ML13333B324
| ML13333B324 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 12/09/1985 |
| From: | Mckenna E Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8512190182 | |
| Download: ML13333B324 (40) | |
Text
or UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O
E
/WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 December 9, 1985 Docket No.: 50-206 LICENSEE:
Southern California Edison Company FACILITY:
San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit I (SONGS-1)
SUBJECT:
MEETING
SUMMARY
-.SEISMIC REEVALUATION CRITERIA On November 26, 1985, members of the NRC staff met with representatives of Southern California Edison Company (SCE) and with consultants to discuss issues in the long-term-service seismic reevaluation program. A list of attendees is provided in Enclosure 1.
The principal issue for the meeting was the strain-based acceptance criteria/
methodology for large bore piping. The licensee's proposed approach is described in a November 1, 1985 submittal. The licensee has proposed to calculate the stress in the piping using linear, elastic analyses and then "convert" this stress to a strain using a correction factor, if the calculated stress is greater than the SEP limits.
This strain is then compared to the acceptance limits of 1% strain for both carbon steel and stainless steel.
A strain limit of up to 2% for stainless steel may be used if additional limitations are followed.
During the meeting, the licensee presented their basis for this approach, as shown in Enclosure 2. Staff consultants raised several questions regarding the approach as noted in Enclosure 3. These questions were discussed at the meeting and the licensee has agreed to revise the submittal to clarify several of these points and to provide further justification in a couple of areas as described in the attached table.
The issue of multiple-level response spectrum (MLRS) analyses with PVRC damping was also discussed. The licensee considers that this is an appropriate combination of techniques based on comparisons of the MLRS method with the envelope response spectra method (for which PVRC damping has been approved). The licensee considers MLRS with PVRC damping to be adequately conservative because they combine modes using Regulatory Guide 1.92 combination rules and absolute summation of levels.
The licensee has agreed to provide a report summarizing their basis for using MLRS & PVRC in the near future.
This issue remains under staff review.
8512190182 851209 PDR ADOCK 05000206 P
December 9, 1985
-2 The staff is performing confirmatory linear time-history analyses for one piping problem. The input time histories that will be needed for this review were discussed and the licensee will supply this information for staff consultant use during the week of December 2, 1985.
Original signed'by:
E. McKenna Eileen McKenna, Sr. Project Manager Integrated Safety Assessment Project Directorate Division of PWR Licensing - B, NRR
Enclosure:
As Stated cc:
See Next Page DISTRIBUTION Central File ISAPD Reading EMcKenna TCheng CGrimes RDudley Meeting Attendees PChen ISAP:PWRL-B ISA.
B' SAP:PWRL-B ISAP:PWRL-B EMcKenna:lt TCheng PChen CGrimes 12/3 /85 12/4-/85 12/4 /85 12/i /85
-2 The staff is performing confirmatory linear time-history analyses for one piping problem. The input time histories that will be needed for this review were discussed and the licensee will supply this information for staff consultant use during the week of December 2, 1985.
ELt os C
Eileen McKenna, Sr. Project Manager Integrated Safety Assessment Project Directorate Division of PWR Licensing - B, NRR
Enclosure:
As Stated cc:
See Next Page
Mr. Kenneth P. Baskin San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Southern California Edison Company Unit No. 1 cc Charles R. Kocher, Assistant Joseph 0. Ward, Chief General Counsel Radiological Health Branch James Beoletto, Esquire State Department of Health Southern California Edison Company Services Post Office Box 800 714 P Street, Office Bldg. 8 Rosemead, California 91770 Sacramento, California 95814 David R. Pigott Mr. Hans Kaspar, Executive Director Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe Marine Review Committee, Inc.
600 Montgomery Street 531 Encinitas Boulevard, Suite 105 San Francisco, California 94111 Encinitas, California 92024 Mr. Stephen B. Allman San Diego Gas & Electric Company P. 0. Box 1831 San Diego, California 92112 Resident Inspector/San Onofre NPS c/o U.S. NRC P. 0. Box 4329 San Clemente, California 92672 Mayor City of San Clemente San Clemente, California 92672 Chairman Board of Supervisors County of San Diego San Diego, California 92101 Director Energy Facilities Siting Division Energy Resources Conservation &
Development Commission 1516 - 9th Street Sacramento, California 95814 Regional Administrator, Region V U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1450 Maria Lane Walnut Creek, California 94596
Table I -
Comments on Stress/Strain Relationship and its Application Comment Resolution From Page 2 of Enclosure 3
- 1) At least 50% of the stress SCE will include this limit in its revised should be due to the submittal.
earthquake loading, i.e.
less than 50% of the total should be from sustained loads (pressure, gravity)
- 2) Response spectra method This is consistent with the staff's should be used; damping September 19, 1985 safety evaluation should not exceed PVRC report on criteria and methodology.
recommendations.
