ML20054G585
| ML20054G585 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry  |
| Issue date: | 06/07/1982 |
| From: | Davidson D CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO. |
| To: | Schwencer A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8206220087 | |
| Download: ML20054G585 (13) | |
Text
.
THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMIN ATING COMPANY P o Box 5000 m CLEVEL AND oHlo 44101 e TELEPHONE (216) 622-9800 m (LLUMINATING BLDG e 55 PUBLIC SOUARE Serving The Best Location in the Nation Datwyn R. Davidson
,1C E F P[ S!DF N T S rSTf M f NGINE E RING AND CONSTRUCTION June 7, 1982 Mr. A. Schwencer, Chief Licensing Branch No. 2 Division of Licensing U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Cor: mission Washington, D. C.
20555
Dear Mr. Schwencer:
Perry Nuclear Power Plant Docket Nos. 50-440; 50-441 Draft SER -
Structural Engineering Branch Members of the Structural Engineering Branch requested additional information regarding Perry's Containment buckling analysis.
The subject information is attached to this letter.
Very truly yours, W
vy Dalwy R. Davidson Vice President System Engineering and Construction DRD: mb cc:
Jay Silberg, Esq.
John Stefano
' tax Gildner Bool 8206220087 820607 PDR ADOCK 05000440 E
4 BUCKLING ANALYSIS At :he meeting with the NRC in Bethesda on February ll, 1982, Newport News Industrial Corporation, Gilbert Associates, and Cleveland Electrit Illuminating Company presented results of the containment vessel buchling evaluations to the Staff. As a-result of this meeting the NRC requested that the vessel be evaluated against different criteria.
The SEB position on Buckling Analysis of Steel Containment Vessel for Perry 1 and 2 was used for this evaluation.
A preliminary buckling analysis, Attachment No. 1, which used the NRC criteria and ASME Code Case N-284, indicated that the containment vessel design did not meet the new criteria including the proposed higher factors of safety.
Based upon the results of the preliminary analysis and recommendations of the staff the following action was proposed:
1.
An axisymmetric buckling analysis was to be performed and submitted for staff review in order to assess more realistic-ally the safety margin inherent to the containment vessel.
l
)
2.
More realistic combinations of stresses, as applicable, were l.
to be used, i.e.,
use concurrent states of meridional and hoop stresses.
3.
In addition to the load cases presented with the external pressure due to inadvertent containment spray actuation, results were to be presented for the same cases without spray actuation.
The axisymmetric bifurcation analysis, Attachment No. 2, shows that the NRC safety margins were satisfied for all loads conservatively combined per Tasks 1 and 2 above. Task 3, above, was not pursued since the NRC safety margins were met even with the external pressure. Attach-ment No. 2 provides a detailed description of the bifurcation analysis.
Attachment No. 1 Sheet 1 of 6 PERRY CONTAINMENT VESSEL.
lYg't I
I
~~
~~
n n
w I"
l J>
v di c.a.-
m i
i
-l n
hL g
65S 162/,
G i
B er l b'
=
=
6 d h
l ec 6 -t g
w.
k h
$}
rt
=74' to"
'r l
ca J
Attachment No. 1 Original Buckling Analysis Sheat 2 of 6 (Baker Method)
(PSI)
Actual Ext.
Buck. Ext.
Actual Axial Buck. Axial Section Pres.
Pres.1 Stress Stress 2 E
2.597 17.2 3290.
11043.
F
.864 4.7 2535.
11528.
G
.864 4.95 1858.
11528.
H
.864 15.52 1016.
11043.
Note 1: From Baker, Fig. 10-15 Note 2: From Baker, P. 229-230, Fig. 10-9 Interaction Equation l
(Baker Method)
Section Interaction Factor of Ecuation Safety E
.449 2.23 F
.404 2.48 G
.394 2.54 H
From Baker, Fig. 9-2, R1 + R2 < 0.5 actual axial compressive stress R1=
axial buckling stress R2 = actual external pressure external buckling pressure
Attachnint No. 1 Sh:st 3 of 6 LOAD COMBINATIONS (CODE CASE N - 284)
Service Level A:
DL + LL + P + SRV Service Level B:
DL + LL + P + SRV + OBE Service Level C:
DL + LL + P + SRV + SSE Service Level D:
N/A; No significant containment vessel local dynamic loads are defined.
