ML20050C299: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot insert) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change) |
||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter:}} | {{#Wiki_filter:_ . _ . _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - .. | ||
To update your non-proprietary copy of the SSES DAR, remove and insert the following pages, figures and tables. | |||
REMOVE INSERT VOLUME 1 Table 1-3 (Page 1) New Table 1-3 (Page 1) | |||
TaDle 1-3 (Page 2) New Table 1-3 (Pago 2) | |||
Table 1-4 (Page 1) New Table 1-4 (Page 1) | |||
Table 1-4 (Page 4) New Table 1-4 (Page 4) l l | |||
Table 1-4 (Page 5) New Table 1-4 (Page 5) | |||
Table 1-4 (Page 8) New Table 1-4 (Page 8) | |||
Table 1-4 (Page 12) New Table 1-4 (Page 12) | |||
Table 1-4 (Page 17) New Table 1-4 (Page 17) | |||
Table 1-4 (Page 20) New Table 1-4 (Page 20) | |||
Pages 2-5/2-6 New Page 2-5/2-6 i | |||
l Page 2-7 New Page 2-7 Page 4-3/4-4 New Page 4-3/4-4 Page 4-5/4-6 New Page 4-5/4-6 Page 4-7/4-8 New Page 4-7/4-8 Page 4-9/4-10 New Page 4-9/4-10 Page 4-11/4-12 New Page 4-11/4-12 Page 4-13/4-14 New Page 4-13/4-14 Page 4-15/4-16 New Page 4-15/4-16 Page 4-17/4-18 New Page 4-17/4-18 l Page 4-19/4-20 New Page 4-19/4-20 Page 4-21/4-22 New Page 4-21/4-22 Page 4-23 New Page 4-23 | |||
.... New Page 4-24 Figure 4-44a New Figure 4-44a Figure 4-45 New Figure 4-45 Figure 4-53 New Figure 4-53 Figure 4-54 New Figure 4-54 8204080385 820402 PDR ADOCK 05000387 A PDR c _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . | |||
Piga 2 REMOVE INSERT | |||
- \v/ | |||
Figure 4-62 A&B New Figure 4-62 A&B | |||
_ Figure 4-62 C&D New Figure 4-62 C&D | |||
-Figure 4-62 E&F New Figure 4-62 E&F | |||
.... New Figure 4-62 I | |||
.... New Figure 4-62 J | |||
.... New Figure 4-62 K | |||
.... New Figure 4-62 m | |||
.... New Table 4-22 Page 5-1/5-2 New Page 5-1/5-2 Page 5-3/5-4 New Page 5-3/5-4 Page 5-11/5-12 New Page 5-11/5-12 Page 5-13/5-14 New Page 5-13/5-14 Table 5-4 New Table 5-4 | |||
.... New Table 5-5 (2 pages) | |||
.... New Table 5-6 Page 6-7/6-8 New Page 6-7/6-8 | |||
(,/ Page 6-9/6-10 New Page 6-9/6-10 Pages 7-1 to 7-27 New Pages 7-1 to 7-47 Figures 7-4 to 7-11 New Figures 7-4 to 7-26 Tables 7-1 to 7-3 New Tables 7-1 to 7-5 Page 10-1 to 10-15 New Pages 10-1 to 10-36 Figure 10-1 New Figure 10-1 Figure 10-2 New Figure 10-2 | |||
.... New Figures 10-4 to 10-65 | |||
.... New Table 10-1 | |||
.... New Table 10-2 Pages 11-5/11-6 New Pages 11-5/11-6 | |||
'Pages A-1/A-2 New Pages A-1/A-2 Pages A-3/A-4 New Pages A-3/A-4 New Page A-5 Figures A-4 to A-66' New Figures A-4 to A-67 Pages B-1/B-2 New Pages B-1/B-2 Pages B-3/B-4 New Pages B-3/B-4 A | |||
:N_] | |||
I Paga 3 REMOVE INSERT h-a Page B-5 .... | |||
Figures B-27 to B-88 New Figures B-27 to B-58 | |||
.Pages C-1/C-2 New Pages C-1/C-2 Page C-3 New Page C-3 Figures C-4 to C-lO New Figures C-4 to C-103 Figure E-9 New Figure E-9 Figure E-ll New Figure E-ll Figures E-12 to E-16 New Figures E-12 to E-16 Figures E-22'to E-38 New Figures E-21a to E-38a Appendix F Tab New Appendix F Tab Page F-1 New Page F-1 | |||
..... New Table F-1 (2 sheets) | |||
Page G-1 New Page G-1 Page H-1 New Page H-1 Pages I-1/I-2 New Pages I-1/I-2 Pages I-5/I-6 New Page I-5/I-6 | |||
.... New Pages I-6a/I-6b Pages I-9/I-lO New Page I-9/I-10 | |||
.... New Figures I-14 | |||
.... New Figures I-15 Table I.1 (Page 2) New Table I.1 (Page 2) | |||
Table I.2 New Table I.2 Remove Appendices A thru I from Volume I and insert into Volume 2. | |||
O | |||
) E l-3 mj' SSES CONTAINMENT DESIGN PARAMETERS A. Drywell and Suppression Chamber Drywell Suppression Chamber | |||
: 1. (a) Internal Design Pressure 53 psig 53 psig 6 | |||
1.(b) Internal Design Pressure in Combination 44 psig 29 psig with other Loads | |||
: 2. External Design Pressure . 5 psid 5 psid | |||
: 3. Drywell Floor Design Differential Pressure Upward 28 psid Downward 28 psid | |||
: 4. Design Temperature 340 F 220 F | |||
: 5. Drywell Free Volume (Minimum) 239,337 ft 3 | |||
(including vents) (Normal) 239,593 ft 3 | |||
(Maximum) 239,850 ft 3 | |||
: 6. Suppression Chamber Free (Minimum) 148,590 ft Volume (Normal) 153,860 ft 3 | |||
(Maximum) 159,130 ft 3 | |||
: 7. Suppression Chamber Water Volume (Minimum) 122,410 ft 3 | |||
(Normal) 126,980 ft 3 | |||
(Maximum) 131,550 ft | |||
: 8. Pool Cross-Section Area Gross (Outside Pedestal) 5379 ft Total Gross (Including Pedestal Water Area) 5679 ft Free (Outside Pedestal) 5065 ft Total Free 5277 ft REV. 6, 4/82 | |||
O O- O TableL1-3 (cont'd) | |||
Drywell Supression Chamber | |||
: 9. Pool Depth (Minimum) 22 ft. | |||
(Normal) 23 ft. | |||
-(Maximum) 24 ft. | |||
B. Vent System | |||
: 1. Number of Downcomers 82 (Five capped: see 6 i Appendix K) | |||
;2. Downcomer Outer Diameter 2 ft. | |||
: 3. Total Downcomer Vent Area 257 ft.2 | |||
: 4. Downcomer Submergence (Minimum) 10 ft. | |||
(Normal) 11 ft. | |||
(Maximum) 12 ft. | |||
: 5. Downcomer Loss Factor 2.5 C. Safety Relief Valves | |||
! 1. Opening Time | |||
: a. Delay Time (between trip and motion) 0.10 sec. | |||
: b. Response Time (close to open) 0.15 sec. | |||
REV. 6, 4/82 I | |||
m | |||
( | |||
w s x P ge ! | |||
TABLE l-4 | |||
- Review of Susquehanna SES Units 1 & 2 Pool Dynamic Loadings - | |||
-Costparison with NUREC 0487, NUREC 0487-Supplement No. 1. Lead Plant and Generic Long Term Program-NRC Acceptance Criteria Lead Plant Position Generic long Tern NUREC 0487 Supplement No. I (Zimmer DAR, Amendment 13) Program Position Susquehanna Position Remarks | |||
: 1. LOCA RELATED HYDRODYNAMIC LOADS A. Submerged Boundary Loads 24 PSI overpressure statically applied March 20, 1979 letter. 24 Evaluating impact. Evaluation During Vent clearing. with hydrostatic pressure to surfaces psi statically applied to indicates 24 PSI 6 33 p.1 overpressure added below vent exit (attenuate to o psi surfaces below vent exit overpressure is to local hydrostatic at pool surface) for period of vent (attenuate to O poi at conservative (see below vent exit (walls clearing for plants with (shL)/ pool surface) for period of Subsection 4.2.1.2) and basenst)-linear at- [(A /A ) V, g] 1 55.~ vent clearing. Zinsmer and tenuation to pool sur- wheIe: aa mass flow in vents 3 lb/sec LaSalle meet NUREG 0487. | |||
face. V = | |||
E=dryve11 volume - f t enthalpy of air in vent-Stu/lb L = submergence - ft A /A = pool area to vent area For plantI wEere (sht)/[(A /A,)Vg l >55, the loading increase over Rydrostatic pressure on basemat and submerged walle below vent exit is p = 24 + 0.27 (&ht) / | |||
[(A /A tV -5 (attenuate to O poi atlool)suNa]ce)5 . | |||
B. Pool Swell Loads. | |||
: 1. Pool Swell Analytical Hodel (PSAM) | |||
: a. Air bubble pres- (a) No change from NUREG 0487. (a) Accept NUREG 0487. (a) Accept NUREG (a) Accept NUREC sure-use PSAM 0487 0487, described in | |||
- NEDE-21544-P. b | |||
: b. Pool swell eleva- (b) Use PSAM with polytropic exponent (b) Accept NUREG n o 7 (b) Accept NUREG (b) Accept NUREG 0487 tion-Use PSAM des- of 1.2 to a maximum swell height 0487 -Sup- -Supplement No. I plement No. I REV. 6, 4/82 | |||
~ | |||
O - | |||
O Page 4 TABIE l-4 IntC Acceptance Criteria Lead Plant Position Generic 1.ong Tern IR5tEG 0437 Supplement No.-1 (Zimmer DAR, Amendment 13) Proarse Position Susquebsana Position Remarks | |||
- 2, and the total area of the grat-ing. To account for the dynamic nature of the initial loadiva, the static drag load is increased by a multiplier given by: | |||
F /D = 1+ lt(0.064Wf)2 thkWf<2000la/sec | |||
: 4. Wetwell Air Compres-smon | |||
: a. Wall loads-direct- (a) No change from NUREG 0487. (a) Accept 0487. (a) Accept NUREG (a) Accept NUREG ly apply the PSAM 0487. 0487. | |||
5 calculated pres-aure due to wetwell compression. | |||
: b. Diaphragm upward (b) No change from NUREG 0487. ' | |||
(b) Use A PUP = 5.5 (b) Same as lead (b) Same as lead load-calculate A PSID. plant. plant. 6 | |||
' PUP using the cor-relation: | |||
A PUP = 8.2 . 44F, for of F $0.13 A PUP = 2.5 psi, for F) 0.13 AP. VS where: F = AB 2 | |||
VD (AV) | |||
- AB = break area AP = net pool area AV = total vent area REV. 6, 4/82 | |||
_ ___________-------_--_-_-J | |||
m | |||
, N ) | |||
( | |||
i v | |||
) .A i ) | |||
Page 5 TABLE l-4 NRC Acceptance Criteria Lead Plant Position Generic Long Term EUREC 0487 Supplement No. 1 (Zimmer DAR. Amendment 13) Program ?inition Susquehanna Position Rema rk s VS = initial verwell air space volume VD = drywell volume | |||
: 5. Asymmetric Load. Use twice the 10% of maximum bubble Accept NUREC 0487-Supple- Accept NUREC 0487- Accept NUREC 4087-Apply the maximum pressure statically <jplied to 1/2 ment No. 1. Supplement No. I Supplement No. 1. 5 air bubble pressure of the submerged boundary (with calculated from PSAM hydrostatic pressure) proposed in and a minimum air March 16.1979 letter from CE. | |||
bubble pressure (sero increase) in a worst case distribution to the vetwell vall. | |||
C. Steam Condensation and Chugging Loads. | |||
: 1. Downconer Lateral Loads. | |||
: a. Single vent loads: (a) No change from NUREC 0487. (a) Accept NUREC 0487 (a) Use single vent (a) Following long | |||
-A static equiva- See DAR. | |||
dynamic lateral term program. Subsec-lent load of 8.8 load developed Confirmation tion 9.6.3 KIPS shall be under Task A-13 through plant for verifi-used provided: unique CKM-ILM O (NEDE-24106-P) . cation of However, extra-test data on lateral tip (1) the downcomer is polate the 30 24" in diameter. lateral bracin's load. | |||
Kip and 3 maec loads. | |||
(11) the downconer dom- impulse to inant natural fre- 65 Kips and 3 maec. | |||
quency is 3 7 Bs. | |||
submerged. | |||
(iii) the downcomer is unbraced or braced - | |||
at or above approx. 8' from the exit. | |||
RITV. 6, 4/82 | |||
O O O Page 8 TABIZ 1-4 NRC Acceptance Criteria Imad Plant Position Generic Long Tern NUREG 0487 Supplement No. 1 (Zimmer DAR. Amendment 13) Pratras Position Susquehanna Position Remarks | |||
: b. Medium Steam Flux (b) No change from NUREG 0487. (b) Accept NUREG 0487 with (b) Use Condensa- (b) Same as (a). | |||
Loads, additional plant unique tion Oscilla-empirical load specifi- tion load Sinusoidal pres- cation. specification sure fluctuation based on NEDE-added to local 24288-P. | |||
bydrostatic. Amp-litude uniform be-low vent exit, linear attenuation 5 to pool surface. | |||
7.5 pai peak-to-peak amplitude. | |||
2-7 Nu frequencies. | |||
NEDE-21061-P, Rev. 2 | |||
: c. Chugging. (c) No change from NUREG 0487. (c) Accept NUREG 0487 with (c) Use liEGS/ MARS (c) Same as (a). | |||
additional plant acoustic model | |||
-Uniform loading unique empirical load presented in condition - specification. WEDE-24822-P with Maximum amplitude sources derived uniform below vent from 4T-CO. Ap-exit, linear at- plication metho-tenuation to pool dology documented 6 surface. +4.8 in NEDE-24302-P. | |||
psi man overpres-sure, -4.0 psi max underpressure. | |||
(Pending resolu-tion of FSI con-cerns) | |||
NEDE-21061-P. | |||
Rev. 2. | |||
-Aaymmetric loading condition - Maxi-REV. 6, 4/82 | |||
.. .__ _ .._._m ._ .-. ___...~.....-m_ . _ - . . ...-_.m... | |||
_ . - . . . . . - .< .. ._m . . _ . _ _ - . | |||
.O O O Page 12 TABLE l-4 IRC Acceptance Criteria Lead Plant Position Generic Long Tern IRREG 0437 Supplement No. 1 (Zimmer DAR, Amendment 13) Proaram Position Susquehanna Position Remarks | |||
: c. Bubble Frequency. (c) 3-11 Mz. (c) Plant unique frequency (c) Same as lead (c) Following frequen- Additional T-quencher - a range range based on Susque- plant. cy range Jvcceent- study per-of bubble frequency banna DAR. ed in Susquecanna formed con-of 4-12 Ez is the DAR. firming con-minimum range that servaties of 6 shall be increased if frequency required to include range in Sus-the frequency pre- quehanna DAR dicted by the rans- (see Subsec-head methodology tion 10.2.3). | |||
together with 1 501 - | |||
marg.a. | |||
X quencher - a range X quencher bubble of bubble frequency frequency being of 4-12 Es shall be developed by Burns evaluated. & Roe based largely on Caorso test data. | |||
: c. Quencher Arm and Tie 5 Down Loads. | |||
: 1. Quencher Are No change from NUREG 0487. Accept NUREG 0487. Load T quencher are Following long tern Loads. Vertical Specification in SSES DAR loads are presen- program. | |||
and lateral are S h ection 4.1.2.5 used ted in Susquehanna loads are to be to verify the conserva- DAR, Section 4.1.2.5. | |||
developed on the tism of this approach. | |||
basis of bound- X-quencher-Accept ing assumptions NUREG 0487. | |||
for air / water dis- | |||
! charge from the quencher and con-servative combi-nations of mozi-mus/uisimum bubble pressures acting on the quencher per NEDE-21061-P, Rev. 2. | |||
i REV. 6, 4/82 | |||
O O O Page 17 TABLE l-4 NRC Acceptance Criteria Lead Plant Position Generic Long Tern IREtEC 0437 Supplement No. 1 (Zimmer DAR, Amendment 13) Program Position Susquehanna Position Remarks | |||
: 1. LOCA Air Bubble Imads No change from NUREG 0487. Documented in plant unique Documented in Documented in Subsec- g DAR's. plant unique DAR's tion 4.2.1.7 of SSES Calculate based on DAR. | |||
the analytical model of the bubble charg-ing process and drag calculations of NEDE-21471 until the bub-bles coalesce. After bubble contact, the pool swell analytical model, together with the dras computation procedure NEDE-21471 shall be used. Use | |||
* of this methodology shall be subject to the following cons-treints and modifi-cations: | |||
: a. A conservative (a) No change (a) Position documented (a) Accept NUREC- (a) Following the Document-estimate of bub- on page 5.4-8 of 0487. Long Term Pro- ed in Sub-ble asy - try of Zimmer DAR. gram. section 5 shall be added 4.2.3.2 of by increasing SSES DAR. | |||
accelerations and velocities computed in step 12 of Section 2.2 of NEDE *1730 by 10%. If the alternate steps 5A, 12A and 13A are used the ac-celeration drag shall be directly i | |||
l l | |||
l 1 | |||
REV. 6, 4/82 l E.. __ __ | |||
O O O Page 20 TABLE l-4 NRC Acceptance Criteria Lead Plant Position Generic Long Tere NUREG 0487 Supplement No. 1 (Zimmer DAR, Amendment 13) Program Position Susquebanna Position Remarks | |||
: 2. a. SRV ramsbead aar- (a) No change since NUREG 0487. (a) Documented on Page (a) N/A (a) N/A bubble loads. 5.4-9 of Zimmer DAR. | |||
: b. SRV quencher air (b) No change since NUREC 0487. (b) Documented on Page (b) T quencher sub- (b) Following Long bubble loads. 5.4-9 of Zimmer DAR. merged structure Term Program T quencher - methodology is loads may be comp- presented in uted on the basis Susquehanna DAR, of the above rans- Section 4.1.3. | |||
head bubble pres-sure and assuming the bubble to be located at the center of the quen- 5 cher device having a bubble radius equal to the quen-cher radius. | |||
X-quencher - loads X-quencher methodo-may be computed on logy being developed the basis of the by Burns & Roe. | |||
above ramshead meth-odulogy using bub-ble pressure cal-culated by the metbods of NEDE-21061-P, Rev. 2 for the X quen-cher. | |||
C. Steam Condensation Drag Loads. | |||
Review will be conducted No change since NURLG 0487. Documented on Page 5.4-9 Plant unique meth- Plant unique methodo-on a plant unique basis. of Zimmer DAR. od being develop- logy dockwnted in DAR g ed. Subsection 4.2.2.5. | |||
. PAF:cyc | |||
. 34P-B REV. 6, 4/82 | |||
: 2. 2 _ DESIGN A SSESSMENT SUMM Agl. | |||
Design assessment of the SSES structures and components is achieved by analyzing the response of the structures and components to the load combinations explained in Chapter 5. In Chapter 7 predicted stresses and responses (f rom the loads defined in Chapter 4 and combined as described in Chapter 5) are com pa red with the applicable code allowable values identified in Chapter 6 and the SSES design will be assessed as adequate by virtue that the design capabilities exceed the stresses or responses resulting f rom SHV discharge and/or LOCA loads. | |||
2.2.1 Containment Structure and Reactor Building Assessment Susaggy__ ___ 7_ ___ | |||
2 2.1.1 - | |||
Containment Stgucture. Assessment Suggary-The primary containment walls, ba se slab, diaphragm slab, reactor pedestal and reactor shield are analyzed for the effects of SRV and LOCA in accordance with Table 5-1. The ANSYS finite element program is used for the dynamic analysis of structures. | |||
Response spectra curves are developed at various locations within the containment structure to assess the adequacy of components. | |||
Stress resultants due to dynamic loads are combined with other | |||
() loads in accordance with Table 5-1 to evaluate rebar and concrete stresses. Design safety margins are defined by comparing the actual concrete and rebar stresses at critical sections with the code allowable values. The assessment methodology of the containment structure is presented in Subsection 7.1.1.1. | |||
The results of the structural assessment of the containment structure are summarized in Appendir A. The results show that . | |||
the reinforcing bar design stresses and the concrete design stresses are below the allowable stresses. | |||
2.2.1 2__ React 2E Building _ Assessment _1Suggary The reactor building is assessed for the effects of SRV and LOCA I loads in accordance with Table 5-1. | |||
Containment basemat acceleration time histories are used to investigate the reactor building response to the SRV and LOC A loa ds'. Response spectra curves at various reactor building elevations are used to assess the adequacy of components in the reactor building. The assessment methodology of the reactor building is presented in Subsection 7.1.1.2. | |||
The results of the structural assessment of the reactor building are summarized in Appendix E. The results show that the reinforcing bars and concrete design stresses as well as the s_/ structural steel design stresses are below the allowable stresses. | |||
Rev. 2, 5/80 2- 5 | |||
3s2,2__G9atninnent_submersg4_Stragtstes_Asagasaant Summarr Design assessment of the suppression chamber columns includes non-hydrodynamic as well as hydrodynamic loads. Subsection 7.1.2. 2 describes the methodology used to evaluate the columns. | |||
The results are presented in Piqure A-59 and indicate a minimum design margin of 11.4%. | |||
6 The downcomers are dynamically analyzed per Subsection 7.1.4 for the load combinations given in Table 5-3. A summary of the stresses under various load combinations are given in Piqure A-66 and indicates that the minimum design margin is 14% when the loads are combined by ABS and 50% when the loads are combined by SRSS. | |||
Results from the analysis of the suppression pool liner plate 2 | |||
indicate that no structural modifications are required (see Subsection 7.1.3 and 7. 2.1. 5) . | |||
The original downcomer and SRV bracing system has been redesigned so that the downconers and SRV discharge lines are now supported by separate bracing systems. The SRV discharge lines are supported by bracinq connected to the columns, while the downcomers are braced together by a truss system, but no connections exist at the containment or pedestal wall. | |||
Subsections 7.1.2.1 and 7.1.2. 2 document the evaluation of the downcomer and SRV discharge line bracing systems, respectively. | |||
Figure A-67 presents the SRV support system's maximum stresses and design margins, while Figures A-60 and A-61 show the design llg margins for the downcomer bracing system members and connections, r es pe ct i vel'y. All stresses are acceptable. | |||
2a222__ HOE _and_HSSS_Eiging_graten_asssgangat_sugangy 6 | |||
All Seismic Category I BOP and NSSS piping are analyzed for the LOCA and SRV hydrodynamic loads and non-hydrodynamic loads per Subsections 7.1.5 and 7.1.6.1.1, respectively. Appendix P qives the stresses and design margins for selected BOP pi pi ng systems. | |||
The stress reports for the above evaluation are available for NRC review. | |||
2=2=E__R0E_and_HSSH_Esuinannt_Assssement_Eumm1EI All Seismic Ca tegory I BOP and NSSS equipment are evaluated for the hydrodynamic and non-hydrodynamic loads per the SSES Seismic Qualification Review Team (SQRT) Program. For each equipment i Purchase Order, 4-page SQRT summary forms are prepa red | |||
[ documenting the qualification results. | |||
These SQRT summary forms are available for NRC review O | |||
REV. 6, 4/82 2-6 I | |||
2a2,5__ElREtEiGal_RRE9111_EIEtRR_&Ef22ERSat_SEE21EI Seismic Category I electrical raceway Erstems in the containment, | |||
-, reactor systems and control building are assessed by the methods | |||
(_,, contained in Subsection 7.1.8. Loads are combined as shown in Table 5-6. As a result of static and dynamic analysis, it was determined that high stresses resulted in certain members of a few support types. These structural members were strengthened or replaced by otronger members to reduc e the stresses below the allowables. 6 2r2t6_ EIAG_DHEt_SIftfR_&HEREgggat_ggagggy Seismic Category I HV AC duct system in the containmen t, reactor building and control building are assessed by the methods contained in Subsection 7.1.9. Loads are combined as shown in Table 5-2. As a result of structural analysis, it was found that a few structural members had high stresses but most of the members had adequate margin of safety. The overstressed seabers were strengthened or replaced by stronger members to ensure an adequate margin of safety. | |||
O 1 | |||
i | |||
/ | |||
's 4 | |||
e f | |||
'' / | |||
~ | |||
J o ' | |||
REV. 6. 4/82 2-7 | |||
CH APTER 4 E199BES O >>>ter 1211s 4-1 These figures are proprietary and are found in the through proprietary supplement to this DAR. | |||
4-37 1 | |||
4-38 SSES Short Tera Suppression Pool Height 4-39 SSES Short Tern Wetvell Pressure 4-40 SSES Pool Surface Velocity vs Elevation 4-40a Poo) swell Acceleration Time Histo / | |||
4-41 Pool Boundary Load During Vent Clearing 2 4-42 This Fiqure has been Deleted 4-43 SSES Poolswell Air Bubble Pressure 4-44 Poolswell Air Bubble Pressure on Suppression Pool Walls Used j for SSES Analysis 4-44a Condensation Pressure Forcing Function (Wet & Dry Wells) | |||
(This figure has been deleted) 6 4-45 Symmetric and Asyssetric Spatial Loading Specification (This figure has been deleted) 4-46 SSES Drywell Pressure Response to DBA LOCA 4-47 SSES Wetvell Pressure Response to DBA LOCA 4-48 SSES Suppression Pool Temperature Response to DB A LOCA 1 4-49 SSES Drywell Temperature Response to DBA LOCA 4-50 SSES Suppression Pool Temperature Response to IBA 4-51 SSES Plant Unique Containment Response to the IBA l2 4-52 Typical Mark II Containment Response to the SBA 4-53 SSES Components Affected by LOCA Loads I l | |||
l 4-54 SSES Components Affected by LOCA Loads REV. 6, 4/82 4-3 | |||
flSHEES (Con to ) | |||
HNEb2I I1112 4-55 LOCA Loading History for the SSES Containment Hall and Pedestal lll 4-56 LOCA Loading History for the SSES Basemat aad Liner Plate 1 | |||
4-57 LOCA Loading History for the SSES Dryvell and Dryvell Ploor 4-58 LOCA Loading History for the SSES Columns 4-59 LOCA Loading History for the SSES Downcomers 4-60 LOCA Loading History for the SSES Downcomer Bracing Systen 4-61 LOCA Loading History for SSES Wetvell Piping 6l 4-6 2, a-f C hu qqing Pool Boundary Loads (These figures have been deleted) 2l 4-62,qsh Dynamic Downconer Lateral Loads Due to Chuqqing 4-62,1-s Typical Wave Motion Due to Seismic Slosh 6 4-63 These Piqures are Proprietary thru 4-66 l' | |||
l l | |||
l 9 | |||
REV. 6, 4/82 "~" | |||
CHAPTER 4 ZhDLES E.9Eh2E T1112 4-1 These tables are proprietary and are found thru in the proprietary supplement to this DAR 4-15 4-16 LOCA Loads Associated with Poolswell 4-17 SSES Drywell Pressuro 2 4-18 SSES Plant Unique Poolswell Code Input Data 4-19 Input Data for SSES LOCA Transients 4-20 Component LOCA Load Chart for SSES 4-21 Wetvell Piping LOCA Loading Situations 4-22 Seismic Slosh Wave Height 6 O | |||
{ | |||
lO REV. 6, 4/82 4-5 i | |||
4.0 LOAD DEFINITION 4.1 S Aljll JELIEF VA LVE (SRV) DISCH ARG E ._ Lg AD DEFINITIgj[ | |||
See the Proprietary Supplement for this section. O O | |||
i l | |||
9 Rev. 2, 5/80 4-6 | |||
l | |||
) | |||
l 3,2__LDC1_Lgjp_pjFINITION l Subsections 4.2.1, 4.2.2 and 4.2.3 discuss the numerical j definition of loads resulting from a LOCA in the SSES | |||
() conta inm en t. The LOCA loads are dividad into five groups. l2 (1) Short tern LOCA loads associated with poolswell (Subsection 4.2.11 1 | |||
(2) Condensation oscillations and chuqqing loads (Subsection 4.2.2) . | |||
(3) Submerged Structures Loads (Subsection 4. 2. 3) | |||
(4) Secondary Loads (Subsection 4.2.4) . 2 (5) Long tern LOCA loads (Subsection 4. 2.5) . | |||
The application of these loads to the various components and 1 structures in the SSES containment is discussed in Subsection 4.2.6. l2 Sa2al__LOGA LDADS_ASgggIA;33_yI;3_E90LSWELL A description of the LOCA/Poolswell transient is given in Section 3.2.3 of this Design Assessment Report. The LOCA loads 2 associated with pooluwell are listed in Table 4-16. A discussion of these loads and their SSES unique values f ollows. | |||
322z121__EntralllRIrrall_Ersssstas_during_E991srell | |||
[]) | |||
The drywell pressure transient used for the poolswell portion of j the LOCA transient (s 2.0 sec) is given in Table IV-D-3 of Reference 7. A portion of this table is reproduced herein as Table 4-17. This drywell pressure transient includes the blowdown effects of pipe inventory and reactor subcooling and is the highest possible drywell pressure case for poolswell. This drywell pressure transient is calculated using the method 2 documented in Reference 56. | |||
The short term poolswell vetwell pressure transient resulting from this drywell pressure transient is calculated by applying 3 | |||
the poolswell model contained in Reference 8. The equations and assumptions in the poolswell model were coded into a Bechtel computer program and verified against the Class 1, 2 and 3 test | |||
, cases contained in Reference 9. This verification is documented l in Appendir D to this report. Inputs used for the calculation of the SSES plant unique poolswell transient are shown in Table 4- | |||
: 18. The short ters wetwell pressure transient calculated with l the poolswell code is shown in Figure 4-39. The short ters wetwell pressure peak is 56.1 psia (41.4 psig) . | |||
Reference 46, Subsection III. B.3.d. 2 formulat es a met hodology for 2 determining the mariaua diaphragm uplift P to be used for design a ssessme nt. This AP is based on following relation: | |||
APUP = 8.2 - 44*F (PSI) 0<F< 0.13 l l | |||
APUP = 2.5 (PSI) F>0.13 Rev. 2, 5/80 AB*AP VS 4 l " VD.(AV)d 4-7 | |||
chero: AB = break croc3 AP = net pool area AV = total vent area VS = initial vetvell air space volume; and 90 = dryvell volume lll Por SSES (see Tables 4-18 and 4-19) : | |||
AB = 3.53 fte AP = 5065.03 ft AV = 257.52 ft2 VS = 149,000 ft3 l VD = 239,600 ft3 2 Inserting into the above equation yields: | |||
F = 0.168 > 0.13 1 | |||
l i This gives a marinum uplif t AP of 2.5 PSID. However, as required i by NUREG 0808, a more conservative uplift A P of 5.5 PSID will be used for design. | |||
E a 2 alx 2_ _ EM h E 9 E99 d _ D 92 n d a EI_L g a$2_Q 9 ele 9_lS a t _ g le arin g The submerged iet formed by the expulsion of the water leg in the downcosers creates a vent clearing load on the basemat and on the submerged vetvell valls. This loading is defined by Reference 57 as a 24 PSI overpressure statically applied with hydrosta tic pressure to surfaces below vent exit with a linear attentuation to zero at pool surface (see Figure 4-41) . | |||
durina the vent clearing. | |||
This load is applied g The NRC, in Supplement No. 1 to NUREG-0487, accepts the above 24 PSI overpressure for the vent clearing load f or those plants where (EhL) /f ( A p /Ay )V DW 1 5 55 with: 5 = mass flow in vents -lb/sec Vow = drywell volume - ft3 h = enthalpy of air in vents - btu /lb L = submergence - ft Ap /Ay= pool area to vent area ratio 6 | |||
For SSES, the various parameters are: | |||
a = 17,900 lb/sec Vow = 239,850 ft3 h = 194 btu /lb L = 12 ft Ap /Ay= 5065/257 Substituting into the above gives: | |||
[ (17,900) (194) (12) (257) 1/[ (5065) (239,850) ] = 8.8 REV. 6, 4/82 4-8 I | |||
Thus, for SSES, the 24 PSI overpressure specified for the air 6 clearing load is acceptable. | |||
() 4422142__LQCA_ del _Lenda I During the vent clearing stage induced velocity and acceleration fields are created in the suppression pool producing drag forces on submerged strctures. The original methodology employed to predict the drag forces is contained in Reference 12 (o ft en called the Moody iet model) and is an analytical representation of an unsteady water iet discharging into a suppression pool. | |||
The iet is made up of constant velocity fluid particles traveling i at the speed at which they exited the discharge pipe. The jet front is described as the locus of points which a particle overtakes the one exiting immediately before it. No velocities or accelerations are defined in the fluid external to the iet. | |||
Reference 46, subsection III.D.1.a proposed that velocity and acceleration be predicted throughout the pool using the potential function of a sphere at the iet front. A modification of the load calculated at iet impingement was also required. The Acceptance Criteria was a simple method to determine a bounding 1et load for all structures below t he downconer exits. | |||
The Moody 1et model was clearly derived for iets with constant or linea rly increasing acceleration. However, the vent clea ring transients predicted for Mark II plants typically have an acceleration increase greater than linear. Strict applicaton of 2 Reference 12 leads to unrealistic mathematici results. Two | |||
, O ' interpretations of the results are possible depending upon the time base e mployed. Examining the iet in"real time" (t in Reference 12) a iet can be seen with two independent fronts i traveling at different speeds at different locations which | |||
! coincide only at the point of iet dissipation. On the other hand, if we use the "ex~it t'ine" (t ) as a basis the jet reverses and moves backward in both space an'd "real time" before dissipation. Clearly neither of these observations is of much use in calculating loads on structures. | |||
To overcome the difficulties of using this.aodel, an alternative methodology has been formulated. The iet front will be described by the motion of the particle having travelled the farthest at any instant in time. This will be identical to the Moody jet action for jets with linearly increasing acceleration but will yield a single continuous velocity and acceleration time history even if the acceleration increases more rapidly. | |||
A sphere is then placed at the jet front generating a potential flow described by the'following function: | |||
-3 cose | |||
" 8I j w rd where e and e are the spherical coordinates from the sphere center to some position in the suppression pool with 0 seasured | |||
, Os J REV. 6, 4/82 4-9 | |||
froo the iot direction, Djia the velocity of the sphero determined by the velociW of the particle having traveled the farthest at the instant in time the drag forces are being computed and V, is the initial volume of water in the vent. | |||
The local velocity u,, and acceleration, b. are then calculated f rom the above relation by the methods of Ref erence 14. Once the local" velocity and acceleration are known the drag forces are computed from Reference 13 as f ollo ws: | |||
F = -n"P C | |||
2 C E Dx=n s 2g c | |||
whe e F A is the acceleration d rag, b an is the local accelerition field normal to the structure, v is t he acceleration drag volume for flow normal to the structure, p is the fluid density, F is | |||
* he .< tanda r d drag, C D is the draq coefficient fo: flow normai o the structure, | |||
, and U =n is th(e is the velocity local proiectedfieldstructure area nor mal normal to the to U -n structu. e. | |||
When the iet is predicted to dissipate the sphere is traveling at the final iet velocity at the point of maximum iet pene tra tio n. | |||
This condition is used as the final load calculation point. The final iet velocity is that of the jet front iust before the last (gg particle leaving the vent reaches the iet front. The velocity of the last particle is disregarded. | |||
342mlzE__E92DdaEI_Lggds_Dyging_Egglswell During the poolswell transient, the high pressure air bubble which forms in the vicintly of the vent exit creates an increase in pressure on all suppression pool boundaries below the vent exit as well as those walls which it is in direct contact. | |||
Boundaries which are above the bubble location and up to the point of maximum pool elevation also experience increased pressurn loads corresponding to the increased pressure in the wetwell airspace as well as the hydrostatic contribution of the water slag. | |||
Reference 46, Subsection III.B. 3. b methodology for specification of these loads uses the Poolswell Analytical Model to determine the maximum values of bubble pressure and wetwell airspace pressure. The analysis takes the maximum pool elevation as 1.5 times the initial submergence. Using this data, a static loading is applied to the containment structure as follows: | |||
: 1. for the basemat - unifora pressure equal to the maximum bubble pressure superimposed on the hydrostatic load corresponding to a subsergence from vent exit to the basemat; Rev. 2, 5/80 4-10 | |||
: 2. for tho containcent calls b31cc vent exit - carinum bubble pressure plus hydrostatic head corresponding to vertical distance from vent exit; | |||
: 3. for the containment valls between vent exit and maximum pool elevation-linear variation between marisua bubble pressure and maximum vetwell airspace pressure; | |||
: 4. for the containment walls above maximum pool elevation - | |||
marinua vetwell airspace pressure. | |||
The pressure distribution used for the SSES analysis is shown in Piqure 4-44. | |||
#x2.1t5 _E991sts11_amIanniris_ Air _RMhh12_L9ad The methodology used in the proceeding subsection assumes that the air flow rate in each downconer is equal leading to a symmetric loading of the containment boundary. Reference 46 has expressed concern that circumferential variations in the downconer air flow rate can occur due to dyrwell air / steam airture variation that would result in variations in the bubble pressure load on the wetwell wall. 2 This loading condition is calculated by statically applying the maximum air bubble pressure obtained from the PSAM to 1/2 of the submerged boundary and statically applying 120% of the maximum ' | |||
bubble pressure to the other 1/2 of the submerged boundary. The pressure load on the basemat and wetwell walls below the vent O. exit is the sum of the air pressure and the hydrostatic pressure. | |||
For the portion of the wall above the vent exit, the pressure increase due to the air bubble is linearly attenuated from the bubble *;ressure at the vent exit to zero at the pool surf ace. | |||
Th.s increase is then added to the local hydrostatic pressure to obtain the total pressure. The time period of application of the load is from the termination of vent clearing until the maximum swell height is reached. | |||
42 2slas__E991arell_Innast_ Lead-Any structure located between the initial suppression pool surface (El. 672') and the peak poolswell height (El. 6 90 '-2", - | |||
see Figure 4-38) is subiect to the pool swell impact load. As - | |||
documented in the response to WRC Question 020.68, the poolswell maximum elevation is determined by the poolswell Analytical Model with a polytropic exponent of 1.2 f or vetwell air compression to a marinun swell height which is the greator of 1.5 vent submergence or the elevation corresponding to the- drywell floor uplift AP determined from the equation documented in Subsection 4.2.1.* (2.5 PSID) . For SSES, using the design dryvell floor 6 uplift AP=2.5 PSID leads to the greatest poolswell height and yields 1.51-times the initial vent submergence. Since all grating is removable only assa 11a structures as defined in Reference 10a, subsection 4.2.5.1 are subject to poolswell impact 2 | |||
.() loads. | |||
REV, 6, 4/82 4-11 | |||
( | |||
Poolscoll icpact lordo of #cccllc ctructurcs cro detortinnd as specified in Reference 46, Subsection III.B.3.c.1. An SSES plant-unique velocity vs. elevation curve has been generated with the poolswell model (see Fiqu re 4-4 0) . The velocity curve is conservatively increased by a 1.1 multiplier and used to calculate the insulse per unit area, pulse duration and maximum lll impact pressure at the component's elevation. The peak pressure is then used to define a versed sine shaped hydrodynamic loading function p , (1-cos2'Jt/T ) | |||
2 2 | |||
where: P = pressure acting on the projected area of the structure; | |||
= the temporal maximum of pressure acting Pmax on the projected area of the structure; t = time; r = duration of impact The loading function corresponds to impact on rigid structures. | |||
In actua lity, the structures being analyzed may be more flexible, resulting in the pressure pulses, d uring impact, being modified by the motion of the structure. To account for this, the hydrodynamic mass of impact is added to the mass of the impacted structure when performing the structural dynamic analysis. | |||
312t127 toc & _ Air _Bu b bis _Su ba9Issd_Sirscints_L9 ad During the drywell air purge phase of a LOCA, an expanding bubble is created at the dow ncomer exits. These rapidly expanding bubbles eventually coalesce into a " blanket" of air which leads to the pool swell phenomena. The bubble charging process creates fluid motion in the suppression pool which causes drag loads on the submerged structures. | |||
6 The submerged structure draq loads due to air clearing, prior to pool swell, are calculated in the same Lanner as the drag loads due to CO and chuqqing presented in Subsection 4.2.2.5. However, the chuqqing and CO sources are replaced with a source representing the bubble growth prior to pool swell. This source is derived from the original 4T data. All sources are assumed i n- ph a se (87 sources) . | |||
Ez 22 128__2991SERll_ Diag _Lggd Subsequent to bubble contact all bubbles are assumed to coalesce into a blanket of air and the poolswell drag loads are due the rapidly accelerating upward slug of water and acts in the 2 vertical direction only (except for lift forces which act in the l | |||
traverse direction to flow) . The one dimensional pool swell model is used to predict the vertical flow field. Once the flow field is known the drag forces are calculated by the methods of Reference 13 modified by the methodology presented in Subsection REV. 6, 4/82 4-12 | |||
: 4. 2.3 . This load applion to any structuro located betecen tho , | |||
elevation of the vent exit and the paak poolswell height. The duration of the drag load begins when the vent clears except for structures which are originally not submerged. For structures | |||
() which are not submerged, the draq load duration is based on the slug transient time (Reference 10a, page 4-78, step 3). j 1 | |||
512s112__2991SM911_lR11kBSh_L994 Af ter the termination of poolswell the slug of water falls under the influence of gravity causing drag forces on structures lcoated between the peak poolswell height and the vent exit. The notion of the water is described by the following equations: | |||
H(t) = H ,x gt /2 VFB(t) = gt 9,3N=g where q is the acceleration constant, H (t) is the height above initial water level at time t, Sax is the marimum swell heigh t, | |||
'and t is time starting with t = 0 at maximum swell height = Wax . | |||
The drag load is then calculated from tie methods of Reference 13 modified by Subsection 4.2.3 of the DAR. The loading stops when H (t) has f allen below the structure or when H (t) has returned to normal water level - whichever is calculated to occur first. | |||
Sz242__C9ndensa119n_Qssilla119as_and Chugging _L9 ads condensation oscillation and chuqqing loads follow the poolswell 2 loads in time. There are basically three loads in this secondary time period, i.e., f rom about 4 to 60 seconds after the break. | |||
" Condensation oscillation" is broken down into two phenomena, a 4 mixed flow regime and a steam flow regime. The aired flow regime is a relatively high mass flux phenomenon which occurs during the final period of air purging from the drywell to the vetwell when the mixed flow through the downconer vents contains some air as well as steam. The steam flow portion of the condensation oscillation phenomena occurs after all the air has been carried over to the wetwell and a relatively high intermediate mass flux of pure steam flow is established. | |||
"Chuqqing" is a pulsating condensation phenomenon which can occur either f ollowing the intermediate mass flux phase of a LOCA, or during the class of smaller postulated pipe breaks that result in steam flow through the vent system in+o the suppression pool. A necessary condition for chuqqing to occur is that only pure steam flows from the LOCA vents. Chuqqing imparts a loading condition to the suppression pool boundary and all submerged structures. | |||
In Revision 2 of the DAR, we stated that the DFFR CO and chugging steam condensation boundary load definition (see Appendix A to Reference 21 and Reference 16) would be compared with the LOCA steam condensation load definition derived f rom the GKM II-M test 6 data to evaluate the conservatism of the DFFR load. Subsections 9.6.1.1 and 9.6.1.2 document this comparison. | |||
-O Rev. 2, 5/80 4-13 1 | |||
I Ao o rcault of thic ccapariton cnd the porciblo schedulo dolays associated with licensing SSES based on the DFFR load, PPSL decided on April 1, 1982 to terminate the re-evaluation of SSES based on the DFFR load and re-assess SSES with the GKM II-M load definition. Subsection 9.5.3 documents the GKM II-M load h definition. For chuqqing, both a syneetric and asynaetric load case are considered, while for Co, only a symmetric load case is considered. | |||
For plant evaluation, PPSL does not define a separate CO and chuqqing load definition, as with the Mark II owners. Instead, the acceleration response spectra ( ARS) generated for the LOCA steam condensation phenomena for combination with the other 6 dynamic loads (i.e., SRY ( A DS) , seismic, e tc. ) is the so-called LOCA loa d, which represents an envelope of the ARS curves generated for both the GKM-IIM CO and chuqqing load definition, and symmetric and asymmetric load cases (see Subsection 9.6.1.1). | |||
Subsection 7.0 provides the results of the re-evaluation of the SSES plant to the LOC A steam condensation load derived from the GKM-IIM test data. | |||
E2222 1_E9DlalDE9D1_E99BdaII_lga$s _ Due _To_Condgnsation Oscillat19ns This subsection has been deleted. | |||
Ez22222__E991_D9BDdBII_Lgggg_pyg_to Chugging This subsection has been deleted. ggg Ez22223__D9'D99E9E_LA12Eal_19B$5 2 | |||
The chuqqing load imparted to the downcomer is ta ken f rom Reference 47. This reference specifies two sinusoidal dynamic loads used when evaluating downconer lateral bracing systems. | |||
The durations and amplitudes specified are 3ns, 30 kip and 6 as, 5 | |||
10 kip (as shown in Piqures 4-62G & H). | |||
However, in response to the NRC's concerns with the Mark II single vent lateral load, SSES is re-evaluating the downcomers with an extrapolated single vent lateral load of 65 Kips and 3 asec time duration for f a ulted conditions. Subsection 9.6. 3 verifies the conservatism of this load based on a statistical analysis of the GKM II- M bracinq force data at 10-5 exceedance 6 probability. | |||
Ez222sE__5311119A1_La19Eal_L9adH_Due to_Ch2991DS Multivent lateral loads due to chuqqing are presently being evaluated by the methodology documented in letter report " Method of Applying Mark II Single Vent Dynamic Lateral Load to Mark II Plants with Multiple Vents," transmitted to the NRC on April 9, 1980 under Task A.13. | |||
O REV. 6, 4/82 4-14 | |||
422a225-_ Submersed _ Structure _19 ads _Dse to_condsnsation DEGL11st19Dn_and_Ghu991ng condensation oscillation and chuqqing induce flows fields in the suppression pool causing draq loads on the submerged structures | |||
(-s) (i.e., SRY lines, downconers, etc.). The methodology for calculating these draq loads to be combined with the other design basis loads is presented below. | |||
The force on a submerged structure is the sua of an acceleration force FA and an unsteady drag force PD | |||
* FT= F3 + FD under certain conditions the pressure gradient is o f su f ficie nt magnitude so that the submerged structure force is essentially the acceleration drag force. In order for this to be true, the Stroughal Number must be sufficiently large. | |||
For the SSES submerged structures and the flow fields induced by chuqqing and Co, the Stroughal Number is su f ficiently high that negligible error will be incurred by ignoring the unsteady drag force. | |||
The submerged structure drag force can be approximated by the integral of the pressure field P4 over the structure surface: | |||
F = p4dS K where: Pe S = determined by the equations for potential flow 6 K = hydrodynamic mass factor Por a linear isentropic fluid where the velocity is everywhere small compared to the sonic speed c, the equations for potential flow reduce to the acoustic wave equation (Reference 65) . Thus, t he pressure field also satisfies the acoustic wave equation. | |||
Thus, for calculating the SSES submerged structure drag load due to CO and chuquing, the above expression is used, with the pressure P4 , as a function of time and position, calculated by the TWEGS/M ARS acoustic model of the SSES suppression pool. The pressure P4 is calculated in an analagous manner as the svanetric wall loads (see subsection 9.5.3.4.1) for each source, except that the pressures are calculated at the submerged structure surface locations instead of the containment boundary. | |||
For each structure being analyzed (i.e. , column) a pressure time i history (PTH) is calculated for every 600 incre ment I circunferential around the structure at each elevation corre spo nd ing to a nodal point of the structural model. Thus, f or each node point elevation, six pressure time histories are calculated. This is repeated for each source. These sets of PTHs, calculated for each source, are then integrated across the structure's surf ace to give resultant force time histories for structural analysis. | |||
r's D | |||
REV. 6, 4/82 4-15 | |||
) | |||
a | |||
The fcree tico hictories are th:n cultiplied by a hydrodynacic 6 nass fac tor, K, of 2 to account for the modification of the flow field due to structure's presence. | |||
Hz2s3__E2SE9DHE_19_ HEE _GritSria_fgg_ Loads on_Sgbnerged Structurg ggg 412tJ21__IntI9dus11gn In October 1978 the NRC peblished NUREG-0487, Mark II containment Lead Plant Program Load Be tluation and Acceptance Criteria. It addresses the load method alogies proposed by the Mark II Lead plant Program for determining LOCA and SRV hydrodynamic loads. | |||
NUREG-04 87 was highly critical of the lead plant position for deter mining submerged structure loads and stipulated very conservative alternative loading criteria. The following subsections will present the NRC submerged structures acceptance criteria and the corresponding Mark II response. | |||
3.2.J22__ggC_ Criteria _IIIza22zazli__gubble_AsImantry A conservative estimate of asymmetry should be added by increasing acceleration and velocities computed in Step 12 of Section 2.2 of Reference 13 by 10%. If the alternative steps SA, 12A, and 13A are used, the acceleration drag shall be directly increased by 10% while the standard drag shall be increased by 20%. | |||
De sponse : These criteria are acceptable. | |||
2 3322].3 NRC_ Criteria III.D.2.a.2: Standard _ Drag _In_ Accelgra ting fl9W- lh The draq coefficients C for the standard drag contribution in steps 13, Or 11A, 15 of section 2.2 and step 3 of section 2.3 of Bef orence 13 may not be taken directly from the steady state l coe fficients of Table 2-3. Modified coefficients C from accelerating flow as presented in References 49 and D$0 shall be l used with transverse forces included, or an upper bound of a i | |||
factor of three times the standard drag coefficients shall be used for structures with no sharp corners or with streamwise dimensions at least twice the width. | |||
===Response=== | |||
l . | |||
The three references show that in oscillating flows the standard draq coefficient for cylinders can exceed the steady flow value. | |||
Values of C in excess of 2.0 were observed while steady state values (for Dcylinders) never exceed 1.2. The NBC's position is interpreted to mean that neglecting the unsteady effect on standard draq coefficients will be nonconservative in some cases. | |||
A method is presented in Reference 51, Appendix A to account for unsteady effects on standard and acceleration drag during various phases of the LOCA and SRV transients. Also included are methods to estimate transverse forces due to vorter shedding. | |||
O REV. 6, 4/82 4-16 | |||
Subacquent to reviewing tho cathodology contained in Appendix A of Reference 51, the . NRC in Su pplement No. 1 of NUR EG-0487, 2 required several modifications to the methodology for determining the unsteady draq coefficients. | |||
O A review of the SSES pool swell and fallback drag load calculations indicates that SSES has incorporated these modifications into their calculations. Draq coefficients are not required for calculating the submerged structure drag loads due 6 to air bubble charging prior to pool swell, and the draq loads due to chuquing and Co, since these loads are calcula ted using the pressure time histories at the structure locations (see Subsection 4. 2.1.7 and 4. 2. 2. 5) . | |||
322 x2 xa_ _1RG_ G E11Rria _IIIaD z2a n aJi__S gs ata ka tign_ st_strygintas The equivalent uniform flow velocity.and acceleration for any structure or structural segment shall be taken as the maximum values "seen" by that structure, hot the value at the geometric center. | |||
===Response=== | |||
For structures submerged in a non-uniform flow field, the velocity and acceleration vill be a function of position along the structure. The NRC's criterion is interpreted to mean that the velocity and acceleration should be taken at the end of the segment closest to the disturbinq source instead of the geometric center. For certain restrictions on sequent length, the error in the calculation of drag using the velocity and acceleration at O' the geometric center is very small. This is demonstrated for 2 | |||
acceleration drag in Reference 51, Appendix B and for standard draq Reference 51, Appendix C. Appendix B also contains a discussion that shows that neglecting end ef fects in drag calculations is conservative. | |||
E 2.J 5__EEG_Gr11eria_IIIaDa2aamal__Inissfersass_Zffects The computation of drag forces on submerged structures independent of each uther (as presented in Reference 13) is adequate for structures sufficiently far from each other so that interference effects are negligible. Interference effects can be expected to be insignificant when two structures are separated by more than three characteristic dimensions of the larger one. For structures closer together than this separation, either detailed analysis of interference effects shall be performed or a conservative multiplication of both the acceleration and standard drag forces by four shall be performed. | |||
O REV. 6, 4/82 g_17 | |||
Rccpo ncm3 Interference effects can have a significant ef fect on drag forces. A modification to the calculational procedure is proposed to account for interference. Reference 51, Appendix D describes the proposed method for standard drag with the lh exception that the free stream velocity used will be that at the structures geometric center in all cases. Reference 51, Appendix p E presents the proposed method for acceleration drag. | |||
EA2s326 NRC Cgitggia IIIz g22,a231__Blockagg_In_Downconer Bracing A specific example of interference which must be accounted for is the blockage presented to the motion of the water slug during Dool swell due to the presence of downconer bracing systems. If significant blockage relative to the net pool area exists, the standard draq coefficients shall be modified for this effect by conventional methods (Ref erence 52) . | |||
===Response=== | |||
Blockage effects on the pool swell drag loads produced on the 6 downcomer bracinq system were accounted for by using the methods in Reference 87. | |||
Ez22222__HRE_G rite ria _IIIzD2223 tsi__For sglg_2:23 o f R ef er e nc e _ 13 Formula 2-23 of Reference 13 shall be modified by replacing M n with PFB 1 where h is obtained from Table 2-1 and 2- 2. This is then consistent with the analysis of Reference 14. gg | |||
===Response=== | |||
This criteria is acceptable. | |||
31224- - -SecondagI_Lgad The previous subsections have identified and specified loading methodologies that result in significant containment dynamic 2 loads. In addition, several pool dynamic loads can occur which are considered secondary when compared to the previous loads or because the containment and related equipment response is small when subiected to them. The following subsections identify the secondary loads and the load criteria to be applied to the SSES containment. | |||
l l | |||
Es21Ez1-_Dgwgggggg_fgigtigg_Qggg_kgads l | |||
! Friction Draq loads are experienced internally by the downconers during vent clearing and subsequent air /or steam flow. In I | |||
a ddit ion, the downconers experience an external draq load during i | |||
poolswell. Using standard drag force calculation procedures l | |||
these loads are determined to be 0.6 and .3 KIPS per downconer, respectively and are not considered in the structural evaluation of the containment. | |||
O REV. 6, 4/82 4-18 | |||
h2s%2__29D19_!aggs Immediately following the postulated instantaneous rupture of a large primary systen pi pe , a sonic wave front is created at the (7.) break location and propagates through the drywell to the vent system. This load has been determined to be negligible and none is specified. | |||
34243xl__G9aPIRDai2R_!A!! | |||
The compressior. of the air in the drywell and vent system causes a compressive wave to be generated in the downconer water legs. | |||
This compressive wave then propagates through the pool and ca uses a dif ferential pressure loading on the submerged structures and on the vetwell wall. This load has been evaluated and is considered negligible. | |||
322.349__Iallkash_ Loads _9n_subasised_Henadaries 2 During f allback " water hammera type loads could exist if the water sluq remained intact during this phase. However available test data indicates that this does not occur and the fallback process consists of a relatively gradual settling of the pool water to its initial level as the air bubble apercolatesa upward. | |||
This is based on visual observations during the EPRI tests (Reference 32) as well as indirect evidence provided by a careful examination of pool bottom pressure forces from the 4T, EPRI, foreign licensee and Marviken tests. Thus these loads are small. | |||
and will not be considered. | |||
Es2s%2__ Ital _CltariD9_L2AdR_9D_th2_D9 ERG 952If The expulsion of the water leg in the downconers at vent clearing creates a transient water jet in the suppression pool. This iet formation may occur asymmetrically leading to lateral reaction loads on the downconer. However, this load is bounded by the load specification during chuqqing and will not be considered for containment analysis. | |||
342z!,6__ Post _Egglgygil_!gsgg Reference 46 indicates the potential for containment loading due to post poolswell waves impinging on the wetwell wall and internal components. Per the response to Question M020.8 documented in Appendix A to Reference 10a, this load is considered negligible when compared to the other design basis 6 loads. | |||
E121511__B91EniG_B192h Seismic slosh loads are defined as those hydrodynamic loads exerted on the suppression pool walls by water in the suppression pool during a seismic event. Although these loads are expected to be small in comparison with other hydrodynamic loads such as those associated with air / steam SRV discharge and LOCA poolswell | |||
.O REV. 6, 4/82 4-19 | |||
cnd etcao condon2ntion londo, they have bocn cniculated for the SSES containment evaluation, as requested by the NRC in NUREG-0487. | |||
The methodology used to calculate seismic slosh loads for the SSES containment is the SOLA-3D computer code, developed at Los lll Alamos Scientific Laboratory for multi-dimensional fluid flow analyses, including seismic slosh (Reference 71 and 72) . The code has been used for seismic slosh analysis previously, where a toroidal MK I BUR suppression pool was approrisated by an annular geometry, and excited by a simulated sinusoidal seismic event. | |||
Results of this analysis are reported in Reference 73. It was demonstrated that SOLA-3D could be used to describe suppression pool water motion for a seismic excitation applied to the containment structure. | |||
The seismic slosh analysis for SSES suppression pool has been patterned a f ter the annular suppression pool analysis described in Reference 73, with appropriate SSES suppression pool and 6 containment paramete rs used. The results of calculations are pressure-time histories, caused by water wave action, to be applied to suppression pool boundaries in manner and location similar to the method used for SRV and LOCA hydrodynamic loads. | |||
Generally, water motion above the quiescent suppression pool surface causes " wave loads" and water motion below causes | |||
" inertial loads." The inertia loads will always appear to be larger than the wave loads because the normal hydrostatic load would be included below the water surface. (For example, at 24 ft. submergence in cold water, the hydrostatic head would be g slightly more than 10 psi, giving a 10 psi bias to the inertia w loads at pool botton.) | |||
Some numerical results of the calculations are shown in Table 4-22 for the selected locations in the suppression pool. As can be observed, these pressures are small relative to those calculated for the other hydrodynamic loads. Piqures 4-62 i, 1, k, and a show typical wave motion at the four containment locations in Table 4-22. | |||
! Ez2 sed ___ThISiit_LQady Thrust loads are associated with the rapid venting of air and/or steam through the downconers. To determine this load a momentum balance for the control volume consisting of the drywell, diaphraga floor and vents is taken. Results of the analysis 2 indicates that the load reduces the downward pressure differential on the diaphraqu. | |||
32225__Lona_Ters_LDCA_19ad_D9finiti9n I The losu-of-coolant accident causes pressure and temperature transients in the drywell and vetvell due to mass and energy released from the line break. The dryvell and wetvell pressure and temperature time histories are required to establish the O | |||
REV. 6. 4/82 4-20 k | |||
-_ _ - _ . _ . . - = - . - _ _ . .. . . . _ . . - . _ - | |||
structural loading conditions in the containcent bscauco they are the basis for other containment hydrodynamic phenomena. The | |||
; response must be determined for a range of parameters such as | |||
) leak size, reactor pressure and containment initial conditions. | |||
l The results of this analysis are containment initial conditions. | |||
l The results of this analfsis are documented in Reference 7. | |||
Sa2 seal __EsaiSB_DAsis_issidsR1_JDRal_Itanaisnia The DBA LOCA for SSES is conservatively estimated to be a 3.53 l | |||
i f ta brea k of the recirculation line (Reference 7) . The SSES l plant unique inputs for this analysis are shown in Table 4-19. | |||
Drywell and wetwell pressure responses are shown in Figures 4-46 and 4-47 (extracted f rom Reference 7) . These transient l | |||
; descriptions do not, however, contain the effects of reactor | |||
! subcooling. Suppression pool temperature response is shown in l Piqure 4-48 (Reference 7) . This transient description also does l | |||
, not contain ' ~ e ef fect of reactor subcooling. Drywell temperature t monse is shown in Figure 4-49 and similarly does not contain the effects of pipe inventory or reactor subcooling. | |||
142 1,2__Interassinis_BEsak_Assidsni frBAL_IIansienta The worst-case intermediate break for the Mark II plants is a main steam line break on the order of 0.05 to 0.1 ft2 Suppression pool temperature response is shown in Piqure 4-50. | |||
Drywell temperature and vetwell and dryvell pressures for the SSES IBA are shown in Piqure 4-51. | |||
342 522__2sall_REtak_Assissat_JERA) Tranaisnia 1 | |||
IO At this time plant-unique SBA data for SSES is not available. | |||
: The wetwell and drywell pressure and temperature transients for a typical Mark II containment are used to estimate SSES containment response to these accidents. These curves are shown in Piqure 4-i 17 (extracted f rom Reference 10) . l az221__LQGA_Leadins_!1sterisa_19I_ESAE_Esniniassmi_G9annntnis The various components directly affected by LOCA loads are shown schematically in Piqures 4-53 and 4-54. These components may in turn load other ccaponents as they respond to the LOCA loads. | |||
For orample, lateral loads on the downconer vents produce minor reaction loads in- the drywell floor from which the downconers are supported. The reaction load in the drywell floor is an indirect | |||
; load resulting from the LOCA and is defined by the appropriate I structural model' of the dowacomer/drywell floor system. Only the direct loading situations are described explicitly here. Table 4-20 is a LOCA load chart for SSES. This chart shows which LOCA lodds directly affect the various structures in the SSES l containment design. Details of the loading time histories are discussed in the following subsections. | |||
l O Rev. 2, 5/80 4-21 l - - . .- . - - - - . - . -. - - . - . . -. . --- . | |||
1220 sol __L99A_L9 Ass _98_the_Eenininnsat vall_and_fedestal Fiqure 4-55 shows the LOCA loading history for the SSES containment wall and the BPy pedestal. The wetwell pressure loads apply to the unvetted elevations in the vetwell; and addition of the appropriate hydrostatic pressure is made for llh loads on the wetted elevations. Condensation oscillation and chuqqing loads are applied to the wetted elevations in the wetvell only. The poolswell air bubble load applies to the wetvell boundaries as shown in Figure 4.44. | |||
4Ls2 a122__L QG A_ L 9 a ds_9 n_t h2_Dass a al_ an d__Lin sI_ Ela19 Fiqure 4-56 shows the LOC A loading history for the SSES basemat I and liner plate. Wetvell pressures are applied to the wetted and unwetted portions of the liner plate as discussed in Subsection 4.2.6.1. The downconer water iet impacts the basemat liner plate as does the poolswell air bubble load. Chuqqing and condensation oscillation loads are applied to the vetted portion of the liner plate. | |||
Sz2istl__LRCA_L9 ads _9n_ths_DEIIsil_and_DEIEcll Floor Figure 4-57 shows the LOCA loading history for the SSES drywell and drywell floor. The dryvell floor undergoes a vertically applied, continuously varying dif ferential pressure, the upward componnnt of which is especially prominent during poolswell when the vetwell air space is highly compressed. | |||
322 sza__L2CA_L9 ads _92_the_G91sans Figure 4-58 shows the LOCA loading history for the SSES columns. O Poolswell drag and f allback loads are very minor since the column surface is oriented parallel to the pool swell a'nd fallback velocities. The poolswell air bubble, condensation oscillations and chuqqing will provide loads on the submerged (wetted) portion of the columns. | |||
E222625__L29A_L9 ads _9n_ths_D92Ds9mers Figure 4-59 shows the LOCA loading history for the SSES downconers. The downconer clearing load is a lateral load applied at the downconer exit (in the same manner as the chuqqing lateral load) plus a vertical thrust load. Poolswell drag and f allback loads are very minor since the downconer surfaces are oriented parallel to the pool swell and fallback velocities. The poolswell air bubble load is applied to the submerged portion of the downconer as are the chuqqing and condensation oscillation loads. | |||
Ex226ss__LRC A_ Loads _9 n_ths_Dnu ns222E_arasing Figure 4-60 shows the LOCA loading history for the SSES downconer bracinq system. This system is not subiect to impact loads since it is submerged at elevation 668'. As a submerged structure it h | |||
Rev. 2, 5/80 4-22 l l | |||
l l | |||
to cab 12ct to poolecoll decq, fellbcck and air bubblo loads. | |||
Condonsatica oscilleticac and ch:qqing et tho vent crit vill also load the bracing systen both through downconer reaction (indirect load) and directly through the hydrod ynamic loading in the suppression pool. | |||
h 225 7 _LDGA_L9 Ass _nn_In12sll_Rining Figure 4-61 shows the LOCA loading history for piping in the SSES wetvell. Since the wetvell piping occurs at a scriety of elevations in the SSES wetvell, sections may be completely submerged, partially submerged, or initially uncovered. Piping may occur parallel to poolswell and fallback velocities as with the main steam safety relief piping. For these reasons there are a number of potential loading situations which arise as shown in Table 4-21. In addition, the poolswell air bubble load applies to the submerged portion of the wetwell piping as do the condensation oscillation and chuqqing loads. | |||
O O | |||
Rev. 2, 5/80 4-23 | |||
L.L_AIELDLEEMMAIHTI9E The RPV shield annulus has the recirculation pumps suction lines passing through it (f or location in containment see Piqure 1- 1) . | |||
The mass and energy release rates from a postualted recirculation g; line break constitute the most severe transient in the reactor W shield annulus. Therefore, this pipe break is selected for analyzing loading of the shield vall and the reactor pressure vessel support skirt for pipe breaks inside the annulus. The reactor shield annulus differential pressure analysis and analytical techniques are presented in Appendices 6A and 6B of the SSES Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). | |||
O l | |||
1 i | |||
O | |||
~ | |||
Rev. 2, 5/80 | |||
l O | |||
This figure has been deleted i | |||
O REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT CONDENSATION PRESSURE FORCING j | |||
FUNCTIONS FIGURE 4-44 A | |||
O i | |||
This figure has been deleted O | |||
i l | |||
i l | |||
REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA feTEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT SYMMETRIC AND ASSYMMETRIC SPATIAL LOADING SPECIFICATION 1 | |||
l FIGURE 446 l | |||
\ | |||
~ l | |||
O CONTA M ENT O O O O . O O O B ING ( Y . | |||
O OOO O O90 0 | |||
; O ^O #- | |||
O .O O k.O G erO l O OgO DOWNCOMERS COLUMNS M O O 00 ',Okh/ g' S% | |||
b hR O O | |||
O O | |||
OO OO g we OO OO NOTE: | |||
ART Y SHOW IN THE INTEREST OF CLARITY. | |||
LETTERS INDICATE SRV QUENCHERS lt.V. n, 4/82 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT O SSES COMPONENTS AFFECTED BY LOCA LOADS | |||
] | |||
I FIGURE 4 53 , | |||
I | |||
(~ | |||
< b % | |||
.=* | |||
. '. ..- B.O. SLAB | |||
..- . a. i EL. 700' 3" I 1 | |||
_1 l . __ _ | |||
l l B.O. HYDROG EN l | |||
! VACUUM BREAKER RECOMBINER | |||
_ . . .)) -}s7 EL. 692* 1" i | |||
E L. 691 *-0" % %_ T.O. PLATFORM | |||
~~ ,, Y- I E,L. 691'-0" , | |||
I " N' 3 MAXIMUM POOL SWELL l 1 -~g bf EL. 690'7'' | |||
I b J ----'P r- m ...- | |||
MAXIMUM POOL SWELL HEIGHT = 1.51 X MAX \ }' | |||
/ | |||
VENT SUBMERGENCE r,e | |||
* I B . l l' Bh | |||
. *{ . | |||
1- HIGH WATER LEVEL g | |||
u n y y | |||
v | |||
[ E L. 672*-0" i 1 l BRACING sNOR.vl WATER LEVEL | |||
. E L. 668' 0"- E L. 671*-0" 4 F-4 F-MAXIMUM VENT SUBMERGENCE | |||
= 12' 0" B.O. VENT PIPE. o E L. 660' 0" , | |||
DI APHRAGM SLAB WETWELL SUPPORT COLUMN PIPING " | |||
~ | |||
12'-0" C- I :A , , | |||
3'-6" T.O. SLAB y | |||
{ ... | |||
Y E L. 648*-0" | |||
: .~ . | |||
6.. *. .. : | |||
' . '*g.j, c, R F.\' . ' , 4 / d 2 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT | |||
\ / | |||
SSES COMPONENTS AFFECTED BY LOCA LOADS FIGURE 4-54 1 | |||
O | |||
/ | |||
This figure has been deleted O | |||
REV. 6, 4/82 l SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 lO DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT e CHUGGING POOL BOUNDARY LOADS FIGURE 4-62 A & B | |||
lO l | |||
l This figure has been deleted O | |||
J | |||
, 1 REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 O DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT CHUGGING POOL BOUNDARY LOADS FIGURE 4-62 C & D t - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ | |||
O This figure has been deleted O | |||
REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT CHUGGING POOL BOUNDARY LOADS FIGURE 4-62 E & F | |||
O = | |||
i URVE HEIGHT (!=2, J=2, IJPL) a E | |||
k 2 | |||
02 SE i | |||
:s i Eh ! | |||
a 28 Ei i | |||
t O i A ' | |||
& l 8 | |||
2 3 | |||
a | |||
! 1.es s'.ea 4'.e3 e'. e3 e'. st ib.si l'a.el ' it.e ab.oe it.oo ab.es X-TIME (SEcl i | |||
l l | |||
REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND.2 O DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT TYPICALWAVENOTIONDUE TO SEISMIC SLOSH FIGURE 4-21 | |||
URVE HEICHT(I=2,J=JMI,IJPL) h | |||
. J | |||
. $d 4 | |||
. 3 | |||
$ Y g di f f l | |||
-c T f I | |||
i s3 h p bx- f E | |||
15 g ra kY f k 3 ES | |||
,; M "E | |||
A % | |||
d0 | |||
, O :. E 66 4m 1 a is | |||
" :).oi ib.si ib.co ib.oo ab.co 5.e3 2'.e3 e'.e3 s'. e2 e'. si l's.oi X-TIME ISECl f | |||
REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT O ryric,ewayEr.311on DUE To SEISMIC SLOSH FIGURE ll@J | |||
O i - | |||
unve seicnicr=isi.2=2,ize | |||
< 2 3 | |||
"$ d 3 | |||
6 1N t t-3 4 4 hk E | |||
3 bk R sk l d s ."J l 5 "5, 4 | |||
d ! | |||
> a O ae f | |||
J, S 5d l | |||
4 2 66 | |||
\. E \ | |||
o .: ' | |||
'b.es 2'. e2 e'.e2 ..e2 o'. si ib.es t's.es i sk.e th.oo it.oo ab.es X-TIME (SECl i | |||
REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT TYICALWAVElhTION DUE To SEISMIC SLOSH | |||
. F GURE lj-62K | |||
h UAVE HEICHT(l=lH1,J=JH1,IJPL) e R-E 9 | |||
08 bi E | |||
E! | |||
x4 U | |||
ES f Y | |||
- \ | |||
\ | |||
O 2 | |||
A | |||
~ | |||
8 6 | |||
l 3 \ | |||
k.sa a'.o2 4'. sa s'. o2 o'. cl ib.ci Q.oi ib.on A co Ib.co ab.co X-TlHE ISECl l | |||
SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 , | |||
DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT | |||
:O 1YPICAL WAVE I'bTION i | |||
DUEToSEISMICSLOSH FIGURE 4-@ | |||
Table 4-22 O- Sloshing Wave Height Time of Max. HF2, (2,2) HF3, (2,17) HBK2, (7,2) HBK3, (7,17) | |||
Height I = 2, J = 2 I = 2, J = 17 I = 7, J = 2 I = 7, J = 17 sec. ft. ft. ft, ft 25.40 14.0 (1.40) 9.90 25.80 (1.80) 17.50 25.60 (1.60) 12.90 25.95 (1.95) s 3 71 ! 1 I I i l | |||
U V Fig. 4-62h Fig. 4-62m Fig. 4-621 Fig. 4-62j Note: * = Shows location | |||
() = Inside bracket is the net wave height frm the initial position 24 ft. frm the bottm of tank. | |||
I = Mesh nunbers on the radius fra inside to outside. | |||
J = Circumferential division numbers. | |||
REV. 6, 4/82 l | |||
CHAPTER S | |||
,- LOAD COMBINATIONS FO R S TR UCT U R ES , PIPING, | |||
(_j AND EQUIPMENT | |||
__ _________T A B L E_ O F . CORIZ1T S 5.1 CorORETE CONTAINMENT AND REACTOR BUILDING LOAD 1 COMBINATIONS ; | |||
5.2 STRUCTURAL STEEL LOAD COMBINATIONS 5.3 LINER PLATE LOAD COMBINATIONS 5.4 DOW NCOMER LOAD COMBINATIONS 5.5 PIPING, QUENCHER, AND QUENCHER SUPPORT LOAD 1 COMBINATIONS 5.5.1 Load Considerations for Piping Inside the Drywell 5.5.2 Load Considerations for Piping Inside the Wetwell 5.5.3 Quencher and Quencher Support Load Considerations 5.5.4 Load Considerations for Piping in the Reactor Building | |||
{} | |||
5.6 NSSS LO AD COMBIN ATIONS 5.7 BALA:#CE OF PLANT (BOP) EQUIPMENT LO AD COMBIN ATIONS l6 5.8 ELECTRICAL RACEWAY SYSTEM LOAD COMBINATIONS HVAC 5.9 DUCT SYSTEM LOAD COMBINATIONS 2 | |||
5.10 FIGURES 5.11 TABLES | |||
(~) | |||
v l | |||
REV. 6, 4/82 5- 1 l | |||
l . | |||
CHAPTER 5 ZIEEEli g Ellahgr 1111g 5-1 Piping Stress Diagrams and Tables 5-2 Pipidq Stress Diagrams and Tables 5-3 Piping Stress Diagrams and Tables 5-4 Piping Stress Diagrams and Tables O | |||
i l | |||
O 3ev. 2, 5/80 5-2 | |||
CH APTER 5 IA]ggs O,' E9EkSE 1Ah19 5-1 Load Combinations for Containment and Reactor Building Concrete Structures Considering 1 Hydrodynamic Loads 5-2 Load Combinations and Allowable Stresses for Structural Steel Components 5-3 Load Combinations and Allowable Stresses for Downconers 5-4 Load Combinations and Allowable Stresses 2 For Balance of Plant (BOP) Equipment 5-5 Load Combinations and Allowable Stresses for NSSS Equipment and Piping 6 | |||
5-6 Load Combinations and Allowable Stresses for the Electrical Raceway Systen O | |||
O REV. 6, 4/82 5-3 | |||
i 5.0 - LO A D CO3]IN ATIONS _ EOR _ STRUCTURES, PIPING,_AND EQUIPMENT To verify the adequacy of mechanical and structural design, it is necessary first to define the load combinations to which structures, piping, and equipment may be subjected. In addition lll to the loads due to pressure, weight, thermal expansion, seismic, and fluid transients, hydrodynamic loads resulting from LOCA and SHV discharge are considered in the design of structures, piping, and equipment in the drywell and suppression po*l. This chapter specifies how the LOCA and SRV discharge hydrodynamic loads will be combined with the other loading conditions. For the load combinations discussed in this chapter, seismic and hydrodynamic responses are combined by the methods specified in Reference 10 subsection 5.2.2 and Reference 10 Section 6.3. | |||
O l | |||
l l | |||
l l | |||
l O | |||
l l | |||
Rev. 2, 5/80 5-4 l | |||
Esk- R222 k9hD G9BDIu ngyy O 26 to a co 61 tiea ea ter **e and equipment are contained in Table 5-5. | |||
1 eta = ei **e asss 9191 9 e | |||
i 1 | |||
1 i | |||
:O 4 | |||
4 i | |||
I. | |||
!O I | |||
l l | |||
REV. 6. 4/82 5-11 l_ | |||
i 6 | |||
Load combinations for seismic category I equipment located within the Containment, reactor and control buildings are assessed for 2 the load combinations shown in Table 5-4. | |||
O O | |||
REV. 6, 4/82 5-12 | |||
l l | |||
: 5. 8 _ELEGIBIGAL_RAGEMAJ_HIETEL19AD_G93Hunggg The load combinations for evaluating the Electrical Raceway O System are given in Table 5-6. | |||
l O | |||
O REY. 6, 4/82 5-13 : | |||
I | |||
5.9 HV AC_ DUCT SYSTEH_LO AD COMBI N ATIONS The load combination for the HVAC duct system are given in Table 5-2. | |||
h 1 | |||
i l | |||
l O | |||
l O | |||
5-14 Rev. 2, 5/80 | |||
thDkR 5:5 kD D GDilD U A119 M h D hkk9 0 DLR 2TEREERD | |||
[~)~ | |||
~- EQR DALARGR 91 EkhBT-.lBOP) ZD0iPURT l6 REMa119D C9Bd11193 Load Combination Stress Limit 2 1 Normal D+L+SRV P s | |||
w/o Temp S pr. | |||
2 Normal D +L +T + P+ S 3V F s | |||
. w/ Temp & pr. | |||
3 Abnormal / Severe D + L + T + P + E + S R V + L OC A 1. 5 F s 4 Abnormal / Extreme D +L + T+ P + E ' + SR V+ LOCA 1.5F s whern F = Allowable stress for normal conditions S | |||
D = Dead Load L = Li ve Load 2 P = Pressure loads during operating conditions l including pressure gradieats and equpment and pipe I reactions, i | |||
l | |||
() T = Thermal effects during normal operating conditions including temperature gradients and equipment and I pipe reactions. | |||
E = Loads due to operating basis ea rthqua ke E' = Loads due to Safe Shutdown earthquake SRV = Loads due to Main Steam Safety relief valve operation LOCA = Loads due to Loss-of-Coolant Accident occurrence, l | |||
O REV. 6, 4/82 | |||
TABLE 5-5 LOAD COMBINATION AND ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA | |||
() FOR ASME CODE CLASS 1, 2 AND 3 NSSS PIPING AND EQUIPMENT Desig n Evalua tion (Service 19ad_G9thiantisd Ensis_ __ Basis ___ _Levell N + SRY Upset Upset (B) | |||
N + OBE Ups et Upset (B) | |||
N + OBE + SRT Energency Upset (B) | |||
N+ SSE + SRY Faulted Faulted * (D) | |||
N + SBA + SRY Energency Energencr* (C) | |||
N + IB A + SRV Faulted Faulted * (D) | |||
N + SBA + SRV Energency Ene rge ncy? (C) | |||
N + SBA + OBE + SRY Faulted Faulted * (D) | |||
N + IB A + OBE + SPV Faulted Faulted * (D) | |||
/ N + SBA/IBA + SSE + SRV Faulted Faulted * (D) | |||
N + LOCA** + SSE Faulted Faulted * (D) | |||
=_ | |||
LOAD DEFINITION LEGEND | |||
! Norma l ( N) - | |||
Normal and/or abnormal loads depending on acceptance criteria. | |||
OBE - | |||
Operational basis earthquake loads. | |||
SSE - | |||
Safe Shutdown earthquake loads. | |||
SRY - | |||
Loads associated with Safety Relief Valve 1.ct uatio n. | |||
O REV. 6, 4/82 | |||
k9AD 99BBIBA119E thDLR (Cont.) | |||
The loss of coolant accident associated with the | |||
() | |||
LOCA1 postulated pipe rupture of large pipes (e.g., main steam, feedvater, recirculation piping) . | |||
LOCA - | |||
Pool swell dggg/fallhagl_lgggg on piping and 2 | |||
componentslocated between the main vent discharge outlet and the suppression pool water upper surface. | |||
LOC & - | |||
Pool swell 13Eget loadg on piping and components 3 | |||
located above the suppression pool water upper surface. | |||
LGCA4 - | |||
Oscillating pressure induced loads on submerged piping and components during condensation i oscillations. | |||
LOCA S - | |||
Building motion induced loads from chugging. | |||
i LOCA - | |||
Vertical and horizontal loads on main vent piping. i 6 | |||
LOCA - | |||
Annulus pressurization loads. | |||
7 i | |||
SBA - | |||
The abnormal transients associated with a Small Break Accident. | |||
IBA - | |||
The abnormal transients associated with an IntermediatG i | |||
() Break Accident. | |||
i i | |||
t | |||
* All ASME Code Class 1, 2, and 3 piping systems which are I | |||
required to function for safe shutdown under the postula ted events shall meet the requirements of NRC's " Interim Technical Position - Functional Capability of Passive Components" - by MEB. | |||
** The most limiting case of load combination among LOCA 1 through LOCA . | |||
7 O | |||
REV. 6. 4/82 | |||
T A BLE 5-6 LOAD COMBINATIONS AND ALLOWABLE O s 85ssis rs" '""_252sts1. sat 82si"a1 s'S'm L9Ad_Co#b1ER119s AllnEahls_S1Esases | |||
: 1. D+L+SRY F | |||
: 2. D+L+E Note 2 | |||
: 3. D+E'+SRY+LOCA Note 2 NOTES: | |||
: 1. For notations, see Table 5-2. | |||
: 2. For detailed discussion, see Subsection 3.7b.3.1.6.1 of the SSES FSAR. | |||
O O | |||
REV. 6, 4/82 | |||
6.5 PIPING, QUENCHER, AND QUENCHER SUPPORT CAPABILITY ASSESS _qENT CRE ERIA _ | |||
Piping in the containment and reactor building is analyzed in accordance with Reference 29 Subsections NB3600, NC3600, and l ND3600 for the loading described in Subsection 5.5. | |||
The quencher is designed in accordance with Reference 29, l Subsection NC3200,for loading discussed in Subsection 5.5.3. The quencher support is designed in accordance with Subsection NF3000 of Reference 29. l O | |||
l . | |||
l Rev. 2, 5/80 | |||
szf__RE!!_GAEADILITY ASggSSng3I_CRIIgEIA The capability assessment criteria used for the analysis of NSSS piping systems, reactor pressure vessel (RPV), RPV su pports, RPY internal components and floor structure mounted equipment are shown in Table 5-5, Load Combinations and Acceptance Criteria. | |||
Table 5-5 is in agreement with a conservative general interpretation of the NBC technical position, " Stress Limits for 6 ASME Class 1, 2 and 3 Components and component Supports of Safety-Related Systems and Class CS Core Support Structures Under specific Service Loading Combinations." | |||
Peak response due to related dynamic loads postulated to occur in the same time f rame but f rom different events are combined by the square-root-of-the-sun-of-the-squares method (SRSS) . A detailed discussion of this load combination technique is presented in Reference 80. | |||
O O | |||
REY. 6, 4/82 6-8 i | |||
i | |||
1,2__aALAEB_9Z_fLAH_lDQEL_IDMfHg_cag1ginI_ ASSESSgitT CRITEH_A 6.7.1.1 Seismic Category I BOP equipment located within the | |||
() containment, reactor and control building are assessed for load combinations shown in Table S-4. In these load 6 combinations, seismic and hydrodynamic loads are generally combined using the absolute sua method. | |||
6.7.1.2 However, for the " marginal" cases the responses of the | |||
" dynamic" events (Seismic, SRV, LOCA) are combined by the square root of the sum of the squares (SRSS) method before adding these values to the other loads by the absolute sum (ABS) method. The mariaua loading effects of both the horizontal and vertical directions are considered as arising from simultaneous excitation in all three principal directions for all combinations involving dynamic loads as detailed in Subsection 7.1.7.4.1.3. | |||
6.7.2 Tgsting 6.7.2.1 When equipment is qualified by testing, the test 19119RE have 31EMlgigd the combinations and damping. The equipment have remained operational and functional, 2 before, during and after such tests. | |||
(a) OBE alone - | |||
1/21 damping (b) SSE alone - | |||
1% damping (c) SRY alone O 2% damping (d) LOCA alone - | |||
25 damping (e) OBE+SRV+LOCA - | |||
2% damping (f) SSE+SRV+LOCA - | |||
2% damping 6.7.2.2 Cases (a) and (b) are covered in the FSAR. Cases (c) and (d) are covered in the test evaluation for (e) and (f) . Test requirements are depicted by tests' response spectrum (TR S) for a given damping value. Equipment is deemed to be qualified if the equipment did not fail or malfunction during the test and the TRS envelope the required response Spectrum (RRS). The RRS for cases (e) and (f) are obtained by combining the response spectrum of the individual components of each event by adding the larger of the horizontal responses to the vertical responses on an absolute sua basis. However, for 6 marginal cases the square root of sua of the squares (SRSS) method is allowed for the individual dynamic events and components. | |||
O REY. 6, 4/82 6-9 | |||
L H__ELESIBIGAL_EASEHAY s YgIILCARADILIII_ A!!ISSHERI_CR IT EEIA The allowable stresses for the Electricl Raceway System are contained in Table 5-6. g O | |||
l O | |||
REV. 6, 4/82 6-10 | |||
CHAPTER 7 DESIGN ASSESSMENT O I&BLE_9f_GQ!IEHIS 7.1 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY 7.1.1 Containment and Reactor Building Assessment Methodology 7.1.1.1 Containment Structure 7.1.1.1.1 Hydrodynamic Loads 7.1.1.1.1.1 Structural Models 7.1.1.1.1.2 Damping 7.1.1.1.1.3 Fluid-Structure Interactions 7.1.1.1.1.4 Supplementary Computer Program 2 7.1.1.1.1.5 Load Application 7.1.1.1.1.5.1 SRV Discharge loads 7.1.1.1.1.5.2 LOCA Relate $ Loads 7.1.1.1.1.6 Analysis 7.1.1.1.1.6.1 Response Spectrum Analysis 7.1.1.1.1.6.2 Stress Analysis 7.1.1.1.2 Seismic Loads 7.1.1.1.3 Static and Thermal Loads 7.1.1.1.4 Load Combinations . | |||
7.1.1.1.5 Design Assessment 7.1.1.1.6 Equipment Hatch 7.1.1.1.6.1 Structural Model 7.1.1.1.6.1 Loads and Load Combinations 6 Os 7.1.1.1.6.3 Design Assessment 7.1.1.2 Reactor and Control Building 7.1.1.2.1 Hydrodynamic Loads 7.1.1.2.1.1 Structural Model 7.1.1.2.1.2 Load Application 2 | |||
7.1.1.2.1.2.1 SRV Discharge loads 7.1.1.2.1.2.2 LOCA Related Loads 7.1.1.2.1.3 Analysis 7.1.1.2.1.3.1 Response Spectrum Analysis 7.1.1.2.1.3.2 Stress Analysis 7.1.1.2.2.2 Seismic Loads 7.1.1.2.3 Static and Thermal Loads l3 7.1.1.2.4 Load Combinations 7.1.1.2.5 Design Assessment 2 7.1.2 Structure Steel Assessment Methodology 7.1.2.1 -Downconer Bracing 7.1.2.1.1 Bracing System Description 7.1.2.1.2 Structural Models 7.1.2.1.3 Loads 7.1.2.1.3.1 SRV Discharge Loads 7.1.2.1.3.2 LOCA Related Loads 7.1.2.1.3.3 Seismic Loads 6 7.1.2.1.3.4 Static & Thermal Loads | |||
! 7.1.2.1.4 Load Combinations 7.1.2.1.5 Design Assessment | |||
() 7.1.2.2 SRV Support and Column REV. 6, 4/82 7-1 | |||
7.1.2.2.1 Description of SRV Support Assembies and Suppression Chamber Columns 7.1.2.2.2 Structural Models g 7.1.2.2.3 Loa ds W 7.1.2.2.3.1 SRV Discharge Loads 7.1.2.2.3.2 LOCA Related Loads 6 7.1.2.2.3.3 Seismic Load 7.1.2.2.3.4 Static Load 7.1.2.2.3.5 Load combinations 7.1.2.2.3.6 Design Assessment 7.1.2.3 openings in Containment Liner 7.1.2.3.1 Equipment Hatch-Personnel Air Lock 7.1.2.3.2 CRD Removal Ha tch, etc. | |||
7.1.2.3.3 Refueling Head & Support Skirt 7.1.3 Liner Plate Ass-assment Methodology 7.1.4 Downconer Asses;aent Met ho dolo gy 2 7.1.4.1 Downconer Systes Description 7.1.4.2 Structural Model 7.1.4.3 Loads and Load Combinations 7.1.4.4 Design Assessment 7.1.4.5 Patique Evaluation of Downconers in Wetvell Airspace 7.1.4.5.1 Loads and Load Combinations Used for Assessment 5 Acceptance Criteria l 7.1.4.5.2 7.1.4.5.3 Method of Analysis 7.1.4.5.4 Results and Design Margins 7.1.5 BOP Piping and SRV System Assessment Methodology 7.1.5.1 Fatique Evaluation of SRV Discha rge Lines in | |||
! Wetvell Air Volume 7.1.5.1.1 7.1.5.1.2 Loads and Load Combinations Used for Assessment Acceptance Criteria lll 7.1.5.1.3 Methods of Analysis 7.1.5.1.4 Results and Design Margins 6 7.1.6 NSSS Assessment Methodology | |||
; 7.1.6.1 NSSS Qualification Methods l | |||
7.1.6.1.1 NSSS Piping 7.1.6.1.2 Valves 7.1.6.1.3 Reactor Pressure Vessel, Supports and Internal Components 7.1.6.1.4 Ploor Structure Mounted Equipmen t 7.1.6.1.4.1 Qualification Methods 7.1.6.1.4.1.1 Dynamic Analysis 7.1.6.1.4.1.1.1 Methods and Procedures 7.1.6.1.4.1.2 Testing 7.1.6.1.4.1.3 Combined Analysis and Testing 7.1.6.1.4.2 Computer Programs 7.1.7 Balance of Plant (BOP)- Equipment Assessment Methodology 7.1.7.1 Hydrodynamic Loads 7.1.7.1.1 SRV Discharge Loads 7.1.7.1.2 LOCA Related Loads 2 7.1.7.2 Seismic Loads 7.1.7.3 Other Loads 7.1.7.4 Qualification Methods 7.1.7.4.1 7.1.7.4.1.1 Dynamic Analysis Methods and Procedures g | |||
REV. 6, 4/82 7- 2 | |||
7.1.7.4.1.2 Appropriate Damping Values 7.1.7.4.1.3 Three Components of Dynamic Motions Testing 2 r' 7.1.7.4.2 | |||
\ 7.1.7.4.3 Combined Analysis and Testing 7.1.8 Electrical Raceway Systea Assessment Methodology 7.1.8.1 General 7.1.8.2 Loads 7.1.8.2.1 Static Loads S 7.1.8.2.2 Seismic Loads 7.1.8.2.3 Hydrodynamic Loads 7.1.8.3 Analytical Methods 7.1.9 HVAC Duct Systen Assessment Methodology 7.2 DESIGN CAPABILITY MARGINS 7.2.1 Stress Margins 7.2.1.1 Containment Structure 2 7.2.1.2 Reactor and Control Building 7.2.1.3 Suppression Chamber Columns 7.2.1.4 Downconer Bracing 7.2.1.5 Liner Plates 7.2.1.6 Downconers 7.2.1.7 Electrical Raceway System 7.2.1.8 HVAC Duct Syst em - | |||
7.2.1.9 BOP Equipment 7.2.1.10 NSSS Equipment 6 7.2.11 NSSS and BOP Piping 7.2.2 Acceleration Response Spectra | |||
() 7.2.2.1 7.2.2.2 Containment Structure Reactor and Control Building 2 | |||
7.2.3 Containment Liner Openings 7.2.3.1 Equipment Hatch - Personnel Airlock 6 | |||
7.2.3.2 CRD Removal Hatch, etc. | |||
7.2.3.3 Refueling Head and Support Skirt 7.3 FIGURES 2 l | |||
l O | |||
REV. 6, 4/82 7-3 J | |||
CH APTER 7 EIGHBES Huaher Title O | |||
7-1 3-D Containent Finite Element Model ( A NS YS MOD EL) 2 7-2 Equivalent Modal Damping Ratio vs. Modal Frequency For Structural Stiffness - Proportional - Damping 7-3 Finite Eldaent Soil - Structure Interaction Model 7-4 Containment Responsa Analysis 7-5 Containment Stress Analysis 7-6 Finite Element Containment Equipment Hatch Model 7-7 Reactor Building Response Analysis 7-8 Reactor Building Stress Analysis 7-9 Downcomer Bracing System - Plan View 7-10 Downconer Bracing System - Connection Details 7-11 Downconer Bracing System - Compu ter M3 del 7-12 SRV Support System - Plan View 6 7-13 SRV Support System Details 7-14 Finite Element Model of Column 7-15 Finite Element Model of Column 7-16 General Arrangemen t - Personnel Lock 7- 17 Equipment Door Details 7-18 CRD Hatch Details 7- 19 Refueling Head Details 7-20 Liner Plate Hydrodynamic Press 9te Due to Chugging 7-21 Liner Plate Pressure - Normal Conditions 7-22 Liner Plate Hydrodynamic Pressure Due to Chuqqing and SRV 7-23 Liner Plate Pressure - Abnormal Condition 7-24 Downcomer with Vacuum Breaker and Detail of Cap 9 | |||
REV. 6, 4/82 7-4 | |||
e | |||
[lgMEJS (Cont.) | |||
O 7-25 Downconer Without Vacuum Breaker 6 | |||
7-26 Location Where Downconer Fatique Analysis was Performed O | |||
-O l REV. 6, 4/82 5 | |||
CH APTER 7 IMLES E9Bber Title O' | |||
7-1 Maximum Spectral Accelerations of Containment Due to SRV and 3 LOCA Loads at 11 Damping 7-2 Maximum Spectral Accelerations of Reactor and Control Buildings Due to SRV and LOC 4 at 1% Damping 5l 7-3 Usage Factor Summary of Downconers 7-4 Usage.Pactor Summary of SRV Discharge Lines 7-5 Downconer and Bracing System Modal Frequencies s | |||
O O | |||
REV. 6, 4/82 7-6 | |||
i 2.9__DIEI91_AESE2155!I Loads on SSES structures, piping, and equipment are defined in | |||
() Chapter 4. The methods by which these loads are combined are discussed in Chapter S. The criteria for establishing design capability are stated in Chapter 6. | |||
This chapter describes the assessment of the adequacy of the SSES design by comparing design capabilities with the loadings to which structures, piping, and components are subjected and demonstrating the extent of the design margin. The first section of this chapter discusses the methodology by which design capability and loads are compared. The second section summarizes the results of these comparisons. | |||
O O | |||
v | |||
.Rev. 2, 5/80 7-7 | |||
2 l__ ASSESS 5EHI_3EIH9D9L99I Islal__ Containment _and_Reast9r_Du11 ding _ Ass 9sss991_5cih9d91992 2nlninl__caniaLonent_Ettnatuce 0 | |||
2ilalaltl__ Hidr 9dInaals_ Leads Zal.Itatlal__ structural _59dels The dynamic analysis for the structural response of the 2 | |||
containment and internal structures due to the SRV discharge loads and LOCA loads is performed using the finite element 6l 6 method. The ANSYS (see Ref erence 75 and 76) finite element computer program was chosen for the transient d ynamic analysis. | |||
' Piqure 7-1 shows the ANSYS finite element model. Bean elements and spar elements are used for the stabilizer truss. Lumped mass elements are used for the RPV internals and suppression pool fluid. Spring-damper elements are used to model the rock f ou nd a tion. The ANSYS model includes a total of 761 elements and 200 dynamic degrees of freedom. | |||
The soil structure interaction is taken into consideration by modelling the soil using a series of discrete springs and dampers in three directions as shown in Fiqure 7-1. The properties of the discrete springs and dampers are calculated based on the f ormu lae for lumped parameter foundations found in Reference 33. | |||
The validity of this soil model is proven by comparing the results with those of an independent model which represents the soil by finito elements. | |||
W It121titiz2_Eamnins | |||
: a. Structural Damping Tne equations of motion for a discretized structure must includo a tera to account for viscous damping that is 2 linearly proportional to the velocity. The equations of motion for a damped systen are: | |||
[N)Id + [C] [r} + (K) fr} = R(t)) | |||
where [Cl is the viscous damping matrix. | |||
A viscous damping matrix of the form | |||
[C] = a [M] + 8 [c] was used (Rulerence 53). | |||
Whe re a and B are proportionality constants which relate damping to the velocity of the nodes and the strain rates respectively. This damping matrir leads to the following relation betyeen aand 8 and the dampiel ratio of the ith g mode Ci: w c1= a /2w + Sw t/2 REV. 6, 4/82 ~0 | |||
,r where vi is the natural frequency of the ith mode. Par the l usual case of only structural damping, a = 0 and theref ore l 6 = 2C /v . | |||
l since only a single value of Bis permitted in the ANSYS input, the most dominant natural frequency of the structure is selected for the computation of 8 (See Reference 54) . | |||
A value of 6 aqual to 0.00063 is used in the ANSYS model which corresponds to structural sodal damping of approminately 4 percent of critical at 20 Hz.which is the most dominant natural frequency of the structure. | |||
Figure 7-2 shows modal damping ratio versus modal f requency for structural stif fness-proportional-damping. | |||
: b. Soil Springs and Radiation Damping The elastic half-space theory as described by Reference 33 (DG-Igg-4 A Rev. 3) were used to compute the values of the Spring Constants and dampers in the horizontal and vertical directions (qi , Ky , Cg&Cy). The following parameters are used to represent the rock foundation: | |||
G = Shear Modulus of foundation medium | |||
= 1.154 x 103 KSI v = Poisson's ratio of foundation medius | |||
= 0.3 V, = Shear wave velocity | |||
= 6180 ft/sec From which we get the following: | |||
K g | |||
= 3.37 X 106 K/in Cg = 1.57 X 10+ K-sec/in K = 3.96 x 106 K/in v | |||
Cy = 2.72 X 10* K-sec/in The above lumped foundation springs and dampers were then distributed to every node on the basemat according-to the tributary area. | |||
(v~) . | |||
Rev. 2, 5/80 7,9 | |||
Zilalalt1zl__Eluid:structuEc_IntuEact19n Por the application of SRV loads described in Section 4.1, a finite element model of the containment was developed in which the suppression pool water was included. The water mass constitutes only one seventh of the total mass of the reinforced concrete structure. The model used considers fluid-structure cou pling by lumping the water mass in the suppression pool at each nodal point of the vetted surface. The weighted area approach is considered to determine the fluid mass at each node 6 | |||
of the suppression pool. | |||
For the application of the LOCA steam condensation loads, based on the containment vall pressure time histories calcula ted by the acoustic methodology (see S ubsection 9.5.3. 4.1 an d 9. 5. 3. 4. 2) , | |||
the water ma ss was orcluded. The orclusion of the wa te r-ma ss is due to the fact that fluid structure interaction was already considered during the pressure time history calcula tione (Reference 65). | |||
2 la121slz.4__gEDD12E2RidEY_CQED21CE_EIQ9E1ES Supplomontary computer programs were used for preprocessing and postprocessing of data generated for or by the ANSYS computer program. | |||
A preprocessing progran called CHUG was developed to convert the pressure time history forcinq functions into concentrated force time - history forcinq functions acting of the A NSYS model. The program writes at the associated nodes the nodal forces ento a lll file for processing by ANSYS. | |||
A postprocessor program was developed to calculate the accelera tion time history. This program is called DISQ. It 2 reads the structural response displacement time his to ries generated from ANSYS displacements, scans the maximum displacements and generates the acceleration time histories using the Past Pourier Transformation method. | |||
flec ht el inhouse computer prog ram MSPEC was used to compute the accelera tion response spectrum obtained f rom DISQ. The program also performs plotting and broadening of the spectrum. | |||
l A computer program ENVLP was developed to generate envelopes of a i number of spectrum obtained from MSPEC. | |||
Computer program PORCE was developed to scan the maximum absolute stresses generated by ANS YS st ress pa ss. A f urther e xpla na tion of PORCE is found in Subsection 7.1.1.1.1.6.2. | |||
Verification of CHUG, DISO, ENVLP and PORCE are available for review. | |||
O REV. 6, 4/82 7-10 | |||
2sizl21-1z1__L9ad_Analisation l 11111xin1ths1- SEE DLEGhtr19_k2949 The SRY loads have been defined in Section 4.1 based on KWU SRV 6 Traces #76, 82 and 35. | |||
To obtain the marinua response of the containment due to bubble oscillation, a wide range of frequency content of the forcinq function is considered. | |||
The range of frequencies specified by KWU is between 55% and 110% | |||
of the f requencies of the three original traces as present in 2 Subsection 4.1.3.5. | |||
Based on the natural frequencies and the mode shapes of the primary containment as shown in Appendir B-1, five difforent frequencies in the range specified are selected in order to obtain t he maximum structural response. The five f requency values are considered for each of the three original KWU pressure-time history traces which result in fifteen pressure-time histories to be considered. | |||
As described in subsection 4.1.3, f our pressure distributions 16 depending upon the number of valves actuated are considered; i.e., "All valve, ADS , as ysset ric, and single valve". However, the azimuth distribution on the periphery indicates tha t the all valve case governs the ADS case for the symmetric loading and the 2 | |||
! (, ~') asyanetric case governs the single valve case for the asymmetric v loading. Therefore, the design assessment is based on only two cases, i . e. , " symmetric and asyneetric". | |||
2nini,.1sisSs 2- LOCA EsLsted_Lende i The LOCA loads are based on LOCA steam condensation tests perftimed by Kraftwek Union AG (KUU) at their GKM-II-M test 6 facility. Section 9.0 describes the test facility, test matrix, test results and the GKM-II-M LOCA load definition developed - to re-evaluate SSES for chuqqing and condensation oscillation. | |||
2.1.1.1 sits _ analIsen 2ximisititis1 _Ecs290st_Seestrum_AnalIsla The structural finite element model of containment as outlined in Subanction 7.1.1.1.1.1 is solved by " Reduced Linear Transient Dynamic Analysis" of the ANSYS computer program. The description of the analysis and the data input are contained in Ref6 ences 75 and 76, respectively. 6 For each set of pressure time histories, based on the analytical procedure in Figure 7-4, acceleration response spectra were generated at 52 dynamic ' degrees of freedom in the containment. | |||
-The response spectra of several frequencies, traces, load REV. 6, 4/G2 7-11 | |||
conditions and nodal points were envelbped into one set of response spectra curves which represent SRV and LOCA. | |||
The response spectra were generated in two pairs of damping values, the low and the high dampings. The low damping values g 6 are 0.5, 1, 2 and 5 percent of critical, and the high damping values a re 7, 10, iS and 20 percent of critical. The peak frequencies of the spectra are broadened by 15% and 20% f or low | |||
. and high damping values, respectively. | |||
Appendix B contains the above response spectra for low damping values at 9 locations. | |||
Imlzlilzltst2__ Stress Analysis The ANSYS computer program (st ress pass) is used to compute the force and moment resultants due to SHV and LOCA relat ed loads. A postprocessor program called " FORCE" is developed and used to scan for the maximum absolute values of forces and moments in the azimuth direction. | |||
A multiplier factor for the force and moment resultants due to 3 | |||
SRV loads ha s been established to cover for all the range of f requencies as specified in Subsection 7.1.1.1.1.5.1. The f ollowing procedure is used to establish the multiplier- . | |||
A statistical analysis of all the forces and moments obtained from the three traces with varying frequencies in the range specified is performed. Trace number 82 is taken as the base to establish a multiplier factor to cover the other 2 traces and the variation of frequencies since it is observed to develop the llh highest stresses at most cross-sections. A multiplication factor of 1. 7 is esta blished to be applied to the resultant forces and moments from Trace 882 SRY discharge loading. | |||
The forces a nd moments due to Chuqqing and Condensation Oscil la t ion (CO) loads are considered. From the response spec tra plots of Chuqqing and CO loads, it was found that KWU Sources 306 and 303 were the controlling cases. Therefore, these two load cases have been analyzed for stresses in containment. The displacement-time histories obtained from the GKM-II-M load 6 definition (see Subsection 9.5.3) a re inputted to A NSYS computer model. A post processor program called SCALE was used to scan for the maximum values of forces and moments in the azimuth direction for each load case. For the containment sections shown in Piqure A-2, the envelope of force resultants for all the load cases was inputted to the CECAP computer analysis (Refer to Flow Chart, Piq. 7-5, for further information) . | |||
2xl.121.2__seismis_L9 ads i | |||
Seismic loads constitute a significant loading in the strucutral 2 assessment. The same seismic loads as those used in the initia l bu ild ing design are used. In that design, a dynamic analysis was made using discrete mathematical idealization of the entire ggg REV. 6, 4/82 7-12 | |||
structure using lumped masses. Thn resulting axial forces, moments, and shear at various levels due to the Operating Basis Earthquake and the Safe Shutdown Earthquake are used (see section 2 | |||
/~N 3.7 of PS AR) . The effects of the seismic overturning moment and kl vertical accelerations are converted into forces at the elements. | |||
As required by NUREG 0487, the effect of sloshing on the containment due to horizontal and vertical SSE is invetigated by performing a time-history analysis. As described in Subsection 4.2.4.7, pressure time histories due to seismic slosh were generated for input to the ANSYS model shown in Piqure 7-1. 6 The response spectra generated from the seismic slosh load'are presented in Piqures B- 51 to B-58. By inspection, th e peaks are small. | |||
2titlilta__s ta tic _and_Ihntual_19 ads The loads under consideration are the static loads (d ea d load and accident pressure) and temperature loads (operating a nd accident t em pe ra t ure) which are all axisymmetrical. . | |||
: a. To analyze the above static loads, an inhouse computer prog ra m FINEL is used. Moments, axial and shear forces are computed by FINEL in an uncracked arisyametric finite element containment model. | |||
: b. The operating and accident temperature gradients are 2 | |||
gm computed using ME 620 computer program (Bechtel program) . | |||
? This procedure is discussed in Subsection 3.8.4.1 of the FSAR. | |||
: c. The results from a, b and the dynamic / seismic analysis are combined and applied to a containment element. The element contains data relative to rebar location, direction and qua ntit y and concrete properties. Within that wall element an equilibrium of f orces and strains compa tibility is established by allowing the concrete to crack in tension. | |||
In this way the stresses in the rebar and concrete are determined. The program used for this analysis is called CECAP. For further explanation, see Figure 7-5. [6 Islal 1t4__L9ad_C9mbinati9as | |||
- All load combinations from 1 through 7a as presented on Table 5-1 have been a nalyzed. This was done under step c of Subsection 7.1.1.1. 3 a bove. If all the SRV actuation cases and chuqqing-symmetric and asymmetric-loading along with other loads are to be considered, 41 loading combinations would have to be assessed. 2 Some of these load combinations have been eliminated by inspection since they are not governing.. The five basic load . | |||
combinations which have been a ssessed and presented in this report are 1, 4, 4a, Sa and 7a. | |||
REV. 6. 4/82 7-13 | |||
The reversible natura cf the structural responses duo to the psol dynamic loads and seismic loads is taken into account by considering the peak positive and negative magnitudes of the response forces and maximizing the total positive and negative 3 forces and moments governing the design. W Seismic and pool dynamic load effects are combined by summing the peak responses of each load by the absolute sum ( ABS) method. | |||
This is conservative and the square root sum of squares (SRSS) method is more appropriate since the peak effects of all loads may not occur simultaneously. However, the conservative ABS method is used in the design assessment of the containment and internal concrete structures in order to expedite licensing. | |||
2tltltitS__ Design Assessacat 2 Material stresses at the critical sections in the primary conta inment and internal concrete structure are analyzed using the CECAP computer program. Critical sections f or bending moment, arial force and shear in three directions are located throughout the containment structure. The line r plate is not considered as a structural element. The CECAP program considers concrete cracking in the analysis of reinforced concrete sections. CEC AP uses an iterative technique to obtain stresses considering the redistribution of f orces due to cracking and in the process it reduces the thermal stresses due to the relieving effect of concrete cracking. The program is also capable of describing the spiral and transverse reinforcement stresses directly. The input data for the program consists of the uncracked forces, moments and shears calculated by FINEL, ANSYS, and seismic analysis. The loads are then combined in accordance lll with Table 5-1 with appropriate load factors. | |||
2.1.12116__Eauinacat_Hatsb There are two equipment hatch openings in the containment dryvell vall at approximately El. 723 ft. The openings a re 1800 apart and have a dia meter of approximately 12 ft. Co nc re te and rebar stresses around the local hatch area were a ssessed. | |||
1,1n111thtl- StrustucaL Badel 6 | |||
Piqure 7-6 shows the STADDYNE finite element model that was developed for analysis of the drywell wall around the hatch opening. The model consists of a section of the drywell wall, diaphragm slab, and wetwell wall with all boundaries at least two I hole diameters away from the edge of the opening. All loads can be considered as symmetric about the opening centerline, thus only one half of the opening was modeled. The model uses quadrilateral plate elements with both membrane and bending stiffnessen. Uncracked sections with concrete material properties were used. Loads were applied statically and boundary conditions were chosen to be consistent with the type of loading applied (Ref. BC Topical Report 85) . | |||
O REV. 6, 4/82 7- N | |||
Islslalt5z2__ Leeds _and_ Lead _C9shinati9as Load combinations are as per Table 5-1. Hydrodynamic loads 7s t | |||
(,) applied to the model boundaries were taken f rom the force and moment results of the ANSYS containment model described in Section 7.1.1.1.1. seismic loads were taken from force and soment results of the containment model as given in section 7.1.1.1. 2. Temperature was considered for the worst case wall gradient. | |||
6 | |||
, 2tlsiz1tszl__Desian_Assessasnt Pour critical sections around the hatch opening were used for assessment. Moment and force resultants from the STARDYNE' model were input to computer program CECAP (CE987) to determine stresses in the concrete and rebar. | |||
Zalais2__Heacter_and_C9attel_ Buildings Isls322s]__UrdredInasis_L9 ads Izis122&lz1__ Structural _H9 del The construction of the SSES reactor building is such that no direct coupling with the containment occurs. A 2 in. separation ioint is kept between the containment structure and the reactor building at all levels where the two structures abut, except at j the base slab where a cold ioint exists. This arrangement | |||
('s | |||
\ | |||
minimizes the transfer of any direct dynamic response to the reactor building from the containment, where the SRV discharge and LOCA related hydrodynamic loads originate. | |||
The horizontal actions of the containment are considered to be fully transferred to the reactor building through the cold joint at base slab; but the vertical motions are attenuated to account for the transfer through the rock under the two structures. The 2 attenuation has been accounted for by using the weighted average acceleration time histories at different points away from the containment and to the end of the reactor building boundary. The weighted average acceleration is defined as: | |||
n iEl A li n "EC3 il 11 | |||
~ | |||
, ib i ^1 3 | |||
in which 3 1 is the individual acceleration. A f is the free field area on which the acceleration acts and C t is the weighted average coefficient. | |||
This average time history is applied as an inpu t notion to the reactor building dynamic model. The finite element soil-structure interaction model used for the attenuation study is g-)x | |||
(_ shown in Piqure 7-3. | |||
REY. 6, 4/82 7-15 | |||
The mathematical model of the reactor and control buldings consists of lumped masses connected by the linear elastic members. Using the elastic properties of the structural components, the stiffness properties of the model are determined. | |||
g The detailed description of the model is given in subsection 3.7b.2.1 of the PSAR. The models for North-South, Ea st-We st, and Vertical directions are shown in Piqures C-1, C-2, and C-3 respectively in Appendix 'C'. These models are the same as those used for the seismic analysis. | |||
Zalzlz2slz2__ Lead _Annlication 22121s22322x1__ SHY _ Discharge _19 ads The a xisymmetric and asymmetric SRV discharge loadings used in the reactor building assessment are described in the chapter 4.1 2 of this report. During the axisymmetric loading, only the gross vertical motion of the base slab is transferred to tl-e reactor buildinq. Therefore, the broa dened response spectra curves for axisymmetric loading given in Appendix 'C' are for vertical directio n only. However, during the asymmetric loading, g ross vertical motion as well as the gross horizontal motion of the base sla b are considered in developing the vertical and horizontal response spectra curves for the reactor building. | |||
Therefore the broadened response spectra curves for a symmetric loading given in the Appendix 'C' are for both vertical and horizontal directions. | |||
Three different through 4-30 of pressure-time history traces (Figures 4-28 Chapter 4) are used for generating response llh spect ra curves at the base of reactor building over a wide range of frequencies, i.e., 55% to 110% of the original. | |||
2 l=Jz2slz212__LQCA_Helated_L9 ads Loadings associated with Loss of Coolant Accident ( LO C A) are briefly described in 7.1.1.1.1.5.2. The gross vertical and 6 horizontal motions of the Containment base slab due to symmetric a nd a sym met ric load conditions are transf erred to the Reactor / Control Building. The vertical motions are a ttenuat ed and the horizontal motions are directly transmitted to the Reactor / Control Building foundation. | |||
Itl lz2sizl__ analysis Zilali2slzlil__Besnonse_snestrum_AnalIsis The response analysis of Reactor / Control buildings was performed in th ree separa te lumped mass models which simulate the E-W, N-S, and vert ical responses. The models are shown on Figures C-1, C-2 6 and C-3. The analytical procedure is presented in the flow chart in Piqure 7-7. | |||
Like in the containment, the response spectra of loads from several frequencies, traces, load conditions and nodal points ll REV. 6, 4/82 7-16 | |||
were enveloped into one set of response spectra curves which represented SRV and LOCA. | |||
() The damping values included in generating the acceleration response spectra and broadening of the peak frequencies of the spect ra are the same as in the containment structure. 6 Appendix C contains the acceleration response spectra for low damping values for SRV and LOCA. | |||
Izisl 223s2t2__Sigess_analzgis The largest responses at the reactor building base due to all the hydrodynamic loadings are used to obtain forces and moments in the seabers of the reactor building. The damping values are 2% 2 and 5% f or load combinations involving OBE and SSE/LOCA respectively. For the first part of the analysis, the Bechtel Program CE 917 is used to do the modal analysis for the vertical, the East-West and the North-South directions. The results of these analyses are used for input to the Bechtel Progran CB 918. Another input, the acceleration response spect ra to CE 918 program, is the envelope of the spectra of the gross motion time-histories due to KWU Sources 303, 305, 306, 309 and 314, syssetric and asynsetric load cases. These are obtained 6 from steps 12 and 15 of Figure 7-4 The analysis determines member axial forces, shear forces, and bending moments. The analytical procedure is presented in the flow cha rt in Piqure 7- | |||
: 8. The following load cases are cansidered. | |||
O k- 1. Condensation-Oscillation vertical for 25 and 5% dampings. | |||
2a. SRV vertical syneetric and asyssetric for 2% and 5% | |||
da m ping s. | |||
2 2b. SRV North-South asynaetric for 2% and 55 dampings. | |||
2c. SRV Bast-Wes' asymmetric for 2% and 5% dampings. Case 2c involved four separate conditions depending on the positions of the Reactor Building crane. | |||
3a. LOC A vertical synnetric and asyssetric for 2% and 5% | |||
da m ping s. | |||
3h. LOCA North-South synnetric and asynaetric for 25 and 5% 6 da m ping s. | |||
3c. LOCA East-West syssetric and a synaetric for 2% and 5% | |||
dampings. | |||
The coshined forces and somen ts in the members due to LOC A, SRY, and seismic loads for both 2% and 5% damping values in each of the vertical, East-West, and North-South directions were 2 determined (see Fiqures E-23 thru - E-32) . | |||
p | |||
( | |||
REV. 6, 4/82 7-17 | |||
1 1 | |||
The reactor building superstructure steel was analyzed separately using a 3-D finite element lumped mass model. The model is shown in Piqure E-21. The bridge crane and crane girders were also modeled. The dynamic analysis was done using the time-history gg) method for seismic load , and response spectrum method for 2 kydrodynamic loads with Bechtel computer program BS AP. Member f orces a nd moments were generated f or several dif ferent crane and trolley positions. In general, the members experienced their highest stresses when the bridge cranes were positioned such that the maximum possible tributary load is distribu ted to the columns. The critical case is when bridge crane bumper strikes on one side of the superstructure during SSE or OBE. The results are described in S ubsection 7. 2.1. 2. | |||
The refueling pools and girders were analyzed separately using a 3-D finite element model. The structure contains the surge tanks va ult , fuel shipping cask storage pool, spent fuel storage pool, reactor well, and the steam dryer and separator storage pool. | |||
Por refuelling conditions, all compartments are considered full of wa ter with the exception of the surge ta nks va ult, which is empty. Por operating condition, only the spent fuel storage pool and the fuel shipping cask storage pool are full of water while the remaining compartments are empty. Water mass was lumped at " | |||
the compa rtmen t floors f or the dynamic analysis. | |||
6 The dyna mic analysis was done using the response spectrum method with the compu ter program STA R DYN E. Static and thermal analyses were also performed on ST ARDYNE progran. ' | |||
