Text

Plant Unique Analysis Rept,Vol 5,Safety Relief Valve Piping Analysis.
	ML20052C054
Person / Time
Site:	Fermi
Issue date:	04/30/1982
From:	Edwards N, Higginbotham A, Wong C; NUTECH ENGINEERS, INC.
To:	;
Shared Package
ML20052C024	List: ML20052C023; ML20052C027; ML20052C037; ML20052C044; ML20052C050; ML20052C054;
References
	DET-20-015-5, DET-20-15-5, NUDOCS 8205040308
	Download: ML20052C054 (211)
	v • d • e

l DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 l

April 1982 ENRICO FERMI ATOMIC POWER PLANT UNIT 2 PLANT UNIQUE ANALYSIS REPORT VOLUME 5 SAFETY RELIEF VALVE PIPING ANALYSIS Prepared for:

Detroit Edison Company Prepared by:

NUTECH Engineers, Inc.

Prepared by: Approved by:

6T L C.T. Wong, [E.

[J, e IW Baskin, P.E.

j L .

Project Engineer Wn 'neering Manager Issued by:

-[ N D Dr. A. B 'gginbotha P.E. D. K. McWilliams, P.E.

General mat 1ager Project Manager Engineering Departme t L h ()M[ I I k0 -

Dr. N. W. Edwards, P.E. R. H. Buchholz Senior Vice-President Project General Manager O

82 0 5 0 4 D 30% nut.es.h .

l

REVISION CONTROL SHEET

/N TITLE: Enrico Fermi Atomic REPORT NUMBER: DET-20-015-5 Lj Power Plant, Unit 2 Revision 0 Plant Unique Analysis Report Volume 5 J . BMkin/ Engineering Manager Ingials d' davvrN/42b

' II . T. Ilo/ p6ciali's ' ~ ~

(4T Y Initials lk L. R. Ilussar/Engi neer g Initials A.

L - - c/

~AImandoust/ Specialist A.I.

Initials en Xrso-R. Jaffari/ Consultant II 6

Initials e,f9 Y YN V. Kumar/ Project Engineer Initials s

R. A Lehnert/ Engineering Manager Initi~als J. D. Lowe/ Engineering Analyst Initials aAcw P. R. Para / Specialist kk Initials am . u )

S. P. Quinn/ Senior Technician Initials T P. R . -~

J, pnL Shah / Consultant I

~ ~

P. R. Initials f - we M4 W. E. Smith / Associate ' Engineer Initials O. Y 1Oon9 ere<]

I C. T. Wong/ Pro $cct Engineer Initials I ials ogWongengineeringAnalyst 5-11 11Utg,Qj]

i REVISION CONTROL SHEET i (Continuation)

/3 C REPORT NUMBER: DET-20-015-5 TITLE: ENRICO FERMI ATOMIC POWER PLANT, UNIT 2 Revision 0 PLANT UNIQUE ANALYSIS REPORT VOLUME 5

~

ACCURACY CRITERIA PRE- ACCURACY CRITERIA E REV PRE- REV PARED CHECK CHECK PARED CHECK CHECK PAGE (S )

PAGE (S )

5-1i 0 5-2.45 0 M 8g Pg through 5-1.4 OM p through 5-2.47 5-1.5 p //?3 ON 5-2.48 through M C 74d v

5-2.1 5-2.63 through 5-2.4 CW h h 5-2.64 through 5-2.5 5-2.87 through 8M y 5-2.7 5-2.88 M //

5-2.8 5-2.89 (48 67t) f-

' through g (

g Ch* h g p6 PM 5-2.11 5-2.92 through AT t7 M 5-2.93 gg 5-2.13 through M 5-2.14 5-2.97 5-2.98 Y PM O 5-2.19 5-2.99 through gg gg $ through y gg 5-2.34 V 5-2.104 5-2.35 f/lb CTtd 5-2.105 CFW through 5-2.106 g g 5-2.36 [Nd; c 72d 5-2.37 5-2.107 through g g PM through 5-2.38 5-2.113 V

5-2.39 gj s

g79 5-2.114 0 cd V4 V g, p through I V g_g,44 0 QEP-001.4-00 5-iii

l REVISION CONTROL SHEET (Continuation)

TITLE: ENRICO FERMI ATOMIC POWER REPORT NUMBER: DET-20-015-5 PLANT, UNIT 2 Revision 0 PLANT UNIQUE ANALYSIS REPORT VOLUME 5

~

ACCURACY CRITERIA PRE- ACCURACY CRITERIA REV PRE- REV PARED CHECK CHECK PARED CHECK CHECK PAGE (S)

PAGE (S) 5-3.1 0 g/}L % V'K 5-3.60 through 0 l

,yjj,, yg 5-3.2 5-3.62 JDL h3 5-3.63 HTH LEN VK 5-3.64 5-3.5 throuah JDL t.g//- VK 5;";"

@ gac vx 5-3 67 5-3.68 5-3.12 through 5-3.70 VK gg g/)L through 5-3.28 V( g gkb 5-3.71 through VK 4M8 ggg 5-3.29 fyr JDL LM 5-3.72 5

5-3.30 68// IlTli \/k t

[M A bkh 5-3.74 5-3.31 /:f/? J DL. CR//-

5-3.75 CC fjTO th o h 5-4.1 " d yra.)

5-3.33 5-3.34 through phy> JDL. 65 5-3.39 5-3.40 g {} T(-j y(

5-3.41 through 5-3.44 Vg [AL [AL 5-3.45 through 6 VK Vk l 5-3.46 5-3.47 g through V 0

% [//1L. [/}L.

l

/ 5-3.59 QEP-001.4-00 5-1v nut.e_qh

l i

O ABSTRACT l l'

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 ;

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 l loss-of-coolant accident or a safety relief valve discharge [

event, as well as an assessment of the effects that these postulated events have on the operational characteristics of the

[

containment system. l This plant unique analysis report documents the efforts under- i taken to address and resolve each of the applicable NUREG-0661 requirements, and demonstrates, in accordance with NUREG-0661 r 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 are: L 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 5, which documents the evaluation of the safety relief valve discharge piping has been prepared by NUTECH Engineers, Incorporated (NUTECH), acting as an agent responsible j to the Detroit Edison Company.

i O DET-20-015-5 l Revision 0 5-v l nutggh

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT 5-v LIST OF ACRONYMS 5-viii LIST OF TABLES 5-x LIST OF FIGURES 5-xiii 5-

1.0 INTRODUCTION

AND

SUMMARY

5-1.1 5-1.1 Scope of Analysis 5-1.3 5-1.2 Summary and Conclusions 5-1.5 5-2.0 SAFETY RELIEF VALVE DISCHARGE PIPING ANALYSIS 5-2.1 5-2.1 Component Description 5-2.2 5-2.2 Loads and Load Combinations 5-2.19 5-2.2.1 Louds 5-2.20 5-2.2.2 Load Combinations 5-2.48 9

5-2.2.3 Combination of Dynamic 5-2.61 Loads 5-2.3 Analysis Acceptance Criteria 5-2.62 5-2.4 Method of Analysis 5-2.67 5-2.4.1 SRV Piping System 5-2.68 Structural Modeling 5-2.4.2 Analysis Metheds 5-2.74 5-2.4.3 Fatigue Evaluation 5-2.99 5-2.5 Analysis Results 5-2.107 DET-20-015-5 l Revision 0 5-vi nutggh

() TABLE OF CONTENTS (Concluded)

Page 5-3.0 QUENCHER AND QUENCHER SUPPORTS ANALYSIS 5-3.1 5- 3.1 Component Description 5- 3. 2 5-3.2 Loads and Load Combinations 5-3.12 5-3.2.1 Loads 5-3.13 5-3.2.2 Load Combinations 5-3.41 5-3.3 Analysis Acceptance Criteria 5-3.43 5- 3. 4 Method of Analysis 5-3.47 5- 3. 4 .1 Analysis for Major Loads 5-3.48 5- 3. 4. 2 Ramshead Analysis for 5-3.68 Local Effects 5- 3. 5 Analysis Results 5-3.71

() 5-4.0 LIST OF REFERENCES 5-4.1 I

l

( DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-vii nutggh

O LIST OF ACRONYMS ADS Automatic Depressurization System ACI American Concrete Institute ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers CO Condensation Oscillation DBA Design Basis Accident DBE Design Basis Earthquake DLF Dynamic Load Factor FSAR Final Safety Analysis Report FSI Fluid-Structurt Interaction IBA Intermediate Break Accident LDR Load Definition Report LOCA Loss-of-Coolant Accident llh MSL Main Steam Line MVA Multiple Valve Actuation NEP Non-Exceedance Probability NOC Normal Operating Condition NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission OBE Operating Basis Earthquake PUA Plant Unique Analysis PUAR Plant Unique Anlaysis Report PULD Plant Unique Load Definition QSTF Quarter-Scale Test Facility RPV Reactor Pressure Vessel SBA Small Break Accident DET-20-015-5 9

Revision 0 -

5-viii nutggh

(:) ;

LIST OF ACRONYMS [

(Concluded) ,

SER Safety Evaluation Report f SRSS Square Root of the Sum of the Squares i SRV Safety Relief Valve !

SRVDL Safety Relief Valve Discharge Line j SSE Safe Shutdown Earthquake SVA Single Valve Actuation !

TAP Torus-Attached Piping TSVC Turbine Stop Valve Closure VPP Vent Pipe Penetration i

4 ;

d f b b

I i i 4

i i

O DET-20-015-5 i

Revision 0 5-ix nutstgb !

1 I

i l

LIST OF TABLES )

Number Title Page 5-2.2-1 SRV Piping Loading Identification Cross- 5-2. 34 Reference 5-2.2-2 Maximum Seismic Relative Anchor 5-2. 35 Displacements 5-2.2-3 Pressures and Temperatures for MSL and SRV 5- 2. 36 Piping 5-2.2-4 SRV Discharge Thrust Loads (Case RVlA) - 5-2. 37 Peak Segment Forces for Drywell Piping 5-2.2-5 SRV Discharge Thrust Loads (Case RV1A) -

5-2. 38 Peak Segment Forces for Wetwell Piping 5-2,2-6 Event Combinations and Allowable Limits 5-2.51 for SRV Discharge Piping 5-2.2-7 Basis for Governing Load Combinations - SRV 5-2.53 Discharge Piping 5-2.2-8 Basis for Governing Load Combinations - SRV Piping Supports and SRV Outlet Flanges 5-2.55 9 5-2.2-9 Governing Load Combinations - SRV 5-2.57 Discharge Piping 5-2.2-10 Governing Load Combinations - SRV Piping 5-2.59 Supports and SRV Outlet Flanges 5-2.3-1 Allowable Stresses for SRV Piping 5-2.64 5-2. 2-2 Allowable Loads for SRV Pipe Supports, 5-2.65 Snubbers and Struts 5-2. 3- 3 Allowable Moments for SRV Outlet Flanges 5-2.66 5-2.4-1 Drywell SRV Piping Structural Models 5-2.88 5-2.4-2 Analysis Methods - SRV Discharge Piping 5-2.89 5-2.4-3 Limiting Fatigue Load Histories for 5-2.105 Wetwell SRV Piping 5-2.4-4 Maximum Stress Cycle Factors for SRV Piping 5-2.106 DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-x nutggb

() LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

Number Title Page 5-2.5-1 Analysis Results for SRV Piping Stress 5-2.109 5-2.5-2 Analysis Results for SRV Piping Snubber 5-2.110 Loads 5-2.5-3 Analysis Results for SRV Piping Strut 5-2.112 Loads 5-2.5-4 Analysis Results for SRV Outlet Flange 5-2.113 Moments 5-2.5-5 Analysis Results for Wetwell SRV Piping 5-2.114 Support Stress 5-3.2-1 SRV Discharge Water Jet Impingement and 5-3.29 Air Bubble Drag Loads for T-Quencher Supports 5- 3. 2-2 SRV Discharge T-Quencher and End Cap 5- 3. 30 Thrust Loads 5- 3. 2- 3 SRV Discharge Air Bubble Drag Loads 5-3.31 for T-Quencher and SRV Piping 5- 3. 2-4 Pool Swell Impact and Drag Loads on SRV 5-3.32 Piping and Plate Support 5- 3. 2-5 Pool Fallback Loads on SRV Piping and 5-3.33

Plate Support 5- 3. 2-6 DBA Condensation Oscillation Submerged 5- 3. 34 Structure Loads for T-Quencher and SRV Piping 5-3.2-7 DBA Condensation Oscillation Submerged 5-3.35 Structure Loads for T-Quencher Supports r

i

! DET-20-015-5 j Revision 0 5-xi l 0 i

LIST OF TABLES (Concluded) lll Number Title Page 5-3.2-8 Post-Chug Submerged Structure Loads 5-3.36 for T-Quencher and SRV Piping 5-3.2-9 Post-Chug Submerged Structure Loads 5-3.37 for T-Quencher Supports 5-3.2-10 LOCA Water Jet Impingement and Air Bubble 5-3.38 Drag Loads for T-Quencher and SRV Piping 5-3.2-11 LOCA Water Jet Impingement and Air Bubble 5-3.39 Drag Loads for T-Quencher Supports 5-3.3-1 Allowable Stresses for T-Quencher Arms 5-3.45 5-3.3-2 Allowable Stresses for Ramshead and 5-3.46 T-Quencher Supports 5-3.4-1 Wetwell SRV Piping, T-Quencher, and 5-3.60 T-Quencher Supports Frequency Analysis Results 5.3.5-1 Maximum Pedestal Support Reactions for 5-3.73 Governing T-Quencher and T-Quencher Support Loads 5-3.5-2 Maximum Support Member Reaction Loads 5-3.74 for Governing T-Quencher and T-Quencher Support Loads 5-3.5-3 Maximum T-Quencher Arm Stresses for 5-3.75 Controlling Load Combinations 5-3.5-4 Maximum Ramshead and T-Quencher Support 5-3.76 Stresses for Controlling Load Combinations DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-xii nutggh

J

=

LIST OF FIGURES Number Title Page 5-2.1-1 Representative Drywell SRV Line Isometric 5-2.5 and Support Locations (Line 4096) 5-2.1-2 Typical Wetwell SRV Line Isometric and 5-2.6 Support Locations 5-2.1-3 Safety Relief Valve Discharge Line 5-2.7 f

and Main Steam Line Schematic 5-2.1-4 SRV Line Locations in Vent Lines and 5-2.8 Suppression Chamber 5-2.1-5 Wetwell SRV Line Routing 5-2.9 5-2.1-6 Developed View of SRV Line in the 5-2.10 i Suppression Chamber 5-2.1-7 Safety Relief Valve Connection to SRV 5-2.11 Piping and Main Steam Line 5-2.1-8 Vacuum Breaker for SRV Lines 2586, 2589, 5-2.12 4 0 2593, 2594, 2595, 2596, 4093, 4094, 4095, 4096 5-2.1-9 Vacuum Breaker for SRV Lines 2587, 2588, 5-2.13 2590, 2591, 2592 5-2.1-10 Typical SRV Line Support in Drywell 5-2.14 5-2.1-11 Vent Line Support for SRV Lines - 5-2.15 I

Section X-X 5-2.1-12 Vent Line Support for SRV Lines - 5-2.16 Section T-T 5-2.1-13 Vent Header Support for SRV Line - 5-2.17 Section Y-Y 5-2.1-14 Vent Header Support for SRV Line - 5-2.18 Section Z-Z

5-2.2-1 Acceleration Response Spectra Envelope 5-2.39 for OBE in N-S Direction, 1/2% Damping

() DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-xiii f

. , . - - - - --w---- , - ~ , . , - - , . - , - - , - - . - ---- - - - . , - ,

LIST OF FIGURES h (Continued)

Number Title Page 5-2.2-2 Acceleration Response Spectra Envelope 5-2.40 for OBE in E-W Direction, 1/2% Damping 5-2.2-3 Acceleration Response Spectra Envelope for 5-2.41 OBE in Vertical Direction, 1/2% Damping 5-2.2-4 Acceleration Response Spectra Envelope 5-2.42 for SSE in N-S Direction, 1% Damping 5-2.2-5 Acceleration Response Spectra Envelope 5-2.43 for SSE in E-W Direction, 1% Damping 5-2.2-6 Acceleration Response Spectra Envelope 5-2.44 for SSE in Vertical Direction, 1% Damping 5-2.2-7 Line 4096-SRV Discharge (Case RVlC) Force 5-2.45 l Time-History at Segment D1 5-2.2-8 Line 4096-SRV Discharge (Case RVlC) Force 5-2.46 Time-History at Segment D14 (Wl) 5-2.2-9 Line 4096-SRV Discharge (Case RVlC) Force 5-2.47 Time-History at Segment W4 5-2.4-1 Main Steam Line D Structural Model 5-2.90 5-2.4-2 SRV Line 4095 Structural Model 5-2.91 5-2.4-3 SRV Line 4096 Structural Model 5-2.92 5-2.4-4 Safety Relief Valve Structural Model 5-2.93 5-2.4-5 Vacuum Breaker Structural Model for SRV 5-2.94 Lines 2586, 2589, 2593, 2594, 2595, 2596, 4093, 4094, 4095, 4096 5-2.4-6 Vacuum Breaker Structural Model for SRV 5-2.95 Lines 2587, 2588, 2590, 2591, 2592 5-2.4-7 Typical Wetwell SRV Line Structural Model 5-2.96 5-2.4-8 Full SRV Piping Structural Model 5-2.97 DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-xiv nutggj)

l LIST OF FIGURES ,

(Concluded)

Number Title Page 5-2.4-9 Typical Application of SRV Discharge Thrust 5-2.98 Loads 5- 3.1-1 T-Quencher and T-Quencher Support Locations 5- 3. 5 5-3.1-2 Suppression Chamber Section 5-3.6 5- 3.1- 3 T-Quencher Arm Hole Pattern 5-3.7 5-3.1-4 T-Quencher and T-Quencher Supports 5- 3. 8 5-3.1-5 Detail of Ramshead and Support System 5- 3. 9 5-3.1-6 T-Quencher Arm Support Details 5-3.10 5- 3.1-7 Lateral T-Quencher Support Beam Ring Plate 5-3.11 Support Details 5- 3. 2-1 Typical Pool Acceleration Profile for FSI 5-3.40 Calculation

(, 5- 3. 4-1 Wetwell SRV Piping, T-Quencher, and T-Quencher 5-3.62 Supports Beam Model - Isometric View 5- 3. 4-2 Ramshead Assembly Finite Element Model 5-3.63

- Isometric View 5- 3. 4- 3 Harmonic Analysis Results for T-Quencher 5-3.64 Arm Submerged Structure Load Frequency Determination - Uniform Loading 5-3.4-4 Harmonic Analysis Results for T-Quencher 5-3.65 Arm Submerged Structure Load Frequency Determination - Torque Loading 5- 3. 4-5 Harmonic Analysis Results for T-Quencher 5-3.66 Lateral Support Beam Submerged Structure Load Frequency Determination 5-3.4-6 Harmonic Analysis Results for SRV Piping 5-3.67 Submerged Structure Load Frequency Determination O DET-20-015-5 l

Revision 0 5-xv nutagh

. . . ~ . - - - , - ,.n e .,

h 5-

1.0 INTRODUCTION

AND

SUMMARY

In conjunction with Volume 1 of the Plant Unique Anal-ysis Report (PUAR), this volume documents the efforts undertaken to address the requirements defined in NUREG-0661 (Reference 1) which affect the Fermi 2 safety relief valve (SRV) piping, including the SRV T quencher and related support structures. The SRV piping PUAR is organized as follows:

o INTRODUCTION AND

SUMMARY

Scope of Analysis Summary and Conclusions o SAFETY RELIEF VALVE DISCHARGE PIPING ANALYSIS Component Description Loads and Load Combinations Analysis Acceptance Criteria Method of Analysis Analysis Results o QUENCHER AND QUENCHER SUPPORTS ANALYSIS Component Description Loads and Load Combinations Analysis Acceptance Criteria Method of Analysis Analysis Results DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-1.1 nutagh

The INTRODUCTION section contains an overview discus-sion of the scope of the SRV piping and quencher eval-uation as well as a summary of the results and conclu-sions resulting from the comprehensive evaluations presented in later sections. The SAFETY RELIEF VALVE DISCHARGE PIPING ANALYSIS and QUENCHER AND QUENCHER SUPPORTS ANALYSIS sections each contain a comprehen-sive discussion of the loads and load combinations to be addressed, a description of the component parts of the piping ..nd quencher affected by these loads and load combinations, the methodology used to evaluate the effects of the loads and load combinations, and the evaluation results and acceptance limits to which the results are compared to ensure that the design is adequate.

i l

DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-1.2 nutggh

O 5-1.1 Scope of Analysis V

The general criteria presented in Volume 1 are used as the basis for the Fermi 2 SRV piping and quencher evaluation described in this report volume. The investigation includes an evaluation of the SRV piping and quencher for the effects of LOCA related loads and SRV discharge related loads discussed in Volume 1 of this report, and defined by the NRC's Safety Evaluation Report NUREG-0661 (Reference 1) and the Mark I Containment Program Load Definition Report (LDR) (Reference 2).

The LOCA and SRV discharge loads used in this evalua-tion are formulated using procedures and test results which include the effects of the plant unique geometry and operating parameters contained in the Plant Unique Load Definition (PULD) report (Reference 3). Other loads and methodology which have not been redefined by NUREG-0661, such as the evaluation for seismic loads, are taken from the plant's Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) (Reference 4).

The evaluation includes performing a structural anal- I ysis of the SRV piping and quencher for the ef fects of O oer-2o-o1s-s Revision 0 5-1.3 nutggb

l LOCA and SRV discharge related loads to verify that h the design of the SRV piping and quencher is adequate. Rigorous analytical techniques are used in this evaluation, utilizing detailed analytical models and refined methods for computing the dynamic response of the SRV piping and quencher with consideration of the interaction effects of the vent system and torus.

The results of the structural analysis for each load are used to evaluate load combinations and fatigue effects for the SRV piping and quencher in accordance with NUREG-0661 and 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 speci-fled by the PUAAG and the applicable sections of the ASME Code (Reference 6) for Class 2 and Class 3 piping and piping supports.

The evaluation of the SRV line vent pipe penetration and the associated vent system components for . the effects of LOCA and SRV discharge related loads are addressed in Volume 3 of this report.

i l

DET-20-015-5 O Revision 0 5-1.4 nutagh

5-1.2 Summary and Conclusions An evaluation of the Fermi 2 SRV discharge piping, piping supports, T-Quencher, and quencher supports has been performed for the systems as described in Sec-tions 5-2.1 and 5-3.1.

The loads considered in the evaluation consist of the i original loads as documented in the FSAR plus addi-tional loadings which are postulated to occur during SBA, IBA or DBA LOCA related events and during SRV discharge events as defined generically in NUREG-0661.

l I

C- Detailed structural models are developed and utilized in calculating the response of the piping system. A combination of static, dynamic and equivalent static analyses are performed and the results appropriately combined per NUREG-0661 requirements. Results of the analyses are compared to the NUREG-0661 criteria as discussed in Section 1-3.2.

i The evaluation results show that the piping system stresses and associated component loads meet the requirements of NUREG-0661.

DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-1.5 gg

l l

5-2.0 SAFETY RELIEF VALVE DISCHARGE PIPING ANALYSIS ]

An evaluation of each of the NUREG-0661 requirements which affect the design adequacy of the Fermi 2 SRV piping is presented in the following sections. The general criteria used in this evaluation are contained in Volume 1 of this report.

