ Revision: 3.37 $
$Logfile: c:/ racks /dynam0/dynas2.fov $ . ..
DYlW4IC IMPACT LOADS (1bs.) (1) Maximum total vertical pedestal load: 443592.7 l (2) Maximum vertical load in any single pedestal: 214146.6 l g-' (3) Maximum shear load in any single pedestal: 86794.7 i { b (4) Maximum fuel-cell impact at one local position: 1712.8 (5) Maximum rack-to wall impact at baseplate .0 (6) Maximum rack to-wall impact at rack top .0 (7) Maximum rack to-rack impact at baseplates .0 (8) Maximum rack to rack impact at rack top: .0 , MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in.) Locations X-direction Y-direction Top corner: 1.8196 1.4251 Baseplate corn %.: .3156 .1065 i MAXIMUM STRESS-FACTORS
- i Stress factor:- R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Above baseplates .088 .057 ,183 .208 .297 .345 .063 Support pedestal .267 .127 ,353 441 .530 .582 .130 a
- See Section 6.4.3.2 of the Licensing Report for definitions.
i'
,fe._,~ .
.,f
- .- , . , . . . - , , , , , ., ,,_ ,,,.,,_.m.. ~ , m. _. _ , , . , _ . , , _,
m _ .
i Table 6.5.13 ; 1
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF 3 D $2HGLE RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: RACK H Holtec Run I.D.: dvog-ri.se2 Seismic Loading: 1.0 x SSE ! Fuel Assembly I.D. and Weight: Intact Fuelsi 1600.0 (1bs.) Fuel Loading 8 cells loaded; ruel centroid X,Y: . 0, .0 (in.) Coefficient of friction at the bottom of support pedestal: 4.2 i
$ Revision: 3.47 $ ! ; $Logfile C:/ racks /dynam0/dynam0.foy $
1
$ Revision: 2.5 $
l j
$Logfile: C / racks /dynam0/dynasi.foy $
$ Revision:
3.37 $ )
$Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/dynas2.foy $
DYNAMIC IMPACT LOADS (1bs.) 4 (1) Maximum total vertical pedestal load: 48618.9 1 (2) Maximum vertical load in any single pedestal: 27200.8 (3) Maximum shear load in any single pedestal: 5454.1
- Q (4) Maximum fuel-cell impact at one local position 1534.4 (5) Maximum rack to wall impact at baseplate .0
.(5) Maximum rack-to wall impact at rack top: .0 (7) Maximum rack-to rack impact at baseplates .0 (8) Maximum rack-to rack impact at rack top: .0 :
MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in.) Location X direction Y-direction Top corner .4889 .6658 Baseplate corners .4829 .6411 4 MAXIMUM STRESS FACTORS
- Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Above baseplates .006 .004 .027 .030 .039 .045 .005 Support pedesta) : .034 .009 .021 .037 .053 .058 .009
'[
- See Section 6.4.3.2 of the Licensing Report for definitions.
(
Table 6.5.14 O V
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF 3 D SINGLE RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: RACK '! Holtec Run I.D.: dvog ri.se5 Seismic Loading: 1.0 x SSE Fuel Assembly I.D. and Weight Intact Fuelis 1600.0 (1bs.) Fuel Loading: 8 cells loaded; Fuel centroid X,Y: .0, .0 (in.) Coefficient of frictica at the bottom of support pedestal: 0.5 l $ Revision 3.47 $
$Logfile C / racks /dynam0/ dynamo.foy $
$ Revision 2.5 $ '
$Logfile C / racks /dynam0/dynasi.foy $
$ Revision: 3.37 $
.$ Log!ile: C:/ racks /dynam0/dynas2.fov $
DYHAMIC IMPACT LOADS (1bs.) (1) Maximum total vertical pedestal load 80863.0 (2) Maximum vertical load in any single pedestal: 54201.6 (3) Maximum shear load in any single pedestal: 22018.3 (4) Maximum fuel-cell impact at one local position: 1652.2 (5) Maximum rack-to wall impact at baseplate .0 (6) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at rack top: .0 (7) Maximum rack to-rack impact at baseplates .0 (8) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at rack top: .0 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in.) Location X-direction Y-direction Top corner: 1.4720 1.3710 Baseplate corner: 1.2357 1.1681 MAXIMUM STRESS FACTORS
- Stress factor: R1 k2 R3 R4 R5 R6- R7 Above baseplato .012 .011 .043 .048 .078 .090 .010 Support pedestal .068 .040 .166 .088 .188 .212 .035
- See Section 6.4.3.2 of the Licensing Report for definitions, s
Table 6.$.15 SUMi%RY RESULTS OF 3 D SINGLE RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: RACK-H l Holtec Run I.D.: dvog ri.see Seismic Loading: 1.0 x SSE ruel Assembly 1.D. and Weights Intact ruelt: 1600.0 (1bs.) Puel Loading: 8 cells loaded; ruel centroid X,Y: . 0, .0 (in.) . Coefficient of friction at the bottom of support pedestal: 0.8 *
$ Revision: 3.47 $ $Logfile: C / racks /dynam0/ dynamo.foy $ $ Revision: 2.5 $ $Logfile C / racks /dynam0/dynasi.foy $ $ Revision: 3.37 $ $Logfile C:/ racks /dynam0/dynas2.fov $
DYNAMIC IMPACT LOADS (1bs.) (1) Maximum total vertical pedestal load: 76971.8 (2) Maximum vertical load in any single pedestal: 53804.3 (3) Maximum shear load in any single pedestal: 35219.5 (4) Maximum fuel cell impact at one local position: 1526.9 (5) Maximum rack to wall impact at baseplates .0 (6) Maximum rack-to wall impact at rack top: .0 (7) Maximum rack-to rack impact at baseplate: .0
'(8) Maximum rack to rack impact at rack top: .0 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in.)
Location: X direction Y-direction Top' corners- 1.6971 1.9414 Baseplate corner: 1.0035 .7480 MAXIMUM STRESS FACTORS
- Stress factor R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Above baseplates .012 .015 .051- .050 .000 .092 .012 Support pedestals .066 .066 .196 .154 .217 .246 .045
- See Section 6.4.3.2 of the Licensing Report for definitions.
Table 6.5.16
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF 3-D SINGLE RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: RACK H Holtec Run I.D.: dvog ri.ser Seismic Loading: 1.0 x SSE Fuel Assembly I.D. and Weight: Intact Fuelt 1600.0 (1bs.) Puel Loading e cells loaded; Puel centroid X,Y: . 0, .0 (in$) Coefficient of friction at the bottom of support pedestal: Gaussia
$ Revision 3.47 $
$Logfile: C / racks /dynam0/ dynamo.fov $
! $ Revision: 2.5 $ ! $Logfile C:/ racks /dynam0/dynas1.foy $
$ Revision: 3.37 $
$Logfile C4/ racks /dynam0/dynas2.foy $
DY!UJ41C IMPACT LOADS (1bs.) (1) Maximum total vertical pedestal load: 94357.4 I (2) Maximum vertical load in any single pedestal: 55474.4
-s g -(3) Maximum shear load in any single pedestal: 20649.7 \--
(4) Maximum fuel-cell impact at one local position 1582.0 (5) Maximum rack-to wall impact at baseplate .0 (6) Maximum rack-to wall impact at rack top .0 (7) Maximum rack to rack impact at baseplates .0 (B) Maximum rock-to rack impact at rack top: .0 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in.) Locations X-direction Y-direction Top corner: 1.6568 1.2918 Baseplate corner .9497 .6281 MAXIMUM STRESS FACTORS
- Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 Rb R7 Above baseplates .018 .012 ,049 .046 .080 .092 .011 Support pedestals .069 .047 .171 .145 .196 .222 .044
- See Section 6.4.3.2 of the Licensing Report for definitions.
l Table 6.5.17 SW9%RY RESULTS OF 3 D SIl1GLE RACK A!!ALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: RACK H l lloltec Run I.D. - dvog ri.ex2 Seismic Loading: 1.0 x SSE l Fuel Assembly I.D. and Weight: Intact Fuel;; 1600.0 (1bs.) Fuel Loading: 32 cells leaded; Fuel centroid X,Y: .0,-25.6 (in.) Coefficient of friction at the bottom of support pedestal: 0.2
$ Revision: 3.47 $
$Logiile: C:/raeks/dynam0/ dynamo,fov $
$ Revision 2.5 $
$Logfile: C / racks /dynam0/ dynast.foy $
$ Revision: 3.37 $
$Logfile C / racks /dynam0/dynas2.foy $
DYllAMIC IMPACT LOADS (1bs.) (1) Maximum total vertical pedestal load: 134654.3 (2) Maximum vertical load in any single pedestal: 99736.5 (3) Maximum shear load in any single pedestal: 19946.0 (4) Maximum fuel-cell impact at one local position: 1429.9 (5) Maximum rack-to wall impact at baseplates .0 (6) Maximum rack-to wall impact at rack top: .0-(7) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at baseplate .0 (8) Maximum rack-to rack impact at rack top: .0 \; MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEME11TS (in.) Location X-direction Y-direction Top corner: 1.2553 1.3769 Baseplate corner: 1.1181 1.0496 MAXIMUM STRESS FACTORS
- 3 tress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Above baseplates .019 .009 .104 .085 .161 .187 .008 Support pedestal: .124 .029 .186 .141 .247 .273 .035
,
- See Section 6.4.3.2 of the Licensing Report for definitions.
1 Table 6.5.18 f
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF 3-D SINGLE RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: RACK-H i Holtec Run I.D.: dvog-ri.sx5 Seismic Loading: 1.0 x SSE , Fuel Assembly I.D. and Weight: Intact Fuelsi 1600.0 (1bs.) Fuel Loading: 32 cells loaded; Fuel centroid X,Y: .0,-25.6 (in.) Coefficient of friction at the bottom of support pedestal: 0.5
$Revisivn 3.47 $ $Logfile: C:/raeks/dynam0/ dynamo.fov $ $ Revision: 2.5 $ $Logfile: C / racks /dynam0/dynasi.foy $ $ Revision: 3.37 $ $Logfile C:/ racks /dynam0/dynas2.foy $
DYHAMIC IMPACT LOADS (1bs.) (1) Maximum total vertical pedestal load: 156043.1 (2) Maximum vertical load in any ringle pedestal: 102941.5 (3) Maxinuum shear load in any single pedestal: 470nA 3 (4) Maximum fuel-cell impact at one local position: 1753.7 (5) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at baseplate: .0 (6) Maximum rack-to wall impact at rack top: .0 (7) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at baseplates .0 (8) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at rack top: .0 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in.) Locationi X-direction Y-direction Top corner: 1.4761 1.5248 Baseplate corners . 4898 .6887 MAXIMUM STRESS FACTORS
- Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Atove baseplate .026 . 014 . 117 .093 .143 .166 . 016 Support pedestals .128 . 053 . 307 .291 .371 .415 . 081 ,
/O
- See Section 6.4.3.2 of the Licensing Report for definitions.
p<
l Table 6.5.19 Q
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF 3 D SIN 3LE RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: RACK H Holtec Run I.D.: dvog ri.sx8 Seismic Loading: 1.0 x SSE Puel Assembly I.D. and Weight: Intact Puolst 1600.0 (1bs.) Puel Loading: 32 cells loaded Puel centroid X,Y: .0,-25.6 (in.) Coefficient of friction at the bottom of support pedestal: 0.8 >
$ Revision: 3.47 $
$Logfile C:/ racks /dynam0/ dynamo.fov $
$Kavision 2.5 $
$Logfile C:/ racks /dynam0/dynasi.fov- $
$ Revision: 3.37 $
$Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/dynas2.foy $
DYIW41C IMPACT LOADS (1bs.) (1) Maximum total vertical pedestal load: 171679.0 (2) Maximum vertical load in any single pedestal: 124325.3 e (3) Maximum shear load in any single pedestal: 66002.9 (4) Maximum fuel cell impact at one local position: 1512.0 (5) Maximum rack to wall impact at-baseplates .0 (6) Maximum rack to-wall impact at rack top: .0 (7) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at baseplates .0 (B) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at rack top: .0 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in.) Locations X-direction Y-direction Top corner: 1.2587 1.6840
' Baseplate corner .3363 .4666 MAXIMUM STRESS FACTORS *
- Stress factars R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 l
Above baseplates .029 .016 .104 099 .167 .194 .014 Support pedestal .155 .101 .376 .260 .418 .a74 .121 See Section 6.4.3.2 of the Licensing Report for definitions.
1 l Table 6.5.20
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF 3 D isINGLE RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: RACK-H 'i Holtec Run I.D.: dvog ri.sxr Seismic Loading: 1.0 x SSE l l Puel Assembly I.D. and Weight: Intact Fuels; 1600.0 (1bs.) Puel Loading: 32 cells loaded: Puel centroid X,Yt .0, 25.6 (in.) l Coefficient of friction at'the bottom of support pedestal: Gaussia
$ Revision: ~3.47 $ '
$Logfile: C:/racka/dynam0/ dynamo.fov $
$ Revision: 2.5 $
$Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/dynasi.foy $
i $ Revision: 3.37 $
$Logfile: C / racks /dynam0/dynas2.foy $
- DYNAMIC IMPACT LOADS (1bs.)
j (1) Maximum total vertical pedestal load: 156349.1 j (2) Maximum vertical load in any single pedestal: 106998.1 4 (3) Maximum shear load in any single pedestal: 42690.4 (4) Maximum fuel cell impact at one local position: 1588.8 (5) Maximum rack to-wall impact at baseplates .0 (6) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at rack top: .0 (7) Maximum rack to-rack impact at baseplates .0 (8) Maximum rack to-rack impact at rack top: .0 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in.) Locations- X direction Y-direction Top corner: 1.3237 1.4328 Baseplate corner: .3481 .5053 MAXIMUM STRESS FACTORS
- Stress factors' R1 R2 R3 R4- R5 R6 R7 Above baseplates .025 .013 .100 .097 .161 .186 .019 Support pedestal .133 .062 .307 .255 .340 ,386 .077 See Section 6.4.3.2 of the Licensing Report for definitions.
Table 6.5.21 O 2
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF 3-D SIN 3LE RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: RACK H i Holtec Run I.D.: dvog ri.sd2 1eismic Loading: 1.0 x SSE i Fuel Assembly I.D. and Weight: Intact Fuels; 1600.0 (1bs.) ; Fuel Loading: 36 cells loaded; Fuel centroid X,Y -12.0,-17.1 (in.) i Coefficient of friction at the bottom of support pedestal: 0.2
$ Revision: 3.47 $
$Logfile: C / racks /dynam0/dynam0.fov $
$ Revision: 2.5 $
, $Logfile: C / racks /dynam0/dynasi.foy 0 j
$ Revision: 3.37 $
$Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/dynas2.foy $
DYl#J42C IMPACT LOADS (1bs.) (1) Maximum total vertical pedestal load: 1757$1.4 (2) Maximum vertical load in any single pedestal: 90097.7 (3) Maximum shear load in any single pedestal: 18010.3 O' (4) Maximum fuel-cell impact at one local position: 1426.0 (5) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at baseplates .0 I (6) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at rack top: .0 (7) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at baseplates .0 (8) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at rack top: .0 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in.) Location: X-direction Y-direction Top corner: 1.3465 1.7045 Baseplate corner: .8361 1.2796 MAXIMUM STRESS FACTORS
- Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Above baseplate: .029 . 010 . 103 .094 .157 . 183 .015 Support pedestals .112 . 028 . 126 .178 .209 . 233 .033
- See Section 6.4.3.2 of the Licensing Report for definitions.
- - - - , - - -,- -n -
,,,,-,._.e- . , ._, . . . , . .,.nn,, - . , , , . . - - , . -
,4 ~ y-. ., , , .,,nc -m,.r .
- . . ~ . - . . ~ - ~ . _ . . - . . . . - . _ - _ _ _ _ _ . - . - . . - - . - _ - - - - .--
- _ .- ~. ._._
l l- Table 6.5.22 f'{ s
~
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF 3 D SINGLE RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACM UULE: ' RACK-H-Holtec Run I.D.: dvog-ri.sd5 Seismic Loading: 1.0 x SSE Fuel Assembly I.D. and Weight: Intact Fuel;; 1600.0 (lbs.) Fuel Loading: 36 cells loaded; Fuel centroid X,Ya-12.0,-17.1 (in.) Coefficient of friction at the bottom of support pedestal 1 0.5-
$ Revision: 3.47 $
$Logt'. lei. C:/raeks/ dynamo /dynam0.fov $
$ Revision 2.5 $
$Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/dynasi.fov $
$ Revision: 3.37 $
$Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/dynas2.foy $.
DYNAMIC IMPACT LOADS (lbs.)
-(1) Maximum total vertical pedestal load: 166122.4 (2) Maximum vertical load in any single pedestal: 115257.6 (3) Maximum 3: war load in any single pedestal: 42935.5 (4) . Maximum fuel-cell impact at one local position: 1774.7 (5) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at baseplate:
.0 (6) Maxi wn r%.:-to-wall impact at rack top: .0 (7) Maximum tack-to-rack impact at baseplate: .0 (8) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at rack top .0 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in.)
Locations- X-direction Y-direction Top corners. 1.9861 1.1278 Baseplate corners .1974 .2800 MAXIMUM STRESS. FACTORS
- Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Above baseplate . 0 2 7 -- .016 .106 .114 .261- .188 .015 Support pedestals. .144 .078 .345 .324 484 .549 .071
'*-See Section-6.4.3.2 of the Licensing Report for definitions.
Table 6.5.23 t U SUt@mRY RESULTS OF 3-D SINGLE RACK ANALYSIS KR RACK MSDULE: RACK-H Holtec Run I.D.: dvog-ri.sdB Seismic Loading: 1.0 x SSE Puel Assembly I.D. and Weight: Intact Pueli; 1600.0 (lbs.) Puel Loading: 36 cells loaded; Puel centreid X,Y:-12.0,-17.1 (in.) Coefficient of friction at the bottom of support pedestal: 0.8
$ Revision: 3.47 $
$Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/ dynamo.fov $
$ Revision: 2.5 $
$Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/dynasi.fov $
$ Revision: 3,37 $
. $Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/dynas2.fov $
DYNAMIC IMPACT LOADS (lbs.) (1) Maximum total vertical pedestal load: 154075.4 (2) Maximum vertical load in any single pedestal: 136604.2 1 (3) Maximum shear load in any single pedestal: 70576.3
'g}//
(4) Maximum fuel-cell impact at one local position: 1795.8 (5) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at baseplate: .0 (6) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at rack topi .o (7) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at baseplate: .0 , (8) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at rack top: .0 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in.) Location X-direction Y-direction Top corner: 2.5767 1.2344 Baseplate corner: .3688 .2680 MAXIMUM STRESS FACTORS
- Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Above baseplate .024 .016 .121 .105 .168 .197 .020 Support pedestal: .170 .110 .331 .330 .436 .494 .126 A *
( ) See Section 6.4.3.2 of the Licensing Report for definitions. b/
~, Table 6.5.24
'\ )
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF 3-D SINGLE RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: RACK-H Holtec Run I.D.: dvog-ri.sdr Seismic Loading: 1.0 x SSE Fuel Assembly I.D. and Weight: Intact ruel;; 1600.0 (1bs.) Puel Loading: 36 cells loaded Puel centroid X,Y 12.0,-17.1 (in.) Coefficient of friction at the bottom of support pedestal: Gaussia
$ Revision: 3.47 $
$Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/ dynamo.fov $
$ Revision: 2.5 $
$Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/dynasi.fov $
$ Revision: 3.37 $
$Logfile C:/ racks /dynam0/dynas2.fov $
DYNAMIC IMPACT LOADS (lbs.) (1) Maximum total vertical pedestal load: 170754.3 (2) Maximum vertical load in any single pedestal: 129680.5
~'N, (3) Maximum shear load in any single pedestal: 39447.0 d
(4) Maximum fuel-cell impact at one local position: 1762.8 (5) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at baseplate: .0 (6) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at rack top: .0 (7) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at baseplate: .0 (B)' Maximum rack-to-rack impact at rack top: .0 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in.) Location X-direction Y-direction Top corner: 1.7415 1.4341 Baseplate corner .4536 .2151 MAXIMUM STRESS FACTORS
- Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 - R4 R5 R6 R7 Above baseplate: .028 .017 .122 .100 .168 .192 .018 Support pedestal: .162 .071 .342 .318 .402 .448 .064 f) v
- See Section 6.4.3.2 of the Licensing Report for definitions.
Table 6.5.25 i Cl
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF 3-D SINGLE RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: RACK-H Holtec Run I.D.: dvog-ri.of2 Seismic Loading: 1.0 x OBE Fuel Assembly I.D. and Weight: Intact Fuel;; 1600.0 (1bs.) Fuel Loading: 72 cella loaded; Fuel centroid X,Y: .0, .0 (in.) Coefficient of friction at the bottom of support pedestal: 0.2
$ Revision: 3.47 $
$Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/ dynamo.foy $
$ Revision: 2.5 $
$Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/dynas1.foy $
$ Revision: 3.37 $
$Logfile C / racks /dynam0/dynas2, 9v $
DYNAMIC IMPACT LOADS (lbs.) (1) Maximum total vertical pedestal load: 219281.5 (2) Maximum vertical load in any single pedestal: 137317.1 (3) Maximum shear load in any single pedestal: 27461.9. (4) Maximum fuel-cell impact at one local position: 1162.4 (5) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at baseplate: .0 (6) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at rack top: .0 (7) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at baseplate: 0 (8) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at rack topi .0 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in.) Location X-direction Y-direction Top corner: 1.5552 1.2906 Baseplate corner: -1.2214 1.2248 MAXIMUM S'"4SS FACTORS
- Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Above baseplate: .026 .017 .146 .140 .192 .223 .010 Support pedestal .171 .043 .152 .216 .277 .304 .048
- See Section 6.4.3.2 of the Licensing Report for definitions.
. . - - . -. .. - - ~_. .
1 Table 6.5.26 N
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF 3-D SINGLE RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: PACK-H Holtec Run I.D.: dvog-ri.of5 Seismic Loading: 1.0 x OBE Puel Assembly I.D. and Weight: Intact Puel;; 1600.0 (lbs.) Puel Loading: 72 cells loaded; Puel centroid X,Y: . 0, .0 (in.) Coefficient of friction at the bottom of support pedestal: 0.5
$ Revision: 3.47 $
$Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/ dynamo.fov $
$ Revision: 2.5 $
$Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/dynasi.fov $
$ Revision: 3.37 $
$Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/dynas2.fov $
4 DYNAMIC IMPACT LOADS (1bs.) (1) Maximum total vertical pedestal load: 267635.1 (2) Maximum vertical load in any single pedestal: 167563.0
/N (3) Maximum shear load in any single pedestal: 69579.0 \) (4) Maximum fuel-cell impact at one local position: 1274.1 1
(5) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at baseplate: .0 (6) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at rack top: .0 (7) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at baseplate: .0 (8) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at rack top: .0 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in.) Location X-direction Y-direction Top corner: 1.2554 1.2417
. Baseplate corner: .1047 .1057 MAXIMUM STRESS FACTORS
- Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Above baseplate: .040 .017 .163 .175 .227 .266 .025 Support pedestal: .209 .092 .328 .356 .481 .530 .128 See Section 6.4.3.2 of the Licensing Report for definitions.
Table 6.5.27 l (~~\ .. d .
SUMMARY
-RESULTS OF 3-D SINGLE RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: RACK H Holtec Run I.D.: dvog-ri.of8 Seismic Loading: 1.0 x'OBE Puel Assembly I.D. and Weight: Intact Pueli; 1600.0 (1ba.) i Puel Loading: 72 cells loaded; Puel centroid X,Y: -.0, .0 (in.) Coefficient of friction at the bottom of support pedestal: 0.8 ,
.$ Revision: 3.47 $
$Logfile C:/ racks /dynam0/ dynamo.foy $
$ Revision: 2.5 $
-$Logfile: C:/ racks / dynamo /dynasi fov $
$ Revision: 3.37 $
$Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/dynas2.fov $
~
DYNAMIC IMPACT LOADS (lbs.)
-(1) Maximum total vertical pedestal load: 277430.5 (2) Maximum vertical load in any single pedestal: 165634.5 g (3) Maximum shear load in any single pedestal: 97715.1 (d (4) Maximum fuel-cell impact at one local position: 1346.2 (5) Maximum-rack-to-wall impact at baseplate .0 (6) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at rack top: .0
_(7) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at baseplate .0 (0) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at rack topi .0 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in.) Location: .X-direction Y-direction-Top corner: 1.2594 1.2181 Baseplate corner .0836 .0704 MAXIMUM STRESS FACTORS
- Stress factor: R1- R2 R3 R4 R5 26- R7 Above baseplate .042 .020 .158 .174 .223 .260 .028 Support. pedestal .207 .167 .322 .356 .477 .536 ,181 v)
[
- See Section 6.4.3.2 of the Licensing Report for definitions.
,s Table 6,5.28 I h
\s
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF 3-D SINGLE RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: RACK-H Holtec Run I.D.: dvog-ri. oft Seismic Loading: 1.0 x OBE Fuel Assembly I.D. and Weight Intact Fuel;; 1600.0 (lbs.) Fuel Loading: 72 cells loaded; Fuel centroid X,Y: .0, .0 (in.) Coefficient of friction at the bottom of support pedestal: Gaussia
$ Revision: 3.47 $
$Logfile C / racks /dynam0/dynam0 fov $
$ Revision: 2.5 $
$Logfile C:/ racks /dynam0/dynasi.fov $
$ Revision: 3.37 $
$Logfile C:/ racks /dynam0/dynas2.fov $
DYNAMIC IMPACT LOADS (Ibs.) (1) Maximum total vertical pedestal load: 265940.9 (2) Maximum vertical load in any single pedestal: 176168.2 Y (3) Maximum shear load in any single pedestal: 77276.9 (4) Maximum fuel-cell impact at one local position: 1281.4 (5) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at baseplate: .0 (6) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at rack top: .0 (7) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at baseplate: .0 (8) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at rack tops ,0 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in.) Location: X-direction Y-direction Top corner: 1.2310 1.2183 Baseplate corner: .1039 .1113 MAXIMUM STRESS FACTORS
- Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Above baseplates- .039 .017 .161 .174 .239 .278 .026 Support pedestal .219 .108 .337 .331 .493 .557 .142
[ )
- See Section 6.4.3.2 of the Licensing Report for definitions.
\s /
Table 6.5.29 ( . k
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF 3-D SINGLE RACE ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: RACK H Holtec Run I.D.: dvog-ri.oe2 Seismic Loading: 1.0 x OBE Fuel Assembly I.D. and Weight: Intact Fuel;; 1600.0 (lbs.) Fuel Loading: 8 cells loaded; Fuel centroid X,Y: .0, .0 (in.) Coefficient of friction at the bottom of support pedestal: 0.2
$ Revision: 3.47 $
$Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/ dynamo.foy $
$ Revision: 2.5 $
$Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/dynasi.foy $
$ Revision: 3.37 $
$Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/dynas2.foy $
, DYNAMIC IMPACT LOADS (lbs.) (1) Maximum total vertical pedestal load: 45836.1 i
'2) Maximum vertical load in any single pedestal: 33729.0 s (3) Maximum shear load in any single pedestal: 6732.2 t
(4) Maximum fuel-cell impact at one local position: 1335.0 (5) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at baseplate: .0 (6) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at rack top: .0
-(7) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at baseplate: .0 (8) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at rack top: .0 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in.)
Location X-direction Y-direction Top corner: .3480 .6188 Baseplate corner: .3362 .6020 MAXIMUM STRESS FACTORS
- a Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Above baseplate: .006 .004 .027 .030 .048 .055 .004
-Support pedestal .042 .011 .012 .017 .056 .059 .009
- See Section 6.4.3.2 of the Licensing Report for definitions.
Table 6.5.30
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF 3-D SINGLE RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: RACK-H
'Holtec Run I.D. .dvog-ri.oe5 Seismic Loading: 1.0 x OBE-
. Fuel Assembly I.D. and Weights- Intact-Fuely; =1600.0 (1bs.)
- Fuel Loading: '8 cells loaded; Fuel centroid X,Y: .0, .0 (in.)
Coefficient of friction at the bottom of support pedestal: 0.5
$ Revisions- 3.47- S
$Logfile C:/ racks /dynam0/dynam0.fov $
$ Revision: 2.5 $
$Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/dynasi.fov $
$ Revision: 3.37 $
$Logfiles, C / racks /dynam0/dynas2.fov $
DYNAMIC IMPACT LOADS (lbs.) (1) Maximum total vertical-pedestal load 87918.3 (2) Maximum vertical load in any single pedestal: 50984.0
-(3) Maximum shear load in any. single pedestal: 21265.1 (4) Maximum fuel-cell impact at one local position: 1378.4'-
(5) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at baseplate .0
- - ( 6 ) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at rack top: .0 (7) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at baseplate .0 (8) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at rack top -- .0 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in.)
Locations. X-direction Y-direction Top cornert .9355- .4860-Baseplate corner: .3724 .2628 MAXIMUM STRESS FACTORS *
-Stress factors R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Above baseplate: .012 .000 .039 .040 .073 .085 .007 Support pedestal .063 .029' .091 .157 .174 .197 .032
- See Section 6.4.3.2--of the Licensing Report for definitions.
u
Table 6.5.31
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF 3-D SINGLE RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: RACK-H Holtec Run I.D.: dvog-ri.oe8 Seismic Loading: 1.0 x OBE Fuel Assembly I.D. and Weight: Intact Fuel;; 1600.0 (1bs.) Fuel Loading: 8 cells loaded; Fuel centroid X,Y: .0, .0 (in.) Coefficient of friction at the bottom of support pedestal: 0.8
$ Revision: 3.47 $ $Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/dynam0.foy $ $ Revision: 2.5 $ $Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/dynasi.fov $ $ Revision: 3.37 $ $Logfile C:/ racks /dynam0/dynas2.fov $
DYNAMIC IMPACT LOADS (lbs.) (1) Maximum total vertical pedestal load: 83787.0 (2) Maximum vertical load in any single pedestal: 50771.8 (3) Maximum shear load in any single pedestal: 33771.5 V -(4) Maximum fuel-cell impact at one local position: 1351.4 (5) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at baseplate: .0 (6) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at rack top: .0 (7) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at baseplate: .0 (8) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at rack top: .0 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in.) Locations X-direction Y-direction Top corner: 1.3206 1.2877 Baseplate corner: .7960 .9059 MAXIMUM STRESS FACTORS
- Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Above baseplate: .013 .012 .047 .052 .073 .084 .012 Support pedestal .063 .045 .123 .157 .173 .197 .049
- See Section 6.4.3.2 of the Licensing Report for definitions.
Table 6.5.32 { V
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF 3-D SINGLE RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: RACK-H Holtec Run I.D.: dvog-ri.oer Seismic Loading: 1.0 x OBE Puel Assembly I.D. and Weight: Intact Puel;; 1600.0 (lbs.) Puel Loading: 8 cella loaded; Fuel centroid X,Y: .0, .0 (in.) Coefficient of friction at the bottom of support pedestal: Gaussia
$ Revisions. 3.47 $
$Logfile C:/ racks /dynam0/dynam0 fov $
$ Revision: 2.5 $
$Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/dynasi.fov $
$ Revision: 3.37 $
$Logfile: C / racks /dynam0/dynas2.fov $
DYNAMIC IMPACT LOADS (lbs.) (1) Maximum total vertical pedestal load:' 81163.8 (2) Maximum vertical load in any single pedestal: 49690.7
/"N (3) Maximum shear load in any single pedestal:
O (4) Maximum fuel-cell impact at one local position: 21335.8 1369.3 (5) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at baseplate: .0 (6) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at rack top: .0 (7) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at baseplate: .0 (8) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at rack top: .0 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in.) Location X-direction Y-direction Top corner: 1.0456 .6129 Baseplate corner .4192 .3951 MAXIMUM STRESS FACTORS
- Stress factor: R1' R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Above baseplate: .012 .006 .042 .042 .070 .001 .007 Support pedestal: .062 .030 .087 .149 .166 .189 .031
( m'
- See-Section 6.4.3.2 of the Licensing Report for definitions.
A
Table 6.5.33 O. :
SUMMARY
RESULTS,OF 3-D SINGLE RACX ANALYSIS. FOR RACK MODULE: RACK-H Holtec Run I.D.rrivog-ri.ox2 Seismic Loading: 1.0 x OBE
= Fuel Assembly'I.D. and Weight: Intact Fuel;; -1600.0 (lbs.)
Fuel Loading:
~
32 cells loaded;' Fuel centroid X,Ya . 0, -25. 6 - (in. ) Coef ficient of: friction at the bottom of support pedestal _ 0. 2
$ Revisions- 3.47 $
$Logfile: C:/ racks / dynamo /dynam0.fov $
$ Revision: 2.5 $
!. . $Logfile: C / racks /dynam0/dynasi.fov $
.$ Revision: 3.37 $
l
$Logfile C:/ racks /dynam0/dynas2.fov $
DYNAMIC IMPACT LOADS (lbs.)
.(1) Maximum total vertical pedestal load: 114328.1 4
-(2) Maximum vertical-load in any single pedestal: 76888.8 (3) Maximum shear load in any single pedestal: 15366.6 (4) Maximum fuel-cell impact at one local position: 973.0 (5) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at baseplate: .0
-(C) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at rack top: .0 (7) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at baseplate: .0
-(8) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at rack-top: .0 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in.)
-Locations X-direction Y-direction Top corner: 8175- 1.7086 Baseplate corner: .5886 1.6630 MAXIMUM STRESS FACTORS
- Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7
'Above baseplates .014 .007- .071 .065 .089 .105 .008 Support pedestal:-. .096 .028 .118 .102 .169 .184 .024
- See Section 6.4.3.2 of the Licensing Report for definitions.
. Table.6.5.34
- -k
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF_'3-D SINGLE RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: RACK-H Holtec Run I.D.: dvog-ri.ox5 . Seismic Loading: 1.0 x OBE Fuel' Assembly I.D. and Weight Intact Fuel;; 1600.0 (lbs '. ) Fuel Loadings; 32 cells loaded; Fuel centroid _X,Y: .0,-25.6 (in.) Coefficient of friction at the-bottom of. support pedestal: 0.5
.$ Revision: 3.47- $ ;
$Logfile: C:/raeks/ dynamo / dynamo,fov $ '
$ Revision: 2.5 ;$.
$Logfiles. C:/ racks /dynam0/dynasi.foy $
$ Revision: 3.37 $
$Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/dynas2.fov_ $ ,
DYNAMIC IMPACT LOADS (lbs.)- (1) Maximum total vertical pedestal load --118521.5 -
; (2) : Maximum vertical'_ load -in any single pedestal: 94229.7 (3) Maximum shear load.in any single pedestal: 40088.1 (4)- Maximum fuel-cell -impact at one local position: 1437.3'
-(5) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at baseplate: .0 (6) Maximum rack-to-wall---impact-at rack-top: .0 (7) Maximum rack-to-rack impact.at baseplate 0 (8) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at rack top: .0 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS-(in.).
Locations- X-direction Y-direction Top corners- 1.0544: 1.3207-
' Baseplate corner: .4432 .6388 MAXIMUM STRESS FACTORS
- j Stress factor: _ R. R2 R3 -R4 R5 R6 R7 Above baseplate .016 .013 .096 .085. .135 .158 .021 Support pedestal: .117 .059 .281 .233- .373 .423 .074
- See Section 6.4.3.2 of the Licensing Report for definitions.
~
1
Table _6.5.35;
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF.3 D SINGLE RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: RACK H
-Holtec Run I.D.: dvog ri.ox8 Seismic Loadings-1.0 x OBE
.FuelLAssembly I.D. and Weight:
~
Intact Puels;- 1600.0 (lbs.) Fuel Loading: 32 cells lo- :.ed;- Puel centroid X,Y:
.0,-25.6 (in.)
Coefficient of friction at the bottom of support pedestal: 0.8
$ Revisions- 3.47' $
$Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam3/ dynamo.fov $
-$ Revision:' 2.5 $
$Logfile C:/ racks /dynam0/dynaal.fov $
$ Revision: 3.37 $-
.$Logfile:- C:/ racks /dynam0/dynas2.fov $
DYNAMIC IMPACT LOADS (lbs.)
' (1) Maximum total vertical pedestal load: 144313.9 (2) Maximum vertical load in any single pedestal: 102466.9 (3) Maximum-shear load in any single pedestal: 52825.9
- (4)- Maximum fuel-cell impact at one local position: 1443.6 (5) Maximum rack-to-wall-impact at baseplate: ,0 (6) Maximum rack-to wall, impact at-rack. top: .0 (7) Maximum' rack-to rack 11mpact at baseplate: .0
~
(8) Maximum. rack-to-rack impact.at rack top: .0 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in.)
- Locations X-direction Y-direction:
-Top corner .9824 1.5445 1
Baseplate corner: .4053 .5165 MAXIMUM' STRESS FACTORS *
~ Stress. factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 RS- R6 R7 Above baseplates .023' .016 .104 .096- .166 .194 .021 Support pedestal: .128 .086 .251 .211 .330 .374 .098
*:See Section 6.4.3.2 of the Licensing Report for definitions, s
- Table _6.5.36-
\
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF 3-D SINGLE RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: RACK H-Holtec Run I.D.:-dvog-ri".oxr ' Seismic Loading: 1.0 x OBE PuellAssembly I.D._and Weight: Intact Fuelis 1600.0 (lbs.) Fuel Loading: 32 cells loaded;' Fuel centroid X,Y .0,-25.6-(in.) Coefficient of friction at the bottom of support pedestal: Gaussia
$ Revision: 3.47 $
$Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/ dynamo.fov $
$ Revision: ' 2. 5 $
$Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/dynasl,fov $
$ Revision: .3.37 $
$Logfile:- -C:/ racks /dynam0/dynas2.fov $
DYNAMIC IMPACT LOADS (lbs.)
-(1)~ Maximum total' vertical pedestal load: 120563.3 (2)1 Maximum vertical load in any single pedestal: 95610.9 (3) - Maximum shear load in any single pedestal _ 44622.3 (4)- Maximum fuel-cell impact at one ' local position: 1433.5 (5) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at baseplates: .0
_ (6)- Maximum rack-to-wall impact- at rack top _ .0 (7). Maximum rack-to-rack impact'at baseplater- .0
-(8) . Maximum rack-to-rack -impact' at rack top: .0 i-4 c MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in.)
Locations X-direction- Y-direction Top corner: 1.0653- 1.4128 Baseplate corner: .5135, .6409
- MAXIMUM STRESS FACTORS
- Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Above baseplate: .016 .011 .101 .086 .142 .165 .017 j Support pedestals .119 .055 .267 .210 .364 .414- .080
(
- See Section 6,4.3.2=of the Licensing Report for definitions.
4 ?
l Table 6.5.37
' ? .
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF 3-D SINGLE RACK ANALYSIS FOR~ RACK MODULE: RACK H Holtec Run I.D.: dvog-ri.od2 Seismic Loading: 1.0 x OBE Fuel Assembly I.D. and Weight: Intact Fuel;; 1600.0 (lbs.) Fuel Loading: 36 cells loaded; Fuel c3ntroid X,Y:-12.0,-17.1 (in.) Coefficient of friction at the bottom of support pedestal: 0.2
$ Revision: 3.47 $
$Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/ dynamo.fov $
$ Revision: 2.5 $
$Logfile: C:/racka/dynam0/dynas1.fov $
$ Revision: 3.37 $
$Logfile: C / racks /dynam0/dynas2.fov $
DYNAMIC IMPACT LOADS (lbs.) (1) Maximum total vertical pedestal load: 124329.0 (2) Maximum vertical load in any single pedestal: 88812.9 (3) Maximum shear load in any ringle pedestal: 15464.9 G (4) Maximum fuel-cell impact at one local position: 1181.0 (5) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at baseplate: .0 (6) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at rack top: .0 (7) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at baseplate: .0 (8) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at rack top: .0 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in.) Locations X-direction Y-direction e Top corner .9727 1.8508 Baseplate corner: .8063 1.8025 MAXIMUM STRESS FACTORS
- Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Above baseplate: .014 .007 .074 .083 .119 .139 .008 Support pedestal .111 .028 .105 .106 .182 .194 .026
- See Section 6.4.3.2 of the Licensing Report for definitions.
l 4 l' - - Table 6.5.38 i ' ~
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF 3-D_ SINGLE RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: RACK-H , l i Holtec-Run I.D.- dvog-ri.od5 Seismic Loading: 1.0 x OBE L Fuel Assembly I.D. and Weight: Intact Fuel;; 1600.0 (1bs.) l Fuel Loading: 36 cells loaded;. Fuel centroid X,Y -12.0,-17.1 (in.) a Coefficient-of friction at the bottom of support pedestal: 0.5 ) [ $ Revision:. 3.47 $. l $Logfils:- C:/ racks /dynam0/ dynamo.foy $
$ Revisions- 2.5 $
- $Logfile C
- / racks /dynam0/dynasi.fov $
i $ Revision: 3.37 $ }: $Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/dynas2.fov $ DYNAMIC IMPACT LOADS (lbs.) (1) Maximum total vertical. pedestal load: 200582.3 (2) Maximum vertical load in any single pedestal: 109374.9 4 . , (3) Maximum shear load in any single pedestal: 36651.3
, \
4
.(4) Maximum fuel-cell impact at one' local position: 1331.5 (5) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at baseplate: .0 (6) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at rack top .0 (7) - Maximum rack-to-rack impact at baseplate: .0 (8) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at- rack top:; .0 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in.)
Location: X-direction Y-direction Top corner 1~.0329 1.4500 Baseplate corner: .3353 .3505 MAXIMUM STRESS FACTORS.*
- Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Above baseplate .031 .017 .101 .099 .154 .179 .017 Support pedestal .136 ;064 .302 .317 .360 .409 .066
- See Section-6.4.3.2 of the Licensing Report for definitions.
, . . . _ ., .__.____-..-.m . _ . _ _ _ - - _ _ _ . _ _. ~ _ _.- - - _ .m_ _ . _ _._,m_ . _ . --.
LTable.6.5.39- -
- / 7
-l SUPHARY RESULTS OF 3-D SINGLE RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: RACK-H '! ?
t i. s LHoltec Run I.D.: dvog ri.od8 Seismic Loading: 1.0 x OBE.
- - PuelEAssembly I.D. and Weight
- Intact Fuel;; 1600.0 (1bs.)
-Fuel. Loading: 36 cells' loaded; Fuel centroid X,Y -12.0,-17.1 (in.)
