ML20072N843
| ML20072N843 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Dresden, Quad Cities, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 05/31/1983 |
| From: | Russell Adams, Howard G, Mcinnes I NUTECH ENGINEERS, INC. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17194B616 | List: |
| References | |
| COM-02-039-2, COM-02-039-2-R00, COM-2-39-2, COM-2-39-2-R, NUDOCS 8307180147 | |
| Download: ML20072N843 (185) | |
Text
_ _ _ _
COM-02-039-2
\
Revision 0 May 1983 64.305.2101 00AD CITIES NUCLEAR POWER STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 PLANT UNIQUE ANALYSIS REPORT VOLUME 2 SUPPRESSION CHAMBER ANALYSIS Prepared for:
Commonwealth Edison Company Prepared by:
NUTECH Engineers, Inc.
(v' San Jose, California Approved by:
m . Lw ~
G. L. Howard, P.E. I. D. McInnes, P.E Project Engineer Engineering Manager i
.C. -l m/
R. H. Adams, P.E.
Engineering Direccor Issued by:
WU U.L ,
A. K. Moonka, P.E. R. , H. Buchholz
! Project Manager Project Director l
O PDR O
.P
REVISION CONTROL SHEET
SUBJECT:
Quad (i. ties Station, Units 1 REPORT NUMBER: COM-02-039-2 and 2 Plant Unique Analysis Revision 0 Report Volume 2 V. N. Anderson / Senior Engineer Initial's C. W. Fong/ Specialist dd Initials M. J. Girard/ Consultant I N / bh Initials G. L. Howard/ Senior Engineer b Initials M. C. Hsieh/ Specialist MCM Initials t N S. S. Lee / Engineer iib Initials I. D. McInnes/ Engineering Manager M Initials C. F. Parker / Technician II h Initials C.T. Shyy/ Senior Engineer l Initials l
D. C. Talbott/ Consultant I ((
Initi'als l
R. E. Wise / Consultant I Initials Dl 2-ii nutggb
REVISION CONTROL SHEET (Continued)
O TITLE: Quad Cities Station, Units 1 and REPORT NUMBER: COM-02-039-2 2 Plant Unique Analysis Report Revision 0 Volume 2 E CRITERIA ACCURACY CRITERIA PRE- ACCURACY E REV PRE- E REV PARED CHECK CHECK PARED CHECK CHECK PAGE (S)
PAGE (S) 2-I O 2-2.73 0 NCH <>' ' d C Ts3 through CT4 2-2.74 6'd rath 2-XV 2-2.75 Mcd and 2-1.1 through through Ca'4 o fd 2-2.76 2-1.7 2-2.77 sc.H gy6 through [ hh kl(x 2-2.78 through 2-2.20 g4 MCd 2-2.94 tr gh 2-2.95 through "'E trs 2-2.46 a 2-2.47 96 M64 2-2.48 (n 6+( M o h V 2-2.49 2-2.100 Ca'd Mcd through 2-2.101 2-2.50 pf(., MCH through Ca'd CTO 2-2.51 g g4 2-2.116 2-2.52 2-2.117 through as4 geg through 4L4 2-2.56 2-2.119 NcH 2-2.57 og 2-2.120 through through MM cnts 2-2.59 2-2.122 2-2.60 2-2.i23 qtd peg through 2-2.124 2-2.65 9fL McH through gg c ud 2-2.66 2-2.125 thr scH md 2-2.126 through wt4 2-2.68 $g6 scH 2-2.133 MCH 2-2.69 NCH Ca'd 2-2.134 y $54, Mcd f 2-2.70 y ,
2-2.135 0 NCd en sd crp through 7_7.77- 0 55 6 MC4 C f.4
(, QEP-001.4-00 2-iii gg
REVISION CONTROL SHEET l
(Concluded)
TITLE: Quad Cities Station, Units 1 and REPORT NUMBER: COM-02-039-2 2 Plant Unique Analysis Report Revision 0 j
Volume 2 l
i
~
ACCURACY CRITERIA PRE- ACCURACY CRITERIA E REV PRE- E REV PARED CHECK CHECK PARED CHECK CHECK PAGE (S)
PAGE(S) 2-2.136 0 CT4 C TU through ktd 2-2.139 2-2.140 %d scH 2-2.141 through 4d C74 2-2.142 2-2.143 through 2-2.145 MM bd
( 2-2.146 utf McH 2-2.147 through 2-2.149 Md 4'4 g 2-2.150 c. Q McH
! 2-2.151 through 2-2.152 MCd 2-2.153 gg, through 2-2.154 Mcd 2-2,155 through wud Cf6 "
2-2.159 "
l 2-3.1 0 usa M CT4 l
QEP-001.4-00 N
2-iv QQf
,\ ABSTRACT U
The primary containments and piping for the Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station Units 1 and 2 were designed, erected, pressure-tested, and N-stamped in accordance with the ASMR 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. Mince then, new requirements have been established. These requirements affect the design and operation of the primary containment system and are defined in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) Safety Evaluation Report NUREG-0661. This report provides an assess-ment 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 the containment systems operation.
s Ng This plant unique analysis report (PUAR) documents the efforts 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 Volume 2 - SUPPRESSION CHAMBER ANALYSIS o Volume 3 - VENT SYSTEM ANALYSIS o Volume 4 - INTERNAL STRUCTURES ANALYSIS 4
o Volume 5 - SAFETY RELIEF VALVE DISCHARGE LINE PIPING ANALYSIS o Volume 6 - TORUS ATTACHED PIPING AND SUPPRESSION CHAMBER PENETRATION ANALYSES (QUAD CITIES UNIT 1)
Q COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-v nutggb
=. -_. __ - . -. - - .
. -o Volume 7 - TORUS ATTACHED PIPING AND SUPPRESSION
! CHAMBER PENETRATION ANALYSES (QUAD l CITIES UNIT 2)
This volume documents the evaluation of the suppression chamber. 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 Commonwealth Edison), who performed the safety relief valve discharge lines (SRVDL) piping analysis. Volume 5 describes the methods of analysis and procedures used in the SRVDL piping analysis.
i l
i i
l l
COM-02-039-2 s Revision 0 2-vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT 2-v LIST OF ACRONYMS 2-viii LIST OF TABLES 2-x LIST OF FIGURES 2-xii 2-
1.0 INTRODUCTION
2-1.1 2-1.1 Scope of Analysis 2-1.3 2-1.2 Summary and Conclusions 2-1.5 2-2.0 SUPPRESSION CHAMBER ANALYSIS 2-2.1 2-2.1 Component Description 2-2.2 2-2.2 Loads and Load Combinations 2-2.21 2-2.2.1 Loads 2-2.22 2-2.2.2 Load Combinations 2-2.78 f
2-2.3 Acceptance Criteria 2-2.95 2-2.4 Methods of Analysis 2-2,101 2-2.4.1 Analysis for Major Loads 2-2.102 2-2.4.2 Analysis for Lateral Loads 2-2.127 2-2.4.3 Methods for Evaluating Analysis Results 2-2.136 2-2.5 Analysis Results 2-2.141 2-2.5.1 Discussion of Analysis Results 2-2.155 2-2.5.2 Closure 2-2.158 2-3.0 LIST OF REFERENCES 2-3.1 l
l COM-02-039-2 ,
\ Revision 0 l
l l
LIST OF ACRONYMS ACI American Concrete Institute ADS Automatic Depressurization System ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers CECO Commonwealth Edison Company CO Condensation Oscillation DBA Design Basis Accident DBE Design Basis Earthquake DC Downcomer DLP Dynamic Load Factor ECCS Emergency Core Cooling System j FSAR Final Safety Analysis Report FSI Fluid-Structure Interaction IDA Intermediate Break Accident LDR Load Definition Report LOCA Loss-of-Coolant Accident MC Midcylinder.
MJ Miter Joint NOC Normal Operating Conditions NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission NVB Non-Vent Line Bay NWL Normal Water Level OBE Operating Basis Earthquake PUAAG Plant Unique Analysis Applications Guide COM-02-039 '-- Revision 0 2-viii
I LIST OF ACRONYMS (Concluded) '
i PUAR Plant Unique Analysis Report PULD Plant Unique Load Definitions 1
QSTP Quarter-Scale Test Facility l RPV Reactor Pressure Vessel l SBA Small Break Accident SPTMS Suppression-Pool Temperature Monitoring System !
SRSS Square Root of the Sum of Squares SRV Safety Relief Valve SRVDL Safety Relief Valve Discharge Line SSE Safe Shutdown Earthquake
, TAP Torus Attached Piping
, VB Vent Line Bay l
VH Vent Header VL Vent Line l
f r
l COM-02-039-2 l Revision 0 2-ix
LIST OF TABLES Number Title Page 2-2.2-1 Suppression Chamber Component Loading Identification 2-2.46 2-2.2-2 Suppression Pool Temperature Responso Analysis Results - Maximum Temperatures 2-2.47 2-2.2-3 Mark I Containment Event Combinations 2-2.48 2-2.2-4 Torus Shell Pressures Due to Operating Differential Pressure Pool Swell at Key Times and Selected Locations 2-2.49 2-2.2-5 Torus Shell Pressures Due to Zero Differential Pressure Pool Swell at Key Times and Selected Locations 2-2.50 2-2.2-6 Ring Girder LOCA Submerged Structure Load Distributions 2-2.51 2-2.2-7 DBA Condensation Oscillation Torus Shell Pressure Amplitudes 2-2.52 0 2-2.2-8 2-2.2-9 Ring Girder DBA Condensation Oscillation Submerged Structure Load Distributions Post-Chug Torus Shell Pressure Amplitudes 2-2.54 2-2.55 2-2.2-10 Ring Girder Pre-Chug Submerged Structure Load Distributions 2-2.57 2-2.2-11 Ring Girder Post-Chug Submerged Structure Load Distributions 2-2.58 2-2.2-12 Ring Girder SRV Submerged Structure Load Distributions 2-2.59 2-2.2-13 Controlling Suppression Chamber Load Combinations 2-2.89 2-2.2-14 Enveloping Logic for Controlling Suppression Chamber Load Combinations 2-2.91 2-2.3-1 Allowable Stresses for Suppression Chamber Components and Supports 2-2.99
-?
COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-x
LIST OF TABLES
/ (Concluded)
Number Title Page 2-2.3-2 Suppression Chamber Vertical Support System Allowable Loads 2-2.100 2-2.4-1 Suppression Chamber Frequency Analysis Results 2-2.117 2-2.5-1 Maximum Suppression Chamber Shell Stresses for Governing Loads 2-2.143 2-2.5-2 Maximum Vertical Support Reactions for Governing Suppression Chamber Loadings 2-2.144
! 2-2.5-3 Mat.imum Suppression Chamber Stresses for Controlling Load Combinations 2-2.145 2-2.5-4 Maximum Vertical Support Reactions for Controlling Suppression Chamber Load Combinations 2-2.146 2-2.5-5 Maximum Suppression Chamber Shell Stresses Due to Lateral Loads 2-2,147
\ 2-2.5-6 Maximum Seismic Restraint Reactions Due to Lateral Loads 2-2.148 2-2.5-7 Maximum Suppression Chamber Shell Stresses and Seismic Restraint ;
4 Reactions for Controlling Load Combination with Lateral Loads 2-2.149 2-2.5-8 Maximum Fatigue Usage Factors for Suppression Chamber Components and Welds 2-2.150 l
1 l
l l
COM-02-039-2'
\-s/ Revision 0 2-xi 1
.- .~ . - ,- , , , - . - - - - . .
. LIST OF FIGURES Number Title Page 2-2.1-1 Plan View of Containment 2-2.9 2-2.1-2 Elevation View of Containment 2-2.10 2-2.1-3 Suppression Chamber Section - Midbay Vent Line Bay 2-2.11
~
! 2-2.1-4 Suppression Chamber Section - Miter Joint 2-2.12 2-2.1-5 Suppression Chamber Section - Midbay Non-Vent Line Bay 2-2.13 2-2.1-6 Developed View of Suppression Chamber Segment 2-2.14 2-2.1-7 Suppression Chamber Ring Girder and l
Vertical Supports - Partial Elevation View 2-2.15 2-2.1-8 Suppression Chamber Vertical Support Base Plates - Partial Plan View and Details 2-2.16
_{'_s I. 2-2.1-9 Suppression Chamber Ring Girder and Column Connection Details 2-2.17 2-2.1-10 Suppression Chamber Seismic Restraint 2-2.18 2-2.1-11 T-quencher Locations and SRV Set Point 2-2.19 Pressures - Plan View 2-2.1-12 T-quencher and T-quencher Supports -
Plan View and Details 2-2.20 2-2.2-1 Suppression Chamber Internal Pressures for SBA Event 2-2.60 2-2.2-2 Suppression Chamber Internal Pressures for IBA Event 2-2.61 2-2.2-3 Suppression Chamber Internal Pressures for DBA Event 2-2.62 2-2.2-4 Suppression Chamber Temperatures for SBA Event 2-2.63 b)
(__/
COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-xii l
l
. . ._ - _ . . - _ . _ _ . ~ . . . . - _ . . _ _ - - . _ _ . - - -
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Number Title Page 2-2.2-5 Suppression Chamber Temperatures for IBA Event 2-2.64 2-2.2-6 Suppression Chamber Temperatures for DBA Event 2-2.65
- 2-2.2-7 Suppression Chamber Support Differential Temperatures 2-2.66 2-2.2-8 Pool Swell Torus Shell Pressure Transient at Suppression Chamber Miter Joint -
Bottom Dead Center (Operating Differential Pressure) 2-2.67 2-2.2-9 Pool Swell Torus Shell Pressure Transient for Suppression Chamber Airspace
- (Operating Differential Pressure) 2-2.68 2-2.2-10 Pool Swell Torus Shell Pressure Transient at Suppression Chamber Miter Joint -
Bottom Dead Center (Zero Differential Pressure) 2-2.69 2-2.2-11 Pool Swell Torus Shell Pressure Transient for Suppression Chamber Airspace (Zero Differential Pressure) 2-2.70 2-2.2-12 Normalized Torus Shell Pressure Distribu-tion for DBA Condensation Oscillation and Post-Chug Loadings 2-2.71 2-2.2-13 Pool Acceleration Profile for Dominant Suppression Chamber Frequency at Mid-cylinder Location 2-2.72 l
2-2.2-14 Circumferential Torus Shell Pressure Distribution for Symmetric and Asymmetric Pre-Chug Loadings 2-2.73 2-2.2-15 Longitudinal Torus Shell Pressure Distribution for Asymmetric Pre-Chug i Loadings 2-2.74 f,/
s_
k COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-xiii ,
N LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Number Title Page 2-2.2-16 SRV Discharge Torus Shell Loads for Single Valve Actuation 2-2.75 2-2.2-17 SRV Discharge Torus Shell Loads for Multiple Valve Actuation 2-2.76 2-2.2-18 Longitudinal Torus Shell Pressure Distribution for SRV Discharge 2-2.77 2-2.2-19 Suppression Chamber SBA Event Sequence 2-2.92 2-2.2-20 Suppression Chamber IBA Event Sequence 2-2.93 2-2.2-21 Suppression Chamber DBA Event Sequence 2-2.94 2-2.4-1 Suppression Chamber 1/32 Segment Finite Element Model - Isometric View 2-2.120 2-2.4-2 Ring Girder Model - View from the Miter Joint 2-2.121 2-2.4-3 Ring Girder Model - Isometric View 2-2.122
\
2-2.4-4 Final Ring Girder Stiffener Configuration 2-2.123 2-2.4-5 Suppression Chamber Fluid Model -
Isometric View 2-2.124 2-2.4-6 Suppression Chamber Harmonic Analysis Results for Normalized Hydrostatic Load 2-2.125 2-2.4-7 Modal Correction Factors Used for Analysis of SRV Discharge Torus Shell Loads 2-2.126 2-2.4-8 Methodology for Suppression Chamber Lateral Load Application 2-2.133 2-2.4-9 Typical Chugging Cycle Load Transient Used for Asymmetric Pre-Chug Dynamic Amplification Factor Determination 2-2.134 A
COM-02-039-2
' (d)
' Revision 0 2-xiv
r) LIST OF FIGURES (Concluded)
Number Title Page 2-2.4-10 Dynamic Load Factor Determination for Suppression Chamber Unbalanced Lateral Load Due to SRV Discharge -
Multiple Valve Actuation 2-2.135 2-2.4-11 Allowable Number of Stress Cycles for Suppression Chamber Fatigue Evaluation 2-2.140 2-2.5-1 Suppression Chamber Response Due to Pool Swell Loads - Total Vertical Load Per Mitered Cylinder (Zero Differential Pressure) 2-2.151 2-2.5-2 Suppression Chamber Response Due to Pool Swell Loads - Total Vertical Load Per Mitered Cylinder (Operating Differential Pressure) 2-2.152 2-2.5-3 Suppression Chamber Response Due to Single Valve SRV Discharge Torus Shell Loads - Total Vertical Load Per Mitered Cylinder 2-2.153 2-2.5-4 Suppression Chamber Response Due to Multiple Valve SRV Discharge Torus Shell Loads - Total Vertical Load Per Mitered Cylinder 2-2.154 COM-02-039-2
'O' Revision 0 2-xv
2-
1.0 INTRODUCTION
In conjunction with Volume 1 of the PUAR, this volume documents the efforts undertaken to address the NUREG-0661 requirements which affect the Quad Cities Units 1 and 2 suppression chambers. Since the components for the two units are identical, only one analysis was performed. The suppression chamber PUAR is organized as follows:
o INTRODUCTION Scope of Analysis Summary and Conclusions o SUPPRESSION CHAMBER ANALYSIS
- Component Description Loads and Load Combinations Acceptance Criteria
- Methods of Analysis Analysis Results The INTRODUCTION section contains an overview of the scope of the suppression chamber evaluation, as well as a summary of . the conclusions derived from the compre-hensive evaluation of the suppression chamber. The
, SUPPRESSION CHAMBER ANALYSIS section contains a COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-1.1
comprehensive discussion of the suppression chamber loads and load combinations and a description of the suppression chamber components affected by these loads. The section also contains a discussion of the methodology used to evaluate the effects of these loads, the evaluation results, and the acceptance limits to which the results are compared.
O l
i COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-1.2 nutggh
.- ~-_ - . ._
2-1.1 Scope of Analysis The criteria presented in Volume 1 are used as the basis for the Quad Cities Units 1 and 2 suppression chamber evaluation. The suppression chamber is evaluated for the effects of loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA)-related and safety relief valve (SRV) discharge-related loads defined by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Safety Evaluation Report NUREG-0661 (Reference 1) and by the " Mark I Containment Program Load Definition Report" (LDR) (Reference 2), as well as for loads considered in the original design of the suppression chamber.
i The LOCA and SRV discharge loads used in this evalua-tion are formulated using the methodology discussed in Volume 1 of this report. The loads are developed using the plant unique operating parameters and test results contained in the " Mark I Containment Program Plant Unique Load Definition" (PULD) report (Reference 3).
The effects of increased suppression pool temperatures which occur during SRV discharge events are also evaluated. These temperatures are taken from the " Quad Cities 1 and 2 Nuclear Generating Plants Suppression Pool Temperature Response" (Reference 4). The normal l
l
) COM-02-039-2 V Revision 0 2-1.3 l l
sr._ -r, , - , . ,.- ,
operating condition (NOC) pressure loads are taken from the plant unique " Containment Data" specifications (References 5 and 6) and the seismic loads are taken from the plants' design specification (Reference 7).
The evaluation includes a structural analysis of the suppression chamber for the effects of LOCA-related and SRV discharge-related loads to confirm that the design of the modified suppression chamber is adequate.
Rigorous analytical techniques are used in this evaluation, including the use of detailed analytical models for computing the dynamic response of the suppression chamber. The effect of fluid-structure interaction (FSI) is also considered in the analysis.
The results of the structural evaluation of the suppression chamber for each load are used to evaluate load combinations and fatigue effects in accordance with the " Mark I Containment Program Structural Acceptance Criteria Plant Unique Analysis Applications Guide" (PUAAG) (Reference 8). The analysis results are f compared with the acceptance limits specified by the l
l PUAAG and the applicable sections of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code (Reference 9).
COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-i.4 nutg,gh
f j
Q 2-1.2 Summary and Conclusions The evaluation documented in this volume is based on the modified Quad Cities Units 1 and 2 suppression chambers described in Section 1-2.1. The overall load-carrying capacity of the suppression chamber and its supports is substantially greater than the original suppression chamber design described in the plant's Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) (Reference 10).
The loads considered in the original design of the suppression chamber and it supports include dead weight, earthquake, and pressure and temperature loads associated with NOC and a postulated LOCA event. The V additional loadings which affect the design of the suppression chamber and supports are defined generi-cally in NUREG-0661. These loads are postulated to occur during small break accident (SBA), intermediate break accident (IBA), or design basis accident (DBA)
LOCA events and during SRV discharge events. Each of these events results in hydrodynamic pressure loadings on the suppression . chamber shell, hydrodynamic drag loadings on the submerged . suppression chamber components, and interaction loadings caused by loads acting on structures attached to the suppression chamber.
COM-02-039-2 Revision.0 2-1.5 nutagh
. . - , . - . . , . , - , , , . . , . . , . , - , - - -, ,r--.~.- .- - r
The methodology used to develop plant unique loadings for the suppression chamber evaluation is discussed in Section 1-4.0. Applying this methodology results in conservative values for each of the significant NUREG-0661 loadings which envelop those postulated to occur during an actual LOCA or SRV discharge event.
The LOCA-related and SRV discharge-related loads are grouped into event combinations using the NUREG-0661 criteria discussed in Section 1-3.2. The event sequencing and event combinations specified and evaluated envelop the actual events expected to occur throughout the life of the plant.
The loads contained in the postulated event com-binations which are major contributors to the total response of the suppression chamber include LOCA internal pressure loads, DBA pool swell torus shell loads, DBA condensation oscillation (CO) torus shell loads, and SRV discharge torus shell loads. Although considered in the evaluation, other loadings such as temperature loads, seismic loads, chugging torus shell loads, submerged structure loads, and containment structure reaction loads have a lesser effect on the total response of the suppression chamber.
COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-1.6 nutggl)
D The suppression chamber evaluation is based on the NUREG-0661 acceptance criteria discussed in Section 1-3.2. These acceptance limits are based on Section i III of the ASME Code. Use of these criteria assures that the original suppression chamber design margins have been restored.
i The controlling event combinations for the suppression chamber include loadings found to be major contributors to the response of the suppression chamber. The results for these controlling event combinations show that all of the suppression chamber stresses and support reactions are within Code limits.
1 As a result, the suppression chambers described in Section 1-2.1 have been shown to fulfill the margins of safety inherent in the original design documented in the plant's final safety analysis report. The NUREG-0661 requirements are therefore considered to be <
met.
I
,I I
t COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-1.7 .
_ _ _ _ . _ ._ . . . - _ ._ . -. _= . . - .
2-2.0 SUPPRESSION CHAMBER ANALYSIS Evaluations of each NUREG-0661 requirement which affects the design adequacy of the Quad cities Units 1 and 2 suppression chambers are presented in the following sections. The criteria used in this evaluation are presented in Volume 1 of this report.
The suppression chamber components evaluated are described in Section 2-2.1. The loads and load combinations for which the suppression chamber is evaluated are presented in Section 2-2.2. The acceptance limits to which the analysis results are compared are described in Section 2-2.3. The method-ology used to evaluate the effects of these loads and load combinations on the suppression chamber is discussed in Section 2-2.4. The analysis results and 4
the corresponding suppression chamber design margins are presented in Section 2-2.5.
- COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2.1 nutggh
2-2.1 Component Description The Quad Cities Units 1 and 2 suppression chambers are constructed from 16 mitered cylindrical shell segments joined together in the shape of a torus. Figure 2-2.1-1 illustrates the configuration of each suppres-sion chamber. Figures 2-2.1-1 through 2-2.1-7 show the proximity of the suppression chamber to other components of the containment.
