ML20063J074
| ML20063J074 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 08/02/1982 |
| From: | Call V EG&G, INC. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20063J053 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8209020272 | |
| Download: ML20063J074 (18) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:. . - - . _, . . . . .. _. _ . . - . . . . - . ._- - - _. . A&eln~/ 2 e i . i i i 4 t J i SUFNARY OF OYSTER CREEK UNIT 1
- CR0 RETURN LINE PIPING REANALYSIS i
V. B. Call Applied Mechanics Branch - i EG&G Idaho, Inc.
..i
{ August 2, 1982 i i r l i 1 4 i i 8209020272 820831 i PDR ADOCK 05000219 P PDR
4 INTRODUCTION Audit calculations to verify the original analysis and new calculations using current ASME Code and Regulatory Guide Standards were previously performed on the Oyster Creek Unit 1 CRD return line. Information sub-sequently received provided as-built information of the piping system per the NRC's I&E Bulletin 79-14. This updated information typically reflected pipeline dimensional changes, valve weights and dimensions, and pipe support variations. After incorporating this updated information into the NUPIPE-II finite element structural model, a " current criteria" analysis was then repeated using the method and procedures described in Reference 1. The results of the analysis using the updated configurations are described below. This supplement should be used in conjunction with the Reference 1 report. CRD Return Line Analysis A simplified plot of the CRD return line piping model is shown in Figure 1. Figures 2 through 7 show various sections of the piping model. It should be remembered that the dimensions shown on these plots are approximate and are intended only to give an indication of scale. Two CRD return line piping models were analyzed. One model reflected the entire system as shown in the figures with all supports incorporated. The second model reflected the deletion of 17 rod or pipe rest supports which are capable of providing nonlinear restraint. It is believed that deleting l these types of supports generally produces a conservative stress analysis of the piping. Two 1-inch branch lines were included in the updated models which were not present in the Reference 1 analysis. The analytical assumptions made for the CRD return line are: l l
1 l r 8.C. SEP PIPING ANALYSIS - CBD RETuaN t NUPSPE MATHEMATSCAL MSDEL tv I.4.
*.ESGENDe*
e a mese Lat.tsom O u. esp.Inf L.C.II.m eh- spalm6 m.u6sa 6c 3 - ami.este g -{ - assas surre. _ y . . . .. _g- eu. .t. ..c .. p 23' 30'
~
ll p. ww .NM,h, , - V
~
~ . -l . .,. .
- ~
4 A %
%::. ~- S ".,s ,[.#
8 pg. N , .. . . . Yl ..... .. ...., ...... . . E-3 Pt.NS Tikt
- Es&4.
Figure 1. Simplified plot of CRD return line piping model.
S.C. SEP PSPluG ANALYSIS - CSD RETURN 2 Wall Penetration nuPica nAmsuancat u.ou iv .... Anchor Point +
,. ..tSGEND*.
... < - m.m tes.es..
, , , , c - m...P.s t L.c.ts.u AW- .eatus u.u...
,, , SQ - .esuse.e
_4 . ..... ..,,...
. .w -{j - .=ca..
.... . . .t.... .....
- g - , t . . .t . . . c .s . .
..t..
g .w
"*y ' ..;;".
y j#" 1" Recirculation " "*s I Lines .... e a ~ .:
.. .m .,
%. .N' is f g.
~ '...
3
.. h ..
..r.,i.. ..... ...... . . . .
~ ' "-'"'"*' - ***'
.: : Pump NC08-B
, ,,/ Anchor Point -
.~ .
"* 'a Pump NC08-A h .[*' Anchor Point Figure 2. Enlarged plot of CRD piping near pump anchors and 1" recirculation lines.
d 9 N a. R U .4 T E m. f R D V . .. R C m L . t . S E s . s D a . I NM . . Y u. S D. E .l c. a . . - Y N G t 6 . T L l - . .. A L E o a . . . T. m . . N A L. c. 4 T. A C . & . w . . . . l . . .
