ML20063J081

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Summarizes Comparison of Control Rod Drive Pump Discharge Line as-built Drawings W/Analytical Model Used by Eg&G. Marked-up Copy of Gpu Nuclear Sketch SK-F-M-0020 Encl
ML20063J081
Person / Time
Site: Oyster Creek
Issue date: 06/28/1982
From: Schmidt W
MPR ASSOCIATES, INC.
To: Cheng T
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20063J053 List:
References
NUDOCS 8209020276
Download: ML20063J081 (11)
v • d • e


Text

K. Morton, ECGG wn.~ -? t-: 7.:

M P R ASSOCIATES, INC.

June 29, 1982 Mr. Thomas Cheng Systematic Evaluation Program Branch U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7920 Norfolk Avenue Bethesda, Maryland 20014

Subject:

Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Systematic Evaluation Program (SEP)

Dear Mr. Cheng:

At the request of GPU Nuclear (Mr. Y. Nagai) , we are encicsing the results of our review and comparison of the control rod drive (CRD) pump discharge line as-built drawings with the analytical model used by EG&G in their analysis of this piping. Included in the enclosure is a marked-up copy of the GPU Nuclear Sketch (SK-F-M-0 0 2 0 )

showing the CRD pump discharge as-built geometry and support locations with corresponding locations of node numbers used in the EG&G model (marked in red) and five sheets of CRD as-built support detail drawings (SK-F-5-0028 Sheets 1 through 5). Table 1 in the enclosure is a summary of as-built piping geometry and support locations compared to the modeled locations. The Table 1 summary references the node numbers that are marked on the enclosed sketch. Table 2 in the enclosure is a summary of the as-built support information (support type and direction) compared to modeled support input.

Results of the review and comparison are summarized as

.'follows:

1. The piping system modeled by EG&G starts at the elbow of the CRD pump discharge line. Seven and one half inches of piping from the pump discharge
nozzle to the elbow was left out. This can be i

seen by looking at nodes 5 and 1230 on the marked- ,

up as-built support location sketch. The addition j of this pipe section in the EG&G model could -

reduce stresses by adding local flexibility in the area of the socket weld-elbow.

l l

1 L _

i 8209020276 820831 PDR ADOCK 05000219 P PDR y 114 o CON N ECTICUT AVENUE. N. W. WAS HINGTON. D. C. 20036 4091! 2o2 6*9 2320

1 P R AOsOCIATEs. INC.

Mr. Yoshito Nagai June 28, 1982

2. The piping system modeled by EG&G does not model the one inch recirculation lines coming out of the discharge line approximately 5-1/2 feet above the pump anchor points. This can be seen at nodes 45 and 1195 on the marked-up as-built support location ske.ch. The addition of the recirculation lines coult pr(vide both vertical and horizontal support whici .s not included in the EG&G model.
3. The U-bolt type supports modeled by EG&G do not take into account friction between the bolt and piping for the direction parallel to the pipe. An example is shown on the marked-up as-built support loca, tion sketch, for a U-bolt support at node 1105, where the system is assumed to be free to move in the X-direction. This very conservative

, assumption should be re-evaluated and some credit for friction in these supports considered.

l 4. Geometry variations from the as-built locations vary significantly from the modeled system starting at node location number 235. The as-built dimensions show the piping system turning through a 45 degree turn where the modeled system does not. The maximum geometry variations from as-built drawings, from Table 1, are as follows:

Maximum Maximum Maximum .

X-Direction Y-Direction Z-Direction variation variation Variation 5 ft 5 ft 8 ft at at at j Node 1065 Node 410 Node 585

5. The piping system modeled by EG&G fails to model eight supports at various points along the piping system. Piping supports that were not modeled by EG&G are shown in the marked-up as-built supporte location sketch by red circled letters (3 , D , E ,

F,G,H,I, and J).

At your request, copies of this letter and enclosure are being transmitted directly to EG&G, Idaho, Mr. Keith Morton. '.

M P R ACsoCIATES, INC.

