ML19289E904
| ML19289E904 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | La Crosse File:Dairyland Power Cooperative icon.png |
| Issue date: | 05/23/1979 |
| From: | Linder F DAIRYLAND POWER COOPERATIVE |
| To: | James Keppler NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| References | |
| LAC-6314, NUDOCS 7905290417 | |
| Download: ML19289E904 (16) | |
Text
1 DA1R YLAND POWEll C00l*ER.t TIVE Sa Grone. Ofhu.a,e 54601 May 23, 1979 D**
/P O v f,
In reply, please
,d dl d
- 2 refer to LAC-6314 DOCKET NO. 50-409 Mr. James G.
Keppler Regional Director U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Directorate of Regulatory Operations Region III 799 Rcosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137
SUBJECT:
DAIRYLAND POWER COOPERATIVE LA CROSSE BOILING WATER REACTOR (LACBWR)
PROVISIONAL OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-45 IE BULLETIN NO. 79 SEISMIC STRESS ANALYSIS OF SAFETY RELATED PIPING
Reference:
(1)
NRC Letter, Keppler to I-inder, dated April 14, 1979.
Dear Mr. Keppler:
The following information is presented in response to IE Bulletin No. 79-07 enclosed with Reference 1.
- 5y i Identify uhich, if any, cf the methods specified belou vere empicyed cr vere used in compu
- er codes for the seismic analysis of safety related piping in your plant av
- d provide : list of safety systems (or por:icns : hereof) affec te d Response Spectrum k'cdel Analysis:
a.
A l geb raic (:onsidering signs) summation cf the codirectional spatial components (i.e.,
algebraic summation of the maximum values cf the codirec:ional responses caused by each cf the components of earthquake motion at a particular point in the mathematicai ~odet).
b.
Algebraic (considering signs) summation of the codiree:ional inter model responses (i.e.,
for the number of modes considered, the maximum values of response for each mcde summed
!gebraic-
/ll48
$23 A g,-
pol EP /32 g
[dSO S J ll ggw
- l 79052 90W7
/
.t Mr. James G.
Keppler LAC-6314 May 23, 1979 Regional Director 99 m
. cg
,S.
a o ju o
- inc History Analysis:
a.
A:gebraic summaticn cf the codirectionc: maximum respenses or the tinc dependent respcnsee due to each cf the ac~ponen:s cf earthquake motion acting simu::anecus:y when the earthquake directional motione are not s tatic:ica::y indepe nden t.
RESPONSE
None of the methods identified in Item 1 above were used in the seismic analysis of the LACBWR piping system.
ITEM 2 Provide complete computer program listings fcr the dynamic recycnec analysis pcrtione for the codes uhich employed the techniques identified in Item 1 above.
RESPONSE
Not applicable since none of the methods identified in Item 1 were used in the seismic analysis of the LA BWR piping system.
- E.
3 Verify that all piping computer programe vere checked against either piping benchmark prob: ens or compared tc cther piping computer pro-grams.
You are requested to identify the benchmark probleme and/cv the computer programs that cere used for such verifications or describe in detail hcu it uas determined that these programa yielded appropriate results (i.e.,
gave reeutts uhich corresponded tc the correct performance of their intended methcdology).
RESPONSE
The PIPESD (PIPE static and dynamic analysis) computer code used in the seismic / stress analysis of the LACBWR safety related piping system has been developed by URS/ John A. Blume and Associates, Engineers of San Francisco, California.
Professor Graham H.
Powell of the University of California at Berkeley originally formulated PIPESD.
Various benchmark problems and the computer programs that were used in the verification are given in Attachment A to this letter.
This information is taken from Control Data Corporation, CYBERNET SERVICES PIPESD User Information Manual (Publication No. 84000100).
2048
$24 2-
i Mr. James G.
Keppler LAC-6314 "D
l May 23, 1979 Regional Director D^*D
- D
, S.
f o e ju o
- EM 4 ll any of the ne thods listed in
- em 1 are identified, subni: a plan of action and an estinaced schedule for the re-evaluation cf the safe ty re:ated piping, sup por:s, and equipment affec:cd by :hese analysis :echniques.
