ML20062G011
| ML20062G011 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 12/18/1978 |
| From: | LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20062G009 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7812260129 | |
| Download: ML20062G011 (400) | |
Text
--- --
7 y
1 M
INSERTION INSTRUCTIONS FOR REVISION 3 TO THE DAR The following text, tables, and figures are to be inserted in the DAR. These pa~ges are either replacerr.ent pages or new pages as
,, indicated below. 1
'l All replacement pages which differ from existing pages are identified hand with the corner. revision number and date in the lower right Bars located in the margin of a particular page indicateofmaterial bottom the page.which is new in the revision indicated at the
{
,' Remove Old (Pages)
Insert New (Pages)
Revision 3 Title Page (in !
{
front of Revision 2 Title Page Preface _
Matrix Table -
Required Information (from letter -
of April 18, 1975)
Request for Additional Infortration -
(from letter of April 21, 1975)
- Tab LIST OF EFFECTIVE PAGES i through xiv EF-1 through EF-3 i through xiv 1-1 through 1-4 xv and xvi '
1-1 through 1-4 Table 1-1 (2 pages) Table l'-1 (2 pages)
Figures 1-1 through 1-4 Figures 1-1 through 1-4 5 Figures 1-6 through 1-8 Figures 1-6 through 1-8
, Figure 1-11 .
Figure 1-11 l 2-1 through 2-4
- 2-1 through 2-4 Table 2-2 2-5 and 2-6
] -
Table 2-2 Figures 2-2 through 2-9 Tables 2-3 and 2-4 i Figures 2-12 and 2-13 Figures 2-2 through 2-9 Figures 2-12 and 2-13 Figures 2-15 through 2-17 Figures 2-15 through 2-17 3-1 through 3-5 3-1 through 3-5 3-6 Tables 3-1 throngh 3-5 Tables 3-1 through 3-5 i
Figures 3-1 through 3-12 Tables 3-6 and 3-7 !
- Figures 3-1 through 3-12 l 4-1 through 4-17 Figures 3-13 through 3-22 l -
4-1 through 4-17 Tables 4-1 through 4-3 4-18 through 4-20 Figure 4-1 Tables 4-1 through 4-3
- Figure 4-1 Figure 4-3 Figure 4-3 i
" Figures 4-7 through 4-9 Figures 4-7 through 4-9 '
5-1 through 5-13 5-1 through 5-13 1
Revision 3 - November 1978
( -
________--_c==_=_. ._- ~ -- -- -- -----
Remove Old (Pages) Insert New fFaces 5-14 '
Tables 5-1 through 5-5 Tables 5-1 through 5-5 ,
Table 5-7 Table 5-7 !
Table 5-9 Table 5-9 l-Table 5-11 Table 5-11 l Figures 5-1 through 5-7 Figures 5-1 through 5-7 !
Figures 5-26 through 5-57 Figures 5-28 through 5-57 l Figures 5-58 through 5-62 i 6-1 through 6-5 6-1 through 6-5 i 6-6 and 6-7 -
Tables 6-1 through 6-4 Tables 6-1 through 6-4 :
Tables 6-5 and 6-6 [
Figures 6-1 through 6-7 Figures 6-1 through 6-7 Figure 6-8 ;
7-1 through 7-11 7-1 through 7-11 8-1 through 8-3 8-1 through 8-3 9-1 through 9-4 9-1 through 9-4 9-5 through 9-23 [
E9.1-1 through E9.1-5 :
Tables 9-1 through 9-6 Tables 9-1 through 9-6 I Table 9-7 (2 pages)
Tables 9-8 through 9-23 Figures 9-1 through 9-4 Figures 9-1 through 9-4 Figures 9-5 through 9-35 10-1 through 10-5 10-1 through 10-5 m Table 10-1
'~)
Figures 10-1 through 10-8 -
R-1 R-1 R-2 and R-3 i (following Appendix A Title Page)
A-i Tabla A-3 (following Table A-1 page 3 of 3) 020-44 020-44 020-64 through 020-71 -
Figures 020.71-1 through l s 020.71-4 '
020-72 through 020-75 ,
Figure 020.75-1 ;
B-i through B-iv (following !.
Appendix B Title Page) ;
B-1 through B-4 B-1 through B-4 '
b-5 through B-9 .
B1-1 - 3' B2-1 through B2-3 -
B3-1 through B3-3 -
B4-1 -
B5-1 -
[
Figures B2-1 through B2-3 Figures B2-1 through B2-3 Figure B3-10C Figure B3-10C Figure B3-11C ",
Figure B3-11C Figures B3-15 and B3-16 Figures B4-3 and B4-4 9
Tab APPENDIX C 2 Revision 3 - November 1978
4
)
ij l
Remove Old (Pages) Insert New (Pages d
Appendix C Title Page jj -
C-i through C-iii C-1 through C-9 Fiaures C3-1 through C3-15 Tab APPENDIX D j Appendix D Title Page !
D-i through D-iii
- i -
D-1 through D-13 ED-1 and ED-2 l
Tables D2-1 through D2-8 i -
Table D3-1
]
Table D3-2 (2 pages)
Table D3-3 (5 pages)
Table D3-4 Figures D2-1 through D2-3 l -
Tab APPENDIX E i -
Appendix E Title Page j -
E-i through E-iii E-1 through E-17 i -
Tables E4-1 and E4-2 l -
Table E4-3 (2 pages)
Table E4-4 "l -
Figures E4-1 through E4-8 j THESE INSTRUCTIONS AhE TO BE FILED i BEHIND THE REVISION 3 TITLE PAGE 1
l I
I N
3i ii 2
)A i ;
- i I
l l
6
~ l l
=
_,r 1
3 Revision 3 - November 1978 i
_ * * " " "_ _ -- ,--~,-n-* - --
(
- l i
- l f. ') ,
.- PLANT DESIGN ASSESSMENT
!i '
(!
I
!i i
i:
i
- SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION UNIT 1 J
f
,'I l
l i
i
. ,.~ g D
REVISION 3 NOVEMBER 1978
-i
____: 1 - - -
46 A. . -*" * ~
S (P\
I F
e I
a
,L N~~
l 1
W 4 O
4 A
W E r' O
W
' 6 L A
W L
O H
v)
U m.
4 h
a
~a
(
-t e[A.
- s. t
-*A
-~
1 1
LIST OF EFFECTIVE PAGES l j Text, Table (T) , Revision
,j or Fiqure (F) Number 4
EF-1 through EF-3 3
! i through xvi 3 1 1-1 through 1-4 3 i T1-1 (2 pages) 3
~ ,' F1-1 through F1-4 3 F1-5 1 F1-6 through F1-8 3 j
F1-9 and F1-10 1 F1-11 3 2-1 through 2-6 3 T2-1 1 T2-2 through T2-4 3 F2-1 1 F2-2 through F2-9 3 F2-10 and F2-11 1 F2-12 and F2-13 3 F2-14 1 F2-15 through F2-17 3 F2 -18 1 3-1 through 3-6 3 T3-1 through T3-7 3 F3-1 through F3-22 3 4-1 through 4-20 3 '
T4-1 through T4-3 3 T4-4 1 F4-1 3 F4-2 1
- F4-3 3 F4-4 through F4-6 1
,' F4-7 through F4-9 3 F4-10 through F4-16 1 5-1 through 5-14 3 T5-1 through T5-5 3
- TS-6 1 TS-7 3 i T5-8 1
' T5-9 3 TS-10 1 TS-11 3
- FS-1 through FS-7 3 FS-8 through FS-27 1
'?
l FS-28 through FS-62 3 6-1 through 6-5 3 i T6-1 through T6-6 3 V ?.. s F6-1 through F6-8 3 iV ', 7-1 through 7-11 3
- l. s' T7-1 1 i i
- EF-1 Revision 3 - November 1978 l
LIST OF EFFECTIVE PAGES (CONT 'D)
Text, Table '(T) , '
Revision or Figure (F) Number '
F7-1 Orig.
F7-2 through F7-5 1 8-1 through 8-3 3 9-1 through -23 3 E9.1-1 through E9.1-5 3 T9-1 through T9-6 3 <
T9-7 (2 pages) 3 i T9-8 through T9-23 3 :
F9-1 through F9-35 3 I 10-1 through 10-5 3 :
R-1 through R-3 3
- I Appendix A Title Page 1 i A-i 3 !
TA-1 (2 pages) 2 TA-2 (3 pages) 2 TA-3 3 020-1 through 020-26 1 020-27 through 020-43 2 l 020-44 3 020-45 through 020-58a 2 020-59 through 020-63 2 010-64 through 020-71 3 n.
F020.71-1 through F020.71-4 3 020-72 through 020-75 3 F020.75-1 3 130-1 through 130-7 1 130-8 through 130-15 2 Appendix B Title Page 2 B-i through B-iv 3 B-1 through B-9 3 TB2-1 :
2 FB2-1 through FB2-3 l 3 i FB3-1 through FB3-10B 2 FB3-10C [
3 FB3-11A and FB3-11B 2 FB3-11C 3 FB3-12 through FB3-14 2 FB3-15 and FB3-16 3 FB4-1 and FB4-2 2 FB4-3 and FB4-4 3 [ -
Appendix C Title Page 3 h C-i through C-lii 3 !-
C-1 through C-9 3 ,
i FC3-1 through FC3-15 3 Appendix D Title Page 3 -
D-i through D-iii 3 I D-1 through D-13 3 ED-1 and ED-2 3 f
i EF-2 Revision 3 - November 1978
. - -- - 1
,a
i LIST OF EFFECTIVE PAGES (CONT *D)
-g Text, Table (T) , Revision
, j ; or Fiqure (F) Number TD2-1 through TD2-8 3 TD3-1 3 TD3-2 (2 pages) 3 TD3-3 (5 pages) 3 TD3-4 3 FD2-1 through FD2-3 3
- Appendix E Title Page 3
.] E-i through E-iii 3 E-1 through E-17 3 l TE4-1 and TE4-2 3 TE4-3 (2 pages) 3 TE4-4 3
[ FE4-1 through FE4-8 3 4
l i,
r L
i i i l i
I l
1 I i
i i
, i
! r i !
1 i
[
EF-3 Revision 3 - November 1978 I
t
- . . - - - - . ~ . - -
.~.,-,,.,,,n.-,.n,
i l c
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION
] ;
1.1 PURPOSE 1-1 I
(
j 1.2 SCOPE 1-1 1 j .
3 1.3 )
- STATUS OF CONSTRUCTION 1-2 l 1.4 SUPPORTING PROGRAM '
1-2 1.5
SUMMARY
OF DESIGN ASSESSMENT
< 1-2
- 1.6
GENERAL ARRANGEMENT OF SUPPRESSION !
POOL STRUCTURES 1-4 !
SECTION 2 - LOADS AND LOAD COMBINATIONS ,
2.1 SOURCE OF IDADS '
2-1
' 2.1.1 Safety / Relief Valve Actuation 2-1 2.1.1.1 Steam Quenching Vibrations 2-1 i
2.1.2 LOCA Loads 2.1.2.1 Design Basis Accident 2-2 2.1.2.2 2-2 2.1.2.3 Intermediate Break Accident 2-2 Small Break Accident 2-3 2.1.3 Seismic sloshing of the suppression Pool 2-3 2.2 LOAD COMEINATIONS !
2-4 2.3 e LOAD SEQUENCES 2-5 2.4 NSSS LOADING COMBINATIONS AND ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 2-6 ;
SECTION 3 - SRV LOADS
3.1 INTRODUCTION
f a 3-1 3.2 CONTAINMENT LOADS }
3.2.1 Ramshead Loads for Design Assessment 3-2 I
'; 3.2.1.1 SRV Ramshead Load Cases for Plant Design 3-2 !
Assessment l 3.2.1.2 3-3 '
3.2.2 Plant Design Assessment Load Sumrrary 3-4 Containment Loads for Quencher Device 3-5 3.3' SUBMERGED STRUCTURE LOADS 3-6 3.4 QUENCHER DEVICE DESIGN LOADS 3-6
, i
.> 4
- s SECTION 4 - LOCA LOADS 1
)
4.0 GENERAL 4-1 l
1
-. -~.--- - - - - -
1
I i
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT
- D) ;
,# m Page \_)
4.1 ANALYTICAL METHODS AND DISCUSSION OF LOADS 4-2 !'
4.1.1 Vent Clearing 4-2 s 4.1.1.1 Submerged Structure Loads Due to Vent Clearing 4-2 4.1.1.2 Basemat Loads Due to Vent Clearing 4-3 4.1.2 LOCA Bubble Formation 4-3 4.1.2.1 Submerged Structure Loads Due to LOCA Bubble ,
Formation 4-3 :
4.1.2.2 Pool Boundary Loads Due to LOCA Bubble Formation 4-3 4.1.3 Pool Swell and Fallback 4-4 4.1.3.1 Impact Loads on Small Structures f rom Pool Swell 4-5 .
4.1.3.2 Impact Loads on Large Structures from Pool Swell 4-7 4.1.3.3 Drag Loads on the Downcomer Vents Due to Pool Swell 4-7 t 4.1.3.4 Drag Loads on Structures Other Than Downcomer
- Vents Due to Pool Swell 4-7 !t 4.1.3.5 Loads on Grating Due to Pool Swell 4-8 l 4.1.3.6 Suppression Chamber Boundary Loads During Pool [
Swell 4-8 '
4.1.3.7 Drywell Floor Loads Due to Pool Swell 4-9 4.1.3.8 Fallback Loads 4-9 4.1.4 Quasi-Steady Vent Flow 4-10 4.1.4.1 Vertical loads on the Downcomer Vents Due to Viscous and Pressure Forces of Vent Flow 4-10 4.1.4.2 Pool Boundary Loads Due to Condensation Oscillations 4-11 .. '}
4.1.5 Chugging 4-11 4.1.5.1 Lateral Loads on Downcomer Vents Due to j Chugging 4-11 4.1.5.2 Submerged Structure Loads Due to Chugging 4-12 ,
4.1.5.3 Pool Boundary Loads Due to Chugging 4-12 ,
4.2 SHOREHAM PLANT SPECIFIC LOADS AND RESPONSE CONDITIONS 4-12 4.2.1 Vent Clearing 4-12 4.2.2 LOCA Lubble Formation 4-13 l 4.2.3 Pool Swell and Fallback 4-13 '
4.2.3.1 Impact Loads on Small Structures Due to Pool Swell 4-14 i 4.2.3.2 Impact Loads on Large Structures Due to Pool i Swell 4-14 '.'
4.2.3.3 Drag Loads on the Downcomer Vents Due to Pool i Swell 4-14 I 4.2.3.4 Drag Loads on Structures Other than Downcomer I Vents Due to Pool Swell 4-15 '
4.2.3.5 Loads on Grating Due to Pool Swell 4-15 >
4.2.3.6 Suppression Chamber boundary Loads Due to Pool Swell 4-16 4.2.3.7 Drywell Floor Loads Due to Pool Swell 4-16 4.2.3.8 Fallback Loads 4-16 gg ,
4.2.4 Quasi-Steady Vent Flow 4-17 ( ,) ;
}
ii -
= : -
i TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT eD)
\_) Page L
~l 4.2.4.1 Vertical Loads on the Downcomer Vents Due to Vent Flow 4-17 1 4.2.4.2 Condensation Oscillation Loads 4-17
} 4.2.5 Chugging 4-18
- 4.2.5.1 Lateral Loads on Downcomer Vents Due to Chugging 4-18 j 4.2.5.2 Submerged Structure Loads Due to Chugging
" 4-19 4.2.5.3 Pool Boundary Loads Due to Chugging 4-19 r
4.3 DESCRIPTION
OF POSH CODE 4-20 y SECTION 5 - DYNAMIC RESPONSE OF PRIMARY STRUCTURES 5.1 STRUCTURAL RESPONSE TO SRV IDADS 5-1 5.1.1 Introduction 5-1 i
, 5.1.2 Method of Analysis 5-1 5.1.2.1 Method 5-1 -
5.1.2.2 Analytical Model 5-2 5.1.2.3 Applied Loads 5-3 -
5.1.3 Safety / Relief Valve Discharge Loads 5-3 5.1.4 Summary of Results 5-5 5.1.5 Containment Structures Response to SRV :
Ramshead Loads 5-6 5.1.5.1 Response to All Valve Simultaneous Discharge 5-6 5.1.5.2 Response to Three Adjacent Valve Simultaneous Discharge 5-7 5.1.5.3 Response to All Valve Sequential Discharge 5-8 '
5.1.5.4 Response to ADS Discharge 5-8 1
5.1.5.5 Response to Three Adjacent Valve l Out of Phase Discharge 5-9 i 5.1.5.6 Response to Single Valve Discharge 5-9 l 5.1.6 Containment Structures Response to SRV ;
~
T-Quencher Loads 5-9 t 5.1.6.1 Response to All Valve Discharge 5-10 5.1.6.2 Response to ADS Discharge 5-10 5.1.6.3 Response to Three Adjacent Valve Discharge 5-10
, 5.1.6.4 Response to Single Valve Discharge 5-11 l f" 5.2 STRUCTURAL RESPONSE TO LOCA LOADS 5-11 5.2.1 Introduction 5-11 5.2.2 Method of Analysis 5-11 i
- 5.2.3 LOCA Loads 5-11
', 5.2.4 Summary ot Results 5-12 i 5 . 2. 5 Containment Structures Response to !
) LOCA Loads
,j 5-13 i 5.2.5.1 Response to Vent Clearing 5-13 l
,! 5.2.5.2 Response to Chugging 5-13 -
'I' l i
l 5.3 STRUCTURAL RESPONSE TO ANNULUS PRESSURIZATION Ud?) LOADS 5-13 f i
5.3.1 Annulus Pressurization Loads 5-13 !
i lii i
_._.~
- ._. =__ -----------;--------;- --
i
[
l i
i I
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT *D) 1, Page f] '
5.3.2 Method of Analysis 5-14 '
5.3.3 Besults , 5-14 "
SECTION 6 - PRIMARY STRUCTURES ASSESSMENT
6.1 INTRODUCTION
6-1 t
6.2 DESCRIPTION
OF STRUCTURES 6-1 ;
6.3 DESIGN CRITERIA AND LOADS 6-1 !
6.3.1 Desion Criteria 6-1 b 6.3.2 Ioads 6-2 l 6.3.3 Load Combinations 6-3 j 6.4 METHOD OF ANALYSIS 6-3 6.5
SUMMARY
, DESIGN MARGINS, AND CONCLUSIONS E-3 6.5.1 Containment Internal Loads 6-3 [
6.5.2 Design Margins 6-5 6.5.3 i Conclusions 6-5 SECTION 7 - CONTAINMENT LINER ASSESSMENT - !
l 7.0 GENERAL 7-1 7.1 EASEMAT LINER 7-1 '
7.1.1 Ioad Sources and Design Criteria 7-1 7.1.1.1 Load Sources 7-1 7.1.1.2 Design Criteria 7-2 7.1.2 Combining and Applying Loads 7-2 7.1.2.1 Combining Loads l 7.1.2.2 7-2 i Assumptions 7-2 7.1.3 Basemat Liner Analytical Methods 7-3 l 7.1.3.1 Strain Displacement Relations t 7-3 7.1.3.2 Stress Concentration Factors 7-4 [.
7.1.3.3 Basemat Liner Static Analysis 7-4 7.1.3.4 Basemat Liner Anchorage System 7-4 i 7.1.4 Basemat - Summary and Design Margin 7-4 7 .1. 4 .1 Strains and Stress from SRV Discharge 7-4 7.1.4.2 Operating Stress Range Comparison 7-4 !
7.1.4.3 Strain Evaluation per ASME III, Division 2 7-5 7.1.4.4 Fatigue Analysis ,
7-5 f I 7.2 C WALL LINER AND ANCHOR SYSTEM 7-5 t '
7.2.1 Load Sources and Design Criteria 7-6 I 7.2.1.1 Load Sources 7-6 :
I 7.2.1.2 hall Liner Design Criteria 7-6 i.
7.2.2 Combining and Applying Loads 7-7 7.2.2.1 Combining Loads 7-7 7.2.2.2 l Fatigue Load Combinations 7-7 ,e j 7.2.2.3 Assumptions on Number of Events per Combination 7-7 7.2.2.4 Stress Concentration Factor 7-7 i
l iv '
- ' - - ~ ' - - -
_ __ __ - 7_ z Z-- - - - - - ~ -. . _ ~ - - - - - -
i l
ll TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT
- D)
Page 7.2.3 Wall Liner Analytical Methods 7-8 7.2.4 Justification of Quasi-Static Analysis 7-9
- 7.2.5 Wall' Liner Summary and Design Margin 7-10
! 7.2.5.1 Wall Liner Strain from SRV Only 7-10 '
d 7.2.5.2 Wall Liner Comparisons per ASME III, Division 2 7-10 t
7.2.5.3 Wall Anchorage Summary 7-10 7.2.5.4 Operating Stress Range Comparison Summary 7-10 7.2.5.5 Wall Liner Fatigue Analysis Summary 7-10 7.2.6 Piping Penetrations 7-10 7.2.6.1 Load Combinations 7-10 7.2.6.2 Design Criteria and Method of Analysis 7-11 7.2.6.3 Results of Analysis 7-11 SECTION 8 - ASSESSMENT OF THE SECONDARY CONTAINMENT AND OTHER STRUCTURES
8.1 INTRODUCTION
8-1 ,
8.2 SECOhDARY CONTAINMENT 8-1 8.3 DRYWELL FLOOR AND SUPPORT COLUMNS 8-1 8.4 DOWNCOMER BEACING B-2 8.5 PLATFORMS, LADDERS, AND WALKWAYS 8-2 l 8.6 CABLE TRAY AND CONDUIT SUPPORTS 8-3 SECTION 9 - PLANT PIPING, COMPONENTS, AND EQUIPMENT
, ASSESSMENT 9.1 EOP PIPING AND EQUIPMENT 9-1 9.1.1 Piping System 9-1 9.1.1.1 Analytical Techniques 9-1 9.1.1.2 Reevaluation Procedures 9-1 9.1.1.3 Results 9-3 9.1.1.4 Functiona1 Capability 9-4 9.1.1.5 Results Based on T-Quencher Load Definition 9-4 9.1.2 Equipment 9-5 ,
9.1.2.1 Summary 9-5 l 9.1. 2.'2 Reevaluation Procedures 9-6 !
9.1.2.3 Evaluation Loads 9-7
! 9.1.2.4 Results 9-10 9.1.2.5 Modifications 9-12 9.1.2.6 Operability Assurance 9-13 9.1.2.7 List of Symbols 9-13 9.2 NSSS PIPING AND EQUIPMENT 9-14 9.2.1 Piping Analysis 9-15
<) 9.2.1.1 Pipe Mounted / Connected Equ.tpment 9-16 9.2.1.2 Floor / Structure Mounted Equipment 9-16 4
V
TABLE OF CONTENTS (COh"I'D)
Page p) 9.2.2 Reactor Pressure Vessel Supports and Internal Components Analysis 9-17 9.2.3 NSSS Operability Assurance 9-18 9.2.3.1 Qualification of Valves 9-18 .
9.2.3.2 Qualification of Pumps 9-18 2 9.2.4 RPV Internals Lumped Mass Model Analysis Methods 9-19 9.2.4.1 Program Version and Computer 9-19 9.2.4.2 History of Use 9-20 9.2.4.3 Extent of Application 9-20 .
9.2.4.4 Test Problems 9-20 !
9.2.5 NSSS Piping Systems Analysis Methods 9-21 9.2.5.1 SAP-IV Computer Program 9-22 9.2.5.2 Multiple Excitation Methods 9-22 ,
9.2.6 NSSS Evaluation Results 9-22 :
EXHILIT 9-1 SEISMIC QUALIFICATION
SUMMARY
OF EQUIPMENT SECTION 10 - TEMPERATURE MONITORING SYSTEM [
10.1 PURPOSE 10-1 10.2 HIGH TEMPERATURE STEAM QUENCHING VIBRATIONS 10-1 10.2.1 Plant Transients 10-2 10.2.1.1 Abnormal Events 10-2 O 10.2.1.2 Primary System Isolation 10-3 _.)
'10.2.1.3 Stuck Open Relief Valve 10-3 10 .2.1 .4 Automatic Depressurization System (ADS) 10-3 10.2.2 Transients of Concern 10-3 l 10.3 DESIGN BASIS 10-5 l 10.4 GENERAL SYSTEM DESCRIPTION 10-5 REFERENCES R-1 APPENDIX A RESPONSE TO NRC QUESTIONS APPENDIX B REPORT ON CONTAINMENT STRUCTURE SENSITIVITY -
TO POOL EYDRODYNAMIC LOADS APPENDIX C FLUID-STRUCTURE INTERACTION (FSI) j APPENDIX D SRSS APPLICATION CRITERIA AS APPLIED TO i MARK II LOAD COMBINATION CASES APPENDIX E FUNCTIONAL CAPABILITY CRITERIA EDR MARK II PIPING vi
I I
m LIST OF TABLES Table Title 1-1 Summary of Loads
. t.
2-1 Load Combinations and Load Factors 2-2 Load Combinations and Stress Limits for Structural 1 Steel
! 2-3 Load Combinations,and Acceptance Criteria - Piping
.i Systems Operating Condition Categories
] 2-4 NSSS RPV and Internals Ioading Combinations and Acceptance Criteria i 3-1 Surnmary of Maximum and Minimum Wall i
Pressures for Sequential SRV Discharge 3-2 Summary of Maximum and Minimum Wall l Pressures for Automatic Depressurization System Actuation 3-3 Sunucary of Maximum and Minimum Wall (
Pressures for Single Valve Discharge 3-4 Summary of Maximum and Minimum Wall Pressures for Asymmetric SRV Discharge 3-5 SRV Load Sumary 3-b Loads on the Quencher Lody 3-7 Loads on Quencher Arm 4-1 Sunmary of LOCA Affected Structures 4-2 Drag Coefficients of Various Shapes 4-3 Shoreham Data for DBA Transient and Pool Swell Analysis
!j 4-4 Drywell Pressure as a Function of Time for DEA
- 5-1 Definition of Internal Loads l
, 5-2 Maximum values of Dynamic Ioads in the Basemat from a Simultaneous All Valve SRV Discharge
,l with Ramshead g 5-3 Maximum values of Dynamic Loads in the Super-structures from a Simultaneous All Valve SRV Discharge with Ramshead g 5-4 Maximum values of Dynamic Imads in the Basemat I
and Superstructures from a Simultaneous Three Adjacent Valve SRV Discharge with Ramshead !
5-5 Maximum Values of Dynamic Loads in the Basenat and Superstructures from a Sequential All Valve SRV Discharge with Ramshead l i
- 5-8 Maximum Values of Dynamic Loads in the Basemat l from LOCA Vent Clearing Loads i 5-7 Maximum Values of Dynamic Loads in the Super-s structures trom LOCA vent clearing Loads j
, 5-8 Maximum values of Dynamic Ioads in the Basemat from Axisymmetric 20 Hz Chugging Loads t l' vii Revision 3 - November 1978 i
~
. _ - , - . . - - - - - - , - - - - - - - - - - - - ' ~ ' ~
LIST OF TABLE.S (CONT'D)
, Table Title '
- 5-9 Maximum Values of Dynamic Loads in the Super- '
structure's from Axisymmetric 20 Ez Chugging Loads '
5-10 Maximum Values of Dynamic Ioads in the Basemat from Axisymmetric 30 Hz Chugging Loads !
5-11 Maximum Values of Dynamic Loads in the Super- ,
structures from Axisymmetric 30 Hz Chugging .
Loads l
6-1 Load Combinations and Ioad Factors 6-2 Definition of Internal Loads '
6-3 Basemat Design Internal Loads Just Outside Pedestal !
6-4 Reactor Pedestal and Primary Containment l Design Internal Loads '
6-5 Minimum Design Margins for Flexure and j Axial Tensile loads i 6-6 Minimum Shear Reinforcement Requirements 7-1 Stress Cyclic Data for Fatigue Analysis 9-1 Feedwater Piping 301 m 9-2 9-3 Core Spray Piping 100 Reactor Water Clean-up Piping 012S ")
9-4 Functional Capability Evaluation 9-5 Primary Stress Intensity Corr.parison 9-6 Support Load Comparison 9-7 Qualification by Analysis, Floor-mounted Equipn.ent 9-8 Qualification by Test, Floor-mounted Equipment .
9-9 Operator Faulted Loads, Main Steam, Pipe-mounted ,
Equipment .
9-10 Operator Faulted Loads, Feedwater, Pipe-mounted ,
Equipment '
9-11 Operator Faulted Loads, Recirc, Pipe-nounted Equipment i 9-12 Operator Faulted Loads, HPCI, Pipe-mounted Equipment '
9-13 Operator Faulted Loads, RCIC, Pipe-mounted Equipment [
9-14 Operator Faulted Loads, RWCU, Pipe-mounted Equipment !
9-15 Operator Faulted Loads, RHR, Pipe-mounted Equignent [. .
9-16 .
Operator Faulted Loads, CS, Pipe-mounted Equipment F 9-17 Dynamic Methods for Suppression Pool b 9-18 Comparison of Natural Frequencies Obtained by DYSEA [
9-19 Cortparison of Maximum Loads Obtained by DYSEA j 9-20 Load Assessment t 9-21 (later) }
9-22 (later) l 9-23 (later)
{
O: i viii Revision 3 - November 1978
. .. -b
__ l t
1 j
, .; LIST OF FIGURES i -
.\ !
'd Fiqure Title
-q
' I !
1-1 Suppression Chamber Piping Composite - -
[
Plan El. 20*-0" to 408-0", North ;
,, 1-2 Suppression Chamber Piping Composite -
- Plan El. 20*-0" to 408-0", South {
- i 1-3 Suppression Chamber Piping Composite - !
Plan El. 408-0" to 638-0", North !
1-4 Suppression Chamber Piping Composite - l
' Plan El. 40 8-0" to 63 *-0", South :
1-5 Suppression Chamber Piping Composite - Section 1-1 l i 1-6 Suppression Chamber Piping Composite - Section 2-2 i 1-7 l Drywell Vent Piping - Sheet 1
_! 1-8 Drywell Vent Piping - Sheet 2 ,
1-9 Drywell Vent Piping - Sheet 3 l 1-10 :'
Drywell Vent Piping - Sheet 4 i 1-11 SRV Discharge in Suppression Chamber L ;
' l ;
2-1 Event-Time Relationship for SRV Discharge Due I to Anticipated Plant Transients 2-2 Event-Time Relationship for the Design Basis l i
Accident '
! 2-3 Load Combination History Structure Affected: !
Drywell Floor Accident Condition: Large i Line Break (DBA) !
2-4 Load Combination History Structure Affected: ;
Downcomers Accident Condition: Large Line ,
Break (DBA) '
2-5 Load Combination History Structure Affected: i i
Downcomers Accident Condition: Intermediate l Line Break !
2-6 Load Combination History Structure Affected: l
<j Downcomers Accident Condition: Small Line !
Break j i 2-7 Load Combination History Structure Affected: !
! Downcomers Accident Condition: None ;
i 2-8 Load Combination History Structures Affected: i Wetwell Walls above the Water Level Accident !
Condition: Large Line Break EHUL) 2-9. Load Combination History Structure Affected. ;
Submerged Wetwell Accident Condition: Large !
i Line Break (DBA) j 2-10 Load Combination History Structure Affected: l
{
Submerged Wetwell Accident Condition: Intermediate i j Line Break i i
2-11 Load Combination History Structure Affected: Sub- !
merged Wetwell Accident Condition: Small Line Break 2-12 Load Combination History Structure Aff ected: Sub-
-s merged Wetwell Accident Condition: None !
d i in Revision 3 - November 1978 !
l I !
a
LIST OF FIGURES (CONT 'D)
Fiqure Title b
2-13 Load'Corbination History Structure Affected: Small i Submerged Structures, Columns, and Piping Accident i Condition: Large Line Break (DBA) 2-14 Load Combination History Structures Affected: Small Subnerged Structures, Columns, and Piping Accident Condition: Intermediate Line Break 2-15 Load Combination History Structures Affected:
Small Submerged Structures, Columns and Piping Accident Condition: Small Line Break 2-16 Load Combination History Structure Affected: Small Submerged Structures, Columns, and Piping Accident ,
condition: None 2-17 Load Combination History Structure Atfected: Small ,
Structures above Pool and below Breakthrough Accident Condition: Large Line Break (DBA) 2-18 Load Corbination History Structures Affected:
Small Structures above Breakthrough Accident Condition: Large Line Break (DBA) 3-1 Phenomenon of Safety / Relief Valve Blowdown into Suppression Pool 3-2 Cross-Section of Suppression Pool and Definition ,
of Suppression Chamber Walls' Loading Zone for -
Ramshead Load Definition 3-3 Normalized Pressure Time History for All SRVs Discharging Simultaneously and in Phase Based on Ramshead Device 3-4 Normalized Pressure Boundary Load Distribution around the Circumferential Direction on Primary Containment for Three Adjacent SRVs Discharging
, 3-5 Simultaneously and in Phase Based on Ramshead Device Orientation of SRV Line Discharge Devices (Rams- e heads) for Sequential SRV Discharge 3-6 Typical Sequential SRV Discharge Forcing '
Function for Ramshead Device - Zone 14 -
3-7 Orientation of SRV Discharge.Line Devices (Rams- {
heads) for Automatic Depressurization Typical Automatic Depressurization System 3-8 '
Actuation Forcing Function for Ramshead Device - ;
Zone 14 3-9 Orientation of SRV Line Discharge Device (Ramshead) for Single Valve Discharge lb.
3-10 Typical Single SRV Discharge Ibrcing Function for Ramshead Device - Zone 14 ;
3-11 Orientation of SRV Line Discharge Devices (Rams- !
heads) for Asymmetric SRV Discharge !
3-12 Typical Asymne tric SRV Discharge Forcing Function for Ramshead Device - Zone 14 ~ r- ,
3-13 KWU T-Quencher {'
3 i
x Revision 3 - November 1978
~
~ '- "~~
__ Z Z_Z-------- 1ZE
i q LIST OF FIGURES [ CONT op}
( ',
Fiqure f
, Title -
l
- 3-14 Normalized Pressure Distribution on Suppression {
! Pool Boundaries - Symmetric and ADS Cases 3-15 Normalized Vertical Pressure Distribution for
-l! All Cases and for Submerged Structures
. 3-16 Normalized Pressure Distribution on Suppression
] 3-17 Pool Boundaries - Asymmetric Case Normalized Pressure Distribuiton on Suppression j Pool bounda'ies - Single SRV Discharge Case 3-18 KKB Pressure Trace No. 35 j 3-19 KKB Pressure Trace No. 76 ,
3-20 KKB Pressure Trace No. 82 3-21 Loads on Quencher (without pressure loads) ;
3-22 Loads on Quencher Arms (without pressure loads) 4-1 Assumed Pressure Distribution for Pool boundary Loads During Pool Swell 4-2 Drag Pressure for # f = 62.4 (lb /f t3) m !
4-3 Downcomer Model for Lateral Load Assessment !
i 4-4 Schematic Representation of the Pool Swell Model l 4-5 Pressure Drop Due to Flow across Grating Duration '
of Load: 0.5 Sec 4-6 Pool Boundary Chugging Loads i 4-7 Pool Swell Surf ace Velocity and Impact '
Pressure vs Plant Elevation '
4-8 Containment Pressure Responce during Pool Swell following a DBA 4-9 Pool Surface Elevation and Velocity following a DBA 4-10 ;
Vent Liquid Clearing Velocity following a DbA !
4-11 Pool Surface Elevation and Velocity vs Time - Class I 4-12 Pool Surface Velocity vs Elevation - Class I !
4-13 Pool Surface Elevation and Velocity vs j Time - Class II i
,i 4-14 Pool Surface Velocity vs Elevation - Class II i
4-15 Pool Surface Elevation and Velocity l vs Time - Class III 4 - 16 Pool Surf ace Velocity vs Elevation - Class III 5-1 General Arrangement of Reactor Building 5-2 Structural Model for SRV and LOCA Ioad Analysis 5-3 Loads Applied to Model 5-4 Normalized Pressure Time History for All SRV's Discharging Simultaneously and in Phase j 5-5 Asymmetric Pressure Distribution, 3 Adjacent I i Valve Simultaneous Discharge I! 5-6 Critical Locations 5-7 Positive Sign Convention for Internal Loads l 5-8 Mat Radial homent Just Outside Pedestal, All Valve Simultaneous Discharge xi Revision 3 - November 1978
- _ . . - . . - . ~ ~ - - . - --- - - =--= =-
LIST OF FIGURES (CONT 'D) t Figure Title I l
5-9 Mat Hoop Moment Just Outside Peder.<al, All Valve i Simultaneous Discharge '
5-10 Mat Radial Shear Just Outside Pedestal, All Valve Simultaneous Discharge -
5-11 Mat Axial Force Just Outside Pedestal, All Valve i' Simultaneous Discharge '
5-12 Mat Hoop Force Just Outside Pedestal, All Valve Simultaneous Discharge ;;
5-13 Mat Radial Moment Just Outside Containment, ,'
All Valve Simultaneous Discharge ,i 5-14 Mat Hoop Moment Just Outside Cbntainment, ii All Valve Simultaneous Discharge j!
5-15 Mat Radial Shear Just Outside Containment, i !
All Valve Simultaneous Discharge 5-16 Mat Axial Force Just Outside Containment, ;i All Valve Simultaneous Discharge j!
5-17 Mat Hoop Force Just Outside Containment,
- All Valve Simultaneous Discharge t 5-18 Pedestal Radial Moment at Base, All Valve Simultaneous Discharge 5-19 Pedestal Hoop Moment at Basc., All Valve Simultaneous i Discharge 5-20 Pedestal Radial Shear at Base, All Valve Simultaneous QJ l
Discharge 5-21 Pedestal Axial Force at Base, All Valve Simultaneous ,
Discharge !
5-22 Pedestal Hoop Force at Base, All Valve Simultaneous l Discharge
{
5-23 Containment Radial Eoment at Base, j All Valve Simultaneous Discharge 5-24 Containment Hoop Moment at Base, ..
l All Valve Simultaneous Discharge !
5-25 Containment Radial Shear at Base, -
All Valve Simultaneous Discharge '!
5-26 Containment Axial Force at Base, All Valve Simultaneous Discharge '
5-27 ,
Containment Hoop Force at Base, !
