ML20041B686
| ML20041B686 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 02/08/1982 |
| From: | Hood D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Duncan M Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8202250058 | |
| Download: ML20041B686 (30) | |
Text
__
%q h UNITED STATES
+
[ j, c< 'h NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,; g l
WA SW NG TON. D. C. 20555
('.
/
FE3
- 1992 Docket Nos. 50-329/330 OM, 0L APPLICANi'
- Consumers Power Company FACILITY:
Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF JANUARY 13, 1982 MEETING ON B0 RATED WATER STORAGE TANKS s
On January 13, 1982, the NRC staff met in Bethesda, Maryland, with Consumers Power Company, Bechtel and several consultants to discuss several recent submittals to the NRC regarding cracki.ng of the foundations of the Midland Borated Water Storage Tanks. This~~si2bject relates to a 10 CFR 50.55(e) report first issued February 20, 1981, enclosing MCAR-48. Meeting attendees are listed as Enclosure 1.
Summary i
The background documents providing the basis for this meeting had been submitted to the NRC by coverletters dated November 10,13 and 24,1981. Testimony of Robert P. Kennedy of Structural Mechanics Associates (SMA), Inc., a general consultant for the applicant, presented during the December 1-3, 1981 session of the OM, OL hearing also provided relevant background information.
Based upon review of the above documents, questions had been submitted by telephone to the applicant by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (NRC geotechnical consultant) (Enclosure 2) and by the NRC's Structt.ral Engineering Branch j
(Enclosure 3).
Responses to these questions were made during the meeting.
The applicant stated that the NRC would be receiving shortly a letter dated January 11, 1982, fomarding a report by SMA on the results of a BWST finite element analysis performed to verify the integrity of the tanks. A summary of that report was provided by Mr. Cambell using the viewgraph slides of.
The report demonstrates that the tanks were not permanently damaged as a result of the ring wall foundation cracking. The report does note that one bolt chair (at bolt location 27) may have yielded to a small degree and reconmended that it be dye penetrant tested. The applicant stated that the dye penetrant test had been performed and all the welds of the Dolt chair had passed.
The applicant also stated that the tank vendor, the Graver Company, had dropped its N stamp and was no longer in the nuclear business. The applicant plans to meet with RECO on January 15, 1982, to discuss techniques of re-establishing a level base for the tanks after removal of the surcharge from the BWST valve pi ts.
The staff will be advised of the technique selected, once that is known.
c 8202250058 820200 PDR ADOCK 05000309 PDR
V.
L Meeting Sunanary Midland Plant The applicant will provide a letter summarizing the results of the surcharge program for the BWSTs. The applicant also stated that all cracks with a width in excess of 10 mils in the existing ring foundation will be sealed before the new ring beam is constructed around the existing ring.
_ r1 Hood, Project Manager Licensing Branch #4 Division of Licensing
Enclosures:
As stated cc: See next page DISTRIBUTION Docket ACRS(16)
NRC PDR L PDR TERA NSIC TIC EAdensam DHood f1Duncan LB#4 Reading OELD Ol&E(3)
JKane FRinaldi l
l t
l l
l l
l i
omer >
....D..L. :. L.B...#. 4....
l sunnaut> D!.199.d.t.Th @.V
... /.g /.82 02 om>
l l Nnc ronu ais po*> Nncu cao OFFICIAL RECORD COPY use au-w..eo l
MIOLAND Mr. J. W. Cook Vice President Consumers Power Cogany 1945 West Parnall Road Jackson, Michigan 49201 cc: Michael I. Miller, Esq.
Mr. Don van Farrowe, Chief Ronald G. Zamarin, Esq.
Division of Radiological Health Alan S. Farnell, Esq.
Dep.1rtment of Public Health Isham, Lincoln & Beale P.O. Box 33035 Suite 4200 Lansing, Michigan 48909 1 First National Plaza
- Chicago, Illincts 60603 William J. Scanlon, Esq.
2034 Pauline Boulevard James E. Brunner, Esq.
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48103 Consumers Power Cogany 212 West Michigan Avenue U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Jackson, Michigan 49201 Resident Inspectors Office Route 7 Myron M. Cherry, Esq.
