ML20004C636
| ML20004C636 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fermi  |
| Issue date: | 06/02/1981 |
| From: | Colbert W DETROIT EDISON CO. |
| To: | Kintner L Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| EF2-53-429, NUDOCS 8106040361 | |
| Download: ML20004C636 (48) | |
Text
.
Deholt ECISCn EtEliEN" s
W ll J ne 2, 19 N(. 'N EF2 - 53,4 8[
'4
\\
4' o, 19 8-@-
9 sa, c
~
9 7
//
4 g-Mr. L. L. Kintner Division of Project Management
//
Office of Nuclear Regulation U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D C.
20555
Dear Mr. Kintner:
Reference:
Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit'2 NRC Docket No. 50-341
Subject:
Supplemental Information on Mark I Interim Pla.it Unique Analysis Attached please find revised and supplemented respanses to questions from the Structural Engineering Branch as requested by Drs. C.
P.
Tan and P. T.
Kuo during our meeting on May 20.
As requested, the attachment includes additional information on condensation oscillation loads, pool swell impact loads and fatigue considerations.
Should you have any additional questions, please contact Mr. D. F. Lehnert (313-649-7583).
Sincerely, e
W.
F.
Colbert Technical Director Fermi 2 Project WFC/LES:jl o\\
Attachment
- 8106 0 40 %I t 4
DI ENRICO FERMI UNIT 2 PROJECT ENGINEERING June 1, 1981 EF2-53425 QRRY E'SCHUERMAN To:
L. Schuerman Licensing Engineer /
From:
D.F.Lehnert f
- , v -
M 1
}$8J System Engin'eer '
Subj ect:
Revised Suggested Responses to NRC Questions on Fermi Interim Plant Unique Analysis Attached-please find the revised suggested responses to the latest NRC-SEB questions (item "B" attachments to memorandum L.E.Schuerman to D.F.Lehnert, June 1,1981) on the Fermi Interim Plant Unique Analysis. As requested by the NRC, the May 20, 1981 presentation material that relates to the condensation oscillation loads, pool swell inpact loads, and fatique has been expanded and incorporated into the suggested response to the NRC questions on these subjects.
F P
W i
i DFL/slm Attachments cc:
W.F.Colbert E. Lusis F. Gregor l
A. Lim T.D. Martin (NUTECH)
Doc. Control i
e l
s
,-.m,.
,,->w,,.,
-w-,-
)
SUGGESTED RESPONSES TO NRC' QUESTIONS j
- OUESTION -
1.
In your response _to question 5, it is indicated that wi S the exception' of down-
' comer lateral loads, the condensation oscillation (CO' toads have not been con-sidered in the ~ interim structural evaluation, and will be included _ in your confirmatory review, it is requested that the torus shell, the vent system and the supports should be evaluated for the CO loads and on the bases as described in the summary of _ the meetings held on March 4,1981 with the Mark I Owner's Group, issued on March 16, 1981.-
RESPONSE --
As you indicate, consideration of CO loads in the interim report was limited to evaluation of lateral loads on downcomers. Complete CO load-ing definitions were not available at the-time.that the interim report was prepared.
As new loading definitions have emerged, preliminary evaluations of the effects of these loads on the Fermi containment structures have been performed. In some cases, these evaluations have resulted in the de-sign anu' implementation of additional structural modifications. The preli:r.inary evaluation for the effects of C0 loads on the Fermi contain-ment structures and the additional structural modifications are dis-cussed in Appendix A.
A comprehensive evaluation of all aspects of the CO loading definition has been held up by such issues as; results of additional FSTF testing, revised downcomer definition, and final resolution of the fluid structure interaction (FS1) effects on submerged structures. However, modification plans have been developed on the basis of estimates cf the effects of these unresolved issues on the Fermi containment. A complete evaluatioa of CO loads will be included in the Fermi Plant Unique Analysis which is now under way.
OUESTION 2.
In your response to question 9 it is indicated that the single post supports are used to link the water mass to the torus beam elements. Provide a discussion on how 'the fluid-structure interaction is taken into consideration in your analysis by such an idealizatica.
RESPONSE
The analytical model in question is a beam and column type model which is used to evaluate gross lateral loading eff ects on the torus suppc,rting system. Fluid structure interaction is judged to be unimportant in evaluating the effects of loads of this type on the torus.
Fluid structure interaction is being addressed in other analytical models used to evaluate the effects of hydrodynamic loadings on the suppression chamber shell and supporting structures. (See response to Question 4.)
- QUESTION i
3.
In your response to question IS it is stated that sample computations will be provided only for specific areas of the structures.
The following are such areas:
e-
.~,
y
..-,e-.,m,m
.-------%y, 3
c,,
n-
V a..- In Table 6.1.1-6'the computer _ upward load is 498 kips but the allowable -is only. 410 kips. Indicate the _ contributions of ' each Jof the loads in _ the load
' combination considered,'and for the dynamic loads howlthe responses are com-bined, SRSS-or ABS. If, by_ using-the loads and criteria established from the -
Long Term _ Program, there is still no reduction in such high level of overstress, it is staff's position that a modification of the design of the tie down base plate should be made so that the allowable will not be exceeded.
RESPONSE-The exceeded allowable in the referenced table has'been addressed since issuance of the interim document.. As part of the on-going evaluation for the effects of new loads on the support system, it has been deter-mined that an additional modification to the torus support system is required. The modification (saddle support) has been designed and is now in the preliminary stages of construction (see Appendix A).
QUESTION 3.
b.
In Tables 6.2.1-3 and 6.2.1-4 indicate the contributions of each load in the load combination to the computed total stress intensities of 18 ksi and 22 ksi respectively. Indicate how the dynamic responses are established and combined.
' The computed stress intensity of 22 ksi is greater than the allowable value of 19.3 and you justify it on the basis that the magnitude of impact pressure in the computation is conservative.
A reassessment should be made on -the basis of more realistic load magnitude and the stress criteria as established by the Long Term Program.
RESPONSE
Contributions of the loads as determined in the interim evaluation are as -
follows:
Table Stress / Area Total Stress D.L.
Seismic Pool SRV V.S. Disc. ' Int.
(Ksi)
(%)
(%)
Swell (%)
Thrust Pressure
(%)
(%)
(%)
6.2.1-3 Membrane /
18.0 0.5 3
15 61 9
12 Vent Line 1
~
6.2.1-4 '
Membrane /
22.0 1
3 53 29 10 4
Vent Header Near Vent Line l
6.2:1.-4 Membrane /
22.0 3
2 63 17 13 2
Vent Header Near Mitered Joint i
Dynamic responses in the evaluation were determined by absolute summation of peak responses from individual loads.
f
- y The overstress cited.(22 ksi vs. 19.3 ksi allowable) has been addressed since completion of the interim analysis by the addition of a vent head-'
er deflector device to the Fermi vent system design. A preliminary assessment of the LTP pool swell impact loads and the vent header deflec-tor modification are discussed in Appendix B.