The analysis was performed for critical load combinations which h were established by inspection. The results are described in subsection 7.2.1.2. | |||
The box section columns supporting the refueling pool girders were included in the finite element model of the rqfueling pool analyzed above. The displacements and reactions obtained from the above model were used to a ssess the st ructu ral strength and stability of the columns. | |||
2 l.lz2t2__ Seismic _ Leads The seismic analysis methodology is discussed in the subsection 3.7b.2.1 of the PSAR. | |||
Zil 1.2s3__ static _and_Ihermal_19 ads 2 | |||
The static loads are discussed in the subsection 3.8.4.4 of the PSAR. | |||
Irls3s2t3__ Lead _Combinat19ns All individual loads are combined with the appropriate load factors as shown in Table 5-1. | |||
O 7-18 | |||
l Steel structures are checked for the load combination listed in Table 5-2. | |||
(_) lilaltZs5__ Design _assessasnt 2 | |||
Critical sections for bending moment, axial force and shear in all three directions are located throughout the reactor building. | |||
Design capability at the critical sections 13 determined and then the design capability is compared with the actual forces and moments acting on the sections under all the load combinations. | |||
This comparison yields design margins. The design ma rgins are d iscussed in Section 7. 2.1. 2 Isl 2__ structural _ steel _ Assessment _nath9421991 2.1.2 1__D9vacasar_arasing 2ilzZeit1__Drasing_sInten_Dascrietisa There are 87 downconers which extend vertically from the diaph raga slab to El. 6608-0" in the wetvell, which is arproximately 12 feet below normal water level. The five vacuum breaker downconers have been capped (see Figure 7-25) , however, with regards to the bracinq system, these five downconers still provide vertical and lateral support, since they were capped at the downconer exits. Downcone rs are 24" 0.D. pipes with 3/8 inch wall thickness, and are embedded in the diaphraga slab. | |||
Downconers are separated into four independent quadra nts. At El. | |||
/'T 6688-0" all downconers within a quadrant are tied together | |||
(/ la terally wit h a bracinq system consisting of 6 inch 0.D. XX-strong pipes. The bracinq members are not connected to either the wetvell wall or pedestal, thus eliminating stresses due to thermal expansion and wetwell vall displacement during hydrodynamic loads. The downconers support the bracing vertically. The bracinq connections consist of 1/2" ring pla tes and vertical stif feners. The SRVD lines are not connected to the bracing. Fiqures 7-9 and 7-10 Sheets 1-3 show a plan view of the 6 bracing systen and the bracinq connection details, re spec tively. | |||
2ala2tls2__struGintal_59dels A 3-D STARDYNE finite element model of both the bracing and downconers was developed for analysis of both the downconers and bracing. The worst case quadrant of the f our was chosen for modeling (3 ADS lines in the vicinity of the quadrant) . The chosen quadrant extends from containment radial of 3450 to radial o f 66.70 This quadrant consists of 23 downconers modeled as pipes and having fixed boundary conditions at the diaphragm slab. | |||
Bracinq menbors are modeled as pipe elements between downconers using the actual brace member lengths. Beam connector elementi extend from the node at the center line of each downcomer to the end of t he brace acaber. Connector elements have equivalent section properties chosen so as to match stiffnesses determined | |||
-s analytically from the finite element model of the bracing | |||
(,), connections described later. A lumped water mass consisting of REV. 6, 4/82 7_19 l | |||
two times the dorncocer or brccinq pipa voluce (onc tima for the virtual mass effect and one time for the contained fluid) is used for nodes below the water level to account for the effect due to fluid-st ructure interaction. The model consists of 323 nodes, a W | |||
251 nipe elements, 88 beam elements, and 276 dynamic degrees of f reedom for reduced eigenvalue solution (ST ARDYNE HQR) . Total weight considered in the model is 214.5 kips. Piqure 7-11 (Sheets 16 2) shows the model. | |||
A separa te US AP finite element model was developed for assessment of the bracinq connection and downcomer in the vicinity of the connection. Fiqure 7-11, Sheet 3 shows the model. A section of the downcomer at the brace level is modelled with pla te elements. | |||
Boundaries of the downcomer were taken suf ficiently f ar away from the con n ec t ion to eliminate their influence. The connector plates, t.o p partial plates, main ring plates, ver tica l st if f ene rs, and top ring plates were modeled with pla te elements. | |||
(see Figure 7-11, Sheet 3). Brace member forces from the STAPDYNE downcomer and bracinq analysis were used as input loads f or the assessment of the connection shown in Piqure 7-10, Sheet | |||
.l . The BSAP finite element model was also used to datermine the stiffnesses of the connector elements used in STARDYN E. | |||
It3t2tlt3__LQads The basis for all hydrodynamic loads considered, is given in Sections 4 and 9. | |||
211t2 tit 3tl__SRV_Disshatas_ Leads SPV actuation results in fluid pressure loads acting on the O conta in m ent , downcomers, and bracing. All load s are based on KWU Traces 76, 82, and 35. With respect to the downcomers and bracing, two different types of loads can be defined. One type consist s of inertia loa d i n g . This is movement of the containment structuro due to SRV fluid pressures acting directly on the contsinment. The response spectrum method is used for analysis of th is loading by applying the diaphragm sla b spec tra (El. 702'- | |||
1", see Appendix B) due to SRV to the STARDYNE modol. | |||
The second type of loads are described as submerged structure loads. These loads are due to the direct flu id pressures acting on the downcomers and bracing. As described in Subsection 4.1.1.7.3, potential flow theory and the method-of-images were 2 used to calculate the load time histories for each downcomer in the model. These were applied to the STARDYNE model and a linear tiansien t d ynamic ana lysis was perf ormed. | |||
ZilsZilt3t2__LQC&_Bcldicd_L2 add During a LOCA several types of loads act on the downcomers and bracing. Two of these a re inertia and subme rged structure loads. | |||
These have tha same definition as for the SRV case and the analysis is performed in the same manner. This consists of the O | |||
REV. 6, 4/82 7-20 | |||
response spectra method for inertia load analysis and linear transient dynamic analysis for submerged structure loads. | |||
/~T Subrection 4.2.2.5 describe the methodology for determining the downcomor draq loads due to CO and chuqqing. | |||
The containment response spectra generated for CO and chugging were determined by the methodology documented in Subsection 9.5.3. | |||
In addition to the above loads, a dynamic lateral losd due to chuqqing at the downconer tip also occurs. For analyzing multiple downconers in a quadrant, the generic multi-vent lateral load definition documented in Subsection 4.2.2. 4 is u sed. | |||
In addition, as required by the NRC, a single vent impulse with a 65 kip a mplitude and 3 asec duration is applied one time per LOCA event to any single downconer. This is a low probability event and is only used to show that the downconer would not fail for one such loading. | |||
For both types of ti p loads, several linear transient dynamic analyses were performed. Loads were applied in directions, so as t o marialze forces and soments in the downconers and braces. | |||
Air clea ring in the downconers during a LOCA also produces poolswell draq and f allback loads on the bracing. This load occurs before Chuqqing and CO and n eed not be considered in | |||
(~- combination with those LOCA loads. Bechtel Nuclear Staf f defined s the pressure time history loads on the braces a nd they were analysed locally for these loads (see Subsection 4.2.1.7) . An overall equivalent static load on the bracing system was applied to the ST ARDYN E model. | |||
221 2sitJzl__scismic_19 ads The diaphraga slab response spectra developed for OBE and SSE as described in Subsection 3.8.1. 4.1 o f the FS AR were used as input to the STARDYNE model to obtain resultant forces in the downconers and bracing. | |||
In addition to the inertia loading, seismic sloshing in the suppression pool imparts loads on the downconers and bracing (see subsecti on 4. 2. 4. 7) . The sloshing frequency is very low and static lotis based on the sloshing fluid pressures were applied to the STU JYN E model. | |||
Isjt2.ltJt4__ Static _and_Ihernal_L9ada The dead load of the downconers and bracing is considered. The LOCA condition results in the worst temperature loading (Ref. | |||
Piqure 4-52, Section 4) . A ma rinun temperature of 18 00P is used w ith 650 being'taken as the stress free condition. | |||
G g | |||
REV. 6, 4/82 7-21 | |||
Zzlz2zis4__L9ad_Geabinati90s Load combinations and allowable stresses are in accordance with Subsection 5.2. The stochastic loads, i.e., seismic inertia, and the inertia and submerged pressure loads of SRV and chuggini are combined by SRSS me t h od. The chuqqing lateral load is defined as a sinnlo impulsa and is added by absolute sum method. The soismic sloshing loads are added by absolute sua method due to their low frequency wave. All the static loads are combined by absoluto sua method. Poolswell is not com bined with other LOCA loads since it preceeds them (see S ubsection 4. 2.1) . | |||
2tla2 mis 5__ Design _Assessesat The results from the three dimensional STARDYNE model of the bracinq and downcomers are combined to determine the total stress duo to both arial forces and moments. A comparison between the calculat ed combined stresses and allowables is made and the st ress margins are given in Appendix A. | |||
2tlt2m2__SEY_SMD29Ei_and_G21Han 221s2s2sl__Descriatien_of_ Sal _sune9rt_ Assemblies _and Suentess19n_Chaaber_C21umas In the suppression pool, there are three types of support co n fi gura tion s to laterally brace t he SRV discharge linos; two are at El. 666' and the third is at El. 667'. Each t ype of support assembly consists of two horizontal bracinq members and at least one knee brace member. The support assemblies are lll connected from the SRV discharge lines to the adjacent column (or co lum ns) with 4-inch dia meter double extra strong pipes. | |||
The support assemblics restrain the SRV discharge lines in a horiz ontal direction but not in vertical direction. The general plan of these support assemblies is shown in Piqure 7-12 and momber connection and the details are shown in Piqura 7-13. | |||
The suppression chamber columns are 42 inch diameter pipes with 1- 1/4 inch wall thickness. The columns are attached at the diaphraqm slab at E1. 700' and at the basemat at El. 648'. | |||
2xl 222i2__Situctural_ nod 919 | |||
: a. The columns were independently analyzed for static and dynamic loads. The analytical methods used for non-hy trodynamic loads such as dead, live, pressure, tem pera t u re, seismic and pipe rupture loads are described in the FSAR, Section 3.8.3.4.5. | |||
: b. Por the h ydrodynamic S RV I na d s , the ANSYS computer program was used. Por the hydrodynamic LOCA related loads NASTRAN computer program was used. A typical column model is shown in Piqure 7-14. The total length of the column is divided int o beam elements which are ioined at node points. An REV. 6, 4/82 7-22 | |||
effective water omss due to subsergenco uas clso considorod. | |||
Dynamic horizontal forces were applied to the column at the node points below the water. Time-varying f orces and | |||
/"T moments in the, column were calculated for each element. | |||
LJ j | |||
: c. Another finite element model was developed in which the SRY ' | |||
lines, the SRV support assembly and the column were included. SRV and LOCA related submerged structure loads as well as the inertia ef fects from the dynamic loads were considered. From this analysis, the SRV discharge pipe's reactions at the support locations were obtained. | |||
The assessment of the columns is based on the combination of loads obtained from a, b, and c above. The assessment of the SRV support assembly is based on loads obtained in paragraph c above. | |||
Each of the support types is analyzed separately. | |||
In order to determine the local stresses in the vicinity of the support assembly on the column wall, the column was modeled withthe NASTR AN computer program using plate finite elements. | |||
The model is shown in Piqure 7-15. | |||
2xlz222sl__ Leads The support assemblies of the SRV discharge lines are submerged structures. They are subiected to direct pressure loads from air bu bble etc. , the reactions from the SRV lines due to SRV discharge loads, and the inertia loads due to the building responso from dynamic loads. Thermal loads are due to increase | |||
((-)s in pool temperature during LOCA. | |||
1xl:2x2t2t1__SEY_Dischatse_12nds The horizontal SRV discharge pressure-time histories are considered as acting on the columns, the SRV discharge pib- and the support assemblies. The vertical SRV discharge pressures are considered as acting on the support assemblies alone. | |||
The reactions from the SRV lines obtained from Subsection 7.1.2.2.2.c are applied to the end of the SRV support members for computation of longitudinal acaber forces. The direct hydrodynamic pressures due to SRV actuations are anplied statically perpendicular to the SRV support acabers, with a dynamic magnification f actors. The SRV hydrody na mic pressures are dotormined as defined in Subsection 4.1.3.7. This is done for the computation of soments and shear forces in the seabers. | |||
The inertia forces from building responses due to SRV discharge load are also included by using the response spectra results shown in Appendix B. | |||
9anter forces and moments obtained from direct application of SRV discSarge pressures, reaction forces of SRV pipe line, and the inertia building responses are combined by absolute sua. | |||
w-REV. 6, 4/82 7-23 | |||
The SPV submerged structure load de finition is based on Subsection 4.1.3.7. | |||
2tl 2t2tJt2__ LOC 8_B91sted_ Leads {ll During a LOCA, several phenomena cause hydrodynamic loads on the SRV support assemblies. The manner in which the LOCA related loads are applied to the SRV support assemblies is exactly the same as described for the SRV loads in Subsection 7.1.2.2.3.1. | |||
The LOCA related loads used f or the bracing are used for the SRV support assemblies, except the lateral tip load due to chuqqing is eliminated. | |||
Amona the LOCA related loads, poolswell load and fallback load occur before Chuqqing and CO and need not be considered in combination with those LOCA loads. The pressure time history loads, due to pool swell, for the SRV assembly supports, were determined by linearly reducing the pressure time history, due to poolswell, for the downcomer bracing, by the ratio of the diaeetors. | |||
2tlz2s2s3t3__S2iGElG_19dd The seismic loads on the coupled structure of SRV lines, support assemblies, and columns were obtained by dynamic analysis using the response spectra dev elo ped for OBE and SSE as described in Subsection 3.8.1.4.1 of the PSAR. | |||
213a2t2s3tE__StallG_LOdd g The d ead load, thermal load and bouyancy of the support assemblies vero considered. | |||
2rla2s2t3t3__LQad_CQEhiBati9BD The load combinations and allowable stresses are in accordance with Subsoction 5.2. Although the loads on the bracing system under consideration act in a random horizontal directions, each individual load is applied to the system in the worst possible direction to find the maximum resul ta n t forces. | |||
2tlt2t2s3t6__QQGiGD_ASSeggmens The combined stresses due t o axial forces and bending moments were det ermined for all bracinq members. Comparison between the resul ting calculated stresses and the allowable stresses has been made. Resulting stress margins for the bracinq members and their connections are tabulated in A ppendix A. | |||
2xls2s3__0DcDin9S_ID_C90talDm2Dt LiDCE | |||
! sis 213s1__E991nauDt_UstGh:EcrsenDel_ Alt _ Lech The portion of the equipment hatch-personnel air lock not backed by concrete was reevaluated for addit ional load s due to llh REV. 6, 4/82 7-24 | |||
hydrodynamic effects (SRV and LOCA) . This reevaluation was performed by Chicago Bridge and Iron Company (CBI) under subcontract from Bechtel. The general arrangement of the | |||
/"'T personnel lock is shown in Piqure 7-16. | |||
C/ | |||
The personnel air lock doors are designed to withstand a pressure of 55 psig in the containment vesse l. The door mechanism is designed to seal the door against an internal pressure of 5 psig. | |||
Por reevaluation, CBI used their computer program E781 for static analysis of shells. The program is based on Reference 77. | |||
Equivalent static loads were considered for seismic and hydrodynamic cases using peak spectral accelerations. CBI used the hydrodynamic spectra as given in Appendix C. Desig n Load combinations given in Table 5-2 were used with modifications for forces on the structure due to thermal expansion of pipes under accident conditians. Stress limits specified in the ASME code were used. | |||
CBI's model was divided into 2 pa rt s: | |||
The first model comprised the 1" thick cylinder and the 1" thick flange extending to the parting ioint. An axissymmetrical contiquration was used since the shape of the containment vessel at it s intersection with the equipment hatch is conical. No testrain ts at the 1 unction with the containment vessel were considered. | |||
The second model included the 3" thick flange beyond the parting g | |||
(_w) ioint, t he conical head and a portion of the personnel lock extending from the interior bulk head to an appropriate distance beyond. | |||
At the f la nge interface, the seismic, SRV, LOCA, 1et and pressure loads ha ve a tendency of prying open the door. A m er id io na l force is, therefore, required to pe rmit rela tively small radial deflections a nd rota tions at the interface. This force was applied as a restoring f orce a t the parting icint in the f orm of a meridional f orce and a transverse shear. Relative displacements were evaluated to assure leaktigh tness. | |||
The maior dead load contribution is in the airlock. Therefore, dead loads and loads from seismic accelerations were appliel to t he second model as discontinuous loads at the center of gravity | |||
'o f t he a ir l oc k. | |||
Loads due to SRV, Seismic and D 'C A cases were combined by SRSS. | |||
?,122 Ja2__GBQ_Hemovci_Hatcht_sugeteggiga_GhanksI_ access Hatch _and_Eguienent_Udish Thesa httches were subcontracted to CBI for design and analysis for additional SRV and LOCA loads. Designs were performed manually in accordance with Bechtel specifications and 7-V REV. 6, 4/82 7-25 l | |||
a ppropriato design ccd:s. Detcils of the CRD rctoral hatch and equipmen+ hatch are given in Piqu re s 7- 17 a nd 7-18. | |||
221.2s3tJ__Ecfuellin9_ Head _and_Sanenti_ Shirt ggg Reevaluation of the refuelling head and support skirt was performed by CBI under subcontract from Bechtel. Piqure 7-19 shows th e ref uelling head. | |||
CBI's program E 781 was used f or th e static analysis. For dynamic analysis, equivalent pressures from the peak response spect ra at El. 778.8 ft. were used. The static and dynamic stressos were then combined as per Table 5-2 of this report. | |||
Leak tig htness of the flanged joint was investiga ted for the various loads and suitable pre-stress was recommended to prevent separation of the flange 1oint components. | |||
211.3__ Liner _ Elate _asseassent_nethed21291 PSAR Subsection 3.8.1 provides a description of the liner pla te and a nchorage system for the containment. | |||
The analysis of the liner plate and anchorages for nonhydrodynamic loads is in accordance with Reference 18. | |||
For the analysis of the liner plate and anchorage for hydrodynamic suction loads, the contributing load on the liner is that due to the net "nega ti ve" pressure. | |||
The loads considered for this assessment are KWU Chuqqing, KWD SRV, hydrostatic pressure and wetwell air pressure. | |||
lll riqure 7-20 presents the maximum negative pressure due to KWU chuqqing which were scanned from the symmetric and asymmetri.c load conditions of Sources 303, 305, 306 and 309. As can be noted from Piqure 7-20, Trace 306 gives the maximum negative pressure on all locations. | |||
Tho maxi mu m nega ti ve pressure due to the actustion of all SRV's is -7.8 psi. | |||
The hyIrostatic pressure of 24' water gives 10.4 psi pressure on t he ba se s la b liner plate. | |||
The wetwoll air pressure is 25 psi due to a small b reak LOCA. | |||
For normal condition the combination of hydrostatic pressure and | |||
+he actuation of all the SRV's is considered. The distribution of th is pres su re is shown in Piqure 7 -21. | |||
For abnormal condition, the combinatiot. of KWU chuqqing, SRV, hydras *3 tic pressure and wetwell air pressure is considered. The phasing of SRV and chuqqing events is obtained by aligning the maximum suction peaks. These events are combined by direct addition of pressures as demonstrated in Piqure 7-22. The total gg REV. 6, 4/82 7-26 | |||
net peak pressures for the abnormal condition are tabulated in Piqure 7-23. Point 1 in this figure does not lie on pressure boundary and thus, is not critical. | |||
(,_) | |||
'' The assessment of liner plate is found in Subsection 7. 2.1. 5. | |||
Zej,E__D91DG9ERE & ESSE 2EEDt_50th9d91992 2tl Ex1__D9wnq9aeE_SIsles_Dessrinti9n In the wetwell, there are 87 downconers, 82 of which function as dry well vents during a LOCA. The other 5 provide votwell to drywell pressure relief through the two vacuum breakers in series sounted on each of them. These five downconers are capped at the bottom end to protect the vacuum breakers from the cycling due to c hu qq ing . Appendir K provides the assessment of capping five of the eighty-seven downconers as a fix for VB cycling d uring chuqqing. | |||
Down onor la yout, location of vacuum breakers and the cap ' | |||
arrangement are shown on Piqures 7-9, 7-24 and 7-25, respectively. | |||
laltEz2__S1EU919E41_d9d91 The downcomers are modeled with the bracinq system as described in subsection 7.1.2.1.2. | |||
r~T The downcomors with the vacuum brea kers are included in the V STARDYNE andel. | |||
An addit ional 3-D model was developed in which not only the bracinq system and downconers as described in subsection 7.1.2.1.1 we re included, but also the vacuum breaker, the vacuum breakor support and a column. This was done in the same quadrant as described in Subsection 7.1.2.1.1. | |||
2sitam1__L9 ads _ dad _L9ad_C9thinati90s Loads a f fecting the d ownconers are the same as those described in Subsoction 7.1.2.1.3. Load combina tions are given in Table 5-3. | |||
The SRSS sua is used for the dynamic loads, except for the chuqqing lateral and seismic sloshing loads which are added by absolute.suas as described in Subsection 7.1.2.1.4. | |||
2xl EsE__D931GQ_A22CDEa9D1 Heference 30 is used for checking the downcomer stresses due to the load combinations given in Table 5-3. | |||
(n_) <D REV. 6, 4/82 7-27 | |||
2.lt925__ fat 199e_Eralust199_9f_D9vnc9mers_In_Helweli_ Air _Ininas l In an effort to evaluate the steam bypass potential t rising f rom a failure of the downcomers in the vetvell air space, a complete llh fatique analysis of the same has been performed. S pe cifically, the analysis was perf ormed where the downcomers penetra te the diaphram sla b as shown in Piqure 7-26. This analysis considered I all the cyclic loading acting on the downcomers and is in ' | |||
accordsnce with the applicable portions of ASM E Cod e. This evaluation is considered supplemental and does not displace the original design basis for these lines as set forth in the appropriate FSAR/DAR sections. | |||
2 lia,5.1__ Loads _and_L9ad_C9abinations_used_f9E_Assesss. t The downcomers are subiect to numerous dynamic and hydrodynamic loads from normal, upset, and LOC A-related plant operating conditions. Por purposes of f atique evaluation, the following loads are include: (1) All significant thermal and pressure transients. (2) All cyclic effects due to the hydrodynamic loads including SRV actuations, CD and chuqqing. (3) Seismic effects. A description of each of these loads is provided in the a ppropriate DA R sections. The determination of load combinations an well as number and duraction of each event is obtained f rom the apolicable sections of DPPR, and PSAR. | |||
5 2ml=E2522__Accentansc_ Criteria The design rules, as set forth in the ASME Doller and Pressure vessal Code, Section III, subsection NB were utilized for the g fa t iq ue a sse ss me n t . When required, allowables for fatique stress ovaluation were based on Mill certification reports f or downcomers. | |||
2il,E25al__5ethods_of_An11rsis The SRV disc ha rge lines and downcomers in the wetwell air volume, were analyzed for the appropriate load combinations s ad their associated number of cycles. The combined stresses and correspondino equivalent stress cycles were com puted to obtain the fatique usage factors in accordance with the equstions of Subsection NS-3600 of the ASME Code. | |||
Ziltat5sE__Huaulta_and_ Design _narsins The cumulative usage fsctors for the various loading conditions I for t he dow r. comer (see Fiqure 7-26) are summarized in Table 7-3. | |||
6 2*1'5- 00E EiDinu_ add _SEY SYsicaD &ssessE2at_39th2 del 29I The anP piping and SRV systems were analyzed for the loads discusned in Section 5.5 using Bechtel compu ter programs ME101 and M E632. These programs are described in PSAR Section 3.9. | |||
1 Static and dynamic analysis of the piping and SRV systems are performed as described in the paragraphs below. | |||
REV. 6, 4/82 7-28 | |||
Static a nalysis techniques are used to deterzi.ne the stresses due to steady state loads and/or dynamic loads having equivalent i static loads. The drag a nd impact loads are applied as | |||
() equivalent static loads. | |||
Response spectra at the piping anchors are obtained from the dynamic analysis of the containment subiected to LOC 4 and SRV 1 loading. Piping systess are then analyzed for these response spectra following the method described in Reference 19. | |||
Time history dynamic analysis of the SRf discharge piping subiected to fluid transient forces in the pipe due to relief valve opening is performed using Bechtel compu ter code ME632. | |||
Zilt5tl___Eatigue_Eraluat19n_91_sBI_Diachitss_ Lines _in_Heirall AiE_Y919Et Tn an ef fort to evaluate the steam bypass potential a rising f rom a failure of the SRV discharge line in the wetwell air space, a complete fatique analysis of the sa me has been performed. | |||
Speaifically, structural analyses o f all the SRV discharge lines fion the diaphragm slab penetration to the quencher was performed. Patique evaluation of fluedhead penetration, elbows and 1-wa y restrainst attachment to pipe was done. This a nalysis considered all the cyclic loading acting on the SRV discharge lines and is in accordance with the applicable portionr of ASME C od e. This evaluation is considered supplemental and does not displaco the original design bas,is for these lines as set forth g in the appropriate PS AR/DAR sections. ' | |||
(J Iil.SiltJ__L9adu_and_L9ad_G9mbinati9ns_Hsed_f9E_ Ass 92Enent The SRV discharge lines are subiect to numerous dynamic and hydrodynamic loads from normal, upset, and LOCA-related plant o pe ra tin g conditions. For purposes of fatique evalut tion, the 6 f ollo w ing loads are included: (1) All significant thermal and pressure transients. (2) All cyclic efforts due to the hydrodynamic loads including SRV actuations, CO and chuqqing and (3) Seismic effects. A description of each of these loads is provided in the appropriate DAR sections. The determination of load combinations as well as number and duration of each event is obtained from the applicable sections of DPPR and PSAR. | |||
Isl 5 mis 2__&GGCDiaQGO_GEitBEiG l | |||
The desiqn rules, as set forth in the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vesse l Code, Section III, Subsection NB were utilized for the fatique assessment. When required, allowables f or f atique strese evaluation were based on Mill certification reports for SRV dischargo lines. | |||
Til 5mit]._nethods_9f_aualIsis l ,- The SRV discharge lines, in the wetwell air volume, were analyzed (3,) . fot the appropriate load combinations and their associated number I REV. 6, 4/82 7-29 | |||
of cycles. The combined stresses and corresponding eqaivalent stress cycles were computed to obtain the fatique usage factors in accordance with the equations of Subsection NB-3600 of the ASM E Cod e. g 1 sis 5zin4- EcGuLtG and DanLSa BdCSLDS The cumulative usage factors f or fluedhead, 3-way restraint attachment to pipe and elbow a re summarized in Table 7-4 Zelt5__NSSS_8gggggagg1_Qgthgdglggy | |||
" Safety related" General Elect ric company supplied NSSS piping a nd oquipment located within the containment and the reactor and control buildings are subiected to hydrodynamic loads due to SRV and LOCA discharge ef fects principally originating in the suppression pool of the containment structure. Section 4.1 a nd 4.2 describe t he methodologies used to define these SRV and LOCA , | |||
loads, raspectively. The NSSS piping and equipment are assessed to verify their adequacy to withsta nd these hydrodynamic loads in combination with seismic and all other applicable loads in accordance with the load combinations given in Table 5-5. | |||
Tho structural system rosponses for the SRV and LOCA suppression pool hydrodynamic phenomena are generated by Bechtel power Corporation using defined forcinq functions. These structural system rosponses are transmitted to General Electric in t he f orm of (1) broadened response spectra and ( acceleration time-histories at the pedestal to diaphram or intersection and the st a bilizor elevation. | |||
The responso spectra for piping attachment points on the reictor pressure vessel, shield wall and pedestal complex (above the pool a rea) are generated by General Electric, based upon the accelera tion t ime-histories supplied by Bechtel power C or po ra t ion , using a detailed lumped mass beam model for the reactor pressure vessel internals, including a represen tation of the structure. For the assessment of the NSSS primary piping (main steam and recirculation) a combination of General Electric and Bechtel developed response spectra are used as input responses for all attachment points of each pipinq system. For the assessment of the NSSS floor mounted equipment, except the raactor pressure vessel, the broadoned response spectra supplied directly by Bechtel are used. | |||
The acceleration time-histories and the detailed reactor pressure vessel and structure lumped mass beam model are used to generate t he f orces a nd moments acting on the reactor pressure vessel supports and interna l componen ts. These f orces a nd momen ts a re used for the GE assessment of reactor pressure vessel supports a nd i nte rnals. | |||
The structural system response for the LOCA induced annulus pressurization transient asymmetric pressure build up in the annular region between the biological shield wall and the reactor llh | |||
'REV. 6, 4/82 7-30 | |||
pressuro vessel io becod on proccuro tico-histories supplied by Bechtel. These pressure time-histories are combined with ist reaction, ie t impingement and pipe whip restraint loads for the assescaent. A time-history analysis is performed resul ting in O. accelerations, forces and soment time-histories as well as response spectra at the piping attachment points on the reactor pressure vessel, shield wall, pedestal, pressure vessel supports and external components (see FSAR Appendices 6 A and 6B) . | |||
2iltitl__ESSS_Qualifisat19n_5cth2ds 223.6xis1__Hsss_Eining The NSSS pi pin g stress snalyses are conducted to consider the secondary dyna mic responses f rom: (1) the original design-Dasis loads including seismic vibratory motions, (2) the structural j system feedback loads from the suppression pool hydrodynamic events, and (3) the structural systen loads from the LOCA induced annulus pressurization f rom postulated feedwater, recirculation i and main steam pipe breaks. | |||
Lumped mass models are developed by General Electric for the NSSS primsry piping systems, main steam and recirculation lines. | |||
Those lumped mass models include the snubbers, hangers and pipe mounted va lve s , and represent the maior balance of the plant branch piping connected to the main steam and recirculation systoms. Amplified response spectrum for all attachment points within the piping system are a pplied; i.e., distinct accelera tion excit ations are specified at each piping support and anchor | |||
(' point. The detailed models are analyzed independently to det ermine t he pipi ng systea resulting loads (shears and somen ts) for: | |||
: 1) each design-basis load which includes pressure, temperature, we ig ht, seismic even ts, etc. , | |||
: 2) the bounding suppression pool hydrodynamic event; and | |||
: 3) the annulus pressurization dynamic ef fects on the unbroken piping system. | |||
A dd it io n a lly , the end reaction forces and/or accelers tions f or the pipe sounted/ connected equipment (valves and nozzles) are simultaniously calculated. | |||
The piping stresses from the resulting loads (shears and soments) for each load event are determined and combined in accordance with the load combinations delineated in Table 5-5. These stresses are calculated at geometrical discontinuities and , | |||
compared to ASME code allowable determined stresses (ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III-NB-3650) for the appropriate loading condition in order to assure design adequacy. | |||
Compu ter codes used to perf orm the NSSS piping stress analysis are described in FSAR Section 3.9.1.2. | |||
(". | |||
b . | |||
REV. 6, 4/82 7-31 | |||
2 sl:6 z1x 2__ Val v2D The tsaction f orces and/or accelera tions acting on th e pipe mount ed equipment when combined in accordance with the required load combinations are compared to the valve allowables to assure g | |||
design adequacy. The reactor core pressure boundary valves are qualified for operability during seismic and hydrodynamic loading esents by both analysis and test. This qualification is unique f or each va lve. | |||
2sJs6 sis 3__EC1G12C_EICEEHEE 19E221' EEEEEESE dEd ID12EQal G9BD2BSulf The hounding load combinations for seismic, hydrodyna mic and annulus pressurization forces are established within each acceptance critoria range (upset, emergency a nd f aulted) . At the initial analysis step, the loads are conservatively combined using the maximum vertical forces with the m srimum horizontal shears a nd moments f rom all combinations within each acceptance criteria rance. These conservative ma risua loads a re then compa red to generic bounding forces originally used to establish the component design. When the combined calculated f orces are less tha n the design forces, then the component is deemed adequate. When the calculated forces are grea ter than the design forces, then the increased stresses are compared to t he material allovables. When the calculated stresses are below the material a llowa bles, then the design is deemed adequate. If the increased stressos are above the material allowables, then the specific load combination is identified and another stress an11ysis is conducted using refined methods, if required, to demonstrate the component adequacy. | |||
llh In ca rtlin ca ses, co m po ne n t test results are combined with analy ses to assess component adequacy. Patique evaluations of | |||
+he Reactor Pressure Vessel, supports and internal components are a lso cc9 ducted for SRV cyclic duty loads. The equipment is analyzod for fatique usage due to SRV load cycles based upon the loading during the SR V events. ERV fatique usage factors are calculat ed and combined with all othe r upset condition usage factors to obtain a cumulative fatique usage factor. | |||
Compu ter programs used to conduct RPV component analyses are described in FSAR Section 3. 9.1. 2. | |||
2.1.61119__E199r_Situst9ts_32nnt2d_Ea912sent 2 J.621ssil__Qualificati9n_selh9ds The tdequacy of the design of the equipment is assessed by one of the following: | |||
: a. Dynamic analysia | |||
: b. Testinq | |||
: c. Combination of testing and analysis O | |||
REV. 6, 4/82 7-32 | |||
l The choice in baccd on the practicality of the cethoi dependicg upon function, type, size, shape, and complexity of the equipment and the reliability of the qualification method. | |||
(m k-} In general, the requirements outlined in IEEE-344-75, Referance 55, are followed for the qualification of equipment. | |||
Zal 6xitus1 1__Drnanis_analtnis IslahalsHiltls1__Hetheda_and_Er9seduras The dynamic analysis of various equipment is classified into three groups according to the relative rigidity of the equipment based on the magnitude of the fundamental natural f requency described below. | |||
(a) Structurally simple equipment - comprises that equipment which can be adequately represented by a one degree of freedon system (b) Structurally rigid equipment - Comprises that equipment whose fundamental frequency is: | |||
(i) grea ter than 33 Hz for the consideration of seismic loads, and, (ii) qreater than the high f requency asymptate (ZP A) of the required response spectra (RRS) for the consideration of hydrodynamic loads (c) Structurally complex equipment - Comprises that equipment which cannot be classified as structurally simple or str uct urally rigid. | |||
The a ppropriate response spectra for specific equipment are obtained f rom the response spectra for the floor at which the onuipment is located in a building for GBE, SSE and h ydrodynamic loads. This includes the vertical as well as both the N-S and E-W horizontal directions. For equipment which is structurally s t a pl e, the dynamic loading (either seismic or hydrolynamic) consists of a static load corresponsing to the equipment weight times the acceleration selected from the appropriate response spectrum. The acceleration selected corresponds to the equipment 's na tural f requency, if the equipment's natural frequency is known. If the equipment's natural frequency la not known, the acceleration selected corresponds to the maximum value of the response spectra. | |||
For equipment which is structurally rigid, the seismic load consists of a static load corresponding to the equipment we ig ht times the acceleration at 33 Hz, selected from the appropriate re npo n se spect rum and the hydrodynamic loading consist of a static load corresponding to the equipment weig ht times the accelera tions at the ZPA, selected from the a ppropria te response | |||
() spectrum. | |||
E f | |||
REV. 6, 4/82 7-33 l | |||
l 1 | |||
Por the analysis of structurclly corplex aquipaent, the equipcont is idealized by a mathematical model which adequately predicts the lyna mic properties of the equipment and a dynamic analysis is performed using any standard analysis procedure. An acceptable a lt cr na t ive method of analysis is by static coefficient a na ly sis g | |||
f or verifying st ruc t u ral in tegrity of f rame type st ructures that can be represented by a simple model. No determination of natural frequencies is made and the response of the equipment is assumed to be the peak of the response spectrum. This response is then multiplied by a static coefficient of 1.5 to take into account the effects of both multifrequency excitation and multimode response. | |||
It3t6alsEz1.2-_ICQtlH9 In lieu of performing dynamic analysis, dynamic adequacy is established by providing dynamic test data. Such data must conform to one of the f ollowing: | |||
: 1. performance data of equipment which has been subjected to equal or greater dynamic loads (considering appropriate frequency ra nce) than those to be experienced under the specified dynamic loading conditions. | |||
: 2. Test data from compara ble equipment previously tested under simila r conditions, which has been subjected to equal or greater dynamic loads than those specified. | |||
: 3. Actual testing of equipment in operating conditions simulating, as closely as possible, t he actual installation, the required loadings and load combinations. | |||
A continuous sinusoidal test, sine beat test, or deca ving sinusoidal test is used when the applicable floor acceleration spectrum is'a narrow band response spectrum. Otherwise, random motion test (or equivalent) with broad f requency content is used. | |||
The equi pment to be tested is mounted in a manner tha t simulates the actual service mounting. Sufficient monitoring devices are u sed to eva lua te the per f orma nce of the equipment. With the appropriate test method selected, the equipment is considered to be qualififed when the test response spectra (TRS) envelopes the required rasponse spectra (RRS) a nd the equipment d id not malf unct ion or f ail. A new test does not need to be conducted if eq u ip men t requires only a very minor modification such as additional bracings or change in switch model, etc. , and proper iustification is given to show that the modifications do not ioopardize the strength and function of the equipment. | |||
?tli6xlshtit3_C9abinedanalysis_and_Insting There are several instances where the qualification of equipment by analysis alone or testing alone is not practical or adequate because of its size, or its complex ity, or large number of simila r con figurations. In these instances a combinstion of lll REV. 6, 4/82 7-34 | |||
~ | |||
analysis and testing is the most practical. The following are general approaches: | |||
/#'% (a) An analysis is conducted on the overall assembly to 1 kl determine its stress level and the transmissibility of act ion f rom the base of the equipment to the critical components. The critical components are removed from the assembly and subiected to a simulation of the environment on a test table. | |||
(b) Experimental methods are -used to aid in the formulation of the mathematical model for any piece of equipment. Mode sha pes and f requencies are determined experimentally and incorporated into a mathematical model of the equipment. | |||
2xl=6als4.2__C9aenier_Etestans Computer programs used to conduct equipment analyses aro descr ibed in FS AR Section 3.9.1.2. | |||
1s1.2__Qalance of_Elant_lHQEL.Igulusent_Assessauni 5eth9d91291 Seismic Category I BOP equipment located within t he containment and the reactor and control buildings are subjected to hydrodynamic loads due to SRV LOCA discharge af fects principally originating in the suppression pool of the containment st ruc ture. | |||
The equipsont and equipment support are assessed to verify their adequacy to withstand these hydrodynamic loads in combina tion g with seismic and all other applicable loads in accordance wit h x ,) the load combinations given in Section S.7. | |||
2,ls2xl__Hrdt9dinamic_19 ads 2tl=2slil__SRV_Discharse_L9 ads Loadings associated with the axisymmetric and asymmetric SRy 2 discharges are described in Chapter 3 and 4 of this report. | |||
Acceleration response spectra at the various elevations where the equipment aro located have been generated for all appropriate pressure history traces (Piqures 4-28 thru 4-30 of Chapter 4) for damplRQ Values of 1/2%, 1%, 2% and 5%. These have been enveloped into a single curve for each of the above damping values. . Such enveloped curves are generated for each of the N-S, E-W and vertical directions. These curves form the basis for the SRV loads for equipment assessment. | |||
2sls2sls2__L996_ Belated _Lnada Loadings associa ted with loss-of-coolant accident (LO C A) are described in Section 4.2. Acceleration response spectra at 6 va rious elevations where the equipment are located have been generated for the above LOCA loads for damping values of 1/2%, | |||
15, 2% and 5%. These have been enveloped into a single curve ~ for 2 each of the~above damping values. Such enveloped curves are j ) qenerated for each of the-N-S, E-U and vertical directions. | |||
r REV. 6, 4/82 7-35 | |||
Thoso curves f orc the basis for tho LOCA loads for equipment a ss os s me nt. | |||
2.1.2.2__Scinnic_Lodds ll) | |||
The ietails of seismic input and seismic loais are discussed in Section 3.7 of PSAR. The ef fects of both opera ting basis earthquake (OB E) and safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) are considered. These loads are provid ed in the form of Accelera tion responso spectra at each floor for damping vslues of 1/2%, 1%, 2% | |||
and 5% for each of N-S, E-W and ver tical directions. | |||
2.ls2ta__Qther_ Loads In addit ion to h ydrod ynamic a nd seismic loads, other loads such as dead loads, live loa d s , ope ra ting loads, pressure loads, thermal loa d s, nozzle loads and equipment piping interaction loads, a s a pplicable, are also considered. | |||
2x3m2sE__Quellf1 Gat 190_5tth9de The a dequacy of the design of the equipment is assessei by one of the foloving: | |||
: 4. Dynamic analysis | |||
: b. Tenting under simulated conditions | |||
: c. Combination of testing and analysis. | |||
The choice is based on the practicality of the me th od depending upon function, t ype, size, shape, and complexity of the equipment and +he reliability of the qualification method. | |||
In general the requirements outlined in IEEE-344-75, Reference 55, are foll owed for the qualification of equip me nt. | |||
2tl:2sEtl__DYQatiG_8L91YDia 211,2sEtJtl__5etheds_and Ececedures The iynamic analysis of various equipment is classified into three groups according to the relative rigidity of the equipment based on the magnitude of the funda mental natural frequency described below. | |||
(a) Structurally simple equipment - comprises of tha t equipment which can be adequately represented by one degree of freedom system. | |||
(h) Structurally rigid equipment - Comprises of that equipment whose f undamental frequency is: | |||
(i) a rca tor t ha n 3 3 112 for the consideration of seismic loads, and, lll Rev. 2, 5/80 7-36 | |||
(ii) qrea ter than 80 Hz for the consideration of hydrodynamic loads. | |||
(c) Structurally Compler equipment - Comprises of that equipment | |||
([-] | |||
- which cannot be classified as structurally simple or s t ruc t u ra lly rigid. | |||
When the equipment is structurally simple or rigid in one direction but compler in the other, each direction may be classified separately to determine the dynamic loads. | |||
The a ppropriate response spectra for specific equipment are obtained from the response spectra for the floor at which the pouipment is located in a building for OBE, SSE and hydrodynamic loads. This includes the vertical as well as both the N-S a nd E-W horizontal directions. | |||
For equipment which is structurally simple, the d ynamic loading (either seismic or hydrodynamic) consists of a static load corresponding to the equipment weight times the acceleration selected from the appropriate response spectrum. The accelera tion selected corresponds to the equipment's natural fraquency, if the equipment's natural frequency is known. If the equipment's natural frequency is not known, the acceleration selected corresponds to the maximum value of the response spect ra. | |||
Por equipment which is structurally rigid the seismic load es consists of a static load corresponding to the equipment weight | |||
(_) times the acceleration at 3 3 Hz, selected f rom the appropriate re spo n so spectrum and the hydrodynamic loading consist of a static load corresponding to the equipment weight times the accelera tion a t 80 Hz., selected from the appropriate response spectrum. | |||
Por the analysis of structurally complex equipment, the equipment is idealized by a mathematical model which adequately predicts t he dynimic properties of the equipment and a dynamic analysis is performed using any standard analysis procedure. An acceptable alternative method of analysis is by static coefficient analysis for verifyinq* structural integrity of frame type structures such as members physically similar to beams and columns that can be represented by a simple model. No determination of natural f requencies is nade and the response of the equipment is assumed t o ha the peak of the response spectrum at damping values as per Section 7.1.7.4.1.2. This response is then multiplied by a static coefficient of 1.5 to take into account the effects of both multifrequency excitation and multimode re spon se. | |||
I) s_- | |||
Rev. 2, 5/80 7,37 | |||
241.Zsatlt2__anerentiate_naanins_Ialues The following damping values are used for the design assessment: | |||
: 1) Load Combinations involving OBE but not O hydrodynamic loads - 1/2% | |||
: 2) Load combinatiosn involving SSR but not hydrodynamic loads - 15 | |||
: 1) Load Combinations involving hydrodyna mic loads, or seismic and hyd rod ynamic loads - 2% | |||
Tf the actual damping value of the equipment is different (from test results) then these actual values are used. | |||
2altl2Et3sl__IhE22_G9ED202DtE_9f_DYnagic_ggtign s The responses such as internal fo rc es, stresses and deformations at any point from the three principal orthogonal directions of 2 t he dynamic loads are combined as f ollows: | |||
The response value used is the maximum value obtaine:1 by adding the rosponse due to vertical dynamic load with the larger value of the responses due to one of the horizontal corresponding dynasic load by the absolute sum method. | |||
213.2tas2__ Testing in lieu of performing dynamic analysis, dynamic adequacy is h established by providing dynamic test data. Such data must conform to one of the following: | |||
: 1. Performance data of equipment which has been sub jected to equal or greater dynamic loads (considering a ppropriate frequency range) than those to be experienced under the specified dynamic loading conditions. | |||
: 2. Tes t data from compara ble equipment previously tested under similar conditionst which has been subjected to equal or gra ter dynamic loads than those specified. | |||
6 | |||
: 1. Ac*ual testing of equipment to the required load combinations while simula ting the actual field installation. | |||
A continuous sinusoidal test, sine beat test, or deca ying sinusoidal test is used when the applicable floor acceleration s spect rum is a narrow band response spectrum. O therwise, random motion test (or equivalent) with broad f requency content is used. | |||
The equipment to be tested is mounted in a manner that simulates the actual service mounting. Sufficient monitoring d evices a re used to evalua te the perf orma nce of the equipment. With the a pproLria te test met hod selected, the equipment is considered to be qualified when the test response spectra (TR S) envelopes the lll REV. 6, 4/82 7-38 | |||
required response spectra (RRS) and the equipment did not malf unction or fail. A new test does not need to be conducted if fy onuipment requires only a very minor modifications such as | |||
\ addit ional bracings or change in switen model etc. and proper iustification is given to show that the modifications do not 1eopa rdize the strength and function of the equipment. | |||
?sl:2=Hs3__C9thined_ analysis _and_Testins There are several instances where the qualification of equipment by analysis alone or testing alone is not practical or adequate because of its size, or its complerity, or large number of simila r config urations. In these instances a combination of analysis and testing is the most practical. The following are 2 qaneral approaches: | |||
(a) An analysis is conducted on the overall assembly to determine its stress level and the transmissibility of action from the base of the eq uipment to the critical components. The critical components are removed from the assombly and subiected to a simulation of the environment on a test table. | |||
(b) Experimental methods are used to aid in the formulation of the mathematical model for any piece of equipment. Mode sha pes and f requencies are determined experimentally and incorporated into a mathematical model of the equipment. | |||
(]) 2alsS__51estrical_HasevaI_SIsten_Assessaant_asthedelest 2slsSs1__ General The PS4R Subsect ion 3.7b.3.1.6 provides a detailed description of t he electrical racewa y systes design methodology. The analysis and design of supports or Electrical Raceway Systems f or non-hydrodynamic loads are in accordance with Reference 3.7b-7 of the PSAP. S RV discharge and LOCA loads are conside red simila r to seismic loads by using appropriate floor response spectra for the hydrodynamic loads. A damping value of 7% of critical is used for all racewa y systems f or abnormal / extreme load condition and a damping value of 3% of critical is used for normal load condition 6 involving SRV discharge loading only. | |||
2tlsS=2__L91ds Isl=Ss2s1__ static _L9 ads The static loads are the dead loads and live loads. For cable trays, the weight of the cable is considered to be 45 lbs/ft and a concentrated live load of 200 lb. applicable at any point or cable-tray s pa n is used. | |||
O REV. 6, 4/82 7-39 y ..._ _ , _ , __y | |||
2tJeSx2t2__Seismis_L9 ads The deta ils of the seismic motion input are discussed in Section 3.7 of the PSAR. The effects of the operating basis ea rthquake (OBE) and the Safe Shutdown ea rthquake (S S E) ar e considered. | |||
g 2ileS22i3__frdtzd2namis_L9 J ads The details of the axisymmetric and asymmetric SRV discharge loads, a s well as LOC A loa ds includ ing conden sa tion-o scilla tion and chuqqing a re discussed Section 4.0 The enveloped acceleration response spectra at each floor for N-S, E- W, and vertical directions have been generated and widened by 120% for 7% of critical damping and t15% for lower damping values. These curves form the basis for the hydrodynamic load ansessment o f the electrical racewa y system. Exa mples of the response spectrum curves for the containment and Reactor and Control buildings are presented in Appendices B and C. | |||
2misdt3__&RdlYtiGal_50thGds cable tray systems are modeled as three dimensional dynamic syntam consisting of several consecutive supports complete with cable trays and longitudinal and transverse bracing. The cable tray properties are determined from the load de flec tion tests. | |||
Momber ioints are modeled as spring elements having rotational stiffness with known spring values as determined from the tes t results. | |||
Composito spectra are developed by enveloping the floor response spect ra after broadening by 120% for critical floors for seismic, SPV a nd LOCA loading conditions. The design spectrum is obtained by adding these response spectra curves by the absolute sua mothod. A frecuency variation of 120% is used to further broaden the spectrum at the f undamental frequency of the cable tray system. The composite response spectra curves are obtained for vertical and two horizontal directions. | |||
Modal and response spectrum analyses are performed utilizing "Bech tel S tructural Analysis P rog ram" (BS A P) which is a general purpose finite-element computer program. The seismic and hydrodynamic responses are added by the absolute sum method. The total response due to the dynamic loads is calculated by determining absolute sum of vertical response and only the la rger response of the two horizontal responses. | |||
Dead and live load stresses are determined f rom a static analysis of a pla ne frama model using BSAP computer program and these results are combined with those from the response spectrum a n a ly sis. Por normal loa n condition, SRV discharge stresses are proportioned from the response spectrum analysis of SSP plus SRV discharoe plus LOCA loads according to their spectral acceleration ra tios at the fundamental frequencies. Several O | |||
REV. 6, 4/82 7_40 | |||
4 different support types uhich cro uidely used have been analyzod by thene methods. | |||
An alternative method for analyzing other support types which | |||
(~)s | |||
(_ occur loss frequently, uses long hand calculations by a response spectrum analysis technique. The support may be idealized as a single degree of treedon system. In general, the maximum pea k spectral accelerations were used in the analysis. In some cases where the stresses a re critical, a more refined va lue f or the acceleration response was used corresponding to the compute 1 systom f undamental f requency and considering a f req uency variation as explained earlier in this section. The vertical and horizont.a1 seismic responses are combined according to Subsec tion 3.7b.2.6 of the FSAR. The member stresses are kept within the o la s t ic limit. | |||
Islt2__HYAG_ Dust _SInten_Esssssasni_Helh9da1921 The SRV discharge and LOCA are considered similar to seismic loads by using appropriate floor response spectra generated f or the CO, chuqqing, and SRV loads described in Section 4.0. | |||
A damping value of 5% of critical is used for load combinations involving SSE, SRV discharge and LOCA loads. While a damping valup of 3% of critical is used for load combinations involving OBE and/or SRV discharge loads. For a discussion of the seismic and hydrodyna mic loads in pu t for HVAC duct system assessment, refer to Subsections 7.1.8. 2. 2 an d 7.1.8. 2.3, respectively. The HVAC duct system had been analyzed by the alternative method | |||
(-) described in the Subsection 7.1.8.3 by determining th e f unda mental f requencies of the system in three directions. The inertia forces are determined from the composite spec tra to establish member forces and moments due to hydrodynamic as well as saismic loads. | |||
) | |||
L .) | |||
REV. 6, 4/82 7-41 | |||
2x2- DZ31GE_Ghthn1611_BhBSIB3 2.2il__ Stress _Barsins Stresses at the critical sections for all of the structures h described in Section 7.1, piping and equipment are evaluated for all the loading combinations presented in Section 5.0. The stress margin is defined as (1 - stress ratio) x 100 stress rat io = E C n- in Fn Where, fn = Actual Stress f | |||
n | |||
= Allowable Stress | |||
( = Amplification Coefficient 1 2.121__G9ntainannt_strus19rs Tho results from the structural assessment of the containment st ructur e are summarized in Appendix A. Figure A-2 shows the dosign sections in the basemat, containment walls, reac to r podestal, and the diaphraga slab which were considered in the st ructural a ssessment. The tables in Appendix A give the calculat ed design stresses and ma rgins for load combination Equations 1, 4, 4a, 5, Sa , and 7 (as listed in Table 5-1) . | |||
The f ollowing observations are made from a review of the O structural stresses. The calculated stress level is very low for load combination equation No. 1 (an upset condition) i.e., | |||
reinforcinq ha r stresses are less tha n 20 ksi. In general, among all t he applicable load combinations, the most critical load combination is No. 7a. The maximum reinforcing bar design stress is predicted as 47.24 ksi, which occurs in a wetwell section on the outside face helical bars when using the absolute sum (ABS) method. This given a minimum stress margin of 12.5% (see Piq ure A- 29) . | |||
Ilo w ev er , the calculated maximum reinforcing har design stresses are relatively low in the reactor pressure vessel pedestal, diaphraqm slab, and the base slab, as they are less than 18 ksi, 34 kni, and 45 ksi respectively. The maximum principal concrete com pr essive st ress occurs at t he base slab and is calculated as 4280 psi. Thus, all the reinforcing bar design stresses are below the allowble stresses. It should be noted that the allowable stresses on which the margins are based, are related to t he minimum specified strength. The actual quality control test results for the reinforcing bars and concrete show the material strengths to be higher than the minimum specified and therefore, t he margins are actually greater than calculated. | |||
k REV. 6, 4/82 7-42 l | |||
l l | |||
l In general, the concrete stresses were foued to be lou except at saction 27 in the containment basemat (see Piqure A-2), where the ! | |||
concrete stress in compression exceeded the maximum allowable | |||
''T stress in fivo load combinations out of six that were considered k/ in thin report. Ho we ver , under each load combination the concrete is in triarial compression at Section 27. Under the worst load case, the ahydrosta tic" component of the stress is 2 A 30 psi an d the "deviatoric a com ponent is only 1392 psi. | |||
Because of this large hydrostatic component, the concrete compressive strain is much smaller than the value of 0.003 in/in permitted by the codes. The concrete, therefore, has a very large strain margin bef ore f ailure will commence. It must also be emphasized that not only the actual strength of th e placed concrete is higher than the minimum specified, as indicated in the paragraph above, but that the concrete continues to gain strength after placement. The increase in strength at the end of five years could be as much as 20% over the 90 days strength. | |||
Therefore, the locally high compressive stresses in t he concrete at Section 27 are deemed acceptable. | |||
2 2tli2__Etact9E_and_CentE91_Hutiging The results of the structural assessment of the Reactor and Control Building are summarized in Appendix E. Figures E-1 throuqh E-22 show the design sections in the basema t and tha concrete structure composed of floor slabs, shear walls, blockwalls, refueling pool girders, as well as floor structural steel and superstructure steel, which were cor.siderei in tho structural assessment. The sections selected for assessment were | |||
(_)j considered to be most critical based on previous seismic ca lcu la t ion s. The tables in Appendix E qive the calculated design stresses and margins for the critical load combinations ocuations 1 and 7a of Table 5-1 and equations 1 and 7 Table 5-2. | |||
The other load combinations do not govern. | |||
In tho case of floor slabs, the calculated stress levels, in general, are very low for slabs above El. 683.0 ft. The governing load combination is equation 1 of Tab!.e 5-1 (norail condi tio n) and the reinforcinq steel stresses are signi ficantly less than 20 ksi. For slabs below El. 683.0 ft. a l so , the noverning load combination is equation 1 of Table 5-1. The maximum reinforcing steel stress was 49.79 ksi, which occurs in the reactor building slab at El. 645.0 ft. (see Piq ure E-33) . | |||
The selected floor sections for the review and assessment are g iv en in Piqures E-1 through E-6. | |||
In the case of shear walls, the maximum rebar stress was 43.25 ksi, and the minimum stress margin is 20% (see Figure E-34) . The ansessed elements are given in' Figures E-1, E-3, E- 4, E-7, and E-8. | |||
In the blockwalls the calculated maximum reinforcing bar design stress is 30.6 kai for load combination equation 7a (see Piqure 7_ E-3 5) . The minimum stress margin for compressive stress in the t t i | |||
; RJ REV. 6, 4/82 7-43 i | |||
concrote is 22%. The blockwall elements reviewed for a ssessment ara shown in Fiqures E-9 through E- 16. | |||
In the case of Reactor Building structural steel (s ee Fiqure E- | |||
: 36) , load combination Eq. 7 of Table 5-2 generally governs. The lll maximum bending stress was found to be 31.9 ksi which is less than tho allowable value. This stress occurs in a beam a t El. | |||
719.1 f*. In the other cases the stress margius are 29% or more. | |||
Tha structural steel elements selected for assessment are given in Piqures E-17 through E-20. | |||
A t hree-diment sional lumped mass model was generated for determining the dynamic response of the Reactor Building Crane S u ppo r t Structure. This model is shown in Piqure E-21. Equation 7 Tablo 5-2 serves as the governing loading combination. | |||
Selected members as given in the model were assessed for s+ructural integrity and stability. The design margins for structure an d crane airder are 0% (see Figure E-37) . This condition is reached by letting the rails deform in such a way that the crane bumper strikes against one of the rail girders. | |||
The assessment of the Refueling Pool Girder shows that the maximum roba r stress was 51.7 ksi and the design margin is 4% | |||
(see Piqure E- 3 8) . The elements selected f or assessmen t are shown in Piqure E-22. | |||
As shown in Piqure E-30a, the box section columns supporting the refueling pool were found to have adequate strength f or resisting dead, live, and dynamic loads including seismic (O B E, SSE), SRV, g and LOCA loads imposed by the refueling gi rders. Equation 6 was W found to be the governing o uqa tion for columns. The strength of t he box section columns is summarized under elements 41 and 42. | |||
The minimum design margin is 38%. | |||
7 12 t i s]_ _ Sgy _ g g ggggt _ AgSeghl(g s_g g4_S3ngggggigg _ghgghen_gglgggg The stresses a t critical sections of the SRV support assemblies and the suppression chamber columns were calculated separately for the loa d combinations in Table 5. 2. The ma ximum stresses are qovernai by load combination 7a for both the SRV support assemblies and columns. The results of the SRV support assembly analysis are shown in Piqure A-67. The lowest stress margin of S RV su pport system which includes all bracinq members and connections is 21.7%. On the other hand, the maximum stresses in column (42 inch diameter pipe) , at the top and bottom bolt anchoraqos are shown in Piqure A- 5 9. The lowest stress margin in tho c olu mn structure is 11.4%. | |||
2s2tl: 4__D9EQG992E EEaGin9 Stresses in the bracinq members and connections were checked using the load combinations and allowable stresses as given in Table 5-2. Dynamic loads were combined on the basis of the SRSS method. Combined axial and bending stresses were investigated for the most highly loaded members. Equations 1, 3, 4 and 7 llh REV. 6, 4/82 7-44 | |||
l novern for the brace members with the design margins as indicated in Fiqure A-60. For the connection s, equations 2 and 7 are critical and the resulting design margins are shown in Piqure A-(~} | |||
s_/ 61. All bracinq menbors and connections are adequate. | |||
222 li5 _LincE_ Elate . | |||
For the normal load condition, the liner plates d o not experience any net negative pressure as can be observed from Figure 7-21. | |||
For the abnormal load condition, the maximum net negative pressure on the pressure boundary portion of the line r plates occurs on the containment wall, at point 8 of Fiqure 7-23, and is | |||
-6.39 psi. Since this is an impulse load of .004 seconds duration and the liner plate is supported every 2 feet, the stress in the liner plate is 12.5 ksi, well below the allowable. | |||
Thern is a margin of 51% for pullout of the embedded T steel sections tha t support the liner plate. | |||
The liner plates on the base slab a re supported by embedded W4x13 structural steel acabers every 10 feet. The ma rinua negative not pressure on the base slab occu rs at the corner. The magnitude is | |||
-5.12 psi. However, due to liner plate connection on the corner between base slab and containment wall, the negative net pressure does not cause a bend ing problem in the liner pla te a nd no pullout probina on W4x13 sections. The liner plate located away | |||
.f rom the corne r described above, do not experience negative pressure. | |||
\ | |||
(_)s s~ | |||
ItZtish__Q2EnGQEcEE A list of downcomer and bracing system nodal frequencies and participation factors is given in Table 7-5. The fundamental systen mode is at a f requency of 1. 8 Hz, which is a cantiliever type of mode f or all downcomers moving together. Downconer stresses were checked according to ASME Code Section NB3652 using load combina tions in Table 5-3. Stresses and design margins are given in Piqure A-66. | |||
It2sli2__ElcsiEisal_Basexay_systen It is appa rent from the analysis that high stresses a re a result of resnonses due to horizontal inertia loads. During the normal load condition, stresses under SRV discharge are generally low. | |||
Ho wav or, for the abnormal / extreme load condition, certain members required strengthening to relieve high stresses. After implementing these modifica tions, the resultant stresses do not exceed the allowable stresses in any member of the electrical raceway system supports. | |||
It2 slab __HV&G_Q9st_SIstem similar to the analysis of the electrical raceway system, the | |||
/'% analysis of the HVAC duct systen demonstrated that most of the | |||
\J su ppo rt members have actual stresses lower than the allowable REV. 6, 4/82 7-45 | |||
stressen. However, certain structural members required strengthening to relieve high stresses under the abnormal / extreme load conditions. | |||
222,112__ HOE _E991nnent All Seismic Category I BOP equipment are re-assessed for the hydradynamic a nd non-hydrodynamic loads (see subsection 7.1.7) via the SSES Seismic Qualifica tion Review Team (SORT) program. | |||
For each BOP equipment, 4-page SQRT summary forms have been prepared documenting the re-evaluation of that equi pme n t. In nome cases, modifications were required to reduce the stresses below the allowables. | |||
In response to SER Open Item 811, the BOP SQRT summary forma requested by the NRC were formally submitted on February 25, 1982 | |||
( | |||
==Reference:== | |||
PL A- 102 4) . The remaining BOP SQRT summa ry forms are ava ilable f or review. | |||
2s2t10__ESSS_Equinannt All Seismic Category I NSSS equipment are being evaluated for the load com binations given in Table 5-5 via the SSES SQRT prog ra m. | |||
Por each NSSS equipment, SORT summary forms are prepared documenting the re-evaluation of th at particular equipment. | |||
The NSSS SORT summary forms requested by the NRC will he formally submitted to the NRC under the SSES SORT program. All NSSS SQRT su mma ry forms are available for review. | |||
It2t11__USSS_tud_B0E_Eining As documented in Subsection 7.1.5 a nd 7.1.6.1.1, all Seismic Category I BOP and NSSS piping have been analyzed for hydrodynamic a nd Lan-hydrodynamic loads per the load combinations given in Subsections 5.5 and 5.6, respectively. As a result of this evaluation, many modifications were required to maintain the stresses below the allowable values. Appendix F provides a summary of the stresses and design margins for selected BOP pipinq system. | |||
The resu lt s of the above evaluation are documented in stress reports, which are available f or NRC review. | |||
ItZi2__accelutati9n_H9snense_Saccita 2t2s2al__C90tainment_Structugg The method of analysis and load description for the acceleration responsa spectraum generation are outlineJ in Subsections 7.1.1.1.1. 6.1. From a review of the acceleration response spectra curves for the contain ment structure, the maximum spectral accelerations are tabulated for 1% damping o f critical. | |||
For SRV and LOCA loads, the maximum spectral accelerations are presented in Table 7- 1. g HEV. 6, 4/82 7-46 | |||
2,2s2.Z__ Reactor _and_ContEn1_Huildins | |||
(~' The methods of analysis and load application for the computation | |||
\- - of the acceleration response spectrum in the reactor and control building are described in Subsections 7.1.1.2.1.1 and 7.1.1. 2.1. 2. From a review of the acceleration response spectra c ur ves, the maximum spectral accelerations are ta bula ted for 4% | |||
-damping of critical. For SRY and LOC A loads, the maximum spect ral accelerations a re presented in Table 7-2. | |||
2.2s3 _C9atainnsat_Lingt_Qacnings 2.2s3s1_ Equina 9nt_Unish-Esrs9saml_ Air _L9sh Stressen in the equipment hatch-personnel air lock were all within allowable limits. However, as a result of the new loads, bolt pre-load had to be increased f rom 65 to 72 kips to maintain acceptable levels of displacement at the flanged joint. The resultant equivalent radial load applied at the bearing on the hingo support results in a minimum sa fety factor of 1 at ultimate for the roller and race. | |||
la 2 s 362__CEQ _EERQIal_ HatGht_SE EEE2E s12a_Ghanhe r_Agggg g_ga tgh ' | |||
and_Eauinnent Hatch CBI's analysis indicated no stresses in excess of the specified allowable limits for the additional loadings considered. | |||
) la2els3 _E2fu211DG_Utad_ add _EMPEQEt_ShiEt The refueling head and flange were found to have no stresses exceeding allowable limits. The only effect of the new loads applied was to increase bolt pre-stress f rom 16 1 to 200 kips to maintain leaktightness at the flanged joint. Figure A-33.1 qives the stress margins in the refueling head and the flange. | |||
e i | |||
I I REV. 6, 4/82 7_47 1 | |||
l I | |||
pre . | |||
hatserne. | |||
8.e l O . | |||
g f.p. | |||
..a ew.r.l ryt.r21 4 t CDC 7608 | |||
: 1. n .e p.11. | |||
~~ | |||
r AN515 PREPR(.3 | |||
:::: g , _,,. i.,u.u u - | |||
' ;;::= | |||
73 e i | |||
M ### / r | |||
/ ,,, | |||
I I | |||
l 8 s.a u AN5YS n e.a i | |||
s sry Da ee= | |||
{ s.t.aara. | |||
r t w.. , g,,,,,gjgg,,g ,,, , , , _ | |||
! -*~~ 1. . . | |||
__ _ ,_-._ _ _ _ _ se/ | |||
/ | |||
, / IV | |||
: i. **::.. + | |||
l o:50 l | |||
.u.r... l j | |||
-,BN~-7%- -'%- , | |||
)b%[ | |||
(le | |||
: a. - A ' y - .jl a | |||
12 tt f.et....ar .s.% | |||
= | |||
I .g" . | |||
* 1 1:!::.";;, ,,,, . de.ar...N | |||
* *= | |||
ner.t e.-- | |||
qi j .. u. | |||
i i., | |||
m.a.i w \ | |||
r s s Cyberti.a te cyg.,b ,, | |||
e cyber:1.m se | |||
: i. c.oc - ti.s . i. .ca.,.t.is. | |||
. cein O " | |||
a mI'.*s.*r!' * + = | |||
* pg., 4 O. m arsu , | |||
.'.'".b = y I Ia r .. n . | |||
,,. l | |||
// | |||
s' | |||
/ / VI 17 16 /s . .m m | |||
*-. a===1.- ****.* 8* **** | |||
. .6t*Jun v DJVLP 4,,g, | |||
. tsu., syn.. % us Wel j far .ese.ee aldg. | |||
l / qg 1r.a. | |||
18 r. , o.ss .. . e g | |||
us rios - r-- . us %. ,4 8 f ue w | |||
er t l t i I | |||
l 19 ue | |||
*",*8'''' Piol - - - | |||
j ,,,,,, REV. 6, 4/82 | |||
=. ,4a SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT CONTAINMENT RESPONSE ANALYSIS l FIGURE 7-4 | |||
: O 3 2 1 I | |||
l Disp, ories Rs t Stiffness Geometry i | |||
Stress Pass 1 Matrix l I N | |||
~ | |||
\ / % - - - - - - - -a | |||
/ ' | |||
4 / II t | |||
1 Element Moment 6-- | |||
l j nd Force | |||
$gg l | |||
l | |||
/ | |||
/ | |||
Printout 5/ - | |||
7 Ma x.4,tmam Moments Moments and and Forces Moment and i | |||
Forces d@ __ | |||
From Static Forces Fra | |||
} Loads Seismic Loac1 l | |||
\ 6 1 | |||
N - _. ! | |||
l C | |||
e Rebar and Concrete Stresses REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION l UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT O | |||
CONTAINMENT STRESS ANALYSIS FIGbRE 7-5 | |||
l l | |||
/ / / | |||
/ // | |||
// | |||
\ | |||
t l | |||
t i 4 | |||
,o l N T T | |||
\ \\ - | |||
: : : :: :: x :: x : | |||
REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT FINITE ELEMENT CONTAINMENT EQUIPMENT HATCH MODEL FIGURE 7-6 | |||
O i f | |||
Seemetry Cl911 data deck Medal analyste | |||
/ | |||
/ | |||
/ | |||
2 M I | |||
! hade shapes C[ 92Q rose acceleration frequencies 4 =+ Time history + - , time histories from participation analysis l DISQ of ANSYS factore (Modal Synthesist | |||
{,,,,,g,,,,,,3,g y ,g, | |||
/ | |||
/ | |||
/ | |||
3 ucel. | |||
eretion l "UE* | |||
1 stories | |||
+ CE 921 | |||
/ | |||
/ | |||
1V 4 | |||
,eY*t.1.n s . n .e -+ | |||
. D4VLP e ra -I Envelope AAS | |||
/ | |||
Transmis to CDC 175 in sunnyvale j | |||
/ ARS MSPEC | |||
"+ AAS broadened and (sa"1***di create plot flie 4 | |||
1 ARS | |||
[ l '"A" broadened | |||
- clot -+ | |||
l 1. | |||
l REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT O | |||
REACTOR BUILDING RESPONSE ANALYSIS FIGURE 7-7 P | |||
i O | |||
/ | |||
/ | |||
/ | |||
1 | |||
/ | |||
Mode shape frequency - | |||
((gl8 -- | |||
part, factor Response spectru. | |||
1 Moment Shear l | |||
t REV. 6, 4/82 l | |||
' SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION l | |||
UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT l0 REACTOR BUILDING STRESS ANALYSIS FIGURE 7-8 | |||
f U cA* ~ ] | |||
(g <c\ ' | |||
\k i | |||
~ ~ ~ | |||
*a * ' | |||
DOWNCOMER | |||
. . " . (TYPICAL) | |||
Pipt COLukN (TYPICAL) / | |||
,/ . | |||
* g | |||
~ | |||
fe / ,h , | |||
g - .j s | |||
_/ *) , A g'? ' | |||
PIPE BRACING (TYPICAL) y_ .L)g . | |||
~ | |||
~ | |||
N. , /, , | |||
,p . " ' | |||
- a. 84-o - 7-l 'L | |||
. l- e-e17 .- ." | |||
-Q | |||
' ' ~ | |||
\ | |||
.R f | |||
' * ~-- | |||
: i. ; g '"' , | |||
/ -- | |||
\ | |||
O O | |||
\\ ' | |||
.. O:- ' | |||
; ,. .i % @ - | |||
~ | |||
y A | |||
m- | |||
- t .q _ | |||
(n ' | |||
,,,. . \ - | |||
: m. * -O- - | |||
5 , , m d s | |||
/ . | |||
e | |||
,, '.' DOWNCOMER WITH 4 # VACCUM BRE#KER (TYPICAL) | |||
.-v ' | |||
-? .__.#, | |||
_~ _ . m .- | |||
f 2ftano 3<A | |||
* 4/t das SL* e l REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT | |||
'bd DOWNCOMER BRACING SYSTEM PLAN FIGURE 7-9 | |||
i c7o-hh I l', | |||
I 4 d'el , | |||
1_ _ _ | |||
) | |||
: I ! S $ | |||
. I | |||
!kN | |||
' 5$ | |||
IED . | |||
h n | |||
'~ 4l5 5 5 kip | |||
\ f-_ | |||
) | |||
'a | |||
)$ = | |||
i 3 | |||
Ul:! | |||
g sti l e a l ; | |||
g | |||
}d 2 0 | |||
~$ | |||
i-- f' $lk,,t.t.t . .. | |||
f I% | |||
i -~ | |||
I ; 7 : 3' , . | |||
,i .() '. | |||
Nhf'hsi i" | |||
.j | |||
* Int %4 ' | |||
, l- i i 1, _ m i I I g | |||
m O | |||
( | |||
1 hk!f | |||
/ M' al IsTI i. i | |||
+ # | |||
L ). - | |||
O(t g ! ::Ffr I | |||
I e 'l:=: | |||
Ji ; | |||
$i8 - | |||
{r e | |||
e, N | |||
l nv , o | |||
/ I ]N - I i | |||
-y . | |||
!. w. , | |||
REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT DOWNCOMER BRACING SYSTEM CONNECTION DETAILS FIGURE 7-10 (Sheet 1) | |||
O ~C I | |||
3su,ar s *m or r w- awm , ..... | |||
oser o'eu. a - | |||
( sN5e" " * | |||
.s n M y | |||
: o. gn M* , j -- | |||
~ , .,7" N L6 f g | |||
=- | |||
wz / . , | |||
f .h | |||
.:-- ~ ~ ~ , | |||
C,mer N e eM$Na * | |||
.e f.:<- %%'*** | |||
SINGLE RING PLATE SECTION M STIFFENER DETAIL D | |||
-c 'r' a | |||
gese e'v mar sfewe j O s.or n a.e a 4-- w amam. ) | |||
p , | |||
pS_,. r | |||
; / | |||
, .LT. " . . . | |||
r | |||
/ .y r ,= , 4. ,,,,- > | |||
g ' fererna Ls / Tt- | |||
, ew we me.e L_. . ' | |||
ki Y / desoorn nune A | |||
; = ., rm , | |||
g, SECTION / 6 \ | |||
DOUBLE PING PLATE STIFFENER DETAll REV. 6, 4/82 i SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION | |||
! UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT LO DOWNCOMER BRACING SYSTEM CONNECTION DETAILS FIGURE 7-10 (Sheet 2) | |||
O XD DOWNCOMER TOP RING PLATE i | |||
\ | |||
~ / | |||
\ > g] BOLTS , | |||
- C | |||
. MAIN RING PLATE VERTICAL STlFFENERS TOP PARTIAL PLATE CONNECTOR PLATE l | |||
REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECT 8 tlc STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT lO I | |||
DOWNCOMER BRACING SYSTEM CONNECTION | |||
! FIGURE 7-10 (Sheet 3) | |||
O , | |||
l 41 | |||
: _ 40 o 39 34 33 " 31 30 28 | |||
. 38 19 , , | |||
18 27 26 | |||
" 16 2 25 37 11 10 yg o 13 24 | |||
<, 15 9 ,, 36 1 - | |||
23 601 22 i, | |||
5 602 21 35 2 4 14 o | |||
1 20 3 | |||
8 REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT DOWNCOMER BRACING SYSTEM COMPUTER MODEL FIGURE 7-11 (Sheet 1) | |||
O ys | |||
/l l . | |||
ej = | |||
/ | |||
'~ | |||
REV. 6, 4/82 l | |||
SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION j DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT DOWNCOMER BRACING SYSTEM COMPUTER MODEL FIGURE 7-11 (Sheet 2) | |||
-- -~~,. | |||
/ | |||
's \ | |||
, - 'l | |||
/ s | |||
- % l N ,,,,,, "-'- -% / | |||
p ,, | |||
l | |||
?< [ < \ | |||
u | |||
) | |||
f Q- T y >f 3>< 7 , | |||
s h | |||
'~ | |||
} | |||
? - - ' , | |||
gg ne ' | |||
v | |||
:o | |||
! se . | |||
= | |||
d I ; | |||
p EQ i l | |||
N1 !P!g.x r#pi? ' | |||
/ | |||
ewy; : h[ h!Ef | |||
/ / Mh i | |||
PYMd5N ''9i!!! l4M,3 | |||
;;in-h | |||
)< \ ' | |||
5 | |||
>( ui | |||
"[ 7 | |||
) | |||
l i O :P f i - - | |||
-- -~~ ~ | |||
---j$k !A 5{: - | |||
b E9 = .. saes ml eg g ( | |||
,.a | |||
/ 6 ' | |||
1 s | |||
< 's | |||
') s Ej, , | |||
\ :'\ 1 | |||
*' 5] | |||
s s, | |||
.d) - | |||
s, , | |||
l ' , | |||
- - - s s | |||
_ _- s i X )l s e s , i | |||
% / | |||
/ | |||
, , ,, ,/ | |||
REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT O | |||
DOWNCOMER BRACING SYSTEM CONNECTION COMPUTER MODEL | |||
, FIGUPE 7-11 (Sheet 3) | |||
O c" | |||
/,< a en f 6' g | |||
4 h & | |||
=" | |||
/ | |||
/ \ / 'N | |||
\ / | |||
/ | |||
* e.,','. | |||
/ ,N / | |||
v | |||
\ | |||
..t- i ~. - - | |||
\ 7 .m$ - x s.R.V. PIPE | |||
.- *'**N' | |||
. . , (TYPICAL) | |||
, .:r , | |||
/ | |||
.. y.. | |||
d *.. f s '- | |||
... _ c. ) - - A s(/ -*s r .. - - - | |||
: s. * | |||
- , t .. . | |||
\y , | |||
, / | |||
o /y , .9-, | |||
s | |||
/ | |||
/ -. - | |||
\, - Na. :. | |||
x f - | |||
/ | |||
; N ' | |||
%s - | |||
.. .- \ s.R.V. PIPE BR ACING | |||
'' , . (TYPICAL) | |||
'..i .. J REV. 6, 4/82 NOTE: | |||
t O o'"n 'THis *^'''""'''"^*'" | |||
siot suSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 l TYPES A 8. & C. POR DETAILS | |||
! sEE DWG C M2 sH. 4 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT | |||
! r TYPES A & C q. Piets EL. es? o - | |||
l TvPE e ( EL. es -o - | |||
l - | |||
SRV SUPPORT SYSTEM l | |||
1 PLAN l | |||
FIGURE 7 -12 l | |||
t--- | |||
: h. -I i | |||
L "' | |||
, -lTd L | |||
'y 1 ";. 3 | |||
. !{ | |||
(If | |||
~[ | |||
.h ha gE | |||
'fp h(\% ? | |||
Ngf\* 1 f j.' } 1,a ' | |||
g ., ll. II.. k .y i | |||
,j[ | |||
. r er1 f, g- I fi' \ V- ..s dI | |||
*', po.- | |||
e E) ;; . ... h,/ */.j.I'. -- | |||
~ | |||
, s | |||
' ,j ' ; II! | |||
* i:j 3 | |||
? | |||
ll! ,, ' | |||
t h' i l | |||
't" lI i | |||
t l . i o a . | |||
g | |||
.'\ ql Opm i:f it' i | |||
' \j,4 't, o,- ah Q) it! .pp - | |||
tj y | |||
[: ! | |||
.!:.iL..s_. A gip i' ,.i.,.__ . | |||
4: | |||
r h.. R )4.pv h; n - | |||
:;; i 7 q | |||
'. h.J ' b. >Y ._, | |||
!y p. | |||
.4 i i c .il ; | |||
9 '1 .id ' | |||
4 s.S - | |||
$ o 7 f.,. (p ' I 8 | |||
flj '. . yl r .- l . = | |||
I,, - ' ' | |||
. Y $ | |||
l'k | |||
> Ng. f ,8 i ,$ g , jO h[th11j! ' | |||
N k O | |||
(( ' | |||
'4 V !8 5 2 "I' y' k 4.U - .. II 1{U.l 1- -- | |||
.y;o [* p; 7 i ,j' j qr U ;{- i si 5- | |||
/ - .- | |||
gr - | |||
l .:' - , .. 7 | |||
: i. pI ,., f' g + : s if' i i ! l- ;- til I'l ' | |||
g /%j!(( % 5 j, hj.'U,f1 ,;. e 4 l.;[! * ' | |||
qf | |||
- | |||
* h Q) Oh ' M,,,. <-',.; . | |||
t.. | |||
p 'g, ~['8a. " | |||
#k , | |||
M ES .,. | |||
6 .. . | |||
4 i3 f z,,; | |||
' ; :,, 3 | |||
>v y 2 ' g \'' .'l! !il '. ir $ .$ 6(, . 'I $ | |||
4 h. .>' | |||
> . 9 e . , | |||
q gp?r i i - | |||
3: - . ;c >. , . | |||
3 I | |||
j[([.a) \,l__;t i i< M.P' wh | |||
: g. u 4 ! | |||
i "j ' | |||
da I d(4 | |||
'( J ' | |||
\. | |||
Il g , | |||
,.. / 't / | |||
REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STE AM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT | |||
, G SRV SUPPMT SYSTEMDETAILS FIGURE 7-3 | |||
i OftVWELL FL | |||
{I. .- a1.- - | |||
J* J. . ...d *j ,P | |||
_< Q DECK ////// | |||
$i | |||
^ | |||
i l r | |||
-1>- | |||
4reSTEEL P9PE COL -<>- | |||
FINITE ELEMENTS + | |||
-4 >- | |||
L= 52* 3" NOOE POIPJTS q + w ab | |||
-4>-- | |||
-4>- | |||
O -N WATER -4>-- | |||
LEVEL 24'4" | |||
-4>- | |||
-4>- | |||
BASEMAT --< >- | |||
U if f , , | |||
, , , .,., / // // / | |||
3 | |||
",,.*. MODEL | |||
+" . 1'., *," ' | |||
..' e 4 *e 't.c c a' -g s I// M // //M// \ | |||
REV. 6, 4/82 SUSCUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT i 1 | |||
FINITE ELEMENT MODEL OF COLUMN FIGURE 7-14 | |||
DRYWELL FL. | |||
i 1 9 */.,~r,;. -ab | |||
. _...s'4'r | |||
, v' ' | |||
+ 0. DECK | |||
$i i b . | |||
~ ".) | |||
3'* f i | |||
42"4 STEEL PIPE COL. f-1 ! | |||
I D l | |||
k I l L-52'.3" l q | |||
l ;- | |||
g ]N 1 | |||
+y | |||
.i g; :.:: | |||
O HIGH EL. 667 BRACING LEVEL | |||
< t~' | |||
WATER ' I LEVEL g 24*.0" - | |||
l | |||
.] | |||
l I | |||
BASEMAT f | |||
! 'I f . . i | |||
,.. ,,) | |||
O. | |||
r,. | |||
..' e4 | |||
* e ,t .c ts s& | |||
I // G // //451// \ | |||
REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT Da V | |||
FINITE ELEMENT MODEL OF COLUMN FIGURE 7-15 | |||
a U | |||
u 3 ii O az ,I =i \I .. | |||
l 4 | |||
''c I T:j. gj g; g i[ | |||
: i. k J, Mdj h.P A u, !! | |||
i | |||
!; , u ci uvs f\! l,1 i ;,7,d I f ki ~, % />'i t | |||
: e us 4- n c_i | |||
?.a 4 4 f,: '\ . | |||
/ | |||
" k2- ! | |||
; i,5 3 | |||
hpf> ;;ni g t i-kga i | |||
~ | |||
~~s' "Lps{ | |||
4 | |||
!5 i | |||
+ | |||
: h. =: hy | |||
-l-j: J | |||
( | |||
-] [ L . i d d _"i ~ I._1 ! %M 4 | |||
4 l s j" i '$ E , li }yf l N ! ! !ldiO [ ii s iM | |||
'O al ji I | |||
4 I | |||
5 | |||
"_( | |||
~ | |||
jil J rli lig i' i | |||
q u i i. e -: | |||
O , | |||
a WWi : | |||
ifrge" " g-4 -- -- | |||
a 3 _ | |||
2 5 .. | |||
$= l | |||
,, I g=; -Nj 1 | |||
N fd b h , .s ag . | |||
1%' EVf ' | |||
c l 0I ll,lll'il!!ill';!!y,lll l | |||
NE "5 REV. 6, 4/82 f l ll{ 1 IIl I!. 1: 5 :- | |||
SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UN,1S uNo= 1 t | |||
* DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT J | |||
Ia llEIi l o u g O r -- e--- | |||
!i1:,i | |||
:i! - | |||
ii ,;ir";M 1 cerent rewxiemen i | |||
h nn ia; | |||
- I A | |||
: llii! ,gi : i di esasonnettocx i | |||
FIGURE /-16 | |||
p , swer m d ~4 y .s l | |||
%fU %.4/ , ~ | |||
E} | |||
n hA u | |||
w T'j ,- 3 d (o . | |||
* lil V x e' ' ' | |||
:e d{,b k. liill,Nj/ '.h N. lli T O \.\ l u' I , | |||
[ | |||
d g2 ){ | |||
, ,1 . | |||
f 4 *e o ,1 W g5 | |||
.Ti - | |||
2.4 e. - , | |||
i x m >. 9 .) g ys | |||
! 2u11_ .g* '*h ,' !_ , _ | |||
x; = -g t- | |||
<( TMWU. | |||
i, g | |||
= | |||
7 s< .d N g>* 6 : | |||
* k i 9 !! j,,i , . ..3 9"/ , | |||
i s s y - | |||
w-g p 8 gg s - :. .. . | |||
,l 2 e - | |||
i N !d 3 .,. .: | |||
r /O l[. h- I j Weg q n , E* 4! ! = 'l J- - | |||
W '"" | |||
<j El f 3 i | |||
s> - | |||
i > | |||
t 4 1! R A1 hO IQ . | |||
Y | |||
$W , | |||
! l i l. Le hd ! u;~, ..!j | |||
%l k i | |||
_ l -{ e+ j_g \ | |||
I).'b Mjh.. | |||
A . ~ye - .- y -R Af" f 1 | |||
:y' 'y_ | |||
b - - - .bd+ %'.i3 | |||
~ | |||
l ;g - | |||
BRMt | |||
~v < - a UuM.k aa .o, . | |||
we 4.<.,. | |||
i I( ? lul I ?!d ll11 1 T_i!ill!!Imim 5 ei m , | |||
t8l8lt!2o d ; ti q!g | |||
% / Jojo 4 !! | |||
* E j 4j , 2 | |||
$(g h FEE 5 5 ef. - | |||
ps :: E ja suSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION | |||
,s {* /h I g UNITS 1 AND 2 p '! | |||
!g v / ,,-.c4 .rs . . 3 e{3 , DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT | |||
~ | |||
kN ? | |||
i< -i - i-!*x- Hs=* % '!IIi ,, | |||
;gg EQUIPMENT DOOR DETAILS I $5.S$553$!!335)!55$k3k5 !;33j4 iEi l s' -l I i i l i I -ililiiiH23:44' N FIGURE 7-E | |||
'''f 9 9 *r 99 9 '- | |||
~ | |||
e 3 | |||
a il 1 e, en c. | |||
9tj$ s aiva s i | |||
n i | |||
a SE91 os oiu | |||
_!i_ r !L_g__igggrri !! !! ; | |||
------Mi-!j! ! $ j wm un g i$$ 5 d. | |||
[ j | |||
~ | |||
! I Ej' I dgad N { I 833 . e3 35 0% 3 | |||
* h ak p st d; f{, } : h:.g d* T h 35 E s jX;p d y ! r ; r a | |||
:m t | |||
t e n hdi lj ~Np s | |||
H I Jebee 51551 9 uf n g S i , = : e. w- 1 s / | |||
Wh- 3 e - . , . . - - r - - r + a a ,\ | |||
u, e * + , | |||
esse : is s I"* v u la i I I I inn sssas ! | |||
g i.= | |||
i.g e .,, I E s | |||
;e __ E = | |||
y a y B-E{ | |||
c 88 t - | |||
h 5 | |||
g | |||
.a | |||
: d.;,e p e ; )i - ( | |||
.e. ,.f 2L | |||
.c u | |||
, e i | |||
+ | |||
g .L: *l " | |||
-I [ f 5 }j - ' | |||
E | |||
* = | |||
g- g I 7 | |||
.Ly I ;iM 2 | |||
-d 5i t ( | |||
'h | |||
) * | |||
'3 ET '%. [. . .. _ W M) m i >h iit) Lkki p, vf. | |||
/ | |||
. . - ;y g- | |||
't | |||
:* 'e .9s f } 'jlo. | |||
i!/i! | |||
:. f5 !I !. . | |||
y ls ~ | |||
v} ~ | |||
.j i | |||
a ' 'of | |||
.r-e. | |||
e l .. | |||
e -] :s j .= $ | |||
? yll , l. | |||
. . 1, % *s= , | |||
~ | |||
E ~ ' " ~ | |||
-4. E ="5E F - -' .- ? ?- t .. l0 | |||
*e | |||
>f g1-e,- | |||
~ | |||
t d | |||
eknir ' S T | |||
4e | |||
, ll ' | |||
. = . ' .f, i ,i Q *4 3 | |||
'f1 ::[uld. | |||
2 jjf 7 f Wm., . I'"ll'- | |||
i 4=am, i 'f | |||
) REV. 6, 4/82 | |||
'. , , SUSOUEHANNA STEAF. ELECTRIC STATION | |||
,[* - | |||
g g. | |||
* a UNITS 1 AND 2 g C gy 4 l 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT V ' | |||
,d z 8 | |||
%~ | |||
a ---- ~ | |||
(.RD HATCH DETAILS FIGURE / 18 | |||
i l | |||
<< . - ecs I .. | |||
NN | |||
(,}-ilk'Q Js MX-55a[ | |||
mf g />>r ; | |||
N .. | |||
- @M,* | |||
~, , r. | |||
w _ | |||
,,A - | |||
~~~ | |||
t" : - | |||
yjp | |||
\ ~ | |||
P m m | |||
<L%'14 / | |||
e k 4y in1: steriod be* | |||
taf . . ,,, | |||
'' Qf, <R.~*y',,,.'2' -- .~' ,2..ao ,se e,, on | |||
- .fatna m os os ran naAn' | |||
.4 asesh , w., ras;~- | |||
< . . J,,, a e s - I.m | |||
>WL | |||
? 7' | |||
>=e a_menamen g,ro t-'~' | |||
/ | |||
[4 4 i | |||
w&D | |||
.Y_ | |||
t I s | |||
,,< ,,;L@Ety\ | |||
, t }\. a;yi (J'' T, ,, | |||
, . . ,.._ s . . | |||
.. es-, 2-o = | |||
".t. | |||
,e | |||
< ,J f,,,, 3 ( r_ / @ | |||
7asst,* ef . | |||
Y,[ it . | |||
-e , | |||
rusu >.a x t.A s 8 v'EN'l E' u~ t i | |||
. t a\ , . . , t 3 - | |||
IMLM . , _ . _,..., Wun. %, . | |||
,. Ja,o- | |||
~ ' ' " " " *- seermr A a fs | |||
, hety;-w / ''' | |||
sY ' | |||
/ '" y " | |||
(i65 * | |||
.d -^ | |||
,.,r N. | |||
'N . | |||
a | |||
% / | |||
too - - | |||
- - ee REV. 6, 4/82 | |||
' SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 O | |||
()- \ | |||
j DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT | |||
~_ g REFUELING lhAD DETAILS e..db meersov 3-r | |||
. ..n-, | |||
FIGURE 7_1q | |||
O himment sen11 ) | |||
Sedeetal # | |||
1 8 l a | |||
i | |||
.-i 1 o | |||
if l 1e.71 17 l 2 3 4 5 6 | |||
: : e 4 | |||
>14.88 4 4 4 ---l m at.73 mae.ee. m as,3e. 344, .. | |||
l MAXIMUM NEGATIVE PRESSURE FROM KWU 300 SERIES CHUGGING O Point No. Maximum Negative Pressure psi. | |||
Trace No. | |||
1 -62.16 InfU 306 l 2 -26.42 KWU 306 3 -24.74 InfU 306 4 -26.85 KWU 306 1 | |||
5 -26.69 Info 306 l 6 | |||
-32.72 kwu 306 7 -28.40 1000 306 8 -31.39 KNU 306 REV. 6, 4/82 1 | |||
SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT O LINER PLATE HYDRODYNAMIC PRESSURE DUE TO CHUGGING FIGURE 7-20 | |||
O PEGESTAL : CONTAINMENT g WALL | |||
* w- a HYDROSTATIC , | |||
+10.4 poi | |||
[ | |||
u | |||
\ l~ o | |||
+10.4 psi. | |||
BASE MAT | |||
+ l 0 | |||
- o SRV gg is-o 7.8 poi | |||
, 6' 7.8 poi II U | |||
wr- o TOTAL 18" o | |||
l | |||
+u ,w k | |||
1 , , , , ,,,r | |||
/ "" 6' | |||
+2.8 poi REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION f UNITS 1 AND 2 g o..ONA 1R., ORT LINER PLATE PRESSURES NORMAL CONDITION FIGURE 7-21 | |||
O n SRV Trace 76 s | |||
* f | |||
~ | |||
f 8 | |||
g g.. | |||
$8 i I i | |||
s V | |||
U\ | |||
J ? | |||
a KhU Chugging . | |||
s a | |||
s P | |||
E s | |||
O r | |||
: i. J. mv - | |||
N w | |||
~ | |||
; %/ | |||
I s | |||
s, . | |||
n SRV Plus Chugging Lined up at Minimum Pressures | |||
.V. | |||
h 1 | |||
e C ~ | |||
e A I. d A r'8 r; | |||
v g7v' + | |||
s T Y REV. 6, 4/82 s | |||
5.. ... ... s. . ... s. ... (. . SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION Time in seconds 5 UNITS 1 AND 2 1o-1 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT LINER PLATE HYDRODYNAMIC PRESSURE | |||
- DUE TO CHUGGING AND SRV FIGURE 7-22 | |||
O Costal' ament trall Pedestal # | |||
8 | |||
<t | |||
,1 d, | |||
7 il 10.71' 17' 7.s* | |||
2 3 4 s s | |||
: : 0 4 , | |||
M M M | |||
>14.8e' >31.73* a=le.se' m38.3e* >44.coe | |||
; POINT IN FIGURE LOAD CASE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 CEUGGING -62.16 -26.42 -24.74 -26.85 -26.t . -32.72 -28.40 -31.39 sRY Trace 76 - 5.76 - 7.80 - 7.80 -7.80 - 7.80 - 7.00 - 7.09 - 3.05 sydrostatic 5.76 10.40 10.40 10.40 10.40 10.40 6.82 3.05 Wetwell pressure 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 due to saA or IRA | |||
* WIT PRESSURE -37.16 1.18 2.86 0.75 0.91 -5.12 -3.69 -6.39 | |||
*Wetwell pressure due to DaA is 34 poi. | |||
~ | |||
REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT s | |||
LINER PLATE PRESSURE ABNORMAL CONDITION FIGURE 7-23 | |||
DIAPHRAGM s'^= T70 T. | |||
I, I | |||
i | |||
.. e, | |||
.g i **t t **,. .y g . A ,- | |||
8 p,*> . . i EL.700*27 8" *- . e' ' ; g l '' | |||
<3 s. * . * . ' | |||
' l | |||
%d 5'.57 8" l , | |||
VACUUM l | |||
Q BREAKER VALVE | |||
! ,p % 4*.9 1 8" | |||
t TYPICAL OF 5 l I i i | |||
24" DOWNCOMER - I T.O. WATE R E L. 672*-0" l I 21'-117 8" l l i 4 *-0 " | |||
3 34"a. 8 | |||
]"P ql 6"$ DOWNCOMER BRACING O 4D120o l 7 *-6" l .. | |||
l 8'-01 8" I | |||
I I t 24"$ SCH 20 CAP | |||
:gssu II 4 *-0" 3"$ SCH 180 PIPE - I L | |||
7'.117 8" T.O. BASEMAT q E L. 648*-0" \ ~' | |||
re,.y.l', ' ' ,.,. ~ . *j ' Y, . : | |||
.'t - . , 3 . e ,' *@ | |||
,'[, | |||
p .,Q' | |||
. ."*j ,' ' | |||
9 ,- | |||
UNm m BASEMAT REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHt,NNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UN4TS 1 ANO 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT DOWNCOMER WITH VACUUM BREAKER AND DETAIL OF CAP FIGURE 7-24 | |||
~ | |||
1 O DIAPHRAGM SLA8 s.1 ll i l | |||
l | |||
. * . a- .. | |||
.g i I *..- - | |||
d...,.* e l e?.y,. ;. * .e .C* | |||
EL. 700*-27 8" l *. ' ' | |||
l e ! | |||
.As. * . * * | |||
' l l | |||
r i I l 1 i l | |||
; 10*3" TYPIC'AL OF 82 i | |||
l i o i | |||
24" DOWNCOMER - I T.O. WATE R m | |||
I I e E L. 672'-0" l I 21*.117 8" i | |||
l i | |||
f I | |||
4'0" a I ' | |||
l 6"$ DOWNCOMER I | |||
I l BRACING 7 '-6 " 8'-01 8" l I | |||
,I I 11'.117 8" T.O. B ASEMATS EL 648'-0" g r..pe',, | |||
...t | |||
~' ', J. . : | |||
c . -lt - 1.;<, | |||
, | |||
* i' | |||
.f.*-}.'- - | |||
.: . 4.,. | |||
UNM m BASEMAT I | |||
REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 i DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT O | |||
DOWNCOMER WITHOUT VACUUM BREAKER FIGURE 7-25 | |||
1 N | |||
l | |||
.i* | |||
"'' ** I; . . **' I | |||
.L ) T ] l l | |||
FATIGUE ANALYSIS I LOCATION l | |||
,.l ' -D_ | |||
DOWNCOMERS , | |||
2' % | |||
f N | |||
; L | |||
\ / ':'''.:' 1 | |||
: o. - | |||
i* | |||
20*-5%" '.. | |||
HIGH WATER LEVEL | |||
, , y f E L. 672' 0" v | |||
O ... | |||
- < s-< | |||
7 i r h | |||
4 | |||
: 33. g PEDESTAL | |||
" f HOLES 12* | |||
n C-4*-3%" 4 4 + v . | |||
~' ' | |||
, u .4 ~ .:q,. | |||
3 REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 | |||
& DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT | |||
, \ | |||
LOCATION WHERE DOMCOMhP. | |||
I FATIGUE ANALYSISWAS PERFORMED FIGURE 7- $ | |||
L | |||
m a | |||
Table 7-1 MAXIMUM SPECTRAL ACCELERATIONS OF CONTAINMENT DUE TO SRV AND LOCA LOADS AT 14 DAMPING TYPE OF l LOAD NODE | |||
* ELEVATION MAXIMUM STRUCTURAL LOAD l CASE DIRECTION NUMBER SPECTRAL FREQUENCY ACCELERATION (g) Hz Axisymme tric Vertical 841 778'-9-3/4" 1.088 15 SRV Horizontal 135 672'-0" 1.58 38 Asymmetric Vertical 252 702'-3" 0.83 40 Horizontal 131 672'-0" 0.875 38 Axisymmetric Vertical 235 702'-3" 1.80 54 CHUGGING Horizontal 131 672'-0" 8.5 30 L | |||
Asymmetric Vertical 235 702'-3" 1.56 54 0 | |||
C Horizontal 131 672'0" 7.1 30 A | |||
Axisymmetric Vertical 850 731'-3-1/4" 1.0 11 (CO) | |||
Horiz'ontal 131 672'-0" 1.97 30 REV. 6, 4/82 | |||
O O O Table 7-2 MAXIMUM SPECTRAL ACCELERATIONS OF REACTOR AND CONTROL BUILDINGS MAXIMUM STRUCTURAL TYPE OF LOAD NODE SPECTRAL PREQUENCY LOAD CASE DIRECTION NUMBER ELEVATION ACCELERATION (g) Hz Axisymmetric Vertical 25 697'-0" 1.7 15 SRV Horizontal NA NA NA NA Asymmetric Vertical 25 697'-0" 0.35 15 Horizontal 37 683'-0" 0.35 25 (E-W) | |||
Axisymmetric Vertical 25 697'-0" 3.5 15 Horizontal 37 683'-0" 3.0 25 CHUGGING (E-W) | |||
L Asymmetric Vertical 25 697'-0" 2.7 15 O Horizontal 36 670'-0" 2.1 75 C - | |||
(E-W) | |||
A (CO) Axisymmetric Vertical 23 870'-0"- 1.85 11 Horizontal 37 683'-0" 1.0 25 (E-W) | |||
REV. 6, 4/82 | |||
~ | |||
O O O a | |||
Table 7-3 USAGE FACIOR SlDMARY OF DCNNO3 TEES NORMU/UPSEP CCNDITION EMERGENCY / FAULTED 00f01TICN SBA IBA or SBA IBA 1 CBE ISRV1 ISRV1 ' Pressure ' Pressure 'Pt; essure 1SRV1 ISRv2 1SRV2 * %ennal * %ennal *%enmal 1SRv2 1010G Transient Transient Transient | |||
*Stearn Flow ' Steam Flow ' Steam Flow IIRDS 1010G 1010G I OfUG ISRV* 1SRV* 1SSE SSE At diaphragm location 0.0083 0.608 0.774 0.774 0.791 .782 Notes: 1) SRV* is a conbination of direct loads and building response loads. | |||
: 2) OfUG is the maxistan chtsging load (direct load and building response). | |||
: 3) %e^ calculation is based on ASME, Section III,1979 Sunener Addendura. | |||
: 4) %e combination of 1 GIUG,1 SRV* ani SSE or CBE is by SRSS. | |||
: 5) %ennal and presst=c 1rwis are conbined with 4) by absolute sta. | |||
: 6) SRV1 is submerged structure load. | |||
: 7) SRV2 is building response load. | |||
REV. 6, 4/82 | |||
O TABLE 7-4 MAXIMUM CUMULATIVE USAGE FACTORS FOR SRV DISCHARGE LINE CALCULATED CODE COMPONENT CUMULATIVE USAGE ALLOWABLE CUMULATIVE | |||
, FACTORS USAGE FACTORS i. | |||
[. Flued Head 0.46 1,0 l 3-Way Restraint 0.51 1.0 I | |||
(. Elbow (Line P) 0.56 1.0 l | |||
l A | |||
.O I ' | |||
I. | |||
y, . | |||
V O | |||
REV '6, 4/82 3 . | |||
l | |||
1 Table 7- 5 | |||
} DOWNCOMERS AND BRACING SYSTEM MODAL FREQUENCIES l | |||
FREQ. WEIGHT PARTICIPATION FACTORS MODE (HZ) HORIZ-X HORIZ-Y VERTICAL 1 1.84 0.320 1.274 --- | |||
I 2 1.84 -1.278 0.321 --- | |||
3 2.53 0.001 -0.013 --- | |||
4 6.58 ---- 0.001 --- | |||
; 5 8.64 0.001 -0.002 --- | |||
6 9.95 -0.001 0.001 --- | |||
7 13.27 0.004 -0.002 -0.002 8 14.05 -0.001 0.004 -0.002 9 14.55 0.001 *-0.001 0.004 10 15.12 0.003 0.002 -0.001 | |||
( 11 15.17 -0.007 --- | |||
0.006 12 15.27 0.002 0.001 --- | |||
13 15.38 --- | |||
0.003 -0.008 14 15.44 -0.001 0.003 -0.007 15 15.46 -0.003 -0.001 0.002 d | |||
45 15.75 --- | |||
0.002 -0.012 46 15.76 -0.004 0.001 0.004 | |||
'47 17.44 , | |||
0.010 0.521 --- | |||
48 17.44 -0.504 0.006 --- | |||
49 17.50 0.023 -0.116 --- | |||
50 17,78 0.015 0.126 --- | |||
^ | |||
93 45.05 -0.072 0.460 --- | |||
94 45.14 -0.416 -0.059 --- | |||
95 45.33 -0.005 -0.027 --- | |||
96 45.82 0.007 , 0.256 --- | |||
~ | |||
L O. | |||
REV. 6, 4/82 | |||
CHAPTER 10 RESPONSES TO NRC QUESTIONS | |||
'taki 97.90ETEHIS 10.1 NRC QUESTIONS 10.1.1 IDENTIFICATION OF QUESTIONS UNIQUE TO SSES 10.1.2 IDENTIFICATION OF QUESTIONS PERTAINING TO THE NRC'S REVIEW OF THE DAR 10.1.3 QUESTIONS RECEIV ED DURING TH E PREPAR ATION OF THE SAFETY EV ALU ATION REPORT (SER) 10.2 RESPONSES 10.2.1 QUESTIONS UNIQUE TO SSES AND RESPONSES THERETO 10.2.2 QUESTIONS PERTAINING TO THE NRC'S REVIEW OF THE DAR AND RESPONSE THERETO i | |||
10.2.3 QUESTIONS INFORMALLY RECEIVED DURING THE PREPAR ATION OF THE S A F ET Y EVALUATION REPORT (S ER) AND RESPONSE THERETO 10.3 FIGURES O | |||
J-Q. | |||
REV. 6, 4/S2 10-1 | |||
C!! A PTER 10 IIMEM g | |||
HUEb2E Iillt 10-1 This figure has been deleted. | |||
10-2 This figure has been deleted. | |||
10-3 Special relationship of downconers and pedestal holes 10-4 Transducer locations for the ten vent pipe configuration 10-5 Transducer locations for the six vent pipe configuration 10-6 Transducer locations for the two vent pipe configuration 10-7 Typical pressure time histories f rom pressure transducers P20, P25 .. 29 and P 134 10-8 Typical pressure time histories f rom pressure transducers P20, P25 ... 29 and P134 10-9 Prequency distribution of measured normalized wall pressures 10-10 Pool wall pressures at three circumferential vent exit locations - 1/6 scale 3 vent geometry ll) 10-11 Pool wall oressures at three circumferential vent crit locations - 1/10 scale 19 vent geomet ry 10-12 Plan locations of transducers for wetwell 10-11 Locations of pressure transducers for wetwell 10-14 Vent exit elevation pool w.all pressures for a chug from JAERI test 0002 10-15 Comparison of probability density of the normalized pressure amplitudes from GKM II-M tests 3 ... 10 and JAERI 10-16 Comparison of probability density of the normalized pressure amplitudes from GKM II-M tests 11 S 12 and JAERI 10-17 Comparison of probability density of the normalized pressure amplitudes from GKM II-M tests 13 ... 20 and JAERI 10-18 Comparison of pressure response spectra of test 21.2 - all valve case - and the SSES load definition 10-19 Comparison of pressure response spectra of test 21. 2 - a ll ; | |||
valve case and one valve case - a nd the SSES load definiti ' | |||
I REV. 6, 4/82 10-2 l l | |||
1 | |||
I Eiggggs (Cont.) | |||
Humber Iltle 0- 10-20 SSES containment response spectra - KWU SRYt76 - Asyssetric direction horizontal 10-21 SSES containment response spectra - KWU SRV#76 - Asyssetric direction vertical 10-22 SSES containment response specttra - KWU SRV876 - Asyanetric direction horizontal 10-23 SSES containment response spectra - KWU SRV876 - Asynaetric direction vertical 10-24 SSES containment response spectra - KUU SRYt76 - Asynaetric direction horizontal 10-25 SSES containment response spectra - KWU SRV#76 - Asyssetric direction vertical 10-26 SSES containment response spectra - KWU SRV#76 - Asymmetric direction horizontal 10-17 SSES containment response spectra - KWU SRV#76 - Asynaetric direction vertical 10-29 SSES containment response spectra - KWU SRV876 - Asyssetric | |||
( | |||
/~S) direction horizontal 10-29 SSES containment response spectra - KWU SRY#76 - Asynaetric direction vertical 10-30 SSES containment response spectra - KWU SRV#76 - Asynaetric direction horizontal 10-31 SSES containment response spectra - KWU SRV876 - Asymmetric direction vertical 10-32 SSES containment response spectra - KWU SRV876 - Asymmetric direction horizontal 10-33 SSES containment response spectra - KWU SRV876 - Asymmetric direction vertical 10-34 SSES containment response spectra - KUU SRVt76 - Asymmetric direction horizontal 10-35 SSES containment response spectra - KWU SRV876 - Asynaetric direction vertical 10-36 SSES containment response spectra - KVU SRV876 - Asymmetric | |||
-, direction horizontal 7 | |||
V REV. 6, 4/82 10-3 1 | |||
flggg3S (Con t. ) | |||
3HEDSI Iltle 10-37 SSES containment response spectra - KWU SRV476 - Asynaetric direction vertical 10-38 SSES containment response spectra - KWU SRV876 - Asymmetric direction horizontal 10-39 SSES containment response spectra - KWU SRV876 - Asymmetric direction vertical 10-40 SSES containment response spectra - KWU SRV876 - Asyssetric direction horizontal 10-41 SSES containment response spectr& - KWU SRY#76 - Asymmetric direction vertical 10-42 LGS containment response spectra - KWU SRV876 - Asymmetric direction horizontal 10-43 LGS containment response spectra - KWU SRV876 - Asymmetric direction vertical 10-44 LGS containment response spectra - KUU SRV876 - Asymmetric direction horizontal 10-45 LGS containment response spectra - KWU SRV476 - Asymmetricg direction vertical 10-46 LGS containment response spectra - KUU SRV876 - Asynaetric direction horizontal 10-47 LGS containment response spectra - KUU SR7876 - Asynaetric direction vertical 10-48 LGS containment response spectra - KWU SRV876 - Asynaetric direction horizontal 10-49 LGS containment response spectra - KWU SRYf76 - Asynactric direction vertical 10-50 LGS containment response spectra - KWU SRV876 - Asysset'ric direction horizontal 10-51 LGS containment response spectra - KWU SRV876 - Asynaetric direction vertical 10-52 LGS containment response spectra - KWU SRV876 - Asyssetric direction horizontal 10-53 LGS containment response spectra - KWU SRV876 - Asynnetric direction vertical REV. 6, 4/82 10-4 | |||
Z;gUBJJ (Cont.) | |||
l H9aber Tills l 10-54 LGS containment response spectra - KWU SRV876 - Asyssetric l | |||
direction horizontal 10-55 LGS containment response spectra - KWU SRV876 - Asynnetric direction vertical 10-56 LGS containment response spectra - KWU SRV876 - Asynaetric direction horizontal 10-57 LGS containment response spectra - KWU SRV876 - Asymmetric direction vertical 10-58 LGS containment response spectra - KWU SRY876 - Asymmetric direction horizontal 10-59 LGS containment response spectra - KWU SRV876 - Asynnetric direction vertical 10-60 LGS containment response spectra - KWU 3RV876 - Asyssetric direction horizontal 10-61 LGS containment response spectra - KWU SRV876 - Asynnetric direction vertical s 10-62 LGS containment response spectra - KWU SRYS76 - Asynnetric direction horizontal 10-63 LGS containment response spectra - KWU SRV876 - Asynaetric direction vertical 10-64 Reactor Pressure Transient - Case 2.a Without Shutdown Cooling 10-65 Suppression Pool Temperature Transient - Case 2.a Without Shutdown Cooling | |||
($) | |||
REV. 6, 4/82 10-5 l | |||
CHAPTER 10 IADLES SURDEE T1118 O | |||
10-1 Normalized RMS vent static pressure and variance - JAERI data 10-2 Comparison of JAERI/GKM II-M normalized mean varianco 0 | |||
l l | |||
O REV. 6, 4/82 10-6 | |||
19s0 _H5Sf9HSES IG HBC_QUISII9ES l 1 | |||
~3 This chapter will provide responses to those Nuclear Regulatory | |||
(\_) commission (N RC) questions which have been designated by 1 Referance 10 (as amended) to be found in the plant-unique Design Assessment Report, to those questions for which the response in 9pference 10 is inapplicable, to those questions generated from 12 previous NRC reviews of the plant unique DA9, a nd those questions received during preparation of the SER. The NRC questions for which responses will be provided are identified in Subsections 6 10.1.1, 10.1.2, and 10.1. 3, and det ailed resposes to these questions are found in Subsections 10.2.1, 10.2.2 and 10.2.3. | |||
'r l(11 REV. 6, 4/82 10-7 | |||
6 19m3sl__IDEHIlflCAIl9H_QE_QEESIIQHE_MEIDEE_IQ_ SEES The below listed questions address concerns unique to SSES. | |||
2l These questions are answered in detail in Subsection 10.2.1 ggg HEG.QH2311SE.EMEh2E QM23119n_I9E iG M020.26 Primary and Secondary LOC A Loads 9020.27 Inventory Effects on Blowdown M020.44 Po31 swell Waves and Seismic Slosh M020.55 SRV Loads on Submerged Structures M 020. 58 (1) , (2) , (3) Plant Unique Poolswell Calculations M0 20. 59 (1) , (3) , (4) Downconer Lateral Braces M020.60 Wetwell Pressure History | |||
=020.61 Poolswell Inside Pedestal M130.1 Pressure Loading Due to SRY Discharge M130.2 Load Combination History M130.4 Soil Modeling M130.5 Liner and Anchorage Mathematical lh Model M130.6 Containment Structural Model- Asymmetric Loads 1130.12 SRV Structural Response i-O REV. 6, 4/82 10-8 | |||
10s1:2__IDENIIIIG&II91_QE_9HESIIDMS_EZEIAINIH9_ID_IHE_HEG1R 16 EE! IBM _9t_IBE_Dh8 | |||
() The below listed questions address concerns generated as a result of the NBC's review of the DAR. These questions are answered in detail in Subsection 10. 2. 2 l6 Qucut190_Humbet 0921119n_I991G 1 NUREG-0487 Acceptance Criteria 2 Drywell Pressurization 1 Chuqqing Loads on submerged Structures 4 IBA and SDA for Typical Mark II Containment 2 5 Poolswell Waves and Seismic Slash 6 List of Piping, Eq uip ae nt , etc., Subject to Pool Dynamic Loads 7 Applicability of the Generic Programs, Tests and Analysis to the SSES Design 8 Time Ifistory of Plant Specific Loads 9 Mass and Energy Release 10 " Local" and " Bulk" Pool Temperature 11 Suppression Pool Temperature Monitoring System O | |||
REV. 6, 4/82 10-9 | |||
i 1911tl---QUEGILQ53 BEGELIED D2BIEG IBB 2BZ2bBhT195-QE.TBE HAZEII EIALDAIIGE EEEDRI lSEEL The below listed questions were informally received during the N RC's preparation of the SER. These questions are answered in detail in subsection 10.2.3. | |||
Qu20ti9a EumbcE Question _I9919 1 SSES LOCA Steam Condensation Load Definition (SER Item 827) 2 T-Ouencher Freq u ency Range (SER Itea #28) 1 SSES A DS Load Case (S ER Item # 28) 4 Ouencher Bottom Support at Karlstein (sea Item #28) 5 Bending Moment in the Quencher Arm Recorded at Karlstein (SER Item #28) 6 Suppression Pool Temperature Respanse (SER Item #30) 7 Local to Bulk Temperature Difference for SSES (S ER Item 830) 8 Ouencher Steam Mass Flux (SER Item #30J O | |||
O | |||
~ | |||
REV. 6, 4/82 | |||
19s2__EESEggggS ; | |||
l JD=2sl__Q2ESIIQHS_DEIQHE_IQ_ESE1_AND_EESEQHEES_IEEEKIQ | |||
[} | |||
QUESIIQH_3220s26 . | |||
The DFFR presents a description of a number of LOCA related hydrodynamic loads without dif ferentiating between primary and i secondary load 3. Provide this differentiation between the I prima ry and secondary LOCA-related hydrodynamic loads. We recognize that this dif ferentiation may vary from plant to plant. | |||
We would designate as a primary load any load that his or will result in a design modification in any Mark II containment since the pool dynamic concerns were identified in our April 1975 qaneric letters. | |||
BESEQHSE_HQ20s25 The table below shows the LOCA-related hydrodynamic loads on the SSES containment. Those loads which have resulted in containment design modifications are designated as " Primary Loads." These primary loads result from the poolswell transie nt. | |||
Dryvell floor uplift pressures during the wetwell com pression phase of poolswell lead to the decision to increase the SSES d rywell floor design saf ety maroin for uplif t pressures by relocating drywell floor shear ties. | |||
O poolswoll impact, drag, and f allback loads resulted in the relocation of equipment in the SSES wetvell to a position aDove the peak poolswell height. Furthermore, the downconer tracing system was redesigned. | |||
All other LOCA-related hydrodynamic loads are designated as "Second.i ry Loads"'cince no design modification has resulted from their. presence. | |||
LQQa_ Land "Etiairr_L2id" "S2G2ndaEI_L2ad'l | |||
: 1. Wetwell/Drywell Pressures X(1) | |||
(During Poolswell) , | |||
. 's 2'. Poolswell Impact Load XC2) | |||
, ' 'O. 3. Poolswell Draq Load s YC3) b 4. Downconer Clearing Load X | |||
' t'. | |||
: 5. Downconer Jet Load X | |||
: 6. Poolswell Air B bble Load X | |||
q , .[Wi] . Poolswell Fallbyck Load XC*) | |||
: ~; ~~ | |||
l s ; aevil,5/80 , | |||
- i0-11 l l | |||
[I ^ | |||
~- . - - . | |||
LOC &_1ggd 2Egigggy_Lggf2 [ggcondaII_Lgadi R. Mixed Flow Condensation oscillation Load I lll | |||
: 9. Pure Steam Condensation oscillation Load I | |||
: 10. Chuqqinq X | |||
: 11. Wetwell/Drywell Pressure and Temperature during DBA LOCA X (Long Tera) | |||
: 12. Wetwell/Drywell Pressure and Temperature during IBA LOCA X (Long Tera) | |||
: 13. Wotwell/Drywell Pressure and Temperature during SBA LOCA X (Long Te rm) - | |||
E29tG212HL (1) Shear ties changed in drywell floor. | |||
(2) Equipment moved in wetwell. | |||
(3) Equipment moved in cetwell. Bracing system redesign. | |||
(4) Rouipment moved in wetwell. | |||
QuggIIgg_dQ20t22 The calculated drywell pressure transient typically a ssumes that the mass flow rate from the recirculation system or steaaline is noual to the steady-state critical flow rate based on the critical flow area of the iet pump nozzle or steauline orifice. | |||
Ilo w ev er, for approximately the first second af ter the break opening, the rate of mass flow from the break will be greater than the steady-state value. It has been estimated that for a 9 ark I containment this ef f ect results in a temporary increase in the drywell pressurization rate 'o f about 20 porcent above the value based solely on the steady-state critical flow rate. The drywell pressure transient used for the LOCA pool dynamic load avaluation, for each Mark II plant, should include this initially higher blowdown rate due to the additional fluid inventory in the recicculation line. | |||
EEEEQusE_5020s27 The drywell pressure transients have been recalculated by GE (Reference 7) with the additional blowdown flow rate produced by the inventory effects included in the analysis. The LOCA loads presented in Section 4.2 have been calculated using these lll Rev. 2, S/80 10-12 | |||
1 l | |||
recalculated drywell pressure transients. Specifically, the drywell pressure transient resulting from the DBA LOCA including the effects of pipe inventory has been used as input to the l f~) | |||
a poolswell model. ' | |||
QH52 TION _5020s!! 2 Table 5-1 and Figures 5-1 through 5-16 in the DFFR provide a listing of the loads and the load combinations to be included in the assessment of specific Mark II plants. This table and these figures do not include loads resulting from pool swell waves following the pool swell process or seismic slosh. We require that an evaluation of these loads be provided for the Mark II containment design. | |||
RESEGNSK_5920a!9 Subsections 4. 2.4.6 and 4.2.4.7 provide ou r response. | |||
6 gggSIIgg_nq20s55 The compu':ational method described in DFFR Section 3.4 for calculating SRV loads on submerged structures is not acceptable. | |||
Tt is our position that the Mark II containment a pplications should commit to one of the following two approaches: | |||
(1) Design the submerged structures for the full SRV (s | |||
(_) | |||
pressure loads acting on one side of the structures; the pressure attenuatiori law described in Section 3.4.1 of "EDO-21061 for the ranshead and Section A10.3.1 of NEDO-11314-08 for the quencher can be applied for calculating the precstra loads. | |||
( 2) Follow the resolution of GESSAR-238 NI on this issue. | |||
The applicant for GBSSAR-238 NI has proposed a method 2 | |||
presented in the GE report, " Unsteady Draq on Submerged Structures," which is attached to the letter dated March 24, 1976 f rom G.L. Gyorey to R.L. Tedesco. This report is actively under review. | |||
HESEgggg_3020.55 Loads on submerged structures due to SRV actuation are discussed in Subsection 4.1.3.7. | |||
l QUESIIGH_5220s1H Relat ing to the pool swell calculations, we require the following information for each Mark II plan t: | |||
( 1) Provide a description of and justify all deviations from the DFFR pool swell model. Identify the party responsible for conducting the pool swell calculations | |||
' () | |||
(i.e., GE or the ASE) . Provide the program input and REV. 6, 4/82 10-13 | |||
results of bench mark calculations to qualif y the pool swell computer program. | |||
(2) Provide the pool swell model input including all initial and boundary conditions. Show that the model input lll represents conservative values with respect to obtaining maximum pool swell loads. In the case of calculated input, (i.e. , drywell pressure response, vent clearing tim e) , the calculational methods should be described and iustified. In addition, the party responsible for the calculation (i.e., GE or the AGE) should be identified. | |||
(3) Pool swell calculations should be conducted for each Mark II plant. The following pool swell results should be provided in graphic form for each plant: | |||
