ML20064G589

Pressurizer Safety & Relief Line Piping & Support Evaluation,Callaway Unit 1 & Wolf Creek Unit

ML20064G589
Person / Time
Site:	Wolf Creek, Callaway, 05000000
Issue date:	12/31/1982
From:	Chang K, Ching Ng, Laura Smith WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, DIV OF CBS CORP.
To:
Shared Package
ML20064G582	List: ML20064G580 ML20064G589
References
RTR-NUREG-0737, RTR-NUREG-737, TASK-2.D.1, TASK-TM NUDOCS 8301110554
Download: ML20064G589 (70)

Text

,%

WESTINGHOUSEPROPRIdTARYCLASS3 PRESSURIZER SAFETY AND RELIEF LINE PIPING AND SUPPORT EVALUATION SNUPPS UTILITIES CALLAWAY UNIT 1 AND THE WOLF CREEK UNIT L. C. Smith C. K. Ng l

DECEMBER 1982

/ Approved: 7 K. C.' Chang, Ma er Systems Structural Analysis This report is applicable to Callaway Unit 1 and the Wolf Creek Unit and contains the structural evaluation of ASME III Nuclear Class 1 piping analyzed to requirements of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section III, Nuclear Power Plant Components,1979 Edition, including appitcable addenda; as well as NNS piping done to requirements of ANSI R31.1 Code,1979 Editton. Results from the Safety and Relief Valve Test program, conducted by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and concluded on or before July 1,1982, were factored into the analyses presented herein. i 8301110554 830107 PDR ADOCK 05000482 A PDR 0495s:10

__.-n- _ --

1 st er of transient occurrences r.re based on a plant design life of 40 years.

3.1.6 SAFETY AND RELIEF VALVE TRUST The pressurizer safety and relief valve discharge piping system provide overpressure protection for the RCS. The three spring-loaded safety 0495s:10

.. valves and two power-operated relief valves, located on top of the pressurizer, are designed to prevent system pressure from exceeding design pressure by more than 10 percent and 100 psi, respectively. A water seal is maintained upstream of each valve to minimize leakage.

Condensate accuallation on the inlet side of each valve prevents any leakage of hydrogen gas or steam through the valves. The valve outlet side is sloped to prevent the formation of additional water pockets.

If the pressure exceeds the set point and the valves open, the water slug from the loop seal discharges. The water slug, driven by high system pressure, generates transient thrust forces at each location where a change in flow direction occurs.

The safety and relief lines are analyzed for various cases of thrust loadings to ensure the primary and secondary stress limits are not exceeded.

3.2 DESIGN CONDITIONS The design conditions are the pressures, temperatures, and various mechanical loads applicable to the design of nuclear power plant piping.

3. 2.1 DESIGN PRESSURE The spect fled internal and external design pressures are not less than the maximum difference in pressure between the inside and outside of the component, which exists under the specified normal operating condi-tions. The design pressures are used in the computations made to show compliance with the Code (subparagraph 101.20 of the Code).

3.2.2 DESIM TEMPERATURE ,

The specified design temperature is not less than the actual maximum metal temperature existing under the specified normal operating condi-0495s:10

=. ._

tions for each area of the component considered. It is used in computa-l*

i tions involving the design pressure and coincidental design mechanical loads (subparagraph 101.3 of the Code).

3. 3 PLANT OPERAT!HG CDNDITIONS 3.3.1 NORMAL (DNDITIONS A normal condition is any condition in the course of system startup, design power range operation, hot standby, and system shutdown, other than upset, faulted, emergency, or testing conditions.

3.3.2 UPSET CONDITIONS An upset condition is any deviation from normal conditions anticipated to occur often enough that design should include a capability to with-stand the condition without operational impairment. Upset conditions include those transients resulting from any single operator error or control malfunction, transients caused by a fault in a system component requiring its isolation from the system, and transients due to loss of load or power. Upset conditions include any abnormal incidents not resulting in a forced outage and also forced outages for which the corrective action does not include any repair of mechanical damage.

3.3.3 EMERGENCY (DNDITIONS Emergency conditions are defined as those deviations from normal conditions which require shutdown for correction of the conditions or repair of damage in the system. The conditions have a low probability of occurrence but are included to provide assurance that no gross loss of structural integrity will result as a concomitant effect of any damage developed in the system. The total 'nurrber of postulated occur-rences for such events shall not cause more than 25 stress cycles (subparagraph NB-3113.3 of the code).

0495s:10

.:. .. 1 l

. ~ ,*

- 3.3.4 FAULTED C0EITIONS Faulted conditions are those codinations of conditions associated with extremely low probability - postulated events whose consequences,are such that the integrity and operability of the nuclear enery system may be impaired to the extent that considerations of public health and safety are involved.

l 0495s:10

v 'y

. SECTION 4 ANALYTICAL METICDS AND MODELS

4.1 INTRODUCTION

The analytical methods used to obtain a piping deflection solution consist of the transfer matrix method and stiffness matrix formulation for the static structural analysis. The response spectrum method is 1 used for the seismic dynamic analysis.

The complexity of the pipf ng system requires the use of a computer to obtain the displacements, forces, and stresses in the piping and support meter s. To obtain these results, accurate and adequate mathematical representations (analytical models) of the systems are required. The modeling considerations depend upon the degree of accuracy desired and the manner in which the results will subsequently be interpreted and evaluated. All static and dynamic analyses are performed using the WESTDYN computer program. This program, described in WCAP-8252, was reviewed and approved by the U.S. EC (EC letter, April 7,1961 from R. L. Tedesco to T. M. Anderson).

The integrated piping / supports system model is the basic system model ,

used to compute loadings on components, component and piping supports, and piping. The system model includes the stiffness and mass charac- ,

teristics of the piping, attached equipment, and the stiffness of supports, which affects the system response. The deflection solution of the entire system is obtained for the various loading cases from which the internal meder forces and piping stresses are calculated.

4. 2 STATIC ANALYSIS The piping system models, constructed for the WESTDYN computer program, are represented by an ordered set of data, which numerically describes the physical system. ,

l 0495s:10

1 1

- The spatial geometric description of the piping model is based upon the isometric piping drawings referenced in this report and equipment draw-ings referenced in the design specification. Node point coordinates and 1

incremental lengths of the meters are determined from these drawings.

