ML20052C037
| ML20052C037 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fermi  |
| Issue date: | 04/30/1982 |
| From: | Edwards N, Higginbotham A, Lehnert R NUTECH ENGINEERS, INC. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20052C024 | List: |
| References | |
| DET-04-028-2, DET-4-28-2, NUDOCS 8205040291 | |
| Download: ML20052C037 (230) | |
Text
O DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 April 1982 ENRICO FERMI ATOMIC POWER PLANT UNIT 2 PLANT UNIQUE ANALYSIS REPORT VOLUME 2 SUPPRESSION CHAMBER ANALYSIS Prepared for:
Detroit Edison Company O eree rea dv:
NUTECH Engineers, Inc.
Prepared by: Reviewed by:
I . . h R. A. Lehnert, P.E. T. [ Wenner, P.E.
Engineering Manager Engineering Director Approved by: Issued by:
Dr. A. B. ginbotham, .E . R. H. Kohrs, P.E.
General Ma ager Project Director Engineering Departmen
- ?
l Dr. N. W. Edwards, P.E. R. H. Buchholz l
Senior Vice-President Project General Manager nutgqh l
8~oo-uo04og91
REVISION CONTROL SHEET
SUBJECT:
Enrico Fermi Atomic REPORT NUMBER: DET-04-028-2 Power Plant, Unit 2 Revision 0
/^)
(/ Plant Unique Analysis Report Volume 2 J/M.
J. C. Attwood / Senior Consultant h
Initials Y -nin afb k.
A. Imandoust / Specialist Initials V.> % G %
Initials V. KtYmcfr / Project Engineer R. A. Lehnert / Eng. Manager b
Initials
/
l K. Loo / Specialist Initials I
YD. Quinn / Consultant R.
e f9f Initials MA s sana) l S. P. Quinn / SeniorTechnician Initialb S. H. Rosenblum / Consultant I Initials I
Ln ha 8. Sin W . 'E . Smith / Assobiate Engineer 4k!s Initials i/d1 u-* C*$'T C. S. TIramoto / Consultant I Initials P
04c9 rum cwt J.bi. Treiber / Specialist Ini[ dials D D
) Y. C."Yiu "/ Engine $r #
Initials' 2-ii nutggh
REVISION CeNTROL SHEET (Continued)
)
SUBJECT:
Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2 REPORT NUMBER: DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 Plant Unique Analysis Report Volume 2 ACCURACY CRITERIA PRE- ACCURACY CRITERIA E REV PRE- E REV PARED PARED CHECK CHECK CHECK CHECK PAGE(S) PAGE(S) 2-V 0 g/}L Vk. VR 2-2.55 0 KLO IN gy 2-VI gpt, 5A Yk. l$((
through V k. RM 2-2.57 jM XL O %9Q 2-VIII 2-2.58 2-IX through SA T \/(
through gL d5 & W 2-2,63 2-XIII 2-2.64 pl M N@
2-1.1 2-2 65 through @L V k. Vkv through IM NN YK 2-1.7 2-2.66 2-2.1 g/}L VK \/k. 2-2.67 Sg pT YK 2-2.2 q 2-2.68 gg T VK through GAL d, 2-2*69 2-2.9 31 UK 2-2.10 2-2.70 34 yg through @ g4L VK 2-2.71 g T gg h)[]h
~
through MRL NN N 2-2.74 3 jWR Apog 2-2.75 2-2.46 y g through ggL EMd? VK through
~
ML 2-2.05 2-2.48 jf/A RMd?
g 2-2.86 g RD4? [Q 2-2.87 2-2.49 ,/NN N NN through fp$ Vk 2-2.50 2-2.89 b through 5k I v 2-2.90 2-2.51 through 2-2.92 fl0tQ V4 fQ 2-2.52 g jgg ffQ 2-2.53 g2;g3 r h gg{ 89k VK, 2-2 4 p 2-2.96 p O O o QEP-001.4-00 2-iii
l l
REVISION CONTROL SHEET (Continuation)
TITLE: ENRICO FERMI ATOMIC REPORT NUMBER: DET-04-028-2
\ PLANT, UNIT 2 PLANT UNIQUE ANALYSIS REPORT VOLUME 2
~
CRITERIA PRE- ACCURACY CRITERIA REV PRE-ACCURACY E REV E PARED CHECK PARED CHECK CHECK CHECK PAGE(S) PAGE(S) 2-2.97 0 2-2.143 0 S pT 48W t u Rg T N 2-2.144 jf//( 4)cAf VK through 2-2.99 g, y g{ 2-2.146 2-2.100 2-2,147 j#4 T Jcst hQ MMk N 2-2.148 ji/X T fM 2-2.149 2-2.115 through 2-2.118 RM %T 0'
vK U@ S& %T U
E##
2-2.119 .5 A d67 Mb bug % 4M VK 2-2.120 MI/N R.M VK 2-2.155 2-2.121 RAe pT Vk. 2-3.1 SA Yk. #R 2-2.122 .3 A T VK 2-2.123 through g S 2-2.128 2-2.129 $ MNd 1 64 2-2.130 Q jf/8 I/9 2-2.131 jW yM) V K, 2-2.132 through R RBS VK 2-2.135 2-2.136 g g@ hk 2-2 137 through [2frb N Of YN-2-2.138 2-2.139 T NO Vk.
2-2.140 $g pT g@
2-2.141 U
$T KL.0 v x.
(d 2-2.142 0 $ y(
QEP-001.4-00 2-iv nut.e_qh
i
'f l
O ^=sra^c' 4
The primary containment for the Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2, was designed, erected, pressure-tested, and ASME Code N-stamped during the early 1970's for the Detroit Edison Company j by the Chicago Bridge and Iron Company. Since that time new requirements, defined in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Safety Evaluation Report NUREG-0661, which affect the design and operation of the primary containment system have evolved. The requirements to be addressed include an assessment of additional containment design loads postulated to occur during a loss-of-coolant accident or a safety relief valve discharge event, as well as an assessment of the effects that these postulated events l have on the operational characteristics of the containment j system.
This plant unique analysis report documents the efforts under-taken to address and resolve each of the applicable NUREG-0661 1 requirements, and demonstrates, in accordance with NUREG-0661 j acceptance criteria, that the design of the primary containment system is adequate and that original design safety margins have
'been restored. The report is composed of five volumes which ares o Volume 1 - GENERAL CRITERIA AND LOADS METHODOLOGY o Volume 2 - SUPPRESSION CHAMBER ANALYSIS o Volume 3 - VENT SYSTEM ANALYSIS o Volume 4 - INTERNAL STRUCTURES ANALYSIS i o Volume 5 - SAFETY RELIEF VALVE PIPING ANALYSIS
.This volume, Volume 2, which documents the evaluation of the l suppression chamber, has been prepared by NUTECH Engineers, Incorporated (NUTECH), acting as an agent responsible to . the Detroit Edison Company.
6 DET-04-028-2 i Revision 0 2-v
TABLE OF CONTENTS lll Page ABSTRACT 2-v LIST OF ACRONYMS 2-vii LIST OF TABLES 2-ix LIST OF FIGURES 2-xi 2-
1.0 INTRODUCTION
2-1.1 2-1.1 Scope of Analysie 2-1.3 2-1.2 Summary and Conclusions 2-1.5 2-2.0 SUPPRESSION CHAMBER ANALYSIS 2-2.1 2-2.1 Component Description 2-2.2 2-2.2 Loads and Load Combinations 2-2.22 2-2.2.1 Loads 2-2.23 2-2.2.2 Load Combinations 2-2.75 lll 2-2.3 Analysis Acceptance Criteria 2-2.93 2-2.4 Method of Analysis 2-2.100 2-2.4.1 Analysis for Major Loads 2-2.101 2-2.4.2 Analysis for Lateral Loads 2-2.123 2-2.4.3 Methods for Evaluating 2-2.132 Analysis Results 2-2.5 Analysis Results 2-2.137 2-2.5.1 Discussion of Analysis 2-2.151 Results 2-2.5.2 Closure 2-2.154 2-3.0 LIST OF REFERENCES 2-3.1 DET-04-028-2 llh Revision 0 2-vi nutggh
l
'( ) LIST OF ACRONYMS [
ADS Automatic Depressurization System ACI American Concrete Institute AISC American Institute of Steel Construction ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers CDP Cumulative Distribution Function CO Condensation Oscillation
- DC Downcomer DBA Design Basis Accident DBE Design Basis Earthquake DLP Dynamic Load Factor FSAR Final Safety Analysis Report FSI Fluid-Structure Interaction
) FSTF Full-Scale Test Facility IBA Intermediate Break Accident LDR Load Definition Report LOCA Loss-of-Coolant Accident MC Midcylinder .
MJ Mitered Joint MVA Multiple Valve Actuation ,
NEP Non-Exceedance Probability
! NOC Normal Operating Conditions NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission NVB Non-Vent Line Bay NWL Normal Water Level O DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-vil nutggb
LIST OF ACRONYMS h (Concluded)
OBE Operating Basis Earthquake PSD Power Spectral Density PUA Plant Unique Analysis PUAAG Plant Unique Analysis Application Guide PUAR Plant Unique Analysis Report PULD Plant Unique Load Definitions QSTF Quarter-Scale Test Facility RPV Reactor Pressure Vessel RSEL Resultant-Static-Equivalent Load SBA Small Break Accident SER Safety Evaluation Report lh SRSS Square Root of the Sum of Squares SRV Safety Relief Valve SRVDL Safety Relief Valve Discharge Line SSE Safe Shutdown Earthquake SVA Single Valve Actuation TAP Torus-Attached Piping VB Vent Line Bay VH Vent Header VL Vent Line DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-viii nutggh
() LIST OF TABLES Number Title Page i
2-2.2-1 Suppression Chamber Component Loading 2-2.46 i Identification 2-2.2-2 Suppression Pool Temperature Response 2-2.47 Analysis Results - Maximum Temperatures 2-2.2-3 Torus Shell Pressures Due to Pool Swell 2-2.48 at Key Times and Selected Locations 2-2.2-4 Ring Beam and Quencher Beam LOCA Air 2-2.49 Clearing Submerged Structure Load .
Distributions f 2-2.2-5 DBA Condensation Oscillation Torus Shell 2-2.50 :
Pressure Amplitudes 2-2.2-6 Ring Beam and Quencher Beam DBA Condensation 2-2.52 Oscillation Submerged Structure Load Distributions ,
2-2.2-7 Post-Chug Torus Shell Pressure Amplitudes 2-2.53
() 2-2.2-8 Ring Beam and Quencher Beam Pre-Chug Submerged Structure Load Distributions 2-2.55 2-2.2-9 Ring Beam and Quencher Beam Post-Chug 2-2.56 Submerged Structure Load Distributions 2-2.2-10 Ring Beam and Quencher Beam SRV Submerged 2-2.57 Structure Load Distributions 2-2.2-11 Mark I Containment Event Combinations 2-2.86 2-2.2-12 Controlling Suppression Chamber Load 2-2.87 Combinations 2-2.2-13 Enveloping Logic for Controlling 2-2.89 Suppression Chamber Load Combinations 2-2.3-1 Allowable Stresses for Suppression Chamber 2-2.97 Components and Supports 2-2.3-2 Suppression Chamber Vertical Support System 2-2.99 l l
Allowable Loads DET-04-028-2 l Revision 0 2-ix ;
ON I
1 J
LIST OF TABLES (Concluded) llh Number Title Page 2-2.4-1 Suppression Chamber Frequency Analysis 2-2.115 Results 2-2.5-1 Maximum Suppression Chamber Shell 2-2.139 Stresses for Governing Loads 2-2.5-2 Maximum Vertical Support Reactions for 2-2.140 Governing Suppression Chamber Loadings 2-2.5-3 Maximum Suppression Chamber Stresses 2-2.141 for Controlling Load Combinations 2-2.5-4 Maximum Vertical Support Reactions for 2-2.143 Controlling Suppression Chamber Load Combinations 2-2.5-5 Maximum Suppression Chamber Shell 2-2.144 Stresses Due to Lateral Loads 2-2.5-6 Maximum Seismic Restraint Reactions 2-2.145 Due to Lateral Loads 2-2.5-7 Maximum Suppression Chamber Shell 2-2.146 Stresses and Seismic Restraint Reactions for Controlling Load Combinations with Lateral Loads 2-2.5-8 Maximum Fatigue Usage Factors for 2-2.147 Suppression Chamber Components and Welds DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-x nutggja
- . 'N
.c, s
\
"s >
' s ha '
s
.s LIST OF FIGURES Title Page
_ Hum _ber
. s ~ 2-2.,1-1 ,
Plan.Viewrof Containment 2-2.10
!_ s l - 2 ,2.1-2 Elevation View of Containment 2-2.11 2-2.1-3 ,
Suppression, Chamber Section - Midcylinder 2-2.12 Vent Itine Bay' 2-2.1-4 Suppression Chamlier Section - Mitered Joint 2-2.13 2-2.1-5 Supprea hamber Section - Midcylinder 2-2.14 Non-Vel _..e Bay 2-2.1-6 DevelopedgView of Suppression Chamber 2-2.15 Segment i s ,
2-2.1-7 Suppression Chamber Ring Beam and Vertical 2-2.16 Supports'i- Partial Elevation View 2-2.1-8 Suppression Chamber Vertical Support Base 2-2.17 Plates - Partial Plan View and Details 2-2.1-9 Suppression Chamber Ring Beam and Column 2-2.18
, ()
p Connection Details 2-2.1-10 Suppression Chamber Seismic Restraint 2-2.19 2-2.1-11 Quencher Locations and SRV Setpoint 2-2.20 Pressures - Plan View 2-2.1-12 Quencher and Quencher Supports - Plan 2-2.21 View and Details 2-2.2-1 Suppression Chamber Internal Pressures 2-2.58 for SBA Event 2-2.2-2 Suppression Chamber Internal Pressures 2-2.59 s
l for IBA Event 2-2.2-3 s 4uppression Chamber Internal Pressures 2-2.60 for DBA Ev)nt-s s 2-2.2-4 Suppression Ciiamber Temperatures for SBA 2-2.61 4 Event M k % n 2-2.2-5 Suppression Chamber Tempera'tures for IBA 2-2.62 Event
~
N DET-04-028-2 ,
i Revision 0 ,4- 2-xi >
- , s
' ' ~
.: k ~
-7 i
[- !
cc !
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued) llh Number- Title Page 2-2.2-6 Suppression Chamber Temperatures for DBA 2-2.63 Event 2-2.2-7 Suppression Chamber Support Differential 2-2.64 Temperatures 2-2.2-8 Pool Swell Torus Shell Pressure Transient 2-2.65 at Suppression Chamber Mitered Joint -
Bottom Dead Center Locations
, 2-2.2-9 Pool Swell Torus Shell Pressure Transient 2-2.66 for Suppression Chamber Air Space
, 2 '. 2-10 Normalized Torus Shell Pressure Distribution 2-2.67 i; for DBA Condensation Oscillation and Post-Chug Loadings 2-2.2-11 Pool Acceleration Profile for Dominant 2-2.68 Suppression Chamber Frequency at Midcylinder Location
', 2-2.2-12 Circumferential Torus Shell Pressure 2-2.69 llh i Distribution for Symmetric and Asymmetric Pre-Chug Loadings 2-2.2-13 Longitudinal Torus Shell Pressure 2-2.70 Distribution for Asymmetric Pre-Chug Loadings
. 2-2.2-14 SRV Discharge Torus Shell Loads for Case 2-2.71 A1.1/A1.3 - Single Valve Actuation 2-2.2-15 SRV Discharge Torus Shell Loads for Case 2-2.72 A1.2/C3.2 - Multiple Valve Actuation 2-2.2-16 SRV Discharge Torus Shell Loads for Case 2-2.73 A2.2 - ADS Valve Actuation 2-2.2-17 Longitudinal Torus Shell Pressure Distribu- 2-2.74 tion for SRV Discharge Case A2.2 - ADS Valve Actuation 2-2.2-18 Suppression Chamber SBA Event Sequence 2-2.90 2-2.2-19 Suppression Chamber IBA Event Sequence 2-2.91 DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-xii nutggb
l LIST OF FIGURES (Concluded)
Number Title Page 2-2.2-20 Suppression Chamber DBA Event Sequence 2-2.92 2-2.4-1 Suppression Chamber 1/32nd Segment Finite 2-2.118 Element Model - Isometric View 2-2.4-2 Suppression Chamber Fluid Model - 2-2.119 Isometric View 2-2.4-3 Ring Beam and Quencher Beam Harmonic 2-2.120 Analysis Results for Frequency Determination 2-2.4-4 Suppression Chamber Harmonic Results for 2-2.121 Normalized Hydrostatic Loads 2-2.4-5 Modal Correction Factors Used for 2-2.122 Analysis of SRV Discharge Torus Shell Loads 2-2.4-6 Methodology for Suppression Chamber 2-2.129 Lateral Load Application 2-2.4-7 Typical Chugging Cycle Load Transient 2-2.130 O. Used for Asymmetric Pre-Ch'g u Dynamic Amplification Factor Determination 2-2.4-8 Dynamic Load Factor Determination 2-2.131 for Suppression Chamber Unbalanced Lateral Load Due to SRV Discharge -
ADS Valve Actuation Case A2.2 2-2.4-9 Allowable Number of Stress Cycles for 2-2.136 Suppression Chamber Fatigue Evaluation 2-2.5-1 Suppression Chamber Response Due to 2-2.148 Pool Swell Loads - Total Vertical Load Per Mitered Cylinder 2-2.5-2 Suppression Chamber Response Due to 2-2.149 Single Valve SRV Discharge Torus Shell Loads - Total vertical Load Per Mitered Cylinder 2-2.5-3 Suppression Chamber Response Due to 2-2.150 Multiple Valve SRV Discharge Torus Shell Loads - Total Vertical Load Per Mitered Cylinder (h
DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-xiii n
I
() 2-
1.0 INTRODUCTION
In conjunction with Volume 1 of the Plant Unique Analysis Report (PUAR), this volume documents the efforts undertaken to address the requirements defined in NUREG-0661 which affect the Fermi 2 suppression chamber. The suppression chamber PUAR is organized as
! follows:
o INTRODUCTION Scope of Analysis Summary and Conclusions o SUPPRESSION CHAMBER ANALYSIS
() -
Component Description Loads and Load Combinations Analysis Acceptance Criteria Method of Analysis Analysis Results The INTRODUCTION section contains an overview discussion of the scope of the suppression chamber evaluation, as well as a summary of the conclusions derived from the
- comprehensive evaluation of the suppression chamber.
The SUPPRESSION CHAMBER ANALYSIS section contains a comprehensive discussion of the suppression chamber DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-1.1 l
l nutggh
\
loads and load combinations, and a description of the g component parts of the suppression chamber affected by these loads. The section also contains a discussion of the methodology used to evaluate the effects of these loads, the evaluation results, and the acceptance limits to which the results are compared.
O DET-04-028-2 ,
Revision 0 2-1.2 nutp_qh
i 2-1.1 Scope of Analysis '
t t
The criteria presented in Volume 1 are used as the basis for the Fermi 2 suppression chamber evaluation. The suppression chamber is evaluated for the effects of LOCA and SRV discharge related loads defined by the NRC Safety Evaluation Report NUREG-0661 (Reference 1) and by the Mark I Containment Program Load Definition Report (LDR) (Reference 2).
The LOCA and SRV discharge loads used in this evaluation are formulated using the methodology discussed in Volume 1 of this report. The loads are developed using the O v1 e u=ieue eeo eerv, over et e vere eeer , eaa ee e results contained in the Mark I Containment Program Plant Unique Load Definition (PULD) report (Reference 3). The effects of increased suppression pool temper-atures which occur during SRV discharge events are also evaluated. These temperatures are taken from the plant's suppression pool temperature response analysis.
Other loads and methodology, such as the evaluation for seismic loads, are taken from the plant's Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) (Reference 4).
l l
l l
DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-1.3 nutg,gh
The evaluation includes a structural analysis of the h suppression chamber for the effects of LOCA and SRV discharge related loads to confirm that the design of the modified suppression chamber is adequate. Rigorous analytical techniques are used in this evaluation, including use of detailed analytical models for comput- l 1
ing the dynamic response of the suppression chamber. l Effects such as fluid-structure interaction are con-sidered in the suppression chamber analysis. )
The results of the structural evaluation of the suppres-sion chamber for each load are used to evaluate load combinations and f atigue ef fects in accordance with the Mark I Containment Program Structural Acceptance Criteria Plant Unique Analysis Application Guide (PUAAG)
(Reference 5). The analysis results are compared with the acceptance limits specified by the PUAAG and the applicable sections of the ASME Code (Reference 6).
DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-1.4 nutgg])
2-1.2 Summary and Conclusions The evaluation documented in this report volume is based on the modified Fermi 2 suppression chamber as described f in Section 1-2.1. The overall load-carrying capacity of the suppression chamber and its supports is substan-tially greater than that of the original suppression chamber design described in the plant's FSAR.
The loads considered in the original design of the suppression chamber include dead weight loads, OBE and DBE loads, and pressure and temperature loads associated with Normal Operating Conditions (NOC) and a postulated f LOCA event. Additional loadings which affect the design of the suppression chamber, postulated to occur during SBA, IBA, or DBA LOCA events and during SRV discharge events, are defined generically in NUREG-0661. Each of these events results in hydrodynamic pressure loadings on the suppression chamber shell, hydrodynamic drag loadings on the submerged components of the suppression chamber, and in reaction loadings caused by loads acting on structures attached to the suppression chamber.
i O oer-o4-028-2 Revision 0 2-1.5 l
nutggh !
l l
The methodology used to develop plant unique loadings g for the suppression chamber evaluation is discussed in Section 1-4.0. Applying this methodology results in conservative values for each of the significant NUREG-0661 loadings which envelop those postulated to occur during an actual LOCA or SRV discharge event.