(a) Pool surface position versus time (b) Pool surf ace velocity versus time (c) Pool surface velocity versus position (d) ?ressure of the suppression pool air slug and the wetvell air versus time. | |||
BES20 HSE _H229.2D (1) A specific response to this question can be found in Subsection 4.2.1.1. Verification of the SSES pool swell g model is provided in Appendix Section D.l. W (2) Input and discussion of the poolswell model input can be f ound in Tables 4- 17, 4-18, and Section 4.2.1.1. | |||
(3) The requested graphic results of the SSES po olsw ell calculation can be found in Piqures 4-38, 4-39, 4-40, and 4-43. | |||
QUESIIGH_H020m29 In the 4 T test report NEDE-13442P-01 Section 3.3 the statement is made that for the various Mark II plants a wide diversity exists in tha t ype and location of lateral bracing between downcomars and that the bracing in the 4T tests was designed to minimize the interference with upward flow. Provide the following information for each Mark II plant: | |||
(1) A description of the downconer lateral bracing system. | |||
This description should include the bracing dimensions, method of attachment to the downconers and walls, elevation and location relative to the pool surface. A sketch of the bracinq system should be provided. | |||
(2) The basis for calcrlating the impact or draq load on the bracinq system or downconer flanges. The magnitude and llh Rev. 2, 5/80 10-14 | |||
duration of impact or drag forces on the bracing system l or downconer flanges should also be provided. | |||
An assessment of the effect of downconer flanges on vent 2 a( ) (3) lateral loads. | |||
a EEEE9EEE_5920s52 | |||
( 1) Subsection 7.1.2.1 describes the SSES bracing system and the methodology for assessing the adequacy of bracing 6 system. | |||
( 2) The basis for calculating the impact or draq loads on the downconer bracinq system (El. 668') and downconer stiffener rings (El. 668' and El. 682') is given in Section 4.2. The magnitude and duration of impact or draq forces on the bracinq system and downconer stiffener rings is also given in Section 4.2 . | |||
(3) This ites is not applicable to the SSES design. | |||
DHESIIDH_5929s59 In the 4T test report NEDE-134 42P-01 Section 5.q.3.2 the statement is made that an underpressure does occur with respect to the hydrostatic pressure prior to the chug. However, the pressurization of the air space above the pool is such that the overall pressure is still positive at all times during the chug. | |||
We require that each Mark II plant provide suf ficient information s regarding the boundary underpressure, the hydrostatic pressure, the air space and the SRV load pressure to confirm this statement 2 or alterna ti vely provide a bounding calculation a pplicable to all Mark II pl a n ts. | |||
BESEQHEE_5H29th9 This inforestion is provided in Subsection 7.1.3 of the DAR. | |||
0HESIIDH_5220sh! | |||
Significant variations exist in the Mark II plants with regard to the design of the wetwell structures in the region enclosed by the reactor pedestal. These variations occur in the areas of (1) concrete backfill of the pedestal, (2) placemen t of downconers, | |||
( 3) wetwell air space volumes, and (4) location of the diaphraga relative to the pool surface. In addition to variation between plants, for a given plant, variations exist in some of these areas within a given plant. As a result, for a given plant, significant differences in the pool swell phenomena can occur in these two regions. We will require that each plant provide a soparate evaluation of pool swell phenomena and loads inside of t he reactor pedestal. | |||
HESEQHSE_5320s51 REV. 6, 4/82 10-15 | |||
The SSES pedestal and vetvell area is shown on Figures 1-1 and l 10.3. Due to the absence of downcomers in the pedestal interior, no pool swell would be expected in this~ region. There ar e 12 holes in the pedestal, however, eight of which would allow the flow of water from the suppression pool to the pedestal during a lll LOCA. Some downcomers are near the pedestal flow holes, letding to the possibility that air could be blown through the pedestal holes, which would lead to a greater pedestal pool swell than would be experienced by incompressible water flow alone. One would expect the pedestal pool swell to be auch reduced from the suppression pool swell due to its relative separation from the suppression pool and the lack of direct charging from downcomer vents. Indeed, 1/13.3 scale model tests of the SSES pedestal design conducted at the Stanford Research Institute under the sponsorship of EPRI show that the pedestal pool swell is less than 20 percent of the pool swell in the suppression pool (Reference 32) . There is no piping or equipment inside the SSES pedestal and, since the pedestal pool swell is very small, the o n ly load involved due to pedestal pool swell would he a small *P across +he pedestal due to different water levels between the suppression pool and the pedestal interior. This load is considered in the design of the SSES pedestal. | |||
QUESIIDE_5129sl Provide in Section 5 a description of the pressure loadings on the containment wall, pedestal vall, base sat, and other structural elements in the suppression pool, due to the various combinations of SRY discharges, including the time function and g profile for each combination. If this information is not W ceneric, each affected utility should submit the information as described above. | |||
EESEQHSE_5130sl Chapter 4 describes the pressure loadings and time histories due to SRV discharge and other hydrodynamic loads. | |||
QUESIIGE_513922 In DFPR Section 5.2 it is stated that the load combination histories are presented in the form of bar charts as shown on Piqures 5-1 through 5-16. It is not indicated how these losd combination histories are used. In particular, it is not clear whether only loads represented by concurrent bars will be combined, and it should be no ted that depending on the dynamic properties of the structures and the rise time and duration of t he loads, a structure may respond to two or more given loads at the same time even though these loads occur at different times. | |||
Also, although condensation oscillations are depicted as bars on the bar charts, the procedure for the analysis of structures due to these loads has not been presented. Accordingly, the description of the method should include consideration of such condit io ns. Also, for condensation oscillation loads and for SRV oscillatory loads, include low cycle fatique analysis. lll Rw. 2, 5/80 10-16 | |||
2 BEEEGHEE_5139- 2 g3 The loads will be combined according to Section 5.0. Section 7.0 ts j describes the assessment methodology and results for the re- 6 assessment of SSES for the hydrodynamic and non-hydrodynamic loads. | |||
QUESTIGE_5139.3 Through the use of figures, describe in detail the soil modelling as indicated in DFFR Subsection 5.4.3 and describe the solid finite elements which you intend to use for the soil. | |||
BESEQHEE_E129ss Soil modelling is explained in Subsection 7.1.1.1. | |||
0HESIIGH_n139th Describe the mathematical model which you will use for the liner and t he anchorage system in the analysis as described in DFFR Subsection 5.6.3. | |||
EESEQHSH_H13925 The mathematical model which will be used for analysis of the liner and the anchorage for hydrodynamic suction pressures is | |||
(~N described in Subsection 7.1.3. | |||
V 2 QHESI19E_n129ss In DFFR Subsection 5.1.1.1 it was stated that the SRV discharge could cause axisymmetric or asynnetric loads on the containment. | |||
In Subsection 5.4.1 an axisymmetric finite element computer program is recommended for dynamic analysis of structures due to SRV loads, and no mention is made of the analysis for asymmetric loads. Describe the structural analysis procedure used to consider asymmetric pool dynamic loads on structures and through the use of figures, describe in more detail the structural model which you intend to use. | |||
EESEQHSE_51dQs6 The dynamic analyses and models used are explained in Chapter 7 . | |||
QUESIIQH_5110tl2 Reference is made in DFFR Subsection 5.4.3 to studies of structural response to SRV load. Provide citations for this referenco and where such studies are not readily available, copies a re requested. | |||
RESEQHSE_ Ell 9=12 | |||
-REV. 6, 4/82 10-17 | |||
Studies mentioned in DFFR Subsection 5. 4. 3 are the results of analysis completed for a specific plant at the time of writing of the DPPR. Reference to the studies was intended to indicate the strain dependent soil properties. For the l need SSES for analysis, considering Reference 33 is used to determine the soil constants in the analysis. | |||
l l | |||
l l | |||
l O | |||
O Rev. 2, 5/80 10-18 | |||
1922s2__QUESIIggS_EERIAINIX9_ID_IHE_HfCES_ggvIEg_of_ Igg _QAB ggp 6 EEsf9fSE_IREEEIQ QEESII9H_1 (v') The LOC A and SRY related pool dynamic loads that are currently acceptable to us are discussed in NUREG-0487. Table IV-1 of NUREG-0487 summarizes these Mark II pool dynamic loais. By letter, dated February 2, 1979, you indicated on Table IV-1 the | |||
: LOCA related dynamic loads acceptable to the staff that will be adopted for SSES. Revise the DAR to incorporate this inf ormation and provide the same information for the SRV related pool dynamic loads. For both the SRV and LOCA loads indicate the alternative criteria that will be used for each ites for which an exemption is proposed and provide references that discuss these alternative criteria. | |||
EESEQHSH See response to Question 021.69 contained in Volume 16 of the 2 SSES FSAR and Table 1-4 of the DAR. | |||
QUESTI9E_2 Subsection 4.2.1.1 of the DAR state that the drywell pressure transient used for the pool swell portion of LOCA is based on the methodology described in NEDO-21061. Subsection III. B. 3.a. 6 of NURE3-04 87 requires that a comparison similar to those presented in reference 1* be made if the model used is dif ferent from the | |||
/~T model de scribed in NEDM-10320. We require the model prior to | |||
\~J completion of review of the pool swell calculations. | |||
* Reference (1) Letter " Response to NRC Request for Additional Information (Round 3 Questions," to J. F. Stolz (NR C- DPM) from L. | |||
J. Sobon (GE) , dated June 30, 1978. | |||
EESE9 HSE See response to Question 021.70 contained in the SSES FSAR. | |||
QUESIIDH_3 Subsection 4.2.2.2 of the DAR sta tes that the chuqqing loads on 6 submerged structures and imparted on the downcomers will be evaluated later. Provide the present status of these evaluations and the schedule f or your submission of the completed evaluation. | |||
HESEQHSE See response to Question 021.71 in the SSES FS AR. | |||
QUESIIGH_1 Statements are made in Subsections 4.2.3.2 and 4.2.3.3 of the DAR | |||
/~ that plant unique data of the Susquehanna SES intermediate break (s) | |||
REY. 6, 4/82 10-19 | |||
accident (IB A) cud scall brenk accidant (S B A) are osticated fron curves for a typical Mark II containment. Discuss the applicability of these analyses (e.g., power level, i nitial conditions, downcomer configuration, etc.) to Susquehanna SES. | |||
BEBEQHSD See response to Question 021.72 contained in the SSES PSAR. | |||
QUESIIGH_1 Provide the information previously requested in 020.44 regarding loads resulting from pool swell waves following the pool swell process or seismic slosh. Discuss the analytical model and assum ptions used to perf orm these analyses. | |||
EESEQHSE See response to Question 021.73 contained in the SSES PSAR. | |||
DHESIIGH_h Provide a list and drawing to identif y all piping, equipment instrumentation and structures in containment that ma y be subiocted to pool dynamic loads. In addition, provide drawings to show the locatior. of access galleys in the wetwell, the vent vacuum breaker conft.quration, wetwell grating, vent bracinq configuration, vent configuration in the pedestal region of wetwell and large horizontal structures in the pool swell zone. | |||
BESE0 HSE O | |||
See response to Question 021.74 contained in the SSES PSAR. | |||
QUESIIDH_2 Discuss the applicability of the generic supporting programs, tests and analyses to Susquehanna SES design (i.e., PSI concerns, downcomer stiffners, downcoser diameter, etc.). | |||
EESEQHSE See response to Question 021.75 contained in the SSES PSAR. | |||
DHESIl9H_H Provide the time history of plant specific loads and assessment of responses of plant structures, pipino, equipment a nd components to pool dynamic loads. Identify any significant plant modifiestions resulting f rom pool dynamic loads considerations. | |||
BEEE9EEE See response to Question 021.76 contained in the SSES PSAB. | |||
O REV. 6, 4/82 10-20 | |||
QHEEIIQH_9 Provide figures showing reactor pressure, quencher mass flux and I') suppression pool temperature versus time for the followinq events: | |||
(1) a stuck-open SRV during power operation assuming reactor scra; at 10 minutes a fter pool temperature reaches 1100F and all RHH systems operable; (2) same as event (1) above'except that only one RHR train a vaila ble: | |||
(3) a stuck-open SRV during hot standby condition assuming 1200F pool temperature initially and only one RHR train available; (4) the Automatic Depressurization System ( A DS) activated f ollowing a small line break assuming an initial pool temperature of 1200F and only one RhR train available; and (5) the primary system is isolated and depressurizing at a rate of 1000P por hour with an initial pool temperture of 1200F and only one RHR train available. | |||
Provide parameters such as service water temperature, RHR heat exchanger capability, and initial pool mass for the analysis. | |||
EgSEg333 | |||
) .See response to Question 021.77 contained in the SSES FSAR. | |||
QUESIl0H_12 With regard to the pool temperature limit, provide the following additional inf ormation: | |||
(1) Definition of the " local" and " bulk" pool temperature and their application to the actual containment and to the scaled test f a cil ities, if any; and (2) The data base that support any assumed difference between the local and the bulk tempera tures. | |||
EEEE0H33 See response to Question 021.78 contained in the SSES FSAR. | |||
~QUESIIGH_ll For the suppression pool temperature monitoring system, provide the following additional information: | |||
. (1) yype, number and location of temperature in st ru me nta tion that l will be installed in the pool; and l | |||
I 10-21 1 | |||
Rev. 2. 5/80 l | |||
t | |||
4 l | |||
(2) Discussion and iustification of the sampling or averaging technique that will be applied to arrive at a definitive pool temperature. | |||
EEEEGESE See response to Question 021.79 contained in the SSES FSAR. | |||
O O | |||
Rev. 2, 5/80 10-22 ) | |||
l l | |||
1 | |||
10.2.3 Quontienc Rec 31Tcd During the Preparation of the Safoty | |||
_________EIn194119n_B929Et_and_Eas29nsa_Ihtret9-_ _ - | |||
p V | |||
QHESTIOH_1 With regard to the SSES LOCA steam condensation load definition, provide the following additional information: | |||
(1) Justification for the interchangeability of the GKM II-M temporal chuq strength probability distribution with the spacial variation of chuq strengths at SSES. | |||
(2) .fustification for not considering CO S SRV ( ADS) . | |||
(3) Comparison of the C0 seasu red a t 4T-C0 with the CO abserved at GKM II-M. | |||
HESEQHSE_1 (1) The SSES LOCA steam condensation load definition assumes that the chugs occurring simultaneously a t dif ferent vent pipes of SSES have diff erent intensities and follow the same distribution of chug amplitudes in time as in the GKM II-M single vent facility. This assumption forms the basis for two key elements of the LOCA load definition. | |||
The first element assumes that the average of simultaneously occurring chugs at different vents in SSES is equivalent to the average of consecutive GKM II-M chugs. Thus, as | |||
/^) | |||
\~/ | |||
documented in Subsection 9.5.3.1.2, the randon amplitude chugs at SSES were replaced with the same chug at every vent which represents the average of consecutive GKM II-M chugs or | |||
" mea n value" chug. | |||
The second element assumes that the chug amplitule or strength at the individual SSES vents are random variables which have the same probability distribution as the distribution of chug amplitudes at GKM II-M. The GKM II-M probability distribution was then applied sta tistically to an analytical model of the SSES suppression pool to calculate the symmetric and asymmetric amplitude factors. These factors were then applied to the selected mean value chugs to achieve the desired exceedance probability prior to transportation to SSES for containment analysis (see s ubsection s 9. 5. 3. 4.1 a nd 9. 5.3. 4. 2) . | |||
These two elements infer that the multi-vent facility is composed of many " single cells" whose chug strengths vary stochastically and independently of each other. The random nature of chuqqing is explained qualitatively by looking at the actual bubble collapsing mechanism. The most pla usible mechanism for bubble collapse at the individual vents ' appears to be the convection in the pool. This means that bubble collapses at indivdual vents are triqqered by the local turbulent convection at each vent. Thus due to tho (v~} | |||
REV. 6, 4/82 10-23 i | |||
l | |||
stochnatic naturo of turbulcnco, the ties at chich rapid condensation and hence bubble collapse is triqqered varies from vent to vent. This implies that the size of the bubble f ormed before collapse sta rts, will also va ry f ro m vent to g vent. Therefore, the chuq strength will vary from vent to W vent. Since, the GKM II-M tests were designed to be prototypical of SSES (i.e. , same initial pool temperature, same steam flow, etc.), this random variation is expected to be similar for both the GK5 II-M single vent f acility and the SSES plant. | |||
Additional qualitative data verifying the random nature of chuquing is provided by numerous multi-vent test programs. | |||
Specifically, the KWU multi-vent concrete cell tests in Karlstein, Creare subscale multi-vent tests and J AERI full scale multi-vent tests provide multi-vent data of the c huqqi ng phenomena. | |||
The Karlstein facility investigated the chuqqing phenomena for 2, 6, and 10 vents at subscale. Each vent in the concrete cell was instrumented with a pressure transducer in such a way that it was indicative of the chuq strength for its respective vent. Piqures 10-4, 10-5, and 10-6 illustrate , | |||
these vent transducers and the re maining transducers for the l 10, 6, and 2 vent facilities, respectively. ! | |||
Piqures 10-7 and 10-8 show typical pressure time histories ; | |||
for the pressure transducers mounted near the vent pipes for the six vent configuration. These pressure transducers were all exposed to a steam environment and clea rly indicate that the chuq strengths differ by up to a factor of 10. | |||
lll In a ddition, Piqure 10-9 shows that the distribution of relative frequencies of the measured wall pressures becomes narrower as the number of vent pipes increases from 2 to 6 to | |||
: 10. Again, the variation in chuq strengths results in a lower global pressure amplitude with increasing number of vents. | |||
This variation in chuq strengths was also observed in the Creare subscale multi-vent test program. This observation was obtained by examining the pool wall pressures measured at the three dif ferent circum feren tial locations a t the vent e r it . All test geometries had three transducers located 1200 apart circumferentially at the vent exit elevation. In the multi-vent geometrics, each of these pressure transducers was located close to a particular vent. Therefore, the amplitude of the POP measured at each circumferential location reflects to a large extent the chuq strength at the vent closest to it (since pressure amplitude varies inversely with the d istance between the vent and wall pressure measurement loca tion) . | |||
Por example, only if the chuq strengths at all vents were identical, would the peak over-pressure (PO P) measured at each of these three circumferen tial locations be identical. | |||
O REV. 6, 4/82 10-24 | |||
Figure 10-10 chous the pool call pressures at the three circumferential vent exit locations in the 1/6 scale 3 vent geometry. The steam mass flux was 8 lbm/sec ft2 and as | |||
(~T determined from the vent static pressures over 80% of the | |||
\/ chugs shown had all three vents participating. This figure shows that the POP's at the three locations are different for individual chugs. Therefore, it can be concluded that the chug' strength varies from vent to vent. | |||
Similar data from the 1/10 scale 19 vent geometry at a steam mass flux of 8 lba/sec ft2 are shown in Piqure 10-11. | |||
Again, from vent static pressure data for vents closest to each circunferential wall pressure measurement location, it , | |||
was determined that all three vents participated in the chugs shown. .The POP's at the t hree dif ferent circumferential locations are seen as being dif ferent for individ ual chugs. | |||
Note that the variation of chuq strength f rom vent to vent is expected to be stochastic to a large extent. The ref o re, it is expected that for some chugs, the chuq strength at the three vents would be similar. | |||
Additional proof that the chuq strengths in a multi-vent facility bel. ave stochastically is given by the JA ERI multi-Vent test data. There are several pool wall pressure transducers that are located near the exits of different vents in the JAERI facility. Specifically, transudcers WWPF-202, 302, 602, and 702 are located at the vent exit elevation next to vents 2, 3, 4, and 7, respectively (see Figure 10-12 7s and 10-13) . The pressure amplitudes measured by these | |||
(,) transducers reflect the chug strengths at vents closest to them. | |||
The variation of chuq strengths at individual vents is shown in Piqure 10-14. The pool wall pressures at the vent exit elevation for a chug occu r at 62.5 seconds in J AERI test 0002. In this chug event, a high amplitude chug occurred at vent 7 as indicated by the large pressure spike a t WWPF70 2. | |||
The other vents had relatively smaller chugs. Keep in mind that the variation of chuq strengths from vent to vent is stochastic in nature and that not all pool chugs will exhibit the large variation seen in Figure 10-14. Nonetheless, varying decrees of v Ariation in chug streng ths f rom vent to vent were found in all the chugs from Tests 0002, 2101, and 3102 for which expanded time traces are available. | |||
So far, we have stated that chuqqing is stochastic in nature, and as such the chuq strengths are expected to vary, even though the same thermodynamic coaditions exist at each vent (i.e., steam air content, mass flux, bulk pool tersperature, etc.). As presented'above, this phenomena has been observed in numerous multi-vent test facilities. However, we have not quantitatively verified our assumption of the interchangeability of the temporal chuq strength variations at.GKM II-M with the spacially varying chuq strengths at | |||
() SSES. Again, the Creare subscale multi-vent test data and REV 6, 4/82- 10-25 | |||
JAERI test data provide in formation verif ying the conserva tism of this assumption. Each will be presented below. | |||
As previously stated, one element of our LOCA load definition O replaces the random amplitude chugs at SSES with the same chug at every vent, which is representative of th e mean value data at GKM II-M. The Creare test data coupled with the accepted acoustic methodology provides verifica tion of this assumption. Creare has acoustically modeled the 1/10-scale single and multi-vent geometries and they have derived a source which represents the mean value chug in the 1/10-scale single vent geometry. | |||
They then placed this mean value chug source at each vent location of their acoustic model for the 1/10-sca le 3, 7, and 19 vent geometries. For each o f the three malti-vent scometries, the pressure time histroy at the pool bottom elevation (same as the transducer location at this elevation in the test geometries) was computed f or 20 chug events. | |||
Each chua event involved selecting start tizes for individual vents randomly within a 20 msec time window. The m ul ti- ve n t multiplier was then computed based on the mean POP at the pool bottom elevation for the 20 computed chugs. The predicted m u lt i- v en t multipliers compared quite f avorably with the measured values. Subsection A 5. 2.2 of Reference 66 qives a detailed description of the analysis and results. | |||
Thus, for subscale multi-vent geometries, the first element of our LOCA load definition is verified. | |||
Final quan titative iustification for our key assumption is provided by comparing the available JAERT f ull-scale multi-vent data with the GKM II-M sin gle ven t da ta. | |||
There are two sets of J AERI data available that can be used to infer chuq strengths at individual vents in a given multi-vont chuq event. The first set is the pool wall pressure data from the pool wall transducers located at the vent exit elevation. In the JAERI test geometry, there were four pool vall pressure transducers-WWPF 202, 302, 602, and 702-located such that each of these transducers is very nea r the exits of four individual vents. Therefore, the pressure data from a given transducer reflects the chuq strength a t th e vent closest to that transducer. | |||
As previously stated, the data from these wall pressure transducers were used to qualitatively show that the chuq strengths vary significantly f rom vent to vent in a J AERI mult i-ven t chuq e vent. Unfortunately, since a pool transducer " sees" pressures due to chugs at all vents to varying extents, the da ta from such transducers are not suitable for quantitative evaluation of vent to vent chug strength variations. | |||
O REV. 6, 4/82 10-26 | |||
Tho other cet of JAERI data that provides a ceasu re of chuq strengths at the individual vents are the vent static pressure measurements. Five of the seven vents in the J AERI test facility are instrumented with vent exit static pressure O t ran sducers. | |||
The vent static pressure is a direct measure of the " vent component" of the chug-induced pool vall pressure. Further, due to desynchronization in a multi-vent geometry, the " vent component" is the dominant component of the chug induced pool pressures observed in multi-vent chuqqing. Therefore, the s patial (vent to vent) variation of the vent static pressures in the J AERI aulti-Vent geometry should provide a reliable estimate of the vent to vent chug strength variation in a multi-vent geometry. | |||
Individual vent exit static pressures of 1.125 sec periods are available for 38 chuq events from six JAERI tests, eight chugs from Test 0002, soven chugs from Test 0003, six chugs from Test 0004, five chugs from Test 1101, five chugs from Test 1201, and seven chugs from Test 2101. These chugs were selected f rom periods of high amplitude chuqqing in each test. Therefore, this data base covers the worst chugging regions observed in these JAERI tests. | |||
The indivdual vent exit static pressures for a given pool chug event were processed in the following manner. First, the ras pressure P i was computed for each vent static pressure trace. Next, the average ras pressure P was O computed. For example, if vent static pressures were available for all the five instrumented vents, the average ras vent static pressure for that chug is: | |||
Pi + P 2 + P3 + P4 + P5 p = _________________________ | |||
5 Since we are interested in the relative variation in chug strengths between individual vents, the individual ras vent static pressures were ' normalized by the average cas pressure P. | |||
The normalized indivdual ras vent static pressure P i for the 38 chugs analyzed are given in Table 10-1. Also shown are the values of the normalized variances for the individual vent ras pressures for individual chuq events. Note that due to instrumentation aalfunctions, for all except one J AERI test, vent exit static pressure data are not available for all five instrumented vents. | |||
Due to small number of vents (at most five) for which vent static pressure data are available, it is 'dif ficult to d raw ' | |||
meaningful statistical- inferences for vent to vent chug strength variations f rom any one individual pool chuq event. | |||
O-REV. 6. 4/82 10-27 | |||
Therefore, it is nicossary to acko an assunption thct allows the use of the data from all 38 chug events such that meaningf ul statistical inf erences can be drawn. This assumption is that the normalized statistical distribution of chuq strengths from vent to vent is independent of blowdown llh onditions. That is, the normalized vent to vent chug strength for all 38 chuq events are samples selected from the same statistical population. Note that this is precisely the same assumption made in analyzing the temporal statistical properties of the GKM II-M single vent data (see Subsection 9.5.3.2.11. | |||
The GKM II-M data that provides a direct measure of the vent component of the chuq strength are the pool vall pressure data band pass filtered between 0.5-13 Hz. In this frequency range, the pool wall pressures measur?d are due to the vent pressure oscillations produced by + 5 chug (see Subsection | |||
: 9. 4. 2.1. 2) . | |||
A s d escribed in Subsection 9. 5. 3. 2.1, the pressure amplitudes of individual chugs were normalized by the sliding mean value over a given time interval. In this way, a normalized data base reflecting the temporal variations of chug strengths was obtained for all the GKM II- M tests. Note that again implicit in this procedure is the assumption that the statistics of the variation of the normalized chug strengths is independent of system conditions. As previously mentioned, this assum ption was also used for combining th e J AERI data for 38 pool chuq events into a single statistical data base. | |||
ggg The histograms of the normalized chug strengths for the various GKM II-M tests are given in Piqures 9-181, 9-182, and 9-183. | |||
At this point, we now have a normalized vent to vent chug strength variation data base from the JAERI m ul ti-ven t tests and a corresponding normalized chug to chuq strength variation data base from the GKM II-M single vent tests. | |||
Table 10-2 shows the variance for the JAERI and GKM II-M data bases. The variance for the JAERI data base is the average valt e of the individual variances shown in Table 10-1 for each of the 38 chuq events. The variance of the GKM II-M data was calculated for the 0.5-13 Hz band passed data plotted in Piqures 9-181, 9-182, and 9-183. It is seen that the average variance from the J AERI tests is virtually identical to the variance from the GKM II-M Full MSL tests | |||
* and is somewhat greater than the variances from the 1/3 and 1/6 MSL GKM II-M tests. This implies that the variation of vent to vent chuq strengths in the J ABRI multi-vent tests is equal to or greater than the chug to chuq strength va riation observed in the GKM II-M single vent tests. | |||
Fiqures 10-15 through 10-17 show the comparison of the probability density histograms of the J AERI data and the low O | |||
* The full MSL break chug strength statistics were used to develop the l | |||
SSES probabilistic amplitude factors. | |||
REV. 6, 4/82 10-28 | |||
. band passed GKM~II-M Pull MSL, 1/3 MSL and 1/6 MSL data, respectively. Again, the JAERI and GKM II-M data histograms a re quite similar. | |||
O | |||
\~' Prom the above comparisons it can be again concluded that the assumption that the vent to vent variation in chug streng ths in a single vent geometry is equivalent to the ve nt to vent chug strength variation in a multi-vent geometry, used in developing the SSES chuqqing load definition from the GKM II-M single vent test data is quite reasonable. | |||
Additional verification of the conservatism of the SSES LOCA | |||
; load definition is provided by comparing the wall loads at JARRI calculated with the SSES LOCA load definition with the available JAERI wall load data (see Subsection 9. 5. 3. 5.1) . | |||
Figures 9-268 and 9-269 show that the SSES LOCA load definition bounds the available JAERI data by a substantial margin. Please note that the wall loads calculated by the SSES LOCA load definition do not include the synnetric a mplitude factor and thus represent "mean value" chugs. | |||
(2) The Mark II owners have specified two different CO loads for containment analysis. The first Co. load (C 0 1) corresponds to the CO occurring at the beginning of a postulated LOCA and the second CO load (C0 2) corresponds to the reduced CO load occurring later in the blowdown. For containment analysis, 4- the owners combine the reduced CO 2 load with loads due to i | |||
SRY (ADS) , on the basis that ADS occurs'later in a LOCA iustifying a reduced CO load for the combination C0 s SRv (ADS). | |||
However, SSES combines the so-called LOC A loads with SRV (ADS) for containment analysis. The LOCA load comprises the e nvelop of the responses due to both chuqqing and Co. Thus, the SSES load combination LOCA & SRV (ADS) considers both CO and chuqqinq and is more conservative than the owner's combination of a reduced CO load (C0 2) with'SRV (ADS). | |||
(3) The SSES LOCA laod definition selected one CO pressure time history (PTH No. 14) from GKN II-M as representative and boundinq of the CO at GKM II-M (see Piqure 9-177a S b) . | |||
Subsequently, this CO - PTH was sourced and applied in-phase to the IWEGS/M ARS acoustic model for containment' analysis. | |||
l Piqure 9-264 represents the enveloping PSD of PTH No. 14. | |||
l Figure 2-1 of Reference 70 presents the envelop for PSD values observed for CO in the 4T-C0 tests. These two figures indicate that the PSD of PTH No 14 from GKM II-M compares f avorably . with the enveloping PSD of the CO in 4T-CO. | |||
QUISIIQH_2 The -dominant f requency for the. Karlstein T-Quencher Test 21.2 appears to be 8.0 Hz instead of the 6.8 Hz. reported in Table 8-10 L() of the-DAR. Using the multipliers from Piquee 8-174 and 'this 8.0 l | |||
-REV. 6. 4/82 10-29 | |||
Hz frequency, ce got a transpossd frcquency of 10.6 Hz. This value falls outside of the specified frequency range. A Fourier analysis indicates an exceedance of approximately 70% at this 10.6 Hz frequency. Please pro vide iustification for the existing g load specifica tion f requency range. W BEGEDESB 2 As can be seen in Piqure 8- 188, Test 21.2 does not show a clearly p redo min an t frequency. We have interpreted 6.5 Hz as the predominant frequency because of the ma ximu m peak occurring in the pSD at that frequency; however, a second peak, only slightly lower than the 6.5 Hz peak, can be seen in that PSD a t a pp ro xim at el y 8.0 Hz. | |||
To investigate further the significant of Test 21.2 to the acceptability of the Susquehanna T-Ouencher load specification, KWU performed a pressure response spectra comparison of the load specification and Test 21.2. | |||
The method of " weighted traces" present-d to the NRC in the June 13, 1980 Lead Plant Meeting and documented in the KWU Report R-141/141/79 is used for this comparison. Figure 10-18 shows that the Susquehanna load specification bounds the measured pressure time history of Karlstein Test 21.2 representing the all valve Case. | |||
Assuming a maximum predominant frequency in Test 21.2 of 8 Hz and t ra ns fer ring the measured data of Test 21.2 to the all-valve and single-valve load case we get the comparison shown in Piqure 10- | |||
: 19. The pressure response spectra of the Susquehanna load lll specifications is slightly exceeded by the pressure spectra from Test 21.2 in the frequency range between 10 Hz and 11 Hz. This slight exceedance is only rela ted to the single-valve load case and is considered insignificant to the total load specification and in relation to the total data base from Karlstein. | |||
In addition, the term " dominant frequency" is highly subjective and sensitive to the method chosen for determining the domina nt frequency. Originially, KWU determined the dominant frequency range for the three SSES design traces (KKB Traces #3 5, 76 and | |||
: 82) to be ss5_to_Qt0_Hz (see SSES DAR, page 8P- 101) . This frequency range was based on a PSD analysis of the three traces. | |||
However, for these non-stationary SRV traces, t he PSD analysis is sensitive to the time segment chosen for analysis. Using a particular time duration may give one dominant frequency while another may give a slightly different dominant frequency. | |||
Subsequently, Bechtel has taken the design traces and performed t heir own analysis to determine the dominant frequency. They calculated a dominant frequency ra nge of 6.4 5_to_8 z6 9_gz for the three traces. This frequency range was based on the inverse of the peak-to-peak oscillation time period for the first two peaks. | |||
This was done for both negative and positive peak-to-peak periods. | |||
ggg REV. 6, 4/82 10-30 | |||
Furtheroore, Sargont & Lundy have determined the dominant frequency range of the three traces to be 5.8 to 8.9 Hz. As can be seen, the dominant frequency varies according to who performs (g the analysis and the methodology selected. | |||
(_/ l For containment analysis, the KWU methodology requires that time ! | |||
scale multipliers be applied to the three design traces. They range from 0.9 (tiae contraction or frequency expansion) to 1.8 (time expansion or f requency contraction) . When these multipliers are applied to the three design traces, specified frequency ranges of 3.3 to 8.9 Hz, 3.6 to 9.7 Hz and 3.8 to 9.9 Hz are obtained by using the above dominant frequency ranges from the original t races. Thus, the specified frequency range varies depending on the interpretation of the " dominant fr eq ue nc y" . | |||
However, regardless of the interpreted dominant frequency range, the same three traces and time expansion and contra tion f actors are used for containment analysis. Thus, ones opinion of what the dominan t frequency range is for the three traces is not as important as the time f actors chosen for actually applying the t races to the contain ment boun dary. | |||
With this in mind, Figures 10-20 thru 10-41 illustrate the response spectra generated by KWU Trace 876 for SSES. The trace i | |||
was frequency expanded and contracted by 110% a nd 55%, | |||
'res pecti vel y, to give a specified frequency ranges of 3.3 to 8.9 Hz, 3.6 to 9.7 Hz or 3.8 to 9.9 Hz, again, depending on the interpretation of the " dominant frequency". | |||
O' Piqures 10-42 thru 10-63 show the response spectra generated by KUU Trace 876 for the Limerick Generating Station (LG S) . The LGS structural model is essentially identical to the SSES model. | |||
However, these spectra reflect the use of frequency expansion and contraction factors of 125% and 55%, respectively. This gives specified frequency ranges of 3.3 to 10 Hz, 3.6 to 10.9 Hz or 3.8 , | |||
to 11 Hz. Thus, depending on the dominant trequency, these spectra reflect the use of the NRC's upper bound dominant frequency of 11 Hz, as required by Supplement No. I to NUREG-0487. | |||
A node by node comparison of the two spectra shows that the expanded spectral input used for LGS has negligible effect on the total response contributed by all modes. Thus, this supports the conclusion that an extention of the upper frequency multiplier would ha ve no significant impact on the SSES response spectra a n a ly sis. | |||
QUEGTLQ2 1 The Karlstein tests run with depressed water legs to simulate the ADS load case-utilized the longest discharge line length for SSES. Is this line length prototypical of the SSES ADS line lengths? If not, what is the maquitude of the difference between the SSES ADS line lengths and the test line length? If not | |||
("N i V REV. 6, 4/82 10-31 | |||
prototypical, is the data from the ADS tests acceptable for t ra ns por ta ti on to SSES with regards to f requency content? | |||
HESE9ESE_3 ll) | |||
Tests 10.3, 11.1, 12.1, and 13.1 are considered rep re senta tive for the ADS actuation load case. These tests were all performed with the long discharge line. No tests with a short discharge line and a depressed initial water level (representing ADS conditions) were performed. These long line tests represent a bounding condition, in that the longest discha rge line with depressed initial water level contains the largest possible initial air mass and will therefore produce the lowest possible pressure oscillation f req uency. | |||
To check whether the frequencies expected from short line ADS actuation f a ll within our specified f requency range we will transpose the test results from Test 11.1 to short line conditions. | |||
Table 8B on page 8P-105 of the Susquehanna DAR shows the average frequencies measured during the Karlstein tests. A portion o f that table is shown below: | |||
Measured Frequencies (Hz) tong C19an_C9aditigng______________12,5t*_4 _____ _ _ _ _ | |||
Line__________ Heal _C9Dditions__________________1________________ llh Short C19an_C9 Adit 19ng_________________5________________ | |||
Line Real Conditions 6. 5 | |||
* Tests with low amplitude This data indicates a ratio of approximately 1.3 exists between the f requencies measured in long line tests and short line tests. | |||
Subsection 8.5.3.3.4.6 of the Susquehanna DAR provides the comparison of the T-Ouencher ADS load specification with the Karlstein test results. When the measured frequency for Test 11.1 was adiusted to account f or back pressure and water surface area effects the measured 3 Hz frequency was raised to 5.7 Hz. | |||
To check the short line ADS load case we will adjust this 5.7 Hz by the 1.3 ratio obtained above. This produces a predominant frequency for the ADS - short line conditions of V = 5.7 x 1.3 = 7.4 Hz This frequency lies within the specified f req ue ncy ra nge. | |||
O REV. 6, 4/82 10-32 | |||
QUISILON_E Was the quencher bottom support used at Karlstein prototypical of the supports at Susquehanna SES? | |||
[ | |||
BEHEQHSH_E The hottom support used in Karlstein is protopical but not identical of those used at Susquehanna. The T-Quencher installed in the Karltsein test tank had the same distance between the bottom of the support and the quencher mid-plane as those quenchers installed at Susquehanna. Therefore, the t herno-hydraulic loading on ' the quencher supports are the same f or the Karlstein test tank and Susquehanna. From a structural point of view, the bottoa support used at Karlstein is not identical to those used at Susquehanna in that the supports in the plant are stiffer. | |||
QUESIIQ5_5 In three instances, the bending moment in the quencher are recorded at Karlstein exceeds the specified bending soment. Is the specified bending moment in the quencher arm conservative? | |||
Why? | |||
HHSE0 HSE _5 As shown in Piqure 8-153 the measured bending soments transposed to the weld of the quencher are exceed the specified soment in 3 | |||
() out of a total of 99 cases during vent cleaning. | |||
specification for the quencher arm is made up of three The total load components: | |||
a) internal pressure b) bending soment . | |||
c) tempe rature gradient The following- table lists the specified and marinua measured values for each of the load' components. | |||
Marisue CQRditiDD SEEGif12d_YalM2 3RREME2d_YalM2 Steady State. | |||
Pressure 22 bars 13 bars Internal-Temperature 2190 C 191.60 C | |||
' Bend ing Moment 65 kNm 85 kNa REV. 6, 4/82 10-33 | |||
As can be se:n, the specifica values excccd the censured ma ricuc values except for the referenced bending moments noted above. | |||
As a result of this exceedance, a stress analysis, identical to the one perf ormed for the specified values, was completed using g the above ma ximus measured values. This analysis sho ws that the total stress due to the specified loads bounds the total stress due to the maximum measured loads. In addition, a fa tiqu e | |||
'evsluation of the arm veld was performed using the maximum measured data. The results indicate the weld has a usage factor less than unity, and thus is acceptable. | |||
QHgsIIgy_5 Explain why a single failure will not disable both the RHR shutdown cooling f unction a nd one RHR loop in the suppression pool cooling mode. | |||
BHB29BBB 5 A single failure can indeed disable the RHR shutdown cooling function a nd one BHR loop in the suppression pool cooling mode under the following assumptions. Both units are operating at full power when a complete long-term loss of of fsite power (LOOP) occurs. This leads to main steam line isolation and reactor scram. Following the LOOP all four (4) diesel generators should start to supply power to the ESS busses, however, it is assumed that the diesel generator 0G501C does not start (single failure) . | |||
0G501C supplies power to the ESS busses 1 A20 3 a nd 2A203*, to the RHR pumps 1C and 2C*, and to the BHR service water pump 1 A. Loss of OG 501C means that the inboard shutdown cooling isolation lll valves on both units, 1P009 and 2P009*, loose power to their o pera tors, thus disabling the RHR shutdown cooling mode. Since these valves are located inside the primary containment, it is conservativey assumed that they will not be manually reopened. | |||
Only the "B" loop and the corresponding RHRSW loop of the RHR system (in both units) would be readily available f or suppression pool cooling, using e.g., RHR pumps 1B and 2D*. The "A" loop of one unit could be made available by manually operating four (4) valves (close PO48A, open P024 A, HV- 1210A and H V-1215 A) and using RHRSW pump 2A* and either RHR pump 1A or 2A*. However, a simultaneous operation of RHR pumps IA and 2A* is prohibited by elect rica l in te rlock s. Thus one of the units would have only one RHR loop available in the suppression pool cooling mode without j the possibility to switch to shutdown cooling. | |||
This case has not been considered in the transients submitted as part of Appendix I of the DAR and may be more limiting. However, a similar but more conservative case was analyzed as part of a sensitivity study and resulted in a maximum pool temperature of 2030F. The assumptions for this case are indentical to case 2.a | |||
( Appendi x I, DAR) except that shutdown cooling is not initiated. | |||
For this case, the curves f or reactor pressure vs. time and suppression pool tenperature vs. time are found in Piqures 10-64 and 10-65, respectively. | |||
ggg | |||
* Indicates Unit #2 component. | |||
REV. 6, 4/82 10-34 | |||
l l | |||
l As contioned abovo, this ccco 10 sicilar, but Gore concorvative ' | |||
than the case under consideration. The maior dif ference is that reactor water make-up would not be from the teedwater/ condensate r- system but from HPCI (a t reactor pressures above approrisately | |||
(_,S/ 300 psia) and core spray (at reactor pressures below a pproris a tel y 300 psia) , which both take suction from the condensa te storage tank and/or the suppression pool. Thus, water auch colder than feedwater would be used for make-up. | |||
This con tributes to the reactor depressurization and leads to less stean being dumped into the suppression pool. The peak suppression pool temperature for this case will theref ore be lower than that shown in Piqures 10-65. | |||
To confirm a temperature of less than 2030F we have initiated an addit ional a nalysis case, whose results are contained in Appendix I (Figures I-14 and I-15). | |||
2HESIIDE_2 How will PPSL use the LaSalle in-plant test data to establish the local to bulk AT for Susquehanna SES? | |||
BEBEGEBE 1 The following table gives a comparison of suppression pool geometries f or LaSalle and Susquehanna SES: | |||
11Eal19 SMESMahaBEa l Suppression Pool I.D. 86'-8" 88' Pedestal 0.D. 30' 29'-9" Suppression Pool Volume 142,160 ft3 126,980 ft3 (Normal Water Level) | |||
No. of Quenchers 18 16 Pool Volume /ouencher 7898 ft3 7936 ft3 Quencher Submergence 21.5 ft 19.5 ft (Normal Water Level) | |||
Height of Quencher Center- 5 ft 3.5 ft Line Above Base Mat Based on the similarity between Susquehanna and LaSalle the local to bulk AT established from LaSalle inplant tests is also applicable to Susquehanna. In addition, PPSL is continuing to f und the development of computer codes (like Bechtel's KFII) for the prediction of SRV discharge induced suppression pool airing processes. The calculated temperature distributions will be compa red to existing (Caorso) and future (LaSalle or Zimmer) in-plant test data. | |||
b('' | |||
REV. 6, 4/82 10-35 | |||
Following saticfactory qualification of the cooputer codos they can then be used to establish local to bulk tem pe ra tu re dif ferences without test. | |||
Q!! HEIL 9E_3 h What are the reactor pressures that correspond to quencher steam mass fluxes of 42 lba/ft2s and 94 lbs/ft2s? | |||
HESEQHSB_a The reactor pressures are 163 psia and 369 psia res pe ctively. | |||
O i | |||
l l | |||
REV. 6, 4/82 10-36 | |||
i O | |||
O This figure has been deleted. | |||
4 1 | |||
REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STeiAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT DOWNCOMER BRACING SYSTEM FIGURE 10-1 l _ _ . _ . .. - | |||
l | |||
\ | |||
, v i | |||
e A 4 kv | |||
* f s | |||
' ^\ | |||
* s N | |||
.N gu 4 | |||
This figure has been deleted?. | |||
N s . . . | |||
. . .tm | |||
%g h n | |||
( | |||
, .r ',- - | |||
e | |||
( | |||
l % ' | |||
REV 6, 4/82 -S SUSOUEHAANA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT A | |||
DOWNCOMER BRACING DETAILS FIGURE 10-2 | |||
r . | |||
'l i | |||
(~)', | |||
~. | |||
C' ' . ' . ' __ | |||
,. j | |||
,,,, .7 | |||
. ..t. | |||
. , , ,1 1 | |||
.- g .n . | |||
p l | |||
: l l | |||
. l .f 1 l . =. l .'s., l-l . | |||
3, E | |||
.n B / | |||
,}] | |||
P ll [l | |||
' -> l - | |||
-l l | |||
~ | |||
pj,.. -. | |||
ll 1332l ll l s,ip : .\n\, = i l ,I a> | |||
, I l, .' .. b A > | |||
i | |||
.. .ns.,-:n.v.,n | |||
: a. n s je a It n>,I a .n, n . | |||
i .i t. | |||
n .1.2 | |||
? | |||
I I. . d i 11. > l l .. l. . | |||
:- i . | |||
r | |||
.-. i lle I<:ll IIi . | |||
' - - . .. .. 1 g d l.mJl | |||
>. - -~,-s,.-- | |||
i -: a . 2., | |||
* ,~ f , - | |||
c'g' ' lf,, ;, ' | |||
i - - .> ' | |||
l [_g_ s r | |||
<' 1 | |||
,8 | |||
. , l , | |||
'S mrs steel Wall g , t- - , | |||
u.s y ' ,, | |||
( | |||
-l ', - | |||
*, I G . | |||
u... . | |||
-c . . -} - - \ , | |||
'.., j; y | |||
- t , .-- | |||
- - .i- | |||
/ | |||
s. | |||
g, | |||
: n. : | |||
I ' ?. 8 - | |||
m .n.: < | |||
.j ~ j g ' | |||
, ". h 5 2* | |||
. 2. B u ' ' ,_ a .u. | |||
; t , | |||
^ | |||
, . ... ... I ,. | |||
., --::: e b L.: 4 .:..,' | |||
. a | |||
-. : . b '.R b :..:Q . * ' - -l g ,. o u' | |||
.uc 3.. .n | |||
- - -.u.s. m. .m .m e a i . | |||
T7. . | |||
. .n 2s .n .n t- | |||
: m. o n m . . | |||
.m P3p enos u--H.m | |||
*. e- , s.- . | |||
no, . no: 3 .' .,- - | |||
T T .; - | |||
-Q)- -Os u* -0)-l-G)- | |||
nos u | |||
-.,, , . o o u n,o, ..-9 .no e | |||
l m | |||
o x 0 y .m (5p m . | |||
ib | |||
-(8>- -.}---(9- M | |||
< b Et.nr - | |||
i 1 | |||
= > ::: g , | |||
2a .a .a .. a .n w z - | |||
o = - . , | |||
o, ozem n- = g . . | |||
= is a -4 m R gia. n .-5 .. n n a n -- . | |||
gg= g>g . m u aua a e | |||
, ..., ......n..., . .. ..., | |||
m I- * | |||
$ $5 | |||
- 2 > | |||
8 h 6 lml; R Concrete-cell test stand o | |||
z | |||
--t --4 | |||
~ | |||
=u0' o co y j g Concret.e cells 3 and 4 | |||
" z 3 en | |||
* ~' | |||
m y Diagram of measuring points 2 | |||
I (D ((L | |||
. . . ~ . , | |||
e . | |||
,.. . E c-te | |||
..s. | |||
. o 1 l g , | |||
_. _ ~ _ _ _ _ | |||
= ; | |||
'n s r - ,-- - n .-, ,. - - - - | |||
. .. . . . .. t . .. *.. n . e t. . | |||
4 * | |||
... n | |||
= | |||
.. i ra m . * .. . . . . | |||
l7 - u | |||
* s a!!Bf | |||
: b. l | |||
. EE5 *. . , , h*E '.,.. 35! l l -- - | |||
. ; .- ,~ ~ , .c . mi | |||
= | |||
i i | |||
{ ~s._- - I,a_a_[ _ ., ,[ n-ji m5e : | |||
-FIE-[Em .. * 'Og@, m E y!!,!!$! E | |||
, _ __ .x__..=. .st,x - __x 31 .- | |||
, ,c s, xx s: | |||
: s. . | |||
: y. -((uk-$uf l | |||
] .---- -[sj ,. | |||
.]'. | |||
3ll l 2 | |||
s | |||
~ | |||
? | |||
00, ,,. | |||
g - est ost 7 05:- | |||
s s | |||
: 2. W) . | |||
- .a m4 | |||
= | |||
i a* : . | |||
OPOD j l | |||
og 3 | |||
a me a << - | |||
l 0 B M R - *5' rou w w .s ..iru ,. | |||
n n ::a | |||
_, - 0 13 5% 2 n' gg s | |||
7_g | |||
. o., | |||
g a | |||
_. '. E E i. 5RN' -$$ | |||
: y. '. . ' . _ | |||
~ D .s p0 C... EE p3 * | |||
.g l | |||
DIb - . | |||
4 . | |||
. ~ g ..- ,- | |||
l - | |||
. , - .. . i . | |||
. .* - . . . l .. .., . .... | |||
~ | |||
e: ,_.s m rs& 1- . | |||
1 m | |||
cos - ooz _ | |||
E REV. 6, 4/82 | |||
: e. D | |||
- 000 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 ANO 2 DES 4GN ASSESSMENT REPORT TRANSDUCER LOCATIONS A FOR THE SIX VENT PIPE | |||
-(' | |||
CONFIGURATION FIGURE 10-5 | |||
l l | |||
(tt Ett | |||
\ M 2 | |||
N 2 | |||
l O } | |||
=ok | |||
! E e E | |||
< = s et e2 s . A L e.J | |||
. - M * | |||
. . ... .. , . . . . .. . . . . , ..... , . . . . W ~; _I n | |||
. . . . .. . . . g e .. . .. * | |||
.. l | |||
..' . , .. ...... - g w - * -- | |||
s w. m E 0 i | |||
= c- .. | |||
. . ;) | |||
-4 u i:n | |||
. I,._{ | |||
x: o i | |||
, ac 30 =gc | |||
., 6 ., - g;<D H_* * .E* *.* e - | |||
t'* ,p,; 0:-~ g | |||
- e e. s . - ..s | |||
-e . --' - r * .. | |||
--r ='- * | |||
- N ., . . . . . .. . . .,.. .. .l . | |||
w_ ,-s , .wa rs. - | |||
...*. . . ... ..o . .. * . *. ... | |||
.. .....*a. | |||
2 n | |||
i sa . . .. . *l . . . . e E | |||
i | |||
.. +.asg . r- | |||
_ . _ __ _ _ . . _ . _ . _ . _ _ . . _ -9, I ' , | |||
1 - . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _' | |||
, y-3 | |||
- e as h2 y | |||
. - ., . , ,* *, l ~ | |||
. ,, y- - | |||
e [ | |||
. . ~ | |||
y ~ m.--.r-w e N mur" | |||
* e g . . . .. . ...:.. | |||
. . * * , . ' . * . . . ... . . *.* ...v* | |||
'.*l _ | |||
.* . .s . | |||
s ' .% . . . . .. .. .. | |||
T gg- 9Z6 | |||
{0GZ ~7052 705Z 70GZ-- | |||
e -- | |||
a 5 -a == | |||
c< v <c h 3< L 3 e< &3 . | |||
n d 6 n I"* M - | |||
7hf""*Id* h* Wb] {el . ,. | |||
O g | |||
N n: * * | |||
& a- . | |||
a | |||
. IN 11 U' I . | |||
a.5 | |||
'= | |||
S . C ~n g 'a C | |||
. .f. n . %] h... | |||
4{ 4 E,n n .. .. | |||
_-- s. c, c. c. | |||
e a s e a u ,,,, | |||
- ~ | |||
n a e . | |||
E. .. s as a G .. | |||
s g . . | |||
g- F. ~~- | |||
: b. ... | |||
A s D e s | |||
t E ., . . >. | |||
"..,,w | |||
~ | |||
o | |||
*.s i s .'. . | |||
+3Y -E as 005 - - 003 - | |||
og REV. 6, 4/82 a. | |||
_g SU600EHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT 00(' - | |||
TRANSDUCER LOCATIONS FOR THE TWO VENY PIPE C) v CONF!GURATION FeGURE ig_6 | |||
: .:~ * ...... _ _. .- . .. . . , | |||
h" *'.y | |||
,P 134 tem a 0.08 bor - | |||
.- -I < "- -- | |||
w .__ _t % g- .; -- e sj | |||
. . Unterdruckgradient p. | |||
* s ..11.'borls | |||
: .. ime T window -.. | |||
! v P 25 1mm i 0.2 bor .- | |||
2eltfenster zu P26 i, t | |||
eW-' ._ cSM .-)/;g7,E-b,ypqsme y ., | |||
134unog $+-ptWwh,%vj%ee . | |||
E '.#we - d ,. mad $hw | |||
.p2S = 9.5bor/s };,5 ;. . a t = - 8 ms 'l. | |||
Concrete-cell test 19 -'''- | |||
~ ' ' | |||
Betonzellenversuch 'i9 ... | |||
g _P26 1mm a 0.2 tqr. 4 4 4-2 ; y_ | |||
g,. . _- | |||
~=- | |||
, n . | |||
y p - | |||
e -: 4 a.6L boris : * - | |||
. . 26 .. . | |||
: i. , - | |||
6 i f_ - | |||
\*a- , | |||
i | |||
, .. Zeitoch.se - | |||
?** . | |||
Time axis. . . . | |||
P 27, imm a 0.2 bor '. - | |||
j . | |||
- .. , . - . -. .. . . . p.- . g . j g . bo r.l s | |||
% Q.'g,g- al = + 46 ms | |||
;y'y% | |||
8 .. . .. 27 _ . . , , .. .. ,. . | |||
. . . . . ..s i:: . | |||
i P28 tmm a 0.2 'bor2 4 , 4,!'k m. % gg -! !-- '- '' | |||
3 >g z = , p = 49 bor/s g/ - | |||
Al's + 13 ms 28 j - | |||
C z - --4 * | |||
. *t.4 | |||
= | |||
3 m m < | |||
* m o -4 n m Z - | |||
C O - | |||
a un m n g * | |||
? % ;;* E l < P 29 1mm a 0.2bor | |||
~m m o n m o g "y | |||
vs - | |||
- y i. | |||
.x -_- | |||
~.Q. ..u.- - - | |||
L 3,g u | |||
to m m =i . - | |||
- p .= 6 bor/s A t = + 15 ms oO w | |||
' 3 m U m>m | |||
-l c. | |||
- 29 . | |||
C p y rv o x 2 F$* =6m "Q" P 20 Imm a 0.2 bar 5* = 22 bor/s A t - + 18ms h -.100 ms--- | |||
r'e wc 2 | |||
" d j g ~4 .ra-- ^ | |||
P - - = - | |||
gl,1,g...e_.m_ .- :,s;: ' U b,.',t I,S' h.! . , ''';.n mm eo m y | |||
4 . .- | |||
^ | |||
^ | |||
^ a q _. | |||
i,. _. ..s . .; - u: | |||
e o | |||
> ^ ^ ^ ^ n a 4 | |||
w - | |||
U. | |||
.c S | |||
O O O P 13t. Imm A 0.06 bor , | |||
y' . | |||
.'Unterdruckgradient = 13 bor/s - av underpressure gradient " p- 13 4 , Zeittenster zu P20 g P 25 I m m & 0.2 bor ,, Time window | |||
.: . m : - :: -- - - - - : | |||
: - = | |||
Q. | |||
, p25 = to borts l A t = + 10 ms I | |||
. I P 26 1 mm & 0.2 bor ~ | |||
v v.Q *(.hb % r = | |||
At= - 2 ms | |||
. Concrete-cell test 23 $26 = 24 boris N: j . | |||
Betonzellenversuch 23 i j | |||
[ i P 27 . Imm a 0.2 bor l l .' | |||
g, , - | |||
--h h- -C, y (1.j[w= _ --- - {y pg n = 25 bor/s al = - 7 ms , | |||
P 2B 1mm a 0.2 bor Zeitochse y | |||
M .k $^- | |||
~ ^ ~ ~~ | |||
, w .s y/jk.a.u.w Id'P 5 $- - | |||
= 14 borIs ^I * | |||
* 6 ms c $ | |||
n z - | |||
28 m | |||
m 2 -4 t3 - -< U m amo m x - | |||
g n La ' | |||
, 9 ?,9 9 me f g P29 e. | |||
1mm & '0.2 bor eq._ a.~ | |||
< = . | |||
pb . | |||
s: at . = - S ms h ? . I ,'. - - 29 = 17 bor/m E , | |||
%8= I>m . | |||
m . | |||
roz c z 5 l;; 3g - . | |||
.n o A u . -o - - .- - :,... . | |||
: ;gm E*3 (T;. :,P .. 20 I mm s ,0.2 bo r - ".'y.b20 ' ".. * | |||
" ' ~ | |||
Mm2 | |||
,o,= g l5g | |||
;y, ,, ,=Jw ,. | |||
.: ;. < ._ y w j m | |||
= - a- - =.= | |||
.qm | |||
~ | |||
s J'wo :.:rru _ ._ | |||
.c p | |||
._ 1 :: | |||
W W uA m _. | |||
. ' i | |||
.- . . . i ' ,- :,:* | |||
iM) h 8( | |||
O | |||
- ,i s0 t 1 | |||
p l 1 l / | |||
l 1 l 4~ p e0 e - | |||
c0 c - - 2 rr r - 1 e | |||
oo t t o | |||
t cc c | |||
,i ee 3 e 1 s s s 1 1 3 5 o | |||
- I} | |||
n e e n t te l l te le l | |||
e z z z r r r t | |||
o o o t t Y9 k k k e e e S S S " | |||
i 1 3 5 8 ox . * | |||
, | |||
* i7 oi- | |||
, }!! 6 b | |||
O , j l | |||
,9_ | |||
o r_ | |||
, ' .! - 4 o | |||
2 x- | |||
, j. | |||
\ o s'~ | |||
x !i'3 s .N | |||
\ \ | |||
t g\ | |||
* s 1 \.\- | |||
\ | |||
* gI l gI i i - | |||
,- t 2 | |||
;.i t j., | |||
\ | |||
\ p . i .1,! -l *I i.a,t. | |||
\ | |||
\ \k.\ | |||
,\- ' | |||
1 | |||
,'f o j ',Ia , : ,ii' ,I ' , i' il ig g s ?, g io ' | |||
j 0 | |||
~ - - | |||
0 ,. 2 0 | |||
* B. s. s. 4 3 i. | |||
o 1 | |||
0 0 o o o 0 0 aikl1. 1 a g*. o | |||
* t. $ | |||
2 t= E Q g .,- E g= $w a"R =$ g=* | |||
O mxm @mz0 e 5" E 2 oZ s; | |||
% >mE me 5 E p mO i | |||
suF m:o* EA* | |||
=aCi woe, | |||
9 l | |||
i I | |||
4 | |||
- i?;.nz.. | |||
:!d | |||
-J'"7 n m. | |||
: w. . . . .. | |||
+.. . | |||
f p | |||
m. | |||
g.c% '. .r.ser'.( sr.* L. | |||
.. '. , cr*f | |||
-g . | |||
*g* . | |||
1 | |||
. - e i . , | |||
. .e ~ | |||
3 .,' - . e - | |||
., 3 ,j i 2,. | |||
c- . | |||
.-cz. | |||
-- . :~ | |||
n | |||
'e e s ,.g .. - | |||
o | |||
*9 e . .\. | |||
V1 | |||
. g . | |||
Q. .e ' | |||
9- * # | |||
e 8 , | |||
" * ,e. | |||
: k. . | |||
..s . . | |||
.?;.. . | |||
g . M - . =g ,,. t w. | |||
+ ~ | |||
w N . .* | |||
c . | |||
s$ | |||
J ... ; #p. . . . | |||
U , | |||
' [ . | |||
0 - j. $ | |||
= . c- . | |||
m. | |||
j ; | |||
= | |||
; i .. - | |||
S ' | |||
= 1 l | |||
s 7 d E M ,' %, 1 - | |||
u a v . , | |||
8 M | |||
- ._ . .;g g d ~_ . . | |||
.s . | |||
m .. | |||
,g. m , | |||
** w b* ~ | |||
m . .~~ Tut.==== " | |||
)g O | |||
' ~ . | |||
ma | |||
~. | |||
n . | |||
M u - | |||
g E g. | |||
m W N = | |||
i l | |||
l l | |||
e l | |||
.i . | |||
I 1 | |||
4 e | |||
3 | |||
's 4 i- | |||
-d x- g g | |||
4 | |||
~l y . | |||
4 .. . | |||
-Y2-n.src- , . | |||
T* | |||
-m - | |||
, , g | |||
, .9 E | |||
}7 | |||
'$ = | |||
r ..--- E , | |||
o . . .. . | |||
2 = ' | |||
o o | |||
= . | |||
e. | |||
- v | |||
*y | |||
_d'. ,r, d | |||
n 0 * | |||
:1 -- | |||
* z ' | |||
x . | |||
2 3 | |||
T: ' | |||
. .7. il - | |||
w_ .. . s ... . ._- u, | |||
~ | |||
5-w -Q>- -- | |||
* 5> e t | |||
REV. 6, 4/82 i | |||
SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT , | |||
POOL WALL PRESSURES AT THREE | |||
+ | |||
CIRCUMFERENTIAL VENI EXIT . | |||
LOCATIONS .l./ fSCALE 3 VENT j GEOMETRY FIGURE Jg ]g .\, | |||
e 4 | |||
i-l <' . | |||
.] . | |||
j s | |||
__j r._ W 4' | |||
#'? - | |||
~**h | |||
~ | |||
! i | |||
,..~ _ ; . ., | |||
d le l. | |||
+l f d W ._m~ | |||
s mL -n.wn F t j' l D | |||
! i i ipi. ! ' | |||
...,yt l' _' | |||
p-l- | |||
pH' | |||
.l | |||
= t. e - - l'. | |||
o | |||
.o n | |||
g . .* | |||
n. | |||
'8 | |||
* j< , | |||
;: , _...r--"-] j b m | |||
., .. ;* . 2,.* _. ... - | |||
.:iT.;" | |||
o s | |||
o. | |||
s | |||
... .. .. i .: | |||
, t g | |||
+,t k l | |||
. j 4 | |||
r e | |||
r f | |||
~ ~ . | |||
l , J, e | |||
u 1,,/=- | |||
e u | |||
~st a ' | |||
a . ,: | |||
,o,, ....s;4 o 1, , .. | |||
W n | |||
W I 2 . . | |||
i r .-.h. 1 . . | |||
h. | |||
e -- m 8 3 | |||
4 . . | |||
.i 3 . sum 87 M. G ! | |||
2 ' 'I > 1 w 5 . | |||
- t;i p | |||
.2, _. i 48 _ _ .-..4 I. . . W- -. . Q e | |||
. . .c | |||
-h w _a< - | |||
_ _ .>N | |||
- e ~ . p E | |||
1{> i a i he M ta. | |||
h_._ l 9 | |||
4 i | |||
d 4 | |||
n 3 | |||
-,1)"= | |||
._ . . _ ..., -..- N. | |||
. n s - | |||
Tr. . | |||
n | |||
> . . . . h | |||
. 1- . | |||
l , . | |||
.. . . n n . ~% | |||
r . | |||
+ | |||
._._.- Cw s- , | |||
3 % . | |||
u | |||
, o 1 | |||
,. . . . g a m - | |||
:s | |||
. t,J | |||
_ a .- .. . .- e. m | |||
, 0 .- . | |||
. a - - | |||
s . | |||
.. P | |||
, -g- , | |||
a m ,, | |||
~. | |||
. . j ., .. | |||
*J | |||
.. . _ _ ... w. _i O - . | |||
; j I_ | |||
w a F- . | |||
=. + w . | |||
3 | |||
* b N, | |||
\ ~ | |||
REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT l r i | |||
00L L'ALL PRESSURES AT T'IREE CIRCUMFERE*1"IAL VENT EXIT LOCAT10"!S-1/2.0 SCALE 19 j VEtlT GEOMETRY I | |||
FIGURE M-ll | |||
* 1 | |||
.v- | |||
O 1809 J | |||
P. R | |||
. 4j | |||
- -wy | |||
.c | |||
( s. ...e n. . | |||
12 *5 O& | |||
',*h k ,~" k ,_ | |||
l | |||
. n_ | |||
ru. g u - . . | |||
, u- | |||
.- i a p | |||
-- - ~ O. | |||
.. ~L ' | |||
m{ | |||
f_n<Q fg ~ ,5 - | |||
. . . ~ | |||
~ M ~ T W ,( . | |||
<o e4 g# | |||
EO 2Q 4 . :.- . | |||
a : water level - | |||
0: Pressure | |||
. O: Pressure on wetwell totterst floor - | |||
N: T mporoturu . | |||
l j , ve: vent nice REV. 6, 4/82 l | |||
SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT V PLAtt LOCATIONS OF TRANSDUCERS FOR 1:ETWELL nouRE 10-12 | |||
.i. c.! | |||
= | |||
g ia 1 51 | |||
= | |||
8 1-U- | |||
I li g 3 l il W i oo 1 i | |||
} i.. .a u | |||
: g. . | |||
i | |||
.o.G6 9 | |||
I Vs | |||
_s ll i | |||
E 1g %' | |||
E . | |||
{w l.' | |||
i | |||
(] $ ,di e | |||
ts te | |||
. . 1; p , | |||
m | |||
~; | |||
Pl I-li ., | |||
c I$ II. | |||
% II. g I t I$ $5! IE s | |||
{ 'Qoo.. | |||
a .... | |||
: a *. i t . | |||
E : Qi8 l8!_ . | |||
E u. | |||
4 j. p l REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT r | |||
Q LOCATIONS OF PRESSURE TRANSDUCEP.S FOR WETWELL eisune10-13 | |||
h 1 | |||
4 | |||
! i g a . - g g i !' | |||
I t | |||
t ' | |||
* 3 | |||
. | |||
* e | |||
.t . | |||
. l t . | |||
... 3,..g....... . . | |||
...............{................ . . . . . . . . . . . | |||
.................8.... | |||
. 1 . | |||
! l t ' | |||
'' t ) | |||
N 3 N : | |||
i g..... 6 .....O........... | |||
... . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..o.............. | |||
: i. ... .. g i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | |||
t . | |||
I ' | |||
g j 4 4 I I | |||
: c. t. G. | |||
I ! ...a................. | |||
..!...............L.................. ..............!..................i................... | |||
. . f. . | |||
,j- | |||
.' I i | |||
;. I. i*I I. .- t .t | |||
:. ..... .....11................. . . . . . . . !. . . . . . . ....I.....U.......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ..................t.... | |||
.. I . . | |||
: g. .; I* 1 W ? | |||
a : 1 H i e I | |||
* 4 g.4N . | |||
* | |||
* I - * | |||
.............v.. . . . . . ..t................. | |||
.. ..................g......o.. . . . . . . | |||
g | |||
.3................... ..................r... | |||
3 I i 3 g i i I . | |||
: . i I : : | |||
I* | |||
t I. | |||
e...................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | |||
..................g.................. ................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... | |||
e I | |||
* i | |||
. ! e- t. | |||
I .I l J >i ! | |||
. j. ..M4 I . . .. . ........ . . | |||
. g | |||
.................. .l............ .}................. ..............:.. | |||
%D I - * | |||
* .l p"5 . : | |||
i --5 . -t "l 1 : . | |||
. t .................,i... | |||
...................l.................. . | |||
S I :. | |||
(ISd) 3WflSS3Wd i | |||
I I | |||
l | |||
\ | |||
ll a | |||
J 4 | |||
i i ; i i l-1 ! : . | |||
i . i - | |||
i i :. | |||
:........... ............... ..................l.............I............ . . . . . . . . . | |||
4 I. - | |||
. I - | |||
u i : | |||
p . ..... s................. ...Q........... I....... .4 s..............i la I | |||
t- - | |||
8 | |||
........ lI i w : I i . | |||
l - a !- 8 | |||
,y I ': g | |||
. . . . . . ,g................... ...N.....,......i.................'........c...,..........l | |||
% I , | |||
- e | |||
-l ! | |||
. e I | |||
j ! l 8 l. | |||
f 3.......... l................... | |||
, ..................I.................i...............<;3...............l l l l l - | |||
Ll | |||
< i | |||
! ./ :g | |||
'o .................. .................g...............g..I;........, | |||
i...........I................... | |||
I i I | |||
\!l. - | |||
l i | |||
...........................,,.......:...................................t. | |||
j | |||
............\.................. I * . I 5 I I I -cri . | |||
d!. . ... ... .. ...........'..........i...................! | |||
1 | |||
... j | |||
-C. . . . ......... ....... ! | |||
: % i --? l l i ! i i ! ! -[ | |||
'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..................l...............:........!.....gt 1 | |||
f, 'l I t l REV. 6, 4/82 i | |||
SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 1 | |||
l DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT l | |||
VENT EXIT ELEVATION P00L WALL PRESSURES FOR A CHUG , | |||
FROM JAERI TEST 9912 i FIGURE 10-14 ! | |||
L .. , | |||
O GKMIIM MSL TESTS ' | |||
TESTS NO. 3-10(0.5-13HZ) l JAERI TESTS | |||
: 2. 0 - ,r j e , | |||
8 1 llr, ie s ' | |||
b | |||
: 1. 5-ll'!ll i | |||
i | |||
@ l | |||
> s | |||
!1L---- | |||
b I | |||
: 1. 0- tj O | |||
a_ | |||
j ~ l. | |||
: 0. 5- ; | |||
e L-y J . | |||
t | |||
-n. | |||
o r-I' i i | |||
i 1 I i l l 1 I e a l l 0 1.0 2.0 0.0 NORi1ALIZED PRESSURE .VIPLITUDE REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRK: STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT COMPARISON OF PROBAEILITY Os PENSITY OF THE NORMALIZED PRESSURE AMPLITUDES FROM GKM II-M TESTS 3. 10 & JAERI riouRd0-15 | |||
GKMIIM14MSL TESTS TESTS NO. II,12(0.5-13HZ) | |||
O ------ a^Eni TESTS 2.0 - r-) | |||
lln l l '_' | |||
c-- | |||
: 1. s - ll 5 | |||
a '.J, ,i ,i x l | |||
$by 1. 0 - ! !llt t> | |||
l _ | |||
8 | |||
<= -, | |||
a- . . | |||
: 0. s - i | |||
'- , Q | |||
_.] ! --- | |||
o r-- l ! r-8 ' ' I i e i i e i ! | |||
l 0 1.0 2.0 3.0 | |||
.;0R.' ALIZED PRESSUP.E A.MPLITUDE REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT | |||
(~'i COMPARISON OF PROBABILITY E g J y | |||
& JAERI FIGURE 10-16 | |||
O GKMllM1/6MSL TESTS TEST NO. 13-20(0.5-13HZ) | |||
------ JAkiRI TESTS | |||
~ | |||
: 2. 0- r-- | |||
l* | |||
i li I | |||
8 s_ | |||
8 1 | |||
- 1. 5 - l l _ | |||
t-m ',l. ii | |||
= . | |||
O *C 1. 0 - * !!,!' 8-- t | |||
'L 8 | |||
= | |||
g -, | |||
m ,.. . | |||
: 0. 5- ! | |||
',p L, | |||
... .a , | |||
: i o | |||
'~ | |||
i i i . i i i | |||
%D i . . i j j 0 1.0 2.0 3.0 l NORHALIZED PRESSURE AMPLITUDE l | |||
REV. 6, 4/82 I | |||
SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT j COMPARISON OF PROEABILITY O ne"Sirv oe 1"e "oana'izeo PRESSURE AMPLI:'yDES FORM GKMII-M 'ESTS ..]. 20 &JAERI recuRE 10 .7 l | |||
O 1 | |||
80- . | |||
psi E' 70 | |||
/ i a I t n- 60 | |||
/r} !. | |||
] l e, SSES Load I g g Definitica N ,,,{ , | |||
I f | |||
\ k h 50 a: . | |||
f g I i \ | |||
dL ' 8 | |||
\ | |||
: l. 0 - , | |||
i \ ! , | |||
I -...a I i ll l | |||
p 30- / i | |||
/ \ | |||
t i - J \ | |||
\ | |||
20 l \ | |||
i s : | |||
l ! I I. | |||
. - -- - ~ ~ I 10- . | |||
\ | |||
l | |||
's ' ~ .. | |||
0 . , , , , ;_ | |||
0.01 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 s 1.0 | |||
> Period REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT COMPARISON OF PRESSURE | |||
.tn) | |||
RESPONSE SPECTRA 0F TEST 21.2 -ALL VALVE CASE-AND THE SSES LOAD DEFINITION , | |||
nounE 10-18 l | |||
V | |||
' ' " " i ' | |||
80 Psi 1 g | |||
8 70 t rj , | |||
\ | |||
o 60-y SSES Lead I \ | |||
o Definition N ,f i | |||
& l I \ \ | |||
I i \' | |||
\ | |||
h I j \ | |||
: l. 0 - | |||
i | |||
\ | |||
j | |||
.f i. J i | |||
l 30 | |||
/ /~TTT- | |||
/ | |||
\ i il < i Ilil | |||
~ | |||
O i f/ \' l 20- c r' lf s \ | |||
I \ | |||
y% | |||
qjj- . | |||
) | |||
10- g . | |||
I.;- | |||
: u. _ | |||
0 . , s. , | |||
* | |||
* n - | |||
0.01 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 s 1.0 | |||
> ??rIOd REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT COMPARISON OF PRESSURE | |||
^ . RESPONSE SPECTRE OF TEST 21,2 V ALL VALVE CASE AND ONE "/ALVE CASE AND THE SSES LOAD DEFI-NITION riaURE 10-19 i | |||
il i 8 | |||
[$ [ { | |||
* L'~),i cs | |||
~ | |||
'r' f w - - | |||
-/ | |||
s | |||
( ' | |||
\ | |||
- - - . u o | |||
%( N. . O t=.0 | |||
!m E | |||
E 2 g e Q m Z r- | |||
._ I_ m - | |||
e Z > X | |||
)- H 00 m E< s e o | |||
%\ M Z D o | |||
* ct o :n w. ci. | |||
OU x ! E, | |||
>- - 2 E.:= | |||
\ o .2 g | |||
} z = .c o w s - ci 7 | |||
__ -_.. u ggg w aa m' | |||
8 | |||
''= 8 .. A ci l 'g a s .g (N | |||
.; u . 'E | |||
() t_ . | |||
) | |||
o | |||
- 033 5 | |||
< a Z a 1e | |||
, 3 L l t_ . _- i. | |||
I | |||
_ L _ | |||
l i' | |||
_ n 1 | |||
o E $ E E 8 E E a J J d' d d a 3 8S 'NOl1VU313DOV '1V8103dS REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAN ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT SSES CONTAINMENT R PONSE SPECTRA KWV SRV g | |||
("') | |||
v ASYMMETRIC - DIRECTION HORIZ ONTAL FIGURE 10-20 | |||
M/ | |||
///I e | |||
/// / | |||
q v | |||
.. w!I I e (ll I | |||
.. \ N "o I | |||
e o M E N i | |||
e4 % b | |||
( | |||
1 L.1 | |||
> e 1 LO | |||
{ l z O M 4 $ | |||
l | |||
" 2 e e D' l e Z l l | |||
* i l \ > e4 g H d i | |||
h i us | |||
___.. s . gg g .! a. | |||
9u x sa s =. | |||
tZ =xa=!. | |||
.c o w ci | |||
~ " -- | |||
t 8 =1aE e 8ci l | |||
I 1 | |||
Lu 8..- | |||
g e - | |||
' p._ . p a | |||
! O | |||
_E c . .F. | |||
E l !. i - | |||
<a = a | |||
_l l = | |||
e | |||
__I f% | |||
\ ~ | |||
o O M O M O W O P N, O P= r N e e e o e s O. | |||
e,o .e O O O sO B eS *NOl1VB37303V ~1Y8103dS REV. 6, 4/82 4 | |||
SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT A SSES CONTAINMENT RESPONSE | |||
;PECTRA KWU SRV #76 - | |||
('") ASYMMETRIC- DIRECTION VERTICAL rioORE 10-21 | |||
o | |||
< , , a i | |||
y f * | |||
/._ ~ | |||
r - | |||
g 1_. J }} | |||
- = | |||
y5 ~ 3 N *C at | |||
- rM J- | |||
'x M M m 2v o =.f 4 > 2 | |||
\ | |||
3 Z | |||
J-h i [i m - | |||
k 3 | |||
* Z < < | |||
H W | |||
> 20 | |||
* H i 3 c. | |||
)0 Z C o O a c- o :s - | |||
l 6ox .e 3 .B | |||
< -E o o. | |||
' a gE ~~ | |||
2 o, m gm 7 o l | |||
" = 3j * | |||
, g ** W a | |||
.O a . | |||
! . ,- 5. n - '.@ | |||
J_w,' i,' .ii 82 3 | |||
\^[ ' | |||
DE[ U 3 | |||
,N 1 1 | |||
.e | |||
_ .li i | |||
, I i | |||
.. p c = | |||
~ | |||
i i | |||
-- a I | |||
ll n | |||
..1 l | |||
i I - | |||
O | |||
$ 0 8 d $ 3 8 F F P P P P P E aS ,NOITARELECCA LARTCEPS 1mA' 9' V/8Z SOSOO3HVNNV 513VR 31331W13 SIV1lON GNliS L VNO E 03SIDN VSSESSW3NA WddOH1 SS3S 3ONIVINW3NI B3Sd0NS3 j SBA #t9 | |||
'"'( | |||
Sd331BV A'MD | |||
* VSAWW31BlO - 01833110N H0B I 2ONIVI-dlOOW3 g_g | |||
3: nold g_7 lV I 83A N01133HIG - 31813WWASV gg ABS OM'>l VH133dS 3SN0dS38 IN3WNIVINO3 S3SS 1 hod 3W AN3WSS3SSV NDIS30 E ONY L SilNO NO11VIS DlW133'l3 WV31S VNNYH3nOSnS Z8/7 '9 'A3M SPECTRAL ACCELERATIO'1, Sa c P. P P . F 7 7 o ~ m w a ~ m Q L/1 O M Q W O o | |||
~. p_- ! | |||
i * | |||
? | |||
I f | |||
i i i l 3 e :a: r- > - | |||
$ ~ E. | |||
: 2. n W H I e. | |||
o "I | |||
o u- 2 m N * -- | |||
-o ea-2 - | |||
o I | |||
, o, gg a | |||
g ., | |||
n y __ . . . . _ . . _ . . . _ _ = .. | |||
$Re. x | |||
:C 7 h 3 7 s | |||
= = - _ | |||
*o +<- | |||
c: Z c1 o D l 4 | |||
* U1 > l | |||
~ | |||
:t! 4 mlr g 4 3 " - | |||
3ll 1 t | |||
L- _ __ | |||
Ce | |||
$ m -l-a - | |||
g 3 _ | |||
2 > 4 o a U2 m 4 9 | |||
-J 3 F K M 1 ? | |||
o N - | |||
S r | |||
. ~ | |||
\ | |||
7 m | |||
a n | |||
a o | |||
bl-[J" 3:n;Id lVIN0Z 804 NOI133810 - Ol813WWASV 9/ # ABS OM'>I V8133dS & | |||
T 3SN0dS38 1N3WNIVINO3 S3SS 180d3W AN3WSS3SSV NDIS30 Z ONY L SilNn NOl1VIS 31W133'13 WV313 VNNVH300$0S Z8/V '9 *A3B SPECTRAL ACCELERATION, Sa g O c Q | |||
* e a .o . | |||
O M M e4 O M m O M Q M O M Q P | |||
i 1 | |||
b. | |||
I l i e . | |||
! I L .I o,I - | |||
' I a =-* E. :: W | |||
?. n r T | |||
C " _.S 2 a | |||
. T if E ~ -- | |||
.o o :r an2 . | |||
$ O o o g,o*** -< | |||
'o 3 x 'o 6 x< | |||
- - E t's 3 . _ | |||
o | |||
'o I,* | |||
D C | |||
1 Cm tr2 N w m m m -, . . _ = | |||
D 63 X < > | |||
* df' t' \~~_ - | |||
l l | |||
=J C3 -- | |||
e m l l l ~ | |||
b | |||
~ | |||
Q ) J I m O ! | |||
o a >< ( | |||
3 3 | |||
M_ | |||
PJ l | |||
~ s 3 | |||
g 7s~~ . | |||
A am#d (11) | |||
, v f 1 5 | |||
/ i o | |||
o | |||
!! E n | |||
* gr i | |||
,f'' | |||
c r o | |||
't) . | |||
# ~ | |||
rr I M w/ 'd | |||
.i x | |||
T. | |||
es O | |||
Nl > n o g | |||
%\ o g e | |||
1T\\ , n . | |||
%L\ a | |||
= | |||
5 N | |||
+ e h h m m h3 I e | |||
%, eo | |||
: c. La o | |||
3: | |||
e | |||
.e o o. | |||
ie l 0 A x y4 l | |||
I z . | |||
5! a ua a y E | |||
=2-= g N cy a m' w | |||
x ma | |||
- 8 d | |||
: u. 8 g es .. | |||
p . 50 .I d l o Ei4 & | |||
~ | |||
M .3 E & | |||
,' 'e i e | |||
.. -- g I | |||
m f | |||
' E 9 8 10 g 8 'S 'N011Y83$00V 1YU103dS REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM El.ECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 ANO 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT r ', SSES CONTAINMENT RgGPONSE SPECTRA KWU SRV r./6 C) ASYMMETRIC - DIRECTION VERTICAL FIGURE 19-25 | |||
1 l 93-OL nnou l lVIN0Z!80H N01133810 - 31813WWASV 9/# AUS OMM - V8133ds 3SN0dS38 1N3WNIV1NO3 S3SS 1 hod 3W IN3WSSESSV NDIS30 Z ONY L SilNn NOl1VIS 31W13313 WV313 VNNVH3nDSDS UN ' 9 ' A" SPECTRAL ACCELERATION, Sa E O O O O == = | |||
O . | |||
O ___ | |||
0 N | |||
3 =_ | |||
t a, 7 h i 1 | |||
-4 C4 (l0 -- | |||
~ -- | |||
o a r- > - | |||
?. | |||
b*1h n y . | |||
: h. sa E =. 1 o s ' o 2 | |||
,8 ,Y ygb' n - - - | |||
.o 5=r :: | |||
a . 2 m | |||
" | |||
* O | |||
. 5 9 2 ;";" $ " | |||
.o l OEe. x MP.- | |||
x m i a i , | |||
l | |||
$$ C O DI M [ l' i.n 4 -. = . . - | |||
w a c. | |||
M < > | |||
M c =- | |||
a e s 2 > | |||
v3 4 N O 3 tJ 3 | |||
j b3 | |||
* i l | |||
sc : | |||
y 1 | |||
O O e | |||
fg-h{ 3';n:rd lV31183A NOI133810 - Ol813WWASV 9/# ABS AM'>l 3SN0dS38 1N3WNIVINO3 S3SS VH133dS g 1 hod 3W AN3WSSESSV NDIS30 Z ONY L SilNn NOl1V15 OlW13313 WV31S VNNVH3nOSnS Z8/7 '9 *An SPECTRAL ACCELERATION, Sa g | |||
,o .o - - _ | |||
o | |||
$ 5 E h g | |||
#3 I | |||
l F | |||
Eo 3 a o | |||
&O | |||
= | |||
c | |||
.. u a- oe. ~1 a w N | |||
.= | |||
.c S. | |||
m3oE~ | |||
5= | |||
Y" 2 Io 9 5 Q S .5 | |||
'o E-x%6 E Mm . f. | |||
I l | |||
'o a C O L3 i b !- | |||
= s 9 i s < > | |||
m m | |||
.A MR o \h N | |||
_o | |||
. .a Q | |||
. / = -- | |||
\. | |||
e ' | |||
. ,f E | |||
o a | |||
JJi 8 | |||
//// _ | |||
e | |||
* A7/ / _ | |||
cx [J l / " | |||
L) e | |||
! %' s | |||
~ | |||
a r n a :d a | |||
. :s sa > r-5 E 8 cc r & w i~u m z t- | |||
\ .o z x s c: | |||
-t < sn u, b i | |||
* o M z D 'B 6 ao 3 O U x' | |||
>- - if , 8 o Q | |||
O 3 g .- | |||
z -x o w ::: - 6 ra 3 it uT S =( a ; 8 e | |||
: .. e | |||
: 1. u5" W - | |||
k._,) | |||
._. __ _ i I- - | |||
e o | |||
<3$ | |||
E a z o | |||
_ _ . _. t - | |||
I | |||
_ . _ _ _ . -I- ! . | |||
I h, l \~ | |||
j-- - | |||
o E $ E E E. O E J ; - J J J J 8CS *NOl1VU3'13OOV IV'd103dS REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT | |||
' SSES CONTAINMENT RE P SE | |||
( | |||
SPECTRA -KWU SRV | |||
'/ | |||
ASYMMETRIC - DIRECTION HORIZONTAL FIGURE 10-28 | |||
r, . | |||
N w., | |||
.: o i " | |||
_ e o | |||
/4/ , . | |||
1 f/// | |||
x | |||
- _j_. ll I , | |||
(~/ | |||
s . | |||
-%A | |||
* y t. | |||
M | |||
= | |||
__ ._ u n | |||
'i i l s I A E N | |||
~.. | |||
,l | |||
\ a r o | |||
, - \ 50 > r- | |||
= m | |||
'. ,b': | |||
_LE - __ | |||
#7/ | |||
-] 9 O | |||
m < | |||
G n | |||
y- - | |||
H w . | |||
e e z n ga = | |||
- i %\ - , ,E > s | |||
.,4 , | |||
i p < m k, | |||
! b I C Q sy c; | |||
\ - | |||
. ~ | |||
l_ l I % | |||
, $() z o ,o O yO 3 | |||
\' s l ' | |||
. x [ o, r | |||
. > -E ii o | |||
] o z ., | |||
ag . _- | |||
o I w a= ci | |||
_._- f- u s g [ mq&= | |||
. g l c ci | |||
. w =- a .. | |||
;,s .. | |||
l s . . F o l a u z 3 | |||
o 1o =. | |||
Iv) f - | |||
_i c | |||
<a .= aE. | |||
u. | |||
i ,, | |||
_l 1 ! | |||
sw s i | |||
-- - e j-- | |||
l. | |||
I. | |||
1 | |||
__ p | |||
.l__ ' | |||
- I. | |||
m - u E | |||
I - | |||
s o | |||
O m o m o m o e N O N f, N O l | |||
.: .: : a a d & | |||
3.e5 'NO!1Y8313DOV 7VulO3dS REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT p SSES CONTAINMENT RESPQNSE t i | |||
* SPECTRA - KWU SRV #/6 ASYMMETRIC -DIRECTION VERTICAL FIGURE ]q_7q | |||
' 8 | |||
~ | |||
i e | |||
,c\ | |||
r e | |||
V, r Y) | |||
,h l | |||
u e M , .' | |||
S a r n 4 I C r.0 > r | |||
= v o v2 < g l -- 3 e u: E-g l~ | |||
, ;m z & | |||
, ca = | |||
l E | |||
e z > > | |||
l H 2 | |||
.- < u: | |||
-1 e E 5; l -1' - | |||
ou x -g a i | |||
a z | |||
s! a4a | |||
~ | |||
W =a2g d s | |||
3 {a.. ee w = | |||
=~ g 8 | |||
' s 6 e .an - | |||
E | |||
<s a u g (vj- s i o | |||
~ | |||
31 y *, 71 &E | |||
! l. | |||
= | |||
l' ~ c:--- __ | |||
L.. o l | |||
{ .._ _ | |||
, i _.I ., | |||
.__. _ 7_ . _ | |||
i _- | |||
i --__. | |||
. 1 I I L l . _ _ . | |||
l 3 o O m O th O m O F N O r= m N O | |||
'a d a d & | |||
8 'S 'NO11V'd fl3OOY WdiO3dS REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT j ' '' SSES CONTAINMENT RESPONSE l SPECTRA- KWU SRV #76 V I ASYMMETRIC - DIRECTION ! | |||
HQRHONTAL { | |||
FIGURE 1U ')U ' | |||
l l | |||
l l | |||
l | |||
o I | |||
!- l- 5 t | |||
u nf Wf * | |||
/, 9 f | |||
~ - | |||
l I /i 1 e ~ | |||
l \ *t n: E. ou | |||
::: 2U o su > I - | |||
m I C y | |||
e nc . | |||
= 2 a v - | |||
i T M | |||
, s r r,e e e | |||
- . .__ g 4 =3-l 2O 2 C goN' | |||
--.- 4 | |||
'a 0- O OO- M C: 3 | |||
" 6 2 .C o. | |||
Q | |||
- ;2: E r= | |||
o o | |||
C 2 2 | |||
: y. c am omTa w' | |||
.g 1 | |||
irg tv C 0:. 3 .. | |||
g4 - | |||
M M | |||
.S | |||
: 5. 3c s O a | |||
; i F5 .E DE.8 E O V .y - | |||
L I | |||
. 'e I ! | |||
_ ...._..___7-. - | |||
i l !- i t- . | |||
l, I | |||
* I P | |||
o u o m o o m u m u o m N- o | |||
~ ~ ~ P P o 'o g aS ,NG!TARELECCA LARTCEPS lmA' 9' V/8Z 50 son 3HWhNV 313VW 31331W13 S1V11ON ONliS L YNO E 03SION VSS3SSW3NI W3dOH1 ju SS | |||
) | |||
3 -. | |||
( c.3S Sd3318V 3ONIVINW3NI - A'Mlf SBAB3Sd0NS3 # /9 VSAWW31813 01833110N A38113Vl' uonu I0-EI 1 | |||
a 8 | |||
t , | |||
2 | |||
{ lif | |||
* V y DJ ' | |||
- sv E N | |||
m ~ w I | |||
a % o A x m f4 > tw | |||
= m o m < E 77 7t E iw | |||
, B o - | |||
: i. :o Z t-I e W = | |||
l I | |||
7@%. , $ > | |||
s c: | |||
x | |||
. < m m i b i e o | |||
* f4 Z D o a' w c. o :s 5. a 9ux -2 e o, o 2g 5.:o z =c o. | |||
w a= o | |||
{n -3 yG m w | |||
C: | |||
,a s 4 o | |||
o .. m | |||
: u. a eea | |||
~ | |||
F | |||
/O l 3 u g i o $ ! | |||
< a = o | |||
_ ..I _ m 3 .- | |||
e I | |||
. ,i , | |||
l ! | |||
I ci O LA O ut o m O P N O P= r N O J J | |||
* d a d a B ''S 'NOl1V8373COV 7VH103dS REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPGRT | |||
[,) SSES CONTAINMENT RESP 0GSE SPECTRA - KWU SRV #/b ASYMMETRIC - DIRECTION HORIZONTAL FIGURE 19-32 | |||
1 1 | |||
8 1l _ , | |||
//// | |||
o t t | |||
.D G' ]>) | |||
e Wf | |||
( * | |||
~ | |||
N Q | |||
% N I | |||
g a E om | |||
\ a E EQ > b | |||
= m i o m < g g, , o w E e i , z c- - | |||
. - La = | |||
- ' r I | |||
_ _ . _ _ _ 7 _o z g | |||
g eo | |||
< m m | |||
-i b D | |||
r | |||
% e 0 Z | |||
: c. O 3: 5@ | |||
: i. 1 O U M g N | |||
\' | |||
> - o. | |||
J O | |||
- 2 g o - | |||
.2 e . | |||
: 7. . .c ca w .- . o | |||
. _ , _ _ *J K 'm' w m ,a - 8 | |||
= c m ci | |||
: u. 8-gm .. | |||
e . LP D | |||
i I | |||
.2 . o a,o,, | |||
g | |||
%,/ cs P, 1 E | |||
- - i ._- | |||
u o oz .cm | |||
<a L L- ;2 , | |||
. - _ _ . .. a ___ _ _ J --. ' | |||
_ _ _ - _ - .L . _ . . -- a | |||
._ } ._ _.. . .. 4 I . | |||
_ _ _ . . . _, j -- '- - - - !s i 1 | |||
_ j. _ __. . . . _. .. . ! ___i i | |||
. __ -- _ I_ c. . | |||
i 1 .* | |||
l o | |||
( | |||
o m . o m o e o r ~ o l | |||
, ~. o. . c. | |||
~. . | |||
. - o o o o l 3 eS 'NO11YB313OOV 'lVB103dS l l REV. 6, 4/82 1 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT SSES CONTAINMENT RESPONSE ip) x~ ~ , | |||
SPECTRA - KWU SRV #76 ASYMMETRIC - DIRECTION VERTICAL FIGURE 19-33 | |||
= | |||
, 8 1 | |||
I CD Or < D t ! . | |||
's__/ ; | |||
-2; e | |||
- 4 i | |||
e- r N | |||
\ | |||
pH N | |||
% a r o 4 % m St3 >< h k "~. D $ g | |||
_ p__ - % 3 p e G l z r- - | |||
,e y - | |||
-;. .__. _ 2 z g >. | |||
= 4 U) l 1 E* 1 l l | |||
@ z D C 9 | |||
) .. | |||
~~ | |||
Y O- Q 3 $ , O, l -Q U X g | |||
- ' $g . | |||
z :a 8 a .: | |||
s 6 | |||
s 8 .s m -=E " , s i | |||
E E.8m ci | |||
* LL .; gM , . . | |||
00 $ | |||
/' | |||
(]> | |||
o 31 3 I q _ __ t - | |||
#345 | |||
, w I . L o 1 | |||
l | |||
. _ , _ j. . __ , | |||
_a | |||
!I | |||
[ | |||
n i . O t O m O M O W D | |||
== s'a - O O O O E 'S 'NC;1VU3'I3ODY 1VH103d3 L . REV. 6, 4/82 l | |||
SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT SSES CONTAINMENT RESPONSE t | |||
l (''; | |||
SPECTRA - KWU SRV // 76 ASYMMETRIC - DIRECTION HORIZONTAL FIGURE 10-34 | |||
o I | |||
' I 3 | |||
,f . | |||
i 1 f c | |||
\J . | |||
k , | |||
jK - | |||
N N | |||
H | |||
/ | |||
, 5 | |||
. .I a z o N a z tu > | |||
v b | |||
Z m c m < t e - | |||
r - | |||
S e "'. | |||
m z r- | |||
. ._- b to = | |||
yl z 1e Z > w x c: | |||
< m i | |||
O Z 8 | |||
D 8 | |||
e $ | |||
I | |||
:= a. o 2 s o 6 i OU w . | |||
o = | |||
X | |||
;r .gg g; ci c | |||
Z = o | |||
. LaJ O | |||
* C$ | |||
n a g = E sn y a u " i% in c: 8 .. m o | |||
: u. = gn - | |||
.! .e u | |||
- F j - | |||
/7 t / | |||
i l | |||
: o. 31 u | |||
4o .E U | |||
' __ __ i _ _ _ | |||
< .o | |||
.a z o i | |||
3 _ __.. __ I- - - - - | |||
__. j e | |||
i e | |||
_p _ .g | |||
.r I | |||
. t l | |||
j ca I | |||
O O | |||
trl O in o m o w rw - o r- w r, o , | |||
2 2 d d & .a B eS 'NOl1YU37300Y 7YU103dS REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION eJNITS 1 AND 2 DEstGN ASSESSMENT REPORT r | |||
SSES CONTAINMENT RESPONSE ' | |||
! (7 SPECTRA - KWU SRV #76 l \s' ASYMMETRIC - DIRECTION VERTICAL FIGURE 10-35 1 | |||
! l l | |||
) | |||
i 8 fj * | |||
,- m * | |||
: f. ! o | |||
, L.,) N M , | |||
- rw 2 N | |||
. N 3 e l T | |||
. .I a E o a E m D2 > b | |||
= m f, o V3 < C | |||
-v e S g . w | |||
- e z & | |||
na m,N | |||
~~ | |||
~ | |||
~ | |||
, E > >: | |||
m a: | |||
< m . | |||
E* I e | |||
. ! ~ ~__N __ N [g j .g . oci, N ,9ux >- | |||
E a. | |||
O S c | |||
- E 6 o z . .3 o. | |||
i e :: o | |||
.__ l : 's ari e a$ a$ | |||
6 8 | |||
; = 5 .. e- o t-gae | |||
. u p- | |||
-/~%.t | |||
'%_ / o. ~314 u a o . E | |||
( .J E O e | |||
p _ _ _ _ _ - o l I, l | |||
l I | |||
s .~ | |||
c5 g R 8 E E $ E | |||
: ; 1 . d d d a | |||
. B es 'NOl1VB373DOV 7VH103dS REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT SSES CONTAINMENT R SPONSE SPECTRA KWU SRV f 6 (m) ASYMMETRIC - DIRECTION HORIZONTAL recuaE 10-36 _ | |||
O I O CD I / | |||
nYr/) | |||
' i 3 N | |||
N | |||
% n p.4 | |||
.t W - r | |||
::: to lh O $ $ | |||
#'' B p w D l ' Z x r-m | |||
!- I W o > N l M E 1 - | |||
< m m I b I e O l Lv i $h $ $ d. | |||
l 4 Yx | |||
>- g 43 O O C 6 oe' | |||
. I f! . | |||
t I z . I o, l u.t O = c | |||
- N g E m' m | |||
c: | |||
ma5 .. r | |||
- 8 o | |||
% c gm . - | |||
t, | |||
) | |||
-a b .' *= | |||
'w/ . | |||
O h ] h | |||
< a =o f __ | |||
= | |||
. g | |||
. ._ .N | |||
.= | |||
O O trl . O til O t/1 O | |||
** == | |||
* O O O O B.eS *NOl1V8373DOV 7VM103dS REV. 6, 4/82 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT SSES CONTAINMENT RESPONSE 73 SPECTRA KWU SRV #76 | |||
( | |||
) | |||
ASYMMETRIC - DIRECTION VERTICAL FIGURE Jg_37 | |||
o | |||
' i b | |||
(~h | |||
! 4 | |||
{l1 o L' . | |||
i) | |||
- a f/ Q | |||
._ = | |||
- f/ ~ | |||
T m | |||
1 d ! $ | |||
a > e- | |||
* 5 $ R 77_ I-e i i | |||
c E w Q | |||
j e z i | |||
,_ _t m .n l e b g x | |||
< m , | |||
l 8 b i e o | |||
- 1 | |||
- C N e m a z o o | |||
m ci. | |||
3 | |||
-. t? auw 'f- Q | |||
-- >- gE !E o-o -g : . .- | |||
z a- -c :; o w 6 I | |||
n D l YtI m' i 8 8'5a..a![ | |||
= d p | |||
1 '- | |||
i8 y g | |||
(~x .- u , | |||
! a 3 .$ $ | |||
i 1- _ _. | |||
-j e | |||
, =; | |||
l l I j --- -- ,- e I : ! | |||
l t . _ __. ' | |||
[ | |||
i 8 | |||
l __.l | |||
- I N | |||
[. | |||
l o | |||
S R E E S' N E J J d a d .d 3 CS 'NOl1VB37303Y lV8103dS REV. 6, 4/82 l S'#JEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT l hhhCh kb V bb ASYMMETRIC - DIRECTION HORIZONTAL FIGURE ]q_zp | |||
. 8 m - | |||
Q | |||
\ i c. | |||
%/ | |||
a f7T/ w E | |||
w | |||
\ N m | |||
i N m I | |||
N 3 E m > | |||
. m c-A G < l | |||
_! dO_ 2 g e Q o z c-W er E | |||
: %,\ _; e z > s c: | |||
i- H | |||
_. < m . | |||
mzP e o | |||
__} I | |||
-v e o | |||
= ci. | |||
e ao OU 3: | |||
M fQ 5-- | |||
h O -s!. . | |||
z =x o \ | |||
ut k e ci ' | |||
l | |||
. _ _ _ . _ _ - u b[5-3 | |||
[ .7 e a | |||
4 4 | |||
) | |||
l l i EI* | |||
3 u F | |||
g O) | |||
\v s E]i5 1 - | |||
at a a: o i n . | |||
I ___ ._ | |||
o | |||
_ I, i _.! , | |||
I I I | |||
i lN T | |||
ci O Lt) O U1 O m O | |||
- - .- o o o 'o B 'S 'NOl1V8313 COY 'lV8103dS REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT | |||
() | |||
SSES CONTAINMENT RESPONSE | |||
'~' SPECTRA - KWU SRV # 76 ASYMMETRIC - DIRECTION R AL FIGURE yg_3g I-- - - | |||
O I I I O I | |||
co | |||
/ @ | |||
'v\ ' | |||
~ ~ / ~ | |||
er J r W | |||
\ | |||
en | |||
. ANA \ N A- a A | |||
E E | |||
T4 > | |||
"'. tO O C4 4 o -$ | |||
y ~ * | |||
~ ~ ~ - - - | |||
, gi E< e . | |||
1 ;. | |||
m z t- | |||
= | |||
l La | |||
' i E | |||
[ c Z > >* | |||
H d i | |||
F- to , | |||
l 8 I e c | |||
~ ~ ~ ~ - | |||
l ~ | |||
j T U Z D 's Q. o 3 O | |||
c. | |||
O U X '[ E l | |||
'~ e i | |||
D El | |||
= . | |||
6.- | |||
c | |||
: l W 3 | |||
* c' | |||
- - ' -- - c4 U, g ( fE u-: | |||
w aa 8 | |||
% 5 .. b c o | |||
> j i . | |||
lo | |||
)31= | |||
"! ".E Na V q3g2 | |||
~ | |||
g -- | |||
to o | |||
.~,--. | |||
. ! l < | |||
l , | |||
'lJ __ l- ] . _ _ . 2 1 | |||
! i 1 I | |||
*, = N C$ | |||
O trl O in *O m O at' N O r* W N O N N O . O b . b 8 8S 'NO!1V8373OO'/ 7V8103dS REV. 6, 4/82 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT f~s. SSES CONTAINMENT RESPONSE | |||
; ) SPECTRA KWU SRV # /6 ASYMMETRIC - DIRECTION H RIZONTAL FIGURE 1~ | |||
O s \ | |||
l t 5 f a f | |||
O y | |||
* o - | |||
09 L2 f | |||
n N | |||
. . y 1 | |||
p g N | |||
. .I | |||
* *t 3 o | |||
't 3 4-jft 4 4 | |||
::: n.f 6 w > a 3 e a e | |||
-l - | |||
1 c z u a | |||
d M 3 | |||
= | |||
- -- y3 x 40; y H | |||
y ,, | |||
w 8 I O. | |||
,v z c 1 | |||
* 3 o- o E .o' : | |||
= | |||
l 6 l hnx R S. | |||
a f* 2 C o. | |||
O g' E i | |||
l -" | |||
z m: 7 o. | |||
m o | |||
- -^ " c x1 " | |||
* y O ** a O 5is | |||
'is n | |||
.as T | |||
A' | |||
* g& | |||
a 3 I,-( a. | |||
i i ' | |||
C | |||
- rcyo 1 | |||
e i . . . ._ .I | |||
. . - -- r l | |||
* i I I 'l a ; | |||
1 - | |||
l | |||
. '. l ~ | |||
l o | |||
O m o 11( Q M O m u .Q w m u o 7 7 7 P P * ? | |||
2 aS ,NOITARELECCA LARTCEPS SOS 003HVNNV S13VW 31331W13 SIV1lOef ONliS L YNO Z G3SIDN VSSESSW3NA W3dOH1 SS3S 3ONIVINW3NI B3Sd0NS3 | |||
' jl Sd331HV l>Mlf SBA # /9 VSAWW31BlO - 01833110N A381IJVl' d'8a"5 I)( g | |||
o k o z o _ | |||
8 _ | |||
a / | |||
/, \ M | |||
~, | |||
r q L | |||
7 1 \ \ | |||
' 6 n | |||
S t | |||
a e | |||
t | |||
( | |||
4 D s ' , | |||
v I | |||
L : | |||
n e L / w T | |||
l g d E | |||
n A : | |||
2 W a k 1 c | |||
/i \' | |||
.f 1 | |||
h e | |||
- C r | |||
o 5 f | |||
o f 0 o. | |||
o a 2 f-Y g r - | |||
- 8 t | |||
c 6 v F | |||
- e 7 e : | |||
p l e | |||
- 6 S E E t a | |||
E/' n C D o A | |||
_ i R | |||
[, S t T C 4 P ar F C | |||
M Y C | |||
l e | |||
e C c I z | |||
I R | |||
y N B E Ac R O U T I I 5 2 , E 0 Q n M E | |||
R o M 0, i | |||
t Y : 2 | |||
'F a S n 0 t A o S i 0, | |||
's G o. n - | |||
t c 1 i | |||
o V e 0 i r e t R i 0 a S D r 5 e 0 s n 1 0 e 3 G : 0 e 1 : | |||
k s g 4 c a i C n r : i e d e p m a d m i o o a L L N D 2 | |||
1 o | |||
0, 5 0 5 0 ' 5 | |||
'. 2 0 7 5 2 l 1 l o 0 0 Yg iO d g * '~ ! 0 ( )V h e cb s m*l>3g,= g$- | |||
eC Cfw . .go OEo* g,$ g 1 | |||
' rG" nO$ _ zg5 | |||
^% | |||
; TmO0Thc : | |||
: s J9v> | |||
u<.YmN N | |||
) s E o 5* | |||
zO o r 3O 3m hoi- | |||
mi $ | |||
* H , R | |||
() , s -> 'l Q | |||
(/ I i b | |||
l o a f | |||
N | |||
, o i .. | |||
3 I* N w | |||
2 | |||
.T c .. | |||
3 n':' x u m c) r_ | |||
d i | |||
5o | |||
.\ a :n ?u o o | |||
//i o j $ N 1 | |||
. UC C 6 CJ *. | |||
'h \ | |||
* S w U3 | |||
)(i c u 8 L 'ma 3$ | |||
0- E e 1 | |||
Ue I d T | |||
>c O. u O E* | |||
s . c: x zv"' | |||
W a: a o u 3 . Edw > m o. | |||
OC g Wo g o | |||
@U>=m e o cJ rO V ' b. | |||
3 c gg | |||
. s' E SJ Em J e E 8 8 .. * | |||
~ 5 | |||
~ | |||
a; .. | |||
g' g=ZE EE% | |||
>a . o N | |||
ci 8* | |||
E E E 8 N E 4 & d a . | |||
d B.eS 'NO!1YB37300Y TifB103dS REV. 6, 4/82 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT LGS CONTAINMENT RESPONSE O SPECTRA-KWU SRV //7f | |||
'\._) ASYMMETRIC - DIRECTION VERTICAL FIGURE 19-N | |||
.I t- - | |||
8 o l ~ | |||
Q 2 | |||
r J L): - | |||
. cr | |||
)) | |||
* o .. | |||
lli Ch y | |||
, S f A a | |||
e j | |||
hhN $ 'E u | |||
e w .E a.. | |||
* L M NA. \ | |||
N s. 7 5 O In 8 o o . | |||
o " T 1 ~ E s o te o n i: | |||
* o .. | |||
\ | |||
\ | |||
* 5mo C0 1 | |||
c E | |||
) S$b r.o 9e *s s' 1 % | |||
> 's o O.v - | |||
x | |||
. c: | |||
a z <u e = m o m w | |||
n 3 cr -e Bi | |||
- o. | |||
wo z o be ** N e o M* 2& | |||
,O - | |||
L) _. o d | |||
e o y 8 | |||
U~ | |||
e o o = 8 5 g% 5 | |||
, t $ G, I".5 EIj& | |||
33z a N | |||
c5 8 $ 8 $ 8 S E J J J d d d o 3 2S 'N011W373DOY 7W103dS REV. 6, 4/82 i | |||
SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT LGS CONTAINMENT RESPONSE | |||
/~] | |||
'x_/ | |||
SPECTRA - KWU SRV #76 ASYMMETRIC - DIRECTION HORIZONTAL FIGURE 10-44 | |||
UcoP::C 5 n,- | |||
1 - | |||
*rD ~1xm< - | |||
25HomEe I o x4mz2<u> ) | |||
nm * <mu csX ) I | |||
>2 omTu 34 ) | |||
mu@'mmx Izm3E >i2om | |||
) - - | |||
(Qr n - | |||
4'm3mm *mcMmS> za1mQ 2 | |||
" o$ . gEC 3$*s 5mQm a m Im5 >zz>zmCO Ct a | |||
$R *o*$W . | |||
O mEOH . <OOw. E<F9Z' g Y J | |||
D 0 0 I 1 I O 2 5 7 0 D 5 2 5 0 5 0 S 0 0 1 | |||
2 s | |||
D N L L a o o i m d a m p e d e i : | |||
n r C i 4 g | |||
a c s k 1 e 0 3 : G 5 e 0 n 6 0 e | |||
,5 D r | |||
t | |||
,0 r i S i' 8 0 e R a' 1 c V n 1 | |||
o t | |||
0 i - S | |||
. o t 0 n A at F 2 : S iR 0 Y M | |||
oE 0 M ,n Q 2 5 V E U . | |||
E B E T A N R R I c .C y c | |||
: T eY-C l .i P | |||
c eC * | |||
- rPa 4 S | |||
T t i R o D A n ~ | |||
a C 6 t E S e l E p | |||
: e e 8 | |||
v 7 c ~, | |||
6: - 2 6 t r 3 0, | |||
5 0 a 0 l'o 5 f | |||
o r | |||
C c | |||
h e | |||
1 1 | |||
2 | |||
[f-k A | |||
W E | |||
n T g | |||
1 W | |||
8l :e E w L - | |||
L ~ | |||
D 4 a . | |||
t e | |||
9 | |||
: 0 - | |||
* 6 F E | |||
/ | |||
S 8 r | |||
[8 g o | |||
g 0 o | |||
o | |||
- g o o N J 8 / | |||
Y, [d s (\ 6 6 | |||
0 : | |||
e t | |||
r L a | |||
.T 4 A D | |||
T m2 S : | |||
e w E l/ | |||
7x~ D gl s 2 P | |||
E A | |||
n k | |||
c e | |||
f' 2 h | |||
- C r ' | |||
f o 6 o t | |||
3 - | |||
o, a 2 5 | |||
- \ \ o g | |||
r - | |||
t 6 : | |||
- v s ce 7 | |||
- _ ~ 8 p l e : | |||
e | |||
/ S E E t | |||
. ~ 6 C a n A D | |||
_ i o R T | |||
[7 S ta . | |||
4 Pr - c Cel Z f Ye C I Cc I R y NcA T R o B l i | |||
E U . E 5 | |||
2 M 0 Qn Eo a Y M 0, R i' t S : 2 y | |||
Fat A on 0 f S i | |||
t 0, o, n c 1. | |||
3 o V e 0 i R i r 8 | |||
t a S D 0, r 5 e 0 6 n 0 e 1 G : 1 0 e 2 k s : | |||
4 c a g i C n r : i e d e p m a d m i o o a L L H D 2 | |||
- 1 O | |||
0 5 0 5- 0 5 0 5 2 0 7 5 2 0 1 1 l o 0 . o 0. | |||
Yy i9Hhij0O< | |||
: " u 2 - | |||
FO[m gm<. . | |||
pNE eCimzg2> Emh mEQa5 y CEg $w | |||
-m Dm# gem mz$m3N s,. | |||
;n Ec 0Oib2 - 2i- omM | |||
>: yC $< %$ m mom | |||
- 0 | |||
>m<2 r 4bO , c9mQ o O NQ1> - | |||
m"b =m H CO- | |||
0 | |||
*~ | |||
0 o _ | |||
1 8 | |||
/ | |||
8 6 | |||
/ _ | |||
/ | |||
'nl% " | |||
* 5 6 | |||
0 t | |||
e L a 4 A D 1 ' | |||
T S | |||
E D lk e W | |||
# [ E P | |||
g n | |||
A : | |||
v 2 k c | |||
" e T 2 h | |||
- C | |||
. r ' | |||
o 6 0_ | |||
f 8 | |||
/ | |||
f-0 0 | |||
1 a | |||
r 3 | |||
2 9 - | |||
t : | |||
8 c 6 7 v 5 e e : | |||
p l e I | |||
W 6 S E n C E t D | |||
a i | |||
o A R | |||
'f S ta T 4 | |||
Pr Ce - t s ~ | |||
l Ye C I pc R | |||
T E | |||
f y | |||
NcA RT V B E 5 U . E 0 2 | |||
Qn E o MM 4 | |||
i Y 0, x R Fa t S | |||
: 2 n 0 t A o (Q S i | |||
t 0 | |||
0 n c 1 1 o V e 0 i | |||
R r 8 | |||
t a S i | |||
D 0, r 5 e 0 6 n 0 e 1 G : 0 e 1 k s 2 : | |||
4 c a - | |||
g iC r : i n | |||
e d e p m a d m i o o a L L N D 2 | |||
' ^ | |||
. 1 O | |||
0 5 0 5 D s 0 5 2 0 7 5 2 0 1 1 1 0 0 o 0 _ | |||
o i9fgIwOO< J t - | |||
" bO$M | |||
? ". EE . | |||
*5oC$>z smg*hz5hd0 Cag h = | |||
l | |||
, kmo Gm E$m3N | |||
-s N ram n0z > g3m $m M m0t- i X $<y5 - | |||
>M 22m nI E $oj 0 - | |||
m5e3 n | |||
~obN n> | |||
8h-(j{3tinDfd IV1N02I80H N01133810 - 31813WWASV 9/# ABS DMM - V8133dS 3SN0dS38 1N3WNIVINO3 S97 1 hod 3H IN3WSS3SSV NDIS30 Z ONY L SilNO NOl1VIS 31H13313 WY31S VNNYH300 SOS , | |||
Z8/V '9 "A311 SPECTRAL ACCELERATION, Sa'g o o .o o M Q Q U O o Q o g g o | |||
O 2 F r"- | |||
D o-E 9X7t" | |||
* P G"e o e e | |||
O CD o | |||
em | |||
- w n a a O o = | |||
.g n | |||
a o o - w o 3 om | |||
= 3 30 N o n c w 4 | |||
- Nm es % Z w o nn | |||
" " O * -< . , | |||
-s s i ao C e 27 w | |||
w -n | |||
> c 5 Q" m | |||
;a ms 3.. | |||
Man = | |||
o | |||
@ N 'O d W % | |||
O % | |||
9m m i | |||
O 3 y h | |||
=* > c | |||
. M F. $X..0m4 ! | |||
o 3 * | |||
". ll a- w e | |||
o | |||
* I. | |||
is ; | |||
>o. | |||
g 1- | |||
+ 8 | |||
- e, N co D | |||
O f, | |||
. Mm v , c, b/ | |||
ed w" | |||
. & f E< | |||
(n W D C | |||
W 53 C | |||
De eC ** | |||
N M N | |||
u - | |||
D O W O, N M\\ O b % | |||
NN V\\ | |||
e U$ | |||
O | |||
& *a h\\ m W ~w b N | |||
gh S v $z Oc E e i d b& e p ** | |||
H % | |||
u d M co w< > | |||
t m | |||
- N c . | |||
wo y O | |||
(% %U L | |||
Z .. cy ' | |||
so < c o | |||
* ) | |||
\ | |||
$ g 3a o. | |||
O c u - | |||
= %m 5 *. | |||
u m W O c . | |||
C.D ** Ln O a * ~ .. | |||
< g' 3u a ".. | |||
e O so J J M C3 | |||
. N D | |||
e o | |||
O - 0 O O o Lrt o O N et O | |||
* | |||
* O. N. c. , , | |||
*'* * | |||
* Q c o o 3.eS 'NOllW313DOY 7W103dS RE'I. 6, 4/82 l | |||
SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 - | |||
D ;. DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT e | |||
V LGS CONTAINMENT RESPONSE SPECTRA - KWU SRV #76 ASYMMETRIC - DIRECTION VERTICAL FIGURE 10-N | |||
o o o g 3 7h- 8 | |||
/ | |||
4 | |||
] jy | |||
/ | |||
L ' | |||
L ,_ uk 6 = | |||
6 o e | |||
- t | |||
.- \ | |||
4 L L | |||
D a | |||
e : | |||
w e L T ld g | |||
s | |||
// . ! | |||
/ 2 w A n | |||
k c | |||
e | |||
/ | |||
2 h C | |||
r ' O o 6 S f | |||
3 - | |||
0 a 2 5 q s 0 r 1 | |||
t c 6 v 6-8 e 7 e : | |||
/ | |||
p l e | |||
/ S E E t a | |||
6 n C D | |||
_. o AR | |||
_ i l | |||
f Sa t T - | |||
- 4 Pr tf | |||
' Cel Z Ye C I : | |||
y Qc I R B, NcA RT O E I 5 | |||
. U , E 0 2 | |||
Qn M E o M 0, i | |||
). Rt Fa S Y : 2 n 0 | |||
, L t A o S i 0, | |||
t o, n - c 1 3 o V e 0, i | |||
R r 8 | |||
.t a S i | |||
D 0, r 5 e 0 6 n 0 e 1 G : 0 e 9 k s 2 : | |||
4 c a g i C n r : i e d e p m a d m i o 0 a L L N D 2 | |||
1 0 | |||
0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 2 0 7 5 2 | |||
, 0, 1 | |||
: l. l o 0 0 0 ea D I9}- WdO C* a u(a ( | |||
y4. | |||
* oSN | |||
. [ZI2>=*h*EQa5N> | |||
Czh a- *$ N - | |||
~ | |||
,g53 f*2 mm3N rg o21> - %Z1- xm@ m m7$42> - | |||
I 7EC mm< ndc g4!m1x - | |||
- , C xmQ oz m | |||
= hcIWm 2gr | |||
8 o (NY *~ $ | |||
2/ ko p | |||
v | |||
~ | |||
1 o a | |||
/ , | |||
a w .. | |||
f *N | |||
. ,h,- ,a F' s* | |||
N 5 | |||
\\ $ $ @ | |||
o a m V | |||
##/ O s. N u .. V' | |||
" E* E .. | |||
N'h \ , | |||
S w U$ | |||
)tt e o O a:l o | |||
ki <MU$ a c | |||
\ c$8 9 | |||
I g <. | |||
w: c: g. | |||
W a m S | |||
a | |||
> m N | |||
od W *. | |||
- ES E g u > .. m O N O . | |||
V " ~ | |||
C. | |||
! 3 E' | |||
-> E o. | |||
s e a c: - o | |||
' EM e | |||
u" o | |||
l E | |||
C ** M o | |||
.ac .. | |||
3 0 .. E E IQ OE E' 4 | |||
".a a x o N | |||
O 3 $ E 2 3 $ E | |||
: : : a a- a s B.eS 'NO!1VB37300Y '1YH103dS REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 , | |||
7 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT kJ LGS CONTAINMENT RESPONSE SPECTRA - KWU SRV #76 ASYMMETRIC - DIRECTION VERTICAL FIGURE l')-51 | |||
o | |||
- o g o 1 | |||
8 / | |||
[/, | |||
s 6 | |||
* 5 s | |||
0 9 | |||
e S 4 t | |||
D a | |||
L L | |||
E e y | |||
\' W T | |||
l g | |||
n d | |||
E A : | |||
2 W k c | |||
/ " | |||
h e | |||
2 C r - | |||
0 o ' | |||
8 f 6 o, a 3 o r 2 5 g - | |||
t 6 : | |||
_ 8 c 7 v 5 e e : | |||
p E l e S E t 6 C a n A D o R i | |||
T S t 4 Par - c | |||
' Ce p l C z Ye I I : | |||
y Cc R R B Nc E A T E O | |||
l i 5 2 | |||
U , | |||
M 0 Qn M 0, Eo Y Ri F t S : 2 a A n | |||
$ o, t | |||
S n | |||
i t | |||
o c | |||
0 0, | |||
1 g | |||
i o VR e r | |||
0 8 t S i 0 a D r 5 | |||
_ e 0 6 n 0 e : | |||
G 5 0 k s e 9 : | |||
4 c a 2_ g i C n r : i e d e p m a d m i o o a L L N D l | |||
2 1 | |||
0 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 | |||
_ 2 0 7 2 0 | |||
: 5. . G. . . | |||
. 1 1 l 0 0 0 0 | |||
* g i9e$isOO< | |||
" u J.$tO$m 5< m. hw | |||
* E 8 E R i m4- hgj ydE hw E- - | |||
EE*Rg Ey @'t | |||
)x. | |||
f r m" 84> h ,$mg$ | |||
y wNm mv$d> i ( | |||
>w$Ed n g 3gQ g 5m $ r 2Es$ ?mm | |||
~ | |||
o J' | |||
IN *8 @ | |||
buv l. . . | |||
O I cn e | |||
/ | |||
e 5 | |||
o l;]f J a .. | |||
. m o | |||
~ | |||
? | |||
s | |||
? | |||
<z o e | |||
( E | |||
" d T ' | |||
b - o w e e-s o n e s E N Y V e " | |||
w ;; | |||
* h E. " .* ** | |||
1 . " m "% | |||
e o a mu 3$ E< | |||
, c= a 05 1 L | |||
>c o E< ** | |||
E8 5'- | |||
W" E 5 E< > m b cf " | |||
wo E o | |||
: o Es - .. a | |||
(.) ' | |||
m 3$ - | |||
E o | |||
l M = | |||
o a v - | |||
~ | |||
3o ~> | |||
c: E . | |||
e - o 2* *2 e E 8 8 .. m d | |||
$$..E EEEe | |||
- o o . | |||
s a ac o N | |||
l , | |||
I n | |||
o t 8 8 8 $ 8 4 8 l : 1. A d 5 i o i | |||
3.rg *NOllW37300Y 7W103dS ' | |||
REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 i | |||
,f ss DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPdRT i \'") | |||
LGS CONTAINMENT RESPONSE SPECTRA - KWU SRV # 76 ASYMMETRIC - DIRECTION VERTICAL reoUae 10-53 | |||
O i | |||
q n | |||
n G 2) | |||
* m e l | |||
(( .. | |||
3oo \ | |||
<s-- | |||
/ T o 7 | |||
{ | |||
M 3: | |||
o J | |||
) | |||
> -y | |||
$..t W ~ ~ | |||
g O l | |||
i 1 | |||
. O l I a v O @ g | |||
## / h h 'N g | |||
! . Ue " | |||
+ | |||
, 'N | |||
* Nb b5 | |||
'] h c U o s 5 A m e | |||
* ' s WQ M *. | |||
2<3; g A- | |||
) " | |||
w Si | |||
* e = m wo f e A | |||
CU> .. ~~ | |||
U f., | |||
$ 5 o. | |||
3 E, ;% o | |||
. L iE Ad 2* | |||
e | |||
.A o | |||
* o. | |||
o5 .. n o a en .. | |||
* 23 ? | |||
l , 'a 1 | |||
=J 3 1 !!Q J 2" | |||
~ | |||
. d k $ E | |||
" " | |||
* Q Q d f 3 'S 'NOl1VH313DOY 7V8103dS REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 h DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT | |||
\._) | |||
LGS CONTAINMENT RESPONSE SPECTRA - KWU SRV # 76 ASYMMETRIC - DIRECTION HORIZONTAL FIGURE 10-54 | |||
o o o S 8 | |||
l U | |||
/ | |||
6 - | |||
, 6 0 : | |||
t e | |||
a D | |||
33 N ' 4 L L | |||
F/ Y E | |||
W R | |||
D l | |||
:b e | |||
g n | |||
A ; | |||
k 2 c | |||
" e 6 h C | |||
r - o f | |||
o ' | |||
4 s- | |||
_ o, a 6 6 2 - | |||
o r g | |||
~ g t 6 : | |||
y 6 | |||
8 c 7 e e : | |||
- p e | |||
/ S E l E t | |||
~. | |||
6 C a n A | |||
' D C o R i | |||
t T | |||
'{. Sa 4 Pr - Lf Cel C | |||
Ye I T : | |||
y | |||
~ Ccc R R B NA TE E E V 5 U , | |||
M 0 2 | |||
Qn E o MY 0, i | |||
Rt S : 2 e o, Fat A S | |||
n o VR c | |||
- i t | |||
o n 0 0, | |||
1 g | |||
i e 0 S r. | |||
U 0, t | |||
8 a r 5 e 0 6 n 0 e 1 G : 3 0 k s e 3 : | |||
c a g 4 i C r : i n | |||
e d e p m a d m i o o a L L N D 2 | |||
1 | |||
. o | |||
,. 5 2 | |||
0 0 | |||
5 7 | |||
0 5-5 2 | |||
0 0 | |||
, 1 1 o 0 0 0 | |||
* gi 29HkjwOO< " J_$H0$m g :< . C *" | |||
Mc"OC 7>h> $"l m mo$ Ow[E eEM >5 u . | |||
: h. ,$*lm !w O raw og>~ zm "m$ozy mmmnY> I 7rc w | |||
>wM2mg0i3:oNdoz m g2dn>r ZoEm by1J | |||
l oo o | |||
_ g t | |||
/ | |||
8 4 . | |||
l / | |||
" 0 5 | |||
l 1 6 9 | |||
t e | |||
a 4 D L | |||
8 a x'N L E | |||
H Y | |||
l ed I g | |||
t R n D A : | |||
7f / r 2 k | |||
" c e | |||
/' 6 h | |||
C r o p | |||
o 4 O f 6 - | |||
0 a 2 5 0 | |||
1 r | |||
t 6 : 9 c v 8 e 7 e : | |||
p E | |||
l e S E t 6 C a n A D i | |||
o R S ta T | |||
4 Pr - c | |||
( e Z P Ye l | |||
C I : | |||
Cc I R y NcA TR b i l | |||
B E E 5 2 | |||
U ,M 0 Qn Eo MY 0, R it S : 2 Fat A n o | |||
0 S i 0, | |||
- t | |||
_ 0 n c 1 1 o V e 0, i R r 8 l a S iD 0, r 5 e 0 6 n 0 e 5 G : | |||
3 0 e 3 k s : | |||
4 c a g i C n r : i e d e p m a d m | |||
- i o o a L L N D 2 | |||
1 0 | |||
D s 0 5 0 5 0 5 2 0 7 5 2 0 1 l 0 0 0 0 i. | |||
Yg i9F iwOO< | |||
" J.k&O(m | |||
@ - m ej | |||
_ EgcEEz$ m>E " "o " o 5>dE gM" ' $8 . | |||
St3zo gmME@ym3$ | |||
n r - r amnozH3hmz*$wooJr m mna:# o XrC $ < w c | |||
>m 2m13 - | |||
3 $nH..- @ | |||
xo3 $zH$ | |||
2@m* $ 1m r | |||
I1llll' il | |||
I 8 o- | |||
: s. - | |||
i e % | |||
1 1 , R | |||
/ , o in T cn .. | |||
l 3 | |||
A> , a 8 f d .. | |||
) | |||
f/f b c: e o <g N u | |||
* .E u | |||
O 3 h 4 o ~ en O .O u n w, | |||
WN u | |||
b h 8. W ,"E 'd | |||
\\ * " | |||
y e c: o SS | |||
* E$ | |||
o cu U | |||
' d Ne $ | |||
~ | |||
o k .. | |||
Z <g e W > | |||
W & | |||
w- - | |||
m N o cy .2c p o. | |||
wo m o. | |||
c: | |||
'aO < .. m l l i E . | |||
m y o,- | |||
'S EE Oo | |||
* s* .!: 6 2 | |||
e il o | |||
* 5 . | |||
E.D ** to o a | |||
* m .. | |||
< c" 3u o ".. e E % $ E' 33e8 N | |||
ci o m o m o m o a ed Q & LS PJ O O O O O 2.eS 'NOllW3'13DOV 7W103dS REV. 6, 4/82 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 , | |||
DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT | |||
''' LGS CONTAINMENT RESPQNSE SPECTRA - KWU SRV /! /6 ASYMMETRIC - DIRECTION VERTICAL FIGURE 10-57 | |||
j ll l(ll 0 | |||
0 1 o | |||
~ 8 / | |||
8 | |||
= 4 | |||
= 6 6 | |||
l O e | |||
\\ t a | |||
4 D k \ ^ | |||
L L : > | |||
E eW r r r W l gd | |||
) f Y n i / R A : | |||
f 2 D k | |||
" c 1 e g\p 1 h C | |||
r o ' | |||
3 D | |||
f f - | |||
k 0 0 a 8 | |||
2 6 | |||
i\.k ' 1 r - | |||
t c 6 v | |||
G 8 | |||
e 7 e : | |||
p l e J, | |||
I | |||
/ S E E t | |||
- 6 n C o A D | |||
a i R | |||
! /, Et T | |||
/ | |||
4 Pa r Ce - | |||
bt Z | |||
Yl Cce CI R I : | |||
y s 2 | |||
{t c R o EA U ,E Qn M T t I | |||
B 5 | |||
0 Eo Ri M 0, Y | |||
F ta S : 2 n 0 | |||
- . t A o S i 0, | |||
t 0 n - c 1 1 o 'V e 0 R ir i | |||
8 't 0, a S D r 5 e 0 6 n 0 e 1 G : 0 e 7 k s 3 : | |||
4 c a g i C n r : i e d e p m a d m i o o a L L N D 2 | |||
- 1 | |||
. o 0 | |||
5 s | |||
2 o | |||
c. | |||
s 7 | |||
0 5 | |||
. 1 i. | |||
s l o 0 | |||
_ e g i9s$wj84G a&U7" ' | |||
E* . * . R $ | |||
8E2nsmE"3.g5$O . | |||
_ ca $8 , | |||
,b E" adE' Ra* R EEE$m34 | |||
%Rm# ' kc mi $< xmgJ % m | |||
>S=05 i eEmQB 2!a Node is* sS" | |||
Q | |||
. e O l - 4W 0 W | |||
@ O e | |||
w W , | |||
a N | |||
a t:J .. | |||
3: es g E 5s " | |||
a c n u a as t I S m | |||
#? r 0-O e | |||
% $b s e u@ N wm E. | |||
* NE | |||
* m a w- | |||
'l c o o m | |||
Ok | |||
% T (1.g g e Oc I | |||
~T, NE O Qu Z e.s g H W h to y | |||
. LIJ4 p g u 3 - N CF c g o. | |||
WO E O r ' = < ss b | |||
o e 1 U2 3 | |||
a d | |||
> E O. | |||
* m o* | |||
80 Z o CJ lO H | |||
C *=b Q x E .. | |||
~ | |||
a !" | |||
g=E% ZE | |||
- o a a = a N | |||
M O m O 'Li L1 O m O ed Q P= Li N O 1 1 1 d d a d | |||
.3 es 'NOllW373DOV 7W103dS ' | |||
REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 f) | |||
'/ DESIGN /.SSESSMENT REPORT LGS CONTAINMENT RESPONSE SPECTRA - KWU SRV #76 ASYMMETRIC - DIRECTION VERTICAL FIGURE {q.gq | |||
0Ha N: | |||
rjO | |||
- O2 zo~Qmx g , n - | |||
a$5O mN % <x, y $0m m mmO "mx azg t On O, 3mm$m $Eo | |||
* oj -. | |||
- ' c yh 5aQEm k >zlmj | |||
*R 7 g | |||
*$oH$ <8G J 549i g | |||
* j 0 | |||
. ' .o 0 o | |||
l i | |||
' 1 0 , G 7 c 2 5 0 , o s o s 0 0 | |||
1 2 | |||
D H L L a o o i | |||
_ m d a m p e d e i: r n C i 4 | |||
- g a c | |||
: s k 4 e 0 1 : G | |||
. 1 e 0 n 6 0 e | |||
,5 r O a 0 f s t 8 r a i 0 e y o g 1 c n o | |||
t 0 i - S o t 0 n a at F | |||
,2 : | |||
s iR - - | |||
0 y oE n .n Q - | |||
0 a U 2 , | |||
5 s B | |||
l i r A E N | |||
,y o a cc .C | |||
: n i.eY I cl - | |||
I z eC t - rP a 4 t S I D | |||
a t E e l T | |||
n o A n c S ep i | |||
6 > | |||
/? IJ | |||
,J l | |||
- : e e v 7 c 8 6 tr y | |||
g 6-5 3 | |||
1 a | |||
f o, | |||
o f 2 o o ' r. | |||
C h | |||
e c | |||
k | |||
: A 7 | |||
D 2 | |||
f I n R - | |||
kge l Y | |||
W s )\ | |||
/ L L 4 D | |||
t e | |||
a | |||
'a-O 6 | |||
_ 5 | |||
/ | |||
4 / | |||
b | |||
_ 8 | |||
_ / | |||
_ S 3 o 0 0 | |||
'JllIll | |||
, 8 o. | |||
I i ; le n 4 T l l | |||
* to I - | |||
l | |||
- #/ , ,.3 a | |||
a I $ | |||
p) 5 | |||
%b a a < .. | |||
" te | |||
\ 7 5 | |||
$ ~ R | |||
*. .o u | |||
N b, n e | |||
. I g UC e r~ o | |||
$D l | |||
wM | |||
* Sw G0 O | |||
u e S 3$e | |||
.* m | |||
, c. "g g e | |||
T' 4 | |||
>- 's* o' c: .. | |||
@<OE $ & | |||
w e m o.m o. | |||
N oe r - | |||
E3 % . | |||
I I wY m d8 | |||
* M<I 3 ci o | |||
e Y .* | |||
S> E C. | |||
* Y a O. | |||
b 8 5 | |||
=4%* o. | |||
, t "n I".3 Eij& | |||
33x 8 N | |||
m o | |||
8 M E R 8 $ 8 a a a d d d d 3.es 'NOllW3730DY lW103dS REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION i UNITS 1 AND 2 lO ==='a *=======~' a o'ar l | |||
_ LGS CONTAINMENT RESPONSE l SPECTRA - KWU SRV # 76 ASYMMETRIC - DIRECTION | |||
! VERTICAL emune 10-61 | |||
( | |||
r>$op x | |||
$ mme5, , | |||
- = | |||
<M> _ | |||
N5gmEe * <xM cE ' i UM m 3gx *zmg O MOr m | |||
a$mI u 5> - c Q g E 0 =Qm m t 5 mC8c., | |||
w *E - | |||
v sgWonk_, WOwUtN9:i t | |||
g ** , | |||
0 o 0 0 1 I I 0 2 5 7 0 2 5 0 s 0 5 0 5 0 o, | |||
3 2 | |||
D N L L a o o i m d a m p e d e n | |||
i : r C i g a c 4 | |||
: 4 s k 1 e ' | |||
0 5 : t 2 | |||
0 n 6 0 e | |||
,5 D S a r | |||
0 i R it a r V 0 e o 3, 1 c n o | |||
, t 0 i S o A t 0 n a | |||
_ .,2 0 | |||
: S Y iR M | |||
tF oE M ,n Q 0 E 2 . | |||
5 U I T AE | |||
- y B I O R I cN cC | |||
_ : R C elY I | |||
_ f Z - | |||
e-C | |||
: t. r aP 4 T tS R i A o D | |||
a t E e l C n E Sp s | |||
: ey 7 e 5 : 6 ct r g a | |||
o | |||
+ 3 1 | |||
a , | |||
o 6 2 f o | |||
0 ' | |||
r C - | |||
h 7 e " - | |||
c k | |||
: A n D 2 - , F g R dl Y | |||
: W , ; | |||
\ | |||
we D | |||
E L | |||
L 4 a | |||
t e | |||
5 9 | |||
0 | |||
' 6 ' | |||
/ | |||
- 6 a | |||
/ | |||
8 3 o 0 0 - | |||
l1 | |||
, i ll l 1lIl o | |||
o o | |||
_ g f - | |||
8 /, - | |||
l | |||
/ | |||
e 0 6 | |||
6 - | |||
S 9 : | |||
e | |||
\ | |||
\ 4 t | |||
a L | |||
L E | |||
W e | |||
Mt lN h s' Y R | |||
D A g | |||
n k | |||
2 | |||
" c | |||
/ 7 e | |||
h | |||
- c r ' | |||
o o 2 f f 1 - | |||
0, a 3 5-0 r m 8 3 | |||
t 6 c | |||
e 7 v e : | |||
5 p e o 6 S E E t C | |||
l D | |||
a n A i | |||
o R S ta T | |||
- 4 Pr - | |||
c Ce P l | |||
Ye CI T : | |||
Cc R y Nc R E B E A T V U , | |||
E 5 2 M 0 Qn Eo MY 0, Rit S : 2 | |||
_ , Fat A n S i o 0, | |||
- t 0, o, n c 1 3 o V e 0, i | |||
R r 8 t a S i D 0, r 5 e 0 6 n 0 e 5 G : | |||
1 0 e 4 k s : | |||
4 c a g i c r n | |||
: i e d gh n a io g | |||
dI o a L L N D 2 | |||
- 1 0 _ | |||
0 5 D G 0 5 0 5 2 7 2 | |||
: o. . 5, 0 1 | |||
0 yp i9i@" WOW ,_&b[m 1 | |||
0 0 0 y? e * {=" | |||
5gm!z! sm m mQxa e,g d g | |||
) ca d *> $ ** - | |||
n( ;> | |||
coo"lm m$ 3m3=* - | |||
Eu no2l az mzf- | |||
% mom * ' x[ ,m< xmgmz5 - | |||
5<Ym xs ' egmndoz | |||
<aHEdr | |||
,5 Em Io 3 | |||
- i nu c | |||
49-0I arn:s DNI1003 NM0010HS 100H11M I v'g asv3 - IN31sNyul 1 | |||
1 3EOSS38d 8013V3B 1 | |||
Avoanu1 News ssevnoisia z awV t sinun g | |||
NOl1VIS OlW13313 NV318 VNNVH3nOSnS ze/t '9 | |||
* Ami , | |||
i REAC10R VrASEL PRESSURE PSIR i | |||
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 000 900 100011001200 I | |||
~ - I | |||
~ | |||
O, u | |||
# ~ | |||
l { | |||
Q - | |||
H - | |||
O M 4 3 : | |||
m - | |||
O m R : | |||
m - | |||
H . : | |||
N . h 2 . | |||
O. r | |||
$ E ~~O 2 - + - c 3 ~ | |||
-. 7 - | |||
i _ # - - | |||
$ ~ | |||
s ' % | |||
g ~i s ' | |||
~ | |||
z r - | |||
O en Q - - | |||
_ w O,, | |||
y - | |||
R : | |||
9. | |||
b l | |||
_~ 1 b : | |||
O , . | |||
~ | |||
h- ; | |||
~ | |||
O ; | |||
m | |||
~ | |||
l\_ b o N .~ 5 | |||
\ O 3 | |||
N 1 | |||
(D - - | |||
E Z | |||
D D C | |||
- E o , : a IT~ O W | |||
__ . E W . | |||
~ | |||
W | |||
. L C | |||
b-w | |||
. 1 C | |||
Y~ 3 m o | |||
~ | |||
.- s | |||
~ ~ | |||
~ , | |||
O 3 ." | |||
?- : | |||
O - | |||
.~ . | |||
D. | |||
013 061 OLI 091 OEI Oli 06 3 - dW31 700d NOISS3HddnS REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPdRT v | |||
REACTOR PRESSURE TEf1FERATURE TPN! sit!NT-CASE 2.A WITil00T CHUTDOWN COOLING | |||
,riouRE 10-65 | |||
TABLE 10-1 JAERI DATA NORMALIZED RMS VENT ChdG STATIC PRESSURE T V NT VENT VENT VEE VENT 0002 58.65 - | |||
3.88 - | |||
1.13 0.99 .015' 52.37 - | |||
).87 - | |||
1.38 0.75 .114 56.35 - | |||
L'.17 - | |||
1.03 0.81 .033 72.65 - | |||
).99 - | |||
1.29 0.72 .083 74.65 - | |||
).72 - | |||
L.29 0.98 .080 76.75 - | |||
).85 - | |||
L.06 1.09 .018 78.80 - | |||
).85 - | |||
1.09 1.06 .016 | |||
, 30.25 - | |||
) 90 - | |||
L.03 1.07 .007 0003 32.27 - | |||
L.10 - | |||
L.01 0,89 .011 34.10 - | |||
).83 - | |||
L.07 1.10 .021 35.9 8 - | |||
).61 - | |||
1.36 1.04 .141 37.85 - | |||
L.16 - | |||
1.13 0.71 .064 39.90 - | |||
).64 - | |||
L.05 1.31 .144 71.45 - | |||
).54 - | |||
L.50 0.97 .232 76.85 - | |||
L.12 - | |||
L.01 0.83 .014 O' 0004 39.50 - | |||
).95 - | |||
L.44 0.61 . l f3 40.65 - | |||
).86 - | |||
L.34 0.79 .089 43.00 - | |||
).47 - | |||
L.77 0.76 .461 45.20 - | |||
').41 - | |||
L.35 1.23 .264 49.00 - | |||
) . 44 - | |||
L.75 0.81 .453 53.05 - | |||
).68 - | |||
L.29 1.03 .094 1101 40.40 0.81 0.86 - | |||
1.36 0.97 .061 42.02 0.910.78 - | |||
1.21 1.10 .036 44.20 1.340.68 - | |||
1.01 0.96 .075 46.25 0.770.49 - | |||
1.24 1.50 .207 48.80 0.890.54 - | |||
1.42 1.14 .140 1201 47.60 0.86 1.00 - | |||
1.15 1.00 .013 | |||
'9.40 1.11 | |||
, 1.35 - | |||
0.72 0.82 .081 51.20 1.08 0.93 - | |||
1.23 0.75 .042 53.00 1.31 0.65 - | |||
1.15 0.90 t.084 54.90 1.22 0.60 - | |||
1.27 0.91 .097 2101 35.80 1.14 0.84 0 . 84).90 1.28 .040 39.75 1.13 1.17 0.89).99 0.82 .023 - | |||
72.00 1.07 0.67 0.98).89 1.40 .071 | |||
-(-} | |||
A- 73.85 0.89 1.07 1.231.22 0.60 .072 76.lc 2.08 0.56 0.291, 20 0.88 .478 78.15 0.87 0.82 1.10 1.30 0.90 .039 l0a lC 0.96 0.71 0.93L.18 1.21 .041 | |||
l i O TABLE 10-2 JAERI/GKMIIM COMPARISON I I | |||
i DATA NORMALIZED | |||
! BASE MEAN VARIANCE AERI 0.108 DATA GKMIIM MSL DATA 0.107 (0.5-13 Hz) | |||
O GKMIIM 1/3 MGL DATA 0.083 (0.5-13 Hz) l l | |||
GKMIIM 1/6 MSL DATA 0.064 i (0.5-13Hz) | |||
O | |||
: 55. "IEEE Reco00 ended Practicos for Seiscic Qualification of Class lE Equipment For Nuclear Power Generating Stations," IEEE Std. 344-1975. | |||
() 56. A. J. James, "The General Electric Pressure Suppression Containment Analytical Model," GE, July 1971. | |||
: 57. Letter MFN-080-79, L. J. Soban (GE) to J. F. Stolz (NRC) , | |||
Subiect: Yent Clearing Pool Boundary Loads for Mark II Plants, 3/20/79. | |||
: 58. P. W. Huber, A. A. Sonin, W. G. Anderson, " Considerations in Small-scale Modeling of Poelswell 1in BWR Containments," | |||
NUREG-CR-ll43, July 1979, Contract No. NRC-04-77-Oll. | |||
: 59. C. K. Chun, " Suppression Pool Dynamics," NUREG-0264, Contract No. AT (49-24)-0342. | |||
: 60. R. L. Kiang and P. R. Jeuck, "A Study of Pool Swell Dynamics 2 In a Mark II Single Cell Model," EPHI, Draft Report. | |||
: 61. C onra nt, R. and Hilbert, D., "Meth3 den der Mathematischen Physik I (Methods of Mathematical Physics I)," Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, 1968. | |||
: 62. Antony-Spies, P., "Iheory of the Excitation of Eigenmodes of a Water-Filled Tank by a Callapsing Steam Bubble" (translated by Ad-Ex), Technical Report KWU/R14/77, September, 1977. | |||
: 63. MARC-CDC, User Information Manual, Control Data Corporation, 1976. | |||
: 64. Koch, E. and Sobottka, H., "KKP 1/KKI - Estimate of the Miting Values of the Dynamic Loads on the Pressure Suppression Systen During Air-Free Condensation at the Vent Pipes", Techni;.1 Leport KKU/3113/3593, December 1975. | |||
: 65. " Mark II Improved Chugging Methodology", N ED E-24 822-P , | |||
General Electric Company, May 1980. | |||
: 66. " Single and Multivent Chuqqing Final Report", NEDE-24300-P, General Electric Company, December 1980. | |||
: 07. Mark II Owners Group, " Assumptions for use in Analyzing Mark 5 II-BWR Suppression Pool Temperature Transients Involving Safety / Relief Valve Discharge," Revision 1, December 1980. | |||