3 Coefficient of friction at the bottom of support pedestal: 0.8
- $ Revision - 3.47 $
.' $Logfiles- C:/ racks /dynam0/ dynamo,fov $ 1 -$ Revision: 2.5 $ , 4
~$Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/ dynast.foy $
$ Revision:- $3.37--$ i
-$Logfiles C:/ racks /dynam0/dynas2.fov $
j; DYNAMIC IMPACT LOADS.(lbs.) f (1)- Maximum total vertical pedestal load: 169475.7 (2) Maximum vertical load in any single pedestal: 109264.6
.(3) Maximum shear load in any single pedestal -56816.7-i-
l (4) Maximum fuel-cell impact at one local position: 1230.3-4
- (5) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at baseplate s . .0 7
j (6) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at rack top: .0 L (7) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at baseplate .0 ,
-(8)- Maximum rack-to-rack impact at rack top: .0 MAXIMJM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in.) ,. Locationt X-direction- Y-direction Top corner: 1.0467 1.1337
{ ~ Baseplate corner: .2062 .2882 1
- ' MAXIMUM STRESS FACTORS
- I j- Stress' factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 i .
Above baseplates- .023 . 018 .113 .097 .149 .174 .015 Support pedestal .136 .106 .302 309 .360 .407 .095 t ).,
- See Section 6.4.3.2 of the Licensing Report for definitions.
i i
, _ . . . . _ - - , . . - , . _. _ _ __ _ ._.- _ - ~ _ . . ~ __- -- . . , . - - .
. Table 6.5.40
~
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF 3-D SINGLE RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE s RACK-H Holtec Run I.D.: dvog ri.odr -Seismic Loading: 1.0 x OBE
-_ Fuel Assembly I.D. and Weight: Intact Fuel;; 1600.0 (lbs.)
Fuel Loading: 36. cells loaded;. Fuel centroid X,Ya-12.0,-17.1 (in.) Coefficient of friction at the bottom of support pedestal: Gaussia
$ Revisions- 3.47 $
! $Logfile: C / racks /dynam0/ dynamo.foy $
$ Revision: 2.5 $
$Logfile C:/ racks /dynam0/dynasi.fov $
$ Revision: 3.37 $
$Logfile: C:/ racks / dynamo /dynas2.foy $
DYNAMIC IMPACT LOADS (lbs.) (1) Maximum total vertical pedestal load: 210491.1 (2) Maximum vertical load in any single pedestal: 105443.7 (3) Maximum shear load in any single pedestal: 41452.1 (4) Maximum fuel-cell impact at one local-position: 1315.9 (5) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at baseplate: .0. (6)- Maximum rack-to-wall impact at rack top: .0 (7) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at baseplate .0
'(B) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at rack _ top: .0 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in.)
-Locations X-direction Y-direction Top corner: 1.0624 1.3898.
Baseplate corner .2518 .2986 MAXIMUM STRESS FACTORS
- Stress factor . R1. R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Above baseplate .028 .011' .110 .094 .143 .166 .015
-Support pedestal:- ,131 .076 .342 .328 .383 .433 .058
- See Section 6.4.3.2 of the Licensing Rere*t for definitions.
Table 6.5.41 l () '
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF 3 D SINGLE RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: RACK H Holtec Run I.D.: dvog-ro.sf2 Scismic Loading: 1.0 x SSE Puel Assembly I.D. and Weight: Intact Puel;; 1600.0 (lbs.) Puel Loading: 72 cells loaded; Fuel centroid X,Y:' . 0, .0 (in.) Coefficient of friction at the bottom of support pedestal: 0.2
~~
l $ Revision: 3.47 $
$Logfile: C: / racks /dynam0/ dynamo. foy $
$ Revision: 2.5 $
$Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/dynasi.foy $
$ Revision: 3.37 $
$Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/dynas2.foy $
DYNAMIC IMPACT LOADS (lbs.) (1) Maximum total vertical pedestal load: 230048.4 (2) Maximum vertical load in any single pedestal: 110903.5 (3) Maximum shear load in any single peoestal: 19565.7 V (4) Maximum fuel-cell impact at one local position: 1525.4 (5) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at baseplate: .0 (6) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at rack top: .0 (7) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at baseplate: .0 (8) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at rack top: _ .0 MAXIMUM' CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in.) Location X-direction Y-direction Top corner .2885 .2787 Baseplate corner: .1316 .1778 MAXIMUM STRESS FACTORS
- Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Above baseplate: ,029 .015 .131 .102 .171 .196 .016 Support pedestal .138 .033 .074 .051 .174 .180 .035
/~s\
- See Section 6.4.3.2 of the Licensing Report for definitions.
.d
, . _ - . .. . . _ . ~ - . - . . . - . . - . ~ - . - - - - ~ .
. ~ . -...-- . - - - - - . . - ~ - ~ .
9
-}
i +' y i 4 Table 6.5.42 i
SUMMARY
RESULTSlOF 3-D SINGLE RACF, ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: RACK-H 4 l_ Holtec Run I.D.: dvog-ro.sf5- Seistric Loading: 1.0 x SSE Fuel Assembly I.D. and Weight l Intact Fuel;; 1600.0 (lbs.) j= Fuel Loading: 72 cells loaded; Fuel centroid X,Y: .0, .0 (in.)
- . Coefficient of friction at the bottom of support pedestal
- 0.5
$ Revision: 3.47 $
- - $Logfile
- - C:/ racks /dynam0/ dynamo.fov $
$ Revisions- .2.5 $
$Logfile: C : / racks /dynam0/dynas1.' f ov- $
$ Revision: 3.37- 3
$Logfile C / racks /dynam0/dynas2.fov $
DYNAMIC IMPACT LOADS (lbs.) (1) Maximum total vertical pedestal load: 230091.6 (2)- Maximum vertical load in any single pedestal:
~
g- 128032.4 [- (3) Ma.iimum shear load in any single pedestal: 51324.0 f (4) Maximum fuel-cell impact at one local position- 1529.1 (5) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at baseplate: .0 (6)' Maximum rack-to-wall impact at rack tops 0 (7) Maxim'um rack-to-rack impact at beeplate: .0 (8) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at rack top: .0 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS - (in. ) Locatione. .X-direction Y-direction Top corner: . 3193- .2768 Baseplate corner: .0133 .0093 e MAXIMUM-STRESS FACTORS
- Stresas factors- R1 R2 R3' R4 R5- R6 R7 Above baseplates . 029 .024 .149 .116 .188 .216 .028 Support pedestalf . 160 .079 .110 .092 .234- .248 .096
[ *.See Section 6.4.3.2'of the Licensing Report for definitions. 6t- ~v v y- - -r-+ ~ p - - ,-
Table 6.5.43
SUMMARY
REsULTS OF 3-D SINGLE RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: RACK-H Holtec Run I.D.: dvog+ro.sf8_ Seismic Loading: 1.0 x SSE Fuel Assembly I.D. and Weight: Intact Fuel;; 1600.0 (lbs.) ruel Loading: 72 cells loaded; Fuel centroid X,Y: .0, .0 (in.) Coefficient of friction at the bottom of support pedestal: 0.8
$ Revision:_ 3.47 $
$Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/ dynamo.fov $
$ Revision: 2.5 $
$Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/dynasi fov $
$ Revision: 3.37 $
$Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/dynas2.fov $
DYNAMIC IMPACT LOADS (lbs.) l-(1) Maximum total vertical pedestal load: 230709.9 (2) Maximum vertical load in any single pedestal: 133970,0 (~'s (3) Maximum shear load in any single pedestal: 65777.7 (4) Maximum fuel-cell impact at one local position: 1532.9 (5) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at baseplate: .0 (6) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at rack top: .0 (7) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at baseplate: .0
-(8) Maximum rack-to-rack-impact at rack top: .0 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS-(in.)
Location X-direction Y-direction Top corner: 3214 .2776 Baseplate corner: .0095 .0002 MAXIMUM STRESS FACTORS
- Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Above baseplate .029 .023 .149 .120 .192 .222 .031 Support pedestal: .167 .088 .141 .103 .245 .259 .122
- See Section 6.4.3.2 of the Licensing Report for definitions.
;,-~ Table 6.5.44 .I
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF 3-D SINGLE RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: RACK-H Holtec Run I.D.: dvog ro.sfr Seismic Loading: 1.0 x SSE , Puel Assembly I.D. and Weight: Intact Puelis 1600.0 (1bs.) Puel Loading: .72 cells loaded; Fuel centroid X,Y: .0, .0 (in.) Coefficient of friction at the bottom of support pedestal Gaussia
$ Revision: 3.47 $
$Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/ dynamo,fov $
$ Revision: 2.5 $
$Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/dynasi.fov $
$ Revision: 3.37 $
$Logfile: c:/ racks /dynam0/dynas2.fov $
DYNAMIC IMPACT LOADS (lbs.) (1) Maximum total vertical pedestal load: 231206.6 (2) Maximum vertical load in any single pedestal: 127144.7
~
~'h (3) Maximum shear load in any single pedestal:
(d (4) Maximum fuel-cell impact at one local position: 43498.7 1532.3
-(5) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at baseplate: .0 (6) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at rack top: .0 (7) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at baseplate: .0 (8) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at rack top: .0-MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in.)
Location X-direction Y-direction Top corner: .3273 .2775 Baseplate corner: .0121 .0129 MAXIMUM STRESS FACTORS
- Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Above baseplate: .029 .024 .149 .119 .192 .221 .030 Support pedestal .159 .065 .104 .096 .237 .251 .074
- See Section 6.4.3.2 of the Licensing Report for definitions.
,-, Table 6.5.45 (
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF 3-D SINGLE RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: RACK-H Holtec Run I.D.: dvog-ro.se2 Seismic Loading: 1.0 A SSE Fuel Assembly I.D. and Weight: Intact Puel;; 1600.0 (lbs.) Puel Loading: 8 cells loaded; Puel centroid X,Y: .0, .0 (in.) Coefficient of friction at the bottom of support pedestal: 0.2
$ Revision: -3.47 $
$Logfile: .C:/ racks /dynam0/ dynamo.foy $
$ Revision: 2.5 $
$Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/dynasi.fov $
$ Revision: 3.37 $
$Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/dynas2.foy $
DYNAMIC IMPACT LOADS (lbs.) (1) Maximum total vertical pedestal load 50278.2 (2) Maximum vertical load in any single pedestal: 27744.8 (3) Maximum shear load in any single pedestal: 5495.5 (4) Maximum fuel-cell impact at one local position: 1582.6 (5) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at baseplate: .0 (6) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at rack top: .0 (7) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at baseplate: .0
.( B) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at rack top: .0 MAXIMUM CORNEF DISPLACEMENTS (in.)
Location: X-direction Y-direction Top corner: .0666 .0995 Baseplate corner: .0423 .0626 MAXIMUM STRESS FACTORS
- Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 RG R7 Above baseplate: .007 .003 .035 .025 .042 .048 .005 Support pedestal: .034 .008 .023 .013 .045 .046 .010
- See Section 6.4.3.2 of the Licensing Report for definitions.
( f
,-ss Table 6.5.46 i \
U
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF 3-D SINGLE RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: RACK-H Holtec Run I.D.: dvog-ro.seE. Seismic Loading: 1.0 x SSE Fuel Assembly I.D. and Weight: Intact Fuels; 1600.0 (lbs.) Fuel Loading: 8 cells loaded; Fuel centroid X,Y: .0, .0 (in.) + Coefficient of friction at the bottom of support pedestal: 0.5
$ Revision: 3.47 $
$Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/ dynamo.fov $
$ Revision: 2.5 $
$Logfile:_ C:/ racks /dynam0/dynasi.fov $
$ Revision: 3.37 $
$Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/dynas2.fov $
DYNAMIC IMPACT LOADS (lbs.) (1) Maximum total vertical pedestal load 51533.0 (2) Maximum vertical load in any single pedestal: 41175.7 (3) Maximum shear load in any single pedestal: 18591.8 (V} (4) . Maximum fuel-cell impact at one local position: 1597.1
- (5) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at baseplate
- .0 2
(6) Maximum rack-to wall impact at rack top: .0 (7) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at baseplate .0 i (8) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at rack top: .0 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in.) Location X-direction Y-direction Top corner .1152 .0949 Baseplate corner: .0512 .0243 MAXIMUM STRESS Y.\CTORS
- Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Above baseplates .007 .006 .038 .032 .059 .069 .006 Support pedestal: .051 .026 .033 .034 .000 .089 .023 '
\
i ( ,)
- See Section 6.4.3.2 of the Licensing Report for definitions.
4
_m _. - . _ -4 Table 6.5.47 t - a
SUMMARY
RESULTS ' OF 3-D SINGLE RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: RACK-H Holtec Run I.D.: dvog-ro.se8 . Seismic Loading: 1.0 x SSE Puel Assembly I.D. and Weight: Intact Puel;; 1600.0 (1bs.) i ' Puol Loading: 8 cella loaded; Fuel centroid X,Y; .0, .0 (in.) Coefficient of friction at the bottom of support pedestal: 0.8
$ Revision: 3.47 $
$Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/ dynamo.foy $
$ Revision: 2.5 $
$Logfile: C:/ racks / dynamo /dynasi.fov $
1 $ Revision: 3.37 $
$Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/dynas2.fov S DYNAMIC IMPACT LOADS (lbs.)
, (1) Maximum total vertical pedestal load: 51487.3 (2) Maximum vertical load in any single pedestal: 43425.1 2
] (3) Maximum shear load in any single pedestal: 28608.9 d (4) Maximum fuel-ceJ' impact at one local position: 1596.8 l
,- (5) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at baseplate: .0
- (6) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at rack top
- .0 (7) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at baseplate: .0 d
(8) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at rack top: .0 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in.)
- Location X-direction Y-direction i
Top corner: .1264 .0886 Baseplate corner: .0294 .0201 MAXIMUM STRESS FACTORS
- Stress % actor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Above baseplate: .007 .009 .039 .032 .062 .072 .008 Support pedestal: .054 .C;2 .039 .052 .108 .122 .034
[\ v
- See Section 6.4.3.2 of the Licensing Report for definitions.
/N Table 6.5.48 ! ) \.)
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF 3-D SINGLE RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: RACK-H Holtec Run I.D.: dvog ro.ser Seismic Loadings.l.0 x SSE Puel Assembly I.D. and Weight: Intact Fuel;J 1600.0 (lbs.) Fuel Loading: O cells loaded; Fuel centroid X,Y: . 0, .0 (in.) Coefficient of friction at the bottom of support pedestal: Gaussia
$ Revision: 3.47 $-
$Logfile: C:/racxs/dynam0/ dynamo.fov $
$ Revision: 2.5 $
$Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/dynasi.foy $
$ Revision 3.37 $
$Logfile: C:/ racks / dynamo /dynas2.fov $
DYNAMIC IMPACT LOADS (lbs.) (1) Maximum total vertical pedestal load: 51466.4 (2) Maximum vertical load in any single pedestal: 40066.1 ( (3) Maximum shear load in any single pedestal: 15061.1 (4) Maximum fuel-cell impact at one local position: 1670.0 (5) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at baseplate: .0 (6) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at rack top: .0 (7) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at baseplates .0 (8) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at rack top: .0 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in.) Location X-direction Y-direction Top corner: .1118 .0937 Baseplate corner: .0415 .0233 MAXIMUM STRESS FACTORS
- Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Above baseplate: .007 .006 .037 .032 ,058 .067 .006 Support pedestal: .050 .022 .033 .032 .072 .076 .022
- See Section 6.4.3.2 of the Licensing Report for definitions.
.~ . ,- . . . _ - -- -- _
Table 6.5.49 b'
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF 3 D SINGLE RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: RACK-H a Holtec Run I.D.: dvog-ro.sx2 Seismic Loading: 1.0 x SSE Fuel Assembly I.D. and Weight: Intact Fuel;; 1600.0 (lbs.) i d Publ Loading: 32 cells loaded; Fuel centroid X,Y: .0,-25.6 (in.) Coefficient of friction at the bottom of support pedestal: 0.2
$ Revision: 3.47 5
$Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/ dynamo.fov $
$ Revision: 2.5 $
$Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/dynasi.fcv $
$ Revision: 3.37 $
$Logfile C:/ racks /dynam0/3ynas2.foy $
i DYNAMIC IMPACT LOADS (lbs.) (1) Maximum total vertical pedestal load: 97966.5 (2) Maximum vertical load in any single pedestal: 55896.2 (3) Maximum shear lead in any single pedestal: 11167.1 (4) Maximum fuel-cell impact at one local position: 1503.1 (5) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at baseplate: .0 (6) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at rack top: .0 (7) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at baseplate: .0 (8) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at rack top: .0 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in.) Locations X-direction Y-direction Top corner .1811 .1804 Baseplate corner: .0990 .0603 MAXIMUM STRESS FACTORS
- Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Above baseplates .010 .007 .062 .049 .068 .080 .008 Support pedestal .070 .021 .055 .028 .108 .116 .017
/"
(
- See Section 6.4.3.2 of the Licensing Report for definitions.
Table 6.5.50
\
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF 3 D SI!!GLE RACK Al{ALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: RACK.H l Holtec Run I.D.: dvog ro.sx5 Seismic Loading: 1.0 x SSE ruel Assembly I.D. and Weight Intact Puols: 1600.0 (1bs.) ! Tuol Loading: 32 celle loadeds ruel centroid X,Y: .0, 25.6 (in.) Coefficient of friction at the_ bottom of support pedestal: 0.5
$ Revision 3.47 $ $Legfile: C /racke/dynam0/ dynamo.foy $ $ Revision: '4 . 5 $ $Logfile: c / racks /dynam0/dynasi.foy $ $ Revision 3.37 $ $Logfile: C / racks /dynam0/dynas2.foy $
DYl{AMIC IMPACT LOADS (1bs.) (1) Maximum total vertical pedestal load: 100278.8 (2) Maximum vertical load La any single pedestal: 71623.6 (3) Maximum shear load in any ningle pedestal: 28442.6 (4) Maximum fussi-cell impact at one local position: 1494.6 (5) Maximum rack to wall impact at baseplate .0 (6) Maximum rack to+ wall impact at rack top .0 (7) Maximum rack to rack inpact at baseplates .0 (8) Maximum rack to-rack impact at rack top: .0 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in.) Locations X-direction Y-direction Top corner .2192 .2728 Baseplate corner .0177 .0235 MAXIMUM STRESS FACTORS
- Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Above baseplates .010 .010 .085 .058 .092 .108 .010 Support pedestal: ,089 .051 .089 .063 .140 .153 .036
- See Section 6.4.3.2 of the Licensing Report for definitions.
Table 6.5.51
\
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF 3 D SINGLE RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: RACK.H
^
Holtec Run I.D.: dvog-ro.sx8 Seismic loading: 1.0 y SSE ruel Assembly 1.D..and Weight: Intact ruelsi 1600.0 (ibs.) Fuel Loading: 32 cells loaded; ruel centroid X,Y: .0, 25.6 (in.) Coefficient of friction at the bottom of support pedestal: 0.8
$Re'ision 3.47 $
$ Log *ile C / racks /dynam0/ dynamo.f ov $
$ Revisions 2.5 $
$Logfile C / racks /dynam0/dynas2.fov $
$ Revision 3.37 $
$Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/dynas2.foy $
DYNAMIC IMPACT LOADS (Ibs.) (1)-Maximum total vertical pedestal lead: 100506.8 (2)- Maximum vertical load in any single pedestal: 70459.1 (3) Maximum shear load in any single pedestal: 31698.5 (4) Maximum fuel-cell impact at one local position: 1508.5 (5). Maximum rack to wall impact at baseplate .0 (6) Maximum rack-to wall impact at rack top: .0 (7) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at baseplate .0 (8) Maximum rack to rack impact at rack top: .0 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in.) Locations X direction Y-direction Top corner: .2211 .2724 Baseplate corner .0131 .0203 MAXIMUM STRESS FACTORS
- Stress factor: R1= R2 R3 R4 R5' R6 R7 Above'baseplates .010 .009 .005 .058 .093 .108 .011 Support pedestals .088 .046 .089 .056 .141 .154 .048 g
- See Section 6.4.3.2 of the Licensing Report for definitions.
~, , . . . .. -.- -
\
Table 6.5.52
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF 3 D SINGLE RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: RACK-H Holtec Run I.D.: dvog-ro.sxt Seismic Loading 1.0 x SSE ruel Assembly I.D. and Weight: Intact ruelt; 1600.0 (1bs.) Puel Loading: 32 cella loadedt ruel centroid X,Y: .0, ..J.6 (in.) Coefficient of friction at the bottom of support pedestal: Gaussia
$ Revision: 3.47 $ $Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/dynam0.fov $ $ Revision: 2.5 $ $Logfile: C / racks /dynam0/dynasi.foy $ $ Revision 3.37 $ $Logfile: C: / racks /dynam0/dynas2. f oy $
DYNAMIC IMPACT LOADS (1bs.) (1) Maximum total vertical pedestal load: 100074.6 (2) Maximum vertical load in any single pedestal: 72500.9 (3) Maximum shear load in any single pedestal: 28161.0 (4) Maximum fuel-cell impact at one local position: 1476.9 (5) Maximum rack to-wall impact at baseplate .0 (6) Maximum rack to-wall impact at rack top: .0 (7) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at baseplate: .0 (0) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at rack top: .0 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in.) Locations X-direction Y-direction Top corner: .2199 .2731 Baseplate corner: .0192 .0238 MAXIMUM STRESS FACTORS
- Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Above baseplate: 010 .010 .085 .059 .092 .108 .010 Support pedestal: .090 .050 .089 .063 .141 .154 .035
(\ v
- See Section 6.4.3.2 of the Licensing Report for definitions,
Table 6.5.53 SIM4ARY RESULTS OF 3 D SINGLE RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: RACK H Holtec Run I.D.: dvog-ro.sd2 Seismic Loading: 1.0 x SSE ! Fuel Assembly I.D. and Weight: Intact Fuels 1600.0 (1bs.) I ruel Loading: 36 cells loaded; ruel centroid X,Y:-12.0 17.1 (in.) l l Coefficient of friction at the bottom of support pedestal: 0.2 i
$ Revision 3.47 $ $Logfile: C / racks /dynam0/ dynamo.foy $ $ Revision: 2.5 $ $Logfile C / racks /dynam0/dynasi.foy $ $ Revision: 3.37 $ $Logfile: C / racks /dynam0/dynas2.foy $
DYNAMIC IMPACT LOADS (1bs.) (1) Maximum total vertical pedestal loadi 106344.6 (2) Maximum vertical load in any single pedestal: 71679.3 (3) Maximum shear load in at4y single pedestal: 14323.1 (4) Maximum f uel-cell impact at one local position: 1646.2 (5) Maximum rack-to wall impact at baseplates .0 (6) Maximum rack to wall impact at rack top: .0 (7) Maximum rack-to rack impact at baseplates .0 (8) Maximum rack to rack impact at rack tops- .0 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in.) Location X direction Y direction Top corner: .1550 .1899 Baseplate corner: .0899 .1316 MAXIMUM STRESS FACTORS
- Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R$ R6 R7 Above baseplate .010 .008 .074 .057 .074 .006 .008 Support pedestals .089 .027 .047 .032 .111 .117 .022
)
- See Section 6.4.3.2 of the Licensing Report for definitions.
Table 6.5.54
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF 3-D Sill 3LE RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: RACK H Holtec Run I.D.: dvog ro.sd5 Seismic Loading: 1.0 x SSE Puel Assembly I.D. and Weights Intact fuelis 1600.0 (1bs.) Fuel Loading: 36 cella loadeds Fuel centroid X,Y:-12.0,-17.1 (in.) l Coefficient of friction at the bottom of support pedestal: 0.5 l $ Revision: 3.47 $
$Logfile C:/ racks /dynam0/dynam0.fov $ $ Revision: 2.5 $ $Logfile: C: / racks /dynam0/dynasi . f ov $
i
$ Revision: 3.37 $ $Logfile C:/ racks /dynam0/dynas2.fov $
l DYNAMIC IMPACT LOADS (1bs.) (1) Maximum total vertical pedestal load: 106614.3 (2) Maximum vertical load in any single pedestali 83592.7 (3) Maximum shear load in any single pedestal: O (4) Maximum fuel cell impact at one local position: 24466.3 1433.6 (5) Maximum rack-to wall impact at baseplates .0 (6) Maximum rack-to wall impact at rack top: .0 (7) Maximum rack-to rack impact at baseplate: 40 (0) Maximum rack-to rack impact at rack top: .0 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEME!G'S (in.) Location: X-direction Y-direction Top corner: .2639 .2115 r Baseplate corner: .0345 .0224 MAXIMUM STRESS FACTORS
- Stress factor R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Above baseplates .010 .012 .078 .076 .106 .124 .013 Support pedestals .104 .040 .064 .077 .164 .175 .040 See Section 6.4.3.2 of the Licensing Report for definitions.
Table 6.5.55
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF 3 D SINGLE RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: RACK H Holtec Run I.D.: dvog ro sd81 Seismic Loading: 1.0 x SSE Fuel Assembly I.D. and Weight: Intact Fuelsi 1600.0 (1bs.) Fuel Loading: 36 cells loadeds Fuel centroid X,Y:-12.0,-17.1 (in.) Coefficient of friction at the bottom of support pedestal: 0.8
$ Revision: 3.47 3 $Logfile C / rack 6/4uMdynamo.fov $ $ Revision: 2.5 $ $Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/dynaal.foy $ $ Revision: 3.37 $ $Logfile C / racks /dynam0/dynas2.foy $
DYNAMIC IMPACT LOADS (1bs.) (1) Maximum total vertical pedestal load: 107000.7 (2) Maximum vertical load in any single pedestal: 83357.9 p (3) Maximum shear load in any single pedestal: 34739.3 b (4) Maximum fuel-cell impact at one local position: 1646.0 (5) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at baseplate .0 (6) Maximum rack-to wall impact at rack top: .0 (7) Maximum rack to-rack impact at baseplate: .0 (8) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at rack top: .0 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in.) Location X-direction Y-direction Top corner: .2408 .2117 Baseplate corner: .0293 .0220 MAXIMUM STRESS FACTORS
- Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Above baseplates .010 .013 .078 .077 .106 .124 .013 Support pedestal .104 .043 .065 .068 .156 .167 .058
- See Section 6.4.3.2 of the Licensing Report for definitions.
Table 6.5.56
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF 3-D S!!1GLE RACM ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULEt RACK l! Holtec Run I.D.: dvog ro.sdr Seismic Loading: 1.0 x SSE Fuel Assembly I.D. and Weight: Intact Fuel;; 1600.0 (lbs.) Puel Loading: 36 cells loaded; Fuel centroid X,Y 12.0,-17.1 (in.) Coefficient of friction at the bottom of support pedestal: Gaussia
$ Revision: 3.47 $ $Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/ dynamo.foy $ $ Revision: 2.5 $ $Logfile C / racks / dynamo /dynasi.fov $ $ Revision: 3.37 $ $Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/dynas2.fov $
DYNAMIC IMPACT LOADS (1bs.) (1) Maximum total vertical pedestal load: 106636.7 (2) Maximum vertical load in any single pedestal 82951.3 (3) Maximum shear load in any single pedestal: 23109.8 (4) Maximum fuel-cell impact at one local position: 1471.0 (5) Maximum rack-to wall impact at baseplate: ,0 (6) Maximum rack to-wal3 impact at rack top: .0 (7) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at baseplates .0 (8) Maximum rack to-rack impact at rack top: .0 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in.) Location X-direction Y direction Top corner: .2509 .2117 Baseplate ccrner .0391 .0290 MAXIMUM STRESS FACTORS
- Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Above baseplate .07.1 .011 .078 .077 .108 .126 .012 Support pedestal .103 .036 .064 .069 .157 .167 .037
(
- See Section 6.4.3.2 of the Licensing Report for definitions.
i l Table 6.5.57 i O
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF 3 D SI!13LE RACK A!1ALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: RACK H : r Holtec Run I.D.: dvog-ro.of2 Seismic Loading: 1.0 x OBE ruel Assembly 2.D. and Weight: Intact ruels: 1600.0 (1bs.) Puel Loading: 72 cells loaded; Fuel centroid X,Y: . 0, .0 (in.) Coefficient of friction at the bottom of support pedestal: 0.2
$ Revision: 3.47 $
$Logtile C:/ racks /dynam0/ dynamo.fov $
$ Revision: 2.5 $
$Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/ dynast.foy $
$ Revision 3.37 4 ,
$Logfile C / racks /dynam0/dynas2.foy $
DY!JAMIC IMPACT LOADS (1bs.) (1) Maximum total vertical pedestal load: 162931.7 (2) Maximum vertical load in any single pedestal: 98530.0 (3) Maxinium shear load in any single pedestal: 19429.4 O* (4) Maximum fuel-cell impact at one local position: 1268.5 (5) Maximum rack to-wall impact at baseplate .0 (6) Maximum rack to wall impact at rack top: .0 (7) Maximum rack to rack impact at baseplate: .0 (8) Maximum rack to rack impact at rack top: .0 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in.) Locations X-direction Y-direction Top corner .2014 .1804 i Baseplate corner .0351 .0562 MAXIMUM STRESS MhCTORS
- Stress factor R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 l Above baseplate: .014 .013 .099 .106 .133 .156 .012
! ' Support pedestal .123 .035 .044 ,052 .166 .173 .033
- See Section 6.4.3.2-of-the Licensing Report for definitions.
l l
- - ., , . . . . , . _ _ , -_ , . _ . . . - . . _ _ _ . . _ . _ , _ _ . _ . . . _ _ _ _ , , _ _ . . . . , . - - . ~_
Table 6.5.58
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF 3 D SINGLE RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: RACK +H Holtec Run I.D.: dvog ro.of5 Seismic Loading: 1.0 x OBE Fuel Assembly 2.D. and Weight: Intact Fuels; 1600.0 (1bs. ) Fuel Loading: 72 cells loaded; Fuel centroid X,Y: .0 .0 (in.) Coefficient of friction at the bottom of support pedestal 0.5
$ Revision: 3.47 $ $Logiile: C:/ racks /dynam0/ dynamo.foy $ $ Revision: 2.5 $ $Logi11e: C /raeks/dynam0/dynasi. tov $ $ Revision 3.37 $ $Logfile C / racks /dynam0/dynas2.foy $
DYNAMIC IMPACT LOADS (1bs.) (1) Maximum total vertical pedestal load: 163002.5 (2) Maximum vertical load in any single pedestal: 107948.2 /7 (3) Maximum shear load in any single pedestal: 32853.9 N) (4) Maximum fuel. cell impact at one local position: 1372.5 (5) Maximum rack-to wall impact at baseplate: .0 (6) Maximum rack-to wall impact at rack top .0 (7) Maximum rack to rack impact at baseplates .0 (8) Maxistum rack to rack impact at rack top: .0 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in.) Locations X-direction Y direction Top corner: .2368 .2650 Baseplate corner .0048 .0066 MAXIMUM STRESS FACTORS
- Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Above baseplate .014 .021 .113 ,115 .148 .173 .021 Support pedestal .135 ,058 .077 .066 .185 .194 .054
- See Section 6.4.3.2 of the Licensing Report for definitions.
Table 6.5.59
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF 3-D SINGLE RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: RACK H Holtec Run I.D.: dvog+ro.of8 Seismic Loading: 1.0 x ODE Fuel Assembly 1.D. and Weight Intact Fuels; 1600.0 (1bs.) Fuel Loading: 72 cells loaded; Fuel centroid X,Y: .0, .0-(in.) Coefficient of friction at the bottom of support pedestal: 0.8
$ Revision 3.47 $ $Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/ dynamo.foy $ $ Revision 4 2.5 $ $Logfile C / racks /dynam0/dynasi.foy $ $ Revision: 3.37 $ $Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/dynas2.foy $
DYNAMIC IMPACT LOADS (1bs.) (1) Maximum total vertical pedestal load: 163002.4 (2) Maximum vertical load in any single pedestal: 107270.6 (3) Maximum shear load in any single pedestal: 38576.6 (4) Maximum fuel cell impact at one local position: 1375.0 (5) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at baseplate .0 (6) Maximum rack-to wall impact at rack top: .0 (7) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at baseplate: .0 (8) Maximum rack to rack impact at rack top: .0 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in.) Locations X-direction Y direction Top corner: .2368 .2661 Baseplate corner .0051' .0064 MAXIMUM STRESS FACTORS * ' Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Above baseplates .014 .021 .113 .115- .148 .173 .020 Support pedestal: .134 .059 .076 .067 .181 .190 .061
- See Section 6.4.3.2 of the Licensing Report for definitions.
Table 6.5,60 \
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF 3 D SI!1GLE RACK AllALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: RACK-H Holtec hun I.D.: dvog ro. oft Seismic Leading: 1.0 x O E Fuel Assembly I.D. and Weight Intact Fuel;; 1600.0 (lbs.) Fuel Loading: 72 cells loaded; Fuel centroid X,Y: . 0, .0 (in.) Coefficient of friction at the bottom of support pedestal: Gaussia
$ Revisions- 3.47 $Logfile: C:/ recks /dynam0/ dynamo.fov $ $ Revision:- 2.5 $ $Logfile C:/raeks/ dynamo /dynasi. tov $ $ Revision: 3.37 $ $Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/dynas2.fov $
DY11AMIC IMPACT LOADS (1bs.) (1) Maximuu total vertical pedestal load: 163002.4 (2) Maximum vertical-load in any single pedestal: 107257.8 (3) Maximum shear load in any single pedestal: 36497.0 v (4) Maximum fuel-cell impact at one locsl position: 1376.0 (5) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at baseplate .0 (6) Maximum rack-to wall impact at rack top: .0 (7) Maximum rack to rack impact at baseplates .0 (8) Maximum rack to rack impact at rack top: .0 MAXIMUM CORiiER DISPLACEMElGS (in.) Locations X-direction Y-direction Top corner .2368 .2646 Baseplate corner .0052 .0072 MAXIMUM STRESS FACTORS
- Stress factor R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Above baseplates .014 .021 .113 .114 .148 .173 .021 Support pedestal .134 .065 .077 .075 181 .189 .057 See Section 6.4.3.2 of the Licensing Report for definitions.
Table 6.5.61 l SUMMtJtY RESULTS OF 3 D Sill 0LE RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: RACK H Holtec Run I.D.: dvog ro.oe2 Seismic Loading: 1.0 x OBE Fuel Assembly I.D. and Weight: Intact Fuel;; 1600.0 (1bs.) Puel Loading: 8 cells loaded ruel centroid X,Y: . 0, .0 (in.) Coefficient of friction at the bottom of support pedestal: 0.2
$ Revision: 3.47 $
$Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/dynam0.fov $
$ Revision: 2.5 $
$Logfile: C / racks /dynam0/dynas1.fov $
$ Revision: 3.37 $
$Logfile C / racks /dynam0/dynas2.foy $
DYllAMIC IMPACT LOADS (1bs.) (1) Maximum total vertical pedestal load: 42789.9 (2) Maximum vertical load in any single pedestal: 23848.9 (3) Maximum shear load in any aingle pedestal: 4768.0 (4) Maximum fuel-cell impact at one local position: 1362.2 (5) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at baseplate: .0 (6) Maximum rack-to wall impact at rack top: .0 (7) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at baseplate: .0 (8) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at rack top: .0 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in.) Location: X direction Y-direction Top corner: .0719 .0517 Baseplate corner: .0261 .0196
~
MAXIMUM STRESS FACTORS
- Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Above baseplate .005 .004 .025 .025 .033 .039 004 Support pedestal: .030 .008 .010 .012 .040 .042 .008 1
See Section 6.4.3.2 of the Licensing Report for definitions. _- __., - , _ . ~ - , , _ _ - - . _ _ _ _ - - . . , , . . _ . _ . _ _ , , , , . . _ . - , _ _ . , , _ . . . _ _ , , _ _ . . . _ ,m___,_,., _ ..,,, . _.
Table 6.5.62 SUM!%RY RESULTS OF 3-D SItMLE RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: RACK H Holtec Run I.D.: dvog ro.oe5 Seismic Loading: 1.0 x OBE Fuel Assembly I.D. and Weight Intact Fuel;; 1600.0 (1bs.) Fue) Loading: 8 cella loaded; Fuel centroid X,Y: .0, .0 (in.) Coefficient of friction at the bottom of support pedestal: 0.5
~
! $ Revisions 3.47 $ l $Logfile C:/ racks /dynam0/ dynamo.fov $
$ Revision: 2.5 $
l $Logfile C / racks /dynam0/dynasi.foy $
$ Revision: 3.37 $
$Logfile C:/ racks /dynam0/dynas2.fov $
DYHAMIC YPACT LOADS (1bo.) (1) Maximum total vertical pedestal load: 42789.9 (2) Maximum vertical load in any single pedestal: 32716.1 (3) Maximum shear load in any single pedestal: 12013.5 I (4) Maximum fuel cell impact at one local position: 1360,1 (5) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at baseplates .0 (6) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at rack top .0 (7) Maximum rack-to rack impact at baseplates .0 (8) Maximum rack-to rack impact at rack top: .0 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in.) Location X-direction Y direction Top corner .0886 .0739 Baseplate corner .0193 .0137 MAXIMUM STRESS FACTORS
- Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Above baseplates .005 .005 .029 .027 .045 .052 .005 Support pedestals .041 .016 .022 .029 .060 .063 .019 See Section 6.4.3.2 of the Licensing Report for definitions.
Table 6.5.63 SUtHARY RESULTS OF 3-D SI!1GLE RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: RACK H Holtec Run I.D.: dvog-ro.oe8 Seismic Loading: 1.0 x OBE Fuel Assembly I.D. and Weight: Intact Fuel;; 1600.0 (1bs.) Puel boading: 8 cells loaded; Fuel centroid X,Y: . 0, .0 (in.) Coefficient of friction at the bottom of support pedestal: 0.8
$ Revision: 3.47 $ $Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/ dynamo.foy $ $ Revision: 2.5 $ $Logfile: .C:/ racks /dynam0/dynas1.foy $ $ Revision: 3.37 $ $Logfile C:/ racks /dynam0/wynas2.foy $
DYllAMIC IMI'ACT LOADS (1bs.) (1) Maximum total vertical pedestal load: 42789.9 (2) Maximum vertical load in any single pedestal: 32706.1 (' \ (3) Maximum shear load in any single pedestal: 12148.4 (4) Maximum fuel-cell impact at one local position: 1360.6 (5) Maximt a rack-to wall impact at baseplate .0 (6) Maximum rack-to wall impact at rack top: .0 (7) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at baseplate .0 (9) Maximum rack-to rack impact at rack top .0 MAXIMUM CCRNER DISPLACEMENTS (in.) Locations X direction Y-direction Top corner: .0730 .0740 Baseplate corner .0129 .0100 MAXIMUM STRESS FACTokS
- Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Above baseplates ,005 .006 .029 .027 .045 .052 .006 Support pedestal: .041 .016 .024 .01s .057 .060 .020
- See Section 6.4.3.2 of the Licensing Report for definitions.
Table 6.5.64
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF 3 D SINGLE RACK ANALYSIS Ft)R RACK MODULE: RACK H Holtec Run I.D.: dvog ro.oer Seismic Loading: 1.0 x OBE Fuel Assembly I.D. and Weight: Intact Fuelis 1600.0 (1bs.) Fuel Loading: 8 cella loadeds Fuel centroid X,Y: . 0, .0 (in.) Coefficient of friction at the bottom of support pedestal: Gaussia
$ Revision 3.47 $
$Logfile C / racks /dynam0/ dynamo.fov $
$ Revision: 2.5 $
$Logfile C / racks /dynam0/dynasi.fov $
$ Revision: 3.37 $
$Logfile C:/racka/dynam0/dynas2.fov $
~
DYNAMIC IMPACT, LOADS (1bs.) (1) Maximum total vertical pedestal load: 42789.9 (2) Maximum vertical load in any single pedestal: 32907.8 (3) Maximum shear load in any single pedestal: 12675.3 (4) Maximum fuel-cell impact at one local position 1359.8 (5) Maximum rack-to wall impact at baseplate: .0 (6) Maximum rack to wall impact at rack top: .0 (7) Maximum rack to-rack impact at baseplates .0 (8) Maximum rack to rack impact at rack top .0 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in.) Locations X direction Y direction Top corner: .0891 .0726 Baseplate corner .0200 .0128 MAXIMUM STRESS FACTORS
- Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Above baseplate .005 .004 .029 .027 .045 .053 .005 Support pedestal .041 .017 .023 .029 .059 ,062 .019 See Section 6.4.3.2 of the Licensing Report for definitio'ns.
Table 6.5.65
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF 3-D SINGLE RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: RACK.H Holtec Run I.D.: dvog ro.ox2 Seismic Loading: 1.0 x OBE Fuel Assembly I.D. and Weight: Intact ruel;; 1600.0 (1bs.) ruel Loading: 32 cells loadedt Fuel centroid X,Y: .0,-25.6 (in.) Coefficient of friction at the bottom of support pedestal: 0.2
$ Revision: 3.47 $
l
$Logfile C:/ racks /dynam0/ dynamo.fov $
$ Revision: 2.5 $
$Logfile: C / racks /dynam0/dynasi.foy $
$ Revision: 3.37 $
$Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/dynas2.foy $
DYNAMIC IMPACT LOADS (1bs.) (1) Maximum total vertical pedestal load 88300.2 (2) Maximum vertical load in any single pedestal: 56175.9 (3) Maximum shear load in any single pedestal: 10754.8
\
(4) Maximum fuel-cell impact at one local position: 1361.0 (5) Maximum rack to-wall impact at baseplate .0 (6) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at rack top: .0 (7) Maximum rack to rack impact at baseplate .0 (8) Maximum rack-to rack impact at rack top: .0 ' MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in.) Locations X-direction Y direction Top corner: .1238 .1428 Baseplate corner: .0267 .0466 MAXIMUM STRESS FACTORS
- Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Above baseplate .007- .007 .063 .053 .067 .079 .007 Support pedestals .070 .019 .050 .027 .099 .105 .020
.(~->
- See Section 6.4.3.2 of the Licensing Report for definitions,
Table 6.5.66
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF 3 D S!!!GLE RACK AllALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: RACK H Holtec Run I.D.: dvog ro.ox5 Seismic Loadinr 1.0 x OBE ruel Assembly I.D. and Weight: Intact Fuelis 1600.0 (1bs.) Puel 1oading: 32 cells loaded; Puel centroid X,Y: -.0, 25.6 (in.) Coefficient of friction at the bottom of support pedestal: 0.5
$ Revision: 3.47 $
$Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/dynsmo.fov $
l $ Revision: 2.5 $ l- $Logfile C / racks /dynam0/ dynast.foy $
$ Revision: 3.37 $
$Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/dynas2.foy $
l
-DYHAMIC IMPACT LOADS (1bs.)
