ML091610109
| ML091610109 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 03/27/2009 |
| From: | Tang S Structural Integrity Associates |
| To: | Constellation Energy Group, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| 0800528.402, Rev 0 | |
| Download: ML091610109 (131) | |
Text
ENCLOSURE ATTACHMENT 13.6 SIA Report No. 0800528.402 Nine Mile Point Unit 2 Steam Dryer ASME Stress Analysis Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC May 27, 2009
Report No. 0800528.402.RO Project No. 0800528 March 2009 M] Q F-1 Non-Q Nine Mile Point Unit 2 Steam Dryer ASME Stress Analysis Prepared for:
Constellation Energy Group Oswego, NY 7710698, Rev. 0 Prepared by:
Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
San Jose, California Prepared by:
Reviewed by:
Approved by:
S. S. Tang, P. E.
Date:
3/27/09 Date:
3/27/09 Date:
3/27/09 Marcos L. Herrera, P.E.
Karen K. Fujikawa, P.E.
C Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
REVISION CONTROL SHEET Document Number:
0800528.402
Title:
Nine Mile Point Unit 2 Steam Dryer ASME Stress Analysis Client:
Constellation Energy Group SI Project Number:
0800528
[K Q [-L Non-Q Section Pages Revision Date Comments 1.0 1-1 0
3/27/09 Initial Issue 2.0 2-1 3.0 3-1 4.0 4
4-4 5.0 5-1 5 6.0 6 6-76 7.0 7-1-7-21 8.0 8 8-7 9.0 9-1-9-2 10.0 10-1-10-2 Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
ii
.Table of Contents Section Pave
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1-1 2.0 DESIGN CRITERIA..............................................
2-1 3.0 L O A D S.................................................................................................................................
3-1 3.1 Unit Load Cases...........................................................................
.......... 3-1 3.2 Flow Induced V ibration Load......................................................................................
3-1 4.0 LOAD COMBINATIONS..................................................................................................
4-1 5.0 ASSUMPTIONS..................................................................................................................
5-1 6.0 ASME CODE STRESS LIMITS EVALUATION...........................
6-1 6.1 Individual Load C ase R esults......................................................................................
6-2 6.1.1 U n it P ressure.......................................................................................................
6-3 6.1.2 Unit Acceleration in Global X-Direction.............................................................
6-3 6.1.3 Unit Acceleration in Global Y-Direction.............................................................
6-3 6.1.4 Unit Acceleration in Global Z-Direction.............................................................
6-3 6.1.5 F I V L o a d s.............................................................................................................
6 -3 6.1.6 OBE, SSE, SR V and AP Load Cases....................................................................
6-4 6.2 ASME Code Stress Evaluation, Load Combination Case B-3....................................
6-4 6.3 ASME Code Stress Evaluation, Load Combination Case D-1....................................
6-5 6.4 Reconciliation of Finite Element Model and Assessment of Code Evaluation........... 6-6 6.5 Assessment of Indications in Upper Support Ring and Drain Channel....................... 6-7 7.0 FATIGUE EVALUATION................................................................................................
7-1 7.1 Stress R ange and M ean Stress.....................................................................................
7-3 7.2 F atigue E valuation.......................................................................................................
7-3 7.3 Reconciliation of Finite Element Model on Fatigue Evaluation.................................
7-4 Report No. 0800528.402.RO iii V
Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
8.0 BUCKLING EVALUATION OF LIFTING RODS........................................................
8-1 8.1 Technical A pproach...................................................................................................
- . & 1 8.2 D esign Inputs...............................................
8-1 8.3 A ssum ptions..............................................................................
............................... 8-2 8.4 Buckling Calculation.................................
.................... 8-2 8.5 Results of A nalysis......................................................................................................
8-3 8.6 D iscussions...................................
I...............................................................................
8-5 9.0 DISCU SSIO N A N D C O N CLU SIO N S..............................................................................
9-1 10.0 REFEREN(CvQ*
I 0-1 Report No. 0800528.402.RO iv RRStructural Integrity Associates, Inc.
List of Tables Table Page Table 4-1: NMP2 Steam Dryer Load Combinations.................................
4-2 T able 4-2: D elta Pressure Forces...........................................................................................................
4-3 T able 4-3: D ynam ic L oads...........................................................................
- .......................................... 4-3 Table 4-4. NMP2 Steam Dryer Limiting Load Combinations..............................................................
4-4 Table 5-1: Design Stress Intensitiesand Young's Modulus (ksi) for Typical Stainless Steel................ 5-2 Table 5-2: Summary of Stress Intensity Limits.............................................................................. 5-2 Table 5-3: A llow able Stress Intensities (ksi)......................................................
.................................... 5-2 Table 5-4: Tabulated Values of Fatigue Curves..................................................
- .................................. 5-3 Table 6-1: Classification of Stress Intensities......................................
6-9 Table 6-2: Code Evaluation for Load Combination B-3..............................
6-10 Table 6-3: Linearized Stresses at Gusset Section across the Maximum Stress Location for Load C om bination C ase B -3..................................................................................................................
6-11 Table 6-4: Code Evaluation for Load Combination D-1.......................................................................
6-12 Table 6-5: Code Interpreted Stresses at the Maximum Stress Location for Level D............................
6-13 Table 6-6: Comparison of Maximum Stress (ksi) Results due to Model Modification........................ 6-14 Table 6-7: Modified Code Stress Evaluation for Load Combination B-3...........................................
6-15 Table 6-8: Modified Linearized Stresses at Gusset Section across the Maximum Stress Location for Load C om bination C ase B -3....................................................................................................
6-16 Table 6-9: Modified Code Stress Evaluation for Load Combination D-1............................................
6-17 Table 6-10: Modified Code Interpreted Stresses at the Maximum Stress Location for Load C om bination D -1...........................................................................................................................
6-18 Table 7-1: Fatigue Evaluation for Load Combination B-3...........................
7-5 Table 8-1: Total Lifting Force, Faulted Condition.................................................................................
8-6 Table 8-2: Compressive Load on each Lifting Rod, Faulted Condition.................................................
8-6 Table 8-3: Allowable Load due to Axial Compression.......................................
.................................... 8-6 Report No. 0800528.402.RO v
Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
List of Figures Figure Figure 5-1:
Figure 5-2:
Figure 6-1:
Figure 6-2:
Figure 6-3:
Figure 6-4:
Figure 6-5:
Figure 6-6:
Figure 6-7:
Figure 6-8:
Figure 6-9:
Figure 6-10 Figure 6-11 Figure 6-12 Figure 6-13 Figure 6-14 Figure 6-15 Figure 6-16 Figure 6-17 Figure 6-18 Figure 6-1.9 Figure 6-20 Figure 6-21 Figure 6-22 Figure 6-23 Figure 6-24 Figure 6-25 Page Design Fatigue Curves.............................................
5-4 Flow Chart for Use of Fatigue Curves.................................................................................
5-5 N M P2 Steam Dryer M odel................................................................................................
6-19 Steam Dryer Boundary Condition.............
....................... 6-20 Constraint Equations..........................................................................................................
6-20 Solid Elem ents, Solidl86 and Solidl87............................................................................
6-21 Shell Elem ents, She1163.....................................................................................................
6-21 Surface Elem ents, Surf154.................................................................................................
6-22 M ass Elem ents, M ass21......................................................................................................
6-22 Outer Hood...............................................................................
6-23 M iddle Hood.....................................................................................................................
6-23 Inside H ood......................................................................................................................
6-24 Gussets in Hoods...............................................
6-24 Side Plates............ :...........................................................................................................
6-25 V ane Bank Base Plates......................... I............................
............... 6-25 Vertical Plates Inside Vane Banks...............................................................
I 6-26 Vane Banks.....................................................................................................................
6-27 Vane Banks........................................................................................................
.............. 6-28 D rain Pipes.......................................................................................................................
6-28 Skirt.........................................................................................................................
.......... 6-29 D rain Channels........................................................................................
......................... 6-29 Upper Support Ring..........................................................................................................
6-30 Low er Support Ring.......................... :............................................................................ 6-30 Tie Bars..............................................
6-31 Lifting Rods...........................
6-31 Gussets Between Upper Support Ring and Vane Bank Base Plates................................
6-32 Vessel Brackets and Support Plates.................................................................................
6-32 Report No. 0800528.402.RO vi R
Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
Figure 6-26: Pressure Loadings.........................
....... 6-33 Figure 6-27: Stress Intensity, Top Surface, due 'to Unit Pressure......................
.... 6-34 Figure 6-28: Stress Intensity Distribution, Top Surface, 1 g Accelerationin X-direction..................6-35 Figure 6-29: Stress Intensity Distribution, Top Surface,: I g Static Acceleration in Y-direction.......... 6-36 Figure 6-30: Stress Intensity Distribution, Top Surface, 1 g Static Acceleration in Z-direction...
6-37 Figure 6-31: Stress Intensity Distribution, Top Surface, FIV Load - TimeStress_496661.:075.......
6-38 Figure 6-32: Stress Intensity Distribution, Top Surface, FIV Load - TimeStress,4966761075......,.... 6-39 Figure 6-33: Stress Intensity Distribution, Top Surface,
- LAPd, EPU.....
......... 49,670
............. 6-40 Figure 6-34: Stress Intensity Distribution, Top Surface, APa, EPU,.........
..... 6-41 Figure 6-35: Stress intensity. Distribution, Top Surface, AB E..........................
........................ 6-42 Figure 6-35: Stress Intensity Distribution, Top Surface,.SSE..........
D.r..i.......
,T T.....
t...:.........
6-42 Figure 6-36: Stress Intensity Distribution.,TopSurface,,SSE
.......... 6-42 Figure 6-37: Stress Intensity Distribution, Top Surface, SRV.........................................
6-43 Figure 6-3 8: Stress Intensity Distribution, as-Surface, AP 6-43 Figure 6-39: Outer Hood; Stress Intensity, Case B-3(a)....................
............................................. 6-44 Figure 6-40: Middle Hood, Stress Intensity, Case B-3(a).......
...................... ;....... 6-44 Figure 6-41: Inside Hood, Stress Intensity, Case B
6-45 Figure 6-42: Gussets in Hoods, Stress Intensity, Case B-3 (a)
.6-45 Figure 6-43: Sides Plates, Stress Intensity, Case B-3(a)....
.............................. 6-46 Figure 6-4: Vane Bank Vertical Plates, Stress Intensity, Case B-3(a)................
.... 6-47 Fgr6-46: Vane B anks, Stress Intensity, Case 'B-3(a).,:........................
6-47 Figure 6-47: Drain.Pipes, Stress Intensity, Case B:3(a)
................. 6-48 Figure 6-48: Skirt, Stress It ensity,.Case
,B3 (a)......
6-48
.Figure 6-49: DrainChannels, Stress Intensity, Case B-3(a).
I 6-49 Figure 6-50: Upper Support Ring, Stress Intensity, Case B-3(a)..
o...............
.... 6-49 Figure 6-51: Lower Support Ring, Stress Intensity, Case B.-3 (a)............
6-50 Figure 6-52: Tie Bars, Stress Intensity, Case B 3(a).........................................
..................... 6-50 Figure 6-53: Lifting Rods, Stress Intensity,
Case B-3(a) 6-51 Figure 6-54: Gussets in Upper Support Ring, Stress Intensity; Case B-3(a)........... :................ *.......
6-51 Figure 6-55: Outer Hoods Stress Intensity Case B-3 (b)!...................
6-52 Figure 6-56: M iddle Hoods, Stress Intensity Case B-3 (b)...............
............ 6-52 Report No. 0800528.402.RO vii Structural, Integrity Associates, Inc.
Figure 6-57: Inside Hoods, Stress Intensity, Case B-3 (b)................
6-53 Figure 6-58: Gussets in Hoods; Stress Ii6enfsity, Case B-3(b)...:.......
6-53
- ~ ~
~t B 3(b...
6 5 Figure 6-59: Side:Plates,, Stress Intensity, Case B-3(b)......
6-54 Figure 6-60: Vane Bank Base Plates, Stresslintensity, Cas&B-3(b) 6-54 Figure 6-661-: Vane' BankVerticýal Plates, Stress Intensity,-Case B-3(b)...................................
.... 6-55 Figur'e'6-62.- Vane Bank, Stress Ifitensity, Case'B-3(b) 6-55 S " :...
56.
Figure'6-63: Drain Pipis S tresStress Intensity, CaseB.3(b)ý......................
6-56 S
Figure 6-64: Skirt, Stress Intensity, Case B-3(b).........................................................
............ 6-56 Figure 6-65? Drain Channels,. Siress-lritensity,ýCase B-3(b):..2..
...... 6-57 Figure 6-66: Upper Support Ring, Stress Intensity; Case 'B-3(b)'.................
6-57 Figure 6-67: -Lower Support Ring, Stress IIntensity, ase.(..................o.........
6-58 Figure 6-68: Tie Bars, Stress Intensity, Case B3 (b)..:.'....
6-58 Figure 6-69: Lifting Rods, Stress Intensity,CasB3(b).:.
.6-59 Figure 6-70: Gussets in Upper Support.Ring, Stress Intensity, Case B-3(b)....................... 6-59 Figure 6-71: Gussets in Hoods withthe Maximum' Stress.Intensity, Case B-3(a).............
6-60 Figure 6-72: Outer Hoods, Stress Intensity, Case D-i (a)...................................
6-61 Figure 6-73: Middle Hoods, Stress Intensity; Case.D-3 (a)
................................ 6-61 Figure 6-74: Inside Hoods; Stress Intensity, Case D-1 (a)..
6-62 Figure 6-75: Gussets inHoods, Stress Intensity; Case D-l(a)...........
6-62 Figure 6-76: SidePlates, Stress Intensity, Case D-l(a)
............................... I........
.... 6-63 Figure 6-77:
sVane BankBase Plates, Stress Intensity, CaseD-1 (a) 6-63
-Figure 6-78: Vane Bank Vertical Plates, Stress Intensity, Case DD-- I(a) d.:...............
6-64 Figure 6-79: Vane Banks; Stress Intensity, Case D-(a)..........................
6-64 Figure 6-80: Drain Pipes, Stress Intensity, CaseD,1 (a)...
6-65 Figure 6-81": Skirt, Stress Intensity, Case.D-.(a).........:...
.......... 6-65 Figure 6-82: Drain Channels, Stress Intensity, Case D-I (a):.....
.......... 6-66
- Figure 6-83: Upper Support Ring, Stresstleitenisity; Case D.
(a)
.... 6-66 Figure 6-84: Lower SupportRirng, Stress Intensity, Case D-t(a).....
........ 6-67 Figure 6-85: Tie Bars, Stress Intensity, Case D-l(a)
I. I 6-67 67 Figure 6-86: Lifting Rods, Stress Intensity; Case D-1 (a)....
6-68 Report No. 0800528:402.RO viii Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
Figure 6-87: Gussets in Upper Support Ring, Stress Intensity, Case, D-1 (a).............................. 6-68 Figure 6-88: Outer Hoods,. Stress Intensity, CaseD.71(b).........................
...... 6-69 Figure 6-89: Middle, Hoods, Stress Intensity, Case D7r1(b)..........
6-69 Figure 6-90: Inside Hoods, Stress Intensity,, Case D-,.(b).....,.......................
..... 6-70 Figure 6-91: Gussets Inside. Hoods,, Stress Intensity, Case D-I (b).......................
...................... 6-70 Figure 6-92: Side Plates, Stress Intensity, Case D.l(b).........
6-71 Figure 6-93: Vane Bank Base Plates, Stress Intensity, CaseD-l(b).............
..................... 6-71 Figure 6-94: Vane Bank Vertical Plates, Stress Intensity, Case D-,l(b),
6-72 Figure 6-95: Vane Bank, Stress Intensity, Case D-(b) 6-72 Figure 6-96: Drain Pipes, Stress Intensity, Case D-l(b)....
,.... 6-73 Figure 6-97: Skirt, Stress Intensity, Case D-,1 (b)..........
6-73 Figure 6ss Intensity, Case D-1(b) 6-74 Figure 6-99: Upper Support Ring, Stress Intensity, Case D-1(b)................
6-74 Figure 6-100: Lower Support Ring, Stress Intensity, Case D-1 (b),....................................
.................. 6-75 Figure 6-101: Tie Bars, Stress Intensity,
........ I.
............................ 6-75 Figure 6-102: Lifting Rods, Stress Intensity, Case D-1(b).........
