ML19257A791
| ML19257A791 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Brunswick  |
| Issue date: | 10/31/1979 |
| From: | Ianni P, Wade G GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19257A787 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-GTECI-A-07, REF-GTECI-CO, TASK-A-07, TASK-A-7, TASK-OR 79NED125, NEDO-24583-1, NEDO-24583-1-R01, NEDO-24583-1-R1, NUDOCS 8001080454 | |
| Download: ML19257A791 (43) | |
Text
, .
- v. . . ., .
x .= >
- 3.
sv 4
+.
vi .
- s 4 ,
I W.
- l g mm=7 . ,. .
_ . - _ -7.. _ _ ,. 7 7 --
3
[
VAM COV'AIVV U T P 'POGRA VI J t .<
S7RU77'lAL AC3E9TANCE CRITRA i 1 P A\T UNIQLJF ANALYSS 1L AoPL CAT;ON GL.iDE j TA3F_3.i.3 : i u A 1
- [: ,
[ [E
{-*.
2 s _.
.l*
l..'."......._.~-
. . E. _ > ... . . . [ t _ . -- _I_. . i. .. . ._ .; *
~ '
C' '.- .
-s . ,$// . . i e
v
_N e
1 i
- n. ..- -- . '
z,-_
w.,_,. '"'$ #
-*; ~' a '
.. ,- R -
+<
-~=.-.n.-
f* ,'~
, . w& .- 9 . , .
- NED0-24583-1 79NED125 Class I October 1979 MARK I CONTAINMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURAL ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA PLANT UNIQUE ANALYSIS APPLICATION CUIDE 2
TASK 3.1.3 This report has been prepared by the i
Mark I Containment Progiam Structural Acceptance Criteria Working Group Representatives For The General Electric Company k
Approved: , Approved:
P. W. Ianni, Manager G. E. Wade, Manager Containment Design Mark I Containment and j SRV Programs 4
l NUCLEAR ENGINEERING DIVISON
- GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
- - SAN JOSE, Calf FORNIA 95125 GENER AL $ ELECTRIC
NEDO-24583-1 DISCLAIVER OF RESPONSIBILITY Neither the General Electric Company nor any of the contributors to this document makes any carranty or representation (express or implied) uith respect to the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of the information contained in this document or that the use of such information may not infringe privately ovned rights, nor do they assume any responsibility for liability or damge of any kind which may result from the use of any of the information contained in this doewnent.
1706 017
NEDD-24583-1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
- 1. INTRODUCTION 1-1 1.1 Intent of This Guide 1-1 1.2 Structural Elements Considered 1-2 1.3 Basis for Exception to This Guide 1-3 1.4 Applicability to Brunswick 1-4
- 2. CLASSIFICATION OF STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS 2-1 2.1 Introduction 2-1 2.2 Component Terminology and Boundaries 2-2 2.2.1 Torus Shell (Row 1) 2-2 2.2.2 Torus Shell Supports (Row 1) 2-2 2.2.3 External Vents and Vent-to-Torus Bellows (Row 1) 2-2 2.2.4 Drywell-Vent Connection Region (Row 1) 2-4 2.2.5 Internal Vents (Rows 2 and 3) 2-4 2.2.6 Vent Ring Header (Rows 4 and 5) and Downcomers (Row 6) 2-4 2.2.7 Vent Ring Header Supports (Row 7) 2-4 2.2.8 Essential (Rows 10 and 11) and Nonessential (Rows 12 and 13) Piping Systems 2-5 2.2.9 Active and Inactive Component (Rows 10 through 13) 2-5 2.2.10 Containment Vacuum Breakers (Row 2) 2-5 2.2.11 External Piping and Supports (Rows 10 through 13) 2-6 2.2.12 Internal Piping and Supports (Rows 10 through 13) 2-6 2.2.13 Internal Structures (Row 8) 2-6 2.2.14 Vent Deflectors (Row 9) 2-7
- 3. LOADINGS 3-1 3.1 Introduction 3-1 3.2 Load Terminology 3-1 3.3 Event Combinations 3-2 1706 018 iii
NED0-24583-1 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
- 4. DESIGN AND SERVICE LIMITS 4-1 4.1 '.ntroduction 4-1 4.2 Consequence of Assigned Service Limits 4-1 4.2.1 Level A Service Limit 4-1 4.2.2 Level B Service Limit 4-1 4.2.3 Level C Service Limit 4-2 4.2.4 Level D Service Limit 4-3 4.2.5 Level E Service Limits 4-3 4.3 Design Limits 4-4 4.4 Service Limits 4-4 4.4.1 Class MC Containment Vessels 4-4 4.4.2 Class 2 and 3 Piping 4-4 4.4.3 Pumps and Valves 4-4 4.4.4 Linear-Type Component Supports 4-5 4.4.5 Other-Type Component Supports 4-5 4.4.6 Internal Struttures 4-5
- 5. COMPONENT - LOADINGS - SERVICE LIMIT ASSIGNMENTS 5-1 5.1 Introduction 5-1 5.2 Format 5-1 5.3 Class MC Components and Internal Structures 5-1 5.4 Class 2 and 3 Piping Systems 5-4 5.5 Opurability and Functionality Requirements 5-6 5.5.1 Operability 5-6 5.5.2 Functionality 5-7 5.6 Brunswick Suppression Chamber Requirements 5-7 5.6.1 General 5-7 5.6.2 Concrete Containment Requirements 5-7 5.6.3 Containment Liner 5-8 1706 019 iv
NEDO-24583-1 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
- 6. ANALYSIS GUIDELINES 6-1 6.1 Introduction 6-1 6.2 General Guidelines 6-1 6.3 Combination of Structural Responses 6-2 6.4 Torus Analysis 6-3 6.5 Vent System Analysis 6-4 6.6 Torus Internals 6-5 6.7 Torus Attached Piping 6-5 6.8 Safety Relief Valve Discharge Piping 6-6
- 7. REFERENCES 7-1 1706 020 v/v1
NEDO-24',83-1 LIST OF TABLES Table Title Page 2-3 Non-Piping Structural Elements 2-3 2-2 Piping Structural Elements 2-3 3-1 Load Combinations 3-3 5-1 Class MC Components and Internal Structures 5-2 5-2 Class 2 and 3 Piping Systems 5-5 5-3 Load Combinations and Load Factors for Brunswick Torus 5-9
}
I 1706 021 vii/viii
- 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 INTENT OF THIS GUIDE The purpose of the Plant Unique Analysis Application Guide (PUAAG) is to allow the consistent application of the structural acceptance criteria by those eval-uating each of the specific containments for the utilities. The assignments included herein are considered to be conservative. Revisions to these assignments are subject to NRC review.
The Guide includes:
- a. Code classification of the structural elements making up the containment system.
