B11827, Forwards Addl Info Requested in Oct 1985 Re Util Request to Modify Tech Specs Concerning Spent Fuel Storage Capacity
| ML20134B144 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 10/28/1985 |
| From: | Fee W, Opeka J NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY CO., NORTHEAST UTILITIES |
| To: | Butcher E Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| B11827, TAC-59294, NUDOCS 8511110304 | |
| Download: ML20134B144 (91) | |
Text
. ~
a v ,
N UTILITIES conmi Orvic.. . see.n sir..t. sonin. connecticut HARTFORD CONNECTICUT 06141-0270 k L 1J ((j,((CN*.' (203) 665-5000 October 28,1985 Docket No. 50-336 B11827 Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attn: Mr. Edward 3. Butcher, Chief Operating Reactors Branch No. 3 Division of Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Gentlemen:
Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 2 Reply to Request for AdditionalInformation on Spent Fuel Storage Capacity In October,1985(l) the Staff requested additional information concerning a Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (NNECO) request (2) to modify the Technical Specifications concerning the spent fuel storage capacity at Millstone Unit No.2.
Attachment No. I to this letter provides the response, in a question and answer format, to the eleven (11) questions contained in the Staff's request for additional information.
We trust that the information provided is sufficient, and we remain ready to address any further questions as they arise to support expeditious processing of our pending amendment request.
Very truly yours, NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY
. Opeka '
Senior Vice President N
W. F. Fee Executive Vice President (1) E. 3. Butcher letter to 3. F. Opeka, " Request for Additional Information on Spent Fuel Storage Capacity Expansion for Millstone Unit No. 2," dated October 3,1985.
(2) 3. F. Opeka letter to E. 3. Butcher, " Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 2, Proposed Change to Technical Specification Modifications to Spent -
Fuel Storage Pool," dated July 24,1985.
0511110304 e51020 0 e PDR ADOCK 05000336 '
P PDR 3 (Q k ^ -
f;. .. .
- 5( .v .e Docket No. 50-336 !
B11827 ;
i N
Attachment No.1 .
Mllistone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 2 Response to Request for AdditionalInformation on Spent Fuel Storage Capacity J
1 f6
- October,1985 i
+
/'
r 0 V d
- 1. With respect to seismic loadings on the spent fuel rack modules:
- a. Identify which modules were analyzed.
The following rack modules were analyzed:
i) Region 13 x 10 module c -
- 11) Region 117 x 8 module lii) Region 117 x 9 module iv) Region 11 modified 7 x 9 module
- b. Provide a description of how the horizontal earthquake acceleration (time history) was oriented relative to the long and short cross-sectional dimensions of the rack modules in the non-linear displacement anlaysis.
The pool layout was arranged so that the rack modules were placed in specific locations and orientations within the spent fuel pool.
Acceleration time histories were available for both the north-south and east-west directions. The acceleration time histories were applied to the rack module models in a manner consistent with their actual in-pool orientations.
- c. Describe what constitutes the worst ?case (identifying the factors by which the worst case was identified) and how it was considered.
The worst case for shear load was a Region 117 x 9 module, fully loaded and excited by the north-south seismic component.
.
- A:
The most significant factor in identifying possible worst cases is the relationship between the model natural frequencies and the acceleration response , spectra -for the appropriate spent fuel pool acceleration time his tories. For a given response spectrum, potential worst cases may be identified by selecting cases where the model natural frequencies are near
~
the peak of' the response spectrum. There are a' number of other factors, however, that have an effect on the model frequency characteristics and consequently the response loads, among these area; the natural frequency of- the rack module in air, the type of fuel storage, the hydrodynamic effects between the fuel and the rack module and between the rack module
' and the pool structure.
Because a number of factors affect the identification of a " worst case", a number of analyses are performed, which correspond to different regions of the pool, difference size modules, difference earthquake directions and types of fuel storage.
- 2. Reference 4-2 was cited on page 22 of the Licensee's report in lieu of any description of the non-linear model:
~
- a. ' Provide the relationship of this reference to the analysis performed for the Licensee's report.
The ' cited reference describes the - general methodology used to develop 'a nonlinear seismic analysis model of a spent fuel rack module. The reference stresses the importance of modeling fuel assemblies as discrete structural elements and the non-linear impacting behavior between the rack -module and the stored fuel.
. Beyond these . general themes there , is no specific' relationship-between the cited reference and the analysis performed for the
~
- Millstone 2 spent fuel racks.
% i F
t 6 c -L"
'""~~ !
. ' . . ~ 7. ANSIER. .2. C
'
- i '
, f[_._% :c ._ -
i
- -g i I 8 l SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF '
1 1~ SPENT FUEL RACKS i l
l A
' l F
2.
l
) !
I K. -
R.LONGO b ] l I
D. F. BAISLEY {
k~ )
I
['
\
l F.'
! E. .
j b i Nuclear Power Systems
- l f- Combustion Engineering, Inc. ;
h Windsor. Connecticut
- h. .;
l~
l L I i f
- , p .
I i E
l t. 1 Presented at o
,. ! AMERICAN NUCLEAR SOCIET '
I k <
TOPICAL MEETING ON I: -
) OPTIONS FOR SPENT FUEL STORAGE E
i p
' September 26-29,1982 -
Savannah, Georgia I'~
c: . 4 p '
y i-i r-
! r POWER b^ -
SYSTEMS F.
e- q i
2 !
f$
r
. 1
, A. - ,
ABSTRACT The paper describes the nonlinear unae history seismic analysis method used by C-Efor the design and licensing of spentfuel racks. The method is applied to spentfuel racks that store both standard and consolidatedfuel assemblies.
The analysis is based upon a direct numericalintegration of the coupled equations of motionfor thefuel and the rack.
The equations ofmotion accountfor the gaps, hydrodynamic coupling and impacting between the structures of thefuel andfuel rack system. A summary of representative results from nonlinear time history analyses covering a wide range of designs and seismic excitations is presented. A compari-son of these results with those obtained through the use of the response spectrum analysis method is presented to dem-
- onstrate that the response spectrum method-which is un.
i able to accountfor interaction effects-may lead to incorrect results. The importance of modeling thefuel as a separate structural element is established. Examples of how thefuel responds to seismic excitation at its own naturalfrequen.
cies-not at that of the rack structure-are presented. The -
applicability of the seismic analysis method to a consoli-datedfuel andfuel racic design is discussed.
Additional cppies of this technicalpaper may be obtained by writing Communications, Dept. 7021 1904, Windsor.
Pfeese refer to the number (TIS 7308) that appears in the lowerriftcornerof the frontcover.
. , e e,% -
E
r +
l .. A a SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF SPENT FUEL RACKS INTRODUCTION riteracting submerged structures are in close proximity C-E led the industry in performing nonlinear time history (small Faps).
seismic analyses of spent fuel racks in 1975. Smce then. The nonlinear time history method was deseloped by C-E has applied the methodology to nine spent fuel rack C-E for use in spent fuel rack analyses because the linear applications covering a wide range of designs and reactor response spectrum method does not properly characterize sites. This experience is supplemented with many parameter the fuel-to-fuel rack-to. pool interaction and, as demon-studies using the nonlinear time history method. strated later in this paper, it may yield incorrect results.
The nonlinear time. history analysis method employed by C-E is based upon a direct numerical integration of the equa- THEORY tions of motion for the fuel and the rack. It utilizes multi- To aid in understanding the analysis
' method requirements degree-of-freedom spring and lumped mass models of the corresponding to the physical problem, consider the follow-fuel and the rack, and accounts for the effects of gaps and ing simplified analog of the spent fuel rack problem (see submergence m water directly in the equations of motion Figure 2). The three concentric cylinders represent the pool defined by the model. It uses the seismic excitation time- (P), the rack (R), and the fuel (F). There is water between history corresponding to the spent fuel pool elevation in the the fuel and the rack, and between the rack and the pool.
auxiliary building. Figure i provides an example of a typical The connection (spring Kc) between the fuel and the rack 2 0.3- represents the gap between these structures as well as the impact stiffness with which the fuel spacer grids intera;t e
50.2 :
c -
2ll l ni e b 1)(4 l. ll ;n 'X'p
< o
- o. .Y f
h I
7 N N9 E p
30.2
- 0.3 -
~
0 5 to 15 20 25 R s
Time in Secones Figure 1: Example ofSeismic Excization Time History p $
1940 El Centro Earthquake seismic excitation used for nonlinear time-history analysis-the acceleration time-history for the 1940 El Centro earth- h quake. The response of the fuel and rack, together with the y seismic loads, is obtained directly from the analysis. The analysis is performed by means of the computer program ,
CESHOCK.
N' K R
To allow insertion and withdrawal of fuel, each spent fuel rack cell has a gap between the cell walls and the fuel. Dur- _
ing seismic excitation, the fuel moves freely through the g available gap and impacts the cell walls. The fuel responds ,
to excitation at its own natural frequencies-not at that of the rack structure-since it is a separate structure and not '
f attached to the rack. As the fuel moves within the rack and 6p. 6R as the rack moves relative to the pool, the water between these structures is moved by them. The acceleration of the water introduces hydraulic loads on the structures which re-sults in a lowering of natural frequencies of fuel and rack. Figure 2: Simplified Analog ofSpent FuelRack Physical These hydrodynamic effects are accentuated when the Problem 1
.m o I
i with the rack when in contact. The connection (spring K.) ,t ,
between the rack and the pool represents the manner in t
,=,o which the rack is supported by the pool. Nomenclature is as 4
,2 , A, ,
e follow s- ,%, - ^ ^
,=, :
L s . a s &
N, b% lOf p (t
= seisn$ie excitation iacceleration time history) * *
~ 'u -N at spent fuel pool elevation N' Gnd Support E.
3,
= acceleration of rack (relatise to pool) l , kN} '
l 6
= acceleration of fuel (relatise to pool)
= displacement of rack (relatise to pool) l ih
[.
l Fuel Storage 6, = displacement of fuelIrelative to pool) l
- q.; il i j . , l '
l Tubes M. = mass of rack tph ; ! ; .
% 1 i
j M., = mass of water displaced by rack % d ". q ;
h-g j
My = mass of water contained within rack "U" Channel M, = mass of fuel ' ] /l Base Support M,, = mass of water displaced by fuel '
F.,,, = fluid force on inner boundary of rack y;gure 3: c.E Hi-CAP Spent FuelRack Module F, = fluid force on outer boundary of rack through the use of CESHOCK. In contrast to the above, the F,,, = 11uid force on outer boundary of fuel response spectrum method can accommodate only a single K..Ko = as defined above uncoupled equation for the response of a one-degree-of-free-a,.u: S.y = factors describine the effect of geometric p m system. Modifying the response spectrum method to proximity of hvd'rodynamics include an approximation of the effect of water on frequency.
the analogous equation of motion for the system of Figure 3 With reference to the above nomenclature and Figure 2. that corresponds to the response spectrum method of analysts:
and neglecting damping terms for purposes of simplifying ,. ,,
discussion, the following equations of motion can be .
(M + Me + Mo) 6 + K B = -(M + Me) X, developed:
Here the representation of the system is clearly incom-M.tS, + E.) = - K.(8,) + Kc(5, - 6.) + F , . plete, with all sorts of approximations (of unknown effect)
F., required to select the single salues of mass. stiffness (linear M + Ed = - Kd5, - 8c) + F,. , - . nivl, etc., all wed. Comparison with the two equations above demonstrates the point that the response spectrum The fluid forces are given by: method does not model the real, physical situation. For ex-F , = M.. (X, - a, E.) ample, it does not account for the gap between the fuel and F., = My (-R, + 2 3, - a:1.) the rack, which causes the system to have different natural
.. .. frequencies (and to respond to different frequencies of ex-F,,, = M,, ( A.,
- 2 6. - a: 5,) e tation) and allows fuel to rack impacting to occur. Also, it does not account for the hydrodynamic coupling between Substitution of these expressions for fluid f6rces into the the fuel and rack, with the introduction of interactive fluid two equations of motion and simplification of terms yicids forces.
the required coupled equations corresponding to the physical problem: RESULTS (M. - a,M., + a:M.,)E. - (2SM )3, + (K. + A number of spent fuel rack seismic analyses have been Ko)a. - Kc8r = -(M. + Me - M.,, )X, performed by C-E, covering a wide range of rack designs
-(2yM,,13. + IM, + a.M,,J3, - Ko8. + K,,6, = . and seismic excitations. The two basic types 'of spent fuel .
_ ,y, _ gg racks offered by C-E are shown in Figures 3 and 4. The High
(. Capacity (HI-CAP) design in Figure 3 is composed of square
! The equations account for the gap between the fuel and storage casities fabricated from stainless steel plate with the rack, the hydrodynamic coupling between the sub- each cavity capable of accepting one fuel assembly. The l merged structures and impacting between structures. The storage cavities are structurally connected to form modules l complete equations of motion sincluding damping) corre- from the use of channels, plates and chevron beams which
! sponding to the physical situation are modeled and solved provide the load-carrying frame and maintain spacing be-
[.
-2 l
-- - -~
- i. .4 . .
.l 10 0--
i .
J P
/ 5 I n f
/ 7 )I Site IV x g . e ; p.
\[s m't, ,.5 3 - @c',,ng ]'* .
/ j:Pik ,
4 g $ ,' g d. Site VI j
l jf '/ \. g[ Site I l,
/ .
I
\ -i Site VilSite V
--.~.- Site 11 0.1" 1 10 100 1
' . i Frequency (CPS)
. 1 Figure 3: Spent Fuel Pools Seismic Respome Spectra i
j i , ;, nonlinear springs Kc through Kc,.; the frictional restraint
% i
] by between the fuel and the rack and that between the rack and I
,/
j]
- f 7 Y,
Flow the poci are represented by the friction couplings F,.. and F..,. respectively. The corresponding parameters for Model B are shown in Figure 7.
Passages Fi ure 8 is a brief segment ,f typical displacement re-SPonses (Model A) to the seismic excitation corresponding Figure t: C-E Super HI-CAP Spent Fuel Storage Afodule H%
tween storage cavities. The C-E standard Super Hi-CAP ' KG6' 14 spent fuel storage rack shown in Figure 4 is a stainless steel 7 / g -H--/
monolithic honeycomb structure with square fuel storage Kre- H- Kns / Spacer Gnd locations. The fuel assembly storage cells are welded to- 13
/
g _
gether to permit the assembled modules to be load-bearing structures as well as the storage cell enclosures. Each indi. Fu KFs 7 p ,H % / pon, vidual cell is a structural member and serves as a guide and retainer for a Neutron Poison Insert or a Consolidated Fuel 5(/ )- - H --/
Box. Following is a summary of representative results from KF' '
g - KR4 nonlinear time-history analyses (utilizing CESHOCK). Be 4
KG5 /
compared with corresponding response spectrum method }11 -H--
7 analysis results. KF3 kHydrodynamic Figure 5 shows several different seismic excitations used / . Coupling in obtaining the results. The response spectra are shown only 3r ' ~KG2 ' Elements Rigid 7
,-H--p to illustrate the differences in the excitations corresponding KF2 KR2 to seven sites; time-histories for these sites were used in the Mass , H -. s /
CESHOCK analyses. 2(NM)g--H--/
Figures 6 and 7 represent two typical CESHOCK models. Kri Km /
Model A corresponds to a freestanding HI-CAP design and ,8 / riction Element Model B represents a freestanding Super Hi-CAP design. 1b3 f pp., h j[Fin Sliding For Model A. the fuelis modeled by masses I through 7 and / */ g Analysis. Non-sprmes K,, through K,,: the rack is modeled by masses 8 Fnction Element Linear Torsion through 14 and sp' rings K., through K .: the hydrodynamic SP' coupling between the rack and the fuel and the rack and pool 7
77yyf 9[9h&sn is represented b.s the couplings - H: the fuel-to-rack gaps and fuel-to-rack impact characteristics are modeled by the Figure 6: HI-CAP Fuel Rad Nonlinear CESHOCK hiodel 3
.. , ei .
f
,-HN 2 'Ke6 H'N 18 " H /
6 KG6 7 (KF5 K A5
// Simulated
,n KG5H % s11 ,
,K E4
- 37
-H )7 Spacer Gnd Fuel Model 7 _
/
Ke4 K "' r -Rack Model KF4 Hos10 ,,H
, %16 /
4 KF3 KB3
[N/
gg3 ,' pool Massless Beam # H ,9
, ,K G3
,,H s$t /
, -H g/
3{ ! Hydrodynamic KF2 Ke
,H- / Couphng Elements -
.H '
Rigid Mass Ke2 'H' Ket KR1 !
Poison Box Model - --
Kat 13 /
3 7 Fnction Element F F-A j/
p;_ .
in Shding Anatysis, Fnction Element p, , / D** DN
- Rocking A41alysis
/ ,
T /
////////////////////
Figure 7: Super Hi-CAP FuelRack Nonlinear CESHOCK Model to a HI-CAP design for site III. Figure 9 provides a similar sponse spectrum analyses (refer to Table 1) shows that the response for a Super HI-CAP design (Model B) for site VII. response spectrum method may give incorrect results. The Note the low-amplitude, high-frequency response of the results demonstrate the importance of the interaction be-rack portion of the modelin contrast to the high-amplitude. tween fuel and racks. The interaction is caused by the rela-low-frequency response of the fuel. Typical fuel impact load tive motion between the fuel and rack, through the water-pulses and their effect on peak base shear are seen by com- filled pps, and impacting of the fuel and rack.
paring the response quantities shown also on Figure 9. The peak base shears occurs just after the time of peak fuel im-pact loads.
m uruzzo
,, c o,, u o ,t, m Table i presents a tabulation of seismic loads developed ,,, e, ,,no.e.
within the rack and transmitted to the pool for a number of rius wisrony assro%ss designs and the sites of Figure 5. The load values have been '$ E s ]p 5Q" normalized. The first column identifies the site and the rack Es f"'
design. Four variations of a HI-CAP design (A - D) and 3 , ,HIG I variations of a Super HI-CAP design (E - G) are presented. DestGN C(HIOM 4 21 4 Os 1 03 Four variations of HI-CAP design D are shown: the original H DEslGN A ' l.99 1.79 l la version, a second version in which dynamic analysis param- H -
3m im 3m eters were changed by 10% (e.g., fuel stiffness), a third HI DESIGN D(HIOP) 2.73 2.56 1 07 version with one fourth the original fuel-to-rack gap, and a IV 87 08 8 ' 'S fourth version with an impact spring stiffness ten times that 0*lG- 3# 8# 3#
of the original. Four variations of Super HI-CAP design F H des!GN D 'g,, j.
are presented which include variation in gaps, impact stiff- io 4 4 27 . 1 00 4.27 ness and hydrodynamic mass representation. Design G v DEslGN E tstlPER Hl CAM 3 84 2.72 1.48 shows results for both a stiff and a soft rack support struc- - ogic. , :. 4 o. 2:
,ture.The second column presents the seismic loads obtained - GAP sox,RAcx l: :) 4 06 : 9:
from the CESHOCK analyses. The third column presents vi oEstGN F pp the corresponding seismic loads obtained, for comparative isCPER GAP 8cX.R ACK 7 93 4 06 1 95 purposes, by means of response spectrum method analyses. "'*" DIFF. HYDRO The last column gives the ratios of loads obtained by the two 8 F EL methods.