(1) Maximum total vertical pedestal load: 09269.4 (2) Maximum vertical load in any single pedestal: 59561.6 (3) Maximum shear load in any single pedestal: 19506.5 (4) Maximum fuel-cell impact at one local position: 1350.6 (5) Maximum rack-to wall impact at baseplate .0 (6) Maximum rack to-wall impact at rack top: .0 (7) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at baseplates .0 (8) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at rack top:
.0 MAXIMtH t.'ORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in.)
Locations X-direc*. ion Y direction Top corner: .1511 .1789 Baseplate corner: .0066 .0048 MAXIMUM STRESS FACTORS
- Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R$ R6 R7 Above baseplates .007 .010 .065 .061 .071 .083 .009 Support pedestal: .074 .036 .040 .040 .106 .113 .029
- See Section 6-4.3.2 of the Licensing Report for definitions.
i Table 6.5.67 1O SUMMAPY RESULTS OF 3-D SINGLE RAcr. A!!ALYSIS FOR RACT. MODULE: RACT. H Holtec Run I.D.: dvog-ro.ox8 Seismic Loading: 1.0 x OBE Fuel Assembly I.D. and Weight: Intact Fuels: 1600.0 (1bs.) Puel Loading: 32 cells loaded: Fuel centroid X,Y: .0, 25.6 (in.) Coefficient of friction at the bottom of support pedestal: 0.0
$ Revision: 3.47 $
$Logfile C:/ racks /dynam0/ dynamo.foy $
$ Revision: 2.5 $
$Logfile C / racks /dynam0/dynasi.foy $
l
$ Revision: 3.37 $
$Logfile: C: / racks /dynam0/dynas2. f ov $
DYNAMIC IMPACT LOADS (1bs.) (1) Maximum total vertical pedestal load 89269.5 (2) Maximum vertical load in any single pedestal: 59794.7
/~' (3) Maximum shear load in any single pedestal: 21399.1 Og (4) Maximum fuel-cell impact at one local position: 1352.2 (5) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at baseplate: .0 (6) Maximum rack-to wall impact at rack top: .0
(?) Maximum rack to rack impact at baseplates .0 (8) Maximum rack to-rack impact at rack top: .0 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in.) Location X-direction Y-direction Top corner: .1513 .1811 l Baseplate corner: 0030 .0047 i MAXIMUM STRESS FACTORS
- Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7
-Above baseplate .007 .010 .066 .061 .071 .084 .010 Support pedestal .075 .039 .040 .044 .106 ,113 .031
[\ ./}
- See Section 6.4.3.2 of the Licensing Report for definitions.
Table 6.5.68 D
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF 3-D SINGLE RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: RACK.H Holtec Run I.D.: dvog-ro.oxr Seismic Loading 1.0 x OBE Puel Assembly I.D. and Weight: Intact Puels: 1600.0 (1bs.) Puel Loading: 32 cells loaded; Puel centroid X,Y: .0,-25.6 (in.) i' Coefficient of friction at the bottom of support pedestal: Gaussia
$ Revision 3.47 $
$Logfile: C / racks /dynam0/dynam0.fov $
$ Revisions 2.5 $
$Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/dynas1.fov $
$ Revision 3.37 $
$Logfile C / racks /dynam0/dynas2.foy $
DYNN410 IMPACT LOADS (1bs.) (1) Maximum total vertical pedestal load: 89269.4 (2) Maximum vertical load in any single pedestal: 59523.0 (3) Maximum shear load in any single pedestal: 20081.7 (4) Maximum fuel cell impact at one local position: 1353.3 (5) Maximum rack-to wall impact at baseplate .0 (6) Maximum rack-to wall impact at rack top: .0 (7) Maximum rack to-rack impact at baseplate: .0 (8) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at rack top: .0 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in.) Locations X direction Y direction Top corner: .1504 .1804 Baseplate corners .0036 .0047 MAXIMUM STRESS FACTORS
- Stress factor R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Above baseplate .007 .010 ,066 .061 .071 .084 .010 Support pedestals .074 .038 .041 .041 .106 .113 .029 (f%)
- See Section 6.4.3.2 of the Licensing Report for definacions.
Table 6.5.69
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF 3 D SIN 3LE RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: RACK H Holtec Run I.D.: dvog ro.od2 Seismic Loading: 1.0 x OBE ruel Assembly I.D. and Weight: Intact Fuels; 1600.0 (1bs.) ruel Loading: 36 cells. loaded Fuel centroid X,Y 12.0,-17.1 (in.) l Coefficient of friction at the bottom of support pedestal: 0.2
$ Revision: .3.47 $
$Logfile C / racks /dynam0/ dynamo.f oy $
0 Revision: 2.5 $
-$Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/dynasi . f ov $
$ Revision: 3.37 $
$Logfile C:/ racks /dynam0/dynas2 foy $
DYNAMIC IMPACT LOADS (1bs.) (1) Maximum total vertical pedestal load: 95617.2 (2) Maximum vertical load in any single pedeotal: 68655.7 (3) Maximum shear load in any single pedestal: 13019.3 (4) Maximum fuel-cell impact at one local position: 1371.2 (5) Maximum rack to-wall impact at baseplates .0 (6) Maximum rack-to wall impact at rack top: .0 (7) Maximum rack-to rack impact at baseplates .0 (8) Maximum rack-to rack impact at rack top: .0 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in.) Locations X direction Y-direction Top corner: .1569 .1403 Baseplate corners .1120 .0682 MAXIMUM STRESS FACTORS
- Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R$ R6 R7 A1.ove baseplates .007 .007 .058 .052 .075 .088 .008 Support pedestal:- .086 .020 .047 .026 .118 ,125 .024
)
- See Section 6.4.3.2 of the Licensing Report for definitions.
( Table 6.5.70
SUMMARY
RESULTS OP 3 D S!!!3LE RAOK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: RACK +11 lloltec Run 1.D.: dvog+ro.od$ Seismic Loading: 1.0 x OBE Fuel Assembly 1.D. und Weight: Intact Fuels; 1600.0 (1bs. ) Fuel Loading: 36 cells loadeds Fuel centroid X,Y -12.0, 17.1 (in.) Coefficient of friction at the bottom of support pedestal
- 0.5
$ Revision: 3,47 $ $LogfAles C:/raeks/dynam0/ dynamo,fov $ $ Revision: 2.5 $ $Logfile C:/ racks / dynamo / dynast.fov $ $ Revision 3.37 $ -$Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/dynas2.foy $
DYNAMIC IMPACT LOADS (1bs.) (1) Maximum total vertical pedestal load 95522.8 (2) Maximum vertical load in any single pedestal: 72012.6 (3) Maximum shear load in any single pedestal: 25569.9 (4) Maximum fuel-cell _ impact at one local position: 1369.3 (5) Maximum rack to wall impact at baseplate s .0 (6) Maximum rack-to wall impact at rack top: .0
.(7) Maximum rack-to rack impact at baseplate: .0 (8) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at rack top: .0 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMEPTS (in.)
Locations X-direction Y-direction Top corner .1670 .1893 Baseplate corner .0111 .0103 MAXIMUM STRESS FACTCRS
- Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Above baseplates .007 .009 .075 .069 . 0 9"t
. .108 .010 Support pedestals .090 .036 .054 .042 .129 .137 ,045
- See Section 6.4.3.2 of the Licensing Report for definitions.
Table 6.5.71
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF 3 D SINGLE RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: RACK H Holtec Run I.D.: dvog ro.od8 Seismic Loading: 1.0 x OBE Puel Assembly 1.D. and Weight: Intact Fuels : 1600.0 (1bs.) Puel Loading: 36 cells loaded; Fuel centroid X,Y: 12.0, 17.1 (in.) Coefficient of friction at the bottom of support pedestal: 0.8
$ Revision: 3.47 $ $Logfile C / racks /dynam0/dynam0.fov $ $ Revision: 2.5 $ $1cgfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/dynasi . f ov $ $ Revision: 3.37 $ $Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/dynas2. f ov $
DYNAMIC 2MPACT LOADS -(1bs. ) (1) Maximum total vertical pedeotal load 95522.8 (2) Maximum vertical load in any single pedestal: 71475.7 (3) Maximum shear load in any single pedestal 26023.8 (4) Maximum fuel-cell impact at one local position: 1369.4 (5) Maximum rack to wall impact at baseplate .0 (6) Maximum rack-to wall impact at rack top: .0 (?) Maximum rack to-rack impact at baseplate .0 (8) Maximum rack-to-rack impact = at rack top: .0 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in.) Locations X direction Y-dirt 4 tie Top corner: .1778 .1894 Baseplate corner: .0051 .0049 MAXIMUM STRESS FACTORS
- Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Above baseplate: .007 .009 ,073 .068 .090 .106 .010 Support pedestal .c'9. .042 ,056 .053 .130 .137 .043
(
- See Sectior 6.4,3.2 of the Licensing Report for definitions.
Table 6.5.72 b b
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF 3 D SINGLE RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: RACK-H Holtec Run I.D.: dvog ro.odr Seismic Loading: 1.0 x OBE Puel Assembly I.D. and Weight: Intact Fuels; 1600.0 (1bs.) Puel Loading: 36 cells loaded; Fuel centroid X,Y: 12.0, 17.1 (in.) j Coefficient of friction at the bottom of support pedestal: Gaussia
$ Revision: 3.47 $
$Logfile: C: / racks /dynam0/ dynamo. f ov $
$ Revision: 2.5 $
$Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/dynasi.foy $
$ Revision 3.37 $
l 4
$Logfile C / racks /dynam0/dynas2.fov $
DYNAMIC IMPACT LOADS (1bs.) 1 ] (1) Maximum total vertical pedestal load: 95522.8 (2) Maximum vertical load in any single pedestal: 71493.9 j 4 (s (3) Maximum shear load in any single pedestal: 24859.5 $ (4) Maximum fuel-cell impact at one local position: 1368.9
- (5) Maximum rack to wall impact at basep1Lte: .0 I
(6) Maximum rack-to wall impact at rack top: .0 (7) Maximum rack-to rack impact at baseplate,: .0 (8) Maximum rack to rack impact at rack top: .0 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in.) Locations ~ X-direction Y-direction-Top corner .1669 .1894 Baceplate corner .0098 .0072 MAXIMUM STRESS FACTORS
- Stress factor R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Above baseplates .007 .009 ,072 .069 .091 .106 .010 Support pedestals .089 .034 .055 .043 .131 .138 .043
(
- See Section 6.4.3.2 of the Licensing Report for definitions.
Table 6.5.73
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF 3-D S!!!3LE RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: RACK-H Holtec Run I.D.: dvog rs.110 Seismic Loading: 1.1 x SSE Fuel Assembly I.D. and Weight: Intact Fuelst 1600.0 (lbs.) Fuel Loading: 36 cells loaded; Fuel centroid X,Y:-12.0 -17.1 (in.) Coefficient of friction at the bottom of support pedestal: 0.8 $ Revision: 3.47 $ i $Logfile C:/ racks /dynam0/ dynamo.foy $ $ Revision: 2.5 $ $Logfile: C: / racks /dynam0/dynasi . f oy $ $ Revision: 3.37 $ $Logfile: C: / racks /dynam0/dynas2. f ov $ DYlWi1C IMPACT LOADS (1bs.) (1) Maximum total vertical pedestal load: 165935.5 (2) Maximum vertical load in any single pedestal: 126137.4 (3) Maximum shear load in any single pedestal: 64041.5 (4) Maximum fuel-cell impact at one local position: 1618.8 (5) Maximum rack to wall impact at baseplates .0 (6) Maximum rack to-wall impact at rack top: .0 (7) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at baseplate: .0 (8) Maximum rack to rack impact at rack top: .0 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in.) Location X-direction Y-direction Top corner: .8769 1.2637 Baseplate corner .1786 .1805 MAXIMUM STRESS FACTORS
- Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Above baseplates .025 .019 .092 .112 .160 .186 .017 Support pedestal .157 .100 .252 .261 .311 .349 .108
- See Section 6.4.3.2 of the Licensing Report for definitions.
~ Table 6.5.74 j
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF 3 D SINGLE RACE ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: RACK H Holtec Run I.D.: dvogaro.15O Seismic Loading: 1.5 x OBE I Puel Assembly I.D. and Weights Intact Fuels 1600.0 (1bs.) F 1 Loading: 36 cells loadeds Fuel centroid X,Y -12.0, 17.1 (in.) i Coefficient of friction at the bottom of support pedestal: 0.2 i ~
$ Revision: 3.47 $
$Logfile C:/ racks /dynam0/dynam0.fov $
$ Revision: 2.5 $
$Logfile: C: / racks /dynam0/dynasi . f ov $
$ Revision 3.37 $
$Logfile C / racks /dynam0/dynas2.foy $
DYNAMIC IMPACT LOADS (168.) (1) Maximum total vertical pedestal load 143697.2 (2) Maximum vertical load in any single pedestal: 81704.7 (3) Maximum shear load in any single pedestal: 16340.8 (4) Maximum fuel-cell impact at one local position: 1716.2 ($) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at baseplates .0 (6) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at rack top .0 (7) Maximum rack-to rack impact at baseplate .0 (8) Maximum rack to-rack impact at rack top: .0 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in.) Location X direction Y-direction Top corner: 1.7917 2.6718 Baseplate corner: 1.5732 2.6284 MAXIMUM STRESS FACTORS
- Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R$ R6 R7 Above baseplate: .016 .008 .081 .085 .117 .136 .010 Support pedestal .102 .030 .115 .157 .207 .227 .029
- See Section 6.4.3.2 of the Licensing Report for definitions.
l
)
p_ Table 6.5.75
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF 3 D SINGLE RACK AllALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: RACK T l Holtec Run 1.D.: dvog pi.st2 Seismic Loading: 1.0 x SSE l l Puel Assembly 1.D. and Weight: Intact Fuels; 1600.0 (1bs.) Puol Loading: 54 cells loadeds Fuel centroid X,Y: . 0, .0 (in.) Coefficient of friction at the bottom of support pedestal: 0.2
$ Revision: 3.47 $ $Logfile: C / racks /dynam0/ dynamo.foy $ $ Revision: 2.5 $ $Logfile C4 / racks /dynam0/dynas t . f oy $ $ Revision: 3.37 $ $Logfile C / racks /dynam0/dynas2.foy $
DY!1AMIC IMPACT LOADS (1bs.) (1) Maximum total vertical pedestal load: 227250.6 (2) Maximum vertical load in any single pedestal: 120036.6 (3) Maximum shear load in any single pedestal: 24150.4 (4) Maximum fuel-cell impact at one local position 1592.3 (5) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at baseplate .0 (6) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at rack top: .0 (7) Maximum rack-to rack impact at baseplate: .0 (8) Maximum rack to rack impact at rack top: .0 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in.) Locationi X-direction Y-direction Top corner: 1.8046 1.6151 Baseplate. corner: .9964 1.6953 MAXIMUM STRESS FACTORS
- Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Above baseplates .048 .020 .123 .110 .161 .187 .020 Support pedestal .151 .037 .167 .311 .353 .400 .036
- See Section 6.4.3.2 of the Licensing Report for definitions.
p-s Table 6.5.76
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF 3-D SINGLE RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: RACK T Holtec Run I.D.: dvog pi.sf5 Seismic Loading: 1.0 x SSE Puel Assembly I.D. and Weight s Intact Puels 1600.0 (1bs.) Puel Loading $4 cells loadeds Puol centroid X,Y: . 0, .0 (in.) Coefficient of friction at the bottom of support pedestal: 0.5
$ Revision: 3.47 $
$Logfile: C / racks /dynam0/dynam0.fov $ ;
$Revisiont 2.5 $
$Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/dynasi.fov $
$ Revision: 3.37 $
$Logfile: C / racks /dynam0/dynas2.fov $
DYNAMIC IMPACT LOADS (1bs.) (1) Maximum total vertical pedestal load: 291599.0 (2) Maximum vertical load in any single pedestal: 176303.2 (3) Maximum shear load in any single pedestal: 64814.1 (4) Maximum fuel-cell-Ampact at one local position: 1619.0 (5) Maximum rack-to wall impact at baseplate: 0 (6) Maximum rack-to wall impact at rack top: .0 (7) . Maximum rack-to-rack impact at baseplates .0 (8) Maximum rack to-rack impact at rack top: .0 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPIACEMENTS (in.) Locations X-direction Y-direction Top corner: 1.9651 2.1243 Baseplate corner: .1794 .1397 MAXIMUM STRESS FACTORS
- Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Above baseplates .071 .026 .156 .125 .254 .293 .033 i Support pedestal: .219 .099 .370 .372 .500 .659 .106
(
- See Section 6.4.3.2 of the Licensing Report for definitions.
L l
Table 6.5.77
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF 3 D SINGLF RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: RACK-T l Holtec Run I.D.: dvog pi. stb Seismic Loading: 1.0 x SSE Puel Assembly I.D. and Weight: Intact Puelis 1600.0 (1bs.) Fuel Loading: 54 cella loaded; Fuel centroid X,Y: . 0, .0 (in.) Coefficient of friction at the bottom of support pedestal: 0.8
$ Revision: 3.47 $ $Logfile: C / racks /dynam0/ dynamo.fov $ $ Revision: 2.5 $ $Logfile C:/ racks / dynamo /dynasi.fov $ $ Revision: 3.37 $ $Logfile: C / racks /dynam0/dynas2.fov $
DYNAMIC IMPACT LOADS (1bs.) (1) Maximum total vertical pedestal load: 289016.5 (2) Maximum vertical load in any single pedestal: 175790.1 (3) Maximum shear load in any single pedestal: 80425.6 (4) Maximum fuel-cell impact at one local position: 1726.5 (5) Maximum rack-to wall impact at baseplate: .0 (6) Maximum rack-to wall impact at_ rack tops =.0 (7) Maximum rack to rack impact at baseplates .0 (8) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at rack top .0 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in.) Locations X-direction Y-direction Top corner: 1.8139 2.1791 Baseplate corner: .1089 .1078 MEXIMUM STRESS FACTORS
- Stress-factort- R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Above baseplate: .073 .031 .152 .124 .251 .290 .030 Support pedestal .219 .151 .342 .411 .517 .575 .115
- See Section 6.4.3.2 of the Licensing Report for definitions.
Table 6.5.78 (" sV 4
SUMMARY
RESULTS' OF 3-D SINGLE RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: RACK T Holtec Run I.D.: dvog-pi.sfr Seismic Loading: 1.0 x SSE ruel Assembly I.D. and weight: Intact Puel;; 1600.0 (lbs.) Puel Loading: 54 cells loaded; Fuel centroid X,Y: .0, .0 (in.) Coefficient of friction at the bottom of support pedestal: Gaussia
$ Revision: 3.47 $
'$Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/ dynamo.fov $
$ Revision: 2.5 $
$Logfile C:/ racks /dynam0/dynasi.foy $
, $ Revision: 3.37 $
$Logfile: C / racks /dynam0/dynas2.fov $
DYNAMIC IMPACT LOADS (1bs.) , (1) Maximum total vertical pedestal load: 265344.9 (2) Maximum vertical load in any single pedestal: 176005.8 [' (3) Maximum shear load in any single pedestal: 66159.3 k.)T (4) Maximum fuel-cell impact at one local position: 1569.7 (5) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at baseplates .0 (6) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at rack top: .0 (7) Maximum rack-to-rack impaat at baseplate: .0 (8) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at rack top: .0 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS-(in.) Lccation X-direction Y-direction Top corner: 1.9778 2.2372 Baseplate corner: .2496 .2871 MAXIMUM STRESS FACTORS
- Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Above baseplate: .055 .031 .159 .126 .250 .289 .033 Support pedestal: .219 .092 .351 .371 .550 .621 .109 (O)
- See Section 6.4.3.2 of the Licensing Report for definitions.
.. .=._- - .- ,. Table 6.5.7) k
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF 3-D SINGLE RACK ANALYSIS FOR RAC'; F WULE: RACK-T Holtec Run I.D. -dvog-pi.se2 Seismic Loading: 5.0 x SSE Fuel Assembly I.D. and Weight: Intact Fuel;; 1600.0 (lbs.) Puel Loading: 6 cells loaded; Fuel centroid X,Y: .0 .0 (in.) Coefficient'of friction at the bottom of support pedestal: 0.2
$ Revision: 3.47 $
SLogfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/ dynamo.fov $
$ Revision: 2.5 $ $Logfile C:/ racks /dynam0/dynasi.fov $ $ Revision: 3.37 $ $Logfile C:/ racks / dynamo /dynas2.fov $
DYNAMIC IMPACT LOADS (lbs.) 1 (1) Maximum total vertical pedestal load: 50858.9 (2) Maximum vertical load in any single pedestal: 26831.8 (3) Maximum shear load in any single pedestal: 5366.3 v (4) Maximum fuel-cell impact at one local position: 1581.0 (5) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at baseplate: .0 (6) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at rack top: .0 (7) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at baseplate: .0 (8) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at rack tops ,0 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in.) Location: X-direction Y-direction Top corner: 1.3039 .9896 Baseplate corner: .005' .9676 MAXIMUM STRESS FACTORS
- Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Above baseplates .009 .005 .023 .026 .040 .045 .004 Support pedestal: .033 .010 .012 .108 .120 .136 .009 (A)
- See Section.6.4.3.2 of the Licensing Report for definitions.
- .- . ~ . . . .. - .. ._ . -. _. - -
1 Table 6.5.80 s
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF 3 D SINGLE RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: RACK-T Holtec Run I.D.: dvog-pi.se5 Seismic Loading: 1.0 x SSE Puel Assembly I.D. and Weight: Intact Puel;; 1600.0 (1bs.) Puel Loading: 6 cella loaded; Puel centroid X,Y: .0, .0 (in.) Coefficient of friction at the bottom of support pedestal: 0.5
$ Revision: 3.47 $
l
$Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/ dynamo.fov $
$ Revision .2.5 $
$Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/dynasi.fov $
$ Revision: 3.37 $
$Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/dynas2.fov $
i 4 DYNAMIC IMPACT LOADS (lbs.) (1) Maximum total vertical pedestal load: 80514.0 4 (2) Maximum vertical load in any single pedestal: 57796,5 ['"'j (3) Maximum shear load in any single pedestal: 28499.4 V (4) Maximum fuel-cell impact at one local position: 1693.2 (5) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at baseplate: .0 (6) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at rack top: .0 (7) Maximum rack-to rack impact at baseplate: .0 (8) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at rack top: .0 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in.) Location: X-direction Y-direction Top corner: 1.9354 2.0415 Baseplate corner .9593 .6080 MAXIMUM STRESS FACTORS
- 3 Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 ' R6 .R7 Above baseplate: .021 .021 .036 .051 .083 .095 ,010 4
Support _ pedestal: .071 .050 .199 .129 .219 .249 .033
- See Section 6.4.3.2 of the Licensing Report for definitions.
1 1
s' Table 6.5.81 A-
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF 3-D SIN 3LE RACK ANALYSIS POR RACK MODULE: RACK-T Holtec Run I.D.: dvog-pi.se8 Seismic Loading: 1.0 x SSE Puel Assen61y I.D. and Weight: Intact Puel;; 1600.0 (lbs.) Puel Loading: 6 cells loaded Puel centroid X,Y: .0, .0 (in.) Coefficient of friction at the bottom of support pedestal: 0.8
$ Revision: 3.47 $
$Logfile: C / racks /dynam0/dynam0.foy $
$ Revision: 2.5 $
$Logfile: C / racks /dynam0/dynasi.foy $
$ Revision: 3.37 $
$Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/dynas2.fov $
DYNAMIC IMPACT LOADS (lbs.) (1) Maximum total vertical pedestal load: 118905.5 (2) Maximum vertical load in any single pedestal: 59647.8 ~(~'N (3) Maximum shear load in any single pedestal: 36553.2 (4) Maximum fuel-cell impact at one local position: 1608.6 (5) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at baseplate: .0 (6) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at rack top: .0 (7) Maximum rack-to rack impact at baseplate: .0 (8) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at rack top .0 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in.) Locationi X-direction Y-direction Top corner: 1.5733 2.3323 Baseplate corner: .5026 .8647 MAXIMUM STRESS FACTORS
- Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Above baseplate: .022 .025 .049 .049 .084 .095 .015 Support pedestal .073 .062 .199 .134 .227 .258 .048 f"%
()
- See Section 6.4.3.2 of the Licensing Report for definitions.
Table 6.5.82
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF 3-D SINGLE RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: RACK-T Holtec Run I.D.: dvog-pi.ser Seismic Loading: 1.0 x SSE Fuel Assembly I.D. and Weightt Intact Fuel;; 1600.0 (lbs.) Fuel Loading: 6 cells loaded; Fuel centroid X,Y: . 0, .0 (in.) Coefficient of friction at the bottom of support pedestal: Gaussia
$ Revision: 3.47 $
$Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/ dynamo.fov $
$ Revision: 2.5 $
$Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/dynasi.fov $
$ Revision: 3.37 $
I
$Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/dynas2.fov $
DYNAMIC IMPACT LOADS (lbs.) (1) Maximum total vertical pedestal load: 77053.2 (2) Maximum vertical load in any single pedestal: 56007.5 g (3) Maximum shear load in any single pedestal: 32365.0 (4) Maximum fuel-cell impact at one local position: 1538.4 (5) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at beseplate: .0 [ .. (6) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at rack top: .0 (7) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at baseplate: .0 (8) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at rack top: .0 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in.) Location: X-direction Y-direction Top corner: 1.42B4 2.2472 Baseplate corner: .5402 .7476 MAXIMUM STRESS FACTORS
- Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Above baseplate: .018 .019 .037 .047 .081 .092 .012 Support pedestal .070 .050 .185 .130 .205 .232 .038
[ h
- See Section 6.4.3.2 of the Licensing Report for definitions.
V J
~ Table 6.5,83
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF 3-D SINGLE. RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: RACK-T Holtec Run I.D.: dvog-pi.sx2 Seismic Loadings:1.0 x SSE Fuel ~ Assembly I.D. and Weights Intact Puel;; 1600.0 (lbs.) Fuel Loading: 24 cells loaded; Puel centroid X,Y: .0,-25.6 (in.) Coefficient of friction at the bottom of support pedestal: 0.2
$ Revision: 3.47 $
$Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/ dynamo.fov $
$ Revision: 2.5 $
-$Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/dynasi.fov $
$ Revision: 3.37 $
[; $Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/dynas2.fov $ DYNAMIC IMPACT LOADS (lbs.) (1) Maximum total vertical pedestal load: 144136.9 I (2) Maximum vertical load in any single pedestal: 64933.7 I fg (3) Maximum shear load in any single pedestal: 12581.9 V (4) - Maximum fuel-cell impact at one local position: 1444.8 (5) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at baseplate: .0 (6) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at rack top: .0 (7) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at baseplate: .0 (8) - Maximum rack-to-rack impact at rack top: .0 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in.) Locations: X-direction Y-direction Top-corner: 1.6564 1.4268 Baseplate corners- .8277 1.1274 MAXIMUM STRESS' FACTORS *-
- Stress f actor: R1 R2. R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Above baseplates' .031 .008 .0B0 .052
.101 .116 .015 Support pedestal: .081 .023 .180 .210 .243 .273 .022
( -* See Section-6.4.3.2 of the' Licensing Report for definitions.
. _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _,__m -_ . _ ___ _ ._ _ _ . . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Table 6.5.84 8 [) , V
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF 3-D SINGLE RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: RACK-T Holtec Run I.D.: dvog-pi.sx5 Seismic Loading: 1.0 x SSE Fuel Assembly I.D. and Weight: Intact Fuels; 1600.0 (lbs.) Fuel Loading: 24 cells loaded; Fuel centroid X,Y: .0,-25.6 (in.) > i Coefficient of friction at the bottom of support pedestal: 0.5
$ Revision: 3.47 $
$Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/ dynamo.fov $
$ Revision: 2.5 $
$Logfile C:/ racks /dynam0/dynasi.fov $
$ Revision: 3.37 $
4
$Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/dynas2.fov $
DYNAMIC IMPACT LOADS (lbs.) (.. Maximum total vertical pedestal load: 152464.6 (2) Maximum vertical-load in any single pedestal: 100507.6
, (3) Maximum shear lead in any single pedestal: 43283.7 (4) Maximum fuel-cell impact at one local position: 1619.8 (5) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at baseplate: .0 (6) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at rack top: ,o (7) Maximum rack-to-rack impate at baseplate: .0 3 (8) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at rack top: .0 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in.)
Location X-direction Y-direction Top corner: 4.4753 2.7209 Baseplate corner: .5026 .2960 MAXIMUM STRESS FACTORS
- Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Above baseplate: .038 .016 . 081 .107 .158 .180 .020 ,
-Support pedestal .125 .065 . 347 .321 .384 .436 .068 i f%
- See Section 6.4.3.2 of the Licensing Report for definitions.
( }
f Table 6.5.85- .t ~'
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF 3-D SINGLE RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: RACK-T Holtec Run I.D. -dvog-pi.sx8 Seismic Loading: 1.0 x SSE Fuel Assembly I.D. and Weight: Intact ruel;; 1600.0 (1bs.)
-Puel Loading: 24. cells loaded; Fuel centroid X,Y: .0,-25.6 (in.)
Coefficient of friction at the bottom of support pedestal: 0.8
$ Revision: 3.47 $
$Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/dynam0.fov $
$ Revision: 2.5 $
$Logfile: C: / racks /dynam0/dynasi . f ov $
$ Revision: 3.37 $
$Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/dynas2.fov $
DYNAMIC IMPACT LOADS (lbs.) (1) Maximum total vertical pedestal load: 127540.8 (2) Maximum vertical load in any single pedestal: 100513.2 (3) Maximum shear load in any single pedestal: 54147.9 (4) Maximum fuel-cell impact at one local position: 1471.6 (5) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at baseplate: .0 (6) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at rack top: .0 (7) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at-baseplate: .0 (8) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at rack top: .0 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in.) Location X-direction Y-direction Top corner: 4.6977 2.6023 Baseplate corner: .4320 .2980 MAXIMUM STRESS FACTORS
- Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Above baseplates .030 .025 .087 .003 .139 .161 .017 Support pedestals .125 .101 .326 .342 .383 .434 .076
[\ Ad
- See Section 6.4.3.2 of the Licensing Report for definitions.
j
i i p_ Table 6.5.86
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF 3-D SINGLE RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: RACK-T Holtec Run I.D.: dvog-pi.sxt Seismic Loading: 1.0 x SSE Fuel Assembly I.D. and Weight: Intact Fuel;; 1600.0 (lbs.) Fuel Loading: 24 cells loaded; Fuel centroid X,Y: .0,-25.6 (in.) Coefficient of friction at the bottom of support pedestal: Gaussia
$ Revision: 3.47 $
I
$Logfile: C:/ racks / dynamo / dynamo.fov $
$ Revision: 2.5 $
$Logfile C : / racks /dynam0 /dynas1. f ov $
SRevision: 3.37 $
$Logfile: C : / racks /dynam0 /dynas2. f ov $
DYNAMIC IMPACT LOADS (lbs.) (1) Maximum total vertical pedestal load: 116774.7 (2) Maximum vertical load in any single pedestal: 91882.6 ("" (3) Maximum shear load in any single pedestal: 42284.1 Y)% (4) Maximum fuel-cell impact at one local position: 1615.1 (5) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at baseplate: .0 (6) . Maximum rack-to-wall impact at rack top: .0
'(7) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at baseplate: .0 (8) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at rack top: .0 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in.)
-Location: X-direction Y-direction Top corner: 4.8077 2.7680 Baseplate corner: ,3016 .1571 MAXIMUM STRESS FACTORS
- Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Above baseplate: .024 .017 .091 .075 .121 .141 .020 Support pedestal: .115 .053 .349 .335 .385 .437 .069
- See Section 6.4.3.2 of the Licensing Report for definitions.
Table 6.5.87
SUMMARY
-RESULTSf0F'3-D SINGLE RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: RACK-T Holtec Run:I.D.: dvog-pi.sd2 Seismic Loading: 1.0 x SSE Fuel Assembly I.D. and Weight: Intact Fuels 1600.0 (lbs.) Fuel Loading: 27 cells' loaded; Fuel centroid X,Y: -6.6,-19.7 (in.) Coefficient of friction at the bottom of support pedestal: 0.2-
$ Revision: 3.47 $- $Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/ dynamo.foy $ $ Revision: 2.5- '$.
.$Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/dynas1.fov $
$ Revision: 3.37 $- $Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/dynas2.fov $
DYNAMIC IMPACT. LOADS (1bs.) (1) Maximum total vertical pedestal load: 128524.0 (2) Maximum vertical load in any single pedestal: 79428.8 (3) Maximum shear load in any single pedestal: 15885.8 (4)- Maximum fuel-cell impact at one local position: 1496.3 -(5) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at baseplate .0 (6) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at rack top: .0 (7) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at baseplate: .0 , (B) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at_ rack top: .0 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in.) Locations X-direction :Y-direction Top corner: 1.7306 1.0805 Baseplate corner - 1.0195 1.0956 MAXIMUM STRESS FACTORS
- Stress factor: .R1- R2 - R3 ' R4 R5 R6 R7
-Above baseplates- .024- .010 . 067~ 060- .103 .119 .011 Support pedestal: .099 _.026 . 096 .258 .284 .322 .022
- See Section 6.4.3.2 of the Licensing Report for definitions.
. . - , - r-..,_ - , s ,. , , - , , , . - . - - . , , . , - - , - , , - , . . , -
Table 6.5.88 fh SUWARY RESULTS OF 3-D SINGLE RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: RACK-T Holtec Run I.D.: dvog pi.sd5 Seismic Loading: 1.0 x SSE Puel Assembly I.D. and Weight: Intact Fuel;; 1600.0 (lbs.) Puel Loading: 27 cells loaded; Fuel centroid X,Y: -6.6,-19.7 (in.) Coefficient of friction at the bottom of support pedestal: 0.5
$ Revision: 3.47 $
$Logfile: C / racks /dynam0/ dynamo.fov $
$ Revision: 2.5 $
$Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/dynasi.fov $
$ Revision: 3.37 $
$Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/dynan2.fov $
DYNAMIC IMPACT LOADS (lbs.) (1) Maximum total vertical pedestal load: 136179.1 (2) Maximum vertical load in any single pedestal: 97599.2 (\3 (3) Maximum shear load in any single pedestal: 41913.4 V (4) Maximum fuel-cell impact at one local position: 1745.3 (5) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at baseplate: .0 (6) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at rack top: .0 (7) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at baseplate: .0 (8) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at rack top: .0 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in.) Locations X-direction Y-direction Top corner: 2.7399 1.9907 Baseplate corner: 1.7674 1.1736 MAXIMUM STRESS FACTORS
- Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Above baseplates .031 .019 .091 .093 .156 .180 .019 Support pedestal: .122 .066 .306 .298 .377 .424 .066 O)
( N_/
- See Section 6.4.3.2 of the Licensing Report for definitions.
Table 6.5.89 \
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF 3 D SINGLE RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACX MODULE: RACK-T P Holtec Run I.D.: dvog-pi.sd8 Seismic Loading: 1.0 x SSE Fuel Assembly I.D. and Weight: Intact Fuel;; 1600.0 (lbs.) Fuel Loading: 27 cells loaded; Fuel centroid X,Y: -6.6,-19.7 (in.) Coefficient of friction at the bottom of support pedestal: 0.8
$ Revision: 3,47 $ $Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/ dynamo.fov $ $ Revision: 2.5 $ $Logfile C:/ racks /dynam0/dynasi.fov $ $ Revision: 3.37 $ $Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/dynas2.fov $
DYNAMIC IMPACT LOADS (lbs.) (1) Maximum total vertical pedestal load: 187700.5 (2) = Maximum ~ vertical load in any single pedestal: 94158.2 (3) Maximum shear load in any single pedestal: 56131.4 (4) Maximum fuel-cell impact at one local position: 1734.2 (5) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at baseplate: .0
~
(6) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at rack top: .0 (7) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at baseplate: .0 (8) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at rack tops- .0 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in.) Location X-direction Y-direction
' Top _ corner: 1.4354 '1.3774 -Baseplate corner .6943 '3352 MAXIMUM STRESS FACTORS
- Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 i
Above baseplate .048 .017 .090 .090 .139 .161 .024 Support pedestal .117 .105 .362 .285 .422 .479 .077
- See Section 6,4.3.2 of'the Licensing Report for definitions.
l
)
Table 6.5.90
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF 3-D SINGLE RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: RACK-T Holtec Run I.D.: dvog-pi.sdr Seismic Loading: 1.0 x SSE Fuel Assembly I.D. and Weight: Intact Fuel;; 1600.0 (lbs.) Fuel Loading: 27 cells loaCed; Fuel centroid X,Y: -6.6,-19.7 (in.)
' Coefficient of friction at the bottom of support podestal Gaussia
$ Revision 3.47 $
$Logfile C:/ racks /dynam0/ dynamo.foy $
$ Revision: 2.5 $
.$Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/dynasi.fov $
$ Revision: 3.37 $
$Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/dynas2.fov $
DYNAMIC IMPACT LOADS (lbs.) (1) Maximum total vertical pedestal load: 136249.7 (2) Maximum vertical load in any single pedestal: 96994.1 O (3) Maximum shear load in any single pedestal: 41081.1 (4) Maximum fuel-cell impact at one local position: 1749.5 (5) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at baseplate: .0 (6) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at rack top: .0 (7) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at baseplate: .0 (8) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at rack top: .0 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in.) Location: X-direction Y-direction Top corner: 1.3979 1.3662 Baseplate _ corner: .4255 .2825 MAXIMUM STRESS FACTORS
- Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Above baseplate: .030 .018 .089 .088 .153 .177 .023 Support pedestal: .121 .057 .318 .286 .369 .413 .077 0%
- See Section 6.4.3.2 of the Licensing Report for definitions.
Table 6.5.91
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF 3-D SINGLE RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: RACK-T Holtec Run I.D.: dvog-po.sxr Seismic Loading: 1.0 x SSE Fuel Assembly I.D. and Weight: Intact Fuel;; 1600.0 (lbs.) Fuel Loading: 24 cells loaded; Fuel centroid X,Y: .0,-25.6 (in.) Coefficient of friction at the bottom of support pedestal: Gaussia
$ Revision: 3.47 $
$Logfile: C / racks /dynam0/dynam0 fov _$
$ Revision: 2.5 $
$Logfile: C:/ racks / dynamo /dynasi.fov $
$ Revision: 3.37 $
$Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/dynas2.fov $
DYNAMIC IMPACT LOADS (lbs.) (1) Maximum total vertical pedestal load: 83927.4 (2) Maximum vertical load in any single pedestal: 66704.2 (3) Maximum shear load in any single pedestal: 22424.6
\O (4) Maximum fuel-cell impact at one local position: 1530.6 (5) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at baseplate: .0 (6) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at rack top: .0 (7) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at baseplate: .0 (8) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at rack top: .0 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in.)
Location: X-direction Y-direction Top corner: .5099 .3754 Baseplate corner: .1057 .1918 MAXIMUM STRESS FACTORS
- Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6- R7 Above baseplate: .013 .013 .066 .060 .101 .117 .013 Support pedestal .083 .039 .117 .116 .193 .214 .036
- See Section 6.4.3.2 of the Licensing Report for definitions.
l 1 l 1 Table 6.5.92 i,,,,) (,/ -
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF 3 D SINGLE RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: RACK-T i Holtec Run I.D.: dvog-ps.110 Seismic Loading: 1.1 x SSE Puel Assembly I.D. and Weight: Intact Fuelt; 1600.0 (lbs.) Puel Loading: 24 cells loaded; ruel centroid X,Y: .0,-25.6 (in.) Coefficient of friction at the bottom of support pedestal: Gaussia
$ Revision: 3.47 $
$Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/dynam0.fov $
$ Revision: 2.5 $
$Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/dynasi.fov $
$ Revision: 3.37 $
$Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/dynas2.fov $
DYNAMIC IMPACT LOADS (lbs.) (1) Maximum total vertical pedestal load: 163995.6 (2) Maximum vertical load in any single pedestal: 111037,9 ngg (3) Maximum shear load in any single pedestal: 43754.3 d (4) Maximum fuel-coll impact at one local position: 1631.0 (5) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at baseplate .0 (6) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at rack top: .0 (7) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at baseplate: .0 (8) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at rack top: .0 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in.) Location X-direction Y-direction Top corner: 4.6773 2.7376 Baseplate corner: .5682 .2919 MAXIMUM STRESS FACTORS
- Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Above baseplate: .040 -.016 .094 .093 ,153 .174 .022 Support pedestal: .138 .073 .316 .355 .394 .447 .065 f%
!
- See Section 6.4.3.2 of the Licensing Report for definitions.
%Y'
Table 6.5.93 O
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF 3-D SINGLE RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: RACK-T Holtec Run I.D.: dvog-po.150- Seismic Loading: 1.5 x OBE Fuel Assembly I.D. and Weight: Intact Puel;; 1600.0 (lbs.) Puel Loading: 24 cells loaded; Puel centroid X,Y: .0,-25.6 (in.) Coefficient of friction at the bottom of support pedestal: Gaussia
$ Revision: 3.47 $
$Logfile: C / racks /dynam0/ dynamo.foy $
$ Revision: 2.5 $
$Logfile: C / racks /dynam0/dynasi.foy $
$ Revision: 3.37 $
$Logfile: C:/ racks /dynam0/dynas2.fov $
DYNAMIC IMPACT LOADS (lbs.) (1) Maximum total vertical pedestal load: 232091.5 (2) Maximum vertical load in any single pedestal: 123131.2
, (3) Maximum shear load in any single pedestal: 49812.8 \
(4) Maximum fuel-cell impact at one local position: 2169.7 (5) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at baseplate: .0 (6) Maximum rack-to-wall impact at rack top: .0 (7) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at baseplate: .0 (8) Maximum rack-to-rack impact at rack top: .0 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in.) Location: X-direction Y-direction Top corner: 1.5543 5.0551 Baseplate corner: .4722 .3175 MAXIMUM STRESS FACTORS
- Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Above baseplate: .065 ,015 .108 .106 .177 .201 .029 Support pedestal: .154 .081 .328 .274 .366 .416 .085 f
-g
- See Section 6.4.3.2 of the Licensing Report for definitions.