- b. Load combination and categorizations. Loads and load combinations are based on the Load Definition Report (LDR) (Ref erence 1) .
- c. Reference to Code and Standard rules, procedures, and criteria -
to be followed for all structural elements.
- d. Alternative structural acceptance criteria developed under Task 3.1.5.
- c. When required, descriptions of the minimum analytical models or pro-cedures to be followed and other guides concerning the plant unique analysis.
Reference 2 provides a summary of containment system design rules and classification.
1706 022 1-1
NEDO-245G3-1 1.2 STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS CONSIDERED All structural elements of the vent system and suppression chamber and of associated piping systems must be considered. The pressure retaining elements and the supports for such elements include:
- a. The torus shell with associated penetrations, reinforcing rings, and support attachments.
- b. The torus shell supports to the building structure.
- c. The vents between the drywell and the vent ring header including penetrations therein.
- d. The region of the drywell local to the vent penetrations.
- e. The bellows between the vents and the torus shell, internal or external to the torus.
- f. The vent ring header and downcomers attached thereto.
- g. The vent ring header supports to the torus shell.
- h. Vacuum breaker valves attached to vent penetrations within the torus, where applicable.
- i. Vacuum breaker piping systems, including vacuum breaker valves, attached to torus shell penetrations and to vent penetrations external to the torus, where applicable.
- j. Piping systems, including pumps and valves, internal to the torus, attached to the torus shell and/or vent penetrations, all main steam Safety Relief Valve (SRV) piping and the applicable portions of:
(1) Active containment system piping systems such as Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) suction piping and other piping 1-2 1706 023
NEDD-24583-1 required to maintain core cooling after Loss-of-Coolant Accident (LOCA).
(2) Piping systems which provide a drywell-to-wetwell pressure dif ferential for the purpose of alleviating pool swell effects.
(3) Other piping systems, including vent drains.
- k. Supports of such piping systems.
- 1. Vent header deflectors and associated hardware.
Internal structural elements, such as monorails, catwalks, their supports, etc., must also be considered. Although these elements are not operative in the performance of the containment function, it is important that failure of such members not impair that function.
1.3 BASIS FOR EXCEPTION TO THIS GUIDE The structural acceptance criteria used to evaluate the acceptability of the existing Mark I containment systems or to provide the basis for any modifica-tions required to withstand presently defined loads, are generally through the Summer 1977 Addenda to Section III, Division 1. Some alternatives to those criteria are provided herein. Design of the components considered herein shall conform with the provisions of this Guide to the maximum extent practi-cal. When complete application of these criteria results in hardships or unusual dif ficulties without a compensating increase in the level of quality and safety, other structural acceptance criteria may be considered on a plant specific basis. Such other criteria are subject to Nuclear Regulatory Com-mission (NRC) approval before application by the individual utilities during the performance of the final plant unique analyses.
One specific basis for requesting NRC approval of other criteria is demonstra-tion that the allowable stress criteria, expressed in terms of Service Level 1-3
NEDO-24583-1 in Section 5 of this report, are more conservative than those applied during initial construction or for modifications installed prior to January 1,1975.
1.4 APPLICABILITY TO BRUtiSWICK Torus and liner rules are provided in Subsection 5.6.
1706 025 1--4
- 2. CLASSIFICATION OF STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS
2.1 INTRODUCTION
For purposes of establishing the structural design criteria to be applied, it is necessary to identify the Code or other classification of the structural element. Possible components as recognized by the Code are vessels, piping systems, pumps and valves. Possible component classifications are Class 1 (primary system pressure boundary), Class 2 (engineered safety systems or piping system components associated with the containment system), Class 3 (part of the nuclear power system but not Class 1 or Class 2) and Class MC (vessels which are a part of the containment system). Supports for Code com-ponents take on the classification of the component supported, with common rules being applied to Class 2 and Class MC component supports.
An important consideration in establishing classification is the exact definition of the interface. For example, it may be clear that one element is a vessel and that another element is a support, but the exact boundary at which the vessel rules cease to be applicable and the support rules become applicable must be defined. In every case, however, an attachment weld to a pressure boundary component is part of that pressure boundary component unless the weld is a piping connection. Welds connecting piping to a nozzle are piping welds, not Class MC welds.
The guidelines which follow are intended for the evaluation of existing structural elements. These guidelines were written with a general knowledge of the configurations present in the existing Mark I containment systems, but without specific consideration of any particular containment. Therefore, the Owner of each specific system should implement these guidelines by pre-paring specific dimensional boundary definitions for his system.
1706 026 2-1
NEDO-24583-1 2.2 COMPONENT TERMINOLOGY AND BOUNDARIES Reference is made to Table 2-1 for structural elements other than those in piping systems and Table 2-2 for structural elements in piping systems. The row designations indicated on these figures are those used for defining the limits in Section 5 of this guide. Although the limits are on more than one figure, the rows are numbered consecutively for ease of reference.
2.2.1 Torus Shell (Row 1)
The torus membrane (in combination with reinforcing rings, penetration ele-ments within the NE-3334 limit of reinforcement normal to the torus shell, and attachment welds to the inner or outer surface of the above members but not to nozzles) is a Class MC vessel.
2.2.2 Torus Shell Supports (Row 1)
The Subcection NF support structures between the torus shell and the building structure, exclusive of the attachment welds to the torus shell, are Class MC supports. This includes the welded or mechanical attachment to the building structure, excluding embedments. Seismic constraints between the torus shell snd the building structure are included.
2.2.3 External Vents and Vent-to-Torus Bellows (Row 1)
The external vents, between the attachment weld to the drywell and the attachment weld to the bellows, are Class MC vessels. This includes vent penetrations within the NE-3334 limit of reinforcement normal to the vent and internal or external attachment welds to the external vent but not to nozzles.
The vent-to-torus bellows, including attachment welds to the torus shell and to the external vents, are Class MC vessels.
i706 027 2-2
NEDO-24583-1 Table 2-1 Table 2-2 NON-PIPING PIPING STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS STRUCTURAL ELEMENT EDH STRUCTURAL ELEMENT F0W Essential Piping Sys tems External Class MC With IBA/DBA 10 Torus, Bellows, External Vent Pipe, With SBA 11 Drywell (at Vent), I Attachment Welds, Nonessential Piping Torus Supports, Systems Seismic Restraints With IBA/DBA 12 Internal Vent Pipe '
With SBA 13 General and Attachment Welds 2 At Penetrations (e.g. , Header) 3 Vent Ring Header General and Attachment Welds 4 At Penetrations (e.g., Downcomers) 5 powncomers General and Attachment Welds 6 Internal Supports 7 Internal Structures General 8 Vent Deflector 9 1706 028 1-3
NEDO-24583-1 2.2.4 Drywell-Vent Connection Region (Row 1)
The vent welded connections to the drywell and the drywell are Class MC vessels. However, the drywell region of interest to this program terminates at the NE-3334 limit of reinforcement on the drywell shell.