Comparison of results from nonlinear time history anal- vH DEslGN G g j yses (fuel to rack interaction analyses) with those from re- <serEnni o M 4
?
4
.7 .
=
Fuel Rack Cavity Mid Fuel { Fuel Pin Storage Box (Poisoned as Required)
_ 0 2- ,
C 3- s s s s s sw soxy S siin W
[ ^'
7 5M
~
0~~ lime X Mid-Rack $2 dh
}o '0 " y;
-0 2 - g
-0.3 r I 1 S' - !
Figure 3: CESHOCK Displacement Response For Hi-CAP
- FuelRock N, 3
FUEL CONSOLIDATION $
Nonlinear time-history analysis is also used by C-E to analyze consolidated fuel rack designs. The consolidated
~
s fue! racks consist of the Super HI-CAP design with consol-idated fuel rods in each cell. A typical consolidated fuel arrangement is shown in Figure 10. A coc Aidated fuel can- Q ister with a closely compacted array of fuel reds contained b w e. ow e:w w w:o:wo:wwk within it exhibits nonlinear characteristics similar to stan-Compacted Fuel Pms c29- u.a sw 1 Figure 10: ConsolidatedFuelPin Arrangement 0 19-
- s. u, % ! i dard fuel assemblies. Separata models must be dweioped to f
' 0 09 -
k) represent different ' degree) .d Compaction and, for Cases of 1 y '
less than complete compaction, fuel rod impacting must be
{cci -
accounted for. The hydrodynamic effects on fuel canister 5 natural frequency and damping are also incorporated into
-o ti
[
the model. Basic modeling information concerning the dy.
-021 - -
( namic interaction between the consolidated fuel and the can is provided only by testing. Beesuse the interaction between
, g3 consolidated fuel and the can is similar to standard fuel, the 3 nonlinear time-history method is used to analyze consoli-
{ t5 dated fuel rack designs. The use of the response spectrum i
gg3 ,
method fc,r consolidated fuel rack designs may lead to in-x: r .
correct results.
I -e s _ With consolidation factors of 2 or greater under consid-
'l
' ,, 3
, , , , eration by many utilities, it is the job of the analyst to min-imize storage pool design loads due to earthquakes. Because 25 most pools were not designed for consolidation, they cannot 23 . readily accept higher loads. To minimize modifications to g strengthen pools or to show that modifications are unnee-e 15 --
g essary, there are a number of steps the analyst can take.
jfo3 f Some of the methods offemd by C E to obtain margin for
- *? o ,
a consolidation designs are listed below:
8 i E os I 1. Re analyze the Auxiliary Building with Soil Struc-
-15 -
ture Interaction.
, , , , , , , , , 2. Perform Finite Element Analysis of the Pool.
l 80 8.2 84 86 88 90 9.2 94 96 98 10 0 3 Couple the Fuel Rack Model to the Auxiliary Build-I %N ' ing Model.
i Figure 9: CESHOCK Response Parameters For Super 4. Detune the Censolidated Fuel Racks from the
! Hi-CAP FuelRack Earthquake.
'5
4 8% t
- b. Describe how the analysis for the Licensee's report differed from that presented in the referenced technical paper.
The analysis for the Licensee's report differed from that presented in the refrenced paper in several respects. Most importantly, the analysis for the Licensee's report was done using models based on the Millstone 2 rack module designs and pool layout and site specific acceleration time history data. The actual Millstone 2 site specific model is described in the response to question #3.
- c. Provide a copy of the reference to expedite the review.
A copy of the referenced paper is attached.
- 3. Provide a full description of the mathetical model used for the non-linear rack module analysis.
A schematic description of the mathematical model used for the non-linear rack module analysis is shown in Figure 1. The model is two-dimensional, with each mass having a translational and a rotational degree-of-freedom.
Mass nodes I through 18 were used to represent the fuel rack module.
These mass nodes wer linked by massless flexible elements. Similarly, mass nodes 19 through 27 were used to represent the fuel. . Hydrodynamic couplings, designated by element H, are included betwen the rack module nodes and the pool structure nodes, and between the fuel nodes and the rack moduel nodes. Nonlinear gap-spring elements were used to represent the possibility of impacting between the fuel and the rack module. The fuel was coupled to the base of the rack module by a " slip-stick" friction element. An_ element at the interace of the module based and the pool liner represented a " slip-stick" friction element in the sliding analysis and a nonlinear torsion spring in the shear and rocking analyses.
ANSWER 3 1
FIGURE 1 CESHOCK Model of Millstone 2 Region II 7 X 9 Spent Fuel Rack Module r ~
Hydrodynamic Coupling
/ ,M% Elements
/l ' -n P
/
.[ -#L.oh-HsNG- Fuel Model V
/ r -# -Mib, p sSD
/ l -H-
--NL 5 2h Pool j_5
[/ _y L g
,k, No) g 2 - Massless Beam
-g a n % Mass 1 -N -
/
/,-ug-sq% L
, g -
Spring and Gap Ra c k'. Mo d el I
---SI ")
/ 2 N
i r' Friction Element
/ h 4
// g
//
Friction Element in Sliding Analysis,
/ -
Nonlinear Torsion Spring in Rocking Analysis
/f//ff ff f .
- 4. In addition to not providing the mathematical model for the non-linear dynamic displacement analysis, the Licensee did not indicate the relationship of the rack module analyzed to its adjacent' rack modules.
The following information is required:
- a. Describe and justify how in-phase and/or out-of-phase motion with adjacent rack modules was considered and implemented An in-phase mode of vibration was conservatively considered in assessing the hydrodynamic coupling effects between adjacent rack modules. Because of the character of the site specific Millstone 2 seismic excition, the higher rack module frequencies resulting from the in-phase node analysis were conservative because they were closer to the frequencies of the response spectra peaks. An out-of-phase mode of vibration would have resulted in the lower frequencies farther away from the response spectra peaks. The lower frequencies result from high hydrdynamic masses produced by out-of-phase motion.
- b. Describe fully how hydro dynamic coupling to adjacent rack modules was considered and justify the use of the theoretical basis employed.
In the nonlinear analysis models, hydrodynamic coupling is specified between the rack module and the pool, and between the fuel and the rack module. Potential theory (incompressible inviscid theory) is employed, using simple two-dimensional models of the structures coupled by the fluid, to estimate the hdrodynamic virtual mass terms based on the odel configuration. Three-dimensional end effects were then accounted for by modifying the calculated hydrodynamic mass terms.
For the rack module-to-pool hydrodynamic element, the rack modules were assumed to move in-phase and the potential theory model consisted of two bodies: the fuel rack module array within the spent fuel pool structure.
To determine the resulting hydrodynamic mass terms, a finite element analysis using a computer code based on two-dimenstional potential flow, was used. The ADDMASS computer code, C-E proprietary, was used to calculate the hydrodynamic masses of two dimensional bodies with arbitrary cross-sectional shapes with fluid finite elements between the bodies. ADDMASS is based principally on the following work: Yang, C.I., "A Finite - Element Code for Computing Added Mass Coefficients," Argonne National Laboratory Report No. ANL-LT-78-49, September 1973,
- c. Describe how the gap between adjacent rack modules was apportioned to each rack module and list the values for the racks analyzed.
A procedure of apportioning gaps between adjacent rack modules was not employed in the analysis.
- d. Provide numerical comparisons of rack displacements (at the top of the rack if that is the point of maximum diolacement) to the apportioned clearance.
No method of apportioning intermodule clearances was used. The peak intermodule clearances was used. The peak intermodule relative displacement, however, was determined to be 1.776 inches.
This is less than the actual clearance between modules.
- e. Where frequencies may be cited, please provide a copy of each reference with the response to expedite the review.
The cited references are attached.
- 5. With respect to the modeling of impact between the fuel assembly and a rack cell in the non-linear dynamic analysis:
- a. Provide the data and structural premise upon which impact stiffness was based.
C-E uses a gap-spring element to model the impact between the fuel assembly and the rack cell in a nonlinear dynamic analysis. The spring represents the spacer grid one-sided impact stiffness with the arpiopriate gap. C-E determines fuel assembly one-sided impact stiffnesses using full-scale fuel assembly pluck impact tests and model-test correlations of the test data with analytical results. The value of the spacer grid impact stiffness for the Westinghouse fuel assemblies that was provided to C-E by Northeast Utilities was greater than that for a C-E fuel assembly and was conervatively used in the nonlinear dynamic analysis,
- b. Provide the value of impact damping used, if greater than the nominal structural damping used in the anlaysis, and provide documentation justifying that damping value.
Impact damping was conservatively not used in the analysis.
- 6. The Licensee did not indicate what range of friction coefficient values was used in the non-linear displacement analysis between the rack mounting feet and the pool floor liner:
- a. Provide the range of friction coefficient used and describe the procedures used to determine the friction coeficient that produces the maximum rack displacement.
Friction between the pool liner and the module mounting feet is addressed in two ways. In the first approach, the rack module is not permitted to slide relative to the pool. In this case, the coefficient of friction is assumed to be extremely high to model the possibility of adhesion between the rack module and the pool which could occur
~ _ _ _ . ._ _ ,
s over the design life of the modules due to one of several mechanisms.
This fixed-base model provides conservative shear loads to both the module and the pool liner.
The secor.d approach uses a sliding-base model in which a friction element connects the rack module base to the pool liner. The l friction element used is a slip-stick friction element with a velocity dependent coefficient of friction. Realistic values for the coefficient of friction are used in this sliding base model. A static .
coefficient 'of friction of 0.55 was used. The coefficient of friction decreases linearly with increasing relative velocity of the module base with respect to the pool liner until a minimum dynamic coefficient of
- . friction of 0.28 is reached at a relative velocity of the module base with respect to the pool liner until a minim'um dynamic coefficient of .;
- friction of 0.28 is reached at a relative velocity of 2.5 in/sec. For f' relative velocities above 2.5 in/sec., the minimum dynamic >
l coefficient of friction applies.
L
, b. Justify and document the validity of the range of friction coefficient I
used.
The friction values used are based on the following sou'rces:
j i) data from Combustion Engineering laboratory tests,,
! ii) data obtained through a technical exchange agreement with Kraf twerk Union (KWU) of West Germany. "
Final Report of a Theoretical and Experimental Study for Further Development of Light Water Pressurizeed Water Reactors, " Wear 4
Behavior of Friction Materials and Protective Layers With Regard .
to their Application Possibilities in Water Cooled Nuclear Reactors", written by P.' Hoffman, Metallic Materials RT41, Fordervagsvorhaben BMFT-Inv. Reakt. 72/511 Draftwert Union,-
. A_ugust 1973., and :
i :
r
.. iii) textbook Friction and Wear of Materials, Ernest Rabinowicz.
Justification for the use of the stated values of friction coefficient lies in the basis of their selection being results of experimental -
studies. -The values used in the analysis are values that have been derived from laboratory testing.
4 1
4 4
e l
1 s
f L
Question #7a - The' Licensee did not indicate how the results from the non-linear displacement analysis was introduced to the stress analysis model, b - Provide full description of the load selection process and how the vertical and lateral dynamic loads on each rack mounting foot, as well as rack dead weight, are considered during rack lift-off in the stress analysis model.
Answer #7a - The results of the non-linear time history analyses, performed in both horizontal directions, and the linear response spectrum analysis, performed for the vertical direction, provide a set of load multiplication factors to be applied to the three-dimensional SAP IV stress model. The horizontal load factor is defined as the ratio of the maximum horizontal shear load derived from the CESHOCK model non-linear time history analysis to the horizontal ernpty rack (modal) weight from the SAP IV model. Likewise, the vertical load factor is defined as the ratio of the maximum vertical load determined from the response spectrum analysis to the vertical empty rack (modal) weight from the SAP IV model. The load factors are applied to the component stresses obtained from the
~
SAP IV model. These stresses were obtained by applying a one-G response spectrum load to each of the three orthogonal directions. Maximum Base shears and load factors are tabulated below:
Base Shears Reg' ion I Rack Region II Rack Maximum Horizontal:
SSE 880#/ Cell 977 f/ Cell OBE Not Applicable 603 #/ Cell
[-
l Base Shears Region I Rack Region II Rack Maximum Vertical:
SSE 3721 f/ Cell 3423 f/ Cell OBE SSE values for maximum vertical base shears were used.
Typical Load Factors Region I Rack Region II Rack Horizontal (X-direction) 10.10 12.70 Horizontal (Y-direction) 9.39 11.59
- Vertical (Z-direction) 26.02 26.82 (Factors shown are based on 8 X 10 and 7 X 9 Racks.)
- b. The analysis to determine the structural adequacy of the fuel storage module under tipping was conducted using the following technique: 1) Two loading conditions were applied to the SAP IV model these are: a 1-G horizontal load placed in the direction the module tips, and a 1-G
, vertical downward load. 2) Using the principal of superposition the vertical load is adjusted until the compression and tension in the feet which lift is reduced to zero, thereby creating a load state that approximates the module at the instant the m.odule lifts off.
The actual horizontal seismic load, at the point of lift off, is determined in a similar fashion as described above using a non-linear time history analysis. The 1-G horizontal and the adjusted 1-G vertical load can now be factored. This factor will be.the soismic load due to the loaded module divided by the 1-G horizontal load of an empty module.
c
- . i ... .
- 8. Non-linear analyses, especially those involving impact of bodies as occurs between the fuel assemblies and the rack module, and between the rack mounting feet and the pool floor during lift-off, generally reouire additional procedures such as repeated solutions using a range of integration time steos to assure that the solution is both~ stable and fully converged. This is important because integration'oracedures that have yielded a valid solution do not necessarily remain stable for all solutions. ~The Licensee made no mention of this imoortant point.
- a. Provide a description of the methods used to assure that a valid solution of the non-linear analysis was reached for all cases investigated.
_The CESHOCK code numerically integrates the equations of motion'using a Runge-Kutta-Gill technique. The initial integration timestep, calculated by CESHOCK, is one-twentieth of the period of the highest individual mass-spring frequency in the model. The timestep is continually checked and adjusted by the ' code as a function of the rate of change of
. the linear and angular accelerations. The timestep is held within the bounds of one-fifth times the initial- timestep to two times .the initial timestep. With this procedure for selecting the integration.timestep, the CESHOCK numerical solution has been shown to be stable and convergent.
4 e
1
This approach can determine the stress state of the module due to module tipping under seismic effects. This
~
approach is only valid for lift off of a few mils. The results of the non-linear analysis indicates such a situation does exist.
TYPICAL MULTIPLICATION FACTORS FOR SEISMIC EFFECT Horizontal 1-G Factor = 6.895 Vertical 1-G Factor = 20.82 (Factors sho'n w are based on 7 X 9 rack.)
Question #9 -' At the bottom of page 22 of the Licensee's report, the Licensee stated that "The component stress on each element resulting from the application of each directional load is combined by the square root sum of the squares method". No computed stresses or allowable stresses were provided.
Answer #9a - Final Stress combinations are derived from R.S.S. method of each component stresses magnitude r'egardless of the direction. (E.G.: A typical element may be comprised of bothtensionandcompressionstresscombinedtogether.)
The component stresses assumes a three directional earthquake having their peaks occurring simultaneously.
- b. The loads and load combinations used in the structural analysis of the spent fuel racks are listed below and are consistent with NRC guidance in " Review an Acceptance of Spent Fuel Storage and Handling Applications".
L _. d
. ~.. .
Load Combination (Elastic Analysis) -
Acceptance Limit D+L Normal limits of NF 3231.la D+L+E Normal limits of NF 3231.la D + L + To lesser of 2Sy or Su stress range D + L + To + E Lesser of 2Sy or Su stress range D + L + Ta + E Lesser of 2Sy or Su stress range l
D + L + Ta + E Faulted Condition Limits of NF 3231. Ic The abbreviations in the table above are those used in Section 3.8.4 of the Standard Review Plan where each term is define d except for Ta which is defined as the highest temperature associated with the postulated abnormal design conditions.
,, c. The maximum stress values associated with the analyses performed for the Millstone II spent fuel racks are provided below. These values are based upon the SSE load c6ndition. Except for the adjustment screw, the stresses associated with the SSE load condition are lower than the OBE allowable stress limits and therefore are acceptable for both the OBE and SSE conditions. The stress values for the adjustment screw and their allowable stress limits are provided for both OBE and SSE condition. The design margin is defined as (allowable - 1) X 100%.
actual NOTE: In most cases the maximum stress is associated with SSE load condition, while the allowable stress is for the OBE condition.
Maximum Stress Stresses do not necessarily.
occur at the same location.
Design Margin A. Monolith Maximum Stress Allowable Stress OBE Membrane stress 17,560 pst 18,300 psi 4.2%
Membrane plus bending = 21,760 psi 27,450 psi 26.2%
Primary plus thermal = 28,511 psi 55,000 psi 92.9%
B. Support Bars Bending stress = 5,454 psi 16,500 psi 202.3%
Shear st'ress = 526 psi 11,000 psi 1991.3%
C. Adjustable Foot
- 1. Block .
Shear Stress = 2,918 psi 11,000 psi 277.0%
Axial'plus bending =
OBE = 13,665 psi 16,500 psi 20.8%
SSE = 19,290 psi 33,000 psi 71.1% -
. ~
Axial stress = 11,810 psi 49,360 psi 317.9%
Shear stress = 18,230 psi 33,500 psi 83.8% ~
}-!