Wode point coordinates are put on network cards. Incremental med er legths are put on element cards. The geometrical properties along with the modulus of elasticity, E, the coefficient of thermal expansion, e, tiie average temperature change from the attent temperature, AT, and the weight per unit length, w, are specified for each element. The supports are represented by stiffness matrices which define restraint character-istics of the supports. Plotted models for various parts of the safety and relief valve discharge piping are shown in figures in Section 6.

The static solutions for deackeight and thermal loading conditions are obtained by using the WESTDYN computer program. The WESTDYN computer program is based on the use of transfer matrices which relate a twelve-element vector [B] consisting of deflections (three displacements and three rotations) and loads (three forces and three moments) at one loca-tion to a similar vector at another location. The fundamental transfer matrix for an element is determined from its geometric and elastic prop-erties. If thermal effects and boundary forces are included, a modified transfer relationship is defined as follows:

~

.- T il T

12 ~ ~ ' o- 's~

t ~'i

+ .

_121 T

22- F,_, _f t- F.9 or T3 8, + R3B3 I

where the T matrix is the fundamental transfer matrix as described above, and the R vector includes thermal effects and body forces. This 5 vector for the element is a function of geometry, temperature..coeffi-cient of thermal expansion, weight per unit length, lumped masses, and

! externally applied loads.

0495s:10

l ... '..

. The overall transfer relationship for a series of elements (a section) can be written as follows:

B 3 . T g8, + R3 .

s, . Tp 3 + R, . T,T 3s, + Tf 3 + R, I3 " Tf 2 + R 3 . T 323 T T B, + T 3Tf g + Tf 2 + R3 or n n 8,.[n3T 1 r

Io

• r.2 I "[ I r

T r I R

r-1 *I n Y ..

A network model is made up of a nunber of sections, each having an over-all transfer relationship formed from its group of elements. The linear elastic properties of a section are used to define the characteristic stiffness matrix for the section. Using the transfer relationship for a section, the loads required to suppress all deflections at the ends of the section arising from the thermal and boundary forces for the section are obtained. These loads are incorporated in the overall load vector.

/

After all the sections have been defined in this manner, the overall 1 stiffness matrix, K, and associated load vector needed to suppress the deflection of all the network points is determined. By inverting the  !

stiffness matrix, the flexibility matrix is determined. The flexibility matrix is multiplied by the negative of the load vector to determine the network point deflections due to the thermal and boundary force effects. Using the general transfer relationship, the deflections and internal forces are then determined at all node points in the system.

The support loads, F, are also computed by multiplying the stiffness matrix, K, by the displacement vector 4, at the support point.

l 0495s:10

4.3 DYNAMIC ANALYSIS 1

The models used in the static analyses are modified for use in the i dynamic analyses by including the mass characteristics of the piping and

equipment.

1 4.4 SEISMIC ANALYSIS i The lumping of the distributed mass of the piping systems is accom-plished by locating the total mass at points in the system which will appropriately represent the response of the distributed system. Effacts of the equipment motion, that is, the pressurizer, on the piping system are obtained by modeling the mass and the stiffness characteristics of the equipment in the overall system model.

The supports are again represented by stiffness matrices in the system model for the dynamic analysis. Mechanical shock suppressors which resist rapid motions are now considered in the analysis. The solution for the seismic disturbance employs the response spectra method. This )

method employs the lumped mass technique, linear elastic properties, and the principle of modal superposition.

From the mathematical description of the system, an overall stiffness matrix [K] is developed from the individual element stiffness matrices using the transfer matrix [K ) Rassociated with mass degrees-of-freedom only. From the mass matrix and the reduced stiffness matrix, the natural frequencies and the normal modes are determined. The modal participation factor matrix is computed and conbined with the appro-priate response spectra value to give the modal amplitude for each mode. Since the modal amplitude is shock direction dependent, the total modal amplitude is obtained conservatively by the absolute sum of the contributions for each direction of shock. The modal amplitudes are then converted to displacements in the global coordinate system and applied to the corresponding mass point. From these data the forces.

l l

0495s:10 .

- moments, deflections, rotation, support reactions, and piping stresses are calculated for all significant modes.

The seismic response from each earthquake component is computed by combining the contributions of the significant modes.

4.5 TERMAL 1RANSIENTS Operation of a nuclear power plant causes temperature and/or pressure fluctuations in the fluid of the piping system. The transients for this system are defined in " Westinghouse Systems Standard Design Criteria  ;

1.3" and referericed in the Design Specification and were used to dcfine I the various operating modes used in the thermal expansion analyses.

4.6 PRESSURIZER SAFETY AND RELIEF LINE ANALYSIS 4.6.1 PLANT HYDRAULIC MODEL When the pressurizer pressure reaches the set pressure (2,500 psia for a safety valve and 2,350 psia for a relief valve) and the valve opens, the high pressure steam in the pressurizer forces the water in the water seal loop through the valve and down the piping system to the pressurizer relief tank. For the [ressurizer safety and relief piping system, analytical hydraulic models, as shown in Figures 4-1 and 4-2, were develooed to represent the conditions described above.

The computer code ITCHVALVE was used to perform the transient hydraulic analysis for the system. This program uses the Method of Characterts-tics approach to generate fluid parameters as a function of time. One-l dimensional fluid flow calculations applying both the implicit and explicit characteristic methods are performed. Using this approach the piping network is input as a series of single pipes. The network is generally joined together at one or more places by two or three-way junctions. Each of the single pipes has associated with it friction l factors, angles of elevation and flow areas.

l l

l l.

0495s:10 .

7  % ~ -

. Conservation eg;ations can be converted to the follow'ing chardcterisitic equations: '

j h=V+c .;

dP dV g + pc g = c(F

• ppcose) ec 2 ,

~~

ah -

• so .

dz '

g=V-c . s.

dP dV qc 2 g - oc g = -c(F + pgcose) g , ..

P .E d

c 2 - sh/so '

= ,n 3 -

E~7 _

z = variable of length ineasurement '

t = time ,

V = fluid velocity c = sonic velocity p = pressure . ,

p = fluid density ,

F = flow resistance _

g = gravity

~

angle off vertical l '

e = ,

J = conversion factor fcr conyt.r'ttng pressure units to equivalent heat units -

h = enthalpy '

4 q = rate of heat generatics per unit piprlength The computer program possesses speckal pr'ovisfork-to allow anlysis of valve opening and clesing situations. '-

~ ,

0495s:10  %

1- ' '

. s ..