- 3)
Diameter/wall thickness SCE will confirm that this is the case,
- ratio (D/t) shall not or will identify any exceptions for exceed 50.
case-by-case review.
- 4) The procedure is not SCE will provide information to assure applicable to quenched or that weidments as well as base tempered ferritic steel materials are reasonably ductile.
or cold worked austenitic stainless steel.
- 5)
No threaded or seal-welded None in the scope.
threaded joints.
- 6) Seismic Anchor Movements Licensee's approach is to evaluate SAMs in (SAM) should be adequately Code Equations 10, 11 or to include SAMs in considered.
Eq. 9 (See Enclosure 2).
This was discussed at meeting and found to be acceptable.
- 7) Cumulative usage factor The licensee has proposed a check on should not exceed 1/3.
low-cycle fatigue that considers 5 signifi cant cycles for strain greater than 1%.
The staff questioned whether such a check is needed even for strain below 1%.
Further justification will be provided by SCE for the 5 cycles; if 5 cycles are justified, this issue will be resolved for cases below 1% strain.
From Page 6 of Enclosure 3
- 1) How will SAM's be See item 6 above.
handled.
-2 Comment Resolution
- 2) Clarifications on checks SCE will clarify that option 1 addresses made when strain exceeds compressive wrinkling that Option 2 1% for stainless steel.
addresses low-cycle fatigue and that both checks are made.
As discussed above, the basis for 5 significant cycles will be provided.
3 & 4) Questions on stress SCE is following the 1980 ASME Code intensification factors restrictions and values; any deviations will be addressed on a case-by-case basis.
Page 7'of Enclosure 3 Does an elastic piping analysis SCE will provide a response to this bound the real response of the concern.
piping system (i.e. loads and displacements) when-the calculated stress far exceeds Code limits.
Enclosure Meeting Attendance November 26, 1985 Name Affiliation Eileen McKenna NRC C. I. Grimes NRC M. J. Russell EG&G Idaho T. M. Cheng NRC Dan Guzy NRC L. C. Shieh LLNL E. C. Rodabaugh ECR Associates Mark Hartzman NRC Pei-Ying Chen NRC George J. Stawniczy SCE-Proj. Engng.
John Eidinger IMPELL Walter Bak IMPELL R. Ornelas SCE-Licensing Gordie Hau IMPELL Bob Bosnak NRC SONGS-1 LTS SEISMIC REEVALUATION TECHNICAL BASIS FOR STRESS-STRAIN CORRELATION NOVEMBER 26, 1985
3.0 LTS CRITERIA 0
LTS PIPING ANALYSIS FLOW CHART o
SEP LIMITS o
STRESS-STRAIN CORRELATION 0
LTS STRAIN LIMITS o
APPLICATION LIMITATIONS
LTS PIPING ANALYSIS FLOW CHART PERFOR4 L INEAR ELASTIC ANALYSIS.
(OR AVITY PRESSURE, SEISMIC)
YES e(SEP LIMT NO CALCULATE PIPING STRAINS 44STRAIN LIMITS?
NO RESUPPORT PIPING PIPING QUALIFIED
SEP LIMITS 0
ASME CLASS 2/3 CODE EQUATION 9 (PRE-1983 EDITION)
= PD + 0.75L MA+mB SK SS 4T WHERE:.e = ELASTICALLY-CALCULATED PRIMARY STRESS BASED ON SIF APPROACH MA = RESULTANT MOMENT DUE TO GRAVITY LOAD MB = RESULTANT MOMENT DUE TO 0.67G EARTH QUAKE INERTIA, AS CALCULATED BY LINEAR ELASTIC METHOD (0.67G SAM MAY BE COMBINED WITH INERTIA BY SRSS METHOD, IF OMITTED IN THE SECONDARY STRESS CHECK)
K = 2.4 FOR CLASS 2 AND 3 PIPING 1.8 FOR CLASS 1 PIPING OTHER SYMBOLS ARE AS DEFINED IN THE CODE.
