ML091330448

Seabrook - Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, Revision 12, Appendix 3A, Pipe Break Analysis Summary Through Figure 3.F-3

ML091330448
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	11/03/2008
From:	Florida Power & Light Energy Seabrook
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
SBK-L-08172
Download: ML091330448 (67)

Text

S EABROOK S TATION UFSAR D ESIGN OF STRUCTURES , C OMPONENTS E QUIPMENT AND SYSTEMS Pipe Break Analysis Summary Revision 12 Appendix 3A Page 3A-1 APPENDIX 3A PIPE BREAK ANALYSIS

SUMMARY

Introduction This appendix summarizes the results of the failure mode and effects analyses of breaks in high and moderate energy piping systems. Summary Main Steam and Feedwater Pipe Chases and Yard The main steam and feedwater lines are the largest high energy lines located outside Containment, and a rupture in these lines could, therefore, result in more severe environmental conditions locally than any other line outside Containment. The portions of the main steam and feedwater lines in the containment penetration area between the first pipe whip restraint inside Containment and the first pipe whip restraint outside Containment meet all of the requirements of paragraph B.1.b of MEB 3-1, and are excluded from postulation of circumferential ruptures in

this area.

In accordance with Branch Technical Position AS B 3-1, paragraph B1.a.(1), longitudinal breaks of the main steam and feedwater lines have been postulated to occur in the penetration areas. A break area of 1.0 square feet has been postulated for this study.

Outside the Containment in the annulus between the containment structure and the containment enclosure, the main steam and feedwater lines are enclosed in guard pipes, composed of the containment penetration sleeves, which prevent pressurization of the Enclosure Building.

The containment penetrations have been designed to withstand without failure the maximum combination of forces and moments that can be transmitted by the attached piping, so that containment boundary integrity would be assured even without the use of pipe rupture restraints.

The pipe rupture restraints are designed to prev ent pipe rupture forces and moments from being applied to the containment penetrations and the isolation valves and to limit piping stresses to less than the values required by paragraph B.1.b of MEB 3-1, so that pipe ruptures between the inner and outer pipe whip restraints need not be postulated.

S EABROOK S TATION UFSAR D ESIGN OF STRUCTURES , C OMPONENTS E QUIPMENT AND SYSTEMS Pipe Break Analysis Summary Revision 12 Appendix 3A Page 3A-2 In the main steam and feedwater pipe chases outside Containment, a maximum temperature of

450ºF and pressure of 4.8 psig can be attained as a result of the postulated 1.0 square foot rupture. The P-T effects on essential structures and components have been addressed as follows:

a. The main steam and feed water valve operators are designed to close the valves in the event of loss of instrument air.

In addition, the operators are qualified to operate with the 4.8 psig overpressure. Direct impingement of steam from a one squa re foot rupture of the adjacent line would result in mechanical forces and torsion wh ich would not cause failure of the valve body or bonnet, or the attached piping. Possible failure of valve operator solenoids, limit or position switches, or instrument, power, and control cables would not activate the valve because redundant solenoids, switches and instrument, power, and control cables are located on the far side of the valve and are protected by the valve body and operator from direct impingement from the postulated break. A failure of one steam or feedwater line would therefore not result in the loss of function of the other loop. b. One emergency feedwater steam supply line is lo cated in each pipe chase, so that a single failure in one chase would not affect the steam supply from the other chase. c. A series of seven "blow-out" panels have been incorporated in the design of the upper walls near the roof line of each pipe chase. The panels are designed to blow out at a differential pressure of 0.5 psi to relieve in ternal pressure following a large high energy line break. d. The seismic Category I structure housing the main steam and feedwater pipe chases was analyzed for the temperature and pressure resulting from the 1.0 square foot rupture of the main steam line. It was concluded that the structure can withstand the 450ºF and 4.8 psig conditions, concurrent with SSE, without failure. In the evaluation of temperature response following a Main Steam Line Break outside Containment, a break spectrum initiated from 100% and 70% of maximum analyzed power has

been analyzed at the conditions associated with a core power level of 3659 MWt. The break sizes analyzed are 1.0, 0.9, 0.7, 0.6, 0.5, 0.4, 0.3, 0.2, and 0.1 sq. ft. Each main steamline break outside Containment is represented as a non-mechanistic split piping rupture. Prior to steamline isolation, the steam flow is supplied from all four steam generators, through the postulated break area represented by the spectrum noted. After steamline isolation, the steam release through the break is supplied by a single steam generator.

S EABROOK S TATION UFSAR D ESIGN OF STRUCTURES , C OMPONENTS E QUIPMENT AND SYSTEMS Pipe Break Analysis Summary Revision 12 Appendix 3A Page 3A-3 UFSAR Section 3.11.2.1 states that, based on a detailed review of the MS&FW pipe chase design, Seabrook Station can achieve a safe shutdown under any postulated superheated temperature profile due to a MSLB. This is achieved principally by the separation criteria

conceptually designed into these building areas. Seabrook has two separated MS&FW pipe chase areas exiting the east and west sides of containment. Each pipe chases houses the feedwater and main steam piping for two of the four steam generators. The piping is designed under the concepts of "superpipe" (i.e., low stress allowables and upgraded ISI program). Since the requirement is for a minimum of two steam generators for cooldown, the plant can safely shut down under the postulated MSLB in the MS&FW pipe chase designed with "superpipe,"

using the alternate pipe chase. The MS&FW pipe chase houses the MS&FW containment isolation valves, Main Steam Safety valves, atmospheric dump valves and MS supply valves to the emergency feed pump turbine. This equipment has been Environmentally Qualified to perform its design basis function during a postulated MSLB outside containment. A flooding study has been performed to establish the maximum water level in the pipe chases.

