ML20072N854
| ML20072N854 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Dresden, Quad Cities, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 05/31/1983 |
| From: | Russell Adams, Mcinnes I, Shamszad M NUTECH ENGINEERS, INC. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17194B616 | List: |
| References | |
| COM-02-039-3, COM-02-039-3-R00, COM-2-39-3, COM-2-39-3-R, NUDOCS 8307180152 | |
| Download: ML20072N854 (221) | |
Text
COM-02-039-3 j Revision 0
_./ May 1983 64.305.2102 I
QUAD CITIES NUCLEAR POWER STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 PLANT UNIQUE ANALYSIS REPORT VOLUME 3 VENT SYSTEM ANALYSIS Prepared for:
, Commonwealth Edison Company 1
, Prepared by:
f4b NUTECH Engineers, Inc.
San Jose, California Approved by:
W. R$ %
M. Shamszad, P.E. I. D. McInnes, P.E.
Project Engineer Engineering Manager C
R. H. Adams, P.E.
Engineering Director Issued by:
WU kl LAC A. K. Moonka, P.E. R.'H. Buchholz Project Manager Project Director w]
'i h P
O O
1 REVISION CONTROL SHEET r
TITLE: Quad Cities, Units 1 and 2 REPORT NUMBER: COM-02-039-3*
Plant Unique Analysis Report Revision 0 Volume 3 4
N. G. Cofie/ Consultant I NGC Initials j
I. D. McInnes/ Engineering Manager kN .
Initials I
C. F. Parker / Technician II Initials M. Shamszad/Proiect Engineer .
Initials C. T. Shyy/ Senior Engineer Initials
~
D. C. Talbott/ Consultant I ((
I6ftidls R. E. Wise /Consulenne T l Iditials l
l l
\
l 3-11 M u _ ._ _ _ _ _ _ -._. _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _
REVISION CONTROL SHEET (Continued)
TITLE: Quad Cities, Units 1 and 2 REPORT NUMBER: COM-02-039-3 Plant Unique Analysis Report Revision 0 Volume 3 ACCURACY CRITERIA PRE- ACCURACY CRITERIA E REV PRE- E REV PARED CHECK CHECK PARED CHECK CHECK PAGE(S)
PAGE(S)
- 4C Mg 3-v through 0 g crJ 3-2.76 0 dr6 3-vii 3-2.77 }g Mcc ord 3-viii 3-2.78 through 3-xviii
$ M c76 through 3-2.84 NG C- MS Cr4 3-1.1 3-2.85 through ha GT4 (Dduf through drg Mg lW 3-1.7 3-2.92 3-2 1 3-2.93 ud C, crg l%
H3 7 3-2.25 3-2.94 O 3-2.26 through g QW C Td through 3-2.95 NC ###
3-2.59 3-2 96 through N Cfd 3-2.60 dVd M crf 3-2.114 H2, v9c crf 3- 115 gg uge c 7g through 3-2.63 3-2.117 3-2.64 3-2.118 through #GC g c ro through fD '
dTO M 3-2.67 3-2.137 through Mg "4c C76 thEugh H& ^' 4 C #IO 3-2.70 3-2.150 3-2.71 3-2.151 Nec pg c r,5 through u4c Mg, crd through 3-2.72 3-2.161 3-2.73 3-2.162 through 'f %g use Cr4 through if MC d#4 b j .
3-2.75 0 3-2.177 0 1
QEP-001.4-00 3- m nutggb
PIVISION CONTROL SHEET (Concluded)
U(NTITLE: REPORT NUMBER: COM-02-039-3 Quad Cities, Units 1 and 2 Plant Unique Analysis Report Revision 0 Volume 3
^
~
ACCURACY CRITERIA ~
^ ^
E REV PRE- REV ARED CHECK CHECK PARED CHECK CHECK PAGE(S)
PAGE(S) _
3-2.178 0 use % ^
c 74 *"
3-2.179 through ME c T.5 IDM 3-2.180
- 0#0 hrou h 3-2.184 3-2.185 through dr4 y4 e, M
3-2.186 3-2.187 M5 u4 c. crJ k 3-2.188 N4C Ha c 7,5 3-2.189 through Mg CT4 lg 3-2.196 3-3.1 0 MC C74 l
l l
' QEP-001.4-00 3-iv nutggh
I 1
l O ABSTRACT k
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 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section III, 1965 Edition with Addenda up to and including Summer 1965 for the Commonwealth Edison Company (CECO) by the Chicago Bridge and Iron Company. Since then, new requirements have been established. These requirements affect the design and operation of the primary containment system and are defined in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) Safety Evaluation Report, NUREG-0661. This report provides an assessment of containment design loads postulated to occur during a loss-of-coolant accident or a safety relief valve discharge event. In addition, it provides an assessment of the effects that the postulated events have on containment systems operation.
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 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) m COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-v
i o Volume 7 -
TORUS ATTACHED PIPING AND SUPPRESSION NJ CHAMBER PENETRATION ANALYSES (QUAD CITIES UNIT 2)
This volume documents the evaluation of the vent system.
Volumes 1 through 4 and 6 and 7 have been prepared by NUTECH 4 Engineers, Incorporated (NUTECH), acting as an agent to the Commonwealth Edison Company. Volume 5 has been prepared by
, Sargent and Lundy (also acting as as agent to the Commonwealth Edison Company), 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.
1 i
4 4
4 i
I a
4 i
d i
l s COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-vi
O TABLE OF CONTENTS O Page ABSTRACT 3-v LIST OF ACRONYMS 3-viii LIST OF TABLES 3-x LIST OF FIGURES 3-xiii 3-
1.0 INTRODUCTION
3-1.1 5
3-1.1 Scope of Analysis 3-1.3 3-1.2 Summary and Conclusions 3-1.5 3-2.0 VENT SYSTEM ANALYSIS 3-2.1 3-2.1 Component Description 3-2.2 3-2.2 Loads and Load Combinations 3-2.26 3-2.2.1 Loads 3-2.27
!~
3-2.2.2 Load Combinations 3-2.96 3-2.3 Acceptance Criteria 3-2.111 3-2.4 Methods of Analysis 3-2.118 3-2.4.1 Analysis for Major Loads 3-2.119 i 3-2.4.2 Analysis for Asymmetric 3-2.162 Loads i 3-2.4.3 Analysis for Local Ef fects 3-2.168 3-2.4.4 Methods for Evaluating 3-2.174 Analysis Results 3-2.5 Analysis Results 3-2.179 l
3-2.5.1 Discussion of Analysis 3-2.192 Results 3-2.5.2 Closure 3-2.195 3-3.0 LIST OF REFERENCES 3-3.1 l 1
COM-02-039-3
Revision 0 3-vii l
LIST OF ACRONYMS i
ADS Automatic Depressurization System ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers i
, CO Condensation Oscillation DC Downcomer
'i.
DC/VH Downcomer/ Vent Header h DBA Design Basis Accident i
DBE Design Basis Earthquake l DLF Dynamic Load Factor ECCS Emergency Core Cooling System FSAR Final Safety Analysis Report i
i FSI Fluid-Structure Interaction I
l~ FSTF Full-Scale Test Facility i
IBA Intermediate Break Accident ID Inside Diameter 4
i' IR Inside Radius LDR Load Definition Report i
LOCA Loss-of-Coolant Accident MB Midbay
- MJ Miter Joint i
j NEP Non-Exceedance Probability i
NOC Normal Operating Conditions NPS Nominal Pipe Size i
NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-viii l
i
' LIST OF ACRONYMS CI. (Concluded)
NVB Non-Vent Line Bay j OBE Operating Basis Earthquake OD- Outside Diameter PUAAG Plant Unique Analysis Applications Guide PUAR Plant Unique Analysis Report PULD Plant Unique Load Definition QSTF Ouarter-Scale Test Facility RPV Reactor Pressure Vessel i SBA Small Break Accident l SRSS Square Root of the Sum of the Squares
E SRVDL Safety Relief Valve Discharge Line SSE Safe Shutdown Earthquake VB Vent Line Bay VH Vent Header
, VL Vent Line VL/DW Vent Line-Drywell VL/VH Vent Line-Vent Header i
l l
l COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-ix
,e- ,*- y y- - * +-yewm-- y-y-- y ->-ywg---+ -w -e---y%,y y 4-*wwr em-g g g,m p y- --+ng,-w g p ,w,w- g= wT F'*'T"'<-ag- -sew--+wr-vNg- - - 'P=v
LIST OF TABLES Number Title Page 3-2.2-1 Vent System Component Loading Informatio'n 3-2.59 3-2.2-2 Suppression Pool Temperature Response Analysis Results - Maximum Temperatures 3-2.60 l 3-2.2-3 Vent System Pressurization and Thrust Loads For DBA Event 3-2.61 3-2.2-4 Pool Swell Impact Loads for Vent Line .and
. Spherical Junction 3-2.62 3-2.2-5 Pool Swell Impact, Drag, Froth Impinge-ment, and Pool Fallback Loads for Vacuum Breaker System 3-2.63 i
3-2.2-6 Downcomer Longitudinal Bracing and Lateral Bracing Pool Swell Drag and Fallback Submerged Structure Load Distribution 3-2.64
~
3-2.2-7 Support Co1umn LOCA Water Jet and Bubble-i Induced Drag Load Distribution 3-2.65 3-2.2-8 Downcomer LOCA Bubble-Induced Drag 6 Load Distribution 3-2.66 3-2.2-9 Downcomer Longitudinal Bracing and Lateral Bracing LOCA Bubble-Induced Drag Load Distribution 3-2.67 3-2.2-10 IBA Condensation Oscillation Downcomer Loads 3-2.68
, 3-2.2-11 DBA Condensation Oscillation Downcomer l Loads 3-2.69 3-2.2-12 IBA and DBA Condensation Oscillation Vent System Internal Pressures 3-2.70 3-2.2-13 Support Column DBA Condensation Oscillation
, submerged Structure Load Distribution 3-2.71 O
a COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-x i
, - , , _ - . . - , . - - , , , . - , , - , . - - . . . _ , . - . . . - . - _ - - - . , - - - . . . . . , _ . _ , - , _ - . . , - , _ . . . - . . ~ . , - _ . . ~ . - - - - - . . -
LIST OF TABLES f (Continued)
Number Title Page 3-2.2-14 Downcomer Longitudinal Bracing and
- Lateral Bracing DBA Condensation
. Oscillation Submerged Structure Load Distribution 3-2.72 3-2.2-15 Maximum Downcomer Chugging Load
- Determination 3-2.73 3-2.2-16 Multiple Downcomer Chugging Load Magnitude Determination 3-2.74 3-2.2-17 Chugging Lateral Loads for Multiple Downcomers - Maximum Overall Ef fects 3-2.75 .
3-2.2-18 Load Reversal Histogram for Chugging
'Downcomer Lrteral Load Fatigue Evaluation 3-2.76 3-2.2-19 Chugging Venu system Internal Pressures 3-2.77 3-2.2-20 Support Column Pre-Chug submerged
] Structure Load Distribution 3-2.78 3-2.2-21 Downcomer Longitudinal Bracing and ;
}
Lateral Bracing Pre-Chug Submerged l Structure Load ' Distribution 3-2.79 3-2.2-22 Support Column Post-Chug Submerged Structure Load Distribution 3-2.80 3-2.2-23 Downcomer Longitudinal Bracing and Lateral Bracing Post-Chug Submerged Structure Load Distribution 3-2.81
, 3-2.2-24 Support Column SRV Discharge Submerged
! Structure Load Distribution 3-2.82
! 3-2.2-25 Downcomer T-quencher Bubble Drag Submerged l Structure Load Distribution 3-2.83 3-2.2-26 Downcomer Longitudinal Bracing and Lateral Bracing T-quencher Bubble Drag Submerged
- Structure Load Distribution 3-2.84 3-2.2-27 Mark I Containment Event Combinations 3-2.104 COM-02-039-3
--? Revision 0 3-xi
LIST OF TABLES y (Continued)
Number Title Page '
3-2.2-28 Controlling Vent System Load' Combinations 3-2.105 4
3-2'.2-29 Enveloping Logic for Controlling Vent System Load Combinations 3-2.107 3-2.3-1 Allowable Stresses for Vent System Components and Component Supports 3-2,115 3-2.3-2 Allowable Displacements and Cycles for vent Line Bellows 3-2.117 3-2.4-1 Vent System Frequency Analysis Results With Water Inside Downcomers, Based on Downcomers Braced Longitudinally 3-2.138 3-2.4-2 Vent System Frequency Analysis Results i Without Water Inside Downcomers, Based on Downcomers Braced Longitudinally 3-2.139 3-2.4-3 Vent System Frequency Analysis Results with Water Inside Downcomers, Based on l
Downcomers Not Braced Longitudinally 3-2.142 x 3-2.4-4 Vent System Frequency Analysis Results without Water Inside Downcomers, Based on Downcomers Not Braced Longitudinally 3-2.144 3-2.5-1 Major vent System Component Maximum Membrane Stresses for Governing Loads 3-2.181
, 3-2.5-2 Maximum Column Reactions for
- Governing Vent System Loads 3-2.182 3-2.5-3 Maximum Vent Line-Drywell Penetration Reactions for Governing Vent System Loads 3-2.183 3-2.5-4 Maximum Vent Line Bellows Displacements l For Governing Vent System Loads 3-2.184 l
3-2.5-5 Maximum Vent System Stresses For Controlling Load Combinations 3-2.185 3-2.5-6 Maximum Vent Line Bellows Differential Displacements for Controlling Load Combinations 3-2.187 COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-xii l nutagh
. _ ~ . - . . _ . . . . - . - . - - . -- .. . . ~. _ -_ ._. . . . . - - . . . _ . . .- . .-. . . -
1 i
l l
I i
l LIST OF TABLES Concluded)
Number Title g,
- - l I
f 3-2.5-7 Maximum Fatigue Usage Factors l l For Vent System Components and Welds 3-2.188 i
f .i 1
\.
A i
l 1
a 1
i i
i
~
I l
- i i
i i
i t
I f
l i
l l
l l
l l
i COM-02-039-3 .
Revision 0 3-xiii I
I
. . . . , ,-- - -- -ww me - , w -owe ,-- e .. w+ e w- e- www , --w w w w ww. e e- wr e m . ar -w w --..,_ w, e _ _y-ameres o m . _ _ _
'N LIST OF FIGURES Number Title Page 3-2.1-1 Plan View of Containment 3-2.10 3-2.1-2 Elevation View of Containment 3-2.11 3-2.1-3 Suppression Chamber Section -
Midbay vent Line Bay 3-2.12 3-2.1-4 Suppression Chamber Section -
Miter Joint 3-2.13 3-2.1-5 Suppression Chamber Section -
Midbay Non-Vent Line Bay 3-2.14 3-2.1-6 Developed view of Suppression Chamber Segment 3-2.15 j 3-2.1-7 Vent Line Details - Upper End 3-2.16 3-2.1-8 Vent Line-Vent Header Spherical Junction 3-2.17 3-2.1-9 Vent Line Spherical Junction Drain 3-2.18 3-2.1-10 Developed View of Downcomer Longitudinal Bracing System 3-2.19 3-2.1-11 Downcomer-to-Vent Header Intersection Details - Quad Cities Unit 2 3-2.20 3-2.1-12 Downcomer-to-Vent Header Intersection Details - Quad Cities Unit 1 3-2.21 3-2.1-13 Downcomer Longitudinal Bracing System Configuration - Quad Cities Unit 1 3-2.22 t
3-2.1-14 Downcomer Longitudinal Bracing System Configuration - Quad Cities Unit 2 3-2.23 3-2.1-15 Vent Header Support Collar Plate Details 3-2.24 3-2.1-16 Vent System Support Column Details 3-2.25 3-2.2-1 Vent System Internal Pressures For SBA Event 3-2.85 COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-xiv L nutggh l
(< LIST OF FIGURES (Continued) j
{
Number Title Page 3-2.2-2 Vent System Internal Pressures for IBA Event 3-2.86 3-2.2-3 Vent System Internal Pressures for DBA Event 3-2.87 3-2.2-4 Vent System Temperatures for SBA Event 3-2.88 3-2.2-5 Vent System Temperatures for IBA Event 3-2.89 3-2.2-6 Vent System Temperatures for DBA Event 3-2.90 3-2.2-7 Downcomer Pool Swell Impact Loads 3-2.91 3-2.2-8 Pool Swoll Impact Loads for Vent Header Deflectors at Selected Locations 3-2.92
- 3-2.2-9 Downcomer Longitudinal Bracing and Lateral Bracing 3-2.93 3-2.2-10 IBA and DBA Condensation Oscillation
[ h Downcomer Differential Pressure Load Distribution 3-2.94 3-2.2-11 Pool Acceleration Profile for Dominant Suppression Chamber Frequency at Midbay Location 3-2.95 3-2.2-12 Vent System SBA Event Sequence 3-2.108 3-2.2-13 Vent System IBA Event Sequence 3-2.109 3-2.2-14 Vent System DBA Event Sequence 3-2.110 3-2.4-1 Vent System 1/16 Segment Beam Model -
Isometric View with Downcomer Longi-tudinal Bracing 3-2.146 3-2.4-2 vent System 1/16 Segment Beam Model -
Isometric View without Downcomer Longitudinal Bracing 3-2.147 3-2.4-3 Vent Line-Drywell Penetration-Axisymmetric Finite Difference Model . View of Typical Meridian 3-2.148 O) g N/
COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-xv nutagh
N LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Number Title Page 3-2.4-4 Vent Line-Vent Header Spherical Junction Finite Element Model 3-2.149 3-2.4-5 Downcomer-Vent Header Intersection Finite Element Model - Isometric View 3-2.150 3-2.4-6 Harmonic Analysis Results for Support ,
Column Submerged Structure Load Frequency De termination 3-2.151 3-2.4-7 Harmonic Analysis Results for Downcomer ,
Submerged Structure Load Frequency Determination, Based on Downcomers Braced Longitudinally 3-2.152 3-2.4-8 Harmonic Analysis Results for Downcomer Submerged Structure Load Frequency Determination, Based on Downcomers Not Braced Longitudinally 3-2.153 3-2.4-9 Harmonic Analysis Results for Lateral Bracing Submerged Structure Load Frequency Determination 3-2.154 3-2.4-10 Harmonic Analysis Results for Longitudinal Bracing Horizontal Member Submerged Structure Load Frequency Deteomination 3-2.155 3-2.4-11 Harmonic Analysis Results for Longitudinal Bracing Diagonal Member Submerged Structure Load Frequency Determination 3-2.156 3-2.4-12 Harmonic Analysis Results for Ccadensation Oscillation Downcomer Load Frequancy Determination 3-2.157 3-2.4-13 Harmonic Analysis Results for Condensation Oscillation Vent System Pressure Load Frequency Determination 3-2.158 3-2.4-14 Harmonic Analysis Results for Chugging Downcomer Lateral Loads Frequency De termination, Based on Downcomers Braced Longitudinally 3-2.159
\
COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-xvi
! _ _ . _ . _ . _ -_ __- _ - - - - _ - , . , ~-- - ---
LIST OF FIGURES (Concluded)
Number Title Page 3-2.4-15 Harmonic Analysis Results for Chugging Downcomer Lateral Loads Frequency Determination, Based on Downcomers not Braced Longitudinally 3-2.160 3-2.4-16 Harmonic Analysis Results for Chugging Vent System Pressure Load Frequency Determination 3-2.161 3-2.4-17 Vent System 180' Beam-Model - Isometric view 3-2.167 3-2.4-18 Allowable Number of Stress Cycles For Vent System Fatigue Evaluation 3-2.178 3-2.5-1 Vent System Support Column Response Due to Pool Swell Impact Loads - Outside Column 3-2.189 3-2.5-2 Vent System Support Column Response Due to Pool Swell Impact Loads - Inside Column 3-2.190 gf 3-2.5-3 Vacuum Breaker Nozzle Response Due to Pool Swell Impact Loads 3-2.191 i
U 'COM-02-039-3 i Revision 0 3-xvii l
! nutggb
/'N 3-
1.0 INTRODUCTION
O 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 vent systems. The vent system PUAR is organized as follows:
o INTRODUCTION Scope of Analysis Summary and Conclusions o VENT SYSTEM 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 vent system evaluation, as well as a summary of the conclusions derived from the comprehen-sive evaluation of the vent system. The VENT SYSTEM ANALYSIS section contains a comprehensive discussion of the vent system loads and load combinations and a i
description of the vent system components af fected by these loads. This section also contains a discussion COM-02-039-3
-Revision 0 3-1.1 nutsch
of the methodology used to evaluate the offects of these loads, the associated evaluation results, and the acceptance limits to which the results are compared.
i COM-02-039-3 i Revision 0 3-1.2 g
- . - - -
- y- -,- --,-*m.- , - , , - . - - p- ,-, - _ . , ,.---p- .,,y--- . ,-*% ,-a.-.-_, - ,,-.m.--. -,,,-,m,-_-m ,--,m-,, , .,e ---r,-
m 3-1.1 Scope of Analysis The criteria presented in Volume 1 are used as the basis for the Quad Cities Units 1 and 2 vent system evaluation. The modified vent system is evaluated for the effects of loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA)-related loads and safety relief valve (SRV) discharge-related loads defined by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Safety Evaluation Report NUREG-0661 (Reference 1) and the " Mark I Containment Program Load Definition Report" (LDR) (Reference 2).
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 geometry, operating parameters, and test results contained in the 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 plant's suppression pool _ temperature response analysis (Section 1-5.1).
Other loads and methodology, such as the evaluation for seismic loads, are taken from the plant's design specification (Reference 4).
/ COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-1.3 l nutg.gh
The evaluation includes performing a structural anal-ysis of the vent system for the effects of LOCA-related 1
and SRV discharge-related loads to confirm that the design of the vent system is adequate. Rigorous analytical techniques are used in this evaluation, including the use of detailed analytical models for computing the dynamic response of the vent system.
Effects such as local penetration and intersection flexibilities are also considered in the vent system analysis.
The results of the structural evaluation for each load case are used to evaluate load combinations and fatigue effects for the vent system in accordance with the
" Mark I Containment Program Structural Acceptance Criteria Plant Unique Analysis Applications Guide" (PUAAG) (Reference 5). The analysis results are compared with the acceptance limits specified by the PUAAG and the applicable sections of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code (Reference 6).
l l
l i
COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-1.4 nutp_qh
3-1.2 Summary and Conclusions The evaluation documented in this volume is based on the modified Quad Cities Units 1 and 2 vent systems described in Section 1-2.1. The overall load-carrying capacity of the modified vent system and its supports is substantially greater than the original design described in the plant's design specification.
The loads considered in the original design of the vent system and its supports include dead weight loads, operating basis earthquake (OBE) and design basis earthquake (DBE) loads, thrust loads, and pressure and r^x , temperature loads associated with normal operating
.i (d)
N conditions (NOC) and a postulated LOCA event. The additional loadings which affect the design of the vent system and supports are defined generically in NUREG-0661. These loads are postulated to occur during small break accident (SBA), intermediate break (IBA),
or design basis accident (DBA) LOCA events and during SRV discharge events. These events result in impact and drag' loads .on vent system components above the suppression pool, in hydrodynamic internal pressure loadings on the vent system, in hydrodynamic drag loadings on the submerged vent system components, and 0%
)
!- ! -COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-1.5 nutggh
in motion and reaction loadings caused by loads acting on structures attached to the vent system.
Section 1-4.0 discusses the methodology used to develop ,
plant unique loadings for the vent system evaluation.
Applying this methodology results in conservative values for each of the significant loadings using NUREG-0661 criteria and 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 postulated to occur throughout the life of the plant.
The loads contained in the postulated event combina-tions which are major contributors to the total vent system response include pressurization and thrust loads, pool swell impact loads, condensation oscilla-tion (CO) downcomer loads, and chugging downcomer lateral loads. Although considered in the evaluation, i
other loadings, such as internal pressure loads, j temperature loads, seismic loads, froth impingement and COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-1.6 nutggj,)
2 fallback loads, submerged structure loads, and contain-C"s ment motion and reaction loads, have a lesser effect on the total vent system response.
j The vent system evaluation is based on the NUREG-0661 acceptance criteria discussed in Section 1-3.2. These acceptance limits are at least as restrictive as those used in - the original vent system design documented in the plant's Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR)
(Reference 7). Use of these criteria assures that the original vent system design margins have been restored.
I The controlling event combinations for the vent system p are those which include the loadings found to be major
, {
contributors to the vent system response. The evalua-tion results for these event combinations show that all of the vent system stresses and support reactions are
] within acceptable limits.
As a result, the modified vent systems described in Section 1-2.1 have been shown to fulfill the margins of 4
safety inherent in the original vent system design 4
documented in the plant's final safety analysis report. The NUREG-0661 requirements are therefore.
considered to be met.
I COM-02-039-3 d Revision 0 3-1.7 I
% 3-2.0 VENT SYSTEM ANALYSIS Evaluations of each of the NUREG-0661 requirements which affect the design adequacy of the Quad Cities j Units 1 and 2 vent systems are presented in the following sections. The criteria used in this evalua-tion are contained in Volume 1 of this report.
Section 3-2.1 describes the vent system components examined. Section 3-2.2 describes and presents the loads and load combinations for which the vent system is evaluated. The acceptance limits to which the analysis results are compared, discussed, and presented are in Section 3-2.3. Section 3-2.4 discusses the s analysis methodology used to evaluate the effects of these loads and load combinations on the vent system.
Section 3-2.5 presents the analysis results and the corresponding vent system design margins.
l
) i l \J l COM-02-039 Revision 0 3-2.1 n
3-2.1 Component Description The Quad Cities Units 1 and 2 vent systems are constructed from cylindrical shell segments joined together to form a manifold-like structure connecting the drywell to the suppression chamber. Figures 3-2.1-1 and 3-2.1-2 show the configuration of the vent system. The major components of the vent system include the vent lines (VL), vent line-vent header (VL/VH) spherical junctions, vent header (VH), and downcomers (DC). Figures 3-2.1-3 through 3-2.1-6 show the proximity of the vent system to other containment components.
The eight vent lines connect the drywell to the vent header in alternate mitered cylinders or bays of the suppression chamber. The vent lines are nominally 1/4" thick and have an inside diameter (ID) of 6'9". The upper ends of the vent lines include spherical transition segments at the penetration to the drywell (Figure 3-2.1-7). The drywell shell around each vent line-drywell (VL/DW) penetration is 1-1/8" thick and is reinforced with a 1-1/2" thick reinforcing pad plate and a 3" thick cylindrical nozzle. The vent lines are shielded from jet impingement loads at each vent line-drywell penetration location by jet deflectors which O
COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.2 gg
span the ' openings of the vent lines. The eight vent O's line-vent header spherical junctions connect the vent lines and the vent header (Figure 3-2.1-8). Each i
spherical junction is constructed from six shell l
segments with thicknesses varying from 1/4" to 5/8".
The spherical junctions all have a 1" diameter drain line extending from the bottom of the spherical
- junction to below the pool surface. The drain lines are reinforced with a 4", Schedule 120 pipe sleevo that surrounds the drain line. Tine sleeve is attached to a 1" thick pad plate, which is attacheci to the bottom of the spherical junction. The other end of the sleeve is attached to a 1/2" ti lck collar plate that keeps the
% drain line centered inside the sleeve (Figure 3-2.1-9).
2 The SRV piping is routed from the drywell through the vent line and penetrates the vent line inside the suppression chamber. Volume 5 of this report presents the analysis of the SRV piping and vent line penetration.
1 The vent header is a continuous assembly of mitered cylindrical shell segments joined together to form a ring header (Figure 3-2.1-1). The vent header is 1/4" thick and has an ID of 4'10".
e t.
O l COM-02-039-3 i Revision 0 3-2.3 l nutagh I -, . , . -- , . . - - . .- - -. - . . . . -. . - - - - - - - - - . - - . . .
Ninety-six downcomers penetrate the vent header in pairs (Figures 3-2.1-1 and 3.2.1-10). Two downcomer 4 pairs are located in each vent line bay (VB); four pairs are located in each non-vent line bay (NVB).
