ML20072F181
| ML20072F181 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Duane Arnold  |
| Issue date: | 08/09/1994 |
| From: | IES UTILITIES INC., (FORMERLY IOWA ELECTRIC LIGHT |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20072F163 | List: |
| References | |
| 42116-R-001, 42116-R-001-R01, 42116-R-1, 42116-R-1-R1, NUDOCS 9408230239 | |
| Download: ML20072F181 (119) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:Attachment 7
~
RTS-232 to NG-94-2629 Report No. 42116-R-001 DUANE ARNOLD ENERGY CENTER MAIN STEAM ISOLATION VALVE LEAKAGE CLOSURE SEISMIC EVALUATION August 9,1994 Prepared for: IES UTILITIES D [ kDobt$ o$0!b!31 P PDR
2 ; . . . _ , .-- A _ - _ - - . 42116-R-001 Revision 1 August 9,1994 Page 1 of 47 i i l l l DUANE ARNOLD ENERGY CENTER MAIN STEAM ISOLATION VALVE LEAKAGE CLOSURE SEISMIC EVALUATION August 9,1994
\
Prepared for: IES UTILITIES
.- . .-. . . .. .. _ . . .. . -.. . ~ . . ... -
l
~ 42116-R-001 ~-
Revision 1 August 9,1994 - Page 2 of 47
@ 1994 by EGE International ALL RIGHTS RESERVED The information contained in this document is confidential and proprietary data. No part of this document may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or.
~ mechanical, including photo-copying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from EQE , Incorporated. i 1 1 r l; IES/42116RPT. DOC l
.w v -+. m = - -- -- -- ---.-__--_.-_ _ _ .
- .. . . - ~ . - . .. . . . - . - - - . -
42116-R-OO1 Revision 1 August 9,1994 Page 3 of 47 APPROVAL. COVER SHEET { TITLE:_ Duane Arnold Enerav Center - Main Steam isolation Valve Leskaae Closure Seismic Evaluation REPORT NUMBER: 42116-R-001 CLIENT: IES Utilities PROJECT NO: 42116 REVISION RECORD REV.NO. DATE PREPARED REVIEWED APPROVED 0 8-1-94
% 7_ MV , , , g 1 8-9-94 g, V 0- V i
l i l l I l l 1
-- _w
/
. .e.. ., ., . . , . . , m.
1 1 42116-R-001 ) Revision 1 August 9,1994 Page 4 of 47 TABLE OF REVISIONS Revision Descriotion of Revision Date Acoroved DRAFT For IES Review June 10,1994 0 Initial Issue August 1,1994 1 Minor editorial changes August 9, '1994 and additional Figures 4-1, 4-2 and Attachment I. A 2 1
?
i B f IES/4 2116MPT. DOC
42116-R-001 Revision 1 l August 9,1994 ! Page 5 of 47 TABLE OF CONTENTS Ea9a
SUMMARY
7 1.0 SCOPE OF REVIEW 9 2.0 TURBINE BUILDING 12 2.1 Design Basis 12 3.0 MAIN TURBINE CONDENSERS 17 3.1 Design Basis 17 4.0 MAIN STEAM AND DRAIN LINE/ BYPASS PIPING 31 4.1 Main Steam and Turbine Bypass 32 4.2 Main Steam Drain to Condenser 33 l 5.0 INTERCONNECTED SYSTEMS 40 5.1 Design Basis 40 l FIGURES 1.1 MSIV Leakage Drain Path and Isolation Boundaries 11 3-1 Size Comparison of the DAEC Condenser with 24 Representative Condensers from the Earthquake Experience Database 3-2 Size Comparison of the DAEC Condenser with 25 Representative Condensers from the Earthquake Experience Database 3-3 Condenser Shell Footprint Comoarison 26 3-4 Comparison of DAEC Ground Response Spectrum to 27 Database Spectra 3-5 HP and LP Condenser Anchorage Layout 28 3-6 Anchorage Compared to Seismic Demand Parallel to 29 the Turbine Generator Axis i 3-7 Anchorage Compared to Seismic Demand 30 Perpendicular to the Turbine Generator Axis 4-1 Comparison of Whittier database sites and DAEC 38 design spectra (from Attachment I, Figure 27 and DAEC FSAR Figure 2.5-8, Sheet 6) 4-2 Comparison of database power plant sites and 39 DAEC design spectra (from Attachment I, Figure 28, and DAEC FSAR figure 2.5-8, Sheet 6) IES/4 2116RPT. DOC
42116-R-001 Revision 1 August 9,1994 Page 6 of 47 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) TABLES 3-1 Comparison of Database and DAEC Condensers 19 4-1 Interconnected System Design Parameters 41 4-2 Outlier identification and Resolution 43 ATTACHMENTS I Supplemental Piping Earthquake Performance Data December 1993 > t 1 1 b IES/42116RPT. DOC
42116-R-001 Revision 1 August 9,1994 Page 7 of 47
SUMMARY
In order to justify the capability of the main steam piping and condenser as the alternate leakage treatment system, EOE has verified that the main steam lines, the steam drain line, the condenser, and interconnecting piping and equipment are seismically adequate to withstand a safe shutdown earthquake and maintain their integrity. The seismic adequacy of those piping and equipment systems at Duane Arnold Energy Center (DAEC) was confirmed by comparing them to a detailed earthquake experience database as discussed in Section 6.7 of NEDC-31858P, Revision 2, and performing engineering walkdowns and evaluations using qualified seismic capability engineers. The earthquake experience database, which consists of the documentation of the performance of piping and equipment in power and industrial facilities during past earthquakes,is founded on extensive studies of over 100 industrial facilities and surveys of several hundred other facilities located in the vicinity of strong motion earthquakes that have occurred in California, Alaska, New Zealand, and Latin American countries since 1971. A detailed description of the database was provided to the NRC staff as part of the Georgia Power Company Plant Hatch Unit 2 supplementalinformation transmittal to the NRC dated January 6,1994 (Docket No. 50-366). The database information was presented in an EQE document attached to the submittal entitled " Supplemental Piping Earthquake Performance Data," dated December,1993. The current standard practice for the seismic design of piping and equipment systems has not considered the real performance of such systems in strong motion earthquakes. This has resulted in excessive conservatism in the treatment of primary stresses when uncorrected linear elastic analyses are performed and the results are compared to stress limits based on static tests. The ecrthquake experience data provides the only available full-scale tests of designs and installations. The data, therefore, provides a realistic and practical method of verifying the seismic adequacy of piping and equipment. Equipment and above ground piping at database facilities have exhibited excellent resistance to damage during and after earthquakes without the specific application of seismic design considerations and provisions. A large number of classes of equipment (pumps, valves, tanks, instrument cabinets, etc.) have proven seismically rugged when properly anchored. For welded steel piping designed and constructed to normalindustrial practico (e.g., ANSI B31.1), past seismic experience has never shown a primary collapse mode of failure. A relatively small number of seismically induced piping failures have occurred due to excessive relative support movements or seismic interactions. IES/4 2116 APT. DOC
42116-R-001 Revision 1 August 9,1994 Page 8 of 47 Consistent with the verification methodology, a plant specific seismic verification walkdown of all systems and components associated with the alternate MSIV leakage treatment was performed by qualified seismic engineers. The purpose of the walkdown was to physically verify that the components in the alternate leakage treatment system have attributes similar to those in the data bases that have good seismic performance and to identify potential seismic vulnerabilities. As a result of the walkdown and subsequent evaluations, EQE has determined that the plant features compare well with the database. The walkdown also includes an inspection for those structural details and causal factors that resulted in component damage at industrial sites contained in the database to ensure such conditions are evaluated to satisfaction or plant modifications are implemented to resolve the concern. As a result of the walkdown, EOE identified the need to implement minor modifications or repairs. IES Utilities, Inc. has compared the DAEC piping and equipment necessary to utilize the alternate MSIV leakage control method with the earthquake experience data including a walkdown to identify and evaluate any of the characteristics associated with the limited failures that have occurred at the database facilities. An engineering analysis of selected critical supports was performed which showed that the supports exhibited substantial margin. As a result, IES Utilities, Inc. has concluded that the DAEC main steam line, main steam drain line, condenser, and applicable interconnecting piping and equipment, are well represented by the earthquake experience data demonstrating good seismic performance, are confirmed to exhibit excellent resistance to damage from a design basis earthquake, have been shown to have substantial margin for seismic capability, and are, therefore, seismically adequate to withstand the DAEC design basis earthquake and maintain pressure retaining integrity. This capability of the alternate MSIV leakage treatment system to with stand the effects of the safe shutdown earthquake and continue to perform its intended function (treatment of MSIV leakage) satisfies the intent of the seismic requirement of Appendix A to 10 CFR 100. 1 ifs /4 2116RPT.000 I I
42116-R-001 Revision 1 August 9,1994 ; Page 9 of 47 ! I 1.0 SCOPE OF REVIEW The primary components to be relied upon for pressure boundary integrity in resolution of the BWR MSIV leakage issue are:
. The main turbine condenser.
- The main steam lines from the MSIV's to the turbine stop and bypass valves.
- The main steam turbine bypass and drain line piping to the condenser.
The BWROG MSIV Leakage Closure Committee has published guidelines for establishing the seismic verification boundary. The condenser forms the ultimate boundary of the leakage pathway. Boundaries may be established upstream of the condenser by utilizing a valve as a leakage boundary. The appropriate criteria used to select and justify a boundary valve are:
- Normally closed valve that will not open and can be assured to remain closed can be used as a seismic verification boundary.
. Normally open valves that can be assured to close and remain closed can be used as a seismic verification boundary.
. Manual actions may be utilized as a boundary valve if proceduralized and the use is justified.
The interacting systems boundaries are shown in Figure 1.1 A seismic verification walkdown was performed to assure that the main condenser and steam piping systems that are not seismically designed fall within the bounds of the design characteristics of the seismic experience database contained in Appendix D to the BWROG Report for increasing MSIV Leakage Rate Limits and Elimination of Leakage Control Systems (NEDC-31858P, Rev. 2). An additional report, " Supplemental Piping Earthquake Performance Data," was prepared in support of the Georgia Power Hatch Unit 2 license request and is included as Attachment I to this report. The conclusions of this report also apply to Duane Arnold Energy Center (DAEC). The seismic verification walkdown was performed by integrated IES/EGE teams. As a group, each team's members possessed the following qualifications:
. Knowledge of the failure modes and performance during strong earthquakes of components and structures in heavy industrial process plants and fossil fuel power plants including structures, tankage, piping, process and control equipment, and active electrical components.
IES/4 2116 APT. DOC
42116-R-001 Revision 1 August 9,1994 Page 10 of 47
- Knowledge of nuclear design standards and seismic design practices for nuclear power plants including structures, tankage, piping, process and control equipment, and active electrical components.
- Ability to perform fragility / margins-type ccpability evaluations including structural / mechanical analyses of the above mentioned elements.
- Fundamental knowledge of the plant systems functions.
Each team contained at least two seismic capability engineers, one of whom was a licensed professional engineer. A detailed walkdown procedure was developed, and the EOE project manager conducted a training session at the site prior to initiation of the walkdown. The seismic experience database piping and equipment designs have demonstrated good seismic performance, and the piping and equipment designs at Duane Arnold are equivalent to that contained in the seismic experience database. Conditions that might lead to piping configurations that are outside the bounds of this conventional piping were noted during the walkdown. Table 4-2 summarizes the identified conditions (termed
" outliers"), and their resolution. Note that some outliers were resolved by demonstrating analytically that the outlier did not create hazards beyond the seismic inertial loading. These hazards include interaction, differential displacement, and failure /failing. Other outliers required corrective action as noted in the table.
Where analysis was used to resolve outliers, estimates of the realistic median-centered in-structure response spectra were employed. These estimated values are more representative of the actual response of the building during a seismic event than the original Design Basis Earthquake. Response spectra were generated using a mathematical model of the turbine building. Input time histories were generated to match the response spectra defined by the NUREG/CR-0098 one sigma response, anchored horizontally at 0.12g. For analysis of pipe supports, the seismic demand was determined using a factor of 1.25 times the peak acceleration of median-centered floor response spectra. Anchorage capacity was determined using the methods and values provided in the SOUG Generic implementation Procedure for Seismic Verification of Nuclear Power Plant Equipment. IES/42116RPt.000
NOTES:
- - 0FFGAS SYSTEM
= ALTERNATE DRAIN PATH (BECH-M141) 1. V03-0004 AND V03-0005 4. MAIN STEAM LINES BETWEEN WILL BE CONVERTED TO THE MSIV UP TO THE STOP ME = PRIMARY DRAIN PATH STEAM JET AIR MOTCR OPERATED VALVES. VALVE. INCLUDING BRANCH
> EJECTOR.1E0088 2. ESSENTIAL POWER WILL BE LINES 3" cf.O LARGER HAVE
% J = SEISMIC ADECUACY (BECH-M105) PRovIDED TO THE FOLLOWING BEEN SEISMICALLY ANALYZED.
1 g WALKCOWN BOUNDARY c VALVES: V03-0004.V03-0005 5. ALL CONNECTIING BRANCH
- n.- y cTEAM v JET AIR Mo-1169. Mo-1170. Mo-104 3.
z > EJECTOR.1E008A Mo-1044 LINES EQUALIZ14GSUCHHEADER AS HPCI. RCIC[, DRAlt
* - PRIMARY (BECH-M105) 3.LINE UP DEPICTS A POST (2* AND UNDER). VENTS AND
- o C / CONTAINMEN i CEE
~ NOTES SEE NOTES LOCA LINE UP. OPERATOR INSTRUMEN TATION TAPS ARE NOT DEPICTED BUT WERE
=c 3 4 1&2 1&2 ACTION IS REQUIRED TO INCLUDED IN THE EGE Z N V03-0004 V VTVg v03-000-o POSITION THE FOLLOWING g -
I x (NO) (NO) vtv.S: v03-0004.v03-0005. SEISMIC ADECUACY EVALUATION. c \ i i C213B Mo-1169. Mo-104 3. Mo-1044 cv-1064 6.No= NORMALLY OPEN m TURBINE BUILDING NC= NORMALLY CLOSED Z E S SAMPLE SYSTEM FC= FAILED CLOSED M Y t2J M MAIN STEAM 4 Y A
]
LINES CV4412 CV4413 h & t -EBD-21 ] C/.) i
<4, pa ga l I 20*-EBO-2 g
z CV4415 CV4416 MAIN ]
-3 Z ,g, L2 L2 20'-EBD-2 STEAM STOP VALVE U"#I" h C4 18 CV4 19 6 20'EED-2 CONTROL
& CONDENSER C
'C' d
. >4 >4 }- L_ VALVE 1E-007A/B 5 i CV4420 CV4421 _2 i- 6-20*-EBD-2 (FC)
P g y
., O '
W p' L_ [ "
~
# l CV1064 m-r / o 2*-EBO-2 hM (NC) M04423 M01043 WC) M01044 6*-EBD-3 (MAIN DRAIN TO CONDENSER)
CD i 3$ . J)TO M04424 3'-E60-3 (NC) (NC) O zm 10'-EBD-6 C'- I /
/ 12'-EBD-6 F01051 c3 o l 10*-EBD-6 l 4'-EBD-8 2 !!
~ bZ 3* 3* M04424 REFERENCE DRAWINGS:
mI
"$h 3 $L_. d!f "f,Ifgf L _A $__ "fr[ BYPASS INBOARD MAIN 4C 4.BECH-M114 D CONTROL DRAIN TO 5.BECH-MI22
?
'ND STAGE TURBINE VALVES __A CONDENSER 4 5 REHEAT STEAM SEALS (FC) o (BECH-M103<1).<2>) 8.BECH-M149 9.0I-646.683. 692 2
(BECH-M104 <1>) 10.IPOI-3
42116-R-001 Revision 1 August 9,1994 Page 12 of 47 2.0 TURBINE BUILDING Performance of the turbine building during a seismic event is of interest to the issue of MSIV leakage only to the extent that the building structure and its internal components should survive and not degrade the capabilities of the selected main steam and condenser pathways. A BWROG survey of this type of industrial structure has confirmed that excellent seismic capability exists. There are no known cases of structural collapse of either turbine buildings at power stations or structures of similar construction. Based on DAEC FSAR Sections 3.8.4.1 and 3.8.4.3.3, the turbine building is classified as Nonseismic, however the criteria for Seismic Category I structures were used for the structural design of the entire building. A complete dynamic analysis was conducted for the turbine building. The same design procedures used for the reactor building were also used for the turbine building. Therefore the turbine building was specifically designed for seismic loading. Specific parameters involved in the evaluation follow. 2.1 Design Basis 2.1.1 Building Description The turbine building is a three story structure consisting of a basement at elevation 734'-O", the ground floor at elevation 757'- 6" and the operating floor at elevation 780'-0". The roof over the operating floor is at elevation 832'-7". The basement story consists of a reinforced concrete base slab and reinforced concrete exterior walls. The remainder of the structure consists of rigid and braced steel framing with reinforced concrete floor slabs. Above the operating floor there are 10 bays along the length and 5 across the ends of the building. The end frames are stiffened in the lateral (east-west) direction by cross bracing while the interior frames are of rigid frame construction. The last bay along the length of the turbine building is adjacent to the reactor building and framed by cross-brace construction tied into the rigid frames. The roof is supported by purlins which span between the rigid frames and which are tied by horizontal cross braces. Steel roof decking is welded to these members and designed as a horizontal shear diaphragm. 2.1.2 Lateral Force Resisting System Superstructure Type (above the operating floorh The superstructure above the operating floor is a braced or rigid frame structure depending on the direction of lateralload consisting of the following: IE S/4 2116RPT. DOC
42116-R-001 Revision 1 August 9,1994 Page 13 of 47 i
- a. Column lines K, L, and Q, contain vertical bays of cross bracing to resist N S wind or seismic lateralloading conditions, b., E W lateral forces are resisted by rigid frames in column lines 5 through 13, and by braced frames in the end bays at column lines 4 and 14. Shear above the operating floor is carried by the frames in proportion to their stiffness.
- c. The reinforced concrete operating floor, and roof above the operating floor serve as diaphragms to distribute lateralloads to the structural steel framing and to the substructure below the operating floor.
2.1.3 Lateral Force Resisting System Substructure Type (below operating floor)
- a. The turbine pedestalis composed of a reinforced concrete slab at the operating floor level supported by a reinforced concrete shear wall and columns which are anchored to the foundation slab. Lateral forces from the turbine are transmitted to the base slab through these colurnns and shear wall. The turbine pedestalis isolated from the building floors with respect to horizontal motion,
- b. Concrete walls serve as shear walls to transfer lateral forces to the foundation base slab,
- c. The reinforced concrete ground floor slab at elevation 757'-
6" also acts as a diaphragm to distribute lateral forces.
- d. The K, Q,4 and 14 column lines are cross braced to the top of exterior shear walls at elevation 757' 6". The L column line is cross-braced to the foundation level at elevation 734'--
0 ". 2.1.4 Seismic Design Codes The turbine building was designed to conform with the following l general codes: .;
- a. American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) Specification for the Design, Fabrication, and Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings,' 1963 and 1970,
- b. American Concrete institute (ACl) Building Code j Requirements for Reinforced Concrete (ACI 318-63).