The component parts of the SRV piping system which are analyzed are described in Section 5-2.1. The loads and load combinations for which the piping system is evaluated are described and presented in Section 5-2.2. The acceptance limits to which the analysis results are compared are discussed and presented in pJ '

Section 5-2.3. The analysis methodology used to evaluate the effects of the loads and load combina-tions on the piping system including evaluation of fatigue effects is discussed in Section 5-2.4. The analysis results are presented in Section 5-2.5.

DET-20-015-5 i

Revision 0 5-2.1 nutgg),)

5-2.1 Component Description The SRV piping system for Fermi 2 consists of fifteen individual Schedule 80, SA-106, Grade B piping lines. The nominal diameter of the piping is 10" at the outlet flange of the SRV, 12" before exiting the drywell, and 20" at the T-quencher in the wetwell.

Figure 5-2.1-1 shows the routing, support locations and support types for a representative SRV line in the drywell. Figure 5-2.1-2 shows a typical wetwell SRV line routing and supports.

The 15 SRV lines initiate at the 4 main steam lines and are grouped in sets of two, three, and five, as shown schematically in Figure 5-2.1-3. The lines are O

routed from the drywell area through the vent lines and into the suppression chamber. As indicated in Figure 5-2.1-4, each of the 8 vent lines contains two SRV lines, except for the single SRV line in the vent line at an azimuth of 202.5*.

The SRV lines exit the vent lines vertically through the vent pipe penetrations (VPP) and routed hori-zontally beneath the vent lines and vent header toward adjacent mitered joints. At the mitered joints, the DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-2.2 g

nut.e_ch

! ) lines drop vertically to the suppression chamber ring beams. The routing of the SRV piping in the wetwell is shown in Figures 5-2.1-5 and 5-2.1-6.

At the lower end of each SRV line is a 20" diameter T quencher device. The SRV line and T quencher are connected by a 20" x 12" concentric reducer. The T quencher consists of a ramshead device supported by a pedestal on the suppression chamber ring beam, and two quencher arms which are aligned with the longitu-I dinal axes of the suppression chamber segments. The quencher arms are supported vertically and laterally by struts connected near their ends, which attach to l vertical and lateral support beams. Details of the T quencher and the T-quencher support system are de-scribed in Section 5-3.0.

The 15 SRV lines are attached to the 4 main steam lines in the drywell at the safety relief valves, as shown in Figure 5-2.1-7. Each SRV line also has an attached vacuum breaker valve connected to the SRV lines as shown in Figures 5-2.1-8 and 5-2.1-9.

The support system for the SRV lines in the drywell i

consists of snubbers, struts, and hangers which are l l

DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-2.3 nutggb 1

l 1

connected to the drywell main steel by means of inter-mediate steel framing. A typical SRV line support in the drywell is illustrated in Figure 5-2.1-10.

The support system for the wetwell SRV piping on the vent line and vent header consists of a highly stif-fened penetration support at the VPP and 1-1/2" thick plate supports on the vent line and vent header.

Details of the VPP support are discussed in Section 3-2.1. The 1-1/2" thick plate supports on the vent line and vent header are shown in Figure 5-2.1-5 and Figures 5-2.1-11 through 5-2.1-14.

The horizontal segment of the SRV piping below the vent header is shielded against direct impact of pool swell loads by means of a vent header deflector device located just below the piping, and supported by the 1-1/2" thick SRV line supports on the vent header.

The vent header deflector is described in Section 4-2.1 and is shown in Figure 5-2.1-6.

l Loads which are applied to the SRV piping system l described above are presented in the following section.

DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-2.4 nutgg])

s'*

(D QJ %

.?

vacuum 3aEAsIm i = -9 9 '1 ** 7'g A,

< <+ /

&' i

/

6"a 10" 20*N

g. . !

3

.: / . . ,

SAFETY RELI / e VALVE WV11,EP a .

"; > ~ ,

i ..*, LEGEND:

y~ ,, ,

, 3 * ,e

.. O HANGER 25'yf.87'^a e 3 SNUBBER s c

[

3 @ ANCHOR

? $

c*'

i G10

. O SUPPORT I.D.

s h $

%f f'-#

!$b' w,

. - Nl i j s ', e>,,,,

> > 2 0 e=c =re

.%',l - /, ,

o, .

%~ &*'l ~

~----.---.. ,

v, y\ , -

/ 2 s',

e

. . r

/

st. s'n

',s

%/ '

6

=;;. ..,

"% / ,,

Figure 5-2.1-1 REPRESENTATIVE DRYWELL SRV LINE ISOMETRIC AND SUPPORT LOCATIONS (LINE 4096)

O)

% ./

DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-2.5 g

ENGaNEERS

. X h

x s

.-t N

he N

r-t~

.m VENT PIPE v .'

PENETRATION -

M L

-}. -

b h 8*'10 ,A d 8*~83S/enl32" NX .

%s '% %

MIN, ,

G315 VENT PIPE SUPPORT G335 T-QUENCHER ARM b VENT HEADER SUPPORT . SUPPORT 3

1TO 20 x 12" CONCENTRIC REDUCER Cy 15TQ T-QUENCHER ARM SUPPORT v

20" CAP g, __ (TYP) l/ S O

{ YP. )l ,, A '0 2 ' - 2 "

~

TQQ T-QUENCHER RAMSHEAD SUPPORT l'-8" (TYP)

Figure 5-2.1-2 TYPICAL WETWELL SRV LINE ISOMETRIC AND SUPPORT LOCATIONS DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-2.6 gg g

g w I

. O -

REACTOR PRESSURE 180 NOZ Z LE -l ,

p , ,' ,

259

)

c %,

, 90 0 ,-%

p ,

g- 270 ,

0 g

, 1h'

'%o 2590 2595 4 2592 j

2593 586 4096 e2591 l' 4093 0 4095 ,

2594 4094 2589 l 2587 - SR VALVE (TYP) 2588 O t SRV LINE (TYP) t rd r' r r ;

\

MAIN STEAM - MAIN STEAM LINE B LINE C MAIN STEAM MAIN STEAM ,

LINE A LINE D i

1 Figure 5-2.1-3 SAFETY RELIEF VALVE DISCHARGE LINE AND MAIK STEAM LINE SCHEMATIC DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-2.7 MUfgQb

N

]

1800 157.50 202.5 S PRESSION CHAMBER Y$ :> N 4

,sg A gu D fp d M 112.5 %

p \g\g h - //

/

gg ,,247.5 dll4+ o J> 2, %

?*

0 90 -

4? """

{rr 'f>""

h

f=& - 270 0 9 /i\

h

/

/ VENT LINE s G,',k'd (TYP) - Q'd 26Y //

09$

59A k /f " h103 67.50# /f##,//

f \gs \\\ N 292.5 0 g ## \\

p SRV LINE C. T e, = ,s QUENCHER $ @% &s $ VENT LINE (TYP) (TYP)

/ \

22.5 l 337.50 0

Figure 5-2.1-4 SRV LINE LOCATIONS IN VENT LINES AND SUPPRESSION CHAMBER DET-04-028-5 Revision 0 g{

5-2.8

p' QUENCHER SUPPORT v T-BEAM TORUS RING GIRDER r

\

_/~

9 fVENT HEADER

/' l j r I i I

- \

l 1 1/2" THICK ' '

l SRV LINE SUPPORT PLATES X/

/

j,j I i

( \

h

.I / [ -

5'-11"

[(VPP) VENT PIPE p , " ' ' ' 'i -

,,,, ~

I PENETRATION

( 1 '

V gi s - ; _._ _ ;

O q _P

()

Ti-%,:s' ' -

i

/ (_

's__g k- --

5'-11"

"%f'"" 4x\, .I.., l /

p

, - r

([/

1 \ l l / 1Y

?}J

~

Y (, Y l l i i

'N- l l

~~ _

s, /

NOTE: VENT SYSTEM STIFFENING, T-QUENCHER AND QUENCHER

/

SUPPORTS NOT SHOWN FOR /

CLARITY.

Q SUPPRESSION CHAMBER l Figure 5-2.1-5 OV WETWELL SRV LINE ROUTING DET 20-015-5 Revision 0 5-2.9 UNkh

VENT 1

dLINE l ,

I I

(

r RING BEAM g

/

_p. ~ ~'

VENT HEADER 11/2" THICK SRV LINE SUPPORT PLATE o s V - fj% pr% )

W

~

n n .~.

j-

77% QO; v

1\

! N\

(r--- ====

~====

/ Mf

{

. . . _ ~ ~ . ~,-

E .-

x , ,

~s -E

__ h-k

= = = d . . . - -(

-- _ ___t t

VENT HEADER l DEFLECTOR I

20"x12" CONCENTRIC 12" SRV LINE I REDUCER s RAMSHEAD T-QUENCHER /

c-

\ ;n _,

- .-+ _

- _fl_ _J i

i C. .

rn SUPPRESSION / \ VERTICAL QUENCHER

,. a CHAMBER SHELL /b ! EL. 54 0 '-0" SUPPORT BEAM

[*, .n -.

SUPPRESSIONS , ' N',

" CHAMBER SUPPORT Figure 5-2.1-6 DEVELOPED VIEW OF SRV LINE IN THE SUPPRESSION CHAMBER DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-2.10 DUkgQ

O 10 1/2" _

_5 3/8" SAFETY RELIEF VALVE i (TARGET ROCK CORP. ) l t

i I ;

I i

_10" SRV LINE ( _

, S / 1174n ;

a O ,

-- C.G. l e - 2 1/ 8 "

L U t d !

8" PIPE __

l ' - 3 1/ 2 " ,

26"x8" SWEEPOLET 1 r

)

O f w

\ "

l'-4" (

26" MAIN p f

~

k STEAM LINE f J >

i i

f i

Figure 5-2.1-7 SAFETY RELIEF VALVE CONNECTION TO .

O' SRV PIPING AND MAIN STEAM LINE i

DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-2.11 Qd

E O

l 8"x 8" VACUUM RELIEF VALVE (CROSBY VALVE CO.)

a i i l'-7" l

V \

/ V~12"x8"or10"x8"WELDOLET

! RJ n

O .- ( 10" OR 12" SRV LINE W )

l Figure 5-2.1- 8 VACUUM BREAKER FOR SRV LINES 2586, 2589, 2593, 2594, 2595, 2596, 4093, 4094, 4095, 4096 DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-2.12 g{

I i

i I

O q 10" OR 12" SRV LINE i

l 8"x8" VACUUM RELIEF VALVE ,

Q A (CROSBY VALVE CO.)

i d i

I I l l 1e_7a j

\ i / y !

L i

l l

J l 8" L.R. ELBOW l 12"x8" or 10"x8" WELDOLET !

O i V &

l !

P I

l t

i f !

Figure 5-2.1-9 VACUUM BREAKER FOR SRV LINES ;

i i

O 2s87 2s88 2s90 2se1 s92 DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-2.13 O

, , , ,, G l v' t

y-1

(' /

l l INTERMEDIATE STEEL l

l FRAMING g

ll l l

< ,, ,, : I i I i i I l I II DRYWELL MAIN l l STEEL l l I I I I N

SNUBBER

\

((

-Q SRV LINE PIPE CLAMP l

c -

e _

l sC3 I

Figure 5-2.1-10 TYPICAL SRV LINE SUPPCRT IN DRYWELL DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-2.14 O

O 6'-0 1/2" O.D.

1 1/2" THICK-VENT LINE PLATE I

1 1/2" THICK PAD PLATE t .

i, n 2So 250

/ \

r 2 _lo=

7'-l 5/8" ,

(TYP)

/

8'-2 3/4" ,

i j l Y ,/ 1 s ,,

a

{ ,' l l T "

' ~~

1 1/2" MIN.=

CLEARANCE h l~-

\

f i

I

~],

r k k , ! f;; 41/2" T

l'-0 7/8" : ;

l'-0 7/8" l

2'-8 1/2" _ _ 2 ' - 8 1/ 2 "

i l

Figure 5-2.1-11 VENT LINE SUPPORT FOR SRV LINES - SECTION X-X DET-20-0'5-5 Revision 0 5-2.15 Md l

l

1*-0" @

VENT LINE 5"

TYP

./

\

j 1 1/2" T111CK GUSSET PLATE (TYP)

~ k -

g _

h -

.q l2" 4 '-5 7/8" h ) SRV k LINE Figure 5-2.1-12 VENT LING SUPPORT FOR SRV LINES - SECTION T-T DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-2.16 nutg.gb

1 1/2" THICK RING PLATE Z

4'-3 1/2" I.D.

VENT HEADER

- ('

/

\

i EL 562'-8 1/2" 9

T 4 a

\ '

h, ,, 4'-4 1/2" 1" THICK GUSSET PLATE v

14" SLEEVE PIPE 12" SRV LINE i Z Figure 5-2.1-13 VENT HEADER SUPPORT FOR SRV LINES - SECTION Y-Y l

DET-20-015-5

! Revision 0 5-2.17 MU l

O 1 1/2" THICK RING PLATE

\/ - -

- ( VENT HEADER I

I l 1/2" THICK 14" SLEEVE PAD PLATE PIPE

- ( 12" SRV LINE Figure 5-2.1-14 VENT HEADER SUPPORT FOR SRV LINES - SECTION Z-Z DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-2.18 gg

i 5-2.2 Loads and Load Combinations The loads for which the Fermi 2 SRV piping is designed are defined in NUREG-0661 on a generic basis for all ,

Mark I plants. The methodology used to develop plant unique SRV piping 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 controlling loads which act on the SRV piping are discussed and pre-sented in Section 5-2.2.1.

Using the event combinations and event sequencing defined in NUREG-0661 and discussed in Sections 1-3.0 and 1-4.0, the governing load combinations which affect the SRV piping are formulated. The load combinations are discussed and presented in Section 5-2.2.2. i l

l DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-2.19 nutggb l

l

O 5-2.2.1 Loads The loads acting on the SRV piping are categorized as follows:

1. Dead Weight Loads

2. Seismic Loads

3. Pressure and Temperature Loads

4. Safety Relief Valve Discharge Loads

5. Pool Swell Loads

6. Condensation Oscillation Loads

7. Chugging Loads

8. Vent Clearing Loads g

9. Vent System and Torus Interaction Loads

10. Turbine Stop Valve Closure Loads Loads in categories 1 through 3 and 10 are considered in the piping design as documented in the FSAR (Refer-ence 4). Additional category 3 pressure and tempera-ture loads result from postulated LOCA and SRV discharge events. Loads in category 4 result from SRV discharge events. Loads in categories 5 through 8 result from postulated LOCA events. Loads in cate-gory 9 are structural responses which are a result of loads acting on the vent system and torus.

DET-20-015-5 O

Revision 0 5-2.20 nutggh

O Not all of the loads defined in NUREG-0661 and the FSAR need be examined, since some are enveloped by others or have a negligible effect on the SRV piping.

Only those loads which maximize the SRV piping response and lead to controlling stresses are examined and discussed. The loads are referred to as governing loads in the sections which follow.

The magnitudes and characteristics of the governing loads in each category, obtained using the methodology discussed in Section 1-4.0, are identified and pre-sented in the following paragraphs. The corresponding section of Volume 1 of this report where the loads are discussed is provided as a reference in Table 5-2.2-1.

The loading information presented in this section is the same as that presented in Section 1-4.0, with additional specific information relevant to the evalu-ation of the SRV piping system.

1. Dead Weight Loads I

a. Dead Weight (DW) Loads: These loads are defined as the uniformly distributed weight of the pipe and the concentrated weight of I

DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-2.21 nutggb

piping supports, hardware attached to piping, vacuum breakers, SRVs, and flanges.

Also included is the weight of water con-tained in the wetwell SRV piping and quenchers corresponding to a torus water level of 7.0" below the torus horizontal centerline.

b. Dead Weight (DW T) Loads: These loads are defined as the dead weight of piping and associated components as described above, plus the dead weight of water in the SRV piping during the hydrostatic test condi-tion. O

2. Seismic Loads a.

OBE Inertia (OBEr) Loads: These loads are defined as the horizontal and vertical accelerations acting on the SRV piping during an Operating Basis Earthquake (OBE).

The loading is taken from the design bacis for the SRV piping as documented in the FSAR. Horizontal building response spectra at three different elevations which repre-DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-2.22 nutggh

sent piping attachment points are enveloped to develop the N-S and E-W direction OBEr input shown in Figures 5-2.2-1 and 5-2.2-2.

The vertical direction seismic input as provided in the FSAR is presented in Figure -

5-2.2-3.

b. OBE Displacement (OBED) Loads: These loads are defined as the maximum horizontal and vertical relative seismic displacements at the SRV piping attachment points during an OBE. The loading is taken from the design basis for the SRV piping, as documented in O

%s the FSAR. The OBE relative displacements in f the N-S, E-W and vertical directions are provided in Table 5-2.2-2. [

c. SSE Inertia (SSEr) Loads: These loads are defined as the horizontal and vertical accelerations acting on the SRV piping during a Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE). t The loading is taken from the design basis !

for the SRV piping, as documented in the FSAR. To develop bounding curves for the SSE r analysis, both OBE and SSE spectra from O' DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-2.23 nutggh

the FSAR are conservatively enveloped.

Horizontal building response spectra at three different elevations which represent the piping attachment points are enveloped to develop the N-S and E-W direction SSE 7 input shown in Figures 5-2.2-4 and 5-2.2-5.

The vertical direction seismic input as provided in the FSAR is presented in Figure 5-2.2-6.

d. SSE Displacement (SSED) Loads: These loads are defined as the maximum horizontal and vertical relative seismic displacements at the SRV piping attachment points during an SSE. The loading is taken from the design basis for the SRV piping as documented in the FSAR. The SSE relative displacements in the N-S, E-W and vertical directions are provided in Table 5-2.2-2.

3. Pressure and Temperature Loads

a. Pressure (P o, P) Loads: These loads are defined as the maximum internal pressure (Po) in the MSL and SRV piping during normal DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-2.24 nutggb

P operating and accident conditions, and the internal pressure (P) in the MSL and SRV piping for design conditions. Values of P g and P used in the analysis are listed in Table 5-2.2-3.

i

b. Temperature (TEl, TE2) Loads: These loads i

are defined as the thermal expansion (TEl) i of the MSL and SRV piping associated with <

normal operating and accident temperature changes occurring without SRV actuation, and ,

the thermal expansion (TE2) of the MSL and SRV piping associated with normal operating l and accident temperature changes occurring with SRV actuation. Pipe temperatures for i

TEl and TE2 used in the analysis are listed !

in Table 5-2.2-3.

i Effects of thermal anchor movements at the :

reactor pressure vessel (RPV) nozzle and at ,

the vent system and torus support locations '

are also included in the analysis. The

. piping thermal anchor movement loadings are

! categorized and designated as follows:

i DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-2.25 nutggb

o THAMl - Piping thermal anchor movement, Normal Operating condition without SRV actuation, o THAM 2 - Piping thermal anchor movement, Normal Operating condition with SRV actuation o THAM 1A - Piping thermal anchor movement, accident condition without SRV actuation, o THAM 2A - Piping thermal anchor movement, accident condition with SRV actuation.

4. Safety Relief Valve Discharge Loads

a. SRV Discharge Line Thrust (RV1) Loads:

These loads are defined as the pressure and thrust forces acting along the SRV piping due to SRV actuation. The methodology used to develop SRV discharge line thrust loads is described in Section 1-4.2.2. The SRV actuation cases considered are discussed in Section 1-4.2.1. The cases which result in governing loads or load combinations for which SRV thrust force time-histories are DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-2.26 nutgg])

O developed include valve actuation with Normal Operating conditions (Cases Al.1 and C 3.1) and valve actuation with SBA/IBA con-

, ditions (Case A1.2). These governing SRV ,

i ,

i actuation cases are categorized and desig-nated as follows: l o RVlA -

SRV discharge piping thrust loads for Normal Operating t conditions, first actuation i

(Case A1 3 1). SRV discharge l piping thrust loads for DBA ;

conditions, first actuation (Case A1.3) are bounded by 1

Case A1.1.

i o RVlB - SRV discharge piping thrust loads for Normal Operating con-ditions, subsequent actuation (Case C3.1) o RVIC - SRV discharge piping thrust i

loads, for SBA/IBA conditions, first actuation (Case A1.2). .

i SRV discharge piping thrust loads for SBA/IBA conditions, i subsequent actuation, (Cases l

DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-2.27 nutagh l 1

C 3. 2 and C 3. 3) are bounded by Case A1.2.

Typical SRV thrust force time-history plots are shown in Figures 5-2.2-7 through 5-2.2-9. The peak thrust force on each segment for each of the SRV lines resulting from the RVlA actuation case is listed in Tables 5-2.2-4 and 5-2,2-5.

b. SRV T quencher Discharge (OAB) Loads: These loads are defined as the transient pressures which act on the submerged portion of SRV discharge piping, T-quencher and supports during an SRV discharge. The SRV T quencher discharge loads acting on the wetwell SRV piping are presented in Section 5-3.2.1.

5. Pool Swell Loads

a. Pool Swell (PS) Loads: These loads are defined as the transient pressure loads which act on the portion of SRV discharge piping above the minimum torus weter level.

A detailed description of the loads is presented in Section 5-3.2.1.

9 DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-2.28 nut

6. Condensation Oscillation Loads

a. Condensation Oscillation (CO) Loads: These loads are defined as the harmonic velocity and acceleration drag loads acting on the submerged portion of SRV discharge piping, T quenchers and supports during a DBA event.

Included are acceleration drag loads due to torus fluid-structure interaction (FSI).

The CO loads acting on the SRV piping, T-quenchers and supports are presented in Section 5-3.2.1.

O

7. Chugging Loads

a. Pre-Chugging (PCHUG) Loads: These loads are defined as the single harmonic velocity and acceleration drag loads, including accelera-tion drag loads due to torus FSI effects, acting on the submerged portion of SRV dis-charge piping, T-quenchers and supports during the pre-chugging phase of an SBA, IBA, or DBA event.

DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-2.29 nutggb

b. Post-Chugging (CHUG ) Loads: These loads are defined as the harmonic velocity and accel-eration drag loads, including acceleration drag loads due to torus FSI effects, acting on the submerged portion of SRV discharge piping, T quenchers and supports during the post-chugging phase of an SDA, .TBA or DBA event.

The chugging loads acting on the wetwell portion of the SRV piping are presented in Section 5- 3. 2 .1.

8. Vent Clearing Loads ,

a. Vent Clearing (VCL) Loads: These loads are defined as the transient pressure loads acting on the submerged portion of SRV discharge piping, T-quenchers and supports during the vent system water and air clear-ing phase of a DBA event. The vent clearing loads acting on the wetwell portion of the SRV piping are presented in Section 5-3.2.1.

DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-2. 30 nutech

i O 9. Vent System and Torus Interaction Loads

a. Vent System Interaction Loads: These loads are defined as the interaction effects at the vent pipe penetration and at the SRV line supports on the vent line and vent header due to loads acting on the vent system.

b. Torus Interaction Loads: These loads are defined as the interaction effects at the wetwell SRV piping attachment points on the suppression chamber due to loads acting on the suppression chamber shell.

l Both types of interaction loads are discussed in the following paragraphs.

o TD - The drywell, vent system and torus displacements due to i

normal operating pressure, and torus displacements due to the !

weight of water in the torus o TD1 - The drywell, vent system and torus displacements due to l

DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-2. 31

accident condition pressures, and torus displacements due to the weight of water in the torus o QAB r - The interaction effects of torus and vent system motions due to SRV T quencher discharge loads o PS I - The interaction effects of torus and vent system motions due to pool swell loads o PCHUGy - The interaction effects of torus and vent system motions due to pre-chugging loads 9 o CHUG r - The interaction effects of torus and vent system motions due to post-chugging loads o coy - The interaction effects of torus and vent system motions due to DBA condensation oscil-lation loads All of the interaction loads listed above are derived from the structural response analyses of the vent system and torus as discussed in Volumes 2 and 3 of this report.

O DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-2. 32

10. Turbine Stop Valve Closure Loads Turbine Stop Valve Closure (TSVC) Loads: These loads are defined as the effects on the SRV '

piping resulting from dynamic loads acting on the main steam piping due to turbine stop valve 2

closure. The requirements for this loading are~

l specified in the FSAR.

i i Combinations of the previously described loads which are applied in evaluating the SRV piping and supports O re vre eacea ta the ro11oviae ectioa-4 4

O DET-20-015-5 i Revision 0 5-2.33

Table 5-2.2-1 SRV PIPING LOADING IDENTIFICATION CROSS-REFERENCE VOLUME 5 LOAD DESIGNATION VOLUME 1 LOAD LOAD SECTION REFERENCE CATEGORY CASE NUMBER la 1-3.1 DEAD WEIGHT g lb 1-3.1 2a 1-3.1 2b l-3.1 SEISMIC 2c 1-3.1 2d 1-3.1 PRESSURE AND 3a 1-3.1, 1-4.1.1 TEMPERATURE 3b l-3.1, 1-4.1.1 4a 1-4.2.2 9

SRV DISCHARGE 4b l-4.2.2, 1-4.2.4 POOL SWELL Sa 1-4.1.4.2, 1-4.1.4.4 CONDENSATION OSCILLATION 6a 1-4.1.7.3 7a 1-4.1.8.3 CHUGGING 7b l-4.1.8.3 VENT CLEARING 8a 1-4.1.5, 1-4.1.6 VENT SYSTEM 9a 1-4.1, 1-4.2 AND TORUS INTERACTION 9b l-4.1, 1-4.2 TURBINE STOP # ~

VALVE CLOSURE O

DET-20-015-5 l Revision 0 5-2.34 Ellik j l

l l

l Table 5-2.2-2 ,

MAXIMUM SEISMIC RELATIVE ANCHOR DISPLACEMENTS !

RELATIVE ANCHOR DISPLACEMENT (in.)

OPERATING BASIS SAFE SHUTDOWN LOCATION EARTHQUAKE EARTHQUAKE (OBE) (SSE)

N-S E-W VERTICAL N-S E-W VERTICAL 0.125 0.129 0.073 0.242 0.248 0.145 NO ZLE (1)

VENT PIPE PENETRATION 0.023 0.029 0.005 0.033 0.041 0.007 ,

(VPP) (2) l NOTES:

(1) RELATIVE DISPLACEMENT BETWEEN RPV AND SACRIFICIAL SHIELD WALL.

(2) RELATIVE DISPLACEMENT BETWEEN VENT LINE AND SACRIFICIAL SHIELD WALL.

l (1)

DET-20-015-5 g Revision 0 5-2.35

Table 5-2.2-3 PRESSURES AND TEMPERATURES FOR MSL AND SRV PIPING PRESSURE (psig) TEMPERATURE (OF)

PIPING WITHOUT WITH SYSTEM MAXIMUM SRV SRV DESIGN (P) ACTUATION ACTUATION

( o) (TEl) (TE2)

MAIN STEAM 1130 1250 550 561 445 570 MAX 292 363 SRV DRYWELL MIN 105 17 SRV WETWELL 397 570 40 363 9

I G

DET-20-015-5 gg Revision 0 5-2.36

O U (O \s Ta$)le 5-2.2-4

o o

@Q SRV DISCHARGE THRUST LOADS (CASE RVlA) -

$b ro PEAK SEGMENT FORCES FOR DRYWELL PIPING (kips)

@i h

m SEGMENT IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (Figure 5-2.4-9)

LINE NUMBER D1 D2 D3 P4 D5 D6 D7 DS D9 D10 Dll D12 D13 D14 D15 Dl6 D17 2586 1.7 7.2 6.2 11.8 7.6 8.8 8.2 13.5 23.7 7.0 4093 1.0 2.3 4.5 5.3 6.0 6.0 13.0 13.2 21.3 29.0 31.2 36.0 32.0 31.0 30.0 18.5 3.5 4094 1.3 1.3 4.5 5.1 3.9 8.6 7.9 7.3 7.4 8.6 5.5 7.5 7.6 7.6 2596 1.9 2.4 2.4 3.0 3.7 4.6 11.5 11.0 17.0 20.3 19.5 19.3 17.0 17.3 18.0 16.4 2595 2.7 5.4 4.0 5.0 6.4 15.2 23.4 23.4 22.4 21.0 24.5 24.8 24.6 11.2 17.0 17.1 i'N 8.4 8.5 2593 0.7 3.2 5.4 7.0 10.0 8.7 9.0 8.6 8.0 8.4 8.0 2594 1.1 5.4 5.7 9.0 7.3 6.0 7.1 8.3 7.6 15.0 22.7 6.0 2587 0.7 2.8 14.8 8.6 10.5 9.8 9.2 7.6 8.3 8.2 9.8 9.5 2590 2.7 7.0 6.3 9.8 -7.9 20.3 23.0 22.5 22.5 18.5 19.5 19.5 19.5 15.9 2592 3.3 5.0 5.5 5.7 6.8 9.4 8.8 9.0 5.2 8.0 8.4 8.2 2591 0.7 3.3 5.4 6.2 5.6 7.0 14.5 8.0 16.0 28.8 33.0 34.0 5.0 2589 1.9 6.0 4.7 11.0 7.5 7.4 8.2 11.0 10.2 2588 0.8 2.9 17.0 -15.6 15.0 21.0 24.0 3 4096 0.8 2.6 2.3 4.6 5.3 6.2 6.4 14.0 7.0 8.4 11.6 20.8 27.2 4.7 g

'"g 4095 2.8 3.2 6. 6 , 7. 9 16.5 21.9 24.5 18.8 20.4 i'T

Table 5-2.2-5 SRV DISCHARGE THRUST LOADS (CASE RVIA)

PEAK SEGMENT FORCES FOR WETWELL PIPING h

(kips)

LINE SEGMENT IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (Figure 5-2.4-9)

NUMBER w w w W4 2586 7.0 4.8 4.7 -38.0 4093 3.5 2.9 3.3 -31.6 4094 7.6 7.3 7.0 -41.0 2596 16.4 16.5 15.6 -28.2 2595 17.1 17.1 15.0 -29.8 2593 8.0 7.6 7.4 -36.6 g 2594 6.0 -5.2 4.9 -38.0 2587 9.5 9.0 8.8 -35.0 2590 15.9 17.3 17.3 -30.a 2592 8.2 7.6 7.4 -42.0 2591 5.0 5.2 5.1 -40.0 2589 10.2 9.8 9.6 -41.7 2588 24.0 15.0 23.2 -40.0 4096 4.7 4.2 -5.0 -38.0 l

l 4095 20.4 19.6 19.2 -41.0 O

i DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-2.38 UUkkhh

l r

l I

O 10 E,NVELOPE

5. 0 - -- DRYWELL - CONTAINMENT 6'-0" BELOW RPV INVERT

--- SACRIFICIAL SHIELD,

3. 0 - EL. 627'-11" ,

2. 0 -

- - RPV , 54'-0" ABOVE RPV INVERT f

.f T

1. 0 - '

gg g ut

I

\L .

.5-

/' \\ l 8 .3 -

t T4*

l g.2- _____/

r- e

f. - -

/ \\ ,

/ N Ns 8 c" Ng

.10 - / \

- \.

. 05 -

.03-

.02-i i

i e i a e i a i a i

.02 .03 .05 .10 .2 .3 .5 1.0 2.0 3.0 5.0 10 PERIOD (sec) l l

l Figure 5-2,2-1 ACCELERATION RESPONSE SPECTRA ENVELOPE FOR OBE IN N-S DIRECTION, 1/2% DAMPING DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-2.39 Q

10 ENVELOPE h

-- DRYWELL - CONTAINMENT

5. 0 -

] 6'-0" BELOW RPV INVERT

--- SACRIFICIAL SHIELD,

3. 0 - EL. 627'-11"

.J

2. 0 -

[4t\ - - RPV , 54'-0" ABOVE RPV f! INVERT I \

l \

l.0- I

~

e l ,e-Q \ '%

o

.5-

)I g

l \\ ( ,\s.

- _, /

h .3 - \\

w .2- \h\

U

a / x\ -

/

.10 -

y

.05-

.03-

.02-i i i i i i i i i i

.02 .03 .05 .10 .2 .3 .5 1.0 2.0 3.0 5.0 10 PERIOD (sec)

Figure 5-2.2-2 ACCELERATION RESPONSE SPECTRA ENVELOPE FOR OBE IN E-W DIRECTION, 1/2% DAMPING DET-20-015-5 00 ,h Revision 0 5-2.40

10 ENVELOPE (SACRIFICIAL O 5. 0 -

sa sto, 8t- 627 )

--- DRYWELL - CONTAINMENT SHIELD WALL, EL. 613'-6"

2. 0 - ,

H

1. 0 -

.5-

{

s i t tT

'3~

8 \

.2-

/

]

s ta f N

8 10 - /

- -.l 0 . 05 -

. 03 -

. 02 -

1 I I I i i I 6 4 I

. 02 .03 .05 .10 .2 .3 .5 1.0 2.0 3.0 5.0 10 PERIOD (sec)

Figure 5-2.2-3 l

ACCELERATION RESPONSE SPECTRA ENVELOPE FOR OBE IN VERTICAL DIRECTION, 1/2% DAMPING O

DET-20-OlS-5 Revision 0 5-2.41 nutp_qh

10 ENVELOPE

-- DRYWELL - CONTAINMENT

5. 0 - 6'-0" BELOW RPV INVERT

--- SACRIFICIAL SHIELD ,

3. 0 - # EL. 627'-11"

/ I - - RPV , 54'-0" ABOVE RPV

2. 0 - I INVERT

/

- - OBE N-S 1/2% (ENVELOPE f%!~ ~ T',. , i 1 Figure 5-2. 2-1)

1. 0 -

M s 1 a

(J z

.5- ) \.

j .3-_ .. /

/- .h 5 '2 - / N\'

u . ./ -

W k.

.10 -

.05-e

.03-

.02-i i i i i i i i e i

.02 .03 .05 .10 .2 .3 .5 1.0 2.0 3.0 5.0 10 PERIOD (sec) i l

l Figure 5-2.2-4 ACCELERATION RESPONSE SPECTRA ENVELOPE FOR SSE IN N-S DIRECTION, 1% DAMPING DET-20-015-5 e

Revision 0 5-2.42 nutggh

ENVELOPE

-- DRYWELL - CONTAINMENT

5. 0 - 6'-0" BELOW RPV INVERT

--- SACRIFICIAL SHIELD,

3. 0 - ![ EL. 627'-11" "Y - - RPV , 54'-0" ABOVE RPV

2. 0 - \l INVERT I T

- - OBE E-W 1/2% (ENVELOPE 3 ;L Figure 5-2.2-2)

1. 0 -

I k'(L '

_ f \

~

I \

.5- l \

z e \

3 \

b .3 - r.=~~~~[/~ \

s / .

S .2 -

/

/ \

.10 -

o .

. 05 - \

. 03 -

. 02 -

i i i i i i e i i i

.02 .03 .05 .10 .2 .3 .5 1.0 2.0 3.0 5.0 10 PERIOD (sec)

Figure 5-2.2-5 ACCELERATION RESPONSE SPECTRA ENVELOPE (A FOR SSE IN E-W DIRECTION, 1% DAMPING

(

DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-2.43 gg= -.--

10 ENVELOPE

- - DRYWELL - CONTAINMENT 5.0- SHIELD WALL EL. 613'-6" DBE VERTICAL 1%

3.0-

--- SACRIFICIAL SHIELD, 2.0- EL. 627'-11" r1 l g - - OBE VERTICAL 1/2%

l n (ENVELOPE I %

FIGURE 5-2.2-3) 1.0- I l

\

}

3 /

[

.5- fN \

H

.3- /

\ s\w% *\

.2- .. I l O ./ l N #

.10 - -

g

.05-N.

.03-

.02-s I i i 4 4 6 4 4 4 i

.02 .03 .05 .10 .2 .3 .5 1.0 2.0 3.0 5.0 10 PERIOD (sec)

Figure 5-2.2-6 ACCELERATION RESPONSE SPECTRA ENVELOPE FOR SSE IN VERTICAL DIRECTION, 1% DAMPING DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-2.44 gg

lIl lIi O

8

_ , 4 0

2

,4 0

6

,3 )

0 C l }

V D R

T 0

e N s E

,3 a M

~ 0 C G

) 7

( E c -

S c 2 E c , G T

~

(

2 R A 4

E - A

,2 M 5 I

I Y 0 I C R T e S O I T O i r

u g

D V

S I

I I

8 F R -

, 1 S E 0 - M 6 I 9 T 0

4 E C

2 E R

,1 N O 0 I F L

6

,0

~

0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 6 4 2 0 2 1 -

"oa M 3e ulk O

0$L?o yw

. k C E U D wI" ."* 9, 1 1ll lll

ll 8

,4 0

2

,4 0

6 )

,3 )

1 0

C W

(

l V

R 41 0 e D 3 s

, 0 a T C N

)

8

( E c M e -

E G s 2

(

. G E 2 R S 4 E A

,2 M -

H T I 5 0 T C A e S r I Y u D R g O 8 i V T

,1 F R S S I 0 - H 6 -

9 E 0 M 4 I 2 T 1 E

, . N E 0 I C L R O

[ s F

6 -

, 0 -

0 0

0

- - - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 2 8 4 0 4 8 1 1 - -

os x nd 0x D$ . - OIO [tn m W$- O3 lll

0 O O MO jy 2.00 f.2 PJ

>*- O O I Do H

OW 1.00-m 0.00 -

O v4 M

n d -1.00-U m

Y

. -2.00-u 4

k

-3.00-

-4.00 , , . . . . . i d

0.0) 0.06 0.12 0.18 0.24 0.30 0.36 0.42 0.48 TIME (sec) 3 Figure 5-2.2-9 LINE 4096-SRV DISCHARGE (Case RVlC)

FORCE TIME-HISTORY AT SEGMENT W 4 i

5-2.2.2 Load Combinations The loads for which the SRV piping system is evaluated are presented in Section 5-2.2.1. The general NUREG-0661 criteria for grouping the loads into load combinations are discussed in Sections 1-3.1 and 1-4. 3 and summarized in Table 5-2.2-6.

It is apparent from examining Table 5-2.2-6 that the load combinations specified for each event can be expanded into many more load combinations than those shown. However, not all load combinations for each event need be examined since many have the same allowable stresses and are enveloped by others which 9 contain the same or additional loads. Many of the load combinations listed in Table 5-2.2-6 are actually pairs of load combinations with all of the same loads except for seismic loads. The first load combination in the pair contains OBE loads, while the second contains SSE loads.

The governing load combinations for SRV piping are presented in Table 5-2.2-9. The governing load combi-nations for piping supports are presented in Table 5-2.2-10. The basis for establishing the governing DET-20-015-5 O Revision 0 5-2.48 nutggb

J k

loading combinations for ' the SRV piping and supports is provided in Tables 5-2.2-7 and 5-2.2-8.

Stress allowables corresponding to the following Service Levels are used for evaluation of the SRV piping and supports: .

A- Design and test conditions B - Normal Operating conditions including SRV dis-charge C -

Normal Operating conditions including SRV dis-r charge, plus seismic loads or SBA conditions including SRV discharge

, D -

SBA, IBA and DBA conditions including SRV dis-charge plus seismic loads Also included in the lists of governing load combina-tions are twelve combinations which do not result from the 27 event combinations listed in Table 5-2.2-6.

! These are: load combinations A-1 and SA-1 which relate to the design pressure plus dead weight condi-tion; load combinations A-2, SB-1, B-1, and SB-2 which include the combination of normal and seismic loads; load combinations T-1 and ST-1 which reltite to the hydrostatic test condition; and load combinations N-1, i

DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-2.49

SN-1, N-2, and SN-2 which include normal and seismic loads combined with turbine stop valve closure (TSVC) loads. Evaluation of combinations T-1 and ST-1 is a requirement of the ASME Code (Reference 6). Load combinations A-1, SA-1 A-2, SB-1, B-1, SB-2, N-1, SN-1, N-2, and SN-2 are consistent with the require-ments as specified in the FSAR (Reference 4).

The appropriate ASME Code equations for the SRV piping and Service Levels for the SRV piping supports and SRV outlet flanges are also provided in the governing load combination tables.

Each of the listed governing load combinations for the SRV piping and piping supports as provided in Tables 5-2.2-9 and 5-2.2-10 has been considered in the analysis methods described in Section 5-2.4.

DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-2.50 nutggj)

QJ 1

(m 4

%)

wo

($ t

< e'2 Table 5-2.2-6 rs OE EVENT COMBINATIONS AND ALLOWABLE LIMITS Do FOR SRV DISCH?RGE PIPING W

Om 1

Ln SBA SBA + EQ SBA+SRV SBA + SRV + EQ SRV IBA IBA + EQ IBA+SRV IBA + SRV + EQ DBA DBA + EQ USA +SRV DBA + EQ + SHV EVENT COMBINATIONS SRV +

EQ CO, CO, PS CO, CO, CH CO, CH CH CO,CH (1) CH PS CO, CH PS CII PS CO, CH TYPE OP EARTHQUAKE O S 0 S 0 S 0 S 0 S 0 S 0 S 0 S 0 S COMUINATION NUMBER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NORMAL (2) N X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X EARTIIQUAEE EQ X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X SRV DISC 11ARGE SRV X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X TilERMAI, TA X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X IDADS PIPE PRESSURE Pg X X X X _X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X IDCA POOL SWELL Pps X X X X X X IDCA CONDENSATION P CO X X X X X X X X OSCILLATION IACA CHUGGING P eg X X X X X X X X X X X X H STkUCTURAL ELEMENT ROW 10 B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B ESSENTIAL WITH IDA/DBA (3) (3) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) g4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) g4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4)

PIPING SYSTEMS 11 B B B B B B B B B B B is - - - - - - -

WITil SDA g3) g)) (4) g4) g4g g4) g3g (3) (4g gg) gg) g4g

Wc uM

< >3

$b wo NOTES FOR TABLE 5-2.2-6 oe 3o Om i

w (1) Reference 1 states "Where drywell to wetwell pressure dif ferential is normally utilized as a load mitigator, an additional evaluation will be performed without SRV loadings but assuming the loss of the pressure differential. Service Level D limits shall apply for all structural elements of the piping system for this evaluation. The analysis need only be accomplished to the extent that integrity of the first pressure boundary isolation valve is demonstrated. If the normal plant operating condition does not employ a drywell to wetwell pressure differ-ential, the listed service level assignments will be applicable." Since Fermi 2 does not utilize a drywell to wetwell differential pressure, the listed service, limits are applied.

m (2) Normal loads (H) consist of dead loads (D).

m (3) As an alternative, the 1.2 Sh limit in Equation (9) of NC-3652.2 may be replaced by 1.8 Sh' bJ provided that all other limits are satisfied and operability of active components is demonstrated. Fatigue requirements are applicable to all columns, with the exception of 16, 18, and 19.

(4) Footnote (3) applied except that instead of using 1.8 Sh in Equation (9) of NC-3652.2, 2.4 S h is used.

3 b

b

Table 5-2.2-7 C'\

V BASIS FOR GOVERNING LOAD COMBINATIONS SRV DISCHARGE PIPING EVENT EVENT GOVERNING COMBINATION COMBINATION LOAD DISCUSSION GOVERNING NUMBER (1) COMBINATIONS (2) BASIS B-2, B-3 SECONDARY STRESS BOUNDED 1

BY EVENT COMBINATION NUMBER 3.

(3b)

BOUNDED BY EVENT COMBINATION 2 N/A NUMBER 3. (3a) 3 C-1, C-2, A-3 N/A N/A IBA BOUNDED BY EVENT COMBINA-4,5 N/A TION NUMBER 15 AND SBA BOUNDED (3b)

BY EVENT COMBINATION NUMBER ll.

NT CO E NATIM 6,8,12 N/A NUMBER 14. (3b)

BOWDED BY EENT COMBINATION 7,9,13 N/A NUMBER 15. (3b)

As IBA BOUNDED BY EVENT COMBINA-h 10 N/A TION NUMBER 15 AND SBA BOUNDED BY EVENT COMBINATION NUMBER 11.

(3b) g C-3, C-4, FOR SBA ONLY. IBA BOUNDED BY A-4a, A-4b EVENT COMBINATION NUMBER 15. (3b)

-" D~ "' N/A 15 A-4a,' N/A 14 D-2b, D-3b, N/A N/A A-4b OWDED BY EVENT COMBINATIM (3b) 16,18,22 N/A NUMBER 24.

ED BY EENT COMBINATIM 19 N/A NUMBER 25.

(3b)

OWDED BY EENT COMBINATION 17,20,23 N/A NUMBER 26. (3b)

DBA CHUGGING, BOWDED BY EENT 21'27 N/A COMBINATION NUMBER 15.

(3b) 24 D-4b, A-4b N/A N/A 25 D-4a, A-4a N/A N/A l O FOR CO ONLY, DBA CHUGGING

() 26 D-1, A-5 BOUNDED BY EVENT COMBINATION NUMBER 14 (3b)

DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-2.53 0

D D GM

<8 Eb ro NOTES FOR TABLE 5-2.2-7 O I i oo H

om I

m (1) Event combination numbers refer to the numbers used in Table 5-2.2-6.

(2) Governing load combinations are listed in Table 5-2.2-9.

(3) Event combination governing basis

a. The governing event combination contains SSE loads which bound OBE loads.

m b. The governing event combination contains more loads while the allowable limits are the h same.

E t

h I

I l

I C

L

Table 5-2.2-8 BASIS FOR G)VERNING LOAD COMBINATIONS SRV PIPING SU:? PORTS AND SRV OUTLET FLANGES (J

EVENT EVENT GOVERNING COMBINATION COMBINATION LOAD DISCUSSION GOVERNING NUMBER (1) COMBINATIONS (2) BASIS 1 SB-3, SB-4 N/A N/A BOUNDED BY EVENT COMBINATION

!^ NUMBER 3. (3a) 3 SC-1, SC-2 N/A N/A IBA BOUNDED BY EVENT COMBINA-4,5 N/A TION NUMBER 15 AND SBA BOUNDED (3b)

BY EVENT COMBINATION NUMBER 11.

6,8,12 N/A (3b)

NUMBER 14.

7,9,13 N/A BOUNDED BY EVENT COMBINATION NUMBER 15. (3b)

IBA BOUNDED BY EVENT COMBINA-10 N/A TION NUMBER 15 AND SBA BOUNDED (3b)

BY EVENT COMBINATION NUMBER 11.

(')

v 11 sc-3' SC-4 FOR SBA ONM. IBA BOWED BY EVENT COMBINATION NUMBER 15. (3b) 15 SD-2a, SD-3a N/A N/A 14 SD-2b, SD-3b N/A N/A 16,18,22 N/A OWDED BY EVENT COMBMATION (3b)

NUMBER 24.

19 N/A OWED BY EENT COMBMATIM (3b)

NUMBER 25.

