ML19242B466
| ML19242B466 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 06/26/1979 |
| From: | Staffa R GEORGIA POWER CO. |
| To: | James O'Reilly NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7908080570 | |
| Download: ML19242B466 (39) | |
Text
,
- a. e4
-ga-,
.t
..f g
b
, a, 4.45
+
t'".t
- l
'l')
r-e. ' 4,J
. 60 A
bCOlhd h0WCf Power Supply Eng neermg and Services
' ca
' r_
c_
J is C
~=
Q June 26 1979 r-3 jo to
'm
?l CO United States Nuclear Regulatory Co= mission
REFERENCE:
Office of Inspection and Enforcement RII: RFR, III Reg'on II - Suite 3100 50-321 101 Marietta Street Atlanta, Georgia 30303 50-366
.F ATTENTION:
Mr. J. P. O' Reilly Gentlemen:
In our letter to you dated April 25, 1979, concerning IE Bulletin 79-07, we indicated that the review of the seismic computer codes used by General Electric was incomplete.
The following are the results of the completed review.
Unit 1 The seismic analysis of General Electric supplied piping for Hatch Unit I was performed by EDS Nuclear, Inc.
The PISOL and/or SUPERPIPE computer pro-grams were used by EDS Nuclear for the seismic piping analysis.
A descrip-tion of these programs and the verification procedure used by EDS Nuclear is presented in Attachment 1.
Unit 2 The SAP 4 and EAP4G computer programs were used by General Electric for the seismic piping analysis on Hatch Unit 2.
A description of these programs and the verification procedure is presented below.
SAP Verification Program Description SAP 4 and SAP 4G are versions of the SAP program, which was originally.
developed for General Electric by F. A. Peterson and K. J. Bathe of the Engineering Analysis Corporation at Berkeley.
The SAP program is a general purpose structure program used to perform static and dynamic analysis of mechanical and piping components by the finite element method.
gg 077
'7%N
.)S W CO 79 08 08 0Hh'l2C
' Georgia Power d U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN:
Mr. James P. O'Reilly Page Two June 26, 1979 Verification All GE production versions of SAP are verified using a special benchmark problem that exercises all the important features of the program.
The bench-mark problem has been analyzed for the ef fects of constraint of f ree end, distributed forces, and is dynamically analyzed to determine mode shapes and natural frequencies used to predict dynamic response of the benchmark program using the response spectra and time history integration methods.
The pre-dicted frequencies, mode shapes, and loads were compared to the corresponding SAP predictions.
The SAP program prediction had to be consistent with those of ASSYS before SAP was qualified for production use.
In order to test unique features c,f SAP that cannot be compared to the results of another program, a special problem is devised which has an equivalent computer or manually cal-culated solution.
Before any new versions of SAP is verified, for production application, the benchmark problem in reanalyzed to verify that the program changes have not changed predictions or reduced their accuracy.
As shown above and in our letter dated April 25, 1979, none of the methods described in item one of the Bulletin were used in any of the computer programs for the seismic analysis of safety related pipe at Plant Hatch.
Very truly yours, 3,
~
(L f
(~-
R)'W. St$ffa
, Manager of hudlity Assurance JAB /bg Attachment q
hq' L
ATTACHMENT 1 Description of the Verification Procedure Used by EDS Nuclear, Inc.,
for the Computer Programs Used for the Seismic Analysis of General Electric Company Supplied Piping
.c W) c$
J
s
\\
i EDS NUCLE AR INC.
SAN F R ANetSCo. C ALIFoRNI A 94104. (415l 544 8000 220 MoNTGoME RY ST.
'l%
April 19,1979
/
General Electric Cornpany, Inc.
175 Curtner Avenue San Jose, California 95125 ATTENTION:
Mr. Ed Swair Mail Code 760 SU BJECT:
Input for IE Bulletin No. 79-07 Request EDS Seismi:: Piping Programs Gentlemen:
As discussed in our March 16, 1979 letter to you, the EDS seismic piping programs have always combined both the modal and directional re-sponses by square root sum of the squares and/or absolute summation.
However, per your April 18, 1979 letter, we are providing the enclosed summary for your use in responding to item (3) of IE Bulletin No. 79-07 relative to the benchmarking EDS has performed for its seismic piping programs.
If you have any questions on the enclosed information, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.
Very truly yours, EDS NUCLEAR INC.
f
/
John B. McCarthy Manager Piping Analysis Division JDM/1 e Enclosures C)
CARLE PLACE, NEW YORK SAN F R ANCISCO, C ALIFORNI A 230sosof74
= e4 9
g g
e e
i e
a
SUMMARY
OF PIPING BENCHMARK P3OBLEMS FOR EDS SEISMIC HPLNG PROGRAMS O
50'
INTRODI'CTION EDS has utilized the EDS proprietary progran's PISOL and SUPERPIPE for the seismic analysis of safety related ofping systems. The PISOL and SUPERPIPE programs analyze arbitran, three dimensional piping systems for seismic ex-citation using the dynamic analysis '.echnique known as the response spectrum mode superposition method. In this technique, the 2-D or 3-D earthquake exci-tation is characterized by acceleraticn response spectra, and the total response of the system is evaluated as a square mot sum of the squares and/or absolute summation combination of the response of the significant natural modes of vibra-tion of the system. These procedures and therefore the seismic analyses per-formed by EDS are in compliance with NRC requirements for these analyses.