Bending stress = 24,980 psi 50,250 psi 101. % ,j
.~
Combined axial compress. plus d*
1 20.8%
bending - fa + fb . 736 W E l
- == -
. Design
_S_SE Condition Maximum Stress SSE Allowable Stress Margin Axial stress = 14,773 psi 91,000 psi 516%
i Shear stress = 29,400 psi 54,600 psi 85.7%
l Bending stress- 60,554 psi 91,000 psi 50.28%
Combined axial j compress, plus
- bending fa + fb, , .828 1 20.8%
Fa Fb -
j SSE Condition Maximum Stress SSE Allowable Stress i
Th' read shear = 6,710 psi 11,000 psi 63.9%
Question #10 - With respect to fuel handling accidents as addressed by
]l, the Licensee on page 23 of the report:
I '
i
! a. Provide analysis and justification as to why a spent
) fuel assembly falling through a rack cell and
) impacting the bottem of the cell "will not affect the primary function of the racks ....".
b' . Provide the approach, the assumptions, the data j employed, and the results of analysis performed to 1
assure that a fuel assembly dropped through a rack i
i storage cell will not penetrate the bottom of the
.I rack module, or, if it does penetrate the bottom of
- the rack module that it will not damage the pool l liner. -
l j c. For the case of a crane uplift accident,' provide the l method of analysis employed, and the criteria by which the results were judged to be acceptable, .
- including identification and documentation of the l allowable stresses.-
i !
> /
Answer #10a The fuel drop accident was evaluated to determine the effect of the dropped assembly on the functional and structural integrity of the racks. The analysis indicated that the impact of the fuel assembly on the support bars caused plastic deformation of the support bars and the fuel cell wall supporting the bars. For conservatism it was assumed that further displacement of the bars occurs, resulting in the fuel and support bars resting on the pool floor. No functional or structural integrity of the racks was impaired,
- b. A fuel bundle drop vertically through the rack to the fuel support has
- resulted in the side walls of the rack shearing however, the bundle and support bars did not impact the floor, resulting in no damage to the pool liner. (The active fuel length of the bundle will remain contained within the storage rack.
- c. An analysis of a typical fuel rack indicated that the force required to deform an individual canister or to overcome the dead weight of the rack is significantly greater than the load which the spent fuel handling machine can impart.
I^ s
, 111.a.1 OUESTION ll.a. Provide sketches and drawings of the portions of the pool and auxiliary building structures to be modeled.
Response
This section provides the finite element plots of the spent fuel pool, pool liner, and associated auxiliary' building components covered by,the analyses.
The models were derived based upon information supplied on the following NUSCO-Millstone Unit No. 2 drawings: 25203-11090 through 11099, 11104, 11106, 11107,'11112, 11126, 11127, 27016, 27018, 27019, 270122, 51044, 51045.
The spent: fuel-pool and associated auxiliary building components model contain over 9,600 degrees of freedom. Sketches are also
.provided of the floor liner plate model used in the analyses.
L 1-
l __
y '
11.a.2 .
- l CILLSTONE POINT - UNIT 2 f SPENT FUEL STORA*.E FACILITY FINITE ELE *,f ENT EODEL '
4
) .:
% o
/ -f \ h ;
s\
~ . ' n, \ 7 Zk '3 s %( 1 4 x '
s s
\~
gg N gf/- N
/'% $.
^
- ?y'.
,,'j#
0
, /j)Ngs ,- v 's:Q
/ /s:;0' fj$gl- y
/
p ,. % , -
- p, f; ,f
/s@O ' '
' j'l/ l/ . y
'y/ , ;- ,' . .
y ufftarQRItQMhE 290UWALLS , e : N /
s
.f M4
' 51 le h.stq g s . -.
4
, s s
..c tr e99tnoonaa -'
l
["g[
. t . .
l f f '
1p(;
L 1 -
jdk:
p I
rootsvMectutmeaAME rougoAugs.suMoctutusBAM5_
"~
FIGURE 1 p structure NUS41-015, REV 1 JULY 25,1983 e Dynarrucs ISOMETRIC VIEWS AND KEY DIAGRAMS Technosogy, Inc.
ENCLOSURE 4
L
E'
=
S t i5 TE 5 X. '
'E j l
' I I
l ,i -} - {
I
![I j.gy '
I 1 13 iI I ig[ h.
l
- i . I
'I t
- C y
li g] I ' < jl I"'.,3 j *{- lg,11[
'} 2]3 3 'A A d
. Ji [l j.4 I a
- ljb>Wijj'llii l ii 'll ' - 2" X 3 3 jd 3 o h. . g, ' { ,I ii..
[. j l 'j s.
}{1. I. l '(1,f s
l.':g f l{ Iat][I.
3 1 1; 1 i
j4 ' fil.ta s i
- 1 S'
3 y'j2 ; b b '] li lg[ p t ! l>
~ [g[. in !.]j1lqi 1g . k ' 1 i
Il 2-
, w {! yli s, ,f- l!!,01')j ,{,l) '
'0'1{1111 jI j,i 31.Al t Alic '
11111))Il'm: 11 ! '8 :
d;
. . . . . . 2, :.] }I ..j i ;
- = = e a e e a s --
i g' O M o d 2 . . . . t o
- *I
- z i 1 I 1 6 6 '
. . . . t i
- ,I i
5 ll l ll ,
I i I . I 3
.I I g 7d
- w .. :...
Il i,i< i ii I l I z e
z t- -
o 7z
-w ll =-;.. _( ) } } j z Ee -
I'I + : T : 0; l 2a i l il is : a =e l
=
z i W i it -
i i :: a e w w E
>= W ~~
E i
L 3e a a:
- =::::::::n
- t. ,,ii,ia
, i i >
5
.c M.O _! !! t! I '__- z g
. I
! I 6
I i t i Ii r i I Y I d*. 9>-
E i i- i -ili i S .
E ;
r.-
5 I
,,f si , i ,
'="
f
(
--::--: 4- .: , .a s_- - 4, : g :p_! .2 y -
3 ' "*~
b;I, ,%
, =-o: '
'yr
~
--_._A
'-: LJ .i ,
.m]
__. t 3 a_
4 i___'_ ---_.
__ . i...;. W. i.L.
i t .
. . - s ,g.,. - 1Ii i il
~I *
'd l ", **
4-__ ,
a , ,
f' _-
_ .__.. f '. %
h "* "
o
"'./.
k ,,. - =i ' = =
- _,l II i Il _
^- *=
/t . ' _I >
i $ I$I f l -
^
I" g -45wg
. ?d8 l 35 0
^ Eit5 K
cr .s ;
-r i -
iyn ,,
MILLSTONE POINT - UNIT 2
,_ SPENT FUEL STORAGE FACILITY FINITE ELEMENT MODEL' ,
- e t( ,.
+
,, 1 m .
sous stamuna IITT! t I t TT!IHI IIII! t I t L Li !.! ! !
! ! ! ! ! 7 E ! ! E ! E f ft it i i t i ! ! E ! ! ! !!! s E i ! E l E E i E # ! i l EE I I f I ! E E ! E t i i !!!
( E i I I i- i i i ! ! E t !! ! ! ! 2 1 ! i, i l ! ! ! ! !j 2 i I I f E I i E 1 1 1 12! E i i ! ! I: I ! I I l l i!!
, i f I i f i I I I l i l l !! ! ! I l i I i i i l i l l!!
- I i i i i i i i ! I I I ! E! ! ! I i i i i i i i l i i !!
E E i ! ? I I l i l i t i CC ! ! E i i i i l i l i t i!! '
[. [q:T I l=F I TTI I I II d IHl:IZFIMIIlif MagenAfst RLassutta a a s i a i r 's 1 7 a r LL! i i!11?[I TT! i i ! ! ! !! !
a s e r e e e a f r a -
! ! ! i t ! ! ! !! ! i i t g i i t!!!
I 5 2 5 5 ! ! s s i ! E t ! E i ! ! ! ! i' i 2 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !![
3 : 2 2 s i s i n i i ? i- ! ! ! ! !! ! i I I i i i i i ! ! !
a e n a r i s s i i s ! ! ! ! E ! ! l il l i I ! t g i t l it i i s i s i e a s i t s I l i i i i i t ill I t i g i ! I t il l i E i i i t t t I t s i l i i i i i l iti i i t i i i i l it i E E : E I I 5 I I I I - i i f I i i i t ill i t i I i I,i I l l i i
{
NUS-01-015 - FIGURE 3 --
(, 5truc tural MARCH 25,1983 ~ ^ D"d'*5~
POOL SOUTH WALL ELEMENTS s Y ENCLOSURE HWY
- k
.S ,
i MILLSTONE POINT - UNIT 2 l
SPENT FUEL STORAGE FACILITY FINITE ELEMENT MODEL ,,
I 50Lis tLtutNTS j W1 rr.
e e s e t
e e
a F
a e
=
z
?
e a
s s k'Tn E5
'i' Y s a s iTTt a s ;_
e s
e s
~
=
s i l' ifs l t i l i i I I I I i f I i l b i li i i i i i i l I i t di i ! ! f i I i 1 1 I l l E li! ! 1 1 i i ! ! I i t E1 1 1 1 I I i I I I i i l ii l l i ! I i ! i t i 1 1 ii il l t i i i 11 I l i fi l i i 1 1 i i ! ! I i l l
s! ! !i l i l I i i l 1 11 !! ! i f i t i i 11 ! ! !
d! !! ! I I I -i 1 1 f i l '
t i l i i I I I i 1 1 l i t ti l i i l I ! ! ! 1 1 i l l lf l i l i 1 1 i f i l i i l} } [.] [ :l. } :l1:};IL}::l: l [ g[1lJ{}J:l: ]:l :{:l[ l I
letMOGAMt ELtutMIS s : : : : :
- : : : TllIII i i lTT 1l;i i_i i i ; i i s i i s a s s a i t i l it i 1 1 i i i l I g i
_i g I g g i i l g 1 5 1 5 5 5 3 i 1 3 3 t il l l i i i 11 I lii i l i ! ! ! ! I i t i i i I 5 5 ! 3 E ill i i i i ! i t i ill i ! ! ! ! i t i
! !! E 5 5 ! I i i I iii i 1 1 i -i l i i I i i i li i l i I l .
l i i i s i l 3 3 i t E lii i i t i i i l I ! !i l i f I I i t i l i i i i n I i TJ I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I i 11 I l ii i I I I j I. I I s a i I s s 5 5 =l s ! -
1 1 ; I I i i i i t i i li ! i i i i 1 1 i l - -- --
l FIGURE 4 -(
NUS-01015 h "#
MARCH 25,1983 POOL NORTH WALL ELEMENTS '-
, g.
ENCLOSURE i
l
, . - - , - , - ~. .. . , . _ . .. . - - .
M 2
h
.n A
)
. ,m , , , . , .., ,m . ,_ m T
..m m m..c
._ ., me .
.- , s .m m
...m-.._
g .. +
=a == = = mr
,,o .J .) m) m) ..,) mj a
=r ='
mon u; ,- . n- 1
.,s J s os .,, ..s m,i .nu J
, ,,J ,,,a ,,,j y ,,,j g ,,,i ,, ["1__ \.A l d u,, ms J J ,J .,s mJ m L.U
.,) ...i .)i m) ) .nj ...j .m i i 1 1
...,.m ., . . , m- . . . , .. .. .._
- j
!.J J J m) .J J
)_.U_ ,,
.,,j a,, mj m) j ,,,) J , tJ
'. .JJ Jad .. .,. ' ,JJ nJJ J J m,U_
,J m, m L'-
- - . - - - " - ~ - - -
, ,n, E l I
} o.om n. .m .o ..o u ,, m .m._ _
[
- w. gret et,r. e t_.ar t. nz r, ts. , ut f _
f e ... ... . . . . . . m, .. ,,. __ _
ll . m ., . . . .. .m, .. . . . '"-'su mmuna uu ms_!m_nu
- gg4 . . ..". t t .f .t. .tIP .1.f m1' . 1. h.s a ggg, Sr Ff .t .r .P .U f2 . If .L. f.ma d_
, . ).I- m. _f . .__ m) .) .m' .).. ..m) _ m _t c
! i . < w .m: m,. u .,a . . , m,..-.
. .a - J_ mb u) . n b u.r -- -
J ,J ,J ,,_) ,.J J ,,J ,,a m.u L
,d m. ,.s J nJ ms 4 roc .
._ ,,s .s .ma on,, .,,e
, %.4 ,
md d d.ed ses d . ) m, w- 1, **HH-QHH~tW m, T T k. .'; "t*t
]
1 a'
d A
' -w-O O
- 3 m w
g Q ar .nr ..r, new .ae _e men,
..ta.,_, , , , , , , , , ,m m, ,,y ,,,,
O E
war , . .. mr. . . , .,m. . .--- , , no .a ,; -
g e.
gasst ene a.. 2..e e t.e rur ar.r e . s .r. : . - test + t. t.. er r,e se en i.r s.
'w ...d ,r. W
. i,ne nw e ,as mi ers - uulm a.) a.) ad ,J J . .I , R_ j w rri. d .J .s < s u) .,J .d a.s. '._ '
l l <
! .b , .w .r:e -r - , mr .n, e c_._ . rt = _ er , e .r. ne r
-3 Z p t s -- we .n
- e m r j
.1 _ .) }
m.....
}
m,_ o , m m.
gg .
, m .u m e.Z
,g a
a #j a.j ..y 3 an
.j gq a,
a
.m. - mr .. . ,. m. m, y
' e.ss!.r,r ) l. 4 ,, g Z > , / rm .r.r ri '
g g g ' ,
R .w ru . ,. a em n, i
m, m_
- g. ,
w.y Z g
=f o-r m..
m.
rw m-5 o g ms ,,. y
]_ ._l ,,, ,_ .. m, ___ ll -
g g
w
<Z g,
_ _ __ Z ,3. g ; _.
m, ,m ,m ,, ,,
,_,L,_ a g
-d ,g U O m.L J J, )- JJ,,,J . mL,L , J_.
J.) .
__m J J _, J _t
_ , , m ,,,;g ,; ,; m; ,,,, ,J ,,,3 ,,,t e 3
- ! os ) os > J m, e cwe ear ms enri mn as O e
s A . s .s ..s .a J m, m L; _.
_u =ms m =upx.= g
- w o
>= o Z
m A
._ . m, . . ,_ ..., , _ _ ., m, .. .. .. ., _ , , _ _
. _ m- _ _. _
mq,
.. m . %.. _ ,,s,a a ,.s. ,,,, ,,, _,y _ t_
sa.ae.. a_ a _: > ._ . - . . > .J w m,s\nd wLL j ."
+ m.r J m) ., ns. .,e.1 a.) n.. l n, m, :_ ~~ au a= ." ac a. ~- -
J m> J ,J_ J
._ m,. ,_i ...t._._ ._ ._ m.. - m i :
.. J J J ... -
k.' . tar kr.r' ..7 .F f. IF .t." -.dm.
.rf :L
. d . s s . .> . > . ., _u_ ,
..,._, .~ .J ..., l
.4.Ehr nr.r t i.e f. _J t rs f. L n. ? r;-m.
J - .
u ..s ._ ,,s ,_ ..a ... _
_ ~ . . . .. .. _. m. . . , m__ , i ..J .. d, ... . ,
i m .r s..L .r. .i.e tr ..r! . .n u r :. . .6.g e.fr .r .e. . i .e er r. .ur .r. t. a :._
J . .< .J .J m./ m. ! J .J _E J.
. ,.- .m J , . .
..J
,. J.
.e.... L, i
g 2 1. ...f .,9 it .a ..F m 5 f ..f .f .f 12 t.r , ... .r., .r.
~pg. gg- q_ g;.g
{ .a s s s .m ,. , .a_ ::: _
4
. us . a ..s ..., ..., .,
,_~ .s
$9
- e3 Ob W
.h aff E 9ns Z th qUa 0 ME O s4z
'Z2w i
. . _ . . ._ _ . . . _ . . __. _ _ . _ _ _. _ .__ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . . _ _ . . . _ _ . . . . , 4 ____
l MILLSTONE POINT - UNIT 2 ,.
(. SPENT FUEL STORAGE FACILITY FINITE ELEMENT MODEL SOLIB ELIM& MIS MtMGMNtittME NT4 I !!I V !TT 1((IIl11 1 ! 5 52 5 5 5 [I!i.!j i_l .I. I i. i 11 f i l i ii i i i i l i i)i i. t i i i
i i i! ii i i i 1 1 11 1 i i a a 5 55 5 s s a
2 E n 5
r= i e
=
e n
a s
I I is n - .
a :a 5 3 2 2.-2 s . .
e a g a
I
- siy
?
e t
I 2 2: e e
e i l iip i i i l i ii i i : :: a s i 1 1 11 1 i i i l i ii i i i t
I 1 11 I I i i 11 I I i , s i ns i s a a i 1 1 11 1 i i i 1 1 11t 1 i i l i li i i ! I 11 I i i a a s i i s i I t ! !! ! I I I I l ig= 1 i i
- l i t tl i ! i 1 1 !! 1 I I i a I n I i l i t i! i i i i l i i;i l i i.
l' T i l i!! ! ! i l i !! i i i I f i i E E E li!!if i E i ~a!I I j! I i
! I}IIIIII 1I Ijl1 ~~' -- ~~ L Li l!!_ L L i Llil!LLL! LLilli LLI L Ll i i LL Li L Li l l LLLI LLil i.LLLi . LLl i ! LLLE LLi ! !LLLI Li. i i i LLLi - LLli ! LL Li LLi i iLLLI LLili LLLi . L .tt-u l=tur
, = : . -
= : .
' uu = tuL. . tuu t.tta E E 5 E x : l 5 E,._i f E E
- c. E._~EE a i s e g : : :
m . ,, . L.~.v % e , . - um ,, , wv LLi i tLE ' i i i E i l i LL! ; i it;! ! L; F F F F F 8 E' E E F E E F F F F F F F F F F F
- w. = -
ww - ;, E_F.