The suppression chamber is connected to the drywell by eight vent lines (VL) which, in turn, are connected to a common vent header (VH) within the suppression chamber. Attached to the vent header are downcomers (DC) which terminate below the surface of the suppres-sion pool. The vent system is supported vertically at each miter joint (MJ) by two support columns which transfer reaction loads to the suppression chamber (Figure 2-2.1-4). A bellows assembly is provided at the penetration of the vent line to the suppression chamber to allow differential movement of the suppres-sion chamber and vent system to occur (Figure 2-2.1-3).
Figure 2-2.1-1 shows that the major radius of the suppression chamber is 54'6", measured at midbay of each mitered cylinder. The inside diameter ( ID) of the COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2,2 nutggh
N mitered cylinders which make up the suppression chamber is 30'0". The suppression chamber shell thickness is typically 0.582" above the horizontal centerline, and 0.649" below the horizontal centerline, except at penetrations, where it is locally thickened (Figure 2-2.1-3).
The suppression chamber shell is reinforced at each miter joint location by a T-shaped ring girder ( Figures 2-2.1-4, 2-2.1-7 and 2-2.1-9). A typical ring girder is located in a plane 4" from the miter joint and on the non-vent line bay (NVB) side of each miter joint.
As such, the intersection of a ring girder web and the 7 suppression chamber shell is an ellipse. The inner flange of a ring girder is rolled to a constant inside radius (IR) of 13'2-1/2". Thus the ring girder web depth - varies from 20" to 23-7/8" and has a constant thickness of 1-1/2". The upper and lower portions of the ring- girders are attached to the suppression chamber shell with 5/16" fillet welds ( Figures 2-2.1-8 and 2-2.1-9).
r l The ring girders are laterally reinforced at the base of the vent header support columns by 1" thick plate assemblles (Figure 2-2.1-9). There are five such assemblies in the bays with SRV discharge lines in both
' COM-02-039-2 l
Revision 0 2-2.3 nutggh
units. In the non-SRV discharge line bays, there are no such assemblies in Unit 1, and two in Unit 2. In addition to these lateral stiffeners, the ring-girder-web plate-to-torus-shell fillet weld was increased from 5/16" to 5/8" over a 12'0" long arc near the outside torus support column (Figure 2-2.1-7).
The suppression chamber is supported vertically at each miter joint by inside and outside columns and by a saddle support which spans the inside and outside columns (Figures 2-2.1-4, 2-2.1-7 and 2-2.1-8). The columns and column connection plate webs are perpendicular to the longitudinal centerline of the suppression chamber. The saddle supports are located parallel to the associated miter joint and in the plane of the ring girder web. At each miter joint, the ring girder, the columns, the column connections, and the saddle support form an integral support system, which takes vertical loads acting on the suppression chamber shell and tranfers them to the reactor building basemat. The support system provides full vertical support for the suppression chamber, at the same time allowing radial movement and thermal expansion to occur.
COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2.4 nutggh
Figure 2-2.1-4 shows that the vertical support system is geometrically continuous over the lower half of the suppression chamber. It provides a load transfer 4
mechanism which acts to reduce local suppression chamber shell stresses and to more evenly distribute reaction loads to the basemat. The vertical support system also acts to raise the suppression chamber natural frequencies beyond the critical f requencies of most hydrodynamic loads, thereby reducing dynamic amplification effects.
l The inside and outside column supports are wide-flange i
sections constructed from a 1" thick web plate with l
l-1/4" thick flanges (Figure 2-2.1-8). The column base plate assemblies consist of a 2-7/8" thick base plate, a 1/2" thick lubrite plate, and a 3-1/8" bearing plate (Figure 2-2.1-8). The lubrite pad allows gross torus thermal growth in the radial direction to reduce stresses due to uniform thermal loads.
The connection of the column supports to the suppres-sion chamber shell consists of the column web and flanges, 1" thick stiffener platec, and 1-1/4" thick l
I column patch plates (Figure 2-2.1-9).
Ov COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2.5 nutggb
The column connection web plates and saddle support web plates are connected with fillet welds and partial penetration welds.
Rach saddle support consists of a 1-1/4" thick web-plate, a 1-1/4" thick lower flange plate and saddle base plate assemblies (Figures 2-2.1-7 and 2-2.1-8). l The saddle base plate assemblies consist of a 2-7/8" thick base plate, a 1/2" thick lubrite plate, and a 1-1/2" thick bearing plate. This assembly allows for radial growth due to thermal loads as do the column base plate assemblies. The saddle is reinforced with 3/4" thick stiffener plates to ensure that buckling does not occur during peak loading conditions.
The anchorage of the suppression chamber to the basemat consists of eight, 1-3/4" diameter, epoxy-grouted anchor bolts provided at each saddle base plate location'. The bolts are anchored through a 3-13/16" long slotted hole in the base plate to allow for thermal growth. A total of 16 anchor bolts at each miter joint provides the principal mechanism for transfer of uplift loads on the suppression chamber to the basemat.
COM-02-039 Revision 0 2-2.6 nutggh
Four seismic restraints, which provide lateral support for the suppression chamber, are located 90' apart (Figure 2-2.1-1). Each seismic restraint consists of a 2" thick pad plate welded to the bottom of the suppres-sion chamber shell, a system of interlaced vertical gusset plates joined by a 7" diameter pin, and a 2" thick base plate with shear bars keyed and grouted into the basemat (Figure 2-2.1-10). The seismic restraints permit vertical and radial movement of the suppression chamber, while restraining longitudinal movement resulting from lateral loads acting on the suppression chamber. The pad plates distribute loads over a large area of the suppression chamber shell and provide an Q effective means of transferring suppression chamber U lateral loads to the basemat.
The suppression pool temperature monitoring system (SPTMS) used in Quad Cities Units 1 and 2 is described in Section 1-5.2. Each unit has 16 temperature monitoring devices which are each threaded into a thermowell. The thermowells are inserted through 0.75" diameter holes in the suppression chamber and are welded to it (Figures 2-2.1-3 and 2-2.1-5).
The T-quencher used in Quad Cities Units 1 and 2 is described in Section 1-4.2. Each unit has five vent d COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2.7 nutggb
bays with T-quenchers. The ramsheads of the T-quenchers are located near midbay, with the associated quenener arms oriented down the centerline of the vent bay (Figure 2-2.1-11).
The quencher arms are supported by a horizontal pipe beam which spans the miter joint ring girders (Figure 2-2.1-12). Volume 5 of the PUAR provides a description of the SRVDL and T-quencher support systems.
The suppression chamoer provides support for many other containment-related structures, such as the vent system and the catwalk. Loads acting on the suppression chamber cause motions at the points where these struc-tures attach to the suppression chamber. Loads acting on these structures also cause reaction loads on the suppression chamber. These containment interaction effects are evaluated in the analysis of the suppres-sion chamber.
The overall load-carrying capacities of the suppression chamber components described in the preceding paragraphs provide additional design margins for those components of the original suppression chamber design, described in the plant's final safety analysis report.
COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2.8 nutggi)
O 90 SEISMIC '
RESTRAINT
\,m ,9 30 '-0" ID
, fmm ,
VENT LINE PENETRATION , O Q 2
54'-6" 0
o -
DRYEE
-l-i Q '
- 180 g
4 Y SPHERICAL >
O JUNCTION A
t h ,/
MITER JOINT
/
VENT SYSTEM s
u 3 g VENT HEADER ) '
NON-VENT '
SUPPRESSION LINE BAY CHAMBER DOWNCOMER VENT LINE BAY 0
VENT LINE l l
Figure 2-2.1-1 I
PLAN VIEW OF CONTAINMENT lO COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2.9 nutp_qh
( CONTAINMENT l
_EL 666'-8 1/2"
\
_18'-6" IR I
33'-0" IR DRYWELL g SHIELD BUILDING 11'-0" DIA EL 602'-10" VENT LINE .. -
SPHERICAL JUNCTION
\ \
=e 35 0
BELLOWS SUPP RESSION , >
CHAMBER 'I
~
T
~ ' ~*
_ EL 577'-6" ~
6 -
EL 579'-10"
{( -cW- e. . . . , .s, _
7 _
.= y, .. ..e s .
CCWNCOMER d 4' EL 565'-1o"
\ /
-d @ (
'[_,,y ljlt
= c e, ifll -
_EL 554'-0" .,
i(;I f- 1 i l Figure 2-2.1-2 ELEVATION VIEW OF CONTAINMENT COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2.10 nutggh
O 5
54'-6" TC ( l CF CONTAIN!*.ENT VENT HEACER SPRAY HEADER i SPHERICAL VENT LINE fJUNCTICH 2'-0*
BELLOWS VENT HEACER A33EM8bI
, q, g gy 2'-5* IR , LINE 0.582* THICK 6'-9" ID WALL AsoVE , ,
2*08'15*
HORIIONTAL ( ,
/ o
. . =
j ..
- Il f I hM '
DOWNCCME R LEG (TYP) 6'a0" g l lj g ,. -
,EL 571'-6" /_- ,
i '
_q 0.649" THICK f f SRV DISCHARGE WALL BELOW \ / LINE HORIIONTAL q SRV LINE Ox CATWALK ,
SUPPORT BEAM VENT HEACER .
CEFLECTOR ,
6
. THERM 0WELL ,
ECCS '
T-CUENCHER LATERAL RESTRAINT T* QUENCHER SUPPORT BEAM Figure 2-2.1-3 SUPPRESSION CHAMBER SECTION -
MIDBAY VENT LINE BAY b\ )
5 COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2.11 nutggh
1
- TO { OF CONTAINMENT 15'-0" IR YENI PERPENDICULAR HEADERg TO SUPPRESSION \ 13'-2 1/2" IR CHAMBER SHELL IN PLANE OF
\ RING GIRCER SPRAY s -VENT HEACER HEADER CEFLECTOR 2'-5" s \
CATwALx IR s s
- VENT SYSTEM SUPP PISSION , SUPPORT COLUMNS CHAMBER 0
- r-E,L 571'-6" , ,
f __ _ -
RING
-QUENCHER GIRDER I J
HEADER INSICE
'g u M .fu COLUMN OUTSIDE M ,
COLUM { }j p\
~ y \ y -
EL.- 554'-0" ,ai!qg -
-,_ f g r -,
.m ii i a
' S 1,-l *r
- mj?l:
SADDLE T-QUENCHER - RING GIRDER
- SUPPORT l SUPPORT STIFFENE RS BEAM 1
l l
Figure 2-2.1-4
, SUPPRESSION CHAMBER SECTION -
MITER JOINT COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2.12 nutggb
O E SPRAY HEADER -
VENT HEADER DOWNCOMER/ VENT HEADER STIFFENER CATWALK 2'-5" IR SUPPORT
-6'-0"
.l .
v a l l 10'-l 1/2" p ,
/
/
DOWMCOMER y
[ 4s.o= 4'_
Q : : : :
15'-C" IR g THERMOWELL VENT HEADER DEFLECTOR DOWNCOMER LATERAL BRACING ER SEISMIC RESTRAINT EL 554'-0" ~i -
Ifg g ff. '?,y
' ~
GROUT l
t Figure 2-2.1-5 l
SUPPRESSION CHAMBER SECTION -
l MIDBAY NON-VENT LINE BAY (D
COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2.13 nutggh
Q MITER JOINT Q. VENT LINE BAY q, MITER JOINT I I i i I i RING GIRDER
-4 . VENT LINE ] ~
5'-6" IR p / SPHERICAL l JUNCTION l VENT HEADER 4
r l l k + -
r'3 -
O O 3 r3 J
i r- )
_( _
.i
_j L' --_ __0
~~
VACUUM VENT 3REAKER DOWNCOMER g HEADER PENETRATION DEFLECTOR I SRV 4 -
i
[LINE I l VENT SYSTEM -- DOWNCOMER SUPPORT COLUMN ,, LONGITUDINAL BRACING
.. T ri M{RAMSHEAD f-QUENCHERARM IA
+ _
7 . . . . -4, . ,. .!. 'P- _
1%
- T-QUENCHER SUPPRESSION N :
g 8 SUPPORT BEAM ""
CHAMBER SHELL g gt l'-1" g S :
% SADDLE SUPPORT SRV LINE EL 554'-0" l,yt0.3.
, ' *3Nf :\
Figure 2-2.1-6 DEVELOPED VIEW OF SUPPRESSION CHAMBER SEGMENT l COM-0 2-0 39- 2 Revision 0 2-2.14 nutggh
TO CON'"AINMENT SUPPRESSION CHAMBER SHELL y WELD LENGTH 7
5/8 \12'-0*
5/8 [12'-0" 4'-0"
~
l' THICK STIFFENERS l
v .r /
RING GIRCER f -QENGER T STIFFENER /
p -
B T-QUENCHE R
( OUTSIDE ,
COLUMN j 1 1/4' THICK % 'N ,
D SADDLE WEB f M TE g .
g s' f f#; :
l
^
4- 2'-8 1/E' ARC LENGTH t - i {
EL $54'-0*
. . . . \ 1
- +g AAAE \ SACDLE C
)' '.*",)- Nkkk SUPPORT T [
\-
- 1. SEE FIGURE 2-2.1-8 AND FIGURE 2-2.1.9 FOR SECTIONS AND VIEWS, RESPECTIVELY.
Figure 2-2.1-7 l 3,.UEPRESSION U CHAMBER RING GIRDER AND VERTICAL SUPPORTS -
PARTIAL ELEVATION VIEW (O'/ COM-02-039-2 2-2.15 Revision 0 nutggh
2 7/8" THICK 8AUCLE 8A8E PLAIE 1 1/ T"ICK O
2'-4 1/16" LCWEP FLANGE Cp l'-2 3/8" 1 1/4" THICK
, -(TYP) WEB PLATE 7 -
l i e
' z k_ l I I'l"l"1 4 4A C -
9" (TYP) 3'-9" _._
6'-4 1/2*
13'-5 9/32'
_ TO q CF DRYWELL E
SECTION A-A (FROM FIGURE 2 - 2 .1- 7 )
5/16 \ SUPPRESSICN 5/16 / css CHAMBER SHELL 1 1/4" K , ,
8 l'-0 1/2" 9 FLANGE (TYP) 1 1/4* THICK '
5/16
/
g-[
SACCLC PLATE :N(5/16) ,,
3/4' THICK i \ (5/16) \
5/16 ll
., ,D^
BOL*
STIFFENERS i
2 7/9* THICK ll
' COLUMN BASE ll j 7/8* HICK PLATE '
1 3/4" OIA , 3EAggyo ptATE ll 3 1/8* THICK A:1CMOR BOLTS i 1/2' THICK g !I' 1 ,/~
1 t/2 THICK 1 ,
eL f uaRITE L
PLATE f /** Ai ,
BEARING PLA H % ; CROUT g j
=
f f RCUT
/fP M M *@
fM \ 2"
' *-*k ICK LUB RITE PLATE l
SECTION B-B VIEW C-C l (FROM FIGURE 2-2.1-7) l Figure 2-2.1-8 SUPPRESSION CHAMBER VERTICAL SUPPORT BASE PLATES -
PARTIAL PLAN VIEW AND DETAILS COM-02-039-?.
Revision 0 2-2.16 nutgch
l
/~%
/ i V l vm k
LX w Ni a V f 1" THICK STITTINER
[ PLATI t'-s*
yp SUPPRESSION CHAMBER
[ SHELL xx x -x
_ x x -x x x Ah x l'-7*
SECTION D-D (FROM FIGURE 2-2.1-7)
\ 1" THICK STIFTENER 1 1/2" 3
5/16 \
TE 1* THICK 5/16 / 8_
COLUMN WEB] ,
\ ~ ,
COLUMN / \ ,
RING 4" PATCH / ,
h4 "
GIROER { t
, VARIES SUPPRESSION SUPPRESSION l' THICK CHAMBER SHELL CHAMBER SHELL MITER STIFFENER PLATE JOINT $
SECTION E-E SECTION F-F
_ (FROM FIGURE 2-2.1-7) (FROM FIGURE 2-2.1-7) l
. Figure 2-2.1-9 SUPPRESSION CHAMBER RING GIRDER AND COLUMN CONNECTION DETAILS COM-02-039-02 Revision 0 '2-2.17 nutggb
O r-( MIDBAY 10'-4 1/2" 9- (TYP) 4 I/ 2 * -*-*
(TYP) 2* TilICK " ,,f+h--.
- N 2* THICK HIC GUSSET PLATE L,-
. . , _ ;_,,' 'NJ f g PAD PLATE 7'. L I '- *,
7 1/2*- 2* THICK SHEAR BAR A (TYP)
, Io'-3*
l-ELEVATION VIEW 15'-0* IR
( SUPPRESSION CHAMBER 2'-11 21/32*
CHORD I,ENGTH n
I I I l'-5 11/32' la:ah ' / 7 DIA IIN o n r l'-0* o 0 0 EL 554'-0*
3 1/2*-
yye
- A;;;. [
1 5'-0*
caCoT 5'-4" SECTION A-A
- 1. SEE FIGU.RE 2-2.1-1 FOR SEISMIC RESTRAINT LOCATIONS.
Figure 2-2.1-10 SUPPRESSION CHAMBER SEISMIC RESTRAINT COM-0 2-0 39- 2 Revision 0 2-2.18 nutggh
. .--.n- - .
90' O
S 3 N ,. \ . i ,.
I, t135
- f .
c'. . - - teo*
i tus! uts-
\
va' UNIT 1
$UPPRES$1000 '. SRV DISG ARGE GAMSE R 7 6 feCBER 1111 1135 i
I 1135
- O
. . /
o' . is.' ,
N tus
.ns- -
n.*
UNIT 2 l
t I
- 1. SET POINT PRESSURES SHOWN ARE IN PSI.
- Figure 2-2.1-11 T-QUENCHER LOCATIONS AND SRV SET POINT PRESSURES-PLAN VIEW l
O' COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2.19 nute_Ch L
. - , - , . . , , - - , - - - - , - - - . - - , - , , , , - - - - .+.-.---~,-.-------,-m,, . - - * - - . + ., , - - >w -m. , -3
( VENT LINE BAY l'-1" RING GIRDER If (TYP) ~
3 --
14" SCH 120 gg SRV LINE gg if
,s , SUPPORT BEAM gg ol n
'# i i .
i: .--. a il Ul '. 1,'
- I SRV LINE \g l;'
f \\
[i Il
) a'-3 5/8"
\
10 \
11 \
lWt f (Ja== l
- , b. - - "* J
(; -
, il - (, S UP P RES S ION
- s. .. l , y= ', enAxsER
^ ^
'i i IM Q
PLAN VIEW T.
I l'-7 1/4" : :
3'-10 5/16" -
1 a SRV LINE CENTER INTERMEDIATE T-QUENCHER ARM SUPPORT SUPPORT 0
- 4 ' - 10 1/2"
~
BRACKET [ BRACKET ,,
i L Li l1 m e alm nn als a m hl l
t l'-1" : :
\l4" SCH 140
=
j[u RING GIRDER T-QUENCHER =
l m
",, VENT LINE BAY Q. SUPPORT BEAM , \
SUPPRESSION EL 554'-0",jhg, CHAMBER SHELL SADDLE SUPPORT g hI.h MI VIEW A-A - -
Figure 2-2.1-12 T-QUENCHER AND T-QUENCHER SUPPORTS -
PLAN VIEW AND DETAILS COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2.20 nutqqh
2-2.2 Loads and Load Combinations The loads for which the Quad Cities suppression chambers are evaluated are defined in NUREG-0661 on a' generic basis for all Mark I plants. The methodology used to develop plant unique suppression chamber idads for each load defined in NUREG-0661 is discussed in Section 1-4.0. The results of applying the methodology to develop specific values for each of the governing loads which act on the suppression chamber are discussed and presented in Section 2-2.2.1.
The controlling load combinations which affect the suppression chamber are formulated using the event d
combinations and event sequencing defined in NUREG-0661 and discussed in Sections 1-3.2 and 1-4.3. The controlling suppression chamber load combinations are discussed and presented in Section 2-2.2.2.
COM-02-039-2 kj Revision 0 2-2.21 nutagh
2-2.2.1 Loads The loads acting on the suppression chamber are categorized as follows:
- 1. Dead Weight Loads
- 2. Seismic Loads
- 3. Pressure and Temperature Loads
- 4. Pool Swell Loads
- 5. Condensation oscillation Loads
- 6. Chugging Loads
- 7. Safety Relief Valve Discharge Loads
- 8. Containment Interaction Loads Loads in Categories 1 through 3 were considered in the original containment design. Loads in Categories 1 and 3 are documented in the plants' containment data speci-fications (References 5 and 6) and loads in Category 2 are documented in the plants' design specification (Reference 7). Additional Category 3 pressure and temperature loads result from postulated LOCA and SRV discharge events. Loads in Categories 4 through 6 result from postulated LOCA events; loads in Category 7 result from SRV discharge events; loads in Category 8 are reactions which result from loads acting on other structures attached to the suppression chamber.
COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2.22 nutggh
Not all of the loads defined in NUREG-0661 are eval-uated in detail, because some are enveloped by others or have a negligible effect on the suppre'ssion chamber. Only those loads which maximize the suppres-sion chamber response and lead to controlling stresses are fully evaluated. These loads are referred to as governing loads in subsequent discussions.
Table 2-2.2-1 shows the specific suppression chamber components affected by each of the loadings defined in NUREG-0661. The table also lists the section in Volume I which discusses the methodology for developing values for each loading. The magnitudes and characteristics of each governing suppression chamber load in each load category are identified and presented in the following paragraphs.
- 1. Dead Weight Loads
- a. Dead Weight of Steel: The weight of steel
- used to construct and modify the suppression chamber and its supports is considered. The nominal component dimensions and a density of steel of 490 lb/ft 3 are used in this calculation.
COM-02-039-2 b Revision 0" 2-2.23 nutggb
.- -m. p , - - - _ - - - -
7
- b. Dead Weight of Water: The weight of water contained in the suppression chamber is con- !
sidered. A volume of water of 115,655 ft3, corresponding to a water level of 1-1/2" below the suppression chamber horizontal centorline and a water density of 62.4 lb/ft3, are used in this calculation. This suppression chamber water volume is the maximum expected during normal operating conditions (NOC).
- 2. Seismic Loads
- a. OBE Loads: The suppression chamber is subjected to horizontal and vertical accel-erations during an operating basis earthquake (OBE). This loading is taken from the original design basis earthquake (DBE) for the containment documented in the plants' design specification. The OBE loads have a maximum horizontal spectral acceleration of 0.30g and a maximum vertical acceleration of 0.08g.
COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2.24 nutggh
- b. SSE Loads: The suppression chamber is sub-
\
jected to horizontal and vertical accelera-tions curing a safe shutdown earthquake (SSE). This loading is taken from the original DBE for the containment documented in the plant's final safety analysis report. The SSE loads i;e.ve a maximum horizontal spectral acceleration of 0.60g and a maximum vertical acceleration of 0.16g.
- 3. Pressure and Temperature Loads i
- a. Normal Operating Internal Pressure Loads:
The suppression chamber shell is subjected to C internal pressure loads during normal operat-ing conditions. This loading is taken-from the original design specifications for the containment documented in the plants' con-tainment data specifications (References 5 J
and 6). The range of normal operating inter-nal pressures specified is -0.2 to 0.2 psig,
- b. LOCA - Internal Pressure Loads: The suppres-sion chamber shell is subjected to internal pressure during a SBA, IBA, or DBA event.
i COM-02-039-2 L["]J p s/-
t Revision O' 2-2.25 l
nutggb
i l
The procedure used to develop LOCA internal l pressures for the primary containment is discussed in Section 1-4.1.1. Figures 2-2.2-1 through 2-2.2-3 present the resulting suppression chamber internal pressure transients and pressure magnitudes at key times during the SBA, IBA, and DBA events.
The pressures specified for each event are assumed to act uniformly over the suppression chamber shell surface, except during the early portion of a DBA event. The effects of internal pressure on the suppression chamber for the initial portion of a DBA event are included in the pool swell torus shell loads, discussed in Load Cases 4a and 4b. The corresponding suppression chamber external or secondary containment pressure for all events is assumed to be 0.0 psig.