In accordance with BTP ASB 3-1, a one square f oot longitudinal break was postulated in the main feedwater line in the east pipe chase which results in the worst case flood with regard to both flood depth and effect on essential equipment. The resulting flood reaches a level 2'-5" above the pipe chase floor. The instrument room in the east chase has been provided with watertight door and cable tray seals to preclude damage to the MSIV panels within. No other essential equipment is affected by this flood. Note that the similar area in the west pipe chase does not contain similar MSIV panels, and flood protection is not required. Outside Containment and north of the main steam and feedwater pipe chases, pipe whip restraints are located on both the main steam and the feedwater lines. These whip restraints are designed as boundary restraints to prevent any moment s or torsion due to a failure in any part of the nonnuclear portions of these lines from being transmitted to the main steam or feedwater isolation valves or to the containment penetrations. The pipe whip restraints are designed to restrain the maximum forces and moments that can be transmitted by the piping without yielding. The load-bearing portions of the piping that pass through these whip restraints consist

of heavy-wall forgings with integral lugs to prevent high local stresses and possible pipe wall

collapse under pipe rupture loads.

S EABROOK S TATION UFSAR D ESIGN OF STRUCTURES , C OMPONENTS E QUIPMENT AND SYSTEMS Pipe Break Analysis Summary Revision 12 Appendix 3A Page 3A-4 Failure of the main steam lines at elevation 40'-2" could result in the impact of the main steam line on the exterior north wall of its respective pipe chase. Impact loading would cause local failure of the wall, generating missiles (spalled concrete) inside the pipe chase, jeopardizing essential main steam and feedwater isolation valves, cable trays and instrumentation. To provide protection for this essential equipment, pipe whip restraints have been provided to protect the building from damage. The whip restraints are equipped with crush pads and are mounted on a concrete beam to distribute rupture loading into nearby perpendicular walls. Postulated failures in the feedwater lines in this area do not result in unacceptable consequences. On the east side of the Containment, the nonnuclear portions of the main steam and feedwater lines are run on elevated supports, and no other safety-related equipment is located in the area.

On the west side of the Containment, the nonnuclear portions of the main steam and feedwater lines run on elevated supports adjacent to th e east wall of the Control Building. It was determined by analysis, that a split in the main steam line which runs nearest to the control building wall could cause jet impingement which might result in failure of the two-foot thick reinforced concrete wall, with formation of missiles inside the Control Building. These missiles could jeopardize the safety-related electrical trays in the southeast corner of the building, as well as the motor generator sets. To avoid this problem, this line is sleeved from the point at which it leaves the pipe whip restraints north to a point beyond which missiles would cause no problem, a distance of about sixteen feet vertically and tw enty-two feet horizontally. Analysis has shown that rupture of the other high energy lines in this area would cause no unacceptable effects.

Failure of the main steam or feedwater lines on the west side of the Containment where they run along the Turbine Building could result in impact of the ruptured lines on the northeast corner of the Control Building, with the possible generation of missiles that could damage safety-related electrical trays in the Control Building. In order to prevent this effect, a pipe whip restraint bumper has been provided to prevent damage to the control building wall. This bumper is equipped with energy absorbing crush pads and beams to distribute pipe rupture loads to nearby perpendicular walls to prevent panel fracture of th e control building wall in this area in the event of a rupture of any of these high energy lines.

Guillotine ruptures inside the Turbine Building would impose blowdown forces on the manifolds in the south direction which would be resisted by the entire piping system inside the Turbine Building and, thus, no impact on the Emergency Feedwater Pumphouse is postulated.

S EABROOK S TATION UFSAR D ESIGN OF STRUCTURES , C OMPONENTS E QUIPMENT AND SYSTEMS Pipe Break Analysis Summary Revision 12 Appendix 3A Page 3A-5 Containment Enclosure and Penetration Area In the containment enclosure and associated buildings (penetration area), a failure of the chemical and volume control system letdown line, CS-360-9-3" would cause the most severe environmental conditions (see Appendix 3I), but all essential equipment in this area is qualified to operate in a more severe environment, and no failures due to temperature, pressure or humidity are anticipated. A terminal end rupture of lines CS-328-3-2" , CS-329-1-2", CS-330 2", CS-331-1-2" or CS-335-1-3" could result in a spray of water at 130 F on nearby essential valve operators 2" CS-V-162, 2" CS-V-166, 3" CS-V-142, 3" CS-V-143, 8" RH-V-20, CS-V-167, 2" CS-V-158, or 2" CS-V-154 and on rack MM-1R-12. The impingement force of the water would be insufficient to damage the valve operators or the rack. Wetting due to the water spray would not cause failure of the valve operators, but could cause a short-circuit failure of the rack's electrical connections. Since the rack does not contain any equipment required for safe shutdown of the nuclear reactor, failure of the electrical connec tions would be acceptable (see Table 3.6(B)-1). Rupture of the large component cooling water lin es would cause flooding of the lower levels, but pressure and flow monitors would alert the operator that a problem existed. The system inventory is limited to the contents of the pi ping and the head tank, so that flooding to the elevation of the essential equipment in instrume nt rack MM-1R-13A is not possible, even if no operator action is taken. Rupture of the small high energy lines in the area can cause flooding, but each system is provided with pressure and flow monitoring instrumentation that would alert the operator in the event of a rupture of a line. The operator would have sufficient time to isolate the leaking line in any case.

Primary Auxiliary Building and Equipment Vaults In the Primary Auxiliary Building, the worst environmental conditions would occur from a postulated rupture of the 6" auxiliary steam lin e break in Zone 33C, which could result in an ambient temperature of 249 F and a pressure of 0.20 psig. All electrical equipment in the PAB which is essential for safe plant shutdown is capable of performing its intended function while exposed to this environment.

Rupture of the large component cooling, reactor makeup water and containment spray lines could result in flooding of the sumps in the equipm ent vaults. Pressure and flow indicators in each system would alert the operator that a problem existed, so that action to isolate the ruptured line could be taken. The sump high level indicat ors would also alert the operator that flooding existed.