The LOCA and SRV discharge related loads are grouped into event combinations using the NUREG-0661 criteria discussed in Section 1-3.2. The event sequencing and event combinations specified and evaluated envelop the actual events expected to occur throughout the life of the plant.
O Some of the loads contained in the postulated event combinations are major contributors to the total response of the suppression chamber. These include LOCA internal pressure loads, DBA pool swell torus shell loads, DBA condensation oscillation torus shell loads, and SRV discnarge torus shell loads. Other loadings, such as temperature loads, seismic loads, chugging torus shell loads, submerged structure loads, and containment structure reaction loads, although considered in the evaluation, have a lesser effect on the total response of the suppression chamber.
DAT-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-1.6 h
nutp_qh
_,/
The suppression chamber evaluation is based on ;
NUREG-0661 acceptance criteria which are discussed in Section 1-3.2. These acceptance limits are at least as restrictive as those used in the original suppression chamber design documented in the plant's FSAR. Use of this criteria ensures that the original suppression chamber design margins have been restored.
The controlling event combinations for the suppression chamber include the loadings which have been found to be major contributors to the response of the suppression chamber. The evaluation results for these controlling event combinations show that all of the suppression chamber stresses and support reactions are within acceptable limits.
As a result, the suppression chamber described in Section 1-2.1 is adequate to restore the margins of safety inherent in the original design of the suppres-sion chamber documented in the plant's FSAR. The intent l of the NUREG-0661 requirements as they affect the design adequacy and safe operation of the Fermi 2 suppression chamber are considered to be met.
l V,23 DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-1.7 nutgq,h
2-2.0 SUPPRESSION CHAMBER ANALYSIS An evaluation of each of the NUREG-0661 requirements which affect the design adequacy of the Fermi 2 suppression chamber is presented in the sections which follow. The criteria used in this evaluation are presented in Volume 1 of this report.
1 The component parts of the suppression chamber which are examined are described in Section 2-2.1. The loads and load combinations for which the suppression chamber is evaluated are presented in Section 2-2.2. The methodology used to evaluate the effects of these loads and load combinations on the suppression chamber is ;
discussed in Section 2-2.4. The acceptance limits to which the analysis results are compared are described in Section 2-2.3. The analysis results and the corresponding s'uppression chamber design margins are presented in Section 2-2.5.
l i
DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.1 nutagh
Component Description 9
2-2.1 The Fermi 2 suppression chamber is constructed from 16 mitered cylindrical shell segments joined together in the shape of a torus. The configuration of the suppression chamber is illustrated in Figure 2-2.1-1.
The proximity of the suppression chamber to other components of the containment is shown in Figures 2-2.1-1 through 2-2.1-6.
The suppression chamber is connected to the drywell by 8 vent lines which, in turn, are connected to a common vent header within the suppression chamber. Attached to g the vent header are downcomers which terminate below the surface of the suppression pool. The vent system is supported vertically at each mitered joint by two support columns, as shown in Figure 2-2.1-4, which transfer reaction loads to the suppression chamber. A bellows assembly is provided at the penetration of the vent line to the suppression chamber, as shown in Figure 2-2.1-3, to allow differential movement of the suppression chamber and vent system to occur.
DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.2 h
nutgch
As seen in Figure 2-2.1-1, the major radius of the suppression chamber is 56'-3", measured at midbay of each mitered cylinder. The inside diameter of the mitered cylinders which make up the suppression chamber is 30'-6". The suppression chamber shell thickness is typically 0.587" above the horizontal centerline and 0.658" below the horizontal centerline, except at penetrations where it is locally thicker.
The suppression chamber shell is reinforced at each mitered joint location by a T-shaped ring beam, as shown in Figures 2-2.1-4 and 2-2.1-7. A typical ring beam is located in a plane 4" from the mitered joint and on the O vent line bay side of each mitered joint. As such, the intersection of a ring beam web and the suppression chamber shell is an ellipse. The inner flange of the ring beams are rolled to a constant inside radius of 13'-1". Thus a ring beam web depth varies from 24-1/2" to 28-1/4" and has a constant thickness of 1-1/2". The lower and upper portions of the ring beams are attached to the suppression chamber shell with 3/4" and 5/16" l fillet welds, respectively, as shown in Figures 2-2.1-8 1
and 2-2.1-9.
!O -T-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.3 nutg.gh
The lower portion of the ring beams are reinforced by g 16" wide by 1-1/2" thick cover plates which extend approximately 20" above the horizontal centerline of the suppression chamber, as shown in Figures 2-2.1-7 and 2-2.1-9. The major axis moment of inertia of the ring beams with the added cover plates is approximately double that of the nominal cross-section of a ring beam.
The ring beams are braced laterally with 1-1/2" thick stiffeners connecting the ring beam webs to the suppression chamber shell, as shown in Figures 2-2.1-7 and 2-2.1-9. The stiffener plates are spaced intermittently around the circumference of the ring beams, concentrated in areas where lateral submerged h drag loads and flange compressive stresses occur.
The suppression chamber is supported vertically at each mitered joint location by inside and outside columns, and by a saddle support which spans the inside and outside columns, as shown in Figures 2-2.1-4 and
. 2-2.1-7. The columns, column connection plates, and 1
( saddle supports are located parallel to the associated 1
mitered joint in the plane of the ring beam web. At each mitered joint the ring beam, columns, column j connections, and saddle support form an integral support l
DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.4 nut _ed ,
1 l
O y ee- **ica er = fer- vertic 1 1o de cei=9 o= the suppression chamber shell to the reactor building basemat. The support s'ystem provides full vertical support for the suppression chamber, while allowing lateral movement and thermal expansion to occur.
As shown in Figure 2-2.1-4, the vertical support system is geometrically continuous over the lower half of the suppression chamber. It provides a load transfer mechanism which acts to reduce local suppression chamber shell stresses and more evenly distribute reaction loads to the basemat. The vertical support system also acts to raise the suppression chamber natural frequencies O beyond the crieice1 freauencies of mese hydrodynamic loads, thereby reducing dynamic amplification effects.
The outside column supports are constructed from W12 X 190 rolled sections with 1-3/4" thick continuously welded cover plates, as shown in Figure 2-2.1-7. The inside column supports are similarly constructed from W12 X 161 rolled sections and 1-1/2" thick cover plates. The load-carrying capacity of the column supports with cover plates is approximately double that of the rolled sections alone.
DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.5 nutggb
The connection of the column supports to the suppression h chamber shell is achieved with web plates, flange plates, cover plates, and stiffener plates which are 1-1/2" thick, as shown in Figure 2-2.1-7. Each saddle support is comprised of a 1-1/2" thick web plate, a 1-1/2" thick lower flange plate, and saddle base plate assemblies, as shown in Figures 2-2.1-7 and 2-2.1-8.
The column connection web plates and saddle support web plates are attached to the suppression chamber shell with partial and full penetration welds, and are stiffened to ensure that buckling does not occur during peak load transfer.
The anchorage of the suppression chamber to the basemat is achieved by a system of base plates, stiffeners, and anchor bolts located at each column and at two locations on each saddle support, as shown in Figure 2-2.1-4. The column base plate assemblies consist of a 2-1/2" thick base plate, gusset plates, and an expansion bearing plate. The saddle base plate assemblies consist of a 1-15/16" thick base plate, gusset plates, and a expansion bearing plate.
Six, 1-1/2" diameter epoxy-grouted anchor bolts are prov$ded at each column base plate location. Twelve, DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.6 nutggh i
(] 1-1/2" diameter epoxy-grouted anchor bolts are provided at each saddle base plate location. A total of 36 anchor bolts at each mitered joint location provide the principal mechanism for transfer of uplift loads acting on the suppression chamber to the basemat.
Four seismic restraints which provide lateral support for the suppression chamber are located 90' apart, as shown in Figure 2-2.1-1. Each seismic restraint, shown in Figure 2-2.1-10, consists of a 1" thick pad plate welded to the bottom of the suppression chamber shell, a system of interlaced pin plates joined together by a 9-3/8" diameter pin, and a 1" thick base plate with V shear bars keyed and grouted into the basemat. The seismic restraints permit vertical and radial movement of the suppression chamber, while restraining longitudinal movement resulting from lateral loads acting on the suppression chamber. The pad plates distribute loads over a large area of the suppression chamber shell and provide an effective means of transferring suppression chamber lateral loads to the basemat.
The plant unique T-quencher used for Fermi 2 is described in Section 1-4.2. There are a total of 15 T-quenchers with ramsheads located at the mitered joints l f l G l DET-04-028-2 l Revision 0 2-2.7 nutgc_h
and the associated quencher arms located in the plane of O
the vertical centerline of the suppression chamber, as shown in Figures 2-2.1-3 and 2-2.1-11.
Each quencher is supported at the mitered joint by a ram > head support which transfers loads acting on the quencher to a pedestal assembly, as shown in Figure 2-2.1-12. The quencher arms are supported vertically by T-section support beams which extend longitudinally from mitered joint to mitered joint in each mitered cylinder of the suppression chamber. The vertical quencher support beams are 26-1/2" deep and are comprised of a 6" wide by 1-1/2" thick flange plate, a 1-1/2" thick web g plate, and gusset and pad plates evenly spaced along the length of the beams to provide lateral bracing for submerged drag loads, as shown in Figure 2-2.1-6. The quencher pedestal and vertical quencher support beams are an integral part of the suppression chamber and are evaluated accordingly.
The quencher arms are supported laterally by a horizontal pipe beam which spans the mitered joint ring beams at the same elevation as the quenchers, as shown in Figure 2-2.1-12. Loads which act on the quencher arms and the lateral quencher support beam are O
DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.8 l nutp_q_h I
I l transferred to ring plate supports connected to the top flange of the ring beams, as shown in Figure 2-2.1-7.
Since the lateral quencher support beam is allowed to slide longitudinally, the ring plates transfer only in-plane loads to the ring beams.
The suppression chamber provides support for many other containment-related structures such as the vent system, catwalk, and monorail. Loads acting on the suppression chamber cause motions at the attachment points of these structures to the suppression chamber. Loads acting on !
these structures also cause reaction loads on the suppression chamber. These containment interaction
) effects are evaluated in the analysis of the suppression chamber.
The overall load-carrying capacities of the suppression chamber component parts described in the preceding paragraphs are substantially greater than those of the original suppression cha.nber design described in the plant's FSAR.
b DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.9 ;
1 nutgqh l 1
l
O SEISMIC
-4 0" o RESTRAINT 0 VENT LINE PENETRATION 30'-6"I.D.
N l
l I
/
" 56'-3" .
p 270 ~' -
Mf- 4 90
-,% DRYWELL
/ ~
I
\' / / '
/
VENT
/
SYETEM WMXm \/
7 uY-aD-
'/ENT - T HEADER MITERED NON-VENT ,y JOINT LINE BAY ,
180 SUPPRESSION VENT LINE BAY CHAMBER MIDCYLINDER I
Figure 2-2,1-1 PLAN VIEW OF CONTAINMENT (
1 I
DET-04-028-2 R3 vision 0 2-2.10
( CONTAINMENT O
EL. 662'-6" g
/
_19'-5" I.R.
l 34'-0" I.R. ,
i DRYWELL SHIELD -. -
EUILDING **'
EL. 597'-0" s
. . 's l ,, 37 5' os VENT LINE o'- e
.' t ec
.l' BELLOWS SUPPRESSION CHAMBER EL. 562'-8 1/2"
- Tll .o'
~
a- '* -
. *g'.*',,..
/ M
'.-*o 557'-9"(/ EL. 559'-O'
~ ' -
=
EL. \ %
- .f,..,*
J-
'/ , _ , _
DOWNCOMER .
'9 .' * .
EL. 540'-0" <in llllt lA 11lll I .
l=**
e - - ,
b Figure 2-2.1-2 ELEVATION VIEW OF CONTAINMENT 2-2.11 DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 g
O M TO ( CONTAINMENT SPRAY MONORAIL
. -T. VENT VACUUM BREAKER ,- 74 LINE SUPPORT ,' '-1 VENT - -
i HEADER - ,'"'I
- 's i
/ '
I /. 8 %
0.587" THICK .
e y '
ABCVE t 3'-0" I.R. % j, y , 240 56'40"
'.*D i_ _
VACUUM BREAKER
~^
fp
\
f PLATFORM q g SRV f n i ,
PIPE k -
7 ,,
EL.557'-9"
[ LATERAL VENT HEADER DOWNCOMER QUENCHER DEFLECTOR I
SUPPORT 0.658" THICK g$,-3" I.R.
BELOW t ,
I f f -
SUPPRESSION QUENCHER
)1 SHELL VERTICAL QUENCHER" j SUPPORT BEAM EL.540'-0"
..f..',..- .
.'.' ' . . ' e :.,
~p
-l. .~.3.
l Figure 2-2.1-3 SUPPRESSION CHAMBER SECTION-MIDCYLINDER VENT L2NE BAY
- "'i;;;;2*-2 - - 2 nutach 1
O SUPPRESSION CHAMBER {l ~ TO { CONTAINMENT
\ SPRAY HEADER MONORAIL h
CATWALK "
l VENT HEADER
' ' f
~ '13'-1" I.R.
i IN PLANE RING B N TIFFEER h{ OF R.B.
g SRV PIPE -
l
, .7 VENT SYSTEM SUPPORT l ' LATERAL OLM l COLUMNS ECTION QUENCHER l i i SUPPORT f RAMSHEAD l BEAM y l1 s .
I INSIDE OUTSIDE l l L.
COLUMN ,,
lp u a x!
h '
rl N ' '
h EL.540'-0"
. , .s :, *,
I s,'s:a, a *
- *;. I
- s. . s-SADDLE VERTICAL QUENCHER SUPPORT SUPPORT BEAM Figure 2-2.1-4 SUPPRESSION CHAMBER SECTION-
) MITERED JOINT
- "'I
- i;;28-2 2-2.13 nute_Qb
I 9
1 SPRAY HEADER l-TO Q CONTAINMENT MONORAIL VENT HEADER
\ l i
CATWALK SUPPORT 2 '-l 1/2" I. R.
, -4'-11 1/2" a n M ,
I 8'-10 1/2" -i k/ - - - ~
d __
_/ ,
4 ' - 0 "_ _4'-0"]
15'-3" I.R.
VENT HEADER DEFLECTOR j DOWNCOMER O '
^
LATCRAL QUENCHER SUPPORT BEAM VERTICAL QUENCHER SUPPORT BEAM , *g, q g' r SEISMIC RESTRAINT ,_ ,
og sg a[sgu g s [ a
> yi.- F I
.,a..
4,
> ; ,b . . . < , 3,.4 ,a >:
. ,,,, j
- . - - >.a -
Figure 2-2.1-5 I SUPPRESSION CHAMBER SECTION-MIDCYLINDER NON-VENT LINE BAY l I
DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.14 OUkE E5s3 l
( MIDCYLINDER VENT LINE(
I
- VENT r d HEADER s
- : RING BEAM f
\
VACUUM BREAKER \
s l -p- SUPPORT BEAM '~l ~ -
DOWNCOMER BRACING SRV PIPE SUPPORT ,
OJ / k
/ - m #i% i #!% )
m n %#
l n \ r. in I
%4# '
._ __ / \ I' JN
-= :: *:::: e
--~~
___ _ m ,
i
- - - - - - , ', .... :.,3 : - -L4_ _-A& : = = d _ _ _ _ _ f
__k
~N._ _ _. -
k _-- - '
t VENT l HEADER l
ER TOR DEFLECTOR A DOWNCOMER O l VENT SYSTEM SUPPORT COLUMN
~ j
- ~
SRV PIPE I
T-QUENCHER HEAD r-h j/
L -
'_ _n _J a i :
s . . _ _ _ _ _
s
.k, rh \
SUPPRESSION -VERTICAL QUENCHER CHAMBER SHELL
/,
6!m SUPPORT BEAM
.EL.540'-0" af.,A t a' 4342 {,*4 v* ,'
.o .r [SADDLESUPPORT ***
Figure 2-2.1-6 l DEVELOPED VIEW OF SUPPRESSION CHAMBEF SEGMENT q
C-DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.15 Qd
b RING BEAM PE NOTE:
[ 1. SEE FIGURE 2-2.1-8 AND 2-2.1-9 FOR SUPPRESSION CHAMBER SHELL / D SECTIONS AND VIEWS
/
COVER PLATE k l 1/2" THICK ~ .(/
/f ~
WEB AND FLANGE 4 PLATES {gt 1 1/2" THICK k -INTERNAL STIFFENERS 1 1/2" THICK COVER PLATE g 1 1/2" THICK j COLUMN CONNEC- \
TION WEB PLATE I \ l
\ _ As INSIDE COLUMN i LATERAL QUENCHER W12 x 161 WITH 1 1/2" THICK
\ SUPPORT BEAM COVER PLATES l
3
/ ' )D ' ,
OUTSIDE COLUMN 8 "
x /
W12 x 190 WITH N l 1 3/4" THICK l .'/ DN l
COVER PLATES F[ ,
- 9. I " i (NOT SHOWN) l I i .
r-1 1/2" THICK-WING PLATES l l __
(A i
' , N ~
l ri 1 L
/1 @ A R Sh A A A A A i i A)
EL. 540'-0" t!! l Mi. \ '
.q p *l ag '
g Q gul".~;~ l- R SADDLE
~
~,4 . ELL A.L 'a : M .*4 l, ,
.g g B SUPPORT Figure 2-2.1-7 SUPPESSION CHAMBER RING BEAM AND VERTICAL SUPPORTS
- PARTIAL ELEVATION VIEW DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.16 mt =
h
==
l m
_ 14'-4 3/4" ~ - TO_q DR7WELL C[ g O _ 6'-6" _ _ 4'-1" _
O 3 1 1/2" THICK a [WEBPLATE
\ 0OlChOhOhOhUh a / 'f "I6 "
I '
J 00 00 l C O C O Cd C 0 Y I
g
- O
'o 2 1/2" THICK 1 1/2" THICK g O COLUMN BASE LOWER FLANGE PLATE ASSEMBLY l 15/16" THICK SADDLE BASE C 4,,
3 SECTION A-A PLATE ASSEMBLY (SEE FIGURE 2-2.1-7)
WELD gXISTS 1'-4" 3/4 \ / TO 20 ABOVE A 3/4 / \ HORIZONTAL COVER PLATE /
[d SUPPRESSION - - -
W12 COLUMN O $ CHAMBER SHELL WITH COVER s u u u u ,
e PLATES Y ,
p 1 1/2" THICit 2 1/4" k i 1/2= 0 ET 5/8 $ 3/4a ANCHOR 5/8 [\ [ THICK BOLT [ PLATES 1/2 7 p GUSSET PLATES
/ il fin- l
{s I 1 1/2" p GROUT k ,
f ANCHOR h 'a
-/' A GROUT 1 r BOLT p, .'.. . . . , , . ..j A
j g . ~... ..: ..a l
, -" -- - EXPANSION. * ***...
g i<
g .-
73 " " " ,% BEARING PLATE U U ffy 1 E #9/ EXPANSION ,
k k BEARING PLATE SECTION B-B VIEW C-C (SEE FIGURE 2-2.1-7)
Figure 2-2.1-8 l SUPPRESSION CIIAMBER VERTICAL SUPPORT BASE PLATES-PARTIAL PLAN VIEW AND DETAILS l
l DET-04-028-2 2-2.17 UU l Revision 0 1
, RING BEAM '
- _A(C y SUPPRESSION
' e CHAMBER SHELL i
l\ '
I i 5/16 f\
I l
l l 7 1THICK 1/2" 5/16 /
j ;
COVER ll l i PLATE +
VARIES
'g, l 'I,l l l yr # f / p' f f # # a sh r
- II l 2g II I IN I i b 1 1/2" I bl THICK I
I l STIFFENER I
I i l 1
bl,j._ k SECTION E-E i I ,
1 1/2,,
- I t THICK (SEE FIGURE 2-2.1-7)
COVER I hl '
l PLATE SUPPRESSION l
1 1/2" THICK CHAMBER SHELL I I WING PLATE I
M. -
V 1 1/2" THICY.
m 1'-4" _ COLUMN STIFFENER CONNECTION VIEW D-D (WEB PLATE 1 1/2" (SEE FIGURE 2-2.1-7) / THICK WEB
++' j .
'f
/ws w w w w~ s s ., is ss s -c ,
w s
/
j T t
I f k l /
j y
'W12 COLUMN WITH COVER COVER PLATES PLATE SECTION F-F (SEE FIGURE 2-2.1-7) l Figure 2-2.1-9 SUPPRESSION CHAMBER RING BEAM AND COLUMN CONNECTION DETAILS DET-04-028-2 2-2.18 g Revision 0
4 , 3 s_- % - 1
\, , _,
A
' ' N. ( MIDCLYNDER
.N m 10'-0" '
y 7"
[-m] .
2'-6"_ _
9' _
LJ i 0
a S-_ - - -
. t R
y ,
/
-- -- K*; /--- -- \ 4 1" THICK / \ \ 1" THICK
' PAD PLATE
, BASEPLATE '
O[_ cs - EL. 5 4 0 ,, - 0 ,,
. . ?,'.' U'll turu
- u u IITU U U U U lf b....
.*** et -
- ~.