N
O O O Table 6.5.94
SUMMARY
OF MAXIMUM RESULTS FROM WPMR ANALYSIS (SSE) Result - Value ' Run No.' Run I.D. Maximum total vertical pedestal load, Ib 563,000 :3 df-vog.sfr Maximum vertical load in any single pedestal, Ib 235,000 3 df-vog.sfr Maximum shear load in any single pedestal, Ib 136,000 2 df-vog.sfB - Maximum fuel-to-cell impact at one local position, Ib '4,000 3 df-vog.sfr : Maximum rack-to-wall impact at baseplate, Ib 0 - - Maximum rack-to-wall impact at rack top, Ib 0 - - Maximum rack-to-rack impact at baseplate, Ib 0 - - Maximum rack-to-rack impact at rack top, Ib 167.500 3 - df-vog.sfr :' Maximum comer displacement at rack top, in 5.19 3 df-vog.sfr - Maximum comer displacement at baseplate, in 2.10 1 df-vog.sf2 Maximum stress factor above baseplate 0.380 (R6)" 2 df-vog.sfB Maximum stress factor at support pedestal 0.279 (R6) 2 'df-vog.sf3 ' Run Nos. are defined in Table 6.5.5. The output stress factor from DYNARACK is adjusted per ASME Code for compressive members with high slenderness ratios (see foomote 3 on page 6-19 of Subsection 6.5.8).-
Table 6.5.95 SUMhiARY OF MAXIMUM RESULTS FROM WPMR ANALYSIS (OBE) Result . Value' Maximum total vertical pedestal lead, Ib 300,800 Maximum vertical load in any single pedestal, Ib 170,000 Maximum sbear load in any single pedestal, Ib 78,000 Maximum fuel to-cell impact at one local position, Ib 2,958 Maximum rack to-wall impact at baseplate, Ib 0 Maximum rack-to-wall impact at rack top, Ib 0 Maximum rack to-rack impact at baseplate,Ib 0 Maximum rack to-rack impact at rack top,Ib 47,770 Maximum comer displacement at rack top, in 3.00 Maximum corner displacement at baseplate, in 0.65 Maximum stress factor above baseplate 0.576 (R6)" Maximum stress factor at support pedestal 0.337 (R6) ( Results are obtained from Run No. 4 (see Table 6.5.5).
'Ihe output stress factor from DYNARACK is adjusted per ASME Code for compressive members with high slenderness ratios (see footnote 3 on page 6-19 of Subsection 6.5.8).
N
Table 6.5.96
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF WPMR RACK ANALYSIS FOR- RACK MODULE: 1 Run I.D.: DF-VOG.SF2 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in) Location x-direction y-direction Top corner: 0.2340E+01 0.1339E+01 Baseplate corner 0.1101E+01 0.1060E+01 MAXIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL PEDESTALS (lb)
. Max Force (lb) Time (sec) 0.24490E+06 0.67001E+01 MAXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS FACTORS (max, allowable = 1.0)
Stress factor: R1 R2- R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Support Pedestal: 0.091 0.020 0.039 0.035 0.132 0.121 0.022 Above Baseplate 0.049 0.009 0.071 0.079 0,140 0.150 0.009 J. FORCES AT PEDESTAL / LINER INTERFACE WHEN TOTAL I PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR R6 IS MAXIMUM ' Pedestal FX (lb) - FY(lb) FZ(lb) 1 25000.0 21100.0 164000.0
- 2. 26100.0 8630.0 137000.0 3 27000.0 16200.0 157000.0 4 -20300.0 16100.0 130000.0 5 54715.6 56868.8 63582.3 !
MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE RESULTS-
~
(1) Maximum Vertical Pedestal Force (lb) = 175000. (2) - Maximum X Interface Shear Force (lb) =- 29500.0 .. (3) Maximum-Y Interface Shear Force (lb)
- = 32800.0 (4) Maximum Rack to Fuel Impact Force per Cell (lb) = 3194.44 a
Table 6.5.97
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF WPMR RACK ANALYSIF FOR RACK MODULE: 2 Run I.D.: DF-VOG.SF2 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in) Location x-direction y-direction Top corner: 0.1833E+01 0.1172E+01 Baseplate corner: 0.1411E+01 0.7675E+00 MAXIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL PEDESTALS (lb) Max. Force (1b) Time (sec) 0.36790E+06 0.70701E+01 MAXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS FACTORS (max, allowable = 1.0) ! Stress factor -R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 l l -Support Pedestal: 0.100 0.023 0.032 0.040 0.144 0.132 0.018 Above Baseplate 0.074 0.013 0.088 0.091 0.177 0.184 0.015 f FORCES AT PEDESTAL / LINER INTERFACE WHEN TOTAL PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR R6 IS MAXIMUM Pedestal FX (lb) FY(lb) FZ(lb) 1 28400.0 21900.0 179000.0 2 21100.0 15500.0 131000.0 3 27300.0 19000.0 166000.0 4- 6330.0 25600.0 132000.0 5 57783.4 63786.0 98062.1 MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE RESULTS (1) Maximum Vertical Pedestal Force (1b) = 191000. (2) Maximum X Interface Sh' ear-Force (lb) = 33700.0
'(3) Maximum Y Interface-Shear Force (lb) = 26800.0 (4) Maximum Rack to Fuel . Impact Force per Cell (lb) = 2722.22 O
}
' Table 6'.5.98
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF WPMR RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: '3 ' Run I.D.: DF VOG.SF2 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS '(in) ; Locations x direction y-direction Top corner: 0.1453E+01 0.7056E+00 Baseplate corner: 0.6548E+00 0.5626E+00 MAXIMUM TOTAL. VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL PEDESTALS (lb) Max. Force (lb) Time (sec) 0.29180E+06 0.91452E+01 MAXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS FACTORS (max, allowable = 1.0) Stress factor:- R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 ' R6 R7 Support Pedestal: 0.078 0.019 0.032 0.034 0.118 0.108- 0.018 Above Baseplate 0.058 0.010 0.063 0.071 0.128 0.135 0.012 O FORCES AT-PEDESTAL / LINER INTERFACE WHEN TOTAL PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR R6=IS MAXIMUM Pedestal FX (lb) FY(lb) FZ(lb) 1 17300.0 23800.0 147000.0 2 27400.0 9670,0 145000.0-3 20100.0 20700.0 144000.0 4- 24700.0 15800.0 147000.0 , 5 54068.8 39005.3- 61293.4
-MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE RESULTS (1) Maximum Vertical Pedestal Force (lb)' = 149000.
_( 2) Maximum X Interface Shear Force (lb) = 28600.0 (3) Maximum Y Interface Shear Force (lb) = 26900.0-- (4) Maximum Rack to Fuel Impact Force per Cell (lb) = 3027.78 .f :
4 J
,,, Table 6.5.99 2 Id
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF WPMR RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: 4 i
...*******eee**...***e.*************.****...**e...........**e.**.....
Run I.D.: DF-VOG.SF2
**ee****eeeeee***************************e.****************************** ....
MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in) Location: x-direction y-direction l; Top corner: 0.1599E+01 0.5063E+00 Baseplate. corner 0.8199E+00 0.5302E+00 j MAXIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL PEDESTALS (1b) 4 Max. Force (lb) Time (sec)
. 'O.19080E+06 0.86201E+01 MAXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS FACTORS (max, allowable = 1.0) l' Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Support Pedestal: 0.061 0.015 0.026 0.027 0.093 0.085 0.015 i Above Baseplate 0.052 0.011 0.059 0.074 0.131 0.137 0.009 s
FORCES AT PEDESTAL / LINER INTERFACE WHEN TOTAL PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR R6 IS MAXIMUM ! Pedestal FX (lb) FY(lb) FZ(1b) 1 19300.0 12900.0 116000.0 2 10900.0 16500.0 99100.0 3 11100.0 17700.0 104000.0 4 22500.0 5820.0 116000.0
-5 54561.4 38679.7 66023.8 i
MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE RESULTS
]
.(1) Maximum Vertical Pedestal Force (lb) = 117000. j (2) Maximum X Interface Shear Force (lb) = 23000.0
~(3) Maximum Y Interface Shear Force (lb) = 22100.0 (4)= Maximum Rack to Fuel ' Impact Force per Cell (lb) = .2722.22
\
. . ~ ~ ~ . . - - -
- - . _ . . . . - . - . _ - - ~ _ . - .. - - ~ . - - . . . - - - . _ . -
4 4 i Table 6.5.100-(
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF WPMR RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: 5 e j .............** .......................** *** **'*.....***** ........... ** .. Run I.D.: DF-VOG.SF2
.....*******..................e****....*************.*..................** i MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in)
Locations- x-direction. y direction ! Top corner - 0.1496E+01 0.5850E+00 Baseplate corner: 0.5137E+00 0.5279E+00 MAXIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL PEDESTALS (lb) j Max. Force (lb) - Time (sec) 0.19460E+06 0.86402E+01 .i MAXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS FACTORS (max, allowable = 1.0) 3-Stress factors R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Support Pedestal: 0.064 0.013 0.028 0.023 0.097 0.088 0.016 Above Baseplate 0.053 0.013 0.060 0.063 0.136 0.143 0.011
- FORCES AT PEDESTAL / LINER INTERFACE WHEN TOTAL l PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR R6 IS MAXIMUM i
4 Pedestal FX (lb) FY(lb) FZ (lb) 1 12000.0 20200.0 117000,0 2 13200.0 14100.0 96500.0
- 3 10700.0 21900.0 122000.0
} 4 18600.0 6980.0 9P200 6 i 5 51432.1 48454.9 61732.0 4
- MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE RESULTS (1) Maximum Vertical Pedestal Force (lb) =- 122000
.. ( 2 ) Maximum X Interface Shear Force (lb) = 19700.0
. (3) Maximum Y Interface Shear Force (lb) = 23700.0
, -(4) Maximum Rack to Fuel Impact Force per Cell (lb) = 3203.70 l 4 4 4 1-4 7'
Table 6.5.101 b
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF WPMR RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: 6 Run I.D.: DF-VOG.SF2 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in) Location: x-direction y-dire: tion Top corner: 0.1813E+01 0.1242E+01 Baseplate corner: 0.6995E+00 0.5424E+00 , MAXIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL PEDESTALS (lb) Max. Force (lb) Time (sec) 0.28520E+06 0.92452E+01 MAXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS FACTORS (max allowable = 1.0) Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Support Pedestal: 0.095 0.022 0.038 0.039 0.146 0.133 0.021 Above Baseplate 0.066 0.012 0.102 0.098 0.170 0.185 0.014 C ( FORCES AT PEDESTAL / LINER INTERFACE WHEN TOTAL PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR R6 IS MAXIMUM Pedestal FX(lb) FY(lb) FZ(lb) 1 17200.0 29900.0 172000.0 2 9720.0 29200.0 154000.0 3 23100.0 27800.0 181000.0 4 32800.0 12900.0 176000.0 5 77433.3 45987.4 95160.0 MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE RESULTS (1) Maximum Verticel Pedestal Force (lb) = 181000. (2) Maximum X Interface Shear Force (lb) = 33200.0 (3) Maximum Y Interface Shear Force (lb) = 32000.0 (4) Maximum Rack to Fuel Impact Force per Cell (lb) = 3126.98 A
. (%)
I 4
s Table 6.5.102 ( ) .102
%/
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF WPMR RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: 7 Run I.D.: DF-VOG.SF2 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMEN'!'S (in) Location x-direction y-direction Top corner: 0.2648E+01 0.1946E+01 Baseplate corner: 0.9169E+00 0.7800E+00 MAXIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL PEDESTALS (lb) Max. Force (lb) Time (sec) 0.33660E+06 0.71651E+01 MAXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS FACTORS (max, allowable = 1.0) Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Support Pedestal: 0.079 0.017 0.035 0.030 0.119 0.107 0.020 j'~} Above Baseplate 0.103 0.018 0.087 0.099 0.200 0.208 0.015 %/ FORCES AT PEDESTAL / LINER INTERFAC- WHEN TOTAL PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR R6 IS MAXIMUM Pedestal FX (lb) FY(lb) FZ(1b) 1 13800.0 16500.0 108000.0 2 10200.0 28700.0 152000.0 3 16500.0 13700.0 107000.0 4 12200.0 16200.0 152000.0 5 83661.8- 56570.5 103832.7 MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE RESULTS (1) Maximum Vertical Pedestal Force (lb) = 152000. (2) Maximum X Interface Shear Force (lb) = 25200.0 (3) Maximum Y Interface Shear Force (lb) = 29200.0 (4) Maximum Rack to Fuel Impact Force per Cell (1b) = 2875.00
~N
{V
-Table 6.5.103
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF WPMR RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: 8 Run I.D.: DF-VOG.SF2 i MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS ' (in) Location x-direction y-direction Top corner: 0.1902E+01 0.1236E+01 Baseplate corner 0.6330E+00 0.9493E+00 MAXIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL PdDESTALS (lb) i Max. Force (lb) Time (sec)
- 0.31070E+06 0.74051E+01 MAXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS FACTORS (max, allowabla = 1.0)
Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7
-Support Pedestal: _ 0.087 0.018 0.039 0.032 0.132- 0.120 0.022 Above Baseplate 0,062 0.012 0.086 0.002 0.147 0.153 0.011 ,
.)
FORCES AT PEDESTAL / LINER INTERFACE WHEN TOTAL
= PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR R6 IS MAXIMUM
- Pedestal FX(lb) FY (lb) PZ(lb) 1 1 -- 13900.0 21500.0 128000.0 l 2 25200.0 15300.0 147000,0 8
3 7960.0 28600.0 148000.0 4 14900.0 29700.0 .166000.0 5 67352.5 34922.9 79096.4 i j' MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE RESULTS (1) Maximum Vertical Pedestal Force -(lb) = 166000. (2) - Maximum X Interf ace Shear Force -(lb) . = 26800.0 l (3) Maximum Y Interface Shear Force (lb) - = 32600.0,
- 5. . .
j (4) Maximum Rack to Fuel Impact Force per Cell (lb) = 3069.44 t l. 1
'9 i
, . . . - . . . _ . . . . - - . _ _ , _ . . , ,z-.
4 Table 6.5.104 1 f
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF WPMR RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: 9 4
..............................*********...........**.***..... 5............... .:
Run I.D.: DF-.VOG.SF2 ' 1 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in) j' Location: x-direction y-direction ' [ Top corner: 0.1841E+01 0.9733E+00 , Baseplate corner 0.9691E+00 0.6436E+00 i MAXIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL PEDESTALS (1b) j Max. Force (lb) -Time (sec) O.27530E+06 0.13060E+02 ~i= MAXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS FACTORS (max, allowable = 1.0) 1 1 Stress factor:- R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 i
. Support Pedestal: 0.094 0.017 0.042 0.030 0.139 0.127 0.024 Above Baseplate 0.055 0.013 0.076 0.071 0.159 0.167- - 0.011 O
1
- V
- j. FORCES AT PEDESTAL / LINER INTERFACE WHEN TOTAL I PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR R6 IS MAXIMUM l
Pedestal- FX (lb) FY(lb) FZ(lb) 1 21000.0 15600.0: 131000.0
, 2 16400.0 31000.0 175000.0
- 3. 23300,0 13900.0 136000.0.
4 16900.0 21700.0 138000.0
,. 5 48653.5 64311.9 81087.4 l'
MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE RESULTS (1) Maximum . Vertical Pedestal Force (lb) = ~180000. (2) . Maximum X Interface Shear Force (lb) = 24900.0 (3) Maximum Y Interf ace Shear Force (lb) -' = 35400.0 t (4) ' Maximum Rack to Fuel Impact Force per Cell (lb) = 2569.44 f' O
- . 5 I-a
-y - e--- r r --,we- p'rg yrer -g-w- - -
Table 6.5.105
'A J
SUMMARY
RESULTS.OF WPMR RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: 10;
.....**.......**...........**...***p*******....***........................**
.Run I.D.: DF-VOG.SF2 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in)
Location:' x-direction y-direction Top corner: 0.2099E+01 0.~424E+01 Baseplate corner: 0.7424E+00 0.1136E+01 MAXIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL PEDESTALS (lb)
. Max. Force - (lb) Time (sec) 0.30240E+06 0.11905E+02 !
MAXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS FACTORS (max, allowable = 1.0) Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 l Support. Pedestal: 0.080 0.019 0.033 0.033 0.122 0.112 0.018 j- Above Baseplate 0.060 0.015 0.093 0.076 0.138 0.140 0.012 !O
- l. FORCES AT PEDESTAL / LINER INTERFACE WHEN TOTAL l PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR R6 IS MAXIMUM i
$. Pedestal' FX (lb) FY(lb) FZ(lb) ) 1 16200.0 25900.0 .153000.0 l 2. 25300.0 13600.0 144000.0 3 24100.0 15100.0 142000.0 4 9920.0 23300.0 127000.0 I ! 5 9726.8 78064.3 89015.3 s ..! MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE RESULTS 1 4
-(1). Maximum Vertical Pedestal Force (lb) = 153000.
(2) .. Maximum X -Interf ace Shear Force (lb) i .; = 28200.0 E. l ~(3) Maximum Y Interface Shear Force-(1b) = 27600.0 , : (4) - Maximum Rack' to Fuel' Impact Force per Cell (lb) = 3222.22 1 Y
; O h
4 t i
1 ,-~ Table 6.5.106
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF WPhR RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: 11 l
.............................................................................. I Run I.D.: DF-V00.SF2 ;
MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in) Locations x+ direction y-direction Top corner 0.2103E+01 0.1632E+01 Baseplate corner: 0.8987E+00 0.1409E+01 i MAXIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL PEDESTALS (lb) Max. Force (lb) Time (sec) 0.18960E+06 0.90452E+01 MAXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS FACTORS (max, allowable = 1.0) Stress factora R1 R2 R3 R4 R$ R6 R7 apport Pedestal: 0.073 0.016 0.032 0.020 0.111 0.101 0.018 oove Baseplate 0.052 0.010 0.065 0.084 0.161 0.168 0.010 FORCES AT PEDESTAL / LINER INTERFACE WHEN TOTAL PEDESTAL STREES FACTOR R6 IS MAXIMUM Pedestal FX (lb) FY(lb) FE(lb) 1 14400.0 23800.0 139000.0 2 23200,0 3900.0 117000.0 3 19500,0 14100.0 120000.0 4 21000.0 13000.0 123000.0 5 69053.6 44672.6 02299.6 Ml2IMU.4 IMPACT FORCE RESULTS (1) Maximum Vertical Pedestal Force (lb) = 140000. (2) Maximum X Interface Shear Force (1b) = 23600.0 (3) Maximum Y Interface Shear Force (lb) = 26700.0 (4) Maximum Rack to Fuel Impact Force per Cell (lb) = 2481.48 O
Table 6.5.107
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF WPMR RACY AllALYSIS FOR RACF. MODULE: 12
.eeeeee**
.....................................e..............................
Run I.D.: DF.VOG.SF2 e.ee................................ee........................................ MAXIMUM COR!iER DISPLACEMEliTS (in) Locations x dir' . tion y-direction Top corner 0.2535E+01 0.1244E+01 Baceplate corner 0.1471E+01 0.9924EetJ MAXIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOAD 3 FROM ALL PEDESTALS (lb) Max. Force (Ib) Time (sec) 0.17840E+0L 0.64701E+01 MAXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS FACTORS (max, allowable = 1.0) Strena factor R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Support Pedestal: 0.080 0.018 0.034 0.032 0.123 0.113 0.019 Above Baseplate 0.049 0.011 0.086 0.085 0.167 0.177 0.011 O FORCES AT PEDESTAL /LI!iER IllTERFACE WHE!1 TOTAL PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR R6 IS MAXIMUM Pedestal FX (ib) FY(1b) FZ (lb) 1 16900.0 25700.0 154000,0 2 23900.0 7120.0 124000.0 3 12400.0 26400.0 146000,0 4 26400.0 9450.0 140000,0 5 59247.4 64291.5 74597.6 MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE RESULTS (1) Maximum Vertical Pedestal Force (lb) = 154000. (2) Maximum X Interface Shear Force (lb) = 26600.0 (3) Meximum Y Interface Shear Force (lb) = 28300,0 (4) MaAimum Rack to Pi.el Impact Force per Cell (1b) = 2518.52 0
Table 6.5.100 I (')
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF WPMR RACK AllALYSIS FOR PACK MODULE: 13 Run I.D.: DF VOG.SF2 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in) I Location x direction y direction , Top corner: 0.3384E+01 0.1641E+01 Baseplate corner: 0.2103E.01 0.6964E+00 MAXIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL PEDESTALS (lb) Max. Force (1b) Time (sec) 0.32110E+06 0.93952E+01 ' MAXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS FACTORS (max. allowable = 1.0) Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Support Pedestal: 0.098 0.024 0.044 0.042 0.144 0.130 0.025 Above Baseplate 0.074 0.015 0.106 0.099 0.176 0.188 0.012 \ FORCES AT PEDESTAL / LINER INTERFACE WHEN TOTAL PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR R6 IS MAXIMUM Pedestal FX (lb) FY(lb) FZ(lb) 1 30400.0 4760.0 154000.0 2 33300.0 14800.0 182000.0 3 27300.0 14800.0 155000.0 4 8180.0 36500.0 187000.0 5 65089.5 66594.3 77645.8 MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE RESULTS (1) Maximum Vertical Pedestal Force (lb) = 187000. (2) Maximum X Interface Shear Force (lb) = 35400.0 (3) Maximum Y Interface Shear Force (lb) = 36700.0 (4) Maximum Rack to Fuel Impact Force per Cell (lb) = 2041.27 O
l Table 6.5.109
.k JUMKTJtY RESULTS OF WPMR RACK ANALYSIO FOR RACK MODULE: 14 Run I.D.: DF VOG.SF2 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in)
Locations x direction y-direction l Top cor, r 0.2507E+01 0.2503E+01 Baseplate corner 0.1706E 01 0.1261E+01 l MAXIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL PEDESTALS (lb) Max . Force (lb) Time (sec) 0.25010E+06 0.90602E+01 MAXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS FACTORS (max, allowable = 1.0) Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R$ R6 R7 Support Pedestal: 0.100 0.022 0.046 0.039 0.139 0.123 0.026 Above Baseplate 0.068 0.011 0.100 0.090 0.210 0.222 0.016 FORCES AT PEDESTAL / LINER INTERFACE WHEN TOTAL PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR R6 IS MAXIMUM Pedestal FX (1b) FY(lb) . FE(lb) 1 6760.0 23600.0 123000.0 2 32600.0 11000.0 174000.0 3 13900.0 19100.0 118000.0 4 31.4 3B400.0 192000,0 5 75859.6 79749.0 93004.9 MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE RESULTS (1) Maximum Vertical Pedestal Force (lb) = 192000. (2) Maximum X Interface Shear Force (lb) = 32600.0 ' (3). Maximum Y Interf ace Shear Force (1b) = 38400.0 (4) Maximum Rack to Fuel Impact Force per Cell (lb) = 2981.48
- (v
Table 6.5.110 i
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF WPMR RACK AllALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: 15 Run I.D.: DF-VOG.SF2 MAX 2 MUM COR!iER DISPLACEMEliTS (in) Location x direction y direction Top corner: 0.1434E+01 0.2613E+01 Baseplate corner: 0.1155E+01 0.1095E+01 MAXIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL PEDESTALS (lb) Max. Force (lb) Time (sec) 0.20520E+06 0.94702E+01 MAXIMUM VALUES OF GTRESS FACTORS (max, allowable = 1.0) Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Support Pedestal 0.072 0.015 0.031 0.027 0.101 0.092 0.018 Above Baseplate 0.053 0.010 0.078 0.068 0.152 0.160 0.010 FORCES AT PEDESTAL / LINER INTERFACE WHEN TOTAL PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR R6 IS MAXIMUM Pedestal FX (lb) FY(lb) FZ(lb) 1 0360.0 24000,0 127000.0 2 20700.0 13900.0 126000.0 3 16200.0 14500.0 109000.0 4 16900.0 17300.0 121000.0
$ 49036.2 61197.6 73064.7 MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE RESULTS (1) Maximum Vertical Pedestal Force (1b) = 138000.
(2) Maximum X Interface Shear Force (lb) = 22600.0 (3) Maximum Y Interface Shear Force (1b) = 26300.0 (4) Maximum Rack to Fuel Impact Force per Cell (lb) = 2003.57 V
Table 6.5.111
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF WIMR RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: 16 Run I.D.: DF VOO.SF2
..ee....ee................. ..................................................
MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in) ] Location x direction y-direction Top corner: 0.1037E+01 0.9832E+00 Daneplate corner: 0.6003E+00 0.6722E+00 MAXIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL PEDESTALS (1b) Max. Force (1b) Time (sec ) 0.20560E+06 0.74051E+01 ) MAXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS FACTORS (max. allowable = 1.0) Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Support Pedestal: 0.083 0.021 0.032 0.037 0.122 0.110 0.018 Above Baseplate 0.053 0.012 0.081 0.087 0.174 0.183 0.010 i FERCES AT PEDESTAL / LINER INTERFACE WHEN TOTAL PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR R6 IS MAXDfUM Pedestal FX (lb) FY(1b) FZ(lb) 1 20800.0 10100.0 116000.0 2 8140.0 21400.0 115000.0 3 30900.0 7740.0 159000,0 4 10200.0 24100.0 131000.0 5 73061.4 51163.1 87173.2 MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE RESULTS (1) Maximum Vertical Pedestal Force (lb) = 159000. (2) Maximum X Interface Shear Force (lb) = 31300.0 (3) Maximum Y Interface Shear Force (lb) = 26600.0 (4) _ Maximum Rack to Fuel Impact Force per Cell (1b) = 3250.00
Table 6.5.112
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF WPMR RAC); ANALYSIS FOR RACY MODULE: 17 Run I.D.: DF-V00.SF2
................... c.........................................................
MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in) Locations x direction y direction Top corner: 0.1465E+01 0.1373E+01 Baseplate corner: 0.7719E+00 0.6491E+00 MAXIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL PEDESTALS (lb) Max. Force (lb) Time (sec) 0.25200E+06 0.58401E.01 MAXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS FACTORS (max, allowable = 1.0) Stress factor R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Support Pedestal: 0.097 0.024 0.035 0.042 0.142 0.128 0.020 Above Baseplate 0.065 0.015 0.098 0.086 0.194 0.207 0.013 O V FORCES AT PEDESTAL / LINER INTERFACE WHEN TOTAL PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR R6 IS MAXIMUM Pedestal FX(lb) FY(Ib) FZ(Ib) 1 29000.0 2590.0 145000.0 2 10200.0 21100.0 117000.0 3 21900.0 19500.0 146000.0 4 35700.0 9600.0 185000.0 5 72454.2 72272.6 86425.7 MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE RESULTS (1) Maximum Vertical Pedestal Force (1b) = 185000. (2) Maximum X Interf ace Shear Force (lb) = 35700,0 (3) Maximum Y Interface Shear Force (lb) = 29800.0 (4) Maximum Rack to Fuel Impact Force per Cell (lb) = 3321.43 p V
l Table 6.5.113
)
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF WFMR RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACF. MODULE: 18 Run I.D.I DF VOG.SP2 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in) bocations x direction y direction l Top corner 0.1623E+01 0.1562E 01 l Baseplate corner: 0.1300E+01 0.7000E+00 MAXIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL PEDESTALS (1b) l Max. Force (lb) Time (see) 0.17450E+06 0.69501E+01 MAXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS FACTORS (max, allowable = 1.0) Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Support Pedestal: 0.081 0.017 0.037 0.030 0.115 0.105 0.021 5 Above Baseplate 0.054 0.012 0.097 0.082 0.189 0.200 0.011 O FORCES AT PEDESTAL / LINER INTERFACE WHEN TOTAL PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR R6 IS MAXIMtN Pedestal FX (1b) FY(lb) FZ(1b) 1 12100.0 17300.0 106000.0 2 22100.0 9560.0 140000.0 3 12800.0 19500.0 117000.0 4 25400.0 13900.0 145000.0 5 69221.1 70718.2 84403.3 MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE RESULTS (1) Maximum Vertical Pedestal Force (lb) = 155000. (2) Maximum X Interface thear Force.(lb) = 25500.0 (3) Maximum Y Interface Shear Force (lb) = 30900.0 (4) Maximum Rack to Fuel Impact Force _per Cell (1b) = 3312.50 \
i Table 6.5.114 l
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF WPMR RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACV. MODULE: 19 Run I.D.: DF-VOG.SF2 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in) Locations x. direction y direction Top corner 0.1607E401 0.1440E+01 Baceplate corner: 0.1035E+01 0.8354E.00 MAXIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL PEDESTALS (lb) Max. Force (lb) Time (sec) 0.17010E406 0.75001E+01 MAX 7MW4 VALUES OF STRESS FACTORS (max. allowable = 1.0) Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Support Pedestal: 0.068 0.015 0.031 0.027 0.102 0.092 0.017 Above Baseplate 0.052 0.011 0.000 0.094 0.161 0.168 0.011 v FORCES AT PEDESTAL / LINER INTERFACE WHEN TOTAL PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR R6 IS MAXIMUM Pedestal FX (lb) FY(Ib) FZ(lb) 1 16200.0 16900.0 117000,0 2 19600.0 10800.0 112000.0 3 11500.0 22900.0 128000.0 4 3240.0 25800.0 130000.0 5 47001.3 67392.9 80231.8 MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE RESULTS (1) Maximum Vertical Pedestal Force (lb) = 130000. (2) Maximum X Interface Shear Force (lb) = 23000.0 (3) Maximum Y Interface Shear Force (lb) = 25900.0 (4) Maximum Rack to Fuel Impact Force per Cell (lb) = 2520.83
, Table 6.5.115
(
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF WPMR RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: 20 Run I.D.: DF-VOG.SF2 eee.****...........e..... .....................
.......e++....................
MAXIMUM CORNER DISTLACEMENTS (in) ., Location x direction y-direction Top corners 0.1514E+01 0.1482E+01 Baseplate corner 0.1217E+01 0.7781E+00 MAXIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL PEDESTALS (lb) l Max. Force (lb) Time (sec) l l 0.23980E+06 0.85301E+01 l l MAXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS FACTORS (max. allowable = 1.0) Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Support Pedestal: 0.004 0.016 0.028 0.038 0.119 0.106 0.022 Above Baseplate 0.074 0.015 0.093 0.085 0.196 0.208 0.013 FORCES AT PEDESTAL / LINER INTERFACE WHEN TOTAL PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR R6 IS MAXIMUM Pedestal FX (lb) FY(1b) FZ(1b) 1 11600.0 21200.0 121000.0 2 20500.0 9710.0 113000.0 3 21600.0 11700.0 123000.0 4 2710.0 32100.0 161000.0 5 71882.8 73455.4 87753.6 MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE RESULTS (1) Maximum Vertical Pedestal Force (lb) = 161000. (2) Maximum X Interface Shear Force (lb) = 23600.0 (3) Maximum Y Interface Shear Force (lb) = 32100.0 (4) Maximum Rack to Fuel Impact Force per Cell (1b) = 2333.33 a
% Table 6.5.116 )
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF WFMR RACK AllALYSIS FOR RACV. MODULE: 21 , Run I.D.: DF V03.SF2 I MAXIMUM COR!iER DISPLACEMENTS (in) Location: x direction y-direction Top corner: 0.1720E+01 0.2306E+01 Baseplate corner: 0.1209E+01 0.1607E+01 MAXIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL PEDESTALS (lb) Max. Force (1b) Time (sec) 0.23410E+06 0.70601E+01 MAXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS FACTORS (max, allowable = 1.0) Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Support Pedestal: 0.072 0.016 0.032 0.029 0.107 0.098 0.018 Above Baseplate 0.072 0.015 0.088 -0.079 0.174 0.183 0.015 FORCES AT PEDESTAL / LINER INTERFACE WHEN TOTAL PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR R6 IS MAXIMUM Pedestal FX(1b) FY(1b) FZ(1b) 1 21100.0 16300.0 133000.0-2 9290.0 14700.0 87100.0 3 23900.0 6300.0 123000.0 4 18400.0 15100.0 119000.0 5 51658.3 73494.0 84973.8 MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE RESULTS (1) Maximum Vertical Pedestal Force (1b) = 137000. (2) Maximum X Interf ace Shear Force (Ib) = 24200.0 (3) Maximum Y-Interface Shear Force (ib) = 26900.0 (4) Maximum Rack to Fuel Impact Force per Cell (lb) = 3104.17 O
l Table 6.5.117 SUtttARY RESULTS OF WPMR RACE ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: 22 Run I.D.: DF VOG.SF2 l MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in) Location x-direction y-direction Top corner: 0.1975E+01 0.2556E+01 Baseplate corner: 0.1083E+01 0.1190E+01 MAXIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL PEDESTALS (Ib) Max. Force (lb) Time (sec) 0.32750E+06 0.91452E+01 MAXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS FACTORS (max. allowable = 1.0) Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Support Pedestal: 0.087 0.021 0.036 0.036 0.130 0.119 0.020 Above Baseplate 0.085 0.012 0.093 0.077 0.186 0.196 0.018 n v FORCES AT PEDESTAL / LINER INTERFACE WHEN TOTAL PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR R6 IS MAXIMUM Pedestal FX(1b) FY(lb) FZ(lb) 1 19100.0 18800.0 134000.0 2 21000.0 15200.0 130000.0 3 25500.0 19900.0 161000.0 4 20100.0 20100.0 142000.0 5 55748.1 77546.1 92825.9 MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE RESULTS (1) Maximum Vertical Pedestal Force (lb) = 167000. (2) Maximum X Interface Shear Force (lb) = 30600.0 (3) Maximum Y Interface Shear Force (lb) = 30000.0 (4) Maximum Rack to Fuel Impact Force per Cell (lb) = 3214.29 1
l l Table 6.5.118
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF WPMR RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: 23 Run I.D.: DF-VOG.SF2 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in) j Locations x direction y direction l 4 Top corner: 0.1471E+01 0.1080E+01 Baseplate corners 0.7558E+00 0.7414E+00 j MAXIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL PEDESTALS (lb) Max. Force (1b) Time (sec) 0.26080E+06 0.1178CE+02 MAXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS FACTORS (ma x, allowable = 1. 0) Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 4 Support Pedestal: 0.069 0.017 0.030 0.030 0.102 0.092 0.017 Above Baseplate 0.070 0.014 0.003 0.074 0.143 0.153 0.011 G FORCES AT PEDESTAL / LINER INTERFACE WHEN TOTAL PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR R6 IS MAXIMUM Pedestal FX (lb) FY(Ib) FZ(lb) 1 6710.0 20600.0 109000.0 2 25000.0 8070,0 132000,0 3 17000.0 16100.0 117000.0 4 14800.0 17500.0 115000.0 5 57222.4 49552.8 63936.3 MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE RESULTS (1) Maximum Vertical Pedestal Force (lb) = 132000. (2) Maximum X Interface Shear Force (lb) = 25000.0 (3) Maximum Y Interface Shear Force (lb) = 24900.0 (4) Maximum Rack to Fuel Impact Force per Call (lb) = 2892.86 t
\
V wt7 <- w y y--- w .-ye- -- -
,i,e-- , - .,v--- c---e -y--d.m: ,
m - -, , - - ,
Table 6.5.119
\
SU! NARY RESULTS OF WFMR RACY. ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: 24 Run I.D.: DF-VOG.SF2
........................................................................eeeeee MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in)
Location x direction y direction Top corner: 0.1731E+01 0.1779E+01 Baseplate corner 0.5143E+00 0.5299E+00 MAXIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL PEDESTALS (lb) Max. Force (lb) Time (sec) 0.24540E+06 0.12BBOE+02 MAXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS FACTORS (max. allowable = 1.0) Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Support Pedestal: 0.004 0.019 0.026 0.033 0.129 0.117 0.015 Above Baseplate 0.064 0.012 0.093 0.075 0.169 0.179 0.01'1 v > FORCES AT PEDESTAL / LINER INTERFACE WHEN TOTAL PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR R6 IS MAXIMUM Pedestal FX (lb) FY (1b) FZ(lb) 1 27900.0 16200.0 161000.0 2 18000.0 15000.0 117000.0 3 14500.0 17200.0 112000.0 4 13400.0 18900.0 116000.0 5 43273.8 62279.8 75213.7 MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE RESULTS (1) Maximum Vertical Pedestal Force (1b) = 161000. (2) Maximum X Interface Shear Force (1b) = 27900.0 (3) Maximum Y Interface Shear Force (1b) = 22300.0= (4) Maximum Rack to Fuel Impact Force per Cell (1b) = 2696.43 O
Table 6.5.120
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF h'PMR RACK A!!ALYSIS TOR RACK MODULE: 25 Run I.D.: DF VOG.ST2 l MAXIMUM COR!lER DISPLACEME!JTS (in) Locations x. direction y direction Top corner 0.1635E+01 0.2024E+01 Baseplate cornur 0.6927E.00 0.1397E.01 MAXIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL PEDESTALS (1b) Max. Force (1b) Time (sec) 0.12360E+06 0.96552E+01 MAXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS FACTORS (max allowable = 1.0) Stress factor R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Support Pedestal: 0.052 0.011 0.021 0.019 0.074 0.067 0.012 Above Baseplate 0.051 0.000 0.078 0.069 0.159 0.168 0.011 k FORCES AT PEDESTAL / LINER IllTERFACE h'llEN TOTAL PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR R6 IS MAXIMUM Pedestal FX (lb) FY(lb) FZ(lb) 1 13900.0 9090.0 82900.0 2 10300.0 9420.0 69600.0 3 12800.0 13000,0 91300.0 4 3660.0 17800.0 90700.0 5 58196.3 59371.2 71486.7 MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE RESULTS (1) Maximum Vertical Pedestal Force (lb) = 98800.0 (2) Maximum X Interface Shear Force (1b) = 16200.0 (3) Maximum Y Interface Shear Force (lb) = 17900.0 (4) Maximum Rack to Fuel Impact Force per Cell (lb) = 2888.89 O f e --,,e %-n--s- m -.--w-,w,,a- , -w r, .e,- w,.- -
Table 6.5.121
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF WPMR RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: 26
..............ee..........eeeeee.................e**e ..................eeeeee Run 1.D.: DF-VOG.SF2 eseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee...........................................................
MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in) location s x direction y direction Top corner: 0.1984E+01 0.2053E+01 Baseplate corner: 0.7778E+00 0.1116E+01 MAXIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL PEDESTALS (Ib) Max. Force (Ib) Time (sec) 0.11180E+06 0.92252E+01 MAXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS FACTORS (max, allowable = 1.0) Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 e Support Pedestal: 0.055 0.011 0.022 0.019 0.073 0.064 0.012 Above Baseplate 0.046 0.009 0.074 0,076 0.171 0.181 0.010 t FORCES AT EJESTAL/ LINER INTERFACE WHEN TOTAL PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR R6 IS MAXIMUM Pedestal FX(lb) FY(lb) FZ(lb) i 1 9010,0 10100.0 102000.0 2 2120.0 10000.0 90600.0 3 13000.0 7250.0 78200.0 4 12300.0 10500.0 B0800.0 5 64253.1 62209.4 77008.0 , MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE RESULTS (1) Maximum Vertical Pedestal Force (lb) = 106000. (2) Maximum X Interface Shear Force (lb) = 16200.0 (3) Maximum Y Interface Shear Force (lb) = 18300.0 (4) Maximum Rack to Fuel Impact Force per Cell (1b) = 3388.89 0
s Table 6.5.122 SUIPMtY RESULTS OF WPMR RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: 1 Run I.D.: DF VOG.SF8 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in) Locations x-direction y direction Top corner: 0.2047E+01 0.1031E+01 Baseplate corner: 0.1144E+00 0.1291E+00 MAXIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL PEDESTALS (lb) , Max. Force (lb) Time (sec) 0.28200E+06 0.74901E+01 MAXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS FACTORS (max, allowable = 1.0) Stress factor R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Support Pedestal: 0.096 0.074 0.087 0.132 0.224 0.230 0.049 Above Baseplate 0.056 0.022 0.086 0.106 0.162 0.166 0.017 FORCES AT PEDESTAL / LINER INTERFACE WHEN TOTAL PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR R6 IS MAXIMUM Pedestal FX(lb) FY(lb) F (lb) 1 97000.0 7190.0 122000.0 2 111000.0 28100.0 160000.0 3 68700.0 33800.0 147000,0 4 60600.0 43200.0 183000.0 5 07718.3 17248.8 102095.0 MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE RESULTS (1) Maximum Vertical Pedestal Force (lb) = 183000. (2) Maximum X Interface Shear Force (lb) = 111000. (3) Maximum Y Interface Shear Force (lb) = 73300.0 (4) Maximum Rack to Fuel Impact Force per Cell (lb) = 3138.89 Oi V
Table 6.5.123
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF WPMR RACK ANALYSIS FCR RACE MODULE: 2
...................** .....................................e******* ...w .....
Run I.D.: DF VOG.SF8 e................e** .........................***............................. MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in) l Locations x direction y direction Top corner 0.1820E+01 0.2212E+01 Baseplate corner: 0.1002E+00 0.7833E 01 i MAXIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL PEDESTALS (lb) Max. Force (1b) Time (sec) 0.40730E+06 0.65151E+01 MAXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS FACTORS (max, allowable = 1.0) Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R$ R6 R7 Support Pedestal: 0.113 0.062 0.106 0.110 0.218 0.211 0.060 Above Baseplate 0.081 0.024 0.087 0.081 0.181 0.192 0.021 FORCES AT PEDESTAL / LINER INTERFACE WHEN TOTAL PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR R6 IS MAXIMUM Pedestal FX (lb) FY(1b) FZ(lb) 1 45100.0 70100.0 184000.0 2 47800.0 51100.0 156000.0 3 42800.0 72900.0 127000.0 4 42300.0 60200.0 124000.0 5 59742.2 73253.6 85745.3 MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE RESULTS (1) Maximum Vertical Pedestal Force (1b) = 216000. (2) Maximum X Interface Shear Force (lb) = 92500.0 (3) Maximum Y Interface Shear Force (lb) = 89400.0 (4) Maximum Rack to Fuel Impact Force per Cell (lb) = 2958.33 O
Table 6.5.124
$UMMARY RESULTS OF WPMR RACE AllALYSIS FOR RACE MODULE: 3 Run I.D.: DF-VO3.SF8 MAXIMUM CORHER DISPLACEMENTS (in)
Location x-direction y direction I Top corner: 0.1515E+01 0.1446E+01 l Baseplate corneri 0.898$E 01 0.8755E 01 MAXIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL PEDESTALS (1b) Max. Force (1b) Time (cee) 0.31740E+06 0.90452E+01 MAXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS FACTORS (max. allowable = 1.0) Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Support Pedestal: 0.113 0.075 0.114 0.133 0.241 0.247 0.064
, Above Baseplete 0.063 0.030 0.092 0.087 0.178 0.190 0.021 FORCES AT PEDESTAL / LINER INTERFACE WHEN TOTAL PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR R6 IS MidIMUM Pedestal FX (lb) FY(lb) FZ(lb) 1 38100.0 71300.0 145000.0 2 26800.0 87100.0 130000.0 3 73700.0 33100.0 210000.0 4 100000.0 50400.0 170000.0 5 66969.2 66055.4 78842.1 MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE RESULTS (1) Maximum Vertical Pedestal Force (1b) = 217000.
