ML17256A545
| ML17256A545 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Ginna  |
| Issue date: | 02/28/1983 |
| From: | Accornero K, Chang K, Laura Smith WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, DIV OF CBS CORP. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17256A542 | List: |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-0737, RTR-NUREG-737, TASK-2.D.1, TASK-TM 0514S:10, 514S:10, NUDOCS 8303110324 | |
| Download: ML17256A545 (109) | |
Text
WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3
PRESSURIZER SAFETY AND RELIEF LINE EVALUATION SlNMARY REPORT ROCHESTER GAS AND ELECTRIC CORPORATION GINNA STATION L.
C.
Smith K. F. Accornero
- February, 1983 Approved:
K.
C.
IJ
1 0
~ i J
~
t t
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont)
Section Title ANALYTICALMETHODS AND MODELS
- 4. 1 Intro du cti on 4.2 Static Analysis
- 4. 3 Dynamic Analysis 4.4 Seismic Analysis 4.5 Pressurizer Safety and Relief Line Analysis 4.5.1 Plant Hydraul ic Model 4.5.2 Comparison to EPRI Test Results 4.5.3 Valve Thrust Analysis METHOD OF STRESS EVALUATION 5.1 Introducti on II
- 5. 2 Primary Stress Ev al ua tion 5.2.1 Design Conditions
- 5. 2. 2 Upset Con ditions 5.2. 3 Emergency Conditions
- 5. 2.4 Faul ted Condi tions 5.3 Secondary Stress Evaluation RESULTS 6.1 Evaluation Prior to EPRI Test Program 6.2 Evaluation Subsequent to EPRI Test Program 6.2.1 Ther mal Hydraul ic Results
- 6. 2. 2 Structural Resul ts 6.3 Summary of Results and Conclusions 0514 s: 10 0
SECTION 1
INTRODU CT ION The pressurizer safety and relief valve (PSNV) discharge piping system for pressurized water reactors, located on top of the pressurizer, provides overpressure protection for the reactor coolant system.
A water seal is maintained upstream of each pressurizer safety valve to prevent a steam interface at the valve seat.
This water seal reduces the possibility of valve leakage.
While this arrangement maximizes the plant availability, the water slug, driven by high system pressure upon actuation of the valves, generates severe hydraulic shock loads on the pi ping and supports.
Under NUREG 0737,Section II.D.1, "Performance Testing of BWR and PWR Relief and Safety Valves", all operating plant licensees and applicants are required to conduct testing to qualify the reactor coolant system relief and safety valves under expected operating conditions for design-basis transients and accidents.
In addition to the qualification of valves, the functionability and structural integrity of the as-built discharge piping and supports must also be demonstr ated on a plant speci fic basis.
In response to these requirements, a program for the per formance testing j
of PWR safety and relief valves was formulated by EPRI.
The primary objective of the Test Program was to provide full scale test data con-firming the functionability of the reactor coolant system power operated relief valves and safety valves for expected operating and accident conditions.
The second objective of the program was to obtain suffi-cient piping thermal hydraulic load data to permit confirmation of models which may be utilized for plant unique analysis of safety and h
rel ief "valve discharge piping systems.
This report is the response of the Rochester Gas and Electric Corpora-tion to the US NRC plant-specific submittal request for piping evalua-tion and is applicable to the Ginna pressurizer safety and relief valve discharge piping system.
0514 s: 10
0
SECTION 2
PIPE S'iRESS CRITERIA 2.1 PIPE STRESS CALCULATION The piping between the pressurizer nozzles and the pressurizer relief tank was analyzed according to the requirements of the appropriate equations of the ANSI B31.1-1973 Code up to and including 1973 addenda (hereafter referred to as the Code).
These equations establish limits for stresses from sustained loads, sustained plus occasional loads (including earthquake),
thermal expansion
- loads, and sustained plus thermal expansion loads.
The allowable stresses for use with the equations were determined in accordance with the requirements of the Code.
L
- 2. 2 LOAD COMBINATIONS In order to evaluate the pressurizer safety and relief valve piping, appropriate load combinations and acceptance cr iter ia were developed.
The load combinations and acceptance criteria are identical to those recommended by the piping subcommittee of the PWR PSARV test program and are outlined in Tables 2-1 and 2-2.
Definitions of the load abbrevia-tions are provided in Table 2-3.
The PSARV test program allows the I
option of using either the design basis load combinations or the load combinations as defined in Table 2-1 and 2-2.
The load combinations and acceptance criteria defined in Table 2-l and Table 2-2 were used in the Ginna analysis.
0514 s: 10
TABLE 2-1 LOAD COMBINATIONS AND ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR PRESSURIZER SAFETY AND RELIEF VALVE PIPING AND SUPPORTS - UPSTREAM OF VALVES Pl an t/Sys tem Combination Operatin Condition Load Coabination Piping Allo'wable Stress Intensit Normal Upset Emer gency; Faulted
+
E+
U N+ SOT E
N + MS/FWPB or DBPB
+ SSE
+ SOTF 1.0 Sh 1.2 SI 1.8 Sh 2.4 Sh Faulted N + LOCA + SSE
+ SOTF, 2.4 Sh NOTES:
(1)
Plants with an FSAR may use their original design basis in conjunction with the appropriate system operating transient definitions in Table 2-3; or> they may,use the proposed criteria contained in Tables 2-1 to 2-3.
(2)
See Table 2-3 for SOT definitions and other load abbreviations.
(3)
The bounding number of valves (and dischar g'e sequence if setpoints ar e si gni ficantly different) for the appl i cable system operating transient defined in Table 2-3 should be used.
(4)
Verification of functional capability is not required, but allowable loads and accelerations for the safety-relief, valves must be met.
(5)
Use SRSS for conbining dynamic load responses.
0514 s:10
II
TABLE 2-2
" LOAD COMBINATIONS AND ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR PRESSURIZER SAFETY AND RELIEF VALVE PIPING AND SUPPORTS SE ISNI CALLY DESIGNED DOWNSTREN PORTION Pl ant/Sys tern Combination Oper atin Condi tion Load Combination Piping Allowable Stress Intensit Normal 1.0 Sh Upset Upset Emergency N + SOTU N + OBE + SOTU N + SOTE 1.2 Sh 1.8 Sh 1.8 Sh Faulted N + MS/FWPB or DBPB
+ SSE
+ SOT F
2.4 Sh Faulted (2) This table is applicable to the seismically designed portion of downstream non-Category I piping (and supports) necessary to isolate the Category I portion from the non-seismically designed piping response, and to assure acceptable valve loading on the discharge nozzle.
(3)
See Table 2-3 for SOT definitions and other load abbreviations.
(4) The bounding nuttier of valves (and discharge sequence if setpoints are significantly different) for the applicable system operating transient defined in Table 2-3 should be used.
(4) Verification of functional capability is not required, but allowable loads and accelerations for the safety-relief valves must be met.
(5)
Use SRSS for combining dynamic load responses.