- c. American Welding Society (AWS) Standard Code for Arc and i Gas Welding in Building Construction (AWS D1.0-66 and I AWS D2.0-66) i
- d. Official Linn County, Iowa, Building Code i
IESM2116RPT.00C l l
l l 42116 R-001 Revision 1 l August 9,1994 Page 14 of 47 l 2.1.5 Seismic Design Basis
- a. The turbine building was analyzed and designed to the same seismic criteria as Seismic Category I structures. The load combination basis for Seismic Category I Structures is as follows:
Minimum Requirements for Seismic Category I Lped Combination Structural Comoonents Normalloads + operating basis Within code allowable earthquake stresses Normal loads + design-basis No functional failure earthquake Normalloads + tornado loads No functional failure
- b. The turbine building was dynamically analyzed using the time history method. A maximum ground acceleration of 0.06 gravity was used for the Operating Basis Earthquake, and 0.12 gravity was used for the Design Basis Earthquake.
2.1.6 Wind Design Codes
- a. American Society of Civil Engineers, Paper No. 3269, Wind Design Requirements,1961.
- b. Items a through d of Section 2.1.4.
2.1.7 Wind Design Basis
- a. Wind Loads The dynamic pressures used in the design of this plant are derived from ASCE Paper No. 3269 as it applies to the Duane Arnold Nuclear Plant, q = 0.002558V 2 Where q is the velocity pressure in psf, and V is the wind velocity (mph). It was assumed that 90% of q is acting as pressure on windward side and 40% as suction on leeward side.
Suction on the roof was assumed as 60% of q. The total wind pressure p in psf is: p = 1.3 q = 0.0033V 2 IES/4 2116ftet.00C
42116-R-001 Revision 1 } August 9,1994 Page 15 of 47 I Wind Loads: Dynamic 1 . l ; Pressure ' .
~. Roof
!(includin'g ! . Wall Load - Load
? Basic ' 1.1 ~ Gust i Pressure ' Suction : Suction l ! Heightc Velocity- l Factor) qs J O.9q - . O.4q i 0.6 q. l l ' (f t)'-
. (mph) ~ (psf) - (psf) (psf) - (psf) I 0-50 105 34 31 14 20 1
50-150 125 48 43 19 29 150-400 145 65 59 26 39 Whenever wind loads are combined with other loads, a 33% increase in allowable stresses is permitted in accordance with the AISC Code.
- b. Tornado effects included in design consideration.
The design basis tornado consists of a tornado with a ! minimum tangential velocity of 300 mph traveling with a maximum transverse velocity of 60 mph. The loadings j created by the design-basis tornado are reflected in the following two tornado design criteria used in the design of tornado-resistant structures: (1) The velocity components are applied as a uniform 300 mph wind on the structure. (2) The pressure differentialis applied as a 3 psi positive i (bursting) pressure occurring in 3 sec. The design basis tornado velocity components are conservatively applied as a 300 mph wind on the f.tructure using the applicable portions of the wind design methods described in ASCE 3269 particularly for shape factors. Variation of wind velocity with height is not used,
- c. Load combinations allowable stresses The load combinations are as defined in section 2.1.5 a.
Concrete buildings are designed using normal ACI code provisions and methods for ultimate strength design, including the appropriate capacity reduction factor ($). The load factors for the design equation are assigned as 1.0. IESA2116RPT. DOC
42116-R-001 Revision 1 August 9,1994 Page 16 of 47 Steel structures are designed using traditional elastic methods of analyses and allowable stresses of 1.5 fs with l 0.9 Fy as the upper limit. This is consistent with the design philosophy of structures under the DBE. l 4 i i l l i l 1 lES/4 2116MPT. DOC
1 42116-R-001 Revision 1 August 9,1994 Page 17 of 47 3.0 MAIN TURBINE CONDENSERS The main condenser is a horizontal, twin shell, single pass, dual pressure, surface condenser. The two low pressure turbines exhaust to separate condenser shells. The high pressure condenser has a heat transfer surface : 2 area of 212,290 ft and the low pressure condenser has a heat transfer surface area of 194,480 ft 2. In Table 3-1, the design attributes of the DAEC condensers are compared with the two sites in the earthquake experience database that have condensers most representative of the DAEC type conder1sers: Moss Landing Units 6 & 7, and Ormond Beach Units 1 & 2. , Note that the DAEC condenser configuration is composed of two structurally l independent shells, which may be independently compared to the earthquake experience condensers. The shells of the DAEC condensers are constructed of 5/8" thick ASTM A-36 steel. The database condenser shells are 3/4" thick ASTM A-285C steel. l The overall heat transfer area, weight, and footprint of the DAEC condenser are generally enveloped by the database condensers, as shown in Figures 3-1, 3-2, and 3-3. In summary, the DAEC condenser design is typical of those at facilities in the earthquake experience database that have experienced earthquakes in excess of the DAEC design basis earthquake (See Figure 3-4). The DAEC condenser anchorage is comparable to the anchorage of earthquake experience database condensers. Appendix D, Section 4.1, of NEDC - 31858P, Rev. 2, contains details of the earthquake experience for condensers. Specific data used in the evaluation are as follows: 3.1 Design Basis 3.1.1 Design Code: Heat Exchanger Institute (HEl) Standards 3.1.2 Hydrostatic Test Requirements Shell- Completely filled with water 3.1.3 Anchorage The existing condenser anchorage is shown schematically in Figure 3-5. Each condenser unit has four sliding plate supports with (4) 21/4" diameter A36 anchor bolts at each corner. These supports are designed to resist all uplift loads. Each anchor bolt has 3'-0" embedment in the turbine building foundation slab. Thermal growth of the condenser occurs from a fixed point near the center of the base. The sliding plate supports have oversized holes so these forces are not transmitted to the anchor bolts. ES/42116RPT. DOC
42'l16 R-001 Revision 1 August 9,1994 Page 18 of 47 Additional uplift loads due to seismic considerations have been evaluated. Realistic median-center estimates of the in-structure response spectrum were used in the evaluation. The existing condenser anchorage system has the capacity to withstand the uplift forces during a seismic event. Each condenser unit is also furnished with (2) flexible plate supports and (1) shear key anchor designed to resist lateral loads. The 1" thick steel flexible plate supports resist lateral loads in the direction parallel to the turbine generator axis. They are welded to embedded steel wide flange sections, anchored in the foundation slab. IE$i4 2116MPT. DOC
a j Table 3-1 j Comparison of Data Base and DAEC Condensers (Page 1 of 3) l Condenser Condenser Condenser Condenser Condenser Tube Shell Shell Facility Units Manufacturer Flow Tvoe Dimensions Area Per Shell Materia! Thickness Moss Landing 6&7 Ingersoll Rand Single Pass 65 feet long 435,000 sq ft Cu Bearing 3/4 inch 36 feet wide ASTM A-285C 47 feet high Ormond 1&2 Southwestern Single Pass 52 feet long 210,000 sq ft Cu Bearing 3/4 inch Beach 27 feet wide ASTM A-285C 20 feet high DAEC HP 1 Foster Wheeler Single Pass 39 feet long 212,290 sq ft ASTM A-36 5/8 inch 29 feet wide 39 feet high DAEC LP 1 Foster Wheeler Single Pass 36 feet long 194,480 ::q ft ASTM A-36 5/8 inch 29 feet wide 39 feet high
??$$
ETs" m., s cn S 3i o~ e ab O wa b o.u u n_, =
! Table 3-1
[ Comparison of Data Base and DAEC Condensers (Page 2 of 3) y No. of E Condenser Tube Operating Tube Tube Tube Tube Wall Num'oer Tube Sheet Tube Sheet Support Facility Weicht Material Size Lenath Thickness of Tubes Material Thickness Plates Moss Landing 3.115,000 Al-brass 1 inch 65 feet 18 Bwg 25,590 Muntz 1.5 inch 15 Ormond 1,767,000 90-10 1 inch 53 feet 20 Bwg 15,220 Muntz 1.25 inch 14 Beach Cu-Ni DAEC HP 1,960,000 Type 304 1 inch 40 feet 22 Bwg 19,056 Muntz ASTM 1.125 inch 11 S.S. B-171 DAEC LP 1,890,000 Type 304 1 inch 37 feet 22 Bwg 19,056 Muntz ASTM 1.125 inch 10 S.S. B-171 8 nib C o < -.a O cwa M N 6' G O w is d' " b i l AG u. A l we .u-
~ . _ _ _ _
I g Table 3-1
@ Comparison of Data Base and DAEC Condensers (Page 3 of 3)
{ Tube Tube Tube
$ Support Support Support Waterbox Plate Plate Plate Waterbox Plate Expansion Hot Well Hot Well I Facility Material Thickness Soacina Material Thickness Joint Capacity Hold Time Moss Landing Not Given 3/4 inch 48 inches 2% Ni cast N/A Rubber Belt 20.000 N/A i iron ASTM A-48 CL 30 Ormond Cu Bearing 5/8 inch 36 to 36.5 Cu Bearing 5/8 to 1 Stainless 34,338 N/A Beach ASTM A- inches ASTM A- inch Stee! ,
285C 285C DAEC HP ASTM A-36 3/4 inch 40 inches ASTM A-36 Not Given Stainless 72,500 5 min. . Steel (HP & LP (HP & LP Shielded, combined) combined) Rubber Belt DAEC LP ASTM A-36 3/4 inch 41 inches - ASTM A-36 . Not Given Stainless 72,500 5 min. Steel (HP & LP (HP & LP Shielded, combined) combined). Rubber Belt 2$I#m
'a = s maae-k*5"
#1 e u e A
Dagr.stants.t. DOC _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ - -- , .,- - -~ ..m .- , _ . - __ -_ -_ _ _ _ _ . . _ ____________ _ ________
.i 42116-R-001 )
Revision 1 August 9,1994 Page 22 of 47 i The shear key anchor support, (2" x 5 %" x 28" long shear key) resists lateral loads in the direction perpendicular to the turbine generator axis. It is welded to steel wide flange sections embedded in the foundation slab. An evaluation of the condenser lateralload support arrangement was performed. It was determined that the horizontal shear - capacity is sufficient to withstand the lateral forces that are present during an SSE event, based on estimated median centered earthquake demand and database comparison. The shear area divided by the demand was used to compare DAEC condenser anchorage with condensers in the earthquake experience database (See Figures 3-6 and 3-7). Lateral load capacity for the side anchors was based on simplified assumptions on plate shear behavior, using the shear area of the plate attachment. The values for the DAEC condensers are as follows: Shear Area (in*)/ Seismic Demand Lower Bound Uooer Bound Parallel to Turbine .0001777 .0002301 Generator Axis Perpendicular to Turbine .0000922 .0001445 Generator Axis These values are comparable to other BWR condensers, and significantly higher than the selected database sites (see NEDC 31858P, Rev. 2, Figure 4-10 and 4-11).
3.1.4 Manufacturer
Foster Wheeler Corporation 3.1.5 Surface Area,-Weight, Dimensions: 2 Surface Area: LP condenser has 194,480 ft and the HP condenser has 212,290 ft'. Weight: LP condenser weighs 905,000 lbs empty, 1,890,000 lbs . operating (no vacuum), 1,263,000 lbs operating (max vacuum), and 2,890,000 lbs flooded. HP condenser weighs 950,000 lbs empty,1,960,000 lbs operating (no vacuum), 1,353,000 operating (max vacuum), and 3,089,000 lbs flooded. IESM2116RPT. OOC l
~ .. - .-. .- . _ . . . . - . . - . . .
42116-R-001 Revision 1 August 9,1994 Page 23 of 47 - Dimensions: LP condenser is 36'-5%" long and the HP condenser - is 39'-0%" long. Both condensers are 29'-0" wide and 39'-0" high. 3.1.6 Type: Base supported, rectangular, twin shell, single pass. 3.1.7 Shell Material and Thickness: Material: ASTM A-36 steel Thickness: 5/8" 3.1.8 Tube / Sheet Design: Material: Inhibited Muntz Metal, ASTM B-171 Thickness: 1-1/8" , Tubes: Are of Type 304 stainless steel, are 1" in outside diameter, and are 0.028" thick. The effective tube length is 37'- 4-3/4" in the LP shell and 40' in the HP shell. Support Plate Spacing: 1 There are (10) tube support plates in the LP shell and (11)'in the HP shell. This results in a support spacing of about 3'-5" in the ! LP shell and 3'-4" in the HP shell. 3.1.9 Hotwell Capacity: The combined low pressure and high pressure hotwell storage , capacity is 72,500 gallons. IES/42118RPT.00C ,
42116-R-OO1 Revision 1 August 9,1994 Page 24 of 47 435,000 Moss Landing 212,290 DAEC HP l l 194.480 DAEC LP l Ormond Beach 210.000
, , , i i 0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 Heat Transfer Area (ft2)
Moss Landing DAEC Ormond Beach 0 1,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 ' 500,000 1,500,000 2,500,000 3,500,00( , l Weight (Ibs) Figure 3-1: Size Comparison of the DAEC Condenser with Representative Condensers from the Earthquake Experience Database l IES/42116RPT. DOC l
- - _ - - - _ _ _ _ l
^
1 42116-R-001 Revision 1 August 9,1994 Page 25 of 47 60 50 - 47 i E 40 - 39 W _
.C 0)
'5 30 -
I o
.c 20 u) 20 -
10 - 0 Moss DAEC Ormond l Landing Beach l l i l l Figure 3-2: Size Comparison of the DAEC Condenser with Representative Condensers from the Earthquake Experience Database l IES/4 2116RPT. DOC
42116-R 001 Revision 1 August 9,1994 Page 26 of 47 if W))2 - - - l' h! 'g:g
;. - Mi $'"w : ,?
4, ; M $?
-= 84 m.
- 1 : a 4 Mi EiEl#!B
..94{
iiii!!!!;:lii.Hiiii'!!
~ . ~ ;indi;iiti!!9tii!:!! , 'f
i;.;:;;i:::r: ::::::-
' ZisiiOU;!!!!!! g&;#
f,, e 1:!!;;;;iinemn; Fny 2' 3 : l'92,., N.h . !5 i '$$: WWE556MEMmmm2NW5E Nfkk!)$$ Moss Landing 6 & 7 ( 65' x 36' ) ic cimccc;;i:;i
!!!!niiiliiiE0!!n! Ormond Beach 1 & 2 ( 52' x 27')
l l l DAEC LP & HP ( Approx. 39' x 29') l 1 1 1 1 1 1 Figure 3-3 Condenser Shell Footprint Comparison j i i l i IES/42116 APT. DOC 3
42116. R-001 Revision 1 August 9,1994 Page 27 of 47 1.60 - - LEGEND
- EL CENTRO STEAM RANT.1919 IMPERIAL WLEY EQ
-~*- MLEY STEAN RANT.19718AN FEHNANDO EQ a..** MOSS LANDING ETEAM PL ANT,1980 LUMA PRIETA LQ onEC - DESIGN BASIS EARDERME 1.20 - -
.I:l PLOTTED AT 5% DAMPING lt 1,00 - ~ {!t *
^
tn }.II!
. t.
e o 4. !. ! .
= rh t.* : .**
E 0.80 - - ; ;* I . 8 3!
< . ! *\ '. . '..
0.60 - -ll '. . t'. %. - . ,. . 21' s . 0 <0 - :-
'-.-.......'::..:.~-.....~..~...~...~.......~...~........-...- H l
. 1 0.20 -
0 o i i i , i i 0.00 i 6 i i i 6 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
-. Frequency (Hz) j l
Figure 3-4: Comparison of DAEC Ground Response Spectrum to Data Base Spectra IES14211eRPT.00C
42116-R-001 Revision 1 August 9,1994 Page 28 of 47 Turbine Generator Axis
~n
- Sliding Support with Anchor Bolts and Oversized Holes for Vertical Loads M - Fixed Point Considered Active Only in Perpendicular Horizontal Direction
- Flexible Plate Perpendicular to Axis and Fixed in Parallel Horizontal Direction Figure 3-5: HP and LP Condenser Anchorage Layout IES/42116APTDOC
42116-R-001 Revision 1 August 9,1994 Page 29 of 47 i l l l Resistance to Seismic Demand l 0.00025
= l
$ 0.0002
$ ~
'E 5
5 0.00015 c ,
.y l
=
1
.5 t% 0.0001 l l '
l l 1 2 -
$0.00005 5
0 Moss Landing El Centro Duane Arnold E Lower Bound O Upper Bound Note 1: Shear Area (in2) / Seismic Demand (condenser weight
- g level)
Figure 3-6 Anchorage Compared to Seismic Demand Parallel to the Turbine Generator Axis IES/4 2116 APT. DOC
l 42116-R-001 Revision 1 August 9,1994 Page 30 of 47 l l l Resistance to Seismic Demand 0.00016 ll O 0.00014
$ 0.00012 3
$ 0.0001
!0.00008 5
$ 0.00006 l l e
t I0.00004 n W 0.00002 - -- 0 Moss Landing El Centro Duane Arnold E Lower Bound O Upper Bound Note 1: Shear Area (in2) / Seismic Demand (condenser weight
- g level)
Figure 3-7 Anchorage Compared to Seismic Demand Perpendicular to the Turbine Generator Axis IES/4 2116MPT. DOC
42'i 16-R-001 Revision 1 August 9,1994 Page 31 of 47 4.0 MAIN STEAM AND DRAIN LINE/ BYPASS PIPING Those portions of main steam and drain line/ bypass piping designs that were not seismically analyzed as part of the original plant design were evaluated to demonstrate that piping and supports fall within the bounds of design characteristics found in selected conventional power plant steam piping. These conventional power plant steam piping designs demonstrated good seismic performance and were shown to be comparable to the steam piping design for Duane Arnold. This included (1) a review of design codes and standards used to insure adequate dead load support margin and ductile support behavior where subject to lateral loads, (2) a review of capacity vs. demand for various critical supports, (3) a review of anchorage capacity vs. demand, and (4) a walkdown to verify that small diameter piping and instrumentation is free of impact interactions from falling and proximity or differential motion hazards. Portions of the main steam piping that were seismically analyzed as part of the original plant design included the Main Steam Line (from the MSIV to the turbine stop valve) and the main steam bypass (to the bypass valves), and portions of various main steam branch connections to the seismic anchor downstream of the isolation valves for the branch. Design methods for these analyzed lines were consistent with seismic Category I qualification methods for Duane Arnold and design capacities are expected to be adequate to assure good seismic performance. For lines designed by rule or by approximate methods such as the drain path and interfacing piping,it was demonstrated that these systems are composed of welded steel pipe and standard support components, well represented in conventional plants in the earthquake database. Further, it was demonstrated that adequate capacity exist for typical or bounding support anchorages. In summary, the piping for the main steam and bypass was seismically analyzed and designed in accordance with ANSI B31.1.0. Thus, although it has thinner walls than most piping of its size in the earthquake experience database, its seismic capability is consistent with seismic Category I design requirements. The main drain and associated piping are similar to the piping found in commercial piping systems in the earthquake experience database that have experienced earthquakes in excess of the Duane Arnold design basis earthquake (see Figures 4-1,4-2 and Attachment I). Minor interaction issues identified in the walkdown that could be potential sources of damage were evaluated, and, where necessary, action has been initiated to eliminate ! the potential (see Table 4-2). Specific data used in the evaluation is l summarized below. For the main drain and interconnected piping,it was ! demonstrated that adequate capacity exists to provide reasonable assurance I that piping position retention will be maintained by the system supports i under normal and earthquake loading. l l IESM 2116RPT. DOC
42116-R-001 Revision 1 i August 9,1994 -{ Page 32 of 47 ' i I 4.1 Main Steam and Turbine Bypass These systems were analyzed in accordance with the ANSI B31.1 code, using response spectrum analysis techniques. The analysis model included the main steam (to the turbine), the bypass line, and significant branch piping up to the seismic anchor. Margin for the main steam and turbine bypass is basically the design margin inherent in the seismic design codes. 4.1.1 Design Basis 4.1.1.1 Piping Design Code: ANSI B31.1.0,1967. 4.1.1.2 Piping Design:
- a. Design Temperature: 563 F Design Pressure: 1140 psi
- b. Size, schedule and D/t Pipe Size Thickness (NPS) Schedule (inch) QIt 20 80 1.031 19 12 80 0.687 19 10 80 0.593 18 6 80 0.432 ~ 15 4 80 0.337 13 3 160 0.437 8
- c. Typical Support Spacing: B31.1 suggested span,
- d. Support Types: springs, struts, snubbers, box types, ;
etc. r
- e. Design Loading: Weight, thermal expansion, seismic-
- f. Analysis Method: Linear elastic analysis, seismic spectrum analysis
- g. Seismic and Dynamic Design Basis: Response spectrum analysis using floor response spectra based ,
on the design basis earthquake (DBE) from the FSAR 4 (0.12 g maximum ground motion - see Figure 3-4 for comparison to experience database ground motion) 4.1.1.3 Pipe Support Design Code: AISC, MSS SP58 1 lE$i42110fiPT. DOC
l l 1 42116-R-001 Revision 1 August 9,1994 Page 33 of 47 j i 4.1.1.4 Margin Assessment: Design methods for these analyzed lines are consistent with seismic Category 1 qualification methods for Duane Arnold and Design margins are expected to be adequate to assure good seismic performance. 4.1.2 Main Steam and Turbine Bypass Supplemental Verification Walkdown Results See Table 4-2. I 4.2 Main Steam Drain to Condenser l The main steam drain to the condenser is of welded pipe, and was analyzed by rule and approximate rnethods. The main drain and associated piping are similar to the piping found in commercial piping systems in the earthquake experience database that have experienced earthquakes in excess of the Duane Arnold design bases earthquake (see Figure 3-4). Minor interaction issues identified in the walkdown that could be potential sources of damage were evaluated, and, where necessary , action has been recommended to eliminate the potential (see Table 4-2). Specific data used in the evaluation is summarized below. For these lines, it was demonstrated that adequate capacity exists to provide reasonable assurance that piping position retention will be maintained by the system supports under normal and earthquake loading. 4.2.1 Design Basis 4.2.1.1 Piping Design Code: ANSI B31.1. 4.2.1.2 Piping Design:
- a. Design Temperature and Pressure: 563 F and 1140 psi
- b. Size, schedule and D/t Pipe Size Thickness (NPS) Schedule (inch) D/t 6 80 0.432 15 3 160 0.437 8 2 160 0.343 7 1 160 0.250 5 IES/4 2116RPT. DOC
i 42116-R-001 Revision 1 August 9,1994 Paae 34 of 47
- c. Typical Support Spacing: B31.1 suggested span.