0 SECONDARY STRESSES DUE TO THERMAL EXPANSION AND SINGLE NONREPEATED MOVEMENTS (SOIL SETTLEMENTS)ARE EVALUATED PER ASME CLASS 2/3 CODE EQUATIONS 10, 11 AND 1Oa.
STRESS-STRAIN CORRELATION O
CONVERT ELASTICALLY CALCULATED PRIMARY STRESSES TO STRAINS FOR CARBON STEEL
= KS JEQ E
FOR STAINLESS STEEL
= K 2o E
WHERE:
E
= PRIMARY STRAIN E= YOUNG'S MODULUS KS = STRAIN CORRELATION FACTOR 0
KS IS DEFINED AS FOLLOWS:
KS = 1.0 WHEN:
3.4 1 4 1.0 Sy KS = 1.0 + 1-N (3,4 O. - 1) 1.0 < 3.4 1&
M N(M-1)
Sy Sy KS = Im 4~ 3.4 rj_
N Sy WHERE:
Sy = PIPING MATERIAL YIELD STRENGTH AT MAXIMUM OPERATING TEMPERATURE N = STRAIN HARDENING EXPONENT M = CODE-DEFINED PARAMETER TO PRODUCE CORRECT CORRELATION
LTS STRAIN LIMITS 0
PRIMARY STRAIN LIMITS ARE:
4 1% FOR CARBON STEEL
< 2% FOR STAINLESS STEEL 0
IN CASES WHERE Et> 1% FOR STAINLESS STEEL, THE FOLLOWING ITEMS WILL BE REVIEWED:
PLASTIC TENSILE INSTABILITY Low-CYCLE FATIGUE COMPRESSIVE WRINKLING EXCESSIVE DEFORMATION PIPE-MOUNTED EQUIPMENT QUALIFICATION 0
THE LTS STRAIN LIMITS HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE NRC IN THE SEPTEMBER 1985 SER,
APPLICATION LIMITATIONS FOR STAINLESS STEEL WHERE E> 1%
0 FOR TENSILE PLASTIC INSTABILITY, LOW-CYCLE FATIGUE AND COMPRESSIVE WRINKLING CONCERNS, PERFORM OPTION 1:
-4 < 0.2.
R OPTION 2:
CALCULATE ALLOWABLE CYCLES N FOR 0.67G EARTHQUAKE, BASED ON MARKL'S TEST RESULTS N '=91.875 5
0.75L t!
WHE E:
M = RESULTANT MOMENTOF EARTHQUAKE INERTIA AND SAM (COMBINED BY SRSS)
AND:
n Us N
WHERE: a
= NUMBER OF SIGNIFICANT CYCLES FOR 0.67G EARTHQUAKE N = NUMBER OF ALLOWABLE CYCLES FOR 0.67G EARTHQUAKE Uo = ALLOWABLE USAGE FACTOR FOR 0.67G EARTHQUAKE OTHER SYMBOLS ARE AS DEFINED IN THE CODE.
APPLICATION LIMITATIONS (CONT.)
o FOR EXCESSIVE DEFORMATION CONCERN, NUREG 1061., VOL. 2 RECOMMENDED 15% FLOW AREA REDUCTION AS THE LIMIT AT 2% STRAIN LIMIT, THE FLOW AREA REDUCTION IS LESS THAN 5%
o FOR PIPE-MOUNTED EQUIPMENT CONCERN, ALL NOZZLE LOADS AND MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT IN LTS SCOPE WILL BE QUALIFIED TO THE CODE ALLOWABLES.