6 8. E verstine, G. C., "A Nastran Implementation of the Doubly Asymptotic Approximation for Underwater Shock Response", Nastram Users's Experiences, NASA TMX 3428, pp 207-228, 3ctober 1976. , | |||
l Rev. 5, 3/81 11-5 | |||
: 69. MccNeal, R. H., Citerley, R. , and Chnigin, M. , "A New Method 5 for Analyzir.q Fluid-Structure Interaction using M.S.0/Nastran", Trans. 5th Int. Conf. on Structural i Mechanics in Reactor Technology, Paper B4/9, August 1 1979. | |||
: 70. Mach II Generic Condensation Oscillation Load Definition Report, NEDE-24288-P, General Electric Company, November 1980. | |||
: 71. C. W. Hirt, B. D. Nichols, N. C. Romero, "SOLA: A Numerical Solution Algorithm for Transient Fluid Flows, "LA-5852, April 1975. | |||
: 72. B. D. Nichols, C. W. Hirt, R. S. Hotchkiss, "SOLA-YOF: A Solution Algorithm for Transient Fluid Flow with Multiple Free Boundaries," LA-8355, August 1980. , | |||
: 73. C. W. Hirt, B. D. Nichols, L. R. Stein, " Multidimensional Analysis for Pressure Suppression Systems," LA-UR 1305, April 1979. | |||
: 74. Zinner Nuclear Power Station - Unit, Attachment 1.*., | |||
Amendment 99, Submittal of Revision 61 to the FSAR, September 28, 1979. | |||
6 75. "ANSYS Engineering Analysis System Theoretical Manual," | |||
November 1, 1977 by Swanson Analysis Systems, Inc. | |||
: 76. "ANSYS Engineering Analysis Systems Users Manual" August 1, 1978 by Swanson Analysis Systems, Inc. lll | |||
: 77. A. Kalains " Analysis of Shells of Revolution Subjected to Svanetrical and Non-Symmetrical Loads", Journal of Applied Mechanics, September 1964. | |||
: 78. Abrahasson, G. R., and Hashemi, A., "SSES In-Plant Tests to Measure Submerged Structure Loads and Pool Frequencies," | |||
SRI Report to PPSL, April 1980. | |||
: 79. " Mark II Containment Lead Plant Program Load Evaluation and Acceptance Criteria," NUREG-0487 Supplement No. 1, USNRC, September 1980. | |||
: 80. 3eneral Electric report NEDO-24310, " Technical Bases for the Use of the Square Foot of the Sun of the Squares (SRSS) l Method of Combining Dynamic Loads for Mark II Plants " | |||
l July 1977. | |||
l REV. 6, 4/82 11-6 | |||
APPENDII A CONTAINNENT DESIGN ASSESSMENT IABLE_9f_GQEIZEIS A.1 CONTAINMENT STRUCTURAL DESIGN ASSESSHENT A.2 CONTAINHENT SUBHERGED STRUCTURES DESIGN ASS ESSM ENT A. 3 FIGURES I | |||
i l | |||
i l | |||
O Rev. 2, 5/80 g,j | |||
APPENDII A flEHBg5 Humber Iltle A-1 Concrete and Reinforcement Stress Elements A-2 Typical Section Showing Section Location A-3 Reinforced Bar Arrangement 2 | |||
A-4 thru A-9 Containment Stresses and Margins - Equation 1 A-10 thru A-15 Containment Stresses and Margins - Equation 4 - | |||
Absolute Method A-16 thru A-21 Containment Stresses and Margins - Equation 41 - | |||
Absolute Method 6 A-21.1 thru A-21.6 Containment Stresses and Margins - Equation 5 - | |||
Absolute Method l | |||
A-22 thru A-27 Containment Stresses and Margins - Equation SA - | |||
2 Absolute Method A-28 thru A-33 Containment Stresses and Margins - Equation 7 A - | |||
Absolute Method A-33.1 StressMarginsforRefuelingHeadandSupportSkirtllh A-34 thru A-39 Containment Stresses and Margins - Equation 4 - | |||
SRSS Method (Deleted) 6 A-40 thru A-45 Containment Stresses and Margins - Equation 4 A - | |||
SRSS Method (Deleted) | |||
A-46 thru A-51 Containment Stresses and Margins - Equation SA - | |||
SRSS Method (Deleted) | |||
A-52 thru A-57 Containment Stresses and Margins - Equation 7 A - | |||
SRSS Method (Deleted) | |||
A-58 Suppression Chamber Columns - Mode Shapes 2 A-59 Suppression Chamber Columns - Stress Summary A-60 Downconer Bracing System - Stress Summary 1 | |||
A-61 Downconer Bracing Syst em - Connections l A-62 & A-63 Downconers - Mode Shapes - I (Deleted) - | |||
l A-64 S A-65 Downconers - Mode Shapes - II (Deleted) h REV. 6, 4/82 A-2 | |||
APPENDII A i' | |||
E192E32 (Cont.) l O >=ar nun ' | |||
; A-66 Downconers - Stress Summary and Desigt. Margins ,l2 A-67 SRV Support Assemblies - Stress Suasary h r#> | |||
l l | |||
O REV. 6,'4/82 A- 3 l I | |||
._-..-. - -_ - --.-_._.-.....-. ..- ..- -- -.._-~-- --. -... .. -_-.-. - | |||
APPENDIX A l | |||
G9D.tAiRRaut._2221ED_3EEEEE!aDL This appendir indicates the containment elements and cross-sections where stresses are determined and contains a tabulation lh 2 of the predicted stresses, allowable stresses, and design margins for each loading combination considered. The structural assessment of the containment is co vered in Section A.1; the submerged structures are assessed in Section A.2. | |||
A.1 G9ETAI!5EEI_EIBUCIDEAL_DIEI9H_Assygsygy; six load combinations, out of Table 5-1, are tabulated covering all t he critical sections in the containment concrete structures. | |||
The emphasis is placed on the reinforcing bar stresses. | |||
Generally, load combination equation 7a appears to be the most 6 critical for most of the elements. This load combination also includes the seismic loads. These seismic loads are obtained from the results of the flexible base seismic model described in Section 3.7b.2 of the PSAR. | |||
The tabulated stresses are shown for the critical load ' | |||
combinations by adding the dynamic loads by the absolute sua met hod. The concrete shield wall is not a part of the structural system and therefore values for the section 12 and 13 are not 2 | |||
included in the f ollowing tables. | |||
O 1 | |||
l llI REV. 6, 4/82 A-4 | |||
A.2 99ETAI!!ERI_EHDHER9ED_ETERGIHRE!_RIEIE!_ASSI!!!!EI The stress summaries for the suppression chamber columns, the l2 downcorer bracing, and the downconers are covered in Figures A-59 O through A-67. In addition, the mode shapes for the columns are shown on Piqure A-58. | |||
6 O . | |||
r A-5 l | |||
L | |||
i O CECAP OoTPoT LOAD COMBINATION EQN. 1 = 1.4D + 1.5 SRV (ASYM) - Absolute Sum STRESSES IN KSI DRYWELL WALL J 1 | |||
I INSIDE FACE OoT" JE FACE PRINCIPAL SECTION EL. REBAR* hEBAR* SHEAR CONC. | |||
NUMBER FT. VERT. HOOP VERT. HOOP SPIRAL SPIRAL TIES STRESS 1 2 1 787 0.032 -0.083 -0.130 0.34 0.183 0.024 -0.360 2 787 -0.072 -0.052 -0.121 0.078 0.017 -0.061 -0.172 3 745 -0.270 -0.055 -0.421 0.113 -0.123 -0.185 -0.111 4 724 -0.320 0.019 -0.470 0.130 -0.140 -0.202 -0.183 5 710 -0.601 0.01 -0.512 0.942 0.251 0.178 -0.376 | |||
* Allowable Reinforcing Steel Stress = 54 KSI Minimum Stress Margin = 98% | |||
REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAAA ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSAENT REPORT O | |||
; CONTAINMENT MARGINS | |||
. DRYWELL WALL i FMIURE A-4 | |||
CECAP OUTPUT LOAD COMBINATION EQN. 1 = 1.4D + 1.5 SRV (ASYM) - Absolute Sum STRESSES IN KSI WETWELL WALL INSIDE FACE OUTSIDE FACE PRINCIPAL SECTION EL. REBAR* REBAR* SHEAR CONC. | |||
NUMBER FT. VERT. HOOP VERT. HOOP SPIRAL SPIRAL TIES STRESS 1 2 6 695 -0.840 1.78 -0.375 2.00 0.953 0.671 -0.388 7 672 -1.09 9.51 -0.725 5.44 2.39 2.32 - | |||
0.112 8 672 -1.07 9.82 -0.767 5.74 3.42 1.55 - | |||
0.122 9 672 -1.01 9.49 -0.737 5.45 2.39 2.33 - | |||
0.119 10 660 -1.41 9 79 -0.514 6.39 3.11 2.77 - | |||
0.054 11 650 -1.27 2.48 -0.70 2.71 1.43 0.584 0.096 Allowable Reinforcing Steel Stress = 54 KSI Minimum Strees Margin = 81.8% | |||
REV. 6, 4/82 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT CONTAINMENT MARGINS l WETWELL WALL FIGURE A-5 | |||
, , , . _ . - _ , z. . - . . | |||
l CECAP OUTPUT LOAD COMBINATION EQN. 1 = 1.4D + 1.5 SRV (ASYM) - Absolute Sum STRESSES IN XSI RPV PEDESTAL INSIDE FACE OUTSIDE FACE PRINCIPAL SECTION EL. REBAR* REBAR* SHEAR CONC. .) | |||
NUMBER FT. VERT. BOOP VERT. HOOP SPIRAL SPIRAL TIES STRESS 1 1 2 14 725 -1.49 2.18 -2.08 2.82 - - | |||
0.358 15 704 -0.33 1.97 -1.51 0.37 - - | |||
0.007 | |||
* Allowable Reinforcing Steel Stress = 54 KSI Minimum Stress Margin = 94.8% | |||
i | |||
. REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT O | |||
CONTAINMENT MARGINS RPV PEDESTAL FIGURE A-4 , | |||
l'] | |||
m .CECAP OUTPUT LOAD COMBINATION EQN. 1 = 1.4D + 1.5 SRV (ASYM) - Absolute Sum STRESSES IN KSI RPV PEDESTAL INSIDE FACE OUTSIDE FACE PRINCIPAL SECTION EL. REBAR* REBAR* SHEAR CONC. | |||
NUMBER FT. VERT. HOOP VERT. HOOP SPIRAL SPIRAL TIES STRESS 1 2 16 695 -0.800 1.04 - 1.28 0.796 - - | |||
-0.01 17 666 -0.801 2.76 - 1.95 5.56 - - | |||
0'116 18 666 -0.976 3.66 - 1.79 4.64 - - | |||
0.117 19 651 -0.882 .005 - 2.24 0.344 - - | |||
0.241 | |||
() 20 651 -1.13 0.05 - 2.16 0.333 - - | |||
0.230 1 | |||
* Allowable Reinforcing Steel Stress = 54 KSI Minimum Stress Margin = 89.7% | |||
i I | |||
I i | |||
REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT O | |||
CONTAINMENT MARGINS RPV PEDESTAL FIGURE A-7 | |||
O CECAP OUTPUT LOAD COMBINATION EQN. 1 = 1.4D + 1.5 SRV (ASYM) - Absolute Sum , | |||
STRESSES IN KSI I | |||
DIAPHRAGM SLAB SECTION RADIUS EL. TOP FACE REBAR | |||
* BOTTOM FACE REBAR* SHEAR NUMBER FT. FT. RADIAL TANGENTIAL RADIAL TANGENTIAL TIES 21 8 702 2.39 1.74 1.92 2.04 - | |||
.383 22 17 702 1.08 3.16 2.83 5.32 5.50 23 17 702 .833 2.68 3.05 4.54 6.68 24 26 702 2.11 3.64 3.85 6.53 .13'3 25 34 702' 4.40 4.07 3.39 5.32 .189 | |||
* Allowable Reinfcrcing Steel Stress = 54 KSI Minimum Stress Margin = 87.6% | |||
i i | |||
REV. 6, 4/82 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 i | |||
DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT CONTAINMENT MARGINS DIAPHRAGM SLAB t: | |||
FIGURE A--S | |||
. _4 | |||
l CECAP OUTPUT LOAD COMBINATION EQN. 1= 1.4D + 1.5 SRV (ASYM) - Absolute Sum l | |||
STRESSES IN KSI ) | |||
BASE SLAB 1 i | |||
SECTION RADIUS EL. TOP FACE REBAR | |||
* BOTTOM FACE REBAR* SHEAR NUMBER FT. FT. RADIAL TANGENTIAL RADIAL TANGENTIAL TIES 26 8 644 - | |||
.234 .143 1.11 1.57 -0.049 | |||
*. *** j 27 17 644 4.12 5.54 6.64 7.27 5.39 ) | |||
l | |||
) | |||
28 26 644 10.94 10.97 1.98 .362 .01 1 29 34 644 7.46 6.81 3.64 4.17 2.67 30 43 644 - '19.58 6.33 9.83 6.21 5.95 Allowable Reinforcing Steel Stress = 54 KSI | |||
** North - South Bars | |||
* * | |||
* East - Wes t Bars Minimum Stress Margin for this Load Combination = 63.7% | |||
i REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT O | |||
CONTAINMENT MARGINS BASE SLAB FIGURE A-9 | |||
CECAP OUTPUT LOAD COMBINATION EQN. 4 - Absolute Sum STRESSES IN KSI DRYWELL WALL INSIDE FACE OUTSIDE FACE PRINCIPAL EECTION EL. REBAR* REBAR* SHEAR CONC. | |||
NUMBER FT. VERT. HOOP VERT. HOOP SPIRAL SPIRAL TIES STRESS 1 2 ** ' | |||
1 787 4.14 -0.25 20.59 21.43 21.06 20.96 2.08 - 2.97 2 787 3.73 -0.16 20.18 21.09 20.80 20.47 1.55 - 2.95 3 745 4.12 7.66 28.54 29.41 29.06 28.88 2.18 - 2.52 4 724 2.54 4.41 36.17 30.28 33.26 33.18 3.20 - 2.17 5 710 8.87 4.24 14.72 21.11 18.10 17.73 7.93 - 2.14 Allowable Reinforcing Steel Stress = 54 KSI | |||
** Allowable. Concrete Compressive Stress = -3.4 KSI Minimum Stress Margin = 33% | |||
REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT I 'D | |||
[ | |||
CONTAINMENT MARGINS l DRYWELL WALL r | |||
l FIGURE A-10 i | |||
. ..CECAP OUTPUT. | |||
LOAD COMBINATION EQN. 4 - Absolute Sum STRESSES IN KSI WETWELL WALL INSIDE FACE OUTSIDE FACE PRINCIPAL SECTION EL. REBAR* REBAR* SHEAR CONC. | |||
NUMBER FT. VERT. HOOP VERT. HOOP SPIRAL SPIRAL TIES STRESS 1 2 ** | |||
6 695 9.75 ?7.50 4.36 24.58 14.82 14.11 5.39 - 0.28 7 672 5.41 21.49 29.23 31.28 32.73 27.78 4.17 - 1.61 o | |||
8 672 5.04 22.02 27.90 31.81 35.83 23.88 5.10 - 1.66 9 672 5.19 21.14 29.08 30.93 31.49 28.51 4.22 - 1.62 10 660 3.56 15.68 32.84 26.06 30.92 27.98 2.69 - 1.97 | |||
'\ | |||
11 650 9.05 3.80 8.53 11.88 11.99 8.43 14.36 - 1.29 | |||
* Allowable Reinforcing Steel Stress = 54 KSI | |||
** Allowable Concrete Compressive Stress = -3 4 KSI l Minimum Stress Margin = 33.6% | |||
% l REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT C | |||
CONTAINMENT MARGINS WETWELL WALL FIGURE A-11 | |||
L O CECAP OUTPUT. j LOAD COMBINATION EQN. 4 - Absolute Sum l STRESSES IN KSI - | |||
RPV PEDESTAL INSIDE FACE OUTSIDE FACE PRINCIPAL REBAR* REBAR* SHEAR CONC. | |||
SECTION EL. | |||
NUMBER FT. VERT. HOOP VERT. HOOP SPIRAL SPIRAL TIES STRESS 1 2 725 -1.50 -1.06 -0.21 4.27 - - 0.46 - 0.25 14 15 704 1.22 -0.48 0.31 -3.19 - - 5.91 - 0.48 | |||
* Allowable Reinforcing Steel Stress = 54 KSI | |||
** Allowable Concrete Compressive Stress = -3.4 KSI Hinimum Stress Margin = 89% | |||
REV. 6, 4/82 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT A | |||
;O CONTAINMENT MARGINS RPV PEDESTAL FIGURE A-12 | |||
l l | |||
CECAP OUTPUT LOAD COMBINATION EON. 4 - Absolute Sum STRESSES IN KSI ! | |||
RPV PEDESTAL INSIDE FACE OUTSIDE FACE PRINCIPAL i SECTION EL. REBAR* REBAR* SHEAR CONC. I NUMBER FT. VERT. HOOP VERT. HOOP SPIRAL SPIRAL TIES STRESS 1 2 ** | |||
16 695 -0.78 10.04 -1.07 9.49 - - | |||
1.65 - 0.16 17 666 -0.97 15.93 -0.66 6.02 - - | |||
5.89 - 0.22 18 666 -0.89 17.16 -0.98 2.14 - - | |||
0.23 - 0.16 19 651 -0.49 -1.65 -0.56 -2.08 - - | |||
0.62 - 0.30 20 651 -0.42 -1.67 -0.75 -2.04 - - | |||
0.64 - 0.31 Allowable Reinforcing Steel Stress = 54 KSI | |||
** Allowable Con' crete Compressive Stress = -3.4 KSI Minimum Stress Margin = 68.2% | |||
REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT e | |||
~ | |||
CONTAINMENT MARGINS RPV PEDESTAL FIGURE A-13 | |||
l l | |||
CECAP OUTPUT LOAD COMBINATION EQN. 4 - Absolute Sum STRESSES IN KSI DIAPHRAGM SLAB PRINCIPAL SECTION RADIUS EL. TOP FACE REBAR | |||
* BOTTOM FACE REBAR* SHEAR CONC. | |||
NUMBER FT. FT. RADIAL TANGENTIAL RADIAL TANGENTIAL TIES STRESS 21 8 702 2.50 3.66 8.49 8.39 4.95 - 0.20 22 17 702 0.25 0.80 13.54 19.19 2.02 - 1.02 23 17 702 1.09 1.83 11.92 15.76 2.29 - 0.58 24 26 702 2.82 3.32 18.21 22.38 1.55 - 0.36 25 34 702 9.96 8.00 16.19 17.92 1.61 - 0.14 f _. | |||
Allowable Reinforcing Steel Stress = 54 KSI | |||
** Allowable Concrete Compressive Strees = -3.4 KSI Minimum Stress Margin = 58.5% | |||
1 REV. 6, 4/82 l SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT I h 1 | |||
CONTAINMENT MARGINS DIAPHRAGM SLAB FIGUttE A-14 | |||
s _ . . _...._ ____ _ _ _ - | |||
O CECAP OUTPUT LOAD COMBINATION EQN. 4 - Absolute Sum STRESSES IN KSI . | |||
BASE SLAB PRINCIPAL SECTION RADIUS EL. TOP FACE REBAR | |||
* BOTTOM FACE REBAR* SHEAR CONC. | |||
NUMBER FT. FT. RADIAL TANGENTIAL RADIAL TANGENTIAL TZES STRESS S | |||
... c. | |||
26 8 644 - 0.11 - 4.00 9.81 12.04 37.66 - 2.09 e ese l | |||
27 17 644 - 8.76 - 8.83 19.26 18.45 0.19 - 3.85t 28 26 644 - 5.82 - 5.90 18.44 15.40 1.29 - | |||
2.60 29 34 644 - 0.75 - 4.03 13.94 21.73 2.92 - 2.14 0 30 43 644 12.45 - 1.51 23.23 15.79 1.21 - 1.27 | |||
* Allowable Reinforcing Steel Stress = 54 KSI | |||
** North - South Bars | |||
*** East - West Bars S Altowable Concrete Compressive Stress = -3.4 KSI t Maximum Concrete Strain = -0.00083 Minimum Stress Margin = 30.2% | |||
REV. 6, 4/82 3USQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSEST. MENT REPORT O | |||
CONTAINMENT MARGINS BASE SLAB FIGURE A-15 | |||
.CECAP OUTPUT LOAD COMBINATION EQN. 4A - Absolute Sum STRESSES IN KSI DRYWELL WALL INSIDE FACE OUTSIDE FACE PRINCIPAL SECTION EL. REBAR* REBAR* SHEAR CONC. | |||
NUMBER FT. VERT. HOOP VERT. HOOP SPIRAL SPIRAL TIES STRESS 1 2 ** | |||
1 787 3.74 1.25 19.52 21.95 20.76 20.71 2.09 - 2.61 2 787 3.93 2.19 17.34 20.53 18.99 18.88 2.36 - 2.39 3 745 2.93 9.91 23.45 29.28 26.48 26.25 2.20 - 2.31 4 724 3.55 11.98 26.53 28.68 27.61 27.61 2.31 - 2.22 O 5 21o 7.3. 5. 7 2.87 22.15 12. 2 12.40 3. 0 - 1.7e A11owable Reinforcing Steel Stress = 54 KSI | |||
** Allowable Concrete Compressive Stress = -3.4 KSI Minimum Stress Margin = 45.7% | |||
f REV. 6, 4/82 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 fND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT | |||
, -C l | |||
CONTAINMENT MARGINS I i DRYWELL WALL FIGURE A-18 | |||
CECAP OUTPUT. | |||
LOAD COMBINATION EQN. 4A - Absolute Sum STRESSES IN KSI I | |||
WETWELL WALL INSIDE FACE OUTSIDE FACE PRINCIPAL SECTION EL. REBAR* REBAR* SHEAR CONC. | |||
NUMBER FT. VERT. HOOP VERT. HOOP SPIRAL SPIRAL TIES STRESS 1 2 ** | |||
6 695 2.79 15.29 8.32 23.38 16.50 15.19 2.93 - 1.23 7 672 0.18 21.23 21.61 33.87 28.84 26.63 2.84 - 2.05 8 672 -0.20 18.84 18.44 31.95 29.64 20.75 2.15 - 2.00 9 672 -0.05 17.19 19.03 30.06 25.05 24.03 1.94 - 2.02 0 10 660 -0.66 16.62 25.74 28.99 28.83 25.91 2.33 - 2.39 11 650 3.30 2.85 4.74 12.08 10.25 6.57 10.88 - 1.60 Allowable Reinforcing Steel Stress = 54 KSI | |||
** Allowable Concrete Compressive Stress = -3.4 KSI Minimum Stress Margin = 37.2% | |||
i REV. 6, 4/82 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT CONTAINMENT MARGINS WETWELL WALL FIGURE A-17 l | |||
i 4 | |||
CECAP OUTPUT. | |||
LOAD COMBINATION EQN. 4A - Absolute Sum STRESSES IN KSI RPV PEDESTAL INSIDE FACE OUTSIDE FACE PRINCIPAL SECTION EL. REBAR* REBAR* SHEAR CONC. | |||
NUMBER FT. VERT. HOOP VERT. HOOP SPIRAL SPIRAL TIES STRESS 1 2 ** | |||
14 725 -2.33 -0.54 -1.43 4.12 - - | |||
0.62 - 0.34 15 704 -2.24 -0.31 -1.25 -2.35 - - | |||
0.89 - 0.37 | |||
* Allowable Reinforcing Steel Stress = 54 KSI | |||
** Allowable Concrete Compressive Stress = -3.4 KSI Minimum Stress Margin = 92.3% | |||
O 1 | |||
REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT CONTAINMENT MARGINS RPV PEDESTAL l 1 | |||
FIGURE A-IS l | |||
O CECAP OUTPUT _ | |||
LOAD COMBINATION EQN. 4A - Absolute Sum STRESSES IN KSI RPV PEDESTAL l l IINSIDE FACEl OUTSIDE FACE I l PRINCIPAL l REBAR* ISHEARI CONC. l iSECTIONI EL. I REBAR* l STRESS l l NUMBER l FT. IVERT.1 HOOP iVERT.IHOOP iSPIRALl SPIRAL l TIES l ** | |||
l l l l l l l 1 1 2 l l l l l l l 1 l 1 1 I I l l 16 I 695 l-2.141 2.431-3.321 2.391 - | |||
1 - | |||
l 0.751 - 0.45 l l l l I I I l l l l l l 1 I i l I I i i l I l 17 l 666 l-2.94114.241-3.181 5.361 - | |||
1 - | |||
! 7.221 - 0.45 l I I I I I I I | |||
'. I I I l i I I I I I I I i l l 18 l 666 l-2.49113.931-3.291 2.471 - | |||
1 l 4.571 - 0.50 1 I I I I I I I | |||
.I I I I I | |||
I I I I I I l l l 1 i 19 I 651 1-2.461-0.781-3.301-1.511 - | |||
1 - | |||
l 1.061 - 0.51 I m I I I I I I I I I i i | |||
i l i i l 1 I I I i I l 1.101 - 0.56 I | |||
l 20 l 651 1-2.401'0.841-3.631-1.451 - 1 - | |||
I l I I I I I I I I I | |||
* Allowable Reinforcing Steel Stress = 54 KSI | |||
** Allowable Concrete Compressive Stress = -3.4 KSI Minimum Stress Margin = 73.6% | |||
\ | |||
REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT I~J CONTAINMENT MARGINS l o | |||
RPV PEDESTAL ) | |||
FIGURE A-19 | |||
a-_ | |||
O CECAP OUTPUT. | |||
LOAD COMBINATION EQN. 4A - Absolute Sum STRESSES IN KSI DIAPHRAGM SLAB PRINCIPAL SECTION RADIUS EL. TOP FACE REBAR | |||
* BOTTOM FACE REBAR* SHEAR CONC. | |||
NUMBER FT. FT. RADIAL TANGENTIAL RADIAL TANGENTIAL TIES STRESS 21 8 702 5.47 5.44 9.96 9.57 5.63 - 0.17 22 17 702 1.21 3.33 14.79 20.83 2.76 - 0.84 23 17 702 3.07 4.77 12.42 16.86 4.38 - 0.51 24 26 702 2.45 6.87 25.15 28.50 1.42 - 0.51 0 25 34 702 12.43 10.04 21.36 23.12 3.81 - 0.16 | |||
* Allowable Reinforcing Steel Stress = 34 KSI | |||
** Allowable Concrete Compressive Stress = -3.4 KSI Minimum Stress Margin = 47.2% | |||
REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 ANO 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT CONTAINMENT MARGINS DIAPHRAGM SLAB FIGURF A-20 | |||
O CECAP OUTPUT .. | |||
LOAD COMBINATION EQN. 4A - Absolute Sum i | |||
STRESSES IN KSI BASE SLAB PRINCIPAL SECTION RADIUS EL. TOP FACE REBAR | |||
* BOTTOM FACE REBAR'* SHEAR CONC. | |||
NUMBER FT. FT. RADIAL TANGENTIAL RADIAL TANGENTIAL TIES STRESS S | |||
26 8 644 11.51 0.78 14.23 13.93 44.77 - 1.36 1 27 17 644 - 7.82 - 8.99 16.73 18.51 0.39 - 3.66t 28 26 644 - 6.31 - 6.39 17.92 13.65 1.22 - 2.73 29 34 644 - 2.51 - 6.23 13.67 20.49 2.27 - 2.53 0 30 43 644 18.06 - 3.39 25.87 17.12 3.53 - 1.61 | |||
* Allowable Reinforcing Steel Stress = 54 KSI 1 | |||
** North - South Bars | |||
*** East - West Bars S Allowable Concrete Compressive Stress = -3.4 KSI t Maximum Concrete Strain = -0.00078 Minimum Stress Margin = 17.0% | |||
i REV. 6, 4/82 i SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 ANO 2 s DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT CONTAINMENT ivlARGINS BASE SLAB FIGURE A-21 ) | |||
l | |||
O ceciP OuTPoT LOAD COMBINATION EQN. 5 - Absolute Sum STRESSES IN KSI DRYWELL WALL INSIDE FACE OUTSIDE FACE I PRINCIPAL SECTION EL. REBAR* REBAR* | |||
SHEAR CONC. | |||
NUMBER FT. VERT. HOOP VERT. HOOP SPIRAL SPIRAL TIES STRESS 1 2 ** | |||
1 787 3.39 -0.66 19.84 20.84 22.62 18.06 2.07 - 3. 0 4-2 787 3.39 -0.57 19.85 20.42 22.24 18.03 2.14 - 3.01 3 745 5.01 7.12 27.59 26.00 33.77 19.82 2.19 - 2.35 4 724 6.74 9.03 33.90 26.23 39.46 20.67 2.28 - 2.20 0 5 n0 9.58 4 15 20.30 19.02 26.57 12.7e 9.38 - 2.12 Allowable Reinforcing Stee1 Stress = 54 KSI | |||
* | |||
* Allowable Concrete Compressive Stress = -3.4 KSI Minimum Stress Margin = 26.9% | |||
REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT CONTAINMENT MARGINS DRYWELL WALL PIGURE A-21.1 | |||
CECAP OUTPUT l' h V LOAD COMB'.dATION EQN. 5 - Absolute sum STRESSES IN KSI l' | |||
WETWELL WALL INSIDE FACE OUTSIDE FACE PRINCIPAL SECTION EL. REBAR* REBAR* 3 HEAR COMC. | |||
NUMBER FT. VERT. HOOP VERT. HOC P SPIRAL SPIRAL TIES 3 TRESS 1 2 ** | |||
6 695 9.13 17.44 16.74 21.13 31.31 6.55 7.12 - 0.84 7 672 8.12 19.00 30.87 28.79 42.39 17.28 4.99 - 1.50 8 672 7.85 18.28 28.79 28.06 47.26 9.59 5.11 - 1.53 9 672 11.05 21.44 '24.21 28.06 39.59 12.69 8.94 - 1.17 10 660 6.31 15.45 34.44 25.26 42.39 17.32 2.28 - 1.63 11 650 12.08 3.58 13.77 11.82 23.17 2.41 16.28' - 1.42 l | |||
Allowable Reinforcing Steel Stress = 54 KSI | |||
** Allowable Concrete Compressive Stress = -3.4 KSI Minimum Stress Margin = 12.5% | |||
1 REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT O | |||
l CONTAINMENT ASSESSMENT WETWELL WALL FIGURE A-21.2 l l | |||
CECAP OUTPUT LOAD COMBINATION EQN. 5 - Absolute Sum STRESSES IN KSI RPV PEDESTAL INSIDE FACE OUTSIDE FACE PRINCIPAL SECTION EL. REBAR* REBAR* SHEAR CONC. | |||
NUMBER FT. VERT. HOOP VERT. HOOP SPIRAL SPIRAL TIES STRESS 1 2 ** | |||
14 725 -0.20 -2.70 2.43 10.24 - - | |||
1.10 - 0.51 15 704 10.55 -0.24 8.61 -3.16 - - 14.34 - 0.50 Allowable Reinforcing Steel Stress = 54 KSI | |||
** Allowable Concrete Compressive Stress = -3.4 KSI Minimum Stress Margin = 81.0i l | |||
i REv. 6, 4/82 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNtTS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT CONTAINMENT MARG!NS j RPV PEDESTAL l FIGURE A-21.3 l | |||
t | |||
l l | |||
l C~N | |||
/ CECAP OUTPUT LOAD COMBINATION EQN. 5 - Absolute Sum | |||
< STRESSES IN KSI ) | |||
RPV PEDESTAL 1 | |||
INSIDE FACE OUTSIDE FACE PRINCIPAL SECTION EL. REBAR* REBAR* SHEAR CONC. | |||
NUMBER FT. VERT. HOOP VERT. HOOP SPIRAL SPIRAL TIES STRESS 2 ** | |||
1 16 695 1.28 10.22 0.80 9.72 - - | |||
3.36 - 0.09 17 666 -0.36 15.90 -0.13 4.56 - - | |||
3.29 - 0.23 18 666 -0.27 16.55 -0.29 4.41 - - | |||
3.32 - 0.24 19 651 0.22 -1.60 0.08 -2.04 - - | |||
1.31 - 0.29 O | |||
V 20 651 0.72 -1.68 0.23 -2.09 2.45 - 0.31 | |||
* Allowable Reinforcing Steel Stress = 54 KSI | |||
** Allowable Concrete Compressive Stress = -3.4 KSI Minimum Stress Margin = 69.3% | |||
i 4 | |||
REV. 6, 4/82 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT O | |||
CONTAINMENT MARGINS RPV PEDESTAL FIGURE A-21.4 | |||
d ..CECAP OUTPUT LOAD COMBINATION EQN. 5 - Absolute Sum STRESSES IN KSI DIAPHRAGM SLAB PRINCIPALI SECTION RADIUS EL. TOP FACE REBAR | |||
* BOTTOM FACE REBAR* SHEAR CONC. | |||
NUMBER FT. FT. RADIAL TANGENTIAL RADIAL TANGENTIAL TIES STRESS S | |||
21 8 702 0.76 2.96 11.72 8.52 3.74 - 0.41 | |||
' 1 22 17 702 - 0.50 0'.63 17.48 20.61 2.23 ' - 1.33 i | |||
23 17 702 - 0.27 0.98 16.41 19.25 2.04 - 1.15 24 26 702 0.85 1.60 24.52 26.77 1.77 - 1.15 25 34 702 2.05 1.15 26.94 21.41 1.48 - 0.99 | |||
* Allowable Reinforcing Steel Stress = 54 KSI S Allowable Concrete Comptassive Stress = -3.4 KSI Minimum Stress Margin = 50.1% | |||
REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT e | |||
CONTAINMENT MARGINS DIAPHRAGM SLAB FIGURE A-21.5 | |||
_CECAP OUTPUT | |||
~ | |||
LOAD COMBINATION EQN. 5 - Absolute Sum STRESSES IN KSI BASE SLAB i PRINCIPAL SECTION RADIUS EL. TOP FACE REBAR | |||
* BOTTOM FACE REBAh* SHEAR CONC. | |||
NUMBER FT. FT. RADIAL TANGENTIAL RADIAL TANGENTIAL TIES STRESS S | |||
26 8 644 - 0.75 - 4.08 9.16 8.63 34.03 - 2.02 27 17 644 - 9.25 - 9.26 20.47 18.34 0.19 - 3.98t 28 26 644 - 5.75 - 5.76 20.59 17.94 1.32 - 2.65 29 34 644 - 0.64 - 4.66 12.97 20.58 3.35 - 2.21 30 43 644 12,47 - 2.53 22.24 16.08 1.21 - 1.42 Allowable Reinforcing Steel Stress = 54 KSI | |||
** North - South Bars | |||
* * | |||
* Eas t - Wes t Bars S Allowable Concrete Compressive Stress = -3.4 KSI t Maximum Concrete Strain = -0.00086 Minimum Stress Margin = 37% | |||
l REV. 6, 4/82 I l | |||
SUM 3UEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT O 1 CONTAINMENT MARGINS BASE SLAB 1 | |||
FIGURE A-21.6 l | |||
i h : | |||
CECAP OUTPUT. | |||
LOAD COMBINATION EQN. 5A - Absolute Sum t | |||
STRESSES IN KSI DRYWELL WALL INSIDE FACE OUTSIDE FACE PRINCIPAL SECTION EL. REBAR* REBAR* SHEAR CONC. | |||
NUMBER FT. VERT. HOOP VERT. HOOP SPIRAL SPIRAL TIES STRESS 1 2 ** | |||
1 787 3.11 0.41 18.88 21,49 22.67 17.70 2.07 - 2.75 2 787 3.56 1.14 16.97 20.26 20.98 16.25 2.23 - 2.56 3 745 1.73 8.70 21.46 27.90 31.50 17.86 2.11 - 2.48 4 724 4.77 11.32 29.52 28.69 38.08 20.14 2.31 - 2.15 h 5 710 7.13 4.81 14.27 19.72 24.04 9.96 7.36 - 1.96 Allowable Reinforcing Steel Stress = 54 KSI | |||
** Allowable Concrete Compressive Stress = -3.4 KSI | |||
. Minimum Stress Margin = 29.4% | |||
REV. 6, 4/82 SU'OUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 l DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT l I CONTAINMENT MARGINS l DRYWELL WALL FIGURE A-22 | |||
'M (d CECAP OUTPUT LOAD COMBINATION EQN. 5A - Absolute Sum STRESSES IN KSI WETWELL WALL INSIDE FACE OUTSIDE FACE PRINCIPAL SECTION EL. REBAR* REBAR* SHEAR CONC. | |||
NUMBER FT. VERT. HOOP VERT. BOOP SPIRAL SPIRAL TIES STRESS 1 2 ** | |||
6 695 2.54 22.66 12.44 28.iJ 31.50 9.20 3.0 - 1.45 7 672 0.31 26.65 21.82 36.85 41.67 16.99 3.49 - 2.08 8 672 0.23 23.70 19.30 32.98 43.50 8.79 2.64 - 1.98 9 672 0.10 23.86 19.16 33.18 39.05 13.29 2.36 - 1.97 10 660 -0.45 24.14 26.22 34.37 44.77 15.82 2.91 - 2.29 11 650 3.44 6.68 6.85 16.95 21.71 2.09 11.97 - 1.55 Allowable Reinforcing Steel Stress = 54 KSI | |||
** Allowable Concrete Compressive Stress = -3.4 KSI Minimum Stress Margin = 17.0% | |||
REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT b | |||
O CONTAINMENT MARGINS WETWELL WALL FlOURE A-23 | |||
i I | |||
fm V CECAP OUTPUT LOAD COMBINATION EQN. 5A - Absolute Sum STRESSES IN KSI RPV PEDESTAL INSIDE FACE OUTSIDE FACE PRINCIPAL SECTION EL. REBAR* REBAR* SHEAR CONC. | |||
NUMBER FT. VERT. HOOP VERT. HOOP SPIRAL SPIRAL TIES STRESS 1 2 ** | |||
14 725 -1.61 -0.65 -0.65 5.31 - - | |||
0.95 - 0.26 , | |||
15 704 -0.93 -0.58 0.15 -2.64 - - | |||
3.00 - 0.38 | |||
* Allowable Reinforcing Steel Stress = 54 KSI | |||
** Allowable Concrete Compressive Stress = -3.4 KSI Minimum Stress Margins = 90.1% | |||
) | |||
REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 | |||
~ DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT l 8 | |||
CONTAINMENT MARGINS RPV PEDESTAL FIGURE A-24 | |||
d i | |||
I CECAP OUTPUT LOAD COMBINATION EQN. 5A - Absolute Sum STRESSES IN KSI RPV PEDESTAL , | |||
l I I INSIDE FACE l OUTSIDE FACE I IPRINCIPALI lSECTIONl EL. I REBAR* I REBAR* l SHEAR I CONC. 1 INUMBER l FT. IVERT. IHOOP l VERT. IHOOP lSPIRALiSPIRALITIES l STRESS l l l l l l l l 1 1 2 i i ** l l 1 1 I I I I I I I I I ' | |||
l 16 1 695 l-1.42 1 2.74 l-2.49 1 2.85 l - | |||
l - | |||
l 0.65 1 - 0.34 l l 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i 17 1 666 l-2.24 114.84 l-2.17 1 5.96 l - | |||
I - | |||
l 6.57 l - 0.32 l l 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 18 I 666 l-2.00 113.60 1-2.52 l 2.43 1 - | |||
l - | |||
l 4.05 l - 0.39 l l l l l l l l l l l 1 I I I I I I I I I I I i 19 I 651 . -1.66 l-0.88 l-2.30 1-1.64 ;l - ;l - | |||
l 0.84 I - 0.38 I I I I I I I 1: I I I O I l 20 I I i i I 1 651 1-1.59 l-0.94 ;-2.66 l 1.58 l l | |||
i I i l 0.88 I - 0.44 l | |||
I I I I I I I I I I l Allowable Reinforcing Steel Stress = 54 KSI | |||
** Allowable Concrete Compressive Stress = -3.4 KSI Minimum Stress Margin = 72.5% | |||
i REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSstamasNT REPORT 1 O CONTAINMENT MARGINS RPV PEDESTAL FIGURE A-25 | |||
m | |||
(- | |||
(> .CECAP OUTPUT LOAD COMBINATION EQN. SA - Absolute Sum STRESSES IN KSI DIAPHRAGM SLAB FRINCIPAL SECTION RADIUS EL. TOP FACE RESAR | |||
* BOTTOM FACE REBAR* SHEAR CONC. | |||
NUMBER FT. FT. RADIAL TANGENTIAL RADIAL TANGENTIAL TIES STRESS 21 8 702 2.46 4.47 12.16 9.07 2.90 - 0.18 22 17 702 - 0.45 2.41' 18.27 20.77 2.04 - 1.21 23 17 702 0.10 2.65 17.62 20.57 1.93 - 1.08 24 26 702 - 0.51 6.89 33.51 27.12 1.30 - 1.33 s | |||
25 34 702 2.29 2.65 32.04 25.41 1.41 - 1.06 Allowable Reinforcing Steel Stress = 54 KSI | |||
** Allowable Concrete Compressive Stress = -3.4 KSI Minimum Stress Margin = 37.9% | |||
1 REV. 6, 4/82 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT O l CONTAINMENT MARGINS DIAPHRAGM SLAB FIGURE A-26 | |||
l CECAP OUTPUT LOAD COMBINATION EQN. SA - Absolute Sum STRESSES IN KSI BASE SLAB PRINCIPAL SECTION RADIUS EL. TOP FACE REBAR | |||
* BOTTOM FACE REBAR* SHEAR CONC. | |||
NUMBER FT. FT. RADIAL TANGENTIAL RADIAL TANGENTIAL TIES STRESS S | |||
26 8 644 - 6.31 - 8.00 19.12 18.62 33.80 - 3.08 27 17 644 - 8.34 - 8.29 17.43 18.34 0.21 - 3.70t 28 26 644 - 5.84 - 6.49 19.28 15.59 1.27 - 2.74 29 34 644 - 2.62 - 5.76 14.10 20.50 2.43 - 2.49 O 3o 43 e44 18 os - 3.0e 27.51 15.17 5.42 - 1.e1 Allowable Reinforcing Stee1 Stress = 54 KSI | |||
** North - South Bars | |||
** | |||
* Eas t - Wes t Bars S A11owable Concrete Compressive Stress = -3.4 KSI t Maximum Concrete Strain = -0.00078 Minimum Stress Margin = 37.4% | |||
REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT HEPORT CONTAINMENT MARGINS BASE SLAB FIGURE A-27 | |||
O CECAP OUTPUT LOAD COMBINATION EQN. 7A - Absolute Sum STRESSES IN KSI DRYWELL WALL INSIDE FACE OUTSIDE FACE PRINCIPAL SECTION EL. REB AR* REBAR* SHEAR CONC. | |||
NUMBER FT. VERT. HOOP VERT. HOOP SPIRAL SPIRAL TIES STRESS 1 2 ** | |||
1 787 4.19 1.66 16.13 16.86 18.63 14.35 2.00 - 2.34 2 787 3.86 1.46 17.29 17.05 19.50 14.83 1.98 - 2.40 3 745 3.56 6.70 2G.4 28.54 35.71 19.23 2.19 - 2.43 4 724 5.08 9.55 30.20 27.72 40.58 17.33 2.28 - 2.19 O 5 710 6.86 4.73 16.45 19.09 26.94 8.60 7.74 - 1.99 l | |||
* Allowable Reinfetcing Steel Stress = 54 KSI | |||
** Allowable ConcD te Compressive Stress = -3.4 KSI Minimum Stress P4rgin = 24.8% | |||
REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 l DESIGN ASSESSMEMT REPORT | |||
'O | |||
! CONTAINMENT MARGINS i DRYWELL WALL FIGURE A-28 | |||
i CECAP OUTPUT LOAD COMBINATION EQN. 7A - Absolute Sum STRESSES IN KSI WETWELL WALL INSIDE FACE OUTSIDE FACE PRINCIPAL SECTION EL. REBAR* REBAR* SHEAR CONC. | |||
NUMBER FT. VERT. HOOP VERT. HOOP SPIRAL SPIRAL TIES STRESS 1 2 ** | |||
6 695 4.79 15.13 16.45 22.43 34.95 3.93 4.09 - 1.26 7 672 3.62 18.05 25.25 29.38 42.84 11.79 3.51 - 2.88 8 672 3.04 15.65 22.60 27.01 43.18 6.44 2.25 - 1.76 9 672 3.09 14.81 23.38 26.21 39.03 10.55 2.14 - 1.78 10 660 2.39 14.88 32.18 27.20 47.24 12.3.4 2.59 - 2.18 11 650 6.33 2.14 11.48 13.65 23.33 1.79 14.03 - 2.42 2 | |||
Allowable Reinforcing Steel Stress = 54 KSI | |||
** Allowable Concrete Compressive Stress = -3.4 KSI Minimum Stress Margin = 12.5% | |||
i REV. 6, 4/82 l SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION l UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT lO CONTAINMENT MARGINS WETWELL WALL 1 | |||
l PNBURE A-29 | |||
O CECAP OUTPUT LOAD COMBINATION EQN. 7A - Absolute Sum ) | |||
l STRESSES IN KSI l RPV PEDESTAL INSIDE FACE OUTSIDE FACE PRINCIPAL SECTION EL. REBAR* REBAR* SHEAR CONC. | |||
NUMBER FT. VERT. HOOP VERT. HOOP SPIRAL SPIRAL TIES STRESS 1 2 ** | |||
14 725 -1.37 -0.28 -0.20 5.63 - - | |||
1.44 - 0.24 15 704 -0.81 -0.83 0.32 -2.84 - - | |||
0.88 - 0.41 | |||
* Allowable Reinforcing Steel Stress = 54 KSI | |||
** Allowable Concrete Compressive Stress = -3.4 KSI Minimum Stress Margin = 89.5% | |||
REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA ATEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 i DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT CONTAINMENT MARGINS RPV PEDESTAL FIGURE A-30 | |||
I m | |||
b CECAP OUTPUT LOAD COMBINATION EQN. 7A - Absolute Sum STRESSES IN KSI RPV PEDESTAL i | |||
INSIDE FACE OUTSIDE FACE PRINCIPAL SECTION EL. REBAR* REBAR* SHEAR CONC. | |||
NUMBER FT. VERT. HOOP VERT. HOOP ' SPIRAL SPIRAL TIES SPRESS 1 2 ** | |||
s 16 695 -0.86 2.69 -1.87 2.80 - | |||
0.57 | |||
- 0.61 17 666 -1.94 14.77 -1.92 5.72 - - | |||
6.76 - 0.72 18 666 -1.69 13.79 -2.21 2.32 - | |||
4.10 | |||
- 0.35 19 651 -1.13 -0.95 -2.16 -1.65 - | |||
0.76 | |||
- 0.38 20 651 '1.29 | |||
-0.96 -2.26 -1.63 - - | |||
0.79 - 0.39 Allowable Reinforcing Steel Stress = 54 KSI Allowable Concrete Compressive Stress = -3.4 KST Minimum Stress Margin = 72.6% | |||
REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT e ! | |||
CONTAINMENT MARGINS RPV PEDESTAL i | |||
FIGURE A-31 l | |||
l CECAP OUTPUT LOAD COMBINATION EQN. 7A - Absolute Sum STRESSES IN KSI DIAPHRAGM SLAB PRINCIPAL SECTION RADIUS EL. TOP FACE REBAR | |||
* BOTTOM FACE REBAR* SHEAR CONC. | |||
NUMBER FT. FT. RADIAL TANGENTIAL RADIAL TANGENTIAL TIES STRESS 21 8 702 1.53 4.18 13.80 9.17 2.76 - 0.33 22 17 702 - 0.44 '' 2'.32' 17.43 19.58 1.88 - 1.16 23 17 702 - 0.39 2.29 17.33 18.81 2.06 - 1.14 24 26 702 0.76 2.85 29.96 30.60 1.40 - 1.30 0 25 34 702 2.37 2.06 31.58 23.84 1.39 - 1.06 | |||
* Allowable Reinforcing Steel Stress'= 54 KSI | |||
* | |||
* Allowable Concrete Compressive Stress = -3.4 KSI Minimum Stress Margin = 41.5% | |||
REV. 6, 4/82 l SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT j CONTAINMENT MARGINS DI APHR AGM SLAB l | |||
FIGURE A-32 | |||
O .CECAP OUTPUT LOAD COMBINATION EQN. 7A - Absolute Sum STRESSES IN KSI BASE SLAB PRINCIPAL SECTION RADIUS EL. TOP FACE REBAR | |||
* BOTTOM FACE REBAR* SHEAR CONC. | |||
NUMBER FT. FT. RADIAL TANGENTIAL RADIAL TANGENTIAL TIES STRESS S | |||
26 8 644 -11.44 - 5.28 13.61 13.09 42.25 - 1.44 27 17 644 -10.40 - 9.56 22.34 16.88 0.27 - 4.28t 28 26 644 - 6.58 - 6.49 19.07 15.64 1.30 - 2.84 29 34 644 - 2.52 - 6.24 13.83 20.05 2.45 - 2.54 O 30 43 644 17".96 - 3.37 27.41 14.91 5.23 - 2.43 Allowable Reinforcing Steel Stress = 54 KSI | |||
** North - South Bars | |||
*** East - West Bars S Allowable Concrete Compressive Stress = -3.4 KSI - | |||
t Maximum Concrete Strain = -0.00092 Minimum Stress Margin = 19.9% y REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT CONTAINMENT MARGINS BASE SLAB FHBURE A-33 | |||
- . . - . - , +, . - , - . . - - . . - - - . | |||
l 1 | |||
O MAXIMUM l ALLOWABLE GOVERNING STRESS ITEM STRESS STRESS EQUATION MARGIN Membrane 14.0 Ksi 19.3 Ksi 3 27.3 Surface 31.8 Kai 57.9 Ksi 3 45.1 Bolts 33.0 Ksi 41.3 Kai | |||
* 7.8 Leak 1.9 Kips /in 2.2 Kips /in 6 10.8 Tightness O | |||
* For 200 Kips Bolt Pre-load to Assure Leak Tightness REV. 6, 4/82 I SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT STRESSMARGINFORllEFUELING HEADANDSUPPORTSKIRT FIGURE A-33.1 | |||
:O i | |||
i CECAP OUTPUT SRSS METHOD | |||
.l i | |||
Figures A-34 thru A-57 Deleted | |||
~ | |||
O x | |||
4 P | |||
9 h | |||
( | |||
l s | |||
G * | |||
\ | |||
I s I | |||
l s *% | |||
-O f | |||
l O i l I I I I I I I I I I l | |||
1 I I I I I I I j | |||
l i I I l O I 1 I I I I I I MODE 1 MODE 2 MODE 3 f=24 HZ fHl2 HZ f=112 HZ REV. 6, 4/82 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION 1 | |||
UNITS 1 AND 2 l | |||
DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT SUPPRESSION CHAMBER COLUMNS MODE SHAPES FIGURE A48 | |||
O O O SUPPRESSION CHAMBER COLUMNS l l l lMAxIMUn l ALLOWABLE l l l l l MAXIMUM ! ALLOWABLE l FLEXURAL l FLEXURAL l COMBINED l l l l AXIAL STRESS l AXIAL STRESS l STRESS lSTh6SS l STRESS l STRESS l l COLUMN l (KSI) l (KSI) l(KSI) l(KSI) l RATIO l MARGIN % l l l l l l l l l l42"dia pipe (shell element)l 8.56 l 31.49 l 20.99 l 34.2 l 0.886 l 11.4 l l Top Anchorage l 20.96 l 30.0 l l | |||
l 0.698 l 30.2 l l Bottom Anchorage l l - | |||
l - | |||
l - | |||
l - | |||
l 41.0 l l | |||
,. m O C h E % 8 5 | |||
Nh h Note: These stress margins are based on load combination 7 O E 5 of Table 5-2 which is the critical load combination. | |||
8 550 | |||
? a fan h hh | |||
- e Esk as; | |||
? | |||
i 9 :n aQ g ' | |||
o 8 | |||
55 4 | |||
4 S $ | |||
G 2 | |||
_ _ _ _ = - _ - - _ _ _ _ - | |||
l O | |||
DOWNCOMER BRACING SYSTEM - STRESS | |||
==SUMMARY== | |||
BRACING MEMBER DESIGN MARGINS FOR CRITICAL MEMBERS AND GOVERNING LOAD COMBINATIONS l l EQN. 1 l EQN. 3 l EQN. 4 l EQN. 7 l l MEMBER | |||
* l % l % l % l % l l l l l l 1 l 5 l 68 l 73 l 76 l 4 l l l l l l l l 6 l 72 l 80 l 82 l 12 l l l l l l l l 7 l 63 l 75 l 77 l 12 l l l l 1 I l l 18 l 69 l 78 l 79 l 14 l Ref. DAR Table 5-2 for Load Combinations. | |||
* For member number see Fig. 7-11 REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRN: STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT DOWNCOMER BRACING SYSTEM STRESS | |||
==SUMMARY== | |||
FIGURE A-60 | |||
O DOWNCOMER RING STRESSES AND MARGINS CONNECTION l MAXIMUM STRESS (KSI) STRESS MARGIN (%) | |||
_ COMPONENT EO. 2 EQ. 7 EQ. 2 EO. 7 Main Ring Plate 14.1 31.5 34 2.8 (21.4) (32.4) | |||
Connector Plate 6.1 10.5 71.4 67.6 (21.4) (32.4) | |||
Top Partial Plate 11.2 16.7 47.6 48.5 (21.4) (32.4) | |||
Top Ring Plate 2.8 5.0 87.1 84.5 (21.4) (32.4) | |||
O Seite 13.1 (22.5) 15.4 41.8 54.4 (33.8) | |||
NOTE: 1. Numbers in Parenthesis Represent the Maximum Allowable Stress Limit. | |||
: 2. Ioad Cohbination Equations are From Table 3-2. | |||
l l | |||
REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT DOWNCOMER RING STRESSES AND MARGINS FIGURE A-61 | |||
a _- a a . --r-O DOWN COMER MODE SHAPES FIGURES A-62 THROUGH A-65 DELETED D - | |||
l l | |||
O , | |||
i | |||
~ | |||
o o O DOWNCOMER - STRESS | |||
==SUMMARY== | |||
AND DESIGN MARGINS I l l l ABSOLUTE l l SRSS I l l l l ALLOWABLE l sum l l sum l l l LOAD l l STRESS l STRESS l DESIGN MARGIN l STRESS l DESIGN MARGIN l l COMBINATION l CONDITION l (KSI) l (KSI) l ABS. sum (%) l (KSI) l SRSS (%) l 1 l l 1 - | |||
1 l l l l Equation 1 l Upset l 30.0 l 14.6 51 14.6 l l l 51 l l Equation 2 l Eme rgency l 45.0 l 27.0 40 19.2 l l l 57 l l Equation 3 l Emergency l 45.0 l 38.9 l 14 22,5 l l 50 l l Equation 4 l Faulted l 60.0 l 30.6 49 21.9 l l l 64 l l Equation 5 l Faulted l 60.0 l 39.5 l 34 22.5 l l 63 l l Equation 6 l Faulted l 60.0 l 44.3 26 25.8 l l l 57 l l Equation 7 l Faulted l 60.0 l 32.1 l 46 22.4 l l 63 l NOTE: Load combinations from DAR Table 5-3 and Stresses checked per ASME Code NB 3652. | |||
2 E E 8 A o E | |||
> E E a aa ei N$ | |||
8 8 lie $ g m R gu~E,9 g , | |||
c & en > m . | |||
Q k | |||
$ 5: | |||
4 ' | |||
y - | |||
5 2 | |||
O O O SRV SUPPORT ASSEMBLIES (MAXIMUM STRESSES AND STRESS MARGINS FOR TYPICAL ASSEMBLIES) l l l l MAXIMUM l ALLOWABLE l l l l l MAXIMUM l ALLOWABLE lPLEXURALlPLEXURAL l COMBINED l l l l AXIAL STRESS l AXIAL STRESS l STRESS l STRESS l STRESS l STRESS l l Bracing Member l (KSI) l (KSI) l (KSI) l (KSI) l RATIO l MARGIN 4 l l Type A Horizontal Member l 5.65 l 28.65 l 10.78 l 31.5 l 0.530 l 47.0 l l Type A Knee Member l 6.53 l 27.66 l 11.92 l 31.5 l 0.614 l 38.6 l l Type B Horizontal Member l 6.34 l 27.66 l 14.89 l 31.5 l 0.702 l 29.8 l l Type B Knee Member l 7.32 l 26.52 l 15.98 l 31.5 l 0.783 l 21.7 l l Type C Horizontal Member l 4.14 i 25.65 l 12.91 l 31.5 l 0.571 l 42.9 l l Type C Knee Member l 4.78 l 23.87 l 13.49 l 31.5 l 0.629 l 37.1 _l | |||
~ | |||
n . | |||
*I$ | |||
C 5 | |||
0 Note: The stress margins are based on load combination 7 of Table 5-2, g E E which is the critical load combination. | |||
* < 5 E N $ fc if0 *$ EIU 5 s-E ar g | |||
ap | |||
%5 R | |||
r- E ;l 5 Fi 3 5 5 *l 1 d 0 | |||
O APPENDIX B CONTAINMENT MODE SHAPES AND RESPONSE SPECTRA l | |||
IAjk) OF CONTENTS 3 B.1 Containment Mode S'hapes B.2 Containment Response .ipectra B.3 Figures O | |||
I i | |||
4 | |||
: O Rev. 3, 7/80 B-1 i-i | |||
. . . . . _. _. ~ , _ _ _ , , _ . . . . _ . , . _ , _ . _ . _ . . _ , _, | |||
APPENDII B EIGHEgS Enher I1119 $ | |||
B-1 Model for Containment Response Spectra B-2 Containment Modes and Frequencies B-3 Containment Mode Shapes - Modes 1 through 15 thru B-17 C931R1E32Ei_HRDR9Bge Spectgg B-18 K WU-SR V- 97 6 Arisy. Direction Y 3 | |||
B-19 KUU-SR V-876 Arisy. Direction Z thru B-21 B-22 KWU-SR V-876 Asymm. Direction I thru B-24 B-25 KWU-SRV- #76 As yma. Direction Y D-26 K WU-SR V- 476 Asyma. Direction Z B-27 KWU-Chuqqing-#303 Asisya Direction Y B-28 KWU-Chuqqing-8303 Axisya Direction Z | |||
> thru B-30 B-31 KWU-Chuqqing-8303 Axisyn. Direction X thru B-33 B-34 KWU-Chuqqing-#303 Asyn. Direction Z 6 B-35 KVD-Chuqqing-8 306 Axisyn. Direction Y B-36 KWU-Chuqqing-4 306 Arisyn. Direction Z thru B-38 B-39 KWU-Chuqqing-# 306 Axisyn. Direction X B-40 KWU-Chuqqing-8306 Asyn. Direction X thru B-41 B-42 KWU-Chuqqing-8306 Asyn. Direction 2 O | |||
REV. 6, 4/82 B- 2 | |||
APPENDII B flggjjj (Cont.) | |||
O nau nu. | |||
B-43 KUU-Condensation Oscillation-8314 Direction Y B-44 KUU-Condensation Oscillation-#314 Direction Z thru B-46 B-47 KWU-Condensation Oscillation-8314 Direction I thru B-49 B-50 KWU-Condensation Oscillation-9 314 Direction Z B-51 Seismic Sloshing-Direction I thru B-54 . | |||
B-55 Seismic sloshing-Direction Z thru B-58 | |||
.O i | |||
O REV. 6, 4/82 B-3 | |||
B.1 gg!TAlggg3T_HOpj_gglEgg The containment mods; ts shown as Figure B-1. While, Figure B-2 shows containment frequencies from the model analysis with water mass included as discussed in Subsection 7.1.1.1.1.3. Containment mode shapes are shown in Piqures B-3 through B-17, covering mode shapes 1 through 15. | |||
lh 3 | |||
B.2 gggialgnggI_gggrougg_Ep3gIBA This appendir shows examples of the horizontal and vertical response spectra curves of the containment structure due to LOCA and SRV loading. Four spectral damping values, i.e., | |||
0.005, 0.01, 0.02, and 0.05 are shown on each group of curves. The structural model of the containment is shown on Piqure B-1. The modal frequencies and mode shapes are shown on Piqures B-2 to B-17. The response spectrum curves shown on B-18 to B-58 are submitted as representative examples of 6 the containment structure response spectra caused by SRV actuation, Co, chuqqing and seismic slosh. | |||
The SRV load (generated by KWU) consists of 3 traces and each trace consists of 5 f requencies. The asymmetric and axysymmetric load cases are considered (see Subsection 6] 7.1.1.1.1. 5.1) . | |||
The LOCA load case consists of chuqqing and condensation oscillation loads, each of which contain 3 frequencies. | |||
3 Asymmetric and axisymmetric load cases are considered for chuqqing, and only arisymmetric load case is considered for condensation oscillation (See section 7.1.1.1.1. 5. 2) . llg The seismic slosh response spectra were generated for the 6 | |||
load methodology described in Subsection 4.2.4.7. | |||
r REV. 6, 4/82 B-4 | |||
O | |||
\ | |||
1 PERIOD-1 | |||
,c o to c.: 0 01 l iiiii i e i . eii . . . ie i 6 .i. i 6 . i E ' ' | |||
ll I | |||
.l i i l i i 5 . . | |||
I l l l 3 | |||
!l | |||
: i l i | |||
! j ! 6 l 6 ! | |||
l !I | |||
! ; .8 i i. l ii l 1 | |||
. . l,.,!, !/11 i : | |||
a4 . | |||
. . , , .. , 6 , | |||
g 2 | |||
i : : i !. | |||
i : | |||
, l l i | |||
,ll l | |||
l, ..! M !! !!i a | |||
n s .,',. | |||
i; : | |||
'. nl lu 8 , | |||
p- ; , | |||
i . | |||
i l i . | |||
; 4 a . i; a . . | |||
...i ; | |||
y : ; i : i ;!i ! | |||
l iiii , ,,ll\ l i j y ', , : . | |||
!i. . ! - | |||
i I. | |||
li ih l ja e, . | |||
i i ii . ; | |||
w. | |||
li j | |||
O .. | |||
l ,. , .14) i i l . . | |||
.i,l,iiil l i!l i !/o i;;;!4 ie | |||
. i ., s. | |||
,I- I N q: . | |||
; I i | |||
; ; :i a | |||
. j | |||
, i!'i .. | |||
/ ii..iI . | |||
iI | |||
. I i!l t - | |||
l l! r' I l ,1-t i 4 l lll | |||
- ., , . . . . . . . . , mo . . . .. | |||
FREQUENCY CPS Asassessies ausses ter CONTADeENT m tt wm * - - __ | |||
RWU 303 SYMM. | |||
ame 135 _m v | |||
.h 8" ' a | |||
* Semesis SAB5,R81,85,em REV. 6, 4/82 SUSQUEMANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT D- CONTAINMENT RESPONSE SPECTRA KWU-CHUGGING-#303 AXISYM. DIRECTION 'Y' Ft0URE B-27 _. | |||
O PERIOD , | |||
10 0 to 01 act ti 6 6 6 6 i i . i6 , a i , i i 3 33 , , , , , , , , | |||
1.50 - | |||
l l | |||
l 1 | |||
' . 2% | |||
I l l l .i i l : | |||
.i . | |||
I I i , | |||
I I as "i.e: | |||
lit t i I I i !- ) i i n l. , | |||
I ; I i l i :r is I | |||
h. | |||
!! . l' r ll1 I i i h , | |||
l | |||
. I. | |||
! :I ' | |||
U | |||
-:. i., | |||
e l l l . f: | |||
. l ,k l' O i L: | |||
!E I | |||
I | |||
!' l-i ,' | |||
l ! 3 lli:' | |||
ls | |||
, i! l, i | |||
\! | |||
e i | |||
/} | |||
ii | |||
# . , l , | |||
W | |||
: e. se e ,e e l !; . '*.!' | |||
f. | |||
\(s | |||
[h ! | |||
i A j 1 l I O i ; ^ ! {i - *1 k | |||
j ii | |||
$ i | |||
, * . , ,'/r - | |||
ii :- j;i i i It i i ! ! , K. , .\ | |||
m e i m | |||
:.4 - , | |||
[' i | |||
!i | |||
/ | |||
D l l' !! | |||
? | |||
* i * . : , l i . t | |||
; l ! l l1 i 8 | |||
i ! | |||
i l ; i i ! | |||
lleII i | |||
l l1 l l | |||
* i j I 1 | |||
" 01 2 4 6 1 1.0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 0 8 goo FREQUENCY. CPS Aassenssins $pages tu, PEDESTAL | |||
~ | |||
W Cast Rwu 303 SYles. | |||
hade 215 m s , gi,, M2 '-3 | |||
* M 85.821.85.85 REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT CONTAINMENT RESPONSE SPECTRA | |||
~~ | |||
KWU-CHUGGING-4303 AXISYM. DIRECTION 'Z' FIGURE B~20 | |||
l r | |||
l l | |||
d - | |||
i i PERIOC l . to o a.o c.: o og l | |||
l.10 l ! l i | |||
l ll | |||
! i i t'! l , , I | |||
!;i!i i l | |||
! il | |||
' ;A l l | |||
: l. iI | |||
,,.e. l li i .' | |||
1 I t | |||
t | |||
- i li !. . | |||
lI i,l.t | |||
, i | |||
,i 1 -> | |||
l | |||
.I.' l I l lll | |||
: z. i e i. | |||
l,!-j' . | |||
i j ! | |||
'1 Q | |||
- l* i - | |||
nA i - . | |||
l '. | |||
I | |||
!. l l ); | |||
w | |||
. , .'.l f' 3.... . | |||
g., g . | |||
li , I . I ii , . . g. , i o : i , . . ii - . | |||
12 + jl;t, : ;. i ! ij ll :\c. - | |||
I i. .i; : | |||
=y 1 . | |||
.i: | |||
i ; ; e e ; ,ti e | |||
i | |||
. I . l > i . ., lel d. i l . | |||
.t ! | |||
l j !i .i. ;. . . i-gi.l | |||
. ,. ;.a s i i l, !lii1: | |||
8, .. | |||
g.... . ,, | |||
! ! : .i ill: U i | |||
. f | |||
.: .: ) i | |||
', j ' | |||
e i i. | |||
1 g il : ;i . . | |||
! ( | |||
.,.. l . | |||
! . A \' . i 'I | |||
, . s | |||
* e lI',i' s i I | |||
l Ill .. | |||
I ll l | |||
i,i. ! . ;i g,.. | |||
t I | |||
i i | |||
l,. i. il i o3 4 4 4 8 IO 2 4 4 8 to o 2 4 6 a gon FREQUENCY. CPS Asutswisespesosen C03rfAIMMElfr suzz.I. | |||
La'ad Cass E ^ RWU 303 sYMM. | |||
asse 415 shmans, s ,b77e' - p-3/4= | |||
esupisy SAes, sat,e m ,as REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT O CONTAINMENT RESPONSE SPECTRA KWU-CHUGGGING-4303 AXISYM. DIRECTION 'Z' FIGURE I"20 | |||
n U | |||
- l PERIO: | |||
0 01 1.0 03 i 10 0 t - | |||
s. | |||
i6 i . | |||
* ' I l .' s | |||
! l ii - | |||
~ | |||
. ii .! | |||
l ! | |||
.' .'. l; ', '. | |||
l l ll I . . | |||
i, l | |||
.I *I ' | |||
2.. | |||
* t i 1 | |||
? | |||
l' t . | |||
. l, i | |||
' l '. | |||
i I | |||
: 9. ., . i e | |||
t q/) | |||
. ', i s | |||
fA e- a 5 ' ' , | |||
( | |||
31- .. * \ ,s l | |||
l u !:p i - | |||
W ' i j | |||
\\ | |||
f .: | |||
- t - - | |||
i | |||
\\ | |||
8 l ' | |||
b ' | |||
h// | |||
6 | |||
'O a :i l | |||
. P s | |||
i I | |||
.. 4 6 6 4 G y 10 0 2 , | |||
4 6 gi gg 2 2 | |||
e3 FREQUE NCY. CPS Anslustus tusses go, PEDESTAZ. | |||
KVU 303 syMM. | |||
Land Car i ^ | |||
Reds 535 Shuuss, s ,g 729' 3/4* | |||
OMIph5 85.8A1.85.SS REV. 6, 4/82 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT O CONTAINMENT RESPONSE SPECTRA V KWU-CHUGGING-#303 AXISYM. DIRECTION 'Z' PIOURE B-30 | |||
C\ | |||
V PERIOt 1o o. t o o, to.o . e i i e ii ..i i i i si, i. . . | |||
.siii ' | |||
I t t Ilji i : ;. | |||
l 1 I j . | |||
, , i ; e i, | |||
I ' | |||
i l l l 5 . ,i. . , . | |||
.i .i g . | |||
i j I :A . | |||
l l | |||
l :. ! .. | |||
9 ' i i ,l!! i . i i: l ' | |||
sI l4 flr. | |||
6 | |||
: l | |||
: i. l ..Il' ?. | |||
. , j.tli !il ,i i | |||
i . | |||
i . ! e | |||
: 5. l . i ,.i. ! | |||
l 1 i , | |||
a i r, l. . ; n. . | |||
ii. | |||
i . ! ,. i* | |||
3= | |||
W | |||
. . i . . . , | |||
: : i e. ,o | |||
. 4 y . | |||
i i i i n. ; | |||
. t. | |||
j l | |||
,J 'I q . | |||
. e I | |||
g g b | |||
f 'l " . | |||
{ . | |||
', 'f' ], g ni | |||
;' i S : | |||
! i O : ! i j !. !-[ !i'',j;i $:y'QA | |||
. > i s | |||
. ..,,I g | |||
. , 9 I | |||
. .. .I : , | |||
i l | |||
o, , . . . . . . . . . . , , , | |||
FREQUEf4CY CPS 3,,,g,,,,, g g , CCHTADOtENT SEF.LL Land Cas: " Rwo 303 syMM. | |||
made 131 h * | |||
.h 6'r 2 '-o | |||
* amm m :Esm , ass,s m ,e m REV. 6, 4/82 SUSQUEMANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DE81GN ASSESSMENT REPORT CONTAINMENT RESPONSE SPECTRA xwo-cauco'"o-'3o3 O . | |||
AXISYM. DIRECTION 'X' FlouRE B-31 | |||
{^\ | |||
PERIOD 10 0 to ot c et i6 6 i 6 i e i 6 a.e i 6 . 4 i .6 . I l.50 , | |||
3 , | |||
lI i | |||
I i | |||
l.- | |||
- i l | |||
, !.Ii i i ll i l i i j i;': 1 I | |||
i | |||
! ll i | |||
i , i i' li'' | |||
i i l l | |||
I | |||
[ | |||
l l | |||
l l | |||
e ! | |||
l l | |||
l lj 1 | |||
0 l | |||
I l | |||
l , | |||
g ' lI tl 6 | |||
''lI i | |||
* l l ? ! | |||
. s ' | |||
; . e8 - | |||
; t lt I !, ' | |||
! s l * ' | |||
I' | |||
,, ! ,t i , | |||
l ' | |||
, g | |||
;, I l' | |||
. ?! | |||
[ . | |||
t W ,,g. , | |||
, I i . I i - I - ' | |||
l I . | |||
Ii i ' | |||
1; I | |||
! i [ | |||
!l'l | |||
! li I I 1l't !' | |||
' .I a | |||
l i I ' | |||
m | |||
- i i, | |||
i | |||
+1 - | |||
* i i t il :. | |||
l 4 | |||
4 f ' 1 j ll ' | |||
. i t , , g!, I- | |||
:t ' ' | |||
. I. , | |||
p.:e i | |||
l' 'il!i f,e ' | |||
; [} - | |||
, t .. | |||
[ } i e' ' I | |||
, i, \ . | |||
, [. e' ' 6 ,i . t i | |||
* } , | |||
i 2 4 01 6 8 IO 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 Sg FREQUENCY CPS i | |||
m > g, contaTwwwwr u n e W Cas: " i KWU 303 A!M N. | |||
Beds. 411 m I , glgy77 E ' = 9-1/( 8 Sumping-9 5 .B21.8 5.8 5 REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT CONTAINMENT RESPONSE SPECTRA q KWU-CHUGGING-#303 Cf ASYM. DIRECTION 'X' FIGURE B-32 | |||
O . | |||
PERIOC to o n.o on o ot si 6 . . i.. . i . . i 1.'40 ' | |||
l l 1 l | |||
i t | |||
l | |||
: l8 l 'l l | |||
i 4 | |||
, l l | |||
i i ii l l t I - | |||
l ! | |||
l i | |||
! :! ; l ' | |||
i :I n.n ' | |||
; i I i ?. ; . i ; i . | |||
!i | |||
. j I | |||
i lli' | |||
= | |||
t I | |||
t , | |||
l - ' ' | |||
: !. 1 i l8 li l; i | |||
[ | |||
! i l. ' | |||
t 1 . | |||
\- I y ; .. | |||
~ | |||
i . | |||
} . I | |||
,g , g; i ! a , - | |||
M i i e | |||
!I j . 8 | |||
. l l | |||
* i - | |||
.t l f .l | |||
! t j ; | |||
a ff a l | |||
! ! i i '. !' e | |||
!l*' l l | |||
l t ; a- . i 8 , | |||
w , > | |||
,' ' l | |||
: g. ;g '' | |||
8 | |||
< l 1 . | |||
f) | |||
. i . . . | |||
i, j Y . | |||
l < | |||
E 1 ,,, | |||
ll I l | |||
i | |||
.7 i | |||
I i | |||
l l | |||
r- a. i | |||
' : p1, N 4 | |||
p l . | |||
V j ! ; - | |||
l t | |||
: 4L - - - - - | |||
i l . | |||
> - I | |||
,/ q. | |||
, l - | |||
L I | |||
* I c3 4 4 S *C 2 4 6 8 te o 2 e s 4 goo FREQUENCY-CPS m m g, e. . ,nm w w "_ ^ _ IWU 303 MnM4. | |||
m 531 m z .h 729' 3/4" Samous talt.OA1,8At,85 REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT CONTAINMENT RESPONSE SPEC' ARA KWU-CHUGGING-4303 p)- | |||
% ASYM. DIRECTION 'X' PIOURE B-33 i- | |||
O PERIOD to o n.o o. : o on It i e 6 4 4 4 . . 6 i e i.> . . l 3.0 ' ; ' ' | |||
i i l i I I I *I ! i i i , . i i I l ii t | |||
lgllIe l i 8 | |||
li i | |||
i 8 | |||
g | |||
. lI, , i !.. I | |||
!. i ! | |||
,;I ! . l 3 ' | |||
iI ' ; | |||
,., I l | |||
,I ; . | |||
* ;! i . i | |||
~ | |||
! l | |||
;i.I ! . | |||
* ' I ' . | |||
i f , I i ll . l 2 3 8 Q . | |||
!l i . ,j | |||
? '! ' l l q i i . i e . I i d, e h al l l t I, t i | |||
0-y i . : | |||
j | |||
,3 3\, - | |||
% i i . . . | |||
N ! , t 4 i | |||
c I, !li' ' g- .\; I r i.: | |||
'8 '' I | |||
' ' ,3 f' 3 | |||
j[/,'i | |||
! l' ' | |||
~ | |||
l O . | |||
; ! ii i l!["'b | |||
; j j..u me y | |||
''~ | |||
Qg a 6 8 3p 2 4 | |||
O ,p 6 0 go.o 2 | |||
4 6 8 ,,-a FREQUENCY-CPS h Sposess k DIAPNRAG4 SIAE w g - _- RWU 303 ASDet. | |||
g ,e, me y,,,s , e ,gn 7e2'-3* | |||
W SJIt,831,82,85 REV. 6, 4/82 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNIT 11 AND 2 1 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT 1 1 | |||
CONTAINMENT RESPOESE SPECTRA x KWU-CHUGGING-#303 ASYM. DIRECTION 'Z' FIGURE B-34 l | |||
l l | |||
PERIOr 10.0 n.o 0.1 o on saii e i i e a sai .. .i i ... i e i i i i i en | |||
!' ! l } l' l l I | |||
! I I i t i Y. g | |||
". ! 'l' ll ! i ll l 5 l 1 E i l | |||
; lI g - | |||
!i . | |||
l . | |||
l m i o | |||
! ! I'! | |||
il l I i | |||
l l e | |||
lll-e i | |||
i. | |||
.}t , | |||
l l 'i l a S , | |||
I! | |||
i ! l- l ) ! ! | |||
! ! il a : | |||
' i ! | |||
I i i! l | |||
' .' i e- l l?.ll l I | |||
f. | |||
'A\l $ f i l t 8 | |||
r | |||
,- . I!l , ! l l i T1 | |||
* ! !l l l l f Ik l f\ /' | |||
i | |||
' f' O , i l l , l-. ! j , | |||
i N | |||
I | |||
/! | |||
g | |||
! I ' '! - | |||
1 ,C, l I i ' :i ' | |||
,1ii' l/ \/ : ti | |||
! I' ;l I l i' '/ '!l l | |||
' ,il i | |||
!I | |||
. I 2 | |||
! . ! I l , ll 0g 4 6 a 10 2 4 6 8 80 0 2 4 6 3 joo FREQUENCY 4PS Amagesnes sessee ts, CCirfAT19G3rT ment gang g i 108U 306 SM. | |||
gest, 135 m , .h E'S' a* | |||
Sumpil5 SM.881.85.SS , | |||
REV. 6, 4/82 SOSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT p CONTAINMENT RESPONSE SPECTRA (j KWU-CHUGGING-#306 AXISYM. DIRECTION 'Y' FIGURE B-3 5 1 | |||
O PF"'OD.**C. | |||
10 0. 0. i . | |||
10 0 i | |||
* 6 6 * | |||
* i l ei a 6 6 | |||
* i . a g4 6 6 i a 4 6 6 6 I.10 , | |||
l 1 | |||
I I | |||
:= , '. , | |||
iu, I !!!! l : ill l. | |||
! l i | |||
' 'l i I , ! ,; | |||
ii, li. | |||
I I . 'l i as j , t l I | |||
j i l i: l l'!! i i!'l | |||
* i ! ! | |||
l .. . l 8 | |||
l '1 a | |||
k * | |||
' i} | |||
l . ! l | |||
! j 3, h, I . | |||
l l i I!'i ! i ei w-. . . | |||
g! | |||
U 3 t t 'I l i l' -.l . .l l | |||
'll l ' | |||
M ! i | |||
! l ,li!' i i , 1 (l ' ' | |||
I \1 | |||
;i ! t ; [11 j | |||
i i | |||
!. .. ! ! Il!!!!! $' :!n(\/'k i ! | |||
r~ . j i ; . l! i l: t ill jyj 'It F%) | |||
! f ! | |||
mg / | |||
, I / . | |||
~ | |||
i ii:..i . : ;,i i. i i !j ; | |||
j !!L/ M'l ! i j jit ' | |||
.l i. j I ! 1 . | |||
: i ... | |||
l 'll I , ! :' ! :! , | |||
' I',!ll , ! ! | |||
gg 2 4 6 4 10 2 4 6 6 00 2 4 6 8 goo FREQUENCY-CPS m g g, FEDESTAL Whhh mc 306 snet. | |||
m 215 m s ob 702'-3* | |||
W 8818.441,84t 85 REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT CONTAINMENT RESPONSE SPECTRA O KWU-CHUGGING-4306 AXISYM. DIRECTION 'Z' FleuRE B-36 | |||
n v . . | |||
PERIOD n.o a.: o og to.o | |||
* I i i.I e . i 6 64 4 i i . . 4 s | |||
14 4 6 8 4 6 i.so | |||
! l l l i l | |||
l l l .l l l 'l ' | |||
j l ! i ; | |||
l ' | |||
l l I i! | |||
!l ! i !( i !!. | |||
i''.. | |||
' ~ | |||
j i , | |||
i i j,i! | |||
I W | |||
Q , | |||
l | |||
-I i | |||
j li j i i | |||
! ' 't l | |||
i I | |||
I e | |||
5 ,. | |||
e | |||
' i i i ii I l' l | |||
? | |||
' li t l s | |||
' ,l | |||
+ | |||
t w.. ' | |||
W | |||
! i;!i! | |||
i e I. l I i, 'ii i. | |||
i i | |||
i li j ll.l i... | |||
ill 8 g . . I i i i , | |||
' ,) ,if^ i | |||
* j! | |||
g - i 6 1 l | |||
,[ f \l G I I i I. I !' l l I !.!' l.r .! , l. | |||
g - -. ! ,I -' I, 19. i l J i l i . | |||
j i l ill in u l ' | |||
il'isi l,* I | |||
' I ;? y . s i ' | |||
l | |||
% i l | |||
- i .: i 1 5 .q / :1 I l !..l'IIi i l l | |||
e I!Ii ,, /l s. .\, i | |||
[ ! | |||
l l!! I. | |||
t-i i | |||
l l I!! / | |||
,/! ! | |||
l l' ''$. | |||
l-i l 'I ij * ; l..il1 # | |||
l l. | |||
!l j l ii , t . . . ; | |||
. . i ! '!l .;l - | |||
; !!11 a 4 2 4 6 a 3eo | |||
" " o. : 2 4 e s to a e io n FREQUENCY CPS coNTAINMENF SEELL m%w Land Camr. W M 306 m . | |||
i u 415 m s ,Bs,77e' 3/4* | |||
= i=.w.m. | |||
* REV. 6, 4/82 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION s | |||
UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT c | |||
CONTAINMENT RESPONSE SPECTRA i s / KWU-CHUGGING-4306 AXISYM. DIRECTION 'Z' FIGURE B-37 | |||
PERIOD | |||
.00 30 0t 0 03 Il se i e . 6 4 8 6 4 . . 4 i i 6. .ie e . . I 1.50 l l I l : i:' lil IIii- l!!I;st I I' i ,. | |||
i | |||
! I iI i'liiii!.il! | |||
i i l | |||
I I | |||
'l .. | |||
i I | |||
iig3 i i . I i I ! i i i 1 '. | |||
I i i i ! I! tij i ' | |||
!I i 6 | |||
E 1 | |||
I | |||
!l | |||
!i :! illli: . | |||
ll !!!:!f!1; i | |||
: I!,::i I!!!I | |||
: 5. . : . t ,l l t i A i *i* i W | |||
i l i ..l | |||
' Ill, l | |||
ll!j I; fg i I ;. | |||
a . , t , I . | |||
( . i i i ll # | |||
a l ! ! ' I! i | |||
! l!! | |||
' [j'' { l | |||
(!! ''! | |||
:.2: - - - | |||
f ; i k' l | |||
l lj ! 1,'/ "! | |||
i i ; , . | |||
i | |||
! l l ! I ll. - | |||
i ! | |||
t' ! | |||
l i.:i | |||
! l 4 | |||
1 l' i 6 i i ! 1lli l l !i! .I Og 2 8 o 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 4 goo FREQUENCY <PS Assetsuise W Ier NN LassCam: M^ *WU 306 Snet. | |||
gag, 535 01sumies 8 729' 3/4" | |||
.h , | |||
1 Bamen t 8315.a st,3 3 a s REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STE AM ELECTRIC STATION UNIYt 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT CONTAINMENT RESPONSE SPECTRA | |||
'' KWU-CHUGGING-#306 AXISYM. DIRECTION "Z' FleURE B-38 | |||
) | |||
l 1 | |||
1 l | |||
l l | |||
O FERIC | |||
' c to O. I ,01 10 0 , , , , , , . . . | |||
lll l I l | |||
l, I i, | |||
i | |||
. i l ll ! | |||
. - j- i i j ii l | |||
'- i i i i ! | |||
j i ' | |||
li .i | |||
; I, !. r 1 | |||
l l I. l. .. | |||
i l Ii !, ! d. l.lll t.. | |||
l | |||
, ' i u i t l | |||
a i | |||
i i i ii i!, ; | |||
- ii i l ;;: . i I | |||
ti e I i i l!!, | |||
I . | |||
. ,. ,,ir, , l1 t !! | |||
e w 6 8 e ., .l | |||
'Yl ll j | |||
! i u !.' ! ' i 't! I - | |||
i ; .. | |||
k i i I !l 1 'i.ii | |||
: '! i ( li ) | |||
a ; **'! l !; | |||
5 ..l1 ; | |||
L if h kl | |||
!i ; | |||
: h. ' | |||
i !II! | |||
! i , = >8 , 1 i t' ol ' | |||
[s ! | |||
. i!*j i, | |||
' ~ | |||
' I l ; g . | |||
l .- | |||
i | |||
// \ | |||
i. | |||
], , | |||
j - I, | |||
, 8 | |||
: l. ' ,! | |||
!!l | |||
;i : | |||
i l 1 i i. . | |||
j I | |||
I I . i 4 6 2 4 6 8 goo 2 4 4 8 10 2 8 10.0 | |||
* 01 FREQUENCY CPS canTAnoenre surLI. | |||
m%w ^ ^- | |||
1010 306 SDM. ~ ~ | |||
W Cas-nee, 131 m,,,g,. z . h si2'-o* | |||
Sumens 8J85.tal.W.W REV. 6, 4/82 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT CONTAINMENT RESPONSE SPECTRA KWU-CHUGGING-#306 1 | |||
) AXISYM. DIRECTION 'X' FIGURE B-39 | |||
O PERIOD.?''C. | |||
sao 1.0 o1 aos | |||
. . ..iiii, i . . . . . . . . . | |||
...ii . . l J.O l l l l | |||
I 2.s ' | |||
ll .\ t I | |||
l I | |||
l i | |||
l;ii lI \! | |||
' .l | |||
.I I I i i i | |||
? , | |||
i ; ii | |||
, ~:i , , I ii t i E" | |||
i l | |||
lj... l '. ll. | |||
!I i* | |||
j i | |||
L !I | |||
, 'l[il i | |||
3< l!l 1'' | |||
! !ll i'' | |||
l ' | |||
l- | |||
!l l | |||
$ ! iI l ! - ! l!i I ! I i: I y j ! i llli i | |||
: i t i i | |||
l! | |||
iii | |||
! ! j ...! iiil ' : $ij;ii ' | |||
: c. , | |||
m i l ! ; i'' i i | |||
'. ' i i. l. ; j{ !.I!! | |||
!'l I ; '! | |||
S i ! i | |||
- ll1 ! ! [ f lll! | |||
C) | |||
.~~. , | |||
, !,!. ; li. | |||
i i .! ' ! | |||
; i l. | |||
![ | |||
H fitIb! , I li !!*!! | |||
i i t ,ii. ! , | |||
i i ii | |||
:( ' | |||
:i ~ | |||
i i | |||
i e | |||
, i | |||
- ,i ,. tI 1 | |||
i : | |||
IiitI | |||
' ' ' !IItI | |||
, i . i 6 2 4 6 8 300 og 2 4 6 8 30 2 4 8 lo o FREQUENCY CPS Ammeranism assess car N prin e wt givitt.r W Cam | |||
* i KWU 306 ASYMM. | |||
medy, '411 % u , g 77a* - e-sf4 Suusius SM. Sal.85.85 REV. 6, 4/82 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT CONTAINMENT RESPONSE SPECTRA RWU-CHUGGING-4306 ASYM. DIRECTION 'X' PlouRE B-40 | |||
c l | |||
H l | |||
O PER800 **C. | |||
30.0 1.0 0.1 0.01 i i 64 4 ii e o i 3 66 6 6 6 6 6 4 3 i l I a . i 6 a e l | |||
: 1. *e0 g l | |||
1 I i Il i l 8 I . i ll l | |||
l l | |||
I! | |||
.l Ii h'iI i - | |||
t | |||
! I | |||
! ! l | |||
! } | |||
"= .. , , | |||
.,'~~ . | |||
i l | |||
i I | |||
j i | |||
{ | |||
! lll | |||
;.' l I | |||
!!I! | |||
l'!: | |||
9 l.'; | |||
* ~ | |||
!I E | |||
a: | |||
l ! | |||
!!l'lll t | |||
i e, l | |||
I i | |||
i i | |||
lta | |||
'I, i | |||
1 ,, ! l l I1 : | |||
, 3 t, - - i ; - ; , . , !. | |||
' i i Q l! t | |||
* 8 i ii- i t - i( '} 1 a | |||
g | |||
: i. ; | |||
t i ,'l. | |||
i 4, / | |||
i j[ | |||
f[! kt i G . ! I i j l2 .. - | |||
e ll I i | |||
. . l i' ijA I ' ' | |||
i | |||
', ; , i j . ! l | |||
.O | |||
'*;j l;i l i , | |||
3 - . | |||
'l sJ 12' | |||
. i , | |||
I ' | |||
l g 6 1 , | |||
I | |||
* ! I l | |||
i I ' I | |||
; i | |||
! ' !'. ' ? | |||
; i i i ' | |||
' @l I i i ; . | |||
j !: ; ,- ! I , l e | |||
i e | |||
i'!! | |||
01 2 4 6 8 10 2 4 6 8 30 0 2 8 100 FP;QyENCYCPS , | |||
m sesnie ear --.--t W Car - _ | |||
Kwu 306 A5YIot. | |||
g,g, 531 ge,,,g,, n .h 729' 3/4" Sumous W.431.85.85 REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT CONTAINMENT RESPONSE SPECTRA | |||
: p. KWU-CHUGGING-4306 d ASYM. DIRECTION 'X' PlGURE 3-41 ; | |||
- .e | |||
* +* | |||
* 4 9 S | |||
sw ,a , | |||
l O | |||
PERIOD 10 0 1.0 a3 0.01 , | |||
... . . . .. . .. ... . i i i i.. . . > | |||
i.so i l il l1 1 i | |||
i 'I ii i I l | |||
. Ii i 'I | |||
:3 ; ,i ;iif..' | |||
i - I . I' l | |||
: i I I ! | |||
I t i li, !l ! | |||
e ; , I i . | |||
4 , < . | |||
J' " | |||
i l | |||
i t | |||
: l. i l . | |||
i . | |||
l ll , . | |||
i t iJo i ,l ' | |||
l l l'I l !.j! l !, | |||
s: !'. I / | |||
g n i . ,, t / | |||
i Ij.j ' 1. ! : | |||
W s | |||
: i i ; | |||
l;i i N+ | |||
l g ! . . l, | |||
. 4 | |||
: f. I' k 1 G : - . I' ; | |||
'\' | |||
5 i i | |||
i | |||
!';i;: | |||
:i l. | |||
i i | |||
ll! ll{! | |||
i :i. | |||
i O | |||
Tj l i ' - | |||
O :.m - | |||
I ; '.: ' '. : i , | |||
1, ; !! ; l; : . | |||
. i;i. l . | |||
'- i' i I ; i | |||
} | |||
i a il . $ J . | |||
f l | |||
', h . l! l l I | |||
i' ! ! 4 2 4 6 8 2 4 6 8 10.0 2 4 6 8 3;g | |||
* 01 .O FREQUENCY CPS m > g, DIAPIDIAGI SIAB LamiCar _h Kwu 306 ASYhM. | |||
nee, sus * ,m n ,gm 702'-1* | |||
Sunest MEE.Mt.SM.85 REV. 6, 4/82 SUSQUEMANNA STEAJ1 ELECTR6C STATION UNITS 1 ANO 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT | |||
, CONTAINMENT RESPONSE SPECTRA h- KWU-CHUGGING-#306 ASYM. DIRECTION 'Z' PtOURE B-42 | |||
O . | |||
PERIOD.* *C. | |||
10.0 8.0 as act Iia 6 6 6 6 a i 4i ie i 6 4 6 4 iie a i a 4 . i a | |||
: 3. 0 l l 8 8 l l I ! li I l l l | |||
? | |||
* i e ! t ! ii 48~ . . , j i | |||
9 l | |||
i i j !l l | |||
i . | |||
e'5 , . | |||
I li . s I, s . , . ..i : i . | |||
N t i I l l | |||
i i o {.. t i.;. . | |||
. I' i! | |||
i ' | |||
i l I! | |||
l i'i | |||
'l ! [' | |||
I.) . | |||
M, ' | |||
* g; f ! ! l l lI ' Ill ll i | |||
: l. .Ij g i 1 :, ! | |||
! i - | |||
I i t i !;- i i | |||
f~ 1: 1 O i | |||
- t | |||
! i : | |||
u .. | |||
i !; ii llIl 1 ; | |||
J . | |||
.jj. | |||
la j | |||
i i ..iu i iu j i,. : | |||
7.- | |||
i i , | |||
, ! ! i | |||
'08 2 4 6 8 1.0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 goo FREQUEf4CY CPS hh Space ter CONTAT19qyT meett Land Cam: " KWJ 314 C.O. | |||
gm 13s m , ,b 8''' a* | |||
Auseby OJEE,841,83,$3 | |||
/ | |||
REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT CONTAINMENT RESPONSE SPECTRA KWU-COND. OSCIL.-4314 | |||
. u DIRECTION 'Y' PlGURE B-4 3 | |||
/ | |||
U PERIOD.'rC. | |||
10 0 n.o os c on - | |||
siiie i ii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i i 1.10 l | |||
n.n ' | |||
i i ll i | |||
1 iii l l ' , | |||
liiiii i a | |||
'' i . co 2 | |||
. ! ll i ll 11 1 | |||
I l I !!i l? I 8 l gl, . | |||
' I l | |||
if .I ! ! l l l l L , ,. . , i il i i i i i i . | |||
i .. | |||
iil | |||
.i l'[ f( ' | |||
! I ! ! | |||
l!f. | |||
, , .;i; d l !;!; : ! ; i | |||
! .i'' | |||
$.50 A2 , | |||
I I I'! !I | |||
! !!! frs , I lI. | |||
i I | |||
f! ! | |||
l l | |||
O i ' ' | |||
t6 i ! | |||
! i h I! h/ Ai ! ll l l | |||
l'l ! | |||
! ! !p@ | |||
X | |||
' L!' | |||
ll i :. yl | |||
, .. ! I I !!l I l l i l lllll | |||
"*~.3 0 2 4 6 a to 2 4 6 8 30 0 2 4 6 8 gg FREQUENCY-CP3 Asutussism Spesse ter . MME W Cam - | |||
KW 314 C.O. | |||
m 215 m a , gg,, 702'-3" W SM. Sal.EEB REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT D | |||
(V. CONTAINMENT RESPONSE SPECTRA KWU-COND. OSCIL.-4314 DIRECTION 'Z' FIOURE B-44 | |||
O PERCC ' *C. | |||
84 0 to 08 0 05 i.so 1 I lli 1'i j i! | |||
i .i | |||
. .i l.i'i 1.25 , | |||
i, Il l i ,' , - | |||
i! | |||
l.,I i > | |||
l . 4 iI | |||
: i. i..!!' . . | |||
i | |||
, i ,! i l l 1 i : | |||
d' " '- i i ! i : ; I ! i i; ; | |||
I 5 : ; ,: - | |||
- , . i. l 1 | |||
3 | |||
. l | |||
,li ! | |||
i i iii i ! | |||
i i | |||
c- '. - | |||
: i. , ,ii.; | |||
v | |||
! I g | |||
= , | |||
i | |||
.:.l. . l | |||
:. ; I , . | |||
l i | |||
il | |||
!t i - | |||
U r:. c | |||
! i . | |||
' i '. j l , | |||
l lI' i. | |||
I I | |||
I ui : i | |||
..ll l i;i I ; | |||
O | |||
~ | |||
. i | |||
:r l ;. | |||
; i ::. ; - | |||
i : . i : , | |||
'i i! i: d[ , [_\ | |||
I ! ! l !l .i | |||
:n | |||
. ;8y v | |||
.: s , . | |||
, !l4!i l | |||
! l I | |||
i V . | |||
1 i i ! l . : . | |||
c.:: | |||
! ! .!l l .l l' | |||
! l O. 3 2 4 e ' a 3o 2 4 e a goo 2 4 6 4 3o; FREQUENCY CPS mp, CONTA110ENT SEELL wg- - | |||
KWU 314 C.O. | |||
m 415 gg,,,g,, s_, 778' 3/4" Busolue W.881.8M.05 - | |||
REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 i | |||
DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT | |||
! O l | |||
V' CONTAINMENT RESPONSE SPECTRA l | |||
l KWU-CONL. OSCIL.-#314 l DIRECTION 'Z' FlouRE B-45 l | |||
O PERIOD tEC. | |||
sao n.o as 00: | |||
566 8 4 4 4 4 e ciea e 6 4 6 64 ie 4 i . . a 8.50 l | |||
8 23 i l | |||
i n | |||
i ; | |||
ll j. | |||
l l l; l | |||
i-I | |||
!lil.l t | |||
!4 l I 1 ; I ' , i I | |||
= | |||
y , g. | |||
' i ; | |||
* . t l | |||
'1l. . | |||
I i a t M i I . j i6 l 6 l-e g | |||
i ij;! j j j' j : | |||
1i'' | |||
l | |||
* ! i 1 , . | |||
I i l'I i I' | |||
. I i l 1' l ,:: | |||
i | |||
! l l. | |||
* l l I e { ' | |||
. I !' l j kl ' | |||
i . | |||
u lt | |||
.ll' l ;- i I ; ,! l , . | |||
I 8 ' j Ii . | |||
i I ; 8 i ;' \! | |||
W , | |||
1 l t ! l , I i a l | |||
' l' y i . ; ! ' | |||
'. l I 3 I : | |||
~ I ,f | |||
! :/ | |||
' !8 O g | |||
. t. l. | |||
1 l | |||
: l. I a, | |||
/ | |||
I I | |||
g I | |||
i, !l i | |||
* l f j - | |||
t j l'*!8 | |||
. j i { | |||
. Ii ! . t I j .3 | |||
!ni : | |||
i | |||
, i x - | |||
i | |||
. !ii.ti.' | |||
! i I ~ | |||
l ' ll i j l | |||
~ ~~ | |||
l i l | |||
; l l l i I I l!l 01 2 4 6 8 10 2 4 6 C 10.0 2 4 6 5 goo FREQUENCY CPS Ammanuses sysses ear NN ww _ ^ -- KWU 314 C.O. | |||
m 535 gg,,,g,, s _ g,,729' 3/4" Bemeks: SEE,SM.88.85 REV. 6, 4/82 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT p- CONTAINMENT RESPONSE SPECTRA V KWU-COND. OSCIL.-f314 DIRECTION 'Z' FIGURE B-46 L | |||
O PERIOO.SFC. | |||
DEO 10 01 0 03 3.0 l. | |||
l 'l | |||
. 5 i , , i J.: ' ' | |||
i . | |||
.i , i i .i .. | |||
e l t ; - i ! | |||
! e i . . | |||
g 8 g | |||
=2.3 85 l' ' | |||
l l i I L ! ! l | |||
; l.j . | |||
1 i i | |||
: h. Ih.,ll II l | |||
.'.!j | |||
- i , | |||
a i ,.i i II.I : | |||
r | |||
. . , i.- | |||
3 w :.s . | |||
i U | |||
l l !!,;{li ' ' ' | |||
*4 i ,n ' | |||
3 l | |||
i i | |||
;t | |||
. i:;.., | |||
i e | |||
\\\- | |||
_ , , . ( ii' '. I i | |||
i il ,. | |||
e. | |||
: o. i..- | |||
i i , , i i | |||
: ;, j .,. rh.. : . i | |||
!'! ii!o p i l : | |||
! I!;.. ., | |||
- ny . | |||
. . i..- | |||
O .. | |||
~ | |||
! N! ! i l:!li : | |||
: !''i i ! !;i!; | |||
/l'/! | |||
l i ' :: | |||
/ , | |||
i 6 l 'I ; % l ' | |||
. I ! . . . ! ! - i . . | |||
I i i | |||
: i. I ! I | |||
. , i : | |||
01 2 4 6 8 to 2 A 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 3 goo FREQUENCY. CPS m%g _ coerTAIMMEIFF SEELL KWU 314 C 0- | |||
^ | |||
Land Cam: " | |||
gag, 131 m a p 672'-0* | |||
Sursaw taE.llat. tat,sm l | |||
REV. 6, 4/82 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT 1 | |||
! CONTAINMENT RESPONSE SPECTRA lO l | |||
l xwo-cono oscrt -+314 DIRECTION 'X' neure B-4 7 | |||
i i | |||
O PERCD 10 0 to on oo 3.10 . _ | |||
l l ! I I l l l l 1 | |||
1 i i i I l l ll ll I ll I li lil l l e !;.. | |||
ie l} | |||
l l Iii I l * ' | |||
i . t l i | |||
' li l l , | |||
l l ll-l l : | |||
! , lll l 1 lli 'I 8 l l I l . . | |||
= | |||
al.00 | |||
; I I | |||
. i il , i; i! !,) .,li. | |||
l I 1 l lI s l 6. | |||
e-l.'l | |||
' 'e -; | |||
i ; | |||
l l | |||
l l | |||
l e | |||
3 l | |||
,! i i' g . | |||
' !r; | |||
$ , ,, I i - | |||
'l-l' 0-''- , | |||
M 3 | |||
'f,1 Y | |||
* a . 's * . ! | |||
l n1 re. e | |||
= | |||
m . | |||
t , .g ; | |||
* i I. . | |||
I ' ' | |||
i . | |||
.lt -i9 a | |||
:.n | |||
. ,( . | |||
I | |||
- i - | |||
i y; ; | |||
e.:: i 01 2 4 6 8 10 2 4 6 2 4 6 3 goo 8 10 0 FREQUENCY-CPS Asamestion Spesos ter emer17wurw twwt t-Lass Cas: " | |||
^ | |||
KWU 314 C 0-asse, 411 _m a ,gs,77a* - e- va. | |||
Demoks:SA55.881.Sm.85 REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT (j~' | |||
" "'^'"*""' """" """ """''"^ | |||
KWU-COND. OSCIL.-4314 DIRECTION 'X' PlGURE B-48 ! | |||
I | |||
O PERIOD **f'. | |||
as 0 01 10 0 to 4 | |||
I& 6 i 4 6 4 6 .4 i 6 4 6 4 66 a 4 . | |||
I.1!iji l | |||
Il I-l ..l 4 . l - | |||
- 1 i . | |||
.i i i! . | |||
I , | |||
gi h!l . .. | |||
) ' | |||
. t I ll i I l e t.a , | |||
8 t l I '* s l . j. 1 t l , | |||
i e i ., | |||
i . a t ! l l | |||
!*jsi! | |||
Ijjlll.! l l8 l | |||
* s I | |||
' g l | |||
.i | |||
~ | |||
!- it; i | |||
t a . ; | |||
w e | |||
*i . :: | |||
I , | |||
N , | |||
I ifa | |||
'l - | |||
x | |||
* 1. | |||
w , 7,. | |||
8 i | |||
' i t . | |||
J , ' *' ; e i . | |||
g ' | |||
. t . | |||
G. | |||
w ,, e ie e e | |||
* O E '~ j e . . . ! ; | |||
V , | |||
4 . ; . . , | |||
. i | |||
*R. ,, | |||
, l a f. | |||
^- | |||
^- | |||
o: : 4 a e ac 2 e a a to o 2 e a a too FREQUENCY. CPS | |||
-''at h Susseslur -- | |||
W Car " | |||
^ | |||
KWU 314 C 0-mes, 531 m a ,gis,729 ' 3/4" Sumeise: 8A88.821.8.AR.8JB REV. 6, 4/82 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT CONTAINMENT RESPONSE SPECTRA E KWU-COND. OSCIL. -# 314 DIRECTION 'X' FIGURE B-4 9 | |||
O PERT 0D o og 10 0 to on | |||
,6 a 6 6 ee 6 . , 46 6 , | |||
il 6 6 6 6 6 4 8.10 , | |||
' 3 l I l | |||
' ' ! ] | |||
I i , | |||
I I II,li i l | |||
I | |||
, ( | |||
i - | |||
g,;$ | |||
, ! IiI | |||
,iIl' t | |||
s llt I ' ll Il ls e | |||
l l i j | |||
! ' i i i ! | |||
1 l 1 I ' l; ; i 8 | |||
I I !' ', , : | |||
I - , | |||
!!.li -l'.l, ~ * ' | |||
I | |||
+ | |||
i , ll!.! '. , | |||
";, ,,,3 il l t' i l | |||
. ..I , | |||
' i f I ; i;,j *, I ; | |||
9 I ! | |||
. , i: | |||
I'l - | |||
l i j , . 1. ! , 1 l, < | |||
. ; t . . . | |||
g i i; ' | |||
t l t .!, | |||
w , | |||
i i6 , 1 l ' | |||
O l - | |||
* G , * * ' . ii s | |||
!i l..;;; | |||
k | |||
*~ g . | |||
e i ; | |||
' - { I i* ' | |||
t; . i | |||
. , . . .\ | |||
gg,,g ' . | |||
t' g | |||
O .l. )s. | |||
j ; | |||
l-tN. | |||
7 ,s . . | |||
.. 25 | |||
. ,)\/ | |||
( ' | |||
. . . A g g gg g 2 4 g g loo 2 | |||
''~~.1o 2 4 4 8 go FREQUENCY CPS anne, g,,,,, g DIAPERAGM SLAB Land Cas: " | |||
IWU 314 COO. | |||
see, m* Seussen u , gin, 702'-3* | |||
W Smi.Est.Sm.8m REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT CONTAINMENT RESPONSE SPECTRA KWU-COND. OSCIL.-4314 I \. 'Z' DIRECTION FlounE B-50 | |||
P!RIDD 5EL. | |||
j so s i.e o.: e.ot iiii e i i i e i.... . . . . i.ii i a i i i 0.10 s | |||
0.25 Y | |||
E | |||
* 0.20 i | |||
E T1 5 | |||
a ~ | |||
U 0.15 s | |||
II E | |||
O , | |||
A 0.80 0.05 V | |||
0.00 i ll l l l 2 g s g 0.3 S g,o 2 w 3 10.0 2 4 6 e ggg | |||
'R E 0ll[NC T -C P $ | |||
Asselsretsee 3, esse fe, CONTAINMENT SHELL gm Seismic Slosh g | |||
liede . Disecties x , Eis, 672'-0" se-eme: a.ans.Lat.ast,s.es REV. 6, 4/82 SUSQUEHANNA STEADA ELECTRIC STATH3N UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT bD CONTAINMENT RESPONSE SPECTRA SEISMIC SLOSHING DIRECTION 'X' pHsumE B-51 | |||
PERIDO SEC. | |||
so o ee s. o si 8 3 I I 3 I i 6 16 ' 6 Y a i s 3 6 ' 6 8 4 # 4 5 g i 0.30 . , | |||
0.J5 u | |||
d | |||
= 0.20 --- _ __. . __ | |||
E 3 | |||
0 0.15 s | |||
W m | |||
U eu A 0.13 0.05 0 | |||
0.00 0.1 2 4 6 s 1.0 2 4 5 9 10.0 2 4 5 8 100 FREQUCNCT-CPS CO,NTAINMENT SHELL | |||
%,,, g t w w . h "---- , Seismic Slosh 135 X 672'-0" Nede . Directses , Eh se=*=e: teos.tet.ast,s,es 1 | |||
i REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEMAN 4A STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT l | |||
CONTAINMENT RESPONSE SPECTRA | |||
==zsazc stosn1=a O DIRECTION 'X' PupuRE B-52 | |||
\ | |||
PEN!DD.$[C, | |||
, 3, le o e o' ,,, | |||
Is6 a a e a a 4 eei. i i i | |||
: 0. M 0.25 a | |||
b | |||
* 0.20 E - | |||
ac U | |||
U 0.15 a | |||
at 8f u | |||
w | |||
& D.iG . | |||
OU 0.05 V | |||
~ | |||
) - | |||
u - | |||
c N E Ng 0.00 * | |||
* 8 2 ,4 % 5 2 4 6 e 100 01 I 1.0 10.0 FREQUENCT-LPS g, g CONTAINHENT SHT1.L g | |||
g g g-<-- Seismic Slosh m 411 . htm X , gg 778'- 9-3/4" tempag: 0.005. 0.81,3R. 8.85 l | |||
REV. 6, 4/82 | |||
$USOUENANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT | |||
~' CONTAINMENT RESPONSE SPECTRA SEISMIC SLOSHING f (( DIRECTION 'X' i | |||
( PleURE B-53 l | |||
b V ~ | |||
*!R100 5EC. | |||
: o. e.on 10 9 io i 4 | |||
e ie 6 6 6 4 4 8 6! 4 1 4 4 4 6 33 8 I 4 4 8 8 0.25 Y | |||
E 0.20 i | |||
E E | |||
l' y D.is a | |||
Y E | |||
u Ea 0.i0 0.05 , | |||
-~ | |||
3 6 8 2 4 6 s 0.00 2 4 6 0 2 4 10.0 100 | |||
: 0. 3 1.0 FREQUENCY-CP5 NN Asamisesties Soestre les g g.i Seismic Slosh 531 X 729'-9-3/4" , | |||
m ,ww , gg,, | |||
Osmens: 4815. MI, W . M REV. 6, 4/82 l | |||
SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DEStGN ASSESSMENT REPORT CONTAINMENT RESPONSE SPECTRA SEISMIC SLOSHING DIRECTION 'X' FlouRE B-54 | |||
PERIOD SEC. | |||
v | |||
) eo o.i 8 88 so.o i e i | |||
.,ie i i i i iii - i , e i iiie ii i 0.30 0.25 Y | |||
E 0.20 - | |||
i E | |||
E 5 | |||
5 0.is 2 | |||
s 2' | |||
h 0.10 s 0.0s . | |||
3 , | |||
s i | |||
~ | |||
se 3g g , | |||
2 4 6 e 2 4 5 6 100 0.00 ,,, 2 4 6 e 1.0 10.0 FRE00 elect-CP5 Aemmisestise Speste les Seismic Slosh Lead Cass: t_. 702'-3" g 215 ,w, E | |||
, Eise Domesse 8A05.8A1.132.8A5 REV. 6, 4/82 l | |||
SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT l | |||
l CONTAINMENT RESPONSE SPECTRA szzsazc stosazuo I | |||
O' DIRECTION 'Z' piouRE B-55 | |||
PCRl00.stC. | |||
10.0 s *J e.t 0.01 11 ei 6 I 6 5 4 it i i ' 6 3 4 3 41 ei i i e i i I 0.30 l | |||
0.25 Y | |||
0.20 i | |||
2 E | |||
O a | |||
U 0.15 d | |||
E 5 | |||
h 0.i0 0.05 | |||
'% d 2 4 6 8 2 4 6 0 2 4 6 6 | |||
: 0. 5 1.0 10.0 300 FREDUCNCY-CP$ | |||
Asamieresies Spesse fe, CONTAIltMDIT SNELL w w . 5 - '---- Seismic slosh | |||
, ,415 ,% z ,m 77s'- 9-3/4" ses,me: tags.est.am.tas REV. 6, 4/82 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT CONTAINMENT RESPONSE SPECTRA p) s , | |||
SEISMIC SLOSHING DIRECTION 'Z' pleung B-56 | |||
I | |||
(~N PER100 5EC. | |||
oe 0.01 10.0 to ei6 a a i a e i 8 Ii4 I I t i 6 6 s a1 4 i e i e 4 0.10 l | |||
i l | |||
0.2, u | |||
0.20 E | |||
E E | |||
h 0.15 W | |||
i E | |||
i h 0.10 i | |||
0.05 i | |||
4 4 8 2 4 6 6 300 2 4 6 8 1.0 2 10.0 0.1 FREQUENCY-CPS Assaisretase Spaces les PEDESTAL Seismic Slosh w w. _ | |||
gode $35 ,% 2 , ge,, 729'-9-3/4" Sempes: ME,M1,W.W REV. 6, 4/82 SUSQUENANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT CONTAINMENT RESPONSE SPECTRA i p SEISMIC SLOSHING | |||
; 'd DIRECTION 'Z' peauRE B-57 l | |||
PLRggD.$[C, le.o 3.e ii, , , , , | |||
88 8 8 8 I 3 1 8 63 3 4 i e # 4 3 e 0.25 u | |||
A | |||
= 0.20 2 | |||
2 M | |||
5 a | |||
y 0.35 e | |||
II 2 | |||
A O.30 0.05 ' | |||
Ca I ie i i O. 00 -- | |||
4 6 e 2 4 6 e 2 4 6 8 O.1 2 1.0 10.0 100 FREQUENCT-CPS Asseieresies 3,mene des nTApunAnw MTan gg w. _ - * .Seissic Slosh 252 I h 702'-3" Beds , | |||
W a ass,ast,a m ,tas REV. 6, 4/82 I | |||
SUSOUEMANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT CONTAINMENT RESPONSE SPECTRA O SEISMIC SLOSHING U DIRECTION 'Z' Pioung B-58 l | |||
3 APPENDIX C REACTOR BUILDING RESPONSE SPECTRA DUE TO LOCA AND SRV I | |||
i O | |||
l l | |||
I O Rev. 3, 7/80 C-1 L . | |||
APPENDII C E199REE Enber C-1 Title Model for Reactor Building Response Spectra, North-30uth g | |||
C-2 Model for Reactor Building Response S pectra, Ea st- W est C-3 Model for Reactor Buildiuq C-4 Reactor Building Response Spectra-KWU SRV thru Vertical Direction C-20 C-21 Reactor Building Response Spectra-KWU SRV thru East-West Direction C-37 C-38 Reactor Building Response Spectra-KWU LOCA thru Vertical Direction 6 | |||
C-54 C-55 Reactor Building Response Spectra-KWU LOCA i thru East-West Direction C-71 C-72 Reactor Building Response Spectra-KWU LOCA thru North-South Direction C-87 lll l C-88 Reactor Building Response Spectra-KWU SRV thru North-South Direction | |||
! C-103 l | |||
l l | |||
C-2 O | |||
REV. 6, 4/82 | |||
APPENDII C l | |||
REAGI9E_BEff9!Sg_sgzsiga DUE_Ig_LggA_13p_Sgv This appendix shows the reactor building models and examples of O the horizontal and vertical response spectra curves of the reactor building due to LOCA and SRY loading. Four spectral damping values (i . e . 0. 005, 0. 01, 0.02 and 0.05) are shown on each group of curves. | |||
The mathematical models of the reactor building are shown in Piqures C-1, C-2 and C-3. The broadened acceleration response spectra shown in C-4 to C-103 are submitted as representative examples of the reactor building structure response spectra. 3 These response spectra are also taken at critical locations of the reactor building structure. The loads under consideration are SRV and LOCA. | |||
The SRV load (generated by KWU) consists of 3 traces and each trace consists of 5 frequencies. The asymmetric and axisynsetric load cases are considered. They are generated in the North-South, East-West and Vertical directions. | |||
The LOCA load case consists of chuqqing and condensation oscillation loads. Each of the chuqqing and condensation oscillation loads contain 3 f requencies. Axisymmetric load cases are considered for both chuqqing and CO, while the asymmetric 6 load is only considered for chuqqing. The response spectra are generated in the North-South, East-West and Vertical directions from an envelope of the chuqqing and C0 spectra. They are also | |||
' () broadened by 115% at peak frequencies to account for uncertainties in the modelling and material properties. | |||
O C-3 REV. 6, 4/82 | |||
l PERIOO. | |||
* so o .t o on oft siai e i i a i sisa i i i e 1.50 isai ii . . 1 l ' ' | |||
I ! I'll i l .' i i l l . I ': | |||
8.25 ---- - - - - - --l-------I- - --I t .e* | |||
= I i jl.00 --- - - - --- | |||
i l | |||
j ,- ,-l -p I o I., | |||
n l!'l'i i | |||
do.75 - -- - - - - | |||
F- - -l-M,'- | |||
u - -- | |||
N j ) | |||
.,o l | |||
a l a | |||
go.50 -- --- --- | |||
O g,yg _, - . . __.._. . | |||
1 | |||
) - ca ; | |||
'' " o n s ' | |||
l i y. | |||
a 4 s a no a 4 "r in o ? 8 6 ces FREQtif f t :Y . CPS pi,,,_]yl-1 m io,,,,,l., REACTOR & CONTR01. BlDGS. | |||
w c.,: - SRV u - | |||
m EBL.,si,, 670'-0" n=*r sms.888.am.sm REV. 6, 4/82 SUSQUEMANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION tJNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT REACTOR / CONTROL BUILDING RESPONSE SPECTRA 3 i | |||
KWU-SRV d FIGURE C'f | |||
i O | |||
PERIOr De e to os o ns saie i i i a i ase a a i a isae ia a i i 1.at -- | |||
as e j l.00 -- | |||
I e | |||
k c | |||
g.. ....___ __ | |||
r' O I a.as . | |||
r7 rl N ' | |||
l l l!, | |||
'* "o g a ~4 s' e no a "4 M a go o E 4 6 e too 9REQiatN:.'Y Cr?. | |||
rg BV2-3 4 m w.as s., REACTOR 1 CONTROL BLDGS. | |||
Land can: samamehamns . tW ises. - | |||
g,enien. VERI._, m G7G'-0" emmoise: sAIE.8Al.SR.8AE i | |||
REV. 6, 4/82 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UltiTS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT REACTOR / CONTROL BUILDING RESPONSE SPECTRA l KWU-SRV FlouRE C- 5 l | |||
l | |||
l l | |||
l O~ | |||
PERIGO,-' | |||
WO 10 01 FT i i e i a 0 0L e i eiei s i i saei a 6 i I.50 6 6 ~1 8.25 -- -'-- --- ' | |||
- - = - - | |||
l js.oa .- ---- | |||
5. | |||
3 O.75 W | |||
d IE o - | |||
O.50 --- - - - - | |||
O .. .._ | |||
== | |||
J s ' ' | |||
%f | |||
---4 m -- , | |||
* ",t | |||
* g3 2 6 s | |||
4 8 10 2 4 6 P 30 0 2 4 6 8 100 FREQUt NCY CPS g By3-3 m :0=Ir s., REACTOR t CONTROL BLDGS. | |||
ww- _ | |||
'RV m - | |||
m, ii .YET._.m.,sas'-o-name=s: ems, eat.sm.sm REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION i i | |||
UNITS 1 ANO 2 i DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT REACTOR / CONTROL BUILDING RESPONSE SPECTRA KWU-SRV Im) | |||
'J FlouRE C ~6 | |||
1 l | |||
l O | |||
PERIOD me so { | |||
os o ci 3.G | |||
. . . . . .. . i 1 | |||
_7 l : | |||
' ' I. l. | |||
s.4 - | |||
.._. . . _ 1 . . | |||
. .._.)_..;._l f. lg l l iil: si. . | |||
i: : | |||
* 3,1 | |||
= | |||
J'' l ;!'i 5 | |||
i | |||
.J l.S _ | |||
g ... | |||
R O ,. , _.___ | |||
p i | |||
j EW o.o = _8 LL. | |||
el 2 4 f* s 2 4 | |||
* e se IS O | |||
* E 8 300 rntontm:v.ces SA4 ms | |||
^ | |||
s REACTOR & CONTROL BLDGS. | |||
Las ca.: SRV m,,, - | |||
m yf1T_.h 697'-0* | |||
Sumping: SABE. SAI.8AI.BJE e | |||
REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT REACTOR / CONTROL BUILDING RESPONSE SPECTRA | |||
\ | |||
p V | |||
KWU-SRV FIGURE C ~7 | |||
O | |||
* PERIOD, se o oc | |||
. . . . et | |||
. . . . . . . . . . oos l.ss tI g p. | |||
v g l.oo - - - | |||
' i l 5. | |||
1 2o.ts .- | |||
# r b | |||
go.so = | |||
I r | |||
[g 0 e.ss - -- : | |||
' " .i- - , -.- -, | |||
wi$ | |||
g f | |||
![. l | |||
. e,, . . ' . g, , -< | |||
-- , Aj ,3 , ,;, , | |||
FMQUtf4C1r CPS | |||
,g BV5-3 mm,, w REACTOR & CONTROL BLDGS. | |||
Law can: -__ | |||
SRV low. - | |||
owd.a.YERL ri N-0" om uns.nl.em.us REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUENANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 ANO 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT REACTOR / CONTROL BUILDING RESPONSE SPECTRA KWU-SRV FlouRE C- '8 | |||
etmou Of 00, N0 le ni.. i i . i..... . . . . . .. . . . i S.M l.a = | |||
? | |||
48.co , | |||
h Ea.n - - --- - | |||
U tG r-- , | |||
(0.50 em F-~ ) | |||
p O e.n - | |||
p m. | |||
L r | |||
, p. , | |||
1 m I 5 | |||
a.=,, , . . . , , , , ". ..,,,---- . -E ,:. | |||
~ | |||
rntouue:i.ces | |||
,g BV6-3 m s,,,,, ,, | |||
REACTOR & CONTROL BLDGS, t scan: w SRV w - | |||
m 3ERI_, m 719'-1" e m sms.est,em.ess REV. 6, 4/82 SUSQUENANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT REACTOR /CONTROIr BUILDING RESPONSE SPECTRA i | |||
p KWU-SRV ; | |||
V FIGURE C- 9 , | |||
l | |||
l l | |||
O emos. | |||
ne o ao et 0 01 | |||
. . . . . , i i . .ii i i i ...i. .ie i | |||
.w - -- | |||
i., . .J-.. .. .. --- | |||
l l :. i ll 8 | |||
1 | |||
'i Ie . | |||
1 se y,.ee .... ... __ _ ... ----.a--....'.L.l. , | |||
sl- | |||
~ | |||
n i,, e. n . | |||
7 > | |||
k tG m r . | |||
g o.w o | |||
) ._ - | |||
I O e.n , x i | |||
/ | |||
# -k~"j- | |||
,, , . . . , , . r - t '. ,, , - ,- . . . , | |||
FRECtRNCY CPS pg BV7-3 w w s.,,,,s., REACTOR & CONTROL BLDGS. | |||
ta,s c= _"- RRV m - | |||
m .YEBI .e., 77A'-n* | |||
o m sass.est.s m.sss REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT | |||
, REACTOR / CONTROL BUILDING RESPONSE SPECTRA V;- KWU-SRV Plount C-10 | |||
1 | |||
.1 | |||
- 1 O . | |||
Pt.ReoO | |||
* mo to on o os i .. . i i i iiiii i i . iiiiii i i i i s.so - | |||
l.2s -- - --- | |||
i. | |||
js.co i | |||
9 e-if he.is v | |||
k u | |||
go.se - - - - -. -- | |||
s.:s | |||
). ,p=M s --- | |||
z -- | |||
u . . . io a < s a wo a Ag e a e | |||
,c,, | |||
FREQtKM:V CPS i | |||
NE. m senere se, REACTOR & CatlTROL RMS, ww- sPv i mes. - | |||
meumen.YR I.,tw 7 W -l" Duneins SAet.SA1.82.tum REV. 6, 4/82 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UN1Y$ 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT REACTOR / CONTROL EUILDING RESPONSE SPECTRA KWU-SRV PlouRt C 11 2- | |||
) | |||
W | |||
~ | |||
,s a | |||
O. | |||
~- PERIOD | |||
- 88 8 to os o os asii e i. . . . iiiii . . . ii.ii i i . . i i.so i.as __ ._ ,_ | |||
t I | |||
r. | |||
1.00 , | |||
6 | |||
~ | |||
bo.ts --- | |||
W E | |||
u. | |||
go.so N w | |||
: o. s -. -- __ __ | |||
f | |||
- , / | |||
) **. .. | |||
a.oo | |||
~2 Os 2 4 s 8 to 2 4 h a so o 4 6 e gg 5 REQUEIM:Y CPS 74 IV9-3 A w en w w REACTOR & CONTROL BLDGS. | |||
L d ca.: - - SRV m s. - | |||
m _yEBI.,gw 753'-0" O mome:uns,est,em.sss P | |||
REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEMANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT r | |||
REACTOR / CONTROL BUILDING RESPONSE SPECTRA | |||
, , KWU-SRV s | |||
- - PiouRE C- 12 l'g' s, j | |||
a'' . , 's + | |||
t i <. | |||
.s 44 j., | |||
1 -5 7 " | |||
l f | |||
-. s - . . , __ _ | |||
4 O | |||
PERIOD mo to on c ol gi aa e e a i i Isa4 4 6 a e 4 44 e6 6 a 4 i a l.Se s- ~ | |||
i.n ..._ . | |||
ys.co i | |||
h ~- . , . | |||
E o.n y | |||
h l l | |||
l W 0.SO f | |||
( ; e.a = | |||
I | |||
/ % _.___ | |||
0.00 ' -- ~* ~ | |||
gg 2 4 8 f IO 2 4 r. > go O 2 4 6 . gog rat 0HfMCY CP3 pg BV10-3 wwsessosI., REACTOR 1 CONTROL RIMS, Less cess: *-__ - - - ERV mem - | |||
Obeni .YERI_,ew m 'a= | |||
comeine:eJes.est,ast.IAe REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUENANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT REACTOR / CONTROL BUILDING RESPONSE SPECTRA KWU-SRV FIGURE C 13 | |||
O PERIOD 10 0 "s 0 | |||
... . i i i . 01 s.so i | |||
i..... . . 0 03 | |||
. . . . . . .. . i a.as - _ , | |||
es ji.co - | |||
b E | |||
has W | |||
4 E | |||
o go.so --- --- --.- - | |||
f" - | |||
~ , | |||
. F Q o.as - c'D k o.no,, | |||
$m,_s,- | |||
= | |||
. y% | |||
:g.-j ., | |||
FRCQUCNC f 4PS | |||
: g. BV11-3 ms,,,,,,, _ REACTOR 1 CGITROL BLDGS, tm- SRV m - | |||
mesi VERI ,Saw W -l* | |||
Omuqme: SAIS, SJf.822,SAS REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT REACTOR / CONTROL BUILDING RESPONSE SPECTRA N, KWU-SRV | |||
( FIGURE C- 14 l | |||
O PER80t' i 30 0 't o os p o' seai a e a i s aei e i a i e i ai.6 .~T i 1 3*98 | |||
-j s , g g i - | |||
'I 1.J5 I | |||
i1 1 p +-- 1 i | |||
gl.se - -= -- | |||
I | |||
.,c.75 N \ | |||
} | |||
d e | |||
ra n | |||
a - - - - --; - - | |||
0.25 --. | |||
.1 | |||
/ % | |||
..., . . . . ;. . M%.'L. ... --4 | |||
. .-+._ . | |||
ITt[QWPtCY CPS g BV12-3 m e ,,,, s., RFACTOR 1 CONTRnl RI M t, | |||
. W Case: EEV m - % _jlEEI n,, 7RV -n* | |||
namoing: ems,s.el,em,eAs REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT REACTOR / CONTROL BUILDING RESPONSE SPECTRA KWU-SRV FIGURE c- 15 | |||
-O | |||
O PERIOD | |||
.00 50 i3 as ! e i e os n ot a aeI ia i 1 , e iia 4 .- i e i a | |||
' ',l I | |||
.as p .. -- | |||
- _. J _d_ _ . | |||
I i I l | |||
k as lI | |||
. m. | |||
5. | |||
k i.s O.75 W | |||
g 7 s | |||
70.50 - | |||
en I | |||
( e.as r-, | |||
r m gl - | |||
l I_,.-_ | |||
%__ _j - | |||
' '' o i , . . . , , . | |||
"j l 2 . . . , , , , . . r,o, FF'CQtlFNQ Cr3 | |||
: q. RV13-3 ms.,,,,,w REACTOR 1 CONTROL RIDGS. | |||
t sc RRV aims. - | |||
caressi _YEEL,sw 700'-1" - | |||
W sJes,eJ1.est.sms l | |||
REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEMANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT REACTOR / CONTROL BUILDING RESPONSE SPECTRA l | |||
KWU-SRV FIGURE C 16 n | |||
v | |||
l l | |||
38 0 PLRICO s 40 5eai e i 4 6 I ,_ 0.1 1.58 a4 # 4 a i I e 4 0 01 | |||
- t6 ei a a e e s I | |||
l.M -- . | |||
3 .. . | |||
ri , q__,a . | |||
5 I 5 | |||
i,4 0. ?S - | |||
a u | |||
Es.Se | |||
\ | |||
o ... | |||
r - | |||
k | |||
/ | |||
l s | |||
% e<_ | |||
a., , | |||
. , ,, 26 l r" #. ~ . ,. . - - r- = . , ,,, | |||
FI1EOUENCY.CP3 g BVlti-3 ms, e., REACTOR 1 CONTR01 BIDGS, wc _- SRV is.d. - | |||
eb.esi E RI..si., n '-n= | |||
3.mping: SABE, BAI,RAI,SAE REV. 6, 4/82 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT REACTOR / CONTROL BUILDING RESPONSE SPECTRA KWU-SRV FIGURE C- 17 | |||
j O | |||
V PEftIOD Ao to 555 5 3 i I I 3 os o es 1.5o II I 6 4 4 4 4 a6 4 I iia 6 3 | |||
* i.n | |||
- - _. 1 I f | |||
I i | |||
e jl.co a | |||
w d o.n - | |||
U at g o. = _... -- | |||
_3 O,, r-) | |||
I O - | |||
a | |||
-- = | |||
f 1' -- | |||
h , | |||
l | |||
~' | |||
ll . | |||
t EE j o.co 2 e M _J ._1 l .ulj i i at s. | |||
e :o 2 4 | |||
* 8 teu 2 a 6 e son l'It[QUEN#;Y-CP*> | |||
n,. | |||
BV15-3 wws,,n,,s., RFACTOR 1 CONTRnl RIEt_ | |||
wc -----_ av w- - | |||
% .YERI ,si.,21R'-1" m ems.est.sm.sss 1 REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT REACTOR / CONTROL BUILDING RESPONSE SPECTRA FWU-SRV PlGURE i 18 | |||
O PERIOD Me lo on o o, | |||
,, ,rri , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,, , , | |||
i.= 7_ _ | |||
gi.no -- | |||
l( | |||
: 6. / | |||
* . f L .' | |||
go.ts . | |||
4 a | |||
\ | |||
t> | |||
\ | |||
ro.so | |||
= | |||
h o.n -- --- | |||
l N I f] | |||
/ %'_ _ . | |||
/ | |||
.. I ._. j oi a a a e so a . | |||
" #. L . ... | |||
2 . . ,oo F11EQtlFilf".Y Cl4 g RV16-3 mw,,,,,, REACTOR S CONTROL BLDGS. | |||
wc . | |||
SRV m - | |||
m, e JERL.si M';' n* | |||
m ems.sm.sm,sm REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT REACTOR / CONTROL BUILDING RESPONSE SPECTRA KWU-SRV FIGURE C- 19 I (O | |||
s i | |||
O v etmou .- | |||
20 to os 09: | |||
i.. . i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | |||
i.w - | |||
i 1.N | |||
'.?. . . | |||
l l!I I | |||
= | |||
gi.= | |||
l I !ii.; | |||
5. | |||
2 | |||
- P ! | |||
d o. rs k | |||
a Q !'I U | |||
go.so __ . ._ | |||
e | |||
[ | |||
O / i i- | |||
'a., . | |||
-JP l | |||
. 1 ,, , -. | |||
l l li[ | |||
rntourwcy ce:1 | |||
.g M7-3 wws.= ires., REACTOR 1 CMTROL BtDGS. | |||
wc - | |||
SRV m - | |||
m & go,, R70'-0* | |||
4 m eJes,eJB1.est.eJIE REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUENANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT REACTOR / CONTROL BUILDING RESPONSE SPECTRA b | |||
KWU-SRV C- 20 | |||
]o FIGURE | |||
l 1 | |||
O we io | |||
-e . | |||
. . . . , . . . . on o oi | |||
: i. se . . . . . .. . . .. . . . | |||
. i 8.3S 4.00 5. | |||
2 f a.n. | |||
V a | |||
2 a | |||
.ts.so s.as O | |||
E44 | |||
*a., , . | |||
l | |||
: --= | |||
! ' . .k g. | |||
. i. . :- | |||
FREQUENC ( CNi | |||
_ w3.,,w,,,, _ _ REACTOR I CONTROL BLDGS. | |||
t ,4 c -- SRV ~ | |||
mess - | |||
os .E-iL..si., 596'-0" anseine: eses est.ent.s.es i | |||
l REV. 6, 4/82 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT REACTOR / CONTROL BUILDING i RESPONSE SPECTRA i | |||
KWU-SRV l FIGURE C- 21 O | |||
1 l | |||
O remoo. | |||
to at n ot Je . . . .. ,, . , | |||
i... . . . . . . . . . . . | |||
i.se | |||
: i. 2s - | |||
as 1.o. | |||
6. | |||
2 go.ts W | |||
13 . | |||
ro.so | |||
.a n | |||
k s.2s ' | |||
i 7-- | |||
W s& % | |||
f | |||
''" ai : . e e i.. . | |||
. . .. .- '.7 . to. | |||
FREQUENCY CPS g BE2-3 m%,,, REACTOR & CONTROL BLDGS. | |||
t d c.=: - SRV n se messen. M,sw 670'-0" w em. ens,en.en REV. 6, 4/82 1 | |||
SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT l | |||
REACTOR / CONTROL BUILDING RESPONSE SPECTRA KWU-SRV p | |||
v' FIGURE c. 22 i | |||
Ptnsoo. | |||
Me O 10 0.1 c on | |||
: : : i i i i e siis ii i i i sisi e i e i i i 1.se s.M .. . | |||
l i | |||
e 5.00 -- | |||
5. | |||
I w | |||
6.ts -_-_ | |||
E a | |||
re.no n | |||
t e.n ..--. | |||
e-m | |||
''" ai a 4 e e so a e 's ' hf3 o a 4 s s in, FREQUEfK.Y CI'S Fig. RF1-1 4,,,,,, miens ecir.e. RFArTnR t rfWTRnl Al nr1 Lead Case f .- - - CDV sende om .J.-M .Em 676*-8" anneks: SADE.SA1.Sm.BA5 REV. 6, 4/82 SUSQUEMANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT REACTOR / CONTROL BUILDING RESPONSE SPECTRA KWU-SRV F10URE C- 23 t | |||
I l | |||
l l | |||
O remoo to os a os aae | |||
...ii , . . . iii.. i i . __ . . . . . i i . i n.se I.N | |||
= . | |||
= -- | |||
hs.oo I1 go.n W | |||
N u | |||
0.50 F | |||
O ..- dm | |||
~ a I | |||
JT$-f | |||
~ | |||
n -" | |||
TT FREQUEftCY CPS pi,, RFQ Aasieressenseawe w REACTOR 1 CONTROL BLDGS. | |||
Land cs=: *_ RRV mede - Deression .f.::M.,_.Else . KA3'-0" Dumpkg:sJet.8A1.e m .8AE REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEMAND:A STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT REACTOR / CONTROL BUILDING RESPONSE SPECTRA KWU-SRV h | |||
a FIGURE c- 24 ; | |||
l | |||
} | |||
O oo .. - | |||
,o . | |||
,,,r>>> > > < i i ii. . , . , *, ' ' , , , , , , , , | |||
''8 l | |||
.n l l | |||
= | |||
go.oo Y | |||
b go.v ft 5 | |||
u go.m O | |||
s.n e.no '- 3M ai = * | |||
* =i. > . | |||
"AI , | |||
j$6 F.EQUENCV.QPs Fis. E-3 A m mi se.ne.h, REACTOR 1 C(WTROL BIE S. | |||
t e c : -- -- nv m d. - oh.s .,J.-1,,si,,647'-0* | |||
a she: sins,ast,am,em REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTABC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 1 | |||
DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT REACTOR / CONTROL BUILDING RESPONSE SPECTRA O KWU-SRV iUE c- 2s | |||
I n | |||
V Pensoo. | |||
.. i. ei . .i | |||
. .. . . . . ...ii i . . , iii.. . . . i 3.se I.M es ji.no ---- | |||
5. | |||
5: | |||
2 go.ts V | |||
a ti go.so a | |||
s.as -- -- | |||
,,,, -r ,A 4 mumm 6 on a e e e go o a e 3.o a e : e e a goo FRE00r.Nf!Y CPS | |||
,g BES-3 mes e,, REACTOR I CONTROL BLDGS. | |||
L scm /Je=samia. SRV | |||
. mas. - | |||
.ciness _E.M_.si E'-n-e moi.e:SAes,BAl,sm,em REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT REACTOR / CONTROL BUILDING RESPONSE SPECTRA KWU-SRV N | |||
V FIGURE C- 2 6 | |||
PERIOD 20 to os oo | |||
.. . . . . . . ....i i i. . . . . . . . . . i s | |||
s.n is ji.so 5. | |||
Q , , | |||
d o. ts k | |||
a O. | |||
ge.so . ___ | |||
O d | |||
a.n N ,- | |||
n | |||
, 6 )b | |||
/ w | |||
'' '' o i . . . i.e : - ~ k -' . . . . . . . . , , , | |||
FRtOUENCY CPS g E7-3 m e ., w REACTOR 1 CONTROL BLDGS. | |||
w c.,,: - Rav made Dereseen n,h 714'-1" sesoug:emIE.IAl,em,8AE REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEMANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT REACTOR / CONTROL BUILDING i RESPONSE SPECTRA KWU-SRV F10uRE C-27 | |||
^ | |||
l I | |||
i | |||
O nmoo. | |||
to on o oi me | |||
. . . . . i i i . . . i i , i ...iii i . . i 1.se | |||
: i. s is 38.00 i | |||
3 5 | |||
:.a. ,s I | |||
E u . | |||
ro.so ai 0.7s i | |||
: e. co , , , , , , , , , - ,- - ,- - f,g;- j , g , ,,, | |||
Fi1EQUCNCY. CPS ris. BE8-3 % % ,,, REACTOR t CONTROL BLDGS. | |||
ts s c = Jas w h==== SRV n.d. - | |||
se E-W .n,, 728'-0" eseph, sass,est,sm.ess , | |||
l l | |||
REV. 6, 4/82 | |||
~ | |||
SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 ANO 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT REACTOR / CONTROL BUILDING RESPONSE SPECTRA KWU-SRV O PtGURE C- 28 - | |||
e 1 O nmoo to o no on o oi | |||
.. i i i i. . iiiii . . . . . . . . . . . | |||
i.no 1.2s j i.se 5-4 5 - | |||
go.ts W | |||
o ti | |||
.ro.so | |||
~ | |||
s.2s | |||
.i a 4 e e i.o a . | |||
. e .. | |||
W . . .. | |||
FHEQUENCY CPS g aro.1 m m s., REACTOR 1 C(NTROL BLDGS. | |||
w w - -- e,RV m - | |||
m R , m 7149'-1" y m . emes.est.s m.sss i | |||
REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT REACTOR / CONTROL BUILDING RESPONSE SPECTRA KWU-SRV FIGURE C- 29 | |||
O MRICO 88 8 88 me I0 al s5 6 6 e i i saesi a e 6 8 II 4 3 3 4 4 , a 4 1.5e l.M e | |||
jl.00 k | |||
6-B..M V | |||
.J h | |||
G..M g | |||
O S.M | |||
: 8. M 0i , , , , i0 , . ,- , , , , , , | |||
l FREQtlEhCY. CPS pig, RF10 'I m;,,,senerese, RFACTnR 1 rnliTRnl RIML Lead Cam:L. - CDV , | |||
uses - obession 1, Esse 771'-3" ! | |||
ess,=e: eses.est.am.sms l REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEMANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT REACTOR / CONTROL BUILDING RESPONSE SPECTRA KWU-SRV O PlouRE C- 3 0 | |||
l O l PERIOO-Ao to at **' | |||
isei i i , , . siii i i e i isie ii e i . i 1.So i | |||
25 . | |||
l. | |||
= | |||
je.oo - --- | |||
b 2 | |||
l go.ts g W | |||
o 1 g o.so - | |||
l o.as o . on , , , . . . , , , . . . , , , , . . .. | |||
FREOllENCV-CPS g nr11.1 mmw RFACTOR 1 ff1NTROI R1DGS. | |||
w c ,,. - RRV 1 mess Obesmen .Ed .e., N-1" I i | |||
a ,ime:sms,est.sm.sas l REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT REACTOR / CONTROL BUILDING RESPONSE SPECTRA KWU-SRV O FIGURE C ,31 O . | |||
1 | |||
G7 | |||
* O PERtOO | |||
,g o 10 . Og 0 08 | |||
.so i.as ps.oo 5. | |||
I w | |||
go.ts W | |||
a o | |||
r,e.so e | |||
e.as - | |||
O i 2 m SA -- | |||
e.oo,, , , , , , , , . . , , , , , . . . ,,, | |||
FREQUENCY. CPS g BE12-3 mwe , PEACTOR t CONTROL BLDGSu wc - | |||
SRV m - | |||
% R ,m 783'-0" asseins:sms.est,am. ass REV. 6, 4/82 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNIT 81 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT REACTOR / CONTROL BUILDING RESPONSE SPECTRA KWU-SRV FIGURE c 32 | |||
O PERIOD | |||
,, i. | |||
,,,, , , , , ei o oi | |||
, ,,.,ii . . | |||
1.58 isii ii i . . i | |||
.1 | |||
.a v | |||
gi. no 5. | |||
2,, | |||
go.rs W , | |||
:i E | |||
U S.50 9 .. . | |||
: e. co , , , . | |||
. . i. . . ~< , ' s 'ic . : a | |||
* eToo FitEQUCMCY CPS | |||
,y BE13-3 m%,,,,, _ REACTOR & CONTROL BLDGS. | |||
Land Cam: __ SRV w - | |||
m R ,sw 799'-1" om sm.a.si.sm.sm REV. 6, 4/82 SUSQUEMANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT REACTOR / CONTROL BUILDING RESPONSE SPECTRA KWU-gRV F100RE C- 3 | |||
\_/ | |||
remor. | |||
k8 0 ,o e, o ., | |||
iiii i i i . . . . . . -rr . . . . . . . . . . , | |||
s.se I.ts | |||
? | |||
2 ** . | |||
5. | |||
di.ts u | |||
V i | |||
E o | |||
g.so _ . | |||
h s.as FTIEQUENCY CPS Fis. BE14-3 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, REACTOR 1 CGITROL BLDGS. | |||
L ec : Jasom==.a SRV m - | |||
m,.ra _E-M .n Itts'-ri-comes.e: ems,e.et,em.sm REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEMANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT REACTOR / CONTROL BUILDING RESPONSE SPECTRA KWU-SRV Q | |||
m FIGURE C- 34 | |||
O l PERIOD at 0 0t to o to i | |||
. . . . . . i i ..i. . . | |||
1.so l | |||
l | |||
.as jt.oa 5. | |||
a w | |||
do.ts u | |||
'd a | |||
go.so O e.as | |||
~~ | |||
.MA ~ | |||
e.co 2 4 6 8 tou g 2 4 6 8 Io 2 4 6 --e i00 FREQUENCY CPS g RF18i-3 % % s., _ | |||
REACTOR & CONTROL BLDGS. | |||
wc :- __ SRV m - % R,m 818'-1" o m omsesi.sm.sms REV. 6, 4/82 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION | |||
- UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT REACTOR / CONTROL BUILDING RESPONSE SPECTRA KWU-SRV FIGURE C . 35 | |||
O - | |||
ao 80 08 asg g e a a 0 08 3 1 3aaa i a 6 e i I6 6 ie 3 4 4 4 8.98 3 8.25 m | |||
1.00 b | |||
k 8.78 Y | |||
t n | |||
t.s0 | |||
.r. | |||
O 0.28 0.1 2 4 4 0 10 2 | |||
~ | |||
4 6 8 10 0 2 | |||
% 4 4 8 300 | |||
, rnEQUENCY4PS g N15-3 msemiress, MACTOR t CONTR0l RIM 9. | |||
w c.,,: - Rnv m - | |||
% R ,> AGA'-n" Dumpag: 3AIE, OA1,SJtt,SAE REV. 6, 4/82 SUSQUEMANNA STEAAA ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT REACTOR /CONTRGi. BUILDING RESPONSE SPECTRA KWU-SRV rnouRE C '3 6 | |||
O 9tR900- | |||
* a, 0 05 as le i isii ie i . . i inii i i e i i isii i . . . | |||
s.se 1.2s e, | |||
ji.oo 5. | |||
sw d o.is u | |||
W | |||
:i E | |||
u go.so | |||
: s. s SW a aa . , , . . ,.. . | |||
~ | |||
. " . ' .li, 1 .- . .. | |||
FREQUENCY dPS , , | |||
pg_RF17-3 m ; w .s. REACTOR & CMTROL BLDGS. | |||
wc - ' | |||
RRV Nede - | |||
m 1.Else 17II'-0" Ossoime: 0A05. Sal.821.825 1 | |||
1 REV. 6, 4/82 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT REACTOR / CONTROL BUILDING RESPONSE SPECTRA KWU-SRV FIGURE c 37 | |||
O PER:Doktc. | |||
to *' | |||
N , , , , , , , , , , of i siiii ii i 25 m. | |||
22.a - | |||
) | |||
3 l P l | |||
$ \ | |||
s i.. | |||
W . | |||
" Y 3 .o gt | |||
= = | |||
c.s / | |||
r | |||
,g , | |||
I l j ad -- | |||
- 9-- | |||
v h : | |||
I Apf 00 a 4 , , , , , , , | |||
* e ,oo S8 2 | |||
* s a to FREQUENCYos Am dm d.sapussen WartfB Bifffalas asseenn - | |||
ORI--- LOCA me - sw ns E RL ,a= E70'- T SMWW GSL688.85,08 REV. 6, 4/82 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT | |||
~ | |||
ar^cron/cournot muztorno O RESPONSE SPECTRA KWU-LOCA peauRE C- 38 | |||
~ | |||
1 I | |||
i PDHOO SEC. | |||
El 0 01 So to eii. ., , ,, , | |||
Iii i ' | |||
* i i e iiiie i i e i 1.54 1.25 | |||
? | |||
E:.co < \ | |||
i -, | |||
E a | |||
M go.?s _ | |||
-m W - | |||
U g r 8 | |||
go.Su | |||
) F"m e-I /~"h 0.25 fj/ | |||
k V/ t--3 Ah adfD 0.co as a 4 s a Le 2 e e e no 2 4 s a m Femardyers . | |||
[ MAC193 3filSfEE mwe,D g- - -- - ,r n amm -- _ mem. . EEL,m, UE'-8" hushoems.am.tatoes5 REV. 6, 4/82 l | |||
SUSOUEHANNA STEAM El ECTRIC STATION | |||
' UNITS 1 ANL 2 DES 8GN ASSESSMENT REPORT i | |||
' REACTOR / CONTROL BUILDING | |||
~ | |||
RESPONSE SPECTRA KWU-LOCA FleumE C jg | |||
e- -_s i.. | |||
s !> ' | |||
s 54 O ' | |||
. ~ | |||
A PERIOD-SEC. | |||
i to i ' | |||
, , , , , , . . , i i i.se i l | |||
e.dT c | |||
~. 00 E | |||
, s. s - | |||
O *h ' | |||
R rc-J :_ | |||
/L [ '--1 | |||
**3' | |||
.) m f k | |||
% l/ | |||
.7-d5 f J | |||
jf o.co , , . . : 4 s e saa 2 | |||
* a e too t. | |||
FREQUENCY & S w artin B1111 BfME enat. . L&A landSus -_ | |||
gas,_ - thesus E .98 m e g g g3g,33g,33,33 REV. 6, 4/82 SusOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNIT 31 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT REACTOR / CONTROL BUILDING Q ' | |||
RESPONSE SPECTRA KWU-LOCA pseung Cy0 4 | |||
O Ptasoo 5EC. | |||
oa e os l'. ' 1o , i siiii i i i i i.iii ii l | |||
e s | |||
9 | |||
= | |||
d E - . | |||
p k ' | |||
O s> | |||
M i | |||
n8 s | |||
llT * | |||
\ | |||
, lf s e | |||
, plat . | |||
a a e a t, a 4 e , , , , | |||
c, rnEQUENCYCPS . | |||
3,memens, gen,g, WAdne nitiStu sewa., _- | |||
th-- LOCA eum | |||
-- annen, R.nwse7w REV. 6, 4/82 SuSQUEHANNA STEAad El.ECTRIC STATION | |||
! UNITS 1 AND 2 l | |||
DESH5N ASSESSMENT REPORT | |||
' ' REAC' TOR / CONTROL BUILDING RESPONSE SPECTRA | |||
~ | |||
j | |||
,KWU-LOCA o | |||
pseuRE | |||
* C-41 | |||
O 1 l | |||
1 i | |||
PERsOO SEC. | |||
10 e on i$ , , , , , , sii ii. i i i . . , , , | |||
i.so n.25 | |||
? | |||
Es.00 I | |||
e 5 - - - | |||
wo O Y ',, | |||
a f | |||
\ | |||
e ,_ | |||
go.so | |||
~ | |||
T / t ; | |||
o.as f ',l \// N I s -. | |||
zt a.oo JE y9 | |||
** 8 * | |||
* a to a 4 . . m, , . . , , , | |||
SIEQUsedV4Ps AsesundespC;ce, KarTIE klfI Brent andom. Awp est-- LOCA . | |||
sha -- _samens MIL.,=w 8P I | |||
EE REV. 6, 4/82 i | |||
' SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION l UNtTS 1 ANO 2 l' DES 80N ASSESSMENT REPORT l dQ REAC;rOR/ CONTROL BUILDING RESPONSE SPECTRA i KWU-LOCA l | |||
not,g C 42 l | |||
O PEReOO.5LC. | |||
:: e s.o an e on | |||
. i ..i e i e i i . | |||
i.so | |||
' df e. | |||
1 | |||
: i. 3: | |||
""1 L. | |||
s,;.': | |||
k Q g r-q '- | |||
c '-' | |||
c.:..: r , | |||
,,f .-g l -- | |||
*" ('''\V--\i , 1 g(/ g k | |||
: v ' | |||
, :/ | |||
0.00 p F j N an a 4 s a to a 4 a a ga. 4 s a go. | |||
FREQUDICYCPS me,,,,e, EAf1M a fflatz n.,em - - | |||
Riti-- .0CA m,,, ,,,,,,ggL,m,n9*-1* | |||
Sunsh s M 8 81.8 E.8 5 | |||
- RSV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION j UNITS 1 AND 2 ' | |||
DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT REACTOR / CONTROL BUILDING O' RESPONSE SPECTRA l | |||
KWU-LOCA pseuRE C- 43 | |||
1 O , | |||
PE.*.1CD SEC. | |||
to 01 c et 10 0 _ , _ | |||
. ii. . . , | |||
3.o h.8 P* 9 20 q L. - | |||
.t. ..s , | |||
H OEn n 1 j... . | |||
,- 1 lll < | |||
o.. / . _ | |||
f : - | |||
=< | |||
--h. | |||
m h c.o 2 4 4 8 14 0 2 4 e a gm c: 2 4 4 8 to FREQU M CPS mwe, EACTOR MillDtm st--- .0CA em -- amen. EEL.'am m '.a= | |||
eme asm asi.eans REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT REAC' TOR / CONTROL BUILDING RESPONSE SPECTRA KWU-LOCA pseunE C"44 O* | |||
O | |||
- Praioo ste. | |||
so o.: cc-. | |||
le o e.4 4 ., , | |||
1 6 a i 6 6 6 6 tie i 4 a a i . | |||
I.30 ! | |||
1 2s v | |||
25 00 i \ | |||
8 L. | |||
So.rs O !x -- | |||
3 t , | |||
5 go .so O_ , | |||
--) l __ | |||
o.as | |||
( -V 3 $lbp --( I f | |||
g t | |||
J o.ao ai a 4 e e i.e 4 . .. 4 . e i,, | |||
l | |||
! rusovaci.cpa m e,,,,e, MAC1DR ElfLBfB we- mi. _ _ .0CA asse | |||
-- massie M ,es,7ae %1* | |||
muest.sa,se REV. 6, 4/82 l SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION l UNITS 1 AND 2 l DESIGN AsSESSMENTREPORT l | |||
REAC' TOR / CONTROL BUILDING RESPONSE SPECTRA 10fD-LOCA pseung C-45 I | |||
I | |||
O ptR>OO.stC. | |||
,, o c: | |||
: y. . . . . - 9. . . . . - | |||
3.o 2.s F | |||
" L E s.o h af U '1 | |||
/ [ | |||
O i.s | |||
( - | |||
g 4 | |||
i | |||
\1 gi.o I | |||
J ( | |||
o.s i w 9 | |||
_ sm " I o,3 4 a 4 e e iao a 4 ..,,,,, | |||
at e e to FMQUENCY4PS me,,,,w KAffM MfftBfE g ,ge,, - - | |||
nat,- LOCA M -- Ebssess E ,m , M '-0* | |||
MMMEM REV. 6, 4/82 l | |||
SUSOUEHANNA STEAM 7.LECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 MstGN ASSESSMENT REPORT I | |||
REACTOR / CONTROL BUILDING RESPONSE SPECTRA KWU-LOCA FlouRg C- 4 6 | |||
' ' - - ~ - - " | |||
l l | |||
O l | |||
l l | |||
PUh00 StC. ) | |||
30 at 0 01 10" * ~ | |||
* 4 eiia 4 6 i 4 6 a .6 . . I s | |||
5 a | |||
T G j 3 | |||
L O k r | |||
;. I f 1 k | |||
(-\ | |||
,/ m | |||
-w d o | |||
ei 4 s a to a 4 s a se. : 4 e e io. | |||
I PREQUOeCY4PS mpg E4ffM MfitfB Wh ^ | |||
^ | |||
" ''- - l E'A Suk -- | |||
Desdus E .hW# | |||
mmtal.EW REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 ANO 2 DESHIN ASSESSMENT REPORT | |||
- REACTOR / CONTROL BUILDING s RESPON3E SPECTRA 10tU-LOCA reeung C- 47 | |||
1 O | |||
l I | |||
I PER100 5EC. l e1 o ?! | |||
30 0 to | |||
. I t.I 6 e 6 a i I . . | |||
i6 6 6 6 e . | |||
1 50 1 25 -I [ | |||
?~ , | |||
i,i.oo z' | |||
G U | |||
ce | |||
" Y U | |||
Wo.'S Y | |||
ve L | |||
go.so I | |||
1 | |||
-k s 0 25 -- | |||
r u q Q m.. | |||
/ | |||
T}/ " | |||
]/ | |||
9 00 4 e a gao a 4 s a soa at : 4 e a u 2 FBIEOLLUeCY4PS . | |||
l m g ,,,,g , Karina MillBittR w=- - | |||
es--- ." | |||
w---- m asse E RI .m. 7 N - P SinghpM881.85.GS REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 ANO 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENTREPORT REACTOR / CONTROL BUILDING RESPONSE SPECTR'. | |||
KWU-LOCA l | |||
pgeURE C- 48 l | |||
O FtRs00 5tC. | |||
8 01 4 8 * | |||
* i .ii4 3 3 i i *i' , , , | |||
I 5 ~- . , | |||
N ab 4 . | |||
m ! | |||
i 5 ~ | |||
O le s | |||
~ | |||
r , | |||
u h 5 | |||
<a t | |||
: s i | |||
i g | |||
,/ m w4 e 4 6 s gag al 2 4 4 3 ts 2 4 6 8 as l | |||
2 MM Amusuudeshomeer8EftB RifLBfM g sm,;_ - - ORI--- LOCA - | |||
she% semens EIL,aw 781'M E REV. 6, 4/82 | |||
~ | |||
suSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRtC STATION UNITS 1 ANO 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT REACTOR / CONTROL BUILDING t RESPONSE SPECTRA KWU-LOCA C 49 PeOURE | |||
.. _. . .. ~. | |||
l PERIOD SLC. | |||
e 10 0; SC ' , | |||
i | |||
:.so 1 | |||
i s.2 v | |||
...CG ' | |||
t | |||
.:.+: ' | |||
r$ ! | |||
i. | |||
* i. | |||
s To.ss | |||
(*. | |||
['" ,-- !{ \ - . | |||
f -- | |||
r- - | |||
o.3s | |||
\ _ | |||
* j ci a 4 s a n.o a 4 e s go , e e a ,, | |||
FREQUENCY CPS m anusetw E U DE EIIIIINE w e,,,, - - | |||
mai--- UxA m s,. E ,m,799'-1* | |||
ene, 4-Sangh e t M SSI,t E ., W REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT f | |||
REACN R/ CONTROL BUILDING f RESPONSE SPECTRA KWU-LOCA l | |||
pHauRE C- 50 1 | |||
O Ptmoo su:c. | |||
o og 1O Ot U0 , , | |||
- i .. .. . , | |||
e, 4 | |||
~ | |||
r E, 3 O ? | |||
r'~ . | |||
1 5 | |||
;~. a E . | |||
l ( | |||
l i | |||
t o | |||
) 2 e e ag 2 4 s ag 3 4 6 8 ago oa FREQUfmCYCPS g | |||
- manuset, EACflE 'A LBlas wg | |||
- - nas.-- LOCA | |||
.un ..-- | |||
M SM.881.SE.85 REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEMANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT | |||
' REACTOR / CONTROL BUILDING RESPONSE SPECTRA InfU-LOCA PleURE C 51 O .e , | |||
04", | |||
l l | |||
O PERIOO.SEC. | |||
;. 30 at O ei | |||
* ~~* ~ ~ | |||
6 . I i. 6 4 s . 6- 4 i e s 3.0 s.1 20 O ; | |||
a f, 6 - | |||
h40 | |||
, c _ | |||
) \ | |||
*' ;_; 7 / 1-1 P | |||
1 [, - | |||
T p 58 - | |||
0.0 ta l 3 4 . 6 8 10 2 4 4 8 ISO 2 4 6 8 800 FREQUCCY4:PS . | |||
p g,,,,e,FAf1M Mmats wm _- - - rm__ LOCA ames -- | |||
- M .E IL..aw"18'-I* | |||
l " " " " REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEMANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 ANO 2 DESIGN 1fSESSMENT REPORT O REACTOR / CONTROL BUILDING V RESPONSE SPECTRA ! | |||
KWU-LOCA FIGURE C- 52 1 | |||
l l | |||
O PEftIOO.SEC. | |||
oc | |||
: u. ' , *,,,, i **r ' | |||
i , i i | |||
'A 2.s 1 | |||
J a .:, ( | |||
7. | |||
'.c< 1 5 l ti ? | |||
O t n | |||
~ | |||
L- | |||
'O | |||
.t l - | |||
c.? | |||
f \ w_ | |||
rl o | |||
.anm # | |||
o.s 4 8 4 4 8 30 0 2 4 6 a gag o_ 2 e s to FREQuencv.crs B | |||
M g,ssmen , E E I R N II.II M 3,en. _- | |||
mat-- LOCA esse - | |||
_shesis ELI .. LM '-o* | |||
E REV. 6, 4/82 | |||
- MENANNA STEAAA ELECTRIC STATION IJNITS 1 ANO 2 | |||
* DE84GN ASSESSMENTREPCRT REACTOR / CONTROL BUILDING RESPONSE SPECTRA KWD-LOCA Pleunt C 53 | |||
^^ - - - - - - - - - - - , _ , _ _ , _ _ _ _ | |||
O PERIOD.AC. | |||
ge - to of e ?' | |||
i . . . . | |||
3.3 2.? | |||
r _ | |||
2.0 T | |||
. j | |||
$ U P | |||
b :.e , | |||
O? I' $ | |||
..o lh | |||
/ | |||
i s I ,I i c.; 2 4 e a g.o a 4 .6 a no.o 2 4 e a geo mcoucacros Ammmene,mmeas yArms attItasia tamens - | |||
^ | |||
titl--- LOCA num -- | |||
. sme. .EE,m, IM'-0* | |||
**"" REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT 1 | |||
REACTOR / CONTROL BUILDING RESPONSE SPECTRA l xwo-zoCA FIGURE C- 54 | |||
O PERCO.St.C. | |||
ic e 3.o oi o_oi riii , i i iiii,, , , . , ,, , , , , | |||
s.o 2.t | |||
* h e ... | |||
: r. . | |||
._L _ | |||
I I i E .l | |||
'.J hl O,i., | |||
Ov | |||
{ -- | |||
1 l | |||
G - J 1 e | |||
tv. i.o | |||
/ ~ | |||
) | |||
n.s | |||
( -l L | |||
[ | |||
on 2 4 s a u : 4 e a ao a 4 e s so, FREQUENCY CPS a, mas e g, e, REACTOR spIIatus g ,e g - suo te gas, - go,esens e-W _Ebe | |||
***'-1* | |||
Bausium 185.888.85.85 REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAAA ELECTRIC STATION UtilTS 1 AND 2 DESSON ASSESSMENT REPORT p REACTOR / CONTROL BUILDING I V RESPONSE SPECTRA KWU-LOCA i | |||
FleuRE C- 55 l -- ,. | |||
O PERIOO-St.C. | |||
os 9 oog ano io | |||
. . . .. , i isii i i i i i sie ii i . . , . | |||
30 e-, | |||
7 25 7 - | |||
I r-1 en 2 0 I I | |||
{, | |||
ll J 2 \ | |||
E k r' d i ~3 ~ J O | |||
V i | |||
R I L Ys.o in i | |||
I l~j \ | |||
, -) | |||
3.5 | |||
( | |||
l A!! | |||
s.o 4 6 g3 2 4 4 3 Le 2 4 6 s S&O 2 a 100 FREQUENCYM Assunsegueapsmees, . EIacma aprI.nnr W gl_ ^ - ene, 1 M__ | |||
ames | |||
~ | |||
Shoudse 5-W me, 470'-0* | |||
% SSE.688,em.sm REV. 6, 4/82 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION | |||
~ UNITS 1 AND 2 DES 8GN ASSESSMENT REPORT l | |||
' REACTOR / CONTROL BUILDING RESPONSE SPECTRA KWU-LOCA l FleuRE C- 56 I | |||
1 O l I | |||
i PUnco Sec. | |||
so o to c. 0 08 s . . . . e i iia ia e i a i i4 .. 6 i . i 1.50 1 25 u | |||
c .co __. | |||
~. | |||
L .-- | |||
Eo..s E | |||
O < | |||
s r, E | |||
e.o.so | |||
_] /-- 1: | |||
1) 1 | |||
_] | |||
p . | |||
f 0 2s y l | |||
/ Y J | |||
o.co on * | |||
* s e to a e a e 3ee a 4 s a 33o FREQUENCY M Ammesesse W gy MJWTOR WIISING g ,g g __ ^ | |||
Itar um g,g, - | |||
m a-w g, 476'-8" | |||
: j. REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT l' REACTOR / CONTROL BUILDING RESPONSE SPECTRA KWU-LOCA P90Unt C- 57 , | |||
l | |||
O Potsoouc. | |||
E' to as | |||
'isa i i e i o o: | |||
i saii i. . i i .. . , , ,, , | |||
e S | |||
? | |||
6 i n 5 | |||
W 3 l h | |||
o e 3( | |||
ga \ | |||
\ l i 1 r s ? e ) ! | |||
y fr i | |||
e | |||
*: 4 a e to a 4 e e ame a e a e i. | |||
F1tEQtXIeCY4:PS Ammheen > es -- num n= | |||
gang em, _- | |||
uneim ash - | |||
shumus B-W _g hs- 683'-0* | |||
Sumedus 885,081.88.85 REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEMANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION 8284TS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT REACN R/ CONTROL BUILDING O ""'' """ "'""'"^ | |||
KWU-LOCA F:GuRE C- 58 | |||
O Peuoo sec. a os so os 20 iia ii i a i a | |||
..ii i i i i.i. .. . . . | |||
30 1 | |||
l II i 3.s | |||
? | |||
E s.o 1 h | |||
I j O l:! ''' _, | |||
/ | |||
E I 8 .s ;, | |||
&'** j | |||
__ i r( q o.s \ | |||
o.o 4 s a gao 4 e aio as a a a a u FREQUDeCY M geogeng,,w g, u am numanen W h '- ^ - | |||
m - | |||
mM h as7'-e* | |||
Snaphs 885,431.881,885 REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUENANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UDNTS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT REACTOR / CONTROL BUILDING RESPONSE SPECTRA KWU-LOCA PHIURE C 59 | |||
O PERICO bEC. | |||
to on n ot te e a | |||
I . . . . 666 6 6 6 4 4 6 1.s . . . 4 t.50 4 25 e | |||
[l.00 _ | |||
I? | |||
U M i< - | |||
go.'s I=- | |||
\ | |||
O_ u P | |||
Y 5 | |||
) | |||
n - | |||
li.50 go | |||
, I o | |||
' l 0 25 f h - | |||
j kI J | |||
0.00 on a 4 a e to a e a e me : 4 s e io. | |||
FREQUEleCY-CPS ammenses,g, es, =m marrarus Land Cum | |||
^ ^ | |||
ene, - | |||
shamese E-W _g as, 709'-0* , | |||
Simpius L8E5.188.85.85 REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAAA ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1/JfD 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT REAC' TOR / CONTROL BUILDING O RESPONSE SPECTRA KWU-LOCA meuRE C- 60 | |||
O PEROD SEC. | |||
ne o to an o ot siei a a i i i siii i i i i sai ii . . . . . | |||
i.so 7 | |||
5 7 ma.co af 8 | |||
E O 2 ---- | |||
go.es O j U | |||
{o.so j -L_ . | |||
f a -- | |||
1 Jr o.as , _ , , | |||
fJY | |||
:ca | |||
<--\ | |||
d' . | |||
as : | |||
* e e to a a e e m. 4 s e ioo FREQUDICYCPS m g ,,,,e , =- wns ammmven g ,g g | |||
^ ^ - | |||
===. LM g,g, - | |||
m a-w h 71P *1* | |||
E REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESSON ASSESSMENT REPORT REAC;IOR/ CONTROL BUILDING | |||
===>o=== ===cra^ | |||
O KWU-LOCA FIGURE C- 61 E | |||
O M bGC. 0 03 0.1 1C | |||
* 10 6 ai a 6 e i e i i 6 .6 . . e 6 4 86ei e a 4 a s.so I | |||
a.25 g. | |||
;1.00 , | |||
i l | |||
i | |||
_ .i wo.'s h | |||
a E F"1 ; | |||
l E 7 p,o.so t J i f}} | |||
Revision as of 17:59, 10 March 2020
| ML20050C299 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Susquehanna |
| Issue date: | 04/30/1982 |
| From: | PENNSYLVANIA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18017A185 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8204080385 | |
| Download: ML20050C299 (500) | |
Text
_ . _ . _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - ..