(2) Maximum X Interface Shear Force (Ib) = 112000. (3) Maximum Y Interface Shear Force (lb) = 95600.0 (4) Maximum Rack to Fuel Impact Force per Cell (lb) = 3041.67 v
l [ Table 6.5.125
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF WPMR RACK A!!ALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: 4 Run I.D.: DF VOG.SF8 l MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in) Locations x direction y direction Top corner: 0.2253E+01 0.2048E+01 l Baseplate corner 0.2336E+00 0.9537E 01 i MAXIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL PEDESTALS (lb) Max Force (1b) Time (sec) 0.21290E+06 0.11585E+02 MAXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS FACTORS (max. allowable = 1.0) Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 1 Support Pedestal: 0.088 0.056 0.087 0.099 0.164 0.171 0.049 Above Baseplate 0.05b 0.023 0.083 0.086 0.181 0.191 0.021 O V FORCES AT PEDESTAL / LINER INTERFACE WHEN TOTAL PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR R6 IS MAXIMUM Pedestal FX (lb) FY (lb) FZ(1b) 1 67900.0 28400.0 92100.0 2 44800.0 65800.0 99500.0 3 47200.0 17800.0 166000.0 4 49300.0 30800.0 123000.0 5 63426.6 69952.6 81863.6 MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE RESULTS (1) Maximum Vertical Pedestal Force (lb) = 169000. (2) Maximum X Interface Shear Force (lb) = 83300.0 , (3) Maximum Y Interface Shear Force (lb) = 73000.0 1 (4) Maximum Rack to Fuel Impact Force per Cell (lb) = 2703.70
-e . .--og - ,- -m- , , ,,g- m --,, ,,v-. _ , ,, g, 7- , , . , ,_.q-w,g .,- ,,-v ,n,-y r---,-e. .
l Table 6.5.126 SUMMAkY RESULTS OF WPMR RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: 5
.................................e............................................
Run I.D.: DF-VOG.SF8 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in) Location x direction y direction Top corner: 0.2269E+01 0.5622E+00 Baseplate corner: 0.1523E+00 0.6677E 01 i MAXIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL PEDESTALS (lb) Max. Force (lb) Time (sec) 0.20300E+06 0.91552E+01 MAXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS FACTORS (max. allowable = 1.0) Stress factcr R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Support Pedestal: 0.072 0.047 0.062 0.084 0.141 0.145 0.035 Above Baseplate 0.055 0.019 0.067 0.076 0.154 0.158 0.017 [ FORCES AT PEDESTAL / LINER INTERFACE WHEN TOTAL PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR R6 IS MAXIMUM Pedestal FX(1b) FY(1b) FZ(lb) 1 21500.0 41400.0 130000.0 2 49300.0 7580.0 102000.0 3 21000.0 46600.0 63900.0 4 68600.0 23200.0 90600.0 5 61604.0 41598.4 88354,6 MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE RESULTS (1) Maximum Vertical Pedestal Force (lb) = 130000. (2) Maximum X Interface Shear Force (lb) = 70600.0 (3) Maximum Y Interface Shear Force (lb) = 52000,0
'4) Maximum Rack to Fuel Impact Force per Cell (lb) = 3314.81 '
[ t-
Table 6,5.127
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF WFMR RACK IJiALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: 6 Run I.D.: DF VO3.SF8 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMEliTS (in) Locations x direction y direction Top corner 0.1974E+01 0.1653E+01 Baseplate corner 0.9298E 01 0.6111E 01 MAXIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL PEDESTALS (lb) Max. Force (lb) Time (sec) 0.30360E.06 0.89102E+01 MAXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS FACTORS (max. allowable = 1.0) Stress factor R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Support Pedestal: 0.091 0.051 0.100 0.091 0.186 0,188 0.056 Above Baseplate 0.070 0.018 0.001 0.096 0.174 0.182 0.021 FORCES AT PEDESTAL / LINER INTERFACE WHEN TOTAL PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR R6 IS MAXIMUM Pedestal FX (1b) FY(lb) FZ(lb) 1 56900.0 65100.0 108000.0 2 43800,0 30300.0 134000.0 3 74300.0 6020.0 123000.0 4 52900.0 37700.0 81300.0 5 78762.1 43421.0 90808.2 MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE RESULTS (1) Maximum Vertical Pedestal Force (lb) = 174000. (2) Maximum X Interf ace Shear Force (lb) = 76700.0 (3) Maximum Y Interface Shear Force (lb).= 83800.0 (4) Maximum Rack to Fuel Impact Force per Cell (lb) - 3317.46 l O
1 Table 6.5.128 v
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF WPMR RACK ANALYSIS FCR RACK MODULE: 7 Run I.D.: DF VOG.SF8 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in) l bocation x direction y direction l Top corner: 0.1326E+01 0.2263E+01 Baseplate corner 0.1305E+00 0.8449E 01 MAXIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL PEDESTALS (lb) Max. Force (lb) Time (see) 0.21970E+06 0.92452E+01 MAXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS FACTORS (max. allowable = 1.0) l { Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R$ M R7 Support Pedestal: 0.073 0.041 0.066 0.072 0.155 0.160 0.037 Above Baseplate 0.068 0.021 0.094 0.092 0.177 0.184 0.023 ( FORCES AT PEDESTAL / LINER INTERFACE WHEN TOTAL PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR R6 IS MAXIMUM Pedestal FX (1b) FY(Ib) FS(lb) 1 40000.0 26300.0 122000.0 2 60700.0 39200.0 104000.0 3 28600.0 46400.0 68100.0 4 30600.0 24000.0 107000.0 5 74932.7 48609.6 93313.1 MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE RESULTS (1) Maximum Vertical Pedestal Force (lb) = 139000. (2) Maximum X Interface Shear Force (lb) = 60700.0 (3) Maximum Y Interface Shear Force (lb) = 55500.0 (4) Maximum Rack to Fuel Impact Force per Cell (1b) = 3083.33 G
I Table 6.5.129 \
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF WPMR RACK IJJALYSIS T2R RACK MODULE: B e ee.....eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees ee....e ee.......se.**ee. e ..e ..eeeeeeees... Run 1.D.: DF.VOG.SFB ! sesseeeeessesessessesses seesseeese ese.. seeessesseseesseeess ee sesseeeeeeeessee l MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in) j Locations x. direction y direction Top corner 0.1382E+01 0.9854E+00 Baseplate corner 0.7555E-01 0.5584E-01 MAXIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL PEDESTALS (lb) Max. Force (lb) Time (see) 0.36700E+06 0.11815E+02 MAXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS FACTORS (max. allowable = 1.0) Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Support Pedestal: 0.111 0.048 0.000 0.086 0.164 0.168 0.050 Above Baseplate 0.073 0.021 0.099 0.005 0.119 0.191 0.021 FORCES AT PEDESTAL / LINER INT'f7 ACE WHEN TOTAL PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR R6 11 AAXIMUM Pedestal FX(1b) FY(lb) FZ(1b) 1 62000.0 41200.0 114000.0 2 72300.0 24600.0 127000.0 3 61000.0 26000.0 119000.0 4 25600.0 50500.0 141000,0 5 63911.1 69302.4 80695.1 MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE RESULTS (1) Maximum Vertical Pedestal Force (lb) = 212000. (2) Maximum X Interface thwar Force (lb) = 72300.0 (3) Haximum Y Interface Shear Force (lb) = 74400.0 (4) Maximum Rack to Fuel Impact Force per Cell (lb) = 3902.78 O
Table 6.5.130
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF WPMR RACK AllALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: 9 Run I.D.: DF VO3.SFB MAXIMUM COR!!ER DISPLACEMEliTS (in) Location x direction y. direction Top corner 0.2467E+01 0.2639E+01 Daseplate corner: 0.1657E+00 0.1741E+00 MAXIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL PEDESTALS (lb) Max. Force (lb) Time (sec) 0.39340E+06 0.61651E+01 MAXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS FACTORS (max. allowable = 1.0) Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Support Pedestal: 0.314 0.091 0.102 0.162 0.227 0.230 0.057 Above Baseplate 0.079 0.023 0.096 0.085 0.1B2 0.195 0.024 O FORCES AT PEDESTAL / LINER INTERFACE WHEN TOTAL PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR RG IS MAXIMUM Pedestal FX(lb) FY(lb) FE(1b) 1 136000.0 419.0 170000.0 2 87400.0 36500.0 122000.0 3 32500.0 70600.0 203000.0 4 73100.0 14600.0 160000.0 5 68211.8 68692.7 79568.7 MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE RESULTS (1) Maximum Vertical Pedestal Force (lb) = 219000. (2) Maximum X Interface Shear Force (1b) = 136000. (3) Maximum Y Interface Shear Force (lb) = 85500.0 (4) Maximum Rack to Fuel Impact Force per Cell (1b) = 3000,00
Table 6.5.131
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF WFMR RACF ANALYSIS FOR RACF. MODULE: 10
.....e** ............. ***e................
.................e** .............
Run I.D.: DF-VDG.SFB MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in) Location x. direction y-direction Top corner: 0.1473E 01 0.1806E+01 Baseplate corner: 0.1036Ee00 0.1011E+00 MAXIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL PEDESTALS (1b) Max. Force (lb) Time (sec) 0.38190E+06 0.75iO1E+01 MAXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS FACTO.tS (max, allowable = 1.0) Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Support Pedestal: 0.120 0.082 0.110 0.145 0.266 0.279 0.062 Above Baseplate 0.076 0.024 0.089 0.100 0.189 0.201 0.022 O FORCES AT PEDESTAL / LINER INTERFACE WHEN TOTAL PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR R6 IS MAXIMUM Pedestal FX (lb) FY(lb) FZ(lb) 1 58100.0 57600.0 218000.0 2 105000.0 75100.0 161000.0 3 53200.0 52600.0 174000.0 4 85700.0 35000.0 149000.0 5 70299.2 70823.7 83565.3 MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE PESULTS (1) Maximum Vertical Pedestal Force (lb) = 230000. (2) Maximum X Interface Shear Force (lb) = 122000. (3) Maximum Y Interface Shear Force (lb) = 92900.0 (4) Maximum Rack to Fuel Impact Force per Cell (1b) = 3194.44 (
Table 6.5.132
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF WPMR RACY. Af#d.YSIS FOR RACY. MODULE: 11 eeeeeeee......ee.......... ee**ee....................ee....................... Run 1.D.: DF-VOG.SF8 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in) l Location: x. direction y direction Top corner: 0.1803E*01 0.8173E+00 Baseplate corner: 0.1204Ee00 0.7370E 01 MAXIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL PEDESTALS (lb) Max. Force (lb) Time (sec) 0.19590E+06 0.69551E+01 MAXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS FACTORS (max allowable = 1.0) Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Support Pedestal: 0.076 0.040 0.098 0.071 0.142 0.140 0.055 Above Baseplate 0.054 0.017 0.087 0.07S 0.158 0.168 0.018
\
FORCES AT PEDESTAL / LINER INTERFACE WHEN TOTAL PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR R6 IS MAXIMUM Pedestal FX (Ib) FY(lb) FZ(1b) 1 53200.0 37500.0 81300.0 2 2670.0 82200.0 103000.0 3 22300.0 5(500.0 90200.0 4 59700.0 26300.0 81600.0 5 56201.5 61192.9 70238,0 MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE RESULTS (1) Maximum Vertical Pedestal Force. (1b) = 145000. (2) Maximum X Interface Shear Force (lb) = 59700 0 (3) Maximum Y Interface Shear Force (lo) = 82200;0 (4) Maximum Rack to Fuel Impact Force per Cell (lb) = 3037.04 O
Table 6.5.133 i v RAC'Y, MODULE: 12
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF WPMR RACV A!!ALYSIS T2R
*****+ee. ee.................e***ee. ..................eeeeee***eeeeeeeeeeeee, Run I.D.: DF-VOG.SF8 eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee..... eee **** ....................... eeeeeeeeeeeee.
MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in)
. Location x-direction y direction i i
Top corner: 0.1487E+01 0.1124E+01 Baseplate corners 0.1408Ee00 0.9364E-01 MAXIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL PEDESTALS (1b) Max. Force (1b) Time (sec) 0.22650E+06 0.91252Ee01 MAXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS FACTORS (max. allowable = 1.0) 1 Stresa factors R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Support Pedestal: 0.084 0.043 0.063 0.07? 0.161 0.155 0.036 Above Baseplate 0.062 0.020 0.079 0.071 0.171 0.181 0.020 \. FORCES AT PEDESTAL / LINER INTERFACE WHEN TOTAL PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR R6 1S MAXIMUM Pedestal FX(1b) FY(1b) FZ(lb) 1 44900.0 28700.0 116000.0 2 53200.0 22700.0 130000,0 3 34000.0 42700.0 160000.0 4 32500.0 44400.0 91900.0 5 60003.0 65773.1 77504.0 MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE RESULTS (1) Maximum Vertical Pedestal Force (1b) = 160000. (2) Maximum X Interface Shear Force (lb) = 64700.0 (3) Maximum Y Interface Shear Force (lb) = 53400.0 (4) Maximum Rack to Fuel Impact Force per Cell (lb) = 3240.74 O
. . _ - ~ , -, . - ---,,..-..s...,_-m. . - . -..
Table 6.5.134 SUIEARY RESULTS OF WPMR RACK ANALYSIS-FOR- RACF. MODULEi 13 Run I.D.: DF-VOG.SF8 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in)- Location x-direction y-direction Top corners. 0.1820E+01 0.1691E+01;
-Baseplate corners. 0.8050E-01_ 0.7591E-01 MAXIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL PEDESTALS (lb)
Max. Force (lb) Time (sec) l-0.32850E+0F 0.75051E+01 MAXIMUM VALUES OF' STRESS FACTORS (max. allowable = 1.0) I StressEfa(lor R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Support Pedestal: 0.050 0.063 0.090 0.111 0.190 0.198- 0.051 Above Baseplate 0.076 0.030 0.105 0.096. 0.193 0.193 0.038 i FORCES AT PEDESTAL / LINER INTERFACE WHEN TOTAL PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR R6 IS MAXIMUM Pedestal FX(1b) FY(lb) FZ(lb)- 1 90600.0 '4930.0 113000.0-2 04600.0 42200.0- 118000.0 3 20900.0 70200.0- -102000.0 4 21900.0 -76000.0 168000,0 5 79743.0 36499.7 136399.1 MAXIMUM 7MPACT FORCE RESULTS (1)7 Maximum Vertical Pedestal Force (lb) = 187000. (2) Maximum X Interface Shear Force (lb) = 93800.0
-(3) Maximum Y Interface Shear Force (1b) = 76000.0 (4) Maximum Rack to Fuel Impact Force per Cell (lb) = 3095.24 O
U
Table 6.5.135 V
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF WPMR RA2K ANALYSIE FOR RACK MODULE: 14 Run I.D.: DF-VOG.SFB MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in) Location x-direction y-direction Top corner: 0.2243E,01 0.2247E+01 Baseplate corner: 0.1088E+00 0.9669E-01 MAXIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL PEDESTALS (lb) 14ax. Force (lb) Time (sec) 0.33500E+06 0.75151E+01 MAXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS FACTORS (max, allowable = 1.0) Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Support Pedestal: 0.107 0.066 0.095 0.117 0.209 0.201 0.054 Above Baseplate 0.092 0.023 0.100 0.110 0.219 0.232 0.026 U FORCES AT PEDESTAL / LINER INTERFACE WHEN TOTAL PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR R6 IS MAXIMUM Pedestal FX (lb) FY(lb) FZ(lb) 1 87900.0 2460.0 110000.0 2 91000.0 34500.0 122000.0 3 81100.0 31600.0 115000.0 4 33300.0 72200.0 196000.0 5 78066.8 84036.1 98817.7 MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE RESULTS (1) Maximum Vertical Pedestal Force (lb) = 204000. (2) Maximum X Interface Shear Force (lb) = 98700.0 (3) Maximum Y Interface Shear Force (lb) = 79900.0 (1) Maximum Rack to Fuel Impact Force per Cell (lb) = 3055.56 O
Table 6.5.136 , \
\
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF WPMR RACF ANALYSIS FOR RACF, MODULE: 15 Run I.D.: DF-VOG . S F8 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in) Iccation x-direction y-direction dop corner: 0.2283E+01 0.1419E+01 Baseplate corner: 0.1896E+00 0.1815E+00 MAXIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL PEDESTALS (lb) Max. Force (lb) Time (sec) 0.23090E+06 0.69301E+01 MAXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS FACTORS (max, allowable = 1.0) Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Support Pedestal: 0.092 0.044 0.092 0.077 0.168 0.162 0.052 Above Baseplate 0,060 n v 0.018 0.095 0.087 0.189 0.201 0.027 FORCES AT PEDESTAL / LINER INTERFACE WHEN TOTAL PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR R6 IS MAXIMUM Pedestal FX (lb) FY(lb) FZ(1b) 1 47300.0 52400.0 88200.0 2 21300.0 19700.0 177000.0 3 58100.0 22400.0 166000,0 4 30900.0 52500.0 113000.0 5 73155.5 68320.5 82688.4. MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE RESULTS (1) Maximum Vertical Pedestal Force (lb) = 177000. (2) Maximum X Interface Shear Force (lb) = 65000.0 (3) Maximum Y Interface Shear Force (lb) = 77200.0 (4) Maximum Rack to Fuel Impact Force per Cell (lb) = 3303.57 b ( _A
fable 6.5.137 (/
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF WPMR RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: 16 Run I.D.: Dr-VOG.SFB MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in) Location x-direction y. direction Top corner: 0.2538E+01 0.2363E+01 Baseplate corner: 0.1755E+00 0.2267E+00 MAXIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL PEDESTALS (lb) Max. Force (lb) Time (sec) i 0.36990E+06 0.59351E+01 1 MAXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS FACTORS (max, allowable = 1.0) Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Support Pedestal: 0.090 0.056 0.113 0.100 0.193 0.198 0.064 Above Baseplate 0.096 0.023 0.098 0.100 0.182 0.192- 0.022 O V FORCES AT PEDESTAL / LINER INTERFACE WHEN TOTAL PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR R6 IS MAXIMUM Pedestal FX(lb) FY(lb) FZ(lb) 1 26700.0 94900.0 134000.0 2 43900.0 67600.0 101000.0 3 50200.0 48000.0 113000.0 4 32000.0 88200.0 121000.0 5 58953.0 73087.7 87967.3 MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE RESULTS (1) Maximum Vertical Pedestal Force (lb) = 172000. (2) Maximum X Interface Shear Force (lb) = 84200.0 (3) Maximum Y Interface Shear Force (lb) = 94900.0 (4) Maximum Rack to Fuel Impact Force per Cell (lb) = 3214.29 ] N
\
Table 6.5.138
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF WPMR RACY, ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: 17 Run I.D.: DF-VOG.SF8 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in) Locations x-direction y-direction Top-corner: 0.3228E+01 0.1162E+01 Baseplate corner: 0.2023E+00 0.6799E-01 MAXIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL PEDESTALS (lb) Max. Force (Ib) Time (sec) 0.27990E+06 0.90452E+01 MAXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS FACTORS - (max. allowable = 1.0) Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Support Pedestal 0.081- 0.043 0.091 0.077 0.173 0,171 0.052 Above Baseplate 0.073 0.049 0.083 0.078 0.168 0.178 0.030 k FORCES AT PEDESTAL / LINER INTERFACE WHEN TOTAL PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR R6 IS MAXIMUM Pedestal FX(lb) FY(lb). F (lb)- 1 30900.0 55600.0 121000'.0 2 5460.0 67700.0 132000.0 3 -- 48700.0- 43500.0 153000.0 4- -36200.0 53900.0 81200.0 5: .56639.4 67096.6 76615.2 MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE RESULTS
'(1) ' Maximum Vertical Pedestal Force - (lb) = 155000.
-(2) Maximum X Interface Shear Force (lb)
= 64900.0 (3). Maximum Y -Interf ace Shear Force (lb) = 76900.0 (4) Maximum Rack to Fuel Impact Force per Cell (lb) = 3392.86
Table 6.5.139
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF WPMR RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE's 18
..............e...............................................................
Run I.D.: DF VOG.SF8 MAXIMDM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in) Location: x-direction y-direction Top corner: 0.3115E+01 0.6476E+00 Baseplate corner: 0.2020E+00 0.1170E+00 MAXIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL PEDESTALS (lb) Max. Force (lb) Time (sec) 0.24910E+06 0.61551E+01 MAXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS FACTORS (max allowable = 1.0[ Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Support Pedestal: 0.083- 0.044 0.059 0.079 0.134 0.135 0.033 Above Baseplate 0.077 0.022 0.088 0.083 0.194 0.206 0.018 O FORCES AT PEDESTAL / LINER INTERFACE WHEN TOTAL
' PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR R6 IS MAXIMUM Pedestal- FX (lb) FY(lb) FZ(lb) 1 24500.0 28100.0 137000.0 2 66200.0 9190.0 84300.0 3 35300.0- 40400.0 111000.0 4 12100.0 46600.0 60200.0 5 69986.9 74107.4- 86663.5 MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE RESULTS (1) .' Maximum Vertical Pedestal Force (lb) = 159000.
(2) Maximum X Interface Shear Force (lb) = 66200.0
. (3) Maximum Y- Interf ace Shear Force ' (lb) = 49800.0 (4) Maximum Rack to Fuel' Impact Force per Cell (lb) = 3229.17
g Table 6.5.140
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF WPMR RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: 19 Run I.D.: DF-VOG.SFS
-MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in)
Location x-direction y-direction Top corner: 0.1967E+01 0.9065E+00 Baseplate corner: 0.7856E-01 0.5354E-01 MAXIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL PEDESTALS (lb) Max. Force (lb) Time (se ) 0.20400E+06 0.62501E+01 MAXIMUM VAL'JES OF STRESS FACTORS (max. allowable = 1.0) Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 l Support Pedestal: 0.078 0.044 0.070 0.077 0.123 0.124 0.039 l Above Baseplate 0.063 0.019 0.079 0.093 0.189 0.199 0.021 I/ '% 5 FORCES AT PEDESTAL / LINER INTERFACE WHEN TOTAL l PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR R6 IS MAXIMUM Pedestal FX (lb) FY(lb) FZ(lb) 1 19300.0 27300.0 146000.0 2 23400.0 35200.0 107000.0 3 19500.0 48600.0 95800.0 4 50600.0 19900.0 99400.0 5 74073.3 63233.5 88135.1 MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE RESULTS (1) Maximum Vertical Pedestal Force (lb) = 150000. (2) Maximum X Interface Shear Force (lb) = 65000.0 (3) Maximum Y Interface Shear Force (lb) = 58700.0 (4) Maximum Rack to Fuel Impact Force per Cell (lb) = 2770.83 r~T I % Q ,1
Table 6.5.141 k -
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF WPMR_ RACK ANALYSIS FOR PACK MODULE: 20 Run I.D.: DF-VOG.SF8 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS '(in) Location: x direction y-direction Top corner 0.1953E+01 0.1958E+01 Baseplate corner: 0.1286E 00 0.1605E+00 MAXIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL PEDESTALS (lb) EMax. Force (lb) Time (sec) 0.21140E+06 0.64901E+01 MAXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS FACTORS (max. allowable = 1.0) Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Support Pedestal 0.067 0.050 0.062 0.089 0.144 0.149 0.035 Above Baseplate 0.065 0.018 0.087 0.093 0.159 0.169 0.015 O l O FORCES AT PEDESTAL / LINER INTERFACE WHEN TOTAL PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR R6'IS MAXIMUM Pedestal- FX (lb) FY(lb) FZ(lb) 1 59500.0 2000.0 74400.0 2 70400.0 3820.0 88100.0 3: 34900.0 27000.0 75100.0 4- 74900.0 =15400,0 -101000.0 5 58820.9 59397.4 70311.9 MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE RESULTS (1) Maximum Vertical Pedestal Force (lb) = 129000. (2) -Maximum X Interface Shear Force (lb) .. 74900.0
-(3)1 Maximum Y Interface Shear Force (lb) = 52500.0-(4) Maximum Rack to Fuel Impact Force per Cell (lb) = .2812.50 i
O. Table 6.5.142 /
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF WPMR RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: 21 Run I.D.: DF VOG.SF8 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in) Locations. x-direction y-direction Top corner: 0.1812E+01 0.1988E+01 Baseplate corner: 0.1314E+00 0.1169E+00 MAXIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL PEDESTALS (lb) Max. Force (lb) Time (sec) 0.22860E+06 0.75601E+01 MAXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS FACTORS (max, allowable = 1.0) Stress factor R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Support Pedestal: 0.000 0.044 0.071 0.078 0.144 0.145 0.040 Above Baseplate 0.070 0.023 0.110 0.109 0.185 0.196 0.019 v FORCES AT PEDESTAL / LINER INTERFACE WHEN TOTAL PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR R6 IS MAXIMUM Pedestal FX(lb) FY(lb) F ('. b) 1 31200.0 52700.0 112000.0 2 21300.0 50300.0 74400.0 3 42500.0 37100,0 120000.0 4 37400.0 25100.0 1:1000.0 5 65613.8 70886.4 83393.2 MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE RESULTS (1) Maximum Vertical Pedestal Force (lb) = 153000. (2) Maximum X Interface Shear Force (lb) = 65900.0 (3) Maximum Y Interface Shear Force (lb) = 59900.0 (4) Maximum Rack to Fuel Impact Force per Cell (lb) . = 3916.67 (a
i l Table 6.5.143 l
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF WPMR RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: 22
}
***........e**.......e***e.......****...........****.....*****............. :
Run I.D.: DF VOG.SF8
****..*****e.........*********.e******............********..............
MAXIMUM CORNER. DISPLACEMENTS (in) Locations x-direction y-direction
-Top corner:- 0.1556E+01- 0.1130E+01 Baseplate cornert 0.8272E-01 0.1218E+00 MAXIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL PEDESTALS (lb)
Max. Force (lb)
~
Time (sec) 0.30940E+06 0.71751E+01 MAXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS FACTORS (max, allowable = 1.0) Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7
' Support Pedestal: 0.088 0.045 0.103 0.079 0.136 0.156 0.058 Above Baseplate 0.000 0.019 0.099 0.100 0.179 0.191 0.022 s
FORCES AT PEDESTAL / LINER INTERFACE WHEN TOTAL PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR R6 IS MAXIMUM Pedestal FX(lb) -FY(lb) FE(lb)
-1 29600.0 -52700.0 140000.0 2 7450.0 87100.0 109000.0
-3 66500.0 18500.0 130000.0
-4 31300.0 '50500.0 74300.0 5 66506.8 67291.0 78951.0 MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE RESUI.TS (1) Maximum Vertical Pedestal Force (lb) = 169000.
(2) Maximum X Interface Shear Force' (lb) = 66500.0 (3)'. Maximum Y Interf ace. Shear Force (lb) = 87100.0 (4)- Maximum Rack to FueliImpact Force per Cell (lb) e 3232.14 O
Table 6.5.144
SUMMARY
_RESULTS OF WPMR RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACF. MODULE: 23 Run I.D.: DF-VOG.SF8 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in) Locations x-direction y-direction Top corner: . 0.1110E+01 0,2192E+01 Baseplate corner: 0.8036E-01 0.1318E+00 MAXIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL PEDESTALS (lb) Max. Force (lb) Time (sec) 0.26950E+06 0.74651E+01 MAXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS FACTORS (max allowable = 1.0) Stress' factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 i Support Pedestal: 0.078 0.041 0.079 0.072 0.152.. 0.149 '0.045 Above Baseplate -0.070 0.021 0.000 0.080 0.162 0.167 0.017
-I FORCES.AT PEDESTAL / LINER INTERFACE WHEN TOTAL-PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR R6 IS MAXIMUM Pedestal FX (lb) FY(lb) FZ(lb) 1 38700.0 --48400.0 77400.0 '
2- 42000.0 28100.0 125000.0
-3 48400.0 29900.0 140000.0
.4' 213400.0 54800.0 130000.0 5- .60650.8' 56355.6 69607.7 MAXIMUM IMPACT-FORCE RESULTS (1) Maximum Vertical Pedestal Force.(lb) = 149000.
-(2) Maximum X-Interface Shear Force (lb) = 60600.0 (3)-Maximum ~Y Interface Shear Force _(lb) - = 66400.0 (4) Maximum _ Rack to' Fuel Impact Force per -Cell (lb) = 3142.86 k
Table 6.5.145
SUMMARY
_RESULTS OF WPMR RACK-ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: 24
-.......... **.............. **.....r ........................................
Run I.D.: DF-VOG.SF8 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in) Location: x-direction y-direction Top cornert 0.1260E+01 0.1588E+01 Baseplate corner: 0.1939E+00 0.1804E+00-MAXIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL PEDESTALS (lb) Max Force (lb) Time (sec) 0.26423E+06 0.71951E+01 MAXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS FACTORS (max. allowable = 1.0) Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6- R7 l Support Pedestal: 0.096 0.051 0.087 0.091 0.182 0.177 0.049 Above Baseplate 0.069 0.024 0.103 0.108 0.198 0.206 0.020 O FORCES AT PEDESTAL / LINER INTERFACE WHEN TOTAL PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR R6-IS MAXIMUM Pedestal FX (lb) FY (lb) FZ(lb) 1- 51800.0 28400.0 73900.0 2 30300.0 55000.0 158000.0
=3 63900.0 27900.0 170000.0 4 6020.0 73000.0 91600.0 5 72006.7 -72512.3 85491.4 MAXIMUM--IMPACT FORCE RESULTS
-(1) Maximum Vertical Pedestal Force (lb) = 183000.
- (2) Maximum ~X Interface Shear Force-(lb) = 76300.0 (3) Maximum Y Interface Shear Force (lb) = 73000.0 (4) Maximum Rack to Fuel Impact Force per Cell (lb) = 3089.29
[
Table 6.5.146
SUMMARY
'RESULTS OF WPMR RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: 25 Run I.D.: DF-VOG.SFB MAXIMUM CORNER DISPIACEMENTS - (in) Location: -x-direction y-direction Top corner: 0.2885E+01 0.1186E+01-Baseplate corner: 0.3343E+00 0.1644E+00 MAXIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS'FROM ALL PEDESTALS (lb)- Max. Force (lb)' Time (sec) 0.17410E+06 0.55501E+01 MAXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS FACTORS U ax, allowable = 1.0) Stress-factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Support Pedestals 0.051 0.024 0.052, 0.043 0.089 0.091 0.029 Above Baseplate 0,071 0.024 0.082 0.079 0.165 0.172 0.016 s FORCES AT PEDESTAL / LINER INTERFACE WHEN TOTAL
-PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR R6'IS MAXIMUM Pedestal- FX (lb) FY(lb) FZ (ib) l' 24400.0 27100.0 59000,0-2 18100.0 32300.0 57800.0
-3 -14600.0 40000,0 65230.0 ~
4 19000.0 17000.0 81000,0 66452.3 49170.7 85144.7 MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE RESULTS-(1) Maximum Vertical Pedestal Force (lb) = 98000,0-(2)- Maximum-X Interf ace Shear Force (1b) = '36000.0
~~(3) Maximum Y Interf ace Shear Force '(lb) = 44000.0 (4) Maximum Rack to Fuel Impact Force per Cell (lb) .= 3472.22
p
- Table 6.5.147
)
()
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF WPMR RACK AliALYSIS FOR RACE MODULE: 26 Run I.D.: DF-VOG.SF8 MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in) Location x-direction y-direction Top corner: 0.2133E+01 0.8552E+00 Baseplate corner: 0.2262E+00 0.1677E.00 MAXIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL PEDESTALS (lb) Max. Force (1b) Time (cec) 0.14890E+06 0.79651E+01 l MAXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS FACTORS (max, allowable = 1.0) Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Support Pedestal: 0.061 0.028 0.051 0.050 0.104 0.098 0.029 , Above Baseplate 0.061 0.025 0.086 0.096 0.191 0.199 0.018 a FORCES AT PEDESTAL / LINER INTERFACE WHEN TOTAL PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR R6 IS MAXIMUM Pedestal FX(lb) FY(lb) FZ(lb) 1 22500.0 12100.0 74200.0 2 20600.0 17300.0 87800.0 3 19800.0 14000.0 111000.0 4 18100.0 24800.0 116000,0 5 80847.0 53466.6 98657.4 MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE RESULTS (1) Maximum Vertical Pedestal Force (lb) = 116000. (2) Maximum X Interface Shear Force (lb) = 42400.0 (3) Maximum Y Interface Shear Force (lb) = 42800.0 (4) Maximum Rack to Fuel Impact Force per Cell (lb) = 3527.78 r 7~%\
\_)
i
Table 6.5.148
\
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF WPMR RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: 1 Run I.D.: DF-V0G.SFR MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in) Location: x-direction y-direction Top corner: 0.1644E+01 0.7529E+00 Baseplate corner: 0.1790E+00 0.1277E+00
~
MAXIMUM TOTAL. VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL PEDESTALS (1b)
- Max Force - (lb) Time (sec) 0.29400E+06 0.74901E+01 MAXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS FACTORS (max. allowable = 1.0)
I Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 l -Support Pedestal: 0.101 0.043 0.087 0.076 0.204 0.199 -0.049 Above Baseplate 0.059 0.017 0.086 0.109 0.178 0,183 0.018-l PORCES AT PEDESTAL / LINER INTERFACE WHEN TOTAL PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR R6 IS MAXIMUM Pedestal FX (lb) FY(lb) FZ(lb) 1 25300.0 68000.0 136000.0 2 64300.0 23400.0 173000.0 3- 15100.0 59900.0-- 117000.0 4- 46100.0 -56200.0 193000.0 5 87284.4 32216.2 102276.7 MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE RESULTS
' (1) Maximum Vertical Pedestal Force (lb) = 193000.
(2) Maximum X Interface Shear Force (lb) = 64300.0 (3) Maximum Y. Interface Shear Force (lb) = 73500.0_. (4) Maximum Rack to Fuel Impact Force per Cell (lb) = 3111.11
' Table 6.5-149
SUMMARY
RESULTS. OF WPMR RACY ANALYSIS FOR- RACK MODULE: 2
......**.....e**e......*** ..***.=*.,....**********e............ **..... ......
Run I D.: DF-VOG.SFR
-ee**.++4e.. .........ee***.. ****.....******..............**..................
MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in) Location: x direction -y-direction Top corner: _ 0.1426E+01- -0.2006E+01 Baseplate corner -0.8615E-01 0.2227E+00 . MAXIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL. PEDESTALS (lb)- Max. Force (lb) Time (sec): 0.56300E+06 0.88002E+01 1 MAXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS FACTORS (max.-allowable = 4.0) Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Support Pedestal: 0.123 -0.051 0.078 0.195 0.091 0.199 0.044 Above Baseplate 0.113 0.025 0.087. 0.086 0.196 0.210 0.041 i FORCES AT PEDESTAL / LINER INTERFACE WHEN TOTAL
--PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR R6 IS MA:IMU'4 Pedestal' FX (lb) FY(lb) FZ(lb) l 1 66200.0 55500.0 136000.0 2 31600.0 47900.0 178000.0-3 50100.0 66000.0 -149000.0 4 25500.0 31500.0 190000.0 '
5 74447.7 73124.4. 85382.0 MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE RESULTS (1) Maximum Vertical Pedestal Force (lb) = 235000. (2)L Maximum X Interface Shear Force (lb) = 76200.0 (3) Maximum Y Interface Shear Force (lb) = = - 66000.0 (4) Maximum Rack to Fuel Impact Force per Cell (lb) = 2944.44
t i Table 6.5.150 f~%
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF WPMR RACK A"\i YSIS FOR RACK MODULE: 3 Run I.D.: DF-VOG.SFR MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in) Locations x-direction y-direction Top corner: 0.1456E+01 0.1466E+01 Baseplate corner 0.6451E+00 0.4822E+00 MAXIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL PEDESTALS (lb) Max. Force (lb) Time ( sec) 0.51790E+06 0.67051E+01 MAXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS FACTORS (max, allowable = 1. 0) Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Support Fedestal: 0.116 0.064 0.115 0.113 0.230 0.230 0.065 Above Baseplate 0.104 0.026 0.088 0.114 0.223 0.216 0.034 O, A FORCES AT PEDESTAL /LINLR INTERFACE WHEN TOTAL PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR R6 IS MAXIMUM Pedestal FX (lb) FY(1b) FZ(lb) 1 70000.0 67100.0 167000,0 2 60700.0 35300.0 141000.3 3 29300.0 20300.0 179000.0 4 2860P.0 97000.0 198000.0 5 75898.7 42410.0 187840.3 MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE RESULTS (1) Maximum Vertical Pedestal Force (lb) = 223000. (2) Maximum X Interface Shear Force (lb) = 95100.0 (3) Maximum Y Interface Shear Force (lb) = 97000.0 (4) Maximum Rack to Fuel Impact Force per Cell (lb) = 4000.00 O V
Table 6.5.151
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF WPMR RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MOD'JLE: 4 Run I.D.: DF VOG.SFR MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in) Locations. x-direction y-direction Top corner: 0.1528E+01- 0.1002E401 Baseplate corner: 0.2149E+00 0.8181E-01 MAXIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL PEDESTALS (lb) Max. Force '(lb) Time (sec) 0.21840E+06 0.70751E+01 MAXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS FACTORS (max, allowable = 1.0) Stress factor: R1 R2- R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 t ^ Support Pedestal: 0.081- 0.045 0.067 0.079 0.161 0.164 0.038 Above Baseplate 0.060 0.030 0.008 0,083 0.174 0.184 0.023 T FORCES AT PEDESTAL / LINER INTERFACE WHEN TOTAL PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR R6 ~ IS MAXIMUM
~
-Pedestal FX (lb) FY(lb)- FZ(lb) l' 52900.0 35800.0 114000.0 2 64700.0 -32100.0 121000.0
-3 22300.0--- 51000.0 134000.0
.4 37400.0 31000.0 -112000.0 5 68393.6 58392.7 81960.5 MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE RESULTS (1) . Maximum Vertical Fedestal Force (1b) = . 156000.
(2). Maximum X Interface Shear Force (lb) = 66900.0
-(3) Maximum Y Interface Shear Force (lb) = 56200.0 (4). Maximum Rack to Fuel Impact- Force per Cell (lb) = 2981.49
iL i r
-Table 6.5.152-
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF WPMR RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: 5 Run.I.D.:_DF-VOG.SFR MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in) Location x-direction y-direction
' Top corner: 0.1969E+01 0.7010E+00 Baseplate corner: 0.1070E+00 0.5855E-01 MAXIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL PEDESTALS (lb)
~ Max. Force (lb) Time (sec) 0.22540E+06 0.95802E+01 MAXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS FACTORS (max, allowable = 1.0) Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5- R6' R7 Support Pedestal: 0.079 0.035 0.051 0.062. 0.152 0.149 0.029 Above Baseplate 0.062 0.019 0.081 0.076 0.172 0.180 0.017
~O -FORCES AT PEDESTAL / LINER INTERFACE WHEN TOTAL PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR R6 IS MAXIMUM Pedestal FX (lb) FY(lb). FZ (lb) --
1 51800.0 31400.0 104000.0-2 24600.0 36200.0 93700.0 26800.0 .29500.0~ 136000.0 4 '50100.0 .27800.0 140000.0-
- 5. 59041.5 61861.5 89226.5 MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE RESULTS (1) Maximum Vertical Pedestal Force (1b) = 152000.
(2) Maximum X Interf ace Shear Force (lb) = 52400.0 (3)' Maximum Y Interface Shear Force (1b) . = 43200.0 (4) Maximum Rack to Fuel. Impact Force per Cell (lb) = 2759.26
)
.a4 e d X &
- i Table 6.5.153
SUMMARY
~RESULTS OF WPMR RACK. ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: 6 s
.***...e***........*****.******...........**++..****.e*********...........
Run I.D.: DF-VOG.SFR
....... ******. ***............e....**....*.... ***.... **** . *****..***e..**
l
~
MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in) i' Location: x-direction y-direction f
. i Top _ corner: 0.1909E+01 0.1632E+01 l Baseplate corner: 0.2114E+00 0.1678E+00 MAXIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL PEDESTALS (15)
Max. Force (lb) Time (sec)
- 0.31260E+06 0.95852E+01
- MAXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS FACTORS (max, allowable =-1.0)
Stress. factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 i i Support Pedestal:' O.091 -0.044 0.082 0.077 0.173 0.167 0.046 ' } Above Baseplate 0.072 0.021- 0.080 0.107 0.183 0.189 0.022
-- (
FORCES AT PEDESTAL / LINER INTERFACE WHEN TOTAL j PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR 36 IS MAXIMUM-
~
Pedestal FX (lb) FY(lb) FZ(lb) 1 -1 62000.0 '35300.0 -127000.0
-2 65100.0 19000.0 168000.0
, -3 50800.0 12500.0- 109000.0
-4 -49900.0 24800.0 110000.0 i: 5 90228.6 33553.0 104551.9 i
4 MAXIMUM-IMPACT FORCE RESULTS ' j (1)' Maximum Vertical Pedestal: Force (lb) = 174000. l. 1 (2) Maximum X Interface Shear Force (lb) = 65100.0 (3) Maximum Y InterfaceTShear Force (lb)' = 69300.0
.(4) Maximum R'ack to Fuel Impact Force per Cell (1b) = 3412.70
Table 6.5.154 V
SUMMARY
_ RESULTS OF WPMR RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: 7 Run I.D.: DF-VOG.SFR MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in) Locations: x-direction y-direction-1 Top corner: 0.1751E+01 0.2092E+01 Baseplate corner 0.2076E+00 0.2367E+00 MAXIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL PEDESTALS (lb) Max. Force (lb) Time (sec) 0.22110E+06 0.70451E+01 MAXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS . FACTORS (max, allowable = 1.0) Stress factor: R1 R2~ R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Support Pedestal: 0.081 0.034 0.062 0.060 0.144 0.138 0.035 Above Baseplate 0.068 0.028 0.092 0.097 0.198 0.206 0.027 O FORCES AT PEDESTAL / LINER INTERFACE WHEN TOTAL. PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR R6 IS MAXIMUM Pedestal FX (lb) - FY(lb) FZ(ib)
.1_ -22800.0 -43400.0 148000.0 2 28300.0 32800.0 -106000.0 3 39300.0 13500.0 -152000,0 4 39000.0 16700.0 89000.0 5 -78901.1 59872.6 101816.0 MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE RESULTS.