S EABROOK S TATION UFSAR D ESIGN OF STRUCTURES , C OMPONENTS E QUIPMENT AND SYSTEMS Pipe Break Analysis Summary Revision 12 Appendix 3A Page 3A-6 Uncorrected flooding of one equipment vault might result in loss of function of the equipment in the vault. In this case, the redundant equipment in the other vault would be available for safe plant shutdown.

Other Buildings Rupture of the hot water heating lines in the Diesel Generator Building, Emergency Feedwater Pumphouse, Service Water Pumphouse and Control Building, would result in short-term elevations of temperature to a maximum of 127F for 3 minutes. Relative humidity would approach 100 percent, but no flooding would occur because of the limited hot water inventory in the heating system.

S EABROOK S TATION UFSAR D ESIGN OF STRUCTURES , C OMPONENTS E QUIPMENT AND SYSTEMS Deleted Revision 8 Appendix 3B Page 3B-1 APPENDIX 3B (DELETED IN AMENDMENT 57)

SEABROOK STATIONUFSARDesign of Structures, Components Equipment and SystemsProcedure For Evaluating Jet Impingement Loads From HighEnergy Piping Failures Revision 8Appendix 3CPage 3C-1APPENDIX 3CPROCEDURE FOR EVALUATING JET IMPINGEMENT LOADSFROM HIGH ENERGY PIPING FAILURESThe information contained in this appendix was not revised, but has been extracted from theoriginal FSAR and is provided for historical information.

CONtENt'S 1.INTRODUCTION 1 2.REQUIRED INPUT INFORMATION 3 3..rET IMPINGEMENr FORCES 4 3:1 BLCMDc:r.m FORCE 4 3.2 FULl.JET lNPING&IENT LOAD 5 3.3 JET PRESSURE 6 3.4 JET IMP INGEMEN'l' AREA 7 3.5 JET D-lPINGEHENT ENVELOPE 9

4.0 REFERENCES

21 1.INTRODUCTION Amendment 56 November 1985 The scope of this guide is to establish convenient but conservative methods of computing fluid jet impingement loads on structures, components and systems due to postulated ruptures in high energy piping (i.e., piping systems where the maximum normal operating temperature exceeds 2000F, or where the maximum normal operating pressure exceeds 275 psig)(REF.4), inside as well as outside the reactor containment building in accordance with REF.5.Only mechanical impingement loads have been considered, thermal shock loads due to high energy fluid jets have not been covered by this guide.The jet impingement loads given in this guide are equivalent static loads, based on the conservative assumption that a target encountering the jet remains elastic.A li.t of minimum input data required to assess the consequences of jet on essential components is provided.Simplified techniques of computing conservative values of jet loads, areas, pressures and envelopes are presented for both circumferential and longitudinal type of pipe failures.For each case.an illustrated ex.mple 1s given.If the Itmp11city aDd, therefore, the inherent conservatism of the Jet liven in thi.suide reault in unacceptable and/or uneconomical jet tmpingement protection designs, it is recommended that rigorous.aoalysis be performed.

Such analysis should include elasto-plastic behavior of the target, non-homogeneous nature of jet, interaction between the jet and its environment, and drag effect due to the shape of the target. 2.REQUIRED INPUT INFORMATION Amendment 56 November 1985 To determine jet impingement loads on essential structures, systems and components or on such structures, systems and components as may adversely affect essential items, the following I 5(, is prerequisite information: (a)Composite drawings of high energy piping and safety related target structure, systems and components.(b)Locations and types of postulated break points for each energy pi ping, and.(c)State of high energy piping fluid, fluid pressure and pipe data. 3.JET IMPINGEMENT FORCES J.l BLOWOOWN FORCE For steady state flow.neglecting fluid friction in pipe.the blowdown force FB (lee Fig.1)"act;ng on the discharging pipe segment is given by (REF.1),*****(1)where:K*thrust fa-ctor (1.26 for flashing and partially flashing fluids and 2.0 for sub-cooled fluids)p*fluid pressure in pipe p.-ambient pressure around the target A-area of jet opening Area of jet opening for longitudinal breaks aDd'also'for circumferential breaks on unrestrained pipes (Fig.8)i*...umed to be equal to the internal cross sectional area of the pipe.Bowever, 1f the pipe is axially restrained.

tben in ca**of a break the broken.ads of the pipe will separate by circular width B.effectins a faD jet, aDd the jet opening area will be given by. A*JrDB where: D*inside diameter of pipe B*distance between broken ends of pipe Value of B for a given case depends upon the pipe geometry, pipe material and properties.

restraint stiffnesses aDd fluid characteristics; and can be determined by dynamic or static analysis*of the system including piping and restraints.

3.2 FULL JET DIP INGEMENT LOAD Whenever a discharging jet encounters a target object in its path.the JDOIDentum of some fluid particles is challged and an impingement force is developed.

load characteristics depend upon target shape.projected area.and Drientation relative to the jet, a.well as jet cross sectional area and flow propeTties.

However, the model shown in Fig.1 ia used to esttmate jet loads OD target(s)encQuntered in a nUClear power plant.The jet discharges from an open pipe with jet opening area A aad expaDc:l1 to an area I.e.at some distance L.where it{.a.aumed to be homogeneous.

Forward motion of the jet i.stopped by the target shown and the net rightward jet force on the target is therefore*****(2)where: Piuniform impingement pressure on the target A oo=area of fully expanded jet at the target If momentum and shear interactions between the jet and its environment are assumed to be negligible then, forward mamentum conservation for the jet at any location its travel leads to an equality of blowdown force F B and total jet force Rje Equivalent static jet tmpingement force on the target is therefore also given by*****(3)3 e 3..TET IMPINGEMENT PRESSURE When a system or component encounters only a part of the jet.it is useful to know the impingement pressure to compute the total jet load actir.g on auch a target.From equations (2)aDd (3), the impingement preasure..