All Valve Simultaneous Discharge il 5-28 Amplified Response Spectra of Vertical Acceleration, !
l Top of Reactor Support Pedestal, All Valve Simultaneous Discharge - Ramshead
.j 5-29 ((
Amplified Response Spectra of Vertical I; Acceleration, Primary Containment at Elevation of ;
Stabilizer Truss, All Valve Simultaneous Discharge - i Ramshead
[;
5-30 Amplified Response Spectra of Horizontal 4; Acceleration, Top of Reactor Support , !"
Pedestal, 3 Adjacent Valve Simultaneous Discharge - y It Ramshead l.
i 1 I
xii Revision 3 - November 1978 t
_-. ._ _ _ _ . _ _- 1
"'C' --
c--- , ,u.. w- - - - -- -
<wme f
1 LIST OF FIGURES (CONT 'D)
.}
Fiqure Title i
t 5-31 Amplified Response Spectra of Horizontal 3
[
l Acceleration, Primary Containment at Elevation J of Stabilizer Truss, 3 Adjacent Valve Simultaneous l Discharge - namshead ,
, ; 5-32 Amplified Response Spectra of Vertical 1
Acceleration, Tcp of Reactor Support Pedestal, All Valve Sequential Discharge - Ramshead i 5-33 Amplified Response Spectra of Vertical
' Acceleration, Primary Containment at Elevation
' of Stabilizer Truss.- All Valve Sequential Discharge -
Ramshead ,
5-34 Amplified Response Spectra of Horizontal (N-S) i i
Acceleration, Top o'f Reactor Support !
redestal, All Valve Sequential Discharge - Ramshead i 5-35 Amplified Response Spectra of Horizontal (N-S)
Acceleration, Primary Containment at Elevation of Stabilizer Truss, All valve sequential Discharge 5-36 Amplified Responce Spectra of Horizontal (E-W) .
Acceleration, Top of Reactor Support Pedestal, !
All Valve Sequential Discharge - Ramshead 5-37 Amplified Response Spectra of ;
Horizontal (E-W) Acceleration, Primary Containment at Elevation of Stabilizer ,
i Truss, All Valve Sequential Discharge - Ramshead l 5-38 Amplified Response Spectra of Vertical !
Acceleration, Top of Reactor Support i Pedestal, 3 Adjacent Valve Out of Phase Discharge - '
Ramshead 5-39 Amplified Response Spectra of Vertical Acceleration, i
Primary Containment at Elevation of Stabilizer Truss, 3 Adjacent Valve Out of Phase Discharge - Ramshead 5-40 Amplified Response Spectra of Horizontal (N-S)
Acceleration, Top of Reactor Support Pedestal, 3 Adjacent Valve Out of Phase Discharge - Ramshead l
- 5-41 Amplified Response Spectra of Horizontal (N-S)
. Acceleration, Primary Containment at Elevation of Stabilizer Truss, 3 Adjacent Valve Out of Phase Discharge - Ramshead 5-42 Amplified Response Spectra of Horizontal (E-W)
Acceleration, Top of Reactor Support Pedestal, 3 Adjacent Valve Out of Phase Discharge - Ramshead *
{ 5-43 Amplified Response Spectra of Horizontal (E-W) Acceleration, Primary Containment at j Elevation of Stabilizer Truss, 3 Adjacent Valve Out of Phase Discharge - Ramshead
,' 5-44 Amplified Response Spectra of Vertical Acceleration, Top of Reactor Support Pedestal, T-Quencher All Valve Discharge - Pressure Trace No. 1 I l xiii Revision 3 - November 1978
?
LIST OF FIGURES (CONT e n)
A Fiqure Title
! 5-45 Ampli'fied Response Spectra of Vertical Acceleration, Top of Reactor Support Pedestal, T-Quencher All Valve Discharge - Pressure Trace No. 2 5-46 Amplified Response Spectra of Vertical Acceleration, Top of Reactor Support Pedestal, T-Quencher All Vhlve Discharge - Pressure Trace No. 3 5-47 Amplified Response Spectra of Vertical Acceleration, Top of Reactor Support Pedestal, T-Quencher All Valve Discharge 5-48 Amplified Response Spectra of Vertical Acceleration, Primary Containment at Elevation of Stabilizer Truss, T-Quencher All Valve Discharge -
5-49 Amplified Response Spectra of Horizontal Acceler-ation, Top of Reactor Support Pedestal, T-Quencher All Valve Discharge 5-50 Amplified Response Spectra of Horizontal Acceler-ation, Primary Containrent at Elevation of Stabil-izer Truss, T-Quencher All Valve Discharge 5-51 , Amplified Response Spectra of Vertical Acceleration, Top of Reactor Support Pedestal, T-Quencher 3 Adjacent Valve Discharge 5-52 Amplified Response Spectra of Vertical Acceleration, Primary Containn.ent at Elevation of Stabilizer ]
Truss, T-Quencher 3 Adjacent Valve Discharge 5-53 Amplified Response Spectra of Horizontal Acceler-ation, Top of Reactor Support Pedestal, T-Quencher 3 Adjacent Valve Discharge
- 5-54 Amplified Response Spectra of Horizontal Acceler-ation, Primary Containment at Elevation of Stabilizer Truss, T-puencher 3 Adjacent Valve Discharge 5-55 LOCA Vent Clearing Idealized Pressure Time History 5-56 LOCA Chugging Idealized Pressure Time Histories 5-57 Amplified Response Spectra of Vertical Acceleration, Top of Reactor Support Pedestal, LOCA Vent Clearing i 5-58 Amplified Response Spectra of. Vertical Acceleration, !
Primary Containment at Elevation of Stabilizer
! Truss, LOCA Vent Clearing 5-59 Amplified Response Spectra of Vertical Acceleration, ,
l Top of Reactor Support Pedestal, LOCA Axisymmetric f.
l Chugging l 5-60 Amplified Response Spectra of Vertical Acceleration, l Primary Containment at Elevation of Stabilizer l Truss, LOCA Axisymmetric Chugging
5-61 Amplified Response Spectra of Horizontal Acceleration, i!
Top of Reactor Support Pedestal, LOCA Asymmetric i' Chugging 5-62 Amplified Response Spectra of Horizontal Acceler-p i~[
j ation, Primary Containment at Elevation of Sta-i!
xiv Revision 3 - November 1978 ;
,I
., _.,g- .,_.m - -
-- - - - - -+ -
e i
1 1
I i
I LIST OF FIGUTES (CONT
- D) i e i /
' " Fiqure 1
' Title t bilizer Truss, LOCA Asymmetric Chugging j l} 6-1 General Arrangement of Reactor Building l l 6-2 Critical Locations ;
6-3 Positive Sign Convention for Internal Loads
}
' . )! 6-4 Primary Containment Wall Reinforcing Details !
Ej El 8'-0" To 60'-0* .
6-5 Reactor Support Wall Reinforcing Details l i 6-6 j Containment Mat-Top Reinforcing Details y i 6-7 Containment Mat-Bottom Reinforcing Details r i 6-8 Flexure and Axial Load !
7-1 Reactor Containment Liner Floor Details 3
j 7-2 Mat Liner . Details of Welds !
7-3 Mat Liner - Calculation of Liner Displacements (
Using Mat Mid-Thickness Displacements i 7-4 Liner-Anchor Model !
7-5 The Amplification Factor # As a Function of the Frequency Ratio r for Various Azounts of Viscous l Darping i
9-1 Feedwater Piping 301 9-2 Core Spray Piping 100 9-3 Reactor Water Cleanup Piping 012S 9-4 ARS - Primary Containment, SRV - Horizontal ,
9-5 ARS - Primary Containment, SRV - Vertical i 9-6 ARS - Primary Containment, LOCA - Horizontal 9-7 l ARS - Primary Containment, LOCA - Vertical :
, 9-8 ARS - Secondary Containment, SRV - Horizontal !
, 9-9 ARS - Secondary Containment, SRV - Vertical !
1 9-10 ARS - Secondary Containment, LOCA - Horizontal !
! 9-11 ARS - Secondary Containment, LOCA - Vertical f 9-12 ARS - Primary Containment, SRSS (SRV + LOCA + SSE) - !
Horizontal '
9-13 ARS - Primary Containment, SRSS (SRV + LOCA + SSE) -
Vertical '
I l 9-14 ARS - Primary Containment, SRSS (OBE + SkV) -
i
. Horizontal !
9-15 ARS - Primary Containment, SRSS (OBE + SRV) -
Vertical f
'i 9-16 ARS - Secondary Containment, SRSS (SRV + LOCA + SSE) - l Horizontal i
, 9-17 ARS - Secondary Containn.ent, SRSS (SRV + LOCA + SSE) -
l i Vertical !
l 9-18 ARS - Secondary Containment, SRSS KMHC + SRV) -
l t
Horizontal !
9-19 ARS - Secondary Containment, SRSS (OBE + SkV) -
i Vertical 9-20 9-21 Definition of ~ Static Coefficients in FSAR i Duct Static Coefficients, Primary Containment, I i
xv Revision 3 - November 1978 l
l l
_ , , _ , , , , , . _ - . , , . - . - - . . - Y-----.-
- - .--__1~ .,,--.._l.~ _ _ ' . - ~ ^ - ~ ~ ~ '~~T
--c - - ---------..- -...___ _ _
LIST OF FIGURES (CONT *D)
Figure
Title i
i SRSS ' (SRV + LOCA + SSE) - Horizontal i 9-22 Duct Static Coefficients, Primary Containment, I f SRSS (SRV + LOCA + SSE) - Vertical
- 9-23 Duct Static Coefficients, Primary Containment, !
SRSS (OBE + SRV) - Horizontal !
9-24 Duct Static Coefficients, Primary Containment, ,
SRSS (OBE + SRV) - Vertical l 9-25 Duct Static Coefficients, Support Flexibility I
Factor [
i 9-26 Duct Static Coefficients, Support Mass Factor ;-
9-27 Equipment Static Coefficients, Primary Containtent, '
SRSS (SRV + LOCA + SSE) - Horizontal .
9-28 Equipment Static Coefficients, Primary Containment, 3 SRSS (SRV + LOCA + SSE) - Vertical :
9-29 Equipment Static Coefficients, Primary Containment, {
SRSS (OBE + SRV) - Horizontal 9-30 Equipment Static Coefficients, Primary Containment, '
SRSS (OBE + SRV) - Vertical 9-31 Equipment Static Coefficients, Secondary Contain-ment, SRSS (SRV + LOCA + SSE) - Horizontal 9-32 Equipment Static Coefficients, Secondary Contain-ment, SRSS (SRV + LOCA + SSE) - Vertical 9-33 Equipment Static Coefficients, Secondary Contain- >
}
ment, SRSS (OBE + SRV) - Horizontal 9-34 Equipment Static Coef ficients, Secondary Contain-ment, SRSS (OBE + SRV) - Vertical 9-35 NSSS Design and Evaluation Flow Chart e
i 4
O. .
xvi Revision 3 - November 1978 r
~ !
- -2 i SEC'IION 1 l ) INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE The purpose of Revision 3 of the Design Assessment Report (DAR) g is to update the design assessment and demonstrate that the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Unit 1 (SNPS-1) can accommodate i f the hydrodynamic loads associated with the safety / relief valve !
3 (SRV) discharge and loss-of-coolant accident (IDCA) in the BWR Mark II containment. The DAR-Rev. 3 is intended to provide the NRC staff with a closure document, which clearly identifies all 3
information necessary to continue and complete the licensing of SNPS-1. All pertinent information related to load detinition,
, load combination methods, and acceptance criteria that applies to 4 ; SNPS-1 and is addressed by NRC in the letter to Lead Mark II Utilities (Reference 10) has been compiled in this document.
Where a hydrodynamic load is combined with a nonhydrodynanic load (e .g . , seismic or shield wall annulus pressurization) , a
{ reference is provided for the nonhydrodynamic load specification.
Although the KWU T-Quencher will be the actual SRV discharge device installed in SNPS-1, the containment wall load definition is based upon the Ramshead device and forms the primary basis for the plant design assessment presented in this report. Powever, since a load data base has been developed for the T-Quencher, it
' is presented in this report for information and it is intendec to
- be used for comparison between Ramshead and T-Quencher discharge devices.
, 1.2 SCOPE li' Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) letters of April 18 and 21, 1975 to Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO) discussed the SRV
! and I4CA load phenomena associated with the BWR Mark II containment. Each letter requested specific responses requiring
, information submittals which were provided by the original issue
- j of this report. This revision addresses these requests.
g Revision 3 of this report has been prepared to:
- 1. update the SRV and LOCA-related load definitions in compliance with the intentions of the NRC letter to Lead Mark 11 Utilities (Ref erence 10) ,
4 i 2. update the load combination methods and acceptance criteria, including analytical methods, load cases, i stress limits, and functional capability for cottponents j and st.ructures, m 3. incorporate design assessments performed subsequent to
) Revision 2 of this report, and 1
il 1-1 Revision 3 - November 1978
.a-.- ~
-- _,w -- -%
wy- w - - - - - - - > - - - -
---,-m .m=.
--w
-- - e-wwe
,=--we.- - - -
i l 4. be in accordance with NEDO-21061 and NEDE-21061-P Revision 2 of the Dynamic *crcing Functions Information Report (DFFR) submitted to the NRC by General Electric !q !
! l Company (Ref erences 1 and 2) .
This document, together with the SKPS-1 FSAR, DFFR (NEDO/NEDC 21061-P, Revision' 2) , and reports reterenced in these documents
! constitutes a complete basis of con:mitments for issuance of a Safety Evaluation Report (SER) . The final confirmatory desip assessment will be incorporated in the final revision of the DAR l
to be submitted in June 1979. The final revision of the DAR, !
together with the SNPS-1 FSAR, DFFR, and reports reierenced in these documents will constitute a complete basis for issuance of an Operating License.
- 1.3 STATUS OF CONSTRUCTION >
Construction of the following structures is essentially complete:
l 1. reactor building, (secondary containment)
- 3. reactor pressure vessel (RPV) pedestal,
- 4. drywell floor, support columns, embedded downcomers and safety / relief valve sleeves,
- 5. primary containment and basemat liners and anchors , and l 6. major piping and supports 1.4 SUPPORTING PROGRAM i
'Ihe Mark II supporting program is discussed in GE topical report NEDO-21297.
1.5
SUMMARY
OF DESIGN ASSESSMENT A design assessment has been performed of the containment and major structures subjected to loading conditions including the i
l cffects of SRV discharge and LOCA blowdown loads.
Although SNPS-1 will install KWU *T* Quenchers as the SkV j discharge I
devices, the design assessment for all Seismic Category structures, is based upon the bounding SRV-ramshead loads and L
the LOCA-related loads tabulated in Table 1-1. The SRV-ramshead p loads (Section 3) and the IOCA-related loads (Section 4) are !
combined with the normal (pressure, weight, thermal) and abnormal "
(seismic, etc) loads, as tabulated in Table 2-1, to form the basis for structural assessment. !.
The additional hydrodynamic !
loads for structural assessments are based on: P,
- 1. all SRV discharge -
all bubbles enter pool I simultaneously and in phase, i 1-2 Revision 3 - November 1978 .
J
=~- =.-:: : = :
m_^ . .
~
l l
l l
- 2. three adjacent SRV discharge - all bubbles enter pool l
c.
simultaneously and in phase, ,
I
- 3. all SRV discharge - sequential firing,
g -
simultaneous activation of i Automatic Depressurization System ADS valves with !
sequential entry of bubbles, l
- 5. three adjacent SRV discharge - simultaneous blowdown ot 1 three adjacent valves r~! i characteristics, accounting for line
! 6. single SRV tiring, 7.
dynamic loads resulting from vent clearing during LOCA, !
l 8.
dynamic loads resulting from pool swell during LOCA, and l I
- 9. dynamic loads resulting from condensation oscillations and chugging during LOCA. ,
Design assessment of the following structural elements has been accomplished on the basis of currently defined loads and as
' further discussed in Sections 5 through 9 of this report:
t
- 1. reactor building basemat, l
- 3. RPV pedestal,
, I 4
- 4. drywell floor and floor support columns,
- 5. basemat liner and welds, s
! 6.
i containment wall liner, anchorage, and penetrations, L
- 7. platforms and ladders,
-i
- 8. downcomer bracing, and l
9.
selected piping systems. '
i i The design t marga.ns for the foregoing structures can be found in
, the applicable sections of this report. !
Table 1-1, which follows essentially the approach used in l
Reference 1, provides a summary of loads used in the assessment
] of each affected structure.
l The design assessment indicates that sufficient structural strength exists to withstand the hydrodynamic loads. additional effects of the
{
t 1-3 f
Revision 3 - November 1978
___ -___ r _ _ . . _
Design assessments of the Seismic Category 1 Balance-of-Plant (BOP) and NSSS piping systems and components are based upon the SRV-ramshead discharge loads defined in Section 3 and the LOCA related loads in Section 4. Table 2-3 (Section 2) compiles the
(-
combinations of hydrodynamic, seismic, and norr.a1 plant load as the basis for the design assessments described in Section 9. ,
1.6 GENERAL ARRANGEMENT OF SUPPELSSION POOL STRUCTURES Figures 1-1 through 11 are similar to those previously subnitted !
to NRC (Section 1.2) and are included herein for Information and i clarity. The figures have been modified for clarity and to '
reflect the latest design. r I
i
[,
. i i
I i
t V
l' i
i
(:
t i .-
b' F
1-4 Revision 3 - November 1978 .
_._______j
F
. - . .-- .a .w--.._-- -
.. . c .: . =.v . - .-
l' .T
/ ( ) !
, ai TABLE 1-1
SUMMARY
OF IDADS f
f
! Load Inadi83 References lead Clas-i Description Class DFFR l
DAR sificationt*3 Conuients 1 l I I. LOCA REIATED i
A. CONTAINMENT
, 1. Clearing Trasisient G 4.4.5.1 4.2.1 Secondary Note 2
- 2. Chugging G 4.3.3 4.2.5.2 Secondary Preliminary lead Note 2
! B. WE1WE11 COMPONENTS
- 1. Bulk Pool Swell HeightE33 G 4.4.4 4.2.3 Primary Relocated Vacuun Breakers
- 2. Pool Swell Impact
- a. Pipes U 4.4.6.1 4.2.3.1 Primary Modified Bracing
- b. Beans U 4.4.6.1 4.2.3.1 Primary Modified Bracing
- 3. Pool Swell Drag U 4.4.5.2 4.2.3.4 Secondary 4 Pool Fallback U 4.4.5.4 4.2.3.8 secondary C. DRYWELL FIDOR
- 1. Bulk Pool Swell G 4.4.6.6 4.2.3.7 Secondary l D. DOWNCOMERS
- 1. Vertical U 4.2.3 4 . 2 . 88 . 1 Secondary
- 2. Lateral
- a. Single G 4.3.2.3 4.2.5.1.1 secondary
- b. Multiple U 4.3.2.4 4.2.5.1.3
+
i, 1 of 2 Revision 3 - November 1978 i
g 4 m. _m- t.mm _ _ .
.. .-- . . . - ~ _ . - . .
L. ..- . --- . - . . - - - - - - - - - --u- -i*&- - C 'As~' - --
(
( i (
l7 f
TABLE 1-1 (CONT'I3 i i
Load leadta3 References Ioad Clas-Description class Comrents EFMt M siticationE*3 Coasment s ,
i II SRV RELATED '
A. RAMSHEAD IDADS FOR DESIGN ASSESSMENT
- 1. Containment
- a. Single Valve U 3.2.4.4 3. 2.1. 2. 4 Secondary Note 2
- b. Asymmetric U 3.2.4.4 3.2.1.2.5 Secondary hote 2
- c. ADS U 3.2.4 3.2.1.2.3 Secondary Note 2
- d. All valves U 3.2.4 3.2.1.2.2 Secondary Note 2 l (sequential)
, 2. Submerged Structures U 3. 4.1. 2 3.3 Secondary I i
- 3. Tiedown Ioads
- a. Horizontal U 3.3.10 .3 3.4 Secondary
- b. Vertical u 3. 3. 10 .2 3.4 Secordary
}
9 t a 3 G - Generic DFFR Imad.
U - Generic DFFR Method, plant specific load value.
ta) The design assessment. utilizes previously calculated loeds which are greater than those nw developed in the DAR using the methods of Reference 1 of this report.
t3 This includes all bulk pool swell and " froth
(*) Refer to Appendix A, puestion 020.2's for definition.
2 of 2 kevision 3 - Novesber 1978
=- _
a f i
4 I
t SECTION 2 I ,.
) LOADS AND LOAD COMBINATIONS
! 2.1 SOURCE OF LOADS This section briefly summarizes the source of hydrodynamic loads I i .
and general sequence of events, in addition to the loads described in the FSAR, for safety / relief valve (SRV) actuation, a design basis loss-of-coolant accident (DBA), an intermediate break accident (IBA) , a small break accident (SBA) , and seismic sloshing of the suppression pool.
1 2.1.1 Safety / Relief Valve Actuation Actuation of SRVs during normal plant operating conditions may produce transient loadings on components and structures in the suppression pool chamber region. Prior to actuation, the SRV discharge line contains atmospheric air and a column of water at the submerged end of the SRV line in the pool. Following SRV actuation, pressure builds up inside the piping as steam compresses the air and forces the water column out of the pipe.
When the water is expelled, the air follows the water column into the pool in the form of a high pressure bubble. Upon entering the pool the bubble expands and accelerates the surrounding pool water since the ambient pool pressure is lower than the bubble pressure. The momentum of the pool water then causes the bubble to overexpand until the bubble pressure eventually becomes negative with respect to the ambient pool pressure. This negative pressure slows down and finally reverses the motion of the water, leading to the contraction of the bubble. This sequence of bubble expansion and contraction will be repeated until the bubble reaches the pool surface, due to the buoyant forces. During the period of the bubble oscillation, pressure
! loads will be transmitted throughout the pool, resulting in dynamic loads on pool boundaries and submerged structures. The analysis method used for computation of the SRV loads of SNPS-1 is described in Section 3.
', 2.1.1.1 Steam Quenching Vibrations Steam quenching vibration phenomena occur when high pressure, high temperature steam is continuously discharged at high mass j velocity into a water pool which has a significantly high j temperature. Test data demonstrate that this does not occur for i either norzal suppression pool temperature or for low steam mass l velocity conditions. These phenomena are discussed and an
! analysis of the suppression pool temperature for the Shoreham i plant is presented in Section 10. A detailed discussion of this
'3 phenomenon and appropriate test data are presented in NEDO-21061
{' and NEDE-21061P(1,z),
h -
- 2-1 Revision 3 - November 1978
l 2.1.2 LOCA Loads 2.1.2.1 Design Basis Accident O.. j s
Section 2.2 of the Mark II Containment Dynamic Forcing Functions j Information Report (DFFR) ( 8 ) discusses postulated accident ;
conditions and typical time histories of the response of the Mark i II pressure suppression containment to LOCAs. The report 8 discusses the following accidents-l i
- 1. Design basis loss-of-coolant accident (DBA) l l 2. Intermediate break accident (IBA) , and l 3. Small break accident (SBA). L The DFFR presents' the following dynamic loads for a typical Mark I II plant DBA: }
- 1. Pressure load, !
l
- 2. Temperature load, ;
- 3. Vent clearing loads,
- 4. Pool swell loads,
- 5. Pool fallback loads, ~T
+)
- 6. Pool boundary loads during condensation oscillations and i chugging, and ;
- 7. Downcomer loads. '
4 l The analytical models used to compute these loads and the plant specific loads are presented in Section 4 of this report.
2.1.2.2 Intermediate Break Accident An intermediate break is an accident which results in a suf- .
ficiently rapid loss of reactor pressure vessel (RPV) fluid such I that the high pressure emergency core cooling system (ECCS) cannot maintain reactor water level. A steam or liquid line j break of approximately 0.1 ft* is defined as an intermediate l
breakC8). l F-The drywell pressurization rate resulting from an intermediate I break is significantly less than that from a DBA. Consequently, I l the vent clearing load is less than that resulting from a DBA and !
I there is no significant suppression pool swell. The maximum short term suppression chamber pressure is 26.6 psig, the pressure resulting from drywell air carryover; and the associated i short term pool temperature is less than 140 F. .
I i
2-2 Revision 3 - November 1978 .
t l
i i
Since a high drywell pressure signal scrams the reactor, the
~y) sequence of events following a scram eventually closes the main
+
steam isolation valves (MSIV) .
" The closure of the MSIVs results in an increased reactor pressure vessel (RPV) pressure that is
!l relieved by opening multiple SRVs. Consequently, the suppression I, ,
pool boundary may be subjected to a pressure loading from this ,
j SRV discharge when the suppression chamber is pressurized.
i ;
1 2.1.2.3 Small Break Accident l The !
small break accident is defined as a small leak in the l
.i reactor system within the drywell which does not depressurize the I
- ' reactor by fluid loss. !
i 1
With the reactor and containment operating at normal conditions, a small break will allow discharge of reactor steam to the '
drywell. The drywell pressure will increase and result in a high drywell pressure signal that scrams the reactor and isolates the containment. The drywell pressure will continue to increase at a i
rate depending on the size of the postulated steam leak. This pressure increase will depress the water level in the vents until t
the water is expelled and air and steam start to flow through the vents to the suppression pool. The air flow rate is sufficiently !
low that pool swell is not encountered.. The suppression chamber is gradually pressurized at a rate dependent on the air carryover rdte. I Eventually, all the air will be transferred to suppression chamber and the suppression chamber pressurization the i rate will then be controlled by the suppression pool heatup rate.
The principal loading condition from a small break accident will !
be the gradually increasing pressure in the drywell and suppression chamber. The maximum short term suppression chamber {
pressure is approximately 26 psig from drywell air carryover, and !
the associated pool temperature is less than 140 F. i 2.1.3 Seismic Sloshing of the Suppression Pool Sloshing is a term used to describe the dynamic response of the suppression pool water due to movement of its boundary walls -
the primary containment, pedestal and response has basemat. This pool been determined for both the operating basis earthquake (OBE) and the safe shutdown earthquake (SSE).
l A mathematical procedure has been developed which utilizes a finite element representation of the fluid and a combination of ;
analhtical and numerical solution techniques. The major !
j assumptions are that the pool boundaries are rigid and that the water behaves as an incompressible, inviscid fluid irrot'ational flow. The governing equations having of the fluid i
can be_
written in a form which separates the spatial eigenfunctions from j the equations governing the liquid motion. This results in a :
normal modes expansion of second-order dynamic equations under a !
- combination of forced and parametric excitation for each mode. l The finite element method is used to
. find the matrix representation of the equations governing the oscillation modes.
The equations are solved by standard numerical methods to obtain 1i
! i u
1 2-3 Revision 3 - November 1978 l i
1
_ _ _ _ . - _ . _ i
the eigenvalues and eigenvectors (natural frequencies and oscillation mode shapes). Time dependent modal responses are (~}
determined by common numerical techniques and modal superposition %,
is used to obtain the final solution in terms of free surface oscillation profiles and the pressure and velocity fields in the ,
pool. i i
An exact solution for the eigenvalues for liquid in a circular i cylindrical tank is available. Natural frequencies obtained by the present finite element method approach exact values as nore !
available for an elements are used. An exact. solution is not annular circular tank, but calculated frequencies also converge asymptotically as more elements are used. The assumption of rigid walls has also been studied parametrically and found to be ,.
applicable for the geometry of the SNPS-1 suppression pool. ,
l The maximun free surf ace deflections for the SNPS-1 suppression {
pool have been found to be 2.1 feet for the OBE and 4.2 feet for i an SSE. Maximum dynamic wall pressures have been found to be l 1.27 psi for an OBE and 2.54 psi for an SSE. These are not ,
considered to be significant structural loads. -
2.2 LOAD COMBINATIONS l
The load conditions for the SNPS-1 containment and internal concrete structures including hydrodynamic loads are presented in Table 5-2 of Reference 1 and Table 2-1 of this report. These loads are in addition to the normal reinforced concrete load .T combinations required by ACI 318-71, Building Code Requirements ~/
for Reinforced Concrete. The load equations associated with the i required strength method of ACI and the factored load equations i l of ASME Section III, Div. 2, Code for Concrete Reactor Vessels and Containments, are used because the SNPS-1 containment originally was designed using factored load techniques. j l
The load combinations, Equations (3) through (7a) (Table 2-1) ,
for the SNPS-1 containment and internal structures including '
hydrodynamic load, cover the same combination of events as ASME i Section III, Div. 2 in addition to the SRV discharge load. For :
the abnormal, abnormal / severe environmental, and abnormal / extreme :
environmental load conditions, the pressure load is either that (
produced by a small pipe break (SBA) , intermediate pipe break (IBA) , or a DBA, respectively. The SBA and IBA are assumed to activate the SRVS either entirely or randomly; the DBA is assumed to activate one SRV. The load factors for Equstions (3) through (6) have been reduced from those in Table CC-3230-1 of ASME III, l Div. 2 because of the addition of the SRV load to each equation.
The load factors for Equations (7) and (7a) are identical to the comparable equation in Table CC-3230-1, since all the load i factors equal unity. ;
r.
The load combinations, Equations (1) and (2) , for normal opera-l tion with and without temperature are similar to those in ACI318-71 Paragraphs 9.3.1 and 9.3.7. p) g, j I
2-4 Revision 3 - November 1978 i I
t
&-. ew The load combinations and acceptance criteria for the assessment
.m of structural steel members for hydrodynamic loads are presented
) in Table 2-2.
l( ' These combinations contain unfactored loads and l stress allowables related to the probability of occurrence of the '
load condition. The basic stress allowables are in accordance i with the AISC Specification for the Design, Fabrication , and ;
Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings. This approach is ;
j identical to that used in the original design, with the inclusion q
of the dynamic effects of LOCA and SRV loads. !
[
i The design bases of load combinations and acceptance criteria for I
i the SNPS-1 BOP and NSSS piping systems and components are presented in Table 2-3. The load combination methods l
are j described in Appendix D and are consistent with Attachment II of
, NRC Acceptance Criteria. The applicable load cases and the l dynamic analysis procedures used for SNPS-1 are consistent with Attachments III and V of the NRC Acceptance Criteria as follows: .
SEB-2 and MEB-4 : Use t15 percent peak broadening of ARS SEB-3 and MEB-5 : Use Reg. Guide 1.92 to combine modal ;
responses MEB-2 : Use OBE damping for normal / upset con- i ditions '
Use DBE damping for emergency / faulted conditions i
MEB-7 (a) : Annulus pressurization effects are com- !
bined with SSE, inclusive within Load !
Case No. 6 in Table 2-3 '
MEB-7 (b) : "OBE plus SRV a loading condition is l assessed by Load Case No. 2 in Table 2-3 1
- MEB-8 :
i Criteria to assure functional capability i for all essential components in Appendix !
E are in conformance with NUREG/CR-0261 !
. and consistent with Attachment V-E of I NRC Acceptance Criteria j
! 2.3 LOAD SEQUENCES '
1 The relative time sequence of events for SRV discharge for anti- !
i cipated plant transients and for a design basis LOCA is presented on Figs. 2-1 and 2, respectively. !
I The time-history of the loads af fecting the structures considered j is presented on Figs. 2-3 through 18.
I l 2.4 i
NSSS LOADING COMBINATIONS AND ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA
- The combination of design loadings is categorized with respect to plant conditions identified as normal, upset, faulted as shown in Tables 2-3 and 2-4. emergency, or '
These tables deliniate i
2-5 Revision 3 - November 1978 i
. - -- - ----------ee,=
__ -++~
O the criteria for selection and definition of design limits loading combinations associated with normal operation, postulated and \_J 4-accidents, and specified seismic events for the design of safety-related NSSS ASME code components. Seismic, LOCA, and SRV loads are combined by square-root-sum-of-the-square (SRSS) . p g
Section 9.2 presents the controlling loading combinations, b analytical methods (by reference or example), and also the calculated stress or other design values for the most critical p:
areas in the design of each component. These values are also compared to applicable code allowables. .
!I The load combinations and acceptance criteria used for the
[
analyses of NSSS piping systems are shown in Table 2-3 and in Table 2-4 for NSSS RPV and internals. The combination of design I!
loadings is categorized with respect to plant operating h conditions defined as normal, upset, emergency, or faulted in the b ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code.
Peak responses due to dynamic loads which are postulated to occur j!
in the same time frame but from different events are combined by .
SRSS. A detailed discussion of this load combination technique is presented in NEDO-24310 and in Appendix D.
r
\ ,l E ,
!i ti f:
il li I.
=
r i u 2-6 Revision 3 - November 1978 li f!
l ---- .
. - - . _ - . ~ . - - . . - . . - - - s- - - . - - . . .- . c
- - - - ' -~~ -~ - - - - - - - - - - -
~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ^~~"~
I
/\ ;
l v)
TAI)LE 2-2 r
IDAD COMI4INATIONS AND STRESS LIMITS
{ FOR STRUCTURAL STEEL i
! LOAD EON. Cond. Po STRESS E E l'a Eo go IDCA E3s Ig 84 E, M LMIT 1.0 Normal 1.0 1.0 1.0 - - -
w/o Temp 1.0 1.0S 2.0 Normal 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 - - -
w/ Temp 1.0 1.5S 3.0 Normal 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 - -
Severe r.siv.
1.0 1.5S 4.0 Abnormal 1.0 1.0 - - - - -
1.0 1.0 1.0 -
1.0 1.6S 5.0 Abnormal 1.0 1.0 - - -
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Severe Env.
1.0 1.6S 6.0 Normal 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 -
1.0 -
1.6S Ext. Env. 1.0 I 7.0 Almoraal 1.0 1.0 - - - -
1.0 1.0 1.0
, Ext. Env.
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.7S 1
DEFINITIONS I
D = Dead Loads IDCA = LOCA Pressure and Dynamic Pool Imads L = Live Loads TA = Pipe Preak Temperature Imad Po = Operating Pressure leads RA = Pipe Break Terperature Reaction Loads To = Operating Temperature Loads Rr = Pipe Reaction Break and Jet Forces Associated with the Ro = Operating Pipe Reactions SRV = Safety / Relief Valve Loads Eo = Operating Basis Earthquake S = Required section strength based on the ESS = Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE) elastic design methods and allowable l'
stresses defined in Part 1 of the AISC
= Specification for the Design, Fabrication, '
and Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings" i
1 1 of 1 Revision 3 - Noveaber 1978 k
- - ~ ~
} TABLE 2-3 1 4
l\ Di LOAD COMBINATIONS AND ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA - PIPING SYSTEMS j OPERATING CONDITION CATEGORIES
-I ,
- i
Case N(
{
1 X X - - - - -
Upset j j 2 X X -
X - - -
Upset (*,63 i'
3 X X - -
X - -
Emergency (*,6) 4 X -
X X -
X -
Emergency (s,a) 5 X -
X -
X X -
Emergency (5,63 6 X l
} - - -
X -
X Emergency (5,6) !
j 7 X - - - - - -
Normal l i
I
- NOTES.
i (1)
N - Normal load consists of pressure, dead weight, and sustained I
, loads.
ca) Use either IBA or SBA, whichever governs.
l (3) SBA, IBA, and DBA shall include all event induced loads, which are !
applicable, such as possible annulus pressurization, pool swell load, ;
condensation oscillation load, chugging loads, etc., as defined in Section 4. '
h
(*) Peak dynamic responses are combined by the square root of the sum of !
squares (SRSS) method, in accordance with the SRSS Application Criteria in Appendix D and NEDO-24010.
(5) Peak dynamic responses are combined by SRSS method in accordance with !
Attacidnent II of the NRC Acceptance Criteria.
(*) :
, Piping functional capability is assured in accordance with the I
procedures of " Functional Capability Criteria for MK II Plants" in i Appendix E. Higher stress limit than the level specified in this table may be used, providing functional capability is assured. '
~i !
~
i i
r f
1 i l
l 1 of 1 Revision 3 - November 1978 i i
'i !
, i t
I
' ~ ~~ -
8 TABLE 2-4 I
{ ,
NSSS RPV AND INTERNALS LOADING COMBINATIONS AND ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA i
t Operating Conditions
- Load Combinations Categories ;
I
- 1. N+SRV( all )
i Upset
- 2. N+OBE I
' Upset *
- 3. N+SSE ,
t Faulted ;
.1 4. N+IOBE+SRVc ,gg 3) Upset 1 i 5.
- N+ (SSE+SRVC all )) Faulted 6
6.
N+ 1SBA+SRV( assy )) Emergency {
- 7. N+ (IBA+SRV( assy 3) Faulted 8.
N+ (SEA +SRVC ADS)) Emergency 9.
N+ (SBA/IBA+SSE+SRV(A DS )) Faulted 10 . N+ (LOCA c : _y 3 +SSE) ( 1 )
Faulted j l
i (1)
. From rated power initial conditions.
l i
i i
i 1
l 1 of 1 Revision 3 - November 1978 I
. . - - - - - i
-s -
N
' x x x x x'x x N s N s x x 's x x x k x x x x s' x x' x x x x x x 'x '
t DRYWELL TEMPER ATURE 6 PRESSURE FLUCTUATION'N
' \xxxxNNNsNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNxNNNNN E I I I s
I I I
'i g\\\\\\'\\\NX\\N\\\\\\\\\\N\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
,l \..VNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
SUPPRESSION CHAMBER TEMPERATURE 6 PRESSURE FLUCTUATION DOWf1 COMER WATER CLEARING t I i
DOWNCOMER AIR CLEARING l l l NWrJNMER STEAM FLN NNNN\\\\\\\\\\\
! POOL SWELL I
POOL FALLBACK i
CONDENSATION OSCILLATION AND CHUGGING ECCS FLOODING OR SPRAY ACTIVATION
{
i i
i !