- 3" THICK 5 ' ' i >* -
PIN PI. ATE A
'~q ,
10'-0" _
ELEVATION VIEW
. CHORD LENGTH 5'-7 5/16" _ SUPPRESSION
- 15 ' - 3 " I . R . (SUPPRESSION
\ g CHAMBER W -- w-ALA m N
s N
t s
s g
7 e e >
) s h
)' A -R
- n k b <
9 3/8" O PIN 3
.-- R '1 R - S H - -
A ,f LV I y 4 , 3 1/4" THICK e ( . ! PIN PLATE (b( b I $
~
$ h b b ( h y _
c 4 k h l h c r6 1/4" , _ , ,
~4 ' - u **
/- N ,
ih.
'* 4 ..
M. a ., ' bl 1/2" THICK)' ' -* ,
^ ^
m, 4'-11 1/2" m 1
SECTICN A-A 1
1 NOTE:
- 1. SEE FIGURE 2-2.1-1 FOR SEISMIC RESTRAINT LOCATIONS.
Figure 2-2.1-10 l
(m L.)
t SUPPRESSION CHAMBER SEISMIC RESTRAINT i
l DET - 0 4 -0 2 8 - 2 2-2.19 Revision 0 @f 1
l 1
SUPPRESSION 0
CHAMBER
/ .
,1110 j 1130 1110 1130 1120 1110 N #
. % 1120
' 90 270 '
e
_p f 1130 1130 4
1110 113o I 1120 SRV DISCHARGE 1120 T-QUENCHER I
180 NOTES:
- 1. SET POINT PRESSURES ARE SHOWN IN PSI.
Figure 2-2.1-11 OUENCHER LOCATIONS AND SRV SETPOINT PRESSURES-PLAN VIEW G
DET -0 4 -0 2 8 - 2 Revision 0 2-2.20 QU
RING PLATE SUPPORT
( RING BEAM l,. C l
~
9 _
.~- \
- . LATERAL
/ LATERAL QUENCHER J. SUPPORT
\ SUPPORT
% MEMBER BEAM
%% W g ,
'WM Bk B
)\ -
- T-QUENCHER I
PLAN VIEW
( SRV PIPE QUENCHER SUPPORT RING PLATE QUENCHER ( QUENCHER SUPPORT , ,
RING PLATE
/ \
6'-4" ]
I RAMSHEAD 8 s"
]. /
i'
- fL 4 D
/)\
~
%9 -
VERTICAL
~
\JPi
( 't ) ,,[% ( )' U g SUPPORT MEMBER RAMSHEAD SUPPORT
[y VERTICAL QUENCHER 5'-0" < '
SUPPORT BEAM s.
.- sur;= = = : b-2" THICK l i PEDESTAL l
-1 1/ 2 "
" l 3
- - - -- THICK '
I STIFFENER SUPPRESSION I
SUPPRESSION VIEW B-B CHAMBER SHELL SECTION C-C '
Figure 2-2.1-12 QUENCHER AND QUENCHER SUPPORTS-PLAN VIEW AND DETAILS l O]
L 2-2.21 DET-04-028-2 Revision 0
2-2.2 Loads and Load Combinations h The loads for which the Fermi 2 suppression chamber is evaluated are defined in NUREG-0661 on a generic basis for all Mark I plants. The methodology used to develop plant unique suppression chamber loads for each load defined in NUREG-0661 is discussed in Section 1-4.0.
The results of applying the methodology to develop specific values for each of the governing loads which act on the suppression chamber are discussed and presented in Section 2-2.2.1.
Using the event combinations and event sequencing defined in NUREG-0661 and discussed in Sections 1-3.2 and 1-4.3, the controlling load combinations which affect the suppression chamber are formulated. The controlling suppression chamber load combinations are discussed and presented in Section 2-2.2.2.
DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.22 nutggh
I O 2-2.2.1 toads The loads acting on the suppression chamber are categorized as follows:
l
- 1. Dead Weight Loads
- 2. Seismic Loads e
- 3. Pressure and Temperature Loads 5 4. Pool Swell Loads s
l 5. Condensation Oscillation Loads l 6. Chugging Loads
- 7. Safety Relief Valve Discharge Lopds
- 8. Containment Interaction Loads j
i Loads in categories 1 through 3 were considered in the i
i original containment design as documented in the plant's i
PSAR. Additional category 3 pressure and temperature loads result from postulated LOCA and SRV discharge events. Loads in categories 4 through 6 result from postulated LOCA events; loads in category 7 result from 4
SRV discharge events; loads in category.8 are reactions which result from loads acting on other containment.
j structures attached to the suppression chamber.
1 i
DET-04-028-2 i Revision 0 2-2.23
! nutagh
Not all of the loads defined in NUREG-0661 are evaluated h in detail, since some are enveloped by others or have a negligible effect on the suppression chamber. Only those loads which maximize the suppression chamber response and lead to controlling stresses are fully evaluated. These loads are referred to as governing loads in subsequent discussions.
Table 2-2.2-1 shows the specific suppression chamber components which are affected by each of the loadings defined in NUREG-0661. The table also lists the section in Volume 1 in which the methodology for developing values for each loading is discussed. The magnitudes and characteristics of each governing suppression chamber load in each load category are identified and presented in the paragraphs which follow.
- 1. Dead Weight Loads
- a. Dead Weight of Steel: The weight of steel used to construct the as-modified suppression chamber and its supports is considered. The nominal component dimensions and a density of 3
steel of 490 lb/ft are used in this calculation.
DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.24 nutggh
i i
t i
O !
- b. Dead Weight of Water: The weight of water
?
contained in the suppression chamber is j considered. A volume of water of 121,080 ft 3, i
corresponding to a water level of 7" below the suppression chamber horizontal centerline, and [
a water density of 62.4 lb/ft3 are used in !
this calculation. This suppression chamber f water volume is the maximum expected during normal operating conditions.
- 2. Seismic Loads l
i O
- a. OeE toede= The eugeression chember is ;
subjected to horizontal and vertical accelera- ;
tions during an Operating Basis Earthquake ;
(OBE). This loading is taken from the I
original design basis for the containment i documented in the plant's FSAR. The OBE loads have a maximum horizontal spectral accelera- !
1 tion of 0.23g and a maximum vertical spectral !
acceleration of 0.067 9.
I
- b. SSE Loads: The suppression chamber is subjected to horizontal and vertical accelera-DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.25 l i
nutggh !
i
tions during a Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE). h This loading is taken from the original design basis for the containment documented in the plant's FSAR [ termed Design Basis Earthquake (DBE) in the FSAR]. The SSE loads have a maximum horizontal spectral acceleration of 0.46g and a maximum vertical spectral acceleration of 0.133g.
- 3. Pressure and Temperature Loads
- a. Normal Operating Internal Pressure Loads: The suppression chamber shell is subjected to internal pressure loads during normal operat- h ing conditions. This loading is taken from the original design basis for the containment documented in the plant's FSAR. The range of normal operating internal pressures specified is 0.0 to 2.0 psi.
- b. LOCA Internal Pressure Loads: The suppression chamber shell is subjected to internal pressure during a Small Break Accident (SBA),
Intermediate Break Accident (IBA), or Design Basis Accident (DBA) event. The procedure DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.26 nutp_gh
used to develop LOCA internal pressures for the containment is discussed in Section 1-4.1.1. The resulting suppression chamber internal pressure transients and pressure magnitudes at key times during the SBA, IBA, and DBA events are presented in Figures 2-2.2-1 through 2-2.2-3.
The pressures specified for each event are assumed to act uniformly over the suppression chamber shell surface, except during the early portion of a DBA event. The effects of internal pressure on the suppression chamber O for the initie1 voreton oc e DBA evene ere included in the pool swell torus shell loads discussed in load case 4a. The corresponding suppression chamber external or secondary containment pressure for all events is assumed to be zero.
- c. Normal Operating Temperature Loads: The suppression chamber is subjected to the thermal expansion load associated with normal operating conditiens. This loading is taken from the original design basis for the containment documented in the plant's FSAR.
O V
DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.27 nutggb
The range of normal operating temperatures for the suppression chamber with a concurrent SRV discharge event is 50 to 150*F.
Additional suppression chamber normal operating temperatures are taken from the suppression pool temperature response analysis. The resulting suppression chamber temperatures are summarized in Table 2-2.2-2.
a
- d. LOCA Temperature Loads: The suppression chamber is subjected to thermal expansion loads associated with the SBA, IBA, and DBA events. The procedure used to develop LOCA O
containment temperatures is discussed in Section 1-4.1.1. The resulting suppression chamber temperature transients and temperature magnitudes at key times during the SBA, IBA, and DBA events are presented in Figures 2-2.2-4 through 2-2.2-6.
Additional suppression chamber SBA event temperatures are taken from the suppression pool temperature response analysis. The resulting suppression chamber temperatures are DET-04-028-2 O
Rnvision 0 2-2.28 nutggb
(] summarized in Table 2-2.2-2. The greater of the temperatures specified in Figure 2-2.2-4 and Table 2-2.2-2 is used in evaluating the effects of SBA event temperatures.
The temperatures specified for each event are assumed to be representative of pool tempera-tures, air space temperatures, and torus shell metal temperatures throughout the suppression chamber. The ambient temperature for all events is assumed to be equal to the arith-metic mean of the minimum and maximum suppres-sion chamber operating temperatures.
p O
As the temperature of the torus shell begins to increase, the temperature difference between the torus shell and the suppression chamber vertical supports will result in differential thermal expansion effects.
Temperatures in the suppression chamber vertical. supports are obtained from a one-dimensional steady state heat transfer analysis performed using the thermal characteristics of the suppression chamber.
Coefficients are calculated and temperatures are derived, as shown in Figure 2-2.2-7.
,m
\ ]
DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.29 nutggh
O
- 4. Pool Swell Loads
- a. Pool Swell Torus Shell Loads: During the initial phase of a DBA event, transient pressures are -postulated to act on the suppression chamber shell above and below the suppression pool surface. The procedure used to develop local torus shell pressures due to pool swell for the suppression chamber is discussed in Section 1-4.1.3. The resulting pressure time histories at selected locations on the torus shell are shown in Figures 2-2.2-8 and 2-2.2-9. A sampling of pool swell torus shell pressures at various locations and key times during the event is shown in Table 2-2.2-3.
These results are based on plant unique QSTF test data contained in the PULD (Reference 3) and include the effects of the generic spatial distribution factors and the conservatism factors on the peak upward and downward loads. Pool swell torus shell loads consist of a pseudo-static internal pressure component O
DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.30 nutggb
i O e=a e a r e ic gre e=re co vo=e== a i=c =ae the effects of the DBA internal pressure discussed in load case 3a. Pool swell loads do not occur during SBA and IBA events.
- b. LOCA Air "learing Submerged Structure Loads:
Transient drag pressures are postulated to act on th'e s.1bmerged components of the suppression chamber during the air clearing phase of a DBA event. The components affected include the ring beams and vertical quencher support beams. The procedure used to develop the transient forces and spatial distribution of O tOCA eir c1eerine dree 1oeds on these com-ponents is discussed in Section 1-4.1.6.
The resulting magnitudes and distribution of drag pressures acting on the ring beams and quencher beams for the controlling LOCA air clearing load case are shown in Table 2-2.2-4.
These results include the effects of velocity drag, acceleration drag,' interference effects, and wall effects. The LOCA air clearing submerged structure loads which occur during an SBA or IBA event have a negligible effect l on the suppression chamber.
O i DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.31 i
l
O
- 5. Condensation Oscillation Loads
- a. DBA Condensation Oscillation Torus Shell Loads: Harmonic pressures are postulated to act on the submerged portion of the suppres-sion chamber shell during the condensation oscillation phase of a DBA event. The procedure used to develop DBA condensation oscillation torus shell pressures is discussed in Section 1-4.1.7. The resulting normalized spatial distribution of pressures on a typical suppression chamber shell cross-section are shown in Figure 2-2.2-10. The amplitudes for e
each of the 50 harmonics and 4 DBA condensa-tion oscillation load case alternates are shown in Table 2-2.2-5.
The results of each harmonic in the DBA condensation oscillation loading are combined using the methodology discussed in Section 1-4.1.7. A 0.86 factor, to account for the difference in the ratio of pool area to the downcomer area between FSTF and Fermi 2, is also applied to the results.
O DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.32 !
nutggb l
i I
O
- b. IBA Condensation Oscillation Torus Shell Loads: Harmonic pressures are postulated to act on the submerged portion of the suppres-sion chamber shell during an IBA event. In accordance wi'ch NUREG-0661, the torus shell loads specified for pre-chug are used in lieu of IBA condensation oscillation torus shell loads. Pre-chug torus shell loads are discussed in load case 6a. Condensation oscillation loads ac not occur during an SBA event.
- c. DBA Condensation Oscillation Submerged Struc-ture Loads: Harmonic drag pressures are postulated to act on the submerged components of the suppression chamber during the conden-sation oscillation phase of a DBA event. The components affected include the ring beams and the vertical quencher support beams. The
, procedure used to develop the harmonic forces and spatial distribution of DBA condensation oscillation drag loads on these components is discussed in Section 1-4.1.7.
t
! DET-04-028-2 i Revision 0 2-2.33 i nutagh 1
. _ , - . . - . . - \
Loads are developed for the case with the average source strength at all downcomers and the case with twice the average source strength at the nearest downcomer. The results of these two cases are evaluated to determine the controlling loads. The result-ing magnitudes and distribution of drag pressures acting on the ring beams and quencher beams for the controlling DBA conden-
.sation oscillation load case are shown in Table 2-2.2-6.
These results include the effects of velocity drag, acceleration drag, torus shell FSI acceleration drag, interference effects, wall effects, and acceleration drag volumes. A typical pool acceleration profile from which the FSI accelerations are derived is shown in Figure 2-2.2-11. The results of each harmonic in the DBA condensation oscillation loading are combined using the methodology discussed l
in Section 1-4.1.7.
- d. IBA Condensation Oscillation Submerged Struc-ture Loads: Harmonic pressures are postulated DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.34 nutggj)
l to act on the submerged components of the O~ suppression chamber during the condensation l 1
oscillation phase of an IBA event. In accord- !
ance with NUREG-0661, the submerged structure loads specified for pre-chug are used in lieu of IBA condensation oscillation submerged ;
structure loads. Pre-chug submerged structure ,
loads are discussed in load case 6c. Conden-sation oscillation loads do not occur during an SBA event.
- 6. Chugging Loads
- a. Pre-Chug Torus Shell Loads: During the chug-ging phase of an SBA, IBA, or DBA event, harmonic pressures associated with the pre-chug portion of a chug cycle are postu-lated to act on the submerged portion of the suppression chamber shell. The procedure used to develop pre-chug torus shell loads is discussed in Section 1-4.1.8. ,
The loading consists of a single harmonic with !
a specified frequency range and can act either symmetrically or asymmetrically with respect i
f DET-04-028-2
-O Revision 0 2-2.35 !
i
__ _ - . - . ~. .
to the vertical centerline of the containment. g The circumferential pressure distribution on a typical suppression chamber cross-section for both symmetric and asymmetric pre-chug is shown in Figure 2-2.2-12. The longitudinal pressure distribution for asymmetric pre-chug is shown in Figure 2-2.2-13. The symmetric pre-chug load results in vertical loads on the suppression chamber while the asymmetric pre-chug load results in both vertical and lateral loads on the suppression chamber.
- b. Post-Chug Torus Shell Loads: During the chug-ging p:1ase of an SBA, IBA, or DBA event, g harmonic pressures associated with the post-chug portion of a chug cycle are postu-lated to act on the submerged portion of the suppression chamber shell. The procedure used to deveJoe post-chug torus shell loads is defined in Section 1-4.1.8. The resulting normalized spatial distribution of pressure on a typical suppression chamber cross-section is shown in Figure 2-2.2-10. The pressure amplitudes for each of the 50 harmonics in the DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.36 h nutgg.h h
] post-chug loading are shown in Table 2-2.2-7.
The results of each harmonic in tb: post-chug l l
combined loading are using the methodology discussed in Section 1-4.1.8.
- c. Pre-Chug Submerged Structure Loads: During the chugging phase of an SBA, IBA, or DBA event, harmonic drag pressures associated with the pre-chug portion of a chug cycle are postulated to act on the submerged components of the suppression chamber. The components affected include the ring beams and vertical quencher support beams. The procedure used to O aevetog the aermonio forces end geei 1 distribution of pre-chug drag loads on these components is discussed in Section 1-4.1.8.
Loads are developed for the case with the average source strength at all downcomers and the case with twice the average source l
l strength at the nearest downcomer. The results of these two cases are evaluated to determine the controlling loads. The result-ing magnitudes and distribution of drag l pressures acting on the ring beams and DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.37 nutggb ;
l
quencher beams for the controlling pre-chug $
drag load case are shown in Table 2-2.2-8.
These results include the effects of velocity drug, acceleration drag, torus shell FSI I 1
acceleration drag, interference effects, wall effects, and acceleration drag volumes. A j typical pool acceleration profile from which !
the FSI accelerations are derived is shown in Figure 2-2.2-11.
- d. Post-Chug Submerged Structure Loads: During the chugging phase of an SBA, IBA, or DBA event, harmonic drag pressures associated with the post-chug portion of a chug cycle are postulated to act on the submerged components of the suppression chamber. The components affected include the ring beams and the vertical quencher support beams. The pro-cedure used to develop the harmonic forces and spatial distribution of post-chug drag loads on these components is discussed in Section 1-4.1.8.
DET-04-02R-2 Revision 0 2-2.38 nutggh
l Loads are developed for the case with the average source strength at the nearest two l downcomers acting both in phase and out of phase. The results of -these cases are evaluated to determine the controlling loads. The resulting magnitudes and 4 distribution of post-chug drag pressures i acting on the ring beam and quencher beam for the controlling post-chug drag load case are shown in Table 2-2.2-9.
l These results include the effects of velocity drag, acceleration drag, torus shell FSI O ecce1eretion ares, interrerence errecee, we11 effects, and acceleration drag volumes. A typical pool acceleration profile from which the FSI accelerations are derived is shown in i Figure 2-2.2-11. The results of each harmonic in the post-chug loading are combined using the methodology discussed in Section 1-4.1.8.
- 7. Safety Relief Valve Discharge Loads a-c. SRV Discharge Torus Shell Loads: Transient pressures are postulated to act on the sub-DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.39 i nutggb
merged portion of the suppression chamber g shell during the air clearing phase of an SRV discharge event. The procedure used to develop SRV discharge torus shell loads is discussed in Section 1-4.2.3. The maximum torus shell pressures and characteristics of the SRV discharge pressure transients are developed using an attenuated bubble model. [
Pressure transients which include the addi-tional load mitigation effects of the 20" diameter T-quenchers are developed.
The SRV actuation cases considered are discussed in Section 1-4.2.1. The location of h each quencher and the corresponding SRV set point pressure are shown in Figure 2-2.1-11.
The cases which result in controlling load or load combination effects for which torus shell pressures are developed include the single valve actuation case with normal operating initial conditions (7a-Case A1.1/A1.3 for the quencher location which results in the highest shell pressures), the multiple valve actuation case with elevated drywell pressures and temperatures (7b-Case A1.2/C3.2 with pressures DET-04-028-2 R_evision 0 2-2.40 nutggb
C from all 15 valves acting in phase), and the ADS valve actuation case with elevated drywell
. pressures and temperatures (7c-Case A2.2 with pressures from all 5 ADS valves acting in phase).
The multiple valve actuation case with normal operating initial conditions (Case A1.1/C3.1 with pressures from all 15 valves acting in phase) is enveloped by 7b-Case A1. 2/C3. 2 and is therefore not evaluated. The SRV's with 1110 psi setpoint pressures, as shown in Figure 2-2.1-11, are assumed to be designated O ^DS ve1ves for thie eve 1ueeton. Consideration of a 15-valve actuation case conservatively exceeds the requirements of the plant's operating procedures.
l The resulting SRV discharge torus shell loads for the single valve Case 7a, multiple valve Case 7b, and ADS valve Case 7c are shown in Figures 2-2.2-14, 2-2.2-15, and 2-2.2-16. The results shown include the effects of applying the LDR (Reference 2) pressure attenuation algorithm to obtain the spatial distribution DET-04-028-2 l
Revision 0 2-2.41 nutgsh l
l ._ _ .,
of torus shell pressures, the absolute g summation of multiple valve effects with application of the bubble pressure cutoff criteria, use of first actuation pressures with subsequent actuation frequencies, and application of the i25% and 140% margins to the first and subsequent actuation frequen-cies, respectively. This methodology is in accordance with the conservative criteria contained in NUREG-0661.
The distribution of SRV discharge torus shell pressures is either symmetric or asymmetric with respect to the vertical centerline of the h containment, depending on the number and loca-tion of the valves considered to be actuating.
The symmetric pressure distribution which results in the maximum total vertical load on the suppression chamber occurs for the multiple valve Case 7b, as shown in Figure 2-2.2-15. The asymmetric pressure distribu-tion whf.ch results in the maximum total horizontal load on the suppression chamber occurs for the ADS valve Case 7c, as shown in Figure 2-2.2-16. The longitudinal pressure DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.42 h
nutgg.h h
distribution for the ADS valve Case 7c is O shown in Figure 2-2.2-17.
- d. SRV Discharge Air Clearing Submerged Structure Loads: Transient drag pressures are postu-lated to act on the submerged components of the suppression chamber during the air clear-ing phase of an SRV discharge event. The components affected include the ring beams and ,
the vertical quencher support beams. The procedure used to develop the transient forces and spatial distribution of the SRV discharge air clearing drag loads on these structures is ,.
discussed in Section 1-4.2.4.