2K(p-p_)A A."-7-Amendmen t 56 November 1985........(4)The jet impingement load on a target with area At which does not encounter full jet (i.e.At<is given by.......(5)3.4 JET nIPINGEl-tENT AREA lull jet impingement area be determined if distance L of the target from the jet opening and the ahape and size of the jet o opening are known.A conservative value of 10 (REF.3)can be used for jet expansion half-angle 0.The shape and size of jet Iopening are governed by the pipe size and the type of postulated pipe failure.CnCUlIFERENTIAL BREAK UNRESTRAINED PIPES:

breaks are perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the Total separation of the pipe at the postulated break point is assumed.For unrestrained pipes the break area 1s therefore equal to internal cross sectional area of tbe pipe (REF.2). Amendment 56 November 1985 The following equation gives full jet area (Fig.2)vhere: 2 AM.O.25'JT (D+2LD*inside diameter of the pipe*****(6'L*distance of the target from the jet opening=expansion half-angle of the jet (=10°)Graph given in Fig.S'can be u$ed to the area A.., for known values of L and D.

PIPES: Full area of the fan jet due to a postulated circumferential break in a restrained pipe (Fig.3)is given by I SIP where: A..*2Jr (L+O.5D)(B+2L

• • • • • (7)B*distance the broken ends of the pipe (see sub-seetion 3.1)Craph given in Fig_6 can be u8ed to determine circular impingement area A"" for known values of L, D and B.

LONGITUDINAL BREAK-9-Amendment 56 November 1985 Longitudinal breaks are parallel to the axis of the pipe and are oriented at any point around the circumference, (REF.2).The jet axis is therefore perpendicular to pipe axis.The break area is assumed equal to internal cross sectional area of*the pipe and the shape of the break is assumed to be rectangular so that the 10Dg side of the rectangle is parallel to pipe axis and is equal to twice the inside diameter of the pipe.Full jet impingement area on a normal target plane (Fig.4)is given by*****(8)where fl 1 ,==2L tan<p.Graph given in Fig.7 can be used to determine full jet impingement area AGCfor known values of Land D.If the jet axis is not normal to the target plane, and makes an angle e to the normal direction, then the full jet impingement area on the target plane is given by: A= 8*****(9)where fl2+2L tan c/JI cos e 3.5 JET IMPINGEMENT ENVELOPE An area of the target structure larger than the full impingement area A may be affected due to the motion of the unrestrained Amendment S6 November 1985 broken pipe following a circumferential break.Such an area is called jet impingement envelope.It is generally not applicable to longitudinal breaks where pipe displacement is limited.CIRCUMFERENTIAL BREAK In case of a circumferential break due to unrestrained motion of the broken end of the pipe.the tmpinging jet will traverse a larger area of the target structure.

In Fig.8, first the vall and then the floor will encounter the jet force from point a to point i as the broken pipe swinss from position 1 to position n.Jet tmpingement envelope then can be developed by determining full jet impingement areas at the wall and floor according to initial position.some selected inter.mediate positions, and the final position ofbroken end of the pipe in mollon, (i.e.positions 1,2,3,******,D).The locations and magnitude of jet impingement loads will'vary from points a to i, depeDdingupon the distance the source of the jet aDd the target structura, and the inclination of the target structure to the jet axis, at any given instant. PAGE 11 OF APPENDIX 3C DELETED IN AMENDMENT 56 Amendment 56 November 1985 p Pressure Vessel p CD Impingement Target"....-------

""'-...._-----" Jet Area, A CD FIGURE 1 GENERAL MODEL Target Plane-13-Expansion Half-Angle, ({)Jet L Amendment 56 November 1985 FIGURE 2 FULL IMPINGEMENT AREA-CIRCUMFERENTIAL BREAK UNRESTRAINED PIPE Restrain t Rest ra i n t FIGURE 3 FULL IMPINGEMENT AREA-CIRCUMFERENTIAL BREAK RESTRAINED PIPE Longitudinal Break Full Impingement A.eatA;FIGURE 4 JET IMPINGEMENT AREA-LONGITUDINAL BREAK FIGURE 5 JET IMPINGEMENT AREA-CIRCUMFERENTIAL BREAK UNRESTRAINED PIPE o.........J o 00..17..02-"" 0j 0..V.../0.....I 0 V0.1/..0/.../I/0 V/2-/.../0 v/J 2-/V/V I/V/./j-:1 1/./V 0//V 0-V/,/I/0///.,V I:!-//.//"/.J'0'.//V./.",.:!//..I//V.//"-'0///./0/./.:..I//V V/./0 V V.///'*'...------0/'-".: I/I**.rei AI'/l',..,,-.--.--'/./---0 I/V V ,.......------***-----0.-litY.",...--""it":-----...-0&:=.--L,.....I:!9J.DD JO.OO 20.DO 30.00.D.DD 50.DO IJ).OO'D.GO IO.DO.0*00 IFIGURE 6 JET IMPINGEMENT AREA-CIRCUMFERENTIAL BREAK RESTRAINED PIPE FIGURE 7 JET IMPINGEME NT AREA-LONGITUDINAL BREAK o CD o 0'I.O....J o¢o 10 o (\J o *0.....'.....:.lJ*"**.0'Q D t****I},0..."b (Jt'0--------//II I//I/1 I/I///I I//I I(/I IIII'2"".-------------

n , Wall*....Floor FIGURE 8 JET IMPINGEMENT ENVELOPE-CIRCUMFERENTIAL BREAK UNRESTRAINED PIPE PAGE 20 OF APPENDIX 3C DELETED IN AMENDMENT 56 Amendment 56 November 1985 4.REFERENCES 1.F.J.MOODY,"Prediction of Blowdown Throst and Jet Forces".Publication No.69-HI-31, May 1969.2.Regulatory Guide 1.46,"Protection Against Pipe Whip'Inside Containment", Directorate of Regulatory Standards, u.s.Atomic Energy Coamission.

3.ANSI Nl76,"Design Basis for Protection of Nuclear Power Plants against Effects of Postulated Pipe Failures", ANS-58.2, American Nuclear Society, 1975.