-(1)JMaximum Vertical Pedestal Force (lb) = 156000.
-(2)' Maximum X-Interface Shear Force (lb) ' = 50300.0 (3) Maximum Y_ Interface Shear Force _(lb) = 52500.0-(4) Maximum Rack to Fuel Impact Force per Cell (lb) = 3270.83
\
1 I l Table 6.5.155
SUMMARY
T.ESULTS OF WPMR RACK ANALYSIS FOR -RACK MODULE: 8 Run I.D.: DF-VOG.SFR MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in) I,ocation: x-direction y-direction Top corner 0.2216E+01- 0.1169E+01 Baseplate corner: 0.2746E+00 0.1196E+00 MAXIMUM iQiAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL PEDESTALS (lb) Max. Force (lb) Time (sec) 0.31860E+06 0.09152E+01 MAXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS FACTORS-(max allowable = 1.0) Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Support Pedestals- 0.120 0.056 0.096 0.099 0.221' O.218 0.054
-Above Baseplate 0.064 0.024 0.096 0.084 0.198- 0.210 0.026 FORCES AT PEDESTAL / LINER INTERFACE WHEN TOTAL PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR R6 IS MAXIMUM Pedestal FX (1b) FY (lb) -FZ(lb) l' 62200.0 15800.0 141000,0 2 34800.0 80700.0 200000.0 3 -27300.0 73800.0 156000.0 4- 47100.0 36100.0 169000.0 5 65795.2 79934.8 92030.9 MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE RESULTS (1) Maximum Vertical Pedestal Force (lb)
= 230000.
(2) Maximum X Interf ace Shear Force (1b) = 83300.0 (3)' Maximum Y Interf ace Shear Force (lb);= 80900.0
-(4) Maximum Rack to Fuel Impact Force per Cell (lb) = 3902.78 s'
Table 6.5.156. s
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF WPMR RACF. ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE:- 9 Run I.D.: DF-VOG.SPR MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in)
- Location x-direction y. direction Top corner: 0.189BE+01 0.1845E+01 Baseplate corner 0.3795E+00 0.2585E+00 MAXIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL PEDESTALS (lb)
Max. Force (1b) Time (sec) 0.400BOE+06 0.90352E+01 MAXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS FACTORS (max, allowable = 1.0) Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7
- - Support Pedestal: 0.101 0.050 0.098 0.088- 0.207 0.204 0.055
.Above Baseplate 0.080 0.022 0.099 0.080 0.167 0.175 0.027 FORCES AT PEDESTAL / LINER INTERFACE WHEN TOTAL PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR R6 IS MAXIMUM Pedestal FX(lb) FY(lb) FZ (lb) 1 .67600,0 42500.0 149000.0 2 8920.0 63400.0 152000.0 3 '35800.0 74000.0- -184000.0 4 51800.0 23200.0 172000.0-5 41578.8 75601.3 88651.9 MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE RESULTS (1) Maximum Vertical Pedestal Force (1b) . = 193000.
(2) Maximum X' Interface Shear Force (lb) = 74000.0 (3) Maximum.Y Interface Shear Force (lb) = 82100.0
' (4) Maximum Rack to Fuel Impact Force per Cell (lb) = ~3402.78 k
Table 6.5.157 O
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF' WPMR. PACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: 10-Run I.D.:-DF-VOG.SFR
' MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEME!rts (in)
Location: 'x-direction y direction Top corner: 0.1138E+01 0.1814E+01
. Baseplate corner: 0.9711E-01 0.6272E-01 MAXIMUM. TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL PEDESTALS (lb)
Max. Force (lb) Time (sec) 0.31370E+06 0.62851E+01 MAXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS FACTORS (max, allowable = 1. 0) Strees factor: R1 R2 R3 -R4 R5 R6 -R7 Support Pedestal: 0.121 0.048 0.099 0.085 0.227 0.223 0.056 Above Baseplate' O.063 0.023 0.086 0.095 0.190 0.203 0.022 FORCES AT PEDESTAL / LINER INTERFACE WHEN TOTAL PEDESTAL-STRESS FACTOR R6 IS MAXIMUM Pedestal FX(lb) FY(lb): FZ(lb) 1 44200.0 83300.0 179000.0' 2 43600.0 57400.0 153000.0 3 55600.0- 38500.0 151000.0
.4 30000,0 67400.0 -148000.0
-5 70176.4. 72031.8- 84292.0 MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE RESULTS (1) Maximum' Vertical Pedestal Force (lb) = 232000.
(2) Maximum X Interface Shear Force (lb). = 71200.0 (3) Maximum Y Interface Shear Force (lb) = 83300.0 (4) Maximum-Rack to Fuel Impact Force per Cell (ib) = -3277.78
Table 6.5.158
SUMMARY
'RESULTS OF WPMR-RACK ANALYSIS FOR PACK MODULE: 11 Run I.D.: DF VO3.SFR_
' MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in)
Location x-direction y-direction Top corner: 0.1456E+01 0.8169E+00 Baseplate corner 0.1888E+00 0.1050E+00-MAXIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL PEDESTALS (lb) Max. Force (1b) Time (sec) 0.20880E+06 0.69401E+01 MAXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS FACTORS (max, allowable = 1.0) Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Support Pedestal: 0.085 0.053 0.078 0.094 0.135 -0.136 0.044 Above Baseplate 0.057 0.019 0.081 0.087 0.176 0.186 0.017 O FORCES AT PEDESTAL / LINER INTERFACE WHEN TOTAL PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR R6 IS MAXIMUM Pedestal FX (lb) FY(lb) FZ(lb) 1 78900.0 2080.0 100000.0 2 45800.0 18300.0 102000.0 3 ~34100.0- 26300.0 141000.0-4 36100.0 48000.0- 86000.0 5 62077.5 68068.5 78472.8
' MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE RESULTS (1) Maximum Vertical Pedestal Force (lb) = 162000. I (2) Maximum X Interface Shear Force tib) = 78900.0 -(3) Maximum Y Interface Shear Force (lb) = 65900.0 !
(4) Maximum Rack to Fuel Impact Force per Cell (lb) = 3425.93
Table 6.5.159 i
SUMMARY
RESULTS-OF WPMR-RACY. ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: 12 Run I.D.: DF-VOO.SFR MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in) Locations- x-direction y-direction Top corner 0.1766E+01 0.1738E+01 Baseplate corner 0.1956E+00 0.8312E-01 MAXIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL PEDESTALS (lb) Max. Force-(1b) Time (sec) 0.32850E+06 0.91452E+01 ! MAXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS FACTORS - (max. allowable = 1.0) Stress factor: R1 R2- R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Support Pedestals. 0.090 0.040 0.056 0.071 0.145 0.143 0.032 Above Baseplate 0.090 0.038 0.096 0.088 0.214 0.220 0.022 FORCES AT PEDESTAL / LINER INTERFACE WHEN TOTAL PEDESTAL STRESS-FACTOR R6 IS MAXIMUM Pedestal FX (lb) FY(lb) FZ(lb)
-1 33700.0 31400,0- 134000.0-2- 50100.0- 19600.0 116000.0 49700.0- 27000.0 3 130000,0 4 '27800.0 26900.0- 104000.0' 5 70683.3 72972.6 123037.7 MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE RESULTS.
(1) Maximum Vertical ~ Pedestal Force (lb) = 173000. (2) Maximum X Interface Shear Force (lb) = 60100.0
-(3) Maximum Y Interface Shear Force . (lb)
= 47300.0 (4) Maximum Rack to Fuel Impact Force per Cell (lb) = 2870.37-O
, Table 6.5.160
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF WPMR RACF. ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: 13 Run I.D.: DF-VOG.SFR MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in) Locations' x-direction y direction Top corners.^ 0.1762E+01 0.1625E+01 Baseplate corners' O.1451E+00- 0.7529E-01
' MAXIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL PEDESTALS (lb)
Max. Force-(lb) Time (cec) 0.34790E+0G' 0,B9102E+01-MAXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS' FACTORS (max, allowable = 1.0) Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Support Pedestal: 0.093 0.053 0.070 0.094 0.173 0.371 0.040 Above Baseplate 0.080 10.030 0.104 0.094 0.170 0.181 0.038 1 FORCES AT PEDESTAL / LINER INTERFACE WHEN TOTAL PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR R6 IS MAXIMUM Pedestal FX(1b) FY(1b) ' FZ (lb) ~ 1 55100.0 37100.0 152000.0
'2 49200.0- 21800.0 114000.0 3 79000,0 .10400.0 .149000.0-4 28800.0 59100.0 141000.0 5 62732.1 64668.1- 73908.8 MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE RESULTS (1) Maximum Vertical Pedestal Force . (lb) = 179000.
(2) Maximum X Interface. Shear Force (lb) ' = 79000.0
-(3) Max'imum Y Interface / Shear Force (lb) =. .59100.0 (4)~ Maximum Rack to Fuel Impact Force per Cell (lb) = 3111.11
.ii Table 6.5.161
_ SUMMA?.Y RESULTS OF WPMR-RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: 14
.............................****........****........e*****e.......**ee..
Run I.D.: DF-VOG.SFR e....................... ***e***............***.......................******
- MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in)
Locations _ x-direction y-direction Top corner: 0.2713E+01 0.1993E+01 Baseplate corner 0.7064E+00 0.4427E+00 MAXIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL PEDESTALS (lb) Max. Force (lb) Time (sec) 0.31610E+06 0.75101E+01 MAXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS FACTORS (max, allowable = 1.0) Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Support Pedestal: 0.100- 0.~ 04 3 0.076-l_ 0.115 0.197 0.195 0.065-Above Baseplate
-0.086 0.029 0.110 0.101 0.210 0.219 0.031 O FORCES-AT PEDESTAL / LINER INTERFACE WHEN TOTAL PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR R6 IS MAXIMUM Pedestal FX (lb) FY(lb) FZ(lb) 1 26200.0 44500.0- 116000.0 2 32800.0 12500.0 124000.0 3 31900.0 40400.0 119000.0 4 8560.0 96500.0 174000.0 5 57917.9 90829.2 105453.9 MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE RESULTS
~(1) Maximum-Vertical Pedestal. Force (lb)
= 191000.
(2)' Maximum X-Interface Shear Force (lb) = 64000.0
- (3) Maximum Y Interface Shear Forca (1b)'= 96500.0 'I (4) Maximum Rack to Fuel Impact Force -per Cell (lb) =- 3370.37 1
- _ _ _ _ - _ - - _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ Table 6.5.160 SUKMARY RESULTS OF WPMR FJ.CK AllALYSIS FOR FJCK MODULE: 15 Run I.D.: DF VOG.SFR KAXIMUM COPJJER DISPLACEME!iTS (in) Locations x direction y-o;rection Top corner: 0.1695E+01 0.1599E+01 Baseplate corner: 0.2049E+00 0.2531E+00 MAXIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL FEDESTALS (1b) Max. Force (1b) Time (cec) 0.24960E+06 0.89200E.01 l MAXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS FACTORS (max. allowable = 1.0) Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R$ R6 R7 Support Pedestal: 0.098 0.039 0.082 0.069 0.172 0.167 0.046 Above Baseplate 0.065 0.018 0.113 0.090 0.197 0.210 0.031 FORCES AT PEDESTAL / LINER INTERFACE WHEN TOTAL PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR R6 TS MAXIMUM Pedestal FX (1b) FY(lb) F"(1b) 1 38800.0 43700.0 148000.0 2 39400.0 28300.0 114000.0 3 46200.0 44700.0 146000.0 4 18600.0 58600.0 174000,0 5 76027.2 71214.3 87360.0 MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE RESULTS (1) Maximum Vertical Pedestal Force (1b) = 187000. (2) Maximum X Interface Shear Force (1b) = 50100.0 (3) Maximum Y Interface Shear Force (Ib) = 63100.0 (4) Maximum Rack to Fuel In. pact Force per Cell (lb) = 3250.00
l
,/' '\,
Table f.5.163
) SUM?%RY RESULTS OF WPMR RACP, JJ:ALYSIS FOR RACl* MODULE: 16 Run I.D.: DF-VOG.SFR 1
MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in) Location x direction 1-direction Top corner: 0.3563E+01 0.1285E.01 Baseplate corner: 0.1756E.00 0.1092E+00
!%XIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL PEDES'1 ALS (ib)
Max. Force (lb) Time (sec) 0.36360E+06 0.59351E+01 IRXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS FACTORS (max, allowable = 1.0) Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Support Pedestal 0.085 0.033 0.088 0.050 0.188 0.180 0.050 Above Baseplate 0.094 0.031 0.096 0.098 0.172 0.100 0.023 A FORCES AT PEDESTAL / LINER INTERFACE Wi!EN TOTAL PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR R6 IS MAXIMUM Pedestal FX(lb) FY(lb) FZ(lb) 1 23300.0 35100.0 129000.0 2 28500.0 56100.0 112000.0 3 49100.0 10000.0 120000.0 4 31300.0 73200,0 158000.0 5 64129.7 62012.4 73812.2 MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE RESULTS (1) Maximum Vertical Pedestal Force (1b) = 162000, (2) Maximum X Interface Shear Force (lb) = 49100.0 (3) Maximum Y Interface Shear Force (lb) = 74500.0 (4) Maximum Rack to Fuel Impact Force per Cell (lb) = 3178.57 p L] 1 l l
Table 6.5.164
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF WPMR RACit ANALYSIS FOR RACY. MODULE: 17 eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.............................ee....e**ee................... Run I.D.: DF VOG.SFR 1 e***ee........................................................................ , MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in) i Locations x direction y direction l Top corner 0.1648E+01 0.1272E+01 Baseplate corners 0.1901E+00 0.2044E+00 MAXIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL PEDESTALS (lb) Max. Force (lb) Time (sec) 0.21880E+06 0.78301E+01 MAXYMUM VALUES OF STRESS FACTORS (max, allowable = 1.0) ( Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R$ R6 R7 Support Pedestal: 0.103 0.040 0.073 0.070 0.184 0.180 0.041 Above Baseplate 0.057 0.025 0.098 0.091 0.211 0.224 0.023 O FORCES AT PEDESTAL / LINER INTERFACE WHEN TOTAL
. PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR R6 IS MAXIMUM Pedestal FX(Ib) FY(lb) FZ(lb) 1 46400,0 41800.0 151000.0 2 39800.0 35000.0 110000.0 3 31800.0 56700.0 171000.0 4 32500.0 61100.0 172000.0 5 76884.3 79913.5 94862.7 MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE RESULTS (1) Maximum Vertical Pedestal Force (lb) = 197000.
(2) Maximum X Interface Shear Force (lb) = 59000.0 (3) Maximum Y Interface Shear Force (lb) = 61100.0 (4) Maximum Rack to Fuel Impact Force per Cell (lb) = 3250.00 O. V
Table 6.5.165 SUlttARY RESULTS OF WFMR RACF. A!!ALYSIS FOk RACK MODULE: 18 Run I.D.: DF VOG.SFR MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMEllTS (in) Locations x direction y direction Top corner: 0.1822E+01 0.1574E+01 Baseplate corner: 0.3602E+00 0.6878E+00 MAXIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL PEDESTALS (Ib) l Max. Force (lb) Time (sec) 0.24320E+06 0.61551E+01 MAXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS FACTORS (max. allowable = 1.0) Stress factor R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 ; Support Pedestal: 0.075 0.027 0.041 0.048 0.132 0.131 0.023 Above Daseplate 0.075 0.020 0.081 0.003 0.177 0.188 0.018 FORCES AT PEDESTAL /LI!!ER INTERFACE WHE!1 TOTAL PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR R6 IS MAXIMUM Pedestal FX (1b) FY(lb) FZ(lb) 1 40100.0 30500.0 116000.0 2 23000.0 14700.0 117000,0 3 12300.0 31400.0 132000.0 4 35000.0 6810.0 100000.0 5 63526.4 68321.9 77942.6 MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE RESULTS (1) Maximum Vertical Pedestal Force (lb) = 143000. (2) Maximum X Interface Shear Force (lb) = 40100.0 (3) Maximum Y Interface Shear Force (1b) = 34600.0 (4) Maximum Rack to Fuel Impact Force per Cell (1b) = 3125.00 C t
Table 6.5.166
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF WFMR RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: 19 e.e...................eeeeeeeeee ............................................. Run I.D.: DF VOG.SFR eeeeeeeeeeeeeeee**********eeeeee. ........... ................................ MAXIMUM CORNER L'SPLACEMENTS (in) Location x direction y-direction Top corner: 0.1813E+01 0.2512E 01 Baseplate corner: 0.5388E+00 0.7342E 00 MAXIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL PEDESTALS (lb) Max. Force (lb) Time (sec) 0.20960E 06 0.62501E+01 MAXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS FACTORS (max. allowable = 1.0) Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Support Pedestal: 0.071 0.036 0.050 0.064 0.I32 0.128 0.028 Above Baseplate 0.064 0.023 0.076 0.090 0.176 0.183 0.028 O FORCES AT PEDESTAL / LINER INTERFACE WHEN TOTAL PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR R6 IS MAXIFM4 Pedestal FX (1b) FY (lb) FZ(lb) 1 15700.0 22400.0 115000.0 2 29500.0 32400,0 116000.0 3 30800.0 42300.0 102000.0 4 21700.0 31400.0 116000.0 5 76128.1 46336.3 92768.1 MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE RESULTS (1) Maximum Vertical Pedestal Force (lb) = 136000. (2) Maximum X Interface Shear Force (lb) = 53700.0 (3) Maximum Y Interface Shear Force (1b) = 42300.0 (4) Maximum Rack to Fuel Impact Force per Cell (lb) = 3208.33 O i
Table 6.5.167 s
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF WPMR RACF ANALYSIS FOR RACY MODULE: 20 Run I.D. DF V03.SFR
..................es..........................................................
MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in) Location x-direction y direction Top corner: 0.1610E+01 0.1766E+01 Baseplate corner: 0.2370E+00 0.1901E+00 MAXIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL FEDESTALS (lb) Max. Force (1b) Time (sec) 0.20500E+06 0.64901E+01 MAXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS FACTOPS (max, allowable = 1.0) Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Support Pedestal: 0.081 0.032 0.052 0.057 0.147 0.145 0.029 Above Baseplate 0.063 0.028 0.094 0.096 0.190 0.201 0.016 O V FORCES AT PEDESTAL / LINER INTERFACE WHEN TOTAL PEDESTAL STRESS FACTCR R6 IS MAXIMUM Pedestal FX (lb) FY(lb) FZ(1b) 1 20600.0 36400.0 102000.0 2 47200.0 31900.0 128000.0 3 36900.0 23500.0 123000.0 4 17100,0 43900.0 153000.0 5 69620.7 71266.6 84403.3 MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE RESULTS (1) Maximum Vertical Pedestal Force (Ib) = 155000. (2) Maximum X Interface Shear Force (lb) = 48400.0 (3) Maximum Y Interface Shear Force (Ib) = 43900.0 (4) Maximum Rack to Fuel Impact Force per Cell tib) = 2033.33
l Table 6.5.168 SUM!%RY RESULTS OF WPMR RACl; AliALYSIS FOR RACl; MODULE: 21 Run I.D.: DF VO3.SFR
*ee.e...................e***eeeee* ....ee..ee........ **eeeeeeee** ...........
MAXIMUM COR!iER DISPLACEMEliTS (in) Locations x direction y. direction Tep corners. 0.1567E+01 0.1906E+01 Baseplate corner: 0.2088E+00 0.2455E+00 MAXIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL PEDESTALS (1b) Max. Force (1b) Time (sec) 0.23010E+06 0.75701E+01 ! MAXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS FACTORS (max, allowable = 1.0) Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Support Pedestal: 0.079 0.036 0.065 0.064 0.143 0.144 0.037 Above Baseplate 0.071 0.020 0.112 0.092 0.186 0.197 0.020 . FORCES AT PEDESTAL /LIllER INTERFACE WHE!! TOTAL PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR R6 IS MAXIMUM Pedestal FX(lb) FY(1b) FZ(lb) . 1 21800.0 32700.0 133000.0 2 35900.0 46700.0 115000.0 3 47100.0 10900.0 130000.0 4 17700.0 47500.0 108000.0 5 68093.2 69809.3 82848.1 MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE RESULTS (1) Maximum Vertical Pedestal Force (lb)_= 152000. (2) Maximum X Interface Shear Force (1b) = 54000.0 (3) Maximum Y Interface Shear Force (Ib) = 55000.0 (4) Maximum Rack to Fuel Impact Force per Cell (1b) = 3958.33
Table 6.5.169
SUMMARY
RESULTS CF WFMR PJsCK IJ1ALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: 22
.................................................. ***e...** ............e**e.
Run I.D. DF VOG.SFR
.....................ee......**** ............................** ............
MAXIMUM CORNER DISP 1J$CE!!ENTS (in) bocations x direction y. direction Top corner 0.1099E*01 0.1278E401 Baseplate corner: 0.1014E+00 0.1720E+00 MAXIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL PEDESTALS (Ib) Max. Force (lb) Time (sec) l 0.28380E+06 0.07752E+01 MAXIMUM VALUES OF STREd5 FACTORS (max, allowable = 1.0) Stress factor R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Support Pedestal: 0.094 0.024 0,060 0.042 0.140 0.138 0.034 Above Baseplate 0.074 0.021 0.104 0.001 0.197 0.207 0.019 O (b FORCES AT PEDESTAL / LINER INTERFACE WHEN TOTAL PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR R6 IS MAXIMUM Pedestal . FX (lb) FY(lb) FZ(lb) 1 22900.0 33700.0 149000.0 2 33600.0 31400.0 134000.0 3 30300.0 45000.0 98300.0 4 33200.0 24000.0 172000.0 5 56844,0 82835.4 101094.7 MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE RESULTS (1) Maximum Vertical Pedestal Force (lb) = 100000. (2) Maximum X_ Interface Shear Force (lb) = 35300.0 (3) Maximum Y Interface Shear Force (lb) = 50900.0 (4) Maximum Rack to Fuel Impact Force per Cell (lb) = 4000.00 r (
Table 6.5.170
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF WPMR RACK AllALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: 23 Run I.D.: DF VO3.SFR MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEME!1TS (in) Locations x direction y+ direction l Top corner 0.1234E+01 0.1517E+01 Baseplate corner: 0.5889E 01 0.1006E+00 MAXIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL PEDESTALS (1b) Max. Force (1b) Time (sec) 0.25280E.06 0.62751E+01 MAXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS FACTORS (max, allowable = 1.0) Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Support Pedestal: 0.077 0.039 0.080 0.069 0.148 0.144 0.045 Above Baseplate 0.066 0.026 0.086 0.074 0.162 0.168 0.028 O FORCES AT PEDESTAL / LINER IIITERFACE WHEli TOTAL PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR R6 IS MAXIMUM Pedestal FX (1b) FY (1b) FZ(lb) 1 35700.0 31300.0 123000.0 2 36000.0 25500.0 146000.0 3 6690.0 67500.0 139000.0 4 29000.0 44200.0 104000,0 5 38640.1 72406.4 88761.5 MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE RESULTS (1) Maximum Vertical Pedestal Force (1b) = 147000. (2) Maximum X Interface Shear Force (lb) = 57900.0 (3) Maximum Y Interface Shear Force (15) = 67500.0 (4) Maximum Rack to Fuel Impact Force per Cell (lb) = 2607.14 O
I Table 6.5.171 0
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF WPMR. RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: 24
-1
....................................,......................................... i' Run I.D.: DF V0G.SFR l
.............................................................................. i a
MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in)
- Locationt x direction yidirection Top corner 0.1390E+01 0.1193E+01 Baseplate corner: 0.2480E+00 0.4013E+00 ;
MAXIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL PEDESTALS (lb) ' Max. Force (lb) Time (sec) + 0.23270E+06 0.71801E+01 MAXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS FACTORS (max allowable = 1.0) Stress factor R1 .R2 R3 R4 R$ R6 R7
' Support-Pedestal: 0.103 0.042 0.071 0.074 0.213 0.209 0.040 Above Baseplate- 0.060 0.023 0.102 0.094 0.208 0.218 . 0.019 FORCES AT PEDESTAL / LINER INTERFACE WHEN TOTAL PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR R6 IS MAXIMUM Pedestal FX(lb) FY(1b) FZ(1b)- -I 1 56000.0 26400.0 135000.0 !
2 24300.0 52400.0 153000.0 3 55700.0 53400.0 197000.0 4 21800.0 57600.0 144000.0 . 5 63171.8 84801.3 105953.2 # i MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE RESULTS ' (1) Maximum Vertical Pedestal Force (1b) = 197000. (2)' Maximum X Interf ace Shear Force (lb) = 62700.0 - (3) Maximum Y Interf ace Shear Force (lb) = 59500.0 (4) Maximum Rack to Fuel Impact Force per Cell (1b) = ~ 3607.14-O i __.y,-- ,-%, y %,.Uh ,,,,--%y,,, ,,p, .#.., , , , - , , , - , - , , . - , , ,pg ,y ymn ,,, , ,,y,,7, .p.p.-,ry,. 7 ,yw.,,. 3., ._
,y - mg,
Table 6.5.172
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF WPMR RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: 25 Run I.D.: DF VOG.SFR I MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in) Locations x direction y direction Top corner: 0.2681E+01 0.5193E+01 I Baseplate corner 0.4769E+00 0.4007E+00 MAXIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL PEDESTALS (lb) Max. Force (lb) -Time (sec) 0.17120E+06 0.55501E.01 MAXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS FACTORS (max, allowable = 1.0) Stress factor: R1- R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 _ Support Pedestal: 0.051 0.031 0.041 0.055 0.097 Above Baseplate 0.095 0.023 0.070 0.018 0.082 0.080 0.161 0.168 0.017 O FORCES AT PEDESTAL / LINER INTERFACE WHEN TOTAL PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR R6 IS MAXIMUM Pedestal FX (lb) FY(1b) _ FZ (Ib) 1 21300.0' 15800.0 68000.0 2 12800.0 28000.0 58700.0 3- 21500.0 25300.0 75100.0
-4 45900.0 3810.0 88700.0 5 44312.6 -69262.5 81657.5 MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE RESULTS (1) Maximum Vertical Pedestal Force (lb) = 97400.0 (2)-Maximum X Interface-Shear Force:(lb) = 45900.0 (3) Maximum Y Interface Shear Force (lb) = 34600.0 (4) Maximum Rack to Fuel Impact Force per Cell (lb) = 3416.67-O
Table 6.5.173
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF WFMR RACE ANALYSIS FOR RACF. MODULE: 26 Run I.D.: DF-VOG.SFR-MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in) Locations x direction y direction Top corner 0.4384E+01 0.1840E+01 Baseplate corner 0.4424E+00 0.3300E+00 MAXIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL PEDESTALS (Ib) Max. Force (1b) Time (sec) 0.16820E+06 0.11055E+02 MAXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS FACTORS (max. allowable = 1.0) Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Support Pedestal: 0.055 0.028 0.030 0.049 0.095 0.093 0.022 Above Baseplate 0.069 0.022 0.101 0.082 0.177 0.181 0.018 A U 5'ORCEg AT PEDESTAL / LINER INTERFACE WHEN TOTAL PEDESTAL STRESS F. ACTOR PG IS MAXIMUM Pedestal FX (lb) FY(lb) FZ(1b) 1 41100.0 6130.0 74600.0 2 29100.0 19900.0 87200.0 3 19900.0 18800.0 105000.0 4 23400.0 7640.0 97500.0 5 32090.5 84683.5 104469.3 MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE RESULTS (1) Maximum Vertical Pedestal Force (lb) = 106000. (2) Maximum X Interface Shear Force (lb) = 41100.0 (3) Maximum Y Interface Shear Force (Ib) = 32100.0 (4) Maximum Rack to Fuel Impact Force per Cell (1b) = 3527.78 4 v
Table 6.5.174
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF WFMR RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: 1 Run I.D. DF-VO3.OTR
.....................................e........................................
MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in) Location x direction y direction Top corner: 0.8507E+00 0.8894E+00 Baseplate corner: 0.5711E*01 0.5197E-01 MAXIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL FEDESTALS (lb) Max. Force (lb) Time (sec) 0.22937E+06 0.75951E.01 MAXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS FACTORS (max. allowable = 1.0) Stress factor: R2 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Support Pedestal: 0.170 0.094 0.137 0.185 0.330 0.337 0.070 Above Baseplate 0.092 0.027 0.167 0.162 0.274 0.293 0.025 O FORCES AT PEDESTAL / LINER INTERFACE WHEN TOTAL PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR R6 IS MAXIMUM , Pedestal FX (lb) FY(lb) FZ(lb) 1 40300.0 49900.0 118000.0 2 13500.0 57600.0 145000.0 3 50000.0 45600.0 128000.0 4 78000.0 22300.0 120000.0 5 51251.0 51968.8 59222.4 MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE RESULTS (1) Maximum Vertical Pedestal Force (lb) = 163000. (2) Maximum X Interface Shear Force (lb) = 78000.0 (3) Maximum Y Interface Shear Force (lb) = 57800.0 (4) Maximum Rack to Fuel Impact Force per Cell (lb) = 2486.11 O
l i x Table 6.5.175
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF WPMR RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACF, MODULE: 2 Run I.D.: DF VOG.0FR MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in)
)
Locations x. direction y-direction 1 Top corner: 0.6434E+00 0.1799E+01 Baseplate corner: 0.6150E 01 0.8486E-01 MAXIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL PEDESTALS (1b) Max. Force (1b) Time (sec)
- 0.25670E+06 0.18851E+01
- MAXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS FACTORS (max, allowable = 1.0)
Stress factor R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 4 Support Pedestal: 0,170 0.054 0.134 0.106 0.301 0.297 0.068 i Above Baseplate 0.103 0.027 0.145 0.133 0.295 0.312 0.025 O
; FORCES AT PEDESTAL / LINER INTERFACE WHEN TOTAL PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR R6 IS MAXIMUM Pedestal FX(1b) FY(Ib) FZ(1b) 1 23900.0 56200.0 133000.0 2 23500.0 32600.0 125000.0 3 21700.0 43500.0 147000.0 4 39300.0 19900.0 106000.0 ; 5 46801.3 60876.9 70158.6 MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE RESULTS (1) Maximum Vertical Fedestal Force (1b) = 170000.
(2) Maximum X Interface Shear Force (1b) = 44600.0 (3) Maximum Y Interface Shear Force (1b) = 56200.0 (4) Maximum Rack to Fuel Impact Force per cell (1b) = 2319.44 4
Table 6.5.176
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF WPMR RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: 3 Run I.D. DF-VOG.0FR MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in) Locations x direction y direction Top corner: 0.1124E+01 0.2067E+01 Baseplate corner: 0.4606E+00 0.6487E.00 MAXIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL PEDESTALS (lb) Max. Force (1b) Time (sec) 0.26300E+06 0.12785E+02 MAXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS FACTORS (max. allowable = 1.0) Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Support Pedestals a..,4 0.069 0.147 0.136 0.313 0.307 0.075 Above Baseplate 0.105 0.028 0.154 0.144 0.260 0.270 0.026 O FORCES AT PEDESTAL / LINER INTERFACE WHEN TOTAL PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR R6 IS MAXIMUM Pedestal FX (lb) FY(lb) FZ(lb) 1 30100.0 50900.0 143000.0 2 35300.0 45500.0 116000.0 3 21300.0 19400.0 145000.0 4 50200.0 31000.0 115000.0 5 59410.5 30041.6 71720.9 MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE RESULTS (1) Maximum Vertical Pedestal Force (lb) = 147000. (2) Maximum X Interface Shear Force (lb) = 57200.0 (3) Maximum Y Interface Shear Force (1b) = 61800.0 (4) Maximum Rack to Fuel Impact Force per Cell (lb) = 2444.44 O V
Table 6.5.177
)
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF WFMR PliCF. ANALYSIS FOR RACF MODULE: 4
................se............................................................
Run I.D.: DF VOG.0FR e...............e****** ...................ee.ee ...e**ee.**eeeeeeeeee......,* l MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in) Locations X* direction y direction Top corner 0.1743E+01 0.1115E+01 Baseplate corner: 0.1310E+00 0.6596E 01 MAXIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL PEDESTALS (1b) Max Force (1b) Time (sec) 0.17960E+06 0.65301E+01 MAXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS FACTORS (max. allowable = 1.0) Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Support Pedestal: 0.126 0.064 0.143 0.126 0.266 0.261 0.072 Above Da.seplate 0.098 0.041 0.143 0.151 0.268 0.284 0.035 O G FORCES AT FEDESTAL/ LINER INTERFACE WHEN TOTAL PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR R6 IS MAXIMUM Pedestal FX (lb) FY(lb) FZ(lb) 1 9130.0 60000.0 109000.0 2 26300.0 30400.0 68300.0 3 40000.0 29400.0 120000.0 4 14800.0 34700.0 95900.0 5 48265.4 51595.3 58612.4 MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE RESULTS (1) Maximum Vertical Pedestal Force (Ib) = 121000. (2) Maximum X Interface Shear Force (lb) = 53100.0 (3) Maximum Y Interface Shear Force (lb) = 60000.0 (4) Maximum Rack to Fuel Impact Force per Cell (1b) = 2481,48
N Table 6.5.178
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF WPMR RACF ANALYSIS FOR PJsCF. MODULE: 5
...+..........................................................................
Run I.D.: DF-VOG.0FR MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in) Location: x direction y-direction Top corner: 0.2105E+01 0.77f7E+00 Baseplate corner: 0.1206E+00 0.8296E-01 MAXIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL PEDESTALS (1b) Max Force (1b) Time (sec) l 0.17840E+06 0.65401E+01 MAXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS FACTORS (max. allowable = 1.0) Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 RG R7 Support Pedestal: 0.142 0.061 0.007 0.120 0.239 0.235 0.044 Above Baseplate 0.097 0.028 0.139 0.127 0.296 0.314 0.034 i O FORCES AT PEDESTAL / LINER INTERFACE WHEN TOTAL PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR R6 IS MAXIMUM Pedestal FX (lb) FY (lb) FZ (lb) 1 23200.0 28400.0 109000.0 2 42100.0 6560.0 101000.0 3 36000.0 26500.0 108000.0 4 30500.0 24300.0 106000.0 5 53440.9 56540.0 65878.4 MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE RESULTS (1) Maximum Vertical Pedestal Force (lb) = 136000. (2) Maximum X Interface Shear Force (1b) = 50300.0 (3) Maximum Y Interface Shear Force (1b) = 36600.0 (4) Maximum Rack to Fuel Impact Force per Cell (lb) = 2500.00 J
l Table 6.5.179
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF WPMR RACl'. ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: 6 Run I.D. DF VO3.0FR MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in) Location x-direction y direction Top corner: 0.2985E+01 0.1637E+01 Baseplate corner: 0.2142E+00 0.1483E+00 s T MAXIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL PEDESTALS (lb) Max. Force (lb) Time (sec) 0.24120E+06 0.11190E.02 MAXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS FACTORS tmax, allowable = 1.0) Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Support Pedestal: 0.166 0.075 0.112 0.297 0.147 0.292 0.057 Above Baseplate 0.111 0.031 0.139 0.134 0.303 0.323 0.024 O PORCES AT PEDESTAL / LINER INTERFACE WHEN TOTAL PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR R6 IS !%XIMUM Pedestal FX(lb) FY(lb) FZ(Ib) 1 62000.0 19500.0 116000.0 2 9470.0 38700.0 141000.0 3 39000.0 17800.0 139000.0 4 59200.0 28400.0 110000.0 5 55117.4 58418.8 66019.7 MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE RESULTS (1) Maximum Vertical Pedestal Force (lb) = 159000. (2) Maximum X Interface Shear Force (lb) = 62000.0 (3) Maximum Y Interface Shear Force (lb) = 47100.0 a (4) Maximum Rack-to Fuel-Impact Force per Cell (1b) = 2507.94 O J
Table 6.5.180
/
h
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF WPMR RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: 7 Run I.D. 9F VOG.0FR MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in) Location x-direction y-direction Top corner: 0.3001E+01 0.1363E+01 Daseplate corner 0.1900E+00 0.9665E-01 MAXIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL PEDESTALS (lb) Max. Force (lb) Time (sec) 0.15310E+06 0.11450E+02 MAXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS FACTORS (max, allowable = 1.0) Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Support Pedestal: 0.115 0.049 0.097 0.090 0.200 0.204 0.046 Above Baseplate 0.094 0.033 0.141 0.142 0.281 0.292 0.022 FORCES AT PEDESTAL / LINER INTERFACE WHEN TOTAL PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR R6 IS MAXIMUM Pedestal FX(lb) FY(lb) FZ(lb) 1 27000.0 21200.0 92300.0 2 32900.0 20900.0 95100.0 3 21100.0 29300.0 83200.0 4 24200.0 16900.0 101000.0 5 59760.0 38578.6 72819.1 MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE RESULTS (1) Maximum Vertical Pedestal Force (lb) = 110000 (2) Maximum X Interface Shear Force (lb) = 41000.0 (3) Maximum Y Interface Shear Force (lb) = 37900.0 (4) Maximum Rack to Fuel Impact Force per Cell (1b) = 2687.50 D
)
Table 6.5.181 'd
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF WPMR RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: 8 Run I.D.: DF VOG.0FR MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in) Location x direction y-direction Top corner: 0.1356E+01 0.1169E+01 Baseplate corner: 0.8200E-01 0.6509E-01 MAXIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL PEDESTALS (Ib) Max. Force (lb) Time (sec) 0.20480E+06 0.90752E+01 MAXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS FACTORS (max. allowable = 1.0) Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Support Pedestal: 0.168 0.074 0.117 0.304 0.146 0.298 0.059 Above Baseplate 0.082 0.030 0.127 0.133 0.267 0.285 0.028 ( FORCES AT PEDESTAL / LINER INTERFACE WHEN TOTAL PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR R6 IS MAXIMUM Pedestal FX(lb) FY(lb) FE(lb) 1 33300.0 44600.0 135000.0 2 26900.0 44300.0 146000.0 3 50900.0 27100.0 140000.0 4 28500.0 36700.0 133000.0 5 50013.2 50182.4 58495.7 MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE RESULTS (1) Maximu Vertical Pedestal Force (lb) = 161000. (2) Maximum X Interface Shear Force (lb) = 61400.0 (3) Maximum Y Interface Shear Force (lb) = 49300.0 (4) Maximum Rack to Fuel Impact Force per Cell (1b) = 2263.89 v
Table 6.5.1r1 V SUM!%RY RESULTS OF WPMR RAC" JIALYSIS FCR RACK MODULE: 9 Run I.D., T-VOG.0FR MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in) Location: x-direction y-direction Top corner 0.1379E+01 0.1041E+01 Baseplate corner: 0.2125E+00 0.156BE.00 i MAXIMUM TOTA' VERTICAL LOADS FRCM ALL PEDESTALS (1b) Max. Force (lb) Time (see) l 0.26860E+06 -0.61851E+01 ! 1 MAXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS FACTORS (max. allowable = 1.0) Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 % Support Pedestal: 0.173 0.062 0.127 0.122 0.325 0.322 0.064 Above Baseplate 0.107 0.039 0.126 0.130 0.278 0.297 0.029 O FORCES AT PEDESTAL / LINER INTERFACE WHEN TOTAL PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR R6 IS MAXIMUM Pedestal FX (lb) FY(lb) FZ(lb) 1 30400.0 50800.0 151000.0 2 39600.0 21800.0 160000.0 3 51300.0 36500.0 141000.0 4 27800.0 39200.0 145000.0 5 51823.6 52823.5 60312.4 MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE RESULTS (1) Maximum Vertical Pedestal Force (lb) = 166000. (2) Maximum X Interface Shear Force (1b) = 51400.0 (3) Maximum Y Interface Shear Force (lb) = 53400.0 (4) Maximum Rack to Fuel Impact Force per Cell (1b) = 2722.22 O
l 1 I
, Table 6.5.183
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF WPMR PJ$CY. ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: 10 Run I.D.: DF-VOG.0FR MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in) ; r 1 Location: x direction y direction Top corner: 0.1611E+01 0.2105E+01 Baseplate corner 0.9008E-01 0.8485E 01 t%XIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL PEDESTALS (lb) t Max. Force (1b) Time (sec) 0.26120E+06 0.80751E+01 r
~
] MAXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS FACTORS (max. allowable = 1.0) Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Support Pedestal 0.165 0.081 0.148 0.160 0.308 0.305 0.075
- Above Baseplate 0.10$ 0.036 0.135 0.146 0.265 0.283 0.027 O FORCES AT PEDESTAL / LINER INTERFACE WHEN TOTAL PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR R6 IS MAXIMUM 4
Pedestal FX (1b) FY(lb) FZ(1b) 4 1 47300.0 37600.0 120000.0 2 67300.0 15900.0 134000,0 3 35900.0 40900.0 115000.0 , 4 37400.0 41900.0 101000,0 5 49186.8 50643.2 57405.8 MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE RESULTS (1) Maximum Vertical Pedestal Force (lb) = 158000. (2) Maximum X Interf ace Shear Force (1b) = 67300.0 4 (31 Maximum Y Interface Shear Force (lb) = 62500.0 (4) Maximum Rack to Fuel Impact Force per Cell (lb) = 2666.67
- O
Table 6.5.184 (
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF WPMR RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: 11
..**ee.................................+.................e** .... ** ... **e..