' QUESTION 3.
c.
In Table 6.2.1-5, indicate the centributions of each load in the load 'com-bination to the computed total c_olumn compression load of 72 kips and total column tension load of 104 kips, and specify the allowable for each.
RESPONSE
Contributions of loa'ds as determined in the interim evaluation are as follows:
Total Column DL Seismic Pool SRV V.S.
Load (K)
(%)
(%)
Swell
(%)
Discharge
(
(%)
Thrust (%)
72 (comp.)
10 2
53 29 0
104 (tens.)
(-)7 l'
70 20 16 The referenced table indicates only output vent header column reactions from the vent system computer models. Results of the support column calculations i
with appropriate allowables are shown in interim table 6.2.3-1 on page 6.133.
QUESTION -
3.
d.
For the torus, its internal structures and its supports, fatigue should be included in the evaluation.
i
RESPONSE
Fatigue effects were not addressed in the interim evaluation since com-plete load definitions were not available. Also, the emphasis of the i
evaluation was to address short term safety rather than long term ef-fects such as fatigue. A preliminary assessment of fatigue is contained in Appendix C.
Fatigue will be fully addressed in the Fermi unique analyses now under way.
QUESTION f
4.
As mentioned before you plan to use the alternate criteria in NUREG-0661 Appendix A, Article 2.13.9 for assessment of the Safety Relief Valve Load, this approach involves in-plant tests and the establishment of a coupled load-structure analytical model. Provide a description of such a model which you are going to calibrate together with the basis for the analytical model adopted.
RESPONSE
The basis for use of the alternate criteria in NUREG-0661 for assessment of SRV loads is the observation that the original analytical approach which
, t l
l i
r c
v---
employed a decoupled: forced vibration analysis was producing unrealistically ampl'lled torus response when compared to data from actual in-plant tests. The revised approach is based on the recognition that. torus response to SRV loads is limited by the air bubble energy introduced into the suppression pool during a discharge event. '
The analytical model used in the torus SRV load evaluation consists of a 1/32' sector finite element model. Fluid structure interaction effects are accounted for through the. use of a fluid added mass matrix which is merged with the structure mass matrix in computing response to applied loads. Loads applied to the analytical model are determined using the methodology given in the Mark I Load Definition Report (LDR) with the resulting pressure waveforms modified to be more characteristic of those observed in in-plant tests.
A modal transient response analysis is performed using the coupled fluid struc-ture model and the loads described above. Modal correction factors are comput-ed on the basis of the limited bubble energy available in the suppression pool and are applied to the structural response from the transient analysis.
The approach has been verified by comparison of predicted vs. measured results for in-plant tests performed at the Monticello plant. Predicted response results envelope those measured in the Monticello test..In addition, the approach is able to accurately predict trends abserved in structural response between cold pipe and hot pipe SRV actuations. An in-plant test is planned to confirm that the predicted response of the Fermi 2 torus envelops that which occurs during an actual SRV discharge.
4 l
l 4-l i
.,,y,
.-..--r
-_---a
,-w
- Question
!5..Since there is a change 'in the seismic response spectra, the reassessment of the Mark I containment should take the effect of - this change into consideration.
Response
- An evaluation 'of the torus supports for a change 'in the seismic input response spectra wais provided as part of the Supplementary Seismic Evaluation Report, EF2-53331, Article 4.5, transaitted ' to -
' the;NRC on May 29, 1981. The evaluation of the turus design under norma 1' operating loads plus the SSE will be conducted as part Mark.
1 Containment LTP-PUA using criteria commensurate with the suppl-ementary seismic evaluation criteria.
G DFL/sim i
~~'
,..,..an,.,
y,,
p 4
L APPENDIX A FERMI CONDENSATION OSCILLATION LOADS ASSESSMENT ~
~
'(EXPANDED' PRESENTATION OUTLINE USED FOR MEETING HELD WITH NRC ON MAY 20,'1981).
s e
-A.1 w
~
' CONDENSATION OSCILLATION LOADS' ASSESSMENT - OVERVIEW 0
INTERIM-ANALYSIS-LIMITED T0 DOWNCOMER. LATERAL [ LOADS A COMPLETE C.O. LOAD DEFINITION WAS NOT AVAILABLE f.T-THE TIMd THE INTERIM'PUA WAS PERFORMED.
THE INTERIM PUA FOR C.O. LOADS WAS LIMITED TO DOWN-COMER LATERAL LOADS.
- LOAD DEFINITION ONLY RECENTLY FINAlfZED NUREG-0661 LISTS THE C.O.
LOAD DEFINITION'AS AN OPEN ITEM REQUIRING ADDITIONAL FSTF TESTING BY THE MARK I OWNERS.
THE ADDITIONAL FSTF TESTING HAS
~
BEEN PERFORMED SINCE NUREG-0661 WAS ISSUED AND THE FINAL LOAD DEFINITION DEVELOPED.
THE FINAL LOAD DEFINITION WAS REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE NRC IN MARCH OF THIS YEAR.
THE NRC PLANS TO INCLUDE THEIR REVIEW IN A SUPPLEMENT.TO NUREG-0661.
O LTP DEFINITION 0F THE SUPPRESSION CHAMBER C.0. LOAD HAS BEEN ASSESSED SINCE THE INTERIM FUA WAS COMPLETED A PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF THE FERMI SUPPRESSION CHAMBER FOR C.O. LCADS HAS BEEN PERFORMED.
- USING ANALYSIS RESULTS FROM OTHER SIMILAR MARK I PLANTS THE RESULTS OF ANALYSES FOR C.O.
LOADS PERFORMED f
FOR OTHER MARK I SUPPRESSION CHAMBERS WITH SIMILAR GEJMETRIES AND DYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS HAVE BEEN REVIEWED AND USED IN THE ASSESSMENT OF THE EFFECTS OF C.O. LOADS ON THE FERMI SUPPRESSION CHAMBER.
- USING ANALYSIS RESULTS FROM SIMPLIFIED FERMI l
ANALYTICAL MODELS A.2
-CONDENSATION OSCILLATION LOADS ASSESSMENT-- OVERVIEW (CONT.)
A PRELIMINARY-ANALYSIS:HAS BEEN PERFORMED FOR THE FERMI SUPPRESSION CHAMBER WITH THE INTERIM:PUA SUPPORT SYSTEM
~USING A SIMPLIFIED ANALYTICAL MODEL.
THE'RESULTS SHON THAT THE' REACTIONS DUE T0 C.0. LOADS. EXCEED THE CAPACITY OF THE INTERIM PUA~ SUPPORT SYSTEM'(ADDITIONAL ~ ANALYSIS DETAILS ARE DISCUSSED LATER).