Oo Loads are developed for the following load cases: four bubbles from each quencher in three consecutive bays acting in phase; four bubbles from one quencher in the adjacent bay ,
acting in phase; two bubbles on the outside -of I
-one quencher acting in phase; and two bubbles on diagonally opposite sides of one gudncher acting in phase. The results are evaluated to determine the controlling loads. The result-ing magnitudes and distribution of drag DET-04-028-2
[]
s/ Revision 0 2-2.43 nutg.gh wr
pressures acting on the ring beams and quencher beams for the controlling SRV dis-charge drag load case are shown in Table 2-2.2-10. The results include the effects of velocity drag, acceleration drag, interference effects, wall effects, acceleration drag volumes, and the additional load mitigation effects of the 20" diameter T-quencher.
- 8. Containment Interaction Loads
- a. Containment Structure Reaction Loads: Loads acting on the suppression chamber, vent system, quencher and quencher supports, cat-g, walk, and monorail cause interaction effects between these structures. These interaction effects result in reaction loads on the suppression chamber shell, ring beam, quencher pedestal, and vertical quencher support- beam at the attachment points of these structures to the suppression chamber. The effects of these reaction loads on the suppression chamber are considered in the suppression chamber analysis.
DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.44 nutagh
l Thi values of the loads presented in the preceding paragraphs envelop those which could occur during the ,
l LOCA or SRV discharge events postulated. An evaluation for the effects of these-loads results in conservative estimates of the suppression chamber responses and leads to bounding values of suppression chamber stresses.
~
e 1
O 1 i
I l I !
t t
w- j
?
f DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.45 I
nutagh l
-_ _ - - _ . . - . -_. , . . ~ _.. _ _ _ , . . . _ . _ - . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _
i
/ .
/
SUPPRESSION CHAMBER r-~..,,
s Volume 2 Load Designation Case l Category Load Type Number 1 Dead Weight Steel la l Dead Weight Loads Dead Weight Water lb l
OBE Seismic Loads 2a !
Seismic Loads SSE Seismic Loads 2b )
Normal Operating Internal Pressure 3a Pressure and LOCA Internal Pressure 3b j Temperature Loads Normal Operating Temperature Loads 3c LOCA Temperature Loads 3d Pool Swell Torus Shell Loads 4a Pool Swell LOCA Water Clearing Submerged Structure Laach N/A LOCA Air Clearing Submerged Structure Loads 4b DBA C.O. Torus Shell Loads 5a Condensation 5b Oscillation IBA C.O. Torus Shell Loads Loads DBA C.O. Submerged Structure Loads Sc IBA C.O. Submerged Structure Loads 5d Pre-Chug Torus Shell Loads 6a Chugging Post-Chug Torus Shell Loads 6b Loads Pre-Chug Submerged Structure Loads 6c Post-Chug Submerged Structure Loads 6d SRV Discharge Torus Shell Loads 7a-7c SRV SRV Discharge Water Clearing Discharge Submerged Structure Loads N/A L ads SRV Discharge Air Clearina Submerged Structure Loads" 7d Containment Interaction Containment Structure Reaction Loads 8a
( Loads DET-04-028-2 Revision 0
\
's
\
ale 2-2.2-1 (
$PONENT LOADING IDENTIFICATION Component Part Loaded PUAR Bection u en fa a
'ference $C e
uo o .c mg cc
-a o jg oe co j
o a
jd a
ao g
e e
Remarks Ed (n %A oA o oG cn a
d U Uho r3.1 X X X X X X As-modified geometry 3
3.1 X 121,080 ft water h3.1 X X X X X X 0.23g horizontal, 0.0679 vertical f3.1 X X X X X X 0.46g horizontal, 0.133g vertical 0.0 to 2.0 psi h3.1 X h4.1.1 X SBA, IBA, & DBA pressures
-3.1 X X X X X X 50 to 150 F
=4.1.1 X X X X X X SBA, IBA, & DBA temperatures
=>4.1.3 X Includes DBA internal pressures Effects negligible
(-4.1.5 X X
-4.1.6 X X Primarily local effects
.-4.1.7.1 X Four loading alternates Enveloped by load case 6a I-4.1.7.1 X Primarily local effects
(-4.1.7.3 X X l
l-4.1.7.3 X X Enveloped by load case 6c i
L-4.1.8.1 X Symmetric & asymmetric loadings
-4.1.8.1 X Symmetric loading
-4.1.8.3 X X Primarily local effects
-4.1.8.3 X X Primarily local effects
-4.2.3 X Single, multiple,& ADS valve cases
-4.2.4 X Effects negligible
.-4.2.4 X X Primarily local effects I Supported structures reactions X X X
[ol . 3-5 ,
2-2.46 nutg_qb/-
l 0 !
Table 2-2.2-2 SUPPRESSION POOL TEMPERATURE RESPONSE ANALYSIS RESULTS-MAXIMUM TEMPERATURES Numbe
. Case (1) f P' MaximumFolkPogl C ndition Temperature ( F)
Number ctua e 1A 1 154.0 1B 1 172.0 Normal Operating 2A 5 165.0 0 2B 1 162.0 2C 5 168.0 SBA 3A 5 (ADS) 171.0 Event 3B 5 169.0 Note: i
- 1. See Section 1-5.1 for description of SRV discharge events considered.
O DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.47 nutggh
[
Table 2-2.2-3 TORUS SHELL PRESSURES DUE TO POOL SWELL AT KEY j
TIMES AND SELECTED LOCATIONS O
0 g VL 0
x
' 270 -- -~ 90 F Z/L I 180 0.0 0.5 1.0 Key Diagram T rus Shell Pressure (psi)
Iongitudinal Circumferential Location (Z/L) Iocaticn(0) (deg) Peak Download Peak Upload (t=0.30sec) (t=0.54sec) 0.000 180 10.5 2.0 0.000 150,210 9.6 1.9 0.000 120,240 5.9 0.9 0.000 0-90,270-0 0.3 6.0 0.361 180 11.6 2.5 '
O.361 150,210 10.3 2.2 0.361 120,240 6.4 1.4 0.361 0-90,270-0 0.3 6.0 0.552 180 11.9 2.5 0.552 150,210 10.8 2.4 0.552 120,240 6.6 1.5 0.552 0-90,270-0 0.3 6.0 0.724 180 12.3 2.5 0.724 150,210 11.1 2.2 0.724 120,240 6.8 ..s 0.724 0-90,270-0 0.3 6.0 0.895 180 12.8 2.5 0.895 150,210 11.6 2.5 0.895 120,240 7.2 1.7 0.895 0-90,270-0 0.3 6.0 DET-04-028-2 &
W Revision 0 2-2.48
Table 2-2.2-4 RING BEAM AND QUENCHER BEAM LOCA AIR CLEARING SUBMERGED STRUCTURE LOAD DISTRIBUTIONS
. To Drywell t n.s.
[
rum s n.c.
3
/Nl '
\ 14 3
" _ ( ** l g 4 ,
' 13 /
f '*<. 5 12 I 2 3 4 5 5 8 H y
g g 3, haea ! no.r ! f- ' !2 3'll. st '
24* 24* a s* sett+'l i , - - . - . - i um iran Key Diagram Web Flange Item Segment Pressure Pressure O 1 (psi) 0.39 (pci) 1.79 2 1.11 1.17 3 1.59 1.54 4 1.81 4.83 5 1.87 6.19 6 1.83 5.39 Ring 7 2.09 6.47 Beam 8
! 1.71 4.38 f 9 1.31 2.97
) 10 0.89 1.56 11 0.42 3.83 12 0.27 3.12 13 0.29 1.37 14 0.23 0.75 15 0.14 1.73 16 0.04 1,47 1 1.34 1.05 2 0.98 0.76 Quencher 3 0.74 0.58 Beam 4 0.66 0.52 5 0.61 0.47 6 0.60 0.46 O Noter
\- 1. Loads shown include DLF's.
DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.49 0
Table 2-2.2-5 h DBA CONDENSATION OSCILLATION TORUS SHELL PRESSURE AMPLITUDES (1)
Frequency Maximun Pressure Amplitude (psi)
Interval (Hz) Alternate 1 Alternate 2 Alternate 3 Alternate 4 0-1 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.25 1-2 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.28 2-3 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.33 3-4 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.56 4-5 1.86 1.20 0.24 2.71 5-6 1.05 2.73 0.48 1.17 6-7 0.49 0.42 , 0.99 0.97 7-8 0.59 0.38 0.30 0.47 8-9 0.59 0.38 0.30 0.34 9 - 10 0.59 0.38 C.30 0.47 10 - 11 0.34 0.79 0.18 0.49 11 - 12 0.15 0.45 0.12 0.38 12 - 13 0.17 0.12 0.11 0.20 13 - 14 '( 0.12 0.08 0.08 0.10 14 - 15 0.06 0.07 0.03 0.11 a
15 - 16 0.10 0.10 0.02 0.08 16 - 17 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 17 - 18 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.05 18 - 19 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.03 19 - 20 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.34 20 - 21 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.23 21 - 22 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.49 22 - 23 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.37 23 - 24 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.31 24 - 25 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.22 O
DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.50 @{
Table 2-2.2-5 (Concluded)
DBA CONDENSATION OSCILLATION TORUS SHELL PRESSURE AMPLITUDES _
( }
Maximum Pressure Amplitude (psi)
Frequency Interval (Hz) Alternate 1 Alternate 2 Alternate 3 Alternate 4 25 - 26 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.50 26 - 27 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.51 27 - 28 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.39 28 - 29 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.27 29 - 30 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.09 30 - 31 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 31 - 32 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.07 32 - 33 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.05 33 - 34 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.04 34 - 35 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.04 35 - 36 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.07 36 - 37 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.11 O
1 37 - 38 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.06 38 - 39 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.05 39 - 40 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.03 40 - 41 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.08 41 - 42 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.19 42 - 43 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.19 43 - 44 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.13 44 - 45 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.18 45 - 46 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.30 46 - 47 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.18 47 - 48 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.19 48 - 49 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.17 49 - 50 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.21 Note :
- 1. See Figpre 2-2.2-10 for spatial distribution of pressures.
O' DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.51 nutggh
Table 2-2.2-6 RING BEAM AND QUENCHER BEAM DBA CONDENSATION OSCILLATION SUBMERGED STRUCTURE LOAD DISTRIBUTIONS u To C Drywell
.[ '
1 18 1 15 S d -
\
- 3. 7 is rum 5 a c- g /
l f P ' *<,
4 g gg g? ..
/ 8 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3 18 bar s. r- ! ae- !- !a= ' 2*= ad i , _ ..._ .- -....m. i , , , , ,
Key Diaoram Web Pressure (psi) Flange Pressure (poi)
Item Segment Number Applied Applied FSI Total FSI Total Load Load 1 0.63 0.03 0.66 0.04 0.20 0.24 2 1.89 0.C8 1.96 0.92 0.54 1.46 3 2.90 0.08 2.99 2.22 0.96 3.18 4 3.50 0.09 3.59 3.04 1.33 4.37 5 3.54 0.14 3.59 2.92 1.55 4.47 6 3.13 0.14 3.27 2.21 1.68 3.88 7 4.04 0.35 4.39 3.44 2.78 6.21 Ring 8 3.33 0.26 3.58 1.87 2.66 4.54 Beam 9 3.33 0.26 3.58 1.85 2.64 4.49 10 4.04 0.35 4.39 3.57 2.71 6.29 11 3.13 0.14 3.27 2.21 1.68 3.88 12 3.54 0.14 3.69 2.92 1.55 4.47 13 3.50 0.09 3.59 3.04 1.33 4.37 14 2.90 0.08 2.99 2.22 0.96 3.18 15 1.29 0.08 1.96 0.92 0.54 1.46 16 0.63 0.03 0.66 0.04 0.20 0.24 1 1.96 2.68 4.65 1.03 4.10 5.13 Quencher 2 0.62 1.54 2.15 0.10 1.46 1.56 Beam 3 0.78 2.64 3.42 0.36 1.7e 2.14 4 1.10 3.40 4.50 1.00 1.85 2.85 5 1.00 3.96 4.96 0.80 2.29 3.09 6 0.93 4.47 5.40 0.57 2.53 3.09 Note:
- 1. Loads shown include DLF's.
DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.52 nut.e. ch
Table 2-2. 2- 7 l
POST-CHUG TORUS SHELL PRESSURE AMPLITUDES l
Frequency Maximum (1)
Pressure Interval Amplitude ;
(Hz) (psi)
O-1 0.04 '
1-2 0.04 2-3 0.05 3-4 0.05 4-5 0.06 ,
i 5-6 0.05 l
6-7 0.10 !
7-8 0.10 8-9 0.10 9 - 10 0.10
()
i 10 - 11 0.06 '
11 - 12 0.05 12 - 13 0.03 f i
13 - 14 0.03 i 14 - 15 0.02 i 15 - 16 0.02 l
16 - 17 0.01 17 - 18 0.01 ,
18 - 19 0.01 l; 19 - 20 0.04 !
l 20 - 21 0.03 t 21 - 22 0.05 i t
22 - 23 0.05 23 - 24 0.05 l l 24 - 25 0.04 i
() DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.53 nutggh ;
Table 2-2. 2- 7 (Concluded) g POST-CHUG TORUS SHELL PRESSURE AMPLITUDES Maximum (1)
Frequency Pressure Interval Amplitude (Hz) (psi) 25 - 26 0.04 26 - 27 0.28 27 - 28 0.18 28 - 29 0.12 29 - 30 0.09 30 - 31 0.03 31 - 32 0.02 I
32 - 33 0.02 l 33 - 34 0.02 34 - 35 0.02 35 - 36 0.03 .s h, 36 - 31 0.05 ,)
37 - 38 0.03 38 - 39 0.04 39 - 40 0.04 40 - 41 ,
0.15 41 - 42 0.15 42 - 43 0.15 43 - 44 0.15 44 - 45 0.15 45 - 46 0.15 46 - 47 0.15 47 - 48 0.15 48 - 49 0.15 49 - 50 0.15 Note:
- 1) See Figure 2-2.2-10 for spatial distribution DET-04-028-2 f pr ssures.
Revision 0 2-2.54 nut
Table 2-2.2-8
- 4:
RING BEAM AND QUENCHER BEAM PRE-CHUG SUBMERGED STRUCTURE V LOAD DISTRIBUTIONS
- ,To[Drywell 7 .
1 Il 2 15 5 "d- \
3
/ i\ 34 l ,
[gues .c.
ru s ..c.
4
/ \\' 13 S
l \ \ y#
.t. i
_/ _..
11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 g g 10 Nu- I se.r,.). .as- l as- I as A uk "'**'
i ,-..-.....m i arm nu d,ey Diagrams Web Pressure (psi) Flange Pressure (psi) egment Item Number Applied Applied Load FSI Total Load FSI Total 1 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.12 0.01 0.13 2 0.11 0.00 0.11 0.08 0.02 0.10 3 0.16 0.00 0.16 0.08 0.03 0.11 4 0.18 0.00 0.18 0.24 0.04 0.28 5 0.19 0.00 0.19 0.29 0.04 0.33 6 0.19 0.00 0.20 0.25 0.05 0.29 7 0.27 0.00 0.36 0.27 0.09 0.45 Ring 8 0.24 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.09 0.33 Beam 9 0.24 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.09 0.33 10 0.27 0.00 0.27 0.36 0.09 0.45 11 0.19 0.00 0.20 0.25 0.05 0.29 12 0.19 0.00 0.19 0.29 0.04 0.33 13 0.18 0.00 0.18 0.24 0.04 0.28 14 0.16 0.00 0.16 0.08 0.03 0.11 15 0.11 0.00 0.11 0.08 0.02 0.10 16 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.12 0.01 0.13 1 1.09 0.11 1.20 0.21 0.16 0.37 2 0.50 0.07 0.57 0.14 0.05 0.19 Quencher 3 0.58 0.13 0.70 0.21 0.06 0.27 Beam 4 0.50 0.16 0.66 0.20 0.07 0.27 5 0.54 0.19 0.73 0.26 0.07 0.33 6 0.60 0.21 0.81 0.27 0.07 0.35 Notes V
- 1. Loads shown include DLF's.
DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.55 OUkh
T Table 2-2.2-9 RING BEAM AND QUENCHER BEAM POST-CHUG SUBMERGED STRUCTURE LOAD DISTRIBUTIONS gNa i
2 15 runca 5 n.c. ?
g us l
_7 1 2 3 4 5 8 I I I 13 2842. ego f 2811
haa- to.7-
' as- b 2e* as --12 l l l r-cirwcurn sunen tran ano prorstat l Key Diagram Web Pressure (psi) Flange Pressure (psi)
Item Segment Nder Applied Applied FSI Total Load FSI Total Load 1 4.05 0.02 4.06 0.18 0.07 0.24 2 12.04 0.05 12.08 0.65 0.16 0.81 3 18.19 0.04 18.23 1.27 0.27 1.54 4 21.50 0.04 21.54 1.67 0.36 2.03 5 21.52 0.07 21.59 1.64 0.41 2.05 6 18.91 0.09 19.00 1.32 0.44 1.76 7 24.11 0.18 24.29 2.14 0.70 2.84 Ring 8 16.87 0.12 16.99 1.30 0.69 1.99 Beam 9 16.87 0.12 16.99 1.28 0.69 1.97 10 24.11 0.18 24.29 2.16 0.71 2.88 11 18.91 0.09 19.00 1.32 0.44 1.76 12 21.52 0.07 21.59 1.64 0.41 2.05 13 21.50 0.04 21.54 1.67 0.36 2.03 14 18.19 0.04 18.23 1.27 0.27 1.54 15 12.04 0.05 12.08 0.65 0.16 0.81 16 4.05 0.02 4.06 0.18 0.07 0.24 1 2.71 0.41 3.12 0.21 1.21 1.42 2 1.29 0.22 1.51 0.22 0.45 0.67 Quencher 3 1.20 0.36 1.57 0.24 0.52 0.76 Beam 4 1.15 0.46 1.61 0.20 0.53 0.72 5 1.33 0.53 1.86 0.27 0.72 C.99 6 1.48 0.60 2.09 0.30 0.82 1,13 Notet
- l. Load shown include DLF's.
DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.56 nutech
i
. Table 2-2.2-10 O a1so 88^n ^uo coruc88a 88^a sav so812taozo s'aoc'on" i LOAD DISTRIBUTIONS i
To C Drywell
. f
.[ . ;
1r y \
i.
6 m.J.
2
'\I \ \., '\ 15 g gg I
Q f ," "'**
- 4 \ 13 f I I 11 1 2 3 4 5 I I g i 18 '
bre* ! so.?- !
asa
! a4* ! as -had ,
l Tm sDPPoef StAN AND PSDESTAL l p Key Diagrain h l
Web Flance i Item 8*9"*"t Pr s m as re I g ,r (psi) (psi) 1 0.63 2.78 t 2 1.62 4.73 3 2.25 5.80 4 2.44 4.88 !
5 2.82 4.29 i 6 4.91 4.94 Ring 7 11.57 11.25 Beam 8 13.43 10.97 i e
9 13.43 10.97 10 11.57 11.25 '
11 4.91 4.94 12 2.82 4.29 :
13 2.44 4.88 I 14 2.25 5.80 i i
15 1.62 4.73 ?
16 0.63 2.78 1 7.13 2.52 1 2 12.68 8.13 Quencher 3 13.62 20.79 Beam 4 14.01 21.95 5 12.52 12.99 6 12.56 13.76 Note '
- 1. Loads shown include DLF's DET-04-028-2 O Revision 0 2-2.57
p = 0.0 psi
- 30. ____
g q <
f
-a 20. JF LG b (
B l 8 l c) 10.- j/
~ ,
s
/
0.-
1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0 10000.0 Time (sec)
O Event Pressure Time (sec) Pressure (psig)
Description Designation min max min max Instant of Break to Onset of P 0. 300. 0.58 10.0 Chugging 1 Onset of Chugging
^
- ADS P
2 300. 600. 10.0 19.4 Initiation of ADS to RPV P 600. 1200. 19.4 22.7 Depressurization Figure 2-2.2-1 SUPPRESSION CHAMBER INTERNAL PRESSURES FOR SBA EVENT e
- "
- t; 28-2 2_2.se nutRGb
l P
g = 0.0 psi l___
i" _-l l
~
- 30. /
3
.s >
/
r 1
- I
-l g 20.- ,
S I
m )
o /
10.
/
[
/ l
- 0. l 1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0 Time (sec)
O Event Pressure Time (sec) Pressure (psig)
Description Designation min max min max Instant of Break to Onset of CO P 0. 5. 0.58 1.5 and Chugging 1 1 Onset of 00 and Chugging to P 5. 300. 1.5 20.3 2
Initiation of ADS Initiation of ADS to RPV P 300. 500. 20.3 32.7 Depressurization Figure 2-2.2-2 SUPPRESSION CHAMBER INTERNAL PRESSURES FOR IBA EVENT O)
DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.59 NO
P = 0.0 psi
- 30. -
O
- 20. ~ 7
~
./
i f
a /
/
g 10. j m
I .__
l l .
0.
/ I 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 Time (sec)
O p
Time (sec) Pressure ipsig)
Description Designation t t P . P max max min min Instant of Break to Terminaticn of P 0.0 1.5 0.58 8.00 1
Pool Swell Termination of Pool Swell to P 1.5 5.0 8.00 16.00 Onset of CO 2 Onset of CO to Onset of Chugging p 5.0 35.0 16.00 23.90 3
Onset of Chugging to RPV P 35.0 65.0 23.90 23.90 4
Depressurization Figure 2-2.2-3 SUPPRESSION CHAMBER INTERNAL PRESSURES FOR DBA EVENT DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.60
Tg = 70 F 200.
180.
E 0, ,
a 160.-
u 5
5 140.
o P 0
E* 120. /
r I
J 100. '
90.