Mr. Yoshito Nagai -

3- June 28, 1982 Please contact us if you have any questions on the attached. -

Sincerely, S-Wm. R. Schmidt Enclosure cc: Y. Nagai, GPUN K. Morton, EG&G S

e ,

M

,y - ..--a- - - .n-,- -

..-,, , , e, , , - - . . ,,, - - . - , , .

. TA8LE 1

SUMMARY

OF AS-BUILT PIPING AND SUPPORT LOCATIONS COMPARED TO MODELED LOCATIONS Page 1 of 3 AS-8UILT LOCATIONS MODELED LOCATIONS 10DE POINT X Y Z X Y Z (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)

  • 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
  • 1230 ,

5.167 0.0 0.0 6.167 0.0 0.0 30 .167 5.208 0.0 .167 4.290 0.0

  • 35 .167 5.208 -

.167 4.290 .75 1205 6.334 5.208 0.0 6.334 4.290 0.0

  • 1235 6.334 5.208 -

6.334 4.290 .75 45 .167 6.333 0.0 .167 6.413 0.0 1195 6.334 6.333 0.0 6.334 6.413 0.0

  • S5 .167 6.5 .458 .167 6.580 -1.0
  • 1185 6.334 6.5 .458 6.334 6.580 -1.0 60 .167 6.5 -1.25 .167 6.580 -1.5 1175 6.334 6.5 -1.25 6.334 5.580 -1.5
  • 110 .167 6.5 -8.75 .167 6.580 -10.0
  • 1135 6.334 6.5 -8.583 6.334 6.580 -9.0
  • 1105 3.917 6.5 -10.833 3.334 6.580 -11.0 140 .167 6.5 -13.75 .167 6.580 -13.931 150 417 6.5 -14.00 .264 6.580 -14.167
  • 170 .417 6.5 -18.125 .264 6.580 -18.098 175 .417 6.5 -18.583 .264 6.580 -18.931
  • 230 .417 16.208 -18.750 .264 16.580 -19.098 235 .417 17.417 -18.750 .264 17.413 .-19.098 (A) -3.119 17.583 -22.286 - -
  • (B) -3.119 17.583 -29.786 - - -
  • 295 -3.119 17.583 -36.953 .264 17.580 -30.348
  • (D) . -3.119 17.583 -40.286 - - -

port Location - Refer to Table 2 for support type _,and direction.

TABLE 1 (CONTINUED)

Page 2 of 3 AS-BUILT LOCATIONS MODELED LOCATIONS JE POINT X Y Z X Y Z (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (#t) 335 -3.119 17.583 -42.619 .264 17.580 -38.181

  • 360 -3.119 23.500 -42.786 .264 23.580 -38.348
  • 410 -3.119 42.458 -42.786 .264 37.580 -38.348 440 -3.119 46.042 -42.786 .254 46.413 -38.348 460 -1.354 46.208 -44.551 2.716 46.580 -40.800
  • 470 -1.104 46.208 -44.551 3.765 46.580 -40.849
  • 495 8.854 46.208 -44.551 10.765 46.580 -40.849
  • (E) 15.438 46.208 -44.551 - - -
  • 510 15.813 46.208 -44.551 15.265 d6.580 40.849
  • (F) 21.021 46.208 -45.009 - - -
  • 551 21.021 46.208 -45.551 25.765 46.580 -41.849
  • (G) 21.021 46.208 -46.468 - - -
  • 580 21.021 46.208 -58.718 25.765 46.580 -50.015
  • 585 21.021 46.208 -59.593 25.765 46.580 -51.515

$635 21.021 46.208 -70.801 25.765 46.580 -66.515 650 21.021 46.208 -74.301 25.765 46.580 -70.946

  • 660 22.082 46.208 -75.528 26.826 46.580 -72.076
  • (H) 27.974 46.208 -81.421 - - -
  • (I) 31.333 46.208 -84.780 - - -

730 38.404 46.208 -91.851 41.680 46.580 -86.930

  • 755 46.473 46.208 -95.883 46.437 46.580 -89.522
  • 780 51.343 46.208 -97.900 53.367 46.580 -92.392
  • 805 56.334 46.208 -99.830 58.525 46.580 -94.114
  • 830 59.334 46.208 -99.830 63.525 46.580 -94.114 835 59.917 46.208 -99.830 64.359 46.580 -94.114
  • 845 -

60.084 45.208 -99.830 64.525 d5.330 -94.114 870 60.084 39.208 -99.830 64.525 40.247 -94.114 oport Location - Refer to Table 2 for support type and direction.