17,20,23 N/A BOWED BY EENT COMBMATIM NUMBER 26. (3b)

DBA CHUGGING, BOUNDED BY EVENT 21,27 N/A (3b)

COMBINATION NUMBER 15.

24 SD-4b N/A N/A 25 SD-4a N/A N/A FOR CO ONLY, DBA CHUGGING 26 SD-1 BOUNDED BY EVENT COMBINATION (3b)

NUMBER 14.

(m \

! %.)

DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-2.55 g

c o CD t1

<H

$b E?

s o o

& NOTES FOR TABLE 5-2.2-8 (1) Event combination numbers refer to the numbers used in Table 5-2.2-6.

(2) Governing load combinations are listed in Table 5-2.2-10.

m (3) Event combination governing basist i

. a. The governing event combination contains SSE loads which bound OBE loads, us

b. The governing event combination contains more loads while the allowable limits are the same.

3 C

a Table 5-2.2-9

/

C]' GOVERNING LOAD COMBINATIONS - SRV DISCHARGE PIPING LOAD ASME(2)

COMBINATION LOAD COMBINATIONS ( ,5,6) CODE NUMBER EQUATION A-1 P+DW 8 A-2 TEl+THAMl+SSED+TD 10 W A-3 TE2+ THAM 2+SSED +TD 10(3)

A-4a TE2+ THAM 2A+SSED +TD1 10(3)

A-4b TE2+ THAM 2A+0BED +TD1 10(3)

A-5 TEl+ THAM 1A+0BED +TD1 10(3)

B-1 Po+DW+0BE1 9 B-2 Po+DW+RVlA+0AB+QABI 9 B-3 Po+DW+RVlB+QAB+0ABy 9 C-1 Po+fsd+RVlA+QAB+QABy+SSE 7 9

C-2 Po+DW+RVlB+QAB+0ABy+SSE 7 9 C-3 Po+DW+RVlC+QAB+QAB 7+PCHUG+PCHUG y 9 1

C-4 Po+DW+RVlC+QAB+QAB +1CHUG + CHUG y 9 D-1(4) Po+DW+0BE r+CO+CO y 9 D-2a(5) Po+DW+RVlC+0AB+QAB r + [SSE + (PCHUG+PCHUG y ) 2)l/2 9 D-2b ( 5 ) Po+DW+RVlC+QAB+QAB y+0BE +PCHUG+PCHUG 7 7 9 2

D-3a(5) Po+DW+RVlC+QAB+QAB r +[SSE + (CHUG + CHUG y ) 2)l/2 9 D-3b II Po+DW+RVlC+QAB,+QABy+0BE +y CHUG +CHUGI 9 D-4a(5) Po+DW+RVlA+QAB+QAB + [ (SSE r )2+ (PS+PS +VCL) 2 j 1/2 9 7

D-4b(5) Po+DW+RVlA+QAB+QABy +OBEr+PS+PS7 +VCL 9 T-1(7) 1.25P+DWT 8 N-1(8) P +DW+[(OBE7 ) +TSVC ] 9 N-2(8) Po+DW+[(SSE7 ) +TSVC ] 9 L]

DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-2.57

'n'g= g

w c1 kN V- l mM gf NOTES FOR TABLE 5-2.2-9 ao w

oe I

w (1) See Section 5-2.2.1 for definition of individual load.

(2) Equations are defined in Subsection NC-3650 of the ASME Code (Reference 6).

(3) As an alternate, meet Equation 11 of the ASME Code (Reference 6).

(4) For the DBA condition, SRV discharge loads need not be combined with CO and chugging loads.

(5) See Section 5-2.2.3 for combination of dynamic loads.

(6) Only governing load combinations from Table 5-2.2-7 are considered here.

co (7) Hydrostatic test condition. DWTfor all lines shall be with lines full of ' water at 70*F.

(8) See Reference 4 for this load combination.

3 C:

,+

s p g-)

d d \ >

Table 5-2.2-10 WD 0 tc3

<8 GOVERNING LOAD COMBINATIONS - SRV PIPING SUPPORTI

& I

$o" AND SRV OUTLET FLANGES O I 3O O tn LOAD LOAD COMBINATION '

SERVICE COMBINATION PRIMARY SECONDARY LEVEL NUMBER SA-1 DW+ TEl+ THAM 1 A SB-1 DW+OBEr + TEl+TilAMl+0BED+TD B SB-2 DW+0BEy + TE2+TIIAM2+0BED+TD B SB-3 DW+RVIA+0AB+0ABy + TE2+TIIAM2+TD B SB-4 DW+RVlB+0AB+QABI + TE2+T!!AM2+TD B

SC-1 DW+RVlA+0AB+0ABy+SSEy+ TE2+TiiAM2+SSED+TD C

. SC-2 DW+RVlB+0AB+QABy+SSEy + TE2+TIIAM2+SSED+TD C m

SC-3(3) DW+RVlC+0AB+0ABy+PCl10G+PCilUGy + TE2+T!!AM2A+TD1 C SC-4 (3) DW+RVIC+0AB+0ABy+CIIUG+CilUGy+ TE2+TilAM2A+TD1 C SD-1 I4I DW+0 bey +CO+COy + TEl+TIIAM1A+0BED+TD1 D SD- 2 a ( 3, 5) DW+RVIC+0AB+0AB 2 y + [SSE + (PCHUG+PCliUGy) 2)l/2+ TE2+ THAM 2A+ SSED+TD1 D SD-2b( '5) DW+RVIC+0AB+QABy +0BE g+PCIIUG+PCilUGy+ TE2+ THAM 2A+0BED +TD1 D SD-3a(3,5) DW+RVIC+0AB+QABy + [SSE2 + (CIIUG+CilUGy ) 2] 1/2+ TE2+TIIAM2A+SSED+TD1 D SD-3b(3,5) DW+RVIC+0AB+0ABy +0BEy+CilUG+CIIUGr + TE2+T!!AM2A+0BED+TD1 D SD-4 a ( 3,5) ] + TE2+TIIAM2A+SSED+TD1 D DW+RVIA+0AB+0AB+[SSEhRSWS+VCL) y y SD-4b( ,5) DW+RVIA+0AB+QAB y +0BEy +PS+ PSy+VCL + TE2+TilAM2A+0BED+TD1 D ST-1(6) owT A SN-I I7) DW+[(OBEY)2+TSVC l l/2 B SN-2I7) DW+[(SSEy)2+TSVC ]I/ D

N0

<H eI f.o oa NOTES FOR TABLE 5-2.7-10 3o o5 :

w (1) See Section 5-2.2.1 for definition of individual loads.

(2) Only governing load combinations from Table 5-2.2-8 are considered here.

(3) When the combination of SRV discharge loads plus TE2 and THAM 2A is less than the combination of TEl and THAM 1A, the TEl and THAM 1A combination is used.

(4) For the DBA condition, SRV discharge loads need not be combined with CO and chugging loads.

(5) See Section 5-2.2.3 for combination of dynamic loads.

$ (6) Hydrostatic test condition. DWT for all lines shall be with lines full of water at 70*F.

(7) See Reference 4 for this load combination.

3 C:

5-2.2.3 Combination of Dynamic Loads The methods used in the analyses for combining dynamic loads are based on NUREG-0484, Revision 1,

" Methodology for Combining Dynamic Responses" (Reference 7). As described in NUREG-0484, when the time phase relationship between the responses caused by two or more sources of dynamic loading is undefined or random, the peak responses from the individual loads are combined by absolute sum (except for combined SSE and LOCA loads). The peak responses which result from SSE and LOCA loads are combined using the square root of the sum of the squares (SRSS )

technique.

l i

O DET-20-015-5 l Revision 0 5-2.61 l nutggb

5-2.3 Analysis Acceptance Criteria The acceptance criteria defined in NUREG-0661 on which the Fermi 2 SRV piping analysis is based are discussed in Section 1-3. 2. In general, the acceptance criteria follow the rules contained in ASME Code,Section III, Division 1 up to and including the 1977 Summer Addenda for Class 2 piping and piping supports (Reference 6).

The corresponding Service Level limits, allowable stresses and fatigue requirements are also consistent with the requirements of the ASME Code and NUREG-0661.

The acceptance criteria used in the analysis of the SRV piping are summarized in the following paragraphs.

O The SRV piping is analyzed in accordance with the requirements for Class 2 piping systems contained in Subsection NC of the Code. Table 5-2. 3-1 lists the applicable ASME Code equations and stress limits for each of the governing piping load combinations.

The SRV piping supports are analyzed in accordance with requirements for Class 2 piping supports as pro-vided in Subsection NF of the Code. The applicable stress limits for support structures are based on the Service Level assignments listed for 1" A governing DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-2.62 nutggh

i

~

i o i piping support load combinations, as provided in i i

Table 5-2.3-2. The allowable load limits for snubber l

, and strut support components are also provided in the table. ;

i F

The acceptance criteria for the safety relief valve :

outlet flanges are specified in terms of naximum !

allowable moment limits as shown in Table 5-2.3-3. l l

l i

i O :

i 4

i :

i i

i f i !

i t

O i

DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-2.63 nutggh

Table 5-2.3-1 ALLOWABLE STRESSES FOR SRV PIPING ASME CODE ALLOWABLE GOVERNING LOAD STRESS SERVICE STRESS TYPE EQUATION LEVEL LIMIT VALE COMBINATION NUMBER (ksi) NUMBER (1)

PRIMARY 8 A 1.0 S 15.0 A-1, T-1 h

B-1 THROUGH B-3, PRIMARY 9 B 1.2 S 18.0 h N-1 PRIMARY 9 B 1.8 S h 27.0 C-1 THROUGH C-4 D-PRIMARY 9 B 2.4 s h 36.0 D 4b N-2 SECONDARY 10 B 1.0 S a 22.5 A-2 THROUGH A-5 PRIMARY AND 11 B S +S 37.5 (2) h a SECONDARY NOTES:

(1) GOVERNING LOAD COMBINATION NUMBERS ARE LISTED IN TABLE 5-2.2-9.

h (2) SEE ASME SECTION III SUBSECTION NC PARAGRAPH NC-3652.3 (REFERENCE 6) FOR COMBINATION OF LOADS.

O DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-2.64

<x Table 5-2.3-2 U

ALLOWABLE LOADS FOR SRV PIPE SUPPORTS SNUBBERS AND STRUTS GOVERNING LOAD SNUBBER AND SERVICE COMBINATION STRUT ALLOWABLE LEVEL NUMBER (2) LOAD LIMIT (1)

A,B SB-1 THROUGH SB-4' l.0 x RATED LOAD ST-1, SN-1 C SC-1 THROUGH SC-4 1.33 x RATED LOAD N N ~

D SN- 2 l.50 x RATED LOAD j

NOTES:

(1) RATED LOADS FOR SNUBBERS ARE AS FOLLOWS:

PSA-10 = 15 kips PSA-35 = 50 kips

(~)# RATED LOADS FOR STRUTS ARE AS FOLLOWS:

PPC-4 = 18 kips PPC-5 = 23 kips (2) GOVERNING LOAD COMBINATION NUMBERS ARE LISTED IN TABLE 5-2.2-10.

i rN U.

DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-2.65 []({(ggQ }

Table 5-2.3-3 ALLOWABLE MOMENTS FOR SRV OUTLET FLANGES

^ '

GOVERNING LOAD ^

SERVICE COMBINATION LEVEL NUMBER (1) (in-lb)

A SA-1, ST-1 372,000 SB-1 TIIROUGII SB-4, B 745,000 SN-1 SC-1 TilROUGli SC-4, C,D SD-1 TilROUGII SD-4b, 1,095,000 SN-2 NOTE: g (1) GOVERNING LOAD COMBINATION NUMBERS ARE LISTED IN TABLE 5-2.2-10.

I f

9 DET-20-015-5 pd Revision 0 5-2.66

{ 5-2.4 Method of Analysis This section describes the methods of analysis used to evaluate the SRV piping and supports for the effects of the governing loads as presented in Section 5-2.2.1.

The methodology used to develop the structural models of the SRV piping system is presented in Section 5-2.4.1. The methodology used to obtain results for the governing load combinations and to evaluate the analysis results for comparison with the acceptance limits is discussed in Section 5-2.4.2. The procedure O eseo to ex tee retteee errecte e etwe11 sav 911 9 9 is presented in Section 5-2.4.3.

A standard, commercially available piping analysis computer code is used in performing the piping system analyses. The computer code (PISTAR) is based on the well known SAP 4 structural analysis computer program and has been verified using ASME bench mark problems.

PISTAR performs static, modal extraction, response spectrum and dynamic time history analyses of piping systems. It also performs the ASME Section III piping Code evaluation.

t DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-2.67

5-2.4.1 SRV Piping System Structural Modeling llh The structural models used in the analysis of the SRV piping fall into the following three categories:

Drywell SRV piping structural models, Wetwell SRV piping structural model, and Full SRV piping struc-tural model. Since configurations of the SRV piping within the drywell vary considerably, all 15 SRV lines are modeled in the drywell piping analysis. The SRV line configurations in the wetwell are nearly identi-cal, therefore only a single, typical model is considered in the wetwell piping analysis. To determine reaction loads at the vent pipe penetration (VPP), an SRV line including both drywell and wetwell portions is modeled.

The SRV piping systems are modeled as multi-degree of freedom, finite element systems consisting of straight and curved beam elements using a lumped mass formula-tion. A sufficient amount of detail is used to accur-ately represent the dynamic behavior of th e piping systems for the applied loads. Flexibility and stress intensification factors based on the ASME Cod e , Sec-tion III, Class 2 piping requirements are also included in the model formulations.

DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-2.68 nutggj)

-=

A. Drywell SRV Piping Structural Models The 15 drywell lines are analyzed using four separate models, each including a main steam line and from two to five attached SRV lines. The main steam lines are modeled from the reactor pressure vessel (RPV) nozzle to the drywell penetration. The SRV lines attach to the main steam line at the safety relief valves and terminate at the vent pipe penetrations. The main steam and SRV piping systems included in each of the four drywell models are listed in O Teh1e 5-2.4-1. comgeeer 9 1 oee of e regreeenta-tive drywell SRV piping model are presented in Figures 5-2.4-1 through 5-2.4-3.

The 15 identical safety relief valves are modeled as shown in Figure 5-2.4-4. The mass of each valve is lumped at the valve center of gravity.

Also included in the piping models are 15 identi-cal vacuum breakers, one attached to each SRV line. Figure 5-2.4-5 shows the modeling of the vacuum breakers for SRV lines 2586, 2589, 2593, 2594, 2595, 2596, 4093, 4094, 4095 and 4096 and !

DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-2.69

Figure 5-2.4-6 shows the modeling of the vacuum breaker and attached piping for SRV lines 2587, 2588, 2590, 2591 and 2592. The mass of the vac-uum breakers is uniformly distributed along their height.

The drywell models have anchor points at the main steam line connection to the RPV nozzle and at the main steam line penetration to the drywell wall. A 6 x 6 stiffness matrix is modeled at the SRV line connection to the VPP. The matrix simulates the stiffness at the VPP and is derived from the vent system analyses described in Sec-tion 3-2.4.

Truncation of the drywell piping at the VPP has been justified by performing a study to determine the transfer of loads between the wetwell and drywell piping. Due to the high stiffness at the VPP, it was demonstrated that load transfer between the drywell and wetwell piping is negligible. The study was also used to justify truncation of the wetwell SRV piping model described below.

DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-2.70 nutggh

O rigi=9 e#evoree 1#c1=aea i# the arr e11 v191#9 models consist of snubbers, struts, spring hangers and their backup structures. Where required, an element is included to model the offset connection between the supporting member and the centerline of the pipe.

Snubbers are modeled as active in seismic and other dynamic load cases, while struts are active in all load cases. Spring hangers, with appro-priate preloads, are modeled as active in the dead weight load case only. The effects of the-mass of supports and connecting hardware attached to the piping are included in the piping models when the effective support mass attached to the piping exceeds 5% of the mass of both adjacent pipe spans.

Stiffness values at a piping support location are established considering the combined effects of the snubber or strut and its backup supporting structure.

i DET-20-OlS-5 l Revision 0 5-2.71 l nutggb

B. Wetwell SRV Piping Structural Model As shown in Figure 5-2.4-7, a typical wetwell SRV piping system is modeled from the vent pipe pene-tration down to and including the T quencher.

Boundary conditions for the wetwell model consist of the 6x6 stiffness matrix at the VPP des-cribed above, translational stiffness elements representing the supports on the vent line and vent headers, and translational stiffness ele-ments on the quencher arms and ramshead support as derived from the analyses described in Sec-tions 3-2.4 and 5-3.4.

O C. Full SRV Piping Structural Model A model including both the drywell and wetwell piping for a typical SRV line has been utilized for determining reaction loads at the vent pipe penetration (VPP). The full SRV line analysis is utilized to eliminate unnecessary conservatism in the VPP reaction loads which would result from the use of the truncated drywell and wetwell models. The model as shown in Figure 5-2.4-8 includes Main Steam Line C, SRV Line 2588 and DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-2.72 nutggb

I 1

[

O truncated portions of four additional SRV lines attached to the main steam line.

i r

The model and support conditions are in general !

the same as described above for the drywell and j wetwell structural models. The four truncated f

SRV lines are included from the attachment to the main steam line to their first support locations. ;

The effects of the four SRV lines beyond their first support . locations are judged to be negli-gible in terms of reaction loads at the VPP of '

the full SRV line. ,

1 l

i i

i e

O DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-2.73

l I

5-2.4.2 Analysis Methods The mathematical models described in Section 5-2.4.1 are utilized in performing the analyses for the SRV piping, supports, and associated components. The numerous analytical techniques used to determine the piping response to the loads discussed in Section 5-2.2.1 are presented herein.

Dynamic analysis techniques are used to determine system response to the major loads defined by NUREG-0661 acting on the SRV piping. These techniques utilize either response spectra, harmonic or time-history analysis methods, depending on the input loading characteristics. The remaining SRV piping load cases specified in Section 5-2.2.1 are either static loads or dynamic loads, which are examined using an equivalent static approach. Conservative values of dynamic amplification factors are developed and applied to the individual dynamic loads when per-forming equivalent static analyses.

The specific analytical techniques used for each pip-ing model described in Section 5-2.4.1 for each lead as identified in Section 5-2.2.1, are summarized in DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-2.74 nutggj)

Table 5-2.4-2. The analytical techniques used in the SRV piping analyses are described in the following paragraphs:

A. Drywell SRV Piping Analysis The mathematical models of the drywell SRV piping are discussed in Section 5-2.4.1. A represen-tative model used in the drywell piping analysis is shown in Figures 5-2.4-1 through 5-2.4-3. The following analysis methods utilized for each of the four drywell SRV piping models are summarized in Table 5-2.4-2 and are presented herein.

1. Dead Weight Loads

a. Dead Weight (DW) Loads: A static analy-sis is performed for the uniformly dis-tributed and concentrated weight loads applied to the drywell SRV piping system.

b. Dead Weight (DW T) Loads: A static anal-ysis is performed for the dead weight of piping (DW) plus the dead weight of O DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-2.75

water in the piping system during the hydrostatic test condition.

2. Seismic Loads

a. OBE Inertia (OBEY) Loads: A dynamic analysis is performed independently for each of the three orthogonal directions (N-S, E-W and vertical) using the uniform response spectra method. The seismic response spectra curves used in the analysis are presented in Figures 5-2.2-1 through 5-2.2-3. A value of 1/2% critical damping is used in accor-dance with the FSAR. All modes up to 33 hertz are considered in calculating the peak response of the drywell SRV piping system.

b. OBE Displacement (OBED) Loads: A static analysis is performed independently for each of the three orthogonal directions.

The relative anchor displacements at the RPV nozzle and vent pipe penetration DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-2.76 g nutR9h

() provided in Table 5-2.2-2 are considered to be out of phase for conservatism.

c. SSE Inertia (SSEy) Loads: A dynamic analysis is performed independently for each of the three orthogonal directions ucing the uniform response spectra method. The seismic response spectra curves used in the analysis are pre-sented in Figures 5-2.2-4 through 5-2.2-6 A value of 1% critical damping is used in accordanca with the FSAR.

All modes up to 33 hertz are considered in calculating the peak response of the drywell SRV piping system.

d. SSE Displacement (SSED) Loads: A static analysis is performed independently for each of the three orthogonal directions.

The relative anchor displacements at the RPV nozzle and vent pipe penetration provided in Table 5-2.2-2 are considered to be out of phase for conservatism.

3 DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-2.77

O The methodology used to combine modal responses and spatial components in the seismic analysis is defined in NRC Regulatory Guide 1.92, Revision 1,

" Combining Modal Responses and Spatial Components in Seismic Response Analysis," (Reference 8).

The seismic analysis is performed independently for each of the two horizontal directions and for l the vertical direction. The resulting peak l responses obtained for each of the th ree direc- ,

1 tions are combined by SRSS. The individual modal responses are grouped by frequencies (within 10%), and the modal responses within each group are combined by absolute sum. The individual responses of the groups are combined by SRSS.

3. Pressure and Temperature Loads

a. Pressure Loads: The effects of maximum pressure (Pg) and design pressure (P) are evaluated utilizing the techniques described in Subqection NC-3650 of the ASME Code, Section III (Reference 6).

The values of P o and P used in the analysis are listed in Table 5-2.2-3.

DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-2.78 nutg,g])

O

b. Temperature Loads: A static thermal expansion analysis is performed for the SRV piping temperature cases TEl and TE2 as described in Table 5-2.2-3. A static analysis is performed for anchor move-ment at the vent pipe penetrations as described in Section 5-2.2.1. Thermal anchor movements at the RPV nozzle are also considered in the temperature load analyses.

4. Safety Relief Valve Discharge Loads O I

a. SRV Discharge Line Clearing Loads: A ,

dynamic analysis is performed for each :

of the three bounding SRV actuation cases (RVlA, RVlB, RV1C) utilizing the direct integration time-history analysis technique. A time-dependent forcing function is applied on each pipe segment along the pipe axis.

DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-2.79

O In the drywell piping analysis, the forcing functions associated with a single SRV actuation are first applied to each SRV line in the model separate-ly. The peak response at a particular location in one SRV line is then ob-tained by absolute summation of the responses at that location due to actu-ation of the adjacent safety relief valves. Typical drywell SRV piping thrust force time-history plots are shown in Figures 5-2.2-7 and 5-2.2-8 A typical application of the thrust seg-ment forces to an SRV line is shown in Figure 5-2.4-9.

A direct integration time-step of suf-ficiently small size is selected to adequately account for the critical responses of the piping system up to 60 hertz. A value of 1% critical damp-ing is utilized in accordance with NUREG-0661 in determining the appro-priate values of Rayleigh damping DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-2.80 nutggh

) coefficients a and 6 for use in the direct integration process.

The following hydrodynamic loads as discussed in 4

Section 5-2.2.1 are applied directly to the SRV piping in the wetwell:

i 4b SRV T quencher Discharge (OAB) Loads, Sa Pool Swell (PS) Loads, 6a Condensation Oscillation (CO) Loads, 7a Pre-Chugging (PCHUG) Loads, 7b Post-Chugging (CHUG) Loads, 8a Vent Clearing (VCL) Loads.

O As described in Section 5-2.4.1, a study was performed which demonstrated that the transfer of i

l loads acting on the wetwell piping into the dry-4 well piping area is negligible. Therefore, no analysis was performed on the drywell $RV piping for the above wetwell piping loads.

O' DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-2.81

9. Vent System and Torus Interaction Loads $

a. Vent System Interaction Loads:

The vent system interaction loads are evalu-ated using either static, equivalent static or dynamic analyses and are derived from the vent system analysis described in Section 3-2.0.