ASSESSMENT RESULTED IN MODIFICATIONS ^TO. SUPPORT SYSTEM, I.E., MITERED.J0 INT SADDLES THE ASSESSMENT OF SUPPRESSION CHAMBER C.O.. LOADS'HAS LEAD TO THE DECISION TO ADD A MITERED-JOINT SADDLE SUPPORT TO
~
~
THE FERMI SUPPRESSION CHAMBER (THE SADDLE IS DESCRIBED IN MORE. DETAIL LATER).
THE SADDLE HAS BEEN DESIGNED AND IS PRESENTLY BEING INSTALLED.
- SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT WITH SADDLES SHOWED SUFFICIENT SUPPORT SYSTE!1 CAPACITY EXISTS i
i A PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS HAS BEEN PERFORMED FOR.THE FERMI SUPPRESSION CHAMBER WITH THE MITERED JOINT SADDLE SUPPORT SYSTEM USING A SIMPLIFIED ANALYTICAL MODEL.
THE RESULTS SHOW THAT REACTIONS DUE TO C.O. LOADS ARE LESS THAN THE ALLOWABLE CAPACITY OF THE SADDLE SUPPORT SYSTEM (ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS DETAILS ARE DISCUSSED LATER).
i 0
ASSESSMENT OF DOWNCOMER LATERAL LOADS SHOWED INTERIM LOADS t
ENVELOP LTP LOADS i
SINCE THE INTERIM PUA WAS COMPLETED A PRELIMINARY ASSESS-MENT OF C.O. DOWNCOMER LATE,RAL LOADS HAS BEEN PERFORMED.
j THE RESULTS SHOW THAT THE C.O. DOWNCOMER LATERAL LOADS l
USED IN THE INTERIM PUA ENVELOP THOSE SPECIFIED BY THE i
LTP (ADDITIONAL ASSESSMENT DETAILS ARE DISCUSSED LATER).
A.3
a CONDENSATION OSCILLATION LOADS ASSESSMENT - OVERVIEW (CONT. )-
0-COMPLETE EVALUATION OF C.0, INCLUDED IN PUA A-COMPREHENSIVE EVALUATION.0F THE EFFECTS OF C.O. LOADS
'WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE FERMI FINAL PUA WHICH IS NOW1
- UNDEhWAY, i
i P
I P
P l-F
~
I i
e-v A.4
DISCUSSION OF' FIGURES ON'PAGES WHICH FOLLOW 0.
-COLUMN TO SHELL CONNECTION (PAGE.A.8)
THE FIGURE SHOWS-THE MODIFICATIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE FERMI SUPPRESSION CHAMBER COLUMN CONNECTION SINCE THE CONTAIN-MENT WAS ORIGINALLY DESIGNED AND CONSTRUCTED.
1HE PRINCIPLE MODIFICATIONS INCLUDE COLUMN AND COLUMN CONNECTION' COVER PLATES, COLUMN TO SHELL WEB PLATES AND STIFFENERS, AN UPWARD EXTENSION OF THE ORIGINAL COLUMN CONNECTION, AND RING GIRDER COVER PLATES.
THE EFFECTS OF THESE MODIFICATIONS ON THE SUPPRESSION CHAMBER RESPONSE HAVE B,EEN IN-CLUDED IN THE INTERIM PUA.
A COMPLETE DISCUSSION OF THESE SUPPRESSION-CHAMBER MODIFICATIONS IS CONTAINED IN SECTION 3.0 0F THE INTERIM PUA REPORT.
?
0 SUPPRESSION CHAMBER COLUMN ANCHORAGE (PAGE A.9)
THE FIGURE'SHOWS THE SUPPRESSION CHAMBER UPLIFT RESTRAINT SYSTEM USED IN THE INTERIM PUA.
THE RESTRAINT SYSTEM CONSISTS OF TWO PAIR OF TIE PLATES AT EACH COLUMN LOCATION Cui;NECTED TO BASE PLATES WITH SIX EP0XY GROUTED ANCHOR BOLTS.
SINCE OVERSTRESSES WERE REPORTED IN THE INTERIM
.PUA FOR THE UPLIFT RESTRAINT Si? TEM AND SINCE THE PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF C.O. LOADS SHOW THAT REA-ACTIONS DUE TO C.O.
LOADS EXCEED THE UPLIFT RESTRAINT SYSTEM ALLOWABLE CAPACITY,THE DECISION WAS MADE TO REPLACE THE UPLT RESTRAINT SYSTEM WITH A FULL MITERED JOINT
- LE AND MODIFIED COLUMN HOLD-DOWN BASE PLATES.
i l
0 PRELIMINARY.'ilTERED JOINT SADDLE DESIGN (PAGE A..'.0)
THE FIGURE SHOWS THE SUPPRESSION CHAMBER MITERED A.5
v
~
~ DISCUSSION OF FIGURES ON PAGES WHICH' FOLLOW (CONT.)
JOINT ~ SADDLE AND MODIFIED COLUMN HOLD-DOWN BASE PLATES. : THE FIGURE'IS NOT UP TO DATE=IN-THAT.
TWELVE A:iD NOT EIGHT ANCHOR BOLTS ARE BEING IN-STALLED ~~AT EACH SADDLE BASE PLATE 10 CATION,AND
- l SIX AND NOT FOUR ANCHOR BOLTS ARE BEING INSTALLED AT EACH COLUMN HOLD-DOWN BASE PLATE.
.THE MITERED
^
JOINT SADDLE IS CONTINUOUS WITH THE COLUMN CON-NECTION WEB PLATE AND PROVIDES A MEANS OF MORE
^
EVENLY DISTRIBUTING LOADS, AND REDUCING STRESS CONCENTRATIONS,I.E., LOCAL STRESSES IN THE SHELL NEAR.THE COLUMN CONNECTION ARE EXPECTED TO BE LESS.
0 DOWNCOMER TO VENT HEADER 'IK.'ERSECTION STIFFENING (PAGE A'.11) i 4
1 THE FIGURE SHOWS THE MODIFICATIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN MADE'TO THE FERMI DOWNCOMER 7-VENT HEADER INTER-SECTION SINCE.THE CONTAINMENT WAS ORIGINALLY DESIGNED i
AND CONSTRUCTED.
THE PRINCIPLI MODIFICATIONS INCLUDE THE ADDITION OF A CROTCH PLATE BETWEEN EACH PAIR OF f
DOWNCOMER3, TWO OUTER STIFFENING PLATES AT EACH INTER.
j SECTION, AND A RING STIFFENER PLATE ON EACH DOWNCOMER WHICH CONNECTS THE CROTCH PLATE TO THE OUTER STIFFENER j
PLATE.
A COMPLETE DISCUSSION OF THESE VENT SYSTEM MOD-IFICATIONS IS CONTAINED IN SECTION 3.0 0F THE INTER!W PUA REPORT.