Fluid acceleration inside the pipe generates reaction forces on all y negments of the line that are bounded at either end by an elbow or i bead. Reaction forces resulting from fluid pressure and momentum variations are calculated. These forces can be expressed in terms of the flutd properties available from the transient hydraulic analysis, performed using program ITCHVALVE. The momentum equation can be expressed in vector form as:

Fgy - pVdv + pV(V

• ndA)

Frc.a this equation, the total force on th'e pipe can be derived:

ri (1 - cos ag) ,y r 2 (1 - cos a2} sW pipe"{ sin og Tf Bend 1 { sin a2 Bend 2

+b straight $at dl 9c pipe A = piping flow area y = volume F = force r = radius of curvature of appropriate elbow a = angle of appropriate elbow W = mass acceleration All other terms are previously defined.

Unbalanced forces are calculated for each straight segment of pipe from the pressurizer to the relief tank using program FORRJN. The time-histories of these forces are stored on tape to be used for the subse-quent structural analysis of the pressurizer safety and relief lines.

0495s:10

. 4.6.2 COMPARISON 10 EPRI TEST RESULTS l l

Piping load data has been generated from the tests conducted by EPRI at the Combustion Engineering Test Facility. Pertinent tests simulating dynamic opening of the safety valves for representative commercial upstream environments were carried out. The resulting downstream piping loadings and responses were measured. Upstream environments for particular valve opening cases of importance, which envelope the commercial scenarios, are:

A. Cold water discharge followed by steam - steam between the pressure source and the loop seal - cold loop seal between the steam and the valve, B. Hot water discharge followed by steam - steam between the pressure source and the loop seal - hot loop seal between the steam and the valve. .

C. Steam discharge - steam between the pressure source and the valve.

Specific thermal hydraulic and structural analyses have been completed for the Combustion Engineering Test Configuration. Figure 4-3 illus-trates the placement of force measurement sensors at the test site.

Figures 4-4, 4-5 and 4-6 illustrate a comparison of the thermal hydrau-lica11y calculated results using the ITCHVALVE and FORFUN computer programs versus experimental results for Test 908, the cold water discharge followed by steam case. Figure 4-4 sijows the pressure time histories for PT9, which is located just downstream of the valve.

Figures 4-5 and 4-6 illustrate, respectively, the force time histories ,

of the horizontal run (WE28/WE29) and the long vertical run (WE32/WE33) imediately dovmstream of the safety valve. Significant structural damping in the third segment after the valve was noticed at the test and was verified by structural analyses. Consequently, a comparison of ,

force WE30/WE31 was not presented here. No useable test data for sensor

~

WE34/WE35 was available for Test 908.

0495s:10

' ~~-- --------'------~--- -

0 o Figures 4-7 through 4-11 illustrate a comparison of calculateti versus experimental results for Test 917, the hot water discharge followed by steam case. Figure 4-7 shows the pressure time histories for PT9.

Figures 4-8, 4-9, 4-10 and 4-11 illustrate, respectively, the thpraal hydraulically calculated and the ' experimentally determined force time histories for (WE28/WE29), (E32/WE33), (E30NE31) and (E34NE35).

Blowdown forces were included in the total analytically calculated force for WE34NE35 as this section of piping vents to the atmosphere.

Although not presented here, comparisons were also made to the test data l

available for safety valve discharge without a loop seal (steam discharge).

The application of the ITCHVALVE and FORFUN computer programs for cal-culating the fluid-induced loads on the piping downstream of the safety and relief valves has been demonstrated. Although not presented here, the capability has also been shown by direct comparison to the solutions of classical problems.

The application of the structural computer programs (discussed in Section 4.6.3) for calculating the system response has also been demonstrated. Stru:tural models representative of the Cont >ustion Engineering Test Configuration werep developed. Figures 4-12, 4-13 and 4-14 illustrate, respectively, a comparison of the structural analysis results and the experimental results for locations (E28/WE29),

(WE32/WE33) and (WE30/WE31) for test 908. No useable test data for sensor (WE34/WE35) was available. Figures 4-15, 4-16, 4-17 and 4-18 show for test 917, respectively, the structural analysis results versus the test results for locations (WE28NE29), (WE32/WE33), (WE30NE31) and (WE34/WE35) .

4.6.3 VALVE TRUST ANALYSIS The safety and relief lines were modeled statically and dynamically  ;

(seismically) as described in Sections 4.1 through 4.4. The mathe-matical model used in the seismic analysis was modified for the salve thrust analysis to represent the safety and relief valve discharge. The 0495s:10

.i ...

- time-history hydraulic forces determined by FORFUN were applied to the piping system lump mass points. The dynamic solution for the valve thrust was obtained by using a modified-predictor-corrector-integration technique and normal unde theocr. .

The time-history solution was found using program FIFM3. The input to

~

this program cons 1sts of natural frequencies, normal modes, and applied forces. The natural frequencies and normal modes for the modified pres-surizer safety and relief line dynamic model were determined with the WESTDYN program. The time-history displacement response was stored on magnetic tape for later use in computing the total system response due to the valve thrust conditions. The time-history displacements of the FIXFM3 program were used as input to the WESTDYN2 program to determine the time-history internal forces and deflections at each end of the piping elements. For this calculation, the displacements were treated as imposed deflections on the pressurizer safety and relief line masses. The solution was stored on tape for later use in the piping stress evaluation and piping support load evaluation.

The time-history internal forces and displacements of the WESTDYN2 program were used as input to the p0SDYN2 program to determine the maximum forces, moments, and displacements that exist at each end of the piping elements and the maximum loads for piping supports. The results from program POSDYN2 are saved on TAPE 14 for future use in piping stress analysis and support load evaluation.

I i

i l

i l

l l

0495s:10

I2 i SAFETY LINE A 21 22 i L8010A 3 .