Each downcomer consists of an inclined segment which penettates the vent header, and a vertical segment which terminates below the surface of the suppression pool (Figures 3-2.1-10 and 3-2.1-11). The inclined segment is 3/8" thick and the vertical segment is 1/4" thick. The inside diameters of the inclined and vertical portions of the downcomer are 2'0" and 2'1/8",
respectively.
Full penetration welds connect the vent lines to the drywell, the vent lines to the spherical junctions, the spherical junctions to the vent header, and the down-comers to the vent header. Therefore, the connections of the major vent system components are capable of developing the full capacity of the associated major components themselves.
The intersections of the downcomers and the vent header j are reinforced with a system of stiffener plates and bracing members (Figures 3-2.1-10, 3-2.1-11, and 3-2.1-12). In the plane of the downcomer pairs, the intersections are stiffened by a pair of 1/2" stiffener
, COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.4 nutggh
E 1
plates located between'each set of the downcomers and a pair of lateral bracing pipe members at the bottom of each set of two downcomers. The stiffener plates are l
welded both to the tangent points of the downcomer legs
- and to the vent header. The lateral bracings are i
welded to the downcomer rings near the tangent points.
I The system of stiffener plates is designed to reduce i
local intersection stresses caused by loads acting in the plane of the downcomers. The system of lateral i bracing ties the downcomer legs together in a pair; i
therefore, separation forces on the pair of downcomer
, legs will be taken as axial forces in the bracing.
In the direction normal to the plane of the downcomer pair, the downcomers are braced by a longitudinal bracing system located in those , vent line bays which house the SRV discharge line, and which extend to
- midlength of the neighboring non-vent line bays (Figure 3-2.1-10). In this manner, 62% of all the downcomers J
are braced longitudinally. The longitudinal bracing patterns for the two Quad Cities units vary in some '
t degree because of the different locations of the SRV lines (Figures 3-2.1-10, 3-2.1-13, and 3-2.1-14). The ends of the _ horizontal pipe members near miter joints
-(MJ) and centerlines of the non-vent bays are welded to=
the dawncomer rings.- The 3" x-1" diagonal members and
\
COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.5
. ..a _ ~ , . - . _. .._ _,.-.,._ .~_. _ .-._., - ..- .. ,_..__ -. .. _. _ .. _. ,.. - ... ._._. _ . _ . . . . . . .
their adjacent horizontal pipe members are connected to lugs which are welded to the downcomers.
This bracing system provides an additional load path for the transfer of loads acting on the submerged portion of the downcomers and results in reduced local stresses in the downcomer-vent header intersection regions. The system cf downcomer-vent header inter-section stiffener plates and lateral bracings provides a redundant mechanism for the transfer of loads acting on the downcomers, thus reducing the magnitude of loads passing directly through the intersection. The longitudial bracing also ties together several pairs of downcomers in the longitudinal direction, causing an increase in stiffness to the overall system that minimizes the dynamic effect of several loads, includ-ing SRV loads on submerged structures. This also results in load sharing among the downcomers for the SRV loads on submerged structures.
A bellows assembly is provided at the penetration of the vent line to the suppression chamber (Figure 3-2.1-7). The bellows allows differential movement of the vent system and suppression chamber to occur without developing significant interaction loads. Each bellows assembly consists of a stainless steel bellows COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.6 nutggh v
unit connected to a 1-3/4 " thick nozzle. The bellows unit has a 7'5" inside diameter and contains five convolutions which connect to a 1/2" thick cylindrical l sleeve at the vent line and a 1" thick cylindrical sleeve at the torus nozzle end. A 1-1/2" thick annular plate welded to the vent line connects to the upper end of the bellows assembly by full penetration welds. The I lower end of the bellows assembly is a 1-3/4" thick nozzle, already described, which is connected to the suppression chamber shell insert plate by full penetra-tion welds. The overall length of the bellows assembly is 3'2-3/4".
Vent header deflectors are provided in both the vent line bays and the non-vent line bays (Figures 3 - 2 .1- 6 and 3-2.1-12). The deflectors shield the vent header 4
from pool swell impact loads which occur during the initial phase of a DBA event. The vent header deflectors are constructed from 20" diameter, Schedule 100 pipe. The vent header deflectors are supported by 1" thick connection plates that are welded to the vent header support collar plates near each miter joint.
The drywell/wetwell vacuum breakers are nominal 18" units and extend from mounting flanges attached to l'7" s COM-02-039-3 l Revision 0 3-2.7 l nutash
l outside diameter (OD) by 1/2" thick nozzles. The nozzles penetrate the vent line-vent header spherical junction (Figure 3-2.1-8).
The vent system is supported vertically by two column members at each miter joint location ( Figures 3-2.1-4, 3-2.1-15, and 3-2.1-16). The support column members are constructed from 6" diameter, Schedule 80 pipe.
The upper ends of the support columns are connected to the 1" thick vent header support collar plates by 2-3/4" diameter pins. The support collar plates are attached to the vent header with 5/16" fillet welds.
The support columa loads are transferred at the upper pin locations by 3/4" thick pin plates. The lower ends of support columns are attached to 1-1/2" thick ring girder pin plates with 2-3/4" diameter pins and 3/4" thick pin plates. The support column assemblies are designed to transfer vertical loads acting on the vent system to the suppression chamber ring girders, while simultaneously resisting drag loads on submerged structures.
The vent system is supported horizontally by the vent lines which transfer lateral loads acting on the vent system to the drywell at the vent line-drywell penetra-COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.8 nutgg,hh m
. . . . . .. . = - - .. -- . . - .- . . _ .
k tion locations. The vent lines also provide additional vertical support for the vent system, although the vent l system support columns provide primary vertical support. Since the relative stiffness of the bellows with respect to other vent system components is small, i the support provided by- the vent line bellows is i
i 4
negligible.
I The vent system also provides support for a portion of the SRV piping inside the vent line and suppression i
l chamber (Figures 3-2.1-3 and 3-2.1-7). Loads acting on
{ the SRV piping are transferred to the vent system by l
the penetration assembly and internal supports on the t
vent line. Conversely, loads acting on the vent system cause motions to be transferred to the - SRV piping at the same support locations. Since the relative stiffness of the SRV discharge line with respect to l other vent system components is small, the support i
provided. by the SRV discharge line to the vent system
- ' is negligible.
6 4
The.overall load-carrying capacities of'the vent system components described in the . preceding paragraphs provide additional design margins - for- those components
. of- the . original vent system ~ design described ' in the .
plant's final safety analysis report.
I- % ~COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.9 a-.--.,- . . . . . . . . . , . , , , , . . - , - - . . , - . . . ~ . . . , , . . ,, .- . - -- ,.-... ... - , ,.,--.. .-...,,,-,...,-..,,....,.,,,.,-,:,
I 1
l O
90 SEISMIC '
RESTRAINT
\ mg 30'-0" ID
/ ,
VENT LINE PENETRATION , O Q 54'-6" DRME 0
o -
-f-i Q' - - 180 g
b N SPHERICAL -
JUNCTION A h, MITER JOINT VENT /
SYSTEM s
d
$ g VENT HEADER ) '
NON-VENT #
SUPPRESSION LINE BAY CHAMBER DOWNCOMER VENT LINE BAY 0
VENT LINE i l (8 TYPICAL) l Figure 3-2.1-1 PLAN VIEW OF CONTAINMENT COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.10 l nutggh
( CONTAINMENT l
_EL 666'-8 1/2"
_18'-6" IR I
33'-0" IR DRYhTLL SHIELD BUILDING 11'-0" DIA VENT LINE SPHERICAL JUNCTION
\ \
I5 35 BELLOWS SUPPRESSION 4 CHAMBER N
P.
_ EL 577'-6" , b_ .
EL 579'-10"
_ff ^9G _
ry .fl ? .y ."
DOWNCOMER g,'?- EL 565'-10" Y h bzt.d, hj..
_EL 554'-0" ? Illi Illi '
_, g?:3 6f a i l Figure 3-2.1-2 LLEVATION VIEW OF CONTAINMENT
\ )'
COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.11 nutgpb
O E
54'-6* To { _
CF CONTAINMENT '
VENT HEADER SPRAY HEACER i SPHERICAL VENT LINE pCNCTIc" 2' BELLOWS VENT HEADER ASSEMBLY 2'-5" IR , LINE 0.582* THICK WALL ABoVE 6'-9* ID ,
" { 12 08'15*
HORIZONTAL { ,
,,/ -
o flf/
a
/
5 hM s g DOWNCOMER 6'-0*
g ll/ ll '. *
, LEG (TYP) l EL $71'-6* a f o _
0.649* THICK / } SRV DISCHARGE WALL BELOW LINE ik / l HORIZONTAL (
SRV LINE CATWALK SUPPORT BEAM VENT HEADER ,
DEFLECTOR , .
_._ THERMcWELL ECCS I HEADER --
/ C""C"**
DeWNCoMER ,
LATERAL /
RESTRAINT -T-QUENCHER SUPPORT BEAM l
l l
Figure 3-2.1- 3 1
! SUPPRESSION CHAMBER SECTION -
l MIDBAY VENT LINE BAY COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.12 nutggh
E a TO ( OF CONTAINMENT 15'-0* IR VENT PERPENDICULAR HEADER TO SUPPRESSION \ 13'-2 1/2" IR CHAMBER SHELL IN PLANE OF RING GIRDER
._q .
SPRAY -VENT HEADER HEADER DEFLECTOR CATWALK ~$ %
VENT SYSTEM SUPPRESSION , , SUPPORT COLUMNS CHAM 3ER 0
- SHELL _
- 0 0
' 1 % '
l' -
I T] Il i I -
EL 571'-s" _. # - -
RING
-QUENCHER GIRDER N l l
/ SRV LINE SUPPORT a ll ECCS BEAM HEADER 74 l
-INSIDE
~ Mk d '
d IU' COLUMN OUTSIDE '
"" % 'l~ di j _ ll D ,
EL. 554'-0" a,!i ig y
f
\
g N -
, is in
'Q!D
- - Sff *+ '
SADDLE T-QUENCHER -RING GIRDER SUPPORT l SUPPORT STIFFENERS BEAM l
Figure 3-2.1-4 SUPPRESSION CHAMBER SECTION -
MITER JOINT COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.13 nutggh
O E
~
SPRAY HEADER -
OF CONTAINMENT VENT HEADER DOWNCOMER/ VENT HEADER STIFFENER CATWALK 2'-5" IR SUPPORT
/ / -6'-0" I a o 1
e .
. 10'-l 1/2" ll ll 3
/ - u
/
/
/
DOWNCOMER ._
u 4'-0" 4'-
15'-0" IR VENT HEADER DEFLECTOR , THERMOWELL hhg RAC g SEISMIC RESTRAINT EL 554'-0" *s j i y
.I 15 ",k GROUT Figure 3-2,1-5 SUPPRESSION CHAMBER SECTION-MIDBAY NON-VENT LINE BAY COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.14 nutggh
q MITER JOINT q VENT LINE BAY q MITER JOINT I I I i RING GIRDER
-+ VENT LINE +~
~
5 '- 6" IR 4 s SPHERICAL l JUNCTION ]
VENT HEADER I
1 l '
k
, + - V-O O r3 h l
r3
. _ . __ J j
9, _
I '."
_ )-
i _U L' ___0 VACUUM VEN'I. BREAKER DOWNCOMER g HEADER PENETRATION DEFLECTOR I SRV 1 1,
[LINE J '
g
, u-x VENT SYSTEM SUPPORT COLUMN
-- DOWNCOMER
,, LONGITUDINAL BRACING RAMSHEAD T-QUENCHER ARM r1 _ # IT
.g _ ti i>p.
I a s u n mha s a s I i
8 8
\ -QUENCHER T g SUPPRESSION I SUPPORT BEAM CHAMBER SHELL " '
l l
- 'g t g l'-1" : ,
f i g' M'g% SADDLE SUPPORT
'kSRVLINE EL 554'-0" Im I._.f..=y f.. . .
- A.:::j'.;.\ - - -
l t
Figure 3-2.1-6 l DEVELOPED VIEW OF SUPPRESSION CHAMBER SEGMENT A
COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.15 nutggh
O DRYWELL 1 1/2" THICK SHELL ANNULAR PAD PLATE 1/2* THICK eq SRV LINE TRANSITION SECMENT
' e VENT LINE BELLOWS JET
' DEFLECTOR 1 3/4" THICK -
g ,,
\
\ , 1 1/8* THICK 6'-9" ID INSERT PLATE g j{
's - \ 3* THICK
\ CYLINDER
" NOIILE
\ 3/8" THICK
,,a -1 1/2" THICK ANNULAR PLATE 1 1/8" THICK INSERT PLATE 1/4" THICK VENT LINE Figure 3-2.1-7 VENT LINE DETAILS - UPPER END COM-02-039-3 l Revision 0 3-2.16 nutggh
O _
6'-9" ID 5/8" THICK q VENT LINE
~
I 1/2" THICK (TYP)
=
a VENT HEADER'q - 4'-10" 20 Io (TYP)
' u o
/ s 1/4" THICK
/ \
5/8" THICK i s
-VACUUM BREAKER NOZZLES
- 1. VACUUM BREAKERS NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY.
I Figure 3-2.1-8 l
VENT LINE-VENT HEADER SPHERICAL JUNCTION l0 l
COM-02-039-3 3-2.17 Revision 0 nutagh
)
i O
VENT LINE SPHERICAL JUNCTION SHELL
\
% x
\
xx'u's m b
\\\\ 1" THICK 1/4/ \\\\ PAD PLATE
\\ \
\\\
5/16 [ g\-
\\ g 4" DIA PIPE SLEEVE
\\ g
\\ g\
\ g\\
\
\g h
\\ \
1/2" THICK COLLAR PLATE n \\\ \
3/16/ \\
1" DIA ,
DRAIN PIPE
\
l l
Figure 3-2.1-9 VENT LINE SPHERICAL JUNCTION DRAIN COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.18
! nutag.h h
[h b B]
s ' . um -
.-+ -+-...
4 14 44 44 Ajk VENT LINE BAY
-NON-VENT LINE LAY PARTIAL PLAN VIEW OF SUPPRESSION CHAMBER q VENT LINE q MITER q NON-VENT BAY s JOINT l LINE BAY I
nb )
Q VENT 3 m em l l "EADER
/ -Y i . . .
(
\
em em em
~
e 1" x 3" PLATE DOWNCOMER i ~/
/
(TYP) t 3" DIA PIPE
^
VIEW A-A VIEW B-B (OPPOSITE HAND)
Figure 3-2.1-10 DEVELOPED VIEW OF DOWNCOMER LONGITUDINAL BRACING SYSTEM
"\.
l(V #
COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.19 L nutggh L
,~v - ,v, w - -
( VENT HEADER 1/4 \ g' 1/4 / 1/4" 2'-5* IR
- 10 '-1 1/2*
LEG
/ _ DOWNCOMER 1/2" THICK 45 DOWNCOMER- o VENT HEADER ,
,y 9
"- 2* NOM
{ ,
2'-0* ID I
I ME ER 0 I
CEFLECTOR 1/ 4..
i , i I l l l 2'-0 1/8" ID l ,
o h ! '
}
4'-0* -
DOWNCOMER I LATERAL g BRACING SYMMETRICAL ABOUT (
ELEVATION VIEW 3* DIA 1/4" THICK PIPE RING PLATE I I i
\ ((
-- U, = s N _ wj '
=
I li4y ("'
SECTION A-A l
Figure 3-2.1-11 DOWNCOMER-TO-VENT HEADER INTERSECTION DETAILS -
QUAD CITIES UNIT 2 COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.20 nutagh
I
/ { VENT HEA0ER 1/4 \
1/4 / 1/4" 2'-5* IR
-10'-l 1/2" DOWNCOMER
/ . LEG 1/2" THICK 45 DOWNCCMER-VENT HEADER ,
, y ; g 9" 3#8' s [+ -
\\ b2* NOM 2'-0* ID l VENT I i HEACER I o
1/4*-+. I l DEF E CR
,' l i l t I
i l 2'-0 1/8" 10
' h '
' _. i .
- i. 4'-0 DOWNCOMER i LATERAL g BRACING
,) SYMMETRICAL ABOUT (
ELEVATION VIEW 1/4* THICK 3* DIA PIPE RING PLATE \
l /1/4 V eW /ch
, 1]/
/TYP 1 2* DIA,NPS XXS 1,, g SECTION A-A Figure 3-2.1-12 DOWNCOMER-TO-VENT HEADER INTERSECTION DETAILS -
QUAD CITIES UNIT 1 A
(v' )
COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.21 nutggh
O' 900 i
SUPPRESSION T-QUENCHER R DEVICE
'\
O O
O O
O
, , SRV LINE O I
O
' O O 54'-6" z g g 00- -
- 1800 SUPPRESSION ,
OO CHAMBER q ,O Ci g i O o
O '\ O O'
O o r O O . ,e^og o
- so
. / '
\\
'" /
., DOWNCOMER LONGITUDINAL l'-1" BRACING (TYP (TYP) 10 HAIS BAYS) q VENT LINE BAY 2700
( SRV LINE l
l Figure 3-2.1-13 l
DOWNCOMER LONGITUDINAL BRACING CONFIGURATION-QUAD CITIES UNIT 1 COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2,22 nutp_qh
O h 900 h SUPPRESSION CHAMBER T-QUENCHER DEVICE DOWNCOMER LONGITUDINAL BRACING (TYP i ,
[# %
N 10 HALF BAYS)
~ /
O
%o' O O
O SRV s
[,
LINE'
~
s 54'-6* OO Y O O 00 -
+ _
- 1800 0 0 O O SUPPPESSION -
CHAMBER (, i O
~
E o o
O O O
' O O OO O O o, ~
OO O l'-1" (TYP)
M
( VENT LINE BAY l 2700 T,SRV LINE l
j Figure 3-2.1-14 DOWNCOMER LONGITUDINAL BRACING SYSTEM CONFIGURATION -
QUAD CITIES UNIT 2 COM-02-039-3 I Revision 0 3-2.23 l nutp_qh i
l O'
q VENT HEADER 3/16 \
5/16/ 1" THICK COLLAR PLATE I
SECTION THROUGH VENT HEADER SUPPORT COLLAR 1
l Figure 3-2.1-15 VENT HEADER SUPPORT COLLAR PLATE DETAILS COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.24 nutggh w " *r 1
O 3/4" THICK l l PIN PLATE (TYP) " "
5"
-(TYP)
~
f s
%) ^ . .
u db I I I
~
6" DIA SCH 80 PIPE bV hV mo / mo i
l l I V
-15'-9" ~
If -
+ -
N) .. .
I l Figure 3-2.1-16 VENT SYSTEM SUPPORT COLUMN DETAILS l
l s COM-02-039-3 i Revision 0 3-2.25 l
nute_Ch
! . , . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ _ , . , _ _ . _ . _ . _ _ , _ , _ , , . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ . . _ , _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ __.,__ _ _ _,_ _ ., _ , , , _ _ , _ ,
i 3-2.2 Loads and Load Combinations The loads for which the Quad Cities Units 1 and 2 vent systems are evaluated are defined in NUREG-0661 on a generic basis for all Mark I plants. Section 1-4.0 discusses the methodology used to develop plant unique vent system loads for each load defined in NUREG-0661.
The results of applying the methodology to develop specific values for each of the governir.] loads which act on the vent system are discussed and presented in Section 3-2.2.1.
Using the event combinations and event sequencing defined in NUREG-0661 and discussed in Sections 1-3.2 and 1-4.3, the controlling load combinations which af fect the vent system are formulated. The controlling j vent system load combinations are discussed and pre-sented in Section 3-2.2.2.
l l
COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.26 9
nutggh
3-2.2.1 Loads s
The loads acting on the vent system are categorized as follows:
- 1. Dead Weight Loads
- 2. Seismic Loads
- 3. Pressure and Temperature Ioads
- 4. Vent System Discharge Loads
- 5. Pool Swell Loads
- 6. Condensation Oscillation Loads
- 7. Chugging Loads
- 8. Safety Relief Valve Discharge Loads
- 9. Pipir.g Reaction Loads
- 10. Containment Interaction Loads Loads in Categories 1 through 3 were considered in the original containment design as documented in the plant's containment data specifications (References 8 and 9). Additional Category 3 pressure and temperature loads result from postulated LOCA and SRV discharge events. Loads in Categories 4~ through 7 result from postulated LOCA events; loads in Category 8 result from SRV discharge events;~ loads in Category 9 are reactions which result from loads acting on SRV piping systems; loads in Category 10 are motions which result from loads acting on other containment-related structures.
I v COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.27 L nutagh
Not all of the loads defined in NUREG-0661 are evaluated in detail since some are enveloped by others or have a negligible effect on the vent system. Only those loads which maximize the vent system response and lead to controlling stresses are fully evaluated and discussed. These loads are referred to as governing loads in subsequent discussions.
Table 3-2.2-1 shows the specific vent system components affected by each of the loadings defined in NUREG-0661.
The table also lists the section in Volume 1 in which the methodology for developing values for each loading is discussed. The magnitudes and characteristics of each governing vent system load in each load category are identified and presented in the following para-graphs.
- 1. Dead Weight Loads
- a. Dead Weight of Steel: The weight of steel used to construct the modified vent system l 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-02-039-3 l Revision 0 3-2.28 nutggh
- 2. Seismic Loads
- a. OBE Loads: The vent system is subjected to horizontal and vertical accelerations during
- an operating basis earthquake (OBE). This loading is taken from the original design basis for the containment documented in the plant's design specification. The OBE loads have a maximum horizontal acceleration of 0.30g and a maximum vertical acceleration of 0.08g.
- b. SSE Loads: The vent system is subjected to horizontal and vertical accelerations during a safe shutdown earthquake (SSE). This load-(/ ing is taken from the original design basis for the containment documented in the plant's SAR, termed a DBE (Reference 4). The SSE loads have a maximum horizontal acceleration of 0.60g and a maximum vertical acceleration of 0.16g.
4
- 3. Pressure and Temperature Loads
- a. Normal Operating Internal Pressure Loads:
The vent system is subjected to internal
- pressure loads during normal operating l
l l
COM-02-039-3 l'
Revision 0 3-2.29 nutggb i
I
_y _ , __ __ , , , , w *gg_vr +-ev W "-
1 conditions. This loading is taken from the '
original design basis for the containment documented in the plants' containment data specifications (References 8 and 9). The range of normal operating internal pressures specified is -0.2 to 1.0 psi.
- b. LOCA Internal Pressure Loads: The vont system is subjected to internal pressure loads during a SBA, an IBA, and a DBA event. The procedure used to develop LOCA internal pressures for the containment is discussed in Section 1-4.1.1. Figures 3-2.2-1 through 3-2.2-3 present the resulting vent system internal pressure transients and pressure magnitudes at key times during the SBA, IBA, and DBA events.
The vent system internal pressures for each event are conservat'ively assumed equal to the corresponding drywell internal pressures; reductions due to losses are negligible. The net internal pressures acting on the vent system components inside the suppression chamber are extracted as the difference in COM-02-039-3 l Revision 0 3-2.30 1
nutg,gh
pressures between the vent system and suppression chamber.
The pressures specified are assumed to act uniformly over the vent line, vent header, and downcomer shell surf a :es . The external or secondary containment pressure for the vent system components outside the suppres-sion chamber for all events is assumed to be zero. The effects of internal pressure on the vent system for the DBA event are included in the pressurization and thrust loads discussed in Load Case 4a.
\ c. Normal Operating Temperature Loads: The vent system is subjected to the thermal expansion j loads associated . with normal operating conditions. This loading is taken from the original design basis for the containment documented in the plant's containment data specifications (References 8 and 9). The
-range of normal operating temperatures for the vent system with a concurrent SRV dis-charge event is 70' to 163'F (Table 3-2.2-2).
COM-02-039-3 O Revision 0 3-2.31
__ , ~ - . . . . , . _ , - - , - . . - , _ . . , , - - . , , -
--,---ww-re- v-v- wc- r W -t 'a+v -M-w- ~e--- *-r+w ++v e-~--ww va - -rn--m-e---
Additional normal operating temperatures for the vent system inside the suppression chamber are taken from the suppression pool temperature response analysis (Reference 10). Table 3-2.2-2 provides a summary of the resulting vent system temperatures.
- d. LOCA Temperature Loads: The vent system is subjected to thermal expansion loads associ-ated with the SBA, IBA, and DBA events. The procedure used to develop LOCA containment temperatures is discussed in Section 1-4.1.1.
Figures 3-2.2-4 through 3-2.2-6 present the resulting vent system temperature transients and temperature magnitudes at key times during the SBA, IBA, and DBA events.
Additional vent system SBA event temperatures are taken from the suppression pool tempera-ture response analysis. Table 3-2.2-2 summarizes the resulting vent system tempera-tures. The greater of the temperatures specified in Figure 3-2.2-4 and Table 3-2.2-2 is used in evaluating the effects of SBA event temperatures.
COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.32 nutggh
l i
r
{
The temperatures of the major vent system components, such as the vent line, vent header, spherical junction, and downcomers, are conservatively assumed equal to the corresponding drywell temperatures for the l IBA and DBA events. For the SBA event, the temperature of the major vent system com-ponents is assumed equal to the maximum saturation temperature of the drywell, which is 273*F.
The temperatures of the external vent system components, such as the support columns, vent
' \ header support collars, downcomer lateral bracings, downcomer longitudinal bracings, vent header deflectors, and downcomer rings and downcomer stiffener plates, are assumed equal to the corresponding suppression chamber temperatures for each event, The temperatures specified are assumed to be representative of the major component and ,
l
- external component metal temperatures throughout the vent system. The ambient or i
O" COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.33
r, initial temperature of the vent system for all events is assumed equal to the arithmetic mean of the minimum and maximum vent system operating temperatures.
- 4. Vent System Discha ge Loads
- a. Pressurization and Thrust Loads: The vent system is subjected to dynamic pressurization and thrust loads during a DBA event. The procedure used to , develop vent system reaction loads due to pressure imbalances and to changes in linear momentum is discussed in Section 1-4.1.2. Table 3-2.2-3 shows the resulting maximum forces for each of the major component unreacted areas at key times during the DBA event.
The vent system discharge loads shown include the effects of the zero drywell/watwell and the operating drywell/wetwell pressure differential. The vent system discharge
' loads specified for the DBA event include the effects of DBA internal pressure loads discussed in Load Case 3a. The vent system COM-02-039-3 '
Revision 0 3-2.34 nutg,g),) i l
i
p discharge loads which occur during the SBA or IBA events are negligible.
- 5. Pool Swell-Related Loads
- a. Vent System Impact and Drag Loads: During the initial phase of a DBA event, transient impact and drag pressures are postulated to act on major vent system components above the suppression pool. The major components affected are the vent line inside the suppression chamber below the maximum bulk pool height, the spherical junction, the unprotected vent header, and the inclined portion of the downcomers. The major part of m/ the vent header is shielded by the vent
- header deflectors and receives a relatively small amount of the pool swell impact and drag loads. The loads are developed based on the operating drywell/wetwell pressure differential condition except those applied to the vent header deflectors which are defined in the plant's PULD for a zero drywell/wetwell pressure differential condi-tion. Multiplication factors are developed to adjust operating 6P condition loads to the A
i
_(
~\
COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.35-nutggh
zero drywell/ wetwell pressure differential condition.
The procedure used to develop the transient forces and the spatial distribution of pool swell impact loads on these components is discussed in Section 1-4.1.4. Table 3-2,2-4 and Figures 3-2.2-7 and 3-2.2-8 summarize the resulting magnitudes and distribution of pool swell impact loads on the vent line, the unprotected portion of the vent header, the spherical junction, downcomers, and the vent header deflector. The results shown are based on plant unique Quarter-Scale Test Facility (OSTF) test data contained in the PULD (Reference 3) and include the effects of the main vent crifice tests. Pool swell loads are considered negligible during the SBA and IBA events.
- b. Impact and Drag Loads on Other Structures:
During the initial phase of a DBA event, transient impact and drag pressures are postulated to act on nonmajor components of i the vent system. The components affected are COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.36 l
nutggh l
i the vacuum breaker and the vacuum breaker f
nozzle. The downcomer longitudinal bracing members, and the SRV piping and supports are also subjected to drag loads during this phase of the DBA event.
i
- The . procedure used to develop the transient forces and the spatial distribution of pool swell impact and drag loads on these com-I ponents is discussed in Section 1-4.1.4.