THE INTERSECTION STIFFENING SYSTEM PRO-j VIDES AN EFFICIENT MECHANISM FOR REDUCING LOCAL f
STRESSES IN THE INTERSECTION BY TRANSFERRING LOADS IN IN-PLANE SHEAR TO AREAS AWAY FROM DISCONTINUITIES.
1 0
DOWNCOMER TRUSS (PAGE A.12) q:..
THE FIGURE SHOWS THE DOWNCOMER TRUSS SYSTEM WHICH
'HAS BEEN ADDED TO THE FERMI VENT SYSTEM.
THE PRINCIPLE ELEMENTS OF THE TRUSS SYSTEM INCLUDE BARS WHICH' JOIN THE DOWNCOMER STIFFENING RINGS "A.6
=.. - -
..-.-...a--.-
a DISCUSE,CN'0F FIGURES ON PAGES WHICH FOLLOW (CONT.)
0F ADJACENT DOWNCOMER PAIRS, AND PIPE MEMBERS WHICH' CONNECT THE DOWNCOMER STIFFENING RINGS TO~ PAD PLATES ON THE VENT HEADER.
THE DOWN-COMER TRUSS SYSTEM'PROVIDES AN EFFICIENT.
MECHANISM FOR TRANSFERRING LOADS WHICH ACT NORMAL TO THE PLANE OF A DOWNCOMER PAIR.
THE
' TRUSS SYSTEM ALSO PROVIDES ADDITIONAL OVERALL STIFFENING OF THE DOWNCOMER TO VENT HEADER INTERSECTION.
4 4
)
i i
A.7
1--
m SUPPRESSION CHAMBER
+
'f HORIZONTAL CENTERLINE Ih"THK. N,
WEB 1.
th"THK
=
i FLANGE k.
a Ik"x16 FLANGE COVER PLATE Lr l " THK. COVER -
i/2 WEB PLATE PLS. (2)
REINFORCEMENT
-s '
FOR CONNECTION i
r COVER PLATE
!l lk" THK. k.
l'l REINFORCEMENT FOR COLUMN i
l i
i l}" THK. PLS.(2) l l
(0.S. COL.)
l l
lh " THK. PLS. (2) l l
(I.S. COL.)
!il
(!
l Ik"THK. UPPER STIFFENER %.
i If THK. LOWER
!]l lh" THK. GUSSET l.
STIFFENER k.
PLS. (8)
[
h
'e 4
1 f.;.f
^....
,,.a NOTE:
l HOLDDOWN FIX NOT 1
SHOWN FOR CLARITY.
j
(
l i
COLUMN TO SHELL CONNECTION
[
l A8
3:y viv <""
l l
h, W.R EL. 548'-2 [
Y
/1
/
,\\
\\
I l
l i
i l
SSi iTIE PLATE i
k (4 PER COLUMN)(T
\\
l TYR'
'/[ V II I l 11 l'l il 11 s
il gi j
I/
I l
l I
I l
/
l l
I l
I I
I
~ 25*
\\
I
~
(TYP.)
1 1 I
l Il ll
//
hlg
/
s
\\
\\
\\
j j
,1 g
l l
A
~
f p________
________q 1
i
'.. ' '+,Pa
'. % mr '. '.
j
~
a,
.i 3'-8' 3 '- 8 "
=
7 i
SUPPRESSION CHAMBER COLUMN ANCHORAGE
~
A.9 1
k c-l!
1 o.n t
mTi!
7.s s, M
br$h l
m.
m.
w *_.
s mss-s as y
sanote cotwic=__ueae ours w cotuu_w s sa is a=m asa, as
- o ar (rea messanme=s east as aa auw i
.s.on, l
.p.
h
\\
_ m S,
/
ij 6.
f,
/'N
'f_
- -.x i
.p, 6,. N
_w-g,
@N
.4 8
i l
i n
e
-I a
Na g-
\\
s
,w x
s
' s's l
N i ) l
- T v-s 1
i
,s fp E 211& <
I I
. ~ :. > : y p :.. -
um a.
m.
u g..
y-g(
-=
s g*. o*
m o.
(mi l-e'.4 V F 's da.%'
e'. o*
'esa~eest esE se puses er see, esmoe e
I f
4 am mm A ** * * ****'u"E
-- ^ ^ -L sseassast, TYPICAL. *iADOLE. ELEVATeort (m sacarne e secaer as. as is* an.m saa, as*3 (ca s -
.m.... e.,
no i
FIGURE 1 i
PRELIMINARY MITERED JOINT SADDLE DESIGN l
i
l n
s'. o l/z" Q
's 4#*
5" QEEp
\\I,
/ 50 RING s
A
/
g
+ 5' C+
/
?
I E.
t i
,I
'/[THK (
l I
- ~~.-.
=
4' - O 4'- O" f
ql EXISTING ANGLE l
NING AND COLLas;t 70 SE i
FIGURE 3.2.2-6 DOWNCOMER TO VENT HEADER l
INTERSECTION STIFFENING A.11
MITERED JOINT z'- s" _
4'- z",
li Tux 4.
i i
I s
f
_. f
(
(
. _{
/
I J
l cp
&j"Tse g3 7
~
u
\\
\\
-2"@
lTHK
\\
n RING
- 4 @ SCH.
BAR i
80 PIPE I
n 74 THK susser l
s'- o" NOTES:
i 1.
VIEW DEVELOPED NORMAL TO AXES OF V.M. AND DOWNCOMER.
Z.
V.H. SUPPOR.T COLUMN OPE.TalLS NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY.
I FIGURE 3.2.2-5 DOWNCOMER TRUSS A.12
SUPPRESSION CHAMBER C.0. LOAD ASSESSMENT-RESULTS 0
' STEADY STATE RESPONSE-0F FERMI' SUPPRESSION CHAMBER IMPROVED WITH MITERED JOINT SADDLE PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS SHOWS THAT THE RESPONSE OF THE FERMI SUPPRESSION CHAMBER WITH MITERED JOINT SADDLE
.IS IMPROVED WHEN SUBJECTED TO A NORMALIZED C.O.
PRESSURE LOADING (NORMALIZED HYDROSTATIC PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION) APPLIED HARMONICALLY (STEADY STATE)
OVER THE 3REQUENCY RANGE SPECIFIED FOR C.O.
LOADS.
- DOMINANT STRUCTURE FREQUENCY INCREASED BY
~ 60% '
THE' STEADY STATE ANAL / SIS RESULTS SHOW THAT THE FRE-QUENCY AT WHICH PEAK AMPLITUDES OCCUR IS 60% GREATER WITH A MITERED JOINT SADDLE.
THIS RESULTS IN RE-DUCED DYNAMIC AMPLIFICATION EFFECTS SINCE THE DOM-INANT SUPPRESSION CHAMBER FREQUENCY IS MUCH GREATER THAN THE C.O. LOAD HARMONICS WITH THE LARGEST AMPLI-TUDES.