. . . A
. .e .
G l N A D a
..t u
l.t,. I M . . s , l P k 2 H - - - - a, f P T .
. ._e.._.g.
A . P N r 3i_g E S E P OMc. .
. I P
C. U S N A- .
. g
. n
. i
.. p i
p D R C f o
. t e
l o p d
-
- e g
' 4.
- . . . e r
' .- :\ . a
'N l
i , n E 3 e r u g i
-. F 1 B
!j4!41';, J j
i* 4 i 4 l s.C. SEP PIPING ANALYSIS - CitD RETURN 2 {
- w. MUPIPE NATHbMATICAL M. DEL (W 3.4.
*.4BGtND.*
e - m.v. Eesataem
+i
"' < I' O - masar.sur tes.gsee
'.88.*
j ,
,,, 4M- srasus mausta 4,
W 6Q - emueste
\' ' [,* 4-j - Eleau surr.at
... ig . . ..
R - Staats Jesut
- q - n .. .t. .. ...
.m - . . . . .
~
l
" r A
w .
- . ..r..... ....,.-.... . . .i
- -s n.nr rea e . .
\/ B i ,
N I J i Figure 4. Enlarged plot of CRD piping. l I i 4 4
ill11il' 2 N . . R . . U .4 . . T . . E R 1 O V ( R . . y. _ C m a e o L e
.s .
aE 5 D . 9 . t D N c e , M y ~ S G E m. e m s , t - Y N G s t s o u u . s r l . L A L E a, m. r e . , c u m u J E N A L. os s s L A C . t s m e . O , G T I e eue s t ne n. .s S s B e s . N A o. sa ra v as . . t t . . e m e .u m L L a . . I M . E F w . . P E . . I dI - - - - - - - - . P T . . A . . r P N E S E OwQjg3(m - g_ + e& e C. IP P U S H
.~ C g
n i _ p i
. p
- D
. R C
f o
. t 5 - o l
/"- p
" d e
g
,* r a
", l n
E 5
\
- e .
. r u
. g
. i
. F
,x D l,lI lllllll1l l i l
t = 1 1 4 4 1 i r i S.C. SWP PIPING AH& LYSIS - CRO RETUkN 2 til'P I P k Halith et A f rC AR. H e tA E L tv t.4
. - - _ - . . -. __ . ~ . . . _ ._.
2 ** LEGEND.* s
- u.se eocass.m j e . ....,s..,.e... .
; eM- statu6 usu6as 6C3- . omvente
+--J ossso spersar
-[j . .mc ..
] ! k - staste Jeant
.' -(j - ethmspLa amones I .w
- Vakte 1
i l E y, , , v + I ll ! " ' D / 4 1 i Nl. . .
... ... ... .i.i
[ = 2 i i..i...l m-eGratten atest T-ause . mA 1 O f i Figure 6. Enlarged plot of CRD ptping.
S.C. SEP PIPlHG AN.LYSl$ - CSD RETUhN E
, , NUPIPE NATHEN.TICAL MdDEL (V l.4.
N Nf.~ ~ .
~
..t.u No..
y o . ...... . u.....
,,, ,,, .w - ...... ....
~ .a E **
. -a' ' .' ..... ..,,...
Bypass Line .!." ~ Stiffnesses .. sti.
~ * ~ " ' " * " ' " '
-{i - n . . . n . . u . ..
- .... "/' . . vu ..
~
v
*- 2 l
of'
;g/ ... a ra... t u r . iu
.. .~
. g
~
y~. CRD Water Filter
~
.L.f. Anchor Points l
Figure 7. Enlarged plot of CRD piping.
- a. All components meet the standards listed in Table NC-3132-1 of the ASME Code
- b. The requirements of the ASME Code, Section III, Subarticle f'-3540 are satisfied.
