ML18016A319
| ML18016A319 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 11/21/1994 |
| From: | EQE INTERNATIONAL |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18016A320 | List: |
| References | |
| C-007, C-007-R00, C-7, C-7-R, NUDOCS 9802230263 | |
| Download: ML18016A319 (52) | |
Text
Enclosure to Serial: HNP-98-017 Page 20 ATTACHMENT2 Calculation 52214-C-007 CP&LHarris IPEEE: HCLPF Capacity Calculations for 1X-SAB CST Tank and 1X-SN RWST Tank (40 pages) 9802230263 9802Lh
~DR ADOCX 0S000eoo I
I P
PDR (J
9
~C
ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS CALCULATION COVER SH EET Calculation No:
Project:
C P L
ARo+
A t
Z EEE Calculation
Title:
~ "
AR l
E E:
C L P 'CtTV ALC LA ON i 0 iX-5A C
NK AN+
x -SM RASE T w
References:
SEE S E
'7 lOM 2.
N Attachments:
A t2.
6s- "C"
'7 AaeS Total Number of Pages (Including Cover Sheet):
6 CE//CLu9(N/"
~TT CHMGH~S)
Revision Number Approval Date I///y Description of Revision ORIGINAL I SSLJE'riginator Checker Approver 12312.0 1/Cove iihl(7/91)
EQE INTFANATIONAI.
T TEA&DOMAL Jpg gp 52214 CALC. NP.
Rev. 0 Jpg CP&L SHEARON HARRIS IPEEE SuBJ<CT 1X-SAB CST Tank & 1X-SN RWST Tank SHEET NO ~2 BY 5 L DATE ~gazoo/
CHK'D~k~ DATE ~lo 24 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 0 t IO PURPOSE
~ ~
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
2.0 REFERENCES
3.0 METHODOLOGY 4.0 COMPUTATIONS
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
5.0 CONCLUSION
S ATIACHMENT No. of PAGES A
Screening Evaluation Work Sheets (SEWS)
I2 B
Walkdown Photos C
MATHCADTemplate for Seismic Response of Tank D
MATHCADTemplate for Tank Capacity Computation..........
7
~'n SNTTITIAYIPIAl EQE INTEANATIONAL JpB Np 52214 JpB CP&L SHEARON HARRIS IPEEE CA!.c Np C407 suBJECT 1X-SAB CST Tank & 1XSN RWST Tank Rev. 0 SHEET NO. ~>6 BY S L DATE ~i3o~<d CHK'D~l Ct DATE ~>2E(ETI SECTION 1.0 PURPOSE This calculation is prepared to estimate the seismic HCLPF capacity for the components listed below in support of the IPEEE Program at the CPBL Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Unit 1 ~ The HCLPF capacity is expressed in terms of the Review Level Earthquake (RLE) and the site specific in-structure response spectra generated for the seismic IPEEE evaluation.
Equipment
Description:
Equipment Tag ID:
Equipment Class:
Size:
Vendor:
Locations; Condensate Storage Tank (CST) 1X-SAB 1X-SAB (1CE-090)
Flat Bottom Vertical Tank 40 ft (Diameter) by 47 ft (Height), Fluid Height of 44.15'ichmond Engineering Co., Inc.
Unit 1 Tank Building, Elevation 261'quipment
==
Description:==
Refueling Water Storage Tank (RWST) 1X-SN Equipment Tag ID:
Equipment Class!
Flat Bottom Vertical Tank Size:
45 ft (Diameter) by 45 ft (Height), Fluid Height of 39.5'endor:
Richmond Engineering Co., Inc.
Locations:
Unit 1 Tank Building, Elevation 261'
'EQE INTEANATlONAL JOB NO.
52214 CALC. NO. CM7 Rev. 0 JOB SUBJECT 1XNABCSTTank8T. 1X~N W
\\
SHEET NO. ~4 BY~<
DATE Q~o~W4 CHK'D~~~
DATE ~%
SECTION
2.0 REFERENCES
1)
EQE Document 52214-P,-001, "Project Plan, CP8 L Harris IPEEE," Revision 0.
2)
EPRI Report NP-6041-SL, "A Methodology for Assessment of Nuclear Power Plant Seismic Margin," Rev. 1.
3)
Screening Evaluation Work Sheets (SEWS), also included as Attachment A.
4)
CP8L Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant Seismic Qualification Package
¹MS-863453(E) for "Condensate Storage Tank, Refueling Water Storage
Seismic Qualification UtilityGroup, "Generic Implementation Procedure (GIP),"
Revision 2, Corrected, February 14, 1992.
6)
EQE Calculation 52214-C-001, "CPBL Shearon Harris: Scaling of In-Structure Spectra for Seismic IPEEE," Rev. 0.
SECTION 3.0 METHODOLOGY The CDFM methodology from Ref. [2] is used in the evaluation of the subject component's seismic HCLPF capacity.
Because of similarity of the two tanks, only the HCLPF capacity of the CST tank willbe evaluated herein.
No specific unverified assumptions are made which significantly impact the results of this calculation.
Information used in this analysis are inferred from the listed references and from observations and findings from the walkdown evaluation shown in Ref. [3].
EQE INTEANATIONAL 52214 JOB CPS'HEARON HARRIS IPEEE ALC NO C 007 SuBJECT 1X-SAB CST Tank k 1XSN RWST Tank Rev. 0 SHEET NO.~5~
BY
~ L DATE+~>
CHK'D~k DATE ~&24('2'I SECTION 4.0 COMPUTATIONS 4.1 For the seismic IPEEE program, the Review Level Earthquake (RLE) is defined as the NUREG/CR-0098 median spectral shape anchored to 0.30g (Refs. [1 8 6]). The RLE is used directly in the following evaluation of the CST tank (see Attachment C of this calculation).