Attachment No. 1 Sheet 4 of 6 AXIAL COMPRESSION
-(CODE CASE N - 284)
Elevation
"$1
$ el a,
c, FS 4
4 U
(PSI)
(PSI) 0 FS 19 j ( Tt a
E i
Service Level A FS = 3.0 FS = 2.0 (219) 600'-7" 6.66
.265
-1842.
.605 350i6.
20853.
13902.
(653) 634'-6" 19.86
.252
-1438.
.605 35066.
17119.
11413.
(606) 690'-4" 18.43
.252
-1310.
.605 35066.
15595.
10397.
(140) 720'-7" 4.26
.346
-670.
.605 35066.
5809.
3873.
Service Level B FS = 3.0 FS= 2.0 1
600'-7" l
-2820,
- 31925, 21283.
634'-6" Same as Same as
-2180.
Same as Same as Service Service Service Service 25952.
17302.
Level A Level A Level A Level A 690'-4"
-1799, 21417.
14278.
720'-7"
-995.
8627.
5751.
I Service Level!C FS = 2. 5 FS = 1. 67 600'-7"
-3394.
32019.
21389 634'-6" Same as Same as
-2599.
Same as Same as 25784.
17224.
S Service Service Service
!ervice Level A Level A Level'A Level A 690'-4"
-2038, 20218.
13506.
720'-7"
-1109.
8013.
5353.
1
-~
-,r
Attachment No. 1 Sheet 5 of 6 EXTERNAL PRESSURE (CODE CASE N - 284)
Elevation 01 0
er a hel
=
o O
E0 (PSI)
E m
Service Level A FS = 3.0 FS = 2.0 600'-7"
.8 757.
.153 8868.
2839.
1893.
634'-6"
.8 658.
.048 2782.
2468.
1645.
i 690'-4"
.8 582.
.052 3014.
2183.
1455.
720'-7"
.8 2224.
.254 14722.
8340.
5560.
I Service Level B FS = 3.0 FS = 2.0 600'-7" 720.
2700.
1800.
Same as Same as.
Same as 634'-6" Service 598.
Service Service 2243.
1495.
Level A Level A Level A 690'-4" 473.
1774.
1183.
720'-7" 4145.
15544 10363.
Service Level C FS =2.5 FS = 1. 67 600'-7" 704.
.2200.
1497.
Same as Same as Same as 634'-6" Service 570.
Service Service 1781.
1190.
Level A Level A Level A 690'-4" 410.
1281.
- 856, 720'-7" 5107.
15959.
10661.
Attachment No. 1-Sheet 6 of 6 Interaction Equation (Code Case N-284)
NRC Code Case Factors of N-284 Factors Elevation Safety of Safety Service Level A 600'-7"
.64
.35 (2.04)*
(1.03)*
634'-6" 1.25
.65 690'-4"
.94
.50 l
720'-7" N/A N/A Service Level B 600'-7"
.99
.59 (1.16)*
634'-6" 1.38
.76 690'-4"
.94
.53 1
j 720'-7" 1.16 N/A i
I Service Level C 600'-7"
.96
.58
(.97)*
i i
634'-6" 1.13
.65 i
690'-4"
.74
.44 i
r 720'-7" 1.20 N/A i
0
.5c O
< 1.0 43 hel
+
os 0
.5chel (Chel) 4e1
- Includes 25% reduction per NRC.
j N/A: no check required if c4, <.5 chel l
l i
l l
l l
i
.-n--
.,,--,.n, n
.,,w---,
---,.~---,,,-n--
,-n-,.-
Attachment No. 2 Shaat 1 of 5 PNPP CONTAINMENT VESSEL OVERALL BUCKLING ANALYSIS ELASTIC BIFURCATION ANALYSIS I.
ANALYSIS BASIS A.
Purpose Per the NRC's request, an axisymmetric elastic bifurcation analysis was conducted for the PNPP containment vessel to evaluate its margin of safety against buckling.
B.