1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0 10000.0 Time 'sec)
Event Temperature Time (sec) Temperature (F )
Description Designation
{- '} ,
min t
max T .
min T
max Instant of Break to Onset of T y (1 0. 300. 98.0 101.0 Chugging Onset of Chugginc (y) to Initiation of T 2
300. 600. 101.0 107.0 ADS Initiation of ADS to RPV (2 ) 1200.
T 3
600. 107.0 134.0 Depressurization Notes:
- 1. The temperatures for Case 3B shown in Table 2-2.2-2 is used in lieu of these temperatures.
- 2. The temperature for Case 3A shown in Table 2-2.2-2 is ,
used in lieu of these temperatures. l l
l Figure 2-2.2-4 SUPPRESSION CHAMBER TEMPERATURES FOR SBA EVENT DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.61 @{g
1 T g = 70 F 300.-
O c l 0 200.- 1 3
f ..
e i
- a. /
b #
e i I
100. _-
80.
1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0 Time (sec)
O Event Temperature Time (sec) Temperature (OF)
Description Designation min max min max Instant of Break to Onset of CO T 0. 5. 95.0 95.0 1
and Chugging Onset of 00 and Chugging to T 5. 300. 95.0 112.0 2
Initiation of ADS Initiation of ADS to RPV T 300. 500. 112.0 173.0
_Depressurization Figure 2-2.2-5 SUPPRESSION CHAMBER TEMPERATURES FOR IBA EVENT O'
DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.62 nutp_qh
TO
- 70 F 200.
O .
150.
100. - # ~
a s p
60.
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 Time (sec)
Event Temperature Time (sec) Temperature (OF)
Description Designation min max min max Instant of Break to Termination of Ty 0.0 1.5 70.0 72.O Pool Swell
'Ibrmination of Pool Swell to T 1.5 5.0 72.0 78.0 2
Onset of CO Onset of CO to Onset of Chugging T .0 35.0 78.0 109.0 3
Onset of Chugging to RPV T 35.0 65.0 109.0 109.0 4
Deoressurization Figure 2-2.2-6 SUPPRESSION CHAMBER TEMPERATURES FOR DBA EVENT DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.63 nut m h
T g =70 F
/
, f x
i
/ \
1.0 - T \
p pggy u- -
u + ,
L' i 1
/ l l
u 0.8 ~ s . ,
.20" l o '
.40" m
a T
sup ( h s s, ,-
' s,e
'f
, 60" s ~ , /
, . ~ -
- ,fL, g 0.6 -
g Key Diagram
> i 1
4 '
O 0.4 - Loading Information 0=T e
N sup -T o o
0=T pogy - T o i
T = T+o h )(Tpogy - To )
sup t 0.0 6 6 i e a 1 0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 Radial Distance From Torus Shell (in.)
Note:
- 1. Suppression pool temperatures for SBA, IBA, and DBA events shown in Figures 2-2.2-4 through 2-2.2-6.
Figure 2-2.2-7 SUPPRESSION CHAMBER SUPPORT DIFFERENTIAL TEMPERATURES DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.64 gg
O P = 11.6 psi max P = . 5 psi min 20.
,g
._ Peak Download 3 10. - U.
0 9 T
O :u ) s
~#
0.= ,'yy
^
prd'__
Peak Upload w g - ~ #
i i i i
-5. , , t i i 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 Time (sec)
Note:
- 1. Pressures shown do not include DBA internal pressure.
Figure 2-2.2-8 ,
POOL SWELL TORUS SHELL PRESSURE TRANSIENT AT SUPPRESSION CHAMBER MITERED JOINT
\ -BOTTOM DEAD CENTER LOCATION DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.65 OUkgQh
i l
O P = 23.2 psi P = 0.0 psi 30.
/
b 20. j c) /
y , /
/
8 /
W 10-
, e p f
-/
0.-
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 Time (sec)
Note:
- 1. Pressures shown include the effects of DBA internal pressure in Figure 2-2.2-3.
Figure 2-2.2-9 POOL SWELL TORUS SHELL PRESSURE TRANSIENT FOR SUPPRESSION CHAMBER AIR SPACE O
DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.66 g
fs O 4 0
l l
1
+ .
_ n_ _ _
V V
! \
! .P
"^*
\
/ _
\
\
_ \
"= x O SL. = =
j l Notes:
- 1. Pressure amplitudes for DBA condensation
- oscillation loads shown in Table 2-2.2-5.
l l 2. Pressure amplitudes for post-chug loads shown in Table 2-2.2-7.
Figure 2-2. 2-10 NOP.MALIZED TORUS SHELL PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION FOR DBA CONDENSATION OSCILLATION AND POST-CHUG LOADINGS DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.67 0
To O Drywell 0
jl d-A (
b -
~
- I l
F Key Diagram Normalized Pool Accelerations 2
Profile Pool Acceleration (ft/sec )
A 10.0 B 20.0 C 30.0 D 40.0 E 50.0 F 60.0 Pool accelerations due to harmonic application of torus shell pressures shown in Figure 2-2.2-10 at a suppression chamber frequency of 20.39hz.
Figure 2-2.2-11 POOL ACCELERATION PROFILE FOR DOMINANT SUPPRESSION CHAMBER FREQUENCY AT MIDCYLINDER LOCATION DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.68 g{
C f3 V
- - = ~ _ . _ - _ - _ - _-
P
./ max \
'/ .
\
\
\
P
_ max Sym.
Loading Characteristics Symmetric Distribution:
P = + 2.0 psi at all bottom dead center x
locations Asymmetric Distribution:
P" "* =+ 2.0 psi in one bay with longitudinal attenuation shown in Figure 2-2.2-13 Frequency:
Single harmonic in 6.9 to 9.5 Hz range result- .
ing in maximum response Total Integrated Load:
Sym Dist: F ven 152.87 kips per mitered cyl.
Asym Dist: P = 38.23 kips total horizontal horz Figure 2-2.2-12 CIRCUMFERENTIAL TORUS SHELL PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION FOR SYMMETRIC AND ASYMMETRIC PRE-CHUG LOADINGS O
DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.69 @{g
O e
O Seismic Restraint (typ)
N #
F -g 90 - Sym.
- 3. 0 -
horz : 270 h- -
N c6 2.0- I
\
\
C \
g N 180 l %
0 1. 0 - ' Key Diagram s
o ' ~. .
y -
- 0. 0 -
-1.0 270.0 247.5 225.0 202.5 180.0 157.5 135.0 112.5 90.0 Azimuth (dog)
Note:
- 1. See Figure 2-2.2-12 for circumferential torus shell pressure distribution.
Figure 2-2.2-13 LONGITUDINAL TORUS SHELL PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION FOR ASYMMETRIC PRE-CHUG I.OADING DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.70 h
nutEh.
20.0 h
% -)
d h l \
r R 1 E.
s i ;
f\ /N n -
r Nj v v
(/
(j v
~
-20.0 -
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 Time (sec)
SHELL PRESSURE FORCING FUNCTION max, min LOADING CHARACTERISTICS 7a - Case A1.1/A1.3 Single valve f l ,
Pressure (psi): Longest. SRVDL
[ Bubbles (3 -
/ P max = 18.01, P ,1, = -12.03 Shell:
P max = 14.82, Pmin = -10.12 Total Applied Load (kips) :
[---=,
- . . i
-.g. - --
Vertical Per Mitered Cylinder:
' i
- k. Downward: F,,,= 752.
Upward: Fmin = 513.
p / Load Frequency (liz) :
P max min Ranges
// 4.23 i f,y 1 8.58 l
Sym.
MITLnED JOINT SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION Figure 2-2.2-14 SRV DISCHARGE TORUS SHELL LOADS FOR CASE Al.1/A1.3-SINGLE VALVE ACTUATION O
kd '
DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.71 nuttgh
c _ _ _ _ . _ _ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . . . . _ . _ . _
20.
9 4
\
- n i 0. W { \ \ /\ n g,r-s v -
l v
i
-20.-
O.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 Time (sec)
SHELL PRESSURE FORCING FUNCT10N Fmax,Imin LOADING CHARACTERISTICS I 7b - Case A1.2/C3.2 Multiple valve Pressure (psi): Longest SRVDL
,- sg Bubbles
'l P = 17.19, P j mx min = -16.00 Shell One Valve
, P ,x = 14.42, P min = -14.75 W
k Shell: All Valves
'6-_- _._
+ y _
p T r.:
j P, = 17.19, P min = - . O j Total Applied Load (kips):
\ "" max N / Vertical Per Mitered Cylinder:
Downward: F ,,,= W.
M Upward: F min " '0
- l Load Frequency (Hz):
l Ranger Sym.
MITERED JOINT SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION Figure 2-2.2-15 SRV DISCIIARGE TORUS SHELL LOADS FOR CASE A.12/C3.2-MULTIPLE VALVE ACTUATION O
DET-04-028-2
- Revision 0 2-2.72 nut.tg.h.
20.
l
,-3 0
i
- 0. 4 ,
I \ /\ n gf
-s v
~
' 1 1 i
b.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 C.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 Time (sec)
SHELL PRESSURE PORCING FUNCTION g LOADING CHARACTERISTICS
} F,,x,F,gn l 7c - Case A2.2 ADS Valves Pressure (psi): Longest SRVDL l
,/~ ' Bubble e
P,,x = 17.19, P min = - .00 Shell: One Valve P,, = 14.42, Pmin " ~14*75
} Shell: All ADS Valves
+ - - *-
_ - __ _ e y
g P,,g= 17.19, Pmin = -16.00 j Total Applied Load (kips):
p i p Vertical Per Mitered Cylinders min max Downward: F rax " 946.
Upwards F min = 880.
Total Horizontal (see Figure 2-2.2 -17) :
l Laterals Fmax = 290.
Sym. Load Frequency (Hz) :
MITERED JOINT SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION Figure 2-2.2-16 SRV DISCHARGE TORUS SHELL LOADS FOR CASE A2.2-
,_ ADS VALVE ACTUATION
( "
l DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.73 nute,q, E
EMSh
U O
g eismic S Restraint (typ.)
d e F
, horz
'{ h + 90
.,' f %
270
/l ,,
Sym.
ADS (1110 psi) Valve (typ g 180 Key Diagram 30.
Y 20. -
9 a
~
/ (' A
^ N o - , / w E \ / \
- 10. \
u m ss
==-. ._
- 2. .
, i 80.0 300.0 320.0 340.0 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 Azimuth (deg)
Figure 2-2.2-17 LONGITUDINAL TORUS SHELL PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION FOR SRV DISCHARGE CASE A2.2 - ADS VALVE ACTUATION e
DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.74 nutggj) e
- . - .= . - .
l C 2-2.2.2 Load Combinations The load categories and associated load cases for which the suppression chamber is evaluated are presented in Section 2-2.2.1. The NUREG-0661 criteria for grouping the respective loads and load categories into event combinations are presented in Table 2-2.2-11.
The 27 general event combinations shown in Table 2-2.2-11 are expanded to form a total of 107 specific suppression :hamber load combinations for the Normal Operating, SBA, IBA, and DBA events. The specific load combinations reflect a greater level of detail than is O contained in the eenera1 event combinations, inc1udine distinctions between SBA and IBA, distinctions between pre-chug and post-chug, distinctions between SRV actuation cases, and consideration of multiple cases of particular loadings. The total number of supprecsion chamber load combinations consists of 5 for the Normal Operating event, 36 for the SBA event, 42 for the IBA event, and 24 for the DBA event. Several different service level limits and corresponding sets of allowable stresses are associated with these load conbinations.
DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.75
Not all of the possible suppression chamber load h combinations are evaluated, since many are enveloped by others and do not lead to controlling suppression chamber stresses. The enveloping load combinations are determined by examining the possible suppression chamber load combinations and comparing the respective load cases and allowable stresses. The results of this examination are shown in Table 2-2.2-12, where each enveloping load combination is assigned a number for ease of identification.
The enveloping load combinations are reduced further by examining relative load magnitudes and individual load characteristics to determine which load combinations h lead to controlling suppression chamber stresses. The load combinations which have been found to produce controlling suppression chamber stresses are separated into three groups. The SBA III, IBA I, DBA II, and DBA a III combinations are used to evaluate the suppression chamber vertical support system since these combinations result in the maximum vertical loads on the suppression chamber. The IBA III, IBA IV, DBA II, and DBA III combinations are used to evaluate stresses in the suppression chamber shell, ring beams, and vertical DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.76 nutg_qh
^
l 4
b O e=e#cuer ==reore bee - 1 ce ene e co 81= eio - re 1e in maximum pressures on the suppression chamber shell.
The IBA III and IBA V combinations are used to evaluate the effects of lateral loads on the suppression chamber near the seismic restraints. An explanation of the reasoning used to conclude that these are the control- !
ling suppression chamber load combinations is presented i in the paragraphs which follow. Table 2-2.2-13 sum- ;
marizes the controlling load combinations and identifies :
which load combinations are enveloped by each of the controlling combinations. !
Many of the general event combinations, shown in Table 2-2.2-11, have the same allowable stresses and are enveloped by others which contain the same or additional load cases. There is no distinction between load combinations with Service Level A and B conditions for the suppression chamber, since the Service Level A and B allowable stress values are the same.
Many pairs of load combinations contain identical load cases except for seismic loads. One of the load com- i l
binations in the pair contains OBE 1 cads and has Service Level A or B allowables, while the other contains SSE ;
j loads with Service Level C allowables. It is evident l
,O V DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.77 nutggb :
1 from examining the load magnitudes presented in Section h 2-2.2.1, that both the OBE and SSE vertical accelera-tions are small compared to gravity. As a result, suppression chamber stresses and vertical support reactions due to vertical seismic loads are small compared to those caused by other loads in the load combination. The horizontal seismic loads for OBE and SSE are less than 50% of gravity and also result in small suppression chamber stresses compared with those caused by other loads in the load combinations, except at the seismic restraints which provide lateral support for the suppression chamber. The Service Level C primary stress allowables for the load combinations containing SSE loads are more than 75% higher than the Service Level B allowables for the corresponding load combination containing OBE loads. It is apparent, therefore, that the controlling load combinations for evaluating suppression chamber stresses and vertical support reactions are those containing OBE loads and Service Level B allowables.
Since seismic loading is the largest contributor to lateral loads acting on the suppression chamber, the evaluation of both OBE and SSE load combinations is necessary since either may result in controlling DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.78 nutggl)
) suppression chamber stresses near the seismic restraints.
Applying the above reasoning to the total number of suppression chamber load combinations, a reduced number of enveloping load combinations for each event is obtained. The resulting suppression chamber load com-binations for the Normal Operating, SBA, IBA, and DBA events are shown in Table 2-2.2-12, along with the associated service level assignments. For ease of identification, each load combination in each event is assigned a number. The reduced number of enveloping load combinations shown in Table 2-2.2-12 consists of FN
'Q two for Normal Operating Conditions, five for the SBA event, five for the IBA event, and six for the DBA event. The load case designations for the loads which comprise the combinations are the same as those pre-sented in Section 2-2.2.1.
It i evident from an examination of Table 2-2.2-12 that v
furt*:er reductions in the number of suppression chamber 4
- loado combinations requiring evaluation are possible.
Any +f the SBA or IBA combinations envelop the NOC I and s
II cambinations, j since they contain the same loadings as the NOC I and II combinations and in addition, contain s r^x .
l
' Uj DET-04-028-2?
~
Reviision 0 2-2.79 nutgg.h
condensation oscillation or chugging loads. The effects h of the NOC I and II combinations are considered in the suppression chamber fatigue evaluation.
The remaining suppression chamber load combinations can be separated into those which result in maximum vertical reaction loads, those which result in maximum shell pressures, and those which result in maximum horizontal reaction loads. The loading combinations which result in maximum vertical reaction loads are discussed first.
The SBA III combination envelops the SBA IV and IBA IV combinations since the vertical reaction loads due to SRV Discharge 7b-Case A1.2/C3.2 are more severe than those of SRV Discharge 7c-Case A2.2. There are differences in the SBA III, SBA IV, and IBA IV pressure and temperature loadings, but these loadings do not affect net vertical loads in the suppression chamber.
It also follows from the reasoning presented earlier for OBE and SSE loads that the SBA III combination envelops the DBA VI combination for the effects of vertical reaction loads.
Since pre-chug loads are specified in lieu of IBA con-densation oscillation loads, the IBA I combination is DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.80 nutggh
{} the same as the SBA I combination. Thus the SBA I com-bination can be eliminated from further consideration for combinations affecting vertical reaction loads. The IBA I combination also envelops the IBA II combination, since the vertical reaction loads due to SRV Dircharge 7b-Case A1.2/3.2 are more severe than those of SRV Discharge 7c-Case A2.2. There are differences among some loads in the SBA I, IBA I, and IBA II combinations but these loadings do not affect net vertical loads on the suppression chamber. By the same reasoning, it is evident that the IBA I combination envelops the SBA II and IBA III combination, except when evaluating the effects of horizontal reaction loads on the suppression b chamber. From the reasoning presented earlier for OBE and SSE loads, it also follows that the IBA I combina-tion envelops the SBA V and IBA V combinations for tte effects of vertical loads. Similarly, it can be shown that the IBA I combination envelops the DBA V combination.
The IBA and SBA load combinations which result in the maximum total pressures on the suppression chamber shell include the SBA II, SBA IV, SBA V, IBA II, IBA III, IBA IV, and IBA V combinations.. These combinations contain the maximum internal pressures which occur during the p
V DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.81 nutggh
SBA and IBA events and SRV Discharge 7b-Case A2.2 g loads. The combined effect of these loadings results in the maximum pressure loads on the suppression chamber shell.
The IBA III combination envelops the SBA II combination, for the effects of maximum pressure loads since the internal pressures for IBA III are larger than those of SBA II. Since pre-chug loads are specified in lieu of IBA condensation oscillation loads, the IBA III combina-tion is the same as the IBA II combination. Thus the IBA II combination can be eliminated from further consideration for combinations which result in maximum s pressure loads. It also follows from the reasoning $
presented earlier for OBE and SSE loads, that the IBA III combination envelops the SBA V and the IBA V combinations. The IBA IV combination envelops the SBA IV for consideration of maximum pressure loads since the internal pressures for IBA IV are larger than those for SBA IV.
The DBA III combination envelops the DBA I combination for the affects of vertical reaction loads and pressure loads since it contains all of the same loadings as the DBA I combination and, in addition, contains SRV dis-DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.82 h
l nutg_qh
F O cherse 1oeae- The oa^ 1 combi =etio= hee service teve1 a limits with allowances for increased allowable stresses which, when applied, result in allowable stresses which '
are about the same as the Service Level C allowable stresses for the DBA III combination.
The DBA II combination envelops the DBA IV combination for the effects of vertical reaction loads and pressure loads since SRV discharge loads which occur late in the DBA event have a negligible effect on the suppression chamber. The DBA II combination also has more restric-tive allowables than the DBA IV combination. 3 O The 1oed combinetions which reeu1e in meximum horisonea1 reaction loads on the suppression chamber are the SBA II, SBA V, IBA III, and IBA V combinations. All of i
these combinations contain asymmetric pre-chug loads, l SRV Discharge 7c-Case A2.2 (7c), and either OBE or SSE loads. The combined effect of these loads results in ,L the maximum possible lateral load on the suppression chamber. The IBA III and SBA II combinations are the !
same except for differences in internal pressure and temperature loads which do not affect lateral loads on 1
l the suppression chamber. The same can be said for the l
O V DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.83 nutgpj)
O The controlling suppression chamber load combinations evaluated in the remaining sections can now be summarized. The SBA III, IBA I, DBA II, and DBA III combinations are evaluated when examining the effects of vertical reaction loads on the suppression chamber vertical support system. The IBA III and IBA IV, DBA II, and DBA III combinations are evaluated when examin-ing the effects of pressure loads on the suppression chamber shell, ring beams, and vertical quencher support beams. The IBA III and IBA V combinations are evaluated when examining the effects of lateral loads on the suppression chamber near the seismic restraints.
O To ensure that fatigue in the suppresion chamber is not a concern over the life of the plant, the combined effects of fatigue due to Normal Operating plus SBA and Normal Operating plus IBA events are evaluated. The relative sequencing and timing of each loading in the SBA, IBA, and DBA events used in this evaluation are shown in Figures 2-2.2-18, 2-2.2-19, and 2-2.2-20. The fatigue effects for Normal Operating plus DBA events are enveloped by the Normal Operating plus SBA or IBA events, since combined effects of SRV discharge loads and other loads for the SBA and IBA events are more DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.84 h
nutggh
] severe than those of DBA. Additional information used in the supression chamber fatigue evaluation is sum- !
i marized at the bottom of Table 2-2.2-12.
The load combinations and event sequencing described in the preceding paragraphs envelop those postulated to occur during an actual LOCA or SRV discharge event. An evaluation of the above load combinations results in a conservative estimate of the suppression chamber responses and leads to bounding values of suppression chamber stresses and fatigue effects.
O DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.85 nutgg;b
--m -- c- g._m.- c- r..-
O Table 2-2.2-11 MARK I CONTAINMENT EVENT COMBINATIONS 1
l l
SSA SEA + E0 saA.Sav $8A.sIV.to Say ISA IRA + 10 IRA.say IRA.say.to m DBA
- to W.1H h $n.to E0 tarthquake Type O S 0 5 0 $ 0 5 0 5 0 S 0 5 0 3 0 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 to 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 LOMS Normal I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Farthquake I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I f>RV Otscharge I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 LOC A Thermal I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I LOCA atactions I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I LOCA Pool $= ell I I F I I I LOCA Condensation g g g g Osct11s= tone g LOCA Chugaant t I I I I I I I I I I I Note:
- 1. See Section 1-3.2 for additional event combination information.
DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.86 nutggb
1 1 i
Table CONTROLLING SUPPRESSION Condition / Event NOC SBA Section 2-2.2.1 Volume 2 Load .. .
Load Combination Number I II I II IIIL IV Designation Table 2-2.2-11 Load 2 2 14 14 14L 14 1 Combination Number
- 1) Dead Weight la,1b :
- 3) Pressure II) P( P( P 2
P 3 2 3
- 3) Temperature T T T T LT2- T 2 3 3
- 4) Pool Swell
- 5) Condensation Oscillation Chugging Pre-Chug 6a,6c 6a,6c 6a 6)
Post-Chug 6b,6d 6b,6d I
Single 7a,7d
- 7) SRV Multiple 7b,7d 7b,7d 7b,7di.
Discharge ADS 7c,7d 7c,7d 7d
- 8) Containment Interaction 8a :
l B B B B B- B Service Level (7) l Number of Event Occurences 150 150 1:
1 (8)
Number of SRV Actuations 2594 210 50 2 30 ;- 2 DET-04-028-2 Revision 0
% 2-s
\
l ____ __
j
\
i i
2-2.2-12 HAMBER LOAD COMBINATIONS l
IBA DBA I II III'- iIV: V '- I JII- :
II'I- IV V VI 14 14 14; '15 .- 18 20 25 27 27 27
- la,1b 2a e di2'a 2a -2a m
L 2bi- ' 2b c : 2b P P Py P 3'
3 2 3 3- is 3 1 3 4 4 13 ' 2 T
3 T3 'T
. 3
!;:.T 39 T3 iT 3 :T 1
T 3
T4 T 4
l
[ 4a,4b L4a,'4b 5b,5d 5b,5d Sa,5c Sa,5c 6c 6a,6c 6a,6c-- 6a,6c 6b,6d 6b,6d
[
I (5) (5) 7a,7d- 7a,7d : 7a,7d l
7b,7d l7d 7c,7d 4 : I 7c,7d.
- 8a I
B B B ~B' -C B (6) B C C C C 1
1 l
-25 2 .2 2 2 0 0 '11 1 1 1 l
[s7 nutg_qh
~/
() Table 2-2.2-12 (Concluded)
CONTROLLING SUPPRESSION CHAMBER LOAD COMBINATIONS Notes for Table 2-2.2-12
- 2. The range of normal operating internal pressures is 0.0 to 2.0 psi as specified by the FSAR.
- 3. See Figures 2-2.2-4 through 2-2.2-6 for SBA, IBA, and DBA temperature values. See Table 3-2.2-2 for additional SBA event temperatures.
- 4. The rgnge of normal operating temperatures is 50.0 to See Table 2-2.2-2 150.0 F as specified by the FSAR.
for additional normal operating temperatures.
- 5. The SRV discharge loads which occur during this phase of the DBA event have a1 negligible effect on the p)s
(_ suppression chamber.
- 6. Evaluation of secondary stress range or fatigue not required. When evaluating torus shell stresses, the value of S may be increased by the dynamic load factor derived free the analytical model.
- 7. The number of seismic load cycles used for fatigue is 600.
- 8. The values shown are conservative estimates of the number of actuations expected for a BWR 4 plant with a reactor size of 251.
DET-04-028-2
\ Revision 0 2-2.88
Table 2-2.2-13 ENVELOPING LOGIC FOR CONTROLLING SUPPRESSION CHAMBER LOAD COMBINATIONS Condition / Event NOC SBA IBA DBA o na imb r 4-644-6, 4-6, 4-6, 4-6. 4-6, 4-6, 4-6. 19, 21, 21, 21, Table 2-2.2-11 Load 3 3'7' 23, 23, Combinations Enveloped 1 1 8, 8, 8, 8, 9,'7f 8, 8, 8, 8, 16 17 22, 23, 10- 10- 9' - 26 26 26 10- 10 10- 10 10- 24 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 volume 2 Load Combination Designation I II I II III IV V I II III IV V I II III IV V VI SBA III X X X X X e IBA I X X X X X X X X X
@ Vertical
-+ Support e Loads DBA II X
.5 y DBA III x u3 y$ IBA III X X X X X X X X X X e-h Of fCf] IBA Iy X X X X E Pressures
[ DBA II X o
U DBA III X 8
U IBA III X X X X X X X X X X Lateral IBA V X X X X X X O DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.89 nutEh -
O, I
1 (la,1b) DEAD WEIGHT g (2a,2b) SEISMIC LOADS s
h (3b,3d) CONTAINMENT PRESSURE AND TEMPERATURE LOADS O
S
. (Ga-6d) CHUGGING LOADS 7 I
" l
=
S (7b,7d) SRV DISCHARGE LOADS G g (MULT VALVE CASE A1.2/C3.2) y I ,
l (7c,7d) SRV DISCHARGE LOAD l (ADS VAINIE CASE A2.2)
(8a) CONTAINMENT INTERACTION LOADS 1 i l l
- 0. 300. 600. 1200. i TIME AFTER LOCA (sec)
Figure 2-2.2-18 SUPPRESSION CHAMBER SBA EVENT SEQUENCE DET-04-028-2 ,
Revision 0 2-2.90 l
nutg,gh
O l
=
(la,1b) DEAD WEIGHT Z l
$ (2a,2b) SEISMIC LOADS [
N !
5 a !
$ (3b,3d) CONTAINMENT PRESSURE AND TEMPERATURE LOADS l 0
S a (5b,5d) CONDENSATION ! (6a-6d) !
- OSCILLATION LOADS: CHUGGING LOADS
. I i n
O A z
l l
$ (7b,7d) SRV DISCHARGE LOADS l Ed (MULT VALVE CASE Al.2/C3.2) L 0 I ,
m I I (7c,7d) SRV DISCHARGE LOADS !
l (ADS VALVE CASE A2.2)
I I (84) CONTAINMENT INTERACTION LOADS ,
l .'
O. 5. 300. 500.
TIME AFTER LOCA (sec) ;
i i
Figure 2-2.2-19 ,
SUPPRESSION CHAMBER IBA EVENT SEQUENCE O DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.91 nutggh
(la,lb) DEAD WEIGHT O
(2a,2b) SEISMIC LOADS z
O H
g ....____._____
b SEE NOTE 1 (3b) CONTAINMENT PRESSURE LOADS m i m i Q
O (3d) CONTAINMENT TEMPERATURE LOADS S i
.a n' (4a,4b) POOL SWELL LOADS i
" l g H
l l (Sa , Sc) CO LOADS E* I 1 1
O l m i 1
m 1 i I I
(6a-6d)
, i CHUGGING LOADS
, i ! -
1 (7a,7d)SRV DIS LOAD (SINGLE VALVE SEE NOTE 2 CASE A1.1/A1. 3) 8 I i l 1 8 I e (8a) CONTAINMENT INTERACTION LOADS O.1 1.5 5.0 35.0 65'.0 TIME AFTER LOCA (sec)
Notes:
- 1. The effects of internal pressure loads are included in pool swell torus shell loads.
Figure 2-2.2-20 1
SUPPRESSION CHAMBER DBA EVENT SEQUENCE O
DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.92 g
l 2-2.3 Analysis Acceptance Criteria The acceptance criteria defined in NUREG-0661 on which the Fermi 2 suppression chamber analysis is based are discussed in Section 1-3.2. In general, the acceptance criteria follows the rules contained in the ASME Code, Section III, Division 1 including the Summer 1977 Addenda for Class MC components and component supports ,
(Reference 6). The corresponding service limit assign-ments, jurisdictional boundaries, allowable stresses, and fatigue requirements are consistent with those contained in the applicable subsections of the ASME Code and the Mark I Containment Program Structural Acceptance Criteria Plant! Unique Analysis Application Guide (PDAAG)
(Reference S). The acceptance criteria used in the antilysis of the suppression chamber are summarized in the paragraphs which follow.
The items examined in the analysis of the suppression chamber include the suppression chamber shell, ring beam, vertical quencher support beam, and the suppres-sion chamber horizontal and vertical support systems.
The specific component parts associated with each of these items are identified in Figures 2-2.1-1 through 2-2.1-12.
DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.93 nutg.gb
The suppression chamber shell and ring beam are O
evaluated in accordance with the requirements for Class MC components contained in Subsection NE of the ASME Code. Fillet welds and partial penetration welds in which one or both of the joined parts include the suppression chamber shell, ring beam, and vertical quencher support beam are also evaluated in accordance with the requirements for Class MC component attachment welds contained in Subsection NE of the ASME Code.
The suppression chamber columns, column connections, saddle supports and associated component parts and welds are evaluated in accordance with the requirements for g Class MC component supports contained in Subsection NF of the ASME Code. The vertical quencher support beam is evaluated in accordance with the requirements for Class 3 component supports contained in Subsection NF of the ASME Code.
As shown in Figure 2-2.2-12, the SBA III, IBA I, IBA III, IBA IV, and DBA II combinations all have Service Level B limits while the IBA V and DBA III combinations both have Service Level C limits. Since these load com-binations have somewhat different maximum temperatures, l
l DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.94 g
nutggh
the allowable stresses for the two load combination O groups with Service Level B and C limits are conserva-tively determined at the' highest temperature in each load combination group, unless indicated otherwise.
The allowable stresses for each component of the suppression chamber and the vertical support system are determined at the maximum IBA temperature of 173*F. The allowable stresses for the vertical support system base plate assemblies are determined at 100*F. The resulting allowable stresses for the load combinations with Service Level B and C limits are shown in Table 2-2.3.1.
The column and saddle base plate anchor bolts and associated epoxy grout, shown in Figure 2-2.1-8, are the same as those used in the Interim Structural Evaluation of the Primary Containment (Reference 7). The allowable uplift load per bolt specified in that evaluation is 62.5 kips, which is equivalent to 1.56 kips per inch of embedment. The same values are used to establish acceptance in this evaluation.
The bearing stresses in the grout and reactor building basemat in the vicinity of the column and saddle base plates are evaluated in accordance with the requirements of the ACI Code (Reference 8) .
l v DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.95 nutggb
O The allowable load capacities for the suppression chamber vertical support system are determined using analytical models of the column and saddle base plate assemblies. Upward and downward reaction loads are applied, and the resulting stresses compared until the first component in the assembly reaches its allowable stress. The resulting allowable load capacities for the suppression chamber vertical supports are summarized in Table 2-2.3-2.
The allowable loads on the suppression chamber seismic restraints are taken from the FSAR as permitted by NUREG-0661 in cases where the analysis technique used in the evaluation is the same as that contained in the plant's FSAR. The allowable seismic restraint loads for Service Level B and C conditions are 1300 kips and 2346 kips per seismic restraint. The suppression chamber shell, in the vicinity of the seismic restraints, is j evaluated in accordance with the requirements for Class l MC components previously discussed.
The acceptance criteria described in the preceding para-graphs results in conservative estimates of the existing margins of safety and ensures that the original suppres-sion chamber design margins are restored.
O DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.96 nutp_g])
l l
l Table 2-2.3-1 ALLOWABLE STRESSES FOR SUPPRESSION CHAMBER COMPONENTS AND SUPPORTS !
i l
l All wable Stress (ksi)
- **
- Material (1) Stress Properties Type Service (2) Service (3) '
(ksi) Level B Level C -
COMPONENTS !
l SA-516 mc % Ibumae 19.30 35.52 Shell Local Primary 53.28 !
Gr. 70 8ml =23.15 Membrane 28.95 S =35.52 (4)
SecondaryPrimary + Stress 69.45 N/A ;
Ranob i
=19*30 l S
mc Primary Ibam c 19.30 35.52 O Ring SA-516 Sml "
- Local Primary 28.95 53.28 Beam Membrane j S
y
=35.52 Primary + te)
Secondary Stress 69.45 N/A Range !
f COMPONENT SUPPORTS f
Column SA-516 Sy = 35*52 Ccnnecticn Gr. 70 j Extreme Fiber 26.64 35.52 -
(5) SA-516 Membrane 21.31 28.42 j Saddle S = 35.52 :
Extreme Fiber 26.64 35.52 !
i l
I l
1 l
l t
O o82-o4-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.97 l nutggh l
Table 2-2.3-1 (Concluded) g ALLOWABLE STRESSES FOR SUPPRESSION CHAMBER COMPONENTS AND SUPPORTS Material (l) Allowable Stress (ksi) 8 em a P es Ty Service (2) Service (3)
Level B Level C
! WELDS Ring Beam SA-516 S = 19.30 Primary 15.01 27.63 mc to Shell Gr. 70 Sy = 35.52 Secondarv 45.03 N/A Column SA-516 S = 19.30 Primary 15.01 27.63 mc Connecticn Gr. 70 g 35*52 to Shell y Secondary 45.03 N/A
= 19. O Primary 15.01 27.63 Saddle SA-516 mc to Shell Gr. 70 S = 35.52 Secondary 45.03 N/A Notes:
- 1. Material propirties taken at maximum event temperatures.
l 2. Service Level B allowables are used when evaluating SBA III, IBA I, IBA III, IBA IV, and DBA II load combination results.
- 3. Service Level C allowables are used when evaluating IBA V l
and DBA III load combination results.
- 4. Thermal bending stresses may be excluded when comparing primary-plus-secondary stress range values to allowables.
- 5. Stresses due to thermal loads may be excluded when evaluating component supports.
l DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.98 h
nutp_qh
Table 2-2.3-2 SUPPRESSION CHAMBER VERTICAL SUPPORT SYSTEM ALLOWABLE LOADS (1)
Support Load Capacity (hips)
"E " " Upward Downward Inside 441. 844.
Column Outside 441. 844.
O Inside 735 903 Saddle Outside 735, 903 Total Per Mitered Cylinder 2352. 3494.
Note:
- 1. Capacities shown are based on Service Level B allowables. For Service Level C allowables, increase values shown by one third.
DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.99
. nutE.h_
2-2.4 Method of Analysis h The governing loads for which the Fermi 2 suppression chamber' is evaluated are presented in Section 2-2.2.1.
The methodology used to evaluate the suppression chamber i for the effects of all loads, except those which result
_ in ~ 1ateral loads on the suppression chamber, is
- discussed in Cect16n 2-2.4.1. The methodology used to
. evaluate the suppression chamber for the effects of lateral loads is discussed in Section 2-2.4.2.
The methodology used to formulate results for the controlling load combinations, examine fatigue effects, and evaluate the analysis results for comparison with
^
the applicable acceptance limits is discussed in Section 2-2.4.3.
I ,-
DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.100 nutgqhh s
2-2.4.1 Analysis for Major Loads The repetitive nature of the suppression chamber geometry is such that the suppression chamber can be divided into 16 identical segments which extend from midbay of 'the vent line bay to midbay of the non-vent line bay, as shown in Figure 2-2.1-1. The suppression chamber can be further divided into 32 identical segments extending from the mitered joint to midbay, provided the offset ring beam and vertical supports are assumed to lie in the plane of the mitered joint. The effects of the ring beam and vertical supports offset O heve been eve 1ueeed end found to heve e nee 11eib1e effect on the suppression chamber response. The analysis of the suppression chamber, therefore, is
- performed for a typical 1/32nd segments.
1 A finite element model of a 1/32nd segment of the sup-pression chamber, as shown in Figure 2-2.4-1, is used to obtain the suppression chamber response to all loads except those resulting in lateral loads on the suppres-sion chamber. The analytical model includes the suppression chamber shell, the ring beam with cover plates, the vertical quencher support' beam and pedestal, DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.101 nutgrb
l 1
the column connections and associated column members, h the saddle support and associated base plates, and miscellaneous internal and external stiffener plates.
The analytical model is comprised of 1,266 nodes, 283 beam elements, and 1,425 plate bending and stretching elements. The suppression chamber shell has a circum-ferential node spacing of 7.8* at midbay with additional mesh refinement near discontinuities to facilitate examination of local stresses. Additional refinement is also included in modeling of the ring beam, quencher beam, column connections, and saddle support at locations where locally higher stresses occur. The stiffness and mass proporties used in the model are h based on the nominal dimensions and densities of the materials used to construct the suppression chamber, as shown in Figures 2-2.1-1 through 2-2.1-12. Small dis-placement linear-elastic behavior is assumed throughout.
The boundary conditions used in the analytical model are both physical and mathematical in nature. The physical boundary conditions consist of vertical restraints at each column and saddle base plate location. As pre-viously discussed, the vertical support system base plates permit movement of the suppression chamber in the DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.102 nutech
O horizoae 1 airectioa- rae matae etic 1 ao=" aery co=at-l tions consist of either symmetry, anti-symmetry, or a combination of both at the mitered joint and midcylinder planes, depending on the characteristics of the load being evaluated.
When computing the response of the suppression chamber to dynamic loadings, the fluid-structure interaction effects of the suppression chamber shell and contained fluid (water) are considered. This is accomplished through use of a finite element model of the fluid shown in Figure 2-2.4-2. The analytical fluid model is used to develop a coupled mass matrix which is added to the submerged nodes of the suppression chamber analytical model to represent the fluid. A water volume corresponding to a water level 7" below the suppression chamber horizontal centerline is used in this calcula-tion. This is the maximum water volume expected during normal operating conditions. Additional fluid mass is lumped along the length of the ring beam and quencher beam to account for the effective mass of water which acts with these structurec during dynamic loadings.
A frequency analysis is performed using the suppression chamber analytical model in which all structural modes DET-04-028-2 Revision 0- 2-2.103 nutggb
in the range of 0 to 50 hertz are extracted. The h resulting frequencies and vertical mass participation factors are shown in Table 2-2.4-1. It is evident from the table that the dominant suppression chamber frequency occurs at about 20.39 hertz, which is above the dominant frequencies of most major hydrodynamic loadings.
A dynamic analysis is performed for each of the hydro-dynamic torus shell load cases specified in Section 2-2,2.1 using the analytical model of the suppression chamber. The analysis consists of either a transient or a harmonic analysis, depending on the characteristics of the torus shell load being considered. The modal h superposition technique with 2% damping is utilized in both transient and harmonic analyses.
The remaining suppression chamber load cases specified in Section 2-2.2.1 involve either static loads or dynamic loads which are evaluated using an equivalent static approach. For the latter, conservative dynamic amplification factors are developed and applied to the maximum spatial distributions of the individual dynamic loadings.
i DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.104 nutggh
O The specific treatment of each load in the load categories identified in Section 2-2.2.1 is discussed in r
the paragraphs which follow:
i
- 1. Dead Weight Loads i
- a. Dead Weight of Steel: A static analysis is ,
performed for a unit vertical acceleration '
applied to the weight of suppression chamber steel. l t
- b. Dead Weight of Water: A static analysis is ,
performed for hydrostatic pressures applied to O the eusmereed goreion of the sugereesiou chamber shell. <
- 2. Seismic Loads
- a. OBE Loads: A static analysis is performed for ;
a 0.0679 vertical acceleration applied to the f I
combined weight of suppression chamber steel and water. The effects of horizontal OBE accelerations are evaluated in Section 2-2.4.2.
Ds U DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.105 j nutggh
- b. SSE Loads: A static analysis is performed for a 0.133g vertical acceleration applied to the combined weight of suppression chamber steel and water. The effects of horizontal SSE accelerations are evaluated in Section 2-2.4.2.
- 3. Containment Pressure and Temperature
- a. Normal Operating Internal Pressure: A static analysis is performed for a 2.0 psi internal pressure, uniformly applied to the suppression chamber shell.
O
- b. LOCA Internal Pressure Loads: A static analysis is performed for the SBA, IBA, and DBA internal pressures, shown in Figures 2-2.2-1 through 2-2.2-3. These pressures are uniformly applied to the suppression chamber shell at selected times during each event.
- c. Normal Operating Temperature Loads: A static analysis is performed for a 150*F temperature uniformly applied to the suppression chamber shell, ring beam, and quencher . beam. An DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.106 nutggb
i additional static analysis is -performed for
-Q the maximum normal operating temperature, listed in Table 2-2.2-2. Discrete tempera-tures for the suppression chamber vertical supports are obtained from Figure 2-2.2-7.
- d. LOCA Temperature Loads: A static analysis is performed for the SBA, IBA, and DBA tempera-tures, uniformly applied to the suppression chamber shell, ring beam, and quencher beam.
The SBA, IBA, and DBA event temperatures shown in Figures 2-2.2-4 through 2-2.2-6 are applied at selected times during each event. The greater of the temperatures specified in Figure 2-2.2-4 and Table 2-2.2-2 is used in the analysis for SBA temperatures. Discrete temperatures for the suppression chamber vertical supports are obtained from Figure 2-2.2-7.
- 4. Pool Swell Loads
- a. Pool Swell Torus Shell Loads: A dynamic analysis is performed for both the vent line bay and non-vent line bay pool swell loada l
s) DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.107 nutggh
}
shown in Figures 2-2.2-8 and 2-2.2-9, and g Table 2-2.2-3.
- b. LOCA Air Clearing Submerged Structure Loads:
An equivalent static analysis is performed for the ring beam and quencher beam DBA air clearing submerged structure loads shown in Table 2-2.2-4. The values of the loads shown include dynamic amplification factors which are computed using first principles and the dominant frequencies of the ring beam and quencher beam. The dominant frequencies are derived from harmonic analyses of these components. The results of these harmonic h analyses are shown in Figure 2-2.4-3.
- 5. Condensation Oscillation Loads
- a. DBA Condensation Oscillation Torus Shell Loads: A dynamic analysis is performed for the four condensation oscillation load alter-nates shown in Table 2-2.2-5. A typical response obtained from the suppression chamber harmonic analysis for the normalized spatial distribution of pressures shown in Figure 2-2.2-10 is provided in Figure 2-2.4-4.