- c. Normal Operating Temperature Loads: The suppression chamber is subjected to the thermal expansion load associated with normal operating conditions. This loading is taken from the original design specification for COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2.26 nutggh
N O the containment documented in the plants'
' \g containment data specifications.
Additional suppression chamber normal operat-ing temperatures are taken from the suppres-sion pool temperature response analysis (Reference 4). Table 2-2.2-2 summarizes the maximum bulk pool temperatures.
The range of normal operating temperatures in the suppression chamber during a concurrent SRV discharge event is 70* to 164*F (References 4, 5, and 6).
- d. LOCA Temperature Loads: The suppression chamber is subjected to thermal expansion loads associated with the SBA, IBA, and DBA events. The procedure used to develop LOCA containment temperatures is discussed in Section 1-4.1.1. Figures 2-2.2-4 through i 2-2.2-6 present the resulting suppression chamber temperature transients and tempera-ture magnitudes at key times during the SBA, IBA, and DBA events.
i I
! (("j' COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2.27 L nutach l
Additional suppression chamber SBA event temperatures are taken from the suppression pool temperature response analysis. Table 2-2.2-2 summarizes the resulting maximum bulk pool temperatures. The greater of the temperatures specified in Figure 2-2.2-4 and Table 2-2.2-2 is used in evaluating the effects of SBA event temperatures.
The temperatures specified for each event are assumed to be representative of pool tempera-tures, airspace temperatures, and torus shell metal temperatures throughout the suppression chamber. The ambient temperature for all events is assumed to be equal to the minimum teatperature during normal operating conditions.
As the temperature of the torus shell begins to increase, the temperature difference between the torus shell and the suppression chamber vertical supports will result in differential thermal expansion effects.
Temperatures in the suppression chamber vertical supports are obtained from a o'ne-COM-02-039-2
- Revision 0 2-2.28 nutggb
dimensional steady-state heat transfer analysis performed using the thermal characteristics of the suppression chamber.
Coefficients are then calculated and temperature profiles are derived (Figure 2-2.2-7).
- 4. Pool Swell Loads The Quad Cities Units 1 and 2 employ a system to maintain a 1 psi pressure differential between the drywell and wetwell (References 5 and 6). The purpose of this system is to reduce the downcomer waterleg and thereby mitigate the pressure exerted on the torus shell during a LOCA event.
As required by NUREG-0661, Load Combination Number 16 (defined in Table 2-2.2-3) must be evaluated twice, once assuming the pressure dif ferential is intact, and once assuming the pressure differ-ential is lost. A higher stress allowable is permitted for the latter case.
- a. . Operating Differential Pressure Pool Swell Torus Shell Loads: During the initial phase i .
COM-02-039-2
J . Revision 0 2-2.29 I
- nutggh
I l
of a DBA event, transient pressures are postulated to act on the suppression chamber shell above and below the suppression pool surface. The procedure used to develop local torus shell pressures due to pool swell is discussed in Section 1-4.1.3. Figures 2-2.2-8 and 2-2.2-9 show the resulting pressure-time histories at selected locations on the torus shell. Table 2-2.2-4 shows a sampling of operating AP pool swell torus shell pressures at various locations and at key times during the event.
These results are based on plant unique quarter-scale test facility (OSTF) test data contained in the PULD (Reference 3) and include the effects of the generic spatial distribution factors and of the conservatism factors on the peak upward and downward loads. Pool swell torus shell loads consist of a quasi-static internal pressure component l and a dynamic pressure component, and include the effects of the DBA internal pressure discussed in Load Case 3b. Pool swell loads occurring during SBA and IBA events are bounded by the DBA case.
COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2.30 nutggh l
. . . _ ~ _ ___
- b. Zero Differential Pressure Pool Swell Torus Shell Loads: The zero AP pool swell load phenomena are the same as those previously i described for the operating AP conditions.
Figures 2-2.2-10 and 2-2.2-11 show the resulting pressure-time histories at selected locations on the torus shell. Table 2-2.2-5 shows a sampling of zero AP pool swell torus shell pressures at various locations and at key times during the event. These results were calculated on the same basis as the operating AP results.
' c. LOCA Water Jet Loads on Submerged Structures:
Transient drag pressures are postulated to act on structures that are within four downcomer diameters below the downcomer exit elevation. The structure involved is the ring girder. The procedure used to develop the transient forces of the LOCA water jet loads i on the ring girder is discussed in Section 1-4.1.5.
Table 2-2.2-6 shows the resulting magnitudes and distribution of drag pressures acting on l COM-02-039-2 gj Revision 0 2-2.31
- nutggb
the ring girders for the LOCA water jet loads. These results include the etfects of velocity drag, acceleration drag, inter-ference effects, and wall effects.
- d. LOCA Bubble-Induced Loads on Submerged Structures: Transient drag pressures are postulated to act on the ring girders and other structures during the air clearing phase of a DBA event. The procedure used to develop the transient forces and spatial distribution of LOCA bubble-induced drag loads on these components is discussed in Section 1-4.1.6.
Table 2-2.2-6 shows the resulting magnitudes O
and distribution of drag pressures acting on the ring girders for the controlling LOCA bubble-induced drag load case. These results include the effects of velocity drag, accel-eration drag, interference effects, and wall effects. The LOCA bubble-induced submerged structure loads which occur during a SBA or IBA event have a negligible effect on the suppression chamber.
COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2.32 nutggh
- 5. Condensation Oscillation Loads
- a. DBA CO Torus Shell Loads: Harmonic pressures are. postulated to act on the submerged portion of the suppression chamber shell during the CO phase of a DBA event. The. pro-cedure used to develop DBA CO torus shell pressures is discussed in Section 1-4.1.7.
Figure 2-2.2-12 shows the resulting normal-ized spatial distribution of pressures on a typical suppression chamber shell cross-1 section. Table 2-2.2-7 shows the amplitudes for each of the 50 harmonics and four DBA CO load case alternates.
\
The results of each harmonic in the DBA CO loading are combined using the methodology
~
discussed in Section 1-4.1.7.
- b. .IBA CO Torus Shell Loads: Harmonic pressures are postulated to act on the submerged portion of the suppression chamber shell
, during an IBA event.- In accordance with NUREG-0661, the torus shell loads specified for pre-chug are used in lieu of IBA CO torus i
i /
, i j COM-02-039-2 l -b Revision 0 2-2.33 nutggb
shell loads. Pre-chug torus shell loads are discussed in Load Case 6a.
Condensation oscillation loads on the torus shell and cn submerged structures do not occur during a SBA event.
- c. DBA CO Submerged Structure Loads: Harmonic drag pressures are postulated to act on the ring girders during the CO phase of a DBA event. The procedure used to develop the harmonic forces and spatial distribution of DBA CO drag loads on these components is discussed in Section 1-4.1.7.
Loads are developed for the case with the average source strength at all downcomers and for the case with the maximum source strength at the nearest downcomer. The results of these two cases are evaluated to determine the controlling loads. Table 2-2.2-8 shows the resulting magnitudes and distribution of drag pressures acting on the ring girders for the controlling DBA CO load case.
COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2.34 nutggb
i k
These results include the effects of velocity drag, acceleration drag, torus shell FSI acceleration drag, interference effects, wall effects, and acceleration drag volumes.
Figure 2-2.2-13 shows a typical pool accel-eration profile from which the FSI accelera-tions are derived. The results of each harmonic in the DBA CO loading are combined using the methodology discussed in Section 1-4.1.7.
- d. IBA CO Submerged Structure Loads: Harmonic pressures are postulated to act on the submerged suppression chamber components during the CO phase of an IBA event. In accordance with NUREG-0661, the s.ubme rged structure loads specified for pre-chug are used in lieu of IBA CO loads on submerged structures. Pre-chug loads on submerged structures are discussed in Load Case 6c.
Condensation oscillation loads do not occur during a SBA event.
COM-02-039-2
\ Revision 0 2-2.35 nutggh
- 6. Chugging Loads
- a. Pre-Chug Torus Shell Loads: During the chug-ging phase of a SBA, an IBA, or a DBA event, harmonic pressures associated with the pre-chug portion of a chugging cycle are postulated to act on the submerged portion of the suppression chamber shell. The procedure used to develop pre-chug torus shell loads is discussed in Section 1-4.1.8.
The loading consists of a single harmonic with a specified frequency range and can act either symmetrically or asymmetrically with respect to the vertical centerline of the containment. Figure 2-2.2-14 shows the circumferential pressure distribution on a typical suppression chamber cross-section for both symmetric and asymmetric pre-chug loads. Figure 2-2.2-15 shows the longi-tudinal pressure distribution for the asymmetric pre-chug load. The symmetric pre-l chug load results in vertical loads on the i
l suppression chamber; the asymmetric pre-chug load results in lateral loads on the suppres-sion chamber.
COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2.36 nutgg])
'i i
t 1
- b. Post-Chug Torus Shell Loads: During the chugging phase of a SBA, an IBA, or a DBA event, harmonic pressures associated with the postchug portion of a chugging cycle are postulated to act on the submerged portion of the suppression chamber shell. The procedure used to develop post-chug torus shell loads is defined in Section 1-4.1.8. Figure i
2-2.2-12' shows the resulting normalized spatial distribution of pressure on a typical suppression chamber cross-section. Table 2-2.2-9 shows the pressure amplitudes for each of the 50 harmonics in the post-chug v loading. The results of each harmonic in the post-chug loading are combined using the methodology discussed in Section 1-4.1.8.
- c. Pre-Chug Submerged Structure Loads: During the chugging phase of a SBA, an IBA, or a DBA event, harmonic drag pressures associated with the pre-chug portion of a chugging cycle are postulated to act on the ring girders and other submerged structures. The procedure used to develop the harmonic forces and COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2.37 nutagh
spatial distribution of pre-chug drag loads i
on the ring girders is discussed in Section 1-4.1.8.
Loads are developed for the case with the average source strength at all downcomers and for the case with the maximum source strength at the nearest downcomer. The results of these two cases are evaluated to determine the controlling loads. Table 2-2.2-10 shows the resulting magnitudes and distribution of drag pressures acting on the ring girders for the controlling pre-chug drag load case.
These results include the effects of velocity drag, acceleration drag, torus shell FSI acceleration drag, interference effects, wall effects, and acceleration drag volumes.
Figure 2-2.2-13 shows a typical pool accel-eration profile from which the FSI accelera-tions are derived.
- d. Post-Chug Submerged Structure Loads: During, the chugging phase of a SBA, an IBA, or a DBA event, harmonic drag pressures associated COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2.38 nutggb
with the post-chug portion of a chugging s
cycle are postulated to act on the ring
, girders. The procedure used to develop the harmonic forces and spatial distribution of post-chug drag loads on the ring girders and other submerged structures is discussed in Section 1-4.1.8.
Loads are developed for the case with the maximum source strength at the nearest two downcomers acting both in phase and out of phase. The results of these cases are
! evaluated to determine the controlling loads. Table 2-2.2-11 shows the resulting
! magnitudes and distribution of post-chug drag pressures acting on the ring girder for the controlling post-chug drag load case.
l l
These results include the effects of velocity drag, acceleration drag, torus shell FSI l
acceleration drag, interference effects, wall effects, and acceleration drag volumes.
Figure 2-2.2-13 shows a typical pool accel-eration profile from which the FSI accelera-tions are derived. The results of each COM-02-039-2 N(/<
Revision 0 .2-2.39 nutech I
- -w_
. - ge r ,
,r= ,aw. e u.. , + =
harmonic in the post-chug loading are combined using the methodology discussed in Section 1-4.1.8.
- 7. Safety Relief Valve Discharge Loads a-b. SRV Discharge Torus Shell Loads. Transient pressures are postulated to act on the sub-merged portion of the suppression chamber shell during the air clearing phase of a SRV discharge event. The procedure used to develop SRV discharge torus shell loads is discussed in Section 1-4.2.3. The maximum torus shell pressures and characteristics of the SRV discharge pressure transients are developed using an attenuated bubble model.
Pressure transients which include the addi-tional load mitigation effects of the 12" diameter T-quenchers are developed.
The SRV actuation cases considered are dis-cussed in Section 1-4.2.1. Figure 2-2.1-11 l
shows the location of each T-quencher and the corresponding SRV set point pressure.
COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2.40 nutggh
l l
The case resulting in maximum torus shell pressures is Case A1.2, a SBA/IBA first actuation case with elevated drywell pressure and temperature. This load is conservatively used for the Multiple Valve Case 7b, with l
actuation occurring in all five SRVDL bays simultaneously. Actuation of the automatic depressurization system (ADS) also creates this Multiple Valve Case 7b.
The Single Valve Case 7a was derived from the multiple valve case results. These results were factored by the ratio of the maximum N shell pressure for the single valve load profile to that of the multiple valve load profile. When the ratio of 0.669 is applied to the multiple valve load profile, the resulting load is a conservative approxima-i tior of the single valve load profile at all locations on the suppression chamber shell.
In this manner, the single valve results are conservatively obtained.
Figures 2-2.2-16 and 2-2.2-17 show the resulting SRV discharge torus shell loads for j the Single Valve Case 7a and Multiple Valve l
CoM-02-039-2
, Revision 0 2-2.41 nutg_qh
, . ._ . . _ - . ~
Case 7b, respectively. The results shown include the effects of applying the LDR (Reference 2) pressure attenuation algorithm to obtain the spatial distribution of torus shell pressures, the absolute summation of multiple valve effects with application of the bubble pressure cut-off criteria, use of first actuation pressures with subsequent actuation frequencies, and application of the
- 25% and *40% margins to the first and sub-sequent actuation frequencies, respectively.
This methodology is in accordance with the conservative criteria contained in NUREG-0661.
The distribution of SRV discharge torus shell O
pressures is asymmetric with respect to the vertical centerline of the containment. The pressure distribution which results in the maximum total vertical and horizontal loads on the suppression chen - occurs for the Multiple Valve Case 7b (Figure 2-2.2-17).
Figure 2-2.2-18 shows the longitudinal pres-sure distribution for Multiple Valve Case 7b.
COM-02-039-2 j l
Revision 0 2-2.42 nutggh
- c. SRV Discharge Water Jet Loads on Submerged Structures: Transient drag pressures are postulated to act on structures which fully or partially intercept the water jets being discharged from the T-quencher. The structure involved is the ring girder. The procedure used to develop the transient forces of the SRV discharge water jet loads on the ring girder is discussed in Section 1-4.2.4.
Table 2-2.2-12 shows the resulting magnitudes and distribution of drag pressures acting on the ring girders for the SRV water jet loads. These results include the effects of velocity drag, interference effects, and wall effects.
- d. SRV Discharge Bubble-Induced Drag Loads on Submerged Structures: Transient drag pres-sures are postulated to act on the ring girders during the air clearing phase of a SRV discharge event. The procedure used to develop the transient forces and spatial distribution of the SRV discharge bubble-O COM-02-039-2 t
I (V) Revision 0
~
2-2.43 nutggh
intiuced drag loads on these structures is discussed in Section 1-4.2.4. ;
Loads on the ring girder and other submerged structures are developed for the following load cases four bubbles f rom a T-quencher are considered to act first in phase and then out of phase with the four bubbles from a T-quencher in the next T-quencher bay (two bays away). The results are evaluated to determine the controlling loads. Table 2-2.2-12 shows the resulting magnitudes and distribution of drag pressures acting on a ring girder for the controlling SRV discharge bubble-induced drag load case. The results include the effects of velocity drag, accel-eration drag, interference effects, wall effects, acceleration drag volumes, and the additional load mitigation effects of the 12" diameter T-quencher.
- 8. Containment Interaction Loads
- a. Containment Structure Reaction Loads: Loads acting on the suppression chamber, vent COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2.44 nutggh
system, SRVDL support, T-quencher support, and catwalk cause interaction effects between these structures. These interaction effects result in reaction loads on the suppression chamber shell and ring girder at the points where these structures attach to the suppres-sion chamber. The ef fects of these reaction loads on the suppression chamber are con-sidered in the suppression chamber analysis.
The values of the loads presented in the preceding paragraphs envelop those which could occur during the i LOCA or SRV discharge events postulated. An evaluation for the ef fects of these loads results in conservative e
estimates of the suppression chamber responses and leads to bounding values of suppression chamber stresses.
9*
COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2.45 nutgrb
Table 2- 2. 2-1
- o 0 tD O
<y
- r. SUPPRESSION CHAMBER COMPONENT LOADING IDENTIFICATION
.o H= M O I po o voibME 2 IDAD 14SaCNATION " !
PuAR I SECTIOgs TURUS alteG cot.UMN RE30 ARES N CATEGORY IDAD TYPE EEFERENCE SHELL GIRDER CO MMNS CON C- SA N DEAD WEIQl?
. a - . I E y DEAD WEIGFT WATER lb l-3.1 E 1 315.655 FT WATER ObE SEihMIC IDADS 2a 1-3.1 m E E I I a.30 mRIzwAI.,
SEISMIC 0.08 VERTICAL SSE SEISMIC IDADS 2h 1- 3.1 R E & E I y, NOhMAL OPERATING INTERNAL 3a E PRESSUME 1-3.1 -0.2 TO 0.2 PSI PkESSURE AND IDCA INTEkNAL PRESSURE 3b I SRA, IRA, &
l-4.1.1 TEMPEkATUkE UaA P E5buucS f MORMAL OPERATING TEMPERATURE IDADS c - 3.1 I I E I E 70 TO 164 *F IDCA TEMPERATURE LOADS 3d I-4.1.1 I I I E I A I , s DBA p ,pp OPERATING DELTA P POOL INCW DES dea a .l. I SWEIJ. TORUS SHELL IDADS INTERNAL PRESSuprS y EElio DELTA P POOL SWELL sisCLUDES DaA POOL SWELL TONUS SHEIL IDADS 4b l-4.1. 3 I
, INTEkNAL PRESSURES y IDADS EDCA WATER JET PRIMARALY I CAL SUBHEKED STkifCTUPE IDADS k 1-4.1.S I g EFFECTS IDCA BUBBLE-INDUCED IDADS PRIMAPILY IDCAL 4c l-4.1.6 I ON SUBMERGED STPUCTUkES EFFECTS E
DBA CO TOkUS SHELL IDADS Sa 3-4.1.7.1 I g,,
CuMDENSATIOEG IBA CD TORUS SalELL IDADS % g-4,1,7,5 g ENVEIDPED Bf LOAD OSCILLATION CASE Oa RDADS DBA CD SubMERCED STRUCTURE IDADS Sc l-4.1,7.3 I PRIMARILY 3DCAL EFFECTM IBA a) SUBMERGED STRUCTUkE IDADS 54 4-4.1.7.3 I ENVEEDPED ST IDAD CASE &c PkE-CHtM; TORUS SHELL EDADS 6e 1-4.1.8.1 E T C EDADIBIG5 g gg 1%ST-CuuG TORUS St. ELL LOADS 6b l-4.1.4.1 I SVMMETRIC IDADIIeG PkE-OIUG SuisMEkGED STRUCTURE IDADS 6c l-4.1.0.3 I AI*
POST-CItuG SUBMERGED STRUCTUkE IDADS 6d 4-4.1.8.J B #L SkV DISCHARGE TCRUS SilELL IDADS 7a-7b l-4.2.3 I y p SRV DISO4ARGE WATER JET PRIMARILY IDCAL 8
SUtmERf.ED STkUCTUkE IDAOS
'# ***
- Ef'DECTS IDAIG SkV DISCHARGE BUBBLE-INDUCED 74 g,g,y,4 g PhlMARI M W AI.
DRAG IDAI6 ON SUUMEleGED STkUCTUkES EFFECTS a- A >- AI gR. E.,7 m m m RE m IO. SUP _ .,D STI.,C.
, i g= > - CU Im T,6 =a . ,DM,ES 3- = =
m ES m C,I S e o e -
i Table 2-2.2-2 SUPPRESSION POOL TEMPERATURE RESPONSE ANALYSIS RESULTS - MAXIMUM TEMPERATURES NUMBER CASE (1) MAXIMUM BULK POOL
, CONDITION NUMBER O SR .S TEMPERATURE (OF)
D 1A 0 136 1B 1 162 NORMAL OPERATING 2A 5 163 2B 0 145 2C 5 156 h SBA EVENT 3B 5 157
- 1. SEE SECTION 1-5.1 TOR DESCRIPTION OF SRV DIS-CHARGE EVENTS CONSIDERED.
1 l
COM-02-039-2
\
Revision 0 2-2.47 nutggh l
y@ Table 2-2.2-3
<x H- I us o MARK I CONTAINMENT EVENT COMBINATIONS H= M O I
.:s o (4
oO san sBA + EQ SBA*SRV SSA + SRV + EQ 8 SRV IaA IBA + EQ IBA*SRV IRA + $RV + EQ DBA M A + EQ MA + SRV + W M EVENT COMBIK4TIONS $RV +
EQ m. Co, Cu G- Co, cu ,',s, m, ,, co,c, ,, m, ,, co, e, TvPE or EARTuQuAME o s o a o s o s o a o a o s a s o a COMBINATION NUMBER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 lo !! 12 !! 14 15 16 11 18 19 2o 21 22 21 24 25 26 27 NOkMAL N I E I E E I E E E E I E E E E I E E E I E E E E I E E EARTHQUAEE EQ E I E I E E E I I I 2 E I E I E I I sRv oIsCHARGE $RV E E E I E E E I I E E E E I' E IDCA THERMAL TA E E E E I E E I E E E I I I I E E E E lt X X E I RDCA REACTIONS Rg X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X E E I PA E E E E I E E I E I E E E I E E E E E E I I I I S
EDCA POOL SNELL Pst E E I E E I IDCA CONDENSATION N OSCILLATION PCO E E E E E E E I E E I E I
N DCA CuuGGING PCH X I I I I I Il I I I E I a
CD
- 1. SEE SECTION 1-3.2 FOR ADDITIONAL EVENT COMBINATION INFORMATION.
- 2. FOR OPERATING AND ZERO DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE CASES. ALL OTIIER POOL SWELL COMBINATIONS ARE FOR OPERATING CONDITIONS ONLY.
E C
R "O O O
4 O Table 2-2,2-4 TORUS SHELL PRESSURES DUE TO OPERATING DIFFEREMTIAL PPISSURE POOL SWELL AT KEY TIMES AND SELECTED LOCATIONS T. VL ?
, e e
_ - 270*-- - - -- 90 1
_ . FL
~ 2/L 0.0 0.5 1.0 180 TCRUS SHE!.I. PRES 3URE (psi)
I.CNGITUDINAL CIRCUMFERENTIAL OPERATING DIFFERENTIAL PPESSURE LOCAT:CN LCCATICN (3/L) (0 dag) PEAR DOWNLOAD PEAK UPLCAD (t=0.238 sec) (t=0.474 sec) 0.000 180 8.4 6.0 0.000 165, 195 8.4 6.2 g
0.000 150, 210 7.6 6.2 3
0.000 135, 225 6.2 6.8 0.000 0-120, 240-0 4.5III 7.9 0.361 180 9.2 5.4 0.361 165, 195 9.1 5.6 0.361 150, 210 8.3 5.6 0.361 135, 225 6.8 6.1 0.361 0-120, 240-0 4. 9(13 7.1 0.552 180 9.5 5.4 0.552 165, 195 9.4 5.6 0.552 150, 210 8.5 5.6 0.552 135, 225 7.0 6.1 0.552 0-120, 240-0 5.0(13 7.1 0.895 180 9.9 5.3 0.895 165, 195 9.9 5.4 0.895 150, 210 8.9 5.5 0.895 135, 225 7.3 5.9 0.895 0-120, 240-0 5.3(11 6.9 1.000 180 10.4 5.1 1.000 165, 195 10.3 5.3 1.000 150, 210 9.3 5.3 1.000 135, 225 7.6 5.8 1.000 0-120, 240-0 5.5I13 6.7 l (1) MAXIMUM IS AT 0.185 SECONDS.