Midland, Michigan 48640 1 IBM Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60611 Ms. Barbara Stamiris 5795 N. River Ms. Mary Sinclair Freeland, Michigan 48623 5711 Summerset Drive Midland, Michigan 48640 Mr. Paul A. Perry, Secretary Consumers Power Company Stewart H. Freeman 212 W. Michigan Avenue Assistant Attorney General Jackson, Michigan 49201 State of Michigan Environmental Protection Division Mr. Walt Apley 720 Law Building c/o Mr. Max Clausen Lansing, Michigan 48913 Battelle Pacific North West Labs (PNWL)
Battelle Blvd.
Mr. Wendell Marshall SIGMA IV Building Route 10 Richland, Washington 99352 Midland, Michigan 48640 Mr. I. Charak, Manager Mr. Roger W. Huston NRC Assistance Project Suite 220 Argonne National Laboratory 7910 Woodmont Avenue 9700 South Cass Avenue Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Argonne, Illinois 60439 Mr. R. B. Borsum James G. Keppler, Regional Administrator Nuclear Power Generation Division U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Babcock & Wilcox Region III 7910 Woodmont Avenue, Suite 220 799 Roosevelt Road Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 w
Mr. J. W. Cook cc: Commander, Naval Surface Weapons Center ATTN:
P. C. Huang White Oak Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 Mr. L. J. Auge, Manager Facility Design Engineering Energy Technology Engineering Center P.O. Box 1449 Canoga Park, California 91304 Mr. Neil Gehring U.S. Corps of Engineers NCEED - T 7th Floor 477 Michigan Avenue Detroit, Michigan 48226 Charles Bechhoefer, Esq.
Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Mr. Ralph S. Decker Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Dr. Frederick P. Cowan Apt. B-125 6125 N. Verde Trail Boca Raton, Florida 33433 Jerry Harbour, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Geotechnical Engineers, Inc.
ATTN: Dr. Steve J. Poulos 1017 Main Street Winchester, Massachusetts 01890
t
~
l ENCLOSURE 1 i
LIST OF ATTENDEES l
MIDLAND BWST JAtlUARY}3,1982 I
i l
NRC O. S. Hood J.'D. Kane l
F. Rinaldi U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Chicago j
H. N. Singh i
)
Bechtel i
P. Shunmugavel A. Boos S. S. Afi fi S. Lo Consumers Power Company B. Cl J. Brunner J. Meisenheimer K. B. Razdau D. Budzik NSWC/WO (NRC Consultant) s J. P. Mat
]
l Structural Mechanics Associates R. Campbell l
I l
s
.,_.e-__-_.,
.. ~,_ -
ENCLOSURE 2 i
i Handout for 01/13/82 Meeti ng January 8,1982 4
Subject:
Midland Project, Corps of Engineers review comments on Design Report for the Borated Water Storage Tank Foundations, Report Transmitted November 13, 1981 in letter from J. Cook to H. Denton.
4 Q.1, Sect. 3, Page 2.
Since the loads (weight of water) are applied uniformly through the flexible bottom of the tanks, and the foundations of the ring walls and valve -
I pits are not involved in spreading the load on the ground underneath, there is no reason for differential settlement to occur unless the underlying soil i
mass has varying engineering properties.
Please discuss what caused the differential settlements.
1 Q.2, Sect. 3.2, Page 2.
1 l
How are the tanks' loads imposed on the ring beams when the static load is directly transmitted to the ground through the flexible tanks' bottom.
1 Q.3, Deleted.
Q.4 Sect. Sb, Page 3.
What do the roof loads include?
If this includesthe dead load of the roofs, why not combine with the dead load.
Q.5, Deleted.
Q.6, Deleted j
Q.7, Sect. 6.1, Page 4.
l The settlements of the foundation soils under the tanks and under the ring j
wall footings have been caused by the water load directly applied on the soil surface under the flexible tank bottom, very little water load has been trans-mitted to the soil through the ring beam footings, therefore, there is no i
assurance that deflection of the ring beams bottom and the settlement underneath the footings at all points are compatible.
Provide discussion on this aspect.
I Q.8, Sect. 6.1.2, Page 5.
1 Between elevations 635 and 629, the continuity of the soil media has been interrupted by the ring walls and their foundations, however, the finite element model (Figure 6) indicates continuity of the soil more than 80' from the center of the tanks in all directions.
Discuss the effects of the i
discontinuity on the results of the finite element solutions.
i
=
/
[
_ Q.9, Sect. 6.2, Page 5.