+ SOTF 2.4 Sh I
NOTES: (1) Plants with an FSAR may use their original design basis in conjunction with the appropriate system operating transient definitions in Table 2-3; or they may use the proposed criteria contained in Tables 2-1 to 2-3.
0514s'10
TABLE 2-3 1
DEFINITIONS OF LOAD ABBREVIATIONS SOT SOTU SOTE SOTF OBE SSE Sustained loads during normal plant operation.
System operating transient Re 1 ief v al ve di s char ge tr ans ient(1)
Safety valve dischar ge tr ansient(1) i Maximum of SOTU and SOTE, or transition flow Operating basis earthquake Safe shutdown ear thquake MS/FWPB DBPB LOCA Sh Main steam or feedwater pipe break Design basis pipe break Loss-of-cool ant acci dent Basic material allowable stress at maximum (hot) temperature (1)
May also include transition flow, if determined that required operating procedures could lead to this condition.
(2)
Although certain nuclear steam supply systems design tr ansients (for,example, loss of load) which are classified as upset condi-tions may actuate the safety valves: the extremely low nunber of actual safety valve actuations in op'crating pressurizer water reactors justifies the emergency condition from the ASME design philosophy and a stress analysis viewpoint.
However, if actuation of safety valves would occur, a limitation must be placed to shut down the plant for examination of system integrity after an appro-priate number of actuations.
This number can be determined on a
pl ant speci fic basis.
NOTE:
Plants with an FSAR may use their original design basis in conjunction with the appropriate system operating transient definitions in Table 2-3; or they may use the proposed criter ia contained in Tables 2-1 to 2-3.
0514s:10 0
0
SECTION 3
LOADING CONDITIONS ANALYZED
- 3. 1 LOADING The piping stress analyses described in this section consider all pertinent loadings.
These loadings result from thermal expansion,
- pressure, weight, earthquake, and safety valve and relief valve operation.
3.1.1 THERMAL EXPANS ION The thermal growth of the reactor coolant loop equipment and all connected piping is considered in the thermal analysis of this system.
The modulus of elasticity (E), the coefficient of thermal expansion at the metal temperature (a), the external movements transmitted to the piping as described
- above, and the temperature rise above the ambient temperature (aT for various operating modes),
define the required input data to perform the flexibilityanalysis for thermal expansion.
Because of the many possible operating
- modes, the system may experience many different thermal loadings.
The temperatures used in the expansion analysis are based on all available information and include pertinent v al ve opening cases.
To provide the necessary high degree of integrity for the piping, the transient conditions selected for secondary stress evaluation are based on conservative estimates of the magnitude and anticipated frequency of occurrence of the temperature and pressure transients resulting from the possible operating conditions.
The transients selected are conservative representations of.transients for design
- purposes, and are used as a basis for piping secondary stress evaluation to provide assurance that the piping is acceptable for its application over the design life of the plant.
0514 s'10 For purposes of piping evaluation, the number of transient occurrences
~
~
~
is based on'a plant design life of 40 years.
3.1. 2 PRESSURE Pressure loading in this repor t is either design pressure or oper ating pressure.
The design pressure is used in the calculation of longitu-dinal pressure stress in accordance with the Code.
The range of oper-ating pressure is used in calculating various stress intensities, as applicable.
3.1. 3 WE IGHT To meet the requirements of the Code, a weight analysis is performed by applying a 1.0 g uniformly distributed load downward on the complete piping system.
The distributed weight characteristics of the piping system are specified as a function of its properties.
This method provides a distributed loading to the pi'ping system as a function of the weight of the pipe, insulation, and contained fluid during normal oper-ating conditions.
3.1. 4 SE ISMI C Seismic motion of the earth is treated as a random process.
Certain assumptions reflecting the characteristics of typical earthquakes are made so these characteristics can be readily employed in a dynamic response spectrum analysis.
Piping rarely experiences the actual seismic motion at ground elevation, since it is supported by components attached to the containment build-ing.
Although a band of frequencies is associated with the ground earthquake motion, the building itself acts as a filter to this environ-ment and will effectively transmit those frequencies corresponding to its own natural modes of vibration.
0514 s: 10 The forcing functions for the piping seismic analyses are derived from dynamic response analyses of the containment building when subjected to seismic ground motion.
These forcing functions are in the form of floor response spectra.
Response
spectra are obtained by determining the maximum response of a single mass-spring-damper oscillator to a base notion time history.
This single mass-spring-damper oscillator system represents a single natural vibration mode of the:piping system.
A plot of the maximum responses versus the natural frequencies of the oscil-lator forms the response spectrum for that particular base motion.
The intensity and character of the earthquake motion producing forced
, vibration of the equipment mounted within the containment building are specified in terms of the floor response spectrum curves at various elevations within the containment building.
The seismic floor response spectrum curves corresponding to the highest elevation at which the component or piping is attached to the containment building are used in the piping analysis.
Seismic loads must be known to calculate the resultant moment (Mi3) used in the design equations The plant operating condition (fu11 load) is the condition under which the specified earthquake is assumed to occur.
3.1.5 SAFETY AND RELIEF VALVE TNUST The pressurizer safety and relief valve discharge piping system provides overpressure protection for the RCS.
The two spring-loaded safety
'alves and two power-operated relief valves, located on top of the pressurizer, are designed to prevent system pressure from exceeding design pressure by more than 10 percent and 100 psi, respectively.
A water seal is maintained upstream of each safety valve to minimize leakage.
Condensate accumulation on the inlet side of each valve prevents any leakage of hydr ogen gas or steam through the valves.
0514 s: 10 If the pressure exceeds the set point and the valves open, the water slug from the loop seal discharges.
The water slug, driven by high system pressure, generates transient thrust forces at each location where a change in flow direction occurs.
The safety and relief lines are analyzed for various cases of thrust loadings to ensure the primary and secondary stress limits are not
.exceeded.
- 3. 2 DESIGN CONDITIONS The design conditions are the pressures, temperatures, and various mechanical loads applicable to the design of nuclear power plant piping.
- 3. 2.1 DES IGN PRESSURE The specified internal and external design pressures are not less than the maximum difference in pressure between the inside and outside of the component, which exists under the specified normal operating condi-tions.
The design pressures are used in the computations made to show compliance with the Code.
The design pressure of the pressurizer safety and relief valve piping between the pressurizer and the valves is 2485 psig.
The downstream design pressure from the valve discharge to the pressurizer relief tank is 600 psig.
- 3. 2. 2 DES IGN TEMPERATURE The specified design temperature is not less than the actual maximum metal temperature existing under the specified normal operating condi-tions for each area of the component considered.
It is used in computa-tions involving the design pressure and coincidental design meclianical'oads.
The design temperature of the pr essurizer safety and relief 0
valve piping between the pressurizer and the relief tank is 650 F.
0514 s: 10 C ~
- 3. 3 PLANT OPERATING CONDITIONS
- 3. 3. 1 NORMAL CONDITIONS
~
~
0 A normal condition is any condition in the course of system startup, design power range operation, hot standby, and system shutdown, other than upset, faulted, emergency, or testing conditions.