RLE = 0.3g 4.2 The tank response computations are attached to this calculation as Attachment C.
fi=813Hz Vi = 1832 kips M( = 33,830 k-ft fc = 0.274 Hz Vc = 67 kips Mc = 2253 k-P Sloshing Height h, = 1.6fi The total seismic overturning moment demand from the RLE of 0.3g V, = 1833 kips MI=33,900 k-fi The average fluid pressure P
= 16.54 psi 4.3 1
The tank capacity computations are attached to this calculation as Attachment D.
I EQE INTEANATIONAL JOB NO JOB CP&L SHEARON HARR1S 1PEEE cAL(
No uBJE~T 1X-SAB CST Tardy & 1X SN R~ST T~~
Rev. 0 SHEET NO. ~6 6
BY 5L DATE ~4W~C24 CHK'0
! jll~Ch DATE~/Q Eq
~ The overturning moment capacity M~ = 240,000 k-P
~ The sliding shear capacity (assume a conservative COF of 0.6) 1654 20'44 V~ = (COF)tTVH.,+g Ts]= (0 67 ~ I122+
+ 8046 = 6700 kiPs 1000
~ The available freeboard above the top of fluid H~~/b~
47 0 44 15 2 85 f?
4.4 1)
Overturning Moment HCLPF =
"(RLE)=
~(RLE) =
'03g) =21g Mcp M~
240,000 MSME M/
33,900 2)
Tank Sliding HCLPF =
(RLE) =
(M,E) =
(0') = 1.1g Vc~
V~
6700 V~~
V, 1833 3)
Fluid Sloshing Height fig 1 6 fE
(
H~~//~
2 85 ft SECTION
5.0 CONCLUSION
S The HCLPF capacities for subject components have been estimated.
Since the seismic margin is sufficiently high for the CST tank, similarly high HCLPF values are expected of the RWST tank.
'EQF. INTEANATIONAL err aurora JpB Np 52214 JpB CP&L SHEARON HARRIS IPSE'ALC.
NP. C%7 SUBJECT 1X-SAB CST Tank & 1X-SN RWST Tank Rev. 0 SHEET NO ~i BY SL DATE ~R30
~4.
CHK'D~ DATE ~l< Bl'I f ATTACHMENT A
SCREENING EVALUATIONWORK SHEETS (SEWS)
SCREENING AND EVALUATION SHEET SEWS Status Y
N U
Sheet 1 of Plant Name:
Shearon Harris Unit: 1 PART A.
DESCRIPTION Equip.
ZD No.
1X-SAB Equipment Description Condensate stora e tank I
Equip. Class Frame Su orted Vertical Tanks or Heat Exchan ers Also Flat Bottom Tanks Equipment Location:
Bldg.
TANK Floor El.
261 Room, Row/Col BZ10 Manufacturer, Model, Etc.
Richmond En ineerin Co.
Inc.
Seismic input Elevation 261
~
Photo Numbers PART B.
TANK HEAT EXCHANGER EVALUATION 1.
Zs tank/heat exchanger of good seismic design?
Flat bottom tank supports Tank/heat exchanger-support connections Support system design Tank/heat exchanger attached to more than one story Isolation valves on non-essential lines Pipe thread joint 2.
No other tank/heat exchanger concerns?
Is tank/heat exchanger itself screened out'?
[Y] N U
N/A
[Y) N U
N/A Y
N U [N/A]
[Y) N U
N/A Y
N U [N/A]
[Y) N U
N/A
[Y) N U
N/A
[Y] N U
N/A
[Y] N U
gh Ic~
bc-t~>
4y Scgso +
a~0 Qu.esto~
Qa4Ah4c r Cigar oc ( )
PART C.
ANCHORAGE EVALUATION Zs strength assessment based on:
Judgement (supported by generic analysis?)
Specific analysis?
Other?
J
[A]
Other 2.
Is strength adequate?
3.
Zs stiffness adequate2 4.
No other anchorate concerns?
Y N [U) N/A
[Y] N U
N/A
[Y) N U
N/A Is anchorage adequate2 Y
N [U)
SCREENING AND EVALUAT1ON SHEET SEWS Sheet 2 of Equip.
ZD No.
1X-SAB Equip. Class Frame Su orted Vertical PART D.
SYSTEMS INTERACTION EFFECTS Zs tank/heat exchanger free from influence by adjacent elements2 Tank/heat exchanger contains soft targets Flexibility of attached lines Collapse of nearby equipments or structures Masonry block walls 2.
No other interaction concerns2 I
II I
Is tank/heat exchanger free from interaction effects'P
[Y] N U
N/A
[Y) N U
N/A
[Y] N U
N/A
[Y] N U
N/A (Y] N U
N/A
[Y] N U
N/A
[Y) N U
DESCRIBE POTENTIAL PROBLEMS INDICATED BY NO OR UNSATISFACTORY (Use additional sheets, if necessary)
Photos 31 9:31, 32, 33, 44 (3) 1 B
TANK/HEAT EXCHANGER EVALUATION Tgis tank was identified as a seismic concern as a result of USI A-40.
calculation was performed by the manufacturer, RECO, evaluating seismic loads and effects on anchorage and structural integrity of the RWST and CST.
Acceleration inputs were 0.15g vertical and ranged from 0.43g horizontal at the base to 2.46g at the top of the tank.
Letter NRC-90-453, dated July 31, 1990 addressed to CPEL from the USNRC states that the tanks are acceptable.