2.2.5 Internal Vents (Rows 2 and 3)
The continuation of the vents inte nal to the torus shell from the vent-bellows weld is termed the internal vent and includes:
- a. the cylindrical shell,
- b. the closure head,
- c. penetrations in the cylindrical shell or closure head within the NE-3334 limit of reinforcement normal to the vent, and
- d. attachment welds to the inner or outer surface of the vent but not to nozzles.
2.2.6 Vent Ring Header (Rows 4 and 5) and Downcomers (Row 6)
Attached to the internal vents is the vent ring header, including the down-comers and internal or extert.1 attachment welds to the ring header and the attachment welde to the downcomers. These are Class MC vessels. The portion of the downcemer within the NE-3334 limit of reinforcement normal to the vent ring header and the portion of the vent ring header within the NE-3334 limit of reinforcement are considered by Row 5.
2.2.7 Vent Ring Header Supports (Row 7)
The Subsection NF supports, exclusive of the attachment welds to the vent ring header and to the torus shell, are Class MC suppe'ts.
1706 02J9 2-4
NEDO-24583-1 2.2.8 Essential (Rows 10 and 11) and Nonessential (Rows 12 and 13)
Piping Systems A piping system, or a portion of a piping system, is essential if durir.g or following the event combination being considered the system is necessary to assure:
- a. the integrity of the reactor coolant pressure boundary,
- b. The capability to shut down the reactor and maintain it in a safe shutdown condition, or
- c. the capability to prevent or mitigate the consequences of accidents which could result in potential off-site exposures comparable to the guideline exposures of 10 CFR 100.
Other piping systems are nonessential.
Essential piping may become nonessential piping in a later portion of an event combination if the piping is no longer required to perform a safety-related role during the event combination being considered or during any subsequent event combination. In all cases, piping shall be considered to be essential if it performs a safety-related role at a later time during the event combi-nation being considered or during any subsequent event combination.
2.2.9 Active and Inactive Component (Rows 10 through 13)
An active component is a pump or valve in an essenti al pining system which is required to perform a mechanical motion during the course of accomplishing a system safety function. Other pumps and valves are inactive components.
2.2.10 Containment Vacuum Breakers (Row 2)
Vacuum breaker valves mounted on the vent internal to the torus or on piping associated with the torus are Class 2 compoucnts.
1706 030 2-5
NEDO-24583-1 2.2.11 External Piping and Supports (Rowa 10 through 13)
- a. It is assumed that no Class 1 piping is of interest.
- b. Piping external to and penetrating the torus or the external vents, including the attachment weld to the torus or vent nozzle, is Class 2 piping. The other terminal end of such external piping must be datermined on the basis of function and isolation capability.
- c. Subsection NF supports for such external piping, including the welded or mechanical attachment to building structure and excluding any attachment welds to the piping or any other pressure retaining component, are Class 2 component supports.
2.2.12 Internal Piping and Supports (Rows 10 through 13)
Piping which is contained within the vents or torus and main steam safety relief valve piping contained within the torus, drywell, or external vents are Class 2 or Class 3 piping. If the piping penetrates the torus or a vent, the attachment weld to the nozzle is a piping weld. Supports for such piping are Class 2 or Class 3 co=pcacnt supports.
2.2.13 Internal Structures (Row 8)
Internal structures are non-safety-related elementr which are not pressure retaining such as:
- a. Supports for the items listed below, exclusive of the attachment welds to any pressure retaining member,
- b. Monorails.
- c. Ladders,
- d. Catwalks.
i706 031 2-6
NEDO-24583-1 2.2.14 vent Deflectors (Row 9)
Vent header flow deflectors and associated hardware, but not including any attachment welds to Class MC vessels, are considered to be internal structures.
1706 032 2-7/2-8
- 3. LOADINGS
3.1 INTRODUCTION
The background of load categorization is discussed in Subsections 1.5, 2.1.3, 2.2.3, and 2.3.4 of Reference 2. Included in Subsection 1.5 of that report are excerpts of the Code paragraphs applicable to this subject. The structural effects of the various loads and load combinations are to be evaluated and compared with certain design and service limits. These limits are discussed in Section 4 of this report. Component-Loadings-Combination-Service Limit assignments are contained in Section 5.
3.2 LOAD TERMINOLOGY The following table presents the symbols used to designate loads included in the load combinations addressed in Section 5. The loads are defined in either the Mark I Program Load Definition Report (LDR) (Reference 1) or in the FSAR for the unit. In case of conflicts the LDR loads shall be used.
SYMBOL DEFINITION N Normal loads D Dead load (included hydrostatic load)
L Live load T
g Thermal ef fects during operation T erma e ec s due to LOCA A
R Pipe reactions during operation g
R Pipe reaction due to LOCA EQ(0) Operating basis earthquake laads EQ(S) Safe shutdown earthquake loads SRV Loads induced by discharge of one or more safety relief valves as defined in the LDR 1706 033 3-1
e, NEDo-24583-1 SYMBOL DEFINITION P
A Quasi-static loads assocf 2ted with a ! .s
- LOCA events are indicated by:
SBA - Small Break Accident IBA - Intermediate Break Accident DBA - Design Basis Accident P
pg Loads due to DBA pool swell (transient pressure, impact, drag, etc.)
P L ads due to post-LOCA chugging CH P Loads due to post-LOCA condensation 0
oscillation 3.3 EVENT COMBINATIONS Event combinations are defined in Section 3 of the Load Definition Report (Reference 1). Table 3-1 of this document contains the top portion of the +
assignment charts contained in Section 5. The 27 event combinations identi-fied actually represent some larger number of load combinations, approximately 40, which are to be considered. This larger number results because more than a single type of safety relief valve actuation may have to be considered for each column which contains SRV discharges and because some columns cover both SBA and IBA events. An X indicates that the load in that row is to be considered for the event combination, o
3-2
y M N M M M M M M M M M
5-
+
o .
u O N M M M M M M M M e
+ 6 N M M M M M M M Q 4 E C N N M M M M M M N M M M M M M M
+
g . N M M M M M M g W N M M M M M M M O. C k M M M M M M M
+
e - M M M M M M f
$ C - M M M M M M
$6 ; M M M M M M 3
Q M M M M M M E M M M M M M M M M Z EE ".
O +, 8 .
N O - M M M M M' M M M a H ::
==
i <
M g ++ e C M M M M M M o 32 g$
e v a
o : M M M M M M H
$$ 85 M M M M y M M j =M C
- M M M M M M
g a e M M M M M M M EE $ o . M M M M M M M
+ +
jj M M M M M M M O 4 M M M M M
- M M M M M M 44 6 4 M M M M p M M M M M n+E O N M M M
- M M
= E $ # M 6
[ 6 8 E E
C M M 4 a 3 g
- 8 g . : :
E E - 8 3 : -;
E . : I : 1 "
28 3
o C
2 i j 4
W 2
3.