A static analysis is performed on the dry-well SRV piping for the vent pipe penetra-tion displacements due to TD and TD1 loads which are described in Section 5-2.2.1. An h equivalent static analysis is performed on the drywell SRV piping for the vent pipe penetration displacements due to the QAB1, PC110G 1, CliUGy , and CO I loads which are described in Section 5-2.2.1.

A rigorous dynamic analysis is performed on the drywell SRV piping for the pool swell interaction (PSy) loads described in Section 5-2.2.1. The direct integration time-history analysis technique is utilized.

DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-2.82 nutech

p

( Response at the VPP due to pool swell loads is taken from the vent system analysis pre-sented in Section 3-2.0. A time-step of suf ficiently small size is selected to ade-quately account for the critical responses of the piping system up to 60 hertz. A value of 2% critical damping is utilized in accordance with NUREG-0661 in determining the appropriate values of Rayleigh damping coefficients a and 8 for use in the direct integration process.

b. Torus Interaction Loads:

O The torus interaction loads transferred into the drywell SRV piping through the vent line system and through the wetwell SRV piping have been determined to be negligible.

10. Turbine Stop Valve Closure (TSVC) Loads Based on previous evaluations of main steam line and SRV piping for Fermi 2, it has been demon-strated that the SRV piping system response due to load combinations including TSVC are ade-O DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-2.83 nutggb

quately bounued by load combinations including h SRV discharge, although higher allowables are considered for the SRV combinations in some cases.

B. Wetwell SRV Piping Analysis The mathematical model of the wetwell SRV piping is discussed in Section 5-2.4.1, and is shown in Figure 5-2.4-7. The methods used in analyzing the wetwell SRV piping for DW (la), DWT (lb), and pressure ( 3a ) loads are the same as those used in the drywell SRV piping analysis described above, The following analysis methods are utilized in h evaluating the wetwell SRV piping for additional loads as summarized in Table 5-2.4-2.

4. Safety Relief Valve Discharge Loads

a. SRV Discharge Line Thrust Loads: A dynamic analysis is performed for each of the three bounding SRV actuation cases (RVlA, RVlP, and RVlC) utilizing the direct integration time-history analysis technique. A time-dependent DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-2.84 nutggh

\

forcing function is applied on each pipe i segment along the pipe axis. Typical wetwell SRV thrust force time-history plots are shown in Figures 5-2.2-8 and 5-2.2-9. A typical application of the thrust segment forces to an SRV line is shown in Figure 5-2.4-9. ,

A direct integration time-step of suffi-ciently small size is selected to ade- ,

quately account for the responses of the piping system up to 60 hertz. A damping value of 1% of critical is utilized in accordance with NUREG-0661 to determine the appropriate values of Rayleigh damp-ing coef ficients a and 8 for use in the direct integration process.

i The analysis methods utilized on the wetwell SRV piping for the following loads are described in Section 5-3.0.

l 2a OBE Inertia (OBEY) Loads 2b OBE Displacement (OBED) Loads 2c SSE Inertia (SSEy) Loads 2d SSE Displacement (SSED) Loads

! O' DET-20-015-5 ,

Revision 0 5-2.85 i l

l

3b Temperature Loads llI 4b SRV T quencher Discharge Loads (OAB)

Sa Pool Swell (PS) Loads 6a Condensation Oscillation (CO) Loads 7a Pre-Chugging (PCHUG) Drag Loads 7b Post-Chugging (CHUG) Drag Loads 8a Vent Clearing Loads (VCL) 9a Vent System Interaction Loads 9b Torus Interaction Loads In order to determine piping stress levels in the wetwell SRV piping, the results obtained from the analyses described in Sec-tion 5-3. 0 are combined with the results from the analysis performed for DW, DWT' pressure, and SRV discharge line thrust loads to evaluate for the load combinations presented in Table 5-2.2-9.

10 Turbine Stop Valve Closure (TSVC) Loads l

As described in the drywell SRV piping anal-l

ysis, loading combinations including TSVC l

loads are adequately bounded by load combi-DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-2.86 lll nutggb

O nations inc1udine sefeer re11ef va1 e l discharge.

The analysis of the wetwell SRV piping supports on the vent line and vent header is performed as part of the vent system evaluation described in Volume 3 of this report. Resultant stresses in the supports are provided in Section 5-2.5.

C. Full SRV Piping Analysis The mathematical model used in evaluating a full SRV discharge line is discussed in Section 5-2.4.1, and is presented in Figure 5-2.4-8. The full SRV piping model is utilized only in deter-mining the VPP reactions resulting from the SRV discharge line thrust loads. The analysis method used for applying the SRV discharge line thrust loads is consistent with that described in the preceding paragraphs for the drywell and wetwell SRV piping analyses.

< The reaction loads derived from the analysis are applied to the detailed analysis of the VPP described in Section 3-3.0.

O DET-20-015-5 l Revision 0 5-2.87

Table 5-2.4-1 lll DRYWELL SRV PIPING STRUCTURAL MODELS MODEL MAIN STEAM SRV NUMBER LINE LINES 2586 1 A 4093 4094 2596 2595 2 B 2593 2594 2587 2590 2592 3 C 2591 2589 2588 D

4095 4

4096 ggg O

DET-20-015-5 g Revision 0 5-2.88

- Table S-2.4-2 I i ANALYSIS METHODS - SRV DISCHARGE PIPING CA DRYWELL SRV WETWELL SRV FULL SRV LOAD g ,g g p PIPING MODEL PIPING MODEL PIPING MODEL(4)

DW 1a STATIC STATIC N/A DW T lb STATIC STATIC N/A OBE g 2a RESPONSE SPECTRUM (3) N/A OBE D 2b STATIC (3) N/A SSE g 2e RESPONSE SPECTRUM (3) N/A SSE D 2d STATIC (3) N/A P

o 3a (1) (1) N/A P 3a (1) (1) N/A TEl 3b STATIC (3) N/A TE2 3b STATIC (3) N/A THAM 1 3b STATIC (3) N/A THAM 2 3b STATIC (3) N/A THAM 1A 3b STATIC (3) N/A THAM 2A 3b STATIC (3) N/A RVIA 4a FORCE TIME-HISTORY FORCE TIME-HISTORY FORCE TIME-HISTORY RVlB 4a FORCE TIME-HISTORY FORCE TIME-HISTORY FORCE TIME-HISTORY RVIC 4a FORCE TIME-HISTORY FORCE TIME-HISTORY FORCE TIME-HIJTORY QAB 4b (2) (3) N/A

(] PS Sa (2) (3) N/A C/ CO 6a (2) (3) N/A PCHUG 7a (2) (3) N/A CHUG 7b (2) (3) N/A VCL Sa (2) (3) N/A TD 9a, 9b STATIC (3) N/A 701 9a, 9b STATIC (3) N/A QABy 9a, 9b EQUIVALENT STATIC (3) N/A PS g 9a, 9b DIbP y g g. TIME- (3) N/A PCHUG 7 9a, 9b EQUIVALENT STATIC (3) N/A CHUG; 9a, 9b EQUIVALENT STATIC (3) N/A C0 7 9a, 9b EQUIVALENT STATIC (3) N/A NOTES:

(1) THE EFFECTS OF INTERNAL PRESSURE ARE EVALUATED UTILIZING THE TECHNIQUES DESCRIBED IN SUBPARAGRAPH NC-3650 OF THE ASME CODE, SECTION III (REFERENCE 6).

(2) NO ANALYSIS IS PERFORMED FOR THIS LOADING SINCE THE LOAD TRANSFER FROM THE WETWELL PIPING TO THE DRYWELL PIPING THROUGH THE VPP IS NEGLIGIBLE (REFER TO SECTION 5-2.4-1).

(3) A DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE ANALYSIS METHOD USED TOR THIS LOADING IS PRESrNTED IN SEC ? ION 5-3.4 .

(4) THIS MODEL IS USED TO CALCULATE THC TOTAL REACTIONS AT THE VPP RE-SULTING FROM LOADS IN CATEGORY 4a, SRV DISCHARGE LINE CLEARING LOADS.

t O >

V DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-2.89

tarv NezztE Y m)D Z

5D 100 COORDINATE SYSTEM < 120

\ xDt LEGEND: ,33, O HANGER

-15D C - SNUBBER ssD2 17D N STIFFNESS ELEMENT sRV LINE 4096 CONTINLT.D ON ssD2 O SUPPORT I.D. ricumE 5-2.4-3 sWV LINE 4095 CONTINUED ON e NODE I.D. rIcumE 5-2.4-2 I GUIDE j H

7 sD2)

SOD i'700 350 50D

<,75D HD2

>800 NsvD nsvDt 1*o (DRYwtLL PENETRATION) MAIN STEAM iso!ATION VALVE i

I l

l l

Figure 5-2.4-1 MAIN STEAM LINE D STRUCTURAL MODEL l 9

DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-2.90 gd

VAcut.w mREAT.ER V2110 l

SAFETY RELIEF c03 V8L VALVE AV114 g

V201

" 26' MAIN STEAM y

joL# 7 15WL LINE D CONTINUED ca rIct:aE 5-2.4 1 2x 40L # j $03L b 25L x z ' 5"

>60L coe COORDINATE SYSTEM c07 cost 90L 100L 110L

' '8C3 LEGEND:

115L.

G08 '12cL c05 Q HANGER co1L 'last C - SNUBBER 130L % , ,

'135L N STIFFNESS ELEMENT '

col

>G04L 140L

'150L Q SUPPORT I.D. coe 155L e NCDE I.D. 157L j STRUT l'"

165L 170L 175L 180L 185L 187L 190L 210L

@ >VPFL Figure 5-2,4-2 l SRV LINE 4095 STRUCTURAL MODEL l ^\

\

DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-2.91 gg

v2111 O

VACWM BRIAKER V2111 ,

20K C04 SM m R W EF VALVE PV115 J V207, 45K g 04K 3K 26" MAIN STEAM LINE D GO3K .40K 15K ,, SW40D CCWIM ON FITRE

,,4 7x j 5-2.4-1 m1011K u 400 G11 cK9 e<

X z 1K COORDINATE SYSTEM G07K G07 90K' 5 92K' '

LEGEND:

93Ki '

G10

@ HANGER toog 95Ki M"3- SNUBBER tt x GK506 W STIFFNESS ELEMENT 115K I O SureORT 1.D. O, .

Gol 125K e NODE I.D. 127r 130r 135r 140K 145K 147K 150K 153K 155K 160K 170K<p VPPK1 Figure 5-2.4-3 SRV LINE 4096 STRUCTURAL MODEL DET-20-015-5 MUI Revision 0 5-2.92

O 10 1/2" ,

_5 3/8" I I

_ 10" SRV LINE ( 6 / 1174n N

0 ^

C.G. l ' - 2 1/ 8 "

J L r -

3 d

- ~

l ' - 3 1/ 2 "

+ s f 8 1._4n 26" MAIN k V STEAM LINE f } ~ 1r J

NODE LOCATION (TYP) l l

l l

l Figure 5-2.4-4 SAFETY RELIEF VALVE STRUCTURAL MODEL DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-2.93 Qd

i e

t I

a i i l'-7" V N /

/ \ e T

^

k / ' -

F) b b )

- ( 10" OR 12" SRV LINE W ;

NODE LOCATION (TYP)

Figure 5-2.4-5 VACUUM BREAKER STRUCTURAL MODEL FOR SRV LINES 2586, 2589, 2593, 2594, 2595, 2596, 4093, 4094, 4095, 4096 h DET-20-015-5 NUg Revision 0 5-2.94

q10" OR 12" SRV LINE I

C I I l l'-7"

\ / y

/

O <

NODE LOCATION (TYP)

U C I

Figure 5-2.4-6 VACUUM BREAKER STRUCTURAL MODEL FOR SRV LINES 2587, 2588, 2590, 2591, 2592

)

DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-2.95 NN

VENT PIPE PENETRATION (6-WAY RESTRAINT)

VPPK o 300K G315K 4 VENT HEADER SUPPORT 11 U VENT LINE SUPPORT (2-WAY RESTRAINT) 317K (1-WAY RESTRAINT) 320K 330K G335K 337K 340K Y

350Ko o 351K h X

u_12 0352K

" 355K COORDINATE SYSTEM ITQK' o360K 3TQK o370K 6TOK TOK T-QUENCHER SUPPORT (TYP) 9TQK RAMSHEAD SUPPORT "u (2-WAY RESTAINT)

(6-WAY RESTRAINT) 'TQKK 12TQK t

15TOK Figure 5-2.4-7 TYPICAL WETWELL SRV LINE STRUCTURAL MODEL g DET-20-015-5 g Revision 0 5-2.96

sArm ar_:rr vu.vr avio3 s/ y 50 loQ}

\ Q Z

150, 3;3 swooc cas P --

X ,coso 26 marn stru 2% unc COORDINATE SYSTEM co4o 25g LEGEND:

co3g Q liANGER og2 1 '

co3gt O SNUBBER at m

320 vacss W ' STIFFNESS ELEMENT cea 35wo<

"I Q SUPPORT I.D. 'M f

NODE I.D. og sso 60 6m 65Q T oQ' i G315 vyrg @

340Q 3000 G335g c315g 1s

. .n sa 33N 3600 1m ; f"%

m 5' /

m L Figure 5-2.4-8 g

'ul FULL SRV PIPING STRUCTURAL MODEL DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-2.97 nutggh

V11 JL D4 1AFETT BELIEF VALyt r/115 05 jbD6 i n 26* MAIM STEAM J LDfE D g

\D7 D8 d, ,

, 9010 THRUST LOAD APPLICATION (TYP)

D11 j i O

SRV LINE 4096 012 \

D1b '

j LDie(wU o

k-7 , y r

/

Figure 5-2.4-9 TYPICAL APPLICATION OF SRV DISCHARGE THRUST LOADS DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-2.98

O 5-2.4. 2 Faeisee eva1uation The analysis procedure utilized in performing the fatigue evaluation for the Fermi 2 wetwell SRV piping is described in the following paragraphs.

Due to the similarity of SRV line routings in the wetwell, only a single typical line is considered in ,

the evaluation. The fatigue evaluation is performed for an SRV line with the maximum resultant stresses and the maximum postulated number of SRV actuations, i.e., a line with the lowest SRV setpoint pressure.

The governing cumulative fatigue usage factor is O determined by ce1cu1eeine feeieee ueeee separaeeir for two postulated event sequences during the plant life: 1) NOC with DBA and 2) NOC with IBA/SBA. For each event sequence several possible loading combinations may occur.

The first step involved in the fatigue evaluation is to determine the effective number of maximum stress cycles (nk) for each of the possible loading combina-tions. The number of stress cycles for individual loads are first determined as follows.

D l DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-2.99 l nutgeb l

The cyclic loads considered for fatigue may be grouped h into four major categories: seismic, accident, SRV discharge and thermal. The number of stress cycles for these loads are determined based on the following parameters which apply for the Fermi 2 plant:

a) Five operating basis earthquakes (OBE) and one safe shutdown earthquake (SSE).

Each earthquake load contains ten (10) signifi-cant stress cycles.

b) One accident condition -

either Design Basis Accident (DBA), Intermediate Break Accident (IBA) or Small Break Accident (SBA). Significant stress cycles for each accident loading are determined by multiplying the characteristic fre-quency by the loading time, as provided below:

CO loading during DBA condition: The maxi-mum characteristic frequency (fmax) is 30 hertz and total time of loading is 30 seconds.

Pre-chugging (PCHUG) loading during DBA condition: The maximum characteristic fre-quency (fmax) is 9.5 hertz and total time of loading is 10.7 seconds.

4 DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-2.100 nutggh

Pre-chugging (PCHUG) loading during IBA/SBA condition: The maximum characteristic fre-quency (f,,x) is 9.5 hertz and total time of loading is 320 seconds.

Post-chugging (CHUG) loading during DBA condition: The maximum characteristic fre-quency (fmax) is 30 hertz and total time of loading is 10.7 seconds.

Post-chugging (CHUG) loading during SBA/IBA condition: The maximum characteristic fre-quency (fmax) is 30 hertz and total time of loading is 320 seconds.

c. For the critical SRV line, 2814 SRV actuations are postulated: ten actuations during accident (SBA/IBA) conditions and 2804 actuations during normal operating conditions. Each SRV actuation contains 15 significant stress cycles and one significant thermal cycle.

The limiting fatigue load history for the SRV wetwell piping is summarized in Table 5-2.4-3.

The effective number of maximum stress cycles is calculated for each load by multiplying the actual O

' O DET-20-015-5 I Revision 0 5-2.101 nutggb

number of stress cycles for the load by a maximum h stress cycle factor (R). The R factors are determined considering piping system frequency, loading random phase angles and loading time-history data. Table 5-2.4-4 provides the R factors used for determining the effective number of stress cycles for CO, chugging and SRV discharge loads.

After determining the effective number of maximum stress cycles for individual loads, the effective number of maximum stress cycles (nk) is calculated for each of the loading combinations for the two postu-lated event sequences (NOC with DBA and NOC with IBA/SBA).

The second step involved in performing the fatigue evaluation is to determine the maximum resultant stresses for each of the loads from the piping anal-yses. The structural model of the wetwell SRV piping described in Section 5-2.4.1 is used to generate resultant piping stresses due to dead weight, pressure and SRV discharge thrust loads for both normal and accident SRV discharge conditions. The structural model of the wetwell SRV piping described in Section 5- 3. 4 is used to determine the resultant piping DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-2.102 nutggb

stresses due to thermal expansiora, thermal anchor movement, seismic'(OBE and SSE), CO, pre-chugging, and post-chugging loads for each DBA, IBA/SBA and Normal Operating condition.

The total alternating stress (Sa) due to all loads in a combination is determined next. The alternating stress due to dynamic loads is first determined and then combined with stresses due to deadweight, thermal and pressure loads using a formulation similar to I

Equation 11 of ASME Section III, Subsection NC (Reference 6). In this manner, a total alternating stress (Sa) is calculated for each of the loading combinations.

The third step in performing the fatigue evaluation involves determining the allowable number of stress cycles (Nk) for each loading combination. Nk is cal-culated using Mark 1's fatigue equation and the total alternating stress (S,) previously determined as j follows:

l l 245 N ( }

k S a

l r

U DET-20-015-5 -

Revision 0 5-2.103 nutagh

The final calculations of fatigue usage factors for h each loading combination are performed by dividing the effective number of maximum stress cycles by the allowable number of stress cycles, i.e., nk/Nk. The summation of usage factors for all the potential loading combinations which can occur during the plant life for the two postulated event sequences results in the maximum cumulative usage factor presented in Section 5-2.5.

O DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-2.104 nutggh

Table 5-2.4-3

( LIMITING FATIGUE LOAD HISTORIES -

FOR WETWELL SRV PIPING STRESS CYCLES FOR CYCLIC STRESS CYCLES EVENT SEQUENCE LOADING PER LOADING NOC + DBA NOC + IBA/SBA TilERMAL 1 1 1 (ACCIDENT CONDITION)

Pa 1 1 1 OBE 10 50 50 SSE 10 10 10 CO 900 900 N/A PCilUG 102 FOR DBA 102 3040 FOR IBA/SBA 3040 CilUG 321 FOR DBA 321 9600 FOR IBA/SBA 9600 RVlC 15 N/A 150 RVlA/RVlB 15 42060 42060 TilERMAL (NOC W/SRV 1 2804 2804 ACTUATION)

O DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-2.105 gyg

Table 5-2.4-4 MAXIMUM STRESS CYCLE FACTORS FOR SRV PIPING LOADS FACTOR (R)

CO 0.1 CHUG 0.1 PCHUG 1.0 SRV(1) 0.3 NOTE:

(1) SAFETY RELIEF VALVE DISCHARGE LOADS O

l I

DET-20-015-5 l

Revision 0 5-2.106 nutggh i

r 5.2.5 Analysis Results The analytical results for the SRV piping evaluation are summarized in this section.

The maximum piping stresses resulting from governing load combinations for highly stressed locations on each SRV line, (both dc7well and wetwell), are pre-sented in Table 5-2.5-1. The maximum stresses for each Service Level are listed along with the associ-ated Cod.' equations, and allowable stress values.

The maximum snubber reaction loads for the governing load combinations are contained in Table 5-2.5-2.

Maximum loads are presented for two snubber ratings, (50 kip and 15 kip), for each SRV line and are grouped 4

by Service Levels with appropriate allowables.

Table 5-2.5-3 lists maximum resultant loads in the rigid struts. Strut loads are provided for each Service Level, and strut ratings are provided. '

The maximum resultant moments at each of the 15 SRV '

outlet flanges are presented in Table 5-2.5-4. The ;

maximum moments are listed for each Service Level, l 1

along.with the allowable flange moments.

DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-2.107 O !

O The maximum resultant stresses in the wetwell SRV piping supports on the vent line and vent header are provided in Table 5-2.5-5. The maximum stresses are provided for each Service Level, along with the associated allowable stress values.

Patigue evaluations for the SRV piping are performed based on the procedure described in Section 5-2.4.3.

The resultant maximum cumulative fatigue usage factor for both the NOC plus DBA and the NOC plus IBA/SBA condition is 0.12 and occurs at the SRV piping adjacent to the vent pipe penetration (VPP). The maximum cumulative usage factor is well within the h

acceptable fatigue usage limit of 1.0.

In summary, the results show that the design of the SRV piping system is adequate for the loads, load combinations and acceptance criteria limits specified in NUREG-0661 (Reference 1) and PUAAG (Reference 5).

The analysis results for the SRV vent pipe penetration (VPP) are provided in Section 3-2.5.

DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-2.108 nutggh

Table 5-2.5-1 r~'% ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR SRV PIPING STRESS U

SRV LINE LEVEL C LEVEL D TEST SECON-LEVEL A LEVEL B DARY NUMBER / (ksi) (ksi) (ksi) (ksi) (ksi)

(ksi)

LOCATION 2586/DW 3.91 9.70 18.20 18.90 5.70 7.73 4093/DW 4.14 13.70 18.50 18.90 6.80 5.24 4094/DW 5.44 9.80 14.20 17.10 8.50 6.57 2596/DW 4.64 15.95 20.57 20.17 7.38 7.51 2595/DW 4.75 16.97 22.33 22.38 8.07 7.82 2593/DW 4.04 8.87 15.04 16.26 7.18 5.33 2594/DW 4.31 11.96 16.55 18.70 6.18 4.86 2587/DW 5.74 16.32 24.80 25.69 9.08 5.56 O 2590/DW 5.ee 14.02 20.2e 23.01 7.e1 e.77 2592/DW 4.16 16.05 22.06 23.14 5.79 7.43 2591/DW 5.70 12.14 17.29 17.96 9.06 6.43 2589/DW 3.82 12.46 19.41 20.76 6.38 7.02 2588/DW 3.98 11.82 13.57 16.44 6.65 8.47 4096/DW 3.72 12.90 16.50 17.50 6.83 8.61 4095/DW 3.56 13.40 16.70 16.00 4.83 10.46 ALL LINES /WW 4.00 13.30 16.50 27 90 5.00 21.30 ASME CODE EQUATION 8 9 9 9 8 10 ALLOWABLE 15.0 18.0 27.0 36.0 15.0 22.5 STRESS (ksi) p]

L DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-2.109 gg

Table 5-2.5-2 ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR SRV PIPING SNUBBER LOADS llh SRV RATING LEVEL B LEVEL C LEVEL D ps) (kips) (kips) (kips)

NUMB R 2586 15 10.6 15.8 17.4 2586 50 21.7 35.8 38.1 4093 15 11.6 18.8 19.5 4093 50 18.3 24.6 28.3 4094 15 10.2 19.2 21.9 4094 50 13.1 19.3 20.9 2596 15 13.2 17.2 15.5 2596 50 21.0 30.8 31.9 h 2595 15 11.8 15.1 17.1 2595 50 19.0 22.6 26.2 2593 15 8.4 13.3 14.0 2593 50 25.8 32.4 34.2 2594 15 12.0 17.7 19.4 2594 50 18.4 25.5 26.4 ALLOWABLE LOAD 1.0 x 1.33 x 1.5 x (kips) RATING RATING RATING G

DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 ns.