The settlements of the soil under the tanks' foundations are produced by the water load directly applied at the soil, therefore, more bearing areas of ring wall footings will have practically no effect in reducing the settlements as claimed by the applicant.
Please discuss how the wider ring beam will reduce the settlement, i
Q.10.
It is our understanding that ongoing load tests of the soil under the tanks' foundations is being performed by filling the tanks with water.
Please discuss what would be the difference in loadings when the tanks are filled with borated water. Also, what additional pemanent loads or semi-permanent loads other than weight of the borated water, which will contribute to the settlements, are expected to act on thk tanks.
If the actual load on the tanks' foundations during their operational period is more than the pressure created by water during the load tests, the compressibility parameters determined by the load tests may not predict the future settlements of the i
tanks accurately under the actual loadings.
Q.ll, Sect. 6.3.1, Page 6.
Provide justification for values of Modulus of Elasticity which have been used in evaluation of long term settlements and shown in Figure 9.
What method or methods, assumptions, and tests have been used to determine the long term Modulus of Elasticity?
Q.12, Sect. 6.4.3, Page 7.
Load combinations 1 thru 8 include pemanent loads, therefore, use of the short-tenn model described in subsection 6.4.2 is not appropriate. The short-term model uses the values of Youngs Moduli, which are applicable to seismic events or machine vibiation where the magnitude of strains are in range of 10-3% or less.
Q.13, Sect. 6.5.lb, Page 7, Table 5 does not provide summary of loads.
Q.13a, Sect. 8, Page 8.
The finite element analyses are based on questionable inputs concerning soil compressibility, therefore, existence of compression under the foundation L
soil, under the dead loads, and live loads are questionable.
Therefore, there i
is no: assurance that the footings of the ringwalls and the soil underneath L
are displacing in compatible manner.
Q.14, Deleted 0.15, Sect. 8a, Page 8.
Provide the magnitude of dead loads and live loads used to compute foundation pressures which resulted in 2.0 ksf of soil pressure.
Q.16, Sect. 8, Page 9.
Bearing capacity and factor of safety provided on page 9 are not appropriate.
The soil shear strength in the area of Unit 1 is not identical with Unit 2, therefore, bearing capacity of foundation soils under each unit should be determined using the shear parameters pertinent to their respective area.
9 6
9
ENCLOSURE 3 01/03/82 CIVIL / STRUCTURAL QUESTIONS ON BWST 1)
Where are the construction details shown for the new ring fix?
2)
What is your rationale for applying a load factor of unity (1.0) to dead load in load combinations 9 through 12?
3)
Was the eccentricity of the new ring beam included in the final ring beam design?
4)
How is shear between the new and old ring beam calculated an-1 t rans fe rred ?
5)
How will you treat cracks in the existing concrete in the shear transfer process?
I l
ENCLOSURE 4 A C CEP TA hice cRITEetA 1
SETTLE. MEA >T Plat 3l-.E M A)or cove 2E.J3 DE S'l6 A)
CODE.
[ >l 60\\/ EL AJ (Al 5 THLeE.
Acce PTA A)cE CAITER1 A cous/On go 1)
^> o yleco 1
CaoE GTI2E5 S LEVELS J9ppLI cM13L E TO S E Y2.utc e LSL)ELS THRT /MPLY (2.E PEATe o Lo A oms tu t TI+
/At5 PE.CTI OA) {UPSE T og TESTIN6 Cool 3)
Level C
SEgtIIc2 (EmEMENcf SVEA/73) tulT14 EUGrEquEMT N D E, C t2.I Te(2.l o u I
MET PoK MLL 13 V T ISoLT' CL%ll To p P U + TE l m y isa w uno ces) worUT case CRITV.JllbM 3
A ffLIED To
/3cLT CH /4 /ft
MIDLAND BWST i
FOUNDATION SETTLEMENT EVALUATION 1
+
STATEMENT OF PROB S0ll SETTLEMENT HAS RESULTED IN DISTORTION OF
~
RING WALL TOP SURFACE SUPPORT OF BWST WALLS IS NON-UNIFORM ANCHOR BOLT LOADING IS NON-UNIFORM l
CONCERN REGARDING STRESS LEVELS INDUCED IN TANK WALL, ANCHOR BOLTS AND BOLT CHAIRS 2
TWO TANKS CONSIDERED BUT TANK IT-60 IS GOVERNING CASE
\\
?
i i-
?.