Tank has 80 total chairs tht appear to be quite rugged.
Each chair is 24" high and is made of 1" plate steel welded together with minimum 3/8" fillet welds.
Base of chair is 3.5" plate steel.
Tank diameter is 40" 0".
Calculation by the manufacturer addresses stress in the chairs and finds it to be within allowable.
RECO calculation for checking stress in the welds (see calc dated 11/3/81, page 24 of 30) uses allowable of 24,000 psi for 3/8" weld.
Check against SMA allowable.
No threaded joints on attached piping C.
ANCHORAGE EVALUATION 2 Anchorage consists of (80) 3" diameter bolts.
RECO calc shows anchors to be acceptable, but there is no indication that embedment has been verified, and no reductions for spacing and possible edge distance have been allowed for.
The anchor bolts are on 20" center to center spacing and the bolts have a 9" edge distance see sketch 1.
The anchorage calc and cast in place bolt details should be reviewed to close out CST review SYSTEMS INTERACTION EFFECTS
" dia. pipe at bottom of tank is not very flexible.
The pipe is judged to be acceptable as~ on the pipe being attached between two chairs in which the displacement is negligible.
Another small pipe (approx. 2<.-diad attached near the top of the tank is horizontally supported to the building approx. 8'own from the tank attachment.
The pipe is judged to be acceptable based on the tank max. displacement being approx.
7/16" at the top.
All other lines where judged to have sufficient flexibility.
ZS TANK OR HEAT EXCHANGER FREE OF NEED FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION 7 Yes
[No)
CKAGE ID¹:
1X-SAB FtRENCE:
A-46 $
IPEEE Equipment Description Condensate s o a e tank Location:
Bldg. TANK Floor El. 261
- Room, Row/Col BZ10
)
CONTENTS (1) Drawing ¹: 2185-S-0545 Rev.
31 Other drawings (2)
[Y)/ N Specification:
Title:
EBASCO SERVICES INC. - CAR-SH-AS-10 FIELD ERECTED STORAGE TANKS ANS NUCLEAR SAFETY CLASS 2
6 3 SEISMIC CLASS I.
(3)
[Y]/ N Calculation:
Title:
7 -AS-10-C SHNPP FEILD ERECTED TANKS (4)
Y /[N)
Technical Manual
¹:
Title:
~~)
Y /[N]
Valve Data Sheet (6)
OTHER: 1.
NRC LETTER 0-453 2.
CPAL LETTER NLS-89-26 3
NRC DOCKET No. 50-400 COMMENTS:
'I
SCREENING EVALUATION WORK SHEET SEWS Equip.
ID No.
1X-SAB 6guipment Description Condensate stora e tank Equip. Class Frame Su orted Vertical Tanks or Heat Evaluated by:
Daryl W. Hughes Date:
03/31/94 STEVEN R.
BOSTIAN Date:
03/31/94 l)J hl Sketch 1-
SCREENING EVMUATION WORK SHEET SEWS 5~2tg-Q-~g Equip.
ID No. 1X-S~
Equip. Class Frame Su orted Vertical Tanks or Heat F~uipment Description Condensate stora e tank
-Sketch 2
Sketch 3-
Sketch 4-
SCREENING AND EVALUATION SHEET SEWS Status Y
N U
Sheet 1 of Plant Name:
Shearon Harris Unit:
1 PART A.
DESCRIPTION Equip.
ID No.
1X-SN Equipment Description Refuelin water stora e tank Equipment Location:
Bldg.
TANK Floor El.
261 Equip. Class Frame Su orted Vertical Tanks or Heat Exchan ers Also Flat Bottom Tanks
- Room, Row/Col Manufacturer, Model, Etc.
Richmond En ineerin Co.
Inc.
Seismic Input Elevation 261'!
Photo Numbers PART B.
TANK HEAT EXCHANGER EVALUATION 1.
Zs tank/heat exchanger of good seismic design2 Flat bottom tank supports Tank/heat exchanger-support connections Support system design Tank/heat exchanger attached to more than one story Isolation valves on non-essential lines Pipe thread joint 2.
No other tank/heat exchanger concerns2 Is tank/heat exchanger itself screened out2
[Y] N U
N/A
[Y] N U
N/A Y
N U [N/A]
(Y] N U
N/A Y
N U [N/A]
[Y] N U
N/A
[Y] N U
N/A
+
[Y] N U
N/A (Y] N U
- ~<
Wgog e f~-
~o~
(
5'st),'o n s ~cl QQC5k:c H el~ ~(,e r PART C.
ANCHORAGE EVALUATION 1.
Zs strength assessment based on:
Judgement (supported by generic analysis2)
Specific analysis2 Other2 J
[A]
Other 2.
Zs strength adequate2 3.
Zs stiffness adequate2 4.
No other anchorate concerns2 Zs anchorage adequate2 Y
N (U] N/A
[Y] N U
N/A
[Y] N U
N/A Y
N (U]
SCREENING AND EVALUATION SHEET SEWS Sheet 2 of Equip.
ZD No.
1X-SN Equip. Class Frame Su orted Vertical PART D.
SYSTEMS INTERACTION EFFECTS 1.
Zs tank/heat exchanger free from influence by adjacent elements2 Tank/heat exchanger contains soft targets Flexibility of attached lines Collapse of nearby equipments or structures Masonry block walls 2.
No other interaction concerns2 I
Is tank/heat exchanger free from interaction effects2
[Y] N U
N/A
[Y] N U
N/A
[Y] N U
N/A
[Y] N U
N/A Y
N U [N/A]
(Y] N U
N/A
[Y] N U
DESCRZBE POTENTIAL PROBLEMS INDICATED BY NO OR UNSATISFACTORY (Use additional sheets, if necessary)
B.
