ML19291C046
| ML19291C046 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/11/1979 |
| From: | Mattu R NRC - TMI-2 UNRESOLVED SAFETY ISSUES TASK FORCE |
| To: | Hanauer S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| REF-GTECI-B-06, REF-GTECI-PI, REF-GTECI-RV, TASK-B-06, TASK-B-6, TASK-OR NUDOCS 8001110161 | |
| Download: ML19291C046 (9) | |
Text
-/ i c 6o ]
/
J UNITED STATES f
o,,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y
g E
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
,o NOTE T0: Dr. S. Hanauer, Director, Unresolved Safety Issues, NRR FROM:
R. K. Mattu, Unresolved Safety Issues, NRR i'
SUBJECT:
Mh
- IL A 2.s N k
'm he*
DMc" c
I made a presentation to the ACRS Subcommittee on Combinations of Dynamic Loads on the afternoon of 7/11/79. Attached herewith are the copies of viewgraphs that I used for my presentations.
The brief presentation basically dealt with the following items:
(1) History of load combination (GDC-2 etc..),
(2) Task Action Plan B-6, as it was originally envisioned, (3) Modified TAP B-E, (4)
Publication of NUREG 0484 Supplements 1 and 2, (5) The kind of loads and load combinations, (6)
Contract work at BNL, and (7) A brief description of Kennedy-Newmark Criteria.
I asked the Subcommittee to give us a full day so that we car present to them details of the work done by us and BNL.
I also asked them to invite industry and especially Dr. Kennedy and Dr. Newmark so that they can tell the Subcommi-tee their criteria and reason / rationale for it.
The Subcommittee agreed to hear us, in detail August 22, 1979 Following Subcommittee Members were present: Mr. Bender, Dr. Shewmon, and Mr. Etherington along with several consultants.
Following NRC Staff members were present:
R. Mattu, R. Bosnak, W. Anderson, L. Shao, J. Richardson, J. O'Brien, G. Bagehi, and R. Gamble.
M R. K. Mattu Unresolved Safety Issues Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 1734 176 8 001110 /d!
R. x. maC 2 7f3 P TASK ACTION PLAN B-6 LOADS, LOAD COMBINATIONS ANDSTRESSLIMITS I.
Identify all current regulations, guides, positions etc. for treating loads (responses) in combination.
II.
Identify intent of how each item covered in I was meant to be used; cover scope in terms of systems, plant areas, etc. meant to be included.
III. Current treatment of environmental and postulated event scenarios and loads in combination for various systems, fuel, and structures.
IV. Develop rationale for decoupling effects of specific loads now treated in combination.
V.
Development of loads, load combinations for which specific systems, fuel supports, structures have to be designed.
VI. Load Combination Methodology a) Various methods and limits b) Extend NUREG 0484 c) Response combination and load combination.
VII. Stress Limits a) Concept of probability of occurrence and stress limit b) Proper choice of service limit for stress / strain, each load or load combination c) Consideration of operability and functional capability VIII. Develop SRP, Reg. Guide, Regulation Changes 1734 177
%yk Id I
8 I
I!
i I I.8 eI I8I 8
ilI 1 l II l8 8 I
- a 4
Y Y
R D
T
~
T O
E
)AE BL F
)
T I
I P
R S
DA LN DI G
AI I
YE A R UOR
)
I BR '.
GR OE A
E N P)
E L AW V O
AFP T
ST E
ES N
LN LT F DP)
S OR N N I
NP L
O R
R U t
OY S R F AOE I
I OP(. M I
G I
R TT I
LAY S
L N H
S O.
SB) CDM R
T
S R ENUA(
U l.,.
D PAI S H B)
E L
B O APNI tLAM B
A A A
D TMLl MLENRL V R S
TI T
.P) DL
/
/
i
/
NF W
B EO NK O FOOE E
H TOV E
N g
R RGUY E MC(BMC( ECN(T B
M PARDWg CE(
T TfI t
B
(
M e
Me e
e M
e e
e
=
i 7
S E
R.
R RN 4
q C
B S
M fM O
OE h
C Y T I
D T S )G MS
&T B S g
Y I
B R AA L S G
S -
OE S
R T
BOE E R
L E
/
. E A N R.