?
i 1
1 i.
0.10 ANGLE O o
o o
o 0
t 0.05 St R
A e
l l
r 0.00 A
^
h W ~E --
N -"~,
d
'*s,
, /, -
3
-0.05
~
g 4
's ig -0.10 N
%,_ e, #',-
-0.15
- ANGLES ARE MEASURED CLOCKL'ISE FROM DUE NORTH PRE-ERECTION RELATIVE ELEVATION DATA FOR THE TANK IT-60 RING WALL
- - - RING WALL ELEVATION DATA TAKEN JUNE 15, 1981 FIGURE 1-3.
COMPARISON OF TANK IT-60 RING WALL RELATIVE ELEVATIONS BEFORE AND AFTER THE GROUND SET I
pyg
{ pj 51 A / / E.
( A I'l5CDI NORTH l l 40 1
2 3
39 4
g 38 5
s 6
37 Lod <<f J
g 4.5*,
36 8
l 35
+
34 a0 = 9' TYPICAL 10 33
,n 32 <
,12 31.
13 l
30 14 29
^
l
[.o r.7 M
$0LY>
28
,/
(5 16
,<\\
27 17
\\
26
,/
'\\
g 25 1
'8 24 19 22
\\21 20
\\,'
\\
'\\
[
\\
\\
ALVE PIT NO.1
/
\\
\\
\\, -
FIGURE l-1:
PLAN VIEW 0F TANK iT-60 IDENTIFYING BOLT NU!!BERS AND LOCATION ANGLE e 1-10
l i
TABLE 1-3 MEASURED LOADS IN BOLTS ANCHORING TANK 17-60 BOLT NUMBER LOAD (KIPS)
BOLT NUMBER LOAD (KIPS) 1 0.0 21 0.0 2
0.0 22 0.0 3
0.0 23 0.0 4
0.0 24 0.0 5
0.0 25 0.0 6
0.0 26 16.44 7
17.83 27 31.31 i
8 14.02 28 16.10 9
21.32 29 10.13 10 22.51 30 0.02 11 16.46 31 2.32 12 0.0 32 0.0 13 0.0 33 0.0 14 0.0 34 0.0 15 0.0 35 0.0 16 0.0 36 0.0 17 0.0 37 0.0 18 0.0 38 0.0 19 0.0 39 0.0 20 0.0 40 0.0
- BOLT LOCATIONS CORRESPONDING WITH THESE BOLT NUMBERS ARE LISTED IN TABLE l-1 1-8 i
l i
I
TAllK GEOMETRY 8 MATERIALS 52' DIA
=
HEIGHT
=
32' SHELL THICKNESS -
3/8" FOR BOTTOM 8' 1/4" FOR UPPER 24' BOTTOM-1/4" FLAT PLATE, 1/8 1N/FT DEADRISE ROOF
- UMBRELLA TYPE 304 L SS TANK MATERIAL S
= 2s KSI y
1 DIA. A-36 STEEL ANHCOR BOLTS 7
S
= 36 KSI y
304 L SS MATERIAL BOLT CHAIRS 5/8" THICK TOP PLATE 4
1/2" THICK GUSSET PLATES RING WALL
- REINFORCED CONCRETE l'6" WIDTH, 4' WIDTH FOOT AT BOTTOM 6' DEPTH BOTTOM SUPPORT - OIL IMPREGNATED SAND l
ASPHALT IMPREGNATED FIBER BOARD BETWEEN TANK BOTTOM AND RING WALL l
l
ANALYSIS METHOD MODEL 3 DIMENSIONAL FINITE ELEMENT MODEL OF TANK WALL RING WALL CONSIDERED RIGID BOUNDARY GAP ELEMENTS USED TO REPRESENT BOUNDARY BETWEEN TANK BOTTOM AND RING WALL LOADING HYDROSTATIC PRESSURE DEAD WEIGHT OF TANK WALL AND ROOF BOLT LOADS (FROM STRAIN GAGE MEASUREMENTS MODEL BOUNDARY CONDITIONS RADIAL BEAM ELEMENTS REPRESENT BOTTOM STIFFNESS BEAM ELEMENT RING GIRDER FOR ROOF STIFFNESS GAP ELEMENTS REPRESENT CONTOUR OF RING WALL TOP SURFACE AND COMPRESSIBILITY OF ASPHALT IMPREGNATED FIBER BOARD
Y gg 401 N 402 403 09 404 E
i l 4,
0
\\
"o e
W 1,
t y
0 N
'09 E
4. 5 'A A
9
- TYPICAL 3
10 w
w M--
I 11 ES:
N TANK IT-60
- ^
+
12 3
p;_
- 3 n:
r u
13 g/
Ne N
1
^
15 6
16 b
17 U
e pg Ps 18 19 g
g 20 3
22 21
/
2s 1
\\
/
e
- 2p g's I2A 2EP thy 0
NOTE:
INNER CIRCLE OF NUMBERS REPRESENT N0 DES ON THE TOP OF THE TANK.