A s COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2.49 nutggj)
Table 2-2.2-5 TORUS SHELL PPISSURES DUE TO ZERO DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE POOL SWELL AT KEY TIMES AND SELECTED LOCATIONS T. VL 0 N '
n a n
/ o 270 -- L o
- -- 90
- - J """" '
- Z/L 0.0 0.5 1.0 180*
KEY DIAGRM4 TORUS SHELL PRESSURE (psi)
LONGITUDINAL CIRCUMFERENTI AL ZERO DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE LOCATICN LOCATION (Z/L) (0 deg) PEAK DOWN!4AD PEAR UPLOAD (t=0.275 sec) (t=0.576 see) 0.000 180 14.0 7.2 0.000 165, 195 11.0 7.4 0.000 150, 210 12.6 7.3 0.000 135, 225 10.4 8.1 0.000 0-120, 240-0 7.4 9.4 0.361 180 15.3 6.5 0.361 165, 195 15.2 6.7 0.361 150, 210 13.8 6.7 0.361 135, 225 11.3 7.3 0.361 0 *.20, 240-0 8.1 8.4 0.592 180 15.0 6.5 0.552 165, 195 15.7 6.7 0.552 150, 210 14.2 6.7 0.552 135, 225 11.7 7.3 0.552 0-120, 240-0 8.4 8.5 0.895 180 16.5 6.3 0.895 165, 195 16.4 6.5 0.895 150, 210 14.8 6.4 0.895 135, 225 12.2 7.1 0.895 0-120, 240-0 8.7 8.2 l 1.000 180 17.2 6.1 1.000 165, 195 17.1 6.3 1.000 150, 210 15.5 6.4 1.000 135, 225 12.7 6.9 1.000 0-120, 240-0 9.1 8.0 COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2.50 nut h_
I Table 2-2.2-6 RING GIRDER LOCA SUBMERGED STRUCTURE LOAD DISTRIBUTIONS t t To ( couTA!3MEirT TO ( CONTAImmirr I 1/
{ te 3 12 3 12 11 4 o 4 3
'M' j 'h<.
" ,,,,,i.s f
,s., . .9
+ ,.
- s.
>*n.,,. ,,tt.d >*n.,,. 1.tz d '
i .
LOCA WATER JET LOCA AIR BUBBLE KEY DIAGRAM LOCA WATER JET LOCA AIR BUBBLE N SEGMENT WEB FLANGE WEB FLANGE NUMBER PRESSURE PRESSURE PRESSURE PRESSURE (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) 1 0.18 0.92 0.08 0.34 2 0.20 0.63 0.22 0.55 3 0 22 0.95 0.35 0.07 4 0.25 0.63 0.45 0.63 5 0.90 1.02 0.58 0.94 6 0.72 1.31 1.64 0.82 7 0.70 1.43 1.63 0.46 8 0.94 1.71 1.80 0.41 9 0.40 0.81 2.19 0.82 10 0.34 1.94 0.95 1.23 11 0.34 0.89 0.91 1.23 12 0.32 1.07 0.81 0.44 13 N/A N/A 0.58 0.42 14 N/A N/A 0.21 0.39
- 1. LOADS SHOWN INCLUDE DLF'S.
(m')
COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2.51 nutggl)
Table 2-2.2-7 DBA CONDENSATION OSCILLATION TORUS SHELL PRESSUR2 AMPLITUDES MAXIMUM PRESSURE AMPLITUDE (psi)(1)
FREQUENCY
^ ALTERNATE ALTERNATE ALTERNATE ALTERNATE (H ) 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 0.34 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 0.32 24-25 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.22 l
l COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2.52 nutggh
Table 2-2.2-7 DBA CONDENSATION OSCILLATION TORUS SHELL PRESSURE AMPLITUDES (Concluded)
MAXIMUM PRESSURE AMPLITUDE (psi)(1)
FREQUENCY INTERVALS ALTERNATE ALTERNATE ALTERNATE ALTERNATE (Hz) 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 0.26 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 0 34-35 35-36 0.05 0.08 0.05 0.08 0.05 0.08 0.04 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 0.02 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 0.16 49-50 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.21 (1) SEE FIGURE 2-2. 2-12 FOR SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF PRESSURES.
COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2.53 nutggh a
Table 2-2.2-8 RING GIRDER DBA CONDENSATION OSCILLATION SUBMERGED STRUCTURE LOAD DISTRIBUTIONS II)
C TO ( CONTAINMENT 3
+ T.
1 6 16k 15\ 2 14 3 13 4 T* 12 5 o Y 11 6 g*S 10 g 7
- g*
/.
g
, am.u. ,,11.25* ,
i KEY DIAGRAM WEB PRESSURE (psi)( I FLANGE PRESSURE (psi)I I SEGMEW NUMBER AP LIED FSI I ME APPLIED pg7 1 0.12 0.24 0.36 0.26 3.03 3.29 O.36 0.23 0.58 0.47 1.91 2.38 3 0.55 0.33 0.89 0.14 1.77 1.90 4 0.66 0.14' O.80 0.37 1.93 2.31 5 0.95 0.27 1.22 0.73 1.79 2.52 6 0.86 0.48 1.34 0.99 1.87 2.87 7 2.48 0.53 3.01 1.17 3.47 4.64 8 3.06 0.75 3.81 0.58 5.97 6.55 9 3.25 1.70 4.95 0.46 8.12 8.58 10 2.85 4.57 7.42 0.82 8.67 9.49 11 1.21 2.12 3.33 1.16 4.54 5.70 12 1.61 1.14 2.74 1.18 7.07 4 25 13 1.40 0.53 1.92 0.97 3.56 4.53 14 0.94 0.31 1.25 0.98 1.73 2.71 15 0.68 0.77 1.45 0.45 1.63 2.08 16 0.34 0.55 0.89 0.30 1.51 1.81 (1) LOADS SHOWN INCLUDE DLF'S.
(2) CUT-OF-PLANE LCADS.
(3) IN-PLANE LOADS.
COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2.54 nutggh
Table 2-2.2-9 POST-CHUG TORUS SHELL PRESSURE AMPLITUDES FREQUENCY MAXIMUM'I '
INTERVAL PRESSURE (Hz) AMPLITUDE (psi) 0-1 0.04 1-2 0.04 2-3 0.05 3-4 0.05 4-5 0.06 5-6 0.05 6 - 7. 0.10 7-8 0.10 8-9 0.10 9 - 10 0.10 10 - 11 0.06 11 - 12 0.05 12 - 13 0.03 13 - 14 0.03 14 - 15 0.02 15 - 16 0.02 16 - 17 0.01 17 - 18 0.01 18 - 19 0.01 19 - 20 0.04 20 - 21 0.03 21 - 22 0.05 22 - 23 0.05 23 - 24 0.05 24 - 25 0.04 COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2.55 '
nutggb
Table 2-2.2-9 POST-CHUG TORUS SHELL PRESSURE AMPLITUDES i
(Concluded)
FREQUENCY MAXIMUM (1)
INTERVAL PRESSURE (Hz) AMPLITUDE (psi) 25 - 26 0.04 26 - 27 0.28 27 - 28 0.18 28 - 29 0.12 29 - 30 0.09 30 - 31 0.03 31 - 32 0.02 32 - 33 ,0.02 33 - 34 0.02 34 - 35 0.02 35 - 36 0.03 36 - 37 0.05 37 - 38 0.03 38 - 39 0.04 39 - 40 0.04 40 - 41 0.15 41 - 42 0.15 42 - 43 0.15 43 - 44 0.15 44 - 45 0.15 45 - 46 0.15 46 - 47 0.15 47 - 48 0.15 48 - 49 0.15 49 - 50 0.15 (1) SEE FIGURE 2-2. 2-12 FOR SPATI AL DISTRIBUTION OF PRESSURES.
I i
COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2.56 l nutg,gh
Table 2-2.2-10 RING GIRDER PRE-CHUG SUBMERGED II)
STRUCTURE LOAD DISTRIBUTIONS C
To q CCNTAIFMENT z + A 1
o 1 16) 15\ 2 14 3 13 4 is' 12 _
5 . o
/* 11 - 6 @
g 10 9 g 7 .
O
,. 2822.2st _1911 2' s i
KEY DIAGRAM WEB PRE 3SURE (psi)( I FLANGE' PRESSURE (psi)I3I gggg NUMBER APPLIED pgg gg APPLIED LOAD LOAD FSI TOTAL 1 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.09 2 0.04 0.01 0.05 0.06 0.10 0.16 3
3 0.07 0.01 0.08 0.02 0.21 0.23 4 0.08 0.03 0.10 0.05 0.10 0.15 5 0.09 0.04 0.14 0.11 0.14 0.25 6 0.11 0.00 0.11 0.13 0.07 0.19 7 0.31 0.04 0.35 0.13 0.10 0.24 8 0.30 0.01 0.31 0.08 0.08 0.17 9 0.32 0.01 0.33 0.07 0.07 0.14 10 0.38 0.01 0.39 0.11 0.05 0.16 11 0.16 0.01 0.16 0.12 0.01 0.13 12 0.15 0.01 0.16 0.14 0.02 0.16 13 0.15 0.00 0.15 0.09 0.02 0.12 14 0.14 0.00 0.15 0.01 0.02 0.02 15 0.10 0.00 0.10 0.08 0.01 0.09 16 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.05 0.01 0.06
, (1) LOADS SHOWN INCLUDE DLF'S.
(2) OUT-oF-PLANE LOADS.
(3) IN-PLANE LOADS.
l Cl COM-0 2-03 9 -2 Revision 0 2-2.57 l
nutach r < w -
y y 9 m
Table 2-2.2-11 RING GIRDER POST-CHUG SUBMERGED STRUCTURE LOAD DISTRIBUTIONS I1)
C TO ( CONTAINMENT H
16k 1 f
15 2 14 3 13 4
- 12 5 o Y 11 6 .p
- ,a Jo 10 9 g 7 .
, 2722.250 _ _2911* s i
KEY DIAGRAM WEB PRESSURE (psi)I I FLANCE PRESSURE ~ (psi) UI SEWEM NUMBER APPLIED pgg gg APPLIED LOAD LOAD (SI TOTAL 1 0.52 0.08 0.60 0.11 0.40 0.51 2 0.56 0.04 0.60 0.41 0.54 0.95 3 0.84 0.05 0.89 0.67 0.36 1.03 4 2.57 0.03 2.60 0.74 0.28 1.02 5 3.41 0.07 3.48 0.81 0.26 1.07 6 0.92 0.07 0.99 1.70 0.41 2.10 7 2.50 0.09 2.59 3.54 1.03 4.57 8 8.40 0.25 8.65 0.77 0.90 1.67 9 8.10 0.46 8.56 0.64 1.14 1.78 10 2.57 0.61 3.17 1.85 1.05 2.90 11 1.17 0.31 1.48 5.41 0.86 6.28 12 6.05 0.29 6.34 1.72 0.98 2.70 l 13 4.87 0.13 5.01 1.44 0.89 2.33 14 1.10 0.16 1.25 3.94 0.35 4.29
! 15 0.70 0.14 0.84 0.44 0.27 0.71 f 16 1.08 0.11 1.19 0.06 0.33 0.39 l
(1) LOADS SHOWN INCLUDE DLF'S.
(2) ouT-OF-PLANE LOADS.
(3) IN-PLANE LOADS.
COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2.58 nutech
Table 2-2.2-12 e
RING GIRDER SRV SUBMERGED STRUCTURE LOAD DISTRIBUTIONS t t M ( CCWTAIMNT _?O ( CONTA! M ET
-
- i - -
+ t 15' 3 14 3 g
13 4 4
3 #* 12 5 a 2't, _ , 9,,*
12M' - f e., f 2 4 2. 2,._ ,sta5* ,
e l SRV WATER JET SRV AIR BUBBLE KEY DIAGRAM SRV WATER JET SRV AIR BUBBLE SEGMENT WEB FLANGE WEB FLANGE
] NUMBER PRESSURE (psi)
PRESSURE (psi)
PRESSURE (psi)
PRESSURE (psi) 1 3.65 56.18 1.01 0.90 2 1.67 36.20 3.36 2.19 3 1.19 40.83 5.31 1.67 4 0.96 45.46 6.48 0.87 5 0.56 33.02 8.55 2.44 6 0.19 13.14 12.22 6.56 7 N/A N/A 42.33 19.18 8 34.01 13.56 9 34.01 13.56 10 42.33 19,18 11 12.22 6.56 12 8.55 2.44 13 6.48 0.87 14 5.31 1,67 15 y o 3.36 2.19 l
l 16 N/A N/A 1.01 0.90 i
- 1. LOADS SHOWN INCLUDE DLF'S.
l I
\ COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2.59 nuttq,h
i O
30-
^
tn 3 20-
!O
?.
10 -
{
a.
0 . . .
1.0 10 100 1,000 10,000 TIME (sec)
TIME (sec) PRESSUPE (psig)
EVENT PRESSURE DESCRIPTION DESIGNATION t t,,x P min min max INSTANT OF BREAK TO ONSET OF P 1 0.0 300.0 0.0 11.0 CHUGGING ONSET OF CHUGGING TO INITIATION OF P 2
300.0 600.0 11.0 21.4 ADS INITIATION OF ADS P 1200.0 21.4 TO RPV 3 600.0 26.2 DEP RESSURIZ ATION i
l Figure 2-2.2-1 l
SUPPRESSION CHAMBER INTERNAL PRESSURES FOR SBA EVENT COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2.60 nutggh
\
f 40 -
i
_ 30-I b
y 20 -
5 v1 E
10 -
0 i i i 1.0 10 100 1,000 10,000 TIME (sec)
TIME (sec) PRESSURE (psig)
EVENT PRESSURE DESCRIPTION DESIGNATION t,g t,,x P min max INSTANT OF BREAK TO ONSET OF CO P 0.0 5.0 0.0 2.8 t
AND CHUGGING ONSET OF CO AND CHUGGING TO P 2
5.0 900.0 2.8 26.0 INITIATION OF ADS INITIATION OF ADS TO RPV P 3
900.0 1100.0 26.0 34.4 DEPRESSURIZATION Figure 2-2.2-2 SUPPRESSION CHAMBER INTERNAL PRESSURES FOR IBA EVENT COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2.61 nutggb
I O
l 40
^
tn o.
~
20-8 m
a.
l 0 , , ,
l O 10 20 30 40 TIME (sec)
TIME (sec) PRESSURE (psig)
DESCRIPTION DESIGNATION t min max min max INSTANT OF BREAK P 1.5 10.0 TO TERMINATION OF 1 0.0 0.0 POOL SWELL _
TERMINATION OF POOL SWELL TO P 1.5 5.0 10.0 19.0 2
ONSET OF CO ONSET OF CO TO p 3 .0 35.0 19.0 26.7 ONSET OF CHUGGING ONSET OF CHUGGING TO RPV P 35.0 65.0 26.7 26.7 4
DEPRESSURIZATION l
Figure 2-2.2-3 SUPPRESSION CHAMBER INTERNAL PRESSURES FOR DBA EVENT COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2.62 nutg,gh
l i
O l
1 300-C 0,
$ 200-E 2
g 100- [
8 l 0; , , ,
1.0 10 100 1,000 10,000 TIME (sec) i TIME (sec) TEMPERATURE ( F)
EVENT TEMPERATURE DESCRIPTION DESIGNATION tg t Tg T INSTANT OF BREAK TO ONSET OF T l 0.0 300.0 92.0 100.0 CHUGGING ONSET OF CHUGGING T 300.0 TO INITIATION OF 2 600.0 100.0 109.0 ADS INITIATION OF ADS TO RPV T 600.0 1200.0 109.0 133.0 3
DEPRESSURIZATION Figure 2-2.2-4 SUPPRESSION CHAMBER TEMPERATURES FOR SBA EVENT COM-02-039-2
'\ Revision 0 2-2.63 l nutggb t
l l
9 300 -
E U
@ 200-E 2
y 100 -
E*
0 ,
1.0 10 100 1,000 10,000 TIME (sec)
TIME (sec) TEMPERATURE ( F)
DESCRIPTION DESIGNATION tg T t,,x min max INSTANT OF BREAK T
TO ONSET OF CO l 0.0 5.0 95.0 95.0 AND CHUGGING ONSET OF CO AND CHUGGING TO T 5.0 900.0 95.0 130.0 2
INITIATION OF ADS INITIATION OF ADS TO RPV 3 900.0 1100.0 130.0 164.0 DEPRESSURIZATION Figure 2-2.2-5 SUPPRESSION CHAMBER TEMPERATURES FOR IBA EVENT l
COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2.64 nutgq, j)
- O E
0 .
{g 150-E f
s 5
e I
I O , ,
0 10 20 30 TIME (sec)
TIME (sec) TEMPERATURE ( F)
EVENT TEliPERATURE DESCRIPTION DESIGNATION t T min max min max INSTANT OF BREAK TO TERMINATION OF Tl 0.0 1.5 85.0 87.0 POOL SWELL TERMINATION OF T 1.5 87.0 POOL SWELL TO 2 5.0 91.0 ONSET OF CO ONSET OF CO TO T3 ONSET OF CHUGGING
.0 35.0 91.0 120.0 ONSET OF CHUGGING TO RPV T4 35.0 65.0 120.0 120.0 DEPRESSURIZATION Figure 2-2.2-6 SUPPRESSION CHAMBER TEMPERATURES FOR DBA EVENT COM-02-039-2 l
O- Revision 0 2-2.65 nutgrb
, , ,m-,w-,
l l
t 1
9 l
T o =70 F pool 4
____-s 1_
\
, -17e s
/j-19'
-21' sup N ,
KEY DIAGRAM E 170 O
160-o 150-140-
@ 130-120-110-g 100-
@ so-g 80-70
@ 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 m
$ DISTANCE FROM TORUS CENTER (ft)
- 1. SUPPRESSION POOL TEMPERATURES FOR SBA, IBA, AND DDA EVENTS SHOWN IN FIGURES 2-2.2-4 THROUGH 2-2.2-6.
Figure 2-2.2-7 SUPPRESSION CHAMBER SUPPORT DIFFEPINTIAL TEMPERATURES COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2.66 nutp_qh
.k l P --10.3 psi max P psi min = .
20 PEAK DOWNLOAD Y 10 -
5 o
g PEAK UPLOAD m
0 .,
i i , , , ,
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 TIME (sec)
- 1. PRESSURES SIIOWN DO NOT INCLUDE DBA INTERNAL PRESSURE.
4 1 ,
Figure A-2,2-8; ,
POOL SWELL TORUS SHELL PP2SSURE TRANSIENT AT SUPPRESSION-CHASBER MITER JOINT -
l BOTTOM DEAD ~ CENTER -(OPERATING DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE)
COM-0 2-0 3 9- 2 . - r-_ w f s
Revision 0 _
2-2.67- ,
'?
e nutstch
+
. - . ;a , . . , . , -. ...'. _ . , , , , . - . . . . . .,_
O Pmin = .9. psi P
mn = 0.0 psi 30-SUBMERGENCE: 4.O ft DEFLECTOR: 20-in PIPE
- AP: 1.0 psid ae4 20-
]a E
a
$ 10-0- f , , , ,
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 TIME (sec) i i
l l
Figure 2-2.2-9 POOL SWELL TORUS SHELL PRESSURE TRANSIENT FOR SUPPRESSION CHAMBER AIRSPACE (OPERATING DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE)
COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2.68 nutps)3
O P
max = 17 . 2 psi P = - 6. 2 psi min 20- PEAK DOWNLOAD O
E.
ca 10 -
v2
{
m PEAK UPLOAD 0 -
'\
b -10 0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 TIME (sec)
- 1. PRESSURES SHOWN DO NOT INCLUDE DBA INTERNAL PRESSURE.
l- ,
-Figure 2-2.2-10 j POOL SWELL TORUS SHELL PRESSURE TRANSIENT j AT SUPPRESSION CHAMBER MITER JOINT - i BOTTOM DEAD CENTER (ZERO DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE) b (j COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2.69 nutsch
P,,g = 30.1 psi Pmin = 0.0 psi 40 SUBMERGENCE: 4.0 ft DEFLECTOR: 20-in PIPF AP: 0.0 psid C
$ 20 -
E n
n 10 -
0 0 , , , , , ,
,0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 TIME (sec)
Figure 2-2.2-11 POOL SWELL TORUS SHELL PRESSURE TRANSIENT FOR SUPPRESSION CHAMBER AIRSPACE (ZERO DIFFERENTI AL PRESSURE)
COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2.70 nutg_qh
O l O q l
+ _ _
- -_ t _ -_-_ _ _ - _ _- _- _
\
\
\
l max \
\
O, a \
u \
P i max SYM
- 1. PRESSURE AMPLITUDES FOR DBA CONDENSATION OSCILLATION LOADS SHOWN IN TABLE 2-2.2-7.
- 2. PRESSURE AMPLITUDES FOR POST-CHUG LOADS SHOWN IN TABLE 2-2. 2 -9.
Figure 2-2.2-12 NORMALIZED TORUS SHELL PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION FOR DBA CONDENSATION OSCILLATION AND POST-CHUG LOADINGS n
'\_./ COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2.71
. nutggl)
TO q,DRYWELL
\
\ \ \
b Q . 's E. F
\ re A 'a.
'!N s
\\
51;\ Lf. '
/
f
'%\
KEY DIAGRAM NORMALIZED POOL ACCELERATIONS PROFILE POOL ACCELERATION (ft/sec )
A 80.0 B 67.0 C 54.0 D 41.0 E 28.0 F 15.0
- 1. POOL ACCELERATIONS DUE TO HARMONIC APPLICATION OF TORUS SHELL PRESSUPIS SHOWN IN FIGUPI 2-2.2-12 AT A SUPPRESSION CHAMBER FREQUENCY OF i 7.00 HERTZ.
Figure 2-2.2-13 A
POOL ACCELERATION PROFILE FOR DOMINANT SUPPRESSION CHAMBEP FREQUENCY AT MIDCYLINDER LOCATION COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2.72 nutggh
\
\
f'%
b f I
+ _
_q L- _ _
v I[ ] \
Z \
o ; \
SYM '- P"**
i- - 'a LOADING CHARACTERISTICS SYMMETRIC DISTRIBUTION P,,, = t 2.0 psi AT ALL BOTTOM DEAD CENTER LOCATIONS ASYMMETRIC DISTRIBUTION:
P = 2 2.0 psi IN ONE BAY WITH LONGITUDINAL
- ATTENUATION (Figure 2-2. 2-15)
FREQUENCY:
SINGLE HARMONIC IN 6.9 TO 9.5 Hz RANGE RESULT-ING IN MAXIMUM RESPONSE TOTAL INTEGRATED LOAD:
SYM DIST: F**#
= kips PER MITERED CYLINDER ASYM DIST: T kips TOTAL hors = HORIZONTAL Figure 2-2.2-14 CIRCUMFERENTIAL TORUS SHELL PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION FOR SYMMETRIC AND ASYMMETRIC PRE-CHUG LOADINGS
/'~T
( ) COM-02-039-2
'd Revision 0 2-2.73 nutggh r ,_
I l
SEISMIC ESTRAINT 90 (TYP) zI F
hor z -*- 18 0 h + h 0 SYM
- 3. 0 -
Za
- 2. 0 - s O \
cg N 270
- s
- 1. 0 - 's s
@ ~ ~ ~
m __
- 0. 0 -
-1.0 180.0 157.0 135.0 112.5 90.0 67.5 45.0 22.5 0.0 AZIMUTH (deg) l
- 1. SEE FIGURE 2-2.2-14 FOR CIRCUMFERENTIAL TORUS SHELL PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION.
Figure 2-2.2-15 LONGITUDINAL TORUS SHELL PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION FOR ASYMMETRIC PRE-CHUG LOADINGS COM-02-039-2 Revision 0~ 2-2.74 nutggh
O 20 J
G E
i
@ o. _ _ _ _--
5 tn o.