DS
?.FRM B NITII l
LIPA R
A &
g C
OD UN I
R YRlE E DCI R P (S
- R O
3 TI I
l N
LS R
S CO CA M
e e
S S
,N 8
S DH U T DI T B D AT R N O
E O
TO
/
TI P B LMSC AM A E
O NL T S
e I
3I 1 g s,: l Il g
,1 IlI i
,l I 1 Ill I 3 IgII Y
d RT C
S M.I gE M BM F.
U S
E GI MAD D
A OC ONA M
N S
I S
CY O P
A EU BN DL A
R lR I
E KNO UOF L
MWR O
C G
O U
.N O
- NU5 ~h
RL4 MODIFIED TAP B-6
~
LOADS, LOAD COMBINATIONS AND STRESS LIMITS PHASE 1.
LOAD COMBINATIONS AND STRESS LIMITS FOR MECHANICAL SYSTEMS AND c
COMPONENTS (a)
NUREG 0484 SUPPLEMENT 1 EXTENSION OF SRSS METHODOLOGY FOR COMBINING DYNAMIC RESPONSES DUE TO LOCA AND SSE TO ALL ASME CLASS 1,2, AND 3 AFFECTED SYSTEM, COMPONENT OR SUPPORT (EXCEPT STRUCTURES / CONTAINMENT).
Expected Completion by Aug. 17, 1979.
(b)
NUREG 0484 SUPPLEMENT 2 METHODOLOGY FOR APPROPRIATE COMBINATION OF DYNAMIC RESPONSES DUE TO PIPE BREAKS, SEISMIC EVENTS AND SR ACTUATIONS FOR BWR MARK II AND MARK III PLANTS.
This task shall include findings of BNL technical assistnace contract (sensitivity studies for investigating methodologies of combining dynamic responses and evaluating the acceptability of Kennedy-Newmark Criteria for Mark II dynamic response combi-nations).
Expected Completion Dates:
Sept. 30 for BNL findings and
,Dec. 31, 1979 for MUREG 0484 SUPPLEMENT 2.
PHASE 2.
LOAD COMBINATIONS AND STRESS LIMITS FOR MECHANICAL SYSTEMS COMPONENTS FOR PWR PLANTS WORK IN THIS PHASE SHALL INCLUDE APPROPRIATE COMBINATION OF DYNAMIC RESPONSES DUE TO PIPE BREAKS, SEISMIC EVENTS AND SRV ACTUATIONS.
Completion Date:
March 31, 1980.
1734 179
-g=ss w
,m-w
- yf M=
=
W.
PHASE 3.
APPROPRIATE LOAD COMBINATIONS AND STRESS LIMITS FOR CONTAINMENT AND STRUCTURES (1)
Develop a listing 9f loads ~and load combinations required for design of structures.
(ii)
Detemine proper load ' factors and service limits for eac'. load or load / response combination.
(iii)
Develop methods for load combinations for structure and detemine the significance of each load in the load combination through pro-balistic approach.
(iv)
Develop load / response combination methodology for structures as was done in Phases 1 c.nd 2.
Completion Date:
To be detemined.
PHASE 4.
DECOUPLING OF LOADS AND STRESS LIMITS (1)
Evaluation will be performed of existing NRC requirements including all current regulation, regulatory guides, branch technical positions, etc. for treating loads and their structural responses in combination.
(2)
Identify the intent of how each item covered in (1) was meant to be used; (e.g., interpretation of GDC-2) cover scope in tems of design for system consequences of event cossinations as well as structural design.
(3)
Identify current treatment of environmental and postulated event scenarios and loads in combination for various systems, fuel, and structures.
(4)
Develop rationale for decoupling effects of specfic loads now treated in combination for elimination of overly conservative requirements and the provisions for the need for a more detailed 1734 180
. g/J guidance under certain loading circumstances.
(5)
Development of loads, load combinations, and any systems criteria such as redundancy or single active failure, for which specific systems, l
fuel supports, structures have to be designe.
r (6)
Load Combination Methodology (a)
Various methods and limits (b)
Response Combination and Load Combination (c)
Extend NUREG 0484 (7)
Stress Limits (a)
Relate concept of probability of occurence to stress limit.
(b)
Develop proper choice of service limit (stress / strain) for each load or load / response combination.
(c)
Consideration of operability and functional capability (8)
Revise Standard Review Plan, develop Regulatory Guide and make Regulation Changes.
The results of the study (items (1) thru (7)) will result in a more rational basis for the establishment of regulatory requirements and it may also lead to some relaxation of the current requirements. Such relaxation would be based on improved knowledge of loads, load combinations and stress limits, it is expected that these relaxations will improve the safety standards.