-e,- , , - - - - - ---*--*,-w-- - - - -

e-w~-- g-y y,,-- w-e----e,e-w-w-- ~~- -

TABLE 1 (CONTINUED)

Page 3 of 3 AS-BUILT LOCATIONS MODELED LOCATIONS DE POINT X Y Z X Y Z (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)

  • 900 61.141 39.041 -99.830 69.525 40.080 -94.114
  • 920 69.375 39.041 -99.830 73.525 40.080 -94.114 925 70.084 39.041 -99.830 74.359 40.080 -94.114
  • 945 70.250 37.499 -99.830 74.525 36.830 -94.114 960 70.250 34.791 -99.830 74.525 33.747 -94.114 971 70.250 34.624 -101.225 74.525 33.580 -94.864
  • 1245 70.250 34.624 - 74.692 33.580 -95.322
  • (J) 70.250 30.666 -101.225 - - -

995 70.250 27.082 -101.225 74.525 27.747 -95.864 1010 70.250 26.916 -102.308 74.525 27.580 -95.864

  • 1250 69.417 26.916 -102.308 74.317 27.580 -95.864 1255 68.542 26.916 -102.308 73.817 27.580 -95.864
  • 1290 65.083 26.916 -102.308 69.025 27.580 -95.864 1020 70.250 26.916 -103.641 74.525 27.580 -97.198
  • 1025 69.417 26.916 -103.808 74.359 27.580 -97.364 1030 68.542 26.916 -103.808 73.775 27.580 -97.364
  • 1065 63.542 26.916 -103.808 68.525 27.580 -97.364
  • 1085 63.083 26.916 -102.308 66.525 27.580 -96.864 coort Location - Refer to Table 2 for support type and direction.

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

TABLE 2

SUMMARY

OF AS-BUILT SUPPORT INFORMATION COMPARED TO THE MODELED SUPDORT INFORMATION 1

Page 1 of 4 AS-BUILT SUPPORTS MODELED SUPPORTS l DIRECTION TYPE DIRECTION STIFFNESS NODE POINT OF SUPPORT OF SUPPORT OF SUPPORT OF SUPPORT (1b/in or lb-in/ rad) 5 1,2,3,4,5,6* Pump Anchor 1,2,3,4,5,6 Rigid Pt.

1230 1,2,3,4,5,6 Pump Anchor 1,2,3,4,5,6 Rigid Pt.

35 1,2,3 ** 1,2,3 1&2 .333 x 10 3 3 .7378 x 10 1235 1,2,3 ** 1,2,3 1&2 .333 x 103 3 .7378 x 100 55 2 Spring 2 50 1185 2 Spring 2 50 110 2 Hanger 2 10 5

1135 2 Hanger 2 10 5

1105 1,2,3 U-Bolt 2,3 10 5

1 = Pipe ***

170 1,2,3 U-Bolt 1,2 105 3 = Pipe 230' 1,2,3 U-Bolt 1,3 105 2 = Pipe (B) 2 Hanger None -

295 1,2,3 U-Bolt 1,2 10 5

3 = Pipe (D) . 2 Hanger None -

~

1 l

l TABLE 2 (CONTINUED) i Page 2 of 4 AS-BUILT SUPPORTS MODELED SUPPORTS DIRECTION TYPE DIRECTION STIFFNESS

' NODE POINT OF SUPPORT OF SUPPORT OF SUPPORT OF SUPPORT (1b/in or lb-in/ rad) 1,2,3 5 360 U-Bolt 1,3 10 2 = Pipe 5