4.0 JUSTIFICATION OF STRESS-STRAIN CORRELATION o ASME CODE FATIGUE EVALUATION PROCEDURE -- STRAIN CORRELATION FACTOR KS o
COMPARISON WITH GREENSTREET ELBOW TEST RESULTS o
OTHER PIPING COMPONENT AND SYSTEM TESTS o
OPERATING PLANT EARTHQUAKE EXPERIENCE o
RECENT INDUSTRY TREND
ASME CODE FATIGUE EVALUATION PROCEDURE 0
SEVERAL APPROACHES ARE AVAILABLE TO INCLUDE PIPING PLASTIC EFFECTS, E.G.,
NON-LINEAR ANALYSIS LIMIT ANALYSIS BY APPLYING EQUIVALENT STATIC G LOADS REDUCED-SPECTRA ANALYSIS BY APPLYING GLOBAL DUCTILITY FACTOR CODE FATIGUE-BASED STRESS-STRAIN CORRELATION 0
CODE FATIGUE-BASED STRESS-STRAIN CORRELATION IS CHOSEN BECAUSE CODE FATIGUE EVALUATION IS A STRAIN-BASED METHODOLOGY CODE FATIGUE EVALUATION PROVIDES A SIMPLIFIED ELASTIC-PLASTIC EVALUATION PROCEDURE FOR PIPING COMPONENTS EASY TO APPLY
ASME CODE FATIGUE EVALUATION PROCEDURE (CONT.)
0 KS IS BASED ON CORRELATION DEVELOPED IN THE CODE TO ACCOUNT FOR THE EFFECTS OF THE STRAIN CONCENTRATION PHENOMENON IN A SIMPLIFIED ELASTIC-PLASTIC EVALUATION, ELASTICALLY CALCULATED STRAIN e =
6e E
TOTAL OR ACTUAL'STRAIN ft
=KSfe A FACTOR OF 2.0 iS MULTIPLIED TO Ks.
IN E
ORDER TO CONSERVATIVELY DERIVE A SATISFACTORY COMPARISON WITH TEST RESULTS 0
STAIN CONCENTRATION FACTOR KE IN THE CODE IS BASED ON TEST RESULTS AND IDEALIZED FOR CODE APPLICATION.
KE = 1.0 WHERE:
SN < 3SM (OR 2Sy)
KE = 1.0 + _1-L S
3SM < SN K 3MSM N(M-1) 3SM KE =1 3MSM < SN N
STRESS ELASTICALLY ASSUMED STRESS STRAIN CURVE ACTUAL STRESS-STRAIN CURVE SIMPLIFIED STRESS-STRAIN CURVE II I
II II I
I.
I e
e t
STRAIN Ve = ELASTICALLY CALCULATED STRESS
£e = ELASTICALLY. CALCULATED STRAIN (le -e/E e = TOTAL OR ACTUAL STRAIN
= ACTUAL STRESS ELASTIC STRAIN VS. ACTUAL STRAIN COMPARISON WITH GREENSTREET ELBOW TEST RESULTS (CONT.)
0 COMPARISON INDICATES THAT SONGS-1 PROPOSED METHODOLOGY WILL OVERPREDICT THE STRAINS 0
CONSERVATISMS IN THE COMPARISON STRAINS CALCULATED BY SONGS-1 METHOD ARE MEMBRANE-PLUS-BENDING; TESTS PICKED UP MAXIMUM STRAINS WHICH CONTAIN LOCAL OR PEAK EFFECT.
ELBOWS WERE NOT PRESSURIZED IN TESTS, IN REALITY, INTERNAL PRESSURE WILL IMPROVE THE INTEGRITY OF THE ELBOW.
STRAIN HARDENING IS NOT CONSIDERED IN EXTRAPOLATING TEST RESULTS (STRAIGHT LINE ASSUMPTION).
TEST LOADS WERE APPLIED STATICALLY.
NOT USING 2% STRAIN LIMIT FOR CARBON STEEL ALLOWED IN CODE CASE N-47. ALSO N-47'S LIMITS ARE FOR LEVEL A LOADS.
ALL BOUNDARY LOADS, SUCH AS NOZZLES, VALVES AND PENETRATIONS, ARE QUALIFIED PER ASME CODE LEVEL D LIMITS WITHOUT ANY EXCEPTIONS.
sot. am
-aMs SGreenstreet Test u
Proposed gggg am 0
M uo "M
rig. 24. Load-strals data for.ut-of-plane ban~ding (M of etrecifhr
-3(
(
b 4.. )
FIGURE A-3
- se-Greenstreet Test SONGS-1 Proposed 71g 25 iad-traa atafo 1uplae
- z~ * (H*
- * *im fl-S (1*lb 1
- )
FUE*
am-.
11i1. 24.
Lead-strain data for oun-plan bnding
(
of specine FE-3 (1 lb f 4.448 N).