- .................................... 6-76 Figure 6-103
- Gussets in Upper Support.Ring, Stress Intensity, Case D-1(b).................
6-76 Figure 7-1: Outer Hoods, Alternating. Stress Intensity.Range,-.Case B-3.......
7-6 Figure 7-2: Middle Hoods, Alternating Stress Intensity Range, Load Combination, Case.B-3..,.,..... 7-6 Figure 7-3: Inside Hoods, Alternating Stress Intenrsity-Range, Case B-3,....
7-7 Figure 7-4: Gussets in Hoods, Alternating Stress Intensity Range, Case B-3........................................
7-7 Figure 7-5: Side Plates, Alternating Stress Intensity Range, Case B-3 7-8 Figure 7-6: Vane Bank Base Plates, Alternating Stress Intensity Range, Case B-3...............................
7-8 Figure 7-7: Vane Bank Vertical Plates, Alternating Stress Intensity Range, Case B-3..........................
7-9 Figure 7-8: Vane Banks, Alternating Stress Intensity Range, Case B-3................................................
7-9 Figure 7-9: Drain Pipes, Alternating Stress Intensity Range, Case B-3...............................................
7-10 Figure 7-10: Skirt, Alternating Stress Intensity Range, Case B-3........................................................
7-10 Figure 7-11: Drain Channels, Alternating Stress Intensity Range, Case B-3.......................................
7-11 Figure 7-12: Upper Support Ring, Alternating Stress Intensity Range, Case B-3...............................
7-11 Figure 7-13: Lower Support Ring, Alternating Stress Intensity Range, Case B-3...............................
7-12 Report No. 0800528.402.RO ix Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
Figure 7-14: Tie Bars, Altemating Stress Intensity Rarige, Case B-3..... :......
................................. 7-12 Figure 7-15: Lifting Rods, Alternating Stress"Intensity Range, Case B-3...............:..................... 7-13 Figure 7-16: Gussets in Upper Support Ring, Alternating Stress *Intensity.Range, Case B-3.............. 7-13 Figure 7-17: Outer Hoods, Mean Stress Intensity, Case B*3..:
7-14 Figure 7-18: Middle Hoods, Mean Stress intensity, Case B-3...
....... 7-14 Figure 7-19: Inside Hoods, Mean Stress Intensity, Case B-3....
7-15 Figue 7-0: G sses inHood,M en StesS nte sity : Cae B-... ::...:..... :....................................
71 Figure 7-20: Gussets in Hoods,M ean Stress Intensity;, Cas e B-3
.................... 7-15 Figure 7-21: Side Plates, Mean Stresss Intnsity, Case B-3 I.....
7-16 Figure 7-22: Vane Bank Base Plates, Mean Stress-Intensity,: Case B'-3.............
2......................
7-16 Figure 7-23: Vane Bank, Vertical Plates, Mean Stress Intensity, Case B-3............................
....... 7-17 Figure 7-24: Vane Banks, Mean StressIntensity, Case B-3...............................
........................ 7-17 Figure 7-25: -Drain Pipes, Mean Stress: Intensity, Case B-3.:..
7-18 Figure 7-26: Skirt, M ean Stress Intensity Range, Case B-3........
- ........I......
..... I.... 7-18 Figure 7-27: Drain Channels, Mean Stress Intehsity,. Case B-3 ::..
7-19 Figure 7-28:. Upper -Support Ring, M ean Stress Intensity, Case B-3......
I 7-19 Figure 7-29: Lower Support Ring, Mean Stress Intensity, Case B-3 7-20
Figure 30: Tie Bars, Mean Stress Intensity, Case 1B-3...........................................
7-20 Figure 7-31: Lifting Rods, Mean-Stress Ihtensity, Case B-3.
7-21 Figure 7-32:- Gussets in Up'per Support Ring, Mean Stre's Intensity,'Case B13...............
I.... 7-21
- Figure 8-1: Loads as-Functi6n6-f Effective-Length Fact6r K...... 2.
................... 8-7 Report No. 0800528.402.RO x
R Structural IntegritY Associates, Inc.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
As part of implementation of Extended Power Uprate (EPU) at Nine Mile Point Unit 2 (NMP2),
the effects of flow induced vibration (FIV) loads need to be considered in the structural analysis of the steam dryer. Thus, an ASME Code [1] Section III analysis has been performed to assess the structural adequacy of the steam dryer. The analysis documented in this report has been performed using the guidance of BWRVIP-182 [2], "Guidance for Demonstration of Steam Dryer Integrity for Power Uprate." The load and load combinations evaluated for the NMP2 steam dryer are considered using the NMP2 plant specific load combinations as well as those provided in BWRVIP-181 [3], "Steam Dryer Repair Design Criteria."
Report No. 0800528.402.RO 1-1 V
Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
2.0 DESIGN CRITERIA This evaluation is performed using the guidance of ASME Code,Section III Core Support Structures. As such, the rules of Subarticle NG-3200 of Section III of the ASME Code, 2001 Edition (with 2003 addenda) [1], are used.
Report No. 0800528.402.R0 2-1 Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
3.0 LOADS 3.1 Unit Load Cases Four static unit load cases were provided' by Continuum Dynamics, Inc. (CDI),[4]. They are:,
(1.)
(2)-
(3)
(4)
Unit pressure Static acceleration in global x-direction Static' acceleration in global y-direction Static acceleration in global z-direction..
3.2 Flow Induced Vibration Load In addition, a dynamic load case due to the flow induced vibration (FIV) was provided by CDI [4]. This load case is the acoustic loading from the steam line though the steam nozzles to the outer hood of the steam dryer. This load case was performed as a harmonic analysis. The results are only provided for the points of time corresponding to the maximum stress intensity and the maximum alternating stress intensity range in the steam dryer.
Report No. 0800528.402.RO 3-1 R8Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
4.0 LOAD COMBINATIONS Per Reference [3], the load combinations are divided into two basic categories, Mark I plants and Mark II/III plants. NMP2 is a BWR-5 Mark II plant, thus, the load combinations contained in Table 7-2 of Reference [3] are used as a guide since NMP2 has plant specific documentation for the steam dryer load combination. The detailed description of individual load cases and how the load cases combined is documented in Reference [5]. The load combinations are summarized in Table 4-1, along with the AP in Table 4-2, and scale factors for static acceleration loads in Table 4-3. Based on the review of different load cases and load combinationsin References [5] and
[6], Table 4-4 lists the load combinations that will be used in the ASMECode stress evaluation.
Report No. 0800528.402.RO 4-1 Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
Table 4-1: NMP2 Steani Dryer Load Combinations No.
Load Combination Design Basis Evaluation Basis B-I NL + APN + [OBE2 + FIV2],/
Upset Upset B-2 NL + APu + [SRV2 + FIV2]V+/-
Upset Upset B-3 NL + APu + [OBE 2 + SRV2 + FIV2]'2 Emergency Upset C-i NL + APu + [OBE 2 + SRV2 + FIV2]"2 Emergency Emergency C-2 NL + APu + [CHUG 2 + SRVADS2 + FIV2 ]Y2 Emergency Emergency D-1 NL + APA + [SSE2 + AP2 + FIV2]f2 Faulted Faulted D-2 NL + APA + [CHUGW + SRVADS2 + SSE 2"+ FIV 2]'/
Faulted Faulted D-3 NL + APu + [SSE2 + SRV2 + FIV2]Y2 Faulted Faulted D-4 NL + API + FIV Faulted Faulted Notes:
NL
= Normal loads (metal + water weight)
APN
= Normal delta pressure force APu
= Upset delta pressure force APA
= Accident LOCA delta pressure force API
= Interlock-delta pressure force FIV
= Operating basis earthquake loads SSE
= Safe shutdown earthquake loads SRV
= Safety-relief valve discharge loads SRVAos
= Loads induced by actuation. of safety-relief valves associated with the Automatic Depressurization System AP
= Annulus pressurization loads CHUG
= Chugging loads Dynamic loads are combined by square-root-sum-of the squares (SRSS)
Report No. 0800528.402.RO 4-2 V
Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
Table 4-2: Delta Pressure Forces Condition AP (psi)
Normal Condition (APN)
CLTP: 0.36 EPU: 0.48 CLTP: 0.47 Upset Condition (APu)
EP: 0.7 EPU: 0.71 CLTP: 6.3 Faulted Condition (APA, AP 1) 2 EP: 4.8 EPU: 4.8 Notes:
- 1. CLTP = Current Licensed Thermal Power; EPU = Extended Power Uprate
- 2.
Table 4-3: Dynamic Loads Description Direction Load (g)
OBE Horizontal (X) 0.501 OBE Horizontal (Y) 0.535 OBE Vertical 0.186 SSE Horizontal (X) 0.767 SSE Horizontal (Y) 0.777 SSE Vertical 0.327 SRV Horizontal 0.071 SRV Vertical 0.132 SRVADs Horizontal 0.004 SRVADS Vertical 0.128 CHUG Horizontal (X) 0.078 CHUG Horizontal (Y) 0.045 CHUG Vertical (Z) 0.182 AP Horizontal 0.580*1.6 Report No. 0800528.402.RO 4-3 V
Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
Table 4-4. NMP2 Steam Dryer Limiting Load Combinations Case Load Combination Evaluation Basis B-3 NL + APu +/- [OBE 2 + SRV2 + FIV2]"'/
Level B (Upset) 1 D-1 NL + APA +/- [SSE 2 + AP2 + FIV2]f/
Level D (Faulted)
Note: 1. The fatigue evaluation does not include the FIV stresses. This load combination is used to evaluat&-th primary and primary + secondary stresses.
Report No. 0800528.402.RO 4-4 R5Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
5.0 ASSUMPTIONS The assumptions are:
(a) All materials in the steam dryer are assumed to be Type 304 stainless steel (A240, Type 304).
(b) The operating temperature is assumed to be 550'F.
(c) The design temperatureis assumed to be 600'F.
(d) The vessel brackets are not included in the current ASME Code evaluation.
(e) The weld factor for fatigue evaluation is 1.8 for fillet welds and 1.0 for full penetration welds.
(f) All welds are assumed to be fillet welds.
(g) The quality factor for the weld used in the Code stress evaluation is. assumed to be 1.0.
(h) No expansion stress, Pe, is considered in the Code stress evaluation, assuming the thermal stress is insignificant.
(i) The weight of steam is assumed to be negligible.
(j) The water inside the skirt has no effect on the deadweight stress in the steam dryer.
(k) The scale factors for OBE include the effect of the added water mass inside the skirt.
The design stress intensity (Smn), yield strength, ultimate strength and Young's Modulus for Type 304 stainless steel (A-240 Type 304) were obtained from Reference [7] and summarized in Table 5-1 for different temperatures. The summary of stress intensity limits for different service levels and stress categories are obtained from Reference [1] and presented in Table 5-2. The allowable stress intensity for each stress categories are presented in Table 5-3, where Pm: primary membrane, Pb: primary bending, Q: secondary and F: peak.
The material fatigue curves at high cycles are presented in Figure 5-1 [1]. The digitized curves are presented in Table 5-4 [1]. In addition, the guidelines to determine which fatigue curve to be used in the Code evaluation are presented in Figure 5-2 [1].
Report No. 0800528.402.RO 5-1 Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
Table 5-1: Design Stress Intensities and Young s Modulus (ksi) for Stainless Steel (A240 Type:3 04)
.20Ft6'100oF*'-'
5000 i*
600OF' 550-F ()
Sm" 20.0(2) 17.5 16.6 17.05, Yield Strength 30.0(2) 19.4 18.4 18.9 Tensile Strength 75.0(2) -.
63.4.
-63.4--
63.4'.
Young'sM-dulus 28.3 xl03I 2 (2
25.8x103 25.3x10 3 25.55 x10 3 Notes:
- 1. Interpolated between 500'F and 60 0'F
- 2. At700F..
Table 5-2:. Summary of Stress Intensit Limits
.Ca teg.ries Levels Aand B Level C <1..
Level D.,
(Design, Normal & Upset)
(Emergency)
(Faulted)
Pm Sm
- .. 5Sf-
- :..
min of;2.4 Sm and 0.7S, Pm+Pb 1.5*
2.25Sm' Pm +Pb+Q 3 Sm n/a-a Pm+Pb+Q+F Sa n/a n/a Notes:
- 1. Level D usesSection III Appendix F criteria.
- 2.
n/a: not applicable Table 5-3: Allowable Stress Intensities (ksi)
Levels A and B Level C Level D Categories
.(Design, Normal & Upset)
(Emergency)
(Faulted)
Pm 16.6"')
24.97()
min(39.84, 44.38) = 39.84 Pm +Pb 24.9()
37.35(')
59.07 Pm +Pb+Q(2 51.15(2) n/a n/a Pm+Pb+Q+F Sa(3) n/a n/a Notes:
- 1. Used Sm at 600'F for conservatism.
- 2.
Used Sm at 550'F, for bounding average temperature per Figure NG-3221-1, Note (6).
- 3. See Figure 5-1 and Figure 5-2 and Table 5-4.
- 4.
n/a: not applicable Report No.,0800528,402.R0 5-2 Structurailntegrity'Associates, Inc.
Table 5-4: -TabuIated Values of Fatigue Curves TABLE 1-94.2 TABULATEDVALUES OF-S,, ksi (MPa)- FROMF1IG. I-9.2.2, 2, Number of
.Cycles i",
[Note-(3)]
Curve:A A Curve..B.Curve.C" E&.
282 (194')
B 28.2 (194) 28'2 (194) 2Eb6
.,'26.9 (185)
.2278 (157,
-22.8(i57)'
5E6 25.7 (177) 198 (137) 18.4 (127)
IE7 25.1 (173) 18.5 (128) 164 (113) 2E7 24.7 (170) 177 '(1'22)"
15.2 (105) 5E7 24.3 (168) 17.2 (119) 14 3 (99) 1E8 24.1 (166) 17 0 (117) 14.1 (97) 1E9 23.9 (165) 16.8 (116) 13,9 (96) 1E10
'238 (64)'
'16(114) 13.7 (94) 1E1l 23,7 (163)'-
16.5 (114)
.13.6 (94)
NOTES:,, "
(1) All: notes on'Fi'ig'" 4-922 apply to these data.
(2) Interpolation between tabular values is permissible based upon data..epresentation by straight lines on.
log-log plt:'See Table 1-9.1, Note (2).
(3) The number of cycles indicated shall be read as follows:
IEJ =.I x 1O0, e~g.. 5E6 = 5 x 10" or 5,000%000 Report No; 0800528,.402.RO 5-3 R o Structural Into gii Associates, Inc.
Fig. 1-9.2.2 28 (193) 26 (179) 24(165) 22 (152) c 20(138) 0 S18(124) 2001 SECTION III, DIVISION I -
APPENDICES
['able 1-9.2.2 Curve AI i
curve B i Curve C TIT.
Jil Ill
]-
T I 10 (110) 14 (95) 12(83) 106 107 108*
109 1010 1011 Number of 6ycles, N NOTE:
E = 28 3 x 106 psi (195 000 MPa)
FIG.. 1-9.2,2 DESIGN FATIGUE CURVES FOR AUSTENITIC STEELS, NICKEL-CHROMIUM-IRON ALLOY, NICKEL-IRON-CHROMIUM ALLOY, AND NICKEL-COPPER ALLOY FOR Sa
- 28.2]ksi (194 x 10 MPa), FOR TEMPERATURES NOT EXCEEDING 800°F (4270C)
Table 1-92.2(For Sa >28.2 ksi (194 x 10 MPa), use Fig. 1-9-2.1..)
Table 1-9.2.2 Contains Tabulated Values for Accurate Interpolation of This Curve Figure 5-1: Design FatigueCurves Report No. 0800528.402.RO 5-4 Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
Is stress location within three No wall thicknesses of Yes the center lineof the weld?
Is (PL - Pb + Q)Rang Elastic
!5 272 ksi (5 187 000.kPa)?
- analysis, Yes No Is alternating stress intensity S, corrected for applied "
mean stress?
I FIG.. 1-9.2.3 FLOW CHART FOR USE OF CURVES IN FIG. 1-91.2 Figure 5-2: Flow Chart for Use of Fatigue Curves Report No. 0800528.402.RO 5-5 Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
6.0 ASME CODE STRESS LIMITS EVALUATION The individual load cases were combined with the appropriate scale factors for the two load -
combination cases as"shown in-Table 4-4. The individual dynamic load cases ofOBE, SSE, and SRV are first obtained from the square root of the sum of square (SRSS) from the three static accelerations in the three global directions..