6 SQ a

~

23 g is ,, ,

4 SAFETY LINE C SAFETY LINE B

(

18 7f IS

_01 8

/2 (2524 I7 i I

19 FROM RELIE LINE 3 27 8

i 0 28 9 29 lO ll I f

- FIGURE 4-1A: SAFETY LINE HYDRAULIC MODEL -

FROM PRESSURIZER TO ANCHOR A005 31 l, NOTE: The numbers correspond to the force location in Table 6-1.

t 34 33 ,

i *

., 1 A001

\

l 42 43 PRESSURIZER ==

RELIEF T,wg Al 40 39 4

38 A005 35 37

1. UUA 36 .

FIGURE 4-1B: SAFETY LINE HYDRAULIC MODEL FROM ANCHOR A005 TO RELIEF TANK Note: The numbers correspond to the force location in Table 6-1.

I

MODEL FROM PRESSURIZER g TO ANCHOR A005 ,

- 2 flote: The numbers correspond to the force 5

4- hi location in Table 6-2.

i 6

33 FROM SAFETY LINE A 11 N

! 10 6 I3 FROM SAFETY LINE C 35 9 FROM SAFETY LINE B

• \ \gM 15 I8 r*

40 2D 20 39 ,,

~

1 N

29 30 PRESSURIZER RELIU

==

TANK 28 26 El g$

A005 24 A004 23 FIGURE 4-2B: RELIEF .INE HYDRAULIC MODEL FROM ANCHOR A005 TO RELIEF TANK e umbers correspond to the force location in Table Q i

.a .. y l

1 f

.~

w g 6  %

,, EE s $

• - EW .

s g g

b\\\\\\\ \\\\ \ \ \ \l \\\\ l

=.

s ,

s g I s _

\ E N E s a s

• \

m .

A

\

N E Dh.

l.

.2 W

E

+

s

\

s .

t-un dI

-=

> 8E &E

• ~

m.

E e

> + en m

hf

- s' i

{ ,

I

- #' h5 E I M s

.}._' ,

f 3* :E25

"/

- t t .

) "" A s

s e

L b o

55 ( .

M5 i N -

)-2 $

• ~~

000.* .

. l

1. \ '

~- a s

l '

.CDD- .

,8 } - tests i S s

I g --- IEWEE i

i I

' \

l i I \

300.- -

i n l \ .

l \

s'

,I t

i \ <

200.* * \ /

, \ /

i

\/ J 1

I I

i 100r - s s

e

= ~

I t  !

f

c. o!1 *> *

• ^

l time (seconds)

FIGURI 4-4 : Co parison of the EPRI Pressure Time-History for PT09 from Test 908 with the ITCHVALVE Pre-dicted Pressure Time-History 6

L  :.

1.0E4 ' ' ' ' ' '

A <

\ >

rJ \ .

/  : <

/% s / l <

i i

,- I 0.0 '

i <

l I a i i I 3

I

' \

I I, <

5 -1.0E4 '

-}-

i  :

I l

\

t '

\ '

1

-2.0E4 $-

tests <

nCHvAlvE :

l

~

\

-3.0E4

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

0.05 0.15 0.25 Time (seconds)

FIGURE 4-5: COMPARISON OF THE EPRI FDP.CE TIME-HISTORY FOR WE28 and WE29 FROM TEST 908 WITH THE ITCHVALVE PREDICTED FORCE TIME-HISTORY l

l 1

i

1.0E5 1

1 1

~ ~- <

5 2 il Pg '

50 ,

c[ ,

M 5  :

i

-1.0E5 .

1 1

1

-2.0E5 '

I .

tests <

~ ITCl1YALVE <

1

-3.0E5 1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 time () seconds}

FIGURE 4-6:t0MPARISON OF THE EPRI FORCE TIME-HISTORY FOR WE12 l AND WE33 FROM TEST 908 WITH THE ITCHVALVE PREDICTED l FORCE TIME-RISTnRY e

e 4

i

500.

\ -

\

l ,

400 , - 1 I I -

9 -

k g

\ t

_ 300 , - g

~

\

E

~ I \

[ t

! l _b r _

.E . ,I %s ___,,__ ._____

200. . l 1 -

I .

. l I Test i

100 .

f ---- ITCHVALVE I

l l .

[

J

.. /% - .

0. 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5  ;

time (seconds) .

FIGURE 4-7 : Comparison of the EPRI Pressure Time-History from PT09 from Test 917 with the ITCHVA1.YE Predicted .

l . Pressure Time-History l

l 1

,o

( ?.

4000

~

2000

- 8 I l "

.I

./

l lr .

1 m e .

j 0.0 L .. 4 8

c r ,-

l ,  ? N

., - [l!

i h g

' -2000 -

I y ' fj ' .,

I

-4000 ,'

. > s*

l! .

E'

-6000 tests

---

ITCHVALYi

-8000 '

' 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 time (seconds)

FIGURE 4.g : Comparison of the EPRI Force Time-History for WE28 and WE29 from Test 917 with the ITCHVALVE Predicted Force Time-History  !

l l .

O l

~

~.

I t.0E4 I

I.

' ' 1.0E4 j j{

, 1 s i j N-

>l

!!v

\

I Sn.% .

l

. O. m ,y y y vv a -

I l

1

-1.0E4 i ,

'd tests ITCHVALVE

/ ~^ ^

-2.0E4 0.0 - 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 ,

time (seconds)

FIGURE 4-9 : Comparison of the EPRI Force Time-History for WE32 and WE33 from Test 917 with the ITCHVALVE Predicted Force Time-History i

9

3.0E4 -

tests , ,

- *-- . ITCHVALVE :

2.0E4 ,'.

g I \

l \

I 1 o s 7 1.0E4 , '. l 2 \

i i i n  !

l- i e 0. - "

,, 'm ") \; n--

) l

> /

. /

4

-1.0E4 ,/

, -2.0E4 ,

l 0.0 ,

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 time (seconds)

FIGURE 4-10: . Comparison of the EPRI Force Time-History For WE30 and WE31 From Test 917 with the ITCHVALVE Predicted Force Time-History et l

9

O O

2.0E4 tests

---

ITCNVALVE -

E l\\ .

C I s e . I \

[

w . 1.0E4 ,

! \ ,

. r \

t

\

i f \

l i

I e

i I

I I

/

0.0 '

, 0. 0 , 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 time (seconds) )

l FIGURE 4-11: Comparison of the EPRI Force Time-History For WE34 and WE35 from Test 917 with the ITCHVALVE Predicted Force Time-History

• e e

i

. l 1

20,0 I

10.0 ,

, s

'u e 0.0 -' I 'A '

e, I '

giI, - .