FIGURE A-3
50NGS-1 Proposedl IN ane go am age agsDa S
Stasse was rig. 31. Lt*e-strain data for Ia-plane beadng C-H ) of specien PE-17 (1 Ia.
- 25.& a; 1 lb
- 4.448 3).
FIGURE A-9 wn w.
t w Greenstieet Test---
SONGS-1 Proposed Taim SGEG A
- I Tit. 32. Laes-sLraia data for tn-plane bending (-a) of specimen PE-18 (1 In.
- 25.4 an; 1 lbt 4.66)8 )
FIGURE A-10
OTHER PIPING COMPONENT - SYSTEM TESTS 0
LATEST EPRI PIPING COMPONENT TESTS PERFORMED BY GE/ANCO:
ONSET OF ELBOW FRACTURE AT TWENTY (20) TIMES ASME CODE CLASS 2/3 LEVEL D LIMITS WAS OBSERVED (PRELIMINARY RESULTS)
O TEIDGUCHI ELBOW TESTS:
DEMONSTRATED THAT STAINLESS STEEL ELBOWS TESTED To 2% STRAIN (WHICH CORRESPONDS TO TEN TIMES THE PROPORTIONAL LIMIT) EXHIBITED GEOMETRIC AND STRUCTURAL STABILITY 0 IMAZU ELBOW TESTS:
DEMONSTRATED THAT 2% STRAIN IN STAINLESS STEEL ELBOW CORRESPONDS TO A FLOW AREA REDUCTION OF LESS THAN 5%, WHICH IS WELL BELOW THE 15% LIMIT RECOMMENDED IN NUREG 1061, VOL. 2
OTHER PIPING COMPONENT & SYSTEM TESTS (CONTINUED) 0 NRC/EPRI PIPING SYSTEM TESTING PROGRAM PERFORMED BY ANCO TESTED TWO LARGE-BORE PIPING SYSTEMS:
70 FT. LONG,,6-INCH DIAMETER, SCHEDULE 40 PIPING AND 20 FT. LONG,.-4-INCH DIAMETER, SCHEDULE 40 PIPING RECORDED ACTUAL STRAINS PIPING PRESSURIZED AND SUBJECTED To 20 SECOND INPUT TIME HISTORY EQUATED RECORDED STRAINS WITH ELASTIC STRESSES BY MOMENT-STRAIN CURVE AND ASME RULES
0 NRC/EPRI PIPING SYSTEM TEST PROGRAM PERFORMED BY ANCO (CONTINUED)
RESULTS 70 FT. PIPING:
INPUT LOAD WAS FOUR TIMES GREATER THAN THE VALUE TO PRODUCE THE LEVEL D STRESS LIMITS (ACCELERATION INPUT OF ABOUT 25G) 20 FT PIPING:
DYNAMIC INPUT LOAD RESULTED IN ELASTICALLY CALCULATED STRESSES (CLASS 2 SIF APPROACH) EQUIVALENT TO 4.OSY FOR BOTH TESTS, NO PLASTIC COLLAPSE OR LOSS OF STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OCCURRED.
-NI.
L.
I *4 x
Y to VALVE stAlrus FIGURE 3-5 Geometry for 70 ft. Long, 6-inch Diameter Piping System 3-12
Mt*RMI n gas a V
FARC CRTuguest 2 gOWNst 14 1.PS
- .830 rr Test Input SpectrM
-*Level D Spectrumi t
1312 Micrestral Peak is I
e 645 Microstrain ILL FIGURE 3-6 Testing Spectra for 70 ft.
Long, 6-inch Diameter Piping System Compared to that which would Produc~e Level D Allowable Stresses 3-13
0 33.4 5.0 5.0 fB. A.4 1.4,. n 4.*
FIGURE 3-7 Geometry for 2U ft. Long, 4-inch Diameter Piping SystemT 3-14
vst osom:
pal pipe test speie"e
- sem: 0 ggP se To. atteeted 800of et*ld "ts gts:
themel 3 Sspa 4eMn r pipA Spt.
empse* aspist 1.0 m arisaal gaspes Spers 0ar plant shed sa mtheast UJL.A. Or safe do.