O.1 0.6 1.2 2 4 15 60100 500 10'
, TIME ( sec) i FIG. 2-2 ;
EVENT-TIME RELATIONSHIP FOR THE DESIGN BASIS ACCIDENT SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION-UNIT 1 i PLANT DESIGN ASSESSMENT FOR SRV AND LOCA LOADS ,
i i
REVISION 3 - NOVEMBER 1978 i
.. ...:..- a . . .. . -
. . - ~ . . . . . . .
f I.
j .- )
i i
f i
! DEADWEIGliT; SEISMIC LOADS; LOCA PRESSURE AND TEMPERATURE TRANSIENTS l
ACCUMULATED WATER ON FLOOR l
JET IMPINGEMENT AND l PIPE WHIP NEGATIVE LOAD DURING REFLOOD 00WNCOMER VERTICAL REACTION LOADS NEGATIVE LOAD 00WNCOMER FOLLOWING SPRAY [
LATERAL ACTUATION (REQUIRES P00L SWELL REACTION OPERATOR ACTION)
AIR LOADS COMPRESSION
> SECTION 4 1
a e a e a 0.6 1.2 4 60 >100 >600 TIME AFTER LOCA (sec)
FI G. 2 - 3
.37g. LOAD COMBINATION HISTORY ,
CONSIDERATION IS GIVEN TO REACTION LOADS ON THE STRUCTURE AFFECTED: DRYWELL FLOOR DRYWELL FLOOR FROM OTHER STRUCTURES SUCH AS DRYWELL AND WETWELL. AND PEDESTAL ACCIDENT CONDITION.' LARGE LINE BRE AK(DBA)
SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION-UNIT I PLANT DESIGN ASSESSMENT FOR SRV ANDLOCA LOADS REVIS60N 3- NOVEMBER 1978
, ~ , -
DEADWEIGHT; SEISHIC LOADS; LOCA PRESSURE AND TEMPERATURE TRANSIENTS; HYDR 0 STATIC PRESSURE INCLUDING SEISMIC EFFECTS; l
, NEGATIVE NEGATIVE i
- LOAD DURING LOAD VERTICAL REACTION LCADS REFLOOD FOLLOWING SPRAY ACTUATION SUMERGED STRUCTURE LOADS --
DUE TO CHUGGING > SECTION 4 (REQUIRES OPERATOR ACTION)
LATERAL LOAD (CHUGGING)
~ SWELL AND FALLBACK l
, FRICTION LOADS i
SINGLE SRV ACTUATION SECTION 3 ,
, .. . . . i
- 0. 6 24 15 60 100 >600 t TIME AFTER LOCA (seC)
FIG. 2-4 un7g. LOAD COMBIN ATION HISTORY CONSIDERATION IS GIVEN TO REACTION LOADS ON THE STRUCTURE AFFECTED: DOWNCOMERS DOWNCOMER FROM OTHER STRUCTURES SUCH AS THE RYWELL FLOOR AND STRUCTURES ATTACHED TO THE ACCIDENT CONDITION: LARGE LINE BREAK (DB A) l PLANT DESIGN ASSESSMENT FOR SRV AND LOCA LOADS REVISION 3 - NOVEMBER 1978
_ ..._ . ._._.__L . - _ . . _ . _. . . _ . _ ___
._ __ ..__-...__-.s. . . _ _ . _ _ . . . . . - . .
. _l t
DEADWEIGHT; SEISMIC LOADS; LOCA PRESSURE AND TCMPERATURE TRANSIENTS; HYDR 0 STATIC PRESSURE INCLUDING SEISMIC EFFECTS;
}
LATERAL LOADS (CHUGGING) f
> SECTION 4 5 SUBMERGED STRUCTURE LOADS ,
8 DUE TO CHUGGING 8
h VERTICAL REACTION LOADS e .
S MULTIPLE SRV ,
NEGATIVE LOAD ACTUATION ON FOLLOWING SPRAY SETPOINT UP ACTIVATION (REQUIRES TO 1/3 TO OPERATOR ACTION) 2/3 0F VALVES
, SECTION 3 '
ADS ACTUATION s
. . i I 4 T > 120 T+5 min. >600 TIME AFTER LOCA (sec)
FIG 2 - 5 NOTES: LOAD COMBINATION HISTORY I T IS BREAK AREA DEPENDENT STRUCTURE AFFECTED~ DOWNCOMERS .
BUT IS TYPICAL 1Y IN THE ORDER OF 2 TO 5 MINUTES. ACCIDENT CONDITION:lNTERMEDIATE
- 2. CONSIDERATION IS GIVEN TO LINE BREAK REACTION LOADS ON THE DOWNCOMER FROM OTHER STRUCTURES-SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION-UNITI PLANT DESIGN ASSESSMENT FOR SRV AND LOCA LOADS REVISION 3- NOVE'JBER 1978 h
i
._. .....:-._..-~- -
- = ~ - - - - - - ~ - -- - -
~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " ^ ~ ~ ~ " " ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '
N../ {.
DEADWEIGHT; SEISfC0 LOADS; LOCA PRESSURE AND TEMPERATURE TRANSIENTS; HYDROSTATIC PRESSURE INCLUDING SEISMIC EFFECTS; i
i j i i.
T_
2 MULTIPLE SRV Q ACTUATION ON OPERATOR ACTUATION OF SRV FOR REACTOR g hE39P0m 2/3 C00LDOWN SECTION 3 ci 0F VALVES E
S I
VERTICAL REACTION LOADS SECTION 4 ADS ACTUATION SECTION 3 e e i
4 600 1800 6 HRS DAYS TIME AFTER LOCA (Sec) i i
NOTE:
CONSIDERATION IS GIVEN TOREACTION LOADS FIG. 2 - 6 ON THE DOWNCOMER FROM OTHER STRUCTUREE LOAD COMBINATION HISTORY <
t
. STRUCTURE AFFECTED: DOWNCOMERS ACCIDENT CONDITION: SMALL LINE BREAK -
SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION-UNIT I I PLANT DESIGN ASSESSMENT FOR SRV AND LOCA LOADS REVISION 3 - NOVEMBER 1978
,.a.---..---
a_.-...... . .
. . . . . . . . - . . . . . - . . . . .- ..... . .. . . .=-...: -
. > : 2.1.w.' . .-- : .= .
4 l f
..i i
DEADWEIGHT; SEISMIC LOADS; HYDROSTATIC PRESSURE INCLUDING SEISMIC EFFECTS 0 TO ALL SRV LINES ON SETPOINT z
2 AIR BUBBLEOSCILLATION PRESSURE AND DRAG > SECTION 3 t~
E 8 -
IE E
8 a
4 i
TIME FIG. 2-7 COr$blDERATION IS GNEN TO REACTION LOADS LOAD COMBINATION HISTORY ON THE DOWNCOMER FROM OTHER STRUCTURES STRUCTURE AFFECTED: DOWNCOMERS ACCIDENT CONDITION: NONE l SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION-UNIT 1 PLANT DESIGN ASSESSMENT FOR SRV AND LOCA LOADS f
REVISION 3- NOVEMBER 1978
f
_._m-....n_._.____...._.__-.- , ..- . - -
.-_..~ a-.. - e I:I4 a.aA.2-.. - . . - - -
4 e.
, t
/ t N ... . / I 1
DEADWEIGHT; SEISMIC LOADS; LOCA PRESSURE AND TEMPERATURE TRANSIENTS:
I i
POOL SWELL
- AIR z COMPRESSION 2>-
E > SECTION 4 5
HYDROSTATIC lE LOAD DUE TO 5 WATER SWELL !l 8,
r t
I i
i 0.6 1. 2 TIME AFTER LOCA (sec)
NOTE: '
CONSIDE9 ATIONIS GIVEN TO REACTION FIG.2-8
' * "T" T L' " "" f AT NHEo STRUCTURES LOAD COMBIN ATION HISTORY
{
STRUCTURES AFFECTED:WETWELL WALLS ABOVE THEWATER LEV EL
( ACCIDENT CONDITION:L ARGE LINE BRE AK (DB A)
I SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION-UNIT I PLANT DESIGN ASSESSMENT FOR SRVAND LOCA LOADS REVISION 3 - NOVEMBER 1978 t
. . _ _ . . . . . . . . _ ._ _ __ _ . _ . m w .. u __.. . . .. u ; .
1 ( ,
N. '
i i
DEADWEIG11T; SEISMIC LOADS; LOCA PRESSURE AND TEMPERATURE TRANSIENTS; HYDR 0 STATIC PRESSURE INCLUDING SEISt11C EFFECTS-f' f
DOWN-COMER l VENT '
CLEARINC ths CONDENSATION OSCILLATIONS
, 4 5 AND CMUGGING P 4 E BUBBLE v
FORMATION s
E s
8 a
SINGLE SRV ACTUATION SECil0N 3 a i I e I 0 0.6 1.2 4 60 TIME AFTER LOCA (seC)
NOTEi CON SIDER ATIONIS GIVEN TO RE ACTION LDADSON THE WETWELL WALLS FROM ATTACHED STRUCTURES FIG
- 2 -9 LOAD COMBINATION HISTORY STRUCTURE AFFECTED: SUBMERGED WETWELL ACCIDENT CONDITION: 1.ARGE LINE BREAK (DBA)
SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION- UNIT I PLANT DESIGN ASSESSMENT FOR SRV AND LOC A LOADS REVISION 3 - NOVEMBER 1978
__;..;____._.._. _ ._. .._.._...c___ __ __
1 . p
%_.] (
t DEADWEIGHT; SEISHIC LOADS; ,
HYDROSTATIC PMSSURE INCLUDING SEISMIC EFFECTS ACTUATION OF SRV 0:1 PRESSURE SETPOINT 0 TO ALL VALVES h
! AIR BUBBLE OSCILLATION PRESSURE AND ORAG l
no SECTION 3 5
v E
i 3 a
i i
( ,
TIME NOTE:
CONSIDER ATION IS GIVEN TO REACTION FIG. 2 -12 LO ADS ON THE WETWELL WALLS FROM ATTACHED STRUCTURES. LOAD COMBINATION HISTORY ACCIDENT CONDITION: NONE SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION-UNIT I PL ANT DESIGN ASSESSMENTFOR SRV AND LOCA LOADS REVISION 3-NOVEMBER 1978
. _ . . _ _ __ . . . _ _ _ ... . __.__ _ _ _ _ _ _ .s . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . _ . . _ _ _ . _ _ _
.. _. . . . _ _ _ _ . E2__ . __ _
E
.i _
l 6
l DEADWEIGHT; SEISMIC LOADS; LOCA PRESSURE AND TEMPERATURE TRANSIENTS; HYDR 0 STATIC PRESSURE INCLUDING SEISMIC EFFECTS DOWNCOMER VENT ,
CLEARANCE JET LOAD 5
k P0OL SWELL PSECil0N 4 5
DPAG LOADS i
} $ s l
' 5 o
FALL BACK d LOADS .
SINGLE SRV ACTUATION SECTION 3 0.6 1.2 2.34 15 60 TIME AFTER LOCA (Sec) gg7g. FIG.2 -13 '
CON *tDER ATION IS GIVEN TO RE ACTION LOAD COMBINATION HISTORY
" " " "ES
'rfo#Nfa"E t A ACHE S UC ES STRUCTURE AFFECTED: SMALL SUBMERGED STRUCTURES, COLUMNS, AND PIPING j
' ACCIDENT CONDITION: L A RGE LIN E BR E AK(DtlA)
I SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION-UNIT 1 ;
PL ANT DESIGN ASSESSMEN T FOR SRVAND LOCA LO ADS t l
REVISION 3-NOVEMBER 1978 i
. _ . - . . - ._. .. ... . . . . . .. ........:.......u. - .u - x -- -
, <[ N i
i h >
i i
i
, DEADWEIGHT; SEISMIC LOADS; LOCA PRESSURE AND TEMPERATURE TRANSIENTS; HYDR 0 STATIC PRESSURE - INCLUDING SEIQ11C EFFECTS 5
- Il 0 TO ALL VALVES ON PRESSURE SETPOINT l 3 j @ AIR BUBBLE OSCllLATION PRESSURE AND DRAG 4
l $ SECTION 3 Y E
S TIME AFTER LOCA NOTE' FIG. 2-15 CONSIDERATION IS GIVEN TO REACTION LOADS S*" 8 "8 "" " LOAD COMBINATION HISTORY
$7[C ED STR R fS' STRUCTURES AFFECTED:SMALL SUBMERGED STRUCTURES, COLUMNS AND PIPING ACCIDENT CONDITION' SMALL LINE BREAK SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION-UNIT I PLANT DESIGN ASSESSMENT FOR SRV AND LOCA LOADS
_ REVON 3- NOVEMBER 1378
~_ - _ _ _ . , _ , -. - - -- O-
. . . . . . . - - . . . ~ . .
n
< i f
I.
DEADWEIGHT; SEISMIC LOADS HYDROSTATIC PRESSURE INCLUDING SEISMIC EFFECTS O TO ALL VALVES ON PRESSURE SETPOINT 5
AIR BUBBLE 0SCllLAil0N PRESSURE AND DRAC h SECTION 3 m -
5 E
S I.
r TIME NOTE:
FIG 2-16
$" sus'u"Ef G S R CCT RE R H LOAD COMBINATION HISTORY I l ATTA C H E D STR UCTU R ES.
' STRUCTURE AFFECTED:SMALL SUBMERGED STRUCTURES, COLUMNS, AND PIPING ACCIDENT CONDITION. NONE SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION-UNIT I PLAf4T DESIGN ASSESSMENT FOR SRV AND LOCA LOADS I
REVISION 3-NOVEMBER 1978 i ;
t
', j d,es. i l
l:
I I
DEADNEIGHT; SEISHIC LOADS
$ DRAG LOADS & SECTION 4 5
o i e
.I 5
'! FALL BACK g LOADS a
I i
I t ! I 0.6 1.2 2.3 i TIME AFTER LOCA (sec)
FIG. 2-17 LOAD COMBIN ATION HISTORY STRUCTURE AFFECTED: SMALL STRUCTURES 3
ABOVE POOL AND BELOWBREAKTHROUGH l J ACCIDENT CONDITION: LARGE LINE BREAK (DBA)
SHOREH AM NUCLEAR POWER STATION-UNIT I ;
j PLANT DESIGN ASSESSM ENT FOR SRV AND LOCA LOADS e REVISION 3- NOVEMBER 1978
- - ~ - - - . ~ . _ - _ _
f SECTION 3 1 (h 1 l
SRV LOADS
3.1 INTRODUCTION
The pressure ' oscillation in the bWR suppression pool resulting from safety / relief valve (SRV) blowdown transients is a design consideration. A phenomenological representation of an SRV
-j piping system discharging steam into the suppression pool of a BWR plant is shown on Fig. 3-1. The opening of the SRV results j in the discharge of the water column f' rom the SRV line, followed
- by the discharge of air, and then steam. Because of the initial inertia of the water column in the line, the air volume will be compressed, and the backpressure will increase until the water j column is expelled into the suppression pool. Upon entering the e
pool, the discharged air volume immediately forms an air br.bble.
Formation of the air bubble provides a mechanism for the ext:hange 1 of pressure energy to kinetic energy of the surrounding water medium, causing a pressure oscillation in the pool. The oscillating bubble, in turn, imposes periodic forces on the pool boundary and subnerged structures by transmission of pressure and velocity fields through the pool.
Discharge devices are provided at the submerged ends of the discharge lines for load mitigation. The ranshead device was '
originally selected for the Shoreham plant. However, since various test results have shown that the quencher device has better performance than the ramshead in: (1) reduced air bubble pressure loads on containment wall and submerged structures; and (2) a smooth steam condensation at high pool water temperature and low steam mass flux, a quencher device has been selected and will be installed in the Shoreham plant.
The quencher device selected for the Shoreham plant is the T-quencher designed for Mark II plants by KWU described in Reference 8. This particular quencher device was selected because the tests conducted by KWU at Karlstein (Reference 8) and operating plants like KKB provide a better data base for hnproved load definition / confirmation for a Mark II plant such as Shoreham.
In this section, the containment wall load definition is given for both the ramshead and the quencher device (Section 3.2).
Descriptions of the submerged structure loads during SRV actuation and the quencher device design loads (quencher tie-down ,
j loads and arm loads) are also presented (Sections 3.3 and 3.4, i
respectively) . l l
To expedite NRC review, the containment wall load definition for ramshead, based on the methodology provided in Reference 1, is used for plant design assessment (Ref erence 10) . Section 3.2.1 l
provides detailed discussions of the load cases investigated and '
representative pressure amplitudes and time histories for containment loads based on ramshead methodology.
3-1 Revision 3 - November 1978 u
For information, the containment load definition for T-quencher '
is presented in Section 3.2.2 of the proprietary supplement of this report. Section 3.2.2 includes a detailed description of the KWU specification presented in Reference 8 and a brief
]
( .
l discussion of an effort to develop an improved quencher load i
definition using additional data base (Karlstein test results) with consideration of realistic plant operating conditions. [
3.2 CONTAINMENT IDADS ;
The after the formation of oscillating air bubbles in the suppression pool !
actuation of safety / relief valves will produce transient loads on the wetted containment boundary. The load definition depends on the SRV discharge device and the plant p.
parameters. '
This section presents the plant-specific loads for both the
, ramshead and the quencher device. The quencher loads are i
presented in Section 3.2.2 for information. The ramshead loads presented in Section 3.2.1 are used for plant design assessment. ,
i In order to select the conservative SRV discharge cases for plant assessment, a number of load cases were investigated. j l
3.2.1 Ramshead Loads for Design Assessment ;
Although it has been decided that a quencher device will be installed in the Shoreham plant, containment loads are given for the ramshead device in this section for the following reasons:
(1) the ramshead loads are considered to represent a bounding
]
load for the quencher device; and (2) they are used for plant design assessment for conservative purposes.
The load cases considered for plant design assessment are described in Section 3.2.1.1. In that section, six load cases are investigated. Load cases 1 and 2 were originally utilized in the design asses *: ment prior to the publication of DFFR Rev. 2. .
They produce a more severe state of stress for the reinforced concrete than load cases 3 through 6 which are defined in DFFR .
~
Rev. 2 as credible load cases for design assessment.
Ioad cases 1 and 2 are retained in the present DAR to demonstrate the capability of the containment structure. [I According to DFFR Rev. 2, load cases 3 through 6 are used for plant design assessment for the reactor pressure vessel, piping, c components, and equipment. For these load cases, the plant (*
specific containment loads are developed using the methods of f.
i analysis presented in DFFR Rev. 2 (Reference 1) . The analytical [
models, forcing engineering assumptions, and justification of the dynamic I functions are explained and discussed in detail in Reference 1. [
[-
It is noted that Reference 10 (NRC Ioad Evaluation Report) I en rcquests the evaluation of containment structures and equipment inside the containment for the following load case:
All valves d [i l 3-2 Revision 3 - November 1978 '
l t
I u
1
}.i __ _
discharge simultaneously and assuming all bubbles oscillating in-m phase. It is also requested that a spectrum of bubble trequency i
' ') ranging from 4 to 11 Hz be included.
are not credible for Mark II containments as discussed These loading conditions in Reference 1. The Mark II group is investigating these additional i requirements. Response to the NRC regarding the above
'i -
requirement will be presented at a later date either on a Mark II j generic basis or plant specific basis.
' DFFR Rev. 2 did not establish any load case of consecutive valve actuation for design assessment. However, in DFFR Rev. 3, it is specified that consecutive actuation of single valve discharge j shall be considered in design assessment. For consecutive valve j actuations, Reference 10 defines load multiplier factors of 1.6 i
and 1.4 on predicted single actuation peak negative and peak positive loads respectively. For Shoreham Plant design 4
l assessment, the single valve consecutive actuation load case, with the use of the Reference 10 multipliers, are bounded by other load cases (all valve case and asymmetric case) .
Section 3 . 2.1. 2' presents a load summary for the above six load cases. In that section, representative containment load amplitudes and time histories are provided.
3.2.1.1 SRV Ramshead Load Cases for Plant Design Asses' ment l This section contains a description of the plant-specific loads resulting from SRV discharges into the suppression pool for a ramshead device.
When more than one SRV discharges into the suppression pool, the manner in which the loads combine physically is dependent upon the opening sequence of SRVs and the configuration of the SRV system. Several combinations of multiple SRV discharges have been investigated. The SRV loading evaluations are as follows:
- 1. all valves discharge, considering the bubbles to enter the pool simultaneously and in phase,
- 2. three adjacent valves discharge, considering the bubbles to enter the pool simultaneously and in phase,
- 3. the sequential actuation of all 11 SRVs, with
! consideration of setpoint and line characteristic L differences,
- 4. automatic depressurization system (ADS) in actuating seven SRVs simultaneously, incorporating the individual SRV line characteristic differences, l' 5. simultaneous blowdown of three adjacent SRVs at the same setpoint pressure, considering different line characteristics, providing a bounding condition for
,, asymmetric load cases, and 3-3 Revision 3 - November 1978
9 i
! l 2
- 6. actuation of a single SRV, utilizing the line which
- produces the largest structural load.
4
{ SRV ramshead load cases 1 and 2 described above were originally
j utilized in the design aE3eSament prior to the publication of
- DFFR Rev. 2. DFFR Rev. 2, in Section 3.2.4.1.2, does not j recognize these as credible cases, but rather specifies load i cases 3 through 6 above for the design assessment. Load cases 3 [
! through 6 have been evaluated using the methods of DFFR Rev. 2 f and, in Section 6, are compared with original load cases 1 and 2. .
i Since load cases 1 and 2 produce a more severe state of stress I i for the reinforced concrete, they are retained for the '
)
I l containment structural assessment. '
5 3.2.1.2 Plant Design Assessment Load Summary l
i For the suppression pool configuration with the SRV ramshead I' I
arrangement as shown on Fig. 1-11, the pressure profile and the j j pressure time-history on the pool boundaries (the reactor j pedestal wall, the primary containment wall, and the basemat) j i have been calculated for those six SRV load cases described in l
l Section 3.2.1.1. All SRV ramsheads are assumed to be located 8 l
j ft from the top of the basemat cover slab. The submerged portion j of the suppression pocl is divided into 27 zones for analytical j purpose. The specific pool geometry and definition of the 27 j zones are shown on Fig. 3-2. For each load case, the resulting ,
i forcing functions for each zone are placed in a computer file and '
i accessed from the file for structural analysis. T i,
3.2.1.2.1 'w/
i l Loading with In-Phase Discharge of All SRVs and' l Three Adiacent SRVs '
3 .
l SRV discharge load cases 1 and 2 above consider that the bubbles l
} enter the pool simultaneously and in phase and are used for f
} containment structural assessment only. A normalized pressure '
! time history curve on the pool boundaries is presented on Fig. 3- ;
- 3. For the load case with all SRVs discharging simultaneously j i and in phase, this pressure profile is uniformly distributed *
} along the circumferential direction. For the load case with i
) three adjacent SRVs discharging simultaneously and in phase, the '.
- pressure distribution shown on Fig. 3-3 varies along the [.
j circumferential direction as shown on Fig. 3-4. For both load (
cases 1 and 2, a frequency range of 5 to 10 Hz is investigated. [
3.2.1.2.2 Loading with sequential Actuation of Eleven SRVs C l :
The sequential actuation of all valves is discussed in paragraph A, Section 3.2.4.1.2 of Reference 1. This is a mechanistic
[
j discharge case and it considers the discharge of the SRVs at
- their setpoints for a linear pressure rise in the reactor l pressure vessel (RPV) . The plant-specific line characteristics, y
including the line length and friction losses, are incorporated ,
! for each discharge line. The specific locations of the discharge ,s devices (ramsheads) are presented on Fig. 3-5.
j
- l aummarizes the maximum and minimum pressures in each of the 27 Table 3-1 (,)
l
- 3-4 Revision 3 - November 1978 i
1 I1
! l 1 e I - ;
zones. Figure 3-6 illustrates a typical time history of the circumferential average pressure. This specific forcing function l t j is the one that applies to Zone 14. The effect of including the {
v !
individual discharge line characteristics and sequential SRV i
discharge is that the oscillating bubble pairs from one discharge line to the next are not exactly in phase, and impart horizontal :
and vertical acceleration forces on the structure. '
['t f
3.2.1.2.3 Loading with ADS Actuation of Seven SRVs l l
- d' The ADS valve loading case is described in Section 3.2.4.1.2 of i
(
- { Reference 1. The automatic depressurization system consists of
- . seven valves which discharge at the ramshead locations shown on {
J.g Fig. 3-7. The seven ADS valves are symmetrical and actuate i,
simultaneously at the same system pressure. A conservative upper I
'd bound for the system pressure was selected. The specific l l discharge line characteristics were considered in the load '
y evaluation.
The maximum and minimum pressures in each zone are summarized in Table 3-2. A typical circumferential average forcing function !
for the ADS actuation loading is presented en Fig. 3-6, for the I forcing function applied to Zone 14 !
l 3.2.1.2.4 Single SRV Actuation Loadinq ?
i The single SRV discharge loading case has been analyzed to l account for the actuation of an SRV which produces the largest structural load. The location of the line used in this evaluation is shown on Fig. 3-9.
pressures for The maximum and minimum !
each zone are snnsnarired in Table 3-3. A typical ;
circumferential average forcing function for the single SRV i actuation load case is presented on Fig. 3-10 for the forcing j
function applied to Zone 14.
3.2.1.2.5 Asymmetric SRV Discharge Loading !
I t
The asyr.netric loading case i considering the simultaneous blowdown is conservatively constructed by of three adjacent ;
valves
' having identical setpoint and different line characteristics. To !
yield a bounding condition for this asymmetric load case, all six bubbles are j assumed to enter the pool simultaneously. The location of the ramsheads for the three lines used in this l' evaluation is shown on Fig. 3-11.
The maximum and minimum
- . pressures for each zone are summarized in Table 3-4. A typical circumferential average forcing function for the asymmetric ;
, loading is presented on Fig. 3-12, for the forcing
, applied to Zone 14. tunction ('
l 3.2.2 containment Loads for Ouencher Device See Proprietary Supplement of this Report 1
3-5 Revision 3 - November 1978
~ . . ~ - - - - . .. - - --
4 8
3.3 SUBMERGED STRUCTURE LOADS Submerged structure loads due to SRV actuation consist of the water jet load during water expulsion and the air bubble load during air cleaning. Reference 10 (NRC Ioad Evaluation Report) provides methodologies for calculating these loads for a T- I quencher device. These methodologies are being evaluated by the !
Mark II owner's group and a formal response will be presented to !
the NRC by the Mark II group.
For Shoreham design assessment, the methodologies presented in I
Reference 10 will be used to calculate submerged structure loads l on an interim bases. Deviations (if any) from the Reference 10 i
methodologies for Shoreham design assessment will be presented in a future DAR revision.
It is noted that in Reference 8, KWU has provided a submergea structure load definition for the T quencher device to be
- installed in the Shoreham plant. For information, the KWU specification for submerged structure loads is presented in j Section 3.3 of the proprietary supplement of this report. j 3.4 QUENCHER DEVICE DESIGN LOADS This Section presents the loads on quencher body and quencher hrm for the design of the quencher and the quencher support. The loads specified by KWU in Reference 8 will be used for the design of the quencher and the (Reference support. To expedite
- 10) , loads based on the methodology presented in DFFR NRC review j
/
Revision 2 (Ref erence 1) for GE quencher will also be generated for assessment. They will be presented in a future Shoreham DAR Revision. A brief discussion of the KWU load specification is given in Section 3.4 of the proprietary supplement ot this report.
f l .
i i-f.
F i
i E
t p
f O 'l l 1
3-6 Revision 3 - November 1978 '
h I
--- -- l
4 TABLE 3-1 i
SUMMARY
OF MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM AVERAGE WALL PRESSURES l
, FOR SEQUENTIAL SRV DISCHARGE l, (Sequential Discharge of All SRVs ij Based on Ramshead Methodology) l l] Maximum Pressure (psid) Minimum Pressure tpsid) i Zone (1) Localta) Average (3) Localtan AveraceE3)
.i
, 1 1.72 0.78 -0.37 -0.21
] 2 5.06 2.31 -1.07 -0.62
! 3 8.12 2.73 -1.65 -0.98 4 10.73 4.98 -2.10 -1.29
' 5 12.78 6.01 -2.43 -1.53 6 14.2 1 6.80 -2.67 -1.71 7 15.14 7.37 -2.82 -1.84 8 15.64 7.72 -2.91 -1.91 9 15.89 7.90 -2.96 -1.96 10 16.32 8.06 -3.01 -1.99 i 11 18.43 8.71 -3.31 -2.12 12 20.17 9.28 -3.69 -2.22 13 20.45 9.42 -3.69 -2.24 14 20.25 9.42 -3.56 -2.23 15 20.45 9.53 -3.55 -2.24 16 21.02 9.73 -3.65 -2.26 17 21.57 9.92 -3.76 -2.29 18 21.86 10.01 -3.81 -2.30 19 20.99 10.02 -3.84 -2.30 20 22.43 10.10 -4.09 -2.31 21 25.73 10.31 -4.67 -2.34 22 30.33 10.51 -5.49 -2.39 23 31.16 10.14 -b.63 -2.42 i
24 27.23 8.59 -5.24 -2.26 25 26.56 6.60 -5.40 -1.93 26 20.36 4.00 -5.01 -1.37
, 27 7.32 1.33 -2.27 "
-0.50 t
. (*) See Fig. 3-2 for definition of zones.
j (2) Maximum or minimum in both space and time.
(3) Maximum or minimum in time if circumferential average.
l 1
. l i I l l I l l
me
} 1 of 1 Revision 3 - November 1978 I 1
i i
_ _ . . . - 1__.
I TABLE 3-2 !
, I '
f O.
SUMMARY
OF MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM WALL PRESSURES
' l
- FOR AU'IOMATIC DEPRESSURIZATION SYSTEM ACTUATION (Simultaneous Actuation of Seven SRVs '
Based on Ramshead Methodology)
I Maximum Pressure (psid) Minimum Pressure fusid)
Zone (1) Local (2) Average (3) Localca) Averace(3) 1 1.46 0.66 -0.31 -0.22 ,
} 2 4.26 1.94 -0.93 -0.65 '
- 3 6.78 3.14 -1.51 -1.05 4 8.85 4.22 -2.02 -1.41 5 10.36 5.11 -2.43 -1.70 6 11.56 5.81 -2.74 -1.94 7 12.51 6.31 -2.95 -2.10 8 13.10 6.63 -3.07 -2.21 9 13.40 6.79 -3.13 -2.27 10 13.68 6.93 -3.22 -2.31 11 15.56 7.53 -3.64 -2.51 12 17.41 8.04 -4.00 -2.68 13 17.49 8.15 -4.01 -2.70 14 17.00 8.13 -3.89 -2.67 i 15 17.14 8.22 -3.88 -2.68 l
. 16 17.78 8.41 -3.98 -2.72 i 17 18.39 8.57 -4.08 -2.76
^ ~
18 18.68 8.65 -4.13 -2.78 19 18.86 8.66 -4.16 -2.78 i 20 20.16 8.75 -4.37 -2.81 2 21 23.18 8.97 -4.87 -2.87 22 27.38 9.20 -5.57 -2.92 '
23 29.67 8.76 -5.63 -2.76 24 29.15 7.12 -5.19 -2.23
- 25 23.83 5.15 -5.07 -1.58
- 26 18.32 3.08 -4.65 -0.93 i 27 7.02 1.06 -2.20 -0.40 1
(a) See Fig. 3-2 for definition of zones.
(2) Maximum or minimum in both space and time.
(3) Maximum or minimum in time circumferential average. -
1 I
i l
?
I t
i 1 .
i 4
1 of 1 Revision 3 - November 1978 i
.,n -
- , , - - - - - - - - - ,e -
f i
j TABLE 3-3
SUMMARY
OF MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM WALL l PRESSURES FOR SINGLE VALVE DISCHARGE (Based on Ramshead Methodology) 1 l
. Maximum Pressure (psid) Minimum Pressure (psid)
{ 2one(s) Local (2) Averace(3) Local (2) Averace(s) l
~j 1 1.19 0.31 -0.25 -0.05 2 3.51 0.92 -0.74 -0.16
., 3 5.66 1.49 -1.16 -0.25 4 7.54 2.00 -1.51 -0.34 5
5 9.02 2.42 -1.79 -0.41 4
6 10.05 2.76 -2.00 -0.47 l 7 10.67 2.99 -2.12 -0.51 8 10.98 3.15 -2.19 -0.54 i 9 11.11 3.22 -2.21 -0.55 l 10 11.52 3.29 -2.29 -0.56 11 13.74 3.58 -2.73 -0.61 12 15.65 3.83 -3.10 -0.65 13 15.70 3.88 -3.10 -0.66 14 15.14 3.87 -2.96 -0.65 15 15.26 3.91 -2.94 -0.65 16 15.93 4.00 -3.05 -0.66 17 16.56 4.08 -3.15 -0.67 18 16.86 4.12 -3.20 -0.68 19 17.07 4.12 -3.24 -0.68 20 18.57 4.16 -3.52 -0.69 21 22.01 4.25 -4.15 -0.70 l
22 26.86 4.30 -5.04 -0.70
- 23 28.08 4.04 -5.28 -0.66 24 23.71 3.31 -5.31 -0.57
- 25 25.27 2.44 -5.20 -0.48 j 26 19.53 1.61 -4.80 -0.36 l 27 7.38 0.57 -2.34 -0. 14 i
- (*) See Fig. 3-2 for definition of zones.
1 (2) Maximum or minimum in both space and time.
l (3) Maximum 'or minimum in time of circumferential average.
i i
i l
i 1 of 1 Revision 3 - November 1978 i
i
$ TABLE 3-4 i
f )
SUMMARY
OF MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM WALL
' - ' l PRESSURES FOR ASYMMETRIC SRV DISCHARGE (Simultaneous Discharge of Three Adjacent SRVs i Based on Ramshead Methodology) l 1
.! 3 j Maximum Pressure ipsid) Minimum Pressure (psid) '
- q Zoneta) Localta) Average (3) Localta) Averacets) i
-1 1 2.11 0.71
~;
j 2 6.24 2.11
-0.48
-1.41
-0.14
-0.42 3 10.07 3.42 -2.29 -0.68
~I 4 13.43 4.59 -3.05 -0.91 5 16.15 5.56 -3.68 -1.10 6 18.16 6.32 -4.14 -1.25
- 7 19.51 6.86 -4.45
-1.36 i 8 20.31 7.21 -4.63 -1.43 9 20.63 7.38 -4.71 -1.46 10 21.19 7.54 -4.84 -1.49 11 23.61 8.18 -5.46 -1.62 12 25.65 8.73 -5.99 -1.73 13 26.02 8.85 -6.02 -1.74 14 25.81 8.82 -5.88 -1.72 15 26.06 8.91 -L.88 -1.73 16 26.74 9.10 -6.01 -1.75 17 27.37 9.27 -6.15 -1.78 18 27.69 9.36 -6.22 -1.79 19 27.82 9.37 -6.26 -1.80 20 28.63 9.45 -6.50 -1.81 21 ~
31.44 9.65 -7.04 -1.84 22 35.76 9.80 -7.77 -1.86 23 36.07 9.25 -7.70 -1.74 24 32.08 7.58 -7.02 -1.49 25 26.73 5.40 -6.35 -1.21 26 20.50 3.20 -5.42 -0.86 i 27 7.07 1.06 -2.38 -0.34 i
- (1) See Fig. 3-2 for definition of zones.
(2) Maximum or minimum in both space and time.
(3)
Maximum or minimum in time of circumferential average.
i l
1 of 1 Revision 3 . - November 1978
__ ,,-w.,,. , _ + _ % .__,y_ , , , , , ,
I-l l
l l
i TABLE 3-5 SRV LOAD
SUMMARY
i Load DFFR Rev. 2 DAR
, Load Description Magnitude Reference Reference
,j 1. Containment
. l; j a. Single valve +28.1/-5.3 psid(1,2) 3.2.4.4 3.2.1.2.4
-d ;
.c j b. Asymmetric +36.1/-7.8 psid(1,2) 3.2.4.4 3.2.1.2.5 ,
- c. ADS +29.7/-5.6 paid (1,a) 3. 2 . 4 .1. 2 1 3.2.1.2.3 fl d. All valve +31.2/-5.6 psid(1,a) 3.2.4.1.2 3.2.1.2.2
-l (Sequential) 1 l 2. Submerged (Later) 3.4.1 3.3 Structure (
- 3. Tiedown 3.2.5 3.4 Loads
- a. Horizontal 75 kips (3)
- b. Vertical 200 kipsca)
I i
(1) These are loads generated for ramshead device ,
(*) based on DFFR Rev. 2 methodology (Reference 1) .
The data presented are maximum and minimum pressure with i
' respect to both space and time.
(3) Design loads for tiedown system.
i 1 l 4
4 i
t i ,
l i
f I
i 1 of 1 Revision 3 - November 1978 I I
t i
-***w-imew- -.
6 TABLE 3-6 LOADS GN OUENCRER BODY ,
(Based on KWU Report - Reference 8) ,
L I
i
- 4 i
i J
I l 1
i r
PROPRIETARY - See Proprietary Supplenent to this Report i
e i,
1 4
l
! i i
k l I i
\
'N ,/
l 1 of 1 Revision 3 - November 1978 l'
l l
l - - -
4 ;'
.i l TABLE 3-7 i-( LOADS ON QUENCHER ARM i k' (Based on KWU Report - Reference 8) ;
1 1
l, t
i
.4 !
1 t
- ?
.J PROPRIETARY - See Proprietary Supplement l to this Report +
t t
r t
i l I
,i
~4
~
t i
I i I ;
.{ l, i -
.m, 1 of 1 Revision 3 - November 1978 i
i a
~- ~ < - = + - - ' . . - ~ . - , , _m,m * - g w ---
t_ . _ . . -- - --'
I l
I !
I i
/ SAFETY
.. . ....... ....:3 VALVE "
. : "* : " . *" * : - - MOVING STE AM 5 5M. . .
1 . i . I. .
, --- M O V IN G A IR
/N /
MAIN STEAM j SYSTEM P STATION ARY AIR I '
- , t
- SHOCK WAVE WATER f _- -
_-l _- !,
J
/ '
/
/
3
/ /
) /
, i
/
g j SUPPRESSION POOL '
f 4
/ WATER SURFACE 4
/ // //// / / / / / / / ////// / // ///////
INITIAL RESPONSE
- _2-- - } _- -
j
' $-/ J'V - ; <
V 'sg ->
l
- __/ t t I
. s PRESSURE
/\ s A AA __ LOADS
- - OSCILLATING
'j ,
AIR BUBBLE P, L ,,
i LATER RESPONSE 1
NOTE:
REPRESENTATIVE FOR
- RAMSHEAD DEVICE FIG. 3 - 1 1'
PHENOMENON OF SAFETY / RELIEF VALVE
- I BLOWDOWN INTO SUPPRESSION POOL SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION - UNIT 1
.4 PLANT DESIGN ASSESSMENT FOR SRV AND LOCA LOADS REVISION 3-NOVEMBER 1978
-2 4
i i
I j SUPPORT PRIMARY k PEDESTAL CONTAINMENT
'y ) .
l I '
_ _ {H.W. L. 27 '- O"
~
2'(TYP)
E j .