I
'B" E + OBE2 OBE =OBE_ +OBEY +-
(6-1)
SSE= SSE2,+SSE2 + SSE (2)
SRV=VSRVx2+SR2Vy +SR V]
(6-3) where OBEi, S SE1, and SRVi = load case due to static acceleration excitation in i direction, i= x,yorz.
After each load case is calculated, then the load case results combined by SRSS-depending"on the load combinations to obtain the resultant stress components for combinations with.the normal load and the delta pressure force load cases.
The resultant load cases of OBE, SSE, and SRV are used in the final load combinations as shown in Table 4-4 for the ASME Code evaluation. The individual load cases are algebraically summed-as shown in Table 4-4 for the ASME Code evaluation. The algebraic sum of the SRSS of OBE, SSE, and SRV is both positive and negative to account for the fully reversible nature of these loadings.
The Code stress compliance evaluation was performed on a node by node basis for. a simple and direct evaluation. The intent of the Code is to evaluate the stress across a full section per Subarticle NG-3217 and Table NG-3217-1, duplicated in Table 6-1. Therefore, if the stress in a component evaluated on a node by node basis is higher than the required stress allowables, a section per ASME Code guideline is selected through the highest stress location in the component for further evaluation.
Report No. 0800528.402.RO 6-1 Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
The model is shown in Figure 6-1 [4]. The model consists of She1163, Solid 186, Solidi 87 and Mass21 element types (Figures 6-4 to 6-7) [4]. The model for the unit pressure load case contains element types Surfl54 for thepressure inputs (Figure6-6). It has 157,578 nodes and 122,269 elements (167,122 elements if the Surfl54 element type is included). The boundary conditions for the unit pressure load case are shown in. Figure 6-2. The steam dryer is constrained at the vessel bracketin all three translational directions. In addition, there are 18,453 constraint equations used in the model, Figure 6-
- 3. These constraint equations are used to couple different components of the steam dryer. The mass elements in Figure 6-7 are inside the Vane Bank to account for the assembly'inside the Vane Banks.
For the Code stress evaluation, the steam dryer is separated into different components. The definitions of these components are based on the functionality or proximity in the steam dryer. They are:
- 1. Outer Hood, Figure 6-8
- 2. Middle Hood, Figure-6-9
- 3. Inside Hood, Figure 6-10
- 4. Gussets in Hoods, Figure 6-11
- 5. Side Plates, Figure 6-12
- 6. Vane Bank Base Plates,Figure 6-13
- 7. Vertical Plates Inside Vane Banks, Figure 6-14
- 8. Vane Banks, Figure 6-1-5 and Figure 6-16
- 9. Drain Pipes, Figure 6-17
- 10. Skirt, Figure 6-18
- 11. Drain Channels, Figure 6-19
- 12. Upper Support Ring, Figure 6-20
- 13. Lower Support Ring, Figure 6-21 14., Tie Bars, Figure 6-22
- 15. Lifting Rods, Figure 6-23
- 16. Gussets Between Upper Support Ring and Vane Bank Base Plates, Figure 6-24 The vessel brackets, Figure 6-25, are not included in the component list for the Code or fatigue evaluation because they are not considered as components in the steam dryer, but instead components in'the reactor pressure vessel.
6.1 Individual Load Case Results The results from the individual load cases are obtained from Reference [4]. Only the EPU condition was considered in this evaluation.
Report No. 0800528.402.RO 6-2 Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
6.1.1 Unit Pressure The unit pressure loadings on the steam dryer are presented in Figure 6-26. A 1 psi was applied inside the steam dryer, except only at the bottom portion of the skirt. Inside the vane bank, a 0.5 psi was applied to the top plates, side plates and the;base plates. The overall stress intensity factor distribution is presented in Figure 6-27. The maximum stress intensity is about 16 ksi, Figure 6-27 (a). The maximum stress location is at the end of the tie bar over the inner hoods, Figure 6-27 (b). The high stress components are the middle and inside hoods.
6.1.2 Unit Acceleration in Global X-Direction A 1 g acceleration (386.09 in/sec2 [4]) was applied in the global +x-direction., The global x-direction is shown in Figure 6-4. The overall stress intensity distribution is shown in Figure 6-28 (a)ý The maximum stress intensity is about 40 ksi. Its location' is in one of~the vessel bracket, Figure 6-28 (b).
This maximum stress is highly localized in the vessel bracket. The stresses in the rest of the steam i
dryer are much lower.
6.1.3 Unit Acceleration in Global Y-Direction A 1 g acceleration was applied in the global +y-dii&ection. The overall stress intensity distribution is shown in Figure 6-29 (a). The maximum stress intensity is about 50 ksi. Its location is also at one of the vessel bracket, Figure 6-29 (b). Similar to the previous acceleration case, the stresses in the rest of the steam dryer are lower.
6.1.4 Unit Acceleration in Global Z-Direction A I g acceleration was applied in the global +z direction. The overall stress intensity distribution is shown in Figure 6-30 (a). The maximum stress intensity is about 13 ksi. Its location is also at one of the vessel bracket, Figure 6-30 (b). This maximum stress is much lower compared to the other two horizontal acceleration cases.
6.1.5 FIVLoads Two sets of results were provided from FIV loads [4]. They are identified as:
(1)
TimeStress_49666_1075 Report No. 0800528.402.RO 6-3 W Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
(2)
TimeStress_49670_1075.
These results correspond to the time of maximum stress intensity and the maximum stress intensity range. The overall stress distributions are presented in Figure 6-31 and Figure 6-32. It is shown that case TimeStress_49666_1075 has a higher overall stress intensity. This case is used in the load combinations for the Code stress evaluation.
6.1.6 OBE, SSE, SRVandAP Load Cases The overall stress distributions for the load cases of APu, APa, OBE, SSE, SRV, and AP are presented in Figure 6-33 through Figure 6-38, respectively. These load cases are combined or scaled according to Equations (6-1) to (6-3) or Table 4-3. Only the stresses at the top surface of the' shell element types are shown. These load cases are used to perform the load combination, as identified in Table 3-4 for the Code stress and.fatigue evaluations.
The load combinations were performed in ANSYS Revision 11.0 [8].
6.2 ASME Code Stress Evaluation, Load Combination Case B-3 To determine whether the steam dryer stresses meet the ASMIE Code allowable requirements, the steam dryer is divided into major components as identified in Section 6.0. For each component, the stress intensity plots are obtained for the mid, top and bottom surface of the shell elements to determine the primary membrane stress intensity, Pm and the primary membrane and bending stress intensity, Pm+Pb.
The results are interpreted from the stress plots based on the nodal basis. These nodal results are readily interpreted and conservative for the ASME Code stress evaluation.
The ASME Code stress evaluation for the load combination Case B-3, a Level B (or upset) service condition, is summarized in Table 6-2. Two conditions for this load case are considered: with (a) positive and (b) negative of the dynamic loads: [OBE2 + SRV2 + FIV2]y* in the load combinations. The stress intensity distributions for all components are presented from Figure 6-39 thru Figure 6-54 using the positive dynamic loads and from Figure 6-55 to Figure 6-70 using the-negative dynamic loads and summarized in Table 6-2. It is shown that all components are below the Pm and Pm+Pb allowables for Report No. 0800528.402.R0 6-4 Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
the Level B (upset) service condition except the Pm in thecomponent Gussets in Hood from Table 6-2 (a), with stress distribution shown in, Figure 6-71 (a).
Since it is assumed that the thermal expansion stress is insignificant, the stress category Pm+Pb+Q is thus the same as Pm+Pb in Table 6-2 (a) and (b)
For the component Gussets in Hood in Load Case B-1(a), the gusset with the maximum stress intensity location is shown in Figure 6-71 (b). The location of the maximum stress is at the bottom comer of the gusset.. This maximum stress is very localized and concentrated at a single node. As described in Table NG-3217-1, Table 6-1, for any shell in the core support structure, the !ocation for consideration can be any section across the entire shell, (i.e., component 'Any Shell or Head' under column heading 'Core Support Structure'). Therefore, a section across the gusset at the maximum stress location is selected as shown in Figure 6-71 (b). A linearized stress is obtained for membrane and bending stresses for this section. It is shown that the linearized Pm is 6.53 ksi and the linearized Pm+Pb is 10.17 ksi, Table 6-3.
They are below the Pm and Pm+Pb stress:allowables of 16.6 ksi and 24.9 ksi, respectively for Load Case B-1.
It should be noted that in Table 6-2, the Pm, Pm+Pb Top and Pnm+Pb Bottom are the same for the Upper Support Ring,, Lower Support Ring and Tie Bars. It is due that solid elements were used in these components. The nodal stress is taken as both Pm and Pm+Pb.
6.3 ASME Code Stress Evaluation, Load Combination Case D-1 The ASME Code stress evaluation for load combination Ca seD-1, a Level D (or faulted) service condition, is summarized in Table 6-4 for both positive and negative dynamic load: [SSE* +AP2 +
FIV2]fl in the load combination. The stressintensity distributions, for all components are presented from Figure 6-72 to Figure 6-87 using the positive dynamic loads and Figure 6-88 to Figure 6-103 using the negative dynamic loads and summarized in Table 6-4..:
In Table 6-4, it is shown that.the components of middle hoods, insides hoods, gussets, in 'hoods, vane bank base plates, vane -banks and tie barsare above the allowables either in Pm or Pm+Pb based on the results from. nodal stresses. When the stress results are interpreted by linearizationmof stress in a section Report No. 0800528.402.RO 6-5 Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
through'the maximum stress locationand bending stress classified as secondary stress per NG-3213.0 and Table NG-3217-1, most of the components have stresses within the Code stress allowable, Table 6-5, except gussets in hoods and tie bars. Further assessment of this high stress condition is presented in the next section.
6.4 Reconciliation of Finite Element Model and Assessment of Code Evaluation The ASME Code 'evaluation was performed based on finite element models and results in Reference
[4]. Since then, a modification to the finite element model wasincorporated [13]. The unit load cases for the unit pressure and the three unit acceleration were re-analyzed. Since the Code evaluation in Sections 6.2 and 6.3 was performed using the results from the model before the modification, this section provides a reconciliation of the difference in the stress results from these two models to assess the applicability' of the current Code evaluation is applicable.
The modifications to the finite element model aIre described in Reference [13] and summarized below:
- 1. Reinforcement strips were removed from the innermost hoods (the ones furthest from the MSLs).
- 2. Dryer support between MSL C and MSL D was shortened to account for the difference in seismic block position.
- 3. The geometry of the supporting plates was changed in accordance with drawing number 158B8793.
Table 6-6 summarizes the'. maximum stress intensitiesin the portion of the steam dryer above the upper support ring for the four unit load cases for the model before the modification and after the modification. The differences in maximum stress intensities are from -14.30% to 41.86%.
In order to evaluate the effect of the model modification on the Code evaluation, the stress intensities results in Tables 6-2 through 6-5 are adjusted by the average of the percentage difference in the last column of Table 6-6. The use of average difference is justified since the load combinations include*
these four unit load cases as they can cancel each other in the load combination due to acting in the opposite direction And these unit load cases were scaled by-the load factors shown in Table 4-2 to Report No. 0800528.402.RO 6-6 V
Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
obtain the resultant stress intensity. The average difference was calculated toube 5.62 %. A scaled factor of 1.06 was used. The modified Code stress evaluation is presented in Table 6-7, to Table 6-10.
For load combination Case B-3, service level conditions A/B, all components remain below the Code stress allowables.
For the Service Level D Code evaluation, the stresses in the same two components, gussets in hoods and tie bars, are higher than the allowable by a maximum of about 30% on the Pm+Pb and 23% on the Pm. Depending on the location, the Pb can be classified as secondary stress per NG-3213.9 such that the Pm+Pb could be within the allowable. In addition, an acceptance criteria using elastic-plastic stress analysis per Appendix F, Rule for Evaluation of Service Loadings with Level D Service Limits, of Reference [1] can be performed to show the Code acceptance of the steam dryer. Since the applied stresses do not significantly exceed the stress allowables, the use of elastic-plastic stress analysis should be able to show that the stresses in these two components could easily satisfy the ASME Code requirement.
6.5 Assessment of Indications in Upper Support Ring and Drain Channel The baseline inspections [16] of the NMP2 steam dryer identified steam dryer cracking consistent with the BWR fleet operating history as described in Section 2.4 of BWRVIP-139 [18]. The indications that require assessment relative to EPU service conditions are the indications located in the upper support ring, the drain channel to skirt vertical weld, and in the tie barto hood weld heat affect zone [16].
Indications in the anti-rotation tack welds associated with the tie rod cam nut washers and the lifting lug have been identified as repair locations prior to EPU service.
A fracture mechanics evaluation of the observed indications was performed to determine if a repair is required for these locations for EPU operating conditions [17]. The evaluation in Reference [17]
concluded that the reportable indications are expected to experience no significant crack growth during EPU operating conditions. Since the indications are characterized as IGSCC they were evaluated conservatively assuming further IGSCC growth using methods consistent with BWRVIP-14A [19]. The BWRVIP-139 [18] inspection interval is one operating cycle. With this assumption the cracking results in an insignificant change in the section thickness. The remaining ligaments in these components are Report No. 0800528.402.RO 6-7 Structural Integrity.Associates, Inc.
sufficient to produce safety factors that are well above the minimum required code safety factors for the all service conditions including the limiting upset and faultedconditions with the EPUTFIV load included.
Report No. 0800528.402.RO 6-8 Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
I---.
Table 6-1: Classification of Stress Intensities
'TABLE NG-3217-1 CLASSIFICATION OF STRESS INTENSITIES FOR SOME TYPICAL CASES iCore Support OrIgIn of GraClassl.
Dscontsnuity Stluclture Location Stress Type of Stress, cation Groe-Local
- Cylindrical or.
Shell plate remote f;am Pressure difference General membrane Pr o
00 No sploerical shell discontinulities Gradient through plate.,.
Q Yes No thickness AAial thermal Meran Yes No "gradient Beading Q
Yes No' Junction with fred Pressure difference -
Memhrae Q
Yes No as flange -Bending 0
Yes No Any shell 0e heid Any semtlon acrOss External load or General membrane aveeaged across eetlie afrell moment, or full section, Stress component P,
NO No pressare'dllference perpendicular to cross section External load a, Bending across full setlora.tresse omeot component perpendicular to cress P.
No no
- section Near nozzle or ofet Externa! load or Membrane Yes No opening t mao enrte o r Beinding 0
Yes INo pre*suredifference Peak (fllant or corner)
F Yes Yes
'Any location * '
Temp. difference ! -
Membrar 0
Yes.
No betwleen shell and BeadIng Yes No head Disihd head or raown Presure difference General membr*ne P,
Na No coiceal Banding Pa N
fda Knauckle of unction Pressure differenen membrane No51 Yes No rto Shell' Beading Q
Yes Id0 Fiat head Center regfoe Pressure difference General membrane' p,
No No Bending NP N
o Io tcti. to Shell Pressure difference Membrane Yes No S Beading 0
Yes' No Perforated head or Typical figaament In Pressure dlffemrce or General membrane (avg through P.
No No shell a unolrm pattern external load Cross setioan)
P.
No No Bending (ag. through width F
No Yes of Ilgament, hut gradlent thi.ughr plate)
- Peak, Isolated Or atypscal Pr re dlflerence Memhbrae Yes No Ilgament ' '
Bendfng F
Yes Yes
.Peak F
Yes Yes P
I I
r...
(rable NO-321 7-1 CONIOWS _t PARO TABLE NG-3217-1,(CONT'D)
C'LASSIFICATION OF STRESS INTENSITIES FOR SOME TYPICAL CASES S1" Discontinuity
'Core Support Origin ltof t :
Classlfi-Structure Lo___________ j Srtress
'... Type of Stress oation Gross Local
.Nozzle Cross sectlon perpendicular to nozzle axis Pressure difference Or General membreane avg across tull external load or section. Stress compo-moment nent perpendicular to section, No No I -
eta eta External l.lad or moment Bending across nozzle section No No I
Pw No No r-,
Nozzle waill Pressure difference General membrane Membraee Bending
- Peak, 0F No Yes Yes Yes No No N~o Yes I"t T
Differential expansion Membrane Bending
- Peak, Q
F Yes Yes No.