In addition, SUPERPIPE has time history analysis capability. To date, this option has not been used for the seismic piping analysis of any safety related piping systems on operating plants or plants under construction.
PROGRA3I VERIFICATION 31ETHODS EDS has performed extensive program verification for both piping programs.
This verification is a combination of any or all of the following methods:
1.
Comparison to AS31E Benchmark Problems 2.
Benchmark Problems Utilizing EDS Programs and Other Industry Programs 3.
Comparison to Hand Criculations 4.
Comparison Between EDS Programs and Versions A partial summary of work performed in each of these four methods is provided belcw:
Comparison to AS31E Benchmark Problems 1.
EDS has becchmarked both PISOL and SUPERPIPE against the ASSIE Benchmark Problem 1.
This problem is described in the AS31E public-ation, ' Pressure Vessel and Piping 1972, Computer Programs Verifica-tian. - This publication utilized the ANSYS and WESTDYN programs. The PISOL comparison as submitted for the ASSIE Committee on Computer Technology is enclosed in the attachment titled, "AS31E BENCH 31 ARK PROBI L,1 NO.1 - PISOL VERIHCATION."
e 2.
Benehmark Problems Utilizing EDS Programs and Other Industry Programs EDS has benchmarked both PISOL and SUPERPIPE against other programs available to the industry. Several ch studies have been performed. In our most recent effort, a series of benchmark tests were conducted to com-pare SUPERPIPE against the following piping analysis programs: P50L, NUPIPE, PIPESD, and ADLPTPE. Prior to this EDS performed bench-marks against John Blume's PIPESD and the Bechtel Power Corporation's ME-101 program. In addition, PEOL has been verified by independent analysis by the Bechtel Power Corporation of San Francisco utilizing their proprietary program.
Examples of such benchmarks are showr in the attachments, "PEOL/PIPESD COMPARISON," "PISOL/ME-101 COMPAREON." and "SUPERPIPE/ME-101 COMPARISON. "
3.
Comparison to Hand Calculations For certam seismic options, hand calculations have been performed and compared 60 computer results. In the seismic area, the simplified models are typically cantilever and single span configurations.
4.
Comparison Between EDS Programs and Versions The must common benchmark method utilized by EDS is to compare results from one version to another. Such comparisons are used to show program modifications are properly performing while not impacting other options within the program. These comparisons ne described and t.c.intained with-in the gaality assurance files of the program.
Benchmarks are also made between the PEOL and SUPERPIPE programs.
An example of this is shown in the attachment, "SUPERPIPE VERIFICATION AND COMPARISON SU3 DIARY."
e O
c,M
om e
1 PISOL/PIPESD COMPARLSON O
gI p
, J ~, t.
"^
l l Il l8 T
Lii
- l
's 3
-2
,i,
d -h $
h
}d s
i is e - li ebY Q*"
M[,
w I'
l A
jj
,8 U
e_
,Il, l
('
. B z
a,
'! el el
+
l l ll C.
- 4. *f;i l!;- loli e L*,3; S'
m
$Qg 3,ijlo!!,!!!sl
Al L w *
+
k
)j!
il 4
~-
i e.
e 3
i I=i 3e i;
I!
3 m
~
Irl
-.7 w
..s i
.~
., x$
s I
(.,
x ys rY '3 s *l
- t g si 8, j :.
p9 I ta 3
9 i'
!I c.N
/;-
l
=
- e sg
[
s *G c
a 1.,
f.
lg 2
- )
w e;
i!
&n ec a
1:
s.
'J
- E g ($*,
f
, $ lD (4 fh dvi (z ep e
e a
bn 3 $#\\9 h
- t s y
g T" % s' cr ts;(s,kg; O
i <l_
a ez
,c O
e 1p g&
W' h>; h ('Y\\p Yeg>
d_> G W M * "d ;'
35
,j
..w ]
. ll.\\
4,.,
i l,r,.s j ;
t.
r
,1),(,
+y g.
- i
.t l
rG a
t
,v n.,
.1 t
I
.g s
I f f
\\.*e 3*k y
G) W W d' @ Dh E.r @
\\
' d' l
E O (!
. {J d,,3,
.i JU/
v PISOL/ PIPE SD COMPARISON MODEL 1 Number of Degrees of Freedom = 167 FREQUESCIES Mode PISOL PIPE SD (1/SC)
(1/SC) 1.
4.806 4.807 2
9.415 9.416 3
10.083 10.033 4.
11.361 11.361 5.
12.950 12.950 6.
14.356 14.356 7
15.397 15.398 8
15.478 15.480 9
16.4S8 16.488 10.
16.871 16.872 11.
17.497 17.505 12 18.593 18.594 13.
19.038 19.058 14.
19.971 19.971 15.
23.859 23.878 16, 28.802 28.803 17.