&B
~
1:
63 I
t *
} a- 6 M 2 I -
- Q u - , M .: 5 5o a C 5 u 3 e d a $t S Sa S 3-3/3-4
m ._
- 4. DESIGN AND SERVICE LIMITS
4.1 INTRODUCTION
As discussed in Subsection 1.5 of Reference 2, new terminology was introduced into the Code with the Winter 1976 Addenda to NA-2140. As an approximation, but not as an exact equivalent in intent or in application, the corresponding terms are:
Old E1E.
Design Condition Design Limits Normal Condition Level A Service Limit Upset Condition Level B Service Limit Emergency Condition Level C Service Limit Faulted Condition Level D Service Limit For purposes of this effort, a Level E Service Limit has been introduced.
4.2 CONSEQUENCE OF ASSIGNED SERVICE LIMITS 4.2.1 Level A Service Limit This level provides for complete evaluation of all possible failure modes, including fatigue, and applies factors of safety consistent with the expecta-tion that the events to which this level are assigned will actually occur.
That is, they represent the performance of normal service functions. Since the occurrence of such events has been anticipated and fully evaluated in the design, no operational action is required should the event occur.
4.2.2 Level B Service Limit For Class MC vessels and component supports, Level B Service Limite are the same as Level A Service Limits. For other components, Level B Service Limits
,_1 1706 036
~
NEDO-24583-1 are the same as those applied to Level A except that the primary stress allowable is increased to account for possible pressure accumulation when relief valves are actuated. For such components, the Design Pressure does not include this 10 percent accumulation, so that the higher allowable essentially permits acceptance of this condition without further analysis.
4.2.3 Level C Service Limit For components, the basic allowable stress value applicable to the Level A Service Limit is replaced by a higher value when the Level C Service Limit is imposed. In general, the basic membrane stress allowable is replaced by the higher of 1.2 S or S . The first of these values controls only for those m y austenitic or nonferrous alloys whose basic allowable stress is larger than 83 percent of S , so is of limited interest in the present application.
Similarly, increased limits are provided in Subsection NF for component supports.
The consequence statement in NA-2140 which is related to this level states that: "The occurrence of stress to Level C limits may necessitate the removal of the component from service for inspection or repair of damage to the com-ponent or support. Therefore, the selection of the limit shall be reviewed by the Owner for compatibility with established system safety criteria."
The interpretation of this statement is that:
- a. There is no belief, intended or implied, that pressure boundary leakage would occur.
- b. There is no expectation that operability or functionality would be impaired during or subsequent to the event for any component other than one in which dimensional control is most critical.
- c. Removal from service for ss.h inspection or repair is a judicious, conservative action consistent with normal nuclear practice.
1706 037 4-2
NEDO-24583-1 4.2.4 Level D Service Limit The consequence statement of NA-2140 which is related to this level states th& L "These sets of 'imits permit gross general deformations with some consequ<at loss of .ensf al stability and damage requiring repair, which may require .c oval of .ne component from service. Therefore, the selection of this lin_6 sb-11 be reviewed by the Owner for compatibility with established safaty crit ( .a." The interpretation of this statement is that:
- a. There is no belief, intended er implied, that pressure boundary leakage would occur,
- b. There is a possibility that operability of active elements could be impaired during and subsequent to the event.
- c. There is no expectation that deformations will be suf ficient to prevent fluid flow through a pipe or similar element.
4.2.5 Level E Service Limits This level is a special, ncn-Code, limit applicable to non-safety-related structural elements where element failure may be acceptable if such failure does not result in significant damage to safety-related items. For this purpose, failure shall be considered to occur at any point at which the Level Service Limit is exceeded. Therefore, it shall be an objective to be able to demonstrate that Level D Service Limits are satisfied. When this cannot be done, and the limit is exceeded at any one point on the element, the analy-sis must continue with a break at that point and the consequences evaluated.
If the limit is excceded at another point, the structure between the two points shall be considered to be unrestrained and it is required that the censequences be considered in evaluation of other elements to their respective limits.
1706 038 4-3
NED0-24583-1 4.3 DESIGN LIMITS It is not expected that Design Pressure and Design Temperature values used for initial construction will be changed as a result of the present program.
Therefore, no reevaluation for these limits is anticipated for the present structural elements.
If systems or portions of systems are replaced, or if new systems are added, it is expected the Design Limit requirements of the rules used for initial construction will be used following normal practices with respect to load definitions and allowable stress rules.
4.4 SERVICE LIMITS The service limits which follow are defined in terms of the Winter 1976 Addenda which introduced the Level A, B, C and D Service Limits. The perti-nent Coce paragraphs and the background are presented in Subsection 1.5 of Reference 2. In general, the design procedures to be followed are those through the Summer 1977 Addenda. However, later revisions of this Guide may include use of future Code revisions.
4.4.1 Class MC Containment Vessels Article NE-3000, covering the design of Class MC vessels is completely revised by the Summer 1977 Addenda, and these rules shall be used.
4.4.2 Class 2 and 3 Piping The design rules through the Summer 1977 Addenda to the Code shall be used.
4.4.3 Pumps and Valves The design rules for Class 2 and 3 pumps and valves through the Summer 1977 Addenda shall be used.
) 0 4-4
NEDO-24583-1 4.4.4 Linear-Type Component Supports The design rules for Class 2, 3, and MC linear-type supports through the Summer 1977 Addenda shall be used except as modified by the following:
- a. For bolted connections, the requirements of Service Limits A and B are applicable where Service Limits C and D are permitted without increase in the allowables above those applicable to Levels A and B.
- b. The increased stress level for the combined effects of mechanical loads and constraint of free-end displacements permitted by the last sentence of NF-3231.l(a) is for the primary-plus-secondary stress range.
- c. All increases in allowable stress permitted by Subsection NF (i.e.,
those allowed by NF-3231.l(a), XVII-2110(a), and F-1370(a)) are limited by XVII-2110(b) when buckling is a consideration.
4.4.5 Other-Type Component Supports The design rules through the Summer 1977 Addenda shall be used for types of component supports other than the linear-type.
4.4.6 Internal Structures The design rules fo.. Class 2, 3, and MC supports shall be used for internal structures.
1706 040 4-5/4-6
- 5. COMPONENT - LOADINGS - SERVICE LIMIT ASSIGNMENTS
5.1 INTRODUCTION
This section assigns combinations of structural elements, defined loads and load combinations, and service limits as a basis for structural evaluation.
5.2 FORMAT The assignment chart for other than piping systems and the Brunswick torus and liner included in Subsection 5.3 consists of a top portion which identifies 27 event combinations and loads, a left-side column which defines the nine applicable structural elements, and a 27 x 9 matrix of service limit assign-ments. The assignments for piping systems are shown in Subsectica 5.4 by similar 27 x 4 matrix.