TANK/HEAT EXCHANGER EVALUATION
~is tank was identified as a seismic concern as a result of USI A-40.
A calculation was erformed by the manufacturer, RECO, evaluating seismic loads and effects on anchorage and structural integrity of the RNST and CST.
Acceleration inputs were 0.1Sg vertical and ranged from 0.35g horizontal at the base to 2.24g at the top of the tank.
Letter NRC-90-453, dated July 31, 1990 addressed to CPaL from the USNRC states that the tanks are acceptable.
Tank has 76 total chairs that appear to be quite rugged.
Each chair is 24" high and is made of 1" plate steel welded together with minimum 3/8" fillet welds.
Base of chair is & plate steel.
(From dwg 1364-47726 Rev 2).
Tank diameter is 45'".
Calculation by the manufacturer addresses stress in the chairs and finds it to be within allowable.
RECO calculation for checking stress in the welds (see calc dated 11/3/81, page 24 of 30) uses allowable of 24,000 psi for 3/8" weld.
Check against SMA allowable.
NO THREADED JOINTS ON ATTACHED PZPING.
C.
ANCHORAGE EVALUATION 2 Anchorage consists of (76) 3" diameter CIP (from dwg 1364-47724 Rev 2).
RECO calc shows indication that embedment has been verified, distance have been allowed for, bolts.
Full tank weighs approximately 4600 kips anchors to be acceptable, but there is no and no reductions for spacing and possible edge D.
SYSTEMS ZNTERACTZON EFFECTS
5>014.-c.-oeg THE TANK ZS INSTALLED WZTHZN A WALLED CONCRETE ENCLOSURE THAT HAS NO TOP
~
THE TANK IS 8(P ACTUALLY EXPOSED TO THE ATMOSPHERE.
- HOWEVER, NEARBY EQUIPMENT OR STRUCTURES CANNOT COLLAPSE NTO THE TANK BECAUSE OF THE DESZGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE WALLS.
THERE ARE NO MASONRY BLOCK WALLS ADJACENT TO THE TANK.
IS TANK OR HEAT EXCHANGER FREE OF NEED FOR FURTHER ZNVESTIGATION 7 Yes
[No)
~
~
4t'I CKAGE ID¹:
1X-SN F
%ENCE:
A-46 g IPEEE Equipment Description Refuelin wa e stora e tank Location:
Bldg. TANK.
Floor El, 261
- Room, Row/Col I
CONTENTS (1) Drawing ¹: 2165-S-0550
- Rev, Other drawings 1364-47722 REV1 1364-47723 REV1 1364"47724 REV2 1364-47725 REV1 1364-47726 REV2 1364-47727 REV1 364-47728 REV1
{2) [Y)/ N Specification:
Title:
EBASCO SERVICES INC. CAR-SH-AS-10 FIELD ERECTED STORAGE TANKS ANAS NUCLEAR SAFETY CLASS 2
& 3 SEISMIC CLASS I
)
[Y]/ N Calculation:
Title:
7 -AS-10-C SHNPP FIELD ERECTED TANKS (4)
Y / [N)
Technical Manual
¹:
Title:
(5)
Y /[N)
Valve Data Sheet (6)
OTHER: 1.
NRC DO KET No. 50-400:
JULY 31 1
0 2.
CPGL LETTER NLS-8 -269
~ 'I NRC DOCKET N
. 50-400:
JUNE 1
1 8
COMMENTS
SCREENING EVALUATION WORK SHEET SEWS Equip.
ID No.
1X-SN Equip. Class Frame Su orted Vertical Tanks or Heat Qggipment Description Refuelin water stora e tank Evaluated by:
STEVEN R.
BOSTZAN Date:
04/22/94 Jeffrey H. Bond Date: 04/22/94
--- Sketch 1
EQE INTEANATIONAI.
JOB NO 52214 JOB CP&L SHEARON HARRIS IPEEE CAlC NO C-007 SUBJECT 1X-SABCSTT~& 1XCNRWSTT~TTk Rev. 0 SHEETNO. 9 1
BY
~L DATE 9~~~ <+
cHK'o~ os ~4~>i ATTACHMENT B
'ALKDOWNPHOTOS
52214-C-007 B2 PHOTO ¹1 1X-SAB CST ANCHORAGE
- ,ii)(((I((j(j
((
III~))~q)))bbbb>>>'((F(((((p~,(
S,N>~>~(
I-PHOTO ¹2
52214-C-007 83 PHOTO ¹3 1X-SAB CST ANCHORAGE t;P PHOTO ¹4 1X-SAB CST UPPER NOZZLES
& SUPPORT ON ONE VERTICAL LINE
52214-C-007 B4
'E<<
PHOTO 45 1X-SAB CST i OVERFLOW NOZZLE PHOTO P6 SUPPORT FOR VERTICALLINE
52214-C-007 85 I
4 f
52214-C-007 B6 t
11 ~t tj I
tg
'Vt c
i~-.fgvg< '>t '.
a
~
PHOTO ¹9 RWST I
(
~
I I P
'I I, )...Ilp'
. t \\', tI I tt '-
~ r I '
r I
~
I t 11 ~,
1~ g t,
PHOTO ¹10 RWST I
I 1'
~ ~
EQE tNTEANATIONAL 52214 JOB CP&L SHEARON HARRIS IPEEE CALC NO C-007 SUBJECT 1X-SAB CST T>% & 1X-SN RWST Tark Rev. 0 SHEETNO.