- COLUMN LOAD AMPLIDUES DECREASED a 45%
THE STEADY STATE ANALYSIS RESULTS SHOW THAT THE COLUMN LOADS DECREASE BY 45% WITH THE ADDITION OF A MITERED JOINT SADDLE SINCE THE SADDLE RESULTS IN REDUCED DYNAMIC AMPLIFICATION EFFECTS AND PROVIDES AN ADDITIJNAL LOAD PATH FOR REACTIONS.
O SUMMAT!0N OF C.0. LOAD HARMONICS RESULTS IN TOTAL t
VERTICAL REACTION OF i 1550 KIPS MULTIPLYING THE STEADY STATE RESPONSE BY THE C.O.
LOAD AMPLITUDE.FOR EACH C.O.
LooD FREQUENCY AND SUMMING THE RESULTS PRODUCES A TOTAL VERTICAL REACTION OF 1550 KIPS IN THE UPWARD AND DOWNWARD k
A.13
SUPPRESSION CHAMBER C.0. LOAD ~ ASSESSMENT RESULTS_(CONT.)
DIRECTIONS.- THE TOTAL VERTICAL REACTION LOADS CONSIST OF THE SUM.0F THE REACTIONS TRANSFERRED BY THE~TWO SADDLE BASE PLATES AND THE TWO COLUMN HOLD-DOWN BASE PLATES AT ANY ONE MITERED JOINT.
t
.f' l
A.14 i
l-
- ~..
DISCUSSION OF FIGURES ON PAGES WHICH FOLLOW 0
FERMI II - 1/32 SEGMENT MODEL INTERIM DESIGN. SUPPORT SYSTEM (PAGE A.17)
FIGURE SHOWS ANALYTICAL MODEL WHICH WAS USED IN THE PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF C.O. LOADS FOR THE FERMI SUPPRESSION CHAMBER WITH THE SUPPORT SYSTEM USED IN THE INTERIM PUA.. THE MODEL IS SUITABLE FOR DETERMINING THE OVERALL RESPONSE OF THE
' SUPPRESSION CHAMBER AND IS USED TO COMPUTE SUPPORT REACTIONS.
i 0
FtRMI II - 1/32' SEGMENT MODEL MITERED JOINT SADDLE STRUCTURE (PAGE A.18)
FIGURE SHOWS ANALYTICAL MODEL WHICH WAS USED IN THE PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF C.O.
LOADS FOR THE FERMI SUPPRESSION CHAMBER WITH MITERED JOINT l
SADDLES.
THE MODEL IS SUITABLE FOR DETERMINING THE OVERALL RESPONSE OF THE SUPPRESSION CHAMBER AND IS USED TO COMPUTE SUPPORT REACTIONS.
i 0
ENRICO FERMI NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT STEADY STATE STRUCTURAL RESPONSE (PAGE A.19)
THE FIGURE SHOWS THE STEADY STATE RESPONSE OF THE SUPPRESSION CHAMBER OUTSIDE COLUMN DUE TO A NORMALIZED C.O. LOADING FOR THE SUPPRESSION CHAMBER WITH THE INTERIM PUA SUPPORT SYSTEM AND THE SADDLE i
SUPPORT SYSTEMS.
THE PLOTS SHOW VERTICAL DISPLACE-MENTS AT THE TOP OF THE COLUMN AND CAN BE INTERPRE-TED AS COLU., AXI AL FORCE IF MULTIPLIED BY AE /L.
THE PLOTS SHOW THAT THE DOMINANT SUPPRESSION CHAMBER FRE-QUENCY IS INCREASED FROM ABOUT 12HZ TO ABOUT 19HZ WITH THE ADDITION OF A MITERED JOINT SADDLE.
A.15
DISCUSSION OF FIGURES'ON PAGES WHICH FOLLOW (CONT.)
THE PLOTS ALSO SHOW THAT THE AMPLITUDES (COLUMN LOADS)
ARE-REDUCED BY 45% IN THE RANGE OF THE C.O. LOAD FRE-QUENCIES WITH THE HIGHEST AMPLITUDES (5-10HZ).
0-CONDENSATION OSCILLATION AMPLITUDE --FREQUENCY SPECTRUM (PAGE A.20)
THE FIGURE SHOWS THE AMPLITUDES FOR EACH FREQUENCY OF THE C.O. LOADING.
THE STEADY STATE RESPONSES OF THE SUPPRESSION CHAMBER SHOWN FOR THE OUTSIDE COLUMN'IN THE PREVIOUS-FIGURE, CAN BE MULT-IPLIED BY THE CORRES-PONDING C.O. LOAD AMPLITUDE AT EACH FREQUENCY AND THE RESULTS SUMMED TO OBTAIN THE TOTAL RESPONSE DUE TO
-C.O.
LOADS.
I e
I
-l l
- i t
i a
A.16
E
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
S y
{l lN
/
/
s
/
/
/
/
/ /
/ /
/
/
6 1
FERMI II - 1/32 SEGMENT MODEL
~
INTERIII DESIGN SUPPORT SYSTEM A.17 i
,,._.,--._...,~....-...n.,
., _ _ _,-.... -.,,, _ _.. -... - - - ~ - --. -.,,
1 t
/
/
/
/ /
/
/
/
\\
'\\
1 l
i i
x
/
A
/
/
/
i
/
t
//
k
//
//
\\
J///
f l
FERNI II - 1/32 SEGMENT MODEL MITERED JOINT SADDLE STRUCTURE l
A.18
P ENRICO FERMI NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT STEADY STATE STRUCTURAL RESPONSE FOR 1 PSI CONDENSATION OSCILLATION LOADING TCP OF OUTSIDE COLUMN CNODE 290) VERTICAL DISPLACEMENT
. ? OCe1GD i!
F*
O u"r
?
. til C00fs
]i T_'
s j-y r.
1 s.
-}
~
~
\\ I:ff
\\
I
\\ s n
/
\\
\\,
.001000
/
k
\\
a 't.J:
- tt g;
'l
-;:r- -
11 vg
m..-
. L 00113
- 1. 00.;
10.000 100.000 FREQUENCY OF APPLIED eit'ADY' STATE LOAU. CPS l' t.", u sz C
- PCAM Cill A NI C OISPL ACEMENT. A C-HUILT *LIDER
- - - - - - - P 8" A K OYt!ANIC ti! OPL A Cr *tCli ? > SADDLE-5L10CN
f 3
a I
wq Y
E o
a
- w g
t m
m J
I
=
o tem 3crul%ny EwnSS3we 5-a U
e_
E ee E
D Y
E c
.i 8
2 i
e 5
m t
)
i I
8 e
e n
=
o
- s ins) 30rul%wv 3Wre13wd d
I 5
- h_
c
-b h
.h W
a I
o W
e m
,z i
8 a
a v
4 e
g I
O w
I e
c l
o 3
8 g,
r-imi 30nzi%wv sunmus 5I h
$ egg I
c T5 1 O
t I
05wyj o
a
>g(g 3 E(
/
W I450
.z--
s_
i 1.