31.280 31.280 e
e m
4 4
DISPLACEMENTS (x + y Eq. )
Joint PISOL (in)
PIPESD (in)
&ISOL/PIPESD)
X Y
Z X
Y Z
18/3
.0007
.0169
.0014
.0007
.0169
.0014 7B/10
.0257
.0230
.0003
.0257
.0030
.0003 11/14
.0095
.0081
.0013
.0095
.0081
.0013 20B/49
.1016
.0225
.0767
.1016
.0225
.0767 3SB/61
.3063
.00(M
.1730
.3062
.0004
.1729 R4/37
.3896
.0173
.2112
.3894
.0173
.2111 MOMENTS (x + y Eq. )
Member PISOL (Ic-lb)
PIPESD (ft-lb)
Y Z
X Y
Z (PISOL/PIPESD)
X _
IB/2S 98.8 26.7
- 84. 8 98.8 26.7
- 84. 8 3C/7S S2. 3 472.1 360.2 82.3 472.1 360.2 CO3/3C 229.7 156.8 412.9 229.6 156.8 412.7 9B/295 13.5 94.4 142.0 13.5 94.4 141.9 19B/495 32.9 87.7 124.4 32.9 87.7 124.4
)
O'b !
g;o O o/
s STRESSES (X+Y Eq)
Member FISOL PIPE SD (PISOL/PIPESD)
(pst)
(psi)
IB/2S 187.7 187.7 3C/7S 8 46. 8 846.8 C03/3C 1450.7 1449.7 93/295 1190.7 1190.1 19B/49S 1756.5 1756.1 REACEONS (X+Y Eq)
Joint PISOL (1b)
PIPE SD__ (Ib)
(FISOL/PIPESD)
V Y
Z X
Y Z
1/1 7'.9 d5 43.9 72.
86.
44.
7/S IS2.4 97.7 471.0 IS2.
98.
471.
12/IS
- 0. 0 1403.2
- 0. 0 0.
1403.
O.
33/63 96.6 599.8 62.4 97.
600.
62.
41/70 59.6 14.9 39.2 60.
15.
39.
E e
G cg=)
w DISPLACEMENTS Joint PISOL (in)
PIPESD (in)
(PISOL/PIPESD)
X
.Y
... 2-
__.X Y
Z IB/3
.0017
.0310
.0033
.0016
.0298
.0031 7B/10
.CO23
.0155
.0000
.0022
.0173
.0000 11/14
.0006
.0007
.0001
.0006
.0012
.0001 20B/49
.0015
.0054
.0006
.0014
.0052
.0011 3SB/61
.0201
.0006
.0107
.0203
.0006
.0103 R4/37
.0184
. 0CM 8
.0099
.0186
.0046
.0098 MOMENTS Member FISOL (ft-lb)
PIPESD (ft-lb)
(PISOL/PIPESD)
X Y
Z X
Y Z
IB/2S
-203.6
-55.0
-2S.4 199.5 53.2 19.9 3C/7S
- 1.1
-29.3 447.5 10.3
-27.9' 417.8 CO,3/3C
-68.1 4.0
- 8. 3
- 76.4 28.2
- 6. 9.
9B/29S 0.3
-6.1 17.0
- 0. 6
-5. 0 15.8 198/495
- 2. 0 3.4
- 7. 3 2.1
- 2. 8
-7.6 g
)
A STRESSES FISOL PIPE SD Member WISOL/PIPESD) ipsi)
(psi) 307.3 293.0 IB/25 591.7 633.4 3C/7S C03/3C 100.5 142.4 125.7 115.5 9B/295 94.5 93.8 193/495 REACTOSS PIPE SD (Ib)
Joint PISOL (1b)
X Y
2 X
Y Z
(FISOL/PL ESD) 1/1
-10.9 307.8
-2.9
-10.5 305.3
-2.6 666.6
-6.3 7/8 13.3 663.3
-6.8 13.2
~1010.0
- 0. 0 12/18
- 0. 0 1007.5 O. 0
- 0. O 33/6S
-6.3 94.0
- 2. 7
-6.1 92.5
- 2. 7 41/70
- 2. S 22.8
- 1. 5
-2.7 26.7
- 1. 8 G
O
- e e
q n.y
- 5) '
_o O
ASME BENCICIARK PROBLEM No" y PLSOL VERIFICATION h
\\
)p F.a mf.:
ASME PRESSUR" VESSEL AND PIPING DIVISION O COV"'TTEE ON COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM VERIFICATION AND OUALIFICArlON PROBLEM LIBRARY A PROBLEM ON DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A THREE-DIMENSIONAL STRUCTURE PROBLEM DESCRIPTION The problem description and data used in its solution can be found on pages 1
2, and 3 of Genchmark Problem No.1.
SOLLITION The solution listed in TABLE 1 represents a portion of the modal response analysis of the lumped-mass system described in the mathematical model (FIGURE
- 1) and in Denchmark Problem No.1. The solution to the problem was found using PISOLIA, a program developed by EDS Nuclear Inc. for the seismic analysis of
! }l
[
arbitrary three-dimensional piping systems, and was obtained using a CDC 6600 comput er. The solution is based on a lumped-mass model consisting of 42 dynamic degrees of freedom with each of the displacement degrees of freedom at each of the 14 lumped masses represented. Details of the complete solution have been docu-mented and are available upon request from EDS Nuclear Inc., 220 Montgomery, San Francisco, CA 94104.
g y
g u
nEvisics
- . O.
9 o 2 8
,J2
@,f
. ~
7, g
g e
~@
b" W
5 I
a l
- sy' LEGEMD l
"4 I - NODE NAME l
STRA!GHT MEMBER NAME
$pg 1
FIGURE 1 PICTORIAL REPR ESENTATION OF MATHEMATICAL MODEL
~
589 092 Sodwtaon No.
Page.
pro 84,EM N,
A B
C D
E F
G H
I J
K L
M N
N m ad" ASME PRESSUp" VESSEL AND PIPING OlVISIO?. O COM'*sTTEE ON COMPJTER TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM VERIFICATION AND QUALIFICAilON PROBLEM LIBRARY R ESULTS The results of the frequency analysis using PLSOLIA are excerpted from the output and are tabulated in TABLE 1.