The previ us text further defines each of the symbols in these charts. In particular:
cubsection 2.2 Structural Element Terminology and Boundaries Subsection 3.2 Load Terminology Subsection 3.3 Event Combinations Section 4 Service Limits Additional requirements are included in Subsections 5.3, 5.4, and 5.5.
Assignments for the Brunswich torus and liner are shown in Subsection 5.6 in a 29mewhat different format but with the same 27 columns.
5.3 CLASS MC COMPONENTS AND INTERNAL STRUCTURES The component-loadings-service level assignments for Class MC components and internal structures are given by Table 5-1.
1706 04i 5-1
nD a kpuCyg 7
S 2 X X X X X X X X C C C C C C C C D
.V H R
S C.
O 6
+ C O 2 X X X X X X X X C C C C C C C E D Q
E 5
+ 5 2 X X X X X X X C C C C C C C E D A
B D S 4 P 0 2 X X X X X X X C" C C C C C C E D V ,
R DH 3 S CC 2 X X X X X X X C C C C C C C E D
_ +
_ A S 2
_ B P 2 x X X X X X C C C C C C C E D
_ D
_ 1
_ $ 2 X X X X X X X C C C C C C C E D Q
F H
C.
D C 0 0
2 X X X X X X X B B B B B4) (
B B E D
_ +
_ S A 9 _.
_ E B D
5 1 x X X X X X C C C C C C C E D R ,
U
_ T S
_P O 8
1 X X X X X X B3C
(
.)
B35 B3
(
,)
(
)
B35
(
,)
B3(,5,
)
B35
,)
B E D C "
4 (
U R OH 7 )
CC X X X A A A A T A 1
gk X 4 A4
(
A E D S B D S1
)
6 .)
)
)
P( 1 x X X X I A36 A35 A3
,)
A35
,)
A3 5, ,)
A
_ L ( ( ( ( (4 A35
(
E D _
_ A _
N 5
_ R E
QQ EE H
S 1 X X X X X X X X C C C C C C C E D -
C.
T ++ O -
4 )
1 N C 0 1 X X X X X X X X B B B B B4 B B D D VV (
5
D ++ S 1 X X X X X X C C C C C C C E D e N AA l A B B SI 2
_ b a S T T O 1 X X X X X X B B B B B B D D
_ N E
1 X X X X X X X A A A A A4(
)
A A C C
_ N + +
1 X X X X X A A A A A A A C C _
r C 4Q 8 E H
C.
D C
S O
9 8
X x
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
C B
C B
C B
C B
C B4
)
C B
C B
D D C C M + +
( _
S AA S X X X 7 X X C C C C C C C D D
_ S 1 B 5I
_ A 0 6 X X X X X B B B B B B B C C
_ L C !
. ) -
- OH X X X X X X A 5 A A A A4 A A A A CC (
_ B B
_ SI 4 x X X X A A A A A A A A A
. l , ' '
5 3 X X X C C C C C C C C C V
- l i .!l I R + Q
.S E 0 2 X X X B B B B B B B B B l l V
R 1 S x X A A A A A A A A A
.f j l i '!
Q V
R 3 g
p g WO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 S
x E S T R P P P P R M R s E T e ) e I K E c n N C t t c ip s s r T A B i o E M an i s s r s t u 4 U M t l i l -( e m P J s d se d r t N Q U e
s a l t m s al m s 1 n) l nn l o c r I
H N g
n t e a g l s nelh i t e or e oo e p u o B 1 N
l o S w s n E a rdl c se n W i e W i c W p r t M R r a i - S nn i l e ,eauS e d td r d t n d u t c O A O ) e a a t t eo g L C t wt r s V nt aa e nt aw s nt S S e C E I 2 k h r c s l di g A xeyt o ,t an re d an ro r ane l T ( a c e a ae o nt u R l EprATsh l e t H a e tD e l l f T F A u s e ur o oa h U a iD , tt a l m e e l m e m l m a a e N
F O N I S a l
h q i D
n R Qu s
F Cl C T n s
,P sor r a n r
ah rc n , M ah n , o ah n n l
a D Dm l C r ,) e . rc e . c r c r r r T E P
B M A r t
r V A A As A Ai A e ut st d pt e ea P g t ea P g n ea e e e t t C C C e C C c C t rnwnl ps t nt . r nt .
w nt t t n n n O C
O o L N E a R S
O L
O L LDrP O
L Oa Ln O
L EEx oeoeeue Tvl VWSR I n et GA t e A(
e V
et GA t e A(
o D
et GA I n
I n e e G V gN
- CM
NEDO-24583-1 The following notes apply to Table 5-1:
(1) Where drywell to wetwell pressure differential is normally utilized as a load mitigator, an additional evaluation shall be performed
' without SRV loadings but assuming loss of the pressure differential.
In the additional evaluation, Level D Service Limits shall apply for all structural elements except Row 8 Internal Structures, which need net be evaluated. If drywell to wetwell pressure differential is not employed as a load mitigator, the listed Service Limits shall be upplicable.
(2) Normal loads (N) consist of the combination of dead loads (D),
live loads (L), 'hermal effects during operation (T ), and pipe reactions during operation (R ) .
(3) Evaluation of primary-plus-secondary stress intensity range (NE-3221.4) and of f atigua (NE-3221.5) are not required.
(4) When considering the limits on local membrane stress intensity (NE-3221.2) and primary-membrane-plus-primary bending stress intensity (NE-3221.3), the S value may be replaced by 1.3 S .
(NOTE: The modification to the limits does not affect the normal limits on primary-plus-secondary stress intensity range (NE-3221.4 or NE-3228.3) nor the normal limits on fatigue evaluation (NE-3221.5(e) or Appendix II-1500). The modification is that the limits on local membrane stress intensity (NE-3221.2) and on primary-membrane-plus-primary bending stress intensity (NE-3221.3) have been modified by using 1.3 S in place of the normal S .
This modification is a conservative approximation to results from limit analysis testing as reported in Reference 3 and is consistent with the requirements of NE-3228.2.)
1706 043 5-3
NEDO-24583-1 (5) Service Level Limits sper'fied apply to the overall structural response of the vent system. An additional evaluation shall be performed to demonstrate that shell stresses due to the local pool swell impingement pressures do not exceed Service Level C Limits.
(NOTE: The ratio of the dynamic collapse load to the static collapse load was established as permitted by Code Case N-197, and is reported in Reference 4.)
(6) For the torus shell, the S value may be replaced by 1.0 S, times the dynamic load factor derived from the torus structural model.
As an alternative, the 1.0 multiplier may be replaced by the plant unique ratio of the torus dynamic failure pressure to the static failure pressure.