I I
i vZONE NUMBER +-- SRV DISCH ARGE LINE i
I 18'
. F. I E L.17 '- O" i
\
l BASEMAT
[COVERSLAB A
!: 13.00' :l 15.94' =
4 18.89' :
= 21.83' ;
,= 24.78' : s
- 27.70' 27.72' -
, = 30.67' :
i: 33.61' :
36.56' :
39.50' 1, PEDESTAL RADIUS - 13.0 FT.
i CONTAINMENT RADIUS -39.5 FT. NOTES:
- POOL DEPTH-18 FT. 1. NOT TO SCALE 1
SUBMERGENCE DEPTH-10 FT. 2. OUENCHER TO BE INSTALLED 5 FT j ABOVE BASEMAT COVER SLAB i
?
FIG. 3-2 l CROSS-SECTION OF SUPPRESSION POOL AND
! DEFINITION OF SUPPRESSION CHAMBER WALLS' l LOADING ZONE FOR RAMSHEAD LOAD DEFINITION l SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION - UNIT 1 j PLANT DESIGN ASSESSMENT FOR SRV AND LOCA LOADS l
R EVISION 3 - NOVEMBER 1978
..-- - - --. _. p__, ,
i g s ., SUPPORT
, PEDESTAL y, PRIMARY
- a. CONTAINMENT
- ) l **
SUPPRESSION POOL
.t ,.
')
') -
l l
. 26 PSI
- 1.0 - -
- 13 PSI o ; llPSI
,j
'[
I j 0.8 -
PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION
'l 0.6 --
5 8
j g 0.4 -
.. . o -
u.!
g 0.2 -
2 x
o -
- 2 i
0 -
I i
- j - 0.2 -
9 a -
- -04 I ! ! I ! I g 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 '
O.5 0.6 i
l TIME (SEC)
FIG.3 - 3 NORMALIZED PRESSURE TIME HISTORY FOR ALL SRV'S DISCHARGING SIMULTANEOUSLY AND
.3 IN PHASE BASED ON RAMSHEAD DEVICE
(,,) SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION-UNIT 1 PLANT DESIGN ASSESSMENT FOR SRV AND LOCA LOADS REVISION 3 - NOVEMBER 1976 i
~ ' ~ ' ' ^ ^ ~
t k; .
k f
l 1
i l.0 -
4
' ~
g 0.8 a -
0 E O.6 0 -
3
$ O.4 -
5
= -
02 -
O ' I I i i 1 80 60 40 20 0 0 20 40 60 80 CIRCUMFERENTIAL COORDINATE (DEG)
NOTE.
O' POSITION CORRESPONOS TO CENTERLINE OF OUTERMOST RAMS HEAD i
i i
' i l FIG. 3- 4 NORM ALIZED PRESSURE GOUNDARY LOAD
' DISTRIBUTION AROUND THE CIRCUMFERENTIAL
~
DIRECTION ON PRIMARY CONTAINMENT FOR THREE
'v' ADJACENT SRV'S DISCHARGING SIMULTANEOUSLY AND IN PHASE BASED ON RAMSHEAD DEVICE l SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION-UNITI j
FLANT DESIGN ASSESSMENT FOR SRV AND LOCA LOADS i
REVISION 3- NOVEMBER 1978
' ' ~ ~ ~~-
f
, FOl 3 H - 160.7
] - FOl 3 L-212.2
- h FOl3 F- 135 'q N F Ol 3C - 237.9*
'g FOl 3 J-lO 9.3*
i ./ @ I5 ' $
O =
a &a&
d "U Q O , N $ 5
% 0 O O O '
O X O A l O PEDESTAL O - _ I A s w. M L-O O-
\ FOl3 A-263.6 *
' O O
O gl .
O V ' ~ '
j FOl 3 0 -8 3.6* p O F O l 3 K - 57. 9 a O, O FOl 3 E -6.4'
'- 4.
I .
e.- 13' -b 10' -
- 2 7.7 ' -- =-
t -
OwO .
Oc= O 34.2' NOTES:
- 1. NOT TO SCALE.
l 2. RAMS HEADS ARE ORIENTED R ADI ALLY '
3 QUENCHERS ARE 5 FT ABOVE BASEMAT COVER SL AB l
- 4. QUENCHER ORIENTATION WILL BE 30 DEGREES FROM i
RADIAL DIRECTION l
't FIG. 3-5 j ORIENTATION OF SRV LINE DISCHARGE DEVICES
__ (RAMSHEADS) FOR SEQUENTIAL SRV DISCH ARGE SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION-UNIT I PLANT DESIGN ASSESSMENT FOR SRV AND LOCA LCADS l REVISION 3 - NOVEMBER 1978
t 4
12 1
ye -
2 4
E E
4 -
f l /
8c u h l 0 -
]
b j 3 g u J I I I !
-4 O O.2 04 0.6 0.0 1.0 TIME. AFTER FIRST BUBBLE CLEARED (SEC)
NOTE:
SHOREHAM 8ASEMAT LOADINGS-ZONE 14- RAMSHEAD SEQUENTIAL DISCHARGE (SEQUENTI AL ACTUATION OF ALL S/R VALVES).
FIG. 3-6 TYPICAL SEQUENTIAL SRV DISCHARGE FORCING FUNCTION FOR RAMSHEAD DEVICE -ZONE 14 SHOREH AM NUCLEAR POWER STATION -UNIT 1 PLANT DESIGN ASSESSMENT FOR SRV AND LOCA LOADS R EVISION 3 - NOVEMBER 1978 I
I
~* -- ~_ - - - _ . .#l 4
i
,CN,
() 18 0
- i.
3-FOl3 L - 212. 2*
FOl3H-160 7* A
. 1 i O l
- , O W 1
i FO l 3 J - lO 9. 3 I
O I J ' O 1 4# Fol3 A-263.6*
0
! O s o O 90^ - - '- - - -
270*
p 4
4
' '38-3
FOl 3 K-57. 9* O '
,O O
- O %
I O
J
! FOl3 E-6*
i l
O*
NOTES *
- 1. NOT TO SCALE
- 2. RAMS HEADS ARE ORIENTED RADIALLY I
- 3. QUENCHER WILL BE ORIENTED 30 DEGREES FROM RADIAL DIRECTION.
4 j FIG. 3-7 i
' ORIENTATION OF SRV DISCH ARGE LINE DEVICES (RAMSHEADS) FOR AUTOMATIC DEPRESSURIZATION I
' SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION-UNIT I
}
PLANT DESIGN ASSESSMENT FOR SRV AND LOCA LOADS 1
i ,
i l
R EVISION 3 - NOVEM BER 193
~
' " ~ '
.w .
. _ . . . . .- - . - . . - . .-- - .~. -- - - - = - - -- -
( ,
y _, ~,
~.I 12 2
y8 -
5 0 -
I h 9 l q t
E 1
- I.
w 4 -
) L x y f i Y
O - '
=
<t !
_4 e i i I f f O 0 13 0 25 0.38 0 50 063 0 75 088 TIME AFTER FIRST BUBBLE CLEARED (SEC)
NOTE:
SHOREH AM BASEM AT LOADINGS- pgg, 3.g
] ZONE 14- ADS ACTUATION LOADING TYPICAL AUTOMATIC DEPRESSURIZATION
-l (SIMULTANEOUS ACTUATION OF SEVEN S/R VALVES FOR RAMSHEAD SYSTEM ACTUATION FORCING ~ FUNCTION i l DEVICES) FOR RAMSHEAD DEVICE-ZONE 14 SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION-UNIT 1 PLANT DESIGN ASSESSMENT FOR SRV AND LOCA LOADS i REVISION 3 - NOVEMBER 1978 Il t
(3,1 1
~
A~ l J, d l
j 18 0
- i T l
I h CONTAINfAENT I
j FOl3 F-135 '
i '
l -
O 1
i O
I t
O 21p
- i A
, 34 2 h
I i %,
PEDESTAL T
i e i
i 1
O'
. NOTES:
- 1. NOT TO SCALE
- 2. RAMS HEAD IS ORIENTED RADIALLY
- 3. QUENCHER WILL BE ORIENTED 30 DEGREES FROM RADIAL DIRECTION.
i FIG. 3-9 ORIENTATION OF SRV LINE DISCHARGE DEVICE i (RAMSHEAD) FOR SINGLE VALVE DISCHARGE t SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION-UNIT i PLANT DESIGN ASSESSMENT FOR SRV AND LOCA LOADS REVISION 3- NOVEMBER 1978 t
' ~
.--_...._......___._,_m.._...._ _ _
- ,/
J l 4 i'
t 3 -
1 o
[]
N 8
- 2 -
w i m
- ) ,'
w g1 -
w 0
m /
w k
O -
I l l l l l l O.0 0.1 0. 2 0.3 0.4 05 0.6 0.7 0.8 TIME AFTER FIRST BUBBLE CLEARED (SEC)
NOTE:
i, FIG. 3 -10 SHOREHAM BASEMAT LOADINGS-ZONE 14- SINGLE SRV DISCHARGE p
! FOR RAMSHEAD.
TYPICAL SINGLE SRV DISCHARGE FORCING l
{
FUNCTION FOR RAMSHEAD DEVICE-ZONE 14 i-SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION- UNIT 1 l' l
PLANT DESIGN ASSESSMENT FOR SRV AND LOCA LOADS
_ 3 EV'S10N 3 - NOVEMBER 1978 5
___ _ _ , , ,, ,---m - - --- ,e'- T "-'-' -
.l t
l I
! I I!
l <
CW 180 d ,
j !
1607*
f 33$o g I CONTAINMENT ll.
\
g l 'i O
'.', s
! k (FOl3H ADJACENT SRV)
I
~
F013Fk REDESTAL l , 109.30 g
- t 5
n Otb L > ,.a.\
\; .
' FOl3J 'd/g,'g\ O (ADJACENT SRV) 's ,M 900 - - - -' -
270
! I s
r y
O' I
l i
l
!s
!i o ll NOTES:
l'l; l. NOT TO SCALE
- 2. RAMS HEADS ARE ORIENTED R ADI ALLY
.]
- 3. QUENCHER WILL BE ORIENTED 30 DEGREES FROM RADIAL DIRECTION i
l l FIG. 3 -11 l
') SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION - UNIT 1 l PLANT DESIGN ASSESSMENT FOR SRV AND LOCA LOADS
- 1
'3 REVISIC N 3 - NOVE MBER 1978
~i
' * ' ~
_ . . _ . . _ _ . . . - .a..a . . . . . . . . . - . _ . . ..__ .
(
I s'^ \
l s > ':
) !
I l
12.0 0 2
W Z k O 8.00 -
E 55 b
W
$ 4.00 - p ,
E W
t' W
O
<t 0.00 -
tr W
i -4.00 ' ' ' ' i e i O.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 TIME AFTER FIRST BUBBLE CLEARED (SEC)
NOTE:
SHOREHAM BASEMAT LOADINGS -ZONE 14-ASYMMETRIC i SRV DISCHARGE FOR RAMSHE AD DEVICE ( SIMULTANEOUS FIG. 3-12 DISCH ARGE OF THREE ADJACENT S/R VALVES)
TYPICAL ASYMMETRIC SRV DISCHARGE FORCING FUNCTION FOR RAMSHEAD DEVICE -ZONE 14 SHOREliAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION -UNIT 1 PLANT DE">lGil ASLESSt4ENT FOR SRV AND LOCA LOADS R EVislON T-AuVEMOEE NTe
_. . _ . . _ . . . _ _ _. ._. . . . . ... . . .a . . . __ 1 2- - -
.._,2. -
___L._.._
t
..l Q f
t THIS FIGURE CONTAINS PROPRIETARY INFORMATION i
i e
i i
FIG. 3-13 r
KWU T-QUENCHER !
f SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION-UNIT 1 !i
.l PL ANT DESIGN ASSESSMENT FOR SRV AND LOCA LO ADS i I I
REVISION 3-NOVEM BER 1978 :
f I i -
a 1
i
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .-. ._ . _ ..=. L E D 1s=.i1 + 3 .d.ru & c ' . . - .
\ ,, / .
I i
i-i I
THIS FIGURE CONTAINS PROPRIETARY INFORM ATION l
i FIG.3-14 NORMALIZED PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION ON SUPPRESSION POOL BOUNDARIES-ll SYMMETRIC AND ADS CASES SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION-UNIT 1 PLANT DESIGN ASSESSMENT FOR SRV AND LOCA LOADS l REVISION 3- NOVEMBER 1978 i
.-i I (O) ..
~i i
-i
.1 a
i i
THIS FIGURE CONTAINS PROPRIETARY INFORM ATION i
1 i
i 1
i l FIG. 3-15 i NORMALIZED VERTICAL PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION ,
1 - '
FOR ALL CASES AND FOR SUBMERGED STRUCTURES l SHOREHAM NUCLE AR POWER STATION-UNIT 1 i l PLANT DESIGN ASSESSMENT FOR SRV AND LOCA LOADS '
'i -
REVISION 3 - NOVEMBER 1978 a tr -N4* Avw up - - - -w- --
i
.,'l
- ._s 1
.j 1
.i -
.J J;
4 l
i
,<{
>J :
4 i
THIS FIGURE CONTAINS PROPRIETARY INFORM ATION I
-l 1 I d .
i
,J l
1 i
t l
' l FIG. 3-16 NORMALIZED PRESSURE t'ISTRIBUTION ON SUPPRESSION POOL BOUNDARIES-ASYMMETRIC CASE j s.) SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION-UNIT 1 i
I PLANT DESIGN ASSESSMENT FOR SRV AND LOCA LOADS REVISION 3- NOVEMBER 1978 i
9 l
1
- s,
~. .)
}
l 1
i
-} 4 i
.4 I
.E THIS FIGURE CONTAINS PROPRIETARY INFORMATION i
l j
l
-+
t i,
FIG. 3-17 l NORMALIZED PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION ON SUPPRESSION POOL BOUNDARIES-
' - SINGLE SRV DISCHARGE CASE SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWEH STATION-UNIT 1 PLANT DESIGN ASSESSMENT FOR SRV AND LOCA LOADS HEVISION 3- NOVEMBER 1978
,.... --4 -
---_,w-
..,.y,grr .w,o-.r .-y-_-v -
a J g l.
w)
.i 1
ll l
4 THIS FIGURE CONTAINS PROPRIETARY INFORMATION i
?
FIG 3-18 KKB PRESSURE TRACE NO.35 SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION-UNIT 1 -
! I PL ANT DESIGN ASSESSMENT FOR SRV AND LOCA LOADS -
i REVISION 3 -NOVEM BER 1978 j
i
. i.
Q i
i i
1 i
THIS FIGURE CONTAINS PROPRIETARY INFORMATION l i
i i
! I I
i FIG. 3-19 i
KKB PRESSURE TRACE NO.76 !
SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION-UNIT 1 !
l PLANT DESIGN ASSESSMENT FOR SRV AND LOCA LOADS
- l REVISIO N 3 - NOVEMBER 1978 ,
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ - - - - .- .-. --- -- - -= --- - - '
~~
.i '
fs
-I + 2 I
g I
l I
i i.
i THIS FIGURE CONTAINS PROPRIETARY INFORMATION i
}
J i
4 4
i i
FIG. 3-20 KKB PRESSURE TRACE NO.82
}
SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION-UNIT 1 i PL ANT DESIGN ASSESSMENT FOR SRV AND LOCA LOADS i REVISION 3 -NOVEMBER 1978 l
~
MW .% e+ ,_
i
'l l
1 i
THIS FIGURE CONTAINS PROPRIETARY INFORMATION 1
e 4
i FIG. 3-21 LOADS ON QUENCHER WITHOUT PRESSURE LOADS SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION-UNIT 1
, PL ANT DESIGN ASSESSMENT FOR SRV AND LOCA LOADS i
REVISION 3-NOVEMBER 1978
?
- ~ ' - -
'~-~~z_._._ _ _ _ . _ _ _
- - - - ~ ~ " - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
.i I
i
< I 1-THIS FIGURE CONTAINS PROPRIETARY INFORMATION t
I i
I i
i i
- t i
1 FIG. 3-22 I
'^
LOADS ON QUENCHER ARMS WITHOUT PRESSURE LOADS
/
SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION-UNIT 1 l PLANT DESIGN ASSESSMENT FOR SRV AND LOCA LOADS i :
I '
REVISION 3-NOVEMBER 1978 1
- i.
l i
l SECTION 4 LOCA LOADS l 4.0 GENERAL
<l ,
A general description of the loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) is
,j given in Section 2.1.2. When a large LOCA occurs, the ,
mass of a l
- steam released into the drywell causes rapid pressurization of
.l the drywell and expulsion of water standing in the downcomer e vents. Following vent clearing, air purged from the drywell
' forms individual bubbles at the downcomer vent exits which
- as rapidly expand they are charged from the drywell. When the bubbles expand sufficiently, the upward motion of the pool
~
becomes essentially one-dimensional and the bulk pool swell phase begins. The pool surface continues to move upward until ;
gravity and the increasing pressure in the airspace brings the pool 1 surface to rest. Air beneath the pool surface rises through the water slug and communicates with the wetwell air space in a :
relatively temperate abreak through" process and pool fallback begins. At the termination of fallback, the pool is restored to !
its apre-swell" condition with most of the drywell air having been transferred to the wetwell airspace.
The total duration of l vent clearing, bubble formation, bulk pool swell, and fallback is I approximately two seconds for Shoreham.
As the purging of the drywell air continues, the vent flow becomes increasingly pure steam. The vent flow may be considered quasi-steady in that the rate of change of mass flow at any point in time is relatively small.
For a containment DBA, this phase lasts approximately 25 seconds. Containment peak pressure and l maximum vent flow is reached during this phase at approximately i 10 seconds after the event begins.
Condensation of steam vent flow during the quasi-steady flow phase is continuous, but some ;
l pressure oscillations have been observed in large scale tests.
- When the vent mass flux falls below 4-6 lbn/fta-sec, the condensation becomes intermittent. This phase is referred to as chugging. l 1
The sequence ot events !
loading of the structures and components described above causes direct dynamic j comprising the vapor suppression portion of the Mark II containment system (suppression chamber boundaries, downcomer vents, and other
.! piping and structures within the suppression chamber). The transient nature of these forces is generally termed the dynamic forcing function for the loading condition in question.
! bases for specifying forcing functions for The given loading conditions are presented in Section 4.1.
! Plant-unique input and calculations of plant-unique loads for Shoreham Section u.2. Section 4.3 provides qualification of the SSW POSH are presented in l
j code which is based on the generic pool swell analytical model
, (PSAM) used to describe bulk pool swell. Specifications of other LOCA-related loads including the pressure and temperature loads l
I
- 4-1 Revision 3 - November 1978
on the containment pressure boundary; downward and upward differential pressure loads on the drywell floor resulting from p maximum vent flow and condensation of steam in the drywell; )
pressurization of the annulus formed by the reactor vessel and the biological shield wall; and seismic loads due to the assumed design basis earthquake concurrent with the design basis accident '
(DBA) are presented in the FSAR.
4.1 ANALYTICAL METHODS AND DISCUSSION OF LOADS As described above, there are five periods of interest during a LOCA transient related to direct dynamic loading of the vapor suppression system. These are: vent clearing, air bubble formation, bulk pool swell and fallback, quasi-steady vent flow, and chugging. Table 4-1 describes the structures affected during each phase and identifies the specific section where the load is defined for Shoreham.
4.1.1 Vent Clearing Vent clearing loads result from the accelerating water jet appearing at the vent exit during the vent clearing process. The jet loads may act on submerged structures located near the downward projection of the downcomer vent and on the basemat.
4.1.1.1 Suhnerged Structure Loads Due to Vent Clearing The vent clearing jet acts on structures in the jet path either by drag or by direct momentum transfer. The generic approach for s }
calculation of vent clearing jet loads is provided in Reference 11 and is based on the jet model described in Reference 12.
l Criterion III.A.1 of Reference 16 raises concern about the method l described in Reference 11 in two major areas: consideration of acceleration drag and the calculation of suhnerged structure loads outside the jet but near the jet boundary. The latter concern arises from the realization that some motion may be imparted to the pool mass by the vent clearing jet which is not presently included in the jet model. To overcome this modeling limitation, work has proceeded on an improved jet model which
- l includes a treatment of the significant kinetic energy imparted t to the pool mass by vortex ring formation at the vent exit. :
High-speed movies of the vent clearing process in sub-scale, ;
single cell dye tests have shown that energy dissipated from the ;
jet in the formation of this vortex ring greatly reduces the i degree of penetration into the pool when compared to the i predictions of Reference 12. A simplified vortex ring model is i expected to be submitted for NRC review before the end of 1978 !
for application on lead plants. This subnittal will also address I the issue of acceleration drag on subnerged structures due to vent clearing.
[
OI V.
!~
4-2 Revision 3 - November 1978 l
~~' ~~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ '~
_ . _ _ T. E 1. . _
a Jl 4.1.1.2 Basemat Loads Due to Vent Clearinq
. a
) The vent clearing jet acts on the basemat by direct momentum transfer. For a maximum jet velocity of 60 fps at the source, I
the maximum impingement pressure with the basemat 10 ft below the vent exit is shown to be 33 psid using highly conservative l l
methods as outlined in Section 4.4.5.1 of Reference 1. Criterion i
.l I.A of Reference 16 states that a 33 psi overpressure added to i
.j the local hydrostatic pressure is an acceptable load :
y specification but infers that the generic approach is to apply
, 'I the overpressure uniformly below the vent exit and then linearly ,
, attenuate the overpressure to zero at the pool surface. This is :
- not a correct interpretation of the generic approach which calls l
.j for application of the overpressure to the basemat only. (
i 4.1.2 LOCA Bubble Formation Once the water in the downcomer vents is expelled, drywell air '
vent flow begins to form bubbles at the vent exits. The bubble l center is assumed to be stationary on the vent centerline, one j vent radius below the vent exit. As the bubble is charged from the drywell, it continues to expand establishing three- ;
dimensional acceleration and velocity fields in the pool. The I motion of the pool water results in drag loads on small submerged .
structures. At the same time, the air bubble pressure adds to !
the local hydrostatic pressure on the pool boundaries. The end of the LOCA bubble formation phase is referred to as the " switch !
time" as described in Reference 11. The " switch time" is the time the spherical bubbles first touch each other or' the pool boundary.
4.1.2.1 Submerged Structure Loads Due to LOCA Bubble Formation i
The generic methodology for the calculation of submerged 1
structure loads due to LOCA bubble formation is given in References 11 and 13. The bubble dynamics and charging !
relationships may be coupled or uncoupled at the option of the
, user. Criterion III.B.1 of Reference 16 calls for additional j i margin to be applied to the generic methodology in the areas of i bubble asymmetry, steady versus unsteady drag coefficients, !
, superficial versus maximum local velocities and accelerations and i interference effects. Consideration of the need for additional margin in these areas by the lead plants is in progress and will l be addressed in a submittal to the NRC before the end of 1978. l J 4.1.2.2 Pool Boundary Loads Due to LOCA Bubble Formation I
t' The bubble formation phase of pool swell is considered part of bulk pool swell for purposes of pool boundary load assessment.
j Pool boundary loads due to pool swell are discussed in Section 4.1.3.6.
f
'l
- 4-3 Revision 3 - November 1978 1
- - - - - = =
l l
4.1.3 -l Pool Swell and rallback '
In general, structures and components within the suppression (m) !
~
chamber including piping, valves, piping supports, platforms, and the downcomer vent bracing system may be subjected to impact, :
drag, and fallback, loads resulting from bulk pool swell. Bulk !
pool swell is the term describing the upward movement of the suppression pool water above the exit plane of the vents due to [
, ; i the injection of drywell air beneath the pool surface. The pool .
j swell phenomenon occurs immediately after vent clearing and the I formation of air bubbles at the vent exits following a large ,!
LOCA. As air flow continues from the drywell, the bubbles expand and coalesce. At the time the bubbles contact one another or the , ,
pool boundaries, the pool motion becomes essentially one-dimensionally upward as described in Reference 11. The continued expansion of the air forces the slug of water above it to accelerate and rise upward causing the pool swell. The velocity ;
of the pool surface associated with this phencmenon causes impact "
and drag forces to be exerted on structures which are within the swell zone. Pool swell is eventually terminated due to the ,
i compression of air in the suppression chamber freespace and the ,
negative acceleration due to gravity. Once the swell is (
terminated, communication is established between the air bubble ;
and the air compressed in the suppression chamber freespace during a relatively temperate process (as compared to the l breakthrough characteristics of the Mark III containment system) without generation of any significant froth.
A pool swell analytical model (PSAM) used to predict bounding pool swell velocity and acceleration transients for Mark II containments is detailed in Section 4 of Reference 5 and shown schematically on Fig. 4-4 A general description of the computer code used to implement the model is included in Section 4.3 along with the results of benchmark problems for comparison with the results of the three classes of Mark II containments provided in Section 4.4.4 of Reference 1. These problems are used to verify the proper operation of the code. Qualification of the PSAM itself is provided by comparison with test data in Section 6 of Reference 5 and in Reference 17.
Criterion I.A.2 of Reference 16 calls for the application of a 10 '
percent margin to pool swell velocities calculated using the i approach outlined in Section 6.7 of Reference 5. The 10 percent f
margin will be applied.
- As noted in Section 3.2 of Reference 4 and Section 5 of Reference ,
5, the maximum pool swell height ob3erved in the 4T Test Program for values of initial vent submergence and drywell charging rates h characteristic of Mark II containment systems is less than 1.5 times the initial vent submergence. However, Run 31, a minimum vent area, minimum submergence, maximum blowdown case where saturated liquid rather than saturated steam was initially discharged due to a water slug left inadvertently in the blowdown l line, shows a swell height on the order of 1.6 times the initial !
l vent submergence. Because of this particular run and because a 4-4 Revision 3 - November 1978
c -
y I
l )
i \
I very minimal amount of splashing was observed several feet above ;
((',,) the bulk pool swell height in the Run 29 conductivity probe data l submitted in response to NRC Question 020.46, Criterion I.A.1 of -
Reference 16 calls for the use of the PSAM described above to i specify swell height (with a lower limit of 1.5 vent j l]7 submergence) . l il
- j The use of the PSAM to specify loading criteria for events l
2 occurring near the end of the transient represents excessive ;
- Y conservatism due primarily to the assumption of constant slug fj mass during the bulk swell process. A second alternative method l l proposed by the Mark II Owners Group for specifying maximum swell j j height is described in the generic response to NRC Question ;
i 020.68. This alternative method retains 1.5 times vent ;
i submergence as the lower limit on maximum swell height, but bases j
'-l the maximum swell height specification on a conservatively high :
3 estimate of wetwell air compression. Additional information !
regarding the proposed method of specifying maximum swell height !
l will be submitted for NRC review before the end of 1978 for !
application on the lead plants.
i Loads resulting from pool swell include impact on structures ;
above the initial elevation of the pool but below the maximum j swell height, drag on structures and grating, and drag loads due j to fallback between the maximum swell height and the elevation of the vent exit plane. The impact force on a body occurs over a time period, t, and typically the force vercus time profile l
during this period is such that the force increases to a maximum i value during the first half of the time period and then decreases !
to the value of the drag force during the second half of the !
J period assuming flow continues around the struct"re. A typical !
force profile measured during PSTF tests is shc on Fig. 4-33 of ;
Reference 2. The duration, t, of the force varies from about i 7 msec for small structures to about 100 msec for large l
structures. The drag forces apply during the time the slug is i
translatting past the elevation of the obstruction. ,
L
' 4.1.3.1 Impact Loads on Small Structures from Pool Swell t
i A small structure subjected to pool swell impact, causes the j water to flow around it, thereby imparting drag torces in a i addition to the impact forces. I-beams, and other similar l i
structures having any one horizontal dimension less than or equal to 20 in. are considered small structures. !
I The impact loads on small structures are determined directly from !
' pressure suppression test facility (PSTF) data presented in 'I
- Reference 2. Impact forces were measured on two sizes of pipes
- !
, i 10 and 20 in., and two sizes of I-beams: 5 and 10 in. During the PSTF tests, the specimens were mounted both radially and {
l circumferentially with respect to the pool geometry. The data !
w reduced from these tests are plotted as average peak pressure, P, experienced by the structure versus the impact velocity. Figure j
,) 4-34 in Reference 2 presents a plot of measured impact pressures
, for pipes. !
I i
i i 4-5 Revision 3 - November 1978 i I !
' ~ ~ ' ~ ~
~K -, ~ T , :----:,.,--n ,
. - . . ~ . .
I 1
l These data are used for analysis of all pipes having diameters up l to 20 in. For pipes greater than 20 in. in diameter, which are !
classified as large structures, the loads would be computed on the basis of large structures discussed in Section 4.1.3.2.
f For I-beams havin widths of 5 in. or less, the peak impact pressures are give'gn on Fig. i 4-35 of Reference 2. For sizes I between 5 and 20 in., the impact pressures are given on Fig. 4-36 j of Reference 2. Again, for sizes larger than 20 in., the loads ;
would be computed on the basis of large structures discussed in i Section 4.1.3.2. i The load profile and the duration of the load for all small structures is shown on Fig. 4-37 of Reference 2. This profile of ;
the impact load was found to be the most representative of the many profiles that were obtained during PSTF impact tests. The f l
duration of the load is 7 maec. I-The load profile shown on Fig. 4-37 of Reference 2 gives the
\
pressure or force time-history of the impact. To convert i pressure into a force time-history, the area of the structure is multiplied by the pressures. The area used for pipes is the projected area at the diameter and for the I-beams it is the area of the bottom surface. I To determine the impact at different elevations in the suppression chamber, the pool swell model is used to obtain velocity-elevation curves. Then, to assure adequate <
conservatism, a 50 percent margin is applied to the loads -
determined using the pool surface velocity as a function of elevation calculated with the pool swell model. Indirect loading j
of the downcomers due to pool swell impact on the downcomer !
bracing is determined as part of the evaluation of impact loads on small structures. Impact loading functions for grating ;
{
surfaces are not specified because the width of the grating i surfaces (typically 1/4 in.) does not sustain an impact load (7).
Criterion I.A.6 of Reference 16 provides an alternate and more -
conservative method for specifying impact forcing runctions for i small structures. The criterion displays its greatest degree of conservatism in the area of flat targets where impact with an [
assumed perfectly flat pool creates a condition approaching a j mathematical singularity. i This condition unrealistic by the Mark II Owner's Group. Based on analysis of is regarded as
[
impact loads on circumferentially oriented targets tested at PSTF, flat targets impacted by an essentially flat pool exhibit a response similar to that predicted by the present Mark II methodology and considerably less severe than that predicted by the acceptance criterion. However, in most cases, the excessive (
conservatism can be accommodated by the lead plant designs.
Therefore, for lead plants a decision will be made before the end of 1978 as to whether the criterion will be accepted for design assessment or whether additional information will be presented h<
for NRC review to support the present small structure impact specification.
4-6 Revision 3 - November 1978 y + - . , . -
^
= .
---_;- _ ___ z --;__ _
i l
criterion I.A.3 of Reference 16 specifies a multiplier to account p) g for the dynamic nature of pool swell loads on grating.
discussed in Section 4.1.3.5.
This is 4.1.3.2 Impact Ioads on Large Structures from Pool Swell The pool surf' ace impact on a large structure leads to higher impact loads than those which occur on smaller targets. This is because the larger structures cause deceleration of the entire water slug whereas, in the smaller structures, the water slug is 4 almost entirely diverted around the body except for the limited j amount of water which is decelerated in the immediate vicinity of t j the impact area.
, ci A structure is considered large if it has a dimension in a
.!j horizontal plane greater than 20 in. The number of large structures in Mark II containment is limited and each is treated j on a case-by-case basis.
1 i Reference 2 presents an example of the type of dynamic loads that
- large structures can experience when impacted by water. Figure
' 1 4-38 in Reference 2 presents a typical dynamic load that large structures may experience if impacted by water with a velocity of 40 fps.
4.1.3.3 Draq Loads on the Downcomer Vents Due to Pool Swell A vertical load is imposed on the downcomer vents due to the upward movement of the slug of water initially above the vent exit during pool swell. In Equation (4-32) of Reference 1, the shear stress for flow along the axis of the downcomer vents is given as:
- Tg = C, a v2 (1)
! 2gc 1
- Where Cr is given as 0.0023 for a geometry, viscosity char-
- acteristic length and velocity typical of Mark II containment.
The total area to which the shear stress is applied is equal to:
'! Ar = irDr L (2) i where Dr is the outside diameter of the vent and L is equal to
?
the thickness of the water slug which is taken to be equal to the
- initial vent submergence. Calculation of the drag load is based
! on the maximum velocity for both the swell and the fallback phase l and is calculated in Section 4.2.3.
? 4.1.3.4 Draq Ioads on Structures Other Than Downcomer Vents Due to Pool Swell
! Reference 11 describes the method used to calculate drag loads on structures within the swell zone with a projection onto the plane
! ,/ of the pool surface. The plant-specific pool swell velocity transient for Shoreham is presented in Section 4.2.3. Some of i, 4-7 Revision 3 - November 1978
the concerns raised by Criterion III.B.1 of Reference 16 with f respect to the methodology of Reference 11 apply here as well as f G i in Section 4.1.2.1.
Resolution of the concerns will be handled i
as described in that section. L.) !
4 .1. 3. 5 Loads on Grating Due to Pool Swell Based on Section 4.4.6.4 of Reference 1, the drag loads on grating are calculated using the expression:
FD =P C A G '
(3) where: t P G
- pressure differential across the grating given on Fig. 4-5, and
?
~
h Ac = solid area of the grating (for grating with open area 1ess than 60 percent) or !
=
total area of the grating (for grating with open area equal to or greater than 60 percent) [
The results given on Fig. 4-5 are based on a velocity of 40 fps.
Che duration of the load is taken to be 0.5 sec, beginning with the time the pool surface reaches the elevation of the grating. ~
To account for the dynamic nature of the initial load application the F is increased by the factor 1 + vi +.(0.00b4
-}
Wr) z for Wf
<2,000 and f is in./sec where W is the width of the grating bars in inches the natural frequency of the lowest mode of bar vibration. Application of this factor brings the load specification for grating into compliance with Criterion I.h.3 of .
Reference 16. !
I i
4.1.3.6 Suppression Chanber Boundary Loads Durino Pool Swell ;
The pressure developed 1 suppression pool) will in cause the air bubble (air vented into the
- additional loading on the j suppression chamber walls. At the same time, the suppression chamber boundaries above the instantaneous pool surface are j' loaded by the increase in suppression chamber airspace pressure. t' I.
These pressures can be obtained from the pool swell analysis and I are applied as uniform increases in the suppression pool hydrostatic pressure. In Section 5.2 of Reference 4, this !
ehown to be conservative. is [
A discussion of plant specific air bubble pressure loads is provided in Section 4.2.3.6 and the [
loading condition is shown conceptually on Figure 4-1. I Criterion I.A.5 of Reference 16 requests an asymmetric bubble pressure loading case. Additional information regarding cppropriate method an for specifying an asymmetric bubble pressure load for lead plants is expected to be submitted for NRC review ,
before the end of 1978. I I
V 4-8 Revision 3 - November 1978 m -
l
! f i
i 4.1.3.7 Drywell Floor Loads Due to Pool Swell The drywell floor is the structure that separates the drywell and !
the wetwell (suppression chamber) . It is referred to as the diaphragm floor in Reference 1. At the end of pool swell the i potential exists for an uplift differential pressure to act on
..j the drywell floor due to the increase in suppression chamber ;
.j airspace pressure during the final stages of bulk pool swell. j S The net upward load on the drywell floor was shown in the 4T Test '
j Program to be less than 2.5 paid. Table 2.1 of Reference 4 calls i
.-i for the application of a 2.5 paid uplift pressure as a bounding [
"j condition. No net downward load is specified as a result of pool f 1 dynamic considerations.
1 ,
Criterion I.A.4 of Reference 16 calls for a modification to the i above specification whereby the uplift differential pressure is !
equal to 8.2 - 44. (F) psi if F 50.13 and 2.5 psi if F >0.13 where !
F= (break area) (paol free surface area) (suppression chamber j
, airspace volume) / (drywell volume) (vent area)2 The generic ,
response to NRC question 020.69 agrees to base the uplift !
differential pressure on this modification to the load '
specification.
As noted previously, there is no significant froth generated in l the Mark II containment system as a result of pool swell. j
_ Reference 4 does not specify a froth impingement load on the '
drywell floor.
{
4.1.3.8 Fallback Loads l t
There is no pressure increase in the suppression pool b'oundary ;
during the pool fallback. The structures within the suppression (
! pool will experience drag forces as determined by Figure 4-2 and I i
Table 4-2. The fluid density is taken to be that of water !
although it is now a two-phase mixture of air and water. The l l velocity during fallback is computed by assuming acceleration by l
, gravity as follows: l l 1 l' VFB = 9.83 5 (4) i 3 which is taken fran Section 4.4.5.4 of Ref erence 1 where H is the .
i initial vent submergence in feet and Vgg is the terminal l fallback velocity in feet per second. Equation (4) is based on a !
swell height of 1.5 vent submergence. For a swell height of any
} multiple of vent submergence: ,
1 VFB = 8.03 /TEG} (5) j where R is equal to swell height / vent submergence. The terminal fallback velocity is used to compute all drag forces on structures within the swell zone. The duration of the fallback m phase is based on the average fallback velocity.
I ~-]
l l,
t 4-9 Revision 3 - November 1978 i e
4.1.4 Quasi - Steady Vent Flow After the end of pool swell for a large LOCA or during the i initial phase of an intermediate LOCA, there is a period of
quasi-steady vent flow. This regime is characterized by drag !
torces on the downcomer vents acting downward and condensation p oscillation loads on the pool boundaries. I i
As described in Section 6.0 and Table 2.1 of Reference 4, no I lateral loads on the downcomer vents due to high-and medium-mass l flow condensation have been observed in the 4T Test Program and ,
none have been specified in Reference 1.
4 .1. 4 .1 Vertical Loads on the Downcomer Vents Due to Viscous i and Pressure Forces of Vent Flow i
Section 4.2.3 of Reference 1 describes the method for calculating the vertical load on the downcomer vant due to viscous and pressure forces resulting from the two phase, two component vent flow. Equation (4-2) of Reference 1 is as follows: ,
i i
i c fg E2fg ng3 2 !
TOT " 2p Dg (I f
where.
.'~
FTOT = total force on the vent under consideration Cfo = triction factor for all liquid flow 52f = two phase multiplier from Fig. 4-10 of Refer-ence 1 (given as a function of pressure and quality)
L = length of the downcomer vent I G = mass flux in the vent t.