S EABROOK S TATION UFSAR Design of Structures, Components Equipment and Systems Procedure For Calculating Elasto-Plastically Designed Pipe Whip Resistant Loads By Energy Balance Method Revision 8 Appendix 3D Page 3D-1 APPENDIX 3D PROCEDURE FOR CALCULATING ELASTO-PLASTICALLY DESIGNED PIPE WHIP REST RAINT LOADS BY ENERGY BALANCE METHOD The information contained in this appendix was not revised, but has been extracted from the original FSAR and is provided for historical information.

SB 1&2 FSAR Amendment 56 November 1981 A simplified model ason the next page canused for elastic-plastic design of pipe Yhip restraints.

An energy balance approach bas been used to formulate the calculations for determining the plastic deformation in the restraints.

In applying the plastic deformation design for restraints, the regulatory guides require that either one of the following upper bound design limits{or metallic ductile materials be met.(a)50%of the minimum ultimate uniform scrain (the strain at the maximum stress of an engineering stress-strain curve based on actual macerial tests for the restraint), or (b)50%0: the percent elongation as specified in an applicable ASHE.ASTM, etc.Code, specification.

or standard when demonstrated to be less than 50%of the minimum ultimate uniform strain based on representative test results.3D-l St;t.&2 FSAR S1mnl1f1ed approach for elasto-21astic Amendment 56 November 1985 If the restraint is to go into the plastic region.then the restruint deflection, d cax*vill consist of an elastic and.portion as shown below.(Figure 1.0)ax RestraintFigure 1.0-Idealized Deflection Characteristics.

where, Restraint elastic deflection at yield stress d max*Maximum allowable restraint deflection Rp.=Maximum restraint resistance Rp=ked e k e*Restraint elastic structural stiffness If'F'denotes the applied forcins Function (i.e., a blow doun load in case of a pipe break)and'h'denotes the gap the piping and the restraint.

an energy balance relation for this case gives, (see Figure 2.0).F (b+*i R p d e+Rp (c!max-de>-Rp (d cax-de)2 3D-2 SB 1&2 FSAR., 1 ft I h d max£Ca)(b)Before Impact After Impact Figure 2.0 Energy balance Analvsis Model Amendment 56 November 1985 Rearranging,-F)-Therefore, d max=1 2 (2Fh-4-Rpd e)2Fh+Rpd e 2 (Rp-F)(1)The above formulation can be further sin.plif ied in 2Fh is much larg'!r th.:m Therefore, assucn1ng, Rpd e<<2Fh Equation (1)gives, dmax-(Rp-F)(2)After determining Cmax'either by equation (1)or.equation (2)above (as applicable), the resulting strain in the member should be calculated nnd should be checked against the criteria give in page 1.c1max.For uniaxial members, the strain c is taken to be to--L--vhere L 1s the original length of the restraint member.3D-3 SB 1&2 FSAR Pages 4 and 5 Deleted in Amendment 56 Amendment 56 November 1985 SEABROOK STATIONUFSARDesign of Structures, Components Equipment and SystemsProcedure For Calculating Elasto-Plastically Designed PipeWhip Resistant Loads By Equivalent Static Analysis Method Revision 8Appendix 3EPage 3E-1APPENDIX 3EPROCEDURE FOR CALCULATING ELASTO-PLASTICALLYDESIGNED PIPE WHIP RESTRAINT LOADS BY EQUIVALENTSTATIC ANALYSIS METHODThe information contained in this appendix was not revised, but has been extracted from theoriginal FSAR and is provided for historical information.

SB 1&2 FSAR APPENDIX 3E PROCEDURE FOR CALCULATING ELASTICALLY DESIGNED PIPE WHIP RESTRAINT LOADS BY EQUIVALENT STATIC ANALYSIS METHOD PREPAlU:D BY: 1I1.l II}7 F.JAN, MECHANICAL ANALYSI:S GAOliP ,/6--APPROVED BY:./"'.,"/'"C"'T'.?G'.r"**.-;-'"/......*" w:---.,...""\.L..,

...l\.

ANALYSIS ID order to evaluate the response of an elastically designed pipe whip restraint to&pipe break load by using the eqUivalent staeic: aualysis approach, the dynamic: load factor associated with the a.pplicable forcia.l function'and the clearance (gap)betveen the pipe and.the re$traint has to b&

A simplified.

mathematical model as showa on che aext page.can be used to the dYnamic load factor.Since the pipe s1:e effects are already being.reflected in the magnitud.e of the pipe break loa.d, the pipe sizeis Dot ,considered agai.n as a model parameter.

The dynllDl1c:

load factor (DLi')*thus determined is used to calculate the restraint load (R)as follows: 1..*("'-PA)x DL'F--where.:{1.26 for steam-saturated water ct=2.0 for sub coo led non-flashing waterU.S.NRC StAndard Review Plan, 3.6.2 (III)(2)(c:)P*Operating Pressure A*Pipe:Break Area A series of parametric curves for detetmining the restraint loads for steam-saturated water ot'steam-water mixtures only are given in Pages3-14. It.SlHPLE MOD::!.FOlt LOAD FACTOR By substituting (3)into (2), we have ya k F(h+-d)-1/2.1cd2.Frca (1).k*-L d st (1)(2)(3)yh IIIIr u)Q/MII 0..CD Or, d2h8;f-1-+--;:-"-

---

u.s-r s: Where.J*Applied Load*(Pipe ltupture Load)d se*Restraint deflection for statically applied Fd*Kax.1mum.restraint deflect10nb-Gap size k*Aestraint st1ffness DLF*Dynamic load factor

-3..GRP=0.12 00 INCHES a.'*,*""1 rt J***"'1 tt IN lBS.PRRRMETRIC rOR ELAST!PIPE WHIP RES RRINTS.(Applicable to seeamrsaeurate.d wa er or steam-wa1r mixtures,*1.26) GRP= 00 INCHES PRRRMETRIC CUIVES FOR ELRSTI PIPE WHIP (Applicable nly to steamJsarurated or steam-wat r mixtures,Ol.