E
[I I
i o
f O
I (85c) 30nithWV 3WnSS3Wd i
i{
\\
a 1
I l
A.'20
SUPPRESSION CHAMBER SUPPORT SYSTEM CAPACITIES FOR C.O. LOADS 0
INTERIM PUA, SUPPORT-SYSTEM CAPACITIES
- UPWARD LOAD 800 KIPS THE ALLOWABLE CAPACITY OF THE UPLIFT RESTRAINT SYSTE 4 SHOWN ON PAGE A.8 IS 800 KIPS PER MITERED JOINT IN THE UPWARD DIRECTION.
- DOWNWARD LUAD 1400 KIPS THE ALLOWABLE CAPACITY OF THE COLUMN SUPPORT SYSTEM SHOWN ON PAGE A.9 IS 1400 KIPS PER MITERED JOINT IN THE DOWNWARD DIRECTION.
O SUPPORT SYSTEM CAPACITIES WITH SADDLE
- UPW.)RD LOAD 2000 KIPS THE ALLOWABLE CA.PACITY OF THE SADDLE AND MODIFIED g
COLUMN HOLD-DOWN BASEPLATE SUPPORT SYSTEM SHOWN ON PAGE A.10 IS 2000 KIPS PER MITERED JOINT IN THE UP-WARD DIRECTION.
- DOWNWAP.D LOAD 3000 KIPS THE ALLOWABLE CAPACITY OF THE SADDLE AND COLUMN SUPPORT SYSTEM SHOWN ON PAGE A.10 IS 3000 KIPS PER MITERED JCiNT IN THE DOWNWARD DIRECTION.
t l
0 REACTIONS CAUSED BY C.0. LOADS ARE LESS THAN SADDLE l
SUPPORT SYSTEM CAPACITIES.
l THE REACTIONS LOADS WHICH RESULT FROM C.O. LOADS
(
1550 KIPS) OBTAINED FROM THE PRELIMINARY ASSESS-H A.21
SUPPRESSION CHAMBER-SUPPORT SYSTEM CAPACITIES FOR C.O. LOADS (CONT.)
MENT ARE-LESS THAN THE ALLOWABLE CAPACITIES OF-THE SADDLE AND COLUMN SUPPORT S'(STEM.
1 A.22
... +
i a
DOWNCOMER C.0. LOADS ASSESSMENT RESULTS 0
MAGNITUDE OF DOWNCOMER LATERAL LOADS USED IN INTERIM PUA ENVELOP LTP LOADS
- LTP PRESSURE MAGNITUDE a 12.1 PSI THE MAGNITUDE OF THE C.O. DOWNCOMER LATERAL LOADS OBTAINED BY SUMMING THE BALANCED AND UNBALANCED
' PRESSURE MAGNITUDES SPECIFIED FOR EACH HARMONIC BY THE LTP LOAD DEFINITION (MARCH 1981) I s ~12.1 PSI.
- EQUIVALENT INTERIM PUA PRESSURE MAGNITUDE
^' 26.5 PSI THE C.O. DOWPCOMER LATERAL LOAD USED IN THE INTERIM PUA IS A 6 KIP HORIZONTAL FORCE ACTING AT THE BOTTOM OF A DOWNCOMER.
THE EQUIVALENT DOWNCOMER INTERrJAL PRESSURE REQUIRED TO CAUSE A 6 KIP HORIZONTAL F0HCE IS v26.5 PSI.
O LTP DOWNCOMER LATERAL LOAD DISTRIBUTIONS SIMILAR TO THOSE USED IN INTERIM PUA THE LTP C.O. DOWNCOMER LATERAL LOAD DEFINITION SPEC-IFIES THREE DOWNCOMER LATERAL LOAD CASES WITH DIFFERENT DISTRIBUTIONS WHICH MUST BE EXAMINED.
A GREATER NUMBER OF DOWNCOMER LATERAL LOAD CASES, SOME OF WHICH ARE SIMILAR TO THOSE SPECIFIED BY THE LTP, HAVE BEEN EXAMINED IN THE INTERIM PUA.
0-PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT SHOWS DOMINANT DOWNCOMER FRE-QUENCY GREATER THAN DOMINANT LOAD FREQUENCY l
L A.23
DOWNCOMER C.0. LOADS ASSESSMENT RESULTS (CONT.)
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF'DOWNCOMER FREQUENCIES OBTAINED USING A BEAM MODEL OF THE VENT SYSTEM' INDICATES THAT THE DOWNCOMER SWINGING MODE FRE-QUENCY IS ABOUT 10 HZ WHICH IS GREATER THAN THE C.O. DOWNCOMER LATERAL LOAD FREQUENCIES WITH THE HIGHEST AMPLITUDES.
0 VENT SYSTEM STRESSES RESULTING FROM C/0 DOWNCOMER LATERAL LOADS COMPUTED IN INTERIM PUA ARE EXPECTED TO ENVELOP THE STRESSES COMPUTED USING LTP LOADS STRESSES IN THE DOWNCOMER TO VENT HEADER INTER-
~
SECTION COMPUTED IN THE INTERIM PUA FOR C.O. DOWN-COMER LATERAL LOADS ARE-EXPECTED TO ENVELOP THOSE WHICH WILL BE COMPUTED' USING LTP DOWNCOMER LATERAL LOADS.
A.24
CONDENSATION OSCILLATION LOAD-ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS 0
ADDITION OF MITERED JOINT SADDLE IS EXPECTED TO PROVIDE LONG TERM: SOLUTION FOR LTP SUPPRESSION CHAMBER LOADS
-WITH THE ADDITION OF THE SADDLE THE SUPPRESSION CHAMBER IS EXPECTED TO BE ADEQUATE FOR ALL LTP LOADS AND LOAD COMBINATIONS.
- RAISES DOMINANT STRUCTURE FREQUENCY BEYOND MAXIMUM LOAD FREQUENCIES THEREFORE LOWERS RESPONSE t
THE MITERED JOINT SADDLE STIFFENS THE SUPPRES-SION CHAMBER CAUSING THE DOMINANT STRUCTURE
' FREQUENCY TO INCREASE'AND AS A RESULT LOWERS'THE DYNAMIC AMPLIFICATION.
- MORE EVENTLY DISTRIBUTES LOADS THEREFORE RE-DUCTIONS IN LOCAL STRESSES ANTICIPATED THE SADDLE PROVIDES A CONTINUOUS LOAD TRANSFER MECHANISM WHICH ACTS TO REDUCE THE LOCAL STRESSES NEAR DISCONTINUITIES.