A = flow area of the vent p;
p = density of the liquid phase in the vent i f
D = diameter of the vent pipe ge = gravitational constant The above equation neglects the load due to unbalanced pressure -
forces on the pipe which is shown in Reference 1 to be negligible.
i b
4-10 Revision 3 - November 1978
i l
The vertical load on the downcomer vent due to viscous and O pressure forces associated with vent flow is calculated in
( ._/ Section 4.2.4.1 using Equation (6). This load is shown to be small.
4.1.4.2 Pool Boundary Loads Due to Condensation Oscillations
! As a result of the 4T Test Program, high and medium mass flux
! condensation oscillation loads have been defined that were not l j previosuly specified. In Section 6.1 of Reference 4, the specified pool boundary load for high mass flux condensation is i 4.4 psi peak-to peak amplitude (PPA) with a frequency content of
.l 2 to 7 Hz for a 24 in. downcomer vent. A sinusoidal wave form
! should be assuned over the entire submerged pool boundary. As
-: noted in Section 6.0 of Reference 4, condensation loads may begin
, as early as t+ = 4.0 sec following the DBA.
'? When tne mass flux decreases to approximately 11 to i
12 lbm/fta sec as discussed in Section 6.2 of Reference 4, the condensation oscillations change amplitude and frequency content.
, The pool boundary load specified in the above reference for medium mass flux condensation is 7.5 psi PPA with a frequency
, content of 2 to 7 Hz. This load is applied as above, with a sinusoidal wave form over the entire sulanerged pool boundary.
,l 4.1.5 Chuquing Chugging is the term applied to the intermittent condensation of steam at the vent exit which occurs after the air has been essentially purged from the drywell and the vent steam mass flux has fallen below a threshold value of 4 to 6 lbm/fta sec (Section 5.5.2, Reference 6). Chugging is characterized by the collapse of the steam bubble at the vent exit which results in the generation of loads on the downcomer vent and on the pool
- boundary. Pressure fields generated in the pool may also result j in loads applied to submerged structures.
ll :
4.1.5.1 Lateral Loads on Downcomer Vents Due to Chuquinq As described in Reference 4 and further discussed in Reference j 14, a review of the 4T Test Program results has indicated that 4 the equivalent static load on any single downcomer vent will be i less than 3,000 lb. Section 4.3.2.3 of Reference 2 and Table 2.1
- of Reference 4 call for the application of an 8,800 lb equivalent i static load for the assessment of lateral loads on the vents due
} to chugging. '
t, In analyzing a particular structural element, the effects of i
! multiple vent chugging may have to be considered. Once the
'j number of vents affecting the loading of a particular element is
{ defined, the appropriate load from Fig. 4-10a of Reference 2 can be applied to each downcomer vent in the direction which l
maximizes the combined load on that element. Figure 4-10a of j Reference 2 is based on a probability of 10-* that the loading condition specified would be exceeded in 265 chugs.
i 4-11 Revision 3 - November 1978
t Criterion I.B.1 (b) of Reference 16 calls for increasing the equivalent static load of 8,800 lb by the ratio of downcomers natural treguency to 7 Hz for 24 in. vents with natural 1 frequencies between 7 and 14 Hz and bracing (if any) located at
least eight feet above the vent exit. This requirement will be .
met by the Mark II containment lead plants. A dynamic analysis of downcomer response to chugging will be provided in the long ;
r term as required by Criterion I .B.1 (c) of Reference 16.
Criterion I.B.2 of Reference 16 calls for application of a multiplier of 1.26 to multivent loads taken from Figure 4-10a of Reference 2 in addition to the frequency ratio multiplier j mentioned above. This requirement will also be met by the Mark II containment lead plants. -
i 4.1.5.2 Submerged Structure Loads Due to Chunqing f A generic approach for specification of submerged structure loads due to chugging is under development in the long term program ;
(Task A.5) . An interim, plant-unique method is described in i Section 4.2.5.2. This meets the requirements of Reference 16.
4.1.5.3 Pool Boundary Loads Due to Chuquing i As suggested in Reference 3 and further discussed in Reference 14, the pool boundaries pressure intensity of +4.8/-4.0 psi are subjected to a uniform loading with a and an asymmetric loading condition with a maximum pressure of +20/-14 psi. The asymmetric circumferential variation in pressure is shown on Fig. 4-6 which 1_/
_)
is taken from Reference 3.
The chugging data presented in Reference 3 are for 20 and 30 Hz, respectively. The load is assumed to be applied uniformly below the elevation of the vent exit plane and then decrease linearly to zero at the pool surface. Additional work is continuing in '
the long term to determine the effects of fluid structure intera ction (FSI) on the frequency content of the chugging wall '
pressure signals. The results of this effort will be used to i confirm the conservatism of the above load specification. [ ..
t 4.2 SHOREHAM PLANT SPECIFIC LOADS AND RESPONSE CONDITIONS b The Shoreham specific loads resulting from a LOCA are discussed F in this section. Reference is made to the lead plant generic i load specification methods outlined in Section 4.1. ll!
4.2.1 Vent Clearing The generic approach to calculating submerged structure and basemat loads due to vent clearing is given in Sections 4.1.1.1 and 4.1.1.2, respectively. Shoreham will follow the lead plant generic approach and will employ the simplified vortex ring jet model for submerged structure loads as described in Section -
4.1.1.1. Shoreham has completed the assessment of basemat loading during vent clearing using the water jet '
clearing 4-12 Revision 3 - November 1978 i
~ ~ - ~-
I l l
- velocity presented on Fig. 4-10. The maximum velocity is about 7 58 fps. Using this value, the maximum pressure at the basenat t(;;)/ would be 33 psi as described in Section 4.1.1.2. For added l
{
conservatism, however, an impingement pressure calculated using l the unattended veht exit velocity was applied to the Shoreham i basemat as shown on Figure 5-55.
1 i
, 4.2.2 LOCA Bubble Formation !
Li j Shoreham is currently proceeding with tne assessment of submerged structure loads due to LOCA bubble formation using the " coupled"
]j option of Reference 11. Shoreham expects to follow the lead plant generic resolution of issues raised by Criterion III.B.1 of Reference 16 as described in Section 4.1.2.
O fj 4.2.3 Pool Swell and Fallback i Pool swell is analyzed as described in Sections 4.1.3 and 4.3. !
The plant parameters used in the analysis are presented in Table !
4-3. Table 4-4 presents the short term pressure transient of the containment to a DBA calculated using the LOCTVS computer i code (17). This short term pressure transient includes the effect of inventory in the broken recirculation suction line.
Figure 4-8 shows the variation of bubble pressure and suppression chamber pressure with time up to maximum swell height. After
- maximum swell height has been reached, the suppression chamber pressure is taken to be that from the containment analysis -
transient presented on FSAR Fig. 6.2.1-6.
Figure 4-7 gives pool swell surface velocity and impact pressures L for small structures as a function of plant elevation as calculated by the methods described in Section 4.1.3.1. A margin f i
i of 10 percent has been applied to these values when used for design assessment. Figure 4-9 gives pool surface elevation and velocity as a function of time following the DBA. Vent clearing i occurs at t = 0.59 sec and maximum swell height occurs at 3
t= 1.22 sec.
! l
] Structures within the suppression chamber may be divided into two groups, those above the initial pool surface (plant el 27-0)
- and those below the initial pool surface. Structures above the initial pool surface may be subjected to impact as well as drag i loads, while those below the initial pool surface are subject i only to drag. In general, all loads discussed in this section j occur within the pool swell zone, defined as the region above the i vent exit plane (plant el 18-0) and below the maximum swell l l height.
t l l
l The maximum swell height for Shoreham is 2.2 vent submergence j (plant el 47-0). This value was obtained by the proposed i
I i alternate method described in Section 4.1.3 and the generic
! % response to NRC Question 020.68. The plant specific calculation
- for Shoreham is presented in the plant unique response to NRC Question 020.68 (Appendix A) .
i 4-13 Revision 3 - November 1978 l
,1 I 4.2.3.1 Impact leads on Small Structures Due to Pool Swell i The impact loads on small structures located above the initial pool surface are calculated as described in Section 4.1.3.1. In *)
Section 4 .1. 3 .1 a small structure is defined as a pipe, an I-g beam, or other similar structure having one horizontal dimension less than or eciual to 20 in. The load on a small structure '
resulting from pool swell impact is a function of water surface velocity at the time of impact. Small structure impact loads can ,
be obtained from Fig. 4-7, which was prepared using Figs. 4-34 through 36 of Reference 2. The load applied for the design l assessment is 1.65 times the value obtained from the figure to !
account for both the 1.1 margin on velocity and the 1.5 factor i
from the impact load specification.
[
An example of this procedure is given below.
i Assuming a 6 in. outside diameter pipe is 8 ft above the pool T surf ace, determine the impact load from pool swell. l r
From Fig. 4-7, the impact pressure on a 6 in. outside diameter pipe 8 ft above the pool surface (plant el 35-6) is 39.5 pai.
For design assessment, a 50 percent margin is applied for ;
uncertainty in the impact load and a 10 percent margin is applied for uncertainty in the velocity.
Thus, the impact load is 65.2 psi, or 4.69 kips /ft [ 59.3 lb/in.a (6 in.) (12 in./ft)/1,000 lb/ kip) for a 6 in. outside diameter pipe located at 8 ft above the pool surface. ]
v The load profile for the impact load is that given on Fig. 4-37 i of Reference 2.
In this example, assuming an I-beam with a width of 6 in., the impact pressure from Fig. 4-7 is 77 psi. '
4.2.3.2 Impact Loads on Large Structures Due to Pool Swell A structure is considered large if it has a dimension in a horizontal plane greater than 20 in. There are no large ;
structures within the Shoreham swell zone . i 4.2.3.3 Draq Loads on the Downcomer Vents Due to Pool Swell I~
As described in Section 4.1.3.3, the shear stress on each downcomer vent during pool swell is calculated using Equation (1) and the maximum pool swell velocity of 42.8 ft/sec (See Fig.
4-7). Then, with a 10 percent margin applied to velocity:
Tg =
f.
(0.0023) (62.4) (42.8) a (1.1) a = 4.91 lb, i
(2) (32.2) ftk I' O
4-14 Revision 3 - November 1978
I ll l\
l i
l The area over which the force acts is: I l
= rDr L = w (2.0) (9.0) = 56.5 fta l
! I .. Ar l
The upward drag force per downcomer vent during pool swell is:
Fr =At Tr = 277.4 lbr = 0.28 kips I
To calculate the drag load during fallback, it is necessary to l know the fallback terminal velocity. From Equation (5) , the ,.
terminal fallback velocity is:
"l 1 V fB = 8.03 /(2.2) (9.0) = 35.7 ft/sec For fallback then:
i 9
Tg = (0.0023) (62.4) (35.7): = 2.85 lb, j
(2) (32.2) fta' i
For the same At , the downward force acting on each downcomer ;
vent during fallback is then:
Fr = Ag Tg = 160.8 lbg = 0.16 kips For reference, the static weight of each downcomer vent is approximately 4.3 kips. Vertical drag on the downcomer vents due to pool swell and fallback is insignificant compared to other loads.
4.2.3.4 Draq Loads on Structures other than Downcomer Vents Due to Pool Swell Shoreham is proceeding with the assessment of drag loads due to pool swell using the approach outlined in Section 4.1.3.4 and Reference 11. Shoreham expects to follow the lead plant generic resolution of issues raised by Criterion III.B.1 of Reference 16.
I
- 4.2.3.5 Loads on Grating Due to Pool Swell
, There is no significant impact load on gratings as discussed in t,
Section 4.1.3.1. However, there is a drag load on gratings.
Since the maximum velocity from Fig. 4-7 is greater than the 40.0 ft/sec on which Fig. 4-5 is based, the drag load used for the
, design assessment of gratings at plant elevations between el 33-0 j
and el 44-0. (the elevations between which the pool swell surface velocity exceeds 40.0 ft/sec with 10 percent margin) is l calculated as follows:
- 1. the velocity at the appropriate elevation is obtained !
from Fig. 4-7 and is multiplied by the 10 percent margin;
_ N.
N_ ,
t
- t i
4-15 Revision 3 - November 1978
i I
- 2. the pressure differential across the grating is based on
- a surface velocity of 40.0 ft/sec is obtained from Fig. .,
4-5; (v , ,
l.
- 3. the pressure differential is increased by the velocity !
, ratio (actual velocity /40.0 ft/sec) squared to obtain }
PI G l
- 4. PC is then used in Equation (3) of Sectiion 4.1.3.5 to obtain F DI
- 5. FD is increased by the Factor 1 + /1 + (0.0064Wf) a [
for Wf <2000 in./see where W is the bar width in inches !
and f is the lowest mode frequency of the bars in Hz to i account for dynamic loading. [
\
4.2.3.6 Suppression Chamber Boundary Loado Due to Pool Swell
[
t As discussed in Section 4.1.3.6, the pressure of the air bubble j and the wetwell is applied as a uniform increase in the i suppression pool hydrostatic pressure from t = 0.59 sec (vent clearing) to t = 1.22 sec (maximum swell height) . The air bubble i and wetwell pressures are obtained from Fig. 4-8. Note that the !
maximum wetwell pressure is taken to be the instantaneous drywell t pressure plus the maximum uplift differential pressure of 2.5 psid from Section 4.2.3.7. Pool swell boundary loads are not p
applied to the pedestal since there are downcomer vents within the pedestal and the ratio of pool area to vent area for the 9 region outside the pedestal is not sufficiently different from s./
that inside the pedestal to indicate that a significant difference in bubble pressure would exist during pool swell. ,
The potential for an asymmetric pressure case is being addressed on a lead plant generic basis as diw.:ussed in Section 4.1.3.6.
4.2.3.7 Drywell Floor Loads Due to Pool Swell As discussed in Section 4.1.3.7, a 2.5 paid uplift pressure is applied to the drywell floor during pool swell for purposes of
[
design assessment. Since the "F-factor" for Shoreham is greater t
than 0.13, the 2.5 paid meets the required uplift specification k described in Criterion I.A.4 of Reference 16 and NRC Question !
020.69 (Appendix A) . The drywell floor is designed for the
?
maximum downward differential pressure shown on Fig. 6.2.1-6 of I l the FSAR. The long term depressuriJation of the drywell and ,,
L l
potential upward load on the drywell floor is precluded by the [r vacuum breakers as discussed in the FSAR.
{:
4.2.3.8 Fallback Loads E Fallback loads are calculated as described in Section 4.1.3.8.
l In Section 4.2.3.3, the terminal fallback velocity for Shoreham j' was shown to be a maximum of 35.7 ft/sec. The duration of the fallback phase of pool swell using the average velocity of 17.9 ft per sec and the pool swell height of 20.0 ft is 1.12 sec.
1 4-16 Revision 3 - November 1978 l
m i,
l Therefore, fallback loads are considered fram t = 1.22 see to rs t = 2.34 sec.
)
,; For the example considered in Section 4.2.3.1, the fallback load ,
j is 11 psi based upon the terminal fallback velocity of 35.7 ft l j per sec, a Co pf 1.2 from Table 4-2, and Figure 4-2.
] 4.2.4 Quasi-Steady Vent Flow 4
- -l For drag on the downcomer vents and condensation oscillation i loads on the pool boundaries during quasi-steady vent flow, Shoreham is using the lead plant generic methodology described in I Section 4.1.4. i i
4.2.4.1 Vertical Loads on the Downcomer Vents Due to Vent Flow As described in Section 4.1.4.1, the vertical load on the j downcomer vent due to vent flow is calculated using Equation (6).
! The following parameters are used in this analysis:
, Cg = 0.02 52 = 150 (based on a quality of 33 percent) fo L = 45 ft G =
133.0 lbm/fta-sec (maximum)
A = 2.95 ft2 o
f
=
62.4 lbm/fta D = 1.94 ft g = 32.2 ft/seca l l c I i
I j The resultant force is 0.90 kips on each downcomer vent. This l
l load is small compared to the lateral load and will not be l
i discussed further. '
,i j 4.2.4.2 Condensation Oscillation Loads The condensation oscillation forcing functions for design assessment of the pool boundary are specified in Section 4.1.4.2.
High mass flux condensation is assumed to begin at t = 4.0 sec J following the DBA. At t = 20.0 sec following the DBA, the steam mass flux approaches 11.0 lbm/fta-sec (threshold value for transition to medium mass flux condensation) and medium mass flux j condensation is assumed to begin. At t = 25.0 see following the
'! DBA, the steam mass flux approaches 6.0 lbm/fta-sec and chugging i is assumed to begin as described in Sections 4.1.5 and 4.2.5.
1 1
- 4-17 Revision 3 - November 1978 t
~ ~~ ~
~_,e ___ . _
. \
a 4.2.5 Chuqqing For generic lateral loads on the downcomer vents due to chugging and for pool boundary loads due to chugging, Shoreham lead plant approach is following the outlined in Section 4.1.5. For
() '
submerged structure loads due to chugging, a plant-unique i approach is bein'g employed as described in Sections 4.1.5 and 4.2.5.3.
4.2.5.1 Lateral Loads on Downcomer vents due to Chuaging The assessment of the Shoreham downcomer vents and vent bracing system is proceeding using the generic methods of Section 4.1.5.1. Three separate evaluations are completed or in progress; a static analysis of a single vent, a dynamic analysis .
of a single vent using the forcing function of Reference 18 and a multivent static analysis to assess the adequacy of the vent bracing system.
j Three important parameters which influence the lateral loads !
exerted on the downcomer are as follows: ,
l
- 1. suppression pool temperature, l
- 2. mass flux of steam, and
- 3. the air fraction or admixture.
The threshold steam mass flux for chugging is discussed in Section 4.1.5. It is not attained with negligible air content until t > 20.0 sec following a DBA.
For conservatism, the time interval during which these loads are considered to occur is from t = 4.0 see following a DBA until the end of the reactor blowdown period (approximately 60 sec) following a DBA. For small and intermediate breaks the interval '
is considerably greater as seen on Figures 2-5 and 6.
4.2.5.1.1 Static Analysis of Single vent The single vent static analysis was completed using the 8.8 kip ;
static equivalent load from Reference 1. A review of the '
available margin indicates that the vent will readily accept an ;
increase in the magnitude of the static equivalent load of ;
approximately 1.3 which represents the ratio of vent natural ,
frequency for Shoreham to the base value of 7 Hz (See Section 4.1.5.1) . The in plane stiffness of the Shoreham vent bracing ;
[
system is sufficiently great compared to the stiffness of individual vents, that the loading of one vent does not ,
significantly effect the loading of adjacent vents. E r
r e s I 4-18 Revision 3 - November 1978 I
. _. . .= . - . . ._ . - -. - ._- . _ _ -
l
- I l
I 4.2.5.1.2 Dynamic _ Analysis of Single Vent !
\qtj The forcing functions used for the dynamic analysis of a single l vent are provided in Reference 18. In the dynamic anslysis of j i the single vent (Figure 4-3) , a range of spring constants are '
chosen to bound,the response of the vent bracing syst.em. In !
j general, the stresses in the vent are comparable to those from
- the dynamic analysis and are well within the capability of the ;
i vents. !
)
4.2.5.1.3 Multivent Static Analysis
{
I An analysis of the vent bracing system using the 8.8 kip static l
. equivalent load from Reference 1 nas been completed. Test data !
1 indicates that the force on a single downcomer occurs !
- periodically in random directions and that the probability of a number of downcomers being loaded with the maximum force in the !
same time interval and in the same direction is extremely small.
l Therefore, for this initial evaluation it was assumed that 20 :
percent of the downcomers experience a simultaneous load of 8,800 l 4
- lb acting in the same direction. This is conservative with l respect to the applied force per downcomer obtained from Fig. !
4-10a of Reference 2 for N = 18 (20 percent of 88 vents). From l Reference 2 this yields 49.5 kips per 18 downcomers; and even !
with the multiplier of 1.26 described in Section 4.1.5.1, the i result would be approximately 62.4 kips per 18 downcomers. l A more extensive analysis is in progress whereby selected ,
critical members in the vent bracing system (Figure 1-7) are !
subjected to multiple vent loading. The direction of the applied l load for each vent is chosen to maximize the load in the critical ,
member. This process continues until the load in the critical i member is not significantly increased by consideration of ,
additional vents.
The Shoreham-unique response to NRC Question 020.67 (Appendix A) !
states that Shoreham will not take credit for a reduction in load !
per vent for multivent loading cases. A revised response will be i
, submitted to indicate a change in position. Shoreham will take :
credit for a reduction in load per vent within the limitations !
set forth in Section 4.1.5.1. !
4.2.5.2 Sukunerged Structure Loads Due to Chuqqing 1
The Shoreham-unique approach for calculating submerged structure loads due to chugging is provided in the Shoreham-unique response j to NRC Question 020.75 (Appendix A). :
f j 4.2.5.3 Pool Boundary Ioads Due to Chuqqing i
Section 4.1.5.3 specifies the chugging forcing function to be used for assessment of the pool boundary. In lieu of the i condensation oscillation forcing functions described in Section '
_ j 4.2.4.2, the chugging forcing function has been applied from t=
4.0 see to t = 60.0 sec.
i 1
4-19 Revision 3 - November 1978 m~ __ - - :: ~~= -
=-- - - ~ " - - - - - -
- .:. ...-- ....- . = . :-.
l
4.3 DESCRIPTION
OF POSH CODE In order to calculate the suppression pool surrace velocity and r I elevation as a function of time, Stone & Webster has developed a computer code POSH. This code employs the pool swell model from ,
Reference 1 as further described in Reference 5. Input to the !
code includes th'e drywell pressure transient, drywell initial !
temperature, suppresssion chamber initial pressure, drywell and !
suppression chamber free volume, pool surface area, vent area and !
vent loss coefficient, initial vent submergence, and time of vent i clearing. Results include pool surface velocity, pool surface '
elevation, bubble pressure, and suppression chamber freespace pressure as functions of time.
.1 Figures 4-11 through 16 are plots of pool surface velocity and !
pool surface elevation obtained with POSH for the three classes :,
of plants presented in Reference 1. These are provided for .
comparison with the plots included in Reference 1 as benchmark I problems for the POSH code and show good agreement. ,
[')
p t
l (-
t t'
t l
?
l I i..
O V {.
I 4-20 Revision 3 - November 1978 8
_ _ _ - _ _ _ _._-. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . .- . ...-~.-..._..__
. . . . . . . . . . . .. a .. . . . . - - - . . _ _ .
! i
[N
, s ( )
v TABLE 4-1 1
SU M Y OF LOCA AFFt.CTED SW UCTURES Structures TYDe Of IDadinQ Conditions Experiencing Drag Impaet Suppression Steam Steam Water Air Bubble frosa Due to IDCA Loads condensation Flow _ Jet Pressure Chanaber Air Pool Swell Pool Swell Fallback Compression j Structures below 4.2.5.3 4.2.1 4.2.2 Pool Surface 4.2.3.8 !-
4.2.3.4 i Srnall Structures !
above Pool Surface 4.2.3.4 4.2.3.1 4.2.3.8 Large Structures above Pool Surface 4.2.3.2
': l Downcomer Vents 4.2.5.1 4.2.4.1 4.2.3.3 4.2.3.1 4.2.3.3
.g 4.2.3.4 Grating 4.2.3.5 Drywell Floor 4.2.3.4 4.2.3.1 4 .2.3 .~7 Containment Wall 4.2.4.2 4.2.3.6 4.2.5.2 4.2.3.6 Pedestal 4.2.4.2 4.2.5.2 t
Basemat 4.2.4.2 4.2.1 4.2.3.6 I 4.2.5.2 4.2.3.6 POTE:
Numbers refer to sections of this report.
i 3
1 i
9 1 of 1 Revioion 3 - November 1978 ;
l i
f TABLE 4-2 e
) DRAG COEFFICIENTS OF VARIOUS SRAPES Body Shape C Reynolds Number D
~
Circular Tube 10* to 1. 5x 10 5
(]) 1.2 t
?
! Lenoth/ Width ,
l l Elliptical Tube 2:1 0.6 4x10*
(~]) 0.46 105 4:1 0.32 2.5x10+ to 105 !
=
O '
8:1 - 0.29 2.5x10*
o
- 0.20 2x105 :
i i Square Tube u-
{] 2.0 3.5x104
() 1.6 10* to 105 Angle of Impact Triangular Tubes 11208 2.0 10* .
i 1200 1.72 10*
- 900 2.15 104 900 1.60 10*
600
}) 2.20 ,
10+
600 1.39 ~ 10+ i
= 300 ));{ 1.8 105
<;{}300 1.0 105 Semicircular Tube 2.3 4x10*
=
.}
1.12 4x10* ,
1 g /.
l e s l ,
- 1 of 1 Revision 3 - Nover.ber 1978 I
l
% * . y*= cyg a s was numreme - e e
l "Y- - , .. . _ __ _ _ _
l_
l :
l l TABLE 4-3 9
! ) SHOREHM4 DATA FOR DBA TRANSIENT AND POOL ShELL ANALYSIS t
l DRYWELL ,
-l -
- 1.' Free Air Volume 192,500 fta
' 'j 2. Temperature (initial) 135 F 3., Pressure (initial) 1.0 psig
- 4. Relative Humidity 20%
SUPPRESSION CHAMBER b
- 1. Free Air Volume 138,500 ft3
- 2. Water Volume 81,350 fta
, 3. Temperature (initial) 90 F
- 4. Pressure (initial) 1 psig l S. Relative Humidity 100%
BREAK AREA
- 1. DBA - Recirculation Line Break (with pipe 4.34 fta
,- inventory considered)
/
VENT SYSTEM 1.. Submergence 9 ft
- 2. Diameter 23.25 in.
s
- 3. Number of Vents 88 ADDITIONAL DATA FOR POOL SWELL ANALYSIS
- 1. Drywell Pressure Transient Table 4-4 4
- 2. . Suppression Pool Surface Area 4,250 ft2
- 3. Vent Area 259.5 fta 1 4. Vent Loss Coefficient (excluding exit loss) 1.0 l
l f
t
.i i '
? em
./ <
_ ./
j '
-l '
1 of 1 Revision 3 - November 1978
/
m- m. , , __, c.-
i i
I
-1 l
(m.-
. i
-i 1
i
-l DOWNCOMER VENT I
PRESSURE OF SUPPRESSION i i CHAMBER AIR SPACE, P, \\\\\\\\\\\Y\\'
-> %P g POOL SURFACE AT s
A ANY TIME,T
- _ : - v:_ ::_- - - - : v_v_v::_'
}
\ #
\ c WATER SLUG
\
\ _=--_=:-_:-. --_v_=_
\
g AIR SLUG (PRESSURE Pe)
-> Pe *--
\ j-N
\
y _=:::_ _ _v_- _=:n: _ .
rSUPPRESSION POOL N
N lZ
-- N
):
N NNN N NN NNN NNN NNN i
1 ,
I l
FIG. 4 -I ASSUMED PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION FOR POOL
- BOUNDARY LOADS DURING POOL SWELL
,y
' SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION-UNIT I PLANT DESIGN ASSESSMENT FOR SRV AND LOCA LOADS REVISION 3-NOVEMBER 1978 8
- -~ ~ n---- --
p - -
/////////
j i
'-)
( -
.j 4
4 d.
3 D
R-Nvvwv K
F STATIC: --
F : 8.8 KIP OYNAMIC:
F = Fe(T) OR F2 (T)
F,(T ): lO SIN 6MS
"^
[. F2 (T):30 SIN '
3MS Fi (T) AND F(T) 2 FROM NEDE 24106-P 0
FIG. 4 -3 DOWNCOMER MODEL FOR 1 ,
LATERAL LOAD ASSESSMENT
,j SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION-UNIT 1 PLANT DESIGN ASSESSMENT FOR SRV AND LOCA LOADS
}
REVISION 3 -NOVEMBER 1978
~ ~ ~ " -
~
2 fn o ? I
,oR E v>
lt
$ r$ - PEAK IMPACT PRESSURE FOR 5" TO 20" I-BEAM (Ib, /in2 ) :'
5 o 5 8 8 $ E $ 8 8 8 s [l h{
g d
l i i I I I L I I i l.
i
@aj PEAK IMPACT PRESSURE FOR 5" I-BEAM (Ib, /in 2) j; SE
" o 5 $ 8 8 8 $ o 8 !
4 2, i I L i L i l i I mm !
OR PEAK IMPACT PRESSURE FOR PIPE DIAMETER 20" OR LESS (Ib,/in2 )
hh o 5 8 8 8 8 f
$Q l i i i i I i; 05 u, g POOL SURFACE VELOCITY (fps) i h no 5 o 8 $ 8 I y$
- I I I L l
g -
= !
t g
o F -
- f. > i-Z H -
A F
m -
~
TmTgm bogOp z _
'iai g P t ogcxs ms 5-m H
m "e mm : - ,
oz r < )
ZC<F m -
>ro m (/) q
- m m "U C m -
MDry X M2y m
$mzb 9$
n E O --f D m y < l mE H m t
zmm Z F
! H2P r ,
,w mr - -
oggo a.
2 Hyo 5 g
- 6_
m_b $
o 2 < z, z -
m bC b M a gz z O
s - "
5 4
z 6 .H E - _
- y o u
- 4 8
< F n
d m
.E o ' }
W ,
]
4 5
i
. _____. - . .._.- ....___ __. _ _..._ _ ._ . . . . . . _ _ . . . . .- _. ..._..___.u~ . . _ , _ _ _ . _ , _ _ _ _
. - (
50 1
, DRYWELL PRESSURE +2.5 PSID DRYWELL '
40 -
f i
BUBBLE
$30 un b
E D
$ SUPPRESSION CHAMBER y 20 -
n.
10 -
)
g VENT CLEARING END OF POOL SWELL PHASE
Zd 2.2 VENT SUBMERGENCE g g 20 -
>m
'I a
88 4 a zO 2
ti 10 -
w VENT CLEARING i a
W ELEVATION l
l 0 I O O.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 TIME AFTER LOCA (SECONDS) ;
FIG. 4-9 l POOL SURFACE ELEVATION AND VELOCITY FOLLOWING A DBA SHOREHAM NUCLEAR FOWER STATION-UNIT l it l l' PLANT DESIGN ASSESSMENT FOR SRV AND LOCA LOADS I
REVISION 3-NOVEMBER 1978 i ,
- znz . _ _n ---
l l
SECTION 5
- DYNAMIC RESPONSE OF PRIMARY STRUCTURES l 1
5.1 STRUCTURAL RESPONSE TO SRV LOADS
~
5.1.1 Introduction j The objective of this section is to provide a description of the dynamic response of the containment structures when subjected to j safety / relief valve (SRV) discharge loads. Section 3 contains a j detailed discussion of the SRV loads associated with both the ramshead and T-quencher discharge devices. Results are presented i
here for both discharge devices even though the T quencher will j be installed.
s
., The general arrangement of the reactor building structures is shown on Fig. 5-1. The dynamic response of the primary structures is found in terms of displacement, acceleration, and internal load time histories. Internal load time histories as well as time-wise maximum values are presented for critical structural locations. These results from SRV loads are combined in Section 6 with the effects of all other design loads for the structural design assessment. Amplified response spectra (ARS) of structural accelerations are also presented. They are utilized in Section 9 for the assessment of piping and mechanical systems.
5.1.2 Method of Analysis 5.1.2.1 Method To determine the dynamic response of the containment structures when subjected to SRV discharge loads, a finite element based computer program, " Dynamic Stress Analysis of Axisymmetric Structures under Arbitrary Loading," developed by S. Ghosh and E.
Wilson and modified by Stone & Webster (SSW) was utilized. This program is SSW code designation ST-200.
The three-dimensional axisymmetric continuum is represented either as an axisymmetric thin shell, as a solid of revolution, 4 >
or as a combination of both. The axisymmetric shell is discretized as a series of frustums of cones and the solid of revolution as triangular or quadrilateral toroids connected at
- their nodal point circles. The equations of motion are solved j numerically by direct integration.
4 i The effects of structural damping have been included in the dynamic analysis unless otherwise noted. The Rayleigh damping
! technique is utilized in which the damping matrix is assumed to i
be linearly proportional to the mass and stiffness matrix of the 1 structure. The constants of proportionality are termed a and 6, i respectively. The values of a and S are chosen so that the i 4 percent damping for reinforced concrete structures is obtained i
I i
5-1 Revision 3 - November 1978
, . - , ~ - - . - . - -
^
~
at frequencies of 10 and 125 Hz. These limits were selected in
[ order to encompass the range of frequencies in which significant (~N dynamic response occurs. '
i_'
ARS are developed from the resultant structural acceleration time-histories . The computer program 'TIMHIS6*, code designation ZZ-126, is used to generate the ARS. This program obtains the i exact analytical solution to the governing differential equations of motion for single degree of freedom elastic systems for the -
successive linear segments of excitation.
5.1.2.2 Analytical Model l Figure 5-2 depicts the structural model used to represent the complete reactor building and supporting soil. As indicated '
l there, solid axisymmetric elements are used to represent the soil '
to a radius and depth of approximately 1.5 mat diameters with axisymmetric thin shell elements representing the structures. ,
The external dimensions of the soil are selected to preserve free-field motions. An examination of Fig. 5-2 indicates a closer spacing of elements in the area of the suppression pool +
with increasing element size in-areas sufficiently far from the pool. This spacing has been used because the SRV discharge loads ?
are applied to the pool boundaries within this area and a precise definition of internal loads is required.
The reactor pressure vessel (RPV) and its internals have been modeled utilizing thin shell elements. Two RPV shell models have ',
been developed from the reactor vendor s simplified vertical and e ' >
horizontal lumped mass representation (' stick model') . The stiffening influence of the RPV stabilizer, star truss, and inner l and outer bellow seals are also included. The major dimensions of the structures and identification of the general arrangement l are illustrated on Fig. 5-2. .
The soil continuum is assumed to behave essentially as a l homogeneous isotropic solid and is considered to be a relatively flexible soil with a shear modulus of 13 ksi.
Results from SRV analysis have demonstrated that, although the soil shear strains are relatively large, the dynamic behavior of !
the building and supporting foundation are essentially unaf fected ':
by variations in soil shear modulus. Comparisons have been made by representing the soil with constant ahear modulus, static or j-i zero-strain modulus, and strain-dependent shear modulus with k essentially the same results for building response. As indicated above, a constant shear modulus of 13 ksi has been used for SRV analysis.
The external dimensions of the soil were selected to preserve
[I free-field motions. The boundary conditions for the soil, at a t'
radius of one and one half times the mat diameter, were tested by :
changing from " free" to " supported" conditions with no '
significant difference in building response. The depth of the :
5-2 Revision 3 - November 1978 i
- - emmmemmaps. , we m--
_ .-,--..w e---m -..---e
l 1
-j soil layers was selected to preserve a uniform stress field along
~
the radius.
- The overall finite element mesh size was selected to provide the !
] same foundation mat deformed shape as that predicted by an l j elastic continuum analysis under static loading. i 1
l l 'Ib consider the ef fects of hydrodynamic behavior, the water mass l J within the suppression pool has been selectively lumped into the ;
j basemat elements. The mass properties of the structures are !
, assumed to be uniform within each element and this leads to a :
diagonal mass matrix for the structural system.
The basemat, because of the large diameter / thickness ratio, has been modeled as a thin circular plate. To account for the :
j relatively large eccentricity between the mat middle surface and l' its intersection with the superstructures, special dummy elements in the form of rigid links are introduced. l l 5.1.2.3 Applied Loads i
In general, the pressure loads on the suppression pool boundaries i due to an SRV discharge event vary both circumferentially and l meridionally with time. At any point in time this pressure field !
can be represented meridionally by a discretization into zones !
and circumferentially by a Fourier series at each of the l meridional zones. Therefore, the spatial and time-wise variation >
of pressure can be represented by pressure time histories at each j zone for each Fourier series term.
Figure 5-3 provides a graphical representation of the manner in which the SRV pressure profiles of Section 5.1.3 are represented
[ f and applied to the structural model in terms of line forces and l moments at the respective nodal circles. l d
5.1.3 Safety / Relief Valve Discharge Loads The SRV discharge loads have been defined in Section 3. Loads associated with both the ramshead and T-quencher discharge l devices are considered here. The following SRV load cases are l considered for the ramshead discharge device:
l 1
- 1. All valve simultaneous discharge - !
i The bubbles enter the pool simultaneously and in phase. I i The normalized time-history and corresponding pressure f
. profile are shown on Fig. 3-3 and presented again on Fig. [
- 5-4. Maximum basemat pressure is 26 psi. This most i
{ conservative load case has been used for the design l
,i assessment of the primary structures. l l :
1 :
\. l s_/
5-3 Revision 3 - November 1978- i l
l l
\ ,
i
- I i
j 2. Three adjacent valve simultaneous discharge - 3 I
( The bubbles enter the pool simultaneously and in phase. b(./ l The time-history and meridional pressure profile are the r j same as thoce of Case 1. A 60 degree circumferential variation of load was considered to be representative of '
{ l three adjacent valves and is depicted on Fig. 5-5.
I j 3. All valve sequential discharge - :
i
[
All valves fire sequentially according to setpoint I i pressures. Individual line characteristics are accounted l l for in the phasing of the bubbles. Figure 3-6 shows a j typical pressure time-history. The maximum average
[
l basemat pressure is 10.0 psi. '
4 f.
- 4. Automatic depressurization system (ADS) discharge - i i
The ADS valves fire simultaneously and the bubbles enter :
the pool according to line characteristics. Figure 3-8 !
shows a typical pressure time-history. The maximum average basemat pressure is 8.65 psi.
] 5. Three adjacent valve out of phase discharge - '
i The three adjacent valves fire such that the bubbles enter the pool simultaneously but based on identical setpoints and consideration of the different line
- characteristics. Figure 3-12 shows a typical pressure time-history. The maximum average basemat pressure is 9.36 psi.
- 6. Single valve discharge - '
A typical pressure time-history is shown on Fig. 3-10. I The maximum average basemat pressure is 4.12 psi. '
SRV i load cases 1 and 2 described above were originally utilized in the design assessment. DFFR Rev. 2 does not recognize these ".
as credible cases, but ra-her specifies load cases 3 through 6 above for the design assessment. Load cases 3 through 6 have been evaluated and in Section 6 are compared with original load cases 1 and 2. Since load cases 1 and 2 produce a more severe state of stress for the reinforced concrete, they are retained for the structural assessment. [
t-The actual discharge device installed in Shoreham will be the T- '
quencher. The following four T quencher load cases are considered here: t*
- 1. All valve discharge p
- 2. Automatic depressurization system (ADS) discharge .