's
- f,as FIGURE 3-B Testing Spectra for 20 ft. Long, 4-inch Diameter Piping System, Compared to That for a Typical Nuclear Power Plant 3-15
OPERATING PLANT EARTHQUAKE EXPERIENCE 0
NRC/LLNL INSPECTION AND ANALYSIS OF EL CENTRO STEAM PLANT GROUND MOTION FROM 10/15/79 IMPERIAL VALLEY EARTHQUAKE WAS AT LEAST 0.5G AT SITE PLANT WAS DESIGNED TO 0.2G STATIC LATERAL LOAD LLNL PERFORMED REALISTIC ANALYSIS WHICH REMOVED MANY CONSERVATISMS STUDY CONCLUDED THAT THE PLANT EXPERIENCED FORCES 2 TO 9 TIMES GREATER THAN DESIGN S-PLANT EXPERIENCED ONLY MINOR DAMAGE; RETURNED TO SERVICE WITHIN TWO HOURS 0
EPRI (SQUG), UCB (EERI) AND BECHTEL INSPECTION OF 10/85 MEXICO CITY EARTHQUAKE EARTHQUAKE WAS CLOSE TO 8.0 RICHTER SCALE PRELIMINARY FINDINGS INDICATED THAT BUILDING AND OTHER NON-NUCLEAR PIPING FAILURES WERE MAINLY DUE TO BUILDING COLLAPSE AND/OR LARGE BUILDING SWINGING OR SETTLEMENTS (THIS FURTHER SUPPORTS THE ARGUMENT THAT SAM, NOT SEISMIC INERTIA, IS THE FAIL MODE FOR PIPING SYSTEM)
RECENT INDUSTRY TREND 0 EC RODABAUGH'S RECOMMENDATIONS REMOVE MB (EARTHQUAKE PORTION OF THE "OCCASIONAL LOAD") FROM CODE EQN. 9. PERFORM A SIMPLIFIED FATIGUE TESTS ON PIPING COMPONENTS i MB (AMPLITUDE) !L51.0 KSI FOR SSE z
ASSUMING:
5 SIGNIFICANT CYCLES FOR SSE USAGE FACTOR FOR SSE IS SMALL (U = 1/16)
PDo +
0.75 1 MA
=
0.5Sh 4T Z
(PRESSURE + GRAVITY)
USE A FACTOR TIMES YIELD STRENGTH AS THE ONLY ALLOWABLE FOR CODE EQN. 9, NOT THE LESSER OF A FACTOR TIMES THE ALLOWABLE STRESS (St FOR CLASS 2/3) AND A FACTOR TIMES THE YIELD STRENGTH
RECENT INDUSTRY TREND (CONTINUED) 0 EPRI SPONSORED PIPING COMPONENT AND SYSTEM TESTS AT GE/ANCO PIPING COMPONENT TESTS:
ONSET OF ELBOW FRACTURE AT TWENTY (20) TIMES ASME CODE CLASS 2/3 LEVEL D LIMITS WAS OBSERVED (PRELIMINARY RESULTS)
ATGE/ETEC PIPING SYSTEM TESTS:
NO RESULTS YET.
BUT ANTICIPATING EVEN HIGHER LOADS TO FRACTURE THE PIPING COMP.0NENTS THAN THE LOADS APPLIED FOR COMPONENT TESTS BECAUSE OF LOAD REDISTRIBUTION DUE TO ADDED FLEXIBILITY
0 RESULTS OF LTS APPLICATION FOR THE STRESS-STRAIN CORRELATIONS (3)
Eqn. 9F Stress Prob Material ksi Strain Pass Note AC-01 C.S.
41.0
.74%
Yes AC-06 C.S.
50.0
.90%
Yes AC-13 C.S.
41.9
.76%
Yes AC-12F,-128
-129 C.S.
44.0
.79%
Yes AC-131 C.S.
49.7
.89 Yes AC-132 C.S.
37.1
.67 Yes FW-05 C.S.
66.9 1.22%
No (1)
MW-03-05 C.S.
53.8
.98%
Yes SI-51 C.S.
61.1 1.12%
No (2)
S.S.
45.2 1.07%
Yes 0.2 t Check O.K.
R NOTES (1) Further analysis is in progress to reduce the overstrain.
(2) Being reanalyzed to lower support/nozzle loads. Strain may be solved at the same time.