Normal occurrences are operations that are expected to occur frequently or regularly in the cour se of power operation, refueling or maintenance of the plant.
- 3. 3. 2 UPSET COND IT IONS An upset condition is any deviation from normal conditions anticipated to occur often enough that design should include a capability to with-stand the condition without operational impairment.
Upset conditions include those transients resulting from any single operator error or control malfunction, transients caused by a fault in a system component
~
~
~
requiring its isolation from the system, and transients due to loss of load or power.
Upset conditions include any abnormal incidents not resulting in a forced outage and also forced outages for which the corrective action does not include any repair of mechanical damage.
Upset occurrences include incidents, any one of which may occur during a
t calendar year for a particular plant.
- 3. 3. 3 EMERGENCY CONDITIONS Emergency conditions are defined as those deviations from normal conditions which require shutdown for correction of the conditions or repair of damage in the system.
The conditions have a low probability of occurrence but are included to provide assurance that no gross loss of structural integrity will result as a concomitant effect of any damage developed in the system.
The total nunber of postulated occur-rences for such events shall not cause more than 25 stress cycles.
Emergency occurrences include incidents, any one of which may occur during the lifetime of a particular plant.
0514s:10 e
- 3. 3.4 FAULTED CONDITIONS Faulted conditions are those combinations of conditions associated with extremely low probability postulated events whose consequences are such that the integrity and operability of the nuclear energy system may be impaired to the extent that considerations of public health and safety are involved.
Faulted occurrences are faults that are not expected to occur, but are postulated because their consequences would include the potential for the release of significant amounts of radioactive material.
0514 5'10 SECTION 4 ANALYTICALMETHODS AND MODELS
- 4. 1 INTRODUCTION The analytical methods used to obtain a piping deflection solution consist of the transfer matrix method and stiffness matrix formulation.
The complexity of the piping system requires the use of a computer to obtain the, displacements,
- forces, and stresses in the piping and support members.
To obtain these results, accurate and adequate mathematical representations (analytical models) of the systems are required.
The modeling considerations depend upon the degree 'of accuracy desired and the manner in which the results will subsequently be interpreted and evaluated.
All static and dynamic analyses are performed using the WESTDYN computer program.
This program, described in WCAP-8252, was reviewed and approved by the U.S.
NRC (NRC letter, April 7, 1981 from R. L. Tedesco to T.
M. Anderson).
The integrated piping/supports system model is the basic system model used to compute loadings on components, component and piping supports, and piping.
The system model includes the stiffness and mass charac-teristics of the piping system.
The deflection solution of the entire system is obtained and then internal member forces and piping stresses are calculated.
- 4. 2 STATIC ANALYSIS The piping system models, constructed for the WESTDYN computer
- program, are represented by an ordered set of data which numerically describes the physical system.
0514s:10 R
The spatial geometric description of the piping model is based upon the isometric piping drawings and equipment drawings.
Node point coordi-nates and incremental lengths of the members are determined from these drawings.
Node point coordinates are put on network cards.
Incremental member lengths are put on element cards.
The geometrical properties along with the modulus of elasticity, E, the coefficient of thermal expansion,.a, the average temperature change from the avbient tempera-
- ture, a T, and the weight per unit length, w, are specified for each element.
The supports are repr esented by stiffness matrices which define restraint characteristics of the supports.
Plotted models for various parts of the safety and relief valve discharge piping are shown in figures in Section 6.
The static solutions for deadweight and thermal loading conditions are obtained by using the WESTDYN computer program.
The WESTDYN computer program is based'on the use of'transfer matrices which relate a
twelve-'element vector [Bj consisting of deflections (three displacements and three rotations) and loads (three forces and three moments) at one location to a similar vector at another location.
The fundamental transfer matrix for an element is determined from its geometric and elastic properties.
If thermal effects and boundary forces are
- included, a modified transfer relationship is defined as, follows:
et F
F or TIBo + Rl 81 where the T matr ix is the fundamental transfer matr ix as described
- above, and the R vector includes thermal effects and body forces. 'his 8 vector for the element is a function of geometry, temperature, coeffi-cient of thermal expansion, weight per unit length,.lumped
- masses, and external 1 y appl ied 1 oads.
0514 s: 10 The overall transfer relationship for a series of elements (a section) can be written as follows:
B1 T18o + R1 B2 T2Bl + R2 T2T1B
+ T2R1 + R2 83 T3B2 + R3 T3T2T1B
+ T3T2R1 + T3R2 R3 or n
n Bn=
mTr
+
Z 1
2 n
m T
R r
+ R n
'A network model is made up of a number of sections, each having an over-all transfer relationship formed from its group of elements.
The linear elastic properties of a section are used to define the character istic stiffness matr ix for the section.
Using the transfer relationship for a
- section, the loads 'required to suppress all deflections at the ends of the section arising from the thermal and boundary forces for the section are obtained.
These loads are incorporated in the overall load vector.
After all the sections have been defined in this manner, the overall stiffness matrix, K, and associated load vector needed to suppress the deflection of all the network points is determined.
By inverting the stiffness matrix, the flexibilitymatrix is determined.
The flexibility matrix is mltiplied by the negative of the load vector to determine the network point deflections due to the thermal and boundary force effects.
Using the general transfer relationship, the deflections and internal forces are then determined at all node points in the system.
The support loads, F, are also computed by multiplying the stiffness mafrix, K, by the displacement
- vector, s, at the support point.
0514 s'0
- 4. 3 DYNAMIC ANALYSIS The models used in the static analyses are modified for use in the dynamic analyses by including the mass characteristics of the piping and equi pmen t.
- 4. 4 SEISMIC ANALYSIS The lumping of the distributed mass of the piping systems is accomplished by locating the total mass at points in the system which will appropriately represent the response of the distributed system.
Effects of the equipment motion, that is, the pressurizer, on the piping system are obtained by modeling the mass and the stiffness characteristics of the equipment in the overall system model.
The supports are again represented by stiffness matrices in the system model for the dynamic analysis.
Mechanical shock suppressors which resist rapid motions are now considered in the analysis.
The solution for the seismic disturbance employs the response spectra method.
This method employs the lumped mass technique, 1 inear elastic properties, and the principle of modal sup'erposition.
From the mathematical description of the system, an overall stiffness matrix [K] is developed from the individual element stiffness matrices using the transfer matric [KR] associated with mass degrees-of-freedom only.
From the mass matrix and the reduced stiffness matrix, the natural frequencies and the normal modes are determined.
The modal par ticipation.factor matrix is computed and combined with the appropriate response spectra value to give the modal amplitude for each mode..Since th'e modal amplitude is shock direction dependent, the total modal amplitude is obtained conservatively by the absolute sum of the contributions for each direction of shock.
The modal amplitudes are then converted to displacements in the global coordinate system and applied to the corresponding mass point.
From these data the forces, moments, deflections, rotation, support reactions, and piping stresses are calculated for all significant modes.