, F. _.F F e i i i i e .r i i .i F .E.i r .i .b r uLLLLLLLr w.=a ==a a .m =
l . i l FIGURE 6 , NUS-01415 5tructisd MARCH 25,1983 POOL EAST WALL ^ Dyrwnts
#N'
- ENCLOSURE l
{ r
l-1 (- t 11.a.s-MILLSTONE POfNT - UNIT 2 SPENT FUEL STORAGE FACILITY FINITE ELEMENT MODEL NORTH SECTION - SOUTH SECTION
' sae naments wusaus neut=Ts -
memenma naments
- saa nasamis f
I I l i'll 11 ! ill I I I I I .; l t i l itt i li t i!Il e i 1 5 15 i i l ili I i 11 1 - 1 I I i ' f I i l ili i i l ili 3 i a n za 1 i i i iII rs i i till i l i iI i - i s i i l i i ti i l a a a i I i l ili I i l ii i i i 5 i _i i I l iii 1 i l it i I s 22 4 _ _ _ ___ .,
- i i i i l iii 35: I i l iti I i l i ti i i 1 1 i l i ti
! n 5 l i i i i i i i i l ili Ess I i t il l I i t ill i i 5 E l 1 i l iti e a s i i : : i i i i
- i i ;ii i i i lii i s s
- :: i i I l ii i i i iii i i i i l i ii i i al i.iii i i i i I 3 i i i i i i l iii i i 1 1 11 2 2: s i
l - T:FI llif TT 1 11 1 --
~
-- -- EE H -- -- -~
! . == , s ( .II-IIIII LLLite st.1 - ' LLLilli Li Li Lt e t s .. !. !...i s E_!. !,_.w.
!. e. ! s.! .! .! ! e e s.
. !. v !, . .
f, . . . . . . . ... . . I i I i.I I.E i i i l l.i E. i i liil Li Li Li .
!- ! ! E ll F F F t_ U t.! ! ! ! M F.i Lf L2 L:
i i I illi Li L5 8 i ! I I I il li LLLi l i i
' : I I ([j
! ! ! i E
!~ ! __i
! E i ! ! E ll. !!! lEE '
i i i i l l.l= 1 E i Ei l i i i I i lil LLi LLl- LLi
- ; c i i LLE ift 2
! f- ! i.!.! ! !_ i i !! !,E i ! I l
! ! ! !ii! I i E E l i! 1 ; . ;l i i In l l FM l ? l F FI l
- 1 0 ! ! ! ! ! O _L_ lL ! D. L[_l L [_ [ L L,. I
[ I I I LI I E I I l [,p i k [ Lp k I gagg agerg,3 Weh8 BuereEE SW3et aWWeES sema nueN64 Outtel heNER eess aumfua F strucasal , NUS41-015, REV 1 ' ~ JULY 25,1983 ' . FUEL TRANSFER CANAL SEPARATION WALL / %, Inc. ENCLOSURE
.g 4 . - - - , ,.m e -
4 ,.
-m -y-w,-,,m,. -g,
+
.11.a.9 ,
' MILLSTONE POINT - UNIT 2 ., ,
SPENT FUEL STORAi1E FACILITY FINITE ELEMENT MODEL'
~
SOUTH SEPARATION WALL WEST SEPARATION WALL s ' SOUTHWEST CORNER - savo utmasit . masenantiuments soue sumenia mues*=asumanis - soue nswers .
- 7. y .
.vy -
y 7 yy
- n. _ _ ,, _ .
7 5 N I $ 1..h -- .-- .. . .. 5 1 1 I I I I 1 1 1 1 i i i i I i j l [. [ j i l l i 2 5 l i _i _l_ _I _i _ i . _i . _I _ I _ I _I _I _ i i i i i i __ I I i i _'i i _ _ i _ i _ i i _ _ i I i i _ _ I _ i i i i i i I I i i i i i i I i I 3 I I I I I 1 I i i n 3 1 I I I I t! !!iti EWE 1114i i)!ti i i ii I li t l ii I Ei i i i i I I I I I I E E i i i i i i i i i i i i ti f it s E t l ii l ii I MD9t1 N00E5 Noors i LLi' I I l' LLI! Li Li li li iiii 11 it-LLi LLI LE 2 [ [j U [i. (( (( [j (( (I LLi LLE- . LuE . t s. LE ti Li t= La u a i . c
= . .. e e e e .- ;
t.s La LLE LLs LLE LE t ti t e,s y LLi LLi LLi Li Li Li Li Li Li ti- 15 LLi LLi . LLi- LLL E U L! E : : I i k E E
- I' ! j !uss!* fg ; ; lq ; ; 7;;; y a ; ; y
[ E i t
%% E -
wu %s._. - ust- - uss - ,.- , - I~~ i F I_ _E
?. 5 I I E ! 2 E l ! !m- ! ! g i- s i E_2__l
- = m- - - - - - - - - -
_ c. :- - Ei
. m-E. - [' i .
E E E E E E E E r E s.-F. F E um-E E E E i m-E S
---. .--e == _-,. g, a
FIGURE 8 ' M'* ""# NUS41015 - e Dyn.wrwcs MARCH 25,1983 CASK LAYDOWN AREA SEPARATION WALLS - Tecrology inc.
' ENCLOSURE
_ :--- .w .a
~ -- - -. w - , . . ~ . . ,. . u - . . , .-
I ,11.a.10 - a'-- MILLSTONE POINT - UNIT 2 SPENT FUEL STORAGE FACILITY FINITE ELEMENT MODEL . .l t
. .8
' SOUTH WALL WEST WALL .- NORTH WALL NORTHEAST CORNER L
.m.. . - m. . . .
- m ;...
i to*ta mLL versa mtL -
]-
- .,,,,,e IT
- I I I I I Ill i i I l l i i EU . _i .
i_. i ;;; ; ; I 1 1 I I I ! ! ! i I l l i i i l i! I i m . = = , I, 1 i'iU ! = a i '- I l i 1 1 1i1 1 1 1 1 i i l in i i
- ' in.= ,
!, !, !, ! _!. . i 1 1 i i 1 i11 1 1 1 1 1 I I I !? i !
! ! !'l 4 _~
^ i I I I I l ii ! I i i l l i i i s! E i
*== l i i i l it ii l l i i i i I !? I !
- s. *
- l i i l l I i s. u s a a 2 W i li
~ , , , , . i E
. 11 I I FT I I1I l l l M I 1 i.
r! u_= r r!-; . tum i.Li - - iLi . , , - . -> . u ( LE LLI; I e! 11111 - u - 1iii = LLLLLillLLLLLI e s ! : im ! a..i_.l i i i !It
- co
! - I I !!!
e = r*. !r! Iri. i i r, r -
, i s E a s 3 = E E L._ut,
=
c.a q.tc. Lt[ -
. s uttu a L L ut:: oevs-=_= ~ s-wm s s - u_LLs _
,;. 2 .
n : 3 a c. t LLLLLi l i l L L LLi. LLLLli i ! LLLLli L_LLk-- L_LLL - Li Li Li
"_-=,
",3,,',
E F E' rLmt E E E E E, I_uu F F._:r. E u E F u2._u., E 8 FP P, F- F F-2 -_
- p p L_m. , _ :.r,
- g r r
f,._ ., e -
;._:; p; :
-t, B
LtLL g : :. r :: : z tu t tts g LLE
- - a t t ttutte
* * : [
~
L*Ltu_t=
; g i : * =_-
s t usa u_uL r:,.- . its ta c. [ .E_Iw._vE E E !. E. .!_!_ : ; g [ !__ s ;,, ; - e rg:e t ;, E i , a E i u%.- i i E E m u !._ .E_E m , , E.E_ E w E
.i_5_.E-
= - 5 f
~ ~
,l L' L'L~ ,,~_ -
E
! ! 5 5 5 8 E! :! ! 8 ! R ! ! ; -
e rg !_5_._*m._,. r - g g e s [_5.- s us i E
,--m u E
s_.w. ,_m . 8- . un m u%.uu- - : a ::. s ~ . LE ,- g,a i
.ll t (.!! _b .E i .d _LLi - -.i. E i
E E-. i E E E e m E.E_.E mm i i i. 5 E u--
- E E i
E E E E w I E
- -I I
- E i
g
.. Ei.a E
E I E3 - E. i.
. E. I.
r 1, .l-_ , , , ,
} ;
i
- 3 n t
_.LL : ! ! !- i E E E E E i E E E 3
% l ! ? E ! ; ! !: E ; I tii ! ?; i g e- e e
s e e e
= g g s 2._e 6 :
e e c
.-~
t, i
.i_ m.- i r r i i i i i i rrr-r r i r i rr rri-i +
.i_ ,_.i_- r i-i
- _~r_-t tt _-n- .
u-j_ ,-
- e -
i i i r.. i i t t t t t t t t I i i i_ lu is i i i ig y y [ Ti t i.g i i i i i i [I .- 't. k i Li I 6 i i tI k .i m.==== = - , . l _ FIGURE 9 - Sma,g - N US-01-015 ' MARCH 25,1983
.. a. p u
. FUEL TRANSFER CANAL OUTER WALLS Icthnology. inc.
. ' ENCLOSURE'
- . . . - . ..-, . ,..w-.
e
-(( s[ 3 : :! . #,!1!] . .- 1 .; .' ' A
_=i '_i. eii .h y, <!ii~p-4 y i I llIt!i:ll! I 3 I 1 I I!!!!!!It I I lit f:I l- i i g$ 3L A I I I II!!!! ! ! I a
'i l 'n i I I Iflj! ! I (A
i I Ill;Iil I i iie i t tret t rt t t e I I Ill!!lI l I ,' ,-
.I E E E r rE E I g g, g g d
I !! T '
! 3 I I 1II1 1 EI i !!I ii: ! I E bI1fE 1 I '
.J. == ' '
- r t t r i si r P
~I L i liittil Ii I'
g I g g ja;g:l i l i!:l i g 1 g i .I r i r le r t i r r s i r r r la i r i
'{ g ii I i IlIlI I t ! ' $ l'f '
I l= .' I I I 1lIl iI I r h- r ikk 'k t r- .
. s . .. a
, , , , , , g.g
. I li t illllI i ;I ,
a i i Illlill I i ' ' ' ' ' ' '- w g F r i F F rD r i-g r ,,,1. ... g g; l!! [jI!![ '! III I I IIII 8 IIII d g ain!alaja uj . ats I a la isis l s a I { g
, y y
" w i a s in ra a :
; a !!n , gggg g
-g g. , , g i, e , ; o E-E
- s g I a s{tt I I ! * ' !!!! ! !
g .
,, g i ! !!**!e i g g 6 s' se s!s t s t I I i 1 1
' a b6h shh i Z E b.
a
- I i
'f I '
- 2 :sf . g
, h,,,, ,y g[
i $ s e a l 's s :s .l , g'a. E o h- w 1 I a n!s s's .s l- I I l i l l i E $' I 3 c. o
-j . g r l' l l t i I
, I I E U 'S e I I I I I I!!'ll i I I I I i
e I I th i ll i I 5" a. i i i it 11 g ig i i e I I ih i l l I l- m S I i t .! ! ! ! O w i l i ii! 3
- I ll tit!!:III I ,
III I I IIII ! IIII I ti lll i!!'I I
.ly !
I
, 2 1 1 li! !;! I i .,g- g i I I IlI'I I I '
it! I-u ! !i n ! [ -a, I i l 'Iff l l i , g I I!!!IiI I I
, , y, , .,
I' e i I iiii i I E' i I !!!!:i:I I I i i R
!a- '
~
! t I tt tt 4 !
t lil!!!! i i I g til I tu Ill l' 111 : !
! I ! ik i i t
! !! t:I 111 I I i
! ! ! !t ! I't I-l $i l. !, -
E' l' ! [h lh ! ['
!! I Illii!! I I I ! I llIll i I l i i i I;i'l i i I i
I I t ill i I a R I i i I I;I I I ,,, [- $
. m.s. . i
! i i I 5aa I
ll1;1l1 I IlijflI i i 5h3
$EE zs=
.e 11.o.12
' CILLSTONE POINT UNIT 2 f , SPENT FUEL STORAGE FACILITY FINITE ELEMENT MODEL
, e l SOUTH WALL WEST WALL
, sous numants *n.io suutars I i l i i i l i I l i liti i i I "I"' i ! ! : ! ! !
I i i i i i i i 1 1 1 1111 i i i i ti l %i i i i i i i i i t i l liff I I i i f! t 11 t i i i i i i i i l s-i i i i i i i i_ i I I i ,n mesma tuatmis mment sustwrs L
- : =i a = : : : ys's : I I i i i i 1 1 i_i' i.f i i l i teha i i ! " E ! ! i ! : !!
1 i l i i i i l 1 i 1 1 11 1 i
. . . . . . . . 2 3 : 33 . : .,,.--.- * * * = 5 I 1 1 5 i!
- , , . = = = = = = = = = = = = i i i i i i i i l i i ! !! i i l si!B =
i sy $ * ' I i U .l !
. . . . . . . . . e = - - r - = 1 I 1 1 I i I I l i i i ii i i e = e r
- r i i i E li
._ _ ____ - . ~ . - - -
i moons noots iern : LLLitti;ti_Ls : _s r rv . t_tLLi ttai tt_La 55 sett Ltettti tt- 'ti i O 5' Li g. A_i,ts LLLi s i i E_ t i LLC E : E E ! LLLi i I E_ I_ t E lli i B ! I_ E LL E ti ! L! LL: ,_t !s 2 E i I_ L_L_LLLE LER E L L_ LI LLL!i E LL Li lll l li l._LE LI LLE tg E LE LL::Ltt i-
! F : ELLU l i_L'. 8
' 3' ! i "_L ! L3
- 8 E E E E LL'_!. ? 3 -
E E L! LLEL tli -
? ? ? 8 8 t: = e e : e . e t u a : s a t . . . . . . . . . 2 : : : = n e La L-a- us L: 2 s :s . bs FICURE 11 ,,
( - NUS-01-015, REV 1. P 5tnxuss F Dywws JULY 25,1983 q FOUNDATION SOUTH WALL AND WEST WALL Tectriology. anc. ENCLOSURE
O 11**'13
- MILLSTONE POINT - UNIT 2 SPENT FUEL STORAGE FACILITY FINITE ELEMENT MODEL ,
NORTH WALL EAST WALL' SOUTH INNER WALL- WEST INNER WALL - sam sdatma samettums
- samntutNn aam ne=ENn
- 5. -
8 8 9li. . . i2 ,I. l l E. l '{ j i 2 i j { { !.
. !. 1 8 42 5 5 .:q:
8
*. E. 5 E.jj j 5
. ) { j l E. l l l { E.
8 5 !. !. !. 5 rs E.E.j j g g g r
?. ?. .
*. *. C. .
a
, g s. . i. g g g g . . t. .t.t.
F r3
*. E. 3 7 :
g 4 l } ! 8 8 8 5 !. j
- 9 i.
8
- i. t. .
I. ?. . _i_l - utsenAME ntMENil Nim 8RAME tumtNi$ utM9RAME SLEMt4fs utmenAnt_Ettunts r
- 52 i i i i i i j! !
E f rP E ! ! ) j f- j. j ; ' I l i I ? E !!] ! i s [ i 2 2 i I I i ! - 8 ! ! !a 5 s ss-s s t s e ts ! e n s !!! i 1 ; i n I
= I I 2 I ! i i i i E : i s i is i 5! ! ! !$1 E. i- E. j ft l 5 7l e- e- -- e- 8 a !. .. a 8 1 a .
-E1 4 5 g [ _
I 55 r ). @._r ! E i I i E ?. E_
. _!!_!Er _ _
E E ! 8._e ? $. .
- n s..s s t .
g s a r:
; a
.c 5 e e
- - E E F
8 'as a s i I. S s- :
=
a s a s a a a s a s a . s- s. e- - a . a :pr-g a .
- = = = e == = - = w- -= .
moest poots noots mooft L _,L .Ll! ! I 7!*4LLE 8 9 8 ! I ) 7 .I -(f 7 E_.LJ f !$ 2 5i E i 7 5 [.L_L, ( F f i7! Li L[ijI L i8 L L, ! LLLLi i L_L_ E Lg_(L I Lr Lg 3 (k_ !_sy($ j L_L LEE L Lk Li I ! lILLEL F. ii1LLit._ ;t , _ (I $ E 5 5 LLFglil L L n : ! i k. LP 3 il i LLEL5 t E : LLL Li ij_L_5 LLLi_ : L , _ , Lig 5. 5 L h s. E 11;
-(~~. t. )k ,;_
- w. mt. ._ r,- ,m-m uu i p u. . m. n_.
.m_m, . -.. _ .
u q.-[.Lil
- w. . ,
. a.m. - . , .
y o_,_, . , - t ,. E! E! 3 :
- 5 E E : 5 5 E 3 3 : E : E E 3 u ! 8! I =
L;; ;,gyg,4
- .e rrr r r r~ = = :: m : s' 3 5 ? E E 1 5 5 E 5 3 _ E emme===a - -as ori.= -= w. -.
, = - = w w.ce a FIGURE 12 r- struttural NUS 01-015 MARCH 25,1983 . FOUNDATION NORTH WALL. EAST WALL AND INNER WALLS / xdogy inc.-
ENCLOSURE
~
T a y 11.a.14 MILLSTONE POINT - UNIT 2 : SPENT FUEL STORAGE FACILITY FINITE ELEMENT MODEL WEST INNER WALL NORTH WALL. ! EAST WALL EXTENSION EXTENSION EXTENSION PIER NORTH SECTION PIER SOUTH SECTION I t ptp9A4N8 (LEMEN]$ joLS $ltMENIR SQLlo ELiasynts . . j WEugm44tEllWLM18 WUPGA4Nt1LEMEN15 b-l - E -I I I 1 I E
._ ._I.
I I I_II_5 i. _j. ! i f E I i I i I E ! ! ! ! ! ! E. i. E. i E E E E I E ! ! ! ! ! ! ! l ? I I 1 I I I ! ! ! ! 5 ? s . E. E. I I t I i l soots noots soons noces , moots
'! ! ! 5 ! ! ! LLLLE Lili iLI [(E [I gi
. . . , _ . . . e . . . . , .
LL LL5 a a.L3 s a -! E r A E 1 I I I_. L k E L E i
" i ! ! ! E ! LL L LE i (IE : LE : LE LE E.R
( .m ; !! l 2 E I E E i_ _E . LLLLE lll! E LE E_5 E 5 b b ! E E E : : LLLs i s_. s ;.Ls is .
."a Gl1 ."".".'. C".
1 I FIGURE 13 . Stnxturd ! NUS-01415 l~ MARCH 25,1983 FOUNDATION PIER AND MISCELLANEOUS WALLS Tect,xqy, h j ENCLOSURE l i l l
ll.a.15 a o C O w
.O C
riz E F93 8 ! 'f h l gg - vs
.c
_O l l 1 - -- y 5 o
=0 rst =
x0 2 - 8
- y C.
U.! N' 'U
-_x -
t Ow .. 6 OC- at U c. g *' l E r v~ ?