(3) Total problem evaluated in LTS application: 47
% if stress-strain correlation applied 12'1*525%
c~losure 3/
,7 E. 6~dt ;8cfl 4 FI tAf 1O J pe f 7able /1 Cows o.I5Joal o/
ProfonA~ 0( // 797 & / 4
//6f 19 P6 eod E,
I9) L;;,dr Te~p,,,
/o'ek e
/91o Coda L, L "//
- P 3;
f/,
CD
<a) ~~1 i2 r7ir, lo tro 0
3rdoo 2s5 JefZ o
0.0052 (food 0d0 0/s
/3060 27 ode 3 006 foD
/5ou 2r3o 27,3 2f 97/
5;eo 00.oor7 5',0 5.oo 0.0/o6 Ifo 700 7 3(6oo0 0oo
/
oooo 2.T3
/sod 0 3.333
- 0. o3 fZ'0 3,31
- 0. /0
?f7900 3.333 oo2es 22560 33/e afr/ro
!rd 1o90 19yo e 2
9700 3, 333 0.0075/
3f700 3,333 0.0/Ge 77944d 3.333 0.oZoo /9916 2020 37/S9 7&
t Ia er e fr each tr
/Aa podred/r ve/Vs' of cr
/An ekas Ms"1/n rama...k,,
~il~oly es/s *e-e Aor.Volar P,, o// Ar carbo' s/e, I 70 fead 2A for s/e-/s4.rf s/eal 43
2 of 7 Southern California Edison Company Report No. 01-0310-1459, October 7, 1985 (Hereinafter called Report)
The procedure described in 2.0 and 3.0 of the Report is deemed accept able for evaluation of piping pressure boundaries (except bolted-flanged joints) provided:
(1) In calculating 0' by the equation shown on p. 1 of the Report, at least 50% of a; is dueeto earthquake loading.
(2) In calculating moments due to earthquakes, a response spectrum method is used, with damping not exceeding that specified in Code Case N-411 (PVRC recommendations).
(3) Diameter/vall thickness ratio, Doft, does not exceed 50.
(4) Materials are like SA106 Grades A, B, C or like SA312 Type 304.
(No quenched and tempered ferritic steels or cold worked austenitic stain less steels.)
(5) Joints are butt welded or girth fillet welded.
(No threaded, or seal-velded threaded.)
(6) Seismic anchor movements are adequately considered.
(7) The cumulative usage factor due to SSE does not exceed 1/3.
T~)e
~
~,ahc~3oA 7
/oa 1e.s hn S
MeeelLoad P
n, St.
kl Do ~
Pali yj.
- 14V1u, 1
a) in
-IFi Mar
(//-1 10,75 0.233
/F,/
Sio I3s) gys-9Vo
//7/
1/)-2 10.75 0.350 29.7 j7 7o 0 2od
/is) 15o /50 1700 J.'l0 01(-S
/&,o0.5 50 320 300
[Js) 29I0 23rd 2?37
/.3/
I)-t 20,oo 0.ZS5
- 77.
57
/00 00 1.35) 3/30 3J30
'550 (10)-3 10.175 0.o
/.7 MV. 7 30 Y00 (35) 273 3)2 Sz
[/9/
20.00 0.25 77.0
£2.)
5 5 37s) 370 9)-.3 '50 0.337 12, 2
2so 30 (35) 2/7 300 52
.16 N
.. o E =.e 5s.oZ (9) -l 4,$o 0.337 12.f o00 370 1
(o) 9 772
/l I 363
/.01 V(t9)-/3 [,, 0.23 2f, 5I(o
£20 L
-(3) 3 399 33 675
/.73
&ickhb'
&vffSrgve serid4dl 7 ) Octrd fa'
.e?,,,
if rleal4 ofy aud #<:9 #i******'f,
/V2 1A7,p ww 4
1
T
/4 3; Stabc OPP Aood rcs/7 0,7 EbowsC.
ae Fro.,M in-e4 f
.eI
/
(12 -2e 1, 35 z
,7 /Sy/,
reo r 2
tY26/
.fe
/5
-y r
ff
/F R*9 13I9 In-A M
/kf (22)-'/
4.35 p-g2 22,7 2.170 50 1, 2o 201+
gvq
(,)
,,s 1r3 Z?
(zZ) -
f
- a. Y3 2 1.