Tables 3-2.2-5 and 3-2.2-6 and Figure 3-2,2-9 l
l- summarize the resulting magnitudes and distribution of pool swell impact and drag pressures on the vacuum breaker," the vacuum breaker nozzle, and the downcomer longitudi-nal bracing. The pool swell drag loads on f
the SRV piping and supports located ~ beneath
- the level of the vent line are presented . in
- .. Volume 5 of this report. The results shown are based on plant unique QSTF test data
< contained .in the PULD, which are used to
- l. determine the impact ' velocities and arrival i
times.- Pool- swell loads are considered
' negligible during the SBA and IBA events.
I
~1 j COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.37 p
. ~ _ _ - . _ . . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ ..- _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . _
- c. Froth Impingement and Fallback Loads: During the initial phase of a DBA event, transient impingement pressures are postulated to act on vent system components located in specified regions above the rising suppres-sion pool. The impacted components located in Region I include the vacuum breaker, the vacuum breaker nozzle, the vent line, and the vent header. The impacted components located in Region II include the spherical junction and the vent line.
The procedure used to develop the transient forces and spatial distribution of froth impingement and fallback loads on these com-ponents is discussed in Section 1-4.1.4.
Table 3-2.2-5 summarizes the resulting magnitudes and distribution of froth impinge-ment and fallback pressures on the vacuum breaker and the vacuum breaker nozzle. Proth impingement and fallback loads do not occur during the SBA and IBA events.
COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.38 nutggb c
O d. Pool Fallback Loads: During the later por-tion of the pool swell event, transient drag pressures are postulated to act on selected vent system components located between the maximum bulk pool height and the downcomer exit. The components affected are the vacuum breaker, the downcomer rings, the downcomer lateral bracings, the downcomer longitudinal bracing, and the SRV piping and supports located beneath the level of the vent line.
The procedure used to develop transient drag pressures and spatial distribution of pool fallback loads on these components is dis-s cussed in Section 1-4.1.4.
Table 3-2.2-6 summarizes the resulting magni-tudes and distribution of pool fallback loads on the downcomer rings, the downcomer lateral bracings, and the downcomer longitudinal bracing members. The pool fallback loads on the SRV piping and supports located beneath the level of the vent line are presented in volume 5 of this report. The results shown include the effects of maximum pool displace-( COM-02-039-3 U Revision 0 3-2.39 nutagh
ments measured in plant unique QSTP tests.
Pool fallback loads do not occur during the SBA and IBA events.
- e. LOCA Water Jet Loads: Water jet loads are postulated to act on the submerged vent system components during the water clearing phase of a DBA event. The components affected are the vent system support columns.
The procedure used to develop the transient forces and spatial distribution of LOCA water clearing loads on these components is discussed in Section 1.4.1.5. Table 3-2.2-7 shows the resulting magnitudes and distribu-tion of LOCA water jet loads acting on the support columns.
- f. LOCA Bubble-Induced Loads: Transient drag pressures are postulated to act on the submerged vent system components during the air clearing phase of a DBA event. The components affected are the downcomers, the downcomer lateral bracings, the downcomer rings, the downcomer longitudinal bracing members, the support columns, and the sub-l COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.40 nutggh
.g _ _ _. .
. p)
~i merged portion of the SRV piping. The proce-L/ dure used to develop the transient forces and spatial distribution of DBA air bubble-induced drag loads on these components is discussed in Section 1-4.1.6.
Tables 3-2.2-7, 3-2.2-8, and 3-2,2-9 show the f
resulting magnitudes and distribution of drag pressures acting on the vent system support columns, the downcomers, the downcomer lateral bracings, the downcomer rings, and the downcomer longitudinal bracing members for the controlling DBA air clearing load case. The controlling DBA air clearing loads V on the submerged portion of the SRV piping are presented in volume 5 of this report.
The results shown include the effects of velocity drag, acceleration drag, and inter-1 ference effects. The LOCA air bubble-induced drag loads which occur during a SBA or an IBA event are negligible.
- 6. Condensation Oscillation Loads
- a. IBA CO Downcomer Loads: Harmonic internal pressure loads are postulated to act on the I
(*% -
'(' COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.41
- nutggh I i
1 downcomers during the CO phase of an IBA '
event. The procedure used to develop the harmonic pressures and spatial distribution of IBA CO downcomer loads is discussed in Section 1-4.1.7. The loading consists of a l l
uniform internal pressure component acting on all downcomers and a differential internal pressure component acting on one downcomer in a downcomer pair. Table 3-2.2-10 shows the resulting pressure amplitudes and associated frequency range for each of the three harmonics in the IBA CO downcomer loading.
Figure 3-2.2-10 shows the corresponding dis-tribution of differential downcomer internal pressure loadings.
The IBA CO downcomer . load harmonic in the range of the dominant downcomer frequency for the uniform and the differential pressure components is applied at the dominant downcomer frequency. The remaining two downcomer load harmonics are applied at frequencies which are multiples of the dominant frequency. The results of the three harmonics for the uniform and differential COM-02-039-3 l Revision 0 3-2.42 nutggj]
1
.IBA CO downcomer load components are combined by absolute sum.
- b. DBA- CO Downcomer Loads: Harmonic internal pressure loads are postulated to act on the downcomers during the CO phase of a DBA event. The procedure used to develop the
! harmonic pressures and spatial distribution of DBA CO downcomer loads is the same as that discussed for IBA CO downcomer loads in Load Case 6a. Table 3-2.2-11 shows the resulting
, pressure amplitudes and associated frequency i
range for each of the three harmonics in the l-.
DBA CO downcomer loading. Figure 3-2.2-10 j
shows the corresponding distribution of differential downcomer internal pressure
- loadings.
- c. IBA CO Vent System Pressure Loads
- Harmonic internal pressure loads are postulated to act' on the vent system during the CO phase of an i
IBA event. The components affected are the i
vent line, the spherical junction, the vent header, and the . downcomers. The procedure used to develop the harmonic - pressures - and
.COM-02-039-3 Revision'O 3-2.43 nutagh
the spatial distribution of IBA CO vent system pressures is discussed in Section 1-4.1.7. Table 3-2.2-12 shows the resulting pressure amplitudes and associated frequency range for the vent line and vent header. The loading is applied at the frequency w thin a specified range which maximizes the vent system response.
The effects of IBA CO vent cystem pressures on the downcomers are included in the IBA CO downcomer loads discussed in Load Case 6a.
An additional static internal pressure of 1.7 psi is applied uniformly to the vent line, vent header, and downcomers to account for the effects of downcomer submergence. The IBA condensation oscillation vent system pressures act in conjunction with the .I B A containment internal pressures discussed in Load Case 3a.
- d. DBA CO Vent System Pressure Loads: Harmonic internal pressure loads are postulated to act on the vent system during the CO phase of a
~
DBA event. The components affected are the COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.44 nutggh L
vent line, the spherical junction, the vent header, and downcomers. The procedure uced to develop the harmonic pressures and the spatial distribution of the DBA CO vent system pressures is the same as that dis-cussed for the IBA in Load Case 6c. Table 3-2.2-12 shows the resulting pressure amplitudes and associated frequency range for the vent line and vent header. The effects of DBA CO vent system pressures on the down-comers are included in the DBA CO downcomer loads discussed in Load Case 6b. The DBA CO vent system pressures act in addition to the 4
DBA vent system pressurization and thrust
\
loads discussed in Load Care 4a.
- e. IBA CO Submerged Structure Loads: Harmonic pressure loads are postulated to act on the l
submerged vent system components during the CO phase of an IBA event. In accordance with NUREG-0661, the loads on submerged structures specified for pre-chug are used in lieu of i
IBA~CO loads on submerged structures. Pre-chug submerged structure loads'are discussed in-Load Case-7c.
I I
COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.45 nutggb
- . - - - , , - _ , _ . , , - . . , . . . - ~ _ . . , , . , - - -
- f. DBA CO Submerged Structure Loads: Harmonic drag pressures are postulated to act on the submerged vent system components during the CO phase of a DBA event. The components affected are the downcomer lateral bracings, the downcomer rings, the downcomer long i-tudinal bracing members, the support columns, and the submerged portions of the SRV piping. 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 the case with twice the average source strength at the nearest downcomer. The results of these two cases are evaluated to determine the controlling loads, i
Tables 3-2.2-13 and 3-2.2-14 show the result-ing magnitudes and distribution of drag pressures acting on the support columns, the downcomer lateral bracings, the downcomer rings, and the downcomer longitudinal bracing COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.46 nutggh
f
- O
\ j~
members for the controlling DBA CO drag load case. The controlling DBA CO drag loads on the submerged portion of the SRV piping are presented in Volume 5 of this report. The
- 1 effects of DBA CO submerged structure loads on the downcomers are included in the loads discussed in Load Case 6b.
The results in Tables 3-2.2-13 and 3-2.2-14 i
include the ef fects of velocity drag, accel-eration drag, torus shell PSI acceleration i
drag, interference effects, and acceleration drag volumes. Figure 3-2.2-11 shows a typical pool acceleration profile from which the FSI accelerations are derived. The i
results of each harmonic in the loading are
- combined using the methodology discussed in Section 1-4.1.7.
i
- 7. Chugging Loads J
- a. Chugging Downcomer Lateral Loads: Lateral loads are postulated to act on the downcomers -
during the chugging phase of a SBA, an IBA, I and a DBA event. The procedure used 'to develop chugging downcomer lateral loads is COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.47
, .- , , ,- -- - - -,y,,e- ,,.-.,-q.=-s.- ,e- .-,,--,-w-.
3 q- ,+-%y...- -,..--s.--.-#,. e,- we. +
discussed in Section 1-4.1.8. The maximum lateral load acting on any one downcomer in any direction is obtained using the maximum downcomer lateral load and chugging pulse duration measured at the Full-Scale Test Facility (FSTF), the frequency of the tied downcomers for the FSTF, and the plant unique downcomer frequency calculated for b.oth longitudinally braced and unbraced conditions. Table 3-2.2-15 summarizes this information. The resulting ratios of Quad Cities Units 1 and 2 to the FSTF dynamic load factors (DLP) are used in subsequent calcula-tions to determine the magnitude of multiple downcomer loads and to determine the load magnitude used for evaluating fatigue.
Section 3-2.4.1 discusses the methodology used to determine the plant unique downcomer frequency.
The magnitude of chugging lateral loads act-ing on multiple downcomers simultaneously is determined using the methodology described in l Section 1-4.1.8. The methodology uses the value of 10-4 as the probability of exceeding COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.48 nutggh
. a given downcomer load magnitude once per LOCA. The chugging load magnitudes (Table l 1
3-2,2-16) are determined using the above value of non-exceedance probability (NEP) and the ratio of the DLF's from the maximum downcomer load calculation. The distribu-tions of chugging downcomer lateral loads cansidered are those cases which maximize overall effects in the vent system. Table 3-2.2-17 summarizes these distributions. The maximum downcomer lateral load magnitude used for evaluating the local effect on the downcomer- vent header intersection is 4
s obtained using both the maximum downcomer lateral load measured at the FSTF and the ratio of DLF's from the maximum downcomer load calculation.
The maximum downcomer lateral load magnitude used for evaluating fatigue is obtained using both the maximum downcomer lateral load measured at the FSTF with a 95% NEP and the ratio of DLF's from maximum downcomer - load calculations. The stress reversal histograms provided for FSTF are converted to plant l
A COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2,49 nutagh
unique stress reversal histograms using the postulated plant unique chugging duration (Table 3-2.2-18).
- b. Chugging Vent System Pressures: Transient and harmonic internal pressures are postulated to act on the vent system during the chugging phase of a SBA, an IBA, and a DBA event. The components affected are the vent line, the spherical junction, the vent header, and the downcomers. The procedure used to develop chugging vent system pressures is discussed in Section 1-4.1.8.
The load consists of a gross vent system pressure oscillation component, an acoustic vent system pressure oscillation component, and an acoustic downcomer pressure oscilla-tion component. Table 3-2.2-19 shows the resulting pressure magnitudes and character-istics of the chugging vent system pressure loading. The three load components are evaluated individually and are not combined with each other.
COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.50 nutggh
l l
I The overall effects of chugging vent system
>O pressures on the downcomers are included in the loads discussed in Load Case 7a. The downcomer pressures (Table 3-2.2-19) are used to evaluate downcomer hoop stresses. The chugging vent system pressures act in
, addition to the SBA and IBA containment internal pressures discussed in Load Case 3a and the DBA pressurization and thrust loads discussed in Load Case 4a.
- c. Pre-Chug Submerged Structure Loads: During the chugging phase of a SBA, an IBA, or a DBA event, harmonic drag pressures associated
{e with the pre-chug portion of a chugging cycle are postulated to act on the submerged vent
, system components. The components affected are the downcomer lateral bracings, the downcomer rings, the downcomer longitudinal bracing members, the support columns, and the submerged portion of the SRV piping. The procedure used to develop the harmonic forces and spatial distribution of pre-chug drag loads on these components is discussed ir.
Section 1-4.1.8.
COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.51 nutagh
Loads are developed for the case with the average source strength at all downcomers and the case with twice the average source strength at the nearest downcomer. The results of these two cases are evaluated to determine the controlling loads. Tables 3-2.2-20 and 3-2.2-21 show the resulting magnitudes and distribution of drag pressures acting on the support columns, the downcomer lateral bracings, the downcomer rings, and the downcomer longitudinal bracing members for the controlling pre-chug drag load case.
The controlling pre-chug drag loads on the submerged portion of the SRV piping are presented in Volume 5 of this report. The effects of pre-chug submerged structure loads on the downcomers are included in the loads discussed in Load Case 7a.
The results shown include the effects of velocity drag, acceleration drag, torus shell fluid-structure interaction (FSI) accelera-tion drag, interference effects, and acceleration drag volumes. Figure 3-2.2-11 COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.52 nutggh
shows a typical pool acceleration profile from which the FSI accelerations are derived.
l
- d. Post-Chug Submerged Structure Loads: During the chugging phase of a SBA, an IBA, or a DBA event, harmonic drag pressures associated with the post-chug portion of a chug cycle are postulated to act on the submerged vent system components. The components affected are the downcomer lateral bracings, the
, downcomer rings, the downcomer longitudinal bracing members, the support columns, and the submerged portion of the SRV piping. Section 1-4.1.8 discusses the procedure used to
\
develop the harmonic forces and spatial dis-tribution of post-chug drag loads on these components.
Loads are developed for the cases with the maximum source strength at the nearest two downcomers acting both in phase and out of phase. The results of these cases are evalu-ated to determine the controlling loads.
Tables 3-2.2-22 and 3-2.2-23 shows the resulting~ magnitudes and distribution of drag COM-02-039-3 Revision-0 3-2.53
r pressures acting on the support columns, the downcomer lateral bracings, the downcomer rings, and the downcomer longitudinal bracing members for the controlling pos t-chug drag load case. The controlling post-chug drag loads on the submerged portion of the SRV piping are presented in Volume 5 of this report. The effects of post-chug submerged structure loads acting on the downcomers are included in the chugging downcomer lateral loads discussed in Load Case 7a.
The results shown include the effects of velocity drag, acceleration drag, torus shell FSI acceleration drag, interference effects, and acceleration drag volumes. Figure 3-2.2-11 shows a typical pool acceleration profile from which the FSI accelerations are derived. The results of each harmonic are combined using the methodology described in Section 1-4.1.8.
- 8. Gafety Relief Valve Discharge Loads
- a. T-quencher Water Jet Loads: Water jet loads from the quencher arm holes are postulated to COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.54 nutggh
~
m
O act on the submerged vent system components during the water clearing phase of a SRV
- discharge event. The quencher water jet does not reach the downcomer and the downcomer bracings. The components affected are the vent system support columns. The procedure used to develop the transient forces and spatial distribution of the SRV discharge water jet loads on these components is dis-cussed in Section 1-4.2.4. Table 3-2.2-24 provides the resulting magnitudes and distri-bution of SRV water jet loads acting on the support columns.
4
- b. SRV Bubble-Induced Drag Loads: Transient drag pressures are postulated to act on the submerged vent system components during the air clearing phase of a SRV discharge event. The components affected are thn downcomers, the downcomer lateral bracings, the downcomer rings, the downcomer longi-tudinal bracing members, support columns, and the submerged portion of the SRV piping. The procedure used to develop the transient forces and spatial distribution of the SRV s.j COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.55 0 k
discharge air bubble-induced drag loads on these components is discussed in Section 1-4.2.4.
Loads are developed for the case with four bubbles from quenchers located in the bay containing the structure or in either of the adjacent bays. A calibration factor is applied to the resulting downcomer loads developed using the methodology discussed in Section 1-4.2.2. Tables 3-2.2-24, 3-2.2-25, and 3-2.2-26 show the magnitudes and distri-bution of drag pressures acting on the support columns, the downcomers, the down-comer lateral bracings, the downcomer rings, and the downcomer longitudinal bracings for the controlling SRV discharge drag load case.
These results include the effects of velocity drag, acceleration drag, interference effects, and acceleration drag volumes.
- 9. Piping Reaction Loads
- a. SRV Piping Reaction Loads: Reaction loads impact the vent system because of loads l
l COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.56 nutgsh
e 1
i C
acting on the drywell and wetwell SRV piping systems. These reaction loads occur at the l
vent line-SRV piping penetration and at the safety relief valve discharge line (SRVDL) supports inside the vent line. The SRV piping reaction loads consist of those caused j by motions of the suppression chamber and !
[ loads acting on the drywell and wetwell i
portions of the SRV piping systems. Loads acting on the SRV piping systems are pressur-ization loads, thrust loads, and other I operating or design basis loads.
t i
The effects of the SRV piping reaction loads
- on the vent system are included in the vent system analysis. These reaction loads were taken from the analysis of the SRV piping
' system described in Volume 5 of this report.
t:
- 10. Containment Interaction Loads a.- Containment Structure Motions: Loads acting on the drywell, suppression chamber, and vent i
system cause interaction effects between' these structures. .The interaction effects result in vent system motions applied at the
{ !
-( COM-02-039 Revision 0 3-2.57 L
attachment points of the vent system to the '
drywell and the suppression chamber. The I effects of these motions on the vent system
)
are considered in the vent system analysis.
The values of the loads presented in the preceding paragraphs envelop those which could occur during the LOCA and SRV discharge events postulated. An evalua-tion for the effects of the above loads results in conservative estimates of the vent system responses and leads to bounding values of vent system stresses.
O l
COM 039-3 Revision 0 3-2.58 nutggh
/m (V\
- . 2. .
t t . . I t s I, .
-: e i e 1 "a
i E m a :
i e a
3 i - - -
Iy
.e !..s m .
,Ee
!- ===
8 e a
=
!. j " :
- n e
s I s a r i g g ,
gy si:
e, r g l t n E y : 8 8 : =
c r i a I
n s a
. g e
s g !. .! :i n
g i n=i n
sy "a l!
!
- 3 g s a s i = . s g ls i
. 1
- l l i n E i g g 1 Ei ! s i e : : - - .
i l
z s i i3 i i l l : ! ! !! ! as s sia ! !
8 I'2'
-l-l l -l- - -
l llll !
g =
.i. i . . .pi i i.i .i. .
y ~~
.g s. . . . . . l c
, . - - . i z ]S" . . . . . . . . . . .
l o , ,,,,,
z : saavan . . . = .
g . . . ; -
A g =,,,=, . . . . . . . .
aa I n= s.. . . . . . . . .
l m
e y ,,g,,, . . . . . . - l ; -
. g , ,,: . . . . . . i O sozs
-vsaans. . . . . . . . .
j
~
8 -- - - -
3- 3 3 1 1 1 1 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 ?? ?? 3 3
'I I l8lj : : : : ; ; ; ; - - - - ; ; -
l z
, .i - - - - -
. 2 1 b .
U2 3
- 2 A A 2 3 : $ 3 $ 3 : : A a i i f u:
s z r I a e a a g i
a i .
n I ]
e . g ,
I I- l e2 :! . : I 5 i i s : I. l 1 -
5 . I u.
l: !: =l=g i I g e .
5 : E 8s: i- : 1 9 : : . i l I. l 3 .
la ::: a I uI s "! e 9 -
I.
a
- 3 8
- l. i. { i. . . ,
G l g r, 1 l l u :
"i 1s I-3 8s t 8 l i
1 3 8 I :- . . . .
". i i i j. I S I an -
gg 8 8 8 8 8. 8 g g
2 l i s li i l l ! ! !a l l i i n a n i a n e ll ! i . ! l
!: 2 81 Ig 1 !! i v l!
ll ! i e ia !g s!a si 1
il =is 1 li ! a '"
l!
/m COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.59 nutgrd)
Table 3-2.2-2 SUPPRESSION POOL TEMPERATURE RESPONSE ANALYSIS RESULTS - MAXIMUM TEMPERATURES NUMBER MAXIMUM CONDITION CASE (1) OF SRV'S BULK POOL NUMBER ACTUATED TEMPERATURE ( F) 1A 0 136 1B 1 162 NORMAL A 163 OPERATING 2B 0 145 l 2C 5 156 3A 5 152 SBA EVENT 3B 5 157 (1) SEE SECTION 1-5.1 FOR A DESCRIPTION OF SRV DISCHARGE EVENTS.
COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.60 nute_c__h e s- -
m ~
Table 3-2.2-3 VENT SYSTEM PRESSURIZATION AND THRUST LOADS FOR DBA EVENT F I3 p
\ 1 I *, '
,/
/hM\b '
/ ,
F
+
1
- + - F
. S
'4 Vl W F'
\
A F - --
4 PLAN SECTION A-A KEY DIAGRAM O TIME DURING MAXIMUM COMPONENT FORCE MAGNITUDE (kips)
DBA EVENT (sec) p p 7 F F F 1 2 3 4 5 6 TO
-171.10 -39.10 63.80 25.70 1.30 -4.70 CONDENSATION OSCILLATION -97.29 -22.23 33.39 14.61 0.61 -2.24 5.0 TO 35.0 35 T .0
-18.53 -4.24 6.78 5.36 0.15 -0.56 ,
- 1. LOADS SHOWN INCLUDE THE EFFECTS OF THE DBA INTERNAL PRESSURES IN FIGURE 3-2.2-3.
- 2. LOADS SHOWN INCLUDE A DLF OP 1.1.
f COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.61 nutggb
l l
Table 3-2.2-4 POOL SWELL IMPACT LOADS FOR VENT LINE AND SPHERICAL JUNCTION p ._ _ _
\ (
\ \
\ \g
\4\ T
-4. =LINE a P' ~
\ 3 g un d
\2 \ \ n Zl
\
1 \ \ \ \ %
\ \
\ /
- _J ,,
/ MAXIMUM POOL tg t,,,
SWELL HEIGHT KEY DIAGRAM PRESSURE TRANSIENT TIME (sec) PRESSURE (psi)
SEGMENT NUMBER IMPACT MAXIMUM POOL IMPACT IMPACT (ty) DURATION (T) HEIGHT (t max DRAG (P d max 1 0.2198 0.1970 0.5210 27.81 5.11 2 0.2707 0.1461 0.5210 22.38 5.60 3 0.3581 0.1108 0.'5210 14.23 5.92 4 0.5130 0.0400 0.5430 10.06 0.00
- 1. SEE FIGURE 3-2.1-8 FOR STRUCTURE GEOMETRY.
- 2. PRESSURES SHOWN ARE APPLIED TO VERTICAL PROJECTED AREAS IN A DIRECTION NORMAL TO VENT LINE AXIS.
l 3. LOADS ARE SYMMETRIC WITH RESPECT TO VERTICAL CENTERLINE OF l VENT LINE.
l l
COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.62 nutggh
i
\ j Table 3-2.2-5 POOL SWELL IMPACT, DRAG, FROTH IMPINGEMENT, AND POOL pt.,LBACK LOADS FOR VACUUM BREAKER SYSTEM
' man a d i
M P
d N IJ
'e
' "i "11 l
P ""*
tg t, fb TIME M
POOL SWELL IMPACT AND DRAG ( ' REGION I TROTH IMPINGEMENT AND III PRESSURE TRANSIENT POOL FALLBACK PRESSURE TRANSIENT VACUUM BREAEER AND NCIILE FROTH (asec, psi) I3) I4I REGION I Pool FALLBACK ITEM SECMENT (1)
NUMBER IMPACT FROTH FALLBACK FALL 3ACK TIME (Tg) PRESSURE (Pg ) TIME (Tit) PRESSURE (P fb I VACUUM 1 0.000 0.62 N/A N/A B
F I 1.E 2 0.000 0.63 0.167 1.28
(% 3 0.080 0.47 0.173 0.069 1.67 1.51 5 R 4 0.080 0.46 5 0.080 0.47 N/A N/A POOL SWELL IMPACT AND DRAG ( I (*
TIME (asec) PRESSURE (psi)
SEGMENT ITEM NUMBER ARRIVAL IMPACT MAXIMUM IMPACT DRAG TIME DURATION POOL HEIGHT (tt) (T) (t ,) ,( P,,,) (PdI VACUUM 1 0.451 0.011 0.521 13.42 2.30 N I Lg 2 0.449 0.012 0.521 13.59 2.33 3 0.432 0.015 0.521 13.69 2.35 4 0.452 0.015 0.521 13.90 2.38 8 R 5 0.461 0.015 0.521 14.11 7.42 (1) SEE FIGURE 3-2.1-8 FOR STRUCTURE GEOMETRY.
(2) PRESSURES SHOWN ARE APPLIED TO VERTICAL PROJECTED AREAS IN THE DIRECTION NORMAL TO THE STRUCTURE.
(3) LOADS ARE SYMMETRIC WITH THE RESPECT TO VERTICAL CENTERLINE OF VENT HEADER.
(4) OPERATING DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE CONDITION.
s COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.63-
Table 3-2.2-6 DOWNCOMER LONGITUDINAL BRACING AND LATERAL BRACING POOL SWELL DRAG AND FALLBACK SUBMERGED STRUCTURE LOAD DISTRIBUTION UP ts P,
U D
$ r TIME (SEC)
P, ______
't at N Tend T,,
OPERATING AP ZERO AP ING MAXIMUM PRESSURE B TIME (sec) MAGNITUDE (psi) TIME (sec) MAGNITUDE (psi)
MEMBER T,,, Tend P, P fb T,,x T end s P fb
@ 0.521 1.341 7.4 5.4 0.577 1.387 5.4 5.3
-@ 0.521 1.341 9.3 5.8 0.577 1.387 6.8 5.7
@ 0.521 1.341 11.0 5.8 0.577 1.387 8.0 5.7
@ 0.521 1.341 9.3 4.5 0.577 1.387 6.8 4.3
@ 0.521 1.341 6.2 3.5 0.577 1.387 4.5 3.5
@ 0.521 1.341 6.2 3.5 0.577 1.387 4.5 3.5 LATERAL 0.521 1.209 N/A 4.9 0.596 1.336 N/A 4.4
""8ER JTIFFENER RINCS 0.521 1.232 N/A 4.5 0.596 1.336 N/A 4.2
- 1. SEE FIGURE 3-2.2-9 FOR BRACING MEMBER DESIGNATION.
- 2. PRESSUPES SHOWN ARE APPLIED TO VERTICAL PROJECTED AREAS IN THE DIRECTION NORMAL TO THE STRUCTURE.
- 3. PRESSURES SHOWN ARE SYMMETRICAL WITH RESPECT TO VERTICAL CENTERLINE OF VENT HEADER.
- 4. AVERAGE PRESSURE ON STIFFENER RING IS USED.
- 5. T end BASED ON M IMUM AT VALUES.
l l
COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.'4 6
nutEh
?
Table 3-2.2-7 SUPPORT COLUMN LOCA WATER JET AND BUBBLE-INDUCED DRAG LOAD DISTRIBUTION E V"
' M OUTSIDE NM g !NSIDE 1 e 1 i G- G--
5 5 SECTION A-A
~
w 20
~Y
- 3
-w 20 21 21 22 22
.g. . .