TABLE 1 CALCULATED AND htEASURED FREQUENCIES AND DIRECTIONS OF PRINCIPLE EXCITATION htEASURED(I)
ANSYS RESULTS PISOLIA RESULTS Resonant Excitation Resonant Excitation Resonant Excitation (2)
Frequency Direction Frequency Direction Frequency Direction COS Cp3 CDS 110 X
112 X
111 X
117 2
116 2
116 2
s[
134 X2 138 X,2 137 None
! }1 1 214 Y,2 218 Y,2 216 None 2
359 X
332 Y
404 Y
405 Y
416 Y
423 Y
422 Y
452 2
453 2
553 2
554 2
550 2
677 Y
736 Y
735 Y
REVISICN NO.
321 X, Y 762 X
758 X
833 Y
853 X
- 855 X
894 X, Y 893 Y
893 X
SS5 X
898 X, Y 910 X, Y 909 None l
l (1)
Crede C. E., " Shock and Vibration Concepts in Engineering l
l Cesign, ' Prentice Ifall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
I No significant participation factor means the maximum directional (2) participation factor for a given frequency is less than 0.025fe of l
the maximum directional participation factor for any frequency.
l I
Sodutson No.
Page:
of!
pro 8LEM NO.
- 8 N N*I ;
e
, n
=
s c
H I
J K
M N
4 J.,
SUPERPIPE VERIFICATION AND CO31PARISON SU313LARY O
'jk SB9
SUPERPIPE VERIFICATION AND COMPARISON
SUMMARY
SUPERPIPE contains capabilities that many other piping programs do not have.
Therefore, the comparison of SUPERPIPE with other piping programs is limited to an evaluation of forces, moments and displacements. Two piping problems were selected for a comparison between SUPERPIPE, PISOL and PIPESD. The first problem used for comparison is the ASME Benchmark Problem No. 6.
This piping model is used for an evaluation of static analyses results only. A relative comparison of the significant portions of the results is contained intables 1 and 2.
Figure 1 is a pictorial representation of the mathematical model usedin making the analysea.
The second piping problem selected for comparison is the same pmblem that appears in the SUPERPIPE mini-manual. This piping system is used because it is realistic and will exercise most of the standard features in any piping pro-gram. The relative comparison of results from the SUPERPIPE mini-manual problem includes both static and dynamic (response spectrum) analyses results.
The relative comparisons of the SUPERPIPE mini-manual results are contained in tables 3 through 9.
Figure 2 contains a pictorial representation of the mathe-matic21 model for problem number 2.
The pipin:; problems used in evaluating SUPERPIPE were selected on the basis of credibility within the piping industry and overall capability. The slight vari-ance of values contained in the summaries is attributable to the different method of solution that each program uses and does not represent ermrs in analyses.
C
'I CO31PUTER RUNS SUPERPIPE 31INI-31ANUAL SA51PLE PROBLE51 PISOI2A ASSIE BENCII51 ARK PROBLE51 NO. 6 SUPERPIPE ASSE BENCIDIARK PROBLEST NO. 6 SUPERPIPE CLASS 1 SA3f PLE PROBLE31 (LOAD CASES)
SUPERPIPE CLASS 1 SA51PLE PROBLE31 (STRESS REPORT)
PIPESD 311NI-51ANUAL SA31PLE PROBLE31 (LOAD CASES)
D PISOL3A(STATIC)
PISOLI A(DYNAA11C)
THESE RUNS CONSTITUTE A CO31PLETE CLASS TWO PISOL7B(STRESS)
ANALYSIS ON THE PISOL SUPSU31 SERES OF PROGRA31S PLOT TINIT PA.52A j
E c9f) s
e
)' Y
@ @ G) 5 '~ @
\\
6 C,
7 x
g:.
Y 1.
jeg
@n C21 O il LEGEMD c41 1 - NODE NAME 19
@ = STRAIGHT MEMBER WAME C3 f-CURVED MEMBER WAIAE
- 2
,g 0 20 C
B U
FIG'RE 1 FICTORIAL REPRESENTATION OF h!ATHEMATICAL MODEL TABLE 1 ANCHOR REACTIONS (Ib., In. - Ib. )
Reaction Component F
F,(I)
F M
M, M
s: 9 Salur:an bc
.sNSYS
-49 3
144 10
-33
-20 WESTDYN
-49 4
144 10
-34
-20 RSOL3A
-49 3
144 10
-33
-20
~
SUFER HPE
-49 4
148 12
-35
-19 ANSYS 2S6 713 1985 66572 1442
-16591 W E STD L' 237 837 1981 66516 1407
-16599 RSOL3A 2S6 731 19S3 66545 1439
-16591 g
SL ?EREFE 2SS 762 2044 67527 1432
-16693 ANSYS
-23S
-513
-2129
-13678 11357
. -221
~
6
-13173 11382
-210 PISOL3A
-237
-496
-2127
-13729 1135S
-221
'3 SUPERPIFE
-240
-528
-2192
-14339 11388
-199 (1)
Variation in F due to differences in weight distribution algorithm in y
ANSYS, WESTDYN, and FISOL3A.