l OUTER CIRCLE OF NUMBERS REPRESENT N00ES AT THE OUTER END OF THE BOUNDARY ELEMENTS AT THE TANK BOTT0ft.
l FiCURE 2-1.
PLAN VIEW 0F TANK MODEL 2-8
BORATED WATER STORAGE TANKS AT MIOLANDS bb b b L
L L
L L
L L
am m mm CLOCKWISE ANGLE FROM tv0RTH
~l I
I I
I I
I
~l, 1
1 I
i l
l 11 BEAM ELEMENTS x.
x (23)
O N0 DES 1-40 h b b b b b b NODES 41-80 N00ES81-120
/
N0 DES 121-160 b
SitELL ELEMEtiTSj N0 DES 161-200 NODES 201-240
@ O N0 DES 241-280 O
N0 DES 281-320 ELE EtTS h bb b
b b NODES 321-360 (TANK N0 DES )
9 N0 DES 401-440 ( B0UNDARY N00 GAP ELEMENTS 4h h
+
N0 DES 361-400 (BOUNDARY N0DE m n i, i-ar e
er z7 zr ra zr zr zr e nr u ar v:r
@-RepresentElementNumbers
P r~
Tank Wall ke U [
Rigid Boundary Tank Bottom W
I S
y
'r 1r y
/1P if If l'
1r 1r 1r p
y 1
\\ 2 I
YYTYYYYYYY Ring Wall Asphalt Impregnated Fiberboard Oil Impregnated Sand average spring rate of asphalt ircregnated fiberboard over k
=
finite deflection range, lbs/in/ unit width w
= water force, lbs/in/ unit siidth Load into tank / unit width P
=
Rotational stiffness of tank wall ko
=
I FIGURE 4-1.
BEAM-0N-ELASTIC-FOUNDATION MODEL l
l 4-8 l
D 'c fio.
82 %
S M I ~' li - ICRY COMPANY L L No.81-809 4
I i
I I
l l_.
t U
i i.
1 g.
m g
i j'
b
,1;r p_ _...,..
g. _..
I
- i. _.. : \\
u g ___..___
.. e
.a
-J...
'J E _ _ _. __ ~ ' I e.:
e
._._l.
- i q
8
- i i
g i
W
.[.
....- l t
r x
I
-j N
:.-=-
L-f
- . s 8
, t,,;
g_
i
., -.;;.~.. ;. -
. d., a.:._
-.(
x
.. i g,
l p.
g z
8.. 1-i.
g f
g.._._
_ _ - e:
.. ~ i: 2 j
{ :-,
j !y
.=
r = p..:.,
-n p.
E*
t.
..j
- i. _
l h.
[._.._
h.
~ "]-
2
..V E-l i
l
\\
- ..._p;.. --- J 3
{
iT- -
i "4
_;._i_k _.I.
\\
. 4 2.= 3 1 L
'l? "]m p _..
w L.
... \\.
j.
1 n. -\\
RH \\ \\...
\\ \\
" - =. -
~
, =-
.i..=
L _ _.
._.._..__t
'3 f N
. h ad5 g
g\\
i g
-~ - --*
N
\\q
..i i{_.h
- \\
\\
.!: \\ \\
\\\\
.y==s i
7.
.. _. s, __. \\
\\
N
.i
\\
g
\\
E
^ \\.
s.
N v
y l
\\
! -. _}..c) h
\\
\\
I 11 i._.
\\.\\
N N
.. :_ __.__:_ __z-J g
y M
N N
i: r.+
E h.. --.