Yes Cladding Any Differentlal expansion Membrane F
yet rBending F
Yes Yes Any Any Radial thermal' Stress due to equivalent bending OW3)
Yes ton gradient through 1
po;tine F
Yes Yes plate thickness(2)
Stress due to nonlinear portion Afr iAny Acy I
Stress concentratlon(notch offectl.
F Yes Yes NOTES:
(1) Consideration must also be given to the possibility of w-inkling and excessive deformation In shells with large dianneter-to-thickniess ratio (2) Consider the possllblity of thermal stress ratchet (3) Equivalent linear stress Is defined as the linear stress disteribtlon which has the same net bending moment as the actual stress distribution RepoitNo. 0800528.402.RO 69,.
Structural IntegrityAssociates, Inc.
Table 6-2: Code Evaluation for Load Combination B-3 (a) -with positiVe [OBE? + SRV2 + FIV2 ]Y2 Pm Si Pm+Pb (ksi) 1.5Sm Pm+Pb+Q (ksi) 3Sm Component (ksi)
(ksi)
Top Bot (ksi)
Top Bot (ksi)
Outer Hoods 2.09 16.6 8.69 3.87 24.9 8.69 3.87 51.15 Middle Hoods 4.87 16.6 11.40 10.35 24.9 11.40 10.35 51.15 Inside Hoods 5.34 16.6 12.18 11.18 24.9 12.18 11.18 51.15 Gussets in Hoods 17.15 16.6 17.23 17.24 24.9 17.23 17.24 51.15 Side Plates 4.70 16.6 4.78 4.62 24.9 4.78 4.62 51.15 Vane Bank Base Plates 5.91 16.6 15.35 12.64 24.9 15.35 12.64 51.15 Vertical Plates in Vane Banks
.6.34 16.6 8.06 5.82 24.9 8.06 5.82 51.15 Vane Banks 9.10 16.6 10.99 11.32 24.9 10.99 11.32 51.15 Drain Pipes 2.01 16.6 2.69 3.66 24.9 2.69 3.66 51.15 Skirt 2.10 16.6 4.37 6.19 24.9 4.37 6.19 51.15 Drain Channels 2.95 16.6 6.17 6.28 24.9 6.17 6.28 51.15
-Upper Support Ring 8.93 16.6 8.93 8.93 24.9 8.93 8.93 51.15
-Lower Support Ring 2.68 16.6 2.68 2.68 24.9 2.68 2.68 51.15 Tie Bars 14.05 16.6 14.05 14.05 24.9 14.05 14.05 51.15
_Lifting Rods 6.04 16.6 5.66 11.15 24.9 5.66 11.15 51.15 Gussets in Upper Support Ring 2.13 16.6 2.33 1.94 24.9 2.33 1.94 51.15 (b) with negaive [OBE 2 + SRV2 + FIV 2 Jj Pm Sm Pm+Pb(kSi) 1.5Sm Pm+Pb+Q (ksi) 3Sm Component (ksi)
(ksi)
Top Bot (ksi)
Top Bot (ksi)
Outer Hoods 5.47 16.6 6.24 8.48 24.9 6.24 8.48 51.15 Middle Hoods 4.84 16.6 11.67 10.27 24.9 11.67 10.27 51.15 Inside Hoods 5.29
.16.6 12.89 10.96 24.9 12.89 10.96 51.15 Gussets in Hoods 14.03 16.6 14.33' 13.74 24.9 14.33 13.74 51.15 Side Plates 10.16 16.6 11.65 9.22 24.9 11.65 9.22 51.15 Vane Bank Base Plates 3.36 16.6 12.16 15.84 24.9 1216 15.84 51.15 Vertical Plates in Vane Banks 5.36 16.6 6.34 5.09 24.9 6.34 5.09 51.15 Vane Banks 13.14 16.6 13.16 13.13 24.9 13.16 13.13 51.15 Drain Pipes 1.26 16.6 2.82 2.45 24.9 2.82 2.45 51.15 Skirt 2.12 16.6 5.94 3.69 24.9 5.94 3.69 51.15 Drain Channels 2.91 16.6 6.30 6.04 24.9 6.30 6.04 51.15 Upper Support Ring 11.93 16.6 11.93 11.93 24.9 11.93 11.93 51.15 Lower Support Ring 2.13 16.6 2.13 2.13 24.9 2.13 2.13 51.15 Tie Bars 12.52 16.6 12.52 12.52 24.9 12.52 12.52 51.15 Lifting Rods 6.30 16.6 6.24 10.17 24.9 6.24 10.17 51.15 Gussets in Upper Support Ring.
2.94 16.6 2.50 3.50 24.9 2.50 3.50 51.15 Report No.' 0800528.402.RO 6-10 R
Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
Table 6-3: Linearized, Stresses at Gusset Section across the Maximum, Stress Location for Load Combination Case B-3 Surface Pm-(ksi)
Pb'(ksi)ý Pm+Pb (ksi)
- Top, 6.53
.3.53
"'106.06 Mid 6.51 3.60, 10.12>
Bot'-".
6.50 3:67..
10.1.7
- ~<-*,.
I
- I-'
Report No. -0800528.402.RO 6-11 R6Structural Integrity Associates, inc.
Table 6-4:- Code Evaluation for LoadiCombinati6nD 134 (a) with positive [SSE2 + Ap2 + FIV2]A SComponentPm Min(.4m.7Su)
Pm+Pb(ksi)
"1.5 Pm Limit (ksi)
(ksi),-
Top Bottom (ksi)
Outer Hoods 9.41 39.84 15.60 12.68' 59.07 Middle Hoods 34.91 39.84 78.26 69.221 59.07 Inside Hoods 37.95
.39.84 85:47-75.14 59.07 Gussets in Hoods 118.11 39.84 119.12 119.30 59.07 Side Plates 28.34 39.84 32.66 25.34 59.07 Vane Bank Base Plates 38.69 39.84 72.09 66.74 59.07 Vertical Plates in Vane Bank 37.28 39.84 47.58 37.24 59.07 Vane Banks 32.22 39.84 62.44 63.34 59.07 Drain Pipes 9.31 39.84 17.30 15.95 59.07 Skirt 9.91 39.84 25.62 31.86 59.07 Drain Channels 17.48 39.84 7.49 16.62 59.07 Upper Support Ring 34.16 39.84 34.16 34.16 59.07 Lower Support Ring 6.46 39.84 6.46 6.46 59.07 Tie Bars 77.73 39.84 77.73 77.73 59.07 Lifting Rods 13.48 39.84 17.03 31.90 59.07 Gussets in Upper Support Ring 12.90 39.84 14.20 11.66 59.07 (b) with negative [SSE 2 + AP2 + FIV 2]'2 Pm Min(2.4Sm,0.7Su)
Pm+Pb (ksi) 1.5 Pm Limit Component (ksi)
(ksi)
Top Bottom (ksi)
Outer Hoods 9.38 39.84 19.62 13.94 59.07 Middle Hoods 34.36 39.84 78.89 69.06 59.07 Inside Hoods 37.73 39.84 87.15 74.56 59.07 Gussets in Hoods 108.07 39.84 108.39 108.47 59.07 Side Plates 16.19 39.84 21.02 22.40 59.07 Vane Bank Base Plates 32.58 39.84 62.83 62.69 59.07 Vertical Plates in Vane Bank 35.85 39.84 43.35 36.83 59.07 Vane Banks 30.59 39.84 63.12 56.22 59.07 Drain Pipes 8.05 39.84 17.84 12.56 59.07 Skirt 8.55 39.84 29.94 22.12 59.07 Drain Channels 7.38 39.84 20.62 16.24 59.07 Upper Support Ring 22.11 39.84 22.11 22.11 59.07 Lower Support Ring 7.40 39.84 7.40 7.40 59.07 Tie Bars 77.11 39.84 77.11 77.11 59.07 Lifting Rods 14.50 39.84 23.56 17.88 59.07 Gussets in Upper Support Ring 14.64 39.84 12.76 16.98 59.07 Report No. 0800528.402.RO 6-12 -'
R Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
Table 6-5: Code Interpreted Stresses at the Maximum Stress Location for Level D (a) with positive [SSE2 + AP2 + FIV2]'
.Component Location Pm (ksi)
Allowable
. Pm+Pb Allowable (ksi)
(ksi)
(ksi)
Middle Hood'1) n/a 34.91 39.84 34.91 59.07 Inside Hood'1) n/a 37.95 39.84 37.95 59.07 Top 46.14 39.84
.65.86 59.07 Gusset in Hoods(2)
Mid 46.21 39.84 65.96 59.07 Bot 46.28 39.84 66.08 59.07 Vane Banks Base Plate(1) n/a 38.69 39.84.
38.69 59.07 Vane Banks(l) n/a 32.22 39.84 32.22 59.07 Vertical 32.18 39.84 62.58 59.07 Tie Bars(2)
Horizontal 27.98 39.84 63.07 59.07 Diagonal 15.13
.39.84 46.79 59.07 (b) with negative-[SSE 2 + AP 2 +: FIV2]Y, Allowable Pm+Pb Allowable Component Location Pm (ksi)
(ksi)
(ksi)
(ksi)
Middle Hood{')
n/a 34.36 39.84 34.36 59.07 Inside Hood"1 )
n/a 37.73 39.84 37.73 59.07 Top 40.80 39.84 55.97 59.07 Gusset in Hoods(2)
Mid 40.81 39.84 56.24 59.07 Bot 40.81 39.84 56.49 59.07 Vane Banks Base Plate()
n/a 32.58 39.84 32.58 59.07 Vane Banks(1) n/a 30.59 39.84 29.09 59.07 Vertical 8.81 39.84 41.80 59.07 Tie Bars(2)
Horizontal 31.67 39.84 72.23 59.07 Diagonal 12.78 39.84 38.29 59.07 Note:
(1) Bending stress is classified as Secondary Stress per NG-3213.9 and Table NG-3217-1.
(2) Linearized stress through maximum stress location is used.
Report No. 0800528.402.RO 6-13 Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
Table 6-6: Comparison of Maximum Stress (ksi) Results due to Model Modification Shell Before Model After Model Surface Modification Modification Top 16.28 16.36 0.49 Unit Pressure Mid 16.28 15.53
-4.61 Bottom 16.28 15.51
-4.73 X-direction Top 10.36 11.77 13.61 Mid 8.29 11.76 41.86 Bottom 9.93 11.75 18.33 Y-direction Top 25.99 22.25
-14.36 Mid 16.73 15.58
-6.87 Unit Acceleration Bottom 26.85 23.01
-14.30 Z-direction Top 6.81 8.36 22.76 Mid 6.09 7.20 18.23 Unit Acceleration Bottom 6.23 6.03
-3.21 Report No. 0800528.402.RO 6-14 R
Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
Table 6-7: Modified Code Stress Evaluation for Load Combination B-3 (a) with positive LOBE 2 + SRV2 + FIV2]/1/4 Pm Sm Pm+Pb(kSi) 1.5Sm Pm+Pb+Q (ksi) 3Sm ComPonent (ksi)
(ksi)
Top Bot (ksi)
Top
' Bot' (ksi)
Outer Hoods 2.22 16.6 9.21 4.10 24.9 9.21
'4.10 51.15 Middle Hoods 5.16 16.6 12.08 10.97.
24.9 12.08 10.97 51.15 Inside Hoods 5.-66 16.6 12.91 11.85-24.9 12'.91 11.85 51.15 Gussets in Hoods 18.18 16.6 18.26 18.27 24.9 18.26 18.27 51.15 Side Plates 4.98 16.6 5.07 4.90 24.9 5.07 4.90 51.15 Vane Bank Base Plates 6.26 16.6 16.27 13.40 24.9 16.27 13.40 51.15 Vertical Plates in Vane Banks 6.72 16.6 8.54 6.17 24.9 8.54 6.17 51.15 VaneBanks 9.65 16.6 11.65 12.00 24.9 11.65 12.00 51.15 Drain Pipes 2.13 16.6 2.85 3.88 24.9 2.85 3.88 51.15 Skirt 2.23 16.6 4.63 6.56 24.9 4.63 6.56 51.15 Drain Channels 3.13 16.6 6.54 6.66 24.9 6.54 6.66 51.15 Upper Support Ring 9.47 16.6 9.47 9.47 24.9 9.47 9.47 51.15 Lower Support Ring 2.84 16.6 2.84 2.84 24.9 2.84 2.84 51.15 Tie Bars 14.89 16.6 14.89 14.89 24.9 14.89 14.89 51.15 Lifting Rods 6.40 16.6 6.00 11.82 24.9 6.00 11.82 51.15 Gussets in Upper Support Ring 2.26 16.6 2.47 2.06 24.9 2.47 2.06 51.15 (b) with negative [OBE 2 + SRV2 + FIV2]Y2 Pm Sm Pm+Pb(kSi) 1.5Sim Pm+Pb+Q (ksi) 3Sm Component (ksi)
(ksi)
Top Bot (ksi)
Top Bot (ksi)
Outer Hoods 5.80 16.6 6.61 8.98 24.9 6.61 8.98 51.15 Middle Hoods 5.13 16.6 12.37 10.89 24.9 12.37 10.89 51.15 Inside Hoods 5.61 16.6 13.66 11.62 24.9 13.66 11.62 51.15 Gussets in Hoods 14.87 16.6 15.19 14.56 24.9 15.19 14.56 51.15 Side Plates 10.77 16.6 12.35 9.77 24.9 12.35 9.77 51.15 Vane Bank Base Plates 3.56 16.6 12.89 16.79 24.9 12.89 16.79 51.15 Vertical Plates in Vane Banks 5.31 16.6 6.54 5.30 24.9 6.54' 5.30 51.15 Vane Banks 13.93 16.6 13.95 13.92 24.9 13.95 13.92 51.15 Drain Pipes 1.34 16.6 2.99 2.60 24.9 2.99 2.60 51.15 Skirt 2.25 16.6 6.30 3.91 24.9 6.30 3.91 51.15 Drain Channels 3.08 16.6 6.68 6.40 24.9 6.68 6.40 51.15 Upper Support Ring 12.65 16.6 12.65 12.65 24.9 12.65 12.65 51.15 Lower Support Ring 2.26 16.6 2.26 2.26 24.9 2.26 2.26 51.15 Tie Bars 13.27 16.6 13.27 13.27 24.9 13.27 13.27 51.15 Lifting Rods 6.68 16.6 6.61 10.78 24.9 6.61 10.78 51.15 Gussets in Upper Support Ring 3.12 16.6 2.65 3.71 24.9 2.65 3.71 51.15 Report No. 0800528.402.R0 6-15 R6Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
Table 6-8: Modified Linearized Stresses at Gusset Section across the Maximum Stress Location for Load Combination Case B-3
'Surface Top Mid Bot Pm (ksi) 6.92 6.90 6.89 Pb (ksi) 3.74 3.82 3.89 $
Pmn+Pb (ksi) 10.66 10.73 10.78 I Report No.'0800528.402.RO 6-16 R
Structuralintegrity Associates, Inc.
Table 6-9; Modified Code Stress Evaluation for Load Combination D-1 (a) with positive [SSE 2 + AP2 + FIV2]Y Pm Min(2.4Sm,0.7Su)
Pm+Pb (ksi) 1.5 Pm Limit Component (ksi)
(ksi)
-Top Bottom (ksi)
Outer Hoods.
9.97 39.84 16.54 13.44 59.07 Middle Hoods' 37.00 39.84 82.96 73.37 59.07 Inside Hoods
40.23 39.84 90.60:
79.65
- ' 59.07 Gussets in Hoods 125.20 39.84 126.27 126.46
.59.07 Side Plates 30.04 39.84 34.62 26.86 59.07 Vane Bank Base Plates 41.01 39.84 76.42 70.74 59.07 Vertical Plates in Vane Bank 39.52,f 39.84 50.43 39.47 59.07 Vane Banks 34.15 39.84 66.19 67.14, - '
59.07 Drain Pipes 9.87 39.84
' 18.34' 16.91 59.07 Skirt 10.50 39.84 27.16 33.77 59.07 Drain Channels 7.94 39.84 118.53 17.62 59.07 Upper Support Ring 36.21
39.84,.