E II p L \ A

-10.0 I Y l

p

/ V I Tests

-20.0 ........ FIXFM3 (Structural Analysis) i 'l "

26.11 "

l 0.05 0.15 0.25 0.35 0.45 Time (Sec.)

FIGURE 4-12: Comparison of the EPRI Force Time-History for WE28 and WE29 from Test 908 with the FIXFM3 Predicted Force Time-History I

i e

e D L_ _ - _ - - - - - - - - - -- : - - - - -

111.01 100.0 '

50.0 l'

.ll 00 '"' ' 'J - #

~'

w' j ; gr 'v v

_ -50.0 bl ir ,

E .L I D

- L i

S -100.0 -

E e

-150.0 Tests

-200.0 -

---

FIXFM3 ll (StructuralAnalysis) i

-246.92 ' '

. 0.0 O.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 Time (SEC) i Figure 4-13: Comparison of the EPRI Force Time-History For WE32  !

and WE33 From Test 908 With the FIXFM3 Predicted l Force Time-History l

l

.. s.

90.896 ,

g4 75.0  !!  ; ,

88 s

8 I I

'jf (I' f i 50.0  :

I f ;g

! . I I e

\\ l 25.0 '

E

) ,

i, 4 8 I I

' g 8 8 E

g o

" f g 1 0.0 - " ' F  ! -

E L'V' l P i l o .

, , i . I E

i I 3 E -25.0 ,'  ! ;lI t ii 8 E. t g

< l e

, , g 6

-50.0 . i l

,e ,

Tests l l

-75.0 *

---

FIXFM3 (StructuralAnalysis) g#

1

-98.324 ^ -

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 Time (SEC)

Figure 4-14: Comparison of the EPRI Force Time-History For WE30 and WE31 From Test 908 With the FIXFM3 Predicted Force Time-History .

l l

l l_ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . - - - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ - - - - . - - . _ _ . . - - _ - . . - _ . _ . - -_ . - - . _ _ . . - - _ , . - - - _ ,

~

I i 5.0 l.. .

l 4.0 l F 1 L ' ~

.. 3.0 l l ,

2.0 l J .

i i

o I l 1.0 r, I I W l

I

• I

' ^- ,L 0.0 .

,l

.a v -s .., ,<. - --

I il i. I.

. , ss Ul

'- 1. 0 i i' i l i / b .

g .. l 1 i j

& -2.0 J l I

e

. ' l E -3.0 E I i

-4.0 -l l  ;;

-5.0 0 .

-6.0 ,

i Tests -7.0 )

---

FIXFM3

-8.0 -

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.495 Time (SEC)

Figure 4-15 Comparison of the EPRI Force Time-History For WE28 and WE29 From Test 917 With the FIXFM3 Predicted Force Time-History l

.. a..

. l l

-12.956 n .

10.0 f, l

hI[

i 4  !

5.0 .

f,

i? I

5. 0.0

- ^#

? s/ t A ,

j l 9 /

is T ( ff j .

I

-5.0 I I l

i i Tests

-10.0 h)/! r

---

rixrna (Structural Analysis)

-13.266 u 0.0 O.1 02 0.3 0.4 0.495 Time (SEC)

P Figure 4-16: Comparison of the EPRI Force Time-History For WE32 and WE33 From Test 917 With the FIXFM3 Predicted Force Time-History I

e e

4 4

25.863 '

i 25.0 j

f -

I 20.0 i '

8

' f I 15.0' In \i

~

i l

10.0 1 f

ff 8

'\

• o !  %

5.0 ,

i

_ . . . . f 0.0

, /y'n' '((j'rj ,' p. -

E s "o -5.0 I #

f l

-10.0 -

Tests

-15.0 -

---

FIXFM3 Y (Structural Anal-ysis),

-20.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.495 l

l l

Time (SEC)

Figure 4-17: Comparison of the EPRI Force Time-History For WE30 and WE31 From Test 917 With the FIXFM3 Predicted Force Time-History 9

.' '.~

i l

l

. 14.588 n jg 12.5 , i, I \

l I I

10.0 k i

t 7.5 E

& I E ,

$ 5.0  : k -

a f / \j Tests ( ,T,

~

(Structurabkalys is) 2.5 <

o I

/

O.0 -

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.495 Time (SEC)

Figure 4-18: Comparison of the EPRI Force Time-History For WE34 and WE35 From Test 917 With the FIXFM3 Predicted Force Time-History ,

. . 1

. l SECTION 5 METHOD OF SiRESS EVALUATION

5.1 INTRODUCTION

The method used to codine the primary loads to evaluate the adequacy of the piping system is described in this section.

1 i

5.2 PRIMARY STRESS EVALUATION 1

In order to perform a primary stress evaluation in accordance with the rules of the Code, definitions of stress codinations are required for the normal, upset, emergency and faulted plant conditions as defined in Section 3. Tables 2-1 and 2-2 illustrate the allowable stress inten- ,

sities for the appropriate codination. Table 2-3 defines all pertinent terms.

5.2.1 DESIGN CONDITIONS The piping minimum wall thickness, t,, is calculated in accordance with the Code. The actual pipe minimum wall thickness meets the Code requirement.

The cosined stresses due to primary loadings of pressure, weight, and ,

design mechanical loads calculated using applicable stress intensity factors must not exceed the allowable limit. The resultant moment.

Mg , due to loads caused by weight and design mechanical loads is calculated using the following equation:

M I.

+ ) 2, f , y }2 l M*wt M*DML l I #wt IDML l Y N )

l . / . M S2 '"

M*wt DML ,

I 0495s:10 l

w'

.; s- n, .

t where --

s l

M ,M ,M Z \ . dea &eight moment components

\t #wt wt 4 .

,M ,M - design mechanical load moment components 2

M*0ML#DML DML The maximum stresses due to pressure, weight, and DML in the piping system are reported on tables in Section 6.

5.2.2 UPSET CONDITIONS '

The combined stresses due to the primary loadings of pressure, weight, OBE seismic, and relief valve thrust loadings calculated using the applicable stress intensity factors must,not exceed the allowables. The resultant moments, Mg , due to. loads caused by these loadings are calculated as shown below.