0514 s: 10 e
The seismic response from each earthquake component is computed by combining the contributions of the significant modes.
4.5 PRESSURiZER SAFETY AND RELIEF LINE ANALYSIS 4.5. 1 PLANT HYDRAULIC MODEL When the pressurizer pressure reaches the safety valve set pressure of 2,500 psia and the valve opens, the high pressure steam in the pressurizer forces the water in the water loop seal through the valve and down the piping system to the pressurizer relief tank.
Additionally, when the relief valve set pressure of 2350 psia is reached and the valve opens high pressure steam is discharged to the downstream piping.
For the pressurizer safety and relief piping system, analytical hydraulic models, as shown in Figures 4-1 and 4-2, were developed to represent the conditions described above.
The computer code ITCHVALVE was used to perform the transient hydraulic analysis for the system.
This program uses the Method of Characteris-tics approach to generate fluid parameters as a function of. time.
One-dimensional fluid flow calculations applying both the implicit and explicit characteristic methods are performed.
Using this approach the piping network is input as a series of single pipes.
The network is generally joined together at one or more places by two or three-way junctions.
Each of the single pipes has associated with it friction
- factors, angles of elevation, and flow areas.
0514 s: 10 Conservation equations can be converted to the following characterisitic equa tion s:
= V+c dz dt dp dv C
~
+ oc ~c -- c(F + ogcose) g h-p ap dz=
V c dt oc = -c(F + ogcose) dP dv dt dt ah p
ap 2
ah/ap
~sh ap pJ z
=
variable of length measurement t
=
time V
p F-g e
J h
f1 ui d vel oci ty soni c velocity pressure fluid density flow resistance gravity angl e off verti ca 1 conversion factor for converting pressure units to equivalent heat units enthal py rate of heat generation per unit pipe length The computer program possesses special provisions to allow analysis of valve opening and closing situations.
0514s:10 Fluid acceleration inside the pipe generates reaction forces on all segments of the line that are bounded at either end by an elbow or bend.
Reaction forces resulting from fluid pressure and momentum variations are calculated.
These forces can be expressed in terms of the fluid properties available from the transient hydraulic analysis performed using program ITCHVALVE.
The momentum equation can be expressed in vector form as:
1 a
1 F
=
pVdv +
pV(V.-'dA) cv g
at g
A From this equation, the total force on the pipe can be derived:
r 1 (1 cos a1)
F aW pipe g
ssn e1 at r2 (1 cos a2)
W Bend 1
gc sin 02 at Bend 2
+ straight at dl aW gc pi pe A
=
piping flow area v
=
volume F
=
force r
=
radius of curvature of appropriate elbow i
n angle of appropriate elbow W
=
mas s accel er ati on gc
=
gravitational conversion constant All other terms are previously defined.
Unbalanced forces are calculated for each straight segment of pipe from the pressurizer to the relief tank using program FORFUN.
The time-histories of these forces are stored on~tape to be used for the subse-quent structural analysis of the pressurizer safety and relief lines.
0514s:10 0
0
4.5.2 COMPARISON TO EPRI TEST RESULTS Piping load data has been generated from the tests conducted by EPRI at the Combustion Engineering Test Facility.
Pertinent tests simulating dynamic opening of the safety valves for representative commercial upstream environments were carried out.
The resulting downstream piping loadings and responses were measured.
Upstream environments for par ticular valve opening cases of importance, which envelope the commercial scenarios, are:
A.
Cold water dischar e followed b steam steam between the pressure source and the loop seal cold loop seal between the steam and the
- valve, B.
Hot water dischar e followed by steam steam between the pressure source and the loop seal - hot loop seal between the steam and the v al ve.
C.
~l Specific thermal hydraulic and structural analyses have been completed for the. Combustion Engineering Test Confi guration.
Fi gure 4-3 illus-trates the placement of force measurement-sensors at the test site.
Figures 4-4, 4-5 and 4-6 illustrate a comparison of the thermal hydrau-lically calculated results using the ITCHVAI VE and FORFUN computer programs versus experimental results for Test 908, the cold water discharge followed by steam case.
Figure 4-4 shows the pressure time histories for PT9, which is located just downstream of the valve.
Figures 4-5 and 4-6 illustrate, respectively, the force time histories of the horizontal run (WE28/WE29) and the long vertical run (WE32/WE33) immediately downstream of the safety valve.
Significant structural damping in the third segment after, the valve was noticed at the test and was verified by structural analyses.
Consequently, a comparison of force WE30/WE31 was not presented here.
No useable test data for sensor WE34/WE35 was available for Test 908.
0514 s: 10 Figures 4-7 through 4-11 illustrate a comparison of calculated versus experimental results for Test 917, the hot water discharge followed by steam case.
Figure 4-7 shows the pressure time histor ies for PT9.
Figures 4-8, 4-9, 4-10 and 4-11 illustrate, respectively, the thermal hydraulically calculated and the experimentally determined force time histories for (WE28/WE29),
(WE32/WE33),
(WE30/WE31) and (WE34/WE35).
Blowdown forces were include'd in the total analytically calculated force for WE34/WE35 as this section of piping vents to the atmosphere.
Although not presented
- here, comparisons were also made to the test data available for safety valve discharge without a loop seal (steam discharge).
The application of =the ITCHVALVE and FORFUN computer programs for cal-culating the fluid-induced loads on the piping downstream of the safety and relief valves has been demonstrated.
Although not presented
- here, the capability has also been shown by direct comparison to the solutions of classical problems.
The application of the structural computer programs (discussed in Section 4.6.3) for calculating the system response has also been demonstrated.
Structural models representative of the Coohustion Engineering Test Configuration were developed.
Figures 4-12, 4-13 and 4-14 illustrate, respectively, a comparison of the structural analysis results and the experimental results for locations (WE28/WE29),
(WE32/WE33) and (WE30/WE31) for test 908.
No useable test data for sensor (WE34/WE35) was available.
Figures 4-15, 4-16, 4-17 and 4-18 show for test 917, respectively, the structural analysis results versus the test results for locations (WE28/WE29),
(WE32/WE33),
(WE30/WE31) an'd (WE34/W E35).
4.5.3 VALVE THRUST ANALYSIS The safety and relief lines were modeled statically and dynamically as described in Sections 4.1 through 4.3.
The mathematical model used for dynamic analyses was modified for the valve thrust analysis to represent the safety and relief valve discharge.
The time-history hydraulic 0514 s: 10
forces determined by FORFUN were applied to the piping system lump mass points.
The dynamic solution for the valve thrust was obtained by using a modi fied-predi ctor-corrector-integration technique and normal mode theory.
The time-history solution was found using progr am FIXFN3.
The input to this program consists of natural frequencies, normal
- modes, and applied forces.
The natural frequencies and normal modes for the modified pres-surizer safety and relief line dynamic model were determined with the WESTDYN prop am.
The time-history displ acement response was stored on magnetic tape for later use in computing the total system response due to the valve thrust conditions.