.!! o;; a o Stw dkU R 44 vio *'"
u SZW .: to Ua.~. - U. in 0 --
=y
~~O N
DL ML l ll 11 3 l l l l ~
- 2 Oa __ .
c a
"8 .T g N 2
- .0
= ,o u.
r- e N T .E g g 1l . l l o 0 _vi .- 4 . . , y N O O en en
~~
n n h N == J
~~ 9 v .:
M n
.C.
5 U
.c
. B _8
- s -. . ,
b h p g g O , , ,4 - O
~ ~ n - y _
e o r= .D
.C .O.
O O *
= N N
.e.
O 2 7m w asm m/ wm=u
.-.u______ . - _. - - - _ --.____ _-----.--.-.-__-----_._--_._.---.__--_.---J
NorIlienst Utilities Service Company Millstone Poini Unit 2 Spent Fuel Pool Evoluotion - Floor Liner Plate Model Node Nomisers
.e t e si tL 81L8 1L *LIL tt 85
! L .121 111 lie sus isoist_ ty t u t is.
, e as ne is
.L se in vi es is es ses ne ses ese inser een ie, ins
, se it to u er it is is es it
!L_ if L til t** nf 8.1! :sh tii, nL iss 3 is av 3, st 1L is ** 15 es **
tt_._ tit _ L18 13 Lts L.,,, tu is t (J L tet ist a in to tL. .J (L11 EL !E. 41
.tL 11 L HL LJ L 111 tu t tL
- L tL _ in IL t) tL iL5L EL?! -
~
ut i1L ise g ios sin sir ist ne ass iss i s, is, s is re u._t* ,s is ., se se see ist H
, te rn 2e n ma si sa rn as ses m
1! L H1_ H 1118 I" IH 11L 1?' t!L a's
,251L IL_St__IL ta.ses. tt L t1 L ti2 41L . tsL._.111 tlL 11L tat _ see 55 (Lit 6' **_ 't $es zgL s tL_ L13 1]L._ L14 tU t i f._ t'L ttL see n he 59 **__ EL 11 **8
!!.2_ GL tu 82' "' iS' 'so ise sea if iLse 't tL u ies 131 _ ttL 113 v 31._._ (3L , tu (IL ,g L at aos utse is et se ses ies nas sai of no is, evi ne ist ses i
l
- o. .,
=
P
. s I C
.E =
ll.a.17
. . . . l. o
- ~ j - .*
e.9 t.o. e.9 . l 49 - P F*
- y P p.
. O
, W W e4
- 48
- a. t.a. a. e.4 e e '"
- to.
a to .E
==
W . P . . O - M M p F p p 3p p @ go
- e. e. a. e. - M.
e t.R e.m
- @ 49 P m j m D - N 89 p l 4
" " [
3 l'** ** fa f' *
* ! ' f W . M . . O 88 N R 9 n n n n n n n y - n.
. n.
. - n.
> _f %
*c m y n -
w . e . o - % = x w W 3, . - -
~
w =
=
c.e. g Q 8'"eeee . g y G iy O Ol
~
a , O_ O_ O_ - - a_. . a_. -_ c~: u 8 .- l . l *
- 8 g
L;. yU. . - ~ . ,,
; . . .o . . . .
. W Udg- -
N 4 ,m
- =U 2 ~~
D yf
- i : =
- =
~.,.- .
. ,o.
a
!ai -
% e.
i
- M* M y
-- ~ ~ -
~e a =. e =
w e
- e. 9e M y U, e e. . .
s w F o F F F ap en b Q e. Pe ' m y j - ; g , \ o,
.O P e *
- t
- I f !n __
~
Ul7 $ me O - l *M pg ly I f ** N e N lN e
- R.
44 . P . e .F. e. . a = * * "
- ~ n F e .
, no
' WYh
'-*- A DymmK3
/
+
I M N JY
ll.b.1 OUESTION 11.b Provide a description of,the mathematical model employed, including assumptions and limitations of the model.
Response
This section includes a detailed description of the finite element model used in the spent fuel pool storage facility structural evaluation along with justification of modeling assumptions which were considered important in predicting the response of the structure. The extent of the structural model includes the pool walls, cask laydown and fuel transfer canal area walls (excluding the gates), . pool floor slab and fuel transfer canal floor slab and the foundation walls directly beneath this portion of the auxiliary building. All walls directly adjacent the pool (including the fuel transfer canal inside wall and cask laydown area walls) and the pool floor slab are modeled with two layers of eight node solid elements to permit proper application of thermal gradients and to provide good definition of stress variations through the wall thickness. Four node membrano elements of negligible thickness were used on the inside, middle, and outside surfaces of the wall or floor to obtain stress values at the solid elements faces as well as at the solid element centroids. In this manner, five integration points through the walls and floors were obtained. The autor walls and floor slab of the fuel transfer canal area were modeled with a single layer of solid elements since these components were only included for their stiffness properties and were not evaluated according to stress criteria. The portions of the foundation which were modeled include the south, west, north, inner west, inner south and east foundation walls. Theae components were modeled with only one layer of solid elements with membrane elements on the inside and outside surfaces since there is no thermal gradient through the walls of the compartments at this elevation. The other structural components modeled in the foundation were the pier (solid elements) and the extensions of the inner west and east foundation walls (which were modeled with membrane elements to represent their in-plane stiffness). Since rotations at the node points of the three-dimensional solid elements are not defined, all rotational degrees of freedom in the model were restrained. Stiffnesses of the walls and floors framing into the pool model were represented using direct matrix additions. The matrix coupling terms were computed assuming that, due to cracking, one-half of the wall or floor panel stiffness is available. The nodes at the base of the foundation which are remote from the structural areas of interest in the pool were completely restrained. L.
T'
. ++ -
ll.b.2 The liner plate was modeled such that all weld seams and anchor locations were coincident with node lines or node locations. Global and local coordinate systems were specified such that they were coincident with the pool floor slab elements in the SAP 6 finite element model. All rotations and displacements normal to the plate were restrained. Lateral degrees of freedom are unrestrained for all nodes except weld seams and anchor locations, which were identified as boundary degrees of freedom at which displacements can be either specified or restrained. The results of the finite element model were examined to insure that realistic deflections and stresses existed for each individual load case. Classical solutions were also prepared for selected components for comparison to the finite element model results. Gross force and moment reactions were calculated and resulting stresses were compared to those in the computer model. The general behavior of the model under the loads was determined to be reasonable by viewing deformed geometry plots and screening stresses at key locations. The material properties used in the mathematical model were obtained from design criteria specifications or by NUSCO Engineering. Concrete Material Properties Concrete Compressive Strength 3,000 lb/in 2 Reinforcing Yield Strength 60,000 lb/in Reinforcing Elastic Modulus' 29.0 x 10 6 1 ! "22 Concrete Elastic Modulus 3.15 x 10 6 lb/in Concrete Poisson Ratio 0.17 Concrete Thermal Expansion Coefficient 5.5 x 10 -6 Concrete Weight Density 8.68 x 10
-2 in/inf*F lb/in (150 lb/ft3)
Liner Plate Material and Anchor Properties Plate Material 304 Stainless Steel Plate Thickness 0.25 inches Plate Thickness Tolerance 16% Poissons Ratio 0.24 Coef ficient of Thermal Expansion 8.82 x 10 -6 in/in*F Yield Strength 30 kai Weld Electrode E308-16 Electrode Tensile Strength 90 kai
ll.c.1 OUESTION ll.c Describe and list the load cases used as weli as the justification for these load cases.
Response
This section discusses the development and application of the loads which were applied to the finite element model. To provide flexibility for formulation of the load combinations, a static analysis was performed for the loads described in this section with the appropriate factors and permutations applied to these loads for formulation of the SRP load combina'. ions. It should be stated that the loads applied to the mathematical model of the spent fuel pool and liner were derived based on a 2:1 consolidated fuel load. The conservatisms of this are described later in this section.
~
Structural Individual Load Cases The twelve individual loads applied to the finite element model are described in Table 3.2-2. Loads which were excluded from this evaluation include fuel cask drop, crane load, rack impact and accident flood load. Fuel cask drop has been previously addressed and therefore is not considered in this analysis. The loads from the fuel handling crane were excluded since the effect on the overall pool structure was considered beneficial when considered in combination with other loads. This assumption is based upon the fact that the relatively small compressive vertical load exerted on the pool walls, due to the crane weight, aids the concrete section's ability to carry shear forces as well as other axial and moment loadings. Impacting of the rack pads due to tipping was considered a local effect and was addressed as a separate item. Accident flood load has also been eliminated from consideration since the flood gates protect the auxiliary building to the maximum probable flood height. Dead weight of the pool structure was defined as a 1.0g vertical acceleration. Hydrostatic loading of the structure was analyzed for a pool water depth of 38 '-6". The hydrostatic forces are applied to the wetted surface of the pool by' computing nodal forces in the three directions as the product of the pressure at the nodal elevations by an area vector (A ,A which is computed from adjacent element areas. MeEbrahe, Aele)ments (only for the purpose of load application) were used to represent the gates in the fuel transfer canal and cask laydown areas so that the hydrostatic forces on the gates were accounted for. A resultant force was computed for this load verifying application of the load and additionally, confirming correct orientation of the elements since the nodal area vectors are based on the local coordinate systems of the membrane elements.
.- . r- .-
11.c.2 Individual load cases 3, 4, and 9 through 12 are nominal 1,000 pounds per square foot loads-applied to the pool floor slab in the negative global'z (vertical), x and y directions. These unit load cases were used to later formulate vertical-(z) rack loads and lateral (X-y) loads. Application of the load in each direction was subdivided into two load cases to provide for the differential fuel rack cont'igurations in regions 1 and 2 of the pool. Load cases 5 and 6 are operating and accident thermal loads, corresponding to pool water temperatures of 150*P and 212*P, respectively. The ambient (or stress free) temperature for all compartments outside the pool (including the cask laydown and fuel transfer canal areas) was defined as 55'P. These loads were applied by defining nodal temperatures for all nodes in the model based on linear interpolation of temperatures between adjacent compartments. The accident pool temperature of 212*P is justified since the pool water free surface is at atmospheric pressure. The pool bulk temperature will also be fairly uniform as a result of convection currents caused by heating of the water at lower elevations resulting in the movement of this lower density water toward the top of the pool. Building seismic effects and the associated hydrodynamic forces due to lateral earthquake loads are included in load cases 7 and
- 8. The horizontal earthquake acceleration applied for these loads was calculated by taking the average of the floor zero period accelerations, determined from the auxiliary building seismic analysis for the various levels over the pool height, and applying this acceleration to the structural mass of the model.
All g levels used in this analysis were taken from the " Seismic Analysis-Auxiliary Building," Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 2, Bechtel Power Corporation, Job No. 7604-01, Revision 3, July 31, 1972. Using the peak acceleration value from the various floor elevations over the pool height, the average peak horizontal acceleration value was found to be 0.21 g's for the 0.09 g (OBE) building base excitation. To facilitate load combinations, this seismic acceleration was expressed in terms of a nominal 1.0 g building base excitation to-give a nominal 2.34 g peak acceleration at the spent fuel pool elevation. This nominal 1.0 g base excitation and resulting 2.34 g fuel pool acceleration is indicated in Table 3.2-2 for individual load cases 7 and 8. Earthquake response of the pool water was based on the methodology outlined in TID-7024, " Nuclear Reactors and
. Earthquakes," which provided a basis for computing pool wall and floor pressures which result from earthquake-induced pool fluid motion. Hydrodynamic forces were calculated as the product of the pressure profiles over the wetted surf aces of the pool and their associated area vectors, similar to the application of the hydrostatic forces described previously. Gross hydrodynamic forces and moments were computed from these nodal forces, with
=
-11.c.3 verification by comparison to forces and moments calculated from formulas in TID-7024. 'These hydrodynamic responses were also normalized to a 1.0 g earthquake to f acilitate load combinations.
Vertical' earthquake loads were not included as individual load cases, since acceleration of the pool water mass and concrete mass are equivalent to applying appropriate load factors to their respective static load cases-to. account for dynamic amplification of the seismic motion. Table 3.2-3. summarizes the load definition parameters used in evaluating the concrete structure. Composite Ioad Cases The twelve individual loads just described were combined to formulate the composite load cases applicable to this evaluation. The composite loads are shown in Table 3.2-4 and include dead load (D), live load (L), operating and accident thermal (T and T ), and SSE and OBE earthquake (E and E'). Table 3.2-4 afso d@ fines the relationship between individual loads and composite loads. The Standard Review Plan load combinations which are described later in this section are formulated from these composite load cases. Dead Loads Dead load includes dead weight of the concrete structure, hydrostatic pressure and weight of the fuel rack modules excluding their fuel complements. The fuel module dead weight was 365 pounds per cell. Since the individual load cases for rack loads were based on nominal 1,000 psf vertical loads over f Regions 1 and 2 of the pool floor slab, individual load cases 3 and 4 are factored by 0.374 and 0.607. Live Loads Live load consisted entirely of the submerged weight of the consolidated fuel and storage box. The weight of these two items is 2,500 ' pounds per cell. Based on this value, the floor slab vertical loads were computed as 2,561 pounds per square foot over Region 1 and 4,155 pounds per square foot over Region 2. These values are based on all cells in the pool having 2:1 consolidated fuel placed in them. The actual live load for reracking in Region l will be 1,528 pounds per square foot or 40 percent less.than analyzed for. Similarly, actual live load in Region 2 is 1,332 pounds per square foot or 68 percent less than analyzed for. c
11.c.4 l Thermal Imads Operating and accident thermal composite loads were taken
- directly as their individual load cases with factors of 1.0.
Barthquake Loads Operating basis earthquake (E) was specified as 0.09 g horizontal and 0.06 g vertical 2PA levels measured at the base of the foun-dation. . Since amplification of the base motion acceleration levels was accounted for in the individual load cases, a coefficient of 0.09 was applied to the horizontal response loads (load cases 7 and 8). Similarly, the response to vertical earth-quake-is constant over the pool height as specified in the plant design manual, so a factor of 0.06 on the dead weight load was used for this load case. SSE horizontal and vertical reactions for the submerged racks were specified in as 3,500 pounds per cell and 1,000 pounds per cell, respectively. OBE loads are calculated as 56 percent of the SSE loads. Based on.these cell l reactions, the OBE vertical loads are 569 psf over Region 1 and 923 psf over Region 2. The resulting OBE horizontal loads are 1,992 psf over Region 1 and 3,232 psf over Region 2. As required by the Standard Review Plan, the three directions (X, [ y, 2) of earthquake were applied such that all permutations of i the signs were considered. Table 3.2-4 shows four of the OBO l composite loads. Four additional cases not shown in Table 3.2-4 i were developed by multiplying those shown in the table (El i through E4) by -1.0. Similarly, SSE loads were formulated by j multiplying the eight OBE cases by 1.8. The service and factored load combinations were formulated according to Section 3.8.4, paragraph 3.6 of the Standard Review Plan (Reference 7). Table 3.2-5 presents the eight service load combinations and five factored load combinations from the Standard Review Plan. Eight of the SRP composite load components were not applicable to this structure and were not considered in the evaluation. These composite load components include R l (normal operating pipe reactions), W (design wind), W tornado), R l i y, y,y Timpact and impulse break (pipe break reactions), P fromandpl$e(accident re) and impact). preksu EEcluding ,these loads, the final loads considered reduce to those shown in Table 3.2-6. j Examination of Table 3.2-6 shows load cases 1.b.1 and i.b.3 to be l identical, as are i.b.4 and i.b.6. .Since live load is always present, the response of the structure to 1.b.7 is bounded by l 1.b.2. Similarly, load case 1.b.1 bounds 1.b.8. This results in four service load combinations considered, two of which contain l OBE, which has eight sub-load cases, resulting in a total of l eighteen service load combinations. l l l
11.c.5 The response of the structure to T is similar to T with T ; controlling. Therefore, load case it.b was eliminafe,d in li$u of I li.c. For the same reason, load cases li.a and li.e are bounded j by li.a. .This leaves two factored cases, one containing SSE, ' which has eight subcases, resulting in a total of nine factored j load combinations. Table 3.2-7 summarizes the coefficients applied to the composite t loads for formulation of the service and factored loads previously described. Since the effect of the dead and live l portions of a load combination are reduced during earthquake motion in the negative global direction, the factors on these i composite loads are reduced by 10 percent. The final loads were formulated for all areas of the pool which were considered in this evaluation. Analyr.is was then performed for each particular i concrete wall or floor for the two or three controlling load combinations. ! Liner Plate Imad Combination Formulation i The individual and composite load cases used for evaluation of I the liner plate are identical to those presented in Tables 3.2-2 ! and 3.2-4, respectively, with one exception. During the liner plate evaluation, SSE horizontal rack reaction loads specified by the fuel rack vendor were reduced from 3,500 pounds per cell to 2,500 pounds per cell. This resulted in a corresponding reduction in the coefficients for individual load cases 9 through
- 12. The liner plate composite load cases are shown in Table 3.2-8.
The service and factored loads specified by the Standard Review Plan for plastic design methods are shown in Table 3.2-9. The same eight components for composite loads that were not l considered for the liner plate analysis: including R (pipe break reactions), P and Y , Y , Y (impact and impulse from pi$e(accident pressure), break and missileEdclu8ing impact)r. these loads, the loads considered were reduced to those shown in Table 3.2-10. From Table 3.2-10, it is evident that load cases 1.b.1 and i.b.3 are identical, as are i.b.4 and i.b.6. Application of OBE in all l possible locations resulted in load combination 1.b.1 being bounded by 1.b.2. The number of service load combinations
- considered was reduced to three, two of which contained OBE, '
which has eight subcases, resulting in seventeen possible service load combinations. < l The response of structure to T was bounded by T , which resulted o in elimination of li.b,2 in lieu of li.b.3. Similarly, load case it.b.1 was bounded by ti.b.5. Structural response due to SSE * (which is OBE factored by 1.8) results in elimination of it.b.4 s in lieu of li.b.5. A load case of (D + L + E') was considered t separately to address the effects of earthquake without thermal
c-11.c.6 loads. Three factored load combinations remain, two containing SSE which (considering earthquake permutations) results in a total of 17 factored load combinations. The final composito load caso coefficients are summarized in Table 3.2.11, for the service and factored load casos previously described. Applied displacements and strains due to cracking and curvature offects were applied for the load combinations described. Concentrated loads representing the rack pad forces were not applied directly to the linor plato model at the individual load caso level. It can bo shown that the coefficient of friction betwoon the rack pads and linor plato (stool-to-stool interfaco) is loss than that betwoon the liner plato and concreto slab. Consequently, the racks will slide before the load will be taken by the liner plate. If the rack pada stick (corresponding to a coefficient of friction of 1.0), the force provided by the cell's vertical reaction and the concreto linor plato friction is greater than the coll's horizontal reaction. In either caso, the load is transmitted directly to the concrete slab which was quallflod for the design loads.