- d. Support Types: Rigid struts, rods, stanchions, springs, snubbers
- e. Design Loading: Weight, thermal expansion, seismic
- f. Analysis Method: Linear elastic analysis
- g. Seismic Basis: Linear elastic analysis - analyzed by rule and approximate methods 4.2.1.3 Pipe Support Design Code: AISC, MSS SP58 4.2.1.4 Support Capacity Assessment:
This assessment is to demonstrate the Main Steam Drain Line design provides adequate capacity when subject to weight and seismic load, thus providing reasonable assurance that the position retention of the line will be maintained during a seismic event. In conjunction with the field verification, this assessment has provided assurance that the supports will behave in a ductile manner and that the lines are free of known seismic hazards. Further, it demonstrates that the Duane Arnold designs will perform in a manner similar to piping and supports that have observed good seismic performance in past strong ground motion earthquakes. All pipe supports on the Main Steam Drain Line were analyzed for weight and seismic loads using the Conservative Deterministic Failure Margins (CDFM) approach. The following summarizes the procedures used for the capacity vs. demand evaluation:
- The earthquake response spectrum is the estimated realistic median-centered amplified floor response spectrum including a 1.25 factor of conservatism.
- The estimated structural and piping response is median centered.
- The component support capacity is conservatively estimated.
Pipe support anchorage was evaluated using the philosophy of the SQUG Generic implementation Procedure (GlP). Anchorage seismic capacity vs. demand was checked using the GlP Appendix C criteria. This combination of conservatively defined seismic demand, median centered response to the seismic demand, and conservative estimate of capacity provides the desired assurance of adequate seismic performance. IES/42116RPT. DOC 1
~l 42116-R-001 Revision 1 !
August 9,1994 Page 35 of 47 4.2.1.4.1 Seismic Demand Seismic demand is estimated based on median centered margins earthquake response spectra developed for the Duane Arnold turbine building. A mathematical model of the turbine building was analyzed to determine in-structure response spectra. The input time histories were generated to match the response spectra defined by NUREG/CR-0098 5% damped soil conditions and one sigma response, anchored horizontally at 0.129. Seismic demand was conservatively determined using the peak of the appropriate in-structure floor response times a 1.25 factor of conservatism (GlP Section 4.4.3). This is consistent with the method for determining seismic demand for evaluating anchorage adequacy under the A-46 program. The estimated realistic median-centered amplified floor response spectrum peak values (5% damping) and the values used for support evaluation are summarized as follows: Median Centered Median FRS Peak x 1.25 Centered (for Support i' Elevation Direction FRS Peak Evaluation) (Ft.) (g) (g) (Note 1) NS 2.00 - 834 EW 2.00 - VERT 1.33 - NS .39 - 780 EW .39 - VERT .26 - NS .38 .48 757 EW .38 .48 VERT .25 .31 NS .33 - 734 EW .32 - VERT .22 - Note 1: all pipe supports are supported at or below elevation 7 5 7 '-0 ". ifs /42116RPT. DOC i
42116-R-001 Revision 1 August 9,1994 Page 36 of 47 4.2.1.4.2 Piping System Response Estimation The system response estimation is a median centered best estimate of the appropriate loadings:
- Loadings combination:
Operating Mechanical Loads + Dead Weight + Seismic
= Component Standard Supports Designed by Load S
Rating: TL x 0.7 , where, TL = Support Test Load 5 Load under which support fails to perform its intended function Su = Material ultimate strength at temperature Su' = Material ultimate strength at test temperature Operating mechanical loads for this system are thermal expansion loads. Thermal expansion loads identified in the support designs were only included if they added to the cumulative loading. Design dead weight support loads are consistent with tributary area weight procedures. The seismic response of the line is median centered and utilizes a factored load coefficient methodology to determine seismic loads. The load coefficient utilized is a factor of one (1) times the peak spectral response acceleration in the direction of restraint. 4.2.1.4.3 Pipe Support Component Capacities The supplemental field verification determined that the support types used are considered to have good seismic performance. The system is supported by a variety of seismic support types including rod hangers, vertical and lateral stanchion::, and clamps. In addition, spring hangers are used for dead load support. Many of the support types are constructed from standard support catalog items and typically consist of clamps, threaded rod, weldless eye nuts, turnbuckles, clevis and welded lug attachments to either concrete or to steel structures. Design capacities are provided by manufacturers' ratings. IES/42116RPT. DOC
42116-R-001 Revision 1 August 9,1994 Page 37 of 47 Load capacity ratings for component standard supports are typically based on test and utilize a factor of safety of 5 in accordance with MSSP-58. The load on which the load capacity data (LCD)is based is therefore a factor of five higher that the catalog load rating. The margins capacities for the component support items are taken as the LCD x 5 x 0.7. 4.2.1.4.4 Pipe Support Anchorage Evaluation of bolted anchorages to concrete follows the procedures established for the Duane Arnold A-46 program. Concreto anchor bolt capacities are evaluated using Appendix C of the SOUG GIP. 4.2.1.4.5 Supoort Evaluation Results and Conclusions All supports demonstrated adequate seismic capacity to resist the estimated demand. The minimum ratio of capacity to demand was found to be 2.3. On this basis it is concluded that the system design has adequate capacity to assure position retention. Furthermore, based on the supplemental field walkdown inspection, the piping systems and their supports are similar to piping systems and support designs that have experienced strong ground motion and demonstrated good seismic performance. 4.2.2 Main Steam Drain to Condenser Supplemental Verification Walkdown Results See Table 4-2. IESM2116RPT. DOC
42116-R-001 Revision 1 August 9,1994 Page 38 of 47 1.6
.'I 1.4 -
Ii r
- 1 ..
.! i. 8 '.
- 'e s 1.2 --
.l >\ g. -- -
i c I
! *\
O
~~ ~ ~ ~
.;= :
I "~* ~."'I;'"." ' , ' " . C0 : : . . L : 8 t . ,:
,_D_ 0.8 l-i- y- - 5, - -l ' , -
W l - '
. V.: .
O : *
's : , .\
- O : *
- .i A 0.6 l .' h-
! o 0.4 4
. s 0.2 /'
,5 0
O.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10 20 50 100
. - - - Frequency (Hz) l DAEC Bulk Mail Facility Lutheran Towers CalFed Design Basis Earthquake i
Figure 4-1: Comparison of Whittier database sites and DAEC design - spectra (from Attachment I, Figure 27, and DAEC FSAR l Figure 2.5-8, Sheet 4) l IES/42116MPT. DOC l
42116-R-001 Revision 1 August 9,1994 Page 39 of 47-1.6 1.4 I :: i . I l : 1.2 -- -
- p. l j-
~
l\ j .\ :. l \ C l ti l \ O
'O 1
I I $.3,l Y0 lb -) {
\
W -
- , I !1 : *U. :
L-- 1 ib!'V: % : O 0.8 - -- 0l \. \- -\- D lli <:Y \ \ O *
/
\
g!. I: ;'i \ 't O , t ( 0.6 , I i y;! \ v14.\ / \ ; ., p : \ . A.
\.. ...
0.a -- j .;,.;: .
- l l .?..i 0.2
;r 7- - -- --
/,.....
A
* ' ,.- , 1 l t l 0
0.03 0.1 0.3 1 3 10 30 100 ___,s,-> Frequency (Hz) . Palco Co-Gen Cool Water Station El Centro Steam Plant DAEC Valley Steam Plant Design Basis Earthquake i Figure 4-2: Comparison of database power plant sites and DAEC design spectra (from Attachment I, Figure 28, and DAEC FSAR Figure 2.5-8, Sheet 4) IES/42110RPT. DOC
i 42116 R-001 I Revision 1 l August 9,1994 ) Page 40 of 47 ! i 5.0 INTERCONNECTED SYSTEMS i The interconnected systems are composed of welded steel piping and standard support components, well represented in the earthquake experience database. These systems, analyzed by rule and approximate methods, are ; similar to the piping found in commercial piping systems in the earthquake ' experience database that have experienced earthquakes in excess of the Duane Arnold design basis earthquake (see Figures 4-1,4 2 and Attachment I). Minor interaction issues identified in the walkdown that could be potential sources of damage were evaluated, and, where necessary, action has been recommended to eliminate the potential (see Table 4-2). Specific data used in the evaluation is summarized below. For these lines, a sampling of the pipe supports which were judged to be representative of the worst case (lowest capacity vs. demand) were selected for analysis. Supports were analyzed using the same criteria used for the main steam drain line supports. 5.1 Design Basis Table 4-1 shows the design parameters for the interconnected piping associated with the main steam, main steam bypass, main drain, and condenser. 5.1.1 Support Capacity Assessment for Interconnected Systems A sampling of the pipe supports for the interconnected systems , were reviewed using the same criteria used for the drain line supports. Seismic demand was the peak of the median centered in-structure response spectra times a factor of conservatism of 1.25. Conservative tributary piping spans were used to estimate seismic loading. All analyzed supports demonstrated adequate seismic capacity to resist the estimated demand. The minimum ratio of capacity to demand using conservative component capacity estimates was found to be 1.6. On this basis it is concluded the system design has adequate capacity to insure position retention. These systems and their supports were also found to be similar to piping system and support design that have experienced strong ground motion and demonstrated good seismic performance. 5.1.2 Supplemental Verification Walkdown Results for Interconnected systems See Table 4-2 IES/42 t l 6RPT.00C
Table 4-1: Interconnected System Design Parameters (Page 1 of 2) System Piping Design Design Support Typical Spt. Design Analysis I Designation Design Temp (*F) Press.(psig) Size Sch. D\t Spacing Types Code Loading Method j Main Steam ANSI 563 1140 1" 160 5 ANSI Tubing Trays AISC Chart Linear Elastic i; Sample Une B31.1 3/8" - - B31.1 on Struts, Method, Approximate 8 Tubing Beam Clamps Std. Spans Methods Main Steam ANSI 563 1140 3/4" 160 5 ANSI Tubing Trays AISC Chart Linear Elastic Instruments B31.1 3/8" - - B31.1 on Struts & Method, Approximate Tubing Angle, Beam Std. Spans Methods Clamps Main Steam to ANSI 563 1140 3/4" 160 5 ANSI Rod Hangers, AISC DW Thermal Linear Elastic 2nd Stage B31.1 B31.1 U-Bolts, MSS Hydro Approximate Reheater Drain Stanchion SP58 Methods Main Steam to ANSI 563 1140 2" 160 7 ANSI Spring AISC DW Thermal Linear Elastic Offgas B31.1 3" 160 8 B31.1 Hangers, Rod MSS Hydro Approximate Recombiner Hangers, SP58 Methods Sleeves SJAE ANSI 150 5 to 30 1 %~ 80 10 ANSI Rigid U-Bolts, AISC DW Thermal Linear Elastic Condensers to B31.1 2" 80 11 B31.1 Rod Hangers MSS Hydro Approximate Main 3" 40 16 SP58 Methods Condenser Offgas 02 ANSI 125 150 1/2" 40S 8 ANSI Unstrut AISC DW Thermal Linear Elastic injection to B31.1 125 50 3/4" 80 7 B31.1 w/ Pipe Straps MSS Hydro Approximate Steam Jet Air 125 50 2" 80 11 SP58 Methods Ejector Condenser to ANSI 125 50 4 40 19 ANSI Rod Hangers, AISC DW Thermal Linear Elastic Steam Jet Air B31.1 6 40 24 B31.1 Pipe Clamps, MSS Hydro Approximate Ejectors 10 40 29 Spring SP58 Methods 16 STD. 43 Hangers
?$?$
O c < _4 O C is" s
?
o? O
?
ej.