The time-history displ acements of the FIXFN3 prop am were used as input to the WESDYN2 program to determine the time-history internal forces and deflections at each end of the piping elements.
For this calculation, the displacements were treated as imposed deflections on the pressurizer safety and relief line masses.
The solution was= stored on tape for later use in the piping stress evaluation and piping support load determination.
The time-history internal forces and displacements of the WESDYN2 program were used as input to the POSDYN2 program to determine the maximjm forces,
- moments, and displacements that exist at each end of the piping elements and the maximuq loads for piping supports.
The results from program POSDYN2 are saved on TAPE14 for future use in piping stress analysis and support load determination.
0514s:10
9 PRESSURIZER NOTE: The numbers correspond to the force numbers in Table 6-1.
FIGURE 4-1
~
HYDRAULIC MODEL, SAFETY LINE
22 21 23 24 19 25 18 14 17 15 PRESSURIZ R
16 Note:
The numbers correspond to the force numbers in Table 6-1.
FIGURE 4-1:
(CONT.)
HYDRAULIC MODEL SAFETY LINE
A 26, B
27 e
~
29 30 3l 32 RELIEF TANK FIGURE 4-1:
(CONT.)
HYDRAULIC MODEL, SAFETY LINE 12 10 13 14 17 16 18 PRESSURIZER NOTE: The numbers correspond to the force numbers in Table 6-2.
FIGURE 4-2:
HYDRAULIC MODEL, RELIEF LINE
%28 "x ~
KE2q FX
-Segment 1
" PT09
)
~x i
~
OISVI.ACEMENr F
~
FORCE Segment 2
%30 HE31 "x
PT10 g>f 6y WF.33 It Y
. Segment 3
Fy VE34
~ YEI5 Segment 4
~>x FIGURE 4-3:
STRUCTURAL RFSPONSF. - PIRCE >FASl>~F'<E"T LOCATIONS - EPRI TESTS
500.
P nn 400 300.
100 I
II-I I
t I
I I
l I
I I
t I
l I
I I
I I
I I
I I
l I
(
1 1
1
\\
\\
tests ITCHVALVE
\\
\\
/
I rr
/
0.
0.1'.2 0.3 0.4 time (seconds)
FIGURE 4-4 :
Comparison of the EPRI Pressure Time-History for-PT09 from Test 90S with the I7CH)'ALVE Pre-dicted Pressure Time-History Jl ~
~
~
1.0E4 0.0
-1.0E4 I
J I
/
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I
\\
I f
I I
I I
I I
-2.0E4
tests ITCHVALVE
-3.0E4 0.05 0.15 Time (seconds) 0.25 FIGURE 4-5:
COMPARISON OF THE EPRI FORCE TINE-HISTORY FOR WE28 and WE29 FROM TEST 908 WITH THE ITCHVALVE PREDICTED FORCE TINE-HISTORY
-,31-
1.0E5
-i.OE5
-2.0E5 tests ITCHY/LVE
-3.0E5 0.5 0.1 0,2 0,3 0.4 tele Csecondsf FIGURE 4-6: CON,"ARISON OF THE EPRI FIERCE TIFF.-HISTORY F0R WE32 AND WE33 FRON TEST 908 WITH THE ITCHVALVE PREDICTED FORCE TINE-HISTORY 500.
400 I
g
\\\\
300.
S 200.
Test 100 ITCHVALVE r~
r 0.
0.1 0.2 0.3 time (seconds)
FIGURE 4-7 Comparison of the EPRI Pressure Time-History from PT09 from Test 917 with the ITCHVALVE Predicted Pressure Time-History 0.5 0
4000 2000 00 Cl CP S-O~ -2000
-4000
-6000
tests
--- ITCHVALV
-8000 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
- 0. 6 time (seconds)
FIGURE 4 8:
Comparison of the EPRI Force Time-History for WE28 and WE29 from Test 917 with the ITCHYALVE Predicted Force Time-History 34-
2.0E4 1,0E4 III
-1.0E4 tests ITCMVALV
-2.0E4 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0,4 Oe5 time (seconds)
FIGURE 4-9 :
Comparison of the EPRI Force Time-History for WE32 and WE33 from Test 917 with the ITCHVALVE Predicted Force Time-History
- 3. OE4 tests ITCHVALVE.
- 2. OE4 1.0E4 I
I I
I I
-1. OE4
///
-2.0E4 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 time (seconds) 0.4 0.5 FIGURE 4-10: Comparison of the EPRI Force Time-History For WE30 and WE31 From Test 917 with the ITCHYALVE Predicted Force Time-History 2.0E4 tests
~o
. 1.0E4 ITCHVALVE l
I I
\\
0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 time (seconds) 0.4 0.5 FIGURE 4-11:
Comparison of the EPRI Force Time-History For WE34 and WE35 from Test 91? with the ITCHVALVE Predicted Force Time-History
)l
~
~ ~
~
~
~
~
S 111. 01 100. 0
- 50. 0 0.0
-50. 0 1
I (I
IIIIII
(
I(,)
I I
I r
u
-1QO. 0 OI
-150.'0 S
TBStS
-200.0 FIXFN3 (Structural Analysis)
-246. 92 r
I 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.2 Time (SEC)
Figure 4-13:
Comparison of the EPRI Force Time-History For WE32 and WE33 From Test 908 With the FIXFH3 Predicted Force Time-History
- 90. 896
- 75. 0 50.0 25.0 0.0 CJ O
-25.0
-50. 0 l
l
,I I
l I
I I
I l
I.
l I
I l
l l
) l
( I
-75. 0
-98. 324 Tests
--- FIXFM3 (Structural Analysis) lllI 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 Time (SEC)
Figure 4-14: Comparison of the EPRI Force Time-History For WE30 and WE31 From Test 908 With the FIXFM3 Predicted Force Time-History a
5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 IlII II I
0.0
'-1. 0 s
Ijl Tl
-5. 0
-6.
0'7.0
-8. 0 Tests F IXFl'13 (Structural Analysis) 0.0 0.1 0.2 Time (SEC) 0.3 0.4 0.495 Figure 4-15Comparison of the EPRI Force Time-History For WE28 and WE29 From Test 917 With the FIXFM3 Predicted Force Time-History
0 ~
el
~
- 12. 956
- 10. 0 5.0 0.0
-5. 0
-10. 0 IIIIII II l
l I
Tests
FIXFH3 (Structural Analysi s)
-13. 266 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
- 0. 495 Time (SEC) l Figure 4-16:Comparison of the EPRI Force Time-History For WE32 and WE33 From Test 917 With the FIXFH3 Predicted Force Time-History
- 25. 863
- 25. 0
- 20. 0 I
g I
'I I
I 15.0
'0.