C I
BY S L DATE ~t>o~d.
CHK'D~~~T DATE ~10 ~~i '
ATTACHMENT C
MATHCADTEMPLATE FOR SEISMIC RESPONSE OF TANK
5iQ1$ - C-O> 7 CZ This MATHCADtemplate presents the derivation of seismic response for the CST tank at the CPBL Harris Plant, using the methodology from the EPRI NP4041 report, appendix H, and the NUREG ICR5270 comparisons report.
This template computes the response parameters which are needed in performing a tank evaluation per EPRI NP<041 methodology forvertical tanks.
Inputs required are an assumed earthquake, and the necessary tank parameters.
Two nonMimensional parameters are also needed for the calculation of the diamond-buckling capacity, and for the calculation of the compressive buckling capacity (elephant's foot buckling). Base units are feet, seconds, and pounds.
Derived Units:
kip-"1000 Ibf hz-1 scc ksi-1000 psi R:=20 ft R d '.= 48.0 ft H:=44.15 ft t b'.=0.25 in td.'=0.25 in Nominal Inner Tank Radius Dome Radius (estimated)
Height to Water Elevation Bottom Plate thickness Dome thickness R
h d '.=R d 1-cos asin Clearance between peak of dome to spring line Rd j nrings.'= 5 Number of different diameter rings composing the tank shell 0.8125 0.5625 0.5000 0.34375 0.2500
~in Shell Thickness at each ring from bottom of the tank to the top.
9.4 9.4 9.4 9.4 9A Height of each ring measured from the bottom of the tank to the top.
n:= 80
):=3.00 in Number of equally spaced anchor bolts Anchor bolt diameter Es.'=28.3 10 psi Eb:=2910 psi rr ye '= 30 10 psi 3.
lbf y I.'=62.4 ft Ibf y s '.= 0.284 s
m Young's Modulus for Shell Material, SA-240 T-304 Room Temperature Young's Modululs for Bolt Material Effective yield stress for shell material Unit Weight for liquid Unit Weight for shell material K I.'=3.25 10 psi Bulk Modulus of fluid, 3.25x10"5 psi forwater Note that this template was created for performing response calculations according to the methodology contained in Reference 1 - This assumes a NUREG CR/0098 type response spectrum.
This is the place where the amplification factors are input:
pga:=0.30 g varatio '.= 36 m
SCC Wg)
The varatio is 36 for rock, 48 for soil v:= varatio pga 6v d,-
pga NEP:=50 (non exceedance probability, 50%, or 84%)
amp a(p):= if(NEP=84,4.38-1.04 In(p),3.21- 0.68 In(p)) Definition for Spectral Amplification amp (P):= if(NEP=84,3.38- 0.67 In(P),2.31- 0.41
~In(P))
amp d(p):= if(NEP=84,2.73- 0.45 In(p), 1.82- 0.27 In(p))
-t PR+
ft(i1):=ampv(P) ampd(P),>> n
-t f2(P) '= amp a(P)'mp v(P)'ga f3 '.=8 hz f4'.=33 hz
f4 (-t) m(P):= log((amP a(P) f3
~log 2
6 (((()):=[((Sf((()))(2 a O amp 6(()) 6 + [((>f((()))((<f2(())) (2 a () amp(()) v]
m(P)
S24
~ p) '(0 f2(p))'(4-f3)'ampa(p) pga]+
(<>f3) ((<f4) ampa(p) pga f
+ (<>f4) pga'3 S (g,P):=S 1((,P)+ S2(g,P)
Sav(q,p):=3 Sa(q,p) 2 (Equation 1) i:=1.. nrings Ha:=/Ha.,
Hs =47 feet t
s t s 0.494 in Obtain Cwi from Reference 2, Table 7.4:
Parameters needed for table 7.4:
H ts
~ 2.208
= 0.002 R
Readwff value for Cwi:
C~.'=0.138
Note that the distance to the component C.G. is measured from the bottom of the tank.
(Shell)
(Bottom Plate) j:= 1.. nrings W b '- kn m )'t b'y s W,.:=2 n R y s Hrt ti Wb =12.848 kip Ws.'=
Wt W s 119.26 kip Hr) cg,.:=QHr. (i<j)-
tb Xb.'=
2 Xb 0.01 feet gW~ cg,.
t Xs.'=
s Xs 18 384'f (Dome)
Wh'.=(2 n Rd hd) td'ys Wh ~13.46 kip R
a:= asin-Rd 2 sin(a)
Xh'.=Hs+hd-Rd 1-3'a (Liquid)
's 1
R ts 2- '
w =n'
'yl Ww 3 462 10
'kip H
Xw:=-
2 Xw 22.075'feet Xh ~49.853 feet P st '=y 1'H Pst ~19.132 psi Maximum fluid pressure occurs at base of tank
Impulsive Mode Frequency:
0 127'y s C LI'.=C WI yi (Reference 1, equation H-2)
C LI E s'lt fI.=
2mH (ys) fI=8.127 hz Compute Spectral Acceleration at this frequency, damping for the impulsive mode may be taken as about 5% (this is considered to be a conservative damping estimate)
S a(f1,5) 0.629 g (See Equation ¹1)
S ah S a(fI 5)
Compute Weight of fluid effective in the Impulsive Mode, and its corresponding C.G.:
W)'.=i mh 1.732
,1.0- 0.436 1.732 W~
(Ref. 3, Eqn. C3500-1,-2,-3,4)
R 2
H 1
R (Ref. 3, Eqn. C3500-1,-2,-3,-4)
W; = 2.778'10
'kip X; =18.315 feet Compute Impulsive Mode Base Shear and Overturning Moment:
VI'(Wh+ Ws+ Wi) 8 (Ref. 1, Eqn. H-3)
M I.=
(Wh Xh+ Ws Xs+ Wi Xi) 8 VI 1 832 10 kip M I 3.383'10
'kip ft (Ref. 1, Eqn. H4)
Estimate hydrodynamic fluid,pressure on the tank at the bottom plate w;x; p
8 1.36 R H (Ref. 1, eqn. H-8: Note this is conservative at fluid depths less than about 0.15'H)
P; 4.195'psi
tq-C-OO7 Convective Mode frequency fc:=
t ft 2
1.5
~
R tanh 1.835 R (Ref. 1, eqn. H-10) fc 0 274'hz Compute Spectral Acceleration at this frequency, damping for the vertical mode response is primarily fluid controlled and is estimated to be about 0.5%.