Run I.D.: DF VOG.OFR MAXIMLH CORNER DISPLACEMEllTS (in) Locations x-direction y direction Top corner: 0.116BE+01 0.7443E+00 Baseplate corner: 0.4911E 01 0.2713E-01 MAXIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL PEDESTALS (1b) l Max. Force (1b) Time (sec) 0.16710E+06 0.84601E+01 MAXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS FACTORS (max, allowable = 1.0) Stress factor R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Support Pedestal: 0.127 0.084 0.090 0.165 0.295 0.296 0.046 Above Baseplate 0.091 0.034 0.142 0.140 0.283 0.294 0.030 FORCES AT PEDESTAL / LINER INTERFACE WHEN TOTAL PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR R6 IS MAXIMUM Pedestal FX (Ib) FY(1b) FZ(lb) i-1 11700.0 38000.0 99500.0
- 2 69400.0 14600.0 120000.0 3 35600.0 12100.0 102000.0 4 2;;00.0 35300.0 88500.0 5 55. ' 8 .1 39200.3 74694.5 MAXIMUM IMPACT FoixE RESULTS (1) Maximum Vertical Pedestal Force (lb) = 122000.
(2) Maximum X Interface Shear Force (1b) = 69400.0 (3) Maximum Y Interface Shear Force (1b) = 38000.0 4 (4) Maximum Rack to Fuel Impact Force per Cell (1b) = 2555.56 O
i )! Table 6.5.185 l
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF WPMR RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: 12 b e e e e e e e e *
- e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e... ...... . ...e e.. ........ e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e ee Run I.D.: DF-VOG.0FR eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee .. **ee........ee.....ee.....ee..............
MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS _ (in) Locations x direction y-direction i Top corner: 0.1256E+01 0.1222E+01 Baseplate corner: 0.1010E+00 0.5344E-01 MAXIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL PEDESTALS (lb)
- Max. Force (lb) Time (sec) 0.22420E+06 0.70951Ee01 '
{ MAXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS FACTORS (max, allowable = 1.0) l Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 < 1 i support Pedestal: 0.133 0.056 0.102 0.110 0.254 0.251 0.052 j Above_3aseplate 0.123 0.051 0.157 0.121 0.278 0.295 0.037 i r l FORCES AT PEDESTAL / LINER INTERFACE WHEN TOTAL + PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR R6 IS MAXIMUM 1 f l Pedestal FX(lb) FY(lb)~ FZ(lb) 1 21000,0 38900.0 81000.0 2 24400.0 32400.0 87400.0 3 46300.0 15200.0 91500.0 $ 4 24200.0 43000,0 113000.0 l 5- 49541.4 53876.3. 61518.8 . MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE RESULTS 'I i (1) Maximum Vertical Pedestal Force (lb) = 127000
(2) Maximum X Interface Shear, Force (lb) = 46300.0 F
[ = (3) Maximum Y Interf ace Shear Force (lb) = 43000.0 !- (4) Maximum Rac)c to-Fuel Impact Force per Cel1(lb) = 2740.74 I . 4 j. 1 i l
-..e,- ...i.e,.w. .e e< _ ,,,e-. * -r_w-m r,--- r -w wcmm--vv -e-w we*-+-+v- r om e =-w w- -=w~wm - a ew -,*w- wr---ew e e-
- r- +e-e -v gwv ---em+v +ww w -s - n - '
i d Table 6.5.186 k
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF WPMR RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: 13 ' Run I.D.: DF-VOG.0FR MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in) Location x-direction y-direction i Top corner 0.1603E*01 0.1740E+01 Baseplate corner 0.1593E+00 0.1179E+00 MAXIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL PEDESTALS (lb) Max. Force (lb) Time (sec) 0.22070E+06 0.90702E+01 a MAXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS FACTORS (max, allowable = 1.0) Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Support Pedestal: 0.150 0.077 0.122 0.151 0.307 0.304 0.062 Above Baseplate 0.102 0.037 0.141 0.150 0.286 0.304 0.028 FORCES AT PEDESTAL / LINER INTERFACE b' HEN TOTAL PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR R6 IS MAXIMUM Pedestal FX (lb) FY (lb) FZ(1b) 1 41000.0 41800.0 134000.0 2 36200.0 30100.0 102000.0 ' i 3 23300.0 51300.0 117000.0
- i. 4 48100.0 27000.0 136000.0 5 $1368.1 55471.1 62697.9 MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE RESULTS .
(1) Maximum Vertical Pedestal Fcree (1b) = 151000. (2) Maximum X Interface Shear Force (lb) = 63700.0 (3) Maximum Y Interface Shear Force (lb) = $1300.0 (4) Maximum Rack to Fuel Impact Force per Cell (1b) = 2841.27
Table 6.5.167
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF WPMR FACF. ANALYSIS FOR RACF. MODULE: 14 Run I.D.: EF-VOG.0FR e............................................................................. MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in) Location x direction y direction Top corner 0.1718E+01 l 0.1911E+01 ' ) Baseplate corner: 0.2519E+00 0.3084E+00 MAXIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL FEDESTALS (lb) Max. Force (lb) Time (sec) 0.30000E+06 0.90902E+01 i MAXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS FACTORS (max. allowable = 1.0) Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Support Pedestal: 0.131 0.058 0.116 0.113 0.242 0.237 0.059 Above Baseplate 0.164 0.042 0.129 0.155 0.203 0.295 0.026 O FORCES AT PEDESTAL / LINER INTERFACE WHEN TOTAL PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR RG IS MAXIFM4 Pedestal FX (1b) FY(lb) FZ(lb) 1 26500.0 29500.0 119000.0 2 24300.0 21400.0 115000.0 3 47700.0 14100.0 112000.0 4 42700.0 24100.0 90500.0 5 58141.7 42115.1 70092.7 MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE RESULTS (1) Maximum Vertical Pedestal Force (lb) = 125000. (2) Maximum X Interface Shear Force (lb) = 47700.0 (3) Maximum Y Interface Shear Force (lb) = 49000.0 (4) Maximum Rack to Fuel Impact Force per Cell (lb) = 2611.11 G
Table 6.5.188
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF WPMR RACF. IJ1ALYSIS FOR RACF, MODULE: 15 Run I.D.: EF VOG.OFR HAXIMUM COR!iER DISPLACEMENTS (in) Locations x direction y direction Top corner 0.1739E+01 0.1064E+01 Baseplate corner: 0.7801E 01 0.8722E 01 MAXIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL PEDESTALS (Ib) Max. Force (1b) Time (sec) 0.20210E+06 0.66701E+01 MAXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS FACTORS (max. allowable = 1.0) Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Support Pedestal: 0.139 0.045 0.092 0.090 0.239 0.225 0.047 Above Baseplate 0.105 0.025 0.131 0.139 0.277 0.294 0.027 O' FORCES AT PEDESTAL / LINER INTERFACE WHE!! TOTAL PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR R6 IS MAXI!EH Pedestal FX(1b) FY(1b) PZ(lb) 1 -26900.0 22600.0 133000.0 2 27800.0 21800.0 104000.0 3 28500.0 27900.0 90500.0 4 24900.0 24000.0 97700.0 5 52003.3 50723.8 62133.1 MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE RESULTS (1) Maximum Vertical Pedestal Force (lb) = 133000. (2) Maximum X Interface Shear Force (lb) = 37700.0 (3) Maximum Y Interface Shear Force (lb) = 38700,0 (4) Maximum Rack to Fuel Impact Force per Cell (1b) = 2714.29 O
O Table .S.189
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF WFMR T.A!Y. A!!ALYSIS FOR RACit MODULE: 16 Run I.D.: OF-VOG 0FR MAXIMUM COR11ER DISTLACEME!!TS (in) Location x direct:On y direction Top corner: 0.1783E-01 0.1343E+01 Baseplate corner: 0.100;E 00 0.7606E-01 MAXIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FRC:: ALL PEDESTALS (Ib) Max. Force (lb) Time (sec) 0.19200E+06 0.11415E+02 4 MAXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS FACTORS (max. allowable = 1.01 Stress factor: R1 R: R3 R4 R$ R6 R7 Support Pedestal 0.139 0.074 0.136 0.145 0.274 0.279 0.069 , Above Baseplate 0.100 0.034 0.140 0.134 0.200 0.298 0.036
, \
FORCES AT PEDESTAL /LIliER IllTERFACE Wi!E!! TOTAL PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR R6 IS MAX: MUM Pedestal FX (lb) FY(lb) FE(lb) 1 29600.0 22000,0 122000.0 2 25500.0 57100.; 103000.0 3 32500.0 29500.* 101000.0 4 24800.0 44900. D6900.0 4 5 53078.7 51543.2 61665.9 MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE RESULTS (1) Maximum Vertical Pedestal Force (1b) = 133000. (2) Maximum X Interface Shear Force (lb) = 61000.0 (3) Maximum Y Interface Shear Force (1b) = 57100.0 (4) Maximum Rack to Fuel Impact T:ree per cell (1b) = 2517.86
Table 6.5.190
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF RfPMR . RACF, ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: 17 e******ee...**ee**********e.....e*******.ee.....*****e.**********.... Run I.D.: DF-VOG.0FR
*********.e*********************e..........e*****ee...*******..*****ee....
MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTG (in)
-Locatirne- x-dirtsction y-direction Top corner 0.1265E+01 0.1676E+01 Baseplate corner 0.8582E-01 0.7567E-01
- MAXIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL PEDESTALS (1b)
Max. Force (1b)- - Time ( a ec) 0.16580E+06 0.13420E+02 MAXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS FACTORS (max. allowable = 1.0) Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5- R6 R7 Support Pedestals- 0.130 0.064- 0.102 0.125 0.233 0.233 0.052 Above Baseplate 0.086 0.028 0.120 0.143 0.264 0.281 0.023 4 FORCES AT PEDESTAL / LINER INTERFACE WHEN TOTAL PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR R6'IS MAXIMUM Pedestal FX(lb) FY (lb) FZ(lb)- 1 41700.0; 13400.0 106000,0 2 21000.0 38000.0-- 101000.0-- - 3 30000,0- 37100.0 83000.0 4 37500.0 28200.0 96200.0~ '
- 5. 49457.8 49148.6 57928.6 MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE RESULTS
-(1) Maximum Vertical Pedestal- Force (lb) = 124000.
(2) Maximum X Interf ace Shear Force (lb) = 52800.0 (3) Maximum Y Intr.rface Shear Force (lb) = 42800.0 (4) Maximum Rack to Fuel Impact Force per Cell (lb) = -2464.29
Table 6.5.191 I r -
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF WPMR RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: 18 l
.............................................................................. l Run I.D.: DF-VOG.OFR Mt.XIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in)
Locations x-direction. y-direction Top corner: 0.1423E+01 0.1839E+01 Baseplate' corner: 0.1788E.00 0.2810E+00 MAXIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL- PEDESTALS ' (lb) Max. Force (lb) Time (sec) 0.18520E+06 0.83651E+01
' MAXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS FACTORS (max, allowable = 1.0)
Stress factor: Al' R2 R3- R4 R5 R6 R7 Support Pedestal: 0.123 0.051 0.104 0.100 0.234 0.233' O.053 Above Baseplate 0.114 ~ 0.028 0.137 0.146 0.285 0.302 0.029:- O -FORCES AT PEDESTAL / LINER INTERFACE WHEN TOTAL PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR R6 IS MAXIMUM Pedestal FX (lb) FY(lb) FZ(lb) l' -- 24600.0 40600.0 97700.0 2 39700.0 10700.0 93800.0'
.3 22700.0 9810.0 96500.0 4 15800.0 42700.0 111000.0 5 52156.'4 53121.3 64316.3 MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE RESULTS (1) . Maximum Vertical. Pedestal Force (lb) w 118000.
(2). Maximum X Interface Shear Force (lb) = 42100.0 (3) : Maximum- Y Interface Shear Force .(lb) = 43R00.0~
-(4) Maximum Rack to Fuel Impact Force per Cell (lb) = 2645.83 O
T Table 6.5.192 \
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF WPMR RACF ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: 19 Run I.D.: DF-VOG.CFR MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in) Locations, x-direction y-direction Top corner: 0.1683E+01 0.1701E+01
. Baseplate corner: 0.2547E+00 0.3716E+00 i
MAXIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL PEDES 7ALS (lb)
-l Max. Force (lb) Time (sec.
0.16160E+06 0.76851E+01 MAXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS FACTORS (max allowable = 1.0) Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6- R7 Support Pedestal: 0.116 0.050 0.084 0.098 0,228 0.226 0.043. Above Baseplate 0.099 0.038 0.140 0.139 0.271 0.287 0.031 FORCES AT-PEDESTAL / LINER INTERFACE WHEN TOTAL PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR R6 IS MAXIMUM Pedestal FX (lb) FY(lb) FE(lb) 1 13600.0 20600,-0 104000.0
-2 18600.0 31500.0 97000.0
-3 22700.0 35300,.0 81700.0 4 25600.0 -35200.0 101000.0 5- 48603.6 51778.6 60500.9 MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE RESULTS (1) Maximum Vertical Pedestal Force (lb) = 111000.
(2) Maximum X Interface Shear Force (lb) = 41200.0 (3) Maximum Y Interface Shear Force (lb) = 35300.0
-(4) . Maximum Rack to Fuel Impact Force per Cell (lb)-=- 2812.50
't
Table 6.5.193 ('
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF WPMR RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: 20 Run I.D.: DF-VOG.0FR MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in) Location: x-direction y-direction Top corner: 0.2026E+01 0.1290E+01 Baseplato corner: 0.3304E+00 0.2146E+00 MAXIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL PEDESTALS (lb) Max. Force (lb) Time (sec) 0.15390E+06 0.11845E+02 MAXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS FACTORS (max, allowable = 1.0) Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Support Pedestal: 0.122 0.050 3.102 0.098 0.217 0.211 0.052 Above Baseplate 0.095 0.007 0.164 0.145 0.286 0.303 0.030 V FORCES AT PEDE.STAL/ LINER INTERFACE WHEN TOTAL PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR R6 IS MAXIMUM i Pedestal FX (lb) Y (lb) r FZ(lb) 1 33500.0 24800.0 90600.0 j 2 37600.0 11500,0 76700.0 3 13300.0 35000,0 91000.0 4 22900.0 30300.0 99900.0 5 52243.9 53886.2 63226.2 MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE RESULTS (1) Maximum Vertical Pedestal Force (lb) = 117000. (2) Maximum X Interf ace Shear Force (lb) = 41400.0 (3) Maximum Y Interface Shear Force (lb) = 43000.0 (4) Maximum Rack to Fuel Impact Fcree per Cell (lb) = 2958.33
,O\
V I
]
Table 6.5.194
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF WPMR RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: 21 Run I.D.: OF VOG.0FR
.............................................................................. {
MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEME:iTS (in) Locations x-direction y-direction Top corner: 0.2184E+01 0.1972E+01 l Baseplate corner: 0.1312E+00 0.1269E+00 MAXIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL PEDESTALS (lb) : Max. Force (lb) Time (ce:1 0.18250E+06 0.9325:E+01 MAXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS FACTORS (max, allowable = 1. 0) Stress factor R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Support-Pedestal: 0.127 0.046 0.094 0.091 0.180 0.190 0.048 Above Baseplate 0.112 0.028 0.134 0.161 0.298 0.315 0.023 FORCES AT PEDESTAL / LINER INTERFACE h' HEN TOTAL
-PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR R6 IS MAXIMUM
' Pedestal FX (lb) FY(1b) FZ(lb) 1 29200.0 18300.0 82700.0 2 15400.0 34500.0 70900.0 3 21900.0 17900.0 71200.0 4 19000.0 28300.0 84700.0 5 54089.3 56163.8 66496.5 MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE RESULTS
-(1) Maximum Vertical Pedestal Force (1b) . 122000.
(2)' Maximum X Interface Shear-Force (lb) = 38100.0
.(3) Maximum Y Interface: Shear Force (lb) = 39600.0 (4) Maximum Rack to Fuel Impact Force per Cell (lb) = 2354.17 ticsah
t-
-Table E.5.195
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF WPMR RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: 22
..............***.e.....***...................................................
Run I.D.: DF-VOG.0FR MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in) Location x-directicn y-direction Top corner: 0.1979E+01 0.1258E+01 Baseplate corner: 0.8629E-01 0.8264E-01 MAXIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL PEDESTALS (lb) Max. Force (1b) Time (sec) 0.20710E+06 0.6190;E+01 MAXIMUM' VALUES OF STRESS FACTCRS (max, allowable = 1.0) Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Support Pedestal: 0.143 -0.056 0.092 0.110 0.260 0.254 -0.047 Above Baseplate 0.108 0.021 0.128 0.150 0.292 0.311 0.022 FORCES AT PEDESTAL / LINER INTERFACE WHEN TOTAL PEDESTAL STRESS-FACTOR R6 IS MAXI!?JM Pedestal FX (lb) FY(lb) FZ(lb) 1 30200.0 34600.0 124000.0 2 20600.'O 27600.0 100000.0 3 46300.0 10200.0 103000.0 4: 31900.0. -24400.0' 103000.0
- 5. 55283.4 54036.7 64001.7 MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE-RESULTS (1) Maximum Vertical Pedestal Force (lb) = 137000.
(2). Maximum X Interf ace. Shear Force _ (lb) = 46300.0
-(3) Maximum Y Interface Shear Force _(lb) = 38900.0
.(4) Maximum Rack to Fuel Impact Force per Cell (lb) = 2003.57 s_
Q ~ m
O Table 6.5.196
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF WPMR RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: 23 Run I.D.i DF-VOG.;FR MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in) Location x-direction y-direction Top corner: 0.1274E+01 0.1527E+01 Baseplate corner: 0.6316E-01 0.1625E+00 MAXIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL PEDESTALS (lb) Max. Force (lb) Time,se:; 0.20220E+06 0.59401E+01 MAXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS FACTORS max. allowable 1.0) Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Support Pedestal: 0.140 0.049 0.115 0.096 0.262 0.258 0.059 Above Baseplate 0.105 0.024 0.145 0.133 0.282 0.300 0.033 r~N i \ V FORCES AT PEDESTAL / LINER INTERFACE WHEN TOTAL PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR R6 IS MAXIMUM Pedestal FX (lb) FY(lb) - F:: (lb) 1 38200.0 12900.0 113000.0 2 37300.0 31200.0 118000.0 3 20900.0 26000.0 115000.0 4 40500.0 -16100.0 117000.0 5 54178.4 50874.8 62600.2 MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE RESULTS (1) Maximum Vertical Pedestal Force (lb) = 134000. (2) Maximum X Interface Shear Force (lb) = 40500.0 (3) Maximum Y Interface Shear Force (lb) = 48500.0 (4) Maximum Rack to Fuel Impact Force per Cell (lb) = 2892.86 o
Table i.5.19'
.(d \
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF WPMR RA2K ANALYSIS FOr. RAC); N40ULE: 24 Run I.D.: DF-VOG 0FR MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in) Location x-direct :n y-direction Top corner: 0.1835E+01 0.2466E+01 Baseplate corner: 0.2173E+00 0.2620E+00 MAXIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FRO:1 ALL PEDESTALS (lb) Max. Force (lb) Time (sec) 0.29460E+06 0.12780E+02 MAXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS FACTORS (max, allowable = 1.0) Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Support Pedestal: 0.164 0.054 0.098 0.106 0.243 0.242 0.050 Above Baseplate 0.153 0.033 0.144 0.149 0.331 0.352 0.034
\O)
FORCES AT PEDESTAL / LINER INTERFACE WHEN TOTAL PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR R6 IS MAXIfG Pedestal FX (1b) FY(lb) F (1b) 1 31500.0 35600,0 103000.0 2 29100.0 29300.0 102000.0 3 32600.0 23100.; 119000.0 4 32600.0 33100.3 101000.0 5 62649.6 60630.1 73345.0 MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE RESULTS (1) Maximum Vertical Pedestal Fcree (lb) = 157000. (2) Maximum X Interface Shear Force (lb) = 44500.0 (3) Maximum Y Interface Shear Force (lb) = 41400.0 (4) Maximum Rack to Fuel Impact Force per Cell (lb) = 27P5.71 (~w
Table 6.5.198 Ch -
\ / SUFMARY RESULTS OF WPMR RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACF. MODULE: 25 Run I.D., DF-VOG.2FR MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in)
Location: x-direction y-direction Top corner: 0.2242E+01 0.1868E+01 Baseplate corner: 0.2134E+00 0.2336E+00 MAXIMUM TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL PEDESTALS (lb) Max. Force (lb) Time (sec) 0.11150E+06 0.77151E+01 i MAXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS FACTORS imax, allowable = 1.0) Stress factor: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 l l Support Pedestal: 0.088 0.036 0.068 0.071 0.156 0.155 0.034 Above Baseplate 0.091 0.035 0.135 0,121 0.273 0.289 0.022 A FORCES AT PEDESTAL / LINER INTERFACE WHEN TOTAL PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR R6 IS MAXIMUM Pedestal FX(lb) FY (lb) F::(lb) 1 17800.0 20300.0 69300.0 2 28500.0 5090.0 68200.0 3 25400.0 16500.0 68600.0 4 29000.0 10200.0 59200.0 5 50389.1 50576.2 61533.7 FUWIMUM IMPACT FORCE -RESULTS (1) Maximum Vertical Pedestal Force (lb) = 84700.0 (2) Maximum X Interface Shear Force (lb) = 29700.0 (3) Maximum Y Interface Shear Force (lb) = 28500.0 (4) Maximum Rack to Fuel Impact Force per Cell (lb) = 2833.33
,r\:
N
Table 6.5.199
SUMMARY
RESULTS OF WPMR RACK ANALYSIS FOR RACK MODULE: 26
................................*....................****.................+...
Run I.D.: DF-VOG.OFR MAXIMUM CORNER DISPLACEMENTS (in) Location x direction y-direction Top corner 0.2547E+01 0.1605E+01 Baseplate corner: 0.3056E+00 0.1978E+00 MAXIMUM. TOTAL VERTICAL LOADS FROM ALL PEDESTALS (lb) Max. Force (1b) Time (sec) 0.10560E+06 0.61701E+01 MAXIMUM VALUES OF STRESS FACTORS (max. allowable = 1.0) Stress factor: R1 R2- R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Support Pedestal: 0.089 0.032 0.056 0.063 0.147 0.140 0.028 Above Baseplate 0.087 0.028 0.135 0.134 0.271 0.286 0.022 t i FORCES-AT PEDESTAL / LINER INTERFACE WHEN TOTAL PEDESTAL STRESS FACTOR R6 IS MAXIMUM Pedestal FX (1b) FY(lb) FZ(lb) 1 12600.0 20100.0 68200.0 2 16600.0 15700.0 56600.0 3 25300.0 8810.0 72900.0
'4 17100.0 -16200.0 76300.0 5 49117.9 50380.6 61969.6 MAXIMUM IMPACT FORCE RESULTS (1) Maximum V9rtical Pedestal Force (lb) = '85300.0 (2) Maximum X Inte'eface Shear Force (lb) = 26700.0 (3) Maximum Y Interface Shear Force (lb) = 23600.0
.(4) Maximum. Rack to Fuel. Impact Force per Cell (lb) = 2619.44 J
m,----. , , - - - - - ------,i--.-r--,------- - - - su 4 x Ns **% # p%ssuss1f2azaa it m % s s %,m o m z s % %f a e m E C C 9 u u le n ei t' n to 88
% n u in N li is M a u t' q
Q 4. Q Q p
- tl ti i n 40 2u & n si
- e. s a = n ti y .e eas: u#
si n g n y rg y n n is V ap u pg n 9 'i 2 -'
',' g g ,g n a le it l' H ll a H H Q it u Jg te il it is ti 4 d "e d el0 * % d
, a ,a a a a ., aa ., a , 8 m
V i n a O o ., M
=
.. e e e u. m a ., ,
=
% ** M Q ME* M is a M d :ac n e 3 i,
u Q p I"" u n 11C 7 !! ll3 n a u u 14 j IIg g / H
@ @H %dH "
Q U
", E ,, A E- &E GE 5 3
,, l ,/
o x n a _n iis u wu - n a g n- a is n / $, . u n
" a ,/ g to e
2 "D e D ed t re " t " M p 2 ism S M Sp M E n at. c M d a u u se li @
; = '; = :: = <;
e-= I d "D &
, U tf " t tf D ",
. + .e n n a, m a. o i
e n- a n Il M si M M ll p u > eM **"8 n li
$ n %
u u g is
- g d" n
,a .Dd DM DU i
D to g, G ,,,,,#sss3. .wer Aewm,,9%s.. sse f h 2: is j
O ref 4 i g - a
<jjj{ agpr> hn@dqlg 4&-
Q TYPICAL ARRAY OF HIGH DENSITY SPENT TUEL RACKS Figure 6.4.2 __~
VOG L U L BLDG EL 179 -- SE 0.6 0.4 - I 0.2 - O l l 0.0 'y g, I "- " - l
, ,, g lA
, ." J ','f_7 -
2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 TIME (SECONDS) Figure 6.5.1
!l l l
)1 l l1I) o .
- d 2 2 m.
m m 8 1 t.. k A ry 6 E A 1 1 S y S Y R r
-O m r 4 1
- T S
n i y . I H b. r .
)
9 7E 1 M I 1 p 2 1 S D N L T /.. y O E) y C 2 2 0 E 5 GH 1 o DV 6 S i e ( r L( u g B E i F L M LA I T ET UN i FO Z EI R i s 6 L TO 1 GH O V p 4 r b a p v 2 A
\
6 4 - - - 0 2 2 0 0 - 4 6 0 0 0 0 o e g oW l
O O O VOGTLE FUEL BLDG EL 179 --- SSE VERTICAL (VV) TIME HISTORY-0.6 - 0.4 - ct 4 Ulf ' V) l l [Ff i YEVW"I V ' 'T o - 0. 2 -
-0.4 - ,,
- 0. 6 -
0 2 4 h 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 TIME (SECONDS) Figure 6.5.3
V0GTLE-FUEL BLD 'EL 179 --- SSE HORIZONTAL (VH1) SPECTRA @ 4% DAMPlNG 3.00 I i 2.75 1 2.50 2.25 m 8 2.00 2 1.75 ) A
- 9 4 1.50 1.25 o s 0 1.00
< ~
0.75 7 l
' , \
' \'- - -
0.50 %
/ __
0.25 , O.00 I I FREQUENCY (CPS)10. 100. Figure 6.5.4
O O 179 SSE O V0GTLE FUEL BLDG EL HORIZONTAL (VH2) SPECTRA @ 4% DAMPING 3.00 2.75 2.50 , 2.25 n 8 2.00 ' Z 1.75 1 7 O <C 1.50 1.25
\
0 1.00 0.75 O.50
/ \
0.25 , O.00 l 100, l- FREQUENCY (CPS)10.
+
Figure 6.5.5
O O -- SSE O ; VOGTLE FUEL BLDG EL 179 VERTICAL (VV) SPECTRA @' 4% DAMPING l 3.00 2.75 2.50 2.25 m 8 2.00 Z 1.75 O 1.50
\
5J 1.25 j' \ s w \ O \ O 1.00 < \
\
0.75 0.50 , M -- - --
/
/
0.25 ,
/
0.00
*l l FREQUENCY (CPS)10. 100.
Figure 6.5.6
O O O SSE-H1 POWER SPECTRAL DENSITY COMPARISON FLOOR TH' (AVE 11) VS GROUND TH (AVE 2I) VS NRC TARGET GROUND 10000
^
n 1000 '
^
to r - y
- s ,
r . t o - '.- v. Ld ( - LA ' N 1 f 100 -.'.. V x 3 i g b d 7, h O T u l l i
,'> i' T l '. %
M 'sl I.
- n. \' "I 10 -
h & I a '. ..",' 1 . w.. . s A E r.' T 4'T .8.' 3(.hu 3 100. l I- FREQUENCY (CPS)10. Figure 6.5.7 l
-,._.r -
ii--,.._......._
l I lj ll, !k j' l1IlI' . 1 N . O 0 0 S I 1 D R N U A O P R G M T OE G C R A sL'l.I $ P T i CT.
)
. tt ;- . '
Y C R r\,r.
,/r.M%
s f;. , T I N m E i3 i :
\ .
/, M pu 1 S S V
h ,ym N 0 1 N ) .- '
/
i i
)
S E - '
' t 1
2
' ., I P X
D E
't
.- i,
( C
/'
L V A (
- s v.
x Y C 8 5 6 A H .
. x .
N e r u R T t x E U i F g T D '
; Q C N U
^
' E
_ E O . R R . F P G , S S 1 V _ R) 1 E 1 , WEV , OA P (H T 0 2 R 0 0 O 0 H O L 0 0 0 0 0 0
- F 1 1 1 1 1 1 E mn:gWmN7.Z.v 0mn- .
S .. S 1
! ll Illljlll O - N O 0 0 S ' 1 I D R N U A O R P G MT E l OG R . i:n.'a NNk C A , k M Ji T . '_! 5V 3 C Y 4a,. ' . 3 X
. .1 R
l T N l - f' , s,
- r, 1
. 'A I
i ? , ' l' ,
' \ .
S
,i
'i 1 0 S
V
.' r L 1 t- )
N) - . i S E 1 2 '
,r'o
\ P C
D
' a-E
. g 3 ( 9 V .
i y, 5 A ^ N - Y OL
^
T, 6 (
, ^
c 'g x C e r A H ' N u g T - ', E i R
~
F
- ,' U T
C D N U
~
N Q E R O _ E R G
. F .
P
' 1 S S '
V - ,
) _
~
R 1 1 E E .. WVA - O (H ' P T 0 R 0 0 V O 0 0 O 0 0 0 L 0 0
- F 1 1 1 1 1 l E mme,ugmN7.I a S omn-OS l
HOR ZON L A CELERATION 0.6. l 0.4 - m 8 0.2 - E g oo y J f, , 'f
\
1?O:s!,%",w'sa ci I o -0.2 -
-0.4 -
0 2 4 b $ 10 12 14 16 18 20 TIME (SECONDS) Figure 6.5.IO
0.4 $ 0.3 - I . 0.2 - s - 0.1 - . g_ v;c W g - 0.1 - gI jg> '
- W #
l
-0.2 - -0.3 - ~'
O a a a a a a a a a 20 TIME (SECONDS) Figure 6.5.11
VOGTLE FUEL BLD EL 179 --- OBE VERTICAL (VV) TIME HISTORY 0.6 - 0.4 - b O.2 -
^^^ A' J I I ' l i d l ) . Aa um.Aa *.m m . _ _ __
0*0 ' fy'y]f i
' f t t rV x V"Yl l l
Tj E i t ' v"I ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' d [f f U -0.2-W
-0.4 - - 0. 6 -
1 I I I I I I I I O 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 TIME (SECONDS) Figure 6.5.12
O O O V0GTLE FUEL BLDG EL 179 --- OBE HORIZONTAL (VH1) SPECTRA @ 2% DAMPlNG 3.00 2.~75 2.50 2.25 m 8 2.00 ' y 1.75
/ \
k 1.50
\
a g 1.25
/ \
o 1.00
< . k O.75 N '(
0.50 ,
-,, N -- -
0.25 7 '
/
O.00 l l FREQUENCY (CPS)10. 100. Figure 6.5.13
O O O - VOGTLE FUEL BLDG EL 179 --- OBE HORIZONTAL (VH2) SPECTRA @ 2% DAMPNG i 3.00 ; 2.75 . 2.50 ! 2.25 ! n 8 2.00 3 i z 1.75 / \ - 9 / \
/
r s \
< 1.50 or w l
/ (
\
_J 1.25 i w / ) i O / o 1.00 , 4 k O.75 ~. , f - 0.50 ' i
/ -- - - ,
I 0.25 /
/
0.00 l l FREQUENCY (CPS)10. 100. Figure 6.5.14 i t
O O O VOGTLE FUEL BLDG EL 179 --- OBE VERTICAL (VV) SPECTRA @ 2% DAMPlNG 3.00 2.75 2.50 2.25 n 8 2.00 y 1.75 P 1.50 M ) $ 1.25 ' l ' g !
\ _ _ .
\
o 1.00 0.75 0.50
> u Z~ -
0.25 - 0.00 l l FREQUENCY (CPS)10. 100. Figure 6.5.15
O O O 1 OBE-H1 POWER SPECTRAL DENSITY COMPARISON rLOOR TH (AVE 11) VS GROUND TH (AVE 21) VS NRC TARGET GROUND 10000 1000 m pr3 _
- l
'l ,
O ,- w - - in , , i , N ,- - - ' ' ,
",1,,y,,' '
7 100 - z a - O $'l i . . I !* o
'. t !' /t.'d
' l in i i, 'e '/4 0- s i ,i :.,'.
10 -
% e :. ,.
- 7 ' !A n !.
T. V. t i'i
%' ~ ; n' 72 : '
1 YdM I. , ) 1 1 100. FREQUENCY (CPS).10. Figure 6.5.16
lll!1 il 1I I O N . O 0 0 S 1 1 I D R N U A O P R G M T OE G C RA ! . T k i -
.7 ld f . $
n Y C R 5* i' i . 0 2 T I N .'
/ .
S S 4
- V '
0
, j- 1 V
Y' s N ) .
.~
t
. , )
S E ' . ' P Y 1 , 2 - , A D , - ( C 7 E N 1 V * , Y 5 L A - ,, - y, C 6 O RA (H T .
~
i
\ N E i e
r u g U F T D
- Q C N U
, E R
E O .
~
F P R ' G ' S S - 1 V , R ) 1 - E 1 _ - WE - O (V A P H T - 0 2 R 0 0 O H O 0 0 0 0 0 0 L 0
- F 1 1 , 1 l1 1 1 E moteegwn N 7.Z..*
B ( OE O O t l
O O O OBE-V POWER SPECTRAL DENSITY COMPARISON FLOOR TH (AVE 11) VS GROUND TH (AVE 21) VS HRC TARGET GROUND 10000 ,- 1
,' ^ '.
n 1000 _- m - I - o g.a y L ]
\, ,- '
n,, y,,, 7 T 100 . _Z 4
, ,' ^
v a t . O , l 'h.,i m i
' N '
h . to NN 4 .!('
- 0. J ,
N .
' " ;' ~} ;
T . Y: L'u N
"a ' in
# 5'-
i 8 Qiki) 1i i t 1 100. 1- TREQUENCY (CPS)10. Figure 6.5.18 I . .
l l l022 1 npAC1 - PA7 TL]NG
., I FUEL MASS NPR]NG .'M_ / / ( T YP. )
h Pl9 i
'l 7gp p RACK
- o. P18
_ ,_ 021/
/ ,3 l
017.l--- p -g/ j
- /
A.~p.. - c20 = f
/ nj
.n j PACK GEDMETPIC -
CENTER LINE FI J/ 210
'b9 e
h O, ' BEAM SPRING 4"
/&,n,, , ,u klI.
q5 PEDESTAL 3 7
'e / 5-
$l&
=EDES1AL 4 P3uj%.?,sy' m -
., 4I3 4 M? I, P2 5h -
/ #
,' l' PECESTAL I/
/ Plt----f;D ,' 16 C
/ og ,c l Plh
/ \ CEDESTAL 2 A~p ,
g- r "r r c%- FGU!CC1DN
,\' SPPl?.3 O FIGliRE 6.5.19; SCllE3fA TIC 0F Tile D)RAbilC Sf0 DEL FOR D)'NARACK N
O
/ Ar /
/ A/
( M7 M TYPICAL TCP t IMPACT ELEMENT
. RACK STRUCTURE TYPICAL BOTTOM ,
IMPACT ELEMENT RACK 8 LATE o -
/ -
M . RACK-TO-RACK IXPACT SPRINGS Figure 6.5.20 -
,_g_-a*~" '
O s 1 2 K a u-W I"e se hI - I 1
- a N lh N
$ 3 1,? , , '
a t , O O I
's m ,
w
% a n
>. y A
's
's, =
i " k m i E i 1 2
\ !!
u 4 m N b . T d e E O . 4 .-,,v ,,, . -....._,,,,-------,-,..e , - - . - , , , . , , - ~ , , . -
O _o o o PIB il T
'i l L/2 920
\
$ Kar NSY (
C RACK DEGREES-OF-FREEDON FOR Y-Z PLANE BENDING WITil SHEAR AND BENDING SPRING Pl7
. d, Pi L/2 x'o921 Ksx Kay L/2 9
~95 RACK DEGREES-OF-FREEDON FOR X-Z PLANE BENDING WETH SHEAR AND BENDENG SPRENG
~ , , , ,
O FLEL ASSY./ CELL 1WACT SPRING. Ki \ 4W n j #4 l MM m TYPICAL REL RATILING MAIS RACX C.G. s g M N' I (F ' W4 wa MN W4 DM m FRICTION INTERFACE SPRING. Kf SLPPORT LEG SPRING, Ks F3NOATICN ROTATIONAL-CDWLIANCE SPRING, Kr NNN % ////// O 2-D VIEW OF THE SPRING-MASS SINULATION Figure 6.5.23
i \ 1 \
"f xe I
N s **% / psssssssf4aaae a a a s gm a e a s s %,e a e a a # s y ~j h o o o i' I Il it h *4 l' It 4 il il M g. Il l' el p 14 30 Q HN Q h
- Gl II h
u
,m . si r,a. . e- i .e c= g, ,,
4u o Q i o 9 in ll 3 Y'n fl y 3 v y i#, .n 11 g i 0 is l' l j 4 q pq $a 4 n M p i e ee le .^ .e , n >- f o , n C C'*-). e oM I'_g 'l r it
.i n b'u n w
, e ll e "e d '-
a e a e : e
., 9 .i n 4 E, aa n
) si ,m ^ ^ nu.,. e.
.. r,,a sj n ei g
16 a Ol@ * ) .n u g
(M ")
it n I I g l 6
,, a ea e d, e a ., e m
,, a a
i i. 4 'A 4 a go aa a 8 l If Cll'lI4J1 (n n b, ,3) n
, i. -. - n .M i, v y v 11 (,,,)
l
., v$\ 11 'O g
" d . .
m at d t af
- as tf t " E E ll 4 n& E E R a M h' ., E
- u n u
- c. e u n a \4r/ \ a.:
l *C ,
~h h' b *! h 0
/ ,s l N
8
, tt " 't$ tf s tr " t tf D ll $
,, a ,, n a n a, na ,. n ,, I n e
d
. C( m /a
*::ll 4 v) "J(s n
l
%'i v; t 3, H li
- i. l .
*[
11 tt d " re 4 " f, 2 tf " t tf t ( w & us 4 & Eo E E o E 4
$ n- p u e,
= G" -@ = e
,e @ iD d D If i DN D g L ,,,,,,#sssseaworss'a==m ,,_A m .ssse i
V , d 1-
O O O re,.iv . isi g , g g ,ves11. m is e
-+
' ~
. . 2 i. i. i. .
o 2 .. Figure 6.5.25
O O O Total Vertical Slab Load vs. Time for Vogtle Unit I SFP (SSE, COF = 0.8) J3 -- s . - - _ _ _ - - . _ . l" h: w MN : dffWhatA%
- 33 ._ _ __. _ _ __ __. . . _
i _ _ _ . . _ . . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ o3 . _ _ . . __ _ _ _. _. _____._ _ _ _ _ . . . . . _ _ __ 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 82 34 16 IS 20 rime. sec Figure 6.5.26
' R y -
)
-I. , ,
I m i a ei 2
,M O
W' < W
$5 ~
O " ' ' 8 w nw
. i , . -
v
.9 5
~ i
$ 1 i j
_~__Y _. , I k
; i i 1
1
. ,, , ,. + r ~ -
.. ~ "f 91,,01 N Tt'o 1 telol 1
0) v ' i
. i I
T, I 1 ; , I i k I w l i u o o iwi _ EO =- S$ i
~
C-d" er8 i e - i u 'M l y = O i - I
- f N
n M_ a " I'i yi 3
,o Ld ~~ .
4 CD I ! __M i 1 h E
> i
- a ,
i - e I i
\
~ a 4
i i f C g< " ~ o 41,01 \ T"O~l 10101
- .l -g
- , . ,1 ; ('t,- : I j- ! p f b . r i Time History of Gap Between Rack "Z" and the South Wall .!
.i (SSE, COF = Gaussian Dist.) ;
t l' f lte i f k a s' k 4 39 3 _ . _ _ _ . , _ _ _ _ . . ...___ 1-4 1 s i 19 6 -- - - - - - - - --- - - - - - . - 0 ? }
- ~
14 4
-f - I j
h / / f-4 0
,, 2 ._ _ _ _ _ _) _ _ _ __ f ._ _ _ _ _ ._ q_ . . !
.5 (
39 . _. _ . _ _ . _ -_ - _- - - - ._ - - - _ .- _ _ ._ _ _._ _ - - - 4 O , _d gn s I - -- --
-l -l-- -.- - _ _ - - - - -. - - .- -.- ---. - --- _.
d i t s en - - - - -- - -- - - u (l J 9-u . i i [ \ L en s ._ . _ . . . _ _ _ __ _ l ._ . _ .. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ , t 4- t 1 In 2 - - -- --- -- --. - I ! t j' 18 h l } 4 0 2- 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 IS 20 4 l
- i
- Tane. sec i t
i
- i i Figure 6.5.29 i
4 5
O I g .:, ,,,, l
!////////!////
\ l\ h l\ h h l 1
i M %~x FRONT b %v i C
\ \ >
IMP,C1 RFA '
= SUPPOPT
-Ps l- 1
$hE #
I
\'j': cl n b i\ ~ *l
-)
xy-SIDE I g Figure 6.5.30; RACE-TO-P.ACK IMPACT LOCATION h
Peak Hydrodynamic Pressures Between Fuel Racks and SFP Walls ($$E, COF = 0.2) L Path: Wall 1 at time 7.335 Path: Wall 2 at time 7.335 15 .
- 15 1 :
10 -~~~~-~~~t--
- - - t '--- - 10 --- --4-~~~
1
$ .......................................h........
- $ ..om
. . . . . l- . . eoomy-~o. . . ~~
O
! 0 I.$
.....................o......... ...u.
....a . . . . -
-5 " -. -
1 n -10 - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - - - 1
~~~~7---- 10 -- ~~----i-~~ :
--- 4--"-- "-- --
i
-15 ' 1 0 200 -15 400 0 100 200 300 ) E Distance along path (inches) W N Distance along path (inches) S Path: Wall 3 at time 7.335 Path: Wall 4 at time 7.335 15 ,
i 15 i ! i i . ; i < 10
-~~ -i----i-I - r -- --i ----
- . 10 -~~~+-~~---"""-I---
h5 - ~ ~ -
-- - - l- - , "- L - -- -
i & [5 ----1--- I h- - " "!; - l0 i 0 j
~~+"- ;-
it -5 --
! : -5 - - - - - -
--v------ -
. i
~
- ~ ~~ + ~ ~~ 4- - ; - -L - - -
. -10 --
s, ~ - -" 4. " "L 1 '
-15 .
\.