410 1,2,3 U-Bolt 1,3 10 2 = Pipe 470 2 Spring 2 50 5

495 2 Hanger 2 10 (E) 2 Hanger None -

5 510 1,2,3 U-Bolt 2,3 10 1 = Pipe (F) 2 Hanger None -

5 551 2 Hanger 2 10 (G) 1,2,3 U-Bolt None -

3 = Pipe 5

' 580 1,2,3 U-Bolt 1,2 10 3 = Pipe 585 2 Hanger 2 105 635 1,2,3 U-Bolt 1,2 105 3 = Pipe ,

5 660 2 Hanger 2 10 (H) 1,2,3 U-Bolt None -

(Z) ., 1,2,3 U-Bolt None -

5 730 2 Dead Weight 2 10 l

Support _

l l

4 r

TABLE 2 (CONTINUED)

Page 3 of 4 AS-BUILT SUPPORTS MODELED SUPPORTS DIRECTION TYPE DIRECTION STIFFNESS NODE POINT OF SUPPORT OF SUPPORT OF SUPPORT OF SUPPORT (lb/in or 1b-in/ rad) 755 1,2,3,4,5,6 Concrete Angled Support 105 Wall 780 No Support Angled Support 10 5

805 1,2,3 Pipe Clamp 2,3 10 5

1 = Pipe 830 No Support 2 105 845 1,2,3 U-Bolt 1,3 10 5

. 2 = Pipe 900 1,2,3 Pipe Clamp 2,3 10 5

1 = Pipa 920 2 Spring 2 50 945 1,2,3 U-Bolt 1,3 10 5

l 2 = Pipe (J) 1,2,3 U-Bolt None 105 2 = Pipe 1025 1,2,3 U-Bolt 2,3 105 1 = Pipe l 1250 1,2,3 U-Bolt 2,3 105 1 = Pipe ,

1065 1,2,3 U-Bolt 2,3 105 1 = Pipe .

1290 1,2,3,4,5,6. CR0 Filter 1,2,3,4,5,6 Rigid Pt.

1085 1,2,3,4,5,6 CRD Filter 1,2,3,4,5,6 Rigid ,

Pt. _.

4 TABLE 2 (CONTINUED)

Page 4 of 4 AS-BUILT SUPPORTS MODELED SUPPORTS DIRECTION TYPE DIRECTION STIFFNESS NODE POINT OF SUPPORT OF SUPPORT OF SUPPORT OF SUPPORT (lb/in or lb-in/ rad) 1,2,3 ** 1,2,3 3 1245 1&2 .333 x g 3 .7378 x 10

  • Support Direction 1 X Trans lb/in 2 Y Trans lb/in 3 Z Trans 1b/in 4 X Rot lb-in/ rad 5 Y Rot lb-in/ rad 6 Z Rot lb-in/ rad
    • = Attached branch piping

= (Parallel to) l m

i

/

REVIEW OF THE MPR ASSOCIATES, INC. COMMENTS ON THE ORIGINAL CRD RETURN LINE ANALYSIS At the request of GPU Nuclear, MPR Associates, Inc. (MPR) reviewed and made comments on the original analysis of the CRD return line. The following is a review of the MPR comments and their utilization in the current analysis.

Comments 1, 2, and 4 deal with piping geometry variations in the original model. The system was accurately modeled based upon the information available.

These geometry variations were not shown on the original isometric drawings.

However, they have been incorporated into the current model based upon the as-built drawings.

The third comment indicates that the friction between U-bolts and the piping, parallel to the pipe, should be taken into account. Due to the lack of information concerning frictional values and their behavior during a seismic event, it was deemed appropriate to assume free movement in the axial direction of the pipe at U-bolt locations. This assumption was made for both the original and current analyses.

Comment 5 shows several supports that were not incorporated into the original model. Again, the support cor. figuration was modeled accurately l based upon the information available. With the exception of support "J",

these supports were not shown on the isometric drawings. For the current analysis, all of these supports have been incorporated except for two. At each of the points designated "E" and "J" the piping is supported off of adjacent piping. The information provided is insufficient to determine the response of the adjacent piping during a seismic event, and its effects upon the CRD return line. As shown in the results, the stresses are very low at these points, thus leaving a margin of safety in the event the adjacent piping might cause adverse effects.

- , - - - - ._

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20063J081&oldid=2668601"