To update your non-proprietary copy of the SSES DAR, remove and insert the following pages, figures and tables.
REMOVE INSERT VOLUME 1 Table 1-3 (Page 1) New Table 1-3 (Page 1)
TaDle 1-3 (Page 2) New Table 1-3 (Pago 2)
Table 1-4 (Page 1) New Table 1-4 (Page 1)
Table 1-4 (Page 4) New Table 1-4 (Page 4) l l
Table 1-4 (Page 5) New Table 1-4 (Page 5)
Table 1-4 (Page 8) New Table 1-4 (Page 8)
Table 1-4 (Page 12) New Table 1-4 (Page 12)
Table 1-4 (Page 17) New Table 1-4 (Page 17)
Table 1-4 (Page 20) New Table 1-4 (Page 20)
Pages 2-5/2-6 New Page 2-5/2-6 i
l Page 2-7 New Page 2-7 Page 4-3/4-4 New Page 4-3/4-4 Page 4-5/4-6 New Page 4-5/4-6 Page 4-7/4-8 New Page 4-7/4-8 Page 4-9/4-10 New Page 4-9/4-10 Page 4-11/4-12 New Page 4-11/4-12 Page 4-13/4-14 New Page 4-13/4-14 Page 4-15/4-16 New Page 4-15/4-16 Page 4-17/4-18 New Page 4-17/4-18 l Page 4-19/4-20 New Page 4-19/4-20 Page 4-21/4-22 New Page 4-21/4-22 Page 4-23 New Page 4-23
.... New Page 4-24 Figure 4-44a New Figure 4-44a Figure 4-45 New Figure 4-45 Figure 4-53 New Figure 4-53 Figure 4-54 New Figure 4-54 8204080385 820402 PDR ADOCK 05000387 A PDR c _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
Piga 2 REMOVE INSERT
- \v/
Figure 4-62 A&B New Figure 4-62 A&B
_ Figure 4-62 C&D New Figure 4-62 C&D
-Figure 4-62 E&F New Figure 4-62 E&F
.... New Figure 4-62 I
.... New Figure 4-62 J
.... New Figure 4-62 K
.... New Figure 4-62 m
.... New Table 4-22 Page 5-1/5-2 New Page 5-1/5-2 Page 5-3/5-4 New Page 5-3/5-4 Page 5-11/5-12 New Page 5-11/5-12 Page 5-13/5-14 New Page 5-13/5-14 Table 5-4 New Table 5-4
.... New Table 5-5 (2 pages)
.... New Table 5-6 Page 6-7/6-8 New Page 6-7/6-8
(,/ Page 6-9/6-10 New Page 6-9/6-10 Pages 7-1 to 7-27 New Pages 7-1 to 7-47 Figures 7-4 to 7-11 New Figures 7-4 to 7-26 Tables 7-1 to 7-3 New Tables 7-1 to 7-5 Page 10-1 to 10-15 New Pages 10-1 to 10-36 Figure 10-1 New Figure 10-1 Figure 10-2 New Figure 10-2
.... New Figures 10-4 to 10-65
.... New Table 10-1
.... New Table 10-2 Pages 11-5/11-6 New Pages 11-5/11-6
'Pages A-1/A-2 New Pages A-1/A-2 Pages A-3/A-4 New Pages A-3/A-4 New Page A-5 Figures A-4 to A-66' New Figures A-4 to A-67 Pages B-1/B-2 New Pages B-1/B-2 Pages B-3/B-4 New Pages B-3/B-4 A
- N_]
I Paga 3 REMOVE INSERT h-a Page B-5 ....
Figures B-27 to B-88 New Figures B-27 to B-58
.Pages C-1/C-2 New Pages C-1/C-2 Page C-3 New Page C-3 Figures C-4 to C-lO New Figures C-4 to C-103 Figure E-9 New Figure E-9 Figure E-ll New Figure E-ll Figures E-12 to E-16 New Figures E-12 to E-16 Figures E-22'to E-38 New Figures E-21a to E-38a Appendix F Tab New Appendix F Tab Page F-1 New Page F-1
..... New Table F-1 (2 sheets)
Page G-1 New Page G-1 Page H-1 New Page H-1 Pages I-1/I-2 New Pages I-1/I-2 Pages I-5/I-6 New Page I-5/I-6
.... New Pages I-6a/I-6b Pages I-9/I-lO New Page I-9/I-10
.... New Figures I-14
.... New Figures I-15 Table I.1 (Page 2) New Table I.1 (Page 2)
Table I.2 New Table I.2 Remove Appendices A thru I from Volume I and insert into Volume 2.
O
) E l-3 mj' SSES CONTAINMENT DESIGN PARAMETERS A. Drywell and Suppression Chamber Drywell Suppression Chamber
- 1. (a) Internal Design Pressure 53 psig 53 psig 6
1.(b) Internal Design Pressure in Combination 44 psig 29 psig with other Loads
- 2. External Design Pressure . 5 psid 5 psid
- 3. Drywell Floor Design Differential Pressure Upward 28 psid Downward 28 psid
- 4. Design Temperature 340 F 220 F
- 5. Drywell Free Volume (Minimum) 239,337 ft 3
(including vents) (Normal) 239,593 ft 3
(Maximum) 239,850 ft 3
- 6. Suppression Chamber Free (Minimum) 148,590 ft Volume (Normal) 153,860 ft 3
(Maximum) 159,130 ft 3
- 7. Suppression Chamber Water Volume (Minimum) 122,410 ft 3
(Normal) 126,980 ft 3
(Maximum) 131,550 ft
- 8. Pool Cross-Section Area Gross (Outside Pedestal) 5379 ft Total Gross (Including Pedestal Water Area) 5679 ft Free (Outside Pedestal) 5065 ft Total Free 5277 ft REV. 6, 4/82
O O- O TableL1-3 (cont'd)
Drywell Supression Chamber
- 9. Pool Depth (Minimum) 22 ft.
(Normal) 23 ft.
-(Maximum) 24 ft.
B. Vent System
- 1. Number of Downcomers 82 (Five capped: see 6 i Appendix K)
- 2. Downcomer Outer Diameter 2 ft.
- 3. Total Downcomer Vent Area 257 ft.2
- 4. Downcomer Submergence (Minimum) 10 ft.
(Normal) 11 ft.
(Maximum) 12 ft.
- 5. Downcomer Loss Factor 2.5 C. Safety Relief Valves
! 1. Opening Time
- a. Delay Time (between trip and motion) 0.10 sec.
- b. Response Time (close to open) 0.15 sec.
REV. 6, 4/82 I
m
(
w s x P ge !
TABLE l-4
- Review of Susquehanna SES Units 1 & 2 Pool Dynamic Loadings -
-Costparison with NUREC 0487, NUREC 0487-Supplement No. 1. Lead Plant and Generic Long Term Program-NRC Acceptance Criteria Lead Plant Position Generic long Tern NUREC 0487 Supplement No. I (Zimmer DAR, Amendment 13) Program Position Susquehanna Position Remarks
- 1. LOCA RELATED HYDRODYNAMIC LOADS A. Submerged Boundary Loads 24 PSI overpressure statically applied March 20, 1979 letter. 24 Evaluating impact. Evaluation During Vent clearing. with hydrostatic pressure to surfaces psi statically applied to indicates 24 PSI 6 33 p.1 overpressure added below vent exit (attenuate to o psi surfaces below vent exit overpressure is to local hydrostatic at pool surface) for period of vent (attenuate to O poi at conservative (see below vent exit (walls clearing for plants with (shL)/ pool surface) for period of Subsection 4.2.1.2) and basenst)-linear at- [(A /A ) V, g] 1 55.~ vent clearing. Zinsmer and tenuation to pool sur- wheIe: aa mass flow in vents 3 lb/sec LaSalle meet NUREG 0487.
face. V =
E=dryve11 volume - f t enthalpy of air in vent-Stu/lb L = submergence - ft A /A = pool area to vent area For plantI wEere (sht)/[(A /A,)Vg l >55, the loading increase over Rydrostatic pressure on basemat and submerged walle below vent exit is p = 24 + 0.27 (&ht) /
[(A /A tV -5 (attenuate to O poi atlool)suNa]ce)5 .
B. Pool Swell Loads.
- 1. Pool Swell Analytical Hodel (PSAM)
- a. Air bubble pres- (a) No change from NUREG 0487. (a) Accept NUREG 0487. (a) Accept NUREG (a) Accept NUREC sure-use PSAM 0487 0487, described in
- NEDE-21544-P. b
- b. Pool swell eleva- (b) Use PSAM with polytropic exponent (b) Accept NUREG n o 7 (b) Accept NUREG (b) Accept NUREG 0487 tion-Use PSAM des- of 1.2 to a maximum swell height 0487 -Sup- -Supplement No. I plement No. I REV. 6, 4/82
~
O -
O Page 4 TABIE l-4 IntC Acceptance Criteria Lead Plant Position Generic 1.ong Tern IR5tEG 0437 Supplement No.-1 (Zimmer DAR, Amendment 13) Proarse Position Susquebsana Position Remarks
- 2, and the total area of the grat-ing. To account for the dynamic nature of the initial loadiva, the static drag load is increased by a multiplier given by:
F /D = 1+ lt(0.064Wf)2 thkWf<2000la/sec
- 4. Wetwell Air Compres-smon
- a. Wall loads-direct- (a) No change from NUREG 0487. (a) Accept 0487. (a) Accept NUREG (a) Accept NUREG ly apply the PSAM 0487. 0487.
5 calculated pres-aure due to wetwell compression.
- b. Diaphragm upward (b) No change from NUREG 0487. '
(b) Use A PUP = 5.5 (b) Same as lead (b) Same as lead load-calculate A PSID. plant. plant. 6
' PUP using the cor-relation:
A PUP = 8.2 . 44F, for of F $0.13 A PUP = 2.5 psi, for F) 0.13 AP. VS where: F = AB 2
VD (AV)
- AB = break area AP = net pool area AV = total vent area REV. 6, 4/82
_ ___________-------_--_-_-J
m
, N )
(
i v
) .A i )
Page 5 TABLE l-4 NRC Acceptance Criteria Lead Plant Position Generic Long Term EUREC 0487 Supplement No. 1 (Zimmer DAR. Amendment 13) Program ?inition Susquehanna Position Rema rk s VS = initial verwell air space volume VD = drywell volume
- 5. Asymmetric Load. Use twice the 10% of maximum bubble Accept NUREC 0487-Supple- Accept NUREC 0487- Accept NUREC 4087-Apply the maximum pressure statically <jplied to 1/2 ment No. 1. Supplement No. I Supplement No. 1. 5 air bubble pressure of the submerged boundary (with calculated from PSAM hydrostatic pressure) proposed in and a minimum air March 16.1979 letter from CE.
bubble pressure (sero increase) in a worst case distribution to the vetwell vall.
C. Steam Condensation and Chugging Loads.
- 1. Downconer Lateral Loads.
- a. Single vent loads: (a) No change from NUREC 0487. (a) Accept NUREC 0487 (a) Use single vent (a) Following long
-A static equiva- See DAR.
dynamic lateral term program. Subsec-lent load of 8.8 load developed Confirmation tion 9.6.3 KIPS shall be under Task A-13 through plant for verifi-used provided: unique CKM-ILM O (NEDE-24106-P) . cation of However, extra-test data on lateral tip (1) the downcomer is polate the 30 24" in diameter. lateral bracin's load.
Kip and 3 maec loads.
(11) the downconer dom- impulse to inant natural fre- 65 Kips and 3 maec.
quency is 3 7 Bs.
submerged.
(iii) the downcomer is unbraced or braced -
at or above approx. 8' from the exit.
RITV. 6, 4/82
O O O Page 8 TABIZ 1-4 NRC Acceptance Criteria Imad Plant Position Generic Long Tern NUREG 0487 Supplement No. 1 (Zimmer DAR. Amendment 13) Pratras Position Susquehanna Position Remarks
- b. Medium Steam Flux (b) No change from NUREG 0487. (b) Accept NUREG 0487 with (b) Use Condensa- (b) Same as (a).
Loads, additional plant unique tion Oscilla-empirical load specifi- tion load Sinusoidal pres- cation. specification sure fluctuation based on NEDE-added to local 24288-P.
bydrostatic. Amp-litude uniform be-low vent exit, linear attenuation 5 to pool surface.
7.5 pai peak-to-peak amplitude.
2-7 Nu frequencies.
NEDE-21061-P, Rev. 2
- c. Chugging. (c) No change from NUREG 0487. (c) Accept NUREG 0487 with (c) Use liEGS/ MARS (c) Same as (a).
additional plant acoustic model
-Uniform loading unique empirical load presented in condition - specification. WEDE-24822-P with Maximum amplitude sources derived uniform below vent from 4T-CO. Ap-exit, linear at- plication metho-tenuation to pool dology documented 6 surface. +4.8 in NEDE-24302-P.
psi man overpres-sure, -4.0 psi max underpressure.
(Pending resolu-tion of FSI con-cerns)
Rev. 2.
-Aaymmetric loading condition - Maxi-REV. 6, 4/82
.. .__ _ .._._m ._ .-. ___...~.....-m_ . _ - . . ...-_.m...
_ . - . . . . . - .< .. ._m . . _ . _ _ - .
.O O O Page 12 TABLE l-4 IRC Acceptance Criteria Lead Plant Position Generic Long Tern IRREG 0437 Supplement No. 1 (Zimmer DAR, Amendment 13) Proaram Position Susquehanna Position Remarks
- c. Bubble Frequency. (c) 3-11 Mz. (c) Plant unique frequency (c) Same as lead (c) Following frequen- Additional T-quencher - a range range based on Susque- plant. cy range Jvcceent- study per-of bubble frequency banna DAR. ed in Susquecanna formed con-of 4-12 Ez is the DAR. firming con-minimum range that servaties of 6 shall be increased if frequency required to include range in Sus-the frequency pre- quehanna DAR dicted by the rans- (see Subsec-head methodology tion 10.2.3).
together with 1 501 -
marg.a.
X quencher - a range X quencher bubble of bubble frequency frequency being of 4-12 Es shall be developed by Burns evaluated. & Roe based largely on Caorso test data.
- c. Quencher Arm and Tie 5 Down Loads.
- 1. Quencher Are No change from NUREG 0487. Accept NUREG 0487. Load T quencher are Following long tern Loads. Vertical Specification in SSES DAR loads are presen- program.
and lateral are S h ection 4.1.2.5 used ted in Susquehanna loads are to be to verify the conserva- DAR, Section 4.1.2.5.
developed on the tism of this approach.
basis of bound- X-quencher-Accept ing assumptions NUREG 0487.
for air / water dis-
! charge from the quencher and con-servative combi-nations of mozi-mus/uisimum bubble pressures acting on the quencher per NEDE-21061-P, Rev. 2.
i REV. 6, 4/82
O O O Page 17 TABLE l-4 NRC Acceptance Criteria Lead Plant Position Generic Long Tern IREtEC 0437 Supplement No. 1 (Zimmer DAR, Amendment 13) Program Position Susquehanna Position Remarks
- 1. LOCA Air Bubble Imads No change from NUREG 0487. Documented in plant unique Documented in Documented in Subsec- g DAR's. plant unique DAR's tion 4.2.1.7 of SSES Calculate based on DAR.
the analytical model of the bubble charg-ing process and drag calculations of NEDE-21471 until the bub-bles coalesce. After bubble contact, the pool swell analytical model, together with the dras computation procedure NEDE-21471 shall be used. Use
- of this methodology shall be subject to the following cons-treints and modifi-cations:
- a. A conservative (a) No change (a) Position documented (a) Accept NUREC- (a) Following the Document-estimate of bub- on page 5.4-8 of 0487. Long Term Pro- ed in Sub-ble asy - try of Zimmer DAR. gram. section 5 shall be added 4.2.3.2 of by increasing SSES DAR.
accelerations and velocities computed in step 12 of Section 2.2 of NEDE *1730 by 10%. If the alternate steps 5A, 12A and 13A are used the ac-celeration drag shall be directly i
l l
l 1
REV. 6, 4/82 l E.. __ __
O O O Page 20 TABLE l-4 NRC Acceptance Criteria Lead Plant Position Generic Long Tere NUREG 0487 Supplement No. 1 (Zimmer DAR, Amendment 13) Program Position Susquebanna Position Remarks
- 2. a. SRV ramsbead aar- (a) No change since NUREG 0487. (a) Documented on Page (a) N/A (a) N/A bubble loads. 5.4-9 of Zimmer DAR.
- b. SRV quencher air (b) No change since NUREC 0487. (b) Documented on Page (b) T quencher sub- (b) Following Long bubble loads. 5.4-9 of Zimmer DAR. merged structure Term Program T quencher - methodology is loads may be comp- presented in uted on the basis Susquehanna DAR, of the above rans- Section 4.1.3.
head bubble pres-sure and assuming the bubble to be located at the center of the quen- 5 cher device having a bubble radius equal to the quen-cher radius.
X-quencher - loads X-quencher methodo-may be computed on logy being developed the basis of the by Burns & Roe.
above ramshead meth-odulogy using bub-ble pressure cal-culated by the metbods of NEDE-21061-P, Rev. 2 for the X quen-cher.
C. Steam Condensation Drag Loads.
Review will be conducted No change since NURLG 0487. Documented on Page 5.4-9 Plant unique meth- Plant unique methodo-on a plant unique basis. of Zimmer DAR. od being develop- logy dockwnted in DAR g ed. Subsection 4.2.2.5.
. PAF:cyc
. 34P-B REV. 6, 4/82
- 2. 2 _ DESIGN A SSESSMENT SUMM Agl.
Design assessment of the SSES structures and components is achieved by analyzing the response of the structures and components to the load combinations explained in Chapter 5. In Chapter 7 predicted stresses and responses (f rom the loads defined in Chapter 4 and combined as described in Chapter 5) are com pa red with the applicable code allowable values identified in Chapter 6 and the SSES design will be assessed as adequate by virtue that the design capabilities exceed the stresses or responses resulting f rom SHV discharge and/or LOCA loads.
2.2.1 Containment Structure and Reactor Building Assessment Susaggy__ ___ 7_ ___
2 2.1.1 -
Containment Stgucture. Assessment Suggary-The primary containment walls, ba se slab, diaphragm slab, reactor pedestal and reactor shield are analyzed for the effects of SRV and LOCA in accordance with Table 5-1. The ANSYS finite element program is used for the dynamic analysis of structures.
Response spectra curves are developed at various locations within the containment structure to assess the adequacy of components.
Stress resultants due to dynamic loads are combined with other
() loads in accordance with Table 5-1 to evaluate rebar and concrete stresses. Design safety margins are defined by comparing the actual concrete and rebar stresses at critical sections with the code allowable values. The assessment methodology of the containment structure is presented in Subsection 7.1.1.1.
The results of the structural assessment of the containment structure are summarized in Appendir A. The results show that .
the reinforcing bar design stresses and the concrete design stresses are below the allowable stresses.
2.2.1 2__ React 2E Building _ Assessment _1Suggary The reactor building is assessed for the effects of SRV and LOCA I loads in accordance with Table 5-1.
Containment basemat acceleration time histories are used to investigate the reactor building response to the SRV and LOC A loa ds'. Response spectra curves at various reactor building elevations are used to assess the adequacy of components in the reactor building. The assessment methodology of the reactor building is presented in Subsection 7.1.1.2.
The results of the structural assessment of the reactor building are summarized in Appendix E. The results show that the reinforcing bars and concrete design stresses as well as the s_/ structural steel design stresses are below the allowable stresses.
Rev. 2, 5/80 2- 5
3s2,2__G9atninnent_submersg4_Stragtstes_Asagasaant Summarr Design assessment of the suppression chamber columns includes non-hydrodynamic as well as hydrodynamic loads. Subsection 7.1.2. 2 describes the methodology used to evaluate the columns.
The results are presented in Piqure A-59 and indicate a minimum design margin of 11.4%.
6 The downcomers are dynamically analyzed per Subsection 7.1.4 for the load combinations given in Table 5-3. A summary of the stresses under various load combinations are given in Piqure A-66 and indicates that the minimum design margin is 14% when the loads are combined by ABS and 50% when the loads are combined by SRSS.
Results from the analysis of the suppression pool liner plate 2
indicate that no structural modifications are required (see Subsection 7.1.3 and 7. 2.1. 5) .
The original downcomer and SRV bracing system has been redesigned so that the downconers and SRV discharge lines are now supported by separate bracing systems. The SRV discharge lines are supported by bracinq connected to the columns, while the downcomers are braced together by a truss system, but no connections exist at the containment or pedestal wall.
Subsections 7.1.2.1 and 7.1.2. 2 document the evaluation of the downcomer and SRV discharge line bracing systems, respectively.
Figure A-67 presents the SRV support system's maximum stresses and design margins, while Figures A-60 and A-61 show the design llg margins for the downcomer bracing system members and connections, r es pe ct i vel'y. All stresses are acceptable.
2a222__ HOE _and_HSSS_Eiging_graten_asssgangat_sugangy 6
All Seismic Category I BOP and NSSS piping are analyzed for the LOCA and SRV hydrodynamic loads and non-hydrodynamic loads per Subsections 7.1.5 and 7.1.6.1.1, respectively. Appendix P qives the stresses and design margins for selected BOP pi pi ng systems.
The stress reports for the above evaluation are available for NRC review.
2=2=E__R0E_and_HSSH_Esuinannt_Assssement_Eumm1EI All Seismic Ca tegory I BOP and NSSS equipment are evaluated for the hydrodynamic and non-hydrodynamic loads per the SSES Seismic Qualification Review Team (SQRT) Program. For each equipment i Purchase Order, 4-page SQRT summary forms are prepa red
[ documenting the qualification results.
These SQRT summary forms are available for NRC review O
REV. 6, 4/82 2-6 I
2a2,5__ElREtEiGal_RRE9111_EIEtRR_&Ef22ERSat_SEE21EI Seismic Category I electrical raceway Erstems in the containment,
-, reactor systems and control building are assessed by the methods
(_,, contained in Subsection 7.1.8. Loads are combined as shown in Table 5-6. As a result of static and dynamic analysis, it was determined that high stresses resulted in certain members of a few support types. These structural members were strengthened or replaced by otronger members to reduc e the stresses below the allowables. 6 2r2t6_ EIAG_DHEt_SIftfR_&HEREgggat_ggagggy Seismic Category I HV AC duct system in the containmen t, reactor building and control building are assessed by the methods contained in Subsection 7.1.9. Loads are combined as shown in Table 5-2. As a result of structural analysis, it was found that a few structural members had high stresses but most of the members had adequate margin of safety. The overstressed seabers were strengthened or replaced by stronger members to ensure an adequate margin of safety.
O 1
i
/
's 4
e f
/
~
J o '
REV. 6. 4/82 2-7
CH APTER 4 E199BES O >>>ter 1211s 4-1 These figures are proprietary and are found in the through proprietary supplement to this DAR.
4-37 1
4-38 SSES Short Tera Suppression Pool Height 4-39 SSES Short Tern Wetvell Pressure 4-40 SSES Pool Surface Velocity vs Elevation 4-40a Poo) swell Acceleration Time Histo /
4-41 Pool Boundary Load During Vent Clearing 2 4-42 This Fiqure has been Deleted 4-43 SSES Poolswell Air Bubble Pressure 4-44 Poolswell Air Bubble Pressure on Suppression Pool Walls Used j for SSES Analysis 4-44a Condensation Pressure Forcing Function (Wet & Dry Wells)
(This figure has been deleted) 6 4-45 Symmetric and Asyssetric Spatial Loading Specification (This figure has been deleted) 4-46 SSES Drywell Pressure Response to DBA LOCA 4-47 SSES Wetvell Pressure Response to DBA LOCA 4-48 SSES Suppression Pool Temperature Response to DB A LOCA 1 4-49 SSES Drywell Temperature Response to DBA LOCA 4-50 SSES Suppression Pool Temperature Response to IBA 4-51 SSES Plant Unique Containment Response to the IBA l2 4-52 Typical Mark II Containment Response to the SBA 4-53 SSES Components Affected by LOCA Loads I l
l 4-54 SSES Components Affected by LOCA Loads REV. 6, 4/82 4-3
flSHEES (Con to )
HNEb2I I1112 4-55 LOCA Loading History for the SSES Containment Hall and Pedestal lll 4-56 LOCA Loading History for the SSES Basemat aad Liner Plate 1
4-57 LOCA Loading History for the SSES Dryvell and Dryvell Ploor 4-58 LOCA Loading History for the SSES Columns 4-59 LOCA Loading History for the SSES Downcomers 4-60 LOCA Loading History for the SSES Downcomer Bracing Systen 4-61 LOCA Loading History for SSES Wetvell Piping 6l 4-6 2, a-f C hu qqing Pool Boundary Loads (These figures have been deleted) 2l 4-62,qsh Dynamic Downconer Lateral Loads Due to Chuqqing 4-62,1-s Typical Wave Motion Due to Seismic Slosh 6 4-63 These Piqures are Proprietary thru 4-66 l'
l l
l 9
REV. 6, 4/82 "~"
CHAPTER 4 ZhDLES E.9Eh2E T1112 4-1 These tables are proprietary and are found thru in the proprietary supplement to this DAR 4-15 4-16 LOCA Loads Associated with Poolswell 4-17 SSES Drywell Pressuro 2 4-18 SSES Plant Unique Poolswell Code Input Data 4-19 Input Data for SSES LOCA Transients 4-20 Component LOCA Load Chart for SSES 4-21 Wetvell Piping LOCA Loading Situations 4-22 Seismic Slosh Wave Height 6 O
{
lO REV. 6, 4/82 4-5 i
4.0 LOAD DEFINITION 4.1 S Aljll JELIEF VA LVE (SRV) DISCH ARG E ._ Lg AD DEFINITIgj[
See the Proprietary Supplement for this section. O O
i l
9 Rev. 2, 5/80 4-6
l
)
l 3,2__LDC1_Lgjp_pjFINITION l Subsections 4.2.1, 4.2.2 and 4.2.3 discuss the numerical j definition of loads resulting from a LOCA in the SSES
() conta inm en t. The LOCA loads are dividad into five groups. l2 (1) Short tern LOCA loads associated with poolswell (Subsection 4.2.11 1
(2) Condensation oscillations and chuqqing loads (Subsection 4.2.2) .
(3) Submerged Structures Loads (Subsection 4. 2. 3)
(4) Secondary Loads (Subsection 4.2.4) . 2 (5) Long tern LOCA loads (Subsection 4. 2.5) .
The application of these loads to the various components and 1 structures in the SSES containment is discussed in Subsection 4.2.6. l2 Sa2al__LOGA LDADS_ASgggIA;33_yI;3_E90LSWELL A description of the LOCA/Poolswell transient is given in Section 3.2.3 of this Design Assessment Report. The LOCA loads 2 associated with pooluwell are listed in Table 4-16. A discussion of these loads and their SSES unique values f ollows.
322z121__EntralllRIrrall_Ersssstas_during_E991srell
[])
The drywell pressure transient used for the poolswell portion of j the LOCA transient (s 2.0 sec) is given in Table IV-D-3 of Reference 7. A portion of this table is reproduced herein as Table 4-17. This drywell pressure transient includes the blowdown effects of pipe inventory and reactor subcooling and is the highest possible drywell pressure case for poolswell. This drywell pressure transient is calculated using the method 2 documented in Reference 56.
The short term poolswell vetwell pressure transient resulting from this drywell pressure transient is calculated by applying 3
the poolswell model contained in Reference 8. The equations and assumptions in the poolswell model were coded into a Bechtel computer program and verified against the Class 1, 2 and 3 test
, cases contained in Reference 9. This verification is documented l in Appendir D to this report. Inputs used for the calculation of the SSES plant unique poolswell transient are shown in Table 4-
- 18. The short ters wetwell pressure transient calculated with l the poolswell code is shown in Figure 4-39. The short ters wetwell pressure peak is 56.1 psia (41.4 psig) .
Reference 46, Subsection III. B.3.d. 2 formulat es a met hodology for 2 determining the mariaua diaphragm uplift P to be used for design a ssessme nt. This AP is based on following relation:
APUP = 8.2 - 44*F (PSI) 0<F< 0.13 l l
APUP = 2.5 (PSI) F>0.13 Rev. 2, 5/80 AB*AP VS 4 l " VD.(AV)d 4-7
chero: AB = break croc3 AP = net pool area AV = total vent area VS = initial vetvell air space volume; and 90 = dryvell volume lll Por SSES (see Tables 4-18 and 4-19) :
AB = 3.53 fte AP = 5065.03 ft AV = 257.52 ft2 VS = 149,000 ft3 l VD = 239,600 ft3 2 Inserting into the above equation yields:
F = 0.168 > 0.13 1
l i This gives a marinum uplif t AP of 2.5 PSID. However, as required i by NUREG 0808, a more conservative uplift A P of 5.5 PSID will be used for design.
E a 2 alx 2_ _ EM h E 9 E99 d _ D 92 n d a EI_L g a$2_Q 9 ele 9_lS a t _ g le arin g The submerged iet formed by the expulsion of the water leg in the downcosers creates a vent clearing load on the basemat and on the submerged vetvell valls. This loading is defined by Reference 57 as a 24 PSI overpressure statically applied with hydrosta tic pressure to surfaces below vent exit with a linear attentuation to zero at pool surface (see Figure 4-41) .
durina the vent clearing.
This load is applied g The NRC, in Supplement No. 1 to NUREG-0487, accepts the above 24 PSI overpressure for the vent clearing load f or those plants where (EhL) /f ( A p /Ay )V DW 1 5 55 with: 5 = mass flow in vents -lb/sec Vow = drywell volume - ft3 h = enthalpy of air in vents - btu /lb L = submergence - ft Ap /Ay= pool area to vent area ratio 6
For SSES, the various parameters are:
a = 17,900 lb/sec Vow = 239,850 ft3 h = 194 btu /lb L = 12 ft Ap /Ay= 5065/257 Substituting into the above gives:
[ (17,900) (194) (12) (257) 1/[ (5065) (239,850) ] = 8.8 REV. 6, 4/82 4-8 I
Thus, for SSES, the 24 PSI overpressure specified for the air 6 clearing load is acceptable.
() 4422142__LQCA_ del _Lenda I During the vent clearing stage induced velocity and acceleration fields are created in the suppression pool producing drag forces on submerged strctures. The original methodology employed to predict the drag forces is contained in Reference 12 (o ft en called the Moody iet model) and is an analytical representation of an unsteady water iet discharging into a suppression pool.
The iet is made up of constant velocity fluid particles traveling i at the speed at which they exited the discharge pipe. The jet front is described as the locus of points which a particle overtakes the one exiting immediately before it. No velocities or accelerations are defined in the fluid external to the iet.
Reference 46, subsection III.D.1.a proposed that velocity and acceleration be predicted throughout the pool using the potential function of a sphere at the iet front. A modification of the load calculated at iet impingement was also required. The Acceptance Criteria was a simple method to determine a bounding 1et load for all structures below t he downconer exits.
The Moody 1et model was clearly derived for iets with constant or linea rly increasing acceleration. However, the vent clea ring transients predicted for Mark II plants typically have an acceleration increase greater than linear. Strict applicaton of 2 Reference 12 leads to unrealistic mathematici results. Two
, O ' interpretations of the results are possible depending upon the time base e mployed. Examining the iet in"real time" (t in Reference 12) a iet can be seen with two independent fronts i traveling at different speeds at different locations which
! coincide only at the point of iet dissipation. On the other hand, if we use the "ex~it t'ine" (t ) as a basis the jet reverses and moves backward in both space an'd "real time" before dissipation. Clearly neither of these observations is of much use in calculating loads on structures.
To overcome the difficulties of using this.aodel, an alternative methodology has been formulated. The iet front will be described by the motion of the particle having travelled the farthest at any instant in time. This will be identical to the Moody jet action for jets with linearly increasing acceleration but will yield a single continuous velocity and acceleration time history even if the acceleration increases more rapidly.
A sphere is then placed at the jet front generating a potential flow described by the'following function:
-3 cose
" 8I j w rd where e and e are the spherical coordinates from the sphere center to some position in the suppression pool with 0 seasured
, Os J REV. 6, 4/82 4-9
froo the iot direction, Djia the velocity of the sphero determined by the velociW of the particle having traveled the farthest at the instant in time the drag forces are being computed and V, is the initial volume of water in the vent.
The local velocity u,, and acceleration, b. are then calculated f rom the above relation by the methods of Ref erence 14. Once the local" velocity and acceleration are known the drag forces are computed from Reference 13 as f ollo ws:
F = -n"P C
2 C E Dx=n s 2g c
whe e F A is the acceleration d rag, b an is the local accelerition field normal to the structure, v is t he acceleration drag volume for flow normal to the structure, p is the fluid density, F is
- he .< tanda r d drag, C D is the draq coefficient fo: flow normai o the structure,
, and U =n is th(e is the velocity local proiectedfieldstructure area nor mal normal to the to U -n structu. e.
When the iet is predicted to dissipate the sphere is traveling at the final iet velocity at the point of maximum iet pene tra tio n.
This condition is used as the final load calculation point. The final iet velocity is that of the jet front iust before the last (gg particle leaving the vent reaches the iet front. The velocity of the last particle is disregarded.
342mlzE__E92DdaEI_Lggds_Dyging_Egglswell During the poolswell transient, the high pressure air bubble which forms in the vicintly of the vent exit creates an increase in pressure on all suppression pool boundaries below the vent exit as well as those walls which it is in direct contact.
Boundaries which are above the bubble location and up to the point of maximum pool elevation also experience increased pressurn loads corresponding to the increased pressure in the wetwell airspace as well as the hydrostatic contribution of the water slag.
Reference 46, Subsection III.B. 3. b methodology for specification of these loads uses the Poolswell Analytical Model to determine the maximum values of bubble pressure and wetwell airspace pressure. The analysis takes the maximum pool elevation as 1.5 times the initial submergence. Using this data, a static loading is applied to the containment structure as follows:
- 1. for the basemat - unifora pressure equal to the maximum bubble pressure superimposed on the hydrostatic load corresponding to a subsergence from vent exit to the basemat; Rev. 2, 5/80 4-10
- 2. for tho containcent calls b31cc vent exit - carinum bubble pressure plus hydrostatic head corresponding to vertical distance from vent exit;
- 3. for the containment valls between vent exit and maximum pool elevation-linear variation between marisua bubble pressure and maximum vetwell airspace pressure;
- 4. for the containment walls above maximum pool elevation -
marinua vetwell airspace pressure.
The pressure distribution used for the SSES analysis is shown in Piqure 4-44.
- x2.1t5 _E991sts11_amIanniris_ Air _RMhh12_L9ad The methodology used in the proceeding subsection assumes that the air flow rate in each downconer is equal leading to a symmetric loading of the containment boundary. Reference 46 has expressed concern that circumferential variations in the downconer air flow rate can occur due to dyrwell air / steam airture variation that would result in variations in the bubble pressure load on the wetwell wall. 2 This loading condition is calculated by statically applying the maximum air bubble pressure obtained from the PSAM to 1/2 of the submerged boundary and statically applying 120% of the maximum '
bubble pressure to the other 1/2 of the submerged boundary. The pressure load on the basemat and wetwell walls below the vent O. exit is the sum of the air pressure and the hydrostatic pressure.
For the portion of the wall above the vent exit, the pressure increase due to the air bubble is linearly attenuated from the bubble *;ressure at the vent exit to zero at the pool surf ace.
Th.s increase is then added to the local hydrostatic pressure to obtain the total pressure. The time period of application of the load is from the termination of vent clearing until the maximum swell height is reached.
42 2slas__E991arell_Innast_ Lead-Any structure located between the initial suppression pool surface (El. 672') and the peak poolswell height (El. 6 90 '-2", -
see Figure 4-38) is subiect to the pool swell impact load. As -
documented in the response to WRC Question 020.68, the poolswell maximum elevation is determined by the poolswell Analytical Model with a polytropic exponent of 1.2 f or vetwell air compression to a marinun swell height which is the greator of 1.5 vent submergence or the elevation corresponding to the- drywell floor uplift AP determined from the equation documented in Subsection 4.2.1.* (2.5 PSID) . For SSES, using the design dryvell floor 6 uplift AP=2.5 PSID leads to the greatest poolswell height and yields 1.51-times the initial vent submergence. Since all grating is removable only assa 11a structures as defined in Reference 10a, subsection 4.2.5.1 are subject to poolswell impact 2
.() loads.
REV, 6, 4/82 4-11
(
Poolscoll icpact lordo of #cccllc ctructurcs cro detortinnd as specified in Reference 46, Subsection III.B.3.c.1. An SSES plant-unique velocity vs. elevation curve has been generated with the poolswell model (see Fiqu re 4-4 0) . The velocity curve is conservatively increased by a 1.1 multiplier and used to calculate the insulse per unit area, pulse duration and maximum lll impact pressure at the component's elevation. The peak pressure is then used to define a versed sine shaped hydrodynamic loading function p , (1-cos2'Jt/T )
2 2
where: P = pressure acting on the projected area of the structure;
= the temporal maximum of pressure acting Pmax on the projected area of the structure; t = time; r = duration of impact The loading function corresponds to impact on rigid structures.
In actua lity, the structures being analyzed may be more flexible, resulting in the pressure pulses, d uring impact, being modified by the motion of the structure. To account for this, the hydrodynamic mass of impact is added to the mass of the impacted structure when performing the structural dynamic analysis.
312t127 toc & _ Air _Bu b bis _Su ba9Issd_Sirscints_L9 ad During the drywell air purge phase of a LOCA, an expanding bubble is created at the dow ncomer exits. These rapidly expanding bubbles eventually coalesce into a " blanket" of air which leads to the pool swell phenomena. The bubble charging process creates fluid motion in the suppression pool which causes drag loads on the submerged structures.
6 The submerged structure draq loads due to air clearing, prior to pool swell, are calculated in the same Lanner as the drag loads due to CO and chuqqing presented in Subsection 4.2.2.5. However, the chuqqing and CO sources are replaced with a source representing the bubble growth prior to pool swell. This source is derived from the original 4T data. All sources are assumed i n- ph a se (87 sources) .
Ez 22 128__2991SERll_ Diag _Lggd Subsequent to bubble contact all bubbles are assumed to coalesce into a blanket of air and the poolswell drag loads are due the rapidly accelerating upward slug of water and acts in the 2 vertical direction only (except for lift forces which act in the l
traverse direction to flow) . The one dimensional pool swell model is used to predict the vertical flow field. Once the flow field is known the drag forces are calculated by the methods of Reference 13 modified by the methodology presented in Subsection REV. 6, 4/82 4-12
- 4. 2.3 . This load applion to any structuro located betecen tho ,
elevation of the vent exit and the paak poolswell height. The duration of the drag load begins when the vent clears except for structures which are originally not submerged. For structures
() which are not submerged, the draq load duration is based on the slug transient time (Reference 10a, page 4-78, step 3). j 1
512s112__2991SM911_lR11kBSh_L994 Af ter the termination of poolswell the slug of water falls under the influence of gravity causing drag forces on structures lcoated between the peak poolswell height and the vent exit. The notion of the water is described by the following equations:
H(t) = H ,x gt /2 VFB(t) = gt 9,3N=g where q is the acceleration constant, H (t) is the height above initial water level at time t, Sax is the marimum swell heigh t,
'and t is time starting with t = 0 at maximum swell height = Wax .
The drag load is then calculated from tie methods of Reference 13 modified by Subsection 4.2.3 of the DAR. The loading stops when H (t) has f allen below the structure or when H (t) has returned to normal water level - whichever is calculated to occur first.
Sz242__C9ndensa119n_Qssilla119as_and Chugging _L9 ads condensation oscillation and chuqqing loads follow the poolswell 2 loads in time. There are basically three loads in this secondary time period, i.e., f rom about 4 to 60 seconds after the break.
" Condensation oscillation" is broken down into two phenomena, a 4 mixed flow regime and a steam flow regime. The aired flow regime is a relatively high mass flux phenomenon which occurs during the final period of air purging from the drywell to the vetwell when the mixed flow through the downconer vents contains some air as well as steam. The steam flow portion of the condensation oscillation phenomena occurs after all the air has been carried over to the wetwell and a relatively high intermediate mass flux of pure steam flow is established.
"Chuqqing" is a pulsating condensation phenomenon which can occur either f ollowing the intermediate mass flux phase of a LOCA, or during the class of smaller postulated pipe breaks that result in steam flow through the vent system in+o the suppression pool. A necessary condition for chuqqing to occur is that only pure steam flows from the LOCA vents. Chuqqing imparts a loading condition to the suppression pool boundary and all submerged structures.
In Revision 2 of the DAR, we stated that the DFFR CO and chugging steam condensation boundary load definition (see Appendix A to Reference 21 and Reference 16) would be compared with the LOCA steam condensation load definition derived f rom the GKM II-M test 6 data to evaluate the conservatism of the DFFR load. Subsections 9.6.1.1 and 9.6.1.2 document this comparison.
-O Rev. 2, 5/80 4-13 1
I Ao o rcault of thic ccapariton cnd the porciblo schedulo dolays associated with licensing SSES based on the DFFR load, PPSL decided on April 1, 1982 to terminate the re-evaluation of SSES based on the DFFR load and re-assess SSES with the GKM II-M load definition. Subsection 9.5.3 documents the GKM II-M load h definition. For chuqqing, both a syneetric and asynaetric load case are considered, while for Co, only a symmetric load case is considered.
For plant evaluation, PPSL does not define a separate CO and chuqqing load definition, as with the Mark II owners. Instead, the acceleration response spectra ( ARS) generated for the LOCA steam condensation phenomena for combination with the other 6 dynamic loads (i.e., SRY ( A DS) , seismic, e tc. ) is the so-called LOCA loa d, which represents an envelope of the ARS curves generated for both the GKM-IIM CO and chuqqing load definition, and symmetric and asymmetric load cases (see Subsection 9.6.1.1).
Subsection 7.0 provides the results of the re-evaluation of the SSES plant to the LOC A steam condensation load derived from the GKM-IIM test data.
E2222 1_E9DlalDE9D1_E99BdaII_lga$s _ Due _To_Condgnsation Oscillat19ns This subsection has been deleted.
Ez22222__E991_D9BDdBII_Lgggg_pyg_to Chugging This subsection has been deleted. ggg Ez22223__D9'D99E9E_LA12Eal_19B$5 2
The chuqqing load imparted to the downcomer is ta ken f rom Reference 47. This reference specifies two sinusoidal dynamic loads used when evaluating downconer lateral bracing systems.
The durations and amplitudes specified are 3ns, 30 kip and 6 as, 5
10 kip (as shown in Piqures 4-62G & H).
However, in response to the NRC's concerns with the Mark II single vent lateral load, SSES is re-evaluating the downcomers with an extrapolated single vent lateral load of 65 Kips and 3 asec time duration for f a ulted conditions. Subsection 9.6. 3 verifies the conservatism of this load based on a statistical analysis of the GKM II- M bracinq force data at 10-5 exceedance 6 probability.
Ez222sE__5311119A1_La19Eal_L9adH_Due to_Ch2991DS Multivent lateral loads due to chuqqing are presently being evaluated by the methodology documented in letter report " Method of Applying Mark II Single Vent Dynamic Lateral Load to Mark II Plants with Multiple Vents," transmitted to the NRC on April 9, 1980 under Task A.13.
O REV. 6, 4/82 4-14
422a225-_ Submersed _ Structure _19 ads _Dse to_condsnsation DEGL11st19Dn_and_Ghu991ng condensation oscillation and chuqqing induce flows fields in the suppression pool causing draq loads on the submerged structures
(-s) (i.e., SRY lines, downconers, etc.). The methodology for calculating these draq loads to be combined with the other design basis loads is presented below.
The force on a submerged structure is the sua of an acceleration force FA and an unsteady drag force PD
- FT= F3 + FD under certain conditions the pressure gradient is o f su f ficie nt magnitude so that the submerged structure force is essentially the acceleration drag force. In order for this to be true, the Stroughal Number must be sufficiently large.
For the SSES submerged structures and the flow fields induced by chuqqing and Co, the Stroughal Number is su f ficiently high that negligible error will be incurred by ignoring the unsteady drag force.
The submerged structure drag force can be approximated by the integral of the pressure field P4 over the structure surface:
F = p4dS K where: Pe S = determined by the equations for potential flow 6 K = hydrodynamic mass factor Por a linear isentropic fluid where the velocity is everywhere small compared to the sonic speed c, the equations for potential flow reduce to the acoustic wave equation (Reference 65) . Thus, t he pressure field also satisfies the acoustic wave equation.
Thus, for calculating the SSES submerged structure drag load due to CO and chuquing, the above expression is used, with the pressure P4 , as a function of time and position, calculated by the TWEGS/M ARS acoustic model of the SSES suppression pool. The pressure P4 is calculated in an analagous manner as the svanetric wall loads (see subsection 9.5.3.4.1) for each source, except that the pressures are calculated at the submerged structure surface locations instead of the containment boundary.
For each structure being analyzed (i.e. , column) a pressure time i history (PTH) is calculated for every 600 incre ment I circunferential around the structure at each elevation corre spo nd ing to a nodal point of the structural model. Thus, f or each node point elevation, six pressure time histories are calculated. This is repeated for each source. These sets of PTHs, calculated for each source, are then integrated across the structure's surf ace to give resultant force time histories for structural analysis.
r's D
REV. 6, 4/82 4-15
)
a
The fcree tico hictories are th:n cultiplied by a hydrodynacic 6 nass fac tor, K, of 2 to account for the modification of the flow field due to structure's presence.
Hz2s3__E2SE9DHE_19_ HEE _GritSria_fgg_ Loads on_Sgbnerged Structurg ggg 412tJ21__IntI9dus11gn In October 1978 the NRC peblished NUREG-0487, Mark II containment Lead Plant Program Load Be tluation and Acceptance Criteria. It addresses the load method alogies proposed by the Mark II Lead plant Program for determining LOCA and SRV hydrodynamic loads.
NUREG-04 87 was highly critical of the lead plant position for deter mining submerged structure loads and stipulated very conservative alternative loading criteria. The following subsections will present the NRC submerged structures acceptance criteria and the corresponding Mark II response.
3.2.J22__ggC_ Criteria _IIIza22zazli__gubble_AsImantry A conservative estimate of asymmetry should be added by increasing acceleration and velocities computed in Step 12 of Section 2.2 of Reference 13 by 10%. If the alternative steps SA, 12A, and 13A are used, the acceleration drag shall be directly increased by 10% while the standard drag shall be increased by 20%.
De sponse : These criteria are acceptable.
2 3322].3 NRC_ Criteria III.D.2.a.2: Standard _ Drag _In_ Accelgra ting fl9W- lh The draq coefficients C for the standard drag contribution in steps 13, Or 11A, 15 of section 2.2 and step 3 of section 2.3 of Bef orence 13 may not be taken directly from the steady state l coe fficients of Table 2-3. Modified coefficients C from accelerating flow as presented in References 49 and D$0 shall be l used with transverse forces included, or an upper bound of a i
factor of three times the standard drag coefficients shall be used for structures with no sharp corners or with streamwise dimensions at least twice the width.
Response
l .
The three references show that in oscillating flows the standard draq coefficient for cylinders can exceed the steady flow value.
Values of C in excess of 2.0 were observed while steady state values (for Dcylinders) never exceed 1.2. The NBC's position is interpreted to mean that neglecting the unsteady effect on standard draq coefficients will be nonconservative in some cases.
A method is presented in Reference 51, Appendix A to account for unsteady effects on standard and acceleration drag during various phases of the LOCA and SRV transients. Also included are methods to estimate transverse forces due to vorter shedding.
O REV. 6, 4/82 4-16
Subacquent to reviewing tho cathodology contained in Appendix A of Reference 51, the . NRC in Su pplement No. 1 of NUR EG-0487, 2 required several modifications to the methodology for determining the unsteady draq coefficients.
O A review of the SSES pool swell and fallback drag load calculations indicates that SSES has incorporated these modifications into their calculations. Draq coefficients are not required for calculating the submerged structure drag loads due 6 to air bubble charging prior to pool swell, and the draq loads due to chuquing and Co, since these loads are calcula ted using the pressure time histories at the structure locations (see Subsection 4. 2.1.7 and 4. 2. 2. 5) .
322 x2 xa_ _1RG_ G E11Rria _IIIaD z2a n aJi__S gs ata ka tign_ st_strygintas The equivalent uniform flow velocity.and acceleration for any structure or structural segment shall be taken as the maximum values "seen" by that structure, hot the value at the geometric center.
Response
For structures submerged in a non-uniform flow field, the velocity and acceleration vill be a function of position along the structure. The NRC's criterion is interpreted to mean that the velocity and acceleration should be taken at the end of the segment closest to the disturbinq source instead of the geometric center. For certain restrictions on sequent length, the error in the calculation of drag using the velocity and acceleration at O' the geometric center is very small. This is demonstrated for 2
acceleration drag in Reference 51, Appendix B and for standard draq Reference 51, Appendix C. Appendix B also contains a discussion that shows that neglecting end ef fects in drag calculations is conservative.
E 2.J 5__EEG_Gr11eria_IIIaDa2aamal__Inissfersass_Zffects The computation of drag forces on submerged structures independent of each uther (as presented in Reference 13) is adequate for structures sufficiently far from each other so that interference effects are negligible. Interference effects can be expected to be insignificant when two structures are separated by more than three characteristic dimensions of the larger one. For structures closer together than this separation, either detailed analysis of interference effects shall be performed or a conservative multiplication of both the acceleration and standard drag forces by four shall be performed.
O REV. 6, 4/82 g_17
Rccpo ncm3 Interference effects can have a significant ef fect on drag forces. A modification to the calculational procedure is proposed to account for interference. Reference 51, Appendix D describes the proposed method for standard drag with the lh exception that the free stream velocity used will be that at the structures geometric center in all cases. Reference 51, Appendix p E presents the proposed method for acceleration drag.
EA2s326 NRC Cgitggia IIIz g22,a231__Blockagg_In_Downconer Bracing A specific example of interference which must be accounted for is the blockage presented to the motion of the water slug during Dool swell due to the presence of downconer bracing systems. If significant blockage relative to the net pool area exists, the standard draq coefficients shall be modified for this effect by conventional methods (Ref erence 52) .
Response
Blockage effects on the pool swell drag loads produced on the 6 downcomer bracinq system were accounted for by using the methods in Reference 87.
Ez22222__HRE_G rite ria _IIIzD2223 tsi__For sglg_2:23 o f R ef er e nc e _ 13 Formula 2-23 of Reference 13 shall be modified by replacing M n with PFB 1 where h is obtained from Table 2-1 and 2- 2. This is then consistent with the analysis of Reference 14. gg
Response
This criteria is acceptable.
31224- - -SecondagI_Lgad The previous subsections have identified and specified loading methodologies that result in significant containment dynamic 2 loads. In addition, several pool dynamic loads can occur which are considered secondary when compared to the previous loads or because the containment and related equipment response is small when subiected to them. The following subsections identify the secondary loads and the load criteria to be applied to the SSES containment.
l l
Es21Ez1-_Dgwgggggg_fgigtigg_Qggg_kgads l
! Friction Draq loads are experienced internally by the downconers during vent clearing and subsequent air /or steam flow. In I
a ddit ion, the downconers experience an external draq load during i
poolswell. Using standard drag force calculation procedures l
these loads are determined to be 0.6 and .3 KIPS per downconer, respectively and are not considered in the structural evaluation of the containment.
O REV. 6, 4/82 4-18
h2s%2__29D19_!aggs Immediately following the postulated instantaneous rupture of a large primary systen pi pe , a sonic wave front is created at the (7.) break location and propagates through the drywell to the vent system. This load has been determined to be negligible and none is specified.
34243xl__G9aPIRDai2R_!A!!
The compressior. of the air in the drywell and vent system causes a compressive wave to be generated in the downconer water legs.
This compressive wave then propagates through the pool and ca uses a dif ferential pressure loading on the submerged structures and on the vetwell wall. This load has been evaluated and is considered negligible.
322.349__Iallkash_ Loads _9n_subasised_Henadaries 2 During f allback " water hammera type loads could exist if the water sluq remained intact during this phase. However available test data indicates that this does not occur and the fallback process consists of a relatively gradual settling of the pool water to its initial level as the air bubble apercolatesa upward.
This is based on visual observations during the EPRI tests (Reference 32) as well as indirect evidence provided by a careful examination of pool bottom pressure forces from the 4T, EPRI, foreign licensee and Marviken tests. Thus these loads are small.
and will not be considered.
Es2s%2__ Ital _CltariD9_L2AdR_9D_th2_D9 ERG 952If The expulsion of the water leg in the downconers at vent clearing creates a transient water jet in the suppression pool. This iet formation may occur asymmetrically leading to lateral reaction loads on the downconer. However, this load is bounded by the load specification during chuqqing and will not be considered for containment analysis.
342z!,6__ Post _Egglgygil_!gsgg Reference 46 indicates the potential for containment loading due to post poolswell waves impinging on the wetwell wall and internal components. Per the response to Question M020.8 documented in Appendix A to Reference 10a, this load is considered negligible when compared to the other design basis 6 loads.
E121511__B91EniG_B192h Seismic slosh loads are defined as those hydrodynamic loads exerted on the suppression pool walls by water in the suppression pool during a seismic event. Although these loads are expected to be small in comparison with other hydrodynamic loads such as those associated with air / steam SRV discharge and LOCA poolswell
.O REV. 6, 4/82 4-19
cnd etcao condon2ntion londo, they have bocn cniculated for the SSES containment evaluation, as requested by the NRC in NUREG-0487.
The methodology used to calculate seismic slosh loads for the SSES containment is the SOLA-3D computer code, developed at Los lll Alamos Scientific Laboratory for multi-dimensional fluid flow analyses, including seismic slosh (Reference 71 and 72) . The code has been used for seismic slosh analysis previously, where a toroidal MK I BUR suppression pool was approrisated by an annular geometry, and excited by a simulated sinusoidal seismic event.
Results of this analysis are reported in Reference 73. It was demonstrated that SOLA-3D could be used to describe suppression pool water motion for a seismic excitation applied to the containment structure.
The seismic slosh analysis for SSES suppression pool has been patterned a f ter the annular suppression pool analysis described in Reference 73, with appropriate SSES suppression pool and 6 containment paramete rs used. The results of calculations are pressure-time histories, caused by water wave action, to be applied to suppression pool boundaries in manner and location similar to the method used for SRV and LOCA hydrodynamic loads.
Generally, water motion above the quiescent suppression pool surface causes " wave loads" and water motion below causes
" inertial loads." The inertia loads will always appear to be larger than the wave loads because the normal hydrostatic load would be included below the water surface. (For example, at 24 ft. submergence in cold water, the hydrostatic head would be g slightly more than 10 psi, giving a 10 psi bias to the inertia w loads at pool botton.)
Some numerical results of the calculations are shown in Table 4-22 for the selected locations in the suppression pool. As can be observed, these pressures are small relative to those calculated for the other hydrodynamic loads. Piqures 4-62 i, 1, k, and a show typical wave motion at the four containment locations in Table 4-22.
! Ez2 sed ___ThISiit_LQady Thrust loads are associated with the rapid venting of air and/or steam through the downconers. To determine this load a momentum balance for the control volume consisting of the drywell, diaphraga floor and vents is taken. Results of the analysis 2 indicates that the load reduces the downward pressure differential on the diaphraqu.
32225__Lona_Ters_LDCA_19ad_D9finiti9n I The losu-of-coolant accident causes pressure and temperature transients in the drywell and vetvell due to mass and energy released from the line break. The dryvell and wetvell pressure and temperature time histories are required to establish the O
REV. 6. 4/82 4-20 k
-_ _ - _ . _ . . - = - . - _ _ . .. . . . _ . . - . _ -
structural loading conditions in the containcent bscauco they are the basis for other containment hydrodynamic phenomena. The
- response must be determined for a range of parameters such as
) leak size, reactor pressure and containment initial conditions.
l The results of this analysis are containment initial conditions.
l The results of this analfsis are documented in Reference 7.
Sa2 seal __EsaiSB_DAsis_issidsR1_JDRal_Itanaisnia The DBA LOCA for SSES is conservatively estimated to be a 3.53 l
i f ta brea k of the recirculation line (Reference 7) . The SSES l plant unique inputs for this analysis are shown in Table 4-19.
Drywell and wetwell pressure responses are shown in Figures 4-46 and 4-47 (extracted f rom Reference 7) . These transient l
- descriptions do not, however, contain the effects of reactor
! subcooling. Suppression pool temperature response is shown in l Piqure 4-48 (Reference 7) . This transient description also does l
, not contain ' ~ e ef fect of reactor subcooling. Drywell temperature t monse is shown in Figure 4-49 and similarly does not contain the effects of pipe inventory or reactor subcooling.
142 1,2__Interassinis_BEsak_Assidsni frBAL_IIansienta The worst-case intermediate break for the Mark II plants is a main steam line break on the order of 0.05 to 0.1 ft2 Suppression pool temperature response is shown in Piqure 4-50.
Drywell temperature and vetwell and dryvell pressures for the SSES IBA are shown in Piqure 4-51.
342 522__2sall_REtak_Assissat_JERA) Tranaisnia 1
IO At this time plant-unique SBA data for SSES is not available.
- The wetwell and drywell pressure and temperature transients for a typical Mark II containment are used to estimate SSES containment response to these accidents. These curves are shown in Piqure 4-i 17 (extracted f rom Reference 10) . l az221__LQGA_Leadins_!1sterisa_19I_ESAE_Esniniassmi_G9annntnis The various components directly affected by LOCA loads are shown schematically in Piqures 4-53 and 4-54. These components may in turn load other ccaponents as they respond to the LOCA loads.
For orample, lateral loads on the downconer vents produce minor reaction loads in- the drywell floor from which the downconers are supported. The reaction load in the drywell floor is an indirect
- load resulting from the LOCA and is defined by the appropriate I structural model' of the dowacomer/drywell floor system. Only the direct loading situations are described explicitly here. Table 4-20 is a LOCA load chart for SSES. This chart shows which LOCA lodds directly affect the various structures in the SSES l containment design. Details of the loading time histories are discussed in the following subsections.
l O Rev. 2, 5/80 4-21 l - - . .- . - - - - . - . -. - - . - . . -. . --- .
1220 sol __L99A_L9 Ass _98_the_Eenininnsat vall_and_fedestal Fiqure 4-55 shows the LOCA loading history for the SSES containment wall and the BPy pedestal. The wetwell pressure loads apply to the unvetted elevations in the vetwell; and addition of the appropriate hydrostatic pressure is made for llh loads on the wetted elevations. Condensation oscillation and chuqqing loads are applied to the wetted elevations in the wetvell only. The poolswell air bubble load applies to the wetvell boundaries as shown in Figure 4.44.
4Ls2 a122__L QG A_ L 9 a ds_9 n_t h2_Dass a al_ an d__Lin sI_ Ela19 Fiqure 4-56 shows the LOC A loading history for the SSES basemat I and liner plate. Wetvell pressures are applied to the wetted and unwetted portions of the liner plate as discussed in Subsection 4.2.6.1. The downconer water iet impacts the basemat liner plate as does the poolswell air bubble load. Chuqqing and condensation oscillation loads are applied to the vetted portion of the liner plate.
Sz2istl__LRCA_L9 ads _9n_ths_DEIIsil_and_DEIEcll Floor Figure 4-57 shows the LOCA loading history for the SSES drywell and drywell floor. The dryvell floor undergoes a vertically applied, continuously varying dif ferential pressure, the upward componnnt of which is especially prominent during poolswell when the vetwell air space is highly compressed.
322 sza__L2CA_L9 ads _92_the_G91sans Figure 4-58 shows the LOCA loading history for the SSES columns. O Poolswell drag and f allback loads are very minor since the column surface is oriented parallel to the pool swell a'nd fallback velocities. The poolswell air bubble, condensation oscillations and chuqqing will provide loads on the submerged (wetted) portion of the columns.
E222625__L29A_L9 ads _9n_ths_D92Ds9mers Figure 4-59 shows the LOCA loading history for the SSES downconers. The downconer clearing load is a lateral load applied at the downconer exit (in the same manner as the chuqqing lateral load) plus a vertical thrust load. Poolswell drag and f allback loads are very minor since the downconer surfaces are oriented parallel to the pool swell and fallback velocities. The poolswell air bubble load is applied to the submerged portion of the downconer as are the chuqqing and condensation oscillation loads.
Ex226ss__LRC A_ Loads _9 n_ths_Dnu ns222E_arasing Figure 4-60 shows the LOCA loading history for the SSES downconer bracinq system. This system is not subiect to impact loads since it is submerged at elevation 668'. As a submerged structure it h
Rev. 2, 5/80 4-22 l l
l l
to cab 12ct to poolecoll decq, fellbcck and air bubblo loads.
Condonsatica oscilleticac and ch:qqing et tho vent crit vill also load the bracing systen both through downconer reaction (indirect load) and directly through the hydrod ynamic loading in the suppression pool.
h 225 7 _LDGA_L9 Ass _nn_In12sll_Rining Figure 4-61 shows the LOCA loading history for piping in the SSES wetvell. Since the wetvell piping occurs at a scriety of elevations in the SSES wetvell, sections may be completely submerged, partially submerged, or initially uncovered. Piping may occur parallel to poolswell and fallback velocities as with the main steam safety relief piping. For these reasons there are a number of potential loading situations which arise as shown in Table 4-21. In addition, the poolswell air bubble load applies to the submerged portion of the wetwell piping as do the condensation oscillation and chuqqing loads.
O O
Rev. 2, 5/80 4-23
L.L_AIELDLEEMMAIHTI9E The RPV shield annulus has the recirculation pumps suction lines passing through it (f or location in containment see Piqure 1- 1) .
The mass and energy release rates from a postualted recirculation g; line break constitute the most severe transient in the reactor W shield annulus. Therefore, this pipe break is selected for analyzing loading of the shield vall and the reactor pressure vessel support skirt for pipe breaks inside the annulus. The reactor shield annulus differential pressure analysis and analytical techniques are presented in Appendices 6A and 6B of the SSES Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR).
O l
1 i
O
~
Rev. 2, 5/80
l O
This figure has been deleted i
O REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT CONDENSATION PRESSURE FORCING j
FUNCTIONS FIGURE 4-44 A
O i
This figure has been deleted O
i l
i l
REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA feTEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT SYMMETRIC AND ASSYMMETRIC SPATIAL LOADING SPECIFICATION 1
l FIGURE 446 l
\
~ l
O CONTA M ENT O O O O . O O O B ING ( Y .
O OOO O O90 0
- O ^O #-
O .O O k.O G erO l O OgO DOWNCOMERS COLUMNS M O O 00 ',Okh/ g' S%
b hR O O
O O
OO OO g we OO OO NOTE:
ART Y SHOW IN THE INTEREST OF CLARITY.
LETTERS INDICATE SRV QUENCHERS lt.V. n, 4/82 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT O SSES COMPONENTS AFFECTED BY LOCA LOADS
]
I FIGURE 4 53 ,
I
(~
< b %
.=*
. '. ..- B.O. SLAB
..- . a. i EL. 700' 3" I 1
_1 l . __ _
l l B.O. HYDROG EN l
! VACUUM BREAKER RECOMBINER
_ . . .)) -}s7 EL. 692* 1" i
E L. 691 *-0" % %_ T.O. PLATFORM
~~ ,, Y- I E,L. 691'-0" ,
I " N' 3 MAXIMUM POOL SWELL l 1 -~g bf EL. 690'7
I b J ----'P r- m ...-
MAXIMUM POOL SWELL HEIGHT = 1.51 X MAX \ }'
/
VENT SUBMERGENCE r,e
- I B . l l' Bh
. *{ .
1- HIGH WATER LEVEL g
u n y y
v
[ E L. 672*-0" i 1 l BRACING sNOR.vl WATER LEVEL
. E L. 668' 0"- E L. 671*-0" 4 F-4 F-MAXIMUM VENT SUBMERGENCE
= 12' 0" B.O. VENT PIPE. o E L. 660' 0" ,
DI APHRAGM SLAB WETWELL SUPPORT COLUMN PIPING "
~
12'-0" C- I :A , ,
3'-6" T.O. SLAB y
{ ...
Y E L. 648*-0"
- .~ .
6.. *. .. :
' . '*g.j, c, R F.\' . ' , 4 / d 2 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT
\ /
SSES COMPONENTS AFFECTED BY LOCA LOADS FIGURE 4-54 1
O
/
This figure has been deleted O
REV. 6, 4/82 l SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 lO DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT e CHUGGING POOL BOUNDARY LOADS FIGURE 4-62 A & B
lO l
l This figure has been deleted O
J
, 1 REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 O DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT CHUGGING POOL BOUNDARY LOADS FIGURE 4-62 C & D t - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
O This figure has been deleted O
REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT CHUGGING POOL BOUNDARY LOADS FIGURE 4-62 E & F
O =
i URVE HEIGHT (!=2, J=2, IJPL) a E
k 2
02 SE i
- s i Eh !
a 28 Ei i
t O i A '
& l 8
2 3
a
! 1.es s'.ea 4'.e3 e'. e3 e'. st ib.si l'a.el ' it.e ab.oe it.oo ab.es X-TIME (SEcl i
l l
REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND.2 O DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT TYPICALWAVENOTIONDUE TO SEISMIC SLOSH FIGURE 4-21
URVE HEICHT(I=2,J=JMI,IJPL) h
. J
. $d 4
. 3
$ Y g di f f l
-c T f I
i s3 h p bx- f E
15 g ra kY f k 3 ES
,; M "E
A %
d0
, O :. E 66 4m 1 a is
" :).oi ib.si ib.co ib.oo ab.co 5.e3 2'.e3 e'.e3 s'. e2 e'. si l's.oi X-TIME ISECl f
REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT O ryric,ewayEr.311on DUE To SEISMIC SLOSH FIGURE ll@J
O i -
unve seicnicr=isi.2=2,ize
< 2 3
"$ d 3
6 1N t t-3 4 4 hk E
3 bk R sk l d s ."J l 5 "5, 4
d !
> a O ae f
J, S 5d l
4 2 66
\. E \
o .: '
'b.es 2'. e2 e'.e2 ..e2 o'. si ib.es t's.es i sk.e th.oo it.oo ab.es X-TIME (SECl i
REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT TYICALWAVElhTION DUE To SEISMIC SLOSH
. F GURE lj-62K
h UAVE HEICHT(l=lH1,J=JH1,IJPL) e R-E 9
08 bi E
E!
x4 U
ES f Y
- \
\
O 2
A
~
8 6
l 3 \
k.sa a'.o2 4'. sa s'. o2 o'. cl ib.ci Q.oi ib.on A co Ib.co ab.co X-TlHE ISECl l
SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 ,
DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT
- O 1YPICAL WAVE I'bTION i
DUEToSEISMICSLOSH FIGURE 4-@
Table 4-22 O- Sloshing Wave Height Time of Max. HF2, (2,2) HF3, (2,17) HBK2, (7,2) HBK3, (7,17)
Height I = 2, J = 2 I = 2, J = 17 I = 7, J = 2 I = 7, J = 17 sec. ft. ft. ft, ft 25.40 14.0 (1.40) 9.90 25.80 (1.80) 17.50 25.60 (1.60) 12.90 25.95 (1.95) s 3 71 ! 1 I I i l
U V Fig. 4-62h Fig. 4-62m Fig. 4-621 Fig. 4-62j Note: * = Shows location
() = Inside bracket is the net wave height frm the initial position 24 ft. frm the bottm of tank.
I = Mesh nunbers on the radius fra inside to outside.
J = Circumferential division numbers.
REV. 6, 4/82 l
CHAPTER S
,- LOAD COMBINATIONS FO R S TR UCT U R ES , PIPING,
(_j AND EQUIPMENT
__ _________T A B L E_ O F . CORIZ1T S 5.1 CorORETE CONTAINMENT AND REACTOR BUILDING LOAD 1 COMBINATIONS ;
5.2 STRUCTURAL STEEL LOAD COMBINATIONS 5.3 LINER PLATE LOAD COMBINATIONS 5.4 DOW NCOMER LOAD COMBINATIONS 5.5 PIPING, QUENCHER, AND QUENCHER SUPPORT LOAD 1 COMBINATIONS 5.5.1 Load Considerations for Piping Inside the Drywell 5.5.2 Load Considerations for Piping Inside the Wetwell 5.5.3 Quencher and Quencher Support Load Considerations 5.5.4 Load Considerations for Piping in the Reactor Building
{}
5.6 NSSS LO AD COMBIN ATIONS 5.7 BALA:#CE OF PLANT (BOP) EQUIPMENT LO AD COMBIN ATIONS l6 5.8 ELECTRICAL RACEWAY SYSTEM LOAD COMBINATIONS HVAC 5.9 DUCT SYSTEM LOAD COMBINATIONS 2
5.10 FIGURES 5.11 TABLES
(~)
v l
REV. 6, 4/82 5- 1 l
l .
CHAPTER 5 ZIEEEli g Ellahgr 1111g 5-1 Piping Stress Diagrams and Tables 5-2 Pipidq Stress Diagrams and Tables 5-3 Piping Stress Diagrams and Tables 5-4 Piping Stress Diagrams and Tables O
i l
O 3ev. 2, 5/80 5-2
CH APTER 5 IA]ggs O,' E9EkSE 1Ah19 5-1 Load Combinations for Containment and Reactor Building Concrete Structures Considering 1 Hydrodynamic Loads 5-2 Load Combinations and Allowable Stresses for Structural Steel Components 5-3 Load Combinations and Allowable Stresses for Downconers 5-4 Load Combinations and Allowable Stresses 2 For Balance of Plant (BOP) Equipment 5-5 Load Combinations and Allowable Stresses for NSSS Equipment and Piping 6
5-6 Load Combinations and Allowable Stresses for the Electrical Raceway Systen O
O REV. 6, 4/82 5-3
i 5.0 - LO A D CO3]IN ATIONS _ EOR _ STRUCTURES, PIPING,_AND EQUIPMENT To verify the adequacy of mechanical and structural design, it is necessary first to define the load combinations to which structures, piping, and equipment may be subjected. In addition lll to the loads due to pressure, weight, thermal expansion, seismic, and fluid transients, hydrodynamic loads resulting from LOCA and SHV discharge are considered in the design of structures, piping, and equipment in the drywell and suppression po*l. This chapter specifies how the LOCA and SRV discharge hydrodynamic loads will be combined with the other loading conditions. For the load combinations discussed in this chapter, seismic and hydrodynamic responses are combined by the methods specified in Reference 10 subsection 5.2.2 and Reference 10 Section 6.3.
O l
l l
l l
l O
l l
Rev. 2, 5/80 5-4 l
Esk- R222 k9hD G9BDIu ngyy O 26 to a co 61 tiea ea ter **e and equipment are contained in Table 5-5.
1 eta = ei **e asss 9191 9 e
i 1
1 i
- O 4
4 i
I.
!O I
l l
REV. 6. 4/82 5-11 l_
i 6
Load combinations for seismic category I equipment located within the Containment, reactor and control buildings are assessed for 2 the load combinations shown in Table 5-4.
O O
REV. 6, 4/82 5-12
l l
- 5. 8 _ELEGIBIGAL_RAGEMAJ_HIETEL19AD_G93Hunggg The load combinations for evaluating the Electrical Raceway O System are given in Table 5-6.
l O
O REY. 6, 4/82 5-13 :
I
5.9 HV AC_ DUCT SYSTEH_LO AD COMBI N ATIONS The load combination for the HVAC duct system are given in Table 5-2.
h 1
i l
l O
l O
5-14 Rev. 2, 5/80
thDkR 5:5 kD D GDilD U A119 M h D hkk9 0 DLR 2TEREERD
[~)~
~- EQR DALARGR 91 EkhBT-.lBOP) ZD0iPURT l6 REMa119D C9Bd11193 Load Combination Stress Limit 2 1 Normal D+L+SRV P s
w/o Temp S pr.
2 Normal D +L +T + P+ S 3V F s
. w/ Temp & pr.
3 Abnormal / Severe D + L + T + P + E + S R V + L OC A 1. 5 F s 4 Abnormal / Extreme D +L + T+ P + E ' + SR V+ LOCA 1.5F s whern F = Allowable stress for normal conditions S
D = Dead Load L = Li ve Load 2 P = Pressure loads during operating conditions l including pressure gradieats and equpment and pipe I reactions, i
l
() T = Thermal effects during normal operating conditions including temperature gradients and equipment and I pipe reactions.
E = Loads due to operating basis ea rthqua ke E' = Loads due to Safe Shutdown earthquake SRV = Loads due to Main Steam Safety relief valve operation LOCA = Loads due to Loss-of-Coolant Accident occurrence, l
O REV. 6, 4/82
TABLE 5-5 LOAD COMBINATION AND ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA
() FOR ASME CODE CLASS 1, 2 AND 3 NSSS PIPING AND EQUIPMENT Desig n Evalua tion (Service 19ad_G9thiantisd Ensis_ __ Basis ___ _Levell N + SRY Upset Upset (B)
N + OBE Ups et Upset (B)
N + OBE + SRT Energency Upset (B)
N+ SSE + SRY Faulted Faulted * (D)
N + SBA + SRY Energency Energencr* (C)
N + IB A + SRV Faulted Faulted * (D)
N + SBA + SRV Energency Ene rge ncy? (C)
N + SBA + OBE + SRY Faulted Faulted * (D)
N + IB A + OBE + SPV Faulted Faulted * (D)
/ N + SBA/IBA + SSE + SRV Faulted Faulted * (D)
N + LOCA** + SSE Faulted Faulted * (D)
=_
LOAD DEFINITION LEGEND
! Norma l ( N) -
Normal and/or abnormal loads depending on acceptance criteria.
OBE -
Operational basis earthquake loads.
SSE -
Safe Shutdown earthquake loads.
SRY -
Loads associated with Safety Relief Valve 1.ct uatio n.
O REV. 6, 4/82
k9AD 99BBIBA119E thDLR (Cont.)
The loss of coolant accident associated with the
()
LOCA1 postulated pipe rupture of large pipes (e.g., main steam, feedvater, recirculation piping) .
LOCA -
Pool swell dggg/fallhagl_lgggg on piping and 2
componentslocated between the main vent discharge outlet and the suppression pool water upper surface.
LOC & -
Pool swell 13Eget loadg on piping and components 3
located above the suppression pool water upper surface.
LGCA4 -
Oscillating pressure induced loads on submerged piping and components during condensation i oscillations.
LOCA S -
Building motion induced loads from chugging.
i LOCA -
Vertical and horizontal loads on main vent piping. i 6
LOCA -
Annulus pressurization loads.
7 i
SBA -
The abnormal transients associated with a Small Break Accident.
IBA -
The abnormal transients associated with an IntermediatG i
() Break Accident.
i i
t
- All ASME Code Class 1, 2, and 3 piping systems which are I
required to function for safe shutdown under the postula ted events shall meet the requirements of NRC's " Interim Technical Position - Functional Capability of Passive Components" - by MEB.
7 O
REV. 6. 4/82
T A BLE 5-6 LOAD COMBINATIONS AND ALLOWABLE O s 85ssis rs" '""_252sts1. sat 82si"a1 s'S'm L9Ad_Co#b1ER119s AllnEahls_S1Esases
- 1. D+L+SRY F
- 2. D+L+E Note 2
- 3. D+E'+SRY+LOCA Note 2 NOTES:
- 1. For notations, see Table 5-2.
O O
REV. 6, 4/82
6.5 PIPING, QUENCHER, AND QUENCHER SUPPORT CAPABILITY ASSESS _qENT CRE ERIA _
Piping in the containment and reactor building is analyzed in accordance with Reference 29 Subsections NB3600, NC3600, and l ND3600 for the loading described in Subsection 5.5.
The quencher is designed in accordance with Reference 29, l Subsection NC3200,for loading discussed in Subsection 5.5.3. The quencher support is designed in accordance with Subsection NF3000 of Reference 29. l O
l .
l Rev. 2, 5/80
szf__RE!!_GAEADILITY ASggSSng3I_CRIIgEIA The capability assessment criteria used for the analysis of NSSS piping systems, reactor pressure vessel (RPV), RPV su pports, RPY internal components and floor structure mounted equipment are shown in Table 5-5, Load Combinations and Acceptance Criteria.
Table 5-5 is in agreement with a conservative general interpretation of the NBC technical position, " Stress Limits for 6 ASME Class 1, 2 and 3 Components and component Supports of Safety-Related Systems and Class CS Core Support Structures Under specific Service Loading Combinations."
Peak response due to related dynamic loads postulated to occur in the same time f rame but f rom different events are combined by the square-root-of-the-sun-of-the-squares method (SRSS) . A detailed discussion of this load combination technique is presented in Reference 80.
O O
REY. 6, 4/82 6-8 i
i
1,2__aALAEB_9Z_fLAH_lDQEL_IDMfHg_cag1ginI_ ASSESSgitT CRITEH_A 6.7.1.1 Seismic Category I BOP equipment located within the
() containment, reactor and control building are assessed for load combinations shown in Table S-4. In these load 6 combinations, seismic and hydrodynamic loads are generally combined using the absolute sua method.
6.7.1.2 However, for the " marginal" cases the responses of the
" dynamic" events (Seismic, SRV, LOCA) are combined by the square root of the sum of the squares (SRSS) method before adding these values to the other loads by the absolute sum (ABS) method. The mariaua loading effects of both the horizontal and vertical directions are considered as arising from simultaneous excitation in all three principal directions for all combinations involving dynamic loads as detailed in Subsection 7.1.7.4.1.3.
6.7.2 Tgsting 6.7.2.1 When equipment is qualified by testing, the test 19119RE have 31EMlgigd the combinations and damping. The equipment have remained operational and functional, 2 before, during and after such tests.
(a) OBE alone -
1/21 damping (b) SSE alone -
1% damping (c) SRY alone O 2% damping (d) LOCA alone -
25 damping (e) OBE+SRV+LOCA -
2% damping (f) SSE+SRV+LOCA -
2% damping 6.7.2.2 Cases (a) and (b) are covered in the FSAR. Cases (c) and (d) are covered in the test evaluation for (e) and (f) . Test requirements are depicted by tests' response spectrum (TR S) for a given damping value. Equipment is deemed to be qualified if the equipment did not fail or malfunction during the test and the TRS envelope the required response Spectrum (RRS). The RRS for cases (e) and (f) are obtained by combining the response spectrum of the individual components of each event by adding the larger of the horizontal responses to the vertical responses on an absolute sua basis. However, for 6 marginal cases the square root of sua of the squares (SRSS) method is allowed for the individual dynamic events and components.
O REY. 6, 4/82 6-9
L H__ELESIBIGAL_EASEHAY s YgIILCARADILIII_ A!!ISSHERI_CR IT EEIA The allowable stresses for the Electricl Raceway System are contained in Table 5-6. g O
l O
REV. 6, 4/82 6-10
CHAPTER 7 DESIGN ASSESSMENT O I&BLE_9f_GQ!IEHIS 7.1 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY 7.1.1 Containment and Reactor Building Assessment Methodology 7.1.1.1 Containment Structure 7.1.1.1.1 Hydrodynamic Loads 7.1.1.1.1.1 Structural Models 7.1.1.1.1.2 Damping 7.1.1.1.1.3 Fluid-Structure Interactions 7.1.1.1.1.4 Supplementary Computer Program 2 7.1.1.1.1.5 Load Application 7.1.1.1.1.5.1 SRV Discharge loads 7.1.1.1.1.5.2 LOCA Relate $ Loads 7.1.1.1.1.6 Analysis 7.1.1.1.1.6.1 Response Spectrum Analysis 7.1.1.1.1.6.2 Stress Analysis 7.1.1.1.2 Seismic Loads 7.1.1.1.3 Static and Thermal Loads 7.1.1.1.4 Load Combinations .
7.1.1.1.5 Design Assessment 7.1.1.1.6 Equipment Hatch 7.1.1.1.6.1 Structural Model 7.1.1.1.6.1 Loads and Load Combinations 6 Os 7.1.1.1.6.3 Design Assessment 7.1.1.2 Reactor and Control Building 7.1.1.2.1 Hydrodynamic Loads 7.1.1.2.1.1 Structural Model 7.1.1.2.1.2 Load Application 2
7.1.1.2.1.2.1 SRV Discharge loads 7.1.1.2.1.2.2 LOCA Related Loads 7.1.1.2.1.3 Analysis 7.1.1.2.1.3.1 Response Spectrum Analysis 7.1.1.2.1.3.2 Stress Analysis 7.1.1.2.2.2 Seismic Loads 7.1.1.2.3 Static and Thermal Loads l3 7.1.1.2.4 Load Combinations 7.1.1.2.5 Design Assessment 2 7.1.2 Structure Steel Assessment Methodology 7.1.2.1 -Downconer Bracing 7.1.2.1.1 Bracing System Description 7.1.2.1.2 Structural Models 7.1.2.1.3 Loads 7.1.2.1.3.1 SRV Discharge Loads 7.1.2.1.3.2 LOCA Related Loads 7.1.2.1.3.3 Seismic Loads 6 7.1.2.1.3.4 Static & Thermal Loads
! 7.1.2.1.4 Load Combinations 7.1.2.1.5 Design Assessment
() 7.1.2.2 SRV Support and Column REV. 6, 4/82 7-1
7.1.2.2.1 Description of SRV Support Assembies and Suppression Chamber Columns 7.1.2.2.2 Structural Models g 7.1.2.2.3 Loa ds W 7.1.2.2.3.1 SRV Discharge Loads 7.1.2.2.3.2 LOCA Related Loads 6 7.1.2.2.3.3 Seismic Load 7.1.2.2.3.4 Static Load 7.1.2.2.3.5 Load combinations 7.1.2.2.3.6 Design Assessment 7.1.2.3 openings in Containment Liner 7.1.2.3.1 Equipment Hatch-Personnel Air Lock 7.1.2.3.2 CRD Removal Ha tch, etc.
7.1.2.3.3 Refueling Head & Support Skirt 7.1.3 Liner Plate Ass-assment Methodology 7.1.4 Downconer Asses;aent Met ho dolo gy 2 7.1.4.1 Downconer Systes Description 7.1.4.2 Structural Model 7.1.4.3 Loads and Load Combinations 7.1.4.4 Design Assessment 7.1.4.5 Patique Evaluation of Downconers in Wetvell Airspace 7.1.4.5.1 Loads and Load Combinations Used for Assessment 5 Acceptance Criteria l 7.1.4.5.2 7.1.4.5.3 Method of Analysis 7.1.4.5.4 Results and Design Margins 7.1.5 BOP Piping and SRV System Assessment Methodology 7.1.5.1 Fatique Evaluation of SRV Discha rge Lines in
! Wetvell Air Volume 7.1.5.1.1 7.1.5.1.2 Loads and Load Combinations Used for Assessment Acceptance Criteria lll 7.1.5.1.3 Methods of Analysis 7.1.5.1.4 Results and Design Margins 6 7.1.6 NSSS Assessment Methodology
- 7.1.6.1 NSSS Qualification Methods l
7.1.6.1.1 NSSS Piping 7.1.6.1.2 Valves 7.1.6.1.3 Reactor Pressure Vessel, Supports and Internal Components 7.1.6.1.4 Ploor Structure Mounted Equipmen t 7.1.6.1.4.1 Qualification Methods 7.1.6.1.4.1.1 Dynamic Analysis 7.1.6.1.4.1.1.1 Methods and Procedures 7.1.6.1.4.1.2 Testing 7.1.6.1.4.1.3 Combined Analysis and Testing 7.1.6.1.4.2 Computer Programs 7.1.7 Balance of Plant (BOP)- Equipment Assessment Methodology 7.1.7.1 Hydrodynamic Loads 7.1.7.1.1 SRV Discharge Loads 7.1.7.1.2 LOCA Related Loads 2 7.1.7.2 Seismic Loads 7.1.7.3 Other Loads 7.1.7.4 Qualification Methods 7.1.7.4.1 7.1.7.4.1.1 Dynamic Analysis Methods and Procedures g
REV. 6, 4/82 7- 2
7.1.7.4.1.2 Appropriate Damping Values 7.1.7.4.1.3 Three Components of Dynamic Motions Testing 2 r' 7.1.7.4.2
\ 7.1.7.4.3 Combined Analysis and Testing 7.1.8 Electrical Raceway Systea Assessment Methodology 7.1.8.1 General 7.1.8.2 Loads 7.1.8.2.1 Static Loads S 7.1.8.2.2 Seismic Loads 7.1.8.2.3 Hydrodynamic Loads 7.1.8.3 Analytical Methods 7.1.9 HVAC Duct Systen Assessment Methodology 7.2 DESIGN CAPABILITY MARGINS 7.2.1 Stress Margins 7.2.1.1 Containment Structure 2 7.2.1.2 Reactor and Control Building 7.2.1.3 Suppression Chamber Columns 7.2.1.4 Downconer Bracing 7.2.1.5 Liner Plates 7.2.1.6 Downconers 7.2.1.7 Electrical Raceway System 7.2.1.8 HVAC Duct Syst em -
7.2.1.9 BOP Equipment 7.2.1.10 NSSS Equipment 6 7.2.11 NSSS and BOP Piping 7.2.2 Acceleration Response Spectra
() 7.2.2.1 7.2.2.2 Containment Structure Reactor and Control Building 2
7.2.3 Containment Liner Openings 7.2.3.1 Equipment Hatch - Personnel Airlock 6
7.2.3.2 CRD Removal Hatch, etc.
7.2.3.3 Refueling Head and Support Skirt 7.3 FIGURES 2 l
l O
REV. 6, 4/82 7-3 J
CH APTER 7 EIGHBES Huaher Title O
7-1 3-D Containent Finite Element Model ( A NS YS MOD EL) 2 7-2 Equivalent Modal Damping Ratio vs. Modal Frequency For Structural Stiffness - Proportional - Damping 7-3 Finite Eldaent Soil - Structure Interaction Model 7-4 Containment Responsa Analysis 7-5 Containment Stress Analysis 7-6 Finite Element Containment Equipment Hatch Model 7-7 Reactor Building Response Analysis 7-8 Reactor Building Stress Analysis 7-9 Downcomer Bracing System - Plan View 7-10 Downconer Bracing System - Connection Details 7-11 Downconer Bracing System - Compu ter M3 del 7-12 SRV Support System - Plan View 6 7-13 SRV Support System Details 7-14 Finite Element Model of Column 7-15 Finite Element Model of Column 7-16 General Arrangemen t - Personnel Lock 7- 17 Equipment Door Details 7-18 CRD Hatch Details 7- 19 Refueling Head Details 7-20 Liner Plate Hydrodynamic Press 9te Due to Chugging 7-21 Liner Plate Pressure - Normal Conditions 7-22 Liner Plate Hydrodynamic Pressure Due to Chuqqing and SRV 7-23 Liner Plate Pressure - Abnormal Condition 7-24 Downcomer with Vacuum Breaker and Detail of Cap 9
REV. 6, 4/82 7-4
e
[lgMEJS (Cont.)
O 7-25 Downconer Without Vacuum Breaker 6
7-26 Location Where Downconer Fatique Analysis was Performed O
-O l REV. 6, 4/82 5
CH APTER 7 IMLES E9Bber Title O'
7-1 Maximum Spectral Accelerations of Containment Due to SRV and 3 LOCA Loads at 11 Damping 7-2 Maximum Spectral Accelerations of Reactor and Control Buildings Due to SRV and LOC 4 at 1% Damping 5l 7-3 Usage Factor Summary of Downconers 7-4 Usage.Pactor Summary of SRV Discharge Lines 7-5 Downconer and Bracing System Modal Frequencies s
O O
REV. 6, 4/82 7-6
i 2.9__DIEI91_AESE2155!I Loads on SSES structures, piping, and equipment are defined in
() Chapter 4. The methods by which these loads are combined are discussed in Chapter S. The criteria for establishing design capability are stated in Chapter 6.
This chapter describes the assessment of the adequacy of the SSES design by comparing design capabilities with the loadings to which structures, piping, and components are subjected and demonstrating the extent of the design margin. The first section of this chapter discusses the methodology by which design capability and loads are compared. The second section summarizes the results of these comparisons.
O O
v
.Rev. 2, 5/80 7-7
2 l__ ASSESS 5EHI_3EIH9D9L99I Islal__ Containment _and_Reast9r_Du11 ding _ Ass 9sss991_5cih9d91992 2nlninl__caniaLonent_Ettnatuce 0
2ilalaltl__ Hidr 9dInaals_ Leads Zal.Itatlal__ structural _59dels The dynamic analysis for the structural response of the 2
containment and internal structures due to the SRV discharge loads and LOCA loads is performed using the finite element 6l 6 method. The ANSYS (see Ref erence 75 and 76) finite element computer program was chosen for the transient d ynamic analysis.
' Piqure 7-1 shows the ANSYS finite element model. Bean elements and spar elements are used for the stabilizer truss. Lumped mass elements are used for the RPV internals and suppression pool fluid. Spring-damper elements are used to model the rock f ou nd a tion. The ANSYS model includes a total of 761 elements and 200 dynamic degrees of freedom.
The soil structure interaction is taken into consideration by modelling the soil using a series of discrete springs and dampers in three directions as shown in Fiqure 7-1. The properties of the discrete springs and dampers are calculated based on the f ormu lae for lumped parameter foundations found in Reference 33.
The validity of this soil model is proven by comparing the results with those of an independent model which represents the soil by finito elements.
W It121titiz2_Eamnins
- a. Structural Damping Tne equations of motion for a discretized structure must includo a tera to account for viscous damping that is 2 linearly proportional to the velocity. The equations of motion for a damped systen are:
[N)Id + [C] [r} + (K) fr} = R(t))
where [Cl is the viscous damping matrix.
A viscous damping matrix of the form
[C] = a [M] + 8 [c] was used (Rulerence 53).
Whe re a and B are proportionality constants which relate damping to the velocity of the nodes and the strain rates respectively. This damping matrir leads to the following relation betyeen aand 8 and the dampiel ratio of the ith g mode Ci: w c1= a /2w + Sw t/2 REV. 6, 4/82 ~0
,r where vi is the natural frequency of the ith mode. Par the l usual case of only structural damping, a = 0 and theref ore l 6 = 2C /v .
l since only a single value of Bis permitted in the ANSYS input, the most dominant natural frequency of the structure is selected for the computation of 8 (See Reference 54) .
A value of 6 aqual to 0.00063 is used in the ANSYS model which corresponds to structural sodal damping of approminately 4 percent of critical at 20 Hz.which is the most dominant natural frequency of the structure.
Figure 7-2 shows modal damping ratio versus modal f requency for structural stif fness-proportional-damping.
- b. Soil Springs and Radiation Damping The elastic half-space theory as described by Reference 33 (DG-Igg-4 A Rev. 3) were used to compute the values of the Spring Constants and dampers in the horizontal and vertical directions (qi , Ky , Cg&Cy). The following parameters are used to represent the rock foundation:
G = Shear Modulus of foundation medium
= 1.154 x 103 KSI v = Poisson's ratio of foundation medius
= 0.3 V, = Shear wave velocity
= 6180 ft/sec From which we get the following:
K g
= 3.37 X 106 K/in Cg = 1.57 X 10+ K-sec/in K = 3.96 x 106 K/in v
Cy = 2.72 X 10* K-sec/in The above lumped foundation springs and dampers were then distributed to every node on the basemat according-to the tributary area.