5-4 Revision 3 - November 19*18 i
_ _ _ , . _ _ . _ ~ - - _
i
l I
i 1
l 3. Three adjacent valve discharge
- 4. Single valve discharge l As described in Section 3, for the interim T-quencher load j
definition the, entry of air bubbles into the suppression pool is j assumed to be simultaneous and in phase for all load cases i
considered here.
j 5.1.4 Summary of Results i I
l The containment structures were subjected to a dynamic analysis j under SRV discharge loadings. The time-histories and time-wise i maximum values of internal loads have been determined.
- l Acceleration time-histories and ARS were generated.
The major conclusions from the analysis are:
- 1. The dynamic response of the containment structures is oscillatory in nature and the maximum values of internal
. loads are generally comparable to those resulting from a small or intermediate break accident.
- 2. The primary structural responses of the containment structures to SRV loads 'are transverse shears, longitudinal bending moments, and axial forces at the junctures of the reactor pedestal and primary containment with the foundation mat.
- 3. The rax2mur integrated vertical load on the basemat occurs in ramshead load case 1, the all valve simultaneous discharge.
- 4. Axisymmetric (all valves) SRV ramshead discharge loads, case 1, result in the largest internal loads on the l
- containment structures in the area of the suppression
- pool.
i
- 5. A comparison of ARS from the different SRV ramshead discharge events indicates the following overall i behavior
I
, a. Vertical response to an all valve sequential discharge (case 3) is less severe than an all t
valve simultaneous discharge (case 1) .
l b. Vertical response to an all valve sequential
! discharge (case 3) is comparable to a three adjacent valve out of phase discharge (case 5) .
3 c. Horizontal response to a three adjacent valve out of phase discharge (case 5) is more severe than a
+
three valve simultaneous discharge (case 2) .
j -
l 5-5 Revision 3 - November 1978 l
s
~~ ,-4 -m=~-.m- .me .
-m _ _ . - - - . . ,
l i
- d. Horizontal response to an all valve sequential ,
(case 3) is comparable to a three
()!
discharge adjacent valve out of phase discharge (case 5) . ,
- 6. T-quencher loads result in less severe structural internal loads than those from the design case of all !
valves discharging simultaneously with a ramshead device. !
l
- 7. ARS from the T-quencher loads are less severe in the frequency range of importance for piping and components ;.
than those from ramshead loads. i
- 8. The following observations are made regarding ARS resulting from the three T-quencher design pressure traces Irefer to Section 3 for descriptions): -
i.:
(a) ARS from pressure trace #2 very nearly envelope ;
results from curves 61 and 63 in a majority of t locations.
[_
(b) ARS frott curve #1 are comparable to curve 42 at high f frequencies, but less severe at lower f requencies. i i t (c) ARS from curve #3 are comparable to curve 42 at low i frequencies, but less severe at higher frequencies. :
- 9. For all three T-quencher pressure traces the important '
high frequency response tends to decrease as the time 'T scale is expanded, i.e., as the predominant frequency is .)
lowered.
The conclusions summarized here, in part, are utilized in Section 6 for evaluation of the design adequacy of the containment structures. ,
l 5.1.5 Containment Structures Response to SRV Ramshead Loads 5.1.5.1 Response to All Valve Simultaneous Discharoe i
The dynamic internal load time-histories for the reactor l, pedestal, primary containment, and foundation basemat resulting from an all valve simultaneous discharge loading (load case 1 of [:[
ie Section 5.1.3) are defined in this section. Time history plots t; of bending moment, transverse shear, and axial loads are '!
, presented at selected locations within the containment structures J to provide an indication of the magnitude and the oscillatory L:
nature of the response. Figure 5-4 identifies the critical ,
structural locations. ;
The structural model used to determine the dynamic rerponse of the structures is described in Section 5.1.2 and on Fig. 5-2.
The pressure time-history is shown on Fig. 5-4. Table 5-1 provides a definition of internal loads and Fig. 5-7 indicates ,
5-6 Revision 3 - November 1978
{l l
, -. ~ ~ - - - -
_ _--__t--
k e
I the corresponding positive sign convention for the basemat and I
,-)
superstructures.
One Fourier harmonic term was used to define this axisymmetric event. Structural damping is omitted when determining the time
. history response of the internal loads for the containment I
structures. This is done in order to provide an upper bound for the containment stresses calculated in Section 6.1. It should be i
noted, a
however, that with the inclusion of structural damping and l realization that the applied hydrodynamic pressure is
- l negligible after 0.60 sec, the ensuing dynamic response will l
l i
decrease correspondingly. l
- Selected results from the dynamic analysis are presented in Tables 5-2 and 3 and on Figs. 5-8 through 27. These results do
} not include the effects of structural damping.
The inclusion of i structural damping will tend to decrease the magnitude of the l internal loads presented here.
Table 5-2 shows the maximum values of bending moment, transverse shear, and axial load at various radial positions basemat. along the For the reactor pedestal and primary containment in the region of the suppression pool, Table 5-3 provides a definition of the maximum values of internal loads.
The following figures describe the internal load time-histories at selected positions within the containment structure:
Selected Position Fiqures Mat just outside pedestal Figs. 5-8 through 5-12 Mat just outside primary containment Figs. 5-13 through 5-17 Base of pedestal Figs. 5-18 through 5-22 i
Base of primary containment Figs. 5-23 through j
5-27 ARS of overall vertical acceleration were generated at selected building locations.
f Representative spectra are presented on Figs. 5-28 and 29.
5.1.5.2 Response to Three Adiacent Valve Simultaneous Discharge The dynamic response of the containment structures to an j
asymmetric SRV determined. A discharge load (load case 2 of Section 5.1.3) was considered 60 degree circumferential variation of load was i to be representative of three adjacent I
discharging. SRVs
- The longitudinal and circumferential variation in 1
load is depicted on Fig. 5-5.
l l
1 5-7 Revision 3 - November 1978
1 l I
- i
{ Ten Fourier harmonic terms were used to represent the
):
circumferential variation of the load in the dynamic analysis.
l The use of 10 Fourier terms provided not only a detailed solution
) to the dynamic problem, but also insight regarding the i significance of the higher harmonic terms. '
i r
! As in determining internal loads due to an all valve simultaneous i l discharge, structural damping was omitted. Again, this provides !
,' an upper bound for the containment structures internal loads. i Il f Table 5-4 shows the maximum values of bending moment, transverse !'
shear, and axial load at selected locations along the basemat, primary containment, and ~ reactor pedestal. l j ,
l A comparison of Tables 5-2 and 4 for the axisymmetric (all ('
valves) case indicates that an "all valve" SRV discharge loading -
- generally results in higher internal loads for the containment t
structures in the suppression pool. f
! ARS were generated from the dynamic response. Overall horizontal f l response at representative locations are shown on Figs. 5-30 and i 31.
5.1.5.3 Response to All Valve Sequential Discharge l
) The dynamic response of the containment structures was determined 1 for the SRV discharge event of all valve sequential firing (load case 3, Section 5.1.3) . Results in terms of internal load time 'T histories and ARS are presented here. ; ,)
The circumferential variation of pressure for this event was represented in the dynamic analysis by the use of five Fourier harmonic terms.
Time-wise maximum values of internal loads at critical locations ,
in the suppression pool region are shown in Table 5-5. A 6 comparison with Tables 5-2 and 3 shows that sequential firing of !
all valves results in less severe internal loads at critical i locations than does simultaneous firing of all valves. t
+
ARS of overall vertical and horizontal accelerations were !
generated and representative results are presented here. [
Figures 5-32 through 37 contain vertical, horizontal (N-S) , and i horizontal (EJW) ARS at the top of the reactor support pedestal !
and the primary containment at the elevation of the stabilizer truss. ,
5.1.5.4 Response to ADS Discharge A comparison of applied load time-histories for the two events of 5 all valve sequential firing and ADS discharge show general i similarities. On this basis, it is considered that the i.
structural response due to an ADS discharge event can be ;'
5-8 Revision 3 - November 1978 f.
^
represented by applying a factor to the results obtained from the
, q detailed sequential firing analysis. i l
' '} 5.1.5.5 Response to Three Ad-iacent Valve out of Phase Discharge 1
A detailed dynamic analysis of the containment structures when subjected to the pressure loads of a three adjacent valve out of
. phase discharge was performed. ARS developed from the i acceleration time-histories were determined with results
.j presented here.
I
! Three Fourier harmonic terms were used to represent the
} circumferential variation of the pressure loads.
! Figures 5-38 and 39 show ARS of overall vertical acceleration at
- the top of the reactor support pedestal and the prin
- ary
- ' containment at the elevation of the stabilizer truss. Overall
- horizontal ARS in the principal direction of loading are shown on Figs. 5-40 and 41. Figures 5-42 and 43 show overall horizontal ARS in the perpendicular direction. This response is associated with the fact that the bubbles are out of phase.
5.1.5.6 Response to Single Valve Discharge As in the case of an ADS discharge event, it is considered here that the results of a single valve discharge can be obtained by
, multiplying the results of the three adjacent valve out of phase discharge by a factor.
5.1.6 Containment Structures Response to SRV T-Ouencher Ioads The dynamic response of containment structures has been determined for the SRV discharge loads specified for the T-quencher device. The analysis has considered four load cases -
l all valves, ADS, three adjacent, and single valve discharge. For each load case the structural response was determined for all three T-quencher pressure traces with five time scale factors applied to each trace to encompass a broad range of predominant frequencies. The time scale factors utilized were 0.86 (providing the highest frequency) , 1.0, 1.2, 1.4, and 1.8 (providing the lowest frequency) . The individual ARS resulting from the three pressure curves each with five time scale factors are all enveloped to produce conservative ARS for the assessment of piping and mechanical systems.
- This is even slightly beyond the range specified in Section 3-2.2.1.
As discussed in Section 3, the magnitudes of the three T quencher pressure traces.are to be increased by a constant multiplier to obtain the design time histories. No multiplier has been
' included in the dynamic structural analysis for T quencher loads nor does it appear in the results presented here. All results
~
'l 5-9 Revision 3 - November 1978 i
~~
[_ _", . __ l _ _
~~
--- ~-
i i
must be increased by the multiplier before use in the design ;
assessment. -
In order to view the differences in response due to the three " >
pressure traces and also to see the effect of altering the I frequency content by time scaling the curves a set of comparison '
plots of ARS have'been developed. The vertical response at the F top of the pedestal due to an all valve discharge is used as !
representative of the behavior. Figures 5-44 through 46 contain ARS plots developed for the three pressure traces, with the plot l for each curve identifying the general effect of time scaling (altering the frequency). Two conclusions can be drawn from ;l these results. First, in the frequency range above approximately !
10 Hz, the response tends to be most severe for the higher frequency cases of each curve (for the smaller time scale p f actors) . Also, it is noted that the response to curve #2 nearly e envelopes the response to curves #1 and #3 at all frequencies. '
Curve $2 can be characterized as having the most regular shape of the three, generally resembling a decaying sinusoidal curve. 3 5.1.6.1 Response to All Valve Discharge f Structural response to the all valve discharge has been developed I for all three curves each with five time scale factors.
Enveloped ARS have been developed of the 15 individual ARS. In order to present a more realistic description of T-quencher ARS, the effects of the time scale factor of 0.8 are not included in the representative figures presented here, since this factor is T outside the range of the T quencher load definition. Vertical response is predominant from this axisymmetric
)
event.
Representative vertical ARS are presented on Figures 5-47 and 48 at the top of the pedestal and at the primary containment at the elevation of the stabilizer truss. Horizontal response to this event is exclusively in shell radial ' breathing' modes.
Horizontal response at the same structural locations is presented on Figures 5-49 and 50. Again, note that the multiplier discussed in Section 3 has not been included in the results. .
5.1.6.2 Response to ADS Discharge i
T As in the case of SRV discharge with the ramshead device, ADS results can be obtained by applying a factor to the results of (.
the all valve discharge. Since ADS is very nearly axisymmetric [p this factor is obtained by taking the ratio of integrated '
pressure on the circumferential pressure distributions for the two load cases. ,
g' 5.1.6.3 Response to Three Ad-iacent Valve Discharge L.
Structural response to this asymmetric event has also been {. -
completely determined. Enveloped ARS of both vertical and i horizontal response are presented on Figures 5-51 through 54 for the top of the pedestal and the primary containment at the p
[
5-10 Revision 3 - November 1978 !
i t
. . - . ~m...
I p elevation of the stabilizer truss. These results do not include the load multiplier nor the time scale factor of 0.8.
5.1.6.4 Response to Single Valve Discharge i l
Single valve discharge response can be obtained by factoring the results of the three adjacent valve discharge. Factors for the !
, i vertical and horizontal response are obtained by comparing the ratios for Fourier Serles ocefficients of the circumferential !
j pressure distribution of these two load cases. !
h 5.2 STRUC'lVRAL RESPONSE TO LOCA LOADS i
j 5.2.1 Introduction !
This section describes the behavior of the containment structures when subjected to dynamic LOCA loads.
s The LOCA transient events l considered in this section are vent clearing, air bubble !
pressure, condensation oscillation, and chugging. These events ,
are described in detail in Section 4. l i
Internal loads are computed for the basemat, reactor support l pedestal, and primary containment. Figure 5-1 shows the general !
arrangement in the suppression pool area. Amplitled response l spectra were generated for these dynamic events and are used for the assessment of piping systems. l
(
Results of this section are used in the assessment of primary structures l (refer to Section 6) , as required by the load (
combinations discussed there.
i 5.2.2 Method of Analysis l
The same method of analysis is used to determine the dynamic i
! response of the containment structures to LOCA transient loads as j for SRV loads described in Section 5.1.2. That is, a finite
,)
element model is constructed, dynamic loads applied, and the l .
solution is obtained by direct numerical integration of the
! equations of motion. ;
{ The finite element model represents the structure and supporting i
'i i soil as axisymmetric shell and solid elements, respectively, as (
described in Section 5.1.2. Figure 5-2 depicts the finite i element model. l 1
LOCA pressure transient loads are applied to the structural model as line forces and moments as shown on Fig. 5-3. l ;
5.2.3 LOCA Loads I The transient LOCA pressure loads on the pool boundaries have !
been defined in Section 4. They consist of vent cit.aring jet j
' loads, air bubble pressure loads, condensation oscillation loads, and chugging loads.
, I 5-11 Revision 3 - November 1978 !
l i
l
Vent clearing jet and air bubble pressure loads occur i consecutively and are treated together here. These loads are characterized by an initial impact on the basemat followed by 7-s) .j
(
transient suppression chamber air bubble pressures on the pool v boundaries. This event is axisymmetric with a maximum uniform i pressure on the basemat of 44.7 psi at a time of 0.57 seconds l after the LOCA begins as shown on Fig. 5-55. The value of il 44.7 psi is the pressure at the main vent exit and has not been l!
attenuated in order to provide an upper bound to structural response. j Sections 4.1.4.3 and 4.1.4.4 describe the condensation i oscillations and chugging pool boundary loads, respectively. !
l Figure 5-56 depicts the idealized chugging load time-history used for the dynamic analysis.
[
5.2.4 Summary of Results i
The dynamic response of the containment structures to transient IDCA loads was determined. Structural internal load time- .
' histories, acceleration time-histories, and ARS have been '
developed.
The following is a summary of significant results:
- 1. Containment structure internal loads in the suppression pool region due to LOCA vent clearing are less severe than those due to the long term static pressures and 3
temperatures associated with a LOCA.
assessment Therefore, the of primary structures (Section 6.1) is based m )
on the long term effects of LOCA as defined in the FSAR.
- 2. Chugging and condensation oscillation loads are not a !
source of significant containment structure internal ;
loads. -
f
- 3. Vertical ARS due to vent clearing and axisymmetric -
chugging are generally comparable, with vent clearing l response the greater at frequencies lower than 15 to ?
20 Hz and chugging response greater at the higher frequencies. .-
y
- 4. Vertical ARS due to axisymmetric chugging are generally I comparable to, but somewhat less than, vertical ARS due h to all SRV sequential firing with ramsheads.
(
- 5. Horizontal ARS due to asymmetric chugging are less severe j than those due to three adjacent SRV discharge with ramsheads (either simultaneous or out of phase) .
f~
b 1
5-12 Revision 3 - November 1976 O i j'
i 1
--ww eww-w-- - - - - + - - _ _ - * - -__ m- - --
.- _= . . . - .-
i l 5.2.5 Containment Structures Response to LOCA Loads
! O
) 5.2.5.1 Response to Vent Clearing The transient pressure loads described in Section 5.2.3 were applied to the structural model and the dynamic response 4
- determined. One Fourier series term was used to represent this j axisymmetric event.
,l Time-wise maximum values of internal loads have been computed and are presented in Tables 5-6 and 7 for primary structures in the
- region of the suppression pool.
l Selected ARS of overall vertical accelerations are presented on Figs. 5-57 and 58.
4 l 5.2.5.2 Response to Chuquing The dynamic response of the containment structures to the oscillatory chugging loads was determined. Both axisymmetric and asymmetric chugging events were considered with characteristic frequencies of 20 and 30 Hz.
The axisymmetric chugging loads were represented by one Fourier series term while two terms were used to represent the overall behavior of the asymmetric event.
Internal load time histories were developed, as well as acceleration time histories and ARS. Tables 5-8 and 9 present time-wise maximum values of containment structure internal loads in the suppression pool region for the axisymmetric 20 Hz chugging event. Tables 5-10 and 11 present the same information for 30 Hz axisyneetric chugging. Results due to asymmetric chugging are of comparable magnitude.
i ARS curves which envelop the response from the 20 and 30 Hz cases i were generated. Figures 5-59 and 60 present ARS of overall l
vertical acceleration due to axisymmetric chugging while Figs.
5-61 and 62 present overall horizontal ARS due to asymmetric l chugging.
i 5.3 STRUCTURAL RESPONSE TO ANNULUS PRESSURIZATION (AP) LOADS 5.3.1 Annulus Pressurization Ioads l When a postulated pipe break occurs at a nozzle, there are two
- direct sources of loading on structural components. One source i
is the direct blowdown force at the nozzle, and the second is ths
, pipe whip restraint reaction to impact by the broken pipe.
Additionally, when the postulated break occurs in the annulus region between the biological shield wall and the pressure reactor i
vessel (RPV) a third loading source, annulus
.! pressurization, must also be considered (See Section 4 for
- further description) . Due to the nonaxisymmetric, i.e.,
i 5-13 Revision 3 - November 1978 i
- - - - - .~- - . . . . - . - . - -
~
- ~..mm -,- -
,~.-...-_e..
i i
{ esymmetric, pressure distribution in the annulus, a net dynamic l lateral force acts on the RPV and shield wall. i i Two faulted load conditions are considered - a feedwater line ( ') '
break and a recirculation line break. Each break consists of a j double ended rupture at the nozzle.
- 5.3.2 Method of Analysis
, I j The structural analysis for annulus pressurization consists of '
! two parts. The first part is the dynamic structural analysis of -
{ the reactor building complex. This analysis is performed to r
- determine the overall building response in terms of internal ,
1 forces and moments and also a amplified response spectra UNRS) .
j The second aspect of the analysis is the evaluation of the local
- effects of the asymmetric pressure load dir ectly on the .
~
sacrificial shield wall.
1
! The dynamic analysis is performed using the ' lumped mass' ;
j structural model developed for seismic analysis and described in i j Section 3.7.2A of the Shoreham FSAR [ Fig. 3.7.2A-1) . The l asymmetric pressure distribution is integrated to obtain the i resulting lateral loads on the RPV and shield wall at each time '
A step used to define the transient annulus pressurization loading.
j These horizontal force time histories are then applied to the
- dynamic structural model simultaneously with the blowdown and
! pipe whip restraint reaction time histories. The solution is obtained by time history modal analysis. ~
, The local stress analysis of the inner shell of the shield wall in the region of maximum asymmetric pressure is performed using a j
finite element structural model as described in Section 3.8.3 of the FSAR (Fig . 3.8.3-6) .
i j 5.3.3 Results i Results of the dynamic structural analysis include the time-wise f i maximum values of internal forces for all structural members in j i
the model and also acceleration time histories.
i Amplified response spectra pdG) of building accelerations are I
. also generated and used for the assessment of mechanical and ;
piping systems. I Results of the structural assessment for annulus pressurization loads are being addressed in a response to an NRC question on the [
cubject and will be incorporated in the FSAR. [
{
f l~
)
l o
- t.
5-14 Revision 3 - November 1978 l
1
c.-...
7__ y ----_-
i i
4 4
1 t
TABLE 5-1
'J DEFINITION OF INTERNAL LOADSC13 Msg -
Radial (longitudinal) bending moment (ft-k/ft) positive
- (+) when causing tension on top of mat
'l and inside !
surface of superstructure l N SS -
Axial (longitudinal) force (k/ft) positive (+) when !
^; causing tension in mat and superstructure i 1
(
Q3 -
Radial (transverse) shear (k/ft) positive (+) when a acting upward on outer face of mat and radially outward
_) i on superstructure MTT - Tangential (Hoop) bending moment (ft-k/ft) positive (+) l when causing tension on top of mat and inside surface of superstructure NTT - Tangential (hoop) force (k/ft) positive (+) when causing i tension in mat and superstructure i
QT Tangential (hoop) shear (k/ft)
NST In plane membrane shear (k/ft) i I
(1) Refer also to Fig. 5-7
! t 4 i 4
I e
?
- I
! l I t I
t
)
i 1 of 1 Revision 3 - November 1978 i
- __ 1 TABLE 5-2 i Ii'M -
MAXIMUM VALUES OF DYNAMIC LOADS IN THE BASEMAT FROM A SIMULTANEOUS ALL VALVE SRV
, 4 DISCHARGE WITH RAM? HEAD (1) l
! Radius MSS MTT QS USS NTT I (ft) fft-k/ft) fft-k/ft) (k/ft) Ik/tt) &/rt) i r 7'i 6.00 -249 -250 -21 -35 -35 i 11.10-ca) -244 -247 -11 -35 -35
- ]4 11.10+ -530 -291 58 -19 -32 2 16.20 -266 -286 40 -16 -26
-i 21.30 198 -239 28 -17 -23 26.40 138 -202 -19 -17 -22 31.50 92 169 25 -17 -21 36.60 84 140 31 -17 -20 41.70-(3) 179 119 27 -17 -19 41.70+ 234 153 -21 14 -17 48.02 123 136 -18 12 -14 54.35 -76 113 -14 -11 -14 60.68 -87 88 -12 -10 -13 67.00-(*) 134 61 -11 -9 -13 67.00+ 123 65 -7 -7 -12 72.00 -87 58 -6 -7 -12
. 77.00 -55 53 6 6 -11 82.00 -23 50 5 4 -10 87.0 0 49 4 -3 -10
- (1) For design calculations all values can be considered positive
- or negative.
- (2) Radius to pedestal wall centerline is 11.10 ft.
- ca) Radius to primary containment wall centerline is 41.70 ft.
I
(*) Radius to secondary containment centerline is 67.00 ft.
f
.a l
l e
l i
d i
1 of 1 Revision 3 - November 1978 '
I
l TABLE 5-3
(
C' MAXIMUM VALUES OF DYNAMIC LOADS IN THE SUPERSTRUCTURES FROM A SIMULTANEOUS ALL VALVE SRV DISCHARGE WITH RAMSHEAD(1) l i
j PEDESTAL i
J Elevation d
MSS MTT QS Nss NTT Ift) (ft-k/ft) (ft-k/ft) (k/ft) (k/ft) (k/ft) .
1 ;
1 8.00(a) 114 18 -34 -56 -49 !
l 1 12.00 16 2 -15 -56 -46 !
' 16.00 '
-13 -3 -5 -55 -18 f 21.00 -10 -2 2 -55 -13 l 26.00ca) -3 -1 - 1 -55 -5 l l
~
I PRLMARY CONTAINMENT f
I Elevation Mss MTT QS Nss NTT (ft) (ft-k/ft) (ft-k/ft) (k/ft) (k/ft) Ik/ft) !
5 8.00(a) -126 -21 16 25 29 12.00 l
-66 -11 -14 25 43 16.00 31 5 9 24 42 21.00 -29 -5 5 24 32 26.00(3) -20 -3 4 24 -22 l ,
i i
(1)
For design calculations all values can be considered positive or negative (2) Junction of basemat with superstructure
,' ta) Top of suppression pool i I
i i
i !
1 !
l I !
i i
-s !
\ i
_./
f 1 of 1 Revision 3 - November 1978 l
', i i
! l i
-, TABLE 5-4 .
1 i MAXIMUM VALUES OF DYNAMIC LOADS IN THE BASEMAT AND
' - SUPERSTRUCTURES FROM A SIMULTANEOUS THREE ADJACENT ;
VALVE SRV DISCHARGE WITH RAMSHEAD(a) l BASEMAT
. Radius Msg MTT QS Ngg NTT
. (ft) (ft-k/ft) (ft-k/ft) (k/ft) (k/ft) (k/tt) j 11.10-(a) 52 42 -11 -8 -8 i 11.10+ 152 52 -48 15 -8 i 26.40 -125 -81 -5 12 -6
'] 41.70-(3) 136 25 27 -7 -7 41.70+ 60 36 6 -8 -6 l I
I PEDESTAL .
i Elevation Msg MTT QS Ngg NTT (ft) (ft-k/ft) (f t-k/f t) (k/ft) (k/ft) (k/ft) 8.00(*) -45 -10 14 33 -11 f 12.00 4 -2 9 27 -9 PRIMARY CONTAINMENT Elevation MSS MTT QS NSS NTT (ft) (ft-k/ft) (ft-k/ft) (k/ft) (k/ft) (k/tt) 8.00(*) 67 11 -14 22 -5
! 12.00 17 -3 -14 22 10 i
1
\
(1) For design calculations all values can be considered positive or negative. i
- j (a) Radius to pedestal wall centerline is 11.10 ft. !
j (3) Radius to primary containment wall centerline is 41.70 ft.
, (*) Base of pedestal and primary containment is at El 8-0.
l i
I l
l l
1 1
1 s,
l J
l 1 of 1 Revision 3 - November 1978 1
i i
t l
TABLE 5-5 l
l l}
'> MAXIMUM VALUES OF DYNAMIC LOADS IN THE BASEMAT AND SUPERS'IRUCTURES FROM A SEQUENTIAL ALL VALVE SRV DISCHARGE WITH RAMSHEAD(1) l
,i BASEMAT lj Radius Msg MTT QS Ngg NTT
/ fft) (ft-k/ft) (ft-k/ft) (k/ft) (k/ft) ik/tt)
, 11.10- -49 -50 5 12 12
- 11.10+<a) 144
' -63 -31 21 12 l
' 26.40 -79 -62 11 17 12 41."J0-t a ) 145 -28 23 16 12
., 41.70+ -125 -39 12 -11 10 PEDESTAL Elevation Msg MTT 9S N gg (ft)
NTT (ft-k/ft) .(f t-k/f t) (k/ft) (k/ft) ik/ft) 8.00(*) -33 -6 10 27 -8 12.00 6 1 8 24 -9 PRIMARY CONTAINMENT Elevation Msg MTT QS fft)
NSS NTT 8
(ft-k/ft) (f t-k/f t) (k/ft) (k/ft) (k/ft) 8.00(*) 107 18 -21 13 -4 12.00 29 4 -20 13 5
(*)
For design calculations all values can be considered positive
, or negative.
ca) Radius to pedestal wall centerline is 11.10 ft.
(3) Radius to primary containment wall centerline is 41.70 ft.
(*3 Base of pedestal and primary containment is at el 8-0.
i
'} l l l l
l l
l 1 of 1 Revision 3 - November 1978
' ~ ~ ~ " ~ ' ~ ~*~=m *
- n.
_y _.._,, , , , , _ _
]
t i
TABLE 5-7 i.
v MAXIMUM VALUES OF DYNAMIC LOADS IN THE SUPERSTRUCTURES FROM LOCA VENT CLEARING LOADS (1)
, l j PEDESTAL Elevation MSS MTT QS Ngg
~ j. NTT (ft) (f t-k/f t) (f t-k/f t) _ (k/f t) _ (k/i t) (k/ft) a i 8.00ca) 170 27 -49 -51 -68 l
, 12.00 29 4 -51 -70 -22 4 16.00 -17 -4 -4 -50 -31
'! 21.00 -14 -3 2 -49 -2 26.00(3) -3 0 1 -48 3 l PRIMARY CONTAINMENT
, Elevation MSS M TT QS Ngg fft) NTT
_(ft-k/ft) s,f t-k/f t) _(k/f t)
(k/ft) (k/f t) 8.00(2) 361 60 -53 -17 -73 !
d 12.00 178 29 -47 -17 -108
- 16.00 72 12 -30 -16 -102 21.00 -57 -10 -15 -16 -72 26.00(3) -59 -10 -2 -16 -39 l I
i I
il I 1
Ci> For design calculations all values can be considered positive or negative.
, cm) Junction of basemat with superstructure !
cs) Top of suppression pool l
- i ;
1 4 ,
i.
ll .
1 of 1 Revision 3 - November 1978
_ _ _ . . _ . . _ ...__u_.. -
2_.-_---_-------------------__--------
TABLE 5-9
}
]
,j j MAXIMUM VALUES OF DYNAMIC LOADS IN THE SUPERSTRUCTURES FROM AXISYMMETRIC 20 Hz CHUGGING LOADSC2) l
, PEDESTAL i Elevation Msg MTT j QS N33 NTT (ft) (f t-k/f t) (f t-k/f t) (k/ft) (k/ft) _(k/ft)
_: l i 8.00(2) -14 !
I
-2 4 -12 4 ;
12.00 2 0 4 -12 -4
, 16.00 6 1 -2 -13 -5
- 21.00 3 0 -1 -13 -5 I 26.00(3) -1 0 -1 -13 -2 l t
^
- Elevation MSS MTT QS Ngg
' NTT (ft) _ (f t-k/f t) _ (f t-k/f t) (k/ft) (k/tt) (k/tt) 8.00(2) 21 4 -5 6 4 l 12.00 6 1 -5 6 6 16.00 -11 -2 -3 6 9 21.00 -10 -2 2 6 9 26.00(3) -4 -1 1 6 7 l (1)
For design calculations, all values can be considered positive
{ or negative.
1 (2) Junction of basemat with superstructure
! ca) Top of suppression pool i
i i
1 i
1 i
1 of 1 Revision 3 - November 1978
.. . ~ - . - - . . . - . . - . - - _ .
-f
, i l , TABLE 5-11 1
( - n) MAXIMUM VALUES OF DYNAMIC LOADS IN THE SUPERSTRUCTdRES i FROM AXISYMMETRIC 30 Hz CHUGGING LOADS (1) l PEDESTAL i i Elevation Mss MTT QS Nss NTT
- ift) (ft-k/ft) (ft-k/ft) (k/ft) _Lk/ft) (k/ft) 9 /. -
8.00ce) -14 -2 4 9 3 l l 12.00 -2 0 4 9 -3 16.00 6 1 -2 9 -5 ,
i 21.00 3 0 -2 10 -5 !
j 26.00(3) -1 0 0 - 10 -2 l i !
,1 i
PRIMAFJr CONTAINMENT <
e
/
Elevation MSS MTT QS Ngg NTT (ft) (ft-k/ft) (ft-k/tt) (k/ft) (k/t t) (k/tt) 8.00(2) 26 4 -6 4 i 4 l :
12.00 -6 -1 -6 4 7 !
16.00 -14 -2 -4 4 12 <
21.00 -15 -2 2 4 14 !
26.00(3) -9 -1 1 4 13 l s'
l
/ - .
1 (1) For design calculations all valdes can be considered positive '
l or negative
' ,, /
(2 ) Junction of basemat with superstructure., !
- (3) Top of suppression pool.
/ \
j -
!- l 1 . i f t. ,
I i.
i i /
l 1 of 1 Revisio'n 3 - November 1978 l
i f i
,' I d' /
t.
- /' SUPPORT PRIM ARY PEDESTAL CONTAIN MENT
!P W
! eReSSuRe SupeReSSiON j , (LB./ IN.2 ) POOL
-; N 3 3
~
'g t s c
- =-
4 \ m , , a ; :
(:.e. :. .
. . . . h ACTUAL PRESSURE PROFILE l
- MOMENT (FT.-K / FT.)
-@ :?..::-
FORCE (K /FT.)
h +4 pg
/
SUPPRESSION POOL g4
\
-e I
-)--
-- -, -, 4 4, j . a & 6 6 6 .
..gj IDEALIZED NODAL FORCES AND MOMENTS i
/
i
! "j FIG. 5-3 i/ '
LOADS APPLIED TO MODEL S SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION -UNIT 1 PLANT DESIGN ASSESSMENT FOR SRV AND LOCA LOADS 1 / ,
I ,' REVISION 3-NOVEMBER 1978
~
i 3
g g SUPPORT
, PEDESTAL f a-PRIMARY
- a. CONTAINMENT l .
SUPPRESSION POOL
.t ,.
=L
?d 4
il
- 8
, 26 PSI *
b 1.0 -
.a'
[f
[) PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION 08 -
.t 0.6 --
N w
E -
3 to in W O.4 -
E Q.
Q -
w U
-.J 0.2 -
4 2
E O -
Z O -
i
- 0. 2 -
+
,-J _
4
-04 I ! ! ! ! !
O O1 0.2 03 0.4 0.5 0.6 l
TIME (SEC)
I FIG. 5 - 4 l NOTE' SRV RAMSHEAD LOAD FOR NORMALIZED PRESSURE TIME HISTORY i
_ DESIGN ASSESSMENT. FOR ALL SRV S DISCHARGING 4
) SIMUi TANEOUSLY AND IN PHASE L'
SHO REH AM NUCLE AR POWER STATION - UNIT i PLANT DESIGN ASSESSMENT FOR SRV AND LOCA LOADS
! REVISION 3 -NOVEMBER 1979 i
ASYMMETRIC ,
PRESSURE
) DISTRIBUTION
. e .:q -
1 a
l >
fe o b
,a t
Li PEDESTAL PRIMARY s CONTAINMENT CIRCUMFERENT!AL DISTRIBUTION J
SUPPORT PRIMARY PEDESTAL CONTAINM ENT E*.t.:
SUPPRESSION .
POOL l
i s
/ '
J n i o o u y i 4:
fh hf.*-
LONGITUDINAL DISTRIBUTION j FIG. 5-5
~
ASYMMETRIC PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION !
s' 3 ADJACENT VALVE SIMULTANEOUS DISCHARGE ,
SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION-UNIT 1 PLANT DESIGN ASSESSMENT FOR SRV AND LOCA LOADS '
l l
REVISION 3-NOVEMBER 1978
f
- 41.70 FT. O j 4--- I l .1 O FT. -->
j /
n .: -
+ ?'
..r;
O. ,;
.- y 4., ' SUPPRESSION POOL Pl
._ - - : := _.
j b-4.
s6 j,.
i BASE OF Y. If' COVER, SLAB MAT y;-
SUPPORT '. EL. 9'-O' INSIDE *
' BASE OF PRIMARY PEDESTAL MAT OUTSIDE CONTAINMENT ;#
f \ '3- CONTAINMENT
, / PEDESTAL k j
( .. ,;s. ,..s ,..s..
. , s , _
._z.R.
by d . -EL. 8'-O',
,'~s
/:> .>. .
. */
t i
l i
l 1
j FIG. 5-6 i
4 CRITICAL LOCATIONS SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION-UNIT I PLANT DESIGN ASSESSMENT FOR SRV AND LOCA LOADS i
REVISION 3 -NOVEMBER 1978
( ..?
N 33 a
l Os .
.; \ OUTSIDE OF j NsT SUPERSTRUCTURE
\ QT I
}/
n
^
.I
\l
)M%ss o,
U q N ss TOP OF MAT
~
& OT g
/D _ M ss
^
M TT s h / N ss N/ Os
' NsT N7
.l 1
'l l
l
'}
1 FIG. 5-7 !
POSITIVE SIGN CONVENTION
_ , FOR INTERNAL LOADS l
} SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION-UNIT I t
PLANT DESIGN ASSESSMENT FOR SRV AND LOCA LOADS
. REVislON 3 - NOVEMBER 1978
- ~
. . . . . , , ,.n..~ , -
. .. ~ _ _ . , . - - - . .. ~ . . . . . .. -
. a.---...=~t..- --
( J D
6.00 - -
t -- ---t---- ;
.4 .; . - .. L.h I lb.
flll l
- fl ! !! i ! ! !' .;l' '
l3kN 1 b8 :$ AltI 34 pif(' W3l < ll
"' l iti ! lt l l1 !l !i i,i Il
l'
.l
!'l.
!l l
} D', Dta, $$ 31)ligt Dtlfthl; lf'
- j ti !! f ! ! !i i!L f : 'fR 'h i'ffff717'll ff'i :
- f. ,fe'!!.:lj :!l};yIll
! I '
'l ;!{l ; '
m w 1
i' r .{ .
r . y! .o - -
,,: I jj l , ,! ;).!i yI,,;.h-I t'
il .I l l ' .i
.'i litl!Il ! '
ill:
. t . , ' i: ,.
i , , .. .l i '- -
.... :, I' I , s i r :, ! .tri l 1. ; ,i g 4.00 , , , , , , , ,
c ---
- Ii .I; . J:
~ , ,
1 i
,A , .
1 ; ; i l 'I !
- l ! '
lj ji y }m ill i: t ij!' i Ej: h j, -';
%'! L El- @i: q h j! +,
ph t i V o. e #f,' o +, [n l 2 i ! i , i
~
n o u . i
. 1 i . m .
$ ,.,, j' I
!. 'i ij/lld i'l l
,..y yUll fl m r l
lh, lll l M, 1 h ' i l. i
- e. -
n O I I 4 jI 8
.it t 7 I o l
- l: , '.I ,jtl lil ! :~ "l/j; a - ('q,. ;l t!
f ,
11.l , 'I .
4 2.00 -
l' i {-
l_ i
- [ l. --
L\ j **
gryI m! w-w wl w!pa__
O.00
- i;l , i i h I t' ' I:. II l ! '!' !l . i i 0.00 0.02 O 04 006 0.08 0.40 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20 0.22 0.24 t
PERIOD (SECOND)
FIG. 5-20 AMPLIFIED RESPONSE SPECTRA OF VERTICAL ACCELERATION TOP OF REACTOR SUPPORT PEDESTAL ALL VALVE SIMULTANEOUS DISCHARGE- R AMSHE AD SHOREH AM NUCLEAR POWER STATION-UNIT 1 PLANT DESIGN ASSESSMENT FOR SRV AND LOC A LOADS n
REVISION 3 - NOVEMBER 1978 !,
I l
( '
i 6.00 -- . j : - - . - --
=
j';:l' ;i ,. .: !lij {!,; ; ; ', !! 1 j' .l 1 il .;
!ii.