- MORE THAN DOUBLES SUPPORT SYSTEM CAPACITY THE SUPPRESSION CHAMBER SADDL E SUPPORT SYSTEM I
CAPACITY IS MORE THAN DOUBLE THE CAPACITY OF THE
~
SUPPRESSION CHAMBER SUPPORT SYSTEM USED IN THE INTERIM PUA AS SHOWN ON PAGE A.21.
O DOWNCOMER STIFFENING SYSTEM EXPECTED TO BE ADEQUATE FOR LTP DOWNCOMER C.0. LOADS PRELIMINARY ASSESSME ~S HAVE SHOWN THAT THE DOWN-COMER STIFFdNING SYSTEM SHOWN ON PAGES A.11 AND A.12 PROVIDE AN EFFICIENT MEANS OF REDUCING LOCAL A.25
t CONDENSATION' OSCILLATION-LOAD ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS (CONT.)
A STRESSES AND RAISING 'iHE DOWNCOMER FREQUENCIES.
THE STIFFENING SYSTEM IS EXPdCTED TO BE ADEQUATE
~
FOR ALL LTP LOADS AND LOAD COMBINATIONS.
6 9
A.26 M- -,. -
---n-
,c,
+--,-t7m
'rM-*
9 e
ww*----
www v * - * - - * -
t APPENDIX B-FERMI ASSESSMENT 0F POOL-SWELL IMPACT LOADS ON THE VENT SYSTEM t
-(EXPANDED PRESENTATION OUTLINE USED FOR-MEETING HELD WITH NRC ON MAY-20, 1981 t
1 l'
B.1 a
POOL SWELL IMPACT ON THE VENT SYSTEM - OVERVIEW 0
SOME AREAS'0F VENT SYSTEM OVERSTRESSED FOR INTERIM ANALYSIS POOL SWELL LOADS THE PRIMARY MEMBRANE STRESSES COMPUTED FOR THE VENT HEADER IN THE INTERIM PUA EXCEEDED ALLOW-ABLES BY ~14%.
O GENERIC EFFORTS PREDICT HIGH LOCAL VENT-HEADER STRESSES DUE TO P00LSWELL IMPACT SINCE THE INTERIM ANALYSIS WAS COMPLETED A DETAILED
-ANALYSIS HAS BEEN PERFORMED,4 THE' MARK I~ PROGRAM FOR THE LOCAL EFFECTS OF POOL SWELL IMPACT ON THE VENT HEADER.
THE ANALYSIS RESULTS PREDICT HIGH LOCAL STRESSES IN THE VENT HEADER.
O DECISION WAS MADE TO ADD VENT HEADER DEFLECTOR IN ORDER TO RESOLVE THE VENT SYSTEM OVERSTRESSES COMPUTED IN THE INTERIM Pl'A AND TO ADDRESS THE HIGH LOCAL STRESSES PREDICTED IN THE VENT HEADER THE DECISION WAS MADE TO ADD A VENT HEADER DEFLECTOR.
- QUARTER SCALE TESTS SHOW DEFLECTOR EFFECTIVELY MITIGATES HIGH LOCAL STRESSES T.HE PLANT UNIQUE QUARTER SCALE TESTS PERFORMED FOR FERMI INDICATE THAT THE VENT HEADER DEFLECTOR ELI-MINATES POOL SWELL IMPACT LOADS WHICH ACT DIRECTLY ON THE VENT HEADER AND AS A RESULT MITIGATES HIGH i
LOCAL STRESSES.
[
0 ASSESSMENT OF POOL SWELL LOADS SHOWED INTERIM LOADS ENVELOP LTP LOADS
~
B.2
9
!90L: SWELL IMPACT OF THE VENT SYSTEM - OVERVIEW -(CONT. )
A PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF POOL SWELL IMPACT LOADS HAS BEEN PERFORMED SINCE THE INTERIM PUA WAS COMPLETED.
THE RESULTS INDICATE THAT THE INTERIM PUA LOADS ENVELGP THOSE
.SPECIFIED:IN THE LTP (ADDITIONAL ASSESSMENT DETAILS ARE DISCUSSED LATER).
COMPLETE EVALUATI0li 0F POOL SWELL INCLUDED IN PUA
- PVA-NOW UNDERWAY A COMPREHENSIVE EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTS OF POOL SWELL IMPACT WILL BE INCLUDED IN-THE FERMI FINAL PUA WHICH
^
IS NOW UNDERWAY.
.i t
e I
i i
I i
t l
e B.3
1 DISCUSSION OF FIGURE ON PAGE WHICH FOLLOWS 0
VENT HEADER DEFLECTOR MODIFICATION (PAGE B.5)
THE FIGURE SHOWS THE VENT HEADER DEFLECTOR WHICH HAS BEEN ADDED TO THE FERMI VENT SYSTEM SINCE THE INTERIM PUA WAS COMPLETED.
THE DEFLECTOR CONSISTS OF A 12 IN.
DIAMETER PIPE WITH A 6 IN. TEE WELDED ON EACH SIDE.
THE HORIZONTAL PROJECTED WIDTH OF THE DEFLECTOR IS ABOUT 26 IN.
THE DEFLECTOR IS SUPPORTED BETWEEN THE DOWN-COMERS BELOW THE VENT HEADER BY THE CROTCH PLATES AS SHOWN ON PAGE A.11.
4 h
r e
h B.4
[
l
[ VENT HEADELR I
l 1
I g
( ~ ~%
(T '%
I
(
i b
~
A
__.,_i VENT HEADER A
N
=
i DEFLECTOR
{_ _
\\
T Y P.
ELEVATION VIEW y-- iz" g6 PIPE g.. q _ __ j j WT(o TYP.
_ SECT IOM A-A_
PIGURE 2 i
VENIT HEADER DEf LECTOR.
MODIFICATIOb)
I VENT SYSTEM ASSESSMENT WITH VENT HEADER DEFLECTOR 0
POOL SWELL' IMPACT ACCOUNTS FOR MORE THAN HALF 0F TOTAL COMPUTED STRESS IN THE INTERIM PUA AS SHOWN IN THE TABLE ON PAGE B.8 POOL SWELL IMPACT l
ACCOUNTS FOR MORE THAN HALF OF THE TOTAL STRESS IN THE VENT HEADER COMPUTED IN THE INTERIM PUA.
INTERIM ANALYSIS P0OL SWELL LOADS
- MAXIMUM PRESSURE OF 15.1 PSI THE MAXIMUM POOL-SWELL IMPAC.T PRESSURE USED IN THE INTERIM PUA Is 15.1 PSI.
- TOTAL APPLIED LOAD OF 200 KIPS THE TOTAL INTEGRATED APPLIED LOAC ACTING ON THE VENT READER AT THE TIME OF MAXIMUM IMPACT IS ABOUT 200
- LIPS,
- FLAT POOL ASSUMED THE POOL SWELL IMPACT LOADS WERE CONSERVATIVELY ASSUMED TO OCCUR SIMULTANEOUSLY ALONG THE LENGTH OF THE VENT HEADER IN THE NON-VENT BAY.