1,23 3719
- ?3 vro Nt3s) 394 9/7 4 6_1 3~ (22)1 E805~. 22.7
- 2. _'
9%
2o4
.70o+
(3S 12 171+
22(
/24 0%. (zz)-/? '.3'tr o.2 22,7 7,23
'91,.o
/94 o2 tlp 6r qr
/s z7
/.52 t )-20 9,.193 0,V32
/Y/..3 IdAb 39, (p 3b 9
.3 9 R-- 6 (35) 373 373
'7-
/.10 p}z)-/f
.3"5 d.80 z2.7
/,lo 37.7 jq/
20t (30)
/52
/Y'-r 212
- 25 2.79 (12)-JA
- 4. 3fS ono 21.7 b 7 p 97.7 I7A 2oZ+
(Jo)
/f it,]+
212 Of 3,09 (t2)-7
{,
YS 0.tto 2.7 2,Z3 S175 2c*4 S(3y)
/'17 /b9i It2 32f Z, to (22)-lB 6.193
.'3 z'.
1 3
/.Z3 5-.4 3 1 M
(3e) 297.
323
/Z I 92 2.91 WARD 15425
- 07.
37
/7 2,&f2 V'/o Ial J2 FO
.(5) 9i7 973
/3 z 4
- 3.oz RI IR qD-Hf-S 5
7 7ar
- w.
vt MA TP.
177
.2
& 0. 2 checA
/
- 0. 00Z 4 osa't 0.0/
0.02 E ;
Joo 6e** /zooon
_goooe
, s6eoaO
./4 9c
- Do0 Zoo
/do 20 9/1 0, '//t rj /of CL J ifek,;
Sv'om/;;
.F/
D~~o(
d.e10a
'to (to
/6 AshJed Bar, o/.&*
157
- 3o Ji2 11-4vo /(et i*Jb) t h-,~
rLeI er A
a /
, 9W/s Vf n
d m
l/o of esbw 5//
1/7, d Ar Ar*'
c" a 3S
/ <C.Jeg all.ow*6/
wde a/ da we ej/'
4~~ j c. h -
la/lArre
(~
PElbow Bending Ands p
oo5oo
.op O1 1
Bran-h oBending (in Maeia3lbwBedng A
oBending (It)
Thrust t2o 11 11 Fatigue
- Life, N
Fao*, Vl' vechi
& f4/MyL f5 5.rdf L j
'?/*
FIG. S. FATIGUE RELATIONSR IN CO ENSNPP MAERA 4,
.. 7 Prcive Vealf
6 of 7 Questions by ECR, 11/26/85 (i) How will seismic anchor motions be handled?
If included as part of N0-3600 Eqs. (10) and (11),
will MB represent range of moments or am plitude of moments?
(2) Report No. 01-0310-1459. Section 5.0 (a) How does Option 1 address low-cycle fatigue?
(b) How does Option 2 address compressive vrinkling?
(c) Where do you anticipate "tensile plastic instability" might occur?
(e.g., in an elbow?, straight pipe, what?)
How does either option 1 or 2 address whatever this concern might be?
.(d)
What are the units of 1?
Is M a moment range or amplitude?
(e) Where, in NUREG 1061 Vol. 2, is "5 significant cycles" identi fied as a realistic estimate for the Modified Housner Earth quake?
What is the basis for it? (e.g., does it come from a cumulative damage evaluation?)
(3) Does 0.751 have a lower bound of 1.0?
- 1)
UWha4 Wo;11 ke ued
>Z..
Z for FRamb4 Connecha;nd (Q) For meweek on broc4 ?
(A) For h**.**n9s on-no
7 or 7 Displacement and Loadings of Piping Systems Stress limits on 0e as calculated by Code Eq. (9) are intended to limit plastic deformation of components in piping systems so that results from an elastic piping system analysis vill be reasonably valid for estimates of displacements and loads everywhere in the piping system.
Having increased the stress limit on 0e by factors of up to two, it is not apparent that an elastic piping analysis vill predict, or conservatively bound, the real re sponse of the piping system.
This raises questions such as:
(1) Will the pipe displace iuch farther than estimated by the elastic anal ysis and maybe hit some safety-related equipment and damage it?
(2) What vill be the nozzle loads on valves, pumps, heat exchangers, ves sels, etc.?
(3) What vill be the loads on piping supports?
(4) Will valves with motor operators remain operable?
(5) What vill be the moments on bolted-flanged joints?
The possible problem is illustrated by the following simple conceptual example.
The end moments double due to the hinge.
In real piping systems, the ends might be valves or nozzles or bolted-flanged joints.