Model The containment vessel'was considered to be an idealized axisymmetric shell structure as shown in Figure 1. -The vessel above the crane girder was not considered in the model since the Newport News Industrial Corporation analysis, Action Item 11, presented in the Febrary 11, 1982 meeting with the NRC, has justified that no buckling problem exists in the dome region. The vessel was assumed to be fixed at the bottom and at the ends of four ring stiffeners located in the area of filled annulus.
The top of the vessel is conservatively assumed as free for the buckling mode N=1, and as pinned for the other buckling patterns.
C.
Loads The two types of load combination that were considered are as follows:
1.
DL + LL + P + SRV + OBE - Service Level B 2.
DL + LL + P + SRV + SSE - Service Level C l
Service Level A and Service Level D were neglected because l
they are less severe.
l
Attechment No. 2 Shtot 2 of 5 D.
Stresses The stress distribution in the vessel for each load component was obtained from the containment vessel stress analysis results. These stress results are based on the latest vessel stress analyses with the containment fix concrete and are lower than the stress levels used for the preliminary analysis which were based on the unfixed vessel analyses. The controlling safety relief valve actuation case was the one valve subsequent actuation case. This case has the highest containment vessel design pressures and resultant stresses - more severe than either the 19 valve or 2 valve cases.
In performing the load combination of stresses, a conservative philosophy was followed, i.e., for nonaxisymmetric loads the worst meridions were considered and for dynamic loads the maximum membrane compressive stresses in the whole time history were considered.
E.
Analysis First, the knockdown factors in different regions were calculated based on the equations specified in the Code Case N-284.
For the area in the equipment hatch region, the corresponding knockdown factors were further factored by 0.75 to satisfy the current NRC requirement cf 25% reduction for large pentrations exceeding 10% of the vessel diameter. The combined stress distribution was amplified according to the values of the knockdown factors in each region and then was input into the computer program KSHEL3B written by Dr.
Kalnin to evaluate the critical prestress multiplier. This critical prestress multiplier was used to compare with the safety factors specified by the NRC and Code Case N-284.
1 Attachment No. 2 Sh:st 3 of 5 II.
ANALYSIS RESULTS The predicted buckling mode is a local buckling which occurs at the area between the stiffeners at El 610'-5" and El. 664'-10".
In other words, it occurs, as expected, at the area where the equipment hatch is located.
The critical prestress multiplier for service level C is 2.97 compared with the safety factor 2.5 per NRC and 1.67 per Code Case N-284.
The critical prestress multiplier for service level B is 3.26 compared with the safety factor 3 per NRC and 2 per Code Case N-284.
This com-parison is also listed in Table 1.
III. CONCLUSION l
The axisymmetric bifurcation analysis has confirmed that the containment vessel is safe against buckling. The axisymmetric bifurcation analysis meets the latest NRC factors of safety even with the 25% reduction for large openings in the equipment hatch region.
Since the axisymmetric bifurcation analysis with containment sprays meets the NRC's current factor of safety requirements against buckling, an analysis without the sprays is not required.
1 i
l l
l l
l t
i l
l l
Attechment No. 2 Shrst 4 of 5 e
TABLE 1 A comparison between the critical prestress multiplier and the safety factors specified by NRC and Code Case N-284.
Service Level B Service Level C Critical prestress multiplier from elastic bifurcation analysis 3.26 2.97 Factor of Safety per NRC 3
2.5 Factor of Safety per Code Case N-284 2
1.67
C e t O,
2
'154D PAGE SU3JEGy E'""
^ " # '"~ ~
- 4 '/' "' I b"
- 5 (Gilbert Associates,Inc.
or "l'
Ld
_d
_d
_d
- J...-,.....
PAGE$
uiCROFlLMED CALCULATION o,,o,,,yo, g ; y 5,7 g DATE C /s i / 3 L Figure 1: Configuration and Modeling of the Containment Vessel I
f __
r e. vis'- s h'
,4,,
I I
rL. I( vio" q
I eX" l
7AO e t. Gio '- s
- 4 E L 17 8 '- V '
N4.'
=4 W
i w
l r l, r.
,/;ff p.'
/i /s '
~
I I
l
( y raf $ tar Q ld h tk JL
- 99
". A 6 44A 17