5-2.110 IIM

Table 5-2.5-2 ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR SRV PIPING SNUBBER LOADS v (concluded) 3 RATING LEVEL B LEVEL C LEVEL D (kips) (kips)

NU B R (kips) g (kips) 2587 15 8.5 13.4 13.9 2587 50 27.6 30.1 30.7 2590 15 10.1 17.0 18.3 2590 50 25.1 33.6 34.5 2592 15 8.2 11.5 13.3 2592 50 23.8 34.6 35.2 2591 15 11.5 15.6 18.0 2591 50 25.3 30.1 32.4 2589 15 10.7 14.8 17.9 2589 50 19.6 27.9 29.9 2588 15 8.1 11.8 13.0 2588 50 20.0 27.9 32.0 l

l 4096 15 10.6 14.0 .13.9 i

! 4096 50 20.4 27.2 29.3 4095 15 12.1 16.4 17.30 ALLOWABLE LOAD 1.0 x 1.33 x 1.5 x.

(kips) RATING RATING RATING O

DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-2.111 gd

Table 5-2.5-3 g ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR SRV PIPING STRUT LOADS STRUT RATING LEVEL A LEVEL B LEVEL C LEVEL D IDENTIFICATION (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips)

B21-4093-G02 23.0 4.1 12.1 18.2 19.6 B21-2587-G09 (1) 3.9 8.2 10.1 11.7 B21-2590-Gil (1) 3.9 10.1 13.4 13.9 B21-2592-G09 (1) 5.5 17.7 21.7 22.7 B21-4095-G06 23.0 4.3 17.4 26.5 27.6 ALLOWABLE LOAD (kips) hNG h NG hG hG NOTE:

O (1) NON-STANDARD STRUT, DESIGNED TO MEET THE LOADS GIVEN IN THIS TABLE.

O DET-20-015-5 QU{

Revision 0 5-2.112

Table 5-2.5-4 (D

C/ ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR SRV OUTLET FLANGE MOMENTS SRV LEVEL A LEVEL B LEVEL C LEVEL D LINE NUMBER (kip-in) (kip-in) (kip-in) (kip-in) 2586 115.6 314.0 568.2 574.8 4093 47.2 414.8 593.4 596.1 4094 162.4 256.5 339.1 385.8 2596 173.5 539.9 712.1 688.7 2595 171.5 624.3 813.8 808.3 2593 98.0 298.3 516.5 551.7 2594 100.1 367.7 545.2 535.0 2587 157.4 405.9 603.2 618.3 2590 167.7 425.3 742.6 781.4 2592 134.9 578.0 788.9 801.1 2591 123.8 354.6 496.1 510.8 2589 186.6 268.8 372.4 474.4 2588 220.3 315.6 420.0 510.9 4096 74.5 232.5 357.7 340.3 4095 201.1 355.4 606.5 574.4 ALLOWABLE MOMENT- 372.0 745.0 1095.0 1095.0 (kip-in) r^

()%

DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-2.113 Qd

Table 5-2.5-5 ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR WETWELL SRV PIPING SUPPORT STRESS Level B Level C Level D ress Allow.

Item Calc. Allow. Calc. Allow. Calc.

Type (ksi) (ksi) (ksi) (ksi) (ksi) (ksi)

Membrane 4.82 17.50 6.99 21.00 8.22 26.25 Vent Line Support Membrane

+ 4.82 26.25 7.00 31.50 9.36 39.38 Bending vent Membrane 0.84 20.00 1.05 24.00 1.09 30.00 lll Header Support Membrane

+ 2.98 30.00 3.73 36.00 3.82 45.00 Bendino ,

I

}

l l

l t

DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-2.114 [](f(gQl}

O 5-3.0 oue caea ino cuencaea SueroRTS xxitTS1S An evaluation of each of the NUREG-0661 requirements which affect- the design adequacy of the Fermi 2 T-quencher and T quencher supports is presented in the following sectionc. The general criteria used in this evaluation are contained in Volume 1 of this report.

The component parts of the T-quencher and supports which are examined are described in Section 5-3.1.

The loads and load combinations for which the T quencher and supports are examined are described and presented in Section 5-3.2. The analysis methodology used to evaluate the effects of the loads and load combinations on the T-quencher and supports is dis-cussed in Section 5-3.4. The acceptance limits to which the analysis results are compared are discussed and presented in Section 5-3. 3. The analysis results and the corresponding design margins are presented in Section 5-3.5.

DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-3.1

5-3.1 Component Description h The SRV discharge T-quenchers provided for Fermi 2 are similar in configuration but larger in diameter than the standard Mark I T quenchers. There are a total of 15 T-quenchers with ramsheads which are centered on the suppression chamber ring beams, as shown in Figure 5-3.1-1. Each T-quencher consists of a rams-head assembly and two quencher arms located 5'0" above the suppression chamber shell. The arms of the T-quenchers are aligned with the longitudinal axes of the suppression chamber mitered segments, as shown in Figure 5-3.1-2.

O The quencher arms are constructed from 20" diameter Schedule 80, stainless steel pipes, which are capped on the ends. The 0. 391" diameter holes drilled in the quencher arms are arranged as shown in Figure 5-3.1-3.

The T quenchers provide an effective means of mitigat-ing air clearing loads during an SRV discharge.

I The 12" diameter SRV piping is connected to the T-quencher ramsheads at the suppression chamber ring beams. A 12" x 20" reducer is used to connect the SRV piping to the ramshead assembly, as shown in Figure l

DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5- 3. 2 nutggh

5-3.1-2. A typical ramshead assembly is constructed from 20" diameter short radius elbows, reinforced with a 1-1/2" thick crotch plate and a 2" thick saddle plate, as shown in Figure 5-3.1-5. The ramshead assembly is supported at the mitered joint by a 20" diameter support pipe which is attached to a pedestal on the suppression chamber ring beam.

The quencher arms are supported vertically by a built-up T-section support beam, which extends longitudinally from mitered joint to mitered joint and is attached to the suppression chamber shell. Each T-quencher arm is connected to the vertical support beam by pinned-end vertical support members located near the end of the arm, as shown in Figures 5-3.1-4 and 5- 3.1- 6.

The quencher arms are supported horizontally by a beam constructed from 20" diameter pipe. The pipe beam is located approximately 6'-4" inside the vertical centerline of the suppression chamber at the same elevation as the quencher arm, and is supported by

ring plate supports at each suppression chamber ring l

beam as shown in Figure 5-3.1-7. The lateral quencher support beams are permitted to slide longitudinally at !

(3 DET-20-015-5 !

Revision 0 5-3.3 l nutggh i l

l

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ )

the ring plate supports. The plates therefore h transfer only in plane loads to the ring beams.

The T quencher arms are connected to the lateral quen-cher support beam with 6" diameter pinned-end lateral support members as shown in Figure 5- 3.1- 4 . The vertical and horizontal support members are attached to 1-1/2" thick ring plates located on the quencher arms and on the lateral quencher support beams, as shown in Figure 5-3.1-6.

The T quencher support system provides an effective means of transferring thrust loads and submerged structure loads acting on the T quenchers to the sup-pression chamber. The T quencher support system also permits thermal expansion of the quencher arms to occur during an SRV discharge.

DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5- 3. 4 nutggh

00

- I

~

( SUPPRESSION CHAMBER MITERED JOINT

~

xs

\ l .

/ ~

l

/

\

a

% #f 270 -h- ,

900

.f._. ..q.

x; '

56'-3" '

/

I \t -

LATEPE SUPPORT BEAM SUPPRESSION SRV DISCHARGE CHAMBER l T-QUENCHER CENTERLINE 180 DEVICE l PLAN VIEW l

l l

l Figure 5-3.1-1 Q

o T-QUENCHER AND T-QUENCHER SUPPORT LOCATIONS DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-3.5 N0

f' O

& TO C_ CONTAINMENT VENT

-n

'1 A VENT '

/

1 HEADER g \

l / , s

s. -

j,p , '

24 05640" b

F1

- '/

i i i SRV

( _ ) PIPE EL.557'-9" HIGH._ -

_ _[ _

g,- _ _ _ _

-- '=

NWL LATERAL k T-QUENCHER g 12"x20" 1

( SUPPORT P E DUCE RAMSHEAD T-QUENCHER SUPPRESSION CHAMBER SHELL VERTICAL T-QUENCHER" -

I SUPPORT BEAM EL.540'-0"

.~

' 'i . f. - t. . ..'~,\**.,'.*.

Figure 5-3.1-2 SUPPRESSION CHAMBER SECTION h DET-20-015-5 g{

Revision 0 5-3.6

I row, N !! pous 3 mmts 3 pows 20 peoLEs/

2 peoLES/ pow 3 notzs/ 20 stoles / auw pow now I"

eTvescaL s nous _6 pows 7 sous _6 mows 2 nows DoW SPaC388G) 3 pole 5s 4 noLES/ 0 teoLEs/ 20 leoLES/ 20 holes /

mow muw now now now l

g T+Emme ,,,,,,,,,

's s a u u a i

,gg g gg gg llllll _

Aan e Ii l l l l l l l3lll l

99,44" (CENTERLINE LENGTH) 9.0" ELEVATION VIEW O

T-QUENCEER t

l 2 TO 20 NOLES 0.391*d E( M SPACED BACE s!DE AT 3.36 9 noott.

i. a. To . > . ... -}- -t

-\ ..E I

SECTION THROUGH T-QUENCHER ARM 4

Figure 5-3.1-3 j T-QUENCHER ARM HOLE PATTERN I

j- DET-20-015-5 n Revision 0 5-3.7

RING BEAM RING PLATE SUPPORT O

T HER b C SUPPORT BEAM I l h ,

4y 1D ,

'N j !.

f, /

, ; i LATERAL 4S.] D \

/ SUPPORT MEMBER l'

\$

~

/~ l A A B B C L

MITERED ] , ,

JOINT PLAN VIEW RAMSHEAD '" /SRVPIPE REDUCER

~~

T-QUENCHER ARM RAMSHEAD PEDESTAL SUPPORT I

r I 15 i

(

l-Al /

,l _ VERTICAL

, ] 8

[/ i SUPPORT MEMBER t I i _i ,

_ _ _ . _ . _ . __i_ . _ _ _ _

e i

SUPPRESSION VERTICAL T-QUENCHER CHAMBER SHELL SUPPORT BEAM VIEW A-A Figure 5-3.1-4 T-0UENCIIER AND T-OUENCHER SUPPORTS DET-04-028-5 Revision 0 5-3.8 N0

C.SRV PIPE I

C# 12" x 20" CONCENTRIC REDUCER 2" THICK / RAMSHEAD SADDLE PLATE f 1 1/2" THICK ,

STIFFENER 4 PLATE j

O 't . /'

t-

) -( T-QUENCHE L f h______b _

l l I i

l '

. l ,

-20" 5 SCH 120 5 ' - 0 ,,

a RAMSHEAD l __ ,

SUPPORT PIPE j ll y v - ~ -2" THICK PEDESTAL PLATE SUPPRESSION 1'-11"_ _ l'-11"_ 1 1/2" THICK CHAMBER

- ~ ~

SIDE PLATE SHELL VIEW B-B Figure 5-3.1-5 i DETAIL OF RAMSHEAD AND SUPPORT SYSTEM (G

DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-3.9 0

O 1 1/2" TIIICK T-QUENCilER SUPPORT

' 6'-4,,

' RING PLATE 6" Scil 120

20" SCH 120 IIORIZONTAL SUPPORT LATERAL MEMBER SUPPORT T-QUENCIIER _ g h

Q g'- "

-(

2'-10" .J 2" TIIICK PLATES

' VERTICAL T-QUENCIIER ,

e SUPPORT MEMBER u

I

.I t

F 3

h h VERTICAL T-QUENCilER

{ SUPPORT BEAM n b a 1

SECTION C-C Figure 5-3.1-6 T-QUENCHER ARM SUPPORT DETAILS DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-3.10 gg

O v

20"O.D.

1 1/2" THICK LATERAL QUENCHER '

RING PLATE SUPPORT BEAM SUPPORT RING BEAM

\ FLANGE WITH COVER PLATE i 101/4" HOLE RADIUS -

11/2" THICK - g STIFFENER PLATE O

i

\

I SUPPRESSION CHAMBER SHELL I

SECTION D-D Figure 5-3.1-7 i

LATERAL T-QUENCHER SUPPORT BEAM RING PLATE SUPPORT DETAILS l

i DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-3.11 Qd

5- 3. 2 Loads and Load Combinatons h The loads used in evaluating the Fermi 2 T-quencher and supports are defined in NUREG-0661 on a generic basis for all Mark I plants. The methodology used to develop plant unique T-quencher 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 controlling loads which act on the T-quencher and T quencher supports are discussed and presented in Section 5-3.2.1.

Using the event combinations and event sequencing defined in NUREG-0661 and discussed in Sections 1-3.2 h and 1-4.3, the controlling load combinations which affect the T-quencher and supports are formulated.

The governing load combinations are discussed and presented in Section 5-3.2.2.

l l

l DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-3.12 nutg,gh

O 5- 3. 2.1 Leads 1

The loads acting on the T-quencher and supports are categorized as follows:

1. Dead Weight Loads

2. Seismic Loads

3. Pressure and Temperature Loads

4. Safety Relief Valve Discharge Loads

5. Pool Swell Loads

6. Condensation Oscillation Loads

7. Chugging Loads

8. Vent Clearing Loads

9. Vent System and Torus Interaction Loads Loads in categories 1 through 3 are considered in the l piping design as documented in the FSAR. Additional category 3 pressure and temperature loads result from postulated LOCA and SRV discharge events. Loads in category 4 result from SRV discharge events. Loads in categories 5 through 8 result from postulated LOCA l events. Loads in category 9 are support motions which result from loads acting on the vent system and torus.

l l DET-20-015-5 l Revision 0 5-3.13

Not all of the loads defined in NUREG-0661 need be evaluated, since some are enveloped by others or have a negligible effect on the T quencher and supports.

Only those loads which maximize the T quencher and supports response and lead to controlling stresses are examined and discussed. These loads are referred to as governing loads in subsequent discussions.

The magnitudes and characteristics of each governing load in each load category are identified and pre-sented in the following paragraphs. The corresponding section of Volume 1 of this report where each load is discussed is provided as a reference in Table 5-2.2-1. The loading information presented in this section is the same as that presented in Sections 1-4.0 and 5-2.2.1, with additional specific informa-tion relevant to the evaluation of the T-quencher and supports.

1. Dead Weight Loads

a. Dead Weight (DW) Loads: These loads are defined as the weight of steel used to construct the T quencher and supports plus the weight of water contained in the wetwell DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-3.14 nutgg])

SRV piping and T quencher. A water level corresponding to 7.0" below the suppression chamber horizontal centerline is used. !

2. Seismic Loads i

l

a. OBE Inertia (OBEI) Loads: The T-quencher and supports are subjected to horizontal and vertical accelerations during an Operating ,

Basis Earthquake (OBE). This loading is taken from the original design basis for the !

containment, documented in the FSAR. The !

OBE seismic loads have a maximum horizontal j spectral acceleration of 0.23g and a maximum vertical spectral acceleration of 0.067g.

i

b. OBE Displacement (OBED) Loads: The SRV piping is subjected to displacements at the vent pipe penetration and the supports at-tached to the vent line and vent header during an OBE. These displacements are taken from the vent system seismic analysis discussed in Volume 3 of this report.

O DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-3.15

O

c. SSE Inertia (SSEy) Loads: The T quencher and supports are subjected to horizontal and vertical accelerations during a Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE). This loading is taken from the original design basis for the containment documented in the 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.

d. SSE Displacement (SSED) Loads: The SRV piping is subjected to displacements at the vent pipe penetration and the supports at-tached to the vent line and vent header during an SSE. These displacements are taken from the vent system seismic analysis discussed in Volume 3 of this report.

3. Pressure and Temperature Loads

a. Pressure (P o, P) Loads: The SRV line is subjected to the maximum internal pressure (Pg) and design pressure (P) acting during DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-3.16 nutgg])

i normal operating and accident conditions.

O V The values of Po and P used in the analysis of the SRV wetwell piping and T-quenchers are 397 psig and 570 psig, respectively.

These values are derived from Table 5-2.2-3.

b. Temperature (TEl, TE2) Loads: The SRV pip-ing and T-quenchers are subjected to thermal

~

expansion loads both with (TE2) and without (TEl) a concurrent SRV actuation during normal operating and accident conditions.

The maximum values of TEl and TE2 temperatures used in the analysis are 173'F and 363*F respectively. The initial ambient

.O temperature used in the analysis is 70'F.

These values are derived from Table 5-2.2-3.

The effects of thermal anchor movements at the attachment points of the SRV piping to the vent system and torus are also con-sidered. The SRV piping and T-quencher thermal anchor movement loadings are desig-nated as THAM 1, THAM 2, THAM 1A, THAM 2A and are described in Section 5-2.2.1.

[~ DET-20-015-5

\ Revision 0 5-3.17 nutg,gh

4. Safety Relief Valve Discharge Loads O

a. SRV Discharge Line Thrust (RV1) Loads:

During an SRV discharge, transient pressure and thrust forces are postulated to act along the SRV piping. The procedure used to develop these loads is described in Section 1-4.2.2. The controlling SRV dis-charge pressure and thrust load cases for the SRV piping are discussed and presented in Section 5-2.2.1. The load cases which produce the maximun effects on the T-quencher and supports are evaluated.

b. SRV T-Quencher Discharge (QAB) Loads: Dur-O ing an SRV discharge, transient pressure loads are postulated to act on the submerged portion of SRV discharge piping and the T-quencher and supports. These loads are categorized as follows:

o Water Jet Impingement Loads: During the water clearing phase of an SRV discharge event, the T quencher supports are sub-jected to transient drag pressure loads.

l DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-3.18 h

i nutg,9})

l l

l The procedure used to develop the tran-sient forces and spatial distribution of these loads is discussed in Section 1-4'.2.4. The resulting magnitudes and distribution of drag pressures acting on the T-quencher supports are shown in Table 5-3. 2-1. The results shown include the effects of velocity drag and acceleration drag.

o T-Quencher and End Cap Thrust Loads:

During an SRV discharge, the T-quencher arms and end caps are subjected to water clearing thrust loads. The procedure used to develop bounding values of these loads is discussed in Section 1-4.2.2 The resulting magnitudes of the T-quencher arm and end cap thrust loads are shown in Table 5-3.2-2.

l l o Air Bubble Drag Loads: During the air clearing phase of an SRV discharge event, transient drag pressure loads are postulated to act on the submerged SRV line and the T-quencher and supports.

O DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-3.19-

The procedure used to develop the h transient forces and spatial distribu-tion of these loads is discussed in Section 1-4.2.4.

Loads are developed for several possible patterns of air bubbles for both single and multiple T-quencher discharge cases. The results are evaluated to determine the controlling loads. The magnitudes and distribution of drag pressures acting on the SRV pipe and the T-quencher and supports for the control-ling SRV discharge drag air bubble load h case are shown in Tables 5 -3. 2-1 and 5- 3. 2- 3. The results shown include the effects of velocity drag, acceleration drag, interference effects, wall effects, an adjusted bubble pressure factor, and acceleration drag volumes.

5. Pool Swell Loads

a. Pool Swell (PS) Loads: During the initial phase of a DBA event, transient pressure DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-3.20 nutgsb

b, loads are postulated to act on the portion of SRV piping above the suppression pool.

These loads are categorized as follows:

o Impact and Drag Loads: During the ini-tial portion of a DBA event, the hori-zontal portion of the SRV line and the support plate located under the vent line are subjected to transient pres-sures. The procedure used to develop these pressure transients is discussed in Section 1-4.1.4. A sampling of pool swell impact and drag loads for selected p

b segments of the SRV line and the vent line support is shown in Table 5-3. 2-4.

The results shown are based on plant unique QSTF test data contained in the PULD (Reference 3),

o Pool Fallback Loads: During the latter phase of pool swell, transient pressures are postulated to act on the portion of the SRV line and the support located under the vent line. The procedure used to develop these pressure transients is t i DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-3.21 nutgg])

discussed in Section 1-4.1.4. A sam-pling of pool fallback drag loads for selected segments of the SRV line and the vent line support is shown in Table 5- 3. 2-5. The results shown include the effects of maximum pool displacements measured in plant unique OSTF tests.

6. Condensation Oscillation Loads

a. Condensation Oscillation (CO) Loads: During the condensation oscillation phase of a DBA event, harmonic drag pressures are postu-lated to act on the submerged portion of the SRV piping and the T quencher and supports.

The procedure used to develop the harmonic forces and spatial distribution of drag loads on these components is discussed in Section 1-4.1.7.

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 are evaluated to determine the con-DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-3.22 nutggh

1 I

r\ \

C) trolling loads. The resulting magnitudes and distribution of DBA condensation oscil-lation drag pressures acting on the SRV piping and the T quencher and supports for the controlling load case are shown in Tables 5-3.2-6 and 5-3.2-7. These results include the ef fects of velocity drag, accel-eration 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

,~

5-3.2-1. Thc results of each harmonic in

\> the loading are combined using the method-ology discussed in Section 1-4.1.7.

7. Chugging Loads

a. Pre-Chug (PCHUG) Loads: During the chugging phase of an SBA, IBA, or DBA event, harmonic drag pressure loads, associated with the pre-chug portion of a chugging cycle, are postulated to act on the submerged portion of the SRV piping and the T quenchers and supports. The procedure used to develop the p

DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-3.23 nutggh

harmonic forces and spatial 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 strength at the nearest downcomer. The results are evaluated to determine the con-trolling loads. The resulting load acting on the SRV piping and the T quencher and supports is bounded by post-chug load case 7(b).

O

b. Post-Chug (CHUG) Loads: During the chugging phase of an SBA, IBA, or DBA event, harmonic drag pressure loads, associated with the post-chugging portion of a chug cycle, are postulated to act on the submerged portion of the SRV piping and th a T quencher and supports. The procedure used to develop post-chug drag loads on the SRV piping, T quencher and supports is discussed in Sec-tion 1-4.1.8.

DET-20-015-5 5- 3.24 Revision 0 nutggh

O Loads are developed for the case with the average source strength at the nearest two downcomers acting both in phase and out-of phase. The results are evaluated to determine the controlling loads. The resulting magnitudes and distribution of drag pressures acting on the SRV piping and the T quencher and quencher supports for the controlling post-chug drag load cases are shown in Tables 5-3.2-8 and 5-3.2-9.

The results shown in the table include the effects of velocity drag, acceleration drag, torus shell FSI acceleration drag, interfer-ence effects, wall effects, and acceleration drag volumes. A typical pool acceleration profile from which the FSI accelerations are derived is shown in Figure 5-3.2-1. The results of each harmonic in the loading are combined using the methodology discussed in l

Section 1-4.1.7.

O DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-3.25 nutggh

- - , , , . , x

8. Vent Clearing Loads g

a. Vent Clearing (VCL) Loads: During the vent system water and air clearing phase of a DBA event, transient pressure loads are postu-lated to act on the submerged portion of the SRV piping and the T-quencher and supports.

These loads are categorized as follows:

o LOCA Water Jet Impingement Loads: Dur-ing the water clearing phase of a DBA event, the submerged portion of the SRV piping and the T-quencher and supports are subjected to transient drag pressure h loads. The procedure used to develop these transient drag forces is discussed in Section 1-4.1.5. The resulting mag-nitudes and distributions of LOCA water Jet drag pressures acting on the SRV piping, T-quencher, and T-quencher support components are shown in Tables 5-3.2-10 and 5-3.2-11. These results include the effects of velocity drag and acceleration drag.

j DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-3.26 h

l l mdggb

o LOCA Air Bubble Drag Loads: During the air clearing phase of a DBA event, the submerged portions of the SRV piping and the T quencher and supports are subjec-ted to transient drag pressure loads.

The procedure used to develop these transient drag forces is discussed in 4

Section 1-4.1.6. The resulting magni-l tudes and distributions of DBA air clearing drag pressures on the SRV pip-ing and the T quencher and its supports are shown in Tables 5-3.2-10 and 5-3.2-11. These results include the 3

effects of velocity drag and accelera-tion drag.

9. Vent System and Torus Interaction Loads 1

a. Vent System Interaction Loads: Loads act-ing on the vent system cause interaction effects at the vent line-SRV piping penetra-tion and at the SRV line supports on the vent line and vent header.

4 O DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-3.27

- - .,m - - ~ - , . e q - ,

b. Torus Interaction Loads: Loads acting on the suppression chamber shell cause interac-tion effects at the T quencher arm supports and ramshead attachment points to the sup-pression chamber.

The interaction loads are categorized as TD, TDl, OABI, PSI, PCHUGI, CHUGy AND coy and are described in Section 5-2.2.1.

The values of the loads presented in the preceding paragraphs envelop those postulated to occur during an actual LOCA or SRV discharge event. An evaluation for the offects of these loads results in conservative values of the T quencher and T-quencher support stresses.

DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-3.28 nutggh

Table 5-3.2-1 SRV DISCHARGE WATER .TET IMPINGEMENT AND AIR BUBBLE DRAG LOADS FOR T-QUENCHER SUPPORTS e

5 5

)

12 t, t 3 p[ p, !

34 t-> A 20 a !

ef as ,23 %, (g

,g P

X lO \/

Section A-A Section B-B Plan View Key Diagram Pressure (psi)

Item Segment Water Jet Impingement Air Bubble Drag Number P P P P y z y z d 1 0.00 0.00 4.01 2.74 3 0.00 *10.74 3.10 -5.00 Lateral 5 0.00 -13.78 2.66 -12.22 Support 8 0.00 Beam 0.00 4.14 -9.60 10 0.00 -14.31 3.47 -3.13 12 0.00 -14.71 3.09 -9.79 15 0.00 -4.21 3.20 -7.41 Pg P P P 20 0.00 0.00 5.31 2.55 Ho h M Support 23 0.00 0.00 2.25 2.22 Meders 34 0.00 0.00 -8.47 2.74 36 0.00 0.00 -2.25 2.22 Note:

1. Loads shown include DLF's.

DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-3.29 nutggb

Table 5-3.2-2 SRV DISCHARGE T-QUENCHER AND END CAP THRUST LOADS O

y F2 Fy F1

.V Key Diagram Thrust Load Force Magnitude (kip)

Component F 38.87 1

F2 (1) 10.67 F 240.07 3

F 12.87 4

Notes:

1. F and F are reversible loads.

2 4

2. Loads shown include DLF's.

O DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-3.30 Il

Table 5-3.2-3 SRV DISCHARGE AIR BUBBLE DRAG LOADS FOR T-QUENCHER AND SRV PIPING Py n

Px 1 -

j yPg 7 T l_

Pg ~

[ -

3A Section A-A A Section B-B T

B B J (

20 11 14 17 23 B B Key Diagram - Elevation View

' Pressure (psi)

Segment Air Bubble Drag Item Number P P 1 0.01 0.16 SRV Pipe 4 0.07 1.03 6 0.09 1.40 8 0.17 3.26 Ramshead 0.18 3.67 Assembly 10 11 0.00 6.00 P E y z 14 -2.77 15.57 T-Quencher 17 -2.55 7.91 Arms 20 -2.35 8.51

' 23 -2.39 10.53 l

lO 1. Loads shown include DLF's.

DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 nutgqh

Table 5-3.2-4 POOL SWELL IMPACT AND DRAG LOAD.c ON SRV PIPING .

1 AND PLATE SUPPORT g P - - - - p ---

8 o a s 1 8 8 gPd ~~~ ~

g P d'~~~

i O. ~ ~ '1 T e-T-ei 3 -

()l tl 213l41sl617lsl 9j\ g '

{ ti t SRV Pipe SRV Pipe Support Support Transient SRV Pipe Transient Key Diagram Time (msec) Pressure (psi)

Segment Item Impact Maximum Pool Impact Drag Number Arrival (t i)

Mah W@ Rmax) (Pmax) (Pd}

(T) 1 428.00 7.30 890.00 14.52 10.66 2 428.00 7.40 890.00 14.34 10.53 3 437.00 8.20 890.00 11.72 8.04 SRV 4 446.00 8.20 890.00 11.57 4.77 Pipe 5 450.00 9.00 890.00 9.56 2.64 6 460.00 8.80 890.00 10.16 2.24 7 470.00 8.80 890.00 10.04 1.81 8 476.00 9.80 890.00 8.12 1.53 9 484.00 10.40 890.00 7.29 1.32 SRV 1 745.00 112.00 890.00 1.76 0.48 Pipe 2 606.00 45.80 890.00 5.93 0.59 Support 3 484.00 38.20 890.00 7.00 0.78 Notes:

1. Pressures shown are applied to vertical projected areas in direction normal to structure.

2. For structure geometry see Figure 5-3.1-2.

3. Loads are symmetric with respect to vertical centerline of vent line.

DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-3.32 N h

Tcblo 5-3.2-5 POOL FALLBACK LOADS ON SRV PIPING AND PLATE SUPPORT Up t D end max O

8 yPpfb -------

Down Pressure Transient Time (msec) Fallback Segment Pressure (Ppfb)

Item Number Arrival End of (psi)

(tmax) Fallback (tena) 1 N/A N/A N/A 2 N/A N/A N/A 3 890.00 1437.00 1.45 4 890.00 1437.00 1.28 SRV 5 890.00 1437.00 2.48 Pipe 6 890.00 1437.00 2.29 7 890.00 1437.00 3.23 8 890.00 1437.00 3.08 9 890.00 1437.00 2.96 1 8 0.00 13M.00 4.77 SRV Pipe 2 890.00 1275.00 3.89 Support 1139.00 5.58 l 3 890.00 Notes:

1. Pressures shown are applied to horizontal projected areas in direction normal to structure.

2. For structure geometry see Figure 5-3.1-2.

3. Loads are symmetric with respect to vertical centerline of vent line.

O 4. See, Table 5-3.2-4 for segment designation.

DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-3.33 gg

Table 5-3.2-6 i

DBA CONDENSATION OSCILLATION SUBMERGED STRUCTURE LOADS FOR T-QUENCHER AND SRV PIPING Py 1

g >

m p I Y 1 Pg ~

[A 3A Section A-A 1 Section B-B T

J (

( 21 20 11 14 17

)

B B Key Diagram-Elevation View Pressure (psi)

S nt Applied Load FSI Total ItE m Number x z x z x z 1 0.08 0.09 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.10 SRV Pipe 4 0.29 0.34 0.01 0.02 0.29 0.36 6 0.19 0.41 0.01 0.03 0.20 0.44 8 0.51 0.48 0.03 0.07 0.54 0.55 Ramshead Assembly 10 0.56 0.42 0.04 0.08 0.60 0.49

,,f - 11 0.34 -0.83 0.06 0.16 0.41 -0.98 P P P P P P

, y g 14 -2.34 -0.49 0.54 0.15 -2.88 -0.64 T-Quencher 17 -2.73 -0.50 0.62 0.17 -3.35 -0.66 Arms 20 -2.09 -0.50 0.53 0.14 -2.62 -0.64 23 -2.66 -0.50 0.60 0.16 -3.26 j -0.66 Note:

1. Loads shown include DLF's.

DET-20-015-5

) Revision 0 5-3.34

[" nutp_gh ;

l Table 5-3.2-7 DBA CONDENSATION OSCILLATION SUBMERGED STRUCTURE LOADS FOR T-QUENCHER SUPPORTS 8^ e 12 2 to 1 py

'[ 36 23

"#8 s} he p O\ l Plan View Section A-A Section B-B Key Diagram Pressure (psi)

Item Segment Applied Load FSI Total Number P P P P Y z y z y 3 -7.93 -1.90 3.53 0.17 -11.46 -2.07 3 -7.63 -1.83 3.32 0.13 -10.95 -1.96 5 -8.79 -2.90 3.62 0.24 -12.41 -3.14 Lateral Support 8 -12.82 5.03 5.22 0.49 -18.04 5.51 Beam 10 -7.49 -1.62 3.34 0.11 -10.83 -1.73 12 -8.97 -2.60 3.79 0.20 -12.76 -2.80 15 -9.78 -3.74 3.98 0.36 -13.76 -4.10 E P P P P P x y 20 0.28 -8.18 0.06 2.82 0.34 -11.00 Horizontal 23 0.24 -6.03 0.06 1.90 0.31 -7.93 Me e 34 -0.28 -8.36 0.07 2.87 -0.35 -11.23 36 -0.24 -6.03 0.06 1.90 -0.31 -7.93 Note:

1. Loads shown include DLF's.

O DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-3.35 nutggb

Table 5-3.2-8 POST-CHUG SUBMERGED STRUCTURE LOADS FOR T-OUENCHER AND SRV PIPING h E

Y h

q m p I F 1 PZ Section A-A

(

A

~

T 3A Section B-B T

B B J (

( 21 20 11 14 17

)

e a A A Key Diagram - Elevation View ,

Pressure (psi)

Item E* t Applied Load FSI Total er P

x z x z x z 1 0.48 0.36 0.01 0.02 0.48 0.38 SRV Pipe 4 2.43 1.87 0.01 0.02 2.44 1.89 6 2.23 1.82 0.01 0.03 2.24 1.85 8 2.38 2.13 0.03 0.07 2.42 2.19 Ramshead Assembly 10 1.87 1.75 0.04 0.08 1.91 1.82 11 0.61 -1.48 0.06 0.16 0.68 -1.64 P P P P P P y z y z y z 14 -0.20 -2.03 0.54 0.15 -0.74 -2.18 T-Quencher 17 -0.10 -1.37 0.67 0.17 -0.72 -1.54 Ams 20 -0.17 -1.83 0.53 0.14 -0.69 -1.97 23 -0.15 -1.73 0.60 0.16 -0.75 -1.89 Note:

1. Loads shcwn include DLF's. h DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-3.36 nutg,gh

Table 5-3.2-9 POST-CHUG SUBMERGED STRUCTURE LOADS FOR T-OUENCHER SUPPORTS I

.-P A

8 Py 15' 5 )

3 i Py 10 1 l 34 lea 20 A af 3s 23 3 ,

- Pz a) h.

PX '

/O\

Section A-A Section B-B Plan View Pressura (psi)

Segment Item Number Applied Load FSI Total P P P P P P y Z y 2 y z 1 -4.23 -0.14 3.53 0.17 -7.76 -0.31 3 -8.81 -1.65 3.32 0.13 -12.13 -1.78 d Lateral 5 -13.16 -2.31 3.62 0.24 -16.78 -2.55 Support 8

- - -17.25 -3.05 5.22 0.49 -22.47 -3.54 10 -6.23 -1.29 3.34 0.11 -9.57 -1.40 12 -12.44 -2.23 3.79 0.20 -16.23 -2.43 15 -14.12 - 2 . 4 "i 3.98 0.36 -18.10 -2.83 P P P P P x x 20 0.23 -10.37 0.06 2.82 0.29 -13.19 Horizontal 23 0.15 -5.32 0.06 1.90 0.21 -7.22 34 -0.23 -10.63 0.07 2.87 -0.30 -13.30 36 -0.15 -5.32 0.06 1.90 -0.21 -7.22 Note:

1. Loads shown include DLF's.

O DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-3.37 nutggh

Table 5-3.2-10 LOCA WATER JET IMPINGEMENT AND AIR BUBBLE DRAG LOADS FOR T-OUENCHER AND SRV PIPING E

Y h

" 'x ~

1 %. r P g I T 1_

Pg

~

[

^

3 Section A-A 1 Section B-B T

J (

( 13 20 11 14 17

)

a e A A Key Diagram-Elevation View l @

Pressure (psi)

Segment Water Jet Number Impingement Air Bubble Drag P Pg P x x P, l 1 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.07

! 4 0.10 -0.02 0.46 0.40 SRV Pipe i 6 -0.26 0.05 0.43 0.45 8 -0.29 0.06 0.31 0.55 Ramshead 10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Assembly 11 -0.52 2.89 0.00 0.60 P P P P g z 14 0.97 2.97 -0.82 0.16 T-Quencher 17 0.93 3.77 -1.07 0.09 Ams 0.48 2.66 -0.58 0.22 20 23 0.59 3.83 -1.03 0.10 Note:

1. Loads shown include DLF's.

DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-3.38 00

Table 5-3. 2- 11 LOCA WATER JET IMPINGEMENT AND AIR BUBBLE DRAG LOADS FOR O T-QUENCHER SUPPORTS ,

15 . -

8" e Py 3

10 1 1 Py

[

34 la L pA 20 i of 36 ,:3 3, I n} : Pz ks l P

X ,

NI O \/ '

Plan View Section A-A Section B-B Key Diagram Pressure (psi) ,

8 Item Water Jet Inpingement Air Bubble Drag P

y P P P y

1 2.26 -1.17 -0.57 -0.87 3 0.74 -3.29 -0.49 -0.88 Lateral 5 -1.62 -6.78 -0.70 -1.05 Support 8 -3.26 -10.82 -1.02 -1.53 Beam 10 2.09 -1.03 -0.45 -0.85 12 -2.77 -7.94 -0.68 -1.07 15 -1.21 -5.99 -0.77 -1.17 x y x y 20 -3.03 -2.17 -0.14 -0.93 HMMd Support 23 -0.24 2.34 -0.14 -0.68 Members 34 3.46 -2.46 0.15 -1.01 1 36 0.24 2.34 0.14 -0.68 l Note:

1. Loads shown include DLF's.

DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-3.39 nutggh

To G Drywell e

O

\l

^ B j

D C I

e Key Diagram Loading Information 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 harmon-ic application of torus shell pressures shown in Figure 2-2.2-10 at a suopression chamber frequency of 20.39h .

Figure 5-3.2-1 TYPICAL POOL ACCELERATION PROFILE FOR FSI CALCULATION DET-20-015-5 O l Revision 0 5-3.40 )

nutggh

f i 5-3.2.2 Load Combinations ,

i The loads for which the T quencher and T quencher f supports are evaluated are presented in Section ;

5- 3. 2.1. The general NUREG-0661 criteria for grouping i

these loads into load combinations are discussed in Section 1-3.2 and summarized in Table 5-2.2-6. 1 The load combinations specified for the T quenchers i and supports are the same as those presented for the SRV piping and piping supports in Tables 5-2.2-9 and 5-2.2-10. Several of the load combinations presented ,

in these tables do not result in controlling stresses in the T-quencher and T quencher supports and are not

evaluated. A single bounding thrust. load transient is f conservatively included in the combinations involving i different cases of SRV thrust loads. Load combinations which contain hydro test and turbine stop L j valve closure loadings are not evaluated since these ;

loadings have a negligible effect on the. T quencher i and T-quencher supports. !

l l The governing load combinations for the T-quenchar and

( T-quencher supports as described above and listed in r l

DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-3.41 O

. - , , - - , , , , _ . - - , - ------,r. _ . , -

. , . - - - - - - , , - - - , - - - - - _ _ , - - - , , . - , , - . - - - - - ,- . , - , - , - - - - . ~ , .

Tables 5-2.2-9 and 5-2.2-10 have been considered in the analysis methods described in Section 5-3.4.

O l

DET-20-015-5 O

Revision 0 5-3.42 ggg

a 5-3.3 Analysis Acceptance Criteria The acceptance criteria defined in NUREG-0661 on which the Fermi 2 SRV T-quencher and T-quencher supports analysis is based, are discussed in Section 1-3.2.

The acceptance criteria follow the rules contained in the ASME Code (Reference 6)Section III, Division 1, 1977 Edition up to and including the 1977 Summer Addenda for Class 3 piping and piping supports. The corresponding Service Level limits and allowable stresses are also consistent with the requirements of the ASME Code and the Mark I Containment Program Structural Acceptance Criteria (Reference 5).

O The T-quencher arms are evaluated in accordance with the requirements for Class 3 piping systems contained-in Subsection ND of the ASME Code. Table 5-3.3-1 lists the applicable ASME Code equations and stress limits for each of the governing load combinations for the T-quencher arms.

The ramshead is evaluated in accordance with the re-quirements for Class 3 vessel components contained in

, Subsection ND of the ASME Code. Table 5-3.3-2 lists the applicable ASME Code allowables and Service Level

' 01 V -DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-3.43 nutagh

assignments for the governing ramshead load combina- h tions.

The T quencher and ramshead supports are evaluated in accordance with requirements for Class 3 piping supports as provided in Subsection NF of the Code.

Service Level assignments for the governing T-quencher and ramshead support load combinations are provided in Table 5-3.3-2.

O

;201;;i~' '~ "

O\ ;

\

nutesb l

O Table 5-3.3-1 ALLOWABLE STRESSES FOR T-QUENCHER ARMS ASME Code Serv a Allowable Governing Load ess Stress value Combination S E ion Level Limit (ksi) Number (1)

Primary 8 A 1.0 S h 16.35 A-1 Primary 9 B 1.2 S h 19.62 B-1 through B-3 Primary 9 B 1.8 S 29.43 C-1 through C-4 h

Primary 9 B 2.4 S 39.24 D-1 through D-4 h

O Secocaerr 1o B 1.0 S a 22.59 A-2 thromeh A-5 Prhan + 11 43.94 Secondary B Sh+S a (2)

(1) Governing Load Combinations are identified in Table 5-2.2-9.

(2) See ASME Section III Subsection ND (Reference 6) paragraph !

ND-3652-3 for primary plus secondary load combination.

O DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-3.45 nutggb

Table 5-3.3-2 ALLOWABLE STRESSES FOR RAMSHEAD AND T-OUENCHER SUPPORTS g l

Haterial Allowable Stress (ksi)

Stress Item Material Type Service Service Service tevel B Level C Level D COMPONENTS Primary 16.50 22.50 30.00 Membrane Ramshead 8*1

SA-234WPB Local Primary 27.00 36.00 Elbow Sy=30.37 Membrane 24.00 Frimary Membrane 24.00 27.00 36.00

+ Primary Bending Primary 19.25 26.25 35.00 Membrane Ramshead Saddle SA516-GR- S=17.5 Local Primary 28.88 31.50 42.00

- Sy =33.01 Membrane Primary Membrane 28,88 31.50 42.00

+ Primary Bending SUPPORTS Tensile 21.31 28.34 42.62 Lateral Bending 21.31 28.34 42.62 SA 155 Sy=35.52 S Poet GRKCF70 Su=70.00 Combined 1.00 1.00 1.00 g

Compressive 19.06 22.68 22.68 Interaction 1.00 1.00 1.00 Bending 19.64 26.12 39.28 Ramshead SA-333 Sy=32.74 Support CR.6 Su=60.00 Axial 19.64 26.12 39.28 Pipe Combined 1.00 1.00 1.00 WELDS Saddle Plate SA-106 Sal 5.00 to Ramshead CR.B Primary 12.84 17.50 23.34 C c r GR TP 4

#U O * '4 Note

1. See Table 5-2.2-10 for load combination service level assignraents.

O l

i DET-20-015-5 nut l Revision 0 5-3.46 l

l l

O 5-34 seehod of ^ne1vsis The governing loads for which the Fermi 2 T quencher and T-quencher-supports are evaluated are presented in Section 5-3. 2.1. The methodology used to evaluate the T quencher and supports for the effects of these loads is discussed in Section 5-3.4.1. The methodology used to evaluate the local effects at the ramshead is dis-l cussed in Section 5-3.4.2.

l

'1

, O l

i DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-3.47 nutagh

5- 3. 4.1 Analysis for Major Loads h The T quencher and T quencher supports are evaluated for the effects of the loads discussed in Section 5-3.2.1 using a beam model of a typical T-quencher and T quencher supports. The analytical model, shown in Figure 5- 3. 4-1, includes the SRV line in the wetwell from the vent line-SRV piping penetration to the ramshead, the ramshead assembly, the quencher arms and a portion of the lateral quencher support beam and the associated connecting members.

The local stiffness effects at the ramshead are in-cluded in the beam model by using a stiffness matrix element of the ramshead assembly. The matrix element is <:eveloped using the finite element model of the ramshead assembly shown in Figure 5-3.4-2 and described in Section 5- 3. 4. 2. The matrix element connects the beams on the centerline of the SRV piping with the beams on the centerline of the T quencher arms.

The analytical beam model contains 133 nodes, 136 beam elements, and 1 matrix element. The stiffness and mass properties used in the model are based on the DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-3.48 nutggh

O Q nominal dimensions and densities of the materials used to construct the SRV line, T-quencher, and T quencher supports, as shown in Figures 5-3.1-1 through 5- 3.1-7. The water mass contained within the SRV line and T quencher arms is lumped along the submerged component lengths in three directions. Additional '

hydrodynamic mass is lumped along the submerged member lengths of the SRV piping and the T-quencher and supports in the lateral directions, to account for the effective water mass which acts with these structures during dynamic loadings.

Both physical and mathematical boundary conditions are used in the analytical model. The physical boundary conditions include elastic restraints at the vent -

line-SRV piping penetration and at the SRV line supports on the vent line and vent header. The associated stiffnesses are derived from the vent system analytical model, described in Volume 3 of this report. Additional physical boundary conditions include the elastic restraints at the attachment of I the ramshead assembly to the pedestal, at the lateral support beam attachment to the ring beam, and at the l

attachment of the T quencher arms to the vertical l quencher support beam. The associated stiffnesses are i

i

'- DET-20-015-5 Revision-0 5-3.49 nutggb

-- l

developed using the analytical model of the suppres- h sion chamber, described in Volume 2 of this report.

The mathematical boundary conditions include a symmetric boundary condition for the lateral support beams at the suppression chamber mid-cylinder planes.

A frequency analysis is performed using the beam model in which all structural modes in the range of 0 to 200 hertz are extracted. The resulting frequencies and mass participation factors in the three principal directions are shown in Table 5-3.4-1.

A dynamic analysis is performed for the SRV transient thrust forces acting along the SRV piping and the pool swell impact and drag loads on the SRV piping. The modal superposition technique with 2% of critical damping is used in the dynamic analysis.

The remaining load cases specified in Section 5-3.2-1 are 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 dis-tribution of the individual dynamic loadings.

DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-3.50 nutggb

I i

r O !

The beam model results are also used to evaluate local j stresses in the ramshead. Beam end loads and distri-

, buted loads are taken from the beam model and applied 4

i to the finite element model of the ramshead shown in !