I I c Q))
jv
TABLE 2 NODE POINT DISPLACEhENTS (in., rad. )
Displacement Component
')
U U
0 0
0 Node Solution by x
y x
x v
z ANSYS
.049
.002
.144
.0010
.0033
.0020 WESTDYN
.050
.004
.145
.0010
.0034
.0020 F750L3A
.049
.003
.144
.0010
.0033
.0020 4
SUFERPIPE
.049 004
.148
.0012
.0035
.0019 ANSYS
.147
.063
.256
.0015
.0013
.0017 WESTDYN
.147
.063
.253
.0016
.0013
.0017 PISOL3A
.147
.063
.256
.0015
.0013
.0017 9
5U.7 RPIFE
.146
.060 256
.0018
.0014
.0016 r.3YS
.201
.037
.231
.0019
.0007
.0017 72 53YN
.201
.037
.232
.0020
.0007
.0016 F: OL3A
.201
.027
.232
.0020
.0007
.0017 3.,
5U.2RFIPE
.200
.034
.236
.0022
.0007
.0016
..iS
.156
.011
.218
.0019
.0003
.0016 W:3TDYN
.187
.011
.218
.0020
.0004
.0016 F:50L3A
.137
.011
.218
.0019
.0003
.0016 l o.
5C TERFIPE
.135
.00S
.221
.0022
.0004
.0016 A.'.3 YS
.135
.023
.172
.0044
.0020
.0002 W23DYN
.1S5
.02S
.172
.0044
.0020
.0002 E50L3A
.135
.02S
.172
.0044
.0020
.0002
,a SU."ERPIFE
.154
.023
.172
.0047
.0020
.0032 e
?'
dY'uw9p ll Y M
w q [, t,;~#
iJp ce~,c,oo.o,t,,o o o.)
.ee e
o.
cro
}%.
f
- e 'a v o' o' uge s'y p,V l
Q; t u&
i es,,,w-,,.)
e r e, p.es-
- m. A9
- j
.4
/
ev g-Q f
wre
~
g,,,.
p'O j
,cm.
e
^#
+,. @
O" E
,/
/
g
/' b-e rb, e'
~
,.c;f cis.+ co i,
- g. m.,,
@,' g
- cio4, s
E cN... ',' "
- s 3,w p
Ns*
co..
'"* \\
\\ _ x '& -...,,
~o-: 4 ;. ~ r.. w ~.
=3 4ae u.a.
g ue mu cosa /s E3 o,e ke
\\~
s
~
6 LEGEil0 1
'c
- bis 1.
g 3
y if!L"ser g
'e.
N?g'
_1 4~c-a=
N e....., _..
3
" ")
3 ;;s c m....
I R. 2A 9
w, ~..
~ m *x D
SUPERP/PE MATH MJOEL
~
I I
P00R BRIGDlft 589 099
,ee e 9 4
4 p
f,. +g-f.
q..,
sw :.9 ;
g
. ::., <, e..
W
...i;?, cW.;,-
J.. w..-r
, {$
s l
/~-
i.,-
\\,A
.a-s.~/
s'<
)
/
- s x
6 g
's
' c.S @ "r $
O
.s s
47 -
N j7 gfg '
e c
%.we 4,a} r.,e%_ t, %e J bu.l
,s.**
4 O
E
\\
t
-,A:
e..,,
~
9 X
. '" g ST Y
- O s\\
/
%s.
e
~ ~ g, % r &,g Q L"Ll [ g 9
g a
'y %,'Q '-
@%v m
f4 xe
,a Lg.,,-
a
-v e...m, m w A-an
- 7 eh w
va tG q
i 9c0
- 3 g",'A
- ., e, W s,
' <sk o //
to %*
y
,4 -
/;Es u
f
\\\\
N L*
[
9 f@SE na u f
e s
igf t
"1 y
4
~
s 3
g a
1 g9 2s i
1 r.t, ^ *'5" 1
l pisc; MA% N@"
- 'w L,5, y ::
M WD e
>>I
A Y f
r
(
nee cocco cocros>
oo ce ter cw ee.
rffC'
, y'*
' o* * -
ko. e tuv. o.o p/
n,,,,4 '
- [
~
.../
A
, vp W
Ej x
e i5
, p. v
/'i fl ::;
g18
,o* 7 er f
, 2f.
- f j/',, t%5 p%
n.n w
@w
?
Bif@
~,
m
~
\\
68 g
s en r..
m >'
eg A
.g B, W.y* %
r L'S '
- s 1%
7 7
4..t%a <,,,,
?f 6')
~ m x..
. ~
- NS AA*.
L.R.
\\4$* R0EE.
8,
. CI C
L t.1,.
LEGEAg j
'd l iso #%-
I b.
(s*
ecew -w,'
s~
ANO mia row.
I
,ew 1
. e-:,
I sN4
! e....., -,_,_ ;
it**)
GAvtp reusca (
~
,Cx *j TM'$
f,4 gc l
- c. woc PlWso mrr nocgg 6u P00R OPJILll 9
cccl i()1 au
..T
e O..
Ob L
l.I I
EI
- R E:!
I :!
=I-I 2 -l -
c Z
E
- i c lg,
- l l
N' e
O o (r S IE"t
/
C 1
E I
l
=
/
f y3E 11 E ! !!.!
i
!?
i i
is
= i O i l u;
=
t N
- el o
=
l "I
i
.I i
=.t
=
i I
i ee
/
l l
i S :s 8
M-l ! */
m f_U 50:}
C I
l
/E l
r 4
m e
3 li c
l
/
J' I
l E
I
/
l
/
l l
/
=
i l
'O/
i l
1
...i:
a/
'=
I
\\. 7 l
e
'e i
g N Os
~s
?