TT 8 o
V V ELEVATION VIEW = MITERED JOINT LOCAFOR (OPERATING AP) LOCA JET (OPERATING AP)III SECMENT AVERAGE PRESSURE (psi) AVERAGE PRESSURE (psil NMER INSIDE COLUMN OUTSIDE COLUfet INSIDE COLUMN OUTSIDE COLUMN E
x P, P, P, F, P, P, P, 1 0.02 -0.05 0.02 -0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3 2 0.05 -0.14 0.05 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3 0.08 -0.25 0.09 -0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4 0.12 -0.40 0.14 -0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5 0.17 -0.60 0.20 -0.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6 0.24 -0.87 0.26 -0.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7 0.34 -1.20 0.35 -0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.47 -1.60 0.43 -0.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9 0.62 -2.01 0.51 -0.30 1.45 2.38 0.59 0.12 10 0.75 -2.30 0.56 -0.32 1.82 2.93 0.70 0.12 11 0.78 -2.37 0.58 -0.34 1,82 2.81 0.64 0.12 12 0.73 -2.17 0.56 -0.36 0.85 1.47 0.40 0.12 13 0.61 -1.78 0.52 -0.38 0.79 1.22 0.27 0.12 14 0.49 -1.37 0.45 -0.40 0.92 1.45 0.31 0.12 15 0.40 -0.99 0.39 -0.42 0.99 1.67 0.36 0.12 16 0.34 -0.68 0.34 -0.43 0.80 1.58 0.40 0.12 17 0.30 -0.45 0.29 -0.43 0.57 1.31 0.38 0.11 18 0.28 -0.28 0.26 -0.43 0.38 1.01 0.32 0.11 19 0.27 -0.17 0.24 -0.43 0.26 0.74 0.26 0.10 20 0.27 -0.00 0.22 -0.42 0.18 0.54 0.21 0.10 21 0.27 -0.03 0.21 -0.40 0.14 0.38 0.17 0,.09 22 0.26 0.00 0.21 -0.39 0.37 0.86 0.44 0.27 23 0.84 0.05 0.64 -1.20 0.33 0.60 0.36 0.27 24 0.83 0.08 0.62 -1.15 0.30 0.40 0.31 0.29 (1) LOADS SHOWN INCLUDE A DLF OF 2.0.
nU COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.65 nutggb
Table 3-2.2-8 DOWNCOMER LOCA BUBBLE-INDUCED DRAG LOAD DISTRIBUTION in iu tm l I l i P i O .
E i ir -!- ,j i
-i ELEVATION VIEW-DOWNCOMERS tn I tu tm
- 6 *s I d,/ ~.4.. ! E, .. E, l i
/ '..! S O q .,-
.. - - . O .. j i ,
SECTION A-A
( I PRESSURE MAGNITUDE (psi)
ITEM SEGMENT (OPERATING AP)
NUMBER P
x P, 1 0.27 -0.44 2 0.82 -1.34 B
2 2.21 0.72 1 0.48 -0.49 DO E OMER C 2 1.46 -1.62 1 0.31 0.07 2 0.90 0.23 1 0.04 -0.48 2 0.09 -1.44 1 0.02 0.44 F
2 0.05 1.34 (1) LOADS SHOWN INCLUDE A DLF OF 2.0.
COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.66 nutggh
Table 3-2.2-9 DOWNCOMER LONGITUDINAL BRACING AND LATERAL BRACING LOCA BUBBLE - INDUCED DRAG LOAD DISTRIBUTION AVERAGE PRESSURE (psi)( }
ITEM OPERATING AP ZERO AP P P Pg Pg P Pg x y
@3 0.00 3.14 -0.45 0.00 3.95 -0.56 h3) 0.00 6.13 -2.34 0.00 7.72 -2.94 LONGITUDINAL BRACING h3) 0.00 4.81 -3.76 0.00 6.01 -4.70 4 (3) 0.00 4.33 -0.35 0.00 5.46 -0.44 MEMBER 12.59 -1.48 11.13 15.89 -1.86
@ 8.82 10.13 12.25 -1.86 12.77 15.44 -2.34 LATERAL 3) i BRACING 1.56 3.96 0.00 1.97 4.98 0.00 MEMBER STI 21.90 0.00 0.00 27.60 0.00 R NG @ 0.00 (1) SEE FIGURE 3-2.2-9 FOR BRACINGS IDENTIFICATIONS .
(2) LOADS SHOWN INCLUDE A DLF OF 2.0.
(3) AVERACE PRESSURE MAGNITUDES EXCLUDE PRESSUPE OVER END CONNECTIONS.
I
( .
1 O COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.67 nutggh
Table 3-2.2-10 IBA CONDENSATION OSCILLATION DOWNCOMER LOADS I
9l
., A 9 F -
F F us > u ,,. d 7 >
. f ;.+
?.h s UNIFORM PRESSURE DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE DOWNCOMER LOAD AMPLITUDES FREQUENCY INTERVAL (Hz) WIFOM (F u) DIFFERENTIAL (Fd } (2)
PRESSURE RESSURE (psi)
FORCE (lb) FORCE (lb)
(psi) 6.0 - 10.0 1.10 218.00 0.20 40.00 12.0 - 20.0 0.80 159.00 0.20 40.00 18.0 - 30.0 0.20 40.00 0.20 40.00 (1) EFFECTS OF UNIFORM AND DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURES SUMMED TO OBTAIN TOTAL LOAD.
(2) SEE FIGURE 3-2.2-10 FOR DOWNCOMER DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE LOAD DISTRIBUTION.
COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.68 nutgch
\% Table 3-2.2-11 DBA CONDENSATION OSCILLATION DOWNCOMER LOADS t
I 1
'I' N.# y .q
^
+ gg4s )
- .fp -x. ..
- kb [._ s >,
p x . y 4:I y ,
um <-
s u s d w ,,
N s s
^
'NyV >',
by. NBR} ,: y
- Me >
s.
UNIFORM PRESSURE DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE DOWNCOMER LOAD AMPLITUDES FREQUENCY INTERVAL (Hz) UNIFORM (Fu } ( d}(2)
PRESSURE E (psi)
FORCE (lb) .
(psi)
FORCE (lb) 4.0 - 8.0 3.60 714.00 2.85 566.00 8.0 - 16.0 1.30 258.00 2.60 516.00 12.0 - 24.0 0.60 119.00 1.20 238.00 (1) EFFECTS OF UNIFORM AND DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURES SUMMED TO OBTAIN TOTAL LOAD.
(2) SEE FIGURE 3-2. 2-10 FOR DOWNCOMER DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE i
LOAD DISTRIBUTION.
\
'} COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.69 nutggh
Table 3-2.2-12 IBA AND DBA CONDENSATION OSCILLATION VENT SYSTEM INTERNAL PRESSURES i l
COMPONENT LOAD CHARA E STICS IBA DBA IBA DBA !
SINGLE SINGLE SINGLE SINGLE TYPE HARMONIC HARMONIC HARMONIC HARMONIC E
t2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 (psi)
DISTRIBUTION UNIFORM UNIFORM UNIFORM UNIFORM FREQUENCY 6 - 10 4-8 6 - 10 4-8 RANGE (Hz)
- 1. DOWNCOMER CO INTERNAL PRESSURE LOADS ARE INCLUDED IN LOADS SHOWN IN TABLES 3-2.2.10 AND 3-2.2-11.
- 2. LOADS SHOWN ACT IN ADDITION TO VENT SYSTEM INTERNAL PRESSURES IN FIGURES 3-2.2-2 AND 3-2.2-3.
- 3. ADDITIONAL STATIC INTERNAL PRESSURE OF 1.7 PSI APPLIED TO THE ENTIRE VENT SYSTEM TO ACCOUNT FOR NOMINAL SUBMERGENCE OF DOWNCOMERS.
l l
COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.70 nutggb
I 1
l f)
Table 3-2.2-13 SUPPORT COLUMN DBA CONDENSATION OSCILLATION .
I SUBMERGED STRUCTURE LOAD DISTRIBUTION E VH OUTSIDE N N "'C y INSIDE L l L $" *
- P: Pg y SECTION A-A
- 3
~$
2,0,, 2,g, 21 21 22 22 +
,y, .y.
v v ELEVATION VIEW MITERED JOINT AVERAGE PRESSURE (psi)(1) 8,3 g INSIDE COLUMN OUTSIDE COLUMN W 3 X f 1 0.20 0.17 0.20 0.21 2 0.63 0.52 0.58 0.47 l 3 1.10 0.91 0.96 0.65 4 1.66 1.36 1.35 0.78
\ 5 2.31 1.89 1.72 0.86 6 3.00 2.47 2.07 0.90 7 3.67 3.02 2.36 0.93 8 4.13 3.40 2.55 0.93 3 4.23 3.51 2.60 0.92 10 3.96 3.30 2.52 0.92 11 3.41 2.88 2.32 0.94 12 2.77 2.38 2.05 0.96 13 2.18 1.92 1.76 0.98 14 1.69 1.54 1.48 1.00 15 1.30 1.24 1.23 1.01 16 1.01 1.03 1.02 1.02 17 0.79 0.86 0.84 1.02 18 0.63 0.75 0.70 1.02 19 0.51 0.64 0.58 1.01 l 20 0.42 0.61 0.49 1.01 21 0.30 0.56 0.42 1.00 21 0.36 0.53 0.36 1.00 l
l 23 1.06 0.97 0.94 1.76 24 1.03 0.09 0.83 1.73 (1) LOADS SHOWN INCLUDE FSI EFFECTS AND DLF'S,
\
U COM-02-039-3
- l. ' Revision 0 3-2.71 l nutggb
Table 3-2. 2-14 DOWNCOMER LONGITUDINAL BRACING AND LATERAL BRACING DBA CONDENSATION OSCILLATION SUBMERGED STRUCTURE LOAD DISTRIBUTION AVERAGE PRESSURE (psi)( }
ITEM (1) p p x y z g(3) 0.00 1.46 1.30
@(3) 0.00 3.03 1.14 LONGITUDINAL g(3) 0.00 2.48 1.28 BRACING MEMBER @( ) 0.00 4.41 0.56
@ 6.58 10.57 2.41
@ 4.80 6.84 2.40 LATERAL (3)
BRACING 7 2.31 2.19 0.00 MEMBER gf @ 0.00 3.88 0.00 (1) SEE FIGURE 3-2.2-9 FOR BRACING IDENTIFICATIONS.
(2) LOADS SHOWN INCLUDE FSI AND DLF'S.
(3) AVERAGE PRESSURE MAGNITUDES DO NOT INCLUDE PRESSURE OVER END CONNECTIONS.
i I
l COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.72 /
nutgg}]
l l
1 1
Table 3-2.2-15 MAXIMUM DOWNCOMER CHUGGING LOAD DETERMINATION MAXIMUM CHUGGING LOAD FOR SINGLE DOWNCOMER FSTF MAXIMUM LOAD MAGNITUDE: P1 = 3.046 kips TIED DOWNCOMER FREQUENCY: fl = 2.9 Hz PULSE DURATION: td = 0.003 see DYNAMIC LOAD FACTOR: DLF1 = uf ti d = 0.027 QUAD CITIES UNITS 1 AND 2 (DOWNCOMER BRACED LONGITUDINALLY)
DOWNCOMER FREQUENCY: f = 9.277 Hz(1)
DYNAMIC LOAD FACTOR: DLF = vftd = 0.0874 MAXIMUM LOAD MAGNITUDE (IN ANY DIRECTION) :
4 Pmax = P1 ( = 3.046 (0~0 027 ) = 9.86 kips QUAD CITIES UNITS 1 AND 2 (DOWNCOMERS NOT BRACED LONGITUDINALLY)
DOWNCOMER FREQUENCY: f = 9.170(2)
DYNAMIC LOAD FACTOR: DLF = vftd = 0.0864 MAXIMUM LOAD MAGNITUDE (IN ANY DIRECTION) :
4 P,,x = P1 ( (0.09_027 ) = 9.75 kips Ff=3.046 (1) SEE FIGURE 3-2.4-13 FOR FREQUENCY DETERMINATION.
(2) SEE FIGURE 3-2.4 14 FOR FREQUENCY DETERMINATION.
O COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.73 l nutggb
Table 3-2. 2- 16 MULTIPLE DOWNCOMER CHUGGING LOAD MAGNITUDE DETERMINATION ;
l n i eE 15
. m5 m5 l Nw 10 -
58 mN N$ 5-ts U
m
$o 0 , , , ,
$r 0 ~2 0 40 60 80 100 NUMBER OF DOWNCOMERS LOADED CHUGGING LOADS FOR MULTIPLE DOWNCOMERS (kips)( }
NUMBER OF FSTF LOAD DOWNCOMERS PER DOWNCOMER UNITS 1& 2 LOAD PER DOWNCOMER 5 3.05 9.75 10 2.10 6.75 20 1.42 4.54 40 1.00 3.20 60 0.72 2.30 80 0.58 1.86 120 0.54 1.73 (1) BASED ON PROBABILITY OF EXCEEDANCE OF 10-4, IN ACCORDANCE WITH NUREG-0661.
l COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.74 nutggh
l
/ Table 3-2.2-17 CHUGGING LATERAL LOADS FOR '1ULTIPLE DOWNCOMERS -
MAXIMUM OVERALL EFFECTS LOAD NUMBER OF LOAD G)
CASE DOWNCOMERS LOAD DESCRIPTION MAGNITUDE NUMBER LOADED (kips)
ALL DOWNCOMERS, PARALLEL O N-S P W E, SM 1 96 1.80 DIRECTION, MAXIMIZE OVERALL LATERAL LOAD ALL DOWNCOMERS, PARALLEL 96 TO ONE VL, SAME 1.80 2
DIRECTION, MAXIMIZE OVERALL LATERAL LOAD ALL DOWNCOMERS, PARALLEL i 3 96 TO VH, SAME DIRECTION, 1.80 MAXIMIZE VL BENDING l
l \ ALL DOWNCOMERS i
h 4 96 PERPENDICULAR TO VH, SAME DIRECTION, MAXIMIZE 1.80 l VH TORQUE DOWNCOMERS CENTERED ON 5 12 ONE VL, PERPENDICULAR TO VH, OPPOSING DIRECTIONS, 4.16 MAXIMIZE VL BENDING DOWNCOMERS CENTERED ON i
6 12 ONE VL, PERPENDICULAR TO 4.16 VH, SAME DIRECTIONS, MAXIMIZE VL AXIAL LOADS ALL DOWNCOMERS BETWEEN 7 12 TWO VL'S, PERPENDICULAR 4.16 TO VH, SAME DIRECTION, MAXIMIZE VH BENDING NVB DOWNCOMERS NEAR MITER, PARALLEL TO VH, 8-10 4 PERMUTATE DIRECTIONS, 7*40 MAXIMIZE DC BRACING LOADS (1) MAGNITUDES OBTAINED FROM TABLE 3-2.2-16.
[ ,)
s' COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.75 nutggh
Table 3-2.2-18 LOAD REVERSAL HISTOGRAM FOR CHUGGING DOWNCOMER LATERAL LOAD FATIGUE EVALUATION _
N d 6 0 22.5 337.5 315 8 1 45 7 2 292.5 6 3 67.5 o 5 4- o y 270 9 0 -->. E 247.5 3 6 112.5 A A 225 1 8 135 202.5 ,
'80 o 157.5 ELEVATION VIEW SECTION A-A KEY DIAGRAM PE NT CF ANGULAR SECTOR LOAD REVERSALS (cycles)III gg LOAD RANGE (2) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 5 - 10 4706 2573 2839 3076 3168 2673 2563 4629 10 - 15 2696 1206 1100 1104 1096 1052 1163 2545 15 - 20 1399 727 653 572 709 708 679 1278 20 - 25 676 419 452 377 370 398 368 621 25 - 30 380 250 252 225 192 255 197 334 30 - 35 209 187 139 121 97 114 162 208 35 - 40 157 62 94 86 62 60 90 150 40 - 45 113 53 28 39 48 44 58 86 45 - 50 83 33 32 26 IS 23 33 67 50 - 55 65 26 14 11 9 7 16 40 55 - 60 51 26 11 5 11 11 23 28 60 - 65 44 9 2 4 0 5 9 26 65 - 70 32 16 7 5 0 2 9 21 70 - 75 12 9 11 5 0 4 7 19 75 - 80 26 4 2 0 2 4 7 18 80 - 85 7 5 2 0 0 0 0 12 85 - 90 4 11 0 0 0 0 5 11 l 90 - 95 7 4 0 0 2 0 0 9 95 - 100 2 5 0 0 0 2 4 7 (1) VALUES SHOWN ARE FOR CHUGGING CURATION OF 900 SECONDS.
(2) THE MAXIMUM SINGLE DCWNCCMER LOAD MAGNITUDE RANGE USED FOR
~
FATIGUE IS 3.936 X 3.2 = 12.6 KIPS (SEE TABLE 3-2.2-15) .
COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.76 G
nutggh
Table 3-2.2-19 CHUGGING VENT SYSTEM INTERNAL PRESSURES COMPONENT LOAD LOAD TYPE MAGNITUDE (psi)
LOAD
~
NUMBER DESCRIPTION LINE HEADER COMER GROSS VENT TRANSIENT PRESSURE 1 SYSTEM PRESSURE 2.5 12.5 15.0 UNIFORM DISTRIBUTION OSCILLATION ACOUSTIC VENT SINGLE HARMONIC IN 2 SYSTEM PRESSURE 6.9 TO 9.5 Hz RANGE 12.5 13.0 3.5 OSCILLATION UNIFORM DISTRIBUTION ACOUSTIC SINGLE HARMONIC IN 3
DOWCOMER 40.0 TO 50.0 Hz N/A N/A t13.0 PRESSURE RANGE. UNIFORM OSCILLATION DISTRIBUTION
- 4 Y LOADING INFORMATION
- c. 2-
- 1. DOWNCOMER LOADS SHOWN USED FOR HOOP STRESS
@ 0- CALCULATIONS ONLY.
O m 2. LOADS ACT IN ADDITION TO m INTERNAL PRESSURE LOADS
$ SHOWN IN FIGURES 3-2.2-2
& -4 , , , , AND 3-2.2-3.
0 1 2 3 4 l
l TIME (sec) f FORCING FUNCTION FOR LOAD TYPE 1 COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.77 nutggb
Table 3-2.2-20 SUPPORT COLUMN PRE-CHUG SUBMERGED STRUCTURE LOAD DISTRIBUTION E VH OUTSIDE gM 8
% g INSIDE
' P* P*
o n I I GO-y g SECTION A-A
- == -
E ~3 3 21 21 22 22 23 23 Y I W
O O V V ELEVATION VIEW - MITERED JOINT AVERAGE PRESSURE (psi)
SE g INSIDE COLUMN OUTSIDE COLUMN
- x P, P, P, 1 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.04 2 0.05 0.11 0.06 0.09 3 0.08 0.19 0.09 0.13 4 0.13 0.29 0.13 0.15 5 0.18 0.40 0.16 0.17 6 0.25 0.52 0.20 0.17 7 0.32 0.63 0.23 0.17 8 0.37 0.70 0.25 0.17 9 0.38 0.72 0.26 0.18 10 0.35 0.67 0.25 0.18 11 0.31 0.58 0.23 0.18 12 0.26 0.47 0.21 0.18 13 0.22 0.37 0.18 0.19 14 0.19 0.28 0.16 0.19 15 0.16 0.22 0.14 0.19 16 0.15 0.17 0.13 0.18 17 0.14 0.13 0.11 0.17 18 0.13 0.11 0.11 0.17 19 0.12 0,09 0.10 0.16 20 0.12 0.08 0.09 0.16 21 0.11 0.08 0.09 0.15 22 0.11 0.07 0.08 0.15 l 23 0.33 0.11 0.26 0.39 24 3.32 0.11 0.25 0.38 I
COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.78 1
nutggh
Table 3-2.2-21 DOWNCOMER LONGITUDINAL BRACING AND LATERAL BRACING )
PRE-CHUG SUBMERGED STRUCTURE LOAD DISTRIBUTION I
l AVERAGE PRESSURE (psi)
ITEM P P P, z
@ 0.00 0.11 0.05 0.00 0.22 0.04 LONGITUDINAL g(3) 0.00 0.20 0.05 BRACING MEMBER @ 0.00 0.30 0.02
@ 1.25 1.84 0.08
@ 0.82 1.17 0.08 LATERAL BRACING @ 0.20 0.16 0.00 MEMBER 8 0.00 NG @ 0.00 0.35 (1) SEE FIGURE 3-2.2-9 FOR BRACINGS IDENTIFICATIONS.
(2) LOADS SHOWN INCLUDE FSI AND DLF'S.
(3) AVERAGE PRESSURE MAGl..TUDES EXCLUDE THE PRESSURES OVER CONNECTIONS .
1 I
\,
, COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.79 nutggh
Table 3-2.2-22 SUPPORT COLUMN POST-CHUG SUBMERGED STRUCTURE LOAD DISTRIBUTION E V" OUTSIDE N ""C < g INSIDE L l p $" '"
3 3 !' = ,'4-*= P g
4 4 5 y 5 SECTION A-A
$2
N
] -r {f h
23 b
23 v v ELEVATION VIEW - MITERED JOINT AVERAGE PRISSURE (psi)(1) 8E INSICE COLUMN OUTSIDE COLL'MN
,g g x x r 1 0.23 0.17 0.18 0.05 2 0.71 0.51 0.55 0.13 3 1.24 0.88 0.92 0.19 4 1.82 1.30 1.29 0.25 5 2.47 1.77 1.66 0.29 6 3.14 2.27 2.00 0.33 7 3.76 2.72 2.27 0.36 8 4.18 3.03 2.46 0.38 9 4.28 3.11 2.52 0.38 10 4.05 2.94 2.46 0.38 11 3.57 2.59 2.30 0.36 12 2.99 2.17 2.07 0.33 13 2.42 1.76 1.81 0.31 14 1.93 1.41 1.55 0.28 15 1.52 1.12 1.31 0.26 16 1.21 0.90 1.10 0.24 17 0.96 0.73 0.93 0.22 18 0.77 0.60 0.78 0.20 19 0.63 0.50 0.66 0.19 20 0.51 0.43 0.56 0.18 21 0.43 0.37 0.48 0.18 22 0.36 0.32 0.41 0.17 23 0.98 0.83 1.15 0.31 24 0.85 0.74 1.02 0.30 (1) LOADS SHOWN INCLUDE FSI EFFECTS AND DLF'S.
COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.80 nutggb
Table 3-2.2-23 DOWNCOMER LONGITUDINAL BRACING AND LATERAL BRACING POST-CHUG SUBMERGED STRUCTURE LOAD DISTRIBUTION AVERAGE PRESSURE (psi)(
ITEM E z x y
@I ) 0.00 3.52 0.96
@ 0.00 1.09 0.39 LONGITUDINAL @ 0.00 5.96 1.01 BRACING MEMBER @ 0.00 1.81 1.10
@ 1.23 2.08 0.88
@ 1.47 2.09 0.86 LATERAL p BRACING 7 (3) 4.48 2.61 0.00
( MEMBER STIFFENER 0.00 4.01 0.00 RINGS C8 (1) SEE FIGURE 3-2.2-9 FOR BRACINGS IDENTIFICATIONS.
(2) LOADS SHOWN INCLUDE FSI AND DLF'S.
(3) AVERAGE PRESSURE MAGNITUDES EXCLUDE THE PRESSURES OVER CONNECTIONS.
l l
n V COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.81 nutggh
Table 3-2.2-24 SUPPORT COLUMN SRV DISCHARGE SUBMERGED STRUCTURE LOAD DISTRIBUTION
{ VH OUTSIDEN T "C g INSIDE P
1 1 x x
- - o n
- P Pg y SECTION A-A
- == :-
- ==:
5 ~3 5
h23 h23 N ' W O O V V EI.EVATION VIEW - MITERED JOINT T-QUENCHER WATER JET (psi / AI T-QUENCHER BUBBLE DPAG (pst)'U SECMENT INSIDE COLUMN OUTSIDE COLUMN INSIDE COLUMN OUTSIDE COLUMN NUMBER P, Pg P, P, P, P 2 P, P, 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.10 0.29 0.10 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.86 0.28 0.86 0.28 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.01 0.34 1.01 0.34 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.13 0.39 1.13 0.39 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.23 0.43 1.23 0.43 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.37 0.49 1.37 0.49 7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.56 0.56 1.56 0.56 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.67 0.60 1.67 0.60 9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.58 0.57 1.58 0.57 10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.67 0.61 1.67 0.61 11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.01 0.73 2.01 0.73 12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.27 0.82 2.27 0.82 13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.42 0.87 2.42 0.87 14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.76 1.00 2.76 1.00 15 0.00 0.00 0.00' O.00 3.26 1.18 3.26 1.18 16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.70 1.33 3.70 1.33 17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.03 1.45 4.03 1.45-18 -2.42 12.18 2.42 -12.18 4.52 1.64 4.52 1.64 19 -2.95 14.82 2.95 -14.82 5.62 2.03 5.62 2.03 20 -2.95 14.82 2.95 -14.82 6.66 2.40 6.66 2.40 21 -2.95 14.82 2.95 -14.82 6.56 2.38 6.56 2.38 22 -2.95 14.82 2.95 -14.82 5.03 1.88 5.03 1.88 23 -2.95 14.82 2.95 -14.82 6.41 2.64 6.41 2.64 24 -2.37 11.93 2.37 -11.93 9.85 4.35 9.85 4.35 (1) LOADS SHOWN INCLUDE DLF OF 2.0 FOR WATER JET LOADS AND 2.5 FOR DRAG LOADS.
COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.82 nutp_qh l
l
l l
Table 3-2.2-25 DOWNCOMER T-QUENCHER BUBBLE DRAG SUBMERGED STRUCTURE LOAD DISTRIBUTION
- t. vs s u i. m l .
- ra i ra ,
a i
- -1 _ i _ a, g :i j; 2. ; _ ;
ELEVATION VIEW-DOWNCOMERS i vs j tu tm
. , 4 *: l .
~k 4.. ! d),- .. d),-.. [i
,/ T7 4 ,. 4 _ ,. ,_ . _ . , ,'_ _ l. _
/
! O '- .. O .. j l .
SECTION A-A PRESSURE MAGNITUDE (psi)( I g;g3 SEGMENT NUMBER x z 1 1.62 -0.82 2 3.76 -2.13 1 1.62 0.82 2 3.76 2.13 1 -0.43 -0.48 DOWNCOMER C _
D 2 -3.21 0.63 1 -0.47 -0.05 2 -1.57 -0.14 1 -0.47 0.05 2 -1.57 0.14 (1) LOADS IN X AND Z DIRECTIONS INCLUDE DLF'S OF 2.5.
O COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.83 nutg,gh
TaDie 3-2.2-26 DOWNCCMER LONGITUDINAL BRACING AND LATERAL BRACING !
T-QUENCHER BUBBLE DRAG SUBMERGED STRUCTURE LOAD DISTRIBUTION 1
l AVERAGE PRESSURE (psi)I I ITEM i P P P x g
@ 0.00 0.71 0.32
@ 0.00 0.49 0.00 LONGITUDINAL @ 0.00 0.41 0.00 BRACING MEMBER @ 0.00 0.50 0.00
@ 1.27 1.78 0.00
@ 1.24 1.77 0.00 LATERAL BRACING MEMBER
@ 2.31 2.27 0.00 STIFFENER 0.00 C8 1.54 0.00 RINGS (1) SEE FIGURE 3-2.2-9 FOR BRACINGS IDENTIFICATIONS.
(2) LOADS SHOWN INCLUDE A DLF OF 2.5.
l COM-02-039-3 l Revision 0
~
3-2.84 nut.e_qh
i
(
V P, = 1.0 psi 40 DRYWELL/ VENT SYSTEM ABSOLUTE PRESSURE 3
S
@ 20 -
8 h, VENT SYSTEM /
a, SUPPRESSION 10 - CHAMBER DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE 0 , , ,
1.0 10 100 1000 10,000 TIME (sec)
(
'l TIME (sec) PRESSURE (psig)
EVENT PRESSURE DESCRIPTION DESIGNATION D min max P
min 0 min max AP,,x INSTANT OF BREAK TO ONSET OF P 1 0.0 300.0 1.0 1.0 13.3 2.0 CO AND CHUGGING ONSET OF CO AND CHUGGING TO P 2 300.0 600.0 13.0 2.0 23.3 2.0 t INITIATION OF ADS 1
!' INITIATION OF ADS TO RPV P 3
600.0 1200.0 23.3 2.0 28.0 1.6 DEPRESSURIZATION Figure 3-2.2-1 VENT SYSTEM INTERNAL PRESSURES FOR SBA EVENT I[
\ /
t U COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.85 nutggh
P .= 1.8 psi l
l 40 DRYWELL/ VENT SYSTEM 30 - ABSOLUTE PRESSURE
?