The as-built drawing also shows three additional lines branching off of the subject portion of the CRD piping. The effects of these lines on the system behavior were taken into account by including translational stiffnesses at the branch points. Since the original analysis was performed, the NRC itas recommended site specific response spectra for Oyster Creek. It is a narrower spectra having a zero-period acceleration (ZPA) of 0.165 g. On this basis, the response spectra for the CRD return line listed in Reference 1 were scaled down by the ratio of 0.165 g/0.22 g. Table 1 lists the first ten natural frequencies for both the updated models and those frequencies listed in Reference 1. A comparison between the frequencies previously determined and the updated configuration with all supports incorporated indicates that the updated piping system has higher frequencies. This was expected due to the increased number of supports. Of course, as indicated in Case 4, the frequencies decreased because of the deletion of the seventeen nonlinear supports. A comparison of ASME Code, Class 2, Equation 9, primary stress results is shown in Table 2. This table compares results at similar points between the various models. With the exception of the 1-inch piping, the stresses for the updated model are significantly lower than those for the original model. This is due to the additional support information which was in-corporated into the model. There was a slight increase in the stresses shown in Case 4. This was expected due to the lower frequencies calculated for Case 4. As shown in the table, stresses at several points along the 9
TABLE 1. COMPARISON OF FIRST TEN NATURAL FREQUENCIES FOR OYSTER CREEK UNIT 1 CRD RETURN PIPING Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Frequencies Frequencies Frequencies Frequencies Mode (Hz) (Hz) (Hz) (Hz) 1 1.67 1.66 2.93 2.16 2 1.94 1.88 3.22 2.63 3 2.52 1.96 3.54 3.23 4 2.72 2.16 3.92 3.44 5 2.86 2.54 4.42 3.61 6 3.84 2.74 4.52 3.81 7 4.22 3.12 4.76 3.99 8 4.92 3.76 4.91 4.16 9 5.16 4.89 5.26 4.90 10 5.54 4.90 6.05 4.97 NOTES:
- a. Case 1 -- original model, with all supports incorporated, as reported in Reference 1.
Case 2 -- original model, without rod and pipe rest supports incorporated, as reported in Reference 1. Case 3 -- updated model with all supports incorporated. Case 4 -- updated model without rods and pipe rest supports incorporated. i 10
TABLE . COMPARISON OF SSME, CLASS 2 EQUATION 9, STRESS VALUES- " CURRENT" SSE .
^II 1 Imposed Stress (ksi)
Stress
; Node Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 _ Case 4 (ksi) Connent 2 (5) 33.6 35.2 31.2 22.4 42.0 Pump Anchor
- 10 50.0 52.9 27.1 22.3 42.0 Socket Weld Elbow End 335 61.9 56.7 11.5 26.2 42.0 Socket Weld Elbow End j 340 62.0 56.6 11.9 27.3 42.0 Socket Weld Elbow End j 410 44.4 42.6 8.54 10.4 42,0 Support Point 445 51.4 37.9 8.35 9.58 42.0 Straight Pipe 1 755 42.1 45.9 4.88 5.27 42.0 Support Point 1085 3.64 3.78 3.21 3.45 42.0 Filter Anchor
~
1231 (1230) 25.1 28.1 19.3 19.7 42,0 Pump Anchor 1!85 (1290) 3.91 3.96 3.26 3.30 42.0 Filter Anchor 1310 --- --- 54.6 46.2 42.0 Socket Weld 2x1 Reducer End 1375 --- --- 46.8 51.3 42.0 Socket Weld lx1x1 Tee End 1390 --- --- 34.5 44.1 42.0 Socket Weld Valve End , 1455 --- --- 43.0 54.2 42.0 Wall Anchor 1470 --- --- 36.7 43.9 42.0 Socket Weld 2x1 Reducer End
- NOTES:
- a. Case situations defined in Table 1.
- b. For the analysis of the updated model, it was necessary to change some of the node numbers. The node i
numbers used in the original analysis are shown in parentheses.