11.c.7 Tchle 3,7-2 f 4ortt.ecst Utilitie. Service Com;nsiy Millsime Point Unit 2 Spent Fuel Pool Evaluation Individual Lcxxi Case Deseriptim SAP 6 Load Case Num:>er Description I i g vertical acceleration for deod weight of concrete 2 Hydrostatic f orces J 1000 to/f t2 vertical s100 load over Region 1 4 1000 lb/f12 vertical sicb lood over Region 2 5 Operating thermal (pool water at 150 F) 6 Accident thermal (pool water et 212 F) 7 1 g ZPA north earthquake. 2.34 g peak pool wall acceleration plus hydrodynamic forces (+X occeleration) 8 i g ZPA west earthquake. 2.34 g peak pool wall accelerotion plus hydrodynamic forces .
, (+Y accelerotion) 9 -1000 lb/f t2 horizontal slob lood over Region I in X direction (+X oc'c eleration) 10 -1000 lb/f t2 horizontal stob lood over Region 2 in X direction (+X occeleration) 11 -1000 lb/f t2 horizontal slob lood over Region I in Y direction (+Y oce,eleration) 12 -1000 lb/f t2 horizontal slob load over Region 2 in Y direction (+Y occeleration)
~. 1 WY
* ?= LMwncs kttrumgy
11.c.8 Table 3.2 3 lbrtin ust Utilities Service Corn:xney Millstorie Point Unit 2 Spent Fuel Pool Evoluotion Sunrnory of Lood Definit.ori Poron.elers ltem Description Pool Properties: Pool water ocptn 3 8'-6" Pool Normal Operating Temperatur: 150 F . Pool Accident Temperature 0 212 F Pool Hydrocynomic Forces TID 7024, App F Auxiliary Building Compartment Temperatures: All Compartments 55 F Thermal Stress - Free Temperature 550F Operating Conditions: Fuel Transfer Canal Dry Caskioydown Area Dry Seismic Ground Accelerations: OBE Horizontal 0.09 9-OBE Vertical 0.06 g SSE Horizontal & Vertical I.8 (OBE) (m was WY
ll.c.9 N NNNN
~
O. O m O. D O O Os . mmmm o NNNN AAA.A mmmm m 9999
- o. o. m m .$
o o009 0 000,0 .?
- mmmm 8 5 % coco e
- o ddd.de 6
e A .2 o O y G>" w o . J
- x. W .E.
._. 3.,
lll 0 C. 5 0 U ,0 *C e g g m o = 5
.his u N ew s nw o
v =: N a o-NNNn m m Ud 9999 E o y c. .c cooo 3o * ~8 o
.= N o m am nnnn J H _=J
= ~9 9999 i 33,0 "N ocoo g
*?E u o ewee .7 55Y
=gg o
0909 dodo
.E o U _ eewe 4 .
Z b. 0909
- W q - oooo B m
= ..o
- o
_ v f.: 3o W dE v-A -N 0* 0 5 g o = a 2 _ aJ=om5 3CD* as o .
~* v umOQQ u *~
v 9 C .?. JO<OOOOr U W W W OW W o u g'viiiso i i s i e m m V 3o oo-mme g n , a JoarrWWWW - ~
.$ '5-Nmemeso o,
Ji y 2 E - y Uo o
- Z hWN
-. e ovnm.o 1conxgy k
11.c.10 Toble 3.2-5 t4ortf.ecst Utilities Service Corntxriy Millstor e Point Unit 2 Spent Fuel Pool Evaluation Star.dard Review Plan Lood Con 6ination Lumrnary Load Combination iJomber Deserintinn SERVICE LOAD COtABilJATIOr45 i.b. I l.4D + l.7L i.e.2 1.4D + l.7L + 1.9E i.e.3 1.4D + 1.7L + 1.7W i.b.4 .75 (1.4D + 1.7L . l.7To + 1.7 Ro ) i.o.) .75 (1.4D + l.7L + l.9E + l.7T o + l.7Ro) i.b.6 .75 (1.4D + l.7L + 1.7W + 1.7T o + 1.7 Ro ) i.e.7 1.2D + 1.9E or .9'(1,.4D) + l.9E i.e.8 1.2D + 1.7W or .9 (1.4D) + 1.7,W FACTORED LOAD COMBINATIONS ii.a D + L + To + E' ii.b D+L+T+R+# o o 3 ii.c D + L + To + Ro+ 1.5 P o li.d D+L+T o + Ro + 1.25 P o + 1.0 Yr + Y; i Ym) +.I.25 E' ii.e D + L + To+ R o+ 1.0 Po + 1.0 (Y, + Y; + Ym) + 1.0 E' l A DfwTmC3 1"Ja*w
. av . 11.c.11 Totale 3,2-6 f 4ortheast Utilities Service Company Millstone Point Unit 2 Spent Fuel Pool Evaluation Applicable Standard Review Plan Lood Comisiriotions Load Comoinction Number Description SERVICE LOAD COMBINATIONS i.b.I 1.4D + 1.7L i.e.2 1.4D + l.7L + l.9E i.b.3 1.4D + 1.7L (identical to i.b.1) i.b.4 .73 (1.4D + 1.7L + 1.7To ) 1.D.3 .75 (1,4D + 1.7L + l.9E + 1.7T ) o 1.b.6 .75 (1.4D + 1.7L + 1.7,To ) (identical to i.b.4) i.e.7 1.2D + 1.9E or .9 (1.40) + 1.9E LBounded by i.b.2) 1.b.8 1.2D or .9 (1.4D) (Bounded by i.b.1) FACTORED LCAD COMBINATIONS ii.c D + L + To + E' (Bounded by li.d) ii.o D+L+T o (Bounded by li.c) ii.c D+L+T o ii.d D + L + To+ 1.25E' li.e D + L + To+ 1.0E' (Bounded by 'li.d) dU
- .p Dyryperuc iconagy
-- J
i f- Table 3.2-7
' Norflicost Utilitles Service Convmy Millstone Point Wit 2 Spent Fuel Pool Evoluution Finot Looti Conbination Coeificients
- Composite Load Cases D L T, T, E, E 2
E 3 Eg LOAD COMBINATION IDENI'IFIER 1.b.I - IA0 1.70
. I.b.2.1 -
1.40 1.70 1.90
~
i.b.2.2 I.40 1.70 1.90 .; i.b.2.3 1.40 1.70 1.90 ' l.b.2.as 1.40 1.70 -1.80 1.b.2.5 1.26 1.53 -1.90 , i.b.2.6 1.26 1.53 -1.90 i.b.2.7 1.26 1.53 -1.90 s 1.b.2.8 1.26 1.53 1.90 i.b.4 1.05 1.28 I.28 o i.b.5.1 1.05 1.28 I.28 , 1.43 I.b.5.2 1.05 1.28 1.28 h 1.43 1.b.5.3 ,l.05 1.20 . l .2d 1.43 i.b.5.4 l.05 1.28 1.28 1.43 1.b.5.5 0.95 1.15 1.28 -l.43 1.b.5.6 0.95 1.15 1.28 -l.43 i.b.5.7
- 0.95 1.15 1.78 -1.43 1.b.5.8 -
0.95 1.15 1.28 ii.c -1.43 l.00 1.00 1.00
. ii.d.1 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.25 ii.d.2 ~
I.00 1.00 1.00 2.25 ,. t ii.d.3 . 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.25 l , ii.d.4 1.00 1.00 1.00' 2.25 y% ii.d.5 _ 0.90 0.90 1.00 -2.25 ii.d.6 . 0.90 0.90 1.00 -2.25 it ii.d.7 0.90 -0.90 1.00 -2.25 ^ A li.d.8 0.90 0.90. l , y
+
I.00 - 2.25 r.
's ,
j je g l
-~ - - - - -- -
' ~ ~ " ~ '
.g' - 11.c.13
.. ~es . ~ ~ ~
'N O.s D. ~Ch. O .s e
o o o. o. e m m m
~
m m m m d d d. 6
- o. ~
- m. a. o. m.
~,~,~
o o. o, o m m m o e *
- 9A o o o. o.
mm o, o, .$ m o o o o e 666 6 .2
~
" u .
m m m m *
- 5 s o ooo &
- v O,
_ d d. d. d *
>. O o a
>. 'w- o w
,, F.
- x. W1.5" -
w J 5, O
, ' o 8 .$* m o O Ug. o q g s ,
. . ., u o- -
.. tud
? W
~ ao , a ~ ----
O M y a a. .
- m. . . m. m. m. c g n. c .oooo
*d- o GN =J O n ..
o
---- J "9N 9.9:99
=38 D
2_e oooo g' , O c2 ~ o w we e I 2 '5 Y 9 o9'99 .5
- 2. , .==y -
oooo -
- - "yU _ o . . 4. w . -3 5 o o qoo
- W q -
o o o o- O c
- s. ". , . =-
- . O c w
% i O
.. - .u, hO
~
W. c O - E
- 8 *:
.c
& ~y -
@ O E
o 3TO c m o 6
- t. 3 3= = .g 4,
f . *,, 3*O c .B o. c 'o W WWW u o CD C C
']
O u w-o .e OJ O < O OO O a- W
% g O o m U U i e e i i i i i e m.
; .n %
) 8 O OO - n a
- 5 d J.
e o J r s W t ui" W W m m
~
-O O O '
e .? ..
+
b " N M *EI @ Y N o @
% y ,
H
,_E, O
' .T
= JU -Z
-v
=
~ ',' -
}l( M W
.w.
'_-___".___-e * . = - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
^ - - - ^ ^ ' ^ - - - ^ ' - ^ - - - - ~ - ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ - ^ ^ - ' ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ' ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ' ' ^ ^ ^
-11.c.14 Toble 3.2-9 Northeast Utilities Service Compmy Millstone Point Unit 2 Spent Fuel Pool Evoluotion Liner Plate Standard Review Plan Lood Combination Summary Load Comninction Number Description SERVICE LOAD COMBINATIONS - LINER PLATE i.b.l 1.7D + !.7L .
i.D.2 1.7D + 1.7L + 1.7E
' i.b..s 1.7D + 1.7L + 1.7W i.e.4 1.3 (D + L + To + Ro) i.o.5 1.3 (D + L + E + oT + Ro )
i.b.6 1.3 (D + L + W + oT + Ro ) FACTORED LO D COMBINATIONS - LINER PLATE ii.bt! D + L + To + Ro + E' ii.b.2 D + L + To + Ro+ W, ii.b.3 D + L + To + Ro+ 1.5 P o ii.b.4 D + L + To + Ro + 1.25 Po + 1.0 (Yr j Y; + Y m) + 1.25 E ii.b.5 0 + L + To + Ro + 1.0 Po + 1.0 (Y r + Y; + m Y } ?E ' F O e d
. ^ Drum
},l M f.~
11.c.15-Toble 3.2-10 Northeast Utilities Service Company .
. Millstone Point Unit 2 Spent Fuel Pool Evoluotion Applicable Liner Plate Stondord Review Plon Lood Combirmtions Lood
~ Combination Number Description SERVICE LOAD COMBINATIONS - LINER PLATE i.e.1 1.70 + l.7L -(Sounded by i.b.2) i.e.2 1.70 + 1.7 L + 1.7E i.e.3 1.70 + 1.7L (Identical to i.b.1) i.b.4 1.3 (D + L + To) i.b.$ l .3 (0 + L + E + To) i.b.6 1.3 (D + L + T;) (identical to i.b.4)-
, FACTORED LOAD COMBil ATIONS - LINER PLATE s
ii.b. I D + L + To + E' (Bounded by li.b.5) ii.b.2 ' D+L+T o (Boundid by li.b.3) - ii.b.3 D+L+T o ii.b.4 D + L + To+ 1.25E . (Bounded by li.b.5) ii.b.5 D + L + To + E' 0 4
)
f
$1TUClural
/ oyrumo
)/ --
W ~~wi . l ,. ..
~- .
y q ,- 4 y- w- <4,- s y g--,
r _ .- - Table 3.2-1 I : Northeast Utilities Service Convoiy. . Millstone Point lJ11t 2 Spent Fuel Pool Evoluollon
. Final Load Combirmlion Coef ficients
. Service Composite Load Cases - Liner Plate D L T, T E, E E E o 2 3 4 LOAD COMBINATION IDENTIFIER I.b.2.1
- 1.70 1.70 l.70 i.b.2.2 1.70 1.70 1.b.2.3 1.70 1.70 1.70 1.b.2.4 1.70 1.70 1.70 i.b.2.5 .
l.70 1.53 1.53 -l.70 1.b.2.6 1.53 1.53 -
-l.70
~
i.b.2.7 F
'l.53 1.53 i.b.2.8 -1.70 1.b.4 1.53 .l.53 P 1.30
-1.70
.l.30 1.30. %-
i.b.5.1 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 i.b.5.2
- 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.'
l.b.5.3 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.b.5.4 f. 30 1.~30 1.30 1.30 1.b.5.5 - .? 1.17 1.17 f.30 -1.30 1.b.5.6 1.17 1.17 1.30 1.b.5.7 -1.30 1.17 1.17- 1.30
- i.b.5.8 1.17 1.17- 1.30 - 3" xv. ' '
f f5 - s
ll.c.17 C o o o o y :D. CD. CO. CO. 0 $ m o e 'o o og CO. CO. CO. CD. 0 0 e. N o o o o
,_5 y o. o. *. *.
e i
*3 x"5 *to o o o o w tj Q y CD. CD CD CO.
EgO .- i
. a.=
8 7 00O oo oeoo o R va oO h O
- o. o. o. o. o. o.
._ h3UU
'5" >
w k ~5 u o ":: 0 W D =g 9 ' en c. - O m *- Z
- d. =._ N_ :
S _J o000000o000o00000 n o o. o. o. o. cn. a. m. m. o. o. o. o. o. CN. m. m. m.
- Dw_3 2g 3 ----oooo-----oooo
.i
- 0 O 00000000800000000 O
9 _= e.e O - m. a
-c. -o.-0 -0.oCs.om.om.om.- - .-c.--o.-o.oo.o. m. m m.oom.
o 2. o Z s u.
= i_
k' U
.=
J - v' -
.v, I 6.-
z
.e
-O 8
_a z o_ O - e w O <-
- c. z E
.U 2~-
g-.*. N. m.e. m.w. n. o..n. . N. m. e. m. w. n. o.
- ~O O .O . * *
. " *e " . * * . * * . . .*** h. . . . . . . . .
c'
.D .O .D .D D .c .O := .D .
o g :d:d:d:d:d:d:d:5 .:d:=Q:.D.c.O.o.3.D d:d:d:d:5:d 8 u. o a Dynamo
), / s' lecmoegy f
lid. Describe how the dynamic interaction between the pool structure and the rack modules was considered, including the value of any associated dynamic amplification factors. Include all assumptions made regarding the summation and phase of all rack loads. The dynamic interaction between the pool structure and the rack modules was accounted for by considering the mass of fully loaded rack modules in the dynamic analysis model of the auxiliary building. Motions of the spent fuel pool from a time-history analysis of the auxiliary building were then used as input for a nonlinear seismic time-history analysis of the spent fuel rack modules'. The nonlinear time-history analysis of the rack modules produced seismic loads which are transmitted to the pool floor. These seismic loads consisted of horizontal shear loads and vertical loads including impacting of the rack module on the pool floor. The total horizontal loads on the pool floor are obtained by combining the loads due to the North-South & East-West earthquake directions in accordance with Reg. Guide 1.92. The total vertical loads are obtained by combining the vertical seismic load and the tipping impact load in accordance with Reg. Guide 1.92 and adding the deadweight load. The evaluation of the local loading under the rack feet and the total pool load should be provided by Northeast Utilities._ As far as phasing of racks, the nonlinear seismic analysis of the racks assumes all the rack modules move in phase. CE recommends that loads be applied to the pool floor in accordance with this assumption.
ll. col QUESTION 11.e Provide analysis of the adequance of the pool floor and liner under the local maximum rack module dynamic mounting foot loads.
Response
An analysis was performed which investigated the local effects on the pool floor slab due to rack module impact loads. The analysis considered two adjacent. rack mounting feet impacting the slab simultaneously. The concrete being impacted was considered to be fully cracked. Therefore, only the residual reinforcing bar strength was accounted for. The controlling load combination for this analysis was 1.7 (D + L + E). It was determined that the residual shear strength for the section is 3,565 kips. The required residual shear strength capacity is 239.4 kips. The analysis therefore shows that the structural integrity of the pool floor is maintained when subjected to the local maximum rack module dynamic mounting foot loads.
f
. .. . .ll.f.1 OUESTION
' 11~. f Provide identification of the most critical regions of the pool' structure. List the stresses and their comparison to allowable values, where the source and justification of their use of that allowable is also documented.
Response
The spent fuel pool was evaluated according to.the criteria in the Millstone Point Unit 2 Design ^ Criteria NRC Standard Review Plan.. The original design-was performed according to ACI-318-63 code criteria. For this evaluation Northeast Utilities has chosen to utilize load combinations specified in the.NRC Standard
- Review Plan followed by evaluation of the reinforced concrete sections according to ACI 349-80. The pool wall and floor liner l
plate were-evaluated.according to the strain criteria specified l by the-ASME Code.- A plate thickness tolerance of 16% was used,
'along with the weld offset, for computing membrane plus bending strains. Pool floor liner plate weld stresses were compared to
( AISC criteria. .As'shown in Table'3.1-1, a stress allowable l criteria is used in evaluating the anchors for nonthermal loads versus a displacement criteria for thermal load combinations. 1 l G I
ll.f.2 The;;following tables identifies the critical spent fuel pool and
-ll'ner . stresses and th'eir comparison to allowable values based 1upon:the previously described criteria. 'As' described.previously,
'these stresses are based on-fully consolidated-fuel: loads.
LBy review of'these tables, it can be-shown-that all stresses / strains remain within the-stated code allowables.
, ez.7 -
-! J '
l J
- +
D 1
* -i e
4 .. Tabla 3.1-1
.+! .
Northeast Utillties Service Compmy . Millstone Point Unit 2 Spent Fuel Pool Evoluoiion Lhpr Plate Criterio Summory Liner Plate AllowoblesU)' Liner Anchor Allowobles(2) Membrone Strains - Lood Combinations Without Thermal
'sc = .005 in/in sI = .003 in/in Non-Factored Lood Combinatiens Fo = 0.5 F "
Factored Load Combinations Fo = 0.85 F9 b
+. .