0 100 200 300. 40Q -15 0 100 200 300 E Distance along path (inches) w. N Distance along path (inches) s_ Note: Wall 1 = South Wall Wall 3 = North Wall Wall 2 = West Wall Wall 4 = East Wall Figure 6.5.31 1 1 1
C
\
Peak Hydrodynamic Pressures Between Fuel Racks and SFP Walls (SSE, COF = 0.8)
- Path: Wall 1 at time 16.48 Path: Wall 2 at time 16.48 3 .
i 3 . 2 ! r ....................:.............-i........ 2 ..........j..............+...... .. .j.. . j , n . ; j. kj .
......f., . . . . . . .).
O "' 2 ' . 0 - l.1 -..................4......................[.......
.i
.i 2 ......................I........................&...........
c.j __._____.:
. . . - 9, - . . ._ . ,; -
1 2 _..............;................;..............i... c p -3 3 0 200 400 0 100 200 300 1 E Distance along path (inches) W N Distance along path (inches) S Path: Wall 3 at time 16.48 Path: Wall 4 at time 16.48 3 i . 1
- -3 i !
2 ............;..........;i
- i
..........4.........+.......-
. 2 -
+i-
- ;1 . i w
gj - . . . . .
............4......... .. .....g......,. j 1
..4...........
..............9....
; ....4.. .
w i e i ' I0 i i 0
. 3 t -
1, 1 i* 1 1 i. g.1 - . . . . . . . . . . . . ....,..1.. L g .1 ,.
..+... .
..+... . . . .
a 2 . . . . . . . j . . . . . . . . ; . . . . . , $. . . .. i
-2 -
i- -
-3 .
0 100 200 3 300 400 0 100 200 300 E Distance along path (inches) w N Distance along path (inches) S Note: Wall 1 = South Wall Wall 3 = North Wall r Wall 2 = West Wall Wall 4 = East Wall I ( Figure 6.5.32
Peak Hydrodynamic Pressures Between Fuel Racks and SFP Walls , (SSE, COF = Gaussian Dist.) l Path: Wall 1 at time 14.72 Path: Wall 2 at time 14.72 3 ,
. 3 .
1 2 i- . .... J - 2 4- *- +- - '- e : : m i _j .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . j
. . . . . . .d.. .-
0 ,V j0 13 ............. ...............................
.! 4 2 -................4...................z........
s g.1 a 4 4 2 - i-
! +-.
i
\ --3 3 1
0 200 400 0 100 200 300 i E Distance along path (inches) w N Distance along path (inches) s Path: Wall 3 at time 14.72 Path: Wall 4 at time 14.72 3 . . 3 2 - i ;.+. - 2 - - ^- T
. -a. 1
- - +; - - - - .-
+- ;1 . ,
- a. - . .. -
v-l0 ,......'
- h l0 -- # : !
. @ .1 -
l.3 .
+ . . . . . . ~ .
- a. i ; a. !
2 -i- - - i- - - 2 - - - - - 0 100. 200 300 400 O 100 200 300 E Distance along path (inches) W N Distance along path (inches) s Note: Wall 1 = South Wall Wall 3 = Nonh Wall Wall 2 = West Wall Wall 4 = East Wall s
- Figure 6.5.33
Peak Hydrodynamic Pressures Between Fuel Racks and SFP Walls i (OBE, COF = Gaussian Dist.) Path: Wall 1 at time 7.21 Path: Wall 2 at time 7.21 i 5 -
~ ~ - - t <- ~ ~ - - ! ,
e~ r. -- - -- 5 -
-----i--'-t-.-----+-
e
$ .' 1 i :
' O i 10~~~~ ~~
- i-- - -
-5
+
4:- ~~- 1 i 5 -
- -l- - -}~~~ --- - -l--
. i O 200 400 i E
- 0 100 200 300
- Distance along path (inches) . W N Distance along path (inches) S Path: Wall 3 at time 7.21 Path: Wall 4 at time 7.21
. I !
5 -~~~,--4---+- - m - 5 n - - - - -
"t---~~""t-"-
.g -
N ! a i E0 10 w n. i d 8 m i i n.
-5 - - - - - ~ ~
-t--
- {-
5 -
- . - - -- - i- - -
-i,- -
0 100 200 300 400 0 100 200 300 E Distance along path (inches) W N Distance along path (inches) s l Note: Wall 1 = South Wall Wall 3 = Nonh Wall I Wall 2 = West Wall Wall 4 = East Wall Figure 6.5.34
l (3 \s 1 1 i H ? ++<-H l
- --6 _
.hi -
e%. ' .;. o -
--- ..-w ----- ..-..._.
_-m - ---- .
.cg p...q
.-( ,
1
--- _- ___M.- - - -.<-.-
-4 ,
.',gp., j
- w. .. '
- p. .< ' ....
n
- - ----_,9 - - - ]y; .. ' y . , . .
g, , . 61_ (a.. o y , ~ o..
- n
- .1 l 'b' ...p.
.ty-41 s ,,,: - uLj 4:- -
s , l4 ,.- -- s - t;j
., s f%
s L -c - __q - --- [ s , s - lij - "'s., "
-_ - ___ -- *,. s --, -
Hil _--- .'s ,, . -. lhl. k k-y',j
- s. ~
( j Lj l.i o L-imt t ll^ i _m ____-- 4 jf * -,
's
__-- -- iJ( .-- -_ 1lll It'l _----- ~ 1 h-ni , - - 1.i.) s uni ' 7--- sf- ,. ,%, h r _~~_-- '5 J n , _ ss 3 , s W - - s . s s,wx
' r_-__- e- ,.
.s- s t y r---- 3: -
- -.q :
,.:4 1
~_ n.
. ~
..+ ..;. ,.... .-..
-pi+++= _%i++.
g... t .-...
~. .
644 ?4 hj j-{3iti TT m i
=-*40. ; 4 : :}
}
m_. ~ ,f '\
%w Figure 6.5.35 Finite Element Model of Spent Fuel Rack for Fatigue Analysis
! ' I4 l
l ~
.F
^
% 2 A-g ~,
w ~ s Z D c o 1 W n
~
N . - n I , n b) p: y ,f ! I j
-- $ h U eg
,, m -
e I ii
,30 , i:
k F c - w 'm --,_ .
- l W 3
3 M l I i _
.- {
_ n E 8 8 8 8 8 8 g
=
- w n a n 8, 4 .
91 011 'ivol triol 5
O . O O ' Total IIorizontal (Y Dir.) Slab Load vs. Time for Vogtle Uni: I SFP (SSE, COF = 0.2) g;g j. 9,,, t' " 2 00 - o _ I 1 0 2 4 6 3 10 12 14 16 18 20 Tirne, see Figure 6.537
R Y f
\
l
' 5 k>g .. & i4 W
D 2 W_ Eo . 3!!h--
>w --
2 d _T G l w a 3 e? S cd Ph- "( g 1[a M 2 5e _ wt am- -- -, , i j 6 i o h i S
~
l y
" Wu.
~
m I I i
-e>_! -
, - ~
s
* * ! ! ! 8
,s s 4
s s e. s 2 91 s01 x 'Peo1 triol
n U ' R 2 i h I 2 ,
/\im
~
s 3 p% A n
$, G -
o I is 3y
#N
,5 mm
- . . h-- . . , .
8 1 7* . 6
- p i b W" -
3 g
- -==== r
.i mT '
i . . . _ _ _ .
,g immmac. ,_ _ .
O b - i - Qi E i f*" w- . n A / i 8 8 8 g 8 8 8 E. $ $ $ k * " " 4
,,mxwn m
/~N p
! l l'
1 l 3 [ , jV ~ m b-3m 3 ,
~
i : ii=- l p < - , , w. e c n$ H R i ?. Es s= i L u 2 (N w) 5 i
, , eg e
g w si l l i C i bb 2,m __ 6 55 . ti ~ r ko ,
,N ..
g - ---- _. , i N a 3 W LL .
- \
eq. - e,1 I (b \ 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 2 = * * " = a 7 + . , 415 0t x Teo'I rriol
l l 1 I l I 2 y .. e
-<r .
~
D -~
~
52 4 0d3d ' hl ' l j i C
~
> I l _ -JN ic .
i , i _.
- o mm i h
T r=~ n 1- o t 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 L ~ o = , ~ o ~ 3 9 , . 415 01K'Peo11001 w- - .e - w, , a-,- --
, , e-
\ ; ! l i O 0 2 s
^ i s
i P F S I 4 1 i t n U l e t - g - o - V - 2 r o .! f )t . eis
- 2 i
r r D - 4 T. ss. e e 5 6 OdGLF s vau a o= 0 1 s. e s i u r i F e r u g bO t aC - S w
) E I
- r. B i
D(O l X ( - l a _ t n _ o iI 6 z r i r o l H ~ l t a - o I T . 4 2 O 0 w s c o s o c 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 : o n a o o o s. R fi
O O O . 4 Total Horizontal (Y Dir.) Slab Load vs. Time for Vogtle Unit 1 SFP (OBE, COF = Gauss. Dist.)
; 8 00
~
- _ I .
j.111[g- - s ... v f, .
+_
y,3,p
\
( .
- II I
..._ l I r.- -
Figure 6.5.43
O O O Total IIorizontal (X Dir.) Slab Load vs. Time for Vogtle Unit I SFP (SSE, COF = Gauss. Dist.,16 Racks) I . n j - i M._ a:u , hbd
~-
y 0 2 4 6 3 10 12 34 16 is 20 j Time. sec l Figure 6.5.44 e
O~ -N n
- c n tws c: '
en t-- en >
-4
. m tus
'a 4
9 y U P, I g%
~
C UJ c= =
~4 tn
- -s
==
en ~ 2 c2 i
- O I I i i N%
4
', i i i i I l t i i
..i .- '
--l- b- l-- ' w i
b
~ c.-f r t:s 2=
.m , .. .--
s, t9 y '% '
- s g. ,
t-
> L H I t'3 -) N
-[ - Figure 6.5,45 Stress Du gram of a Storage Cell E . - - - _ - - -
/ 7.0 ACCIDENT ANALYSES AND MISCELLANEOUS STRUCTURAL EVALUATIONS 7.1 Introduction This section provides results of accident analyses and miscellaneous evaluations performed to demonstrate regulatory compliance of the fuel racks. Accident events considered are taken from Reference [7.1.1].
C The following accident and miscellaneous structural evaluations are considered: Refueling accidena Fuel rack subjected to extemal forces ! A cask handling accident is not considered for the reason that the cask is not carried over the spent fuel pool. 7.2 Refueling Accidents (~~i The FSAR [7.2.1] states the fuel handling system devices and equipment have provisions to ,V avoid dropping or jamming fuel assemblies while conducting refueling operations. The combined weight of a fuel assembly plus handling tool is approximately 2,300 lbs. Despite the handling system provisions and the controls imposed on the crane, a conservative accident evaluation of the fuel racks should include the effect of a fuel assembly falling. Drop accidents focusing on the integrity of the rack structure due to such drops are considered for the bounding rack cases. The consequences of dropping a fuel assembly as it is being moved over stored fuel is discussed below. Based on the highest lift of a fuel assembly (7.2.1], the maximum distance from ihe bottom of a fuel assemb /, traveling over fuel racks, to the top of the rack is 36 inches. 7.2.1 Dronned Fuel Assembiv - Deen Dre Scenario This accident considers a fuel assembly plus its handling tool (2,300 lbs) dropped from 36 inches above the top of an empty storage location away from a rack support pedestal and impacts the base of the rack module. The rack design should ensure that gross structural failure of the rack does not occur and that the suberiticality of the adjacent stored fuel assemblies is not violated. Calculated results show that there will be no change in spacing between cells for the modules [7.2.2]. Local deformation of the par rack bottom weldment in the area of the impact will occur, but the dropped assembly will be contained and will not impact the pool liner. It is shown that (3 b the maximum shear deformation of the lower grid is 2.25 inches. which is less than the distance between the rack base and the pool liner. 7-1
If a fuel assembly drops through a cell located over a pedestal, the impact load transmitted through the support to the liner is well below the loads caused by seismic events presented in Section 6. Therefore, the concrete bearing pressures calculated for the seismic events and reported in Section 6 baund those due to the drop accident. 7.2.2 Dronned Fuel Assembly - Shallmv Dron Scenario This accident considers a weight of 2,300 lbs, including a fuel assembly plus handling tool, dropped from 36 inches above the rack which then impacts the top of the storage cells. For structural considerations the most severe accident is the straight (vertical) drop on the top of a rack. The reason is that the total kinetic energy of the impact is absorbed over a much smaller metal area, which leads to greater rack deformation. When an inclined fuel assembly hits the top of a rack, the assembly rotates about the point of contact, and a secondary impact occurs when the angle of inclination d:minishes to zero. The number of rack cell walls that support the fuel l assembly in the horizontal position is greater than the number for the vertical drop. The worst l case is when a fuel assembly, which is dropped in the vertical position, impacts a single cell wall (see Figure 7.2.1). For this worst case, permanent deformation is restrictea to a depth less than or equal to 13.5 inches from the top of the rack [7.2.3]. The available cell length above the active fuel region is roughly 23 inches (see Figure 7.2.2). Therefore, the rack cross-sectional geometry at the elevation of the top of the active fuel (and below) are not altered, and the fael remains suberitical. 7.2.3 Conclusion The Vogtle 1 FSAR postulated refueling accideras have b'en reviewed against the rack design to determine if it meets the essential criteria of subcriticality and structoal ruggedness. The criticality analyses take credit for the center-to-center spacing and other Jesign parameters in the active fuel region of the racks. These are not altered due to a postulated fuel assembly drop accident. Under both " shallow" and " deep drop" scenarios, the stored spent fuel array remains suberitical. These conclusions were obtained considering the same weight (2,300 lbs) of a dropped assembly as discussed in the FS AR. The structural ruggedness criterion seeks to ensure that the postulated drop accident does not result in secondary damage. Examples of secondary damage are baseplate piercing leading to an impact between the fuel assembly and the pool liner during a " deep drop" scenario, or extensive plastic deformation of the rack top, cushioning the active fuel region but leading to Boral neutron absorber daraage. Analyses conclude that large margins of safety exist against all such gross structural damage scenarios. In conclusion, the new maximum density racks meet all required mechanical and functional integrity criteria under postulated fuel handling accidents. O 72
t 7.3 External Forces The capability of the racks to withstand a vertical or inclined (at 45 degrees) force of 5,000 lbs (bridge crane uplift hmit) at any location, without affecting the suberiticality of the stored fuel, is evaluated. The critical location for load application is to have this load applied near the top of the rack along or against a single cell wall. Again, the object of the investigation is to show that damage is confined to a region above the active fuel. If the vertical load is resisted only by shear stress, and the yield-stress in shear is forty percent of the yield stress in simple tension, then (using static values only): o = 21.300 psi t , = 0.4 c y i , = 8,520 psi The depth h of the cell (see Figure 7.3.1) that can support the applied load is obtained from Fe = 5,000 lbs
.' t = 0.105 in, h= h = 2.79 in.
2 ' to I : Since the damage is above the active fuel area (located 23 inches below the rack top), the application of Fe vertically is not a concern. If the load is applied vertically anywhere else along a cell wall, the stress developing in the wall is w = 8.75 in. Fa o=-- e = 5,442 psi w.t - The stress is below yield and wil) _ a no permanent damage to the cell. If the load is applied at a 45 degree angle, then there is a horizontal load component that must be supported. Realistically, this load can only be applied at the top of the rack. Therefore, it is again O necessary to show that any damage is confined to a region above the active fuel area. If h is the b depth of the " damaged reg?on" (see Figure 7.3.1), tear out of a cell wall was considered to show 7-3 e
O- that the damaged region is less than the distance from the rack top to the edge of the neutron absorber. h =2 5 T, t h = 1.98 in. In summary, the maximum depth of the cell damage is 2.79 in.- This occurs when the 5,000 pound vertical uplift force is applied to the top of a single cell wall. Application of this load at lower elevations does not cause any permanent damage. It is concluded that any uplift damage
- will not violate the active fuel envelope.
7.4 Refuences [7.1;1] " Technical Provisions for _ Analysis and Qualification of Spent Fuel
. Storage Racks for Georgia Power Company, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Unit 1, Burke County, Georgia" Specification No. X6AN10B, Revision 0, Feb.1997.
[7.2.1) Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Final Safety Analysis Repon, Section 9.1. [7.2.2] _ " Energy Analysis of Fuel Drop to Base'of Vogtle Racks", Holtec Project
. No. 70241. Holtec Report No. HI-971679, Revision 0.
[7.2.3] " Mechanical Acciden: Analysis for Vogtle Unit 1", Holtec Project No. 70241, Holtec Report No. HI-971688, Revision 0, O 7 ts FUEL ASSE$LY r . , ":% A') A 7- g
\[, '
\\/
~
k4%lYk FIGl'RE 7.2.1; POSTULATED DROP LOCATION I
! l l li
-i , ,
4 i i } b k. i . i
; .) ,
i' I ' I) 0
,hsee dh v l e
{ l },
-l
, , ,/ .
~_ : :- t
. \
i , l I
' .k B?AL
_ j ,. l i i i .' 169.375 1 i e i
\ \
s
\
.. - }
159 8 ! O)
%J PEc.
/mx A -;.
/ g "_-~- Q N
us 215 I ' (80 PAL)
\
\ ,
I
, \
l
- . _J i ,
! i I I 1 l
=::= , ,
I-s s s I
- I I
- s. _, * '
o
) c ,
d (/
+ \/
n a FUEL SLPPORT LLFFACE [, N H
, .. 4 - .',
I,:qTF 7 t ' I' l d i .
,m m ..
l FIGURE 7.2.2: RACK ELEVATION e
/ >
i 1 eepene i.
..l Fe a
4 u TT
- m. a 1 V 1Y 1V u h l
'l 1T a.)
NL G V
/
/
- m. 1 a Fe
//
l / l
.b.)
wt O v FIGUP5 7.3.1 APPLICATION OF EXTEg FOW
l
.q N..)
8.0 SPENT FUEL POOL STRUCTURE INTEGRITY CONSIDERATIONS 8.1. Introduction The Vogtle Nuclear Plant fuel handling building is a Seismic Category 1 reinforced concrete structure common to both Units I and 2. It is completely surrounded by other Seismic Category I buildings. The fuel handling htHding is south of the control building, north of the auxiliary building and between the two containment structures. The building has a center section which consists of two spent fuel storage pools, a new fuel storage area, cask loading pit, fuel transfer canals, and cask washdown area. The height of this building extends approximately 69 ft. above grade and 40 ft. below grade. On the east and west sides of the center section are penetration areas which provide access to the containment structures. These areas extend from 60 ft. below grade to grade level. The spent fuel storage facility is protected from the effects of natural phenomena such as winds tomadoes, floods, and external missiles. The facility is designed to maintain its structural integrity following a safe shutdown earthquake. The two spent fuel storage pools are identical'and have concrete walls and floors. The w walls range in thickness from 5 ft. O in to 6 ft. 6 in., and each floor slab is 6 ft, thick. The walls and floors are lined on the inside surfaces with 1/4 in. thick stainless steel plates for
- leak prevention. At every liner weld seam, continuous drains are provided for leak detection. These are interconnected and drain to a collection point which is monitored to determine whether leakage is occurring.
This section of the report describes the analysis perfomied to demonstrate the structural adequacy of the pool structure, as required by Section IV of the USNRC OT Position Paper [8.1.1]. 8.2 Codes and Standards The analysis of the spent fuel pool has been performed in accordance with the applicable portions of the following NRC Regulatory Guides, Standard Review Plan Sections, and published standards: NRC Standard Review Plan - NUREG - 0800, Section 3.7, Rev.1, July 1981, 9 Seismic Design h b(_ . NRC Standard Review Plan - NUREG - 0800. Section 3.8.4, RevJ. July 1981. Other Seismic Category I Structures 8-1 j
n x' . Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Final Safety Analysis Report, Rev. 6. ACI 318 - 71, Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete NRC Regulatory Guide 1.13. Rev. 2, Spent Fuel Storage Facility Design Basis, Dec.1981 (Draft)
"OT Position for Review and Acceptance of Spent Fuel Storage and Handling Applications", dated April 14,1978, and January 18,1979 amendment thereto 8.3 Loads The spent fuel rack analyses for the Unit I racks have been documented in Chapter 6 of this report. The pedestal time history loads and hydrodynamic pressure loads have been assessed to determine the most limiting set ofloads for each area of the pool. The Unit 1 l spent fuel pool has been reanalyzed for the following loads:
l
- a. Dead Load Dead loads consist of the gnvity load for all structural elements in the fuel (d3 handling building, the spent fuel racks, hydrostatic pressure loads acting on walls and floors, and pressure equal to the soil pressure of each wall exposed to soil, The soil pressure is based on compacted backfill with the following properties:
Dry unit weight = 112 lb/ft' Saturated unit weight = 132 lb/ft 3 Angle ofinternal friction = 34
- Cohesion = 0 The hydrostatic pressure is calculated for a high water table at elevation 165' mst (mean sea level).
- b. Live Load Roof Live Load 30 lb/ft 2 Roof- 18 in. Water Depth 94 lb/ft 2
( Floor Live Load in Areas Not Occupied by Equip. 100 lb/ft 2 8-2
- c. Seismic I oad E = Seismic loads generated by Operating Basis Earthquake (OBE)
E' = Seismic loads generated by Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE) Seismic loads were applied as equivalent static accelerations acting on all mass. The seismic loads imposed on the spent fuel pool structure from the spent fuel racks were taken from the Whole Pool Multi - Rack analyses described in Chapter 6. This _was done by taking the peak values from the time histories of total slab loads for the nonh - south, east - west, and vertical directions. The hydrodynamic load of pool water acting on pool walls and the pool floor was calculated in accordance with TID-7024, Nuclear Reactors and Earthquakes, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, dated 8/1963 [8.3.1). The rack pressure loading on the pool walls caused by fluid coupling effects was also considered, and was obtained from the results of the rack analyses documented in Chapter 6 of this document. For the results, structural response from each direction of seismic load was obtained first and combined SRSS with the colinear responses from the other two directions. (3 V d. Temnerature Load The spent fuel pool is designed for an operating temperature of 170' F. The spent fuel pool is also designed for an accident temperature of 195 ' F which includes a 15' F margin added to the design maximum temperature for the spent fuel pool cooling system of 180 F. Temperature loads include both a bulk temperature component and a gradient for the following conditions: T o= Normal operating condition, pool water temperature for 170' F and ambient air temperature of 608 F T, = Accident condition, pool water temperature of 195 F and an ambient air temperature of 60 F 8.4 Snent Fuel Pool Structure Finite Element Analysis (,) The areas'of the structure evaluated in the finite element analysis include the Fuel Handling Building basemat and spent fuel pool floor and walls below Elevation 220' - 0". 8-3
p
'd Only one half of the fuel handling building was modeled to take advantage of the symmetry of the building in the east west direction about the centerline of the two-unit plant. Along the axis of building symmetry, symmetrical boundary conditions were used for vertical and north-south loads, and anti-symmetrical boundary conditions are used for cast west loads. The analysis was performed using ANSYS Version 5.3 on Windows NT
[8.4.1]. ANSYS is a large-scale multi purpose finite element program. Finite element types used . are "SHELL63" clastic shell element for the walls and slabs, and "COMBIN14" spring element for the soil springs. A computer plot of the finite element model is presented in Figure 8.4.1. A " cracked section analysis" was performed on the finite element model in order to simulate the effects of the concrete cracking, due primarily to the thermal loads. First, the modulus of elasticity and the thickness of all shell elements in the model were modified from the gross concrete values to obtain the appropriate flexural cracked section stiffness. Analysis was performed on this cracked section model for all loadings including mechanical and thermal. Next, the axial forces in the shell elements were reviewed for each load combination. For those elements that are in tension, the stiffness was reduced to be equivalent to that of the steel reinforcing by modifying the modulus of elasticity and the thickness. The apprc,priate flexural cracked section stiffness was maintained. Iterative analyses were performed until the tensile cracking stabilized. This procedure was repeated for each of the load combinations containing thermal loads. For the (q.) combination not containing thermal loads, redistribution of forces and moments was performed by hand in a few localized areas, ANSYS element results were post-processed to obtain P/M (axial force / moment) results per unit length for each shell element in the pool. These P/M results were plotted and were found to be enveloped by the P/M interaction curves based on ACI 318 [8.4.2]. The analyses therefore show that the Vogtle Uniti spent fuel pool is structurally adequate for the loads associated with the rerack project. 8.5 Pool Liner Intecrity Analysis The membrane and bending stress distribution in the pool liner are computed for the location in the pool where the lateral pedestal loading during the seismic event is the greatest and the restraint to deformation is the maximum. Computations show that the maximum in-plane stress in the liner is 15,670 psi, which is well below the ultimate stress of the liner material; thus, liner tearing is not credible. An evaluation of the potential for liner failure due to cyclic fatigue was also made. Analyses show that the cumulative damage factor due to cyclic loading from one SSE and five OBE events is less than 0.080. Therefore, the liner will not fail from cyclic fatigue. O 8-4 i J
8.6 Bearing Pad Analysis {} v To protect the pool slab from high localized dynamic loadings, bearing pads were placed between the pedestal base and the slab. Fuel rack pedestals impact on these bearing pads during a seismic event and pedestal loading is transferred to the liner. Bearing pad dimensions are set to ensure that the average pressure on the slab surface due to a static load plus a dynamic impact load does not exceed the American Concrete Institute (8.4.2] limit on bearing pressures. Section 10 of {8.4.2] gives the design bearing strength as f,t = $ (.85 fe ') e where c = .7 and f,' is the specified concrete strength for the spent fuel pool structure e
= 1 except when tg supporting surface is wider on all sides than the loaded area. In that case, e = (A2/Ai ) , but not more than 2. A is i the actual loaded area. ad A 2is an area greater than Ai and is defined in [8.4.2]. Using a value of e > 1 includes credit for the confining effect of the surrounding concrete. It is noted that this. criteria is in conformance with the ultimate strength pimary design methodology of the American Concrete Institute in use since 1971. For Vogtle Unit 1, fe' = 4000 psi and the allowable bearing pressure is f, = 4760 psi assuming full concrete confinement. A quarter symmetric finite element model of the bearing pad / pool slab interface is prepared to determine the pressure distribution undemeath the bearing pad. The model permits the bearing pad to deform and lose contact with the liner, if the conditions of elastostatics so b dictate. Figure 8.6.1 shows the bearing pad model in its undeformed and defonned shapes. The slab is modeled as an clastic foundation which supports the liner. All bearing pads are located away from leak chases.
The average pressure at the pad to liner interface is computed and compared against the above-mentioned limits. Calculations show that the average pressure at the slab / liner interface is 1,597 psi which is well below the allowable value of 4,760 psi. p 8-5
(/S _j 8.7 References g [8.1.1] "OT Position for Review and Acceptance of Spent Fuel Storage and Handling Applications", dated April 14,1978, and January 18, 197v amendment thereto. [8.3.1] " Nuclear Reactors and Earthquakes." U.S. Department of commerce, National Bureau of Standards, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia (TID 7024). [8.4.1) ANSYS Release 5.3 June 1996, ANSYS Inc. [8.4.2] ACI 318-71 Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, Michigan.
- %)
h %A 8-6 1
O A t hfd (" o , oL I e..llcll19B1E Figure 8.4.1. ANSYS Finite Element Model of Spent Fuel Pool Structure O l
- c ,
iG 7 4
.. g >T s " .. t .; A " - 3 -..
~ ,.' i 8d , 'hh
,- s E -
~
l
-:r Note: The scale of the deformed shape is increased for viewing purposes.
Figure 8.6.1 Finite Element Model of Bearing Pad / liner Interface
,/"%
! ) 9.0 Radiological Evaluatin.n v
9.1 Solid Radwaste The necessity for spent fuel pool polisher resin replacement is determined primarily by the requirement for water clarity, and the resin is normally changed about once per refueling. This represents approximately 62 cu.ft. of solid radioactive wastes generated by the SFP purification system annually. Since the number of fuel assemblies handled in the pools annually (193/ unit) will not increase with the expanded storage capacity, the volume of solid radioactive waste is expected to be less than or equal to the present volume. 9.2 Gaseous Releases Gaseous releases from the fuel storage area are combined with other plant exhausts. For the past two years, the krypton-85 concentrations measured from the fuel storage area ventilation release point has been negligible compared to the other releases and no l significant increases are expected as a result of the expanded storage capacity. (* l \) 9.3 Personnel Excosures Representative concentrations of radionuclides expected in the pool water are shown in Table 9.1. During normal operations, personnel working in the fuel storage area are exposed to radiation from the spent fuel pool. Current operating experience has shown that the area radiation' dose rates, which originate primarily from radionuclides in the pool water, are 2.5 mrent/ hr or less. The SFP purification system is used to maintain SFP water quality, prevent a buildup of crud in the SFP, and maintain the dose rates due to dominant gamma emitting isotopes to 2.5 mrem /hr or less before, during, and after refueling. Table 9.2 provides the airborne concentration of radionuclides from the spent fuel pool. Our operating experience has shown that there have been negligible concentrations of airborne radioactivity and no increases are expected as a result of the expanded storage capacity. Area monitors for airbome activities are available in the immediate vicinity of _ the spent fuel pool. The adequacy of the shielding around the pool (water depth and concrete walls) to provide protection, despite the slightly closer approach of the new racks to the walls of the pool, is verified in section 4 of this report. t O-9-1 l I
Should an increase in spent fuel pool water radionuclide concentration occur. the SFP purification system will be used to reduce the concentration to acceptable levels. Demineralizer resin bed changeout and filter changeout operations are performed remotely from low radiation areas. Control panels and valve reach rods are located in areas designed to maintain radiation levels of 2.5 mr/hr or less. Based.on the design capacities of the spent fuel pool filter and demineralizer compared to other demineralizers and filters as discussed in FSAR Chapter 12, an increase in SFP purification system resin changeout or filter changeout frequency will have a negligible impact on the activity processed by the radioactive waste system. Therefore, the increased storage capacity will have negligible impact on plant cumulative doses. Since no increase in radiation exposure to operating personnel is expected: therefore, neither the current health physics program nor the area monitoring system needs to be modified. 9A Anticinated Exnosure During Reracking There will be no spent fuel or other irradiated material in the Unit I spent fuel storage pool when the racks are installed. These storage racks were previously in service at Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company and are contaminated. The operations involved ( in reracking will utilize detailed procedures prepared with the full consideration of ALARA principles. Similar operations have been perfomied in a number of facilities in the past, and there is every reason to believe that reracking can be safely and efficiently accomplished at Vogtle Unit 1, with minimum radiation exposure to personnel. Total occupational exposure for the reracking operation is estimated to be between 1.5 and 2.5 person-rem. This is believed to be a reasonable estimate for planning purposes. The existing radiation protection program at Vogtle is adequate for the reracking operations. Where there is a potential for airbome activity, continuous air samplers will be in operation. Engineering or other controls will be utilized to minimize airbome radioactivity. Personnel will wear protective clothing and respiratory protective equipment, if necessary. Activities will be govemed by a Radiation Work Permit, and personnel monitoring equipment will be assigned to each individual pursuant to HP procedures. Work personnel traffic, and the movement of equipment will be monitored and controlled to minimize contamination and to assure that exposures are maintained ALARA. 1 O O 9-2
9.5 Disnosal Of Existing Unit 1 Racks The two existing Westinghouse 12 x 12 spent fuel storage racks will removed from the pool and stored on site, at an approved location. Prior to storage the racks will be cleaned and decontaminated to levels approved by llealth Physics. Once decontaminated, the rack will then be wrapped, downended to the horizontal position, and placed into the shipping / storage container for storage. 9.6 NRC Concems From Other Facilities 9.6.1 Use of Remote Tools ALARA principles (time, distance, shielding) will be use as controls for the use of remote tools during spent fuel pool modifications. This modification will be performed in a wet pool and therefore divers will be used for some functions. The use of divers can expedite some functions, reduce total crew exposure, and minimize the time required to complete certain tasks. For instance, diver-controlled tools will reduce the need for
- decontamination during remote-tool handling.
9.6.2 Spalling From Spent Fuel Assemblies O V NRC experiences have shown that when the storage racks are added, the radioactivity concentrations in the spent fuel pool may be expected to increase due to crud deposits spalling from spent fuel assemblies which are shuftled. This crud (spalling) has a loose i fluffy layer that falls off the fuel assemblies to the floor of the fuel pools and canals. This additional crud material has caused the activity of Mn-54 and Co-60 to exceed the values in the TS for spent fuel pool activities. Prior to pool modifications, all spent fuel will be sansferred to the Unit 2 pool as is the current practice. After movement of all fuel, the 2 existing fuel racks will be cleaned and removed. Then the entire SFP floor will be vacuumed, underwater, and prior to installation of the i. w racks. These measures should eliminate the impact of any spalling from spent fuel assemblies. ( 9-3
i j 9.7 References
- 1. "OT Position Paper for Review and Acceptance of Spent Fuel Storage and
-liandling Applications," dated April 14,1978, and January 18,1979 amendment thereto.
- 2. NRC Request for Additional Information, SFP Modification at R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant.
- 3. VEGP Final Safety Analysis Report, Chapter 12, Revision 6.
- 4. VEGP licalth Physics Data from Fuel llandling Building Surveillance's, c
/ h 1 9-4
TAllLE 9.1 REPRESENTATIVE CONCENTRATIONS OF RADIONUCLlDES IN Tile SPENT FUEL POOL WATER Concentration, Nuclide .itCjlml Co-58 5.4E-05 Co 60 8.5E-05 Cs-134 9.9E-07 Cs-137 7.7E-07 O O
TABLE 9.2 REPRESENTATIVE CONCENTRATIONS OF AIRBORNE - RADIONUCLIDES IN TIIE SPENT FUEL POOL AREA Concentration, Nuclide .gCg 11-3 2.50-06 i All Others negligible
~
O O
- _ - _ _ _ _ = _ - _ _ _ _ -
]m 10.0 Environmental Cost / Benefit Assessment 10.1 Introduction This section discusses factors considered by Plant Vogtle before selecting reracking as the most viable altemative.
10.2 Imnerative For Increasing Snent Fuel Storage The specific need to increase the limited existing spent fuel storage capacity at Vogtle Unit 1 is based on the projected continual increase in inventory in the spent fuel pool and the advisability of maintaining full-core off load capacity. The Unit 1 pool has a current storage capacity of 288 fuel assemblies which is far below the design capacity of the pool in both size and cooling ability. Unit I fuel assemblies are usually moved to the Unit 2 pool after they have decayed in the Unit 1 pool until the combined heat load of the Unit I and Unit 2 fuel assemblies is less than the heat load of 11.96 MBlu/hr from previous refuelings. The spent fuel pools for Units 1 and 2 will lose the capacity to accept a discharge of one (s') full-core (193 fuel assemblies)_in the year 2005. The additional storage capacity would allow spent fuel assemblies to be stored onsite until the year 2015. At present only Unit I spent fuel assemblies are stored in the Unit I spent fuel pool. 10.3 Proiect Cost Estimate The total cost for the rerack project is estimated to be approximately $2.5 million and includes engineering design, handling and transport, installation, and an allowance for contingencies. 10.4 Anoraisal Of Alternative Ontions The projected loss of storage capacity in the spent fuel pools would affect our ability to ' operate the Unit 1 or 2 reactor. Replacement power costs an average of approximately
$305,000 per day. Shutting down Plant Vogtle is many times more expensive than increasing onsite spent fuel storage capacity. There are no commercial independent spent fuel storage facilities operating in the United States. Since the cost of spent fuel reprocessing is not offset by the salvage value of the residual uranium, reprocessing would represent an added cost for the nuclear fuel cycle. In any event, there are no
('") domestic reprocessing facilities. - SNC does not have an existing or planned contractual arrangement for third-party fuel storage or fuel reprocessing. The Maine Yankee racks were essentially given to Plant Vogtle and therefore this cost is negligible compared to 10-1
('~,) the design and construction of new racks which may be as much as 80% of the total project cost. The remaining cost associated with the Maine Yankee Racks is in the installation and licensing processes. There are no other acceptable cost effective altematives to developing additional onsite spent fuel storage capacity. SNC has determined that reracking by transferring the par racks which were previously in service at the hiaine Yankee Atomic Plant to the Vogtle Unit 1 pool is the most viable option in comparison to other spent fuel storage alternatives. The key considerations in evaluating the alternative options were: Fully utilizing the already existing Unit I spent fuel pool structure and pool support systems.
- Minimize overall capital and operational and maintenance (O&M) costs.
- Minimize the effects on plant systems and operations by reducing the amount of fuel handling as well as the potential positive impacts on safety and as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) radiation exposures, lq , 10.5 Resource Commitment v
The expansion of the spent fuel pool capacity will not require the commitment of significant additional primary resources because the existing Maine Yankee Atomic Plant surplus racks are being utilized. 10.6 Environmental Considentions The Unit 1 Spent Fuel Pool (SFP) storage capacity is increasing from 288 fuel assemblies to 1476 fuel assemblies. The heat load from the assemblies is removed to the environment through the Nuclear Service Cooling Water (NSCW) system. The Unit I and Unit 2 NSCW system designs are identical. The anticipated increased in Unit i SFP heat load will be less than the heat load generated by Unit 2 SFP which has a storage capacity of 2098 fuel assemblies. Heat dissipated through the NSCW towers represents approximately 2.5% of the total rejected plant heat. The additional heat load placed on the NSCW system will be negligible compared to the current loads. The increased bulk pool temperature will result in an increase in the pool water evaporation rate. This increase is within the capacity of the existing Fuel Handling Building heating. ventilating, and air conditioning system. The net result of the increased heat loss and water vapor emission to the environment will be negligible. (v) 10-2
I 10,7- References c 1,. "OT Position Paper fo Review and Acceptance of Spent Fuel Storage and , Handling Applications," dated April 14,1978, and January 18,1979 amendment thereto,
~
- 2. , VEGP Design Manual, Design Control No. DC-1213. Rev,4 dated 3/28/95.
, 3.1 VEGP Design Manual, Design Control No. DC-1202, Rev 8 dated 11/4/96.
O 4
?
a v p 10-3
D 11.0 Installation L J' 11.1 Introduction The Vogtle Unit 1 Rerack Project includes the removal of two Westinghouse spent fuel racks presec tly in the Unit I spent fuel pool and the installation into that pool of 26 par spent fuel racks obtained from Maine Yankee Atomic Plant. The project will be performed in a wet pool with no fuel assemblies present in the Unit 1 pool.
11.2 Removal And Decontamination Of Existing Racks There are two Westinghouse 12 x 12 spent fuel racks which will be removed from the Unit I spent fuel pool prior to the par rack installation. Before the racks are moved, fuel will be removed from both racks at an appropriate time designated by the combined heat load of the Unit 2 and Unit I fuel assemblies. This fuel movement will be performed by existing plant procedures and not as a part of the rerack project. Aner the fuel is moved, one rack at a time will be inspected and the internal area of each cell pressure washed. A lining device will be installed and the rack lifted to an area just below the Unit 1 pool water surface. The exterior walls of the racks will then be pressure washed. Upon e'~'N completion of the pressure washing, a contamination surveillance will be performed and d the rack will be cleaned again or moved above the water surface and allowed to dry. Finally, the rack will be bagged, downended to the horizontal position, and placed into a storage container. I1.3 Storage Of Existing Racks After the two existing Westinghouse 12 x 12 spent fuel storage racks are placed in a storage / shipping container they will be removed from the fuel handling building and stored on-site at an approved location. Presently, no plans exist for the disposal of the racks as radwaste or for them to be sold for reuse. 11.4
)
Installation Of New Racks The Maine Yankee Atomic Plant spent fuel racks purchased by SNC for installation into the Unit 1 pool are being stored in specially constructed shipping containers on-site at t lant Vogtle in an area designated for their storage. The racks still inside the storage i container and bag, will be transported into the fuel handling building. Once inside the q 11-1
'(3 building they will be removed from the container and bag, upended to the vertical V position, inspected for damage which may have occurred during shipping, pre-leveled, and placed into the prepared Unit I spent fuel pool. Once in the pool the racks will be
- leveled and as-built rack-to-rack and rack to-wall dimensions recorded. All of these rack handling and placement activities will take place one rack at a time,
, In preparing the spent fuel pool for rack installation, the pool floor will be vacuumed and inspected. Any debris will be removed before the rack bearing pads are positioned and installed. After the racks are installed drag testing of each of the rack cells will be performed to ensure that no cell location poses excessive resistance to the insertion or withdrawal of a fuel assembly. l 11.5 Proiect Ouality And Alara Controls All Vogtle Unit 1 Rerack Project activities will be conducted in accordance with written procedures which will be reviewed and approved by the appropriate site organizations.
- These written procedures will be prepared and performed in compliance with NUREG-0612 and site specific procedures including the Vogtle Quality Assurance Manual. The following activities, although not inclusive, be govemed by specific procedures includes l
receipt inspection, lift rig installation and removal, upending, pool liner surveillance, cell rework, heavy load lifts, leveling pedestal adjustment, decontamination and release,
\ ALARA evaluations, drawings and documentation requirements, transfer platform installation, welding, liner inspection / repair, underwater cutting and grinding, rigging, cleaning and vacuuming, general rack installation, general rack removal, and diving requirements.
l The lifting devices designed for handling, installation, and removal of the racks will comply with the provisions of ANSI 14.6 1978 and NUREG-0612. This includes compliance with the primary stress criteria, load testing at a multiplier of maximum working load. The operation of the overhead heavy load handling system (OHLHS) will comply with FSAR requirements such that the consequences of a failure are acceptable to ensure the capability to. safely shut down the plant, remove decay heat, and maintain doses within prescribed limits.
~
Personnel involved in the reracking operation will be given training to ensure all project procedures understood and complied with during rerack operations. This incit. des the use of the lifting and upending equipment. For some tasks. pre performance meetings may take place to cover specific work details. Health ' Physics will provide necessary coverage in order to provide radiological protection and monitor dose rates. No activity within the radiniogically controlled area shall be carried out without the knowledge and approval of Health Physics.
- 11-2 v
11.6 - References
- 1. "OT Position Paper for Review and_ Acceptance of Spent Fuel Storage and Handling Applications," dated April 14,1978, and January 18,1979 amendment thereto.
- 2. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Final Safety Analysis Report, Section 9.1.5,
" Overhead 11eavy Load Handling Systems".
O L 't 1 4 r em , O 11-3}}