36.21 36.21 59.07 Lower Support Ring 6.85 39.84 6.85 6.83 59.07 Tie Bars 82.39 39.84 82.39 82.39 59.07 Lifting Rods 14.29 39.84
'18.05 33.81 59.07 Gussets in Upper Support Ring 13.67 39.84 15.05 12.36 59.07 (b) with negative [SSE2 + AP2 + FIV2]"
o t'
Pm Min(2.4Sm,0.7Su)
Pm+Pb (ksi) 1.5 Pm Limit ompo.e (ksi)
(ksi)
Top Bottom (ksi)
Outer Hoods 9.94 39.84 20.80 14.78 59.07 Middle Hoods 361.42 39.84 83.62 73.20-59.07 Inside Hoods 39.99 39.84 92.38 79.03 59.07 Gussets'inHoods 114.55 39.84.
114.89-114.98 59.07 Side Plates 17.16 39.84 22.28 23.74 59.07 Vane Bank-Base Plates..
34.53' 39.84 66.60 66.45 59.07 Vertical Plates in Vane Bank 38.00
-39.84 45.95 39.04 59.07 Vane Banks 32.43 39.84 66.91 59.59 59.07 Drain Pipes 8.53 39.84 18.91 13.31 59.07 Skirt
'9.06 39;84, 31.74>
23.45, 59.'07, Drain Channels 7.82 39.84 21:86 17.21, 59.07' Upper Support Ring 23.44 39.84 23.44 23.44 59.07 Lower Support Ring 7.84 39.84 7.84 7.84 59.07 Tie Bars 81.74 39.84 81.74 81.74 59.07 Lifting Rods 15.37 39.84 24.97 18.95 59.07 Gussets in Upper Support Ring 15.52 39.84 13.53 18.00 59.07 Report No.'0800528.402.R0 6-1*7 RRStructural Integrity Associates, Inc.
Table 6-10: Modified Code Interpreted Stresses at the Maximum Stress Location for Load Combination D-1 (a) with positive [SSE2 + AP 2 + FIV2]P Allowable Pm+Pb Allowable Component Location; Pm (ksi)
(ksi)
(ksi)
(ksi)
Middle Hood')
n/a 37.00.
39.84 37.00 59.07 Inside Hood')
n/a 40.23 39.84 40.23 59.07 Top 48.91 39.84 69.81 59.07 Gusset in Hoods(2)
Mid 48.98 39.84 69.92 59.07 Bot 49.06 39.84 70.04 59.07 Vane Banks Base Plate(')
n/a 41.01 39.84 41.01 59.07 Vane Banks(1 )
n/a 34.15 39.84 34.15 59.07 Vertical 25.12 39.84 66.25 59.07 Tie Bars(2)
Horizontal 34.11 39.84 66.33 59.07 Diagonal 16.04 39.84 49.60 59.07 (b) With negative [SSE2 + AP2 + FIV 2]12 Allowable Pm+Pb Allowable Component Location Pm (ksi)
(ksi)
(ksi)
(ksi)
Middle Hood(')
n/a 36.42 39.84 36.42 59.07 Inside Hood"'
n/a 39.99 39.84 39.99 59.07 Topj 43.25 39.84 59.33 59.07 Gusset in Hoods(2)
Mid 43.27 39.84 59.61 59.07 Bot 43:28 39.84 59.88 59.07 Vane Banks Base Plate(')
n/a 34.54 39.84 34.53 59.07 Vane BanksC1 )
n/a -
30.84 39.84 30.84 59.07 Vertical 9.34 39.84 44.31 59.07 Tie Bars(2)
Horizontal 33.57 39.84 76.56 59.07
__Diagonal 13.55 39.84 40.59 59.07 Note:
(1) Bending stress is classified as secondary stress per NG-3213.9 and Table NG-3217-1.
(2) Linearized stress through maximum stress location is used.
Report No. 0800528.402.RO 6-18 Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
ELEMENTS TYPE NUM ANSYS 11.0321 (a) without element edges (b) with element edges Figure 6-1: NMP2 Steam Dryer Model v
Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
Report No. 0800528.402.RO 6-19
Figure 6-2: Steam Dryer Boundary Condition ELEMENTS ANSYS 11.05PI Figure 6-3: Constraint Equations v
Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
Report No. 0800528.402.RO 6-20
ELEMENTS TYPEMU ANSYS l1.OSPl Figure 6-4: Solid Elements, Solid186 and Solidi 87 ELEMENTS ANSYS lIQEPI ELEMENTS TYPE NUM ANSYO II,08PI Figure 6-5: Shell Elements, Shell63 6-21 V
Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
Report No. 0800528.402.RO
ELEMENTS TYPE NUM ANSYS 11. OSPI 0
Figure 6-6: Surface Elements, Surfl 54 ELEMENTS ANSYS LIOS3PI TYPE NUM LX Figure 6-7: Mass Elements, Mass21 6-22
~Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
Report No. 0800528.402.RO
ELEMENTS TYPE NUM AN JUL 3 2008 14:16:42 x
Figure 6-8: Outer Hood ELEMENTS TYPE NUM AN JUL 3 2008 14:22:03 Figure 6-9: Middle Hood v
Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
Report No. 0800528.402.RO 6-23
ELEMENTS TYPE NUM AN JUL 3 2008 14:25:18 Figure 6-10: Inside Hood ELEMENTS TYPE NUM 0
ANSYS 11 0SPI Figure 6-11: Gussets in Hoods 0
v Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
Report No. 0800528.402.RO 6-24
ELEMENTS ANSYS 11. OSPI TYPE NUM f
I I
0 Figure 6-12: Side Plates ELEMENTS TYPE NU/M ANEYS 11.OSP1 Figure 6-13: Vane Bank Base Plates 6-25 V
Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
Report No. 0800528.402.RO
ELEMENTS ANSYS 11. 08P TYPE NUM 111111i 11113 Figure 6-14: Vertical Plates Inside Vane Banks 6
6-26 Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
Report No. 0800528.402.RO
(a) Open View without Perforated Plates AN JUL 3 2008 15:18:06 (b) Open View with Vertical Plates Figure 6-15: Vane Banks 6-27 V
Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
Report No. 0800528.402.RO
ELEMENTS TYPE NUM AN JUL 3 2008 15:15:51 Figure 6-16: Vane Banks ELEMENTS ANSYS 11.08PI TYPE NUM
-I,,
Figure 6-17: Drain Pipes v
Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
Report No. 0800528.402.RO 6-28
AN JUL 3 2008 15:09:44 Figure 6-18: Skirt ELEMENTS TYPE NUM Figure 6-19: Drain Channels v
Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
Report No. 0800528.402.RO 6-29
ELEMENTS TYPENUM ANSY8 Il.OSPI Figure 6-20: Upper Support Ring ELEMENTS TYPE NUM ANSYS ii.
SPI Figure 6-21: Lower Support Ring v
Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
Report No. 0800528.402.RO 6-30
ELEMENTS TYPE NUM ANSYS 11.OSP1
~4b\\
Figure 6-22: Tie Bars ELEMENTS ANSYS 11.0SP1 TYPE NUM Figure 6-23: Lifting Rods v
Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
Report No. 0800528.402.RO 6-31
ELEMENTS ANSYS 11.0SPI TYPE NUM I*x Figure 6-24: Gussets Between Upper Support Ring and Vane Bank Base Plates ELEMENTS ANBYS 11.03P1 TYPE NUM I
I Figure 6-25: Vessel Brackets and Support Plates I
6-32
~
Strctural Integrity Associates, Inc.
Report No. 0800528.402.RO
ELEMENTS
- E
- NORM e
ANSYS ii.OSPl 66667
-. 555555
-. 611111
-5 Figure 6-26: Pressure Loadings V
Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
Report No. 0800528.402.RO 6-33
NODAL SOLUTION STBP=I SUB =
TISME-I 5281 (AVG)
TOP DHX -. 236698 N4=. 6836E-09 SMX =16279 036H 09 1809 I
ASJSYS IlOSZF1 (a) Overall Distribution (b) Maximum Stress Location Figure 6-27: Stress Intensity, Top Surface, due to Unit Pressure Report No. 0800528.402.RO 6-34 V
Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
(a) Overall Distribution (b) Maximum Stress Location Figure 6-28: Stress Intensity Distribution, Top Surface, 1 g Acceleration in X-direction Report No. 0800528.402.RO 6-35 V
Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
NODAL SOLUTION ANSYS 11.0P1 STEP=-I SUB =1 TIMEI=1 SINT (AVG)
TOP DMX =.065811 SMN =1.016 SMX =49715 8MXB=100014 1.016 11048 22096 33143 44191 5525 16572 27620 38667 49715 (a) Overall Distribution (b) Maximum Stress Location Figure 6-29: Stress Intensity Distribution, Top Surface, I g Static Acceleration in Y-direction I
Repot No 080528402.O 6-6 V
Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
NODAL SOLUTION STEP=1 SUB
=1 TIME=I SINT (AVG)
TOP DMX 061892 SMN =.447341 SMX =13360 SMX8=30519 ANSYS 11.0$PI 1485 4454 7422 10391 1336n 1485 7422 10381 13360 (a) Overall Distribution NODAL SOLUTIC 3TEP=1 SUB =1 TIME=1 SINT (AV TOP DM2
.0618 94 SMN =.44734j SMX =13360 SMXB=30519 (b) Maximum Stress Location Figure 6-30: Stress Intensity Distribution, Top Surface, I g Static Acceleration in Z-direction R
Repot No 080528402.O 6-7 V
Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
(a) Overall Distribution 0
(b) Maximum Stress Location Figure 6-31: Stress Intensity Distribution, Top Surface, FIV Load - TimeStress_49666_1075 0
Report No. 0800528.402.RO 6-38 Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
NODAL SOLUTION ANSYS 11.0 9P1 3TEP=9 SUB =1 SINT (AVG)
DMX = 319782 SMN =.14384 SMX =2734
.14384 607.777 1215 1823 2431 303.96 911.594 1519 2127 2734 (a) Overall Stress Distribution (b) Maximum Stress Location Figure 6-32: Stress Intensity Distribution, Top Surface, FIV Load - TimeStress_49670_1075 Report No. 0800528.402.RO 6-39 V
Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
NODAL SOLUTION SINT (AVG)
TOP DMX =.168056 SMN =.594E-09 t
SMX =11558
.594E-09 2568 1284 Load Case dPu, EPU a
ANSYS ii.0SPI I
3853 7705 10274 6421 8990 11558 (a) Overall Stress Distribution (b) Maximum Stress Location Figure 6-33: Stress Intensity Distribution, Top Surface, APu, EPU R
Repor No.080028.42.RO6-40Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
NODAL SOLUTION SINT (AVG)
TOP DMX =1.136 SMN =.401e-08 SMX =78139 401E-08 8682 Load Case dPa, EPU ANSYS 11.0821 D
26046 68457 60775 78139 (a) Overall Stress Distribution (b) Maximum Stress Location Figure 6-34: Stress Intensity Distribution, Top Surface, APa, EPU Report No. 0800528.402.RO 6-41 V
Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
Figure 6-35: Stress Intensity Distribution, Top Surface, OBE NODAL SOLUTITON ANSYS 1I.0SP1 SINT (AVG)
TOP DMX =.24681 MAN =2.464 SMX =53320 2.464 11851 23699 35548 47396 5927 17775 29623 41472 53320 SSE with Factors Figure 6-36: Stress Intensity Distribution, Top Surface, SSE R
Report No. 0800528.402.R0 6-42 Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
NODAL SOLUTION ANSYS II.OSPI SINT (AVG)
TOP DMX =.0ZZ869 SMN =.226926 SMX =5666
.226926 1259 2518 3777 5036 629.722 1889 3148 4407 5666 3RV with Factors Figure 6-37: Stress Intensity Distribution, Top Surface, SRV NODAL SOLUTION ANSYS ii.0SPI SINT (AVG)
TOP DMX =.186607 SMN =1.839 SMX =39444 1.839 8767 17532 26297 35062 4384 13149 21914 30679 39444 AP with Factors Figure 6-38: Stress Intensity Distribution, Top Surface, AP v
Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
Report No. 0800528.402.RO 6-43
IA!,
"I'll
.4.;
liz -~- F I
'iltA!. UATF'1
<IF" A!
-171FF 1-14-.
F Ill;,.
-I (a) Membrane Stress (a) Membrane Stress 4, !
I A,
F 'U ii
-Ii
.1-1.
'I.
!UA!L 2'<FIF
- 17' 47 711
'17.
NF 17:-I 14..-
I
{,
4 (b) Pm + Pb Stress, Top Surface (b) Pm + Pb Stress, Top Surface AC.~ It..F ft A
(c), Pm + Pb Stress, Bottom Surface Figure 6-39: Outer Hood, Stress Intensity, Case B-3(a)
(C) Pm + Pb Stress, Bottom Surface Figure 6-40: Middle Hood, Stress Intensity, Case B-3(a) 6-44 Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
Report No. 0800528.402.RO
244.42 Itt 2142 -.
212
... A 222.
'12'..4 (a) Membrane Stress (a) Membrane Stress 2412.
2 22 12 224
.2 241>2,,722 12 (b) Top Surface, Pm + Pb Stress (b) Top Surface, Pm + Pb Stress 21.'.
22 12
- 24.
.2 (c) Bottom Surface, Pm + Pb Stress Figure 6-4 1: Inside Hood, Stress Intensity, Case B-3(a)
Report No. 0800528.402.R0
'41.4> 4..222 1 41224' 12 21 2
9 "
i'"
'4J'
.44 2*
(c) Bottom Surface, Pm + Pb Stress Figure 6-42: Gussets in Hoods, Stress Intensity, Case B-3 (a) 6-45 v
Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
I~tY4.474271 ~
~L'11
'..44
~1i ( IY
>31
~417 1
ý.
142 -7,
1t17311..321121411
-1141 14.4 441114 471' 114... 14.
- 411, 0
VI V4!4 3 (a) 44 a
1S-ress (a) Membrane Stress (a) Membrane Stress 447A.
73 A'214 4111 14
'14714 4111731114 1211 It 7
7.4 471' 147-7.211 L4.4 CA-t-3 (b) Pm + Pb Stress, Top Surface 111321.711412731414
.111 4173.
1137.141'1 141< -.4112141 447 ~1'
.1:
II>,? '11.
(b) Pm + Pb Stress, Top Surface 411171.
73,711
- 141,
. 41 "I,
I III 2
I III 4 I
14-344 12<44 (C) Pm + Pb Stress, Bottom Surface Figure 6-44: Vane Bank Base Plates, Stress Intensity, Case B-3(a) i
-2 C1 4
'1YA114 4416 (C) Pm + Pb Stress, Bottom Surface Figure 6-43: Sides Plates, Stress Intensity, Case B-3(a) o SStructural Integrity Associates, Inc.
Report No. 0800528.402.R0 6-46
i*!i,**....
ý.-j :.
I I I I (a) Membrane Stress (a) Membrane Stress (b) Pm + Pb Stress, Top Surface (b) Pm + Pb Stress, Top Surface (C) Pm + Pb Stress, Bottom Surface Stress Figure 6-45: Vane Bank Vertical Plates, Stress Intensity, Case B-3(a)
(C) Pm + Pb Stress, Bottom Surface Figure 6-46: Vane Banks, Stress Intensity, Case B-3(a)
Report No. 0800528.402.RO 6-47 R
Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
it. A 2 it I1 I4a it, 9 1 1 I
(a) Membrane Stress (a) Membrane Stress "4
"4
(~j ~,,
I
(
P
+.'Of
!I i.P b
a (b) P, + Pb Stress, Top Surface (b) Pm + Pb Stress, Top Surface I. -
I low I
//,
I I
(c) Pm + Pb Stress, Bottom Surface Figure 6-47: Drain Pipes, Stress Intensity, Case B-3(a)
(C) Pm + Pb Stress, Bottom Surface Figure 6-48: Skirt, Stress Intensity, Case B-3 (a) 0 SStructural Integrity Associates, Inc.