Membrone Plus Bending Strains C sc = 0.012: in/in J . si = 0.010 in/in
? *
, Lood Combinations with Thermal o = 0.5 u Fu md u are based on on ultimate displacement of 0.2 inches.
. test
- m L'.
1)^ ' These allowables are consistent with those specified by ASME Section 11, Subsection CC for containment liner plate when ultimate strength is the basis, i.e., factored load combinations.
' 2) These allowables are consistent with AISC, Specification for Steel Structures, Port 2; ASME m d II.I Section til Subsection CC for containment liner anchors md formulos from References 13
(' 4
11.f.4 . Table 4.1-1 Northemt Utilities Service C mpany Millstone Point Unit 2 Spent Fuel Pool Evoluotion Tabulation of Controlling Section Resultmt Mome.,ts Controlling Section Section(2) Section(3) 3,c,;on Load Axial Resultant Allowable Code Location Case Force Moment Moment Rctio Pool North Well
~
Horizontal Section C+L.T c-1.25E3') 6.686 76.97 388.2 0.20 Lower Portion of Well - East End Elements 444-445-446-447 . (MFPSTAIAl-058) Vertical Section O'+L'+To -l.25E3') -22. !! 710.9 1325.0 0.54 Lower Portion of Wall Mid-Spon Element 437 (MFP5TAlAl-05) Horizontal Section 0+L+Tf .25E3') 1 1.794 44.35 545.8 0.08 Upper Portion of Wall-East End Elements 477-478-479-480 . (MFPSTA1Al-05B) Vertical Section 0+L+Tf .25E3') l 10.42 272.5 5 98.6 0.46 Upper Portion, Mid-Spm Elements 482-493-504-515 (MFPSTA1Al-05A) Pool South Wo!! Horizonto! Section O'+L'+To-l.25E4') -30.32 810.1 1367.0 Lower Portion, West End of Pool 0.59 Element 685 (MFPSTAIAI-06) Units: . Forces ore in kips /in. Moments are in kip in/in. Notes:
- 1) Positive moment causes tension on outside surface of walls and lower surface of floor slob.~
- 22) - T moments are relieved, maintaining equilibrium md curvature of section.
- 3) -Ahowable moment is bcsed on~ strength design method per ACI 349/80.
- 2. -
.f== ,_
% oy'we
.;/_ m
.y%
f ) -- -. we + -
F 11.f.5 -
,o Table 4.1-1 Northeast Utilities Service Company Mi:isione Point Unit 2 Spent Fuel Pool Evoluotion Totulation of Controlling Section Resultant Moments (Continued)
Controlling Section Section(2) Section(3) Section
. Load Axial Resultant AlloWoble Code Location Ccse Force IAoment Moment Ratio Pool South Wall (Continued) .
Vertiect Section (D'+L'+To -l.25E4') -33.12 813.1 1516.0 0.54
- Lower Portion, Mid-Spcn ,
Element 668 (MFPSTAIAl-06) Horizontc! Section (D'+L' To-l.25E4') -23.27 685.6 !!42.0 0.60 Upper Portion, West End of Pool Element 707 (MFPSTAIAI-06) Vertieel Section (D+L+To+1.25E4') 11.99 177.3 545.7 0.32 Upper Portion, Mid-Spcn Elements 712-723-734-745 (MFPSTAIAI-06A) Pool East Wo!! Horizontc! Section , (D'+L'+To -l.25E2') 7.807 109.3 339.1 0.32 Bottom of Wall Elements S77-578-579-580-581-582-583-5PA (MFPSTAIAl-078) Vertical Section (D'+L'+To -l.25E3') -18.52 669.0 1332.0 0.50 Lower Portion of Wall - South End Element 578 (MFPSTAIAl-07) Units: Forces ore in kips /in. Moments are in kip in/in. Notes:
- 1) Positive moment causes tension on outside surface of walls and lower surface of floor slob.
2)
- 3) ' A;llowoble moment is based on strength design method per ACI 3
.f <m
--)% l( 'M gom
ll.f.6 . Table 4.1-1 Northeast Utilities Service Company
. Millstone Point Unit 2 Spent Fuel Pool Evoluotion Tabulation of Controlling Section Resultmt Moments (Continued)
Controlling Section Section(2) 3,c,;on(3) Section Load Axiol Resultnnt Allowable Locotton Code Ccse Force M o m e.it Moment Ratio Pool East Wall (Continued) - Horizonto! Section (D'+L'+To -l.25E3') -0.821 133.0 Upper Portion of Wall 612.8 0.22 Elements 609-610-611-612-613-614-615-616 (MFPSTAIAl-078) Vertical Section (D'+L'+To -l.25E3') 7.527 1 a.77 Top of Wall - South End 695.6 0.03 Elements 609-617-625-633 (MFPSTAIAl-07A) Fuel Trmsfer Cmol Separation Woll
- South (4 f t.) Portion of Wall (MFPSTAIAl-08)
Horizontof Section (D'+L'+To -l.25E3') 15.30 Mid-Spm _58.27 60.56 0.96 (Element 844) Vertiect Section (D'+L'+To -1.25E4') -15.82 366.4 74 9.0 0.49 South End of Wott Lower Portion (Element 829) Horizonto! Section (D'+L'To -l.25E4') -18.12 345.6 South End of Wall 640.0 0.54 Lower Portion - (Element 829) , Units: Forces are in kips /in. Moments are in kip in/in. Notes:
- 1) Positive surface ofmoment floor slob.causes tension on outside surface of walls and lower
- 2) - T omoments are relieved, maintaining equilibrium md curvoture of section.
3) Allowable moment is bcsed on strength design method per ACI 349/80. W+ fofwe
-f svucus
)/ m
,, , ll.f.7
- Table 4.1-1 Nortbeest Utilities Service Ccrnpmy Millstone Point Unit 2 Spent Fuel Pool Evoluotion Tabulation of Controlling Section Resultmt Moments (Continued)
Controlling Section Section(2) 3,c,;on(3) Section Lood Axict Resultant Alloweble Code Location Case Force Moment Moment Ratio Fuel Trmsfer Cmol - Separation Wall (Continued) Vertical Section O'+L'+To-l.25E4') -8.915 268.1 684.5 0.39 Mid-Span (Element 8'3) 4 North (3 f t.) Pertion of Wall (MFPSTAIAl-08) Vertical Section Below O'+L'+To-l.25E4') -23.64 363.6 581.5 0.63
- Elevation of Bottom of Gate Opening (Element 823) '
Horizontal Section Below O'+L'+To-l.25E3') -14.47 304.6 591.9 0.51 Elevation of Bottom of Cote Opening (Element 823) Vertical Section C+L+To+ 1.25E4') -l!.11 196.1 4 73.9 0.41 Above Elevation of Bottom of Cote Opening (Element 839) Horizontal Section O'+L'+To-l.25E4') -7.476 192.5 332.1 0.58 Above Elevation of Bottom of Gate Opening (Element 839) Units: Forces are in kips /in. Mornen'ts are in kip in/in. Notes:
- 1) Positive moment causes tension on outside surface of walls and lower surface of floor slab.
- 2) T,, moments are relieved, maintaining equilibriurn md curvature of section.
- 3) ATiowable moment is based on strength design method per ACI 349/80.
-t' w ue u s
' N.( .
oy== _ )
I
. ... . 11.f.B '
Table 4.1-1 Northeast Utilities Service Compmy Millstone Point Unit 2 Spent Fuel Pool Evoluotion Tobulation of Centrolling Section Resultmt Moments (Continued) S-ction ti 2) Section(3) Sec,;on Co2.trohing Locction oc Axion kesu$c(nt Allowcble Code _Ccse Force Moment Moment Ratio Cask Leydown Areo West Separation Well . (MFPSTAIAl-10) Vertical Section O"+L'+T o- 1.25E2') - 10.26 -134.7 -232.3 0.58 Below Elevation of Bottom of Gate (Element 874) Horizontal Section O'+L'+To -l.25El') -7.759 -91.34 -l M.4 of Bottom of Well 0.50 (Element 872) Vertical Section (D'+L'+To -l.25E2') -5.537 -84.16 -351.2 , 0.24 Above Elevation e' Bottom of Gate Opening (Element 860) Horizontal Section (D'+L'+To-1.25E2') -10.92 -91.31 -203.6 0.45 Above Elevation of Bottom of Cote Opening (Element 880) Units: Forces are in kips /in. Moments are in kip in/in.
~ Notes:
- 1) Positive surface ofmoment floor sicb.causes tension on outside surface of walls and lower
- 2) Tomornents are relieved, maintaining equilibrium md curvoture of section.
- 3) Allowable moment is based on strength design method per ACl 349/80.
- f smxw
'- - \
\~
"_ oyname w
J/ u_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ -__ _ _ - _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ . - - - _ . . ____
. 11.f.9 Table 4.1-I Northeast Utilities Service Company Millstone Point Unit 2 Spent Fuel Pool Evoluotion Tabulation of Controlling Section Resuitcnt Moments (Continued) Controlling Section Section(2) 3,c;;on(3) 3,c,;on Load Axio! Resultant Allowable Code Location Case Force Moment Moment Potio Cask Loydown Areo - South Separation Wall (MFPSTAIAl-10) Vertical Section Below O'+L'+To-l.25E2') -5.087 -l(A.0 -203.6 0.51 Elevation of Bottom of Gate Opening (Element 906) Horizonto! Section O'+L'+To-l.25E2') -7.573 -88.94 -183.2 0.49 of Bottom of Wall (Element 903) Vertical Section (D'+L'+To- 1.25E2') 1.031 -118.2 -355.4 0.33 Above Elevation of - Bottom of Gate Opening (Elemer}t 9iO) Horizonto! Section O'+L'+To -l.25El') -9.703 -85.72 -196.6 0.44 Above Elevation of. Bottom of Cote Opening (Element 910) Pool Floor Slob
- (MFPSTAIAl-09)
North-South Section O+L+Ta+1.25E4') -0.417 537.5 759.8 0.71 of SouthEnd of Pool Mid-Span (Element 338) Units: Forces ore in kips /in. Moments are in kip in/in.
- Notes:
- 1) Positive ~ moment causes tension on outside surface of walls ond. lower surface of floor sicb.
- 2) Tomoments are relieved, maintaining equilibrium and curvoture of section.
- 3) . Allowable moment is based on strength design method per ACI 349/80.
1
-/
t-N 7 strucasm Dew =
)/_ "r=w )
i
,, , 11.f.10 Toble 4.1-1 Northeast Utilities Service Company Millstone Point Unit 2 Spent Fuel Pool Evoluotion Tobulation of Controlling Section Resultant Moments (Continued)
Controlling Section Section(2) Section(3) Sec,;on Locd Axiol Resultant Allowable Code
~ L'ocotion Case Force Moment Moment Ratio Pool Floor Slob (Continued) -
Ecst-West Section C+L+T o+ 1.25E4') -25.36 644.0 l I 21. 0.57 or South End of Pool Mid-Spon (Element 346) North-South Section C+ L+ T,+ 1.25E l') 17.01 -33.76 -259.3 0.13 in Cesk Loydown Area Elements 302-303-304 (MFPSTA!Al-093) Ecst-West Section C+L+To+1.25El') 3.843 129.0 646.6 in Cesk Loydown Areo 0.20 Elements 303-311-319-327 ' (MFPSTAIAl-09A) Foundefion West Wall Beam ^ Horizontcl Section at C+L+Tc+1.25E3') -1.283 -39.59 -237.6 South End of Becm 0.17 Element 99 (MFPSTAIAl-17) Units: Forces cre in kips /in. Moments are in kip in/in. Notes:
- 1) Positive moment causes tension on outside surface of walls and lower surface of floor slob.
- 2) T moments are relieved, mainteining equilibrium and curvoture of section.
- 3) Ailowable moment is based on strength design method per ACI 349/80.
S 5WWY
-% om
= )/. Mm*'n
11.f.11 Table 4.1-1 Northeast Utilities Service Company Millstone Point Unit 2 Spent Fuel Pool Evoluotion Tabulation of Controlling Section Resultmt Moments (Continued) Controlling Section Section(2) Section(3) Section Load Axial Resultent Allowcble Code Locction Ccse Force Moment Moment Ratio Foundation West Wall Column - Horizonto! Section (D+L+ T,+ 1.25E4') -28.12 277.0 865.3 0.32 of Tnp of Column Element 102 (MFPSTAIAl-18) South Foundation Wall . Vertico! Section O'+L'+To-I.25E2') -3.954 -102.5 -312.6 0.33 Ecst Portion Ecst End of We!! ct Bottom Elements 1-2-3-4-5 (MFPSTAIAl-lib-1) - Vertiect Section O'+L'+To-l.25E4') 10.22 54.0 54.92 0.98 West Portion West End of Wall at Bottom Elements 10-11-12-13-14-15-16 (MFPSTAIAI-l18) Inner West Foundation Well 4 Verticci Section O'+L'+To-1.25E2') -0.994 58.02 289.7-at Bottom 0.20 Elements 165-9 4-167-168-169-170-171 (MFP5TAIAl-158) Units: Forces are in kips /in. Moments cre in kip in/in. Notes:
- 1) _ Positive mornent causes tension on outside surface of wclis and lower surface of floor sicb.
- 2) T moments are relieved, maintaining equilibriurn and curvature of section.
- 3) Ailowable moment is based on strength design method per ACI 349/80.
-~ 'W Dvrwe j/ ecnroogy
e
- C **- *~
11.f.12 Toble 4.1-1 Northeast Utilities Service Company Millstone Point Unit 2 Spent Fuel Pool Evoulation l Tobulation of Controlling Section Resultont Moments (Continued) Controlling Section Section(2) SectionI3) Section Load Axiol Resultant Allowable Code Location Case Force ' Moment Moment Rotio Inner South Foundation Woil Vertical Section (D'+L'+To -l.25E4') 1.553 -89.81 -128.8 0.70 of Bottom Elements 193-194-195-196 - (MFPSTAIAl-138) Units: Forces ore in kips /in. Moments are in kip in/in. Notes:
- 1) Positive moment causes tension on outside surface of walls and lower surface of floor slob.
- 2) T
. 3) AE. moments are relieved, maintcining equilibrium cnd curvoture of section.
owable moment is based on strength design method per ACI 349/80. e e S
' N. Drwtwo w
.m )/
7 ll.f.13 ' Table 4.1-2 Northeast Utilities Service Company Millstone Point Unit 2 Spent Fuel Pool Evaluation Tabulation of Resultant Trmsverse Shear Forces Controlling Allowcble(3) Code Load Section(2) Section Shear Location _Cese Sheer Sheer _Rotio Pool North Woll Vertical Section C+L+T c+ 1.25E3') 3.062 6.'377 et West End of Wall 0.48 Elements 443-454-465-476-487-498-509 - Vertical Section C+L+T a+1.25E3') 8.881 27.77 0.32 at West End of Well at Top Element 520 Vertie::1 Section O'+L'+To-l.25E4') 14.50 28.93 0.50 at Intersection with Cesk Loydown Areo West Well at Top , Element 512 Vertiect,Section O'+L'+To-l.25E4') 11.27 31.21 0.36 et Intersection with Cesk Leydown Area West Well Elements 435-446-457- ' 468-479-501 Horizontcl Section C+L+T o+1.25E3') 1.805 6.167 0.29 of Bottom of Wall Elements 433-434-435-436-437-438-439-440-441-442-443 Units: Kips / inch
- Not es: 1) Data from MFPSTAIAl-04
- 2) Shear forces cre linectly interpolated to the distmce from the foce of the effective support equel to the distance from the section compressive face to the centroid of the tensile steel wr):re opplicable.
- 3) Allowoble sheur is based on strength design per ACI 349/80.
,;/ w
s .. . ll.f.14 ' Table 4.1-2 Northeast Utilities Service Compmy Millstone Point Unit 2 Spent Fuel Pool Evoluotion Tabulation of Resultmt Trcnsverse Shear Forces (Continued) Controlling Allowcble(3) Code Load Section(2) Section Shear Locotion Ccse Sheer Sheer Rotio Pool South Woil Vertical Section et (D+L+Tc+1.25E4') 10.18 25.89 0.39 West End at Top of Well Element 740 - 1 Vertical Section at (D+L+T o+ 1.25E4') 1.087 i 6.234 0.17 ' West End of Wall Elements 663-674-685-696-707-718-729 Horizontal Section at (D'+L'+To -l.25E4') 5.397 Top of Wall 7.827 0.69 Elements 740-741-742-i t 743-744-745-746-747- . 74B-749-750 Pool Eost Woil Vertical Section at 0+L+T o+1.25E3') 3.876 South End of Wo!! 25.88 0.15 ct Top Element 633 Vertical Section at C+L+T o+1.25E3') 3.018 SouthEnd of Well 6.362 0.47 Elements 577-585-593-601-609-617-625 Units: Xips/ inch Notes: 1) Data from MFPSTAIAl-04
- 2) Shear forces are linectly interpolated to the distmce from the face of the effective support equo! to the distcrice frorn the section compressive face to the centroid of the tensile steel where opplicable.
- 3) Allowable shear is based on strength design per ACI 349/80.
-/ 5trucass
'A[e oyravec
)l-
'WI
p:
.s o. . 11.f.15 -
Table 4.1-2 Northeast Utilities Savice Company Millstone Point Unit 2 Spent Fuel Pool Evoluotion Tabulation of Resultmt Trmsverse Shear Forces (Continued) Controlling Allowable (3) Code Load SectionI2I Section Shear Location - Case Shear Shacr Ratio Pool East Woil (Continued) Vertical Section C+L+T a+ 1.25E2') 8.720 26.26 0.33 at Intersection with Cesk Loydown Areo . South Well at Top Elernent 637 Vertical Section O+L+T o+1.25E2') 14.55 31.18 0.47 of intersection with Cask Loydown Area South Wall Elements 581-589-597-605-613-621-629 Horizontal Section O'+L'+T o+ 1.25E2') 5.573 of Top of Wall 5.922 0.94 El:ments 625-626-627-628-o79-630-631-632 Fuel Trmsfer Cmol Separation Wall Vertical Section et C+L+T o+1.25E3') 11.73 19.05 0.62 South End of Well (4 f t. portion) at Top Element 870 Units: Kips / inch Notes: 1) Dota from MFPSTAIAl-04 2) Shear forces are linectly interpolated to the distance from the face of the effective support equo! to the distence from the section compressive face to the centroid of the tensile steel where applicable.