I b',
-5
'I O
.~S l
c"g' 1
9
2 6gp Cni n -1 b
~
E l
...{i 1QlN@O in}j i f g[jjig v[
g 2i
! l
=--'i' g
9j\\
g
- i, e
,/
t,i\\
2 "I
_ e c
r.1 g
,N E:
l
.1 e
\\
o!,
- l s
c5 c
pl gj O
e.
4-
- 1 2
7 EI le: l
=
j.
l l.
- l. e I
i l Ii l I'i I
i
/
s'
[
I A
7 I
/
l i
l A
i 8
l i
I ;
.. I k
+
j E
[,*
I l is 4.. s s'
l
- f g
!I i
(
./
- f...
i s
c c
.v.s w
e j
t i
I !
l 1
e' d
\\,
.=.
/
\\.
i iI
,/
1l x
i i.
/
4 i
.p
?
[
l,*
i e
l l
Y]
l P
e a
TABLE 3 MNI MANUAL SAMPLE PROBLEM MEMBER END FORCES AND MOMENTS THERMAL EXPANSION ANALYSIS (ib.. In - Ib)
F F
F M
M M
Node aolution by x
v x
y z
SUPERMPE 3S5 257
-232
-6527 12324 2051 1
RSOL 3S6 253
-233
-6532 12356 2064 FIPSD 388 259
-233
-6518 12388 2085 SUPERFIPE 402 257
-201 5041 1369 10947 CO25 MSOL 403 253
-202 5058 1380 10968 FIPESD 405 259
-202 5077 1405 11016 SUPERPIPE 201 49 175 2923
-4669 1961 6
MSOL 202 49 172 2941
-4669 196S PIPESD 202 50 183 2994
-4619 1966 SUPERPIPE 613
-133 17 1884 1919 4806 C04A PISOL 607
-133 17 1891 1921 4801 RPESD 633
-141 17 18S5 1921 4991 SUPERPIPE 45
-21
-16 263 1147
-1490 9
RSOL 46
-20
-16 266 1136
-1476 FIPESD 46
-23
-1 S 276 1272
-1628 SUPERPIPE
-42 32
-412 169 10749 887 12 FISOL
-40 32
-405 161 10657 896 PIPESD
-42 33
-436 159 11752 949 SUPERPIPE
-42
-26 100 169
-4777
-310 14 RSOL
-40
-25 97 161
-4601
-293 FIPESD
-42
-25 95 169
-4701
-312 3CTERFITE 39 52 42 2690
-2668
-325 CCc3 TISOL 86 50 40 2593
-2566
-312 FIPESD
- 85 49 42 2661
-2656
-316 SUPERRFE 95 6
-10 106 434 1672 CTC PISOL 90 5
-10 109 377 1609 FIPESD 90
-5
-10 109 420 1599 SUPERPIPE 95 6
-8 313 380
-2928 C10B FISOL 90 5
-8
-295 325
-2736 FIPESD 90 5
-8
-301 367
-2745 C, G L)
\\00 su
TABLE 4 htINT-hf ANUAL SAhfPLE PROBLEh!
h!Eh!E' ' END FORCES AND h10N1ENTS DE.B WEIGHT ANALYSIS (Ib. in - lb)
F f
iht
.M Node Solution by x
v
=
x_
y z
SUPERPITE 23 ISI
-5
-87 196 4948 1
PISOL 29 192
-4
-145 13S 6043 FIFESD 23 182
-5
-88 200 4938 SUPERPIPE 23 43
-3 184
-24
-423 CO2B PISOL 29 16
-2 107
-55
-552 TIPESD 23 44
-3 IS6
-24
-428 SUPERPIPE 3
10S 1
-1037 91 2295 6
TOOL 2
79 0
-1054 175 2306 r:7ESD 3
114 1
1091 92 2414 SUTERPIPE 7
-1
-96
-672
-1132 56 C04A T!iOL 6
0
-97
-610
-990 35 T"'E SD 7
-1
-99
-6S8
-1171 66 S"FERPIPE 117 IS 9
34
-621 1321 r 50L 154 16 8
29
-570 1187 7
9 T:PESD 119 19 9
26
-628 1253 SUTERRFE
-1
-7
-4
-52 110
-337 12 FISOL
-1
-17
-4
-44 103
-403 FIPESD 0
-S
-4
-51 122
-387 SUFERPIPE
-1 24 3
-52
-40 25S 14 FISOL
-1 23 2
-44
-32 234 TIPESD 0
24 3
-51
-41 210 SUPERFIFE
-10 14 1
43 20 6
CCc8 FISOL
-10 13 1
38 17
-1
-10 14 0
24 4
4 PIPESD,
SUPERMPE 3
2S
-1 30 6
' 174 CTC PISOL 2
26
-1 25 4
146 PIPESD 3
27
-1 27 5
174 SUPERPIFE 3
2
-1 3
3
-37 C10B PISOL 2
-1
-1 4
1
-32 FIPESD 3
1 0
4 2
-53
- w. )
l s
TABLE 5 h!INI-htANUAL SAh1PLE PROBLEh!