For seismic and relief valve thrust loading:

, g2 2 2 2 M

I= M Nt

+

/M*2 0BE T

,[g,wt .fg# ,g# \2 i i

( 0BE S, T X U)1 \ U )1 -

i2 S g if a

./ . rM2 .

( M*wt (#0BE ,q$T U)_

where M ,M ,M = deadweight moment components Z

\t #wt wt

,M # = inertial DBE moment components M*0BE,M#0BE 0BE

,M = relief line operation moment components M* SOT ,MSOT SOTy U U 0495s:10

• [ ~

le -

.- 1 5.2.3 EMERGENCY.0)NDITIONS The conbined stresses due to primary loadings of pressure, weight and safety valve thrust, using applicable stress intensification factors, sust not exceed the allowable limits. The magnitude of the resultant soment, My is calculated from the moment components as shown below:

M I= l

. M

'rM* SOTwt 52 . rs#S0T 1 I

. M 32 /M* SOT Mzwt'52 I

I 2/2

_N E

Y N #wt)l N Y_

where l

l M ,My , M, = deakeight moment components  :

,M M,50T SOT

, M, SOT = safety line operation moment components E E E 5.2.4 FAULTED CONDITIONS The combined stresses due to primary loadings of pressure, weight, SSE and SOT p , using applicable stress intensification factors must not exceed the allowable limits. For Ye resultant moment loading, Mg ,

the SSE and SOT p moments are conbined using the square-root-of-the-sum-of-the-squares (SRSS) addition and added absolutely with deakelght for each moment component (H x ,Mj , M,).

The magnitude of the resultant moment, Mg , is calculated from the three moment components, as shown below:

M / 2 ,, 2 1/2 , 2 I= I y*SSE M*SDT' g*wt)

.N

[

2

. M 2 1/2

. M h2 3 SOT" #SSE Y

1. wtY l

0495s:10

,- 7_-

,e

• l ,l <

 ! r, .

~

~*

' , ~

.* z, .

{

/

' ~

2. 2 1/2

. . m3 . M . !M St"1/2 _ .

l l F.

a SSE. l zwtt  ! -

(( 50T y ,. ,

, I where - .  : ,

.i M .M .M = deakefght moment components -

M*SSE,M#SSE . M*SSE = inertial SSE moment componeats

~

~

l l

x z U

, SOTp # SOTp SOTp ,

l '

i For the safety and relief pf ping, the faulted condition load combination of pressure, weight, and valve thrus't is considered as Diven in Tables l

2-1 and 2-2 and defined in Table 2-3. The pipe break 1c4ds (MS/FWPB or.

LOCA) can be ignored for the PSARY systen. These loads. have 'Very little impact on the pressurizer safety and relief system ' den compared to the loading conditions discussed in this report.

5.3 SECONDARY STRESS EVALUATION The conbined stresses due to the secondary loadings of thermal, pres-sure, and deadweight using applicable stress intensification factors must not exceed the allowable limit. For the resultant moment loading, Mj , thermal moments are conbined as showr. below:

I M + /M -M + M# -M #

I= M* MAX - M* MIN #MIN

(# MAX MAX MIN

.My .M = maximum thermal moment considering all thermal cases including normal operation l

0495s:10

'*y ,.

M ,M ,M = minimum thermal moment considering all thermal cases including normal operation This, Mg , is then substituted into the appropriate equations of .the  ;

applicable code.

r 0495s:10

'g 7 SECTION 6 .

RESULTS 6.1 EVALUATION PRIOR TO EPRI TEST PROGRAM .

The Callaway Unit 1 and the Wolf Creek Unit safety and relief valve discharge piping' system has received a very detailed thermal hydraulic and structural $namic evaluation to. insure the operability and struc-tural integrity of the as-designed system. This structural evaluation, including the thermal hydraulic analysis, was based on the criteria and methods that were current prior to the availability of the data from the EPRI Test Program. The thermal hydraulic forcing functions were gener-ated assuming simultaneous opening of either the safety valves or the relief valves, since they represent the worst applicable loading condi- l tions for the piping and supports for this specific layout. These forcing functions were then used as input to the structural evaluation in which the primary and secondary stresses were determined. The methods used and the loadings considered are consistent with Section 2.0 and Section 3.0 of this report, respectively. Results of this extensive analysis and evaluation have demonstrated that the PSARY piping meets all the applicable design limits for the various loading cases. In addition, the acceptability of the valve nozzles and equipment nozzles was assured for the applied loads.

6.2 EVALUATION SUBSEQUENT TO EPRI TEST PROGRAM The Callaway Unit I and the Wolf Creek Unit pressurizer safety and i relief valve discharge piping system has received a detailed thermal i hydraulic analysis and structural evaluation to ensure the operability and structural integrity of the system. The methods used and the l loadings considered are consistent with Sections 2, 3, 4, and 5 of this 1 report.

l l

t 0495s:10 l l

I

~'

~ -

(

6.2.1 TERMAL HYDRAULIC RESULTS l

The thermal hydraulic analysis used computer programs which have been shown to match the "esults of the EPRI Test Program (Section 4.4,2).

Hydraulic forcing functions were generated assuming the simultaneous

opening of either the safety valves or the relief valves since these represent the worst applicable loading cases for the piping and supports of this specific layout.

Table 6-1 shows the maximum forces on each straight run of pipe for the simultaneous opening of all three safety valves while Table 6-2 shows the maximum forces for the simultaneous opening of both relief valves.

To account for uncertainties in the valve flow capacities due to toler-ances and deviations, a conservative factor of over 1.20 was included in the maximum rated valve mass flow rate for these cases. This results in conservative forcing functions.

For the safety valves opening case, hot loop seals were assumed to exist upstream of the valves since the piping has been insulated to eliminate cold loop seals which can induce severe hydraulic forces on the pipng system. The loop seal temperature distribution for this case was presumed to be consistent with the distribution in EPRI test 917. That is, the loop seal temperature at the valve inlet was about 300*F. and approximately eight feet upstream, the loop seal liquid temperature was near the system saturation temperature of'655'F. Based upon engineering judgement, significant flashing of hot water near the valve occurred for test 917, thus reducing the downstream loads significantly.