(v~) .
Rev. 2, 5/80 7,9
Zilalalt1zl__Eluid:structuEc_IntuEact19n Por the application of SRV loads described in Section 4.1, a finite element model of the containment was developed in which the suppression pool water was included. The water mass constitutes only one seventh of the total mass of the reinforced concrete structure. The model used considers fluid-structure cou pling by lumping the water mass in the suppression pool at each nodal point of the vetted surface. The weighted area approach is considered to determine the fluid mass at each node 6
of the suppression pool.
For the application of the LOCA steam condensation loads, based on the containment vall pressure time histories calcula ted by the acoustic methodology (see S ubsection 9.5.3. 4.1 an d 9. 5. 3. 4. 2) ,
the water ma ss was orcluded. The orclusion of the wa te r-ma ss is due to the fact that fluid structure interaction was already considered during the pressure time history calcula tione (Reference 65).
2 la121slz.4__gEDD12E2RidEY_CQED21CE_EIQ9E1ES Supplomontary computer programs were used for preprocessing and postprocessing of data generated for or by the ANSYS computer program.
A preprocessing progran called CHUG was developed to convert the pressure time history forcinq functions into concentrated force time - history forcinq functions acting of the A NSYS model. The program writes at the associated nodes the nodal forces ento a lll file for processing by ANSYS.
A postprocessor program was developed to calculate the accelera tion time history. This program is called DISQ. It 2 reads the structural response displacement time his to ries generated from ANSYS displacements, scans the maximum displacements and generates the acceleration time histories using the Past Pourier Transformation method.
flec ht el inhouse computer prog ram MSPEC was used to compute the accelera tion response spectrum obtained f rom DISQ. The program also performs plotting and broadening of the spectrum.
l A computer program ENVLP was developed to generate envelopes of a i number of spectrum obtained from MSPEC.
Computer program PORCE was developed to scan the maximum absolute stresses generated by ANS YS st ress pa ss. A f urther e xpla na tion of PORCE is found in Subsection 7.1.1.1.1.6.2.
Verification of CHUG, DISO, ENVLP and PORCE are available for review.
O REV. 6, 4/82 7-10
2sizl21-1z1__L9ad_Analisation l 11111xin1ths1- SEE DLEGhtr19_k2949 The SRY loads have been defined in Section 4.1 based on KWU SRV 6 Traces #76, 82 and 35.
To obtain the marinua response of the containment due to bubble oscillation, a wide range of frequency content of the forcinq function is considered.
The range of frequencies specified by KWU is between 55% and 110%
of the f requencies of the three original traces as present in 2 Subsection 4.1.3.5.
Based on the natural frequencies and the mode shapes of the primary containment as shown in Appendir B-1, five difforent frequencies in the range specified are selected in order to obtain t he maximum structural response. The five f requency values are considered for each of the three original KWU pressure-time history traces which result in fifteen pressure-time histories to be considered.
As described in subsection 4.1.3, f our pressure distributions 16 depending upon the number of valves actuated are considered; i.e., "All valve, ADS , as ysset ric, and single valve". However, the azimuth distribution on the periphery indicates tha t the all valve case governs the ADS case for the symmetric loading and the 2
! (, ~') asyanetric case governs the single valve case for the asymmetric v loading. Therefore, the design assessment is based on only two cases, i . e. , " symmetric and asyneetric".
2nini,.1sisSs 2- LOCA EsLsted_Lende i The LOCA loads are based on LOCA steam condensation tests perftimed by Kraftwek Union AG (KUU) at their GKM-II-M test 6 facility. Section 9.0 describes the test facility, test matrix, test results and the GKM-II-M LOCA load definition developed - to re-evaluate SSES for chuqqing and condensation oscillation.
2.1.1.1 sits _ analIsen 2ximisititis1 _Ecs290st_Seestrum_AnalIsla The structural finite element model of containment as outlined in Subanction 7.1.1.1.1.1 is solved by " Reduced Linear Transient Dynamic Analysis" of the ANSYS computer program. The description of the analysis and the data input are contained in Ref6 ences 75 and 76, respectively. 6 For each set of pressure time histories, based on the analytical procedure in Figure 7-4, acceleration response spectra were generated at 52 dynamic ' degrees of freedom in the containment.
-The response spectra of several frequencies, traces, load REV. 6, 4/G2 7-11
conditions and nodal points were envelbped into one set of response spectra curves which represent SRV and LOCA.
The response spectra were generated in two pairs of damping values, the low and the high dampings. The low damping values g 6 are 0.5, 1, 2 and 5 percent of critical, and the high damping values a re 7, 10, iS and 20 percent of critical. The peak frequencies of the spectra are broadened by 15% and 20% f or low
. and high damping values, respectively.
Appendix B contains the above response spectra for low damping values at 9 locations.
Imlzlilzltst2__ Stress Analysis The ANSYS computer program (st ress pass) is used to compute the force and moment resultants due to SHV and LOCA relat ed loads. A postprocessor program called " FORCE" is developed and used to scan for the maximum absolute values of forces and moments in the azimuth direction.
A multiplier factor for the force and moment resultants due to 3
SRV loads ha s been established to cover for all the range of f requencies as specified in Subsection 7.1.1.1.1.5.1. The f ollowing procedure is used to establish the multiplier- .
A statistical analysis of all the forces and moments obtained from the three traces with varying frequencies in the range specified is performed. Trace number 82 is taken as the base to establish a multiplier factor to cover the other 2 traces and the variation of frequencies since it is observed to develop the llh highest stresses at most cross-sections. A multiplication factor of 1. 7 is esta blished to be applied to the resultant forces and moments from Trace 882 SRY discharge loading.
The forces a nd moments due to Chuqqing and Condensation Oscil la t ion (CO) loads are considered. From the response spec tra plots of Chuqqing and CO loads, it was found that KWU Sources 306 and 303 were the controlling cases. Therefore, these two load cases have been analyzed for stresses in containment. The displacement-time histories obtained from the GKM-II-M load 6 definition (see Subsection 9.5.3) a re inputted to A NSYS computer model. A post processor program called SCALE was used to scan for the maximum values of forces and moments in the azimuth direction for each load case. For the containment sections shown in Piqure A-2, the envelope of force resultants for all the load cases was inputted to the CECAP computer analysis (Refer to Flow Chart, Piq. 7-5, for further information) .
2xl.121.2__seismis_L9 ads i
Seismic loads constitute a significant loading in the strucutral 2 assessment. The same seismic loads as those used in the initia l bu ild ing design are used. In that design, a dynamic analysis was made using discrete mathematical idealization of the entire ggg REV. 6, 4/82 7-12
structure using lumped masses. Thn resulting axial forces, moments, and shear at various levels due to the Operating Basis Earthquake and the Safe Shutdown Earthquake are used (see section 2
/~N 3.7 of PS AR) . The effects of the seismic overturning moment and kl vertical accelerations are converted into forces at the elements.
As required by NUREG 0487, the effect of sloshing on the containment due to horizontal and vertical SSE is invetigated by performing a time-history analysis. As described in Subsection 4.2.4.7, pressure time histories due to seismic slosh were generated for input to the ANSYS model shown in Piqure 7-1. 6 The response spectra generated from the seismic slosh load'are presented in Piqures B- 51 to B-58. By inspection, th e peaks are small.
2titlilta__s ta tic _and_Ihntual_19 ads The loads under consideration are the static loads (d ea d load and accident pressure) and temperature loads (operating a nd accident t em pe ra t ure) which are all axisymmetrical. .
- a. To analyze the above static loads, an inhouse computer prog ra m FINEL is used. Moments, axial and shear forces are computed by FINEL in an uncracked arisyametric finite element containment model.
- b. The operating and accident temperature gradients are 2
gm computed using ME 620 computer program (Bechtel program) .
? This procedure is discussed in Subsection 3.8.4.1 of the FSAR.
- c. The results from a, b and the dynamic / seismic analysis are combined and applied to a containment element. The element contains data relative to rebar location, direction and qua ntit y and concrete properties. Within that wall element an equilibrium of f orces and strains compa tibility is established by allowing the concrete to crack in tension.
In this way the stresses in the rebar and concrete are determined. The program used for this analysis is called CECAP. For further explanation, see Figure 7-5. [6 Islal 1t4__L9ad_C9mbinati9as
- All load combinations from 1 through 7a as presented on Table 5-1 have been a nalyzed. This was done under step c of Subsection 7.1.1.1. 3 a bove. If all the SRV actuation cases and chuqqing-symmetric and asymmetric-loading along with other loads are to be considered, 41 loading combinations would have to be assessed. 2 Some of these load combinations have been eliminated by inspection since they are not governing.. The five basic load .
combinations which have been a ssessed and presented in this report are 1, 4, 4a, Sa and 7a.
REV. 6. 4/82 7-13
The reversible natura cf the structural responses duo to the psol dynamic loads and seismic loads is taken into account by considering the peak positive and negative magnitudes of the response forces and maximizing the total positive and negative 3 forces and moments governing the design. W Seismic and pool dynamic load effects are combined by summing the peak responses of each load by the absolute sum ( ABS) method.
This is conservative and the square root sum of squares (SRSS) method is more appropriate since the peak effects of all loads may not occur simultaneously. However, the conservative ABS method is used in the design assessment of the containment and internal concrete structures in order to expedite licensing.
2tltltitS__ Design Assessacat 2 Material stresses at the critical sections in the primary conta inment and internal concrete structure are analyzed using the CECAP computer program. Critical sections f or bending moment, arial force and shear in three directions are located throughout the containment structure. The line r plate is not considered as a structural element. The CECAP program considers concrete cracking in the analysis of reinforced concrete sections. CEC AP uses an iterative technique to obtain stresses considering the redistribution of f orces due to cracking and in the process it reduces the thermal stresses due to the relieving effect of concrete cracking. The program is also capable of describing the spiral and transverse reinforcement stresses directly. The input data for the program consists of the uncracked forces, moments and shears calculated by FINEL, ANSYS, and seismic analysis. The loads are then combined in accordance lll with Table 5-1 with appropriate load factors.
2.1.12116__Eauinacat_Hatsb There are two equipment hatch openings in the containment dryvell vall at approximately El. 723 ft. The openings a re 1800 apart and have a dia meter of approximately 12 ft. Co nc re te and rebar stresses around the local hatch area were a ssessed.
1,1n111thtl- StrustucaL Badel 6
Piqure 7-6 shows the STADDYNE finite element model that was developed for analysis of the drywell wall around the hatch opening. The model consists of a section of the drywell wall, diaphragm slab, and wetwell wall with all boundaries at least two I hole diameters away from the edge of the opening. All loads can be considered as symmetric about the opening centerline, thus only one half of the opening was modeled. The model uses quadrilateral plate elements with both membrane and bending stiffnessen. Uncracked sections with concrete material properties were used. Loads were applied statically and boundary conditions were chosen to be consistent with the type of loading applied (Ref. BC Topical Report 85) .
O REV. 6, 4/82 7- N
Islslalt5z2__ Leeds _and_ Lead _C9shinati9as Load combinations are as per Table 5-1. Hydrodynamic loads 7s t
(,) applied to the model boundaries were taken f rom the force and moment results of the ANSYS containment model described in Section 7.1.1.1.1. seismic loads were taken from force and soment results of the containment model as given in section 7.1.1.1. 2. Temperature was considered for the worst case wall gradient.
6
, 2tlsiz1tszl__Desian_Assessasnt Pour critical sections around the hatch opening were used for assessment. Moment and force resultants from the STARDYNE' model were input to computer program CECAP (CE987) to determine stresses in the concrete and rebar.
Zalais2__Heacter_and_C9attel_ Buildings Isls322s]__UrdredInasis_L9 ads Izis122&lz1__ Structural _H9 del The construction of the SSES reactor building is such that no direct coupling with the containment occurs. A 2 in. separation ioint is kept between the containment structure and the reactor building at all levels where the two structures abut, except at j the base slab where a cold ioint exists. This arrangement
('s
\
minimizes the transfer of any direct dynamic response to the reactor building from the containment, where the SRV discharge and LOCA related hydrodynamic loads originate.
The horizontal actions of the containment are considered to be fully transferred to the reactor building through the cold joint at base slab; but the vertical motions are attenuated to account for the transfer through the rock under the two structures. The 2 attenuation has been accounted for by using the weighted average acceleration time histories at different points away from the containment and to the end of the reactor building boundary. The weighted average acceleration is defined as:
n iEl A li n "EC3 il 11
~
, ib i ^1 3
in which 3 1 is the individual acceleration. A f is the free field area on which the acceleration acts and C t is the weighted average coefficient.
This average time history is applied as an inpu t notion to the reactor building dynamic model. The finite element soil-structure interaction model used for the attenuation study is g-)x
(_ shown in Piqure 7-3.
REY. 6, 4/82 7-15
The mathematical model of the reactor and control buldings consists of lumped masses connected by the linear elastic members. Using the elastic properties of the structural components, the stiffness properties of the model are determined.
g The detailed description of the model is given in subsection 3.7b.2.1 of the PSAR. The models for North-South, Ea st-We st, and Vertical directions are shown in Piqures C-1, C-2, and C-3 respectively in Appendix 'C'. These models are the same as those used for the seismic analysis.
Zalzlz2slz2__ Lead _Annlication 22121s22322x1__ SHY _ Discharge _19 ads The a xisymmetric and asymmetric SRV discharge loadings used in the reactor building assessment are described in the chapter 4.1 2 of this report. During the axisymmetric loading, only the gross vertical motion of the base slab is transferred to tl-e reactor buildinq. Therefore, the broa dened response spectra curves for axisymmetric loading given in Appendix 'C' are for vertical directio n only. However, during the asymmetric loading, g ross vertical motion as well as the gross horizontal motion of the base sla b are considered in developing the vertical and horizontal response spectra curves for the reactor building.
Therefore the broadened response spectra curves for a symmetric loading given in the Appendix 'C' are for both vertical and horizontal directions.
Three different through 4-30 of pressure-time history traces (Figures 4-28 Chapter 4) are used for generating response llh spect ra curves at the base of reactor building over a wide range of frequencies, i.e., 55% to 110% of the original.
2 l=Jz2slz212__LQCA_Helated_L9 ads Loadings associated with Loss of Coolant Accident ( LO C A) are briefly described in 7.1.1.1.1.5.2. The gross vertical and 6 horizontal motions of the Containment base slab due to symmetric a nd a sym met ric load conditions are transf erred to the Reactor / Control Building. The vertical motions are a ttenuat ed and the horizontal motions are directly transmitted to the Reactor / Control Building foundation.
Itl lz2sizl__ analysis Zilali2slzlil__Besnonse_snestrum_AnalIsis The response analysis of Reactor / Control buildings was performed in th ree separa te lumped mass models which simulate the E-W, N-S, and vert ical responses. The models are shown on Figures C-1, C-2 6 and C-3. The analytical procedure is presented in the flow chart in Piqure 7-7.
Like in the containment, the response spectra of loads from several frequencies, traces, load conditions and nodal points ll REV. 6, 4/82 7-16
were enveloped into one set of response spectra curves which represented SRV and LOCA.
() The damping values included in generating the acceleration response spectra and broadening of the peak frequencies of the spect ra are the same as in the containment structure. 6 Appendix C contains the acceleration response spectra for low damping values for SRV and LOCA.
Izisl 223s2t2__Sigess_analzgis The largest responses at the reactor building base due to all the hydrodynamic loadings are used to obtain forces and moments in the seabers of the reactor building. The damping values are 2% 2 and 5% f or load combinations involving OBE and SSE/LOCA respectively. For the first part of the analysis, the Bechtel Program CE 917 is used to do the modal analysis for the vertical, the East-West and the North-South directions. The results of these analyses are used for input to the Bechtel Progran CB 918. Another input, the acceleration response spect ra to CE 918 program, is the envelope of the spectra of the gross motion time-histories due to KWU Sources 303, 305, 306, 309 and 314, syssetric and asynsetric load cases. These are obtained 6 from steps 12 and 15 of Figure 7-4 The analysis determines member axial forces, shear forces, and bending moments. The analytical procedure is presented in the flow cha rt in Piqure 7-
- 8. The following load cases are cansidered.
O k- 1. Condensation-Oscillation vertical for 25 and 5% dampings.
2a. SRV vertical syneetric and asyssetric for 2% and 5%
da m ping s.
2 2b. SRV North-South asynaetric for 2% and 55 dampings.
2c. SRV Bast-Wes' asymmetric for 2% and 5% dampings. Case 2c involved four separate conditions depending on the positions of the Reactor Building crane.
3a. LOC A vertical synnetric and asyssetric for 2% and 5%
da m ping s.
3h. LOCA North-South synnetric and asynaetric for 25 and 5% 6 da m ping s.
3c. LOCA East-West syssetric and a synaetric for 2% and 5%
dampings.
The coshined forces and somen ts in the members due to LOC A, SRY, and seismic loads for both 2% and 5% damping values in each of the vertical, East-West, and North-South directions were 2 determined (see Fiqures E-23 thru - E-32) .
p
(
REV. 6, 4/82 7-17
1 1
The reactor building superstructure steel was analyzed separately using a 3-D finite element lumped mass model. The model is shown in Piqure E-21. The bridge crane and crane girders were also modeled. The dynamic analysis was done using the time-history gg) method for seismic load , and response spectrum method for 2 kydrodynamic loads with Bechtel computer program BS AP. Member f orces a nd moments were generated f or several dif ferent crane and trolley positions. In general, the members experienced their highest stresses when the bridge cranes were positioned such that the maximum possible tributary load is distribu ted to the columns. The critical case is when bridge crane bumper strikes on one side of the superstructure during SSE or OBE. The results are described in S ubsection 7. 2.1. 2.
The refueling pools and girders were analyzed separately using a 3-D finite element model. The structure contains the surge tanks va ult , fuel shipping cask storage pool, spent fuel storage pool, reactor well, and the steam dryer and separator storage pool.
Por refuelling conditions, all compartments are considered full of wa ter with the exception of the surge ta nks va ult, which is empty. Por operating condition, only the spent fuel storage pool and the fuel shipping cask storage pool are full of water while the remaining compartments are empty. Water mass was lumped at "
the compa rtmen t floors f or the dynamic analysis.
6 The dyna mic analysis was done using the response spectrum method with the compu ter program STA R DYN E. Static and thermal analyses were also performed on ST ARDYNE progran. '
The analysis was performed for critical load combinations which h were established by inspection. The results are described in subsection 7.2.1.2.
The box section columns supporting the refueling pool girders were included in the finite element model of the rqfueling pool analyzed above. The displacements and reactions obtained from the above model were used to a ssess the st ructu ral strength and stability of the columns.
2 l.lz2t2__ Seismic _ Leads The seismic analysis methodology is discussed in the subsection 3.7b.2.1 of the PSAR.
Zil 1.2s3__ static _and_Ihermal_19 ads 2
The static loads are discussed in the subsection 3.8.4.4 of the PSAR.
Irls3s2t3__ Lead _Combinat19ns All individual loads are combined with the appropriate load factors as shown in Table 5-1.
O 7-18
l Steel structures are checked for the load combination listed in Table 5-2.
(_) lilaltZs5__ Design _assessasnt 2
Critical sections for bending moment, axial force and shear in all three directions are located throughout the reactor building.
Design capability at the critical sections 13 determined and then the design capability is compared with the actual forces and moments acting on the sections under all the load combinations.
This comparison yields design margins. The design ma rgins are d iscussed in Section 7. 2.1. 2 Isl 2__ structural _ steel _ Assessment _nath9421991 2.1.2 1__D9vacasar_arasing 2ilzZeit1__Drasing_sInten_Dascrietisa There are 87 downconers which extend vertically from the diaph raga slab to El. 6608-0" in the wetvell, which is arproximately 12 feet below normal water level. The five vacuum breaker downconers have been capped (see Figure 7-25) , however, with regards to the bracinq system, these five downconers still provide vertical and lateral support, since they were capped at the downconer exits. Downcone rs are 24" 0.D. pipes with 3/8 inch wall thickness, and are embedded in the diaphraga slab.
Downconers are separated into four independent quadra nts. At El.
/'T 6688-0" all downconers within a quadrant are tied together
(/ la terally wit h a bracinq system consisting of 6 inch 0.D. XX-strong pipes. The bracinq members are not connected to either the wetvell wall or pedestal, thus eliminating stresses due to thermal expansion and wetwell vall displacement during hydrodynamic loads. The downconers support the bracing vertically. The bracinq connections consist of 1/2" ring pla tes and vertical stif feners. The SRVD lines are not connected to the bracing. Fiqures 7-9 and 7-10 Sheets 1-3 show a plan view of the 6 bracing systen and the bracinq connection details, re spec tively.
2ala2tls2__struGintal_59dels A 3-D STARDYNE finite element model of both the bracing and downconers was developed for analysis of both the downconers and bracing. The worst case quadrant of the f our was chosen for modeling (3 ADS lines in the vicinity of the quadrant) . The chosen quadrant extends from containment radial of 3450 to radial o f 66.70 This quadrant consists of 23 downconers modeled as pipes and having fixed boundary conditions at the diaphragm slab.
Bracinq menbors are modeled as pipe elements between downconers using the actual brace member lengths. Beam connector elementi extend from the node at the center line of each downcomer to the end of t he brace acaber. Connector elements have equivalent section properties chosen so as to match stiffnesses determined
-s analytically from the finite element model of the bracing
(,), connections described later. A lumped water mass consisting of REV. 6, 4/82 7_19 l
two times the dorncocer or brccinq pipa voluce (onc tima for the virtual mass effect and one time for the contained fluid) is used for nodes below the water level to account for the effect due to fluid-st ructure interaction. The model consists of 323 nodes, a W
251 nipe elements, 88 beam elements, and 276 dynamic degrees of f reedom for reduced eigenvalue solution (ST ARDYNE HQR) . Total weight considered in the model is 214.5 kips. Piqure 7-11 (Sheets 16 2) shows the model.
A separa te US AP finite element model was developed for assessment of the bracinq connection and downcomer in the vicinity of the connection. Fiqure 7-11, Sheet 3 shows the model. A section of the downcomer at the brace level is modelled with pla te elements.
Boundaries of the downcomer were taken suf ficiently f ar away from the con n ec t ion to eliminate their influence. The connector plates, t.o p partial plates, main ring plates, ver tica l st if f ene rs, and top ring plates were modeled with pla te elements.
(see Figure 7-11, Sheet 3). Brace member forces from the STAPDYNE downcomer and bracinq analysis were used as input loads f or the assessment of the connection shown in Piqure 7-10, Sheet
.l . The BSAP finite element model was also used to datermine the stiffnesses of the connector elements used in STARDYN E.
It3t2tlt3__LQads The basis for all hydrodynamic loads considered, is given in Sections 4 and 9.
211t2 tit 3tl__SRV_Disshatas_ Leads SPV actuation results in fluid pressure loads acting on the O conta in m ent , downcomers, and bracing. All load s are based on KWU Traces 76, 82, and 35. With respect to the downcomers and bracing, two different types of loads can be defined. One type consist s of inertia loa d i n g . This is movement of the containment structuro due to SRV fluid pressures acting directly on the contsinment. The response spectrum method is used for analysis of th is loading by applying the diaphragm sla b spec tra (El. 702'-
1", see Appendix B) due to SRV to the STARDYNE modol.
The second type of loads are described as submerged structure loads. These loads are due to the direct flu id pressures acting on the downcomers and bracing. As described in Subsection 4.1.1.7.3, potential flow theory and the method-of-images were 2 used to calculate the load time histories for each downcomer in the model. These were applied to the STARDYNE model and a linear tiansien t d ynamic ana lysis was perf ormed.
ZilsZilt3t2__LQC&_Bcldicd_L2 add During a LOCA several types of loads act on the downcomers and bracing. Two of these a re inertia and subme rged structure loads.
These have tha same definition as for the SRV case and the analysis is performed in the same manner. This consists of the O
REV. 6, 4/82 7-20
response spectra method for inertia load analysis and linear transient dynamic analysis for submerged structure loads.
/~T Subrection 4.2.2.5 describe the methodology for determining the downcomor draq loads due to CO and chuqqing.
The containment response spectra generated for CO and chugging were determined by the methodology documented in Subsection 9.5.3.
In addition to the above loads, a dynamic lateral losd due to chuqqing at the downconer tip also occurs. For analyzing multiple downconers in a quadrant, the generic multi-vent lateral load definition documented in Subsection 4.2.2. 4 is u sed.
In addition, as required by the NRC, a single vent impulse with a 65 kip a mplitude and 3 asec duration is applied one time per LOCA event to any single downconer. This is a low probability event and is only used to show that the downconer would not fail for one such loading.
For both types of ti p loads, several linear transient dynamic analyses were performed. Loads were applied in directions, so as t o marialze forces and soments in the downconers and braces.
Air clea ring in the downconers during a LOCA also produces poolswell draq and f allback loads on the bracing. This load occurs before Chuqqing and CO and n eed not be considered in
(~- combination with those LOCA loads. Bechtel Nuclear Staf f defined s the pressure time history loads on the braces a nd they were analysed locally for these loads (see Subsection 4.2.1.7) . An overall equivalent static load on the bracing system was applied to the ST ARDYN E model.
221 2sitJzl__scismic_19 ads The diaphraga slab response spectra developed for OBE and SSE as described in Subsection 3.8.1. 4.1 o f the FS AR were used as input to the STARDYNE model to obtain resultant forces in the downconers and bracing.
In addition to the inertia loading, seismic sloshing in the suppression pool imparts loads on the downconers and bracing (see subsecti on 4. 2. 4. 7) . The sloshing frequency is very low and static lotis based on the sloshing fluid pressures were applied to the STU JYN E model.
Isjt2.ltJt4__ Static _and_Ihernal_L9ada The dead load of the downconers and bracing is considered. The LOCA condition results in the worst temperature loading (Ref.
Piqure 4-52, Section 4) . A ma rinun temperature of 18 00P is used w ith 650 being'taken as the stress free condition.
G g
REV. 6, 4/82 7-21
Zzlz2zis4__L9ad_Geabinati90s Load combinations and allowable stresses are in accordance with Subsection 5.2. The stochastic loads, i.e., seismic inertia, and the inertia and submerged pressure loads of SRV and chuggini are combined by SRSS me t h od. The chuqqing lateral load is defined as a sinnlo impulsa and is added by absolute sum method. The soismic sloshing loads are added by absolute sua method due to their low frequency wave. All the static loads are combined by absoluto sua method. Poolswell is not com bined with other LOCA loads since it preceeds them (see S ubsection 4. 2.1) .
2tla2 mis 5__ Design _Assessesat The results from the three dimensional STARDYNE model of the bracinq and downcomers are combined to determine the total stress duo to both arial forces and moments. A comparison between the calculat ed combined stresses and allowables is made and the st ress margins are given in Appendix A.
2tlt2m2__SEY_SMD29Ei_and_G21Han 221s2s2sl__Descriatien_of_ Sal _sune9rt_ Assemblies _and Suentess19n_Chaaber_C21umas In the suppression pool, there are three types of support co n fi gura tion s to laterally brace t he SRV discharge linos; two are at El. 666' and the third is at El. 667'. Each t ype of support assembly consists of two horizontal bracinq members and at least one knee brace member. The support assemblies are lll connected from the SRV discharge lines to the adjacent column (or co lum ns) with 4-inch dia meter double extra strong pipes.
The support assemblics restrain the SRV discharge lines in a horiz ontal direction but not in vertical direction. The general plan of these support assemblies is shown in Piqure 7-12 and momber connection and the details are shown in Piqura 7-13.
The suppression chamber columns are 42 inch diameter pipes with 1- 1/4 inch wall thickness. The columns are attached at the diaphraqm slab at E1. 700' and at the basemat at El. 648'.
2xl 222i2__Situctural_ nod 919
- a. The columns were independently analyzed for static and dynamic loads. The analytical methods used for non-hy trodynamic loads such as dead, live, pressure, tem pera t u re, seismic and pipe rupture loads are described in the FSAR, Section 3.8.3.4.5.
- b. Por the h ydrodynamic S RV I na d s , the ANSYS computer program was used. Por the hydrodynamic LOCA related loads NASTRAN computer program was used. A typical column model is shown in Piqure 7-14. The total length of the column is divided int o beam elements which are ioined at node points. An REV. 6, 4/82 7-22
effective water omss due to subsergenco uas clso considorod.
Dynamic horizontal forces were applied to the column at the node points below the water. Time-varying f orces and
/"T moments in the, column were calculated for each element.
LJ j
- c. Another finite element model was developed in which the SRY '
lines, the SRV support assembly and the column were included. SRV and LOCA related submerged structure loads as well as the inertia ef fects from the dynamic loads were considered. From this analysis, the SRV discharge pipe's reactions at the support locations were obtained.
The assessment of the columns is based on the combination of loads obtained from a, b, and c above. The assessment of the SRV support assembly is based on loads obtained in paragraph c above.
Each of the support types is analyzed separately.
In order to determine the local stresses in the vicinity of the support assembly on the column wall, the column was modeled withthe NASTR AN computer program using plate finite elements.
The model is shown in Piqure 7-15.
2xlz222sl__ Leads The support assemblies of the SRV discharge lines are submerged structures. They are subiected to direct pressure loads from air bu bble etc. , the reactions from the SRV lines due to SRV discharge loads, and the inertia loads due to the building responso from dynamic loads. Thermal loads are due to increase
((-)s in pool temperature during LOCA.
1xl:2x2t2t1__SEY_Dischatse_12nds The horizontal SRV discharge pressure-time histories are considered as acting on the columns, the SRV discharge pib- and the support assemblies. The vertical SRV discharge pressures are considered as acting on the support assemblies alone.
The reactions from the SRV lines obtained from Subsection 7.1.2.2.2.c are applied to the end of the SRV support members for computation of longitudinal acaber forces. The direct hydrodynamic pressures due to SRV actuations are anplied statically perpendicular to the SRV support acabers, with a dynamic magnification f actors. The SRV hydrody na mic pressures are dotormined as defined in Subsection 4.1.3.7. This is done for the computation of soments and shear forces in the seabers.
The inertia forces from building responses due to SRV discharge load are also included by using the response spectra results shown in Appendix B.
9anter forces and moments obtained from direct application of SRV discSarge pressures, reaction forces of SRV pipe line, and the inertia building responses are combined by absolute sua.
w-REV. 6, 4/82 7-23
The SPV submerged structure load de finition is based on Subsection 4.1.3.7.
2tl 2t2tJt2__ LOC 8_B91sted_ Leads {ll During a LOCA, several phenomena cause hydrodynamic loads on the SRV support assemblies. The manner in which the LOCA related loads are applied to the SRV support assemblies is exactly the same as described for the SRV loads in Subsection 7.1.2.2.3.1.
The LOCA related loads used f or the bracing are used for the SRV support assemblies, except the lateral tip load due to chuqqing is eliminated.
Amona the LOCA related loads, poolswell load and fallback load occur before Chuqqing and CO and need not be considered in combination with those LOCA loads. The pressure time history loads, due to pool swell, for the SRV assembly supports, were determined by linearly reducing the pressure time history, due to poolswell, for the downcomer bracing, by the ratio of the diaeetors.
2tlz2s2s3t3__S2iGElG_19dd The seismic loads on the coupled structure of SRV lines, support assemblies, and columns were obtained by dynamic analysis using the response spectra dev elo ped for OBE and SSE as described in Subsection 3.8.1.4.1 of the PSAR.
213a2t2s3tE__StallG_LOdd g The d ead load, thermal load and bouyancy of the support assemblies vero considered.
2rla2s2t3t3__LQad_CQEhiBati9BD The load combinations and allowable stresses are in accordance with Subsoction 5.2. Although the loads on the bracing system under consideration act in a random horizontal directions, each individual load is applied to the system in the worst possible direction to find the maximum resul ta n t forces.
2tlt2t2s3t6__QQGiGD_ASSeggmens The combined stresses due t o axial forces and bending moments were det ermined for all bracinq members. Comparison between the resul ting calculated stresses and the allowable stresses has been made. Resulting stress margins for the bracinq members and their connections are tabulated in A ppendix A.
2xls2s3__0DcDin9S_ID_C90talDm2Dt LiDCE
! sis 213s1__E991nauDt_UstGh:EcrsenDel_ Alt _ Lech The portion of the equipment hatch-personnel air lock not backed by concrete was reevaluated for addit ional load s due to llh REV. 6, 4/82 7-24
hydrodynamic effects (SRV and LOCA) . This reevaluation was performed by Chicago Bridge and Iron Company (CBI) under subcontract from Bechtel. The general arrangement of the
/"'T personnel lock is shown in Piqure 7-16.
C/
The personnel air lock doors are designed to withstand a pressure of 55 psig in the containment vesse l. The door mechanism is designed to seal the door against an internal pressure of 5 psig.
Por reevaluation, CBI used their computer program E781 for static analysis of shells. The program is based on Reference 77.
Equivalent static loads were considered for seismic and hydrodynamic cases using peak spectral accelerations. CBI used the hydrodynamic spectra as given in Appendix C. Desig n Load combinations given in Table 5-2 were used with modifications for forces on the structure due to thermal expansion of pipes under accident conditians. Stress limits specified in the ASME code were used.
CBI's model was divided into 2 pa rt s:
The first model comprised the 1" thick cylinder and the 1" thick flange extending to the parting ioint. An axissymmetrical contiquration was used since the shape of the containment vessel at it s intersection with the equipment hatch is conical. No testrain ts at the 1 unction with the containment vessel were considered.
The second model included the 3" thick flange beyond the parting g
(_w) ioint, t he conical head and a portion of the personnel lock extending from the interior bulk head to an appropriate distance beyond.
At the f la nge interface, the seismic, SRV, LOCA, 1et and pressure loads ha ve a tendency of prying open the door. A m er id io na l force is, therefore, required to pe rmit rela tively small radial deflections a nd rota tions at the interface. This force was applied as a restoring f orce a t the parting icint in the f orm of a meridional f orce and a transverse shear. Relative displacements were evaluated to assure leaktigh tness.
The maior dead load contribution is in the airlock. Therefore, dead loads and loads from seismic accelerations were appliel to t he second model as discontinuous loads at the center of gravity
'o f t he a ir l oc k.
Loads due to SRV, Seismic and D 'C A cases were combined by SRSS.
?,122 Ja2__GBQ_Hemovci_Hatcht_sugeteggiga_GhanksI_ access Hatch _and_Eguienent_Udish Thesa httches were subcontracted to CBI for design and analysis for additional SRV and LOCA loads. Designs were performed manually in accordance with Bechtel specifications and 7-V REV. 6, 4/82 7-25 l
a ppropriato design ccd:s. Detcils of the CRD rctoral hatch and equipmen+ hatch are given in Piqu re s 7- 17 a nd 7-18.
221.2s3tJ__Ecfuellin9_ Head _and_Sanenti_ Shirt ggg Reevaluation of the refuelling head and support skirt was performed by CBI under subcontract from Bechtel. Piqure 7-19 shows th e ref uelling head.
CBI's program E 781 was used f or th e static analysis. For dynamic analysis, equivalent pressures from the peak response spect ra at El. 778.8 ft. were used. The static and dynamic stressos were then combined as per Table 5-2 of this report.
Leak tig htness of the flanged joint was investiga ted for the various loads and suitable pre-stress was recommended to prevent separation of the flange 1oint components.
211.3__ Liner _ Elate _asseassent_nethed21291 PSAR Subsection 3.8.1 provides a description of the liner pla te and a nchorage system for the containment.
The analysis of the liner plate and anchorages for nonhydrodynamic loads is in accordance with Reference 18.
For the analysis of the liner plate and anchorage for hydrodynamic suction loads, the contributing load on the liner is that due to the net "nega ti ve" pressure.
The loads considered for this assessment are KWU Chuqqing, KWD SRV, hydrostatic pressure and wetwell air pressure.
lll riqure 7-20 presents the maximum negative pressure due to KWU chuqqing which were scanned from the symmetric and asymmetri.c load conditions of Sources 303, 305, 306 and 309. As can be noted from Piqure 7-20, Trace 306 gives the maximum negative pressure on all locations.
Tho maxi mu m nega ti ve pressure due to the actustion of all SRV's is -7.8 psi.
The hyIrostatic pressure of 24' water gives 10.4 psi pressure on t he ba se s la b liner plate.
The wetwoll air pressure is 25 psi due to a small b reak LOCA.
For normal condition the combination of hydrostatic pressure and
+he actuation of all the SRV's is considered. The distribution of th is pres su re is shown in Piqure 7 -21.
For abnormal condition, the combinatiot. of KWU chuqqing, SRV, hydras *3 tic pressure and wetwell air pressure is considered. The phasing of SRV and chuqqing events is obtained by aligning the maximum suction peaks. These events are combined by direct addition of pressures as demonstrated in Piqure 7-22. The total gg REV. 6, 4/82 7-26
net peak pressures for the abnormal condition are tabulated in Piqure 7-23. Point 1 in this figure does not lie on pressure boundary and thus, is not critical.
(,_)
The assessment of liner plate is found in Subsection 7. 2.1. 5.
Zej,E__D91DG9ERE & ESSE 2EEDt_50th9d91992 2tl Ex1__D9wnq9aeE_SIsles_Dessrinti9n In the wetwell, there are 87 downconers, 82 of which function as dry well vents during a LOCA. The other 5 provide votwell to drywell pressure relief through the two vacuum breakers in series sounted on each of them. These five downconers are capped at the bottom end to protect the vacuum breakers from the cycling due to c hu qq ing . Appendir K provides the assessment of capping five of the eighty-seven downconers as a fix for VB cycling d uring chuqqing.
Down onor la yout, location of vacuum breakers and the cap '
arrangement are shown on Piqures 7-9, 7-24 and 7-25, respectively.
laltEz2__S1EU919E41_d9d91 The downcomers are modeled with the bracinq system as described in subsection 7.1.2.1.2.
r~T The downcomors with the vacuum brea kers are included in the V STARDYNE andel.
An addit ional 3-D model was developed in which not only the bracinq system and downconers as described in subsection 7.1.2.1.1 we re included, but also the vacuum breaker, the vacuum breakor support and a column. This was done in the same quadrant as described in Subsection 7.1.2.1.1.
2sitam1__L9 ads _ dad _L9ad_C9thinati90s Loads a f fecting the d ownconers are the same as those described in Subsoction 7.1.2.1.3. Load combina tions are given in Table 5-3.
The SRSS sua is used for the dynamic loads, except for the chuqqing lateral and seismic sloshing loads which are added by absolute.suas as described in Subsection 7.1.2.1.4.
2xl EsE__D931GQ_A22CDEa9D1 Heference 30 is used for checking the downcomer stresses due to the load combinations given in Table 5-3.
(n_) <D REV. 6, 4/82 7-27
2.lt925__ fat 199e_Eralust199_9f_D9vnc9mers_In_Helweli_ Air _Ininas l In an effort to evaluate the steam bypass potential t rising f rom a failure of the downcomers in the vetvell air space, a complete llh fatique analysis of the same has been performed. S pe cifically, the analysis was perf ormed where the downcomers penetra te the diaphram sla b as shown in Piqure 7-26. This analysis considered I all the cyclic loading acting on the downcomers and is in '
accordsnce with the applicable portions of ASM E Cod e. This evaluation is considered supplemental and does not displace the original design basis for these lines as set forth in the appropriate FSAR/DAR sections.
2 lia,5.1__ Loads _and_L9ad_C9abinations_used_f9E_Assesss. t The downcomers are subiect to numerous dynamic and hydrodynamic loads from normal, upset, and LOC A-related plant operating conditions. Por purposes of f atique evaluation, the following loads are include: (1) All significant thermal and pressure transients. (2) All cyclic effects due to the hydrodynamic loads including SRV actuations, CD and chuqqing. (3) Seismic effects. A description of each of these loads is provided in the a ppropriate DA R sections. The determination of load combinations an well as number and duraction of each event is obtained f rom the apolicable sections of DPPR, and PSAR.
5 2ml=E2522__Accentansc_ Criteria The design rules, as set forth in the ASME Doller and Pressure vessal Code,Section III, subsection NB were utilized for the g fa t iq ue a sse ss me n t . When required, allowables for fatique stress ovaluation were based on Mill certification reports f or downcomers.
2il,E25al__5ethods_of_An11rsis The SRV disc ha rge lines and downcomers in the wetwell air volume, were analyzed for the appropriate load combinations s ad their associated number of cycles. The combined stresses and correspondino equivalent stress cycles were com puted to obtain the fatique usage factors in accordance with the equstions of Subsection NS-3600 of the ASME Code.
Ziltat5sE__Huaulta_and_ Design _narsins The cumulative usage fsctors for the various loading conditions I for t he dow r. comer (see Fiqure 7-26) are summarized in Table 7-3.
6 2*1'5- 00E EiDinu_ add _SEY SYsicaD &ssessE2at_39th2 del 29I The anP piping and SRV systems were analyzed for the loads discusned in Section 5.5 using Bechtel compu ter programs ME101 and M E632. These programs are described in PSAR Section 3.9.
1 Static and dynamic analysis of the piping and SRV systems are performed as described in the paragraphs below.
REV. 6, 4/82 7-28
Static a nalysis techniques are used to deterzi.ne the stresses due to steady state loads and/or dynamic loads having equivalent i static loads. The drag a nd impact loads are applied as
() equivalent static loads.
Response spectra at the piping anchors are obtained from the dynamic analysis of the containment subiected to LOC 4 and SRV 1 loading. Piping systess are then analyzed for these response spectra following the method described in Reference 19.
Time history dynamic analysis of the SRf discharge piping subiected to fluid transient forces in the pipe due to relief valve opening is performed using Bechtel compu ter code ME632.
Zilt5tl___Eatigue_Eraluat19n_91_sBI_Diachitss_ Lines _in_Heirall AiE_Y919Et Tn an ef fort to evaluate the steam bypass potential a rising f rom a failure of the SRV discharge line in the wetwell air space, a complete fatique analysis of the sa me has been performed.
Speaifically, structural analyses o f all the SRV discharge lines fion the diaphragm slab penetration to the quencher was performed. Patique evaluation of fluedhead penetration, elbows and 1-wa y restrainst attachment to pipe was done. This a nalysis considered all the cyclic loading acting on the SRV discharge lines and is in accordance with the applicable portionr of ASME C od e. This evaluation is considered supplemental and does not displaco the original design bas,is for these lines as set forth g in the appropriate PS AR/DAR sections. '
(J Iil.SiltJ__L9adu_and_L9ad_G9mbinati9ns_Hsed_f9E_ Ass 92Enent The SRV discharge lines are subiect to numerous dynamic and hydrodynamic loads from normal, upset, and LOCA-related plant o pe ra tin g conditions. For purposes of fatique evalut tion, the 6 f ollo w ing loads are included: (1) All significant thermal and pressure transients. (2) All cyclic efforts due to the hydrodynamic loads including SRV actuations, CO and chuqqing and (3) Seismic effects. A description of each of these loads is provided in the appropriate DAR sections. The determination of load combinations as well as number and duration of each event is obtained from the applicable sections of DPPR and PSAR.
Isl 5 mis 2__&GGCDiaQGO_GEitBEiG l
The desiqn rules, as set forth in the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vesse l Code,Section III, Subsection NB were utilized for the fatique assessment. When required, allowables f or f atique strese evaluation were based on Mill certification reports for SRV dischargo lines.
Til 5mit]._nethods_9f_aualIsis l ,- The SRV discharge lines, in the wetwell air volume, were analyzed (3,) . fot the appropriate load combinations and their associated number I REV. 6, 4/82 7-29
of cycles. The combined stresses and corresponding eqaivalent stress cycles were computed to obtain the fatique usage factors in accordance with the equations of Subsection NB-3600 of the ASM E Cod e. g 1 sis 5zin4- EcGuLtG and DanLSa BdCSLDS The cumulative usage factors f or fluedhead, 3-way restraint attachment to pipe and elbow a re summarized in Table 7-4 Zelt5__NSSS_8gggggagg1_Qgthgdglggy
" Safety related" General Elect ric company supplied NSSS piping a nd oquipment located within the containment and the reactor and control buildings are subiected to hydrodynamic loads due to SRV and LOCA discharge ef fects principally originating in the suppression pool of the containment structure. Section 4.1 a nd 4.2 describe t he methodologies used to define these SRV and LOCA ,
loads, raspectively. The NSSS piping and equipment are assessed to verify their adequacy to withsta nd these hydrodynamic loads in combination with seismic and all other applicable loads in accordance with the load combinations given in Table 5-5.
Tho structural system rosponses for the SRV and LOCA suppression pool hydrodynamic phenomena are generated by Bechtel power Corporation using defined forcinq functions. These structural system rosponses are transmitted to General Electric in t he f orm of (1) broadened response spectra and ( acceleration time-histories at the pedestal to diaphram or intersection and the st a bilizor elevation.
The responso spectra for piping attachment points on the reictor pressure vessel, shield wall and pedestal complex (above the pool a rea) are generated by General Electric, based upon the accelera tion t ime-histories supplied by Bechtel power C or po ra t ion , using a detailed lumped mass beam model for the reactor pressure vessel internals, including a represen tation of the structure. For the assessment of the NSSS primary piping (main steam and recirculation) a combination of General Electric and Bechtel developed response spectra are used as input responses for all attachment points of each pipinq system. For the assessment of the NSSS floor mounted equipment, except the raactor pressure vessel, the broadoned response spectra supplied directly by Bechtel are used.
The acceleration time-histories and the detailed reactor pressure vessel and structure lumped mass beam model are used to generate t he f orces a nd moments acting on the reactor pressure vessel supports and interna l componen ts. These f orces a nd momen ts a re used for the GE assessment of reactor pressure vessel supports a nd i nte rnals.
The structural system response for the LOCA induced annulus pressurization transient asymmetric pressure build up in the annular region between the biological shield wall and the reactor llh
'REV. 6, 4/82 7-30
pressuro vessel io becod on proccuro tico-histories supplied by Bechtel. These pressure time-histories are combined with ist reaction, ie t impingement and pipe whip restraint loads for the assescaent. A time-history analysis is performed resul ting in O. accelerations, forces and soment time-histories as well as response spectra at the piping attachment points on the reactor pressure vessel, shield wall, pedestal, pressure vessel supports and external components (see FSAR Appendices 6 A and 6B) .
2iltitl__ESSS_Qualifisat19n_5cth2ds 223.6xis1__Hsss_Eining The NSSS pi pin g stress snalyses are conducted to consider the secondary dyna mic responses f rom: (1) the original design-Dasis loads including seismic vibratory motions, (2) the structural j system feedback loads from the suppression pool hydrodynamic events, and (3) the structural systen loads from the LOCA induced annulus pressurization f rom postulated feedwater, recirculation i and main steam pipe breaks.
Lumped mass models are developed by General Electric for the NSSS primsry piping systems, main steam and recirculation lines.
Those lumped mass models include the snubbers, hangers and pipe mounted va lve s , and represent the maior balance of the plant branch piping connected to the main steam and recirculation systoms. Amplified response spectrum for all attachment points within the piping system are a pplied; i.e., distinct accelera tion excit ations are specified at each piping support and anchor
(' point. The detailed models are analyzed independently to det ermine t he pipi ng systea resulting loads (shears and somen ts) for:
- 1) each design-basis load which includes pressure, temperature, we ig ht, seismic even ts, etc. ,
- 2) the bounding suppression pool hydrodynamic event; and
- 3) the annulus pressurization dynamic ef fects on the unbroken piping system.
A dd it io n a lly , the end reaction forces and/or accelers tions f or the pipe sounted/ connected equipment (valves and nozzles) are simultaniously calculated.
The piping stresses from the resulting loads (shears and soments) for each load event are determined and combined in accordance with the load combinations delineated in Table 5-5. These stresses are calculated at geometrical discontinuities and ,
compared to ASME code allowable determined stresses (ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III-NB-3650) for the appropriate loading condition in order to assure design adequacy.
Compu ter codes used to perf orm the NSSS piping stress analysis are described in FSAR Section 3.9.1.2.
(".
b .
REV. 6, 4/82 7-31
2 sl:6 z1x 2__ Val v2D The tsaction f orces and/or accelera tions acting on th e pipe mount ed equipment when combined in accordance with the required load combinations are compared to the valve allowables to assure g
design adequacy. The reactor core pressure boundary valves are qualified for operability during seismic and hydrodynamic loading esents by both analysis and test. This qualification is unique f or each va lve.
2sJs6 sis 3__EC1G12C_EICEEHEE 19E221' EEEEEESE dEd ID12EQal G9BD2BSulf The hounding load combinations for seismic, hydrodyna mic and annulus pressurization forces are established within each acceptance critoria range (upset, emergency a nd f aulted) . At the initial analysis step, the loads are conservatively combined using the maximum vertical forces with the m srimum horizontal shears a nd moments f rom all combinations within each acceptance criteria rance. These conservative ma risua loads a re then compa red to generic bounding forces originally used to establish the component design. When the combined calculated f orces are less tha n the design forces, then the component is deemed adequate. When the calculated forces are grea ter than the design forces, then the increased stresses are compared to t he material allovables. When the calculated stresses are below the material a llowa bles, then the design is deemed adequate. If the increased stressos are above the material allowables, then the specific load combination is identified and another stress an11ysis is conducted using refined methods, if required, to demonstrate the component adequacy.
llh In ca rtlin ca ses, co m po ne n t test results are combined with analy ses to assess component adequacy. Patique evaluations of
+he Reactor Pressure Vessel, supports and internal components are a lso cc9 ducted for SRV cyclic duty loads. The equipment is analyzod for fatique usage due to SRV load cycles based upon the loading during the SR V events. ERV fatique usage factors are calculat ed and combined with all othe r upset condition usage factors to obtain a cumulative fatique usage factor.
Compu ter programs used to conduct RPV component analyses are described in FSAR Section 3. 9.1. 2.
2.1.61119__E199r_Situst9ts_32nnt2d_Ea912sent 2 J.621ssil__Qualificati9n_selh9ds The tdequacy of the design of the equipment is assessed by one of the following:
- a. Dynamic analysia
- b. Testinq
- c. Combination of testing and analysis O
REV. 6, 4/82 7-32
l The choice in baccd on the practicality of the cethoi dependicg upon function, type, size, shape, and complexity of the equipment and the reliability of the qualification method.
(m k-} In general, the requirements outlined in IEEE-344-75, Referance 55, are followed for the qualification of equipment.
Zal 6xitus1 1__Drnanis_analtnis IslahalsHiltls1__Hetheda_and_Er9seduras The dynamic analysis of various equipment is classified into three groups according to the relative rigidity of the equipment based on the magnitude of the fundamental natural f requency described below.
(a) Structurally simple equipment - comprises that equipment which can be adequately represented by a one degree of freedon system (b) Structurally rigid equipment - Comprises that equipment whose fundamental frequency is:
(i) grea ter than 33 Hz for the consideration of seismic loads, and, (ii) qreater than the high f requency asymptate (ZP A) of the required response spectra (RRS) for the consideration of hydrodynamic loads (c) Structurally complex equipment - Comprises that equipment which cannot be classified as structurally simple or str uct urally rigid.
The a ppropriate response spectra for specific equipment are obtained f rom the response spectra for the floor at which the onuipment is located in a building for GBE, SSE and h ydrodynamic loads. This includes the vertical as well as both the N-S and E-W horizontal directions. For equipment which is structurally s t a pl e, the dynamic loading (either seismic or hydrolynamic) consists of a static load corresponsing to the equipment weight times the acceleration selected from the appropriate response spectrum. The acceleration selected corresponds to the equipment 's na tural f requency, if the equipment's natural frequency is known. If the equipment's natural frequency la not known, the acceleration selected corresponds to the maximum value of the response spectra.
For equipment which is structurally rigid, the seismic load consists of a static load corresponding to the equipment we ig ht times the acceleration at 33 Hz, selected from the appropriate re npo n se spect rum and the hydrodynamic loading consist of a static load corresponding to the equipment weig ht times the accelera tions at the ZPA, selected from the a ppropria te response
() spectrum.
E f
REV. 6, 4/82 7-33 l
l 1
Por the analysis of structurclly corplex aquipaent, the equipcont is idealized by a mathematical model which adequately predicts the lyna mic properties of the equipment and a dynamic analysis is performed using any standard analysis procedure. An acceptable a lt cr na t ive method of analysis is by static coefficient a na ly sis g
f or verifying st ruc t u ral in tegrity of f rame type st ructures that can be represented by a simple model. No determination of natural frequencies is made and the response of the equipment is assumed to be the peak of the response spectrum. This response is then multiplied by a static coefficient of 1.5 to take into account the effects of both multifrequency excitation and multimode response.
It3t6alsEz1.2-_ICQtlH9 In lieu of performing dynamic analysis, dynamic adequacy is established by providing dynamic test data. Such data must conform to one of the f ollowing:
- 1. performance data of equipment which has been subjected to equal or greater dynamic loads (considering appropriate frequency ra nce) than those to be experienced under the specified dynamic loading conditions.
- 2. Test data from compara ble equipment previously tested under simila r conditions, which has been subjected to equal or greater dynamic loads than those specified.
- 3. Actual testing of equipment in operating conditions simulating, as closely as possible, t he actual installation, the required loadings and load combinations.
A continuous sinusoidal test, sine beat test, or deca ving sinusoidal test is used when the applicable floor acceleration spectrum is'a narrow band response spectrum. Otherwise, random motion test (or equivalent) with broad f requency content is used.
The equi pment to be tested is mounted in a manner tha t simulates the actual service mounting. Sufficient monitoring devices are u sed to eva lua te the per f orma nce of the equipment. With the appropriate test method selected, the equipment is considered to be qualififed when the test response spectra (TRS) envelopes the required rasponse spectra (RRS) a nd the equipment d id not malf unct ion or f ail. A new test does not need to be conducted if eq u ip men t requires only a very minor modification such as additional bracings or change in switch model, etc. , and proper iustification is given to show that the modifications do not ioopardize the strength and function of the equipment.
?tli6xlshtit3_C9abinedanalysis_and_Insting There are several instances where the qualification of equipment by analysis alone or testing alone is not practical or adequate because of its size, or its complex ity, or large number of simila r con figurations. In these instances a combinstion of lll REV. 6, 4/82 7-34
~
analysis and testing is the most practical. The following are general approaches:
/#'% (a) An analysis is conducted on the overall assembly to 1 kl determine its stress level and the transmissibility of act ion f rom the base of the equipment to the critical components. The critical components are removed from the assembly and subiected to a simulation of the environment on a test table.
(b) Experimental methods are -used to aid in the formulation of the mathematical model for any piece of equipment. Mode sha pes and f requencies are determined experimentally and incorporated into a mathematical model of the equipment.
2xl=6als4.2__C9aenier_Etestans Computer programs used to conduct equipment analyses aro descr ibed in FS AR Section 3.9.1.2.
1s1.2__Qalance of_Elant_lHQEL.Igulusent_Assessauni 5eth9d91291 Seismic Category I BOP equipment located within t he containment and the reactor and control buildings are subjected to hydrodynamic loads due to SRV LOCA discharge af fects principally originating in the suppression pool of the containment st ruc ture.
The equipsont and equipment support are assessed to verify their adequacy to withstand these hydrodynamic loads in combina tion g with seismic and all other applicable loads in accordance wit h x ,) the load combinations given in Section S.7.
2,ls2xl__Hrdt9dinamic_19 ads 2tl=2slil__SRV_Discharse_L9 ads Loadings associated with the axisymmetric and asymmetric SRy 2 discharges are described in Chapter 3 and 4 of this report.
Acceleration response spectra at the various elevations where the equipment aro located have been generated for all appropriate pressure history traces (Piqures 4-28 thru 4-30 of Chapter 4) for damplRQ Values of 1/2%, 1%, 2% and 5%. These have been enveloped into a single curve for each of the above damping values. . Such enveloped curves are generated for each of the N-S, E-W and vertical directions. These curves form the basis for the SRV loads for equipment assessment.
2sls2sls2__L996_ Belated _Lnada Loadings associa ted with loss-of-coolant accident (LO C A) are described in Section 4.2. Acceleration response spectra at 6 va rious elevations where the equipment are located have been generated for the above LOCA loads for damping values of 1/2%,
15, 2% and 5%. These have been enveloped into a single curve ~ for 2 each of the~above damping values. Such enveloped curves are j ) qenerated for each of the-N-S, E-U and vertical directions.
r REV. 6, 4/82 7-35
Thoso curves f orc the basis for tho LOCA loads for equipment a ss os s me nt.
2.1.2.2__Scinnic_Lodds ll)
The ietails of seismic input and seismic loais are discussed in Section 3.7 of PSAR. The ef fects of both opera ting basis earthquake (OB E) and safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) are considered. These loads are provid ed in the form of Accelera tion responso spectra at each floor for damping vslues of 1/2%, 1%, 2%
and 5% for each of N-S, E-W and ver tical directions.
2.ls2ta__Qther_ Loads In addit ion to h ydrod ynamic a nd seismic loads, other loads such as dead loads, live loa d s , ope ra ting loads, pressure loads, thermal loa d s, nozzle loads and equipment piping interaction loads, a s a pplicable, are also considered.
2x3m2sE__Quellf1 Gat 190_5tth9de The a dequacy of the design of the equipment is assessei by one of the foloving:
- 4. Dynamic analysis
- b. Tenting under simulated conditions
- c. Combination of testing and analysis.
The choice is based on the practicality of the me th od depending upon function, t ype, size, shape, and complexity of the equipment and +he reliability of the qualification method.
In general the requirements outlined in IEEE-344-75, Reference 55, are foll owed for the qualification of equip me nt.
2tl:2sEtl__DYQatiG_8L91YDia 211,2sEtJtl__5etheds_and Ececedures The iynamic analysis of various equipment is classified into three groups according to the relative rigidity of the equipment based on the magnitude of the funda mental natural frequency described below.
(a) Structurally simple equipment - comprises of tha t equipment which can be adequately represented by one degree of freedom system.
(h) Structurally rigid equipment - Comprises of that equipment whose f undamental frequency is:
(i) a rca tor t ha n 3 3 112 for the consideration of seismic loads, and, lll Rev. 2, 5/80 7-36
(ii) qrea ter than 80 Hz for the consideration of hydrodynamic loads.
(c) Structurally Compler equipment - Comprises of that equipment
([-]
- which cannot be classified as structurally simple or s t ruc t u ra lly rigid.
When the equipment is structurally simple or rigid in one direction but compler in the other, each direction may be classified separately to determine the dynamic loads.
The a ppropriate response spectra for specific equipment are obtained from the response spectra for the floor at which the pouipment is located in a building for OBE, SSE and hydrodynamic loads. This includes the vertical as well as both the N-S a nd E-W horizontal directions.
For equipment which is structurally simple, the d ynamic loading (either seismic or hydrodynamic) consists of a static load corresponding to the equipment weight times the acceleration selected from the appropriate response spectrum. The accelera tion selected corresponds to the equipment's natural fraquency, if the equipment's natural frequency is known. If the equipment's natural frequency is not known, the acceleration selected corresponds to the maximum value of the response spect ra.
Por equipment which is structurally rigid the seismic load es consists of a static load corresponding to the equipment weight
(_) times the acceleration at 3 3 Hz, selected f rom the appropriate re spo n so spectrum and the hydrodynamic loading consist of a static load corresponding to the equipment weight times the accelera tion a t 80 Hz., selected from the appropriate response spectrum.
Por the analysis of structurally complex equipment, the equipment is idealized by a mathematical model which adequately predicts t he dynimic properties of the equipment and a dynamic analysis is performed using any standard analysis procedure. An acceptable alternative method of analysis is by static coefficient analysis for verifyinq* structural integrity of frame type structures such as members physically similar to beams and columns that can be represented by a simple model. No determination of natural f requencies is nade and the response of the equipment is assumed t o ha the peak of the response spectrum at damping values as per Section 7.1.7.4.1.2. This response is then multiplied by a static coefficient of 1.5 to take into account the effects of both multifrequency excitation and multimode re spon se.
I) s_-
Rev. 2, 5/80 7,37
241.Zsatlt2__anerentiate_naanins_Ialues The following damping values are used for the design assessment:
- 1) Load Combinations involving OBE but not O hydrodynamic loads - 1/2%
- 2) Load combinatiosn involving SSR but not hydrodynamic loads - 15
- 1) Load Combinations involving hydrodyna mic loads, or seismic and hyd rod ynamic loads - 2%
Tf the actual damping value of the equipment is different (from test results) then these actual values are used.
2altl2Et3sl__IhE22_G9ED202DtE_9f_DYnagic_ggtign s The responses such as internal fo rc es, stresses and deformations at any point from the three principal orthogonal directions of 2 t he dynamic loads are combined as f ollows:
The response value used is the maximum value obtaine:1 by adding the rosponse due to vertical dynamic load with the larger value of the responses due to one of the horizontal corresponding dynasic load by the absolute sum method.
213.2tas2__ Testing in lieu of performing dynamic analysis, dynamic adequacy is h established by providing dynamic test data. Such data must conform to one of the following:
- 1. Performance data of equipment which has been sub jected to equal or greater dynamic loads (considering a ppropriate frequency range) than those to be experienced under the specified dynamic loading conditions.
- 2. Tes t data from compara ble equipment previously tested under similar conditionst which has been subjected to equal or gra ter dynamic loads than those specified.
6
- 1. Ac*ual testing of equipment to the required load combinations while simula ting the actual field installation.
A continuous sinusoidal test, sine beat test, or deca ying sinusoidal test is used when the applicable floor acceleration s spect rum is a narrow band response spectrum. O therwise, random motion test (or equivalent) with broad f requency content is used.
The equipment to be tested is mounted in a manner that simulates the actual service mounting. Sufficient monitoring d evices a re used to evalua te the perf orma nce of the equipment. With the a pproLria te test met hod selected, the equipment is considered to be qualified when the test response spectra (TR S) envelopes the lll REV. 6, 4/82 7-38
required response spectra (RRS) and the equipment did not malf unction or fail. A new test does not need to be conducted if fy onuipment requires only a very minor modifications such as
\ addit ional bracings or change in switen model etc. and proper iustification is given to show that the modifications do not 1eopa rdize the strength and function of the equipment.
?sl:2=Hs3__C9thined_ analysis _and_Testins There are several instances where the qualification of equipment by analysis alone or testing alone is not practical or adequate because of its size, or its complerity, or large number of simila r config urations. In these instances a combination of analysis and testing is the most practical. The following are 2 qaneral approaches:
(a) An analysis is conducted on the overall assembly to determine its stress level and the transmissibility of action from the base of the eq uipment to the critical components. The critical components are removed from the assombly and subiected to a simulation of the environment on a test table.
(b) Experimental methods are used to aid in the formulation of the mathematical model for any piece of equipment. Mode sha pes and f requencies are determined experimentally and incorporated into a mathematical model of the equipment.
(]) 2alsS__51estrical_HasevaI_SIsten_Assessaant_asthedelest 2slsSs1__ General The PS4R Subsect ion 3.7b.3.1.6 provides a detailed description of t he electrical racewa y systes design methodology. The analysis and design of supports or Electrical Raceway Systems f or non-hydrodynamic loads are in accordance with Reference 3.7b-7 of the PSAP. S RV discharge and LOCA loads are conside red simila r to seismic loads by using appropriate floor response spectra for the hydrodynamic loads. A damping value of 7% of critical is used for all racewa y systems f or abnormal / extreme load condition and a damping value of 3% of critical is used for normal load condition 6 involving SRV discharge loading only.
2tlsS=2__L91ds Isl=Ss2s1__ static _L9 ads The static loads are the dead loads and live loads. For cable trays, the weight of the cable is considered to be 45 lbs/ft and a concentrated live load of 200 lb. applicable at any point or cable-tray s pa n is used.
O REV. 6, 4/82 7-39 y ..._ _ , _ , __y
2tJeSx2t2__Seismis_L9 ads The deta ils of the seismic motion input are discussed in Section 3.7 of the PSAR. The effects of the operating basis ea rthquake (OBE) and the Safe Shutdown ea rthquake (S S E) ar e considered.
g 2ileS22i3__frdtzd2namis_L9 J ads The details of the axisymmetric and asymmetric SRV discharge loads, a s well as LOC A loa ds includ ing conden sa tion-o scilla tion and chuqqing a re discussed Section 4.0 The enveloped acceleration response spectra at each floor for N-S, E- W, and vertical directions have been generated and widened by 120% for 7% of critical damping and t15% for lower damping values. These curves form the basis for the hydrodynamic load ansessment o f the electrical racewa y system. Exa mples of the response spectrum curves for the containment and Reactor and Control buildings are presented in Appendices B and C.
2misdt3__&RdlYtiGal_50thGds cable tray systems are modeled as three dimensional dynamic syntam consisting of several consecutive supports complete with cable trays and longitudinal and transverse bracing. The cable tray properties are determined from the load de flec tion tests.
Momber ioints are modeled as spring elements having rotational stiffness with known spring values as determined from the tes t results.
Composito spectra are developed by enveloping the floor response spect ra after broadening by 120% for critical floors for seismic, SPV a nd LOCA loading conditions. The design spectrum is obtained by adding these response spectra curves by the absolute sua mothod. A frecuency variation of 120% is used to further broaden the spectrum at the f undamental frequency of the cable tray system. The composite response spectra curves are obtained for vertical and two horizontal directions.
Modal and response spectrum analyses are performed utilizing "Bech tel S tructural Analysis P rog ram" (BS A P) which is a general purpose finite-element computer program. The seismic and hydrodynamic responses are added by the absolute sum method. The total response due to the dynamic loads is calculated by determining absolute sum of vertical response and only the la rger response of the two horizontal responses.
Dead and live load stresses are determined f rom a static analysis of a pla ne frama model using BSAP computer program and these results are combined with those from the response spectrum a n a ly sis. Por normal loa n condition, SRV discharge stresses are proportioned from the response spectrum analysis of SSP plus SRV discharoe plus LOCA loads according to their spectral acceleration ra tios at the fundamental frequencies. Several O
REV. 6, 4/82 7_40
4 different support types uhich cro uidely used have been analyzod by thene methods.
An alternative method for analyzing other support types which
(~)s
(_ occur loss frequently, uses long hand calculations by a response spectrum analysis technique. The support may be idealized as a single degree of treedon system. In general, the maximum pea k spectral accelerations were used in the analysis. In some cases where the stresses a re critical, a more refined va lue f or the acceleration response was used corresponding to the compute 1 systom f undamental f requency and considering a f req uency variation as explained earlier in this section. The vertical and horizont.a1 seismic responses are combined according to Subsec tion 3.7b.2.6 of the FSAR. The member stresses are kept within the o la s t ic limit.
Islt2__HYAG_ Dust _SInten_Esssssasni_Helh9da1921 The SRV discharge and LOCA are considered similar to seismic loads by using appropriate floor response spectra generated f or the CO, chuqqing, and SRV loads described in Section 4.0.
A damping value of 5% of critical is used for load combinations involving SSE, SRV discharge and LOCA loads. While a damping valup of 3% of critical is used for load combinations involving OBE and/or SRV discharge loads. For a discussion of the seismic and hydrodyna mic loads in pu t for HVAC duct system assessment, refer to Subsections 7.1.8. 2. 2 an d 7.1.8. 2.3, respectively. The HVAC duct system had been analyzed by the alternative method
(-) described in the Subsection 7.1.8.3 by determining th e f unda mental f requencies of the system in three directions. The inertia forces are determined from the composite spec tra to establish member forces and moments due to hydrodynamic as well as saismic loads.
)
L .)
REV. 6, 4/82 7-41
2x2- DZ31GE_Ghthn1611_BhBSIB3 2.2il__ Stress _Barsins Stresses at the critical sections for all of the structures h described in Section 7.1, piping and equipment are evaluated for all the loading combinations presented in Section 5.0. The stress margin is defined as (1 - stress ratio) x 100 stress rat io = E C n- in Fn Where, fn = Actual Stress f
n
= Allowable Stress
( = Amplification Coefficient 1 2.121__G9ntainannt_strus19rs Tho results from the structural assessment of the containment st ructur e are summarized in Appendix A. Figure A-2 shows the dosign sections in the basemat, containment walls, reac to r podestal, and the diaphraga slab which were considered in the st ructural a ssessment. The tables in Appendix A give the calculat ed design stresses and ma rgins for load combination Equations 1, 4, 4a, 5, Sa , and 7 (as listed in Table 5-1) .
The f ollowing observations are made from a review of the O structural stresses. The calculated stress level is very low for load combination equation No. 1 (an upset condition) i.e.,
reinforcinq ha r stresses are less tha n 20 ksi. In general, among all t he applicable load combinations, the most critical load combination is No. 7a. The maximum reinforcing bar design stress is predicted as 47.24 ksi, which occurs in a wetwell section on the outside face helical bars when using the absolute sum (ABS) method. This given a minimum stress margin of 12.5% (see Piq ure A- 29) .
Ilo w ev er , the calculated maximum reinforcing har design stresses are relatively low in the reactor pressure vessel pedestal, diaphraqm slab, and the base slab, as they are less than 18 ksi, 34 kni, and 45 ksi respectively. The maximum principal concrete com pr essive st ress occurs at t he base slab and is calculated as 4280 psi. Thus, all the reinforcing bar design stresses are below the allowble stresses. It should be noted that the allowable stresses on which the margins are based, are related to t he minimum specified strength. The actual quality control test results for the reinforcing bars and concrete show the material strengths to be higher than the minimum specified and therefore, t he margins are actually greater than calculated.
k REV. 6, 4/82 7-42 l
l l
l In general, the concrete stresses were foued to be lou except at saction 27 in the containment basemat (see Piqure A-2), where the !
concrete stress in compression exceeded the maximum allowable
T stress in fivo load combinations out of six that were considered k/ in thin report. Ho we ver , under each load combination the concrete is in triarial compression at Section 27. Under the worst load case, the ahydrosta tic" component of the stress is 2 A 30 psi an d the "deviatoric a com ponent is only 1392 psi.
Because of this large hydrostatic component, the concrete compressive strain is much smaller than the value of 0.003 in/in permitted by the codes. The concrete, therefore, has a very large strain margin bef ore f ailure will commence. It must also be emphasized that not only the actual strength of th e placed concrete is higher than the minimum specified, as indicated in the paragraph above, but that the concrete continues to gain strength after placement. The increase in strength at the end of five years could be as much as 20% over the 90 days strength.
Therefore, the locally high compressive stresses in t he concrete at Section 27 are deemed acceptable.
2 2tli2__Etact9E_and_CentE91_Hutiging The results of the structural assessment of the Reactor and Control Building are summarized in Appendix E. Figures E-1 throuqh E-22 show the design sections in the basema t and tha concrete structure composed of floor slabs, shear walls, blockwalls, refueling pool girders, as well as floor structural steel and superstructure steel, which were cor.siderei in tho structural assessment. The sections selected for assessment were
(_)j considered to be most critical based on previous seismic ca lcu la t ion s. The tables in Appendix E qive the calculated design stresses and margins for the critical load combinations ocuations 1 and 7a of Table 5-1 and equations 1 and 7 Table 5-2.
The other load combinations do not govern.
In tho case of floor slabs, the calculated stress levels, in general, are very low for slabs above El. 683.0 ft. The governing load combination is equation 1 of Tab!.e 5-1 (norail condi tio n) and the reinforcinq steel stresses are signi ficantly less than 20 ksi. For slabs below El. 683.0 ft. a l so , the noverning load combination is equation 1 of Table 5-1. The maximum reinforcing steel stress was 49.79 ksi, which occurs in the reactor building slab at El. 645.0 ft. (see Piq ure E-33) .
The selected floor sections for the review and assessment are g iv en in Piqures E-1 through E-6.
In the case of shear walls, the maximum rebar stress was 43.25 ksi, and the minimum stress margin is 20% (see Figure E-34) . The ansessed elements are given in' Figures E-1, E-3, E- 4, E-7, and E-8.
In the blockwalls the calculated maximum reinforcing bar design stress is 30.6 kai for load combination equation 7a (see Piqure 7_ E-3 5) . The minimum stress margin for compressive stress in the t t i
- RJ REV. 6, 4/82 7-43 i
concrote is 22%. The blockwall elements reviewed for a ssessment ara shown in Fiqures E-9 through E- 16.
In the case of Reactor Building structural steel (s ee Fiqure E-
- 36) , load combination Eq. 7 of Table 5-2 generally governs. The lll maximum bending stress was found to be 31.9 ksi which is less than tho allowable value. This stress occurs in a beam a t El.
719.1 f*. In the other cases the stress margius are 29% or more.
Tha structural steel elements selected for assessment are given in Piqures E-17 through E-20.
A t hree-diment sional lumped mass model was generated for determining the dynamic response of the Reactor Building Crane S u ppo r t Structure. This model is shown in Piqure E-21. Equation 7 Tablo 5-2 serves as the governing loading combination.
Selected members as given in the model were assessed for s+ructural integrity and stability. The design margins for structure an d crane airder are 0% (see Figure E-37) . This condition is reached by letting the rails deform in such a way that the crane bumper strikes against one of the rail girders.
The assessment of the Refueling Pool Girder shows that the maximum roba r stress was 51.7 ksi and the design margin is 4%
(see Piqure E- 3 8) . The elements selected f or assessmen t are shown in Piqure E-22.
As shown in Piqure E-30a, the box section columns supporting the refueling pool were found to have adequate strength f or resisting dead, live, and dynamic loads including seismic (O B E, SSE), SRV, g and LOCA loads imposed by the refueling gi rders. Equation 6 was W found to be the governing o uqa tion for columns. The strength of t he box section columns is summarized under elements 41 and 42.
The minimum design margin is 38%.
7 12 t i s]_ _ Sgy _ g g ggggt _ AgSeghl(g s_g g4_S3ngggggigg _ghgghen_gglgggg The stresses a t critical sections of the SRV support assemblies and the suppression chamber columns were calculated separately for the loa d combinations in Table 5. 2. The ma ximum stresses are qovernai by load combination 7a for both the SRV support assemblies and columns. The results of the SRV support assembly analysis are shown in Piqure A-67. The lowest stress margin of S RV su pport system which includes all bracinq members and connections is 21.7%. On the other hand, the maximum stresses in column (42 inch diameter pipe) , at the top and bottom bolt anchoraqos are shown in Piqure A- 5 9. The lowest stress margin in tho c olu mn structure is 11.4%.
2s2tl: 4__D9EQG992E EEaGin9 Stresses in the bracinq members and connections were checked using the load combinations and allowable stresses as given in Table 5-2. Dynamic loads were combined on the basis of the SRSS method. Combined axial and bending stresses were investigated for the most highly loaded members. Equations 1, 3, 4 and 7 llh REV. 6, 4/82 7-44
l novern for the brace members with the design margins as indicated in Fiqure A-60. For the connection s, equations 2 and 7 are critical and the resulting design margins are shown in Piqure A-(~}
s_/ 61. All bracinq menbors and connections are adequate.
222 li5 _LincE_ Elate .
For the normal load condition, the liner plates d o not experience any net negative pressure as can be observed from Figure 7-21.
For the abnormal load condition, the maximum net negative pressure on the pressure boundary portion of the line r plates occurs on the containment wall, at point 8 of Fiqure 7-23, and is
-6.39 psi. Since this is an impulse load of .004 seconds duration and the liner plate is supported every 2 feet, the stress in the liner plate is 12.5 ksi, well below the allowable.
Thern is a margin of 51% for pullout of the embedded T steel sections tha t support the liner plate.
The liner plates on the base slab a re supported by embedded W4x13 structural steel acabers every 10 feet. The ma rinua negative not pressure on the base slab occu rs at the corner. The magnitude is
-5.12 psi. However, due to liner plate connection on the corner between base slab and containment wall, the negative net pressure does not cause a bend ing problem in the liner pla te a nd no pullout probina on W4x13 sections. The liner plate located away
.f rom the corne r described above, do not experience negative pressure.
\
(_)s s~
ItZtish__Q2EnGQEcEE A list of downcomer and bracing system nodal frequencies and participation factors is given in Table 7-5. The fundamental systen mode is at a f requency of 1. 8 Hz, which is a cantiliever type of mode f or all downcomers moving together. Downconer stresses were checked according to ASME Code Section NB3652 using load combina tions in Table 5-3. Stresses and design margins are given in Piqure A-66.
It2sli2__ElcsiEisal_Basexay_systen It is appa rent from the analysis that high stresses a re a result of resnonses due to horizontal inertia loads. During the normal load condition, stresses under SRV discharge are generally low.
Ho wav or, for the abnormal / extreme load condition, certain members required strengthening to relieve high stresses. After implementing these modifica tions, the resultant stresses do not exceed the allowable stresses in any member of the electrical raceway system supports.
It2 slab __HV&G_Q9st_SIstem similar to the analysis of the electrical raceway system, the
/'% analysis of the HVAC duct systen demonstrated that most of the
\J su ppo rt members have actual stresses lower than the allowable REV. 6, 4/82 7-45
stressen. However, certain structural members required strengthening to relieve high stresses under the abnormal / extreme load conditions.
222,112__ HOE _E991nnent All Seismic Category I BOP equipment are re-assessed for the hydradynamic a nd non-hydrodynamic loads (see subsection 7.1.7) via the SSES Seismic Qualifica tion Review Team (SORT) program.
For each BOP equipment, 4-page SQRT summary forms have been prepared documenting the re-evaluation of that equi pme n t. In nome cases, modifications were required to reduce the stresses below the allowables.
In response to SER Open Item 811, the BOP SQRT summary forma requested by the NRC were formally submitted on February 25, 1982
(
Reference:
PL A- 102 4) . The remaining BOP SQRT summa ry forms are ava ilable f or review.
2s2t10__ESSS_Equinannt All Seismic Category I NSSS equipment are being evaluated for the load com binations given in Table 5-5 via the SSES SQRT prog ra m.
Por each NSSS equipment, SORT summary forms are prepared documenting the re-evaluation of th at particular equipment.
The NSSS SORT summary forms requested by the NRC will he formally submitted to the NRC under the SSES SORT program. All NSSS SQRT su mma ry forms are available for review.
It2t11__USSS_tud_B0E_Eining As documented in Subsection 7.1.5 a nd 7.1.6.1.1, all Seismic Category I BOP and NSSS piping have been analyzed for hydrodynamic a nd Lan-hydrodynamic loads per the load combinations given in Subsections 5.5 and 5.6, respectively. As a result of this evaluation, many modifications were required to maintain the stresses below the allowable values. Appendix F provides a summary of the stresses and design margins for selected BOP pipinq system.
The resu lt s of the above evaluation are documented in stress reports, which are available f or NRC review.
ItZi2__accelutati9n_H9snense_Saccita 2t2s2al__C90tainment_Structugg The method of analysis and load description for the acceleration responsa spectraum generation are outlineJ in Subsections 7.1.1.1.1. 6.1. From a review of the acceleration response spectra curves for the contain ment structure, the maximum spectral accelerations are tabulated for 1% damping o f critical.
For SRV and LOCA loads, the maximum spectral accelerations are presented in Table 7- 1. g HEV. 6, 4/82 7-46
2,2s2.Z__ Reactor _and_ContEn1_Huildins
(~' The methods of analysis and load application for the computation
\- - of the acceleration response spectrum in the reactor and control building are described in Subsections 7.1.1.2.1.1 and 7.1.1. 2.1. 2. From a review of the acceleration response spectra c ur ves, the maximum spectral accelerations are ta bula ted for 4%
-damping of critical. For SRY and LOC A loads, the maximum spect ral accelerations a re presented in Table 7-2.
2.2s3 _C9atainnsat_Lingt_Qacnings 2.2s3s1_ Equina 9nt_Unish-Esrs9saml_ Air _L9sh Stressen in the equipment hatch-personnel air lock were all within allowable limits. However, as a result of the new loads, bolt pre-load had to be increased f rom 65 to 72 kips to maintain acceptable levels of displacement at the flanged joint. The resultant equivalent radial load applied at the bearing on the hingo support results in a minimum sa fety factor of 1 at ultimate for the roller and race.
la 2 s 362__CEQ _EERQIal_ HatGht_SE EEE2E s12a_Ghanhe r_Agggg g_ga tgh '
and_Eauinnent Hatch CBI's analysis indicated no stresses in excess of the specified allowable limits for the additional loadings considered.
) la2els3 _E2fu211DG_Utad_ add _EMPEQEt_ShiEt The refueling head and flange were found to have no stresses exceeding allowable limits. The only effect of the new loads applied was to increase bolt pre-stress f rom 16 1 to 200 kips to maintain leaktightness at the flanged joint. Figure A-33.1 qives the stress margins in the refueling head and the flange.
e i
I I REV. 6, 4/82 7_47 1
l I
pre .
hatserne.
8.e l O .
g f.p.
..a ew.r.l ryt.r21 4 t CDC 7608
- 1. n .e p.11.
~~
r AN515 PREPR(.3
- g , _,,. i.,u.u u -
' ;;::=
73 e i
M ### / r
/ ,,,
I I
l 8 s.a u AN5YS n e.a i
s sry Da ee=
{ s.t.aara.
r t w.. , g,,,,,gjgg,,g ,,, , , , _
! -*~~ 1. . .
__ _ ,_-._ _ _ _ _ se/
/
, / IV
- i. **::.. +
l o:50 l
.u.r... l j
-,BN~-7%- -'%- ,
)b%[
(le
- a. - A ' y - .jl a
12 tt f.et....ar .s.%
=
I .g" .
- 1 1:!::.";;, ,,,, . de.ar...N
- *=
ner.t e.--
qi j .. u.
i i.,
m.a.i w \
r s s Cyberti.a te cyg.,b ,,
e cyber:1.m se
- i. c.oc - ti.s . i. .ca.,.t.is.
. cein O "
a mI'.*s.*r!' * + =
- pg., 4 O. m arsu ,
.'.'".b = y I Ia r .. n .
,,. l
//
s'
/ / VI 17 16 /s . .m m
- -. a===1.- ****.* 8* ****
. .6t*Jun v DJVLP 4,,g,
. tsu., syn.. % us Wel j far .ese.ee aldg.
l / qg 1r.a.
18 r. , o.ss .. . e g
us rios - r-- . us %. ,4 8 f ue w
er t l t i I
l 19 ue
- ",*8' Piol - - -
j ,,,,,, REV. 6, 4/82
=. ,4a SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT CONTAINMENT RESPONSE ANALYSIS l FIGURE 7-4
- O 3 2 1 I
l Disp, ories Rs t Stiffness Geometry i
Stress Pass 1 Matrix l I N
~
\ / % - - - - - - - -a
/ '
4 / II t
1 Element Moment 6--
l j nd Force
$gg l
l
/
/
Printout 5/ -
7 Ma x.4,tmam Moments Moments and and Forces Moment and i
Forces d@ __
From Static Forces Fra
} Loads Seismic Loac1 l
\ 6 1
N - _. !
l C
e Rebar and Concrete Stresses REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION l UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT O
CONTAINMENT STRESS ANALYSIS FIGbRE 7-5
l l
/ / /
/ //
//
\
t l
t i 4
,o l N T T
\ \\ -
- : : :: :: x :: x :
REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT FINITE ELEMENT CONTAINMENT EQUIPMENT HATCH MODEL FIGURE 7-6
O i f
Seemetry Cl911 data deck Medal analyste
/
/
/
2 M I
! hade shapes C[ 92Q rose acceleration frequencies 4 =+ Time history + - , time histories from participation analysis l DISQ of ANSYS factore (Modal Synthesist
{,,,,,g,,,,,,3,g y ,g,
/
/
/
3 ucel.
eretion l "UE*
1 stories
+ CE 921
/
/
1V 4
,eY*t.1.n s . n .e -+
. D4VLP e ra -I Envelope AAS
/
Transmis to CDC 175 in sunnyvale j
/ ARS MSPEC
"+ AAS broadened and (sa"1***di create plot flie 4
1 ARS
[ l '"A" broadened
- clot -+
l 1.
l REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT O
REACTOR BUILDING RESPONSE ANALYSIS FIGURE 7-7 P
i O
/
/
/
1
/
Mode shape frequency -
((gl8 --
part, factor Response spectru.
1 Moment Shear l
t REV. 6, 4/82 l
' SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION l
UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT l0 REACTOR BUILDING STRESS ANALYSIS FIGURE 7-8
f U cA* ~ ]
(g <c\ '
\k i
~ ~ ~
- a * '
DOWNCOMER
. . " . (TYPICAL)
Pipt COLukN (TYPICAL) /
,/ .
- g
~
fe / ,h ,
g - .j s
_/ *) , A g'? '
PIPE BRACING (TYPICAL) y_ .L)g .
~
~
N. , /, ,
,p . " '
- a. 84-o - 7-l 'L
. l- e-e17 .- ."
-Q
' ' ~
\
.R f
' * ~--
- i. ; g '"' ,
/ --
\
O O
\\ '
.. O:- '
- ,. .i % @ -
~
y A
m-
- t .q _
(n '
,,,. . \ -
- m. * -O- -
5 , , m d s
/ .
e
,, '.' DOWNCOMER WITH 4 # VACCUM BRE#KER (TYPICAL)
.-v '
-? .__.#,
_~ _ . m .-
f 2ftano 3<A
- 4/t das SL* e l REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT
'bd DOWNCOMER BRACING SYSTEM PLAN FIGURE 7-9
i c7o-hh I l',
I 4 d'el ,
1_ _ _
)
- I ! S $
. I
!kN
' 5$
IED .
h n
'~ 4l5 5 5 kip
\ f-_
)
'a
)$ =
i 3
Ul:!
g sti l e a l ;
g
}d 2 0
~$
i-- f' $lk,,t.t.t . ..
f I%
i -~
I ; 7 : 3' , .
,i .() '.
Nhf'hsi i"
.j
- Int %4 '
, l- i i 1, _ m i I I g
m O
(
1 hk!f
/ M' al IsTI i. i
+ #
L ). -
O(t g ! ::Ffr I
I e 'l:=:
Ji ;
$i8 -
{r e
e, N
l nv , o
/ I ]N - I i
-y .
!. w. ,
REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT DOWNCOMER BRACING SYSTEM CONNECTION DETAILS FIGURE 7-10 (Sheet 1)
O ~C I
3su,ar s *m or r w- awm , .....
oser o'eu. a -
( sN5e" " *
.s n M y
- o. gn M* , j --
~ , .,7" N L6 f g
=-
wz / . ,
f .h
.:-- ~ ~ ~ ,
C,mer N e eM$Na *
.e f.:<- %%'***
SINGLE RING PLATE SECTION M STIFFENER DETAIL D
-c 'r' a
gese e'v mar sfewe j O s.or n a.e a 4-- w amam. )
p ,
pS_,. r
- /
, .LT. " . . .
r
/ .y r ,= , 4. ,,,,- >
g ' fererna Ls / Tt-
, ew we me.e L_. . '
ki Y / desoorn nune A
- = ., rm ,
g, SECTION / 6 \
DOUBLE PING PLATE STIFFENER DETAll REV. 6, 4/82 i SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION
! UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT LO DOWNCOMER BRACING SYSTEM CONNECTION DETAILS FIGURE 7-10 (Sheet 2)
O XD DOWNCOMER TOP RING PLATE i
\
~ /
\ > g] BOLTS ,
- C
. MAIN RING PLATE VERTICAL STlFFENERS TOP PARTIAL PLATE CONNECTOR PLATE l
REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECT 8 tlc STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT lO I
DOWNCOMER BRACING SYSTEM CONNECTION
! FIGURE 7-10 (Sheet 3)
O ,
l 41
- _ 40 o 39 34 33 " 31 30 28
. 38 19 , ,
18 27 26
" 16 2 25 37 11 10 yg o 13 24
<, 15 9 ,, 36 1 -
23 601 22 i,
5 602 21 35 2 4 14 o
1 20 3
8 REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT DOWNCOMER BRACING SYSTEM COMPUTER MODEL FIGURE 7-11 (Sheet 1)
O ys
/l l .
ej =
/
'~
REV. 6, 4/82 l
SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION j DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT DOWNCOMER BRACING SYSTEM COMPUTER MODEL FIGURE 7-11 (Sheet 2)
-- -~~,.
/
's \
, - 'l
/ s
- % l N ,,,,,, "-'- -% /
p ,,
l
?< [ < \
u
)
f Q- T y >f 3>< 7 ,
s h
'~
}
? - - ' ,
gg ne '
v
- o
! se .
=
d I ;
p EQ i l
N1 !P!g.x r#pi? '
/
ewy; : h[ h!Ef
/ / Mh i
PYMd5N 9i!!! l4M,3
- in-h
)< \ '
5
>( ui
"[ 7
)
l i O :P f i - -
-- -~~ ~
---j$k !A 5{: -
b E9 = .. saes ml eg g (
,.a
/ 6 '
1 s
< 's
') s Ej, ,
\ :'\ 1
- ' 5]
s s,
.d) -
s, ,
l ' ,
- - - s s
_ _- s i X )l s e s , i
% /
/
, , ,, ,/
REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT O
DOWNCOMER BRACING SYSTEM CONNECTION COMPUTER MODEL
, FIGUPE 7-11 (Sheet 3)
O c"
/,< a en f 6' g
4 h &
="
/
/ \ / 'N
\ /
/
- e.,','.
/ ,N /
v
\
..t- i ~. - -
\ 7 .m$ - x s.R.V. PIPE
.- *'**N'
. . , (TYPICAL)
, .:r ,
/
.. y..
d *.. f s '-
... _ c. ) - - A s(/ -*s r .. - - -
- s. *
- , t .. .
\y ,
, /
o /y , .9-,
s
/
/ -. -
\, - Na. :.
x f -
/
- N '
%s -
.. .- \ s.R.V. PIPE BR ACING
, . (TYPICAL)
'..i .. J REV. 6, 4/82 NOTE:
t O o'"n 'THis *^"""^*'"
siot suSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 l TYPES A 8. & C. POR DETAILS
! sEE DWG C M2 sH. 4 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT
! r TYPES A & C q. Piets EL. es? o -
l TvPE e ( EL. es -o -
l -
SRV SUPPORT SYSTEM l
1 PLAN l
FIGURE 7 -12 l
t---
- h. -I i
L "'
, -lTd L
'y 1 ";. 3
. !{
(If
~[
.h ha gE
'fp h(\% ?
Ngf\* 1 f j.' } 1,a '
g ., ll. II.. k .y i
,j[
. r er1 f, g- I fi' \ V- ..s dI
- ', po.-
e E) ;; . ... h,/ */.j.I'. --
~
, s
' ,j ' ; II!
- i:j 3
?
ll! ,, '
t h' i l
't" lI i
t l . i o a .
g
.'\ ql Opm i:f it' i
' \j,4 't, o,- ah Q) it! .pp -
tj y
[: !
.!:.iL..s_. A gip i' ,.i.,.__ .
4:
r h.. R )4.pv h; n -
- i 7 q
'. h.J ' b. >Y ._,
!y p.
.4 i i c .il ;
9 '1 .id '
4 s.S -
$ o 7 f.,. (p ' I 8
flj '. . yl r .- l . =
I,, - ' '
. Y $
l'k
> Ng. f ,8 i ,$ g , jO h[th11j! '
N k O
(( '
'4 V !8 5 2 "I' y' k 4.U - .. II 1{U.l 1- --
.y;o [* p; 7 i ,j' j qr U ;{- i si 5-
/ - .-
gr -
l .:' - , .. 7
- i. pI ,., f' g + : s if' i i ! l- ;- til I'l '
g /%j!(( % 5 j, hj.'U,f1 ,;. e 4 l.;[! * '
qf
-
- h Q) Oh ' M,,,. <-',.; .
t..
p 'g, ~['8a. "
- k ,
M ES .,.
6 .. .
4 i3 f z,,;
' ; :,, 3
>v y 2 ' g \ .'l! !il '. ir $ .$ 6(, . 'I $
4 h. .>'
> . 9 e . ,
q gp?r i i -
3: - . ;c >. , .
3 I
j[([.a) \,l__;t i i< M.P' wh
- g. u 4 !
i "j '
da I d(4
'( J '
\.
Il g ,
,.. / 't /
REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STE AM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT
, G SRV SUPPMT SYSTEMDETAILS FIGURE 7-3
i OftVWELL FL
{I. .- a1.- -
J* J. . ...d *j ,P
_< Q DECK //////
$i
^
i l r
-1>-
4reSTEEL P9PE COL -<>-
FINITE ELEMENTS +
-4 >-
L= 52* 3" NOOE POIPJTS q + w ab
-4>--
-4>-
O -N WATER -4>--
LEVEL 24'4"
-4>-
-4>-
BASEMAT --< >-
U if f , ,
, , , .,., / // // /
3
",,.*. MODEL
+" . 1'., *," '
..' e 4 *e 't.c c a' -g s I// M // //M// \
REV. 6, 4/82 SUSCUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT i 1
FINITE ELEMENT MODEL OF COLUMN FIGURE 7-14
DRYWELL FL.
i 1 9 */.,~r,;. -ab
. _...s'4'r
, v' '
+ 0. DECK
$i i b .
~ ".)
3'* f i
42"4 STEEL PIPE COL. f-1 !
I D l
k I l L-52'.3" l q
l ;-
g ]N 1
+y
.i g; :.::
O HIGH EL. 667 BRACING LEVEL
< t~'
WATER ' I LEVEL g 24*.0" -
l
.]
l I
BASEMAT f
! 'I f . . i
,.. ,,)
O.
r,.
..' e4
- e ,t .c ts s&
I // G // //451// \
REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT Da V
FINITE ELEMENT MODEL OF COLUMN FIGURE 7-15
a U
u 3 ii O az ,I =i \I ..
l 4
c I T:j. gj g; g i[
- i. k J, Mdj h.P A u, !!
i
!; , u ci uvs f\! l,1 i ;,7,d I f ki ~, % />'i t
- e us 4- n c_i
?.a 4 4 f,: '\ .
/
" k2- !
- i,5 3
hpf> ;;ni g t i-kga i
~
~~s' "Lps{
4
!5 i
+
- h. =: hy
-l-j: J
(
-] [ L . i d d _"i ~ I._1 ! %M 4
4 l s j" i '$ E , li }yf l N ! ! !ldiO [ ii s iM
'O al ji I
4 I
5
"_(
~
jil J rli lig i' i
q u i i. e -:
O ,
a WWi :
ifrge" " g-4 -- --
a 3 _
2 5 ..
$= l
,, I g=; -Nj 1
N fd b h , .s ag .
1%' EVf '
c l 0I ll,lll'il!!ill';!!y,lll l
NE "5 REV. 6, 4/82 f l ll{ 1 IIl I!. 1: 5 :-
SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UN,1S uNo= 1 t
- DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT J
Ia llEIi l o u g O r -- e---
!i1:,i
- i! -
ii ,;ir";M 1 cerent rewxiemen i
h nn ia;
- I A
- llii! ,gi : i di esasonnettocx i
FIGURE /-16
p , swer m d ~4 y .s l
%fU %.4/ , ~
E}
n hA u
w T'j ,- 3 d (o .
- lil V x e' ' '
- e d{,b k. liill,Nj/ '.h N. lli T O \.\ l u' I ,
[
d g2 ){
, ,1 .
f 4 *e o ,1 W g5
.Ti -
2.4 e. - ,
i x m >. 9 .) g ys
! 2u11_ .g* '*h ,' !_ , _
x; = -g t-
<( TMWU.
i, g
=
7 s< .d N g>* 6 :
- k i 9 !! j,,i , . ..3 9"/ ,
i s s y -
w-g p 8 gg s - :. .. .
,l 2 e -
i N !d 3 .,. .:
r /O l[. h- I j Weg q n , E* 4! ! = 'l J- -
W '""
<j El f 3 i
s> -
i >
t 4 1! R A1 hO IQ .
Y
$W ,
! l i l. Le hd ! u;~, ..!j
%l k i
_ l -{ e+ j_g \
I).'b Mjh..
A . ~ye - .- y -R Af" f 1
- y' 'y_
b - - - .bd+ %'.i3
~
l ;g -
BRMt
~v < - a UuM.k aa .o, .
we 4.<.,.
i I( ? lul I ?!d ll11 1 T_i!ill!!Imim 5 ei m ,
t8l8lt!2o d ; ti q!g
% / Jojo 4 !!
- E j 4j , 2
$(g h FEE 5 5 ef. -
ps :: E ja suSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION
,s {* /h I g UNITS 1 AND 2 p '!
!g v / ,,-.c4 .rs . . 3 e{3 , DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT
~
kN ?
i< -i - i-!*x- Hs=* % '!IIi ,,
- gg EQUIPMENT DOOR DETAILS I $5.S$553$!!335)!55$k3k5 !;33j4 iEi l s' -l I i i l i I -ililiiiH23
- 44' N FIGURE 7-E
f 9 9 *r 99 9 '-
~
e 3
a il 1 e, en c.
9tj$ s aiva s i
n i
a SE91 os oiu
_!i_ r !L_g__igggrri !! !! ;
Mi-!j! ! $ j wm un g i$$ 5 d.
[ j
~
! I Ej' I dgad N { I 833 . e3 35 0% 3
- h ak p st d; f{, } : h:.g d* T h 35 E s jX;p d y ! r ; r a
- m t
t e n hdi lj ~Np s
H I Jebee 51551 9 uf n g S i , = : e. w- 1 s /
Wh- 3 e - . , . . - - r - - r + a a ,\
u, e * + ,
esse : is s I"* v u la i I I I inn sssas !
g i.=
i.g e .,, I E s
- e __ E =
y a y B-E{
c 88 t -
h 5
g
.a
- d.;,e p e ; )i - (
.e. ,.f 2L
.c u
, e i
+
g .L: *l "
-I [ f 5 }j - '
E
- =
g- g I 7
.Ly I ;iM 2
-d 5i t (
'h
) *
'3 ET '%. [. . .. _ W M) m i >h iit) Lkki p, vf.
/
. . - ;y g-
't
- 'e .9s f } 'jlo.
i!/i!
- . f5 !I !. .
y ls ~
v} ~
.j i
a ' 'of
.r-e.
e l ..
e -] :s j .= $
? yll , l.
. . 1, % *s= ,
~
E ~ ' " ~
-4. E ="5E F - -' .- ? ?- t .. l0
- e
>f g1-e,-
~
t d
eknir ' S T
4e
, ll '
. = . ' .f, i ,i Q *4 3
'f1 ::[uld.
2 jjf 7 f Wm., . I'"ll'-
i 4=am, i 'f
) REV. 6, 4/82
'. , , SUSOUEHANNA STEAF. ELECTRIC STATION
,[* -
g g.
- a UNITS 1 AND 2 g C gy 4 l 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT V '
,d z 8
%~
a ---- ~
(.RD HATCH DETAILS FIGURE / 18
i l
<< . - ecs I ..
NN
(,}-ilk'Q Js MX-55a[
mf g />>r ;
N ..
- @M,*
~, , r.
w _
,,A -
~~~
t" : -
yjp
\ ~
P m m
<L%'14 /
e k 4y in1: steriod be*
taf . . ,,,
Qf, <R.~*y',,,.'2' -- .~' ,2..ao ,se e,, on
- .fatna m os os ran naAn'
.4 asesh , w., ras;~-
< . . J,,, a e s - I.m
>WL
? 7'
>=e a_menamen g,ro t-'~'
/
[4 4 i
w&D
.Y_
t I s
,,< ,,;L@Ety\
, t }\. a;yi (J T, ,,
, . . ,.._ s . .
.. es-, 2-o =
".t.
,e
< ,J f,,,, 3 ( r_ / @
7asst,* ef .
Y,[ it .
-e ,
rusu >.a x t.A s 8 v'EN'l E' u~ t i
. t a\ , . . , t 3 -
IMLM . , _ . _,..., Wun. %, .
,. Ja,o-
~ ' ' " " " *- seermr A a fs
, hety;-w /
sY '
/ '" y "
(i65 *
.d -^
,.,r N.
'N .
a
% /
too - -
- - ee REV. 6, 4/82
' SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 O
()- \
j DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT
~_ g REFUELING lhAD DETAILS e..db meersov 3-r
. ..n-,
FIGURE 7_1q
O himment sen11 )
Sedeetal #
1 8 l a
i
.-i 1 o
if l 1e.71 17 l 2 3 4 5 6
- : e 4
>14.88 4 4 4 ---l m at.73 mae.ee. m as,3e. 344, ..
l MAXIMUM NEGATIVE PRESSURE FROM KWU 300 SERIES CHUGGING O Point No. Maximum Negative Pressure psi.
Trace No.
1 -62.16 InfU 306 l 2 -26.42 KWU 306 3 -24.74 InfU 306 4 -26.85 KWU 306 1
5 -26.69 Info 306 l 6
-32.72 kwu 306 7 -28.40 1000 306 8 -31.39 KNU 306 REV. 6, 4/82 1
SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT O LINER PLATE HYDRODYNAMIC PRESSURE DUE TO CHUGGING FIGURE 7-20
O PEGESTAL : CONTAINMENT g WALL
- w- a HYDROSTATIC ,
+10.4 poi
[
u
\ l~ o
+10.4 psi.
BASE MAT
+ l 0
- o SRV gg is-o 7.8 poi
, 6' 7.8 poi II U
wr- o TOTAL 18" o
l
+u ,w k
1 , , , , ,,,r
/ "" 6'
+2.8 poi REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION f UNITS 1 AND 2 g o..ONA 1R., ORT LINER PLATE PRESSURES NORMAL CONDITION FIGURE 7-21
O n SRV Trace 76 s
- f
~
f 8
g g..
$8 i I i
s V
U\
J ?
a KhU Chugging .
s a
s P
E s
O r
- i. J. mv -
N w
~
- %/
I s
s, .
n SRV Plus Chugging Lined up at Minimum Pressures
.V.
h 1
e C ~
e A I. d A r'8 r;
v g7v' +
s T Y REV. 6, 4/82 s
5.. ... ... s. . ... s. ... (. . SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION Time in seconds 5 UNITS 1 AND 2 1o-1 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT LINER PLATE HYDRODYNAMIC PRESSURE
- DUE TO CHUGGING AND SRV FIGURE 7-22
O Costal' ament trall Pedestal #
8
<t
,1 d,
7 il 10.71' 17' 7.s*
2 3 4 s s
- : 0 4 ,
M M M
>14.8e' >31.73* a=le.se' m38.3e* >44.coe
- POINT IN FIGURE LOAD CASE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 CEUGGING -62.16 -26.42 -24.74 -26.85 -26.t . -32.72 -28.40 -31.39 sRY Trace 76 - 5.76 - 7.80 - 7.80 -7.80 - 7.80 - 7.00 - 7.09 - 3.05 sydrostatic 5.76 10.40 10.40 10.40 10.40 10.40 6.82 3.05 Wetwell pressure 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 due to saA or IRA
- WIT PRESSURE -37.16 1.18 2.86 0.75 0.91 -5.12 -3.69 -6.39
- Wetwell pressure due to DaA is 34 poi.
~
REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT s
LINER PLATE PRESSURE ABNORMAL CONDITION FIGURE 7-23
DIAPHRAGM s'^= T70 T.
I, I
i
.. e,
.g i **t t **,. .y g . A ,-
8 p,*> . . i EL.700*27 8" *- . e' ' ; g l
<3 s. * . * . '
' l
%d 5'.57 8" l ,
VACUUM l
Q BREAKER VALVE
! ,p % 4*.9 1 8"
t TYPICAL OF 5 l I i i
24" DOWNCOMER - I T.O. WATE R E L. 672*-0" l I 21'-117 8" l l i 4 *-0 "
3 34"a. 8
]"P ql 6"$ DOWNCOMER BRACING O 4D120o l 7 *-6" l ..
l 8'-01 8" I
I I t 24"$ SCH 20 CAP
- gssu II 4 *-0" 3"$ SCH 180 PIPE - I L
7'.117 8" T.O. BASEMAT q E L. 648*-0" \ ~'
re,.y.l', ' ' ,.,. ~ . *j ' Y, . :
.'t - . , 3 . e ,' *@
,'[,
p .,Q'
. ."*j ,' '
9 ,-
UNm m BASEMAT REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHt,NNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UN4TS 1 ANO 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT DOWNCOMER WITH VACUUM BREAKER AND DETAIL OF CAP FIGURE 7-24
~
1 O DIAPHRAGM SLA8 s.1 ll i l
l
. * . a- ..
.g i I *..- -
d...,.* e l e?.y,. ;. * .e .C*
EL. 700*-27 8" l *. ' '
l e !
.As. * . * *
' l l
r i I l 1 i l
- 10*3" TYPIC'AL OF 82 i
l i o i
24" DOWNCOMER - I T.O. WATE R m
I I e E L. 672'-0" l I 21*.117 8" i
l i
f I
4'0" a I '
l 6"$ DOWNCOMER I
I l BRACING 7 '-6 " 8'-01 8" l I
,I I 11'.117 8" T.O. B ASEMATS EL 648'-0" g r..pe',,
...t
~' ', J. . :
c . -lt - 1.;<,
,
- i'
.f.*-}.'- -
.: . 4.,.
UNM m BASEMAT I
REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 i DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT O
DOWNCOMER WITHOUT VACUUM BREAKER FIGURE 7-25
1 N
l
.i*
" ** I; . . **' I
.L ) T ] l l
FATIGUE ANALYSIS I LOCATION l
,.l ' -D_
DOWNCOMERS ,
2' %
f N
- L
\ / ':.:' 1
- o. -
i*
20*-5%" '..
HIGH WATER LEVEL
, , y f E L. 672' 0" v
O ...
- < s-<
7 i r h
4
- 33. g PEDESTAL
" f HOLES 12*
n C-4*-3%" 4 4 + v .
~' '
, u .4 ~ .:q,.
3 REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2
& DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT
, \
LOCATION WHERE DOMCOMhP.
I FATIGUE ANALYSISWAS PERFORMED FIGURE 7- $
L
m a
Table 7-1 MAXIMUM SPECTRAL ACCELERATIONS OF CONTAINMENT DUE TO SRV AND LOCA LOADS AT 14 DAMPING TYPE OF l LOAD NODE
- ELEVATION MAXIMUM STRUCTURAL LOAD l CASE DIRECTION NUMBER SPECTRAL FREQUENCY ACCELERATION (g) Hz Axisymme tric Vertical 841 778'-9-3/4" 1.088 15 SRV Horizontal 135 672'-0" 1.58 38 Asymmetric Vertical 252 702'-3" 0.83 40 Horizontal 131 672'-0" 0.875 38 Axisymmetric Vertical 235 702'-3" 1.80 54 CHUGGING Horizontal 131 672'-0" 8.5 30 L
Asymmetric Vertical 235 702'-3" 1.56 54 0
C Horizontal 131 672'0" 7.1 30 A
Axisymmetric Vertical 850 731'-3-1/4" 1.0 11 (CO)
Horiz'ontal 131 672'-0" 1.97 30 REV. 6, 4/82
O O O Table 7-2 MAXIMUM SPECTRAL ACCELERATIONS OF REACTOR AND CONTROL BUILDINGS MAXIMUM STRUCTURAL TYPE OF LOAD NODE SPECTRAL PREQUENCY LOAD CASE DIRECTION NUMBER ELEVATION ACCELERATION (g) Hz Axisymmetric Vertical 25 697'-0" 1.7 15 SRV Horizontal NA NA NA NA Asymmetric Vertical 25 697'-0" 0.35 15 Horizontal 37 683'-0" 0.35 25 (E-W)
Axisymmetric Vertical 25 697'-0" 3.5 15 Horizontal 37 683'-0" 3.0 25 CHUGGING (E-W)
L Asymmetric Vertical 25 697'-0" 2.7 15 O Horizontal 36 670'-0" 2.1 75 C -
(E-W)
A (CO) Axisymmetric Vertical 23 870'-0"- 1.85 11 Horizontal 37 683'-0" 1.0 25 (E-W)
REV. 6, 4/82
~
O O O a
Table 7-3 USAGE FACIOR SlDMARY OF DCNNO3 TEES NORMU/UPSEP CCNDITION EMERGENCY / FAULTED 00f01TICN SBA IBA or SBA IBA 1 CBE ISRV1 ISRV1 ' Pressure ' Pressure 'Pt; essure 1SRV1 ISRv2 1SRV2 * %ennal * %ennal *%enmal 1SRv2 1010G Transient Transient Transient
- Stearn Flow ' Steam Flow ' Steam Flow IIRDS 1010G 1010G I OfUG ISRV* 1SRV* 1SSE SSE At diaphragm location 0.0083 0.608 0.774 0.774 0.791 .782 Notes: 1) SRV* is a conbination of direct loads and building response loads.
- 2) OfUG is the maxistan chtsging load (direct load and building response).
- 3) %e^ calculation is based on ASME,Section III,1979 Sunener Addendura.
- 4) %e combination of 1 GIUG,1 SRV* ani SSE or CBE is by SRSS.
- 5) %ennal and presst=c 1rwis are conbined with 4) by absolute sta.
- 6) SRV1 is submerged structure load.
- 7) SRV2 is building response load.
REV. 6, 4/82
O TABLE 7-4 MAXIMUM CUMULATIVE USAGE FACTORS FOR SRV DISCHARGE LINE CALCULATED CODE COMPONENT CUMULATIVE USAGE ALLOWABLE CUMULATIVE
, FACTORS USAGE FACTORS i.
[. Flued Head 0.46 1,0 l 3-Way Restraint 0.51 1.0 I
(. Elbow (Line P) 0.56 1.0 l
l A
.O I '
I.
y, .
V O
REV '6, 4/82 3 .
l
1 Table 7- 5
} DOWNCOMERS AND BRACING SYSTEM MODAL FREQUENCIES l
FREQ. WEIGHT PARTICIPATION FACTORS MODE (HZ) HORIZ-X HORIZ-Y VERTICAL 1 1.84 0.320 1.274 ---
I 2 1.84 -1.278 0.321 ---
3 2.53 0.001 -0.013 ---
4 6.58 ---- 0.001 ---
- 5 8.64 0.001 -0.002 ---
6 9.95 -0.001 0.001 ---
7 13.27 0.004 -0.002 -0.002 8 14.05 -0.001 0.004 -0.002 9 14.55 0.001 *-0.001 0.004 10 15.12 0.003 0.002 -0.001
( 11 15.17 -0.007 ---
0.006 12 15.27 0.002 0.001 ---
13 15.38 ---
0.003 -0.008 14 15.44 -0.001 0.003 -0.007 15 15.46 -0.003 -0.001 0.002 d
45 15.75 ---
0.002 -0.012 46 15.76 -0.004 0.001 0.004
'47 17.44 ,
0.010 0.521 ---
48 17.44 -0.504 0.006 ---
49 17.50 0.023 -0.116 ---
50 17,78 0.015 0.126 ---
^
93 45.05 -0.072 0.460 ---
94 45.14 -0.416 -0.059 ---
95 45.33 -0.005 -0.027 ---
96 45.82 0.007 , 0.256 ---
~
L O.
REV. 6, 4/82
CHAPTER 10 RESPONSES TO NRC QUESTIONS
'taki 97.90ETEHIS 10.1 NRC QUESTIONS 10.1.1 IDENTIFICATION OF QUESTIONS UNIQUE TO SSES 10.1.2 IDENTIFICATION OF QUESTIONS PERTAINING TO THE NRC'S REVIEW OF THE DAR 10.1.3 QUESTIONS RECEIV ED DURING TH E PREPAR ATION OF THE SAFETY EV ALU ATION REPORT (SER) 10.2 RESPONSES 10.2.1 QUESTIONS UNIQUE TO SSES AND RESPONSES THERETO 10.2.2 QUESTIONS PERTAINING TO THE NRC'S REVIEW OF THE DAR AND RESPONSE THERETO i
10.2.3 QUESTIONS INFORMALLY RECEIVED DURING THE PREPAR ATION OF THE S A F ET Y EVALUATION REPORT (S ER) AND RESPONSE THERETO 10.3 FIGURES O
J-Q.
REV. 6, 4/S2 10-1
C!! A PTER 10 IIMEM g
HUEb2E Iillt 10-1 This figure has been deleted.
10-2 This figure has been deleted.
10-3 Special relationship of downconers and pedestal holes 10-4 Transducer locations for the ten vent pipe configuration 10-5 Transducer locations for the six vent pipe configuration 10-6 Transducer locations for the two vent pipe configuration 10-7 Typical pressure time histories f rom pressure transducers P20, P25 .. 29 and P 134 10-8 Typical pressure time histories f rom pressure transducers P20, P25 ... 29 and P134 10-9 Prequency distribution of measured normalized wall pressures 10-10 Pool wall pressures at three circumferential vent exit locations - 1/6 scale 3 vent geometry ll) 10-11 Pool wall oressures at three circumferential vent crit locations - 1/10 scale 19 vent geomet ry 10-12 Plan locations of transducers for wetwell 10-11 Locations of pressure transducers for wetwell 10-14 Vent exit elevation pool w.all pressures for a chug from JAERI test 0002 10-15 Comparison of probability density of the normalized pressure amplitudes from GKM II-M tests 3 ... 10 and JAERI 10-16 Comparison of probability density of the normalized pressure amplitudes from GKM II-M tests 11 S 12 and JAERI 10-17 Comparison of probability density of the normalized pressure amplitudes from GKM II-M tests 13 ... 20 and JAERI 10-18 Comparison of pressure response spectra of test 21.2 - all valve case - and the SSES load definition 10-19 Comparison of pressure response spectra of test 21. 2 - a ll ;
valve case and one valve case - a nd the SSES load definiti '
I REV. 6, 4/82 10-2 l l
1
I Eiggggs (Cont.)
Humber Iltle 0- 10-20 SSES containment response spectra - KWU SRYt76 - Asyssetric direction horizontal 10-21 SSES containment response spectra - KWU SRV#76 - Asyssetric direction vertical 10-22 SSES containment response specttra - KWU SRV876 - Asyanetric direction horizontal 10-23 SSES containment response spectra - KWU SRV876 - Asynaetric direction vertical 10-24 SSES containment response spectra - KUU SRYt76 - Asynaetric direction horizontal 10-25 SSES containment response spectra - KWU SRV#76 - Asyssetric direction vertical 10-26 SSES containment response spectra - KWU SRV#76 - Asymmetric direction horizontal 10-17 SSES containment response spectra - KWU SRV#76 - Asynaetric direction vertical 10-29 SSES containment response spectra - KWU SRV876 - Asyssetric
(
/~S) direction horizontal 10-29 SSES containment response spectra - KWU SRY#76 - Asynaetric direction vertical 10-30 SSES containment response spectra - KWU SRV#76 - Asynaetric direction horizontal 10-31 SSES containment response spectra - KWU SRV876 - Asymmetric direction vertical 10-32 SSES containment response spectra - KWU SRV876 - Asymmetric direction horizontal 10-33 SSES containment response spectra - KWU SRV876 - Asymmetric direction vertical 10-34 SSES containment response spectra - KUU SRVt76 - Asymmetric direction horizontal 10-35 SSES containment response spectra - KWU SRV876 - Asynaetric direction vertical 10-36 SSES containment response spectra - KVU SRV876 - Asymmetric
-, direction horizontal 7
V REV. 6, 4/82 10-3 1
flggg3S (Con t. )
3HEDSI Iltle 10-37 SSES containment response spectra - KWU SRV476 - Asynaetric direction vertical 10-38 SSES containment response spectra - KWU SRV876 - Asymmetric direction horizontal 10-39 SSES containment response spectra - KWU SRV876 - Asymmetric direction vertical 10-40 SSES containment response spectra - KWU SRV876 - Asyssetric direction horizontal 10-41 SSES containment response spectr& - KWU SRY#76 - Asymmetric direction vertical 10-42 LGS containment response spectra - KWU SRV876 - Asymmetric direction horizontal 10-43 LGS containment response spectra - KWU SRV876 - Asymmetric direction vertical 10-44 LGS containment response spectra - KUU SRV876 - Asymmetric direction horizontal 10-45 LGS containment response spectra - KWU SRV476 - Asymmetricg direction vertical 10-46 LGS containment response spectra - KUU SRV876 - Asynaetric direction horizontal 10-47 LGS containment response spectra - KUU SR7876 - Asynaetric direction vertical 10-48 LGS containment response spectra - KWU SRV876 - Asynaetric direction horizontal 10-49 LGS containment response spectra - KWU SRYf76 - Asynactric direction vertical 10-50 LGS containment response spectra - KWU SRV876 - Asysset'ric direction horizontal 10-51 LGS containment response spectra - KWU SRV876 - Asynaetric direction vertical 10-52 LGS containment response spectra - KWU SRV876 - Asyssetric direction horizontal 10-53 LGS containment response spectra - KWU SRV876 - Asynnetric direction vertical REV. 6, 4/82 10-4
Z;gUBJJ (Cont.)
l H9aber Tills l 10-54 LGS containment response spectra - KWU SRV876 - Asyssetric l
direction horizontal 10-55 LGS containment response spectra - KWU SRV876 - Asynnetric direction vertical 10-56 LGS containment response spectra - KWU SRV876 - Asynaetric direction horizontal 10-57 LGS containment response spectra - KWU SRV876 - Asymmetric direction vertical 10-58 LGS containment response spectra - KWU SRY876 - Asymmetric direction horizontal 10-59 LGS containment response spectra - KWU SRV876 - Asynnetric direction vertical 10-60 LGS containment response spectra - KWU 3RV876 - Asyssetric direction horizontal 10-61 LGS containment response spectra - KWU SRV876 - Asynnetric direction vertical s 10-62 LGS containment response spectra - KWU SRYS76 - Asynnetric direction horizontal 10-63 LGS containment response spectra - KWU SRV876 - Asynaetric direction vertical 10-64 Reactor Pressure Transient - Case 2.a Without Shutdown Cooling 10-65 Suppression Pool Temperature Transient - Case 2.a Without Shutdown Cooling
($)
REV. 6, 4/82 10-5 l
CHAPTER 10 IADLES SURDEE T1118 O
10-1 Normalized RMS vent static pressure and variance - JAERI data 10-2 Comparison of JAERI/GKM II-M normalized mean varianco 0
l l
O REV. 6, 4/82 10-6
19s0 _H5Sf9HSES IG HBC_QUISII9ES l 1
~3 This chapter will provide responses to those Nuclear Regulatory
(\_) commission (N RC) questions which have been designated by 1 Referance 10 (as amended) to be found in the plant-unique Design Assessment Report, to those questions for which the response in 9pference 10 is inapplicable, to those questions generated from 12 previous NRC reviews of the plant unique DA9, a nd those questions received during preparation of the SER. The NRC questions for which responses will be provided are identified in Subsections 6 10.1.1, 10.1.2, and 10.1. 3, and det ailed resposes to these questions are found in Subsections 10.2.1, 10.2.2 and 10.2.3.
'r l(11 REV. 6, 4/82 10-7
6 19m3sl__IDEHIlflCAIl9H_QE_QEESIIQHE_MEIDEE_IQ_ SEES The below listed questions address concerns unique to SSES.
2l These questions are answered in detail in Subsection 10.2.1 ggg HEG.QH2311SE.EMEh2E QM23119n_I9E iG M020.26 Primary and Secondary LOC A Loads 9020.27 Inventory Effects on Blowdown M020.44 Po31 swell Waves and Seismic Slosh M020.55 SRV Loads on Submerged Structures M 020. 58 (1) , (2) , (3) Plant Unique Poolswell Calculations M0 20. 59 (1) , (3) , (4) Downconer Lateral Braces M020.60 Wetwell Pressure History
=020.61 Poolswell Inside Pedestal M130.1 Pressure Loading Due to SRY Discharge M130.2 Load Combination History M130.4 Soil Modeling M130.5 Liner and Anchorage Mathematical lh Model M130.6 Containment Structural Model- Asymmetric Loads 1130.12 SRV Structural Response i-O REV. 6, 4/82 10-8
10s1:2__IDENIIIIG&II91_QE_9HESIIDMS_EZEIAINIH9_ID_IHE_HEG1R 16 EE! IBM _9t_IBE_Dh8
() The below listed questions address concerns generated as a result of the NBC's review of the DAR. These questions are answered in detail in Subsection 10. 2. 2 l6 Qucut190_Humbet 0921119n_I991G 1 NUREG-0487 Acceptance Criteria 2 Drywell Pressurization 1 Chuqqing Loads on submerged Structures 4 IBA and SDA for Typical Mark II Containment 2 5 Poolswell Waves and Seismic Slash 6 List of Piping, Eq uip ae nt , etc., Subject to Pool Dynamic Loads 7 Applicability of the Generic Programs, Tests and Analysis to the SSES Design 8 Time Ifistory of Plant Specific Loads 9 Mass and Energy Release 10 " Local" and " Bulk" Pool Temperature 11 Suppression Pool Temperature Monitoring System O
REV. 6, 4/82 10-9
i 1911tl---QUEGILQ53 BEGELIED D2BIEG IBB 2BZ2bBhT195-QE.TBE HAZEII EIALDAIIGE EEEDRI lSEEL The below listed questions were informally received during the N RC's preparation of the SER. These questions are answered in detail in subsection 10.2.3.
Qu20ti9a EumbcE Question _I9919 1 SSES LOCA Steam Condensation Load Definition (SER Item 827) 2 T-Ouencher Freq u ency Range (SER Itea #28) 1 SSES A DS Load Case (S ER Item # 28) 4 Ouencher Bottom Support at Karlstein (sea Item #28) 5 Bending Moment in the Quencher Arm Recorded at Karlstein (SER Item #28) 6 Suppression Pool Temperature Respanse (SER Item #30) 7 Local to Bulk Temperature Difference for SSES (S ER Item 830) 8 Ouencher Steam Mass Flux (SER Item #30J O
O
~
REV. 6, 4/82
19s2__EESEggggS ;
l JD=2sl__Q2ESIIQHS_DEIQHE_IQ_ESE1_AND_EESEQHEES_IEEEKIQ
[}
QUESIIQH_3220s26 .
The DFFR presents a description of a number of LOCA related hydrodynamic loads without dif ferentiating between primary and i secondary load 3. Provide this differentiation between the I prima ry and secondary LOCA-related hydrodynamic loads. We recognize that this dif ferentiation may vary from plant to plant.
We would designate as a primary load any load that his or will result in a design modification in any Mark II containment since the pool dynamic concerns were identified in our April 1975 qaneric letters.
BESEQHSE_HQ20s25 The table below shows the LOCA-related hydrodynamic loads on the SSES containment. Those loads which have resulted in containment design modifications are designated as " Primary Loads." These primary loads result from the poolswell transie nt.
Dryvell floor uplift pressures during the wetwell com pression phase of poolswell lead to the decision to increase the SSES d rywell floor design saf ety maroin for uplif t pressures by relocating drywell floor shear ties.
O poolswoll impact, drag, and f allback loads resulted in the relocation of equipment in the SSES wetvell to a position aDove the peak poolswell height. Furthermore, the downconer tracing system was redesigned.
All other LOCA-related hydrodynamic loads are designated as "Second.i ry Loads"'cince no design modification has resulted from their. presence.
LQQa_ Land "Etiairr_L2id" "S2G2ndaEI_L2ad'l
- 1. Wetwell/Drywell Pressures X(1)
(During Poolswell) ,
. 's 2'. Poolswell Impact Load XC2)
, ' 'O. 3. Poolswell Draq Load s YC3) b 4. Downconer Clearing Load X
' t'.
- 5. Downconer Jet Load X
- 6. Poolswell Air B bble Load X
q , .[Wi] . Poolswell Fallbyck Load XC*)
- ~; ~~
l s ; aevil,5/80 ,
- i0-11 l l
[I ^
~- . - - .
LOC &_1ggd 2Egigggy_Lggf2 [ggcondaII_Lgadi R. Mixed Flow Condensation oscillation Load I lll
- 9. Pure Steam Condensation oscillation Load I
- 10. Chuqqinq X
E29tG212HL (1) Shear ties changed in drywell floor.
(2) Equipment moved in wetwell.
(3) Equipment moved in cetwell. Bracing system redesign.
(4) Rouipment moved in wetwell.
QuggIIgg_dQ20t22 The calculated drywell pressure transient typically a ssumes that the mass flow rate from the recirculation system or steaaline is noual to the steady-state critical flow rate based on the critical flow area of the iet pump nozzle or steauline orifice.
Ilo w ev er, for approximately the first second af ter the break opening, the rate of mass flow from the break will be greater than the steady-state value. It has been estimated that for a 9 ark I containment this ef f ect results in a temporary increase in the drywell pressurization rate 'o f about 20 porcent above the value based solely on the steady-state critical flow rate. The drywell pressure transient used for the LOCA pool dynamic load avaluation, for each Mark II plant, should include this initially higher blowdown rate due to the additional fluid inventory in the recicculation line.
EEEEQusE_5020s27 The drywell pressure transients have been recalculated by GE (Reference 7) with the additional blowdown flow rate produced by the inventory effects included in the analysis. The LOCA loads presented in Section 4.2 have been calculated using these lll Rev. 2, S/80 10-12
1 l
recalculated drywell pressure transients. Specifically, the drywell pressure transient resulting from the DBA LOCA including the effects of pipe inventory has been used as input to the l f~)
a poolswell model. '
QH52 TION _5020s!! 2 Table 5-1 and Figures 5-1 through 5-16 in the DFFR provide a listing of the loads and the load combinations to be included in the assessment of specific Mark II plants. This table and these figures do not include loads resulting from pool swell waves following the pool swell process or seismic slosh. We require that an evaluation of these loads be provided for the Mark II containment design.
RESEGNSK_5920a!9 Subsections 4. 2.4.6 and 4.2.4.7 provide ou r response.
6 gggSIIgg_nq20s55 The compu':ational method described in DFFR Section 3.4 for calculating SRV loads on submerged structures is not acceptable.
Tt is our position that the Mark II containment a pplications should commit to one of the following two approaches:
(1) Design the submerged structures for the full SRV (s
(_)
pressure loads acting on one side of the structures; the pressure attenuatiori law described in Section 3.4.1 of "EDO-21061 for the ranshead and Section A10.3.1 of NEDO-11314-08 for the quencher can be applied for calculating the precstra loads.
( 2) Follow the resolution of GESSAR-238 NI on this issue.
The applicant for GBSSAR-238 NI has proposed a method 2
presented in the GE report, " Unsteady Draq on Submerged Structures," which is attached to the letter dated March 24, 1976 f rom G.L. Gyorey to R.L. Tedesco. This report is actively under review.
HESEgggg_3020.55 Loads on submerged structures due to SRV actuation are discussed in Subsection 4.1.3.7.
l QUESIIGH_5220s1H Relat ing to the pool swell calculations, we require the following information for each Mark II plan t:
( 1) Provide a description of and justify all deviations from the DFFR pool swell model. Identify the party responsible for conducting the pool swell calculations
' ()
(i.e., GE or the ASE) . Provide the program input and REV. 6, 4/82 10-13
results of bench mark calculations to qualif y the pool swell computer program.
(2) Provide the pool swell model input including all initial and boundary conditions. Show that the model input lll represents conservative values with respect to obtaining maximum pool swell loads. In the case of calculated input, (i.e. , drywell pressure response, vent clearing tim e) , the calculational methods should be described and iustified. In addition, the party responsible for the calculation (i.e., GE or the AGE) should be identified.
(3) Pool swell calculations should be conducted for each Mark II plant. The following pool swell results should be provided in graphic form for each plant:
(a) Pool surface position versus time (b) Pool surf ace velocity versus time (c) Pool surface velocity versus position (d) ?ressure of the suppression pool air slug and the wetvell air versus time.
BES20 HSE _H229.2D (1) A specific response to this question can be found in Subsection 4.2.1.1. Verification of the SSES pool swell g model is provided in Appendix Section D.l. W (2) Input and discussion of the poolswell model input can be f ound in Tables 4- 17, 4-18, and Section 4.2.1.1.