. _ . _ 9
Table 4-1: Interconnected System Design Parameters (Page 2 of 2) System Piping Design Design Support Typical Spt. Design Analysis
@ Designation Design Temp (*F) Press.(psig) Size Sch. Dit Spacing Types Code Loading Method t
g Steam Bypass ANSI 563 1140 1" 160 5 ANSI Rod Hangers, AISC DW Thermal Linear Elastic g to Turbine B31.1 3" 160 8 B31.1 Spring MSS Hydro Approximate 8 Steam-Seal 4" 80 13 Hangers, SP58 Methods Straps Main Steam to ANSI 563 1140 3/4" 160 5 ANSI Rod Hangaers, AISC DW Thermal Linear Elastic Air Ejector B31.1 1%" 160 7 B31.1 Spring Hangers MSS Hydro Approximate 3" 160 8 SP58 Methods 4" 80 13 Offgas ANSI 100 150 1" 80 ANSI Rod Hangers, AISC DW Thermal Linear Elastic Sampler to B31.1 3/8" & - - B31.1 Unstrut MSS Hydro Approximate Condensate 1/2" w/ Tube SP58 Methods Return Tubing Clamps Main Steam ANSI 563 1140 3/4" 160 5 ANSI Rod Hangers AISC DW Thermal Linear Elastic Vent to CRW B31.1 B31.1 MSS Hydro Approximate SP58 Methods Miscellaneous ANSI 563 1140 3/4" 160 5 ANSI Rod Hangers, AISC DW Thermal Linear Elastic Main Steam B31.1 1" 160 5 B31.1 Rigid U-Bolts MSS Hydro Approximate Drains & 1%" 160 7 SP58 Methods Branches 2" 160 7 Main Steam ANSI 563 1140 3/4" 160 5 ANSI Rigid U-Bolts AISC DW Thermal Linear Elastic Vents B31.1 B31.1 MSS Hydro Approximate SP58 Methods l l ,>ws I
$EES O C Ws A N O' O N
o-e 3s -b b
-> nce W {
Table 4-2: Outlier Identification and Resolution (Page 1 of 5) SYSTEM DESCRIPTION OUTLIER NUP BER AND , OMION STATUS REQUIRE 9 ACTION (PO ENT L LUPE MODE) e j A F P D V h MAIN STEAM DRAINS (IN #1: PlPING SPAN EXCEEDS X ACCEPTABLE AS-IS BY N/A [ STEAM TUNNEL) SCREENING CRITERIA ANALYSIS
#23: VALVE MOTOR X ACCEPTABLE AS-IS BY N/A OPERATOR HEIGHT AND ANALYSIS WEIGHT EXCEED SCREENING CRITERIA STEAM LINE DRAINS (IN #5: PIPING SPAN EXCEEDS X ACCEPTABLE AS-!S BY N/A TURBINE BLDG) SCREENING CRITERIA ANALYSIS
#6: DISENGAGED PIPE X NOT ACCEPTABLE AS- MODIFY AND SUPPORT EDB 3-H-44 IS REINSTALL SUPPORT
#18: VALVE MOTOR X ACCEPTABLE AS-IS BY N/A OPERATOR HEIGHT ANALYSIS EXCEEDS SCREENING CRITERIA MAIN STEAM LINE #7: OUESTIONABLE X NOT ACCEPTABLE AS- FIELD VERIFICATION BRANCHES SUPPORT FUNCTION MAY IS AND MODIFICATION NOT ACCOMMODATE OF AS-INSTALLED DIFFERENTIAL BUILDING SUPPORT MOVEMENT CLEARANCES (IF FOUND INSUFFICIENT)
MAIN STEAM LINE #8: MASONRY WALL IS A X ACCEPTABLE AS-IS BY N/A BRANCHES POTIENTIAL INTERACTION ANALYSIS HAZARD TO ADJACENT PIPING KEY TO OUTLIER TYPES np73 A ANCHORAGE OR SUPPORT CAPACITY $gC ] F FAILURE AND FALLING c c i;r P PROXIMITY AND INPACT A T+ 5' ? D V DIFFERENTIAL AND DISPLACEMENT VALVE OPERATOR SCREENING ~
?$%O m.m O
Table 4-2: Outlier Identification and Resolution (Page 2 Of 5) SYSTEM DESCRIPTION OUTLIER NUMBER AND (PO Et T L LURE
'" ^ " ' ^ "
MODE) f A F P D V k MAIN STEAM TO STEAM #9: PIPING BRANCH LINE X ACCEPTABLE AS-IS BY N/A j JET AIR EJECTOR (SJAE) MAY NOT HAVE ANALYSIS ADEQUATE FLEXABILITY TO ACCOMMODATE SEISMIC MOVEMENT
#11: MASONRY WALL IS A X ACCEPTABLE AS-IS BY N/A POTENTIAL INTERACTION ANALYSIS HAZARD TO ADJACENT PIPING MAIN STEAM SAMPLE #4: MASONRY WALL IS A- X ACCEPTABLE AS-IS BY N/A LINE POTENTIAL INTERACTION ANALYSIS HAZARD TO BRANCH LINES
#22: POTENTIAL X ACCEPTABLE AS-IS BY EXCESSIVE CABINET ANALYSIS DEFLECTIONS DUE TO BASE DETAll COULD AFFECT ATTACHED LINES
#24: TUBING SPAN X ACCEPTABLE AS-IS BY N/A EXCEEDS SCREENING ANALYSIS CRITERIA KEY TO OUTLIER TYPES A ANCHORAGE OR SUPPORT CAPACITY T>2A F FAILURE AND FALLING $rE O a" P PROXIMITY AND INPACT
- C E" D DIFFERENTIAL AND DISPLACEMENT N "* O V VALVE OPERATOR SCREENING o-a *
-.. uo.e a
Table 4-2: Outlier identification and Resolution (Page 3 of 5) SYSTEM DESCRIPTION - OUTLIER NUN 1BER AND (PO E IL LURE
^" "O ^
MODE) e
$ A F P D V h MAIN STEAM TO 2ND #2: PIPING SPAN EXCEEDS X NOT ACCEPTABLE AS- ADD SUPPORTS 8
STAGE REHEATER SCREENING CRITERIA, PIPE IS IS SAGGING
#3: LOOSE ANCHOR BOLTS X NOT ACCEPTABLE AS- REPAIR BY ON PIPE SUPPORT IS TIGHTENING ANCHOR BOLTS OR RE-LOCATING SUPPORT AND REPLACING BOLTS MAIN STEAM BYPASS TO #12: PIPING SPAN X SPRING SUPPORT NOT RESET SPRING TURBlNE STEAM SEAL EXCEEDS SCREENING ACCEPTABLE AS-IS. SUPPORT CRITERIA AND SPRING PIPING SPAN SUPPORT OVERLOADED ACCEPTABLE AS-IS BY ANALYSIS
#13: BROKEN PIPE X NOT ACCEPTABLE AS- REMOVE DAMAGED SUPPORT (U-BOLT) IS PIPE SUPPORT
#14: VICTAULIC X NOT ACCEPTABLE AS- MODIFY PIPING BY COUPLINGS ON FIRE IS ADDING NEW PROTECTION PIPING SUPPORTS SUSPENDED FROM RODS ATTACHED WITH FRICTION CLAMPS KEY TO OUTLIER TYPES yp33 A ANCHORAGE OR SUPPORT CAPACITY 2 c CD to F FAILURE AND FALUNG E E hc m" P PROXIMITY AND INPACT A $ 5' m D DIFFERENTIAL AND DISPLACEMENT *m U b "
V VALVE OPERATOR SCREENING
Table 4-2: Outlier identification and Resolution (Page 4 of 5) SYSTEM DESCRIPTION OUTLIER NUMBER AND (PO EN L LURE
" '" ^ '" ^ ' "
MODE) e E A F P D V a 3 SJAE CONDENSERS TO #15: MASONRY WALLS X ACCEPTABLE AS-IS BY N/A r 8
. MAIN CONDENSER ADJACENT TO AIR ANALYSIS EJECTOR CONDENSATE TANK ARE POTENTIAL INTERACTION HAZARDS REVIEW ANCHORAGE OF X ACCEPTABLE AS-IS BY N/A SJAE CONDENSATE ANALYSIS RETURN TANK (IT-136)
CONDENSER TO SJAES #17: MASONRY WALLS X ACCEPTABLE AS-IS BY N/A ADJACENT TO PIPING AND ANALYSIS VALVE ARE POTENTIAL INTERACTION HAZARDS
#20: VALVE AIR OPERATOR X ACCEPTABLE AS-IS BY N/A HEIGHT EXCEEDS ANALYSIS SCREENING CRITERIA
#21: VALVE AIR OPERATOR X ACCEPTABLE AS IS BY N/A HEIGHT AND WEIGHT ANALYSIS UNKNOWN MAIN STEAM TO STEAM #19: VALVE MOTOR X ACCEPTABLE AS-IS BY N/A SEAL OPERATOR HEIGHT ANALYSIS EXCEEDS SCREENING CRITERIA AND WEIGHT IS UNKNOWN KEY TO OUTLIER TYPES A
F ANCHORAGE OR SUPPORT CAPACITY FAILURE AND FALLING Ak[b Eyj" P PROXIMITY AND INPACT A $ 5 c) D DIFFERENTIAL AND DISPLACEMENT a) g a 33 V VALVE OPERATOR SCREENING E ', " h bc> -
Table 4-2: Outlier Identification and Resolution (Page 5 of 5) SYSTEM DESCRIPTION OUTLIER NUMBER AND L R OWTION STAWS REQUIRED ACTION (PO EN LURE g MODE) E A F P D V 3
$ MAIN STEAM #27: TUBING SPAN X ACCEPTABLE AS-IS BY N/A 8 INSTRUMENTATION EXCEEDS SCREENING ANALYSIS LINES CRITERIA
#28: MISSING U-BOLT FOR X NOT ACCEPTABLE AS- INSTALL U-BOLT PIPE SUPPORT ON IS ADJACENT AIR LINE MAIN STEAM #25: MASONRY WALL IS A X ACCEPTABLE AS-IS BY N/A INSTRUMENTATION POTENTIAL INTERACTION ANALYSIS LINES HAZARD TO ADJACENT TUBING AND INSTRUMENT RACKS IC-210A AND IC-2108
#26: MASONRY WALL IS A X ACCEPTABLE AS-IS BY N/A POTENTIAL INTERACTION ANALYSIS HAZARD TO INSTRUMENT RACKS FOR PS1014,1015, 1016,1017 REVIEW ANCHORAGE FOR X ACCEPTABLE AS-IS BY N/A INSTRUMENT RACKS IC- ANALYSIS 210A,1C-210B,1C-212A CONDENSER REVIEW FOR ANCHORAGE X ANCHORAGE IS N/A AND EXPERIENCE ADEQUATE AND f BOUNDING CONDENSER IS WELL REPRESENTED IN THE DATABASE KEY TO OUTLIER TYPES A
2gg& ANCHORAGE OR SUPPORT CAPACITY C o 5, a
$kyi F FAILURE AND FALLING m P PROXIMITY AND INPACT -J g s D DIFFERENTIAL AND DISPLACEMENT o- "6 V VALVE OPERATOR SCREENING O
i l l l l ATTACHMENT I l SUPPLEMENTAL PIPING EARTHQUAKE PERFORMANCE DATA December 1993 o k 08.99/94At3
O
==
SUPPLEMENTAL PIPING EARTHQUAKE PERFORMANCE DATA December 1993 I l l Prepared for: GENERAL ELECTRIC NUCLEAR ENERGY l i EQE INTERNATIONAL
INTRODUCTION This report, submitted in support of the Hatch Unit 2 license change request for deletion of the MSIV Leakage Control System, provides supplemental piping seismic performance data to Appendix D of the Generic Electric NEDC - 31858 (Reference 1). The material presented for earthquake experience data base sites includes sites investigated since the initial work in Reference 1 as well as supplemental data covering a more comprehensive range of pipe sizes and design parameters. Specific supplements include:
= Piping performance data for both large and small bore piping covering a range from three quarters (3/4) inch to eight (8) inches in diameter.
= Seismic experience data on large and small diameter piping -
from power plant sites discussed in NEDC-31858.
= Seismic experience data and damage surveys from power plant and industrial sites not covered in NEDC-31858.
= Piping support design data for large and small diameter systems.
- Data base site ground motion data comparisons with the Hatch Unit 2 seismic design basis.
The supplemental data provided in support of Hatch Unit 2 supports the conclusions of NEDC-31858, that welded steel power piping of all sizes have substantial seismic ruggedness even when not designed to resist earthquakes. BACKGROUND PIPING EXPERIENCE DATA BASE A detailed seismic experience data base of the performance of power and industrial facilities during past earthquakes is founded on extensive studies of over 100 industrial facilities and surveys of several hundred other facilities located in the vicinity of over 60 strong motion earthquakes that have occurred in California, Alaska, New Zealand and Latin American countries since 1971. The earthquakes , 16000-35/ Piping 1 1 i
and major facilities included in the data base are summarized in Table 1. Specific objectives of the experience data approach to seismic evaluation include:
= Documentation of the most common sources of seismic damage or operational difficulties in facilities that contain installations representative of critical nuclear plants systems:
= identification of the threshold of seismic motion corresponding to various types of seismic damage:
= Determination of installations which are typically undamaged by earthquakes, regardless of the level of seismic motion:
= identification of minimum standards in equipment installations that will ensure the seismic integrity of the system.
In general, data collection efforts focused on facilities located in the areas of strongest ground motion for each earthquake investigated. Facilities were sought that contained substantial inventories of piping, mechanical and electrical equipment. Because of the number of earthquake-affected areas and types of facilities investigated, there is a wide diversity in the types of installations included in the data base. This wide diversity includes age, size, configuration, application, operating conditions, manufacturer, type of building, location within the building, local soil conditions, quality of maintenance, and quality of construction. The detailed data base includes a total of 24 earthquakes, usually with several different sites investigated in each earthquake-affected area. The earthquakes investigated range in Richter magnitude from 5.4 to 8.1. Measured or estimated ground accelerations for data base sites range from 0.10g to up to 1.25g vertical acceleration. The duration of strong ground shaking (on the order of 0.10g or greater) ranges from 5 seconds to more than 50 seconds. Local soil conditions range from deep soft alluvia to rock. The buildings housing the piping of interest have a wide range in size, and type of construction. As a result, the data base covers a wide diversity of seismic input, in terms of seismic motion amplitude, duration, and frequency content. 16000-35/ Piping 2
4 Table 1 lists the average horizontal peak ground acceleration that was either measured, or estimated for selected data base sites. This ground acceleration represents the average of the peak accelerations in two orthogonal horizontal directions. With few exceptions, facilities were not investigated unless they experienced ground motion of 0.20g or greater. PIPING IN THE EXPERIENCE DATA BASE The experience data base for piping in the field consists of the following: (1) Casual data from various, mostly older, reports on earthquakes pre-dating about 1979. These reports typically discuss only damage to piping, without elaborate discussions on the causes of damages and on the inventory of undamaged piping. Reports pre-dating the 1971 San Fernando earthquake usually have a few scattered observations offered by structural engineers who were not familiar with piping design. (2) Soecific data from various, mostly newer, reports on earthquakes since about 1971. These data are typically of two types - damage reports by the operators of facilities and investigation reports by outside earthquake engineers who visited and studied the affected facilities. Typically, plant damage reports are written by plant engineers and tend to detail all significant damage to piping (and equipment), but often do not site the reasons for the damage, and do not discuss the performance of the remaining inventory of piping. Earthquake investigation reports on the performance of industrial and power facilities are sponsored by various organizations (EPRI, SQUG, NRC) in order to determine in detail the performance of facilities, the details of the known damage, the causes of the damage, and to obtain a general inventory of the piping that was affected. (3) Detailed recorts include detailed data on the piping itself for a given facility, its performance, and all damage, including the causes of the damage. Such a report would typically be based on a very detailed data collection effort at a specific facility. Such reports were initiated by the NRC for the El Centro plant for the 1979 M6.6 Imperial Valley (Reference 3) and 1980 Humboldt Bay (Reference 4). Many reports were also prepared principally by EQE for 16000-35/ Piping 3
SQUG, EPRI, the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute and other organizations since 1981 on numerous earthquakes and f acilities. l The data base currently includes about 60 earthquakes, dating back to the 1933 Long Beach, California earthquake. Table 1 lists selected, more important ! earthquakes for which detailed data have ben collected. Damage and some inventory data have been collected for about 30 earthquakes. That includes about 200 industrial sites, and several hundred commercial structures that house piping. These facilities contain many millions of linear feet of pipe, over one million pipe supports and retainers (for lateral loads), many tens of thousands of piping components such as nozzles and elbows and thousands of valves. The strength of the data base is i.1 the quantity and variety of piping configurations, piping runs, and support and ground motions. Peak free field horizontal ground accelerations at affected data base fecQties vary up to 1.0g, with durations of strong motion in excess of 60 seconds, as compared to a typical nuclear power plant SSE of less than 0.25g and a duration of motion of 15 seconds. The magnitudes of the data base events vary from about 5.0 to more than 8.0. The spectral shapes of the ground motion records vary from very broad band to narrow ' I band and many envelope the broadest spectra used for design of nuclear facilities. 1 The foundation conditions of the data base facilities vary from very soft soils (some of which experienced liquefaction directly underneath data base piping) to highly competent rock. The data base includes a wide variety of ground conditions, including shallow overburdens. Further, a number of facilities are located very near the ruptured faults or in the uplifted or down dropped region of thrust faulting, resulting in high accelerations over a variety of ground conditions. ; The data base piping is supported within a tremendous variety of structures, whose natural frequencies vary from very flexible (less than 1.0 Hz) to practically rigid. The structures include underground massive concrete structures to tall, slender structures, such as towers, over 300 feet tall. The taller structures include power plant and refinery structures, as well as conventional commercial structures. The structures include steel, masonry, and reinforced concrete structures of vintages from the 1940s through the late 1980s. 16000-35/ Piping 4 j
The thousands of housed piping systems include a wide variety of support conditions, geometrical configurations, size distributions and all other piping system variables. The natural frequencies of these systems vary from extremely flexible 1 (less than 0.5 Hz) to rigid. Further, the quality of construction of many data base ' systems is much lower than the quality of typical nuclear plant systems - that is particularly true of the data base from foreign facilities and older petrochemical i facilities. The maintenance of the data base systems, on the average,is inferior to i that of nuclear plant systems. The large majority of data base piping systems was not specifically designed for l I seismic loads. A few systems were seismically designed using static approaches, a few systems were designed with snubbers (although it is not clear that the snubbers were specified for seismic reasons), and a large number of systems, particularly in California, were designed and supported, to resist earthquakes. That resistance is typically provided through motion limiters (such as gaps and friction connectors). l Several data base facilities have been subjected to multiple strong earthquakes. For l example, the PALCO co-generation three boiler power plant, was subjected to three back to back earthquakes with magnitudes of 7.0,6.0 and 6.5 on April 25 and 26, l 1992. The peak horizontal ground accelerations near the plant, on better soil than that at the plant, were 0.55g,0.55g, and 0.25g. Other sites with multiple earthquakes include Humboldt Bay and El Centro. Many data base facilities are founded on soft, alluvial sites. The majority of their structures are flexible and the majority of the piping systems are also flexible. Therefore, numerous piping systems in a typical data base plant experienced large amplifications of the free-field ground motions. This wide variety of piping configurations and dynamic excitations provides a data base that is representative of most piping systems found in power facilities. For example, Reference 6, contains a review of data in the literature from 29 earthquakes worldwide from 1923 to 1985. In addition, detailed site data were collected from 20 power plant units. The primary focus of the study was above-ground welded steel piping, but other types, such as buried and threaded piping, were also covered. The study reviewed the range of piping parameters covered by the experience data and concluded that those piping systems found in power plants, including nuclear power plants, would be covered by the data. Further, it concluded 16000-35/ Piping 5
that the sample size was sufficiently large that all credible failure modes for power , piping would be revealed by the data. Analyses of Pioino Exoerience Data Numerous analyses of the piping experience data have been conducted. Such analyses have typically addressed the failures in the data base piping and how these failures could be used,in conjunction with the inventory of undamaged pipes, to define design and review criteria. Reference 6 summarizes all known damage and failures to piping form earthquakes included in that data base through the 1985 Chile earthquake. These data are shown in Table 2. Failures were defined as leaks, breaks, collapses, or loss of flow control. For above ground welded steel piping, failures were due to seismic anchor motion (caused by movement of terminal end equipment, header movements at small branch connections, or differential movements between buildings), deterioration of the wall thickness, progressive hanger failure, and seismic interaction. Failures resulting from seismic inertia forces were not observed. Reference 5 summarizes examples of piping systems that were the subject of comparative analyses following strong earthquakes. The objective in all cases was to benchmark the analyses used in practice against observed results from earthquakes. It was shown in these comparative analyses that flexible piping is not necessarily highly stressed unless some undesirable design feature is present and that these undesirable features can be isolated without conducting analysis. Other reviews of the above data have arrived at similar conclusions, in Reference 7, it is stated that: " Experience data collected by SOUG and others and high-level seismic tests on piping conducted in foreign countries and in the U.S. show that piping is not susceptible to failure resulting from seismic inertialloads.. The only observed instances of piping failure during the SQUG program to collect seismic experience data were due to degraded pipe, support failures (where such supports were not designed to resist lateral loads), relative movement of anchor points and inadequate or nonexistent anchorage of tanks or equipment for sites with zero period acceleration between 0.25g and 0.60g." Experience shows that earthquakes rarely cause failures in ductile, flexible piping systems. Studies such as those in NUREG-1061 (Reference 8), reveal that the only 16000 35/ Piping 6
important failure modes during earthquakes of piping equivalent to nuclear piping are the failure of the equipment to which the piping is connected or the very large relative motions of the piping anchor points. Failure of the piping system by collapse because of piping inertia loads has not occurred, even during earthquakes with ground accelerations as high as 0.90g." For welded steel piping designed and constructed to normal industrial practice (e.g.,
' ANSI B31.1), past seismic experience has never shown a primary collapse mode of failure as envisioned by the ASME Code. Seismic failures have been caused by either excessive relative support movements that failed the support or pulled the pipe apart, or rupture associated with an initial flaw, excessive erosion or corrosion.