Sa(fc,0.5) ~0.093 g (See Equation ¹1)
S ac
.'= S a(fc, 0.5)
Compute Weight of Fluid acting in the convective mode and its C.G. location R
H W c:=
0.46 tanh 1.835 W~
(Ref. 1. eqn. H-13)
H w
Xc:= 1.0-cosh 1.835 1.0 H
R 1.835 R
sinh 1.835 R H
(Ref. 1, eqn. H-14)
W c 720.973 'kip Xc 33.624'feet Compute Convective Mode Base Shear and Overturning Moment:
Sac Vc:=
Wc (Ref. 1, eqn. H-11) 8 Sac Mc" WcXc 8
Vc 67013 kip M c 2.253 10 feet kip (Ref. 1, eqn. H-12)
Compute Hydrodynamic Convective Pressure at fluid depth "y" y,'= H 'his maximizes the hydrodynamic convective pressure H-y3 0.267 W~ Sa cosh 1.835 (Ref. 1, eqn. H-16)
Pc ~0.024 psi Compute the fundamental mode fluid slosh height Sac h s
'. = 0.837 R 8
h s ~ 1.556'feet (Ref. 1, eqn. H-17)
Compute the vertical fluid mode fundamental frequency 4 H g
ts'Es xi (Ref. 3, eqn. C3500-13) fv =7.975 hz Compute the hydrodynamic vertical fluid response mode pressure, based on a tank on a rigid foundation, note this pressure is also at y=H, which maximizes p.
P v 0 8'y1'H'o Pv =6.476 psi Base Shear.
tot:=
1'+V
'tot I 833'10
'kip Overturning Moment tot '
+
c M tot 3.39'10
'kip ft Fluid Pressures:
sh i+
c
.2 2
Total Horizontal Seismic Response Pcmax't+
sh+
.4'Pv cmin st+ P sh tmin Pst sh avg
=
st P cm~ ~ 25.917'psi cmin
'p '
tmin ~ 12.346'psi P avg ~ 16.541'psi Maximum and minimum compression zone pressures at the time of maximum base moment.
(Ref. 1, eqn. H-22)
Minimum tension zone fluid pressure at the time of maximum base moment (Ref. 1, eqn. H-23)
Minimum average fluid presssure on the base plate at the time of maximum base shear (Ref. 1. eqn H-14)
Expected minimum total effect weight of the tank shell acting on the base at the time of the maximum moment and base shear.
2 pga$
W te
.'=
(W h + W s) (1 04
)
'3 gj (Ref. 1, eqn. H-26)
Wte ~122.103 kip W h = 13.46'kip W s 119.26 'k>p Bttfai.anna:
- 1. A Methodology forAssessment of Nuclear Power Plant Seismi Margin (Revision 1),
EPRI NP<041-SL, Final Report, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, August, 1991.
- 2. A.S. Veletsos, "Seismic Response and Design of Liquid Storage Tanks", Chapter 7,
, ASCE, 1984.
- 3. ASCE Standard and Commentary - Seismic Analysis of Safety-Related Nuclear Structures, ASCE 4-86, ASCE, September 1986.
Administration, August 1986.
NASA SP-8007, National Aeronautics and Space
- 5. Newmark, N.M., and Hall, W.J.,
, NUREG-CR 0098, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1978.
EQE tNTEANATIONAL JOB NO 52214 JOB CP&L SHEARON HARRIS IPEEE Cp,lC gO CM7 SUBJpcy 1X-SAB CST Tank & 1X4N RWST Tank Rev. 0 SHEET NO. ~ZI.
BY SL Dp,yg ~ct 30~4 CHK'D~k DATE ~id ZC f9'TTACHMENT D
MATHCADTEMPLATE FOR TANKCAPACITYCOMPUTATION
+g%1+- C-o7 C
The overturning moment capacity of anchored tanks is computed in an iterative process.
EPRI NP-6041, appendix H, contains procedure for calculating the overturning moment capacity.
This Mathcad template follows the procedure in EPRI NP4041 for determining the overturning moment capacity of tanks. This template is intended to be used in conjunction with the template FLUIDHD. The FLUIDHDtemplate calculates the fluid hold-down forces which lead to slightly increased capacities for marginal tanks. This template may be used with or without consideration of the FLUIDhold-down forces.