Alec provide an estimate of the degree to uhich the capabi:ity cf the plar : to safely uithstand a seismic event in the interin is impac:ed.
RESPONSE
Not applicable.
The following LACBWR safety related piping systems have been seismic-ally analyzed.
The computer program used in the analysis and the document number /date of the seismic / stress analysis report is also shown below.
Piping System Program Used Document No./Date 1.
Recirculation Piping PIPESD Version 4.0 NES 81A0089, Nov. 17, System 1975 2.
Feedwater Piping PIPESD Version 4.0 NES 81A0087, June 18, System 1975 3.
Main Steam Piping PIPESD Version 4.0 NES 81A0088, Aug.
1, System 1975 4.
High Pressure Core PIPESD Version 4.0 NES 81A0090, July 9, Spray Piping System 1976 Suction Line 5.
High Pressure Core PIPESD Version 4.0 NES 81A0091, May 10, Spray Piping System 1977 Discharge Line 6.
Fuel Storage Pool PIPESD Version 5.2 5101-454, Jan. 31, Drain Line Piping 1979.
System The seismic analysis of these piping systems have been performed using response spectrum modal superposition methods of dynamic 2048
>25 Mr. James G.
Keppler LAC-6314 Regional Director May 23, 1979 analysis.
For piping system 1 through 5, the horizontal spectra in either the global X-direction or the global Z-direction are applied simultaneously with the vertical spectra in the global Y-direction.
The seismic analysis of the fuel storage pool drain line piping system has been performed in accordance with the require-ments of Regulatory Guide 1.92 (all three directions of earthquake applied simultaneously).
Authorization for this response to be submitted beyond the ten (10) day reporting period was granted by Region III to Mr. Shimshak on May 22, 1979.
If there are any questions concerning this response, please contact us.
Very truly yours, DAIRYLAND PCWER COOPERATIVE Frank Linder, General Manager FL:RES:af cc:
U. S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Inspection and Enforcement Division of Reactor Operations Inspection, Washington, D. C.
20555 2048
$26 D**D ]fNl@
j eoJ O.
2 i
AracMMZn r ?.
g PIPESD VERIFICATION BENCHMARKS F
The Appendix gives brief descriptions of several PIPESD vertiteation benchmark analyses.
Each henchmark problem contains a description of the piping system model used in the analysts and the loading conditions considered. Problem references are provided for the reader who desires more detailed descriptions of the benchmark problems. Any differences between the PIPESD structured models and the structural models presented in the problem references are indicated in this report.
Comparisons of PIPESD calculation results with results obtained using other analysts programs or experimental measurements are presented in tabular form for each benchmark analysis performed.
2048 527 0
4 44000100 F-1
Benchmark 1%blem:
1 Type of Analysts:
Calculation of Resonant Frequencies of a Dree-Dimensional Piping Sys tem Compa rison:
Experimental hicasurements vs ANSYS vs PIPESD Problem
Reference:
Problem No.1, Pressure Vessel and Piping -- 1972 Computer Prmrams Vertitention A. S. 51. E., New York, New York,1972.
This problem presents a comparison of PIPESD calc. lated mode shapes and frequencies with compa-2 tational results generated by ANSYSI and experimcatally obtained by Crede. De structure used in the Crede experiment is shown la Figure F-1 and the mathematical model used by ANSYS and PIPESD is shown in Figure F-2.
A thorough problem description is given in the Problem Referer.ce and is not duplicated here. Table F-1 summartres the Crede, ANSYS, and PIPESD calculation results for reson-ar.t frequenceis and excitation directions.
2048 528 i
i.
1.
Susason, J. A., ANSYS: Engineering Analysis System User's Mantral, Saranson, Analysis Systems, Inc., Elizabeth, Peresylvadia,1972, 2.
Crede, C. E., Shock and V!bration Concepts in Engineering Design, Prentice Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
F-2 94000100
)
/
v v
v Figure F-1.
CREDE Experiments! Sfodel m
7 10 11 g
2" 12 8
16,9 13 03 7
6 34 5
14 g,37 Y
15,,
n I
Figure F-2.
ANSYS and PIPESD Mathematical Idealization of Structure
[f).$ h j } }
84000100 F-3
E TABLE F-1.