..:E.'.!EER END FORCES AND h10h1ENTS SEISht!C ANALYSIS (ib.. - in - Ib)
F F
F h1 h1 51 Nsje Solution bv x
v x
v z
SUPERFIPE 7
22 15 555 353 730 y
FISOL 7
28 19 726 409 912 SUPERPIFE 5
5 9
294 366 1 33 CO2B TISOL 16 17 6
458 246 632 SUF RFIPE 26 30 24 200 453 410 6
CSOL 29 32 24 220 478 4 61 SUPERarE 29 19 18 149 231 366 C04A FISOL 23 21 20 153 233 391 SUPERPIFE 13 4
3 152 264 357 9
FISOL 13 5
4 149 311 373 SUPERPIPE 9
35 6
30 163 165 3 *,,
PISOL 8
38 6
32 178 191 SUTERFIPE 7
5 7
30 97 1217 34 RSOL 7
6 9
32 106 1325 6
W 7M 22 C06B PISOL 10 6
6 992 823 20 SUTERPIPE 6
3 31 1211 56 193 FISOL S
4 24 1219 52 252 CUTERFITE 6
3 2
56 97 76
-.n,
~ ~ "
TISOL 7
4 2
60 100 10S e
Su-
TABLE 6 MINI-MANUAL SAMPLE PROBLEM NODE POINT DISPLACEMENTS THERMAL EXPANSION ANALYSIS (in., rad. )
U U
U 0
0 0
.w. d e Solunon Bv x
v x
y z,,
SUPERPIPE
.169
.068
.074
.00214
.00302
.00252 CO2A PISOL
.1637
.0675
.0742
.002140
.003041
.002504 FIPESD
.169
.068
.075
.00215
.00305
.00250 SUPERnPE
.201
.077
.074
.00060
.00306
.00195 CO2B PISOL 2004
.0772
.0741
.000606
.003072
.001944 FIPESD
.303
.030
.075
.00061
.00309
.00193 SU. E RPIPE
.305
.030
.031
.00174
.00266
. 00077 2
HSOL
.3051
.0294
.0307
.001744.002668
.0062 FIFESD
.309
.030
.031
.00174
.00261
.00066 SUPERnPE
.324
.019
.023
.00175
.00257
.00069 3
FISO*
.3239
.01SS
.0235
.001755.002586
.000679 PITESD
.324
.019
.024
.00178
.00261
.00066 SUPERnPE
.339
.009
.016
.00174
.00248
.00060 C03A PISOL 3391
.00S3
.0162
.001747
.002489
.000596 T:rESD
.340
.003
.017
.00175
.00251
.0005S SUPER PIPE
.342
.000
.002
.00166
.00045
.00007 C033 FISOL
.3423
.0001
.0020
.001681
.000459
.000076 FIPESD
.343
.000
.002
.00168
.00049
.00006 SUPERFIFE
.2S2
.006
.001
.00072
.00009
.00020
~
P: SOL
.2321
.0064
.0017
.000729
.000088
.000202 7FESD
.232
.007
.004
.00071
.00018
.00021 5CE RRTE
.279
.002
.005
.00059
.00165
.00017 22 OSOL
.2794
.0031
.0015.000593
.001652
.000173
~.00020 PIPESD
.250
.004
.000
.00064
.00094 SUPERnrE
.137
.014
.027
.00159
.00215
.00262 CTC MSOL
.1435
.0137
.0272
.001506
.002024
.002515 FIPESD
.140
.014'
.028
.00129
.00218
.00252 SUPERPIPE
.131
.025
.029
.00159
.00215
.00263 C09B PISOL
.1374
.0244
.0288 001538
.001989
.002632 FIPESD
.134
.025
.031
.00132
.00214
.00268.
t q' l
\\
Cg)
TABLE 7 MINI-MANUAL SAMPLE PROBLEM NODE POINT DISPLACEMENTS DE AD WEIGHT ANALYSIS (in., rad. )
U U
U 0
0 0
Node Solution by x
v z
x y
z SUTERFIPE
.002
.012
.001
.00007
.00002
.00002 CO2A FISOL
.0032
.0148
.0014
.000084
.000002.000052 PIPESD
.002
.012
.001
.0009
.00002
.00004 SUPERFIFE
.002
.011
.000
.00014
.00001
.00001 CO28 RSOL
.0034
.0139 0007
.000182
.000012.000033 FITESD
.002
.011
.000
.00013
.00001
.00001 SUTERFIFE
.003
.002
.000
.00030
.00000
.00005 2
HSOL
.0027
.0050
.0007
.000334
.000030
.003
.003
.?OO
..'0003
.00000
.00005 SLl'2RFIPE
.002
.002
.000
.00031
.00000
.00006 3
FISO L
.0025
.0030
.0007
.000347
.000031
.000007 FITESD
.002
.002
.000
.00031
.00000
.00006 SU.7 RPIPE 002
.000
.000
.00031
.00001
.00006 C03A FISOL
.0023
.0003
.0007
.000353
.000033
.000005 FITE3D
.002
.000
.000
.00031
.00001
.00006
$UPERFIPE 002
.001
.000
.00019
.00004
.00020 C038 MSOL
.0021
.0009
.0004
.000243
.000059
.000134 FIPESD
.002
.001
.000
. 0002
.00001
.00021 SUPERFIPE
.002
.016
.001
.00014
.00001
.00033 FISOL
.0021
.0139
.0016
.000098
.000018
.000311 FITESD
.002
.027
.001
.00015
,00001
.00035 3UTERTITE
.002
.015
.001
.00019
.00000
.00034 12 FISOL
.0021
.0133
.0016
.000156
.000003
.000319 FIPESD
.002
.015
.001
.00018
.00000,.00035 SUFERFIPE
.002
.001
.000
.00004
.00004
.00008 CE PISOL
.0020
.0005
.0004
.000005
.000036
.000071 FIPESD
.002
.001
.000
.00004
.00004
.00005, SUPERRFE
.002
.001
.000
.00004
.00004 00003 C093 FISOL
.0018
.0007 0005
.000002
.000036
.000061 FIPESD
.002
.000
.000
.00023
.00004
.00004-SOB CJ
T.GLE 8 hilNI.\\tANUAL SAh1PLE PROBLENT NODE POINT DISPLACEN1ENTS SEIS.\\t!C ANALYSIS (in.. rad. )
U U
U 0
O O
v z
Node Solution by x
v SUTERPIPE
. 011
.002
.002
.00005
.00012
.00025 FISOL
.0139
.0024
.0029
.000060
.000156
.000318 CO2A PERM
.011
.002 003
.00005
.00018
.00023 FISOL
.0146 0025
.0021
.000053
.000229
.000294 C 0 ""
SUTERPIPE
.0004
.0003
.0002
.00006
.00022
.00026 FISOL
.C051
.0030
.0032
.000066
.0002S7
.000309
~
SUT RDPE
.003
.003
.002
.00006
.00022
.00026 PISOL
.0034.