Report No. 0800528.402.R0 6-48
- 1:*,4¸ (a) Membrane Stress (a) Membrane Stress (b) Pm + Pb Stress, Top Surface (b) Pm + Pb Stress, Top Surface (c) Pm + Pb Stress, Bottom Surface Figure 6-49: Drain Channels, Stress Intensity, Case B-3(a)
(c) Pm + Pb Stress, Bottom Surface Figure 6-50: Upper Support Ring, Stress Intensity, Case B-3(a) 6-49 v
Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
Report No. 0800528.402.RO
F, Ilk t.,4
- l
.4' (a) Membrane Stress (a) Membrane Stress (b) Pm + Pb Stress, Top Surface (b) Pm + Pb Stress, Top Surface (c) Pm + Pb Stress, Bottom Surface (c) Pm + Pb Stress, Bottom Surface Figure 6-51: Lower Support Ring, Stress Figure 6-52: Tie Bars, Stress Intensity, Case Intensity, Case B-3 (a)
B-3(a) eport No. 0800528.402.RO 6-50 1
Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
R
- V (a) Membrane Stress
// /1
/
(a) Membrane Stress (e
(b) Pm + Pb Stress, Top Surface (b) Pm + Pb Stress, Top Surface
///
g
ý' -1 J,
/
(C) Pm + Pb Stress, Bottom Surface Figure 6-53: Lifting Rods, Stress Intensity, Case B-3(a)
/
(C) Pm + Pb Stress, Bottom Surface Figure 6-54: Gussets in Upper Support Ring, Stress Intensity, Case B-3(a) 6-51 i Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
Report No. 0800528.402.RO
vLLvA 444 4714'...'.tVV14
':4's -
P44W.74 F4F4 3 (a) Membrane Stress (a) Membrane Stress TIN.
tv:
Mv
.4</
334' 441T 444...
K Fv.'vvi.
(b) Pm+Pb Stress, Top Surface 5'j" (b) Pm+Pb Stress, Top Surface (1 '4 (c) Pm+Pb Stress, Bottom Surface Figure 6-55: Outer Hoods Stress Intensity Case B-3 (b)
(C) Pm+Pb Stress, Bottom Surface Figure 6-56: Middle Hoods, Stress Intensity Case B-3 (b) 6-52 Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
Report No. 0800528.402.RO
Il A:'
1 1 I
(a) Membrane Stress (a) Membrane Stress (b) Pm+Pb Stress, Top Surface
............ I (b) Pm+Pb Stress, Top Surface xx' (C) Pm+Pb Stress, Bottom Surface Figure 6-57: Inside Hoods, Stress Intensity, Case B-3 (b)
(c) Pm+Pb Stress, Bottom Surface Figure 6-58: Gussets in Hoods, Stress Intensity, Case B-3 (b)
Report No. 0800528.402.RO 6-53 v
Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
t~T94 4W9:.1; 349 9 43
.3.3.
31337:
'~A I tAX~4.
913331!
~
3373 A
~13~.L' At:.-
NM7I'Y3 11.
//A 4'.3
.33,33 34"
- .3S,~
3 3
3331.33 349333733
- 3333 4313
.33343' 3
".33.3 937 -L34' 14.9" 33 94 2",b*
4b* ý t
(
e'4, (a) Membrane Stress (a) Membrane Stress
.1.
3333.AL.493237733 134
.333 -.4 313... 4 3333
.. j 3'.
01;%'t' 3.3 P 7,
WG 4
i4 Q (b) Pm+Pb Stress, Top Surface
.4.3:P A
94"
.3' 5:0
- O i*,
(b) Pm+Pb Stress, Top Surface 333343 34331 4
3, 13 -6 4413333 1 7141 33>z (c) Pm+Pb Stress, Bottom Surface Figure 6-59: Side Plates, Stress Intensity, Case B-3(b)
(C) Pm+Pb Stress, Bottom Surface Figure 6-60: Vane Bank Base Plates, Stress Intensity, Case B-3(b) 6-54 V
Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
Report No. 0800528.402.RO
AN 2
22.?
I-s (a) Membrane Stress (a) Membrane Stress (b) Pm+Pb Stress, Top Surface (b) Pm+Pb Stress, Top Surface AN 115
.1 (c) Pm+Pb Stress, Bottom Surface Figure 6-61: Vane Bank Vertical Plates, Stress Intensity, Case B-3(b)
Report No. 0800528.402.RO (C) Pm+Pb Stress, Bottom Surface Figure 6-62: Vane Bank, Stress Intensity, Case B-3(b) 6-55 V
Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
171X UT 71:
44.-.
.4729.4.72T.72.
4-,
I I'*
1-Z I I It
-3, Il (a) Membrane Stress
.12.97 ~A< :47 7:4-44.9 94 2
44;
.4.
(a) Membrane Stress 5,-
It I
(b) Pm+Pb Stress, Top Surface 7/* 41$
I (b) Pm+Pb Stress, Top Surface
- p fIt I
(C) Pm+Pb Stress, Bottom Surface Figure 6-63: Drain Pipes, Stress Intensity, Case B-3(b)
S...
- 1.4 (c) Pm+Pb Stress, Bottom Surface Figure 6-64
- Skirt, Stress Intensity, Case B-3(b) o SStructural Integrity Associates, Inc.
Report No. 0800528.402.RO 6-56
(a) Membrane Stress (a) Membrane Stress 07"It
.1;
".7 ý I i.
(b) Pm+Pb Stress, Top Surface (b) Pm+Pb Stress, Top Surface (C) Pm+Pb Stress, Bottom Surface Figure 6-65: Drain Channels, Stress Intensity, Case B-3(b)
Report No. 0800528.402.RO (c) Pm+Pb Stress, Bottom Surface Figure 6-66: Upper Support Ring, Stress Intensity, Case B-3(b) 6-57 V
Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
4V41.
4~AL X?24~Z1
'V V~(3/4 !Z2.
%%~
bl i
-4.
.4 (a) Membrane Stress
~n24..'Z4 I:
Zr A7-
-- 4
'V4
.44A4'
.4;-
44; (a) Membrane Stress 944t (b) Pm+Pb Stress, Top Surface (b) Pm+Pb Stress, Top Surface 4A4
>4444444 447.
'.444
>1-4>
- 4-4
-<4,'
74-42.'
4444?-. 4~ 47,44 !1..
(C) Pm+Pb Stress, Bottom Surface Figure 6-67: Lower Support Ring, Stress Intensity, Case B-3(b)
(c) Pm+Pb Stress, Bottom Surface Figure 6-68: Tie Bars, Stress Intensity, Case B-3 (b)
I 6-58 Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
Report No. 0800528.402.RO
ii.i:i:
'-A
/
/
(a) Membrane Stress (a) Membrane Stress
¢7 I /
/
(b) Pm+Pb Stress, Top Surface
/
(b) Pm+Pb Stress, Top Surface
'-A. I/w e
(C) Pm+Pb Stress, Bottom Surface Figure 6-69: Lifting Rods, Stress Intensity, Case B-3(b)
/
(C) Pm+Pb Stress, Bottom Surface Figure 6-70: Gussets in Upper Support Ring, Stress Intensity, Case B-3(b) 6-59 v
Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
Report No. 0800528.402.RO
NODAL SOLUTION SINT (AVG)
-DDLE DMI 421827 SMS =242.743 Em =171S3 Aa-/
11.0-0 292.14~
4UU1 1)30 11010 242.714J 2122 Load Case B-3 5879 9637 I15274 13395 17153 (a) Stress Distribution (b) Zoom in View of Localized Maximum Stress Figure 6-71: Gussets in Hoods with the Maximum Stress Intensity, Case B-3(a) o V
Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
Report No. 0800528.402.RO 6-60
!UA~
~"J' A
(a) Membrane Stress (a)
Me1ba Stres (a) Membrane Stress IV.
141 A
ii 1.
iLII *X A
(b) Pm + Pb Stress, Top Surface (b) Pm + Pb Stress, Top Surface
'fl-c ~:x.
IVY
-~
'U I'll' (C) Pm + Pb Stress, Bottom Surface Figure 6-72: Outer Hoods, Stress Intensity, Case D-1 (a)
(C) Pm + Pb Stress, Bottom Surface Figure 6-73: Middle Hoods, Stress Intensity, Case D-1 (a)
Report No. 0800528.402.RO 6-61 R
Structurai Integrity Associates, Inc.
X.U1~f112l lIrI
~1i1r~'
Ml
.., 4 4-L~2(,,,
U.
1111
-41
.M'94- '1 (a) Membrane Stress U 94 1~
Al; lvii
-. 1."'
94.4 14Thb 4, -
(a)
M44 embran Stres (a) Membrane Stress Sk 114 1-'~l *,
L-41 l~VAU
~1.1 9-All 4.
-lvi
'All,-, I
()1 2P494 I
St sur (b) Pm + Pb Stress, Top Surface 194~.1 4 115 U 4'"4
- '. 94 1191:
(b) Pm + Pb Stress, Top Surface viT* l hiiJ715:57.,1
¢3F'!1
'95 k5'119 414*4 594.471 (C) Pm + Pb Stress, Bottom Surface Figure 6-74: Inside Hoods, Stress Intensity, Case D-l(a) 16 40L130 6t5.
92Qd 1 ! K9-1*
(C) Pm + Pb Stress, Bottom Surface Figure 6-75: Gussets in Hoods, Stress Intensity, Case D-1 (a)
Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
Report No. 0800528.402.RO 6-62
'4....
(a) Membrane Stress (a) Membrane Stress
>2 t
1.
(b) Pm + Pb Stress, Top Surface (b) Pm + Pb Stress, Top Surface 227....
2' 2-I.
1 7141 (C) Pm + Pb Stress, Bottom Surface Figure 6-76: Side Plates, Stress Intensity, Case D-l(a)
(C) Pm + Pb Stress, Bottom Surface Figure 6-77: Vane Bank Base Plates, Stress Intensity, Case D-1 (a)
Report No. 0800528.402.RO 6-63 R
Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
411,1 L%3 41 (a) Membrane Stress t2V4 :2321.311 332 A?
332141.
312 3
-143 -.11 3313
~
1 33 3 '3'I 3
4.41 l'.*t3' 7
32
.V (a) Membrane Stress
- UA. -1.232<11 A'>'
233 314. ~.33"> -
.311 -13>1' 3.2 ~4.
.3-2333.-'
31133:..1 £133.1:
2:
'1-1.
311
-. 314
-24 33-23->'>
-333 1:3311 33.1~3333.
3 3( b)3 1Pm' 1
+,
i Srs To Surfa
..........(b) Pmo+
Pb Stress, Top Surface.
(b
+
(b) Pm +I Pb Stress, Top Surface 323141 333133 3.13 1,
A'.
143-.
3143 -'3<3-'-
3l-3'314..1
'23.
- 131331:
<3232:311 22 33' 323214
- 14: I.
3 3-1..33 '2 viG*e[-I (C) Pm + Pb Stress, Bottom Surface Figure 6-78: Vane Bank Vertical Plates, Stress Intensity, Case D-1(a)
.63 4 U[4-(C) Pm + Pb Stress, Bottom Surface Figure 6-79: Vane Banks, Stress Intensity, Case D-l(a)
Report No. 0800528.402.RO 6-64 V
Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
.4:
7*L 2.
1 1" I
(a) Membrane Stress I
(a) Membrane Stress Ilk 1~
N:
(fit S
I (b) Pm + Pb Stress, Top Surface (b) Pm + Pb Stress, Top Surface I 1"t itI *l!
I (C) Pm + Pb Stress, Bottom Surface Figure 6-80: Drain Pipes, Stress Intensity, Case D-I(a)
(c) Pm + Pb Stress, Bottom Surface Figure 6-81: Skirt, Stress Intensity, Case D-1(a) v Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
Report No. 0800528.402.RO 6-65
I.'
'I:
IA:
'. I IA
'4 (a) Membrane Stress
- AMMON, (a) Membrane Stress.....
(b) Pm + Pb Stress, Top Surface Lit.
I:
..43 (b) Pm + Pb Stress, Top Surface lilt.
- I:
~
- 11.
4 1-I 4'
'At.
Fis" 'r.L (C) Pm + Pb Stress, Bottom Surface Figure 6-82: Drain Channels, Stress Intensity, Case D-1 (a)
(C) Pm + Pb Stress, Bottom Surface Figure 6-83: Upper Support Ring, Stress Intensity, Case D-1(a)
Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
Report No. 0800528.402.RO 6-66
I:,.
ii.
"11.
r
-'1,i-
,'?
0
.!2L3, 4
51 (a) Membrane Stress (a) Membrane Stress
'I, (a)
Pm + Pb Stress, Bop Surface (C) Pm + Pb Stress, Bop Surface 1l F.: * ; r l,
(b) Pm + Pb Stress, Topto Surface (b) Pm + Pb Stress, Topto Surface Figure 6-84: Lower Support Ring, Stress Figure 6-85: Tie Bars, Stress Intensity, Case D-Intensity, Case D-1(a)
I (a)
Report No. 0800528.402.R0 6-67 Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
lI
1~V,~2 22212212
.227 1<
'.2121
.2~2 2
.4
'lIC 171272 2212 2117
'47.
271LL P27
/1/>1
/
f 2fl7A71712772'12 Al P
212~~',
2 12, -2' 2.1,2,->-.
121K.42272 '-1.
.2212 147.
2127 -~
2.22
.2 (a) Membrane Stress (a) Membrane Stress T27 2222.
2.i
//>1' II (b) Pm + Pb Stress, Top Surface
//
/2 (b) Pm + Pb Stress, Top Surface 2
-i l
.**3 Y27 2479 (C) Pm + Pb Stress, Bottom Surface Figure 6-86: Lifting Rods, Stress Intensity, Case D-1 (a)
(C) Pm + Pb Stress, Bottom Surface Figure 6-87: Gussets in Upper Support Ring, Stress Intensity, Case D-1 (a)
Report No. 0800528.402.RO 6-68 R
Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
44-.
,4.
'I.
'4>4
'V
'-V
'4:4
- 1>
(a) Membrane Stress (a) Membrane Stress 7.4
'I.
AA All (b) Pm+Pb Stress, Top Surface (b) Pm+Pb Stress, Top Surface T4-~2' 4:
'414-2 4~m:
- 4:
47 V7'[' 4'
>44:
4-,:
2-4-2
- 4.'
AI
-4 4' '1 (C) Pm+Pb Stress, Bottom Surface Figure 6-88: Outer Hoods, Stress Intensity, Case D-1 (b)
-4
~
r...
r (C) Pm+Pb Stress, Bottom Surface Figure 6-89: Middle, Hoods, Stress Intensity, Case D-1 (b)
Report No. 0800528.402.RO 6-69 R
Structural Integrity Associates, Inc
~WL.AVYI:AE In M:nI~A:
1W
- ,41 -2A~.
1' ELLA' LA, '211 1.'
An
~Afl.
A ALA,... 7A2 LAW.
PX]E DIr A.'I Mi. LIL At: "2
~
j, I
(a) Membrane Stress 7
LAX ADIDItI A.'.
All A. A MI
'~
(a) Membrane Stress
- i I
I I
III I I
(b) Pm+/-Pb Stress, Top Surface AnIA -. 1.AAI5 EI l*i lt AU t.
A. A..
ELPAI "'A, 21:11 I'D A.'.
ACI'i'IAL
'A'!'
Iii A... A' A!,
ALt.'
(b)
If S7 T'
Sa'e (b) Pm+Pb Stress, Top Surface (c) Pm+Pb Stress, Bottom Surface Figure 6-90: Inside Hoods, Stress Intensity, Case D-l(b)
'(I
ýl 1 RA 4 Q (C) Pm+Pb Stress, Bottom Surface Figure 6-91: Gussets Inside Hoods, Stress Intensity, Case D-1 (b)
S Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
Report No. 0800528.402.RO 6-70
'4:
UA.
7:
1,
.4.
7, (a) Membrane Stress (a) Membrane Stress
'4:
'4 I;
N:i.,'VL.
(b) Pm+Pb Stress, Top Surface (b) Pm+Pb Stress, Top Surface LIX 1<2:1:
I' v'r
'4-2:,:
- 2.
N',
- 2. 'ml'
'4
'1 7,
(C) Pm+Pb Stress, Bottom Surface Figure 6-92: Side Plates, Stress Intensity, Case D-l(b)
(C) Pm+Pb Stress, Bottom Surface Figure 6-93: Vane Bank Base Plates, Stress Intensity, Case D-I (b) v Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
Report No. 0800528.402.RO 6-71
41 11<
LV~1 '1 I
AN (a) Membrane Stress I
2110010001ý l
(b) Pm+Pb Stress, Top Surface (b) Pm+Pb Stress, Top Surface AN (C) Pm+Pb Stress, Bottom Surface Figure 6-94: Vane Bank Vertical Plates, Stress Intensity, Case D-1 (b)
(C) Pm+Pb Stress, Bottom Surface Figure 6-95: Vane Bank, Stress Intensity, Case D-1 (b)
Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
6-72
2~T 1211 112 em-.