(NOTE: The ratio of the dynamic collapse load to the static collapse was established as permitted by Code Case N-197 and is reported in Reference 5.)
5.4 CLASS 2 AND 3 PIPING SYSTEMS The component-loadings-service level assignments for Class 2 and 3 piping systems are given by Table 5-2. Operability and functionality requirements are included in Subsection 5.5.
The following notes apply to Table 5-2:
(1) Where drywell-to-wetwell-pressure dif ferential is normally utilized as a load mitigator, an additional evaluation shall be performed without SRV loadings but assuming the loss of the pressure differ-ential. Service Level D Limits shall apply for all structural elements of the piping system for this evaluation. The analysis need only be accomplished to the extent that integrity up to and including the first pressure boundary isolation valve is demonstrated, 1706 044 5-4
Table 5-2 CLASS 2 AND 3 PIPING SYSTEMS SRY SRV SBA SBA + EQ SBA + SkV SBA + SRV + EQ FVENT Cf*4RINATIONS + IBA I BA + E') IbA + SRV IBA + SRV + EQ DBA DBA + EQ DBA + SRV DBA + EQ + SRV CO, CO, PS CO, CO, CH Co CH CH CO.CH (1) Of PS CO,CH PS CH PS CO.CH TYPE OF EARTHQUAKE O S '
O S 0 $ 0 S O S O S O S 0 $ O S COMBINATION NUNBER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 J 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 LOADS Normal (2) N X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Earthquake EQ X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X SRV Discharge SRV X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Thermal Tg X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Pipe Pressure P X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Z IDCA Fool Swell P PS X X X X X X LOCA Condensation p g Oscillation CO X X X X X X X X X X U p LOCA Chugging P py X X X X X X X X X X X X STRUCTURAL El FNFNT ROW La3 l
H Essential Piping Systems i
With IBA/DBA 10 B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B 6 B B B B B (3) (3) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) l 4) (4) (4)
With SBA 11 B B B B B B B B B B B B - - - - * * * * * * * *
(3) ( 3) (4) (4) (4) (4) (3) (3) (4) (4) (4) (4)
Nonessential Piping Systems With IBA/DBA 12 B C D D D D D D D D D C D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5)
With SBA 13 C C D D D D D D D 3 D D - - - - - - - - - - - -
(5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (b (5) (5)
O Ch O
4 LT1
NEDO-24583-1 including operability of that valve. If the normal plant operating condition does not employ a drywell-to-wetwell pressure differential, the listed Service Level assignments shall be applicable.
(2) Normal loads (N) consist of dead loads (D).
(3) As an alternative, the 1.2S limit in Equation 9 of NC-3652.2 may h
be replaced by 1.8S Provided that all other limits are satisfied.
h Fatigue requirements are applicable to all columns with the exception of 16, 18, 19, 22, 24 and 25.
(4) Footnote 3 applies, except that instead of using 1.8S in Equation 9 h
of NS-3652.2, 2.4S may be used.
h (5) Equation 10 of NC or ND-3650 shall be satisfied, except that fatigue requirements are not applicable to columns 16, 18, 19, 22, 24 and 25, since pool swell loadings occur only once. In addition, if operability of an active component is required to ensure containment integrity, operability of that component must be demonstrated (see Subsection S.5).
5.5 OPERABILITY AND FUNCTIONALITY REQUIREMENTS With reference to the text of Subsection 5.4, operability means the ability to perform required mechanical motion, and functionality means the ability to pass rated flow.
5.5.1 Operability Active components shall be considered to be operable if Service Limits A or B are met, unless the original component design criteria establishes more con-servative limits. If the original component design criteria establish more 5-6 ) 0
NEDO-24583-1 conservative limits, conformance with these more conservative limits shall be demonstrated even if Service Limits A or B are met. If the original component design criteria are silent with respect to operability limits, satisfaction of Level A or B Service Limits shall be considered as sufficient to demonstrate operability.
l Active components which do not satisfy Service Limits A or B, and therefore either Service Limits C or D are satisfied, require demonstration of operability.'
If original component design criteria for operability exist, conformance with those criteria shall be demonstrated. If the original component design criteria are silent with respect to operability limits, operability limits shall be established and conformance with those criteria shall be demonstrated.
5.5.2 Functionality Functionality of piping components shall be addressed in a manner consistent with the original design criteria.
5.6 ERUNSWICK SUPPRESSION CHAMBER REQUIREMENTS 5.6.1 General The requirements of Subsections 5.3 through 5.5 apply to all structural ele-ments with the exception of the torus, which is a concrete vessel with a steel liner. The requirements for the torus and liner follow.
5.6.2 Concrete Containment Requirements The concrete containment shall satisfy the design requirements of ACI-318-63, Part IV-B, as modified by the BSEP-l&2 FSAR, Section C.2.6.1 with respect to the requirements that the capacity reduction factors be as stated therein and that steel reinforcing remain elastic. If the acceptance criteria are incom-plete in any way, the criteria of Article CC-3000,Section III, Division 2 1706 047 !
5-7 !
NEDO-24583-1 with Addenda through Summer 1977 shall be used. The Load Combinations and Load Factors shall be in accordance with Table 5-3 for the new loadings being considered. The load terminology contained in Table 5-3 is consistent with that used in Section 3.
The following notes apply to Table 5-3:
(1) Where drywell-to-wetwell pressure differential is normally utilized as a load mitigator, an additional evaluation shall be performed without SRV loadings but assuming the loss of the pressure differ-ential. All load f actors shall be taken as unity and the category shall be Abnormal / Extreme Environmental. If the normal plant oper-ating condition does not employ a drywell-to-wetwell pressure dif-ferential, the listed load factor and category shall be applicable.
(2) An additional evaluation shall be performed applying the following load factors and the normal category:
Load: D L T R SRV Factor: 1.0 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.3 5.6.3 Containment Liner The liner shall be evaluated for the various load combinations defined by Table 5-3 except that all load factors shall be taken as unity.
The liner shall be analyzed with consideration of the dynamic nature of the load, recognizing that the concrete wall provides restraint in one direction but only the concrete anchors provide support in the opposite direction.
Atmospheric pressure shall be considered to act between the liner and the concrete.
Self-limiting and other loads shall be considered and the Section III, Division 2 liner plate allowables of Table CC-3720-1 and the anchor allowables 1706 048 5-8
A_ d m o o e o o e e a
- a = = = = * * * * ; ; ; ; J4 4 .- '
., 5 s C
+ C
- m M M M M M M M j *
) -
y
- o e o e o o o e oo *
+ e ~ = = = = = = m ; ; ; ; ;;;;
2 a
e ;: . . , , , .
'* 9
=
f.f3 55 % = = = = = = = = *}
j $33 ; ; a M 2 c
+
~~ = = = m o o o o o o o a g 6 = ;; ; ;;;;
p - -
u
- 9. *.