- c. Allowable stress is 2.4 Sh-l
- d. Equation 9 stresses include the effects of pressure, weight, and SSE.
t i i i
1-inch piping exceed the allowable limit. These stresses were primarily caused by significant north-south movements during the seismic event. The SSE analysis results showed a maximum deflection of approximately five inches. The 1-inch piping was not included in the scope of the original analysis. Therefore, no results are available for comparison. Table 3 presents a comparison of support loads. This table lists seismic loads for all models. Since the support configuration has been altered from the Reference 1 analysis, a comparison of loads provides little useful information. As mentioned previously, two models were used for analysis purposes. One model incorporated all supports while the other model deleted all rod and pipe rest supports. A common assumption is made that the piping experiences these types of support restraints until the dynamic imposed loads (such as seismic loads) exceed the initial (weight plus thermal) imposed loads. However, this assumes that the weight and thermal analyses are exact, which should not be expected. By making the two types of analyses described herein, the actual situation regarding piping stresses is probably bounded and the potential of support failure due to impact loading can be minimized through adequate engineering procedures. It was not within the scope of the analysis to detarmine the structural adequacy of the CR0 return piping supports. However, it should be noted that the spring hanger at node 470 has the potential for bottoming out. The seismic analysis results show a vertical deflection at that location of approximately two inches for Case 4. Table 4 predicts the anchor loads for all models. Again, since the support configuration has been altered, a comparison of anchor loads provides little useful information. Also, it was not within the scope of the analysis to determine anchor adequacy. 12
TABLE 3. SUPPORT LOAD
SUMMARY
--CRD RETURN PIPING--SEISMIC LOADS ONLY Loads (kip) Node Direction Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 35 Y --- --- 0.061 --- 110 Y 0.442 --- 0.198 --- 170 X. 0.543 0.466 0.205 0.224 Y 0.279 0.326 0.030 0.130 230 X 0.092 0.132 0.085 0.139 Z 0.743 0.755 0.162 0.373 287 Y --- --- 0.047 --- 310 (295) X 0.138 0.167 0.103 0.137 Y 0.991 0.865 0.171 0.404 325 Y --- --- 0.246 --- 360 X 0.230 0.249 0.081 0.092 Z 0.857 0.835 0.186 0.268 410 X 0.610 0.577 0.129 0.151 Z 0.725 0.596 0.143 0.166 495 Y 0.912 --- 0.078 --- 510 Y --- --- 0.053 --- 515 (510) Y 0.564 0.251 0.007 0.193 Z 0.676 0.575 0.184 0.199 552 (551) Y 0.089 --- 0.099 --- 555 X --- --- 0.123 0.133 Y --- --- 0.107 0.125 580 X 0.747 0.782 0.047 0.059 Y 0.240 0.291 0.022 0.045 585 Y 0.163 --- 0.036 --- 635 X 1.100 1.050 0.181 0.342 Y 0.049 0.332 0.018 0.027 660 Y 0.092 --- 0.007 --- 690 Y --- --- 0.006 --- LAT --- --- 0.101 --- 710 Y --- --- 0.014 0.042 LAT --- --- 0.076 0.208 730 Y 0.137 --- 0.015 --- 752 (755) Y 0.085 0.652 0.033 0.178 LAT 1.82 1.73 0.691 0.638
. 13
TABLE 3. (Continued) Loads (kip) Node Direction Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 755 (755) Y 0.085 0.652 0.039 0.164 LAT 1.82 1.73 0.484 0.430 805 Y 0.067 0.132 0.038 0.0 Z' 0_.334 0.318 0.059 0.103 845 X 0.385 0.350 0.216 0.357 Z 0.051 0.054 0.016 0.014 880 (900) Y' O.046 0.112 0.043 0.035 Z 0.072 0.091 0.016 0.016 945 X 0.085 0.086 0.042 0.065 Z 0.083 0.091 0.030 0.029 1027 (1025) Y 0.102 0.103 0.023 0.026 Z 0.064 0.056 0.010 0.011 1065 Y 0.049 0.059 0.004 0.005 Z 0.012 0.011 0.0 0.0 1105 Y 0.233 0.190 0.074 0.091 Z 0.689 0.537 0.233 0.287 1135 Y 0.144 --- 0.084 --- 1235 Y --- --- 0.143 --- 1252 (1250) Y 0.155 0.167 0.091 0.108 l Z 0.059 0.058 0.010 0.011 1430 Y --- --- 0.275 --- 1535 Y --- --- 0.131 --- 1575 Y --- --- 0.124 --- NOTES:
- a. Case situations defined in Table 1.