C O
HONI y
,y g
y
- t;OI.I.Y.u!O 13C A
A-6
1500 k = variable Beam on elastic f
foundation responsK 5' 1000 K = 3800 #/in h
H k = 1000 #/in/in k = 800 #/in/in
_k = 800 #/in/in 500 o
/
~
/
i i
i r
0.1 0.2 0.3 DEFLECTION-INCHES Average spring rate at asphalt i.mpregnated fiberboard over k
=
finite deflection range, lbs/in/in/ unit width K = Average spring rate of tank support, lbs/in/ unit width FIGURE 4-2.
LINEARIZATION OF BOUNDARY SPRINGS 4-9
4 ar r
P C Tank Wall Tank Bottom W
I f
y q
N-i i
o 5
w'f 9
i I
I p
p 6
k Asphalt Impregnated Fiberboard Oil. Impregnated Sar Ring Wall u -
water force, lbs/in/ unit width w
=
tank and roof weight, lbs/ unit width P
=
gap between tank bottom and asphalt impregnated fiberboard, in.
6
=
effective width of water annulus, in.
a
=
r l
l FIGURE 4-3.
EFFECTIVE WATER ANNULUS 4-10 s
150 5y 120 sy 100 M
"I J
M 2
50 5
4 2
Sf C,
i i
i i
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 w
Gap - Inches t
r i
a FIGURE 4-4.
EFFECTIVE WATER FORCE / UNIT WIOTH OF CIRCUMFERENCE VS GAP a
f i
f 4-11
5 a
2 0
n i
/
s 0
e 0
h 2,
8 a
c 3
0 n
I
=
s S
K t
T n
N e
E m
M 5
e E
1 l
L a
E E
0 y
Y r
R a
A d
D n
N u
U o
O B
B 1
f T
o A
0 n
N o
O i
I s
T s
C e
E r
L p
F 5
m E
a 0
o D
C 0
S V
E CR 1
O F
0
_.4 0
5, 0
0 0
0 0
1 4
0 0
0 0
2 2
E 0
8 6
4 2
1 R
0 U
G I
F Ea EC5DEE8?Wu
?C l1
og g
" o,}
.\\
.S iSE
.S*9tE ' :. '\\
a E
.S
- LEE " I.
g
~"
.S*82E'
-w r
a 3.--
g zoe oom
.S'O LE "
- \\
""S
..\\
o=z wuo
.9. LOC,
ozu
<~
u o
a w
.9 262 g
a ~ _a zs<
o
.S*E82' h.
3"*
d u
.S*#L2
\\' '.
o z
z w
.S.992<
\\
r w
_a 14 d
d
.S'992 1.
e-1 w
c i
.9.Lt2 l
m s
z m
n w
a o
.S.8EZ z
r l
s m
w e"
E d
.S*622 l....
x c
r w
w w
o
.S.022
=
m t
o w
r d
t e
5=
.S t t2 -
/>... -
u m
ww
=
o
=Z H
I
=
.S.202 w
z
=
w o
z o
a r _a a t-
>- e-.-
t-
=
.S.E6L j
r e
w W
6-W w
^
o
.9 IOk
/
- s a.
o o
o H
u 2Z ro
.9.SLt.
i r
=
z
==
w o
o
<o m
r w
r=
u.
o
.c no,,,
J w
a
>=
c a JJL u.
/
w o
a oa m
_ae
.9.LSL 1
o s
a z
w w
z o
/
=
)
m m
a u
z u.
.9 80L we o
w o
r w
w z
=
w wm m
.S.6CL
=
m o
um
-x
~
o
<w d
.S'0EL " :?l e5 fi 3
E'S o
~-
mz
=
=
=
-a
_a
...GL W-w
=
ou
,. o.
u ob L
s.
>o r
o o :
-z u.
e
.S.Zll 5-o z
o
<u o
o.
m.
_a e
u
.9.EOL, wo a
z x
o m
.a zw o f.
w a
o
.5 76 z
w zo o
o r
e l.
o.-
a w _a u
_a m
.9 58 m=
w e
w=
u ft
_a, u
o u.
.S.9L,I.
<w u-o a=
x o
- c. e-e w
.S.49 m
=
a.
z
-=
o l.:
a o-e r
.9.BS g
l I.
1
.S'69 l
.S*09 i i
.S ' lE ' \\*'
/
d *22 l
.S'El
'.I:+
C.
.S*7
~
.~
2-10 i
(q1uinti. i Nawawla s ta 3
s s
e.