(3) The requested graphic results of the SSES po olsw ell calculation can be found in Piqures 4-38, 4-39, 4-40, and 4-43.
QUESIIGH_H020m29 In the 4 T test report NEDE-13442P-01 Section 3.3 the statement is made that for the various Mark II plants a wide diversity exists in tha t ype and location of lateral bracing between downcomars and that the bracing in the 4T tests was designed to minimize the interference with upward flow. Provide the following information for each Mark II plant:
(1) A description of the downconer lateral bracing system.
This description should include the bracing dimensions, method of attachment to the downconers and walls, elevation and location relative to the pool surface. A sketch of the bracinq system should be provided.
(2) The basis for calcrlating the impact or draq load on the bracinq system or downconer flanges. The magnitude and llh Rev. 2, 5/80 10-14
duration of impact or drag forces on the bracing system l or downconer flanges should also be provided.
An assessment of the effect of downconer flanges on vent 2 a( ) (3) lateral loads.
a EEEE9EEE_5920s52
( 1) Subsection 7.1.2.1 describes the SSES bracing system and the methodology for assessing the adequacy of bracing 6 system.
( 2) The basis for calculating the impact or draq loads on the downconer bracinq system (El. 668') and downconer stiffener rings (El. 668' and El. 682') is given in Section 4.2. The magnitude and duration of impact or draq forces on the bracinq system and downconer stiffener rings is also given in Section 4.2 .
(3) This ites is not applicable to the SSES design.
DHESIIDH_5929s59 In the 4T test report NEDE-134 42P-01 Section 5.q.3.2 the statement is made that an underpressure does occur with respect to the hydrostatic pressure prior to the chug. However, the pressurization of the air space above the pool is such that the overall pressure is still positive at all times during the chug.
We require that each Mark II plant provide suf ficient information s regarding the boundary underpressure, the hydrostatic pressure, the air space and the SRV load pressure to confirm this statement 2 or alterna ti vely provide a bounding calculation a pplicable to all Mark II pl a n ts.
BESEQHEE_5H29th9 This inforestion is provided in Subsection 7.1.3 of the DAR.
0HESIIDH_5220sh!
Significant variations exist in the Mark II plants with regard to the design of the wetwell structures in the region enclosed by the reactor pedestal. These variations occur in the areas of (1) concrete backfill of the pedestal, (2) placemen t of downconers,
( 3) wetwell air space volumes, and (4) location of the diaphraga relative to the pool surface. In addition to variation between plants, for a given plant, variations exist in some of these areas within a given plant. As a result, for a given plant, significant differences in the pool swell phenomena can occur in these two regions. We will require that each plant provide a soparate evaluation of pool swell phenomena and loads inside of t he reactor pedestal.
HESEQHSE_5320s51 REV. 6, 4/82 10-15
The SSES pedestal and vetvell area is shown on Figures 1-1 and l 10.3. Due to the absence of downcomers in the pedestal interior, no pool swell would be expected in this~ region. There ar e 12 holes in the pedestal, however, eight of which would allow the flow of water from the suppression pool to the pedestal during a lll LOCA. Some downcomers are near the pedestal flow holes, letding to the possibility that air could be blown through the pedestal holes, which would lead to a greater pedestal pool swell than would be experienced by incompressible water flow alone. One would expect the pedestal pool swell to be auch reduced from the suppression pool swell due to its relative separation from the suppression pool and the lack of direct charging from downcomer vents. Indeed, 1/13.3 scale model tests of the SSES pedestal design conducted at the Stanford Research Institute under the sponsorship of EPRI show that the pedestal pool swell is less than 20 percent of the pool swell in the suppression pool (Reference 32) . There is no piping or equipment inside the SSES pedestal and, since the pedestal pool swell is very small, the o n ly load involved due to pedestal pool swell would he a small *P across +he pedestal due to different water levels between the suppression pool and the pedestal interior. This load is considered in the design of the SSES pedestal.
QUESIIDE_5129sl Provide in Section 5 a description of the pressure loadings on the containment wall, pedestal vall, base sat, and other structural elements in the suppression pool, due to the various combinations of SRY discharges, including the time function and g profile for each combination. If this information is not W ceneric, each affected utility should submit the information as described above.
EESEQHSE_5130sl Chapter 4 describes the pressure loadings and time histories due to SRV discharge and other hydrodynamic loads.
QUESIIGE_513922 In DFPR Section 5.2 it is stated that the load combination histories are presented in the form of bar charts as shown on Piqures 5-1 through 5-16. It is not indicated how these losd combination histories are used. In particular, it is not clear whether only loads represented by concurrent bars will be combined, and it should be no ted that depending on the dynamic properties of the structures and the rise time and duration of t he loads, a structure may respond to two or more given loads at the same time even though these loads occur at different times.
Also, although condensation oscillations are depicted as bars on the bar charts, the procedure for the analysis of structures due to these loads has not been presented. Accordingly, the description of the method should include consideration of such condit io ns. Also, for condensation oscillation loads and for SRV oscillatory loads, include low cycle fatique analysis. lll Rw. 2, 5/80 10-16
2 BEEEGHEE_5139- 2 g3 The loads will be combined according to Section 5.0. Section 7.0 ts j describes the assessment methodology and results for the re- 6 assessment of SSES for the hydrodynamic and non-hydrodynamic loads.
QUESTIGE_5139.3 Through the use of figures, describe in detail the soil modelling as indicated in DFFR Subsection 5.4.3 and describe the solid finite elements which you intend to use for the soil.
BESEQHEE_E129ss Soil modelling is explained in Subsection 7.1.1.1.
0HESIIGH_n139th Describe the mathematical model which you will use for the liner and t he anchorage system in the analysis as described in DFFR Subsection 5.6.3.
EESEQHSH_H13925 The mathematical model which will be used for analysis of the liner and the anchorage for hydrodynamic suction pressures is
(~N described in Subsection 7.1.3.
V 2 QHESI19E_n129ss In DFFR Subsection 5.1.1.1 it was stated that the SRV discharge could cause axisymmetric or asynnetric loads on the containment.
In Subsection 5.4.1 an axisymmetric finite element computer program is recommended for dynamic analysis of structures due to SRV loads, and no mention is made of the analysis for asymmetric loads. Describe the structural analysis procedure used to consider asymmetric pool dynamic loads on structures and through the use of figures, describe in more detail the structural model which you intend to use.
EESEQHSE_51dQs6 The dynamic analyses and models used are explained in Chapter 7 .
QUESIIQH_5110tl2 Reference is made in DFFR Subsection 5.4.3 to studies of structural response to SRV load. Provide citations for this referenco and where such studies are not readily available, copies a re requested.
RESEQHSE_ Ell 9=12
-REV. 6, 4/82 10-17
Studies mentioned in DFFR Subsection 5. 4. 3 are the results of analysis completed for a specific plant at the time of writing of the DPPR. Reference to the studies was intended to indicate the strain dependent soil properties. For the l need SSES for analysis, considering Reference 33 is used to determine the soil constants in the analysis.
l l
l l
l O
O Rev. 2, 5/80 10-18
1922s2__QUESIIggS_EERIAINIX9_ID_IHE_HfCES_ggvIEg_of_ Igg _QAB ggp 6 EEsf9fSE_IREEEIQ QEESII9H_1 (v') The LOC A and SRY related pool dynamic loads that are currently acceptable to us are discussed in NUREG-0487. Table IV-1 of NUREG-0487 summarizes these Mark II pool dynamic loais. By letter, dated February 2, 1979, you indicated on Table IV-1 the
- LOCA related dynamic loads acceptable to the staff that will be adopted for SSES. Revise the DAR to incorporate this inf ormation and provide the same information for the SRV related pool dynamic loads. For both the SRV and LOCA loads indicate the alternative criteria that will be used for each ites for which an exemption is proposed and provide references that discuss these alternative criteria.
EESEQHSH See response to Question 021.69 contained in Volume 16 of the 2 SSES FSAR and Table 1-4 of the DAR.
QUESTI9E_2 Subsection 4.2.1.1 of the DAR state that the drywell pressure transient used for the pool swell portion of LOCA is based on the methodology described in NEDO-21061. Subsection III. B. 3.a. 6 of NURE3-04 87 requires that a comparison similar to those presented in reference 1* be made if the model used is dif ferent from the
/~T model de scribed in NEDM-10320. We require the model prior to
\~J completion of review of the pool swell calculations.
- Reference (1) Letter " Response to NRC Request for Additional Information (Round 3 Questions," to J. F. Stolz (NR C- DPM) from L.
J. Sobon (GE) , dated June 30, 1978.
EESE9 HSE See response to Question 021.70 contained in the SSES FSAR.
QUESIIDH_3 Subsection 4.2.2.2 of the DAR sta tes that the chuqqing loads on 6 submerged structures and imparted on the downcomers will be evaluated later. Provide the present status of these evaluations and the schedule f or your submission of the completed evaluation.
HESEQHSE See response to Question 021.71 in the SSES FS AR.
QUESIIGH_1 Statements are made in Subsections 4.2.3.2 and 4.2.3.3 of the DAR
/~ that plant unique data of the Susquehanna SES intermediate break (s)
REY. 6, 4/82 10-19
accident (IB A) cud scall brenk accidant (S B A) are osticated fron curves for a typical Mark II containment. Discuss the applicability of these analyses (e.g., power level, i nitial conditions, downcomer configuration, etc.) to Susquehanna SES.
BEBEQHSD See response to Question 021.72 contained in the SSES PSAR.
QUESIIGH_1 Provide the information previously requested in 020.44 regarding loads resulting from pool swell waves following the pool swell process or seismic slosh. Discuss the analytical model and assum ptions used to perf orm these analyses.
EESEQHSE See response to Question 021.73 contained in the SSES PSAR.
DHESIIGH_h Provide a list and drawing to identif y all piping, equipment instrumentation and structures in containment that ma y be subiocted to pool dynamic loads. In addition, provide drawings to show the locatior. of access galleys in the wetwell, the vent vacuum breaker conft.quration, wetwell grating, vent bracinq configuration, vent configuration in the pedestal region of wetwell and large horizontal structures in the pool swell zone.
BESE0 HSE O
See response to Question 021.74 contained in the SSES PSAR.
QUESIIDH_2 Discuss the applicability of the generic supporting programs, tests and analyses to Susquehanna SES design (i.e., PSI concerns, downcomer stiffners, downcoser diameter, etc.).
EESEQHSE See response to Question 021.75 contained in the SSES PSAR.
DHESIl9H_H Provide the time history of plant specific loads and assessment of responses of plant structures, pipino, equipment a nd components to pool dynamic loads. Identify any significant plant modifiestions resulting f rom pool dynamic loads considerations.
BEEE9EEE See response to Question 021.76 contained in the SSES PSAB.
O REV. 6, 4/82 10-20
QHEEIIQH_9 Provide figures showing reactor pressure, quencher mass flux and I') suppression pool temperature versus time for the followinq events:
(1) a stuck-open SRV during power operation assuming reactor scra; at 10 minutes a fter pool temperature reaches 1100F and all RHH systems operable; (2) same as event (1) above'except that only one RHR train a vaila ble:
(3) a stuck-open SRV during hot standby condition assuming 1200F pool temperature initially and only one RHR train available; (4) the Automatic Depressurization System ( A DS) activated f ollowing a small line break assuming an initial pool temperature of 1200F and only one RhR train available; and (5) the primary system is isolated and depressurizing at a rate of 1000P por hour with an initial pool temperture of 1200F and only one RHR train available.
Provide parameters such as service water temperature, RHR heat exchanger capability, and initial pool mass for the analysis.
EgSEg333
) .See response to Question 021.77 contained in the SSES FSAR.
QUESIl0H_12 With regard to the pool temperature limit, provide the following additional inf ormation:
(1) Definition of the " local" and " bulk" pool temperature and their application to the actual containment and to the scaled test f a cil ities, if any; and (2) The data base that support any assumed difference between the local and the bulk tempera tures.
EEEE0H33 See response to Question 021.78 contained in the SSES FSAR.
~QUESIIGH_ll For the suppression pool temperature monitoring system, provide the following additional information:
. (1) yype, number and location of temperature in st ru me nta tion that l will be installed in the pool; and l
I 10-21 1
Rev. 2. 5/80 l
t
4 l
(2) Discussion and iustification of the sampling or averaging technique that will be applied to arrive at a definitive pool temperature.
EEEEGESE See response to Question 021.79 contained in the SSES FSAR.
O O
Rev. 2, 5/80 10-22 )
l l
1
10.2.3 Quontienc Rec 31Tcd During the Preparation of the Safoty
_________EIn194119n_B929Et_and_Eas29nsa_Ihtret9-_ _ -
p V
QHESTIOH_1 With regard to the SSES LOCA steam condensation load definition, provide the following additional information:
(1) Justification for the interchangeability of the GKM II-M temporal chuq strength probability distribution with the spacial variation of chuq strengths at SSES.
(2) .fustification for not considering CO S SRV ( ADS) .
(3) Comparison of the C0 seasu red a t 4T-C0 with the CO abserved at GKM II-M.
HESEQHSE_1 (1) The SSES LOCA steam condensation load definition assumes that the chugs occurring simultaneously a t dif ferent vent pipes of SSES have diff erent intensities and follow the same distribution of chug amplitudes in time as in the GKM II-M single vent facility. This assumption forms the basis for two key elements of the LOCA load definition.
The first element assumes that the average of simultaneously occurring chugs at different vents in SSES is equivalent to the average of consecutive GKM II-M chugs. Thus, as
/^)
\~/
documented in Subsection 9.5.3.1.2, the randon amplitude chugs at SSES were replaced with the same chug at every vent which represents the average of consecutive GKM II-M chugs or
" mea n value" chug.
The second element assumes that the chug amplitule or strength at the individual SSES vents are random variables which have the same probability distribution as the distribution of chug amplitudes at GKM II-M. The GKM II-M probability distribution was then applied sta tistically to an analytical model of the SSES suppression pool to calculate the symmetric and asymmetric amplitude factors. These factors were then applied to the selected mean value chugs to achieve the desired exceedance probability prior to transportation to SSES for containment analysis (see s ubsection s 9. 5. 3. 4.1 a nd 9. 5.3. 4. 2) .
These two elements infer that the multi-vent facility is composed of many " single cells" whose chug strengths vary stochastically and independently of each other. The random nature of chuqqing is explained qualitatively by looking at the actual bubble collapsing mechanism. The most pla usible mechanism for bubble collapse at the individual vents ' appears to be the convection in the pool. This means that bubble collapses at indivdual vents are triqqered by the local turbulent convection at each vent. Thus due to tho (v~}
REV. 6, 4/82 10-23 i
l
stochnatic naturo of turbulcnco, the ties at chich rapid condensation and hence bubble collapse is triqqered varies from vent to vent. This implies that the size of the bubble f ormed before collapse sta rts, will also va ry f ro m vent to g vent. Therefore, the chuq strength will vary from vent to W vent. Since, the GKM II-M tests were designed to be prototypical of SSES (i.e. , same initial pool temperature, same steam flow, etc.), this random variation is expected to be similar for both the GK5 II-M single vent f acility and the SSES plant.
Additional qualitative data verifying the random nature of chuquing is provided by numerous multi-vent test programs.
Specifically, the KWU multi-vent concrete cell tests in Karlstein, Creare subscale multi-vent tests and J AERI full scale multi-vent tests provide multi-vent data of the c huqqi ng phenomena.
The Karlstein facility investigated the chuqqing phenomena for 2, 6, and 10 vents at subscale. Each vent in the concrete cell was instrumented with a pressure transducer in such a way that it was indicative of the chuq strength for its respective vent. Piqures 10-4, 10-5, and 10-6 illustrate ,
these vent transducers and the re maining transducers for the l 10, 6, and 2 vent facilities, respectively. !
Piqures 10-7 and 10-8 show typical pressure time histories ;
for the pressure transducers mounted near the vent pipes for the six vent configuration. These pressure transducers were all exposed to a steam environment and clea rly indicate that the chuq strengths differ by up to a factor of 10.
lll In a ddition, Piqure 10-9 shows that the distribution of relative frequencies of the measured wall pressures becomes narrower as the number of vent pipes increases from 2 to 6 to
- 10. Again, the variation in chuq strengths results in a lower global pressure amplitude with increasing number of vents.
This variation in chuq strengths was also observed in the Creare subscale multi-vent test program. This observation was obtained by examining the pool wall pressures measured at the three dif ferent circum feren tial locations a t the vent e r it . All test geometries had three transducers located 1200 apart circumferentially at the vent exit elevation. In the multi-vent geometrics, each of these pressure transducers was located close to a particular vent. Therefore, the amplitude of the POP measured at each circumferential location reflects to a large extent the chuq strength at the vent closest to it (since pressure amplitude varies inversely with the d istance between the vent and wall pressure measurement loca tion) .
Por example, only if the chuq strengths at all vents were identical, would the peak over-pressure (PO P) measured at each of these three circumferen tial locations be identical.
O REV. 6, 4/82 10-24
Figure 10-10 chous the pool call pressures at the three circumferential vent exit locations in the 1/6 scale 3 vent geometry. The steam mass flux was 8 lbm/sec ft2 and as
(~T determined from the vent static pressures over 80% of the
\/ chugs shown had all three vents participating. This figure shows that the POP's at the three locations are different for individual chugs. Therefore, it can be concluded that the chug' strength varies from vent to vent.
Similar data from the 1/10 scale 19 vent geometry at a steam mass flux of 8 lba/sec ft2 are shown in Piqure 10-11.
Again, from vent static pressure data for vents closest to each circunferential wall pressure measurement location, it ,
was determined that all three vents participated in the chugs shown. .The POP's at the t hree dif ferent circumferential locations are seen as being dif ferent for individ ual chugs.
Note that the variation of chuq strength f rom vent to vent is expected to be stochastic to a large extent. The ref o re, it is expected that for some chugs, the chuq strength at the three vents would be similar.
Additional proof that the chuq strengths in a multi-vent facility bel. ave stochastically is given by the JA ERI multi-Vent test data. There are several pool wall pressure transducers that are located near the exits of different vents in the JAERI facility. Specifically, transudcers WWPF-202, 302, 602, and 702 are located at the vent exit elevation next to vents 2, 3, 4, and 7, respectively (see Figure 10-12 7s and 10-13) . The pressure amplitudes measured by these
(,) transducers reflect the chug strengths at vents closest to them.
The variation of chuq strengths at individual vents is shown in Piqure 10-14. The pool wall pressures at the vent exit elevation for a chug occu r at 62.5 seconds in J AERI test 0002. In this chug event, a high amplitude chug occurred at vent 7 as indicated by the large pressure spike a t WWPF70 2.
The other vents had relatively smaller chugs. Keep in mind that the variation of chuq strengths from vent to vent is stochastic in nature and that not all pool chugs will exhibit the large variation seen in Figure 10-14. Nonetheless, varying decrees of v Ariation in chug streng ths f rom vent to vent were found in all the chugs from Tests 0002, 2101, and 3102 for which expanded time traces are available.
So far, we have stated that chuqqing is stochastic in nature, and as such the chuq strengths are expected to vary, even though the same thermodynamic coaditions exist at each vent (i.e., steam air content, mass flux, bulk pool tersperature, etc.). As presented'above, this phenomena has been observed in numerous multi-vent test facilities. However, we have not quantitatively verified our assumption of the interchangeability of the temporal chuq strength variations at.GKM II-M with the spacially varying chuq strengths at
() SSES. Again, the Creare subscale multi-vent test data and REV 6, 4/82- 10-25
JAERI test data provide in formation verif ying the conserva tism of this assumption. Each will be presented below.
As previously stated, one element of our LOCA load definition O replaces the random amplitude chugs at SSES with the same chug at every vent, which is representative of th e mean value data at GKM II-M. The Creare test data coupled with the accepted acoustic methodology provides verifica tion of this assumption. Creare has acoustically modeled the 1/10-scale single and multi-vent geometries and they have derived a source which represents the mean value chug in the 1/10-scale single vent geometry.
They then placed this mean value chug source at each vent location of their acoustic model for the 1/10-sca le 3, 7, and 19 vent geometries. For each o f the three malti-vent scometries, the pressure time histroy at the pool bottom elevation (same as the transducer location at this elevation in the test geometries) was computed f or 20 chug events.
Each chua event involved selecting start tizes for individual vents randomly within a 20 msec time window. The m ul ti- ve n t multiplier was then computed based on the mean POP at the pool bottom elevation for the 20 computed chugs. The predicted m u lt i- v en t multipliers compared quite f avorably with the measured values. Subsection A 5. 2.2 of Reference 66 qives a detailed description of the analysis and results.
Thus, for subscale multi-vent geometries, the first element of our LOCA load definition is verified.
Final quan titative iustification for our key assumption is provided by comparing the available JAERT f ull-scale multi-vent data with the GKM II-M sin gle ven t da ta.
There are two sets of J AERI data available that can be used to infer chuq strengths at individual vents in a given multi-vont chuq event. The first set is the pool wall pressure data from the pool wall transducers located at the vent exit elevation. In the JAERI test geometry, there were four pool vall pressure transducers-WWPF 202, 302, 602, and 702-located such that each of these transducers is very nea r the exits of four individual vents. Therefore, the pressure data from a given transducer reflects the chuq strength a t th e vent closest to that transducer.
As previously stated, the data from these wall pressure transducers were used to qualitatively show that the chuq strengths vary significantly f rom vent to vent in a J AERI mult i-ven t chuq e vent. Unfortunately, since a pool transducer " sees" pressures due to chugs at all vents to varying extents, the da ta from such transducers are not suitable for quantitative evaluation of vent to vent chug strength variations.
O REV. 6, 4/82 10-26
Tho other cet of JAERI data that provides a ceasu re of chuq strengths at the individual vents are the vent static pressure measurements. Five of the seven vents in the J AERI test facility are instrumented with vent exit static pressure O t ran sducers.
The vent static pressure is a direct measure of the " vent component" of the chug-induced pool vall pressure. Further, due to desynchronization in a multi-vent geometry, the " vent component" is the dominant component of the chug induced pool pressures observed in multi-vent chuqqing. Therefore, the s patial (vent to vent) variation of the vent static pressures in the J AERI aulti-Vent geometry should provide a reliable estimate of the vent to vent chug strength variation in a multi-vent geometry.
Individual vent exit static pressures of 1.125 sec periods are available for 38 chuq events from six JAERI tests, eight chugs from Test 0002, soven chugs from Test 0003, six chugs from Test 0004, five chugs from Test 1101, five chugs from Test 1201, and seven chugs from Test 2101. These chugs were selected f rom periods of high amplitude chuqqing in each test. Therefore, this data base covers the worst chugging regions observed in these JAERI tests.
The indivdual vent exit static pressures for a given pool chug event were processed in the following manner. First, the ras pressure P i was computed for each vent static pressure trace. Next, the average ras pressure P was O computed. For example, if vent static pressures were available for all the five instrumented vents, the average ras vent static pressure for that chug is:
Pi + P 2 + P3 + P4 + P5 p = _________________________
5 Since we are interested in the relative variation in chug strengths between individual vents, the individual ras vent static pressures were ' normalized by the average cas pressure P.
The normalized indivdual ras vent static pressure P i for the 38 chugs analyzed are given in Table 10-1. Also shown are the values of the normalized variances for the individual vent ras pressures for individual chuq events. Note that due to instrumentation aalfunctions, for all except one J AERI test, vent exit static pressure data are not available for all five instrumented vents.
Due to small number of vents (at most five) for which vent static pressure data are available, it is 'dif ficult to d raw '
meaningful statistical- inferences for vent to vent chug strength variations f rom any one individual pool chuq event.
O-REV. 6. 4/82 10-27
Therefore, it is nicossary to acko an assunption thct allows the use of the data from all 38 chug events such that meaningf ul statistical inf erences can be drawn. This assumption is that the normalized statistical distribution of chuq strengths from vent to vent is independent of blowdown llh onditions. That is, the normalized vent to vent chug strength for all 38 chuq events are samples selected from the same statistical population. Note that this is precisely the same assumption made in analyzing the temporal statistical properties of the GKM II-M single vent data (see Subsection 9.5.3.2.11.
The GKM II-M data that provides a direct measure of the vent component of the chuq strength are the pool vall pressure data band pass filtered between 0.5-13 Hz. In this frequency range, the pool wall pressures measur?d are due to the vent pressure oscillations produced by + 5 chug (see Subsection
- 9. 4. 2.1. 2) .
A s d escribed in Subsection 9. 5. 3. 2.1, the pressure amplitudes of individual chugs were normalized by the sliding mean value over a given time interval. In this way, a normalized data base reflecting the temporal variations of chug strengths was obtained for all the GKM II- M tests. Note that again implicit in this procedure is the assumption that the statistics of the variation of the normalized chug strengths is independent of system conditions. As previously mentioned, this assum ption was also used for combining th e J AERI data for 38 pool chuq events into a single statistical data base.
ggg The histograms of the normalized chug strengths for the various GKM II-M tests are given in Piqures 9-181, 9-182, and 9-183.
At this point, we now have a normalized vent to vent chug strength variation data base from the JAERI m ul ti-ven t tests and a corresponding normalized chug to chuq strength variation data base from the GKM II-M single vent tests.
Table 10-2 shows the variance for the JAERI and GKM II-M data bases. The variance for the JAERI data base is the average valt e of the individual variances shown in Table 10-1 for each of the 38 chuq events. The variance of the GKM II-M data was calculated for the 0.5-13 Hz band passed data plotted in Piqures 9-181, 9-182, and 9-183. It is seen that the average variance from the J AERI tests is virtually identical to the variance from the GKM II-M Full MSL tests
- and is somewhat greater than the variances from the 1/3 and 1/6 MSL GKM II-M tests. This implies that the variation of vent to vent chuq strengths in the J ABRI multi-vent tests is equal to or greater than the chug to chuq strength va riation observed in the GKM II-M single vent tests.
Fiqures 10-15 through 10-17 show the comparison of the probability density histograms of the J AERI data and the low O
- The full MSL break chug strength statistics were used to develop the l
SSES probabilistic amplitude factors.
REV. 6, 4/82 10-28
. band passed GKM~II-M Pull MSL, 1/3 MSL and 1/6 MSL data, respectively. Again, the JAERI and GKM II-M data histograms a re quite similar.
O
\~' Prom the above comparisons it can be again concluded that the assumption that the vent to vent variation in chug streng ths in a single vent geometry is equivalent to the ve nt to vent chug strength variation in a multi-vent geometry, used in developing the SSES chuqqing load definition from the GKM II-M single vent test data is quite reasonable.
Additional verification of the conservatism of the SSES LOCA
- load definition is provided by comparing the wall loads at JARRI calculated with the SSES LOCA load definition with the available JAERI wall load data (see Subsection 9. 5. 3. 5.1) .
Figures 9-268 and 9-269 show that the SSES LOCA load definition bounds the available JAERI data by a substantial margin. Please note that the wall loads calculated by the SSES LOCA load definition do not include the synnetric a mplitude factor and thus represent "mean value" chugs.
(2) The Mark II owners have specified two different CO loads for containment analysis. The first Co. load (C 0 1) corresponds to the CO occurring at the beginning of a postulated LOCA and the second CO load (C0 2) corresponds to the reduced CO load occurring later in the blowdown. For containment analysis, 4- the owners combine the reduced CO 2 load with loads due to i
SRY (ADS) , on the basis that ADS occurs'later in a LOCA iustifying a reduced CO load for the combination C0 s SRv (ADS).
However, SSES combines the so-called LOC A loads with SRV (ADS) for containment analysis. The LOCA load comprises the e nvelop of the responses due to both chuqqing and Co. Thus, the SSES load combination LOCA & SRV (ADS) considers both CO and chuqqinq and is more conservative than the owner's combination of a reduced CO load (C0 2) with'SRV (ADS).
(3) The SSES LOCA laod definition selected one CO pressure time history (PTH No. 14) from GKN II-M as representative and boundinq of the CO at GKM II-M (see Piqure 9-177a S b) .
Subsequently, this CO - PTH was sourced and applied in-phase to the IWEGS/M ARS acoustic model for containment' analysis.
l Piqure 9-264 represents the enveloping PSD of PTH No. 14.
l Figure 2-1 of Reference 70 presents the envelop for PSD values observed for CO in the 4T-C0 tests. These two figures indicate that the PSD of PTH No 14 from GKM II-M compares f avorably . with the enveloping PSD of the CO in 4T-CO.
QUISIIQH_2 The -dominant f requency for the. Karlstein T-Quencher Test 21.2 appears to be 8.0 Hz instead of the 6.8 Hz. reported in Table 8-10 L() of the-DAR. Using the multipliers from Piquee 8-174 and 'this 8.0 l
-REV. 6. 4/82 10-29
Hz frequency, ce got a transpossd frcquency of 10.6 Hz. This value falls outside of the specified frequency range. A Fourier analysis indicates an exceedance of approximately 70% at this 10.6 Hz frequency. Please pro vide iustification for the existing g load specifica tion f requency range. W BEGEDESB 2 As can be seen in Piqure 8- 188, Test 21.2 does not show a clearly p redo min an t frequency. We have interpreted 6.5 Hz as the predominant frequency because of the ma ximu m peak occurring in the pSD at that frequency; however, a second peak, only slightly lower than the 6.5 Hz peak, can be seen in that PSD a t a pp ro xim at el y 8.0 Hz.
To investigate further the significant of Test 21.2 to the acceptability of the Susquehanna T-Ouencher load specification, KWU performed a pressure response spectra comparison of the load specification and Test 21.2.
The method of " weighted traces" present-d to the NRC in the June 13, 1980 Lead Plant Meeting and documented in the KWU Report R-141/141/79 is used for this comparison. Figure 10-18 shows that the Susquehanna load specification bounds the measured pressure time history of Karlstein Test 21.2 representing the all valve Case.
Assuming a maximum predominant frequency in Test 21.2 of 8 Hz and t ra ns fer ring the measured data of Test 21.2 to the all-valve and single-valve load case we get the comparison shown in Piqure 10-
- 19. The pressure response spectra of the Susquehanna load lll specifications is slightly exceeded by the pressure spectra from Test 21.2 in the frequency range between 10 Hz and 11 Hz. This slight exceedance is only rela ted to the single-valve load case and is considered insignificant to the total load specification and in relation to the total data base from Karlstein.
In addition, the term " dominant frequency" is highly subjective and sensitive to the method chosen for determining the domina nt frequency. Originially, KWU determined the dominant frequency range for the three SSES design traces (KKB Traces #3 5, 76 and
- 82) to be ss5_to_Qt0_Hz (see SSES DAR, page 8P- 101) . This frequency range was based on a PSD analysis of the three traces.
However, for these non-stationary SRV traces, t he PSD analysis is sensitive to the time segment chosen for analysis. Using a particular time duration may give one dominant frequency while another may give a slightly different dominant frequency.
Subsequently, Bechtel has taken the design traces and performed t heir own analysis to determine the dominant frequency. They calculated a dominant frequency ra nge of 6.4 5_to_8 z6 9_gz for the three traces. This frequency range was based on the inverse of the peak-to-peak oscillation time period for the first two peaks.
This was done for both negative and positive peak-to-peak periods.
ggg REV. 6, 4/82 10-30
Furtheroore, Sargont & Lundy have determined the dominant frequency range of the three traces to be 5.8 to 8.9 Hz. As can be seen, the dominant frequency varies according to who performs (g the analysis and the methodology selected.
(_/ l For containment analysis, the KWU methodology requires that time !
scale multipliers be applied to the three design traces. They range from 0.9 (tiae contraction or frequency expansion) to 1.8 (time expansion or f requency contraction) . When these multipliers are applied to the three design traces, specified frequency ranges of 3.3 to 8.9 Hz, 3.6 to 9.7 Hz and 3.8 to 9.9 Hz are obtained by using the above dominant frequency ranges from the original t races. Thus, the specified frequency range varies depending on the interpretation of the " dominant fr eq ue nc y" .
However, regardless of the interpreted dominant frequency range, the same three traces and time expansion and contra tion f actors are used for containment analysis. Thus, ones opinion of what the dominan t frequency range is for the three traces is not as important as the time f actors chosen for actually applying the t races to the contain ment boun dary.
With this in mind, Figures 10-20 thru 10-41 illustrate the response spectra generated by KWU Trace 876 for SSES. The trace i
was frequency expanded and contracted by 110% a nd 55%,
'res pecti vel y, to give a specified frequency ranges of 3.3 to 8.9 Hz, 3.6 to 9.7 Hz or 3.8 to 9.9 Hz, again, depending on the interpretation of the " dominant frequency".
O' Piqures 10-42 thru 10-63 show the response spectra generated by KUU Trace 876 for the Limerick Generating Station (LG S) . The LGS structural model is essentially identical to the SSES model.
However, these spectra reflect the use of frequency expansion and contraction factors of 125% and 55%, respectively. This gives specified frequency ranges of 3.3 to 10 Hz, 3.6 to 10.9 Hz or 3.8 ,
to 11 Hz. Thus, depending on the dominant trequency, these spectra reflect the use of the NRC's upper bound dominant frequency of 11 Hz, as required by Supplement No. I to NUREG-0487.
A node by node comparison of the two spectra shows that the expanded spectral input used for LGS has negligible effect on the total response contributed by all modes. Thus, this supports the conclusion that an extention of the upper frequency multiplier would ha ve no significant impact on the SSES response spectra a n a ly sis.
QUEGTLQ2 1 The Karlstein tests run with depressed water legs to simulate the ADS load case-utilized the longest discharge line length for SSES. Is this line length prototypical of the SSES ADS line lengths? If not, what is the maquitude of the difference between the SSES ADS line lengths and the test line length? If not
("N i V REV. 6, 4/82 10-31
prototypical, is the data from the ADS tests acceptable for t ra ns por ta ti on to SSES with regards to f requency content?
HESE9ESE_3 ll)
Tests 10.3, 11.1, 12.1, and 13.1 are considered rep re senta tive for the ADS actuation load case. These tests were all performed with the long discharge line. No tests with a short discharge line and a depressed initial water level (representing ADS conditions) were performed. These long line tests represent a bounding condition, in that the longest discha rge line with depressed initial water level contains the largest possible initial air mass and will therefore produce the lowest possible pressure oscillation f req uency.
To check whether the frequencies expected from short line ADS actuation f a ll within our specified f requency range we will transpose the test results from Test 11.1 to short line conditions.
Table 8B on page 8P-105 of the Susquehanna DAR shows the average frequencies measured during the Karlstein tests. A portion o f that table is shown below:
Measured Frequencies (Hz) tong C19an_C9aditigng______________12,5t*_4 _____ _ _ _ _
Line__________ Heal _C9Dditions__________________1________________ llh Short C19an_C9 Adit 19ng_________________5________________
Line Real Conditions 6. 5
- Tests with low amplitude This data indicates a ratio of approximately 1.3 exists between the f requencies measured in long line tests and short line tests.
Subsection 8.5.3.3.4.6 of the Susquehanna DAR provides the comparison of the T-Ouencher ADS load specification with the Karlstein test results. When the measured frequency for Test 11.1 was adiusted to account f or back pressure and water surface area effects the measured 3 Hz frequency was raised to 5.7 Hz.
To check the short line ADS load case we will adjust this 5.7 Hz by the 1.3 ratio obtained above. This produces a predominant frequency for the ADS - short line conditions of V = 5.7 x 1.3 = 7.4 Hz This frequency lies within the specified f req ue ncy ra nge.
O REV. 6, 4/82 10-32
QUISILON_E Was the quencher bottom support used at Karlstein prototypical of the supports at Susquehanna SES?
[
BEHEQHSH_E The hottom support used in Karlstein is protopical but not identical of those used at Susquehanna. The T-Quencher installed in the Karltsein test tank had the same distance between the bottom of the support and the quencher mid-plane as those quenchers installed at Susquehanna. Therefore, the t herno-hydraulic loading on ' the quencher supports are the same f or the Karlstein test tank and Susquehanna. From a structural point of view, the bottoa support used at Karlstein is not identical to those used at Susquehanna in that the supports in the plant are stiffer.
QUESIIQ5_5 In three instances, the bending moment in the quencher are recorded at Karlstein exceeds the specified bending soment. Is the specified bending moment in the quencher arm conservative?
Why?
HHSE0 HSE _5 As shown in Piqure 8-153 the measured bending soments transposed to the weld of the quencher are exceed the specified soment in 3
() out of a total of 99 cases during vent cleaning.
specification for the quencher arm is made up of three The total load components:
a) internal pressure b) bending soment .
c) tempe rature gradient The following- table lists the specified and marinua measured values for each of the load' components.
Marisue CQRditiDD SEEGif12d_YalM2 3RREME2d_YalM2 Steady State.
Pressure 22 bars 13 bars Internal-Temperature 2190 C 191.60 C
' Bend ing Moment 65 kNm 85 kNa REV. 6, 4/82 10-33
As can be se:n, the specifica values excccd the censured ma ricuc values except for the referenced bending moments noted above.
As a result of this exceedance, a stress analysis, identical to the one perf ormed for the specified values, was completed using g the above ma ximus measured values. This analysis sho ws that the total stress due to the specified loads bounds the total stress due to the maximum measured loads. In addition, a fa tiqu e
'evsluation of the arm veld was performed using the maximum measured data. The results indicate the weld has a usage factor less than unity, and thus is acceptable.
QHgsIIgy_5 Explain why a single failure will not disable both the RHR shutdown cooling f unction a nd one RHR loop in the suppression pool cooling mode.
BHB29BBB 5 A single failure can indeed disable the RHR shutdown cooling function a nd one BHR loop in the suppression pool cooling mode under the following assumptions. Both units are operating at full power when a complete long-term loss of of fsite power (LOOP) occurs. This leads to main steam line isolation and reactor scram. Following the LOOP all four (4) diesel generators should start to supply power to the ESS busses, however, it is assumed that the diesel generator 0G501C does not start (single failure) .
0G501C supplies power to the ESS busses 1 A20 3 a nd 2A203*, to the RHR pumps 1C and 2C*, and to the BHR service water pump 1 A. Loss of OG 501C means that the inboard shutdown cooling isolation lll valves on both units, 1P009 and 2P009*, loose power to their o pera tors, thus disabling the RHR shutdown cooling mode. Since these valves are located inside the primary containment, it is conservativey assumed that they will not be manually reopened.
Only the "B" loop and the corresponding RHRSW loop of the RHR system (in both units) would be readily available f or suppression pool cooling, using e.g., RHR pumps 1B and 2D*. The "A" loop of one unit could be made available by manually operating four (4) valves (close PO48A, open P024 A, HV- 1210A and H V-1215 A) and using RHRSW pump 2A* and either RHR pump 1A or 2A*. However, a simultaneous operation of RHR pumps IA and 2A* is prohibited by elect rica l in te rlock s. Thus one of the units would have only one RHR loop available in the suppression pool cooling mode without j the possibility to switch to shutdown cooling.
This case has not been considered in the transients submitted as part of Appendix I of the DAR and may be more limiting. However, a similar but more conservative case was analyzed as part of a sensitivity study and resulted in a maximum pool temperature of 2030F. The assumptions for this case are indentical to case 2.a
( Appendi x I, DAR) except that shutdown cooling is not initiated.
For this case, the curves f or reactor pressure vs. time and suppression pool tenperature vs. time are found in Piqures 10-64 and 10-65, respectively.
ggg
- Indicates Unit #2 component.
REV. 6, 4/82 10-34
l l
l As contioned abovo, this ccco 10 sicilar, but Gore concorvative '
than the case under consideration. The maior dif ference is that reactor water make-up would not be from the teedwater/ condensate r- system but from HPCI (a t reactor pressures above approrisately
(_,S/ 300 psia) and core spray (at reactor pressures below a pproris a tel y 300 psia) , which both take suction from the condensa te storage tank and/or the suppression pool. Thus, water auch colder than feedwater would be used for make-up.
This con tributes to the reactor depressurization and leads to less stean being dumped into the suppression pool. The peak suppression pool temperature for this case will theref ore be lower than that shown in Piqures 10-65.
To confirm a temperature of less than 2030F we have initiated an addit ional a nalysis case, whose results are contained in Appendix I (Figures I-14 and I-15).
2HESIIDE_2 How will PPSL use the LaSalle in-plant test data to establish the local to bulk AT for Susquehanna SES?
BEBEGEBE 1 The following table gives a comparison of suppression pool geometries f or LaSalle and Susquehanna SES:
11Eal19 SMESMahaBEa l Suppression Pool I.D. 86'-8" 88' Pedestal 0.D. 30' 29'-9" Suppression Pool Volume 142,160 ft3 126,980 ft3 (Normal Water Level)
No. of Quenchers 18 16 Pool Volume /ouencher 7898 ft3 7936 ft3 Quencher Submergence 21.5 ft 19.5 ft (Normal Water Level)
Height of Quencher Center- 5 ft 3.5 ft Line Above Base Mat Based on the similarity between Susquehanna and LaSalle the local to bulk AT established from LaSalle inplant tests is also applicable to Susquehanna. In addition, PPSL is continuing to f und the development of computer codes (like Bechtel's KFII) for the prediction of SRV discharge induced suppression pool airing processes. The calculated temperature distributions will be compa red to existing (Caorso) and future (LaSalle or Zimmer) in-plant test data.
b(
REV. 6, 4/82 10-35
Following saticfactory qualification of the cooputer codos they can then be used to establish local to bulk tem pe ra tu re dif ferences without test.
Q!! HEIL 9E_3 h What are the reactor pressures that correspond to quencher steam mass fluxes of 42 lba/ft2s and 94 lbs/ft2s?
HESEQHSB_a The reactor pressures are 163 psia and 369 psia res pe ctively.
O i
l l
REV. 6, 4/82 10-36
i O
O This figure has been deleted.
4 1
REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STeiAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT DOWNCOMER BRACING SYSTEM FIGURE 10-1 l _ _ . _ . .. -
l
\
, v i
e A 4 kv
- f s
' ^\
- s N
.N gu 4
This figure has been deleted?.
N s . . .
. . .tm
%g h n
(
, .r ',- -
e
(
l % '
REV 6, 4/82 -S SUSOUEHAANA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT A
DOWNCOMER BRACING DETAILS FIGURE 10-2
r .
'l i
(~)',
~.
C' ' . ' . ' __
,. j
,,,, .7
. ..t.
. , , ,1 1
.- g .n .
p l
- l l
. l .f 1 l . =. l .'s., l-l .
3, E
.n B /
,}]
P ll [l
' -> l -
-l l
~
pj,.. -.
ll 1332l ll l s,ip : .\n\, = i l ,I a>
, I l, .' .. b A >
i
.. .ns.,-:n.v.,n
- a. n s je a It n>,I a .n, n .
i .i t.
n .1.2
?
I I. . d i 11. > l l .. l. .
- - i .
r
.-. i lle I<:ll IIi .
' - - . .. .. 1 g d l.mJl
>. - -~,-s,.--
i -: a . 2.,
- ,~ f , -
c'g' ' lf,, ;, '
i - - .> '
l [_g_ s r
<' 1
,8
. , l ,
'S mrs steel Wall g , t- - ,
u.s y ' ,,
(
-l ', -
- , I G .
u... .
-c . . -} - - \ ,
'.., j; y
- t , .--
- - .i-
/
s.
g,
- n. :
I ' ?. 8 -
m .n.: <
.j ~ j g '
, ". h 5 2*
. 2. B u ' ' ,_ a .u.
- t ,
^
, . ... ... I ,.
., --::: e b L.: 4 .:..,'
. a
-. : . b '.R b :..:Q . * ' - -l g ,. o u'
.uc 3.. .n
- - -.u.s. m. .m .m e a i .
T7. .
. .n 2s .n .n t-
- m. o n m . .
.m P3p enos u--H.m
- . e- , s.- .
no, . no: 3 .' .,- -
T T .; -
-Q)- -Os u* -0)-l-G)-
nos u
-.,, , . o o u n,o, ..-9 .no e
l m
o x 0 y .m (5p m .
ib
-(8>- -.}---(9- M
< b Et.nr -
i 1
= > ::: g ,
2a .a .a .. a .n w z -
o = - . ,
o, ozem n- = g . .
= is a -4 m R gia. n .-5 .. n n a n -- .
gg= g>g . m u aua a e
, ..., ......n..., . .. ...,
m I- *
$ $5
- 2 >
8 h 6 lml; R Concrete-cell test stand o
z
--t --4
~
=u0' o co y j g Concret.e cells 3 and 4
" z 3 en
- ~'
m y Diagram of measuring points 2
I (D ((L
. . . ~ . ,
e .
,.. . E c-te
..s.
. o 1 l g ,
_. _ ~ _ _ _ _
= ;
'n s r - ,-- - n .-, ,. - - - -
. .. . . . .. t . .. *.. n . e t. .
4 *
... n
=
.. i ra m . * .. . . . .
l7 - u
- s a!!Bf
- b. l
. EE5 *. . , , h*E '.,.. 35! l l -- -
. ; .- ,~ ~ , .c . mi
=
i i
{ ~s._- - I,a_a_[ _ ., ,[ n-ji m5e :
-FIE-[Em .. * 'Og@, m E y!!,!!$! E
, _ __ .x__..=. .st,x - __x 31 .-
, ,c s, xx s:
- s. .
- y. -((uk-$uf l
] .---- -[sj ,.
.]'.
3ll l 2
s
~
?
00, ,,.
g - est ost 7 05:-
s s
- 2. W) .
- .a m4
=
i a* : .
OPOD j l
og 3
a me a << -
l 0 B M R - *5' rou w w .s ..iru ,.
n n ::a
_, - 0 13 5% 2 n' gg s
7_g
. o.,
g a
_. '. E E i. 5RN' -$$
- y. '. . ' . _
~ D .s p0 C... EE p3 *
.g l
DIb - .
4 .
. ~ g ..- ,-
l -
. , - .. . i .
. .* - . . . l .. .., . ....
~
e: ,_.s m rs& 1- .
1 m
cos - ooz _
E REV. 6, 4/82
- e. D
- 000 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 ANO 2 DES 4GN ASSESSMENT REPORT TRANSDUCER LOCATIONS A FOR THE SIX VENT PIPE
-('
CONFIGURATION FIGURE 10-5
l l
(tt Ett
\ M 2
N 2
l O }
=ok
! E e E
< = s et e2 s . A L e.J
. - M *
. . ... .. , . . . . .. . . . . , ..... , . . . . W ~; _I n
. . . . .. . . . g e .. . .. *
.. l
..' . , .. ...... - g w - * --
s w. m E 0 i
= c- ..
. . ;)
-4 u i:n
. I,._{
x: o i
, ac 30 =gc
., 6 ., - g;<D H_* * .E* *.* e -
t'* ,p,; 0:-~ g
- e e. s . - ..s
-e . --' - r * ..
--r ='- *
- N ., . . . . . .. . . .,.. .. .l .
w_ ,-s , .wa rs. -
...*. . . ... ..o . .. * . *. ...
.. .....*a.
2 n
i sa . . .. . *l . . . . e E
i
.. +.asg . r-
_ . _ __ _ _ . . _ . _ . _ . _ _ . . _ -9, I ' ,
1 - . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _'
, y-3
- e as h2 y
. - ., . , ,* *, l ~
. ,, y- -
e [
. . ~
y ~ m.--.r-w e N mur"
- e g . . . .. . ...:..
. . * * , . ' . * . . . ... . . *.* ...v*
'.*l _
.* . .s .
s ' .% . . . . .. .. ..
T gg- 9Z6
{0GZ ~7052 705Z 70GZ--
e --
a 5 -a ==
c< v <c h 3< L 3 e< &3 .
n d 6 n I"* M -
7hf""*Id* h* Wb] {el . ,.
O g
N n: * *
& a- .
a
. IN 11 U' I .
a.5
'=
S . C ~n g 'a C
. .f. n . %] h...
4{ 4 E,n n .. ..
_-- s. c, c. c.
e a s e a u ,,,,
- ~
n a e .
E. .. s as a G ..
s g . .
g- F. ~~-
- b. ...
A s D e s
t E ., . . >.
"..,,w
~
o
- .s i s .'. .
+3Y -E as 005 - - 003 -
og REV. 6, 4/82 a.
_g SU600EHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT 00(' -
TRANSDUCER LOCATIONS FOR THE TWO VENY PIPE C) v CONF!GURATION FeGURE ig_6
- .:~ * ...... _ _. .- . .. . . ,
h" *'.y
,P 134 tem a 0.08 bor -
.- -I < "- --
w .__ _t % g- .; -- e sj
. . Unterdruckgradient p.
- s ..11.'borls
- .. ime T window -..
! v P 25 1mm i 0.2 bor .-
2eltfenster zu P26 i, t
eW-' ._ cSM .-)/;g7,E-b,ypqsme y .,
134unog $+-ptWwh,%vj%ee .
E '.#we - d ,. mad $hw
.p2S = 9.5bor/s };,5 ;. . a t = - 8 ms 'l.
Concrete-cell test 19 --
~ ' '
Betonzellenversuch 'i9 ...
g _P26 1mm a 0.2 tqr. 4 4 4-2 ; y_
g,. . _-
~=-
, n .
y p -
e -: 4 a.6L boris : * -
. . 26 .. .
- i. , -
6 i f_ -
\*a- ,
i
, .. Zeitoch.se -
?** .
Time axis. . . .
P 27, imm a 0.2 bor '. -
j .
- .. , . - . -. .. . . . p.- . g . j g . bo r.l s
% Q.'g,g- al = + 46 ms
- y'y%
8 .. . .. 27 _ . . , , .. .. ,. .
. . . . . ..s i:: .
i P28 tmm a 0.2 'bor2 4 , 4,!'k m. % gg -! !-- '-
3 >g z = , p = 49 bor/s g/ -
Al's + 13 ms 28 j -
C z - --4 *
. *t.4
=
3 m m <
- m o -4 n m Z -
C O -
a un m n g *
? % ;;* E l < P 29 1mm a 0.2bor
~m m o n m o g "y
vs -
- y i.
.x -_-
~.Q. ..u.- - -
L 3,g u
to m m =i . -
- p .= 6 bor/s A t = + 15 ms oO w
' 3 m U m>m
-l c.
- 29 .
C p y rv o x 2 F$* =6m "Q" P 20 Imm a 0.2 bar 5* = 22 bor/s A t - + 18ms h -.100 ms---
r'e wc 2
" d j g ~4 .ra-- ^
P - - = -
gl,1,g...e_.m_ .- :,s;: ' U b,.',t I,S' h.! . , ;.n mm eo m y
4 . .-
^
^
^ a q _.
i,. _. ..s . .; - u:
e o
> ^ ^ ^ ^ n a 4
w -
U.
.c S
O O O P 13t. Imm A 0.06 bor ,
y' .
.'Unterdruckgradient = 13 bor/s - av underpressure gradient " p- 13 4 , Zeittenster zu P20 g P 25 I m m & 0.2 bor ,, Time window
.: . m : - :: -- - - - - :
- - =
Q.
, p25 = to borts l A t = + 10 ms I
. I P 26 1 mm & 0.2 bor ~
v v.Q *(.hb % r =
At= - 2 ms
. Concrete-cell test 23 $26 = 24 boris N: j .
Betonzellenversuch 23 i j
[ i P 27 . Imm a 0.2 bor l l .'
g, , -
--h h- -C, y (1.j[w= _ --- - {y pg n = 25 bor/s al = - 7 ms ,
P 2B 1mm a 0.2 bor Zeitochse y
M .k $^-
~ ^ ~ ~~
, w .s y/jk.a.u.w Id'P 5 $- -
= 14 borIs ^I *
- 6 ms c $
n z -
28 m
m 2 -4 t3 - -< U m amo m x -
g n La '
, 9 ?,9 9 me f g P29 e.
1mm & '0.2 bor eq._ a.~
< = .
pb .
s: at . = - S ms h ? . I ,'. - - 29 = 17 bor/m E ,
%8= I>m .
m .
roz c z 5 l;; 3g - .
.n o A u . -o - - .- - :,... .
- ;gm E*3 (T;. :,P .. 20 I mm s ,0.2 bo r - ".'y.b20 ' ".. *
" ' ~
Mm2
,o,= g l5g
- y, ,, ,=Jw ,.
.: ;. < ._ y w j m
- a- - =.
.qm
~
s J'wo :.:rru _ ._
.c p
._ 1 ::
W W uA m _.
. ' i
.- . . . i ' ,- :,:*
iM) h 8(
O
- ,i s0 t 1
p l 1 l /
l 1 l 4~ p e0 e -
c0 c - - 2 rr r - 1 e
oo t t o
t cc c
,i ee 3 e 1 s s s 1 1 3 5 o
- I}
n e e n t te l l te le l
e z z z r r r t
o o o t t Y9 k k k e e e S S S "
i 1 3 5 8 ox . *
,
- i7 oi-
, }!! 6 b
O , j l
,9_
o r_
, ' .! - 4 o
2 x-
, j.
\ o s'~
x !i'3 s .N
\ \
t g\
- s 1 \.\-
\
- gI l gI i i -
,- t 2
- .i t j.,
\
\ p . i .1,! -l *I i.a,t.
\
\ \k.\
,\- '
1
,'f o j ',Ia , : ,ii' ,I ' , i' il ig g s ?, g io '
j 0
~ - -
0 ,. 2 0
- B. s. s. 4 3 i.
o 1
0 0 o o o 0 0 aikl1. 1 a g*. o
- t. $
2 t= E Q g .,- E g= $w a"R =$ g=*
O mxm @mz0 e 5" E 2 oZ s;
% >mE me 5 E p mO i
suF m:o* EA*
=aCi woe,
9 l
i I
4
- i?;.nz..
- !d
-J'"7 n m.
- w. . . . ..
+.. .
f p
m.
g.c% '. .r.ser'.( sr.* L.
.. '. , cr*f
-g .
- g* .
1
. - e i . ,
. .e ~
3 .,' - . e -
., 3 ,j i 2,.
c- .
.-cz.
-- . :~
n
'e e s ,.g .. -
o
- 9 e . .\.
V1
. g .
Q. .e '
9- * #
e 8 ,
" * ,e.
- k. .
..s . .
.?;.. .
g . M - . =g ,,. t w.
+ ~
w N . .*
c .
s$
J ... ; #p. . . .
U ,
' [ .
0 - j. $
= . c- .
m.
j ;
=
- i .. -
S '
= 1 l
s 7 d E M ,' %, 1 -
u a v . ,
8 M
- ._ . .;g g d ~_ . .
.s .
m ..
,g. m ,
- w b* ~
m . .~~ Tut.==== "
)g O
' ~ .
ma
~.
n .
M u -
g E g.
m W N =
i l
l l
e l
.i .
I 1
4 e
3
's 4 i-
-d x- g g
4
~l y .
4 .. .
-Y2-n.src- , .
T*
-m -
, , g
, .9 E
}7
'$ =
r ..--- E ,
o . . .. .
2 = '
o o
= .
e.
- v
- y
_d'. ,r, d
n 0 *
- 1 --
- z '
x .
2 3
T: '
. .7. il -
w_ .. . s ... . ._- u,
~
5-w -Q>- --
- 5> e t
REV. 6, 4/82 i
SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT ,
POOL WALL PRESSURES AT THREE
+
CIRCUMFERENTIAL VENI EXIT .
LOCATIONS .l./ fSCALE 3 VENT j GEOMETRY FIGURE Jg ]g .\,
e 4
i-l <' .
.] .
j s
__j r._ W 4'
- '? -
~**h
~
! i
,..~ _ ; . .,
d le l.
+l f d W ._m~
s mL -n.wn F t j' l D
! i i ipi. ! '
...,yt l' _'
p-l-
pH'
.l
= t. e - - l'.
o
.o n
g . .*
n.
'8
- j< ,
- , _...r--"-] j b m
., .. ;* . 2,.* _. ... -
.:iT.;"
o s
o.
s
... .. .. i .:
, t g
+,t k l
. j 4
r e
r f
~ ~ .
l , J, e
u 1,,/=-
e u
~st a '
a . ,:
,o,, ....s;4 o 1, , ..
W n
W I 2 . .
i r .-.h. 1 . .
h.
e -- m 8 3
4 . .
.i 3 . sum 87 M. G !
2 ' 'I > 1 w 5 .
- t;i p
.2, _. i 48 _ _ .-..4 I. . . W- -. . Q e
. . .c
-h w _a< -
_ _ .>N
- e ~ . p E
1{> i a i he M ta.
h_._ l 9
4 i
d 4
n 3
-,1)"=
._ . . _ ..., -..- N.
. n s -
Tr. .
n
> . . . . h
. 1- .
l , .
.. . . n n . ~%
r .
+
._._.- Cw s- ,
3 % .
u
, o 1
,. . . . g a m -
- s
. t,J
_ a .- .. . .- e. m
, 0 .- .
. a - -
s .
.. P
, -g- ,
a m ,,
~.
. . j ., ..
- J
.. . _ _ ... w. _i O - .
- j I_
w a F- .
=. + w .
3
- b N,
\ ~
REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT l r i
00L L'ALL PRESSURES AT T'IREE CIRCUMFERE*1"IAL VENT EXIT LOCAT10"!S-1/2.0 SCALE 19 j VEtlT GEOMETRY I
FIGURE M-ll
- 1
.v-
O 1809 J
P. R
. 4j
- -wy
.c
( s. ...e n. .
12 *5 O&
',*h k ,~" k ,_
l
. n_
ru. g u - . .
, u-
.- i a p
-- - ~ O.
.. ~L '
m{
f_n<Q fg ~ ,5 -
. . . ~
~ M ~ T W ,( .
<o e4 g#
EO 2Q 4 . :.- .
a : water level -
0: Pressure
. O: Pressure on wetwell totterst floor -
N: T mporoturu .
l j , ve: vent nice REV. 6, 4/82 l
SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT V PLAtt LOCATIONS OF TRANSDUCERS FOR 1:ETWELL nouRE 10-12
.i. c.!
=
g ia 1 51
=
8 1-U-
I li g 3 l il W i oo 1 i
} i.. .a u
- g. .
i
.o.G6 9
I Vs
_s ll i
E 1g %'
E .
{w l.'
i
(] $ ,di e
ts te
. . 1; p ,
m
~;
Pl I-li .,
c I$ II.
% II. g I t I$ $5! IE s
{ 'Qoo..
a ....
- a *. i t .
E : Qi8 l8!_ .
E u.
4 j. p l REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT r
Q LOCATIONS OF PRESSURE TRANSDUCEP.S FOR WETWELL eisune10-13
h 1
4
! i g a . - g g i !'
I t
t '
- 3
.
- e
.t .
. l t .
... 3,..g....... . .
...............{................ . . . . . . . . . . .
.................8....
. 1 .
! l t '
t )
N 3 N :
i g..... 6 .....O...........
... . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..o..............
- i. ... .. g i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
t .
I '
g j 4 4 I I
- c. t. G.
I ! ...a.................
..!...............L.................. ..............!..................i...................
. . f. .
,j-
.' I i
- . I. i*I I. .- t .t
- . ..... .....11................. . . . . . . . !. . . . . . . ....I.....U.......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ..................t....
.. I . .
- g. .; I* 1 W ?
a : 1 H i e I
- 4 g.4N .
- I - *
.............v.. . . . . . ..t.................
.. ..................g......o.. . . . . . .
g
.3................... ..................r...
3 I i 3 g i i I .
- . i I : :
I*
t I.
e...................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
..................g.................. ................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...
e I
- i
. ! e- t.
I .I l J >i !
. j. ..M4 I . . .. . ........ . .
. g
.................. .l............ .}................. ..............:..
%D I - *
- .l p"5 . :
i --5 . -t "l 1 : .
. t .................,i...
...................l.................. .
S I :.
(ISd) 3WflSS3Wd i
I I
l
\
ll a
J 4
i i ; i i l-1 ! : .
i . i -
i i :.
- ........... ............... ..................l.............I............ . . . . . . . . .
4 I. -
. I -
u i :
p . ..... s................. ...Q........... I....... .4 s..............i la I
t- -
8
........ lI i w : I i .
l - a !- 8
,y I ': g
. . . . . . ,g................... ...N.....,......i.................'........c...,..........l
% I ,
- e
-l !
. e I
j ! l 8 l.
f 3.......... l...................
, ..................I.................i...............<;3...............l l l l l -
Ll
< i
! ./ :g
'o .................. .................g...............g..I;........,
i...........I...................
I i I
\!l. -
l i
...........................,,.......:...................................t.
j
............\.................. I * . I 5 I I I -cri .
d!. . ... ... .. ...........'..........i...................!
1
... j
-C. . . . ......... ....... !
- % i --? l l i ! i i ! ! -[
'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..................l...............:........!.....gt 1
f, 'l I t l REV. 6, 4/82 i
SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 1
l DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT l
VENT EXIT ELEVATION P00L WALL PRESSURES FOR A CHUG ,
FROM JAERI TEST 9912 i FIGURE 10-14 !
L .. ,
O GKMIIM MSL TESTS '
TESTS NO. 3-10(0.5-13HZ) l JAERI TESTS
- 2. 0 - ,r j e ,
8 1 llr, ie s '
b
- 1. 5-ll'!ll i
i
@ l
> s
!1L----
b I
- 1. 0- tj O
a_
j ~ l.
- 0. 5- ;
e L-y J .
t
-n.
o r-I' i i
i 1 I i l l 1 I e a l l 0 1.0 2.0 0.0 NORi1ALIZED PRESSURE .VIPLITUDE REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRK: STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT COMPARISON OF PROBAEILITY Os PENSITY OF THE NORMALIZED PRESSURE AMPLITUDES FROM GKM II-M TESTS 3. 10 & JAERI riouRd0-15
GKMIIM14MSL TESTS TESTS NO. II,12(0.5-13HZ)
O ------ a^Eni TESTS 2.0 - r-)
lln l l '_'
c--
- 1. s - ll 5
a '.J, ,i ,i x l
$by 1. 0 - ! !llt t>
l _
8
<= -,
a- . .
- 0. s - i
'- , Q
_.] ! ---
o r-- l ! r-8 ' ' I i e i i e i !
l 0 1.0 2.0 3.0
.;0R.' ALIZED PRESSUP.E A.MPLITUDE REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT
(~'i COMPARISON OF PROBABILITY E g J y
& JAERI FIGURE 10-16
O GKMllM1/6MSL TESTS TEST NO. 13-20(0.5-13HZ)
JAkiRI TESTS
~
- 2. 0- r--
l*
i li I
8 s_
8 1
- 1. 5 - l l _
t-m ',l. ii
= .
O *C 1. 0 - * !!,!' 8-- t
'L 8
=
g -,
m ,.. .
- 0. 5- !
',p L,
... .a ,
- i o
'~
i i i . i i i
%D i . . i j j 0 1.0 2.0 3.0 l NORHALIZED PRESSURE AMPLITUDE l
REV. 6, 4/82 I
SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT j COMPARISON OF PROEABILITY O ne"Sirv oe 1"e "oana'izeo PRESSURE AMPLI:'yDES FORM GKMII-M 'ESTS ..]. 20 &JAERI recuRE 10 .7 l
O 1
80- .
psi E' 70
/ i a I t n- 60
/r} !.
] l e, SSES Load I g g Definitica N ,,,{ ,
I f
\ k h 50 a: .
f g I i \
dL ' 8
\
- l. 0 - ,
i \ ! ,
I -...a I i ll l
p 30- / i
/ \
t i - J \
\
20 l \
i s :
l ! I I.
. - -- - ~ ~ I 10- .
\
l
's ' ~ ..
0 . , , , , ;_
0.01 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 s 1.0
> Period REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT COMPARISON OF PRESSURE
.tn)
RESPONSE SPECTRA 0F TEST 21.2 -ALL VALVE CASE-AND THE SSES LOAD DEFINITION ,
nounE 10-18 l
V
' ' " " i '
80 Psi 1 g
8 70 t rj ,
\
o Definition N ,f i
& l I \ \
I i \'
\
h I j \
- l. 0 -
i
\
j
.f i. J i
l 30
/ /~TTT-
/
\ i il < i Ilil
~
O i f/ \' l 20- c r' lf s \
I \
y%
qjj- .
)
10- g .
I.;-
- u. _
0 . , s. ,
- n -
0.01 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 s 1.0
> ??rIOd REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT COMPARISON OF PRESSURE
^ . RESPONSE SPECTRE OF TEST 21,2 V ALL VALVE CASE AND ONE "/ALVE CASE AND THE SSES LOAD DEFI-NITION riaURE 10-19 i
il i 8
[$ [ {
- L'~),i cs
~
'r' f w - -
-/
s
( '
\
- - - . u o
%( N. . O t=.0
!m E
E 2 g e Q m Z r-
._ I_ m -
e Z > X
)- H 00 m E< s e o
%\ M Z D o
- ct o :n w. ci.
OU x ! E,
>- - 2 E.:=
\ o .2 g
} z = .c o w s - ci 7
__ -_.. u ggg w aa m'
8
= 8 .. A ci l 'g a s .g (N
.; u . 'E
() t_ .
)
o
- 033 5
< a Z a 1e
, 3 L l t_ . _- i.
I
_ L _
l i'
_ n 1
o E $ E E 8 E E a J J d' d d a 3 8S 'NOl1VU313DOV '1V8103dS REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAN ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT SSES CONTAINMENT R PONSE SPECTRA KWV SRV g
("')
v ASYMMETRIC - DIRECTION HORIZ ONTAL FIGURE 10-20
M/
///I e
/// /
q v
.. w!I I e (ll I
.. \ N "o I
e o M E N i
e4 % b
(
1 L.1
> e 1 LO
{ l z O M 4 $
l
" 2 e e D' l e Z l l
- i l \ > e4 g H d i
h i us
___.. s . gg g .! a.
9u x sa s =.
tZ =xa=!.
.c o w ci
~ " --
t 8 =1aE e 8ci l
I 1
Lu 8..-
g e -
' p._ . p a
! O
_E c . .F.
E l !. i -
<a = a
_l l =
e
__I f%
\ ~
o O M O M O W O P N, O P= r N e e e o e s O.
e,o .e O O O sO B eS *NOl1VB37303V ~1Y8103dS REV. 6, 4/82 4
SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT A SSES CONTAINMENT RESPONSE
- PECTRA KWU SRV #76 -
('") ASYMMETRIC- DIRECTION VERTICAL rioORE 10-21
o
< , , a i
y f *
/._ ~
r -
g 1_. J
- =
y5 ~ 3 N *C at
- rM J-
'x M M m 2v o =.f 4 > 2
\
3 Z J-h i [i m - k 3
- Z < <
H W
> 20
- H i 3 c.
)0 Z C o O a c- o :s -
l 6ox .e 3 .B
< -E o o.
' a gE ~~
2 o, m gm 7 o l
" = 3j *
, g ** W a
.O a .
! . ,- 5. n - '.@
J_w,' i,' .ii 82 3
\^[ '
DE[ U 3
,N 1 1
.e
_ .li i
, I i
.. p c =
~
i i
-- a I
ll n
..1 l
i I - O
$ 0 8 d $ 3 8 F F P P P P P E aS ,NOITARELECCA LARTCEPS 1mA' 9' V/8Z SOSOO3HVNNV 513VR 31331W13 SIV1lON GNliS L VNO E 03SIDN VSSESSW3NA WddOH1 SS3S 3ONIVINW3NI B3Sd0NS3 j SBA #t9 '"'(
Sd331BV A'MD
- VSAWW31BlO - 01833110N H0B I 2ONIVI-dlOOW3 g_g
3: nold g_7 lV I 83A N01133HIG - 31813WWASV gg ABS OM'>l VH133dS 3SN0dS38 IN3WNIVINO3 S3SS 1 hod 3W AN3WSS3SSV NDIS30 E ONY L SilNO NO11VIS DlW133'l3 WV31S VNNYH3nOSnS Z8/7 '9 'A3M SPECTRAL ACCELERATIO'1, Sa c P. P P . F 7 7 o ~ m w a ~ m Q L/1 O M Q W O o
~. p_- !
i *
?
I f i i i l 3 e :a: r- > - $ ~ E.
- 2. n W H I e.
o "I o u- 2 m N * --
-o ea-2 -
o I
, o, gg a
g ., n y __ . . . . _ . . _ . . . _ _ = ..
$Re. x
- C 7 h 3 7 s
= = - _ *o +<-
c: Z c1 o D l 4
- U1 > l
~
- t! 4 mlr g 4 3 " -
3ll 1 t L- _ __ Ce
$ m -l-a -
g 3 _ 2 > 4 o a U2 m 4 9
-J 3 F K M 1 ?
o N - S r
. ~
\
7 m a n a o
bl-[J" 3:n;Id lVIN0Z 804 NOI133810 - Ol813WWASV 9/ # ABS OM'>I V8133dS & T 3SN0dS38 1N3WNIVINO3 S3SS 180d3W AN3WSS3SSV NDIS30 Z ONY L SilNn NOl1VIS 31W133'13 WV313 VNNVH300$0S Z8/V '9 *A3B SPECTRAL ACCELERATION, Sa g O c Q
- e a .o .
O M M e4 O M m O M Q M O M Q P i 1 b. I l i e .
! I L .I o,I -
' I a =-* E. :: W
?. n r T C " _.S 2 a . T if E ~ -- .o o :r an2 .
$ O o o g,o*** -<
'o 3 x 'o 6 x< - - E t's 3 . _ o
'o I,*
D C 1 Cm tr2 N w m m m -, . . _ = D 63 X < >
- df' t' \~~_ -
l l
=J C3 --
e m l l l ~ b
~
Q ) J I m O ! o a >< ( 3 3 M_ PJ l
~ s 3
g 7s~~ . A am#d (11)
, v f 1 5
/ i o
o
!! E n
- gr i
,f c r o 't) .
# ~
rr I M w/ 'd
.i x
T. es O Nl > n o g
%\ o g e
1T\\ , n .
%L\ a
=
5 N
+ e h h m m h3 I e
%, eo
- c. La o
3: e
.e o o.
ie l 0 A x y4 l I z . 5! a ua a y E
=2-= g N cy a m' w
x ma
- 8 d
- u. 8 g es ..
p . 50 .I d l o Ei4 &
~
M .3 E &
,' 'e i e
.. -- g I
m f
' E 9 8 10 g 8 'S 'N011Y83$00V 1YU103dS REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM El.ECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 ANO 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT r ', SSES CONTAINMENT RgGPONSE SPECTRA KWU SRV r./6 C) ASYMMETRIC - DIRECTION VERTICAL FIGURE 19-25
1 l 93-OL nnou l lVIN0Z!80H N01133810 - 31813WWASV 9/# AUS OMM - V8133ds 3SN0dS38 1N3WNIV1NO3 S3SS 1 hod 3W IN3WSSESSV NDIS30 Z ONY L SilNn NOl1VIS 31W13313 WV313 VNNVH3nDSDS UN ' 9 ' A" SPECTRAL ACCELERATION, Sa E O O O O == = O . O ___ 0 N 3 =_ t a, 7 h i 1
-4 C4 (l0 --
~ --
o a r- > -
?.
b*1h n y .
- h. sa E =. 1 o s ' o 2
,8 ,Y ygb' n - - - .o 5=r ::
a . 2 m
"
- O
. 5 9 2 ;";" $ " .o l OEe. x MP.-
x m i a i , l
$$ C O DI M [ l' i.n 4 -. = . . -
w a c. M < > M c =- a e s 2 > v3 4 N O 3 tJ 3 j b3
- i l
sc : y 1 O O e
fg-h{ 3';n:rd lV31183A NOI133810 - Ol813WWASV 9/# ABS AM'>l 3SN0dS38 1N3WNIVINO3 S3SS VH133dS g 1 hod 3W AN3WSSESSV NDIS30 Z ONY L SilNn NOl1V15 OlW13313 WV31S VNNVH3nOSnS Z8/7 '9 *An SPECTRAL ACCELERATION, Sa g
,o .o - - _
o
$ 5 E h g
#3 I
l F Eo 3 a o
&O
=
c
.. u a- oe. ~1 a w N
.=
.c S.
m3oE~ 5= Y" 2 Io 9 5 Q S .5 'o E-x%6 E Mm . f. I l
'o a C O L3 i b !-
= s 9 i s < >
m m
.A MR o \h N
_o
. .a Q
. / = --
\.
e '
. ,f E
o a JJi 8
//// _
e
- A7/ / _
cx [J l / " L) e
! %' s
~
a r n a :d a
. :s sa > r-5 E 8 cc r & w i~u m z t-
\ .o z x s c:
-t < sn u, b i
- o M z D 'B 6 ao 3 O U x'
>- - if , 8 o Q
O 3 g .- z -x o w ::: - 6 ra 3 it uT S =( a ; 8 e
- .. e
- 1. u5" W -
k._,)
._. __ _ i I- -
e o
<3$
E a z o _ _ . _. t - I _ . _ _ _ . -I- ! . I h, l \~ j-- - o E $ E E E. O E J ; - J J J J 8CS *NOl1VU3'13OOV IV'd103dS REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT
' SSES CONTAINMENT RE P SE
( SPECTRA -KWU SRV
'/
ASYMMETRIC - DIRECTION HORIZONTAL FIGURE 10-28
r, . N w.,
.: o i "
_ e o
/4/ , .
1 f/// x
- _j_. ll I ,
(~/ s .
-%A
- y t.
M
=
__ ._ u n 'i i l s I A E N
~..
,l
\ a r o
, - \ 50 > r-
= m
'. ,b':
_LE - __
#7/
-] 9 O
m < G n y- - H w . e e z n ga =
- i %\ - , ,E > s .,4 ,
i p < m k,
! b I C Q sy c;
\ -
. ~
l_ l I %
, $() z o ,o O yO 3
\' s l '
. x [ o, r
. > -E ii o
] o z .,
ag . _- o I w a= ci _._- f- u s g [ mq&=
. g l c ci
. w =- a ..
;,s ..
l s . . F o l a u z 3 o 1o =. Iv) f - _i c
<a .= aE.
u. i ,, _l 1 ! sw s i
-- - e j--
l. I. 1 __ p
.l__ '
- I.
m - u E I - s o O m o m o m o e N O N f, N O l
.: .: : a a d &
3.e5 'NO!1Y8313DOV 7VulO3dS REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT p SSES CONTAINMENT RESPQNSE t i
- SPECTRA - KWU SRV #/6 ASYMMETRIC -DIRECTION VERTICAL FIGURE ]q_7q
' 8
~
i e ,c\ r e V, r Y)
,h l
u e M , .' S a r n 4 I C r.0 > r
= v o v2 < g l -- 3 e u: E-g l~
, ;m z &
, ca =
l E e z > > l H 2
.- < u:
-1 e E 5; l -1' -
ou x -g a i a z s! a4a
~
W =a2g d s 3 {a.. ee w =
=~ g 8
' s 6 e .an -
E
I -
m I C y e nc .
= 2 a v -
i T M
, s r r,e e e
- . .__ g 4 =3-l 2O 2 C goN'
--.- 4
'a 0- O OO- M C: 3
" 6 2 .C o.
Q
- ;2: E r=
o o C 2 2
- y. c am omTa w'
.g 1
irg tv C 0:. 3 .. g4 - M M
.S
- 5. 3c s O a
- i F5 .E DE.8 E O V .y -
L I
. 'e I !
_ ...._..___7-. - i l !- i t- . l, I
- I P
o u o m o o m u m u o m N- o
~ ~ ~ P P o 'o g aS ,NG!TARELECCA LARTCEPS lmA' 9' V/8Z 50 son 3HWhNV 313VW 31331W13 S1V11ON ONliS L YNO E 03SION VSS3SSW3NI W3dOH1 ju SS )
3 -. ( c.3S Sd3318V 3ONIVINW3NI - A'Mlf SBAB3Sd0NS3 # /9 VSAWW31813 01833110N A38113Vl' uonu I0-EI 1
a 8 t , 2 { lif
- V y DJ '
- sv E N
m ~ w I a % o A x m f4 > tw
= m o m < E 77 7t E iw
, B o -
- i. :o Z t-I e W =
l I 7@%. , $ > s c: x
. < m m i b i e o
- f4 Z D o a' w c. o :s 5. a 9ux -2 e o, o 2g 5.:o z =c o.
w a= o {n -3 yG m w C:
,a s 4 o
o .. m
- u. a eea
~
F /O l 3 u g i o $ !
< a = o
_ ..I _ m 3 .- e I
. ,i ,
l ! I ci O LA O ut o m O P N O P= r N O J J
- d a d a B S 'NOl1V8373COV 7VH103dS REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPGRT
[,) SSES CONTAINMENT RESP 0GSE SPECTRA - KWU SRV #/b ASYMMETRIC - DIRECTION HORIZONTAL FIGURE 19-32
1 1 8 1l _ ,
////
o t t
.D G' ]>)
e Wf ( *
~
N Q
% N I
g a E om
\ a E EQ > b
= m i o m < g g, , o w E e i , z c- -
. - La =
- ' r I
_ _ . _ _ _ 7 _o z g g eo
< m m
-i b D
r
% e 0 Z
- c. O 3: 5@
- i. 1 O U M g N
\'
> - o.
J O
- 2 g o -
.2 e .
- 7. . .c ca w .- . o
. _ , _ _ *J K 'm' w m ,a - 8
= c m ci
- u. 8-gm ..
e . LP D i I
.2 . o a,o,,
g
%,/ cs P, 1 E
- - i ._-
u o oz .cm
<a L L- ;2 ,
. - _ _ . .. a ___ _ _ J --. '
_ _ _ - _ - .L . _ . . -- a
._ } ._ _.. . .. 4 I .
_ _ _ . . . _, j -- '- - - - !s i 1 _ j. _ __. . . . _. .. . ! ___i i
. __ -- _ I_ c. .
i 1 .* l o ( o m . o m o e o r ~ o l , ~. o. . c.
~. .
. - o o o o l 3 eS 'NO11YB313OOV 'lVB103dS l l REV. 6, 4/82 1 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT SSES CONTAINMENT RESPONSE ip) x~ ~ ,
SPECTRA - KWU SRV #76 ASYMMETRIC - DIRECTION VERTICAL FIGURE 19-33
=
, 8 1
I CD Or < D t ! .
's__/ ;
-2; e
- 4 i
e- r N
\
pH N
% a r o 4 % m St3 >< h k "~. D $ g
_ p__ - % 3 p e G l z r- -
,e y -
-;. .__. _ 2 z g >.
= 4 U) l 1 E* 1 l l
@ z D C 9
) ..
~~
Y O- Q 3 $ , O, l -Q U X g
- ' $g .
z :a 8 a .: s 6 s 8 .s m -=E " , s i E E.8m ci
- LL .; gM , . .
00 $
/'
(]> o 31 3 I q _ __ t -
#345
, w I . L o 1
l
. _ , _ j. . __ ,
_a
!I
[ n i . O t O m O M O W D
== s'a - O O O O E 'S 'NC;1VU3'I3ODY 1VH103d3 L . REV. 6, 4/82 l
SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT SSES CONTAINMENT RESPONSE t l (; SPECTRA - KWU SRV // 76 ASYMMETRIC - DIRECTION HORIZONTAL FIGURE 10-34
o I
' I 3
,f .
i 1 f c
\J .
k , jK - N N H
/
, 5
. .I a z o N a z tu >
v b Z m c m < t e - r - S e "'. m z r-
. ._- b to =
yl z 1e Z > w x c:
< m i
O Z 8 D 8 e $ I
- = a. o 2 s o 6 i OU w .
o = X
;r .gg g; ci c
Z = o
. LaJ O
- C$
n a g = E sn y a u " i% in c: 8 .. m o
- u. = gn -
.! .e u
- F j -
/7 t /
i l
- o. 31 u
4o .E U
' __ __ i _ _ _
< .o
.a z o i
3 _ __.. __ I- - - - - __. j e i e _p _ .g
.r I
. t l
j ca I O O trl O in o m o w rw - o r- w r, o , 2 2 d d & .a B eS 'NOl1YU37300Y 7YU103dS REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION eJNITS 1 AND 2 DEstGN ASSESSMENT REPORT r SSES CONTAINMENT RESPONSE ' ! (7 SPECTRA - KWU SRV #76 l \s' ASYMMETRIC - DIRECTION VERTICAL FIGURE 10-35 1 ! l l
)
i 8 fj *
,- m *
- f. ! o
, L.,) N M ,
- rw 2 N
. N 3 e l T
. .I a E o a E m D2 > b
= m f, o V3 < C
-v e S g . w
- e z &
na m,N
~~
~
~
, E > >:
m a:
< m .
E* I e
. ! ~ ~__N __ N [g j .g . oci, N ,9ux >-
E a. O S c
- E 6 o z . .3 o.
i e :: o
.__ l : 's ari e a$ a$
6 8
; = 5 .. e- o t-gae
. u p-
-/~%.t
'%_ / o. ~314 u a o . E
( .J E O e p _ _ _ _ _ - o l I, l l I s .~ c5 g R 8 E E $ E
- ; 1 . d d d a
. B es 'NOl1VB373DOV 7VH103dS REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT SSES CONTAINMENT R SPONSE SPECTRA KWU SRV f 6 (m) ASYMMETRIC - DIRECTION HORIZONTAL recuaE 10-36 _
O I O CD I / nYr/)
' i 3 N
N
% n p.4
.t W - r
- to lh O $ $
# B p w D l ' Z x r-m
!- I W o > N l M E 1 -
< m m I b I e O l Lv i $h $ $ d.
l 4 Yx
>- g 43 O O C 6 oe'
. I f! .
t I z . I o, l u.t O = c
- N g E m' m
c: ma5 .. r
- 8 o
% c gm . -
t,
)
-a b .' *=
'w/ .
O h ] h
< a =o f __
=
. g
. ._ .N
.=
O O trl . O til O t/1 O
** ==
- O O O O B.eS *NOl1V8373DOV 7VM103dS REV. 6, 4/82 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT SSES CONTAINMENT RESPONSE 73 SPECTRA KWU SRV #76
(
)
ASYMMETRIC - DIRECTION VERTICAL FIGURE Jg_37
o
' i b
(~h
! 4
{l1 o L' . i)
- a f/ Q
._ =
- f/ ~
T m 1 d ! $ a > e-
- 5 $ R 77_ I-e i i
c E w Q j e z i
,_ _t m .n l e b g x
< m ,
l 8 b i e o
- 1
- C N e m a z o o
m ci. 3
-. t? auw 'f- Q
-- >- gE !E o-o -g : . .-
z a- -c :; o w 6 I n D l YtI m' i 8 8'5a..a![
= d p
1 '- i8 y g (~x .- u ,
! a 3 .$ $
i 1- _ _.
-j e
, =;
l l I j --- -- ,- e I : ! l t . _ __. ' [ i 8 l __.l
- I N
[. l o S R E E S' N E J J d a d .d 3 CS 'NOl1VB37303Y lV8103dS REV. 6, 4/82 l S'#JEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT l hhhCh kb V bb ASYMMETRIC - DIRECTION HORIZONTAL FIGURE ]q_zp
. 8 m -
Q
\ i c. %/
a f7T/ w E w
\ N m
i N m I N 3 E m >
. m c-A G < l
_! dO_ 2 g e Q o z c-W er E
- %,\ _; e z > s c:
i- H _. < m . mzP e o __} I
-v e o
= ci.
e ao OU 3: M fQ 5-- h O -s!. . z =x o \ ut k e ci ' l
. _ _ _ . _ _ - u b[5-3
[ .7 e a 4 4
)
l l i EI* 3 u F g O)
\v s E]i5 1 -
at a a: o i n . I ___ ._ o _ I, i _.! , I I I i lN T ci O Lt) O U1 O m O
- - .- o o o 'o B 'S 'NOl1V8313 COY 'lV8103dS REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT
() SSES CONTAINMENT RESPONSE
'~' SPECTRA - KWU SRV # 76 ASYMMETRIC - DIRECTION R AL FIGURE yg_3g I-- - -
O I I I O I co / @ 'v\ '
~ ~ / ~
er J r W
\
en
. ANA \ N A- a A
E E T4 >
"'. tO O C4 4 o -$
y ~ *
~ ~ ~ - - -
, gi E< e .
1 ;. m z t-
=
l La
' i E
[ c Z > >* H d i F- to , l 8 I e c
~ ~ ~ ~ -
l ~ j T U Z D 's Q. o 3 O c. O U X '[ E l
'~ e i
D El
= .
6.- c
- l W 3
- c'
- - ' -- - c4 U, g ( fE u-:
w aa 8
% 5 .. b c o > j i .
lo
)31=
"! ".E Na V q3g2
~
g -- to o
.~,--.
. ! l <
l ,
'lJ __ l- ] . _ _ . 2 1
! i 1 I
*, = N C$
O trl O in *O m O at' N O r* W N O N N O . O b . b 8 8S 'NO!1V8373OO'/ 7V8103dS REV. 6, 4/82 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT f~s. SSES CONTAINMENT RESPONSE
; ) SPECTRA KWU SRV # /6 ASYMMETRIC - DIRECTION H RIZONTAL FIGURE 1~
O s \ l t 5 f a f O y
- o -
09 L2 f n N
. . y 1
p g N
. .I
* *t 3 o
't 3 4-jft 4 4
- n.f 6 w > a 3 e a e
-l -
1 c z u a d M 3
=
- -- y3 x 40; y H
y ,, w 8 I O.
,v z c 1
- 3 o- o E .o' :
=
l 6 l hnx R S. a f* 2 C o. O g' E i l -" z m: 7 o. m o
- -^ " c x1 "
- y O ** a O 5is
'is n
.as T
A'
- g&
a 3 I,-( a. i i ' C
- rcyo 1
e i . . . ._ .I
. . - -- r l
- i I I 'l a ;
1 - l
. '. l ~
l o O m o 11( Q M O m u .Q w m u o 7 7 7 P P * ? 2 aS ,NOITARELECCA LARTCEPS SOS 003HVNNV S13VW 31331W13 SIV1lOef ONliS L YNO Z G3SIDN VSSESSW3NA W3dOH1 SS3S 3ONIVINW3NI B3Sd0NS3 ' jl Sd331HV l>Mlf SBA # /9 VSAWW31BlO - 01833110N A381IJVl' d'8a"5 I)( g
o k o z o _ 8 _ a /
/, \ M
~, r q L 7 1 \ \
' 6 n
S t a e t ( 4 D s ' , v I L : n e L / w T l g d E n A : 2 W a k 1 c
/i \'
.f 1
h e
- C r
o 5 f o f 0 o. o a 2 f-Y g r -
- 8 t
c 6 v F
- e 7 e :
p l e
- 6 S E E t a
E/' n C D o A _ i R [, S t T C 4 P ar F C M Y C l e e C c I z I R y N B E Ac R O U T I I 5 2 , E 0 Q n M E R o M 0, i t Y : 2
'F a S n 0 t A o S i 0, 's G o. n -
t c 1 i o V e 0 i r e t R i 0 a S D r 5 e 0 s n 1 0 e 3 G : 0 e 1 : k s g 4 c a i C n r : i e d e p m a d m i o o a L L N D 2 1 o 0, 5 0 5 0 ' 5
'. 2 0 7 5 2 l 1 l o 0 0 Yg iO d g * '~ ! 0 ( )V h e cb s m*l>3g,= g$-
eC Cfw . .go OEo* g,$ g 1
' rG" nO$ _ zg5 ^% ; TmO0Thc :
- s J9v>
u<.YmN N
) s E o 5*
zO o r 3O 3m hoi-
mi $
- H , R
() , s -> 'l Q (/ I i b l o a f N
, o i ..
3 I* N w 2
.T c ..
3 n':' x u m c) r_ d i 5o
.\ a :n ?u o o
//i o j $ N 1
. UC C 6 CJ *.
'h \
- S w U3
)(i c u 8 L 'ma 3$
0- E e 1 Ue I d T
>c O. u O E*
s . c: x zv"' W a: a o u 3 . Edw > m o. OC g Wo g o
@U>=m e o cJ rO V ' b.
3 c gg
. s' E SJ Em J e E 8 8 .. *
~ 5
~
a; .. g' g=ZE EE%
>a . o N
ci 8* E E E 8 N E 4 & d a . d B.eS 'NO!1YB37300Y TifB103dS REV. 6, 4/82 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT LGS CONTAINMENT RESPONSE O SPECTRA-KWU SRV //7f
'\._) ASYMMETRIC - DIRECTION VERTICAL FIGURE 19-N
.I t- -
8 o l ~ Q 2 r J L): -
. cr
))
- o ..
lli Ch y
, S f A a
e j hhN $ 'E u e w .E a..
- L M NA. \
N s. 7 5 O In 8 o o . o " T 1 ~ E s o te o n i:
- o ..
\
\
- 5mo C0 1
c E
) S$b r.o 9e *s s' 1 %
> 's o O.v -
x
. c:
a z <u e = m o m w n 3 cr -e Bi
- o.
wo z o be ** N e o M* 2&
,O -
L) _. o d e o y 8 U~ e o o = 8 5 g% 5
, t $ G, I".5 EIj&
33z a N c5 8 $ 8 $ 8 S E J J J d d d o 3 2S 'N011W373DOY 7W103dS REV. 6, 4/82 i SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT LGS CONTAINMENT RESPONSE
/~] 'x_/
SPECTRA - KWU SRV #76 ASYMMETRIC - DIRECTION HORIZONTAL FIGURE 10-44
UcoP::C 5 n,- 1 -
*rD ~1xm< -
25HomEe I o x4mz2 ) nm * <mu csX ) I
>2 omTu 34 )
mu@'mmx Izm3E >i2om
) - -
(Qr n - 4'm3mm *mcMmS> za1mQ 2
" o$ . gEC 3$*s 5mQm a m Im5 >zz>zmCO Ct a
$R *o*$W .
O mEOH . <OOw. E<F9Z' g Y J D 0 0 I 1 I O 2 5 7 0 D 5 2 5 0 5 0 S 0 0 1 2 s D N L L a o o i m d a m p e d e i : n r C i 4 g a c s k 1 e 0 3 : G 5 e 0 n 6 0 e
,5 D r
t
,0 r i S i' 8 0 e R a' 1 c V n 1
o t 0 i - S
. o t 0 n A at F 2 : S iR 0 Y M
oE 0 M ,n Q 2 5 V E U . E B E T A N R R I c .C y c
- T eY-C l .i P
c eC *
- rPa 4 S
T t i R o D A n ~ a C 6 t E S e l E p
- e e 8
v 7 c ~, 6: - 2 6 t r 3 0, 5 0 a 0 l'o 5 f o r C c h e 1 1 2 [f-k A W E n T g 1 W 8l :e E w L - L ~ D 4 a . t e 9
- 0 -
- 6 F E
/
S 8 r [8 g o g 0 o
o
- g o o N J 8 /
Y, [d s (\ 6 6 0 : e t r L a
.T 4 A D
T m2 S : e w E l/ 7x~ D gl s 2 P E A n k c e f' 2 h
- C r '
f o 6 o t 3 - o, a 2 5
- \ \ o g
r - t 6 :
- v s ce 7
- _ ~ 8 p l e :
e
/ S E E t
. ~ 6 C a n A D
_ i o R T [7 S ta . 4 Pr - c Cel Z f Ye C I Cc I R y NcA T R o B l i E U . E 5 2 M 0 Qn Eo a Y M 0, R i' t S : 2 y Fat A on 0 f S i t 0, o, n c 1. 3 o V e 0 i R i r 8 t a S D 0, r 5 e 0 6 n 0 e 1 G : 1 0 e 2 k s : 4 c a g i C n r : i e d e p m a d m i o o a L L H D 2
- 1 O
0 5 0 5- 0 5 0 5 2 0 7 5 2 0 1 1 l o 0 . o 0. Yy i9Hhij0O<
- " u 2 -
FO[m gm<. . pNE eCimzg2> Emh mEQa5 y CEg $w
-m Dm# gem mz$m3N s,.
;n Ec 0Oib2 - 2i- omM
>: yC $< %$ m mom
- 0
>m<2 r 4bO , c9mQ o O NQ1> -
m"b =m H CO-
0
*~
0 o _ 1 8
/
8 6
/ _
/
'nl% "
- 5 6
0 t e L a 4 A D 1 ' T S E D lk e W
# [ E P
g n A : v 2 k c
" e T 2 h
- C
. r '
o 6 0_ f 8
/
f-0 0 1 a r 3 2 9 - t : 8 c 6 7 v 5 e e : p l e I W 6 S E n C E t D a i o A R
'f S ta T 4
Pr Ce - t s ~ l Ye C I pc R T E f y NcA RT V B E 5 U . E 0 2 Qn E o MM 4 i Y 0, x R Fa t S
- 2 n 0 t A o (Q S i
t 0 0 n c 1 1 o V e 0 i R r 8 t a S i D 0, r 5 e 0 6 n 0 e 1 G : 0 e 1 k s 2 : 4 c a - g iC r : i n e d e p m a d m i o o a L L N D 2
' ^
. 1 O
0 5 0 5 D s 0 5 2 0 7 5 2 0 1 1 1 0 0 o 0 _ o i9fgIwOO< J t -
" bO$M
? ". EE .
*5oC$>z smg*hz5hd0 Cag h =
l
, kmo Gm E$m3N
-s N ram n0z > g3m $m M m0t- i X $<y5 -
>M 22m nI E $oj 0 -
m5e3 n
~obN n>
8h-(j{3tinDfd IV1N02I80H N01133810 - 31813WWASV 9/# ABS DMM - V8133dS 3SN0dS38 1N3WNIVINO3 S97 1 hod 3H IN3WSS3SSV NDIS30 Z ONY L SilNO NOl1VIS 31H13313 WY31S VNNYH300 SOS , Z8/V '9 "A311 SPECTRAL ACCELERATION, Sa'g o o .o o M Q Q U O o Q o g g o O 2 F r"- D o-E 9X7t"
- P G"e o e e
O CD o em
- w n a a O o =
.g n a o o - w o 3 om
= 3 30 N o n c w 4
- Nm es % Z w o nn
" " O * -< . ,
-s s i ao C e 27 w
w -n
> c 5 Q" m ;a ms 3..
Man = o
@ N 'O d W %
O % 9m m i O 3 y h
=* > c
. M F. $X..0m4 !
o 3 *
". ll a- w e
o
- I.
is ;
>o.
g 1-
+ 8
- e, N co D
O f,
. Mm v , c, b/
ed w"
. & f E<
(n W D C W 53 C De eC ** N M N u - D O W O, N M\\ O b % NN V\\ e U$ O
& *a h\\ m W ~w b N
gh S v $z Oc E e i d b& e p ** H % u d M co w< > t m
- N c .
wo y O (% %U L Z .. cy ' so < c o
* )
\
$ g 3a o.
O c u -
= %m 5 *.
u m W O c . C.D ** Ln O a * ~ ..
< g' 3u a "..
e O so J J M C3
. N D
e o O - 0 O O o Lrt o O N et O
*
- O. N. c. , ,
*'* *
- Q c o o 3.eS 'NOllW313DOY 7W103dS RE'I. 6, 4/82 l
SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 - D ;. DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT e V LGS CONTAINMENT RESPONSE SPECTRA - KWU SRV #76 ASYMMETRIC - DIRECTION VERTICAL FIGURE 10-N
o o o g 3 7h- 8
/
4
] jy
/
L ' L ,_ uk 6 = 6 o e
- t
.- \
4 L L D a e : w e L T ld g s
// . !
/ 2 w A n
k c e
/
2 h C r ' O o 6 S f 3 - 0 a 2 5 q s 0 r 1 t c 6 v 6-8 e 7 e :
/
p l e
/ S E E t a
6 n C D _. o AR _ i l f Sa t T -
- 4 Pr tf
' Cel Z Ye C I :
y Qc I R B, NcA RT O E I 5
. U , E 0 2
Qn M E o M 0, i
). Rt Fa S Y : 2 n 0
, L t A o S i 0, t o, n - c 1 3 o V e 0, i R r 8
.t a S i
D 0, r 5 e 0 6 n 0 e 1 G : 0 e 9 k s 2 : 4 c a g i C n r : i e d e p m a d m i o 0 a L L N D 2 1 0 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 2 0 7 5 2
, 0, 1
- l. l o 0 0 0 ea D I9}- WdO C* a u(a (
y4.
- oSN
. [ZI2>=*h*EQa5N>
Czh a- *$ N - ~
,g53 f*2 mm3N rg o21> - %Z1- xm@ m m7$42> -
I 7EC mm< ndc g4!m1x -
- , C xmQ oz m
= hcIWm 2gr
8 o (NY *~ $ 2/ ko p v
~
1 o a
/ ,
a w .. f *N
. ,h,- ,a F' s*
N 5
\\ $ $ @
o a m V
##/ O s. N u .. V'
" E* E ..
N'h \ , S w U$
)tt e o O a:l o
ki <MU$ a c
\ c$8 9
I g <. w: c: g. W a m S a
> m N
od W *.
- ES E g u > .. m O N O .
V " ~ C. ! 3 E'
-> E o.
s e a c: - o
' EM e
u" o l E C ** M o
.ac ..
3 0 .. E E IQ OE E' 4
".a a x o N
O 3 $ E 2 3 $ E
- : : a a- a s B.eS 'NO!1VB37300Y '1YH103dS REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 ,
7 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT kJ LGS CONTAINMENT RESPONSE SPECTRA - KWU SRV #76 ASYMMETRIC - DIRECTION VERTICAL FIGURE l')-51
o
- o g o 1
8 / [/, s 6
- 5 s
0 9 e S 4 t D a L L E e y
\' W T
l g n d E A : 2 W k c
/ "
h e 2 C r - 0 o ' 8 f 6 o, a 3 o r 2 5 g - t 6 : _ 8 c 7 v 5 e e : p E l e S E t 6 C a n A D o R i T S t 4 Par - c
' Ce p l C z Ye I I :
y Cc R R B Nc E A T E O l i 5 2 U , M 0 Qn M 0, Eo Y Ri F t S : 2 a A n
$ o, t
S n i t o c 0 0, 1 g i o VR e r 0 8 t S i 0 a D r 5 _ e 0 6 n 0 e : G 5 0 k s e 9 : 4 c a 2_ g i C n r : i e d e p m a d m i o o a L L N D l 2 1 0 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 _ 2 0 7 2 0
- 5. . G. . .
. 1 1 l 0 0 0 0
- g i9e$isOO<
" u J.$tO$m 5< m. hw
- E 8 E R i m4- hgj ydE hw E- -
EE*Rg Ey @'t
)x.
f r m" 84> h ,$mg$ y wNm mv$d> i (
>w$Ed n g 3gQ g 5m $ r 2Es$ ?mm
~
o J' IN *8 @ buv l. . . O I cn e
/
e 5 o l;]f J a ..
. m o
~
?
s
?
<z o e
( E
" d T '
b - o w e e-s o n e s E N Y V e " w ;;
- h E. " .* **
1 . " m "% e o a mu 3$ E<
, c= a 05 1 L
>c o E< **
E8 5'- W" E 5 E< > m b cf " wo E o
- o Es - .. a
(.) ' m 3$ - E o l M = o a v -
~
3o ~> c: E . e - o 2* *2 e E 8 8 .. m d
$$..E EEEe
- o o .
s a ac o N l , I n o t 8 8 8 $ 8 4 8 l : 1. A d 5 i o i 3.rg *NOllW37300Y 7W103dS ' REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 i
,f ss DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPdRT i \'")
LGS CONTAINMENT RESPONSE SPECTRA - KWU SRV # 76 ASYMMETRIC - DIRECTION VERTICAL reoUae 10-53
O i q n n G 2)
- m e l
(( .. 3oo \
<s--
/ T o 7
{ M 3: o J
)
> -y
$..t W ~ ~
g O l i 1
. O l I a v O @ g
## / h h 'N g
! . Ue "
+
, 'N
- Nb b5
'] h c U o s 5 A m e
* ' s WQ M *.
2<3; g A-
) "
w Si
- e = m wo f e A
CU> .. ~~ U f.,
$ 5 o.
3 E, ;% o
. L iE Ad 2*
e
.A o
- o.
o5 .. n o a en ..
- 23 ?
l , 'a 1
=J 3 1 !!Q J 2"
~
. d k $ E
" "
- Q Q d f 3 'S 'NOl1VH313DOY 7V8103dS REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 h DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT
\._)
LGS CONTAINMENT RESPONSE SPECTRA - KWU SRV # 76 ASYMMETRIC - DIRECTION HORIZONTAL FIGURE 10-54
o o o S 8 l U
/
6 - , 6 0 : t e a D 33 N ' 4 L L F/ Y E W R D l
- b e
g n A ; k 2 c
" e 6 h C
r - o f o ' 4 s- _ o, a 6 6 2 - o r g
~ g t 6 :
y 6 8 c 7 e e :
- p e
/ S E l E t
~.
6 C a n A
' D C o R i
t T
'{. Sa 4 Pr - Lf Cel C
Ye I T : y
~ Ccc R R B NA TE E E V 5 U ,
M 0 2 Qn E o MY 0, i Rt S : 2 e o, Fat A S n o VR c
- i t
o n 0 0, 1 g i e 0 S r. U 0, t 8 a r 5 e 0 6 n 0 e 1 G : 3 0 k s e 3 : c a g 4 i C r : i n e d e p m a d m i o o a L L N D 2 1
. o ,. 5 2
0 0 5 7 0 5-5 2 0 0
, 1 1 o 0 0 0
- gi 29HkjwOO< " J_$H0$m g :< . C *"
Mc"OC 7>h> $"l m mo$ Ow[E eEM >5 u .
- h. ,$*lm !w O raw og>~ zm "m$ozy mmmnY> I 7rc w
>wM2mg0i3:oNdoz m g2dn>r ZoEm by1J
l oo o _ g t
/
8 4 . l /
" 0 5
l 1 6 9 t e a 4 D L 8 a x'N L E H Y l ed I g t R n D A : 7f / r 2 k
" c e
/' 6 h
C r o p o 4 O f 6 - 0 a 2 5 0 1 r t 6 : 9 c v 8 e 7 e : p E l e S E t 6 C a n A D i o R S ta T 4 Pr - c ( e Z P Ye l C I : Cc I R y NcA TR b i l B E E 5 2 U ,M 0 Qn Eo MY 0, R it S : 2 Fat A n o 0 S i 0,
- t
_ 0 n c 1 1 o V e 0, i R r 8 l a S iD 0, r 5 e 0 6 n 0 e 5 G : 3 0 e 3 k s : 4 c a g i C n r : i e d e p m a d m - i o o a L L N D 2 1 0 D s 0 5 0 5 0 5 2 0 7 5 2 0 1 l 0 0 0 0 i. Yg i9F iwOO<
" J.k&O(m
@ - m ej
_ EgcEEz$ m>E " "o " o 5>dE gM" ' $8 . St3zo gmME@ym3$ n r - r amnozH3hmz*$wooJr m mna:# o XrC $ < w c
>m 2m13 -
3 $nH..- @ xo3 $zH$ 2@m* $ 1m r I1llll' il
I 8 o-
- s. -
i e % 1 1 , R
/ , o in T cn ..
l 3 A> , a 8 f d ..
)
f/f b c: e o <g N u
* .E u
O 3 h 4 o ~ en O .O u n w, WN u b h 8. W ,"E 'd
\\ * "
y e c: o SS
- E$
o cu U
' d Ne $
~
o k .. Z <g e W > W & w- - m N o cy .2c p o. wo m o. c:
'aO < .. m l l i E .
m y o,-
'S EE Oo
- s* .!: 6 2
e il o
- 5 .
E.D ** to o a
- m ..
< c" 3u o ".. e E % $ E' 33e8 N
ci o m o m o m o a ed Q & LS PJ O O O O O 2.eS 'NOllW3'13DOV 7W103dS REV. 6, 4/82 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 , DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT LGS CONTAINMENT RESPQNSE SPECTRA - KWU SRV /! /6 ASYMMETRIC - DIRECTION VERTICAL FIGURE 10-57
j ll l(ll 0 0 1 o
~ 8 /
8
= 4
= 6 6
l O e
\\ t a
4 D k \ ^ L L : > E eW r r r W l gd
) f Y n i / R A :
f 2 D k
" c 1 e g\p 1 h C
r o ' 3 D f f - k 0 0 a 8 2 6 i\.k ' 1 r - t c 6 v G 8 e 7 e : p l e J, I
/ S E E t
- 6 n C o A D
a i R
! /, Et T
/
4 Pa r Ce - bt Z Yl Cce CI R I : y s 2 {t c R o EA U ,E Qn M T t I B 5 0 Eo Ri M 0, Y F ta S : 2 n 0
- . t A o S i 0,
t 0 n - c 1 1 o 'V e 0 R ir i 8 't 0, a S D r 5 e 0 6 n 0 e 1 G : 0 e 7 k s 3 : 4 c a g i C n r : i e d e p m a d m i o o a L L N D 2 - 1 . o 0 5 s 2 o c. s 7 0 5 . 1 i. s l o 0 _ e g i9s$wj84G a&U7" ' E* . * . R $ 8E2nsmE"3.g5$O . _ ca $8 ,
,b E" adE' Ra* R EEE$m34
%Rm# ' kc mi $< xmgJ % m
>S=05 i eEmQB 2!a Node is* sS"
Q
. e O l - 4W 0 W
@ O e
w W , a N a t:J .. 3: es g E 5s " a c n u a as t I S m
#? r 0-O e
% $b s e u@ N wm E.
- NE
- m a w-
'l c o o m
Ok
% T (1.g g e Oc I
~T, NE O Qu Z e.s g H W h to y
. LIJ4 p g u 3 - N CF c g o.
WO E O r ' = < ss b o e 1 U2 3 a d
> E O.
- m o*
80 Z o CJ lO H C *=b Q x E ..
~
a !" g=E% ZE
- o a a = a N
M O m O 'Li L1 O m O ed Q P= Li N O 1 1 1 d d a d
.3 es 'NOllW373DOV 7W103dS '
REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 f) '/ DESIGN /.SSESSMENT REPORT LGS CONTAINMENT RESPONSE SPECTRA - KWU SRV #76 ASYMMETRIC - DIRECTION VERTICAL FIGURE {q.gq
0Ha N: rjO
- O2 zo~Qmx g , n -
a$5O mN % <x, y $0m m mmO "mx azg t On O, 3mm$m $Eo
- oj -.
- ' c yh 5aQEm k >zlmj
*R 7 g
*$oH$ <8G J 549i g
- j 0
. ' .o 0 o
l i
' 1 0 , G 7 c 2 5 0 , o s o s 0 0
1 2 D H L L a o o i _ m d a m p e d e i: r n C i 4 - g a c
- s k 4 e 0 1 : G
. 1 e 0 n 6 0 e ,5 r O a 0 f s t 8 r a i 0 e y o g 1 c n o
t 0 i - S o t 0 n a at F
,2 :
s iR - - 0 y oE n .n Q - 0 a U 2 , 5 s B l i r A E N
,y o a cc .C
- n i.eY I cl -
I z eC t - rP a 4 t S I D a t E e l T n o A n c S ep i 6 >
/? IJ
,J l
- : e e v 7 c 8 6 tr y g 6-5 3 1 a f o, o f 2 o o ' r. C h e c k
- A 7
D 2 f I n R - kge l Y W s )\
/ L L 4 D
t e a
'a-O 6
_ 5
/
4 / b _ 8 _ / _ S 3 o 0 0
'JllIll
, 8 o.
I i ; le n 4 T l l
- to I -
l
- #/ , ,.3 a
a I $ p) 5
%b a a < ..
" te
\ 7 5
$ ~ R
*. .o u
N b, n e
. I g UC e r~ o
$D l
wM
- Sw G0 O
u e S 3$e
.* m
, c. "g g e
T' 4
>- 's* o' c: ..
@<OE $ &
w e m o.m o. N oe r - E3 % . I I wY m d8
- M E C.
- Y a O.
b 8 5
=4%* o.
, t "n I".3 Eij&
33x 8 N m o 8 M E R 8 $ 8 a a a d d d d 3.es 'NOllW3730DY lW103dS REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION i UNITS 1 AND 2 lO ==='a *=======~' a o'ar l _ LGS CONTAINMENT RESPONSE l SPECTRA - KWU SRV # 76 ASYMMETRIC - DIRECTION ! VERTICAL emune 10-61
( r>$op x
$ mme5, ,
- =
<M> _
N5gmEe * <xM cE ' i UM m 3gx *zmg O MOr m a$mI u 5> - c Q g E 0 =Qm m t 5 mC8c., w *E - v sgWonk_, WOwUtN9:i t g ** , 0 o 0 0 1 I I 0 2 5 7 0 2 5 0 s 0 5 0 5 0 o, 3 2 D N L L a o o i m d a m p e d e n i : r C i g a c 4
- 4 s k 1 e '
0 5 : t 2 0 n 6 0 e
,5 D S a r
0 i R it a r V 0 e o 3, 1 c n o
, t 0 i S o A t 0 n a
_ .,2 0
- S Y iR M
tF oE M ,n Q 0 E 2 . 5 U I T AE - y B I O R I cN cC _ : R C elY I _ f Z - e-C
- t. r aP 4 T tS R i A o D
a t E e l C n E Sp s
- ey 7 e 5 : 6 ct r g a
o
+ 3 1
a , o 6 2 f o 0 ' r C - h 7 e " - c k
- A n D 2 - , F g R dl Y
- W , ;
\
we D E L L 4 a t e 5 9 0
' 6 '
/
- 6 a
/
8 3 o 0 0 - l1
, i ll l 1lIl o
o o _ g f - 8 /, - l
/
e 0 6 6 - S 9 : e
\
\ 4 t
a L L E W e Mt lN h s' Y R D A g n k 2
" c
/ 7 e
h
- c r '
o o 2 f f 1 - 0, a 3 5-0 r m 8 3 t 6 c e 7 v e : 5 p e o 6 S E E t C l D a n A i o R S ta T
- 4 Pr -
c Ce P l Ye CI T : Cc R y Nc R E B E A T V U , E 5 2 M 0 Qn Eo MY 0, Rit S : 2 _ , Fat A n S i o 0,
- t 0, o, n c 1 3 o V e 0, i
R r 8 t a S i D 0, r 5 e 0 6 n 0 e 5 G : 1 0 e 4 k s : 4 c a g i c r n
- i e d gh n a io g
dI o a L L N D 2
- 1 0 _
0 5 D G 0 5 0 5 2 7 2
- o. . 5, 0 1
0 yp i9i@" WOW ,_&b[m 1 0 0 0 y? e * {=" 5gm!z! sm m mQxa e,g d g
) ca d *> $ ** -
n( ;> coo"lm m$ 3m3=* - Eu no2l az mzf-
% mom * ' x[ ,m< xmgmz5 -
5<Ym xs ' egmndoz
<aHEdr
,5 Em Io 3
- i nu c
49-0I arn:s DNI1003 NM0010HS 100H11M I v'g asv3 - IN31sNyul 1 1 3EOSS38d 8013V3B 1 Avoanu1 News ssevnoisia z awV t sinun g NOl1VIS OlW13313 NV318 VNNVH3nOSnS ze/t '9
- Ami ,
i REAC10R VrASEL PRESSURE PSIR i 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 000 900 100011001200 I
~ - I
~
O, u
# ~
l { Q - H - O M 4 3 : m - O m R : m - H . : N . h 2 . O. r
$ E ~~O 2 - + - c 3 ~
-. 7 -
i _ # - -
$ ~
s ' % g ~i s '
~
z r - O en Q - - _ w O,, y - R : 9.
b l _~ 1 b : O , .
~
h- ;
~
O ; m
~
l\_ b o N .~ 5
\ O 3
N 1 (D - - E Z D D C
- E o , : a IT~ O W
__ . E W .
~
W
. L C
b-w
. 1 C
Y~ 3 m o
~
.- s
~ ~
~ ,
O 3 ."
?- :
O -
.~ .
D. 013 061 OLI 091 OEI Oli 06 3 - dW31 700d NOISS3HddnS REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPdRT v REACTOR PRESSURE TEf1FERATURE TPN! sit!NT-CASE 2.A WITil00T CHUTDOWN COOLING
,riouRE 10-65
TABLE 10-1 JAERI DATA NORMALIZED RMS VENT ChdG STATIC PRESSURE T V NT VENT VENT VEE VENT 0002 58.65 - 3.88 - 1.13 0.99 .015' 52.37 -
).87 -
1.38 0.75 .114 56.35 - L'.17 - 1.03 0.81 .033 72.65 -
).99 -
1.29 0.72 .083 74.65 -
).72 -
L.29 0.98 .080 76.75 -
).85 -
L.06 1.09 .018 78.80 -
).85 -
1.09 1.06 .016 , 30.25 -
) 90 -
L.03 1.07 .007 0003 32.27 - L.10 - L.01 0,89 .011 34.10 -
).83 -
L.07 1.10 .021 35.9 8 -
).61 -
1.36 1.04 .141 37.85 - L.16 - 1.13 0.71 .064 39.90 -
).64 -
L.05 1.31 .144 71.45 -
).54 -
L.50 0.97 .232 76.85 - L.12 - L.01 0.83 .014 O' 0004 39.50 -
).95 -
L.44 0.61 . l f3 40.65 -
).86 -
L.34 0.79 .089 43.00 -
).47 -
L.77 0.76 .461 45.20 -
').41 -
L.35 1.23 .264 49.00 -
) . 44 -
L.75 0.81 .453 53.05 -
).68 -
L.29 1.03 .094 1101 40.40 0.81 0.86 - 1.36 0.97 .061 42.02 0.910.78 - 1.21 1.10 .036 44.20 1.340.68 - 1.01 0.96 .075 46.25 0.770.49 - 1.24 1.50 .207 48.80 0.890.54 - 1.42 1.14 .140 1201 47.60 0.86 1.00 - 1.15 1.00 .013
'9.40 1.11
, 1.35 -
0.72 0.82 .081 51.20 1.08 0.93 - 1.23 0.75 .042 53.00 1.31 0.65 - 1.15 0.90 t.084 54.90 1.22 0.60 - 1.27 0.91 .097 2101 35.80 1.14 0.84 0 . 84).90 1.28 .040 39.75 1.13 1.17 0.89).99 0.82 .023 - 72.00 1.07 0.67 0.98).89 1.40 .071
-(-}
A- 73.85 0.89 1.07 1.231.22 0.60 .072 76.lc 2.08 0.56 0.291, 20 0.88 .478 78.15 0.87 0.82 1.10 1.30 0.90 .039 l0a lC 0.96 0.71 0.93L.18 1.21 .041
l i O TABLE 10-2 JAERI/GKMIIM COMPARISON I I i DATA NORMALIZED ! BASE MEAN VARIANCE AERI 0.108 DATA GKMIIM MSL DATA 0.107 (0.5-13 Hz) O GKMIIM 1/3 MGL DATA 0.083 (0.5-13 Hz) l l GKMIIM 1/6 MSL DATA 0.064 i (0.5-13Hz) O
- 55. "IEEE Reco00 ended Practicos for Seiscic Qualification of Class lE Equipment For Nuclear Power Generating Stations," IEEE Std. 344-1975.
() 56. A. J. James, "The General Electric Pressure Suppression Containment Analytical Model," GE, July 1971.
- 57. Letter MFN-080-79, L. J. Soban (GE) to J. F. Stolz (NRC) ,
Subiect: Yent Clearing Pool Boundary Loads for Mark II Plants, 3/20/79.
- 58. P. W. Huber, A. A. Sonin, W. G. Anderson, " Considerations in Small-scale Modeling of Poelswell 1in BWR Containments,"
NUREG-CR-ll43, July 1979, Contract No. NRC-04-77-Oll.
- 59. C. K. Chun, " Suppression Pool Dynamics," NUREG-0264, Contract No. AT (49-24)-0342.
- 60. R. L. Kiang and P. R. Jeuck, "A Study of Pool Swell Dynamics 2 In a Mark II Single Cell Model," EPHI, Draft Report.
- 61. C onra nt, R. and Hilbert, D., "Meth3 den der Mathematischen Physik I (Methods of Mathematical Physics I)," Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, 1968.
- 62. Antony-Spies, P., "Iheory of the Excitation of Eigenmodes of a Water-Filled Tank by a Callapsing Steam Bubble" (translated by Ad-Ex), Technical Report KWU/R14/77, September, 1977.
- 63. MARC-CDC, User Information Manual, Control Data Corporation, 1976.
- 64. Koch, E. and Sobottka, H., "KKP 1/KKI - Estimate of the Miting Values of the Dynamic Loads on the Pressure Suppression Systen During Air-Free Condensation at the Vent Pipes", Techni;.1 Leport KKU/3113/3593, December 1975.
- 65. " Mark II Improved Chugging Methodology", N ED E-24 822-P ,
General Electric Company, May 1980.
- 66. " Single and Multivent Chuqqing Final Report", NEDE-24300-P, General Electric Company, December 1980.
- 07. Mark II Owners Group, " Assumptions for use in Analyzing Mark 5 II-BWR Suppression Pool Temperature Transients Involving Safety / Relief Valve Discharge," Revision 1, December 1980.
6 8. E verstine, G. C., "A Nastran Implementation of the Doubly Asymptotic Approximation for Underwater Shock Response", Nastram Users's Experiences, NASA TMX 3428, pp 207-228, 3ctober 1976. , l Rev. 5, 3/81 11-5
- 69. MccNeal, R. H., Citerley, R. , and Chnigin, M. , "A New Method 5 for Analyzir.q Fluid-Structure Interaction using M.S.0/Nastran", Trans. 5th Int. Conf. on Structural i Mechanics in Reactor Technology, Paper B4/9, August 1 1979.
- 70. Mach II Generic Condensation Oscillation Load Definition Report, NEDE-24288-P, General Electric Company, November 1980.
- 71. C. W. Hirt, B. D. Nichols, N. C. Romero, "SOLA: A Numerical Solution Algorithm for Transient Fluid Flows, "LA-5852, April 1975.
- 72. B. D. Nichols, C. W. Hirt, R. S. Hotchkiss, "SOLA-YOF: A Solution Algorithm for Transient Fluid Flow with Multiple Free Boundaries," LA-8355, August 1980. ,
- 73. C. W. Hirt, B. D. Nichols, L. R. Stein, " Multidimensional Analysis for Pressure Suppression Systems," LA-UR 1305, April 1979.
- 74. Zinner Nuclear Power Station - Unit, Attachment 1.*.,
Amendment 99, Submittal of Revision 61 to the FSAR, September 28, 1979. 6 75. "ANSYS Engineering Analysis System Theoretical Manual," November 1, 1977 by Swanson Analysis Systems, Inc.
- 76. "ANSYS Engineering Analysis Systems Users Manual" August 1, 1978 by Swanson Analysis Systems, Inc. lll
- 77. A. Kalains " Analysis of Shells of Revolution Subjected to Svanetrical and Non-Symmetrical Loads", Journal of Applied Mechanics, September 1964.
- 78. Abrahasson, G. R., and Hashemi, A., "SSES In-Plant Tests to Measure Submerged Structure Loads and Pool Frequencies,"
SRI Report to PPSL, April 1980.
- 79. " Mark II Containment Lead Plant Program Load Evaluation and Acceptance Criteria," NUREG-0487 Supplement No. 1, USNRC, September 1980.
- 80. 3eneral Electric report NEDO-24310, " Technical Bases for the Use of the Square Foot of the Sun of the Squares (SRSS) l Method of Combining Dynamic Loads for Mark II Plants "
l July 1977. l REV. 6, 4/82 11-6
APPENDII A CONTAINNENT DESIGN ASSESSMENT IABLE_9f_GQEIZEIS A.1 CONTAINMENT STRUCTURAL DESIGN ASSESSHENT A.2 CONTAINHENT SUBHERGED STRUCTURES DESIGN ASS ESSM ENT A. 3 FIGURES I i l i l O Rev. 2, 5/80 g,j
APPENDII A flEHBg5 Humber Iltle A-1 Concrete and Reinforcement Stress Elements A-2 Typical Section Showing Section Location A-3 Reinforced Bar Arrangement 2 A-4 thru A-9 Containment Stresses and Margins - Equation 1 A-10 thru A-15 Containment Stresses and Margins - Equation 4 - Absolute Method A-16 thru A-21 Containment Stresses and Margins - Equation 41 - Absolute Method 6 A-21.1 thru A-21.6 Containment Stresses and Margins - Equation 5 - Absolute Method l A-22 thru A-27 Containment Stresses and Margins - Equation SA - 2 Absolute Method A-28 thru A-33 Containment Stresses and Margins - Equation 7 A - Absolute Method A-33.1 StressMarginsforRefuelingHeadandSupportSkirtllh A-34 thru A-39 Containment Stresses and Margins - Equation 4 - SRSS Method (Deleted) 6 A-40 thru A-45 Containment Stresses and Margins - Equation 4 A - SRSS Method (Deleted) A-46 thru A-51 Containment Stresses and Margins - Equation SA - SRSS Method (Deleted) A-52 thru A-57 Containment Stresses and Margins - Equation 7 A - SRSS Method (Deleted) A-58 Suppression Chamber Columns - Mode Shapes 2 A-59 Suppression Chamber Columns - Stress Summary A-60 Downconer Bracing System - Stress Summary 1 A-61 Downconer Bracing Syst em - Connections l A-62 & A-63 Downconers - Mode Shapes - I (Deleted) - l A-64 S A-65 Downconers - Mode Shapes - II (Deleted) h REV. 6, 4/82 A-2
APPENDII A i' E192E32 (Cont.) l O >=ar nun '
- A-66 Downconers - Stress Summary and Desigt. Margins ,l2 A-67 SRV Support Assemblies - Stress Suasary h r#>
l l O REV. 6,'4/82 A- 3 l I
._-..-. - -_ - --.-_._.-.....-. ..- ..- -- -.._-~-- --. -... .. -_-.-. -
APPENDIX A l G9D.tAiRRaut._2221ED_3EEEEE!aDL This appendir indicates the containment elements and cross-sections where stresses are determined and contains a tabulation lh 2 of the predicted stresses, allowable stresses, and design margins for each loading combination considered. The structural assessment of the containment is co vered in Section A.1; the submerged structures are assessed in Section A.2. A.1 G9ETAI!5EEI_EIBUCIDEAL_DIEI9H_Assygsygy; six load combinations, out of Table 5-1, are tabulated covering all t he critical sections in the containment concrete structures. The emphasis is placed on the reinforcing bar stresses. Generally, load combination equation 7a appears to be the most 6 critical for most of the elements. This load combination also includes the seismic loads. These seismic loads are obtained from the results of the flexible base seismic model described in Section 3.7b.2 of the PSAR. The tabulated stresses are shown for the critical load ' combinations by adding the dynamic loads by the absolute sua met hod. The concrete shield wall is not a part of the structural system and therefore values for the section 12 and 13 are not 2 included in the f ollowing tables. O 1 l llI REV. 6, 4/82 A-4
A.2 99ETAI!!ERI_EHDHER9ED_ETERGIHRE!_RIEIE!_ASSI!!!!EI The stress summaries for the suppression chamber columns, the l2 downcorer bracing, and the downconers are covered in Figures A-59 O through A-67. In addition, the mode shapes for the columns are shown on Piqure A-58. 6 O . r A-5 l L
i O CECAP OoTPoT LOAD COMBINATION EQN. 1 = 1.4D + 1.5 SRV (ASYM) - Absolute Sum STRESSES IN KSI DRYWELL WALL J 1 I INSIDE FACE OoT" JE FACE PRINCIPAL SECTION EL. REBAR* hEBAR* SHEAR CONC. NUMBER FT. VERT. HOOP VERT. HOOP SPIRAL SPIRAL TIES STRESS 1 2 1 787 0.032 -0.083 -0.130 0.34 0.183 0.024 -0.360 2 787 -0.072 -0.052 -0.121 0.078 0.017 -0.061 -0.172 3 745 -0.270 -0.055 -0.421 0.113 -0.123 -0.185 -0.111 4 724 -0.320 0.019 -0.470 0.130 -0.140 -0.202 -0.183 5 710 -0.601 0.01 -0.512 0.942 0.251 0.178 -0.376
- Allowable Reinforcing Steel Stress = 54 KSI Minimum Stress Margin = 98%
REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAAA ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSAENT REPORT O
- CONTAINMENT MARGINS
. DRYWELL WALL i FMIURE A-4
CECAP OUTPUT LOAD COMBINATION EQN. 1 = 1.4D + 1.5 SRV (ASYM) - Absolute Sum STRESSES IN KSI WETWELL WALL INSIDE FACE OUTSIDE FACE PRINCIPAL SECTION EL. REBAR* REBAR* SHEAR CONC. NUMBER FT. VERT. HOOP VERT. HOOP SPIRAL SPIRAL TIES STRESS 1 2 6 695 -0.840 1.78 -0.375 2.00 0.953 0.671 -0.388 7 672 -1.09 9.51 -0.725 5.44 2.39 2.32 - 0.112 8 672 -1.07 9.82 -0.767 5.74 3.42 1.55 - 0.122 9 672 -1.01 9.49 -0.737 5.45 2.39 2.33 - 0.119 10 660 -1.41 9 79 -0.514 6.39 3.11 2.77 - 0.054 11 650 -1.27 2.48 -0.70 2.71 1.43 0.584 0.096 Allowable Reinforcing Steel Stress = 54 KSI Minimum Strees Margin = 81.8% REV. 6, 4/82 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT CONTAINMENT MARGINS l WETWELL WALL FIGURE A-5
, , , . _ . - _ , z. . - . .
l CECAP OUTPUT LOAD COMBINATION EQN. 1 = 1.4D + 1.5 SRV (ASYM) - Absolute Sum STRESSES IN XSI RPV PEDESTAL INSIDE FACE OUTSIDE FACE PRINCIPAL SECTION EL. REBAR* REBAR* SHEAR CONC. .) NUMBER FT. VERT. BOOP VERT. HOOP SPIRAL SPIRAL TIES STRESS 1 1 2 14 725 -1.49 2.18 -2.08 2.82 - - 0.358 15 704 -0.33 1.97 -1.51 0.37 - - 0.007
- Allowable Reinforcing Steel Stress = 54 KSI Minimum Stress Margin = 94.8%
i
. REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT O
CONTAINMENT MARGINS RPV PEDESTAL FIGURE A-4 ,
l'] m .CECAP OUTPUT LOAD COMBINATION EQN. 1 = 1.4D + 1.5 SRV (ASYM) - Absolute Sum STRESSES IN KSI RPV PEDESTAL INSIDE FACE OUTSIDE FACE PRINCIPAL SECTION EL. REBAR* REBAR* SHEAR CONC. NUMBER FT. VERT. HOOP VERT. HOOP SPIRAL SPIRAL TIES STRESS 1 2 16 695 -0.800 1.04 - 1.28 0.796 - -
-0.01 17 666 -0.801 2.76 - 1.95 5.56 - -
0'116 18 666 -0.976 3.66 - 1.79 4.64 - - 0.117 19 651 -0.882 .005 - 2.24 0.344 - - 0.241 () 20 651 -1.13 0.05 - 2.16 0.333 - - 0.230 1
- Allowable Reinforcing Steel Stress = 54 KSI Minimum Stress Margin = 89.7%
i I I i REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT O CONTAINMENT MARGINS RPV PEDESTAL FIGURE A-7
O CECAP OUTPUT LOAD COMBINATION EQN. 1 = 1.4D + 1.5 SRV (ASYM) - Absolute Sum , STRESSES IN KSI I DIAPHRAGM SLAB SECTION RADIUS EL. TOP FACE REBAR
- BOTTOM FACE REBAR* SHEAR NUMBER FT. FT. RADIAL TANGENTIAL RADIAL TANGENTIAL TIES 21 8 702 2.39 1.74 1.92 2.04 -
.383 22 17 702 1.08 3.16 2.83 5.32 5.50 23 17 702 .833 2.68 3.05 4.54 6.68 24 26 702 2.11 3.64 3.85 6.53 .13'3 25 34 702' 4.40 4.07 3.39 5.32 .189
- Allowable Reinfcrcing Steel Stress = 54 KSI Minimum Stress Margin = 87.6%
i i REV. 6, 4/82 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 i DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT CONTAINMENT MARGINS DIAPHRAGM SLAB t: FIGURE A--S
. _4
l CECAP OUTPUT LOAD COMBINATION EQN. 1= 1.4D + 1.5 SRV (ASYM) - Absolute Sum l STRESSES IN KSI ) BASE SLAB 1 i SECTION RADIUS EL. TOP FACE REBAR
- BOTTOM FACE REBAR* SHEAR NUMBER FT. FT. RADIAL TANGENTIAL RADIAL TANGENTIAL TIES 26 8 644 -
.234 .143 1.11 1.57 -0.049
*. *** j 27 17 644 4.12 5.54 6.64 7.27 5.39 )
l
)
28 26 644 10.94 10.97 1.98 .362 .01 1 29 34 644 7.46 6.81 3.64 4.17 2.67 30 43 644 - '19.58 6.33 9.83 6.21 5.95 Allowable Reinforcing Steel Stress = 54 KSI
** North - South Bars * *
- East - Wes t Bars Minimum Stress Margin for this Load Combination = 63.7%
i REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT O CONTAINMENT MARGINS BASE SLAB FIGURE A-9
CECAP OUTPUT LOAD COMBINATION EQN. 4 - Absolute Sum STRESSES IN KSI DRYWELL WALL INSIDE FACE OUTSIDE FACE PRINCIPAL EECTION EL. REBAR* REBAR* SHEAR CONC. NUMBER FT. VERT. HOOP VERT. HOOP SPIRAL SPIRAL TIES STRESS 1 2 ** ' 1 787 4.14 -0.25 20.59 21.43 21.06 20.96 2.08 - 2.97 2 787 3.73 -0.16 20.18 21.09 20.80 20.47 1.55 - 2.95 3 745 4.12 7.66 28.54 29.41 29.06 28.88 2.18 - 2.52 4 724 2.54 4.41 36.17 30.28 33.26 33.18 3.20 - 2.17 5 710 8.87 4.24 14.72 21.11 18.10 17.73 7.93 - 2.14 Allowable Reinforcing Steel Stress = 54 KSI
** Allowable. Concrete Compressive Stress = -3.4 KSI Minimum Stress Margin = 33%
REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT I 'D [ CONTAINMENT MARGINS l DRYWELL WALL r l FIGURE A-10 i
. ..CECAP OUTPUT. LOAD COMBINATION EQN. 4 - Absolute Sum STRESSES IN KSI WETWELL WALL INSIDE FACE OUTSIDE FACE PRINCIPAL SECTION EL. REBAR* REBAR* SHEAR CONC. NUMBER FT. VERT. HOOP VERT. HOOP SPIRAL SPIRAL TIES STRESS 1 2 ** 6 695 9.75 ?7.50 4.36 24.58 14.82 14.11 5.39 - 0.28 7 672 5.41 21.49 29.23 31.28 32.73 27.78 4.17 - 1.61 o 8 672 5.04 22.02 27.90 31.81 35.83 23.88 5.10 - 1.66 9 672 5.19 21.14 29.08 30.93 31.49 28.51 4.22 - 1.62 10 660 3.56 15.68 32.84 26.06 30.92 27.98 2.69 - 1.97
'\
11 650 9.05 3.80 8.53 11.88 11.99 8.43 14.36 - 1.29
- Allowable Reinforcing Steel Stress = 54 KSI
** Allowable Concrete Compressive Stress = -3 4 KSI l Minimum Stress Margin = 33.6%
% l REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT C
CONTAINMENT MARGINS WETWELL WALL FIGURE A-11
L O CECAP OUTPUT. j LOAD COMBINATION EQN. 4 - Absolute Sum l STRESSES IN KSI - RPV PEDESTAL INSIDE FACE OUTSIDE FACE PRINCIPAL REBAR* REBAR* SHEAR CONC. SECTION EL. NUMBER FT. VERT. HOOP VERT. HOOP SPIRAL SPIRAL TIES STRESS 1 2 725 -1.50 -1.06 -0.21 4.27 - - 0.46 - 0.25 14 15 704 1.22 -0.48 0.31 -3.19 - - 5.91 - 0.48
- Allowable Reinforcing Steel Stress = 54 KSI
** Allowable Concrete Compressive Stress = -3.4 KSI Hinimum Stress Margin = 89%
REV. 6, 4/82 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT A
;O CONTAINMENT MARGINS RPV PEDESTAL FIGURE A-12
l l CECAP OUTPUT LOAD COMBINATION EON. 4 - Absolute Sum STRESSES IN KSI ! RPV PEDESTAL INSIDE FACE OUTSIDE FACE PRINCIPAL i SECTION EL. REBAR* REBAR* SHEAR CONC. I NUMBER FT. VERT. HOOP VERT. HOOP SPIRAL SPIRAL TIES STRESS 1 2 ** 16 695 -0.78 10.04 -1.07 9.49 - - 1.65 - 0.16 17 666 -0.97 15.93 -0.66 6.02 - - 5.89 - 0.22 18 666 -0.89 17.16 -0.98 2.14 - - 0.23 - 0.16 19 651 -0.49 -1.65 -0.56 -2.08 - - 0.62 - 0.30 20 651 -0.42 -1.67 -0.75 -2.04 - - 0.64 - 0.31 Allowable Reinforcing Steel Stress = 54 KSI
** Allowable Con' crete Compressive Stress = -3.4 KSI Minimum Stress Margin = 68.2%
REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT e
~
CONTAINMENT MARGINS RPV PEDESTAL FIGURE A-13
l l CECAP OUTPUT LOAD COMBINATION EQN. 4 - Absolute Sum STRESSES IN KSI DIAPHRAGM SLAB PRINCIPAL SECTION RADIUS EL. TOP FACE REBAR
- BOTTOM FACE REBAR* SHEAR CONC.