- 1 "I
I (a) Membrane Stress I
.K (a) Membrane Stress
-S a-I I!
(b) Pm+Pb Stress, Top Surface (b) Pm+Pb Stress, Top Surface
'U I.
.1'..'
- 11. V is:
1'
'I' 11
'-I' I
II "I
I (c) Pm+Pb Stress, Bottom Surface Figure 6-96: Drain Pipes, Stress Intensity, Case D-l(b)
(c) Pm+Pb Stress, Bottom Surface Figure 6-97: Skirt, Stress Intensity, Case D-I(b)
V Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
Report No. 0800528.402.RO 6-73
(4, 1
2
.2 All 24 IV '4, A
-24 24 21-24' I.
(a) Membrane Stress hr '22.2 -
I 242 (a) Membrane Stress
- 214,
'(2.'2
.2,22(2 21 "2' (2 242
.2 24.
(b) Pm+Pb Stress, Top Surface I. 4 4'.4 11 A
4' (b) Pm+Pb Stress, Top Surface 31-(c) Pm+Pb Stress, Bottom Surface Figure 6-98: Drain Channels, Stress Intensity, Case D-1 (b)
(c) Pm+Pb Stress, Bottom Surface Figure 6-99: Upper Support Ring, Stress Intensity, Case D-1(b)
Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
Report No. 0800528.402.RO 6-74
P7.
77J 222 (a) Membrane Stress 77..
.2
.72
'7 7.
%zz.
(a) Membrane Stress (b) Pm+Pb Stress, Top Surface 771,1 7:d r : 134
- ? ?
(b) Pm+Pb Stress, Top Surface 77?pj.2 2.1
'1.
(C) Pm+Pb Stress, Bottom Surface Figure 6-100: Lower Support Ring, Stress Intensity, Case D-1(b)
(C) Pm+Pb Stress, Bottom Surface Figure 6-101: Tie Bars, Stress Intensity, Case D-1 (b) v Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
Report No. 0800528.402.RO 6-75
~1H~
Mt MTht IA LI-t -~-It 141 ~. A.
aua~c ut:z~a aIr aI~JI4 PLOT 17Dý i
lvrýW iiýWpl
, 0
/
I f
/
I
ý:ý I
(a) Membrane Stress (a) Membrane Stress M1* -,
IV2
]a li-l.
A 3'5
- ¢lQ* i,T 1Il[
.,4bk 7I
-A !
~tY
.1-11 IA;,. 'i.
I
/
(
(b) Pm+/-Pb Stress, Top Surface (b) Pm+Pb Stress, Top Surface tAM tIAPTI I~a sai~
141 all:
.&T~
.11.
- A MA" IL tLXa. IA, 'I lIla all Al ft -'I-I I-ta-11
-<Ia ILA~ It>
/K~i f
(c) Pm+Pb Stress, Bottom Surface Figure 6-102: Lifting Rods, Stress Intensity, Case D-l(b)
/
(C) Pm+Pb Stress, Bottom Surface Figure 6-103: Gussets in Upper Support Ring, Stress Intensity, Case D-l(b) 1 Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
Report No. 0800528.402.RO 6-76
7.0 FATIGUE EVALUATION The Code fatigue evaluation is only required for Levels A and B [1]. Calculation of the alternating stress, Sa follows NG-3216.2 [1] which states for varying principal stress direction:
"(b) Choose a point in time when the conditions are one of the extremes for the cycle (either maximum or minimum, algebraically) and identify the stress components at this time by the subscripts i.
(c) Subtract each of the six stress components oti, ali, etc., from the corresponding stress components at, a1, etc., at each point in time during the cycle and call the resulting component at', al', etc.
(d) At each point in time during the cycle, calculate the principle stresses oyl, Y'2, a'3 derived from the six stress components a't, a'l, etc.
(e)
Determine the stress differences S'12 =
'I-G'2, S'23 = G'2-a*'3, S'31 = &3 - a',
versus time for the complete cycle and find the largest absolute magnitude of any stress differences at any time. The alternating stress intensity Salt is one-half of this magnitude."
To determine the maximum stress alternating stress, the loading combination is performed using ANSYS
[8] as follows:
for Case B-3:
Gmn= (OBE + SRV)max as in item (b)
(7-1)
O5n = (OBE + SRV)min as at, a,, in item (c)
(7-2) a Ik-=
m-Gn as in item (c)
(7-3) where: k, m, n = the six stress components t, 1, etc as identified in item (c)
(OBE+SRV)max, (OBE+SRV)min.
Report No. 0800528.402.RO 7-1 Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
The load combinations are subtracted algebraically between the maximum and minimum. Then the principle stresses, ali and the stress intensities, S'ij where i 1, 2, and 3, are computed in ANSYS [8] and extracted for fatigue evaluation.
In the fatigue evaluation, the alternating stress intensities was calculated using maximum stress intensities S'ij from the top surface or the bottom surface of the shells along with the weld factor. The alternating stress intensity, Salt is calculated as follows:
maxlS'ij 130x106 Salt 2
m F
(7-4) where: E =
Young's modulus in psi at temperature F =
weld factor S'ij=
as defined in 'item (e) above The fatigue curve to be used, depending on the location and the stress intensity, is depicted in the flow chart in Figure 5-2.
AS shown in Figure 1-9.2.3 [1], fatigue curve B can be used if the alternating stress intensity Salt is corrected for applied mean stress as follows [9]:
Seq S
(75) mean Su where:
Seq
= value of stress to be used in entering the fatigue curve to find the allowable of number of cycles Smean
= adjusted value of mean stress
= S'mean if Salt + S'mean _< Sy
= SY-Salt if Salt+S'mean > Sy and Salt < Sy
= 0 if Salt > Sy S'mean
= basic value of mean stress (calculated directly from loading cycle)
Su
= ultimate tensile strength Report No. 0800528.402.RO 7-2 R
Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
As, shown in Table 4-4, Case B-3 is comprised of load cases NL, APu, OBE, SRV, and FIV. Only OBE, SRV, and FIV are alternating in nature., In the current evaluation, only the OBE and SRV loads are used in the fatigue evaluation and the fatigue usage factor is calculated per NG-3222.4.
The number of events in OBE and SRV are obtained from Reference [12]. There are 10 occurrences for OBE and 8 occurrences for SRV. It is assumed that each of these events has 100 fully reversed cycles in the loadings for a total number of 1800 cycles.,
The fatigue eyaluation is performed for the load combination Case B-3 (Level B service condition) due to OBE and SRV load per the guidance in Section III, Subsection NG, paragraph NG-3216 and Appendix I [1].
To reduce the conservatism, the criteria for use of difference fatigue curves, Figure 5-2, per Appendix I, Figure I-9.2.3:of Reference [1] is also considered. This would allow the fatigue curves A or B to be used if either the mean stress is considered, the'Pl+Pb+Q is Jess than 27.2 ksi or the location is away from the 'weld.
7.1.
Stress Range and Mean Stress The alternating stress intensities are obtained from the SRSS of two load cases, OBE and SRV. The maximum alternating stress intensity ranges: due to-these two load cases for all components are presented from Figure 7-1 through Figure 7-16. The mean stress intensity due to the NL and APu loads are presented from Figure 7-17 through Figure 7-32. The maximum alternating stress intensity ranges and mean stress intensities in these figures were extracted to perform the fatigue evaluation.
7.2 Fatigue Evaluation The results of fatigue evaluation, which includes the use of Equations (7-4) and (7-5), are summarized in Table 7-1. The maximum alternating and mean stress intensity for each component is obtained from Figures 7-1 through 7-32. The PI+Pb+Q for each component is obtained from Table 6-2. It should be noted that these maximum alternating stress intensity amplitude, maximum mean stress intensity and the PI+Pb+Q can be at different nodal locations. But these were used as if they are at the same nodal location.
Report No. 0800528.402.RO 7-.3 LStructural Integrity Associates, Inc.
From References [10] and [11], it is shown that most of the welds in the steam dryer are fillet welds. Not all the welds are identified in these two references. For conservatism, it is assumed that all welds are fillet welds witha weld factor of 1.8. In addition, it is assumed that all maximum alternating stress intensity ranges are at or close to the weld locations (less than 3 inches from the, weld centerline -per Appendix I of Reference [1]).
Sihce the PI+Pb+Q range for all components are less than the 27.2 ksi requirements perFigure 1-9.2.3 of Section III, Appendix I [1], fatigue curve B in Figure 5-1 canbe used. Fatigue'curve B has an endurance limit of 16.5 ksi. For conservatism, fatigue curve C in Figure 5-1 was used to calculate the fatigue usage.
After accounting for the mean stress effect, the alternating stress amplitudes, Seq, in all steam dryer components are less than 16 ksi.
It is assumed that there are a total of 18 events for OBE and SRV. In each event, there are 100 cycles. The allowable cycles for each component were obtained and the fatigue usages were calculated. Although fatigue curve B can be used, for conservatism, the fatigue usage was calculated using fatigue curve C. The largest fatigue usage is 9.84x10 5 in the Vane Bank Base Plates. This fatigue usageis less than the Code fatigue usage allowable of 1.
7.3 Reconciliation of Finite Element Model on Fatigue Evaluation As shown in Table 7-1, the fatigue usage using the results from the original model is very small, 9.84x10-5.
Even with the increase of 6% in the alternating stress ranges, the increase in the fatigue usage is not significant and still under the allowable.
Report No. 0800528.402.RO 7-4 Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
0 0
Table 7-1: Fatigue Evaluation for Load Combination B-3 Maxj 5IS Range (ksi) 0 Case B-3, OBE and SRV Curve C Component Outer Hoods Middle Hoods Inside Hoods Gussets in Hoods Side Plates Vane Bank Base Plates Vertical Plates in Vane Banks Vane Banks Drain Pipes Skirt Drain Channels Upper Support Ring Lower Support Ring Tie Bars Lifting Rods Gussets in Upper Support Ring Allowable Fatigue At Fillet WIdC1 PL+PB+O 5'mean Top Bottom MaxlS'Jialt E Ratio Weld.:Salt(ksi) Fatigue Smean Seq(ksi)
Cycle Usage Weld Weld < 3 thk (ksi)
(ksi)
(ksi)
Factor Eq (7)
Curve (ksi)
Eq (8)
Yes Yes Yes 8.69 3.69 5.02 4.85 2.51 1.11 1.8 5.00 B
3.69 5.31 1.00E+11 1.80E-08 Yes Yes Yes 11.67 11.53 3.69 2.78 1.85 1.11 1.8 3.68 B
11.53 4.50 1.00E+11 1.80E-08 Yes Yes Yes 12.89 12.53 4.01 3.06 2.01 1.11 1.8 4.00.
B 12.53 4.98 1.00E+11 1.80E-08 Yes Yes Yes 17.24 14.44 6.36 6.15 3.18 1.11 1.8 6.34 B
12.56 7.91 1.00E+11 1.80E-08 Yes Yes Yes 11.65 7.63 4.17 3.80 2.09 1.11 1.8 4.16 B
7.63 4.73 1.00E+11 1.80E-08 Yes Yes Yes 15.84 9.15 13.76 14.26 7.13 1.11 1.8 14.22 B
4.68 15.35 18286322 9.84E-05 Yes Yes Yes 8.06 7.10 1.30 0.95 0.65 1.11 1.8 1.30 B
7.10 1.46 1.00E+11 1.80E-08 Yes Yes Yes 13.16 9.44 11.32 11.13 5.66 1.11 1.8 11.28 B
7.62 12.83 1.00E+11 1.80E-08 Yes Yes Yes 3.66 2.71 2.31 2.11 1.16 1.11 1.8 2.30 B
2.71 2.41 1.00E+11 1.80E-08 Yes Yes Yes 6.19 3.07 3.43 3.65 1.83 1.11 1.8 3.64 B
3.07 3.82 1.00E+11 1.80E-08 Yes Yes Yes 6.30 1.90 6.23 6.16 3.12 1.11 1.8 6.21 B
1.90 6.40 1.00E+11 1.80E-08 Yes Yes Yes 11.93 2.13 12.22 12.22 6.11 1.11 1.8 12.18 B
2.13 12.61 1.00E+11 1.80E-08 Yes Yes Yes 2.68 1.33 1.38 1.38 0.69 1.11 1.8 1.38 B
1.33 1.41 1.00E+11 1.80E-08 Yes Yes Yes 14.05 11.78 3.46 3.46 1.73 1.11 1.8 3.45 B
11.78 4.24 1.00E+11 1.80E-08 Yes Yes Yes 11.15 3.93 5.95 11.04 5.52 1.11 1.8 11.01 B
3.93 11.73 1.00E+11 1.80E-08 Yes Yes Yes 3.50 1.52 1.48 2.06 1.03 1.11 1.8 2.05 B
1.52 2.10 1.00E+11 1.80E-08 C7-5 Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
Report No. 0800528.402.R
~2:1 i
ýT
-'V
ý11ý I
(a) Top Surface (a) Top Surface (b) Bottom Surface Figure 7-1: Outer Hoods, Alternating Stress Intensity Range, Case B-3 (b) Bottom Surface Figure 7-2: Middle Hoods, Alternating Stress Intensity Range, Load Combination, Case B-3 7-6 v
Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
Report No. 0800528.402.RO
(a) Top Surface AMMM!M!M (a) Top Surface
,'A#
(b) Bottom Surface Figure 7-3: Inside Hoods, Alternating Stress Intensity Range, Case B-3 (b) Bottom Surface Figure 7-4: Gussets in Hoods, Alternating Stress Intensity Range, Case B-3 7-7 V
Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
Report No. 0800528.402.RO
~UA~
U~P
~A 1:.
- ~L':,~.
MJAL A.:?
AAI
.AAA
~&
k~~'
U (a) Top Surface (a) Top Surface
~UAL UU~T~ 1 TV -
IT A;.
IT '711 V A-,.
Nzly_ il.RýFi (b) Bottom Surface Figure 7-5: Side Plates, Alternating Stress Intensity Range, Case B-3 (b) Bottom Surface Figure 7-6: Vane Bank Base Plates, Alternating Stress Intensity Range, Case B-3 7-8 v
Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
Report No. 0800528.402.RO
I I IIIIIIII....
(a) Top Surface (a) Top Surface
- t~
V
- -t (b) Bottom Surface Figure 7-7: Vane Bank Vertical Plates, Alternating Stress Intensity Range, Case B-3 (b) Bottom Surface Figure 7-8: Vane Banks, Alternating Stress Intensity Range, Case B-3 Report No. 0800528.402.RO 7-9 v
Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
N I iL ".7AL :$V IL Al A~U~> ~
1~K
(.
I lowe I
'I!!
II!
I I
(a) Top Surface (a) Top Surface UA l:V*~. 2:
- 24. Th I
saw II
- tit, I
I (b) Bottom Surface Figure 7-9: Drain Pipes, Alternating Stress Intensity Range, Case B-3 (b) Bottom Surface Figure 7-10: Skirt, Alternating Stress Intensity Range, Case B-3 7-10 V
Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
Report No. 0800528.402.RO
- ] ;-))
(a) Top Surface (a) Top Surface
- u.i *.
I
ý
- t i/,:
yT*t r*
H, -
I.
(b) Bottom Surface Figure 7-11: Drain Channels, Alternating Stress Intensity Range, Case B-3 (b) Bottom Surface Figure 7-12: Upper Support Ring, Alternating Stress Intensity Range, Case B-3 7-11 v
Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
Report No. 0800528.402.RO
'1
~
(a) Top Surface (a) Top Surface sx~d.wv: IS
,S~V (b) Bottom Surface Figure 7-13: Lower Support Ring, Alternating Stress Intensity Range, Case B-3 (b) Bottom Surface Figure 7-14: Tie Bars, Alternating Stress Intensity Range, Case B-3 7-12 v
Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
Report No. 0800528.402.RO
'1.:'
'1 h'
9,
/
(a) Top Surface (a) Top Surface If 4,
7/
/
(b) Bottom Surface Figure 7-15: Lifting Rods, Alternating Stress Intensity Range, Case B-3 (b) Bottom Surface Figure 7-16: Gussets in Upper Support Ring, Alternating Stress Intensity Range, Case B-3 v
Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
Report No. 0800528.402.RO 7-13
FJI
- 21.
I 21-.,':
l.2 A
I 1ý (a) Top Surface (a) Top Surface U,2 I,
.~
Al
(¶2:21 14
- e. (1. :,
22:
.21 21 21 21.2: 121.