O LTP POOL SWELL LOADS (TAKEN FROM PULD)
- MAXIMUM PRESSURE OF 12.0 PSI THE MAXIM:JM POOL SWELL IMPACT PRESSURE COMPUTED USING FERMI QUARTER SCALE TEST RESULTS IS ABOUT 12.0 PSI, B,6
VENT SYSTEM ASSESSMEPT WITH VENT HEADER DEFLECTOR (CONT.)
- TOTAL APPLIED LOAD OF 75 KIPS THE TOTAL INTEGRATED APPLIED LOAD ACTING ON THE VENT HEADER DEFLECTOR AT THE TIME OF MAXIMUM IMPACT IS ABOUT 75 KIPS.
- POOL PROFILE LESS CRITICAL THE FERMI QUARTER SCALE TEST RESULTS INDICATE THAT I
THE ENTIRE VENT HEADER DEFLECTOR IS NOT IMPACTED SIMULTANEOUSLY.
0 VENT SYSTEM STRESSES RESULTING FROM P00L SWELL IMPACT LOADS COMPUTED IN INTERIM PUA ARE EXPECTED TO ENVELOP THE STRESSE3 COMPUTED USING LTP LOADS y
STRESSES IN THE VENT, SYSTEM DUE TO POOL SWELL IMPACT COMPUTED IM THE INTERIM PUA ARE EXPECTED TO ENVELOP THOSE WHICH WILL BE COMPUTED USING LTP POOL SWELL IMPACT LOADS.
AS A RESULT THE STRESSES COMPUTED IN l
THE INTERIM PUA WHICH EXCEED ALLOWABLES ARE EXPECTED TO BE LESS THAN ALLOWABLES.
i i
I r
B.7
LOADS CONTRIBUTION DETERMINED IN THE INTERIM - PUA Stress / Area Total Stress D.L.
Seismic Pool SRV V.S. Disc.
Int.
(KSI)
(%)
Swell (%)
Thrust (%)
Pressure
(%)
i Membrane /
22.0 1
3 53 29 10 4
Vent Header
.Near Vent t
Line Membrane /
22.0 3
2 63 17 13 2
Vent Header t
Near Mitered i
Joint
{
k r
h 1
'I i
t t
B.8
..,. _ _ _... _... -..... - _.., _. _ -.. _., ~ _ _.. _ _. _. -.
f
[ %:..,.
s
..,1.
i 53
. i i
t APPENDIX C-EFJMI FATIGUE ASSESSMENT (EXPANDED PRESENTATION OUTLINE USED FOR.
-MEETING HELD.WITH NRC ON MAY 20, 1981)
?
~h t
6 i
t I
r I.
i i
l
?
[
[
i 1.
i J
?
C.1 l
e r
.,~w,
,.c
.-~..+,-....--...,_,.c
..v.,+,
FATIGUE ASSESSMENT 0
COMPREHENSIVE BASIS FOR EVALUATING FATIGUE NOT AVAILABLE AT TIME OF INTERIM PUA THE FREQUENCIES, DURATIONS AND NUMBER OF OCCURRENCES OF ALL THE HYDRODYNAMIC LOADS WAS NOT AVAILABLE AT THE TIME THE INTERIM PUA.WAS PERFORMED.
0 EMPHASIS OF INTERIM PUA PLACED ON SHORT TERM SAFETY NOT.LONG TERM EFFECTS SUCH AS FATIGUE SINCE SRV DISCHARGE LOADS ARE THE LARGEST CONTRIBU-TING TO FATIGUE EFFECTS AND SINCE A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF SRV ACTUATIONS MUST OCCUR BEFORE FATIG'UE LIMITS ARE EXCEEDED, FATIGUE IS A LONG TERM CONCERN AND HAS NO EFFECT ON SHORT TERM SAFETY.
- CONSISTENT WITH STP APPLIED TO OPERATING MARK I'S THE MARK I STP DID NOT REQUIRE OPERATING PLANTS TO PE9 FORM A FATIGUE EVALUATION.
0 NO EVIDENCE OF FATIGUE PROBLEMS ENC 0UNTERED AT FSTF IN THE MANY SERIES OF TESTS CONDUCTED USING FSTF NO l
EVIDENCE OF FATIGUE WAS ENCOUNTERED.
0 N0 EVIDENCE OF FATIGUE PROBLEMS ENC 0UNTERED IN OPERATING MARK I'S i
IN THE MANY SERIES OF SRV TESTS CONDUCTED AT MONTICELLO THERE HAS BEEN NO EVIDENCE OF CATIGUE.
C.2
~
o FATIGUE ASSESSMENT (CONT.
'O FATIGUE EFFECTS FULLY ADDRESSED IN PbA
- NOW UNDER WAY.
A. COMPREHENSIVE EVALUATION OF FATIGUE EFFECTS WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE FERMI FINAL' PUA WHICH -IS NOW UNDERWAY.
C.3
.,o,.
INTERIM PUA FATIGUE ASSESSMENT O
FOR CHUGGING THE PREDICTED LOAD DURATION AND FREQUENCY IDENTIFIED 6000 STRESS CYCLES A PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF FATIGUE HAS BEEN PER-FORMED FOR THE SUPPRESSION CHAMBER USING INTERIM PUA STRESS RESULTS AND THE LOAD FREQUENCIES AND DURATIONS DEFINED IN THE LTP.
THE. ASSESSMENT ASSUMES 6000 PEAK STRESS CYCLES FOR CHUGGING.
THE PEAK STRESSES AND NUMBER OF STRESS CYCLES FOR IBA C.0, ARE ASSUMED TO BE THE SAME AS CHUGGING.
O COULD ACCOM0DATE 2000 SRV ACTIVATIONS BEFORE ATTAIN-ING A USAGE FACTOR OF 1.0 1
WHEN THE FATIGUE EFFECTS OF CHUGGING AND C.O. ARE COMBINED WITH THE FATIGUE EFFECTS OF SRV DISCHARGE LOADS THE ASSESSMENT RESULTS SHOW THAT MORE THAN l
2000 ACTUATIONS OF ANY ONE SRV CAN OCCUR BEFORE THE FATIGUE USA,GE FACTOR OF 1.0 IS EXCEEDED.
FIVE CYCLES OF PEAK STRESS ARE ASSUMED FOR SRV.
i 0
BASED ON OPERATING HISTORY OF OTHER PLANTS 2000 ALLOW-ABLE SRV ACTUATI:NS EXPECTED TO EXCEED ANTICIPATED SRV ACTUATIONS-0VER 40 YEAR LIFE THE NUMBE9 0F SRV ACTUATIONS EXPECTED TO OCCUR DURING THE 40 YEAR PLANT LIFE OF FERMI IS EXPECTED TO BE LESS THAN 2000 BASED ON OPERATING PLANT HISTORIES.
l l
\\
C.4
-