NUMBER FT. FT. RADIAL TANGENTIAL RADIAL TANGENTIAL TIES STRESS 21 8 702 2.50 3.66 8.49 8.39 4.95 - 0.20 22 17 702 0.25 0.80 13.54 19.19 2.02 - 1.02 23 17 702 1.09 1.83 11.92 15.76 2.29 - 0.58 24 26 702 2.82 3.32 18.21 22.38 1.55 - 0.36 25 34 702 9.96 8.00 16.19 17.92 1.61 - 0.14 f _. Allowable Reinforcing Steel Stress = 54 KSI
** Allowable Concrete Compressive Strees = -3.4 KSI Minimum Stress Margin = 58.5%
1 REV. 6, 4/82 l SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT I h 1 CONTAINMENT MARGINS DIAPHRAGM SLAB FIGUttE A-14
s _ . . _...._ ____ _ _ _ - O CECAP OUTPUT LOAD COMBINATION EQN. 4 - Absolute Sum STRESSES IN KSI . BASE SLAB PRINCIPAL SECTION RADIUS EL. TOP FACE REBAR
- BOTTOM FACE REBAR* SHEAR CONC.
NUMBER FT. FT. RADIAL TANGENTIAL RADIAL TANGENTIAL TZES STRESS S
... c.
26 8 644 - 0.11 - 4.00 9.81 12.04 37.66 - 2.09 e ese l 27 17 644 - 8.76 - 8.83 19.26 18.45 0.19 - 3.85t 28 26 644 - 5.82 - 5.90 18.44 15.40 1.29 - 2.60 29 34 644 - 0.75 - 4.03 13.94 21.73 2.92 - 2.14 0 30 43 644 12.45 - 1.51 23.23 15.79 1.21 - 1.27
- Allowable Reinforcing Steel Stress = 54 KSI
** North - South Bars *** East - West Bars S Altowable Concrete Compressive Stress = -3.4 KSI t Maximum Concrete Strain = -0.00083 Minimum Stress Margin = 30.2%
REV. 6, 4/82 3USQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSEST. MENT REPORT O CONTAINMENT MARGINS BASE SLAB FIGURE A-15
.CECAP OUTPUT LOAD COMBINATION EQN. 4A - Absolute Sum STRESSES IN KSI DRYWELL WALL INSIDE FACE OUTSIDE FACE PRINCIPAL SECTION EL. REBAR* REBAR* SHEAR CONC.
NUMBER FT. VERT. HOOP VERT. HOOP SPIRAL SPIRAL TIES STRESS 1 2 ** 1 787 3.74 1.25 19.52 21.95 20.76 20.71 2.09 - 2.61 2 787 3.93 2.19 17.34 20.53 18.99 18.88 2.36 - 2.39 3 745 2.93 9.91 23.45 29.28 26.48 26.25 2.20 - 2.31 4 724 3.55 11.98 26.53 28.68 27.61 27.61 2.31 - 2.22 O 5 21o 7.3. 5. 7 2.87 22.15 12. 2 12.40 3. 0 - 1.7e A11owable Reinforcing Steel Stress = 54 KSI
** Allowable Concrete Compressive Stress = -3.4 KSI Minimum Stress Margin = 45.7%
f REV. 6, 4/82 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 fND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT , -C l CONTAINMENT MARGINS I i DRYWELL WALL FIGURE A-18
CECAP OUTPUT. LOAD COMBINATION EQN. 4A - Absolute Sum STRESSES IN KSI I WETWELL WALL INSIDE FACE OUTSIDE FACE PRINCIPAL SECTION EL. REBAR* REBAR* SHEAR CONC. NUMBER FT. VERT. HOOP VERT. HOOP SPIRAL SPIRAL TIES STRESS 1 2 ** 6 695 2.79 15.29 8.32 23.38 16.50 15.19 2.93 - 1.23 7 672 0.18 21.23 21.61 33.87 28.84 26.63 2.84 - 2.05 8 672 -0.20 18.84 18.44 31.95 29.64 20.75 2.15 - 2.00 9 672 -0.05 17.19 19.03 30.06 25.05 24.03 1.94 - 2.02 0 10 660 -0.66 16.62 25.74 28.99 28.83 25.91 2.33 - 2.39 11 650 3.30 2.85 4.74 12.08 10.25 6.57 10.88 - 1.60 Allowable Reinforcing Steel Stress = 54 KSI
** Allowable Concrete Compressive Stress = -3.4 KSI Minimum Stress Margin = 37.2%
i REV. 6, 4/82 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT CONTAINMENT MARGINS WETWELL WALL FIGURE A-17 l
i 4 CECAP OUTPUT. LOAD COMBINATION EQN. 4A - Absolute Sum STRESSES IN KSI RPV PEDESTAL INSIDE FACE OUTSIDE FACE PRINCIPAL SECTION EL. REBAR* REBAR* SHEAR CONC. NUMBER FT. VERT. HOOP VERT. HOOP SPIRAL SPIRAL TIES STRESS 1 2 ** 14 725 -2.33 -0.54 -1.43 4.12 - - 0.62 - 0.34 15 704 -2.24 -0.31 -1.25 -2.35 - - 0.89 - 0.37
- Allowable Reinforcing Steel Stress = 54 KSI
** Allowable Concrete Compressive Stress = -3.4 KSI Minimum Stress Margin = 92.3%
O 1 REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT CONTAINMENT MARGINS RPV PEDESTAL l 1 FIGURE A-IS l
O CECAP OUTPUT _ LOAD COMBINATION EQN. 4A - Absolute Sum STRESSES IN KSI RPV PEDESTAL l l IINSIDE FACEl OUTSIDE FACE I l PRINCIPAL l REBAR* ISHEARI CONC. l iSECTIONI EL. I REBAR* l STRESS l l NUMBER l FT. IVERT.1 HOOP iVERT.IHOOP iSPIRALl SPIRAL l TIES l ** l l l l l l l 1 1 2 l l l l l l l 1 l 1 1 I I l l 16 I 695 l-2.141 2.431-3.321 2.391 - 1 - l 0.751 - 0.45 l l l l I I I l l l l l l 1 I i l I I i i l I l 17 l 666 l-2.94114.241-3.181 5.361 - 1 -
! 7.221 - 0.45 l I I I I I I I
'. I I I l i I I I I I I I i l l 18 l 666 l-2.49113.931-3.291 2.471 -
1 l 4.571 - 0.50 1 I I I I I I I
.I I I I I
I I I I I I l l l 1 i 19 I 651 1-2.461-0.781-3.301-1.511 - 1 - l 1.061 - 0.51 I m I I I I I I I I I i i i l i i l 1 I I I i I l 1.101 - 0.56 I l 20 l 651 1-2.401'0.841-3.631-1.451 - 1 - I l I I I I I I I I I
- Allowable Reinforcing Steel Stress = 54 KSI
** Allowable Concrete Compressive Stress = -3.4 KSI Minimum Stress Margin = 73.6%
\
REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT I~J CONTAINMENT MARGINS l o RPV PEDESTAL ) FIGURE A-19
a-_ O CECAP OUTPUT. LOAD COMBINATION EQN. 4A - Absolute Sum STRESSES IN KSI DIAPHRAGM SLAB PRINCIPAL SECTION RADIUS EL. TOP FACE REBAR
- BOTTOM FACE REBAR* SHEAR CONC.
NUMBER FT. FT. RADIAL TANGENTIAL RADIAL TANGENTIAL TIES STRESS 21 8 702 5.47 5.44 9.96 9.57 5.63 - 0.17 22 17 702 1.21 3.33 14.79 20.83 2.76 - 0.84 23 17 702 3.07 4.77 12.42 16.86 4.38 - 0.51 24 26 702 2.45 6.87 25.15 28.50 1.42 - 0.51 0 25 34 702 12.43 10.04 21.36 23.12 3.81 - 0.16
- Allowable Reinforcing Steel Stress = 34 KSI
** Allowable Concrete Compressive Stress = -3.4 KSI Minimum Stress Margin = 47.2%
REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 ANO 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT CONTAINMENT MARGINS DIAPHRAGM SLAB FIGURF A-20
O CECAP OUTPUT .. LOAD COMBINATION EQN. 4A - Absolute Sum i STRESSES IN KSI BASE SLAB PRINCIPAL SECTION RADIUS EL. TOP FACE REBAR
- BOTTOM FACE REBAR'* SHEAR CONC.
NUMBER FT. FT. RADIAL TANGENTIAL RADIAL TANGENTIAL TIES STRESS S 26 8 644 11.51 0.78 14.23 13.93 44.77 - 1.36 1 27 17 644 - 7.82 - 8.99 16.73 18.51 0.39 - 3.66t 28 26 644 - 6.31 - 6.39 17.92 13.65 1.22 - 2.73 29 34 644 - 2.51 - 6.23 13.67 20.49 2.27 - 2.53 0 30 43 644 18.06 - 3.39 25.87 17.12 3.53 - 1.61
- Allowable Reinforcing Steel Stress = 54 KSI 1
** North - South Bars *** East - West Bars S Allowable Concrete Compressive Stress = -3.4 KSI t Maximum Concrete Strain = -0.00078 Minimum Stress Margin = 17.0%
i REV. 6, 4/82 i SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 ANO 2 s DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT CONTAINMENT ivlARGINS BASE SLAB FIGURE A-21 ) l
O ceciP OuTPoT LOAD COMBINATION EQN. 5 - Absolute Sum STRESSES IN KSI DRYWELL WALL INSIDE FACE OUTSIDE FACE I PRINCIPAL SECTION EL. REBAR* REBAR* SHEAR CONC. NUMBER FT. VERT. HOOP VERT. HOOP SPIRAL SPIRAL TIES STRESS 1 2 ** 1 787 3.39 -0.66 19.84 20.84 22.62 18.06 2.07 - 3. 0 4-2 787 3.39 -0.57 19.85 20.42 22.24 18.03 2.14 - 3.01 3 745 5.01 7.12 27.59 26.00 33.77 19.82 2.19 - 2.35 4 724 6.74 9.03 33.90 26.23 39.46 20.67 2.28 - 2.20 0 5 n0 9.58 4 15 20.30 19.02 26.57 12.7e 9.38 - 2.12 Allowable Reinforcing Stee1 Stress = 54 KSI
*
- Allowable Concrete Compressive Stress = -3.4 KSI Minimum Stress Margin = 26.9%
REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT CONTAINMENT MARGINS DRYWELL WALL PIGURE A-21.1
CECAP OUTPUT l' h V LOAD COMB'.dATION EQN. 5 - Absolute sum STRESSES IN KSI l' WETWELL WALL INSIDE FACE OUTSIDE FACE PRINCIPAL SECTION EL. REBAR* REBAR* 3 HEAR COMC. NUMBER FT. VERT. HOOP VERT. HOC P SPIRAL SPIRAL TIES 3 TRESS 1 2 ** 6 695 9.13 17.44 16.74 21.13 31.31 6.55 7.12 - 0.84 7 672 8.12 19.00 30.87 28.79 42.39 17.28 4.99 - 1.50 8 672 7.85 18.28 28.79 28.06 47.26 9.59 5.11 - 1.53 9 672 11.05 21.44 '24.21 28.06 39.59 12.69 8.94 - 1.17 10 660 6.31 15.45 34.44 25.26 42.39 17.32 2.28 - 1.63 11 650 12.08 3.58 13.77 11.82 23.17 2.41 16.28' - 1.42 l Allowable Reinforcing Steel Stress = 54 KSI
** Allowable Concrete Compressive Stress = -3.4 KSI Minimum Stress Margin = 12.5%
1 REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT O l CONTAINMENT ASSESSMENT WETWELL WALL FIGURE A-21.2 l l
CECAP OUTPUT LOAD COMBINATION EQN. 5 - Absolute Sum STRESSES IN KSI RPV PEDESTAL INSIDE FACE OUTSIDE FACE PRINCIPAL SECTION EL. REBAR* REBAR* SHEAR CONC. NUMBER FT. VERT. HOOP VERT. HOOP SPIRAL SPIRAL TIES STRESS 1 2 ** 14 725 -0.20 -2.70 2.43 10.24 - - 1.10 - 0.51 15 704 10.55 -0.24 8.61 -3.16 - - 14.34 - 0.50 Allowable Reinforcing Steel Stress = 54 KSI
** Allowable Concrete Compressive Stress = -3.4 KSI Minimum Stress Margin = 81.0i l
i REv. 6, 4/82 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNtTS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT CONTAINMENT MARG!NS j RPV PEDESTAL l FIGURE A-21.3 l t
l l l C~N
/ CECAP OUTPUT LOAD COMBINATION EQN. 5 - Absolute Sum
< STRESSES IN KSI ) RPV PEDESTAL 1 INSIDE FACE OUTSIDE FACE PRINCIPAL SECTION EL. REBAR* REBAR* SHEAR CONC. NUMBER FT. VERT. HOOP VERT. HOOP SPIRAL SPIRAL TIES STRESS 2 ** 1 16 695 1.28 10.22 0.80 9.72 - - 3.36 - 0.09 17 666 -0.36 15.90 -0.13 4.56 - - 3.29 - 0.23 18 666 -0.27 16.55 -0.29 4.41 - - 3.32 - 0.24 19 651 0.22 -1.60 0.08 -2.04 - - 1.31 - 0.29 O V 20 651 0.72 -1.68 0.23 -2.09 2.45 - 0.31
- Allowable Reinforcing Steel Stress = 54 KSI
** Allowable Concrete Compressive Stress = -3.4 KSI Minimum Stress Margin = 69.3%
i 4 REV. 6, 4/82 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT O CONTAINMENT MARGINS RPV PEDESTAL FIGURE A-21.4
d ..CECAP OUTPUT LOAD COMBINATION EQN. 5 - Absolute Sum STRESSES IN KSI DIAPHRAGM SLAB PRINCIPALI SECTION RADIUS EL. TOP FACE REBAR
- BOTTOM FACE REBAR* SHEAR CONC.
NUMBER FT. FT. RADIAL TANGENTIAL RADIAL TANGENTIAL TIES STRESS S 21 8 702 0.76 2.96 11.72 8.52 3.74 - 0.41
' 1 22 17 702 - 0.50 0'.63 17.48 20.61 2.23 ' - 1.33 i
23 17 702 - 0.27 0.98 16.41 19.25 2.04 - 1.15 24 26 702 0.85 1.60 24.52 26.77 1.77 - 1.15 25 34 702 2.05 1.15 26.94 21.41 1.48 - 0.99
- Allowable Reinforcing Steel Stress = 54 KSI S Allowable Concrete Comptassive Stress = -3.4 KSI Minimum Stress Margin = 50.1%
REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT e CONTAINMENT MARGINS DIAPHRAGM SLAB FIGURE A-21.5
_CECAP OUTPUT
~
LOAD COMBINATION EQN. 5 - Absolute Sum STRESSES IN KSI BASE SLAB i PRINCIPAL SECTION RADIUS EL. TOP FACE REBAR
- BOTTOM FACE REBAh* SHEAR CONC.
NUMBER FT. FT. RADIAL TANGENTIAL RADIAL TANGENTIAL TIES STRESS S 26 8 644 - 0.75 - 4.08 9.16 8.63 34.03 - 2.02 27 17 644 - 9.25 - 9.26 20.47 18.34 0.19 - 3.98t 28 26 644 - 5.75 - 5.76 20.59 17.94 1.32 - 2.65 29 34 644 - 0.64 - 4.66 12.97 20.58 3.35 - 2.21 30 43 644 12,47 - 2.53 22.24 16.08 1.21 - 1.42 Allowable Reinforcing Steel Stress = 54 KSI
** North - South Bars * *
- Eas t - Wes t Bars S Allowable Concrete Compressive Stress = -3.4 KSI t Maximum Concrete Strain = -0.00086 Minimum Stress Margin = 37%
l REV. 6, 4/82 I l SUM 3UEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT O 1 CONTAINMENT MARGINS BASE SLAB 1 FIGURE A-21.6 l
i h : CECAP OUTPUT. LOAD COMBINATION EQN. 5A - Absolute Sum t STRESSES IN KSI DRYWELL WALL INSIDE FACE OUTSIDE FACE PRINCIPAL SECTION EL. REBAR* REBAR* SHEAR CONC. NUMBER FT. VERT. HOOP VERT. HOOP SPIRAL SPIRAL TIES STRESS 1 2 ** 1 787 3.11 0.41 18.88 21,49 22.67 17.70 2.07 - 2.75 2 787 3.56 1.14 16.97 20.26 20.98 16.25 2.23 - 2.56 3 745 1.73 8.70 21.46 27.90 31.50 17.86 2.11 - 2.48 4 724 4.77 11.32 29.52 28.69 38.08 20.14 2.31 - 2.15 h 5 710 7.13 4.81 14.27 19.72 24.04 9.96 7.36 - 1.96 Allowable Reinforcing Steel Stress = 54 KSI
** Allowable Concrete Compressive Stress = -3.4 KSI
. Minimum Stress Margin = 29.4%
REV. 6, 4/82 SU'OUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 l DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT l I CONTAINMENT MARGINS l DRYWELL WALL FIGURE A-22
'M (d CECAP OUTPUT LOAD COMBINATION EQN. 5A - Absolute Sum STRESSES IN KSI WETWELL WALL INSIDE FACE OUTSIDE FACE PRINCIPAL SECTION EL. REBAR* REBAR* SHEAR CONC.
NUMBER FT. VERT. HOOP VERT. BOOP SPIRAL SPIRAL TIES STRESS 1 2 ** 6 695 2.54 22.66 12.44 28.iJ 31.50 9.20 3.0 - 1.45 7 672 0.31 26.65 21.82 36.85 41.67 16.99 3.49 - 2.08 8 672 0.23 23.70 19.30 32.98 43.50 8.79 2.64 - 1.98 9 672 0.10 23.86 19.16 33.18 39.05 13.29 2.36 - 1.97 10 660 -0.45 24.14 26.22 34.37 44.77 15.82 2.91 - 2.29 11 650 3.44 6.68 6.85 16.95 21.71 2.09 11.97 - 1.55 Allowable Reinforcing Steel Stress = 54 KSI
** Allowable Concrete Compressive Stress = -3.4 KSI Minimum Stress Margin = 17.0%
REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT b O CONTAINMENT MARGINS WETWELL WALL FlOURE A-23
i I fm V CECAP OUTPUT LOAD COMBINATION EQN. 5A - Absolute Sum STRESSES IN KSI RPV PEDESTAL INSIDE FACE OUTSIDE FACE PRINCIPAL SECTION EL. REBAR* REBAR* SHEAR CONC. NUMBER FT. VERT. HOOP VERT. HOOP SPIRAL SPIRAL TIES STRESS 1 2 ** 14 725 -1.61 -0.65 -0.65 5.31 - - 0.95 - 0.26 , 15 704 -0.93 -0.58 0.15 -2.64 - - 3.00 - 0.38
- Allowable Reinforcing Steel Stress = 54 KSI
** Allowable Concrete Compressive Stress = -3.4 KSI Minimum Stress Margins = 90.1%
)
REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2
~ DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT l 8
CONTAINMENT MARGINS RPV PEDESTAL FIGURE A-24
d i I CECAP OUTPUT LOAD COMBINATION EQN. 5A - Absolute Sum STRESSES IN KSI RPV PEDESTAL , l I I INSIDE FACE l OUTSIDE FACE I IPRINCIPALI lSECTIONl EL. I REBAR* I REBAR* l SHEAR I CONC. 1 INUMBER l FT. IVERT. IHOOP l VERT. IHOOP lSPIRALiSPIRALITIES l STRESS l l l l l l l l 1 1 2 i i ** l l 1 1 I I I I I I I I I ' l 16 1 695 l-1.42 1 2.74 l-2.49 1 2.85 l - l - l 0.65 1 - 0.34 l l 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i 17 1 666 l-2.24 114.84 l-2.17 1 5.96 l - I - l 6.57 l - 0.32 l l 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 18 I 666 l-2.00 113.60 1-2.52 l 2.43 1 - l - l 4.05 l - 0.39 l l l l l l l l l l l 1 I I I I I I I I I I I i 19 I 651 . -1.66 l-0.88 l-2.30 1-1.64 ;l - ;l - l 0.84 I - 0.38 I I I I I I I 1: I I I O I l 20 I I i i I 1 651 1-1.59 l-0.94 ;-2.66 l 1.58 l l i I i l 0.88 I - 0.44 l I I I I I I I I I I l Allowable Reinforcing Steel Stress = 54 KSI
** Allowable Concrete Compressive Stress = -3.4 KSI Minimum Stress Margin = 72.5%
i REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSstamasNT REPORT 1 O CONTAINMENT MARGINS RPV PEDESTAL FIGURE A-25
m (- (> .CECAP OUTPUT LOAD COMBINATION EQN. SA - Absolute Sum STRESSES IN KSI DIAPHRAGM SLAB FRINCIPAL SECTION RADIUS EL. TOP FACE RESAR
- BOTTOM FACE REBAR* SHEAR CONC.
NUMBER FT. FT. RADIAL TANGENTIAL RADIAL TANGENTIAL TIES STRESS 21 8 702 2.46 4.47 12.16 9.07 2.90 - 0.18 22 17 702 - 0.45 2.41' 18.27 20.77 2.04 - 1.21 23 17 702 0.10 2.65 17.62 20.57 1.93 - 1.08 24 26 702 - 0.51 6.89 33.51 27.12 1.30 - 1.33 s 25 34 702 2.29 2.65 32.04 25.41 1.41 - 1.06 Allowable Reinforcing Steel Stress = 54 KSI
** Allowable Concrete Compressive Stress = -3.4 KSI Minimum Stress Margin = 37.9%
1 REV. 6, 4/82 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT O l CONTAINMENT MARGINS DIAPHRAGM SLAB FIGURE A-26
l CECAP OUTPUT LOAD COMBINATION EQN. SA - Absolute Sum STRESSES IN KSI BASE SLAB PRINCIPAL SECTION RADIUS EL. TOP FACE REBAR
- BOTTOM FACE REBAR* SHEAR CONC.
NUMBER FT. FT. RADIAL TANGENTIAL RADIAL TANGENTIAL TIES STRESS S 26 8 644 - 6.31 - 8.00 19.12 18.62 33.80 - 3.08 27 17 644 - 8.34 - 8.29 17.43 18.34 0.21 - 3.70t 28 26 644 - 5.84 - 6.49 19.28 15.59 1.27 - 2.74 29 34 644 - 2.62 - 5.76 14.10 20.50 2.43 - 2.49 O 3o 43 e44 18 os - 3.0e 27.51 15.17 5.42 - 1.e1 Allowable Reinforcing Stee1 Stress = 54 KSI
** North - South Bars **
- Eas t - Wes t Bars S A11owable Concrete Compressive Stress = -3.4 KSI t Maximum Concrete Strain = -0.00078 Minimum Stress Margin = 37.4%
REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT HEPORT CONTAINMENT MARGINS BASE SLAB FIGURE A-27
O CECAP OUTPUT LOAD COMBINATION EQN. 7A - Absolute Sum STRESSES IN KSI DRYWELL WALL INSIDE FACE OUTSIDE FACE PRINCIPAL SECTION EL. REB AR* REBAR* SHEAR CONC. NUMBER FT. VERT. HOOP VERT. HOOP SPIRAL SPIRAL TIES STRESS 1 2 ** 1 787 4.19 1.66 16.13 16.86 18.63 14.35 2.00 - 2.34 2 787 3.86 1.46 17.29 17.05 19.50 14.83 1.98 - 2.40 3 745 3.56 6.70 2G.4 28.54 35.71 19.23 2.19 - 2.43 4 724 5.08 9.55 30.20 27.72 40.58 17.33 2.28 - 2.19 O 5 710 6.86 4.73 16.45 19.09 26.94 8.60 7.74 - 1.99 l
- Allowable Reinfetcing Steel Stress = 54 KSI
** Allowable ConcD te Compressive Stress = -3.4 KSI Minimum Stress P4rgin = 24.8%
REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 l DESIGN ASSESSMEMT REPORT 'O ! CONTAINMENT MARGINS i DRYWELL WALL FIGURE A-28
i CECAP OUTPUT LOAD COMBINATION EQN. 7A - Absolute Sum STRESSES IN KSI WETWELL WALL INSIDE FACE OUTSIDE FACE PRINCIPAL SECTION EL. REBAR* REBAR* SHEAR CONC. NUMBER FT. VERT. HOOP VERT. HOOP SPIRAL SPIRAL TIES STRESS 1 2 ** 6 695 4.79 15.13 16.45 22.43 34.95 3.93 4.09 - 1.26 7 672 3.62 18.05 25.25 29.38 42.84 11.79 3.51 - 2.88 8 672 3.04 15.65 22.60 27.01 43.18 6.44 2.25 - 1.76 9 672 3.09 14.81 23.38 26.21 39.03 10.55 2.14 - 1.78 10 660 2.39 14.88 32.18 27.20 47.24 12.3.4 2.59 - 2.18 11 650 6.33 2.14 11.48 13.65 23.33 1.79 14.03 - 2.42 2 Allowable Reinforcing Steel Stress = 54 KSI
** Allowable Concrete Compressive Stress = -3.4 KSI Minimum Stress Margin = 12.5%
i REV. 6, 4/82 l SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION l UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT lO CONTAINMENT MARGINS WETWELL WALL 1 l PNBURE A-29
O CECAP OUTPUT LOAD COMBINATION EQN. 7A - Absolute Sum ) l STRESSES IN KSI l RPV PEDESTAL INSIDE FACE OUTSIDE FACE PRINCIPAL SECTION EL. REBAR* REBAR* SHEAR CONC. NUMBER FT. VERT. HOOP VERT. HOOP SPIRAL SPIRAL TIES STRESS 1 2 ** 14 725 -1.37 -0.28 -0.20 5.63 - - 1.44 - 0.24 15 704 -0.81 -0.83 0.32 -2.84 - - 0.88 - 0.41
- Allowable Reinforcing Steel Stress = 54 KSI
** Allowable Concrete Compressive Stress = -3.4 KSI Minimum Stress Margin = 89.5%
REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA ATEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 i DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT CONTAINMENT MARGINS RPV PEDESTAL FIGURE A-30
I m b CECAP OUTPUT LOAD COMBINATION EQN. 7A - Absolute Sum STRESSES IN KSI RPV PEDESTAL i INSIDE FACE OUTSIDE FACE PRINCIPAL SECTION EL. REBAR* REBAR* SHEAR CONC. NUMBER FT. VERT. HOOP VERT. HOOP ' SPIRAL SPIRAL TIES SPRESS 1 2 ** s 16 695 -0.86 2.69 -1.87 2.80 - 0.57
- 0.61 17 666 -1.94 14.77 -1.92 5.72 - -
6.76 - 0.72 18 666 -1.69 13.79 -2.21 2.32 - 4.10
- 0.35 19 651 -1.13 -0.95 -2.16 -1.65 -
0.76
- 0.38 20 651 '1.29
-0.96 -2.26 -1.63 - -
0.79 - 0.39 Allowable Reinforcing Steel Stress = 54 KSI Allowable Concrete Compressive Stress = -3.4 KST Minimum Stress Margin = 72.6% REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT e ! CONTAINMENT MARGINS RPV PEDESTAL i FIGURE A-31 l
l CECAP OUTPUT LOAD COMBINATION EQN. 7A - Absolute Sum STRESSES IN KSI DIAPHRAGM SLAB PRINCIPAL SECTION RADIUS EL. TOP FACE REBAR
- BOTTOM FACE REBAR* SHEAR CONC.
NUMBER FT. FT. RADIAL TANGENTIAL RADIAL TANGENTIAL TIES STRESS 21 8 702 1.53 4.18 13.80 9.17 2.76 - 0.33 22 17 702 - 0.44 2'.32' 17.43 19.58 1.88 - 1.16 23 17 702 - 0.39 2.29 17.33 18.81 2.06 - 1.14 24 26 702 0.76 2.85 29.96 30.60 1.40 - 1.30 0 25 34 702 2.37 2.06 31.58 23.84 1.39 - 1.06
- Allowable Reinforcing Steel Stress'= 54 KSI
*
- Allowable Concrete Compressive Stress = -3.4 KSI Minimum Stress Margin = 41.5%
REV. 6, 4/82 l SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT j CONTAINMENT MARGINS DI APHR AGM SLAB l FIGURE A-32
O .CECAP OUTPUT LOAD COMBINATION EQN. 7A - Absolute Sum STRESSES IN KSI BASE SLAB PRINCIPAL SECTION RADIUS EL. TOP FACE REBAR
- BOTTOM FACE REBAR* SHEAR CONC.
NUMBER FT. FT. RADIAL TANGENTIAL RADIAL TANGENTIAL TIES STRESS S 26 8 644 -11.44 - 5.28 13.61 13.09 42.25 - 1.44 27 17 644 -10.40 - 9.56 22.34 16.88 0.27 - 4.28t 28 26 644 - 6.58 - 6.49 19.07 15.64 1.30 - 2.84 29 34 644 - 2.52 - 6.24 13.83 20.05 2.45 - 2.54 O 30 43 644 17".96 - 3.37 27.41 14.91 5.23 - 2.43 Allowable Reinforcing Steel Stress = 54 KSI
** North - South Bars
*** East - West Bars S Allowable Concrete Compressive Stress = -3.4 KSI -
t Maximum Concrete Strain = -0.00092 Minimum Stress Margin = 19.9% y REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT CONTAINMENT MARGINS BASE SLAB FHBURE A-33
- . . - . - , +, . - , - . . - - . . - - - .
l 1 O MAXIMUM l ALLOWABLE GOVERNING STRESS ITEM STRESS STRESS EQUATION MARGIN Membrane 14.0 Ksi 19.3 Ksi 3 27.3 Surface 31.8 Kai 57.9 Ksi 3 45.1 Bolts 33.0 Ksi 41.3 Kai
- 7.8 Leak 1.9 Kips /in 2.2 Kips /in 6 10.8 Tightness O
- For 200 Kips Bolt Pre-load to Assure Leak Tightness REV. 6, 4/82 I SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT STRESSMARGINFORllEFUELING HEADANDSUPPORTSKIRT FIGURE A-33.1
- O i
i CECAP OUTPUT SRSS METHOD .l i Figures A-34 thru A-57 Deleted
~
O x 4 P 9 h ( l s G *
\
I s I l s *%
-O f
l O i l I I I I I I I I I I l 1 I I I I I I I j l i I I l O I 1 I I I I I I MODE 1 MODE 2 MODE 3 f=24 HZ fHl2 HZ f=112 HZ REV. 6, 4/82 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION 1 UNITS 1 AND 2 l DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT SUPPRESSION CHAMBER COLUMNS MODE SHAPES FIGURE A48
O O O SUPPRESSION CHAMBER COLUMNS l l l lMAxIMUn l ALLOWABLE l l l l l MAXIMUM ! ALLOWABLE l FLEXURAL l FLEXURAL l COMBINED l l l l AXIAL STRESS l AXIAL STRESS l STRESS lSTh6SS l STRESS l STRESS l l COLUMN l (KSI) l (KSI) l(KSI) l(KSI) l RATIO l MARGIN % l l l l l l l l l l42"dia pipe (shell element)l 8.56 l 31.49 l 20.99 l 34.2 l 0.886 l 11.4 l l Top Anchorage l 20.96 l 30.0 l l l 0.698 l 30.2 l l Bottom Anchorage l l - l - l - l - l 41.0 l l ,. m O C h E % 8 5 Nh h Note: These stress margins are based on load combination 7 O E 5 of Table 5-2 which is the critical load combination. 8 550
? a fan h hh
- e Esk as;
?
i 9 :n aQ g ' o 8 55 4 4 S $ G 2 _ _ _ _ = - _ - - _ _ _ _ -
l O DOWNCOMER BRACING SYSTEM - STRESS
SUMMARY
BRACING MEMBER DESIGN MARGINS FOR CRITICAL MEMBERS AND GOVERNING LOAD COMBINATIONS l l EQN. 1 l EQN. 3 l EQN. 4 l EQN. 7 l l MEMBER
- l % l % l % l % l l l l l l 1 l 5 l 68 l 73 l 76 l 4 l l l l l l l l 6 l 72 l 80 l 82 l 12 l l l l l l l l 7 l 63 l 75 l 77 l 12 l l l l 1 I l l 18 l 69 l 78 l 79 l 14 l Ref. DAR Table 5-2 for Load Combinations.
- For member number see Fig. 7-11 REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRN: STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT DOWNCOMER BRACING SYSTEM STRESS
SUMMARY
FIGURE A-60
O DOWNCOMER RING STRESSES AND MARGINS CONNECTION l MAXIMUM STRESS (KSI) STRESS MARGIN (%) _ COMPONENT EO. 2 EQ. 7 EQ. 2 EO. 7 Main Ring Plate 14.1 31.5 34 2.8 (21.4) (32.4) Connector Plate 6.1 10.5 71.4 67.6 (21.4) (32.4) Top Partial Plate 11.2 16.7 47.6 48.5 (21.4) (32.4) Top Ring Plate 2.8 5.0 87.1 84.5 (21.4) (32.4) O Seite 13.1 (22.5) 15.4 41.8 54.4 (33.8) NOTE: 1. Numbers in Parenthesis Represent the Maximum Allowable Stress Limit.
- 2. Ioad Cohbination Equations are From Table 3-2.
l l REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT DOWNCOMER RING STRESSES AND MARGINS FIGURE A-61
a _- a a . --r-O DOWN COMER MODE SHAPES FIGURES A-62 THROUGH A-65 DELETED D - l l O , i
~
o o O DOWNCOMER - STRESS
SUMMARY
AND DESIGN MARGINS I l l l ABSOLUTE l l SRSS I l l l l ALLOWABLE l sum l l sum l l l LOAD l l STRESS l STRESS l DESIGN MARGIN l STRESS l DESIGN MARGIN l l COMBINATION l CONDITION l (KSI) l (KSI) l ABS. sum (%) l (KSI) l SRSS (%) l 1 l l 1 - 1 l l l l Equation 1 l Upset l 30.0 l 14.6 51 14.6 l l l 51 l l Equation 2 l Eme rgency l 45.0 l 27.0 40 19.2 l l l 57 l l Equation 3 l Emergency l 45.0 l 38.9 l 14 22,5 l l 50 l l Equation 4 l Faulted l 60.0 l 30.6 49 21.9 l l l 64 l l Equation 5 l Faulted l 60.0 l 39.5 l 34 22.5 l l 63 l l Equation 6 l Faulted l 60.0 l 44.3 26 25.8 l l l 57 l l Equation 7 l Faulted l 60.0 l 32.1 l 46 22.4 l l 63 l NOTE: Load combinations from DAR Table 5-3 and Stresses checked per ASME Code NB 3652. 2 E E 8 A o E
> E E a aa ei N$
8 8 lie $ g m R gu~E,9 g , c & en > m . Q k
$ 5:
4 ' y - 5 2
O O O SRV SUPPORT ASSEMBLIES (MAXIMUM STRESSES AND STRESS MARGINS FOR TYPICAL ASSEMBLIES) l l l l MAXIMUM l ALLOWABLE l l l l l MAXIMUM l ALLOWABLE lPLEXURALlPLEXURAL l COMBINED l l l l AXIAL STRESS l AXIAL STRESS l STRESS l STRESS l STRESS l STRESS l l Bracing Member l (KSI) l (KSI) l (KSI) l (KSI) l RATIO l MARGIN 4 l l Type A Horizontal Member l 5.65 l 28.65 l 10.78 l 31.5 l 0.530 l 47.0 l l Type A Knee Member l 6.53 l 27.66 l 11.92 l 31.5 l 0.614 l 38.6 l l Type B Horizontal Member l 6.34 l 27.66 l 14.89 l 31.5 l 0.702 l 29.8 l l Type B Knee Member l 7.32 l 26.52 l 15.98 l 31.5 l 0.783 l 21.7 l l Type C Horizontal Member l 4.14 i 25.65 l 12.91 l 31.5 l 0.571 l 42.9 l l Type C Knee Member l 4.78 l 23.87 l 13.49 l 31.5 l 0.629 l 37.1 _l
~
n .
*I$
C 5 0 Note: The stress margins are based on load combination 7 of Table 5-2, g E E which is the critical load combination.
* < 5 E N $ fc if0 *$ EIU 5 s-E ar g
ap
%5 R
r- E ;l 5 Fi 3 5 5 *l 1 d 0
O APPENDIX B CONTAINMENT MODE SHAPES AND RESPONSE SPECTRA l IAjk) OF CONTENTS 3 B.1 Containment Mode S'hapes B.2 Containment Response .ipectra B.3 Figures O I i 4
- O Rev. 3, 7/80 B-1 i-i
. . . . . _. _. ~ , _ _ _ , , _ . . . . _ . , . _ , _ . _ . _ . . _ , _,
APPENDII B EIGHEgS Enher I1119 $ B-1 Model for Containment Response Spectra B-2 Containment Modes and Frequencies B-3 Containment Mode Shapes - Modes 1 through 15 thru B-17 C931R1E32Ei_HRDR9Bge Spectgg B-18 K WU-SR V- 97 6 Arisy. Direction Y 3 B-19 KUU-SR V-876 Arisy. Direction Z thru B-21 B-22 KWU-SR V-876 Asymm. Direction I thru B-24 B-25 KWU-SRV- #76 As yma. Direction Y D-26 K WU-SR V- 476 Asyma. Direction Z B-27 KWU-Chuqqing-#303 Asisya Direction Y B-28 KWU-Chuqqing-8303 Axisya Direction Z > thru B-30 B-31 KWU-Chuqqing-8303 Axisyn. Direction X thru B-33 B-34 KWU-Chuqqing-#303 Asyn. Direction Z 6 B-35 KVD-Chuqqing-8 306 Axisyn. Direction Y B-36 KWU-Chuqqing-4 306 Arisyn. Direction Z thru B-38 B-39 KWU-Chuqqing-# 306 Axisyn. Direction X B-40 KWU-Chuqqing-8306 Asyn. Direction X thru B-41 B-42 KWU-Chuqqing-8306 Asyn. Direction 2 O REV. 6, 4/82 B- 2
APPENDII B flggjjj (Cont.) O nau nu. B-43 KUU-Condensation Oscillation-8314 Direction Y B-44 KUU-Condensation Oscillation-#314 Direction Z thru B-46 B-47 KWU-Condensation Oscillation-8314 Direction I thru B-49 B-50 KWU-Condensation Oscillation-9 314 Direction Z B-51 Seismic Sloshing-Direction I thru B-54 . B-55 Seismic sloshing-Direction Z thru B-58
.O i
O REV. 6, 4/82 B-3
B.1 gg!TAlggg3T_HOpj_gglEgg The containment mods; ts shown as Figure B-1. While, Figure B-2 shows containment frequencies from the model analysis with water mass included as discussed in Subsection 7.1.1.1.1.3. Containment mode shapes are shown in Piqures B-3 through B-17, covering mode shapes 1 through 15. lh 3 B.2 gggialgnggI_gggrougg_Ep3gIBA This appendir shows examples of the horizontal and vertical response spectra curves of the containment structure due to LOCA and SRV loading. Four spectral damping values, i.e., 0.005, 0.01, 0.02, and 0.05 are shown on each group of curves. The structural model of the containment is shown on Piqure B-1. The modal frequencies and mode shapes are shown on Piqures B-2 to B-17. The response spectrum curves shown on B-18 to B-58 are submitted as representative examples of 6 the containment structure response spectra caused by SRV actuation, Co, chuqqing and seismic slosh. The SRV load (generated by KWU) consists of 3 traces and each trace consists of 5 f requencies. The asymmetric and axysymmetric load cases are considered (see Subsection 6] 7.1.1.1.1. 5.1) . The LOCA load case consists of chuqqing and condensation oscillation loads, each of which contain 3 frequencies. 3 Asymmetric and axisymmetric load cases are considered for chuqqing, and only arisymmetric load case is considered for condensation oscillation (See section 7.1.1.1.1. 5. 2) . llg The seismic slosh response spectra were generated for the 6 load methodology described in Subsection 4.2.4.7. r REV. 6, 4/82 B-4
O
\
1 PERIOD-1
,c o to c.: 0 01 l iiiii i e i . eii . . . ie i 6 .i. i 6 . i E ' '
ll I
.l i i l i i 5 . .
I l l l 3
!l
- i l i
! j ! 6 l 6 !
l !I
! ; .8 i i. l ii l 1
. . l,.,!, !/11 i :
a4 .
. . , , .. , 6 ,
g 2 i : : i !. i :
, l l i
,ll l
l, ..! M !! !!i a n s .,',. i; :
'. nl lu 8 ,
p- ; , i . i l i .
; 4 a . i; a . .
...i ;
y : ; i : i ;!i ! l iiii , ,,ll\ l i j y ', , : .
!i. . ! -
i I. li ih l ja e, . i i ii . ; w. li j O .. l ,. , .14) i i l . .
.i,l,iiil l i!l i !/o i;;;!4 ie
. i ., s.
,I- I N q: .
; I i
; ; :i a
. j
, i!'i ..
/ ii..iI .
iI
. I i!l t -
l l! r' I l ,1-t i 4 l lll
- ., , . . . . . . . . , mo . . . ..
FREQUENCY CPS Asassessies ausses ter CONTADeENT m tt wm * - - __ RWU 303 SYMM. ame 135 _m v
.h 8" ' a
- Semesis SAB5,R81,85,em REV. 6, 4/82 SUSQUEMANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT D- CONTAINMENT RESPONSE SPECTRA KWU-CHUGGING-#303 AXISYM. DIRECTION 'Y' Ft0URE B-27 _.
O PERIOD , 10 0 to 01 act ti 6 6 6 6 i i . i6 , a i , i i 3 33 , , , , , , , , 1.50 - l l l 1
' . 2%
I l l l .i i l :
.i .
I I i , I I as "i.e: lit t i I I i !- ) i i n l. , I ; I i l i :r is I h.
!! . l' r ll1 I i i h ,
l
. I.
! :I '
U
-:. i.,
e l l l . f:
. l ,k l' O i L:
!E I
I
!' l-i ,'
l ! 3 lli:' ls
, i! l, i
\!
e i
/}
ii
# . , l ,
W
- e. se e ,e e l !; . '*.!'
f.
\(s
[h ! i A j 1 l I O i ; ^ ! {i - *1 k j ii
$ i
, * . , ,'/r -
ii :- j;i i i It i i ! ! , K. , .\ m e i m
- .4 - ,
[' i
!i
/
D l l' !!
?
- i * . : , l i . t
; l ! l l1 i 8
i ! i l ; i i ! lleII i l l1 l l
- i j I 1
" 01 2 4 6 1 1.0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 0 8 goo FREQUENCY. CPS Aassenssins $pages tu, PEDESTAL
~
W Cast Rwu 303 SYles. hade 215 m s , gi,, M2 '-3
- M 85.821.85.85 REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT CONTAINMENT RESPONSE SPECTRA
~~
KWU-CHUGGING-4303 AXISYM. DIRECTION 'Z' FIGURE B~20
l r l l d - i i PERIOC l . to o a.o c.: o og l l.10 l ! l i l ll
! i i t'! l , , I
!;i!i i l
! il
' ;A l l
- l. iI
,,.e. l li i .'
1 I t t
- i li !. .
lI i,l.t
, i
,i 1 ->
l
.I.' l I l lll
- z. i e i.
l,!-j' . i j !
'1 Q
- l* i -
nA i - . l '. I
!. l l );
w
. , .'.l f' 3.... .
g., g . li , I . I ii , . . g. , i o : i , . . ii - . 12 + jl;t, : ;. i ! ij ll :\c. - I i. .i; :
=y 1 .
.i:
i ; ; e e ; ,ti e i
. I . l > i . ., lel d. i l .
.t !
l j !i .i. ;. . . i-gi.l
. ,. ;.a s i i l, !lii1:
8, .. g.... . ,,
! ! : .i ill: U i
. f
.: .: ) i
', j '
e i i. 1 g il : ;i . .
! (
.,.. l .
! . A \' . i 'I
, . s
- e lI',i' s i I
l Ill .. I ll l i,i. ! . ;i g,.. t I i i l,. i. il i o3 4 4 4 8 IO 2 4 4 8 to o 2 4 6 a gon FREQUENCY. CPS Asutswisespesosen C03rfAIMMElfr suzz.I. La'ad Cass E ^ RWU 303 sYMM. asse 415 shmans, s ,b77e' - p-3/4= esupisy SAes, sat,e m ,as REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT O CONTAINMENT RESPONSE SPECTRA KWU-CHUGGGING-4303 AXISYM. DIRECTION 'Z' FIGURE I"20
n U
- l PERIO:
0 01 1.0 03 i 10 0 t - s. i6 i .
* ' I l .' s
! l ii -
~
. ii .!
l !
.' .'. l; ', '.
l l ll I . . i, l
.I *I '
2..
- t i 1
?
l' t .
. l, i
' l '.
i I
- 9. ., . i e
t q/)
. ', i s
fA e- a 5 ' ' , ( 31- .. * \ ,s l l u !:p i - W ' i j
\\
f .:
- t - -
i
\\
8 l ' b ' h// 6
'O a :i l
. P s
i I
.. 4 6 6 4 G y 10 0 2 ,
4 6 gi gg 2 2 e3 FREQUE NCY. CPS Anslustus tusses go, PEDESTAZ. KVU 303 syMM. Land Car i ^ Reds 535 Shuuss, s ,g 729' 3/4* OMIph5 85.8A1.85.SS REV. 6, 4/82 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT O CONTAINMENT RESPONSE SPECTRA V KWU-CHUGGING-#303 AXISYM. DIRECTION 'Z' PIOURE B-30
C\ V PERIOt 1o o. t o o, to.o . e i i e ii ..i i i i si, i. . .
.siii '
I t t Ilji i : ;. l 1 I j .
, , i ; e i,
I ' i l l l 5 . ,i. . , .
.i .i g .
i j I :A . l l l :. ! .. 9 ' i i ,l!! i . i i: l ' sI l4 flr. 6
- l
- i. l ..Il' ?.
. , j.tli !il ,i i
i . i . ! e
- 5. l . i ,.i. !
l 1 i , a i r, l. . ; n. . ii. i . ! ,. i* 3= W
. . i . . . ,
- : i e. ,o
. 4 y .
i i i i n. ;
. t.
j l
,J 'I q .
. e I
g g b f 'l " . { .
', 'f' ], g ni
;' i S :
! i O : ! i j !. !-[ !i,j;i $:y'QA
. > i s
. ..,,I g
. , 9 I
. .. .I : ,
i l o, , . . . . . . . . . . , , , FREQUEf4CY CPS 3,,,g,,,,, g g , CCHTADOtENT SEF.LL Land Cas: " Rwo 303 syMM. made 131 h *
.h 6'r 2 '-o
- amm m :Esm , ass,s m ,e m REV. 6, 4/82 SUSQUEMANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DE81GN ASSESSMENT REPORT CONTAINMENT RESPONSE SPECTRA xwo-cauco'"o-'3o3 O .
AXISYM. DIRECTION 'X' FlouRE B-31
{^\ PERIOD 10 0 to ot c et i6 6 i 6 i e i 6 a.e i 6 . 4 i .6 . I l.50 , 3 , lI i I i l.-
- i l
, !.Ii i i ll i l i i j i;': 1 I
i
! ll i
i , i i' li i i l l I [ l l l l e ! l l l lj 1 0 l I l l , g ' lI tl 6
lI i
- l l ? !
. s '
; . e8 -
; t lt I !, '
! s l * '
I'
,, ! ,t i ,
l '
, g
;, I l'
. ?!
[ . t W ,,g. ,
, I i . I i - I - '
l I . Ii i ' 1; I
! i [
!l'l
! li I I 1l't !'
' .I a
l i I ' m
- i i,
i
+1 -
- i i t il :.
l 4 4 f ' 1 j ll '
. i t , , g!, I-
- t ' '
. I. ,
p.:e i l' 'il!i f,e '
; [} -
, t ..
[ } i e' ' I
, i, \ .
, [. e' ' 6 ,i . t i
* } ,
i 2 4 01 6 8 IO 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 Sg FREQUENCY CPS i m > g, contaTwwwwr u n e W Cas: " i KWU 303 A!M N. Beds. 411 m I , glgy77 E ' = 9-1/( 8 Sumping-9 5 .B21.8 5.8 5 REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT CONTAINMENT RESPONSE SPECTRA q KWU-CHUGGING-#303 Cf ASYM. DIRECTION 'X' FIGURE B-32
O . PERIOC to o n.o on o ot si 6 . . i.. . i . . i 1.'40 ' l l 1 l i t l
- l8 l 'l l
i 4
, l l
i i ii l l t I - l ! l i
! :! ; l '
i :I n.n '
; i I i ?. ; . i ; i .
!i
. j I
i lli'
=
t I t , l - ' '
- !. 1 i l8 li l; i
[
! i l. '
t 1 .
\- I y ; ..
~
i .
} . I
,g , g; i ! a , -
M i i e
!I j . 8
. l l
- i -
.t l f .l
! t j ;
a ff a l
! ! i i '. !' e
!l*' l l
l t ; a- . i 8 , w , >
,' ' l
- g. ;g
8
< l 1 .
f)
. i . . .
i, j Y . l < E 1 ,,, ll I l i
.7 i
I i l l r- a. i
' : p1, N 4
p l . V j ! ; - l t
- 4L - - - - -
i l .
> - I
,/ q.
, l -
L I
- I c3 4 4 S *C 2 4 6 8 te o 2 e s 4 goo FREQUENCY-CPS m m g, e. . ,nm w w "_ ^ _ IWU 303 MnM4.
m 531 m z .h 729' 3/4" Samous talt.OA1,8At,85 REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT CONTAINMENT RESPONSE SPEC' ARA KWU-CHUGGING-4303 p)-
% ASYM. DIRECTION 'X' PIOURE B-33 i-
O PERIOD to o n.o o. : o on It i e 6 4 4 4 . . 6 i e i.> . . l 3.0 ' ; ' ' i i l i I I I *I ! i i i , . i i I l ii t lgllIe l i 8 li i i 8 g
. lI, , i !.. I
!. i !
,;I ! . l 3 '
iI ' ;
,., I l
,I ; .
* ;! i . i
~
! l
;i.I ! .
* ' I ' .
i f , I i ll . l 2 3 8 Q .
!l i . ,j
? '! ' l l q i i . i e . I i d, e h al l l t I, t i
0-y i . : j
,3 3\, - % i i . . .
N ! , t 4 i c I, !li' ' g- .\; I r i.:
'8 I
' ' ,3 f' 3
j[/,'i
! l' '
~
l O .
; ! ii i l!["'b
; j j..u me y
~
Qg a 6 8 3p 2 4 O ,p 6 0 go.o 2 4 6 8 ,,-a FREQUENCY-CPS h Sposess k DIAPNRAG4 SIAE w g - _- RWU 303 ASDet. g ,e, me y,,,s , e ,gn 7e2'-3* W SJIt,831,82,85 REV. 6, 4/82 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNIT 11 AND 2 1 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT 1 1 CONTAINMENT RESPOESE SPECTRA x KWU-CHUGGING-#303 ASYM. DIRECTION 'Z' FIGURE B-34 l
l l PERIOr 10.0 n.o 0.1 o on saii e i i e a sai .. .i i ... i e i i i i i en
!' ! l } l' l l I
! I I i t i Y. g
". ! 'l' ll ! i ll l 5 l 1 E i l
; lI g -
!i .
l . l m i o
! ! I'!
il l I i l l e lll-e i i.
.}t ,
l l 'i l a S , I! i ! l- l ) ! !
! ! il a :
' i !
I i i! l
' .' i e- l l?.ll l I
f.
'A\l $ f i l t 8
r
,- . I!l , ! l l i T1 * ! !l l l l f Ik l f\ /'
i
' f' O , i l l , l-. ! j ,
i N I
/!
g
! I ' '! -
1 ,C, l I i ' :i '
,1ii' l/ \/ : ti
! I' ;l I l i' '/ '!l l
' ,il i
!I
. I 2
! . ! I l , ll 0g 4 6 a 10 2 4 6 8 80 0 2 4 6 3 joo FREQUENCY 4PS Amagesnes sessee ts, CCirfAT19G3rT ment gang g i 108U 306 SM.
gest, 135 m , .h E'S' a* Sumpil5 SM.881.85.SS , REV. 6, 4/82 SOSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT p CONTAINMENT RESPONSE SPECTRA (j KWU-CHUGGING-#306 AXISYM. DIRECTION 'Y' FIGURE B-3 5 1
O PF"'OD.**C. 10 0. 0. i . 10 0 i
- 6 6 *
- i l ei a 6 6
- i . a g4 6 6 i a 4 6 6 6 I.10 ,
l 1 I I
- = , '. ,
iu, I !!!! l : ill l.
! l i
' 'l i I , ! ,;
ii, li. I I . 'l i as j , t l I j i l i: l l'!! i i!'l
- i ! !
l .. . l 8 l '1 a k *
' i}
l . ! l
! j 3, h, I .
l l i I!'i ! i ei w-. . . g! U 3 t t 'I l i l' -.l . .l l
'll l '
M ! i
! l ,li!' i i , 1 (l ' '
I \1
;i ! t ; [11 j
i i
!. .. ! ! Il!!!!! $' :!n(\/'k i !
r~ . j i ; . l! i l: t ill jyj 'It F%)
! f !
mg /
, I / .
~
i ii:..i . : ;,i i. i i !j ; j !!L/ M'l ! i j jit '
.l i. j I ! 1 .
- i ...
l 'll I , ! :' ! :! ,
' I',!ll , ! !
gg 2 4 6 4 10 2 4 6 6 00 2 4 6 8 goo FREQUENCY-CPS m g g, FEDESTAL Whhh mc 306 snet. m 215 m s ob 702'-3* W 8818.441,84t 85 REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT CONTAINMENT RESPONSE SPECTRA O KWU-CHUGGING-4306 AXISYM. DIRECTION 'Z' FleuRE B-36
n v . . PERIOD n.o a.: o og to.o
- I i i.I e . i 6 64 4 i i . . 4 s
14 4 6 8 4 6 i.so
! l l l i l
l l l .l l l 'l ' j l ! i ; l ' l l I i!
!l ! i !( i !!.
i.. ' ~ j i , i i j,i! I W Q , l
-I i
j li j i i
! ' 't l
i I I e 5 ,. e
' i i i ii I l' l
?
' li t l s
' ,l
+
t w.. ' W
! i;!i!
i e I. l I i, 'ii i. i i i li j ll.l i... ill 8 g . . I i i i ,
' ,) ,if^ i
- j!
g - i 6 1 l
,[ f \l G I I i I. I !' l l I !.!' l.r .! , l.
g - -. ! ,I -' I, 19. i l J i l i . j i l ill in u l ' il'isi l,* I
' I ;? y . s i '
l
% i l
- i .: i 1 5 .q / :1 I l !..l'IIi i l l
e I!Ii ,, /l s. .\, i [ ! l l!! I. t-i i l l I!! /
,/! !
l l' $. l-i l 'I ij * ; l..il1 # l l.
!l j l ii , t . . . ;
. . i ! '!l .;l -
; !!11 a 4 2 4 6 a 3eo
" " o. : 2 4 e s to a e io n FREQUENCY CPS coNTAINMENF SEELL m%w Land Camr. W M 306 m .
i u 415 m s ,Bs,77e' 3/4*
= i=.w.m.
- REV. 6, 4/82 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION s
UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT c CONTAINMENT RESPONSE SPECTRA i s / KWU-CHUGGING-4306 AXISYM. DIRECTION 'Z' FIGURE B-37
PERIOD
.00 30 0t 0 03 Il se i e . 6 4 8 6 4 . . 4 i i 6. .ie e . . I 1.50 l l I l : i:' lil IIii- l!!I;st I I' i ,.
i
! I iI i'liiii!.il!
i i l I I
'l ..
i I iig3 i i . I i I ! i i i 1 '. I i i i ! I! tij i '
!I i 6
E 1 I
!l
!i :! illli: .
ll !!!:!f!1; i
- I!,::i I!!!I
- 5. . : . t ,l l t i A i *i* i W
i l i ..l
' Ill, l
ll!j I; fg i I ;. a . , t , I . ( . i i i ll # a l ! ! ' I! i
! l!!
' [j { l
(!! !
- .2: - - -
f ; i k' l l lj ! 1,'/ "! i i ; , . i
! l l ! I ll. -
i ! t' ! l i.:i
! l 4
1 l' i 6 i i ! 1lli l l !i! .I Og 2 8 o 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 4 goo FREQUENCY <PS Assetsuise W Ier NN LassCam: M^ *WU 306 Snet. gag, 535 01sumies 8 729' 3/4"
.h ,
1 Bamen t 8315.a st,3 3 a s REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STE AM ELECTRIC STATION UNIYt 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT CONTAINMENT RESPONSE SPECTRA KWU-CHUGGING-#306 AXISYM. DIRECTION "Z' FleURE B-38
)
l 1 1 l l l O FERIC
' c to O. I ,01 10 0 , , , , , , . . .
lll l I l l, I i, i
. i l ll !
. - j- i i j ii l
'- i i i i !
j i ' li .i
; I, !. r 1
l l I. l. .. i l Ii !, ! d. l.lll t.. l
, ' i u i t l
a i i i i ii i!, ;
- ii i l ;;: . i I
ti e I i i l!!, I .
. ,. ,,ir, , l1 t !!
e w 6 8 e ., .l
'Yl ll j
! i u !.' ! ' i 't! I -
i ; .. k i i I !l 1 'i.ii
- '! i ( li )
a ; **'! l !; 5 ..l1 ; L if h kl
!i ;
- h. '
i !II!
! i , = >8 , 1 i t' ol '
[s !
. i!*j i,
' ~
' I l ; g .
l .- i
// \
i.
], ,
j - I,
, 8
- l. ' ,!
!!l
;i :
i l 1 i i. . j I I I . i 4 6 2 4 6 8 goo 2 4 4 8 10 2 8 10.0
- 01 FREQUENCY CPS canTAnoenre surLI.
m%w ^ ^- 1010 306 SDM. ~ ~ W Cas-nee, 131 m,,,g,. z . h si2'-o* Sumens 8J85.tal.W.W REV. 6, 4/82 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT CONTAINMENT RESPONSE SPECTRA KWU-CHUGGING-#306 1
) AXISYM. DIRECTION 'X' FIGURE B-39
O PERIOD.?C. sao 1.0 o1 aos
. . ..iiii, i . . . . . . . . .
...ii . . l J.O l l l l
I 2.s ' ll .\ t I l I l i l;ii lI \!
' .l
.I I I i i i
? ,
i ; ii
, ~:i , , I ii t i E"
i l lj... l '. ll.
!I i*
j i L !I
, 'l[il i
3< l!l 1
! !ll i
l ' l-
!l l $ ! iI l ! - ! l!i I ! I i: I y j ! i llli i
- i t i i
l! iii
! ! j ...! iiil ' : $ij;ii '
- c. ,
m i l ! ; i i i
'. ' i i. l. ; j{ !.I!!
!'l I ; '!
S i ! i
- ll1 ! ! [ f lll!
C)
.~~. ,
, !,!. ; li.
i i .! ' !
; i l.
![
H fitIb! , I li !!*!! i i t ,ii. ! , i i ii
- ( '
- i ~
i i i e
, i
- ,i ,. tI 1
i : IiitI
' ' ' !IItI
, i . i 6 2 4 6 8 300 og 2 4 6 8 30 2 4 8 lo o FREQUENCY CPS Ammeranism assess car N prin e wt givitt.r W Cam
- i KWU 306 ASYMM.
medy, '411 % u , g 77a* - e-sf4 Suusius SM. Sal.85.85 REV. 6, 4/82 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT CONTAINMENT RESPONSE SPECTRA RWU-CHUGGING-4306 ASYM. DIRECTION 'X' PlouRE B-40
c l H l O PER800 **C. 30.0 1.0 0.1 0.01 i i 64 4 ii e o i 3 66 6 6 6 6 6 4 3 i l I a . i 6 a e l
- 1. *e0 g l
1 I i Il i l 8 I . i ll l l l I!
.l Ii h'iI i -
t
! I
! ! l
! }
"= .. , ,
.,'~~ .
i l i I j i {
! lll
;.' l I
!!I!
l'!: 9 l.';
* ~
!I E
a: l !
!!l'lll t
i e, l I i i i lta
'I, i
1 ,, ! l l I1 :
, 3 t, - - i ; - ; , . , !.
' i i Q l! t
- 8 i ii- i t - i( '} 1 a
g
- i. ;
t i ,'l. i 4, / i j[ f[! kt i G . ! I i j l2 .. - e ll I i
. . l i' ijA I ' '
i
', ; , i j . ! l
.O
'*;j l;i l i ,
3 - .
'l sJ 12'
. i ,
I ' l g 6 1 , I
* ! I l
i I ' I
; i
! ' !'. ' ?
; i i i '
' @l I i i ; .
j !: ; ,- ! I , l e i e i'!! 01 2 4 6 8 10 2 4 6 8 30 0 2 8 100 FP;QyENCYCPS , m sesnie ear --.--t W Car - _ Kwu 306 A5YIot. g,g, 531 ge,,,g,, n .h 729' 3/4" Sumous W.431.85.85 REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT CONTAINMENT RESPONSE SPECTRA
- p. KWU-CHUGGING-4306 d ASYM. DIRECTION 'X' PlGURE 3-41 ;
- .e
* +*
- 4 9 S
sw ,a ,
l O PERIOD 10 0 1.0 a3 0.01 ,
... . . . .. . .. ... . i i i i.. . . >
i.so i l il l1 1 i i 'I ii i I l
. Ii i 'I
- 3 ; ,i ;iif..'
i - I . I' l
- i I I !
I t i li, !l ! e ; , I i . 4 , < . J' " i l i t
- l. i l .
i . l ll , . i t iJo i ,l ' l l l'I l !.j! l !, s: !'. I / g n i . ,, t / i Ij.j ' 1. ! : W s
- i i ;
l;i i N+ l g ! . . l,
. 4
- f. I' k 1 G : - . I' ;
'\'
5 i i i
!';i;:
- i l.
i i ll! ll{! i :i. i O Tj l i ' - O :.m - I ; '.: ' '. : i , 1, ; !! ; l; : .
. i;i. l .
'- i' i I ; i
}
i a il . $ J . f l
', h . l! l l I
i' ! ! 4 2 4 6 8 2 4 6 8 10.0 2 4 6 8 3;g
- 01 .O FREQUENCY CPS m > g, DIAPIDIAGI SIAB LamiCar _h Kwu 306 ASYhM.
nee, sus * ,m n ,gm 702'-1* Sunest MEE.Mt.SM.85 REV. 6, 4/82 SUSQUEMANNA STEAJ1 ELECTR6C STATION UNITS 1 ANO 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT
, CONTAINMENT RESPONSE SPECTRA h- KWU-CHUGGING-#306 ASYM. DIRECTION 'Z' PtOURE B-42
O . PERIOD.* *C. 10.0 8.0 as act Iia 6 6 6 6 a i 4i ie i 6 4 6 4 iie a i a 4 . i a
- 3. 0 l l 8 8 l l I ! li I l l l
?
- i e ! t ! ii 48~ . . , j i
9 l i i j !l l i . e'5 , . I li . s I, s . , . ..i : i . N t i I l l i i o {.. t i.;. .
. I' i!
i ' i l I! l i'i
'l ! ['
I.) . M, '
- g; f ! ! l l lI ' Ill ll i
- l. .Ij g i 1 :, !
! i -
I i t i !;- i i f~ 1: 1 O i
- t
! i :
u .. i !; ii llIl 1 ; J .
.jj.
la j i i ..iu i iu j i,. : 7.- i i ,
, ! ! i
'08 2 4 6 8 1.0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 goo FREQUEf4CY CPS hh Space ter CONTAT19qyT meett Land Cam: " KWJ 314 C.O.
gm 13s m , ,b 8 a* Auseby OJEE,841,83,$3
/
REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT CONTAINMENT RESPONSE SPECTRA KWU-COND. OSCIL.-4314 . u DIRECTION 'Y' PlGURE B-4 3
/
U PERIOD.'rC. 10 0 n.o os c on - siiie i ii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i i 1.10 l n.n ' i i ll i 1 iii l l ' , liiiii i a
i . co 2
. ! ll i ll 11 1
I l I !!i l? I 8 l gl, .
' I l
if .I ! ! l l l l L , ,. . , i il i i i i i i . i .. iil
.i l'[ f( '
! I ! !
l!f.
, , .;i; d l !;!; : ! ; i
! .i
$.50 A2 ,
I I I'! !I
! !!! frs , I lI.
i I f! ! l l O i ' ' t6 i !
! i h I! h/ Ai ! ll l l
l'l !
! ! !p@
X
' L!'
ll i :. yl
, .. ! I I !!l I l l i l lllll
"*~.3 0 2 4 6 a to 2 4 6 8 30 0 2 4 6 8 gg FREQUENCY-CP3 Asutussism Spesse ter . MME W Cam -
KW 314 C.O. m 215 m a , gg,, 702'-3" W SM. Sal.EEB REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT D (V. CONTAINMENT RESPONSE SPECTRA KWU-COND. OSCIL.-4314 DIRECTION 'Z' FIOURE B-44
O PERCC ' *C. 84 0 to 08 0 05 i.so 1 I lli 1'i j i! i .i
. .i l.i'i 1.25 ,
i, Il l i ,' , - i! l.,I i > l . 4 iI
- i. i..!!' . .
i
, i ,! i l l 1 i :
d' " '- i i ! i : ; I ! i i; ; I 5 : ; ,: -
- , . i. l 1
3
. l
,li !
i i iii i ! i i c- '. -
- i. , ,ii.;
v
! I g
= ,
i
.:.l. . l
- . ; I , .
l i il
!t i -
U r:. c
! i .
' i '. j l ,
l lI' i. I I I ui : i
..ll l i;i I ;
O
~
. i
- r l ;.
; i ::. ; -
i : . i : ,
'i i! i: d[ , [_\
I ! ! l !l .i
- n
. ;8y v
.: s , .
, !l4!i l
! l I
i V . 1 i i ! l . : . c.::
! ! .!l l .l l'
! l O. 3 2 4 e ' a 3o 2 4 e a goo 2 4 6 4 3o; FREQUENCY CPS mp, CONTA110ENT SEELL wg- -
KWU 314 C.O. m 415 gg,,,g,, s_, 778' 3/4" Busolue W.881.8M.05 - REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 i DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT ! O l V' CONTAINMENT RESPONSE SPECTRA l l KWU-CONL. OSCIL.-#314 l DIRECTION 'Z' FlouRE B-45 l
O PERIOD tEC. sao n.o as 00: 566 8 4 4 4 4 e ciea e 6 4 6 64 ie 4 i . . a 8.50 l 8 23 i l i n i ; ll j. l l l; l i-I
!lil.l t
!4 l I 1 ; I ' , i I
=
y , g.
' i ;
* . t l
'1l. .
I i a t M i I . j i6 l 6 l-e g i ij;! j j j' j : 1i l
* ! i 1 , .
I i l'I i I'
. I i l 1' l ,::
i
! l l.
- l l I e { '
. I !' l j kl '
i . u lt
.ll' l ;- i I ; ,! l , .
I 8 ' j Ii . i I ; 8 i ;' \! W , 1 l t ! l , I i a l
' l' y i . ; ! '
'. l I 3 I :
~ I ,f
! :/
' !8 O g
. t. l.
1 l
- l. I a,
/
I I g I i, !l i
- l f j -
t j l'*!8
. j i {
. Ii ! . t I j .3
!ni :
i
, i x -
i
. !ii.ti.'
! i I ~
l ' ll i j l
~ ~~
l i l
; l l l i I I l!l 01 2 4 6 8 10 2 4 6 C 10.0 2 4 6 5 goo FREQUENCY CPS Ammanuses sysses ear NN ww _ ^ -- KWU 314 C.O.
m 535 gg,,,g,, s _ g,,729' 3/4" Bemeks: SEE,SM.88.85 REV. 6, 4/82 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT p- CONTAINMENT RESPONSE SPECTRA V KWU-COND. OSCIL.-f314 DIRECTION 'Z' FIGURE B-46 L
O PERIOO.SFC. DEO 10 01 0 03 3.0 l. l 'l
. 5 i , , i J.: ' '
i .
.i , i i .i ..
e l t ; - i !
! e i . .
g 8 g
=2.3 85 l' '
l l i I L ! ! l
; l.j .
1 i i
- h. Ih.,ll II l
.'.!j
- i ,
a i ,.i i II.I : r
. . , i.-
3 w :.s . i U l l !!,;{li ' ' '
*4 i ,n '
3 l i i
;t
. i:;..,
i e
\\\-
_ , , . ( ii' '. I i i il ,. e.
- o. i..-
i i , , i i
- ;, j .,. rh.. : . i
!'! ii!o p i l :
! I!;.. .,
- ny .
. . i..-
O ..
~
! N! ! i l:!li :
- !i i ! !;i!;
/l'/!
l i ' ::
/ ,
i 6 l 'I ; % l '
. I ! . . . ! ! - i . .
I i i
- i. I ! I
. , i :
01 2 4 6 8 to 2 A 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 3 goo FREQUENCY. CPS m%g _ coerTAIMMEIFF SEELL KWU 314 C 0-
^
Land Cam: " gag, 131 m a p 672'-0* Sursaw taE.llat. tat,sm l REV. 6, 4/82 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT 1 ! CONTAINMENT RESPONSE SPECTRA lO l l xwo-cono oscrt -+314 DIRECTION 'X' neure B-4 7
i i O PERCD 10 0 to on oo 3.10 . _ l l ! I I l l l l 1 1 i i i I l l ll ll I ll I li lil l l e !;.. ie l} l l Iii I l * ' i . t l i
' li l l ,
l l ll-l l :
! , lll l 1 lli 'I 8 l l I l . .
=
al.00
; I I
. i il , i; i! !,) .,li.
l I 1 l lI s l 6. e-l.'l
' 'e -;
i ; l l l l l e 3 l
,! i i' g .
' !r;
$ , ,, I i -
'l-l' 0-- ,
M 3
'f,1 Y
- a . 's * . !
l n1 re. e
=
m . t , .g ;
- i I. .
I ' ' i .
.lt -i9 a
- .n
. ,( .
I
- i -
i y; ; e.:: i 01 2 4 6 8 10 2 4 6 2 4 6 3 goo 8 10 0 FREQUENCY-CPS Asamestion Spesos ter emer17wurw twwt t-Lass Cas: "
^
KWU 314 C 0-asse, 411 _m a ,gs,77a* - e- va. Demoks:SA55.881.Sm.85 REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT (j~'
" "'^'"*""' """" """ """"^
KWU-COND. OSCIL.-4314 DIRECTION 'X' PlGURE B-48 ! I
O PERIOD **f'. as 0 01 10 0 to 4 I& 6 i 4 6 4 6 .4 i 6 4 6 4 66 a 4 . I.1!iji l Il I-l ..l 4 . l -
- 1 i .
.i i i! .
I , gi h!l . ..
) '
. t I ll i I l e t.a ,
8 t l I '* s l . j. 1 t l , i e i ., i . a t ! l l
!*jsi!
Ijjlll.! l l8 l
- s I
' g l
.i
~
!- it; i
t a . ; w e
*i . ::
I , N , I ifa
'l -
x
- 1.
w , 7,. 8 i
' i t .
J , ' *' ; e i . g '
. t .
G. w ,, e ie e e
- O E '~ j e . . . ! ;
V , 4 . ; . . ,
. i
*R. ,,
, l a f.
^-
^-
o: : 4 a e ac 2 e a a to o 2 e a a too FREQUENCY. CPS
-at h Susseslur --
W Car "
^
KWU 314 C 0-mes, 531 m a ,gis,729 ' 3/4" Sumeise: 8A88.821.8.AR.8JB REV. 6, 4/82 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT CONTAINMENT RESPONSE SPECTRA E KWU-COND. OSCIL. -# 314 DIRECTION 'X' FIGURE B-4 9
O PERT 0D o og 10 0 to on
,6 a 6 6 ee 6 . , 46 6 ,
il 6 6 6 6 6 4 8.10 ,
' 3 l I l
' ' ! ]
I i , I I II,li i l I
, (
i - g,;$
, ! IiI
,iIl' t
s llt I ' ll Il ls e l l i j
! ' i i i !
1 l 1 I ' l; ; i 8 I I !' ', , : I - ,
!!.li -l'.l, ~ * '
I
+
i , ll!.! '. ,
";, ,,,3 il l t' i l
. ..I ,
' i f I ; i;,j *, I ;
9 I !
. , i:
I'l - l i j , . 1. ! , 1 l, <
. ; t . . .
g i i; ' t l t .!, w , i i6 , 1 l ' O l -
- G , * * ' . ii s
!i l..;;;
k
*~ g .
e i ;
' - { I i* '
t; . i
. , . . .\
gg,,g ' . t' g O .l. )s. j ; l-tN. 7 ,s . .
.. 25
. ,)\/
( '
. . . A g g gg g 2 4 g g loo 2
~~.1o 2 4 4 8 go FREQUENCY CPS anne, g,,,,, g DIAPERAGM SLAB Land Cas: "
IWU 314 COO. see, m* Seussen u , gin, 702'-3* W Smi.Est.Sm.8m REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT CONTAINMENT RESPONSE SPECTRA KWU-COND. OSCIL.-4314 I \. 'Z' DIRECTION FlounE B-50
P!RIDD 5EL. j so s i.e o.: e.ot iiii e i i i e i.... . . . . i.ii i a i i i 0.10 s 0.25 Y E
- 0.20 i
E T1 5 a ~ U 0.15 s II E O , A 0.80 0.05 V 0.00 i ll l l l 2 g s g 0.3 S g,o 2 w 3 10.0 2 4 6 e ggg
'R E 0ll[NC T -C P $
Asselsretsee 3, esse fe, CONTAINMENT SHELL gm Seismic Slosh g liede . Disecties x , Eis, 672'-0" se-eme: a.ans.Lat.ast,s.es REV. 6, 4/82 SUSQUEHANNA STEADA ELECTRIC STATH3N UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT bD CONTAINMENT RESPONSE SPECTRA SEISMIC SLOSHING DIRECTION 'X' pHsumE B-51
PERIDO SEC. so o ee s. o si 8 3 I I 3 I i 6 16 ' 6 Y a i s 3 6 ' 6 8 4 # 4 5 g i 0.30 . , 0.J5 u d
= 0.20 --- _ __. . __
E 3 0 0.15 s W m U eu A 0.13 0.05 0 0.00 0.1 2 4 6 s 1.0 2 4 5 9 10.0 2 4 5 8 100 FREQUCNCT-CPS CO,NTAINMENT SHELL
%,,, g t w w . h "---- , Seismic Slosh 135 X 672'-0" Nede . Directses , Eh se=*=e: teos.tet.ast,s,es 1
i REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEMAN 4A STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT l CONTAINMENT RESPONSE SPECTRA
==zsazc stosn1=a O DIRECTION 'X' PupuRE B-52
\
PEN!DD.$[C,
, 3, le o e o' ,,,
Is6 a a e a a 4 eei. i i i
- 0. M 0.25 a
b
- 0.20 E -
ac U U 0.15 a at 8f u w
& D.iG .
OU 0.05 V
~
) -
u - c N E Ng 0.00 *
- 8 2 ,4 % 5 2 4 6 e 100 01 I 1.0 10.0 FREQUENCT-LPS g, g CONTAINHENT SHT1.L g
g g g-<-- Seismic Slosh m 411 . htm X , gg 778'- 9-3/4" tempag: 0.005. 0.81,3R. 8.85 l REV. 6, 4/82
$USOUENANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT ~' CONTAINMENT RESPONSE SPECTRA SEISMIC SLOSHING f (( DIRECTION 'X' i
( PleURE B-53 l
b V ~
*!R100 5EC.
- o. e.on 10 9 io i 4
e ie 6 6 6 4 4 8 6! 4 1 4 4 4 6 33 8 I 4 4 8 8 0.25 Y E 0.20 i E E l' y D.is a Y E u Ea 0.i0 0.05 ,
-~
3 6 8 2 4 6 s 0.00 2 4 6 0 2 4 10.0 100
- 0. 3 1.0 FREQUENCY-CP5 NN Asamisesties Soestre les g g.i Seismic Slosh 531 X 729'-9-3/4" ,
m ,ww , gg,, Osmens: 4815. MI, W . M REV. 6, 4/82 l SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DEStGN ASSESSMENT REPORT CONTAINMENT RESPONSE SPECTRA SEISMIC SLOSHING DIRECTION 'X' FlouRE B-54
PERIOD SEC. v
) eo o.i 8 88 so.o i e i
.,ie i i i i iii - i , e i iiie ii i 0.30 0.25 Y
E 0.20 - i E E 5 5 0.is 2 s 2' h 0.10 s 0.0s . 3 , s i
~
se 3g g , 2 4 6 e 2 4 5 6 100 0.00 ,,, 2 4 6 e 1.0 10.0 FRE00 elect-CP5 Aemmisestise Speste les Seismic Slosh Lead Cass: t_. 702'-3" g 215 ,w, E
, Eise Domesse 8A05.8A1.132.8A5 REV. 6, 4/82 l
SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT l l CONTAINMENT RESPONSE SPECTRA szzsazc stosazuo I O' DIRECTION 'Z' piouRE B-55
PCRl00.stC. 10.0 s *J e.t 0.01 11 ei 6 I 6 5 4 it i i ' 6 3 4 3 41 ei i i e i i I 0.30 l 0.25 Y 0.20 i 2 E O a U 0.15 d E 5 h 0.i0 0.05 '% d 2 4 6 8 2 4 6 0 2 4 6 6
- 0. 5 1.0 10.0 300 FREDUCNCY-CP$
Asamieresies Spesse fe, CONTAIltMDIT SNELL w w . 5 - '---- Seismic slosh
, ,415 ,% z ,m 77s'- 9-3/4" ses,me: tags.est.am.tas REV. 6, 4/82 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT CONTAINMENT RESPONSE SPECTRA p) s ,
SEISMIC SLOSHING DIRECTION 'Z' pleung B-56
I (~N PER100 5EC. oe 0.01 10.0 to ei6 a a i a e i 8 Ii4 I I t i 6 6 s a1 4 i e i e 4 0.10 l i l 0.2, u 0.20 E E E h 0.15 W i E i h 0.10 i 0.05 i 4 4 8 2 4 6 6 300 2 4 6 8 1.0 2 10.0 0.1 FREQUENCY-CPS Assaisretase Spaces les PEDESTAL Seismic Slosh w w. _ gode $35 ,% 2 , ge,, 729'-9-3/4" Sempes: ME,M1,W.W REV. 6, 4/82 SUSQUENANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT CONTAINMENT RESPONSE SPECTRA i p SEISMIC SLOSHING
- 'd DIRECTION 'Z' peauRE B-57 l
PLRggD.$[C, le.o 3.e ii, , , , , 88 8 8 8 I 3 1 8 63 3 4 i e # 4 3 e 0.25 u A
= 0.20 2
2 M 5 a y 0.35 e II 2 A O.30 0.05 ' Ca I ie i i O. 00 -- 4 6 e 2 4 6 e 2 4 6 8 O.1 2 1.0 10.0 100 FREQUENCT-CPS Asseieresies 3,mene des nTApunAnw MTan gg w. _ - * .Seissic Slosh 252 I h 702'-3" Beds , W a ass,ast,a m ,tas REV. 6, 4/82 I SUSOUEMANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT CONTAINMENT RESPONSE SPECTRA O SEISMIC SLOSHING U DIRECTION 'Z' Pioung B-58 l
3 APPENDIX C REACTOR BUILDING RESPONSE SPECTRA DUE TO LOCA AND SRV I i O l l I O Rev. 3, 7/80 C-1 L .
APPENDII C E199REE Enber C-1 Title Model for Reactor Building Response Spectra, North-30uth g C-2 Model for Reactor Building Response S pectra, Ea st- W est C-3 Model for Reactor Buildiuq C-4 Reactor Building Response Spectra-KWU SRV thru Vertical Direction C-20 C-21 Reactor Building Response Spectra-KWU SRV thru East-West Direction C-37 C-38 Reactor Building Response Spectra-KWU LOCA thru Vertical Direction 6 C-54 C-55 Reactor Building Response Spectra-KWU LOCA i thru East-West Direction C-71 C-72 Reactor Building Response Spectra-KWU LOCA thru North-South Direction C-87 lll l C-88 Reactor Building Response Spectra-KWU SRV thru North-South Direction ! C-103 l l l C-2 O REV. 6, 4/82
APPENDII C l REAGI9E_BEff9!Sg_sgzsiga DUE_Ig_LggA_13p_Sgv This appendix shows the reactor building models and examples of O the horizontal and vertical response spectra curves of the reactor building due to LOCA and SRY loading. Four spectral damping values (i . e . 0. 005, 0. 01, 0.02 and 0.05) are shown on each group of curves. The mathematical models of the reactor building are shown in Piqures C-1, C-2 and C-3. The broadened acceleration response spectra shown in C-4 to C-103 are submitted as representative examples of the reactor building structure response spectra. 3 These response spectra are also taken at critical locations of the reactor building structure. The loads under consideration are SRV and LOCA. The SRV load (generated by KWU) consists of 3 traces and each trace consists of 5 frequencies. The asymmetric and axisynsetric load cases are considered. They are generated in the North-South, East-West and Vertical directions. The LOCA load case consists of chuqqing and condensation oscillation loads. Each of the chuqqing and condensation oscillation loads contain 3 f requencies. Axisymmetric load cases are considered for both chuqqing and CO, while the asymmetric 6 load is only considered for chuqqing. The response spectra are generated in the North-South, East-West and Vertical directions from an envelope of the chuqqing and C0 spectra. They are also ' () broadened by 115% at peak frequencies to account for uncertainties in the modelling and material properties. O C-3 REV. 6, 4/82
l PERIOO.
- so o .t o on oft siai e i i a i sisa i i i e 1.50 isai ii . . 1 l ' '
I ! I'll i l .' i i l l . I ': 8.25 ---- - - - - - --l-------I- - --I t .e*
= I i jl.00 --- - - - ---
i l j ,- ,-l -p I o I., n l!'l'i i do.75 - -- - - - - F- - -l-M,'- u - -- N j )
.,o l
a l a go.50 -- --- --- O g,yg _, - . . __.._. . 1
) - ca ;
" o n s '
l i y. a 4 s a no a 4 "r in o ? 8 6 ces FREQtif f t :Y . CPS pi,,,_]yl-1 m io,,,,,l., REACTOR & CONTR01. BlDGS. w c.,: - SRV u - m EBL.,si,, 670'-0" n=*r sms.888.am.sm REV. 6, 4/82 SUSQUEMANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION tJNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT REACTOR / CONTROL BUILDING RESPONSE SPECTRA 3 i KWU-SRV d FIGURE C'f
i O PERIOr De e to os o ns saie i i i a i ase a a i a isae ia a i i 1.at -- as e j l.00 -- I e k c g.. ....___ __ r' O I a.as . r7 rl N ' l l l!,
'* "o g a ~4 s' e no a "4 M a go o E 4 6 e too 9REQiatN:.'Y Cr?.
rg BV2-3 4 m w.as s., REACTOR 1 CONTROL BLDGS. Land can: samamehamns . tW ises. - g,enien. VERI._, m G7G'-0" emmoise: sAIE.8Al.SR.8AE i REV. 6, 4/82 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UltiTS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT REACTOR / CONTROL BUILDING RESPONSE SPECTRA l KWU-SRV FlouRE C- 5 l l
l l l O~ PERIGO,-' WO 10 01 FT i i e i a 0 0L e i eiei s i i saei a 6 i I.50 6 6 ~1 8.25 -- -'-- --- '
- - = - -
l js.oa .- ---- 5. 3 O.75 W d IE o - O.50 --- - - - - O .. .._
==
J s ' '
%f
---4 m -- ,
* ",t
- g3 2 6 s
4 8 10 2 4 6 P 30 0 2 4 6 8 100 FREQUt NCY CPS g By3-3 m :0=Ir s., REACTOR t CONTROL BLDGS. ww- _
'RV m -
m, ii .YET._.m.,sas'-o-name=s: ems, eat.sm.sm REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION i i UNITS 1 ANO 2 i DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT REACTOR / CONTROL BUILDING RESPONSE SPECTRA KWU-SRV Im) 'J FlouRE C ~6
1 l l O PERIOD me so { os o ci 3.G
. . . . . .. . i 1
_7 l :
' ' I. l.
s.4 -
.._. . . _ 1 . .
. .._.)_..;._l f. lg l l iil: si. .
i: :
- 3,1
=
J l ;!'i 5 i
.J l.S _
g ... R O ,. , _.___ p i j EW o.o = _8 LL. el 2 4 f* s 2 4
- e se IS O
- E 8 300 rntontm:v.ces SA4 ms
^
s REACTOR & CONTROL BLDGS. Las ca.: SRV m,,, - m yf1T_.h 697'-0* Sumping: SABE. SAI.8AI.BJE e REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT REACTOR / CONTROL BUILDING RESPONSE SPECTRA
\
p V KWU-SRV FIGURE C ~7
O
- PERIOD, se o oc
. . . . et
. . . . . . . . . . oos l.ss tI g p.
v g l.oo - - -
' i l 5.
1 2o.ts .-
# r b
go.so = I r [g 0 e.ss - -- :
' " .i- - , -.- -,
wi$ g f
![. l
. e,, . . ' . g, , -<
-- , Aj ,3 , ,;, ,
FMQUtf4C1r CPS
,g BV5-3 mm,, w REACTOR & CONTROL BLDGS.
Law can: -__ SRV low. - owd.a.YERL ri N-0" om uns.nl.em.us REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUENANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 ANO 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT REACTOR / CONTROL BUILDING RESPONSE SPECTRA KWU-SRV FlouRE C- '8
etmou Of 00, N0 le ni.. i i . i..... . . . . . .. . . . i S.M l.a =
?
48.co , h Ea.n - - --- - U tG r-- , (0.50 em F-~ ) p O e.n - p m. L r
, p. ,
1 m I 5 a.=,, , . . . , , , , ". ..,,,---- . -E ,:.
~
rntouue:i.ces
,g BV6-3 m s,,,,, ,,
REACTOR & CONTROL BLDGS, t scan: w SRV w - m 3ERI_, m 719'-1" e m sms.est,em.ess REV. 6, 4/82 SUSQUENANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT REACTOR /CONTROIr BUILDING RESPONSE SPECTRA i p KWU-SRV ; V FIGURE C- 9 , l
l l O emos. ne o ao et 0 01
. . . . . , i i . .ii i i i ...i. .ie i
.w - --
i., . .J-.. .. .. --- l l :. i ll 8 1
'i Ie .
1 se y,.ee .... ... __ _ ... ----.a--....'.L.l. , sl-
~
n i,, e. n . 7 > k tG m r . g o.w o
) ._ -
I O e.n , x i
/
# -k~"j-
,, , . . . , , . r - t '. ,, , - ,- . . . ,
FRECtRNCY CPS pg BV7-3 w w s.,,,,s., REACTOR & CONTROL BLDGS. ta,s c= _"- RRV m - m .YEBI .e., 77A'-n* o m sass.est.s m.sss REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT
, REACTOR / CONTROL BUILDING RESPONSE SPECTRA V;- KWU-SRV Plount C-10
1
.1
- 1 O .
Pt.ReoO
- mo to on o os i .. . i i i iiiii i i . iiiiii i i i i s.so -
l.2s -- - --- i. js.co i 9 e-if he.is v k u go.se - - - - -. -- s.:s
). ,p=M s ---
z -- u . . . io a < s a wo a Ag e a e
,c,,
FREQtKM:V CPS i NE. m senere se, REACTOR & CatlTROL RMS, ww- sPv i mes. - meumen.YR I.,tw 7 W -l" Duneins SAet.SA1.82.tum REV. 6, 4/82 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UN1Y$ 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT REACTOR / CONTROL EUILDING RESPONSE SPECTRA KWU-SRV PlouRt C 11 2-
)
W
~
,s a
O.
~- PERIOD
- 88 8 to os o os asii e i. . . . iiiii . . . ii.ii i i . . i i.so i.as __ ._ ,_
t I r. 1.00 , 6
~
bo.ts --- W E u. go.so N w
- o. s -. -- __ __
f
- , /
) **. ..
a.oo
~2 Os 2 4 s 8 to 2 4 h a so o 4 6 e gg 5 REQUEIM:Y CPS 74 IV9-3 A w en w w REACTOR & CONTROL BLDGS.
L d ca.: - - SRV m s. - m _yEBI.,gw 753'-0" O mome:uns,est,em.sss P REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEMANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT r REACTOR / CONTROL BUILDING RESPONSE SPECTRA
, , KWU-SRV s
- - PiouRE C- 12 l'g' s, j
a . , 's + t i <.
.s 44 j.,
1 -5 7 " l f
-. s - . . , __ _
4 O PERIOD mo to on c ol gi aa e e a i i Isa4 4 6 a e 4 44 e6 6 a 4 i a l.Se s- ~ i.n ..._ . ys.co i h ~- . , . E o.n y h l l l W 0.SO f ( ; e.a = I
/ % _.___
0.00 ' -- ~* ~ gg 2 4 8 f IO 2 4 r. > go O 2 4 6 . gog rat 0HfMCY CP3 pg BV10-3 wwsessosI., REACTOR 1 CONTROL RIMS, Less cess: *-__ - - - ERV mem - Obeni .YERI_,ew m 'a= comeine:eJes.est,ast.IAe REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUENANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT REACTOR / CONTROL BUILDING RESPONSE SPECTRA KWU-SRV FIGURE C 13
O PERIOD 10 0 "s 0
... . i i i . 01 s.so i
i..... . . 0 03
. . . . . . .. . i a.as - _ ,
es ji.co - b E has W 4 E o go.so --- --- --.- - f" -
~ ,
. F Q o.as - c'D k o.no,,
$m,_s,-
=
. y%
- g.-j .,
FRCQUCNC f 4PS
- g. BV11-3 ms,,,,,,, _ REACTOR 1 CGITROL BLDGS, tm- SRV m -
mesi VERI ,Saw W -l* Omuqme: SAIS, SJf.822,SAS REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT REACTOR / CONTROL BUILDING RESPONSE SPECTRA N, KWU-SRV ( FIGURE C- 14 l
O PER80t' i 30 0 't o os p o' seai a e a i s aei e i a i e i ai.6 .~T i 1 3*98
-j s , g g i -
'I 1.J5 I
i1 1 p +-- 1 i gl.se - -= -- I
.,c.75 N \
}
d e ra n a - - - - --; - - 0.25 --.
.1
/ %
..., . . . . ;. . M%.'L. ... --4
. .-+._ .
ITt[QWPtCY CPS g BV12-3 m e ,,,, s., RFACTOR 1 CONTRnl RI M t,
. W Case: EEV m - % _jlEEI n,, 7RV -n*
namoing: ems,s.el,em,eAs REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT REACTOR / CONTROL BUILDING RESPONSE SPECTRA KWU-SRV FIGURE c- 15 -O
O PERIOD
.00 50 i3 as ! e i e os n ot a aeI ia i 1 , e iia 4 .- i e i a
' ',l I
.as p .. --
- _. J _d_ _ .
I i I l k as lI
. m.
5. k i.s O.75 W g 7 s 70.50 - en I ( e.as r-, r m gl - l I_,.-_
%__ _j -
' o i , . . . , , .
"j l 2 . . . , , , , . . r,o, FF'CQtlFNQ Cr3
- q. RV13-3 ms.,,,,,w REACTOR 1 CONTROL RIDGS.
t sc RRV aims. - caressi _YEEL,sw 700'-1" - W sJes,eJ1.est.sms l REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEMANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT REACTOR / CONTROL BUILDING RESPONSE SPECTRA l KWU-SRV FIGURE C 16 n v
l l 38 0 PLRICO s 40 5eai e i 4 6 I ,_ 0.1 1.58 a4 # 4 a i I e 4 0 01
- t6 ei a a e e s I
l.M -- . 3 .. . ri , q__,a . 5 I 5 i,4 0. ?S - a u Es.Se
\
o ... r - k
/
l s
% e<_
a., ,
. , ,, 26 l r" #. ~ . ,. . - - r- = . , ,,,
FI1EOUENCY.CP3 g BVlti-3 ms, e., REACTOR 1 CONTR01 BIDGS, wc _- SRV is.d. - eb.esi E RI..si., n '-n= 3.mping: SABE, BAI,RAI,SAE REV. 6, 4/82 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT REACTOR / CONTROL BUILDING RESPONSE SPECTRA KWU-SRV FIGURE C- 17
j O V PEftIOD Ao to 555 5 3 i I I 3 os o es 1.5o II I 6 4 4 4 4 a6 4 I iia 6 3
- i.n
- - _. 1 I f
I i e jl.co a w d o.n - U at g o. = _... -- _3 O,, r-) I O - a
-- =
f 1' -- h , l
~'
ll . t EE j o.co 2 e M _J ._1 l .ulj i i at s. e :o 2 4
- 8 teu 2 a 6 e son l'It[QUEN#;Y-CP*>
n,. BV15-3 wws,,n,,s., RFACTOR 1 CONTRnl RIEt_ wc -----_ av w- -
% .YERI ,si.,21R'-1" m ems.est.sm.sss 1 REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT REACTOR / CONTROL BUILDING RESPONSE SPECTRA FWU-SRV PlGURE i 18
O PERIOD Me lo on o o,
,, ,rri , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,, , ,
i.= 7_ _ gi.no -- l(
- 6. /
* . f L .'
go.ts . 4 a
\
t>
\
ro.so
=
h o.n -- --- l N I f]
/ %'_ _ .
/
.. I ._. j oi a a a e so a .
" #. L . ...
2 . . ,oo F11EQtlFilf".Y Cl4 g RV16-3 mw,,,,,, REACTOR S CONTROL BLDGS. wc . SRV m - m, e JERL.si M';' n* m ems.sm.sm,sm REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT REACTOR / CONTROL BUILDING RESPONSE SPECTRA KWU-SRV FIGURE C- 19 I (O s i
O v etmou .- 20 to os 09: i.. . i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i.w - i 1.N
'.?. . .
l l!I I
=
gi.= l I !ii.; 5. 2
- P !
d o. rs k a Q !'I U go.so __ . ._ e [ O / i i-
'a., .
-JP l
. 1 ,, , -.
l l li[ rntourwcy ce:1
.g M7-3 wws.= ires., REACTOR 1 CMTROL BtDGS.
wc - SRV m - m & go,, R70'-0* 4 m eJes,eJB1.est.eJIE REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUENANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT REACTOR / CONTROL BUILDING RESPONSE SPECTRA b KWU-SRV C- 20
]o FIGURE
l 1 O we io
-e .
. . . . , . . . . on o oi
- i. se . . . . . .. . . .. . . .
. i 8.3S 4.00 5.
2 f a.n. V a 2 a
.ts.so s.as O
E44
*a., , .
l
- --=
! ' . .k g.
. i. . :-
FREQUENC ( CNi _ w3.,,w,,,, _ _ REACTOR I CONTROL BLDGS. t ,4 c -- SRV ~ mess - os .E-iL..si., 596'-0" anseine: eses est.ent.s.es i l REV. 6, 4/82 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT REACTOR / CONTROL BUILDING i RESPONSE SPECTRA i KWU-SRV l FIGURE C- 21 O 1 l
O remoo. to at n ot Je . . . .. ,, . , i... . . . . . . . . . . . i.se
- i. 2s -
as 1.o. 6. 2 go.ts W 13 . ro.so
.a n
k s.2s ' i 7-- W s& % f
" ai : . e e i.. .
. . .. .- '.7 . to.
FREQUENCY CPS g BE2-3 m%,,, REACTOR & CONTROL BLDGS. t d c.=: - SRV n se messen. M,sw 670'-0" w em. ens,en.en REV. 6, 4/82 1 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT l REACTOR / CONTROL BUILDING RESPONSE SPECTRA KWU-SRV p v' FIGURE c. 22 i
Ptnsoo. Me O 10 0.1 c on
- : : i i i i e siis ii i i i sisi e i e i i i 1.se s.M .. .
l i e 5.00 -- 5. I w 6.ts -_-_ E a re.no n t e.n ..--. e-m
" ai a 4 e e so a e 's ' hf3 o a 4 s s in, FREQUEfK.Y CI'S Fig. RF1-1 4,,,,,, miens ecir.e. RFArTnR t rfWTRnl Al nr1 Lead Case f .- - - CDV sende om .J.-M .Em 676*-8" anneks: SADE.SA1.Sm.BA5 REV. 6, 4/82 SUSQUEMANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT REACTOR / CONTROL BUILDING RESPONSE SPECTRA KWU-SRV F10URE C- 23 t
I l l l
O remoo to os a os aae
...ii , . . . iii.. i i . __ . . . . . i i . i n.se I.N
= .
= --
hs.oo I1 go.n W N u 0.50 F O ..- dm
~ a I
JT$-f
~
n -" TT FREQUEftCY CPS pi,, RFQ Aasieressenseawe w REACTOR 1 CONTROL BLDGS. Land cs=: *_ RRV mede - Deression .f.::M.,_.Else . KA3'-0" Dumpkg:sJet.8A1.e m .8AE REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEMAND:A STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT REACTOR / CONTROL BUILDING RESPONSE SPECTRA KWU-SRV h a FIGURE c- 24 ;
l
}
O oo .. -
,o .
,,,r>>> > > < i i ii. . , . , *, ' ' , , , , , , , ,
8 l
.n l l
=
go.oo Y b go.v ft 5 u go.m O s.n e.no '- 3M ai = *
* =i. > .
"AI ,
j$6 F.EQUENCV.QPs Fis. E-3 A m mi se.ne.h, REACTOR 1 C(WTROL BIE S. t e c : -- -- nv m d. - oh.s .,J.-1,,si,,647'-0* a she: sins,ast,am,em REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTABC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 1 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT REACTOR / CONTROL BUILDING RESPONSE SPECTRA O KWU-SRV iUE c- 2s
I n V Pensoo.
.. i. ei . .i
. .. . . . . ...ii i . . , iii.. . . . i 3.se I.M es ji.no ----
5. 5: 2 go.ts V a ti go.so a s.as -- --
,,,, -r ,A 4 mumm 6 on a e e e go o a e 3.o a e : e e a goo FRE00r.Nf!Y CPS
,g BES-3 mes e,, REACTOR I CONTROL BLDGS.
L scm /Je=samia. SRV
. mas. -
.ciness _E.M_.si E'-n-e moi.e:SAes,BAl,sm,em REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT REACTOR / CONTROL BUILDING RESPONSE SPECTRA KWU-SRV N
V FIGURE C- 2 6
PERIOD 20 to os oo
.. . . . . . . ....i i i. . . . . . . . . . i s
s.n is ji.so 5. Q , , d o. ts k a O. ge.so . ___ O d a.n N ,- n
, 6 )b
/ w
o i . . . i.e : - ~ k -' . . . . . . . . , , ,
FRtOUENCY CPS g E7-3 m e ., w REACTOR 1 CONTROL BLDGS. w c.,,: - Rav made Dereseen n,h 714'-1" sesoug:emIE.IAl,em,8AE REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEMANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT REACTOR / CONTROL BUILDING i RESPONSE SPECTRA KWU-SRV F10uRE C-27
^
l I i
O nmoo. to on o oi me
. . . . . i i i . . . i i , i ...iii i . . i 1.se
- i. s is 38.00 i
3 5
- .a. ,s I
E u . ro.so ai 0.7s i
- e. co , , , , , , , , , - ,- - ,- - f,g;- j , g , ,,,
Fi1EQUCNCY. CPS ris. BE8-3 % % ,,, REACTOR t CONTROL BLDGS. ts s c = Jas w h==== SRV n.d. - se E-W .n,, 728'-0" eseph, sass,est,sm.ess , l l REV. 6, 4/82
~
SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 ANO 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT REACTOR / CONTROL BUILDING RESPONSE SPECTRA KWU-SRV O PtGURE C- 28 -
e 1 O nmoo to o no on o oi
.. i i i i. . iiiii . . . . . . . . . . .
i.no 1.2s j i.se 5-4 5 - go.ts W o ti
.ro.so ~
s.2s
.i a 4 e e i.o a .
. e ..
W . . .. FHEQUENCY CPS g aro.1 m m s., REACTOR 1 C(NTROL BLDGS. w w - -- e,RV m - m R , m 7149'-1" y m . emes.est.s m.sss i REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT REACTOR / CONTROL BUILDING RESPONSE SPECTRA KWU-SRV FIGURE C- 29
O MRICO 88 8 88 me I0 al s5 6 6 e i i saesi a e 6 8 II 4 3 3 4 4 , a 4 1.5e l.M e jl.00 k 6-B..M V
.J h
G..M g O S.M
- 8. M 0i , , , , i0 , . ,- , , , , , ,
l FREQtlEhCY. CPS pig, RF10 'I m;,,,senerese, RFACTnR 1 rnliTRnl RIML Lead Cam:L. - CDV , uses - obession 1, Esse 771'-3" ! ess,=e: eses.est.am.sms l REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEMANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT REACTOR / CONTROL BUILDING RESPONSE SPECTRA KWU-SRV O PlouRE C- 3 0
l O l PERIOO-Ao to at **' isei i i , , . siii i i e i isie ii e i . i 1.So i 25 . l.
=
je.oo - --- b 2 l go.ts g W o 1 g o.so - l o.as o . on , , , . . . , , , . . . , , , , . . .. FREOllENCV-CPS g nr11.1 mmw RFACTOR 1 ff1NTROI R1DGS. w c ,,. - RRV 1 mess Obesmen .Ed .e., N-1" I i a ,ime:sms,est.sm.sas l REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT REACTOR / CONTROL BUILDING RESPONSE SPECTRA KWU-SRV O FIGURE C ,31 O . 1
G7
- O PERtOO
,g o 10 . Og 0 08
.so i.as ps.oo 5.
I w go.ts W a o r,e.so e e.as - O i 2 m SA -- e.oo,, , , , , , , , . . , , , , , . . . ,,, FREQUENCY. CPS g BE12-3 mwe , PEACTOR t CONTROL BLDGSu wc - SRV m -
% R ,m 783'-0" asseins:sms.est,am. ass REV. 6, 4/82 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNIT 81 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT REACTOR / CONTROL BUILDING RESPONSE SPECTRA KWU-SRV FIGURE c 32
O PERIOD
,, i.
,,,, , , , , ei o oi
, ,,.,ii . .
1.58 isii ii i . . i
.1
.a v
gi. no 5. 2,, go.rs W ,
- i E
U S.50 9 .. .
- e. co , , , .
. . i. . . ~< , ' s 'ic . : a
- eToo FitEQUCMCY CPS
,y BE13-3 m%,,,,, _ REACTOR & CONTROL BLDGS.
Land Cam: __ SRV w - m R ,sw 799'-1" om sm.a.si.sm.sm REV. 6, 4/82 SUSQUEMANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT REACTOR / CONTROL BUILDING RESPONSE SPECTRA KWU-gRV F100RE C- 3 \_/
remor. k8 0 ,o e, o ., iiii i i i . . . . . . -rr . . . . . . . . . . , s.se I.ts
?
2 ** . 5. di.ts u V i E o g.so _ . h s.as FTIEQUENCY CPS Fis. BE14-3 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, REACTOR 1 CGITROL BLDGS. L ec : Jasom==.a SRV m - m,.ra _E-M .n Itts'-ri-comes.e: ems,e.et,em.sm REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEMANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT REACTOR / CONTROL BUILDING RESPONSE SPECTRA KWU-SRV Q m FIGURE C- 34
O l PERIOD at 0 0t to o to i
. . . . . . i i ..i. . .
1.so l l
.as jt.oa 5.
a w do.ts u
'd a
go.so O e.as
~~
.MA ~
e.co 2 4 6 8 tou g 2 4 6 8 Io 2 4 6 --e i00 FREQUENCY CPS g RF18i-3 % % s., _ REACTOR & CONTROL BLDGS. wc :- __ SRV m - % R,m 818'-1" o m omsesi.sm.sms REV. 6, 4/82 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION
- UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT REACTOR / CONTROL BUILDING RESPONSE SPECTRA KWU-SRV FIGURE C . 35
O - ao 80 08 asg g e a a 0 08 3 1 3aaa i a 6 e i I6 6 ie 3 4 4 4 8.98 3 8.25 m 1.00 b k 8.78 Y t n t.s0
.r.
O 0.28 0.1 2 4 4 0 10 2
~
4 6 8 10 0 2
% 4 4 8 300
, rnEQUENCY4PS g N15-3 msemiress, MACTOR t CONTR0l RIM 9.
w c.,,: - Rnv m -
% R ,> AGA'-n" Dumpag: 3AIE, OA1,SJtt,SAE REV. 6, 4/82 SUSQUEMANNA STEAAA ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT REACTOR /CONTRGi. BUILDING RESPONSE SPECTRA KWU-SRV rnouRE C '3 6
O 9tR900-
- a, 0 05 as le i isii ie i . . i inii i i e i i isii i . . .
s.se 1.2s e, ji.oo 5. sw d o.is u W
- i E
u go.so
- s. s SW a aa . , , . . ,.. .
~
. " . ' .li, 1 .- . ..
FREQUENCY dPS , , pg_RF17-3 m ; w .s. REACTOR & CMTROL BLDGS. wc - ' RRV Nede - m 1.Else 17II'-0" Ossoime: 0A05. Sal.821.825 1 1 REV. 6, 4/82 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT REACTOR / CONTROL BUILDING RESPONSE SPECTRA KWU-SRV FIGURE c 37
O PER:Doktc. to *' N , , , , , , , , , , of i siiii ii i 25 m. 22.a -
)
3 l P l
$ \
s i.. W .
" Y 3 .o gt
= =
c.s / r
,g ,
I l j ad --
- 9--
v h : I Apf 00 a 4 , , , , , , ,
- e ,oo S8 2
- s a to FREQUENCYos Am dm d.sapussen WartfB Bifffalas asseenn -
ORI--- LOCA me - sw ns E RL ,a= E70'- T SMWW GSL688.85,08 REV. 6, 4/82 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT
~
ar^cron/cournot muztorno O RESPONSE SPECTRA KWU-LOCA peauRE C- 38
~
1 I i PDHOO SEC. El 0 01 So to eii. ., , ,, , Iii i '
- i i e iiiie i i e i 1.54 1.25
?
E:.co < \ i -, E a M go.?s _
-m W -
U g r 8 go.Su
) F"m e-I /~"h 0.25 fj/
k V/ t--3 Ah adfD 0.co as a 4 s a Le 2 e e e no 2 4 s a m Femardyers . [ MAC193 3filSfEE mwe,D g- - -- - ,r n amm -- _ mem. . EEL,m, UE'-8" hushoems.am.tatoes5 REV. 6, 4/82 l SUSOUEHANNA STEAM El ECTRIC STATION ' UNITS 1 ANL 2 DES 8GN ASSESSMENT REPORT i ' REACTOR / CONTROL BUILDING
~
RESPONSE SPECTRA KWU-LOCA FleumE C jg
e- -_s i.. s !> ' s 54 O '
. ~
A PERIOD-SEC. i to i '
, , , , , , . . , i i i.se i l
e.dT c
~. 00 E
, s. s -
O *h ' R rc-J :_
/L [ '--1
**3'
.) m f k
% l/
.7-d5 f J
jf o.co , , . . : 4 s e saa 2
- a e too t.
FREQUENCY & S w artin B1111 BfME enat. . L&A landSus -_ gas,_ - thesus E .98 m e g g g3g,33g,33,33 REV. 6, 4/82 SusOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNIT 31 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT REACTOR / CONTROL BUILDING Q ' RESPONSE SPECTRA KWU-LOCA pseung Cy0 4
O Ptasoo 5EC. oa e os l'. ' 1o , i siiii i i i i i.iii ii l e s 9
=
d E - . p k ' O s> M i n8 s llT *
\
, lf s e
, plat .
a a e a t, a 4 e , , , , c, rnEQUENCYCPS . 3,memens, gen,g, WAdne nitiStu sewa., _- th-- LOCA eum
-- annen, R.nwse7w REV. 6, 4/82 SuSQUEHANNA STEAad El.ECTRIC STATION
! UNITS 1 AND 2 l DESH5N ASSESSMENT REPORT ' ' REAC' TOR / CONTROL BUILDING RESPONSE SPECTRA
~
j
,KWU-LOCA o
pseuRE
- C-41
O 1 l 1 i PERsOO SEC. 10 e on i$ , , , , , , sii ii. i i i . . , , , i.so n.25
?
Es.00 I e 5 - - - wo O Y ',, a f
\
e ,_ go.so
~
T / t ; o.as f ',l \// N I s -. zt a.oo JE y9
** 8 *
- a to a 4 . . m, , . . , , ,
SIEQUsedV4Ps AsesundespC;ce, KarTIE klfI Brent andom. Awp est-- LOCA . sha -- _samens MIL.,=w 8P I EE REV. 6, 4/82 i ' SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION l UNtTS 1 ANO 2 l' DES 80N ASSESSMENT REPORT l dQ REAC;rOR/ CONTROL BUILDING RESPONSE SPECTRA i KWU-LOCA l not,g C 42 l
O PEReOO.5LC.
- e s.o an e on
. i ..i e i e i i .
i.so
' df e.
1
- i. 3:
""1 L.
s,;.': k Q g r-q '- c '-' c.:..: r ,
,,f .-g l --
*" (\V--\i , 1 g(/ g k
- v '
, :/ 0.00 p F j N an a 4 s a to a 4 a a ga. 4 s a go. FREQUDICYCPS me,,,,e, EAf1M a fflatz n.,em - - Riti-- .0CA m,,, ,,,,,,ggL,m,n9*-1* Sunsh s M 8 81.8 E.8 5
- RSV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION j UNITS 1 AND 2 '
DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT REACTOR / CONTROL BUILDING O' RESPONSE SPECTRA l KWU-LOCA pseuRE C- 43
1 O , PE.*.1CD SEC. to 01 c et 10 0 _ , _
. ii. . . ,
3.o h.8 P* 9 20 q L. -
.t. ..s ,
H OEn n 1 j... .
,- 1 lll <
o.. / . _ f : -
=<
--h.
m h c.o 2 4 4 8 14 0 2 4 e a gm c: 2 4 4 8 to FREQU M CPS mwe, EACTOR MillDtm st--- .0CA em -- amen. EEL.'am m '.a= eme asm asi.eans REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT REAC' TOR / CONTROL BUILDING RESPONSE SPECTRA KWU-LOCA pseunE C"44 O*
O
- Praioo ste.
so o.: cc-. le o e.4 4 ., , 1 6 a i 6 6 6 6 tie i 4 a a i . I.30 ! 1 2s v 25 00 i \ 8 L. So.rs O !x -- 3 t , 5 go .so O_ ,
--) l __
o.as ( -V 3 $lbp --( I f g t J o.ao ai a 4 e e i.e 4 . .. 4 . e i,, l ! rusovaci.cpa m e,,,,e, MAC1DR ElfLBfB we- mi. _ _ .0CA asse
-- massie M ,es,7ae %1*
muest.sa,se REV. 6, 4/82 l SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION l UNITS 1 AND 2 l DESIGN AsSESSMENTREPORT l REAC' TOR / CONTROL BUILDING RESPONSE SPECTRA 10fD-LOCA pseung C-45 I I
O ptR>OO.stC.
,, o c:
- y. . . . . - 9. . . . . -
3.o 2.s F
" L E s.o h af U '1
/ [
O i.s ( - g 4 i
\1 gi.o I
J ( o.s i w 9 _ sm " I o,3 4 a 4 e e iao a 4 ..,,,,, at e e to FMQUENCY4PS me,,,,w KAffM MfftBfE g ,ge,, - - nat,- LOCA M -- Ebssess E ,m , M '-0* MMMEM REV. 6, 4/82 l SUSOUEHANNA STEAM 7.LECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 MstGN ASSESSMENT REPORT I REACTOR / CONTROL BUILDING RESPONSE SPECTRA KWU-LOCA FlouRg C- 4 6
' ' - - ~ - - "
l l O l l l PUh00 StC. ) 30 at 0 01 10" * ~
- 4 eiia 4 6 i 4 6 a .6 . . I s
5 a T G j 3 L O k r
;. I f 1 k
(-\
,/ m
-w d o
ei 4 s a to a 4 s a se. : 4 e e io. I PREQUOeCY4PS mpg E4ffM MfitfB Wh ^
^
" - - l E'A Suk --
Desdus E .hW# mmtal.EW REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 ANO 2 DESHIN ASSESSMENT REPORT
- REACTOR / CONTROL BUILDING s RESPON3E SPECTRA 10tU-LOCA reeung C- 47
1 O l I I PER100 5EC. l e1 o ?! 30 0 to
. I t.I 6 e 6 a i I . .
i6 6 6 6 e . 1 50 1 25 -I [
?~ ,
i,i.oo z' G U ce
" Y U
Wo.'S Y ve L go.so I 1
-k s 0 25 --
r u q Q m..
/
T}/ "
]/
9 00 4 e a gao a 4 s a soa at : 4 e a u 2 FBIEOLLUeCY4PS . l m g ,,,,g , Karina MillBittR w=- - es--- ." w---- m asse E RI .m. 7 N - P SinghpM881.85.GS REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 ANO 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENTREPORT REACTOR / CONTROL BUILDING RESPONSE SPECTR'. KWU-LOCA l pgeURE C- 48 l
O FtRs00 5tC. 8 01 4 8 *
- i .ii4 3 3 i i *i' , , ,
I 5 ~- . , N ab 4 . m ! i 5 ~ O le s
~
r , u h 5
<a t
- s i
i g
,/ m w4 e 4 6 s gag al 2 4 4 3 ts 2 4 6 8 as l
2 MM Amusuudeshomeer8EftB RifLBfM g sm,;_ - - ORI--- LOCA - she% semens EIL,aw 781'M E REV. 6, 4/82
~
suSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRtC STATION UNITS 1 ANO 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT REACTOR / CONTROL BUILDING t RESPONSE SPECTRA KWU-LOCA C 49 PeOURE
.. _. . .. ~.
l PERIOD SLC. e 10 0; SC ' , i
- .so 1
i s.2 v
...CG '
t
.:.+: '
r$ ! i.
- i.
s To.ss (*. ['" ,-- !{ \ - . f -- r- - o.3s
\ _
- j ci a 4 s a n.o a 4 e s go , e e a ,,
FREQUENCY CPS m anusetw E U DE EIIIIINE w e,,,, - - mai--- UxA m s,. E ,m,799'-1* ene, 4-Sangh e t M SSI,t E ., W REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT f REACN R/ CONTROL BUILDING f RESPONSE SPECTRA KWU-LOCA l pHauRE C- 50 1
O Ptmoo su:c. o og 1O Ot U0 , ,
- i .. .. . ,
e, 4
~
r E, 3 O ? r'~ . 1 5
;~. a E .
l ( l i t o
) 2 e e ag 2 4 s ag 3 4 6 8 ago oa FREQUfmCYCPS g
- manuset, EACflE 'A LBlas wg
- - nas.-- LOCA
.un ..--
M SM.881.SE.85 REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEMANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT ' REACTOR / CONTROL BUILDING RESPONSE SPECTRA InfU-LOCA PleURE C 51 O .e , 04",
l l O PERIOO.SEC.
;. 30 at O ei
* ~~* ~ ~
6 . I i. 6 4 s . 6- 4 i e s 3.0 s.1 20 O ; a f, 6 - h40
, c _
) \
*' ;_; 7 / 1-1 P
1 [, - T p 58 - 0.0 ta l 3 4 . 6 8 10 2 4 4 8 ISO 2 4 6 8 800 FREQUCCY4:PS . p g,,,,e,FAf1M Mmats wm _- - - rm__ LOCA ames --
- M .E IL..aw"18'-I*
l " " " " REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEMANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 ANO 2 DESIGN 1fSESSMENT REPORT O REACTOR / CONTROL BUILDING V RESPONSE SPECTRA ! KWU-LOCA FIGURE C- 52 1 l l
O PEftIOO.SEC. oc
- u. ' , *,,,, i **r '
i , i i
'A 2.s 1
J a .:, ( 7.
'.c< 1 5 l ti ?
O t n
~
L-
'O
.t l -
c.? f \ w_ rl o
.anm #
o.s 4 8 4 4 8 30 0 2 4 6 a gag o_ 2 e s to FREQuencv.crs B M g,ssmen , E E I R N II.II M 3,en. _- mat-- LOCA esse - _shesis ELI .. LM '-o* E REV. 6, 4/82
- MENANNA STEAAA ELECTRIC STATION IJNITS 1 ANO 2
- DE84GN ASSESSMENTREPCRT REACTOR / CONTROL BUILDING RESPONSE SPECTRA KWD-LOCA Pleunt C 53
^^ - - - - - - - - - - - , _ , _ _ , _ _ _ _
O PERIOD.AC. ge - to of e ?' i . . . . 3.3 2.? r _ 2.0 T
. j
$ U P
b :.e , O? I' $
..o lh
/
i s I ,I i c.; 2 4 e a g.o a 4 .6 a no.o 2 4 e a geo mcoucacros Ammmene,mmeas yArms attItasia tamens -
^
titl--- LOCA num --
. sme. .EE,m, IM'-0*
**"" REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT 1
REACTOR / CONTROL BUILDING RESPONSE SPECTRA l xwo-zoCA FIGURE C- 54
O PERCO.St.C. ic e 3.o oi o_oi riii , i i iiii,, , , . , ,, , , , , s.o 2.t
- h e ...
- r. .
._L _
I I i E .l
'.J hl O,i.,
Ov { -- 1 l G - J 1 e tv. i.o
/ ~
)
n.s ( -l L [ on 2 4 s a u : 4 e a ao a 4 e s so, FREQUENCY CPS a, mas e g, e, REACTOR spIIatus g ,e g - suo te gas, - go,esens e-W _Ebe
***'-1*
Bausium 185.888.85.85 REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAAA ELECTRIC STATION UtilTS 1 AND 2 DESSON ASSESSMENT REPORT p REACTOR / CONTROL BUILDING I V RESPONSE SPECTRA KWU-LOCA i FleuRE C- 55 l -- ,.
O PERIOO-St.C. os 9 oog ano io
. . . .. , i isii i i i i i sie ii i . . , .
30 e-, 7 25 7 - I r-1 en 2 0 I I {, ll J 2 \ E k r' d i ~3 ~ J O V i R I L Ys.o in i I l~j \
, -)
3.5 ( l A!! s.o 4 6 g3 2 4 4 3 Le 2 4 6 s S&O 2 a 100 FREQUENCYM Assunsegueapsmees, . EIacma aprI.nnr W gl_ ^ - ene, 1 M__ ames
~
Shoudse 5-W me, 470'-0*
% SSE.688,em.sm REV. 6, 4/82 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION
~ UNITS 1 AND 2 DES 8GN ASSESSMENT REPORT l
' REACTOR / CONTROL BUILDING RESPONSE SPECTRA KWU-LOCA l FleuRE C- 56 I
1 O l I i PUnco Sec. so o to c. 0 08 s . . . . e i iia ia e i a i i4 .. 6 i . i 1.50 1 25 u c .co __.
~.
L .-- Eo..s E O < s r, E e.o.so _] /-- 1: 1) 1 _] p . f 0 2s y l
/ Y J
o.co on *
- s e to a e a e 3ee a 4 s a 33o FREQUENCY M Ammesesse W gy MJWTOR WIISING g ,g g __ ^
Itar um g,g, - m a-w g, 476'-8"
- j. REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT l' REACTOR / CONTROL BUILDING RESPONSE SPECTRA KWU-LOCA P90Unt C- 57 ,
l
O Potsoouc. E' to as
'isa i i e i o o:
i saii i. . i i .. . , , ,, , e S
?
6 i n 5 W 3 l h o e 3( ga \
\ l i 1 r s ? e ) !
y fr i e
*: 4 a e to a 4 e e ame a e a e i.
F1tEQtXIeCY4:PS Ammheen > es -- num n= gang em, _- uneim ash - shumus B-W _g hs- 683'-0* Sumedus 885,081.88.85 REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEMANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION 8284TS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT REACN R/ CONTROL BUILDING O "" """ "'""'"^ KWU-LOCA F:GuRE C- 58
O Peuoo sec. a os so os 20 iia ii i a i a
..ii i i i i.i. .. . . .
30 1 l II i 3.s
?
E s.o 1 h I j O l:! _,
/
E I 8 .s ;,
&'** j
__ i r( q o.s \ o.o 4 s a gao 4 e aio as a a a a u FREQUDeCY M geogeng,,w g, u am numanen W h '- ^ - m - mM h as7'-e* Snaphs 885,431.881,885 REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUENANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UDNTS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT REACTOR / CONTROL BUILDING RESPONSE SPECTRA KWU-LOCA PHIURE C 59
O PERICO bEC. to on n ot te e a I . . . . 666 6 6 6 4 4 6 1.s . . . 4 t.50 4 25 e [l.00 _ I? U M i< - go.'s I=-
\
O_ u P Y 5
)
n - li.50 go
, I o
' l 0 25 f h -
j kI J 0.00 on a 4 a e to a e a e me : 4 s e io. FREQUEleCY-CPS ammenses,g, es, =m marrarus Land Cum
^ ^
ene, - shamese E-W _g as, 709'-0* , Simpius L8E5.188.85.85 REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAAA ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1/JfD 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT REAC' TOR / CONTROL BUILDING O RESPONSE SPECTRA KWU-LOCA meuRE C- 60
O PEROD SEC. ne o to an o ot siei a a i i i siii i i i i sai ii . . . . . i.so 7 5 7 ma.co af 8 E O 2 ---- go.es O j U {o.so j -L_ . f a -- 1 Jr o.as , _ , , fJY
- ca
<--\
d' . as :
- e e to a a e e m. 4 s e ioo FREQUDICYCPS m g ,,,,e , =- wns ammmven g ,g g
^ ^ -
===. LM g,g, -
m a-w h 71P *1* E REV. 6, 4/82 SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESSON ASSESSMENT REPORT REAC;IOR/ CONTROL BUILDING
===>o=== ===cra^
O KWU-LOCA FIGURE C- 61 E
O M bGC. 0 03 0.1 1C
- 10 6 ai a 6 e i e i i 6 .6 . . e 6 4 86ei e a 4 a s.so I
a.25 g.
;1.00 ,
i l i _ .i wo.'s h a E F"1 ; l E 7 p,o.so t J i f}}