Failures due to differential support movement have usually resulted from lack of sufficient flexibility in the piping system. A limited amount of nonlinear piping analyses (References 9 and 10) have also demonstrated that a primary collapse failure mode is highly unlikely. Current practice does not consider that piping systems are capable of absorbing and dissipating a considerable amount of energy when strained beyond their elastic limit, or that an earthquake is capable of inputting only a limited amount of energy into such systems. I Earthquake experience data present us with the only available full-scale tests of our I designs and installations. In effect, the current practice for the seismic design of piping has not considered the real performance of piping systems in strong motion earthquakes. The net result is excessive conservatism in the treatment of primary stresses when uncorrected linear elastic analyses are performed and the results are compared to stress limits based on static tests. This conservatism,in the treatment of primary stresses, leads to the use of pipe supports in excess of what is needed to provide acceptable margins against failure for the dynamic loads that may occur. Above ground piping at data base facilities exhibited excellent resistance to damage during and after earthquakes in spite of a generallack of seismic design considerations and provisions. A limited number of piping failures at data base facilities have been reported. Damage to piping in the data base seldom results in falling. When falling does occur,it is due to multiple support failure, not pipe breakage. Figure 1 shows a 16000-35/ Piping 7 C
l building which was extensively damaged during the 1971 San Fernando earthquake with rod supported piping intact. Figure 2 shows a piping system which did collapse in a heavily damaged building at the Tasman Paper Mill affected by the 1987 New Zealand Bay of Plenty earthquake. Figure 3 shows a line at the Bata Shoe Factory affected by the 1985 Chile earthquake which remained in place even though its supports failed. Failures shown in Figures 2 and 3 are attributed to poor support details. Seismic anchor movement is the most common cause attributed to the failure of above ground piping. These failures are typically caused by equipment anchorage I failure (due to sliding, rocking, etc.) and differential displacement. Inadequately anchored or unanchored equipment such as chillers, heat exchangers, and tanks l have caused piping failures when the attached piping was not flexible enough to accommodate the seismic displacement. Small diameter branch piping connected to ] large diameter main lines have failed due to lack of sufficient flexibility to ! accommodate the motion of the larger line. Piping failures due to differential building displacement result primarily from designs that fail to provide adequate flexibility for the relative movement of two structural systems. ; Several cases of corroded piping failures have been noted in the data base. The predominant failure mode consists of cracks and leakage at points where a significant decrease in wall thickness had occurred. Piping component failures have also been reported due to seismic impact. These failures were confined to cast iron and steel yokes on air operated valves. The yokes of the air operated valves fractured due to repeated impact with adjacent structures. Each of the valves was located on a flexibly supported line where estimated displacements of 6 to 12 inches occurred. DATA BASE SITES SELECTED FOR PARAMETRIC STUDIES Piping data from the El Centro Steam Plant, the Valley Steam Plant, PALCO Co-generation Plant, Cool Water Plant, and various facilities affected by the 1987 Whittier Earthouake were selected for presentation and detailed comparison of various piping design parameters and attributes. The El Centro Steam and Valley Steam plants affected by earlier earthquakes, and the PALCO and Cool Water plants, affected by the more recent earthquakes, were selected for parametric studies 16000-35/ Piping 8
because substantial documentation on the earthquake input and piping configuration are available. El Centro Steam Plant The four unit El Centro Steam Plant (Figure 4), located on a flat, alluvial site, experienced the Magnitude 6.6 Imperial Valley, California earthquake of 1979 and Magnitude 6.3 Superstition Hills, California earthquake of 1987. Seismic design criteria for the braced steel frame structures specified a lateral static force equivalent to 20% of the dead and live loads. Equipment was typically anchored. Piping was generally designed in conformance with ANSI B31.1 for dead load, pressure, and thermal loads Generally, earthquake loads were not considered in the design of the piping except for a few of the high temperature, high pressure large bore lines such as the main steam and reheat lines. Piping at El Centro is primarily rod hung and is more flexible than comparable size nuclear systems. However there is a wide range of flexibilities for specific piping systems, in particular, large diameter lines are supported using a combination of rod hangers, U-bolts and structural sections. A few snubbers were used on the main steam and reheat lines. Examples of large and small bore piping configurations at the facility are shown in Figure 5. The El Centro plant includes a variety of welded and threaded piping extending up to about 100 feet above grade. Most of the piping is constructed of ASTM A-53. carbon steel. Some stainless steel lines associated with the water demineralization systems are present. The high pressure steam and feedwater piping systems are of butt welded construction. Line sizes range from 1/2 inch to 30 inches in diameter. Pressures range up to 3,000 psi. Pipe schedules 10 to 40 are used primarily for the lower operating pressures. Schedules 80 to 160 are used for systems operating at 1 pressures greater than 1,200 psi. Maximum operating temperatures are 1,000*F. ' Most of the piping systems operate at temperatures less than 400 F. I During 1979, the plant experienced the Imperial Valley earthquake with a Richter magnitude of 6.6 with an epicenter about 27 km from the plant. The average of two horizontal peak ground accelerations measured 0.6 miles from the plant was 0.42g. The vertical acceleration was 0.669. At the time of the Imperial Valley l l 1 16000 35/ Piping 9
. . . - - ~ _ .~
1 earthquake, Unit 4 was in operation so that piping was subjected to normal operating loads in addition to the seismic induced loading. Reported piping failures included the following:
= Several cracked 3 and 4 inch diameter generator exciter cooling lines at previously repaired and corroded points,
= A broken pipe attached to an unanchored filter in the pumphouse,
= A cracked mechanical (Victualic) coupling on a 2" diameter component cooling line, a A broken cast iron yoke on a steam supply line air operated valve caused by impact with an adjacent structural column.
None of the reported failures resulted in gross structural collapse or falling of piping or piping components, in 1987, the plant experienced the Superstition Hills earthquake with a Richter magnitude of 6.3 with an epicenter approximately 20 miles North-West of El Centro and faulting just 3 miles from the plant. The average of two horizontal peak ground accelerations measured at El Centro was 0.25g. One instance of piping damage occurred as a result of the Superstition Hills earthquake. A minor leak occurred on a low flow line installed in the early 1950s which did not affect plant operation. A one inch diameter carbon steel threaded line on Unit 3 developed a leak at the deareator tank. The leak is believed to be inertially , generated based on the long unsupported length of pipe. Vallev Steam Power Plant The Valley Steam Power Plant is located about 10 miles from the epicenter of_the 1971 San Fernando earthquake and four miles from a fault rupture. It is located on a flat, alluvial site. The Richter magnitude of the earthauake was 6.6 with an estimated peak ground acceleration of 0.40g in the two horizontal directions. 16000-35/ Piping . 10 9
The braced steel-frame boiler structures were designed for a lateral shear force of 0.20 times the weight of the structure as required by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. Most of the equipment is anchored. Although some piping was designed to accommodate the differential movement of the pendulum-hung boiler with respect to the steel frame, piping was not specifically designed for 1 seismic loads. The Valley Steam plant piping extends up to about 150 feet above grade. Threaded and mechanically coupled piping are supported by rod hangers and U-bolts to structural steel sections. Figure 6 illustrates typical piping and supports at the Valley Steam Plant. The lower photo shows a typical fire protection header that is bolted to the structure with branch lines rod hung with expansion anchors from concrete deck. Most of the piping is constructed of ASTM A-53 carbon steel. High energy fines operate at pressures up to 2,250 psi and at temperatures as high as 1,000*F. Line sizes range from 3/8 inch to 42 inches. Piping schedules vary from Schedule 10 to Schedule 160. Damage to piping was limited to several corroded circulating water tubes which ruptured in the Unit 4 condenser. No instances of gross structural collapse, or falling of piping components were reported. Whittier Facilities Various Whittier facilities affected by the 1987 Richter Magnitude 5.5 (Reference
- 11) earthquake were investigated to document the performance and instances of damage to large bore piping systems. A brief description of the investigated facilities, the average of two horizontal peak ground accelerations, the types of large and small bore piping systems documented and instances of seismic induced damage to piping systems are given below: .
Nekoosa Packaging (pga = 0.40g)
- The Nekoosa Packaging manufacturing facility in Vernon was built in three stages
' from 1950 to 1959. The building is a single level 350,000 square foot precast concrete, concrete block and wood frame structure that is located approximately 6 miles from the epicenter. This region experienced strong vertical seismic motion in 16000-35/ Piping 11
excess of 0.5g. Moderate seismic damage occurred in the fire protection sprinkler system at threaded connections and mechanical couplings due to header displacement. The cause of failures is attributed to inadequate lateral support of headers and inadvertent sprinkler head interaction with ceiling beams. Figure 7 shows large diameter fire protection piping located on top of a water storage tank at Nekoosa Packaging. Although the tank experienced movement during the earthquake and ruptured, no damage occurred to attached piping. The Clorox Company (pga = 0.409) The Clorox Company, also in Vernon, includes two large warehouse facilities that were investigated due to reports of piping damage. Damaged piping, however, was localized to one small bore threaded sprinkler line. Differential motion of the cross main imposed displacement on a small anchored branch line. Piping surveyed included threaded and Victualic type mechanical connections that spanned the two warehouses. Figure 8 shows typical piping installations. Despite the large vertical motion in excess of 0.5g as recorded in the nearby U.S. Bulk Mail Facility, piping damage and leaking did not occur except for the one instance noted above. International Paper (pga = 0.40g) International Paper located in Commerce is a 40 year old, single level structure with a steel frame roof structure that covers approximately 300,000 square feet of manufacturing and storage space. The building includes a vast quantity of threaded and mechanically coupled large bore pipe that experienced no damage during the earthquake. The piping is primarily rod hung with an occasional lateral brace. Piping was installed in 1953. Figure 9 shows typical configurations of fire protection sprinkler lines in the loading area. No damage to large bore piping was found or reported by facility personnel. Lutheran Tower (pga = 0.51g) Lutheran Tower is a 10 story reinforced concrete residence home located in Whittier. USGS instruments recorded horizontal peak ground accelerations of 0.63g and 0.40g in the basement. (Note: The 0.51g pga above is the average of the two horizontal 0.4g and 0.63g pga's). 16000-35/ Piping 12
Piping systems include carbon steel threaded fire protection piping located in the building basement, and brazed copper and carbon steellines with threaded and j welded joints throughout the building. Supports for piping systems were primarily j rod hangers with lateral restraints for fire protection headers. No damage to piping systems occurred. Figure 10 includes a photograph of the 10 story building. Figure 11 illustrates examples of large and small bore piping systems found in the building. i Cal Fed Facility (pga = 0.42g) I l The Cal Fed data processing facility is a new 3 story steel frame building containing computers, support equipment and diesel generators. The building sustained
]
extensive architectural damage including fire protection sprinkler system failures. Figure 12 illustrates piping movement at Cat Fed. ! Threaded piping failures attributed to header displacement occurred in the rai, sed ceiling on the fourth floor. The cause of failures i.s attributed to inadequate lateral support of headers and inadvertent restraint of branch lines due to sprinkler head interaction with the ceiling. l Cal State Los Angeles (pga = 0.40g) The State University Campus located in East L.A. includes e 10 story building and adjact nt 3 story parking structure which were investigated due to reports of piping damage. Damaged piping was large bore mechanical coupled rod hung cooling water lines. One piping system fell. The failure was attributed to poor installation of pipe anchors. Small bore piping surveyed included welded and thre !cd carbon steel lines located on the 10 story building roof. No damage to small be a piping was found or reported by facilities personnel. A larger fire protectr i pipe header fellin a parking structure due to unzipping of the rod hanger suppor* Post earthquake investigation revealed that the rod hanger supports were attachec a cast-in-place channel inserts installed in lightweight concrete. Sanwa Bank Building (pga = 0.38g) The Sanwa data processing facility is a new 2 story steel frame structure containing computers and support equipment. Small bore piping systems included threaded 16000-35/ Piping 13
carbon steel fire protection systems, threaded and welded carbon steel piping and brazed copper piping. Figure 13 shows a beam clamp rod hanger supporting Sanwa fire protection piping, no support failures occurred. Two instances of damage to small bore piping were reported. Two copper lines attached to a hot water heater failed due to overturning of the unanchored component. Sprinkler heads located in the building seismic joint above the atrium failed due to impact with the structure. Pacific Manor (pga = 0.2Gg) Pacific Manor is a 10 story residence home located in Burbank with precast and poured-in-place concrete floor slabs supported by precast concrete bearing walls with shear walls in both directions. Small bore piping systems surveyed include brazed copper, threaded carbon steel and welded carbon steel lines located o,n the building roof. No damage to piping systems occurred. SCE Headquarters (pga = 0.44g) SCE Headquarters is a large office complex including 3 buildings, a 4 story,1970 vintage, concrete structure with interior shear walls, a 1975 vintage one story concrete structure with a two story section housing an equipment penthouse and a l 3 story concrete shear wall building of 1980 vintage. Small bore piping systems surveyed include brazed copper, welded carbon steel and threaded carbon steel. Several instances of damage or failure in copper lines were identified. All are l attributed to movement of inadequately anchored or unanchored equipment. 1 Mescuite Lake Resource Recoverv Plant During the 1987 Superstition Hills earthquake the Mesquite Lake plant was essentially complete and undergoing startup testing. The Richter Magnitude was 6.3 with an estimated average of the two horizontal peak ground accelerations of 0.30g at the site. The 16.5 MW power plant is similar to a conventional fossil fueled facility with manure from local dairies and beef suppliers used as fuel. The plant includes one steam turbine / generator and two boiler / economizer /combuster trair s which are 80-90 feet tall steel frame structures. Small bore piping systems include welded and 16000 35/ Piping 14
threaded carbon steel and stainless steel. Support configurations include rod hangers and U bolts attached to steel members or structures. Frequently, gang supports are used for both large and small bore piping. i l 1 Impacting of pipes and insulation with buildings and equipment occurred due to l differential displacement. No instances of damage or failure to piping were reported. Figure 14 includes examples of small bore piping at Mesquite Lake. l PALCO Co-oeneration Plant The Cape Mendocino earthquakes occurred on April 25,1992 at 11:06 A.M. with aftershocks at 12:41 A.M. and 4:18 A.M. the following morning. The initial and I subsequent large events registered at Richter magnitudes (M) of 7.1,6.6, and 6.7, respectively. Epicenters are located within the general vicinity of Cape Mendocino in northern California, Average peak ground accelerations of 0.47g,0.42 and 0.22 from the three events were recorded near the cogen plant location. The Pacific Lumber Company (PALCO) Co-generation Plant, Figure 15, is located in the town of Scotia in northern California. The plant coerates from three boilers that burn wood waste from nearby mill operations. The three wood-fired boilers produce steam at about 600 psi that is routed through a common header into the adjacent turbine generator building. The plant contains two steam turbine generators, each capable of producing about 18 MW at 13.8 kV. The plant was brought on line in 1989 and included a diversity of recent vintage equipment, mounted in steel-frame structures designed to the current Uniform Building Code, Seismic Zone IV. Piping was generally designed in accordance with ANSI B31.1 for dead load, pressure, and thermal loads, with minimal to no considerations of seismic loads except for a few of the high temperature, high pressure large bore lines. Typical pipe supports consisted of a combination of rod hangers. U-bolts and structural steel sections. Equipment were typically anchored. The PALCO cogen plant includes a variety of welded and threaded piping extending up to 100 feet above grade. Most of the piping are constructed of ASTM A-53 carbon steel. Some stainless steel piping are noted. Low pressure fire protection lines are typically constructed with threaded and/or mechanical connections. The high pressure systems such as steam piping are of butt welded construction. 16000-35/ Piping 15 h
Pressures range up to 1,000 psi. Pipe schedules 10 to 40 are used primarily for the lower operating pressures. Schedules 80 to 160 are used for systems operating at pressures of 700 psi or greater. Maximum operating temperatures are 1,000 *F ) 1 with most of the piping systems operate at temperatures of 200'F or less. Typical l l piping and support configurations are shown in Figure 16. At the time of the initial earthquake, Unit A turbine generator was on line near full capacity with steam supplied from all three boilers. Turbine Generator B was down for overhaul with the generator rotor removed to the shop. j Actuation of a generator overload relay in the control room tripped Unit A off line and initiated shut down of the boilers. In spite of the intense level of shaking, the offsite power transmission system remained energized into the plant area. The supply of 60 kV power from the offsite power system was retained into the cogen plant substation. The source of 13.8 kV station power automatically transferred from Turbine Generator A to the substation's 60/13.8 kV transformer. This retained i l power within the cogen plant to all operating equipment. I l Both mechanical and electrical power supply systems within the cogen plant survived the earthquakes with minimal effects. No problems were encountered in l mechanical equipment such as fans, pumps, or control valves in the process of restarting the plant. Although buried piping fractured in many locations around the mill site and near th'e town, there were no serious instances of rupture in above-
]
ground piping within the cogen plant. Slight increases appeared to occur in slow I 1 leaks at flanged connections in steam piping. A few leaks were found in low pressure small bore piping, such as from cracked sight glasses. Pneumatic tubing within the plant instrument and service air systems remained intact, except for severallocations where sway of the boilers buckled or crimped the instrument tubing (Figure 17). The only damage to piping support was the broken shaft of a j mechanical snubber for main steam riser (Figure 18). 1 Cool Water Generation Plant ' The Southern California Edison (SCE) Cool Water Generation Plant, Figure 19, is located in the town of Dagget, less than 10 miles east of Barstow, California. The plant includes two conventional gas / oil-fired steam turbine generators (Units 1 & 2) ; i 16000-35/ Piping 16 i
of late 1950s to early 1960s vintage, respectively, and two Westinghouse 260 PACE combined cycle units (Units 3 & 4) of late 1970s vintage. Units 1 & 2 are housed in typical open steel-frame boiler towers adjoining a common open turbine deck and have a combined generating capacity of about 143 MW. Each of the two PACE units (Units 3 & 4) consists of two ground-mounted packaged gas turbine generators with exhaust gases making stea*.l ia '. heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) which supplies a single stemi turb!.ie. Total generation output for the two combined cycle units is roout 500 MW. Design documents fur the older units (Units 1 & 2) specified that all pressure piping to be in accordance with applicable ASA Code for Pressure Piping (i.e., ASA-B-31.1-1955 and ASA-B-16.5-1953), as well as ASME Code for Power Boilers. In addition, a 2" clearance between piping and any equipment or other plant commodities was also specified. The balance of plant and/or utility piping were generally field Touted using field installation procedure and typical support details. l l Similarly, piping design for Units 3 & 4 were in accordance with the code for I pressure piping, ANSI B31.1, " Power Piping," for piping appropriate to the scope of j the code except as otherwise specified. The Cool Water plant includes a variety of welded and threaded piping extending up to 100 feet above grade. All piping are constructed of ASTM A-53 carbon steel. Low pressure systems including fire protection are typically constructed with threaded connections. The high pressure steam and feedwater piping systems are of butt welded construction. Line sizes range from 1/2 inch to 30 inches in diameter. Typical piping and support configurations are shown in Figures 20 and 21 for Units 1 & 2, and Figures 22 and 23 for Units 3 & 4. Note that the later vintage units (3 & 4) utilized more rigid pipe supports than the older units (1 & 2). Pressures range up to 1.000 psi. Pipe schedules 10 to 40 are used primarily for the lower operating pressures. Schedules 80 to 160 are used for systems operating at pressures of 700 psi or greater Maximum operating temperatures are 1,000 oF with most of the piping systems operate at temperatures of 200 F or less. The Landers and Big Bear earthquakes occurred on June 28,1992 at 4:58 A.M. and 8:04 A.M. with Richter magnitude (M) of 7.5 and 6.5, respectively. Both epicenters are located at about 40 miles south of the SCE Cool Water Plant. Peak ground 16000 35/ Piping 17
accelerations of 0.43g in the transverse direction,0.28g in the longitudinal direction, and 0.16 9 in the vertical direction were recorded at the site. At the time of the initial event, one gas turbine (C.T. 31) was on line, and the Unit 3 steam turbine was in the process of being brought on line. All other turbine generators were down. The gas turbine tripped off line and shut down due to its vibration trip system. The older Unit 1 & 2 side of the plant retained station power in both earthquakes through its 115 kV/4 kV autotransformer (in the adjacent switchyard) which retained its supply from El Dorado Substation. Most circuit breakers in the 115 kV and 230 kV switchyards opened, presumably due to vibration-induced relay actuation on the control panels. The Unit 3 & 4 side of the plant lost station power for a brief time period in the initial earthquake. Piping systems at all four units of the Cool Water Plant performed extremely well during both earthquakes. No major piping damage, either above- or below-ground, was reported following the events. Minor instances of piping damage were noted in Units 1 & 2, and described as follows:
= A 1' line fractured near its attachment to one of the tank drains due to differential displacement. The unanchored tank (Demineralized Water Test Tank No.1) suffered slight buckling at the base of its wall where it apparently slapped down on the concrete foundation enclosing its drain line (Figure 24).
= At several locations, particularly in the Unit 2 boiler tower, instrument tubing or small air lines were fractured due to differential displacement between the attachment points on the tower and the swaying boiler. Buckling of steel grating was found at several locations due to the extent of boiler movement and impact (Figure 25).
= Several instances of proximity interaction between rod-hung large bore piping (insulated) and other plant features were noted. Damage consisted of dented pipe insulation only (Figure 26).
16000-35/ Piping 18
- . .- - . . - . . = . -- . . ~
l COMPARISON OF DATA BASE PIPING Seismic ruggedness of large and small bore piping systems at the data base sites is demonstrated by the following qualitative and quantitative comparisons: l l
= Data base piping are typically installed with minimal to no seismic considerations and yet have survived earthquakes j much more severe than the Hatch Unit 2 design basis (0.15g). l
= Data base power plant piping and BWR steam piping are constructed to comparable codes, standards, and installation practices.
i 1 To demonstrate these points a comparison is made of parameters associated with earthquake input and systems seismic integrity. To facilitate the comparisons, critical parameters are grouped into the categories outlined below. 1 Seismic Inout Parameters I This parametric category is associated with the transfer of seismic motion from the ! ground through the building structure to the location of the piping installations. These parameters include aspects of earthquake ground motion as follows: l
= Peak ground acceleration j
= Duration of strong ground motion l
= ' Frequency content of ground motion j l
Parameters also include aspects of the amplification and filtration of the ground motion by:
)
= Soil conditions
= Building type and size ,
= Elevation of the piping in the building. )
\
l Parameters associated with the seismic ground motion are illustrated by a free field ground motion response spectrum and by peak ground acceleration. 1 Figure 29 shows the average of the two horizontal peak ground accelerations from 1 data base sites selected for this parametric study. Free field ground response l l l 16000-35/ Piping 19 h r,, w-- , , - - ,
spectra applicable for Cal Fed, Lutheran Tower and the Bulk Mail facility, which was in close proximity to Nekoosa Packaging, Clorox, and international Paper facilities, 1 1 are presented in Figure 27, along with the design basis spectrum for Hatch Unit 2 l with a 0.15g PGA, Similarly, free field ground response spectra applicable for El l Centro, Valley, PALCO, and Cool Water plants are presented in Figure 28, along with the design basis spectrum for Hatch Unit 2 with a 0.15g PGA. The various power stations and industrial facilities surveyed in compiling the experience data base offer a wide diversity of building sizes, flexibility and ground compositions. In turn, this represents a wide diversity in the amplification, distortion and filtration of ground motion experienced at the various sites. Much of the data base piping is contained in multi-story, steel-frame buildings. Typical fundamental response frequencies for this type of building range from 1 to 5 Hz, which corresponds to the frequency range of maximum energy content for most earthquake ground motion. Typical nuclear plant turbine building structures are somewhat stiffer in comparison, The frequency range of these structures would lie at the end or above the range of maxirnum energy content for typical seismic ground motion. This in turn suggests that the intensity of typical commercial nuclear plant response (or piping system seismic input) to an earthquake would be lower than that experienced at the data base sites. Svstem Intearity Parameters This category addresses the local details of piping installations that influence the inertial seismic loads, and the structural elements that would be most likely to fcil in an earthquake. These parameters include the following:
= Support type
= System weight per linear foot
= Construction details a Span between supports Piping is typically similar in design at the data base sites. Construction details, including welds and joints are also standard at these sites. Pipe supports typically consist of individual or gang trapeze rod and clevis-type dead load supports, light 16000 35/ Piping 20 fh
l l l
. structural sections with U bolt attachment or Unistrut channel with bolted pipe l straps. Structural attachments are provided by welds to building structural members or by expansion anchor bolts.
Standard pipe diameters and schedules are used for the data base piping. Data base facilities typically include steam, liquid, and dry systems. Pipe operating at high temperature is generally insulated. System weights among the data base piping are typically comparable. Piping interactions are influenced by system complexity and flexibility. Complexity addresses the layout of pipe runs and their proximity to adjacent installations. Pipe flexibility is determined by support types, spans, and interfaces with equipment and penetrations. Highly flexible piping will undergo greater displacement relative to the building during an earthquake. Due to the flexible nature of much of the data base piping routed in congested areas of the plants, impacts between adjacent stTuctural steel, HVAC equipment, light fixtures, and other piping are common. Scratch marks and dented insulation indicate that large displacements have occurred at these data base sites. Lift-off from dead weight supports has undoubtedly occurred in data base piping systems without adverse effects on the supports. Support spans for large and small bore piping systems were compiled from field investigations and/or design documents at the above data base facilities. These spans represent the distance between horizontal or vertical supports for piping runs or the distance to the first horizontal and vertical support from nozzles or tees. These spans represent a diversity of pipe runs which have performed successfully during earthquakes. ) Spacing between supports and number of samples for the surveyed data base piping are presented in Figures 30 through 33 for both large and small bore piping.
SUMMARY
OF DATA BASE COMPARISON . 1 l A review of large and small bore piping configurations and performance in the earthquake experience data base resulted in the following observations: l
= Data base piping are typically installed with minimal or no l seismic considerations and exhibit a wide range of system flexibility. i l
16000 35/ Piping 21
= Support details well repres 'nted in the data base piping include rod hangers, U-bolts to light structural members, unistrut supports and many gapped seismic stops.
= Data base sites have experienced seismic input significantly greater than the Hatch Unit 2 design basis.
= Welded steel piping systems designed and installed to commercial power piping codes and standards have exhibited successful seismic performance.
REFERENCES
- 1. General Electric Nuclear Energy. September 1993. "BWROG Report for increasing MSIV Leakage Rate Limits and Elimination of Leakage Control Systems." NEDC 31858P. Rev. 2
- 2. T.Y. Chang. February 1987. NUREG-1030, " Seismic Qualification of Equipment in Operating Nuclear Power Plants Unresolved Safety issue A-46."
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
- 3. Murray, R.C., et. al., " Equipment Response at the El Centro Steam Plant During the October 15,1979 Imperial Valley Earthquake," NUREG/CR-1665 Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory for Nuclear Regulatory Commission, October,1980.
4 Herring, K.S., et. al., " Reconnaissance Report: Effects of November 8,1989 Earthquake on Humboldt Bay Power Plant and Eureka, California Area," NUREG-0766, June,1981.
- 5. Campbell, R.D., L.W. Tiong, and J.O. Dizon, " Response Predictions for Piping Systems Which Have Experienced Strong Motion Earthquake," PVP-Volume 2101, Codes and Standards and Applications for Design and Analyses of Pressure Vessel and Piping Components, ASME,1991.
16000-35/ Piping 22 h
- 6. Silver, M. M., G. S. Hardy, P. D. Smith, and S. P. Harris. January 1988.
EPRI NP-5617, " Piping Seismic Adequacy Criteria Recommendations Based on Performance During and After Earthquakes." San Francisco, CA: EQE Engineering.
- 7. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, " Regulatory Analysis for Resolution of Unresolved Safety issue A-46, Seismic Qualification of Equipment in Operating Plants." NUREG-1211. Washington, D.C., February,1987.
- 8. NUREG 1061. April 1985. " Report of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Piping Review Committee." Volume 2 Addendum.
- 9. Campbell, R.D., R.P. Kennedy, R.D. Thrasher, " Development of Dynamic Stress Criteria for Design of Nuclear Piping Systems." SMA 17401.01, Prepared for Pressure Vessel Research Committee, Newport Beach, .
California: Structural Mechanics Associates, incorporated, March,1983.
- 10. Broman, R., et. al., " Conceptual Study to Develop Revised Dynamic Code Criteria for Nuclear Power Piping," EPRI NP-4210, Prepared by impell Corporation for the Electric Power Research Institute, August,1985.
- 11. U.S. Geological Survey. October 1987 " Strong Motion Data from the October 1,1987 Whittier Narrows Earthquake." Open - File Report 87-616, 1
l I 16000-35/ Piping 23 l l
1 Table 1
SUMMARY
OF SITES REVIEWED IN COMPILING THE SEISMIC EXPERIENCE DATA BASE i Earthquake Facility Type of Facility Estimated Horizontal Peak (Magnitude) Ground Acceleration (g)*
- San Fernando, CA Sylmar Large electrical substation 0.50-0.75 Earthquake Converter 1971 Station (M6.5)
Rinaldi Large electrical substation 0.50-0.75 Receiving Station l Valley Steam Four-unit gas-fired power 0.40 , 2 Plant plant Burbank Power Six-unit gas-fired power 0.30 Plant plant , Glendale Five-unit gas-fired power 0.30 Power Plant plant Pasadena Five-unit gas-fired power 0.20 Power Plant plant Point Mugu, CA Ormond Beach Large two-unit oil-fired 0.20 Earthquake Power Plant power plant 1973 , (M5.7) Ferndale, CA Humboldt Bay Two gas-fired units, 0.30' Earthquake Power Plant one nuclear unit 1975 (M5.5) Santa Barbara, Goleta Electrical substation 0.26' CA Earthquake Substation 1978 (M5.7) l Ground acceleration measured by an instrument at the site
** Average of two horizontal components 16000-35/ Piping 24 h
Table 1 (Continued)
SUMMARY
OF SITES REVIEWED IN COMPILING THE SEISMIC EXPERIENCE DATA BASE Earthquake Facility Type of Facility Estimated Horizontal Peak (Magnitude) Ground Acceleration (g)*
- Imperial Valley, El Centro Four-unit gas-fired 0.42' CA Earthquake Steam Plant power plant 1979 (MS.6) Drop IV Two-unit hydroelectric 0.30 ,
Hydro. Plant plant Humboldt, CA Humboldt Bay Two gas-fired units 0.25 Earthquake Power Plant one nuclear unit 1980 . (M7.0) Coalinga, CA Main Oil Pumping station feeding oil 0.60 Earthquake Pumping Plant pipeline from Coalinga area 1983 (M6.7) Union Oil Petrochemical facility to 0.60 Butane Plant extract butane and propane from well waste gas Shell Water Petrochemical facility to 0.60 Treatment demineralize water prior to Plant steam injection into oil wells Coatinga Water Potable water purification 0.60 Treatment Plant facility Coalinga Electrical substation 0.60 Substation No.2 Shell Tank Oil storage tank farm 0.60 Farm No.29 Pleasant Pumping station to supply 0.56' Valley Pumping water from the San Luis Plant Canal to the Coalinga Canal San Luis Canal Agricultural pumping stations 0.20-0.60 Pumping taking water from the San Stations (29) Luis Canal Ground acceleration measured by an instrument at the site Average of two horizontal components 16000 35/ Piping 25 f
Table 1 (Continued)
SUMMARY
OF SITES REVIEWED IN COMPILING THE SEISMIC EXPERIENCE DATA BASE Earthquake Facility Type of Facility Estimated Horizontal Peak (Magnitude) Ground Acceleration (g)*
- Coalinga, CA Gates Large electrical substation 0.25 Earthquake (Cont.) Substation Kettleman Natural gas pipeline 0.20 Compressor booster station Station Morgan Hill, CA United Tech. Large research facility for 0.50 Earthquake Chemical missile systems development -
1984 Plant (M6.2) IBM / Santa Large computer facility for 0.37* Teresa Facility software development San Martin Winery 0.35 Winery Wiltron Electronics manufacturing 0.35 Electronics facility Plant Metcalf Large electrical 0.40 Substation substation Evergreen Large college complex with 0.20 Community self-contained HVAC power College plant l Mirassou Winery 0.20 Winery Chile Earthquake Bata Shoe Four-building factory and 0.64 1985 Factory tannery (M7.8) San Isidro Electrical substation 0.58* ; Substation l l l l l Ground acceleration measured by an instrument at the site I Average of two horizontal components l 16000-35/ Piping 26 h l
Table 1 (Continued)
SUMMARY
OF SITES REVIEWED IN COMPILING THE SEISMIC EXPERIENCE DATA BASE Earthquake Facility Type of Facility Estimated Horizontal Peak (Magnitude) Ground Acceleration (g)*
- Chile Earthquake Llolleo Water pumping station 0.55 1985 (Cont.) Water Pumping Plant Terquim Oil / acetate / acid storage 0.55 Tank Farm tank farm Vicuna Four-story hospital 0.55 Hospital -
Rapel Five-unit hydroelectric plant 0.40* Hydroelectric Plant ' San Sebastian Electrical substation 0.35 Substation Concon Petrochemical facility producing 0.30 Petroleum fuel oil, asphalt, gasoline, Refinery and other petroleum products Oxiquim Chemical facility producing 0.30 Chemical various chemicals, including Plant feed stock for paint ingredients Concon Water pumping station 0.30 - Water Pumping Station Renca Two-unit coal-fired power plant 0.30 Power Plant Lage:na Verde Two-unit coal-fired peaking 0.25 Power Plant plant Las Ventanas Copper refinery / foundry / power 0.25 Copper Refinery plant Las Ventanas Two-unit gas fired power plant 0.25' Power Plant Ground acceteration measured by an instrument at the site Average of two honzontal components 16000-35/ Piping 27 h
Table 1 (Continued)
SUMMARY
OF SITES REVIEWED IN COMPILING THE SEISMIC EXPERIENCE DATA BASE Earthquake Facility Type of Facility Estimated Horizontal Peak (Magnitude) Ground Acceleration (g)*
- Chile Earthquake San Cristobal Electrical substation 0.25 1985 (Cont.) Substation Las Condes Four-story hospital 0.20 Hospital Mexico infiernillo Six-unit hydroelectric plant 0.15 Earthquake Dam 1985 -
(M8.1 ) La Villita Four-unit hydroelectric plant 0.14 Power Plant SICARTSA Large, modern steel mill 0.25 0.50 Steel Mill Fertimex Fertilizer plant 0.25-0.50 Fertilizer Plant Adak, Alaska Adak Naval Diesel-electric 0.25 Earthquake Base power plants, electrical 1986 substations, sewage lift (M7.5) stations, water treatment plant, steam plants North Palm Devers Large electrical 0.85* Springs, CA Substation distribution substation l Earthquake l 1986 Whitewater Small hydroelectric 0.50 (M6.0) Hydro. Plant power plant Chalfant Valley, Control Gorge Two-unit hydroelectric 0.25 CA Earthquake Hydro Plant plant I 1986 (M6.0) Hi-Head Hydro Small one-unit unmanned 0.25 Plant hydroelectric plant ! l Ground acceleration measured by an instrument at the site Average of two horizontal components 16000-35/ Piping 28 hh
Table 1 (Continued)
SUMMARY
OF SITES REVIEWED IN COMPILING THE SEISMIC EXPERIENCE DATA BASE Earthquake Facility Type of Facility Estimated Horizontal Peak (Magnitude) Ground Acceleration (g)*
- San Salvador Soyapango Electrical substation 0.50 Earthquake Substation 1986 (MS.4) San Antonio Electrical substation 0.40 Substation Cerro Prieto, Power Plant 1 Geothermal power plant 0.20-0.30 Mexico Earthquake 1987 Power Plant 3 Geothermal power plant -0.20-0.30 (M5.4)
Bay of Plenty, Edgecurnbe 230/115 kV substation 0.50-1.0 New Zealand Substation Earthquake 1987 New Zealand Liquor distillery 0.50-1.0
'(M6.25) Distillery Caxton Paper Paper and pulp mill 0.40-0.55 Mill Kawerau 230/115 kV substation 0.40-0.55 Substation Whakatane Paper mill producing 0.25 Board Mill cardboard Matahina Dam Two-unit hydroelectric 0.26' plant Whittier, CA Olinda Substation Electrical substation 0.65*
Earthquake 1987 SCE Central Data Processing Center 0.56' (MS.9) Dispatch Headquarters ; 1 SCE Large office complex 0.42' l Headquarters j Ground acceleration measured by an instrument at the site Average of two horizontal components 16000-35/ Piping 29
Table 1 (Continued)
SUMMARY
OF SITES REVIEWED IN COMPILING THE SEISMIC EXPERIENCE DATA BASE Earthquake Facility Type of Facility Estimated Horizontal Peak (Magnitude) Ground Acceleration (g)*
- Whittier, CA California Data processing facility 0.40 Earthquake Federal Bank 1987 (Cont.) Facility Ticor Facility Data processing facility 0.40 Mesa Substation Electrical substation 0.3S Sanwa Bank Data processing facility . 0.40 Facility Alhambra Three-story concrete-frame 0.40 Telephone building Station Rosemead Two-story steel-frame 0.40 Telephone building Station Central Three steel-frame 0.15 Telephone high-rise buildings Station Wells Fargo Data processing facility 0.30 Bank Facility Center Substation Electrical Substation 0.30 Lighthype Electrical Substation 0.26' Substation Del Amo Electrical Substation 0.20 Substation Pasadena Five-unit gas-fired 0.25 Power Plant power plant Glendale Five-unit gas-fired 0.20g I Power Plant power plant Ground acceleration measured by an instrument at the site Average of two horizontal components 16000 35/ Piping 30 [ j
J. Table 1 (Continued)
SUMMARY
OF SITES REVIEWED IN COMPILING THE SEISMIC EXPERIENCE DATA BASE Earthquake Facility Type of Facility Estimated Horizontal Peak (Magnitude) Ground Acceleration (g)*
- Whittier, CA Commerce Refuse- One-unit gas-fired power 0.30 Earthquake (Cont.) to-Energy Plant plant Puente Hills One-unit gas-fired power 0.20 Landfill Gas & plant Energy Recovery Plant Supecstition Mesquite Lake 16 MW gas-fired . 0.20 Hills (El Resource Recovery power plant Centro), CA Plant 1987 (M6.3) El Centro Four-unit gas fired 0.26' Steam Plant power plant Loma Prieta Moss Landing Seven-unit gas-fired 0.30 Earthquake Power Plant power plant 1989 (M7.1 ) Gilroy Energy One-unit combined gas 0.32 Cogen Plant turbine and steam turbine plant Cardinal Cogen One unit combined gas 0.25 Plant turbine and steam turbine plant UCSC Cogen One-unit diesel 0.40 Plant cogeneration plant Hunter's Point Three-unit gas-fired 0.15 Plant power plant Portrero Plant One-unit gas-fired plant 0.15 Metcalf 500 kV substation 0.30 Substation San Mateo 230 kV substation 0.20 Substation Ground acceleration measured by an instrument at the site Average of two horizontal components 16000-35/ Piping 31
i Table 1 (Continued)
SUMMARY
OF SITES REVIEWED IN COMP! LING THE SElSMIC EXPERIENCE DATA BASE Earthquake Facility Type of Facility Estimated Horizontal Peak (Magnitude) Ground Acceleration (g)*
- Loma Prieta Monte Vista 230 kV substation 0.20 Earthquake (Cont.) Substation National Large brick & magnesia 0.30 Refractory extraction plant Green Giant Foods Concrete tilt-up food 0.33 processing plant Watsonville Sewage treatment plant 0.40 Wastewater Treatment Santa Cruz Three-story concrete 0.50 Telephone shear wall switching Station station Watsonville Four-story concrete shear 0.33' Telephone wall switching station Station Seagate Concrete tilt-up 0.40 Technology manufacturing facility Watsonville Santa Cruz Water Potable water purification 0.40 Treatment facility I
Soquel Water One-story wood-frame office 0.50 District complex with small pumping Headquarters station & storage tanks Lipton Foods Concrete tilt-up food 0.30 l processing and packaging facility l l Lone Star Cement Large cement factory 0.25 l Ground acceleration measured by an instrument at the site i Average of two horizontal components ' 16000-35/ Piping 32
Table 1 (Continued)
SUMMARY
OF SITES REVIEWED IN COMPILING THE SEISMIC EXPERIENCE DATA BASE Earthquake Facility Type of Facility Estimated Horizontal Peak (Magnitude) Ground Acceleration (g)*
- Loma Prieta Watkins-Johnson One , two , and three-story 0.35 Earthquake (Cont.) Instruments concrete & steel-frame buildings for light manufacturing Rinconada Water Potable water processing 0.30 Treatment Plant facility IBM / Santa Teresa Steel-frame high-rise . 0.20 Facility complex for software development EPRI Headquarters Two- and three-story 0.25 concrete-frame office San Martin Winery 0.30 Winery Central Luzon Baguio Telephone switching -
Philippines Telephone station Earthquake 1990 Cabanatuan 230 kV substation - (M7.7) Substation La Trinidad 230 kV substation -- Substation J l San Manuel 230 kV substation -- ! Substation l i Moog Manufacturing plant - Manufacturing l Plant i I j l l Ground acceleration measured by an instrument at the site
** Average of two horizontal components 16000-35/ Piping 33 h
Table 1 (Continued)
SUMMARY
OF SITES REVIEWED IN COMPILING THE SEISMIC EXPERIENCE DATA BASE Earthquake Facility Type of Facility Estimated Horizontal Peak (Magnitude) Ground Acceleration (g)*
- Valle de Bomba Water Water treatment plant -
Estrella, Treatment Costa Rica Plant Earthquake 1991 Cachi Dam 1,000 MW hydroelectric 0.12' (M7.4) plant Changuinola Diesel power plant -- Power Plant - Limon Telephone switching - Telephone station Moin Power 140 MW thermoelectric - Plant power plant RECOPE Oil refinery Refinery Sierra Madre, Pasadena Five-unit gas-fired 0.20 California Power power plant Earthquake Plant 1991 (MS.8) Goodrich 230 kV substation 0.30 Substation Cape Mendocino, PALCO Two-unit power plant 0.47 California Co-generation Earthquake Plant 1992 (M7.0) Humboldt Bay Two gas-fired units, -- Power Plant one nuclear unit Centerville Beach Naval f acility 0.40' Station Ground acceleration measured by an instrument at the site i Average of two horizontal components 16000-35/ Piping 34 l
.__-_---_-______-----_--_--_-__a
1 ~ Table 1 (Continued) l
SUMMARY
OF SITES REVIEWED IN COMPILING THE SEISMIC EXPERIENCE DATA BASE 1 Earthquake Facility Type of Facility Estimated Horizontal Peak (Magnitude) Ground Acceleration (g)*
- Landers and Cool Water Four-unit power plant 0.35' Big Bear, Generation Plant two gas / oil-fired and California two combined cycle units Earthquake 1992 Mitsubishi Cement plant -
(M7.4) Cement Plant LUZ Projects Solar electric O.35 generating station . i l l I I I i Ground acceleration measured by an instrument at the site Average of two horizontal components 16000-35/ Piping 35 g
Table A-2 PIPING DAMAGE IN POWER PLANTS AND OTHER FACILITIES Category Total Pipe Power Plants Other Damage Cases Facilities Seismic Anchor Movement 142 15 127 Corrosion 8 7 1 System Interaction 72 62 10 Non Welded Joints 153 46 107 Supports 74 40 34- , l Internal Equipment 34 34 0 Buried 450 5 445 Miscellaneous 87 10 77 TOTAL 1,020 219 801 16000-35/ Piping in
lf.. , ... A ,;c .
--- I ggh ~~.~ .
q%. 4D
;p p ~. . ' ' ~ <~ m2 h,, M * : k, pA(
w.'
, : ' - - ~- tt .. _.
j.q^* r **;, L
}
..,1
* . I L. - -
$g@M.
>~.
Q: v a ,;;, , ,,- O4 ed -
"I "
-- - l --
I. 8 J $, . n .. .m - y'* _ f;g.., . - - u . . x. .
, pose
' \
j T 1 I /
/ -
. . ,, , / p as .- -
- . , , . . . e
' A '
e **
*.m .
-r ~
..,A,,
- n *. -
i
- gk _ r.c ~ . /:. .gflL '
~ , ~_.
e
~.. , ,- ..
m ;;3 '>- -- y;, & p wn, e- =/4,. p32 M %.xy- 3
$g-? gr. y ,f y
'r 7 ,L ...e r.W . y
. . . rE e
../ , -q ? v_y,y.
, - - w. -,7,-
m- ag; . r-%.w ;; , .: .y
\
. . . g6,
+T- '
- p. S nMs.,...- ,n. . :g_ 4?;r, ..+
,g 'm.
w ... n - .~ ,* ej
, ..1 py a .s.:~
- r.
% ,. w <q g e . -# w*%gfL
-kg . .;, _ t ,
7, ~
~ _ - . /;.
g . parpt44 q;"g'p. ;,g;4p'.c gt.. ,fj.# g g f
...j. g l
4 1 4 . .I l l l Figure 1: This structure was severely damaged during the 1971 San Fernando earthquake, the rod supported piping did not fall down. 1 l l l 16000-35/ Piping 37 _ sn
. - $a@.
s.d6-
* ---tVrg' 1 . W-- w wy
I 1 i l l l
' - / N t l l . - - -
i - . . p,
- ;: r :
., .s-f, -
l 1 i e- # annum. .. _' L ', e
^
i . s
- v. -,
\
r
- . .. {'.,.
Figure 2: Example of piping system collapse caused by poor support detail at the Tasman Paper Mill in New Zealand. Eccentrically loaded clamp connection is shown in lower photograph. . 16000-35/ Piping 38
_ . ..._ - .. _ __-- __ _ m.._ . 1
- :. - . jr S& .
.S ~ ' .
~
.g h .
l
~?f) .' r, .
h
... t i h.: , p.
~. ... .
1 N, . . l
,% A.":t%%g. -
1 ( l . 1 . EES!23D . . . I i l ' '
?
.f. '. .
l - NY.Mi I
- q .y '. 4.;.t$M
,f
,r....
e
=
., s
_~ : ; ;. _ l M l
'} l
~
$h!
.. s ..
I
-g.
g' - Figure 3: This line at the Bata Shoe Factory affected by the 1985 Chile earthquake remained in place even though its supports failed. 16000-35/Pipin9 39
- , - . , ,ce ..., . . , v -,_e- - - -
,,a,- --,w,- , , - , , _ - -
___ __ _ .___ . __ _ _ ___ .. -_ -_. _ _ _ . . - . . - _ _ _ . - - ~ d l l l 1 1 3 r i ,s v l1 l .
'Mi M-YL_ , # '
/
.,3 y.
. , dw" . If +~ f
' 7 ' t .- [-'
'N j;,-]J. . . ' T -H ; w%h] " V * ,q m ,. . - ..
J 4 ,_) 4 ; , _,7 f ,
- _ -(-; .
4 l i l l l i l l l l i l l d I Figure 4: Four Unit El Centro Steam Plant. 16000-35/ Piping 40 3 1 . i l
1 I
-a: . ;s::m . .pm)-b.,.. - - .*. - \
I rp ,41 e4, ra.+NS,@gy&i .g;:Fa l
*f~' yr M..;M;t : e E nG
.' 5 p %.
n. n .muu (ga.u. '1Jgs?pwSg.p-a stJ @u ; w e$
. uef av
'r
- f4&2?g%g;+15
,F.L,.W),t,ic+4-%i 4f. a
,e.+%,m. ,8~ w. .rn., g .s. ..1:
4, cWa b
+ xgr.r. y,x=ihyud3 u Dl%. -
U,WN;ty;% ** G wwu$ . x- :..
~
- 7. ..
J
'4 I 7 M
.+6*i n a
'% i WNW,15e
',.%' dQ%L5 9
.%& 4*FO . fyg4-q
+
i i 2h hAbd Eiir . kb$N g 8.5' N - s g ,gi =4=a1 e_s is is a wash '=is uEih _EE_2 f.a= y -
, m -
N'
.r . -tzm A %-
*/a nTA.
cf..wi 'E9 m .m %$$ g g y h
,,,-s w %r e ut g n .. nn:.3 m - :;: .
, A h;Q % +h - ". g a J. fys.
v7m.fg..wf.,s ME iM e
;; \by
,.,,.,Y,;
<u .,-g y W< ( 4 %.:5 w :
a-
~ .f.ig*k /-
.Qg 3
$gh[{3[f fE~q.N g L. . .
br,g !
..;w0..p.iq/
^.
a-
,~ - p'f7
%s.'wn Q5@
r - e Qetu' %u:V:~9 ..
,,e mg; yn ;, i 3 W^; 1, ,,,. ,
- 1 Mpd h . l i
v - p'~ 3, .... { '
. (,
['^.' '
"R'
' N,
~H 1H:2l j or e:. __ y . _
z l Figure 5: Examples of large bore p; ping (upper photo) and srnall bore piping (lower photo) at the El Centro Steam Plant. 16000-35/ Piping 41 gQ
l [ ,(-
' 5 s .
' ' #- s K
;. j //,. ~
,} , .
\
n:.c , .c& w
._ . ,/
).
R~ ~7c;, . > cy3 r ;, '
/ .
~
~'
ra_ .': ' ... .;'s
.'f, ' ~'
/ ,::'
- n. '
~ .
-:.n
"%. g ~ ~ '
'..< /
% N ~. N D..s-
)
. .I , .,? , w -. .
i
\~ <
Y
'k idN..S..wlk$- bg-N~ k \}:W..-lg,
. x. . >
y.,. . - 3
, . \
.g .) .. . Q g
- f+ n. f. & f f+y
,, p,
' \;;
M,$:'*W yant w..j%. . 4Y f.., K,_r w g& t 3/
%.39 . . '. ? .i, pe.
e e, we&::m..:L3
.. 3&z r
jy"~%yg i. 1 ' b.n;M<mp %,dM, - RNQid h. 6,c
.s4lM&M 6 . ~. I ;* h-
~
' " l\' '
- .-wa *.< v- .. p
~f' ,&e*AiPc w g: ? +,l N.
[{ -- .a wr l
.y t
l _i
.:g es.y- a.Lylyh . ?
, e;.
y ~^ &a s es r'W ' , , kf. .. e
'a ,
q ' MTf.Y
-;g _ ,g y \,,. <
l O. i h, ., .\ 4 ^ s u , ..
- t.)b. ._. -n .g .t. *u m
, $$ ? $ .3,?! _ .d ,u ' ' \ " f g Figure 6: Typical piping and support configurations at Valley Stearn Plant.
16000-35/ Piping 42 [
. . . . . - . --.- - -. - - - . - - .. -~
1
-:3 5 . . - m s a a,, .s.. _ m :. ,. . - . - --
' ' ,, : ' 9,,7, yy ji
_t, ,_' - .; .
,7 cj. ; .
6 + G ~ . ' ' C i.i - y, R . '. ~ .- -
;4 3,... 7, z. . -
3,..h . 7
~
v i:-
.'):.m N - 1 c
3
,m a 4 a u._ ,- ; x i W f(2O -
1.,
- J ; ._.,- %,
- -Ie fg M da
' *LG A f%**g ' . .. .
urgg.-
'l e s.
~- ,
}';;/: ~ .
~-
i i y , , u: pe . 4~~
}~h,
- v. ,
. n ..-m,,-, ' g'f
,, .n .
rf' , - Q~!' )l ~ ~ Mp (,l,..(
,i
?% .!R*. ;,,g?5g, 73 s,p****p _
7.. [:y!. < p: tf_g.gi.; ;.., fs. y b,8 ! f - C;E GN. 7bw %5f_14 %_,.,,_ . f~i' e6 &.,,MM: Q .I%@W,3%g'5Nf.;h?
,. - %,p gu
! N?'uC T-g_*
*M
- j. .OWZwe p; p& 95e~
< M'df
$OANDNdMw
,s .y p h edi.
. M- 3
-@N64ag $N@$a$ c
'
- q:gggau, ?,Q,
,--' ~-
- . . ; l;- -
g:v7., . p;
' M[.jlGf $ , .g -l ,
p
. k.
y%[99y$t h ;}}):Mhhg ' a.:p.:;f,J:.: m
. . ~ t .;%w;h s . m-u.as v. .u ru n .p; P qh :, -: r -
.se y
, ou % Qyg%
.w ~; .g:;,l':g}n
% , 'iM'Z, x .
- g'
. g, f3 Q{.4 k v waW
. . '4
,es g ;i.
a.y&..;j.
. , ,q.
s
' b Llqg ;
. : y.
....r P=
.%Z:. W ~~~ . ~
5 g.). .t. s:' v. W t' .- f,,? c~.us - i
.A "
. j. uvn;$<, , Vri._% +M n.nhw a Figure 7: Large diarneter fire protection piping located on top of water storage tank (upper photo) at Nekoosa packaging. Tank experienced
, rnovernent during the earthquake and ruptured causing no damage to attached pipe (lower photo). I 16000-35/ Piping 43 i
\ l j' g b .
- l
- -%y*s k.' h b; >_ r '., y .-', ',p p . .x< \ f.h g g + . . .
g*-
*g-.,
s gm, ' $pN . ,. . L .
- . jj , .1N %. , "_ ,
r
. s .g g . . . - .
4 5 Q- {- % 5 .$
~
x y\ y N 'j ,/ - .NM.'N,
# }4
\ ~ NO
~g - -
.y W
k .':
. . ~ .
~'e ,' . ,, { _.
. ~ . a.,
'f
- y. .-
w t: ., j, , % ,..
/ (.
- . . 'M ,
%-I @
y.s. j ;s . - - e . x
~,.
. . . . ' ;~ .
p - _ pq
,g V- -:
.) -
I t, . 5 :::5% I ...' f 5: 1 w.
't
~,..
2 )
.=. .. .
g g.;we
- a. .y ..
Ag nc >
]Q.4 a fQ\',,.=
c;- . 3; '
.\
/; n -'
[ry I. M;
, , ./c '
- e. n
- i. . yd. . ~
r m s-,,.. ary raty. ,; _w, -; e -,
/ ., ut s- 'i .
,W. M
~
1.\.I ( L Figure 8: Fire protection line at the Clorox Company. Header is U-bolted to structure and cross main is rod hung from wood truss ceiling. Lower photograph shows a 6" diameter rod hung threaded pipe. There was approximately 5" of displacement of the pipe relative to the structure. 16000-35/ Piping 44 Y
e .- ' , Ly /. ~-
. ./, .r ;, ,,,.9::Jtz.,. ,y; .
.- .," '. , ' , /i , ~y ,
. , : f
.,~..f.. .
,J:,
...f Q-%
/ - .
.~. x
~ ~ - -L .: ' 3.W7S. .. jV ' x
~
D _
,jn
- " + + % NQ
. %,s '*
-m ... s q
' ] '* '
, '* r k - ['
gg- % _t .- ,o wgehy e 4h,,iggi';-~
. . , ,,,.m.
T' .*
- CL* ' ?"
Uy&,,
.w , ; if74 gig;&.mQ..i -
;~
ifXM 6fQ4 j , l
'di:
%:$7ftl' 'q*P*jjWOW --4
.t
#,jn5$0L i.mitC1
' h]dd'l' l
- ;i?
w
;:l',
1 j i l l l i l 1 r i I l i 1 Figure 9: Typical mechanically coupled piping at International Paper. View of , fire sprinkler line in loading bay area. 2J 3 4 16000-35/Pipin9 45 s
.I 4 l
+
.v..~ .#4.rt-fr.,t,i"3f G: %9f 's
.&s v%g+ w,f.
t'thg&., - . j;j@'A"/
- 5. M,ko@
- y%r% tsW pc :: S . ,
.r. wy y
.- r
"!Wm.,sg.r%G4N.$q%q.
Mik:My1.,r ' O , T.s;. ;I ya2~ nus,-g4~;
- p .ad ., ' '*. - . .g
- a Vg ::%
e , ., .e,, ';< - Q$.. .
- s .
','s
. z. .. 4.a 6 y ;e, w c .
i1** -
."f, p % ' f; r.,a , '
e y . . . , - y, . . . . .
. s
. 1
?N ' - ' ~ ' ~
\t g.2v h Q7-% .".=_.
4:
% ..7 n, )p
)
e o, C.h. 3c: .;7.%.
~ ,1.,%; 1.J , ' "Na 7
. A, v =ryw,e-- . . n ,
%su *.
e ., '. . g,, y s. .- P - &n~vy
' g' 3yg.:qfQ fk , ,*
-+ - ' ' , ' * .. ' *
/ .g e ,z.m
-'=!*...
. .f ~ - - ~
' ,. -F ; ff f$$f)R.
7 .. w
%q,p m.
.,' 5 . :. .
- e .' . ^ '
,. .' ' l.
x:w wc 7g ;..... . ... .:%.
- - L .. '
x."Nm;.$r- .. ..'e
.sme: '
3~ 0- ' % I
. .- w Figure 10: View of Lutheran Tower showing temporary trailers for darnaged buildings in downtown Whittier.
16000 35/ Piping 46
. _ _ . . . . - - - ._ . - _ = . - - - - - _.- - . - .
l 1 l l
. , ;. .k. b,?o -
s
?e , P 1 9 /
.,......,,. ..~~
g d.
- F- ; Ar* r
- ~ ~ . _ . i , . .' I itf .'d, T t. ,
c , v. . . .
- . . ~ - .. .c -
. sy- . . . . . . . _ , >
7- --.-. . ~.. _ , . ..
. co. . . . .
j - t:
.= . .
} .
w
';r.=-W*J.-}
4, . . ,) w .. 4. [ '
?. ...s- .fp % ,J j' +
t .
~...h.
. O,: ? 25' : ::4 i ,
,_ .. \
t 7;m _ I
- .p.+- f .. ,.q.
- . f: *
~+-:,L . . _ _ _ . _ __
- w. .y -.
4 a.
. f ',
-. s. ., . o .
- 4
.:' - w , ,. .
r 7 . , , *
- tr
): ' ,2'1: ..
_u 4 . 4dN; A y -(';a. . W .. x.;Wsm -
. , ,. . a: . . c 1 . :. .-
. ,[ '&. r' ? s t .
..' l h' L.85 e
$p mb%gfjtj 29 ! :: 0 l .d;i $aaf$i$$$gd .
c y,.3 i Figure 11: Examples of undamaged large bore piping (upper photo) and small bore piping (lower photo) inside the Lutheran Tower. l 1 i l 16000-35/ Piping 47 gh l {
m, , t
,3-j:
1 ,.y l .w
. .: s M$h .
hk;; I
, .. .. c ! -
T ' j Q'y '8 u , Y"$$? w;: 2: .
~
u 7- 3 7" ..TQ. p p pi. ;
%5 mw y
, , y. y .; .
> L;;.
4 Iva, 'i - - , t. r
- 1 '
i 1
\
.. ll \
.) g ,
W P.w:ttu ,, l? ,.. '$.'&gA R y 5 .. ' '1 -
$k >, j I
,N 3Q fi.N.
i 1 i
' ,k, "
./
;;:[ Q.
/ ,
9
~
J 4- ~
. . . h.g.k/
- s. ' '
QQ)W /: ) x p 9 M % .., .
,e' ..,-V
.:.n. .
j , . q gf;% L; , f Mi* . f~;.::&, : s/~ 7 - . ,
. {2 [I; I 'W(d,/m flA{lNg ;[yi".4 I M+.%%.
. y ,
; .. )
7,.gpiW
., f y w mms w:pp f8%E),gj .
" :i' gg;fy,9L-f,,cgh;f 4pm g, . A gg g 3 ; .:/'f>.% -.. : . j ; .74 e
~' -s c. 1 fQG,j c}% yqp. .,gg9 4
Q ";-- L >. ; , ;y { j
.b: ;4ex. g. .
a' e' am m em jMQ.07bp.ge;p @Mptgr h q _q. s
. emp 4 3 ,, ,.s,,6 '. }a Q p AqG'W.@go.ggy/qlQg6 L v..pt/
l
- . - L ' %, t.
- a ., . r Shi123 l
Figure 12: Pipe movement at the California Federal Data Center bent light gauge t structural metal framing (upper photo) and damaged wallboard (lower photo). 16000-35/ Piping 48 g@ l
.- - - . . - - - - ~ _ .- - - - . . . - - . . - . - - - - = . . .. . - . . - - -.
i - NkN[;&yfiOS$ w
?[5Mki - s e . .c.a+ s'
- e. . y. .,r.uw-+ .Q- . r< g..
,r T a.m s v%
w
.b. y' ^ ~W Aw. ,: $~%.ztlh t9+. *.
,.ng. .s, }%. H ,o y?,9,. .%.v.
. &e -a, s,r,s..-.,. 4
.; .. w+- , . -
,yx .h, s
, :v .
.-e e~, y p.g. ,
(6Ib?$M"$[*'~ 4 G% h(y['tQ21hlO B y w:.,
,r,n>4.-
w - w. , .m,.m ,, 7. m xg& w g ge 'Pi > g{ {. ) - c i. m, w,
- a.p.. ;-x,%., .'fyh <
~ .y W r - g' g - {;l c ' ,ff ,
" .g 4,;
ggy
);:fg .% .~ .
~ ~g 1 rq; i g ' my-v..
c:,:j. .q tj. ),Jt,'Ql , 2Q:
- l. Q.;.'g5 MW1 -
.4 M4 G.xNWr; tr.*+dQ M.: f)tl5:
k; E$b,fc??: 4tg NAYQb e w am.sp .
.,. *. 3, e
,.w.am. Q.y;;Lc'a..re,;3g
~ bt as
. _ra_
i Figure 13: Example of rod hanger for Sanwa fire protection piping. Support is anchored to structure with a beam clamp. 16000-35/ Piping 49 _h @ _,_ _ -. ^ ' ' * - ' - ' " '
I I5N[kkkffrN'Fhrmzw- w we-ji , ._ t 1 j r -;;t. .
~
g 3
+::,
^ i;s. Nhhk
f j:( jj
=-
l p
~
.. i I
a 7j 3 p a} ,2 4 II
~1
\
Figure 14: Examples of small bore piping at Mesquite Lake Resource Recovery i Plant. 1 4 16000-35/Pipin9 50
i l i l J l l ..- ! : ;'
-=rt ,..1g.
l
.- . ., ).. -
;g,,. . ..
w.
. , ,5g._ ,. i .; , -.
j
-e"g ~ ~ ' . . ,
.-..g
( ...: . e. .
. l. .g e d%j , .
2 4
; , &c :.2 ..: b,. - g: . , . r
. %.M . ~
l ie . - i Fh
.J ,'.: &_.r e
, eg_.g li M
e
- f. ,
l; I~ t i l. - -
~
m L j 3.-
, ._ . a .
T . k ;. Y[ ~ , _
' -\ - ,~
't
- f g 'ia,, ; -(n. M.e L,) M; .%. O 'f Wgg.a
'.L.g_t_,28 w.;. . c1
,, . . . .: : -._ - ny.ggggy3 y . a . rs . . . . p ,
I l Figure 15: PALCO Co-generation Plant located in Scotia, California. I I l 16000-35/ Piping 51 l
~
q,- -
"'~~
s-
] -
j ( ..ma,.g - ;_ ,
~'
.I
- i. k. - * '
icr/A w w- 1 .. .
',' \.
e-m !r -.~-. Q ,',(', i Ew - -1 1rpp%.
%\ .
.i<
i!; 3
]J .f .
~
')/s I
A / RiS5EE l_ 1 k . f ' f l [ .i j S g , I
\ l
' /
l '.${', J s .
.r .
.~
j
)
a l I I I i Figure 16: Typical piping and pipe support configurations at PALCO Co- , generation Plant. 16000-35/ Piping 52 h i ,
.- . ,-.\
_ . . . . _ . _ . _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . = . _ _ _ _ . - l i
'7 E g g.' ik ,,
.y ,
( T4 :
,, < s l: ,
l l Figure 17: Pneumatic tubing within the plant instrument and service air systems remained intact, except for severallocations where sway of the boilers I buckled or crimped the instrument tubing as shown. l 16000-35/ Piping 53
l l l _ ~ . . , . . .
,;? w m: I* -
-l
- j. r
.. ,_ . c
$) 1@ -
$f f
ily ~, ,- \ ht ' e l sIk r [' { i:: 1 1, Rf
?,16 y$ *
; am,
/, gy ,
~
l Wj .
&lB
\
5lf $% l?es s.g z; ? u - -g . j i 1
-g verryl , -g 4 ,., g , -
']j :. - . _ ,f , ':
,jIf l$f 79s. ..
. 5." ' 'l q$- ~n l % f, -
i hE ,
~: ;;
I 4 3 , s ,g Figure 18: The only damage to piping support was the broken shaft of a mechanical snubber for main steam riser. 16000-35/ Piping 54 E
1
-e
.w ~g y.' .
s - e . rp p" >. - 1
*'.:: y
- e
.,y w a
.. ~ u..
i r.
.+
* ' ,. -. +. . .
. , ..v., .,, ...,g,. .,,#,,~.<
. *i r ..' ww, , . *J..
s
. . . . _ . . . --1 .. ~.
,.._m,+._m 7 . . . . . . . . .
.l .~ , . . . . .. u-
. - - :; _-g ,- ~ **
.~ . ..q.
-E. j-* -
-; y ,. ' y -:.-. l
- ~; ,:y; ,., , ,- . p3
., , r,_ z~,,
.~ r:r_mw :n
- " 9~~fC1 i - ~
l l
. . . .y7+. w g % ~. .e . g~*.x%. .-
I Y .. . m,,. g.. , v
~
~. .
. 7 ... ...
A& .
- . _.. , 'Q-. . . , ;l .*A
-
- f . %. - + .. 1 Q :~ n, -.. .-
, +n- .
c [ %
. gg. 7 ; --
'.',. t s* v . f .
W
-rp
. ,p
; '.s s.:. . , = . .
- .s e, g n 1
" fD '
~
.. ; ~. - n ,
2 G>%\
*,'>5 %
C,'.
- T ~ ,' .- N Y "s~il. W./-- *# ,. g 2 t .}' ' . . ~,
Figure 19: Cool Water Generation Plant, Units 1 & 2 (upper photo) and Units 3 & 4 (lower photo) located in Dagget, California. l l l
- 16000-35/Pipin9 55 l
l y A pe . W: . ::: . ' i f u _,qs ,. 3}'[ ; .-
- $ 'l
- f ,
*~ ,
f m a s s%
,( .
y <. a \
.i
( - q.
/
.e
~
.., l ( ' ;. ;
~
. v j
[ -[ ., 1 p
~~
' ~ .% : ,
.\
.I
- *5 '
l y 4 ',. j . 6);i ,
,s-
.f- .
LR T _.- 4 .
., i
.; -g ~
' YI 'f .
>'~
M*6" . jp. . - -- - a.. . g
, T .. '
~'
', :3 46 .
.~ .; l ,- 2,.
g ,,[ _ _ . . Figure 20: Typical pipe supports in Cool Water Units 1 & 2. Engineered supports for high energy, large bore piping (upper photo) and field-routed supports for low energy piping (lower photo). 16000-35/ Piping 56 3
. , . - - - - . . . . - . .-._ . . . . . . . . . . = . -
~
.. 7 q ~ C; ' . ., .M L" 'j
,g* .
r
.c
.- ..j w/ .,
, . .y
- , -?/ .
.,Q.
.y - - - -. &w .7wb , .
T. , . v. 4
'A Xw
^ : , .J ?--w / ' .
y ^ -,
.~ ~:.
_ __ M - - -
/ .
. .t .I
_ s e., es a% g A' ~. _.2
?_ -
.' -_'. _,.b
^l r
, -','/. ~
;/
I/ D . /,
' f'.k , , . / }
f N ,. m g
.pf ' . _. ~ ' I ' h ;
, . . . . . i 3 yp;;
.:::;,_ p ,
P2 I- - 5
.f g . . I' I
~m- * ..
g ;ts_. 5_ y, (
-A, I
l
\
\
\ g'. W"e
.I i l Rw- .:. sW$s.$_,,T's '
~
+ '
p , x ' '\ ' .;
' ~
f' -
. '/ .
- - / .
,#' .a l
l _. T. ' , - ; _- g r .c- , x
\,
5
^
7:a g s x . -y e- ,- N J. a
%, a - lII
)N, -
A 1 L',Q 1-
'N
~,
sf' / -)} e._ 4 ,- C-5 't \,
- 9 ' 2 ij @ s
{\ 4.1dN!M$fMik Akg \ E ,,',*, y l l Figure 21: Typical trapeze frame supports in Cool Water Units 1 & 2. l l 16000-35/ Piping 57 l
\ l l e j e } . - #
, g ~. . i ..,r. . . _ .
.~....-....__.
u- <
.. g ..
; .5 i
; .g . .. .. . .
. j f. .
i' w l
. 4 i<l , ,,
l F.1 - e r, 1l1mm1 - V '
- . - A
- b ' 9 2.'E' n' ' ,"
'q ,
m '
'q f. , , 4 r .
r t L, j .f
~
s .. t , ..r. b' l 6y. ;. l y . ,',*/
- ;s m-. .
*jh'. y r ,W-
': 2
? _ ? ;.?: 3 -: 3 .
- l. I
, . 'J, 'l I. . j i r/^ . :n.
k
/*
ji ![ gHgf 5
h gTp! ! t
?
- r:l ihM Mj
.f 5 " '
T. .g m
. 37, ' *,g j ; '< .. ' le r.
[_ m _ /D j '
) .:
' y/ - .I,.}\
}. V $ } .,%ps. ,2 .
. P, w /./,=
$ g ,u -
^
g i ,$.$, f,
- 5. ,. < ,. [' 7' tY*
~ ;- ,?
.- :na.. I .
P._, Figure 22: Typical pipe supports in Cool Water Units 3 & 4. Combination of rod hangers, U bolts, and structural sections is widely used in the plant. ] 4 16000-35/ Piping 58
;i
- i . ._._~
- -~~~. m.4-
9 ,,
...;. &~ ~a N
,.~ .~
f,, gh l.
^
-- ~l w; .
1 ,
}
s , r
'2' '" ; {g g gg %
~~
t 9 m7 0 , a +
/d 7 :(-
5' If ' b NN' 31 C V
% ^
'j -
f
;.g. m;. Or as, g
- Figure 23:
- Typical structural steel section pipe supports found in Cool Water Units 3 & 4 16000-35/ Piping 59
, - - , . - ~ - - - - - - . - - - - . -
l l i I
" \.
",6. .
-e
. .,i -
T.
) -
's . .: .
. ..A e '
Wr. ' ' % 7 l . 2.?;,. % f% g. . Jg..
.. . .<t'.1,h. . . '. c .. .
- 3k. -.- e*K f .",.' @$ ' % $'f t ,.
- 3p #T ,$4j < g x.
l 7
., a .
s, .
~
g'4. s y$ Rs: _, ~~. ~
.', ::.~ .
i i
' i i
- m g, g .;.;;.
I
- {
y t,; r.,.;s' u ,s .; :
. f
>I
.p..g* .
,3. ya
- s .
e -
*g s ,g
.N (,,,..t .3.' l?W', ~
,N.
s ...,p,,., -
,., . .. ..-: ;u . .; .s.. ..
M T,.. # 4:L .. .n y ~
.. .- . 6* 'r ' *
.E "'*?l .T
.l
, g. .:; / T"x- 1 :,
-f . ,.
- x. -'
,p . .y
_ . . , . .t .% y j' ;p i.
~>
.T
,...l*P5, W ' \- .
. G.-:: ;g f:. .
Figure 24: A one-inch diameter line fractured near its attachment to one of the tank drains at Cool Water Unit 1 due to differential displacement. 16000-35/ Piping 60 f'
\
N. '. , t i - .
/ ,,
9 $ v u. . ..
; -: . s.,
.s <t '. g .
1- ,
~
l p- I am . w a. g
'N ls 4 l . j -Qf 3.N . 7:.. l -
f .. rl . :.{ ...; ;+;:gpv - @-- ,
. ',1 - :c; :,y q;C ..,,_q, i
..T#i r, - i? ??Srp - - +.pm4 ,
.,j .
_ r ;, g yg
. - ~, M: iJ D '
i ja _ L{lgy --9 j..I e h6 r< + , saw : a s * $.y:' *
^
' Wi. **Q3.:::3 *%g
^
^
a
.,z ./ ; w;,
I ". ,
. k! $ f 4
'y ?
s. fa ... [..A$ gg h, g o@ IN
~ ~f.[,_. . _ {'"i ,.t. y v
--.., j [-
,/ ,, . ,
# r e
~
e h *. 4
- .: .. :' ;' ( ', , , ..
" ~r n.
d '..j. .' :
.s , _ j~ _.; , l
,',\ - '
- r. s .- :
- ,_ - \
/ '. ,' . - . t. e ...
, ,')
. .. '. 3 j.~ , , ' ' , ' ' , *==,8 _] . , )
- u. .
, . , 1
. .:: ~- : ; j. . ,. _ . . .? : . . _: .
= - :: :
l
- - . '. , .:: l
__ .a . ~ i . . ;. e. ..
. - : : .- ~ , . : ; ; _.
y :
- l -
- : : : .} : .'. ~-
; ,~. y:. '.
- . , l :, !: : : : : . . ?.
- i. : . n: x : ; ; : ;..
.. 2 : .: .:
j Figure 25: Instrument tubing or small air lines were fractured due to differential \ i displacement between the attachment points at the Cool Water Unit 2 boiler tower and the swaying boiler (upper photo). Buckling of steel l grating (!cwer photo) due to boiler movement and impact was found at several locations. 16000-35/Pipin9 61 l
l
~~ ~
[ __. .
'.-,z. !'T
..- . El) f -
h ammass=1@) 3 ..c -
! :4 f; . . ' j.
/. ='
l '.'; . . .- gw [ ^ _ - Y~f f ~ I p &, .
, yx ~ ~ t
, e.< ;.
/ .
f , s
..s p
$'~'.y #
e I s
-Q
- / .
,t y ;
Y ' l
- :S:3 :
1 o I $ 3 5 sl23-
% -r - . ,
,/ .
s , 4 .. f ,. -
.. .- g\ -{ ', ~+(-.;_' t
. .. ,y i i
. xss - ,
/
'. _. .z . ' ,1 l
, f ' " ' ' $
.g.4 , ,
; M 'iA
~
- u. *,
- ? ~;f: f ..J ,l,
_,] l f Y
?
g 11
..5: r; ..}
sa
'.~
~~ ' . .
4:13-,/ 4
.J R .
l ,' m.. I t jyiQ( l,
'~'.'
e, : g;. .-;.; 15 ty..;7
.1 .Y:%
/
i M 1. ..; - l Figure 26: Severalinstances of proximity interactions noted at Cool Water Units 1 & 2. 4 16000-35/Pipin9 62
i I i 6 O
- 8 PALCO Cogen 0.22 i E El Centro,1987 O.25 t 7 -
! E Pacific Manor 0.26!~ l Mesquite Lake 0.3 - Cool Water Station - O.35 Sanwa Bank n MR I - l Cal State LA . 4 Nekoosa Packaging , Clorox Company W g International Paper ; ,1 Valley Steam 4 PALCO Cogen u.94 El Centro,1979 v.nc - CalFed v.* c SCE Headquarters 0.44 PALCO Cogen a dI i Lutheran Towers - Q.51 I I I I i 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 , 0.4 0.5 ,, 0.6 Peak Ground Acceleration, PGA (g) lanZPEAKIOnW 16004 35 12/2493
, Figure 29: Comparison of data base average horizontal peak ground acceleration.
120 115 110 g 2 in oia. ,. .L a o a. '. ; - a in ota. l 105 - d' dia- S' d'*- b 8'd'*- 100 -
~,.
95 - 90 - 85 - 80 - u) 75 - k 70 - E e5 - cc g) 60 3 55 - d 50 - Z 45 -
- 40 -
35 - j: , i 30 - 25 - -
/ 7 20 -
3: !: h 15 - [: h i 10 - I . 0 . 0-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 he-
>50
- Horizontal Support Spacing (ft)
Figure 30: Spacing between horizontal supports and number of samples for data base large bore piping. I 1 G000-35/ Piping 66
7 200 190 - y 2 ie ei Eae E a i/2 ei 180 - g u.. g e eio. g . e,.. 170 - 160 - ~~ 150 - 140 - 130 - en _e 120 - h110
$100 -
o 90 - d 80 - Z 70 -
/, /.
60 - f / 50 - 40 -
/
30 20 f I { p 10
-f_h g [ f; O '
0-10 11-20 21-30 >30 Vertical Support Spacing (ft) Figure 31: Spacing between vertical supports and number of samples for data base large bore piping. 16000-35/ Piping 67
)
l 120
- 115 -
E *"' E "" 110 - E ' '"' E "" 105 - 100 -
~ ~
95 - 90 - 85 - 80 - 75 g l a 70 - E e5 -
$ 60 -
3 55 - 50 d Z 45 - 40 - 35 - 30 - 25 - 20 - 15 - 10 - 0-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 >50 Horizontal Support Spacing (ft)
""",e 2:
s;,ef,ng,eet
, 7en h? ontal spons and nurnber of sanmies for data l
16000-35/ Piping 68 g 1
425 _ E 0/4' dia. E 1* dia. E 1 1/2* dia. E 2' dia. 375 - 350 - 325 - i 300 - l l 275 - i u) : o_250 h225 u> % 200 - o d 175 l Z ' 150 - 125 - l 100 - 75 - 50 - J 0-5/6-10 11-15/16-20 21-25/26-30 >30 Vertical Support Spacing (ft) Figure 33: Spacing between vertical supports and number of samples for data l base small bore piping. 1 16000-35/ Piping 69 h
l l 1 i l 1.6
. l
- l 1.4 -- * - - -
C.7 s'
- g 9
- :s e
. l 4 a s }
1.2 -- '- - - - ---
- t's-t# a - - "- -~ - - '
j f.
* : n'* '
.= g.. % 1
- E = s C 1
- -'iw '- '
- * *'~ '
l
. -CJ. : 8 S '
W .
- 8 .= t u
N ; e 8 k
- .'s ,:sg ,
D 0.8 -- -
? .n- ;-- p.s;;,;
- 1. .
o m - i ' u .i-
~,
- ; 8 Q - - - - - - -
- s
- ~ -
< 0.6 ..r i-
- s.-
- . t *
- s 0.4 -- - - *-- - - - - - - - - - t
,4 0.2 -.. . . . .. : .. . .. . . . .. . . ..
.v
' I
. I I I I I O
0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10 20 50 100
. - - - Frequency (Hz)
Hatch Unit 2-Sulk Mail Facility Lutheran Towers CalFed Design Basis Earthquakes I l l i 4 l 1 i Figure 27: Comparison of Whittier data base sites and Hatch Unit 2 design spectra. I 16000-35/ Piping 63 l l L ;
1.6 3.4 _ . . . . . .. . .. . .... . ... . . . . . . . .... ..... .... 3 A
- :.~
i.2 -- - - - - - -
- 6. i n.: --
a , : .- 4 IQ c I, 'J o , -.. .. . .. . . ..;. . ,. .g. ,! ..
.i,................ .
2= I* - : ; t g - a ,g :g:igg :- L
@ 0.8 -- - - - - %- -- - '-
.3
'-\-
'\ :: - ,
m - r g' '. a i\ . y ao .e _. . . .....
...;....s.9,. ... .
<C s :
',o\ ,\
1 ' 0.4 -- - - - y - - - -l ' *;.,
-'*T; j. * = = = '
i ; , . -,i o.2 -. ... . .
/ .... ,....
0 _ s . ./ i i i i i 0.03 0.1 0.3 1 3 10 30 100 mm- -..- Frequency (Hz) Palco Co-Gen Cool Water Station El Centro Steam Plant Hatch Unit 2-Valley Steam Plant Design Basis Earthquakes Figure 28: Cornparison of data base power plant sites and Hatch Unit 2 design spectra. 16000-35/ Piping 64 e .}}