Derived Units:
kip=1000 ibf hz-=1 sec '
ksi=1000 psi R:=20.0 ft WTE.'=110.3 kip N:= 80 5eo'.=0.45 in Es.--28.3 10 ksi t s:=0.8125 in P cmin 20 74'psi ax '.= 25.92 psi 6 ye '= 30 ksi Tank Radius Expected Minimum Total Effective Tank Weight Number of equally spaced anchor bolts Permissible uplift elongation (estimated 10% of bolt length)
Young's Modulus for the Tank Material Tank wall thickness at bolt chair location Minimum pressure in compression zone at the time of maximum moment Maximum pressure in compression zone at the time of maximum moment Effective yield stress for tank material h s:=45 in h c:=4.375 in Ab:=7.069 in Eb:=29 10 ksi T bp'.=24.0 kiP T Ec'.=240 kip Depth to embedded anchor bearing surface (estimated)
Height of anchor bolt chair above tank foundation (thickness of baseplate)
Nominal Area for each anchor Anchor modulus of elasticity (ksi)
Anchor bolt pre-load (kips)
Maximum anchor bolt load (bolt tensile capacity of 34 ksi)
Parameter needed for Figure 6:
Readwff value for delta~amma by:=0.07
T eo 060'~
zero delta fluid holdMown force (conservatively neglected) kip
>n kip Tei.=0.160
~
Slope of linear approximation (conservatively neglected) in axial stress limitat the onset of elephant's foot buckling:
R 1
S 1.'=
S 1 ~ 0.738 t,
400 oye 0 6'E s P cmax'R 1
1 36 ksi cr:=
1-
~ 1-P (R)
+ye' 112+ S 1'+
'I"j
{Ref. 1, eqn. H-27) e
=2.09 10 psi p
diamond buckling capacity based on NASA SP-8007:
Y:=1 0.73 (1 e
)E,t, o cb
'. = (0.6 Y+ hY)~-
R a cb 3 656 10 psi Compressive shell capacity:
CB 'fto'cb
( 9crp)yecby(
p)] ts C B ~15.28'~
kip m
Note: the angle Beta represents the angle to the neutral axis, it is assumed prior to the start of the algorithm.
1 + cos(P) sin(P) P cos(P)
(I t cos(P))
I -*-tmI sin(P) cos(P)+n-P P-sin(P) cos(P)
(8:=~
i:=1,2..N 360
- a..'= (i-I)deg (N) 5 co A"b.E b jcos(a.,) cos(P)
B.,
bP+
h ay h c
(
1-cos(P)
T Bi
.'= ifT Bt<TBC,TB,T BC TB '.=if/TB >0.0 lbf,TB i0.0 lb
~Te:=Tet 5eo C'm(P):=
lVTE+
TB I
2'R
+
eo'P
~C i(P)+hTe C3(P)
M2C(P)R C ~((i) C2(P) R +gTR R aos(a)+ T~a R 2 sin((i)+RTa C 4((i) R g:=1,1.1..3 f(():=C'm(() C B (I):=2.9 angle.'=root(f(it)),))
angle ~ 1.352 Pa 1.352 t~
io'tg 5'lo o kiP o
Moment Capacity:
M SC(angle) 2.4 10 kip ft
-5'Io 2
3 4
Sum of anchor bolt tension (needed for shear capacity):
TB ~8.046'10
'kip i
qg.>+-
C-Oo j
For tanks with minimum anchorage, hoidMown forces resulting from fluid pressure acting on the tank bottom willcontribute significantly to tthe ovoerturning capacity of the tank. EPRI NP4041,
, appendix H, contains the procedures for calculating these fluid hold-down forces as a function of tank uplift.
This Mathcad template follows the procedure in EPRI NP4041 for determining the fluid holdMown forces.
Inputs are tank parameters, the output is a plot of the fluid ho!drown tension as a function of both upliftdisplacement and uplift length.
Derived Units:
kipa1000 Ibf hz-1 sec ksia1000 psi R:=20.0 ft Tank Radius H:=44.15 ft Height to Fluid Surface t s:= 0.494 in Shell Thickness t b.'= 0.25 in Baseplate Thickness P:=12.35 psi Minimum tension zone fluid pressure at the time ofmaximummoment Es.'=28.3 10 psi u:=0.30 cr.'=75 ksi e> '.=30 ksi Q ye:= 30'ksl Young's Modulus Poisson's Ratio Ultimate Strength of Tank Material Minimum Yield Strength of Material Effective Yield Strength of Material tb I b '.=
12 (1 v')
Ests 3
K:=
12 (1-v')
R x:= 3 (1-o')
ts 2Kx Ks R
" ~("")~':l (EPRI NP4041 calls this term Mf/P)
K L F(L):= 1+2.E 2 Es Ib g4 1
Ks L I'.L2 p
5 24
~FL) 72 Es Ib 6
Es.Ib KsL 2
F(L) 12 E Ib L
P KsL e(L) '= F(I.)'2 E, Ib+
p L2 M e(L)
Me(L)
Mmax(L) '
4 p
+
pL Fit a straight line approximation between the two end points in order to get a close-formed relationship between uplifftension and upliftdisplacement:
T eo 63 165 ~1bf in T eo:=T e(L min)
T e(L max)
T eo
( (Lmax)
(Lmin))
lbf Tet 160 184+
in Solve for the minimum length of plate effective in resisting uplift (corresponding to zero uplift displacement:
g:= 7.21
~in (Initial guess)
L min'=root( > ~ 6.836 in.