CALCULATED AND h1EASURED FREQUENCIES FOR A TH11EE-Dih1 ENS 10NAL PIPING SYSTEh!
f Excitation Directionst Stode Resonant Frequency, eps l
hiessured ANSYS PIPESD hfeasured ANSYS PIPESD (C rede)
(Crede) 1 110 111.5 111.2 l
x x
x 2
117 115.9 115.8 l
z 2
z 3
134 137.6 137.1 l
x, z x, z x, z 4
214 218.0 215.8 l
y, z y, 2 x, z 5
l 359 404.2 404.2 l
x y
y 6
l 382 l
422.7 422.6 l
y y
y 7
416 451.7 451.5 l
y z
z 8
553 554.0 549.9 ll z
z z
9 697 735.7 733.4 ll y
y y
10 l
S21 762.3 759.3 ll x, y x
x i
[
11 853 f,52. 6 851.1 ll y
x x
12 885 894.1 891.9 ll x
x, y y
13 899 910.2 892.8 x, y x, y x, y a
h b
t t-\\
h T
048
$30 i
r I
A t For ANSYS and P!PESD the excitation directions are the directions with significant mass participation factors.
84000100 F -4
Denchmark Problem: 2 Type of Analysis:
Thermal Load Case and Section III Stresses Calculations for Equations 9,10,11 Comparison:
PIPESD vs ADLPIPE I
l Problem 11eference:
ADLPIPE Static-Thermal-Dynamic Pipe Stress Analysis Arthur D. Little, Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts, January 1971.
3 s
This problem compares PIPESD and ADLP!PE results for a single static load case (thermal) plus I
resulta for Section !!! stresses for Equations 9,10, and 11. De piping system for the sample problem l
1s shown in Figure F-3 and is described in detail in the ADLPIPE User's Manual. Because PfPESD 4
does not have a reducer element input option, the pipe connecting nodes 12 and 13 in the PIPESD model 1
was given,roperties similar to the pipe connecting nodes 13 and 14 (see F!gure F-3 for the number!ng i
scheme). Table F-2 presents comparative displacement and member force results for the PIPESD and ADLPIPE solutions at selected nodes. Table F-3 presents comparative results for Section III stresses for Equations 9,10, and 11. In general, the solutions are in excellent agreement.
1 t
$4000100 F-5
h Collar - Free X Trans.
g Free X Rotat.
b Q = PIPESD Node Ntrters
@ = ADt. PIPE Nede Numbers 20.
g W
c Rod Hanger 2.66bygs.25 9
/'
@G 10.
O
.,,g @
3 g
h 1.083 T@q 10.
o Y
a 10 z/\\x
@ q)
)
Figure F-3.
PIPESD vs. ADLPIPE Mathematical Model zo48
$32 suomo F6
h TABLE F-2.
PIPESD vs ADLP!PE COMPARATIVE R ESULTS Node ADLPIPE Displacements, in.
PIPESD Displacements. In.
(PIPESD Model) x y
z x
y z
7
-1.049 0.263
-1.176
-1. 04 8 0.2653
-1.176 11
-2.123 0.
O.
-2.123 0
O.
14
-1.260 0.168
-1.334
-1.260 0.1677
-1.334 16
-0.567
- 0. OM 0.649
-0.5672 0.0041
-0.6691 Member End ADLPIPE Moments. in-lb PIPESD Momentst, in-lb (PIPESD Model) x y
z x
y z
2-3 3
80798.
-130365.
89102.
80733
-130349.
93095.
6-7 7
80799.
158833.
910.
90793.
158950 907.5 10-11 11 0
-124124
-8 119.
O.
-124124 87115.
13-14 14
-23953.
166053
-14139, 23962.
166055
-14137 16-17 17 12704
-271360
-14791.
-12702.6
-271383
-14788.
'e t PIPESD moments have been translated from local (member) cocrdinate output to global coonlinate output 3 correspond to ADLP!PE convention.