. ..., .;, .,. ,, : t- :l,' i
. !': y' '
- t{
' ' l- .1 w o ( a retamme i
I .. .l tpil L.
i, .;..
III! l!,' I- dph im:)u.p ret ag tpi
'!!j 'l::i
- !, ll. ,I
- ll e '-
i:
- j::'
ll.
,i;
.l
! : !I!i .. : ; 60ra : as : pian-res pimetti,i 5.00
.,~.
l:
4.
ffIal II.I . ll ,lt o, .ol[wrl l
- ' 1 i I
- ..i :!a ;
l
, .m : ..
- p. u, i ... . ....
il;!
i! ilE :lj! llj lil ;!H 4! lI;. !lll 1 I L r i'
,, t' l l C.
.i I it e
, e i' .
- , , i l .i i:
10, i! .i,
- 400 - --
o .r i - ,. ,
.(. I ;
g- .. ; 1 i
, m' ,, :a i i :
,, n .
i i,.i, ,,
.... .: i. i 2 i ii.
.[i. ..!I l1li : !) {ih. [ ;[i d o
p
. i! ' , !' ,
,f; 1 .
,: .= i i ti ,
l t
,,- 4 j f f.,
'!l:
'ii
- l- ! i ii ; ,' !'.!!. *
- ,;.;i
-- ---} ' -j-i ,, ,. , lji g 3.00
-+ - '
.~r .,:
p , ;,, ,
g, ,,, ,j-
! tI -j kI i i -
d- 'f } h ~
q- di! U i o o % i.i n, (! a, . m : ...
cl q, !
! i I i
~}
i 1
- i .
4 2.00 - .' -;-4 .h,
.i ;
, I,
- : l i 1, i l i , l .
'l i ;!s 'g. M. ..
., l. l, l i 3. I I l I' ,,,l illl !ijj !
- 1. f.. l
.g .-. yi W< . ' .
+
4 u li,
, . o A. . . / . ,
\,! .!li l hll, ii S i
w )..
i n,
- . .. .. . m.
) . . .
>> i u ,
1.00 y
- f. - . y , ., ,, , j;;; ..., ,.,,
d., .!h,SE:,,uses6 i .;1;/ 'lIrTI'1.'I
.i.4 1 1
i'h6 f..r,.
44), ..,.
.t.4 ll7l h.
+. 4 _
! ,4
.u...:. ~,
J M.%'il .,..,j . illl
.t.
- i-
~lll
.m . . .
l't j! l f! ! !
fl l l ll , , ). li l!
=
0.00 .
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20 0.22 0.24 PERIOD (SECOND) l FIG. 5-29 AMPLIFIED RESPONSE SPECTRA OF VERTICAL ACCELERATION PRIMARY CONTAINMENT AT ELEVATION OF STABILIZER TRUSS ALL VALVE SIMULTANEOUS DISCHARGE-R AMSHE AD SHOREH AM NUCLE AR POWER STATION-UNIT 1 PLANT DESIGN ASSESSMENT FOR SRV AND LOCA LOADS '
REVISION 3 - NOVEMBER 1978 l
_- .-.._..-- . - . . - ....-. .- .- . . - . . ...c. . : x = .. w - _ . - . - -
s..-
I 3.00 ,, ,,
i;, ,,
,fi
- ! , f '. ,] !,
f Ef m ss::;.aram awat l l', il
_t:
,t i;
' :i:-. ' , :, ': ; !'l ' ', jiI -
.Ibt s as:t h ren I wm
.i!!
, : l :. ,;
!:' It sthen, ps: Lt.n ronlo bwsMl : 'li j' ff7hRMED'Tf
- l; j'.
! ! i j, :
I-l... .!.; .- /h 1 . . ....
q
- i. 1.L : !'
ri. : '! L ..
EL. -l!
.m . !
,.I i
. ii ll!! !'
i il I i
i li ,
i[t.-
..i l
i
'll I l'rt lllt l- ll- .il i l' .. I i
' ' l ' '
i '
2.00 S .i- li, i: 1 i s .'.. '
ll ,
ll l ll' i il ijil I 'l!, '
{l j'. :lj 8 :j ' Y f i' i NI t t- ',
t hl, t-f; j l}
N : !
{m 1.50 - - - - . -' ' , , ,
! .;, i l' ,
i.
!lll !l , l l ; l ll, j ll 'jl, jj l l;f ;
3 , ,.
w :
'r ,ili i!.i ,11l >: . l ,. - 4 i
,l i: ! i il i ikI l
t h b Ull GI o ,;, :ll, .; { 'N dN
'l ;;;
M,!lN,l.i
.ljl i O
l Y N, l !!4 0
4 1.00 .'K,h; !i; li:' . i','
l
- i!' ..l, -
,; , ,. .. s. . . .. . i
..i.
g i..i j ,
ti- '
Ii
- '- l I il iij!-. ,
i i : li: ., ! ,
l : ; it.
f}l, fiif f!rt- L1 h
-h --f h :ljt l' --i
.;, ,i --
+
h'*
0.50 i.
J
!) i ' i i .
l 'fl! [!'l ffi! f. l i
!; !l:
f ii;i l}. . b ' i t
.: !flf !l1 l l !!!l l! !i !!.
/l )!. igY . q-,. C
.2 . . , ,4
.J. . U '.. g' . 11.]. f _.
-m 4! dl2 .
;'.l ij!: ,
-~.....
m
.g p-ly- g ,- ]Tp-~nifTlT11 @ !li: 4.siiill'nM 's"' -+
0.00 0.0 2 0.04 0.06 008 0.10 0 12 0.14 0 16 0.18 0.20 0.22 0.24 PERIOD (SECOND) FIG. 5-30 AMPLIFIED RESPONSE SPECTRA OF HORIZONTAL ACCELER ATION TOP OF REACTOR SUPPORT PEDESTAL 3 ADJACENT VALVE SIMULTANEOUS DISCHARGE-RAMSHEAD SHOREHAM NUCLEAR PO'wER STATION-UNIT 1 PLANT DESIGN ASSESSMENT FOR SRV AND LOCA LOADS REVISION 3- NOVEMBER 1978 l
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ . . _ . _ _ _ . . _ ___ _ .:. . _ _ a _ .. ___._.: 6 l
/]
C i 300 . . .,i: .
, ;i it, .:t ..
2 1 2! :i - ! ;.: ii.I I>l l i
.1 lii tin.p .l
, . Jla : _; : d, 4.i ' i , ;1 i t -
..! i 1.ho;t .Q-(1 " paarip._ 1
'l !!
!I I;!
I i
!i l l ,I : !!!! .l s'4t p3turin omrt
.. . !l,!'
- j. il!! lifi
. ll a.or i es :tl$ rts amerup,.--
!I 1 < '
2.50 --- -- - I'- !! 'j!' :!'
; l' .! llil I!i l'i 1 ll' if [1- 'ifE I[I ITfIdEI7lll !
- . ,'. u. . ... . hl i;!! ; ;i q j. t i H j 2.00 .
ill ![: ll'
!il lll!
l;., fI l ll. f ,l ll! ' f 1 o . ii ti .
.. i , ,-
.! 3,!
i.i. l l' i ii l ;!j: .il , litt i l J" l I fi 'i-
~'
y' 1, +l p.t1 , liii 9 ,-
, "t--irti
$ ti lf i -1 " '
't-l!.M ;,lfM,Hll
,Il l;.i6' 1 I j!i .
i - F_ i i ei a . i .,'
. i: i
.i.
i 1
- t. .!, i'l i' i
-l' ;l:; ,,
4 l.50 ' 11.' - i . l m .s- - . 4
,i , .. . ., . ,. ,, ,. ,
]'
ll. II I f taJ ! l l .l. i
;j I!,! i l ,
dl ' I.L. j d .. 1 .; , : . ! !- : L i n, , , __
, i 14 I'-
',- l
! ji o
o 4 , og
..ll' l,. i j
i l i i l
.I i.i
, '. :i.'
i, II h l'l i i l' lI; Y III I!!! l l ill l li! .i d g ,f Np: :. _ _E'i. llll '. ' J 1 . _ l ll c' d.ll> ;;p gl
!./'
.T l i' -l- :, g!
l :i;. :I' O.50 g
'p'b ' ' ' '
[ -
! l ,' '
l
- + - -
-lI !! .\ ' '
. !l! l l llll l lll' !!.'
!!Il+yifTWtl.: ??
0.00
?h.#-c $'tnWG9' t ' ! I!!! -
0lI i i l!'! '
~
~
3 1 O.00 0 02 0.04 0.06 008 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20 0. 2,2 0.24 PERIOD (SECOND) FI G. 5-31 AMPLIFIED RESPONSE SPECTRA OF HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION , PRIMARY CONTAINMENT AT ELEVATION OF STABILIZER TRUSS 3 ADJACENT VALVE SIMULTANEOUS DISCHARGE-R AMSHE AD , SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION-UNIT 1 PLANT DESIGN ASSESSMENT FOR SRV AND LOCA LOADS REVISION 3- NOVEMBER 1978
_ _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . .. _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . . _ _. . . . _ . . _ _ _ . ___.._2.____...____..__. _ , e i J h 3.00 -
- - - + ------- -- r q 3
;I .,;
ll' !fll, l,
,l l f '; , !: I; .
I
( :l l} .l. . I
.4 yi 3. 11L. ILT-;tt .
$ttfUHi'
?_
.{.. _..
- l, ,
} i i i i, :2.m r .rst.ork :anern . ,' ' . [r . '. .
, , I,i i i % 2n : staurh burno !
- i :. ' t -
'fj!
I ll! l l'l! l b lE I}
.44 fI l l I i
dl' .' ' i.l1l.l.!f
!.9
.lpl t
3i lij
!! ' *I- '! i i i l l l I !! Il I ;
lb l : l
. .8i t !II' 1
2.00 ,, ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' o , ! . - i i,. .i . . , ' ... .' {;,' 4,
~ ' ! ;- .
..l, ...
[ii Ii: tl!! l' -l ! ll !!! ! !'i lll! .
}, I ti i ;! ji' 8
r - --- E im rc lr !! Tl[l!l
. t ... .
I l . i l l !;j, ; n!!
- ! m!!!i 'I!! *
! l
'50 1 y o 4 1,; . . , .
O p 4 , , , ii.I l i.',, Ifi i ' 1.00 - r , i il
.fl,
, / '
I k, I!ii .!i I 1I ,l i !
- j. i 1,. l' !
'ni ; 12 ' . 'l'
L
).[ lp )d /d . , I i . I !
vf ll k
'.l ;! II :p; bjg jj j 3i ;::i 1 ll; Ny -g
~'
i q[.'[f li. 4jlll!!4H44; k'l-n jllAlpl 0.00 O .OO 0.02
-l 0.04 0.06 0.08
,,. i 0.10 0 12 il !'
0.14
.,% ~ <:,; '
... AlllLU l !!l!
0.16 018 0.20 0.22 0.24 PERIOD (SECOND) FIG. 5-32 AMPLIFIED RESPONSE SPECTRA OF VERTICAL ACCELERATION TOP OF REACTOR SUPPORT PEDESTAL ALL VALVE SEQUENTIAL DISCHARGE-RAMSHEAD r SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION-UNIT 1 g PL ANT DESIGN ASSESSMENT FOR SRV AND LOC A LOADS ! REVISION 3 -NOVEMBER 1978 !
i i
*v f i
l i I ti l l illl t i l {l! I lt l lli
!! j'i' li' t' 'iii 'i .. i' l !i li-ll' 2
t
'l'l t
li
} Ii ll l l I i .
! ll. l IL ! !
l lI ' t wt - ,' .; t l! tt il ;' j jt 1 13 Ll~- *'I ' lH'l% ; t }
..*:rw
; {
uit ti ni: ii.- li.! :!:i
.: l I:! n::1!u !l: l ! ; I i it u' 2 m uto o Dth(');O 'l li. . 1 -
t . l i !!! 13 Jt2' 35$J-pI 25' 11
'!!l .lfl f 1' 'II
;; ll ?l! :.1
!r v : 'L , p on nu $'
e -
.F g 200 - - - - - - - -
, i 'l- : dl ' ?-i
-g h
'!l' j!:i !!: .
- m!!':i! l .!!l aa!!
i!u
,! l l.l ltl{l;!!! jdi ll , li
~
' ' ! ! l l, jjjj I!j'
! . , { j. ,I' , 'l..
;l jj i
!; .. ll: l jl.
ll l;! ; ! l l 3 ; F fit th +1lt l ;O lI
'l, f H f' N ihl h - - -" -
w 1.50 - :--
lll' 'i j l
' l ll il
- . 3; I
fi
'! ll'.
,j
' l{ l I ll!!
!i: f '! lh g'i! llll ill l !
' 'f ffff [
! I'! '
t T" T
~
W 1.00 - - - --
- i i
'! !!il "!li Ih / -
I !!n H ! , . I i l i;7 'I !! l ! l' tia!fullI !f lf l l u.'u a -
- u "n" i u a .
-1 ./v[' . N !? \.0 n . !!!! !!! ! ,I '
W 0 50 iij 1 - j- - - -- .-%. . jll
-- %.@ l %,
y !i{i N.}.ijo ii 4
-l
,j k . . .. l..
U a! . . - ..l l I snHFeew O.00 i ni iii! !!i 7 L i c ! 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0 10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20 0.22 0.24 , PERIOD (SECOND) FIG. 5-33 AMPLIFIED RESPONSE SPECTRA OF VERTICAL ACCELERATION PRIMARY CONTAINMENT AT ELEVATION OF STABILIZER TRUSS ALL VALVE SEQUENTI AL DISCH ARGE-RAMSHEAD SHOREH AM NUCLE AR POWER STATION-UNIT 1 PLANT DESIGN ASSESSMENT FOR SRV AND LOCA LOADS REVISION 3 NOVEMECR 1978
. _ . . . ~ . . . . . . . ( . _ , . -#...l.
....b i i
\ '
i l 3.00 ,, , ,
.l I._.
.f-.
2 4 _ _ _ _. _ .__. _. _ ._ _ _ _ _ u,u 41 : umw, ... m . 1 l l .l l l i. . ll1 : llJ..I nllt'lllt' I d l g i ! l l 2.50 1
.1[It i : ll&:ll bl illk O H' lcl' l r , , ,
r r . .
. y, g, ,m , o
' .._. _..__. - _.. __.. .__. ' .n; . n;.. .f..;.
u 4_.1
.l.;1 i
_ 2.00 :' l o I +
~
g i.so )
"i w
. I --
fi: 7 t- - ' t
' - - --- ----~- -- - ---- - -- - --- ---- - -- -- --- ----- - --
N l; k i 4 s .oo
, , y- i
;hl f
n ._ .. .-- _.. ..- .._. 9.i 1,] n $,i o.so
~ n '
r th s j s
.. b) -
5 4 i -l . i
..g -t --- -- --- ~--
g q ,,_ I o.co I' I I
' " ' "' T ' 'fL "" '
o.oo o.o2 o.o4 o.os o.os o.io o. 2 o.i4 o.is o.is o.2o
; PERIOD (SECOND) 4 FIG. 5-34 AMPLIFIED RESPONSE SPECTRA OF HORIZONTAL (N-S) ACCELERATION TOP OF REACTOR SUPPORT PEDESTAL i ' ALL VALVE SEQUENTIAL DISCH ARGE-RAMSHE AD SHOREHAM NUCLE AR POWER STATION-UNIT 1 PLANT DESIGN ASSESSMENT FOR SRV AND LOCA LOADS REVIStoN 3 - NOVEMBER 1978
l i I 3 00
;... .: ,,m.
li i,: i,-
,l!
[ . ,,, . 1
- il' }- { ut. 9 l r um.m m t(
1' i' . ,. ; t
..j [ } j. ;J..i .
si ) Is :L-_: grog a matka 2.50 l! ! !I shat. ) ,ss t.'.> irbs a marpt ,. :l, l j, , ,,. _..
.i t - - - --- ~~ -
k!i !'
-'i '
,l j g;.,Qllp 3,l-
! i iii i
l i
! q! ! i . :
4 I g 2.00 ,., , ;, , I;, E il[
'! j !!_'.
I i l g - .- .
+ .
Q f. 3 . It!! ! i m 150 w
.i ! , , ., I ,, , ,
!nal d .._ __- _.. _ m i U
l 1 4 i.= ,
] .
! . I li 3,. .
7 gI ..,l l'il i
!il ji
( _.. O.50
/ 4 If-t ! !!,!! l - -
l . .h lf gl'l l ff lIfl
.' 1 w, ,
u , .. m O.00 "'III l l ! I !I~fi MI iiii r-
-6 Tilt 1
-w r, m .- - -
-e I l bI 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0 10 0.12 0.14 0 16 0.18 0.20 0.22 0.24 1 PERIOD (SECOND) e FIG. 5-35 AMPLIFIED RESPONSE SPECTRA 0F HORIZONTAL (N-S) ACCELERATION g PRIMARY CONTAINMENT AT ELEVATION OF STABILIZER TRUSS i
ALL VALVE SEQUENTIAL DISCHARGE-RAMSHEAD SHOREHAM NUCLE AR POWER STATION-UNIT I PLANT DESIGN ASSESSMENT FOR SRV AND LOCA LOADS REVISION 3 - NOVEMBER 1978
;l
. - _ . - . _ . - - . _ _ _ _. .. ._._ . . .. . . __ -..___._. ._ _ _,. ....__.Lt. I._.. _ _ . . . . _ . . _
\
l l' 300 .
,l !,,. .-_..
, J .,. ... m, ,....<.,
t ... .m I! I ;}( l' IE~I' EIII. l]U' l.II l f f
$nr, n:r; _' anst am Ile '
3,3 g 1 . 1 1 ; 4 i .[ p
==
yy'{ f 1 j jjj Up g;j
.;} q 4.g gl
..7
' .m; I
.-- 2.00 i
' d :'!:i
'~
%p' llu
'u' Il llu o , . ,, ,
z g . ._ .._ ..... .._.. . ._.. .._.__. .._.. ._ { .[gI ,.. .__.. ll j j .'!.. .!l. .! t
- I. . ', p' l
g i.so w .l d _ .____. _ _ ..__ ___.._ ____ l-d I [ ! , a ! , O ' ti
- 4 l '
i .oo '. l
' ' ; j'
)'
g 11!l l Ill i i ; l. l ..--- -_. .. 3
.y y, 7ll i .
j' 'I h ' ' t
- o.so ?
.Q . I i ; ! '!;l !: lll iH I -
_..j._. f - N. htg . g s__ l_ 7.L i;;; ,;3
.7..
j
.] .::i 1,, ,}
,5
!g o.oo t- .l '- -
it o'frr"~"- - l ' o.oo o.02 0.04 o.os o.os o.io o.i2 o.i4 o.is o.i s o.2o o.22 o.e4 j PERIOD (SECOND) FIG. 5-36 AMPLIFIED RESPONSE SPECTRA 0F HORIZONTAL (E-W) ACCELERATION TOP 0F REACTOR SUPPORT PEDESTAL ALL VALVE SEQUENTIAL DISCH ARGE-RAMSHEAD SHOREHAM NUCLE AR POWER STATION-UNIT I PLANT DESIGN ASSESSMENT FOR SRV AND LOC A LOADS REVISloN 3- NOVEMBER 1978
. _ _ . . . . . . . _ . .: . 2. . _ _ .
f i 3 00 -
! II , . ! ! . ! !!If
,..j r
.I I '
' f '
ll! ! }. l l' g.lj
!q ; .. .... . . _ . .
r m st-r ' ar;3 t..:3HE.lJE
- p. .
' l l. l l !' : ;
i 3.;)l i' M:rfl03lt 11 m Ilsl r a:r4p% p m.I +>f i
~
- 'i , f {l6! -
3.'g l ij Y
?! l l l
!! lll [
g 2.00
$ h]!!
l1 i ' j I!! !lII !lI' i!? ,
~
II, L
~
~ ~ ~
- , , I ,, .'
l l . :, ,l .l { ' l; j; L . .. _. ._... . ..-. .___. ._ .._ .._. .._.. .._..- _..-. ..-....__ . F !I y 1.50 ,, 1 ,i ; i I I I I t? ll: 1
,, , ,; , , 1
! l l, I I '
d : . n . . .._. . - . 2 __j!.. .flf .. L ._ .. .._. .__. ___.. ._ O l !if !f! I i.* Jl .. i u .
' l R ;': io
.q g.
'~
hp L* ' ~~~ ~ ~ ~ T. i i b i i 2 a . i .. ..
,i a[: .i'Acl
'l llll. d d,} lj :i pllalg%u a 9 i j i I W !! L hf m, x!!AM.WMU
....:t t ym .J i N
,,, 1 :.
O.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.t6 0.18 0.20 0.22 0.24 PERIOD (SECOND) FIG. 5-37 AMPLIFIED RESPONSE SPECTRA OF HORIZONTAL (E-W) ACCELERATION PRIMARY CONTAINMENT AT ELEVATION OF STABILIZER TRUSS ALL VALVE SEQUENTI AL DISCHARGE-RAMSHEAD SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION-UNIT 1 PLANT DESIGN ASSESSMENT FOR SRV AND LOCA LOADS REVISION 3- NOVEMBER 1978 i
..... . a w
(.) .
't 3'
li l.,!! . l l'; *
.r j ;! l! ! ! i+i ' i- i;'
I 'i ili i
.,t i
ii - l' a i H j u,i ;;Jii . m 1
=- r 4
inne wa ll!- y!
.4 .
1 , . l_
!. 1.
!! l i ;i n r 4:rwe rpp awm I.. -
i I i : i > is. bn as :iwi rp, mer ika 1l:: : i .I l ii l l l 'il i i !! l' ' fiff'l ff ~TTf"l - ii 'l H.j
; .ig!!il i y! Fr !li tih A9 ijtj
;N - Y- '
- 7 tij.
tm i'{ : ll'- {l 1 l l I! !,1l j!;l !!l-
;' Ill i -ll l l: lli , l! t , ll jj.,
, ' ' ll jl-ll(I:
g 2.00 7 l ,
@ l I IjMk
~-~
l " j ti s.50 n 1' ' ' T ' ' ' ! I ! T ' '
--S::il! !
w a: , I ,1l l .. i,j i i li!!
;g ii i
.n I
, g , ,
-- _ _ _ [._' __ .
_q_.7. _ _ _ _
. ,i...2 I
8 4 '00 l*!l : k l p l, . :i
- 3}
,i;
- 4 .
l 1
) <
+
.r -.e-,,
r li., si i:-
.-l l
. .l' ...!i ; i,l i
l i it i i:
.}l .
.g _..
- g. % , 4 ..
p ... .J 3. . __.. _.. 5.l. _
' [! I f ,' l 1 .I. I, .! ! !
?Q.rldgj.L/)/ \p* r'!yjg j ! . 1' *:- *! !;t--
h
; *I
@ -~ ~~
i l - iW I C" ' i
'I jp
'*'l i O.O O
!!!::,!j,I ! -
I I
! llll Ilii !!ll l l- .
' t. !::! :! i i,,, ,,,,--
j I j'!! l : 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.22 0.20 0.24 PERIOD (SECOND) 4 5 I FIG. 5-38 AMPLIFIED RESPONSE SPECTRA OF VERTIC AL ACCELERATION TOP OF REACTOR SUPPORT PEDESTAL 3 ADJACENT VALVE OUT OF PHASE DISCHARGE-RAMSHEAD SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION-UNIT 1 PL ANT DESIGN ASSESSMENT FOR SRV AND LOCA LOADS REVISION 3 - NOVEMBER 1978 I t
, _ _ . . _ _ _ . _ __..m___ _ . . . _ . __._...m.1.-. -
c . ,f
\ /
3 00 - 3 .. . ., , . i i ,.
. m t- r nr a r a _
l ;!:
,;;. ;;;. ,; r 2 .
4 2 p5:p JIpt 4W$31 ll .i : : ! '; :- pp*mrps omets#t ! . '
, 2 . st), '
^
3 l ll }ll ' I; l !! (T l f
,h _ ..__.. -.. .._.
-y !!: .q. , _ _ .. _ _ _ _ .. _. _ . _ .
.ji; .
,.. 3,,1 ,
. . .i. ' . ,,
- 240 ll ) _, I jf l! !!' .
4l;l' ,' ! !! !i ,.! l lfj!
'!!l 9
._. . . .. 1 illidN ? l' 1: :l:. [ !!:
I:,. lii1.l F
/}:. i;li f l' 'I'; :!' l i l': , l. !!!:t'!l ll '.
.ii
- ll i.' .',
4 a: 300 . .. 4 .
~
j , i. . j . {I h8 1 i ll i i ' l.,: .i ' :ij; l;' ;i lM . l1L 111;!!i'
-j ._ _ 1 ..
.. R- ,4 .11- . '14 l i 7 ,
j;ti 8 l0' ' l lI!t ~ llll' f 't : 'i! ' I! ! !' li! 4 ' ' ' 1.00 l j ' llij l:!: i!!. li ,. i'l l
-.l
l l
!ll t' .
, f k .
- l. .) M i 't l ., .. . . :'i ! !l I l; ;
~g Iq )7.
.,l. '
4' . -.t i 7 L' l'. j ! #* EEEtQ-l 'l u! ; ' .: . 1 11 jpl lI i i.< d- # W-9't ,' 1 ll
,,a 4. 9 *
(('! l;i!
.; jl l I r
' {} ji!' ' :' :,.
l ; ' ; ;' < 0.00 '!' ' ' O.O O 002 0.04 0.06 008 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20 0.22 0.24 PERIOD (SECOND) i FIG. 5-39 l' AMPLIFIED RESPONSE SPECTRA OF VERTICAL ACCELERATION PRIMARY CONTAINMENT AT ELEVATION OF STABILIZER TRUSS 3 ADJACENT VALVE OUT OF PHASE DISCHARGE-RAMSHEAD SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION-UNIT 1 PLANT DESIGN ASSESSMENT FOR SRV AND LOC A LOADS Q REVISION 3 - NOVEMBER 1978
. . - . ~-.a.----- . . , - , . - - . . - - - - . . . . . . . . . - , . -. -- a A - - - - - -
g 4 ; V I 300 1I ... i.t jii .i
. I ,,
l .. ! j i,. t , 0 l
. . 1- .i :i. ..,'
. t > ,. i, ,
i- ,, .i
;e ',' '
l l 1'
'. .! i .i 'i A3lElt- n angtJIII'0sL_;*'
l!I
!:I i
I l [ 51'f
' '; I
' ll'l[!
j' .'i. ' l ; i' i
.l
, ;3.;nt .
n: nJ..In5lt 11H'M3 is- ars- n: nJ..inut lan-I.us
'fi 2.50 - - - .
,,, , , ,. , , ,, ., , , ,, ,, n. i; _;, ,,, i - r--
iii ; I .;; ; f l, ! ':1 i;i ;!- ,TT,,L l 1
- l. 1 .
. . t .;, . _ .
'ill i:-
i i i 'li i i i
+
i t i
;ji i
' t l
g 2.00 - -
- --- t , ; ;, .
7-.-- - -- -- -- -
--q - - -
r- - - - - - - - - -- -4 ig;; :'
.I i i i 1 g: ,
- i '
If,' ', ,I.! I : j '. [ ' II ' . ' - i+l j, :, '
'f e ,
! i;j. f t. ll
[
,'I,
'lI i;:.
-h- ! --! .
$ 150 ,. ; ,
p--. '
',' - + - - - -
j W j 'j-l ;l ' ;'
! ! l l' !l:: :
l: .I' .
;!;i .i ,
- --- l - - ;; ; :. : ,,i !*.'
! : '. l! !
W J it ,l! t , t ;1 ,. it n ,-- il li i i' . , i , r,' ;i '-
; , [.- ji :
'. t t; o
o i. l , ,j ,,ll .r t ,,. 1 r 1: j'i.- . i 2: - j;- .!..
-(/ k +, Al l .. : , :, i : -
4 i.oo k.--- '
- t --
H ' J-Liii
- 1. ... 1, : i : ,,
i ji. i i.
, ,i i. t . ;
l , llf ff ''
'l ,, . .' '!ff l lj! !
' :i. 1:! '
I i!. l 050 --- d- , N: ' 'e. -6 - - - ~ ~
-4 b-- '
l -- -
+ - - - - ----l---- -.' '
i i Ii
-- 0[' f .
4 ! l l .N .i
!,l _
( ,,, g gp ' i '
.I,1l - .--- ---- -
., i , , .
000 - ,
' I o.oo 0.02 004 0.06 0.08 0.10 0 12 0.14 0.16 0.is 0 20 0.22 0.24 PERIOD (SECOND)
FIG. 5-40 i i AMPLIFIED RESPONSE SPECTR A OF HORIZONTAL (N-S) ACCELERATION - l TOP OF REACTOR SUPPORT PEDESTAL '
} 3 ADJACENT VALVE OUT OF PHASE DISCHARGE-RAMSHEAD l
SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION-UNIT 1 PLANT DESIGN ASSESSMENT FOR SRV AND LOCA LOADS I e REVISION 3- NOVEMBER 1978 r
~
. . . . . . . - . . . _ . ~ . .. ... . ....-.. .... .-
. . . . - - ..-... - - a . : - ... .-~ - - -
r3
? '1 i
t I I
-{ 3 00 ~~ 7- -
r-- -- -- - --- -----
*r-~'" -'~-
;mr . .,; 'h' i ,.
.l l
.j-
! i
' l l
.._.._..___. pa ll ...l ut r -
Ili j. , - } :, il,>l1 '!i aragt.i- gw -
} _.
j' ; 3p @:tuaraaner Ikr ! i 3 bep!3 . as:skp roa omrikt. 2.50 - f[f IffNIU IfUN l I II i
; ; ., ,i, i- -
i i' 'i 'y! ij '!i ! '!li !l; ' j g 2.00 -
-- ' - - d--- ---- y, -
-! if! 4!!
;- r -- - ---
l i' ' [{. {j,-I
' } .;;
'l .,
- l ! i l'i o I!. '
, ,. i[1i ll k' EY
'T I' i~ f' ih!f i-
'{
!! :; l'l il' !! ':!'
!: I g i.50 _ . . j _. _ . .. . _ . _: _ _ . . .g _ _ . _ _
_.-i i- I l i
; ,'l ,
, I w p 1ll
- 1. .
t
.. i
;l l!li a
d i ,. g
, .i p' -
'I
.; ;i j l' l' l l. !
i l
, illi ,,
1
; '.i o
i i.' y j' . T ,i ll' T i, ' I' jN TT I;o ,P 4 i.OO i
., !,i - j , l ;j j !j -
- l : ;.
j j; ll,
- ,I
'i'
.'.1 ;!f!!:
ii! il!! i f l l ll llll ; l. y ;i.. 'l'
. t , -
A ... 9
._.} ..2Q4
'I '!, !fl I
{! !!' iI ! l, ,k' O.50 ;
//..\
( ' l' ' i i
,l, l,
g,,%
- l. ,
u% / .' . ,I ['!
*i,m.,,,]%j , f,,
i@p; u .. l . e.d d l i pj; pn. : .) i , -_ . .. g . . w L ,. A .
.n! ,:
0.00 . p :I' ! :: o.
'i'
} ' ,.
I!ll !!!' H. l! ;lj ' O.O O O.02 004 0 06 0 08 O 10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20 0.22 0.24 , PERIOD (SECOND) 3 FIG. 5-41 i AMPLIFIED RESPONSE SPECTRA OF HORIZONTAL (N-S) ACCELERATION PRIMARY CONTAINMENT AT ELEVATION OF STABILIZER TRUSS l
- 3 ADJACENT VALVE OUT OF PHASE DISCHARGE-RAMSHEAD
' SHOREHAM NUCLE AR POWER STATION-UNIT 1 PLANT DESIGN ASSESSMENT FOR SRV AND LOCA LOADS REVISION 3- NOVEMBER 1978 i i 1
........._:........_--- _ -c _ . _
(. .. i oso . Il l l! tL...j ! II hq 1 J l _L_..] l l I I il
!j
- p. .._ _ . . ._.. .. . m...m:r.arnaantumL1 5 -
d _1. I g,g t ( l l l i
} l'
= .) ..
- yns n z m :r-arn attaw.:
is:ruryi. ant-rn: 1 l.i illl ll l l ll' llili !l jdj ,j I . : 7 ~1 ]e 4 I
' '. j { 3:
J . o j ij ql
-4
.4 Q. [
g 04o iq. !!
Il -
.!ii l- ii
- !!I 'ih Iil ;
- i l ! I
} ! I 1: l l g ;' ..[ -._ .
.j _.. _.. _ .__ .._-.
i- .I ! 4 ' t ' o.30 't
- b
$ i i
l l !) l
;j J ,
0 UL
- l j. ...Id l
O o.20 .
.['
ll l ! l l !.. ly L. .l' ,+l ' L 1.ll
'l }.. .-
\ . .. - . -. .-.. .- -.. ._. -_ .
o.i o - l-. I ' ' J ' f% . .. _.. ._ . .
.)
0 00 I l tri TW 17'T(W T ^ ., ooo o oz o.o4 o os o.oa o.io o.i2 o.i4 o.is o.ie o.2o o.22 o.24 PERIOD (SECON D) I } FIG. 5-42 l AMPLIFIED RESPONSE SPECTRA OF HORIZONTAL (E-W) ACCELERATION l TOP OF REACTOR SUPPORT PEDESTAL 3 ADJACENT VALVE OUT OF PHASE DISCHARGE-MAMSHE AD SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION-UNIT 1 PLANT DESIGN ASSESSMENT FOR SRV AND LOCA LOADS REVISION 3 - NOVEMBER 1978 1
__. .____m . _ . ---
,s _ . _ _
f 1 j ; J o.6o ,- ,,;, , - ,;, ;3 ; ,, ,,
, i l
i
- . .... g -r" 3rmy
,il, jj;' .I .l I..t'
,{l hj.
,:it,,! ' lil.,4 2bi;)
'il![ }t,l!i
. t!i: ! -
.! i -
as :ttla realpel'!k2' 6.! I i! !!: l' l :
~
;! r
.1
!' l .i ; . ' !!}. l ':T DLDtpl ,
'88:ll.laFatl Del'IN0f: !!! ,.: l :i !
!!l ffli }g IIIfft
- l. x'I!
fI Lt. l i if!!d'u!...u m. lli lllt m m.
.i lq'lfbi {!!' : ii jg,
;:Li Ili j I]u . nl 'n; r.
m; .. . ... .
, An.. u pp _ . _au.a
.;i !
! t ;.4 . ;i: j p; . up i!p l. i
'ip .'i h',
g o 40 r;l. l il ,i, 't' i- :!;, . !, ; '- ...l. . i ~l i ;,. i.;l l'.!' .le! .. j , ,, ,,, ,
!l; , ,
~
l I
?!l !f! ;I ,
i i
.!j lk
. 6 .i l 1: !
t f J! j ! f i
!! Lll tHlill;ii H'i nll HH hii t, H'it Wj f 1l; F. 7 1}H rj
!ii. hb*rll y
d r o.30 j (('! .!! , I
,',f ,,,, i, 'Ii. '.. Ili i ;i !! l l f- l , .: ;; I llll cr y .. . ..
l .. i {,
;i.. ,. .
JIx. i
.ff8 .li 3, A y !'!
t
.f-e i .
el 1l .hg y!! .!a $ L Hl; 4 + .- . 4{,g . f - 2 - t= r . ! 1. o 0 4 o.20 l g. is
'I i {t t,,
i lf. i l
;i: ;
i !! l {Il f 1 ,, ', ; l {, i t i; ; l jll g l i, i i
}
I
}
l, lj l7l-
} ;, ,
; q
!! I -l j ' b .l!' ;i'f ,; ,], l ,
!! l, !!! l
?
t g, l.* L S
'.E
.'~~
'}.
f Ii i
*.'f
~ -
I
~~ ~
id %,l' !! f j
' f ". +
', , 6 ..
o.lo A g
/' ' '
'm M ', '..'
i
- i. u ll t
- v. .
g
+
o.: l .- yp i y .= m i
" h- 1 ...;
R N 4 -
.{1--7.. Ly :.y 0 0,
- , pn! .o m
.i , .. .. s. ... p. .r #jt o ,., y _,. .
i . i l 1, t. op: jp h. a.i .n. : o oo o.02 o 04 oos o.o a o. o o.i2 o.14 o.is oie o.2o o.22 o.24
. PERIOD (SECOND) l FIG. 5-43 I
AMPLIFIED RESPONSE SPECTRA OF HORIZONTAL (E-W) ACCELERATION
! PRIMARY CONTAINMENT AT ELEVATION OF STABILIZER TRUSS i 3 ADJACENT VALVE OUT OF PHASE DISCHARGE-RAMSHEAD I
- SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION-UNIT 1 l g
PLANT DESIGN ASSESSMENT FOR SRV AND LOCA LOADS
; i REVISION 3-NOVEMBER 1978 l i'
t 4 I
. .. .- w -
m .
\_
3.00 m .g, i, ,,., i ,;,, .,, ,, , , gp -
-q',
t:
, ,, ,,i
,i; ' ' i s:
i l,:l 'l1 ,
+ t, i
... ;i;, 4 0 PjRCEO OSCk't,ATM DAWM41 i I' i
- -- - b 2.50 - -
,1l- ill -l.l -lll - -
ill l
!f l
;)' }I ,
l l l ' I' I - -
--- - ~~ ~ -" ~
- lI l !!l l 1[d}ttdr Mk.d wrraa
] g 2.00 -lj- r! t - ,j r -- -
~T -
/-
dKMl"T'El TN j liit u tv4 &ctik fr$4 4 a 4:i ::i: .d // -- j z 9 j q! i
- ~.
h~ --- t immt 44alk- aaan - .--- - - -- - ------ l l ! i Ifl4 ' [:T ~]/ F i i ;i, '/ { 7- ' y p:rj : I.. 1.50 -- w y i i+
/
/ lij, p
.8 L ( _l1l_ # f
+1 '
/ .
d l l II -
.-/_ /
N 1.00 +rI
'I / /
li :.
,l j f' /
tl, t ',' l p i z n -
- i. , i , , .
i . U' [ ~ l [hdI, NA-Fit:3sDr- __,_ I: ., l .