0 5.0 0.0 tD O
-5.0
-10. 0
-15. 0
-20.0
Tests FIXFH3 (Structural Anal-ysis) 0.0 0.1 0.2 Time (SEC) 0.3 0.4 Figure 4-17:-
Comparison of the EPRI Force Time-History For WE30 and WE31 From Test 917 With the FIXFH3 Predicted Force Time-History 14.588
- 12. 5 Ill
- 10. 0 7.5 l
I IIl 2.5
Tests
---" FIXFM3 (Structura1 Analys s) llI
'.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 Time (SEC)
Figure 4-18: Comparison of the EPRI Force Time-History For WE34 and WE35 From Test 917 With the FIXFH3 Predicted Force Time-History 44
SECTION 5
METHOD Of STRESS EVALUATION
- 5. 1 INTRODUCTION The method used to coohine the primary loads to evaluate the adequacy of the piping system is described in this section.
5.2 PRIMARY STRESS EVALUATION In order to perform a primary stress evaluation in accordance with the rules of the Code, definitions of stress conbinations are required for the normal, upset, emergency, and faulted plant conditions as defined in Section 3.
Tables 2-1 and 2-2 illustrate the allowable stress inten-sities for the appropriate coabinations as discussed in Section 2.2.
Table 2-3 defines all pertinent terms.
,5.2.1 DESIGN CONDITIONS The piping minimm wall thickness, t, is calculated in accordance with the Code.
The actual pipe minimum wall thickness meets the Code requir emen t, The combined stresses due to primary loadi'ngs of pressure,
- weight, and any other design mechanical loads, calculated using applicable stress intensity factors, must not exceed the allowable limit.
The resultant moment> Mi, is calculated using the following equation:
M. =
1 M
+ M+
M
+
M wt IML wt NL
+
M
+
wt tNL 1/2 0514s:10
where M,H,M "wt ywt wt
= deadwei ght moment components Mx, M, M
= d sign m chanical load moment components x DML yDML zDHL 5.2. 2 UPSET CONDITIONS The combined stresses due to the primary loadings of pressure,
- weight, operating basis earthquake (OBE), and relief valve thrust, calculated using the applicable stress intensity factors, must not exceed the allowables.
The resultant moment, M;, is calculated as shown below.
For seismic and relief valve thrust loading:
M.
1 1/2
+(M
+
M
+
wt xOBE xSOT U
2 2
1/2
+
M
+
y t yOBE ySO 1/2
+
M +
M
+
M w
OBE SOT U 1/2 where Mx, M, M wt
- ywt, wt
= d adweight mom nt components M
M M
= OBE moment components OBE y OBE OBE Mx,M, M
= r li f line op ration moment compo nents SOT ySOT SOT U
U U
0514s:10
+ ~z~<
~ +zggg 9 gong and
<<'~ 's ssure
~
g ac%or
- nOs yah resu goad',en g wbe goo'~arS
~ress
~
,,age, ~a%,
as ab~
yo>e one d pro 2
1/2 onen g C cq,o+e e~ ~b dead~
/
nenes co>>"
~omen per qqne jo49 sa age
~We gs c I
~us~
ors'~e su~
be o~
sbo~
g5
~s~~v
, +z~gg ure s 9gQ o
pre res yn9s
. aQe 5'ne Aoadh Abaca
~ ~ar'3
~ ag')~~
gree qg9 ee
~
0%, u 'o~ab ee r>
shn 1e nd ~ ~'e aA d (roe due an,d wbe ged emcee
>cu>a
~ ned g+Qu ado~
gaea a~~ on gh ca one
~ co+>
enents sation les or 41
The thermal hydraulic analysis used computer programs which have been shown to match the results of the EPRI Test Program (Section 4.5.2).
Hydraulic forcing functions were generated assuming the simultaneous opening of either the safety valves or the relief valves since these represent the worst applicable loading cases f'r the piping and suppor ts of this specific layout.
No design condition or operating procedure would result-in a transition flow condition th'rough either the safety or r el ief v al v es.
Table 6-1 shows the maxinum forces on each straight run p'pe of i
for the simultaneous opening of both safety valves while Table 6-2 shows the maxirwm forces for the simultaneous opening of both relief valves.
To account for uncer tainties in the valve flow capacities due to tolerances and deviations, a conservative factor of over 1.20 was included in-the maxirmm rated valve mass flow rate for these cases.
This results in conservative forcing functions.
For the relief valves opening case, small cold loop sea s
seals were assumed to exist upstream of the valves.
This is conservative as the piping
\\
layout is such that no or very little condensate will remain in the i
upstream r elief valve line piping.:
For the safety valves opening case, hot loop seals wer were assumed to exist upstream of the valves.
This assumption was made because the piping ls insulated.
The loop seal temper atur e distribution for this case was presumed to be consistent with the distribution in EPRI test 917.
That is, the loop seal temperature at the valve inlet was about 300 F, and approximately eight feet upstream, the lo p q
o seal li uid temperature was near the system saturation temperature of 655 F.
p Based. u on engineering judgement, significant flashing of hot water nearr the valve occurred for test 917, thus reducing the downstream loads significantly.
Based on analytical work and tests to date, al 1 acous tic pr ess ur es in the upstream piping calculated or observed prior to to and during safety 0514 s: 10 0
valve hot or cold loop seal discharge are below the maximum permsssable pressure.
The piping between the pressurizer nozzle and the inlet of the safety va ves
~s
-inc l
4-'
schedule 160.
The calculated maximum upstream pressure orf this size of piping is below the maximum per-missa e pressur bl pressure.
A similar evaluation of this inlet piping pheno-ted and the menon applicable for temperatures below 300 F, was conducted an e
results are docum nted in a report entitled "Review of Pressure izer Safety Valve Performance as Observed sn the EPRI S
y Safet and Relief Valve Test Progr am",
WCAP-10105, dated June 1982.
- 6. 2. 2 STRUCTURAL RESULTS Stress summaries for the valve discharge loa'ding cases considered are provided in Tables 6-3 through 6-20.
Plots of the structural models are shown in Figures 6-1 and 6-2.
For purposes of providing stress summaries, ys the s
tern was broken up into the following three sets of sections:
t Section 1:
Piping between the pressurizer nozzles (upstream of valves).
Section 2:
Piping between the pressurizer nozzles (upstream of valves).
and the safety valve outlet and the relief valve outlet Section 3:
Piping between the safety and relief valvee outlet nozzles and 'the pressurizer relief tank (seismically designed downstream portion).
The evaluation conducted prior to the comple tion of the structural anal is and based on the thermal hydraulic loadings for the simul-taneous discharge of both safety valves or both relief va ves 1
es indicated that the piping could be qualified.
The struc tructural analyses have been completed and have confirmed and quantified this as shown in Tables 6-3 through 6-20.
0514s:10 l
e U
I k
I
'I 0
The, piping supports were analyzed in accordance with Section III, subsect'ion NF and no modifications were required to ensure the operability of the relief and safety valve system.
Three modifications will be made to the supports for relief piping leading to the pressurizer relief tank,
- however, these
'odifications are not required for the relief and safety valves to function properly.
The modifications will be made to ensure that analy'sis assumptions are valid for downstream piping, although not required for valve operability, and to assure that fluid relieved from the pressurizer will be directed to the relief tank.