1.26),***"'1(T I P*A**i"'1 rt IN L.6S.RES RRINTS.tA r J*i""1 cf I*4*i;"1 Rj:UNTS.'.'10'*1'.ill"10*IN LBS.GRP=0.50 00 INCHES..PRRR"ETRJC CUIVES FOR ELRSTI PIPE WHIP RfS (Applicable nly to.steamlsaeurated va er or steam-vat r

• 1.26).ri a**""'lrf I J***ui rt aP*R CUP.VES FOR ELAST1 PIPE WHIP RES RAJNTS.(Applicable n1y to steamrsaturated.wa er or r

• 1.26)GRP=0.75 00 INCHES.,*it*"'10'l P*R J*" , ,.'1 rf'IN lBS.J*it*,.110'I.J..,*1 =1.00 00 INCH!S PARA"ETRIC CURVES FOR PIPE WHIP RES RAINTS.(Applicable bnly to steam'saturated water Dr steam_wallr mixtures,*1.26)**""10'I ,***""et a**""let I'"""HfP*R IN LaS. CU FOR ElRSTJ RRINYS.(Applicable

?nly to steam+saturated va er or steam-vat r IIlixl:\I res'l-1.26)GRP=1.25 00 INCHES a"':1II***"'\O*I I***"'1 ctP*A IN LBS.I ,***.,"l r:f I ,***,"1 r:: PIP! RES RAINTS.saturated vater*1.26).I*ilt*IN LBS.**I*,.'10*,P*A PARAMETRIC cu.YES FOR ELRST1 I to stea=or steam-va er mixtures,.)*""'lri rt* PRRAMETRIC CU YES FOR ELASTI PIPE WHIP RES RAINTS.(Applicable nly to steam wa er or steam-wat r mixtures,Q

=1.26)ORP=1.75 00 INCHES NI*a"It 0'2 J<<a I a, 0'P*A J"'10'J IN LaS.****,,, r!J.."1 PARAMETRJC CU VLS FOR ELASTI PIPE WbWP RES RAINTS.(Applicable only to stea saturated wa er or steam-waer

=1.26)41'0'IN lBS.I 4**.,..ot I 3'I*"'J O*IP*A GAP=2.50 00 INCHES CU YES FOR ELASTI PIPE WHIP RES RAINTS.(Applicable nly to steam saturated wa er or steam-vat r mixtures J<<a 1.26)I.<<., 1 ItO'I*(TIT.*0'**I"" rt IN LBS.ri I**" u.rt I J C I.,..O*IP*A I.""1 pt."0 I**at;l/l-IIOGllO"., mz 0::.100I ,.....111IO 1100 IDOl u.no 1M ,-** PRRAMETRIC FOR ELASTI PIPE WHIP RES RAINTS.(Applicable bnly to st&amjsaturated vaor

• 1.26)I GAP=3.00 00 INCHES***,.110**P*A I***,..rf I IN lBS.****'til rf*I***HI C =0.06 50 INCHES ,*'Ill!-------------

---

_.-'.*I*H'a P*II ,**""10" J IN Las.J*I*'tI iii 0J**i'"1 SEABROOK STATIONUFSARDesign of Structures, Components Equipment and SystemsVerification of Computer Programs Used ForStructural Analysis and Design Revision 8Appendix 3FPage 3F-1APPENDIX 3FVERIFICATION OF COMPUTER PROGRAMS USED FORSTRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND DESIGNThe information contained in this appendix was not revised, but has been extracted from theoriginal FSAR and is provided for historical information.

SB 1&2 FSAR APPENDIX 3F VERIFICATION OF COMPUTER PROGRAMS USED FOR STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN Amendment 54 February 1985 Computer programs used for structural analysis and design have been verified according to the criteria described in the US NRC Standard Review Plan 3.8.1, Section 1I-4(e).(a)The following computer programs are recognized in the public domain, and have had sufficient history to justify their applicability and validity without further demonstration:

Hardware Source STARDYNE CDC CDC(l)MARC-cnC CDC CDC(I)STRU-PAl{CDC CDC(l)System Professional CDC eDC(l)ANSYS CDC CDC(I)STRUDL UCCEL PSDI(2)UEMENU UCCEL UCCEL(3)(1)CDC-(2)PSDI-Control Data Corporation P.o.Box 0, HQWOSH Minneapolis, Minnesota 55440 Programs for Structural Design, Inc.14 Story Street Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138 (3)UCCEL-UCCEL Corporation P.o.Box 84028 Dallas, Texas 75284*(b)The following computer programs have been verified by solving test problems with a similar and independently-written and recognized program in the public domain: SAG058 (Response Spectra)3F-I SB 1&2 FSAR Amendment 54 February 1985 A summary'of comparison results is shown in Table 3F-l.AX2 (Axisymmetric Shell Program)A verification manual comparing AX2 with results obtained from either ANSYS or BOSOR4 (Lockhead Missile and Space Company-Palo Alto, CA)can be obtained from Pittsburgh

-Des Moines Corporation, 3400 Grand Avenue, Neville Island, Pittsburgh, PA 15225 (c)The following computer programs have been verified by comparison with analytical results published in technical literature:

SAGOOl SAGO10 (WILSON 1)(WILSON 2, DYN)Summaries of comparison results are shown in Tables 3F-2 and 3F-3, respectively.(d)The following computer programs have been verified by comparison with hand calculations for test problems which are representative of the type used in actual analyses: A summary of comparison results is shown in Tables 3F-4 through 3F-8.SAG008 SAGO17 SAG024 SAG025 PM-9IO*PM-906 (TAPAS)(FOUREXP)(M!UC)(SECTION)(LESCAL)(STRAP)I 54 (e)The following computer programs are verified by inspection of the graphical output data.SAG054 (Response Envelope)A typical verification example is presented in Table 3F-9.*Documentation of STRAP is available in the Final Safety Analysis Reportfor the Carolina Power and Light Co., Brunswick 1&2, US NRC Docket Nos.50-324 and 50-325.3F-2 SB 1&2 FSAR TABLE 3F-l SAG058 (RESPONSE SPECTRA)SAG058(l)is verified against SIARDYNE.sub-routine DYNRES.The input ItH is pf 22 second duration.with a time interval of 0.01 seconds and a maximum acceleration of 1.Og.