I g 20 -
E D
I 10 -
VENT SYSTEM / SUPPRESSION CHAMBER DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE O , , ,
1.0 10 100 1000 10,000 TIME (sec)
" P*
O EVENT PRESSURE DESCRIPTION DESIGNATION t . t AP P AP P min max min min max max INSTANT OF BREAK TO ONSET OF P 0.0 5.0 1.8 1.8 4.2 1.5 1
CO AND CHUGGING ONSET OF CO AND CHUGGING TO P 5.0 900.0 4.2 1.5 28.0 2.0 2
INITIATION OF ADS INITIATION OF ADS TO RPV P 3
900.0 1100.0 28.0 2.0 36.0 2.2 DEPRESSURIZATION i
l Figure 3-2.2-2 i
l VENT SYSTEM INTERNAL PRESSURES FOR IBA EVENT l
l l COM-02-039-3 l l
Revision 0 3-2.86 l nutec!h
o
( P = 0.0 psi o
40 -
DRYWELL/ VENT SYSTEM ABSOLUTE PRESSURE 3 A UI
~
$ VENT SYSTEM / SUPPRESSION
$ CHAMBER DIFFERENTIAL g PRESSURE O, , , ,
0 10 20 30 40 b TIME (sec) p gg TIME (sec) PRESSURE (psig)
DESCRIPTION DESIGNATION min max P ain AP min P,,, AP,,,
INSTANT OF BREAK TO TERMINATION OF Pg 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 37.0 27.0 POOL SWELL TEPJ4INATION OF POOL SWELL TO P 2 1.5 5.0 37.0 27.0 35.0 16.0 ONSET OF CO ONSET OF CO TO ONSET OF CHUGGING 3 5.0 35.0 35.0 16.0 29.8 1.6 ONSET OF CHUGGING TO RPV P 35.0 65.0 29.8 1.6 29.8 1.6 4
DEPRESSURIZ ATION
- 1. DBA VENT SYSTEM INTERNAL PRESSURE LOADS ARE INCLUDED IN VENT SYSTEM PRESSURIZATION AND THRUST LOADS SHOWN IN TABLE 3-2.2-3.
. Figure 3-2.2-3 VENT SYSTEM INTERNAL PRESSURES FOR DBA EVENT f
(./ COM-02-039-3 I Revision 0 3-2.87 l
nutggb
T = 70 F 400 DRYWELL/ VENT SYSTEM COMPONENT TEMPERATURE (T C e
5 200 -
2 VENT SYSTEM EXTERNAL w
C. COMPONENT TEMPERATURE (T )
100 - _
0 , , ,
1.0 10 100 1000 10,000 TIME (sec)
- 1. SEE FIGURE 3-2.2-1 FOR ADDITIONAL SBA EVENT TEMPERATURES.
EVENT TEMPERATURE DESCRIPTION DESIGNATION t T min max C E min min max max INSTANT OF BREAK TO ONSET OF CO T1 1.0 300.0 273.0 90.0 273.0 103.0 AND Cl!UGGING ONSET OF CO AND T2 CHUGGUNG TO 300.0 600.0 273.0 100.0 273.0 108.0 INITIATION OF ADS INITIATION OF ADS TO RPV T 600.0 1200.0 273.0 108.0 273.0 134.0 3
DEPRESSURIZATION Figure 3-2.2-4 VENT SYSTEM TEMPERATURES FOR SBA EVENT COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.88 nutggh
T = 70 F o
400 DRYWELL/ VENT SYSTEM COMPONENT TEMPERATURE (TC)
- 300 -
0 W
$ 200 -
$ VENT SYSTEM EXTERNAL
@ COMPONENT TEMPERATURE (T E
- c r4
- 100 -
0 , , ,
1.0 10 100 1000 10,000
( TIME (sec)
TIME (sec) TEMPERATURE ( F)
DESCRIPTION DESIGNATION t TC T ain max ain E
min max E,,x INSTANT OF BREAK TO ONSET OF CO T 1.0 5.0 210.0 95.0 220.0 95.0 i
AND CHUGGING ONSET OF CO AND T
CHUGGUNG TO 2 5.0 900.0 220.0 95.0 271.0 130.0 INITIATION OF ADS INITIATION OF ADS TO RPV T 900.0 1100.0 271.0 130.0 283.0 164.0 3
DEPRESSURIZATION l Figure 3-2.2-5 VENT SYSTEM TEMPERATURES FOR IBA EVENT U
)
COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.89 nutggh
1 T = 70 F DRYWELL/ VENT SYSTEM 300- (T C
[ COMPONENT TEMPERATURE E
O S
E ca 150- VENT SYSTEM EXTERNAL
$ COMPONENT TEMPERATURE (T )
s 0 , , ,
0 10 20 30 40 TIME (sec)
EVENT TEMPERATURE DESCRIPTION DESIGNATION tg T T t C mh E mh C,,, E,,g INSTANT OF BREAK TO TERMINATION OF T 1 0.0 1.5 135.0 83.0 270.0 85.5 POOL SWELL TERMINATION OF POOL SWELL TO T 1.5 270.0 277.0 2 5.0 85.5 90.0 ONSET OF CO ONSET OF CO TO T ONSET OF CHUGGING 3 5.0 35.0 277.0 90.0 275.0 120.0 ONSET OF CHUGGING TO RPV T 35.0 65.0 275.0 120.0 275.0 120.0 4
DEPRESSURIZATION Figure 3-2.2-6 VENT SYSTEM TEMPERATURES FOR DBA EVENT COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.90 nutggb 1
f N
+ u +
1 4 P 1
A A g 50 P '
max SECTION A-A s
ELEVATION VIEW PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION h 8.0 ,_
3 (Pmax)
E 8
8 s
0.240 0.522 TIME (sec)
PRESSURE TRANSIENT
- 1. PRESSURES SHOWN ARE APPLIED IN A DIRECTION NORMAL TO DOWNCOMER'S SURFACE.
Figure 3-2.2-7 DOWNCOMER POOL SWELL IMPACT LOADS COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.91 nutp_qh
I 1
Q VB q NVB O
I I L
N n n d, W W 3 h
t F(t)
DEFLECTOR '=- =~
Z 0.0 0$5 1.0 SECTION DEVELOPED VIEW KEY DIAGRAM 4800 4000-3100- z/L 0,0 O
R 2400-0 g Z/L = 0.5
" 1600- ,
/
),/
800-l 0 , , , , ,
320 360 400 440 480 520 560 TIME (msec)
- 1. LOADS AT DISCPITE LOCATIONS ALONG DEFLECTOR OBTAINED BY LINEAR INTERPOLATION.
- Figure 3-2.2-8 POOL SWELL IMPACT LOADS FOR VENT HEADER DEFLECTORS AT SELECTED LOCATIONS COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.92 nutggh 1
P
( VENT BAY LINE
/
~
(MITER g JOINT y 4-g z, ,
, +___4 _
PLAN VIEW
^ l s.
]
V Y' '
h6 O O O l L _M G G
@.'_ y
_& -p
' 'B r' d '
l%
SECTION B-B O DESIGNATES BRACING MEMBER NUMBER (TYPICAL AT<
ALL DOWNCOMERS)
Figure 3-2.2-9 DOWNCOMER LONGITUDINAL BRACING AND LATERAL BRACING n\' COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.93 nutggh
( VL (i VL NW i
o s
\
\('NW o s \ (s !
1 \
l . ,
<n '
< n
\
J u J u y
CASE 1 CASE 2
( VL (i VL i Q (NW
\ ' NW
m a \
, .n . n '
\ s --
su g su \r
\ t CASE 3 CASE 4
- 1. SEE TABLE 3-2.2-10 FOR IBA PRESSURE AMPLITUDES AND FREQUENCIES.
- 2. SEE TABLE 3-2.2-11 FOR DBA PRESSURE AMPLITUDES AND FREQUENCIES.
- 3. FOUR ADDITIONAL CASES WITH PRESSURES IN DOWNCOMERS
, OPPOSITE THOSE SHOWN ARE ALSO CONSIDERED.
l l
l Figure 3-2.2-10 IBA AND DBA CONDENSATION OSCILLATION DOWNCOMER DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE LOAD DISTRIBUTION COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.94 nutggb
TO q DRYWELL t *
\\ /\ E i
ds g \
f s E.'\ F I 'N l E
% ~. \
'a. j t A s.
/
I
% \
\ \ \
\' ,
g b -
s\
KEY DIAGRAM NORMALIZED POOL ACCELERATIONS n PROFILE POOL ACCELERATION (ft/sec2 )
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 FIGURE 2-2.2-10 AT A SUPPRESSION CHAMBER FREQUENCY OF
- 17. 00 HERTZ .
Figure 3-2.2-11 POOL ACCELERATION PROFILE FOR DOMINANT SUPPRESSION CHAMBER FREQUENCY AT MIDBAY LOCATION COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.95 nutggh
3-2.2.2 Load Combinations The load categories and associated load cases for which the vent system is evaluated are presented in Section 3-2.2.1. The general NUREG-0661 criteria for grouping the respective loads and load categories into event combinations are discussed in Section 1-3.2 (Table 3-2.2-27).
The 27 general event combinations shown are expanded to form a total of 69 specific vent system load combina-tions for the Normal Operating, SBA, IBA, and DBA events. The specific load combinations reflect a greater level of detail than is contained in the general event combinations, including distinction between SBA and IBA, distinction between pre-chug and post-chug, and consideration of multiple cases of particular loadings. The total number of vent system load combinations consists of 3 for the Normal Operating event, 18 for the SBA event, 24 for the IBA event, and 24 for the DBA event. Several different service level limits and corresponding sets of allowable stresses are associated with these load combinations.
COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.96 nutggh
_O Not all of the possible vent system load combinations are evaluated since many are enveloped by others and do not lead to controlling vent system stresses. The enveloping load combinations are determined by examin-ing the possible vent system load combinations and comparing the respective load cases and allowable stresses. Table 3-2.2-28 shows the results of this examination. For ease of identification, each enveloping load combination is assigned a number in i
this table. l The enveloping load combinations are further reduced by examining relative load magnitudes and individual load characteristics to determine which load combinations
\
lead to controlling vent system stresses.
The load combinations which have been found to produce control-ling vent system stresses are separated into two groups. The SBA II, IBA I, DBA I, DBA II, and DBA III combinations are used to evaluate stresses.in all vent system components except those associated with the vent line-SRV piping penetrations. An explanation of the logic behind these controlling vent system load comainations is presented in the following paragraphs.
Table 3-2.2-29 summarizes the controlling load combina-tions. and identifies which load combinations are envaloped by each of the controlling combinations.
L l
J COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.97 nutggh
Many of the general event combinations (Table 3-2.2-27) have the same allowable stresses and are enveloped by others which contain the same or additional load cases.
There is no distinction between Service Level A and B conditions for the vent system since the Service Level A and B allowable stress values 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, while the other contains SSE loads with Service Level C allowables.
Examination of the load magnitudes presented in Section 3-2.2.1 shows that both the OBE and SSE vertical accel-erations are small compared to gravity. As a result, vent system stresses and support column reactions due to vertical seismic loads are small compared to those caused by other loads in the load combination. The horizontal loads for OBE and SSE are 60% of gravity and result in small vent system stresses compared to those caused by other loads in the load combinations, except at the vent line-drywell penetrations which provide l horizontal support for the vent system. The Service
! Level primary C stress allowables for the load combinations containing SSE loads are 40% to 80% higher COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.98 nutggh
l than the service Level B allowables for the correspond-ing load combination containing OBE loads. Therefore, for evaluation of all vent system components except the vent line-drywell penetration, the controlling load combinations are those containing OBE loads and Service Level B allowables.
For the vent line-drywell penetration, evaluation of both OBE and SSE combinations is necessary since seismic loads are a large contributor to the total lateral load acting on the vent system for which the penetrations provide support.
Application of the above reasoning to the total number O' of vent system load combinations yields a reduced number of enveloping load combinations for each event.
Table 3-2.2-28 shows the resulting vent system load combinations for the Normal Operating, SBA, IBA and DBA events, along with the associated service level assign-ments. For ease of identification, each load combina-tion in each event is assigned a number. The reduced number of enveloping load combinations (Table 3-2.2-28) consists of one for the Normal Operating event, four for the SBA event, five for the the IBA event, and six for the DBA event. The load case designations for the i
O
\
'~
COM-02-039-3 I
Revision 0 3-2.99 nutggh
1 loads which make up the combinations are the same as l
those presented in Section 3-2.2.1.
An examination of Table 3-2.2-28 shows that further reductions are possible in the number of vent system load combinations requiring evaluation. Any of the SBA or IBA combinations envelop the NOC I combination since they contain the same loadings as the NOC I combination and, in addition, contain CO or chugging loads. The NOC I combination does, however, result in local thermal effects in the vent line-SRV piping penetration when the penetration assembly is cold and the corresponding SRV piping is hot (during a SRV dis-charge). The SBA and IBA combirsations , therefore, envelop the NOC I combination for all vent system components except the vent line-SRV piping penetration.
The effects of the NOC I combination are also con-sidered in the vent system fatigue evaluation.
The SBA II combination is the same as the IBA III combination, except for negligible differences in internal pressure loads. Thus, IBA III can be eliminated from consideration. The SBA II combination envelops the SBA I and IBA II combinations since the I loads on submerged structures due to post-chug are more COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.100 ,
1 nutpsh l
severe than those due to pre-chug. It also follows,
- d
/
from the reasoning presented earlier for OBE and SSE loads, that the SBA II combination envelops the SBA III, SBA IV, IBA IV, and IBA V combinations, except when the effects of lateral loads on the vent line-drywell penetration are evaluated. Similarly, the SBA II combination envelops the DBA V and DBA VI combina-tions; these combinations, however, contain vent system discharge loads which are somewhat larger than the pressure loads for the SBA II combination. This effect is accounted for by substituting the vent system discharge loads which occur during the chugging phase of a DBA event for the SBA II pressure loads when-evaluating this load combination.
O Examination of Table 3-2.2-28 shows that the load combinations which result in maximum lateral loads on the vent line-drywell penetration are SBA IV, IBA V, and DBA VI. All of these contain SSE loads and chugging downcomer lateral loads which, when combined, result in the maximum possible lateral load on the vent
- system. As previously discussed, the SBA II combina-tion envelops the above combinations, except for seismic loads. The effects of seismic loads are accounted for by substituting SSE loads for OBE loads when evaluating the SBA II combination.
4 l\j' COM-02-039-3
- Revision 0 3-2.101' l
nutg_qh a,,,s ,e ,, ,,,-,-a-n - ,---m- ,e-r ,e- , , - - , e -,
t The DBi I combination is evaluated based on normal ,
operation, drywell-to-wetwell pressure differential conditions, with Service Level B limits assigned.
However, the effect of the loss of this differential pressure in the DBA I combination (with Service Level D limits), was also investigated and found not to be as critical as in the operating pressure differential condition.
The DBA II combination envelops the DBA IV combination since the SRV discharge loads which occur late in the DBA event have a negligible ef fect on the vent system.
The DBA II combination also has more restrictive allow-ables than the DBA IV combination.
O The controlling vent system load combinations evaluated in the remaining sections can now be summarized. The SBA II, IBA I, DBA I, DBA II, and DBA III combinations are evaluated for all vent system compononts except those associated with the vent line-SRV piping penetra-tion, which are evaluated in Volume 5 of this report.
As previously noted, SSE loads and the vent system discharge loads which occur during the chugging phase of the DBA event are conservatively substituted for OBE loads and the SBA pressure loads when evaluating the SBA II load combination.
COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.102 nutggh
~^
To ensure that fatigue is not a concern for the vent system over the life of the plant, the combined effects of fatigue due to Normal Operating plus SBA events and Normal Operating plus IBA events are evaluated.
Figures 3-2.2-12, 3-2.2-13 and 3-2.2-14 show the rela-tive sequencing and timing of each loading in the SBA, IBA, and DBA events used in this evaluation. The fatigue effecta for Normal Operating plus DBA events are enveloped by the Normal Operating plus SBA or IBA events since the combined effects of SRV discharge loads and other loads for the SBA and IBA events are more severe than those for DBA. Table 3-2.2-28 summar-izes additional information used in the vent system fatigue evaluation.
O The load combinations and event sequencing described in the preceding paragraphs envelop those which could actually occur during a LOCA or SRV discharge event.
An evaluation of these load combinations results in a conservative estimate of the vent system response and leads to bounding values of vent system stresses and fatigue effects.
m
\-
(O COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.103 nutggb
@Q
<: 3:
Table 3-2.2-27 P- 8 cn o MARK I CONTAINMENT EVENT COMBINATIONS (1) e- w 0 8 Do w
oW saa ssA + EO SBASSpV SBA + sRV + EQ EVENT COMBINATIONS SRV to m- co, en m- co, cu ,P,8, CO- es co,en es ,C -
rs Co. en TTem or zAmTuouAs o e o a o s o s o e o s o e o s o s COMBfMATION NUMBER I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 le 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 le 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 uonnAi. u a x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x zAnTuouAxe zo x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x SRV OISCHARcE SRV x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x IDCA THERMAL TA x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x ux A meAcTrons mA x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x soAos As s^z*" PA x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x lACA POOL SWELL Pyg a x x x x x w
8 oT^iC"%'^"" rco x x x x x x = x x x x
x N tocA cnuccluc PcH x x x x x x x x x x x x o, (1),. SEE SECTION 1-3.2 FOR ADDITIONAL EVENT COMBINATION INFORMATION.
(2) WITH THE LOSS OF NORMAL OPERATING DRYWELL/WETWELL PRESSURE DIFFERENTIAL, LEVEL D SERVICE LIMITS ARE ASSIGNED.
3 C,
e e e
O O O
$0 Table 3-2.2-:20
< 3:
P- a mO CONTROLLING VENT SYSTEM LOAD COMBINATIONS H E4 0 8 DO w
O@
l CONDITION / EVENT NOC SaA IBA DBA W
SECTION .
VOt.uME 3 InAD
- t -e 2? , rr -+ . ! * --
3-2.2.1 I tv v '
Iv v vI IDAD COMBINATION NUMBER f. I f, .!! < g III Iv 3 II III 7 I ,' ,' I I , ' III .s DESIGNATION _4 r b t
'Y4' 0.'1g.'c86
'
- I
'*SfiATii' Nuns # . ; 2f _ " 85 is
- 96. " " '5 55 f** \ 2' 22 2' C r. v 9 56.'Yi n DEAD NEIGNT r ga
[ $8 oE l2.s /99 (s.',- -
- 2. ;s. i.:
SEISMIC ,, , ,
~
, 26 Rb ;q' 2b 2b , j }\p ; - 2b PRESSURE 8I 2. P N P
2' 3 f3IEJ' P2*P3 P2.Pg ,Pj,fy P y.P 3 P g.P3 P2.P3 P 2*P3 + \E 4 'I hI i'[4 P 3 P4 P4 W I I' T*f3 2* T y.73 Jg 3 T 3.73 7,.73 T 2.T3 T 2.73 , tg g?} }tg ;- 93 y, y, TEMPERATURE 'T 2' 3 3 3 a
48 ' . -- 4a VENT SYSTEM DISCNARGE Sj Fe Sa-9f > -
Saf$t o POOL SNEt.a. >. s un * *
- CONDENSATION OSCII.LATION r
++
f8 $ ,
PRE-CNUG , 7a-?c gg 7a-7c '* A] 7a 7c 7a-7c i'i 1a-7c
~
CNUCCING 7a.7b
,s fe,7D 7a.7b ' igg. 74,7b 7a.7b >
POST-CNUG h " 7d : 7d
- %'o 7d 7d 14 SRV DISCNARGE $.Sb,; - Ob e( ., l ghs 1 gb l5I Sb Bb PIPING REACTIONS 9a ' 9a 4 ..
CONTAINMENT INTERACTION ;304 ; & lea SERV CE t. eve:. Fe[ s ' s5 C C j;a k . . C C e ty,73 ;egt[ C1 C C C
^
NUMBER OF EVENT OCCURENCESUI [1$e' I - 3 NUMBER OF SRV ACTUATIONS 'I I , 550 50 ,
50 ;. 25 = 25 .'s 'o '.l': = a C
n J
n -, ; ; - ~ ';w :, ..; , , .m . - -
- - .. , ; . ,e ., ;. . .; - . - - - , c. . - , , , . _
- ~' .. *y
- ," s .. ,
- O - ,; #-. r i.p.
i '}
[. . f*}'
- f,
'gA '
.' A ; ] MM , 2 F5
,-_ . ,3
g@ NOTES TO TABLE 3-2.2-28
b (2) THE RANGE OF NORMAL OPERATING INTERNAL PRESSURES IS -0.2 TO 1.0 PSI AS SPECIFIED BY THE FSAR.
(3) SEE FIGURES 3-2.2-4 THROUGH 3-2,2-6 FOR SBA, IBA, AND DBA TEMPERATURE VALUES.
(4) THE RANGE OF NORMAL OPERATING TEMPERATURES IS 70.0 TO 163.0 F AS SPECIFIED BY THE FSAR. SEE TABLE 3-2.2-2 FOR ADDITIONAL NORMAL OPERATING TEMPERATURES.
(5) THE SRV DISCHARGE LOADS WHICH OCCUR DURING THIS PHASE OF THE DBA EVENT HAVE A NEGLIGIBLE EFFECT ON THE VENT SYSTEM.
(6) EVALUATION OF PRIMARY-PLUS-SECONDARY STRESS RANGE OR FATIGUE IS NOT REQUIRED; SHELL STRESSES DUE TO THE LOCAL POOL SWELL IMPINGEMENT PRESSURES DO NOT EXCEED w SERVICE LEVEL C LIMITS.
." (7) THE ALLOWABLE STRESS VALUE FOR LOCAL PRIMARY MEMBRANE STRESS AT PENETRATIONS g IS INCREASED BY 1.3.
- CHE NUMBER OF SEISMIC LOAD CYCLES USED FOR FLTIGUE IS 1,000.
(8)
(9) THE VALUES SHOWN ARE CONSERVATIVE ESTIMATES OF THE NUMBER OF ACTUATIONS EXPECTED FOR A BWR 3 PLANT WITH A REACTOR SIZE OF 251.
3 C.
co e o e
O
^
N EO
< 3:
Table 3-2.2-29 P- a 10 o ENVELOPING LOGIC FOR CONTROLLING Y- N Oo w VENT SYSTEM LOAD COMBINATIONS oe I
w CONDITION / EVENT NOC SBA IBA DBA TABLE 3-2.2.24 ENVELOPING 2 14 14 15 15 14 14 14 15 15 18 20 25 27 27 27 IAAD CONBINATIONS
,AB,.E 2 , 2 24 ,,AD 4-.. 4-.. 3.2 3.2 4-.. 4-.. 4-.. 2.2 3.2 1,. n. u. n.
COMBINAT ONS ENVELOPED 10-12 10-12 13' 13' 10-12 10-12 1C .12 13' 13' 24' 2.' ' 2.' 2.'
ATION I I II III IV I II III IY Y I II III IY Y YI CONBI T SBA II III X X X X X X X X X X IBA I X w CONTROLLING SYSTEN CONS TIONS D EVALUATED SUPPORTS o DBA II X
-J DBA III
- 1. SSE LOADS AND DBA PRESSURIIATION AND THRUST IDADS ARE SUBSTITtffED FOR OBE IDADS AND SBA II INTERNAL PRESSURE LOADS WHEN EVALUATING THE SBA II IAAD CONBINATION.
2 C
O (la) DEAD WEIGHT LOADS.
5 (2a,2b) SEISMIC LOADS
- C S
(3b,3d) CONTAINMENT PRESSURE AND TEMPERATURE LOADS O
S y (7a-7d) CHUGdING LOADS A
N !
A (8a} SRV DISCHARGE LOADS 8 (8a) SRV DISCHARGE LOADS z (SET POINT ACTUATION)! (ADS ACTUATION)
O I i t l l m
(9a) PIPING REACTIONS LOADS I i l l (10a) CONTAINMENT INTERACTION LOADS i l 0 300 600 1200 TIME AFTER LOCA (sec)
Figure 3-2.2-12 VENT SYSTEM SBA EVENT SEQUENCE COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.108 nutp_qh
(la) DEAD WEIGHT LOADS
$ (2a,2b) SEISMIC LOADS E
s S
(3b,3d) CONTAINMENT PRESSURE AND TEMPERATURE LOADS h
S O
(6a,6c,6e) CONDENSATION l (7a-7d) CHUGGING LOADS
, OSCILLATION LOADS:
N 4 l l (8b) SRV DISCHARGE LOADS l (8b) SRV DISCHARGE LOADS
$ (SET POINT ACTUATION) (ADS ACTUATION) b i 1 g i I (9a) PIPING REACTION LOADS l l 1 I (10a) CONTAINMENT INTERACTION LOADS I I I
I I i 0 5 900 1100 TIME AFTER LOCA (sec)
Figure 3-2.2-13 VENT SYSTEM IBA EVENT SEQUENCE COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.109 nutggh
l O'
(la) DEAD WEIGHT LOADS (2a,2b) SEISMIC LOADS g (4a) VENT SYSTEM DISCHARGE LOADS E
s S (3d) CONTAINMENT TEMPERATURE LOADS E
o a ( sa-s f) POOL y SWELL LOADS a , ,
8 c4 l 4 l I (6b,6d,6f) CO LOADS i l l ,
l ! 1 (7a-7d)
@ l 1 8
CHUGGING LOADS
- i i e, i g I
$ DISCHARGE LOADS SEE NOTE 1 i , e (9a) PIPING REACTION LOADS l l ! l (10a) CONTAINMENT INTERACTION LOADS l l l 0.1 1.s s.0 3s.0 65.0 TIME AFTER LOCA (sec)
Figure 3-2.2-14 VENT SYSTEM DBA EVENT SEQUENC_E COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.110 nutggh
/^\ 3-2.3 Acceptance Criteria l
The NUREG-0661 acceptance criteria on which the Quad Cities 1 and 2 vent system analysis is based are discussed in Section 1-3.2. In general, the acceptance criteria follow the rules contained in the ASME Code, Section III, Division 1, including the Summer 1977 Addenda for Class MC components and component supports (Reference 6). The corresponding service limit assign-ments, jurisdictional boundaries, allowable stresses, and fatigue requirements are consistent with those con-tained in the applicable subsections of the ASME Code and the PUAAG. The following paragraphs summarize the acceptance criteria used in the analysis of the vent system.
The items evaluated in the analysis of the vent system are the vent lines, the spherical junction, the vent header, the downcomers, the downcomer ring plates, the support columns and associated support elements, the drywell shell near the vent line penetrations, the vent header deflectors, the downcomer-vent header intersec-tion stiffener plates, the downcomer bracing systems, the vacuum breaker nozzles, the vent header support l collar, and the vent line bellows assemblies. Figures l
l m
1 ky COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.111 nutpsb
1 l
r 3-2.1-1 through 3-2.1-16 identify the specific l
components associated with each of these items.
The vent lines, the vent line-vent header spherical junctions, the vent header, the downcomers, the drywell shell, the downcomer-vent header intersection stiffener plates, the downcomer ring plates, the vacuum breaker nozzles, and the vent header support collars are evaluated in accordance with the requirements for Class MC components contained in Subsection NE of the ASME Code. Fillet welds and partial penetration welds joining these components or attaching other structures to them are also examined in accordance with the requirements for Class MC welds contained in Sub-section NE of the ASME Code.
The support columns, the downcomer bracing members, and the associated connecting elements and welds are evaluated in accordance with the requirements contained in Subsection NF of the ASME Code for Class MC component supports. The vent header deflectors and associated components and welds are also evaluated in accordance with the requirements for Class MC component supports, with allowable stresses corresponding to l
l Service Level D limits.
COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.112 nutggh
O The NOC I, SBA II, IBA I, DBA I, and DBA II combina-t tions all have Service Level B limits, while the DBA III combination has Service Level C limits (Table 3-2.2-28). Since these load combinations have somewhat different maximum temperatures, the allowable stresses for the two load combination groups with Service Level B and C limits are conservatively determined at the highest temperature for each load combination group.
The allowable stresses for all the major components of the vent sys: tm , such as the vent line, the spherical junction, the vent header and the downcomers, are determined at the maximum DBA temperature of 284*F.
d Table 3-2.3-1 shows the allowable stresses for the load combinations with Service Level B and C limits.
Table 3-2,3-2 shows the allowable displacements and associated number of cycles for the vent line bellows. These values are taken from the design specification, as permitted by NUREG-0661, in cases where the analysis technique used in the evaluation is the same as that contained in the plant's design specification.
1 COM-02-039-3
- Revision 0 3-2.113 nutggh
l The acceptance criteria described in the preceding paragraphs result in conservative estimates of the existing margins of safety and assure that the original vent system F.esign margins are restored.
O COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.114 nutgch l
' Table 3-2.3-1 ALLOWABLE STRESSES FOR VENT SYSTEM
- COMPONENTS AND COMPONENT SUPPORTS i
gygagag,(1) mmme STMSS (kei) 3 IIEE88 IEATERIAL PROPERf!ES ITEM TT'E SERVICE (2) SERVICE I33 (ksi)
ERVEL S LEVEL C
- as = 19.30 LOCAL PRMAN 28.95 50.81 DetrutLL SA-516 SEELL GRADE 70 ea l = 22.61 ygggggy ,(4)
SECONDARr 47.83 N/A s = 33.87 Y STRESS RAucs PRIMARY 19.30 23.87
- mMeaAus s ,, = 19.30
'8"A" 28.95 30.81 VENT SA-516 38CA3'88AEE E8 LIM GaADE 70 e"1 = 22.61 a = 33.87 PRIMARE *(43 Y servuma ne . 47.83 N/A STERSS BANGE PRIMARI ** 8 33*87 i eas= 19.30 VEurt LIER / """
VEur mEADER SA-516 28.95 50.81 GaADE 70 *al = 22.61 MM' ' RAM SPEERICAL JUNCTION s = 33.87 PRIMARY +(43 Y SECONDARY 67.83 N/A STRESS RANGE PRIMART * *'
""""**"E s,, = 19.30 38C"3' 28*95 SO*81 VENT SA-516 GRADE 70 *al = 22.61 EI grass ERADER s = 33.87 PRMAN +(4)
Y Nm 67.83 g/A
, STSESS maisGE PRIIIARE MuBRANE U*M U*U s ,, = 19.30 16 28.95 30.81 wumar-ra g s,g = 22.61 see PRIMARE +(4)
'y
- 3* U SECONDART $7.83 g/A STRESS 3Ap0E PRIMART MMRAllE U*N 33*87 s** = 19.30 14CAE. PRIMARr SUPPORT 28.95 50.01 16 esseRANE 0 '"1 = 22.61 s = 33.87 PR23IA N +(4)
Y SECONDART 67.83 N/A STRESS RasIGE 3E5023G 18.64 24.88 i
TENSIIA 16.96 22.61 l
' CopWOIIENT SA-333 = 28.27 COIstuBD 1.00 1.00 SUPPORTS 0014 W 8(7) GRADE 1 "Y COse BSSIVE 11.84 15.79 J
1 ZWTERACTICIt 1.00 1.00 t
8 ac = 19.30 PRIMARY 15.01 26.42 SA-516 PLATE TO GRADE 70 5 = 33.87 N/A VENT EEADER Y SECCIIDARY 45.03 s
s COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.115 L nutggb
NOTES TO TABLE 3-2.3-1 (1) MATERIAL PROPERTIES TAKEN AT MAXIMUM EVENT TEMPERATURES.
(2) SERVICE LEVEL B ALLOWABLES ARE USED WHEN EVALUATING NOC I, SBA II, IBA I, DBA I, AND DBA II LOAD COMBINATION RESULTS.
~
(3) SERVICE LEVEL C ALLOWABLES ARE USED WHEN EVALUATING THE DBA III LOAD COMBINATION RESULTS.
(4) THERMAL BENDING STRESSES ARE EXCLUDED WHEN EVALUATING PRIMARY-PLUS-SECONDARY STRESS RANGE.
(5) EVALUATION OF PRIMARY-PLUS-SECONDARY STRESS INTENSITY RANGE AND FATIGUE ARE NOT REQUIRED FOR LOAD COMBINATION DBA I.
(6) THE ALLOWABLE STRESSES FOR LOCAL PRIMARY MEMBRANE STRESSES AT PENETRATIONS ARE INCREASED BY 1.3 WHEN EVALUATINC THE DBA I AND DBA II LOAD COMBINATIONS.
(7) STRESSES DUE TO THERMAL LOADS MAY BE EXCLUDED WHEN EVALU-ATING COMPONENT SUPPORTS.
O l
l l
l COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.116 nut.e_gh
Table 3-2.3-2 ALLOWABLE DISPLACEMENTS AND CYCLES FOR VENT LINE BELLOWS ALLOWABLE TYPE VALUE (INCH)
COMPRESSION 0.875 AXIAL EXTENSION 0.375 MERIDIONAL *0.625 LATERAL LONGITUDINAL *0.625 NUMBER OF CYCLES OF MAXIMUM 1000 DISPLACEMENTS d'
/
l i
r l
l l
l IO COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.117 l nutggh
3-2.4 Methods of Analysis Section 3-2.2.1 presents the governing loads for which the Quad Cities Units 1 and 2 vent systems are evaluated. Section 3-2.4.1 discusses the methodology used to evaluate the vent system for the overall effects of all loads except for those loads which exhibit asymmetric characteristics. The effects of asymmetric loads on the vent system are evaluated using the methodology discussed in Section 3-2.4-2. The methodology used to examine the local effects at the penetrations and intersections of the vent system major components is discussed in Section 3-2.4.3.
Section 3-2.4.4 discusses the methodology used to formulate results for the controlling load combina-tions, examines fatigue effects, and evaluates the analysis results for comparison with the applicable acceptance limits.
COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.118 nutggh
l 3-2.4.1 Analysis for Major Loads with the exception of the non-repetitive pattern of the downcomer longitudinal bracing system, the repetitive nature of the vent system geometry is such that the vent system can be divided into 16 identical segments which extend from midbay (MB) of the vent line bay to midbay of the non-vent line bay (Figure 3-2.1-1). To account for the non-repetitive pattern of the
- longitudinal bracing system, two conditions may be idealized. First, it is assumed the bracing system is included in the 1/16 segment. In this assumption, all 96 downcomers are assumed to be braced longitudinally s (100% bracing condition). Second, it is assumed that
, the 1/16 segments do not include any bracing system.
With this assumption, a no bracing condition is developed. These two idealized conditions will bound any particular bracing condition which might exist in any particular 1/16 segment of the two Quad Cities vent i systems. The governing loads which act on the vent system, except for seismic loads and a few chugging l load cases, exhibit symmetric or anti-symmetric characteristics (or both) with respect to a 1/16
, _ segment of the vent system. The analysis of the vent I
system for the majority of the governing loads is (O
i s'j COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.119 nutg_qh
therefore performed for the two 1/16 segments described above.
Two beam models of the 1/16 segment reflecting the above conditions are used to obtain the response of the vent system to all loads except those resulting in asymmetric effects on the vent system. The resulting l
responses from the two models are compared and the more severe of the two is selected for Code evaluation (Figures 3-2.4-1 and 3-2.4-2). The models include the vent line, the vent header, the downcomers, the vacuum breaker, the support columns, and the downcomer lateral bracings. The longitudinal bracing is also included in one model.
O The local stiffness effects at the penetrations and intersections of the major vent system components (Figures 3-2.1-7, 3-2.1-8, and Figures 3-2.1-10 through 3-2.1-12) are included by using stiffness matrix elements of these penetrations and intersections. A matrix element for the vent line-drywell penetration, which connects the upper end of the vent line to the transition segment, is developed using the finite difference model of the penetration (Figure 3-2.4-3).
A matrix element which connects the lower end of the vent line to the beams on the centerline of the vent COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.120 nutg_qh
4
/ header and to the beams on the centerline of the vacuum U' breaker nozzles, is developed using the finite element model of the vent line-vent header spherical junction (Figure 3-2.4-4).
Finite element models of each downcomer-vent header intersection, similar to the one shown in Figure 3-2.4-5, r.re used to develop matrix elements which connect the beams on the centerline of the vent header to the upper ends of the downcomers at the downcomer miters. The length of the vent header segment in the analytical models used for downcomer-vent header intersection stiffness determination is increased to ensure that vent header ovaling effects are properly accounted for. Use of this modeling approach has been verified using results from FSTP tests. Additional information on the analytical models used to evaluate the penetrations and intersections of major vent system components is contained in Section 3-2.4.3.
The 1/16 beam model with longitudinal bracing contains I 217 nodes, 214 beam elements, and 5 matrix elements.
The model without the bracing contains 205 nodes, 192 beam elements, and 5 matrix elements. The node spacings used in the two analytical models are identical and are refined to ensure adequate dis-lO l
l COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.121 nutg_qh
tribution of mass and determination of component frequencies and mode shapes and to facilitate accurate leads application. The stiffness and mass properties used in the two models are identical and are based on the nominal dimensions and densities of the materials used to construct the vent system. Small displacement linear-elastic behavior is assumed throughout.
The boundary conditions used in the two 1/16 beam models are both physical and mathematical in nature.
The physical boundary conditions consist of pins provided at the attachments of the support columns to the suppression chamber ring girder. The vent system columns are also assumed to be pinned in all directions at their upper ends. Additional physical boundary conditions include the elastic restraints provided at the attachment of the vent line to the drywell. The associated vent line-drywell penetration stiffnesses are included as a stiffness matrix element; its development is discussed in the preceding paragraphs.
The mathematical boundary conditions consist of either symmetry, anti-symmetry, or a combination of both at the midbay planes, depending on the characteristics of the load being evaluated.
COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.122 I nutggh
m U Additional mass is lumped along the length of the sub-merged portions of the downcomers, support columns, and bracings to account for the effective mass of water which acts with these components during dynamic load-ings. The total mass of water added is equal to the mass of water displaced by each of these components.
For all but the pool swell and CO dynamic loadings, the mass of water inside the submerged portion of the I
downcomers is included. The downcomers are assumed to contain air or steam (or both) during pool swell and condensation oscillation. The mass of this mixture is considered negligible. An additional mass of 1,000 pounds to account for the weight of the drywell/wetwell
\
vacuum breaker is lumped at the center of gravity of the vacum breaker.
A modal extraction analysis is performed using the two 1/16 beam models of the vent system for the case with water inside the downcomers and for the case with no water inside the downcomers. All structural modes in the range of 0 to 60 hertz and 0 to 200 hertz, respec-tively, are extracted for these cases. Tables 3-2.4-1 through 3-2.4-4 show the resulting frequencies and mass participation factors. A comparison of the two 1/16 COM-02-039-3
- Revision 0 3-2.123 1
nutagh
beam models' frequency analyses indicates that the two models have very similar dynamic behavior. As a result, in the remaining portion of this section, the results presented are based on the model which yields the higher magnitude of loads and stresses, where applicable.
Dynamic analyses using the two 1/16 beam models of the vent system are performed for the pool swell loads and CO loads specified in Section 3-2.2-1. The analyses consist of a transient analysis for pool swell loads and a harmonic analysis for CO loads. The modal super-position technique with 2% damping is utilized in both the transient and harmonic analyses. The pool swell and CO load frequencies are enveloped by including vent system frequencies to 100 hertz and 50 hertz, respectively.
The remaining vent system load cases specified in Sec-tion 3-2.2.1 involve either static loads or dynamic loads, which are evaluated using an equivalent static approach. For the latter, conservative dynamic amplification factors are developed and applied to the maximum spatial distributions of the individual dynamic loadings.
COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.124 nutg,gh
The ef fects of asymmetric, loads are evaluated using the 180* beam model (discussed in Section 3-2.4.2).
Inertia forces due to hcrizontal seismic loads and concentrated forces due to chugging downcomer lateral loads are also applied to the 180* beam model.
Additional information related to the vent system analysis for asymmetric loads is provided in Section 3-2.4.2.
The two 1/16 beam models are also used to generate loads for the evaluation of stresses in the major vent system component penetrations and intersections. Beam end loads, distributed loads, reaction loads, and inertia loads are developed from the two models and the critical cases are applied to the detailed analytical models of the vent system penetrations and intersec-tions (Figures 3-2.4-3 through 3-2.4-5). Additional information related to the vent system penetrations and intersection stress evaluation is provided in Section 3-2.4.3.
The specific treatment of each load in the load catego-rios identified in Section 3-2.2.1 is discussed in the following paragraphs.
s COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.125
- 1. Dead Weight Loads
- a. Dead Weight of Steel A static analysis is performed for a unit vertical acceleration applied to the weight of vent system steel.
- 2. Seismic Loads
- a. OBE Loads: A static analysis is performed for a 0.08g vertical seismic acceleration applied to the weight of steel included in the 180' symmetric beam model. An additional static analysis is performed for the associ-ated inertia loads generated for a 0.30g seismic acceleration applied in each horizon-tal direction using the 180' symmetric and anti-symmetric beam model, respectively. The results of the three earthquake directions are combined using the square root of the sum of the squares (SRSS).
- b. SSE Loads: The procedure used to evaluate l the 0.16g vertical and 0.60g horizontal SSE l accelerations is the same as that discussed for OBE loads in Load Case 2a.
l COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.126 9
nutggh
4
- 3. Pressure and Temperature Loads
- a. Normal Operating Internal Pressure Loads: A static analysis is performed for a 1.2 psi internal pressure applied as concentrated forces to the unreacted areas of the vent
, system.
i
- b. LOCA Internal Pressure Loads: A static anal- ,
ysis is performed for the SBA and IBA net I
internal pressures applied as concentrated i
forces to the unreacted areas of the major components of the vent system. Figures 3-2.2-1 through 3-2.2-3 show these pressures.
The offacts of DBA internal pressure loads are included in the pressurization and thrust loads discussed in Load Case 4a. !
s i The movement of the suppression chamber due to internal pressure, although small. in magnitude, is also applied.
- c. Normal Operatiing Temperature Loads: A static ,
analysis is performed for the maximum normal operating temperature . (Table 3-2.2-2) . This temperature is uniformly applied to the por-tion of the vent system inside the suppres-
\
COM-02-039-3 i Revision 0 3-2.127 u_ _
. ,%+. ,. . ,. ,, . --- --~---#-,,_v4.n,.e.-..,.m -
-,.f._,....--.~.w,,. ,.,,-3---- -m.,._w,.. .._ , , ..e,r.w. -
I sion chamber. Corresponding temperatures of 70'F for the drywell and vent system components outside the suppression chamber and 163*F for the suppression chamber are also applied in this analysis.
- d. LOCA Temperature Loads: A static analysis is performed for the SBA, IBA, and DBA tempera-tures, which are uniformly applied to the maj or components and external components of the vent system. Figures 3-2.2-4 through 3-2.2-6 show these temperatures. Initial displacements are induced at the support column attachment points to the suppression chamber to consider the thermal expansion of the torus.
Concentrated forces are applied at the vent line-drywell penetration to account for the thermal expansion of the drywell during the SBA, IBA, and DBA events. The greater of the temperatures specified in Figure 3-2.2-4 and Table 3-2.2-2 is used in the analysis for SBA temperatures.
l CoM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.128 l nutggh
i
- 4. Vent System Discharge Loada
- a. DBA Pressurization and Thrust Loads: An equivalent static analysis is performed for the DBA pressurization and thrust loads.
Table 3-2.2-3 shows these loads. The values of the loads include dynamic amplification factors, which are computed on the basis of methods described in Reference 11 and through use of the dominant frequencies of affected i components. The dominant frequencies are derived from harmonic analyses of these components. Figures 3-2.4-6 through 3-2.4-8 show the results of these harmonic analyses.
- 5. Pool Swell Loads
- a. Vent System Impact and Drag Loads: A dynamic analysis is performed for the vent line, the vent header, the spherical junction, down-comers, and the vent header deflector pool
' swell impact loads (Table 3-2.2-4, Figures 3-2.2-7 and 3-2.2-8).
I
- b. Impact and Drag Loads on other Structures: A dynamic analysis is performed for pool swell impact loads on the vacuum breaker and for pool swell drag loads on the vacuum breaker, 0^\
v COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.129 nutggh y - + - g -e -. .------.-gg-.
and the downcomer longitudinal bracing.
Tables 3-2.2-5 and 3-2.2-6 show these loads,
- c. Froth Impingement and Fallback Loads: A dynamic analysis is performed for froth impingement and fallback loads on the vacuum breaker. Table 3-2.2-5 shows these loads,
- d. Pool Fallback Loads: Dynamic loads associ-ated with pool fallback loads are calculated for the downcomer lateral bracings, the downcomer ring plates, and the downcomer longitudinal bracing. For these dynamic loads, equivalent static loads are obtained which are applied to these components. Table 3-2.2-6 shows these loads,
- e. LOCA Water Jet Loads: An equivalent static analysis is performed for LOCA water clearing submerged structure loads on the vent system support columns. Table 3-2.2-7 shows these loads. The values of the loads include dynamic amplification factors which are computed on the basis of methods described in Reference 11 and through use of the dominant l COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.130 O
nutg,gh
frequency of the support columns. The domi- '
nant frequencies are derived from harmonic analyses of these components. Figure 3-2.4-6 shows the results of these harmonic analyses.
- f. LOCA Bubble-Induced Loads: An equivalent static analysis is performed for LOCA air clearing submerged structure loads on the downcomers, the downcomer lateral bracings, the downcomer ring plates, the downcomer longitudinal bracing, and the support columns. Tables 3-2.2-7, 3-2.2-8, and 3-2.2-9 show these loads. The values of the loads include dynamic amplification factors computed using the dominant frequencies of the affected structures. The dominant frequencies are derived from harmonic analyses of these components (Figures 3-2.4-6 through 3-2.4-11).
- 6. Condensation Oscillation Loads
- a. IBA CO Downcomer Loads: A dynamic analysis is performed for the IBA CO downcomer loads (Table 3-2.2-10). The dominant downcomer frequency is. determined from the harmonic .
results. Figure 3-2.4-12 indicates that the
{
COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.131 nutagh
dominant downcomer frequency occurs in the frequency range of the second CO downcomer load harmonic. The first and third CO down-comer load harmonics are therefore applied at frequencies equal to 0.5 and 1.5 times the value of the dominant downcomer frequency,
is the same as that discussed for IBA CO downcomer loads in Load Case 6a.
I l c. IBA CO Vent System Pressures: A dynamic analysis is performed for IBA CO vent system pressures on the ven2 line and vent header.
Table 3-2.2-12 shows these loads. The dominant vent line and vent header frequen-cies are determined from the harmonic analysis results (Figure 3-2.4-13). An additional static analysis is performed for a 1.7 psi internal pressure applied as concen-trated forces to the unreacted areas of the vent system.
COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.132 nutgg!)
- d. DBA CO Vent System Pressure Loads: The procedure used to evaluate the DBA CO vent system pressure loads (Table 3-2.2-12) is the same as that discussed for IBA CO vent system pressure loads in Load Case 6c.
- e. IBA CO Submerged Structure Loads: As previously discussed, pre-chug loads described in Load Case 7c are specified in lieu of IBA CO loads,
- f. I.3A CO Submerged Structure Loads: An equivalent static analysis is performed for the DBA CO submerged structure loads on the downcomer lateral bracings, the downcomer ring plates, the downcomer longitudinal-bracing, and the support columns. Tables 3-2.2-13 and 3-2.2-14 show these loads, which include dynamic amplification factors computed using the methodology described for LOCA water jet and air bubble-induced drag loads in Load Cases Se and 5f.
- 7. Chugging Loads s
- a. Chugging Downcomer Lateral Loads: A harmonic analysis of the downcomers is performed to COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.133 nutg.qh
determine the dominant downcomer frequency for use in calculating the maximum chugging load magnitude. Figures 3-2.4-14 and 3-2.4-15 show the harmonic analysis results.
Table 3-2.2-15 shows the resulting chugging load magnitudes. A static analysis using the 180* beam model is performed for chugging downcomer lateral Load Cases 1 through 10.
Tables 3-2.2-16 and 3-2.2-17 show these load cases.
A static analysis is also performed for the maximum chugging load (Table 3-2.2-18) applied to a single downcomer in the in-plane and out-of plane directions. The results of this analysis are used in evaluating fatigue.
- b. Chugging Vent System Pressures: A dynamic analysis is performed for the acoustic vent system pressure oscillation applied to the unreacted areas of the vent system. Table 3-2.2-19 shows these loads. The dominant vent line and vent header frequencies are determined from the harmonic analysis results (Figure 3-2.4-16). Gross vent system pressure oscillation with a frequency of 0.7 COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.134 nutggh
l hertz is bounded by acoustic vent system pressure oscillation with a frequency range of 6.9 to 9.5 hertz. Therefore, no separate analysis was performed for this case.
, c. Pre-Chug Submerged Structure Loads: An equi-valent static analysis is performed for the pre-chug submerged structure loads on the downcomer lateral bracing, the downcomer ring plates, the downcomer longitudinal bracing, and the support columns. Tables 3-2.2-20 and 3-2.2-21 show these loads. The loads include dynamic amplification factors which are computed using the methodology described for LOCA air bubble-induced drag loads on submerged structures in Load Case 5f.
,. d. Post-Chug Submerged Structure Loads: The.
I procedure used to evaluate the post-chug sub-
, merged structure loads on the downcomer lateral. bracings and the downcomer ring plates, the downcomer . longitudinal bracing members, and the support columns is the same as that discussed for pre-chug submerged i structure loads in Load Case 6c. Tables i
! 3-2.2-22 and 3-2.2-23 show these loads.
'(Q COM-02-039-3 l
l Revision-0 3-2.135 !
nutggb :
1
. - - - . - . - . . .a
- 8. Safety Relief Valve Discharge Loads
- a. T-quencher Water Jet Loads: An equivalent static analysis is performed for SRV dis-charge water clearing submerged structure loads on the vent system support columns.
Table 3-2.2-24 shows these loads. The values of the loads include dynamic amplification factors which are calculated on the basis of methods described in Reference 11 and use of the dominant frequency of the support columns, b.' SRV . Bubble-Induced Drag Loads: An equivalent static analysis is performed for SRV dis-charge drag loads on the downcomers, the downcomer lateral bracing, the downcomer rings, the downcomer longitudinal bracing members, and the support columns. Tables 3-2.2-24, 3-2.2-25, and 3-2.2-26 show these loads. The loads include a DLF of 2.5, as discussed in Section 1-4.2.4.
l 9. Piping Reaction Loads
- a. At the vent line-SRV piping penetration, the reaction loads are developed using the COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 O
3-2.136 nutggb
procedures described in volume 5. These loads are applied to the vent system model to evaluate the overall vent system response.
l
- 10. Containment Interaction Loads
- a. Containment Structure Motions: The motions 1
of the drywell and the suppression chamber due to internal pressure and thermal expan-sion are applied to the 1/16 beam model. The motions caused by loads in other load cate-gories acting on the drywell and suppression chamber have been evaluated and found to have a negligible effect on the vent system.
O V The methodology described in the preceding paragraphs results in a conservative evaluation of the vent system response and associated stresses for the governing loads.
l COM-02-039-3 l Revision 0 3-2,137' l
nutggb
Table 3-2.4-1 VENT SYSTEM FREQUENCY ANALYSIS RESULTS WITH WATER INSIDE DOWNCOMERS, BASED ON DOWNCOMERS BRACED LONGITUDINALLY MASS PARTICIPATION FACTOR (lb)
MODE FREQUENCY NUMBER (Hz)
X(1) Y (1} Z (1) brum yv /r ggy;.m .n,.a.. x.
EDhMO i N 2774I<d; mnwm D 14:31$ ~d yrm~5 7dN 9. 316701192:"
2 12.319 57.89 0.45 1014.07 3 12.336 0.86 0.00 7.63 4 12.336 1243.89 0.01 25.93 5 12.340 0.00 0.00 0.00 6 13.928 263.21 13.37 2204.80 7 23.065 170.21 263.75 2804.29 8 24.905 0.07 877.91 3260.09 9 26.778 7.19 8558.96 192.09 10 29.490 57.09 2826.57 148.13 11 30.484 63.54 86.51 211.65 12 31.153 101.72 89.42 2118.27 13 31.333 0.64 0.03 20.14 14 33.251 9.16 3248.48 466.12 15 42.011 20.92 3882.26 35.86 16 45.379 17.18 0.17 2.11 17 45.428 52.94 19.41 13.46 18 45.450 0.00 0.09 0.00 19 45.591 20.52 9.89 8.82 20 46.140 1974.73 347.75 186.46 21 49.788 51.46 12.76 12.50 22 50.384 138.71 63.57 9.30
'23 50.763 5.22 4.88 19.92 24 51.855 6.68 0.52 4.39 25 51.910 0.27 0.00 0.02 26 51.915 34.42 1.48 2.18 27 51.969 0.23 0.06 123.16 l 28 54.878 190.32 67.57 906.60
! 29 60.750 5969.17 0.20 53.36 COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.138 nutp_qh
( j Table 3-2.4-2 VENT SYSTEM FREQUENCY ANALYSIS RESULTS WITHOUT WATER INSIDE DOWNCOMERS, BASED ON DOWNCOMERS BRACED LONGITUDINALLY MASS ARTICIPATION FACTORY (lb) j MODE FREQUENCY NUMBER (Hz)
X (1) Y (l) Z( )
- 1 11.251 3.57 0.17 13949.57 2 12.335 164.26 0.06 51.08 3 12.336 1127.06 0.02 14.63 4 12.340 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 5 12.369 1.80 0.35 122.94 4
6 17.326 209.78 43.66 2137.90 I 7 24.396 58.24 944.14 4900.36 8 26.767 1,71 8719.36 136.36 9 29.276 126.63 889.58 124.81 l 10 29.693 5.66 2206.97 0.01 11 30.571 8.64 1.73 13.20 j 12 31.331 0.25 0.86 2.60 13 31.791 88.29 19.47 2245.28
- 14 33.374 0.04 3188.73 838.22 15 42.107 0.29 3896.08 22.69 16 45.378 3.55 0.26 0.36 17 45.447 18.08 8.03 5.73 18 45.450 1.08 1.03 0.43 19 45.710 0.93 0.49 1.49 20 46.661 1693.78 297.06 108.40 21 49.914 0.20 19.63 12.18 l 22 50.522 12.67 69.14 18.07 l 23 51.005 5.26 5.90 43.99 l
l l
t x
\
COM-02-039 Revision 0 3-2.139 nutggh
Table 3-2.4-2 VENT SYSTEM FREQUENCY ANALYSIS RESULTS WITHOUT WATER INSIDE DOWNCOMERS, BASED ON DOWNCOMERS BRACED LONGITUDINALLY (Continued)
MODE A A A ON FACTOR (lb)
FREQUENCY NUMBER (Hz) (1) y (1) Z (1) 24 51.866 1.79 0.31 2.02 25 51.910 0.06 0.00 0.00 26 51.921 20.18 2.15 5.08 27 51.976 0.70 0.07 130.22 28 57.026 11.64 87.73 1037.09 29 72.082 1696.91 52.28 133.79 30 75.320 2592.92 11.49 23.99 31 81.639 3676.24 1.87 1.21 32 86.984 147.08 10.37 0.03 33 98.983 77.87 62.28 20.44 34 104.056 33.16 87.25 0.33 35 106.916 331.12 13.88 0.18 36 117.093 468.25 7.21 1.71 37 119.289 117.48 0.02 3.38 38 122.180 2399.03 0.76 44.96 39 123.984 84.18 1.86 0.02 40 124.575 7.25 0.03 22.95 41 124.605 0.00 0.00 5.79 42 124.621 0.00 0.00 0.00 43 124.939 86.47 0.18 0.35 44 128.170 196.78 38.45 16.42 45 131.974 371.66 77.83 5.03 46 135.544 409.87 16.26 0.27 I
COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.140 nutggh
O Table 3-2.4-2 VENT SYSTEM FREQUENCY ANALYSIS RESULTS WITHOUT WATER INSIDE DOWNCOMERS, BASED ON DOWNCOMERS BRACED LONGITUDINALLY (Concluded)
MODE FREQUENCY A A I I A ION FACTOR (lb)
NUMBER (Hz)
X (1) Y (1) Z (1) 47 138.842 141.08 65.09 4.66 48 142.816 48.30 0.03 9.73 49 144.294 14.10 4.57 1.38 50 148.277 34.36 0.08 0.06 51 151.016 626.81 12.51 11.86 52 155.896 108.64 0.17 5.43 53 156.475 406.52 2.81 7.48 54 156.850 626.25 2.79 11.57 55 157.193 99.69 0.58 1.98 56 158.028 23.70 0.00 0.81 57 158.456 52.55 0.22 6.45 58 163.809 368.44 17.50 2.31 59 166.077 58.27 0.05 0.03 60 170.558 38.68 1.93 10.84 61 171.660 2.39 31.03 0.98 62 181.975 62.99 0.16 1.25 63 188.423 0.00 7.41 8.92 64 191.721 109.35 11.93 8.50 65 194.756 0.00 0.48 0.07 66 197.158 10.61 1.47 2.49 (1) SEE FIGURE 3-2. 4-1 FOR COORDINATE DIRECTIONS .