~
.. g I' J i' --
^
M 4.t.Q (( { LQ,!;l#
.kQh:l M
~
m eL ~ ~ J@"%Q u"m , , 3 4,.;-y. -
" t *Il'f i
~~~
..Mtf
~
0.00 ijjj. j i !l t . 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20 0.22, 0.24 PERIOD (SECOND) NOTE: THE PRESSURE MULT' PLIER USED HERE IS EQUAL TO 1.0 FIG. 5-44 AMPLIFIED RESPONSE SPECTRA OF VERTICAL ACCELERATION TOP OF REACTOR SUPPORT PEDESTAL T-QUENCHER ALL VALVE DISCHARGE-PRESSURE TRACE NO.1 SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION-UNIT 1 PLANT DESIGN ASSESSMENT FOR SRV AND LOCA LOADS REVISION 3-NOVEMBER 1978
Lj i t 3.00 - 7,
,,gT
., TT" i , ,
l fl l! ! lll n wrwr,oscup l!l! ll4 ! { r.e qll ql I i t
!i' j Ij-
.i I 'i ':1 ti' I! 1 2.50 i ! I ,
I :l .! .-
} .
l- l
'[ +I lf;.
h_ . .cw' e;bm .tu 4<-_., g oo n o-
!';I {' lI o ..d/: ]Il l 'MEl P%El Iil iwe : scat,e rphTp%l fr .- p l re bti f z L / -. .s in s racT = .--
n o cAqq f /[ l ll
) /l t
& ~
\ ;
4 1: ; 1.50 e or
/
kj j lp / l tl -
- - ~~ ^-
/ g/p .;. ll; [l sa . . . 7
[ ]
/ ., -
u 4 1.00
.._.. /:' /
- {.:. ! j ~h ,'
{ f!!!j{ : t L #'"4. m
,pJ En. 1-- rs ti~ . ; 'u !
'.x
. i
<, .I t-f d d.. .m. 3A /
.. i ,
, [
~
; ::/ $ l e Il 2 -'
L S,11~. y -mgryggarp pq::L:pqm wQp'4g7}gJ fed djg [ gg.- H J pp] g . F fM y]={7mg 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.0a 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20 0.22 0.24 PERIOD (SECOND) NOTE: THE PRESSURL MULTIPLIE.R USED FIG. 5-45
"'"8'"'
AMPLIFIED RESPONSE SPECTRA OF VERTICAL ACCELERATION TOP OF REACTOR SUPPORT PEDESTAL T-QUENCHER ALL VALVE DISCHARGE-PRESSURE TRACE NO.2 SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION-UNIT 1 PLANT DESIGN ASSESSMENT FOR SRV AND LOCA LOADS f REVISION 3-NOVEMBER 1978
- - . . - - . - - . . . - - . . . . ~ . . . .
, . ~
f ( i l 3.00 . i :. j ; i , g i l- g 1 , I
' l l l l I
! I , I I
'l4 151CDf DB ICCArut DEkt(Nd ~ ~-' ~~ ~~ "-"~~~~~~~ ~~'~'~ ~-~
'"" ~ ~~~~" ~ ~
2.50 -- r ---- ---- l l l t g ._ . T :~Wrs e f r 4 .] s *~ 7 .L/f f,y$ j$ j z i
-.../ - .: .g. , y, g m cg rgy _ . _. ... _. . ___..- ..-... . __.
l N y 1.50 - g , 7g . i w j ._...f
. : A h ._
.)
L:.4 . . . . . ._. .__.
/ /
j u 1.00 ----
}h. .
lu [
"-~~
' ~"
. i ..,
\ ..
.::'L_.. .
, n, .. _
[. .
~~
'{ .... N ,Q_
j j l '
/
., I
_4 Q ,,,-' -~ K-y %
,m,_,
0.50 , __ _ p .. - 7 g--t .
- q. f: ,,
g- '. . A. .,, , .,, ( g -- ( _ _ '~~ " e dh L L'
,,h._\ w ..-c.:..
i
?:.
--' no,". -
m .% a gle .- ---~ I .-:- U l 0.00 ll lf II l .I .i l
"~~~ ~~~ ~'
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.0s 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.le 0.20 0.22 0.24 PERIOD (SCCOND) NOTE! THE PRESSURE MULTIPLIER USED FIG. 5-46 HERE IS EQUAL TO 1.0 AMPLIFIED RESPONSE SPECTRA OF VERTICAL ACCELERATION TOP OF REACTOR SUPPORT PEDESTAL T-QUENCHER ALL VALVE DISCHARGE- PRESSURE TRACE NO.3 SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION-UNIT 1 PLANT DESIGN ASSESSMENT FOR SRV AND LOCA LOADS } REVISloN 3-NOVEMBER 1978 >
's . .-
l 100 24 4 . l
~~'
230 ----- h13 2.BBCELLRrs E'E h ~r! [h[ [ Jggf[
r
g[- d3
"'*f LLar -)qgP.[ s3':
- r r r - r -----
313 55:ILLII .3NtFI 13:: g 2.00 , ,g,,,, .,,,, a,, ,,,, ,,, .
, ,, w P '
4 .!L lif: $ ,' y 1.50 .
'j g ._.._ ._. ._.. ..--. .-.. .. .
g_. _ _-. ..-.. ..--. .._.. .._. :l t ._ _ __-.. ggo f s
.- s - -
- w *p' my y:;gjp-;j.gggggggg j - -
tg 4 y- p' . g : F
-~ ~~- 4- r
; ;; 4 :
- l } .: :j -^-kQT,ggg
%0%). *=%
LM L (--Ri b;.: r;B
!it? ti
+ l
.l! lll i!
l l$ .lll ,
- 0.00 1
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20 0.22 0.24 PERIOD (SECOND) i NOTE: THE PRESSURE MULTIPLIER USED FIG. 5-47 HERE IS EQUAL TO 1.0 p p TOP OF REACTOR SUPPORT PEDESTAL T-QUENCHER ALL VALVE DISCHARGE SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION-UNIT 1 PLANT DES 1GN' ASSESSMENT FOR SRV AND LOCA LOADS REVISION 3-NOVEMBER 1978
,~
300 -: _
. .._, __ t.
'- ~
~
.7 7
J L 1
.._ -1. . .
7: i: t:-
- y.
a a:. 1 73, 4 . 4,.. , ,, 4 , jj , ...,; - 3 pp:grJartut pwig g_y_ }_ _u uu. : nm 7 _ar pygg : _,
+
- -:.__. g j [
- ) JJrDP.Dwr#
g 2.00 m -
- . . --= p+ .. .: dras:owsk .. L .
l.
. . .J4g o.u, ,,,, p , y, ,
4 . I 4 . g . L.. :_. _: ._ .
- u. .:r--- x- n. _
a 1 ! g tt xr- xx n. _c n E:4-_:.t 1; .p;
,, . 1 _
- p:y. . .
i cr -+ i t.
-t :::. :_..
n:_.. q W .. .._.. ._ t 1
.g 4
w ---- ---
+
o - o 7 --..nj -- -
- .:_ .;r --
- __ ._r ---
7 [ ,-, 4 1.00 7l'
~
n: :: :_z-' :
~:- ._ .._..
.4 ']_
1.
] ]
"' '~
O.50
~ ~
n~7 f h [ ... bus
... k g
._ z. E Ima,"b h Nh **
M i . m. 4 0.00
,1l 1 .
ffl Nfdr' .
- _f .___ :
1g!1Hir: E= t :-i t 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20 0.22 0.24 PERIOD (SECOND) l NOTE: THE PRESSURE MULTIPLIER USED FIG. 5-48 AMPLIFIED RESPONSE SPECTRA OF VERTICAL ACCELERATION PRIMARY CONTAINMENT AT ELEVATION OF STABILIZER TRUSS
- T- QUENCHER ALL VALVE DISCHARGE i SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION-UNIT 1 PLANT DESIGN ASSESSMENT FOR SRV AND LOCA LOADS REVISION 3-NOVEMBER 19(8
. . . _ _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . __ . . _ . _ _ . . _ . . _ _ . ... _ . _ _ = ___ _ _ _
l' l N.) N o.40 ----- - - - g,
.k. .._.
- _ T :
- J
'.f 7" .::,
~ ~~ ~ '---'
.::T' f ':$ . ' h t_t * <
- .::_~
0.50 .._. _ _.. __ ___.. _. __ ,, ; ;, .;. y g.g. gg
, ,, ,, m.g m,. ,
h:; g.t;'
; - _ .1-- 4 17- .__-.
$gstag: .;sk;0Junnar gs !!
{J i! !;1: Assa, . 2:.0JJantaug t - - os s ... g OAO _ _ ..__. j ,n1 ... gmi y, (!!;
=;-.
U.
- n :1t,i, z .l
~
~
~
'j . , ,
i" ,
+-
g .' I _
. -. .____. ..__. t 44
;t
{ g [ . _ __ t t .. t-4 . . g g 3
.q '. 7...
ll
- '- '-' ~ ~
I taJ l .
*{
d
~-~ ~ '-' ~ -
3
~'-
3 8 --.}!l
~~ --
][t
<t 0.20
__.. _._. f .. ,
., [
[
~' '
~ - -
- r- ::: 2:~ : {
p l. e. g
' '~ ~
l 3 , fM.11 - { ". ..
', I. '.
dihC : I. Q' '-
']!~
t"
- j T{g;
}.!'
g g t .. n. ,,, 'I i ! . O.oo 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.o o o.io 0.12 0.14 0.is o.is o.2o 0.22 0.24 PERIOD (SECOND) , NOTE : THE PRESSURE MULTIPLIER USED i HERE IS EQUAL TO 1.0. AMPLIFIED RESPONSE SPECTRA OF HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION TOP OF REACTOR SUPPORT PEDESTAL , T- QUENCHER ALL VALVE DISCHARGE i I SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION-UNIT 1 ' PLANT DESIGN ASSESSMENT FOR SRV AND LOCA LOADS REVISloN 3-NOVEMBER 1978 t i i
\ t I
3.00 ;,. ,, ,, ,, ,,. , , , , .. ; _,, ,. .g ,,. ,,,, ,,.. ,,g
.i.
)l,, 'i! ,,,[ ff iti! !!!~
.-.. ..'i
- .L
.;l' .
.L f,i th t
Ti l} .rf .,i{-
-2 .- .
'il!
;!U
*' . . ' - -!O 2.5o l
i,, 'f L il .... t '
;!!. , !! ; Lt ,. ;. .I fi;! fit '
_ '! f ~f t1. f" :ta: !!!. f }3,Ij!,i'
,f}
]l j f:
.dj]
[ . t {.j I ' 4'*bbs - (!E :: Jh f4MT , ,y,
? i ,!!L
.. . - -. -. . .m pl _
_'! g
. k Ett aE::J.prgulog 4 '
1.. _
't: II' ...jjj g ity in 'Iy $;i j.
_.f< f
- !i ... ,l' I' y{
Il pt ::15: ,J-p
$)D3::as: FJJi r$:#mrtn D.
r08 b
- 't'
- };
g 2.00 , t, ;. ;, ,. ,,
;j c. .,, , , ,, , g ,, g g , ,;,,
' j-j, , :t:,,f j ;. .l 1!: ;
{, t j; '
':l 1 "! ,, : { ' _4 } { .i ;
ii.. :.:!
. ..; L. '
-. 1.
. . . J. .--.
,' l'. . ' - ..--.
F 4 1.50 l ,
,f', ?! .'! if. hJ tj- '
! l ,1)
!. 1-
, ,.! 1:'
t ::It
'h . -
!L .
l' flu un .u !!l
.l i *: l:.
6 l .': 1 m oj
'I : M l l'!!
I'
. Iil lll:
l a i .- i . --., n r ----. ..-...
.f :I.f r- - .-.. ..-.-
i 1:. .-f,flt .e tu n, m O 4 100
. .'s.
t ijst
- +--
,+
1
- 1 fli
..l
.' :;!i i t!! !!
i!. -
.t. ., ,..
l j! i t .:, >+ .
..it .,.4 4 l.. ;{
j ;t: . t ii. i !!;l I j ll g ' }.
_ .-.-..-_i ; j !'..
.f. .___...v-.
l
]! g..
i lt.
g ...
- !l. ;
If1 ll. 4li! 0.50
- 1 '
i 4 l
!I -}.i l;' ,
i l I
. If. .'
I ff !f' f!!! ff! !? .!
- 7 4 . . . .
O.00 J ifI i. di .i.:
, ; !.. 'f .: l ?! l;t !!!! 4 , .! ! ll l !;:'
3 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0 18 0.20 0.22 0.24 PERIOD (SECOND) i NOTE: THE PRESSURE MULTIPLIER USED FIG. 5-50 HERE IS EQUAL TO l.0 AMPLIFIED RESPONSE SPECTRA OF HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION PRIMARY CONTAINMENT AT ELEVATION OF STABILIZER TRUSS T- QUENCHER ALL VALVE DISCHARGE SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION-UNIT 1 PL ANT DESIGN ASSESSMENT FOR SRV AND LOCA LOADS REVISION 3-NOVEMBER 1978
. - . . = - . - - . . . . - - .
. . . . . w : . a . . . u - -- -
m / t 1 n .- I i I!ij 'if !;!! } e; [I'[ thi:f[ 6
.gi -
i'+
.;1!
j.; .
- 1:
'!!tt ':t' ;h; l}} .;:
9.i et 9;
' '*
- llI! I,I{.!
U:n_ v I[ l-- b:I bb Nl -
- 3 I k-n I 1:aj
.M .l. j ' :-
hb.- tut ::
- ~
i \ rf 2.50 ,; h.; *:: :
. ..h 12:
,I l
.J. ..;; }n}
.} 'p' .l ++:++ :. .y lut.., ... ;i..l .
J}. }..g.,- .: } . { '..
.22c: th :I=arrt::)mt.s }
{ : j p., 4 4 m, ,rn -mn s +
+;
'l j.i..
'< l ,] t'l 1:i;
- 1. '!,
'!!!:t
- il 1.:. .
- t
,!Jl
_fj 1! rt l.pn2E{$$ 3g:kuar rt: wt
- brit"amt al:
il:: 1 {.- 41 , r, I
~
,~2
.:t E :!: i - , ;) l:. j: j' '!
~# F' '"
!::, .;; .. 1 lll' ! EtE N#""' ' ' '
(1 i: ' t ': I ' L hT
- ~ '
;- ~T ,.f' ~ '~~ ~~
t 'I ', ':! I ll' l.
,;i: ti: l ! I ; !! i l
; l'l l ,
i' T,' 4 t50
'. ' 'I ; ', ' 'i '~'
"i
~; 1; **
ij. ..' E '; '.' p li '
'+
- 'i
.3';;;:: '! 'j l, ! { l'i tjl l ! 1 : !
,;:~ !!j;: l jl l' l;. ;
'l w
! ! . ;4 D ; , , {: :I1 4 14 .
l :*: t q.; 1ilj .'; it 7 o 1 i ., 7. , n ' +t m, . i>;;
. . .t, .
., .; i i, ,
o
< LOO ll. :il ! : u' uit ; f, t l ;.! " !;o i
l.
- l. . ,t li .!) I! : 1 't j!: l:lj :'"
ll i : il i 1::t l'! - !! '
!! :1 i
.1 IIl j jll b ijI
;I '
.i !_._./ . _l d I li '
I Id . 3 II' ' I
} l l 46:' !
lfllt N
!i l ',f.
L l Mil ' l li!1 l' . 4 0.50 -? i. l . hN k t: ff glii+j r lf lff} f f+WMk
! L :f Ik g, f
4&2mq ff,f ll hkl y ?= Mg ll!f !- m O.OO O.00 ii!! it: #, a; Ti n N! 0.02 i! !ili .Hilull II!:
.i Nl iii! lN h!! iiil wl ih % 4i W :m T,','!
0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20 0.22 0.24 ; PERIOD (SECOND) i NOTE: THE PRESSURE MULTIPLIER USED FIG. 5-51 AMPLIFIED RESPONSE SPECTRA OF VERTICAL ACCELERATION TOP OF REACTOR SUPPORT PEDESTAL T-QUENCHER 3 ADJACENT VALVE DISCHARGE SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION-UNIT 1 PL ANT DESIGN ASSESSMENT FOR SRV AND LOCA LOADS REVISION 3-MOVEMBER 19(8
-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . _ __ . .... _. . i _ .. n _ , _ _ . . . _ _ _ . [ -
- 2. _ _
l th I E ' t 3.00 -.
.j--
I T l ., .*; r j 4 4 j[ . ,{ }* -
- f. .j -
1 4 {i l { {1..ll l N ;; l N2 I' 'I~ {I
'I 1 ,
*UI r ,t I l-- i~
f' p1
;.. 4. ~~-m+
~~~---~ ~ '- ~~~~
[
;- .;jit n a p .
.] g'
'T
]:-
2.50 .' 3 *.
* ' ' , .' 'c' 7' ' .
"I 'x' ' 7 % 7' '--
i .
+ g .2 g.. 4 2 t.... '.4 -
t [; g::.. ti , , . j l t J ui
.;F nr n _hrig:n e rn :N
;1,! .
;h_q_ i .. . :t
..pl
..1 7.'
7_ g j ' ~' f!' a._. . _ . _ _ _ .
'q- -
Tr T-- v , - arir, n-n i
- f. r:EI 1 ..lI ll ,
~ '
8271::: E:1;;1rn::HP l ' 'i 4 l- l '
. ! !!i.f ;; -!!! .! [, h tj l' megn:'
~
! f, j -
41m:n:r-;;ir:n 5 l lll: ' i{ ' j [:7j. [ y i: j ; 3. -.+
=
*~ " -" "'""-
{ , i ...-. _! 4'( *
-g ..- .L - ..-.. --. .-..--..- - _ .. :t-. ..- .~ ._ --. .-_- L --. ..-..
F .,t ~f f i
~~
l !!!! ! { y L50 fj .
- j. lit 'j'- '
Irl ~I{^i'..' 3
.,! t- +- + +i; . - ' t
[
+-
ifll l to I i; f ! 7t(( ' le l l. . .
.[LL ..L '. ..--
l {.i t b
' O 4 1.00 l
! ! I '! liIl ;i: ! ll l
'I ! 'l , il h pi L '
',i II l .!l I l ;' [
.'f
?. { --
._ ...__. 1 _. ._ ---._. . .. .._-.. .-- .
e .,1 0.50 ' ' I ! ,,-
,i M ^ M '.'
I
'8k I
i ll l II : j IE -
~'
ggg M: ;. 1 H rf f.I i' :.' 7 Jillhh ;r
?' l
.:!! l.1:
,4.t g;dqjg 4.ti. i;. .i , ii. _
; i;;. ,h *" =
0.00 0.02 0.o4 o.os o.os o.10 c.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 o 20 0.22 0.24 PERIOD (SECOND) NOTE: THE PRESSURE MULTIPLIER USED FIG. 5-52 HERE IS EQR MO AMPLIFIED RESPONSE SPECTRA OF VERTICAL ACCELERATION PRIMARY CONTAINMENT AT ELEVATION OF STABILIZER TRUSS T-QUENCHER 3 ADJACENT VALVE DISCHARGE SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION -UNIT 1 PLANT DESIGN ASSESSMENT FOR SRV AND LOCA LOADS ji f ' l' REVISloN 3-NOVEMBER 1976 . I
.- . .. -. --. _. .. .. --.. . . - n.a~--.-... .- . - . . _ _ . -
\ r s.
loo , f l I
!! I I' i; j
- l: l;i !!!' .!! . :I! II ! l M:l !!I I!!. I
_l !.JIlA
.__._ ..__. _ !. _. __ .d_. .
L.___ J- _1 A _ !d
' !. . i.__
't'
2.50 1 r I.. i IIU !!< d_.n llh e, , N
.Liih I h I,- ,Ml $
.,, i, , , , ,, ..,
l ll . l,,i
~~ '
k,1)l)ji
~'
1 .(l'. 'I 'lbIIf ,[hil Il] 4
.L ____
't O.]' ,2 iniai nm Ol ul _. :ll '
.Jhlafjp.f Q[l '
'l I 3L. 0 ,14 ellatlka : !Ill lI , .l tl! [.f: fI !l!. a m $1: N. 76$
6 ,0N esl: n. A704 Olihtlha g 2.00 ,; , . g r,4 pw.
~
l ;. lil l!
; ii,.
jji .
,t
;li
.; ..T plp,
- l: ' .t:
?p I'! :l!f :'l' '.t ,
z __ _.. . .._.. . ._ __ ._. - eq _ [ ..
..p. .. . . , _
9 _ . .u .. I 4 1'50
! ll '
Ill ,'! !! ll , !fi '. ! l ll ! ! li !!Ii ' '
!jl lj n:
w
't i !
i jl si jl i i
- i !!
re i j {lll l ll' !j I i l' t l ' ;' i;1 l l : i.; : i j __ ___.. -__ . .____.. _ .._. _.
._7 g u..
i
,. , ..L j' q J. .4. L l _ .
q: .' .
!i.
Ni o i ' l i l '- l el l l l '!ll! i o l i i i
!l l
! !' ! j ;l 1 l}
i ;!!, ;
.+
l !l 1 j.. u.-
! l!!
!! i
!!!'L. !!!
- 4 I!I !l! !!
;1 a, ll!' I i
[lli j
\ i I
4!!. i ;l ii ... il ' I
!. ! i!. ! ;' p'-.A...... il ,- f g c.t n i 1 ;-
~ i I -
! i i
0.00 ' I '' ' O.co 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.0 a 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20 0.22 0.24 PERIOD (SECOND) NOTE : THE PRESSURE MULTIPLIER USED HERE IS EQUAL TO l.0~ FIG. 5-53 AMPLIFIED RESPONSE SPECTRA OF HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION TOP OF REACTOR SUPPORT PEDESTAL T-QUENCHER 3 ADJACENT VALVE DISCHARGE SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION-UNIT 1 PLANT DESIGN ASSESSMENT FOR SRV AND LOCA LOADS REVISloN 3-NOVEMBER 1978
. . . . . . ~ _ --
L_
,x
.l ,
b d ! 300 ' ' d,' l I i I
}} fl}' l l- l O l' h I lll.
'l; ll l i_ . __ . ..L. _. .-- .' ..
! , 1.. I.! , I }' ! , 4
; al : i i I; ! !! <:,
2.50 ., ; ;.
'q-~ .; .. , ,, ,,,, ,' I ' i,
! .I $ 00C68 :t t. Ares par;!> l': : l ;!l;i j L. . ..__ ._. -..__. I ,_.
.._- -.-.. .a muun 4 (C554 r4&fpet!aLl4 d!
O ptC O$.;I 4'r$8 0%fiki :f!' 7'J1! ll .I. l i
}
ll l tl, ;l ! , ,,, , Ji;i, , 6 650!t08 ;I 1.a r68 SMilkt::l : jl I 'l!. 2.00 G j, , aggggi g
,!I >;; .!!;;
if, , .
~ ,
) I il l:;
z l i i i
+t v.
l , l i i W-- if n--- il .
.q -. f.
- P 4 1'50 yl l-. i i ! iii ! 4 !!! .i! pl; ll i
l ! I l l l l ll } ; ill 'Ij! j _
..t . -_. _ _ _ ..
.i. .a .
'I;f! + --
N r 1- -~ i d h}il4 t u ' I ; +j , u i ! I l i' l t i i , l
' +' i t
# 'U l g ! !, il '
;; i! ,i ; l l 1
- j,; li , .i[
ll! ;,l i I;i it ry >>i
;;, j ji jit ll l l ;j!.
.. ti j i i 'i:
t I'! ti:l ll!j
/ k . _ __.. ,
i h ,
..! 1 . .'
i[!I'ff i,l ,
! #d d i; '!
h 'fl !;ff M $ . IIl ! iI I i ! i If, I! i .l !!!' 5 ! F QgMP s..q 1l!! 4j
~
ig .m hg ijj alj !F !g g lh 0.00 Ql lll'
' if O.OO O.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20 0.22 0.24 PERIOD (SECOND)
NOTE: THE PRESSURE MULTIPLIER USED FIG. 5 - 54 HERE IS EQUAL TO 1.0 AMPLIFIED RESPONSE SPECTRA OF HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION PRIMARY CONTAINMENT AT ELEVATION OF STABILIZER TRUSS T-QUENCHER 3 ADJACENT VALVE DISCHARGE SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION-UNIT I PLANT DESIGN ASSESSMENT FOR SRV AND LOCA LOADS REVISION 3-NOVEMBER 1978
I SUPPORT PRIMARY { CON TAINM ENT [ PEDESTAL e fj s ,' '4 . *t
~~ ,. ww____________ _____.
- g *,
i j *-
*. te 1
I a
~?
i , I. ir .- 1r IP 1P 1P . j . *
. ; ,. 6 A",
'< 1-
, , * . 9. . .-
c- r -
.O
! s.. '
..*". =, e
,, 4, 8, g ?.,,. ,'. .o, a ,' ,..C.,a i
i. PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION q 50 - 40 - ~ _ ON BASEMAT vi S 3g _ ON CO MA M ENT , i w
, e
~3
' m 20 -
+
m
- l. W e
! 10 -
f f
' o I t O.O O.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 TIME AFTER LOCA (SECONDS) i i
i FIG. 5-55
! LOCA VENT CLEARING
'l , IDEALIZED PRESSURE TIME HISTORY r
~/ SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION -UNIT I l PLANT DESIGN ASSESSMENT FOR SRV AND LOCA LOADS REVISION 3-NOVEMBER 1978
~
k k # _ =_g;7 ====_ g.... SUPPORT '
.' ;* PRIMARY PEDESTALN, .-[
c .
/ CONTAINMENT M
i 4-- --9 e .o. . .
** 1P 1P 1F 1r 1r ,.
* *, * *'s * ' * *
, g ' e',o
. o .
o
. . *0 O
- a
, a g
,,o, s '. u
,- s.
,o ,
., , (
. o- .'. - -
j PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION l I 4 e 20 HZ
$ b A _
V " " W V E Q.
' f I l l
, 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 TIME (SECOND) i 2 30 HZ E , A A A A Y "
t i 8 m w 1, VV\/' y
,; e a.
l
; f f I I 1 0.0 O.i O.2 0.3 0.4 0.s l TIME (SECOND)
FIG. 5-56 LOCA CHUGGING 3 IDEAllZED PRESSURE TIME HISTORIES SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION -UNIT I PLANT DESIGN ASSESSMENT FOR SRV AND LOCA LOADS t REVISION 3- NOVEM BER 1978
~~~ '~
,m ' ,l t
i 3
- ti !j ' ;;, .. i , i
!i ' l: .'
.!! I amI i; ji l ,
.:' !'! lj--- i
{ ' *i W i sij ! i T r 'rw iir+ " N 3W-u f L
! '[i ' ie 6 il- i jvi l :-
tv ' 1] [ ' i' t': '
**ir ll. :ll 'li e!lf '. 4 e '
li;
'-t l l f'.*3t M l.3dJ3r$ 13W.[$5 )' r
' i 4*r i; 'l l, 4 I l u+ .- ; , ,
2.50
- i. , , , ,, : ; bs *1 aria aw$i 1
- i
,i
!!! l' o fh !l' jil il -
l: I
.7. q.. ;4.- .._ . . . .,
,;7 I' , [! !I' .I
' 'i * ' '
2.00 ll j :l llf
' ; - l' o i- , -
i- .; ; .
' :i ' '
l;-- i.. .
, ; i, l ,
ll ,;. . j'll ' l 6 i: l ll ::1- l , il 5
; I' .i i-
^ll ,: . ...; :.,
h, l l ' t- l2h ,. Il 5.l .[ f'.. .' ,.!i
! , i l '
g F-7 -[ If,1 y; -- i+;l !: .i. ;;j l. .j i :ff.f,. , l! ,
',f.
>lf' !I' G ,,g ! II ll l l !!l! '!!' !!:: , !! !lI' lll !Ni lll hll !
! !i I !i !!:' lli; !!!! 'i'l ,- iI ;
tr '
- i. * '
w l ;. l 1 il,i l I;;-
. i
!i it l l [li! :', i l 1' , ,,
iii-
.i.1 . ;;
j .[ l Lif . i [.7 -
, ,j j 'l; l' ,
{. I
.4.'. , l_ . .
. _ ..l _
f.- j i . , f 8 ' I
' l I!
!l I! - '
i A *\ /N} l ; '
' * ~d
! !! l l l *ltl 4 '00 l- l l , :! d %! d" ! ll
'lil l!! i 4
!i:: '.
- f. '. ~.
.. *1 M-g fT'"~~" 4- "
l
%' (l l- M' h'1hh*S7"Th-); MWp# .W.:.! ,
t;
'l
^1'
.t l'
'j! ]k.3Q l ii ;;! .. -- i g ;]; 7T .
{!!! ki de, ; "..:,[.. -[S f nI Tb hi ' l ll "'y*[ l l
" ~ "'"
~T 4j '[..
i
, ,o K';. .-h-,1 yh p p'!! 'l a.i m, n tijl lh ' Hl;.
!! u j ip 1 jj
, % @ !H R:WE
,L, , ;! ;j ,
],. l y .J j lli' :14 j l{; 'j 7 ,
i lli t
- l. I s i ;l
';! l I ! ' '
i ; t
,l O.OO O 00 O O2 O 04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20 0.22 0.24 PERIOD (SECOND) ,
FIG. 5-57 AMPLIFIED RESPONSE SPECTRA OF VERTICAL ACCELERATION TOP OF REACTOR SUPPORT PEDESTAL LOCA VENT CLEARING SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION-UNIT I PLANT DESIGN ASSESSMENT FOR SRV AND LOCA LOADS REVISION 3- NOVEMBER 1978
. _ . . . . _ _ - . _ _ . _-_ _- . . . ~ .
\
I20 ,,, , , g ;. .
. .r- - - - -
'2-l '
il! j. ,I I i l f Ef :f
.... .. . ..t.
y Igll g . fg _l l -m - 4.o.- . t u '. i ., J t . , j i i 2h)! T 13$'l J.$rst' 13H'IP) f I:
- i '- ! ii
$$ftU IE;l'J.$rpt ;I4Pl#Bf I00 .--- p -.- -- ----4 - --
i l . t
!ll:
;it' !lll 4L l4lj li.
~ff' i
filil:TitTETTITl' l I
.l .
. , , 4 i'
! ! f. . ! !! 'i ,;i! ; it ;I ' 'jil '!'
l ! i f. i . .' '
,;I 'I ,' .
.--- i l
- 080 - - - -;i -- -. -- - - -
-- r, - -? -
.'M -- -- ----- ---. -- -
o-- . - !
.' , i; j'
! , *I , ,i s
,# l' l' l l' l . . . I -
i i t'I; i,f ' y f IPi #~~ ~
,1 * . fl f '! If f '; }j ri' T 'T
~f~ '!
' ' ' 'I ff 'l I'~ !! ii '
'[
!Ill !l
l !1 l ! I
! i1
!ll : i. !
f 1 l ' Q' 0 60
, 1 d '
ii1-I:
'i
;l .i l l .
I '
- l +l: , i l ,
Ld ?, ; ,
'll L i ;
!, iit . .j- -
i d *, I4; , _s t. . . . l
l . ,
;l[I :
l 4 i [ O O
<r 040 4, 4I t
't t*...
---m - W+-y '0 t-lll
- - --+1 : -
1
; .4.<
b I i b, ll N-h ** 'k i {' . l ! ,
') !'
~
*f,. '*.. .*d : - 'I hj'
'flf f ;- CdIQ MG,g,;,,..h , E- -%-. ug ,,, , - i;[
i# p'!f m!,, ig %[.
- m' % j i o ' ,
O.20 f i AT i 1
;i m ..
li Ifl'
!{p [l ? }+f{l i
'b Jal l
1 1-}l.I l'l; l.y . +;. j! ' i 1; i
;4..
.l... ,,..
- i l!! ilij
- i i i ! ' ! !il .
,. i i l ,Iil ! 'i I l t
l
. a : l, i. e
.i.-
if l l 000 O O2 0.04 0.06 008 0.1 O O.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20 0.22 02.I PERIOD ( SECOND) , i , i FIG. 5-58 AMPLIFIED RESPONSE SPECTRA OF VERTICAL ACCELERATION PRIMARY CONTAINMENT AT ELEVATION OF STABILIZER TRUSS LOCA VEN CLE ARING SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION-UNIT 1 j PLANT DESIGN ASSESSMENT FOR SRV AND LOCA LOADS REVISION 3- NOVEMBER 1978 i i
E.. .m - we-- $ ..
- l
/
4
- kf; f 6i i.> 1A ll! !!! li : :: lli, ; ,j } l t,:
6
- I 4;d ;;!. ! L;i .c4 d !! ;; ;,!
! i i
n: l i m mr - m jjji ,!i, ', j :ii;
-M; AL>t t,' l..'
7 2.4L i t. . aba' Id :
!, ji: '*lt M;
i , l l J..it ).- I;..Ahnt :4Lt>Ls4 ' k l, !!ll .
, li i
* ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 3'"# 'M I - # W l l!!I.
!!; l:!' .[: '.;' . 'l l l 7,j '.;.
! i ! l ' - -
!t '.~ ; t i
, ,; t ..
., .y
!*:: l' li t tjiI li! t;. ' ;- q! tt; l l It; l : ll ,l ; : ,l :i 2 00 .l.6 , , ,; . ,
i ll1l
.:.. ',l :ll a
.i O 'I. ll1. l' j '
j, l
' j; .; '
z _.
! .!j h.i)..}}j j ' .._ ._
._Ji p' h...,
_U.T
.__. ~.-
7 o ._ s 4 1.50 i h.i. 4, -
,i
.i :m i
E
-! ! - I ii f! .l lll43.!. ,; 1;.!!'
l l, l w i ,l ' ,i t . l. J ; .,- I
! !.'; .. ' !! $ l .a!';1; .L il . < 1.00 - k, ! s .
7- , ' ,, , , ,; l a;l! ! l ', :i , ;lll l '
!i e! m ;:! fe al i .:, I l
nJ :u. l t ! . u,- ..c
' *l .
i a l 050
; ,f .! ! il: ..f"i
^
/
fl: l I i! :! , i r, m ..s,' f '.'j ji l yl; i.- ,, . , ln. ., -
..4.A" ila' ll .
..<6.%l*
- l g, l;i
' .l .l ; l
- i.,
' t. I
. , , ,,tl lli; l':, ' i ' l !' ! ~i iiii , , i,,, , ,
.c.-.
l OOO O 00 O O2 O 04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 018 0.2 O O.22 0.24 PERIOD ( SECOND) FIG. 5-59 l i AMPLIFIED RESPONSE SPECTRA OF VERTICAL ACCELERATION TOP OF REACTOR buPPORT PEDESTAL li LOCA AXISYMMETRIC CHUGGING i SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION-UNIT 1 i l PLANT DESIGN ASSESSMENT FOR SRV AND LOCA LOADS REVISION 3 - NOVEMBER 1978 I-
4 i i ! s s 3 oo .
-.1 I j
A] 'lji
-1 '
l (.i! 'l l ) .. I _
~.
itu pc
$ ..o Jp u i p1 li b i,; ,
; --.---.-.. ut.n .
,! i 4
- .ii 2.50
, lit i l 1- !! '
i mLatte misd LLeotUan.n .k.
-,i p!l'lij il ,,!!
l: i; til :l p:g :I ji:j: i,j l ! l; ; , , 7 li'
,,,,,,,,,, y,y .
{' : ..p :T: my , i,
; ! l; ,
[ :it' i!' .,:
;!!! j ' M; 1.:. .N , .: ., F, .i{. -
l'
t 1.
!i;
!! i!,i '!
I ' tii :lri
, t. i !
llI'
- . l' l j I
l l l lj 'l jl: ' I l- .; li ; ' g 2.oo % ,. i!., ', . i i-- , . a i i I 1 i:1. l
,,j, 1ll,, l l I i, h,
[i h' ' d' l z o l+ F - - - ---
~1 4l,, ll d.o,yr.lt - -
1 1 I I, P
<r i.so l j
..l . i! ! l
! !!!: tili m l i i i i-i j. i, l ; i j j llli ii it si, li! i .i!
ta 14 a e i t 1j :
! 'i till
- ,4, .. i i
i
}! i. lj'. .. !.!. .i. l t i. l 1 t j
'll o ! T.,' - <
,t
! !i. '. t i, l
},
- l. O, , 7t iTi . r r
,,l j -i l
l 100 7 q, ;f,
}' l
,;ll - -
!!lt !
p:y..
'i j: .i: ;,,!
il ,l l ll,!l: ; ;l
;i, lt- I,t
,lI l' 4'gI
'i t' , ; i: ' ;; . . l. : 1' ' '
1 lt .. i
.) -
n: D
;~
', ' l l '
ll il ;; il! f
' e, llii ,.,l Ij i 1 j!. 'll t
.: illl o.so y.e i:
er .; ,yf y
. ,! 1 ,
l li!
*,l ; y p: ,
/. m ,e 3 ,
!,,l ,l ;j,i
! i: ,
, l , : it i i ..
' : I' d'* !; !!!-
' . i ': :
{' .. ,l ..: i -!;:; !! i . 1: .
... ' l..' ;: l
[.ll g gg , ,
.jj '!'
. il:
l. g.. ll!l !i!' I!!
! l lll , !!!; i:! ,' j' h.1;1)' lil o oo o.o2 0 04 o.os oos o.io 0 12 0.14 ois ole o20 o 22 0.24 PERIOD ( SECOND)
FIG. 5-60 AMPLIFIED RESPONSE SPECTRA OF VERTICAL ACCELERATION ! PRIMARY CONTAINMENT AT ELEVATION OF STABILIZER TRUSS I LOCA AXISYMMETRIC CHUGGING j SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION-UNIT 1 i PLANT DESIGN ASSESSMENT FOR SRV AND LOCA LOADS I. I REVIStoN 3- NOVEMBER 1978 i I'
l \.j ', ' 9 1.20 . vt . . l l! ! ! i' ! lll II. l! I f i i i ll 'ff ff '! :)
...! ... 1; .!
..;; .i! j_ .! .
. l .}L,jt . ;!;-
!! .l' '
Orppi. . N:llJ$r114 JuusMlilL- { ! I!! l rl,l !l' I l !: j llt
- p -((H Dh0l t i ps pr08 MM .j,j
'l!
i f! l l! l ll ;,i' I00 ,', ' r ll
, .. . : i : ,, ,.
7pr p 4Luias. u, r lfff lI ,!
!}.,l*
i! ! i i, i! fl.I !
! 13!l'
, '! ,1 i I' fL bp llll llll,f
!lif l 1 'f i t t, l
{d i.}}