-20 , , , ,
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 TIME (sec)
F F LOADING CHARACTERISTICS min SINGLE VALVE ir I, PRESSURE (psi): LONGEST SRVDL BUBBLE: j P = 18.05, Pdn = -22.0 5 SHELL:
, __4_
P = 11. 4 0, Pain = -15.41 TOTAL APPLIED LOAD (kips) :
P , min VERTICAL PER MITERED CYLINDER:
DOWNWARD: F,,, = 763.4 UPWARD:
Fain = 1031.9 SYM LOAD FREQUENCY (Hz) :
RANGE:
MITERED JOINT SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION 10.34 <fg < 17.24 Figure 2-2.2-16 SRV DISCHARGE TORUS SHELL LOADS FOR SINGLE VALVE ACTUATION COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2.75 ,
nutggh
20 J
Q 1 E.
1 d o. _ - _ - _ -
?n m
Q.
b
-20 , , , ,
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 TIME (sec)
SHELL PRESSURE FORCING FUNCTION LOADING CHARACTERISTICS F F MULTIPLE VALVE g PRESSURE (psi) : LONGEST SRVDL y
BUBBLE:
P ,,= 18.05 P,g = -22.05 SHELL: CNE VALVE P,,, = 11.40 P,g = -12.33 l SHELL: ALL VALVES P ,, = 17.04 P ,g = -18.43 TOTAL APPLIED LOAD (kips):
4__ _
VERTICAL PER MITERED CYLINDER:
j p max ,
min DOWNWARD: F ,, = 1141.0 UPWARD: Fg = 1234.1 TOTAL HORIZONTAL (SEE FIGURE 2-2.2-18) :
1 LATERAL: Fmax = 649.2 SYM LOAD FREQUENCY (Hz) :
- GE' MITERED JOINT SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION 5.491 ft i 22.11 Figure 2-2.2-17 SRV DISCHARGE TORUS SHELL LOADS FOR MULTIPLE VALVE ACTUATION
~
COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2.76 nutggh
I I
SEISMIC l o
- RESTRAINT o
- N (TYP) 1 4
E horz p g SRV
' VALVE 270 l , l 90
/
,/
/ ca SYM 180 KEY DIAGRAM 15 -
O- ;
10 -
E
.g m
M 5- .
-0 , , ,
45 90 135 180 225-AZIMUTH (deg) '
Figure 2-2.2-18 LONGITUDINAL TORUS SHELL PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION FOR SRV DISCHARGE COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2.77
- nut 9_Ch
2-2,2.2 Load Combinations O
The load categories and associated load cases for which the suppression chamber is evaluated are presented in Section 2-2.2.1. Table 2-2.2-3 presents the NUREG-0661 criteria for grouping the respective loads and load categories into event combinations.
The 27 general event combinations shown in Table 2-2.2-3 are expanded to form a total of 94 specific suppression chamber load combinations for the Normal Operating, SBA, IBA, and DBA events. The specific load combinations reflect a greater level of detail than the general event combinations, including distinctions between: SBA and IBA; pre-chug and post-chug; SRV actuation cases; zero and operating differential pressure pool swell cases; and consideration of multiple cases of particular loadings. The total number of suppression chamber load combinations consists of 6 for the Normal Operating event, 27 for the SBA event, 36 for the IBA event, and 25 for the DBA event.
Several different service level limits and correspond-ing sets of allowable stresses are associated with these load combinations.
COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2.78 nutggh
1 Not all of the possible suppression chamber load com-binations are evaluated, since many are enveloped by
. others and do not lead to controlling suppression
- chamber stresses. The. enveloping load combinations are
! determined by examining the possible suppression 1
chamber load combinations and comparing the respective load cases and allowable stresses. Table 2-2.2-13 shows the results of this examination. For ease of i identification, each enveloping load combination is i'
assigned a number. -
The enveloping load combinations are reduced further by examining relative load magnitudes and individual' load i characteristics to determine which load combinations I lead to controlling suppression chamber stresses. The load combinations which have been found to produce I controlling suppression chamber stresses are separated into three groups: the SBA III, IBA III, DBA I, DBA 4
III, and DBA IV combinations are used to evaluate the suppression . chamber vertical support system (these combinations result in the maximum vertical loads on the suppression chamber); the IBA III, IBA IV, DBA III,
~
j and DBA-IV combinations are used to evaluate stresses 4.
4 in the suppression chamber shell and ring girders (these combinations result in maximum pressures on the 7
suppression chamber shell); and'the IBA III' combination l
l l COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2.79 I
._-.._,..-,-m -
. . - - - . . . _ . , . - . - ~ - , _ - - - . _ . . . , _ . , - - - . - ~ . _ . - . .
is used to evaluate the offects of lateral loads on the suppression chamber near the seismic restraints. The selection of these controlling suppression chamber load combinations is explained in the following paragraphs.
Table 2-2.2-14 summarizes the controlling load combinations and identifies which load combinations are enveloped by each controlling combination.
Many general event combinations have the same allowable stresses and are enveloped by others which contain the same or additional load cases (Table 2-2.2-3). There is no distinction between load combinations with Service Level A or B conditions for the suppression chamber since the allowable stress values for Service Level A and B are the same. ,
Except for seismic loads, many pairs of load combina-tions contain identical load cases. One of the load combinations in the pair contains OBE loads and has Service Level A or B allowables; the other contains SSE loads and has Service Level C allowables. Examination of the load magnitudes presented in Section 2-2.2.1 shows that both the OBE and SSE vertical accelerations are small compared to gravity. As a result, suppres- ,
i sion chamber stresses and vertical support reactions )
due to vertical seismic loads are small compared to COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2.80 Ol l l
nutgg_h. !
those caused by other loads in the load combination.
v The horizontal seismic loads for OBE and SSE also result in small suppression chamber stresses compared with those caused by other loads in the load combina-tions. The Service Level C primary stress allowables for the load combinations containing SSE loads are more than 75% higher than the Service Level B allowables for the corresponding load combination containing OBE loads. This margin is due to the higher limits allowed The controlling at 1.0S y than at 1.2Smc (Reference 9).
load combinations for evaluating suppression chamber stresses and vertical support reactions in these cases, therefore, are those containing OBE loads and Service
] Level B allowables.
e l By applying the above reasoning to the total number of suppression chamber load combinations, the number of enveloping load combinations for each event is reduced.
Table 2-2.2-13 shows the resulting suppression chamber load combinations for the Normal Operating, SBA, IBA, and DBA events, along with the associated service level assignments. For ease of identification, each load combination in each event is assigned a number. The reduced number of enveloping load combinations shown in Table 2-2.2-13 consists of 2 for the NOC event, 5 for the SBA event, 5 for the IBA event, and 7 for the DBA O
k COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2.81 nutggh
event. The load case designations for the loads which compose the combinations are the same as those pre-sented in Section 2-2.2.1.
An examination of Table 2-2.2-13 shows that further reductions are possible in the number of suppression chamber load combinations requiring evaluation. Any of the SBA or IBA combinations envelop the NOC I and II combinations since they contain the same loadings as the NOC I and II combinations and, in addition, CO or chugging loads. The effects of the NOC I and II combinations are considered in the suppression chamber fatigue evaluation.
The remaining suppression chamber load combinations can be separated into those which result int maximum, vertical reaction loads, maximum shell pressures, and maximum horizontal reaction loads. The loading combinations which result in maximum vertical reaction loads are discussed first.
Maximum Vertical Reactions Although there are differences in the SBA III, SBA IV, and IBA IV pressure and temperature loadings, these loadings do not affect net vertical loads in the COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2.82 nutggh i
suppression chamber. The IBA IV combination was selected to represent these loads since the SBA III, SBA IV, and IBA IV load combinations are identical with respect to vertical reactions. According to the reasoning presented earlier for OBE and SSE loads and because the multiple valve vertical loads bound the single valve vertical loads, it follows that the IBA IV combination envelops the DBA VII combination and the DBA III combination envelops the DBA V combination for the effects of vertical reaction loads.
Since pre-chug loads are specified in lieu of IBA CO loads, the IBA I combination is the same as the SBA I combination. Thus the SBA I combination can be eliminated from further consideration for combinations affecting vertical reaction loads. The IBA I, IBA II, and IBA III combinations are identical with respect to
~
vertical reactions. The IBA III combination was selected to represent these loads. The differences among some loads in the SBA I, IBA I, IBA II, and IBA III combinations do not affect net vertical loads on the suppression chamber. The IBA III combination also envelops the SBA II combination.
k./ COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2.83 nute_Ch
Since the effect of OBE loads on the net vertical reaction is small in comparison to the effect of zero versus operating AP, the DBA I combination envelops the DBA II combination for the effects of vertical reaction loads. According to the reasoning presented earlier for OBE and SSE loads, it follows that the IBA III combination envelops the SBA V and IBA V combinations for the effects of vertical loads. Similarly, it can be shown that the IBA III combination envelops the DBA VI combination.
Maximum Shell Pressure The IBA and SBA load combinations which result in the maximum total pressures on the suppression chamber shell include the SBA II, SBA IV, SBA V, IBA II, IBA III, IBA IV, and IBA V combinations. These combina- .
tions contain the maximum internal pressures which occur during the SBA and IBA events, and during SRV Discharge Multiple Valve Case 7b. The combined effect of these loadings results in the maximum pressure loads l on the suppression chamber shell.
l l
! The IBA III combination envelops the SBA II' combination for the effects of maximum pressure loads since the internal pressures for IBA III are larger than those of COM-0?-039-2 Revision 0 2-2.84 nut 9&_h.-
i I
SBA II. Since pre-chug loads are specified in lieu of IBA CO loads, the IBA III combination is the same as the IBA II combination. Thus the IBA II combination !
can be eliminated from further consideration for combinations which result in maximum pressure loads.
According to the reasoning presented earlier for OBE and SSE loads, it also follows that the IBA III combination envelops the SBA V and the IBA V combina- ,
tions. The IBA IV combination envelops the SBA IV for consideration of maximum pressure loads since the internal pressures for IBA IV are larger than those for SBA IV.
The DBA II combination envelops the DBA I combination for pressure loads since the shell stresses are comparable for zero and operating AP loads (Load Cases 4a and 4b), while the allowables for the DBA II load combination are more restrictive than for the DBA I combination.
The DBA IV combination envelops the DBA II combination for the effects.of vertical reaction loads and pressure loads since it contains the same loadings as the DBA II combination and, in addition, it contains SRV discharge e
loads. The DBA II combination has Service Level B limits, with allowances for increased allowable
. O V COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2.85 nutggb
stresses which, when applied, result in allowable stresses which are about the same as the Service Level C allowable stresses for the DBA IV combination.
The DBA III combination envelops the DBA V combination for the effects of vertical reaction loads and pressure loads since SRV discharge loads which occur late in the DBA event have a negligible effect on the suppression chamber. The DBA III combination also has more restrictive allowables than the DBA V combination.
The IBA III combination envelops the DBA VI combination for the effects of maximum pressure loads according to the reasoning mentioned above regarding the DBA SRV.
loads, and because the internal pressures for IBA III are larger than those for DBA VI. The IBA IV combina-tion envelops the DBA VII combination for the same reasons.
Maximum Horizontal Reactions l
The load combinations which result in maxim.um hori-zontal reaction loads on the suppression chamber are the SBA II, SBA V, IBA III, and IBA V combinations.
All of these combinations contain asymmetric pre-chug loads, SkV Discharge Multiple Valve Case 7b, and either OBE or SSE loads. The combined effect of these loads COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2.86 gj(J{ }
' results in the maximum possible lateral load on the suppression chamber. The IBA III and SBA II combinations are the same except for differences in internal pressure and temperature loads which do not affect lateral loads on the suppression chamber. The same applies to the IBA V and SBA V combinations.
The reasoning presented earlier for DBA and SSE loads shows that the IBA III combination envelops the IBA V combination.
Summary The controlling suppression chamber load combinations v
evaluated in the remaining sections can now be summarized. The IBA III, IBA IV, DBA I, DBA III, and DBA IV combinations are evaluated when the effects of vertical reaction loads on the suppression chamber vertical support system are considered. The IBA III, l
IBA IV, DBA III, and DBA IV combinations are evaluated when the effects of pressure loads on the suppression chamber shell and ring girders are considered. The IBA III combination is evaluated when the effects of lateral loads on the suppression chamber near the seismic restraints are considered. The DBA I l
COM-02-039-2 V Revision 0 2-2.87 nutggb
combination is evaluated as required by the NUREG-0661 acceptance criteria.
To ensure that fatigue in the suppression chamber is not a concern over the life of the plant, the combined effects of fatigue due to Normal Operating plus SBA and Normal Operating plus IBA events are evaluated.
Figures 2-2.2-19, 2-2.2-20, and 2-2.2-21 show the relative sequencing and timing of each loading in the SBA, IBA, and DBA events used in this evaluation. The fatigue effects for Normal Operating plus DBA events are enveloped by the Normal Operating plus SBA or IBA events since combined effects of SRV discharge loads and other loads for the SBA and IBA events are more severe than those for DBA events. A summary at the bottom of Table 2-2.2-13 provides additional information used in the suppression chamber fati'gue evaluation.
The load combinations and event sequencing described in i
the preceding paragraphs envelop those postulated to occur during an actual LOCA or SRV discharge event. An evaluation of the above load combinations results in a j
conservative estimate of the suppression chamber responses and leads to bounding values of suppression l
chamber stresses and fatigue effects.
COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2.88 nutgg])
[% p
( \
E' @ Table 2-2.2-13
< 3:
Mi en O CONTROLLING SUPPRESSION CHAMBER LOAD COMBINATIONS
&M O I DO W
OW
,l CONDITicit/ ggg gga ygg pgg rvtw?
g SECTion vom 2 ........ . . . . . . . . - . . .
Beac COMaluAftou 8 II 4 II IBI IV W I II j!.p k. l fi' W lj[.1.). . Il
!htf!! !j!').Vi[ v vI vtI g ..<.-.- $h...V.)l!
TAtt.E 2-2.2-12 . .:... :.:.:. . - . <, .;.:. .v. .
2 2 le le 14 14 Is le 84 !.[iltfj i;' l.$. .pi ts is.il..4.i;! 10 [3Nf }!,25((! 23 27 21 thAD CDROIN,ATION . . .
DEAD WESCat? la,1b : ; la,8b ces 2a
- 2a 2a -* ((Njjj ', la if,hj!!
sessa:C sst 2b ab
?!!k:': .- 2b ppE55UnE III p III p ill p
g p
3 p, pg P 3
p y {;p{g: ;jg: p ;y. p g.:
i; y y y y Ts etaATUnt I'I 9 843 T(43 Ty T3 T, Tg Tg Tg Tg !'i fi[ .[ T3 lh Tg jjjj ':i. [tj i. T T4 T4 M poot sutLL ek, Ga.4e, en,4g, g
?>44.
.:: :: ed e 44 CONDEMSATIoll OSCILLAT8001 sh,sd sh,sd h'h se,se m ,--C.uG ..... ..... .a... 43 .a. .a CuuGGING ...
POST-CNUG .b,.4 $be . .4 s .b..d
.b..d Fe,7e, . . . . IaA7s, Fe,65) 7a,ts)
S 8 "CI8 74 :!:W ':::14 ': 7c,14 '
re,ad g,,
"'5C"^'"*
nuLTIrte 7b e, p. _. .
a' '"
CouTAimnts? swTesACTsom sa -a
- ea stav:CE LEVEL B S S S S S C B B fjf 0']f :fjf5lj{ C l[ gW !!! fl ff ffi C C C
- Ise sse
-.- t eveE*o*C'CuEuCs5ste
,,,"""c",,",,'o,,,.. ss. m s. s. 'z
= 2s ;;ivii 2, st. ii . .i@!; i i i e
g .
I i
NOTES TO TABLE 2-2.2-13 (1) SEE FIGURES 2-2.2-1 THROUGH 2-2.2-3 FOR SBA, IBA, AND DBA INTERNAL PRESSURE VALUES.
(2) THE RANGE OF NORMAL OPERATING INTERNAL PRESSURES IS
-0.2 TO 0.2 PSI AS SPECIFIED BY THE ORIGINAL CONTAIN-MENT DATA.
(3) SEE FIGURES 2-2.2-4 THROUGH 2-2.2-6 FOR SBA, IBA, AND DBA TEMPERATURE VALUES. SEE TABLE 2-2.2-2 FOR ADDITIONAL SBA EVENT TEMPERATURES.
(4) THE RANGE OF NORMAL OPERATING TEMPERATURES IS 700F TO 1640F AS SPECIFIED BY THE CONTAINMENT DATA SPECIFICATIONS.
SEE TABLE 2-2.2-2 FOR ADDITIONAL NORMAL OPERATING TEMP-E RATURES .
(5) THE SRV DISCHARGE LOADS WHICH OCCUR DURING THIS PHASE OF THE DBA EVENT HAVE A NEGLIGIBLE EFFECT ON THE SUPPRESSION CHAMBER.
(6) EVALUATION OF SECONDARY STRESS RANGE OR FATIGUE NOT REQUIRED. WHEN EVALUATING TORUS SHELL STRESSES , THE VALUE OF S mc MAY BE INCREASED BY THE DYNAMIC LOAD FACTOR DERIVED FROM THE ANALYTICAL MODEL.
(7) THE NUMBER OF SEISMIC LOAD CYCLES USED FOR FATIGUE IS 600.
(8) THE VALUES SHOWN ARE CONSERVATIVE ESTIMATES OF THE NUMBER OF ACTUATIONS EXPECTED FOR A BWR 3 PLANT WITH A REACTOR VESSEL DIAMETER OF 251" .
(9) THE VALUE SHOWN IS THE TOTAL OF THE SINGLE AND MULTIPLE VALVE ACTUATIONS. SINCE THE MULTIPLE VALVE CASE GOVERNS, THE TOTAL NUMBER OF ACTUATIONS IS CONSERVATIVELY APPLIED TO THAT CASE.
COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2.90 nutggh
m
/eh
\ s.j
\ (n
\
$'@ Table 2-2.2-14
< 3:
$O
>* N ENVELOPING LOGIC FOR CONTROLLING SUPPRESSION oa CHAMBER LOAD COMBINATIONS
- 3 o u
Oc I
N CUNDITION/ EVENT NOC SSA IDA DBA I" ' . ^
g ,g9g - 3,2 EP 2 2 14 84 14 le 15 le 14 le 14 IS 1. IS 20 25 27 27 27 TA. LE 2-2 2- u ioAD , *;'- *;'- *;'- *;'- 2.2 *;'- *;'- *;'- *;'- i. i. n. n. n.
CO ATiO ENvEtOPeO
,,.;, ,, ,, ...;, ,.;, .. n ,,.;, ...;, ...n io.;2 .i.i.
.n ni ni n.n u.a n.n n.n co,,,,,7,0 ,2, 'fc^,*,,,o, I n :: in av v I u in av v i n ni av v vi vn IBA III E I E I E I I E E 3BA tv I E I E E VEETICAL SUPPORT DMA I E N ,
N DBA III I CONTkOLLING Den gy X LDAD COMBINATIONS EVALUATED IDA III I E E I E E I Toku, IBA IV E E I I SHELL I 3E 3 DBA III I dea IV E I A ISA III I I I N I (1) FOR zERO DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE.
(2) FOR OPERATING DIFFERENTI AL PRESSURE.
I k
l@
c l1.7
O (la, lb) DEAD WEIGHT LOADS l 2 (2a, 2b) SEISMIC LOADS O
5 a
g (3b, 3d) CONTAINMENT PRESSURE AND TEMPERATURE LOADS S
S (6a-6d) CHUGGING LOADS
?
m i
i
= l (7b-7d) SRV DISCHARGE LOADS w (MULT VALVE CASE A1.2/C3.2) m .
I I
I (7b-7d) SRV DISCHARGE LOADS l (ADS VALVE CASE A2.2) l I I (8a) CONTAINMENT INTERACTION LOADS l I r l l i .
0 300 600 1200 TIME AFTER LOCA (sec)
Figure 2-2.2-19 SUPPRESSION CHAMBER SBA EVENT SEQUENCE 1
l l COM-02-039-2 l Revision 0 2-2.92 l nutggb
n v
(la, lb) DEAD WEIGHT LOADS (2a, 2b) SEISMIC LOADS 5
C n
c 5 (3b, 3d) CONTAINMENT PRESSURE AND TEMPERATURE LOADS E
e S .
(5b, 5d) CONDENSATION 8
". OSCILLATION LOADS l (6a-6d) CHUGGING LOADS m t u l l n
A l l l) b 8
y (7b-7d) SRV DISCHARGE LOADS g (MULT VALVE CASE A1.2/C3.2) -
i i
l (7b-7d) SRV DISCHARGE LOADS (ADS VALVE CASE A2.2)
(8a) CONTAINMENT INTERACTION LOADS i I i a 0 5 900 1100 TIME AFTER LOCA (sec) l Figure 2-2. 2 -20 SUPPRESSION CHAMBER IBA EVENT SEQUENCE
!l l s COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2.93 nutggb
l l
(la, lb) DEAD WEIGHT LOADS l (2a, 2b) SEISMIC LOADS g _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _
p SEE NOTE 1 (3b) CONTAI" MENT PRESSURE LOADS g _________
S !
m
$ (3d) CONTAINMENT TEMPERATURE LOADS e i S
(4a-4d) POOL
". SWELL LOADS N
c: l l l l (Sa, Sc) CO LOADS 2 i 8 O i 8
- i e i .
' 8 e
U ca ! l l (Ga-6d)
- ' : CHUGGING LOADS t
l I g
i e i I
_L-_-_______ t. ___ ___ .
(7a,7c,7d) SRV DISCHARGE (SIN- SEE NOTE 2 GLE VALVE CASE A.l.1/A1.3)
' 8 (8a) CONTAINMENT INTERACTION LOADS I h h 0.1 1.5 5 35 65 TIME AFTER LOCA (sec)
(1) THE EFFECTS OF INTERNAL PRESSURE LOADS ARE INCLUDED IN POOL SWELL TORUS SHELL LOADS.
(2) THE SRV DISCHARGE LOADS WHICH OCCUR DURING THIS PHASE OF THE DBA EVENT ARE NEGLIGIBLE.
, Figure 2-2. 2 -21 l
l SUPPRESSION CHAMBER DBA EVENT SEQUENCE l
l l COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2.94 nutggh
s.
2-2.3 Acceptance Criteria
, s .
The NUEEG-066.1. acceptance , criteria _on which the Quad
- Cities -Units 1 and 2 , suppression chamber analysos -are based are edi3 cussed in Section 1-3.2. In' general, the s
acceptance ' criteria fol'iow the rules contained .in the
~
ASME Code, Section III, Division -
1, including the Summer 197?' - Mdendd , for '
Claes s' MC.,,. conip.onents -
and ^
compone snt '> suppor s -s-ts (Reference 9). .
The 'ccrresponding s
s 4, ,s
,, s . . s -.
service limit us ignme.nts, . juricdictional boundaries,
' N. , c
, ,, m'1. , s s N ,'; - '
. s allowable \stresseQ( - w- . --, and , fatigue rriquirements are -
_:Nc -
consistent wi$h those* con'taineil in ,' the~ applicable ~,
y ,
's ,,s subsect. lens . of' the ASME Code i.ind the PUAAG. . The
.; ~ - , , , ,
s.
s, N'
s acceptance 4 criteria ,ust g in w% s,,t,46 e ' #,s-analysis ofQthe 7 e .s x , ts ,
b/ suppression 'chqmber Tare. s'um@afized in the f oll'ow'ing
~\' % ,T paragraphs. ', N ' ' '
s
' g , \ ',.(' g 3~
N, ,-
_ g, A. ,
s y w- s~
, n--
.. , . s \
The items examined in the analysJs of the suppression s
, . N
- s. -
chamber include the , suppression chamber 7J hell c'.the" ring
- t. , _.
girder, and the supprkssion, od@be --
r horizontal %
and vertical '
support systems. Figures 2-2.14 , through-
.- _', y 2-2.1-12 ide nt i f y * ',the specific '".tompoh,vnts associated "
! ,. , .% c .
with each of these; items. *
, .,. s-
,w
. . ,c- -
,s
, V(*. .e #
i -
- q ,
.. s g y l Tt3 3 suppression chamber she}j ,and ting'g$rder s are eval-
+x e v %
- s e, uatert in accorducce withsthe . requirer.e nts for Clasp-MC
- s. % .s _y_ , .