With the inclusion of these support modifications, all supports were found to be adequate to withstand all pertinent loadings.
In addition, the acceptability of the valve nozzles, valve accelerations, and equipment nozzles was assured for the applied loads.
6.3 SUMHARY OF R SULTS AND CONCLUSIONS The thermal hydraulic analysis and structural evaluation of the R.E.
Ginna pressurizer safety and relief valve discharge piping system have been completed.'n summary the operability and structural integrity of the system have been ensured for all applicable loadings and load combinations including. all pertinent safety and relief valve discharge cases.
0514s:10 53 lP D
63DD O
aD t55' e
C'OD C
6.
- 6. ~D CI Sttr t4 5
63:"
43 v i52SX 5276
~ r>
w w< ))72 ~
ee 5)30 tt V e e 5 ASS ~
65 ~
t IQ
~ ~
I SDCD 423"
$ 52 CS 6236 4220 CSS" 7 IOC qD ~
65 SSD qD.
gDDD
"~~4)63 Ill!
415 414 PRESSURIZER FIGURE 6-1:
STRUCTURAL MODEL, SAFETY LINE I
e N,
05" aP
)0
~a 020v St7C 4~
SS'7t C)S"
%)I:
LC-sosY
'0$
0
~
s'u5 OSSA PRESSURI2ER FIGURE 6-1:
(CONT-) STRUCTURAL MODEL~ SAFETY LINE c
v C
+6M h
C270
~cia
~%
cameo
~ 1Ii 1D DS" PRESSURIZER FIGURE 6-1:
(CONT.)
STRUCTURAL MODEL, SAFETY LINE RELIEF TAt!K
'4o FIGURE 6-1:
(CONT.) STRUCTURAL MODELS COMMON HEADER I)
TABLE 6-1 HYDRAULIC FORCES SAFETY LINE Force No.
Force
{LBF)
Force No.
Force LBF) 2 3
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 115 80 1870 2970 4250 2505 8840 4780 7675 2515 1175 3695 120 125 1865 2965 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 4240 2525 8140 5640 3195 7650 1130 1655 2865 2450 5815 4835 5785 4640 2500 3360 The force numbers correspond to the segment numbers on Figure 4-1.
0514 s: 10 0
TABLE 6-3 PR IMNY STRESS SUNN Y PIPING COMPONENTS UPSTREAM OF VALVES Pi pin System:
Pressurizer Relief Line Maximum Values for Combination 1 -'
Node Point Pi pin Component Maximum Allowab1 e Stress ksi)
Stress (ksi) 2045 Strai ght run 3.8
- 16. 4 2000 Butt weld 16.4 120 Elbow 3.8
- 16. 4 2000 Reducer 4.5 16.4 150 Tee 4.9
- 16. 4 See Tables 2-1 through 2-3 for load coabinations and definitions.
0514 s: 10 u
~
u
~,
TABLE 6-4 PRIMAR Y STRESS SuleARY PIPING COMPONENTS UPSTREAM OF VALVES Piping System:
Pressurizer Relief Line Maxioum Values for Combination 2 N + OBE + SOTU Point Pipin Component Maximum Allowable Stress ksi)
Stress ksi) 2045, Straight r un
- 15. 3 19.7.
2040 Butt weld
- 19. 3 19.7 120 Elbow
- 15. 0 19.7 1100 Reducer 17.7 19.7 150
'ee
- 12. 3 19.7 See Tables 2-1 through 2-3 for load conbinations and definitions.
0514 s: 10 TABLE 6-5 PR!NARY STRESS SUNARY PIPING COMPONENTS UPSTREN OF VALVES Pipin System:
Pressurizer Relief Line Naximum Values for Conbination 3 -
N + SOTE Node Point Pi pin Component Maximum Allowab1 e Stress ksi),
Stress (ksi) 2045 Strai ght r un 4.5 29.6 1000 Butt weld 4.9 29.6 120 Elbow 4.7 29.6 1100 Reducer 5.3" 29.6 150 Tee 5.3 29.6 See Tables 2-1 through 2-3 for load conbinations and definitions.
0514s:10
e
'J
TABLE 6-5 PRIMARY STRESS SUGARY PIPING COMPONENTS - UPS'1REAM OF VALVES Pipin System:
Pressurizer Relief Line Maximum Values for Cotrbination 3 N + SOTE Node Point Pi pin Component Maximum Stress ksi)
Allowable Stress ksi) 2045 Strai ght run 4.5 29.6 1000 Butt weld 4.9 29.6 120 Elbow 4.7 29.6 1100 Reducer 5.3 29.6 150 Tee 5.3 29.6 See Tables 2-1 through 2-3 for load combinations and definitions.
0514s:10 0
TABLE 6-6 PRIMARY STRESS SUNNY PIPING COMPONENTS UPSTREAM OF VALVES Pi pin System:
Pressurizer Relief Line Maxinum Values for Combinations 4 and 5 N + SSE
+ SOTF Node Point Pipin Component Maximum Allowab1 e Stress (ksi)
Stress (ksi) 2045 Strai ght run 17.B
- 39. 4 2040 Butt weld
- 22. 5 39.4 120 Elbow
- 16. 4
- 39. 4 1100 Reducer 20.2 39.4 150 Tee 13.6 39.4 See Tables 2-1 throu+ 2-3 for load combinations and definitions.
0514 s: 10 T
III
TABLE 6-7 PRIMARY STRESS SUNARY PIPING COMPONENTS - SEISMICALLY.DESIGNED DOMNSTREN PORTION Pi in S
tern:
Pressur izer Relief Line Maximum Values for Combination 1 -
N Node Point Pipin Component Maximum Al1 owab1 e Stress (ksi Stress ksi) 2135 Strai ght run 3.6
- 15. 0 3100 Butt weld 4.2
- 15. 0 3020 Elbow 2.5
- 15. 0 4020 Tee 4.3 15.0 See Tables 2-1 through 2-3 for load combinations and definitions.
0514s:10
TABLE 6-8 PRIMARY STRESS SUNARY PIPING COMPONENTS SEISMICALLY DESIGNED DOWNSTREAM PORTION Pipin System:
Pressurizer Relief Line Maximm Values for Cotrbination 2 -
N + SOTU Node Point Pi pin Component Maximum Al1 owab1 e Stress ksi)
Stress ksi) 2105 Strai ght run
- 13. 2
- 18. 0 3100 Butt weld 11.1 18.0 3020 Elbow 13.6
- 18. 0 4020 Tee
- 10. 3 18.0 See Tables 2-1 through 2-3 for load combinations and definitions.
0514 s: 10 TABLE 6-9 PRIMARY STRESS SUNARY PIPING COMPONENTS SEISMICALLY DESIGNED DOWNSTREAM PORTION Pipin S stem:
Pressur izer Relief Line Maxioam Yalues for Combination 3 N + OBE + SOTU Node Point Pi pin Component Maximum Allowable Stress ksi Stress ksi) 2105 Strai ght run
- 16. 4
- 27. 0 3100 Butt weld 15.4 27.0 2190 Elbow 15.7
- 27. 0 4020 Tee
- 13. 3 27.0 See Tables 2-1 through 2-3 for load coabinations.and definitions.