DET-04-028-2 O'
Revision 0 2-2.108 I nutp_qh
i i
Q _During harmonic summation, the amplitudes for I
each condensation oscillation load frequency interval are conservatively applied to the maximum response amplitudes obtained from the suppression chamber harmonic analysis results in the same frequency interval.
- b. IBA Condensation Oscillation Torus Shell Loads: As previously discussed, pre-chug loads described in load case 6a are specified in lieu of IBA condensation oscillation loads.
- c. DBA Condensation Oscillation Submerged O structure to a : ^= 9 ive1e e tetic analysis is performed for the ring beam and quencher beam DBA condensation oscillation submerged structure loads shown in Table 2-2.2-6. The values of the loads shown include dynamic amplification factors which are computed using first principles and the dominant frequencies of the ring beam and quencher beam. The dominant frequencies are derived from harmonic analyses of these components. The results of these harmonic analyses are shown in Figure 2-2.4-3.
DET-04-028-2 Revision.0 2-2.109
O
- d. IBA Condensation Oscillation Submerged Structure Loads: As previously discussed, pre-chug loads described in load case 6c are specified in lieu of IBA condensation oscillation loads.
- 6. Chugging Loads
- a. Pre-Chug Torus Shell Loads: A dynamic analysis is performed for the symmetric pre-chug loads shown in Figure 2-2.2-12. It is evident from the harmonic analysis results shown in Figure 2-2.4-4 that the maximum suppression chamber response in the 6.9 to 9.5 hertz range occurs at the maximum pre-chug load frequency of 9.5 hertz.
An equivalent static analysis is performed for asymmetric pre-chug loads to evaluate the effects of unbalanced vertical loads across the suppression chamber mitered joint. The highest and next highest pressures shown in Figure 2-2.2-13 are assumed to act in two adjacent suppression chamber bays. A dynamic DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.110 h
nut.e_qh
e.mplification factor, derived from the dynamic analysis results for symmetric pre-chug loads, is applied to the asymmetric pre-chug loads.
The ef'fects of lateral loads caused by asymmetric pre-chug are examined -in Section 2-2.4.2.
- b. Post-Chug Torus Shell Loads: A dynamic analysis is performed for the loads shown in Table 2-2.2-7. A , typical response obtained from the suppression chamber harmonic analysis for the normalized spatial distribution of pressures shown in Figures 2-2.2-10 is pro-O vided i= rieure 2-2 4-4. ouries ber oeto summation, the amplitudes for each post-chug load frequency interval are conservatively applied to the maximum response amplitudes obtained from the suppression chamber harmonic analysis results in the same frequency interval.
- c. Pre-Chug Submerged Structure Loads: An equivalent static analysis is performed for the ring beam and quencher beam pre-chug j DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.111 nutggb
submerged structure loads shown in Table g 2-2.2-8. The values of the loads shown include dynamic amplification factors which are computed using first principles and the dominant frequencies of the ring beam and quencher beam. The dominant frequencies are derived from harmonic analyses of these components. The results of these harmonic analyses are presented in Figure 2-2.4-3.
- d. Post-Chug Submerged Structure Loads: An equivalent static analysis is performed for the ring beam and quencher beam submerged structure loads shown in Table 2-2.2-9. The g values of the loads shown include dynamic amplification factors which are computed using first principles and the dominant frequencies of the ring beam and quencher beam. The dominant frequencies are derived from harmonic analyses of these components. The results of these harmonic analyses are presented in Figure 2-2.4-3.
DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.112 h
nutggb L
- 7. Safety Relief Valve Discharge Loads a-c. SRV Discharge Torus Shell Loads: A dynamic analysis is performed for SRV discharge torus shell load 7a-Case A1.1/A1.3 and 7b-Case A1.2/C3.2 shown in Figures 2-2.2-14 and 2-2.2-15. Several frequencies within the range of the SRV discharge load frequencies specified for each case are evaluated to determine the maximum suppression chamber response. The effects of lateral loads on the suppression chamber caused by SRV discharge load 7c-Case A2.2 are evaluated in Section 2-2.4.2.
The suppression chamber analytical model used in the analysis is calibrated using the methodology discussed in Section 1-4.2.3. The methodology involves use of modal correction factors which are applied to the response associated with each suppression chamber frequency. The resulting correction factors used in evaluating the effects of SRV discharge torus shell loads are shown in Figure 2-2.4-5.
DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.113
.j
- d. SRV Discharge Air Clearing Submerged Structure g Loads: An equivalent static analysis is performed for the ring beam and quencher beam SRV discharge drag loads shown in Table 2-2.2-10. The values of the loads shown include dynamic amplification factors derived using the methodology discussed in Section 1-4.2.4.
- 8. Containment Interaction Loads
- a. Containment Structures Reaction Loads: An equivalent static' analysis is performed for the vent system support column, quencher and h
quencher support, catwalk, and monorail support reaction loads taken from the evalua-tion of these components discussed in Volumes 3 through 5 of this report.
The methodology described in the preceding paragraphs results in a conservative evaluation of the suppression chamber . response and associated stresses for the governing loads. Use of the analysis results obtained by applying this methodology leads to a conservative evaluation of the suppression chamber design margins.
DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.114 l nutggh
Table 2-2.4-1 SUPPRESSION CHAMBER FREQUENCY ANALYSIS RESULTS Vertical Iiass Mode Frequency . ,
Number Participation (Hz)
Factor (lb) 1 9.03 323.3 2 9.29 481.6 3 11.47 423.9 4 12.14 665.4 5 13.11 443.2 6 13.92 4.5 7 14.43 6308.0 8 14.91 142.1 9 16.49 5082.1 10 16.61 16853.4 11 18.03 10324.6 12 18.94 359.2 13 19.99 45989.3
'-145 -20.'39: :82793;8" 15 20.90 21440.4 16 21.62 39846.1 17 . 21.80 3145.3 18 21.99 357.5 19 22.93 206.8 20 24.52 3822.4 21 25.08 3009.9 22 25.71 1789.6 23 26.06 502.1 24 26.30 30.2 25 27.58 3592.5 l 1
() i DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.115 QUI
Table 2-2.4-1 g (Continued)
SUPPRESSION CHAMBER FREQUENCY ANALYSIS RESULTS Vertical oe requency Parti pation Number (Hz) Factor (lb) 26 28.21 1640.4 27 28.79 118.3 28 29.72 2785.5 29 29.91 3664.7 30 30.46 388.0 31 31.18 213.8 32 31.81 3893.7 33 32.08 22.3 34 35 32.64 32.86 314.9 18.6 lll 36 32.93 922.2 37 33.41 6.9 38 33.62 0.1 39 34.23 12.3 40 34.52 2019.3 41 34.64 1088.2 42 35.79 47.2 43 36.45 2.4 44 ,36.53 53.0 45 36.70 92.5 46 36.90 522.9 47 37.81 21.9 48 38.06 4.5 49 38.18 180.3 50 38.43 54.7 O
DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.116 g{
Table 2-2.4-1 O (Concluded)
SUPPRESSION CHAMBER FREQUENCY ANALYSIS RESULTS Vertical Itass Mode Frequency . ,
Number (Hz) Participatipn Factor (lb) 51 38.79 0.9 52 39.33 16.9 53 39.53 8.1 54 39.86 0.0 55 40.42 282.5 56 40.49 178.5 57 40.72 219.7 58 41.43 4.1 59 41.47 135.5 60 41.66 25.6 61 42.31 0.6 62 42.89 0.8 63 42.94 11.2 64 43.84 0.0 65 44.24 1.0 I
66 44.35 125.2 i 67 45.17 8.9 68 45.30 113.4 69 45.83 41.1 70 45.12 407.4 71 46.58 0.3 72 47.08 3.4 73 47.52 16.7 74 47.66 20.5 75 47.81 277.4 O DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.117 nutggj,)
O
-N N
i Y
[4 Ak
/
' /\ X /
///
/
N s ~ -
[ k['sg s
\
s :s ,
Ds Mf', -
g%%!{ij
% ' if d
'N j!iilijif :
Figure 2-2.4-1 S'UPPRESSION CHAMBER 1/32 SEGMENT FINITE ELEMENT MODEL-ISOMETRIC VIEN DET-04-028-2 9 j Revision 0 2-2.118 i
gy{
I O \
i I
Y !
X d f
/ !
t O !
e j :
l lpb I
f i
Figure 2-2.4-2 :
SUPPRESSION CHAMBER FLUID MODEL-ISOMETRIC VIEW DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.119 gyg l
O Ring Beam, f cr = 48.41 Hz c Quencher Beam, f = 11.46 Hz o cr
.y 1. 2 -
e-4 to 1.0 __
q a L i
@ 0. 8 - I s Quencher O Beam !
- 4 ih l!]
ca
'E
$, 0.6 Ring A !
3 ,
$, Beam , ' ,', j Q 0.4 I 3I I I - i i Ill i >: i Qu V tIV I 4 Jn/"
Mf J A i
- O*2 / I II . ) 1!
y / tl I.L A" , i a . . . . . . _ . . .- ..... .. . . . .. . . ._... ... -- ,.n rL 3 o
vm m m 0.0 J
@ 1.00 10.00 50.00 Frequency (Hz)
Note:
- 1. Results shown are for uniform pressures applied to ring beam and quencher beam webs.
i Figure 2-2.4-3 RING BEAM AND QUENCHER BEAM HARMONIC ANALYSIS l
RESULTS FOR FREQUENCY DETERMINATION O
DET-04-028-2 RSvision 0 2-2.120 11Ut
l O
%)
Suppression Chamber, f cr = 20.39 Hz E
1**
ei 400.0 'I c:
0 t
to
$ l Y 200.0 -
3 l k
- J \
t . A/
V
\
\
we a _M N ~~~
y _
o 0.0 , , ,
b 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 Frequency (Hz)
Note:
- 1. See Figure 2-2.2 -10 for spatial distribution of loading.
Figure 2-2.4-4 SUPPRESSION CHAMBER HARMONIC ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR NORMALIZED HYDROSTATIC LOAD DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.121 nutggh
'1 O
I A B C D E E D C B A N \ \ L L J / / -
/
N' s X '
t
- \ / f / ./ /
\ T ( l f / / / /
m N \ \ \
t J f / / /
o 0.8- y g z ( g j j j j f y A \ 1 \ 1 ' / / / /
re s \ \ L \ / / / / /
N N \ \ T \ / / / / /
0 . u, c \ g ,
, g gj y j j 34 s\ T T\ // / / /
\\\n /////
S h l(>//
0.4- k,y% py o TP '
O Y 0.2-i E x
0.0--
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 Load Frequency / Torus Frequency Correction Factor Mode Frequency Case Case Number (Hz) A1.1/A1.3A1.2/C3.2 (ft= 7.0) (ft=9.29) Legend 1 9.030 .48 0.33 Curve FrqYHz) 2 9.289 .52 0.30 A 8 3 11.468 .69 0.48 B 11 4 12.135 .76 0.56 C 14 5 13.110 .90 0.65 D 17-23 6 13.918 .98 0.76 E 26-32 7 14.430 1.00 0.81 8 14.911 1.00 0.86 9-75 >16.387 1.00 1.00 Figure 2-2.4-5 MODAL CORRECTION FACTORS USED FOR ANALYSIS OF SRV DISCHARGE TORUS SHELL LOADS DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.122 nutech ENGaNEERS
2-2.4.2 Analysis for Lateral Loads In addition to vertical loads, a few of the governing [
t loads acting on the suppression chamber result in net lateral loads on the suppression chamber, as discussed in Section 2-2.2.1. These lateral loads are transferred to the reactor building basemat by the seismic restraints described in Section 2-2.1.
The general methodology used to evaluate the ef fects of ,
lateral loads consists of establishing an upper bound value of the lateral load for each applicable load case. The results for each load case are then grouped in accordance with the controlling load combinations ;
described in Section 2-2.2.2, and 'the maximum total lateral load acting on the suppression chamber is determined.
The maximum total lateral load is conservatively assumed to be aligned about a principal suppression chamber azimuth as shown in Figure 2-2.1-1, and transferred equally by two of the four seismic restraints. Once the seismic restraint loads are known, these values are compared with the allowable seismic restraint loads contained in Section 2-2.3.
DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.123 nutagh ;
O Loads on the s('.smic restraints result in a shear force and bending moment acting on the suppression chamber shell due to the eccentricity of the seismic restraint pin with respect to the shell middle surface. The effects of these shears and moments on the suppression chamber shell are evaluated using the analytical model of the suppression chamber described in Section 2-2.4.1.
A distribution of forces which produce the desired shear and moment is applied to the suppression chamber shell at the perimeter of the seismic restraint pad plate, as shown in Figure 2-2.4-6. The resulting shell stresses are then combined with the other loads contained in the controlling load combination being evaluated, and the g shell stresses in the vicinity of the seismic restraints are determined.
The magnitudes and characteristics of the governing loads which result in lateral loads on the suppression chamber are presented and discussed in Section 2-2.2.1.
1 1
The specific treatment of each load which results in lateral loads on the suppression chamber is discussed in l
the paragraphs which follow:
DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.124 h
nutggh
i O 2. seismic Loads .
i L
i
acceleration of 0.239 applied to the weight of ;
suppression chamber steel and the effective .
weight of suppression chamber ' water in the ;
r horizontal direction.
The ' ef fective weight of suppression chamber water in the horizontal direction used in this evaluation is derived from generic small-scale tests performed on Mark I suppression ;
O chemsere. The e eese resu1ee heve eeen con-i firmed analytically using a model of the suppression chamber fluid (water) similar to the one shown in Figure 2-2.4-2.
t The effective weight of suppression chamber i i
water used in the evaluation is taken as 20% '
of the total weight of water contained in the L suppression chamber. This value represents ,
the amount of water acting with the suppres-sion chamber as added mass during horizontal '
dynamic events. The effective weight of water l k
DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.125 nutggb l i
l
exhibits itself in reaction loads on the seismic restraints. The remaining 80% of suppression chamber water acts in sloshing modes at frequencies near zero. Only a portion of the total sloshing mass acting at considerably lower seismic accelerations results in reaction loads on the seismic restraints. The total sloshing mass is conservatively applied at the maximum OBE acceleration in the range of the sloshing frequencies.
- b. SSE Loads: The total lateral load due to SSE loads is equal to the maximum horizontal acceleration of 0.46g applied to the weAght of suppression chamber steel and the effective weight of suppression chamber water in the horizontal direction. The methodology used to evaluate horizontal SSE loads is discussed in load case 2a.
- 6. Chugging Loads
- a. Pre-Chug Torus Shell Loads: The spatial distribution of asymmetric pre-chug pressures, DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.126 nutmh 9
f shown in Figures 2-2.2-12 and 2-2.2-13, is integrated and the total lateral load is determined. A dynamic amplification factor is computed using first principles and characteristics of the chug cycle transient shown in Figure 2-2.4-7. The maximum dynamic amplification factor possible, irrespective of structural frequency, is conservatively used.
- 7. Safety Relief Valve Discharge Loads
- d. SRV Discharge Torus Shell Loads: The spatial distribution of pressures for the SRV O ai caeree vc-ce e ^2.2, shown in Figures 2-2.16 and 2-2-17, is integrated and the total t
lateral load is determined. A dynamic amplification factor is computed using the methodology discussed in Section 2-2.4.1 for SRV discharge torus shell loads analysis. The maximum dynamic amplification factor possible, irrespective of structural frequency, is conservatively used, as shown in Figure 2-2.4-8.
DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.127 nutagh e
Use of the methodology described in the preceding g paragraphs results in a conservative evaluation of suppression chamber shc11 stresses due to the governing loads which result in lateral loads on the suppression chamber.
O DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.128 h
nut,e_qb
T MC MJ MJ MC '
i I
( il ll )( lll lll
)
l Pad ll ll lll ll 7tot
/ll1 lll f lIl l l y* f ll1 I l Pad Plater- l I l
I 7- I lli lll
.ii. - Vi -li-l l
tot Elevation View Plan View-Bottom i
Notes For V tot = 1.0 kip, vg = .0042 k/in MJ MC MJ O / !lllil l
l l
l
)/ 4l III "ad lll
!ll
)
i Ilil ji l'l' ""*? 7 ll1 i
,i ll . =t . . . M f X lI,i j
lI tot l ;
i 1ll
- l*....xe x x 1 l,I 1
II I!!
c "" i
- = V T
I M..
mg=$3 l
a v !:!
l
!!! V i
tot Elevation View Plan View-Bottom Note: For V tot ** '
E' tot " *
"" ' "i ma !
Figure 2-2.4-6 METHODOLOGY FOR SUPPRESSION CHAMBER ,
LATERAL LOAD APPLICATION t DET-04-028-2 ;
l Revision 0 2-2.129 nutggh '
O PME CHUG PonIMJM Posi CHUG Pon f EON O
a VH V ,
TS One CHUG CVCLE Time Figure 2-2.4-7 TYPICAL CHUGGING CYCLE LOAD TRANSIENT USED FOR ASYMMETRIC PRE-CHUG DYNAMIC AMPLIFICATION FACTOR DETERMINATION O
DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.130 g
DLFmax == 2. 60 L ad Forcsd Modal DLF Torus Fre Fre p q '
Frequency nI Ratio Correction x e DL (f t) (IIz) ( f t ) (H2) If Nft) Range gctyf C
MCF 4.80 0.60 2.47 0.63 1.57 8.0 11.20 1.40 3.06 0.62 1.89 i
4.80 0.44 1.86 0.87 1.62 11.0 11.20 1.02 4.91 0.36 1.75 4.80 0.34 1.66 1.00 1.66 14.0 11.20 0.80 2.74 0.60 1.66 4.80 0.28 1.28 1.00 1.28 17.0 11.20 0.66 2.58 0.98 2.53 4.80 0.21 1.04 1.00 1.04 23.0 11.20 0.49 2.36 1.00 2.36 4.80 0.19 1.04 1.00 1.04 11.20 0.43 1.82 1.00 1.82
- 6. ,
N
$ /~% s Q c 34' / \
/ N u
-r
/ N
.G _ - -
- > /
m 2- , J g /
u o
N 0.
0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 Load Frequency / Torus Frequency (f g /f )
Notes:
- 1. See Figure 2-2.2-16 for forced vibration loading transient and frequency range.
- 2. See Figure 2-2.4-5 for modal correction factors.
Figure 2-2.4-8 DYNAMIC LOAD FACTOR DETERMINATION FOR SUPPRESSION CHAMBER UNBALANCED LATERAL LOAD DUE TO SRV DISCHARCE
-ADS VALVE ACTUATION CASE A2.2 DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.131 gg
2-2.4.3 Methods for Evaluating Analysis Results The methodology discussed in Sections 2-2.4.1 and 2-2.4.2 is used to determine element forces and component stresses in the suppression chamber component parts. The methodology used to evaluate the analysis results, determine the controlling stresses in the suppression chamber components and component supports, and examine fatigue effects is discussed in the para-graphs which follow.
Membrane and extreme fiber stress intensities are computed when the analysis results for the suppression chamber Class MC components are evaluated. The values of the membrane stress intensities away from discontin-uities are compared with the primary membrane stress allowables contained in Table 2-2.3-1. The values of membrane stress intensities near discontinuities are compared with local primary membrane stress allowables contained in Table 2-2.3-1. Primary stresses in sup-pression chamber Class MC component welds are computed using the maximum principal stress or resultant force acting on the associated weld throat. The results are compared to the primary weld stress allowables contained in Table 2-2.3-1.
DET-04-028-2 O
Revision 0 2-2.132 nutggh
Many of the loads contained in each of the controlling load combinations are dynamic loads resulting in stresses which cycle with time and are partially or fully reversible. The maximum stress intensity range for all suppression chamber Class MC components is calculated using the maximum values of the extreme fiber stress differences which occur near discontinuities.
1 I
These values are compared with secondary stress range allowables contained in Table 2-2.3-1. A similar P
procedure is used to compute the stress range for the suppression chamber Class MC component welds. The results are compared to the secondary weld stress allowables contained in Table 2-2.3-1.
When analysis results for the suppression chamber saddle supports are evaluated, membrane and extreme fiber principal stresses are computed and compared with t' a Class MC component support allowable stresses contained r
in Table 2-2.3-1. The reaction loads acting on the suppression chamber vertical support system column and saddle base plate assemblies are compared to the allow-5 able support loads shown in Table 2-2.3-2. Stresses in suppression chamber Class MC component support welds are computed using the maximum resultant force acting on the l
O oeT-o4-o28-2 Revision 0 2-2.133 nutggb
associated weld throat. The results are compared to the g weld stress limits discussed in Section 2-2.3.
The controlling suppression chamber load combinations which are evaluated are defined in Section 2-2.2.2.
During load combination formulation, the maximum stress components in a particular suppression chamber component part at a given location are combined for the individual loads contained in each combination. The stress components for dynamic loadings are combined so as to l obtain the maximum stress intensity.
I For evaluating fatigue effects in the suppression I chamber Class MC components and associated welds, g
- extreme fiber alternating stress intensity histograms for each load in each event or combination of events are determined. Stress intensity histograms are developed for the suppression chamber components and welds with the highest stress intensity ranges. Fatigue strength reduction factors of 2.0 for major component stresses and 4.0 for component weld stresses are conservatively l used. For each combination of events, a load combina-tion stress intensity histogram is formulated and the corresponding fatigue usage factors are determined using 1
DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.134 h
nutg,gh
- O th* "r "h "" i" Fi9 "re 2-2.4-9. The usage factors l for each ~ event are then summed to obtain the total i fatigue usage.