7
~
y y , x.
- t --
3 ,, t ,-
O) *
~
\ COM-02-039-2 ,-
,t O,i "'. ~,, . .L "
V Revision 0 '# - .
~
, .. _'s 2-2 . 9 5"N ; ^*L ;,lr ,"- m/' cN ,
' .. ,g N_ { [ .j .'MUkgQh
~_ .
r.
,s
,1-23 ,,-
v-;
_ s, _
, ,~ o Aa -
, N l ", O f ', .jy
's __.
components contained in Subsection NE of the ASME Code. Fillet welds and partial penetration welds in which one or both of the joined parts includes the suppression chamber shell and the ring girder are also evaluated in accordance with the requirements for Class MC component attachment welds contained in Subsection NE of the ASME Code.
The suppression chamber columns, column connections, saddle supports, and associated components and welds are evaluated in accordance with the requirements for Class MC component supports contained in Subsection NF of the ASME Code.
Table 2-2.2-13 shows that the SBA III, IBA III, IBA IV, and DBA III combinations all have Service Level B limits, while the' DBA IV combination has Service Level C limits and the DBA I combination has Service Level D limits. Since these load combinations have somewhat different maximum temperatures, the allowable stresses for the three load combination groups with Service Level B, C, and D limits are conservatively determined at the highest temperature in each load combination group, unless otherwise indicated.
COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2.96 nutg,gh
- . . - - - . . _ - _ . __ __ _~- - _ . - - .. _ _ - .
O The allowable stresses for each suppression chamber component and vertical support system component are i
determined at the maximum IBA temperature of 164*F.
The allowable stresses for the vertical support system base plate assemblies are determined at 100*F. Table 2-2.3-1 shows the resulting allowable stresses for the load combinations with Service Level B, C, and D limits.
The saddle base plate anchor bolts and associated epoxy grout, shown in Figure 2-2.1-8, are those specified in the torus support modification drawing (Reference 11).
The minimum allowable uplift load per bolt based on an average embedment of 3'-0" is 112 kips. This is l equivalent to 3.12 kips per inch of embedment.
Bearing stresses in the grout and reactor building basemat in the vicinity of the column and saddle base plates are evaluated in accordance with the require-ments of the American Concrete Institute (ACI) Code (Reference 12).
The allowable load capacities -for the suppression chamber vertical support system are determined by I
considering the capacities of the individual components I 4
COM-02-039-2 i 1
Revision 0 2-2.97
(
utggb
and selecting the critical load. Allowable capacities for the column, saddle, base plates, anchor bolts, and epoxy grout are evaluated. To determine the saddle capacities, a hydrostatic load is applied to the 1/32 segment analytical model and the resulting stresses compared until the first component in the assembly reaches its allowable stress. Table 2-2.3-2 summarizes the resulting allowable load capacities for the suppression chamber vertical supports.
The allowable loads on the suppression chamber seismic restraints are taken from the stress reports (References 13 and 14). The allowable seismic restraint loads for Service Level B and C conditions are 1,620 kips and 2,160 kips, respectively, per seismic restraint. The suppression chamber shell, in the vicinity of the seismic restraints, is evaluated in accordance with the requirements for Class MC components previously discussed.
The acceptance criteria described in the preceding paragraphs result in conservative estimates of the existing margins of safety and assure that the original suppression chamber design margins are restored.
COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2.98 nutgp])
L
Table 2-2.3-1 ALLOWABLE ST RE S S E S FO P. S tJ P P PE 5 5 I ON CHAMBEP COMPONENTS AND 5 'J P P O PTS f ALLOWABLE STRESS As; MATER!AL ;
STRESS
." s1TZM MATEPIAL PPOPEPT!ES ;ypg (2, r3l 4
<x,; SEPVICE SERVICE I 3 E P'/ I CE LEVEL B LEVEL C LEVEL ;
[l S g = 19.30 PRIMARY MEMBPANE 19.30 35.86 41.65 E'
sA-516 S - 23,17 .8.95 53.79 62.48 SHEM ml MEM S PANE CRADE 'C S = '5.86 ppggypy ,f5) y SECONCARY 69.51 N/A N. A S = 'O 00 u STRESS RANCE JMSDNENTc s =
19.30 PPIMARY MEMBRANE 19 3C 35.86 41.65
= 23.1, LOCAL PRIMAPY PING aA-516 S
m +, 28.95 53.'9 62.48 MEMBPANE
'IPCEP G PA C E '
S
- 35.86 pp 33py ,
(5) l SECONCAPY 69.51 N/A '
A 3
u
, ,0,00 l STPESS RANGE l MEMBRANE 21.52 28.69 43.04 TLUMN ( 6, SA-516 $ = 35.86 CONNECTION GPADE 'O Y EUREM FIBEP M. 90 3 5 . 8 53.8:
OMPONENT SUPPOPTS MEMBRANE 21.52 28.69 43 04 SADDLE'0 ^ l
, S = 35.86-EXTPEME FIBEP 26.90 35.87 53.83 RING S g
= 19.30 PPIMARY 10.62 19.72 22.31 GIPDEp SA-516 TO SHELL GPADF '" S = PRIMARY +
yy,g$
Y 35.86 l SECONDARY l COLUMN S mC
= 13.3C PRIMAPY 10.62 19. 72 I 22.91 WELDS TONNECTION SA-516 l TO SHELL #UE C PRIMARY +
=
35.86 3 _g3 l .,
S ). SECONDAPY '
l 5 = 19.30 PRIMAPY 10.62 19.'2 22.9; SMDLE SA-516 TO 3 HELL GRA O E 'C PRIMARY
- S = 35.86 31'ge' 3a I 3 ' ".
Y SECONDAPY l MATE RI AL PRCPERTIES ARE TAKEN AT THE MAXIMUM EVENT TEMPERATURE .
SE RVICE LEVEL B ALLOWABLES ARE USED WHEN EVALUATING SBA III, IBA I IBA !!!
IBA IV, AND DBA II LuAD COMBINATION RES ULTS .
SERVICE LEVEL C ALLOWABLES ARE USED WHEN EVALUATING IBA V AND DBA IV LOAE COMBINATICN RESULTS.
S E RVI CE LEVEL 0 ALLOWABLES ARE USED WHEN EVALUA*ING DBA I LOAD COMBINATION RES ULTS .
THERMAL BENDING STRESSES MAY BE EXCLUDED WHEN COMP ARING P RIMARY-PLUS-SECONDARY ST RE S S RANGE VALUES TO ALLOWABLES .
ST RES S ES DUE TO THERMAL LOADS MAY BE EXCLUCEC WHEN EVALUATING COMPONENT S UP P C P,Ti 3M-02-039-2 evision 0 2-2.99 nutg.J) Q
e Table 2-2.3-2 SUPPRESSION CHAMBER VERTICAL SUPPORT SYSTEM ALLOWABLE LOADS LOAD CAPACITY (kips)
SUPPORT COMPONENT UPWARD III DOWNWARD ( I t.
INSIDE (3) 759 COLUMN OUTSIDE (3) 759 INSIDE 879 1126 SADDLE OUTSIDE 879 1126 TOTAL PER MITERED CYLINDER 1758 3770 (1) CAPACITIES ARE APPLICABLE FOR ALL SERVICE LEVELS.
(2) CAPACITIES SHOWN ARE BASED CN SERVICE LEVEL B ALLOWABLES. FOR SERVICE LEVEL C ALLOWABLES, INCREASE VALUES SHOWN BY 1/3.
FOR SERVICE LEVEL D ALLOWABLES , MULTIPLY VALUES SHOWN BY A FACTOR OF 2.
(3) THESE MEMBERS HAVE NO UPLIFT CAPACITY.
COM-02-039,-2 Revision 0 2-2.100-nutggb l
2-2.4 Methods of Analysis The governing loads for which the Quad Cities Units 1 and 2 suppression chambers are evaluated are presented in Section 2-2.2.1. The methodology used to evaluate the suppression chamber for the effects of all loads (except those which result in lateral loads on the suppression chamber) is discussed in Section 2-2.4.1.
The methodology used to evaluate the suppression chamber for the effects of lateral loads is discussed in Section 2-2.4.2.
The methodology used to formulate results for the controlling load combinations, consider fatigue effects, and evaluate the analysis results for comparison with the applicable acceptance limits is discussed in Section 2-2.4.3.
COM-02-039-2 j Revision 0 2-2.101 nutggj)
P 2-2.4.1 Analysis for Major Loads The repetitive nature of the suppression chamber geometry is such that the suppression chamber can be divided into 16 identical segments, which extend from midbay of the vent line bay to midbay of the non-vent line bay (Figure 2-2.1-1). The suppression chamber can be further divided into 32 identical segments extending from the miter joint to midbay, provided the offset ring girder and vertical supports are assumed to lie in the plane of the miter joint. The effects of the ring girder and vertical supports offset have been evaluated and found to have a negligible effect on the suppres-sion chamber response. The analysis of the suppression chamber, therefore, is performed for a typical 1/32 segment.
A finite element model of a 1/32 segment of the suppression chamber is used to obtain the suppression chamber response to all loads except those on submerged structures (Figure 2-2.4-1). This analytical model includes t'4e suppression chamber shell, the ring girder modeled with beam elements, the column connections and associated column members, the saddle support and associated base plates, and miscellaneous stiffener plates.
COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2.102 nutgrb
w
\
l' Table 2-2.3-1 ALLOWABLE STRESSES FOR SUPPRESSION CHAMBER COMPONENTS AND SUPPORTS I ALLOWABLE STRESS (ks1) g3 MATERIAL STRESS ITEM MATERIAL PROPERTIES TYPE gg,yggg(2) SERVICE SERVICE LEVEL B LEVEL C LEVEL D S,, = 19.30 PRIMARY MEMBRANE 19.30 35.86 41.65 28.95 53.79 62.48 SHELL SA*516 Isl
- 23*17 B CRADE 70 Sy = 35.86 pgggggy ,(5)
SECONDARY 69.51 N/A N/A Su = 70.00 STRESS RANGE S,, = 19.30 PRIMARY MEMBRANE 19.30 35.86 41.65 LOCAL PRIMARY 28.95 53.79 62.48 RING SA-516 Sal = 23.17 MEMBRANE GIRDER GRADE 70 Sy = 35.86 PRIMARY +(5)
SECONDARY 69.51 N/A N/A Su = 10.00 STRESS RANGE MEMBRANE 21.52 28.69 43.04 COLUMN !0I SA-516 S = 35.86 s CONNECTION GRADE 70 Y 26.90 EXTREME FIBER 35.87 53.80 COMPCNENT N
0 MEMBRANE 21.52 28.69 43.04 S ADDLE (6)
SA-516 S = 35.86 I EXTREME FIBER 26.90 35.87 53.80 RING S ac = 19.30 PRIMARY 10.62 19.72 22.91 GIRDER SA-516 GRADE 70 P
- TO SHr.L Sy = 35.86 31.85 N/A N/A ECO D R COLUMN me
- "## *N U*
- WELDS CONNECTION SA-516 TO SHELL GRADE 70 S = 35.86 PRIMARY +
Y SECONDARY 3 85 N/A N/A g g g 3,e = 19.30 P RIMARY 10.62 19.72 22.91 TO SHELL GRADE 70 PRIMARY +
S = 35.86 31.85 N/A N/A Y SECONDARY (1) MATERIAL PROPERTIES ARE TAKEN AT THE MAXIMUM EVENT TEMPERATURE.
(2) SERVICE LEVEL B ALLOWABLES ARE USED WHEN EVALUATING SBA III, IBA I, IBA III, IBA IV, AND DBA II LOAD COMBINATION RESULTS.
(3) SERVICE LEVEL C ALLOWABLES ARE USED WHEN EVALUATING IBA V AND DBA IV LOAD COMBINATION RESULTS.
(4) SERVICE LEVEL D ALLOWABLES ARE USED WHEN EVALUATING DBA I LOAD COMBINATION RESULTS.
(5) THERMAL BENDING STRESSES MAY BE EXCLUDED WHEN COMPARING PRIMARY-PLUS-SECONDARY STRESS RANGE VALUES TO ALLOWABLES.
(6) STRESSES DUE TO THERMAL LOADS MAY BE EXCLUDED WHEN EVALUATING COMPONENT SUPPORTS.
G I I V COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2.99
Table 2-2.3-2 SUPPRESSION CHAMBER VERTICAL SUPPORT SYSTEM ALLOWABLE LOADS 2
LOAD CAPACITY (kips)
COMPONENT UPWARD III DOWNWARD INSIDE (3) 759 COLUMN OUTSIDE (3) 759 INSIDE 879 1126 SADDLE OUTSIDE 879 1126 TOTAL PER MITERED CYLINDER 1758 3770 (1) CAPACITIES ARE APPLICABLE FOR ALL SERVICE LEVELS.
(2) CAPACITIES SHOWN ARE BASED ON SERVICE LEVEL B ALLOWABLES. FOR SERVICE LEVEL C ALLOWABLES, INCREASE VALUES SHOWN BY 1/3.
FOR SERVICE LEVEL D ALLOWABLES , MULTIPLY VALUES SHOWN BY A FACTOR OF 2.
(3) THESE MEMBERS HAVE NO UPLIFT CAPACITY.
COM-02-039 2 Revision 0 2-2.100 nutp_ql) t -_ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
~
l 2-2.4 Methods of Analysis The governing loads for which the Quad Cities Units 1 and 2 suppression chambers are evaluated are presented in Section 2-2.2.1. The methodology used to evaluate the suppression chamber for the effects of all loads (except those which result in lateral loads on the suppression chamber) is discussed in Section 2-2.4.1.
The methodology used to evaluate the suppression chamber for the effects of lateral loads is discussed in Section 2-2.4.2.
l l
The methodology used to formulate results for the controlling load combinations, consider fatigue effects, and evaluate the analysis results for compa'ison r with the applicable acceptance limits is discussed in Section 2-2.4.3.
COM-02-039-2 Os Revision 0 2-2.101
2-2.4.1 Analysis for Major Loads The repetitive nature of the suppression chamber geometry is such that the suppression chamber can be divided into 16 identical segments, which extend from )
midbay of the vent line bay to midbay of the non-vent line bay (Figure 2-2.1-1). The suppression chamber can be further divided into 32 identical segments extending from the miter joint to midbay, provided the offset ring girder and vertical supports are assumed to lie in the plane of the miter joint. The effects of the ring girder and vertical supports offset have been evaluated and found to have a negligible effect on the suppres-sion chamber response. The analysis of the suppression chamber, therefore, is performed for a typical 1/32 segment.
A finite element model of a 1/32 segment of the suppression chamber is used to obtain the suppression chamber response to all loads except those on submerged structures (Figure 2-2.4-1). L.is analytical model includes the suppression chamber shell, the ring girder modeled with beam elements, the column connections and associated column members, the saddle support and associated base plates, and miscellaneous stiffener plates.
COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2.102 nutggh
l This analytical model is composed of 900 nodes, 187
- elastic beam elements, and 1,119 plate bending and 1
stretching elements. The suppression chamber shell has a circumferential node spacing of 8' at midbay, with additional mesh refinement near discontinuities to facilitate examination of local stresses. Additional refinement is also included in modeling of the column connections and saddle support at locations where higher local stresses occur. The stiffness and mass properties used in the model are based on the nominal dimensions and densities of the materials used to construct the suppression chamber (Figures 2-2.1-1 through 2-2.1-12). Small displacement linear-elastic behavior is assumed throughout.
The boundary conditions used in this analytical model are both physical and mathematical in nature. The physical boundary conditions consist of vertic 1 restraints at each of the column and saddle base plate locations. The vertical support system base plates permit movement of the suppression chamber in the horizontal direction. The mathematical boundary condi-tions consist of symmetry, anti-symmetry, or a combination of both (depending on the characteristics of the load being svaluated) at the miter joint and midcylinder planes.
O J
COM-02-039-2 l
Revision 0 2-2.103
A second finite element model is developed to obtain detailed ring girder responses to suppression chamber shell hydrodynamic loads and ring girder-torus shell interaction responses to loads on submerged structures.
This model consists of a detailed plate model of the ring girder and ring girder stiffeners, a partial 1/32 segment torus shell model on each side of the miter joint, the column connections and associated column members, the saddle support with associated flanges, and the stiffener plates. The column, column connection, and saddle support are positioned 4" from the miter joint in this analytical model to accurately represent the as-built torus support system. Figures 2-2.4-2 and 2-2.4-3 show the ring girder analytical model.
The model reflects the modified ring girders, rein-forced to withstand Mark I loads. These modifications are lateral reinforcement stiffeners to prevent ring girder bending due to out-of plant loads. Upon installation of the final Mark I related modifications, both units at Quad Cities will have five ring girder stiffeners in the SRV bays (Figure 2-2.1-4); however, they differ in the number of ring girder stiffeners in the non-SRV bays. Unit 1 has zero; Unit 2 has two
( Figure 2-2.4-4 ) . Two analytical models were generated COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2.104 nutggh
to address the submerged structure loads, one each for the SRV and non-SRV bays. These are the five-stiffener model and the zero-stiffener model. The zero stiffener ring girder configuration was conservatively chosen for analysis of the non-SRV bay loads.
The zero stiffener model is composed of 1,394 nodes, 201 elastic buam elements, and 1,977 plate bending and stretching elements. The five-stiffener model has an additional 30 nodes, 4 elastic beam elements, and 37 plate bending and stretching elements. The five stiffener shell mesh refinement of these models is the same as that of the previously described torus shell model. A spoke system is constructed at the shell boundaries on each side of the miter joint and a rigid beam extended to midbay, where symmetry boundary conditions are imposed. The vertical restraints for these analytical models are the same as those previously discussed for the suppression chamber model.
For each of the hydrodynamic torus shell loads, a dis-placement set is statically applied to the ring girder-torus shell intersection on the ring girder model, along with appropriate dynamic amplification factors.
This displacement set is selected from the response time-history at the time of maximum strain energy.
COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2.105 nutggi)
These loads thus applied determine the state of stress in the ring girder due to hydrodynamic torus shell loads.
For each of the submerged structure loads, a set of forces is applied to the ring girder below the pool surface in the out-of-plane direction. A dynamic load factor (DLF) is developed for each load, depending upon the natural frequency of the ring girder and that of the load itself. With the application of this factor, the state of stress is determined in the ring girder, the ring girder stiffener plates, and the local torus shell due to the submerged structure loads.
When computing the response of the suppression chamber to dynamic loadings, the fluid-structure interaction effects of the suppression chamber shell and contained fluid (water) are considered. This is accomplished through use of a finite element model of the fluid (Figure 2-2.4-5). The analytical fluid model is used l
to develop a coupled mass matrix, which is added to the submerged nodes of the suppression chamber analytical model to represent the fluid. A water volume l corresponding to a water level 3-1/2" below the suppression chamber horizontal centerline is used in COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2.106 nutggb
this calculation. This is the average water volume expected during normal operating conditions.
A frequency analysis is performed using the suppression chamber analytical model from which all structural modes in the range of 0 to 50 hertz are extracted.
Table 2-2.4-1 shows the resulting frequencies and vertical mass participation factors. The dominant suppression chamber frequency occurs at 18.85 hertz, I which is above the dominant frequencies of most major l
l hydrodynamic loadings.
l l
Using the analytical model of the suppression chamber, a dynamic analysis is performed for each of the hydro-dynamic torus shell load cases specified in Section 2-2.2.1. The analysis consists of either a transient i
or a harmonic analysis, depending on the character- j l
istics of the torus shell load being considered. The modal superposition technique with 2% of critical damping, as recommended by Regulatory Guide 1.61 (Reference 15), is utilized in both transient and harmonic analyses.
l The remaining suppression chamber load cases specified in Section 2-2.2.1 involve either static or dynamic l loads which are evaluated using an equivalent static i
%)
coM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2.107
approach. For the latter, conservative dynamic amplification factors are developed and applied to the maximum spatial distributions of the individual dynamic loadings.
The specific treatment of each load in the load categories identified in Section 2-2.2.1 is discussed in the following paragraphs.
- 1. Dead Weight Loada
- a. Dead Weight of Steel: A static analysis is performed for a unit vertical acceleration applied to the weight of suppression chamber steel.
- b. Dead Weight of Water: A static analysis is performed for hydrostatic pressures applied to the submerged portion of the suppression chamber shell.
- 2. Seismic Loads
- a. OBE Loads: A static analysis is performed for a 0.08g vertical acceleration applied to l
l the combined weight of suppression chamber l
COM-02-039-2 O
Revision 0 2-2.108 nutggh
steel and water. The ef fects of horizontal G OBE accelerations are evaluated in Section 2-2.4.2.
- b. SSE Loads: A static analysis is performed for a 0.16g vertical acceleration applied to the combined weight of suppression chamber steel and water. The effects of horizontal l SSE accelerations are evaluated in Section 2-2.4.2.
- 3. Containment Pressure and Temperature
- a. Normal Operating Internal Pressure A static analysis is performed for a 0.2 psi internal pressure uniformly applied to the suppression l chamber shell.
- b. LOCA Internal Pressure Loads: A static i analysis is performed for the SBA, IBA, and DBA internal presse.res (Fi'uresg 2-2.2-1 through 2-2.2-3). These pressures are uniformly applied to the suppression chamber shell at selected timen during each event.
O COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2J109
- c. Normal Operating Temperature Loads: A static analysis is performed for a 164*F temperature uniformly applied to the suppression chamber shell, ring girder, saddle, and columns. An additional static analysis is performed for the maximum normal operating temperature listed in Table 2-2.2-2. Discrete tempera-tures for the suppression chamber vertical supports are obtained from Figure 2-2.2-7.
- d. LOCA Temperature Loads: A static analysis is performed for the SBA, IBA, and DBA tempera-tures uniformly applied to the suppression chamber shell, ring girder, saddle, and columns. The SBA, IBA, and DBA event temperatures (Figures 2-2.2-4 through 2-2.2-6) are applied at selected times during each event. The greater of the temperatures f specified in Figure 2-2.2-4 and Table 2-2.2-2 l
l is used in the analysis for SBA temperatures.
i Discrete temperatures for the suppression chamber vertical supports are obtained from Figure 2-2.2-7.
COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2.110 nutggb
. . .- -- -. . . . - . .. - . . _ = . . . _ - - . _ _ _ . -
4 i
s
- 4. Pool Swell Loads a-b. Pool Swell Torus Shell Loads: A dynamic l 4
analysis is performed for both the vent and non-vent line bays for both the operating and i zero AP pool swell load conditions (Figures
- 2-2.2-8 through 2-2.2-11 and Tables 2-2.2-4 and 2-2.2-5).
- c. LOCA Water Jet Loads on Submerged Structures I An equivalent static analysis is performed for the LOCA water jet loads on the ring l girder (Table 2-2.2-6). The values of the loads shown are derived using the methodology discussed in Section 1-4.1.5 and include m
dynamic amplification factors.
1
- d. LOCA Bubble-Induced Loads on Submerged Struc-tures: An equivalent static snalysis is performed for the ring girder DBA air clearing loads on submerged structures (Table 2-2.2-6). The values of the loads shown are derived using the niethodology discussed in Section 1-4.1.6 and include dynamic amplifi-cation factors.
I O COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2.111
- 5. Condensation Oscillation Loads
- a. DBA CO Torus Shell Loads: A dynamic analysis is performed for the four CO load alternates (Table 2-2.2-7). Figure 2-2.4-6 provides a typical response obtained from the suppres-sion chamber harmonic analysis for the normalized spatial distribution of pressures (Figure 2-2.2-12). During harmonic summation, the amplitudes for each CO load frequency interval are conservatively applied to the maximum response amplitudes obtained from the suppression chamber harmonic analysis results in the same frequency interval.
- b. IBA CO Torus Shell Loads: Pre-chug loads described in Load Case 6a are specified in lieu of IBA CO loads.