.0032
.0032
.000067
.0002S9
.000311 3
SUTERPIFE
.001
.003
.003
.00006
.00022
.00026 FISOL
.0017
.0034
.0032
.000068
.000289
.000309 SUTERPIPE
.001
.002
.001
.00007
.00021
.00026 PISOL
.0005
.001S
.0016
.000075
.000261
.000302 SUTERPIPE
.001
.010
.003
.00012
.00012
.00015 PIS OL
.0005
.0112
.0091
.000128
.000126
.000164 SU TERFIFE
.001
.010
.00S
.00014
.00010
.00015 FISOL
.0006
.0115
.0091
.000153
.000102
.000162 1,
~
SUTERPITE
.001
.000
.001 00950
.00026
.00115 FISOL
.0015
.0004
.0015
.010426
.000275
.001240 c
'~
SUPERFITE
.004
.001
.030
.00951
.00026
.00115 PISO L 0041
.0006
.0334
.010543
.000235
.001280 Cf-
a TABLE 9 MINT-MANUAL SAMPLE PROBLEM CALCULATED FREQUENCIES DYNAMIC ANALYSIS Frequency (CPS)
Mode SUPERPIPE PISOL PIPESD 1
5.950 5.939 5.48 2
12.897 13.466 13.65 3
15.360 15.351 15.08 4
18.250 17.757 18.02 5
19.449 19.376 19.07 6
22.350 22.048 19.47 7
22.633 22.568 21.71 3
25.629 25.333 22.2S 9
28.7S1 26.927 28.20 10 29.616 23.174 29.38 11 30.561 30.015 30.09 l.
- u/
Gee e e e t
e g
o PISOL/M E-101 COMPARISON S
s'\\
\\
C). k, )
(-
Main Steam inside Containment T
t
/b f
'e c,a) u
~
,y M
/6 M
/
,N 2
s-
{s s
^
2 \\fl
?- @
I3 4
.e 6.rt
\\
12 G
e @,
\\ g;ygm
@i,@ @ g
. p a,
ic g,
" 5 J,J.
=',
s.u
,c as e
n, a
a
\\
0; e
(j11 g.
y,..
I4
\\
's mg~
i
,s
- o Y
R *2:
N
,22 Y-Siof (e:oc) 2+.
ji g'
( t. -
No
?BOR OR11NJAl-
4 PISOL/31E-101 CO3tPARISON LIODEL:
5 fain Steam Inside Containment Numoer of Degrees of Freedora = 65 (Excluding Restraints)
J7t EOL*ENCIES (Cycles /Sec) h1 ODE NO.
PISOL 31E-101 1
1.680 1.680 2
2.842 2.843 3
3.394 3.395 4
9.556 9.5SS 5
10.895 10.898 6
19.377 19.382
[
\\\\3 99-
=
=
X + Y EARTHQUAKE 4
DISPLACEMENTS (LNCHES)
JOINT ID PISOL M E-101 PISOL/M E-101 X
Y Z
X Y
Z 5/5 0.459 0.323 0.105 0.447 0.324 0.103 10/10 0.972 0.359 0.292 0.941 0.353 0.294 20'20 0.242 0.000 0.191 0.235 0.000 0.191 22/23 B 0.03G 0.000
- 0. 0 24 0.035 0.000 0.024 MOM ENTS (FT.-LB. )
MEMBER ID PISOL M E-101 PISOL/M E-101 X
Y Z
X Y
Z C1/1 225750 46174 109949 223715 475S1 1082S5 4/5 35137 8627S 27SS4 38715 84712 27167 8/11 34443 59441 20186 35225 57733 19725 19/21 152554 57642 136511 147964 58749 137019 STRESSES (PSI)
MEMBER ID PISOL/M E-101 PISCL M E-101 C1/1 4794 4693 4/5 996 982 S/11 725 713 10/24 2155 212G REACTIONS (LBS)
JOINT ID PISOL M E-101 PISOL/ !E-101 X
Y Z
X Y
Z 1/1 3245 4580 6250 8166 4590 6527 22/22B 0
25364 0
0 2543S 0
24/21 5377 25422 4401 5349 25521 4510 e
.=
i \\
h)