Use of the methodology described above results in a l 1
conservative evaluation of the suppression chamber j l design margins.
i I
< O i
I DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.135
O l
E = 27,900 ksi 1000. i
- \
t x ei N 4 s '
m .
m u Ns a s '
m 100.- N m ._A x c '
s, r4
~
y .,_N c
$ % -,~
a
- 10. ,
- 10. 10 2 10 8 10" 10 5 10 6 Number of Cycles Figure 2-2.4-9 ALLOWABLE NUMBER OF STRESS CYCLES FOR SUPPRESSION CHAMBER FATIGUE EVALUATION DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.136 h
nutg,gh
2-2.5 Analysis Results The geometry, loads and load combinations, acceptance 1
criteria, and analysis methods used in the evaluation of the Fermi 2 suppression chamber are presented and discussed in the preceding sections. The results and conclusions derived from the evaluation of the suppression chamber are presented in the paragraphs and sections which follow.
The maximum suppression chamber shell stresses are shown in Table 2-2.5-1 for each of the governing loads. The o
corresponding reaction loads for the suppression chamber vertical support system are shown in Table 2-2.5-2. The transient responses of the suppression chamber for selected torus shell loads, expressed in terms of total vertical load per mitered cylinder, are shown in Figures 2-2.5-1 through 2-2.5-3.
The maximum suppression chamber shell stresses adjacent to the seismic restraints are presented in Table 2-2.5-5 for each of the governing loads resulting in lateral l
loads on the suppression chamber. The corresponding i reaction loads on the suppression chamber seismic restraints are shown in Table 2-2.5-6.
O oer-o4-o28-2 Revision 0 2-2.137 nutggb
The maximum stresses and associated design margins for the major suppression chamber components and welds are shown in Table 2-2.5-3 for the IBA III, IBA IV, DBA II, and DBA III load combinations. The maximum reaction loads and associated design margins for the suppression chamber vertical support system are shown in Table 2-2.5-4 for the SBA III, IBA I, DBA II, and DBA III load combinations. The maximum suppression chamber seismic restraint reactions and associated shell stresses adjacent to the seismic restraints are shown in Table 2-2.5-7 for the IBA III and IBA V combinations.
The fatigue usage factors for the controlling suppres-sion chamber component and weld are shown in Table 2-2.5-8. These usage factors are obtained by evaluating the Normal Operating plus SBA events and the Normal Operating plus IBA events.
The suppression chamber evaluation results presented in the preceding paragraphs are discussed in Section 2-2.5.1.
DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.138 g nutggh
Table 2-2.5-1 i
MAXIMUM SUPPRESSION CHAMBER SHELL STRESSES FOR GOVERNING LOADS i
Section 2-2.2.1 Load Designation Shell' Stress Type (ksi)
Local Primary + ,
Load Load Case Primary Primary Secondary Type Number Membrane Membrane Stress Range Dead Weight la + lb 3.03 3.48 5.89 2a 0.20 0.23 0.40 Seismic 2b 0.40 0.46 0.77 Pressure 3b 11.28 11.28 17.19 and Temperature 3d 3.44 8.32 13.19 4a (VB) 7.47 8.32 24.34 4 (NVB) 7.47 8.34 25.32 Ss' 4b 0.39 0.72 3.34 Sa 5.80 8.80 20.84 L Oscillation Sc 1.06 1.71 11.24 6a (sym) 1.66 2.78 10.11 6a(asym) 1.65 2.77 8.90 Chugging 6b 1.10 1.72 4.02 ;
6c 0.12 0.20 1.29 6d 2.63 4.03 21.98 7a 7.75 8.32 24.5 1 7b ll.57 15.58 39.5 4 Discharge 7d 2.32 4.30 25.64 Note:
- l. Values shown are maximums irrespective of time and l
location and may not be added to obtain load combination results.
DET-04-028-2 2-2.139 Revision 0 g
Table 2-2.5-2 MAXIMUM VERTICAL SUPPORT REACTIONS FOR h GOVERNING SUPPRESSION CHAMBER LOADINGS Section 2-2.2.1 Load Designation Vertical Reaction load (kips) ad Column Saddl Load Case Direction Tot Type [-
No. Inside Outside Inside Outside la Upward -111.75 -124.25 -155.57 -200.03 -591.59 Dead Weight Downward 111.75 124.25 155.57 200.03 591.59
[b Upw, 1 7.49 8.32 10.42 13.40 39.64 Downward 7.49 8.12 10.42 13.40 39.64 Sd h U P ward 14.86 16.53 20.69 26.60 78.68 2b Downward 14.86 16.53 20.69 26.60 78.68 Internal Pressure 3b Up/Down -13.03 -20.06 19.21 13.95 0.0 Thermal 3d UP/Down -87.79 -78.89 81.55 85.13 0.0 Upward 115.56 131.74 49.47 84.66 377.04 Pool Swell 4a Downward 186.47 188.94 204.50 301.26 875.98 Upward 203.29 220.69 301.86 303.43 1029.28 Condensation
- Oscillation Downward 206.76 225.44 289.48 350.23 1070.20 6a U Pward 35.72 45.24 41.10 68.02 190.08 Pre-Chug Downward 35.72 45.24 41.10 68.02 190.08 Upward 36.85 41.76 51.19 58.27 188.08 Post-Chu9 6b Downward 40.64 45.57 56.90 64.74 207.82 Single Upward 100.93 99.98 200.99 267.30 608.54 Valve 7a Downward 153.50 138.04 273.82 383.20 943.09 SRV Multiple 7b Discharge Valve Downward 368.74 404.51 476.85 469.25 1706.08 i
gg Upward 356.14 365.46 482.07 554.26 1741.41 valve Downward 336.29 368.91 434.89 427.96 1555.95 Note
- 1. For dynamic loads reactions are added in time.
l l
l
)
DET-04-028-2 l Revision 0 2-2.140 nutgg.hh l
Table 2-2.5-3 MAXIMUM SUPPRESSION CHAMBER STRESSES FOR CONTROLLING LOAD COMBINATIONS Load Combination Stresses (ksi)
Stress IBA III (1) IBA IV II) DBA II DBA III Item Type l Calc. Cal . Calc. Cah. Calc. Calc. Calc. Calh.
Stress Allow Stress Allow Stress Allow Strest Allow COMPONENTS Primary 19.11 0.99 18.99 0.98 13.35 0.69 13.07 0.37 Membrane Shell [rcal Pr W 21.92 0.76 22.59 0.78 15.72 0.54 21.61 0.41 Membrane 1
Primar +
ggeg,n{arg 63.82 0.92 68.23 0.98 37.03 0.53 N/A -
M n 10.96 0.57 11.79 0.61 7.31 0.38 9.07 0.26 Ring Iocal Pnmary l Beam Membrane 10.96 0.38 15.57 0.54 7.31 0.25 18.25 0.34 l Primary +
Secondarv 22.52 0.32 34.77 0.50 14.70 0.21 N/A -
Stronn PancA COMPONENT SUPPORTS !
l Membrane 8.18 0.38 9.38 0.44 4.89 0.23 7.79 0.27 l Column :
C e ction Extreme 8.18 0.31 9.42 0.35 5.19 0.19 8.37 0.24 Fiber
, Membrane 16.08 0.75 15.24 0.72 10.32 0.48 21.70 0.76 l Saddle Ex reme 21.72 0.61 16.10 0.60 15.29 0.57 10.33 0.39 DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.141 nut.ec!)
l l_ _ ____ _ -
Table 2-2.5-3 (Concluded) g MAXIMUM SUPPRESSION CHAMBER STRESSES FOR CONTROLLING LOAD COMBINATIONS Load Combination Stresses (ksi)
Item Stress Type IBA III(} IBA IV( DBA II DBA III (2) (2) (2) (2)
Calc. Calc. Calc. Calc. Calc. Calc. Calc. Calc.
Stress Allow k Allow Strese Allow Stress Allow WELDS
, Primary 10.26 0.68 11.44 0.76 7.34 0.49 13.48 0.49 Ring Beam to Shell Secondary 30.18 0.67 36.86 0.82 18.85 0.42 N/A -
Primary 8.18 8.66 0.58 4.89 0.33 7.79 0.28 O
Column 0.54 Connection to Shell Secondary 29.73 0.66 31.07 0.69 17.17 0.38 N/A Saddle Primary 8.95 0.60 8.94 0.60 6.53 0.44 12.23 0.81 to Shell Secondary 23.47 0.52 33.46 0.74 14.52 0.32 N/A -
Notes:
- 1. Reference Table 2-2.2-12 for load combination designation.
- 2. Reference Table 2-2.3-1 for allowable stresses.
DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 g
2-2.142 nutgch
i Table 2-2.5-4 MAXIMUM VERTICAL SUPPORT REACTIONS p
d FOR CONTROLLING SUPPRESSION CHAMBER LOAD COMBINATIONS Load Combination Reactions (kips)
SBA III(1) IBA I (1) DBA II (1) DBA III(1)
Support Direction I
Component Calc. Calc j2) Calc. CaleFI Calc. Cale'.# Calc. Calc .2)
Load had gggo, Mad gigo, had gggo, gigo, Upward 229.64 0.52 228.51 0.52 77.89 0.18 100.(1 0.17 Inside Downward 636.81 0.75 631.89 0.75 361.R8 0.43 465.57 0.43 Column Upward 235.81 0.53 239.29 0.54 82.64 0.18 108.33 0.19 Downward 689.81 0.82 689.48 0.82 396.55 0.47 483.43 0.43 Upward 545.65 0.74 535.56 0.73 197.50 0.27 132.05 0.13 Downward 609.25 0.67 593.45 0.66 435.21 0.48 638.10 0.53 O Saddle outside Upward 591.66 0.81 601.41 0.82 158.03 0.22 196.71 0.20 Downward 661.54 0.73 664.82 0.74 548.83 0.61 892.91 0.74 Upward 1584.61 0.67 1586.61 0.67 516.37 0.22 472.67 0.15 Total Downward 2584.17 0.74 2566.43 0.73 1740.47 0.50 2489.34 0.53 Notes:
- 1. Reference Table 2-2.2-12 for load combination designation.
- 2. Reference Table 2-2.3-2 for allowable support loads.
DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.143 nuttgh .
i l
l
i l
O Table 2-2.5-5 MAXIMUM SUPPRESSION CHAMBER SHELL STRESSES DUE TO LATERAL LOADS Section 2-2.2.1 Shell Stress Typ (ksi)
Load Designat. ten Primary +
Load Load Case local Primary Secondary Type Number bksbrane Stress Range Seismic OBE 2a 4.38 7.98 h SE 2b 8.60 N/A Pre-Chug 6a 3.14 12.24 SRV Discharge 7c 8.48 43.12 Note:
- 1. Stresses shown are in suppression chamber shell adjacent to seismic restraint pad plate.
DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.144 h
nut.eS-
O Table 2-2.5-6
+
MAXIMUM SEISMIC RESTRAINT REACTIONS DUE TO LATERAL LOADS Section 2-2.2.1 Horizontal Reaction Load (kips)
Load Designation Restraint Restraint Dynamic Load Load Case at at Total Load Type Number , g Factor Azimuth 0 Azimuth 180 2a 458.0 458.0 916.0 O Seismic OBE N/A SSE 2b 903.5 903.5 1807.0 N/A Pre-Chug 6a 265.5 265.5 531.0 13.9 SRV Discharge 7c 371.0 371.0 742.0 2.6 I
l O
a DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.145 nutggh
Table 2-2.5-7 MAXIMUM SUPPRESSION CHAMBER SHELL STRESSES AND SEISMIC RESTRAINT REACTIONS FOR CONTROLLING LOAD COMBINATIONS WITH LATERAL LOADS Load Combination Stresses /
Reactions (ksi, kips)
Stress /
Item Reaction IBA III IBA V Type Calc. Calc. Calc. Calc.
Value Allow. Value Allow, cal Primary 16.57 0.86 18.57 0.52 Membrane She11 III Primary +
Secondary 68.60 0.99 N/A N/A g
Stress Range Seismic Maximum Restraint Reaction 1095.00 0.84 1540.00 0.66 Load Notes:
- 1. Stresses shown are in suppression chamber shell adjacent to seismic restraint pad plate.
- 2. Reference Table 2-2.2-18 for load combination designation.
- 3. Reference Section 2-2.3 for allowable seismic restraint loads.
DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.146 @{g
Table 2-2.5-8 MAXIMUM FATIGUE USAGE FACTORS FOR SUPPRESSION CHAMBER U,7 COMPONENTS AND WELDS Load Case Cycles Event Usage Fact Event Sequence ARV Pre + Post Seismic Pressure Temperature Discharge Chuggin9 Torus Weld Shell (sec.)
W/Si e SRV 0 150 II 150 (2) 2594( l N/A 0.58 0.12 0 0 0 210 W N/A 0.12 W W/Mul le SRV
- 0. sec 600 1 1 50 300. W 0. H 0. D
- 0. to I 0.00 600. to 200.sec 0 0 0 2 600.(6) 0.00
- 0. to 0. sec 600 (2) 1 1 25 I 300.I7I 0.07 0.02 300. to 0. sec 0 0 0 2 200. 0.00 0.00 NOC + SBA 0.87 0.31 Maximum Cumulative Usage Factors NOC + IBA 0.77 0.23 Notes:
- 1. See Table 2-2.2-12 and Figures 2-2.2-18 and 2-2.2-19 for load cycles and event sequencing information.
- 2. Entire number of load cycles conservatively assumed to occur during time of raximum event usage. .
- 3. Total number of SRV actuations shown are conservati'ely assumed to occur in same suppression chamber bay.
- 4. Value shown is conservatively assumed to be equal to the number of multiple valve actuations which occurs during the event.
- 5. Number of ADS actuations assumed to occur during the event.
- 6. Each chug-cycle has a duration of 1.4 sec.
- 7. C.O. loads, which are the same as pre-chug loads, occur during this phase of the IBA event.
- 8. Usage factors are computed for the component and weld which result in the maximum cumulative usage.
O t
v
/
DET- 04-02 8-2 2-2.147 Revision 0 nutggh
O Max. Downward Reaction = 876. kips Max. Upward Reaction = 377. kips 400._
E A p / m ,", ,
/ LNA a .
5 0* - ^'
q ,
, 7 -
O l /
c N f -400. -
j I
g 8 l e ,
-800. I \)
7 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 Time (sec)
Note:
i
)
- 1. Reference Table 2-2.2-3 and Figures 2-2.2-8 and 2-2.2-9 for loading information.
l l Figure 2-2.5-1 SUPPRESSION CHAMBER RESPONSE DUE TO POOL SWELL LOADS-TOTAL VERTICAL LOAD PER MITERED CYLINDER DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.148 nutggh
1
('~T O'
Upward Reaction = 520.02 kips Max. Downward Reaction = 943.09 kips 800.
P .
7 I
- o. N'k \, , i .
z g N 0.= y \f\,.; ~ v% :: ^
3 , \
8 V j
- a Oi a:
-1000.=
I i r , i i .i 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 Time (sec)
Note:
- 1. Reference Figure 2-2.2-14 for loading information.
- 2. See Table 2-2.5-2 for maximum upward reaction.
Figure 2-2.5-2 SUPPRESSION CHAMBER RESPONSE DUE TO SINGLE VALVE SRV DISCHARGE TORUS SHELL LOADS - TOTAL VERTICAL LOAD ym PER MITERED CYLINDER b
DET-04-028-2 DUI Revision 0 2-2.149
O Max. Upward Reaction = 1909.4 kips Downward Reaction = 1151.4 kips 2000.
E st d
d e
m 0
g
.a
=
s ('Nhp f v.w
, . - - _ -m= _
u J O
m c) ,
Z r i -
-1200. =
l I I H I I I i 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 Time (sec)
Notes:
- 1. Reference Figure 2-2.2-15 for loading information.
- 2. See Table 2-2.5-2 for maximum downward reaction.
Figure 2-2.5-3 SUPPRESSION CHAMBER RESPONSE DUE TO MULTIPLE VALVE SRV DISCHARGE TORUS SHELL LOADS - TOTAL VERTICAL LOAD PER MITERED CYLINDER O
DET-04-028-2 2-2.150 Revision 0 IluI Kh
O 2-2.5.1 oiscussion of Analysis aesults ;
The results shown in Table 2-2.5-1 indicate that the largest suppression chamber shell stresses occur for IBA internal pressure loads, pool swell torus shell loads, l
DBA condensation oscil1ation torus shell loads, and SRV discharge torus shell loads. The submerged structure loadings, in general, cause only local stresses in the suppression chamber shell adjacent to the vertical quencher support beam and the ring beam, :
r Table 2-2.5-2 shows that the largest suppression chamber vertical support reactions occur for pool swell torus O ehe11 1eeds, oBA condeneetien osci11ation 1oads, end Sav discharge torus shell loads. The sadd1e supports, in general, transfer a larger portion of the load to the basemat than do the support columns.
l The results shown in Table 2-2.5-3 indicate that the largest stresses in the suppression chamber components, (
component supports, and asscciated welds occur for the IBA III and IBA IV load combinations. The suppression l l
chamber shell stresses for the IBA III and IBA IV combinations are less than the allowable limits with stresses in other suppression chamber components, DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.151 nutggb
component supports, and welds well within the allowable g limits. The stresses in the suppression chamber com-ponents, component supports, and welds for the DBA II, and DBA III combinations are also well within allowable limits.
Table 2-2.5-4 shows that the largest upward and downward vertical support reactions occur for the SBA III and IBA I combinations. In general, the upward vertical support reactions are less than the downward vertical support reactions. The vertical support system reactions for all load combinations are less than allowable limits.
O The results shown in Tables 2-2.5-5 and 2-2.5-6 indicate that the largest seismic restraint reactions and associated suppression chamber shell stresses occur for seismic loads and SRV discharge loads. Table 2-2.5-7 shows tha t the seismic restraint reactions and suppres-sion chamber shell stresses adjacent to the seismic restraints for IBA III and IBA V load combinations are less than allowable limits.
The results shown in Table 2-2.5-8 indicate that the largest contributor to suppression chamber fatigue DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.152 h
nutp_qh
4 effects are SRV discharge loads which occur during Normal Operating conditions. The largest total fatigue usage occurs for the Normal Operating plus SBA events [
r i with usage factors for the suppressian chamber shell and ;
associated welds less than allowable limits. The usage factors for the Normal Operating plus IBA events are also less than allowable limits.
f l
l l
L I
O :
i v
i l
l I
DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.153 i nutggb l L
,.a ,, ,. _ - _ - - ,. ,
[
1-2.5.2 Closure The suppression chamber loads de wribed and presented in Section 2-2.2.1 are conservative estimates of the loads postulated to occur during an actual LOCA or SRV dis-charge event. Applying the methodology discussed in Section 2-2.4 to evaluate the effects of the governing loads on the suppression chamber results in bounding J
values of stresses and reactions in suppression chamber components and component supports.
The load combinations and event sequencing defined in Section 2-2.2.2 envelop the actual events postulated to occur during a LOCA or SRV discharge event. Combining the suppression chamber responses to the governing loads and evaluating fatigue effects using this methodology results in conservative values of the maximum suppres-sion chamber stresses, support reactions, and fatigue usage factors for each event or sequence of events postulated to occur throughout the life of the plant.
l The acceptance limits defined in Section 2-2.3 are at l
least as restrictive, and in many cases more restric-tive, than those used in the original containment design documented in the plant's FSAR. Comparing the resulting DET-04-028-2 R: vision 0 2-2.154 nutp_Qhh
^
maximum stresses and support reactions to these accep-
.(v) tance limits results in a conservative evaluation of the design margins present in the suppression chamber and suppression chamber supports. As is demonstrated from the results discussed and presented in the preceding sections, all of the suppression chamber stresses and support reactions are within these acceptance limits.
As a result, the components of the suppression chamber described in Section 2-2.1, which are specifically designed for the loads and load combinations used in this evaluation, exhibit the margins of safety inherent in the original design of the primary containment as
{j. docomented in the plant's FSAR. The intent of the NUREG-0661 requirements, as they relate to the design adequacy and safe operation of the Fermi 2 suppression chamber, are therefore considered to be met.
i k.
O)
( #
DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-2.155 nutggb
m -
2-3.0 LIST OF REFERENCES
- 1. " Mark I Containment Long-Term Program," Safety Evaluation Report, NRC, NUREG-0661, July 1980.
j, 2. " Mark I Containment Program Load Definition Report," General Electric Company, NEDO-21888, Revision 2, December 1981.
! 3. " Mark I Containment Program Plant Unique Load j Definition," Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant
' Unit 2, General Electric Company, NEDO-24568, l Revision 1, June 1981.
- 4. Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant Unit 2, Final l Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), Detroit Edison
! Company, Section 3.8, Amendment 12, June 1978.
l 5. " Mark I Containment Program Structural Acceptance i Criteria Plant Unique Analysis Application Guide, Task Number 3.1.3," General Electric Company, j NEDO-24583-1, October 1979.
i 6. ASME Boiler an'.1 Pressure Vessel Code,Section III, i Division 1, 1977 Edition with Addenda up to and
- O 1
inc1edine Semmer 1977.
i 7. Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant Unit 2, " Interim i Structural Evaluation of the Primary Containment j for Pool Swell and Safety Relief Valve Discharge j Loads," NUTECH, DET-01-074, Revision 1, Volume I,
- May 1978.
]-
- 8. American Concrete Institute (ACI) Code, Code Requirements for Nuclear Safety-Related Concrete
. Structures, ACI-349-80 1980.
4' 4
I i
~
> ^]
t DET-04-028-2 Revision 0 2-3.1 nutggh
- _. -. r_