9 9. *. * - -
C e ~
e w o o - e o - - -
g o m = = = = = = ;; ; ;; ; ;_ =
e = = = = = m
- 9. *- ".
9*.99 m
4 3 M G M M M N M M
@ . e e e 35 : = = = = = = =
k.. 9. *. 9 9" =
g g -- . - . --
O g ': e o e oo EE *
% ~
JJ A444 W
M a gg e
. 0 m m = = = m m w
- h. -9 .
9 999
. m mO .. ::
- * .~
g . . - - .o -
l H >>
$ J; a J 4J J J J *
@ U $E
.g d
g
- 2 " " " " " "
33 3 3 333 "
$a a <
c : - - - - - - 33 33- -
h 55 5) **
,933 33 3 ++
3 -
22 2 * * -
- 9
- .-- =
E F S W M M M M M M -
M M
g es c a . . . . . . . . e9
- e. ,
O 22 * * " " " "
- 33 3 333 =
s g c . . . . . = .s. s-98- -
- 4. - - . . . - 99 ** :
ea E *-
- - a a **. .
- c. L. ,
O -- .
W M M F e g
.e g, - - -
c - - - ; j j j -
Q }
3 9 32 3 -
. t i :.< 33 3 o - s. o . i <
. ~ .<333 Y -
- 5 : ?
7
? :
5
. 4 : : ! l s - i : : : ~: a t- I- :n f E t I : 1 *
!! 2 . . - 1;t-
- j. T !
- ju
? -
- 1. t 4 p 3 6 J g? 2 1;: y 6 f F2 #:
- : j;9 5
t At
- 1 l, i ;a i3:t i "l 2 z c
!c !: ,! E:
si ;s g!
- :: 2: 2
- -!i a a
- n la ii 2i
?)21
- i :
. ;j2
- 0 31 i ! i !i 8i i j= !
- n
~
6m m c 3aasize<i[es 1706 049 3-9
NEDO-24583-1 of Table CC-3730-1 shall be satisfied. In addition, combined mechanical negative pressure loads and self-limiting loads shall satisfy the criteria identified by the Service Level designations of Row 1 of Table 5-1 for the equivalent load combinations.
1706 050 5-10 ,
- 6. ANALYSIS GUIDELINES
6.1 INTRODUCTION
This section provides guidance with respect to minimum analysis methods to be employed in the Plant Unique Analysis. In general, it is intended that the analysis methods be comparable to those currently being used in design of new plants.
The analysis will encompass all structural elements identified in Subsection 1.2 herein, and will consider the loadings indicated in Subsection 3.2 herein. The aaalyses will provide information in sufficient detail to allow evaluation against all provisions of the structural acceptance criteria as identified in Section 5 herein. A summary technical report on the analysis will be submitted to the NRC for each plant, similar to the FSAR section on containment analysis for a new plant.
6.2 GENERAL GUIDELINES The following general guidelines are applicable for all structural elements to be analyzed.
- a. Analysis will be performed in accordance eith the guidelines herein, for all loads defined by the LDR. For those loads considered in the original design, but not redefined by the LDR, it shall be acceptable either to use results of the original analysis, or te perform new analyses which may be based on the methods employed in the original plant design.
- b. The identification of 27 or more event combinations does not require performance of a complete evaluation for each such event combination in the plant unique analysis. Only limiting cases need be considered.
However, the fatigue effects of all operational cycles must be considered.
1706 05; 6-1
- c. If the combined <.dfect of loads defined by the LDR does not produce stresses in a given structural element greater than 10 percent of the allowable value, then no further evaluation of that structural element is required. The 10 percent rule must be satisfied for each load combination and its associated Service Limits, as specified by the Structural Acceptance Criteria. The calculations which demonstrate conformance with the 10 percent rule must be included in the Plant Unique Analysis report.
- d. Damping values used in the dynamic nnalyses will be in accordance with the NRC Regulatory Guide 1.61 position.
6.3 COMBINATION OF STRUCTURAL RESPONSES For loads resulting from two dynamic phenomena, the structural responses shall be combined in the following manner,
- a. Absolute Sum Method As a general rule, use the absolute sum cf the stress components
- computed for the individual loading transients. Time phasing of the two loading transients will be such that the combined state of stress results in the maximum stress intensity.* Note that an upper bound for this stress intensity for the loading combination is the summation of the maximum stress intensities computed for each individual load case. This bounding method obviates the need for consideration of time phasing.
- b. CDF Method Use the combined stress intensity vclue corresponding to 84 percent probability of nonexceedance from the Cumulative Distribution Function (CDF) if the absolute sum method does not satisfy the structural acceptance criteria. The CDF will be generated using a
- The terms " stress component" and " stress intensity" are used in the context of ASME Code pressure vessel rules. The general approach described herein is also applicable to piping evaluation. The terms " individual moment component" and " stress" replace " stress component" and " stress intensity" respectively for the piping evaluation.
i706 052 6-2
NEDO-24583-1 response parameter from the analysis for the two individual load cases. The response parameter selected shall be a reliable indicator of the stress levels in the portion of the structure for which the CDF is utilized. For example, assume the CDF method is used for superpositica c f ring girder stresses. Further assume that the dominant structural behavior for both loading transients has been identified to be ring ovalization. The response parameter (indicator) for generation of the CDF would be the change in ring diameter as a function of time. The CDF abscissa value corresponding to an ordinate value of 84 percent would be used to compute a reduction factor to be applied to the stress intensity
- computed by the at-Mute sum method. The reliability of the indicatt selected shall be demonstrated in the stress report. If more than one response parameter is used, the CDF which results in the most conservative reduction factor will be used.
6.4 TORUS ANALYSIS
- a. Finite element analysis will be performed to evaluate the effects of specified pressures on the torus shell. The finite element model wul __ _..ent the most highly loaded segment of the torus, including the shell, ring girdee and supports. Time history dynamic analysis will be performed for hydrodynamic loads, and static analysis will be performed for normal and other loads making up the load combinations.
- b. Overall effects of seismic and other nonsymmetric loads will be evaluated using beam models. The beam models will represent at least 180* of the torus, including the columns and seismic restraints.
Dynamic effects will be considered using either dynamic load factors or time history dynamic analysis.
- The terms " stress component" and " stress intensi.ty" are used in the context of ASME Code pressure vessel rules. The general approach described herein is also applicable to piping evaluation. The terms " individual moment component"
- and " stress" replace " stress component" and " stress intensity" respectively for the piping evaluation.
1706 053 6-3
- c. If the upward phase of loading results in net tensile forces in columns with consequent nonlinear behavior, a separate nonlinear analysis will be performed to predict response. The nonlinear analysis will be carried out on a time history basis, using a spring-mass model of the torus and supports.