0514s: 10
TABLE 6-10 PRIMARY STRESS SUNARY PIPING COMPONENTS '-'EISMICALLYDESIGNED DOWNSTREAM PORTION Piping System:
Pressurizer
'Relief Line Maximm Yalues for Combination 4 N + SOTE Node Point Pipin Component Maximum Allowabl e Stress ksi)
Stress
{ksi) 2135 Strai ght run 4.3
- 27. 0 3100 Butt weld 4.4 27.0 3070 Elbow 3.9
- 27. 0 4020 Tee 13.7 27.0 See Tables 2-1 through 2-3 for load coobinations and definitions.
0514s 10 S
TABLE 6-11 PRIMARY STRESS SVNARY PIPING COMPONENTS - SEISMICALLY DESIGNED DOMNSTREN PORTION Pipin S stem:
Pressurizer Relief Line Maximum Values for Conhinations 5 and 6 N + SSE
+ SOT F Point Pipin Component Maximum Stress ksi)
Allowabl e Stress (ksi) 2105 Strai ght run
- 18. 0 36.0 3100 Butt weld 17.8 36.0 2190 Elbow
- 17. 1
- 36. 0 4020 Tee 14.9 36.0 See Tables 2-1 through 2-3 for load cotrbinations and definitions.
0514 s: 10 e
TABLE 6-12 PRIMARY STRESS SUNARY PIPING COMPONENTS - UPSTREN OF VALVES Pi pin System:
Pressurizer Safety Line Maximum Values for Cottbination 1 N Point C
Maximum Allowable Stress k si Stress ksi) 6050 Strai ght run 3.9
- 16. 4 6010 Butt weld 4 ~ 9 16;4 6030 Elbow 4.3
- 16. 4 6010 Reducer 5.9 16.4 See Tables 2-1 through 2-3 for load combinations and definitions.
0514 s: 10 69
0 V
n'
TABLE 6-13 PRINN Y STRESS SUNNY PIPING COMPONENTS UPSIREN OF VALVES Pi pin S s tern:
Pressurizer Safety Line Maximum Values for Combination 2 N + OBE + SOT U
Node Point Pipin Component Maximum Stress
{ksi)
Allowable'tress
{ksi) 6110 Strai ght run 6.2 19.7 6010 Butt weld 11.1 19.7 6130 Elbow 6.2 19.7 6010 Reducer 15.3 19.7 See Tables 2-1 through 2-3 for load combinations and definitions.
0514 s: 10 TABLE 6-14 r
PRIMARY STRESS SUNARY PIPING COMPONENTS - UPSTREAM OF VALVES Pi pin System:
Pr essurizer Safety Line Maximum Values for Combination 3 N + SOTE
- Node, Point, Pi pin Component Maximum Allow ail e Str ess ksi)
Stress (ksi) 6110 Strai ght run 29.6 5010 Butt weld 19.5 29.6
'6120 Elbow 29.6 5010 Reducer 28.1 29.6 See Tables 2-1 thr ough 2-3 for'load coohinations and definitions.
05145:10
TABLE 6-15 PRIMARY STRESS SUNNY PIPING COMPONENTS - UPSTREN OF VALVES Pi pin System:
Pressur izer Safety Line Maximum Values for Combinations 4
and 5 -
N + SSE
+ SOTF Node Point Pipin Component H2tximum Allowah 1 e Stress (k si Stres s (ksi )
6110 Strai ght r un 11.6
- 39. 4 6010 Butt weld
- 21. 7 39.4 6120 Elbow 11.6 39.4 6010 Reducer
- 31. 3 39.4 See Tables 2-1 through 2-3 for load combinations and definitions.
0514 s: 10 TABLE 6-16 PRIMARY STRESS SUf%ARY PIPING COMPONENTS - SEISMICALLY DESIGNED DOMNSTREAM PORTION Pi pin System:
Pressurizer Safety Line Maximum Values for Combination 1 N Node Point Pipin Component Maximum Allowabl e Stress (ksi)
Stress
{ksi 7220 Strai ght run 4.2 15.0 7280 Butt weld 4.2 15.0 7280 Elbow 4.4
- 15. 0 5550 Tee 4.8 15.0 See Tables 2-1 through 2-3 for load combinations and definitions.
0514s:10.
, ~
TABLE 6-17 PRIMARY STRESS SUGARY PIPING COMPONENTS - SEISMICALLY DESIGNED DOMNSVREN PORTION Pi pin System:
Pressurizer Safety Line Maximum Values for Combination 2 N + SOT Node Point Pipin Com nent Maximum Stress
{ksi)
Allowable Stress ksi) 7090 II Strai ght run 4.2 7070 Butt weld 4.2 7080 Elbow 4.4
- 18. 0 5550 Tee 4.8 See Tables 2-1 through 2-3 for load combinations and definitions.
0514s:10
TABLE 6-18 PRIMARY STRESS
SUMMARY
PIPING COMPONENTS - SEISMICALLY DES IGNEO DOWNSTREAM PORTION r
Pi pin System:
Pressurizer Safety Line Maximum Values for Combination 3 N + OBE + SOT Point
~Pi i Maximum Allowab1 e Stress ksi Stress (ksi) 7090 Strai ght run 7.2
- 27. 0 7070 Butt weld 7.9 27.0 7080 Elbow
- 12. 4
- 27. 0 5550 I
Tee 17.0 27.0 See Tables 2-1 through 2-3 for load combinations and definitions.
0514s:10
~
0
TABLE 6-19 PRIMARY STRESS SUNARY PIPING COMPONENTS SEISMICALLY DES IGNEO DOWNSTREAM PORTION Pi pin System:
Pressurizer Safet Line Maximum Values for Combination 4 N + SOTE Node Point Pipin Component Maximum Allowable Stress (ksi)
Stress (ksi) 7100 Strai ght run 27.0
- 27. 0 7110 Butt weld
- 23. 6 27.0
- 7110, Elbow 26.6
- 27. 0 5550 Tee 26.4 27.0 See Tables 2-1 through 2-3 for 'load combinations and definitions.
0514s:10 TABLE 6-20 PRIMARY STRESS SUNARY PIPING COMPONENTS SEISMICALLY DESIGNED DOWNSTREAM PORTION Pi in S
tern:
Pressurizer Safety Line Maximum Values for Combinations 5 and 6 N + SSE
+ SOTF Point Pi pin Component Maximum Allowabl e Stress ksi)
Stress (ksi) 7100 Strai ght run 29.4 36.0 7110 Butt weld 24.1 36.0 7110 Elbow 30.9
- 36. 0 5550 Tee 28.3 36.0 See Tables 2-1 through 2-3 for load covbinations and definitions.
0514s:10