2048 533 4
.-i-
,.7
{
TABLE F-3 COMPARATIVE PIPESD vs ADLPIPE SECTION UI IlENDING MOMENT RESULTS Memiser End Member / Connection Equadon 9 Equation 10 Equation 11 (PIPESD Model)
Type ADLPIPE PIP ESD ADI. PIPE PIPESD ADLPIPE PIPESD 1-2 1
Butt Weld 5901.9 5901.4 5901.4 5301.4 10623.3 10622.4 2-3 3
Curved Pipe 15139.8 15133.6 20177.4 20177.4 20186.4 20177.4 6-7 7
Welding Tee 19165.6 20077.3 26769.7 25554.2 26769.7 26769.7 12-13 13 Butt Weld. Hed.
5653.4 5854.5 7610.8 7610.8 7609.5 7610.8 14-15 15 Curved Pipo 28393.3 28392.8 37857.1 37857.1 37857.7 37857.1 7-8 8
Butt Weld 6307.9 6307.9 6307.5 6307.5 11354.3 11353.4 9-10 10 Curved Pipe 12267.9 122GG.4 16355.1 16355.1 1G357.2 1G355.1 10-11 11 Girth Fillet 7369.8 7369.8 11054.7 11054.7 22109,8 221C3.4 rs C
b CC u
k h
f 88 8
9 O
s D
D**D *D'T}
Denchmark Problem: 3 oo o
3 Type of Analysis:
Response Spectrum Analysis of Pipe Network Comparison:
PIPESD vs P!PDYN and SAP-IV Problem
References:
Constructulon 3dustry Programs, P!PDYN: Dvnsmic Analvals of Plotng Sys-tems. Computer Sciences Corporation, Los Angeles, California.
Dathe, K. J., Wilson, E. L., and Peterson,. F. E., SA P IV - A Structural Analvsis Program for Static and Dynamle Response of Linear Ss stems. Report No. EERC 73-11, University of California, Derkeley, California,1973 This problem compares PIPECD and SAP IV or P!PDYN results for a response spectrum analysis of the pipe assemblage shown in Figure F-4 The problem is taken from Construction todustrv Programs, PtPDYN: Dynamie Analysts or Piping Systems, and is described in detail in that manual.
The single dynamic load case consists of the response spectrum shown in Figure F-5 applied simultaneously in the hori: ental and vertical (= : /3 hort:ontal) directions.
of the sum of the squares summation of the lowest five modes.The analysis results represent a sqt.are root Table F-4 presents comparative period calculations for P!PESD and P!PDYN, and Table F-5 compares local a 11rection member end moments for all three programs.
In general, excellent correspondence between P!PESD and PIPDYN or SAP results were obtained.
~
2048 535 O
)
84000100 P-1
1
.1
- ~
t l
i
~
l@
N Q
e I@
g/
..Y g
G
^
'N
.O
/./
,/
/
r 2048
$36
\\
Figure F-4 PIPDYN and SAP-IV vs. P!PESD Stathematical 5todel
.g F-10 84000100
l 11 8
A l
S O
o' n
o=a 6",.e c'
.c E
8 8
/
d 7
f 2
b i
5 e
8 3
1 s
il
}
3 r,
e
~
E
.E.
o u
e
/
5 V
t o
O If o
/
i
/'
e 4
\\
o
%l g
1 0b t._
nn o
l
\\
E h
M 2
O P
o 6
6 9
9 c
o d
D ug uolitJatas::y asuodsay onm" di)48
$37 F-I!
O TABLE F-4 NATURAL PERIODS FOR PROBLEh! 3 Mode Period, sec.
Number PIPDYN PIPESD 1
0.6883 0.6883 2
0.2282 0.2282 3
0.1253 0.1253 4
0.0968 0,0968 5
0.0845 0.0845 TABLE F-5.
COMPARISON OF MOMENT RESULTS FOR PRODIEM 3 Element M in local member coordinates Number PIPDYN SAP IV PIPESD 1
377.0 376.9 377.01 2
30.68 30.67 30.682 2
152.9 152.9 152.93 4
100.6 100.6 100.6 C
83.27 S3.27 83.263 6
46.19 46.17 46.200 7
1.082 1.081 1.0817 8
21.81 21.59 21.808 9
7.038 7.052 7.038 10 7.571
- 7. 537 7.572 11 160.4 160.3 160.J77 12 78.09 7 8. 07 79.096 13 25.80 26.08 25.804 2048 538
.)
9 F-12 44000100