- d. Each torus nozzle will be analyzed for the effect of reactions imposed by the attached piping. The methods given in WRC 107 (Bijlaard formulas) will be used for most nozzles. Finite element analysis will be performed for any nozzle not falling within the limits of validity of the Bijlaard formulas,
- e. For the special case of the Brunswick concrete torus, a finite element analysis will be performed to assess the effect of specified pressures on the torus vall. A separate analysis will be performed to evaluate the liner and anchorage system, using a finite element model of a representative liner section with its anchors. Time history analysis will be performed for the hydrodynamic loads, and static analysis will be performed for normal and other loads making up the load combinations.
6.5 VENT SYSTEM ANALYSIS The analysis will include the vent penetration in the drywell; the vent pipes, ring header, downcomers and their intersections; the vent column supports; the vent-torus bellows; the vacuum breaker penetration; and the vent deflectore (if any). The followinc guidelines are applicable to the vent system analysis.
- a. Finite element analysis will be performed to evaluate local effects in the ring header shell and douncomer intersections. The finite element model will represent the most highly loaded portion of the ring header shell, in the "non-vent" bay, with the downcomers attached. Time history dynamic analysis will be performed for the pool swell transient, and equivalent static analysis will be performed for the donwcomer lateral loads.
1706 054 6-4
- b. Overall effects of seismic and other nonsymmetric loads will be evaluated using beam models. The beam model will represent at least 180* of the vent system, including the vent pipes, ring header and column supports. Dynamic effects will be considered using either dynamic load factors or time history dynamic analysis.
- c. Beam models will be used for analysis of the vent deflectors.
- d. In the evaluation of the vent support columns for pool swell, appropriate superposition of reactions from the vent deflectors and ring header will be considered.
6.6 TORUS INTERNALS The analyses will include catwalks with supports, monorails and miscellaneous internal piping. The analysis will be based on hand calculations or simple computer beam models. Dynamic effects will be considered using dynamic load factors and equivalent static analysis. In caaes where Service Level D or E is specified in the structural acceptance criteria, the simplified nonlinear analysis technique such as the Bigg's Method may be used.
6.7 TORUS ATTACHED PIPING An analysis will be performed for each piping system attached to the torus.
The summary technical report submitted to NRC shall designate the categoriza-tion as essential or as nonessential for each piping cystem under each load combination. Each analytical model will represent the piping and supports from the torus attachment point to the first rigid anchor, or to the point where effects of torus motion are demonstrated to be insignificant. Dynamic effects of torus motion at the attachment point will be considered using either response spectrum or time history analysis. However, for all piping systems less than six inches in diameter, equisalent static analysis may be performed with torus movement amplified to account for dynamic effects imposed at the attachmer.t point. In the stress analysis, effects of the anchor displace-ment due to torus motion may be excluded from Equation 9 of NC or ND-3652.2 if they are included in Equations 10 and 11 of NC or ND-3652.3.
1706 055 6-5
m.
NEDO-24583-1 6.8 SAFETY RELIEF VALVE DISCHARGE PIPING An analysis will be performed for each safety relief valve discharge line.
The analytical model will represent the piping and supports, from the nozzle at the main steam line to the discharge in the suppression pool. The analytical model will include the discharge device and its supports. Time history dynamic analysis will be performed for the safety relief valve discharge thrust loads. Dyramic effects of other loads will be considered using either response spectrum analysis or dynamic load factors.
1706 05r6 6-6
NED0-24583-1
- 7. REFERENCES
- 1. Load Definition Report, prepared by personnel of the Boiling Water neactor Systems Engineering Department, General Electric Company, December 1978 (NEDO-21888).
- 2. Structural Acceptance Criteria Containment System Design Rules and Classification, prepared for General Electric Company by Teledyne Engineering Services, April 1978 (NED0-24522).
- 3. Limit Analysis of Douncomer-Ring Header Intersection, prepared for General Electric Company by Bechtel Power Corporation, August 1979 (NEDO-21887).
- 4. Analysis to Justify Increased Allouable Stresses for the khrk I Vent Header When Subjected to Pool Suell Impa t Loading, prepared for General Electric Company by Engineering Decision Analysis Company, May 1978 (NED0-24529).
- 5. Basic Torus Shell Analysis, prepared for General Electric Company by Bechtel Power Corporation, February 1979 (NEDO-21991).
1706 057 7-1/7-2
NUCLEAR ENERGY DIVISIONS e GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95125 GENER AL h ELECTRIC TECHNICAL INFORMATION EXCHANGE TITLE PAGE AUTHOR SUBJECT TIE NUMBER 79NFD125 730, 790 8^Qber1979 TITLE Mark I Containment Program GE CLASS Structural Acceptance Criteria I Plant Unique Analysis Application GOVERNMENT CLASS Cuide - Task 3.1.3 REPRODUCIBLE COPY FILED AT TECHNICAL NUMBER OF PAGES SUFMRT SERVICES, R&UO, SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95125(Mail Code 211) 43
SUMMARY
The purpose of the Plant Unique Analysis Application Guide (PUAAG) is to ensure that the structural acceptance criteria are applied consistently by those evaluating each of the specific containments for the utilities. The assignments included herein are con-sidered to be conservative, but are subject to change as a result of additional efforts of the Mark I Con-tainment Program. Revisions of these assignments are subject to NRC review.
This report has been prepared by the Mark I Containment Program Structural Acceptance Criteria Working Group Representatives for the General ,
Electric Company.
By cutting out this rectangle and folding in half, the above information can be fit 1ed into a standard card file.
DOCUMENT NUMBER NEDO-24583-1 INFORMATIGN PREPARED FOR Nuclear Fuel an.d Services Division SECTION Material and Technical Services i
BUILDING AND ROOM NUMBER 1887-12,20 M AIL CODE 864 NED414 (6/77)
5 e .
o W
- {
I a -
.W \
w T-w
.-_.,...--.-g .-.---e.g- -e. -- .. . - + . . . - ~ .-- .,s -- . - - - - - -
- ,-- - 1 _ . , , _ v -., ,. ..y s a:.y...m---s F." _' .=4----==--
s ~.:....._-...-.-..--.-__w.-_. _ ._ . _ ' . ... .. .. . r_ - - - . . . .. .:
_ -... . L .- - - ~ 7 w , . -
- c h
t l
i 3
- m. . _ 7 - . _ .e. ..- - - . .
. . .. = .
.,_,,-____7 a
. . _ . *'.. ..,..,_.....~...s.-.-.-----..m
---m..__..m..-=A_
.s.$_.*-,-_7- -
ft . * ....... . . . . _ . . _ .._ _.._....,..........,.-.~,_-____A.
N
.w s.
~ - ~ ..
, ., . -- . . - ~ _ - , . , . . . . - - - - . . . 7 .- . .- . ,. . . , .,-
, , M' g .h ^ *
= ,