AccelerationFrequency.O.5%D41JJll)in5t 2%DaJl11)in2 (Hz)SAG058 DYNRE5 SAG058 DYNRES 0.33 0.91 0.98 0.79 0.83 1.00 2.68 2.67 2.03 2.03 2.00 8.23 8.23 4.33 4.32 3.03 6.04 6.02 4.31 4.32 4.00 5.20 5.18 4.40 4.37 5.00 5.25 5.21 3.95 3.94 6.25 7.51 7.42 4.47 4.38 7.14 5.33 5.25 3.94 3.90 8.33 4.87 4.80 3.68 9.09 7.09 6.93 4.96 4.81 10.00 5.00 4.97 3.37 3.35 20.00 2.61 2.60 1.77 1.77 33.331.221.22 1.13 1.14 (l)SAG058 is an in-bouse computer program run on the Control Data Corporation CYBER-17S and 15 used asap..

to program.

SB 1&2 FSAR TABLE 3F-2 SAGOOI (WILSON 1)The following is a comparison of the results from SAGOOl with results obtained from published literature.

SAGODI runs on the Honeywell 66/60 system with the GeOS operating system.Samole Problem No.1 Analysis of a thic.k-valled cylinder subj ecteci to an internal pressure.Reference-Gallagher.

R.H., Finite Element Analysis, Figure 11.5, pg.317, Inc., 1975.Comparison of the theoretical solution with the WILSON 1 solution is shawn on Figure 3F-l for the radial stress and the hoop stress.Sample Problem No.2 Analysis of a cylindrical shell.fixed at both ends and subjected to an internal pressure.Reference-Timoshenko, S., Woinowsky-Krieger, S., Theory of Plates and Shells, Second Edition, pg.475, McGraw-Hill, 1959.Comparison of the theoretical solution with the WILSON 1 solution is shown on Figures 3F-2 andfor the radial shear and meridional moment, respectively.

SB 1&2 FSAR TABLE 3F-3 SAGO 10 (WILSON 2, DYN)The original version of SAGOlO,"Dynamic Stress Analysis of Axisymmetric Structures Under Arbitrary Loading," written by Ghosh and Wilson was revised by UE&C in September, 1975.The program is distributed in the public domain by the Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, California.

The program has been verified against a series of problems whose results are published in technical literature.

Documentation of this verification is contained in the report EERC 69-10 which can be obtained from the Earthquake Engineering Research Center.SAG010 is run on the Honeywell 66/60 System.

SB 1&2 FSAR TABLE 3F-4 SAG008 (TAPAS)the is a comparison of the results from SAGO08, which computes the temperature distribution through plane and axisymmetric solids, with hand calculations.

The sample results are for the temperature distribution through the thickness of a hemispherical concrete dome which is 42 inches thick and subject to 120 0 P inside and (-)lOOF outside.Element No.724 848 972 1096 1220 1344 SAG008(1)(OF)110.38 88.89 65.33 42.l2 19.26 (-)1.04 Hand CalcuJ.ation (OF@Mid Pt.of Elem.)110.7143 89.048 65.833 42.619 19.405 (-)0.7143 SAG008 runs on the Honeywell 66/60 system

References:

(1)Wilson, E.L., Nickell, R.E.,"Application of the Finite Element," Journal of Nuclear Engineering and Design, 4, 1966.

SB 1&2 FSAR TABLE 3F-5 SAGO 17 (FOUREXP)Amendment 56 November 1985 The following is a verification of SAG017 with hand calculations for arbitrary loading distribution which is an even function and can be expanded using a cosine Fourier Series.The periodic function is, f(e)*e<01 Leo<e s 1fJ Comparison of Fourier Coefficients:

n o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16'17 18 19 20 SAG017(1)1.5699-1.2739-0.0019-0.1421-0.0019.-0.0516-0.0020-0.0266-0.0021-0.0164-0.0022-0.0112-0.0023-0.0082-0.0025-0.0063-0.0028-O.OOSI-0.0031-0.0042-0.0036 Band Calculations(2) 1.5708-1.2732 o-0.1415 o-0.0509 o-0.0260 o-0.01S7 o-0.0105 o-0.007S o-0.0057 o-0.0044 o-0.0035 o I 5(, SAG017 runs OD the Honeywell 66/60 system.

References:

(1)The Fourier are computed for a digitized function by a technique described in Mathematical Methods for Digital Computers.

by Rolsten aDd Wilf.John Wiley and SODS, New York, 1960, Chapter 24.The solution technique is from subroutine FORIY in the.IBM Scientific package.The prolram is run on the Honeywell 66/60 system.(2)wylie.C.R:.Advapced Engipeering Mathematics, 4th Ed., McGraw-Hill, 1975.

SB 1&2 FSAR TABLE 3F-6 SAG024 (MMIC)The following is a comparison of the results of hand calculations with SAG024 for the weight of a typcial lumped mass point in'a dynamic model of a shear building.Parameter Xc!(X-Coordinate of the Center of Mass).-ft.Y CH (Y-Coordinate of the Center of Mass)"':'ft.(Total Weight of Mass Point)-Kips IMX (Rotary Weight Moment of Inertia about X-Axis)K-ft 2 1M!(Rotary Weight Moment of Inertia about Y-Axis)K-ft 2 1HZ (Rotary Weight Moment of Inertia about Z-Axis)K-ft 2 SAG024 runs on the Honeywell 66/60 system.Reference.:

SAG024 (1)26.19 0.08 1444 162,323 379,552 470,152 Band Calculation 26.19 0.08 1444 162,320 379,550 470,150 (1)Bear, F.P.and Johnston, R.E., Jr., Vector Mechanics*for Engineers:

apdjDYnamics, McGraw-Bill, 1962, pps.343-347.