(b) Bottom Surface Figure 7-17: Outer Hoods, Mean Stress Intensity, Case B-3 (b) Bottom Surface Figure 7-18: Middle Hoods, Mean Stress Intensity, Case B-3 Report No. 0800528.402.RO 7-14 R
Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
4 1; (a) Top Surface
.7 =
(V'7 V 1-t (b) Bottom Surface Figure 7-19: Inside Hoods, Mean Stress Intensity, Case B-3 Report No. 0800528.402.RO (a) Top Surface (b) Bottom Surface Figure 7-20: Gussets in Hoods, Mean Stress Intensity, Case B-3 5
V Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
7-1
T~VT2"~I
-1:
4tk'.
-Cr,:
f-C -
~f.
III
- i¸*
(a) Top Surface 4
(a) Top Surface
'I:
- C, 'F 'I i1;;x-::
I;
-<C'-,--
F I
(b) Bottom Surface Figure 7-21: Side Plates, Mean Stress Intensity, Case B-3 (b) Bottom Surface Figure 7-22: Vane Bank Base Plates, Mean Stress Intensity, Case B-3 Report No. 0800528.402.RO 7-16 R
Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
(a) Top Surface (a) Top Surface (b) Bottom Surface Figure 7-23: Vane Bank, Vertical Plates, Mean Stress Intensity, Case B-3 4
(b) Bottom Surface Figure 7-24: Vane Banks, Mean Stress Intensity, Case B-3 I
Report No. 0800528.402.RO 7-17 R
Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
~1IAI UUT>V
-J A
I #me I
(F, ~I I
(a) Top Surface (a) Top Surface
'7: t:
J'J7 AM Ta TT~.
I-:
A':.
TUA.
'T~M I m
,,'~
TA? I' AC I>
TA V -
I I
i/'I/,
I I
(b) Bottom Surface Figure 7-25: Drain Pipes, Mean Stress Intensity, Case B-3 (b) Bottom Surface Figure 7-26: Skirt, Mean Stress Intensity Range, Case B-3 7-18 v
Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
Report No. 0800528.402.RO
r:~~
- L U,.
I.
M
.. I I
(a) Top Surface (a) Top Surface Figure 7-28: Upper Support Ring, Mean I,
(b) Bottom Surface (b) Bottom Surface Figure 7-27: Drain Channels, Mean Stress Intensity, Case B-3 Figure 7-28: Upper Support Ring, Mean Stress Intensity, Case B-3 7-19 v
Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
Report No. 0800528.402.RO
~,x
~: 2:
-~
1'j
'4:
(a) Top Surface (a) Top Surface 14
'4 14 (b) Bottom Surface Figure 7-29: Lower Support Ring, Mean Stress Intensity, Case B-3 (b) Bottom Surface Figure 7-30: Tie Bars, Mean Stress Intensity, Case B-3 V
Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
Report No. 0800528.402.RO 7-20
~>
1~
'¶2
%1
/7/'I
>1'
/
/
(a) Top Surface (a) Top Surface
<<.2 1.
1K 7<// /
/
(b) Bottom Surface Figure 7-31: Lifting Rods, Mean Stress Intensity, Case B-3
/
(b) Bottom Surface Figure 7-32: Gussets in Upper Support Ring, Mean Stress Intensity, Case B-3 v
Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
Report No. 0800528.402.RO 7-21
8.0 BUCKLING EVALUATION OF LIFTING RODS In Reference [14], the critical component of the steam dryer is the lifting rods due to buckling when the steam dryer lifts up and the lifting rods hit the stops in the top head. This section describes the evaluation of buckling under the Level D condition for the lifting rods.
8.1 Technical Approach The Code evaluation of the steam dryer was evaluated according to the rules of ASME Section III, Subsection NG [1]. The only buckling evaluation, as described in Subsection NG, is only for cylindrical shell, spherical shell or tubular product under external pressure. Since the buckling of the steam dryer lifting rods is evaluated for the faulted condition, the rules of Appendix F of Section III are used.
8.2 Design Inputs Each lifting rod is 3 inches in diameter and 82 inches long [4]. There are three gusset plates providing lateral support along the length of each rod, Figure 6-1. The longest unbraced length for each lifting rod is 32 inches.
The pressure difference for the faulted condition in the steam dryer is 6.3 psi for the CLTP and 4.8 psi for the EPU [4].
The typical material of the lifting rods is Type 304 stainless steel [5]. The operating temperature for the steam dryer is 550°F [5]. The yield strength of the Type 304 stainless steel at operating temperature is 18.9 ksi.
The weight of the steam dryer is 80,000 lbs [15]. The SSE load in the vertical direction is 0.327g
[5].
Report No. 0800528.402.RO 8-1 Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
8.3 Assumptions The following assumptions are used in the evaluation:
- 1. The lifting rods are assumed to be a linear type support such that the criteria for linear type support in Appendix F, F-1334 could be used.
- 2. The loads on the lifting rods are assumed to be from the lifting of the steam dryer due to the pressure differential across the steam dryer in the faulted condition.
- 3. The lifting load is uniformly distributed among the four lifting rods.
- 4. The buckling occurs assuming the lifting of the steam dryer hitting the dryer stops in the reactor vessel top head.
- 5. The effect of the gap between the lifting rods and the stops is neglected, (i.e., the gap is assumed to be closed).
- 6. The buckling load is assumed to be axially -load only.
- 7. Elastic buckling is assumed.
- 8.
Stresses resulting from constraint of free end displacement are considered as primary stress.
- 9. Only the vertical load from SSE is assumed to cause buckling in the lifting rods.
- 10. The gravity is assumed to have no effect on the lifting force.
8.4 Buckling Calculation Per Appendix F, F-1334.3, maximum load in axially load compression members shall be limited to:
Report No..0800528.402.RO 8-2 R8Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
For 0 P
4 Py 1.1 -_0.5A + 0.17A2 -0.282A For 1:S X<-42 P
2
_1Z2(8-2)
Py 3
-'4 For X>42 P_ 2 (8-3)
Py 3At2 where:
P
= maximum allowable load, lb Py
= SyAg, lb Ag
= area of gross section, in2 KL )1 L~
E
= modulus of elasticity, psi SY
= yield strength, psi K
= effective length factor L
= unbraced length, in.
r
= radius of gyration, in.
8.5 Results of Analysis' The total lifting load is calculated using the project horizontal area of the steam dryer and the pressure differential for the CLTP and EPU. The projected horizontal area was calculated conservatively using the outside diameter of the upper support ring, about 245 inches as estimated from Reference [4]. The total lifting forces due to pressure differential are presented in Table 8-1.
Report No. 0800528.402.RO 8-3 Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
Assuming the lifting load is evenly distributed among the four lifting rods, the load in each rod is shown in Table 8-2. The axial load on each lifting rod~due to the SSE is 80,000*0.327/4 6,540 lbs.
The compressive loads acting on each lifting rod due to different loading conditions are summarized in Table 8-2.
From Reference [4], it is shown that the lifting rods are braced at two, different elevations with the longest unbraced length of about 32 inches from the top of the support ring to the lowest bracing gusset.
The effective length factor, K, for a slender column can be.ranged from 1 to a large number depending. on the end support conditions and material properties. Typically, the value of K is from 1 to 5 for a solid circular column with different support conditions.
A parametric study was performed to obtain the allowable compressive load for a value of K from 1 to 5. The allowable. compressive loads were calculated using Equations.(8-1) through (8-
- 3) depending on k*. For circular column, the radius of gyration is the same as the column radius.
The calculation results are summarized in Table 8-3 and Figure 8-1. Also, the compressive loads due to the pressure differential from either CLTP orEPU and the SSE vertical acceleration are.
also plotted in Figure 8-1. It is shown that the applied compressive loads do not exceed the allowable until the K reaches 3.8.
From Reference [14], it is shown that the most critical condition was the buckling of lifting rods.
The design basis allowable load for the buckling of the faulted condition is 88.99 kips [14, page 2-19]. This design basis criterion is also plotted in Figure 8-1. It is shown that the compressive loads due to CLTP/EPU are lower than the design criterion. Also, it also gives an indication that an effective length factor of 3 was probably used in Reference [14]. In addition, the applied compressive load calculated in Reference [14] is 75.18 kips using an absolute sum of the load Report No. 0800528.402.RO 8-4 V
Structural Integrity.Associates, Inc.
cases. This compressive load is comparable to the applied compressive loads, 80. 79 kips for CLTP and 63.11 kips for EPU, obtained in this calculation.
8.6 Discussions A buckling evaluation of the lifting rods was performed for the faulted condition. Thý evaluation was performed for the CLTP and EPU conditions. The loadings are due to the pressure differential in the CLTP and EPU conditions, in addition to the vertical acceleration from the SSE.
The evaluation was performed according to ASME B&PV Code Section III, Appendix F. The allowable compressive load was calculated iusing equations in F-1334.3. A parametric evaluation was performed on the allowable compressive loads as a function of effective length factor K.
It is shown that the applied compressive loads in the lifting rods are less than the allowable compressive loads per Appendix F, F-1334.3 if the effective length factor is less than 3.8 for the CLTP condition. For EPU condition, the applied compressive load is below the allowable compressive load even beyond an effective length factor of 5. From the results presented in Reference [5], the design basis buckling load corresponds to an effective length factor of 3.
Also, the applied compressive loads calculated per the CLTP and EPU pressure differential are less than the design basis criteria for buckling presented in Reference [15].
Report No. 0800528.402.RO 8-5 V
Structural*Integrity Associates, Inc.
Table 8-1: Total Lifting Force, Faulted Condition Conditions Pressure Differential (psi)
Lifting Force (lbs)
CLTP 6.3 297004 EPU 4.8 226289 Table 8-2: Compressive Load on each Lifting Rod, Faulted Condition Conditions Axial Load (kips)
CLTP 74.25 EPU 56.57 SSE, vertical g 6.54 Table 8-3: Allowable Load due to Axial Compression Effective Allowable Load Length Factor, (lbs)
K 1
0.1860 109722 2
0.3719 98826 3
0.5579 88427 4
0.7439 78805 5
0.9298 69962 Report No. 0800528.402.RO 8-6 R
Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
F12000
-- 1 100000 80000 60000 40000 20000 Allowable Load
-- X-Design Basis Criteria, Reference 5 CLTP dP + SSE vertical EPU dP + SSE Vertical 0
S2 3
4 Effective Length Factor, K Figure 8-1: Loads as Function of Effective Length Factor K 6
Report No. 0800528.402.RO 8-7 R
Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
9.0 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS An evaluation was performed for the NMP 2 steam dryer for EPU conditions. It includes an ASME Code'evaludiion for. stfess.alloWables and -fatigue.
The evaluationý vasperformed~per-the 'guidance on the demonstration of steam dryer :integrity.for plants implementing power uprate... The.basic load combinations wer'e provided in',Reference [5].;
The stress results for individual load cases used in the load combinations' are based. on the four '
unit load cases: one unit pressure and three unit static accelerations in the three global directions.
In addition, results from two points of time in the FIV transient were provided in Reference [4]
for use in the Code stress allowable and fatigue evaluation.
A review of the load combinations in Reference [5] shows that two load combination cases identified as load Case B-3 for the Service Levels A and B and load Case D-1 for the service Levels C and D are bounding.
The resultant stresses for these two load cases were obtained from the four unit load cases with the appropriate scaling factors with the FIV loads. The alternating stress intensity ranges were obtained from the difference between the two points of time in the FIV load transient.
The Code evaluation was performed per Subsection NG of ASME B&PV Code Section III [I].
The evaluation shows that the allowable requirements for all stress categories are met for all service levels based on the nodal interpretation of the finite element results. The stress in the gussets in the hoods and tie bars for the faulted load combination exceed the stress allowable, Table 6-10. However, these components do not significantly exceed the stress allowable and application of elastic-plastic stress analysis method would likely show that the stresses in these two components satisfy the Appendix F rule for evaluation of service loadings with Level D Service Limits. It is noted that the hood gusset location is dominated by the accident differential pressure (APA or API) loading and the EPU faulted differential pressure load is reduced compared to that for the original licensed thermal power conditions. The overall conclusion is that the hood gusset location remains within the original design basis margin for the faulted load Report No. 0800528.402.RO 9-1 j
Structural Integrity.Associates, Inc.
case for the EPU condition. Using the stress for a section through the component, the stresses are within the ASME Code stress allowables for the Service Level B condition.
The cumulative fatigue was evaluated per:the guidance in Section IMlAppendix I of Reference.-
[1]. With the consideration of mean stress effect, the PI+Pb+Q stress range limits and the location, of the.peak stress, it is shown-that the maximum alternating stress amplitude, Seq, in all steam dryer components are below the endurance-limit of fatigue, curve.B.of.16.5. ksi. Even with the more conservative fatigue Curve C; the fatigue usage.-is very. small.
'.5
S.-
~s I
.. ~
~
I.
.7 Report No. 0800528.402.RO
." 9-2 92Structural lntegrity Associates, Inc.
10.0 REFERENCES
- 1.
ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section IIl, Subsection NG and Appendices, 2001 Edition with all Addenda.
- 2.
EPRI Report, "BWRVIP-182: BWR Vessel and Internals Project, Guidance for Demonstration of Steam Dryer Integrity for Power Uprate," Report No. 1016166, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA 2008, SI File No. 0800528.210P.
- 3.
EPRI Report, "BWRVIP-181: BWR Vessel and Internals Project, Steam Dryer Repair Design Criteria," Report 1013403, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA 2008, SI File No. 0800528.210P.
- 4.
CDI ANSYS Databases and Results, July 1, 2008, SI File No. 0800528.212.
- 5.
SI Report 0800528.401, Revision 0, "Nine Mile Point 2 Stream Dryer EPU Loads and Load Combination," SI File No. 0800528.401.
- 6.
GE Document No. NEDC-31145, February 1986, "Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Nine Mile Point Unit 2 NSSS New Loads Design Adequacy Education Final Summary Report," SI File 0800528.201.
- 7.
ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section II, Part D, 2001 Edition with all Addenda.
- 8.
ANSYS Revision 11.0, ANSYS, Inc., August, 2007.
- 9.
ASME, "Criteria of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code for Design by Analysis in Sections III and VIII, Division 2," Pressure Vessels and Piping Design and Analysis, A Decade of Progress, Vol. I Analysis, ASME Publication, 1972.
- 10.
Drawing 796E258, "Dryer Half, Steam Dryer," Rev. C, SI File No. 0800528.215.
- 11.
Drawing 0016010001729, "Dryer Section, Steam Dryer," Sheet 1, Rev. 2, SI File No.
0800528.215.
- 12.
Nine Mile Point Unit 2 FSAR, SI File No. 0800528.207.
- 13.
E-mail, A. Boschitsch (CDI)/K. Fujikawa (SI), "
Subject:
Response to 10-14 phone message," October 16, 2008, SI File No. 0800528.103.
- 14.
Lattin, N. F., "Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Nine Mile Point Unit 2, NSSS New Loads Design Adequacy Evaluation Final Summary Report," General Electric Report NEDC-31145, ERM BMB-1588, Class II, February 1986.
- 15.
E-mail, Alex Boschitsch (CDI)/Karen Fujikawa (SI), 'Re: NMP2 Steam Dryer Weight,'
November 4, 2008, SI File No. 0800528.103.
- 16.
"Invessel Visual Inspection (IVVI) of Reactor Pressure Vessel Components for the Nine Mile Point Unit 2 Nuclear Station During the Spring 2008 Outage," Report No. G9M12-N2R11-309718, April 2008, Westinghouse, SI File No. 0801273.201.
- 17.
SI Report No. 0801273.401, Rev. 1, "Flaw Evaluation and Vibration Assessment of the Nine Mile Point Unit 2 Steam Dryer for Extended Power Uprate Operating Conditions."
Report No. 0800528.402.RO 10-1 V
Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
- 18.
EPRI Report 1011463, "BWRVIP-139: BWR Vessel and Internals Project Steam Dryer Inspection and Flaw Evaluation Guidelines," EPRI, Palo Alto, CA 2005.
- 19.
EPRI Report TR-105873-A, "BWR Vessel and Internals Project: Evaluation of Crack Growth ii BWR Stainless Steel RPV Internals (BWRVIP-14A)," March 2003.
Report No. 0800528.402.RO S 10-2 R8-Structural/ ntegrity Associates, Inc.