Based on analytical work and tests to date, all acoustic pressures in the upstream piping calculated or observed prior to and during safety valve hot or cold loop seal discharge are below the maximum permissable pressure. The piping between the pressurizer nozzle and the inlet of the safety valves is 6-inch schedule 160. The calculated maximus j upstrees pressure for this size of piping is below the maximum per- ,

i missable pressure. A similar evaluation of this inlet piping pheno-menon, applicable for tsnperatures below 300*F was conducted and the

! results are documented in a report entitled " Review of Pressurizer 0495s:10

l

?. .

Safety Valve Performance as Observed in the EPRI Safety and Relief Valve Test Program". WCAP-10105, dated June 1982.

6.2.2 STRUCTURAL RESULTS ,

Stress sumaries.for the valve discharge loading cases considered are ,

provided in Tables 6-3 through 6-15. Plots of the structural models are shown in Figures 6-1 and 6-2.

For purposes of providing stress sumaries, the system was broken up into the following three sets of sections:

Section 1: Piping between the pressurizer and the safety valve outlet nozzles (upstream of valves).

Section 2: Piping between the pressurizer and the relief valve outlet nozzles (upstream of valves).

Section 3: Piping between the safety and relief valve outlet nozzles and the pressurizer relief tank (seismically designed downstream portion).

The results of this extensive analysis and evaluation demonstrated that the piping met the applicable design limits for the various loading cases. In addition, the acceptability of the valve nozzles and equip-ment nozzles was assured for the applied loads.

6.3

SUMMARY

OF RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS The thermal hydraulic analysis and structural evaluation of the Callaway i Unit 1 and the Wolf Creek Unit pressurizer safety and relief valve dis- l l

charge piping system have been completed, except for reconciliation to the as-built conditions, which will be performed when such information is provided. In sumary, contingent upon support adequacy, the oper-ability and structural integrity of the as-designed system have'been ensured for all applicable loadings and load combinations including all pertinent safety and relief valve discharge cases.

0495s:10

. - S

.----......--..---a.-------..--a-.:l 555DESDDDDD500003sach5mD5522553500053505053550254 l

1

[illiiiiiiiiiIIIIIIIIIlliiEIIIIEIIIIIIIIII53 IIII M

8 I !s 5i sij  !!!

Cs "5 I

N i !I

/,

=

I

~

ii

=n #

/

l, a

gl a y 1 <ian

(  ::  :

g

<i== =

il i E=

15 3

(- -

3 33

{

sa I i

g # w

$2 8 o* da

p , a a-

"M

% i%

• r,, y kk g m p .

1. pe, =

w ws wk t.

=  : fi IN -

- 5x

' I

• a  ; ma

~

'I 1  : M' g 'N  ;;;"

N/g 5 mK 2 = .-

1. f a.

%g *

.l em * .

a e e .W6

.. ' u a"n 21

- e.

W

• k%'

N . R8GID

• 'I T

• gr . grelet sessia E # 83 'e T M E 8" T Su . anasta 1200 0014 el 3 1810 80C3 Il V.1 3 . ABI4L 1810 B003 th t p 1. Itemsstest 1p0 8803 yv V = tittlCAL 1420 0802 at t 3000 anos yy m

sy

/ --

3150 8008 ni.0 .00 w.

3070 9802 yv s 3130 ICC1 yv 3160 8001 RI 1 3:30 J b M30 8002 81 v. Y am cui si e, i 3310 ACC1 anc%e oms ,

i PRESSURIZER RELIEF TANK

\

% g

. A i  !  %

s l

FIGURE 6-2 ,

PRESSURIZER SAFETY AND RELIEF LINE MODEL FROM ANCHOR A005 TO RELIEF TANK

..* ... l

• TABLE 6-1 HYDRAULIC FORCES - SAFETY LINE Force No. Force (L_BQ Force No. Force.(LBF) i 1 -

2 80 23 3400 2 630 24 3400 3 3400 25 3400 4 300 26 420 5 3400 27 11000 6 5000 2B 1000 7 10000 29 3400 8 320 E SMO 9 5300 31 59000 10 6200 32 14000 11 7400 33 19000 12 17000 34 13000 13 2 90 35 8000 14 680 36 2l00 15 3400 37 13500 16 3400 38 4100 17 3400 39 8500 18 3700 40 2900 19 9000 41 9000 ,

20 4000 42 6000 21 2 90 43 3500 22 680 The force numbers correspond to the segnent nunbers on Figure 4-1A and B.

t l

l '

( 0495s:10 i__

~

TABLE 6-2 HYDRAULIC FORCES - RELIEF LINE Force No. Force (LBF) Force No. Force _(LBF) 1 45 18 12000

)

2 150 19 3300 i 3 530 20 4 800 l 4 30 21 3400 5 50 22 2000 6

42 23 MD 7 6 50 24 3500 8 7M 25 1100 9 630 26 2300 10 1300 27 20 11 5000 28 2300 12 2700 29 1500 13 2500 30 1000 14 8000 33 480 15 6000 34 620 16 4200 35 760 17 1200 36 600 The force nunters correspond to the sepent nunbers on Figure 4-2A and B.

i 0495s:10 l.

F~ TABLE 6-3 PRIMARY STRESS SUP9tARY - UPSTREAM 0F VALVES Piping System: Pressurizer Relief Line Combination 1 - N Node Maximum Allowable Point Piping Component Stress (ksi) Stress (ksi) 4430 Butt wel d 7.7 24.1 4050 Elbow 6.0 24.1 5000 Tee 6.0 24.1 4210 Reducer 14.4 24.1 4420 Straight run 8.0 24.1 See Tables 2-1 through 2-3 for load combinations and definitions.

t 0495s:10

. i

• TABLE 6-4 i

PRIMARY STRESS StM4ARY - UPSTREAM OF VALVES I

Piping System: Pressurizer Relief Line Combination 2 - N + OBE + 50T,3 Node Maximum Allowable Point Piping Compenent Stress (ksi) Stress (ksi) 4230 Straight run 9.9 28.9 4430 Butt weld 8.6 28.9 4250 Elbow 10.2 28.9 4210 Reducer 16.7 28.9 5000 Tee 7.2 28.9 See Tables 2-1 through 2-3 for load conbinations and definitions.

l 0495s:10

.- e.