An O COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.141 nutg,gh
l Table 3-2.4-3 VENT SYSTEM FREQUENCY ANALYSIS RESULTS WITH WATER INSIDE DOWNCOMERS , BASED ON DOWNCOMERS NOT BRACED LONGITUDINALLY MASS PARTICIPATION FACTOR (lb)
MODE FREQUENCY NUMBER (hz) X Y Z l 9.170 6.28 0.25 13100.91 2 12.272 140.88 0.75 2416.99 3 12.334 1279.56 0.13 10.87 4 12.335 241.29 0.00 24.73 5 12.340 0.00 0.00 0.00 6 12.519 63.14 0.34 804.25 7 13.576 7195.09 29.14 366.76 8 13.824 271.25 0.99 63.70 9 14.195 2170.71 0.89 930.28 10 14.579 615.18 2.51 118.02 11 15.228 1315.30 1.13 1.67 12 15.781 223.59 58.44 217.42 13 16.138 1.07 0.44 3.08 14 25.228 7.01 686.17 3958.61 15 27.125 0.66 5617.46 79.05 16 29.828 0.04 2836.92 88.31 17 30.362 51.78 0.08 44.15 18 31.171 0.87 5.60 1.40 l
l COM-02-039-3 i Revision 0 3-2.142 nutggb
l 1
(
( ,)/ Table 3-2.4-3 l
VENT SYSTEM FREQUENCY ANALYSIS RESULTS WITH WATER INSIDE DOWNCOMERS, BASED ON DOWNCOMERS NOT BRACED LONGITUDINALLY (Concluded)
MASS PARTICIPATION FACTOR (lb)
MODE FREQUENCY NUMBER (Hz) X Y Z 19 32.214 42.56 229.04 2158.29 20 34.126 175.26 2810.08 1169.38 21 43.495 353.89 3077.73 127.05 22 45.993 757.12 1357.12 235.52 23 50.737 264.49 83.29 60.38 24 51.844 4.90 0.70 3.18 25 51.910 0.01 0.00 0.00 g 26 51.928 3.96 4.99 5.86 27 51.975 0.00 0.06 106.17 28 54.649 0.07 68.04 1121.59
~
COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.143 nutmh
Table 3-2.4-4 VENT SYSTEM FREQUENCY ANALYSIS RESULTS WITHOUT WATER INSIDE DOWNCOMERS , BASED ON DOWNCOMERS NOT BRACED LONGITUDINALLY MODE FREQUENCY NUMBER (Hz) X Y Z l 11.330 9.25 0.16 10659.42 2 12.335 652.53 0.10 27.88 3 12.336 694.98 0.01 53.33 4 12.340 0.00 0.00 0.00 5 12.358 1.02 0.25 234.09 6 15.563 131.70 3.55 1853.38 7 16.973 4843.07 81.76 277.84 8 17.740 488.26 1.64 318.58 9 18.004 1141.53 0.01 613.86 10 18.547 131.06 6.45 0.24 11 19.267 '837.61 3.00 0.99 12 19.926 87.64 153.07 147.35 13 20.777 0.00 1.56 16.39 14 25.733 19.89 781.12 2911.46 15 27.152 1.31 5372.76 90.24 16 29.873 0.11 2809.01 67.07 17 30.470 84.46 16.55 44.42 18 31.177 1.70 5.39 1.07 i
l l
l COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.144 nutp_qh
l Table 3-2.4-4 VENT SYSTEM FREQUENCY ANALYSIS RESULTS WITHOUT WATER INSIDE DOWNCOMERS, BASED ON i DOWNCOMERS NOT BRACED LONGITUDINALLY (Concluded)
^
MODE FREQUENCY NUMBER (Hz) 19 32.567 14.57 578.17 2009.90 20 34.494 248.99 2614.05 1605.61 21 43.654 315.11 3292.51 73.98 22 46.503 764.21 1036.62 149.28 23 50.960 288.89 84.47 71.92 24 51.853 3.07 0.54 1.92 25 51.910 0.01 0.00 0.00 26 51.935 1.67 6.56 12.47 27 51.989 0.00 0.28 111.18 28 55.554 5.46 86.55 1135.12 29 73.252 45.99 101.36 152.91 30 85.032 0.47 0.02 0.79 21 94.307 35.00 1.01 8.99 32 100.893 29.66 177.38 8.13 l
- O COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.145 nutgg])
VL/DW Y
a 2
VENT LINE X-VENT HEADER
[K]VL/VH DEFLECTOR SUPPORT VENT HEADER VH/DC VACUUM BREAKER T(TYP)
VENT HEADER DEFLECTOR fx O
[ ~ M
~/ DOWNCOMER LATERAL BRACING (TYP)
DOWNCOMER SUPPORT LONGITUDINAL COLUMN BRACING (TYP)
(TYP) o il i
I Figure 3-2.4-1 VENT SYSTEM 1/16 SEGMENT BEAM MODEL - ISOMETRIC VIEW WITH DOWNCOMER LONGITUDINAL BRACING COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2,146 nutggh w w -wn
[K]VL/DW Y
a 2
VENT LINE x-
" ^
[K]VL/VH C R SUPPORT VENT HEADER bl VH/DC VACUUM BREAKER T(TYP)
VENT HEADER DEFLECTOR
/ DOWNCOMER LATERAL BRACING (TYP)
SUPPORT COLUMN (TYP) a 46 Figure 3-2.4-2 VENT SYSTEM 1/16 SEGMENT BEAM MODEL - ISOMETRIC VIEW WITHOUT DOWNCOMER LONGITUDINAL BRACING O'-- COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.147 nutggh
{ VENT LINE-DRYWELL PENETRATION
+ - V_
0 90 1
396.0" IR
{368.5"IR m
}
DEFLECTOR 46 Z
DRYWELL 17.75"- SHELL l
Q, INSERT 1
PLATE 30" -
NOZZLE I
49.25" IR o
40.6875"
_49.5" Figure 3-2.4-3 VENT LINE-DRYWELL PENETRATION AXISYMMETRIC FINITE DIFFERENCE MODEL - VIEW OF TYPICAL MERIDIAN COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.148 nutag.h
V
.s':5b e__ _
AN i/ !J hhDy -
_ / f
/ "j ,l,
'-k b-
/nE'-
i \',\7 h
.p q- ix 1
J
'k -
s.
7 \
~ ~
. p?- .
~
L- -- , ,
' "~~'
f -
f N _
s j I , ---
-~k L i -P
- 6,d (D- i j
s ,
i 4 I
W
-/,
L r
'qh I ve' l .
, W Q - _---
Figure 3-2.4-4 VENT LINE-VENT HEADER SPHERICAL JUNCTION FINITE ELEMENT MODEL
{ }
COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.149 nutp_gh
O
-r s
\ :
sh
(\
[f
( '.'
\ h
\ i h
.t _ _
/ s_
l l -
g
~_
-- 3 .
O t
% i
[
\
Figure 3-2.4-5 DOWNCOMER-VENT HEADER INTERSECTION FINITE ELEMENT MODEL - ISOMETRIC VIEW COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.150 nutggh
O SUPPORT COLUMN, f = . Hz cr 0.06-U H
Q 0.04 -
A I
N d 0.02 -
k Q
0- , , , , ,
10 20 30 40 50 60 FREQUENCY (Hz)
- 1. RESULTS SHOWN ARE OBTAINED BY APPLYING UNIT DRAG PRESSURES TO SUBMERGBD PORTION OF THE COLUMNS IN IN-PLANE AND OUT-OF-PLANE DIRECTIONS RELATIVE TO MITERED JOINT.
- 2. RESULTS SHOWN ARE TYPICAL FOR INSIDE AND OUTSIDE COLUMNS IN EITHER DIRECTION.
Figure 3-2,4-6 HARMONIC ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR SUPPORT COLUMN l SUBMERGED STRUCTURE LOAD FREQUENCY DETERMINATION -
l (
l i
\ COM-02-039-3 l_ Revision 0 3-2.151
! nutggj)
O IN-PLANE, f = 9.277 Hz OUT-OF-PLANE, f > 60.000 Hz cr E4 0.003 z
$ IN-PLANE OUT-OF-PLANE o.
Q 0.002 -
a N
l N 0.001 -
a; 8 / A e
O OJ ,
10
^ ~ -- r 20 30 40
- ~"J',
50 60 FREQUENCY (Hz)
- 1. RESULTS SHOWN ARE OBTAINED BY APPLYING UNIT PRESSURES l TO DOWNCOMER SUBMERGED PORTION IN IN-PLANE AND OUT-OF-PLANE DIRECTIONS.
- 2. FREQUENCIES ARE DETERMINED WITH WATER INSIDE I SUBMERGED PORTION OF THE DOWNCOMERS.
l
- 3. RESULTS SHOWN ARE TYPICAL FOR ALL LONGITUDINALLY BRACED DOWNCOMERS.
Figure 3-2.4-7 l
HARMONIC ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR DOWNCOMER l
SUBMERGED STRUCTURE LOAD FREQUENCY DETERMINATION, BASED ON DOWNCOMERS BRACED LONGITUDINALLY COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.152 nutggh
IN-PLANE, f = 9.170 Hz or OUT-OF-PLANE, f = 13.576 Hz 0.002
$ IN-PLANE cc
____ OUT-OF-PLANE 8
E a
g 0.001-U 5 )!
x ga i1 i
b 0 / 'sl i
a / 18
- O O
0
..**e ,
I (i ~~~.
'-~~- "
i 10 20 30 40 FREQUENCY (Hz)
- 1. RESULTS SHOWN ARE OBTAINED BY APPLYING UNIT PRESSURES TO DOWNCOMER SUBMERGED PORTION IN IN-PLANE AND OUT-OF-PLANE DIRECTIONS.
- 2. FREQUENCIES ARE DETERMINED WITH WATER INSIDE SUBMERGED PORTION OF THE DOWNCOMERS.
- 3. RESULTS SHCWN ARE TYPICAL FOR ALL LONGITUDINALLY UNBRACED DOWNCOMERS.
Figure 3-2.4-8 HARMONIC ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR DOWNCOMER SUBMERGED STRUCTURE LOAD FREQUENCY DETERMINATION, BASED ON DOWNCOMERS NOT BRACED LONGITUDINALLY COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.153 nutagh
l O
VERTICAL f cr = . Hz TPANSVERSE f = 31.15 Hz 0.002 VERTICAL / TRANSVERSE
?!
o.
{ 0.001 -
ili 8
2x
~
0 , , , , ,
i 10 20 30 40 50 60 FREQUENCY (Hz)
- 1. RESULTS SHOWN ARE OBTAINED BY APPLYING UNIT FORCES TO LATERAL BRACINGS MIDSPAN IN THE VERTICAL AND TRANSVERSE DIRECTIONS.
- 2. RESULTS SHOWN ARE TYPICAL FOR ALL LATERAL BRACINGS.
Figure 3-2.4-9 HARMONIC ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR LATERAL BRACING SUBMERGED STRUCTURE LOAD FREQUENCY DETERMINATION l COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.154 nutggb
A.
l
\(G 1
VERTICAL f = 50.09 Hz cr TRANSVERSE f = 50.76 Hz cr 0.003 VERTICAL g . _ TRANSVERSE s!
U 0.002-
- 5 .6 m a ',
5 >
a 4 l 0.001-8 l E /
,/
( 0
~ ~ ~
f 3 T
- ~~
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 FREQUENCY (cps)
- 1. RESULTS SHOWN ARE OBTAINED BY APPLYING UNIT FORCES TO MIDSPAN OF THE LONGITUDINAL BRACINGS IN THE VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL DIRECTIONS.
- 2. RESULTS SHOWN ARE TYPICAL FOR ALL BRACING COMPONENTS EXCEPT DIAGONAL BRACINGS.
l t
Figure 3-2.4-10 HARMONIC ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR LONGITUDINAL l BRACING HORIZONTAL MEMBER SUBMERGED STRUCTURE LOAD FREQUENCY DETERMINATION
'\ j COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.155 nutg,gh
O MINOR AXIS f r = 45.45 Hz MAJOR AXIS f > 60. 00 Hz 0.006 l
MINOR AXIS !
y ___.__ MAJOR AXIS l2 ca 0.004-N a
Q
$ 0.002- l ti
- $ f' S lg i x , i 0 ]\,. ,- . ^,./ .., ~ _- , ^r~ . ~~
e i i i 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 FREQUENCY (Hz)
- 1. RESULTS SHOWN ARE OBTAINED BY APPLYING UNIT FORCES TO MIDSPAN OF THE DIAGONAL BRACING IN THE MAJOR AND MINOR AXES DIRECTIONS.
- 2. RESULTS SHOWN FOR MAJOR AXIS ARE MAGNIFIED 100 TIMES.
- 3. RESULTS SHOWN ARE TYPICAL FOR ALL DIAGONAL BRACINGS.
Figure 3-2.4-11 HARMONIC ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR LONGITUDINAL BRACING DIAGONAL MEMBER SUBMERGED STRUCTURE LOAD FREQUENCY DETERMINATION COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.156 i
nutg,gh
O f = 11.25 Hz 2
m U
0.0006 -
8 5
0.0004 -
?
5 g 0.0002 -
('
N-5 a 0 . , , ,
10 20 30 40 50 FREQUENCY (Hz)
- 1. RESULTS SHOWN ARE~ OBTAINED BY APPLYING UNIT INTERNAL PRESSURES TO ONE DOWNCOMER IN A DOWNCOMER PAIR.
l
- 2. FREQUENCIES ARE DETERMINED WITHOUT WATER INSIDE SUBMERGED PORTION OF DOWNCOMERS.
- 3. RESULTS SHOWN ARE TYPICAL FOR ALL DOWNCOMERS.
l l Figure 3-2.4-12 HARMONIC ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR CONDENSATION OSCILLATION DOWNCOMER LOAD FREQUENCY DETERMINATION M
COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.157 nutggh
O VENT LINE f = 42.10 Hz VENT HEADER f = 24.40 Hz
.06-VENT LINE AXIAL DISPLACEMENT 4
--- DC/VH VERTICAL DISPLACEMENT lt il e I\
z I\
$ l 1
.04-l '
U t 5 / t
$ / \
E / \
.02-
/ \
/ \
'4\ / \
_a , - %
\ ,
i i i .
0 10 20 30 40 50 FREQUENCY (Hz)
- 1. RESULTS SHOWN ARE OBTAINED BY APPLYING A 2.5 PSI INTERNAL PRESSURE TO UNREACTED AREAS OF THE VENT SYSTEM.
Figure 3-2.4-13 HARMONIC ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR CONDENSATION OSCILLATION VENT SYSTEM PRESSURE LOAD FREQUENCY DETERMINATION COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.158 nutggh
f = 9.277 Hz cr z
6 5
c.
$ 2-Q a
U
$ l-a:
8 E
O ^
O i i i i i 10 20 30 40 50 FREQUENCY (Hz)
- 1. RESULTS SHOWN ARE OBTAINED BY APPLYING UNIT FORCES TO DOWNCOMER ENDS IN THE IN-PLANE DIRECTION.
- 2. FREQUENCIES ARE DETERMINED WITH WATER INSIDE SUBMERGED PORTION OF THE DOWNCOMERS.
- 3. RESULTS SHOWN ARE TYPICAL FOR ALL LONGITUDINALLY BRACED DOWNCOMERS.
l i
Figure 3-2.4-14 HARMONIC ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR CHUGGING DOWNCOMER LATERAL LOADS FREQUENCY DETERMINATION , BASED ON DOWNCOMERS BRACED LONGITUDINALLY
~
COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.159 l
O l f = 9.1 0 Hz cr 0.002-s 0
8 5
a y0.001-E 5
5 5
W B
o -
0 , , , ,
10 20 30 40 FREQUENCY (Hz)
- 1. RESULTS SHOWN ARE OBTAINED BY APPLYING UNIT FORCES TO DOWNCOMER ENDS IN THE IN-PLANE DIRECTION.
- 2. FREQUENCIES ARE DETERMINED WITH WATER INSIDE SUBMERGED PORTION OF THE DOWNCOMERS .
- 3. RESULTS SHOWN ARE TYPICAL FOR ALL LONGITUDINALLY UNBRACED DOWNCOMERS.
Figure 3-2.4-15 HARMONIC ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR CHUGGING DOWNCOMER LATERAL LOADS FREQUENCY DETERMINATION, BASED ON DOWNCOMERS NOT BRACED LONGITUDINALLY COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.160 9'I' nutggi) ,
1 i
t%
k N
VENT HEADER f r = 42.01 Hz VENT LINE f cr = 54.878 Hz DC/VH VERTICAL VENT LINE AXIAL W
m y 0.04 -
0 4
/\
O 0.02 - l\
4
/ \
/$ '
\
.----- ,- ^y* \, s' '
,,,, f' 0 i i . . i 10 20 30 40 50 60 FREQUENCY (Hz)
- 1. RESULTS SHOWN ARE OBTAINED BY APPLYING 2.5 AND 3.0 PSI INTERNAL PRESSURES TO UNREACTED AREAS OF THE VENT LINE AND VENT HEADER, RESPECTIVELY.
Figure 3-2.4-16 l
l i HAPRONIC ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR CHUGGING VENT SYSTEM PRESSURE LOAD FREQUENCY DETEPRINATION l
COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.161 nutub
I 3-2.4.2 Analysis for Asymmetric Loads The asymmetric loads acting on the vent system are evaluated by decomposing each of the asymmetric load-ings into symmetric or anti-symmetric components (or both) with respect to a 180' segment of the vent system. The analysis of the vent system for asymmetric loads is performed for a 180' segment of the vent system.
A beam model of a 180' segment of the vent system (Figure 3-2.4-17), based on the Quad cities Unit 2 downcomer longitudinal bracings configuration (Figure 3-2.1-14), is used to obtain the response of the vent system to asymmetric loads. The Quad Cities Unit 2 bracing pattern is selected since a maximum number of unbraced downcomers are grouped together in one area, thus enveloping the other unit's configuration. The plane of symmetry due to the uniqueness of the bracing pattern is at a 67.5* counter-clockwise rotation from true north (Figure 3-2.1-14). The model includes the vent lines, the spherical junctions, the vent header, downcomers, downcomer lateral bracings, the downcomer longitudinal bracings, and the vent header deflector.
l COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.162 nutggh t
Many of the modeling techniques used in the 180* beam model, such as those used for local mass and stiffness determination, are the same as those utilized in the 1/16 beam model of the vent system discussed in Section 3-2.4.1. The local stiffness effects at the vent line-drywell penetrations, vent line-vent header spherical junctions, and the downcomer-vent header intersections are included using stiffness matrix elements for these penetrations and intersections. The pin conditions are assumed at the attachments of the support columns to the suppression chamber. .
I The 180* beam model contains 747 nodes, 749 elastic beams, and 34 matrix elements. The model is as refined O. as the 1/16 beam model of the vent system and is used directly to characterize the response of the vent system to asymmetric loadings. It includes those components and local stif fnesses which have an effect on the overall response of the vent system. The stiff-ness and mass properties used in the model are based on the nominal dimensions and densities of the materials used to construct the vent system. Small displacement linear-elastic behavior is assumed throughout.
The boundary conditions used in the 180* beam model are both physical and mathematical in nature. The physical O COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.163 nutgrh
boundary conditions used in the model are similar to those used in the 1/16 beam model of the vent system.
The mathematical boundary conditions used in the model consist of either symmetry, anti-symmetry, or a combi-nation of both at the 0* and 180* planes. The specific boundary condition used depends on the characteristics of the load being evaluated.
Additional water mass is lumped along the length of the submerged portion of the downcomers and support columns in a manner similar to that used in the 1/16 beam model. The mass of water inside the submerged portion of the downcomers is also included. An additional mass of 1,000 pounds is lumped at the center of gravity of the drywell/wetwell vacuum breaker to account for its ,
weight.
The asymmetric loads which act on the vent system are horizontal seismic loads and asymmetric chugging loads, as specified in Section 3-2,2.1. An equivalent static analysis is performed for each of the loads using tue 180* beam model.
The magnitudes and characteristics of governing asym-metric loads on the vent system are presented and discussed in Section 3-2.2.1. The overall effects of COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.164 nutggh
- -.- .. _.-. _- -. -. - _ --- ~ . - _ - _. ~ . _ - . .- . _ - - -
t 5 asymmetric loads on the vent system are evaluated using 1 '.
the 180' beam model and the general analysis techniques i discussed in the preceding paragraphs. The specific treatment of each load which results in asymmetric I loads on the vent system is discussed in the following i paragraphs.
- 2. Seismic Loads
- a. OBE Loads: A static analysis is performed l
for a 0.30g horizontal and 0.08g vertical J
seismic acceleration applied to the weight of 6 i i steel and water included in the 180* beam 1
model. Horizontal seismic loads are applied
. in the direction of both principal azimuths.
t
- b. SSE Loads: The procedure used to evaluate a O.60g horizontal and 0.16 vertical SSE 4 acceleration is the same as that discussed 1
i for OBE loads in Load Case 2a.
i 2
- 7. Chugging Loads
- a. Chugging Downcomer Lateral Loads: A static analysis is performed for chugging downcomer t t
lateral Load Cases 1 through 10 (Table ;
i 3-2.2-17).
COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.165
Use of the methodology described in the preceding paragraphs results in a conservative evaluation of vent system response to the asymmetric loads defined in NUREG-0661.
O I
l COM-0 2-0 3 9-3 l Revision 0 3-2.166 l
nutggb 1
b G
N s
.s .
'\
x s
)
h D T* x \'
M '
/
i " " " " s
,, 6 i i
talvr/vn N pme
/
- nut n:Acra scegn
"" M D _
\,1 N
s
- (TYP) p mE5s o
=g
E. E$naz, 1 m, mn SRACING (TYP)
Figure 3-2.4-17 l VENT SYSTEM 180 BEAM MODEL - ISOMETRIC VIEW t
COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.167 nutggh
3-2.4.3 Analysis for Local Effects The penetrations and intersections of the major compo-nents of the vent system are evaluated using refined analytical models of each penetration and intersection.
These include the vent line-drywell penetration, the vent line-vent header spherical junction, and the downcomer-vent header intersections. Figures 3-2.4-3 through 3-2.4-5 show analytical models used to evaluate these penetrations and intersections.
Each of the penetration and intersection analytical l
l models includes mesh refinement near discontinuities to facilitate evaluation of local stresses. The stiffness properties used in the model are based on the nominal dimensions of the materials used to construct the pene-trations and intersections. Small displacement linear-elastic theory is assumed throughout.
The analytical models are used to generate local stif f-l l nesses of the penetrations and intersections for use in l
1 the 1/16 beam models and the 180* beam model, as dis-l cussed in Sections 3-2.4.1 and 3-2.4.2. Local stiff-j nesses are developed which represent the stiffness of the entire penetration or intersection in terms, of a COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.168 nutggh
i few local degrees of freedom on the penetration or l
\
intersection. This is accomplished either by applying
, unit forces or displacements to the selected local degrees of freedom or by performing a matrix condensa-tion to reduce the total stiffness of the penetration or intersection to those of the selected local degrees of freedom. The results are used to formulate stiff-4 ness matrix elements which are added to the 1/16 beam models and the 180* beam model at the corresponding penetration or intersection locations.
l In order to account for the ovaling behavior of the shell segment of the vent header, the shell segment of 1
i the vent header at the downcomer intersection is extended at least to the location of the first circumferential collar for the intersection stiffness calculation, f
The analytical models are also used to evaluate i
stresses in the penetrations and intersections.
Stresses are computed by idealizing the penetrations l' and intersections as free bodies in equilibrium under a set of statically applied loads. The applied loads, l which are extracted from either of the two _1/16 _ beam model results . or from the 180* beam model results,
- COM-02-039-3 -
Revision 0 3-2.169_
consist of loads acting on the penetration and intersection model boundaries and of loads acting on the interior of penetration and intersection models.
The loads acting on the penetration and intersection model boundaries are the beam end loads taken from the vent system at nodes coincident with the penetration or intersection model boundary locations.
The loads which act on the interior of the penetration or intersection models consist of reaction loads and distributed loads taken from the 1/16 beam model rosults. The reaction loads include the forces and
, moments applied to the appropriate penetration or intersection at the attachment points of the downcomer, the vent header, and the vent line. The distributed loads include the pressures and acceleration loads applied to penetration and intersection models to account for internal pressure loads, thrust loads, pool swell loads, and inertia loads. By the application of boundary loads, reaction loads, and distributed loads to the penetration and intersection models, equilibrium i
l of the penetrations and intersections is achieved for l
each of the governing vent system loadings. The inertia loads are found to be insignificant for most of
! the load cases.
1 COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.170 nutg,gh
O Loads which act on the shell segment boundaries are k
\ applied penetration and to the intersection models through a system of radial beams. The radial beams extend from the middle surface of each of the shell segments to a node located on the centerline of the corresponding shell segment. The beams have large bending stiffnesses, zero axial stiffness, and are pinned in all directions at the shell segment middle surface. Boundary loads applied to the centerline nodes cause only shear loads to be transferred to the shell segment middle surface with no local bending effects. Use of this boundary condition minimizes end effects on penetration and intersection stresses in the p local areas of interest. The system of radial beams l
N constrains the boundary planes to remain plane during loading, which is consistent with the assumption made ,
in small deflection beam theory.
Section 3-2.4.1 discusses the methodology used to eval-uate the overall ef fects of the governing loads acting on the vent system using the . governing 1/16 beam model. The general methodology used to evaluate local vent system penetration and intersection stresses is discussed in the preceding paragraphs. Descriptions of each vent system penetration and intersection
\
( .COM-02-039-3
-Revision 0 3-2.171
l l
1 analytical model and its use are provided in the following paragraphs.
o Vent Line-Drywell Penetration Axisymmetric Finite Dif ference Model: The vent line-drywell penetra-tion model (Figure 3-2.4-3) includes a segment of the drywell shell, the jet deflector, the cylindrical penetration nozzle, the annular pad plate, and the spherical transition piece. The analytical model contains eignt segments with 105 mesh points. The reaction loads applied to the model include those computed at the upper end of the vent line. The distributed loads applied to the model are internal pressure loads.
o Vent Line-Vent Header Spherical Junction Pinite Element Model: The vent line-vent header spherical junction finite element model (Figure 3-2.4-4) includes E. segment of the vent line, two segments of the vent header, and two segments of the vacuum breaker nozzles. The model contains 1,956 nodes, 312 beams, and 1,816 plate bending and stretching elements. Boundary displacement and rotation loads are applied at the end of the vent line shell segment and at each end of the COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.172 nutggh
, g vent header shell segment. The distributed loads applied to the analytical model are internal pressure thrust, pool swell, froth impingement, CO vent system pressure, and chugging vent system
. pressure loads.
i o Downcomer-Vent Header Intersection Finite Element Model: The downcomer-vent header intersection finite element model (Figure 3-2.4-5) includes a segment of the vent header, a segment of each downcomer, and the stiffener plate. The analy-tical model contains 453 nodes, 26 beam elements, i and 712 plate bending and stretching elements.
s Boundary loads are applied at the ends of the vent header segment and at the ends of the downcomer f
segment. The distributed loads applied to the model are internal pressure loads, pool swell loads on the downcomers, and pool swell inertia loads.