- c. DBA CO Submerged Structure Loads: An equivalent static analysis is performed for the ring girder DBA CO loads on submerged structures (Table 2-2.2-8). The values of the loads shown are derived using the methodology discussed in Section 1-4.1.7.3 and include dynamic amplification factors.
COM-02-039-2 O
Revision 0 2-2.112 nutggh
.. . . - = .. .. . . . _. -. - - _ - .. _ _ - .
, d. IBA CO Submerged Structure Loads: Pre-chug loads described in Load Case 6c are specified in lieu of IBA CO loads.
4
- 6. Chugging Loads
- r i
- a. Pre-Chug Torus Shell Loads: A dynamic anal- ,
ysis is performed for the symmetric pre-chug loads (Figure 2-2.2-14). The harmonic
, analysis results show that the maximum suppression chamber response in the 6.9 to 9.5 hertz range occurs at the structural frequency of 9.0 hertz (Table 2-2.4-1). The effects of lateral loads caused by asymmetric pre-chug are examined in Section 2-2.4.2.
l
- b. Post-Chug Torus Shell Loads: A dynamic analysis is performed for post-chug torus shell loads (Table 2-2.2-9). Figure 2-2.4-6 provides a typical response obtained from the 4
suppression chamber harmonic' analysis for the normalized spatial distribution of pressures (Figure 2-2.2-12). During harmonic summa-tion, the amplitudes for each post-chug load frequency interval are conservatively applied to the maximum response amplitudes obtained l
COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2.113
from the suppression chamber harmonic analy-sis results in the same frequency interval,
- c. Pre-Chug Submerged Structure Loads: An equivalent static analysis is performed for the ring girder pre-chug loads on submerged structures (Table 2-2.2-10). The values of the loads shown are derived using the methodology discussed in Section 1-4.1.8.3 and include dynamic a.nplification f actors.
- d. Post-Chug Submerged Structure Loads: An equivalent static analysis is performed for the ring girder submerged structure loads (Table 2-2.2-11). The values of the loads shown are derived using the methodology discussed in Section 1-4.1.8.3 and include dynamic amplification factors.
- 7. Safety Relief Valve Discharge Loads a-b. SRV Discharge Torus Shell Loads: A dynamic analysis is performed for SRV Discharge Torus Shell Load Cases 7a and 7b (Figures 2-2.2-16 and 2-2.2-17). Several frequencies within the range of the SRV discharge load COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2.114 nutp_qh
frequencies are evaluated to determine the maximum suppression chamber response. The effects of lateral loads on the suppression chamber caused by SRV Discharge Load Case 7b are evaluated in Section 2-2.4.2.
The suppression chamber analytical model used in the analysis is calibrated using the methodology discussed in Section 1-4.2.3.
The methodology involves use of modal correction factors which are applied to the response associated with each suppression chamber frequency. Figure 2-2.4-7 shows the resulting correction factors used in evaluat-ing the effects of SRV discharge torus shell loads.
- c. SRV Dischargo Water Jet Loads on Submerged Structures: An equivalent static analysis is performed for the T-quencher water jet loads on the ring girder (Table 2-2.2-12). The values of the loads shown are derived using the methodology discussed in Section 1-4.2.4 and include dynamic amplification factors.
a COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2.115 nutggh
L
- d. SRV Discharge Bubble-Induced Drag Loads on Submerged Structures: An equivalent static analysis is performed for the ring girder SRV discharge drag loads (Table 2-2.2-12). The values of the loads shown are derived using the methodology discussed in Section 1-4.2.4 and include dynamic amplification factors.
- 8. Containment Interaction Loads
- a. Containment Structures Reaction Loads: An equivalent static analysis is performed for the vent system support column, SRVDL support, T-quencher support, sprcy header, and catwalk support reaction loads taken from the evaluations of these components described in Volumes 3 through 5 of this report.
The methodology described in the preceding paragraphs results in a conservative evaluation of the suppression chamber response and associated stresses for the governing loads. Use of the analysis results obtained by applying this methodology leads to a conservative evaluation of the suppression chamber design margins.
COM-02-039-2 O
Revision 0 2-2.116 nutggh
Table 2-2.4-1 SUPPRESSION CIIAMBER FREQUENCY ANALYSIS FESULTS RTI N E S MODE FREQUENCY A I A ION NUMBER (Hz)
FACTOR (lb) 1 8.82 51.7 l l
2 9.03 593.3 '
3 11.04 674.2 4 11.22 1840.7 5 12.38 2528.7 6 13.10 826.4 7 13.83 1061.3 8 14.60 3044.4 9 15.24 1620.0 10 16.20 18814.5 11 17.00 271.7 12 17.89 2212.4 i$i5$5iK*?Rl' F5%R M Y& R&W:EilQ?'
14 19.58 84950.5 15 20.97 11412.3 16 21.43 4132.5 17 21.99 3512.2 18 23.44 8.4 19 23.98 32.4 20 24.15 574.0 21 25.00 4650.7 22 25.79 339.9 23 26.39 476.5 24 27.15 5.1 25 27.77 253.2 l
(~g COM-02-039-2
' 1 Revision 0 2-2.117 O
nutggb
Table 2-2.4-1 SUPPRESSION CHAMBER FREQUENCY ANALYSIS RESULTS (Continued)
RTICE MASS MODE FREQUENCY ARTICIPATION NUMBER (Hz) FACTOR (lb) 26 27.97 751.4 27 28.62 33.3 28 29.22 63.3 29 29.88 5.3 30 30.85 6.1 31 31.27 11.4 32 31.55 100.9 33 32.39 78.4 34 32.83 130.6 35 33.51 62.8 36 34.07 86.0 37 34.57 0.6 38 34.76 112.8 39 35.46 20.0 40 35.69 110.1 41 36.19 1.2 42 36.44 3.7 43 37.16 29.1 44 37.23 89.5 45 37.93 10.9 46 38.31 139.0 47 38.83 11.6 48 39.65 0.0 49 39.94 64.9 50 40.45 71.0 I
COM-02-039-2 i Revision 0 2-2.118 l
nutggh)
. ;_.. _j ,_ ._
^ '
. , s
~
- s ,' .
.~
g.
.-~
) Table 2-2,4-1 J .. ,
['~
~
SUPPRESSION CHAMBER FRCOUCNCY ANALYSIS FESULTS
~
(Concluded)
MODE FR%QUENCY -
TICE MASS NUMBER (Hz) A_ TICIPATION
, _ -FACTOR (lb) 51 40.[86 3.7 52 .41.41 ' 0.9 53 41.71
'27.2 54 41.89 37.6 55 42.58 5.8 56 43.30 6.3 57 43.71 5.2 58 44.02 8.3 59 44.29 12.5 60 44.61 1.1 61 44.'97 53.7 62 45.12 0.0 63 45.98 14.8
.64 46.11 0.0 65 46.66 14.2 66 46.71 4.5 67 47.22 3.1 68 48.38 40.5 69 48.44 152.2 70 48.69 2.7 71 48.74 8.9 72 49.20 0.4 73 49.27 1.7 74 49.48 89.1 l 1
75 49.77 38.6 j h
j COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2.119 nutggh
O
/
Il I
l , s '
gp$ q -
1 I $ -
ii
-. 1
~~-
f 222' .
~
s y
[-
'b~C:,::: S u #.;;52 0g h :
- __; g ;;;y.
l Figure 2-2.4-1 SUPPRESSION CHAMBER 1/32 SEGMENT FINITE ELEMENT MODEL -
ISOMETRIC VIEW COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2.120 nutggh
O !
k l
/
/
~
i l_
\
x kk y
%4 _L y- >~
x MW kg [d;;,;~ h '
I iiI Figure 2-2.4-2
! RING GIRDER MODEL - VIEW FROM l j
! THE MITER JOINT -l I
l . j COM-02-039-2 l Revision 0 2-2.121 i
nutggb
O
~
~ - -- $ i
> _d/5jfw f
k s m;,h~
N
/
- - [. '
i i __, h w '
i
' h\h i i
L <
c' ad <
FC i
glI f N N!dhi, if
- '-'- sen!!t [ -
k , ,':> ','$?
_h2 J
Figure 2-2.4-3 RING GIRDER MODEL - ISOMETRIC VIEW COM-0 2-0 39- 2 Revision 0 2-2.122 O
nutggh
i ?"o==.
g s
.* ti.*
(
21.*
QUAD CITIES 1 (10 ring girders with 5 stiffeners; 6 ring girders without stiffeners) e
.* ti.*
=
QUAD CITIES 2 (10 ring girders'.rit.h 5 stiffeners; 6 ring girders wir.h 2 stiffeners)
Figuro 2-2.4-4 PROPCSED RING GIRDER STIFFENERS 9 COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2- 2 . 123 nutp_qh
O FLUID MODEL CORE k'
UM =' s
/ w" ^
dT l il !h q !!!am t
I i l l
I Figure 2-2.4-5 SUPPRESSION CHAMBER FLUID MODEL- 1 ISOMETRIC VIEW R i o 0 2-2.124 nute,q. h I
O s
SUPPRESSION CHAMBER, f = 18.80 Hz 600 2
5 ei 5
y 400-W E
M g 200-s e! -
0 . . . .
0 10 20 30 40 FREQUENCY (Hz)
- 1. SEE FIGURE 2-2.2-10 FOR SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF LOADING.
Figure 2-2.4-6 l
SUPPRESSION CHAMBER HARMONIC ANALYSIS RESULTS l FOR NORMALIZED HYDROSTATIC LOAD COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2.125 nutp_qh !
I l
A B C D E E D C B A 1.0 en Cf.
0.8-
$ 0.6-M D3 g 0.4-O U
A
< 0.2-Q O
E
- 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 CCRRECTICN McCE FRECCENCY NUMBER Otti CASE A1.2 (ft=13.79) 1 8.820 0.75 LEGEND 2 1.031 0.73 3 11.038 0.55 TORUS 4 11.217 0.47 CURVE FREQUENCY 5 12.3 5 0.43 (Hz) 6 13.102 0.36 g 7 13.834 0.30 8 14.601 0.40 B 11 9 15.244 0.47 C 14 10 16.201 0.56 D D-23 11 17.005 0.68 12 17.887 0.74 E 26-32 13 18.846 0.82 14 19.581 0.84 15 20.968 0.97 16 21.435 1.00 17-75 121.994 1.00 Figure 2-2.4-7 MODAL. CORRECTION FACTORS USED FOR ANALYSIS OF SRV DISCHARGE TORUS SHELL LOADS COM-0 2-0 3 9- 2 Revision 0 2-2.126 nutp_ph I 1
j
c- _
l 2-2.4.2 Analysis for Lateral Loads In addition to vertical loads, a few of the governing loads acting on the suppression chamber result in net lateral loads, as discussed in Section 2-2.2.1. These lateral loads are transferred to the reactor building basemat by the seismic restraints described in Section 2-2.1.
The general methodology used to evaluate the effects of lateral loads consists of establishing an upper _ bound value of the lateral load for each applicable load case. The results for each load case are then grouped in accordance with the controlling load combinations described in Section 2-2.2.2, and the maximum total lateral load acting on the suppression chamber is determined.
The maximum total lateral load is conserve.tively assumed to be aligned about a principal suppression chamber azimuth (Figure 2-2.1-1) and transferred equally by two of the four seismic restraints. Once the seismic restraint loads are known, these values are compared with the allowable seismic restraint loads contained in Section 2-2.3.
COM-02-039-2
( Revision 0 2-2.127 x
nutggb
l l
l Loads on the seismic restraints result in a shear force and bending moment acting on the suppression chamber shell because of the eccentricity of the seismic restraint pin with respect to the shell middle surface. The effects of these shears and moments on the suppression chamber shell are evaluated using the analytical model of the suppression chamber described in Section 2-2.4.1. A distribution of forces which produce the desired shear and moment is applied to the suppression chamber shell at the perimeter of the seismic restraint pad plate (Figure 2-2.4-8). The resulting shell stresses are then combined with the other loads contained in the controlling load combination being evaluated, and the shell stresses in the vicinity of the seismic restraints are determined.
The magnitudes and characteristics of the governing loads which result in lateral loads on the suppression chamber are presented and discussed in Section 2-2.2.1.
The specific treatment of each load which results in lateral loads on the suppression chamber is discussed in the following paragraphs.
COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2,128 nutggh
l
- 2. Seismic Loads
- a. OBE Loads: The total lateral load due to OBE loads is equal to the maximum horizontal acceleration of 0.30g applied to the weight of suppression chamber steel and the effective weight of suppression chamber water in the horizontal direction.
I The effective weight of suppression chamber water in the horizontal direction used in this evaluation. is derived from generic small-scale tests performed on Mark I suppression chambers. These test results nave been confirmed analytically using a model of the suppression chamber fluid (water) similar to the one shown in Figure 2-2.4-5.
As recommended in the " Mark I Torus seismic Slonh Evaluation" (Reference 16), the effe:-
tive weight of suppression chamber water is taken as 20% of the total weight of water contained in the suppression chamber. This-p) t,
%d CoM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2.129 nutggh
value represents the amount of water acting with the suppression chamber as added mass t during horizontal dynamic events. The effective weight of water exhibits itself in reaction loads on the seismic restraints.
The remaining 80% of suppression chamber water acts in sloshing modes at frequencies near zero. Only a portion of the total sloshing mass acting at considerably lower seismic accelerations results in reaction loads on the seismic restraints. The total sloshing mass is conservatively applied at the maximum OBE acceleration in the range of the sloshing frequencies,
- b. SSE Loads: The total lateral load due to SSE loads is equal to the maximum horizontal acceleration of 0.60g applied to the weight of suppression chamber steel and the effective weight of suppression chamber water in the horizontal direction. The methodology used to evaluate horizontal SSE loads is discussed in Load Case 2a.
COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2.130 nutggh
-- _ - - _ _ _ - _ -- a
- 6. Chugging Loads
- a. Pre-Chug Torus Shell Loads: The spatial dis-tribution of asymmetric pre-nhug pressures is integrated, and the total lateral load is determined (Figures 2-2.2-14 and 2-2.2-15).
A dynamic amplification factor is computed using first principles and characteristics of the chugging cycle transient (Figure 2-2.4-9). The maximum dynamic amplification factor possible, regardless of structural frequency, is conservatively used.
- 7. Safety Relief Valve Discharge Loads
- c. SRV Discharge Torus Shell Loads: The spatial distribution of pressures for SRV Discharge Load Case 7b is integrated and the total lateral load is determined (Figures 2-2.2-17 and 2-2.2-18). It was determined that, due to the positioning of these T-quenchers, a larger lateral load is created by the multiple actuation of four safety relief valves than by all five. The maximum load due to the actuation of four valves was COM-02-039-2
\j Revision 0 2-2.131 nutgre h=u' - - - - -- -
used. A dynamic amplification factor is computed using the methodology discussed in Section 2-2.4.1 for SRV discharge torus shell loads analysis. The maximum dynamic amplifi-cation factor possible, regardless of structural frequency, is conservatively used (Figure 2-2.4-10).
Use of the methodology described in the preceding paragraphs results in a conservative evaluation of suppression chamber shell stresses. These stresses are due to the governing loads which result in lateral loads on the suppression chamber.
O t
t l
COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2.132 nutggh
MJ MC MJ MJ MC MJ
$ E E E k T I i i I
/i i1 8 il il T/ li; lll PAD lll g,g T
I V I! Il 1l
- - - - - - -] [ [
i
,, is i,,
llg --v tot il lll y !!!
' 1 PAD 1
[!l ll kl , ' " " ,c ~1, i Vl'l l,lV
=;. ,
Y tot ELEVATION VIEW PLAN VIEW- BOTTOM FOR V = 2605 kipI I, vg= 5 k/in MJ MC MJ MJ MC MJ
$ E 9. $ E 1 e i i 1 i i i l 16l jij I I I I ll1 l'l I I I Ill PAD g,,;
l G I i,!
"1" !
,l i
l l l "i. ... xxxx x ill .
ll
- yM ,f u tot "* ll lli I
11*....xxxx n ll 3 i
PAD I I III !! '
i # i !
- {= ' A my" g I
tot ELEVATION VIEW PLAN VIEW - BOTTOM FOR V = 2605 kip Il) ,M tot = 11,570 in-k, m g = 743 k/in (1) THIS TOTAL LOAD REPRESENTS THE SUM OF OBE PRE-CHUG AND SRV LATERAL LOADS.
Figure 2-2.4-8 METHODOLOGY FOR SUPPRESSION CHAMBER LATERAL LOAD APPLICATION O COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2.133 nutp_qh
O:;
PRE-CHUG POST-CHUG PORTION _ _
PORTION _
o
$ 7 CYCLE REPEATS ONE CHUG CYCLE _
TIME Figure 2- 2. 4-9 TYPICAL CHUGGING CYCLE LOAD TRANSIENT USED FOR ASYMMETRIC PRE-CHUG DYNAMIC AMPLIFICATION FACTOR DETERMINATION COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2.134 nutp_qh
DLF = 2.44 TORUS FREQUENCY FORCED EOU OLF FREQUENCY RATIO VIBRATION CORRECTICN g (fg )(H2) (fg/fg ) DLF RANGE I OA MCF gg g 3 7.800 0.975 4.574 0.358 1.639 18.200 2.275 0.884 1.000 0.P*4 7.800 0.709 2.450 0.614 1.510 11.0 18.200 1.655 1.729 0.957 1.655 7.8JO 0.557 1.995 0.925 1.844 14.0 18.200 1.300 2.959 0.736 2.178 7.800 0.459 1.709 1.000 1.709 17.0 18.200 1.071 4.396 0.473 2.000 7.000 0.339 1.382 1.000 1.382 23.0 18.200 0.791 2.842 0.734 2.085 7.800 0.300 1.383 1.000 1.383 18.200 0.700 2.441 1.000 2.441 7.000 0.244 1.443 1.000 1.443 32.0 18.200 0.569 2.046 1.000 2.046 5.0 a 4.0 3.0-I co g 2.0-O g 1.0-2 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 LOAD FREQUENCY / TORUS FP.EQUENCY (f g,/f t
- 1. SEE FIGURE 2-2.2-17 FOR FORCED VIBRATION LOADING TRANSIENT AND FREQUENCY RANGE.
- 2. SEE FIGURE 2-2. 4-6 FOR MODAL CORRECTION FACTORS .
Figure 2-2.4-10 DYNAMIC LOAD FACTOR DETERMINATION FOR SUPPRESSION CHAMBER UNBALANCED LATERAL LOAD DUE TO SRV DISCHARGE-MULTIPLE VALVE ACTUATION bi
. COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2.135 nutg_qh
2-2.4.3 Methods for Evaluating Analysis Results The methodology discussed in Sections 2-2.4.1 and 2-2.4.2 is used to determine element forces and component stresses in the suppression chamber components. The methodology used to evaluate the analysis results, determine the controlling stresses in the suppression chamber components and component supports, and examine fatigue effects is discussed in the following paragraphs.
Membrane and extreme fiber stress intensities are computed when the analysis results for the suppression chamber Class MC components are evaluated. The values i
of the membrane stress intensities away from discontin-uities are compared with the primary membrane stress
[
l allowables contained in Table 2-2.3-1. The values of membrane stress intensities near discontinuities are compared with local primary membrane stress allowables contained in Table 2-2.3-1. Primary stresses in sup-pression chamber Class MC com[.onent welds are computed using the maximum primary stress or resultant force acting on the associated weld throat. The results are compared to the primary weld stress allowables contained in Table 2-2.3-1.
COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2.136 nutg,g!)
In each of the controlling load combinations there are many dynamic loads resulting in stresses which cycle with time, and which are partially or fully reversible. The maximum stress intensity range for all suppression chamber Class MC components is calculated using the maximum values of the extreme fiber stress differences which occur near discontinuities. These values are compared with primary plus secondary stress range allowables contained in Table 2-2.3-1. A similar procedure is used to compute the stress range for the suppression chamber Class MC component welds. The results are compared to the primary plus secondary weld stress allowables contained in Table 2-2.3-1.
When analysis results for the suppression chamber saddle supports are evaluated, membrane and extreme fiber principal stresses are computed and compared with the Class MC component support allowable stresses contained in Table 2-2.3-1. The reaction loads acting on the suppression chamber vertical support system column and saddle base plate assemblies are compared to the allowable support. loads shown in Table 2-2.3-2.
Stresses in suppression chamber Class ;4C component support welds are computed using the maximum resultant force acting 'on the associated weld throat. The
, COM-02-039-2 l- Q Revision 0 2-2.137 nutggb
results are compared to the weld stress limits discussed in Section 2-2.3.
l s l The controlling suppression chamber load combinations i
During load evaluated are defined in Section 2-2.2.2.
combination formulation, the maximum stress components in a particular suppression chamber component are combined for the individual loads contained in each l combination. The stress components for dynamic loadings are combined to obtain the maximum stress intensity.
l l
For evaluating fatigue effects in the suppression chamber Class MC components and associated welds, extreme fiber alternating stress intensity histograms are determined for each load in each event or com-bination of events. Stress intensity histograms are developed for the suppression chamber components and welds with the highest stress intensity ranges.
Fatigue streng th reduction factors of 2.0 for major i component stresses and 4.0 for component weld stresses are conservatively used. For each combination of l
events, a load combination stress intensity histogram is formulated, and the corresponding fatigue usage factors are determined using the curve shown in Figure COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2.138 l
nutp_qh l
.=.. . _ _ = , . .- - . .- .. ...- .. . _. . - . - . . - . . . . . . - - . . . - _ . . . _ _ . -
I t
! t 2-2.4-11. The usage factors for each event are then summed to obtain the total fatigue usage. ,
Use of the methodology described above results in a conservative evaluation of the suppression chamber design margins.
3 i
i 1
i l
l
( ,
I l
COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2.139 i
O E = 27,900 ksi 1000 C
M Ed m 100 -
O P
a 10 ,
2 4
6 9
10 10 10 10 10 10 NUMBER OF CYCLES Figure 2-2.4-11 ALLOWABLE NUMBER OF STRESS CYCLES FOR SUPPRESSION CHAMBER FATIGUE EVALUATION COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2.140
\
nutg,gh
2-2.5 Analysis Results The geometry, loads and load combinations, acceptance criteria, and analysis methods used in the evaluation of the Quad Cities Units 1 and 2 suppression chambers are presented and discussed in the preceding sections.
The results and conclusions derived from the evaluation of the suppression chamber are presented in the following paragraphs.
Table 2-2.5-1 shows the maximum suppression chamber sheil stresses for each of the governing loads. Table 2-2.5-2 shows the corresponding reaction loads for the suppression chamber vertical support system. Figures 2-2.5-1 through 2-2.5-4 show the transient responses of the suppression chamber for selected torus shell loads, expressed in terms of total vertical load per mitered cylinder.
Table 2-2.5-5 shows the maximum suppression chamber
'l shell stresses adjacent to the seismic restraints for each of the governing loads resulting in lateral loads on the suppression chamber. Table 2-2.5-6 shows the corresponding reaction loads on the suppression' chamber .
seismic restraints. Table 2-2.5-3 shows the maximum i
COM-02-039-2
, .A Revision 0 2-2.141 nutRGb
stresses and associated design margins for the major suppression chamber components and welds for the IBA III, IBA IV, DBA III, and DBA IV load combinations.
Table 2-2.5-4 shows the maximum reaction loads and associated design margins for the suppression chamber vertical support system for the IbA III, IBA IV, DBA I, DBA III, and DBA IV load combinations. Table 2-2.5-7 shows the maximum suppression chamber seismic restraint reactions ano associated shell stresses adjacent to the seismic restraints for the IBA III combination.
Table 2-2.5-8 shows the fatigue usage factors for the controlling suppression chamber component and weld.
l These usage factors are obtained by evaluating the Normal Operating plus SBA events and the Normal Operating plus IBA events.
Section 2-2.5.1 describes the suppression chamber evaluation results presented in the preceding paragraphs.