Figure 5-3.4-2. Additional information relating to !

the ramshead stress evaluation is provided in !

Section 5-3.4. 2. !

The specific treatment of each load in each load cate-gory identified in Section 5-3.2.1 is discussed in the 1

following paragraphs.

4

1. Dead Weight Loads 4 a. Dead Weight (DW) Loads: A static analysis ;

is performed for a unit vertical acceler-ation applied to the weight of steel and the .

weight of the water contained inside the SRV ;

line and T quencher arms.

l i

2. Seismic Loads ,

s

a. OBE Inertia (OBEY) Loads: A static analysis is performed for a 0.239 horizontal and DET-20-015-5 l l

P Revision 0 5-3.51 L nutasb

0.0679 vertical acceleration applied to the h combined weight of steel and water in the analytical model. The accelerations are multiplied by a factor of 1.5 to account for possible multiple mode response.

b. OBE Displacement (OBED) Loads: A static analysis is performed for the horizontal and vertical OBE displacements at the vent line-SRV piping penetration and the SRV piping supports attached to the vent line and vent header.

c. SSE Inertia (SSEy) Loads: A static analysis is performed for a 0.469 horizontal and 0.133g vertical acceleration applied to the combined weight of steel and water in the analytical model. The accelerations are multiplied by a factor of 1.5 to account for possible multiple mode response.

d. SSE Displacement (SSED) Loads: A static analysis is performed for the horizontal and vertical SSE displacements at the vent line-SRV piping penetration and the SRV DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-3.52 nutggh

h piping supports attached to the vent line and vents header.

3. Pressure and Temperature Loads:

a. Pressure (Po,P) Loads: The effects of pres-sure loads on the T quencher arms are evalu '

ated by using the ASME Code- piping equations.

b. Temperature (TEl, TE2) Loads: A static analysis is performed for the TEl and TE2 temperature cases with the load applied O

unuom1r to the SRv .ee eu givine, rems-j.

head, T-quencher arms, and T quencher. sup-r ports. The temperatures applied to the SRV piping, ramshead, and T quencher arms are equal to the maximum SRV pipe temperature.

The temperatures applied to the T-quencher supports are equal to the maximum suppres-sion pool temperature which occurs during normal operating and accident conditions.

An additional static analysis is performed for the effects of thermal anchor movements

! DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-3.53

at the attachment of the SRV piping, h T quencher and T-quencher supports to the vent system and suppression chamber for normal operating and accident conditions.

4 Safety Relief Valve Discharge Loads

a. SRV Discharge Thrust (RV1) Loads: A dynamic transient analysis is performed for the SRV discharge thrust load case which produces maximum stresses in the T quencher. The controlling load case is derived from the wetwell SRV piping analysis described in Section 5-2.4.2.

b. SRV T quencher discharge (QAB) Loads:

o Water Jet Impingement Loads: An equiva-lent static analysis is performed for the drag loads shown in Table 5-3.2-1.

The values of the loads shown include a dynamic amplification factor which is computed using first principles.

DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-3.54 nutggh

o T-Quencher and End Cap Thrust Loads: An equivalent static analysis is performed for the thrust loads shown in I

Table 5-3.2-2. The values of the loads shown include a dynamic amplification factor which is computed using first ,

principles. ,

i o Air Bubble Drag Loads: An equivalent static analysis is performed for the -

loads shown in Tables 5-3.2-1 and 5-3.2.3. The values of the loads in-clude a dynamic amplification factor determined by the methodology discussed in Section 1-4.2.4. ,

5. Pool Swell Loads:

a. Pool Swell (PS) Loads:

o Impact and Drag Loads: A transient dynamic analysis is performed for the pool swell pressure transients shown in i Table 5-3.2-4.

f O DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-3.55 nutggh ,

o Pool Fallback Loads: A transient dynamic analysis is performed for the pressure loads shown in Table 5-3.2-5.

The analysis for Pool Swell Impact, Drag and Pool Fallback loads is performed in a single transient analysis with appropriate load sequencing.

6. Condensation Oscillation Loads:

a. Condensation Oscillation (CO) Loads: An equivalent static analysis is performed for the loads shown in Tables 5-3.2-6 and 5-3.2-7. The values of the loads shown O

include dynamic load factors (DLF's) com-puted using first principles. The dominant frequencies of the SRV line, T-quencher arms i

I and support members used in this calculation are derived from a harmonic analysis of 1

l these structures. Results of the harmonic analysis are presented in Figures 5-3.4-3 through 5-3.4-6.

I DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-3.56 g

nutggh

O

7. Chugging Loads:

i

a. Pre-Chug (PCHUG) Loads: As discussed in Section 5-3.2.1, post-chug loads bound pre- l l

chug loads. Accordingly, the analysis !

results for post-chug are used in load combinations which include pre-chug loads.

b. Post-Chug (CHUG) Loads: An equivalent stat-ic analysis is performed for the loads shown in Tables 5-3.2-8 and 5-3.2-9. The values of the loads shown include dynamic load f actors which are computed using the proce-dures discussed in load case 6a.

8. Vent Clearing Loads 1

a. Vent Clearing (VCL) Loads:

o LOCA Water Jet Impingement Loads: An l

l equivalent static analysis is performed for the loads shown in Tables 5-3.2-10 and 5-3.2-11. The values of the loads shown include- a dynamic amplification l

0 DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-3.57 l nutggb :!

\

factor which is computed using first h principles.

o LOCA Air Bubble Drag Loads: An equiva-lent static analysis is performed for the loads shown in Tables 5- 3. ?-10 and 5-3.2-11. The values of the loads shown include a dynamic amplification factor which is computed using first princi-ples.

9. Vent System and Torus Interaction Loads A dynamic analysis is performed for the suppres-sion chamber and vent system support motions derived from the analyses of these structures as described in Volumes 2 and 3 of this report. The dynamic loads considered include motions due to i

t pool swell and SRV discharge loads. An equiva-l l lent static analysis is performed for the torus and vent system support motions due to other loads.

The methodology described in the preceding paragraphs results in conservative values of the T quencher and DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-3.58 nutggb

k

.O T-2=e cher evere ere e- ror eue coaero111ae 1o a-defined in NUREG-0661. Use of the analysis results ,

obtained by applying this methodology leads to conser- l vative estimates of design margins for the T-quenchers !

l and T-quencher supports. ,

t t

I f i i f

! l f

i O

L r

i i .j

~

l l

t l

l l

8 i

O DET-20-015-5 Revision'O 5-3.59 l i

Table 5-3.4-1 NETWELL SRV PIPING, T-QUENCHER, AND T-QUENCHER SUPPORTS FREQUENCY ANALYSIS RESULTS Mode Frequency Mass Participation Factors (lb)

Number (Hz) X I1) I1) I1)

Y Z 1 20.62 889.20 0.05 70.94 2 21.43 3763.98 2.56 137.27 3 24.31 45.74 0.06 1.63 4 26.63 1.88 77.97 132.45 5 28.63 14.63 0.23 9330.27 6 32.90 782.64 1.83 8282.98 7 43.43 6815.44 1.12 163.57 8 52.55 3.82 6639.63 248.41 h 9 55.09 4.60 705.45 2169.22 10 59.87 24.02 0.01 46.33 11 69.99 443.78 6.37 5.37 12 71.09 0.80 26.70 0.09 13 73.65 400.47 1.16 7.24 14 76.43 86.83 3364.18 29.02 15 77.26 91.19 5930.91 24.05 16 79.25 136.90 1285.13 505.28 17 89.20 86.39 107.39 0.04 18 92.57 0.94 162.72 38.45 l

I O

DET-20-015-5 l

Revision 0 5-3.60 nute__c_ h

- t

() Table 5-3.4-1 (Concluded)

WETWELL SRV PIPING, T-0UENCHER, AND T-OUENCHER SUPPORTS FREQUENCY ANALYSIS RESULTS l Mass Participation Factors (lb)

Mod requency Num' (Hz) X (1) ,

Y Il) Z (1) 19 94.66 10.83 278.86 1.83 20 97.17 58.98 65.05 0.29 21 99.92 129.17 ,

467.41 2.49 22 101.64 38.12 86.68 11.72 23 104.86 80.83 40.40 1.50 24 110.13 0.05 855.57 275.98 25 111.63 2.83 979.57 405.04

() 26 131.24 45.17 13.42 1.26 27 140.08 2.11 0.69 55.72 28 140.15 2.09 0.05 1.62 29 151.71 0.00 137.85 22.60 30 -156.05 0.07 19.57 198.03 31 174.20 6.67 47.84 3.64 32 176.69 4.21 164.23 86.06 33 176.83 63.'10 172.92 573.51 34 186.25 s 1.04 151.57 0.01 35 194.13 0.14 491.74 237.17 36 197.40 0.20 93.79 0.48

\ v n Note:

l 1. See Figure 5-3.4-1 for'co,o dinate system directions.

\ g s

DET-20-015-5

'< Revision 0 5-3.61 l >

J N

l u .

L- ,

<(

VEIrr PZPE PENETRATION

's 7[K]yg 9

Y [K]yg h

,, [

[K] yg ,,

Z it SRV PIPE g

O QUENCHER LATERALm SUPPORT BEAM \

KSC p,,

s VERTICAL SUPPORT TMEMBER (TYP)

LATERAL KSC:I SUPPORT

QUENCHER MEMBER ARM (TYP)

(TYP)

% IKI RAMSHEAD lK

.. SC 8C l Figure 5-3.4-1 WETWELL SRV PIPING, T-OUENCHER, AND T-OUENCHER SUI' FORTS l BEAM MODEL-ISOMETRIC VIEW l

DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-3.62 nutggh

ASAWRA y '~

p s

h d & '

N q x

(

D MM s

J

g- ?

A g :.n m

W.a , p -

c -

L l re wF::s#W -

Mygg,s l

A.d pg s.

_ i/ tid ia @

y : NQ -w P -

s

( )

, dbhk bb > ,

C:277TV Figure 5-3.4-2 RAMHEAD ASSEMBLY FINITE ELEMENT MODEL-ISOMETRIC VIEW I

DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-3.63 M

l

O Horizontal, f = 32.9 Hz r

Vertical, f = 76.4 Hz cr O .04 '

E a

o e

Q.

0Q .03 c 1

T

.O' #

N I

.02 - Vertical 3 Y 7_

c . /

L /

0 RI f

.01 ;

/ 5 L o / / .

Q --! t // \

a a

.00

, - . . ...... ... . ........ .. . . . 4. - - -- w smw 1.0 10.0 100.0 h Frequency (Hz)

Note:

1. Results shown are obtained by applying unit horizontal and vertical drag pressure to both T-quencher arms in same direction.

i l

l Figure 5-3.4-3 HARMONIC ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR T-QUENCHER ARM SUBMERGED STRUCTURE LOAD FREQUENCY DETERMINATION - UNIFORM LOADING DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-3.64 nutggb

C'\

Torque, f = 20.6 Hz a

c o

E 8 010-n Io f .008 -

c n --

@ .006 -

3 x

E .004 -

< f I

u

,8 .002 - -

8 i t o .-J \

Sr .000 - .

I E*

1.0 10.0 100.0 Frequency (Hz)

Note:

1. Results shown are obtained by applying unit horizontal drag pressures to both T-quencher arms in opposite directions.

Figure 5-3.4-4 HARMONIC ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR T-OUENCHER ARM SUBMERGED STRUCTURE LOAD FREOUENCY DETERMINATION-TORQUE LOADING l

DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-3.65 l

l nutp_qh

Horizontal, f cr " * "*

h Vertical, f = S2.6 Hz r

a

@ .06 i i 8 -

l o I g ii s .05 " ai a

y) ai HI

.,4 l Il I O .04 - Horizontal g - j 'i l c x s ni e w ni Q, J 11 y .03

. ,4

=

lia'il l :-

[ vertical -

l !,

@ . 0 2 -- l .

[

Q E Ie 6 m E E? i

. si a. .

d" .01 = ' '" '

MIV lIu .".

8. a Q. . r It s

$ .00 _ --'"'-"----~----"'"j"--^~'

I ' ' ' * ~" ^

]

1.0 10.0 100.0 Frequency (Hz) 0 Note:

1. Results shown are obtained by applying horizontal and vertical drag pressures to lateral support beam in same direction.

Figure 5-3.4-5 HARMONIC ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR T-OUENCHER LATERAL SUPPOR';"

BEAM SUBMERGED STRUCTURE LOAD FREQUENCY DETERMINATION DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-3.66 nut _ec_h_

l 1

O In-plane, f * *

cr Out-of-plane, f cr = 21.4 Hz a

c .20 e

8 -

@ .15 _

c o.

m .10 =

g In- lane -

e Out-of-plane o, x !!

% .05- N'

> ' 1;

$ / 1/ L

T \

__ . _ _ _ ____.. ..-- -. _ _ - v .

... L __

g

. 00 - a a

(~ 1.0 10.0 100.0 Frequency (Hz)

Note:

1. Results shown are obtained by applying unit drag pressures to submerged portion of SRV piping in the in-plane and out-of-plane directions relative to the mitered joint.

Figure 5-3.4-6 HARMONIC ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR SRV PIPING SUBMERGED STRUCTURE LOAD FREQUENCY DETERMINATION DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-3.67 @{

O 5- 3. 4. 2 Ramshead Analysis for Local Effects A finite element model is used to evaluate local stresses in the T quencher ramshead assembly. The analytical model is shown in Figure 5-3.4-2. The model is also used to generate a stiffness matrix element of the ramshead assembly for use in the T-quencher and T quencher supports beam model dis-cussed in Section 5-3.4.1.

The model includes the ramshead, saddle plate, crotch plate, the ramshead support pipe and a small length of the T quencher arms on each side of the ramshead. The O stiffness properties used in the model are based on the nominal dimensions of the materials used to con-struct the ramshead. The model contains 1148 nodes, 184 beam elements, and 1570 plate bending and stretching elements as shown in Figure 5-3.4-2.

A local stiffness matrix is developed which expresses the stiffness of the entire ramshead assembly in terms of a few local degrees of freedom at interface points.

The resulting stiffness matrix is included in the T-quencher and T quencher supports beam model at the DET-20-015-5 O Revision 0 5-3.68 nutggb

i e i

i O correegendine interface geines and 1eca1 deerees of !

freedom.

I i

The loads used to evaluate stresses in the ramshead !

. assembly are taken from the T-quencher and T-quencher l i l i supports beam model results. The beam end loads j j obtained from the beam model are app)ied at the boun- l

< t Addi-

[ daries of the ramshead finite element model. [

l tional distributed loads, to account for internal i l pressure effects and submerged structure load effects, l

[

are also applied. j r

i l

J P i' f Loads which act on the ramshead model boundaries are O app 11ed to ehe finite e1emene mede1 throueh a system ;

! of radial beams. The radial beams extend from the j l !

middle surface of each of the shell elements to a ;

i corresponding node on the centerline of . the shell elements, as shown in Figure 5-3.4-2. The beams-have- l large bending stiffnesses, zero axial stiffness, and i

are pinned in all directions at the shell element l

l middle surface. Boundary loads, applied to the cen- I i

terline nodes, cause only axial and shear -loads. to be ;

i j transferred to the shell element middle surface with- ;

j 'out. causing local bending effects. Use of this j l boundary condition minimizes the end ef fects of. the ;;

i ,

l f DET-20-015-5 '

l Revision 0 5-3.69: j

analytical model in the local areas of interest. The h system of radial beams serves to constrain the boun-daries to remain plane during loading, which is con-sistent with the assumption made in small deflection beam theory.

O l

l l

l DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-3.70 l nutggb i

r 5- 3. 5 Analysis Results The geometry, loads and load combinations, acceptance criteria, and analysis methods used in the evaluation of the Fermi 2 T quencher and T quencher supports are presented and discussed in the preceding sections.

The results from the evaluation of the T quencher and T quencher supports are presented in the paragraphs and tables which follow.

The maximum pedestal support reactions for each of the governing T quencher and T-quencher support loads are shown in Table 5-3.5-1. The maximum reactions for the ring plate supports at the ring beam and the quencher arm support members are shown in Table 5- 3. 5-2 for each of the governing loads.

4 The muimum T-quencher arm stresses resulting from ASME Code piping equations for the controlling load combinations are shown in Table 5- 3. 5- 3. The corre-sponding maximum ramshead assembly and T quencher support stresses for the controlling load combinations are given in Table 5-3.5-4.

~

DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-3.71 nutggb

O In summary, the results show that the T quencher and T-quencher supports are adequate for the loads, load combinations, and acceptance criteria specified in NUREG-0661 (Reference 1) and the PUAAG (Reference 5).

O DET-20-015-5 O Revision 0 5-3.72 nut

Table 5-3.5-1 MAXIMUM PEDESTAL SUPPORT REACTIONS FOR GOVERNING L/ T-QUENCHER AND T-OUENCHER SUPPORT LOADS Section 5-3.2.1 Ramshead Pedestal Support Reaction Loads Load Designation Force (kips) Moment Type C e Vertical Radial Longitudinal Vertical Radial Longitudinal

,r Dead Weight la -6.26 0.04 0.02 0.12 -1.60 -2.60 CBE 2a+2b 1.11 3.26 3.77 3.81 57.80 149.35 50s 2c+2d 2.22 6.52 7.55 7.61 115.60 298.70 Tamperature 3b -13.58 15.55 -9.52 -138.70, 241.70 1851.70 4a -62.98 -8,58 17.30 -27.89 -331.81 -766.48 SRV 12.12 4b 13.17 -32.91 174.37 -157.96 618.77 Pool Swell Sa -19.51 88.53 7.02 -28.18 152.24 1295.84 6a -7.94 2.56 1.72 2,33 -32.96 -71.91 Oscillation Chugging 7b -8.94 5.57 -3.27 -4.29 157.43 123.66 Cl ing sa 12.37 -0.82 0.81 7.86 -10.85 13.41 e

DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-3.73 nutggb

e Table 5-3. 5-2 MAXIMUM SUPPORT MEMBER REACTION LOADS FOR GOVERNIt.'G T-QUENCHER AND T-QUENCHER SUPPORT LOADS Section 5-3.2-1 Ring Beam Ring Plate Support Member Load Designation Reaction Loads (kips) Loads (kips)

Load Load Type Case Horizontal Vertical Horizontal Vertical Number X3 X2 Dead Weight la -0.04 -6.61 -0.00 -1.80 OBE 2a+2b 1.50 0.95 0.83 0.57 Seismic SSE 2c+2d 2.99 1.89 1.66 1.13 Temperature 3b 1.67 0.00 4.09 4.59 4a 2.76 2.80 -1.96 -6.57 SRV Discharge 4b -21.77 -9.97 -8.90 -7.71 Pool Swell 5a 75.00 87.10 -19.87 -21.24 Condensation 6a -4.59 -69.60 1.88 -5.66 Oscillation Chugging 7b 2.36 -83.60 -3.18 -8.22 Vent clearing 8a -16.00 -0.26 5.46 9.67 i

DET-20-015-5 O

Revision 0 5-3.74 nutggb 1

Table 5-3.5-3 MAXIMUM T-QUENCHER ARM STRESSES FOR CONTROLLING LOAD COMBINATIONS L ad Combination ASME Service Load (1) Stress (ksi)

Item Code Combination Equation No.

Level Number Calc. Calc.(2)

Allow.

8 A A-1 4.00 0.25 9 B B-3 10.50 0.54 T-Quencher 9 C C-4 12.70 0.43 Arms 9 D D-4b 13.00 0.33 10 -

A-4a 3.30 0.12 (1) Load combination numbers are given in Table 5-2.2-9.

(2) Refer to Table 5-3.3-1 for allowable stresses.

i O

DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-3.75 %

gggJg l

Table 5-3.5-4 MAXIMUM RAMSHEAD AND T-OUENCHER SUPPORT STRESSES FOR CONTROLLING LOAD COMBINATIONS Load Combination Stress (ksi)

Service Level B Service Level C Service Level D item 8tf C*bination combination cerbinaties C

OMycr Calc. C*l 3; y[* , y Calc. Cg e Cale. y, C0MPONENT$

,' ] B-2 9.44 0.57 C-4 10.44 0.46 D-4a 10.94 0.36 Ramshead Local Primary Elbow Membrane 8-2 17.32 0.72 C-4 18.02 0.67 D-4a 22.16 0.61 hrima B-2 13.49 0.56 C-4 14.70 0.55 D-4a 15.30 0.42 Ramshead

, [ B-2 6.07 0.32 C-4 6.93 0.26 D-4a 7d9 0.22 Saddle *I 1"*TY B-2 11.67 0.40 C-4 12.08 0.38 D-4a 14. N 0.33 Plate h, % B-2 10.76 0.37 C-4 11.68 0.37 D-4a 14.48 0.34 5UPPORT&

Tensile Ss-3 2.42 0.11 BC-4 3.14 0.11 SD-3a 3.31 0.cs Lateral Bending $5-3 11.25 0.53 SC-1 11.60 0.41 SD-4a 12.70 0.30 Support Beam combined 58-3 13.67 0.64 SC-1/5dh 14.74 0.52 SD- M a 16.01 0.38 Compression SB-3 2.42 0.13 SC-4 3.14 0.14 SD-Ja 3.31 0.15 Interaction SB-3 13.67 0.66 SC-1/SCOd 14.74 0.55 sD. M 16.01 0.45 Bending SB-3 0.67 ?.44 SC-1 9.47 0.36 SD-4a 10.04 0.27 Support Axial SB-3 0.46 0.02 SC-4 0.40 0.02 SD-4a 0.56 0.01 c mbined SB-3 9.13 0.46 SC-1/SdO 9.95 0.38 SD-4a 11.40 0.24 WELD $

Saddle Plate to Ramshead Primary B-2 11.73 0.91 C-4 16.17 0.92 'D-4a 19.73 0.84 Ring Plate to Quencher Primary 11.00 0.79 ED-4 a (2) 11.00 0.58 SD=4a 11.00 9.43 Aru lSD-da(2)

(1) C abined and interaction stresses are conservatively evaluated using the maximum axial and bending stresses obtained from any load combination at a given Service Level.

(2) Ring plate weld stresses for Service Levels B and 9 are conservatively evaluated using maximum loads from Level D combination SD-4a.

DET-20-015-5 9

Revision 0 5-3.76 nutg9.,b

c 5-4.0 LIST OF REFERENCES

1. " Mark I Containment Long-Term Program," Safety Evaluation Report, USNRC, NUREG-0661, July 1980.

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 Definition," Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2, General Electric Company, NEDO-24568, Revision 1, June 1981.

4. Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2, Final Safety Analysis Report, Detroit Edison Company, Section 3.9, Amendment 3, June 1976.

5. " Mark I Containment Program Structural Acceptance Criteria Plant Unique Analysis Applications Guide," Task Number 3.1.1, Mark I Owners Group, General Electric Company, NEDO-24583, Revision 1, October 1979.

6. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, Division 1, 1977 Edition with Addenda up to O' and including Summer 1977.

7. " Methodology for Combining Dynamic Responses,"

USNRC, NUREG-0484, Revision 1, May 1980.

8. " Combining Modal Responses and Spatial Components in Seismic Response Analysis," USNRC, Regulatory Guide 1.92, Revision 1, February 1976.

! DET-20-015-5 Revision 0 5-4.1 nutggh

ML20052C054

Contents

Text

1.0 INTRODUCTION

SUMMARY

1.0 INTRODUCTION

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

Navigation menu

ML20052C054

Text

1.0 INTRODUCTION

SUMMARY

1.0 INTRODUCTION

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

Navigation menu

Search