(Lmin is the minimum length)
Lmax'.=19 in tbf T eo.=63
.in lbf Tet ',=165
~
in The slope and intercept to be used in the equation may be changed here in order to give a better fit, or more friendly coefficients. (these are as reported in EPRI NP4041)
T() =Teo+ Tel a T(5(Lmax))
158 198 ~
T e(L max) 155 551 lbf lbf
tb ey 2
Mpb'
'u+
2 in M b =0.937'kip p 'n ayetb Mpb x F H.'=
+
2x R
F H =0.243'.kip in FH5 Tm(5):=~4M pb P I+ 2Mpb n.'= 50 i:=1,2..n L min ~
836 L msx 19'in
- = exp In L 1
Lmin 1 ~ 1O' 1O4 4 1O4 2'10 0.1 02 0.3 5(t.)) 12 0.4 O.S 0.6 5(10 in) ~0.033'in
Enclosure to Serial: HNP-98-017 Page 61 ATTACHMENT3 Evaluation ofFire Severity Factors for Turbine Building Fire Sources (3 pages)
Enclosure to Serial: HNP-98-017 Page 62 EVALUATIONOF FIRE SEVERITY FACTORS FOR TURBINEBUILDINGFIRE SOURCES The approach adopted is similar to that described in Appendix D of the EPRI Fire PRA Implementation Guide (Reference A1). Details of the fire events were extracted from the Fire Events Data Base (Reference A2). Contrary to the general approach for determining severity factors utilized in the IPEEE (summarized in the response to Fire Request 2, page 13 of this Enclosure), fires which were extinguished using hand held extinguishers, as well as those which self-extinguished were excluded. This is consistent with the suppression model used for the turbine building analysis which only credited automatic suppression.
Turbine Generator (T/G) Excitor Fires Five (5) T/G Excitor fires occurred.
Three (3) of the fires were extinguished with portable extinguishers and are not considered severe.
There was no information on suppression associated with the remaining two (2) fires. Each of these two (2) remaining fires willbe weighted as one half of a severe event. The severity factor for T/G excitor fires is therefore 0.2 (1/5).
T/G Hydrogen Fires Seven (7) T/G hydrogen fires occurred.
Three (3) resulted in the initiation of automatic gas suppression systems (probably the generator purge) and are classified as severe.
Two (2) of the fires were extinguished with portable extinguishers and are not considered severe.
The means of suppression for the remaining two (2) fires is unknown. Each of these two (2) remaining fires willbe weighted as one half of a severe event. The severity factor for T/G hydrogen fires is therefore 0.57 (4/7).
T/G Oil Fires Seventeen (17) T/G oil fires occurred.
Seven (7) were extinguished with portable extinguishers and are not considered severe.
Four (4) were extinguished using hose streams and one (1) required assistance from the offsite fire department.
These five (5) fires are considered severe.
The means ofsuppression for the remaining five (5) fires is unknown.
Each of these remaining five (5) fires willbe weighted as one half of a severe event. The severity factor forT/G oil fires is therefore OA4 (7.5/17).
Main Feedwater Pumps Ten (10) Main Feedwater pump fires occurred. Five (5) of the fires were extinguished using portable extinguishers and de-energizing the equipment.
These five (5) fires are not considered severe.
Four (4) of the fires required hose streams to extinguish the fires.
These four (4) fires are considered severe.
The means of suppression for the one (1)
Enclosure to Serial: HNP-98-017 Page 63 remaining event is unknown. This event willbe weighted as one half of a severe event.
The severity factor for Main Feedwater Pump fires is therefore 0.45 (4.5/10).
Boiler Fires Two (2) Boiler fires occurred. One (1) self-extinguished and is not considered severe.
The means of suppression for the remaining event is unknown and willbe weighted as one half of a severe event. The severity factor for boiler fires is therefore 0.25 (0.5/2).
Pumps (excluding Main Feed water)
A severity factor for other pumps is developed in Reference Al. Nine (9) of the forty six (46) pump fires were considered severe or potentially severe.
The severity factor is therefore 0.2 (9/46).
Electrical Cabinet Fires Sixteen (16) Electrical Cabinet fires occurred in turbine buildings. Three (3) self-extinguished or extinguished when de-energized.
Ten (10) of the fires were extinguished using portable extinguishers.
These ten (10) fires are not considered severe.
One (1) fire resulted in the initiation of an automatic gas suppression system and is considered severe.
Suppression for the remaining two (2) events is unknown and willeach be weighted as one half of a severe event. The severity factor for cabinet fires is therefore 0.13 (2/16).
Transient Fires Thirty one (31) transient fires occurred. Twenty (20) were self-extinguished, de-energized, or were extinguished by portable extinguishers.
These twenty (20) fires are not considered severe.
Seven (7) required hoses, initiated automatic deluge, or were extinguished by offsite fire departments.
These seven (7) fires are considered severe.
The means of suppression of the remaining four (4) is unknown. Each of these remaining four (4) fires willbe weighted as one half of a severe event. The severity factor for transient fires is therefore 0.29 (9/31).
AirCompressors There have been six (6) fires associated with air compressors.
Allwere extinguished using manual fire extinguishers.
One half of one event willbe assumed to be severe.
The severity factor for air compressor fires is therefore 0.08 (0.5/6).
Elevator Motors There have been eight (8) elevator motor fires in total. Six (6) ofthe fires self-extinguished, de-energized or were extinguished by portable extinguishers.
The method ofsuppression ofthe remaining two (2) is unknown. Each of these two (2) remaining
Enclosure to Serial: HNP-98-017 Page 64 fires willbe weighted as one half of a severe event. The severity factor for elevator motor fires is therefore 0.13 (1/8).
Battery Chargers Five (5) Battery Charger fires occurred.
Each were self-extinguished, or extinguished by manual means.
One half ofone event willbe assumed to be severe.
The severity factor for battery charger fires is therefore 0.1 (0.5/5).
References A1.
EPRI TR-105928, Fire PRA Implementation Guide, December, 1995.
A2. NSAC/178L Fire Events Data Base for US Nuclear Power Plants, Revision 1, January, 1993.
Al Qi
,Ji