COM-02-039-2
% 2-2.142 Revision 0 nutggh
Table 2-2.5-1 MAXIMUM SUPPRESSION CHAMBER SHELL STRESSES FOR GOVERNING LOADS SECTION 2-2.2.1 LOAD DESIGNATION SHELL STRESS TYPE (1) (ksi)
LOCAL PRIMARY +
LOAD LOAD CASE PRIMARY PRIMARY SECONDARY TYPE NUMBER MEMBRANE MEMBRANE STRESS RANGE DEAD WEIGHT la + lb 3.31 9.02 10.68 2a 3.40 6.74 15.17 SEISMIC 2b 6.80 13.48 30.34 PRESSURE 3b 10.80 10.39 18.32 AND TEMPERATURE 3d 0.98 5.96 10.00 D N MU MO U.U POOL SWELL (2) 4b (NVB) 10.84 22.84 41.83 O.. CONDENSATION Sa 7.52 10.65 21.03 OSCI E TION Sc 0.54 1.24 3.39 6a 2.16 4.59 15.06 CHUGGING 6b 1.24 1.64 3.53 6d 0.62 1.72 4.24 7a 8.85 10.25 30.92 SRV 7b 13.23 15.32 46.23 DISCHARGE 7d 1.70 5.91 11.55 (1) VALUES SHOWN ARE MAXIMUMS IRRESPECTIVE OF TIME AND LOCATION AND MAY NOT BE ADDED TO OBTAIN LOAD COMBINATION RESULTS.
(2) ZERO DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE.
O COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2.143 nutgq,h
Table 2-2.5-2 MAXIMUM VERTICAL SUPPORT REACTIONS FOR GOVERNING SUPPRESSION CHAMBER LOADINGS SECTION 2-2.2.1 LOAD DESIGNATION VERTICAL REACTION LOAD (kips)
LOAD COLUMN SADDLE LOAD TYPE CASE DIRECTION TOTAL NUMBER INSIDE OUTSIDE INSIDE OUTSIDE la DEAD WEIGHT + UPWARD 249.52 299.34 (2) (2) 548.86 lb DOWNWARD 6.16 7.52 13.54 16.83 44.05 OBE 2a UPWARD 6.16 7.52 13.54 16.83 44.05 SEISMIC DOWNWARD 12.32 15.04 27.08 33.66 88.10 SSE 2b UPWARD 12.32 15.04 27.08 33.66 88.10
~
INTERNAL PRESSURE 3b g3 -19.95 -12.38 +28.70 +4.50 +0.87 THERMAL 3d
' -109.83 -78.84 +114.60 +74.09 D (+) -0.03 (3) DOWNWARD 203.59 327.14 211.31 230.85 972.89 -
POOL SWELL 4b UPWARD 319.22 442.64 592.37 709.32 2063.55 CONDENSATION DOWNWARD 125.11 158.20 372.22 342.39 997.92 OSCILLATION Sa UPWARD 154.70 198.05 414.01 458.94 1225.70 DOWNWARD 27.02 29.73 57.21 88.81 202.77 PRE-CHUG 6a UPWARD 27.28 31.94 57.44 89.32 205.98 CHUGGING DOWNWARD 22.69 31.83 59.18 63.29 176.99 POST-CHUG 6b UPWARD 25.49 32.28 67.03 71.24 196.04 SINGLE a
VALVE ggy UPWARD 300.81 77.30 286.90 316,62 781.'63 DISCHARGE MULTIPLE 73 VALVE UPWARD 150.69 115.56 428.85 473.27 1168.37 (1) REACTIONS ARE ADDED IN TIME FOR DYUAMIC LOADS.
(2) SADDLE DOES NOT REACT TO DEAD WEIGHT LOADS.
(3) ZERO DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE.
COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2.144 nutggh l
- m. , , , _ . --
F, -
e e e
. _- g'Q Table 2-2.5-3
< :n
$o
-. m MAXIMUM SUPPRESSION CIIAMBER STRESSES FOR i O i CONTROLLING LOAD COMBINATIONS Do LJ o to a
m 5 IDAD CoMBINATIoM STRESSES IkSil N
steEss 3,A ::: isA av ceA ::: osa av I
- TEN gypg
-5
- cAnxot.ATEo g gt3ATEo cAtcutATEp ALtowAsLE sTmEss cAtruLAtto cAtcourto cAirts. Afro cALeoLATEo qAguptEo As.aouAss.E sTmEss AttowAsLE STRESS ALL4MAiLE sTaEss g;g n... 0. 3 .6. . 0. 4 is.n .... i,... ..ss
.-u. <acs,';>;" n... 0.n n.n 0.66 n... 0.si u.n . 4, s
"';;;; 5=p= 6. 4, 0... .. . n 0... n.n 0.6, ./A N/A g m i
c c E T.
g;s .. 04 0. 3 n.n 0.n i,.0,in 0.,, n.u .. 4 I m
b ag, =g,;i,;,= n.n ..n n.n 0. 4 n.n in 0.n u.n 0.u
" 55.84 0.7, 53.57 e.77 57.4t NI 0. 3 N/A N/A TRESS em E MEMBRANE 13.00 0.6. 12.54 0.S. . 82 0.42 1...t 0.66 coLU,ue c m ECTION EXTRE*E FIBER 13.06 8.4, 12.5. 0.47 . 15 0.34 8 63 e.55 8#0"8 NEneRANE 1. 03 0. 4 16.65 0.77 12.71 0.5, 26.54 0. 3 SADDLE EXTREME risen t..e, 0.67 16.78 0.62 12.74 0.47 32..I 0..I in in
,,m,,,,,
, , , - . , n.u .. 0 n.n 0... n.um 0.,6 n.n 0. 0 TO SM SECONoAST 44.66 0. 3 45..$ 0. 5 50.30 in 0.,3 N/A N/A colmsel PRIMARY 1. 3,III 0. 2 17.74 12) 0.7, 12.,0 0. 6 17.60 0.63 WELDS cONNECTtoll TO $NELL SECONDARY 3. 47 . 34 17.7, 0.33 12.,4 0.24 N/A N/A
,,,,g rpIMARY 17.40 0. 5 17.36 0. 5 18.74 0.57 26.66 0.70 TO $NELL sEconoAav 17.50 0.2. 37.44 0.2. II.n 0.1, N/A N/A (1) TilESE RESULTS ARE CONTROLLED BY Tile ZERO RING CIRDER STIFFENER MODEL.
C (2) TIIIS LOCAL PRIMARY MEMBRANE STRESS IIAS AN ALLOWABLE BASED ON 1.5 Sme.
@Q Table 2-2.5-4
< 3:
$/> MAXIMUM VERTICAL SUPPORT REACTIONS FOR CONTROLLING
+u O I SUPPRESSION CHAMBER LOAD COMBINATIONS
- s o LJ Oe i taAD Cons NAttoN REACTsous (ktps)
M IRA III II IBA IV II pgA I III taSA III 8' DBA ;V III Up DIRECTIoM ConPONENT CALCULATED CALCtJLATED' I CALCULATED CAlfUI.ATED' I CALCUIATED CALCUIATED 8 CAlfULATED Q W LATrtd CAlfL' LATED MCt'LATR II IAAD AL44WAALE LOAD alt 4WAGLE 14AD ALIAMABLE IAAD ALLOWASLE LOAD ALimesABLE DOWuMARD (3) N/A (3) N/A (3) N/A (3) N/A (3) N/A INSIDE UPWARD 563.45 e. 74 561.69 0.74 678.62 9.45 549.21 0.71 670.97 e.66 COLUMI DOWNWARD - (3) N/A (3) N/A (3) N/A (3) N/A (3) N/A ours et UrwARD 545.08 0.72 546.22 0.72 821.32 0.54 596.'J S.76 702.41 0.69 DOWNNARD 759.60 0.86 761.80 0.87 689.50 0.70 684 90 0.78 864.60 e.93 INSIDE UPWARD 498.92 9.44 506.48 0.45 761.42 S.34 423.15 0.38 016.32 0.56 M SADDLE
- _A. 7,i. . . 9. ,63... .. 7 649.3. . 74 5 5.9. . 6, .44.i. ..,6
. oU.S . -
g UrwARD $93.66 e.53 569.ee e.St sa7.7s o.39 4es.se o.43 932.89 e.62 b
m DoerNWARDl 1185.2e 0.67 1157.00 0.66 1244.70 0.71 827.50 0.47 1625.50 4.92 707AL UpwAmD 2201.94 e.se 21:4.27 c.5e 3149.34 e.42 as45.5e e.54 1142.59 e.62 (1) SEE TABLE 2-2.?-13 I'OR LOAD COMBINATION DESIGNATION.
(2) SEE TABLE 2-2.3-2 POR ALIDWABLE SUPPORT LOADS.
(3) TIIE RE IS NO UPLIFT ON TIIIS MEMBER.
(4) T(yfALS REFLECT FULL MITER JOINT LOAD.
I
(
\ Table 2-2.5-5 MAXIMUM SUPPRESSION CHAMBER SHELL STRESSES DUE TO LATERAL LOADS SECTION 2-2.2-1 LOAD DESIGNATION SHELL STRESS TYPE (ksi) (1)
LOAD LOAD CASE LOCAL PRIMARY S C NDARY TYPE NUMBER MEMBRANE STRESS RANGE OBE 2a 6.74 30.33 SEISMIC SSE 2b 13.48 N/A PRE-CHUG 6a 4.13 .
18.59 SRV DISCHARGE 7b 5.92 26.65 (1) STRESSES SHOWN ARE IN SUPPRESSION CHAMBER SHELL ADJACENT TO SEISMIC RESTRAINT PAD PLATE.
i \v' l COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2.147 N
1
l Table 2-2.5-6 MAXIMUM SEISMIC RESTRAINT REACTIONS i DUE TO LATERAL LOADS SECTION 2-2.2.1 HORIZONTAL REACTION LOAD (kips)
LOAD DESIGNATION RESTRAINT RESTRAINT DYNAMIC LOAD LOAD CASE AT AT TOTAL ' LOAD TYPE NUMBER AZIMUTH 0 AZIMUTH 180 FACTOR OBE 2a 523.50 523.50 1047.00 N/A SEISMIC SSE 2b 1047.00 1047.00 2094.00 N/A PRE-CHUG 6a 641.00 0.00 641.00 13.58 SRV DISCHARGE 7b 918.00 0.00 918.00 2.44 0
1 l
COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2. 148 nutggh
Table 2-2.5-7 QGIMUM SUPPRESSION CHAMBER SHELL
_ STRESSES AND SEISMIC RESTRAINT REACTIONS FOR CONTROLLING LOA.D COMBINATION WITH LATERAL LOADS LOAD COMBINATION STRESSES / REACTIONS (ksi, kips)
STRESS /
ITEM REACTION IBA III TYPE CALCULATED CALCULATED VALUE ALLOWABLE RIMARY 17.98 0.93 MEMBRANE SHELL PRIMARY AND SECONDARY 67.92 0.98 STRESS RANGE SEISMIC REACTION RESTRAINT 13Q2.55 0.80 LOAD (1) STRESSES SHOWN ARE IN THE SUPPRESSION CHAMBER SHELL, ADJACENT TO THE SEISMIC RESTRAINT PAD PLATE.
(2) SEE TABLE 2-2.2-13 FOR THE LOAD COMBINATION DESIGNATION.
(3) SEE SECTION 2-2.3 FOR THE ALLOWABLE SEISMIC RESTRAINT LOADS.
I t
l COM-02-039-2 l
Revision 0 2-2.149 nutp_qh
4 Table 2-2.5-8 MAXIMUM FATIGUE USAGE FACTORS FOR SUPPRESSION CHAMBER COMPONENTS AND WELDS MAD CASE CYCLES EVENT USAGE FACTOR EWNT (1) PRE + POST SEQUENCE SEISMIC PRESSURE TEMPERATURE DISCH RGE (see) ELL NOC W/ SINGLE SRV 0 150(2) 150(2) 550(3*9) N/A 0.25 0.26 NOC O 0 W/ MULTIPLE SRV
- 0. T 0. SEC 600 I 1 1 50( ' 300.(6) 0.24 0.10 0 0 0 2 II 600(6) 0.03 0.04 600.TO 00..SEC i 0.TO 900.SEC 600 II 1 1 25 I 900.III 0.10 0.02 IBA N 900.TO 1100.SEC 0 0 0 2 200.(6) 0.01 0.02 l
NOC + SBA 0.52 0.40 MAXIMUM CUMULATIVE USAGE FACTORS NOC + IBA 0.36 0.30 (1) SEE TABLE 2-2.2-13 AND FIGURES 2-2.2-19 AND 2-2.2-20 FOR LOAD CYCLES AND EVENT SEQUENCING INFORMATION.
(2) ENTIRE NUMBER OF LOAD CYCLES CONSERVATIVELY ASSUMED TO OCCUR DURING TIME OF MAXIMUM EVENT USAGE.
, (3) TOTAL NUMBER OF SRV ACTUATIONS SHOWN ARE CONSERVATIVELY ASSUMED TO OCCUR IN l SAME SUPTRESSION CHAMBER BAY.
(4) VALUE SHOWN IS CONSERVATIVELY ASSUMED TO BE EQUAL TO THE NUMBER OF MULTIPLE
( VALVE ACTUATIONS WHICH OCCURS DURING THE EVENT.
l (5) NUMBER OF ADS ACTUATIONS ASSUMED TO OCCUR DURING THE EVENT.
(6) EACH CHUG-CYCLE HAS A DURATION OF 1.4 SEC.
(7) CO LOADS, WHICH ARE THE SAME AS PRE-CHUG LOADS, OCCUR DURING THIS PHASE OF THE IBA EVENT.
(8) USAGE FACTORS ARE COMPUTED FOR THE COMPONENT AND WELD WHICH RESULT IN THE MAXIMUM CUMULATIVE USAGE.
(9) ALL ACTUATIONS CONSERVATIVELY ASSUMED TO BE MULTIPLE VALVE.
COM-02-039-2 O
Revision 0 2-2.150 nutggh
O MAXIMUM UPWARD REACTION = 1876 kips MAXIMUM DOWNWARD REACTION = 884 kips 800 -
E l ^ ^ = - -
- c. 0 --
5
~
I 5
E -800 -
O
- c
-1600 -
. . . . . . . i .
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 TIME (sec)
- 1. SEE TABLE 2-2.2-5 AND FIGURES 2-2.2-10 AND 2-2.2-11 FOR LOADING INFORMATION.
l Figure 2-2.5-1 l SUPPRESSION CHAMBER RESPONSE DUE TO POOL SWELL i F l LOADS - TOTAL VERTICAL LOAD PER MITERED CYLINDER l (ZERO DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE)
Ad COM-02-039-2 l Revision 0 2-2.151 nutfLCh
O l MAXIMUM UPWARD REACTION = 1080 kips MAXIMUM DOWNWARD REACTION = 724 kips l 800 -
1 400 - ()
5 y Y
$ 0- ^ = - - - - -
$ i o -400 - 1 c
I
-800 -
l
-1200 , , , , , , , , ,
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 TIME (sec)
- 1. SEE TABLE 2-2.2-4 AND FIGURES 2-2.2-8 AND 2-2.2-9 FOR LOADING INFORMATION.
Figure 2-2.5-2 SUPPRESSION CHAMBER RESPONSE DUE TO POOL SWELL j LOADS - TOTAL VERTICAL LOAD PER MITERED CYLINDER l (OPERATING DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE) f l COM-02-039-2 l Revision 0 2-2.152 nutp_q])
. O MAXIMUM UPWARD REACTION = 937 kips
! MAXIMUM DOWNWARD REACTION = 899 kips 900- l i
_ 450-
$. )li
, : 5
= - - ~
0-
- e \
- i C u
-450-h
( -900-0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 TIME (sec)
- 1. SEE FIGURE 2-2.2-16 FOR LOADING INFORMATION.
- 2. SEE TABLE 2-2.5-2 FOR MAXIMUM UPWARD REACTION.
l t
Figure 2-2.5-3 SUPPRESSION CHAMBER RESPONSE DUE TO SINGLE VALVE SRV DISCHARGE TORUS SHELL LOADS - TOTAL VERTICAL LOAD PER MITERED CYLINDER COM-02-039-2 Revision O' 2-2.153 nutggb .
O MAXIMUM UPWARD REACTION = 1340 kips MAXIMUM DOWNWARD REACTION = 1286 kips 1400 i
g 700- 1 I
ei kji
~
5 ,
5 l[
l M
-700-
-1400 , , , , , , , , ,
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 TIME (sec)
- 1. SEE FIGURE 2-2. 2-17 FOR LOADING INFORMATION.
- 2. SEE TABLE 2-2. 5-2 FOR MAXIMUM DOWNWARD REACTION.
Figure 2-2.5-4 SUPPRESSION CHAMBER RESPONSE DUE TO MULTIPLE VALVE SRV DISCHARGE TORUS SHELL LOADS - TOTAL VERTICAL LOAD i
PER MITERED CYLINDER COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2.154 nutggj]
l 2-2.5.1 Discussion of Analysis Results The results shown in Table 2-2.5-1 indicate that the ,
l largest suppression chamber shell stresses occur for IBA internal pressure loads, pool swell torus shell
, loads, DBA CO torus shell loads, and SRV discharge torus shell loads. The submerged structure loadings, in general, cause only local stresses in the suppression chamber shell adjacent to the ring girder.
Table 2-2.5-2 shows that the largest suppression chamber vertical support reactions occur for pool swell torus shell loads, DBA CO loads, and SRV discharge
, torus shell loads. The saddle supports, in general, transfer a larger portion of the load to the basemat than do the support columns.
t The results shown in Table 2-2.5-3 indicate that the largest stresses in the suppression chamber shell are due to the IBA III and IBA IV load combinations. The largest stresses in the ring girder and associated welds are due to the IBA III and DBA III load combinations- for the SRV and non-SRV bays, 3
respectively. The largest stresses for the component supports and associated welds are due to the IBA III COM-02-039-2 l
kj Revision 0 2-2.155 l
nutggb i
. . . . . , . _ , , , . . . . , . . _ , - - . . ,-., ~, . . . - - - - , , . . ~ . . . - ,-
and DBA IV load combinations. The DBA IV load combination for these components is overly conservative due to the use of zero dif ferential pressure pool swell l
loads rather than operating differential pool swell loads. The stresses in the suppression chamber components, component supports, and welds are all within allowable limits.
Table 2-2.5-4 shows that the largest downward vertical support reactions occur for the IBA III and DBA IV combinations. The largest upward vertical support reactions occur for the DBA I and DBA IV combina-tions. For the reason stated in reference to component stresses, the DBA IV combination is overly conserva-tive. In general, the downward vertical support reactions are less than the upward vertical support reactions. The vertical support system reactions for all load combinations are less than allowable limits.
The results shown in Tables 2-2.5-5 and 2-2.5-6 indicate that the largest seismic restraint reactions and associated suppression chamber shell stresses occur for seismic loads and SRV discharge loads. Table ,
2-2.5-7 shows that the seismic restraint reactions and suppression chamber shell stresses adjacent to the COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2.156 Ilu
seismic restraints for the IBA III load combination are x
less than allowable limits.
The results shown in Table 2-2.5-8 indicate that the i largest contributor to suppression chamber fatigue effects are SRV discharge loads, which occur during normal operating conditions. The largest total fatigue 1
usage occurs for the Normal Operating plus SBA events with usage factors for the suppression chamber shell and associated welds less than allowable limits. The usage factors for the Normal Operating plus IBA events are also less than allowable limits.
i i
i
{
l l
COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2.157 l
nutggb
2 -2 . 5 . 2 Closure The suppression chamber loads described and presented ,
in Section 2-2.2-1 are conservative estimates of the l l'
loads postulated to occur during an actual LOCA or SRV l
discharge event. Applying the methodology discussed in -
Section 2-2.4 to evaluate the effects of the governing loads on the suppression chamber results in bounding values of stresses and reactions in suppression chamber components and component supports.
The load combinations and event sequencing defined in Section 2-2.2.2 envelop the actual events postulated to occur during a LOCA or SRV discharge event. Combining the suppression cha.mber responses with the governing loads and evaluating fatigue effects using this methodology results in conservative values of the maximum suppression chamber stresses, support reactions, and fatigue usage factors for each event or sequence of events postulated to occur throughout the life of the plant.
The acceptance limits defined in Section 2-2.3 are at least as restrictive, and in many cases more restric-tive, than those used in the original containment COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-2.158 nutgqh L.
- design documented in the plant's final safety analysis N
report. Comparing the resulting maximum stresses and support reactions to these acceptance limits results in a conservative evaluation of the design margins present
< in the suppression chamber and suppression chamber supports. The results discussed and presented in the preceding sections show that all of the suppression chamber stresses and support reactions are within these acceptance limits.
I As a result, the components of the suppression chamber described in Section 2-2.1, which are specifically designed for the loads and load combinations used in 3
this evaluation, exhibit the margins of safety inherent s
in the original design of the primary containment documented in the plant's final safety analysis report. The intent of the NUREG-0661 requirements is therefore considered to.be met.
I i
I 1
i l-l COM-02-039-2 N_/ Revision 0 2-2.159
2-3.0 LIST OF REFERENCES 3
- 1. " Mark I Containment Long-Term Program," Safety Evaluation Report, USNRC, NUREG-0661, July 1980; Supplement 1, August 1982.
- 2. " Mark I Containment Program Load Definition Report," General Electric Company, NEDO-21888, Revision 2, November 1981.
- 3. " Mark I Containment Program Plant Unique Load Definition," Quad Cities Station Units 1 and 2, General Electric Company, NEDO-24567, Revision 2, April 1982.
- 4. " Quad Cities 1 and 2 Nuclear Generating Plants Suppression Pool . Temperature Response," General Electric Company, NEDC-22144, May 1982.
- 5. " Containment Data," Quad Cities 1, General Electric Company, 22A5757, Revision 1, April 1979.
- 6. " Containment Data," Quad Cities 2, General Electric Company, 22A5758, Revision 1, April 1979.
/D 7. " Containment Vessels Design Specification," Ouad
%,1 ,
Cities Units 1 and 2, Sargent & Lundy
-- Incorporated, R2301, August 19, 1966.
- 8. " Mark I Containment Program Structural Acceptance Criteria Plant Unique Analysis Applications Guide, Task Number 3.1.3," Mark I Owners Group, General Electric Company, NEDO-24583-1, October 1979.
- 9. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section III, Division 1, 1977 Edition with Addenda up to and including Summer 1977.
- 10. " Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR)," Quad Cities Station Units 1 and 2, Commonwealth Edison Company, July 20, 1972.
- 11. " Torus support Modification, Saddle Support," Quad Cities Units 1 and 2, NUTECH, B-1630, Revision 4, March 1983.
l 12. American Concrete Institute (ACI) Code, Code Requirements for Nuclear Safety-Related Concrete Structures, ACI-349-80, 1980.
,r
('U * '
c
) COM-02-039-2 Revision 0 2-3.1 nut #S_h
- 13. " Stress . Report. for Nuclear- 'Contd i nme nt Vessel t.$t Quad Cit"fes Station Unit fil," United Engineerp:s.jd Constructor 9, CB&I Contract 9-6735, January 19C8. J
- 14. " Stress Report; for Nuclear Cont &inment <Vesse hr+1t Quad Cities St ation Unit #2," Unitied Engineert.gaad
- Constructors, CB&I Contract 9-6771, April 1,9 6 8 + ' .!
- - _. s . -
- 15. "Dampir.g' .yal'ubs for Seismic Design tof Nuclear Power. Pla n t_ s , " U.S. Atomic Energy Commissicn Regulatory ' Guide, Directdrate of -Regulatgry Standards, _ Regulatory ,Guida 1 . 6'1 , Revisioni,0, October..1973. > < , s ,<
- 1. .,
- 16. "Mark .'I' Torus Seismic. Glcsh Evaluat ion ," . . Mark-- I Containment Program, Task 5. 4, c. General Electric Company, t9EDE-24519-P, tiarch 1978. '
COM-02-039-2 <
Revision 0 2-3.2 W nutggh
_ __