I eve 20 -
355.5" 31.5*
67.5*
121.5*
166.5*
211.5*
256.5" 301.5*
3j6.5* ANGLES 321 325 330 335 340 345 350 35) 360 N0DE NOS.
0 O
O
-20 x
E:s S
-40
-60 i
FIGURE 2-4 COMPRESSIVE LOADS AT TANK BOTTOM (SEE TABLE 5-3)
SHELL RESULTS 12495 PSI c --
fee.
c.
j P
IN SHELL
=
g
'OI70 2.0
=
F.S. ON YIELD LOCATION - 8' ABOVE BASE IN I/4" SHELL l
t
-1930 psi
=
MAX COMPRESSIVE STRESS 2.46
=
F.S. ON BUCKLING LOCATION - 8' ABOVE BASE IN l/4" SHELL i
19590 PSI e-. t's., EccT L A.,
P IN SHELL AT BOLT CHAIR
=
g 1.28 F.S. ON YIELD
=
=
i t
P +P +0 IN SHELL AT BOLT CHAIR =
48.32 KSI e
3 1.03 F.S. ON SHAKEDOWN
=
ANCHOR BOL1 RESULTS 22320 PSI MAXIMUM BOLT STRESS (THREADS)
=
1.61 F.S. ON YIELD
=
2.87 F.S. ON PULL OUT
=
i
P e
=
N
'I I f p
h A h y
_ 0.625"
[
0.375" 312"R e
h I' = ANCHOR BOLT LOAD i
h h
I i
FIGURE 4-8.
ANALYSIS MODEL FOR LOCAL MEMBRANE STRESSES IN SHELL DUE TO ANCHOR BOLT LOADING 4-15
~
~~
- o. mLe mmE Tank Wall
(
-7, 5
1L J
G 3
3
+
~~
\\
/
l I
I I
b b
=
,g
r
\\
eff
/
s
/
% s
/
N /
P PT 2
-*-r eff
-6 f
9 Gusset l
y 6
I a
1 Plate Load y
Xp i
i i
i L~ ~ '
l~ A FIGURE 4-7.
YIELD LINE MODEL FOR BOLT CHAIR 4-14
I BOLT CHAIR RESULTS LIMIT (YIELD LINE) ANALYSIS USED l
MAX. BOLT LOAD (MEASURED)
= 31.31 KIPS i
l ALL OTHER LOADS BELOW 22.5 KIPS LOWER BOUND LIMIT LOAD
= 39.95 KIPS l
F.S. ON LOWER BOUND COLLAPSE = 1.28 CODE PHILOSOPHY WOULD ALLOW 0.8X LOWER BOUND COLLAPSE LOAD FOR LEVEL C SERVICE (EMERGENCY COND).
CODE PHILOSOPHY SATISFIED RECOMMEND DYE PENETRANT EXAMINATION OF BOLT CHAIR FILLET i
WELDS ON MAXIMUM LOADED BOLT i
b i
E
i MEETING
SUMMARY
DISTRIBUTION "Dockit FileVO
.3 2 9 c $ oc G. Lear NRC/PDR ygg S. Pawlicki Local PDR V. Benaroya en
,g TIC /NSIC/ TERA Z. Rosztoczy
~
LB #4 r/f W. Haass H. Denton D. Muller E. Case R. Ballard D. Eisenhut W. Regan R. Purple R. Mattson B. J. Youngblood P. Check A. Schwencer
- 0. Parr F. Miraglia F. Rosa J. Miller W. Butler G. Lainas W. Kreger R. Vollmer R. Houston J. P. Knight W. Gammill R. Bosnak p\\
9 L. Rubenstein F. Schauer T. Speis
'O R. E. Jackson f
. Johnston
/gCS/!/p Attorney, OELD
,. Hanauer p
g OIE (3)
C CB
.y,9gg
'f 4. Hernan ACRS (16)
D
/
2. Schroeder A
0 l4. Ernst R. Tedesco
. Skovholt f4
/
K. Kniel NRC
Participants:
h/ j g G. Knighton i
A. Thadani l
D. S. Hood D. Tondi J. D. Kane J. Kramer F. Rinaldi D. Vassallo P. Collins D. Zieraann F. Congel J. Stolz M. Srinivasan R. Baer bcc:
Applicant & Service List C. Berlinger E. Adensam Project Manager D. Hood Licensing Assistant M. nime an 9