- b. Node numbers explained in Table 2.
- c. Directions listed are in the global coordinate system. "X" implies a force in the global X direction. "LAT" implies a force perpendicular to the pipe axis in the horizontal plane of a pipe segment that is not oriented parallel to any of the global axes.
l 14 l
, - - - . - - , - , . - - . .-- - ...-- ,-- - - n- .-- --- -- -
TABLE 4 ANCHOR LOAD
SUMMARY
--CRD RETURN PIPING--SEISMIC LOADS ONLY Loads (kip or in.-kip) Node Direction Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 2 (5) X 0.334 0.302 0.236 0.143 Y 0.101 0.127 0.233 0.158 Z 0.313 0.505 0.075 0.088 XX 4.84 7.65 0.726 1.02 YY 4.39 3.52 4.87 3.73 ZZ 33.5 34.8 18.9 12.7 1085 X 0.078 0.095 0.010 0.014 Y 0.021 0.025 0.002 0.003 Z 0.006 0.007 0.001 0.001 XX 0.147 0.186 0.031 0.037 YY 0.380 0.463 0.051 0.070 ZZ 0.059 0.072 0.027 0.032 1231 (1230) X 0.234 0.211 0.132 0.091 Y 0.059 0.091 0.169 0.080 Z 0.079 0.127 0.024 0.040 XX 1.33 1.74 0.272 0.533 YY 4.81 4.24 3.35 3.74 ZZ 24.3 27.7 11.0 11.2 1285 (1290) X 0.069 0.075 0.023 0.031 Y 0.020 0.023 0.012 0.014 Z 0.009 0.009 0.001 0.001 XX 0.217 0.231 0.119 0.140 YY 0.174 0.179 0.016 0.023 ZZ 0.386 0.442 0.167 0.203 1455 X --- --- 0.164 0.177 Y --- --- 0.021 0.115 Z --- --- 0.068 0.068 XX --- --- 0.418 5.62 YY --- --- 8.94 9.97 ZZ --- --- 0.887 0.989 NOTES:
- a. Case situations defined in Table 1.
- b. Node numbers explained in Table 2.
- c. Directions listed are in the global coordinate system. "X" implies a force in the global X direction. "XX" implies a moment about the global X axis.
15
Special Considerations The as-built information utilized in this analysis was supplied by MPR Associates, Inc., the utility's engineering consultant, along with comments regarding the original CR0 return line analysis. These comments and a discussion of their review dre contained in Appendix A. Conclusions The results previously discussed show that the maximum stresses of the CRD return line exceed ASME Code allowables for SSE loadings. These high stress values are caused by the seismic response of the piping in the area of the 1-inch recirculation lines. Consideration should be given to reasonable methods of reducing the seismic stresses. Reference
- 1. M. E. Nitzel, " Summary of the Oyster Creek Unit 1 Piping Calculations Performed for the Systematic Evaluation Program," EGG-EA-5211, July 1980.
i 16
p 4 9 e APPENDIX A m
; A-i
_. . _,-.__.- . _ - . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - . - - _ _ - . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ , _ . . _ , - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , . - . _ _ _ _ - . _ _ _ - . _ _ . . _ - _ . . - . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . _ , . _ _ _ . - -}}