ML20072N827
| ML20072N827 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Dresden, Quad Cities, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 05/31/1983 |
| From: | Kost E, Massey J, Wise R NUTECH ENGINEERS, INC. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17194B616 | List: |
| References | |
| COM-02-039-1, COM-02-039-1-R00, COM-2-39-1, COM-2-39-1-R, NUDOCS 8307180138 | |
| Download: ML20072N827 (234) | |
Text
)
A COM-02-039-1 t
Revision 0 May 1983 64.305.2100 QUAD CITIES NUCLEAR POWER STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 PLANT UNIQUE ANALYSIS REPORT VOLUME 1 GENERAL CRITERIA AND LOADS METHODOLOGY a
Prepared for:
Commonwealth Edison Company D Prepared by:
, NUTECH. Engineers, Inc.
San Jose, California Approved by:
kE_ A - .
R. E. Wise Dr. J. V. Massey Project Leader Engineering Manager 06MbfkJM '
&/
D E. G. Kost, P.E.
Engineering Director Issued by:
- +
b kLlCNwN -
A. K. Moonka, P.E. R. H. Buchholz Project Manager Project Director 8307180138 830627 DR ADOCK 0500023 M '
REVISION CONTROL SHEET Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station Units 1 and 2 Plant Unique Analysis Report, Volume 1 .on COM-02-039-1 (dJITLE REPORT NUMBER:
Revision 0 L. D. Marble MN- ~
Senior Specialist INITIALS R. E. Wise Specialist h
INITIALS D. C. Talbott 0[
Consultant INITIALS C. F. Villanueva Technician II INITIALS J. G. Ewang, P.E. 7h Principal Engineer INITIALS P. Pandey i Consultant I INITIALS
\ P. A. Sa,nchez. D.E.
Principal Engineer INITIALS C. T. Shyy, P.E. C,733 Senior Engineer INITIALS
- ~
PRE- ACCURACY CRITERIA PRE- ACCURACY CRITERIA PARED CHECK CHECK gg) PARED CHECK CHECK (S) 1 o y /4 N/A N/A 1-2.7- 0 gyg) gf cfg 1-xvii 1-2.8 1-1.1-1-1.4 g[Q fM % 1-2.9-1-2.10 p#y qq-va y/A 1-1.5 ffW [6[ t4 / A- 1-2.11- g g7 cfg 1-l.
NO -
1- Q,[e N //\
1-2.19 l-2.20 RW M[ C T6 1-2 1-1'21-b I, h O 1-2.'4-6 M[ Nlb l-2.23 QEP-001.4-00 nut s h_
REVISION CONT?.CL SHEET (Continuation)
O O TITLE: Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station REPORT NUMBER: COM-02-039-1 Units 1 and 2, Plant Unicue Revision 0 Analysis Report, Volume 1 ACCURACY CRITERIA PRE- ACCURACY CRITERIA T VE REV PRE- E REV PARED CHECK CHECK PARED CHECK CHECK PAGE(S) PAGE (S )
~
$ 0 tO
. f_4l31
[:$:s- A-f Ree N/A }:4:32-gjy ptgg. pf4 Aker Rt" N/A
[~$:$$~ RC ## #F lj:jj-nu er sla 1:::!!- ne M5 94s 1:!:!!- p/A.
1-2.3s p h 2 1-4.39 k g[e g_jjg-g7 pyg gj4 I_2 g- gg g, gf ,
1-um u< pg 1-:::a- aco tM #4 1
O 1::e- - e<e "i4
- !: .. C ,, ,,,, i:::::-
1-4.49 @ crd ufa 1-3.12-1-3.13 hy g[ gd[ 1-4.50 ggy gg N/4 AT
~
ki:!$~ 12 00 N/4
[-3-[4- c(v' pp /f Cfd org;
~
f-4' lD % N 1-3.16 ffW 1-4.1 eno /LAS Q g-4. -
g 1-4.2 g OfW gjA (A& M
~
k-4:6I N fDM N/A
[_j,y gg 1-4.13- 91W N/A !!i:N- EW W M l-4.14 Af 1-4 71 (// LO /A f:,ff~
$09 W $ l-4.72 gg % %
,oct 9tW N/A
~ '
1-4.74- %
[_j;}7- l-4.76 kO p N 1-4.77- 1
.2 1-4.78 f kid N/dr p &-r W
~
[$:$$~ 'I ;
N/A
. E P-O ') ; . 4 - C P nutggh
REVISION CONTROL SHEET (Continuation)
TITLE: Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station REPORT NUMBER: COM-02-039-1 Units 1 and 2, Plant Unique Revision 0 Analysis Report, Volute 1 E REV PRE- ACCURACY CRITERIA E REV PRE- ACCURACY CRITERIA PARED CHECK CHECK PARED CHECK CHECK PAGE(S) PAGE (S)
[:l'.8I My RfM N/A 1-4j9- (A pze N/A 1:::*r *
- W 1:4:12r Ar cro " /A 1-4.85 g[ (2_f_W N/A 1-4.124 g(O % M l-4.
g g 1-4.125 g[ QfM N/A 1-4.126 QCW % %
f[*.89 .M M/k 1-4.127 M7 SCW N/A 1:::;r ce m m 1:l:r w UGH W 1:::;r y ao u/4 1:::P ch atW "i~
O i::::t = w> 84 t'.,*- " "" "*
364 RCW RM 1-4.99 @ (2fW N/4 1_5.13 1::: lor ao g.As pg 1:':P v e 9 "7
- 1:::1r c& w n/A 1:::18- aW W n*s-1-4.108 h N/A 1-4.109 h[ g{W y/4 1-4.110 gf @ y/4 ;
1:::ltr ana w w> l l-4.114 g[ @fd N/k l 1:::llt
- W F At 1-4.117 k UW N/k 1-4.118 N QCW Q Q O QEP-001.4-00 nutggh
ABSTRACT U
The primary containments for the Ouad Cities Nuclear Power Station Units 1 and 2 were designed, erected, pressure-tested, and N-stamped in accordance with the ASME Boiler and Pressure vessel Code,Section III, 1965 Edition with addenda up to and including Winter 1965 for the Commonwealth Edison Company (CECO) by the Chicago Bridge and Iron Company. Since then, new requirements have been established. These requirements affect the design and operation of the primary containment system and 1 are defined in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) Safety Evaluation Report, NUREG-0661. This report provides an assessment of containment design loads postulated to occur during a loss-of-coolant accident or a safety relief valve discharge event. In addition, it provides an assessment of the effects that the postulated events have on containment systems operation.
i This plant unique analysis report (PUAR) documents the efforts v undertaken to address and resolve each of the applicable NUREG-0661 requirements. It demonstrates that the design of the primary containment system is adequate and that original design safety margins have been restored, in accordance with NUREG-0661 acceptance criteria. The Quad Cities Units 1 and 2 PUAR is composed of the following seven volumes:
o Volume 1 -
GENERAL CRITERIA AND LOADS METHODOLOGY o Volun.e 2 -
SUPPRESSION CHAMBER ANALYSIS o volume 3 -
VENT SYSTEM ANALYSIS o Volume 4 -
INTERNAL STRUCTURES ANALYSIS o volume 5 -
SAFETY RELIEF VALVE DISCHARGE LINE PIPING ANALYSIS l
l g COM-02-039-1 Revision 0 1-v l
g o Volume 6 -
TORUS ATTACHED PIPING AND SUPPRESSION CHAMBER PENETRATION ANALYSES (QUAD CITIES UNIT 1) o Volume 7 -
TORUS ATTACHED PIPING AND SUPPRESSION CHAMBER PENETRATION ANALYSES (OUAD CITIES UNIT 2)
Volumes 1 through 4 and 6 and 7 have been prepared by NUTECH Engineers, Incorporated (NUTECH), acting as an agent to the Commonwealth Edison Company. Volume 5 has been prepared by Sargent and Lundy (also acting as an agent to the Commonwealth Edison Company), who performed the safety relief valve discharge line (SRVDL) piping analysis. Volume 5 describes the methods of analysis and procedures used in the SRVDL piping analysis.
This volume provides introductory and background information regarding the reevaluation of the primary containment system and torus attached piping. It includes a description of the Quad Cities Units 1 and 2 pressure suppression containment system, a description of the structural and mechanical acceptance criteria, and the hydrodynamic loads methodology used in the analyses presented in Volumes 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7.
NOTE: Identification of the volume number precedes pages, j sections, subsections, tables, and figures for each volume.
I l
t
/^s COM-02-039-1
{) Revision 0 1-vi l
4 l
. TABLE OF CONTENTS j Page ABSTRACT l-v LIST OF ACRONYMS 1-X LIST OF TABLES 1-Xii LIST OF FIGURES 1-xiv i
l 1-
1.0 INTRODUCTION
l-1.1 1-1.1 Scope of Analysis 1-1.6 1-1.2 General Description of the Containment System 1-1.9 l-1.3 Review of Phenomena 1-1.11 1
1-1.3.1 LOCA-Related Phenomena 1-1.12 1-1.3.2 SRV Discharge Phenomena 1-1.14 1-1.4 Evaluation Philosophy 1-1.16 1-2.0 PLANT UNIOUE CHARACTERISTICS 1-2.1 1-2.1 Plant Configuration 1-2.2 1-2.1.1 Suppression Chamber 1-2.7
- 1-2.1.2 vent System 1-2.11 1-2.1.3 Internal Structures 1-2.20 1-2.1.4 SRV Discharge Piping 1-2.24 l 1-2.1.5 Torus Attached Piping and Penetrations 1-2.30 1-2.2 Operating Parameters 1-2.35 1-3.0 PLANT UNIOUE ANALYSIS CRITERIA 1-3.1 l
l-3.1 Hydrodynamic Loads: NRC Acceptance 1-3.2 I Criteria I 1-3.1.1 LOCA-Related Load Applications 1-3.4.
l l-3.1.2. SRV Discharge Load Applications 1-3.6 l
l-3.1.3 Other Considerations 1-3.8 COM-02-039-1 Revision 0 1-vii rwgrg-- *- r,'e<rvy--,.-q-e 4 q-+v-r b w y----.-e-m y e gr WW pe-yJ.' -.ys- g p.rw- + w+-- e- --w , p% ep -.y-w -wa y g- g -- w,,-ey.r.-r-9
\
[~' TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page 1-3.2 Component Analysis: Structural Acceptance Criteria 1-3.9 l-3.2.1 Classification of Components 1-3.10 1-3.2.2 Service Level Assignments 1-3.11 1-3.2.3 Other Considerations 1-3.16 1-4.0 HYDRODYNAMIC LOADS METHODOLOGY AND EVENT SEQUENCE
SUMMARY
1-4.1 1-4.1 LOCA-Related Loads 1-4.3 1-4.1.1 Containment Pressure and Temperature Response 1-4.5 1-4.1.2 Vent System Discharge Loads 1-4.6 1-4.1.3 Pool Swell Loads on the Torus Shell 1-4.8 1-4.1.4 Pool Swell Loads on Elevated Structures 1-4.10 1-4.1.4.1 Impact and Drag Loads on the vent System 1-4.11
[N_, 1-4.1.4.2 Impact and Drag on Other Structures Loads 1-4.15 1-4.1.4.3 Pool Swell Froth Impingement Loads 1-4.19 l-4.1.4.4 Pool Fallback Loads 1-4.25 1-4.1.5 LOCA Water Jet Loads on submerged Structures 1-4.28 l-4.1.6 LOCA Bubble-Induced Loads on Submerged Structures 1-4.36 1-4.1.7 Condensation Oscillation Loads 1-4.42 1-4.1.7.1 CO Loads on the Torus Shell 1-4.43 1-4.1.7.2 CO Loads on the Downcomers and Vent System 1-4.54 1-4.1.7.3 CO Loads on submerged Structures 1-4.68 1-4.1.8 Chugging Loads 1-4.72 1-4.1.8.1 Chugging Loads on the Torus Shell 1-4.74 1-4.1.8.2 Chugging Downcomer Lateral Loads 1-4.82 1-4.1.8.3 Chugging Loads on Submerged Structures 1-4.86 O
O COM-02-039-1 Revision 0 1-viii
T; J
i TABLE OF CONTENTS (Concluded) i Page 1.
1-4.2 Safety Relief Valve Discharge Loads 1-4.90 1-4.2.1 SRV Actuation Cases 1-4.94 l-4.2.2 SRV Discharge Line Clearing Loads 1-4.100 ;
j 1-4.2.3 SRV Loads on the Torus Shell 1-4.105 l
' l-4.2.4 SRV Loads on Submerged Structures 1-4.111 l-4.3 Event Sequence 1-4.115 1-4.3.1 Design Basis Accident 1-4.118 1-4.3.2 Intermediate Break Accident 1-4.124 1-4.3.3 Small Break Accident 1-4.126 1-5.0 SUPPRESSION POOL TEMPERATURE MONITORING SYSTEM l-5.1 e
i 1-5.1 Suppression Pool Temperature Response to SRV Transients 1-5.2 l-5.2 Suppression Pool Temperature Monitoring System Design 1-5.9 l 1
1 1-6.0 LIST OF REFERENCES 1-6.1 .
i i
i t
I COM-02-039-1 Revision 0 1-ix'
i-I i
LIST OF ACRONYMS ADS Automatic Depressurization System
- ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers ATWS Anticipated Transients Without Scram BDC Bottom Dead Center i
! CO Condensation oscillation a !
Design Basis Accident I
) DBA DC/VH Downcomer/ Vent Header ECCS Emergency Core Cooling System l
FSI Fluid-Structure Interaction FSTF Full-Scale Test Facility i'
HPCI High Pressure Coolant Injection ,
j' Intermediate Break Accident IBA i
I&C Instrumentation & Control ID Inside Diameter r
IR 'Inside Radius LDR Load Definition Report (Mark I Containment Program)
LOCA Loss-of-Coolant Accident LPCI Low Pressure Coolant Injection ,
l
) LTP Long-Term Program MCF. Modal Correction Factor NEP Non-Exceedance Probability COM-02-039-1
- Revision 0 1-x
. - . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . ~ _ _ . - - . . . - - _ - _ - . . - . -- . . - . . - . . - - _ _ .
i l
LIST OF ACRONYMS (Concluded)
I l NOC Normal Operating Conditions ,
NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4
NSSS Nuclear Steam Supply System OD Outside Diameter PUAAG Plant Unique Analysis Application Guide
. PUA Plant Unique Analysis PUAR Plant Unique Analysis Report OSTP Ouarter-Scale Test Facility RCIC Reactor Core Isolation Cooling ,
_RSEL Resultant Static-Equivalent Load SAR Safety Analysis Report SBA Small Break Accident
- SORV Stuck-Open Safety Relief Valve SPTMS Suppression Pool Temperature Monitoring Systen j SRSS Square Root of the Sum of the Squares 1
SRVDL Safety Relief Valve Discharge Line STP Short-Term Program i TAP Torus Attached Piping l
1
() . .
COM-02-039-1 1-xi-Revision 0
. . ~ - . . .
/~x
/' LIST OF TABLES Number Title Page 1-1.0-1 Quad Cities Units 1 and 2 Containment Modification Status 1-1.5 1-2.2-1 Primary Containment Operating Parameters 1-2.36 1-3.2-1 Event Combinationc and Service Levels for Class MC Components and Internal Structures 1-3.12 e l-3.2-2 Event Combinations and Service Levels for Class 2 and 3 Piping 1-3.14 1-4.0-1 Plant Unique Analysis /NUREG-0661 Load Sections Cross-Reference 1-4.2 1-4.1-1 Hydrodynamic Mass and Acceleration Drag Volumes for Two-Dimensional Structural Components (Length L For All Structures) 1-4.32 1-4.1-2 Plant Unique Parameters for LOCA Bubble Drag Load Development - Zero and Operating
_s Drywell-to-Wetwell Pressure Differential 1-4.39
, ) 1-4.1-3 DBA Condensation Oscillation Torus Shell Pressure Amplitudes 1-4.47 1-4.1-4 FSTP Response to Condensation Oscillation 1-4.49 l-4.1-5 Condensation Oscillation Onset and Duration 1-4.50 1-4.1-6 Downcomer Internal Pressure Loads for DBA Condensation Oscillation 1-4.58 1-4.1-7 Lowncomer Differential Pressure Loads for DBA Condensation Oscillation 1-4.59 1-4.1-8 Downcomer Internal Pressure Loads For IBA Condensation Oscillation 1-4.60 1-4.1-9 Dcwncomer Differential Pressure Loads For IBA Condensation Oscillation 1-4.61 1-4.1-10 Condensation Oscillation Loads on the Vent System 1-4.62 1-4.1-11 . Amplitudes at Various Frequencies for Condensation Oscillation Source Function s -for Loads on Submerged Structures 1-4.71
\
[G ~
COM-02-039-1 Revision 0 1-xii -
l l
-- , ,~ _ __.. -
_.w._.. _ . _________--._._-____.._.___._.___.-._.__.._._.______..._.m ...m _
I i
l l
- ~x
!. 7 > LIST OP TABLES (Concluded) L Number Title Page l
I 4 1-4.1-12 Chugging Onset and Duration 1-4.77 [
1-4.1-13 Post-Chug Rigid Wall Pressure Amplitudes 4
on Torus Shell Bottom Dead Center 1-4.78
) 1-4.1-14 Amplitudes at Various Frequencies for i Chugging Source Function for Loads on Submerged Structures 1-4.88 1
! l-4.2-1 SRV Load Case / Initial Conditions 1-4.99 4
l l-4.2-2 Plant Unique Initial Conditions for Actuation Cases Used for SRVDL Clearing ,
} 1-4.103 j
Transient Load Development
) 1-4.2-3 SRVDL Analysis Parameters 1-4.104 1
1-4.2-4 Comparison of Analysis and Monticello Test Results 1-4.108
!: 1-4.3-1 SRV.and LOCA Structural Loads 1-4.117
! t
- l-4.3-2 Event Timing Nomenclature 1-4.119 I l-4.3-3 SRV Discharge Load Cases for Mark I
! Structural Analysis 1-4.120 1 +
Summary of Ouad Cities Units 1 and 2 Pool i 1-5.1-1 Temperature Responselto SRV Transients 1-5.5 i l
l l'
i l
r
[
l i 1 i
I s
COM-02-039-1 !
Revision 0 1-xiii.
w m. --erg,, ms-, rm ,e y ---.=c., , ,,.,- ..,,s,w ,p-g4e q-e,e. 92-4-m .&n-wy, e q w, m 9.ag y q w,, ,--o .--,o g.,9.yy -m me myw. - g,- y n y.+ , , , .4 a.T ""t *w*PP'- Tr mus' w* g e F s *P'"-=*W~'y gtMr+"
... . .-. - - - - -- - .. . _ _ . . - = . - .. ~ .
LIST OF FIGURES Number Title Page 1-2.1-1 General Arrangement of Mark I Containment 1-2.4 1-2.1-2 Elevation View of Containment 1-2.5
, 1-2.1-3 Plan View of Containment 1-2.6 1-2.1-4 Suppression Chamber Section - Midbay Vent Line Bay 1-2.9 l-2.1-5 Suppression Chamber Section - Miter Joint 1-2.10 1-2.1-6 Plan View of Vent Header 1-2.13 .
1-2.1-7 Vent Line-Vent Header Spherical Junction 1-2.14 1-2.1-8 Developed View of Downcomer Bracing System 1-2.15 l 1-2.1-9 Downcomer-to-Vent Header Intersection 1-2.16 1-2.1-10 Vacuum Breaker Penetration Detail 1-2.17
., 1-2.1-11 Vacuum Breaker Locations 1-2.18 b]
\ l-2.1-12 l-2.1-13 SRV Penetration.in Vent Line Plan View of Suppression Chamber 1-2.19 Internal Catwalk 1-2,21 1-2.1-14 Suppression Chamber Internal Catwalk -
Typical Support at Miter Joint 1-2.22 1-2.1-15 Suppression Chamber Internal Catwalk -
Typical Support Between Miter Joints 1-2.23 1-2.1-16 T-quencher and T-quencher Supports 1-2.26 1-2.1-17 T-quencher and Downcomer Longitudinal Bracing Locations - Quad Cities Unit 1 1-2.27 1-2.1-18 T-quencher and Downcomer Longitudinal Bracing Locations - Quad Cities Unit 2 1-2.28 1-2.1-19 Plan View of SRV Pipe Routing in Suppression Chamber 1-2.29 l-2.1-20 Essential TAP Penetration Locations on Suppression Chamber-Plan View
-s (Ouad cities Unit 1) 1-2.33 U
COM-02-039-1 Revision 0 1-xiv q - g+w - - - - - - - - -
,,p-- e --m. y -y. y e --y--
- - - . . -. - - . - - _ - - =- - _. - - . - _.. . . .
LIST OF FIGURES fs (Continued)
Number Title Page 1-2.1-21 Essential TAP Penetration Locations on Suppression Chamber-Plan View (Ouad Cities Unit 2) 1-2.34 1-4.1-1 Downcome'r Impact and Drag Pressure Transient 1-4.13 j 1-4.1-2 Application of Impact and Drag Pressure Transient to Downcomer 1-4.14 1-4.1-3 Pulse Shape for Water Impact on Cylindrical Targets 1-4.17 1-4.1-4 Pulse Shape for Water Impact on Plat Targets 1-4.18 1
1-4.1-5 Froth Impingement Zone - Region I l-4.23 1-4.1-6 Froth Impinpement Zone - Region II l-4.24
, 1-4.1-7 Ouarter-Scalt Downcomer Water Slug
\ Ejection, Dresden, Test 3 - Operating
\ ) Differential Pressure 1-4.34 1-4.1-8 Ouarter-Scale Downcomer Water Slug Ejection, Dresden, Test 5 - Zero Differential Pressure 1-4.35 1-4.1-9 .Ouarter-Scale Drywell Pressure Time-History - Operating Differential Pressure 1-4.40 4
1-4.1-10 Ouarter-Sca le Drywell Pressure Time-History - Zero Differential Pressure 1-4.41 1-4.1-11 Condensation Oscillation Baseline Rigid Wall Pressure Amplitudes on Torus Shell Bottom Dead Center 1-4.51
- l-4.1-12 Mark I Condensation Oscillation - Torus vertical Cross-sectional Distribution for Pressure Oscillation Amplitude 1-4.52 1-4.1-13 Mark I Condensation Oscillation -
Multiplication Factor to Account for the Effect of the Pool-to-Vent Area Ratio- 1-4.53 O
V COM-02-039-1 Revision 0 1-xv
- , , . .-. ~- _ . - _ .. . . . , _ ,, _ _ - _ - , - - _- - - - - _ . . - -
~[ }
LIST OF FIGURES
'\d (Continued)
Number Title Page 1-4.1-14 Downcomer Dynamic Load 1-4.63 1-4.1-15 Downcomer Pair Internal Pressure Loading'for DBA CO l-4.64 1-4.1-16 Downcomer Pair Differential Pressure Loading for DBA CO 1-4.65 1-4.1-17 Downcomer CO Dynamic Load Application 1-4.66 1-4.1-18 Downcomer Internal Pressure Loading for IBA CO l-4.67 1-4.1-19 Typical Chug Average Pressure Trace on the Torus Shell 1-4.73 1-4.1-20 Mark I Chugging - Torus Asymmetric Longitudinal Distribution for Pressure Amplitude 1-4.79 i
[h q ,)
1-4.1-21 Mark I Chugging - Torus Vertical Cross-Sectional Distribution for Pressure Amplitude 1-4.80 1-4.1-22 post-Chug Rigid Wall Pressure Amplitudes on Torus Shell Bottom Dead Center 1-4.81 1-4.1-23 Probability of Exceeding a Given Force Per Downcomer for Different Numbers of Downcomerr 1-4.85 1-4.2-1 T-quencher and SRV Line 1-4.92 1-4.2-2 Elevation and Section Views of T-quencher Arm Hole Patterns 1-4.93 l 1-4.2-3 Comparison of Predicted and Measured i Shell Pressure Time-Histories for Monticello Test 801 1-4.109 l-4.2-4 Modal Correction Factors for Analysis of SRV Discharge Torus Shell Loads 1-4.110 1-4.2-5 Plan View of Quad Cities Units 1 and 2 T-quencher Arm Jet Sections 4.114 l
a
, l,j COM-02-039-1 Revision 0 1-xvi i
m . _
LIST OF FIGURES (Concluded)
Number Title Page 1-4.3-1 Loading Condition Combinations for the Vent Header, Main Vents, Downcomers, and Torus Shell During a DBA 1-4.121 1-4.3-2 Loading Condition Combinations for Submerged Structures During a DBA 1-4.122 1-4.3-3 Loading Condition Combinations for Small Structures Above Suppression Pool During a DBA 1-4.123 1-4.3-4 Loading Condition Combinations for the Vent. Header, Main Vents, Downcomers, Torus Shell, and Submerged Structures During an IBA 1-4.125 1-4.3-5 Loading Condition Combinations for the Vent Header, Main Vents, Downcomers, Torus Shell, and Submerged Structures During a SBA 1-4.127 1-5.1-1 Local Pool Temperature Limit for Ouad Cities Units 1 and 2 1-5.8 1-5.2-1 Suppression Pool Temperature Monitor Locations for Quad Cities Units 1 and 2 1-5.13 O COM-02-039-1 Revision 0 1-xvii m
1-
1.0 INTRODUCTION
s The primary containments for the Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station Units 1 and 2 were designed, erected, pressure-tested, and N-stamped in accordance with the ASME Code, Section III, 1965 Edition with addenda up to and including Winter 1965. Subse-i quently, while performing large-scale testing for l
! the Mark III containment system and in-plant testing i 1 for Mark I primary containment systems, new suppres-I sion chamber hydrodynamic loads were identified.
The new loads are related to the postulated loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) and safety relief valve (SRV) operation.
O The new loads were identified by the NRC as a generic open item for utilities with Mark I containments. To determine the magnitude, time 1
characteristics, etc., of the dynamic loads in a timely manner and to identify courses of action needed to resolve any outstanding concerns, the utilities with Mark I containments formed the Mark I Owners Group. The Mark I Owners Group established a two-part program consisting of: (1) a short-term program (STP) which was completed in 1976, and (2) a COM-02-039-1 1-1.1 g
v/ Revision 0
3- w 1 y s
" ~
. ,N..
- , l % u-submittal of the "Ma'rk I Conia, l nmen.t ,P rog ram " Load \
Definition Report" ( LDR) (Reference 1),(the " Mark'I
. , J Containment Program Structural Acceptance Criteris
. qm .s %
Plant Unique Analysis Application ' Cuide" (PUAAG)
(Reference 2), and -SuppGrting reports on experi-mental and analytical 4 asks of the long-term program. The NRC reviewed the LTP generic documents and issued acceptance criteria to be used during the implementation of the Mark I plant unique analyses.
The NRC acceptante criteria are described in Appendix A of NUREG-0661 (Reference 3).
The objective of the LTP was to establish the final design loads and load combinations, and to verify that existing or modified containment systems are capable of withstanding these loads with acceptable design margins. To meet the objectives of the LTP, CECO implemented a containment study program that provided analysis, design, and modification, if required, in a timely manner.
Table 1-1.0-1 provides a listing of the containment modification status. All major modifications have l
now been installed in accordance with the NRC order dates. These modifications insure the design margins required by NUREG-0661 for the Mark I COM-02-039-1 1-1.2 Revision 0 nutggi)
i r .
,,a l
containment' loads. The primary containments and the f t
i Nuclear Steam Supply Systems (NSSS) are identical {
for Quad Cities Units 1 and 2. Differences between l Ouad Cities Units 1 and 2 exist primarily in the
torus attached piping (TAP) systems and their
- corresponding branch connections. Furthermore, the i
' containments (i.e., drywell, wetwell, vent system, I etc.) for Quad Cities Units 1 and 2 are very similar -
i to the containments for Dresden Units 2 and 3.
i Since the tori at Quad Cities Station are similar to those at Dresden Station, the subscale and full-scale tests performed for Dresden are applicable to 2
Quad Cities Units 1 and 2.
I 1
1 i- This report documents the results of the evaluation f l of the Quad Cities Units 1 and 2 suppression chamber p
and internals, and of the safety relief valve dis-I charge line ( SRVDL) and torus attached piping. The 1
evaluation was performed in accordance with the l requirements of NUREG-0661. The alternate criteria allowed by . NUREG-0661, Appendix A, Article 2.13.9 t
were used in the evaluation of SRV discharge loads.
A series of in-plant tests were performed to confirm ,
that the computed loadings and predicted structural responses for SRV -discharges are conservative
-(Reference 4).
[k f COM-02-039-1 Revision 10 1-1.3 e
Accordingly, with the submittal of this PUAR, Commonwealth Edison Company believes that their containment modification program has addressed the requirements of NUREG-0661 for Ouad Cities Units 1 I and 2.
l O
COM-02-039-1 1-1.4 Revision 0 nutp_qh
I Table 1-1.0-1
- QUAD CITIES UNITS 1 AND 2 CONTAINMENT MODIFICATION STATUS l
2 COMPONENT MODIFICATION DESCRIPTION ADDITICNAL RING GIRDER REIMFORCEMENT S/selle 11/83(14 MITER JOINT SADDLES 9/80 9/80 ADDITIONAL RING GIRDER.TC-TORUS NELD 12/82 12/81 THERfcWELLS 12/82 12/81 DOWNCOMER/ VENT NEADER STIFFENERS 12/82 12/91 DOWNCOMER LATERAL BRACING 12/80 2/80 VENT DOWNCOMER LONGITUDINAL SRACING 12/82 11/81'A' SYSTEM VENT NEADER DEFLECTOR 12/80 2/80 VENT LINE DRAIN REINFORCEMENT 12/82 12/81 DN/wN VACUOM 3 REARERS 12/82 12/81 CAIWALK MI_DSAY SUPPORTS 12/82 12/81 CATNAIK LATERAL SRACING 12/82 12/81 S CTU S REMOVED MONORAIL 12/92 12/81 CONDUIT RERCUTED 12/82 12/81 SPRAY BEADER SUPPORTS 12/02 12/81 NPCI TURRINE EINAUST LINE SUPPORT 12/82 12/81
( WE M g RCIC TURRINE EXNAUST LINE SUPPORT 12/82 12/81 MOD F TIONS RCIC TURSINE PCT DRAIN SUPPORT 11/82 12/81 l (INT W AL) NPCI TURSINE PCT DPAIN SUPPORT 12/82 12/81 ECCS SUCTION STRAINER REINFORCEMENT 12/82 11/83W 3RR FU14 FLOW TEST LINE SUPPORTS 12/82 12/81 REINFORCEC VENT LINE PENETRATION W 12/82 12/91 ADDE; T-QUENGERS 12/80 2/80 y'gy ya ADDED Te2UENCRER SUFFORTS 12/80 2/90 ADDED SRV LINE SUPPORT 12/80 2/80 SRYDL VACUUM SREARERE 12/22 11/834 DW/NN AP 1976 1976 MODIFICATIONS SUPPRESSION POOL TEMPERATURE MONITORING SYSTEM (SPTMS) 12/82 11/83 W f ECCS SUCTION NEADER PENETRATICN AND TEE REINFORCEMENT 12/82 11/32 l ECCS SUCIZON READER $NUSSERS 6/83 12/83 ATTAGED RRR LINES PENETRATIONS REINFORCEMENT 6/83 11/83'U (E RNAL)
RCIC TURSINE EXNAUST PENETRATION REINFORCEMEL"? 6/82 11/83 W SMA!& DIAMETER PIPING MODIFICATIONS 12/82 11/83W IARGE DIAMETER PIPING MODIFICATIONS 6/83 11/83W (1) SUBJECT TO REVISION IF MODIFICATION SCHEDULE CHANGES.
(2) THESE DATES REFLECT COMPLETION OF SCHEDULED MODIFICATIONS.
(3) FINAL CONFIGURATION OF SARGENT & LUNDY MODIFICATIONS. l
?
l L
- CoM-02-039-1 Revision 0 1-1.5
1-1.1 Scope of Analysis I
The structural and mechanical elements addressed in the various volumes of this report include the fol-lowing.
o Containment Vessel
- The torus shell with associated penetra-tions, reinforcing rings and support attachments
- The torus supports
- The vent lines between the drywell and the vent header, including SRV penetra-tions
- The local region of the drywell at the vent line penetration The bellows between the vent lines and the torus shell The vent line-vent header spherical junctions The vent header and attached downcomers
- The vent header supports
- The vacuum treaker nozzle penetrations l
to the vent header l
l COM-02-039-1 1-1.6 Revision 0
! nutggh
f The downcomer rings and vent header support collars The suction header and attached suction lines o Internal Structures
- The suppression chamber internal struc-tural elements, including the catwalk and its supports The vent header deflectors and their supports o The SRVDL piping and supports (For Quad Cities Units 1 and 2, five valves are attached to the main steam lines. Only one of the five valves, the Target Rock valve, is capable of functioning in the safety mode. Thus, these units are equipped with one SRV and four relief valves ( RV) . However, l references in this report to SRV's include both the one SRV and the four RV's.)
( COM-02-039-1 1-1.7
'( Revision 0 nutggb
, ~. - .- , . - . . . , . - _ , . . . . . . _ , - - . . - - _ - . . . - . . . . . , - . , - - .
i o The internal and external TAP lines and their various branch connections
- The drywell penetrations
- The torus penetrations
- Valve operability Equipment operability o Miscellaneous The instrumentation and control (I&C) conduit and tubing inside or attached to the torus The suppression pool temperature monitoring system (SPTMS).
O l
l i
__1 Revision 0 1 1.e e nutggh
1-1.2 General Description of the Containment System 1
The Mark I containment is a pressure suppression system which houses the Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) pressure vessel, the reactor coolant recirculation loops, and other branch connections of the Nuclear Steam Supply System. The containment consists of a drywell, a pressure suppression chamber (wetwell or torus) which 'is approximately half-filled with water, and a vent system which connects the drywell to the suppression pool. The suppression chamber is toroidal in shape. It is located- below and
- encircles the drywell. The drywell-to-wetwell vents h are connected to a vent header contained within the airspace of the wetwell. Downcomers project down-ward from the vent header and terminate below the water surface of the suppression pool. The pressure suppression system is described in greater detail in Sections 1-2.1.1 and 1-2.1.2 and in Volumes 2 and 3.
BWR's utilize safety relief valves attached to the main steam lines as a means of primary system over-pressure prote tion. The outlet of each valve is connected to discharge piping which is routed to the suppression pool. The discharge lines end in-e
.I COM-02-039-1 ~1-1.9
( Revision 0
T-quencher discharge devices. The SRV discharge lines are described in detail in section 1-2.1.4 and in volume 5.
O t
COM-02-039-1 1-1.10 Revision 0 nutggh
e' i.
1-1.3 Review of phenomena g
The following- subsections provide a brief qualitative description of the various phenomena that could occur during a postulated LOCA and during
- SRV actuations. The LDR (Reference 1) provides detailed description of the hydrodynamic loads which these phenomena could impose upon the suppression chamber and related structures. Section 1-4.0 pre-sents the load definition procedures used to develop
- the Quad Cities Units 1 and 2 hydrodynamic loads.
4 1
t l
I f
4 J
4 l
t t
COM-02-039-1 1-1.11 Revision 0-4 ee. ', w w..i+,w., .+f, e-%-.. ...-syv _,..,%--,,-&.c,.-- ,,y--- --- -vw-e-yue...,-u,,_ .,,-,,.w.e.,,--+,-.,mm...,,-y,,m..o - ,a'- ,,- m ,%.+4, ..m,-,,,-. #,. I
1-1.3.1 LOCA-Related Phenomena Immediately following a postulated design basis accident (DBA) LOCA, the pressure and temperature of the drywell and vent system atmosphere rapidly increase. With the drywell pressure increase, the water initially present in the downcomers is accelerated into the suppression pool until the downcomers clear of water. Following downcomer water clearing, the downcomer air, which is at essentially drywell pressure, is exposed to the relatively low pressure in the wetwell, producing a downward reaction force on the torus. The consequent bubble expansion causes the pool water to swell in the torus (pool swell), compressing the airspace above the pool. This airspace compression results in an upward reaction force on the torus.
Eventually, the bubbles " break through" to the torus airspace, equalizing the pressures. An air-water froth mixture continues upward due to the momentum previously imparted to the water, causing impinge-ment loads on elevated structures. The transient associated with this rapid drywell air venting to the pool typically lasts for 3 to 5 seconds.
COM-02-039-1 1-1.12 Revision 0 nutp_qh 1.
Following air carryover, there is a_ period of high steam flow through the vent system. The discharge of steam into the pool and its subsequent condensa-tion causes pool pressure oscillations which are transmitted to submerged structures and the torus shell. This phenomenon is referred to as condensa-tion oscillation (CO). As the reactor vessel depressurizes, the steam flowrate to the vent system decreases. Steam condensation during this period of reduced steam flow is characterized by up-and-down movement of the water-steam interface within' the downcomer as the steam volumes are condensed and replaced by surrounding' pool water. This phenomenon is referred to as chugging.
Postulated intermediate break accident (IBA) and small break accident (SBA) LOCA's produce drywell pressure transients which are sufficiently slow that the dynamic ef fects of vent clearing and pool swell are neg lig'ible . However, CO and chugging occur for an IBA and chugging occurs for a SBA.
l I
l O
j' { COM-02-039-1 1-1.13
! k] Revision 0 i
L nutgq,h
1-1.3.2 SRV Discharge Phenomena Quad Cities Units 1 and 2 are equipped with one SRV and four RV's per unit to control primary system pressure during transient conditions. Tne SRV's are mounted on the main steam lines inside the drywell, with the discharge piping routed down the main vents into the suppression pool. When a SRV is actuated, steam released from the primary system is discharged into the suppression pool, where it is condensed.
Prior to the initial actuation of a SRV, the SRVDL piping contains air at atmospheric pressure and suppression pool water in the submerged portion of the pipinJ. Following SRV actuation, steam enters the SRVDL, compressing the air within the line and expelling the water slug into the suppression pool. During water clearing, the SRVDL undergoes a transient pressure loading.
Once the water has been cleared from the T-quencher discharge device, the compressed air enters the pool re . r . ., ,
as *' reigh press'u're bubbles. These bubbles ' expand, resulting in an outward acceleration of the I
surrounding pool water. The nomentum of the accel-COM-02-039-1 1-1.14 Revision 0 nutggh
/
in an overexpansion of (m)
%J erated water results the bubbles, causing the bubble pressure to become nega-tive relative to the ambient pressure of the surrounding pool. This negative bubble pressure slows and reverses the motion of the water, leading to a compression of the bubbles and a positive pressure relative to that of the pool. The bubbles continue to oscillate in this manner as they rise to the pool surface. The positive and negative pres-sures developed due to this phenomenon attenuate with distance and result in an oscillatory precsure loading on the " wetted" portion of the torus shell and submerged structures.
Q,)
n
\
i n
[ ) COM-02-039-1 1-1.15
(_M Revision 0 i
nutgqb gh _
1-1.4 Evaluation Philosophy The development of event sequences, assumptions, load definitions, analysis techniques, and all the other facets comprising the Quad cities Units 1 and 2 plant unique analysis are specifically formulated to provide a conservative evaluation. This section describes, in qualitative terms, some of the conservative elements inherent in the Quad Cities Units 1 and 2 plant unique analysis.
Event Sequences and Assumptions Implicit in the analysis of a LOCA is the assumption that the event will occur, although the probability of such pipe breaks is low. No credit is taken for detection of leaks to prevent loss-of-coolant accidents. Furthermore, various sizes of pipe breaks are evaluated to consider various effects.
The large, instantaneous pipe breaks are considered to evaluate the initial, rapidly occurring events such as vent system pressurization and pool swell.
Smaller pipe breaks are analyzed to maximize prolonged effects such as CO and chugging.
COM-02-039-1 1-1.16 Revision 0 nutggh
- ~ - . . - . . -- .
i
{.
The various LOCA's analyzed are assumed to occur s
coincident with plant conditions which maximize the parameter.of interest. For example, the reactor is assumed to be at 102% of rated powe r; a single failure is assumed; and no credit is taken for normal auxiliary power. Operator action which can mitigate effects of a LOCA is assumed to be t . unavailable for a specified period. Other assump-tions are also selected to maximize the parameter to be evaluated. This approach results in a conserva-tive evaluation since the plant conditions are not
.likely to be in this worst case situation if a LOCA i
were to occur.
Test Results and Load Definitions i
The load definitions utilized in -the Ouad Cities Units 1 and 2 plant unique' analysis-(PUA) are based on conservative test results and analyses. For j example, the .LOCA steam condensation loads CO and chugging) are based on tests in- the Mark I f Full-Scale Test . . Facility (FSTF). The FSTF is a full-size 1/16-segment of a Mark I torus. To ensure that conservative results would be obtained on a generic basis, the FSTF ~ was specifically designed 1
} COM-02-039-1 1-1.17 i . k/ ; Revision 0 x,
and constructed to promote rapid air and steam flow from the drywell to the wetwell. While this maximizes hydrodynamic loads, it does not take into account the features of actual plants which would mitigate LOCA effects. Actual Mark I drywells have piping and equipment which would absorb some of the energy released during a loss-of-coolant accident.
There are other features of the FSTF which are not typical of actual plant configurations, yet contribute to more conservative load definitions.
Pre-heating of the drywell to minimize condensation and heat losses is an example of this feature.
Additionally, the load definitions developed from FSTF data apply the maximum observed load over the entire period during which the load may occur. This conservative treatment takes no credit for the load variation observed in the tests.
The LOCA pool swell loads were developed from similarly conservative tests at the Ouarter-Scale Test Facility (OSTF). These tests were performed with the driving medium consisting of 100%
noncondensables. This maximizes the pool swell because this phenomenon would be driven by condensable steam if a LOCA were to occur in an actual plant. The OSTF tests also minimized the COM-02-039-1 1-1.18 Revision 0 nutggh
.,e loss coefficient and maximized the drywell pres-surization rate, thus maximizing the pool swell loads. The drywell pressurization rate used in the tests was calculated using conservative analytical modeling and initial conditions. Structures above the pool are assumed to be rigid when analyzed for pool swell impac t and drag loads. This assumption maximizes loads and is also used to evaluate loads on submerged structures.
The methodology used to develop SRV loads is based on conservative methods and assumptions. Safety relief valve loads are calculated using a minimum or manufacturer-specified SRV opening time, a maximum j steam flow rate, and a maximum steam line pressure.
Appropriate assumptions are also applied to con-servatively predict SRV load frequency ranges. The SRV loads on submerged structures are similarly ,
de'termined with the additional assumptions that maximize the pressure differential across the
. structure due to bubble pressure phasing. The conservatism in the SRV load definition approach has been demonstrated by in-plant tests performed at Dresden Unit 2_ and at several other plants. All such tests h ve confirmed that actual plant i responses'are significantly less than predicted.
fN r i COM-02-039-1 'l-1.19 j Revision 0 nutggb
1 Load Combinations Conservative assumptions have also been made in developing the combinations of loading phenomena to be evaluated. Many combinations of loading phenomena are investigated although it is very unlikely for such combinations to occur. For example, mechanistic analysis has shown that a SRV cannot actuate during the pool swell phase of a design basis loss-of-coolant accident. However, that combination of loading phenomena is evaluated. Both the pool swell and SRV load pheno-mena involve pressurized air bubbles in the pool and the structural response to these two different bubbles is assumed to be additive, either by absolute sum or by the square root of the sum of the squares (SRSS) method. This rationale is also valid for other hydrodynamic phenomena in the pool such as CO and chugging, which are also combined with SRV discharge. Section 1-3.2.2 provides tables of the actual load combinations used in the analysis for both Class MC internal structures and Class 2 and 3 piping.
COM-02-039-1 1-1.20 Revision 0
- nutaghh
n When evaluating the structural response to combina-tions of loading phenomena, tha peak responses due to the various loading phenomena are assumed to occur at- the same time. While this is not an l impossible occurrence, the probability that the actual responses will combine in that fashion is very_ remote. Furthermore, the initiating events themselves (e.g., LOCA or safe shutdown earthquake) are of extremely low probability.
Analysis Techniques the methodology used for analyzing LOCA and SRV loads also contributes to conservatism. These loads are assumed to be smooth curves of regular or periodic shape. This simplifies load definitions and analyses, but maximizes predicted responses.
Data from Dresden's SRV test show actual forcing functions to be much less " pure" or " perfect" than those~ assumed for analysis.
6 The analyses generally treat a no,nlinear problem as.
a linear, elastic problem with the load " tuned" to the- structural frequencies which produce. maximum response. The nonlinearities which exist in both COM-02-039 1-1.21 (j%). Revision 0 i
nutgg[]
the pool and structural dynamics would preclude the attainment of the elastic transient and steady-state responses that are predicted mathematically.
Inherent in the structural analyses are additional conservatisms. Damping is assumed to be low to maximize response, but in reality, damping is likely to be much higher. Allowable stress levels are low compared to the expected material capabilities.
Conservative boundary conditions are also used in the analyses.
Conclusion The loads, methods, and results described above and elsewhere in this report demonstrate that the margins of safety which actually existed for the original design loads have not only been restored, but have been increased. The advancements in understanding the hydrodynamic phenomena and in the structural analyses and modeling techniques have substantially increased since the original design and analysis were completed. This increased under-standing and analysis capability is applied to the original loads as well as to the newly defined i COM-02-039-1 1-1.22 l
Revision 0 nutagh
l 1
s.
- i. <
i..
i'j , loads. Thus, not only have the original safety 1
f margins been restored, but even. greater margins now t
exist than in the original design. -!
i j
g, f
J:
i l
l l
i f
I f
t t
i l f 9 i 4
)
r
?
i i
i 1
I COM 02-039-1
- 1-1.23-
,. O -Revision.0
~
}
I
- l 1
+
l-2.0 PLANT UNIQUE CHARACTERISTICS I
1 This section describes the general plant unique geo- l i
metric and operating parameters pertinent to the l
- i. reevaluation of the suppression chamber design, i Specific details are provided in subsequent volumes, '
' where the detailed analyses of individual components r
s.
are described.
f 4
5 1
i a
i.
l l
l I
COM-02-039-1 2.1
-Revision 0: r i
nutggb
= .= .- - . .-. ._.- - _ . - ._ - - _ - _ _
1 l
l l
l-2.1 Plant Configuration The containment vessel is a Mark I design with a drywell and toroidal-shaped suppression chamber (Figures 1-2,1-1 through 1-2.1-3). The structural components affected by the LOCA and SRV discharge loads include the suppression chamber and its column supports, the vent system and its supports, and the intersections of the vent lines with the drywell.
Other items connected to the suppression chamber such as the catwalk, catwalk supports, and the horizontal seismic supports are also included in this plant unique analysis.
The suppression chamber is in the general form of a o torus, but is actually constructed of 16 mitered cylindrical shell segments (Figure 1-2.1-3). A reinforcing ring with two supporting columns and a saddle is provided at each miter joint.
Eight vent lines connect the suppression chamber to the drywell. Within the suppression chamber, the vent lines are connected to a common vent header.
Also connected to the vent header are downcomers which terminate below the water level of the COM-02-039-1 1-2.2 Revision 0 nut.e_qh
._ _. _ _,_._ _m.... _ -.~. . _ _.__. _ , _ - .- _ _ _ . _ . -_ _ . - - - _ _ _ _ _ __ _____
i-6 i
i:
)
i i
_ suppression pool. A' bellows assembly connecting the suppression chamber to the vent line allows for dif- l i
f erential. movement between the drywell and the sup-j
( !
i pression chamber. l i
t i-i l i s i 1
+
l r
- i i i r
i "I
i I i
I
[
t
!9
(
t L
i :
i i
I i
i
+
S COM-02-039-l' 2.3 Revision 0 :
e e, E a- E-- ---.-.----.----ww-..--.- - - -- - - .- - -.- - - -=- r-., - e
O i
-, 1
= l
%~
\
- ~
1 D f
-_ g DRYWELL
,- ---- / ,
~
SUPPRESSION
-- CHAMBER ;
E
._ (WETWELL)
]
u
[.E
- ~
n r S. p7 "
VENT HEADER '
--- Q ,
DOWNCOMER _.
(TYPICAL OF 96)
- 1. THE DRYWELL AND SUPPRESSION CHAMBER FORM THE PRIMARY CONTAINMENT.
Figure 1-2.1-1 GENERAL ARRANGEMENT OF MARK I CONTAINMENT COM-02-039-1 Revision 0 1-2.4 nutggh
I . ..- -.
O q, CCNTAINMENT l
_EL 666'-8 1/2" 18'-6" IR I
33'-0" IR DRYWELL SHIELD BUILDING
- '~ "
11'-0" DIA VE72 LINE v SPHZRICAL I'-
35 T }:,g SUPPRESSION 4 CHAMBER
~
T,-
_ EL 577*-6" , O,
EL 579'-10"
{ ! ~}N ?f
- f.y- }* .y 3 ,
cowNCOMER g,'e
\ . . .
L_, *V EL 554'-0"
- ' S
~
6.^~' ^ ..;s-Gr l Figure 1-2.1-2 ELEVATION VIEW OF CONTAINMENT t I COM-02-039-1 Revision 0 1-2.5 nutggb
0 90 SEISMIC RESTRAINT
\gg /
yx 30'-0" IR VENT LINE
/ P /N I
/
PENETRATIONm ,/ O f Q 54'-6" g
0 -
DRYWELL
+
i
] - 180 g
4 SPHERICAL >
JUNCTION h,N MITER JGINT VENT /
SYSTEM s
6
/
g VENT HEADER ,
NON-VENT '
SUPPRESSION LINE BAY CHAMBER DOWNCOMER VENT LINE BAY :
VENT LINEj 270 (8 TYPICAL)
Figure 1-2.1-3 PLAN VIEW OF CONTAINMENT COM-02-039-1 Revision 0 1-2.6 nutmh
rs 1-2.1.1 Suppression Chamber
[
The inside diameter (ID) of the mitered cylinders which make up the suppression chamber. is 30'0" 1
(Figure- 1-2.1-3). The suppression chamber shell thickness is typically 0.582" above the horizontal centerline and 0.649" below the horizontal centerline, except at penetration locations, where
- _, it is locally thicker (Figure 1-2.1-4).
l 3 .
-The suppression chamber.shell is reinforced at each miter joint location by a T-shaped ring girder (Figure 1-2.1-5). A typical ring girder is located j in a plane paralle' to and on the nonvent line bay
' - ' side of each miter joint. The ring girder is braced
- laterally with stiffeners connecting the ring girder web to the suppression chamber shell.
The suppression chamber is supported vertically at each miter joint location by inside and outside columns and by a saddle' support which spans the inside and the outside columns (Figure 1-2.1-5). _
The columns and associated column patch plates are located perpendicular to the torus centerline. The saddle supports are located parallel . to the miter joint'in the plane of the ring girder web.
/
f- COM-02-039-1 1-2.7 Revision 0
1 The inside and outside column members are fabricated wide-flange members. The connection of the column members to the suppression chamber shell is achieved with web plates, flange plates, and column patch plates.
The anchorage of the suppression chamber to the basemat is achieved by a system of base plates, stiffeners, and anchor bolts located at two locations on each saddle support. Eight epoxy-grouted anchor bolts are provided at each saddle base plate location. A total of sixteen anchor bolts at each miter joint location provides the principal mechanism for transfer of uplift loads to the basemat.
i l
l l
l l
l l COM-02-039-1 1-2.8 Revision 0 nutggh
V 5
54'-6* TO (
OF CONTAINMENT VENT HEACER SPRAY HEADER e SPHERICAL VENT LINE
{ JUNCTION 2'-0" BELLOWS VENT HEACER ASSEMBLY ,
2'-5" IR
"~ 8 p _ LI E 0.582* THICK WALL ABOVE 6'
- ID ,
l l 12 08'15" HORIZONTAL q
'i '
./ /
/ I hM e
, DOWNCOMER 6'-0" EL 571*-6" o f , .
0.649" THICK WALL BELOW f
l
[ SRV DISCHARGE LINE e HORIZONTAL q S'RV LINE CATWALK SUPPORT BEAM VENT HEACER .
CEFLECTOR g
~ '
THERMOWELL ECCS I T-QUENCHER
. LATERAL RESTRAINT T* QUENCHER SUPPORT BEAM Figure 1-2.1-4 SUPPRESSION CHAMBER SECTION -
MIDBAY VENT LINE BAY.
(,) COM-02-039-1 Revision 0 1-2.9 nutggb
s TO [ CF CONTAIN." INT 9
15'-0" IR WI REAOER PERPENDICULAR TO SUPPRESSICN
\ 13'-2 1/2" IR
\
CHAMSER SHELL g IN PIANE OF
\ RING GIROER
. J._. .
SPRAY -VENT HEACER
/ HEACER OEFLE C"'O R
~
N
/
CAT 4AI.K I '
- VENT SYSTEM SUPPPISSICN 0*iAv3ER ,
/ O l I # * '
\ \
SUPPORT COLOC S SHE:.I.
/
/p n - n/ \ \
fp i4 l
\
I' 371'-6"' , !. ii 4
I t j RING T-CCENCHER ,
GIROER J
a \ f g / SRV LINE SUPPORT y
=5 HEACER x\ ,
at^*
/ k';
INSICE
'ggf y N lu t
!U; COLUMN CC SICE COLUMN llh l j
/{}){
I:. . m . _, _ _ _
[ l \
\s j
m*
" & , ?[-
. ' b NI SA00LE T.gtE::CHER -RING GIROER SUPPORT g scppog; STIFFENE RS SEAM Figure 1-2.1-5 SUPPRESSION CHAMBER SECTION -
MITER JOINT COM-02-039-1
- Revision 0 1-2.10 l
nutggh
. - . - .. . . . .. _ - . ._ _ . - -=
9 l-2.1.2 Vent System The vent system is constructed from cylindrical segments joined together to form a manifold-like structure which connects the drywell to the suppres-sion chamber. Figure 1-2.1-6 shows a partial plan view of the vent system. The spherical junction i
connected to the end of the vent line has an inside diameter of 11'0". Beyond the vent line spherical
. junction, the vent header inside diameter is 4'10". There are 96 downcomers which protrude from the vent header.
4 The vent system is supported by two column members k
~
at each miter joint locat' ion (Figure 1-2.1-5).
I Figure 1-2.1-7 shows the vent line-to-vent header i
j intersection. A longitudinal bracing system stiffens the downcomer intersection in a direction parallel to the vent header longitudinal . axis (Figure 1-2.1-8). For horizontal loadings in a direction perpendicular to the vent header longi-tudinal axis, the downcomer-to-vent header (DC/VH) intersection is stiffened -by means of the DC/VH stiffener plates and lateral bracing members (Figure 1-2.1-9).
i -
COM-02-039-1 1-2.11
\, Revision 0 n
There are two vacuum breakers on six of the eignt spherical junctions. Figure 1-2.1-10 shows the locations of the vacuum breaker penetrations on the spherical junctions. Figure 1-2.1-11 shows details of the vacuum breaker penetrations and indicates which spherical junctions have vacuum breaker pene-trations.
The vent system also provides support for a portion of the SRV piping inside the vent line end suppres-sion chamber (Figure 1-2.1-12). Loads which act on the SRV piping inside the vent line are transferred to the vent system by the penetration assembly on the vent line and by supports located inside the vent line.
i l
COM-02-039-1 1-2.12 Revision 0 nutggb
6'-9" ID t
I g 2'-6" e
I 4 - 0" E 5'-0" VENT LINE i I \
h i I ,- \
l , -
[b -- -~
g I!
-(~ t ..
L *'
-- y
^
u
,. , \
Q NON-VENT
, , _ 4 LINE BAY
_W__t f
a VENT HEADER I.
i i DOWNCOMER
$ YENT VACUUM BREAKER LINE PENETRATIONS BAY q MITER JOINT 4
10'-10 9/16" ; -
l'-9 25/32" l g i
l 1. DOWNCOMER BRACING NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY.
i l
F l
l l
I i
FIGURE l-2.1-6
(
PLAN VIEW OF VENT HEADER i
COM-02-039-1 '
Revision 0 1-2.13
6'-9" ID _
v
( VENT LINE 5'-6"IR SPHERICAL JUNCTION g
i a
VENT HEADER $
4'-10" ID 200(TYP) n
~
AM ,
/s , s
'N $ i [ N' r^s [~). .[3
/
l
~/ I'-(T/\
VENT HEADER SPHERICAL j g JUNCTION
/ s i
VACUUM BREAKER PENETRATIONS
- 1. VACUUM BREAKERS NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY.
- 2. SEE FIGURE l-2.1-14 FOR SECTION A-A.
l l
l Figure 1-2.1-7 l
VENT LINE-VENT HEADER SPHERICAL JUNCTION COM-02-039-1 Revision 0 1-2.14 nutggh
e
\w/
B Bl '
% f*r f*) f4 f611
~
44 44 441
^
VENT LINE BAY
^
O NON-VENT LINE BAY PARTIAL -PLAN VIEW OF SUPPRESSION CHAMBER q VENT LINE q MITER q NON-VENT l BAY l JOINT l LINE BAY I
nU ) -
t VENT O r r3 "'****
O .
-% -% -w
~
71 x 3" PLATE DOWNCCMER] ~/
/
(TYP) 4 3" DIA PIPE ^
VIEW A-A VIEW B-B (OPPOSITE OF A-A)
Figure 1-2.1-8 DEVELOPED VIEW OF DOWNCOMER BRACING SYSTEM
\
COM-02-039-1 s
L 'f Revision 0 1-2.15 nutg_qh
{ VENT HEADER I
1/4" 2'-5" IR r- 10 ' -l 1/2 "
- s
" DOWNCOMER LEG DOWNCOMER -
\ n
/ 'nx '\'s a 9"
3/8" e /- + -
s 2'-0" ID y'
s
/ / , ,
I VENT I I l HEADER l !
30 -
3 DEFLECTOR i i 1/4" :
1 I i l l I l I i
I I I i 2'-0 1/8" ID I
I I
! ! l
_v 4'-0" : DOWNCOMER I LATERAL g BRACING SYMMETRICAL ABOUT g, Figure 1-2.1- 9 %
DOWNCOMER-TO-VENT-HEADER INTERSECTION COM-02-039-1 Revision 0 1-2.16 nutggh
._~ . . . - . . . _ . - . . _ _ . . . . _ . . . _ _ . . - - _ _ - _ _
f i
f i
VERTICAL q 6'-l 1/2" 3
! l'-loa
=
i i
k HORI:CNTAL (- -
I
,'% l'-6 " ID -
1 i W " }
/ __ g s -
- 1. 9 _.
I
,ll
- v _
v/ a i 'l ~ 18 22'22" 7 '
I
// %
!'/ - Y
, - q _. .
E i
i VENT.HEAOER SPHERICAL.
JUNCTION s
l 5'-6" IR i
j 5/8" THICK f SECTION A-A
) (FROM FIGURE l-2. l- 7) i i"
f Figure 1-2.1-10 i
. VACUUM BREAKER PENETRATION DETAIL l COM-02-039 ; Revision 0 1-2.17 I,
o vw- , , - - - ,w_< --m-w+,-w-wwm.wy,,,,..-+w_,,,e,--,,n, - w ,-w-, m m ,-wwww.,,.,,,y,.,-emw.,y,.., ,,w,.. a,,me www,ww ,, ...-,,.,w.,,g...-%-,cew,,-.,,%y yy-.-w+-.,
O1 90 67 30' I 112 30'
.\i ,
\ \ r ll
/
22 30' ' ' '
! 157 30' l
ar
/
~ - .-
0 - ' -
y - , - 180 l
7
- 4 337 30' 202 30' s -
'I .. \
t .
292 30' l 247 30' 270 l
l
- Figure 1-2.1-11 VACUUM BREAKER LOCATIONS COM-02-039-1 Revision 0 1-2.18 nutggh
e ~. . - .. .__ . - ._- . _ - . - , -._ ,
i SUPPRESSION , , , , , , ,
' CHAMBER SHELL j,,}jjj SPHERICAL - 2 ' -0 "
. CNCTICN
\-
VENT HEA::ER '
" ~ " '-
1
, i
, fit 4
, til 4
120 08' 15"] < l
\
l
?
p -:c{ $ -
til l l g 8" DIA l gh g SRV LINE ,
4 mCl Y a' -
-q SUPPRESSICN N CHAMBER
- 6 ' -C
- 11'-6" l
, I l
I
- VENT LINE ELEVATION VIEW ,
1
- I
! ~
1/2" PLATE 24" OIA PIPE (TYP) y 1
~. 2 -t -t-f ,
i '
' " -q SRV LINE b \
$)
j --
3
- q VENT LINE I
J f
1/2" x 36" DIA Y UPPRESSION' S
i INSERT PLATE CHAMBER SHEI.L )
{
i i VIEW A-A i
i i Figure 1-2.1-12 4
SRV PENETRATION IN VENT LINE COM-02-039-1 i
Revision 0 1-2.19 i
Two w -*y,7 ' " - ' ' -Mdter-e*-te---+v-p-----+1ew p= -*L%pe W-*p** *'-yemve**q**wwgF -wwe t- ear--Ww-g,wg gg -*ey-+-9m -P-v
l I
l-2.1.3 Internal Structures O
Figures 1-2.1-4 and 1-2.1-5 show the location of the catwalk relative to other major components within the suppression chamber. The catwalk is located parallel to the suppression chamber longitudinal axis. Figures 1-2.1-13 through 1-2.1-15 show that the catwalk is supported by columns at the miter joint ring girder and hangers between each miter joint. Tne support hangers consist of 4", Schedule 120 pipe which extends vertically upward from the catwalk support beam (Figure 1-2.1-15). The columns consist of 6", Schedule XXS pipe which extends vertically downward from the catwalk support beam to the ring girder (Figure 1-2.1-14).
The catwalk provides support for the vacuum breaker and electrical conduits. The loads which act on the conduit are transferred to the catwalk by channel sections, which connect the conduit to the catwalk.
1 l
I 1
l COM-02-039-1 1-2.20 Revision 0 nutggh
LJ INTERMEDIATE
~ SUPPORT C9 a 13.4 ,
s // e STA!NCER /
SUPPRESSION CMAMSER 'O VENT LINE
$ HELL ~ 3 AY s
g
. w. .
/
,i q MITER JC*NT D2 1
. fA '
ANGLE BRA . k EINO OIEEEE t
- 3x 3x 1/4 af .'"* "
$8 ANGLE BRACING
- ( NcN-vex INTERMECIATE LINE BAY SUPDORTS 3'*111/2*
\ >
g (TYPt
% _ __ .W -
s4 -6 To (
'N CF CONTAINMENT c uTING s s
~
- _ ;p\ .
_p- - r
\
- 1. SEE FIGURE l-2.1-14 FOR SECTION A-A.
- 2. SEE FIGURE l-2.1-15 FOR SECTION B-B.
Figure 1-2.1-13 PLAN VIEW OF SUPPRESSION CHAMBER INTERNAL CATWALK (V f COM-02-039-1 Revision 0 1-2.21 nutggh
q, CATWALK { SUPPRESSION i CHAMBER HANDRAIL 1
, C9 x 13.4 STRINGERS 3/4" THICK PLATE L _f, i l
f . i.
, o,
- - - + -q RING GIPIER 6" DIA PIPE i
SUPPRESSION O
CHAMBER SHELL 2 ,, ,
i
' N 15'-o" IR N .
i SECTION A-A (FROM FIGURE l-2.1-13)
! Figure 1-2.1-14 SUPPRESSION CHAMBER INTERNAL CATWALK -
TYPICAL SUPPORT AT MITER JOINT COM-02-039-1 Revision 0 1-2.22 nutggb
C SUPPRESSION (U) [ CHAMSER 54'-6" TO q OF CONTAINMENT SUPPRES5ICN
. CHAMBER SHELL i
15'-0" IR
( CATWALK I
i i _
8'-4 7/16" _
I VENT LINE BAY c h ~ 8'-6" NON-VENT LINE BAY i HANDRAIL ,
~ DIA
- p7p ,~ C9 X 13.4 L I J STRINGER k/ -
if I 1 I
a
- !I l I I x W16 X 36 4
g, -Q i
i 10'-10" y SECTION B-B (FROM FIGURE l-2.1-13) i Figure 1-2.1-15 l
SUPPRESSION CHAMBER INTERNAL CATWALK -
TYPICAL AUPPORT BETWEEN MITER JOINTS COM-02-039-1 Revision 0 1-2.23
1-2.1.4 SRV Discharge Piping l A total of five T-quenchers per unit are located midway between the miter joints, with the quencher arms located in the plane of the vertical centerline of the suppression chamber (Figures 1-2.1-16 through 1-2.1-18). Each quencher is supported by a T-quencher support pipe which is connected to the ring girder. Loads which act on the submerged portion of the SRVDL, the SRVDL support pipe, the quencher arms, and the quencher support pipe are transferred to the ring girders.
The outlet of each SRV is connected to discharge piping which is routed to the suppression pool.
Routing of the SRV discharge piping is such that five of the vent lines are used, with only one SRVDL being routed through any one vent line. The SRV piping in ,the drywell is supported by hangers, struts, and snubbers connected to the back-up steel structures.
The SRV piping exits the vent line through a stiffened insert plate (Figure 1-2.1-12). Each line is then routed to the center of the bay, where the COM-02-039-1 1-2.24 Revision 0 nutggb
ja
. , _ . - . ~, _ , _ e.- ....- _ _ _ ... _ .. _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ ,:.__
L.
o o
I ramshea'd and T-quencher .are ' attached to the T-quencher: support. beam. ~ Figures 1-2.1-4 and.
1-2.1-19 show. typical -SRV. pipe routing in the-
' wetwell. -l t
6 6
I i
! l 1
O ;
L i
f i
I l
i l- !
i l !
9
?
l 1-2.'25
- i. COM-02-039-1 ;
I Revision 0- '
h
-- ~+._.,~_-.-.
1 VENT LISE SAY
~
l ' ^
l'-L*
RISG GIROER (TYP) --
h- 14" SCH 120 gg sRv :.:xE ,g
, , j-SUPPORT SCAM gg es . P n I
\ \
r .
'
- 1 o ll (W) \\
\\
ll '
[SRVLINE n
'\ e'-3 s/e" lI t
\
11 \\
p gO I "F tyt==" l L jl, ,
N_L j j y7 lj' r- -
1 9
- , ', [ l.
] .l
( SUPPRESSION
^
g _jj a s -
gp ^
CHAMBER l --=='i i
q ibF PLAN VIEW 1
l l'-7 1/4" : ;
3'-10 5/16" n SRV LINE I
AE T-QUENCHER ARM- SUPPORT SUPPORT l
[
~
- 4 ' - 10 1/2" rI s' a
u -
l] -
als elsdhals ela g!ll
%l f
- \l4" SCH 140 4 l'-1" :!
l '
- q ,,
[ RING GIRDER T-QUENCHER s
_f_ In VENT LINE BAY Q. SUPPORT BEAM \
EL 554'-0", M < CHAMBER SHELL SADDLE SUPPORT k'NhN
~
'9k'IIj'fhSI$
VIEW A-A Figure 1-2.1-16 T-QUENCHER AND T-QUENCHER SUPPORTS COM-02-039-1 Revision 0 1-2.26 nutggh
900 1
- SUPPRESSICN
'~ 0 CHAMBER CEVICE I '\ ,
. / .
l O c
/ O
./ O s/ g , SRV LINE O I
O d _ 54'-6" _
OO 00 = * -
=1800 SUPPRESSION " 0 0 0 CHAMBER q #. o O O e O O
O O
o O
. Y o O
,- s o
, \
?
, ( *
\
\\ /
' '" DCWNCOMER LONGITUDINAL l'-1" BRACING (TYP (TYP) 10 HAIS BAYS) q VENT LINE BAY k 2700
{ SRV LINE Figure 1-2.1-17 T-QUENCHER AND DOWNCOMER LONGITUDINAL BRACING LOCATIONS -
QUAD CITIES UNIT 1 O
(N COM-02-039-1 Revision 0 1-2.27
O 7
900 SUPP RESS ION T-QUENCHER [ CHAMBER DEVICE '
DOWNCOMER LONGITUDINAL BPACING (TYP
'g
/ /'s 10 HALF BAYS)
. \ 'T
/ l
\, N 's /
fa O
O s
O SRV LINE 54-6" -
00 -
4 -
- 180 9 O
'L'R"i"%.Y
'Y O O
O O
- O 0 0
lj OO O O OO O 1'-1" (TYP)
Q VENT LINE BAY l 2700
( SRV LINE Figure 1-2.1- 18 T-QUENCHER AND DOWNCOMER LONGITUDINAL BRACING LOCATIONS -
QUAD CITIES UNIT 2 COM-02-039-1 Revision 0 1-2.28 nutggh
O RING, GIRDER
~
,,yE",,r-i ,V F
-5 ;,le 3-- .
e r
/ i i I I '
q SRV LINE l
( _l is . - - - - - _
--,f_g4 ,
1 ,,
n I '
o i
',' l '
q VENT LINE
- +...'
i i
- 7 ' -3 1/16 "
E3= , , (T m i
- 1. VENT SY3 TEM STIFFENING AND T-QUENCHER SUPPORTS NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY.
Figure 1-2.1-19 PLAN VIEW OF SRV PIPE ROUTING IN SUPPRESSION CHAMBER Os COM-02-039-1 Revision 0 1-2.29 nutstgh
1-2.1.5 Torus Attached Piping and Penetrations The large bore TAP for Ouad Cities Units 1 and 2 consists of 4" and larger nominal diameter piping, which penetrates or is directly attached to the suppression chamber. This section gives a general description of the large bore TAP systems and their associated components.
Large bore TAP lines range in size from 4" ' to 24" nominal diameter and have varying schedules, l l
although most piping consists of ASTM A106, Grade B carbon steel material.
Large bore TAP may be grouped into two general cate-gories: (1) torus external piping, and (2) torus internal piping. Examples of systems with only torus external piping are the pressure suppression system line and the emergency core cooling system (ECCS) suction header. Typical systems having both torus external and internal piping are the high pressure coolant injection (HPCI) turbine exhaust line, the reactor core isolation cooling (RCIC) turbine exhaust line, and the residual heat removal (RHR) test line.
COM-02-039-1 1-2.30 Revision 0 l
l l
nutggh
. . _ _m .. _ _ .-_ . . -
. e.
4
. "\
j In addition to the large bore systems described above, selected small diameter piping systems are included in this section since they have been i
analyzed using the same methods applied'to the large bore piping. These systems are the torus internal -!
portions of the RCIC/HPCI pot drain lines.
$ The small bore TAP for Quad Cities Units 1 and 2 consists of 4" and smaller nominal diameter piping, which is attached to the suppression chamber or to the large bore torus attached piping.
! The small bore piping (SBP) lines may be grouped into the following system types:
i I
(1) Cantilevered Drains and Vents j (2) Small bore piping with flex loops (3) Other small bore piping systems.
Volumes 6 and 7 of the PUAR provide the evaluation l- for.the SBP lines.
Figures 1-2.1-20 and 1-2.1-21 show the numbers and locations- of .the essential suppression- chamber 1
I l CoM-02-039-1 'l-2.31
\ - Revision 0-g wgo-- 9 e+9 e - up-- g. ---3pye,-9 9 p- g- g .y 9e.9g,,, r-w -r e-%,-,9gowy w ,W -e,,.y ,y79 g w-w w ,,+p g,a g g9,-u--w-4 &--y=,,- gg+
penetrations, evaluated in volumes 6 and 7 of this plant unique analysis report. The principal components of t '.t e penetrations are the nozzles, the insert plates, and the " spider" reinforcements. The nozzle extends from the outer circumferentiat pipe weld through the insert plate to the inner circumferential pipe weld or flange. The insert plate and " spider" provide local reinforcement of the suppression char,iber shell near the penetration.
Each penetration modification is designed to allow the penetratic i to sustain TAP reaction loads produced by suppression chamber motions due to normal loads and hydrooynamic loads, while keeping component stress intensities below the specified allowable values.
COM-02-039-1 1-2.32 Revision 0 nutggb
. _ - . _ ~ . . .
a -
,0 I
LN 45' 3.=203A 135' N . , .* -
f
- g'.ggg / %
. I,204A x-211A X-220 X **l
X X
% /
- \
/ t N y i
, 0* - + '+ + -180*
o "C , T^ /
x - .1;.a x 2 2040 X-204C
.,2-205 ,X 315' s
-g'y, x-2hs 22S' l +
270' Figure 1-2.1-20 ESSENTIAL TAP PENETRATION LOCATIONS ON SUPPRESSION CHAMBER -
PLAN VIEW (QUAD CITIES UNIT 1) r)
! - ,. COM-02-039-1 k/ Revision 0 1-2.33 nutagh
O d
45 8 X,=2 3A
\ . A / 135'
/ 'I N , .
x-2o4A .) 1A '
y x=21.A ,
x-2 48
.E. X
\
' i w/ -\ -W a
o- + o
+ -tso F
' i l x 21os x 'g- x x ,22o, 3,' x.2a o x 2o4c
'b-21' h s 2 4 .-205 - 'ix.2its sis a ~ + -
i 270 8 Figure 1-2.1-21 ESSENTIAL TAP PENETRATION LOCATIONS ON SUPPRESSION CHAMBER -
PLAN VIEW (QUAD CITIES UNIT 2)
COM-02-039-1 Revision 0 1-2.34 nutggh ,
_ _ _ _ . - _ . . ______ _ _=__._ .....____ .._ .___m .. . . _ _ . . _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ . _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ - _ _
i 9
r 4
k
, 1-2.2 Operating Parameters i
- 1 4'
Plant operating parameters are used to determine
{'
s
- many of the hydrodynamic loads utilized in the I reevaluation of the Quad Cities Units 1 and 2 suppression chamber design. Table 1-2.2-1 is a i' summary of the primary containment operating parame- i t
ters used for the analysis of the Ouad Cities Units J.
I and 2 hydrodynamic loads.
4 4
1 '
s I
f i- l i
r i'
4
?
1 p
i l I
i
?
e
.i'
'I i,
i
', l e
i
! COM-02-039 .1- 2. 3 5'
- l. " Revision.O i
e i c E. . __ _=_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Table 1-2.2-1 PRIMARY CONTAINMENT OPERATING PARAMETERS COMPONENTS CONDITION / ITEM VALUE FREE AIR VOLUME III 158,236 ft 3
- 0%
NORMAL OPERATING PRESSURE HIGH 1.5 psig LOW l.0 psig NORMAL OPERATING TEMPERATURE NOMINAL BULK 135 F NORMAL OPERATING RELATIVE HIGH 100%
DRYWELL IIUMIDITY RANGE LOW 20%
PRESSURE SCRAM INITIATION 2.0 paig to.2 psig SET POINT DESIGN INTERNAL PRESSURE 62 psig DESIGN EXTERNAL PRESSURE 2.0 psid MINUS INTERNAL PRESSURE CESIGN TEMPERATURE 2810F POOL VOLUME MIN (LOW WATER LEVEL) 112,203 ft 3 MAX (HIGH WATER 3 LEVEL) 115,655 ft FREE AIR VOLUME II MIN (LOW WATER LEVEL) 116,645 ft 3 MAX (HIGH WATER SUPPRESSION LEVEL) 120,097 ft 3 CHAMBER LOCA VENT SYSTEM DOWNCOMER MIN (LOW WATER SUBMERGENCE LEVEL) 3.67 ft MAX (HIGH WATER LEVEL) 4.00 ft WATER LEVEL BELOW TORUS MIN (LOW WATER CENTERLINE LEVEL) O.458 ft MAX (HIGH WATER -
LEVEL) O.125 ft SUPPRESSION POOL SURFACE EXPOSED 10,092.7 ft 2 TO SUPPRESSION CHAMBER AIRSPACE l NORMAL OPERATING PRESSURE RANGE HIGH = 0.2 psig
! LOW = -0. 2 psig NORMAL OPERATING TEMPERATURE HIGH = 95 /
l RANGE OF SUPPRESSION POOL (TECH SPEg)
LOW = 70 F COM-02-039-1 Revision 0 1-2.36 nutggh
Table 1-2.2-1 to\
kj PRIMARY CONTAINMENT OPERATING PARAMETERS (Concluded)
COMPONENTS CONDITION / ITEM VALUE NORMAL OPERATING TEMPERATURE HIGH = 95 F RANGE OF SUPPRESSION CHAMBER LOW = 70 F FREE AIR VOLUME NORMAL OPERATING RELATIVE HIGH = 100%
HUMIDITY RANGE LOW = 20%
SUPPRESSION DESIGN INTERNAL PRESSURE 62 psig CHAMBER EXTERNAL PRESSUPI MINUS INTERNAL 1 psid PRESSURE DESIGN TEMPERATURE 281 F NORMAL OPERATING PRESSURE DIFFERENTIAL (DRYWELL-TO-WETWELL) 1.0 psi INSIDE DIAMETER AT DISCHARGE 2.01 ft ID DOWNCOMERS OUTSIDE DIAMETER AT DISCHARGE 2.05 ft OD TOTAL NUMBER OF DOWNCOMERS 96 LONG-TERM POST-LOCA PRIMARY MAX 2.0% / day q CONTAINMENT LEAK RATE r)RYWELL-TO-WETWELL LEAKAGE MAX 89.9 scfm CONTAINMEN- SOURCE BYPASSING SUPPRESSION POOL WATER SERVICE WATER TEMPERATURE LIMITS MAX NORMAL 105 F (TECH SPEC)
MIN NORMAL 85 F I4 SET POINT NUMBER OF SAFETY / CAPACITY AT 103% OF SAFETY RELIEF VALVES (psig) SET POINT (lbm/hr)
(
3;7377 2 1112 598,00^
RELIEF 2 I3I '1135 610,00L 1 (3) 1135 ilt 609,000 2 1240 :l% 642,100 8'
V,3.3. so 2 1250 21% 647,200 4 1260 21% 652,400 (1) INCLUDES FREE AIR VOLUME OF THE LOCA VENT SYSTEM.
(2)- DOES NOT INCLUDE FREE AIR VOLUME OF THE LOCA VENT SYSTEM.
(3) ADS VALVES.
(4) BOTH SRV'S AND RV'S WILL BE REFERRED TO AS SRV'S THROUGHOUT THIS REPORT.
) COM-02-039-1 V Revision 0 1-2.37 nutsch
i i
1-3.0 PLANT UNIOUE ANALYSIS CRITERIA F
I This section describes the acceptance criteria for the. hydrodynamic loads and structural evaluations
.used in the plant unique analysis.
The acceptance criteria. used in the PUA were developed from the NRC review of the long-term
! program LDR, the PUAAG, .d' the supporting i
i analytical and experimental programs conducted by I the Mark I owners Group. These criteria- are ;
j documented in NUREG-0661 for both hydrodynamic load I definition and structural applications. Sections 1
{
and 2 of NUREG-0661 give introduction and back-ground; Section 3-presents a detailed discussion of the hydrodi namic load evaluation; Section 4 presents the structural and mechanical analyses and accep-tance criteria, and Appendix A presents the .
i hydrodynamic acceptance criteria.
4 .
+
4 I.
r COM-02-039-1 1-3.1 O Revision.0:
1-3.1 Hydrodynamic Loads: NRC Acceptance Criteria Appendix A of NUREG-0661 resulted from a NRC evaluation of the load definition procedures for suppression pool hydrodynamic loads, which were proposed by the Mark I owners Group for use in their plant unique analyses. This NRC evaluation addressed only those events or event combinations involving suppression pool hydrodynamic loads.
Unless specified otherwise, all loading conditions or structural analysis techniques used in the PUA, but not addressed in NUREG-0661, are in accordance with the Ouad Cities Units 1 and 2 safety analysis report (SAR) (Reference 5). The NRC hydredynamic loads acceptance criteria are used with a coupled fluid-structure analytical model.
Wherever feasible, the conservative hydrodynamic acceptance criteria of NUPEG-0661 were incorporated directly into the detailed plant unique load deter-minations and associated structural analyses. Where this simple, direct approach resulted in unrealistic hydrodynamic loads, more detailed plant unique analyses were performed. Many of these analyses have indicated that a specific interpretation of the COM-02-039-1 1-3.2 Revision 0 nutggh
4 i
? -
i
(-
i generic rules was well founded. These specific
! applications of the generic hydrodynamic acceptance i
1: criteria are identified in the following sections t
.and are discussed 'in greater detail in .Section I
i' 1-4.0. j i
I i I- l i i 1
i l
. l 1 i 1
i: -
i >
t >
i 1
I l'
l i
l l
l 1
l i
9 COM-02-039-l' Revision 0 3.3
.-__....i..- ._i. _ a. _f_ _. _.~i______C __ _ - _ _ _ _ - _-_ ____ __- - _ _ _ _ _ - _
1-3.1.1 LOCA-Related Load Applications The hydrodynamic loads criteria are based on the NRC review of and revision to experimentally-formulated hydrodynamic loads. Pool swell loads derived from plant unique quarter-scale two-dimensional tests are used to obtain net torus uploads, downloads, and local pressure distributions. Vent system impact and drag loads resulting from pool swell effects are also based on experimental results, using analytical techniques where appropriate.
Condensation oscillation and chugging loads were derived from FSTF results. Downcomer loads are based on test data, using comparisons of plant unique and FSTF dynamic load factors.
The acceleration drag volumes used in determining loads on submerged structures are calculated based upon the values in published technical literature i
rather than on the procedure which might be inferred 1
from NUREG-0661, where the structure is idealized as a cylindrical section for both velocity and acceleration drag (see Section 1-4.1-5).
COM-02-039-1 1-3.4 Revision 0 nutgqb
h I Condensation oscillation and post-chug torus shell and ' submerged structure loads are defined in terms of 50 harmonics. Random phasing of the loading har-h monics is assumed, based on FSTF data and subsequent analysis (see Section 1-4.1.7.1).
- NUREG-0661 states that the fluid-structure interac-tion (FSI) effect on CO and chugging loads on submerged structures can be accounted for by adding the shell boundary accelerations to the local fluid f
acceleration. For Quad Cities Units 1 and 2, the FSI effects for a given struct'ure are included by i
l adding the pool fluid acceleration at the location I w j- of the structure rather than the shell boundary I acceleration (see Section 1-4.1.7.3).
i I NUREG-0661 states that the multiple downcomer load
}
during chugging should be based on an exceedance -
probability of 10-4 per loss-of-coolant accident.
! This exceedance probability is used in the analysis.
l 1
3 n
s COM-02-039-1 1-3.5 l Revision 0. 'l J
q r
1-3.1.2 SRV Discharge Load Applications ,
The analysis techniques for SRV loads were developed to generically define T-quencher air clearing loads on the torus. However, a number of Mark I licensees have indicated that the generic load definition pro-cedures are overly conservative for their plant design, especially when the procedures are coupled with conservative structural analysis techniques.
To allow for these special cases, the NRC has stipulated requirements whereby in-plant tests could be used to derive the plant specific structural response to the SRV air clearing loads on the torus and submerged structures.
Because of the various phenomena associated with the' air clearing phase of SRV discharge, some form of analysis procedure is necessary to extrapolate from test conditions to the design cases. Therefore, the NRC requirements are predicated on formulating a coupled load-structure analysis technique which is calibrated to the plant specific conditions for the simplest form of discharge (i.e., single valve, first actuation) and then applied to the design basis event conditions.
COM-02-039-1 1-3.6 Revision 0 nutggh
O The SRV torus shell loads are evaluated using the alternate approach of NUREG-0661, which allows the use of in-plant ' SRV tests to calibrate a coupled
- load-structure analytical model. This method L
1 utilizes shell- pressure waveforms more character-istic of those observed in tests. A series of in-plant SRV tests were performed at Dresden 2 which
! confirmed that the computed loadings and predicted i
structural responses for SRV discharges are i
conservative (see Section 1-4.2.3).
l
. For SRV bubble-induced drag loads on submerged structures, a bubble pressure multiplier which bounds the maximum peak positive bubble pressure and i the maximum bubble pressure differential across the quencher observed during the Monticel'lo T-quencher tests is used (see Section 1-4.2.4). .
4 4
1 l
L-COM-02-039 1-3.7 Revision-0 l
L
1-3.1.3 other Considerations l As part of the PUA, each licensee is required to either demonstrate that previously submitted pool temperature response analyses are sufficient or pro-vide plant specific pool temperature response analyses to assure that SRV discharge transients will not exceed specified pool temperature limits.
A suppression pool temperature monitoring system is also required to ensure that the suppression pool bulk " tempe ra tu re is within the allowable limits set forth in the plant technical specifications.
Section 1-5.0 discusses specific implementation of these considerations.
O Several loads are classified as secondary loads because of their inherent low magnitudes. These loads include seismic slosh pressure loads, post-pool swell wave loads, asymmetric pool swell pressure loads on the torus as a whole, sonic and compression wave loads, and downcomer air clearing loads. These secondary loads are treated as negligible compared to other loads in the PUA, which is in accordance with Appendix A of NUREG-0661.
COM-02-039-1 1-3.8 Revision 0 nutggh
1-3.2 Component Analysis: Structural Acceptance Criteria Section 4.0 of NUREG-0661 presents the NRC evaluation of the generic structural and mechanical acceptance criteria and of the general analysis techniques proposed by the Mark I Owners Group for use in the plant unique analyses. Because the Mark I facilities were designed and constructed at different times, there are variations in the codes and standards to which they were constructed and subsequently licensed. For this reassessment of the suppression chamber, the criteria described in this subsection were developed to provide a consistent
[
\
and uniform basis for acceptability. In this evaluation, references to " original design criteria" mean those specific criteria in the Quad Cities Units 1 and 2 original containment data specifica-
, tions (References 6 and 7).
1 1
l i
I Ps l ') COM-02-039-1 1-3.9 l
(,/ Revision 0 nutagh
i 1-3.2.1 Classification of Components The structures described in Section 1-1.1 were cate-gorized according to their functions to assign the appropriate service limits. The general components of a Mark I suppression chamber have been classified in accordance with Section III of the ASME Boiler and Pressure vessel Code, as specified in NUREG-0661.
O l
l I
COM-02-039-1 1-3.10 Revision 0 nutggh
^ l-3.2.2 Service Level Assignments The criteria used in the plant unique analyses to evaluate the acceptability of the existing Mark I I
containment designs or to provide the basis for any plant modifications follow Section III of the ASME Boiler and Pressure vessel Code through the Summer 1977 Addenda.
Service Limits The service limits are defined in terms of the Winter 1976 Addenda of the ASME Code, which s introduced Levels A, B, C, and D. The selection of
. specific service limits for each load combination was dependent on the functional requirements of the component analyzed and the nature of the applied load. Tables 1-3.2-1 and 1-3.2-2 provide the assignments of service levels for each load combination. Reference 2 describes details regarding service level assignments and other aspects of Tables 1-3.2-1 and 1-3.2-2.
COM-02-039-1 1-3.11 Revision 0
3
- al::l-i=!5pl=l = ! l = l- l u lu Iu lu lu lu uldl=
- . i op -.-igspi -
- I i-: a i u i u i- I-I- uH=
.g . H-M - i-j t u i .
Iu l-lu i -
uM=
1 : I: -!- p p pl i-l i u !u !-Iu iu I- uM=
! 65 I:: -l !?l-l-l - 1 I - i - u u Iu u Iu u ul=l=
i : I:: -I pl-HI - l-l l u u Iu u lu u ull=
3
.j ;; -H ppi - t i p u u j u u Iu a v p 2 i -p! pH - l l - l- . . j . . log . . -p
.l:
W i ol: -H pl-i - M i u Iu i u u lv u u p
~
m m
ol- -l-l H -l i-l I = d j. d l =51 5 9 d 5!. d 7 l i=
4 < i= I:l -t I H-1 - l l - p <
i<l<l<lE -
<M=
>=e 3 u
m
eg l H i H H i <g <g;;<5jg+g3<gsl<H
33 $ .lf = l-l-l-l-l - j l - l- 9 ulu Iu l9 fu lu -l=
5 ii i ol:
.j:
-l-i-H-l - ! I l- = .
- l. .
l =E l = =
al=
$ s -H-pH - 1 I l u u Iu u
!u u u l=
s l !! .l:-ppppi-1i l - . , . -
- l. . . =p
- S !! iel 1: -l I-i H - 1 l - I- < < < < l E- < < ulu A W g ji Is-l1-1-FI-ll l < < < <
l< < <
viu g - x : .p -pl i- H - i j - p u u j u u lu u u =p 2 E U ?? i op . = . . uju w z ..
- - H p p i, - l l - p i . . j.:.-
W
~
0 H
.! _! -l- -l-l l-l-l - l l l u lu lu o lu u o =l=
.o ol- -H l-i-l-ll l = 11 .
- l. . - .
uiu 0@*m m
ia P -l I H-l -1 I - p <
l<l< < <E < <
<l<
z O
e z H -l I H 1 I i < l<j. < < < < <. <
H e z W >
--2_
al- -l-l-l ll l l u lu lu o o u o u u
< O . - -pH l l 1 l
- j . l. . . . . .. .
2 c.
E @ $
-lI-lll ll l <
l<l< <
l< < ,
- l<
5 o : < <
= _u . - . u
=
- e u c u
i - I-l- -
1- - - -p 9 Jg:s m Z Ese -
W 3 W i 2 5 .
5 d ;- t sgl!lo g .
5 5 is 5 . -
5 is 8 a 5 s a 1 W is8 l; s. ! Ei 1 : i5 W :- s t E
- I - - 5 g 1.
sE si 5" ;i = i,
[] ir 2 i I r 0 : 5 3 < := d i- 8 Ek
'5 .- n '5 % " d i 5 : a 5 2 E
=
5" r c5 5 i Eda! d f ji $E.. if i. if =
t
- g
- O E . . <= < <= < J:-J Sa ti 5h MG SW i 3 ,.
3 e ; g a .I.h_h h2u h 38
-= ::65 a:. <-d
_h ,h" n<=
5:
u< <-
s 5 u< i g
a>
b : c : 5 a a i 25 T 5 Spa 95 i 55 2 5: 55: 55 -
5[
2 05 su -s>' *s { es g
1 COM-02-039-1 Revision 0 1-3.12 nutq,gh
)
( -
J
$o
<x NOTES TO TABLE l-3.2-1 ea f, O g (1) REFERENCE 3 STATES "WHERE Tile DRYWELL-TO-WETWELL PRESSURE DIFFERENTI AL IS NORMALLY UTILIZED AS l O I A LOAD MI'TIGATOR, AN ADDITIONAL EVALUATION SHALL BE PERFORMED WITilOUT SRV LOADINGS BUT uo ASSUMING LOSS OF Tile PRESSURE DIFFERENTI AL." IN THE ADDITIONAL EVALUATION LEVEL D SERVICE l o$I LIMITS SHALL APPLY FOR ALL STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS EXCEPT ROW 8 INTERNAL STRUCTURES, WilICli NEED NOT BE EVALUATED.
H (2) NORMAL LOADS (N) CONSIST OF Tile COMDINATION OF DEAD LOADS, LIVE LOADS, COLUMN PRESET LOADS, TilERMAL EFFECTS DURING OPERATION, AND PIPE REACTIONS DURING OPERATION.
l (31 EVALUATION OF PRIMARY-PLUS-SECONDARY STRESS INTENSITY RANGE (NE-3221.4) AND OF FATIGUE
- (NE-3221.5) IS NOT REQUIRED.
(4) WHEN CONSIDERING THE LIMITS ON LOCAL MEMBRANE STRESS INTENSITY (NE-3221.2) AND PRIMARY-MEMBRANE-PLUS-PRIMARY-BENDING STRESS (NE-3221.3), THE S,e VALVE MAY BE REPLACED BY 1.3 Sac*
(NOTE: TiiE MODIFICATION '10 TiiE LIMITS DOES NOT AFFECT THE NORMAL LIMITS ON PRIMARY-PLUS-SECONDARY STRESS INTENSITY RANGE (NE-3221.4 OR NE-3228.3) NOR THE NORMAL LIMITS ON FATIGUE EVALUATION (NE-3221.5(e) OR APPENDIX II-1500). THE MODIFICATION IS THAT THE LIMITS ON LOCAL g MEMBRANE STRESS INTENSITY (NE-3221.2) AND ON PRIMARY-MEMBRANE-PLUS-PRIMARY BENDING STRESS
, INTENSITY (NE-3221.3) HAVE BEEN MODIFIED BY USING 1.3 S ac IN PLACE OF THE NORMAL Sac*
H THIS MODIFICATION IS A CONSERVATIVE APPROXIMATION TO RESULTS FROM LIMIT ANALYSIS TESTING AS l W HEPORTED IN REFERENCE 2 AND IS CONSISTENT WITH Tile REQUIREMENTS OF NE-3228.2.
l
) (5) SERVICE LEVEL LIMITS SPECIFIED APPLY TO Tile OVERALL STRUCTURAL RESPONSE OF THE VENT SYSTEM.
t AN ADDITIONAL EVALUATION WILL BE PERFORMED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT SHELL STRESSES DUE TO THE LOCAL j POOL SWELL IMPINGEMENT PRESSURES DO NOT EXCEED SERVICE LEVEL C LIMITS.
(6) FOR THE SUPPRESSION CHAMBER SilELL, THE S VALUE MAY BE REPLACED BY 1.0 S TIMES Tile DYNAMIC LOAD FACTOR DERIVED FROM THE TORUS STRUChbRAL MODEL. AS AN ALTERNATIVE, IEE 1.0 MULTIPLIER MAY BE REPLACED BY TliE PLANT UNIQUE RATIO OF THE SUPPRESSION CHAMBER DYNAMIC FAILURE PRESSURE
- TO THE STATIC FAILURE PRESSURE.
(7) SRV ACTUATION IS ASSUMED '10 OCCUR COINCIDENT WITH THE POOL SWELL EVENT. ALTHOUGil SRV ACTUATION CAN OCCUR LATER IN THE DBA, THE RESULTING AIR LOADING ON Tile SUPPRESSION CHAMBER StiELL IS NEGLIGIBLE SINCE THE AIR AND WATER INITI ALLY IN TiiE LINE WILL BE CLEARED AS THE DRYWELL-TO-WETWELL WP INCREASES DURING THE DBA TRANSIENT.
, ::1
2 5 =l:-l-lil-l=l l= =El- '=El-
[ ! aj =i=151=l=l = l- =El- =El-
. =j r-i=l=i=l=l=l =El- : =E I -
! al: =l"l-l-l"l-l =El' l =E l -
l s5 I: -ltil1-1 - - El- I=E -
!: 1: -ilI-l-l- =El- l=E -
3 5 =l: =l=l l=l=l =
=El' l=E i-i =l= ~=l-l j =l =l I = l= =El
- l =E l '
g altu-llI-l-I-I i =El - l =E l -
- =l -l 1 l-I-l-l l =El- =E I -
m , i5 I: -lI i=l-l , -l- =El- =E I -
d =.3 I:-lIi-l-l-l l =El- =E I -
E 23 5 alcl-1-1-l-i-l 1 - l- =El E =E l =E
" ;; i aj: -1 I-i-l=1 l - l- El=E =E l =E O $ $5 al: l--l-I-Ii i =El 5 =E i =E E S !! - : =!- -l-l-ll l =El=E =E I =E N
" ll 65 :: =l l=l=l=l - l= =El*E =E I =E a
. O a m- 12-ll=ll-l l 51 5 =E l =E M
i Z
< z
< oo 5 =l*:=\"l l"l-l l = =
fl=i' =3 l =3 m [! al" "l I l-l-l l -
=3l=3 =E l =E 3 8 g :
- ~
a ~
-l-l l=l-l l =E =E =El=E
@ E m = *
-l-11-1-1 l =E =E j =E ! =E z d gg 65 l* "I l l=l-l - =
=E =El=E us m x l--lll-l-l =3 =E1=E uE 8 8 ,
-l-l-I-l-l E l=E u ...
- o a.
-l-l- -l
=3 lu{
g ; _
-il-l- -l = =
l E
=
< < ,. se 5 ! " I: : I:
5 i d E*
E
- S i a M t i s < <
0
=
! s - - :
2 5 5
S i 55 U $
5
>8 <
i t a 5 a m a } = "
=
f =!5 5 i
- 3 :
E w a g a 3 - < <= < 5 = = = =
- o =
g s
s t
- s _h hk y- Pg
_a t
=
t
=
t
=
t
=
5 e 3 C c a .
, a 2 i
e age bi 2 E- -?#
3 d::
s=
4:"
gw I
i l
COM-02-039-1 Revision 0 1-3.14 nutggh
\
i
$o
<x NOTES TO TABLE l-3.2-2
.ee l no (1) REFERENCE 3 STATES "WHERE A DRYWELL 'IO-WETWELL PRESSURE DIFFERENTI AL IS NORMALLY UTILIZED AS A p,
' o LOAD MITIGATOR, AN ADDITIONAL EVALUATION SHALL BE PERFORMED WITHOUT SRV IDADINGS BUT ASSUMING Do THE LOSS OF THE PRESSURE DIFFERENTIAL." SERVICE LEVEL D LIMITS SHALL APPLY FOR ALL STRUCTURAL o@ ELEMENTS OF THE PIPING SYSTEM EOR THIS EVALUATION. THE ANALYSIS NEED ONLY BE ACCOMPLISHED 'IO THE EXTENT THAT INTEGRITY OF THE FIRST PRESSURE BOUNDARY ISOLATION VALUE IS DEMONSTRATED.
1 W
i (2) NORMAL LOADS (N) CONSIST OF DEAD IDADS (D).
(3) AS AN ALTERNATIVE, THE 1.2 S LIMIT IN EQUATION 9 OF NC-3652.2 MAY BE REPLACED BY 1.8 S ,
PROVIDED THAT ALL OTHER LIMIhS ARE SATISFIED. FATIGUE REQUIREMENTS ARE APPLICABLE 'IO AbL COLUMNS, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF 16, 18, 19, 22, 24 AND 25.
(4) FOOTNOTE 3 APPLIES EXCEPT THAT INSTEAD OF USING 1.8 hS IN EQUATION 9 OF NC-3652.2, 2.4 S h IS i USED.
~
- (5) EQUATION 10 OF NC OR ND-3659 WILL BE SATISPIED, EXCEPT THE FATIGUE REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT APPLICABLE 'IO COLUMNS 16, 18, 19, 22, 24 AND 25 SINCE POOL SWELL LOADINGS OCCUR ONLY ONCE. IN ADDITION, IF OPERABILITY OF AN ACTIVE ODMPONENT IS REQUIRED 'IO ENSURE CONTAINMENT INTEGRITY, e OPERABILITY OF THAT COMPONENT MUST BE DEMONSTRATED.
l
." (6) SRV ACTUATION IS ASSUMED 'IO OCCUR COINCIDENT WITH THE POOL SWELL EVENT. ALTHOUGH SRV H ACTUATION CAN OCCUR LATER IN THE DBA, THE RESULTING AIR LOADING ON THE SUPPRESSION CHAMBER
- SHELL IS NEGLIGIBLE SINCE 'lilE AIR AND WATER INITI ALLY IN 'IllE LINE WILL BE CLEARED AS THE i DRYWELL-TO-WETWELL AP INCREASES DURING THE DBA TRANSIENT.
1-t 1
i i
i 3 l- a
1-3.2.3 Other Considerations The general structural analysis techniques proposed by the Mark I Owners Group are utilized with sufficient detail to account for all significant structural response modes and are consistent with the methods used to develop the loading functions defined in the load definition report. For those loads considered in the original design but not redefined by the LDR, either the results of the original analysis are used or a new analysis is performed, based on the methods employed in the original plant design.
The damping values used in the analysis of dynamic loading events are those specified in Regulatory Guide 1.61, " Damping Values for Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants," which is in accordance with NUREG-0661.
The structural responses resulting from two dynamic phenomena are combined by either the absolute sum or SRSS method. The combined state of the stress results in the maximum stress intensity, COM-02-039-1 1-3.16 Revision 0 nutp_qh
l I
1 i
l-4.0 HYDRODYNAMIC LOADS METHODOLOGY AND EVENT SEOUENCE t
SUMMARY
j i This section presents the load definition procedures :
used to develop the Quad Cities Units 1 and 2 l
hydrodynamic loads and is organized 'in accordance
't j with NUREG-0661, Section 3. Table 1-4.0-1 provides
.a cross-reference between the sections of this PUAR i
and the sections of Appendix A of NUREG-0661, where-
,4 i
', each load or event is addressed.
4 e
- i. .
2 l
i f
i I
i i
i l
i COM-02-039-l' l-4.1' LRevision 0 1
l
. . . . _ . . . . _ . . . _ . .-., - - ... . ._ _... _.~ , _ _ . _ .,_._~ . _ . _ . _ ._.... ~ ..._._. _ _ _ _.. _ ____. . _ . _ ..__.- _
l Table 1-4.0-1 1 PLANT UNIQUE ANAL' ISIS /NUREG-0661 LOAD SECTIONS l CROSS-RE FE RENCE NUREG-0661 LOAD / EVENT PUA SECTICN APPENDIX A SECTION CONTAINMENT PRESSURE AND l-4.1.1 2.O TEMPERATURE RESPONSE VENT SYSTEM DISCHARGE LOADS 1-4.1.2 2.2 POOL SWELL LOADS ON TORUS SHELL 1-4.1.3 2.3 & 2.4 POOL SWELL I4 ADS ON ELEVATED STRUCTURES 14.1.4 2.6 - 2.10 POOL SWELL LOADS CN SUBMERGED l-4.1.5 &
STRUCTURES 2.14.1 & 2.14.2 1-4.1.6 CCNCENSATION OSCIIIATION LOADS CN TORUS SHELL 1~4*1*7 2*11*1 CONCENSATION OSCII1ATION LOADS ON DOWNCOMERS AND VENT SYSTEM 1-4.1.7 2.11.2 CCNCENSATION OSCILLATION LOADS CN SUBMERGED STRUCTURES 1-4.1.7 2.14.5 CHUGGING LOACS ON TORUS SHELL l-4.1.S 2.12.1 CHUGGING LCACS -CN OCWNCOMERS 1-4.1.9 2.12.2 CHUGGING LOADS CN SUBMERGED ,
STRUCTURES '-4.1.3 2.14.6 SRV ACTUATION CASES 1-4.2.1 2.13.7 SRV DISCHARGE LINE CLEARING toggs 1-4.2.2 2.13.2 & 2.13.1 SRV LOADS ON TORUS SHELL 1-4.2.3 2.13.3 SRV LOADS ON SUBMERGED STRUCTURES 1-4.2.4 2.14.3 6 2.14.4 CESIGN BASIS ACCIOENT 1 4.3.1 3.2.1 INTERMEDIATE BREAK ACCICENT l-4.3.2 3.2.1 SMALL BREAK ACCICENT l-4.3.3 3.2.1 COM-02-039-1 Revision 0 1-4.2 l
l nutg,ghh_
l
LOCA-Related Loads
{ 1-4.1 This subsection describes the procedures used to define - the Quad - Cities Units 1 and 2 LOCA-related hydrodynamic loads. The sources of structural loads generat'ed during a LOCA are primarily a result of the following conditions.
- Pressures and temperatures within the drywell, vent system, and wetwell
- Fluid flow through the vent system l
- Initial LOCA bubble formation in the pool and the resulting displacement of water resulting in pool swell i
(
b - Steam flow into the suppression pool (CO and chugging).
4 For postulated pipe breaks inside the drywell, three LOCA categories are considered. These three
{
categories, selected on the basis of break size, are referred to as a design basis accident (DBA), an I
intermediate break accident (IBA), and a small break accident.(SBA).
O COM-02-039-1 Revision 0 1-4.3
(
-s
The DBA for the Mark I containment design is the instantaneous guillotine rupture of the largest pipe in the primary system (recirculation suction line). This LOCA leads to a specific combination of dynamic, quasi-static and static loads. However, the DBA does not represent the limiting case for all loads and structural responses. Consequently, an IBA and a SBA are also evaluated. The IBA is 2 liquid line evaluated as a 0.1 ft instantaneouc break in the p ri..ia ry system, and the SBA is 2
evaluated as a 0.01 ft instantaneous steam line break in the primary system.
O COM-02-039-1 1-4.4 Revision 0 nutgg])
1-4.1.1 Containment Pressure and Temperature Response The drywell and suppression chamber transient pres-sure and temperature responses are calculated using the " General Electric Company Pressure Suppression Containment Analytical Model" (Reference 8). This analytical model calculates the thermodynamic response of the drywell, vent system, and suppression chamber volumes to mass and energy from the primary system following a released postulated loss-of-coolant accident.
The containment pressure and temperature analyses are performed in accordance with Appendix A of Os NUREG-0661 and are documented in Reference 9.
COM-02-039-1 1-4.5 Revision 0 nutp_Qh
l l
1 1-4.1.2 Vent System Discharge Loads Of the three postulated LOCA categories, the DBA causes the most rapid pressurization of the containment system, the largest vent system mass flow rate, and therefore, the most severe vent system thrust loads. The pressurization of the containment for the IBA and SBA is much less rapid than for the design basis accident. Thus, the resulting vent system thrust loads for the SBA and l
IBA are bounded by the DBA thrust loads. Conse- ;
quently, vent system thrust loads are only evaluated j for the design basis accident.
1 Reaction loads occur on the vent system (main vent, O1 vent header, and downcomers) following a LOCA due to pressure imbalances between the vent system and the surrounding torus airspace, and due to forces resulting from changes in linear momentum.
l The LDR thrust equations consider these forces due to pressure distributions and momentum to define horizontal and vertical thrust forces. These equations are included in the analytical procedures applied to the main vents, vent header, and downcomer portions of the vent system.
COM-02-039-1 1-4.6 Revision 0 nutggh
1 Because main vents and downcomers are located symmetrically about the center of the vent system, the horizontal vent system thrust loads cancel each l other, resulting in a zero effective horizontal vent system thrust load.
l The bases, analytical procedures, and assumptions i
used to calculate thrust loads are described in the i
load definition report. The Ouad Cities Units 1 and 2 plant unique DBA thrust loads for the main vent, 1
the vent header, and downcomers were developed using both an operating and zero initial drywell-to-I wetwell pressure differential. The thrust loads .
used in this PUA are documented in Reference 9.
t )
i
~ )
volume 3 of the PUAR presents the analysis of the vent system. The vent system discharge loads are developed in accordance with Appendix A of NUREG-0661.
1 1
i l
COM-02-039-1 1-4.7 Revision 0
--(J i
i k s
__,_,.._,..,_m..-_.._.., . , _ . . , ,.. ~+, - , _ . . _ , , , . . . , . . , . . . _ , _ , , .-_..,._...___,m .,_.-..,m.,7..--..L.-
I l-4.1.3 Pool Swell Loads on the Torus Shell During the postulated LOCA, the air initially in the drywell and vent system is injected into the sup-pression pool, producing a downward reaction force on the torus followed by an upward reaction force.
These vertical loads create a dynamic imbalance f forces on the torus, which acts in addition to the weight of the water applied to the torus. This dynamic force history lasts for only a few seconds.
The bases, assumptions, and justifications for the pool swell loads on the torus shell due to the DBA are described in the load definition report. The pool swell loads on the torus shell are based on a series of CECO unique tests conducted in the OSTF (Reference 10), which are applicable to Quad Cities Units 1 and 2. The results from these OSTF tests are documented in Reference 10. The pool swell loads on the torus shell used in the PUA are based on the information in Reference 10, with the addition of the upload and download margins specified in Appendix A of NUREG-0661.
l l
CoM-02-039-1 1-4.8 Revision 0 nutggh
From the plant unique average submerged pressure and the torus air pressure-time histories, the local average submerged pressure transients at different locations on the shell are calculated using the LDR methodology and the criteria given in NUREG-0661.
In order to perform pool swell analysis of the torus shell and supports, shell loads are divided into y
static and dynamic components. This is accomplished by subtracting the airspace pressures from the average submerged pressures.
t l Torus shell loads development procedures, method-ology, and assumptions are in accordance with Appendix A of NUREG-0661, with the exception of the download margin. In this case, a more conservative value than that specified in NUREG-0661 was used.
I l
l 9
l l
l l
) COM-02-039-1 1-4.9 Revision 0
1-4.1.4 Pool Swell Loads on Elevated Structures This subsection describes the load definition procedures used to define the following hydrodynamic loads on the main vent line and other structures initially above normal water level.
- Pool Swell Impact and Drag Loads
- Froth Impingement Loads, Region I
- Froth Impingement Loads, Region II Pool Fallback Loads Froth Fallback Loads Volumes 3 and 4 of this PUAR present the analysis of the effect of pool swell loads on elevated structures.
COM-02-039-1 1-4.10 Revision 0 nutggh
~ ,
} l-4.1.4.1 Impact and Drag Loads on the vent System v
In the event of a postulated design basis LOCA, the pool surface rises during the pool swell phase and impacts structures in its path. The resulting loading condition of primary interest is the-impact
' on the vent system. The impact phenomeaon consists of two events: (1) the impact of the pool on the structure, and (2) the drag on the structure as the pool flows past it following impact. The load definition includes both the impact and drag i
portions of the loading transient.
The vent system components which are potentially
- impacted during pool swell include the main vents, spherical junctions, vent header, the vent header deflector, and the downcomers. The vent header will experience pool swell impact and drag loads for two reasons: (1) the deflector does not protect the vent header in the vicinity of the spherical junctions, and (2) the pool surface " wraps around" the deflector pipe and partially impacts the vent system. The vent system pool swell impact and drag ;
1 loads were developed from plant-unique quarter-scale tests with a deflector in place (Reference 10).
O COM-02-039-1 1-4.11 k Revision 0 nutagh
A generic pressure transient is specified for the downcomers and is assumed to apply uniformly over the bottom 50' of the angled portion of the downcomer. The load amplitude is 8.0 psid and Figures 1-4.1-1 and 1-4.1-2 show how it is applied.
The vent headet deflector loads are developed on a plant unique basis. The LDR provides the bases, assumptions, and justifications for vent header deflector impact loads. Reference 9 presents the full-scale loads for the deflector used at Guad Cities. These loads are based on a zero initial drywell-to-wetwell pressure differential and are conservatively used for both zero and operating initial drywell-to-wetwell conditions. The vent header deflector load definition is in accordance with Appendix A of NUREG-0661.
Pool swell impact and drag loads on the main vent line and spherical junction are calculated using the procedure specified in Appendix A of NUREG-0661.
The pool swell loads on the vent header, the down-
! comers, and the vent header deflector are also calculated in accordance with Appendix A of NUREG-0661.
COM-02-039-1 1-4.12 Revision 0 h
nut.eS.
l i
I 9
5 5
y 8.0 --
E O
E TIME WHEN POOL TIME OF TIME (sec)
REACHES LOWER MAXIMUM END OF ANGLED POOL SWELL PORTION OF = 0.521 DOWNCOMER(1)
(1) THE TIME OF INITIAL IMPACT IS DEPENDENT ON THE DOWNCOMER LOCATION. THESE TIMES ARE PRESENTED IN VOLUME 3.
Figure 1-4.1-1 DOWNCOMER IMPACT AND DRAG PRESSURE TPANSIENT COM-02-039-1 Revision 0 1-4.13 nutggb
O
( VENT HEADER A
V DOWNCOMER (ANGLED SECTION)
A IMPACT PRESSURE l TRANSIENT APPLIED TO SHADED AREA
- ~
(VERTICAL SECTION)
W500 ELEVATION
^~^
i l
Figure 1-4.1-2 APPLICATION OF IMPACT AND DRAC PRESSURE TRANSIENT TO DOWNCOMER COM-02-039-1 Revision 0 1-4.14 nutp_qh
l-4.1.4.2 Impact and Drag Loads on Other Structures As the pool surface rises due to the bubbles forming at the downcomer exits, it may impact structures located in the wetwell airspace. In the present 4
context, "other structures" are defined as all structures located above the initial pool surface, exclusive of the vent system.
The LDR presents the bases, assumptions, and methodology used in determining the pool swell impact and drag loads on structures located above the pool surface. These load specifications correspond to impact on " rigid" structures. When i
performing structural dynamic analysis, the " rigid body" impact loads are applied. However, the mass of the impacted structure is adjusted by adding the i i
hydrodynamic mass of impact, except for gratings.
The value of hydrodynamic mass is obtained using the d
methods described in the load definition report.
In performing the structural' dynamic analysis, drag following impact is included in the forcing function (gigures 1-4.1-3 and 1-4.1-4). The transient calcu-i j
) COM-02-039-1 Revision 0 1-4.15
lation is continued until the maximum stress in the structure is identified.
Impact and drag loads development and application are in accordance with Appendix A of NUREG-0661.
i l
O l
COM-02-039-1 1-4.16 Revision 0 nutp_qh
i
)
- c
@E m
max-m Ec M
L 9
0 L
l E w
r.c o
c:
r.c
> P D- -
4 y
9 s'p' n.
/
s'- .
T TIME 4
WHERE I = IMPULSE OF IMPACT PER UNIT AREA P
T = PULSE DURATION l
1, -
I I
l Figure 1-4.1-3 PULSE SHAPE FOR WATER IMPACT ON CYLINDRICAL TARGETS l COM-02-039-1 i
Revision 0 1-4.17 4
nutggb
. . . . . . . - . . - . . - . . . - - . . . , . . . ~ . . . . - . - . .. ...-......-. ,.- . - - . - . . . . - . - -
i
i 1
O i
(
l l
l l
l l
l w
- c
o
$ Pmax-c.
E*
O c.
b u
O w P o- f l
N P/
/
l /
l /
T TIME l
l I
WHERE I = IMPULSE OF IMPACT PER UNIT AREA T = PULSE DURATION 1
l Figure 1-4.1-4 PULSE SHAPE FOR WATER IMPACT ON FLAT TARGETS
, COM-02-039-1 Revision 0 1-4.18 nutp_qh
4
^
/ l-4.1.4.3 Pool Swell' Froth Impingement Loads During the final stages of the pool swell phase of a DBA LOCA, the rising pool breaks up into a two-phase froth of air and water. This froth rises above the pool surface and may impinge on structures within the torus airspace. Subsequen:1y, when the froth a
falls back, it creates froth fallback loads. Froth may be generated by two mechanisms, described below.
Region I Froth i
As the rising pool strikes the bottom of the vent header deflector, a froth spray which travels upward and to both sides of the vent header is formed.
This is defined as the Region I froth impingement zone (Figure 1-4.1-5).
2 Region II Froth A portion of the water above the expanding air bubble becomes detached from the bulk pool and travels vertically upward. This water is influenced only by its own inertia and gravity. The " bubble C
breakthrough" creates . a froth which rises into the
- COM- 0 2-0 3 9-1 1-4.19
% Revision 0
airspace beyond the maximum bulk pool swell height. This is defined as the Region II froth impingement zone (Figure 1-4.1-6).
The LDR methods are used to define the froth impingement loads for Region I. For the Region -I froth formation, the LDR method assumes the froth density to be 20% of full water
- density for structures with maximum cross-section dimensions of less than l', and a proportionally lower density for structures greater than l'. The load is applied as a step function for a duration of 80 milliseconds in the direction most critical to the structure within the region of load application.
O The froth density of Region II is assumed to be 100%
of water density for structures or sections of structures with a maximum cross-sectional dimension less than or equal to l', 25% of water density for structures greater than l', and 10% of water density for structures located within the projected region directly above the vent header. The load is applied as a rectangular pulse with a duration of 100 milliseconds in the direction most critical to the structure within the region of load application.
l COM-02-039-1 1-4.20 l
i Revision 0 nut E h
\
For some structures, the procedures described above j result in unrealistically conservative loads. In these situations, the alternate procedure outlined in Appendix A of NUREG-0661 is used. This procedure consists of calculating Region I froth loads from high-speed OSTF movies. In this case, the froth source velocity, mean jet angle, and froth density in Region I are derived from a detailed analysis of the OSTF plant specific high-speed films.
i With either methodology for Region I, the vertical component of the source velocity is decelerated to the elevation of the target structure to obtain the froth impingement. velocity. The load is applied in J the direction most critical to the structure within
- the sector obtained from OSTF movies. The OSTF
! movies were used to determine whether a structure had been impinged by Region I froth. Uncertainty 4
limits for each parameter are applied to assure a conservative load specification.
The froth fallback pressure is based on the conservative assumption that all of the froth fallback momentum is transferred to the structure.
COM-02-039-1 1-4.21 m . Revision.0 e
The froth velocity is calculated by allowing the froth to fa11 freely from the height of the upper torus shell directly above the subject structure.
The froth fallback pressure is applied uniformly to the upper projected area of the structure being analyzed in the direction. most critical to the behavior of the structure. The froth fallback is specified to start when the froth impingement load ends and lasts for 1.0 second. The range of direction of application is downward i45 degrees from the vertical.
The pool swell froth impingement and froth fallback loads used in the PUA are in accordance with Appendix A of NUREG-0661.
l I
l COM-02-039-1 1-4.22 Revision 0 nutg,g!)
ah .- 4 .6h 4 +-,e- --.J.r A - , .u_--- -A+< _ 4Am *.a1 -- - *- -ham .f- - ,
5.
t 4
- O SUPPRESSION CHAMBER
~
FROTH REGION I VENT I
HEADER l
TYPICAL
~
K)-\ STRUCTURE i
450 ,
lO i
i I
i j
- 1. REGION IS SYMMETRICAL ON BOTH SIDES OF VENT HEADER.
t Figure 1-4.1-5 FROTH IMPINGEMENT ZONE - PIGION I COM-02-039-1 l Revision 0 1-4.23 nutgg;h
-.._-, , .... _ . _ . . - . _ _ . _ . - - . . . _ . - . , . . - . _ _ _ _ - ~ - _ . . _ . _ - . _ _ .m,_,__-_._... - . _ . ~ . _ _ , _ _ _ _
O
- R ,
REGION II l 0.6R
'N -
0 S LL PROFILE SUPP RESSION CHAMBER l
- 1. REGION IS SYMMETRICAL ON BOTH SIDES OF VENT HEADER.
1 Figure 1-4.1-6 FROTH IMPINGEMENT ZONE - REGION II C]M-02-039-1 Revision 0 1-4.24 nutp_qh
l-4.1.4.4 Pool Fallback Loads
- This subsection describes pool fallback loads which apply to structures within the torus that are below
^
the upper surface of the pool at its maximum height and above the downcomer exit level. After the pool surface has reached maximum height as a result of pool swell, it falls back under the influence of
- gravity and creates drag loads on structures inside the torus shell. The structures affected are between the maximum bulk pool swell height and the i downcomer exit level, or immersed in an air bubble extending beneath the downcomer exit level.
O U For structures immersed in the pool, the drag force during fallback (as described in the LDR) is the sum of standard drag (proportional to the velocity squared) and acceleration drag (proportional to the acceleration). For structures which are beneath the upper surface of the pool but within the air bubble, there is an initial load associated with resub-mergence of the structure by either an irregular l
impact with the bubble-pool interface or a process similar to froth fallback. This initial _ load is bounded by the standard drag because conservative
! /O COM-02-039-1 1-4.25
- - (,) Revision 0
assumptions are made in calculating the standard drag.
The load calculation procedure, as described in the LDR, requires determination of the maximum pool swell height above the height of the top surface of the structure. Freefall of the bulk fluid from this height is assumed to occur, producing both standard drag and acceleration drag. The total drag is calculated to be the sum of the two.
The LDR procedure results in a conservative calculation of the velocity since it is unlikely that any appreciable amount of pool fluid vill be in freefall through this entire distance. The maximum pool swell height is determined from the OSTF plant unique tests (Reference 10).
The procedures outlined in Appendix A of NUREG-0661 are used to account for interference effects associated with both standard and acceleration drag forces.
Structures which may be enveloped by the LOCA bubble are evaluated for potential fallback loads as a l
COM-02-039-1 1-4.26 Revision 0 nutp_qh L 1
l s
1 result of bubble collapse to ensure that such loads l t
are not larger than the LOCA bubble drag loads
- (Section 1-4.1.6)'
The fallback load is applied uniformly over the' l upper projected surface of the structure in the direction most critical to the behavior of the structure. The range of *45 degrees from the ,
l vertical is applied to both the radial ande
! longitudinal planes of the torus.
i.
- The procedures used to datermine pool fallback loads in the PUA are . in accordance with Appendix A of 4
, , NUREG-0661.
1 I
i i
l' l
i 6
I COM-02-039-1 1-4.27
- Revision 0 t'
i
.h i . .
l-4.1.5 LOCA Water Jet Loads on Submerged Structures As the drywell pressurizes during a postulated DBA LOCA, the water slug initially standing in the submerged portion of the downcomer vents is accelerated downward into the suppression pool. As the water slug enters the pool, it forms a jet which could potentially load structures which are intercepted by the discharge. Forces due to the pool acceleration and velocity induced by the advancing jet front are also included in the analysis.
The LOCA water jet loads affect structures which are enclosed by the jet boundaries and last from the time that the jet first reaches the structure until the last particle of the water slug passes the structure. Pool motion can create loads 'on structures which are within the region of motion for the duration of the water jet. The assumptions included in the* methodology are presented in the load definition report.
l The calculation procedure used to obtain LOCA jet loads is based on experimental data obtained from COM-02-039-1 1-4.28 Revision 0 nutgqh
\ tests performed - at the Ouarter-scale Test Facility V (Reference 10) utilizing Dresden plant parameters, which are representative of Quad Cities plant parameters, and on the analytical model described in Reference 1. Figures 1-4.1-7 and 1-4.1-8 show plant unique downcomer clearing information, obtained experimentally during the OSTF testing in the form of LOCA jet fluid displacement , velocity , and acceleration-time histories.
As the jet travels through the pool, the particles at the rear of the water slug, which were discharged f rom the downcomer at higher velocities, catch up p with particles at the front of the water slug, which 4%
were - discharged at lower velocities. When this
" overtaking" occurs, both particles are assumed to continue on at the higher velocity. As the rear particles catch up to the particles in front, the jet becomes shorter and wider. When the last fluid particle leaving the downcomer catches up to the front of the jet, the jet dissipates.
Forces due tq' pool motion induced by the advancing jet are calculated for structures that are within t four downcomer diameters below the downcomer exit elevation. The flow field, standard drag, and i fv l
COM-02-039-1 1-4.29 Revision 0 l
L - . -
acceleration drag are calculated using the equations in the load definition report.
Structures that are within four downcomer diameters below the downcomer exit elevation will sustain a loading, first from the flow field induced by the jet, then from the jet itself if it is within the cross-section of the jet. Forces resulting from the flow field are due to standard drag and acceleration drag. The force from the jet is due to standard drag only, since particles within the jet travel at a constant discharge velocity (i.e., there is no acceleration).
The standard drag torce on the submerged structure is computed based on the normal component of velocity intercepting the structure, the projected area of the structure intercepted by the normal component of velocity, and the jet or flow field area.
For LOCA water jet loads, downcomers are modeled as jet sources for submerged structures based on the location of the structure.
I COM-02-039-1 1-4.30 Revision 0 nut.qq.h
4
^
\ ,
Structures are divided into several sections,
-following the procedure given in the LDR and the criteria given in NUREG-0661. For each section, the
' location, acceleration drag volume, drag coefficient, and orientation are input into the LOCA 2
jet model.
A a
The LOCA water jet loads on circular, cross-4 sectional structures due to standard and accelera-tion drag are developed in accordance with Appendix A of NUREG-0661. For structures with sharp corners, these drag loads are calculated considering forces
= 2 on an equivalent cylinder of diameter Deq Lmax, where Lmax is the maximum transverse dimension. For acceleration drag, this technique results in unrealistic loads on scme structures such as I-beams due to the significant increcse in the acceleration drag volume. In these cases, the acceleration drag volumes in Table 1-4.1-1 are used in the acceleration drag load calculation. A literature search concluded that these acceleration drag volumes are appropriate in this apolication.
References 11 and 12 show that the values in this table are-applicable for the cases evaluated in this i
analysis. The LOCA water jet' load is a transient .
load and is therefore applied dynamically. l b COM-02-039-1 1-4.31 Revision 0 f'
- . - - + , n-m.,. ,--.,,,--,..,.,----n,~,-,, - , . , < , .
, , - - . - , . - -..--,,,--e , ,
Table 1-4.1-1 HYDRODYNAMIC MAS 5 AND ACCELERATION DRAG VOLUMES FOR TWO-DIMENSIONAL STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS (LENGTH L FOR ALL STRUCTURES)
SEC"!CN THRCUGH ACCELERATION ORAG SODY SODY AND ONIFORM HYORCDYNAMIC MASS VOLUME VA FLCW DIREC*tCN R
e otR 2 L 2? Rag CIRCLE bH } sa (a+b) L ELLIPSE
- ana*L f
1 ELLIPSE _ orb 8 L vb(a+b)L t
a .e.-
PLATg e a gra L saa n alb
% '2a ova:L aL(4b+a)
RECTANGLE 10 1.14 ova:L aL(4b+1.14Tal i 5 1.21 owa 2 L aL(4b+1.21xa) 2 1.36 cra 2 L aL(4b+1.36ra) 1 1.51 owa:L aL ( 4b+1. 51ra) 1/2 1.70 cra 3 L aL(4b+1.70na) 1/5 1.98 ora 8 L aL(4b+1.98va) 1/10 2.23 ova:L aL(4b+2.23sa) 2b a/b 2 0.85 ora L aL(2b+0.85ta)
DIAMOND
- 2a 1 0.76 era 2 L aL(2b+0.76ea) 1/2 0.67 ora 2 L aL(2b+0.67ta) 1/5 0.61 ora 8L aL(2b+0.61tal Ch I-BEAM - e 2a (2.11ra 8+2e(2a+b-c))L 2.11 sta 8 L l
JtL1 f 2b &
COM-02-039-1 Revision 0 1-4.32 nutp_qh
,/]
- Table 1-4.1-1
\ } HYDRODYNAMIC MASS AND ACCELERATION DRAG VOLUMES FOR TWO-DIMENSIONAL STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS (LENGTH L FOR ALL STRUCTURES)
(Concluded)
ACCEI.ERATION BO BODY RE ION VC V 3
b/a M 1 0.478 :nar b/4 0.478:a2 b/4 b
1.5 0.630 cra b/4 2 0.680na b/4 RECM7m PI. ATE 7 ' c:
A 7 2 0.840 ova tb/4 0.340sa r df4 h 2.5 0.953 3
2 cra b/4 ora 2 b/4 0.953na r b/4 ca 2 b/4
= cra2 b/4 ia2 b/4 TRIAN % ca8(ta 9)8!1 a 3 (tan 9)s/2 n/
N,.
- c2nR /3 3
SPHERE g 2nR8 /3
- o8R3 /3 8R3 /3 bla ceba2/6 EI.I.IPTICAL
- o 3 0.9 csbas /6 0.9
. DISK
, 2 0.826 caba2 /6 0.826Tba2 /6 1.5 0.748 asba2/6 0.74 8 sba2 /6 s
1.0 0.637 caba /6 0.637 Tbat /6 COM-02-039-1 Revision 0 1-4.33 nutggb
t j 12 10-9 l
i 5g z c 8-I dj 6-c dd 4-l D c 2-I 0 . . . i 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 25 20-
$o
- e 15-0 UJ l
oN
\
au 10 -
r4 w l
5-
, 0 . . . .
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 i
1250 l z 1000-l o _
MN P o 750 -
N*
N 500 -
250 -
l 0 . . . i 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 TIME (sec)
Figure 1-4.1-7 QUARTER-SCALE DOWNCOMER WATER SLUG EJECTION, DRESDEN, TEST 3 - OPERATING DIFFERENTI AL PRESSUPS COM-02-039-1 Revision 0 1-4.34 nutp_qh
12 g 10-E 8-mo S5 aC 6-
$0 s
4-Q 2-0 , , , .
0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 30-25-gg 20-E$
oN 15-av 10-5- .
O V O
0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 1000 z
pg 750-
@8 in 500-m%
A m4 8$
250-0 , , , ,
0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 TIME (sec)
Figure 1-4.1-8 QUARTER-SCALE DOWNCOMER WATER SLUG EJECTION ,
DRESDEN, TEST 5 - ZERO DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE '
COM-02-039-1
\ Revision 0 1-4.35 l nutggb '
l l
LOCA Bubble-Induced Loads on Submerged Structures" O
1-4.1.6 During the initial phase of the DBA, pressurized drywell air is purged into the suppression pool through the submerged downcomers. Af ter. the vent clearing phase of a DBA, a single bubble is formed '
around each downcomer. During the bubble growth period, unsteady fluid motion is created within the suppression pool. During this period, all subnerged structures will be exposed to transient hydrodynamic loads.
s The bases of the flow model and load evaluation for the definition .of LOCA bubble-induced loads on submerged structures are presented in Section 4.3.8 of the load definition report.
After contact between bubbles of adjacent downcomers, the pool swell flow field above the downcomer exit elevation is derived from OSTF plant unique tests (Reference 10). After bubble contact, the load will act only vertically. This pool. swell-drag load is computed using the nethod described in Section 1-4.1.4.2. .
a COM-02-039-1 1-4.36 '
Revision 0 nutacja s
. . . . . - - - _ . = _
l O The parameters which affect load determination are torus geometry, downcomer locations, and thermo-dynamic prop _ ties. Table 1-4.1-2 presents these 1
plant specific data. Figures 1-4.1-9 and 1-4.1-10 show the DBA plant unique transient drywell pressure-time histories, which are inputs into the model.
s The torus is modeled as a rectangular cell with dimensions given in Table 1-4.1-2. The structures are divided into sections and the loads on each section are calculated following the procedure given in the LDR and the criteria given in NUREG-0661.
The procedure used for calculating drag loads on structures with circular and sharp-cornered cross-sections is in accordance with Appendix A of
- NUREG-0661. For some structures with sharp corners such as I-beams, the acceleration drag volumes are calculated using the information in Table 1-4.1-1.
The LOCA bubble loads are transient loads and are therefore applied dynamically. Volume 4 of the PUAR l
g COM-02-039-1 +
l-4.37
, . (_/'
Revision 0
(:
nutggb
presents the plant specific loads for internal structures.
)
O
'l l
l COM-02-039-1 1-4.38 Revision 0 nutgqh
i G
Table 1-4.1-2 PLANT UNIQUE PARAMETERS FOR LOCA BUBBLE DRAG LOAD DEVELOPMENT ZERO AND OPERATING DRYWELL-TO-WETWELL PRESSURE DIFFERENTIAL PARAMETER VALUE NUMBER OF DOWNCOMERS 6 WATER DFPTH IN TORUS (ft) 14.875 ,
WIDTH (ft) 30.0 CELL LENGTH (ft) 21.682 VERTICAL DISTANCE FROM DOWNCOMER EXIT TO TORUS CENTERLINE (ft) 4.125
INSIDE RADIUS (ft) 1.00 DOWNCOMER SUBMERGENCE (ft) 4.00 UNDISTURBED PRESSURE AT' BUBBLE CENTER 16.67 ELEVATION BEFORE THE BUBBLE APPEARS (psia) 17.42 f1I 15.5 PRESSURE BEFORE LOCA (psia)
INITIAL 15.25(1)
DRYWELL TEMPERATURE BEFORE LOCA (OF) 135 OVERALL VENT PIPE LOSS COEFFICIENT 5.17 INITIAL LOCA BUBBLE WALL VELOCITY (ft/sec) 13.53(1)
(1) FOR ZERO PRESSURE DIFFERENTIAL ONLY.
(2) NUMBER OF DOWNCOMERS MODELED DUE TO SYMMETRY.
p ks_, COM-02-039-1 Revision 0 1-4.39 nutggh
l O
20-16-6 s 12-3 8
e a: 8-c.
O 4-0 , , , , ,
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 TIME IN MILLISECONDS Figure 1-4.1-9 QUARTER-SCALE DRYWELL PRESSURE TIME-HISTORY -
OPERATING DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE COM-02-039-1 Revision 0 1-4.40 nutg,gh
20 16 -
d
$ 12 -
5 s
o v2
$ 8-x 4.
4-0 , , , , , ,
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 TIME IN MILLISECONDS Figure 1-4.1-10 QUARTER-SCALE DRYWELL PRESSURE TIME-HISTORY - ZERO DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE COM-02-039-1 Revision 0 1-4.41 nutggh
i l
i Condensation Oscillation Loads 1-4.1.7 This subsection describes the CO loads on the various structures and components in the suppression chamber.
Following the pool swell transient of a postulated LOCA, there is a period during which condensation oscillations occur at the downcomer exit.
Condensation oscillations are associated with the pulsating movement of the steam-water interface, caused by variations in the condensation rate at the downcomer exit. These condensation oscillations cause periodic pressure oscillations on the torus shell, submerged structures, and in the vent sys-tem. The loads specified for CO are based on the Full-Scale Test Facility tests (References 13, 14, and 15). The LDR and NUREG-0661 discuss the bases, assumptions, and methodology for computation of the CO loads, i
l l
l COM-02-039-1 1-4.42 Revision 0 nutggh
~%
CO Loads on the Torus Shell 1-4.1.7.1
\
Loads on the submerged portion of the torus shell during the CO phenomenon consist of pressure oscillations superimposed on the prevailing local static pressures.
The CO load on the torus shell is a rigid wall load specified in terms of the pressure at the torus bottom dead center. It is used in conjunction with a flexible wall coupled fluid-structure torus model. The LDR load definition for CO consists of 50 harmonic loadings with amplitudes which vary with frequency. Three alternate rigid wall pressure amplitude variations in the range of 4 to 16 hertz are specified in the load definition report. A fourth alternate load case is also considered, based on the results of Test M12 from the supplemental test series conducted at the FSTF (References 14 and 15). Table 1-4.1-3 and Figure 1-4.1-11 give the rigid wall pressure amplitude variation with frequency. The alternate frequency spectrum which produces the maximum total response is used for analysis.
COM-02-039-1 1-4.43 l
l Os Revision 0 l l
nutsch l
The effects of all harmonics must be summed to obtain the total response of the structure. Random phasing of the loading harmonics is assumed, based on experimental observations and subsequent analysis.
The implementation of the random phasing approach for the structural evaluation is accomplished by multiplying the absolute sum of the responses of all 50 harmonics by a scale factor. This scale factor is calculated using cumulative distribution function (CDF) curves of the responses at 14 locations on the FSTF torus shell. Each of the CDF curves is generated using 200 sets of random phase angles.
Using this approach, a scale factor of 0.65 is i
developed which results in a nonexceedance 1
probability (NEP) of 84% at a confidence level of i 1
90% (Table 1-4.1-4). This scale factor is applied to the absolute sum of the responses of all 50 harmonics for all Quad Cities Units 1 and 2 torus snell locations evaluated.
The implementation of the random phasing approach for TAP is accomplished by using a set of random phase angles for all 50 harmonics. The effects of each harmonic loading are summed to obtain the total COM-02-039-1 1-4.44 Revision 0 nutggh
response. This response is then multiplied by a j
% scale factor to reach the desired non-exceedance probability. For CO load Alternates 1, 2 and 3, a scale factor of 1.3 is used to yield an 84% NEP at a confidence level of 90%. For Alternate 4, a scale factor of 1.15 is used to yield a 50% NEP at a confidence level of 90%.
Table 1-4.1-4 compares measured and calculated FSTF s- response to CO loads. The calculated FSTF response in this table is determined using CO Load Alternates 1, 2, and 3 and the random phasing approach 4
described above. The calculated response is greater than the measured response in all cases, demonstrat-k ing the conservatism of this approach. Although not shown in Table 1-4.1-4, CO Load Alternate 4 adds approximately 20% to the calculated shell response. Thus, using Alternate 4 in the Quad Cities Units 1 and 2 analysis contributes additional conservatism to the comparison shown in Table 1-4.1-4. This is due to the calculated response for Alternates 1, 2, and 3 already bounding the measured response for Alternate 4, which uses M12.
Table 1-4.1-5 specifies the onset times and dura-tions for condensation oscillation. Test results COM-02-039-1 1-4.45 V
Revision 0 nutgrb l
i i
indicate that for the postulated IBA, CO loads are bounded by chugging loads. Test results also indicate that for the postulated SBA, CO loads are not significant; therefore, none is specified.
The longitudinal CO pressure distribution along the torus centerline is uniform. The cross-sectional variation of the torus wall pressure varies linearly with elevation, from zero at the water surface to the maximum at the torus bottom (Figure 1-4.1-12).
Since torus dimensions and the number of downcomers vary, the magnitude of the CO load differs for each Mark I plant. A multiplication factor was developed to account for the effect of the pool-to-vent brea ratio. This factor is 0.98 for Ouad Cities Units 1 and 2 and was developed using the method described in the LDR (Figures 1-4.1-12 and 1-4.1-13). The Quad Cities plant unique CO load is determined by multiplying the amplitude of the baseline rigid wall load (Table 1-4.1-3) by this factor. Since this factor is close to unity, a factor of 1.0 was conservatively used.
COM-02-039-1 1-4.46 Revision 0 nutggh
-~
Table 1-4.1-3
\-- DBA CONDENSATION OSCILLATION TORUS SHELL PRESSURE AMPLITUDES MAXIMUM PRESSURE AMPLITUDE (psi)
FREQUENCY INTERVALS ALTERNATE ALTERNATE ALTERNATE ALTERNATE (Hz) 1 2 3 4 0-1 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.25 1-2 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.28 2-3 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.33 3-4 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.56 4-5 1.86 1.20 0.24 2.71 5-6 1.05 2.73 0.48 1.17 6-7 0.49 0.42 0.99 0.97 7-8 0.59 0.38 0.30 0.47 8-9 0.59 0.38 0.30 0. 3 4~-
_ 9-10 0.59 0.38 0.30 0.47
( 10-11 0.34 0.79 0.18 0.49 11-12 0.15 0.45 0.12 0.38 12-13 0.17 0.12 0.11 0.20 13-14 0.12 0.08 0.08 0.10 14-15 0.06 0.07 0.03 0.11 15-16 0.10 0.10 0.02 0.08 16-17 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 17-18 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.05 18-19 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.03 19-20 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.34 20-21 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.23 21-22 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.49 22-23 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.37 23-24 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.31 24-25 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.22 1 s.
COM-02-039-1
'N--} Revision 0 1-4.47 nutggh !
l l Table 1-4.1-3 l
I DBA CONDENSATION OSCILLATION TORUS l
SHELL PRESSURE AMPLITUDES (Concluded)
MAXIMUM PRESSURE AMPLITUDE (psi)
FREQUENCY INTE ALTERNATE ALTERNATE ALTERNATE ALTERNATE (H ) 1 2 3 4 25-26 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.50 26-27 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.51 27-28 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.39 28-29 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.27 29-30 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.09 30-31 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 31-32 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.07 32-33 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.05 33-34 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.04 34-35 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.04 35-36 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.07 36-37 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.11 37-38 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.06 38-39 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.05 39-40 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.03 40-41 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.08 41-42 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.19 42-43 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.19 43-44 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.13 44-45 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.18 45-46 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.30 46-47 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.18 47-48 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.19 48-49 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.17 49-50 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.21 l
COM-02-039-1 Revision 0 1-4.48 nutpsh
[N Table 1-4.1-4 FSTF RESPONSE TO CONDENSATION OSCILLATION 1
MAXIMUM MEASURED A A FSTF RESPONSE
RESPONSE
FSTF RESPONSE QUANTITY AT 84% NEP(l)
M8 MllB M12 BOTTOM DEAD CENTER 3.0 2.3 1.6 2.7 AXIAL STRESS (ksi)
BOTTOM DEAD CENTER 3.7 2.6 1.4 2.9 HOOP STRESS (ksi)
BOTTOM DEAD CENTER 0.17 0.11 0.08 0.14 DISPLACEMENT (in)
INSIDE COLUMN 184 93 FORCE (kips) 68 109 OUTSIDE CgLUMN 208 110 81 141 FORCE (kips)
(1) USING CO LOAD ALTERNATES 1, 2, AND 3.
h)
(,
COM-02-039-1 Revision 0 1-4.49 nutggb
j Table 1-4.1-5
! CONDENSATION OSCILLATION ONSET AND DURATION N T TIME DURATION BREAK SIZE AFTER BREAK AFTER ONSET DBA 5 SECONDS 30 SECONDS II)
IBA 5 SECONDS Il) 300 SECONDS SBA NOT APPLICABLE NOT APPLICABLE l
~
l 1. FOR THE IBA, CHUGGING LOADS AS DEFINED IN SECTION 1-4.1.8.2 ARE USED.
O i
l l
COM-02-039-1 Revision 0 1-4.50 nutpah
s
\ ALTERNATE 2 J = = .
1 1 _1 m ALTERNATE 1 m a C 2- C a2" 5 5 5 3 3 3
$ $ ALTERNATE 3 4 - 4 h 1 1 1 E E -
E l 5 - 8 - 5 - .
s 0 b $o s
If w $
6 0 h . l 5 10 15 5 10 15 5 10 15 i FREQUENCY (82) FREQUENCY (Hz) FREQUENCY (Hz)
C 2~
j 'F- At ERNA E-1, 2, or 3 1
---]
u r ~R -
! T r.n 0 JTf "f h s0
$ 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
% FREQUENCY (Hz)
\
_ ALTERNATE 4 13 .
5 u
O 2-5 3
I -
<1-g .
z a -
b.
m o-i h. - 4 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 FREQUENCY (Hz)
ALL AMPLITUDES REPRESENT ONE-HALF OF THE PEAK-TO-PEAK AMPLITUDE.
Figure 1-4.1-11 CONDENSATION OSCILLATION BASELINE RIGID WALL PRESSURE AMPLITUDES ON TORUS SHELL BOTTOM DEAD CENTER g COM-02-039-1 A Revision 0 1-4.51 nutggb
O WETWELL AIRSPACE i
FREE SURFACE 1
1 _U _ - --
t SUPPRESSSION POOL
. O V ,
A
[ A m y A
=1 MAX
- 1. A = LOCAL PRESSURE OSCILLATION AMPLITUDE.
- 2. A MX = MAXIMUM PRESSURE OSCILLATION AMPLITUDE (AT TORUS BOTTOM DEAD CENTER)
{
l Figure 1-4.1-12 l MARK I CONDENSATION OSCILLATION -
TORUS VERTICAL CROSS-SECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION FOR PRESSURE OSCILLATION AMPLITUDE COM-02-039-1 Revision 0 1-4.52 nutggh
s -
N s d s' 8
< 3:
H l to o
- e. w 1.1 N QUAD CITIES UNITS 1&2 o, m 1. 0 -
s Fa o (1. 0) ( . 9 8) 8 0.9-O
, [ 0.8- .
0.7-
!. o g 0.6- l
- U d 0.5-
- z O
e 0.4-e,a H 0.3- POOL FREE SURFACE AREA (INCLUDING VENTS)
POOL-TO-VENT AREA RATIO =
VENT EXIT CROSS-SECTIONAL AREA 0.2- QUAD CITIES UNITS 1&2 LOAD AMPLITUDE D MULTIPLICATION FACTOR =
4 E PROTOTYPICAL RIGID WALL LOAD AMPLITilDE 0.1-
! 0- , , , , , , , ,
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 POOL-TO-VENT AREA RATIO i
Figure 1-4.1-13 l
) MARK I CONDENSATION OSCILLATION - MULTIPLICATION FACTOR TO ACCOUNT FOR Tile EFFECT OF Tile POOL-TO-VENT AREA RATIO m_ ___ __ -_ _ _ _ .
1-4.1.7.2 CO. Loads on the Downcomer and Vent System Downcomer Dynamic Loads The downcomers experience loading during the CO phase of a blowdown. The procedure, for defining the dynamic portion of this loading for both a DBA and an IBA is prosented in this section. Condensation oscillation loads do .To t occur for the SBA. The bases, assumptions, and loading definition details are presented in the load definition report.
l The downcomer dynamic load involves two components:
(1) an internal pressure load of equal magnitude in each downcomer in a pair, and (2) a differential pressure load between i
downcomers in a pair.
Both the internal pressure load and the differential l
1 pressure load have three frequency bands over which they are applied. Figure 1-4.1-14 shows a typical downcomer and a schematic of downcomer loading conditions during the CO phase of a blowdown.
COM-02-039-1 1-4.54 Revision 0 nutp_qh
Table-l-4.1-6 lists the downcomer internal pressure loads for the DBA CO period. Figure 1-4.1-15 shows the internal pressure load and the three frequency baisds over which it is applied. The dominant downcomer frequency is determined from a harmonic analysis, where the dominant downcomer frequency is shown to occur in the frequency range of the second The 4
- CO downcomer load harmonic (see Volume 3).
first and third CO downcomer load harmonics are
' therefore applied at frequencies equal to 0.5 and 1.5 times the value of the dominant downcomer frequency.
Table 1-4.1-7 defines the downcomer differential pressure loads for the DBA CO period. Appl.ication of the dominant harmonic differential pressures is I
the same as for the internal pressure application previously discussed. Figure 1-4.1-16 shows the differential pressure amplitudes and frequency ranges.
Figure 1-4.1-17 shows how the downcomer CO dynamic loads are applied to the different downcomer pairs on the Quad Cities Units 1 and 2 vent header system.
The total response of the downcomer-vent header f] /
COM-02-039-1.
Revision 0 1-4.55
,, - ,w ~. , . - - - - n- -
- . , , n - , , ,
,-g..- --,-,,,-,,,,,.n - - . ,-e. - ~.-- - . - - ,
intersection to the CO dynamic load is the sum of the responses from the internal and differential pressure components. All eight load cases are evaluated, and the case with the maximum response is useo for analysis.
Table 1-4.1-8 provides the downcomer internal pressure loads for the IBA CO period. Figure 1-4.1-18 shows these downcomer internal pressure load values and the range of application. Table 1-4.1-9 gives the downcomer differential pressure 1
I loads for the IBA CO period. The procedure used to evaluate the IBA CO downcomer loads is the same as that used for the DBA CO downcomer loads. The load cases for the IBA loads are also the same as for the DBA loads; therefore, Figure 1-4.1-17 is used.
Vent System Loads Loads on the vent system during the CO phenomenon l
j result from harmonic pressure oscillations l
l superimposed on the prevailing local static l
pressures in the vent system.
COM-02-039-1 1-4.56 Revision 0 nutp_qh
I 4
i Condensation oscillation loads are specified for all l
! three major components of the vent system: (1) the I main vents, (2) the vent header, and (3) the l
downcomers' (Table As determined from
- 1-4.1-10).
FSTF data, these loads are generic and thus directly applicable to all Mark I plants.
In addition to the oscillating pressure described above, a uniform static pressure is applied to the main vents, vent header, and the downcomers to i account for the nominal submergence of the downcomers.
l i
i 1
i l'
i 4
l:
i i
COM-02-039-1 1-4.57 Revision 0
Table 1-4.1-6 DOWNCOMER INTERNAL PRESSURE LOADS FOR DBA CONDENSATION OSCILLATION I
PRESSURE APPLIED FREQUENCY .
psi) FREQUENCY RANGE (Hz)
DOMINANT 3.6 4-8 SECOND HARMONIC 1.3 8-16 THIRD HARMONIC 0.6 12-24 l
9 i
l l
COM-02-039-1 Revision 0 1-4.58 nutp_qb
Table 1-4.1-7 DOWNCOMER DIFFERENTAL PRESSURE LOADS FOR DBA CONDENSATIOJ OSCILLATION PRESSURE FREQUENCY (psU FREQUENCY RANGE (Hz)
DOMINANT 2.85 4-8 SECOND HARMONIC 2.6 8-16 THIRD HARMONIC 1.2 12-24 COM-02-039-1 Revision 0 1-4.59 nutggh
Table 1-4.1-8 DOWNCOMER INTERNAL PRESSURE LOADS FOR IBA CONDENSATION OSCILLATION APPLIED PRESSURE FREQUENCY (psi) FREQUENCY RANGE (Hz) e DOMINANT 1.1 6-10 SECOND HARMONIC 0.8 12-20 THIRD HARMONIC 0.2 18-30 l
l O
l l
COM-02-039-1 Revision 0 1-4.60 nut.e_qh
i Table 1-4.1-9 DOWNCOMER DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE sOADS FOR IBA CONDENSATION OSCILLATION PRESSURE APPLIED FREQUENCY p s d. FREQUENCY RANGE (Hz)
DOMINANT 0.2 6-10 SECOND HARMONIC 0.2 12-20 THIRD HARMONIC 0.2 18-30 0
COM-02-039-1 Revision 0 1-4.61 l nutp_ch y- -p r--- y .,,
, .-,w ,ee , , --g ,e ee.,...w.
Table 1-4.1-10 ,
i CONDENSATION OSCILLATION LOADS ON THE VENT SYSTEM COMPONENTS DBA IBA AMPLITUDE *2.5 psi 2.5 psi AT FREQUENCY OF AT FREQUENCY OF FREQUENCY RANGE MAXIMUM RESPONSE MAXIMUM RESPONSE MAIN VENT IN 4-8 Hz RANGE IN 6-10 Hz RANGE AND VENT HEADER FORCING FUNCTION SINUSOIDAL SINUSOIDAL SPAT UNIFORM UNIFORM g B W AMPLITUDE 5.5 psi 2.1 psi AT FREQUENCY OF AT FREQUENCY OF FREQUENCY RANGE MAXIMUM RESPONSE MAXIMUM RESPONSE IN 4-8 Hz RANGE IN 6-10 Hz RANGE DOWNCOMERS FORCING FUNCTION SINUSOIDAL SINUSOIDAL FOM WIFOM l
DISTRIBU ION COM-02-039-1 Revision 0 1-4.62 nutg,gh
O O O n
<3 sa
>** tJ O s u
oo I l l H ..
+
=
P A c g -e *+w-e w -Wawwar --e9 - --+t y y
1-4.1.8.1 Chugging Loads on the Torus Shell During the chugging regime of a postulated LOCA, the chugging loads on the torus shell occur as a series of chug cycles. The chugging load cycles are divided into pre-chug and post-chug portions. The l bases for pre-chug and post-chug rigid wall load definitions are presented in the load definition report.
For the pre-chug portion of the chug cycle, both symmetric and asymmetric loading conditions are used to conservatively account for any randomness in the chugging phenomenon. The asymmetric loading is based on both low and high amplitude chugging data conservatively distributed around the torus in order to maximize the asymmetric loading.
In order to bound the post-chug portion of the chug cycle, symmetric loads are used. Asymmetric loads are not specified since any azimuthal response would be governed by the asymmetric pre-chug low frequency load specification.
COM-02-039-1 1-4 74 Revision 0 nutggh
~. . . _ .
1 r Presented in Table 1-4.1-12 are the chugging onset times and durations for the DBA, IBA, and SBA, which are in accordance with the LDR. Quad Cities Units 1 and 2 utilize motor-driven feedwater pumps, and the IBA scenario for this configuration is described in Section 2.2 of the load definition report. For the SBA, the automatic depressurization system (ADS) is assumed to initiate 600 seconds after the break and the reactor is assumed to be depressurized 600 seconds after ADS initiation, when chugging ends.
For the IBA, the reactor is assumed to be depressurized 200 seconds after ADS initiation, when chugging ends. . Table 1-4.1-12 shows these chugging.
durations,
- a. Pre-Chug Load The symmetric pre-chug torus shell pressure load is specified as *2 psi, applied uniformly alo'ng the torus longitudinal axis. Figure 1-4.1-20 shows the longitudinal distribution
~
of the asymmetric pre-chug pressure load, which varies from *0.4 to *2.0 psi. The pre-chug cross-sectional distribution for both symmetric and asymmetric cases is the same as l
O COM-02-039-1 1-4.75
'(%<) Revision 0 nutggh
for CO (Figure 1-4.1-21). The pre-chug loads are applied at the structural frequency in the rat.ge of 6.9 to 9.5 hertz. Table 1-4.1-12 shows the pre-chug load of 0.5 second duration is applied at 1.4 second intervals for the appropriate total chugging duration.
- b. Post-Chug Load Table 1-4.1-13 and Figure 1-4.1-20 define the amplitude versus frequency variation for the post-chug torus shell pressure load. The load is applied uniformly along the torus longi-tudinal axis. The cross-sectional variation is the same for CO and pre-chug loads (Figure 1-4.1-21). The steady-state responses from the application of the pressure amplitudes at each frequency given in Figure 1-4.1-22 are summed. The summation for the condensation oscillation load is performed as described in Section 1-4.1.7.1. Table 1-4.1-12 shows the l post-chug load of 0.5 second duration is applied at 1.4 second intervals for the appro-priate total duration.
l COM-02-039-1 1-4.76 Revision 0 nutggh
Table 1--4.1-12 CHUGGING ONSET AND DURATION ONSET TIME DURATION BREAK SIZE AFTER BREAK AFTER ONSET DBA 35 SECONDS 30 SECONDS IBA 905 SECONDS 200 SECONDS SBA 300 SECONDS 900 SECONDS l
l l
l O COM-02-039-1 Revision 0 1-4.77 nutggb
Table 1-4.1-13 POST-CHUG RIGID WALL PRESSURE AMPLITUDES ON TORUS SHELL BOTTOM DEAD CENTER FREQUENCY P RESSURE PRESSURE RANGE (1) . RANGE (1) .
(psi) psi)
(Hz) (Hz) 0-1 0.04 25-26 0.04 1-2 0.04 26-27 0.28 2-3 0.05 27-28 0.18 3-4 0.05 28-29 0.12 4-5 0.06 29-30 0.09 5-6 0.05 30-31 0.03 6-7 0.10 31-32 0.02 7-8 0.10 32-33 0.02 8-9 0.10 33-34 0.02 9-10 0.10 34-35 0.02 10-11 0.06 35-36 0.03 11-12 0.05 36-37 0.05 12-13 0.03 37-38 0.03 13-14 0.03 38-39 0.04 -
14-15 0.02 39-40 0.04 15-16 0.02 40-41 0.15 16-17 0.01 41-42 0.15 17-18 0.01 42-43 0.1S 18-19 0.01 43-44 0.15 l 19-20 0.04 44-45 0.15 20-21 0.03 45-46 0.15 21-22 0.05 46-47 0.15 22-23 0.05 47-48 0.15 23-24 0.05 48-49 0.15 24-25 0.04 49-50 0.15 (1) HALF-RANGE ( = ONE-HALF PEAK-TO-PEAK AMPLITUDE),
COM-02-039-1 Revision 0 1-4.78 nutggh
. 180 V '
I 270 - - + -90
-0 i
0 PLAN VIEW OF TORUS C .
- ]a l 2-1-
BE "m 0-en x E8 O4 h -1, , , , ,
0 90 180 270 360 0 (degree)
- 1. THE AMPLITUDE SHOWN HERE REPPISENTS ONE-HALF OF THE PEAK-TO-PEAK AMPLITUDE.
- 2. HIGHEST VALUE IN BAY APPLIED OVER THE ENTIRE BAY.
Figure 1-4.1-20 MARK I CHUGGING - TORUS ASYMMETRIC LONGITUDINAL DISTRIBUTION FOR PRESSURE AMPLITUDE T
sj COM-02-039-1 Revision 0 1-4.79 nutggb
O !
WETWELL AIPSP ACE FREE 3
SURFACE =0 l _ U_ __ _ _
- 1
_T SUPPRESSION POOL x
Y 3 9 m
L^=1 A ' "
A
=1 MX A MX
- 1. A = LOCAL PRESSURE OSCILLATION AMPLITUDE .
- 2. A = MAXIMUM PPESSURE OSCILLATION AMPLITUDE
( AT TORUS BOTTOM DEAD CENTER) .
Figure 1-4.1-21 MARK I CHUGGING - TORUS VERTICAL CROSS-SECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION FOR PRESSURE AMPLITUDE COM-02-039-1 l Revision 0 1-4.80 l
i nutggj)
O .
.5 O
w -
8 -
E _
1 1,1 1 l h" 7-0 ..
7 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 FREQUENCY (Hz)
O
- 1. THE AMPLITUDE SHOWN HERE REPRESENTS ONE-HALF OF THE PEAK-TO-PEAK AMPLITUDE.
Figure 1-4.1- 22 POST-CHUG RIGID WALL PRESSURE AMPLITUDES ON TORUS SHELL BOTTOM DEAD CENTER j
) COM-02-039-1 Revision 0 1-4.81 nutggb
1-4.1.8.2 Chugging Downcomer Lateral Loads During the chugging phase of a postulated LOCA, vapor bubbles which form at the downcomer exit collapse suddenly and intermittently to produce lateral loads on the downcomer. This section presents the procedure for defining the dynamic portion of this loading for a DBA, an IBA, and a small break accident.
The basis for the chugging lateral load definition is the data obtained from the inst.umented downcomers of the Mark I Full-Scale Test Facility.
The load definition was developed for, and is directly applicable to, downcomer pairs which are untied. Based on FSTF observations, this load definition is also applicable to tied downcomers.
The FSTF downcomer lateral loads are defined as resultant static-equivalent loads (RSEL) which, when applied statically to the end of the downcomer, reproduce the measured bending response near the downcomer-vent header junction at any given time.
COM-02-039-1 1-4.82 Revision 0 nutggh
The loads associated with chugging obtained from the FSTF data are scaled to determine plant specific loads for Quad Cities Units 1 and 2. The maximum 1
downcomer design load, histograms of load reversals, and the maximum vent system loading produced by 1
synchronous chugging of the downcomers are i determined from the FSTF loads.
I
! NUREG-0661 states that the force per downcomer should be based on a probability of exceedance of 10~4 per LOCA for multiple downcomers during chugging. This requirement relates to the potential
'l for a number of downcomers experiencing a lateral
% load in the same direction at the same time. The
}
j correlation between load magnitude and probability 1
! level was derived from a statistical analysis of u
f' FSTF data. A probability of exceedance of 10~4 per i
LOCA bounds all' the load cases up to about 120 i
downcomers during chugging at the same time in a given plant. Quad Cities Units 1 and 2 have only 96 downcomers; therefore, a probability of exceedance of 10- per LOCA is conservative and is used for the l two chugging load cases (Figure 1-4.1-23).
W COM-02-039-1 1-4.83 Revision 0 s
l ,
For fatigue evaluation of the downcomers, the required stress reversals at the downcomer-vent header junction are obtained from the FSTF RSEL reversal histograms. The plant unique junction stress reversals are obtained by scaling the FSTF RSEL reversals by the ratio of the chugging duration specified for Quad Cities Units 1 and 2 to that of the full-scale test facility. Table 1-4.1-12 specifies chugging durations for the DBA, IBA, and small break accident.
O COM-02-039-1 1-4.84 Revision 0 nutg,qh
i l l 1
\
i 10 O
c: m OO AB CD z
- EM wm 5 DOWNCOMERS m
oz
. xs w 10 Nu Oz O
>+
E* E*
-m a<
MW ma O <
as O<
c:
10 10 l
20 l
40 120 80
-4 t 10 a a i i
- 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 FORCE PER DOWNCOMER (kips) l Figure 1-4.1-23 PROBABILITY OF EXCEEDING A GIVEN FORCE PER DOWNCOMER FOR DIFFERENT NUMBERS OF DOWNCOMERS COM-02-039-1 Revision 0 1-4.85 nutggb
1-4.1.8.3 Chugging Loads on Submerged Structures l
l Chugging at the downcomer exits induces bulk water motion, and therefore creates drag loads on structures submerged in the pool. The submerged )
structure load definition method for chugging follows triat used to predict drag forces caused by condensation oscillations (see section 1-4.1.7.3),
except that the source strength for chugging is proportional to the wall load measurement corresponding to the chugging regime.
The LDR presents the bases and assumptions of the flow model for the chugging load definition. Table 1-4.1-14 presents the source amplitudes for pre-chug and post-chug regimes.
The load development procedure for chugging loads on submerged structures is the same as presented in Section 1-4.1.7.3 for CO loads and is in accordance with NUREG-0661. The responses from the 50 harmonics are summed as described in Section 1-4.1.7.1. Acceleration drag volumes for structures with sharp corners (e.g., I-beams) are calculated using equations from Table 1-4.1-1. Fluid-structure i
l CoM-02-039-1 1-4.86 Revision 0 nutggb
l interaction effects are included as described in Section 1-4.1.7.3.
l l
COM-02-039-1 1-4.87 ,
Revision 0 )
1 nutgqb
I Table 1-4.1-14 AMPLITUDES AT VARIOUS FREQUENCIES FOR CHUGGING SOURCE FUNCTION FOR LOADS ON SUBMERGED STRUCTURES FREQUENCY AMPLITUDE CHUGGING (Hz) (ft3/sec2) l PRE 6.9 - 9.5 195.70 0-2 11.98 2-3 10.36
! 3-4 9.87 4-5 17.40 l
5-6 17.00 l
l 6-10 18.88 10-11 87.90 11-12 76.18 l 12-13 41.01 POST 13-14 35.89 14-15 6.82 15-16 6.20 16-17 3.14 17-18 4.18 18-19 2.94 19-20 16.82 20-21 17.53 21-22 30.67 COM-02-039-1 Revision 0 1-4.88 nutggh
Table 1-4.1-14 AMPLITUDES AT VARIOUS FREQUENCIES FOR CHUGGING SOURCE FUNCTION FOR LOADS ON SUBMERGED STRUCTUP2S (Concluded)
CHUGGING FREQUENCY AMPLITUDE (Hz) (ft /sec2) 3 22-24 92.39 24-25 134.50 25-26 313.84 26-27 377.83 27-28 251.89 28-29 163.32 h 29-30 116.66 G 30-31 43.14 POST 31-32 21.57 32-33 37.91 33-34 50.54 34-35 42.54 35-36 61.87 36-37 41.95 37-38 20.97 38-39 24.47 I 39-40 29.37 40-50 224.90
(, COM-02-039-1 Revision 0 1-4.89 nutggb e
e- + w----g +- --g - - + ,- e,--- *-- y-a
i I
l-4.2 Safety Relief Valve Discharge Loads This section discusses the procedures used to determine loads created when one or more SRV's is actuated.
When a SRV actuates, pressure and thrust loads are exerted on the SRVDL piping and the T-quencher discharge device. In addition, the expulsion of water followed by air into the suppression pool through the T-quencher results in pressure loads on f the submerged portion of the torus shell and in drag loads on submerged structures.
The T-quencher utilized in Quad Cities Units 1 and 2 is a plant unique version of the Mark I T-quencher described in the load definition report. The Ouad Cities Units 1 and 2 T-quencher has 12", Schedule 160 arms which are connected to the ramshead. The T-quencher is located at the centerline of the torus and is offset l'-1" from bay centerline (Figure 1-2.1-16). The SRVDL is slanted from the vertical going into the ramshead. Figures 1-4.2-1 and l l-4.2-2 show the details of the hole distribution along the arm and illustrate the geometry of the SRVDL, ramshead, and T-quencher connection.
COM-02-039-1 1-4.90 Revision 0 nutggb
i-a n
1 Volume 5 of this PUAR provides a detailed descrip-l tion of the SRVDL, T quencher, and their related i
L support structures.
i-As allowed in Section 2.13.9 of Appendix A of NUREG-0661, plant unique SRV testing at Dresden Unit 2 has been performed to confirm .that the computed loadings and predicted structural responses for SRV discharges are conservative. The in-plant SRV tests
.i j at Dresden Unit 2 are applicable to both Quad Cities i i
i Units 1 and 2 due to their similarity, as discussed 2
in Section 1-1.0. !
5 1
I l
3 1
I r
i, 4
+
t 4
i COM-0 2-0 3 9--1 1-4.91 l Revision 0 4
f
. , - , . - , _ , , . . . . ,,,..._,,-,,.._....r, .v..~.,_,.... -_ __._. _ . _,.._.--,,_._..a.._.._.,__..
SYMMETRICAL ABOUT q c
e SRV LINE REDUCER 87.68 " TYP HOLE PATTERN END CAP HM T-QUENCHER ARM (TYP) ( (TYP)
I
[ 8 8
+ 8 $
(
8 8 8 8 y jq 2 1/2" l'-6_" 94.70" 7" A '
I PLAN VIEW O
SRV LINE-
,7 RAMSHEAD 8"
1.-6" i SECTION A-A Figure 1-4.2-1 T-QUENCHER AND SRV LINE COM-02-039-1 Revision 0 1-4.92 nutggb
n A B C O E 15 ROWS 8 ROWS 8 ROWS 14 ROWS 3
. J
_2.50" 1.97". 3.50" _l.97" 2.02" F J^ Ja Jc d W5 94.70" ___7a _
TYPICAL T-QUENCHER HOLES WITH ENDCAP HOLES 11 HOLES 13 HOLES 3 HOLES 7 HOLES EQUALLY EQUALLY
~ EQUALLY 7 EQUALLY
- SPACED
~
- SPACED ~,
- SPACED l SPACED o *
- I 64.8
$4 10.8 0 (j' '32.4*
SECTION A-A SECTION B-B SECTION C-C SECTION D-D
[
/
.kv SYMMETRICAL ABOUT q g E--- 3 91. 9 7 *
O 0
- EQ
- + SPACED [ g* lg
. . HOLES TO BE 9 HOLES 11 HOLES PARALLEL WITH SPACED AT SPACED AT CNTERLINE 0.78* (TYP) 0.78* (TYP)
SECTION E-E SECTION F-F SECTION G-G
- 1. ALL HOLE PATTERNS SYMMETRICAL ABOUT q,.
- 2. ALL HOLES ARE 0.391" IN DIAMETER.
l 3. SPACINGS NOT SHOWN ARE 1.97" Figure 1-4.2-2 ELEVATION AND SECTION VIEWS OF T-QUENCHER AP31 HOLE PATTERNS b
(,); COM-02-039-1 Revision 0 1-4.93 nutggh
1-4.2.1 SRV Actuation Cases This section provides a discussion on the selection of SRV discharge cases considered for design load evaluations. The load cases summarized in Table 1-4.2-1 are described as follows.
Load Case A1.1 (Normal Operating Conditions (NOC),
First Actuation)
The first actuation of a SRV may occur under normal operating conditions; i.e., the SRVDL is cold, there is air in the drywell, and the water in the SRV is at its normal operating level.
Load Case Al.2 (SBA/IBA, First Actuation)
First actuation of SRV(s) is assumed to occur at the predicted time of ADS actuation. At this time, the SRVDL is full of air at the pressure corresponding to the drywell pressure 1
minus the vacuum breaker set point. The water level inside the line is depressed below the normal operating level because the drywell COM-02-039-1 1-4.94 Revision 0 nutggb
m pressure is higher than the wetwell pressure ,
by a pressure differential equal to the downcomer submergence.
i Load Case A1.3 (DBA, First Actuation) i The same assumptions are used as for Case A1.1, except for SRV flowrate. This load case is bounded by Case Al.l.
i Load Case B (First Actuation, Leaking SRV)
First actuation of a SRV may occur under NOC g
for leaking safety relief valves. For T-quenchers, Load Case A1.1 bounds the leaking 4
SRV load.
i Load Case C3.1 (NOC, Subsequent Actuation, Normal Water Leg)
After the SRV is closed following a first '
actuation (Case A1.1), the steam in the line is condensed, causing a rapid pressure drop which draws water back into.the line. At the same time, the vacuum breaker allows air from the drywell- to enter . the discharge line. The COM-02-039-1 1-4.95 Revision 0
air repressurizes the line and the water refloods to a point which is higher than its equilibrium height, and oscillates back to its equilibrium point. A subsequent actuation is assumed to occur after the water level oscillations have damped out and the water leg has returned to the normal water level.
Load Case C3.2 (SBA/IBA, Subsequent Actuation)
Following SRV closure after the first actuation (Case A1.2) in the SBA/IBA, the water refloods back into~ the line, while air from the drywell flows through the vacuum breaker into the SRV discharge line. The SRV is assumed to actuate after the water level oscillations have damped out and the level has stabilized at a point determined by the drywell-to-wetwell AP minus the vacuum breaker set point.
Load Case C3.3 (SBA/IBA, Subsequent Actuation, Steam in SRVDL)
This case differs from the previous case in that during the reflood transient, steam, COM-02-039-1 1-4.96 Rovision 0 nutgrJ)
l A instead of air, flows through the vacuum breaker. Thus, the line contains very little air and the loading imposed on the torus shell from this subsequent SRV actuation is bounded by Case C3.2.
The SRVDL water leg is assumed at its equilibrium 1
height for all subsequent actuation SRV cases. The time after the first valve closure when the equilibrium height is reestablished is calculated using the LDR SRVDL reflood model. Quad Cities Units 1 and 2 primary system transient analyses are used to confirm that more than the minimum required time is available for the SRVDL water leg to return
)
to the equilibrium position. To further insure that the SRVDL water leg will be at its equilibrium height for all subsequent SRV actuation cases, Quad i
Cities Units 1 and 2 will have delay logic on the two lowest-set relief valves to allow this water leg to clear after initial actuation. For the steam-in-the-drywell conditions, a steam-water convective heat transfer coefficient of 2 x 105 BTU /hr ft2..R is used. This conservative coefficient is based on the results of a literature survey on chugging and the downcomer water column -rise characteristics
( COM-02-039-1 1-4.97 G)- Revision 0
during chugging in the Mark I Full-Scale Test Facility.
The number of SRV's predicted to actuate for each of the above conditions is maximized in performing the Quad Cities Units 1 and 2 structural evaluations, documented in the remaining volumes of the plant unique analysis report. Section 1-4.3 describes the other hydrodynamic loads which must be combined with SRV loads.
O COM-02-039-1 1-4.98 Revision 0 l
nutgg])
Table 1-4.2-1 SRV LOAD CASE / INITIAL CONDITIONS DESIGN INITIAL CONDITION, ANY ONE ADS MULTIPLE LOAD CASE VALVE VALVES VALVES (l)
NOC, FIRST ACTUATION A1.1 A3.2 SBA/IBA, FIRST ACTUATION A1.2 A2.2 A3.2 DBA, FIRST ACTUATION (2) A1.3 NOC, LEAKING SRV(3) B3.l I4)
NOC, SUBSEQUENT ACTUATION C3.1 SBA/IBA, SUBSEQUENT ACTUATION, AIR IN SRVDL C' 2 SBA/IBA, SUBSEQUENT ACTUATION, STEAM IN SRVDL C3.3 O (1) THE NUMBER (ONE OR MORE) AND LOCATION OF VALVES ASSUMED TO ACTUATE ARS DETERMINED BY PLANT UNIQUE ANALYSIS.
(2) THIS ACTUATION IS ASSUMED TO OCCUR COINCIDENT WITH THE POOL SWELL EVENT. ALTHOUGH SRV ACTUATION CAN OCCUR LATER IN THE DBA, THE RESULTING AIR LOADING ON THE TORUS SHELL IS NEGLI-GIBLE SINCE THE AIR AND WATER INITIALLY IN THE LINE WILL BE CLEARED AS THE DRYWELL-TO-WETWELL AP INCREASES DURING THE DBA TRANSIENT.
(3) THIS IS APPLICABLE TO RAMSHEAD DISCHARGE ONLY.
(4) ONLY ONE VALVE OF THE MULTIPLE GROUP IS ASSUMED TO LEAK.
j () COM-02-039-1 Revision 0 1-4.99 l
nutggb
1-4.2.2 SRV Discharge Line Clearing Loads The flow of high pressure steam into the discharge line when a SRV opens results in the development of a pressure wave at the entrance to the line. During the early portion of this transient, a substantial pressure differential exists across the pressure wave. This pressure differential, plus momentum effects from steam (or water in initially submerged pipe runs) flowing around elbows in the line, results in transient thrust loads on the SRV dis-charge piping segments. These loads are considered in the design of SRV piping restraints, the SRV penetrations in the vent lines, and the T-quencher support system.
The LDR presents the bases, assumptions, and descriptions of the SRV discharge line clearing analytical model. The parameters affecting SRVDL clearing loads development are the SRVDL geometry, plant specific initial conditions for the SRV actuation cases, and the SRV mass flowrate. Table 1-4.2-2 presents plant specific initial conditions for various actuation cases. Table 1-4.2-3 presents common (but case-independent) SRVDL analysis input parameters. All calculation input procedures for COM-02-039-1 1-4.100 Revision 0 nutggh
~ . _. .. . _ . - - - _ ~ - __. - _ . - - - _ _ _ _ . _ _ _
i m
the SRVDL clearing model are consistent with the load definition report.
- The-line clearing model is used to obtain transient f r
values for each SRV actuation case for each SRVDL {
i for the following parameters or loads. !
- SRVDL Pressures and Temperatures
- Thrust Loads on SRVDL Piping Segments
- T-quencher Internal Discharge Pressure and Temperature j -
Water Slug Mass Flowrate Water Clearing Time, velocity, and Accelera-tion i
l The values obtained for T-quencher discharge pressure and water clearing time are used as inputs 4
to evaluate the torus shell loads (Section 1-4.2.3)
I and SRV air bubble drag loads (Section 1 -- 4 . 2 . 4 ) on submerged structures. The water slug mass flowrate and acceleration are used as inputs to calculations of SRV water jet loads on submerged structures l (Section 1-4.2.4).
4
'O COM-02-039-1 Revision 0 1-4.101 i
The water clearing thrust load along the axis of the T-quencher (due to the uneven flowsplit in the ramshead), and the thrust load perpendicular to the T-quencher arms .(due to a skewed air-water interface) are calculated as specified in the load definition report.
The calculation procedures, load definitions, and applications used for SRV water and air clearing thrust and all other SRV water clearing loads are in accordance with the LDR and Appendix A of NUREG-0661.
O I COM-02-039-1 1-4.102 l
Revision 0 nutggh
Table 1-4.2-2 PLANT UNIQUE INITIAL CONDITIONS FOR ACTUATION CASES USED FOR SRVDL CLEARING TRANSIENT LOAD DEVELOPMENT PARAMETER CME CASE CASE A1.1 A1.2 C3.1 C3.2 PRESSURE IN THE WETWELL (psia) 14.65 40.37 14.65 40.37 PRESSURE IN THE DRYWELL (psia) 15.65 42.1 15.65 42.1 AP VACUUM BREAKER (psid) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 INITIAL PIPE WALL TEMPERATURE 115 340 350 350 IN THE WETWELL AIRSPACE (OF)
INITIAL PIPE WALL TEMPERATURE 90 130 90 130 IN THE SUPPRESSION POOL (OF)
INITIAL AIR PRESSURE IN SRVDL (psla) 15.45 41.9 15.45 41.9 SR D lb ft 0.0725 0.1414 0.0515 0.1396 INITIAL .WA*2ER VOLUME IN SRVDL 13.603 13.069 13.603 13.069 AND T-QUENCHER (ft )
{s
(
) COM-02-039-1 Revision 0 1-4.103 nutggb
I Table p N l SRVDL ANALYSIS PARAMETERS PARAMETER VALUE DESIGN SRV FLOW RATE (lbm/sec) 215.3 STEAM LINE PRESSURE (psia) 1200 STEAM DENSITY IN THE STEAM LINE (lbm/ft3) 2.76 RATIO OF AREAS OF DISCHARGE DEVICE EXIT 1.183 TO TOTAL T-QUENCHER ARM O
COM-02-039-1 Revision 0 1-4. 104 nutggh
t 1
, 1-4.2.3 SRV Loads on the Torus Shell Following SRV actuation, the air mass in the SRVDL is expelled into the suppression pool, forming many small air bubbles. These bubbles then coalesce into four larger bubbles which expand and contract as they rise and break through the pool surface. The positive and negative dynamic pressures developed within these bubbles result in an oscillatory, attenuated pressure loading on the torus shell.
l The analytical A.odel which is used to predict air bubble and torus shell boundary pressures resulting x from SRV discharge is similar to that described in d
) The analytical model in Reference 16 Reference 16.
was modified slightly to more closely bound the magnitudes and time characteristics of pressures observed in the Monticello test. Figure 1-4.2-3 shows a comparison of the shell pressure-time history measured during the Monticello test to the shell pressure-time history computed using the revised analytical model. The comparison is shown for shell pressures at the bottom of the torus beneath the quencher, where the highest shell pressures were observed. Figure 1-4.2-3 shows that-COM-02-039-1 1-4.105 l Revision 0 Ng
~
nutggb
the predicted shell pressures envelop those observed in the Monticello test.
The pressure-cime history generated using the ana-lytical model discussed above is used to perform a forced vibration analysis of the suppression cham-ber. The phenomena associated with SRV discharge into the suppression pool are characteristic of an initial value or free vibration condition rather than a forced vibration condition. Correction factors are applied to convert the forced vibration response to a free vibration response.
The correction factors are developed using single degree-of-freedom analogs. The factors vary with the ratio of load frequency to structural frequency and are applied to the response (displacement, velocity, and acceleration) associated with each structural mode. Figure 1-4.2-4 shows the modal correction factors (MCF) which are used in the suppression chamber evaluation.
The pressure magnitudes produced by the analytical model discussed previously were calibrated to envelop the maximum local shell pressures observed COM-02-039-1 1-4.106 Revision 0 l
nutggh
in the Monticello test. This results in an overly k conservative prediction of net vertical loads, as discussed in Section 3.10.2.9 of NUREG-0661. Net vertical load correction factors were developed by comparing net vertical pressure loads measured in the Monticello test with those predicted at test conditions. The factors were determined to be 0.70 for upward loads and 0.78 for downward loads.
Table 1-4.2-4 shows a comparison of shell membrane -
stresses and column forces observed in the Monticello test with those values predicted using the analytical methods and correction factors described above. The table shows that predicted G forces and stresses conservatively bound the measured values at all locations. A series of in-plant tests were performed at Dresden Unit 2 in May 1981. These tests provided additional confirmation that the computed loadings and predicted structural response due to SRV discharge are conservative.
,f%' COM-02-039-1 1-4.107 k Revision 0 nutgfsb
Table 1-4.2-4 COMPARISON OF ANALYSIS AND MONTICELLO TEST RESULTS QUANTITY LOCATION ANALYSIS TEST T
MIDBAY 90 FROM BDC 2.8 0.6 4.7 REACTOR SIDE MIDBAY 52.50 FROM BDC 2.3 1.1 2.1 REACTOR SIDE MIDBAY SUPPRESSION 12.40 FROM BDC 2.2 1.4 1.6 CHAMBER OPPOSITE REACTOR SHELL MEMBRANE MIDBAY STRESSES 12.40 FROM BDC- 2.1 1.7 1.2 (ksi) REACTOR SIDE MIDBAY 52.50 FROM BDC 2.5 1.1 2.3 OPPOSITE REACTOR 1/4 BAY 12.40 FROM BDC 2.2 1.4 1.6 OPPOSITE REACTOR TORUS INSIDE COLUMN 123.9 49.0 2.5 COLUMN UPLIFT T
(kips) COLUMN 157.8 52.5 3.0 TORUS INSIDE COLUMN 152.9 64.5 2.4 COLUMN DOWN (kips) 178.2 78.5 2.3 COLUMN COM-02-039-1 Revision 0 1-4.108 nutggh
O O O n
ef N-u 7-8aw _
I 7 l' RED I CTICD
- e -
i l i MisASultED b *
,1 4 I
l h
. m g 0 i
t - -
1 .
l- 3t 11b
-i g n
p f .__. -
l l 1 ./ \;
VV i r
.~ M
- I 1l g ~ -
\\
J V
\
i
-7 0-4 0 200 400 6b0 800 1000 1200 ldOO TIME (msec) l l
i 1
l l
Pigure 1-4.2-3 l
$ COMPARISON OF PREDICTED AND MEASURED SilELL PRESSURE E
M TIME-flISTORIES FOR MONTICELLO TEST 801
A B C D E E D C B A
- 1. 0 -
O.8-B
- 0. 6 -
5 g
u
[$
8 u 0.4-N c LEGEND
- TORUS CURVE FREQUENCY (Hz) 0.2- A 8 B 11 C 14 D 17-23 E 26-32 0.0- , , , , , , , , ,
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 LOAD FREQUENCY / TORUS FREQUENCY i
l l
Figure 1-4.2-4 MODAL CORRECTION FACTORS FOR ANALYSIS OF SRV DISCHARGE TORUS SHELL LOADS COM-02-039-1 Revision 0 1-4.110 nutggb
4 l-4.2.4 SRV Loads on Submerged Structures This section addresses the load definition procedures for determining SRV loads on submerged structures due to T-quencher water jets and bubbles.
When a SRV is actuated, water initially contained in the submerged portion of the SRVDL is forced out of the T-quencher through holes in the arms, forming orifice jets. Some distance downstream, the orifice jets merge to form column jets. Further downstream, the column jets merge to form the quencher arm jets. As soon as the ~ water flow through the arm i hole ceases, the quencher arm jet velocity decreases k rapidly and the jet penetrates a limited distance
- into the pool. The T-quencher water jets create drag loads on nearby submerged structures within the jet path.
Oscillating bubbles resulting from a SRV actuation create an unsteady three-dimensional flow field, and therefore induce acceleration and standard drag forces on the submerged structures in the suppression pool.
.b COM-02-039-1 1-4.111
\ Revision 0 l
- a. T-quencher Water Jet Loads The T-quencher water jet model conservatively models the T-quencher water jet test data.
The bases, justification, and assumptions for the Mark I T-quencher model are presented in Reference 1. The SRV T-quencher water jet analytical model calculation procedure and application are in accordance with Mark I LDR techniques. Figure 1-4.2-5 show's a plan view of the T-quencher arm jet sections.
- b. SRV Bubble-Induced Drag Loads The SRV bubble drag load development method-ology, load definition, and application for the Quad Cities Units 1 and 2 PUA are performed utilizing Commonwealth Edison's T-quencher geometry (Figure 1-4.2-1). The techniques utilized in developing the Ouad Cities Units 1 and 2 loads are in accordance with the LDR and Appendix A of NUREG-0661.
Dynamic load factors are derived from Dresden's in-plant SRV test data.
1 i
COM-02-039-1 1-4.112 Revision 0 nutggh
1 f A bubble pressure bounding factor based on Monticello test data in place of the LDR value 4
of 2.5 is utilized for Quad Cities Units 1 and
'T 2 SRV load development. A value of 1.75
- produces results which bound the peak positive 5 bubble pressure and maximum bubble pressure differential from the Monticello T-quencher
- test data. Using 1.75, the calculated values, a are 9.9 psid and 18.1 psid,~respectively. The predicted values correspond to the single valve actuation, normal water level, cold pipe case listed in Table 3.2 of Reference 16.
For submerged structures with sharp corners such as T-beams, I-beams, etc., the acceleration drag. volumes are calculated using the methodology in Section 1-4.1.5.
1 The model described in Section 1-4.2.3 is used
- to determine drag loads on downcomers due to l SRV bubble oscillation.
1
- l. ]
l.
[ COM-02-039-1 1-4.113 i
( Revision 0 l l
O SYMMETRICAL ABOUT T, 1
O #
I SECTION NO.7 4 _ _
ENDCAP JET
(
0 x ;
SECTION SECTION SECTION SECTE.N SECTION SECTION NO.1 NO.2 NO.3 NO.4 NO.5 NO.6 1.50' _1.275'_ 1.313' _1.377' 1.377'_ 1.313'_ 1.820' l
l l
l Figure 1-4.2-5 PLAN VIEW OF QUAD CITIES UNITS 1 AND 2 T-QUENCHER ARM JET SECTIONS COM-02-039-1 Revision 0 1-4.114 nutgg])
h)
, 1-4.3 Event Sequence
- t.
Not all of the suppression pool hydrodynamic loads discussed in this evaluation can occur at the same )
time. In addition, the load magnitudes and timing vary, depending on the accident scenario being considered. Therefore, it is necessary to construct I a series of event combinations to describe the circumstances under which individual loads might combine.
Tables 1-3.2-1 and 1-3.2-2 show the event combina-tions used in the plant unique analysis. The 1 combinations of load cases were determined from typical plant primary system and containment response analyses, with considerations for automatic actuation, manual actuation, and single active failures of the various systems in each event. This section describes the event sequences for the following postulated loss-of-coolant accidents.
- Design Basis Accident Intermediate Break Accident-
--Small Break Accident COM-02-039-1 1-4.115 k Revision 0-o
Table 1-4.3-1 identifies the SRV and LOCA loads which potentially affect structural components and identifies the appropriate section of this report defining the loads. For SRV piping and other structures within the wetwell, the locations of the structural components are considered to determine if any of the identified conditions affect the structures.
l l
I l
COM-02-039-1 1-4.116 Revision 0 nutggb
i Table 1-4.3-1 l SRV AND LOCA STRUCTURAL LOADS OTHER WETWELL STRUCTURES INTERIOR STRUCTURES I
- a. 3 .a 3, J $ a z 3 o 4 LCADS $ h 5 E 5 5 5 "2 5 I" E lm5 5
he= s $ I c
E s h"N th
=, ag- au 3 EE h
" l E kN w 5 gl5 2
l = ! E * <1 gg 4
3 a
g 5
1-4.1.1 CONTAINMENT PRESSURE AND TEMPERATURE X X X X X X X X X
RESPONSE
l-4.1.2 VENT SYSTEM DISCHARGE LOADS X X X l-4.1.3 POOL SWELL LOADS ON THE TORUS SHELL X X l-4.1.4 POOL SWELL LCADS ON EI.EVATED STRUCTURES 1-4.1.4.1 IMPACT AND DRAG LCADS CN THE VENT X X X SYSTEM l-4.1.4.2 IMPACT AND DRAG LCADS CN OTHER X X X s STRUCTURES
, 1-4.1.4.3 POOL SWELL FROTH IMPINGEMENT LCADS X X
\ 1-4.1.4.4 POOL FALLBACX LOAv5 X X X l-4.1.5 LOCA WATERJET LOADS ON SUBMERGED X X STRUCTURES l-4.1.6 LOCA BUBBLE-INDUCED LCADS CN SUBMERGED STRUCTURES X X 1-4.1.7 CONDENSATION OSCILLATION LCADS 1-4.1.7.1 CO LOADS ON THE TCRUS SHELL X X l-4.1.7.2 CO LOADS ON THE COWNCOMERS g g g AND VENT SYSTEM l-4.1.7.3 CO LOADS ON SUBMERGED STRUCTURES X X X l-4.1.8 CHUGGING LOADS 1-4.1.8.1 CHUGGING LOADS CN THE TCRUS SHELL I I l-4.1.8.2 CHUGGING DOWNCOMER LATERAL X X LOAD 1-4.1.8.3 CHUGGING LOADS CN SUBMERGED g g g STRUCTURES 1-4.2 . SAFETY RELIEF VALVE DISCHARGE LCADS 1-4.2.2 SRV DISCHARGE LINE CLEARING LOADS X l-4.2.3 SRV LCADS CN THE TCRUS SHELL X X 1-4.2.4 SRV LCADS ON SUBMERGED STPUC7JRES X X X X rr
! \
( / COM-02-039-1 Revision 0 1-4.117 nutech
1-4.3.1 Design Basis Accident The DBA for the Mark I containment design is the instantaneous guillotine rupture of the largest pipe in the primary system (the recirculation line).
Figures 1-4.3-1 through 1-4.3-3 present the load combinations for the DBA. Table 1-4.3-2 presents the nomenclature for these figures. The bar charts for the DBA show the loading condition combination for postulated breaks large enough to produce significant pool swell. The length of the bars in the figures indicates the time periods during which the loading conditions may occur. Loads are considered to act simultaneously on a structure at a specific time if the loading condition bars overlap at that time. For SRV discharge, the loads may occur at any time during the indicated time period. The assumption of combining a SRV discharge with the DBA is beyond the design basis of Ouad Cities Units 1 and 2. Therefore, the DBA and SRV load combination is evaluated only to demonstrate l containment structural capability. Table 1-4.3-3 shows the SRV discharge loading conditions, i
COM-02-039-1 1-4.118 Revision 0 nutggb
Table 1-4.3-2 EVENT TIMING NOMENCLATURE TIME DESCRIPTION t
l THE ONSET OF CONDENSATION OSCILLATION t THE BEGINNING OF CHUGGING 2
t THE END OF CHUGGING 3
t TIME OF COMPLETE REACTOR DEPRESSURIZATION 4
ADS ACTUATION ON HIGH DRYWELL PRESSURE AND LOW t REACTOR WATER LEVEL. THE ADS IS ASSUMED TO BE ADS
'I ACTUATED BY THE OPERATOR FOR THE SBA.
O l
l l
l COM-02-039-1
\ Revision 0 1-4,119 nutggh l __ . .__
Table 1-4.3-3 SRV DISCHARGE LOAD CASES FOR MARK I STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS ANY ONE ADS MULTIPLE INITIAL CONDITIONS VALVE VALVES ( 3) VALVES (1)
FIRST ACTUATION Al A2 A3 FIRST ACTUATION, LEAKING SRV(2) B3 SUBSEQUENT ACTUATION C3 (1) THE NUMBER (ONE OR MORE) AND LOCATION OF SRV's ASSUMED TO ACTUATE ARE DETERMINED BY PLANT UNIQUE ANALYSIS.
(2) THE LOADS FOR T-QUENCHER DISCHARGE DEVICES ARE NOT AFFECTED BY LEAKING SRV's. NO SRV's ARE CONSIDERED TO LEAK PRIOR TO A LOCA.
(3) THE MULTIPLE VALVE CASE AND THE ADS VALVE CASE ARE EQUIVALENT.
t l
l COM-02-039-1 Revision 0 1-4.120 nutggh
LOCA PRESSURE AND TEMPERATURE TRANSIENTS SECTION 1-4.1.1 VENT SYSTEM AIR, STEAM AND LIQUID FLOW AND PRESSURE TRANSIENTS SECTION 1-4.1.2 g
~ ______ __ __. __ q SINGLE SRV ACTUATION c1,
$ l (SRV EVENT CASE Al)
@ ___ _ _ __ __ j SECTION 1-4. 2. 3 c
U c
- 5. POOL SWELL
@ SECTIONS q
~
1-4.1.3 1-4.1.4 CONDENSATION OSCILLATION SECTION 1-4.1.7 O
CHUGGING SECTION 1-4.1.8 0.1 1.5 t1=5 t 2 =35 t 3 =65 TIME AFTER LOCA (sec)
(1) THIS ACTUATION IS ASSUMED TO OCCUR COINCIDENT WITH THE POOL SWELL EVENT. ALTHOUGH SRV ACTUATION CAN OCCUR LATER IN THE DBA, THE RESULTING AIR LOADING ON THE TORUS SHELL IS NEGLIGIBLE , SINCE THE AIR AND WATER INITIALLY IN THE LINE WILL BE CLEARED AS THE DRYWELL-TO-WETWELL .1F INCREASES DURING THE DBA TRANSIENT.
Figure 1-4.3-1 LOADING CONDITION COMBINATIONS FOR THE VENT HEADER, MAIN VENTS, DOWNCOME RS , AND TORUS SHELL DURING A DBA COM-02-039-1 Revison 0 1-4.121 nutagh l
~ _ _ . - . _ - - -
. . ~ . - _ - _ _
l l
~~
LOCA PRESSURE AND TEMPERATURE TRANSIENTS SECTION 1-4.1.1 SINGLE SRV ACTUATION Ill (SRV EVENT CASE Al)
SECTION 1-4.2.2 b CONDENSATION
$ OSCILLATION E SECTION 1-4.1.7 z
O CHUGGING g SECTION z l-4.1.8 E
< POOL SNELL 3 FALLBACK SECTION 1-4.1.4 LOCA AIR BUBBLE l-4.1.6 SECTION LOCA WATER JET FORMATION SECTION 1-4.1.5
' O .1 'O.7 ~1.5 t 1 =5 t2=35 t3=65 TIME AFTER LOCA (sec)
(1) THIS ACTUATION IS ASSUMED TO OCCUR COINCIDENT WITH THE POOL SWELL EVENT. ALTHOUGH SRV ACTUATION CAN OCCUR LATER IN THE DBA, THE P.?SULTING AIR LOADING ON THE TORUS SHELL IS NEGLIGIBLE JTCE THE AIR AND WATER INITIALLY IN THE LINE WILL 90 'LC, RE3 AS THE DRYWELL-TO-WETWELL AP INCREASES DURING TN. a ANSIENT.
I l
Figure 1-4.3-2 LOADING CONDITION COMBINATIONS FOR SUBMERGED STRUCTURES DURIL7 A DBA l
COM-02-039-1 Revision 0 1-4.122 nutp_qh
/
I l
LOCA PRESSURE AND TEMPERATURE TRANSIENTS l SECTION 1-4.1.1 z
3 FROTH IMPINGEMENT
$ SECTION 1-4.1.4 E
8 0 POOL SWELL (1)
$ FALLBACK g SECTION 1-4.1.4 a
(- POOL SWELL IMPACT (1)
AND DRAG SECTION 1-4.1.4 0.1 0.7 1.5 TIME AFTER LOCA (sec)
(1) STRUCTURES ARE BELOW MAXIMUM POOL SWELL HEIGHT.
Figure 1-4.3-3 LOADING CONDITION COMBIMATIONS FOR SMALL STRUCTURES ABOVE SUPPRESSION POOL DURING A DBA i COM-02-039-1
1-4.123 Revision 0 nutggh
l-4.3.2 Intermediate Break Accident The bar chart in Figure 1-4.3-4 shows conditions for a break size large enough such that the HPCI system cannot prevent ADS actuation on low-water level, but for break sizes smaller than that which would produce significant pool swell loads. A break size of 0.1 ft2 is assumed for an IBA. Table 1-4.3-3 shows SRV discharge loading conditions. The IBA break is too small to cause significant pool swell.
O COM-02-039-1 1-4.124 Revision 0 nutggj)
/
LOCA PRESSURE AND TEMPERATURE TRANSIENTS SECTION 1-4.1.1
---~_q SINGLE SRV ACTUATION (1)
(SRV EVENT CASE Al)
SECTIONS 1-4.2.3 AND l-4.2.4 [
- -.a
=
C E SRV ACTUATION ON SET POINT (SRV EVENT z CASES A3 AND C3) ADS ACTUATION O
(SRV EVENT CASE A2) e 6
C -
@ CONDENSATION 4
OSCILLATION SECTION 1-4.1.7 s
CHUGGING SECTION 1-4.1.8 t[=5 TADS = 900 2 b=905 t3 =1105 t 4 TIME AFTER LOCA (sec)
(1) LOADING NOT COMBINED WITH OTHER SRV CASES.
Figure 1-4.3-4 LOADING CONDITION COMBINATIONS FOR THE VENT HEADER, MAIN VENTS, DOWNCOME RS , TORUS SHELL, AND SUBMERGED STRUCTURES DURING AN IBA l COM-02-039-1 l Revision 0 1-4.125 nutggb l
1-4.3.3 Small Break Accident The bar chart in Figure 1-4.3-5 shows conditions for a break size equal to 0.01 ft2 For a SBA, the HPCI system would be able to maintain the water level and the reactor would be depressurized by means of operator initiation of the automatic depressuriza-tion system. Table 1-4.3-3 identifies the SRV discharge loading conditions. The SBA break is too small to cause significant pool swell, and CO does not occur during a SBA. The ADS is assumed to be initiated by the operator 10 minutes after the SBA begins. With the concurrence of the NRC (Reference 17), the procedures which the operator will use to perform this action are being developed as part of the Emergency Procedures Guidelines.
l l
COM-02-039-1 1-4.126 Revision 0 nutggh
O v
LOCA PRESSURE AND TEMPERATURE TRANSIENTS SECTION 1-4.1.1 SINGLE SRV ACTUATION (1)
(SRV EVENT CASE Al)
SECTIONS 1-4.2.3, 1-4.2.4
__ .J 5
y OPERATOR INITIATION OF ADS g (SRV EVENT CASE A2) 5 u ,
c
=
E SRV ACTUATION ON SET POINT (SRV EVENT CASES A3, C3)
CHUGGING
-, SECTION 1-4.1.8 t 2=300 TADS =600 t 3 =1200 t 4 TIME AFTER LOCA (sec)
(1) LOADING NOT COMBINED WITH OTHER SRV CASES.
Figure 1-4.3-5 LOADING CONDITION COMBINATIONS FOR THE VENT HEADER, MAIN VENTS, DOWNCOMERS, TORUS SHELL, AND SUBMERGED STRUCTURES DURING A SBA COM-02-039-1 s_ Revision 0 1-4.127 nutagh
i
- _ l-5.0 SUPPRESSION POOL TEMPERATURE MONITORING SYSTEM i
i
) This section describes the Quad Cities Units 1 and 2 suppression pool temperature response to SRV transients and the design of the suppression pool ;
l temperature monitoring system.
a l
i t
< f i
4 I.
t 4
t t
i i
I t
4 i
t-fI 1
L COM-02-039-1 1- 5 .' l Revision 0
- , . . . - -,m.--......,----m....--,e--- ..--,-,,---,-.....,-e~_.~,--..~.._--.- _ - - - . - . -
1-5.1 Suppression Pool Temperature Response to SRV Transients Quad Cities Units 1 and 2 take advantage of the large thermal capacitance of the suppression pool during plant transients requiring safety relief valve actuation. Steam is discharged through the SRV's into the suppression pool where it is condensed, resulting in an increase in the temper-ature of the suppression pool water. Although stable steam condensation is expected at all pool temperatures, Reference 18 imposes a local temperature limit in the vicinity of the T-quencher discharge devices (Figure 1-5.1-1).
O To demonstrate that the local pool temperature limit is satisfied, seven limiting transients involving SRV discharges have been analyzed (Reference 19).
Table 1-5.1-1 presents a summary of the transients analyzed and the corresponding pool temperature results. Three of the transients conservatively assume the failure of one RHR loop addition to the single equipment malfunction or operator error which initiated the event. This conservative assumption exceeds the current licensing basis for anticipated operational transients.
COM-02-039-1 1-5.2 Revision 0 nutggh
Each of the SRV discharge transients is analyzed assuming an initial pool temperature of 95*F, which is the Technical Specification pool temperature limit for normal power operation. The notes to Table 1-5.1-1 list other initial conditions and assumptions included in these analyses.
! The analysis of Case 2C, normal depressurization at isolated hot shutdown, shows a maximum local pool temperature of 165*F. This demonstrates that with no system failures and in the event of a nonmechan-istic scram, depressurizing the reactor pressure vessel (RPV) with SRV's at 100*F/hr results in local pool temperatures well below the condensation j
stability limit in Figure 1-5.1-1.
Case 3A, a SBA with one RHR loop available, results in a maximum local pool temperature of 177 F, which is below the condensation stability limit of 205'F. High local temperatures are predicted in this case because of reduced mixing when the available RHR pool cooling system is switched to the shutdown cooling mode.
I.
(j cOM-02-039-1 1-5.3 Revision 0 nutagh
i The maximum local pool temperature of all other cases also remains below the condensation stability limit throughout the transient. In general, local-to-bulk temperature differences at the time of maximum temperatures are about 9*F for cases where two RHR loops are assumed available, and about 28'F
! for cases where one RHR loop is assumed available.
Thus, bulk pool circulation induced by the RHR loops leads to good thermal mixing, which effectively 1
lowers the local pool temperatures in the vicinity of quencher devices.
O l
_2-me-1 Revision 0 1 e..
e nutggh
~ +
\
( (
\ \
@@ Table 1-5.1-1 NY cn o
SUMMARY
OF QUAD CITIES UNITS 1 AND 2 POOL TEMPERATURE RESPONSE TO SRV TRANSIENTS o$ 1 NUMBER OF MA MUM MA M MAXIMUM CASE O OI.D N N B M POOL WCAI, POOI.
EVENT SRV's MANUALLY NUMBER RATE TEMPERATURE TEMPERATUltE (OF/hr) (OF) (OF)
SORV AT PNER, 0 2108 136 161 1A 1 RIIR LOOP SORV AT POWER, SPURIOUS 321 177 1 162 ISOLhTION, 2 RIIR LOOPS w
$ RAPID DEPHESSURIZATION AT
. 2A ISOLATED I!OT SIIUTDOWN, 5 200 163 196 1 HilR LOOP SORV AT ISOLATED IIOT 0 319 SiluTDOWN , 2 RIIR LOOPS 145 157 NORMAL DEPRESSURIZATION 2C AT ISOLATED llOT SilDTDOWN, 5 100 156 165 2 RilR LOOPS SBA C NT MODE, 5 2124 152 177 3A ,
SBA-PAILURE OF SilUTDOWN COOLING MODE, 2 HIIR LOOPS 5 100 157 166 3
C
$0
<x NOTES TO TABLE l-5.1-1 ea cn o
- v. M ,
oi 1. REACTOR OPERATION AT 102% OF RATED TIIERMAL POWER (2561 MWt) .
Do oU 1
- 2. MINIMUM TECllNICAL SPECIFICATION SUPPRESSION POOL WATER VOLUME (112,203 ft ).
- 3. TIIE SUPPRESSION POOL llAS NO INITI AL VELOCITY.
- 4. WETWELL AND DRYWELL AIRSPACES ARE AT NORMAL OPERATING CONDITIONS.
- 5. NORMAL AUXILI ARY POWER IS AVAILABLE.
- 6. OFFSITE POWER IS ASSUMED AVAILABLE FOR ALL CASES.
- 7. NORMAL AUTOMATIC OPERATION OF Tile PLANT AUXILIARY SYSTEM (IIIGil PRESSURE COOLANT INJECTION (IIPCI) , ADS).
- 8. Tile CORE SPRAY PUMPS liAVE A MANUAL SilOTOFF AT VESSEL IIIGil WATER LEVEL (LEVEL 8 ELEVATION).
TilEY ARE REACTIVATED WilEN TiiE LEVEL DROPS AS NEEDED TO MAINTAIN WATER LEVEL AND MAY BE SIIUT g OFF AGAIN.
l f 9. CONTROL ROD DRIVE (CRD) FLOW IS MAINTAINED CONSTANT AT 11.11 LBM/SEC.
- 10. SRV (MANUAL, AUTOMATIC, ADS) CAPACITIES ARE AT 122.5% OF ASME-RATED FLOW TO CONSERVATIVELY CALCULATE MAXIMUM POOL TEMPERATURES.
- 11. Tile LICENSED DECAY-liEAT CURVE (MAY-WITT) FOR CONTAINMENT ANALYSJS IS USED.
- 12. NO HEAT TRANSFER IS CONSIDERED IN Tile DRYWELL OR WETWELL AIRSPACE.
- 13. Tile ItSIV'S CLOSE TIIREE SECONDS AFTER A ONE-IIALF SECOND DELAY FOR Tile ISOLATION SIGNAL.
- 14. OPERATOR ACTIONS ARE BASED ON NORMAL OPERATOR ACTION TIMES AND LICENSING BASIS DELAYS DURitJG Tile GIVEN EVENT.
- 15. WilEN BOTil IUIR LOOPS AltE OPERATING, A MINIMUM TIME OF 66 MINUTES IS TAKEN TO SWITCil FROM Till:
POOL COOLING MODE TO Tile SilUTDOWN COOLING MODE. IlOWEVE R , WilEN ONLY ONE RilR LOOP IS OPEl<ATitJG OR DURING ACCIDENT CONDITIONS (i.e., SBA), TIIE RAPID SWITCilOVER TIME OF 16 MINUTES IS EMPLOil:1).
C O O O
-'t N .2 A ,
yQ NOTES TO TABLE l-5.1-1 hY mO (Concluded) ww 0 i DO W
! O@
h .16. WHEN BOTH RHR LOOPS ARE OPERATING AND SHUTDOWN COOLING IS AVAILABLE, ONE RHR LOOP IS LEFT
, ALIGNED IN THE POOL COOLING MODE WHILE THE OTHER IS DIVERTED TO SHUTDOWN COOLING. THIS ASSUMPTION IS REASONABLE BECAUSE THE POOL IS AT A HIGH TEMPERATURE, AND BECAUSE A SINGLE RHR LOOP WILL EFFECTIVELY DEPRESSURIZE THE VESSEL VIA SHUTDOWN COOLING.
- 17. DRYWELL FAN COOLERS ARE INITIALLY AVAILABLE IN SORV EVENTS AND ISOLATION EVENTS TO KEEP THE DRYWELL PRESSURE BELOW THE HIGH DRYWELL PRESSURE TRIP SET POINT ( ~ 2 psig) .
4
- 18. THE ADS SYSTEM IS MODELED BY. FULLY OPENING FIVE SRV'S IN THE ADS MODE. THE ADS SYSTEM MAY BE l ACTUATED MANUALLY AT A HIGH SUPPRESSION POOL TEMPERATURE OF 120*F.
- 19. All RHR AND ECCS PUMPS HAVE 100% OF THEIR HORSEPOWER RATING CONVERTED TO A PUMP HEAT INPUT (Btu /sec) AND ADDED DIRECTLY TO THE POOL AS AN ENTHALPY RISE OVER THE TIME OF PUMP OPERATION. THIS ASSUMPTION ADDS CONSERVATISM TO THE POOL TEMPERATURE RESULTS.
w I 20. THE FEEDWATER TEMPERATURE IS TAKEN AS THE ACTUAL TEMPERATURE IN THE FEEDWATER SYSTEM.
l [ HOWEVER, FOR THAT PORTION OF FEEDWATER WHICH IS LOWER THAN 170*F, THE TEMPERATURE IS
'J CONSERVATIVELY ASSUMED TO BE 170*F.
i
, 21. THE SERVICE WATER TEMPERATURE FOR THE RHR HEAT EXCHANGERS IS ASSUMED CONSTANT AT 99'F, GIVING
- A HEAT TRANSFER CAPACITY OF 198.4 Btu /sec *F PER LOOP FOR SHUTDOWN COOLING FUNCTION, AND 374.6 Btu /sec -F* PER LOOP FOR POOL COOLING FUNCTION.
- 22. THE 14" RHR DISCHARGE LINE IS DIRECTED PARALLEL TO FLOW IN THE DISCHARGE BAY.
! 23. THE BREAK FLOW MASS AND ENERGY ARE ADDED TO FLOW THROUGH THE QUENCHERS FOR SBA CASES. THIS
! APPROACH MAKES THE RESULTS OF SBA CASES MORE CONSERVATIVE BECAUSE IT MAINTAINS A " HOT SPOT" AROUND THE QUENCHERS AT ALL TIMES.
- 24. THE ANALYSES ARE TERMINATED WHEN THE POOL TEMPERATURE REACHES A MAXIMUM AND TURNS AROUND, OR WHEN THE STEAM DISCHARGING ACTIVITIES OF THE SRV'S ARE OVER.
t
- 25. THE OPERATOR WILL ATTEMPT TO RECLOSE AN SORV. BASED ON AVAILABLE OPERATING PLANT DATA PRIOR TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF IE BULLETIN 80-25 (REFERENCE 20), SORV'S HAVE BEEN SHOWN TO RECLOSE AT AN AVERAGE PRESSURE OF 260 psig. THE LOWEST RECLOSURE PRESSURE 4 RECORDED WAS 50 psig, AND THIS VALUE IS CONSERVATIVELY ASSUMED FOR THIS ANALYSIS.
- :5 .
- IC:
O l
2 '
G QUENCHER = 4 2mlb /f t -sec 204 -
0 C
E*
E 203 -
3 l
E b 202 -
2 5
6
.3 201 -
GQUENCHER " 94 1D m /f t -sec
.3 200 -
199 . , , , , ,
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 RPV PRESSURE (psia) l Figure 1-5.1-1 LOCAL POOL TEMPERATURE LIMIT FOR QUAD CITIES UNITS 1 AND 2 ,
COM-02-039-1 Revision 0 1-5.8 nut.e_c_h.
1-5.2 Suppression Pool Temperature Monitoring System Design The Quad Cities SPTMS has been designed by Bechtel Power Corporation in conjunction with NUTECH Engineers for Commonwealth Edison Company.
The SPTMS is used to provide a measure of the suppression pool water temperature (bulk pool temperature). The SPTMS consists of eight thermocouples which are placed inside thermowells ,
around the torus. Four thermowells are located on the inner circumference and another set of four on the outer circumference (Figure 1-5.2-1). The inputs from the eight sensors are averaged to provide a bulk pool temperature measurement. The sensors are placed on a horizontal plane 5.88' below the minimum water level, near the centroid of the water mass to assure an accurate measurement of the bulk pool temperature.
The bulk suppression pool temperature and the 1
individual sensor readings will be continuously recorded in the control room. The SPTMS is designed to operate continuously during all modes of reactor i
h COM-02-039-1 Revision 0 1-5.9 nutagh
operation. It is also designed to operate in both post-LOCA and post-ATWS (Anticipated Transients Without Scram) environments and after a safe shut-down earthquake.
The SPTMS is classified as safety-related and is-designed in accordance with the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Standard 279-1971. The equipment is qualified to IEEE Standards 323-1974, 344-1971, or 344-1975. The sensors are designed to meet Seismic Category I and Quality Group B requirements.
In the original design (Reference 21), the thermo-wells at the main vent line bays are placed on the inner circumference of the torus and the thermowells at the non-main vent line bays are placed on the outer torus circumference. The Quad Cities Unit 1 thermowell placement is consistent with the original design. However, the thermowells of Ouad Cities Unit 2 were installed on the outer circumference of the main vent line bays and on the inner circumference of the non-main vent line bays.
COM-02-039-1 1-5.10 Revision 0 nut 29_h
I 4
The difference in the thermowell placement can !
d result in slight differences in the bulk temperature readings- of the Unit 1 and Unit 2 SPTMS under i similar steam discharge condition. The Unit 1 bulk '
temperature can be 2*F higher than the Unit 2 I
. reading during an extended steam discharge event if
, steam is discharged into a torus bay with thermo-j wells. However, little difference between the bulk j- _ temperature readings is expected if steam discharges into a torus bay without a thermowell.
Reference 22. assesses the bulk temperature accuracy J of the SPTMS to be installed at the Quad Cities Unit i -
I and 2. The SPTMS bulk temperature is least i
accurate when a stuck-open- relief valve (SORV) .
causes steam discharge ~ into a torus bay without a .
1 i
SPTMS thermowell.. When this occurs, the SPTMS may underestimate the actual bulk temperature by as much as 3.l*F. The Unit 2 underestimation may be as much as 3.5'F. Since there is no dif ference. between the
~
~
, predicted bulk temperature underestimations of-Units l
(
1 and 2, both SPTMS are considered satisf actory.
Therefore, it is not . necessary to relocate the_ Unit' i- 2 thermowells. to the originally designated.
- _ locations.
4 COM-02-039-1 1-5.11.
Revision 0
!- s j-
.- . . _. _4. . _ . _ _ . . _ . _ . . _ . . ._ . . _ . . . _ . . _ , . _ . _ , _ . . . _ . , _ . , _ . , . _ . . - . , , _ . -
When the operater actions required by the Technical Specification are taken based on the SPTMS reading, the timing of these actions can be later than those assumed in Reference 19 (i.e., at a higher temperature than required by the Technical Specifi-cation). A separate analysis will be performed to demonstrate that the delayed action will not cause the suppression pool temperature to exceed the limit specified in Reference 18.
Reference 23 provides specific recommendations for changes to the plant operating procedures in order to continue operation until the new SPTMS is installed during the next refueling outages. Table 1-1.0-1 shows the scheduled installation dates for the SPTMS.
COM-02-039-1 1-5.12 Revision 0 nutp_qh
- le C) w ,
, / 1 -o <nri
/ \
\
e QUAD CITIES UNIT 1 )
/
CRANNEL A f . . -
, , / -I'-o- (nP)
QUAD CITIES UNIT 2
- 1. EACH MONITOR IS PLACED BELOW THE NORMAL TO'RUS WATER LEVEL, NEAR THE NORMAL CENTER OF GRAVITY OF THE WATER MASS.
Figure 1-5.2-1 SUPPRESSION POOL TEMPERATURE MONITOR LOCATIONS FOR QUAD CITIES UNITS 1 AND 2
[**s
'~
) COM-02-039-01 Revision D l-5.'13 nutggh
1 l
1-6.0 LIST OF REFERENCES
- 1. " Mark I Containment Program Load Definition
\ Report," General Electric Company, NEDO-21888, Revision 2, November 1981.
- 2. " Mark I Containment Program Structural Accep-tance Criteria Plan t-Unique Analysis Applica-tions Guide," Task Number 3.1.3, Mark I owners Group, General Electric Company, NEDO-24583, Revision 1, July 1979.
- 3. " Mark I Containment Long-Term Program," Safety Evaluation Report, USNRC, NUREG-0661, July 1980; Supplement 1, August 1982.
- 4. " Final Report In-Plant SRV Discharge Test,"
Dresden Unit 2, NUTECH Engineers, Inc.,
COM-19-142, Revision 0, June 30, 1982.
- 5. " Safety Analysis Report (SAR)," Quad Cities Station Units 1 and 2, Commonwealth Edison Company, July 20, 1982.
- 6. " Containment Data," Quad cities 1, Genera 1 Electric Company, 22A5757, Revision 1, July 1977.
(/ 7. " Containment Electric Company, Data," Quad Cities 2, 22A5758, Revision General 1, July 1977.
- 8. "The General Electric Pressure Suppression Containment Analytical Model," General Electric Company, NEDO-10320, April 1971; Supplement 1, May 1971; Supplement 2, January 1973.
- 9. " Mark I Containment Program Plant Unique Load Definition," Quad Cities Station: Units 1 and 2, General Electric Company, NEDO-24567, Revision 2, April 1982.
- 10. " Mark -I Containment Program Quarter-Scale Pl' ant Unique Tests, Task Number 5.5.3, Series 2," General Electric Company, NEDE-21944-P, Volumes 1-4, April 1979.
- 11. Patton, K.T., " Tables of Hydrodynamic Mass Factors for Translational Motion," ASME Manuscript, Chicago, November 7-11, 1965.
(/ COM-02-039-1 1-6.1 Revision 0 s nutgqh
- 12. Miller, R.R., "The Effects of Frequency and Amplitude of Oscillation on the Hydrodynamic Masses of Irregularly-Shaped Bodies," MS Thesis, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, R.I., 1965.
- 13. Fitzsimmons, G. W. et al., " Mark I Containment Program Full-Scale Test Program Final Report, Task Number 5.11," General Electric Company, NEDE-24539-P, April 1979.
- 14. " Mark I Containment Program Letter Reports MI-LR-81-01 and MI-LR-81-01-P, Supplemental Full-Scale Condensation Test Results and Load Confirmation-Proprietary and Nonproprietary Information," General Electric Company, May 6, 1981.
- 15. " Mark I Containment Program - Full-Scale Test Program - Evaluation of Supplemental Tests,"
General Electric Company, NEDO-24539, Supple-ment 1, July 1981.
- 16. Hsiao, W. T. and Valandani, P., " Mark I Containment Program Analytical Model for Computing Air Bubble and Boundary Pressures Resulting from an SRV Discharge Through a T-Quencher Device ," General Electric Company, NEDE-21878-P, August 1979.
- 17. Letter from T. A. Ippolito (NRC) to J. F.
Ouirk (GE) dated October 16, 1981.
- 18. " Suppression Pool Temperature Limits for BWR Containment," USNRC, NUREG-0783, November, 1981.
- 19. " Suppression Pool Temperature Response, Quad Cities Units 1 and 2," General Electric Company, NEDC-22144, May 1982.
- 20. " Operating Problems with Target Rock Safety-Relief Valves at BWR's," USNRC, Office of l Inspection and Enforcement, IE Bulletin No.
80-25, December 19, 1980.
- 21. Letter and Attachment from L. R. Basinski (Bechtel) to W. H. Koester (CECO), G35-ll-010, dated September 29, 1980. (Attachment to letter is the SPTMS design criteria.)
COM-02-039-1 1-6.2 Revision.0 nuteqh
i II4 f
- 22. " Suppression Pool Temperature Monitoring System (SPTMS) Bulk Temperature Accuracy Assessment for the Dresden 2 & 3 and Quad Cities 1 & 2 Stations," NUTECH, COM-27-210, Revision 0, April 1983.
- 23. Letter report from H. W. Massie-(NUTECH) to R.
H. Mirochna (CECO), COM-27-171, dated November 19, 1982.
COM-02-039-1 1-6.3 Revision 0
. . . . - . . . . - . _ . . . .. . .. _.