SB 1&2 FSAR TABLE 3F-7 SAG025 (SECTION)The following is a comparison of the results of hand calculations with SAG025 for a system of resisting structural elements between floors in a typcial shear building.1cR (X-Coordinate of Center of Rigidity)-ft.Y CR (Y-Coordinate of Center of Rigidity)-ft.At (Area)-ft SFX (Shear Shape Factor about X-Ax1.s)SFY (Shear Shape Factor about Y-Axis)lXX (Moment of Inertia about X-Axis)-ft.lyy (Moment of Inertia about Y-Axis)-ft.J (Torsional Constant)-ft.SAG025 runs on the Honeywell 66/60 system.SAGO 25 26.3 0.0 466.0.456.555 11,100 44,000 117,000 Band Calculations 26.257 0.0 466.0 0.456 0.555 11,079 43,957 117,470 SB 1&2 FSAR TABLE 3F-8 (Sheet 1 of 2)PM-910 (LESCAL)Amendment 56 November 1985 The following i8 a compariaon of the results from the LESCAL computer program with hand calculationa.

L!SCAL calculates the stresses and strains in rebars and/or concrete in accordaDce with the criteria set forth in Subarticle3511.1 of ASHE Section III, Divi8ion II.The section is concrete reinforced with horizODtal, vertical and/or diagonal rebars, subjected to axial force and moment on a vertical and horizontal face and in-plane shear.When inp1ane shear forces are included, a solutionis obtained by solving Duchon's equations(l).

Load Condition.D+P a+E s Applied@c.g.o£Concrete Section D+l.25P a+l.2SEo Applied@c.g.of Concrete Section*D+P a+E s Applied@c.g.of Rebar 5l.Band I Parameter LESCAL (Ksi)Calculations 5f..f m outside 29.39 29.46 fh outside 23.08 23.05 I fseis.(3)52.26 52.35 5(, fseis.(4)0.21 0.21 f m inside 26.67 26.75 f h inside 23.82 23.77 f m outside-2.22-2.99 f 11 outside-0.41-0.16 I fseis.(3)9.70 9.47fsds.(4)-12.34-12.63 f m inside 38.37 39.34 fh-inside 1.98 2.12 f..outside 37.70 37.70 f h outside 25.08 25.07 f se ls.(3)57.41 57.41 f sus.(4)5.37*5.37 fill inside 12.74 12.73 fb inside.19.01 19.01-------------------------------------_._-----

-_._-----

SB 1&2 FSAR TABLE 3F-8 (Sheet 2 of 2)Amendment 56 November 1985 Load Cond i tion D+1.25Pa+l.25Eo Applie:d@c.g.of Rebar Parameter f m outside f h outside fseis.(3)faus.(4)fm inside fh inside LESeAL (Ksi)-2.01 7.33 16.07-10.76 40.94 9.54 Hand Calculations

-1.77 7.82 16.08-10.02 40.64 10.06 I S&LESCAL runs on the Honeywell 66/60 system.Notes (3)and (4)indicate directions of seismic rebars.

References:

(1)Duchon, N.B**"Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Membrane Subject to Tension and Shear," ACI Journal, September 1972, pp.578-583.

SB 1&2 FSAR TABLE 3F-9 SAG054 (RESPONSE ENVELOPE)SAG054 is a post-processing program for STARDYNE which is used in seismic analysis The program spreads the peaks of the response spectra created by SAG058 (See Table 3F-l)by a predetermined amount and tabulates the ordinates and abscissas of the resulting curve.Verification of this program is by visual.inspection of the graphical output to insure that the raw data has,in fact.been enveloped.

SAG054 runs on the CDC CYBER-175 svstem.

(-.2607)(R-STRESS))(10'" psi (+0.9218)(+0.7915)__(+_0_,5997

)o SAG 001-EXACT SOLUTION-,(T-STRESS))(10 psi 1.I¢.SYM.I,I (o)FINITE ELEMENT IDEALIZATION I ,:Q5---1 r:1.0, 1.8 (b)CAlCULATED STRESSES ANALYSIS OF THICK-WALLED CYUNDER UNDER INTERNAL PRESSURE

REFERENCE:

GALLAGHER, R.H., FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS, PRENTICE-HAlL,INC.

1975.FIGURE 11.5, PG.317 PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SAGOO1 SAMPLE PROBLEM NO.1 SEABROOK STATION-UNITS 1&2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT 1 FIGURE 3F-1 GO d ,.....d e Z w x (5 V)0.()0 C>d:E or:(t-V)I I 0¢II')0....JIN"'"><d M d N d Q-w O Q liN....J......W,1&..-§0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 8 8......0 0 0 02-0 N N.()52:!++I I'"+I I CI)(!sd)W3HS 1'tIOWPUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SAGOO1 SAMPLE PROBLEM NO.2 SEABROOK STATION-UNITS 1&2 RADIAL SHEAR FINAL SAFETY ANAL YSIS REPORT I FIGURE.3F-2 ro o N 0 c 0 Z L&J 0 a II LLJ-"'" X.......iL)(0 o 0000 00 0°000 o 0000 N T<OCDONII IT j'" CI)0-en X w.....2: CI)0 UJ w:2 en 0 a:: L&J0 z z 0 LL LU-:I: 0 0 CD CJ)0 0 0 0:2(,!)i=<I CJ)(/)010°(U!I#Un J.N3WOW PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SAG001 SAMPLE PROBLEM NO.2 SEABROOK STATION-UNITS1&2 MERIDIONAL MOMENT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT I FIGURE 3.F-3