Expected Completion Date:
Open 1734 18l
4 l
!jI
. Mt r
su l y l
et u
vi n
el n
li a
b ea e
cp l
i a b
vc i
r s
el s
Sa o
ECA I
)
I
)
)
)
n p
4 4
o dI NI 4
4 4
(
i s.
I I
B C
C C
g C
A B
g t
ac c
t PT n
he EI u
c CR f
u,
CC sd A
s g
,a o
d n
a i
el o
p l
l i
bg p
an
)
)
s n
ci S
(
2 2
n o
d ig
)
5 M
(
(
o i
e l g E
A X
X i
t d
pu T
B t
c i
ph i
a v
ac S
D Y
d e
d
- r e,
S n
r p
rd o
G c
d aa o
i
)
e u
.d rl N
5, t
l e
e I
I H
8 a
f s
vn P
)
t u
eo 2
s hi P C 1
N Y
(
(
e ct I
A T A
I R E B
X X
X y
l b
ia B F I
d a
hl K
A a
m y
wl R G S e
r a
i t
e m
sc A N I
S s
h ds M
i t
e ao R
R E E d
l o
l F N S S
X X
X X
e b
l n O E T E
t t
a o
I Y
S a
h
,t diet I
N l
r g
A G S i
ds ca R E F m
e ei us E
O o
w rh dn r
ut ne T L I
A N f
d s
id C
I I
B X
X X
a sn n
R C O E
d e
ai to N S O
e d
nc n
ed e
C H V g i
, be v,
E A I i
ed me N C I n
r df a
A E D i
T M n
e u
li l o r
t s
uc ll PE S
e e
s oe a
C D
v d
e hp l
C A
o r
ss el A
V g
s p
de R
X X X i
yl uw S
s f
te l s i
A o
i v c
B l e nl r
I s
il io e
/
t b
o v
A s
ae l p e
B i
ph l
X h
S s
at a. -
V X
c
/
n
'c hd R
X X X i
A o
n sa S
h B
c
'l a o
w D
ah Al d
ntd B
~
A o
a o
e Dn B
t o
irt o
I l
tea di
~
e chr nt
)
r u
l ngt aa 3
o d
e uis z
n fhn Ai M
X X X X X X X X X X I
A g
n o
Br gsm I u k
B n
nte
.s S i s
d iid e
a pm Ae s
o iis Br U
L N
Plj So i
I
)
}
)
)
DE 1
2 3 4 5 6 y 8 9 0 I
2 3
4 5
(
1 I
(
(
OA LC
)
["A.g. N s
5 9
b I
I
~
p BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY GENERIC STUDIES ON RESPONSE COMBINATION METHODOLOGY STATUS BNL STUDIES CONSISTS OF THE FOLLOWING THREE PHASES:
(A)
IDENTIFY PARAMETERS GOVERNING RESPONSE CHARACTERISTICS.
(B) CONDUCT SENSITIVITY STUDIES.
( X - N M D r_ e n l3 (C) DEVELOP RECOMMENDATIONS ON' COMBINATIONS CRITERIA AND QUANTIFY CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH ABS OR SRSS OR CDF SHOULD BE USED.
Phases (A)and(8)of the study are nearly complete and the completion of the entire study and final report is due at the end of September,1979.
1734 183 p.
e
tuk u
NEWMARK/ KENNEDY CRITERIA 1.
PREAMBLE a EXPLANITION e DYNAMIC COMBINATION GOAL IS 84% NEP
~
e IF INPUTS OR RESPONSES ARE LIKE SEISMIC, THEN SRSS e
84% INTO SRSS GIVES 84% OuT 2.
CRITERION 1 (LOADINGS OR RESPONSES) e RANDOM PEAK PHASING OR INDEPENDENT EVENTS 15 PEAKS AT 75% OF MAX (LOAD OR RESPONSE)
OR 110 PEAKS AT 60% OF MAX AND APPROXIMATELY ZERO MEAN AND 1 10 SECONDS DURATION AT 50% OF MAX 3.
CRITERION 2 -(EXAMINE TIME HISTORY ~ RESPONSES ~USING CDF) e SRSS GIVES APPROXIMATELY 50% NEP OR HIGHER e
1.2 TIMES SRSS GIVES 85% NEP OR HIGHER 1734 184
//