Use of the methodology described in the preceding para-graphs results in a conservative evaluation of vent '
system local stresses due to the loads defined in NUREG-0661.
r COM-02-039-3 l Revision 0 3-2.173
l l
l 3-2.4.4 Methods for Evaluating Analysis Results 1
1 The methodology discussed in Sections 3-2.4.1 and 3-2.4.2 is used to determine element forces and compo-nent stresses in the vent system components. The following paragraphs discuss the methodology used to evaluate the analysis results, determine the controlling stresses in the vent system components, and examine fatigue effects.
To evaluate analysis results for the vent system Class MC components, membrane and extreme fiber stress intensities are computed. The values of the membrane
- stress intensities away from discontinuities are com-puted using the governing 1/16 and/or the governing 180* beam model results. These stresses are compared with the primary membrane stress allowables (Table 3-2.3-1). The values of membrane stress intensities near discontinuities are computed using results from the penetration and intersection analytical models.
These stresses are compared with local primary membrane stress allowables (Table 3-2.3-1). Primary stresses in vent system Class MC component welds are computed using maximum principal stresses or the resultant forces acting on the weld throat. The results are compared to primary weld stress allowables (Table 3-2.3-1).
COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2,174 nutggh
Many of the loads contained in each of the controlling load combir.ations are dynamic loads which result in stresses which cycle with time and are partially or fully reversible. The maximum stress intensity ranges for all vent system Class MC components are calculated using the maximum values of the extreme fiber stress differences which occur near discontinuities in the penetration and intersection analytical models. Those stresses are compared to the secondary stress range allowables (Table 3-2.3-1). A similar procedure is used to compute the stress range for the vent system Class MC component welds. The results are compared to the secondary weld stress allowables (Table 3-2.3-1).
O- To evaluate the vent system Class MC component sup-ports, beam end loads obtained from the governing 1/16 beam model or 180* beam model (or both) results are used to compute stresses. The results are compared with the corresponding allowable stresses (Table 3-2.3-1). Stresses in vent system Class MC component support welds are obtained using the governing 1/16 beam model or 180' beam model (or both) results to compute the maximum resultant force acting on the associated weld throat. The results are compared to weld stress limits discussed in Section 3-2.3.
b - COM-02-039-3 ~
hevision 0 3-2.175 nutggh
Section 3-2.2.2 defines the controlling vent system load combinations. During load combination formulation, the maximum stress intensities in a particular vent system class MC component at a given location are conservatively combined by the absolute sum method for the individual loads contained in each combination. For the vent system class MC component supports, stress components at a given location are conservatively combined by the absolute sum method for the individual loads contained in each combination.
However, in a few combinations where the absolute sum method does not satisfy the structural acceptance criteria, the stress components of the individual dynamic loads are combined by the SRSS method as an alternative.
The maximum differential displacements of the vent line bellows are determined using results from the governing 1/16 beam model or 180* beam model (or both) of the vent system and the analytical model of the suppression chamber discussed in volume 2 of this report. The displacements of the attachment points of the bellows to the suppression chamber and to the vent line are determined for each load case. The differential j COM-02-039-3
! Revision 0 3-2.176 nutggb
i l
4 displacement is computed from these values. The results for each load are combined to determine the total differential displacements for the controlling load combinations. These results are compared to the allowable bellows displacements (Table 3-2.3-2).
l To evaluate fatigue of fects in the vent system Class MC l components and associated welds, extreme fiber alter-nating stress intensity histograms are determined for each load in each event or combination of events.
Fatigue effects for chugging downcomer lateral loads are evaluated using the stress reversal histograms 1
! (Table 3-2.2-18). Stress intensity histograms are developed for the most highly stressed area in the . vent system, which is the downcomer-vent- header inter- l section. For teach combination of events, a load combination stress intensity histogram is formulated and the corresponding fatigue usage factors are
, determined using the curve shown in Figure 3-2.4-18.
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- vent system design margins.
COM- 02-03 9-3 Revision 0 3-2.177 y.- - - - . - *+ . - , - - + . - . . , , . . - .. . . , , , .
O E = 27,900 ksi 1000 C
a
$ 100-E s
i sa E*
N e 10 f2 10 1 NUMBER OF CYCLES Figure 3-2.4-18 ALLOWABLE NUMBER OF STRESS CYCLES FOR VENT SYSTEM FATIGUE EVALUATION COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.178 g
l
N 3-2.5 Analysis Results j- The geometry, loads and load combinations, acceptance criteria, and analysis methods used in the evaluation f
of the Quad Cities Units 1 and 2 vent systems are presented and discussed in the preceding sections. The i results and conclusions derived from the evaluation of the vent systems are presented in the following paragraphs and sections. As discussed previously, the
! results of the two 1/16 beam model analyses are compared and only the governing results are reported, i when applicable.
, e Table 3-2.5-1 shows the maximum primary membrane stresses for the major vent system components for each of the governing loads. Tables 3-2.5-2 and 3-2.5-3
- . show the corresponding reaction loads for the vent
! system support columns and vent line-drywell penetra-tion. Table 3-2.5-4 shows the maximum differential displacements of the vent line bellows for the-governing load cases. Figures 3-2.5-1 through 3-2.5-3 show the transient response of the vent system support columns and the drywell/wetwell ' vacuum breaker nozzle for pool swell loads.
COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.179
Table 3-2.5-5 shows the maximum stresses and associated design margins for the major vent system components, i
component supports, and welds for the SBA II, IBA I, DBA I, DBA II, and DBA III load combinations. Table 3-2.5-6 shows the maximum differential displacements and design margins for the vent line bellows for the SBA II, IBA I, DBA II, and DBA III load combinations.
Table 3-2.5-7 shows the fatigue usage factors for the controlling vent system component and weld for the Normal Operating plus SBA events, and the Normal Operating plus IBA events.
Section 3-2.5.1 discusses the vont system evaluation results presented in the preceding paragraphs.
l COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.180 nutgsh
Table 3-2.5-1 MAJOR VENT SYSTEM COMPONENT MAXIMUM MEMBRANE STRESSES FOR GOVERNING LOADS 8 ' '
0A DESI ATION PRIMARY MEMBRANE STRESS (ksi)
LOAD TYPE OM NE M M DOWNCOMER
, NUMBER LINE HEADER DEAD WEIGHT la 0.241 0.802 0.162 2a 0.788 1.260 0.271 SEISMIC 2b 1.576 2.520 0.542 3b 7.952 8.288 4.461 PRESSURE AND 3d N/A N/A N/A VENT SYSTEM DISCHARGE 4a 5.430 6.960 2.420 Sa-5d 0.737 6.483 3.077 POOL SWELL '
\ 5f 0.473 3.756 3.034
)
6a+6c 1.192 1.657 0.498 CO N NSATION OSCILLATION 6b+6d 5.325 7.633 2.591 6f 0.41'8 1.633 1.151 7a 4.220 4.340 2.360 7b 1.340 4.340 1.570 CHUGGING i 7c N/A N/A N/A 7d 0.3'50 1.241 0.919 SRV DISCHARGE 8b 0.339 1.025 1.515 REA IONS 9a 12.530 8.250 0.980
- 1. VALUES SHOWN ARE MAXIMUMS IRRESPECTIVE OF TIME AND LOCATION FOR INDIVIDUAL LOAD TYPES AND MAY NOT BE ADDED TO OBTAIN LOAD COMBINATION RESULTS.
i O COM-02-039-3 Revision O. 3-2.181
Table 3-2.5-2 MAXIMUM COLUMN REACTIONS FOR GOVERNING VENT SYSTEM LOADS OLM REACTION LOAD M ps)
A DESI IAT[ON LOAD LOAD TYPE CASE DIRECTION INSIDE OUTSIDE TOTAL NUMBER DEAD WEIGHT la COMPRESSION 10.100 9.170 19.270 TENSION 0.724 3.810 4.534 OBE 2a COMPRESSION 0.724 3.810 4.534 SEISMIC TENSION 1.448 7.620 9.068 SSE 2b COMPRESSION 1.448 7.620 9.068 INTERNAL PRESSURE 3b TENSION 30.520 29.960 60.480 TEMPERATURE 3d COMPRESSION 26.150 5.385 31.535 D C ARGE 4a TENSION 34.500 33.900 68.400 TENSION 66.830 61.710 128.540 POOL SWELL Sa-5d COMPRESSION 22.860 2'4.200 47.060 TENSION 2.694 8.185 10.879 IBA 6a+6c CONDENSATION
. 9 . 8 10.879 OSCILLATION TENSION 16.957 27.116 44.073 DBA 6b+6d COMP RESSION 16.957 27.116 44.073 TENSION 21.700 37.500 59.200 CHUGGING 7a+7b COMP RESSION 21.700 37.500 59.200 TENSION 35.470 9.410 44.880 PIPING 9a
^ "
COMP RESSION 35.470 9.410 44.880 (1) REACTIONS ARE ADDED IN THE TIME DOMAIN FOR DYNAMIC LOADS.
l COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.182 nutsb
i I
I 1
Table 3-2.5-3 MAXIMUM VENT LINE-DRYWELL PENETRATION REACTIONS FOR GOVERNING VENT SYSTEM LOADS gg CIRCUMFERENTIAL AXIAL DRYkELL J L A
- m MERIDIONAL T SECTION A-A PENETRATION REACTION LOAD hEMI gp DESIGNATI LOAD FORCE (kips) MOMENTS (in-kip)
LOAD TYPE CASE NUNBER RADIAL MERIDIONAL CIRCUMFERENTIAL RADIAL MERIDIONAL CIRCUMFERENTIAL DEAD WEIGHT la 0.9 0.0 1.6 0.0 59.1 0.0 OBE 2a 23.0 4.3 0.9 201.0 423.0 449.0 SEISMIC SSE 2b 46.0 8.6 1.8 402.0 846.0 898.0 I" 0.0 gg 3b 89.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 394.8 TENPERATURE 3d 65.8 0.0 17.9 0.0 5558.3 0.0 VENT SYSTEM DISCHARGE 4a 75.3 0.0 0.6 0.0 344.0 0.0 POOL SWELL Sa-5d 13.6 0.0 9.4 0.0 549.5 0.0 l IBA 6a+6e 8.3 0.0 0.6 0.0 45.5 0.0 CONDENSATION OSCIMION 22.5 5.1 0.0 0.0 DBA 6b+6d 0.0 188.5 l
CNUGGING 7a+7b 51.7 27.0 11.2 4928.0 262.9 2937.0 REA IONS 9a 42.7 20.9 48.6 1195.5 821.7 1877.6
- 1. VALUES SHOWN ARE IN ABSOLUTE TERMS.
f U COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.183 i
1 l
Table 3-2.5-4 MAXIMUM VENT LINE BELLOWS DISPLACEMENTS FOR GOVERNING VENT SYSTEM LOADS VENT AXIAL LINE VENT SUPPRESSION HEADER A{ }A CHAMBER
\ BELLOW LONGITUDINAL LONGITUDINAL
.( -,_ .. ,,'
4 - ",,-i VENT
\/ LINE SECTION A-A DIFFERENTIAL BELLOWS DISPLACEMENTS (in)
LOA DESI IATION LOAD AXIAL LATERAL l LOAD TYPE CASE l
NUMBER COMPPESSION EXTENSION MERIDIONAL LONGITUDINAL I DEAD WEIGHT la N/A 0.003 0.037 0.000
! OBE 2a 0.005 0.005 0.003 0.009 SEISMIC SSE 2b 0.009 0.009 0.006 0.018 INTERNAL PRESSURE 3b 0.025 N/A 0.035 0.000 TEMPERATURE 3d 0.473 N/A 0.018 0.000 4a 0.059 N/A. 0.015 0.000 D AR E POOL SWELL Sa-5d 0.046 0.046 0.128 0.000 IA a+ .056 0.056 0.00 0.000 CONDENSATION OSCILLATION DBA 6b+6d 0.064 0.064 0.057 0.000 CHUGGING 7a+7b 0.038 0.038 0.028 0.011 PIPING REACTIONS 9a 0.044 0.044 0.139 0.153
- 1. THE VALUES SHOWN ARE MAXIMUMS IRRESPECTIVE OF TIME FOR INDIVIDUAL LOAD TYPES AND MAY NOT BE ADDED TO OBTAIN LOAD COMBINATION RESULTS.
COM-02-039-3 Revision 1 3-2.184 nutggb
v i
. v)~
s@
< 3:
Table 3-2.5-5 P- 6 to o e- ro MAXIMUM VENT SYSTEM STRESSES
@$w FOR CONTROLLING LOAD COMBINATIONS O tD I
u SAAB C MSBNATIces STRESSES Eksti gygg ST SBA .. II iSA III dea B ii ggg g g lii ggg ggg iii TYM,SS E
CALCutATED CAarug.Avta N8 NI CALCUE.ATSD CALCUEATED" CALCULATED CAlfDL ATED"' CA&EUR.AfsD CAAEULATts il) CALd17 LATED CARAlp5ATEm STRESS III M IE STsESS ThnW $75E65 ' M ASif STRESS M I MW W~ STSESS 'klimesAstA'
=rJ,";" n. . , ..$. n.o ... ...u .... n . .. . . . ... ....
-m S-m ....A., A
-Co Amf .... .. o.o ... ./A .,A S. . a ... .,A .,A STRESS BAssGE
- ,';",, . .. n .... ..... .... n. 3 .... n . .. .... n.n .. n w
= = gt;- .... .. n .... ... 5. n .... .... ..n ... n . . .
O
.....A Secompaaf .. 3 ...S 3.... .. a/A g/A 37.75 m/A IJ .... m/A i STasSS masca g ry; .. o .... 1. n ... ... . . . ..n ..o ...., . 3.
U. TERIT LI Mr
,=, =;;,;- n... ..n n.n ... n.o ..o n.n ... .. . . .
SrusetCAL JtueCTIOnd il PEiMAM 880 Serv e m? .. 3 3 . 1. 35.33 . 52 m/h W/A 3..i5 ..S. u/A m/A STusSS anmGs
- = n.. ..n u.= ... .... ..., n.n ..n n.. ..n
,,=, =;;;ir' 3. . n ..n ..n .. n .... ..S. ...S. .... ...n .... '
passener Ane SEComonet Si. 7 . 7. 3. 31 .. 3 N/A N/A . 7. = . 1. m/A m/h STsESS anssGE prs ..n ..o 3. . ... ii... ..n S.o .. n .. . n ....
_. =;;;ir' . . .$ .... ... .. a ...n .... ...n ..o .... .. n
... A., A SEcoucAa7 3. . M ..S. ....S .... W/A N/A 3.. 1 ..S. M/A m/A STesSS RANGE
- = .... .... i.n ... 3. n .. a i.o .... 3. = ....
agg nac;;;==
... .. n S... .. a .. n ..a S... .. n ...n ...
">= ,. A. A SECONDA St.S. . 8% 3... ..S. M/A N/A . . 3. .7. m/A N/A STpKS$ passGE *
< 3:
Table 3-2.5-5 P- 8 us o MAXIMUM VENT SYSTEM STRESSES" e- w
@$w FOR CONTROLLING LOAD COMBINATIONS o'*
I (Concluded) w anno coseamation stesssas easte
,,, stesss saa is sea x 888 cea s cea a 8
tea sas
cairus.ano case _vtarro tal c,ggi,,,,,, g,_ogota,,,til cassutarse tattuLATED III Ca&CutAfsD Cat [tMMD l2) CalfUtaM3 Chi.CULanpIII sv uss an.amnau syness. aur===ts staess atweeasu sTness atamasu stesss atamanu namoama e.7e e.se s.73 e.3s 3.e7 e.ss sa.73 e.se s.ss e.27 trussos 3. e 6 e.22 S.44 e.2e 83.32 e.75 S.22 e . De i t.se e.S7 po,,; =;;,a,,,
, c e .. . 12 e. a .... .... .... .... .. ...e ..e4 e.e.
ccmraessaou s.34 s.42 3.56 e.es 3.48 e.29 3. 3s e.2e 4.42 e.27 w se:ramacvsom e.,, e.es e.se e.se e.46 e.44 e.st e.ss e.se e.se .
I w Coedau8 anno roan reimaar 6.19 e.45 4.45 8.3e 88.44 0.15 6.ee e.4e to.se e.42
~ 7, =; ,sco..- . 2, e.2. .. e .... .,a .,a . . . . 2. .,a .,a m
(1) REFERENCE TABLE 3-2.2-28 FOR IDAD COMBINATION DESIGNATION.
(2) REFERENCE TABLE 3-2.3-1 FOR ALLOWABLE STRESSES.
(3) IDCAL STRESSES ARE REPORTED AT Tile VENT LINE-VENT IIEADER JUNCTION.
FOR LOCAL STRESSES AT TIIE VENT LINE-SRVDL PENETRATIONS, SEE VOLUME 5 OF TIIIS REPORT.
o t u gQ Table 3-2.5-6
< :n 75
>+ N MAXIMUM VENT LINE BELLOWS DIFFERENTIAL DISPLACEMENTS O4 FOR. CONTROLLING LOAD COMBINATIONS o@
l W
SBA II IBA I DBA II DBA III DISP N CNNW CALCULATED CALCULATED CALCULATED CALCULATED CALCULATED CALCULATED CALCULATED CALCULATED
- (in) ALLOWABLE (in) ALLOWABLE lin) ALLOWABLE (in) ALLOWABLE COMPRESSION 0.659 0.75 0.574 0.66 0.613 0.70 0.504 0.58
< AXIAL TENSION N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A l
NERIDIONAL 0.427 0.68 0.422 0.68 0.350 0.56 0.431 0.69 LATERAL LONGITUDINAL 0.163 0.24 0.17I 0.25 0.119 0.18 0.167 0.25 w
8
." DBA III CONTAINS SRV DISCliARGE LOADS IN ADDITION.TO TIIE OTHER t LOADS IN DBA I,(TABLE 3-2.2-25).
yQ Table 3-2.5-7
< :r v'= N MAXIMUM FATIGUE USAGE FACTORS FOR VENT SYSTEM Q$ COMPONENTS AND WELDS w
OD 8
w L AD CASE CYCLES
- EVENT USAGE FACTOR E\'ENT(1) CONDENSATION (4)
OSCI M ION CH E ING SEQUENCE VENT (5)
SEISMIC PRESSURE TEMPERATURE SRV( 3) (sec) (sec) WELD (6)
DISCIIARGE HEADER NOC W/SRV DISCHARGE 0 150 150 550 N/A N/A 0.00 0.00 SBA
- 0. TO 600. SEC 0 0 0 50 N/A 30a 0.31 0.10 SBA 600. TO 1200 SEC 1000(2) 1 1 2 N/A 60a 0.61 0.16 IBA N 0. TO 900. SEC 0 0 0 25 900. N/A 0.59 0.01 900. TO 11 0. SEC 1000 I2I 1 1 2 N/A 200. 0.23 0.06 NOC + SBA 0.92 0.26 MAXIMUM CUMULATIVE USAGE FACTORS NOC + IBA 0.82 0.07 (1) SEE TABLE 3-2.2-28 AND FIGURES 3-2.2-12 AND 3-2.2-13 FOR IAAD CYCLES AND EVENT SEQUENCING INFORMATION.
(2) ENTIRE NUMBER OF LOAD CYCLES CONSERVATIVELY ASSUMED TO OCCUR DUPING TIME OF MAXIMUM EVENT USAGE.
(3) TOTAL NUMBER OF SRV ACTUATIONS SliOWN IS CONSERVATIVELY ASSUMED TO OCCUR IN SAME SUPPRESSION CHAMBER BAY.
(4) EACH CHUG-CYCLE HAS A DURATION OF 1.4 SEC. SEE TABLE 3-2,2-18 FOR CHUGGING DOWNCOMER LOAD HISTOGRAM. THE MAXIMUM FATIGUE USAGE FACTOR FOR CHUGGING DOWNCOMER LOADS AT THE DOWNCOMER-VENT HEADER INTERSECTION IS 0.103 (5) THE MAXIMUM CUMULATIVE USAGE FOR A VENT SYSTEM COMPONENT OCCURS IN THE VENT HEADER AT THE LYMNCOMER-VENT HEADER INTERSECTION.
(6) THE MAXIMUM CUMULATIVE USAGE FOR A VENT SYSTEM COMPONENT WELD OCCURS AT THE CONNECTION OF THE DOWNCOMER STIFFENER PLATE TO THE VENT HEADER.
4 O 60.0-DUE TC IMPACT LOADS ON UNPROTECTED AREAS (OPERATING AP)
E S S x
~
20.0- g >
- 0.0 V
-20.07 , , , , , ,
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 TIME (SECONDS) i 4 40.0-DUE TO IMPACT LOAD ON VENT HEADER DEFLECTOR (ZERO AP) I i G 20.0-o,
[
- 0 0.0 l
i i
-20.0- , , , , , ,
i 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 TIME (SECONDS) i l Figure 3-2.5-1 VENT SYSTEM SUPPORT COLUMN RESPONSE DUE TO POOL SWELL IMPACT LOADS - OUTSIDE COLUMN COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.189 nutggh
60.0-DUE TO IMPACT LOADS ON UNPROTECTED AREAS (OPERATING AP) 40.0-E M
~
20.0- /
a 8
N I
0.O Vu^r-
-20.0- , , , , ,
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 TIME (SECONDS) 40.0-DUE TO IMPACT LOAD ON VENT HEADER DEFLECTOR
_ (ZERO AP) s 20.0-
_U 0.0
-20.0 , , , , , , ,
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 TIME (SECONDS) .
I Figure 3-2.5-2 VENT SYSTEM SUPPORT COLUMN RESPONSE DUE TO
(
l POOL SWELL IMPACT LOADS - INSIDE COLUMN COM-02-039-3 O
Revision 0 3-2.190 L
nutggh
2000 DUE TO IMPACT LOADS ON a UNPROTECTED AREAS "g (OPERATING AP)
R 5
h N
i S
a 9
-2000- , , , , ,
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 TIME (SECONDS)
O n
d 2000-m DUE TO IMPACT LOADS N. ON VH DEFLECTOR 0 (ZERO AP) 8 2
$ -2000 , , . , ,
5 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 TIME (SECONDS)
Figure 3-2.5-3 VACUUM BREAKER RESPONSE DUE TO POOL SWELL IMPACT LOADS COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.191 11Ut d i 1
3-2.5.1 Discussion of Analysis Results The results (Table ' 3-2.5-1) indicate that the largest vent system primary membrane stresses occur for internal pressure loads, vent system d ischarge loads, pool swell impact loads, DBA CO downcomer loads, chugging downcomer lateral loads, and SRV discharge loads. The remaining loadings result in small primary stresses in the major vent system components.
Table 3-2.5-2 shows that the largest vent system support column reactions occur for internal pressure
( loads, vent system discharge loads, pool swell impact loads, DBA CO loads, and chugging loads. The distribution of loads between the inner and outer support columns varies from load case to load case.
The magnitude and distribution of reaction loads on the drywell penetrations also vary from load case to load case (Table 3-2.5-3). Table 3-2.5-4 shows that the differential displacements of the vent line bellows are small for all loadings, except for thermal loadings.
The results (Table 3-2.5-5) indicate that the highest l stresses in the vent system components, component supports, and associated welds occur for the SBA II and the DBA I load combinations. The vent line, spherical COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.192 nutp_qh
1 p)
(
'U junction, vent header, and downcomer stresses for the SBA II and DBA I load combinations are less than the allowable limits with stresses in other vent system components, component supports, and welds well within the allowable limits. The stresses in the vent system components, component supports, and welds for the IBA I, DBA II, and DBA III load combinations are also well within the allowable limits.
The results (Table 3-2.5-6) indicate that the vent line bellows dif ferential displacements are all well within allowable limits. The maximum displacement occurs for the SBA II load combination.
C' The loads which cause the highest number of displace-ment cycles at the vent line bellows are seismic loads, SRV loads, and LOCA-related loads such as pool swell, CO, and chugging. The bellows displacements for these loads are small compared to the maximum allowable 4
displacement, and their effect on fatigue is negligible. Thermal loads and internal pressure loads i
are the largest contributors to bellows displac-
-ements. The specified number of thermal load and internal pressure load cycles is 150. Since the bellows have a rated capacity of 1,000 cycles at l (}f l
l COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.193 l-nutggh
maximum displacement, their adequacy for fatigue is 1
assured. I i
The vent system fatigue usage factors (Table 3-2.5-7) are computed for the controlling events, which are Normal Operating plus SBA and Normal Operating plus IBA. The governing vent system component for fatigue is the vent header at the downcomer-vent header inter-section. The magnitudes and cycles of downcomer lateral loads are the primary contributors to fatigue at this location.
The vent system welds are checked for fatigue, except for the SRVDL penetration, which is evaluated and discussed in Volume 5. The governing vent system weld for fatigue is at the downcomer-vent header inter-section. Condensation oscillation, chugging, and the number of SRV actuations are the major contributors to fatigue at this location.
Fa tigue effects at other locations in the vent system are less severe than at those described above, due primarily to lower stresses.
COM-02-039-3 l Revision 0 3-2.194 l
nutggh
3-2.5.2 Closure
'\
The vent system loads described and presented in Section 3-2.2.1 are conservative estimates of the loads postulated to occur during an actual LOCA or SRV discharge event. Applying the methodology discussed in Section 3-2.4 to examine the effects of the governing loads on the vent system results in bounding values of stresses and reactions in vent system components and component supports.
The load combinations and event sequencing defined in Section 3-2.2.2 envelop the actual events postulated to occur during a LOCA or SRV discharge event. Combining the vent system responses to the governing loads and evaluating fatigue effects using this methodology rest in conservative values of the maximum vent system 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 3-2.3 are as restrictive'(in many cases, more restrictive) as those used in the original containment design documented in the plant's final safety analysis report. Comparing i
l COM-02-039-3 O Revision 0 3-2.195 l nuttgb
the resulting maximum stresses and support reactions to these acceptance limits results in a conservative evaluation of the design margins present in the vent system and its supports. As demonstrated in the results discussed and presented in the preceding sections, all of the vent system stresses and support reactions are within these acceptance limits.
As a result, the vent system components described in Section 3-2.1, which are specifically designed for the loads and load combinations used in this evaluation, exhibit the margins of safety inherent in the original design of the primary containment as documented in the plant's final safety analysis report. The 11UREG-0661 requirements are therefore considered to be met.
COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-2.196 l nutp_qh
i t / 3-3.0 LIST OF REFERENCES V
- 1. " Mark I Containment Long-Term Program," Safety Evaluation Report, USNRC, NORBG-0661, July 1980, i 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," Ouad cities Station Units 1 and 2, General Electric Company, NEDO-24567, Revision 2, April 1982.
- 4. " Containment vessels Design Specification," Quad Cities Station, Units 1 and 2, R2301, Sargent &
Lundy, Inc., August 19, 1966.
- 5. " 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.
- 6. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section III, Division 1, 1977 Edition with Addenda up to and k/) including Summer 1977.
- 7. " Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR)," Quad Cities Station Units 1 and 2, Commonwealth Edison Company, July 20, 1972.
- 8. " Containment Data," Quad Cities 1, General Electric Company, 22A5757, Revision 1, April 1979.
- 9. " Containment Data," Quad Cities 2, General Electric Company, 22A5758, Revision 1, April 1979.
_ 10. " Quad Cities 1 and 2 Nuclear Generating Plants Suppression Pool Temperature Response," General Electric Company, NEDC-22144, May 1982.
- 11. Biggs, J. M., " Introduction to Structural Dynamics," McGraw-Hill Book Company, N.Y., 1964.
D COM-02-039-3 Revision 0 3-3.1
. . - ..