D.

e=

' TABLE 6-5 PRIMARY STRESS SUMARY - UPSTREAM 0F VALVES Piping System: Pressurizer Relief Line Combination 3 - N + SOTr-Mode **I"U" ""

• Point Piping Componen_t_ Stress (ksi) Stress (ksi) i Straight run 8.3 36.2 4420 Butt weld 7.9 36.2 4430  !

4050 Elbow 6.2 36.2 Reducer 15.1 36.2 4210 l

Tee 6.5 36.2 )

5000 J'

See Tables 2-1 through 2-3 for load conbinations and definitions.

0495s:10

~.

• TABLE 6-6 l

i PRIMARY STRESS

SUMMARY

- UPSTREAM 0F VALVES l

Piping System: Pressurizer Relief Line Combinations 4 and 5 - N + LOCA + SSE + SDTy Node Maximum Allowable Point F'. ping Component Stress (ksi) Stress (ksi) 4230 Straight run 9.7 48.2 4430 Butt weld 8.8 48.2 i 4250 Elbow 10.1 48.2 4210 Reducer 16.7 48.2 5000 Tee 7.2 48.2 See Tables 2-1 through 2-3 for load combinations and definitions.

l l

D495s:10 -

4 +

- TABLE 6-7 PRIMARY STRESS StM4ARY - UPSTREAM 0F VALVES Piping System: Pressurizer Safety Line Combination 1 - N Node Maximum Allowable Point Piping Component Stress (ksi) Stress (ksi) 3070 Butt veld 6.4 24.1 3070 Elbow 6.8 24.1 3060 Straight run 6.5 24.1 See Tables 2-1 through 2-3 for load combinations and definitions.

l 0495s:10

l N.

• TABLE 6-8

(

PRIMARY STRESS SLM4ARY - UPSTREM 0F VALVES Piping System: Pressurizer Safety Line Con 61 nation 2 - N + OBE + SOTg ,

Node Maxinum Allawable Point Piping Component Stress (ksi) Stress (ksi)  :

l 3130 Straight run 17.6 28.9 l

l 3140 Butt weld 17.6 28.9 l i

3120 Elbow E4.7 28.9 See Tables 2-1 through 2-3 for load con 6fnations and definitions.

l l

1 0495s:10

TABLE 6-9 PRIMARY STRESS StM4ARY - UPSTREM 0F VALVES Piping System: Pressurizer Safety Line l

Combination 3 - N + SOT, Node Maximum Allowable Point Piping Component Stress (ksi) Stress (ksi) 3160 Straight run 12.5 36.2 30 20 Butt weld 11.5 36.2 3150 Elbow 14.6 36.2 See Tables 2-1 through 2-3 for load corrbinations and definitions.

0495s:10

\

, f* o*

• TABLE 6-10 PRIMARY STRESS StM4ARY - UPSTREAM 0F VALVES Piping System: Pressurizer Safety Line Combinations 4 and 5 - N + LOCA + SSE + S0Te Mode Maximum Allowable Point Piping Component Stress (ksi) Stress (ksi) 3130 Straight run 17.2 48.2 3020 Butt weld 17.2 48.2 3120 Elbow 24.1 48.2 See Tables 2-1 through 2-3 for load combinations and definitions.

l 0495s:10 l

l '. < ,..

l 4 j*. o -

h' TABLE 6-11 PRIMARY STRESS SUPNARY - SEISMICALLY DESIGNED DOWNSTREAM P0RTION Piping System: Pressurizer Safety and Relief Line Combination 1 - N Node Maximum Allowable Point Piping Component Stress (ksi) Stress (ksi) 1630 Butt weld 4.7 15.9 1360 Elbow 4.1 15.9 1340 Reducer 6.2 15.9 1390 Tee 3.9 15.9 1230 Straight run 4.0 15.9 LY See Tables 2-1 through 2-3 for load combinations and definitions.

i l

l l

0495s:10

^

.; ..o.

1 o

• TABLE 6-12 j PRIMARY STRESS StM4ARY - SElsMICALLY DESIGNED D0WNSTREAM PORTION Piping System: Pregpurizer Safety and Relief Line yombination 2 - N + 50Tij Node Maximum Allowable Point Piping Component Stress (ksi) Stress (ksi) 1610 Straight run 5.1 19.1 2350 Butt weld 5.6 19.1 1590 Elbow 5.2 19.1 1340 Reducer 7.7 19.1 2370 Tee 7.2 19.1 See Tables 2-1 through 2-3 for load combinations and definitions.

1 0495s:10

.s , . , i .

29

• TABLE 6-13 PRIMARY STRESS SIM1ARY - SEISMICALLY DESIGNED DOWNSTREAM P0RTION Piping System: Pressurizer Safety and Relief Line Combination 3 - N + OBE + SOTy Node Maximum Allowable Point Piping Component Stress (ksi) Stress (ksi) 3250 Strai~ght run 17.2 28.6 3260 Butt weld 21.4 28.6 3260 Elbow 19.7 28.6 1340 Elbow 8.9 28.6 2370 Tee 7.3 28.6 I

See Tables 2-1 through 2-3 for load con 6fnations and definitions.

1 t

• l 0495s:10

9o ,

• TABLE 6-14 PRIMARY STRESS SLM1ARY - SEISMICALLY DESIGNED DOWNSTREAM PORTION l

Piping System: Pressurizer Safety and Relief Line  ;

Combination 4 - N + SOTr Mode Maximum Allowable Point Piping Component Stress (ksi) Stress (ksi) 1220 Straight run 11.8 28.6 l

3240 Butt weld 15.7 28.6 1590 Elbow 9.1 28.6 1340 Reducer 16.4 28.6 1390 Tee 8.4 28.6 See Tables 2-1 through 2-3 for load combinations and definitions.

l 1

0495s:10

u s.....

- ). 9 o TABLE 6-15 PRIMARY $ TRESS SLM4ARY - SEISMICALLY DESIGNED DOWNSTREAM PORTION Piping System: Pressurizer Safety and Relief Line Combinations 5 and 6 - N + LOCA + $$E + SOT, Mode Maximum Allowable Point Piping Component Stress (ksi) Stress (ksi) 3250 Straight run 16.6 38.2 3240 Butt weld 24.4 38.2 3260 Elbow 19.0 38.2 1340 Reducer 16.6 38.2 2520 Tee 8.6 38.2 See Tables 2-1 through 2-3 for load combinations and definitions.

0495s:10