- 3) Allowable shear is based on strength design per ACI 349/80.
. f \" *auws
'- N -
fm
F s .. . ll.f.16- ~ Table 4.1-2 Northeast Utilities Service Company Millstone Point Unit 2 Spent Fuel Pool Evoluotion Tobulation of Resultant Trmsverse Shear Forces (Continued) Controlling Allowable (3) Code Lood Section(2) Section Location Case Sheer Sheer Shear M Fuel Transfer Canal Separation Wall (Continued)
- Vertical Section et (D+L+To+1.25E3') 1.849 South End of Wall 4.837 0.38 (4 f t. portion)
Elements 814-822-830-838-846-854-862 Horizontal Section at Mid Height of (D+L+To+1.25E3') 4.130 4.346 0.95 South (4 f t.) Portion Elements 833-834-835-836-S37-838 Vertical Section (D+L+T +1.25E3') 0.718 3.307 0.22 Below Cote Opening North (3 f t.) Portion Elements 808-816-824 Horizontal Section (D+L+To+l.25E3') 2.910 4.041 0.72 at Bottom of Well Elements 807-808-809-810-811-812-813-814 Units: Kips / inch Notes: 1)- Data from MFPSTAIAI-04 2) Sheer forces cre. linearly interpolated to the distance from the foce of the effective support equal to the distance from the section compressive face - to the centroid of the tensile steel where opplicable. 3) Allowcble sheer is based on strength design per ACI 349/80. W(
-r j /+ De
.m wnman
r .. . ll.f.17 Table 4.1-2 Northemt Utilities Service Compmy Millstone Point Unit 2 Spent Fuel Pool Evoluotion Tabulation of Resultmt Transverse Shear Forces (Continued) Controlling AllowableI3) Code Load Section(2) Section Location Shear Case Sheer Shear _Rotio Cask Loydown Area South Seporation Wall
- Vertical Section C+L+T +o 1.25E4') 2.533 3.325 0.76 or intersection with -
Pool East Wall Elements 903-90S-907-909-91 l-913-915-917 i Horizonto! Section O'+L'+To-l.25E3') I4) 1.5 94 2.084 0.76 of Bottom of Wo!! Elements 903-904 Cask Loydown Areo West Separation Wall , Vertical Section O'+L'+To-l.25E2') 1.887 4.079- 0.46 et Intersection with Cask Loydown Areo South Wall Elements 873-876-879-882-88S-888-891-894 Horizonto! Section O'+L'+To -l.25El') 1.691 1.943 0.87 of Bottom of Well Elements 871-872-873 Units: Kips / inch Notes: 1) Data from MFPSTA!Al.44 2) Shear forces are linearly interpolated to the distance from the face of the ef fective support equal to the distance from the section compressive face ' to the centroid of the tensile steel where opplicable.
- 3) Allowable shear is based on strength design per ACI 349/80.
4) Transverse shear adjusted based upon crocked section equilibriun moment gradient.
, . _ ;/ 'ere=n
y .. . 11.f.18 Table 4.1-2 Northeast Utilities Service Company Millstone Point Unit 2 Spent Fuel Pool Evaluation Tabulation of Resultmt Trmsverse Shecr Forces (Continued) Controlling AllowcbleI3) Code Load SectionI2) Section Sheer Location Cese Sheer Shace Ratio Pool Floor Slob Ecst-West Section O'+L'+To -l.25El') 4.323 et Mid-Spon 5.622 0.77 Elements 301-309- - 317-325-333-34l-349 357-365-373-381 North-South Sectier 0+L+T o+ 1.25El') Il.23 13.07 0.86 Benecth Cesk Laydown Arec West Seperation Wolf Elements 313-314-315-316-317-318-319-320 North-South Section C+L+To+1.25El') 2.996 et Mid-Span 8.4 91 0.35 Elements 321-322-323-324-325-326-327-328 Foundation South Wall West Portion O'+L'+T o- 1.25El') 2.14! 7.5 81 0.28 Horizontal Section et Top Elements 58-59-60-61-62-63-64 Ecst Portion O+L+T c+ 1.25El') 2.44 6 Horizonto! Section at Top 7.064 0.35 Elements 49-50-SI-52 54-55-56-57 Units: Kips / inch Notes: 1) Octo from MFPSTAIAl-04 2) Shear forces are linectly interpolated to the distance from the face of the effective support equal to the distance from the section compressive face to the centroid of the tensile steel where opplicable. 3) Alloweble sheer is based on strength design per ACI 349/80.
'A
/7 w et a De j/. Tm/
m _
r ll.f.19 Table 4.1-2 Northeast Utilities Service Cornpony Millstone Point Unit 2 Spent Fuel Pool Evaluation Tabulation of Resultmt Trcnsverse Shecr Forces (Continued) Controlling AllowableI3) Code Load Section(2) Section Location Sheer Ccse Sheer Siwcr Rctio Foundation Ecrt Wall Horizontal Section at Top C+L+T c+ 1.25El') 2.976 6.94 9 0.43 Elements 238-239-240- . 241-242-243-244 - Foundation Imer South Wall Horizontal Section O'+L'+ To- l.25E4') 1.848 3.316 at Bottom 0.56 Elements 193-194-195-196-197-198 Foundation Inner We.st Wall Horizontal Section O'+L'+To-I.25E3') 1.848 at Bottom 2.920 0.s3 Elements 165-166-167-168-169-l70,171 Foundation North Wo!! Horizonte! Section 0+L+T +1.25E2') 5.803 at Bottom o 10.46 0.55 Elements 109-110-l!!- l12-113-l!4 Foundation West Wo!! North Portion C+L+T o+1.25E4') 3.001 11.79 0.25 Horizontal Section at Bottom Elements 77-78 , Units: Kips / inch Notes: 1) Data from MFPSTAIAl.04 2) Shear forces are linearly inte polated to the distance from the fcce of the ' effective support equal to the distance from the section compressive foce
- to the centroid of the tensile steel where opplicable.
3) Allowcble sheer is bcsed on strength design per ACI 349/80.
.r .m 1--N [+D m
ai l TM L
,, , 11.f.20 Table 4.1-2 Northeast Utilities Service Company MillstonePoint Unit 2 Spent Fuel Pool Evoluotion Tabulation of Resultmt Trmsverse Shear Forces (Continued)
Controlling Allowable (3) Code Load Section(2) Section Shear Location . Cese Sheer Shac- Ratio Foundation West Wall South Portion (D+L+To .l.25E3') 6.140 12.?! 0.48 Horizontal Section at Bottom . Elements 83-84-85 Note:: 1) Data from MFPSTAIAl-04
- 2) Shear forces are linectly interpolated to the distance from the face of the effective support equal to the distmee from the section compressive face to the centroid of the tensile steel where applicable.
- 3) Allowable shear is based on strength de:ign per ACI 349/80.
-/\" samum W --- Drwroo
)l- M
-b
.y .. . 11.f.21
- Table 4.1-3 -
Northeast Utilities Service Compmy Millstone Point Unit 2 Spent Fuel Pool Evoluotion Tobulation of Resultmt In-Plme Shear Forces Controlling Allowable Code Load Section(II Section Sheer Location _ Case Shear Sheer Rotio Pool North Wall ~ Horizontal Section O'+L'+ To -l.25E3') 0.774 25.4 of Top of Wall 0.03 Elements 510-511-512-513-514-515-516-517-518-519-520 - Pool South Wall Horizontel Section 0+L.T o.l.25E3') 3.032 25.4 0.12 et Bottom of Wall Elements 663-664-665-666-667-668-669-670-671-672-673 Pool East Well ' Horizontel Section C+L+T o+1.25E2') 9.206 26.58. 0.35 of Bottom of Wall Elemenfs 577-578-579-580-581-582-583-584 Fuel Trmsfer Cmol Separation Wall South (4 f t.) Portion C+L+T o+1.25E3') 8.670 24.79 0.35 Horizontal Section of Bottom of Wall Elements B17-Bl8-819-820-821-822 Units: Kips / inch s t ., Notes: 1)_ Allowable shear is based on strength design per ACI 349/80.
~
.k, w
*h r Cm ...
) l- WMY l
u_ -'
w
,, , 11.f.22 ~
w,
; m. Table 4.1-3 w.
Northemt Utilities Service Company Millstone Point Unit'2 Spent Fuel Pool Evoluotion Tobulation of Resultmt in-Plane Shear Forces (Continued)
;T Controlling Allowable Code Load Section(I) Section Shear Location Ccse Shac'r Shear Ratio u
- Fuel Transfer Conal Separation Wall (Continued) ~
' Horizontal Section at C+ L+ T,+ l .25E3') 14.29 23.90 0.60
, Bottom of North (3 f t.)
Portion Elements 837-808 Cask Loydown Area South Se; oration Woil Horizonto: Section in C+L+T o+1.25E2') 5.566 30.35 Upper Portion of Wall 0.18 Elements 913-914 Cask Loydown Area V'est Separation Wall Horizonfol Section at 0+L+T o-l.25E3') 6.770 Bottom of Wall 12.80 0.53 Elements 871-872-873 Pool Floor Slob North-South Section 0+L+T o+1.25El') 14.14 Near Ecst End of Pool - 24.87 0.57 Elements 313-314-315-316-317-318-319-320 Units: ' Kips / inch Notes: 1) AIlowable shaar is based on strength design per ACI 349/80.
^
_k .p i WUC1Liral e t
-_ __--.-----,.-------.a _. - - - - - - - - - - . _ - - - - - - - - - - _ _ - - -- -----..e.- - - - , A. ---- - - - - - a. _. .- - --
,, , 11.f.23-Table 4.1-4 Northeast Utilities Service Company Millstone Point Unit 2 Spent Fuel Pool Evoluotion Pool Floor Liner Plate Analysis Summary Controlling Non-Thermol Lood Combination 1.7 (D + L + E2) i.b.2.2 Allowable Strein Strain (in/in)x10-3 (in/in)x l'0-3 Rotio Element s o s/o
'Membrone Strains Tensile 31' O.201 3.0 0.07 Compressive 45 -0.051 -5.0 0.01 Membrcne plus Bending Stroins Tensile 8'4 0.444 10.0 0.04 Weld Allowcble Stress Stress (ksi) Ratio Node (s) - s a slo Weld Stress 105 2.69 20.4 0.13 Octo from MFPSTA2Al-12 Controlling Thermal Lood Combination (D + L + To + E2') li.b.5.2 Allowable Strein Strein (in/in)x10-3 (in/in)x10-3 Ratio Element s a s/o Membrane 3 trains Compressive 6 -0.639 -S.0 0.13 Membrane plus Bending Strains Compressive 6 -2.83 -14.0 0.20 Weld Stress Allowcble (ksi) Stress (ksi) Ratio i Ldels, s a slo Weld Stress 195-198 by 1 20.2 20.4 0.99 Data from MFPSTA2Al-12 e/ seue m 8
\ \"'_ De
)l Tm
'o 11.f.24 3 *t - Table 4.1-4 Northeast Utilities Service Company Millstone Point Unit 2 Spent Fuel Pool Evoluotion Pool Floor Liner Plate Analysis Summary (Continued) Controlling Non-Thermal Lood Combination 1.7 (D + L + E2)i.b.2.2 Allowcble Node Displacement Displacement (Ancnor Location) (inches) (inches) - (Ratio) 204 0.074 0.10 0.74 Data from MFPSTA2Al-09 Controlling Thermal Lood Combination (D + L + To + E2') 1.b.S.2 AIloweble Node Displacement Displacement (Anenor Location) tinenes) (inches) (Ratio) 22 0.013 0.10 0.10 Seom Embedded Angle Shear Allowcbte F3/F3a Stress-F* Stress - F* Node-DOF (ksi) (ksi) ' (Ratio) 68 S.192 16.5 0.31 Date from MFPSTA2Al-10
'A --e oyramo
)l TW
Table 4.1-5 ~ Northeast Utilities Service Compmy ' Millstone Point Unit 2 Spent Fuel Pool Evoluution Wall Liner Plate Strains Membrane Tensile Strains
. Nominal Allowable
. Location - Description
- Stroin Strain (Analysis identifier) Loud . (in/in (in/in Rat io .
Combination x10'] x 10~] - E3/lia its th & South Walls Element 510- X Section (D'e L'+ T -l .2SE4') 1.118 3.0 0.37 (MFPSTA l A2-1 I) North Wall at Top it.lf.S.8 East Wall' Element 601 - X Section (MFPST A I A2-12) 1.7(D'+ L' E2) ' ' O.430 3.0 0.15 Mid-Height of Wall I.O.2.2_ Fuel Transfer Canal Wall Element 863 - X Section 3 Foot Portion - 1.7(D + L4 E4) 0.820 3.0 0.27 at Top of Wall 1.0.2.4 (MFPSTAI A2-13) tw Fuel Trmsfer Canal Wall Element 844 - Y Section S. to Foot l'ortion (D'4 L'+T -1.25E4') 0.694 3.0 0.23 Mid-Fleight of Wall ll.lf.5.0 (MFPS I' A I A2-13) Cusk Loydown Arco _ Element 871 - Y Section South Wall 1.7(D e L eE2) 0.197 3.0 0.07 West Separallon Wall I.B.2.2 (MFPST AI A2-14) at Bottom xy - m
n _ . = f -
.,t
( ' _. l < 1; 1 .
'Toble 4.1-5 (Continued).
= Noriheost Utililles Service Convmy ..
. Millstone Point Unit 2 Spent Fuel Pool Evoluution
.Wal,1.1.Iner Plate Strains i
Membrane Compressive Strains
- ' isbeninal Allowable
.Stroin
~ Location - Description ' .
Stroin (Analysis identifier) Lood (in/ird Il 'Io Combination
'(in/irg x 10- x 10-3 E,/Eo .
'14crth &' South Wolls Element 668 - X Section (MFPSTAl A2-1 l} (D'4L'+T -l.25E4') -0.623 -5.0 0 'l 2 Soulb Wall at Gottom (10.5.8 East Wall . Element 612 - Y Section , (D'+L'+T -1.25E3') -0.597- -5.0
- (MFPSTA l A2-12) . Mid-Span of Wall ' 0.12 118.5.7 Fuel Trmster Canal Wall . Eternent 823- X Section
-3 Foot Thick Portion' (D'e L'+To -l.25E4') -0.949 -5.0 0.19' Mid-l-leight of Wall 11.B.5.8 g
- (MFPS l' A I A2-13) . H m
' Fuel Transfer Canal Wall ' Element 822 - X Section
.4 Foot Thick Porlion (D'4L'+T -l .25E4') -0.587 -5.0 0.12 :$
South End at Dotsom II.lf.5.8 (MFPSTAI A2-13) ' Cosk Loydown Arco Walls Element 878 - X Section
' (MFPSTA I A2-14) (D'+ L'+T -1.25E2') -0.911 ~5.0 0.18
= Wesi Separation Wall L li.lf.5.6 Below Gate -
D
.(/N sv q .
]$ 15
I ?
/ .
Toble 4.1-S (Cont inued) ! l Northeast Ulilities Service Conymy . Millstone Point Unit 2 Spent Fuell'uol Evoluution Wall Liner Plate Strains tiembrane + Bending Tenstic Strains Membrane Nominal Dending ' Allowable ' Locat ion -' Description Strain Strain Stroin (Analysis identifier) Load . (in/in (in/in (in/in Combinallon x10'] Itatio x 10'] x 10'] Es/Ea Noith and South Wolls Elernent 512 - X Section (MFPSTA I A2-1 l} (D'+ L'+ T -l.2SE4') 1.111 4.444 Norih Woil oi Top 10.0 0.44 l II.E.S.8 . East Wall
- Element 601 - X Section (D'+ L'+ T - 1.2SE3') 0.438 (MFPSTAI A2-12) North Woil Atijaceni f.7S1 10.0 0.18 ll.lf.S.7 CLA South Wall [
l
- Fuel Trmster Canal Wall Element 863 - X Section
' 3 Fool Thick Portion . _ Top of Wall 1.7(D+ lie 4) 0.820 3.2110 10.0 (MFI'SI Al A2-13) I.O.2.4 0.31 -d Fuel Transf er Canal Wolf Element 870 - X Section 4 Foot Thick Portion (D'4 L'+ T - 1.2 5E4') 0.S71 2.284 Top of South End of Wall ll.lf.S.8 10.0 0.23 (MF PS T AI A2-13)
~
Cask Loydown Arco Wolls (MFPSTAI A2-14) Element 871 - Y Section 1.7(D+ L + E2) 0.197 West Separation Wall - 0.768 10.0 0.79 1.0.2.2 of Bottom (b r 3 . (h' l as l L o
( '
} c
~.
Table 4.1-5 (Continued) Nortlicost Utilities Service Cornomy - Millstone Point Unit 2 Spent Fuel Pool Evoluoiion Wall Liner Plate Strains Hemi;ranc + Dending Compressive Strains Mernbrane terninal Dending Allowable Location - Description Strain Stroin Strain (Analysis identifier) Load (in/in (in/in (in/in R"'I x 10 ]
~
Cornbination x 10 ]
~
E3 /l: x 10 ] q North and South Wolls North Wall - Element 443 (MFPSTA I A2-1 I) (D'+ L'+ T -1.25E4') -0.544 -2.176 -14.0 Y Section, Boliom at 0.16 li.tf.5.0 West End of Wall East Wall Element SIX) - Y Section (MFPSI AI A2-13) (D'+ L' T -1.25E3') -0.561 -2.245 -14.0 Boltorn of Wall at ll.lf.5.7 0.16 [ Mid-Spun - 7 Fuel Trmsfer Canal Wall Eternent 823 - X Section 3 Foot Thick Portion (D'+ L'+T - 1.25E4') -0.949 -3.796 -14.0 Mid-Height of Wall ll.lf.5.8 0.27 (MFPST A l A2-13) Fuel Trmsfer Canal Wall Element 822 - X Section 4 Foot Thick Portion (D'+ L' + T - l .25E4') -0.587 -2.348 -14.0 0.17 South End at Dotsom II.tf.5.0 (MFPS l~A I A2-13) Cosk Loydown Arco Wolls Element 877 - X Section (MFPST A I A2-14) (D'4 L'+ T -l .25E2') -0.762 .
-3.0 50 -14.0 0.72 West Separolion Wall ll.li.5.6 Helow Gate d$
T'7 i l . IR
< -}}